FOREWORD 

In 1993, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiated a national program to implement the use of highperformance concrete (HPC) in bridges. The program included the construction of demonstration bridges throughout 

the United States. In addition, other States have implemented the use of HPC in various bridge elements. The 

construction of these bridges has provided a large amount of data on the use of HPC. 

The first part of this project involved collecting and compiling information from each joint State-FHWA HPC 

bridge project and other HPC bridge projects. The compilation is available on a CD-ROM and includes information 

on the benefits of HPC, costs, structural design, specified concrete properties, concrete mix proportions, measured 

properties, associated research projects, sources of data, and specifications. Information from 19 bridges in 14 States 

is included. A summary of the compiled information is provided in this final report. 

The second part of this project involved a review of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 

the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design 

(LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications for provisions 

that directly impact the use of HPC. The detailed review is included in this report. 

The third part of the project involved developing proposed revisions to the AASHTO specifications where sufficient 

research results exist to support the revisions. Proposed revisions to 15 material specifications, 14 test methods, 30 

articles of the standard design specifications, 17 articles of the LRFD design specifications, and 16 articles of the 

LRFD construction specifications are included in this report. These proposed revisions were submitted to the 

appropriate AASHTO technical committees for consideration for adoption into the relevant specifications. 

Also in the third part of this project, a new material specification for combined aggregates and a new test method for 

slump flow are proposed. In addition, proposed revisions to the FHWA definition of HPC are included. 

The fourth part of the project involved developing specific recommendations for needed research where sufficient 

results do not exist to support needed changes in the specifications. Six research problem statements related to 

concrete materials and four research problem statements related to structural design are recommended. These 

research problem statements have been submitted to the appropriate Transportation Research Board technical 

committees for prioritization and funding recommendations. 

Gary L. Henderson 

Director, Office of Infrastructure 

 Research and Development 

NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of 

information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not 

constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ names appear in this 

report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document. 

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT 

FHWA provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes 

public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and 

integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement. 
 Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FHWA-HRT-05-057 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

October 2006 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Compilation and Evaluation of Results From High-Performance Concrete 

Bridge Projects, Volume II: Final Report 6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

H.G. Russell, R.A. Miller, H.C. Ozyildirim, and M.K. Tadros 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization’s Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

Henry G. Russell, Inc. 

720 Coronet Road 

Glenview, IL 60025

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-00-C-00009

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

November 1999-February 2003 

12. Sponsoring Agency’s Name and Address 

Federal Highway Administration 

6300 Georgetown Pike 

McLean, VA 22101-2296 14. Sponsoring Agency’s Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR): Joseph L. Hartmann, HRDI-06 

16. Abstract 

In 1993, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiated a national program to implement the use of highperformance concrete (HPC) in bridges. The program included the construction of demonstration bridges throughout the 

United States. In addition, other States have implemented the use of HPC in various bridge elements. The construction of 

these bridges has provided a large amount of data on the use of HPC. 

The first part of this project involved collecting and compiling information from each joint State-FHWA HPC bridge 

project and other HPC bridge projects. The compilation is available on a CD-ROM and includes information on the 

benefits of HPC, costs, structural design, specified concrete properties, concrete mix proportions, measured properties, 

associated research projects, sources of data, and specifications. Information from 19 bridges in 14 States is included. A 

summary of the compiled information is provided in this final report. 

The second part of this project involved a review of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, the 

AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) 

Bridge Design Specifications, and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications for provisions that directly 

impact the use of HPC. The detailed review is included in this report. 

The third part of the project involved the development of proposed revisions to the AASHTO specifications where 

sufficient research results exist to support the revisions. Proposed revisions to 15 material specifications, 14 test 

methods, 30 articles of the standard design specifications, 17 articles of the LRFD design specifications, and 16 articles 

of the LRFD construction specifications are included in this report. In addition, a new materials specification for 

combined aggregates and a new test method for slump flow are proposed. Proposed revisions to the FHWA definition of 

HPC are also included. 

The fourth part of the project involved the development of specific recommendations for needed research where 

sufficient results do not exist to support needed changes in the specifications. Six research problem statements related to 

concrete materials and four research problems related to structural design are recommended. 

The final report associated with these appendices isCompilation and Evaluation of Results from High-Performance 

Concrete Bridge Projects, Volume I: Final Report (FHWA-HRT-05-056).

17. Key Words 

Bridges, cast-in-place concrete, high-strength concrete, 

high-performance concrete, precast concrete, prestressed 

concrete. 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

303 

22. Price 

n/a 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ii 

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2

 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Approp e riate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003)
iii 

COMPILATION AND EVALUATION OF RESULTS FROM HIGH-PERFORMANCE 

CONCRETE BRIDGES PROJECTS, VOLUME II: APPENDIXES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION PAGE

APPENDIX A—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO STANDARD 

SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS AND 

METHODS OF SAMPLING AND TESTING, PART I SPECIFICATIONS ........A–1 

M 6 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR FINE AGGREGATE FOR 

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE................................................................A–3 

M 80 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR COARSE AGGREGATE FOR 

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE................................................................A–5 

M 6 AND M 80 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR FINE AGGREGATE 

FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE AND COARSE AGGREGATE 

FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE.......................................................A–7 

M 85 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR PORTLAND CEMENT ........................A–11 

M 154 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURES 

FOR CONCRETE.............................................................................................A–13 

M 157 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR READY-MIXED CONCRETE ..........A–15 

M 182 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR BURLAP CLOTH MADE FROM 

JUTE OR KENAF ............................................................................................A–19 

M 194 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES 

FOR CONCRETE.............................................................................................A–21 

M 195 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATES 

FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE .................................................................A–23 

M 205 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR MOLDS FOR FORMING 

CONCRETE TEST CYLINDERS VERTICALLY .........................................A–25 

M 240 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR BLENDED HYDRAULIC 

CEMENT ..........................................................................................................A–27 

M 241 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR CONCRETE MADE BY 

VOLUMETRIC BATCHING AND CONTINUOUS MIXING ......................A–29 

M 295 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR COAL FLY ASH AND RAW OR 

CALCINED NATURAL POZZOLAN FOR USE AS A MINERAL 

ADMIXTURE IN CONCRETE .......................................................................A–33 

M 302 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR GROUND GRANULATED 

BLAST-FURNACE SLAG FOR USE IN CONCRETE AND 

MORTARS .......................................................................................................A–35 

M 307 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR MICROSILICA FOR USE IN 

CONCRETE AND MORTAR..........................................................................A–37 

M XX1 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMBINED AGGREGATES 

FOR HYDRAULIC CEMENT CONCRETE...................................................A–41 
iv 

 APPENDIX B—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO STANDARD 

SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS AND 

METHODS OF SAMPLING AND TESTING, PART II TESTS ............................B–1 

T 22 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 

OF CYLINDRICAL CONCRETE SPECIMENS ..............................................B–3 

T 23 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR MAKING AND CURING 

CONCRETE TEST SPECIMENS IN THE FIELD............................................B–7 

T 24 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR OBTAINING AND TESTING 

DRILLED CORES AND SAWED BEAMS OF CONCRETE..........................B–9 

T 106 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 

OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT MORTAR (USING 50-MM OR 2-IN. 

CUBE SPECIMENS)........................................................................................B–11 

T 126 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR MAKING AND CURING 

CONCRETE TEST SPECIMENS IN THE LABORATORY..........................B–13 

T 132 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR TENSILE STRENGTH OF 

HYDRAULIC CEMENT MORTARS .............................................................B–15 

T 157 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR AIR-ENTRAINING 

ADMIXTURES FOR CONCRETE .................................................................B–17 

T 158 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR BLEEDING OF CONCRETE..........B–19 

T 161 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR RESISTANCE OF CONCRETE 

TO RAPID FREEZING AND THAWING ......................................................B–21 

T 188 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR EVALUATION BY FREEZING 

AND THAWING OF AIR-ENTRAINING ADDITIONS TO 

PORTLAND CEMENT....................................................................................B–23 

T 231 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR CAPPING CYLINDRICAL 

CONCRETE SPECIMENS ..............................................................................B–25 

T 259 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR RESISTANCE OF CONCRETE 

TO CHLORIDE ION PENETRATION ...........................................................B–29 

T 277 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR ELECTRICAL INDICATION 

OF CONCRETE'S ABILITY TO RESIST CHLORIDE ION 

PENETRATION...............................................................................................B–31 

T 285 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR BEND TEST FOR BARS FOR 

CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT...................................................................B–33 

T XX1 STANDARD METHOD OF TEST FOR SLUMP FLOW OF 

HYDRAULIC CEMENT CONCRETE. ..........................................................B–35 

APPENDIX C—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO STANDARD 

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES ....................................................C–1 

DIVISION I—DESIGN 

3.3.6 DEAD LOAD ........................................................................................................C–3 

8.3.3 REINFORCEMENT..............................................................................................C–5 

8.5 EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION ....................................................................C–7 

8.7 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY AND POISSON'S RATIO.....................................C–9 

8.15.2.1.1 FLEXURE....................................................................................................C–11 

8.19.1 MINIMUM SHEAR REINFORCEMENT........................................................C–15 

9.1.2 NOTATIONS.......................................................................................................C–17 
v 

9.2 CONCRETE ...........................................................................................................C–19 

9.15 ALLOWABLE STRESS .....................................................................................C–21 

9.15.2.3 CRACKING STRESS ....................................................................................C–23 

9.16 LOSS OF PRESTRESS. .......................................................................................C–27 

9.20.3.3 SHEAR STRENGTH PROVIDED BY WEB REINFORCEMENT .............C–29 

9.20.3.4 SHEAR STRENGTH PROVIDED BY WEB REINFORCEMENT .............C–31 

9.23 CONCRETE STRENGTH AT STRESS TRANSFER ........................................C–33 

DIVISION II—CONSTRUCTION 

8.2.2 CLASSES OF CONCRETE ................................................................................C–35 

8.3.1 CEMENTS...........................................................................................................C–37 

8.3.5 COMBINED AGGREGATES.............................................................................C–39 

8.3.7 MINERAL ADMIXTURES ................................................................................C–41 

8.4.1 RESPONSIBILITY AND CRITERIA ................................................................C–43 

8.4.3 CEMENT CONTENT .........................................................................................C–45 

8.4.4 MINERAL ADMIXTURES ................................................................................C–47 

8.5.7.1 TESTS...............................................................................................................C–49 

8.5.7.3 FOR ACCEPTANCE OF CONCRETE ...........................................................C–51 

8.5.7.5 STEAM AND RADIANT HEAT-CURED CONCRETE................................C–53 

8.6.4.1 PROTECTION DURING CURE .....................................................................C–55 

8.6.6 AND 8.6.7 CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SALT WATER AND CONCRETE 

EXPOSED TO SULFATE SOILS OR WATER..............................................C–57 

8.11.1 GENERAL.........................................................................................................C–59 

8.11.3.5 STEAM OR RADIANT HEAT CURING METHOD ...................................C–61 

8.11.4 BRIDGE DECKS...............................................................................................C–63 

8.13.4 CURING ............................................................................................................C–65 

 APPENDIX D—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE 

DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ......................................................................................D–1 

3.5.1-1 DEAD LOADS...................................................................................................D–3 

5.1 SCOPE ......................................................................................................................D–5 

5.3 NOTATION..............................................................................................................D–7 

C5.4.1 GENERAL ..........................................................................................................D–9 

5.4.2.1 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH .........................................................................D–11 

C5.4.2.1-1 CONCRETE MIX CHARACTERISTICS BY CLASS .............................D–13 

5.4.2.3 SHRINKAGE AND CREEP ............................................................................D–15 

5.4.2.4 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY.........................................................................D–21 

5.4.2.6 MODULUS OF RUPTURE .............................................................................D–23 

5.4.6.2 SIZE OF DUCTS..............................................................................................D–27 

5.5.4.1 STRENGTH LIMIT STATE—GENERAL AND 5.9.4.1.1 STRESS 

LIMITS FOR CONCRETE—COMPRESSION STRESSES ..........................D–29 

5.7.1 ASSUMPTIONS FOR SERVICE AND FATIGUE LIMIT STATES................D–31 

5.8.2.8 DESIGN AND DETAILING REQUIREMENTS............................................D–33 

5.9.5.1,2,3 LOSS OF PRESTRESS ..............................................................................D–37 

5.9.5.4 REFINED ESTIMATES OF TIME-DEPENDENT LOSSES .........................D–49 

5.12.2 ALKALI-SILICA REACTIVE AGGREGATES..............................................D–57 

5.13.4.4.1 PILE DIMENSIONS ...................................................................................D–59
vi 

 APPENDIX E—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE 

CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.....................................................................E–1 

8.2 CLASSES OF CONCRETE ..................................................................................... E–3 

8.3.1 CEMENTS............................................................................................................. E–5 

8.3.5 COMBINED AGGREGATES............................................................................... E–7 

8.3.7 MINERAL ADMIXTURES .................................................................................. E–9 

8.4.1 RESPONSIBILITY AND CRITERIA ................................................................ E–11 

8.4.3 CEMENT CONTENT ......................................................................................... E–13 

8.4.4 MINERAL ADMIXTURES ................................................................................ E–15 

8.5.7.1 TESTS............................................................................................................... E–17 

8.5.7.3 FOR ACCEPTANCE OF CONCRETE ........................................................... E–19 

8.5.7.5 STEAM AND RADIANT HEAT-CURED CONCRETE................................ E–21 

8.6.4.1 PROTECTION DURING CURE ..................................................................... E–23 

8.6.6 AND 8.6.7 CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SALT WATER AND CONCRETE 

EXPOSED TO SULFATE SOILS OR WATER.............................................. E–25 

8.11.1 GENERAL......................................................................................................... E–27 

8.11.3.5 STEAM OR RADIANT HEAT CURING METHOD ................................... E–29 

8.11.4 BRIDGE DECKS............................................................................................... E–31 

8.13.4 CURING ............................................................................................................ E–33 

 

APPENDIX F—RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENTS................................................. F–1 

F.1 MATERIALS RESEARCH 

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH-PERFORMANCE 

CONCRETE ....................................................................................................... F–3 

USE OF WASH WATER IN HIGH-PERFORMANCE CONCRETE.......................... F–7 

AIR-VOID REQUIREMENTS AND FREEZE-THAW TESTING 

REQUIREMENTS FOR DURABILITY OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE 

CONCRETE ..................................................................................................... F–11 

PENETRABILITY CRITERIA FOR HIGH-PERFORMANCE CONCRETE ........... F–15 

CURING OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE CONCRETE ................................................. F–19 

PROCEDURES FOR MEASURING COMPRESSIVE AND FLEXURAL 

STRENGTHS OF HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE...................................... F–23 

F.2 STRUCTURAL RESEARCH 

APPLICATION OF BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS TO HIGHSTRENGTH CONCRETE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS: MATERIAL 

PROPERTIES................................................................................................... F–27 

APPLICATION OF BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS TO HIGHSTRENGTH CONCRETE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS: SHEAR 

PROVISIONS EXCEPT PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS .................. F–31 

VERIFICATION OF STRESS LIMITS AND RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR 

HIGH-PERFORMANCE CONCRETE............................................................ F–35 

CONFINEMENT OF HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE COLUMNS FOR 

SEISMIC AND NONSEISMIC REGIONS ..................................................... F–39 

APPENDIX G—REFERENCES............................................................................................ G–1 
A–1 

APPENDIX A—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO STANDARD 

SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS AND METHODS OF 

SAMPLING AND TESTING, PART I SPECIFICATIONS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION PAGE

M 6 Standard Specification for Fine Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete ........................A–3 

M 80 Standard Specification for Coarse Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete ..................A–5 

M 6 and M 80 Standard Specifications for Fine Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete 

and Coarse Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete.......................................................A–7 

M 85 Standard Specification for Portland Cement...................................................................A–11 

M 154 Standard Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete ...........................A–13 

M 157 Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete.......................................................A–15 

M 182 Standard Specification for Burlap Cloth Made from Jute or Kenaf..............................A–19 

M 194 Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete....................................A–21 

M 195 Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete ...............A–23 

M 205 Standard Specification for Molds for Forming Concrete Test Cylinders Vertically ....A–25 

M 240 Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cement ................................................A–27 

M 241 Standard Specification for Concrete Made By Volumetric Batching and 

Continuous Mixing ..........................................................................................................A–29 

M 295 Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan 

for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete...................................................................A–33 

M 302 Standard Specification for Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag for Use in 

Concrete and Mortars.......................................................................................................A–35 

M 307 Standard Specification for Microsilica for Use in Concrete and Mortar ......................A–37 

M XX1 Standard Specifications for Combined Aggregates for Hydraulic Cement 

Concrete ...........................................................................................................................A–41 

Appendix A

A–3 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition M 6

M 6 Standard Specification for Fine Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete 

Revise title to read as follows: 

Standard Specification for Fine Aggregate for Portland Hydraulic Cement Concrete 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

Referenced Documents section in other AASHTO specifications or test methods will need to be 

changed. 

Background

Most HPC contains pozzolans or slag; therefore, the word "hydraulic" is more appropriate. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Introduce correct terminology. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix A 

A–5 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition M 80

M 80 Standard Specification for Coarse Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete 

Revise title to read as follows: 

Standard Specification for Coarse Aggregate for Portland Hydraulic Cement Concrete 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

Referenced Documents section in other AASHTO specifications or test methods will need to be 

changed. 

Background

Most HPC contains pozzolans or slag; therefore, the word "hydraulic" is more appropriate. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Introduce correct terminology. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix A 

A–7 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 6 and M 80

M 6 Standard Specification for Fine Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete 

M 80 Standard Specification for Coarse Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete 

Item No. 1 

Add the following to Section 6.2 of M 80: 

Coarse aggregate for use in concrete that will be subject to wetting, extended exposure to humid 

atmosphere, or contact with moist ground shall not contain any materials that are deleteriously 

reactive with the alkalies in the cement in an amount sufficient to cause excessive expansion of 

mortar or concrete, except that if such materials are present in injurious amounts, the coarse 

aggregate may be used with a cement containing less than 0.6 percent alkalies calculated as sodium 

oxide equivalent or with the addition of a material that has been shown to prevent harmful 

expansion due to the alkali-aggregate reaction (Note X). (See Appendix A1 and Supplementary 

Requirement S1). 

Note X—In some areas with highly reactive aggregates, the 0.6 percent limit on alkalies may not 

be sufficient and a lower alkali content may be needed. 

Item No. 2 

Replace the Supplementary Requirement S1 of M 6 and add a new Supplementary Requirement to 

M 80 as follows: 

S1 Reactive Aggregate 

S1.1 Potential reactivity of siliceous aggregates: Alkali-silica reactions shall be mitigated either by 

a performance specification as given in S1.1.1 or a prescriptive specification as given in S1.1.2:

S1.1.1 Performance Type:

One of the following options shall be used:

1. Obtain a service record of the aggregate with similar cementitious materials having similar 

alkali content. If satisfactory, no mitigation is necessary.

2. Test the aggregate in accordance with AASHTO T 303 or ASTM C 1293. If the expansion is 

less than 0.10 percent at 14 days after initial reading when tested in accordance with AASHTO 

T 303 or less than 0.04 percent at one year with ASTM C 1293, no mitigation is necessary.

3. If reactive aggregates are used, use pozzolan or slag, and test in accordance with ASTM C 441

to determine if the amount of pozzolan or slag is effective in mitigating deleterious reactions. 

For acceptance, the maximum expansion at 14 days shall not exceed 0.02 percent and at 56 

days shall not exceed 0.10 percent.1 If specified, AASHTO T 303 test shall be used with the 

pozzolan or slag or blended cements to detect the potential for deleterious expansion. The test 

shall be performed by using 440 grams of the proposed blended cementitious materials, in the 

proportion to be used on the project, and 990 grams of the combined aggregates, in the 

proportions to be used on the project.

For acceptance using AASHTO T 303, the expansion shall not exceed 0.10 percent at 14 days.

S1.1.2 Prescriptive Type:

One of the following options shall be used:

1. Limit the alkali content of cement to a maximum of 0.6 percent or limit the alkali content in 

portland cement concrete to 2.37 kg per cubic meter (4 lb per cubic yard).2,3
Appendix A 

A–8 

2. Select aggregates with proven field performance when similar cementitious materials having 

similar alkali content are used. 

3. Use varying percentage of pozzolan or slag for different levels of alkali content of cement

(Note Y).1

Note Y—Virginia Department of Transportation accepts the following combinations of 

cementitious materials for different alkali contents:

Combination of Cementitious Materials* Max. Cement Alkali, 

percent

Cement only

Cement with minimum 15% Class F fly ash

Cement with minimum 20% Class F fly ash

Cement with minimum 25% Class F fly ash

Cement with minimum 30% Class F fly ash

Cement with minimum 25% slag

Cement with minimum 35% slag

Cement with minimum 50% slag

Cement with minimum 3% silica fume

Cement with minimum 7% silica fume

Cement with minimum 10% silica fume

0.45

0.60

0.68

0.75

0.83

0.60

0.90

1.00

0.60

0.90

1.00

* Percentages of Class F fly ash, slag, and silica fume are based on the total amount of cementitious 

materials.

4. Use lithium salts at a dosage rate of 1:1 LiOH.H2O : equivalent Na2O in the portland cement.3

____________________

1

 Lane, D. S. and Ozyildirim, C., "Preventive Measures for Alkali-Silica Reactions (Binary and 

Ternary Systems)," Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 29, 1999, pp. 1281-1288.

2

 Guide Specification for Concrete Subject to Alkali-Silica Reactions, IS415, Portland Cement 

Association, September 1998, 8 pp.

3

 Stark, D., "Alkali-Silica Reactions in Concrete," Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete 

and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM STP 169C, 1994, pp. 365-371.

Item No. 3

Add to Section 2. Referenced Documents in M 6 and M 80 as follows: 

2.1 AASHTO Standards:

T 303 Accelerated Detection of Potentially Deleterious Expansion of Mortar Bars Due to AlkaliSilica Reaction

2.2 ASTM Standards: 

C 441 Effectiveness of Mineral Admixtures or Ground Blast-Furnace Slag in Preventing Excessive 
Appendix A 

A–9 

Expansion of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction

C 1293 Determination of Length Change of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections 

M 6 and M 80 

Background

Item Nos. 1 and 2 

Supplementary requirement S1.1 of M 6 and Section 6.2 of M 80 indicate that cements with an 

upper limit of 0.6 percent alkalies can be used to inhibit alkali-silica reaction (ASR) when reactive 

aggregate is used. Generally, ASR can be controlled by using low alkali cement (less than 0.6 

percent), a sufficient amount of an effective pozzolan, slag, blended cement, or lithium salts.(1,2,3) 

Tests can indicate the potentially deleterious aggregates and a lower alkali content than 0.6 percent 

may be needed in some areas. However, even if test results indicate potential expansions, an 

aggregate with a satisfactory service record with similar cementitious materials and conditions can 

be used. 

Item No. 3 

Updating referenced documents. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More durable structures when reactive aggregates are used. 

 

References

1. Lane, D. S. and Ozyildirim, H. C., "Evaluation of the Effect of Portland Cement Alkali Content, 

Fly Ash, Ground Slag, and Silica Fume on Alkali-Silica Reactivity," Cement, Concrete, and 

Aggregates, Vol. 21, No. 2, December 1999, pp. 22-36. 

2. ACI Committee 221, "State-of-the-Art Report on Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity (ACI 221.1R)," 

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998. 

3. Standard Practice to Identify Degree of Alkali-Reactivity of Aggregates and to Identify 

Measures to Avoid Deleterious Expansion in Concrete, A23.2-27A, Canadian Standards 

Association, Rexdale, ONT, September 2001. 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix A 

A–11 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 85

M 85 Standard Specification for Portland Cement 

Add the following to footnote d of Table 2—Optional Chemical Requirements: 

In some areas with highly reactive aggregates, the 0.6 percent limit on alkalies may not be 

sufficient and a lower alkali content may be needed.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background 

Alkali content may need to be lower in some areas to mitigate ASR.(1) M6 or M80 provide other 

options as well. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More durable structures when reactive aggregates are used. 

 

References

1. Stark, D., "Alkali-Silica Reactions in Concrete," Significance of Tests and Properties of 

Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM STP 169C, 1994, pp. 365-371. 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix A 

A–13 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 154

M 154 Standard Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete 

Item No. 1 

Revise Section 8. Test Methods as follows: 

8.1 Determine the properties enumerated in Section 6 in accordance with Test Method C 233. 

It is recommended that, whenever practicable, tests be made in accordance with the section on 

Materials for Tests for Specific Uses in Test Method C 233, using the cement cementitious 

materials proposed for the specific work. 

Item No. 2 

Add to Table—1 Physical Requirements as follows: 

Compressive strength, min, % of control: 

1 day 90 

3 days 90 

7 days 90 

28 days 90 

56 daysB 90

Flexural strength, min, % of control: 

3 days 90 

7 days 90 

28 days 90 

56 daysB 90

B

 Applicable only when required by the purchaser

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background

Item No. 1 

Most HPC contains pozzolans or slag. The effectiveness of air-entraining admixtures is affected by 

the use of pozzolans or slag. Consequently, all cementitious materials proposed for the specific 

work should be included. 

Item No. 2 

56 days is a common test age and is used in the FHWA definition of HPC.(1)

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Item No. 1 

Makes the test more representative of the field conditions. 

Item No. 2 

More economical concrete with improved properties and more realistic test age for HPC. 
Appendix A 

A–14 

References 

1. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix A 

A–15 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 157

M 157 Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete 

Item No. 1 

Add to Section 2. Referenced Documents as follows: 

2.1 AASHTO Standards: 

M 302, Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag for Use in Concrete and Mortars

M 307, Microsilica for Use in Concrete and Mortar

M XX1, Combined Aggregates for Hydraulic Cement Concrete

2.2 ASTM Standards:

C 1157 Hydraulic Cement

Item No. 2 

Revise Section 3.1 as follows:

3.1 For the purpose of this specification, ready-mixed concrete is portland hydraulic cement 

concrete manufactured for delivery to a purchaser in a plastic state and delivered as hereinafter 

specified. 

Item No. 3 

Add ASTM C 1157 to Section 4.1.1 as follows:

4.1.1 Cement—Cement shall conform to Specification M 85 for Portland Cement or M 240 for 

Blended Hydraulic Cements, or ASTM C 1157 for Hydraulic Cement. 

Item No. 4 

Replace Section 4.1.2 

4.1.2 Fly ash used as an admixture or as a partial replacement for cement shall meet M 295 of the 

type specified or approved by the purchaser.

with the following: 

4.1.2 Other Cementitious Materials—Cementitious materials other than cement shall meet the 

requirements of the following specifications unless specified otherwise by the purchaser:

Fly Ash—M 295

Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag—M 302

Silica Fume—M 307

Item No. 5 

Add the following at the end of Section 4.1.3 Aggregates: 

Combined aggregate grading, if used, shall conform to Specification M XX1.

Item No. 6 

Revise Section 5.1 as follows: 

The mix design may be specified by the engineer or submitted to the engineer by the Contractor for 

approval or a performance-based specification may be used. When specified by the engineer, it 

shall include the following: 

Item No. 7 

Add new Section 5.3 as follows: 
Appendix A 

A–16 

5.3 Performance-based Specification—Mix design shall be prepared and specified by those 

familiar with the material. The engineer shall specify the desired hardened concrete properties and 

permit the Contractor to design the mixture. Contractor will demonstrate through trial mixtures 

that the mix designs will provide the specified fresh and hardened properties. Selection of slump 

for placement shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall make trial 

placements to demonstrate that concrete can be placed without any segregation, and without any 

difficulty in consolidating and finishing. 

Item No. 8 

Revise Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.3 as follows: 

5.1.1 Cement Cementitious materials content in kg/m3

 (lb/yd3) bags per cubic yard of concrete, or 

equivalent units. 

5.1.3 Maximum allowable water content in gallons per bag of cement, or equivalent units, 

includingwater-cementitious materials ratio, where water includes surface moisture, but 

excludesing water of absorption, of the aggregates. 

Item No. 9 

Revise Section 7.2 as follows: 

7.2 The air-content of air-entrained concrete when sampled from the transportation unit at the 

point of discharge placement shall be within the purchaser specified tolerances. Where it is not 

practical to test at this point, comparison of values measured at the point of placement and the 

nearest practical location shall be established. 

Item No. 10 

Add a note to Section 11.3.1 as follows: 

Note X—HPC mixtures especially those with stiff consistency having high cementitious materials 

content, low water-cementitious materials ratio, and several admixtures may need longer mixing 

times and higher number of revolutions for thorough mixing.

Item No. 11 

Revise Section 15.2 as follows: 

15.2 If the measured slump, or air content, or unit weight falls outside the specified limits, a check 

test shall be made immediately on another portion of the same sample. In the event of a second 

failure, the concrete shall be considered to have failed the requirements of the specification. Unit 

weight shall be required for lightweight concretes, and is recommended for normal weight 

concretes.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background

Item No. 1 

Additional documents need to be added as described below. 

Item No. 2 

Pozzolans and slag are widely used in HPC.(1) The specification needs to encompass all hydraulic 

cements.
Appendix A 

A–17 

Item No. 3 

ASTM C 1157 is a standard performance specification for hydraulic cement. Performance 

specifications are desirable to promote innovation and encourage more economical construction. 

Item No. 4 

Slag and silica fume are widely used in concrete and need to be included.(1) 

Item No. 5 

Combined aggregate grading is a proposed specification and should be included. 

Item Nos. 6 and 7 

Performance-based specifications permit innovation and utilization of new products. 

Use of admixtures has a large effect on the slump of concrete. The Contractor should be 

responsible for the selection of slump. With the use of admixtures, slump can be easily adjusted to 

meet the needs of the project without affecting the water content. 

Item No. 8 

Cement is replaced by cementitious materials since pozzolans and slag are widely used in HPC. 

Bags or sacks are not the proper measures. 

Item No. 9

Concrete in place is of interest. Delivery equipment such as a pump may alter the air-void system 

making the concrete less resistant to cycles of freezing and thawing. 

Item No. 10 

HPC may contain different cementitious materials, high cementitious materials content, and more 

than one admixture. The mixture may be very cohesive. Longer mixing times may be appropriate 

to produce a uniform and consistent product. 

Item No. 11 

Unit weight is a very useful test to check the air-content of the mixture. In lightweight concrete, 

unit weight is an important design criterion. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved concrete in bridge structures. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix A 

A–19 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 182

M 182 Standard Specification for Burlap Cloth Made from Jute or Kenaf 

Item No. 1

Revise the title as follows: 

M 182 Standard Specification for Burlap Cloth Made from Jute or Kenaf, and Cotton Mats

Item No. 2 

Revise Section 1.1 as follows: 

1.1 Scope—This specification covers requirements for burlap made from jute or kenaf, and cotton 

mats for use in curing concrete. 

Item No. 3 

Add a new Section 1.4 as follows: 

1.4 Cotton—Cotton is a vegetable fiber harvested from the cotton plant. The cotton plant belongs 

to the genus Gossypium of the family Malvaceae.

Renumber existing Section 1.4 as 1.5. 

Item No. 4 

Add a new Section 2.4 as follows: 

2.4 Cotton mats shall consist of a filling material of cotton "bat" or "bats" of at least 400 g/m2 (12 oz. 

per sq. yd.); covered with unsized cloth at a minimum of 200 g/m2 (six (6) oz. per sq. yd); tufted or 

stitched to maintain stability. 

Item No. 5 

Revise the first sentences in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 as follows: 

3.1 The burlap and cotton mats shall be clean, evenly woven, and shall conform to the quality and 

grade of product requirements established by this specification. 

3.2 The burlap and cotton mats shall be examined visually for defects which would impair its their 

suitability for use. 

Item No. 6 

Revise Sections 4.1 and 4.2 as follows: 

4.1 Lot—Unless otherwise specified, cloth and cotton mats of the same class presented at one time 

shall be considered a lot for purposes of inspection and tests. 

4.2 Sampling for Test—Unless otherwise specified, random samples of cloth and cotton mats shall 

be taken from each inspection lot in accordance with the following table. 

Item No. 7 

Revise Sections 6.1 and 6.2 as follows: 

6.1 The burlap cloth and cotton mats shall be packed in a manner acceptable to common carriers 

for safe transportation to point of destination specified in shipping instructions at the lowest 

transportation rate for such supplies. 

6.2 Each roll or cotton mat shall have a ticket attached to the selvage at the inner end of the cloth 

or cotton mat giving the length and width, and name and address of the manufacturer. 
Appendix A 

A–20 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background

Cotton mats are used successfully in some states such as Texas and New Hampshire and are very 

effective for curing HPC bridge decks.(1)

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved curing practices that will result in more durable concrete decks with less cracking. 

 

References

1. Texas DOT specifications for curing materials for concrete. 

 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix A 

A–21 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 194

M 194 Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete 

Item No. 1 

Revise Section 1.1 as follows: 

This specification covers materials for use as chemical admixtures to be added to portland 

hydraulic cement concrete mixtures in the field for the purpose or purposes indicated for the seven 

types as follows: 

Item No. 2 

In Table 1 Physical Requirements, for compressive strength and flexural strength, add a new line 

for 56 days with the same requirements as listed currently for 28 days. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background

Item No. 1 

It is very common to use other cementitious materials with portland cements.(1) Consequently, the 

term hydraulic cement concrete should be used. 

Item No. 2 

Test age of 56 days is common for HPC and is used in the FHWA definition of HPC.(1) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More economical concrete with improved properties. 

 

References

1. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook R. A. "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix A 

A–23 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 195

M 195 Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete 

Item No. 1 

Add to Section 2. Referenced Documents as follows: 

2.1 AASHTO Standards: 

M XX1 Combined Aggregates for Hydraulic Cement Concrete 

Item No. 2 

Revise Section 5.1.2 to read as follows: 

5.1.2 Grading—The grading shall conform to the requirements shown in Table 1 or the 

requirements of M XX1. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

M XX1 

Background

Item No. 1 

A new Standard Specification for Combined Aggregates for Hydraulic Cement Concrete has been 

proposed and is identified as M XX1. 

Item No. 2 

The new specification needs to be referenced in M 195. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved workability and hardened concrete properties. 

References

None 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix A 

A–25 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 205

M 205 Standard Specification for Molds for Forming Concrete Test Cylinders Vertically 

Item No. 1 

Revise Section 5.1 as follows: 

5.1 Single-use molds may be made of sheet metal, plastic, suitably treated paper products, or other 

materials and must conform to the requirements of this specification. Paper molds shall not be 

used.

Item No. 2 

Renumber existing Section 5.5.3 as 5.5.4 and add a new Section 5.5.3 as follows: 

5.5.3 Top Cap—Sheet metal or plastic molds for use with concrete having a specified compressive 

strength greater than 6000 psi (40 MPa) shall be provided with tightly fitting domed metal or

domed plastic caps to maintain the circular shape at the top of the cylinder and to provide a 

clearance above the finished concrete surface.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background

Item No. 1 

High-quality paper molds have been shown to result in measured concrete compressive strengths 

about 13 percent lower than when steel molds are used.(1)

Item No. 2 

Sheet metal and plastic molds with thin walls have a tendency to become out of round. 

Consequently, it is recommended that caps be required to retain the roundness. Dome caps ensure 

that the concrete surface is not deformed.(2)

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality control. 

References

1. Blick, R. L., "Some Factors Influencing High-Strength Concrete," Modern Concrete, Vol. 36, 

No. 12, April 1973, pp. 38-41. 

2. ACI Committee 363, "Guide to Quality Control and Testing of High-Strength Concrete, (ACI 

363.2R-98)" American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998. 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix A 

A–27 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 240

M 240 Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cement 

Item No. 1 

Add to Table 2—Physical Requirements as follows: 

Compressive strength, min, MPa (psi) 

28 or 56a days 

Heat of Hydration 

28 or 56 a days a

 Only applicable when testing at 56 days is specified.

Item No. 2 

Revise Table 3—Requirements for Pozzolan for Use in Blended Cements and for Slag for Use in 

Slag-Modified Portland Cements as follows: 

Slag or pozzolan activity index: with portland cement, at 28 or 56a

 days, min. percent. a

 Only applicable when testing at 56 days is specified.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background

Item Nos. 1 and 2 

Test age of 56 days is common and used in the FHWA definition of HPC.(1)

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Item Nos. 1 and 2 

More economical construction. 

 

References

1. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix A 

A-29 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 241

M 241 Standard Specification for Concrete Made By Volumetric Batching and Continuous Mixing 

Item No. 1 

In Section 2. Referenced Documents, correct the titles of 211.1 and 211.2 and add M 307, C 1157, 

and 211.4R as follows: 

211.1 Recommended Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, and Heavyweight,

and Mass Concrete 

211.2 Recommended Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Structural Lightweight 

Concrete 

M 307 Microsilica for Use in Concrete and Mortar

C 1157 Blended Hydraulic Cement

211.4R Guide for Selecting Proportions for High-Strength Concrete with Portland Cement and Fly 

Ash

Item No. 2 

Revise first sentence of Section 5.1.1 as follows: 

5.1.1 Cement—Cement shall conform to Specification C 150, or Specification C 595, or 

Specification C 1157 (Note 2). 

Item No. 3 

Renumber Sections 5.1.6 and 5.1.7 as 5.1.7 and 5.1.8, respectively. 

Add new Section 5.1.6 as follows: 

5.1.6 Silica Fume—Silica fume shall conform to Specification M 307.

Item No. 4 

Add to Section 6.1.3 the definition of point of discharge as follows: 

6.1.3 When air-entrained concrete is specified, the air content of samples taken at the point of 

dischargeplacement from the transportation unit (see Section 10 and Table 3 for the total air content 

and tolerances) (Note 5)., Point of placement is at the final location of the concrete. Where it is 

not practical to test at this point, comparison of values measured at the point of placement and the 

nearest practical location shall be established.

Item No. 5 

Add the following to Section 6.1.5 about ordering: 

6.1.5 Which of Options A, B, or C shall be used as a basis for determining the proportions of the 

concrete to produce the required quality (see 6.2, 6.3, or 6.4). Option B shall not be used with 

performance-based specifications.

Item No. 6 

Revise the second sentence of Note 7 as follows: 

Note 7—The purchaser, in selecting requirements for which he assumes responsibility should give 

consideration to requirements for workability, placeability, durability, surface texture, and density, 

in addition to those for structural design. The purchaser is referred to ACI RecommendedStandard

Practice 211.1 for normal weight concrete, and ACI Recommended Standard Practice 211.2 for 

lightweight concrete, and ACI Guide 211.4R for high-strength concrete with fly ash, for the 
Appendix A 

A-30 

selection of proportions that will result in concrete suitable for various types of structures and 

conditions of exposure. The water-cement ratio of most structural lightweight concretes cannot be 

determined with sufficient accuracy for use as a specification basis. 

Item No. 7 

Revise the last sentence of Note 8 as follows: 

Attention is directed to ACI Publications Recommended Practices 211.1, and 211.2, and 211.4R for 

additional information on mixture proportions.

Item No 8 

Add to Note 15 and revise title and footnote C of Table 4 Overdesign Necessary to Meet Strength 

Requirements as follows: 

Note 15—Due to variations in materials, operations, and testing the average strength necessary to 

meet these requirements will be substantially higher than the specified strength. The amount higher 

depends upon the standard deviation of the test results and the accuracy with which that value can 

be estimated from prior data as explained in ACI 318 and ACI 301. Pertinent data is given in 

Table 4. for specified strengths up to 5000 psi (35 MPa) and Table 5 for specified strengths greater 

than 5000 psi (35 MPa). 

C

 If less than 15 prior tests are available, the overdesign should be 1000 psi (7.0 MPa) for specified 

strength less than 3000 psi (20 MPa), and 1200 psi (8.5 MPa) for specified strengths from 3000 to 

5000 psi (20 to 35 MPa). and 1400 psi (10.0 MPa) for specified strengths greater than 5000 psi (35 

MPa).

Table 5 Required Average Strength to Meet Strength Requirements for '

c f > 5000 psi (35 MPa)

Number of 

TestsA

Required Average Compressive Strength

Less than 15 1.10 '

c f + 700 in psi 

(1.10 '

c f + 5.0 in MPa)

15 or more Use the larger value computed by 

M( '

c f +1.34s)

M(0.90 '

c f + 2.33s)

where '

c f = specified compressive strength

M = modification factor given in Table 6

A Number of tests of a concrete mixture used to estimate the standard deviation of a concrete 

production facility. The mixture used must have a strength within 1000 psi (7 MPa) of that 

specified and be made with similar materials. See ACI 318.
Appendix A 

A-31 

Table 6 Modification Factors

Number of Tests M

15

20

25

30 or more

1.16

1.08

1.03

1.00

For intermediate number of tests, use linear interpolation.

Revise title of Table 4 as follows: 

Table 4 Overdesign Necessary to Meet Strength Requirements for '

c f ≤ 5000 psi (35 MPa)A 

Item No. 9 

Revise Section 11.2 as follows:

11.2 One strength test set of at least two or at least three cylinders as described in Section 11.3 

cylinders and the accompanying slump, temperature, and air content tests shall be made for each 25 

yd3 (19 m3) of concrete or fraction thereof, or whenever significant changes have been made in the 

proportioning controls. There shall be at least one strength test made for each class of concrete 

placed in 1 day. 

Item No. 10 

Revise Section 11.3 as follows: 

11.3 For each strength test, at least two standard-size 6x12-in. (150x300-mm) cylinders or at least

three 4x8-in. (100x200-mm) cylinders shall be made (see 14.2.2). A minimum of three cylinders 

shall be used for each strength when the specified strength exceeds 5000 psi (35 MPa). The test 

result shall be the average of the strength of the two specimenstest cylinders, except that, if any 

specimen shows definite evidence other than low strength, of improper sampling, molding, 

handling, curing, or testing, it shall be discarded and the strength of the remaining cylinder(s) shall 

then be considered the test result. 

Item No. 11 

Revise Section 11.5.2 as follows: 

11.5.2 No individual strength test shall be more than 500 psi (3.4 mpaMPa) below the specified 

strength '

c f . when 'c f is less than or equal to 5000 psi (35 MPa); or by more than 0.10 'c f when 'c f is 

greater than 5000 psi (35 MPa).

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background

Item No. 1 

Existing documents need to be revised and new documents added. 

Item No. 2 

ASTM C 1157 is a performance specification for blended hydraulic cement. Since performancebased specifications are encouraged for HPC, it needs to be added. 
Appendix A 

A-32 

Item No. 3 

Silica fume is widely used in transportation facilities and needs to be included. 

Item No. 4 

Delivery equipment may affect the air-void system. For example, air content of the concrete may 

change as a result of pumping.(1) 

Item No. 5

In the performance-based specifications, the producer and the contractor should take the 

responsibility for proportioning the mixtures. Purchaser should state the required properties. 

Item No. 6 

ACI now has a document for proportioning high-strength concrete with fly ash. 

Item No. 7 

ACI has changed the titles of its documents. 

Item No. 8 

ACI 318 has proposed revisions that are more applicable to high-strength concrete.(2) The proposed 

changes are consistent with those proposed for ACI 318. 

Item No. 9 

Research has shown that the smaller size cylinders have greater variability. Hence, three 

100x200-mm (4x8-in) cylinders are needed for the same precision. 

Item No. 10 

4x8-in cylinders are commonly used and may exhibit higher variability.(3) For HSC, strength is 

more critical, and at least three cylinders are recommended for any size. 

Item No. 11

Proposed changes are more applicable to high-strength concrete and are needed to be consistent 

with proposed revisions for overdesign.(2) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality of concrete. 

 

References

1. ACI Committee 304, Placing Concrete by Pumping Methods, American Concrete Institute, 

Farmington Hills, MI, 1996. 

2. Cagley, J. R., "Changing from ACI-318-99 to ACI 318-02 What's New?" Concrete 

International, Vol. 23, No. 6, June 2001, pp. 69-184. 

3. Ozyildirim, C., "4 x 8 inch Concrete Cylinders versus 6 x 12 inch Cylinders," VHTRC 84-R44, 

Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, May 1984, 25 pp. 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix A 

A-33 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 295

M 295 Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a 

Mineral Admixture in Concrete 

Item No. 1 

Delete Table 2—Supplementary Optional Chemical Requirement and renumber subsequent tables. 

Item No. 2 

Revise Table 3—Physical Requirements as follows: 

Strength activity index: 

With portland cement, at 28 or 56 days, min, percent of control 75 75 75 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background

Item No. 1 

Performance based approach is preferred. Also, the available alkali limit of 1.5 percent in table 2 

does not provide protection in all cases.(1) 

Item No. 2 

Test age of 56 days is commonly used and is used in the FHWA definition of HPC.(2) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Item No. 1 

More durable concrete. 

Item No. 2 

More cost effective. 

References

1. Snow, P. G., "Effect of Fly Ash on Alkali-Silica Reactivity in Concrete," Transportation 

Research Record 1301, Transportation Research Board, 1991, pp. 149-154. 

2. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix A 

A–35 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 302

M 302 Standard Specification for Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag for Use in Concrete and 

Mortars 

Item No. 1 

Revise Table—Physical Requirements as follows: 

28- or 56-day Index. 

Item No. 2 

Add the following sentence to Section A3.2: 

Further information on preventing excessive expansion due to alkali-silica reaction is given in M 6 

and M 80.

Item No. 3 

Add the following to Appendix A: 

A4. Shrinkage

When slag is added, the increase in shrinkage of mortar bars over control shall not exceed 

0.03 percent.

Item No. 4 

Add the following footnote to Section 2 Reference Documents: 

M 6, Fine Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete 

M 80, Coarse Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background

Item No. 1 

56 days is a common age for HPC and is used in the FHWA definition of HPC.(1) 

Item No. 2 

See proposed revisions to M 6 and M 80. 

Item No. 3 

Shrinkage is important information and is included in M 295 for fly ash specification. For 

consistency, it should be included in this specification too. The value 0.03 percent used in 

AASHTO M 295 may need to be changed considering the low shrinkage and variability in HPC. 

Item No. 4 

Additional documents need to be added as described above. 
Appendix A 

A–36 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Item No. 1 

More economical. 

Item Nos. 2 and 3 

More durable concrete with less cracking. 

Item No. 4 

None. 

References

1. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix A 

A–37 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Transportation Materials 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition M 307

M 307 Standard Specification for Microsilica for Use in Concrete and Mortar 

Item No. 1 

Replace "microsilica" with "silica fume" in the title and throughout the document. 

Item No. 2 

In Section 1.1, delete the third sentence that reads 

It is a material often marketed as aqueous suspension with a typical 50 percent solids content.

Item No. 3 

Delete Sections 3.2 Microsilica and 3.2.1 Silica Fume and replace with: 

3.2 Silica Fume—very fine pozzolanic material, composed mostly of amorphous silica, produced 

by electric arc furnaces as a byproduct of the production of elemental silicon or ferro-silicon alloys 

(also known as condensed silica fume and microsilica).

Item No. 4 

Delete the available alkalies requirement in Table 2—Optional Chemical Requirements. 

Item No. 5 

Revise Table 3—Physical Requirements as follows: 

Strength Activity Index: 

With portland cement, determine at 7 days, and 28, and 56 days, min, percent of control 100 

Uniformity requirements:

The density of individual samples from a given source shall not vary from the average established 

by the 10 preceding tests, or by all preceding tests if the number is less than 10, by more than

percent 5

Oversize:

Percent retained on No. 325 sieve (45 μm), max, percent 10

Specific surface, min, m2/g 15

Item No. 6 

Delete the drying shrinkage requirement from Table 4—Optional Physical Requirements. 

Item No. 7 

Add to Table 4 the following: 

Bulk density, max, kg/m3

 720

Item No. 8 

Revise Section 8.2.4 as follows: 

8.2.4 Strength Activity Index with Portland Cement, ASTM C 311, except use 225g of portland 

cement, 25 g of microsilica silica fume, and 687.5 g of graded Ottawa sand in the test mixture. The 

water-cementitious materials ratio shall be the same in the test and control mixtures. Also, a set of 

samples shall be evaluated at both 7 days and another set at 28 days, and at 56 days if specified. of 

age.
Appendix A 

A–38 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background

Item No. 1 

Silica fume is the common terminology used by ASTM, ACI, and the industry. The association for 

the manufacturers is known as the Silica Fume Association. 

Item No. 2 

In transportation structures, silica fume is mainly used in the dry densified form. 

Item No 3 

Use standard definition for silica fume per ASTM 1240.(1) 

Item No. 4 

Table 4 has a performance requirement on reactivity with cement alkalies. Performance-based 

requirements are desired. 

Item No. 5 

56 days is common and is used in the FHWA definition of HPC.(2) 

The density uniformity is deleted since it is not a meaningful test for silica fume. Silica fume 

density has very little variation. 

Oversize material should be limited since it may contain contaminating material such as wood, 

quartz, and coal. 

Specific surface limit ensures that very fine particles of silica fume are present. 

Item No. 6 

Drying shrinkage requirement is not applicable to silica fume, which is so fine and requires a large 

amount of water unless it is compensated with the use of high-range water-reducing admixtures. 

Item No. 7 

Bulk density indicates the extent of densification. The large agglomerates in densified silica fume 

may cause difficulty in obtaining good dispersion of the silica fume particles. If they do not 

disperse well, the desired properties are not achieved and in some cases agglomerates may act as 

highly reactive siliceous particles leading to disruptive ASR.(3) 

Item No. 8 

ASTM C 311 requires the addition of water for a constant flow in the test and control mixtures. 

Addition of silica fume increases the water demand; however, normal practice is to add a highrange water-reducing admixture to compensate for the demand and to better disperse the silica 

fume particles. 

56 days is a common test age and is used in the FHWA definition of HPC.(2)
Appendix A 

A–39 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Item No. 1 

More consistent terminology. 

Item No. 2 

Deletes an incorrect statement. 

Item No. 3 

More consistent definition. 

Item No. 4 

Avoids the prescriptive approach.

Item No. 5 

More consistent concrete. 

Item No. 6 

Avoids an incorrect procedure. 

Item No. 7 

Improved quality of concrete. 

Item No. 8 

More consistent test procedure. 

References

1. ASTM 1240 Use of Silica Fume as a Mineral Admixture in Hydraulic Cement Concrete, 

Mortar, and Grout. 

2. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

3. Marusin, S. L. and Shotwell, L. B., "Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete Caused by Densified 

Silica Fume Lumps," Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 22, Number 2, December 2000, 

pp. 90-94. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix A 

A-41 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications For 

Transportation Materials 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition M XX1 (Combined Aggregate)

M XX1 Standard Specifications for Combined Aggregates for Hydraulic Cement Concrete 

A new specification for combined aggregates is proposed and attached. 

Other Affected Specifications or Sections

None 

Background

In concrete, especially HPC, the combined grading of the aggregates is important. The goal of a 

combined aggregate grading is to improve the workability of concrete at given water and paste 

contents or to minimize the water and paste contents for a given workability or to improve both the 

workability and hardened properties of the concrete. 

Concrete is a two-component system made of aggregates and paste. For improved durability, 

concrete with the least amount water and of paste is needed. This is possible with the use of wellgraded aggregates composed of fine and coarse particles. 

One of the SHRP products is the Packing Handbook (SHRP Product #2005). In the related SHRP 

report SHRP-C-334, the importance of combined grading is emphasized.(1) This report presented 

tables based on computer models for the theoretical packing of spherical particles for optimal 

grading. However, a study by Purdue University concluded that mixtures designed using the 

packing handbook were harsh and would achieve little or no cost reductions or quality 

improvements if implemented for field use.(2) Even though the SHRP Packing Handbook has not 

received acceptance, other approaches to the optimal grading have been pursued and used as 

explained below. 

Four approaches are included in the combined grading specification and are explained in detail in 

the appendix. 

The first approach uses the fineness modulus that indicates the fineness or the coarseness of the 

combined materials. 

The second approach uses the coarseness factor developed by Shilstone.(3)

The third approach for uniform grading is derived from the asphalt industry. Cumulative percent 

passing is plotted against the sieve size raised to the power of 0.45. In a semi-logarithmic scale, a 

straight-line relationship is required. Aggregate grading should follow this line as closely as 

possible except that the grading falls below the line for small sizes to compensate for the presence 

of cement particles.(4) 

The fourth approach uses a combined grading to achieve uniform distribution of aggregate particle 

sizes as used in concrete floor slab construction.(5,6) Generally a range for the percentage retained 

on each sieve size is specified. The goal is to minimize large changes in the percentage retained on 

consecutive sieves. 
Appendix A 

A-42 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved concrete properties and performance. 

 

References 

1. "A Guide to Determining the Optimal Gradation of Concrete Aggregates," SHRP-C-334 

Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1993.

2. Cox, K. P., Scholer, C. F., and Cohen, M. D., "An Evaluation of the Strategic Highway 

Research Project Packing Handbook," Project C-36-65H, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 

May 1994. 

3. Shilstone, J. M., Sr., "Concrete Mixture Optimization," Concrete International, Vol. 12, No. 6, 

June 1990, pp. 33-39. 

4. Neville, A. M., Properties of Concrete, Fourth Edition, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1996. 

5. ACI Committee 302, "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, (ACI 302.1R)," 

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996, 65 pp. 

6. Keith, F. R., Walker, W. W., and Holland, J. A., "Designing a Durable, Light-Reflective Floor," 

Concrete International, Vol. 23, No. 7, July 2001, pp. 39-45. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix A 

A-43 

Standard Specification for 

Combined Aggregates for Hydraulic Cement Concrete 

AASHTO Designation: M XX1 

1. SCOPE 

1.1. This specification covers the requirements for combined aggregates for hydraulic cement 

concrete having a nominal maximum aggregate size of 50 mm (2 in.) or less. Fine and 

coarse aggregate shall be blended to achieve the desired properties. Two approaches are 

given. One is based on performance and the other on method type. 

1.2. The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. 

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 

2.1. AASHTO Standards:

M 6 Fine Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete 

M 43 Sizes of Aggregate for Road and Bridge Construction 

M 80 Coarse Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete 

M 195 Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete 

T 22 Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens 

T 23 Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field 

T 97 Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading) 

T 119 Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete 

T 126 Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory 

T 141 Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete 

T 160 Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic Cement Mortar and Concrete 

T 198 Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens 

T 259 Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration 

T 277 Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration 

PP 34 Estimating the Crack Tendency of Concrete 

2.2. America Concrete Institute: 

211.1 Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass 

Concrete 

211.2 Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Structural Lightweight Concrete 

3. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 

3.1. The goal of a combined aggregate grading is to improve the workability of concrete at 

given water and paste contents or to improve the hardened properties by minimizing the 

amount of the water and paste for a given workability or to improve both the workability 

and hardened properties of concrete. 

3.2. The shape and texture of the aggregate also have a large influence on the water and paste 

demand. Trial batches shall be made to ensure that desired concrete properties are 

achieved. 
Appendix A 

A-44 

4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 

4.1. Fine and coarse aggregates used shall comply with the relevant provisions of AASHTO 

specifications M 6, M 43, M 80, and M 195 for ordering information, grading (M 43 shall 

be used unless otherwise permitted) based on a nominal maximum size, uniformity of 

grading, deleterious substances, and, if specified, reactive aggregates. 

4.2. Tests for performance characteristics of the concrete shall comply with the relevant 

specifications and specified AASHTO Test Methods for sampling (T 141), making test 

specimens (T 23, T 126), slump (T 119), strength (T 22, T 97, T 198), and penetrability 

(T 259, T 277), shrinkage (T 160), crack tendency (PP 34), or other test methods as 

specified. 

4.3. Proportions of fine and coarse aggregate shall be selected using the performance-based 

approach of Section 5 or the method-type approach of Section 6. 

5. PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH 

5.1. Contractor shall select the combined aggregate grading and demonstrate with trial 

batches that the specified properties are achieved (Note 1). It shall be the Contractor's 

responsibility to ensure that the combined grading provides the specified properties for 

the project. 

Note 1—For proportioning hydraulic cement concrete, the AASHTO Standard 

Specifications for Highway Bridges, Division II, Article 8.4.1.1 and the AASHTO LRFD 

Bridge Construction Specifications, Article 8.4.1.1 specify the use of the absolute volume 

method for normal weight concrete such as described in ACI publication 211.1 and the 

use of trial mixes for structural lightweight concrete using methods such as described in 

ACI publication 211.2. 

6. METHOD TYPE APPROACH 

6.1. One of the following procedures shall be used to determine combined aggregate grading: 

6.1.1. Combined fineness modulus 

6.1.2. Coarseness factor chart 

6.1.3. Power chart 

6.1.4. Percent retained on each sieve

Note 2—Details of the procedures in 6.1.1 though 6.1.4 are given in the Appendix. 

6.2. The specific combined grading to which the aggregate is to be blended, along with the 

tolerances for quality control, shall be submitted for approval. Concrete characteristics 

shall be verified by trial batches to ensure that the specified properties are achieved. 
Appendix A 

A-45 

APPENDIX 

Nonmandatory Information 

A1. METHOD TYPE APPROACH: 

A1.1 Fineness Modulus 

A1.1.1 The combined fineness modulus (FM) is obtained by adding the total percentages of 

material in the sample that are coarser than each of a set of sieves (cumulative 

percentages retained) and dividing the sum by 100 (see ACI 116).1

 FM is an index of the 

fineness of the material. A higher FM means that the aggregate is coarser. Trial batches 

are necessary to establish target values.

A1.2. Coarseness Factor 

A1.2.1. Workability factor and coarseness factor are determined for the combined aggregate. The 

factors are plotted on the chart shown in Figure 1. Zone II is the desired location.2 

Figure 1—Coarseness Factor Chart 

A1.2.2. The workability factor is the percent passing the No. 8 sieve adjusted for cementitious 

materials content of the proposed concrete mix. The measured percent passing the No. 8 

sieve is increased or decreased by 1.0 percentage point for each 22 kg/cu m (38 lb/cu yd) 

that the cementitious materials content is above or below 334 kg/cu m (564 lb/cu yd), 

respectively. 

A1.2.3. The coarseness factor is the cumulative percent retained on the 9.5 mm (3/8-in.) sieve 

divided by the cumulative percent retained on the No. 8 sieve. 
Appendix A 

A-46 

A1.2.4. The five zones in the chart represent the following types of concretes: 

 I "Gap-graded" and tends to segregate 

 II Well graded 38 to 13 mm (1-1/2 to 1/2 in.) 

 III 13 mm (1/2 in.) and finer 

 IV Sticky 

 V Rocky 

A1.2.5. Example 

Cement Content 611 lb/cu yd 

Aggregate Data: As shown in Table A1.2.1 

Aggregate ID Size 57 Sand 

SSD Weight, lbs 1887 1108 

Specific Gravity 2.77 2.61 

Aggregate, % by 

weight 63 37 

 

Table A1.2.1—Sieve Analysis and Combined Grading 

Size 57 Sand Combined 

Sieve Size 

% 

Passing 

% 

Mix 

% 

Passing 

% 

Mix 

% 

Passing 

Cum. % 

Retained 

% 

Retained

2 in. 100.0 63.0 100.0 37.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 

1-1/2 in. 100.0 63.0 100.0 37.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 

1 in. 100.00 63.0 100.0 37.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 

3/4 in. 85.0 53.6 100.0 37.0 90.6 9.4 9.4 

1/2 in. 60.0 37.8 100.0 37.0 74.8 25.2 15.8 

3/8 in. 35.0 22.1 100.0 37.0 59.1 40.9 15.7 

No. 4 10.0 6.3 99.7 36.9 43.2 56.8 15.9 

No. 8 0.0 0.0 87.8 32.5 32.5 67.5 10.7 

No. 16 0.0 0.0 65.7 24.3 24.3 75.7 8.2 

No. 30 0.0 0.0 33.6 12.4 12.4 87.6 11.9 

No. 50 0.0 0.0 12.7 4.7 4.7 95.3 7.7 

No. 100 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.3 1.3 98.7 3.4 

No. 200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.3 

Q = Cumulative percent retained on 3/8 in. sieve = 40.9 

R = Cumulative percent retained on No. 8 sieve = 67.5 

W = Percent passing No. 8 sieve = 32.5 

C = Cementitious materials content = 611 lb/cu yd

 

Workability Factor (WF) = W + (C-564)/38 = 32.5 + (611-564)/38 = 33.7% 

Coarseness Factor (CF) = (Q/R)100 = (40.9/67.5)100 = 60.6% 

 

When the values of CF and WF are plotted on the Coarseness Factor Chart of Figure 1, they fall 

in Zone II. 
Appendix A 

A-47 

A1.3. Power Chart: 

A1.3.1. In this method, the percent passing each sieve size is plotted against the sieve size in 

microns raised to power of 0.45 on semi-log paper. A best fit straight line is then drawn 

through data points as shown by the broken line in Figure 2. The combined grading 

should follow the straight broken line within ± 7 percentage points deviation for percent 

passing. The dash lines in Figure 2 are 7 percentage points below and above the broken 

line indicating the acceptable variability. For aggregates passing the No. 30 sieve, the 

grading curve may fall below the power chart line to compensate for the presence of fine 

cementitious materials.3

 

Figure 2—Power Chart 

A1.4. Percent Retained on Each Sieve: 

A1.4.1. In this method, the percent retained on each sieve size is kept to a limited range and the 

difference between percent retained on consecutive sieve sizes should be less than 

10 percentage points. 

A1.4.2. ACI 302 suggests limits for the material retained on each sieve for satisfactory reduction 

in water demand while providing good workability.4

 If the largest size aggregate is 

38.5 mm (1.5 in.), the percentage of material retained on each sieve size below the top 

size and above the number 100 sieve shall be between 8 and 18. If the largest size 

aggregate is 25 mm or 19 mm (1 in. or 3/4. in), the range shall be 8 to 22 percent. The 

ideal range for No. 30 (600 μm) and No. 50 (300 μm) sieves is 8 percent to 15 percent 

retained on each. These ranges are illustrated in Figure 3 together with the data from 

Table A1.2.1. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sieve Size

Percent Passing

 200 100 50 30 1 8 4 3/8 " 1/2 " 3/4" 1" 
Appendix A 

A-48 

Figure 3—Percent Retained on Each Sieve

______________________________ 

1

 ACI Committee 116, "Cement and Concrete Terminology, (ACI 116-R)," American Concrete 

Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2000, 73 pp. 

2

 Shilstone, J. M., Sr., "Concrete Mixture Optimization," Concrete International, Vol. 12, No. 6, 

June 1990, pp. 33-39. 

3

 Neville, A. M., Properties of Concrete, Fourth Edition, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1996. 

4

 ACI Committee 302, "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, (ACI 302.1R," 

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996, 65 pp. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

 2 1/2 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

Sieve Size

% Retained

Upper Bound

Data

Lower Bound
B–1 

APPENDIX B—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO STANDARD 

SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS AND METHODS OF 

SAMPLING AND TESTING, PART II TESTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION PAGE

T 22 Standard Method of Test for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete 

Specimens ..........................................................................................................................B–3 

T 23 Standard Method of Test for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens 

in the Field .........................................................................................................................B–7 

T 24 Standard Method of Test for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed 

Beams of Concrete.............................................................................................................B–9 

T 106 Standard Method of Test for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortar 

(Using 50-mm or 2-in. Cube Specimens) ........................................................................B–11 

T 126 Standard Method of Test for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in 

the Laboratory..................................................................................................................B–13 

T 132 Standard Method of Test for Tensile Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars...............B–15 

T 157 Standard Method of Test for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete.........................B–17 

T 158 Standard Method of Test for Bleeding of Concrete .......................................................B–19 

T 161 Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and 

Thawing ...........................................................................................................................B–21 

T 188 Standard Method of Test for Evaluation by Freezing and Thawing of AirEntraining Additions to Portland Cement........................................................................B–23 

T 231 Standard Method of Test for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens .......................B–25 

T 259 Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration........B–29 

T 277 Standard Method of Test for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist 

Chloride Ion Penetration..................................................................................................B–31 

T 285 Standard Method of Test for Bend Test for Bars for Concrete Reinforcement .............B–33 

T XX1 Standard Method of Test for Slump Flow of Hydraulic Cement Concrete..................B–35 

Appendix B

B–3 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition T 22

T 22 Standard Method of Test for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens 

Item No. 1 

Revise Section 6.2 as follows: 

6.2 Neither end of compressive test specimens when tested shall depart from perpendicularity to 

the axis by more than 0.5o

 (approximately equivalent to a difference in height of 1.6 mm (1/16 in.) 

for a 152 mm (6 in.) diameter cylinder). The ends of compression test specimens that are not plane 

within 0.050 mm (0.002 in.) shall be capped, sawed, or ground, or capped in accordance with T 231 

to meet that tolerance; or if the ends meet the requirements of A6, then neoprene caps with steel 

controllers may be used instead of capping. The diameter . . . 

Item No. 2 

In Section 7.3, add a test age of 56 days as follows: 

Test Age Permissible Tolerance 

12 hr ±0.25 h or 2.1 percent

24 hr ±0.5 h or 2.1 percent

 3 days 2 h or 2.8 percent

 7 days 6 h or 3.6 percent

28 days 20 h or 3.0 percent

56 days 40 h or 3.0 percent

90 days 2 days or 2.2 percent

Item No. 3 

Revise Section 7.5.1 as follows: 

7.5.1 For testing machines of the screw type, the moving head shall travel at a rate of 

approximately 1.3 mm (0.05 in.)/min. when the machine is running idle. For and hydraulically 

operated machines, the load shall be applied at a rate of movement (platen to crosshead 

measurement) corresponding to a loading rate on the specimens within the range of 0.14 to 0.34 

MPa/s (20 to 50 psi/s) 0.20 to 0.30 MPa/s (29 to 44 psi/s). The designated rate of movement shall 

be maintained at least during the latter half of the anticipated loading phase of the testing cycle. 

Item No. 4 

In Section 10.1, replace 

10.1 The precision of this method has not yet been determined, but data are being collected, and a 

precision statement will be included when it is formulated.2

___________________ 

2

 See "Concrete Strength in Structures," by D. L. Bloem, ACI Journal, March 1968, especially 

Table 3, p. 185, for possible guidance as to the level of reproducibility of concrete strength 

measurements that may be expected.

with 

10.1 The single operator precision of tests of individual 152x305-mm (6x12-in.) cylinders made 

from a well-mixed sample of concrete for cylinders made in a laboratory environment and under 

normal field conditions is as follows:
Appendix B

B–4 

 Coefficient of 

Variation Acceptable Range of

 2 results 3 results

Single operator 

Laboratory conditions 2.37 % 6.6 % 7.8 %

Field conditions 2.87 % 8.0 % 9.5 %

The above values are applicable to 152x305-mm (6x12-in.) cylinders with compressive strengths 

between 15 and 55 MPa (2000 and 8000 psi). They are derived from CCRL concrete reference 

sample data for laboratory conditions and a collection of 1265 test reports from 225 commercial 

testing laboratories in 1978.2

_________________ 

2

 Research Report RR:CO9-1006 on file at ASTM Headquarters.

Item No. 5 

Either replace Appendix A with ASTM C 1231 or delete Appendix A and adopt ASTM C 1231 as 

a separate test method with appropriate editorial changes to references to other test methods. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

Item Nos. 1, 2, and 3 

None 

Item Nos. 4 and 5 

Other specifications that reference T 22 

Background

Item No. 1 

T 231 only describes capping.(1) It does not describe sawing or grinding as implied by the existing 

wording. The proposed revisions will correct an error.

Item No. 2 

An age of 56 days is frequently used for testing high-strength concrete and is particularly 

applicable to precast, prestressed high-strength concrete members.(2) It is also used in the FHWA 

Definition of HPC.(3) 

Item No. 3 

The current requirement that the moving head of a screw-type machine shall travel at a rate of 

approximately 1.3 mm/min (0.05 in/min) when the machine is running idle can result in vastly 

different stress rates depending on machine and specimen stiffnesses. The proposed revision will 

provide the same specimen loading rate for both screw type and hydraulic machines. 

The existing loading rate for hydraulically operated machines is 0.14 to 0.34 MPa/s (20 to 50 psi/s). 

Based on research at NIST,(4) a range of loading between 0.20 and 0.30 MPa/s (29 to 44 psi/s) is 

proposed to reduce testing variability. 

Item No. 4 

The proposed revision will make T 22 consistent with ASTM C 39.(5) 
Appendix B

B–5 

Item No. 5 

The existing Appendix A to T 22 describes procedures for testing 152x305-mm (6x12-in) cylinders 

using neoprene caps or other reusable cap systems. No limit is specified for the maximum concrete 

compressive strength that may be tested using T 22. However, the criteria for acceptance of 

alternate systems only requires testing concrete with compressive strengths up to 41.4 MPa 

(6000 psi). 

 

ASTM C 1231(6) describes procedures for testing 6x12-in (150x500-mm) or 4x8-in (100x200-mm) 

cylinders using unbonded caps. It is applicable for concrete compressive strengths up to 12,000 psi 

(80 MPa). 

For high-strength concrete, 4x8-in (152x305-mm) cylinders are often used because of the limited 

capacity of available testing machines. Additionally, commercial match-curing systems are only 

available for 4x8-in (152x305-mm) cylinders. The proposed revision will permit the use of 4x8-in 

(152x305-mm) cylinders. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Item No. 1 

None. 

Item No. 2 

Clarify a testing procedure. 

Item No. 3 

Improved quality control. 

Item No. 4 

Clarify a testing procedure. 

Item No. 5 

Facilitate QC testing programs for high-strength concrete. 

References

1. AASHTO T 231 Standard Method of Test for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. 

2. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

3. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

4. Carino, N. J., Guthrie, W. F., and Lagergren, E. S., "Effects of Testing Variables on the 

Measured Compressive Strength of High-Strength (90 MPa) Concrete," NISTIR 5405, NIST, 

October 1994, 141 pp. 

5. ASTM C 39 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete 

Specimens. 
Appendix B

B–6 

6. ASTM C 1231 Standard Practice for Use of Unbonded Caps in Determination of Compressive 

Strength of Hardened Concrete Cylinders. 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix B

B–7 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition T 23

T 23 Standard Method of Test for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field 

Item No. 1

Revise Section 8.3.1 as follows: 

8.3.1 Methods of Consolidation—Preparation of satisfactory specimens requires different methods 

of consolidation. Except for self-consolidating concrete, Tthe methods of consolidation are 

rodding, and internal or external vibration. Base the selection method of consolidation on the 

slump, unless the method is stated in the specifications under which the work is being performed. 

Rod concretes with a slump greater than 75 mm (3 in.) Rod or vibrate concretes with slump of 25 

to 75 mm (1 to 3 in.) or greater. Vibrate concretes with slumps of less than 25 mm (1 in.). 

Concretes of such low water content that they cannot be properly consolidated by the methods 

described herein, or requiring other sizes and shapes of specimens to represent the product or 

structure, are not covered by this method. Specimens for such concretes shall be made in 

accordance with the requirements of Method T 126 with regard to specimen size and shape and 

method of consolidation. 

Item No. 2 

Table 1—Number of Layers Required for Specimens currently reads as follows: 

Specimen Type and Size Mode of Number of Layers 

as Total Depth, mm (in.) Compaction or Depth of Layers 

Cylinders: 

300 12 or less rodding 3 equal layers 

Over 300 (12) rodding 100 mm (4 in.) depth as near as practicable 

Over 300 (12) to 460 (18) vibration 2 equal layers 

Over 18 (460) vibration 200 mm (8 in.) depth as near as practicable 

Revise to read as follows: 

Specimen Type and Size Mode of Number of Layer 

 Compaction or Depth of Layers

Cylinders:

100 (4) rodding 2 equal layers

150 (6) rodding 3 equal layers

225 (9) rodding 4 equal layers

100(4) vibration 2 equal layers

150 (6) vibration 2 equal layers with 2 insertions per layer

225 (9) vibration 2 equal layers with 4 insertions per layer

Over 225 (9) vibration 200 mm (8 in.) depth as near as practicable

Item No. 3 

Revise Section 8.3.3.1 as follows: 

8.3.3.1 Internal Vibration—The diameter of the vibrating element, or thickness of a square 

vibrating element, shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.5. For beams, the 

vibrating element shall not exceed one-third of the width of the mold. For cylinders, the ratio of 

the diameter of the cylinder to the diameter of the vibrating element shall be 4.0 or higher. The 

diameter of a round vibrator shall be no more than one-fourth the diameter of the cylinder mold or 
Appendix B

B–8 

one-fourth the width of the beam mold. Other shaped vibrators shall have a perimeter equivalent to 

the circumference of an appropriate round vibrator. In compacting the specimen. . . . 

Item No. 4 

Revise Section 9.2.1 as follows: 

9.2.1 Initial Curing—After molding, the specimens shall be stored in a temperature range between 

16 to 27oC (60 to 80oF), and in a moist environment preventing any loss of moisture up to 48 hours 

(Note 2). For concrete mixtures with a specified strength of 40 MPa (6,000 psi) or greater, the 

initial curing temperature shall be between 20 and 26oC (68 and 78oF). At all times the 

temperature. . . 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

Item Nos. 1 and 2

These revisions will make T 23 consistent with ASTM C 31–00 and are based on results reported in 

ACI SP 172.(1)

Self-consolidating concretes are commonly used in Japan, Canada, and Europe and are being used 

more and more in the USA. They do not need to be mechanically consolidated and test methods 

should not require it. 

Item No. 3 

This revision will make T 23 consistent with ASTM C 31–00 and allow a reasonable smaller 

diameter size vibrator. 

Item No. 4 

This revision will make T 23 consistent with ASTM C 31–00. For high-strength concrete, a higher 

amount of cementitious material including pozzolans or slag is generally used. Therefore, these 

concretes are more sensitive to heat and a stricter control on initial curing temperature is necessary. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved test procedures for quality control. 

References

1. Carino, N. J., Mulling, G. M., and Guthrie, W. F., "Evaluation of the ASTM Standard 

Consolidation Requirements for Preparing High-Strength Concrete Cylinders," High-Performance 

Concrete: Design and Materials and Recent Advances in Concrete Technology, Publication 

SP 172, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998, pp. 733-768. 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix B

B–9 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition T24

T 24 Standard Method of Test for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of 

Concrete 

Item No. 1 

Change Section 6.2.2 as follows: 

6.2.2 The end surfaces shall not depart from perpendicularity to the longitudinal axis by more than 

5 degrees 0.5 degrees, and . . . 

Item No. 2 

Revise Section 6.4 as follows: 

6.4 Capping—Before making the compression test, saw or grind the ends of the specimens in 

accordance with the tolerance requirements of Method T 22 or cap the ends of the specimens in 

conformance with the procedure prescribed in the applicable section of T 231. The capped surfaces 

of the specimens shall conform to the planeness requirements of T 231. 

Item No. 3 

In Section 6.7.2, revise footnote a as follows: 

a

These correction factors apply to lightweight concrete weighing between 1600 and 1920 Kg/m3

(100 and 120 lb/ft3) and to normal weight concrete. They are applicable to concrete dry or soaked 

at the time of loading. Values not given in the table shall be determined by interpolation. The 

correction factors are applicable for nominal concrete strengths from 13.8 to 41.4 MPa (2000 to 

6000 psi). For strengths above 70 MPa (10,000 psi), test data on concrete cores show that the 

correction factors may be larger than the values listed. Thus, these factors should be applied to 

high-strength concrete with caution. (Correction factors depend on various conditions such as 

strength and elastic moduli. Average values are given in the table.) 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background 

Item No. 1 

Change is needed to make T 24 consistent with tolerances in ASTM C 42(1) and AASHTO T 22.(2) 

Item No. 2 

Section 6.4 currently requires that drilled cores be capped in accordance with AASHTO T 231.(3) 

Test method T 231 specifies the use of high-strength gypsum plaster or sulfur mortar for drilled 

concrete cores. This excludes the use of cores with ends that are sawed, ground, or tested with 

neoprene caps. Sawed or ground specimens are often used as the basis for establishing that capping 

systems are suitable for use with high-strength concrete. As such, the procedure needs to be 

included in T 24. The revision will make T 24 more consistent with ASTM C 42. 

Item No. 3 

The strength correction factors have been established for conventional strength concrete. Their 
Appendix B

B–10 

applicability with high-strength concrete has not been clearly established. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Clarify a testing procedure. 

 

References

1. ASTM C 42 Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams 

of Concrete. 

2. AASHTO T 22 Standard Method of Test for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete 

Specimens. 

3. AASHTO T 231 Standard Method of Test for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. 

 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix B

B–11 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition T 106

T 106 Standard Method of Test for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortar (Using 

50-mm or 2-in. Cube Specimens) 

Item No. 1 

Revise Table 3—Testing Time Tolerances as follows: 

Test Age Permissible Tolerance 

24 hours ± 1/2 hour 

3 days ± 1 hour 

7 days ± 3 hours 

28 days ± 12 hours 

56 days ± 24 hours

Item No. 2 

Add to Table 4—Precision, footnote a as follows: 

a

These numbers represent, respectively, the (IS percent) and (D2S percent) limits as described in 

Practice C 670. Precision data for tests at ages of 24 hours and 56 days are not available.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

Item Nos. 1 and 2 

56 days is a common age for HPC and is used in the FHWA definition of HPC even though the 

definition is for concrete and this test method covers mortars.(1) A permissible tolerance of ±

24 hours at 56 days is recommended until research shows otherwise. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More economical bridges when HPC is used. 

 

References

1. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix B 

B–13 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition T 126

T 126 Standard Method of Test for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory 

Revise Section 7.4.1 as follows: 

7.4.1 Methods of Consolidation—Preparation of satisfactory specimens requires different methods 

of consolidation. Except for self-consolidating concrete, tThe methods of consolidation are 

rodding, and internal or external vibration. Base the selection of the method of consolidation. . . 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

Self-consolidating concrete does not require any mechanical consolidation and test methods should 

not require it. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More appropriate procedure for making test specimens of self-consolidating concrete. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix B 

B–15 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition T 132

T 132 Standard Method of Test for Tensile Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars 

Item No. 1 

Revise Section 8.1.1 as follows: 

8.1.1 The proportions of the standard mortar shall be 1 part cement to 3 parts standard sand by 

weight. When supplementary cementing materials are used, they shall replace a portion of the 

portland cement as required. The quantities of dry materials to be mixed at one time in the batch of 

mortar shall be no less than 1,000 nor more than 1,200 g for making six briquets and no less than 

1,500 nor more than 1,800 g for making nine briquets. The percentage of water used in the 

standard mortar shall depend upon the percentage of water required to produce a neat cement paste 

of normal consistency from the same sample of cement and shall be as indicated in Table 2, the 

values being in percentage of the combined dry weights of the cement and standard sand. 

Determine the percentage of water required to produce a neat cement paste of normal consistency 

in accordance with T 129. 

Item No. 2 

Revise the table in Section 8.4.1 as follows: 

Test Age Permissible Tolerance 

24 hours ± 1/2 hour 

3 days ± 1 hour 

7 days ± 3 hours 

28 days ± 12 hours 

56 days ± 24 hours

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

Item No. 1 

Supplementary cementing materials, such as fly ash, slag, or silica fume, are widely used in HPC 

and mortars and need to be included in T 132.(1)

Item No. 2

56 days is a common age for HPC and is used in the FHWA definition of HPC even though the 

definition is for concrete and this test method covers mortars.(2) A permissible tolerance of + 24 

hours is recommended until research shows otherwise. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More economical and improved durability of concrete. 

 
Appendix B 

B–16 

References 

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix B 

B–17 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition T 157

T 157 Standard Method of Test for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete 

Item No. 1 

Revise Section 4.1 as follows: 

4.1 Cement Cementitious Materials—The cement cementitious materials used in any series of tests 

shall be either the cement proposed for specific work in accordance with Section 4.4, a Type I or 

Type II cement conforming to M 85, or a blend of two or more cements of the same type, in equal 

part, or a cement conforming to M 240 or ASTM C 1157. Each cement of the blend shall conform 

to the requirements of either Type I or Type II of M 85, or M 240 or ASTM C 1157. If a blend of 

cements is used, it shall be a combination which produces an air content of less than 10 percent 

when tested in accordance with T 137 (Note 3). 

Item No. 2 

Revise Section 4.4 as follows: 

4.4 Materials for Test for Specific Uses—When it is desired to test an air-entraining admixture for 

use in specific work, the cement cementitious materials and aggregates used should be 

representative of those proposed for use in the work, and the concrete mixtures should be designed 

to have the cement cementitious materials content specified for use in the work (Note 13). If the 

maximum size of coarse aggregate is greater than 25.0 mm (1 in.), the freshly mixed concrete shall 

be screened over a 25.0-mm (1-in.) sieve prior to fabricating the test specimens in accordance with 

the wet sieving procedure described in T 141. When other admixtures are intended to be used in 

the production of concrete, they should be included in the trial batch.

Item No. 3 

Revise Section 10.1.1 as follows: 

10.1.1 Compressive Strength—T22. Test specimens at ages 3, 7, 28, 56, and 180 days, and 1 year 

(Note 5). Calculate . . . 

Item No. 4 

Revise Section 13.1.6 as follows: 

13.1.6 Detailed data on the concrete mixtures used, including amounts and proportions of 

admixtures used, actual amounts of cement factors cementitious materials, water-cementitious 

materials ratios, ratios of fine to total aggregates, consistency, and air content. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

Item Nos. 1 and 2 

Most HPC contains pozzolans, silica fume, or slag. The effectiveness of air-entraining admixtures 

is affected by the use of pozzolans, silica fume, or slag or other admixtures. Consequently, all 

cementitious materials and admixtures proposed for the specific work should be included. 
Appendix B 

B–18 

Item No. 3 

Test age of 56 days is common for HPC and is used in the FHWA definition of HPC.(1) 

Item No. 4 

It is very common to use other cementitious materials with portland cements. Consequently, the 

term cementitious materials should be used. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More realistic test to evaluate effectiveness of air-entraining admixtures. 

 

References

1. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix B 

B–19 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition T 158

T 158 Standard Method of Test for Bleeding of Concrete 

In Section 5.1, revise the first sentence as follows: 

5.1 For concrete made in the laboratory prepare the concrete as described in T 120 T 126. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

The correct test method stated is T 126.(1) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

None 

 

References

1. AASHTO T 126 Standard Method of Test for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in 

the Laboratory. 

 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix B

B–21 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition T 161

T 161 Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing 

Revise Note 5 as follows: 

Note 5—It is not recommended that specimens be continued in the test after their relative dynamic 

modulus of elasticity has fallen below 50 percent. It is recommended that the test be discontinued 

when the relative dynamic modulus of elasticity falls below 50 percent. For concretes designated 

as high performance concretes (HPC) that can become critically saturated and will be subjected to 

cycles of freezing and thawing, a lower limit of 80 percent for the relative dynamic modulus should 

be used.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

The change in the first sentence is to clarify the meaning. The addition of a second sentence is to 

address high performance concrete. Section 8.3 of AASHTO T 161 states that the test shall be 

continued until the test specimen has been subjected to 300 cycles or until its relative dynamic 

modulus of elasticity reaches 60 percent of the initial modulus, whichever occurs first, unless other 

limits are specified (Note 5). For high performance concrete, a decrease in the relative dynamic 

modulus to 60 percent is a severe decrease. Results from the FHWA Showcase bridges have 

demonstrated that it is possible to achieve a relative dynamic modulus of 80 percent after 300 

cycles.(1) The lower limit of 80 percent coincides with the lower limit of Grade 2 for freeze-thaw 

durability as defined by FHWA.(2)

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved freeze-thaw durability. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix B

B–23 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition T 188

T 188 Standard Method of Test for Evaluation by Freezing and Thawing of Air-Entraining 

Additions to Portland Cement 

Item No. 1 

Revise the title as follows: 

Standard Method of Test for Evaluation by Freezing and Thawing of Air-Entraining Additions to 

Portland Hydraulic Cement 

Item No. 2 

Revise first sentence of Section 4.1 as follows: 

4.1 A concrete mixture, using cement containing the air-entraining agent in an amount such that 

the cement meets the requirements of M 85 or M 240 for air-entraining cements. M 85 shall be 

proportioned to have an actual cement content of 335 ± 2.8 kg/m3 (6.00 ± 0.05 bags per 564 ± 5 

lb/yd3). The water content of the mixtures shall be adjusted to provide a slump of 63.5 ± 12.7 mm 

(21/2 ± 1/2 in.). The ratio of fine aggregate to total aggregate shall be adjusted to the optimum for 

concrete to be consolidated by hand rodding. Recommended values for the percentage of fine 

aggregate in the total aggregate by absolute volume are: for angular coarse aggregate, 41; for 

rounded coarse aggregate, 36. If other admixtures are to be used in the intended concrete

application, they shall be included in the concrete mixture.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

Other specifications and test methods that reference the title of T 188 

Background

Item No. 1 

Supplementary cementing materials are commonly used in HPC. Therefore, this method needs to 

encompass all hydraulic cements. 

Item No. 2 

M 240 covers blended hydraulic cements, which are commonly used in HPC and should be 

included in T 188. 

Bags are not the proper measurements. 

Air-void parameters are affected by the presence of other admixtures. Consequently, other 

admixtures should be included in the concrete mixture.

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved test procedures for durability. 

 

References

None 

 
Appendix B

B–24 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix B

B–25 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition T 231

T 231 Standard Method of Test for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens 

Item No. 1 

Replace Sections 5.1 through 5.2.2 

5.1 Fresh Specimens. . . 

5.2 Hardened Specimens (Moist Cured). . . 

5.2.1 High-Strength Gypsum Cement. . . 

5.2.2 Sulfur Mortar . . 

with the following: 

5.1 The strength of the capping material and the thickness of the caps shall conform to the 

requirements of Table 1.

Table 1—Compressive Strength and Maximum Thickness of Capping Materials

Cylinder 

Compressive 

Strength 

MPa (psi)

Minimum Strength of Capping Material

Maximum 

Average 

Thickness 

of Cap

Maximum 

Thickness 

Any Part 

of Cap

3.5 to 

50 MPa (500 

to 7000 psi)

35 MPa (5000 psi) or cylinder strength whichever 

is greater

6 mm

(1/4 in.)

8 mm

(5/16 in.)

greater than 

50 MPa 

(7000 psi)

Compressive strength not less than

cylinder strength, except as provided in 5.1.1

3 mm

(1/8 in.)

5 mm

(3/16 in.)

5.1.1 If sulfur mortar, high-strength gypsum plaster, and other materials except neat cement paste 

are to be used to test concrete with a strength greater than 50 MPa (7000 psi), the manufacturer or 

the user of the material must provide documentation:

5.1.1.1 That the average strength of 15 cylinders capped with the material is not less than 98 

percent of the average strength of 15 companion cylinders capped with neat cement paste or 15 

cylinders ground plane to within 0.05 mm (0.002 in.).

5.1.1.2 That the standard deviation of the strengths of the capped cylinders is not greater than 1.57 

times that of the standard deviation of the reference cylinders.

5.1.1.3 That the cap thickness requirements were met in the qualification tests, and

5.1.1.4 Of the hardening time of the caps used in the qualification tests.

5.1.2 Additionally, the qualification test report must include the compressive strength of 50-mm 

(2-in.) cubes of the material qualified and of neat cement paste cubes, if used. Capping materials 

conforming to these requirements are permitted to be used for cylinders with strengths up to 20 

percent greater than the concrete tested in these qualification tests. The manufacturer must 
Appendix B

B–26 

requalify lots of material manufactured on an annual basis or whenever there is a change in the 

formulation or the raw materials. The user of the material must retain a copy of the qualification 

results, and the dates of manufacture of material qualified and of the material currently being used. 

See Table 2.

Table 2—Sample Report of Qualification of a Capping Material

Note—Manufacturer: Testing Supplies Co.

Capping Material: Super Strong AAA-Sulfor mortar

Lot: 12a45 Date Tested: 11/3/98

Signed by:_____________________________________(testing agency and responsible official)

 Item Capping Material Control Cylinders Ratio Criteria Pass/Fail

Concrete Cylinder Test Data

 Type of capping material Sulfur Ground

 Average Concrete 

 Strength, MPa (psi) 76.2 (11,061) 75.9 (11,008) 1.005 >0.98 Xc Pass

 Standard Deviation, MPa 

 (psi) 2.59 (376) 1.72 (250) 1.504 < 1.57 C Pass

 Number of cylinders

 tested 15 15

 Cap age when cylinders

 tested 7 days na

Capping Material Test Data

 Average cap thickness, 

 mm (in.) 2.8 (0.11) na

 Compressive strength of

 50-mm (2-in.) cubes, 

 MPa (psi)

91 (12,195)

 Cube age when tested 7 days

 Maximum concrete 

 strength qualified, MPa

 (psi)

1.2 Av. Str = 91.5 

(13,273)a

a

Nominally a specified strength of 75 MPa (11,000 psi) and perhaps somewhat higher.

5.1.3 The compressive strength of capping materials shall be determined by testing 50-mm (2-in.) 

cubes following the procedure described in T 106. Except for sulfur mortars, molding procedures 

shall be as in T 106 unless other procedures are required to eliminate large entrapped air voids. See 

ASTM C 472 for alternative compaction procedures. Cure cubes in the same environment for the 

same length of time as the material used to cap specimens. 

5.1.4 The strength of the capping material shall be determined on receipt of a new lot and at 

intervals not exceeding three months. If a given lot of the capping material fails to conform to the 

strength requirements, it shall not be used, and strength tests of the replacement material shall be 

made weekly until four consecutive determinations conform to specification requirements.

5.2 Neat Hydraulic Cement Paste:

5.2.1 Make qualification tests of the neat hydraulic cement paste prior to use for capping to 
Appendix B

B–27 

establish the effects of water-cement ratio and age on compressive strength of 50-mm (2-in.) cubes.

Note 2—The cements used generally conform to M 85 Types I, II, or III; however, M 240 blended 

cements, calcium aluminate, or other hydraulic cements producing acceptable strengths may be 

used.

5.2.2 Mix the neat cement paste to the desired consistency at a water-cement ratio equal to or less 

than that required to produce the required strength, generally 2 to 4 hours before the paste is to be 

used (Note 3). Remix as necessary to maintain acceptable consistency (Note 4). Some retempering 

of the paste is acceptable if the required water-cement ratio is not exceeded. Optimum consistency 

is generally produced at water-cement ratios of 0.32 to 0.36 by mass for Type I and Type II 

cements and 0.35 to 0.39 by mass for Type III cements.

Note 3—Freshly mixed pastes tend to bleed, shrink, and make unacceptable caps. The 2 to 4 hours

period is generally appropriate for portland cements.

Note 4—The required consistency of the paste is determined by the appearance of the cap when it 

is stripped. Fluid paste results in streaks in the cap. Stiff paste results in thick caps.

5.3 High-Strength Gypsum Cement Paste:

5.3.1 No fillers or extenders may be added to neat high-strength gypsum cement paste subsequent 

to the manufacture of the cement (Note 5). Qualification tests shall be made to determine the 

effects of water-cement ratio and age on compressive strength of 50-mm (2-in.) cubes. Retarders 

may be used to extend working time, but their effects on required water-cement ratio and strength 

must be determined (Note 6).

Note 5—Low-strength molding plaster, plaster of paris, or mixtures of plaster of paris and portland 

cement are unsuitable for capping.

Note 6—The water-gypsum cement ratio should be between 0.26 and 0.30. Use of low watercement ratios and vigorous mixing will usually permit development of 35 MPa (5000 psi) at ages 

of 1 or 2 hours. Higher water-gypsum cement ratios extend working time, but reduce strength.

5.3.2 Mix the neat gypsum cement paste at the desired water-cement ratio and use it promptly 

since it sets rapidly.

5.4 Sulfur Mortar:

5.4.1 Proprietary or laboratory prepared sulfur mortars are permitted if allowed to harden a 

minimum of 2 hours before testing concrete with strength less than 35 MPa (5000 psi). For 

concrete strengths of 35 MPa (5000 psi) or greater, sulfur mortar caps must be allowed to harden at 

least 16 hours before testing, unless a shorter time has been shown to be suitable as specified in 

5.1.1

Item No. 2 

Renumber existing Section 5.2.2.1 as Section 5.4.2 and delete Section 5.3 

5.3 Hardened Specimens (Air-Dried)—Hardened specimens which must be tested in an air-dry 

condition or must be soaked for 20 to 80 hours before testing may be capped with sulfur mortar 

conforming to the requirements of Section 4.2.2.
Appendix B

B–28 

Item No. 3. 

Revise last sentence of existing Section 5.2.2.1 (new Section 5.4.2) to read as follows: 

After storage at room temperature for to the desired age, but not less than 2 hours, test cubes in 

compression following the procedure described in T 106 and calculate the compressive strength in 

megapascals (pounds per square inch).

Item No. 4 

In section 2.1 AASHTO Standards, add M 240 Blended Hydraulic Cement

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

Numerous revisions have been made to ASTM C 617 to improve the capping procedures for use 

with high-strength concrete.(1) Similar revisions have not been introduced into T 231. The 

proposed changes will make the capping procedures similar in both documents and make AASHTO 

T 231 more suitable for use with high-strength concrete.(2) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality control procedures. 

 

References

1. ASTM C 617 Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. 

2. Lobo, C. L., Mullings, G. M., and Gaynor, R. D., "Effect of Capping Materials and Procedures 

on the Measured Compressive Strength of High Strength Concrete," Cement, Concrete and 

Aggregates, Vol. 16, No. 2, December, 1994, pp. 173-180. 

 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix B

B–29 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition T 259

T 259 Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration 

Item No. 1 

In Section 2.1 revise Note 1 to read as follows: 

Note 1—This method contemplates the use of a minimum of four specimens for each evaluation 

with each slab not less than 75 mm (3 in.) thick and with a minimum surface area of 0.018 m2

 (28 

in.2) 300 mm (12 in.) square. 

Item No 2 

Add a note in Section 3.4 as follows: 

3.4 The slabs with dams shall be subjected to continuous ponding with 3-percent sodium chloride 

solution to a depth of approximately 13 mm (0.5 in.) for 90 days (Note X). Glass plates shall be 

placed over the ponded solutions to retard evaporation of the solution. Placement of the glass 

plates shall not be done in such a manner that the surface of the slab is sealed from the surrounding 

atmosphere. Additional solution shall be added if necessary to maintain the 13 mm (0.5 in.) depth. 

All slabs shall then be returned to the drying room as specified under Section 2.2. 

Note X—Low permeability concretes may need longer ponding periods than 90 days. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

Item No. 1 

It is more convenient to use cylindrical specimens for this test. This revision allows the use of 6-in 

(150-mm) diameter cylinders. 

 

Item No. 2

The 90-day ponding is not long enough to discern differences between concretes using 13-mm 

(0.5-in) thick layers for the determination of chloride contents.(1) If thin layers of 1 or 2 mm 

(0.04 or 0.08 in) are used, 90-day ponding may be sufficient. For example, in Nordtest 443 test, 

thin layers are used and the specimens are ponded for 35 days.(2) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved test procedures. 

 

References

1. Ozyildirim, C., "Permeability Specifications for High-Performance Concrete Decks," 

Transportation Research Record No. 1610, Concrete in Construction, Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC, 1998, pp. 1-5. 

2. Nordtest, "NT Build 443 Concrete, Hardened: Accelerated Chloride Penetration," Espoo, 

Finland, 5 pp. 
Appendix B

B–30 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix B

B–31 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition T 277

T 277 Standard Method of Test for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride 

Ion Penetration 

Revise Section 8.1 as follows: 

8.1 Sample preparation and selection depends on the purpose of the test. For evaluation of 

materials or their proportions, samples may be (a) cores from test slabs or from large diameter 

cylinders or (b) 100-mm (4-in.) diameter cast cylinders. For evaluation of structures, samples may 

be (a) cores from the structure or (b) 100-mm (4-in.) diameter cylinders cast and cured at the field 

site. Coring shall be done with a drilling rig equipped with a 100-mm (4-in.) diameter diamond 

dressed core bit. Select and core samples following procedures in T 24. Cylinders cast in the 

laboratory shall be prepared following procedures in T 126. Unless specified otherwise, test

specimens shall be moist cured for 56 days prior to the start of specimen preparation. When 

accelerated curing is specified for testing at 28 days, moist cure specimens at 23oC (73oF) for one 

week and at 38oC (100oF) for three weeks.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

The curing procedure and age are not given in the current method. This leads to confusion and 

inconsistencies. Higher heat at 100 oF allows the penetrability expected at 6 months to be 

determined at 28 days.(1)

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More representative determination of the penetrability leading to more durable structures. 

 

References

1. Ozyildirim, C., "Permeability Specifications for High-Performance Concrete Decks," 

Transportation Research Record No. 1610, Concrete in Construction, Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC, 1998, pp. 1-5. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix B 

B–33 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition T 285

Part II Tests, Table of Contents, Subject Sequence 

Move the listing of T 285 in the Table of Contents from the subject heading of Concrete, Curing 

Materials, and Admixtures to Metallic Materials for Bridges. 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

Test Method T 285 is currently listed under Concrete, Curing Materials, and Admixtures in the 

Table of Contents—Subject Index of Part II Tests. It should be listed under Metallic Materials for 

Bridges where other tests related to metals are listed. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

None 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix B

B–35 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Methods of Testing 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition T XX1 (Slump Flow)

A proposed test procedure on slump flow is attached. Slump flow is intended for self-consolidating 

concrete. 

The test procedure is based on AASHTO T 119.(1) 

Other Affected Test Methods or Sections

None 

Background

Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is a concrete that consolidates under its own mass, without 

adding any supplementary consolidation energy.(2,3) SCC is successfully used in congested areas 

and thin sections where it is difficult to place concrete and consolidate with vibrators.(4) SCC 

workability cannot be measured by the regular slump test since the concrete flows and spreads. 

The appropriate test is the measurement of the slump flow, which is the diameter of the spread. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More realistic measure of the flow characteristics of self-consolidating concrete. 

 

References

1 AASHTO T 119 Standard Method of Test for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete. 

2. Okamura, H. and Ouchi, M., "Self-Compacting Concrete – Development, Present Use and 

Future," Self Compacting Concrete: Proceedings of the First International RILEM Symposium, Ed. 

Skarendahl, A. and Petersson, O., France, 1999, 790 pp. 

3. Khayat, K. H., "Self-Consolidating Concrete—A New Class of HPC," HPC Bridge Views, Issue 

No. 18, November/December 2001, pp. 2. 

4. Campion, M. J. and Jost, P., "Self-Compacting Concrete: Expanding the Possibilities of 

Concrete Design and Placement," Concrete International, Vol. 2, No. 4, April 2000, pp. 31-34. 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix B

B–36 

AASHTO T XX1 

Standard Method of Test for 

Slump Flow of Hydraulic Cement Concrete 

 

1. SCOPE 

1.1. This test method covers determination of slump flow of hydraulic cement concrete. 

1.2. The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in 

parentheses are for information only. 

1.3. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns associated with its 

use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety 

and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to 

use. 

1.4. The text of the standard reference notes provide explanatory material and shall not be 

considered as requirements of the standard. 

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 

2.1. AASHTO Standards: 

 T 119 Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete 

T 141 Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete 

3. SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD 

3.1. A sample of freshly mixed concrete is placed in a mold, shaped as the frustum of a 

cone, in one lift. The mold is raised, and the concrete allowed to subside. The average 

diameter and time of the concrete spread are measured and reported as the slump flow 

diameter and slump flow time of the concrete. 

4. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 

4.1. This test method is intended to provide the user with a procedure to determine slump 

flow of self-consolidating hydraulic cement concretes (Note 1). 

Note 1—This test method monitors the consistency of unhardened concrete. The slump 

flow increases proportionally with the water content and the amount of water-reducing 

admixtures of a given concrete mixture. The slump flow of a mixture is a time and 

temperature dependent property. Care should therefore be taken in relating slump flow 

results obtained under field conditions to strength or durability. Slump flow also 

provides a visual indication of the potential of the concrete for segregation. 

 

4.2. This test method is considered applicable to plastic concrete having coarse aggregate up 

to 37.5 mm (1-1/2 in.) in size. If the coarse aggregate is larger than 37.5 mm (1-1/2 in.) 

in size, the test method is applicable when it is performed on the fraction of concrete 

passing a 37.5-mm (1-1/2 in.) sieve, with the larger aggregate being removed in 
Appendix B

B–37 

accordance with the section titled "Additional Procedure for Large Maximum Size 

Aggregate Concrete" in T 141. 

4.3. This test method is applicable to plastic, cohesive, and flowing concrete (Note 2). 

Note 2—Concretes having slumps less than 190 mm (7-1/2 in.) tested in accordance 

with AASHTO T 119 may not be adequately flowing for this test to have significance. 

Caution should be exercised in interpreting such results. 

5. APPARATUS 

5.1. Mold—The test specimen shall be formed in a mold made of metal not readily attacked 

by the cement paste. The metal shall not be thinner than 1.5 mm (0.060 in.) and if 

formed by the spinning process, there shall be no point on the mold at which the 

thickness is less than 1.15 mm (0.045 in.). The mold shall be in the form of the lateral 

surface of the frustum of a cone with the base 200 mm (8 in.) in diameter, the top 

100 mm (4 in.) in diameter, and the height 300 mm (12 in.). Individual diameters and 

heights shall be within 3 mm (1/8 in.) of the prescribed dimensions. The base and the 

top shall be open and parallel to each other and at right angles to the axis of the cone. 

The mold shall be provided with foot pieces and handles similar to those shown in Fig. 

1 of T 119. The mold shall be constructed without a seam. The interior of the mold 

shall be relatively smooth and free from projections. The mold shall be free from dents, 

deformations, or adhered mortar. A mold, which clamps to a nonabsorbent base plate is 

acceptable, instead of the one illustrated in T 199, provided that the clamping 

arrangement is such that it can be fully released without movement of the mold and the 

base is large enough to contain all the concrete. 

5.1.1. Mold with Alternative Materials: 

5.1.1.1. Materials other than metal are permitted if the following requirements are met: The 

mold shall meet the shape, height, and internal dimensional requirements of 5.1. The 

mold shall be nonabsorbent, resistant to impact forces, and sufficiently rigid to maintain 

the specified dimensions and tolerances during use. The mold shall be demonstrated to 

provide test results comparable to those obtained when using a metal mold meeting the 

requirements of 5.1. Comparability shall be demonstrated on behalf of the 

manufacturer by an independent testing laboratory. A test for comparability shall 

consist of at least 10 pairs of comparisons performed at each of three different slump 

flows ranging from 500 mm (20 in.) to 700 mm (28 in.). No individual test results shall 

vary by more than 25 mm (1 in.) from that obtained using the metal mold. The average 

test results of each slump flow range obtained using the mold constructed of alternative 

material shall not vary by more than 15 mm (0.6 in.) from the average of test results 

obtained using the metal mold. If any changes in material or method of manufacture 

are made, tests for comparability shall be repeated. Because the slump flow is time and 

temperature dependent, perform the comparability test by alternating the use of cones 

and utilizing several technicians to minimize the time between test procedures. 

5.1.1.2. If the condition of any individual mold is suspected of being out of tolerance from the 

as-manufactured condition, a single comparative test shall be performed. If the test 

results differ by more than 25 mm (1 in.) from that obtained using the metal mold, the 

mold shall be removed from service. 
Appendix B

B–38 

5.2. Base Plate—Base plate shall be a flat nonabsorbent, rigid material of at least 700 x 

700 mm (28 x 28 in.). The table surface shall have concentric circle marks showing 

200-mm (8-in.) and 500-mm (20-in.) diameter circles. 

6. SAMPLE 

6.1. The sample of concrete from which test specimens are made shall be representative of 

the entire batch. It shall be obtained in accordance with T 141. 

7. PROCEDURE 

7.1. Dampen the mold and place it on the inner circle of the base plate or on a flat, moist, 

nonabsorbent (rigid) surface with the concentric circles marked as stated in 5.2. During 

the filling, the operator shall hold the mold firmly by standing on its two-foot pieces. 

From the sample of concrete obtained in accordance with Section 6, immediately fill 

the mold. 

7.2. In filling the mold, heap the concrete above the mold and strike off the surface of the 

concrete by means of screeding with a rod or bar. Remove concrete from the area 

surrounding the base of the mold to preclude any interference with the movement of 

flowing concrete. Remove the mold immediately from the concrete by raising it 

carefully in a vertical direction. Start the time measurement and raise the mold a 

distance of 300 mm (12 in.) in 5 ± 2 seconds by a steady upward lift with no lateral or 

torsional motion. Complete the entire test from the start of the filling through removal 

of the mold without interruption and complete it within an elapsed time of 2-1/2 

minutes. 

7.3. Measure the time when the concrete diameter reaches the 500-mm (20-in.) diameter 

circle. Wait for the flow to stop and immediately measure the diameters of the spread 

in two perpendicular directions. 

7.4. Visually inspect the stability of the concrete mixture by observing the distribution of 

the coarse aggregate fraction throughout the spread, particularly along the perimeter. 

Visually rate the stability according to the following criteria: 

1. No evidence of segregation in the concrete spread and no ring of mortar 

surrounding the spread 

2. A peripheral mortar ring with a radial width of less than 10 mm (3/8 in.) and/or an 

aggregate pile in the spread 

3. Segregation as evidenced by a peripheral mortar ring with a radial width of 10 mm 

(3/8 in.) or greater and/or a large aggregate pile in the spread 

8. CALCULATION 

Calculate the slump flow as the average diameter of the spread measured at two 

perpendicular directions to each other. 

9. REPORT 
Appendix B

B–39 

9.1. Report the slump flow in terms of millimeters (inches) to the nearest 5 mm (1/4 in.) 

diameter of the spread: 

Example: Slump flow = 650 mm (25-1/2 in.) 

9.2. Report the slump flow time to the nearest 0.5 seconds 

Example: Slump flow time = 3.5 seconds 

9.3. Record the stability of the concrete mixture from the visual inspection performed in 7.4. 

10. PRECISION AND BIAS 

10.1. Precision: 

10.1.1. Interlaboratory Test Method—No interlaboratory test program has been run on this test 

method. Since it is not possible to provide equivalent concretes at various test sites free 

of errors from sources other than the slump measurement, a multilaboratory precision 

statement on different concretes would not be meaningful. 

10.1.2. Multi-Operator Test Results—Data not available at this time. 

10.2. Bias—This test method has no bias since slump flow is defined only in terms of this 

test method. 

C–1 

APPENDIX C—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO STANDARD 

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DIVISION I—DESIGN 

SECTION PAGE

3.3.6 Dead Load..........................................................................................................................C–3 

8.3.3 Reinforcement....................................................................................................................C–5 

8.5 Expansion and Contraction...................................................................................................C–7 

8.7 Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio............................................................................C–9 

8.15.2.1.1 Flexure .....................................................................................................................C–11 

8.19.1 Minimum Shear Reinforcement.....................................................................................C–15 

9.1.2 Notations..........................................................................................................................C–17 

9.2 Concrete ..............................................................................................................................C–19 

9.15 Allowable Stress ..............................................................................................................C–21 

9.15.2.3 Cracking Stress ...........................................................................................................C–23 

9.16 Loss of Prestress. ..............................................................................................................C–27 

9.20.3.3 Shear Strength Provided by Web Reinforcement .......................................................C–29 

9.20.3.4 Shear Strength Provided by Web Reinforcement .......................................................C–31 

9.23 Concrete Strength at Stress Transfer.................................................................................C–33 

DIVISION II—CONSTRUCTION 

SECTION PAGE

8.2.2 Classes of Concrete..........................................................................................................C–35 

8.3.1 Cements............................................................................................................................C–37 

8.3.5 Combined Aggregates......................................................................................................C–39 

8.3.7 Mineral Admixtures.........................................................................................................C–41 

8.4.1 Responsibility and Criteria ..............................................................................................C–43 

8.4.3 Cement Content ...............................................................................................................C–45 
C–2 

8.4.4 Mineral Admixtures.........................................................................................................C–47 

8.5.7.1 Tests ..............................................................................................................................C–49 

8.5.7.3 For Acceptance of Concrete..........................................................................................C–51 

8.5.7.5 Steam and Radiant Heat-Cured Concrete .....................................................................C–53 

8.6.4.1 Protection During Cure.................................................................................................C–55 

8.6.6 and 8.6.7 Concrete Exposed to Salt Water and Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Soils 

or Water ...........................................................................................................................C–57 

8.11.1 General...........................................................................................................................C–59 

8.11.3.5 Steam or Radiant Heat Curing Method.......................................................................C–61 

8.11.4 Bridge Decks..................................................................................................................C–63 

8.13.4 Curing ............................................................................................................................C–65 
Appendix C 

C–3 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 3.3.6

Item No. 1 

Revise 3.3.6 as follows: 

3.3.6 The following weights are to be used in computing the dead load: 

 #/cu. ft 

Concrete, fc' ≤ 5,000 psi

 Normal weight, plain or reinforced .....................145

 Normal weight, reinforced ..................................150 

Concrete, 5,000 psi < fc' # 15,000 psi

 Normal weight, plain............................................140 + 0.001 fc'

 Normal weight, reinforced ..................................145 + 0.001 fc'

Item No. 2 

Add the following to 3.1: 

3.1 Notations 

fc' = specified compressive strength of concrete, psi (Article 3.3.6)

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles 

8.7 

Background

Variation of concrete unit weight with compressive strength 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000

Compressive Strength f'c, psi

Unit Weight

wc, lb/ft3

wc =140 + 0.001f'c
Appendix C 

C–4 

Analysis of data from the FHWA Showcase projects and other sources indicates a trend that the 

unit weight of concrete increases as concrete compressive strength increases.(1,2,3) Unit weights 

range from about 140 to 155 lb/ft3 (2.24 to 2.48 Mg/m3) with an average increase of about 1 lb/ft3

for every 1000 psi increase in compressive strength (2.3 kg/m3 for every 1 MPa). 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More precise calculation of dead load. 

 

References 

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Burg, R. G. and Ost, B. W., "Engineering Properties of Commercially Available High-Strength 

Concretes," PCA Research and Development Bulletin RD104T, Portland Cement Association, 

Skokie, IL, 1992. 

3. Burg, R. G. and Fiorato, A. E., "High-Strength Concrete in Massive Foundation Elements," 

PCA Research and Development Bulletin RD117, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1999. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix C 

C–5 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.3.3

Revise 8.3.3 as follows: 

8.3.3 Designs shall not use a yield strength, fy, in excess of 60,000 psi, except as permitted

elsewhere.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

9.20.3.4 

Background

This change is made to permit the use of other yield strengths for particular design situations. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More economical bridges. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–7 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.5

Revise 8.5 as follows: 

8.5.3 The coefficient of thermal expansion and contraction for normal weight concrete may be 

taken as 0.000006 per deg. F.

8.5.4 The coefficient of shrinkage for normal weight concrete may be taken as 0.0002.

8.5.5 Thermal and shrinkage coefficients for lightweight concrete shall be determined for the type 

of lightweight aggregate used. 

8.5.3 The coefficient of thermal expansion should be determined by laboratory tests on the specific 

mix to be used.

In the absence of more precise data, the thermal coefficient of expansion may be taken as:

• For normal weight concrete: 0.000006 per deg F

• For lightweight concrete: 0.000005 per deg F

8.5.4 Shrinkage coefficients for normal weight and lightweight aggregate shall be determined for 

the type of aggregate and intended application.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

The thermal coefficient of expansion of concrete depends primarily on the types and proportions of 

aggregates used in the concrete and ranges from 3 to 8 x 10-6/F.(1,2) More precise calculations of 

thermal movements can be made when the actual value for a particular aggregate and concrete mix 

is utilized. The proposed change is consistent with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design 

Specifications. 

Shrinkage is affected by aggregate characteristics, relative humidity, concrete mix proportions, 

curing procedure, volume to surface area ratio of the member, drying period, and presence of 

reinforcement. Shrinkage ranges from almost zero for members in water to 0.0008 for thin sections 

made with high shrinkage aggregates. The use of a single value for the shrinkage of all concrete is 

misleading and can lead to large errors in the calculation of length changes. Consequently, 

calculations for shrinkage should be based on the actual materials and intended application. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More precise calculation of length changes and movements caused by temperature changes and 

shrinkage. 

References

1. Kosmatka, S. H., Kirkhoff, B., and Panarese, W. C., Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, 

Fourteenth Edition, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 2002, 358 pp. 
Appendix C 

C–8 

2. ACI Committee 209, "Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature Effects in Concrete 

Structures, (ACI 209R-92)," American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 47 pp. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix C 

C–9 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.7

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.7 as follows: 

8.7 Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio 

8.7.1 The modulus of elasticity, Ec, for concrete may be taken as K1 '

c

1.5

w 33 f c in psi for values 

of wc between 90 and 155 pounds per cubic foot and fc' less than 15,000 psi where,. 

K1 = correction factor for type of aggregate to be taken as 1.0 unless determined by physical tests

wc = unit weight of concrete (lb per cu ft)

When the measured unit weight of concrete is unknown, wc for normal weight concrete may be 

taken as 140 + 0.001 fc'

For normal weight concrete (wc = 145 pcf) and fc' less than or equal to 5,000 psi, Ec may be 

considered as '

c 57,000 f . 

Item No. 2 

In 8.1.2 Notations, add the following: 

K1 = correction factor for type of aggregate to be taken as 1.0 unless determined by physical tests

(Article 8.7.1)

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles 

3.3.6 

All articles that include Ec. (Changes are not needed.) 

Background

Using a significant amount of test data, NCHRP Project 18-07 entitled "Prestress Losses in 

Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete Bridge Girders," has identified that the accuracy of the 

existing equation for predicting modulus of elasticity can be improved by the proposed 

modifications.(1) A more accurate prediction of modulus of elasticity is needed in calculating 

prestress losses and camber of high-strength concrete girders as the values are larger than for 

conventional strength concrete girders. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More accurate prediction of prestress losses and camber. 

 

References 

1. Tadros, M. K., Al-Omaishi, N., Seguirant, S. P, and Gallt, J. G., "Prestress Losses in High 

Strength Concrete Bridge Girders," NCHRP 18-07 Final Report, August 2002.

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–11 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.15.2.1.1

Revise 8.15.2.1.1 as follows: 

8.15.2.1.1 Flexure 

Modulus of rupture, fr, from tests, or, if data are not available: 

· For normal weight concrete—

When used to calculate the cracking moment of a member in 8.13.3 or for any other 

calculation where a lower bound value is appropriate.......................7.5 '

c f

When used to calculate the cracking moment of a member in 8.17.1 or for any case where 

an upper bound value is appropriate ................................................11.7 '

c f

· For sand-lightweight concrete............................................................6.3 '

c f

· For all-lightweight concrete ...............................................................5.5 '

c f

When physical tests are used to determine modulus of rupture, the tests shall be performed in 

accordance with AASHTO T 97 "Standard Method of Test for Flexural Strength of Concrete 

(Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading.)" and shall be performed on concrete using the 

same proportions and materials as specified for the structure.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

8.13.3 (No change required) 

8.17.1 (No change required) 

Background

The value of 7.5 '

c f has been traditionally used for modulus of rupture (MOR) for concrete. Data 

show that this value greatly underestimates the MOR at higher compressive strengths. ACI 363 

indicates that a value for MOR of 11.7 '

c f could be used for concrete compressive strengths from 

3,000 to 12,000.(1) However, examination of other data shows that most MOR values fall between 

these two limits.(2-10) Thus, the AASHTO value of 7.5 '

c f appears to be an appropriate lower 

bound while the ACI 363 value of 11.7 '

c f appears to be an appropriate upper bound. Since the 

cracking moment is directly proportional to the MOR, use of these values yields lower and upper 

limits of the cracking moment. It is appropriate to use the lower bound value of the MOR when 

considering service load stresses, serviceability (whether a member is cracked and possible crack 

widths) or deflections, where lower values of a cracking moment yield more critical quantities. 

However, the upper bound value is more appropriate for determining minimum amounts of 

reinforcement. The purpose of the minimum reinforcement in article 8.17.1 is to ensure that the 

nominal moment capacity of member is at least 20 percent greater than the cracking moment. If 

the cracking moment is too close to the nominal moment capacity, the beam could fail in a brittle 

manner. Since the data show that the actual MOR could be as much as 50 percent greater than the 

lower bound MOR, the actual cracking moment could be as much as 50 percent greater than that 

calculated using the lower bound MOR. This effectively removes the 20 percent margin of safety. 

Using the upper bound value of MOR alleviates this problem. 
Appendix C 

C–12 

The existing provisions of the code allow the use of measured values for the modulus of rupture in 

design calculations. The properties of higher strength concretes are particularly sensitive to the 

constitutive materials. In many specifications, structural concrete is specified by a class or type 

with given proportions. The actual constitutive materials are often specified in broad terms rather 

then being specified as specific materials. Thus, a given type or class of concrete could be made 

with any one of a number of different aggregates, cements or admixtures. However, a concrete 

made with crushed limestone will have different properties from a concrete with the same 

proportions but using a gravel aggregate; especially at higher compressive strengths. If test results 

are to be used in design, it is imperative that tests be made using concrete with the same mix 

proportions, and the same materials specified for the structure. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

This change provides a more reasonable estimate of the cracking moment, Mcr. The cracking 

moment is used to assess minimum reinforcement requirements for beams (8.17.1) and to 

determine effective moment of inertia for deflection calculations (8.13.3). 

 

References

1. ACI Committee 363, "State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete (ACI 363R-92)," 

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 55 pp. 

2. Price, W. H., "Factors Influencing Concrete Strength," Journal of the American Concrete 

Institute, Vol. 47, February 1951, pp. 417-432. 

3. Walker, S. and Bloem, D. L., "Effect of Aggregate Size on Properties of Concrete," Journal of 

the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 57, No. 3, September 1960, pp. 283-98. 

4. Zia, P., Leming, M. L., Ahmad, S., Schemmel, J. J., Elliot, R. P., and Naaman, A. E., 

Mechanical Behavior of High Performance Concrete, Vol. 1 - Summary Report, SHRP Report C361, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

5. Zia, P., Leming, M. L., Ahmad, S., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 2, - Production of High Performance Concrete SHRP Report C362, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

6. Zia, P., Ahmad, S., Leming, M. L., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 3 - Very Early Strength Concrete, SHRP Report C-363, Strategic 

Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

7. Zia, P., Ahmad, S., Leming, M. L., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 4 - High Early Strength Concrete, SHRP Report C-364, Strategic 

Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

8. Zia, P., Ahmad, S., Leming, M. L., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 5 - Very High Strength Concrete, SHRP Report C-365, Strategic 

Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

9. Khan, A. A., Cook, W. D., and Mitchell, D., "Tensile Strength of Low, Medium, and HighStrength Concretes at Early Ages," ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 93, No. 5, September-October 

1996, pp. 487-493. 
Appendix C 

C–13 

10. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–15 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.19.1

Revise 8.19.1 Minimum Shear Reinforcement as follows: 

8.19.1 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 

8.19.1.1 A minimum area of shear reinforcement shall be provided in all flexural members, except 

slabs and footings, where: 

(a) For design by Strength Design, factored shear force Vu exceeds one-half the shear strength 

provided by concrete ΦVc. 

(b) For design by Service Load Design, design shear stress v exceeds one-half the permissible 

shear stress carried by concrete vc. 

8.19.1.2 Where shear reinforcement is required by Article 8.19.1.1, or by analysis, the area 

provided shall not be less than: 

 

y

w

v f

50b s

A = (8.64A)

or, 

y

' w

v c f

b s A = f (8-64B)

 

where bw and s are in inches and y

'

c f and f are in psi.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

9.20.3.3 

Background

Tests of high-strength reinforced concrete beams have indicated the need to increase the minimum 

area of shear reinforcement to prevent shear failures when inclined cracking occurs.(1) These tests 

indicated a reduction in the reserve shear strength after cracking as fc' increases in beams reinforced 

with the minimum amount of reinforcement required by the existing equation. The proposed 

equation requires a gradual increase in the minimum amount of shear reinforcement as concrete 

strength increases. A comparison of different equations for minimum shear reinforcement is given 

in the following figure. 

The proposed equation is consistent with the current LRFD equation up to a concrete compressive 

strength of 10,000 psi (70 MPa), which is the current upper limit of the LRFD Specifications. The 

proposed equation is more conservative than the equation in ACI 318-02.(2)
Appendix C 

C–16 

Comparison of minimum shear reinforcement requirements. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More shear reinforcement will be required in the midspan regions of high-strength reinforced 

concrete beams. 

 

References 

1. Roller, J. J. and Russell, H. G., "Shear Strength of High-Strength Concrete Beams with Web 

Reinforcement," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2, March-April 1990, pp. 191-198. 

2. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-02) and 

Commentary (318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002. 

(Submitted by: ) 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Concrete Compressive Strength, psi

Avfy/bws,

psi

Standard Spec.

ACI 318-02

LRFD

ACI 318-89

Proposed

Proposed

LRFD
Appendix C 

C–17 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 9.1.2

In 9.1.2 Notations, revise the definition of '

c f as follows: 

'

c f = specified compressive strength of concrete at 28 days for use in design

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

Since the compressive strength of high-strength concrete is frequently specified at ages other than 

28 days, the definition of '

c f needs to allow other ages to be utilized.(1) For design purposes of 

Chapter 9, the age is not important. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Use of ages other than 28 days allows for more economical construction. 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–19 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 9.2

Revise 9.2 Concrete as follows: 

9.2 Concrete 

The specified compressive strength, '

c f , and 'ci f ,

 where appropriate, of concrete for each part of the 

structure shall be shown on the plans. The requirements for '

c f and 'ci f shall be based on tests of 

cylinders made and tested in accordance with Division II, Section 8, "Concrete Structures." 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

For prestressed concrete, it is equally important to specify '

ci f as well as 'c f . 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

None 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–21 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 9.15

Revise 9.15 as follows: 

9.15 Allowable Stresses 

The design of precast prestressed members ordinarily shall be based on '

c f = 5,000≤10,000 psi. 

An increase to 6,000above 10,000 psi is permissible where, in the Engineer's judgment, it is 

reasonable to expect that this strength will be obtained consistently. Still higher concrete strengths 

may be considered on an individual area basis. In such cases, the Engineer shall satisfy himself 

completelyverify that the controls over materials and fabrication procedures will provide the 

required strengths. The provisions of this Section are equally applicable to prestressed concrete 

structures and to components designed with lower concrete strengths. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

Ready-mixed concretes with actual compressive strengths in excess of 10,000 psi (70 MPa) have 

been available for many years. These strengths can now be achieved in precast, prestressed 

concrete. In three FHWA-sponsored HPC projects, strengths in excess of 10,000 psi (70 MPa) 

were specified and successfully achieved.(1) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Allow longer span lengths, wider girder spacings, or shallower sections through the use of higher 

strength concrete. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–23 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 9.15.2.3

Revise 9.15.2.3 as follows: 

9.15.2.3 Cracking Stress 

Modulus of rupture, fr, from tests, or, if data are not available: 

• For normal weight concrete—

When used to calculate the cracking moment of a member in any calculation where a lower 

bound value is appropriate......................................................................7.5 '

c f

When used to calculate the cracking moment of a member in 9.18.2 or for any case where an 

upper bound value is appropriate..........................................................11.7 '

c f

• For sand-lightweight concrete 6.3 '

c f

• For all-lightweight concrete 5.5 '

c f

When physical tests are used to determine modulus of rupture, the tests shall be performed in 

accordance with AASHTO T 97 "Standard Method of Test for Flexural Strength of Concrete 

(Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading.)" and shall be performed on concrete using the 

same proportions and materials as specified for the structure.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

9.18.2 (No change required) 

Background

The value of 7.5 '

c f has been traditionally used for modulus of rupture (MOR) for concrete. Data 

show that this value greatly underestimates the MOR at higher compressive strengths. ACI 363 

indicates that a value for MOR of 11.7 '

c f could be used for concrete compressive strengths from 

3,000 to 12,000 psi.(1) However, examination of other data shows that most MOR values fall 

between these two limits.(2-10) Thus, the AASHTO value of 7.5 '

c f appears to be an appropriate 

lower bound while the ACI 363 value of 11.7 '

c f appears to be an appropriate upper bound. Since 

the cracking moment is directly proportional to the MOR, use of these values yields lower and 

upper limits of the cracking moment. It is appropriate to use the lower bound value of the MOR 

when considering service load stresses, serviceability (whether a member is cracked and possible 

crack widths) or deflections, where lower values of a cracking moment yield more critical 

quantities. However, the upper bound value is more appropriate for determining minimum 

amounts of reinforcement. The purpose of the minimum reinforcement in article 9.18.2 is to ensure 

that the nominal moment capacity of member is at least 20 percent greater than the cracking 

moment. If the cracking moment is too close to the nominal moment capacity, the beam could fail 

in a brittle manner. Since the data show that the actual MOR could be as much as 50 percent 

greater than the lower bound MOR, the actual cracking moment could be as much as 50 percent 

greater than that calculated using the lower bound MOR. This effectively removes the 20 percent 

margin of safety. Using the upper bound value of MOR alleviates this problem. 
Appendix C 

C–24 

The existing provisions of the code allow the use of measured values for the modulus of rupture in 

design calculations. The properties of higher strength concretes are particularly sensitive to the 

constitutive materials. In many specifications, structural concrete is specified by a class or type 

with given proportions. The actual constitutive materials are often specified in broad terms rather 

then being specified as specific materials. Thus, a given type or class of concrete could be made 

with any one of a number of different aggregates, cements or admixtures. However, a concrete 

made with crushed limestone will have different properties from a concrete with the same 

proportions but using a gravel aggregate; especially at higher compressive strengths. If test results 

are to be used in design, it is imperative that tests be made using concrete with the same mix 

proportions and the same materials specified for the structure. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

This change provides a more reasonable estimate of the cracking moment, Mcr. The cracking 

moment is used to assess minimum reinforcement requirements for beams (9.18.2). 

 

References

1. ACI Committee 363, "State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete (ACI 363R-92)," 

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 55 pp. 

2. Price, W. H., "Factors Influencing Concrete Strength," Journal of the American Concrete 

Institute, Vol. 47, February 1951, pp. 417-432. 

3. Walker, S. and Bloem, D. L., "Effect of Aggregate Size on Properties of Concrete," Journal of 

the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 57, No. 3, September 1960, pp 283-98. 

4. Zia, P., Leming, M. L., Ahmad, S., Schemmel, J. J., Elliot, R. P., and Naaman, A. E., 

Mechanical Behavior of High Performance Concrete, Vol. 1 - Summary Report, SHRP Report C361, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

5. Zia, P., Leming, M. L., Ahmad, S., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 2, - Production of High Performance Concrete SHRP Report C362, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

6. Zia, P., Ahmad, S., Leming, M. L., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 3 - Very Early Strength Concrete, SHRP Report C-363, Strategic 

Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

7. Zia, P., Ahmad, S., Leming, M. L., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 4 - High Early Strength Concrete, SHRP Report C-364, Strategic 

Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

8. Zia, P., Ahmad, S., Leming, M. L., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 5 - Very High Strength Concrete, SHRP Report C-365, Strategic 

Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

9. Khan, A. A., Cook, W. D., and Mitchell, D., "Tensile Strength of Low, Medium, and HighStrength Concretes at Early Ages," ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 93, No. 5, September-October 

1996, pp. 487-493. 
Appendix C 

C–25 

10. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–27 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 9.16

Item No. 1 

Replace the existing 9.16 Loss of Prestress with the proposed revisions to 5.9.5 Loss of Prestress of 

the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications incorporating appropriate changes in article 

numbers, notations, and format. 

Item No. 2 

Revise 9.1.2 Notations for the notation used in 9.16. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

Service load analysis and deflection. No change needed. 

Background

The proposed revisions are the results of an extensive theoretical and experimental research on 

NCHRP Project 18-07.(1,2) Seven full-scale bridge girders were instrumented in four states, 

Nebraska, New Hampshire, Texas, and Washington. The research included material properties of a 

number of high-strength concrete mixes including those used in the bridge projects. The results of 

experiments from previous research were also examined. It was found that concrete creep and 

shrinkage were dependent on concrete strength in addition to the parameters previously recognized. 

Also, apparent neglect (or implicit inclusion) of elastic elongation gain of steel stress due to 

external load application causes confusion among designers who wish to use computer software for 

design and wish to invoke the higher transformed section properties to optimize their design. In the 

proposed prestress loss estimates, no elastic shortening loss or elastic gain need be considered if 

transformed section properties are used. Only long-term loss due to creep, shrinkage and relaxation 

are estimated and introduced to the cross section as a "negative" prestress force to be applied in 

addition to the initial prestress just before release and the external gravity loads, to calculate 

concrete stress at service. It was found that the great majority of the loss takes place before 

application of the deck weight in composite construction. This is reflected in the coefficients 

established in the approximate loss method with the estimated loss assumed to be fully applied to 

the precast section properties.

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More accurate prediction of prestress losses and camber. Extension of design provisions to 

concrete strengths greater than 10,000 psi (70 MPa). 

 

References

1. Al-Omaishi, N., "Prestress Losses in High Strength Pretensioned Concrete Bridge Girders," 

Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, December 2001, 265 pp. 

2. Tadros, M. K., Al-Omaishi, N., Seguirant, S. P., and Gallt, J. G., "Prestress Losses in High 

Strength Concrete Bridge Girders," NCHRP 18-07 Final Report, August 2002. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–29 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 9.20.3.3

Revise 9.20.3.3 as follows: 

9.20.3.3 The minimum area of web reinforcement shall not be less than—

sy

'

v f

50b s A =

sy

'

'

v c f

b s A = f (9-31)

where b' and s are in inches and f and '

c fsy are in psi. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

8.19.1 

Background

Tests of high-strength reinforced concrete beams have indicated the need to increase the minimum 

area of shear reinforcement to prevent shear failures when inclined cracking occurs.(1) These tests 

indicated a reduction in the reserve shear strength after cracking as fc' increases in beams reinforced 

with the minimum amount of reinforcement required by the existing equation. The proposed 

equation requires a gradual increase in the minimum amount of shear reinforcement as concrete 

strength increases. Although there are a limited number of tests of prestressed concrete beams with 

high-strength concrete, the equation for minimum web reinforcement should be revised for 

consistency with the proposed revision for minimum shear reinforcement for reinforced concrete 

beams and with the LRFD Specifications. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More shear reinforcement will be required in the midspan regions of high-strength prestressed 

concrete beams. 

 

References 

1. Roller, J. J. and Russell, H. G., "Shear Strength of High-Strength Concrete Beams with Web 

Reinforcement," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2, March-April 1990, pp. 191-198. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–31 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 9.20.3.4

Revise 9.20.3.4 as follows: 

9.20.3.4 The design yield strength of web reinforcement, fsy, shall not exceed 60,00075,000 psi. 

For design yield strengths in excess of 60,000 psi, fsy shall be the stress corresponding to a strain of 

0.35 percent.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

8.3.3 

Background

High strength steels are especially effective in high-strength prestressed concrete members with 

narrow web widths. The effectiveness of using higher yield strengths has been demonstrated in 

several research projects.(1-7) Measured shear strengths of beams have exceeded calculated design 

strengths even when measured yield strengths of reinforcement greater than 60 ksi were used in the 

calculations. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More economical bridge girders. 

 

References

1. Griezic, A., Cook, W. D., and Mitchell, D., "Tests to Determine Performance of Deformed 

Welded Wire Fabric Stirrups," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 2, March-April 1994, pp. 211-

220. 

2. Shahawy, M. A. and Batchelor, B. deV., "Shear Behavior of Full-Scale Prestressed Concrete 

Girders: Comparison Between AASHTO Specifications and LRFD Code," PCI Journal, Vol. 41, 

No. 3, May-June 1996, pp. 48-62. 

3. "Reader Comments on Shear Behavior of Full-Scale Prestressed Concrete Girders: Comparison 

Between AASHTO Specifications and LRFD Code," PCI Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3, May-June 1997, 

pp. 72-93. 

4. Ma, Z. and Tadros, M. K., "Simplified Method For Shear Design Based on AASHTO Load and 

Resistance Factor Design Specifications," Paper No. 99-0266, Transportation Research Record 

1688, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., November 1999, pp. 10-20. 

5. Ma, Z., Tadros, M. K., and Baishya, M., "Shear Behavior of Pretensioned High Strength 

Concrete Bridge I-Girders," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No. 1, January-February 2000, 

pp. 185-192. 

6. Tadros, M. K. and Yehia, S., "Shear of Design of High Strength Concrete NU I-Girders," Final 

Report for Nebraska Department of Roads, December 2001. 

7. Bruce, R. N., Russell, H. G., and Roller, J. J., "Fatigue and Shear Behavior of HPC Bulb-Tee 

Girders," Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, to be published. 
Appendix C 

C–32 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix C 

C–33 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition 9.23

Revise 9.23 Concrete Strength at Stress Transfer as follows: 

Unless otherwise specified, stress shall not be transferred to concrete until the compressive strength 

of the concrete as indicated by test cylinders, cured by methods identical with the curing of the 

members, in accordance with Division II, Article 8.5.7.5, is at least 4,000 psi for pretensioned 

members (other than piles) and 3,500 psi for post-tensioned members and pretensioned piles. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

Division II Article 8.5.7.5 

Background

Since high-strength concrete generates more heat of hydration than conventional strength concrete, 

it is important that test cylinders be cured at the same temperature as the member.(1,2) Curing 

conditions for test cylinders are defined in proposed additions to Division II. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Provides a more realistic measure of the compressive strength of the concrete in the member. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Meyers, J. J. and Carrasquillo R. L., "Production and Quality Control of High Performance 

Concrete in Texas Bridge Structures," Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas 

at Austin, Research Report 580/589-1, 2000, 553 pp. 

 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix C 

C–35 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition 8.2

Revise 8.2.2 Normal Weight Concrete and add two new classes of high performance concrete to 

Table 8.2: 

8.2.2 Normal Weight Concrete 

Eight Ten classes of normal weight concrete are provided for in these specifications as listed in 

Table 8.2. 

Minimum 

Cement 

Content 

Maximum 

Water/ 

Cementitious 

Materials

Ratio 

Air 

Content 

Range 

Size of 

Coarse 

Aggregate 

Per AASHTO 

M 43 

Specified 

Compressive 

Strength 

(28 Days)

Class of 

Concrete 

Pounds per 

CY Lbs per Lb Percent Square 

Openings (lb/in.2

) 

P(HPC) —c 0.40 As specified 

in the contract ≤ 3/4 in

> 6,000 as 

specified in 

the contract

A(HPC) —c 0.45 As specified 

in the contract —c 4,000

c

 Minimum cementitious materials content and coarse aggregate size to be selected to meet other 

performance criteria specified in the contract.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

8.4.3 

Background

With high performance concrete, it is desirable that the specifications be performance based. The 

introduction of two new classes of concrete is a move in this direction. Class P(HPC) is intended 

for use in prestressed concrete members with a specified concrete compressive strength greater than 

6000 psi (41 MPa). Class A (HPC) is intended for use in cast-in-place construction where 

performance criteria in addition to concrete compressive strengths are specified. Other criteria 

might include shrinkage, chloride permeability, freeze-thaw resistance, deicer scaling resistance, 

abrasion resistance, or heat of hydration.(1,2) 

The proposed change to the heading of the third column will affect all classes of concrete listed in 

the existing table and makes the table more consistent with the state-of-the-art of concrete 

technology. 

The requirement to measure concrete strength at 28 days has been deleted because later ages are 

more relevant for high-strength concrete. The designer should specify the age based on the 

anticipated strength development of the concrete and the intended application. 
Appendix C 

C–36 

For both classes of concrete, a minimum cement content is not included since this should be 

selected by the producer based on the specified performance criteria. A maximum 

water/cementitious materials has been retained to be consistent with the existing water/cement 

ratios for Class P and Class A concretes. For Class P(HPC) concrete, a maximum size of coarse 

aggregate is specified since it is difficult to achieve the higher concrete compressive strengths with 

aggregates larger than 3/4 in (19 mm). For Class A(HPC) concrete, the maximum aggregate size 

should be selected by the producer based on the specified performance criteria. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Encourage the use of high performance concrete with higher strength, lower permeability, or other 

performance criteria. 

References 

1. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

2. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix C 

C–37 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition 8.3.1

Revise 8.3.1 Cements as follows: 

8.3.1 Cements 

Portland Cements shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M 85 (ASTM C 150) and 

Blended Hydraulic Cements shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M 240 (ASTM C 595) 

or ASTM C 1157. For Type IP Portland–pozzolan cement, the pozzolan constituent shall not 

exceed 20 percent of the weight of the blend and the loss on ignition of the pozzolan shall not 

exceed 5 percent. 

Except for Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC) or when Unless otherwise specified, only Type I, II, or 

III Portland Cement, Types IA, IIA, IIIA Air Entrained Portland Cement or Types IP or IS Blended 

Hydraulic Cements shall be used. Types IA, IIA, and IIIA cements may be used only in concrete 

where air entrainment is required. 

Low-alkali cements conforming to the requirements of AASHTO M 85 for low-alkali cement shall 

be used when specified or when ordered by the Engineer as a condition of use for aggregates of 

limited alkali-silica reactivity. 

Unless otherwise permitted, the product of only one mill of any one brand and type of cement shall 

be used for like elements of a structure that are exposed to view, except when cements must be 

blended for reduction of any excessive air-entrainment where air entraining cement is used. 

For Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC), trial batches using all intended constituent materials shall be 

made prior to concrete placement to ensure that cement and admixtures are compatible. Changes in 

the mill, brand, or type of cement shall not be permitted without additional trial batches.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background 

ASTM C 1157 is a standard performance specification for blended cements and should be 

included.(1)

Restricting the cements to Types I, II, III, IA, IIA, IIIA, IP, or IS may prevent innovation and 

selection to enhance the performance of HPC. 

Interactions between cementitious material and chemical admixtures can cause incompatibility 

leading to premature stiffening, extended setting time, or inadequate air-void system. HPC may be 

very sensitive to the brand, type, and mill of origin of the cement. Studies have shown that 

changing the brand of cement can cause large differences in the hardened properties of HPC.(2) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges 

More choices, improved properties, and less problems in the field. 
Appendix C 

C–38 

References 

1. ASTM C 1157 Standard Performance Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cement. 

2. ACI 363 Committee, "State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete (ACI 363R-92)," 

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 55 pp. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix C 

C–39 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition 8.3.5

Add a new article 8.3.5 and renumber subsequent articles. 

8.3.5 Combined Aggregates

Blends of fine and coarse aggregates shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M XX1

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

Material specifications M 6, M 43, and M 80 

Background

A new specification on combined aggregates has been proposed and needs to be referenced. 

Combined aggregates enable the use of less water, cementitious materials, and paste leading to 

improved properties in the freshly mixed and hardened concrete. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved concrete properties. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–41 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.3.7

Replace the first paragraph of 8.3.7 Mineral Admixtures as follows: 

8.3.7 Mineral Admixtures 

Fly ash pozzolans and calcined natural pozzolans for use as mineral admixtures in concrete shall 

conform to the requirements of AASHTO M 295 (ASTM C 618).

Mineral admixtures in concrete shall conform to the following requirements:

Fly ash pozzolans and calcined natural pozzolans – AASHTO M 295 (ASTM C 618)

Ground granulated blast-furnace slag – AASHTO M 302 (ASTM C 989)

Silica fume – AASHTO M 307 (ASTM C 1240)

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

8.4.4 

Background

Slag and silica fume are widely used in HPC and need to be referenced. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More choices of materials. 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–43 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.4.1

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.4.1.1 Responsibility and Criteria as follows: 

8.4.1.1 Responsibility and Criteria 

The contractor shall design and be responsible for the performance of all concrete mixes used in 

structures. The mix proportions selected shall produce concrete that is sufficiently workable and 

finishable for all uses intended and shall conform to the requirements in Table 8.2 and all other 

requirements of this Section. 

For normal weight concrete the absolute volume method, such as described in American Concrete 

Institute Publication 211.1, shall be used in selecting mix proportions. For Class P(HPC) with fly 

ash, the method given in American Concrete Institute Guide 211.4 shall be permitted. For 

structural lightweight concrete, the mix proportions shall be selected on the basis of trial mixes 

with the cement factor rather than the water/cement ratio being determined by the specified 

strength using methods such as those described in American Concrete Institute Publication 211.2. 

The mix design shall be based on the specified properties. When strength is specified, select upon 

obtaining an average concrete strength sufficiently above the specified strength so that, considering 

the expected variability of the concrete and test procedures, no more than 1 in 10 strength tests will 

be expected to fall below the specified strength. Mix designs shall be modified during the course 

of the work when necessary to ensure compliance with strength and consistency requirements the 

specified fresh and hardened concrete properties. For Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC), such 

modifications shall only be permitted after trial batches to demonstrate that the modified mix 

design will result in concrete that complies with the specified concrete properties. 

Item No. 2 

Revise 8.4.1.2 Trial Batch Tests as follows: 

8.4.1.2 Trial Batch Tests 

For classes A, A(AE), and P, P(HPC), and A(HPC) concrete, for lightweight concrete, and for other 

classes of concrete when specified or ordered by the Engineer, satisfactory performance of the 

proposed mix design shall be verified by laboratory tests on trial batches. The results of such tests 

shall be furnished to the Engineer by the contractor or the manufacturer of the precast elements at 

the time the proposed mix design is submitted. For mix design approval, the strengths of a 

minimum of five test cylinders taken from a trial batch shall average at least 800 psi greater than 

the specified strength.

If materials and a mix design identical to those proposed for use have been used on other work 

within the previous year, certified copies of concrete test results from this work which indicate full 

compliance with these specifications may be substituted for such laboratory tests. If the results of 

more than 10 such strength tests are available from historical records for the past year, average 

strength for these tests shall be at least 1.28 standard deviations above the specified strength. 

The average values obtained from trial batches for the specified properties, such as strength shall 

exceed design values by a certain amount based on variability. For compressive strength, the 

required average strength used as a basis for selection of concrete proportions shall be determined 

in accordance with AASHTO M 241.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 
Appendix C 

C–44 

Other Affected Articles 

AASHTO M 241 

Background

Item No. 1 

ACI Guide 211.4 describes selecting proportions for high-strength concrete with portland cement 

and fly ash.(1) In HPC, type, size, and shape of aggregate become important. 

Properties other than strength are also important in bridge structures. 

Any modification to the mixture proportions and ingredients must be tested using trial batches. 

Item No. 2 

Properties other than strength are also included. Overstrength requirements are updated for all 

strength levels including high-strength concrete by referring to AASHTO M 241.(2,3) Revisions to 

AASHTO M 241 are also proposed. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More durable structures. Inclusion of high-strength concrete. 

 

References

1. ACI Committee 211, "Guide for Selecting Proportions for High-Strength Concrete with 

Portland Cement and Fly Ash (ACI 211.4)" American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 

1993, 13 pp. 

 

2. Cagley, J. R. "Changing from ACI 318-99 to ACI 318-02," Concrete International, American 

Concrete Institute, June 2001. 

3. AASHTO M 241 Standard Specification for Concrete Made by Volumetric Batching and 

Continuous Mixing. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix C 

C–45 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition 8.4.3

Revise 8.4.3 Cement Content as follows: 

The minimum cement content shall be as listed in Table 8.2 or otherwise specified. For Class 

P(HPC), the total cementitious materials content shall be specified not to exceed 1,000 pounds per 

cubic yard of concrete. For other classes of concrete, Tthe maximum cement or cement plus 

mineral admixture content shall not exceed 800 pounds per cubic yard of concrete. The actual 

cement content used shall be within these limits and shall be sufficient to produce concrete of the 

required strength, and consistency, and performance. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

8.2 

Background

Many high-strength concretes require a cementitious materials content in excess of 800 lb/yd3

(475 kg/m3

).(1) A higher limit is, therefore, appropriate. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Facilitate the use of high-strength and high performance concrete. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–47 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.4.4

Revise 8.4.4 Mineral Admixtures as follows: 

8.4.4 Mineral Admixtures 

Mineral admixtures shall be used in the amounts specified. In addition,For all classes of concrete 

except P(HPC) and A(HPC), when either Types I, II, IV or V (AASHTO M 85) cements are used 

and mineral admixtures are neither specified nor prohibited, the Contractor will be permitted to 

replace up to 20 25 percent of the required Portland cement with a mineral admixture fly ash or 

other pozzolan conforming to AASHTO M 295, up to 50 percent of the required Portland cement 

with slag conforming to AASHTO M 302, or up to 10 percent of the required Portland cement with 

silica fume conforming to AASHTO M 307. When any combination of fly ash, slag, and silica 

fume are used, the Contractor will be permitted to replace up to 50 percent of the required Portland 

cement. However, no more than 25 percent shall be fly ash and no more than 10 percent shall be 

silica fume. The weight of the mineral admixture used shall be equal to or greater than the weight 

of the Portland cement replaced. In calculating the water/-cementitious materials ratio of the mix, 

the weight of cementitious materials shall be considered to be the sum of the weights of the 

Portland cement and the mineral admixtures. 

For Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC) concrete, mineral admixtures (pozzolans or slag) shall be 

permitted to be used as cementitious material with portland cement in blended cements or as a 

separate addition at the mixer. The amount of mineral admixture shall be determined by trial 

batches. The water-cementitious materials ratio shall be the ratio of the weight of water to the total 

cementitious materials, including the mineral admixtures. The properties of the freshly mixed and 

hardened concrete shall comply with specified values.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

8.3.7 

Background

Mineral admixtures are widely used in HPC today. These include fly ash, ground granulated blastfurnace slag, and silica fume. The use of these materials results in a concrete with a finer pore 

structure and, therefore, lower permeability. The proposed replacement percentages are based on 

those in ACI 318 for concrete exposed to deicing chemicals.(1) 

Trial batches are required with HPC to ensure that the specified properties are achieved. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved concrete for more durable structures. 

 

References

1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-02) and 

Commentary (318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–49 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.5.7.1

Revise 8.5.7.1 Tests as follows: 

8.5.7.1 Tests 

A strength test shall consist of the average strength of at least two 6x12-in. or at least three 4x8-in. 

compressive strength test cylinders fabricated from material taken from a single randomly selected 

batch of concrete, except that, if any cylinder should show evidence of improper sampling, 

molding, or testing, said cylinder shall be discarded and the strength test shall consist of the 

strength of the remaining cylinder(s). A minimum of three cylinders shall be fabricated for each 

strength test when the specified strength exceeds 5,000 psi.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

AASHTO M 241 

Background

4x8-in cylinders are commonly used for testing high-strength concrete and may exhibit higher 

variability.(1) For high-strength concrete, strength is more critical, and at least three cylinders are 

recommended for any size.(2) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality of concrete and more valid measurements of compressive strength. 

 

References

1. Ozyildirim, C., "4 x 8 inch Concrete Cylinders versus 6 x 12 inch Cylinders," VHTRC 84-R44, 

Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, May 1984, 25 pp. 

2. ACI Committee 363, "Guide to Quality Control and Testing of High-Strength Concrete (ACI 

363.2R-98)," American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998, 18 pp. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–51 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.5.7.3

Revise 8.5.7.3 For Acceptance of Concrete as follows: 

8.5.7.3 For Acceptance of Concrete 

For determining compliance of concrete with a specified 28-day strength, test cylinders shall be 

cured under controlled conditions as described in Article 9.3 of AASHTO T 23 and tested at the 

specified age of 28 days. Samples for acceptance tests for each class of concrete shall be taken not 

less than once a day nor less than once for each 150 cubic yards of concrete or once for each major 

placement. 

Except for Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC) concrete, aAny concrete represented by a test 

thatwhich indicates a strength thatwhich is less than the specified 28-day compressive strength at 

the specified age by more than 500 psi will be rejected and shall be removed and replaced with 

acceptable concrete. Such rejection shall prevail unless either: 

(1) The Contractor, at his or her expense, obtains and submits evidence of a type acceptable to 

the Engineer that the strength and quality of the rejected concrete is acceptable. If such 

evidence consists of cores taken from the work, the cores shall be obtained and tested in 

accordance with the standard methods of AASHTO T 24 (ASTM C 42) or, 

(2) The Engineer determines that said concrete is located where it will not create an intolerable 

detrimental effect on the structure and the Contractor agrees to a reduced payment to 

compensate the Department for loss of durability and other lost benefits. 

For Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC) concrete, any concrete represented by a test that indicates a 

strength that is less than the specified compressive strength at the specified age will be rejected and 

shall be removed and replaced with acceptable concrete.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

Test ages other than 28 days are frequently specified for high-strength concrete.(1) The elimination 

of 28 days in this provision allows the use of other test ages. 

A goal of HPC is to provide concrete that meets the specification for the intended application. 

Accepting concrete that does not meet the specified compressive strength is not an acceptable 

practice for HPC. A reduced payment cannot compensate for a loss of durability and possible 

reduced service life. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality of concrete. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 
Appendix C 

C–52 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix C 

C–53 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition 8.5.7.5

Revise 8.5.7.5 Steam and Radiant Heat-Cured Concrete as follows: 

8.5.7.5 Precast Concrete Cured by the Waterproof Cover Method, Steam and or Radiant Heat HeatCured Concrete 

When a precast concrete member is cured by the waterproof cover method, steam, or radiant heatcured, the compressive strength test cylinders made for any of the above purposes shall be cured 

under conditions similar to the member. Such concrete will shall be considered to be acceptable 

whenever a test indicates that the concrete has reached the specified 28-day compressive strength 

provided such strength is reached not more than 28 days after the member is cast no later than the 

specified age for the compressive strength.

Test cylinders shall be cured by only one of the following methods:

(1) For concrete with specified design compressive strengths less than or equal to 6,000 psi, test 

cylinders shall be stored next to the member and under the same covers such that the cylinders are 

exposed to the same temperature conditions as the member.

(2) For all specified concrete strengths, test cylinders shall be match-cured in chambers in which 

the temperature of the chamber is correlated with the temperature in the member prior to release of 

the prestressing strands. Temperatures of the chamber and member shall be verified by use of 

temperature sensors in the chamber and member. Unless specified otherwise, temperature sensors 

in I-beams shall be located at the center of gravity of the bottom flange. For other members, the 

temperature sensors shall be located at the center of the thickest section. The location shall be 

specified on the drawings. After release of the prestressing strands, cylinders shall be stored in a 

similar temperature and humidity environment as the member.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

Division I, 9.23 

Background

Research on several FHWA-State high performance concrete showcase projects has shown that the 

strength of quality control cylinders is affected by the curing temperatures that the cylinders 

experience.(1,2) A high initial curing temperature accelerates the strength gain at early ages but 

results in a slower strength gain at later ages. Consequently, a test cylinder that experiences a 

different temperature history from the member that it represents does not truly represent the 

strength of the concrete in the member either at an age corresponding to release of the strands or at 

later ages. This effect becomes more significant with high-strength concrete because of the higher 

cementitious materials content and higher heat of hydration. 

Placing the test cylinders under the same covers as the member has proved to be an acceptable 

method for conventional strength concretes. However, for high-strength concretes, match curing is 

essential if realistic values of strength are to be measured.(3) The proposed changes allow the 

traditional method to be used for conventional strength concretes while requiring match curing for 

high-strength concretes and allowing match curing for conventional strength concretes. 
Appendix C 

C–54 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges 

Provides a more realistic measure of the compressive strength of concrete in the member. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Meyers, J. J. and Carrasquillo R. L., "Production and Quality Control of High Performance 

Concrete in Texas Bridge Structures," Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas 

at Austin, Research Report 580/589-1, 2000, 553 pp. 

3. Russell, H. G., "Consider Match Curing for High-Strength Precast," Concrete Products, Vol. 

102, No. 7, July 1999, pp. 117-118. 

 (Submitted by: )
Appendix C 

C–55 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.6.4.1

Revise 8.6.4.1 Protection During Cure as follows: 

8.6.4.1 Protection During Cure

When there is a probability of air temperatures below 35oF during the cure period, the Contractor 

shall submit for approval by the Engineer prior to concrete placement, a cold weather concreting 

and curing plan detailing the methods and equipment which will be used to assure ensure that the 

required concrete temperatures are maintained. The concrete shall be maintained at a temperature 

of not less than 45o

F for the first six days after-placement except that when pozzolans or slag are

cement or fly ash cement is used, this period shall be as follows: 

Percentage of Cement 

Replaced, by Weight, With 

Pozzolans Slag

Required Period of 

Controlled Temperature 

10% 25% 8 Ddays 

11-15% 26-35% 9 Days 

16-20% 36-50% 10 Days 

The above requirement for an extended period of controlled temperature may be waived if a 

compressive strength of 65 percent of the specified 28-day design strength is achieved in 6 days 

using site-cured cylinders or the match-curing system or the maturity method.

When the percentage of cement replacement is larger than the values listed above or when 

combinations of materials are used as cement replacement, the required period of controlled 

temperature shall be at least 6 days and shall continue until a compressive strength of 65 percent of 

the specified design strength is achieved using site-cured cylinders or the match-curing system or 

the maturity method.

If external heating is employed, the heat shall be applied and withdrawn gradually and uniformly so 

that no part of the concrete surface is heated to more than 90o

F or caused to change temperature by 

more than 20o

F in 8 hours. 

When requested by the Engineer, the Contractor shall provide and install two maximum-minimum 

type thermometers at each structure site. Such thermometers shall be installed as directed by the 

Engineer so as to monitor the temperature of the concrete and the surrounding air during the cure 

period. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background 

The current provision only addresses pozzolans up to a cement replacement of 20 percent and 

needs to be more general. Instead of fixed periods of controlled temperature, the match-curing 

system or maturity method should be allowed. Both methods can be effective with HPC. 
Appendix C 

C–56 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges 

The changes allow for a wider range of cement replacements and optional methods to reduce the 

required period of controlled temperature. The latter will allow for faster bridge construction. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix C 

C–57 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.6.6 and 8.6.7

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.6.6 Concrete Exposed to Salt Water as follows: 

8.6.6 Concrete Exposed to Salt Water 

Unless otherwise specifically provided, concrete for structures exposed to salt or brackish water 

shall comply with the requirements of Class A(HPC) concrete be Class S for concrete placed under 

water and Class A for other work. Such concrete shall be mixed for a period of not less than 2 

minutes and the water content of the mixture shall be carefully controlled and regulated so as to 

produce concrete of maximum impermeability. The concrete shall be thoroughly consolidated as 

necessary to produce maximum density and a complete lack of rock pockets. Unless otherwise 

indicated on the plans, the clear distance from the face of the concrete to the reinforcing steel shall 

be not less than 4 inches. No construction joints shall be formed between levels of extreme low 

water and extreme high water or the upper limit of wave action as determined by the Engineer. 

Between these levels the forms shall not be removed, or other means provided, to prevent salt water 

from coming in direct contact with the concrete for a period of not less than 30 days after 

placement. Except for the repair of any rock pockets and the plugging of form ties holes, the 

original surface as the concrete comes from the forms shall be left undisturbed. Special handling 

shall be provided for precast members to avoid even slight deformation cracks. 

Item No. 2 

Revise 8.6.7 Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Soils or Water as follows: 

8.6.7 Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Soils or Sulfate Water 

When the special provisions identify the area as containing sulfate soils or sulfate water, the 

concrete that will be in contact with such soil or water shall be Class A(HPC) and shall be mixed, 

placed, and protected from contact with soil or water as required for concrete exposed to salt water 

except that the protection period shall be not less than 72 hours. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

HPC with low permeability are essential to provide the needed protection for concrete exposed to 

salt or sulfate solutions.(1) Class A(HPC) is intended for these applications. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Provide a lower permeability concrete. 

 

References

1. ACI Committee 222, "Corrosion of Metals in Concrete (ACI 222R-96)," American Concrete 

Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996, 30 pp. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix C 

C–59 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.11.1

Revise 8.11.1 General as follows:

All newly placed concrete shall be cured so as to prevent the loss of water by use of one or more of 

the methods specified herein. Except for Class A(HPC) concrete, Ccuring shall commence 

immediately after the free water has left the surface and finishing operations are completed. For 

Class A(HPC) concrete, water curing shall commence immediately after finishing operations are 

complete. If the surface of the concrete begins to dry before the selected cure method can be 

applied, the surface of the concrete shall be kept moist by a fog spray applied so as not to damage 

the surface. 

Curing by other than waterproof cover method with precast concrete or steam or radiant heat 

methods shall continue uninterrupted for 7 days except that when pozzolans in excess of 

10 percent, by weight, of the Portland cement are used in the mix. When such pozzolans are used, 

the curing period shall be 10 days. For other than top slabs of structures serving as finished 

pavements, and Class A(HPC) concrete, the above curing periods may be reduced and curing 

terminated when test cylinders cured under the same conditions as the structure indicate that 

concrete strengths of at least 70 percent of that specified have been reached. 

When deemed necessary by the Engineer during periods of hot weather, water shall be applied to 

concrete surfaces being cured by the liquid membrane method or by the forms-in-place method, 

until the Engineer determines that a cooling effect is no longer required. Such application of water 

will be paid for as extra work. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

8.11.4 and 8.13.4 

Background

Changes to 8.11.1 are needed to make it consistent with changes to 8.11.4 and 8.13.4.(1,2,3) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality and durability of bridge decks. 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Meyers, J. J. and Carrasquillo R. L., "Production and Quality Control of High Performance 

Concrete in Texas Bridge Structures," Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas 

at Austin, Research Report 580/589-1, 2000, 553 pp. 

3. HPC Bridge Views, Issue No. 15, May/June 2001. 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix C 

C–61 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition 8.11.3.5

Revise 8.11.3.5 Steam or Radiant Heat Curing Method as follows: 

Item No. 1 

Add the following at the end of the second paragraph: 

Steam curing or radiant heat curing shall be done under a suitable enclosure to contain the live 

steam or the heat. Steam shall be low pressure and saturated. Temperature recording devices shall 

be employed as necessary to verify that temperatures are uniform throughout the enclosure concrete 

and within the limits specified. 

Item No. 2 

Revise the third paragraph as follows: 

The initial application of the steam or of the heat shall be from 2 to 4 hours after the final 

placement of concrete to allow the initial set of the concrete to take place. If retarders are used, the 

waiting period before application of the steam or of the radiant heat shall be increased to between 4 

and 6 hours after placement not occur prior to initial set of the concrete except to maintain the 

temperature within the curing chamber above the specified minimum temperature. The time of 

initial set may be determined by the Standard Method of Test for "Time of Setting of Concrete 

Mixtures by Penetration Resistance," AASHTO T 197 (ASTM C 403)., and the time limits 

described above may then be waived.

Item No. 3 

Revise the fifth paragraph as follows: 

Application of live steam shall not be directed on the concrete or on the forms so as to cause 

localized high temperatures. During the initial application of live steam or of radiant heat, the 

ambient temperature within the curing enclosure concrete shall increase at an average rate not 

exceeding 40oF per hour until the curing temperature is reached. The maximum curing temperature 

within the enclosure concrete shall not exceed 160o

F. The maximum temperature shall be held 

until the concrete has reached the desired strength. In discontinuing the steam application, the 

ambient air concrete temperature shall not decrease at a rate to exceed 40o

F per hour until a 

temperature of 20oF above the temperature of the air to which the concrete will be exposed has 

been reached. 

Item No. 4 

Revise the last paragraph as follows: 

Unless the ambient temperature is maintained above 60 o

F, for prestressed members the transfer of 

the stressing force to the concrete shall be accomplished immediately after the steam curing or the 

heat curing has been discontinued. For prestressed members, the transfer of the stressing force to 

the concrete shall be accomplished immediately after the steam curing or heat curing has been 

discontinued.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

8.2 
Appendix C 

C–62 

Background 

Item No. 1 

Since high-strength concrete generates significantly more heat than conventional strength concrete, 

it is important that concrete temperatures be monitored rather than temperatures throughout the 

enclosure.(1)

Item No. 2 

Since today's concretes may contain a wider variety of constituent materials than in the past, the 

current criteria of 2 to 4 hours or 4 to 6 hours may not be appropriate.(1) Measurement of time of 

set for the specific concrete is a more precise approach. 

Item No. 3 

Research has shown that delayed ettringite formation (DEF) can occur in concretes subjected to 

high temperatures during curing and subsequently exposed to moisture. A maximum temperature 

of about 160 o

F (71 oC) is generally recognized as an upper limit below which DEF is unlikely to 

occur. The PCI Quality Control Manual contains a recommendation that maximum concrete 

temperature should be limited to 158 o

F (70 oC) if a known potential for alkali-silica reaction or 

DEF exists. Otherwise, the maximum concrete temperature is 180 o

F (82 oC).(2)

Item No. 4 

The current provision allows the ambient temperature to fall as low as 60 oF (16 oC) before the 

strands are released. A large decrease in concrete and strand temperatures prior to release of the 

strands can result in vertical cracks in the member. This is more likely in deep members and highstrength concrete members. Immediate release of the strands after the steam or heat curing 

minimizes the likelihood of cracking.(3)

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality of concrete in prestressed concrete girders and less cracking in bridge girders 

prior to transfer of the prestressing force. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Manual for Quality Control for Plants and Production of Structural Precast Concrete Products, 

MNL-116-99, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 1999. 

3. Zia, P. and Caner, A., "Cracking in Large-Sized Long Span Prestressed Concrete AASHTO 

Girders," Center for Transportation Engineering Studies, North Carolina State University, October 

1993, 87 pp. 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix C 

C–63 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition 8.11.4

Add the following paragraph at the end of 8.11.4 Bridge Decks: 

When Class A(HPC) concrete is used in bridge decks, water cure shall be applied immediately after

the finishing of any portion of the deck is complete and shall remain in place for a minimum period 

of 7 days irrespective of concrete strength. If conditions prevent immediate application of the 

water cure, an evaporation retardant shall be applied immediately after completion of finishing or 

fogging shall be used to maintain a high relative humidity above the concrete to prevent drying of 

the concrete surface. Following the water cure period, liquid membrane curing compound may be 

applied to extend the curing period.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

8.11.1 

Background

High performance concrete tends to have very little bleed water, especially when a low watercementitious materials ratio is used with mineral admixtures. As a result, the evaporation 

protection of the bleed water on the fresh concrete is lost. The most effective way to protect the 

concrete is by application of water cure as soon as screeding or tining of the concrete is complete 

and no later than 15 minutes after the concrete is placed in any portion of the deck.(1) If this is not 

possible, the next best alternative is to prevent or reduce moisture loss from the concrete until the 

water cure can be applied. In the water cure method, the concrete surface is kept continuously wet. 

The most appropriate method is to cover the deck with materials such as cotton mats, multiple 

layers of burlap, or other materials that do not discolor or damage the concrete surface and to keep 

these materials continuously and thoroughly wet. The water cure needs to continue for a minimum 

of 7 days irrespective of concrete strength. The use of a curing compound after the water cure 

extends the curing period while allowing the contractor to have access to the bridge deck. 

Note that 8.11.1 requires 10 days curing when more than 10 percent pozzolans are used. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality and durability of bridge decks. 

 

References

1. HPC Bridge Views, Issue No. 15, May/June 2001. 

 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix C 

C–65 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO Standard Specifications Division II 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.13.4

Revise 8.13.4 Curing as follows: 

Unless otherwise permitted, precast members shall be cured by either the water method, waterproof 

cover method, or the steam or radiant heat method. The use of insulated blankets is permitted with

the waterproof cover method. When the waterproof cover method is used, the air temperature 

beneath the cover shall not be less than 50oF and live steam or radiant heat may be used to maintain 

the temperature above the minimum value. The maximum concrete temperature during the curing 

cycle shall not exceed 160oF. The waterproof cover shall remain in place until such time as the 

compressive strength of the concrete reaches the strength specified for detensioning or stripping.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

8.11.1 

Background

High-strength concretes contain more cementitious material than used in conventional strength 

concrete.(1) Consequently, the heat generated during hydration is greater and sufficient heat can be 

generated to develop the compressive strength required for detensioning or stripping without the 

use of steam or radiant heating.(2) The new wording permits self-curing with or without insulated 

blankets by modifying the waterproof cover method. The revision also refers to concrete 

temperature rather than the enclosure temperature. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Reduce cost of girders since energy for heating is not required. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Meyers, J. J. and Carrasquillo R. L., "Production and Quality Control of High Performance 

Concrete in Texas Bridge Structures," Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas 

at Austin, Research Report 580/589-1, 2000, 553 pp. 

 

(Submitted by: )

D–1 

APPENDIX D—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN 

SPECIFICATIONS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION PAGE

3.5.1-1 Dead Loads.....................................................................................................................D–3 

5.1 Scope.....................................................................................................................................D–5 

5.3 Notation.................................................................................................................................D–7 

C5.4.1 General ............................................................................................................................D–9 

5.4.2.1 Compressive Strength ...................................................................................................D–11 

C5.4.2.1-1 Concrete Mix Characteristics by Class...................................................................D–13 

5.4.2.3 Shrinkage and Creep.....................................................................................................D–15 

5.4.2.4 Modulus of Elasticity....................................................................................................D–21 

5.4.2.6 Modulus of Rupture ......................................................................................................D–23 

5.4.6.2 Size of Ducts.................................................................................................................D–27 

5.5.4.1 Strength Limit State—General and 5.9.4.1.1 Stress Limits for Concrete— 

Compression Stresses ......................................................................................................D–29 

5.7.1 Assumptions for Service and Fatigue Limit States..........................................................D–31 

5.8.2.8 Design and Detailing Requirements .............................................................................D–33 

5.9.5.1,2,3 Loss of Prestress .....................................................................................................D–37 

5.9.5.4 Refined Estimates of Time-Dependent Losses.............................................................D–49 

5.12.2 Alkali-Silica Reactive Aggregates.................................................................................D–57 

5.13.4.4.1 Pile Dimensions .......................................................................................................D–59 

Appendix D 

D–3

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 3.5.1-1

Item No. 1 

Revise the unit weight of concrete in Table 3.5.1-1 as follows: 

 Plain Concrete Lightweight 0.110 KCF 

 Sand-Lightweight 0.120 KCF 

 Normal Weight fc' ≤ 5.0 KSI 0.150 KCF 0.145 KCF

 5.0 < fc' ≤ 15.0 KSI 0.140 + 0.001 fc' KCF

Item No. 2 

Revise C3.5.1 as follows: 

Table 1 provides traditional unit weights. The unit weight of granular materials depends upon the 

degree of compaction and water content. The unit weight of concrete is primarily affected by that

the unit weight of the aggregate, which varies by geographical location, and design and increases 

with concrete compressive strength. The unit weight of reinforced concrete is generally taken as 

0.005 KCF greater than the unit weight of plain concrete. The values provided for wood include 

the weight of mandatory preservatives. The weight of transit rails, etc., is to be used only for 

preliminary design. 

Item No. 3 

Add the following to 3.3 Notation 

3.3.1 General 

fc' = specified compressive strength of concrete for use in design (KSI) (3.5.1)

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

5.4.2.4 

Background

Variation of unit weight with concrete compressive strength. 

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

0.160

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0

Compressive Strength f'c, KSI

Unit Weight

wc, KCF

wc = 0.140 + 0.001f'c
Appendix D 

D–4

Analysis of data from the FHWA Showcase projects and other sources indicates a trend that the 

unit weight of concrete increases as concrete strength increases.(1,2,3) Unit weights range from 

about 0.140 to 0.155 KCF (2.24 to 2.48 Mg/m3) with an average increase of about 0.001 KCF for 

every 1.0 KSI increase in compressive strength (2.3 kg/m3 for every 1 MPa). The proposed change 

recognizes this increase and differentiates between the unit weight of plain and reinforced concrete. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges 

More precise calculation of dead load. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Burg, R. G. and Ost, B. W., "Engineering Properties of Commercially Available High-Strength 

Concretes," PCA Research and Development Bulletin RD104T, Portland Cement Association, 

Skokie, IL, 1992. 

3. Burg, R. G. and Fiorato, A. E., "High-Strength Concrete in Massive Foundation Elements," 

PCA Research and Development Bulletin RD117, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1999. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix D 

D–5

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.1

In 5.1 Scope, revise first paragraph as follows: 

The provisions in this section apply to the design of bridge and retaining wall components 

constructed of normal density or lightweight concrete and reinforced with steel bars, welded wire

fabric reinforcement, and/or prestressing strands, or bars, or wires. The provisions are based on 

concrete strengths varying from 2.4 KSI to 10.0 KSI, except as noted.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

5.4.2.1 

Background

1. Both welded wire fabric reinforcement and prestressing wire are used in concrete members. 

Article 5.11 already addresses the development, anchorage, and splices of welded wire fabric. 

 

2. Revisions are being proposed that will increase the maximum compressive strength for which 

some provisions are applicable. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Recognize the use of these materials in bridge members. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix D 

D–7 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.3

Revise 5.3 Notation for fc' as follows: 

fc' = specified compressive strength of concrete for use in design at 28 days, unless another age is 

specified (KSI) (5.4.2.1). 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

For the design purposes of section 5, the concrete age is not important. The designer should 

specify the age based on the anticipated strength development of the concrete and the intended 

application. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Allow more economical construction by avoiding strength developments that are not required for 

the intended application. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix D 

D–9 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or (X) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions C5.4.1

In C5.4.1, revise second paragraph as follows: 

Occasionally, it may be appropriate to use materials other than those included in the AASHTO 

LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications; for example, when concretes are modified to obtain 

very high strengths through the introduction of special admixtures materials, such as: 

• Silica fume, 

• Cements other than Portland or blended hydraulic cements, 

• Proprietary high early strength cements, and 

• Ground granulated blast-furnace slag, and

• Other types of reinforcing materials. 

In these cases the specified properties of such materials should be established by a specified testing 

program measured using the testing procedures defined in the contract documents. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications 8.3.7 

Background

1. Ground granulated blast-furnace slag has been added to the list since it is used in HPC in bridge 

construction and is currently not covered in the Bridge Construction Specifications.(1)

2. The last paragraph has been revised to identify where the tests are defined. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Allow the use of ground granulated blast-furnace slag.

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix D 

D-11 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or (X) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions 5.4.2.1

Item No. 1. 

In 5.4.2.1 Compressive Strength, revise second paragraph as follows: 

Design Cconcrete strengths above 10.0 KSI shall be used only when allowed by specific articles or 

when physical tests are made to establish the relationships between the concrete strength and other 

properties. Specified cConcrete with strengths below 2.4 KSI at 28 days should not be used in 

structural applications. 

Item No. 2 

In 5.4.2.1 Compressive Strength, revise the sixth paragraph as follows: 

The sum of Portland cement and other cementitious materials shall be specified not to exceed 

800 PCY except for Class P(HPC) where the sum of portland cement and other cementitious

materials shall be specified not to exceed 1000 PCY.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

Item No. 1 

All those that reference strengths greater than 10.0 KSI 

Item No. 2 

Table C5.4.2.1-1 

Background

Item No. 1 

Ready-mixed concretes with actual compressive strengths in excess of 10 KSI (70 MPa) have been 

available for many years. These strengths can now be achieved in precast, prestressed concrete. In 

three FHWA-sponsored HPC projects, strengths in excess of 10 KSI (70 MPa) were specified and 

successfully achieved.(1) Age of 28 days has been eliminated since concrete age is not important 

for use in design. 

Various revisions to other articles are being proposed. Where research has shown that existing 

articles or revised articles are applicable to concrete members with strengths in excess of 10 KSI 

(70 MPa), the use of higher strengths should be allowed without the need for more physical tests. 

Item No. 2 

Many high-strength concretes require a cementitious materials content in excess of 800 PCY to 

achieve the specified strength.(1) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Allow longer span lengths, wider girder spacings, or shallower sections through the use of higher 

strength concrete. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 
Appendix D 

D-12 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix D 

D-13 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

( ) Revision or (X) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.4.2.1-1

Item No. 1 

In Table C5.4.2.1-1, add the following two new classes of high performance concrete: 

Minimum 

Cement 

Content 

Maximum 

W/CM Ratio 

Air Content 

Range 

Coarse 

Aggregate 

28-Day

Compressive 

Class of Strength 

Concrete 

PCY LBS Per LBS % 

Nominal Size,

Square Size

of Openings

KSI 

P(HPC) (1) 0.40 As specified 

in the contract

0.75-IN. to 

No. 4

> 6.0 as 

specified in 

the contract

A(HPC) (1) 0.45 As specified 

in the contract (1) 4.0

1. Minimum cementitious materials content and coarse aggregate size to be selected to meet other 

performance criteria specified in the contract.

Item No. 2 

In C5.4.2.1 add two new descriptions to the fourth paragraph as follows: 

Class P(HPC) concrete is intended for use in prestressed concrete when strengths in excess of 

6.0 KSI are specified and should always be used for specified concrete strengths greater than 

10.0 KSI.

Class A(HPC) concrete is used in cast-in-place substructures and superstructures when low 

permeability or other performance characteristics are specified.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications Table 8.2.2-1 and 8.4.3 

Background

With high performance concrete, it is desirable that the specifications be performance based. The 

introduction of two new classes of concrete is a move in this direction. Class P(HPC) is intended 

for use in prestressed concrete members with a specified concrete compressive strength greater than 

6.0 KSI (41 MPa). Class A(HPC) is intended for use in cast-in-place construction where 

performance criteria in addition to concrete compressive strengths are specified. Other criteria 

might include shrinkage, chloride permeability, freeze-thaw resistance, deicer scaling resistance, 

abrasion resistance, or heat of hydration.(1,2) 

The proposed change to the heading of the third column will affect all classes of concrete listed in 

the existing table and makes the table more consistent with the state-of-the-art of concrete 

technology. 

Square Size of Openings has been changed to Nominal Size because the listed quantities are 
Appendix D 

D-14 

aggregate sizes. 

The requirement to measure concrete strength at 28 days has been deleted because later ages are 

more relevant for high-strength concrete. The designer should specify the age based on the 

anticipated strength development of the concrete and the intended application. 

For both classes of concrete, a minimum cement content is not included since this should be 

selected by the producer based on the specified performance criteria. A maximum 

water/cementitious materials has been retained to be consistent with the existing water/cement 

ratios for Class P and Class A concretes. For Class P(HPC) concrete, a maximum size of coarse 

aggregate is specified since it is difficult to achieve the higher concrete compressive strengths with 

aggregates larger than 3/4 in (19 mm). For Class A(HPC) concrete, the maximum aggregate size 

should be selected by the producer based on the specified performance criteria. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Encourage the use of high performance concrete with higher strength, lower permeability, or other 

properties. 

References

1. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

2. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix D 

D-15 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.4.2.3

Item No. 1 

Revise 5.4.2.3 as follows: 

5.4.2.3 Shrinkage and Creep 

5.4.2.3.1 General 

Values of shrinkage and creep, specified herein and in Articles 5.9.5.3 and 5.9.5.4, shall be used to 

determine the effects of shrinkage and creep on the loss of prestressing force in bridges other than 

segmentally constructed ones. These values in conjunction with the moment of inertia, as specified 

in Article 5.7.3.6.2, may be used to determine the effects of shrinkage and creep on deflections. 

The provisions of Article 5.4.2.3 shall be applicable for specified concrete strengths up to 15.0 KSI.

In the absence of more accurate data, the shrinkage coefficients may be assumed to be 0.0002 after 

28 days and 0.0005 after one year of drying.

When mix-specific data are not available, estimates of shrinkage and creep may be made using the 

provisions of: Articles 5.4.2.3.2 and 5.4.2.3.3 or other acceptable prediction methods.

• Articles 5.4.2.3.2 and 5.4.2.3.3,

• The CEB-FIP model code, or 

• ACI 209.

For segmentally constructed bridges, a more precise estimate shall be made, including the effect of: 

• Specific materials, 

• Structural dimensions, 

• Site conditions, and

• Construction methods., and

• Concrete age at various stages of erection.

5.4.2.3.2 Creep 

The creep coefficient may be taken as: 

ψ( ) t, ti = 0.118

s hc f td i 1.9k k k k t − (5.4.2.3.2-1)

( )

( )0.6

0.6

0.118

120 10.0

3.5 1.58

i

i

c f i

t t

t t

t

H k k

+ −

− ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ − − 

for which: 

ks = 1.45 – 0.13(V/S) ≥ 1.0 (5.4.2.3.2-2)

khc = 1.56 – 0.008H (5.4.2.3.2-3)

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+

=

9

0.67

1

'

c

f

f

k
Appendix D 

D-16 

'

ci

f 1 f

5 k

+ = (5.4.2.3.2-24) 

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

− + = 61 4f t

t k '

ci

td (5.4.2.3.2-5)

where: 

H = relative humidity (%). In the absence of better information, H may be taken from Figure 

5.4.2.3.3-1.

ks = factor for the effect of the volume-to-surface ratio of the component specified in Figure 1

kf = factor for the effect of concrete strength 

khc = humidity factor for creep

ktd = time development factor

t = maturity of concrete (Day), defined as age of concrete between time of loading for creep 

calculations, or end of curing for shrinkage calculations, and time being considered for 

analysis of creep or shrinkage effects.

ti = age of concrete when load is initially applied (Day) 

V/S = volume-to-surface ratio

 In the absence of better information, H may be taken from Figure 5.4.2.3.3-1.

f'ci = specified compressive strength of concrete at time of prestressing for pretensioned members 

and 28 days at time of initial loading for non-prestressed members. If concrete age at time 

of initial loading is unknown at design time, '

ci f may be taken as 0.80 'c f (KSI) 

(Figure 5.4.2.3.2-1 – Factor kc for Volume to Surface Ratio)

In determining the maturity of concrete at initial loading, ti, one day of accelerated curing by steam 

or radiant heat may be taken as equal to seven days of normal curing. 

The surface area used in determining the volume to area ratio should include only the area that is 

exposed to atmospheric drying. For poorly ventilated enclosed cells, only 50 percent of the interior 

perimeter should be used in calculating the surface area. For pretensioned stemmed members 

(I-beams, T-beams, and box beams), with an average web thickness of 6 to 8 IN, the value of ks

may be taken as 1.00.

5.4.2.3.3 Shrinkage 

For moist cured concretes devoid of shrinkage-prone aggregates, the strain due to shrinkage, sh ε , at 

time, t, may be taken as: 

3 0.51 10

35.0

− × ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+

ε = − t

t k k sh s h

3

sh kskhskf ktd 0.48 10− ε = − × (5.4.2.3.3-1) 

for which:
Appendix D 

D-17 

khs = (2.00 – 0.014 H) (5.4.2.3.3-2)

where: 

t = drying time(Day)

ks = size factor specified in Figure 2

khs = humidity factor specified in Figure 1 and Table 1 for shrinkage

If the moist-cured concrete is exposed to drying before five days of curing have elapsed, the 

shrinkage as determined in Equation 1 should be increased by 20 percent. 

For steam-cured concrete devoid of shrinkage-prone aggregates,

3 0.56 10

55.0

− × ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+

ε = − t

t k k sh s h (5.4.2.3.3-2)

Figure 5.4.2.3.3-1 – Annual Average Ambient Relative Humidity in Percent 

Figure 5.4.2.3.3-2 – Factor ks for Volume-to-Surface Ratio

Table 5.4.2.3.3-1 – Factor kh for Relative Humidity

Average Ambient 

Relative Humidity % kh

40 1.43

50 1.29

60 1.14

70 1.00

80 0.86

90 0.43

100 0.00
Appendix D 

D-18 

Item No. 2 

Revise C5.4.2.3 as follows: 

C5.4.2.3.1 

Creep and shrinkage of concrete are variable properties that depend on a number of factors, some 

of which may not be known at the time of design. 

Without specific physical tests or prior experience with the materials, the use of the empirical 

methods referenced in these Specifications cannot be expected to yield results with errors less than 

± 50 percent. 

C5.4.2.3.2 

The methods of determining creep and shrinkage, as specified herein and in Article 5.4.2.3.3, are 

taken frombased on Huo et al. (2001), Al-Omaishi (2001), Tadros (2002), and Collins and Mitchell 

(1991). These methods are based on the recommendation of ACI Committee 209 as modified by 

additional recently published data. 

Other applicable references include Rusch et al. (1983), Bazant and Wittman (1982), and Ghali and 

Favre (1986). 

The creep coefficient is applied to the compressive strain caused by permanent loads in order to 

obtain the strain due to creep. 

Creep is influenced by the same factors as shrinkage, and also by: 

• Magnitude and duration of the stress, 

• Maturity of the concrete at the time of loading, and 

• Temperature of concrete. 

Creep shortening of concrete under permanent loads is generally in the range of 1.5 0.5 to 4.0 times 

the initial elastic shortening, depending primarily on concrete maturity at the time of loading. 

Figure 1 is based on the equation below (PCI 1977): 

The factors for the effects of volume-to-surface ratio are an approximation of the following 

formulas:

For creep:

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ +

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

+

+ =

−

2.587

1.80 1.77e

45 t

t

26e t

t

k

0.36(V/S) 0.54(V/S)

c (C5.4.2.3.2-1) 

For shrinkage:

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ −

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

+

+ = 9231064 94(V/S)

45 t

t

26e t

t

k

0.36(V/S)

s (C5.4.2.3.2-2)

The maximum V/S ratio considered in the development of Figure 1 and Equations C1 and C2 was 

6.0 IN. Ultimate creep and shrinkage are less sensitive to surface exposure than intermediate 

values at an early age of concrete. For accurately estimating intermediate deformations of such 
Appendix D 

D-19 

specialized structures as segmentally constructed balanced cantilever box girders, it may be 

necessary to resort to experimental data or use the more detailed Equations C5.4.2.3.2-1 and 

C5.4.2.3.2-2.

C5.4.2.3.3 

Shrinkage of concrete can vary over a wide range from nearly nil if continually immersed in water 

to in excess of 0.0008 for thin sections made with high shrinkage aggregates and sections that are 

not properly cured. 

Shrinkage is affected by: 

• Aggregates characteristics and proportions, 

• Average humidity at the bridge site, 

• W/C ratio, 

• Type of cure, 

• Volume to surface area ratio of member, and 

• Duration of drying period. 

Large concrete members may undergo substantially less shrinkage than that measured by 

laboratory testing of smaller specimens of the same concrete. The constraining effects of 

reinforcement and composite actions with other elements of the bridge tend to reduce the 

dimensional changes in some components. 

Figure 2 is based on the equation below (PCI 1977).

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ −

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

+

+ = 9231064 94( )

45

26 0.36( ) V/S

t

t

e t

t

k

V/S

s (C5.4.2.3.3-1)

The maximum V/S ratio considered in the development of Figure 2 and Equation C1 was 6.0 IN.

The values in Table 1 may be approximated by the following equations:

• For H < 80%

70

140 H kh

− = (C5.4.2.3.3-2)

• For H > 80%

( )

70

3 100 H kh

− = (C5.4.2.3.3-3)

Item No. 3 

Add the following to Section 5 References: 

Huo, X. S., Al-Omaishi, N., and Tadros, M. K., "Creep, Shrinkage, and Modulus of Elasticity of 

High Performance Concrete," ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No. 6, November-December 2001, 

pp. 440-449.

Al-Omaishi, N., "Prestress Losses in High Strength Pretensioned Concrete Bridge Girders," Ph.D.
Appendix D 

D-20 

Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, December 2001, 265 pp.

Tadros, M. K., Al-Omaishi, N., Seguirant, S. P, and Gallt, J. G., "Prestress Losses in High Strength 

Concrete Bridge Girders," NCHRP 18-07 Final Report, August 2002.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

5.9.5 

Background 

Recent research has indicated that high-strength concrete undergoes less ultimate creep and 

shrinkage than conventional concrete.(1-3) Creep and shrinkage develop relatively more rapidly in 

higher strength concrete than conventional concrete. The revised formulas take these effects into 

account, yet produce comparable results to preceding formulas for a concrete strength at release, 

f’ci, of 4.0 KSI or a concrete strength at service of 5.0 KSI. Due to the high variability of creep and 

shrinkage and due to the limitation imposed on applicability of the methods presented herein, some 

of the correction factors (e.g. the relative humidity factor) were unified between creep and 

shrinkage, and some were simplified (e.g. the volume/surface ratio factor). All factors were 

reformulated such that they are equal to unity when average conditions exist, e.g. concrete strength 

at release = 4 KSI, H = 70 percent and V/S ratio = 3.5. The proposed formulas yield approximately 

the same results as the current formulas when f’ci = 0.8f’c = 4 KSI. The proposed revisions are the 

results of NCHRP Project 18-07.(3) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More realistic results of prestress losses and deflections, especially when high-strength concrete is 

used. 

 

References

1. Huo, X. S., Al-Omaishi, N., and Tadros, M. K., "Creep, Shrinkage, and Modulus of Elasticity of 

High Performance Concrete," ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No. 6, November-December 2001, 

pp. 440-449. 

2. Al-Omaishi, N., "Prestress Losses in High Strength Pretensioned Concrete Bridge Girders," 

Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, December 2001, 265 pp. 

3. Tadros, M. K., Al-Omaishi, N., Seguirant, S. P, and Gallt, J. G., "Prestress Losses in High 

Strength Concrete Bridge Girders," NCHRP 18-07 Final Report, August 2002. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix D 

D-21 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.4.2.4

Item No. 1 

Revise 5.4.2.4 as follows: 

5.4.2.4 Modulus of Elasticity 

In the absence of more precisemeasured data, the modulus of elasticity, Ec, for concretes with unit 

weights between 0.090 and 0.155 KCF and specified compressive strengths up to 15.0 KSI may be 

taken as: 

 Ec = 33,000 K1 '

c

1.5

c w f (5.4.2.4-1)

where:

K1 = factor for type of aggregate to be taken as 1.0 unless determined by physical tests

wc = unit weight of concrete (KCF) 

When the measured unit weight of concrete is unknown, wc for normal weight concrete may be 

taken as 0.140 + 0.001 fc' but not less than 0.145 KCF. '

c f = specified compressive strength of concrete (KSI) 

Item No. 2 

Add the following at the end of C5.4.2.4: 

Test data show that the modulus of elasticity of concrete is influenced by the stiffness of the 

aggregate. The factor K1 is included to allow the calculated modulus to be adjusted for different 

types of aggregate and local materials. Unless a value has been determined by physical tests, K1

should be taken as 1.0. Use of a measured K1 factor permits a more accurate prediction of modulus 

of elasticity and other values that utilize it. The value of K1 can be determined by measuring Ec, 

wc, and f'c for a range of concrete strengths using the same aggregates and then calculating the 

optimum value of K1 to fit the measured values.

Test data shows that the unit weight of normal weight concrete increases by about 0.001 KCF for 

each 1.0 KSI increase in compressive strength.

Item No. 3 

In 5.3 Notation, add the following: 

K1 = correction factor for type of aggregate to be taken as 1.0 unless determined by physical tests 

(5.4.2.4).

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

3.5.1 

All articles that include Ec (Changes are not needed.) 
Appendix D 

D-22 

Background 

Using a significant amount of test data, NCHRP Project 18-07 identified that the accuracy of the 

existing equation for predicting modulus of elasticity can be improved by the proposed 

modifications.(1) A more accurate prediction of modulus of elasticity is needed in calculating 

prestress losses and camber of high-strength concrete girders as the values are larger than for 

conventional strength concrete girders. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More accurate prediction of prestress losses and camber. 

 

References

1. Tadros, M. K., Al-Omaishi, N., Seguirant, S. P, and Gallt, J. G., "Prestress Losses in High 

Strength Concrete Bridge Girders," NCHRP 18-07 Final Report, August 2002. 

 (Submitted by: ) 
Appendix D 

D-23 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.4.2.6

Item No. 1 

Revise 5.4.2.6 as follows: 

5.4.2.6 Modulus of Rupture 

Unless determined by physical tests, modulus of rupture, fr, in KSI, for specified concrete strengths 

up to 15.0 KSI may be taken as: 

· For normal weight concrete—

When used to calculate the cracking moment of a member in 5.7.3.4 and 5.7.3.6.2 or for any 

other calculation where a lower bound value is appropriate............0.24 '

c f

When used to calculate the cracking moment of a member in 5.7.3.3.2 or for any other 

calculations where an upper bound value is appropriate .................0.37 '

c f

· For sand-lightweight concrete..........................................................0.20 '

c f

· For all-lightweight concrete .............................................................0.17 '

c f

When physical tests are used to determine modulus of rupture, the tests shall be performed in 

accordance with AASHTO T 97 "Standard Method of Test for Flexural Strength of Concrete 

(Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading)" and shall be performed on concrete using the 

same proportions and materials as specified for the structure.

Item No. 2

Add the following to the beginning of C5.4.2.6: 

Data show that most modulus of rupture values are between 0.24 '

c f and 0.37 'c f . It is

appropriate to use the lower bound value when considering service load cracking. The purpose of 

the minimum reinforcement in article 5.7.3.3.2 is to assure that the nominal moment capacity of 

the member is at least 20 percent greater than the cracking moment. Since the actual MOR could 

be as much as 50 percent greater than 0.24 '

c f the 20 percent margin of safety could be lost. 

Using an upper bound is more appropriate in this situation.

The properties of higher strength concretes are particularly sensitive to the constitutive materials. 

If test results are to be used in design, it is imperative that tests be made using concrete with not 

only the same mix proportions, but also the same materials as the concrete used in the structure.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

5.7.3.3.2 (No change required) 

5.7.3.4 (No change required) 

5.7.3.6.2 (No change required) 

Background 

Item No. 1 

The value of 0.24 '

c f has been traditionally used for modulus of rupture (MOR) for concrete. 

Data show that this value greatly underestimates the MOR at higher compressive strengths. 
Appendix D 

D-24 

ACI 363 indicates that a value for MOR of 0.37 '

c f could be used for concrete compressive 

strengths from 3 to 12 KSI.(1) However, examination of other data shows that most MOR values 

fall between these two limits.(2-10) Thus, the AASHTO value of 0.24 '

c f appears to be an 

appropriate lower bound while the ACI 363 value of 0.37 '

c f appears to be an appropriate 

upperbound. Since the cracking moment is directly proportional to the MOR, use of these values 

yields lower and upper limits of the cracking moment. It is appropriate to use the lower bound 

value of the MOR when considering service load stresses, serviceability (whether a member is 

cracked and possible crack widths), or deflections, where lower values of a cracking moment yield 

more critical quantities. However, the upper bound value is more appropriate for determining 

minimum amounts of reinforcement. The purpose of the minimum reinforcement in 5.7.3.3.2 is to 

assure that the nominal moment capacity of member is at least 20 percent greater than the cracking 

moment. If the cracking moment is too close to the nominal moment capacity, the beam could fail 

in a brittle manner. Since the data show that the actual MOR could be as much as 50 percent 

greater than the lower bound MOR, the actual cracking moment could be as much as 50 percent 

greater than that calculated using the lower bound MOR. This effectively removes the 20 percent 

margin of safety. Using the upper bound value of MOR alleviates this problem. 

The existing provisions of the code allow the use of measured values for the modulus of rupture in 

design calculations. The properties of higher strength concretes are particularly sensitive to the 

constitutive materials. In many specifications, structural concrete is specified by a class or type 

with given proportions. The actual constitutive materials are often specified in broad terms rather 

then being specified as specific materials. Thus, a given type or class of concrete could be made 

with any one of a number of different aggregates, cements or admixtures. However, a concrete 

made with crushed limestone will have different properties from a concrete with the same 

proportions but using a gravel aggregate especially at higher compressive strengths. If test results 

are to be used in design, it is imperative that tests be made using concrete with not only the same 

proportions, but the same materials as used in the actual structure. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

This change provides a more reasonable estimate of the cracking moment, Mcr. The cracking 

moment is used to assess minimum reinforcement requirements for beams (5.7.3.3.2), to determine 

if crack control reinforcement is needed in slabs (5.7.3.4), and to determine the effective moment of 

inertia for deflection calculations (5.7.3.6.2). 

 

References

1. ACI Committee 363, "State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete (ACI 363R-92)," 

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 55 pp. 

2. Price, W. H., "Factors Influencing Concrete Strength," Journal of the American Concrete 

Institute, Vol. 47, February 1951, pp. 417-432. 

3. Walker, S. and Bloem, D. L., "Effect of Aggregate Size on Properties of Concrete," Journal of 

the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 57, No. 3, September 1960, pp. 283-98. 

4. Zia, P., Leming, M. L., Ahmad, S., Schemmel, J. J., Elliot, R. P., and Naaman, A. E., 

Mechanical Behavior of High Performance Concrete, Vol. 1 - Summary Report, SHRP Report C361, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 
Appendix D 

D-25 

5. Zia, P., Leming, M. L., Ahmad, S., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 2, - Production of High Performance Concrete SHRP Report 

C-362, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 

1993. 

6. Zia, P., Ahmad, S., Leming, M. L., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 3 - Very Early Strength Concrete, SHRP Report C-363, Strategic 

Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

7. Zia, P., Ahmad, S., Leming, M. L., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 4 - High Early Strength Concrete, SHRP Report C-364, Strategic 

Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

8. Zia, P., Ahmad, S., Leming, M. L., Schemmel, J. J., and Elliot, R. P., Mechanical Behavior of 

High Performance Concrete, Vol. 5 - Very High Strength Concrete, SHRP Report C-365, Strategic 

Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1993. 

9. Khan, A. A., Cook, W. D., and Mitchell, D., "Tensile Strength of Low, Medium, and HighStrength Concretes at Early Ages," ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 93, No. 5, September-October 

1996, pp. 487-493. 

10. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix D 

D–27 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.4.6.2

Revise 5.4.6.2 Size of Ducts, as follows: 

The inside diameter of ducts shall be at least 0.25-IN larger than the nominal diameter of single bar 

or strand tendons. For multiple bar or strand tendons, the inside cross-sectional area of the duct 

shall be at least 2.0 times the net area of the prestressing steel with one exception where tendons are 

to be placed by the pull-through method, the duct area shall be at least 2.5 times the net area of the 

prestressing steel. 

The size of ducts shall not exceed 0.4 times the least gross concrete thickness at the duct. For 

precast, pretensioned concrete beams, this requirement may be waived if the clear cover to the duct 

is not less than 1.5 IN.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

The limit on maximum duct diameter of 0.4 times web thickness is unnecessarily restrictive in 

spliced I-girders, where high-strength concrete is increasingly used in practice. Many bridges have 

already been constructed with 7-in (175-mm) thick webs using 15 0.6-in (15.2-mm) strand 

tendons.(1-4) The Esker Overhead Bridge had 6-in (152-mm) thick web I-girders and 12 0.6-in 

(15.2-mm) strand tendons. Most of these bridges do not meet the 0.4 limit provision. The bridges 

have been performing satisfactorily. In all cases, the minimum web width has been set as the sum 

of twice the minimum concrete cover plus two stirrup bar diameters plus one duct diameter. The 

previous requirement of duct diameter not exceeding 0.4 web width is based on segmental box 

girder construction where the entire bridge cross section consists of two or three webs and where 

the spans are relatively large. Precast, prestressed I-girders are plant produced and the cross section 

of the bridge generally consists of at least four I-girders. Application of the 0.4 rule to spliced 

I-girders unnecessarily increases the web width and therefore the weight of the girder. This 

considerably impairs the cost-effectiveness of spliced I-girder systems as they become increasingly 

popular. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

The proposed revision brings consistency between the LRFD Specifications and practice. It 

encourages more utilization of high-strength spliced girder bridges without designers having to 

supercede the requirements of this section. 

 

References

1. "State-of-the-Art Report of Spliced Girder Bridges," PCI, 1994, 134 pp. 

2. Janssen, H. H. and Spaans, L., "Record Span Spliced Bulb-Tee Girders Used in Highland View 

Bridge," PCI Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1, January/February 1994, pp. 12-19. 

3. Fitzgerald, J. B. and Stelmark, T. W., "Spliced Bulb-Tee Girders Bring Strength and Grace to 

Pueblo's Main Street Viaduct," PCI Journal, Vol. 41, No. 6, November/December 1996, pp. 40-54. 
Appendix D 

D–28 

4. PCI Bridge Design Manual, Chapter 11, (to be published). 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix D 

D–29 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.5.4.1 

5.9.4.1.1

Item No. 1 

Revise the first paragraph of 5.5.4.1 as follows: 

5.5.4 Strength Limit State 

5.5.4.1 General 

The strength limit state issues to be considered shall be those of strength and stability. For 

pretensioned concrete members, the strength limit state shall be considered the primary design 

method for member capacity in compression under all load combinations including prestress 

transfer, lifting, erection, deck placement, dead loads, and live loads.

Item No. 2 

Revise 5.9.4.1.1 as follows: 

5.9.4.1.1 Compression Stresses 

The compressive stress limit for pretensioned and post-tensioned concrete components, including 

segmentally constructed bridges, shall be 0.6f'

ci(KSI). This limit may be waived if the strength 

design provisions of Articles 5.7.2, 5.7.3.1.1, and 5.7.3.2.1 are satisfied.

Item No. 3 

Revise the first paragraph of 5.9.4.2.1 as follows: 

5.9.4.2.1 Compression Stresses 

Compression shall be investigated using the Service Limit State Load Combination 1 specified in 

Table 3.4.1-1. The limits in Table 1 shall apply. Compressive stress limits specified in Table 1 

may be waived for flexural member if the strength limit state provisions according to Article 

5.7.3.2 are satisfied at prestress transfer, at time of cast-in-place deck placement, and time of 

application of full dead load plus live loads. Further, the deflection and camber at various loading 

stages must be checked, using conventional analysis methods, for various design and construction 

limitations.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

5.5.3.1 

Background

Working stress design should be replaced consistently with the strength design method for design 

of prestressed concrete members.(1) Precast pretensioned members, in particular, are produced in a 

plant-controlled environment. Signs of inadequate concrete compressive strength are observed 

immediately. Linear stress analysis and compressive stress limits do not realistically represent 

member failure due to prestress release. Immediate and long-term camber should be calculated 

using conventional methods, and setting an allowable compression limit does not directly or 

indirectly guarantee acceptable camber. "Overloading" of prestressed members due to prestress 

release is not as probable as in externally loaded compression members. Prestress is an internal 

force. Concrete deformation causes relief of prestress. The possibility of strand buckling in a 

prestressed member does not exist, while that of reinforcing bars in a conventionally reinforced 

compression member does exist. Finally, prestress is not released to the concrete member unless 
Appendix D 

D–30 

the concrete compressive strength is experimentally verified to be adequate. 

This proposed change is particularly beneficial for high-strength concrete as it provides the 

opportunity to use lower concrete strengths at release of the prestressing strands while maintaining 

the same concrete design strength. This allows release of the strands at an earlier concrete age, 

reduces manufacturing time, and makes high-strength concrete more practical. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Consistent design for conventionally reinforced and prestressed concrete flexural members. 

Improved account for the influence of concrete strength on design. 

 

References

1. Noppakunwijai, P., Al-Omaishi, N., Tadros, M. K., and Krause, G., "Prestressed Concrete 

Compression Limits at Service Load," PCI Journal, Vol. 47, No. 5, September-October 2002. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix D 

D–31 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.7.1

Revise 5.7.1 as follows: 

The following assumptions may be used in the design of reinforced, prestressed, and partially 

prestressed concrete components for all compressive strength levels: 

• The modular ratio is not less than 6.0 calculated as follows:

 Es/Ec for reinforcing bars

 Ep/Ec for prestressing tendons

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

A modular ratio of 6 corresponds to a concrete compressive strength of about 7000 psi. 

Consequently, limiting the ratio to 6 does not allow the properties of higher strength concrete to be 

properly considered. A rational approach is to use the predicted values for all strengths of concrete.

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More rational design procedure. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix D 

D–33 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.8.2.8

Item No. 1 

Revise 5.8.2.8 as follows: 

5.8.2.8 Design and Detailing Requirements 

Transverse reinforcement shall be anchored at both ends in accordance with the provisions of 

Article 5.11.2.6. For composite flexural members, extension of beam shear reinforcement into the 

deck slab may be considered when determining if the development and anchorage provisions of 

Article 5.11.2.6 are satisfied. 

The design yield strength of nonprestressed transverse reinforcement shall not exceed 60.0 KSI 

except in prestressed concrete beams where the design yield strength shall not exceed 75.0 KSI. 

For design yield strengths of nonprestressed transverse reinforcement in excess of 60.0 KSI, the 

yield strength shall be the stress corresponding to a strain of 0.0035. The design yield strength of 

prestressed transverse reinforcement shall be taken as the effective stress, after allowance for all 

prestress losses, plus 60.0 KSI, but not greater than fpy. 

Components of inclined flexural compression and/or flexural tension in variable depth members 

shall be considered when calculating shear resistance. 

Item No 2 

Revise C5.8.2.8 as follows: 

C5.8.2.8 

To be effective, the transverse reinforcement should be anchored at each end in a manner that 

minimizes slip. With welded wire reinforcement in prestressed concrete members, the specially 

fabricated reinforcement should be detailed to have welded joints only in the flanges where the 

shear stress is low. This eliminates the potential for fatigue fracture at the welded joints.

Some of the provisions of Article 5.8.3 are based on the assumption that the strain in the transverse 

reinforcement has to attain a value of 0.002 to develop its yield strength. For prestressed tendons, 

it is the additional strain required to increase the stress above the effective stress caused by the 

prestress that is of concern. Research by Griezic (1994), Ma (2000), and Bruce has indicated that 

the performance of higher strength steels as shear reinforcement has been satisfactory. Use of 

relatively small diameter deformed WWR at relatively small spacing, compared to individually 

field tied reinforcing bars results in improved quality control and improved member performance in 

service. 

The components in the direction of the applied shear of inclined flexural compression and inclined 

flexural tension can be accounted for in the same manner as the component of the longitudinal 

prestressing force, Vp. 

Item No. 3 

Add the following references to Section 5 References: 

Griezic, A., Cook, W. D., and Mitchell, D., "Tests to Determine Performance of Deformed Welded 

Wire Fabric Stirrups," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 2, March-April 1994, pp. 211-220.

Ma, Z., Tadros, M. K., and Baishya, M., "Shear Behavior of Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete 

Bridge I-Girders," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No. 1, January-February 2000, pp. 185-192.
Appendix D 

D–34 

Bruce, R. N., Russell, H. G., and Roller, J. J., "Fatigue and Shear Behavior of HPC Bulb-Tee 

Girders," Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA. To be published.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

5.8.3 (Changes not needed) 

Background

High strength steels are especially effective in high-strength prestressed concrete members with 

narrow web widths. The effectiveness of using higher yield strengths has been demonstrated in 

several research projects.(1-7) Measured shear strengths of beams have exceeded calculated design 

strengths even when measured yield strengths of reinforcement greater than 60 ksi were used in the 

calculations. 

Research and practice in a number of states has shown that the use of welded wire reinforcement 

(WWR) improves quality and efficiency of product fabrication, improves structural performance 

and reduces reinforcement congestion in members.(1, 4-9) Fatigue of reinforcement should not be a 

concern in this application as prestressed concrete members are designed to be uncracked due to 

unfactored service loads, and as the specially fabricated WWR used as shear reinforcement is 

detailed to have welded joints only in the flanges where shear stress is low anyway. If 

conventionally reinforced members are designed with WWR shear reinforcement, then the fatigue 

requirements given in article 5.5.3 should be invoked. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More economical construction. 

 

References

1. Griezic, A., Cook, W. D., and Mitchell, D., "Tests to Determine Performance of Deformed 

Welded Wire Fabric Stirrups," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 2, March-April 1994, pp. 211-

220. 

2. Shahawy, M. A. and Batchelor, B. deV., "Shear Behavior of Full-Scale Prestressed Concrete 

Girders: Comparison Between AASHTO Specifications and LRFD Code," PCI Journal, Vol. 41, 

No. 3, May-June 1996, pp. 48-62. 

3. "Reader Comments on Shear Behavior of Full-Scale Prestressed Concrete Girders: Comparison 

Between AASHTO Specifications and LRFD Code," PCI Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3, May-June 1997, 

pp. 72-93. 

4. Ma, Z. and Tadros, M. K., "Simplified Method For Shear Design Based on AASHTO Load and 

Resistance Factor Design Specifications," Paper No. 99-0266, Transportation Research Record 

1688, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., November 1999, pp. 10-20. 

5. Ma, Z., Tadros, M. K., and Baishya, M., "Shear Behavior of Pretensioned High-Strength 

Concrete Bridge I-Girders," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No. 1, January-February 2000, 

pp. 185-192. 

6. Tadros, M. K. and Yehia, S., "Shear of Design of High Strength Concrete NU I-Girders," Final 
Appendix D 

D–35 

Report for Nebraska Department of Roads. 

7. Bruce, R. N., Russell, H. G., and Roller, J. J., "Fatigue and Shear Behavior of HPC Bulb-Tee 

Girders," Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA. To be published. 

8. Furlong, R. W., Fenves, G. I., and Kasl, E. P., "Welded Structural Wire Reinforcement for 

Columns," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 88, No. 5, September-October 1991, pp. 585-591. 

9. Guimaraes, G. N., Kreger, M. E., and Jirsa, J. O., "Evaluation of Joint-Shear Provisions for 

Interior Beam-Column-Slab Connections Using High-Strength Materials," ACI Structural Journal, 

Vol. 89, No. 1, January-February 1992, pp. 89-98. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix D 

D–37 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.9.5.1,2,3

Item No. 1 

Revise 5.9.5.1, 5.9.5.2, and 5.9.5.3 as follows: 

5.9.5 Loss of Prestress 

5.9.5.1 Total Loss of Prestress 

Values of prestress losses specified herein shall be applicable for specified concrete strengths up to 

15.0 KSI. 

In lieu of more detailed analysis, prestress losses in members constructed and prestressed in a 

single stage, relative to the stress immediately before transfer, may be taken as: 

• In pretensioned members 

pT pES pSR pCR pR2 Δf =Δf + Δf + Δf +Δf

pT pES pSR pCR pR Δf = Δf + Δf + Δf + Δf (5.9.5.1-1) 

• In posttensioned members 

pT pF pA pES pSR pCR pR2 Δf = Δf +Δf +Δf +Δf + Δf + Δf 

pT pF pA pES pSR pCR pR Δf = Δf + Δf + Δf + Δf + Δf + Δf (5.9.5.1-2) 

where: 

pT Δf = total loss (KSI) 

pF Δf = loss due to friction (KSI) 

pA Δf = loss due to anchorage set (KSI) 

pES Δf = sum of all losses or gains due to elastic shortening or extension at the time of 

application of prestress and external loads (KSI) 

pSR Δf = loss due to shrinkage (KSI) 

pCR Δf = loss due to creep of concrete (KSI) 

pR2 Δf

pR Δf = loss due to relaxation of steel after transfer (KSI) 

For fully tensioned low-relaxation strands, pR Δf may be assumed constant at 2.5 KSI. For other 

types of prestressing steels, the manufacturer's recommendations shall be used. The Commentary 

to Article 5.9.5.4.2 also gives an alternative relaxation loss prediction method.

In pretensioned members, where the approximate lump sum estimate of losses specified in Article 

5.9.5.3 is used, the part of the loss due to relaxation occurring before transfer, pR1 Δf , should be 

deducted from the total relaxation.
Appendix D 

D–38 

For posttensioned members, consideration should be given to a loss of tendon force, as indicated by 

pressure readings, within the stressing equipment. 

5.9.5.2 Instantaneous Losses 

5.9.5.2.1 Anchorage Set 

The magnitude of anchorage set shall be the greater of that required to control the stress in the 

prestressing steel at transfer or that recommended by the manufacturer of the anchorage. The 

magnitude of the set assumed for the design and used to calculate set loss shall be shown in the 

contract documents and verified during construction. 

5.9.5.2.2 Friction 

5.9.5.2.2a Pretensioned Construction 

For draped prestressing tendons, losses that may occur at the hold-down devices should be 

considered. 

5.9.5.2.2b Posttensioned Construction 

Losses due to friction between the internal prestressing tendons and the duct wall may be taken as: 

( ) ( ) − + μα Δ = − Kx

pF pj f f 1 e (5.9.5.2.2b-1) 

Losses due to friction between the external tendon across a single deviator pipe may be taken as: 

( ) ( ) 0.04

pF pj f f 1 e−μ α+ Δ = − (5.9.5.2.2b-2) 

where: 

fpj = stress in the prestressing steel at jacking (KSI) 

x = length of a prestressing tendon from the jacking end to any point under consideration 

(FT) 

K = wobble friction coefficient (per FT of tendon) 

μ = coefficient of friction 

α = sum of the absolute values of angular change of prestressing steel path from jacking end, 

or from the nearest jacking end if tensioning is done equally at both ends, to the point 

under investigation (RAD) 

e = base of Napierian logarithms 

Values of K and μ should be based on experimental data for the materials specified and shown in 

the contract documents. In the absence of such data, a value within the ranges of K and μ as 

specified in Table 1 may be used. 

For tendons confined to a vertical plane, α shall be taken as the sum of the absolute values of 

angular changes over length x. 
Appendix D 

D–39 

For tendons curved in three dimensions, the total tridimensional angular change α shall be 

obtained by vectorially adding the total vertical angular change, αv , and the total horizontal 

angular change, αh . 

Table 5.9.5.2.2b-1 – Friction Coefficients for Posttensioning Tendons 

Type of Steel Type of Duct K μ

Rigid and semirigid 

galvanized metal 

sheathing 

0.0002 0.15-0.25 

Polyethylene 0.0002 0.23 

Wire or strand 

Rigid steel pipe 

deviators for external 

tendons 

0.0002 0.25 

High-strength 

bars 

Galvanized metal 

sheathing 0.0002 0.30 

5.9.5.2.3 Elastic Shortening 

5.9.5.2.3a Pretensioned Members 

The loss due to elastic shortening in pretensioned members shall be taken as: The elastic 

shortening prestress loss in pretensioned members due to transfer of the prestressing force to the 

concrete member, and the elastic elongation gain of prestress due to the accompanying application 

of member self weight, as well as the elastic gain due to any subsequent dead or live load shall be 

taken as:

cgp

ct

p

pES f

E

E

Δf = (5.9.5.2.3a-1) 

where: 

fcgp = sum of concrete stresses at the center of gravity of prestressing tendons due to the 

prestressing force at transfer and the self-weight of the member at the sections of 

maximum moment (KSI) concrete stress at the center of gravity of prestressing tendons 

due to the action applied (initial prestressing force at transfer, self-weight of member, 

superimposed dead, or live load) at the section being considered in analysis (KSI). In 

most applications, it is adequate to calculate prestress losses at the section of maximum 

positive moment and use it for design of other sections of the member.

Ep = modulus of elasticity of prestressing steel (KSI) 

Ect = modulus of elasticity of concrete at time of load application transfer (KSI) 

For pretensioned components of usual design, fcgp may be calculated on the basis of a prestressing 

steel stress assumed to be 0.65 fpu for stress-relieved strand and high-strength bars and 0.70 fpu for 

low relaxation strand.

For components of unusual design, more accurate methods supported by research or experience 

should be used.
Appendix D 

D–40 

The total loss or gain due to elastic shortening is the sum of the effects of prestress and applied 

loads. When transformed section properties are used in stress analysis, losses or gains due to 

elastic shortening are automatically accounted for and a separate calculation of pES Δf shall not be 

undertaken. 

5.9.5.2.3b Posttensioned Members 

The loss due to elastic shortening in posttensioned members, other than slab systems, may be taken 

as: 

cgp

ci

p

pES f

E

E

2N

N 1 f − Δ = (5.9.5.2.3b-1) 

where: 

N = number of identical prestressing tendons 

fcgp = sum of concrete stresses at the center of gravity of prestressing tendons due to the 

prestressing force after jacking and the self-weight of the member at the sections of 

maximum moment (KSI) 

fcgp values may be calculated using a steel stress reduced below the initial value by a margin 

dependent on elastic shortening, relaxation, and friction effects. 

For posttensioned structures with bonded tendons, fcgp may be taken at the center section of the 

span or, for continuous construction, at the section of maximum moment. 

For posttensioned structures with unbonded tendons, the fcgp value may be calculated as the stress 

at the center of gravity of the prestressing steel averaged along the length of the member. 

For slab systems, the value of pES Δf may be taken as 25 percent of that obtained from Equation 1. 

 

5.9.5.3 Approximate Lump Sum Estimate of Time-Dependent Losses 

Replace the existing article with the following: 

For standard precast, pretensioned members subject to normal loading and environmental 

conditions and pretensioned with low relaxation strands, the long-term prestress loss, pLT Δf , due to 

creep of concrete, shrinkage of concrete, and relaxation of steel may be estimated using the 

following formula:

12.0 2.5

A

f A

f 10.0 h st h st

g

pi ps Δ pLT = γ γ + γ γ + (5.9.5.3-1)

for which:

γ h = 1.7 − 0.01H

(1 f )

5

'

ci

st +

γ =
Appendix D 

D–41 

where:

pi f = prestressing steel stress just before transfer to the concrete member (KSI)

Aps = area of prestressing steel (IN2)

Ag = gross area of concrete member (IN2)

h γ = correction factor for relative humidity of the ambient air

st γ = correction factor for specified concrete strength at time of prestress transfer to the 

concrete member

For members of unusual dimensions, level of prestressing, construction schedule, or concrete 

constituent materials and for post-tensioned members, the Refined Method of Section 5.9.5.4 or 

computer time-step methods should be used. 

Equation 1 does not include any elastic shortening loss at time of prestress transfer or elastic 

elongation gain due to application of deck weight, superimposed dead loads, or live loads. These 

elastic losses and gains are automatically accounted for if transformed section properties are used 

in stress analysis.

Item No. 2 

Revise C5.9.5.1, C5.9.5.2, and C5.9.5.3 as follows: 

C5.9.5.1 

For segmental construction, lightweight concrete construction, stage prestressing with spans greater 

than 160 FT, and bridges where more exact evaluation of prestress losses are desired, calculations 

for loss of prestress should be made in accordance with a method supported by proven research 

data. multi-stage prestressing, and bridges where more exact evaluation of prestress losses is 

desired, calculations for loss of prestress should be made in accordance with a time-step method 

supported by proven research data. See references cited in Article C5.4.2.3

Data from control tests on the materials to be used, the methods of curing, ambient service 

conditions, and pertinent structural details for the construction should be considered. 

Accurate estimate of total prestress loss requires recognition that the time-dependent losses 

resulting from creep, shrinkage, and relaxation are also interdependent. If needed, rigorous 

calculation of prestress losses should be made in accordance with a method supported by research 

data. See references cited in Article C5.4.2.3. However, undue refinement is seldom warranted or 

even possible at the design stage because many of the component factors are either unknown or 

beyond the control of the Designer. 

Losses due to anchorage set, friction, and elastic shortening are instantaneous, whereas losses due 

to creep, shrinkage, and relaxation are time-dependent. 

For multistage construction and/or prestressing, the prestress losses should be computed in 

consideration of the elapsed time between each stage. Such computation can be handled with the 

time-steps method.

This article has been revised on the basis of new analytical investigations. The presence of a 

substantial amount of nonprestressed reinforcement, such as in partially prestressed concrete, 

influences stress redistribution along the section due to creep of concrete with time, and generally 
Appendix D 

D–42 

leads to smaller loss of prestressing steel pre-tension and larger loss of concrete pre-compression. 

The use of partial prestressing necessitates some modification to existing approaches.

Estimation of losses for partially prestressed concrete is analogously to that for fully prestressed 

concrete as follows:

• Instantaneous prestress losses, such as friction, anchorage set, and elastic shortening in 

partially prestressed members can be computed in exactly the same manner as they are in 

prestressed members. 

• The average stress in the concrete in a partially prestressed member is generally smaller than 

that in a fully prestressed member. Thus, the loss of prestress due to creep is also smaller.

• If the prestressing steel is tensioned to the same initial tensile stress as in the case of fully 

prestressed concrete, the intrinsic relaxation loss would be the same. However, because 

prestress loss due to creep is smaller in a partially prestressed member, and because the loss due 

to creep influences that due to relaxation, the relaxation loss in partially prestressed concrete 

members is slightly higher than in fully prestressed concrete members.

• All other factors being equal, the loss of prestress due to shrinkage of the concrete should be the 

same for prestressed and partially prestressed concrete members.

• The presence of a substantial amount of nonprestressed reinforcement, such as in partially 

prestressed concrete, influences stress redistribution along the section due to creep of concrete 

with time, and generally leads to smaller prestress losses.

• Because a partially prestressed concrete member may be cracked under permanent load, the 

loss of prestress in the steel may be balanced in great part by the increase in stress in the steel at 

cracking. This increase in stress is needed to maintain equilibrium and account for the loss of 

tensile capacity contribution by the concrete section.

The loss across stressing hardware and anchorage devices has been measured from 2 to 6 percent 

(Roberts 1993) of the force indicated by the ram pressure times the calibrated ram area. The loss 

varies depending on the ram and the anchor. An initial design value of 3 percent is recommended. 

C5.9.5.2.1 

Anchorage set loss is caused by the movement of the tendon prior to seating of the wedges or the 

anchorage gripping device. The magnitude of the minimum set depends on the prestressing system 

used. This loss occurs prior to transfer and causes most of the difference between jacking stress 

and stress at transfer. A common value for anchor set is 0.375 IN, although values as low as 

0.0625 IN are more appropriate for some anchorage devices, such as those for bar tendons. 

For wedge-type strand anchors, the set may vary between 0.125 IN and 0.375 IN, depending on the 

type of equipment used. For short tendons, a small anchorage seating value is desirable, and 

equipment with power wedge seating should be used. For long tendons, the effect of anchorage set 

on tendon forces is insignificant, and power seating is not necessary. The 0.25-IN anchorage set 

value, often assumed in elongation computations, is adequate but only approximate. 

Due to friction, the loss due to anchorage set may affect only part of the prestressed member. 
Appendix D 

D–43 

Losses due to elastic shortening may also be calculated in accordance with Article 5.9.5.2.3, 

C5.9.5.2.3a, or other published guidelines (PCI 1975; Zia et al. 1979). Losses due to elastic 

shortening for external tendons may be calculated in the same manner as for internal tendons. 

C5.9.5.2.2b 

Where large discrepancies occur between measured and calculated tendon elongations, in-place 

friction tests are required. 

The 0.04 radians in Equation 2 represents an inadvertent angle change. This angle change may 

vary depending on job-specific tolerances on deviator pipe placement and need not be applied in 

cases where the deviation angle is strictly controlled or precisely known, as in the case of 

continuous ducts passing through separate longitudinal bell-shaped holes at deviators. The 

inadvertent angle change need not be considered for calculation of losses due to wedge seating 

movement. 

For slender members, the value of x may be taken as the projection of the tendon on the 

longitudinal axis of the member. A friction coefficient of 0.25 is appropriate for 12 strand tendons. 

A lower coefficient may be used for larger tendon and duct sizes. 

αv and αh may be taken as the sum of absolute values of angular changes over length, x, of the 

projected tendon profile in the vertical and horizontal planes, respectively. 

The scalar sum of αv and αh may be used as a first approximation of α. 

When the developed elevation and plan of the tendons are parabolic or circular, the α can be 

computed from: 

2

h

2 α= αv +α (C5.9.5.2.2b-1) 

When the developed elevation and the plan of the tendon are generalized curves, the tendon may be 

split into small intervals, and the above formula can be applied to each interval so that: 

2

h

2 α= ΣΔα =Σ Δαv + Δα (C5.9.5.5.2.2b-2) 

As an approximation, the tendon may be replaced by a series of chords connecting nodal points. 

The angular changes, Δαv and Δαh , of each chord may be obtained from its slope in the 

developed elevation and in plan. 

Field tests conducted on the external tendons of a segmental viaduct in San Antonio, Texas, 

indicate that the loss of prestress at deviators is higher than the usual friction coefficient (μ =0.25)

would estimate. 

This additional loss appears to be due, in part, to the tolerances allowed in the placement of the 

deviator pipes. Small misalignments of the pipes can result in significantly increased angle 

changes of the tendons at the deviation points. The addition of an inadvertent angle change of 0.04 

radians to the theoretical angle change accounts for this effect based on typical deviator length of 
Appendix D 

D–44 

3.0 FT and placement tolerance of ±3/8 IN. The 0.04 value is to be added to the theoretical value at 

each deviator. The value may vary with tolerances on pipe placement. 

The measurements also indicated that the friction across the deviators was higher during the 

stressing operations than during the seating operations. 

See Podolny (1986) for a general development of friction loss theory for bridges with inclined webs 

and for horizontally curved bridges. 

C5.9.5.2.3a 

In calculating fcgp, using conventional gross cross section properties, it is necessary to perform an 

iteration. For example, for the combined effects of initial prestress and member weight, the yet-tobe-determined initial prestress after transfer must be used. The prestress may be assumed to be 90 

percent of the initial prestress before transfer and the analysis recycled until acceptable accuracy is 

achieved. To avoid iteration, equations similar to Equation C1 may be used.

When transformed section properties are used in stress analysis, losses, or gains due to elastic 

shortening are automatically accounted for and pES Δf should not be calculated separately. 

The loss due to elastic shortening in pretensioned members may be determined by the following 

alternative equation: 

p

g g ci

g

2

ps g m

g m g g

2

ps pbt g m

pES

E

A I E

A (I e A )

A f (I e A ) e M A

f

+ +

+ − Δ = (C5.9.5.2.3a-1) 

where: 

Aps = area of prestressing steel (IN2

) 

Ag = gross area of section (IN2

) 

Eci = modulus of elasticity of concrete at transfer (KSI) 

Ep = modulus of elasticity of prestressing tendons (KSI) 

em = average eccentricity at midspan (IN) 

fpbt = stress in prestressing steel immediately prior to transfer as specified in Table 5.9.3-1 

(KSI) 

Ig = moment of inertia of the gross concrete section (IN4

) 

Mg = midspan moment due to member self-weight (K-IN) 

For components of unusual design, more accurate methods supported by research or experience 

should be used. Elastic elongation gain due to other applied loads may be estimated from Equation 

C1 with the prestress term set equal to zero, the moment due to the load being considered replacing

Mg and the modulus of elasticity of concrete at time of load application replacing Eci. 
Appendix D 

D–45 

Alternatively, transformed section properties may be used in stress analysis. In which case, there is 

no need for separate calculation of elastic losses or gains as they are automatically accounted for.

C5.9.5.2.3b 

The loss due to elastic shortening in posttensioned members, other than slab systems, may be 

determined by the following alternative equation: 

p

g g ci

g

2

ps g m

g m g g

2

ps pbt g m

pES

E

A I E

A (I e A )

A f (I e A ) e M A

2N

N 1 f

+ +

− + − Δ = (C5.9.5.2.3b-1) 

where: 

Aps = area of prestressing steel (IN2

) 

Ag = gross area of section (IN2

) 

Eci = modulus of elasticity of concrete at transfer (KSI) 

Ep = modulus of elasticity of prestressing tendons (KSI) 

em = average eccentricity at midspan (IN) 

fpbt = stress in prestressing steel immediately prior to transfer as specified in Table 5.9.3-1 

(KSI) 

Ig = moment of inertia of the gross concrete section (IN4

) 

Mg = midspan moment due to member self-weight (K-IN) 

N = number of identical prestressing tendons 

fpj = stress in the prestressing steel at jacking (KSI) 

For posttensioned structures with bonded tendons, pES Δf may be calculated at the center section of 

the span or, for continuous construction, at the section of maximum moment. 

For posttensioned structures with unbonded tendons, pES Δf can be calculated using the eccentricity 

of the prestressing steel averaged along the length of the member. 

For slab systems, the value of pES Δf may be taken as 25 percent of that obtained from Equation C1. 

For posttensioned construction, pES Δf losses can be further reduced below those implied by 

Equation 1 with proper tensioning procedures such as stage stressing and retensioning. 

If tendons with two different numbers of strand per tendon are used, "N" may be calculated as: 
Appendix D 

D–46 

sp1

sp2

1 2 A

A

N = N + N (C5.9.5.2.3b-2) 

where: 

N1 = number of tendons in the larger group 

N2 = number of tendons in the smaller group 

Asp1 = cross-sectional area of a tendon in the larger group (IN2

) 

Asp2 = cross-sectional area of a tendon in the smaller group (IN2

) 

C5.9.5.3 

Replace the existing commentary with the following: 

The losses or gains due to elastic deformations at the time of prestress or load application should be 

added to the time-dependent losses to determine total losses. However, these elastic losses (or 

gains) must be taken equal to zero if transformed section properties are used in stress analysis. 

The approximate estimates of time-dependent prestress losses given in Equation 1 were derived as 

approximations of the terms in the refined method for a wide range of standard precast prestressed 

concrete I-beams, box beams, inverted tee beams, and voided slabs. The members were assumed to 

be fully utilized, i.e. level of prestressing is such that concrete tensile stress at full service loads is 

near the maximum limit. It is further assumed in development of the approximate method that live 

load moments produce about one-third of the total load moments, which is reasonable for I-beam 

and inverted tee composite construction and conservative for non-composite boxes and voided 

slabs. They were calibrated with full-scale test results and with the results of the refined method, 

and found to give conservative results (Al-Omaishi 2001 and Tadros et al. 2002). The approximate 

method should not be used for members of uncommon shapes (i.e. having V/S ratios much 

different from 3.5 IN, level of prestressing, or construction schedule.

Item No. 3 

Add the following to Section 5 References: 

Al-Omaishi, N., "Prestress Losses in High Strength Pretensioned Concrete Bridge Girders," Ph. D. 

Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, December 2001, 265 pp.

Tadros, M. K., Al-Omaishi, N., Seguirant, S. P., and Gallt, J. G., "Prestress Losses in High Strength 

Concrete Bridge Girders," NCHRP 18-07 Final Report, August 2002.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

Service load analysis, deflection 

Background

The proposed revisions are the results of an extensive theoretical and experimental research on 

NCHRP Project 18-07.(1,2) Seven full-scale bridge girders were instrumented in four states, 

Nebraska, New Hampshire, Texas, and Washington. The research included material properties of a 

number of high-strength concrete mixes including those used in the bridge projects. The results of 

experiments from previous research were also examined. It was found that concrete creep and 

shrinkage were dependent on concrete strength in addition to the parameters previously recognized. 
Appendix D 

D–47 

Also, apparent neglect, or implicit inclusion, of elastic elongation gain of steel stress due to 

external load application causes confusion among designers who wish to use computer software for 

design and wish to invoke the higher transformed section properties to optimize their design. In the 

proposed prestress loss estimates, no elastic shortening loss or elastic gain need be considered if 

transformed section properties are used. Only long-term loss due to creep, shrinkage and relaxation 

are estimated and introduced to the cross section as a "negative" prestress force to be applied in 

addition to the initial prestress just before release and the external gravity loads, to calculate 

concrete stress at service. It was found that the great majority of the loss takes place before 

application of the deck weight in composite construction. This is reflected in the coefficients 

established in the approximate loss method with the estimated loss assumed to be fully applied to 

the precast section properties.

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More accurate prediction of prestress losses and camber. Extension of design provisions to 

concrete strengths greater than 10,000 psi. 

 

References

1. Al-Omaishi, N., "Prestress Losses in High Strength Pretensioned Concrete Bridge Girders," 

Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, December 2001, 265 pp. 

2. Tadros, M. K., Al-Omaishi, N., Seguirant, S. P., and Gallt, J. G., "Prestress Losses in High 

Strength Concrete Bridge Girders," NCHRP 18-07 Final Report, August 2002. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix D 

D–49 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.9.5.4

Item No. 1 

Replace 5.9.5.4 with the following: 

5.9.5.4 Refined Estimates of Time-Dependent Losses

5.9.5.4.1 General

More accurate values of creep-, shrinkage-, and relaxation-related losses than those specified in 

Article 5.9.5.3 may be determined in accordance with the provisions of this article for nonsegmental prestressed members.

For concrete of containing lightweight aggregates, very hard aggregates, or unusual chemical 

admixtures, the estimated material properties used in this Article and based on Article 5.4.2.3 may 

be inaccurate and actual test results should be used for their estimation. 

For segmental construction and for all considerations other than preliminary design, prestress losses 

shall be determined by the time-step method and the provisions of Article 5.9.5, including 

consideration of the time-dependent construction method and schedule shown in the contract 

documents.

The provisions given below are for precast pretensioned girders with cast-in-place composite deck 

or topping. For precast pretensioned girders without composite topping and for precast or cast-inplace post-tensioned nonsegmental girders, they are applicable in a modified form as shown in 

Articles 5.9.5.4.4 and 5.9.5.4.5, respectively.

5.9.5.4.2 Long-Term Losses Between Transfer and Time of Deck Placement

5.9.5.4.2a Due to Shrinkage of Girder Concrete

pSR bidEpKid Δf = ε (5.9.5.4.2-1)

for which:

(1 0.7 ) I

A e

1

A

A

E

E

1

1 K

bif

g

2

g pg

g

ps

ci

p

id

+ ψ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+ +

= (5.9.5.4.2-2)

where: 

pSR Δf = prestress loss due to shrinkage of girder concrete between transfer and deck placement

bid ε = concrete shrinkage strain of girder between transfer and deck placement

Kid = transformed section coefficient that accounts for time-dependent interaction between 

concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time period between transfer 

and deck placement 

epg = eccentricity of strands with respect to centroid of girder

ψbif = girder creep coefficient at final time for concrete loaded at transfer 
Appendix D 

D–50 

5.9.5.4.2b Due to Creep of Girder Concrete 

cgp bid id

ci

p

pCR f K

E

E

Δf = ψ (5.9.5.4.2-3)

where:

pCR Δf = prestress loss due to creep of girder concrete between transfer and deck placement

fcgp = concrete stress at center of gravity of prestressing steel at transfer (KSI)

ψbid = girder creep coefficient at time of deck placement due to loading introduced at transfer

5.9.5.4.2c Due to Relaxation of Prestressing Strands

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

Δ = − 0.55

f

f

K

f

f

py

pt

L

pt

pR2 (5.9.5.4.2-4)

where:

pR2 Δf = prestress loss due to relaxation of prestressing strands between transfer and deck placement

fpt = stress in prestressing strands immediately after transfer, taken not less than 0.55fpy in 

Equation 4

KL = 30 for low relaxation strands and 7 for other prestressing steel, unless more accurate 

manufacturer's data are available

The relaxation loss, pR2 Δf , may be assumed equal to 1.2 KSI for low-relaxation strands

5.9.5.4.3 Long-Term Losses between Time of Deck Placement and Final Time

5.9.5.4.3a Due to Shrinkage of Girder Concrete 

pSD bdf EpKdf Δf = ε (5.9.5.4.3-1)

for which:

(1 0.7 ) I

A e

1

A

A

E

E

1

1 K

bif

c

2

c pc

c

ps

ci

p

df

+ ψ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+ +

= (5.9.5.4.3-2)

where:

pSD Δf = prestress loss due to shrinkage of girder concrete between time of deck placement and final 

time
Appendix D 

D–51 

bdf ε = shrinkage strain of girder between time of deck placement and final time

Kdf = transformed section coefficient that accounts for time-dependent interaction between 

concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time period between deck 

placement and final time

epc = eccentricity of strands with respect to centroid of composite section

Ac = area of composite section calculated using the gross concrete section properties of the 

girder and the deck and the deck-to-girder modular ratio

Ic = moment of inertia of composite section calculated using the gross concrete section 

properties of the girder and the deck and the deck-to-girder modular ratio at service

5.9.5.4.3b Due to Creep of Girder Concrete:

f K 0.0

E

E

f ( )K E

E

f cd bdf df

c

p

cgp bif bid df

ci

p Δ pCD = ψ − ψ + Δ ψ ≥ (5.9.5.4.3-3)

where:

pCD Δf = prestress loss due to creep of girder concrete between time of deck placement and final 

time

Δfcd = change in concrete stress at centroid of prestressing strands due to long-term losses 

between transfer and deck placement, combined with deck weight and superimposed loads 

ψbdf = girder creep coefficient at final time for loading age at deck placement

5.9.5.4.3c Due to Relaxation of Prestressing Strands

pR3 pR2 Δf = Δf (5.9.5.4.3-4)

where:

pR3 Δf = prestress loss due to relaxation of prestressing strands in composite section between time 

of deck placemen and final time

For low-relaxation strands, pR2 Δf may be assumed equal to 1.2 KSI

5.9.5.4.3d Due to Shrinkage of Deck Concrete

f K (1 0.7 ) E

E

f cdf df bdf

c

p Δ pSS = Δ + ψ (5.9.5.4.3-5)

for which:

( ) df

ddf d cd

cdf 1 0.7

A E f

+ ψ

ε Δ = ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+

c

pc d

c I

e e

A

1 (5.9.5.4.3-6)
Appendix D 

D–52 

where:

pSS Δf = prestress loss due to shrinkage of deck composite section 

cdf Δf = change in concrete stress at centroid of prestressing strands due to shrinkage of deck 

concrete 

ddf ε = shrinkage strain of deck concrete between placement and final time

Ad = area of deck concrete

Ecd = modulus of elasticity of deck concrete

ed = eccentricity of deck with respect to the transformed composite section, taken negative in 

common construction 

ψdf = creep coefficient of deck concrete at final time due to loading introduced shortly after deck 

placement (i.e. overlays, barriers, etc.)

5.9.5.4.4 Precast Pretensioned Girders Without Composite Topping

The equations in Article 5.9.5.4.2 are applicable to girders with non-composite deck or topping, or 

with no topping. The values for time of "deck placement" in those equations may be taken as 

values at time of non-composite deck placement or values at time of installation of precast 

members without topping. 

The equations in Article 5.9.5.4.3 are applicable to girders with non-composite deck or topping, or 

with no topping. Time of "deck placement" in those equations may be taken as time of noncomposite deck placement or values at time of installation of precast members without topping. 

Area of "deck" for these applications shall be taken as zero.

5.9.5.4.5 Posttensioned Nonsegmental Girders

Long-term prestress losses for post-tensioned members after tendons have been grouted may be 

calculated using the provisions of Articles 5.9.5.4.2 through 5.9.5.4.5.

Item No. 2 

Revise C5.9.5.4 as follows: 

C5.9.5.4.1 

Estimates of losses due to each time-dependent source, such as creep, shrinkage, or relaxation, can 

lead to a better estimate of total losses compared with the values given using Article 5.9.5.3.in 

Table 5.9.5.3-1. The individual losses are based on recent research by Tadros et al (2002), which 

aimed at extending applicability of the provisions of these Specifications to high-strength concrete. 

The new approach additionally accounts for interaction between the precast and the cast-in-place 

concrete components of a composite member and for variability of creep and shrinkage properties 

of concrete by linking the loss formulas to the creep and shrinkage prediction formulae of Article 

5.4.2.3. 

C5.9.5.4.2

Equations 5.9.5.4.2-4 and 5.9.5.4.3-4 5.9.5.4.4b-1 to 5.9.5.4.4c-2 are given for relaxation losses are

appropriate for normal temperature ranges only. Relaxation losses increase with increasing 

temperatures. 
Appendix D 

D–53 

C5.9.5.4.2

Relative humidity, H, may be obtained from local weather statistics or from Figure 5.4.2.3.3-1.

C5.9.5.4.2c 

A more accurate equation for prediction of relaxation loss between transfer and deck placement is 

given in Tadros et al. (2002):

id

pt

pSR pCR

py

pt

i

'

L

pt

pR2 K

f

3( f f ) 0.55 1- ff

log(24t )

log (24t)

K

f

f

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡ Δ + Δ

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

Δ = −

where the ' KL is a factor accounting for type of steel, equal to 45 for low relaxation steel and 10 for 

stress relieved steel, t is time in days between strand tensioning and deck placement. The term in 

the first square brackets is the intrinsic relaxation without accounting for strand shortening due to 

creep and shrinkage of concrete. The second term in square brackets accounts for relaxation 

reduction due to creep and shrinkage of concrete. The factor Kid accounts for the restraint of the 

concrete member caused by bonded reinforcement. It is the same factor used for the creep and 

shrinkage components of the prestress loss. The equation given in Article 5.9.5.4.2c is an 

approximation of the above formula with the following typical values assumed: ti=0.75 day, t=120 

days, ⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡ Δ + Δ

pt

pSR pCR

f

3( f f ) 1- = 0.67 and Kid = 0.8 

C5.9.5.4.3b

The "≥ to 0.0" in Equation 1 3 is needed because a negative value could result in some cases of 

partial prestressing, but pCR Δf pCD Δf should not be taken as less than 0.0. 

C5.9.5.4.4b

Generally, the initial relaxation loss is now determined by the Fabricator. Where the Engineer is 

required to make an independent estimate of the initial relaxation loss, or chooses to do so as 

provided in Article 5.9.5.1, the provisions of this article may be used as a guide. If project-specific 

information is not available, the value of fpj may be taken as 0.80 fpu for the purpose of this 

calculation.

Item No. 3 

Add the following to 5.3 Notation or revise the existing notation: 

Ac = area of composite section calculated using the gross concrete section properties of the 

girder and the deck and the deck-to-girder modular ratio (IN2) (5.9.5.4.3a)

Ad = area of deck concrete (IN2

) (5.9.5.4.3d)

Ecd = modulus of elasticity of deck concrete (KSI) (5.9.5.4.3d)

ed = eccentricity of deck with respect to the transformed composite section, taken as negative 

in common construction (IN) (5.9.5.4.3d)

epc = eccentricity of strands with respect to centroid of composite section (IN) (5.9.5.4.3a)

epg = eccentricity of strands with respect to centroid of girder (IN) (5.9.5.4.2a)

Ic = moment of inertia of composite section calculated using the gross concrete section 

properties of the girder and the deck and the deck-to-girder modular ratio at service 

(IN4) (5.9.5.4.3a) 

Kdf = transformed section coefficient that accounts for time-dependent interaction between 

concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time period between deck 
Appendix D 

D–54 

placement and final time (5.9.5.4.3a) (5.9.5.4.3b)

Kid = transformed section coefficient that accounts for time-dependent interaction between 

concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time period between 

transfer and deck placement (5.9.5.4.2a) (5.9.5.4.2b)

KL = factor accounting for type of steel taken as 30 for low relaxation strands and 7 for other 

prestressing steel, unless more accurate manufacturer's data are available (5.9.5.4.2c) ' KL = factor accounting for type of steel (C5.9.5.4.2c)

Δfcd = change in concrete stress at centroid of prestressing strands due to long-term losses 

between transfer and deck placement, combined with deck weight and superimposed 

loads (KSI) (5.9.5.4.3b)

cdf Δf = change in concrete stress at centroid of prestressing strands due to shrinkage of deck 

concrete (KSI) (5.9.5.4.3d)

pCD Δf = prestress loss due to creep of girder concrete between time of deck placement and final 

time (KSI) (5.9.5.4.3b)

pCR Δf = prestress loss due to creep of girder concrete between transfer and deck placement (KSI) 

(5.9.5.4.2b)

pR 2 Δf = prestress loss due to relaxation of prestressing strands between transfer and deck 

placement (KSI) (5.9.5.4.2c)

pR3 Δf = prestress loss due to relaxation of prestressing strands in composite section between 

time of deck placemen and final time (KSI) (5.9.5.4.3c)

pSD Δf = prestress loss due to shrinkage of girder concrete between time of deck placement and 

final time (KSI) (5.9.5.4.3a)

pSR Δf = prestress loss due to shrinkage of girder concrete between transfer and deck placement 

(KSI) (5.9.5.4.2a)

pSS Δf = prestress loss due to shrinkage of deck composite section (KSI) (5.9.5.4.3d)

bdf ε = shrinkage strain of girder between time of deck placement and final time (IN/IN) 

(5.9.5.4.3a)

bid ε = concrete shrinkage strain of girder between transfer and deck placement (IN/IN) 

(5.9.5.4.2a)

ddf ε = shrinkage strain of deck concrete between placement and final time (IN/IN) (5.9.5.4.3d)

ψbdf = girder creep coefficient at final time due to loading at deck placement (5.9.5.4.3b)

ψbid = girder creep coefficient at time of deck placement due to loading introduced at transfer 

(5.9.5.4.2b) (5.9.5.4.3b)

ψbif = girder creep coefficient at final time for concrete due to loading introduced at transfer 

(5.9.5.4.2a) (5.9.5.4.3b)

ψdf = creep coefficient of deck concrete at final time due to loading introduced shortly after 

deck placement (i.e. overlays, barriers, etc.) (5.9.5.4.3d)

Item No. 4 

Add the following to Section 5 References: 

Al-Omaishi, N., "Prestress Losses in High Strength Pretensioned Concrete Bridge Girders," Ph.D., 

Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, December 2001, 265 pp.
Appendix D 

D–55 

Tadros, M. K., Al-Omaishi, N., Seguirant, S. P., and Gallt, J. G., "Prestress Losses in High Strength 

Concrete Bridge Girders," NCHRP 18-07 Final Report, August 2002.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

Service load analysis, deflection 

Background 

The proposed revisions are the results of an extensive theoretical and experimental research on 

NCHRP Project 18-07.(1,2) Seven full-scale bridge girders were instrumented in four states, 

Nebraska, New Hampshire, Texas, and Washington. The research included material properties of a 

number of high-strength concrete mixes including those used in the bridge projects. The results of 

experiments from previous research were also examined. It was found that concrete creep and 

shrinkage were dependent on concrete strength in addition to the parameters previously recognized. 

Also, apparent neglect or implicit inclusion of elastic elongation gain of steel stress due to external 

load application causes confusion among designers who wish to use computer software for design 

and wish to invoke the higher transformed section properties to optimize their design. In the 

proposed prestress loss estimates, no elastic shortening loss or elastic gain need be considered if 

transformed section properties are used. Only long-term loss due to creep, shrinkage and relaxation 

are estimated and introduced to the cross section as a "negative" prestress force to be applied in 

addition to the initial prestress just before release and the external gravity loads, to calculate 

concrete stress at service. It was found that the great majority of the loss takes place before 

application of the deck weight in composite construction. This is reflected in the coefficients 

established in the approximate loss method with the estimated loss assumed to be fully applied to 

the precast section properties.

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More accurate prediction of prestress losses and camber. Extension of design provisions to 

concrete strengths greater than 10,000 psi. 

 

References

1. Al-Omaishi, N., "Prestress Losses in High Strength Pretensioned Concrete Bridge Girders," 

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, December 2001, 265 pp. 

2. Tadros, M. K., Al-Omaishi, N., Seguirant, S. P., and Gallt, J. G., "Prestress Losses in High 

Strength Concrete Bridge Girders," NCHRP 18-07 Final Report, August 2002. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix D 

D–57 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.12.2

Item No. 1 

Revise 5.12.2 Alkali-Silica Reactive Aggregates as follows: 

5.12.2 Alkali-Silica Reactive Aggregates 

The contract documents shall prohibit the use of aggregates from sources that are known to be 

excessively alkali-silica reactive.

If aggregate of limited reactivity is used, the contract documents shall require the use of either lowalkali-type cements or a blend of regular cement and pozzolanic materials, provided that their use 

has been proven to produce concrete of satisfactory durability with the proposed aggregate.

Alkali-silica reactive aggregates shall not be used in concrete unless they can be shown to have a 

history of satisfactory performance in field applications and will be used with same materials at 

approximately the same mix proportions, or have been tested with standard procedures in 

AASHTO M6 or M80 and determined to have expansions below the acceptable limits.

Item No. 2 

Revise C5.12.2 as follows: 

C5.12.2 

Alkali-silica reactive aggregates occurexist throughout the world. In the United States, most are 

found in the West and Midwest. In most states, public agencies have identified locations where 

reactive aggregates occur. When in doubt, the Designer should investigate this possibility. 

Mitigation procedures for alkali-silica reactivity using either a performance specification or a 

prescriptive type specification are given in AASHTO M 6 and M 80.

Excessive reactivity is generally determined by tests (ASTM C 227) made on aggregates prior to 

their use. Although the line of demarcation between nonreactive and reactive combinations is not 

clearly defined, expansion when tested per ASTM C 227 is generally considered to be excessive if 

it is greater than 0.05 percent at three months or 0.10 percent at six months. Expansions greater 

than 0.05 percent at three months should not be considered excessive where the six-month 

expansion remains below 0.10 percent. Data for the three-month test should be considered only 

when six-month results are not available.

Reference to the AASHTO Materials Specification for Aggregate, M 80, will not specifically 

prohibit use of reactive aggregates as M 80. It only requires the use of low alkali cements or 

additives.

More guidance on this is contained in ACI 201.2R.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

AASHTO M 6 and M 80 
Appendix D 

D–58 

Background 

Alkali-silica reactive aggregates can be used satisfactorily provided that the necessary precautions 

are taken. For example, use of pozzolans or slag and lithium salts have been shown to mitigate the 

deleterious expansions. Proposed revisions to AASHTO M 6 and M 80 have been developed to 

more specifically address alkali-silica reactivity. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More durable structures. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix D 

D–59 

20XX AGENDA ITEM (proposed to T-10)

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition ( ) SI ( ) US (X) both versions LRFD 5.13.4.4.1

Revise 5.13.4.4.1 as follows: 

5.13.4.4.1 Pile Dimensions 

Prestressed concrete piles may be octagonal, square, or circular and shall conform to the minimum 

dimensions specified in Article 5.13.4.3.1. 

Prestressed concrete piles may be solid or hollow. For hollow piles, precautionary measures, such 

as venting shall be taken to prevent breakage due to internal water pressure during driving, ice 

pressure in trestle piles, or gas pressure due to decomposition of material used to form the void. 

The wall thickness of cylinder piles shall not be less than 5.0 IN. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

The requirement for a minimum wall thickness appears to be unjustified if the minimum concrete 

cover to steel as specified in 5.12.3 are used. Further, the minimum effective prestress of 0.7 KSI 

in 5.13.4.4.3 assures a relatively high level of concrete compression. Removal of the limit would 

allow for efficient use of high-strength concrete cylindrical piles. It also allows for utilization of 

high-strength fiber reinforced concrete piles without the constraint associated with conventionally 

reinforced piles. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Removal of unnecessary wall thickness limitation would result in reduced pile weight and 

increased pile capacity with higher strength concrete. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 

E–1 

APPENDIX E—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE 

CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION PAGE

8.2 Classes of Concrete............................................................................................................... E–3 

8.3.1 Cements.............................................................................................................................. E–5 

8.3.5 Combined Aggregates........................................................................................................ E–7 

8.3.7 Mineral Admixtures........................................................................................................... E–9 

8.4.1 Responsibility and Criteria ..............................................................................................E–11 

8.4.3 Cement Content ............................................................................................................... E–13 

8.4.4 Mineral Admixtures......................................................................................................... E–15 

8.5.7.1 Tests .............................................................................................................................. E–17 

8.5.7.3 For Acceptance of Concrete.......................................................................................... E–19 

8.5.7.5 Steam and Radiant Heat-Cured Concrete ..................................................................... E–21 

8.6.4.1 Protection During Cure.................................................................................................E–23 

8.6.6 and 8.6.7 Concrete Exposed to Salt Water and Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Soils 

or Water ........................................................................................................................... E–25 

8.11.1 General........................................................................................................................... E–27 

8.11.3.5 Steam or Radiant Heat Curing Method....................................................................... E–29 

8.11.4 Bridge Decks.................................................................................................................. E–31 

8.13.4 Curing ............................................................................................................................ E–33 

Appendix E 

E–3 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition 8.2

Item No. 1 

In 8.2.2 Normal-Density Concrete, revise the first paragraph and add two new classes of high 

performance concrete to Table 8.2.2-1: 

8.2.2 Normal-Density Concrete 

Eight Ten classes of normal-density concrete are provided for in these specifications as listed in 

Table 8.2.2-1, except that for concrete on or over saltwater or exposed to deicing chemicals, the 

maximum water/cementitious materials ratio shall be 0.45. 

Min. 

Cement 

Content 

Max. Water/ 

Cementitious 

Materials Ratio

Air Content 

Range 

Size of Coarse 

Aggregate Per 

AASHTO M 43

(ASTM D 448) 

Size 

Number 

Specified 

Compressive 

Strength 

(28 Days)

Class of 

Concrete 

kg/m3 kg per kg % 

Nominal Size 

Square Openings

 MPa 

P(HPC) —a 0.40

As specified 

in the 

contract

≤ 19 mm 67

> 41 as

specified in the 

contract

A(HPC) —a 0.45

As specified 

in the 

contract

—a —a 28

a

 Minimum cementitious materials content and coarse aggregate size to be selected to meet other 

performance criteria specified in the contract.

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.2.2

Class P(HPC) concrete is used for prestressed concrete when strengths in excess of 41 MPa are 

specified and should always be used for specified concrete strengths greater than 69 MPa.

Class A(HPC) concrete is used for cast-in-place substructures and superstructures when low 

permeability or other performance characteristics are specified.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

8.4.3 and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Table C5.4.2.1-1 
Appendix E 

E–4 

Background 

With high performance concrete, it is desirable that the specifications be performance based. The 

introduction of two new classes of concrete is a move in this direction. Class P(HPC) is intended 

for use in prestressed concrete members with a specified concrete compressive strength greater than 

41 MPa (6000 psi). Class A (HPC) is intended for use in cast-in-place construction where 

performance criteria in addition to concrete compressive strengths are specified. Other criteria 

might include shrinkage, chloride permeability, freeze-thaw resistance, deicer scaling resistance, 

abrasion resistance, or heat of hydration.(1,2) 

The proposed change to the heading of the third column will affect all classes of concrete listed in 

the existing table and makes the table more consistent with the state-of-the-art of concrete 

technology. 

Square Openings has been changed to Nominal Size because the listed quantities are aggregate 

sizes. 

For both classes of concrete, a minimum cement content is not included since this should be 

selected by the producer based on the specified performance criteria. Maximum watercementitious materials ratios have been included. The value of 0.40 for Class P(HPC) is less than 

the value of 0.49 for Class P whereas the value of 0.45 for Class A(HPC) is the same as that for 

Class A(AE). For Class P(HPC) concrete, a maximum size of coarse aggregate is specified since it 

is difficult to achieve the higher concrete compressive strengths with aggregates larger than 19 mm 

(3/4 in). For Class A(HPC) concrete, the maximum aggregate size should be selected by the 

producer based on the specified performance criteria. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Encourage the use of high performance concrete with higher strength, lower permeability, or other 

performance criteria. 

References 

1. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

2. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix E 

E–5 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition 8.3.1

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.3.1 Cements as follows: 

8.3.1 Cements 

Portland cements shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M 85 (ASTM C 150) and blended 

hydraulic cements shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M 240 (ASTM C 595M) or 

ASTM C 1157. For Type IP portland–pozzolan cement, the pozzolan constituent shall not exceed 

20 percent of the mass of the blend and the loss on ignition of the pozzolan shall not exceed 

5 percent. 

Except for Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC) or when Unless otherwise specified in the contract 

documents, only Type I, II, or III portland cement, Types IA, IIA, IIIA air entrained portland 

cement or Types IP or IS blended hydraulic cements shall be used. Types IA, IIA, and IIIA 

cements may be used only in concrete where air entrainment is required. 

Low-alkali cements conforming to the requirements of AASHTO M 85 (ASTM C 150) for lowalkali cement shall be used when specified in the contract documents or when ordered by the 

Engineer as a condition of use for aggregates of limited alkali-silica reactivity. 

Unless otherwise permitted, the product of only one mill of any one brand and type of cement shall 

be used for like elements of a structure that are exposed to view, except when cements must be 

blended for reduction of any excessive air-entrainment where air entraining cement is used. 

For Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC), trial batches using all intended constituent materials shall be 

made prior to concrete placement to ensure that cement and admixtures are compatible. Changes in 

the mill, brand, or type of cement shall not be permitted without additional trial batches.

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.3.1

ASTM C 1157 is a performance specification that does not require restrictions on the composition 

of the cement or its constituents. It can be used to accept cements not conforming to AASHTO 

M 85 (ASTM C 150) and AASHTO M 240 (ASTM C 595M).

The low alkali requirement of AASHTO M 85 (ASTM C 150) does not provide protection against 

alkali-silica reactivity in all cases. A better approach is provided in AASHTO M 6 and M 80.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

AASHTO M 6 and M 80 with proposed Supplementary Requirement 

Background 

ASTM C 1157 is a standard performance specification for blended cements and should be 

included.(1)

Restricting the cements to Types I, II, III, IA, IIA, IIIA, IP, or IS may prevent innovation and 

selection to enhance the performance of HPC. 
Appendix E 

E–6 

Interactions between cementitious materials and chemical admixtures can cause incompatibility 

leading to premature stiffening, extended setting time, or inadequate air-void system. HPC may be 

very sensitive to the brand, type, and mill of origin of the cement. Studies have shown that 

changing the brand of cement can cause large differences in the hardened properties of HPC.(2) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges 

More choices, improved properties, and less problems in the field. 

References 

1. ASTM C 1157 Standard Performance Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cement. 

2. ACI 363 Committee, "State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete (ACI 363R-92)," 

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 55 pp. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix E 

E–7 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition 8.3.5

Item No. 1 

Add a new article 8.3.5 and renumber subsequent articles. 

8.3.5 Combined Aggregates

Blends of fine and coarse aggregates shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M XX1

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.3.5

The use of a combined aggregate grading can result in the use of less water, cementitious materials, 

and paste, and lead to improved fresh and hardened concrete properties.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

Material specifications M 6, M 43, and M 80 

Background

A new specification on combined aggregates has been proposed and needs to be referenced. 

Combined aggregates enable the use of less water, cementitious materials, and paste leading to 

improved properties in the freshly mixed and hardened concrete. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved concrete properties. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix E 

E–9 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.3.7

Item No. 1 

Replace the first paragraph of 8.3.7 Mineral Admixtures as follows: 

8.3.7 Mineral Admixtures 

Fly ash pozzolans and calcined natural pozzolans for use as mineral admixtures in concrete shall 

conform to the requirements of AASHTO M 295 (ASTM C 618).

Mineral admixtures in concrete shall conform to the following requirements:

Fly ash pozzolans and calcined natural pozzolans – AASHTO M 295 (ASTM C 618)

Ground granulated blast-furnace slag – AASHTO M 302 (ASTM C 989)

Silica fume – AASHTO M 307 (ASTM C 1240)

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.3.7

Pozzolans (fly ash, silica fume) and slag are used in the production of Class P(HPC) and Class 

A(HPC) concretes especially to extend the service life.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

8.4.4 

Background

Slag and silica fume are widely used in HPC and need to be referenced. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More choices of materials. 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix E 

E–11 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.4.1

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.4.1.1 Responsibility and Criteria as follows: 

8.4.1.1 Responsibility and Criteria 

The contractor shall design and be responsible for the performance of all concrete mixes used in 

structures. The mix proportions selected shall produce concrete that is sufficiently workable and 

finishable for all uses intended and shall conform to the requirements in Table 8.2.2-1 and all other 

requirements of this Section. 

For normal-density concrete, the absolute volume method, such as described in American Concrete 

Institute Publication 211.1, shall be used in selecting mix proportions. For Class P(HPC) with fly 

ash, the method given in American Concrete Institute Guide 211.4 shall be permitted. For lowdensity concrete, the mix proportions shall be selected on the basis of trial mixes, with the cement 

factor rather than the water/cement ratio being determined by the specified strength, using methods 

such as those described in American Concrete Institute Publication 211.2. 

The mix design shall be based on the specified properties. When strength is specified, select upon 

obtaining an average concrete strength sufficiently above the specified strength so that, considering 

the expected variability of the concrete and test procedures, no more than one in ten strength tests 

will be expected to fall below the specified strength. Mix designs shall be modified during the 

course of the work when necessary to ensure compliance with strength and consistency 

requirements the specified fresh and hardened concrete properties. For Class P(HPC) and Class 

A(HPC), such modifications shall only be permitted after trial batches to demonstrate that the 

modified mix design will result in concrete that complies with the specified concrete properties. 

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.4.1.1 

For Class P(HPC) with fly ash, the method given in ACI Guide 211.4 is permitted.

In Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC) concretes, properties other than compressive strength are also 

important, and the mix design should be based on specified properties rather than only compressive 

strength. 

Item No. 3 

Revise 8.4.1.2 Trial Batch Tests as follows: 

8.4.1.2 Trial Batch Tests 

For classes A, A(AE), and P, P(HPC), and A(HPC) concrete, for low-density concrete, and for 

other classes of concrete when specified in the contract documents or ordered by the Engineer, 

satisfactory performance of the proposed mix design shall be verified by laboratory tests on trial 

batches. The results of such tests shall be furnished to the Engineer by the Contractor or the 

Manufacturer of the precast elements at the time the proposed mix design is submitted. For mix 

design approval, the strengths of a minimum of five test cylinders taken from a trial batch shall 

average at least 5.6 MPa greater than the specified strength.

If materials and a mix design identical to those proposed for use have been used on other work 
Appendix E 

E–12 

within the previous year, certified copies of concrete test results from this work that indicate full 

compliance with these specifications may be substituted for such laboratory tests. If the results of 

more than 10 such strength tests are available from historical records for the past year, average 

strength for these tests shall be at least 1.28 standard deviations above the specified strength. 

The average values obtained from trial batches for the specified properties, such as strength shall 

exceed design values by a certain amount based on variability. For compressive strength, the 

required average strength used as a basis for selection of concrete proportions shall be determined 

in accordance with AASHTO M 241.

Item No. 4 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.4.1.2

In Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC) concretes, properties other than compressive strength are also 

important. However, if only compressive strength is specified, AASHTO M 241 provides the 

method to determine the required average strength. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles 

AASHTO M 241 

Background

Item Nos. 1 and 2 

ACI Guide 211.4 describes selecting proportions for high-strength concrete with portland cement 

and fly ash.(1) In HPC, type, size, and shape of aggregate become important. 

Properties other than strength are also important in bridge structures. 

Any modification to the mixture proportions and ingredients must be tested using trial batches. 

Item Nos. 3 and 4 

Properties other than strength are also included. Overstrength requirements are updated for all 

strength levels including high-strength concrete by referring to AASHTO M 241.(2,3) Revisions to 

AASHTO M 241 are also proposed. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

More durable structures. Inclusion of high-strength concrete. 

 

References

1. ACI Committee 211, "Guide for Selecting Proportions for High-Strength Concrete with 

Portland Cement and Fly Ash (ACI 211.4)" American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 

1993, 13 pp. 

 

2. Cagley, J. R. "Changing from ACI 318-99 to ACI 318-02," Concrete International, American 

Concrete Institute, June 2001. 

3. AASHTO M 241 Standard Specification for Concrete Made by Volumetric Batching and 

Continuous Mixing. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix E 

E–13 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition 8.4.3

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.4.3 Cement Content as follows: 

The minimum cement content shall be as listed in Table 8.2.1-1 or otherwise specified in the 

contract documents. For Class P(HPC), the total cementitious materials content shall be specified 

not to exceed 593 kg/m3 of concrete. For other classes of concrete, Tthe maximum cement or 

cement plus mineral admixture content shall not exceed 475 363 kg/m3 of concrete. The actual 

cement content used shall be within these limits and shall be sufficient to produce concrete of the 

required strength, and consistency, and performance. 

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.4.3

Many high-strength concretes require a cementitious materials content greater than the traditional 

AASHTO limit of 475 kg/m3. However, when cementitious materials contents in excess of 

593 kg/m3 are required in high-strength concrete, optimization of other constituent materials or 

alternative constituent materials should be considered.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

8.2 

Background

The current maximum cement content of 363 kg/m3 (611 lb/yd3) appears to be an error since 

table 8.2.2-1 lists minimum cement contents as high as 390 kg/m3

 (657 lb/yd3). It is also 

inconsistent with 475 kg/m3 (800 lb/yd3) specified in the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 

5.4.2.1. 

Many high-strength concretes require a cementitious materials content in excess of 475 kg/m3

(800 lb/yd3

).(1) A higher limit is, therefore, appropriate. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Facilitate the use of high-strength and high performance concrete. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix E 

E–15 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.4.4

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.4.4 Mineral Admixtures as follows: 

8.4.4 Mineral Admixtures 

Mineral admixtures shall be used in the amounts specified in the contract documents. In 

addition,For all classes of concrete except P(HPC) and A(HPC), when either Types I, II, IV, or V 

AASHTO M 85 (ASTM C 150) cements are used and mineral admixtures are neither specified in 

the contract documents nor prohibited, the Contractor will be permitted to replace up to 20 25 

percent of the required portland cement with a mineral admixture fly ash or other pozzolan 

conforming to AASHTO M 295, up to 50 percent of the required portland cement with slag 

conforming to AASHTO M 302, or up to 10 percent of the required portland cement with silica 

fume conforming to AASHTO M 307. When any combination of fly ash, slag, and silica fume are 

used, the Contractor will be permitted to replace up to 50 percent of the required portland cement. 

However, no more than 25 percent shall be fly ash and no more than 10 percent shall be silica 

fume. The mass of the mineral admixture used shall be equal to or greater than the mass of the 

portland cement replaced. In calculating the water/-cementitious materials ratio of the mix, the 

mass of the cementitious materials shall be considered to be the sum of the mass of the portland 

cement and the mineral admixtures. 

For Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC) concrete, mineral admixtures (pozzolans or slag) shall be 

permitted to be used as cementitious materials with portland cement in blended cements or as a 

separate addition at the mixer. The amount of mineral admixture shall be determined by trial 

batches. The water-cementitious materials ratio shall be the ratio of the mass of water to the total 

cementitious materials, including the mineral admixtures. The properties of the freshly mixed and 

hardened concrete shall comply with specified values.

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.4.4

Mineral admixtures are widely used in concrete in the percentages given. For Class P(HPC) and 

Class A(HPC) concretes, different percentages may be used if trial batches substantiate that such 

amounts provide the specified properties.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

8.3.7 

Background

Mineral admixtures are widely used in HPC today. These include fly ash, ground granulated blastfurnace slag, and silica fume. The use of these materials results in a concrete with a finer pore 

structure and, therefore, lower permeability. The proposed replacement percentages are based on 

those in ACI 318 for concrete exposed to deicing chemicals.(1) 

Trial batches are required with HPC to ensure that the specified properties are achieved. 
Appendix E 

E–16 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved concrete for more durable structures. 

 

References

1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-02) and 

Commentary (318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix E 

E–17 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.5.7.1

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.5.7.1 Tests as follows: 

8.5.7.1 Tests 

A strength test shall consist of the average strength of at least two 150x300-mm or at least three 

100x200-mm compressive strength test cylinders fabricated from material taken from a single 

randomly selected batch of concrete, except that, if any cylinder should show evidence of improper 

sampling, molding, or testing, said cylinder shall be discarded and the strength test shall consist of 

the strength of the remaining cylinder(s). A minimum of three cylinders shall be fabricated for 

each strength test when the specified strength exceeds 34 MPa.

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

The use of 100x200-mm cylinders for measuring concrete compressive strengths is increasing. 

Test results using the smaller size cylinder have a higher variability compared to 150x300 mm 

cylinders. This can be offset by requiring three cylinders of the smaller size compared to two for 

the larger size. Since measurement of compressive strength is more critical for high-strength 

concrete, three cylinders are required for both cylinder sizes.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

AASHTO M 241 

Background

100x200-mm cylinders are commonly used for testing high-strength concrete and may exhibit 

higher variability.(1) For high-strength concrete, strength is more critical, and at least three 

cylinders are recommended for any size.(2) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality of concrete and more valid measurements of compressive strength. 

 

References

1. Ozyildirim, C., "4 x 8 inch Concrete Cylinders versus 6 x 12 inch Cylinders," VHTRC 84-R44, 

Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, May 1984, 25 pp. 

2. ACI Committee 363, "Guide to Quality Control and Testing of High-Strength Concrete (ACI 

363.2R-98)," American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998, 18 pp. 

(Submitted by: ) 

Appendix E 

E–19 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.5.7.3

Item No. 1

Revise 8.5.7.3 For Acceptance of Concrete as follows: 

8.5.7.3 For Acceptance of Concrete 

For determining compliance of concrete with a specified 28-day strength, test cylinders shall be 

cured under controlled conditions as described in AASHTO T 23 (ASTM C 31), Article 9.3, and 

tested at the specified age of 28 days. Samples for acceptance tests for each class of concrete shall 

be taken not less than once a day nor less than once for each 100 m3 of concrete or once for each 

major placement. 

Except for Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC) concrete, aAny concrete represented by a test that 

indicates a strength that is less than the specified 28-day compressive strength at the specified age 

by more than 3.5 MPa will be rejected and shall be removed and replaced with acceptable concrete. 

Such rejection shall prevail unless either: 

• The Contractor, at the Contractor's expense, obtains and submits evidence of a type 

acceptable to the Engineer that the strength and quality of the rejected concrete is 

acceptable. If such evidence consists of cores taken from the work, the cores shall be 

obtained and tested in accordance with the standard methods of AASHTO T 24 (ASTM 

C 42), or 

• The Engineer determines that said concrete is located where it will not create an intolerable 

detrimental effect on the structure and the Contractor agrees to a reduced payment to 

compensate the Owner for loss of durability and other lost benefits.

For Class P(HPC) and Class A(HPC) concrete, any concrete represented by a test that indicates a 

strength that is less than the specified compressive strength at the specified age will be rejected and 

shall be removed and replaced with acceptable concrete.

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.5.7.3

The concrete age when the specified strength is to be achieved must be shown on the project 

drawings.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

Test ages other than 28 days are frequently specified for high-strength concrete.(1) The elimination 

of 28 days in this provision allows the use of other test ages. 

A goal of HPC is to provide concrete that meets the specification for the intended application. 

Accepting concrete that does not meet the specified compressive strength is not an acceptable 
Appendix E 

E–20 

practice for HPC. A reduced payment cannot compensate for a loss of durability and possible 

reduced service life. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality of concrete. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix E 

E–21 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition 8.5.7.5

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.5.7.5 Steam and Radiant Heat-Cured Concrete as follows: 

8.5.7.5 Precast Concrete Cured by the Waterproof Cover Method, Steam and or Radiant Heat HeatCured Concrete 

When a precast concrete member is cured by the waterproof cover method, steam, or radiant heatcured, the compressive strength test cylinders made for any of the above purposes shall be cured 

under conditions similar to the member. Such concrete shall be considered to be acceptable 

whenever a test indicates that the concrete has reached the specified 28-day compressive strength 

provided such strength is reached not more than 28 days after the member is cast no later than the 

specified age for the compressive strength.

Test cylinders shall be cured by only one of the following methods:

(1) For concrete with specified design compressive strengths less than or equal to 41 MPa, test 

cylinders shall be stored next to the member and under the same covers such that the cylinders are 

exposed to the same temperature conditions as the member.

(2) For all specified concrete strengths, test cylinders shall be match-cured in chambers in which 

the temperature of the chamber is correlated with the temperature in the member prior to release of 

the prestressing strands. Temperatures of the chamber and member shall be verified by use of 

temperature sensors in the chamber and member. Unless specified otherwise, temperature sensors 

in I-beams shall be located at the center of gravity of the bottom flange. For other members, the 

temperature sensors shall be located at the center of the thickest section. The location shall be 

specified on the drawings. After release of the prestressing strands, cylinders shall be stored in a 

similar temperature and humidity environment as the member.

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.5.7.5

For specified concrete compressive strengths greater than 41 MPa, test cylinders should be match 

cured in chambers in which the temperature of the chamber is correlated with the temperature in 

the member prior to release of the prestressing strands. Temperature sensors for the match curing 

system should be placed at the most critical locations for strength development at release of the 

prestressing force and for design. The Engineer should determine the critical locations for 

temperature sensors in each type of member and show the locations on the drawings.

After release of the prestressing strands, cylinders should be stored in a similar temperature and 

humidity environment as the member.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 
Appendix E 

E–22 

Background 

Research on several FHWA-State high performance concrete showcase projects has shown that the 

strength of quality control cylinders is affected by the curing temperatures that the cylinders 

experience.(1,2) A high initial curing temperature accelerates the strength gain at early ages but 

results in a slower strength gain at later ages. Consequently, a test cylinder that experiences a 

different temperature history from the member that it represents does not truly represent the 

strength of the concrete in the member either at an age corresponding to release of the strands or at 

later ages. This effect becomes more significant with high-strength concrete because of the higher 

cementitious materials content and higher heat of hydration. 

Placing the test cylinders under the same covers as the member has proved to be an acceptable 

method for conventional strength concretes. However, for high-strength concretes, match curing is 

essential if realistic values of strength are to be measured.(3) The proposed changes allow the 

traditional method to be used for conventional strength concretes while requiring match curing for 

high-strength concretes and allowing match curing for conventional strength concretes. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges 

Provides a more realistic measure of the compressive strength of concrete in the member. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Meyers, J. J. and Carrasquillo R. L., "Production and Quality Control of High Performance 

Concrete in Texas Bridge Structures," Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas 

at Austin, Research Report 580/589-1, 2000, 553 pp. 

3. Russell, H. G., "Consider Match Curing for High-Strength Precast," Concrete Products, 

Vol. 102, No. 7, July 1999, pp. 117-118. 

 (Submitted by: )
Appendix E 

E–23 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.6.4.1

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.6.4.1 Protection During Cure as follows: 

8.6.4.1 Protection During Cure

When there is a probability of air temperatures below 2o

C during the cure period, the Contractor 

shall submit for approval by the Engineer prior to concrete placement a cold weather concreting 

and curing plan detailing the methods and equipment which will be used to ensure that the required 

concrete temperatures are maintained. The concrete shall be maintained at a temperature of not 

less than 7o

C for the first 6 days after placement, except that when pozzolans or slag are cement or 

fly ash cement is used, this period shall be as shown in Table 8.6.4.1-1: 

Table 8.6.4.1-1 Pozzolan Cement and Temperature Control Period 

Percentage of Cement 

Replaced, by Mass, with 

Pozzolans Slag

Required Period of 

Controlled Temperature 

10% 25% 8 Days 

11-15% 26-35% 9 Days 

16-20% 36-50% 10 Days 

The requirement in Table 8.6.4.1-1 for an extended period of controlled temperature may be 

waived if a compressive strength of 65 percent of the specified 28-day design strength is achieved 

in 6 days using site-cured cylinders or the match-curing system or the maturity method. 

When the percentage of cement replacement is larger than the values listed above or when 

combinations of materials are used as cement replacement, the required period of controlled 

temperature shall be at least 6 days and shall continue until a compressive strength of 65 percent of 

the specified design strength is achieved using site-cured cylinders or the match-curing system or 

the maturity method.

If external heating is employed, the heat shall be applied and withdrawn gradually and uniformly so 

that no part of the concrete surface is heated to more than 32o

C or caused to change temperature by 

more than 11oC in 8 hours. 

When requested by the Engineer, the Contractor shall provide and install two maximum-minimum 

type thermometers at each structure site. Such thermometers shall be installed as directed by the 

Engineer so as to monitor the temperature of the concrete and the surrounding air during the cure 

period. 

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.6.4.1

Addition of pozzolans or slag may result in slower development of properties. Therefore, longer 

curing periods may be needed. Thermal heating and cooling rates are limited to minimize the
Appendix E 

E–24 

thermal strains.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background 

The current provision only addresses pozzolans up to a cement replacement of 20 percent and 

needs to be more general. Instead of fixed periods of controlled temperature, the match-curing 

system or maturity method should be allowed. Both methods can be effective with HPC. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges 

The changes allow for a wider range of cement replacements and optional methods to reduce the 

required period of controlled temperature. The latter will allow for faster bridge construction. 

 

References

None 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix E 

E–25 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.6.6 and 8.6.7

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.6.6 Concrete Exposed to Saltwater as follows: 

8.6.6 Concrete Exposed to Saltwater 

Unless otherwise specified in the contract documents, concrete for structures exposed to salt or 

brackish water shall comply with the requirements of Class A(HPC) concrete. be Class S for 

concrete placed under water and Class A for other work. Such concrete shall be mixed for a period 

of not less than 2 minutes and the water content of the mixture shall be carefully controlled and 

regulated so as to produce concrete of maximum impermeability. The concrete shall be thoroughly 

consolidated as necessary to produce maximum density and a complete lack of rock pockets. 

Unless otherwise indicated in the contract documents, the clear distance from the face of the 

concrete to the reinforcing steel shall be not less than 100 mm. No construction joints shall be 

formed between levels of extreme low water and extreme high water or the upper limit of wave 

action as determined by the Engineer. Between these levels the forms shall not be removed, or 

other means provided, to prevent saltwater from coming in direct contact with the concrete for a 

period of not less than 30 days after placement. Except for the repair of any rock pockets and the 

plugging of form ties holes, the original surface as the concrete comes from the forms shall be left 

undisturbed. Special handling shall be provided for precast members to avoid even slight 

deformation cracks. 

Item No. 2 

Add a Commentary as follows: 

C8.6.6

Penetration of harmful solutions accelerates the deterioration of concrete. The most widely 

experienced environmental distress is the corrosion of the reinforcing steel. Chloride solutions 

destroy the protective coating around the reinforcing steel initiating and accelerating the corrosion 

of the steel. Concrete should be prepared using the proper ingredients and proportions and cured 

for a period of time before exposure to the severe environment such that the penetration of the 

harmful solutions is minimized.

Item No. 3 

Revise 8.6.7 Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Soils or Water as follows: 

8.6.7 Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Soils or Sulfate Water 

When the contract documents identify the area as containing sulfate soils or sulfate water, the 

concrete that will be in contact with such soil or water shall be Class A(HPC) and shall be mixed, 

placed, and protected from contact with soil or water as required for concrete exposed to saltwater 

except that the protection period shall be not less than 72 hours. 

Item No 4 

Add a Commentary as follows: 

C8.6.7

Sulfate soils or water may contain high levels of sulfates of sodium, potassium, calcium, or 

magnesia. Penetration of sulfate solutions into concrete may result in chemical reactions that cause 

disintegration of concrete. Therefore, special precautions may be needed to minimize the intrusion 

of harmful sulfate solutions. Avoidance of construction joints that may facilitate the intrusion of 

sulfate solutions, proper material selection and proportioning, production of low permeability 
Appendix E 

E–26 

concrete, and avoidance of cracking through proper curing are needed.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.) 

Other Affected Articles

None 

Background

HPC with low permeability are essential to provide the needed protection for concrete exposed to 

salt or sulfate solutions.(1) Class A(HPC) is intended for these applications. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Provide a lower permeability concrete. 

 

References

1. ACI Committee 222, "Corrosion of Metals in Concrete (ACI 222R-96)," American Concrete 

Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996, 30 pp. 

(Submitted by: ) 
Appendix E 

E–27 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.11.1

Revise 8.11.1 General as follows:

All newly placed concrete shall be cured so as to prevent the loss of water by use of one or more of 

the methods specified herein. Except for Class A(HPC) concrete, Ccuring shall commence 

immediately after the free water has left the surface and finishing operations are completed. For 

Class A(HPC) concrete, water curing shall commence immediately after finishing operations are 

complete. If the surface of the concrete begins to dry before the selected cure method can be 

applied, the surface of the concrete shall be kept moist by a fog spray applied so as not to damage 

the surface. 

Curing by other than waterproof cover method with precast concrete or steam or radiant heat 

methods shall continue uninterrupted for seven days except that when pozzolans in excess of 

10 percent, by mass, of the portland cement are used in the mix. When such pozzolans are used, 

the curing period shall be 10 days. For other than top slabs of structures serving as finished 

pavements, and Class A(HPC) concrete, the above curing periods may be reduced and curing 

terminated when test cylinders cured under the same conditions as the structure indicate that 

concrete strengths of at least 70 percent of that specified have been reached. 

When deemed necessary by the Engineer during periods of hot weather, water shall be applied to 

concrete surfaces being cured by the liquid membrane method or by the forms-in-place method, 

until the Engineer determines that a cooling effect is no longer required. Such application of water 

will be paid for as extra work. 

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

8.11.4 and 8.13.4 

Background

Changes to 8.11.1 are needed to make it consistent with changes to 8.11.4 and 8.13.4.(1,2,3) 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality and durability of bridge decks. 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Meyers, J. J. and Carrasquillo R. L., "Production and Quality Control of High Performance 

Concrete in Texas Bridge Structures," Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas 

at Austin, Research Report 580/589-1, 2000, 553 pp. 

3. HPC Bridge Views, Issue No. 15, May/June 2001. 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix E 

E–29 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or (X) Addition 8.11.3.5

Revise 8.11.3.5 Steam or Radiant Heat Curing Method as follows: 

Item No. 1 

Add the following at the end of the second paragraph: 

Steam curing or radiant heat curing shall be done under a suitable enclosure to contain the live 

steam or the heat. Steam shall be low pressure and saturated. Temperature recording devices shall 

be employed as necessary to verify that temperatures are uniform throughout the enclosure concrete

and within the limits specified in the contract documents. 

Item No. 2 

Revise the third paragraph as follows: 

The initial application of the steam or of the heat shall be from 2 to 4 hours after the final 

placement of concrete to allow the initial set of the concrete to take place. If retarders are used, the 

waiting period before application of the steam or of the radiant heat shall be increased to between 4 

and 6 hours after placement. not occur prior to initial set of the concrete except to maintain the 

temperature within the curing chamber above the specified minimum temperature. The time of 

initial set may be determined by the Standard Method of Test for "Time of Setting of Concrete 

Mixtures by Penetration Resistance," AASHTO T 197 (ASTM C 403)., and the time limits 

described above may then be waived.

Item No. 3 

Revise the fifth paragraph as follows: 

Application of live steam shall not be directed on the concrete or on the forms so as to cause 

localized high temperatures. During the initial application of live steam or of radiant heat, the 

ambient temperature within the curing enclosure concrete shall increase at an average rate not 

exceeding 22oC per hour until the curing temperature is reached. The maximum curing 

temperature within the enclosure concrete shall not exceed 71oC. The maximum temperature shall 

be held until the concrete has reached the desired strength. In discontinuing the steam application, 

the ambient air concrete temperature shall not decrease at a rate to exceed 22o

C per hour until a 

temperature 11oC above the temperature of the air to which the concrete will be exposed has been 

reached. 

Item No. 4 

Revise the last paragraph as follows: 

Unless the ambient temperature is maintained above 16o

C, for prestressed members the transfer of 

the stressing force to the concrete shall be accomplished immediately after the steam curing or the 

heat curing has been discontinued. For prestressed members, the transfer of the stressing force to 

the concrete shall be accomplished immediately after the steam curing or heat curing has been 

discontinued.

Item No. 5 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.11.3.5

Since high-strength concrete generates more heat of hydration than conventional strength 

concretes, it is important that concrete temperatures be monitored rather than enclosure 

temperatures. It is also important that transfer of prestressing force to the concrete occur before the 
Appendix E 

E–30 

temperature of the concrete decreases. Otherwise, vertical cracking in the girders may result.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

8.2 

Background 

Item No. 1 

Since high-strength concrete generates significantly more heat than conventional strength concrete, 

it is important that concrete temperatures be monitored rather than temperatures throughout the 

enclosure.(1)

Item No. 2 

Since today's concretes may contain a wider variety of constituent materials than in the past, the 

current criteria of 2 to 4 hours or 4 to 6 hours may not be appropriate.(1) Measurement of time of 

set for the specific concrete is a more precise approach. 

Item No. 3 

Research has shown that delayed ettringite formation (DEF) can occur in concretes subjected to 

high temperatures during curing and subsequently exposed to moisture. A maximum temperature 

of about 71 o

C (160 oF) is generally recognized as an upper limit below which DEF is unlikely to 

occur. The PCI Quality Control Manual contains a recommendation that maximum concrete 

temperature should be limited to 70 oC (158 oF) if a known potential for alkali-silica reaction or 

DEF exists. Otherwise, the maximum concrete temperature is 82 oC (180 oF).(2)

Item No. 4 

The current provision allows the ambient temperature to fall as low as 16 o

C (60 oF) before the 

strands are released. A large decrease in concrete and strand temperatures prior to release of the 

strands can result in vertical cracks in the member. This is more likely in deep members and highstrength concrete members. Immediate release of the strands after the steam or heat curing 

minimizes the likelihood of cracking.(3)

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality of concrete in prestressed concrete girders and less cracking in bridge girders 

prior to transfer of the prestressing force. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Manual for Quality Control for Plants and Production of Structural Precast Concrete Products, 

MNL-116-99, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 1999. 

3. Zia, P. and Caner, A., "Cracking in Large-Sized Long Span Prestressed Concrete AASHTO 

Girders," Center for Transportation Engineering Studies, North Carolina State University, October 

1993, 87 pp. 

(Submitted by: )
Appendix E 

E–31 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

( ) Revision or (X) Addition 8.11.4

Item No. 1 

Add the following paragraph at the end of 8.11.4 Bridge Decks: 

When Class A(HPC) concrete is used in bridge decks, water cure shall be applied immediately after 

the finishing of any portion of the deck is complete and shall remain in place for a minimum period 

of seven days irrespective of concrete strength. If conditions prevent immediate application of the 

water cure, an evaporation retardant shall be applied immediately after completion of finishing or 

fogging shall be used to maintain a high relative humidity above the concrete to prevent drying of 

the concrete surface. Following the water cure period, liquid membrane curing compound may be 

applied to extend the curing period.

Item No. 2 

C8.11.4

High performance concrete tends to have very little bleed water, especially when a low watercementitious materials ratio is used with mineral admixtures. As a result, the evaporation 

protection of the bleed water on the fresh concrete is lost. The most effective way to protect the 

concrete is by application of water cure as soon as screeding or tining of the concrete is complete 

and no later than 15 minutes after the concrete is placed in any portion of the deck. If this is not 

possible, the next best alternative is to prevent or reduce moisture loss from the concrete until the 

water cure can be applied. 

In the water cure method, the concrete surface is kept continuously wet. The most appropriate 

method is to cover the deck with materials such as cotton mats, multiple layers of burlap, or other 

materials that do not discolor or damage the concrete surface and to keep these materials 

continuously and thoroughly wet. The water cure needs to continue for a minimum of seven days 

irrespective of concrete strength. The use of a curing compound after the water cure extends the 

curing period while allowing the contractor to have access to the bridge deck.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

8.11.1 

Background

See Item No. 2 and reference No. 1. 

Note that 8.11.1 requires 10 days curing when more than 10 percent pozzolans are used. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Improved quality and durability of bridge decks. 

 

References

1. HPC Bridge Views, Issue No. 15, May/June 2001. 

 

(Submitted by: )

Appendix E 

E–33 

PROPOSED CHANGE TO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications 

(X) Revision or ( ) Addition 8.13.4

Item No. 1 

Revise 8.13.4 Curing as follows: 

Unless otherwise permitted, precast members shall be cured by either the water method, waterproof 

cover method, or the steam or radiant heat method. The use of insulated blankets is permitted with 

the waterproof cover method. When the waterproof cover method is used, the air temperature 

beneath the cover shall not be less than 10oC and live steam or radiant heat may be used to maintain 

the temperature above the minimum value. The maximum concrete temperature during the curing 

cycle shall not exceed 71oC. The waterproof cover shall remain in place until such time as the 

compressive strength of the concrete reaches the strength specified for detensioning or stripping.

Item No. 2 

Add a commentary as follows: 

C8.13.4

Use of the waterproof cover method allows high-strength concretes to self cure without the addition 

of steam or radiant heat. The use of insulated blankets will depend on the external weather 

conditions.

(Deleted text is indicated by strikethrough. Inserted text is underlined.)

Other Affected Articles

8.11.1 

Background

High-strength concretes contain more cementitious material than used in conventional strength 

concrete.(1) Consequently, the heat generated during hydration is greater and sufficient heat can be 

generated to develop the compressive strength required for detensioning or stripping without the 

use of steam or radiant heating.(2) The new wording permits self-curing with or without insulated 

blankets by modifying the waterproof cover method. The revision also refers to concrete 

temperature rather than the enclosure temperature. 

Anticipated Effect on Bridges

Reduce cost of girders since energy for heating is not required. 

 

References

1. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

2. Meyers, J. J. and Carrasquillo R. L., "Production and Quality Control of High Performance 

Concrete in Texas Bridge Structures," Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas 

at Austin, Research Report 580/589-1, 2000, 553 pp. 

 

(Submitted by: )

F–1 

APPENDIX F—RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION PAGE

F.1 MATERIALS RESEARCH 

1. Performance Requirements for High-Performance Concrete............................................... F–3 

2. Use of Wash Water in High-Performance Concrete............................................................. F–7 

3. Air-Void Requirements and Freeze-Thaw Testing Requirements for Durability 

of High-Performance Concrete........................................................................................... F–11 

4. Penetrability Criteria for High-Performance Concrete....................................................... F–15 

5. Curing of High-Performance Concrete............................................................................... F–19 

6. Procedures for Measuring Compressive and Flexural Strengths of High-Strength 

Concrete .............................................................................................................................. F–23 

F.2 STRUCTURAL RESEARCH 

7. Application of Bridge Design Specifications to High-Strength Concrete Structural 

Members: Material Properties............................................................................................. F–27 

8. Application of Bridge Design Specifications to High-Strength Concrete Structural 

Members: Shear Provisions Except Prestressed Concrete Beams...................................... F–31 

9. Verification of Stress Limits and Resistance Factors for High-Performance 

Concrete .............................................................................................................................. F–35 

10. Confinement of High-Strength Concrete Columns for Seismic and Nonseismic 

Regions ............................................................................................................................... F–39 

Appendix F 

F–3 

I. PROBLEM NUMBER 

1 

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Performance Requirements for High-Performance Concrete 

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

High-performance concrete (HPC) is expected to have performance characteristics exceeding 

those of conventional concretes. The desired characteristics may be related to mechanical 

properties (strength, elasticity, shrinkage, or creep) and to durability characteristics (resistance to 

freezing and thawing, scaling, abrasion, penetration of chlorides, sulfate attack, or alkali-silica 

reaction) or a combination of these.(1) An important performance criteria for bridge decks is the 

elimination of cracking. 

In specifications for admixtures, where the properties of concrete containing the admixture are 

compared with the properties of a similar reference concrete, the performance requirements for 

the concrete containing the admixture are less than 100 percent for strength or higher than 

100 percent for shrinkage. For example, in AASHTO M 154, strengths of 90 percent and 

shrinkages of 120 percent of the reference concrete are allowed. In M 154 and M 194, the 

relative durability factor is 80. In table 1 of M 194, it is stated that the values include allowances 

for normal variation in test results. This was also mentioned in the paper by Newlon and 

Mitchell.(2) In HPC, tighter control and different values may be needed. 

In table 4 of AASHTO M 295 and M 307, the maximum difference in drying shrinkage of mortar 

bars at 28 days over the control mortar is given as 0.03 percent. In AASHTO M 302 for slag, 

there are no criteria for shrinkage. These values should be evaluated. Also, the applicability of 

the mortar test for concrete should be determined. 

This project should also evaluate if additional tests, such as sulfate resistance for fly ash 

concrete, are needed. 

The age at which standard tests are made should be considered since HPC properties may 

develop more slowly than for conventional concretes. The FHWA definition of HPC has adopted 

a test age of 56 days.(1)

Each test method should encompass the materials used in HPC and have complete precision and 

bias statements. For example, AASHTO T 132 includes only portland cement in its statement; 

T 106 lists values for portland cements and blended cements; and T 97 does not have precision 

or bias values. 

AASHTO T 160 is used to measure the shrinkage of unrestrained concrete. However, no 

generally accepted test method is available to assess the cracking potential of concrete as used in 
Appendix F 

F–4 

bridge decks. Development of a test will allow the development of a performance criteria related 

to cracking. 

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE(S)

The main objective of the proposed research is to develop performance criteria for HPC. For 

HPC, tighter control and improved performance requirements are needed. Precision and bias 

statements of test methods should be complete and include hydraulic cement concretes. 

To accomplish the objective, the following tasks will be performed: 

Task 1. Review performance criteria used in different AASHTO and ASTM specifications and 

test methods for HPC to identify where further research is needed. The review shall 

include the following standards as a minimum: 

AASHTO M 154 (ASTM C 260)—Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete 

AASHTO M 194 (ASTM C 494)—Chemical Admixtures for Concrete 

AASHTO M 295 (ASTM C 618)—Coal Fly Ash and Raw Calcined Natural Pozzolans 

for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete 

AASHTO M 302 (ASTM C 989)—Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag for Use in 

Concrete and Mortars 

AASHTO M 307—Microsilica for Use in Concrete and Mortar 

AASHTO T 22 (ASTM C 39)—Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete 

Specimens 

AASHTO T 97 (ASTM C 78)—Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam 

with Third-Point Loading) 

AASHTO T 106 (ASTM C 109)—Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortar 

(Using 50-mm or 2-in. Cube Specimens) 

AASHTO T 126 (ASTM C 192)—Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the 

Laboratory 

AASHTO T 132—Tensile Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars 

AASHTO T 160 (ASTM C 157)—Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic Cement 

Mortar and Concrete 

AASHTO T 161 (ASTM C 666)—Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and 

Thawing 

AASHTO T 178 (ASTM C 1084)—Cement Content of Hardened Portland Cement 

Concrete 

AASHTO T 259—Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration 

AASHTO T 276 (ASTM C 918)—Developing Early-Age Compression Test Values 

and Projecting Later-Age Strengths 

ASTM C 1012—Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate 

Solution 

AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Division II, 8.3.2 

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 8.3.2 
Appendix F 

F–5 

An initial review of these standards is available in the Final Report on FHWA Project 

No. DTFH61-00-C-00009 titled "Compilation and Evaluation of Results from HighPerformance Concrete Bridge Projects." 

Task 2. Develop a detailed work plan and test program to obtain the necessary data. Describe 

how the work plan will provide the necessary data. It is anticipated that the following 

specimens will be included: 

For compressive strength of concrete, use either the 150x300-mm or 100x200-mm 

(6x12-in or 4x8-in) specimens. Ends of specimens can be ground or capped with sulfurmortar or tested with neoprene pads in extrusion rings. Three specimens should be used 

for a test result. 

For resistance to freezing and thawing test, concrete specimen width or diameter shall 

range between 75 and 125 mm (3 and 5 in), and length between 280 and 405 mm 

(11 and 16 in). Use two beams or cylinders for a test result. 

For length change in the sulfate test, concrete specimens shall have a minimum 

dimension of 75 mm (3 in) if the maximum size aggregate is 25 mm (1 in), and 100 mm 

(4 in) if the maximum size is 50 mm (2 in). Three specimens shall be prepared for each 

test condition. 

Statistical evaluation of the results shall be required to determine if the number of tests 

is sufficient to indicate a trend considering the variability of each test. 

Task 3. Perform the work plan. 

Task 4. Develop specific proposed revisions to AASHTO and ASTM specifications and test 

methods. 

Task 5. Submit a final report documenting the entire work effort including recommended 

revisions to the specifications and test methods. 

V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Recommended Funding: $250,000 

Research Period: 3 years 

VI. URGENCY/PRIORITY 

The current performance limits are too lenient for HPC. To fully benefit from HPC, new limits 

should be established. As the industry moves towards the greater use of high-performance 

concrete, the need to revise the performance limits becomes more urgent. 
Appendix F 

F–6 

User Community 

Results of the research will be directly applicable to the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on 

Materials and will benefit the whole bridge community. 

Implementation 

Research results will be implemented with proposed revisions to the AASHTO Material 

Specifications and the AASHTO Test Methods. 

Effectiveness 

The benefits of this research include improved and more consistent concrete. 

Thrust Areas/Business Needs 

The proposed research addresses the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures (HSCOBS) thrust areas of Enhanced Specifications for Improved Structural 

Performance and/or Enhanced Materials, Structural Systems, and Technologies. 

The associated building blocks are specifications and test methods for high-performance 

materials, performance based specifications, high-performance concrete, and performance based 

acceptance criteria. 

VII. REFERENCES 

1. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

2. Newlon, H. and Mitchell, T. M., "Freezing and Thawing," Significance of Tests and 

Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Material, STP 169C, American Society for 

Testing and Materials, 1994, pp. 153-163. 
Appendix F 

F–7 

I. PROBLEM NUMBER 

2 

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Use of Wash Water in High-Performance Concrete 

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Many State agencies restrict the use of wash water in hydraulic cement concrete. The chemicals 

in wash water can affect the setting characteristics of fresh concrete and may have adverse 

effects on the strength and durability of the concrete. AASHTO T 26, Test Method for Quality of 

Water to Be Used in Concrete and AASHTO M 157, Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed 

Concrete, address the chemicals and solids in water. AASHTO M 157 and M 241 provide limits 

for chlorides, sulfates, alkalies, and solids, which are under scrutiny. Meeting the total solids 

requirement is considered to be difficult. AASHTO M 157 refers to the testing of mortar 

specimens for acceptance of questionable water supplies. However, the interest is in the 

performance of concrete and not mortar. Concerns are raised about the use of wash water in 

regular concrete. These concerns are more critical with high-performance concrete (HPC). 

Currently, there is reluctance to using wash water in concrete for transportation facilities and the 

resistance will grow with the introduction of HPC. 

On the other hand, environmental regulations restrict the disposal of wash water from the 

concrete plants. Ready-mixed concrete plants will have to recycle water and use it in concrete or 

discharge it to the environment after proper treatment. State DOTs and public agencies will have 

to find ways of using wash water to help the plants meet the environmental regulations. 

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE(S) 

The main objective of the proposed research is to develop guidelines and specifications for the 

use of wash water in concrete. The chemicals and solids in water affect the performance of 

concrete. Test procedures are needed to predict the performance of concretes. 

To accomplish the objective, the following tasks will be performed: 

Task 1. Review the literature and identify the chemicals and amount of solids that affect the 

properties of HPC. The review shall include the following standards: 

AASHTO M 157 (ASTM C 94)—Ready-Mixed Concrete 

AASHTO T 22 (ASTM C 39)—Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete 

Specimens 

AASHTO T 26—Quality of Water to be Used in Concrete 

AASHTO T 106 (ASTM C 109)—Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortar 

(Using 50-mm or 2-in. Cube Specimens) 

AASHTO T 126 (ASTM C 192)—Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the 

Laboratory 
Appendix F 

F–8 

AASHTO T 131 (ASTM C 191)—Time of Setting of Hydraulic Cement by Vicat 

Needle 

AASHTO T 197 (ASTM C 403)—Time of Setting of Concrete Mixtures by Penetration 

Resistance 

AASHTO T 260—Sampling and Testing for Chloride Ion in Concrete and Concrete 

Raw Materials 

Task 2. Develop a detailed work plan and test program to obtain the necessary data. Describe 

the test program in detail and show how the work plan will provide the necessary data. 

For questionable water supplies use AASHTO T 22 to test concrete cylinders (rather 

than the mortar bars required). Also check the time of setting using AASHTO T 197 

(ASTM C 403). 

Statistical evaluation of the results shall be required to determine if the number of tests 

is sufficient to indicate a trend considering the variability of each test. 

Task 3. Perform the work plan and develop draft guidelines and specifications. 

Task 4. Verify the guidelines and specifications in field applications. 

Task 5. Develop specific proposed revisions to AASHTO and ASTM material specifications 

and test methods. 

Task 6. Submit a final report documenting the entire work effort including recommended 

revisions to the specifications and test methods. Chemical limits on wash water shall 

include chloride, sulfate, and alkali contents, and total solids. 

V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Recommended Funding: $250,000 

Research Period: 3 years 

VI. URGENCY/PRIORITY 

The lack of proper AASHTO specifications causes barriers to the use of wash water in highperformance concrete and high-strength concrete. However, the environmental regulations make 

it necessary to consider the use of wash water in all concrete, including HPC, for economic 

reasons. As the industry moves towards the greater use of high-performance concrete and highstrength concrete, the need to consider using wash water becomes more urgent. Implementation 

of these guidelines and specifications will indicate if and when wash water can be used in 

making HPC. 

User Community 

Results of the research will be directly applicable to the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on 

Materials and will benefit the whole bridge community. 
Appendix F 

F–9 

Implementation 

Research results will be implemented with proposed revisions to the AASHTO Material 

Specifications and the AASHTO Test Methods. 

Effectiveness 

The benefits of this research include maintaining high standards for HPC but at the same time 

addressing the environmental concerns. 

Thrust Areas/Business Needs 

The proposed research addresses the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures (HSCOBS) thrust areas of Enhanced Specifications for Improved Structural 

Performance and/or Enhanced Materials, Structural Systems, and Technologies. 

The associated building blocks are specifications and test methods for high-performance 

materials, performance based specifications, high-performance concrete, and performance based 

acceptance criteria. 

Appendix F 

F–11 

I. PROBLEM NUMBER 

3 

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Air-Void Requirements and Freeze-Thaw Testing Requirements for Durability of HighPerformance Concrete 

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

For a uniform product, proper consolidation of concrete is needed. High-performance concrete 

(HPC) with a low water-cementitious materials ratio is expected to have a stiff consistency and is 

difficult to consolidate unless water-reducing admixtures or high-range water-reducing 

admixtures (HRWRA) are used. HRWRA may adversely affect the air-void system by 

stabilizing large voids. Furthermore, with high frequency vibration recommended by ACI 309 

for consolidation, there are concerns that paving concretes lose many of the entrained voids that 

are essential for resistance to freezing and thawing during this process.(1) Such concretes were 

oversanded, which may also be the case with concrete for bridge structures. Thus the air-void 

system may be adversely affected, thereby influencing the resistance to freezing and thawing. 

In HPC, improved workability is highly desirable. Self-consolidating concretes (SCC) that do not 

need any mechanical vibration but consolidate under their own mass are available. These 

concretes have high amounts of HRWRA and have very high flow. Maintaining the proper airvoid system in these concretes should be evaluated. 

The ACI Building Code permits a 1 percent reduction in the total air content if the compressive 

strength of the concrete exceeds 34 MPa (5000 psi). This is related to the low permeability of 

high-strength concrete. A decrease in air content requirement makes it easier to achieve the high 

strengths since an increase in air content reduces the strength. A change in total air content is 

expected to affect the air-void system. The relationship between strength, permeability, and airvoid system for different exposure conditions is needed. 

AASHTO Test Method T 161 (ASTM C 666) covers the determination of resistance of concrete 

specimens to rapidly repeated cycles of freezing and thawing in the laboratory. Unless specified 

otherwise, specimens are cured in lime saturated water for 14 days and then subjected to freezing 

and thawing. This is a severe test and may not correlate with field experience, especially for 

HPC. The test also requires 300 cycles of freezing and thawing or until the relative dynamic 

modulus of elasticity is 60 percent. These limits are not appropriate for HPC and need to be 

assessed. 

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE(S) 

The objectives of the proposed research are to establish the required air-void system including 

the total air content for HPC that is consolidated mechanically or is SCC and to develop revised 

procedures, if appropriate, for AASHTO T 161. 
Appendix F 

F–12 

To accomplish the objectives, the following tasks will be performed: 

Task 1. Perform a literature survey to identify the effect of consolidation and admixtures on the 

air void systems of HPC and on freezing and thawing test procedures for HPC. The 

review shall include the following guides and standards: 

ACI 309R—Guide for Consolidation of Concrete 

AASHTO T 22 (ASTM C 39)—Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete 

Specimens 

AASHTO T 126 (ASTM C 192)—Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the 

Laboratory 

AASHTO T 161 (ASTM C 666)—Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and 

Thawing 

AASHTO T 259—Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration 

AASHTO T 277 (ASTM C 1202)—Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist 

Chloride Ion Penetration 

ASTM C 457—Microscopical Determination of the Air-Void System in Hardened 

Concrete 

Task 2. Develop a detailed work plan and test program to obtain the necessary data. Describe 

how the work plan will provide the necessary data. It is anticipated that the following 

specimens will be tested: 

For rapid chloride permeability of concrete, use 100x200-mm (4x8-in) specimens. Two 

specimens should be used for a test result. For ponding test, use four specimens for 

each evaluation with each slab or cylinder not less than 75 mm (3 in) thick. 

For resistance to freezing and thawing, concrete specimen width or diameter shall range 

between 75 and 125 mm (3 and 5 in) and length between 280 and 405 mm (11 and 

16 in). Use two beams or cylinders for a test result. 

Statistical evaluation of the results shall be required to determine if the number of tests 

is sufficient to indicate a trend considering the variability of each test. 

For the air-void parameters, ASTM C 457 specifies the length of traverse or the 

minimum number of points required. The data obtained shall be analyzed by statistical 

methods to determine the limits of uncertainty. 

Task 3. Compare laboratory results with field experiences. 

Task 4. Prepare specifications for establishing limits on air-void parameters for different 

permeabilities. 

Task 5. Prepare revised specifications for freeze-thaw testing of concrete. 

Task 6. Submit a final report documenting the entire work effort including recommended 

revisions to the test methods and specifications. 
Appendix F 

F–13 

V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Recommended Funding: $350,000 

Research Period: 3 years 

VI. URGENCY/PRIORITY 

The current air content requirements and freeze-thaw test method contain barriers to the greater 

use of high-performance concrete and high-strength concrete. These barriers restrict the 

application of existing and new technology to bridges. As the industry moves towards the greater 

use of high-performance concrete, the need to revise the limits for air content and the test 

procedure for freeze-thaw resistance become more urgent. 

User Community 

Results of the research will be directly applicable to the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on 

Materials and will benefit the whole bridge community. 

Implementation 

Research results will be implemented with proposed revisions to the AASHTO Material 

Specifications and the AASHTO Test Methods. 

Effectiveness 

The benefits of this research include concrete with high resistance to degradation from freezing 

and thawing. 

Thrust Areas/Business Needs 

The proposed research addresses the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures (HSCOBS) thrust areas of Enhanced Specifications for Improved Structural 

Performance and/or Enhanced Materials, Structural Systems, and Technologies. 

The associated building blocks are specifications and test methods for high-performance 

materials, performance based specifications, high-performance concrete, and performance based 

acceptance criteria. 

VII. REFERENCES 

1. Steffes, R. and Tymkowicz, S., "Vibrator Trails in Slipformed Pavements," Concrete 

Construction, April 1977, pp. 361–368.

Appendix F 

F–15 

I. PROBLEM NUMBER 

4 

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Penetrability Criteria for High-Performance Concrete 

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

One of the most important characteristics of high-performance concrete (HPC) is low 

permeability. However, tests and acceptance values to determine permeability have been 

controversial. The FHWA HPC definition(1) uses a very convenient electrical test, AASHTO 

T 277, which indicates the penetrability of concrete. This test has been criticized for not always 

correlating adequately with measured chloride ion penetration. AASHTO T 277 is also affected 

by interferences such as the presence of calcium nitrite. A recent migration test is similar to the 

AASHTO T 277 test except that the depth of chloride penetration rather than the charge is 

measured.(2) This test is not affected by the presence of calcium nitrite and is being developed as 

an AASHTO provisional standard. 

The 90-day ponding test, AASHTO T 259, has generated less criticism but takes a long time to 

run. In addition, 90 days is not sufficient time to discern differences between concretes when 

chlorides are measured using 13-mm (0.5-in) thick layers. Longer ponding times or thinner 

layers are needed. The benefit of the ponding test is the possibility of generating diffusion 

coefficients that can be used in service-life prediction models. 

In a series of HPC showcase bridges sponsored by the FHWA, specified values for permeability 

for bridge deck concrete ranged from 1000 to 2500 coulombs measured using AASHTO T 277. 

For precast girders, the values ranged from 1000 to 3000 coulombs.(3) These values were based 

on the lowest values that could be reasonably achieved in each location. For reducing chloride 

penetration, a lower value of permeability is better. However, achieving these lower values can 

adversely affect other performance criteria such as deck cracking. Guidance is needed to identify 

optimum values for overall improved bridge deck, girder, and substructure performance in 

different environments. 

Permeability of the field concretes should also be evaluated and compared with the laboratory 

findings. 

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE(S) 

The objectives of the proposed research are to improve existing test procedures and to establish 

acceptable ranges for the penetrability of HPC. 

To accomplish the objectives, the following tasks will be performed: 

Task 1. Review the literature and identify the permeability methods for HPC. The review shall 

include the following tests: 
Appendix F 

F–16 

 AASHTO T 23 (ASTM C 31)—Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the 

Field 

 AASHTO T 24 (ASTM C 42)—Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams 

of Concrete 

AASHTO T 126 (ASTM C 192)—Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the 

Laboratory 

 AASHTO T 259—Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration 

 AASHTO T 277 (ASTM C 1202)—Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist 

Chloride Ion Penetration 

 Migration test described in reference 2 and corresponding AASHTO provisional 

standard. 

Task 2. Develop a detailed work plan and test program to obtain the necessary data. Describe 

how the work plan will provide the necessary data. It is anticipated that the following 

specimens will be tested: 

Cylinders and cores for the AASHTO T 277 test shall be 100x200 mm (4x8 in). Two 

specimens should be used for a test result. For AASHTO T 259, use four specimens for 

each evaluation with each slab or cylinder not less than 75 mm (3 in) thick. 

Statistical evaluation of the results shall be required to determine if the number of tests 

is sufficient to indicate a trend considering the variability of each test. 

Task 3. Conduct a laboratory investigation of the variables. 

Task 4. Correlate laboratory results with field experience and exposure conditions. 

Task 5. Develop limits on penetrability, chloride content, and diffusion coefficients for the 

range of exposure conditions in the United States. 

Task 6. Submit a final report documenting the entire work effort including recommended 

revisions to the specifications and test methods. 

V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Recommended Funding: $300,000 

Research Period: 4 years 

VI. URGENCY/PRIORITY 

The current permeability requirements based on AASHTO T 277 are controversial. Some 

agencies set very low limits. A better understanding of the relationship between longevity and 

coulomb numbers is needed. Chloride contents and diffusion coefficients should also be related 

to field performance. Permeability is an essential property when durability is a concern and a 

better understanding of values and performance is justified. As the industry moves towards the 
Appendix F 

F–17 

greater use of high-performance concrete, the need to establish limits for permeability or 

penetrability becomes more urgent. 

User Community 

Results of the research will be directly applicable to the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on 

Materials and will benefit the whole bridge community. 

Implementation 

Research results will be implemented with proposed revisions to the AASHTO Material 

Specifications and the AASHTO Test Methods. 

Effectiveness 

The benefits of this research include a better understanding of the permeability or penetrability of 

concrete. This is essential for longevity of concrete bridges. 

Thrust Areas/Business Needs 

The proposed research addresses the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures (HSCOBS) thrust areas of Enhanced Specifications for Improved Structural 

Performance and/or Enhanced Materials, Structural Systems, and Technologies. 

The associated building blocks are specifications for high-performance materials, performance 

based specifications, high-performance concrete, and performance based acceptance criteria. 

VII. REFERENCES 

3. Goodspeed, C. H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., "High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62-67. 

2. Hooton, R. D., Thomas, M. D. A., and Stanish, K., "Prediction of Chloride Penetration in 

Concrete," FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA-RD-00-142, 

Washington, DC, 2001, 412 pp. 

3. “High Performance Concrete,” Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC, August 2001. 

Appendix F 

F–19 

I. PROBLEM NUMBER 

5 

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Curing of High-Performance Concrete 

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

The three curing methods for concrete bridge decks are water curing, curing compound, or the 

waterproof cover method. Curing is necessary to maintain favorable moisture and temperature 

conditions in the concrete. 

Water curing is favored especially when the water-cementitious materials ratio (w/cm) is below 

0.40. In these concretes, autogenous curing is considered to cause shrinkage, which is additive to 

other shrinkage factors that may lead to cracking of the concrete. Whether water curing prevents 

autogenous shrinkage is not clear from the research. In water curing, it is not clear how long 

water supplied to the concrete can penetrate the material to help with autogenous shrinkage or 

further curing. This is particularly true for high-performance concrete (HPC). 

AASHTO M 148 for liquid membrane-forming compounds requires a moisture loss of no more 

than 0.55 kg/m2

 (0.11 lb/ft2) in 72 hours and a daylight reflectance of not less than 60 percent. In 

summer months, these compounds contain white pigments to reflect solar energy and minimize 

heating of the concrete. 

AASHTO M 171 for sheet materials requires moisture loss of no more than 0.55 kg/m2

(0.11 lb/ft2

) in 72 hours and a daylight reflectance of at least 50 percent for white curing paper 

and 70 percent for white polyethylene film. 

All three curing methods need to be evaluated for HPC used in bridge decks. In addition to 

testing laboratory specimens, cores shall be taken from the field projects to determine the 

effectiveness of the curing methods. 

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE(S) 

The objective of the proposed research is to establish effective curing methods for HPC. It will 

evaluate if a curing compound or waterproof covers with certain reflectance and moisture 

retention can be successfully used in HPC with different cementitious materials and w/cms, and 

if water curing reduces drying and autogenous shrinkage. 

To accomplish the objectives, the following tasks will be performed: 

Task 1. Review the literature and identify the curing methods for HPC. The review shall 

include the following documents: 
Appendix F 

F–20 

AASHTO M 148 (ASTM C 309)—Liquid Membrane-Forming Compounds for Curing 

Concrete 

AASHTO M 171 (ASTM C 171)—Sheet Materials for Curing Concrete 

AASHTO T 23 (ASTM C 31)—Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the 

Field 

AASHTO T 24 (ASTM C 42)—Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams 

of Concrete 

AASHTO T 126 (ASTM C 192)—Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the 

Laboratory 

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications 

ASTM C 1151—Evaluating the Effectiveness of Materials for Curing (This test method 

was withdrawn in June 2000 since it was not updated in eight years as required by 

ASTM). 

JCI, TC 003 Technical Committee Report on the Autogenous Shrinkage of Concrete 

(Japan Concrete Institute Technical Committee on Autogenous Shrinkage of Concrete), 

November 1996. 

Task 2. Develop a detailed work plan and test program to obtain the necessary data. Describe 

how the work plan will provide the necessary data. It is anticipated that water curing 

using burlap, cotton mats, ponding, fogging, or soaker hoses; curing compounds: and 

various sheet materials including curing paper, polyethylene film, and burlappolyethylene sheet will be evaluated for moisture retention and temperature control. 

Concretes cured with these materials will be tested to determine the effectiveness of 

curing. Laboratory specimens and cores with varying dimensions shall be tested. A 

statistical analysis shall be conducted to determine the variability of each test and the 

differences in the methods used. 

Task 3. Conduct field tests under a variety of typical outdoor environments. 

Task 4. Prepare specifications for curing compounds, waterproof covers, and water curing for 

concrete with different strengths and permeabilities. 

Task 5. Submit a final report documenting the entire work effort including recommended 

revisions to the specifications and test methods. 

V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Recommended Funding: $250,000 

Research Period: 3 years 

VI. URGENCY/PRIORITY 

The current curing requirements of the AASHTO specifications may not be appropriate for HPC. 

Improper curing results in poor quality concrete with undesirable cracking. As the industry 

moves towards the greater use of high-performance concrete, the need to revise the curing 

methods becomes more urgent. 
Appendix F 

F–21 

User Community 

Results of the research will be directly applicable to the AASHTO Highway Subcommittees on 

Materials and Bridges and Structures and will benefit the whole bridge community. 

Implementation 

Research results will be implemented with proposed revisions to the AASHTO Material 

Specifications, the AASHTO Test Methods, and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction 

Specifications. 

Effectiveness 

The benefits of this research include more effective curing methods and will result in longer 

lasting concretes requiring less maintenance. 

Thrust Areas/Business Needs 

The proposed research addresses the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures (HSCOBS) thrust areas of Enhanced Specifications for Improved Structural 

Performance and/or Enhanced Materials, Structural Systems, and Technologies. 

The associated building blocks are specifications for high-performance materials, performance 

based specifications, high-performance concrete, and performance based acceptance criteria. 

Appendix F 

F–23 

I. PROBLEM NUMBER 

6 

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Procedures for Measuring Compressive and Flexural Strengths of High-Strength Concrete 

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

The AASHTO and ASTM test methods for measuring the compressive strength of concrete 

cylinders and cores were developed for the testing of concrete with compressive strengths up to 

about 40 MPa (6000 psi). Revisions have been made to some sections of the test methods to 

extend their applicability to concrete with compressive strengths up to 83 MPa (12,000 psi). 

With the greater use of high-strength concretes, particularly in transportation structures, there is a 

need to review the test methods for their applicability to high-strength concretes and to provide 

test methods for concrete with compressive strengths greater than 83 MPa (12,000 psi). 

Some of the topics that need to be addressed are specimen size for different maximum aggregate 

sizes, consolidation procedures for cylinders, tolerances on test specimens, capping materials and 

procedures, qualification procedure for capping systems, testing machine characteristics 

including spherical head design, machine stiffness and loading rate, correction factors for 

different length to diameter ratios, and precision statements. 

The AASHTO and ASTM test methods for measuring flexural strength require the use of a beam 

with a cross section of 152x152 mm (6x6 in) when the maximum size of coarse aggregate is up 

to 50 mm (2 in). These are large and heavy beams and a smaller size is desirable and may be 

appropriate with the smaller sizes of aggregate used in high-strength concrete. For the flexural 

strength tests, the size of specimen, curing conditions prior to test, and loading rate need to be 

evaluated. 

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE(S) 

The objective of the proposed research is to refine existing test methods and procedures for 

measuring compressive strengths of concrete cylinders and cores and flexural strengths of 

concrete beams so that they are applicable for compressive strengths up to 140 MPa (20,000 psi). 

It is anticipated that the research will include the following tasks as a minimum: 

Task 1. Review of existing test methods and specifications for provisions that need to be 

evaluated for use with high-strength concrete. This review shall include the following 

standards: 

 AASHTO T 22 (ASTM C 39)—Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete 

Specimens 

 AASHTO T 23 (ASTM C 31—Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the 

Field 
Appendix F 

F–24 

 AASHTO T 24 (ASTM C 42)—Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams 

of Concrete 

 AASHTO T 97 (ASTM C 78)—Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam 

with Third-Point Loading) 

 AASHTO T 126 (ASTM C 192)—Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the 

Laboratory 

 AASHTO T 177 (ASTM C 293)—Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam 

with Center-Point Loading) 

 AASHTO T 231 (ASTM C 617)—Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens 

ASTM C 1231—Use of Unbonded Caps for Determination of Compressive Strength of 

Hardened Concrete Cylinders 

Task 2. Identification of existing data that can be used to evaluate the existing provisions. 

Task 3. Development of a work plan and test program to obtain the necessary data. Describe 

how the work plan will provide the necessary data. 

It is anticipated that the program will involve extensive testing of 100x200-mm 

(4x8-in) cylinders, 150x300-mm (6x12-in) cylinders, concrete cores of various 

diameters and length to diameter ratios, and rectangular beams of various dimensions. 

A variety of capping methods for cylinders and cores should be tested including neat 

cement, gypsum plaster, sulfur mortar, and unbonded caps. The appropriateness of 

different types of testing machines and loading rates should also be evaluated. 

Task 4. Submit an interim report within 6 months of the contract start date to document the 

results of tasks 1 through 3. 

Task 5. Perform the work plan developed in task 3. 

Task 6. Develop specific proposed revisions for the AASHTO and ASTM test methods and 

specifications. 

Task 7. Submit a final report documenting the entire work effort including recommended 

revisions to the test methods and specifications. 

V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Recommended Funding: $150,000 

Research Period: 24 months 

VI. URGENCY/PRIORITY 

The current test methods for measuring the compressive and flexural strengths of concrete 

contain barriers to the greater use of high-strength concrete. These barriers restrict the 

application of existing and new technology to bridges. As the industry moves towards the greater 

use of high-strength concrete, the need to revise the test methods becomes more urgent. 
Appendix F 

F–25 

User Community 

Results of the research will be directly applicable to the AASHTO Test Methods and will benefit 

the whole bridge community. 

Implementation 

Research results will be implemented with proposed revisions to the AASHTO Test Methods. 

Effectiveness 

The benefits of this research include more reliable and consistent test methods for measuring the 

compressive and flexural strengths of high-strength concrete. 

Thrust Areas/Business Needs 

The proposed research addresses the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures (HSCOBS) thrust areas of Enhanced Specifications for Improved Structural 

Performance and/or Enhanced Materials, Structural Systems, and Technologies. 

The associated building blocks are specifications for high-performance materials, performancebased specifications, high-performance concrete, and performance-based acceptance criteria. 

Appendix F 

F–27 

I. PROBLEM NUMBER 

7 

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Application of Bridge Design Specifications to High-Strength Concrete Structural Members: 

Material Properties 

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

As part of FHWA Project No. DTFH61-00-C-00009 titled "Compilation and Evaluation of 

Results from High Performance Concrete Bridge Projects," a review of the AASHTO Standard 

Specifications for Highway Bridges and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications was 

made to identify provision impacted by the use of high-performance concrete (HPC). Most of the 

identified provisions related to the use of high-strength concrete and indicated a need for 

additional research in order to extend the provisions to concrete compressive strengths greater 

than 70 MPa (10,000 psi). This research problem statement encompasses the provisions that are 

structural but involve a strong component of material behavior. 

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE(S) 

The objective of the proposed research is to develop recommended revisions to the AASHTO 

specifications to extend the applicability of the provisions to compressive strengths of normal 

weight concrete greater that 70 MPa (10,000 psi). The scope of the project includes the following 

provisions: 

Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges 

8.5.3 Coefficient of thermal expansion and contraction 

8.13.4 Computation of deflections 

8.15.2 Allowable concrete stresses for modulus of rupture in sand lightweight and 

lightweight concrete and bearing stresses 

8.16.7 Bearing strength 

9.5.2.3 Cracking stress 

9.15.2.4 Anchorage bearing stress 

9.18.2.2 Minimum steel 

9.21 Post-tensioned anchorage zone design 

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 

5.4.2.6 Modulus of rupture 

5.4.2.7 Tensile strength 

5.7.3.6.2 Deflection and camber 

5.7.5 Bearing 

5.14.1.2.5 Concrete strength 

5.14.2.3.3 Construction load combinations—tensile stress limits 

5.14.2.4.7b Segment reinforcement—tensile stress 
Appendix F 

F–28 

Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing 

Part 2 – Tests 

T 276 Developing Early-Age Compression Test Values and Projecting Later-Age 

Strengths 

Accomplishment of the project objective will require the following tasks as a minimum: 

Task 1. Identify the basis for the existing provisions. 

Task 2. Identify testing and analysis required to extend the provisions to concrete compressive 

strengths greater than 70 MPa (10,000 psi). 

Task 3. Develop a detailed work plan for experimental and analytical work. The work plan 

should include all testing needed to provide information that will permit extending the 

application of the specifications to high-strength concrete and should include estimates 

of the cost and time to complete each testing and analysis component. 

Task 4. Submit an interim report to document tasks 1 through 3. A project panel will prioritize 

and select those portions of the plan that can be accomplished with the available funds. 

Task 5. Perform the work approved by the panel. The test program shall include concrete with 

compressive strengths as high as 124 MPa (18,000 psi) although strengths as high as 

140 MPa (20,000 psi) are desirable. 

Task 6. Submit a final report documenting the entire research project. Any proposed revisions 

to the AASHTO specifications shall be included in the report. 

V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Recommended Funding: $250,000 

Research Period: 2 years 

VI. URGENCY/PRIORITY 

The current AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges and the AASHTO LRFD 

Bridge Design Specifications contain barriers to the greater use of high-strength concrete. These 

barriers restrict the application of existing and new technology to bridges. As the industry moves 

towards the greater use of high-strength concrete, the need to revise the specifications becomes 

more urgent. 

User Community 

Results of the research will be directly applicable to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Highway Bridges and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and will benefit the 

whole bridge community. 
Appendix F 

F–29 

Implementation 

Research results will be implemented with proposed revisions to the AASHTO Standard 

Specifications for Highway Bridges and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

Effectiveness 

The benefits of this research include extension of the existing design previsions to concrete 

compressive strengths greater than 70 MPa (10,000 psi). The use of high-strength concrete in the 

right applications can result in more economical, aesthetic, and functional bridges. 

Thrust Areas/Business Needs 

The proposed research addresses the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures (HSCOBS) thrust areas of Enhanced Specifications for Improved Structural 

Performance and/or Enhanced Materials, Structural Systems, and Technologies. 

The associated building blocks are specifications for high-performance materials, performancebased specifications, high-performance concrete, and performance-based acceptance criteria. 

Appendix F 

F–31 

I. PROBLEM NUMBER 

8 

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Application of Bridge Design Specifications to High-Strength Concrete Structural Members: 

Shear Provisions Except Prestressed Concrete Beams 

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

The objective of NCHRP Project 12-56, titled "Application of the LRFD Bridge Design 

Specifications to High-Strength Structural Concrete: Shear Provisions," is to develop 

recommended revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications to extend the 

applicability of shear design provisions for reinforced and prestressed concrete structures to 

concrete compressive strengths greater than 70 MPa (10,000 psi). The first part of the project 

required the development of an expanded work plan for experimental and analytical work based 

on a review of design and construction practices, identification of barriers to the use of highperformance concrete, and identification of research needs. The work was performed in 

cooperation with FHWA Project No. DTFH61-00-C-00009 titled "Compilation and Evaluation 

of Results from High Performance Concrete Bridge Projects." 

Since the primary application of extended LRFD shear design specifications will be for the 

design of long-span and/or slender girders, the experimental program of NCHRP 12-56 will 

focus on testing large bulb-tee bridge girders. Analysis will initially focus on use of the sectional 

design model followed by the strut-and-tie model. Consequently, the project will only address 

shear in prestressed concrete beams. Other aspects of shear that need to be investigated include 

compression members, tension members, lightweight concrete, shear-friction, horizontal shear, 

slabs and footings, culverts, brackets, corbels, and ledges. 

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE(S) 

The objective of the proposed research is to develop recommended revisions to the AASHTO 

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway 

Bridges to extend the applicability of the shear design provisions for reinforced and prestressed 

concrete structures to compressive strengths of normal weight concrete greater than 70 MPa 

(10,000 psi). The scope of work does not include prestressed concrete beams. 

Accomplishment of the project objective will require the following tasks as a minimum: 

Task 1. Review existing data that address shear in high-strength concrete members. 

Task 2. Identify design provisions for which additional research is needed. 

Task 3. Develop an expanded work plan for experimental and analytical work. The work plan 

should include all testing needed to provide information that will permit extending the 
Appendix F 

F–32 

application of the specifications to high-strength concrete and should include estimates 

of the cost and time to complete each testing component. 

Task 4. Submit an interim report to document tasks 1 through 3. A project panel will prioritize 

and select those portions of the plan that can be accomplished with the available funds. 

Task 5. Perform the work approved by the panel. It is anticipated that the majority of the work 

will consist of proof tests of large-scale concrete members to verify that the existing 

provisions are applicable for concrete compressive strengths up to about 140 MPa 

(20,000 psi). Test specimens are expected to represent compression members, tension 

members, slabs, footings, culverts, brackets, corbels, and ledges. Where existing 

provisions are found to require modifications, modified provisions will be developed 

and verified by additional tests, if needed. The scope of the project does not include the 

development of new design approaches. 

Task 6. Submit a final report documenting the entire research project. Any proposed revisions 

to the AASHTO specifications shall be included in the report. 

V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Recommended Funding: $700,000 

Research Period: 4 years 

VI. URGENCY/PRIORITY 

The current AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges and the AASHTO LRFD 

Bridge Design Specifications contain barriers to the greater use of high-strength concrete. These 

barriers restrict the application of existing and new technology to bridges. As the industry moves 

towards the greater use of high-strength concrete, the need to revise the specifications becomes 

more urgent. 

User Community 

Results of the research will be directly applicable to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Highway Bridges and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and will benefit the 

whole bridge community. 

Implementation 

Research results will be implemented with proposed revisions to the AASHTO Standard 

Specifications for Highway Bridges and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
Appendix F 

F–33 

Effectiveness 

The benefits of this research include extension of the existing design previsions to concrete 

compressive strengths greater than 70 MPa (10,000 psi). The use of high-strength concrete in the 

right applications can result in more economical, aesthetic, and functional bridges. 

Thrust Areas/Business Needs 

The proposed research addresses the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures (HSCOBS) thrust areas of Enhanced Specifications for Improved Structural 

Performance and/or Enhanced Materials, Structural Systems, and Technologies. 

The associated building blocks are specifications for high-performance materials, performancebased specifications, high-performance concrete, and performance-based acceptance criteria. 

Appendix F 

F–35 

I. PROBLEM NUMBER 

9 

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Verification of Stress Limits and Resistance Factors for High-Performance Concrete 

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Concrete has material properties that vary from batch to batch. Evaluation of these properties is 

based on a statistical method that examines random samples. In general, concrete material 

properties are determined from a sample of about 0.03 cu m taken from every 75 to 100 cu m 

(1 cu ft per 100 to 150 cu yd). The possibility exists that some of the unsampled concrete might 

have insufficient strength. Also, the acceptance criteria for concrete allows for a statistically 

small number of samples to be understrength. Resistance factors are placed in the AASHTO 

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications to allow for the possibility that a small amount of 

understrength concrete might exist in the structure. (These factors are called strength reduction 

factors in the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges). These factors also attempt 

to compensate for imperfect knowledge of the actual state of stress in the structure. The 

resistance factor is higher for bending, where the stress distributions are well understood, but 

lower for cases like bearing, where the stress distribution is less certain. The resistance factors 

are reduced if the failure mode is brittle such as shear or if failure of the element is likely to be 

catastrophic such as columns. 

The properties of high-performance concrete (HPC), and high-strength concrete (HSC) in 

particular, are known to be more sensitive to the amount of added water, aggregate type and 

moisture condition, brand and type of cement, and admixtures used than conventional concrete. 

As a result, there may be a higher incidence of understrength concrete in structures using highperformance concrete. There is also evidence that high-strength concrete may be more brittle, 

exhibit less aggregate interlock, and less lateral expansion (causing confinement to be less 

effective) than conventional concrete. As a result, the resistance factors might not provide the 

anticipated level of safety for high-performance concrete. 

In certain cases, such as prestressed concrete under service load conditions, the AASHTO LRFD 

Specifications and the AASHTO Standard Specifications also limit the service load concrete 

stress. However, these stress limits were developed for conventional strength concrete and their 

applicability to high-strength concrete may not be valid. 

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE(S) 

The research objectives of this project are as follows: 

1. Collect data on resistance factors and stress limits from previous research. Determine if the 

data are sufficient to evaluate the resistance factors and stress limits. 
Appendix F 

F–36 

2. Where the data are insufficient to evaluate the resistance factors and stress limits, conduct 

experiments to generate the data needed. 

3. Using the data from objectives 1 and 2, verify the resistance factors and stress limits in the 

AASHTO LRFD Specifications. Propose changes as needed. This same data should be used to 

evaluate the strength reduction factors and allowable stresses in the AASHTO Standard 

Specifications. 

The objectives can be accomplished with the following tasks: 

Task 1. Conduct an extensive literature search for experimental data on the strength properties 

of structures and/or elements made with HPC. 

Task 2. Determine from the data found in task 1 where significant gaps in the data exist. 

Task 3. Where there are sufficient data from task 1, evaluate the resistance factors and stress 

limits. Propose changes as needed. 

Task 4. Where task 2 suggests significant gaps in the data, propose experiments to provide the 

needed data. Where structural tests are needed, they should be full scale. Unless data 

are available from other sources, the experiments should be designed to generate the 

following results: 

a. Field verification of the actual incidence of understrength HSC/HPC. 

b. Verification that the statistical nominal strength of HSC/HPC structural members, 

after being reduced by the resistance factor, still exceeds strength design moments. 

c. An evaluation of the performance of HSC/HPC under service loads for cases where 

stress limits are specified in the AASHTO LRFD Specifications. 

Task 5. Prepare an interim report summarizing the results of tasks 1-4. 

Task 6. After approval of the interim report, conduct the experiments as approved. 

Task 7. Verify the resistance factors and stress limits in the AASHTO LRFD Specifications. 

Propose changes, as needed, to the resistance factors and stress limits. Also verify or 

propose changes to the strength reduction factors and allowable stresses in the AASHTO 

Standard Specifications. 

Task 8. Submit a final report. 

V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Recommended Funding: $500,000 
Appendix F 

F–37 

Research Period: 36 months – Approximately 10 months to complete tasks 1-5, 2 months to 

review the interim report, 21 months to complete tasks 6-8, and 3 months to review the final 

report. 

VI. URGENCY/PRIORITY 

The current specifications contain barriers to the greater use of high-performance concrete and 

high-strength concrete. These barriers restrict the application of existing and new technology to 

bridges. As the industry moves towards the greater use of high-performance concrete and highstrength concrete, the need to revise the resistance factors and stress limits becomes more urgent 

since the current factors may not provide the anticipated level of safety. 

User Community 

Results of the research will be directly applicable to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design 

Specifications and the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges and will benefit 

the whole bridge community. 

Implementation 

Research results will be implemented with proposed revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge 

Design Specifications and the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. 

Effectiveness 

The benefits of this research include a more realistic evaluation of the actual safety factors as 

related to high strength/high-performance concrete. 

Thrust Areas/Business Needs 

The proposed research addresses the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures (HSCOBS) thrust areas of Enhanced Specifications for Improved Structural 

Performance and/or Enhanced Materials, Structural Systems, and Technologies. 

The associated building blocks are specifications for high-performance materials, highperformance concrete, and performance-based acceptance criteria. 

Appendix F 

F–39 

I. PROBLEM NUMBER 

10 

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Confinement of High-Strength Concrete Columns for Seismic and Nonseismic Regions 

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT 

The American Concrete Institute State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete Columns

(ACI 441R-3) states that the presence of transverse (confining) reinforcement increases the 

strength of concrete columns but, for a given amount of transverse reinforcement, the effect is 

less pronounced with high-strength concrete (HSC) than with conventional strength concrete. 

This is often attributed to HSC having less expansion of the core under high axial load. The ACI 

report summarizes the results of approximately 15 different studies on concentrically loaded 

HSC columns. The results suggest that: 

1. Columns with similar values of (Ds fyt / fc') have similar axial ductilities. Note that if the 

transverse steel yield strength, fyt, is constant, a larger transverse reinforcing ratio (Ds) is 

required for higher strength concrete. 

2. For HSC columns to achieve the minimum axial load capacity calculated by the procedures 

of ACI 318, (Ds fyt / fc') needs to be greater than 30 percent. 

However, this report has some shortcomings. Some of the tests were made using confined 

cylinders, not columns. While the data suggesting that (Ds fyt / fc') needs to be greater than 

30 percent are based on nine sets of tests, only two sets have (Ds fyt / fc') greater than 30 percent. 

The report says that HPC will have acceptable levels of ductility if "certain minimum limitations 

are met for the volumetric ratio and spacing of transverse reinforcing," but neither the report nor 

the cited reference indicates the actual limitations. Finally, the presented data do not differentiate 

between spiral reinforced columns and tied columns. 

Thus, there needs to be some consistent data generated for spiral and tied columns with similar 

transverse reinforcing ratios and using HSC. The tests should address the minimum value of 

(Ds fyt / fc') needed to achieve acceptable strength and ductility in both seismic and nonseismic 

regions. The tests should also address the question of minimum bar size and spacing. 

IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE(S) 

Task 1. Complete a literature search for data on HSC columns. Divide the data into groups for 

spiral and tied columns for both monotonic and cyclic loading. Also consider 

concentric and eccentric loadings. This search should include column like structures, 

such as piles. Do an analysis of the data to determine where gaps exist in the data or 

where there are insufficient data to draw a firm conclusion. The analysis should 

consider concrete with compressive strengths up to 140 MPa (20,000 psi). 
Appendix F 

F–40 

Task 2. Submit an interim report that summarizes the literature search. Propose full-size 

specimens, which can be tested to fill in the data pool, as identified in task 1. 

Task 3. After approval of the interim report and testing plan, test full-size specimens to 

determine the amount, type, arrangement, and spacing of transverse reinforcement 

needed to assure strength and ductility in HSC columns in both seismic and nonseismic 

regions. This testing program should consider concrete with compressive strengths up 

to 140 MPa (20,000 psi). Tied and spiral columns must be included. The effects of 

eccentric loading should also be tested. 

Task 4. Prepare draft specifications for the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway 

Bridges and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The draft specifications 

should address the amount, type, arrangement, and spacing of transverse reinforcement 

needed to ensure strength and ductility in HSC columns under both eccentric and 

concentric loads. 

Task 5. Prepare a final report. 

V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD 

Recommended Funding: $500,000 

Research Period: 36 months 

VI. URGENCY/PRIORITY 

The current AASHTO specifications contain barriers to the greater use of high-strength concrete. 

These barriers restrict the application of existing and new technology to bridges. As the industry 

moves towards the greater use of high-strength concrete, the need to revise the AASHTO 

Standard Specifications and the AASHTO LRFD Specifications becomes more urgent. 

User Community 

Results of the research will be directly applicable to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for 

Highway Bridges and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and will benefit the 

whole bridge community. 

Implementation 

Research results will be implemented with proposed revisions to the AASHTO Standard 

Specifications for Highway Bridges and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 
Appendix F 

F–41 

Effectiveness 

The benefits of this research include: 

1. Use of HSC in columns allows for the use of smaller columns, which are generally more 

economical. Small columns might improve the hydraulic characteristics of underflowing 

waterways or provide more clearance for underpassing roadways. 

2. HSC columns may be more resistant to vehicle or debris impacts. 

3. HSC columns will usually be more durable than conventional strength columns. 

Thrust Areas/Business Needs 

The proposed research addresses the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures (HSCOBS) thrust areas of Enhanced Specifications for Improved Structural 

Performance and/or Enhanced Materials, Structural Systems, and Technologies. 

The associated building blocks are specifications for high-performance materials, performancebased specifications, high-performance concrete, and performance-based acceptance criteria 

G-1 

APPENDIX G—REFERENCES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION PAGE

References...................................................................................................................................G–3 
G-2 
G-3

REFERENCES 

1. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 

Twenty First Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

Washington, DC, 2001. 

2. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Sixteenth Edition, American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1996, 677 pp. 

3. 1997 Interim Revisions to the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Sixteenth 

Edition (1996), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

Washington, DC, 1997. 

4. 1998 Interim Revisions to the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Sixteenth 

Edition (1996), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

Washington, DC, 1998. 

5. 1999 Interim Revisions to the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Sixteenth 

Edition (1996), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

Washington, DC, 1999. 

6. 2000 Interim Revisions to the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Sixteenth 

Edition (1996), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

Washington, DC, 2000. 

7. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Second Edition, American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1998. 

8. 1999 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Second Edition (1998), 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 

1999. 

9. 2000 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Second Edition (1998), 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 

2000. 

10. 2001 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Second Edition (1998), 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 

2001. 

11. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, First Edition 1998, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1998. 

12. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 1999 Interim Edition, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1999. 

13. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 2000 Interim Edition, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2000. 
G-4

14. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 2001 Interim Edition, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2001. 

15. ACI Committee 363, “State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete (ACI 363R-92),” 

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 55 pp. 

16. ACI Committee 363, “Guide to Quality Control and Testing of High-Strength Concrete 

(ACI 363.2R-98),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998, 18 pp. 

17. ACI Committee 211, “Guide for Selecting Proportions for High-Strength Concrete with 

Portland Cement and Fly Ash (ACI 211.4R-93),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington 

Hills, MI, 1993, 13 pp. 

18. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-02) and 

Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp. 

19. Tikalsky, P.J. and Carrasquillo, R.L., “Fly Ash Evaluation and Selection for Use in Sulfate 

Resistant Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 90, No. 6, November–December 1993, 

pp. 545–551. 

20. Prowell, B.D. and Weingart, R., “Precisions of Flat and Elongated Particle Tests, 

ASTM D4791 and VDG-40 Videograder,” Transportation Research Record No. 1673, 

Geomaterials, Transportation Research Board, 1999, pp. 73–80. 

21. Ferraris, C.F., “Measurement of Rheological Properties of High Performance Concrete: 

State of the Art Report,” NISTIR 5869, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Gaithersburg, MD, 1996, 34 pp. 

22. Lobo, C.L., Mullings, G.M., and Gaynor, R.D., “Effect of Capping Materials and 

Procedures on the Measured Compressive Strength of High Strength Concrete,” Cement, 

Concrete and Aggregates, Vol. 16, No. 2, December 1994, pp. 173–180. 

23. Ozyildirim, C., “Permeability Specifications for High-Performance Concrete Decks,” 

Transportation Research Record No. 1610, Concrete in Construction, Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, 1998, DC, pp. 1–5. 

24. Nordtest, “NT Build 443 Concrete, Hardened: Accelerated Chloride Penetration,” Espoo, 

Finland, 5 pp. 

25. Detwiler, R.J., Kojundic, T., and Fidjestol, P., “Evaluation of Bridge Deck Overlays,” 

Concrete International, Vol. 19, No. 8, August 1997, pp. 43–45. 

26. Myers, J.J., “How to Achieve a Higher Modulus of Elasticity,” HPC Bridge Views, Issue 

No. 5, September/October 1999, pp. 3. 

27. ACI Committee 441, “High-Strength Concrete Columns: State-of-the-Art (ACI 441R-96),” 

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1997, 13 pp. 
G-5

28. Canadian Standards Association, “CSA A23.3-94 Design of Concrete Structures,” Rexdale, 

ON, Canada 1994, 199 pp. 

29. Azizinamini, A., Pavel, R., Hatfield, E., and Ghosh, S.K., “Behavior of Lap-Spliced 

Reinforcing Bars Embedded in High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96, 

No. 5, September-October 1999, pp. 826–835. 

30. Lane, S.N., “A New Development Length Equation for Pretensioned Strands in Bridge 

Beams and Piles,” FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA-RD-98-

116, 1998, 131 pp. 

31. Goodspeed, C.H., Vanikar, S., and Cook, R., “High Performance Concrete Defined for 

Highway Structures,” Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 2, February 1996, pp. 62–67. 

32. High Performance Concrete, Compact Disc, Federal Highway Administration, Version 3.0, 

February 2003. 

33. Russell, H.G., “ACI Defines High-Performance Concrete,” Concrete International, Vol. 21, 

No. 2, February 1999, pp. 56–57. 

34. Mather, B., “How to Make Concrete that Will Be Immune to the Effects of Freezing and 

Thawing,” Paul Klieger Symposium on Performance of Concrete, ACI SP-122, American 

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1990, pp. 1–18. 

35. Cordon W.A., “Freezing and Thawing of Concrete-Mechanisms and Control,” ACI 

Monograph No. 3, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1966. 

36. Janssen D.J. and Snyder M.B., “Resistance of Concrete to Freezing and Thawing,” SHRPC-391, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, 1994, 201 pp. 

37. Schwartz, D.R., “D-Cracking of Concrete Pavements,” NCHRP Synthesis of Highway 

Practice No 134, Transportation Research Board, 1987, 34 pp. 

38. Newlon, H.H. and Mitchell T.M., “Freezing and Thawing,” Significance of Tests and 

Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, STP 169C, American Society for 

Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1994, pp. 153–163. 

39. Newlon, H.H., “Modification of ASTM C 666 for Testing Resistance of Concrete to 

Freezing and Thawing in Sodium Chloride Solution,” VHTRC 79-R16, Virginia 

Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, 1978, 19 pp. 

40. Neville, A.M., Properties of Concrete, Fourth and Final Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 

New York, NY, 1996. 

41. ACI Committee 116, “Cement and Concrete Terminology, (ACI 116R)” American Concrete 

Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2000, 73 pp. 
G-6

42. ACI Committee 201, “Guide to Durable Concrete, ACI 201.2R,” American Concrete 

Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 39 pp. 

43. Liu, T., “Abrasion Resistance,” Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and 

Concrete-Making Materials, STP 169C, American Society for Testing and Materials, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 1994, pp. 182–191. 

44. Tikalsky, P.J. and Scanlon, A., High-Performance Concrete, Pennsylvania Transportation 

Institute, University Park, PA, 2000, 68 pp. 

45. ACI Committee 325, “Texturing Concrete Pavements (ACI 325.6R),” American Concrete 

Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1988, 10 pp. 

46. Byrd L.D., “Effect of Studded Tires,” NCHRP Synthesis 32, Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC, 1975. 

47. Ozyildirim, C., “Durability of Concrete Bridges in Virginia,” ASCE Structures XI 

Proceedings: Structural Engineering in Natural Hazards Mitigation, American Society of 

Civil Engineers, New York, NY, 1993, pp. 996–1001. 

48. Whiting, D., “Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of Concrete,” Federal 

Highway Administration, FHWA/RD-81/119, 1981, 174 pp. 

49. Ozyildirim, C., “Rapid Chloride Permeability Testing of Silica Fume Concrete,” Cement, 

Concrete, and Aggregate, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1994, pp. 53–56. 

50. Hooton, R.D., Thomas, M.D.A., and Stanish, K., “Prediction of Chloride Penetration in 

Concrete,” FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA-RD-00-142, 

2001, 412 pp. 

51. Stark, D., “Alkali-Silica Reactions in Concrete,” Significance of Tests and Properties of 

Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, STP 169C, American Society for Testing and 

Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1994, pp. 365–371. 

52. Tuthill, L.H., “Alkali-Silica Reaction—40 Years Later,” Concrete International: Design 

and Construction, Vol. 10, No. 12, December 1982, pp. 24–26. 

53. Lane, D.S., “Comparison of Results from C 441 and C 1293 with Implications for 

Establishing Criteria for ASR-Resistant Concrete,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, 

Vol. 1, No. 2, 1999, pp. 149–156. 

54. Fournier, B. and Malhotra, M., “Evaluation of Laboratory Test Methods for Alkali-Silica 

Reactivity,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1999, pp. 173–184. 

55. Lea, F.M., The Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, lst American Edition, Chemical 

Publishing Company, New York, 1971. 
G-7

56. DePuy, G.W., “Chemical Resistance of Concrete,” Significance of Tests and Properties of 

Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, STP 169C, American Society for Testing and 

Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1994, pp. 263–281.