NIST Technical Note 1812

Best Practices Guide for High-Volume 

Fly Ash Concretes: 

Assuring Properties and Performance

 

Dale P. Bentz

Chiara F. Ferraris

Kenneth A Snyder
NIST Technical Note 1812

Best Practices Guide for High-Volume 

Fly Ash Concretes: 

Assuring Properties and Performance

Dale P. Bentz

Chiara F. Ferraris

Kenneth A. Snyder 

Materials and Structural Systems Division

Engineering Laboratory

September 2013

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, 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 1812

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1812, 56 pages (September 2013) 

CODEN: NTNOEF

iii

Abstract

A best practices guide is developed from a synthesis of recent research on high-volume 

fly ash (HVFA) concrete mixtures. These best practices can be applied by the concrete 

construction industry to achieve desired properties and to ensure the (high) performance of 

HVFA concrete mixtures in practice. As such, the report considers all aspects of HVFA concrete 

production, from the characterization of the starting materials, through mixture proportioning 

and curing options to achieve desired properties, to the in-place early-age and long-term 

performance of the concrete in its fresh and hardened states. Both mechanical and transport 

properties are considered in detail. Perspective is established based on a brief review of current 

practices being employed nationally. Each topical section is concluded with a practice-based set 

of recommendations for the design and construction community. The report is intended to serve 

as a valuable resource to these communities, providing both a research summary and a guide to 

practical steps that can be taken to achieve the optimum performance of these sustainable 

concrete mixtures.

Keywords: Characterization; durability; high-volume fly ash; incompatibilities; setting; strength; 

ternary blends.
iv
v

Table of Contents

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables............................................................................................................................... viii

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

A Brief Look at Current Practice.................................................................................................... 2

Characterization.............................................................................................................................. 5

Mixture Proportioning .................................................................................................................... 8

Analysis for Incompatibilities....................................................................................................... 10

Sulfate Optimization ................................................................................................................. 10

High Range Water Reducing Agent Incompatibilities ............................................................. 10

Curing Options.............................................................................................................................. 13

Workability ................................................................................................................................... 17

Setting Time.................................................................................................................................. 20

Strength Development .................................................................................................................. 25

Transport Properties and Durability ............................................................................................. 30

Mass Concrete Considerations...................................................................................................... 33

Summary and Prospectus.............................................................................................................. 36

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... 37

References..................................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix A. Flowchart for Proportioning HVFA Concrete Mixtures......................................... 45

Appendix B. Steps in Proportioning HVFA Concrete Mixtures with Acceptable (Equivalent) 

Early-Age Performance ................................................................................................................ 47

Appendix C. Adjusting Mixture Proportions (w/cm) Based on Heat Release Data and Desired 

Early-Age Strength ....................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix D. Choosing an Initial Trial w/cm Based on Strength-Heat Release Relationships .... 53
vi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Cluster map showing phase distinction in a Class F fly ash based upon multispectral 

analysis. Field width = 2050 μm (taken from [14])........................................................................ 6

Figure 2. Isothermal calorimetry curves for Type II/V cement/Class C fly ash blends (w/cm=0.3)

with various addition levels of gypsum [30]................................................................................. 11

Figure 3. Isothermal calorimetry curves for Type I/II cement/Class C fly ash (FA) blends 

(w/cm=0.36) with and without additional gypsum. ...................................................................... 11

Figure 4. Isothermal calorimetry curves for a Type II/V cement/Class F fly ash blend with (two 

different) and without an HRWRA............................................................................................... 12

Figure 5. Compressive strengths of HVFA mortar mixtures with and without IC (taken from 

[37]). Error bars represent the standard deviation from the average of three samples. ................ 14

Figure 6. Autogenous shrinkage as a function of time for HVFA mortar mixtures with and 

without IC (taken from [37]). Error bars represent the standard deviation from the average of 

three samples................................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 7. Stress developed in ring specimens as a function of time for sealed mortar mixtures 

(taken from [37]). Error bars represent the standard deviation from the average of two samples.

....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 8. Correlation between initial (top) and final (bottom) setting times and surface areas of 

the accelerating powders (taken from [44]).................................................................................. 22

Figure 9. Setting development: a) OPC mixture and mixtures containing Class F fly ash (45F15L 

indicates a mixture with 45 % Class F fly ash and 15 % limestone by volume); b) OPC mixture 

and mixtures containing Class C fly ash (30C10L indicates a mixture with 30 % Class C fly ash 

and 10 % limestone by volume) (taken from [61])....................................................................... 24

Figure 10. Measured mortar cube compressive strengths vs. age. For the mixtures with fly ash, 

w/cm=0.3 in every case. Error bars (one standard deviation among three specimens) are provided 

for the III 50 % C ash 2 % gypsum data to provide an indication of variability (taken from [26]).

....................................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 11. Compressive strength development for concrete mixtures (see Table 3) containing: a) 

Class F fly ash and b) Class C fly ash (taken from [61]). Coefficients of variation for three 

replicate specimens varied from 0.67 % to 2.5 % for the various mixtures. Numbers above lines 

indicate strengths obtained at ages of 1 d, 3 d, 7 d, and 28 d........................................................ 27

Figure 12. Compressive strength vs. heat release per mL of water for mortars evaluated at a 

variety of ages (taken from [69]). ................................................................................................. 28

Figure 13. Compressive strength of concrete cylinders vs. heat release per mL of water for 

mortars from [70]. The bold solid line indicates the best fit linear relationship (R2

=0.77) for the 

OPC concretes, with the two dotted lines indicating ± 20 % from the best fit values. The dashed 

line represents the best fit for the limestone replacements (R2

=0.76). The thin solid line 

represents the best fit determined for the mortar data in Figure 12. (Taken from [69])............... 28

Figure 14. Measured cumulative charge passed (RCPT) at 56 d for the 15 concrete mixtures 

(taken from [65]). Coefficients of variation for three replicate specimens varied from 2.1 % to 

19.1 % for the various mixtures.................................................................................................... 31

Figure 15. Measured surface resistivity at 56 d for 15 concrete mixtures (taken from [65]). 

Coefficients of variation for three replicate specimens varied from 0.6 % to 9.9 % for the various 

mixtures......................................................................................................................................... 31
vii

Figure 16. Semi-adiabatic temperature rise of mortars with various additions of fly ash, with and 

without IC [37].............................................................................................................................. 33

Figure 17. Semi-adiabatic calorimetry for: a) plain mixture and mixtures containing Class F fly 

ash and b) plain mixture and mixtures containing Class C fly ash [61]. Concrete mixture 

proportions can be found in Table 3. ............................................................................................ 34

Figure 18. Measured concrete compressive strength vs. measured cumulative heat release (per 

unit volume of water) used to establish a strength-heat release linear relationship (dashed line, 

R2

=0.91) for choosing mixture proportions [65]. Purdue data is taken from [69]. ..................... 54

Figure 19. Measured vs. predicted strength for concrete mixtures from the FHWA/NIST study 

[65], based on the outlined approach. 1000 psi = 6.895 MPa. The solid line indicates a one-toone relationship while the dashed lines represent ± 500 psi from this line of equality. ............... 56
viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Mixture Proportions for Naval Facilities Test Concretes [6] ........................................... 3

Table 2. Setting Times for HVFA Paste Mixtures [54]................................................................ 21

Table 3. Concrete Mixture Proportions for HVFA with Fine Limestone Study [61]................... 23

Table 4. Strength Enhancement Factors vs. Age as Estimated from Data in [65]........................ 55

Table 5. Recommended Heat Release Ranges vs. Age For Various ASTM C150 Cement Types.

....................................................................................................................................................... 55
1

Introduction

The sustainability movement of the 21st century has provided impetus to various industry 

sectors to identify alternatives to their energy intensive (i.e., costly) materials and processes. In 

the concrete construction industry, a majority of the embodied energy and cost of concrete is due 

to the portland cement. Although the industry has been using industrial by-product materials for 

decades to replace a portion of the portland cement to achieve specific desirable engineering 

properties, recent efforts to significantly reduce the embodied energy have produced renewed

focus on far greater replacement percentages of portland cement in concrete mixtures. One 

approach that has received considerable attention in recent years is the production of so-called 

high-volume fly ash (HVFA) concrete mixtures [1], where fly ash replaces cement at proportions 

well above the 15 % to 25 % commonly encountered in current blended cement concrete

mixtures. As a reference point, according to a 2012 survey [2], fly ash usage in 2011 was 

estimated at 15 % of the total cementitious binder (portland cement, fly ash, and slag) in readymixed concrete in the U.S., with the usage consistently trending upwards during the past ten 

years. With much fly ash still being diverted to landfills and existing landfills filled with fly ash 

that could potentially be used in concrete, there is still an important opportunity to further 

increase fly ash contents in concretes. The aforementioned survey conducted by Obla et al. [2] 

identified the two primary causes preventing increased use of fly ash in ready-mixed concrete: 

1) performance issues including setting time and strength gain, and 2) specifications that restrict 

usage. By providing information on best practices for the production, construction, and 

evaluation of HVFA concretes, this report will address the most commonly identified 

performance issues, paving the way for increased specification of this sustainable construction 

material.
2

A Brief Look at Current Practice

Numerous ready-mix companies are actively pursuing the development and 

implementation of HVFA concrete mixtures. The following summary is a composite based on 

interviews with two such producers [3,4]. HVFA concrete mixture proportions will vary widely 

depending on locality, as governed by materials’ availability, shipping costs, and structural 

applications. Many specifications from state Departments of Transportation and elsewhere limit 

fly ash replacement levels to 25 % or less, on a mass basis.1 Conversely, for projects seeking 

LEED certification, such as school buildings, 50:50 and even 60:40 (fly ash: cement) mixtures 

have been developed and implemented without significant difficulties. In some cases, the setting 

time delays typical of HVFA mixtures can be used to advantage, as they permit longer hauling 

times and may allow for a reduction in the dosage of retarders (chemical admixtures) used in the 

mixtures. The increased retention of workability (i.e., ease of mixing, placement, consolidation,

and finishing) is another characteristic of HVFA concrete mixtures that is often used to 

advantage.

For flowable fill and low density applications, HVFA mixtures with up to 90 % fly ash 

have been developed. It should be noted that for particularly reactive fly ashes, it is possible to 

produce acceptable concretes with 100 % fly ash, as documented by Cross et al. [5] and as 

employed in certain commercially-available products. These ultra-high-volume fly ash mixtures 

provide enhanced pumpability and also improved thermal properties (in combination with the 

incorporation of low density fillers such as lightweight synthetic particles) for the preparation of 

thermally resistant grouts and concretes.

The U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) has recently developed an

HVFA concrete formulation in which 50 % of the portland cement is replaced with fly ash on a 

mass basis [6], providing “constructability, cost-effectiveness, and environmental benefits.” 

Specifications for this concrete included a minimum 28 d compressive strength of 5000 psi 

(34.5 MPa), a maximum 28 d drying shrinkage strain of 0.05 %, a maximum water-tocementitious materials ratio (w/cm) of 0.4, suitable slump and finishability characteristics, the 

ability to place the concrete during all seasons, and a sufficient early-age strength to permit 

formwork to be removed at an age of 7 d. Mixture proportions for the existing control (lower fly 

ash content and some silica fume) and HVFA concretes for cold and warm weather are provided 

in Table 1 [6]. The warm weather HVFA mixture was modified from its cold weather 

counterpart by removing the accelerating admixture and reducing the cementitious content to 

take advantage of the enhanced strength development at warmer temperatures. The concretes 

were used to construct test beams, from which extracted cores were analyzed with respect to

strength, absorption, diffusion coefficients, and drying rates. The cold weather and warm 

 1 It should be recognized that the replacement of cement by fly ash can be performed on either a mass or a 

volumetric basis. Because fly ash is typically less dense than cement (e.g., about 2500 kg/m3 vs. about 3150 kg/m3

), 

replacing a mass of cement with an equal mass of fly ash will alter the volumetric water content, cementitious 

powder volume fraction, unit weight, and/or yield of the concrete mixture. Replacing a volume of cement with an 

equivalent volume of fly ash allows one to maintain these quantities at their non-fly ash mixture values. Although it 

is not common industry practice, the authors of this report recommend that replacements of cement with fly ash be 

performed on a volumetric basis. This volumetric-based proportioning and replacement requires that the densities of 

the cement and fly ash first be measured, using the ASTM C188-09 Standard Test Method for Density of Hydraulic 

Cement or some other acceptable method.
3

weather HVFA concrete mixtures were found to meet the specification requirements, although 

the warm weather HVFA concrete mixture required 56 d for its lab-cured cylinders to reach the 

specified 28-d compressive strength (5000 psi), with the 56-d strength of the field-cured 

cylinders of this mixture reaching 4820 psi (33.2 MPa). The transport properties (e.g., resistivity)

of the HVFA concrete mixtures were superior to those of the control mixture, with the diffusion 

coefficients and rapid chloride penetrability test (RCPT) values of the two HVFA mixtures 

improving significantly with extended curing from 90 d to 180 d. The study demonstrated that 

HVFA concretes with acceptable performance could be formulated to meet the original project 

specifications while also providing a considerable cost savings. The final recommendation from 

this report [6] was that the Navy should encourage the use of such HVFA concrete mixtures in 

all marine structures and in other structures commonly subject to corrosion of the steel 

reinforcement. The Naval facilities study [6] was conducted using a specific portland cement and 

a specific fly ash. Because the properties of fly ash can vary among sources, there is no 

guarantee that following the proportions in Table 1 will achieve the same properties and 

performance. The degree to which the concrete mixture will require modification, or whether the 

specified properties can be achieved at all, will depend upon the specific characteristics of the fly 

ash being employed. The mixture proportions in Table 1 are thus only provided to exemplify 

HVFA concrete mixtures that have worked well in practice and not to suggest definitive 

(generic) mixture proportions that could be employed universally.

Table 1. Mixture Proportions for Naval Facilities Test Concretes [6]

Control HVFA (cold weather) HVFA (warm weather)

Total binder content1 860 lb/yd3 660 lb/yd3 564 lb/yd3

Cement 660 lb/yd3 330 lb/yd3 282 lb/yd3

Fly Ash 135 lb/yd3 330 lb/yd3 282 lb/yd3

Silica fume 65 lb/yd3 --- ---

Water 266 lb/yd3 199 lb/yd3 169 lb/yd3

Sand, ssd2 1040 lb/yd3 1460 lb/yd3 1468 lb/yd3

3⁄4” coarse aggregate 1607 lb/yd3 1715 lb/yd3 1782 lb/yd3

High range water 

reducer (HRWR)3

60 fl oz/yd3 66 fl oz/yd3 56.4 fl oz/yd3

Corrosion inhibitor 128 fl oz/yd3 --- ---

Non-chloride 

accelerator

132 fl oz/yd3 ---

Target air content 5 % 5 % 5 %

Water/binder ratio 0.31 0.30 0.30

Fly ash (% of binder) --- 50 50

1

1 lb/yd3=0.593 kg/m3

2

ssd = saturated surface dry condition

3

1 fl oz/yd3=38.7 mL/m3

Another recently developed useful tool for concrete designers and specifiers is the Mix 

Optimization Catalog for Proportioning Fly Ash as Cementitious Materials in Airfield Pavement 

Concrete Mixtures [7]. This online, interactive tool provides guidelines and recommendations on 

mixture proportioning, fly ash properties, admixture selection, curing, and relevant standard tests 

for producing fly ash concretes for a user-selected pavement project. Projects are characterized 
4

by deicer exposure, aggregate reactivity, cement type (alkali level), opening time requirements,

and paving weather. Fly ash recommendations are classified by calcium oxide content, fineness, 

loss on ignition, and replacement level. Fly ash replacement levels are classified as low (< 15 %), 

moderate (15 % to 30 %), high (30 % to 50 %), and very high (> 50 %) on a mass basis.1 In 

addition to recommending a fly ash and a replacement level, the software also provides 

recommendations for admixtures and curing, as well as suggesting which ASTM standard test 

methods can be utilized to ensure quality.
5

Characterization

In the United States, fly ash is typically classified as either Class C or Class F based on 

its chemical composition, as defined in the ASTM C618-12a Standard Specification for Coal Fly 

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete [8]. The major delimiter for this 

classification is the sum of the silicon, aluminum, and iron oxide percentages in the fly ash, 

being a minimum of 70 % for a Class F designation and a minimum of 50 % for a Class C

classification. Other chemical requirements specified in the ASTM C618 specification (for both 

Class C and Class F fly ash) include sulfur trioxide content (5.0 % maximum), moisture content 

(3.0 % maximum), and loss on ignition (6.0 % maximum). 

The ASTM C618 specification also details a series of physical requirements for the fly 

ashes, which are evaluated according to the ASTM C311-11b Standard Test Methods for 

Sampling and Testing Fly Ash or Natural Pozzolans for Use in Portland-Cement Concrete [9]. 

These include fineness, strength activity index at 7 d and 28 d, water requirement, soundness, 

and uniformity in density and fineness. Currently, the strength activity index test is evaluated by 

preparing a cement/fly ash mortar (mass-based replacement of 20 % of an ASTM C150 portland

cement by fly ash) that has a variable water content, but equivalent flow to that of a control

ordinary portland cement (OPC) mortar prepared with a fixed water-to-cement ratio, w/c=0.484, 

by mass. The measured strengths of the prepared cement/fly ash mortar at 7 d and 28 d are then 

divided by those of the w/c=0.484 control OPC mortar to obtain the strength activity indices, 

reported as a percentage. Because the densities of fly ash and cement are significantly different, 

this mass-based replacement procedure reduces the water and sand contents of the tested fly ash

mortar relative to those present in the control. Furthermore, preparing the cement/fly ash mortar 

at equivalent flow can lead to an additional increase or decrease in the unit water content. As 

strength is strongly dependent on the volumetric (unit) water content of the mortar mixture, the 

relative effect of the fly ash on the strength activity is confounded due to any changes in water 

content. For this reason, an alternative procedure based on preparing the cement/fly ash mortar 

with identical volumetric proportions (sand, water, cementitious powders) to that of the control

OPC mortar has been proposed and supported by research results [10].

It is generally recognized that the ASTM C618 classification is insufficient to completely 

characterize a fly ash in such a way as to anticipate its performance in concrete. In Canada, fly 

ashes are additionally classified based on their CaO content into three classes, as opposed to two. 

However, both of these bulk chemical classification schemes often fall short of providing the 

end-user with sufficient information to predict the reactivity and performance of a particular fly 

ash. It is generally the composition and proportions of the various glassy phases within a fly ash 

that influence its reactivity in a cement-based system, and these parameters are neither identified 

nor quantified in the current ASTM C618 specification. While crystalline phases in fly ash can 

be readily assessed using X-ray diffraction [11], the glassy phases are more difficult to 

characterize because particles can have variable chemical compositions. Valuable information on 

the chemical composition, morphology, and spatial statistics of both glassy and crystalline 

phases can be obtained by employing scanning electron microscopy (SEM) combined with X-ray 

microanalysis and multispectral image analysis [12-15]. As just one example, Figure 1 shows a 

processed multispectral analysis of a Class F fly ash in which eight different crystalline and 

glassy phases have been identified [14], including three different calcium aluminosilicate 
6

glasses. The all-important reactivity of these different (glassy) phases can then be analyzed by 

reacting these fly ash particles in synthetic pore solution, for example [15].

Figure 1. Cluster map showing phase distinction in a Class F fly ash based upon 

multispectral analysis. Field width = 2050 μm (taken from [14]).

Equally challenging to a proper quantitative characterization of the fly ash is an 

evaluation of its reactivity in a particular cement-based system. While overall reactivity in an 

HVFA system can be readily evaluated using calorimetry (as described later) or other established 

techniques, determining the individual degrees of reaction of the cement and fly ash (as well as 

phases within the fly ash) remains a challenging task. Two approaches that have been applied by 

various research groups in the laboratory include microscopy-based analysis [16,17] and 

selective dissolutions [18-21], the latter typically employing a water-methanol-picric acid 

solution. The microscopy-based techniques are based on the principle that the unreacted fly ash 

particles can be readily identified in the backscattered electron image (BEI) of a polished 

specimen of hydrated blended cement paste. Once the amount of remaining unreacted fly ash is 

quantified using point-counting [16] or automatic image processing methods [17], its degree of 

reaction can be computed based on knowing the initial volumetric proportions of the mixture. In 

selective dissolution [17-21], the reaction products and unhydrated (partially hydrated) cement 

particles are dissolved and the remaining unreacted fly ash is thus quantified. These techniques 

have been developed and applied in the laboratory and have not yet been reduced to common 

practice for field specimens, etc.

Relevance to Industry Practice:

1) While the deficiencies of the current ASTM C618 classification scheme for fly ash are 

generally well-recognized, advanced characterization techniques are still in the development 

stage and it is unlikely that new standardized test methods will be approved in the near future.
7

2) Advanced characterization techniques including X-ray diffraction and SEM with X-ray 

microanalysis, both supplemented by selective dissolutions, can provide a quantitative 

characterization of the glassy and crystalline phases in a particular fly ash.

3) Techniques have been developed for quantifying the degree of reaction of fly ash in cementbased materials, but to date, these have only been employed in research studies. Further efforts 

are needed to mainstream these into common practice.
8

Mixture Proportioning

The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 211 has developed documents that

provide specific guidance on proportioning concrete mixtures. For structural concretes, the ACI 

211.1-91 guide [22] recommends replacement ranges of 15 % to 25 % and 15 % to 35 % for 

Class F and Class C fly ashes, respectively. Both of these ranges fall short of what is generally 

accepted as the fly ash content of an HVFA mixture. Still, the general procedures provided in

ACI 211.1 can be used to design trial batches of HVFA concrete mixtures. The ACI 211.1 guide 

document [22] does recognize the inherent differences in specific gravities between cement and 

many supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), and that the yield of these mixtures will 

need to be adjusted based on the actual specific gravities of the materials used. Normally, this 

adjustment is based on reducing the sand content in the blended cement concrete mixture. The 

document provides other cautionary information concerning the utilization of blended cements 

with respect to air entrainment, setting times, and application during cold weather conditions.

ACI Committee 232 addresses issues specific to the use of fly ash in concrete. Their 

report ACI 232.2-03 [23] does contain a chapter (less than two pages) on mixture proportioning, 

but little quantitative information is provided and no special consideration is given to HVFA 

concrete mixtures. However, the committee is currently working on a report specifically on the 

topic of HVFA concretes that may provide more specific details and new insights into the 

proportioning of these sustainable mixtures.

Approaches to mixture proportioning continue to be developed and promulgated, such as 

the method of concrete equivalent mortar that utilizes mortar mixtures to proportion a concrete 

with a reduction in the number of required concrete batches [24]. Another more recent example 

would be the International Center for Aggregate Research (ICAR) ‘aggregate suspension’ 

proportioning method for self-consolidating and other concretes, developed by Fowler and 

Koehler [25]. This method is currently being developed into an ACI 211 technical note, with 

both mass-based and volumetric-based proportioning procedures being detailed.

Many ready-mix concrete suppliers, particularly the larger ones, have their own in-house 

system (software, spreadsheet, and/or procedures) for proportioning concrete mixtures to meet 

specific requirements. These systems are typically developed based on in-house experience with 

specific materials’ suppliers. Therefore, they are not always immediately applicable to other 

concrete suppliers, and the techniques may be proprietary.

One immediate need is a source of publicly available, generalized approaches to 

designing HVFA concrete mixtures. As a first step in this direction, some further considerations 

for proportioning HVFA concrete mixtures to meet specific targeted performance requirements 

are provided in Appendices A through D of this report.

Relevance to Industry Practice:

1) Numerous mixture proportioning methods have been developed and are commonly used by 

the concrete construction industry, but few currently provide specific considerations for creating 

HVFA concrete mixtures.
9

2) Due to the large difference in specific gravity between cement and most fly ashes, volumetricbased replacements and proportioning may be worthy of consideration in lieu of conventional 

mass-based approaches.

3) Regardless of the mixture proportioning procedures employed, trial batches should be 

prepared initially to verify performance, and subsequently, whenever there is a change in the 

source of any of the raw materials (cement, fly ash, or admixtures). Including isothermal or semiadiabatic calorimetry measurements as part of the trial batching process can contribute to a faster 

isolation and resolution of issues, such as materials’ incompatibilities (see next section for 

further details).
10

Analysis for Incompatibilities

One of the first steps in properly designing an HVFA concrete mixture (see flowchart in 

Appendix A [26]) is to ensure that the cement, fly ash, and other powders and chemical 

admixtures being combined together are compatible with one another. This is critically important 

because an improper combination of materials can lead to mixtures that flash set or conversely 

sit for hours without setting, the latter case being due to excessive retardation of the hydration 

reactions. Isothermal calorimetry is a powerful tool for examining the compatibility of these 

materials, as outlined in the ASTM C1679 Standard Practice for Measuring Hydration Kinetics 

of Hydraulic Cementitious Mixtures Using Isothermal Calorimetry [27]; a similar standard based 

on semi-adiabatic calorimetry [28] is currently in the process of being balloted within ASTM.

Sulfate Optimization

Because many fly ashes provide a significant source of aluminate phases and/or their own 

source of (calcium) sulfates, sulfate optimization is often an issue in producing HVFA concretes 

that have desired constructability properties [29]. Portland cements are generally optimized with 

respect to sulfate content based on measured compressive strengths at a specific target age. This 

“sulfate optimization” is performed under the assumption that the material will be subsequently 

employed in a 100 % ordinary portland cement (OPC) concrete. The incorporation of relatively 

large quantities of fly ash in HVFA concretes can thus result in systems that are either undersulfated, over-sulfated, or in fortuitous cases, still properly sulfated. As an example, Figure 2 and 

Figure 3 show the influence of additional gypsum on the hydration reactions in two different 

blended cement/fly ash mixtures prepared using the same (highly reactive) Class C fly 

ash [30,31]; in Figure 2, a Type II/V cement (2.5 % SO3 content by mass) was used, while in 

Figure 3, a Type I/II cement (3.27 % SO3 content by mass) was employed. As can be seen in 

Figure 2, for the first cement blended with the fly ash on a 50:50 mass basis, the addition of 

supplemental gypsum has a pronounced positive effect on the hydration reactions, restoring the 

shape of the isothermal calorimetry curve to its expected form, but not eliminating the excessive 

retardation produced by this Class C fly ash. While both the 1 % and 2 % addition levels of 

gypsum produce reasonable calorimetry curves with distinct silicate and aluminate hydration 

peaks, 2 % was selected as the optimum value for subsequent mixtures, based on its provision of

a slightly higher cumulative heat release value at 24 h [30], which should correspond to a 

higher 1 d strength as well [29]. Conversely, as shown in Figure 3, when the same fly ash is used 

with a Type I/II cement at a 40:60 fly ash:cement volumetric ratio, a 2 % addition of gypsum 

only results in a further unwanted retardation of the hydration reactions, without significantly 

altering the shapes of the hydration peaks. In both cases, the influences of additional gypsum on 

the hydration reactions can be observed by using small samples and standardized isothermal 

calorimetry experiments on paste specimens, as opposed to the more labor-intensive 

conventional employment of strength testing [29]. 

High Range Water Reducing Agent Incompatibilities

While the previous example focused on incompatibilities due to sulfate imbalance in 

simple cement/fly ash mixtures without any chemical admixtures, additional issues often arise 

when high range water reducing agents (HRWRAs) and other admixtures are included in the 
11

Figure 2. Isothermal calorimetry curves for Type II/V cement/Class C fly ash blends

(w/cm=0.3) with various addition levels of gypsum [30].

Figure 3. Isothermal calorimetry curves for Type I/II cement/Class C fly ash (FA) blends 

(w/cm=0.36) with and without additional gypsum.

concrete mixtures. As shown by Roberts and Taylor [32], excessive retardation can also be 

produced by the improper selection of an HRWRA; in their particular study, a lignincarbohydrate water-reducing admixture was being used. A further example of this influence of 

HRWRA on performance is provided in Figure 4, showing the difference in hydration response 

depending on the type of HRWRA employed in a Type II/V cement/Class F fly ash blended 

paste (50:50 on a mass basis). While both HRWRAs increase retardation, the performance of 

HRWRA-B would be unacceptable from a practical concrete construction viewpoint. The Class 

F fly ash by itself produced no retardation, so that in this case, any delays in setting time for a 

0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0 8 16 24 32 40 48

Heat flow (W/g cement)

Time (h)

II/V cement only w/c=0.3

50 % ash - No extra gypsum

1 % gypsum

2 % gypsum

3 % gypsum

5 % gypsum

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0 8 16 24 32 40 48

Heat Flow (W/g cement)

Time (h)

I/II cement only w/c=0.36 40 % FA no extra gypsum

40 % FA 2 % gypsum fly ash w/f=0.36
12

blended paste without HRWRA would be due simply to a dilution effect (the blended mixture 

containing only 50 % of the cement present in the control mixture), as will be discussed further 

in a subsequent section.

Figure 4. Isothermal calorimetry curves for a Type II/V cement/Class F fly ash blend with 

(two different) and without an HRWRA.

Calorimetry is a useful tool in developing HVFA mixtures because it provides diagnostic 

information about the hydration reactions occurring in the paste. As complete and useful as this 

measurement technique is, it cannot readily predict all the important early-age performance of an 

HVFA mixture: false setting, early stiffening, etc. A more complete picture of how these 

mixtures will perform will require additional test methods, such as the modified versions of the 

ASTM C359-08 early stiffening test, a mini-slump test (currently under ASTM ballot), and 

rheometer tests based on the guidance provided in ASTM C1749-12 [32,33].

Relevance to Industry Practice:

1) Isothermal and/or semi-adiabatic calorimetry (the latter as demonstrated in reference [28])

provide valuable rapid screening methods for identifying potential incompatibility issues in 

HVFA concrete mixtures.

2) A cement whose sulfate content has been optimized by its manufacturer may not contain 

optimal sulfate when blended with fly ash (and other powders) in an HVFA concrete mixture.

3) Chemical admixtures, particularly HRWRAs, can also play a critical role in the early-age 

performance (including incompatibilities and retardation issues) of HVFA concrete mixtures.

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0 8 16 24 32 40 48

Heat flow (W/g cement)

Time (h)

w/c=0.3 no fly ash, no HRWRA

w/cm=0.3 50 % F ash no HRWRA

HRWRA-A 50 % F ash

HRWRA-B 50 % F ash
13

Curing Options

Because most fly ashes react at a much slower rate than portland cement, concrete 

mixtures containing significant amounts of fly ash will often benefit from extended curing

beyond that conventionally employed for 100 % OPC concretes. These HVFA concretes are,

therefore, also more sensitive to the quality of curing conditions [34,35], as mix water that is not 

consumed in early-age chemical reactions or absorbed by early-age hydration products may 

evaporate if the concrete is exposed to a drying environment. Applying measures to prevent this 

evaporation, via curing membranes or curing compounds for example, must be extended beyond 

the timeframe typically used with OPC concrete to provide additional time for the cement and fly 

ash reactions to occur, which will further densify and strengthen the concrete mixture. If misting, 

fogging, or wet burlap are employed, in addition to preventing evaporation from the concrete, an 

additional source of external water becomes available to counteract the self-desiccation that 

accompanies the chemical reactions occurring within the paste portion of the HVFA concrete.

However, not all concrete mixtures will benefit equally from additional external water. In 

lower w/cm concretes (e.g., at or below 0.4), as the hydration and pozzolanic reactions occur, the 

capillary pores within the microstructure will disconnect (depercolate) so that the imbibition rate 

of external water will be significantly inhibited, resulting in self-desiccation that will become 

significant at depths just a few centimeters below the external water surface. This selfdesiccation is accompanied by the generation of internal stresses that may contribute to early-age 

cracking of the concrete. And, as a practical matter, supplying an external water source for 

vertical surfaces is much more difficult than doing so for horizontal ones.

In the past decade, to address these issues, a new paradigm for curing concrete has 

emerged, namely internal curing (IC) [36]. In IC, additional water is supplied to the hydrating 

paste via the incorporation of water reservoirs into the concrete mixture. Most often, pre-wetted

lightweight aggregates (LWA) are used as the reservoirs, but superabsorbent polymers (SAPs) 

and pre-wetted wood fibers have also been employed in some laboratory studies. This approach 

works by distributing these small water reservoirs uniformly throughout the three-dimensional 

structure and curing the concrete from the inside out. The water transport distances are thus 

minimized and the hydrating paste microstructure remains saturated throughout, even as the 

capillary porosity depercolates. This leads to a reduction in early-age cracking and an 

improvement in longer term mechanical and transport properties, the latter being mostly due to 

enhanced reactions of the cement and fly ash and the high quality interfacial transition zone that 

is developed between paste and LWA [36].

The efficacy of IC for HVFA mixtures has been examined recently in a study where the 

properties of mortar mixtures with 40 % and 60 % Class C fly ash (volumetric replacement for 

cement) with and without IC were contrasted [37]. In that study, IC was supplied via a prewetted fine LWA that replaced a portion of the normal weight sand in the examined mortars. The 

performance target was a w/c=0.42 100 % OPC mortar and as is common practice, the w/cm of 

the HVFA mixtures was reduced to 0.3 to obtain concretes with acceptable early-age strengths.

Measured compressive strengths vs. time for the various mixtures are reproduced here in Figure 

5. For the particular materials employed in this study, the benefits of the additional hydration 

provided by the IC outweighed the incorporation of (typically weaker than sand) fine LWA into 
14

the mixtures, so that compressive strengths gains were observed when comparing similar 

mixtures (40 % or 60 % fly ash) with and without IC. The contribution of fly ash to longer term 

strength is also seen in Figure 5, as both of the mixtures with 40 % fly ash exhibited a higher 

strength than the w/c=0.3 OPC control mixture for ages of 28 d and beyond. Even at the 60 % 

replacement level, the mixture with IC exhibited a higher strength than the w/c=0.3 control at 

ages of 91 d and beyond. All HVFA mixtures exhibited a higher strength than the target 

w/c=0.42 mixture for ages of 14 d and beyond. While IC produced an increase in compressive 

strength, results for elastic modulus (not shown here) indicated a reduction on the order of 10 % 

when HVFA mortar mixtures with IC were compared to their non-IC counterparts [37]. A 

beneficial side effect of a reduced elastic modulus, however, could be a reduced cracking 

tendency in these HVFA mixtures with IC.

Figure 5. Compressive strengths of HVFA mortar mixtures with and without IC (taken 

from [37]). Error bars represent the standard deviation from the average of three samples.

Indeed, one of the main reasons to implement IC in practice is to reduce early-age 

(autogenous) shrinkage and the cracking that often accompanies it. Figure 6 shows the measured 

autogenous shrinkage of sealed cylindrical specimens during the first 14 d of curing for the 

various mortars evaluated in the study [37]. While the HVFA mixtures without IC exhibit less 

shrinkage than the w/c=0.3 OPC mortar at ages out to 14 d, due to the fly ash being less reactive 

than the cement (dilution effect) during this time period, the HVFA mortars with IC exhibit a 

deformation that is quite similar to that of the w/c=0.42 target OPC mortar. Corresponding sealed 

(cracking) ring specimens were prepared for a subset of these mortars to evaluate their stress 

development and cracking behavior. As shown in Figure 7, surprisingly, the only specimen to 

exhibit cracking during the 28 d test was the mortar with 40 % fly ash and without IC, which 

develops significant autogenous shrinkage at intermediate ages (14 d to 28 d). The corresponding 

mortar with IC exhibited a stress development curve quite similar to that of the target w/c=0.42 

OPC mortar, with no evidence of cracking over the course of the 28 d evaluation period.
15

Figure 6. Autogenous shrinkage as a function of time for HVFA mortar mixtures with and 

without IC (taken from [37]). Error bars represent the standard deviation from the 

average of three samples.

Figure 7. Stress developed in ring specimens as a function of time for sealed mortar 

mixtures (taken from [37]). Error bars represent the standard deviation from the average 

of two samples.

While it is recommended that internal curing be accompanied by external measures, such 

as application of a curing compound or a curing membrane, to minimize evaporation, next 

generation self-curing concretes (requiring no external curing) have entered the marketplace as 

of early 2012 in Europe and elsewhere. As outlined by Mather in 2001 [38], many concretes are 

effectively self-curing, as they receive favorable environmental (weather) conditions following 

their placement that promote hydration and strength development, without the necessity for 

external curing measures. In the same article, Mather mentions several practical examples of the 

ability of LWA concretes to provide additional curing water to the concrete mixture when the 
16

aggregates are batched wet, once again contributing to a ‘self-curing’ concrete. In 2012, a major 

international concrete ready-mix supplier announced the release of a new global brand of selfcuring concrete, with the self-curing properties being achieved through a combination of unique 

mix design principles and proprietary admixtures. With the overall push towards sustainability, it 

seems likely that HVFA counterparts of these self-curing mixtures will soon follow.

Relevance to Industry Practice:

1) In general, the reactions between the fly ash and the cement clinker and its hydration product 

phases proceed more slowly than the cement hydration reactions themselves. Thus, HVFA 

concretes will typically benefit from an extended period of controlled (moist) curing beyond the 

‘conventional’ curing period of 7 d.

2) When HVFA mixtures use reduced w/cm and internal curing, they can achieve strength and 

stability properties similar to OPC mixtures prepared at more moderate w/c.

3) One method for maintaining a higher moisture level (internal relative humidity) within a field 

HVFA concrete is to employ the technology of internal curing.

4) Self-curing concretes are emerging as commercially available products and new self-curing 

HVFA concretes will likely emerge in the coming years.
17

Workability

One of concrete’s most important properties is workability, as the concrete has to be 

placed and consolidated to ensure that the hardened properties will be achieved as designed. A 

concrete that is not well consolidated or not able to be easily placed, will not have the intended

durability or other requisite hardened properties. Workability is defined by ACI as “that property 

of freshly mixed concrete or mortar that determines the ease with which it can be mixed, placed, 

consolidated, and finished to a homogenous condition” and is usually measured or specified by 

slump for conventional concrete or by slump flow for self-consolidating concrete (SCC). These 

properties, however, depend upon a number of factors, and it can be difficult to correlate changes 

in mixture proportions to changes in slump and/or slump flow.

At a more fundamental level, the flow properties that would ensure a good concrete 

workability are the rheological properties of the material. Conventional concrete flow is 

commonly characterized using a Bingham model that assumes that a finite stress (the yield 

stress) is needed to initiate flow, and that additional stress results in additional strain (flow) 

according to the material’s plastic viscosity (the change in stress with strain). For SCC, often the 

Hershel-Bulkley model is used instead, in which the relationship between shear stress and shear 

rate includes the shear rate raised to a power, n (n=1 reduces to the Bingham model). Thus, the 

rheological properties of concrete are mostly characterized using two parameters: its plastic 

viscosity and its yield stress as defined by the Bingham equation. 

Determining the yield stress and the plastic viscosity, in practice, remains a challenge. 

Several studies have shown that the yield stress is correlated with the slump value [39,40,41]. In 

contrast, plastic viscosity can only be determined through the use of a rheometer. There is, for 

now, no standard concrete rheometer and thus the rheological values need to be reported while 

specifying the specific concrete rheometer being employed [42,43]. NIST is working in 

collaboration with ACI Committee 238 to develop a Standard Reference Material (SRM) for the 

calibration of the concrete rheometers. While for now only the SRM for paste is available (SRM 

2492), it is expected that the mortar SRM will be ready for release in 2013 and the concrete SRM

in 2014. 

The workability or rheological properties are influenced by the composition of the 

mixture, including cement type and particle size distribution (PSD), SCMs’ type and PSD, 

aggregates’ shape and size distribution, water/cement ratio and addition of chemical admixtures 

(HRWRA), and air content. Addressing the impact of all of these factors is beyond the scope of 

this guide. Instead, this section will only summarize some select results and provide some 

guidelines on optimizing the flow when fly ash is used as a replacement for cement.

As mentioned previously, the addition of fly ash is in practice commonly performed by 

mass replacement of cement. This practice results in a significant change in the proportioning of 

the whole concrete, because the density of fly ash (typically in the range of 2100 kg/m3 to 

2700 kg/m3) is significantly lower than that of cement (about 3150 kg/m3). When performed as a 

mass replacement, the paste volume will change as a result of scaling the mixture to achieve the 

desired yield. Therefore, changes in rheology will depend on both the variable paste volume 

fraction and the properties of the fly ash. Thus, it would be preferable to determine the optimum 
18

replacement of the cement by volume, thus keeping the paste volume fraction at a constant value. 

In the literature, however, most if not all of the investigations are performed utilizing a mass 

replacement.

The addition of fly ash improves workability, but also increases stability or reduces

segregation, while reducing the amount of HRWRA needed to achieve a desired flow [44,45]. 

This quality is attributed to the spherical shape of the fly ash particles that would operate as ball 

bearings [46], or improving the packing density of the cementitious materials [47]. Nevertheless, 

not all fly ashes improve fluidity to the same degree. Ferraris et al. [44] showed that a mean 

particle size of 3 μm could improve fluidity, while if the mean particle size was 5.7 μm, the 

fluidity could degrade, as compared to that of the plain cement paste. Similar conclusions were 

reached by Lee et al. [47] where the fluidity of a cement paste with fly ash increases with the 

width of the particle size distribution of fly ash as characterized by the factor n of a RosinRammler distribution function. Kwan and Li [48], employing a fly ash microsphere (FAM) 

addition that is a superfine fly ash, found that fluidity is improved both in cement paste and in 

mortar. They attribute the increased fluidity to the increased packing density, as the FAMs are 

smaller than cement. As the paste fluidity is increased, the amount of paste needed in mortar to 

achieve the same flow is reduced. This introduced a concept that the addition of fly ash affects 

mainly the cement paste portion, thus it is advocated that to determine the incompatibility of the 

fly ash with HRWRA and the cement, or to optimize the amount of fly ash, cement paste 

measurements would give an optimal composition without the need for lengthy trials with

concrete and mortar [44,48,49]. In addition to the ball-bearing and particle packing effects, 

results have also indicated that fly ash may contribute to workability improvements by 

decreasing the flocculation of the cement particles (via a particle dilution effect) [50].

Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is a type of concrete that flows by gravity and does not 

need consolidation by vibration. To achieve the desired flow properties, the material needs to be 

stable (no segregation during flow even in structures with a high density of rebar) and possess a 

zero yield stress. To achieve these properties there are various solutions: increase water content, 

increase HRWRA, increase fines content by increasing paste content (e.g., limestone fines 

addition), and including viscosifiers. Obviously, simply increasing the water content could lead 

to reduced durability and strength, and is thus not the first choice. Increases in HRWRA and/or

viscosifier can be expensive possible solutions. Another more economical possibility is to 

increase the fly ash replacement that would increase flow while decreasing the HRWRA dosage 

needed [44]. This is often the desired solution as it has also other benefits: more cost effective, 

increased durability, and reduced heat of hydration, when compared with an increase in cement 

content alone. 

Specifications usually limit the amount of cement replacement, but some studies have 

reported beneficial properties, especially with respect to workability, with up to 30 % 

replacement by volume [45,46], and with up to 50 % replacement exhibiting a concurrent 

reduction of bleeding and aggregate blockage [51]. 

Relevance to Industry Practice:

1) In general, fly ash replacement of cement improves workability and reduces the need for 

HRWRA, even at high replacement rates of fly ash for cement.
19

2) Optimization of the fly ash amount, type and PSD can be done by testing cement paste instead 

of concrete or mortar, with significant savings in trial batches and material and capital resources.

3) The usage of fly ash increases stability, reducing bleeding and segregation in concretes such 

as SCC.
20

Setting Time 

As cited in the 2012 NRMCA survey [2], a common issue encountered with HVFA 

concrete mixtures is their delayed setting, with corresponding delays in finishing and other 

construction operations.2 Due to a substantial research effort in recent years, several viable 

mixture proportioning options have been developed to mitigate excessive delays in setting for 

HVFA concrete mixtures.

As with conventional OPC concretes, non-chloride accelerators can be effectively 

employed to reduce setting times of HVFA concrete mixtures [52,53]. Higher dosages may be 

required to attain target setting times (such as that of a comparable 100 % OPC concrete mixture) 

depending on the characteristics of the fly ash, the replacement level, and the expected curing 

temperatures. In general, lower curing temperatures and higher CaO contents in Class C fly ashes 

require higher dosages and, in some cases, acceptable setting behavior of a 50 % HVFA mixture 

may not be achievable via this approach [52,53]. Non-chloride accelerators also can be fairly 

expensive, so that economic considerations may sometimes dictate the viability of their 

utilization in a proposed HVFA mixture.

As will be shown in the section to follow, one convenient method (that is already 

employed in practice, particularly during the winter construction season) for increasing the earlyage strength of HVFA concrete mixtures is to switch to an ASTM C150 Type III (finer) portland 

cement. Such a change typically has a significantly greater effect on early-age strength 

development than on initial and final setting times. For example, one recent study [26] indicated 

that switching to a Type III cement reduced the setting time delays by only about 1 h for two 

HVFA mortars (one with a Class C fly ash and the other with a Class F) that originally exhibited 

a 3 h to 4 h delay in setting relative to a corresponding 100 % OPC control mortar. For these 

same two HVFA mortars, this switch to Type III cement increased their 1 d compressive 

strengths by about 60 % on average. If Type III cement is being employed to enhance these 

early-age strengths, its potential contributions to reducing setting time delays should also be 

taken into consideration as the mixture proportions are being developed and optimized.

Various powder additions have been investigated for their ability to restore setting times 

of HVFA mixtures to values typical of those achieved for corresponding 100 % OPC control 

mixtures. One study screened numerous candidate powders and identified calcium hydroxide and 

a rapid set cement as the two most promising candidates [30]. Representative setting times 

resulting from these additions in HVFA pastes prepared with either a Class C or a Class F fly ash 

are provided in Table 2 [54]. For both fly ashes, a 5 % calcium hydroxide addition by mass 

restored the initial and final setting times to be nearly identical to those of the control (no fly ash) 

cement paste. For the rapid set cement, while a 5 % addition was adequate for the Class F fly ash 

mixture, a 10 % addition was required for the Class C fly ash. One additional consideration in 

employing these powder additions is their subsequent influence on compressive strength. While 

the rapid set cement addition has produced mortars with similar or superior long term (28 d or 91 

d) strengths to those of the control 100 % OPC mortar, a significant decrease in 28 d strength on 

the order of 15 % has been observed for HVFA mortars prepared with Class F fly ash and a 5 %

 2 Low early-age strengths that also influence the timing of construction operations, such as formwork removal, will 

be considered as a separate issue in a subsequent section of this report.
21

calcium hydroxide addition [26,30]. Still, calcium hydroxide additions have been recently 

employed in practice to produce HVFA concretes (70 % replacement of OPC) with greater 

bonding to reinforcing steel than those of the 100 % OPC control concrete mixtures [55], 

although the measured compressive strengths of the HVFA mixtures were indeed about 20 % 

lower than that of the control concrete.

Table 2. Setting Times for HVFA Paste Mixtures [54]

Paste mixture Vicat initial set (h) Vicat final set (h)

Type II/V cement

0.67 % HRWRA 5.1 h 5.9 h

50 % C ash, 2 % gypsum,

0.33 % HRWRA 8.2 h 8.8 h

50 % C ash, 2 % gypsum,

5 % CH, 0.33 % HRWRA 5.3 h 6.0 h

50 % C ash, 2 % gypsum,

10 % rapid set cement,

0.33 % HRWRA

3.1 h 4.5 h

50 % F ash,

0.87 % HRWRA 8.6 h 10.2 h

50 % F ash,

5 % CH, 0.87 % HRWRA 5.2 h 5.9 h

50 % F ash,

5 % rapid set cement,

0.87 % HRWRA

3.3 h 4.5 h

In the initial screening study described above, a relatively coarse limestone powder, with 

a modal particle diameter of about 27 μm, had basically no effect on the early-age hydration 

response as assessed using isothermal calorimetry [30]. However, subsequent investigations have 

indicated that limestone additions can be quite effective for mitigating setting time delays (and 

increasing early-age strengths) in HVFA mixtures, when finer limestone particles are 

employed [31,56-61]. Results when employing a fine limestone with a median particle diameter 

on the order of 1 μm have been particularly promising [59,61]. The fine limestone particles 

provide additional surface area for the precipitation and growth of calcium silicate hydrate gel 

and other products from the cement hydration and pozzolanic reactions. Additionally, the fine 

limestone particles can also participate in these reactions leading to the formation of stable 

carboaluminate (as opposed to conventional sulfoaluminate) phases. The carboaluminate phases 

may be stiffer than the sulfoaluminate phases that would be formed in the absence of limestone, 

further contributing to strength enhancements [62].

A study employing four different modal diameters of limestone powders has indicated 

that the reduction in setting time for a fixed set of mixture proportions is directly proportional to 

the provided limestone surface area (as quantified by BET surface area measurements) [59].

Figure 8 illustrates this linear relation for mixtures with either a Class C or a Class F fly ash, 

where in some mixtures a portion of the fly ash has been replaced by limestone powder. In this 

study, titanium dioxide (anatase) was also included, as an inert material with a surface area 

similar to that of one of the limestone powders, to confirm that both the size and chemical nature 
22

Figure 8. Correlation between initial (top) and final (bottom) setting times and surface 

areas of the accelerating powders (taken from [44]).

of the powder material are critical to its ability to accelerate early-age reactions in cement-based 

materials. While a nanolimestone provided the most significant reduction in setting times, the 

performance of a fine limestone powder with a 0.7 μm median particle diameter was also quite 

acceptable. This latter fine limestone has been subsequently employed in a series of HVFA 

concrete mixtures [61], whose mixture proportions are provided in Table 3. As indicated in 

Figure 9, the replacement of a portion of the fly ash with a fine limestone powder continues to 

markedly reduce setting time delays in these more sustainable concretes. As will be discussed 

y = -1.308x + 6.6085

R2 = 0.993

y = -0.7906x + 5.5223

R2 = 0.994

y = -0.5964x + 3.8024

R2 = 0.890

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Initial set time (h)

Surface Area of Accelerator/Volume of Prepared Paste (m2/cm3)

60-35C-5 Limestones 60-35C-5 Anatase

60-30C-10 Limestones blank

60-35F-5 Limestones 60-35F-5 Anatase

y = -1.4559x + 8.2211

R2 = 0.912

y = -0.9859x + 6.7163

R2 = 0.998

y = -1.4337x + 5.5061

R2 = 0.860

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Final set time (h)

Surface Area of Accelerator/Volume of Prepared Paste (m2/cm3)

Set time of the cement used in C ash mixtures

Set time of the cement used in F ash mixtures
23

subsequently, these fine limestone replacements for fly ash also produce significant

improvements in compressive strength and transport (electrical) properties.

Table 3. Concrete Mixture Proportions for Study of HVFA with Fine Limestone [61]

Mix

ID

Cementitious

(kg/m3) 

[(lb/yd3

)]

Type I/II 

cement 

(kg/m3

) 

[(lb/yd3)]

Class F 

fly ash 

(kg/m3

) 

[(lb/yd3)]

Class C 

fly ash 

(kg/m3

) 

[(lb/yd3)]

Limestone

0.7 μm

(kg/m3

) 

[(lb/yd3

)]

Coarse 

aggreg. 

(kg/m3

) 

[(lb/yd3)]

Fine 

aggreg. 

(kg/m3

) 

[(lb/yd3)]

Water 

content 

(kg/m3

) 

[(lb/yd3)]

w/cm

HRWR 

(fl oz/ 

cwt)

PC 335

[564]

335

[564]

1040

[1750]

858

[1444]

134

[226] 0.40 7.7

40F 291

[491]

201

[338]

91

[153]

1040

[1750]

858

[1444]

134

[226] 0.46 3.8

30F10L 297

[499]

201

[338]

68

[114]

28

[47]

1040

[1750]

858

[1444]

134

[226] 0.45 3.8

40C 310

[522]

201

[338]

109

[183]

1040

[1750]

858

[1444]

134

[226] 0.43 3.0

30C10L 311

[523]

201

[338]

82

[138]

28

[47]

1040

[1750]

858

[1444]

134

[226] 0.43 3.0

60F 270

[454]

134

[226]

136

[229]

1040

[1750]

858

[1444]

134

[226] 0.50 3.8

45F15L 278

[467]

134

[226]

102

[172]

41.6

[70]

1040

[1750]

858

[1444]

134

[226] 0.48 3.8

60C 298

[501]

134

[226]

163

[275]

1040

[1750]

858

[1444]

134

[226] 0.45 3.0

45C15L 298

[502]

134

[226]

122

[206]

41.6

[70]

1040

[1750]

858

[1444]

134

[226] 0.45 3.0

Relevance to Industry Practice:

1) Similar to their role in OPC concretes, non-chloride accelerators (chemical admixtures) may 

be employed to reduce the setting time delays commonly encountered in HVFA concrete 

mixtures. Higher dosages than those typically employed in OPC mixtures may be necessary and 

costs may become prohibitive.

2) Switching to a Type III cement will typically provide a small improvement (reduction on the 

order of 1 h) in setting times. The Type III cement will have a much larger positive influence on 

early-age compressive strengths than on setting time reductions.

3) Calcium hydroxide and rapid set cement powder additions (at a 5 % to 10 % level by mass) 

can be employed to mitigate retardation in setting times, although the former has a generally 

negative impact on 28 d compressive strengths.

4) Fine limestone with a median particle diameter on the order of 1 μm as a replacement for a 

portion of the fly ash in an HVFA mixture is highly efficient in accelerating the cement 

hydration and pozzolanic reactions, and thus in restoring the setting times of these HVFA 

concretes to be in the vicinity of those of comparable OPC concrete mixtures. Further benefits

(to be presented in subsequent sections) are seen in strength increases and improvements in 

transport and electrical properties such as RCPT and surface resistivity.
24

Figure 9. Setting development: a) OPC mixture and mixtures containing Class F fly ash 

(45F15L indicates a mixture with 45 % Class F fly ash and 15 % limestone by volume); b) 

OPC mixture and mixtures containing Class C fly ash (30C10L indicates a mixture with 

30 % Class C fly ash and 10 % limestone by volume) (taken from [61]).

(a)

(b)
25

Strength Development

Based on the seminal works of Abrams [63] and Feret [64], the classic approach to

increasing concrete strengths at all ages is to reduce the w/c in an OPC concrete, or equivalently 

the w/cm in an HVFA concrete. The advent of high range water-reducing agents, also known as 

superplasticizers in their early days, has permitted substantial reductions in w/c or w/cm, without 

a significant loss of slump or workability. Thus, decreasing w/cm of an HVFA mixture to obtain 

more acceptable early-age (and even 28 d) strengths is common practice. In practice, for starting 

w/c in the range of 0.4 to 0.45 for a 100 % OPC target concrete, typical reductions in 

transitioning to an HVFA mixture are on the order of 0.05 to 0.10 [26,37,53,61]. However, as 

noted in Table 1 [6], when the starting w/cm of the target concrete is on the order of 0.3 (e.g., for 

a high-performance concrete), the w/cm of an HVFA mixture that performs similarly may require 

less or no reduction. For some cement-fly ash combinations, the reduction in w/cm necessary to 

meet targeted 28 d strength levels will still be insufficient to provide adequate early-age strength 

for timely formwork removal and other construction operations. In these cases, further measures 

to specifically increase early-age strengths may be necessary.

One such measure that has been employed in practice in HVFA concretes is the use of an 

ASTM C150 Type III cement, which is more finely ground and may have an increased sulfate 

content by comparison with an ASTM C150 Type I/II/V cement. Representative compressive 

strength results from a study on HVFA mortars are provided in Figure 10 [26]. Using the 

strengths of the w/c=0.4 100 % OPC mortar as the target values, the original HVFA (50:50 by 

mass) mixtures prepared with a reduced w/cm=0.3 fail to achieve the target strengths at 1 d, with 

only the Class C fly ash mixture reaching the target strength at 7 d. However, switching to a 

Type III cement brought both fly ash mixtures to an acceptable strength level at 1 d and provided 

strengths that exceeded the target values at ages of 28 d and beyond. Figure 10 is also 

informative in that the 365 d strength values of the HVFA mixtures are approaching the levels of 

a 100 % OPC w/c=0.3 mortar (that itself exhibits a minimal strength increase beyond 28 d), 

illustrating the propensity of the longer term pozzolanic reactions to make a significant 

contribution to later age strength development in these HVFA systems, and supporting the 

transition to later ages (56 d or 91 d) for compliance strength testing of HVFA mixtures, as 

opposed to the standard age of 28 d commonly employed for OPC concretes.

In addition to their mitigation of excessive setting time delays, replacement of a portion 

of the fly ash in an HVFA concrete mixture with a fine limestone powder will also have a 

beneficial influence on compressive strength values. Figure 11 shows measured compressive 

strengths for HVFA concretes with and without fine (1 μm) limestone replacing a portion of the 

fly ash on a volume for volume basis [61], with all mixtures prepared with constant volume 

fractions of water, powders (including cement, fly ash, and limestone), and fine and coarse 

aggregates. As shown previously in Figure 9, these limestone replacements reduced the setting 

times of the HVFA mixtures to be nearly equal to those of the control OPC mixture. With respect 

to strength, at early ages, for both the Class F and the Class C fly ash studied, the fine limestone 

increases strengths by about 2 MPa (about 300 psi). By 28 d, these strength enhancements have 

increased significantly, and in the best case, a Class C fly ash HVFA concrete with an initial 28 d 

strength of 13 MPa (1900 psi) has nearly doubled to 25 MPa (3600 psi). This strength 

improvement is likely due to a combination of the acceleration provided by the fine limestone 
26

powder (surfaces) and the enhanced formation of (stiffer) carboaluminate phases [62] in this 

particular cement/Class C fly ash/fine limestone ternary blend. While significant, these increases 

still failed to achieve the target strengths of the OPC concrete. Thus, other measures such as a 

w/cm reduction and/or substitution of a Type III cement would need to be employed along with 

the fine limestone replacements for fly ash [65].

Figure 10. Measured mortar cube compressive strengths vs. age. For the mixtures with fly 

ash, w/cm=0.3 in every case. Error bars (one standard deviation among three specimens) 

are provided for the III 50 % C ash 2 % gypsum data to provide an indication of 

variability (taken from [26]).

In a study performed for the U.S. Department of Energy, Obla et al. [66] have examined 

the applicability of the well-known maturity method to HVFA concrete mixtures. They 

determined that the maturity method, as conventionally employed to predict strength 

development in OPC concretes [67,68], is equally applicable to HVFA concretes. Some 

additional key points of their study included that 1) temperature-matched cured (field) cylinders 

will generally achieve higher compressive strengths than standard and field-cured cylinders due 

to the higher curing temperatures produced in (mass) concrete elements, 2) pull-out testing 

exhibited excellent correlation with cylinder compressive strengths and could thus be employed 

for in-place field evaluations of strength, and 3) HVFA mortar cubes exhibited higher long-term 

strengths when cured at higher temperatures versus those cured at standard temperatures. This 

last observation is contrary to what has been conventionally observed for OPC systems [67] and 

is thus worthy of further research in the future.

0.00

27.58

55.16

82.74

110.32

137.90

1 10 100 1000

0

4

8

12

16

20

1 10 100 1000

Strength (MPa)

Strength (psi)

Thousands

Time (d)

II/V 50 % F ash III 50 % F ash

II/V 50 % C ash 2 % gypsum III 50 % C ash 2 % gypsum

II/V w/c=0.4 II/V cement only w/c=0.3
27

When adjusting mixture proportions to alter early-age compressive strengths, the general 

relation between heat release and strength development, for various curing ages, can be used to 

good advantage. The example data sets shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13 illustrate this 

correlation for a wide variety of mortars and concretes, respectively [69]. The mortars were all 

prepared using silica sand, while the concretes were prepared using a limestone coarse aggregate 

and silica sand. The fitted lines in these plots can be used to adjust the w/cm of an HVFA mixture 

to obtain a desired compressive strength level, based on the measured compressive strength of an 

existing trial mixture. Further details on applying this approach to mixture proportioning 

modification are provided in Appendices B through D of this guide.

Figure 11. Compressive strength development for concrete mixtures (see Table 3)

containing: a) Class F fly ash and b) Class C fly ash (taken from [61]). Coefficients of 

variation for three replicate specimens varied from 0.67 % to 2.5 % for the various 

mixtures. Numbers above lines indicate strengths obtained at ages of 1 d, 3 d, 7 d, and 28 d.

(a)
28

Figure 12. Compressive strength vs. heat release per mL of water for mortars evaluated at 

a variety of ages (taken from [69]).

Figure 13. Compressive strength of concrete cylinders vs. heat release per mL of water for 

mortars from [70]. The bold solid line indicates the best fit linear relationship (R2

=0.77) for 

the OPC concretes, with the two dotted lines indicating ± 20 % from the best fit values. The 

dashed line represents the best fit for the limestone replacements (R2

=0.76). The thin solid 

line represents the best fit determined for the mortar data in Figure 12. (Taken from [69]).

Relevance to Industry Practice:

1) To achieve acceptable early-age strength, HVFA concretes are commonly proportioned with a 

lower w/cm than that of the target (100 % OPC) concrete. Because of the spherical shape of 

many of the fly ash particles and the considerable dilution of the flocculating cement particles in 

the HVFA mixture, the increase in HRWRA dosage accompanying this reduction in w/cm may 

not be as large as that which is needed in a non-fly ash concrete.
29

2) Type III cements can provide a significant boost to the early age strengths of HVFA concrete 

mixtures. The typical cost premium for switching to Type III cement is nominally only 10 %

(cement cost basis).

3) In addition to their beneficial reduction of setting time delays, fine limestone additions can 

also significantly increase early-age and 28 d compressive strengths.

4) The above approaches to increasing early-age strengths are not mutually exclusive and any 

two or even all three can be employed in practice, depending on job requirements and materials’ 

availability.

5) The maturity method that has been well-established for OPC concretes applies equally well to 

HVFA concrete mixtures. A unique feature observed for HVFA mortars is that, unlike their OPC 

counterparts, long-term strength is enhanced by higher temperature curing.

6) Particularly for HVFA concrete mixtures, the necessity of testing for strength compliance 

at 28 d should be considered carefully. As shown in Figure 10, HVFA mixtures continue to 

develop significant additional strength beyond 28 d, so that if compliance testing can be 

postponed to 56 d or even 91 d, it is more likely that these economical and environmentally 

friendly HVFA mixtures (with less cementitious material) can be employed in practice.
30

Transport Properties and Durability

With the exception of deicer scaling issues (to be discussed subsequently), generally, the 

transport properties and durability of properly designed and prepared HVFA concretes can be

equal or superior to those of their corresponding 100 % OPC target mixtures. Often, lower 

replacements levels of fly ash (15 % to 25 %, for example) are used (or even actually mandated) 

to specifically address potential durability issues such as chloride diffusion, sulfate attack, or 

alkali-silica reaction by state DOT’s and others [7,23]. 

Some representative electrical property results for the ternary blend HVFA concretes 

discussed previously (Table 3) are provided in Figure 14 and Figure 15 for RCPT and surface 

resistivity testing, respectively [65]. In addition to the nine mixtures detailed in Table 3, six

additional ternary blend concrete mixtures were prepared. For the two 40 % replacement 

mixtures, w/cm was reduced by replacing water with sand, as detailed in Appendix C. For the 

60 % replacement mixtures, mixture proportions were modified both by lowering w/cm

(replacing water with the ternary blend of powders) and switching to a Type III cement, with two 

mixtures with differing w/cm being prepared for each fly ash. As can be observed in Figure 14, 

all of the ternary blends (with fine limestone) provide significant reductions in RCPT values, and 

corresponding increases in measured surface resistivities (Figure 15), both measured at 56 d. In 

seven cases, the HVFA concrete RCPT values are less than 1⁄2 of that measured for the reference 

100 % OPC w/c=0.40 concrete. Likewise, in these same seven HVFA mixtures, the measured 

surface resistivities are more than double the value measured for the 100 % OPC mixture. These 

measured increases in resistivity are likely due to several contributing causes, including the 

increased reactions (reduced capillary porosity) in the presence of the fine limestone, the 

formation of more voluminous carboaluminate reactions products (less capillary porosity 

again) [60], the reduction in diffusivity of pozzolanic (lower Ca/Si ratio) calcium silicate hydrate 

gel (C-S-H) relative to that of C-S-H formed from conventional cement hydration [58], and the 

increased resistivity of the pore solution in the HVFA concrete due to cement dilution and 

increased sorption of alkali (Na+ and K+

) ions by pozzolanic C-S-H and other reaction products 

formed in the presence of fly ash (and fine limestone) [72,73].

For mixtures containing fly ash, some of these same effects can contribute to their

increased resistance to deleterious expansion caused by alkali-silica reactions (ASR). According 

to Shafaatian et al. [74], among the many potential contributors to this performance 

enhancement, there are four significant factors in mixtures containing fly ash: 1) increased alkali 

binding, 2) mass transport reduction, 3) increased tensile strength, and 4) a reduction in the 

aggregate dissolution rate (due to a localized reduction in pH near the reactive aggregate 

surfaces). The utilization of fly ash to mitigate ASR is well known, as exemplified by the 

ACI 232.2R-03 document presenting the utilization of Class F fly ash at a 20 % to 25 % 

replacement level (mass basis) as a general preventive measure to be employed when acceptable 

ASR performance of the aggregates being used in a particular concrete mixture cannot be 

guaranteed [23].

The performance of high-volume fly ash concretes in applications where de-icing 

chemicals are applied has been a subject of concern for many years [75]. Often, under laboratory 

testing conditions, HVFA concretes exhibit increased spalling and mass loss in comparison to 
31

Figure 14. Measured cumulative charge passed (RCPT) at 56 d for the 15 concrete 

mixtures (taken from [65]). Coefficients of variation for three replicate specimens varied 

from 2.1 % to 19.1 % for the various mixtures.

Figure 15. Measured surface resistivity at 56 d for 15 concrete mixtures (taken from [65]). 

Coefficients of variation for three replicate specimens varied from 0.6 % to 9.9 % for the 

various mixtures.

corresponding 100 % OPC concrete mixtures, typically with similar air contents in both types of 

mixtures. It should be noted that to achieve similar air contents, it is usually necessary to increase 

the dosage of the air-entraining agent (AEA) in the HVFA concrete mixture [76,77], due to 

increased absorption of the AEA by the porous fly ash particles, particularly those containing a 

substantial content of carbon. Ley [76] has developed a methodology for determining the 

required AEA dosage based on a single concrete mixture that should be equally applicable to 

HVFA mixtures. Recently, Van den Heede et al. [78] have developed an HVFA concrete mixture 
32

that meets the relevant European salt scaling criterion, with a minimum air content of 6 % to 

7 %. On a per mass of binder basis, this formulation required 3.5 times the dosage of AEA 

typically used in a traditional control concrete. In such HVFA mixtures, air void stability is also 

a critical concern and the authors of the study recommended that for HVFA concrete mixtures, 

the air content be evaluated 60 min and 120 min after mixing, in addition to the conventional 

measurement conducted after 15 min.

Neuwald et al. [79] have hypothesized that the increased scaling behavior of HVFA 

concretes is due to the formation of a weak surface layer, one that often develops under 

laboratory conditions due to less than ideal curing, compounded with the inherently lower 

reactivity of most fly ashes in comparison to OPC. Poor curing practices produce a surface layer 

with enhanced porosity that is naturally more susceptible to subsequent scaling. Furthermore, in 

the presence of commonly employed chemical admixtures, such as AEAs and HRWRAs, the 

authors observed enhanced bleeding and separation of paste mixtures into two different density 

‘slurries,’ with the top layer being less dense (and hence weaker). They concluded that these 

processes would therefore be more likely to occur in higher slump HVFA concrete mixtures.

This separation would imply that this more porous top layer would 1) be able to absorb more of 

the deicer chemical solution and 2) would be weaker in resisting the (expansive) forces that 

occur upon freezing/thawing. Based on their observations, one could conclude that the scaling 

issues with HVFA concrete are not directly due to the presence of fly ash itself, but rather to 

issues of quality control and the lack of appropriate curing measures being applied in the field. 

Anecdotal evidence from numerous field exposures is that properly prepared, placed and cured 

HVFA concrete mixtures perform just as well as their OPC counterparts with respect to scaling 

in the presence of de-icing chemicals.

Relevance to Industry Practice:

1) In general, the transport properties and durability of properly cured HVFA concretes are 

superior to those of corresponding OPC mixtures.

2) Several factors contribute to the overall reduction in electrical conductivity (diffusivity) 

observed in HVFA concretes including a reduction in pore solution conductivity and the 

formation of pozzolanic C-S-H with an inherently lower conductivity than conventional C-S-H. 

In mixtures with fine limestone, additional contributions are provided by the enhanced degree of 

hydration and the formation of more voluminous carboaluminate reaction products, both of 

which decrease the capillary porosity of the ternary blend HVFA concrete mixture.

3) With respect to scaling in the presence of de-icing chemicals, inconsistencies remain between 

laboratory and field testing results and further research is needed to totally resolve these 

outstanding issues. The increased scaling of HVFA concretes in the laboratory seems to be often 

related to the formation of a weaker surface layer, due to less than ideal curing or the sensitivity 

of HVFA concretes with certain chemical admixtures to enhanced bleeding and settlement.
33

Mass Concrete Considerations

Some of the first applications of fly ash concretes were in the large dams constructed in 

the U.S between 1940 and 1970. In mass concrete, the slower (pozzolanic) reactions of the fly 

ash are a benefit in reducing the substantial early-age internal temperature rise that typically 

occurs within a mass OPC concrete. This reduced temperature rise will, in turn, reduce the 

propensity for: 1) early-age thermal cracking, 2) reduced in-place strengths due to higher 

temperature curing, and 3) the destabilization of ettringite (which can lead to problems with 

delayed ettringite formation, DEF, at a later age) [80]. This beneficial reduction in internal 

temperature is exemplified in the results provided in Figure 16 for HVFA mortars with and 

without IC [37]. At a fixed w/cm of 0.3 (likely below the value typically employed in mass 

concrete), all of the mixtures with fly ash exhibit a significantly lower and delayed temperature 

peak than that of the 100 % OPC control mortar. In comparison to the target w/c=0.42 control 

mortar, the 60 % replacement HVFA mortars exhibit about a 10 °C lower temperature peak that 

occurs after a 24 h delay with respect to the OPC concrete. The 40 % replacement HVFA 

mortars exhibit a similar temperature peak as the w/c=0.42 control OPC mortar, as a fairly 

reactive Class C fly ash was employed in the study, but the peak is delayed by approximately 

12 h, mainly due to the retardation produced by this particular Class C fly ash. Similar 

performance is exhibited in concretes containing either a Class C or a Class F fly ash, along with 

a fine limestone, as shown in Figure 17. In terms of cracking susceptibility, both the temperature 

extremes that are achieved and the heating/cooling rates are critical parameters. In this regard, it 

is worth noting that concrete temperature and stress development can be modeled using a variety 

of freely available software packages, such as HIPERPAV III [81] and ConcreteWorks [82].

Figure 16. Semi-adiabatic temperature rise of mortars with various additions of fly ash, with and 

without IC [37].
34

(a)

(b)

Figure 17. Semi-adiabatic calorimetry for: a) plain mixture and mixtures containing Class F fly 

ash and b) plain mixture and mixtures containing Class C fly ash [61]. Concrete mixture 

proportions can be found in Table 3.

In addition to reducing the rate of heat generation within a mass concrete element, the 

replacement of cement by fly ash will also change the thermophysical properties of the concrete 

mixture. This, along with the specific environmental boundary conditions, will in turn control 

how fast the generated heat can be dissipated from the mass concrete to its surroundings. While 

the specific heat capacity of HVFA mortars and concretes are similar to those of their OPC 

counterparts [83], both the density and the thermal conductivity of the HVFA composites are 

reduced due to the replacement of cement by the lower density fly ash. Because the thermal 

diffusivity that regulates how fast generated heat is dissipated is proportional to the ratio of these 

two properties, HVFA concretes could have a thermal diffusivity that is either higher or lower 

than that of a corresponding 100 % OPC concrete. In practice, measurements on a series of 

HVFA concretes with cement replacements levels varying from 0 % to 75 % on a mass basis and 

prepared with limestone aggregates have indicated that, for design purposes, a constant thermal 
35

diffusivity value of about 1 x 10-6 m

2

/s [83] can be employed. This is in contrast to a value of 

1.5 x 10 -6 m

2

/s presented by Tatro [84] as a typical value for the thermal diffusivity of concretes

with limestone aggregates. 

With respect to energy efficiency, the insulating properties of a building material are 

typically characterized by its thermal conductivity (as opposed to diffusivity), commonly 

converted to an R-value for classification and comparison purposes. In this case, the thermal 

conductivity of HVFA mortars and concretes are typically 10 % to 50 % lower than those of 

their corresponding 100 % OPC counterparts [83], which should lead to savings in 

heating/cooling costs for residential and commercial structures constructed using HVFA 

concretes.

Relevance to Industry Practice:

1) Some of the earliest uses of fly ash in the U.S. were driven by the objective of reducing the 

temperature rise experienced in massive concrete structures (dams). HVFA concretes continue to 

be a viable option to limit the temperature rise experienced in mass concrete elements.

2) Computer software packages [81,82] are freely available for downloading over the Internet for 

estimating the maximum temperature rise that will be experienced in a specified mass concrete 

structure.

3) While the thermal conductivity of HVFA concrete will typically be lower than that of a 

corresponding OPC concrete, their specific heat capacities and thermal diffusivities will be fairly 

similar. The lower thermal conductivity of HVFA concrete will provide benefits in terms of 

increased insulating capability and reduced heating/cooling costs; this is another example of how 

HVFA concretes can make a positive contribution to the overall sustainability of our built 

environment.
36

Summary and Prospectus

The results presented in this guide have demonstrated that HVFA concretes can offer 

substantial performance benefits, in addition to their sustainability advantages in terms of 

reductions in cost, embodied energy, and CO2 emissions. It must be recognized that HVFA 

concrete is a different material from conventional concrete and may therefore require new and/or 

different characterization, production, placement, and finishing procedures than have been 

conventionally employed by the construction industry. Published research data suggest that when 

proper attention is given to these concerns, HVFA concretes with equivalent or superior 

performance to that of the OPC concrete they are replacing can be achieved. While this report 

did not provide an extensive list of success stories using HVFA concretes, such a list is easily 

accessible in the fourth edition of the seminal reference on high-performance, high-volume fly 

ash concrete written by Malhotra and Mehta [1].

This report represents only a single snapshot in time with regards to the technology of

HVFA concrete and its acceptance by the construction industry. As indicated by the 2012 

NRMCA survey [2], fly ash usage in concrete has been continually increasing during the past 10 

years and it is hoped that the technologies and guidance provided in this report can contribute to 

an acceleration of this growth in the near future.
37

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. Douglas Burke of Naval Facilities, Mr. Ryan 

Henkenseifken of U.S. Concrete, and Ms. Lisa Simpson of Heritage Concrete for providing 

valuable input to the section on current practices. They also wish to acknowledge useful 

discussions with Prof. Jason Weiss of Purdue University and Dr. Jussara Tanesi of SES Group 

and Associates, LLC.
38

References

1) V.M. Malhotra and P.K. Mehta, High-Performance, High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete for 

Building Durable and Sustainable Structures, 4th Edition, Supplementary Cementing 

Materials for Sustainable Development, Inc., Ottawa (2012).

2) K.H. Obla, C.L. Lobo, and H. Kim, The 2012 NRMCA supplementary cementitious materials 

use survey, Concr. Infocus, Summer 2012.

3) L. Simpson, personal communication, Feb. 16, 2012.

4) R. Henkenseifken, personal communication, March 7, 2012.

5) D. Cross, J. Stephens, and M. Berry, Sustainable construction contributions from the treasure 

state, Concr. Inter. 32 (5), 41-46 (2010).

6) D.F. Burke, Development of Concrete Mixtures with High-Volume Fly Ash Cement 

Replacement, 2012 International Concrete Sustainability Conference, National Ready 

Mixed Concrete Association (2012) 12 pp.

7) C. Rao, R.D. Stehly, and A. Ardani, Proportioning Fly Ash as Cementitious Material in 

Airfield Pavement Concrete Mixtures, Report IPRF-01-G-002-06-2, Innovative 

Pavement Research Foundation (2011).

8) ASTM International, ASTM C618-12a Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or 

Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.

9) ) ASTM International, ASTM C311-11b Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Fly 

Ash or Natural Pozzolans for Use in Portland-Cement Concrete, West Conshohocken, 

PA, 2011.

10) D.P. Bentz, A. Duran-Herrera, and D. Galvez-Moreno, Comparison of ASTM C311 strength 

activity index testing vs. testing based on constant volumetric proportions, J. ASTM 

Inter. 9 (1), 7 pp. (2012).

11) R.S. Winburn, S.L. Lerach, B.R. Jarabek, M.A. Wisdom, D.G. Grier, and G.J. McCarthy, 

Quantitative XRD analysis of coal combustion by-products by the Rietveld method. 

Testing with standard mixtures, Adv. X-ray Anal. 42, 387-396 (2000).

12) D.P. Bentz, P.E. Stutzman, C.-J. Haecker, and S. Remond, SEM/X-ray imaging of cementbased materials, in Proceedings of the 7th Euroseminar on Microscopy Applied to 

Building Materials, Delft University of Technology, Delft (1999) 457-466.

13) B.G. Kutchko and A.G. Kim, Fly ash characterization by SEM-EDS, Fuel 85, 2537-2544 

(2006).
39

14) R.T. Chancey, P.E. Stutzman, M.C.G. Juenger, and D.W. Fowler, Comprehensive phase 

characterization of crystalline and amorphous phases of a Class F fly ash, Cem. Concr. 

Res. 40 (1), 146-156 (2010.)

15) K. Aughenbaugh, R.T. Chancey, P. Stutzman, M.C.G. Juenger, and D.W. Fowler, An 

examination of the reactivity of fly ash in cementitious pore solutions, Mater. Struct. 12 

pp. (2012) doi: 10.1617/s11527-012-9939-6.

16) X. Feng, E.J. Garboczi, D.P. Bentz, P.E. Stutzman, and T.O. Mason, T.O., Estimation of the 

degree of hydration of blended cements by a scanning electron microscopy pointcounting procedure, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (10), 1787-1793 (2004).

17) M. Ben Haha, K., De Weerdt, and B. Lothenbach, Quantification of the degree of reaction of 

fly ash, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (11), 1620-1629 (2010).

18) N. De Belie, G. Baert, and G. De Schutter, Modeling of microstructure of portland cement: 

Fly ash binders based on calorimetric and thermogravimetric experiments, in Proceedings 

of the 13th ICCC International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement, Madrid, Spain

(2011) 1-7.

19) S. Ohsawa, K. Asaga, S. Goto, and M. Daimon, Quantitative determination of fly ash in 

hydrated fly ash-CaSO4-2H2O-Ca(OH)2 system, Cem. Concr. Res. 15, 357-366 (1985).

20) S. Li, D.M. Roy, and A. Kumar, Quantitative determination of pozzolans in hydrated 

systems of cement or Ca(OH)2 with fly ash or silica fume, Cem. Concr. Res. 15, 1079-

1086 (1985).

21) L. Lam, Y. L. Wong, and C.S. Poon, Degree of hydration and gel/space ratio of high-volume 

fly ash/cement systems, Cem. Concr. Res. 30, 747-756 (2000).

22) ACI Committee 211, ACI 211.1-91 (Reapproved 2009) Standard Practice for Selecting 

Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete, American Concrete Institute, 

Farmington Hill, MI, 2009.

23) ACI Committee 232, ACI 232.2R-03 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete, American Concrete 

Institute, Farmington Hill, MI, 2003.

24) A. Schwartzentruber and C. Catherine, La méthode du mortier de béton équivalent (MBE) –

Un nouvel outil d’aide á la formulation des bétons adjuvantés, Mater. Struct. 33, 475-482 

(2000).

25) E.P. Koehler and D.W. Fowler, ICAR Proportioning Procedure for Self-Consolidating 

Concrete, International Center for Aggregates Research, Austin, TX, 2007, 22 pp.
40

26) D.P. Bentz, C.F. Ferraris, I. De la Varga, M.A. Peltz, and J. Winpigler, Mixture 

proportioning options for improving high volume fly ash concretes, Inter. J. Pavement 

Res. Tech. 3 (5), 234-240 (2010). 

27) ASTM International, ASTM C1679-09 Standard Practice for Measuring Hydration Kinetics 

of Hydraulic Cementitious Mixtures Using Isothermal Calorimetry, West Conshohocken, 

PA, 2009.

28) V.T. Cost and G. Knight, Use of thermal measurements to detect potential incompatibilities 

of common concrete materials, in Concrete Heat Development Monitoring Prediction and 

Management, ACI SP-241-4 (CD-ROM) (2007) 39-58.

29) M.D. Niemuth, L. Barcelo, and J. Weiss, Effect of fly ash on optimum sulfate levels 

measured using heat and strength at early ages, Adv. Civil Eng. Mater. 1 (1), 1-18 (2012)

doi:10.1520/ACEM20120012.

30) D.P. Bentz, Powder additions to mitigate retardation in high volume fly ash mixtures, ACI 

Mater. J. 107 (5), 508-514 (2010).

31) D.P. Bentz, T. Sato, I. De la Varga, and J. Weiss, Fine limestone additions to regulate setting 

in high volume fly ash mixtures, Cem. Concr. Comp. 34 (1), 11-17 (2012).

32) L.R. Roberts and P.C. Taylor, Understanding cement-SCM-admixture interaction issues,

Concr. Inter. 29 (1), 33-41 (2007).

33) J. Tanesi, A. Ardani, R. Meininger, and N. Nicolaescu, Evaluation of High-Volume Fly Ash 

(HVFA) Mixtures (Paste and Mortar Components) Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer 

(DSR) and Isothermal Calorimeter, Report No. PB2012-112546, National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, VA, 2012.

34) D.P. Bentz, Influence of Curing Conditions on Water Loss and Hydration in Cement Pastes 

with and without Fly Ash Substitution, NISTIR 6886, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

July 2002.

35) T. Özturan and M.E. Baştopçu, Effect of curing on durability of fly ash concrete, in 

Durability of Concrete, Proceedings Sixth International Conference, ACI SP-212,

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI (2003) 353-368.

36) D.P. Bentz and W.J. Weiss, Internal Curing: A 2010 State-of-the-Art Review, NISTIR 7765, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, February 2011.

37) I. De la Varga, J. Castro, D. Bentz, and J. Weiss, Application of internal curing for mixtures 

containing high volumes of fly ash, Cem. Concr. Comp. 34 (9), 1001-1008 (2012).

38) B. Mather, Self curing concrete, why not?, Concr. Inter. 23 (1), 46-47 (2001).
41

39) C.F. Ferraris and F. de Larrard, Testing and Modelling of Fresh Concrete Rheology, NISTIR 

6094, U.S. Department of Commerce, February 1998. Available at:

http://ciks.cbt.nist.gov/~garbocz/rheologyNISTIR/

40) N. Roussel and P. Coussot, Fifty-cent rheometer” for yield stress measurements: From slump 

to spreading flow, J. Rheol. 49, 705 (2005) doi: 10.1122/1.1879041.

41) S. Chidiac, F. Habibbeigi, and D. Chan, Slump and slump flow for characterizing yield value 

of fresh concrete, ACI Mater. J. 103, 413-418 (2006).

42) C.F. Ferraris and L. Brower, eds., Comparison of Concrete Rheometers: International Tests 

at LCPC (Nantes, France) in October 2000, NISTIR 6819, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, September 2001. Available at: 

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build01/PDF/b01074.pdf

43) C.F. Ferraris and L. Brower, eds., Comparison of Concrete Rheometers: International Tests 

at MB (Cleveland OH, USA) in May 2003, NISTIR 7154, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, September 2004. Available at: 

http://ciks.cbt.nist.gov/~ferraris/PDF/DraftRheo2003V11.4.pdf

44) C.F. Ferraris, K. Obla, and R. Hill, The influence of mineral admixtures on the rheology of 

cement paste and concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 31 (2), 245-255 (2001).

45) K.H. Khayat, A. Yahia, and M. Sayed, Effect of supplementary cementitious materials on 

rheological properties, bleeding, and strength of structural grouts, ACI Mater. J. 105, 

585-593 (2008).

46) V.G. Jimenez-Quero, F.M. Leon-Martinez, P. Montes-Garcia, C. Gaona-Tiburcio, and J.G. 

Chacon-Nava, Influence of sugar-cane ash and fly ash on the rheological behavior of 

cement pastes and mortars, Constr. Building Mater. 40, 691-701 (2013).

47) S.H. Lee, H.J. Kim, E. Sakai, and M. Daimon, Effect of particle size distribution of fly ash–

cement system on the fluidity of cement pastes, Cem. Concr. Res. 33, 763-768 (2003).

48) A.K.H. Kwan and Y. Li, Effects of fly ash microsphere on rheology, adhesiveness and 

strength of mortar, Constr. Building Mater. 42, 137-145 (2013).

49) P. Termkhajornkit and T. Nawa, The fluidity of fly ash-cement paste containing naphthalene 

sulfonate superplasticizer, Cem. Concr. Res. 34, 1017-1024 (2004).

50) D.P. Bentz, C.F. Ferraris, M.A. Galler, A.S. Hansen, and J.M. Guynn, Influence of particle 

size distributions on yield stress and viscosity of cement-fly ash pastes, Cem. Concr. Res.

42 (2), 404-409 (2012).
42

51) N.A. Libre, R. Khoshnazar, and M. Shekarchi, Relationship between fluidity and stability of 

self-consolidating mortar incorporating chemical and mineral admixtures, Constr. 

Building Mater. 24 1262-1271 (2010).

52) V.T. Cost, Concrete sustainability versus constructability – Closing the gap, in Proceedings 

of the 2011 International Concrete Sustainability Conference, Boston, MA (2011)

available at: http://www.nrmcaevents.org/?nav=display&file=189.

53) K.P. Keith and A.K. Schlinder, Phase II – Task 3 Setting and Temperature Development, 

Final Report for Project BAA No. DTFH61-08-R-0034 Greatly Increased Use of Fly Ash 

in Hydraulic Cement Concrete (HCC) for Pavement Layers and Transportation Structures 

(2012).

54) D.P. Bentz and C.F. Ferraris, Rheology and setting of high volume fly ash mixtures, Cem. 

Concr. Comp. 32 (4), 265-270 (2010).

55) T.J. Looney, M. Arezoumandi, J.S. Volz, and J.J. Myers, An experimental study on bond 

strength of reinforcing steel in high-volume fly-ash concrete, Adv. Civil Eng. Mater. 1

(1), 1-17 (2012) doi:10.1520/ACEM20120026.

56) V.T. Cost and P. Bohme, Synergies of portland-limestone cements and their potential for 

concrete performance enhancement, in Proceedings of the 2012 International Concrete 

Sustainability Conference, Seattle, WA (2012).

57) L. Gurney, D.P. Bentz, T. Sato, and W.J. Weiss, Using limestone to reduce set retardation in 

high volume fly ash mixtures: Improving constructability for sustainability, Trans. Res. 

Rec.: J. Trans. Res. Board 2290, 139-146 (2012).

58) K. De Weerdt, K.O. Kjellsen, E. Sellevold, and H. Justnes, Synergy between fly ash and 

limestone powder in ternary cements, Cem. Concr. Comp. 33 (1), 30-38 (2011).

59) K. De Weerdt, M. Ben Haha, G. Le Saout, K.O. Kjellsen, H. Justnes, and B. Lothenbach, 

Hydration mechanisms of ternary portland cements containing limestone powder and fly 

ash, Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (3), 279-291 (2011).

60) P. Mounanga, M.I.A. Khokhar, R. El Hachem, and A. Loukili, Improvement of the early-age 

reactivity of fly ash and blast furnace slag cementitious systems using limestone filler,

Mater. Struct. 44, 437-453 (2011).

61) J. Tanesi, D.P. Bentz, and A. Ardani, Enhancing high volume fly ash concretes using fine 

limestone powder, in Green Cements, ACI SP - , Minneapolis, MN (2013).

62) J. Moon, J.E. Oh, M. Balonis, F.P. Glasser, S.M. Clark, and P.J.M. Monteiro, High pressure 

study of low compressibility tetracalcium aluminum carbonate hydrates 

3CaO·Al2O3·CaCO3·11H2O, Cem. Concr. Res. 42, 105-110 (2012).
43

63) D.A. Abrams, Design of Concrete Mixtures, Bulletin 1, Structural Materials Research 

Laboratory, Lewis Institute, Chicago, 1918, 20 pp.

64) R. Feret, Sur la compacité des mortiers hydraulique, Ann. Ponts Chaussées 7 (4), 5-164 

(1892). 

65) D.P. Bentz, J. Tanesi, and A. Ardani, A., Ternary blends for controlling cost and carbon 

content: High-volume fly ash mixtures can be enhanced with additions of limestone 

powder, Concr. Inter. 35 (8), 51-59 (2013).

66) K. Obla, S. Upadhyaya, D. Goulias, A. Schindler, and N.J. Carino, New Technology-Based 

Approach to Advance Higher Volume Fly Ash Concrete with Acceptable Performance, 

Final Report, National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, August 2008.

67) N.J. Carino, The maturity method: Theory and application, Cem. Concr. Agg. 6 (2), 61-73 

(1984).

68) ASTM International, ASTM C1074-11 Standard Practice for Estimating Concrete Strength 

by the Maturity Method, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011.

69) D.P. Bentz, T. Barrett, I. De la Varga, and W.J. Weiss, Relating compressive strength to heat 

release in mortars, Adv. Civil Eng. Mater. 1 (1), 1-14 (2012)

doi:10.1520/ACEM20120002.

70) T.J. Barrett and W.J. Weiss Performance of More Sustainable Cements that Include 

Interground Limestone Additions of up to 15 %, Joint Transportation Research Program, 

2012.

71) D.P. Bentz, O.M. Jensen, A.M. Coats, and F.P. Glasser, Influence of silica fume on 

diffusivity in cement-based materials. I. Experimental and computer modeling studies on 

cement pastes, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (7), 1121-1129 (2000).

72) H.F.W. Taylor, A method for predicting alkali ion concentrations in cement pore solutions,

Adv. Cem. Res. 1 (1), 5-16 (1987).

73) E. Schafer and B. Meng, Influence of cement and additions on the quantity of alkalis 

available for an alkali-silica reaction, Beton, 577-584 (2001).

74) S.M.H. Shafaatian, A. Akhavan, H. Maraghechi, and F. Rajabipour, How does fly ash 

mitigate alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in accelerated mortar bar test (ASTM C1567), Cem. 

Concr. Comp. 37, 143-157 (2013).

75) W.F. Perenchio and P. Klieger, Further Laboratory Studies of Portland-Pozzolan Cements, 

RD041.01T, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1976.
44

76) M.T. Ley, Determining the air-entraining admixture dosage response for concrete with a 

single concrete mixture, J. ASTM Inter. 7 (2), 11 pp. (2010).

77) T. Ley, N.J. Harris, K.J. Folliard, and K.C. Hover, Investigation of required air entraining 

admixture dosage in fly ash concrete, ACI Mater. J. 105 (5), 494-498 (2008).

78) P. Van den Heede, J. Furniere, and N. De Belie, Influence of air entraining agents on deicing 

salt scaling resistance and transport properties of high-volume fly ash concrete, Cem. 

Concr. Comp. 37, 293-303 (2013).

79) A. Neuwald, A. Krishnan, J. Weiss, J. Olek, and T. Nantung, Concrete curing and its 

relationship to measured scaling in concrete containing fly ash, in Transportation 

Research Board 82nd Annual Meeting Compendium of papers (CD-ROM), Washington 

D.C., January 12-16, 2003.

80) ACI Committee 207, ACI 207.1R-05 Guide to Mass Concrete, American Concrete Institute, 

Farmington Hills, MI, 2005.

81) http://www.hiperpav.com [accessed 02/21/13].

82) http://www.texasconcreteworks.com [accessed 02/21/13].

83) D.P. Bentz, M.A. Peltz, A. Durán-Herrera, P. Valdez, and C. Juárez, Thermal properties of 

high-volume fly ash mortars and concretes, J. Building Phys. 34 (3), 263-275 (2011).

84) S.B. Tatro, Thermal Properties, In: J.F. Lamond and J.H. Pielert (eds.) ASTM STP 169DSignificance of Tests and Properties of Concrete & Concrete Making Materials, Chapter 

22, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (2006) 226-237.
45

Appendix A. Flowchart for Proportioning HVFA Concrete Mixtures

Mixture Proportioning Procedure

1. Identify the compressive strength requirement(s): cylinder strength vs. age

2. Identify the components and proportions of a trial mixture (for estimating an initial trial w/cm see Appendix D)

3. Cast pastes and mortars: 

a. Use calorimetry to achieve optimal sulfate content and ensure compatibility (ASTM C1679 and ASTM C1702)

b. Determine the initial and final setting times (ASTM C191 or ASTM C403)

c. Use rheometry to preliminarily evaluate workability

4. Prepare concrete and cast cylinders, prisms, and rings

a. Measure unit weight, air content, slump (and workability)

b. Sieve mortars to verify setting times (ASTM C403) and measure autogenous shrinkage (ASTM C1698)

c. Determine strength vs. age (ASTM C39)

d. Shrinkage test (ASTM C157) on concrete prisms to evaluate drying shrinkage

e. Ring test (ASTM C1581) on concrete to evaluate cracking propensity

f. Test for any other performance specifications

5. Modify mixture to meet performance specifications

a. Long-Term Strength: modify w/cm and/or replace part of fly ash with fine limestone

b. Early-Age Strength: switch to a Type III cement, reduce w/cm, and/or use a chemical accelerator

c. Setting Times: replace part of fly ash with fine limestone powder

d. Shrinkage: employ internal curing (ASTM C1608 and ASTM C1791) or shrinkage-reducing admixture (SRA)

e. Rheology: modify HRWA dosage

This process is shown schematically below as a flow table (adapted from reference 26).
46
47

Appendix B. Steps in Proportioning HVFA Concrete Mixtures with 

Acceptable (Equivalent) Early-Age Performance

Performance characteristics to achieve (meet specified targets):

- Slump

- Air content

- Setting time (finishing, etc.)

- Early-age strength (1 d, 3 d, etc.)

- 28 d strength

- 28 d durability (rapid chloride penetrability (RCPT) or other)

- Drying shrinkage at 28 d or 56 d

Preliminary steps:

1) Characterize all powders (cement, fly ash, limestone, others) with respect to their specific 

gravity (ASTM C188 [B1] or other)3

2) Assess cement/fly ash/admixture compatibility using calorimetry (ASTM C1679 standard 

practice for isothermal calorimetry [B2] or the semi-adiabatic equivalent that is currently under 

draft by ASTM); find a set of compatible materials including high range water reducer (HRWR)

for expected proportions of cement and fly ash (and other supplementary cementitious materials, 

SCM), a trial water-to-cementitious materials ratio (w/cm), and expected HRWR dosage

Mixture proportioning:

1) Use a volumetric-based proportioning method such as the aggregate suspension proportioning 

method developed by Koehler [B3], with recommended air entrainer addition (from chemical 

admixture manufacturer) to achieve targeted air content,

2) Specify desired volumetric replacement(s) of cement by other powders (fly ash, limestone, 

etc.),

3) Select a trial w/cm ratio and determine volume fractions of water and all cementitious 

(powder) components,

4) Prepare trial mixture and measure performance characteristics,

5) Adjust mixture proportions to obtain desired characteristics,

a) if setting time is too long, it can be decreased by replacing a portion of the fly ash with 

fine limestone powder (optimally about 1 μm median diameter powder); usually in 

the 5 % to 15 % of total powder volume range

b) if early age strength is too low options include

i) switch to a Type III cement and first re-evaluate existing mixture with Type III,

ii) lower w/cm (or water-to-cement ratio, w/c) based on a plot of strength vs. heat 

release per mL of water (see Appendix C for the detailed derivations); by 

 3 Helium pycnometry can also be employed to measure particle (powder) density. While differences between helium 

pycnometry and ASTM C188 values for cements are generally on the order of 2 % or less, for more porous fly 

ashes, these differences are typically on the order of 10 % (with the C188 test method consistently giving a lower 

density than the helium pycnometry, due to the slow absorption of the C188 immersion fluid by the fine pores/voids 

within the fly ash particles). It is likely the C188 test method value that is of relevance with respect to volumetricbased mixture proportioning.
48

decreasing water and increasing cement (cementitious binder) volume fractions,

the necessary w/c to achieve a projected desired cumulative heat release can be 

computed as a change in volume fractions of cement and water as detailed in 

Appendix C

6) Prepare revised mixture proportions and adjust slump to meet specified target via 

increase/decrease in HRWR(s) (be sure that all ingredients remain compatible at the new HRWR 

dosage(s)). With these adjustments, 28 d strength and RCPT will seldom have a problem in 

meeting specified values (however, if they do, further reductions in w/cm may be warranted).

7) If measured drying shrinkage is unacceptable, options include incorporating a shrinkagereducing admixture (be sure to re-evaluate compatibility of all ingredients together), providing 

internal curing via the addition of pre-wetted lightweight fine aggregates, or some combination 

of these two.
49

References:

B1) ASTM C188-09 Standard Test Method for Density of Hydraulic Cement, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009.

B2) ASTM C1679-09 Standard Practice for Measuring Hydration Kinetics of Hydraulic 

Cementitious Mixtures Using Isothermal Calorimetry, ASTM International, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 2009.

B3) E.P. Koehler and D.W. Fowler, ICAR Proportioning Procedure for Self-Consolidating 

Concrete, International Center for Aggregates Research, Austin, TX, 2007, 22 pp.
50

Appendix C. Adjusting Mixture Proportions (w/cm) Based on Heat 

Release Data and Desired Early-Age Strength

Assumptions: In the following derivation, it is assumed that heat release at early ages (1 d or 3 d) 

is controlled by cement hydration with only minor contributions coming from fly ash (and/or 

limestone) reactions. If these materials are contributing to early-age strength, the presented 

procedure should be conservative and the obtained strengths should further exceed the desired 

levels. It is further assumed that a linear relationship has been established between cumulative 

heat release on a per mL mixing water basis and measured compressive strengths for the 

concrete of interest [C1].

Based on the measured and desired (projected) compressive strengths, the user 

determines the value of HRp, the projected heat release needed to provide the projected 

compressive strength (from the established linear relationship; see Figure 12 and Figure 13 for 

examples). Heat release per mL water is proportional to cement content and inversely 

proportional to water content (volume fraction). 

Thus, the derivation begins from:

HRp = HRm Vw

m

Vw

p

Vc

p

Vc

m (C-1)

where HR is the cumulative heat release in J/mL water, V is volume fraction, the subscripts w

and c refer to water and cement, respectively, and the superscripts p and m refer to projected 

(desired) and measured, respectively.

To achieve the desired strength, the simplest approach is to replace water by cement 

(assuming that more strength is needed; if the converse is the case, one could replace cement by 

water or consider replacing cement by fly ash and/or limestone in which case equation C-1 

would not contain the water volume fraction ratio term).

But, if replacing cement by water on a volumetric basis, one has

Vc

p = Vc

m + ∆V (C-2)

Vw

p = Vw

m − ∆V (C-3)

where ΔV is the computed volume fraction change for which a solution is desired.

Equation C-1 then becomes

HRp = HRm Vw

m

Vw

m−∆V

Vc

m+∆V

Vc

m (C-4)

Equation C-4 can be solved for ΔV, as

∆V = Vc

m(

HRp

HRm−1)

1+

HRp

HRm

Vc

m

Vw

m

(C-5)
51

Then, the new volume fractions of cement and water can be obtained from equations C-2 and 

C-3. Note that this replacement of water with cement will change the volumetric ratio of cement: 

fly ash: limestone in a ternary blend, etc.

Alternatively, if one desires to keep the volumetric ratios of cement: fly ash: limestone 

constant as the concrete mixture is redesigned to increase strength (perhaps a more sustainable 

approach), equations C-2 and C-3 would become:

Vc

p = Vc

m + γ∆V (C-2a)

Vw

p = Vw

m − ∆V (C-3a)

where γ is the volume fraction of cement per total volume of solids (cement, fly ash, and/or 

limestone in the current mixture proportions). Then,

HRp = HRm Vw

m

Vw

m−∆V

Vc

m+γ∆V

Vc

m (C-4a)

and

∆V = Vc

m(

HRp

HRm−1)

γ+

HRp

HRm

Vc

m

Vw

m

 (C-5a)

Fly ash and limestone would also be increased to maintain the constant volumetric ratio of 

cement: fly ash: limestone as,

VFA

p = VFA

m + α∆V (C-6a)

VLP

p = VLP

m + β∆V (C-7a)

where the subscripts FA and LP refer to fly ash and limestone powder, respectively, and α and β

refer to the volume fractions of fly ash and limestone in the total powder, respectively. By 

definition, α+β+γ=1.

A third option to consider is the replacement of water by fine aggregate, so as not to have 

to increase the cement content of the mixture at all [C2]. In this case, one has:

Vc

p = Vc

m (C-2b)

Vw

p = Vw

m − ∆V (C-3b)

HRp = HRm Vw

m

Vw

m−∆V (C-4b)

∆V = Vw

m �

HRp

HRm − 1� (C-5b)
52

References:

C1) D.P. Bentz, T. Barrett, I. De la Varga, and W.J. Weiss, Relating compressive strength to heat 

release in mortars, Adv. Civil Eng. Mater. 1 (1), 1-14 (2012) 

doi:10.1520/ACEM20120002.

C2) D. Bentz, J. Tanesi, and A. Ardani, Ternary blends for controlling cost and carbon content: 

High-volume fly ash mixtures can be enhanced with additions of limestone powder, 

Conc. Inter., 35 (8), 51-59 (2013).
53

Appendix D. Choosing an Initial Trial w/cm Based on Strength-Heat 

Release Relationships

Often, a ready-mix producer will have an intuitive notion for the initial w/cm to use in a 

trial HVFA concrete mixture in pursuit of a given set of strength criteria. Generally, this intuition 

will be based on experience with local materials and the performance of past OPC and lower fly 

ash content blended cement concrete mixtures. When such intuition (experience) is lacking, one 

approach to choosing an initial w/cm for trial mixtures is based on the strength-heat release 

relationships mentioned previously. This approach assumes that to an age of 28 d, the primary 

contributor to the strength development in an HVFA concrete mixture is the reaction of the 

portland cement component, with fly ash and limestone powder potentially contributing by 

accelerating the cement hydration and/or participating in the hydration and pozzolanic reactions.

Some example data sets illustrating recently measured strength-heat release relationships 

are provided in Figure 18. The data points represent results for concretes prepared at the TurnerFairbanks Highway Research Center (TFHRC) in a recent Federal Highway 

Administration/National Institute of Standards and Technology (FHWA/NIST) collaborative 

study [65], where 14 different HVFA mixtures and two OPC (control) mixtures were evaluated 

for compressive strength and cumulative heat release, the latter always being measured on mortar 

specimens (prepared directly or sieved from the concrete). For these mixtures, both the coarse 

and fine aggregates were siliceous. In Figure 18, the line indicated as ‘Purdue’ data [70] 

represents the best fit [69] relationship for compressive strengths measured on OPC concretes

with and without limestone powder replacement for cement, with heat release measured on 

equivalent mortars. In this case, the concrete mixtures were all prepared with a limestone coarse 

aggregate and silica sand. For both concrete data sets, no air-entraining agents were employed, 

but an HRWRA (different for the two sets of concretes) was used to obtain slumps on the order 

of 50 mm to 100 mm. To first order, the results presented in Figure 18 suggest that at equivalent 

heat release values, the compressive strength of concrete with the limestone coarse aggregate is 

about 1000 psi (6.895 MPa) higher than that of one prepared with the siliceous aggregates, in 

general agreement with results reported previously and usually attributed to better bonding 

between the hydrating cement paste and the limestone aggregate [D1] (although any elastic 

moduli differences between the two types of aggregates could also contribute to measured 

strength differences); of course, for the data in Figure 18, the concretes were also prepared with 

different cements, water sources, etc.

Using Figure 18, or its equivalent for local materials when available, an approach to 

estimating an initial w/cm for trial mixtures can be formulated as follows. An equation must be 

available relating strength to heat release, along with some estimate of the heat 

release (J/g cement) vs. curing age characteristics of the cement being employed in the mixtures. 

For example, for the TFHRC concrete data in Figure 18, the best fit linear relationship is given 

by:

strength(psi) = (-2046.1) + 10.408*heat(J/mL water) (D-1).
54

Figure 18. Measured concrete compressive strength vs. measured cumulative heat release 

(per unit volume of water) used to establish a strength-heat release linear relationship

(dashed line, R2=0.91) for choosing mixture proportions [65]. Purdue data is taken 

from [69].

Alternately, for the concretes with a limestone aggregate (Purdue data in Figure 18), the linear 

relationship is shown as:

strength (psi)= (-254.28) + 10.167*heat(J/mL water) (D-2).

In either of these equations, the heat(J/mL water) term can be replaced by:

heat(J/mL water)=heat(J/g cement)*(1+XFA)*(1+XLP)/(w/c) (D-3)

where heat(J/g cement) is the measured, known, or hypothesized heat release per unit mass of 

cement, X represents a strength enhancement factor for the fly ash (FA) and limestone powder 

(LP, when present) components of a ternary blend and w/c represents the mass-based ratio of 

water to cement, as usual. Here, we are approximating the density of water to be 1000 kg/m3 (or 

1 g/mL). The potential exists for estimating the required strength enhancement factor for the fly 

ash from the results of ASTM C311 strength activity index testing, particularly if this testing 

were to be converted from mass-based replacement and constant flow conditions to volumebased replacements and constant volume proportions as discussed in the Characterization section 

of this report [10]. A calibration of this approach to the TFHRC data in Figure 18 has produced 

the strength enhancement factors provided in Table 4 for the specific materials employed in that 

study [65]. These factors could vary significantly depending on the characteristics of the specific 

fly ash and limestone powder being utilized and therefore, the values in Table 4 should only be 

viewed as generic approximations to be employed in the absence of more definitive information.

For each age for which a required compressive strength is specified, an equation similar 

to D-1 or D-2 can be solved for the necessary heat release value and then equation D-3 solved for 

the necessary value of w/c. Once these w/c values are obtained for the different required ages, the 

0.0

13.8

27.6

41.4

55.2

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Compressive strength (psi)

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Compressive strength (MPa)

Heat (J/mL of water)

TFHRC concrete - gravel aggregate

Purdue concrete – limestone aggregate
55

minimum value from the set could be selected as the initial trial w/c for the mixture. This would 

then be converted to volumetric fractions of water, cement, fly ash, and limestone powder (when 

present), using the desired volumetric proportions of cement:fly ash:limestone. These volumetric 

proportions could also be used to compute the w/cm and water-to-powder ratio (w/p) of the trial 

mixture, if desired. However, to solve equation D-3 for w/c, the heat release of the cement being 

used as a function of curing age must be known or estimated. In the absence of measured data for 

the cement of interest, recommended ranges of values for Type I/II and Type III cements (based 

on cement pastes of these types with w/c=0.4 measured via isothermal calorimetry at NIST and 

FHWA) are provided in Table 5. If the trial mixture water content is too low to produce a 

workable concrete (even with the use of HRWRA), options would include switching to a 

Type III cement or incorporating fine limestone powder into the mixture, if these strategies were 

not already being employed in the proposed mixture proportions.

Table 4. Strength Enhancement Factors vs. Age as Estimated from Data in [65].

Age (d) Class F fly ash (XFFA) Class C fly ash (XCFA) Limestone powder (XLP)

1 0.0 0.12 0.12

3 0.0 0.12 0.12

7 0.0 0.12 0.12

28 0.08 0.20 0.12

Table 5. Recommended Heat Release Ranges vs. Age For Various ASTM C150 Cement 

Types.

Age (d) Type I/II cement Type III cement

1 190 J/g to 220 J/g 250 J/g to 285 J/g

3 240 J/g to 300 J/g 275 J/g to 350 J/g

7 275 J/g to 330 J/g 305 J/g to 365 J/g

28 350 J/g 375 J/g

An example of employing this approach with the FHWA/NIST concrete data is provided 

in Figure 19. It must be kept in mind that the strength enhancement factors were calibrated using 

the results for the mixtures prepared with the Type I/II cement from this same data set. Still, the 

predicted strength values are quite close to the measured values, the former generally falling 

within 500 psi (3.45 MPa) of the latter. The worst predictions are obtained for the lower w/cm (≤ 

0.4) mixtures using the Class C fly ash, where the measured strengths are significantly higher 

than those predicted by this approach. This is likely due to alkali activation of this fly ash that 

would be increased as w/cm is lowered and that is not accounted for in the current approach. 

However, because the measured strengths are higher than the predicted values, this approach to 

selecting an initial w/c (w/cm) for a trial mixture would still be a conservative one.
56

Figure 19. Measured vs. predicted strength for concrete mixtures from the FHWA/NIST 

study [65], based on the outlined approach. 1000 psi = 6.895 MPa. The solid line indicates a 

one-to-one relationship while the dashed lines represent ± 500 psi from this line of equality.

References:

D1) C.W. French and A. Mokhtarzadeh, High strength concrete: Effects of materials, curing and 

test procedures on short-term compressive strength, PCI J. 38 (3), 76-87 (1993).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Predicted strength (psi)

Measured strength (psi)

OPC - Type I/II

OPC - Type III

F ash - Type I/II

F ash - Type III

C ash - Type I/II

C ash - Type III

C ash - low w/cm