VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

 AND STATE UNIVERSITY

 The Charles E. Via, Jr. Department

 of Civil and Environmental Engineering

 Blacksburg, VA 24061

 Structural Engineering and Materials

Digital Standards Education Modules for Innovation and 

Sustainability of Concrete Infrastructure

By

Alexander S. Brand, Ph.D., P.E.

Assistant Professor

Eric Jacques, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Assistant Professor

Virginia Tech Research Report No. CE/VPI-ST-23/04, Blacksburg, VA.

August 2023
1

Digital Standards Education Modules for Innovation 

and Sustainability of Concrete Infrastructure

Alexander S. Brand* and Eric Jacques†

Charles Edward Via, Jr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University, 750 Drillfield Drive, 200 Patton Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061 *

Assistant Professor, asbrand@vt.edu; †Assistant Professor, ejacques@vt.edu

Abstract

The goal of this project was to combine standards education in concrete and cementitious 

materials with future and emerging technologies to prepare students for sustainability and 

resilience of the built environment. With mounting costs to repair America’s infrastructure, from 

both age and natural disasters, coupled with increasing pressures for environmental and social 

sustainability of concrete manufacture and construction, all aspects of the industry will 

undoubtedly need to adapt in the future. This project developed self-directed digital standards 

education modules for students to better understand the need for standardization in concrete 

construction, to be prepared to adapt to future performance-based standards for cement-based 

materials, and to recognize and interpret how to implement new technologies that do not fit within 

current standards. The content was developed through an open-access Canvas website. During 

development, modules were piloted to undergraduate students during the Fall 2021 and Fall 2022 

semesters to gain student feedback and the final completed modules were piloted to undergraduate 

students during the Spring 2023 semester. The findings indicated the effectiveness of the modules 

in educating students about the significance and role of standards in the concrete industry. Across 

all four modules, self-assessment results showed a notable increase in students' knowledge, as 

evidenced by the higher percentage of students selecting "strongly agree" and "agree" on Likert 

scale questionnaires. Overall, 93% to 100% of students agreed that the modules provided new and 

useful information about standards and increase knowledge of standards in the concrete industry. 

1. Introduction

Civil infrastructure in the United States faces a severe economic hurdle. The latest 

“Infrastructure Report Card” from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) grades

America’s infrastructure at a C– [1], and the ASCE reports that failure to invest in infrastructure

now and in the coming years will result in a loss of $10 trillion to the U.S. GDP by 2039 [2]. The 

National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE International) reports that corrosion-related 

infrastructure damage alone incurs a global cost of $2.5 trillion [3]. In addition, economic losses 

caused by natural disasters have been increasing due to climate change and the increased exposure 

of densely populated areas to extreme weather events [4–8]. To better resist these hazards, civil 

infrastructure requires a paradigm shift in the design for resiliency [9], and new and emerging 

technologies will play a key role in how infrastructure resiliency is achieved [10]. Inevitably, this 

means that changes to standards and building codes will be required [11,12], which is a multiyear 

process involving consensus of hundreds to thousands of interested stakeholders [13,14]. 

Portland cement concrete is probably the most vital material in civil infrastructure, since it 

is used in buildings, bridges, roads, dams, ports, tunnels, etc. Portland cement, which forms the 

binding component of concrete when mixed with water, has a worldwide production of over 4 

billion tons per year [15], with a 20% estimated increase in production by 2050 [16]. An estimated 

30 billion tons of concrete is produced annually [17], which is significantly greater than the 

production of steel and wood combined. Because of the volume of cement and concrete consumed 
2

and the cement production process, portland cement manufacturing is the third largest producer of 

CO2, accounting for 5% to 8% of global anthropogenic CO2 [18–20]. This industry has recognized 

this significant carbon footprint and has developed roadmaps to carbon neutrality by 2050 [21], 

which means that cement and concrete standards will need to evolve with trends in sustainability 

[22,23]. In addition, many current cement and concrete standards are prescriptive, while an 

anticipated future trend is a greater integration of concrete durability standards within a 

performance-based framework [23–27].

Therefore, it is clear that standards and codes in cement, concrete, and building industries 

are expected to evolve – perhaps dramatically – in the coming years and decades. In anticipation, 

undergraduate and graduate students as well as other interested stakeholders should be educated 

in the use of standards in these industries but should also be informed of the predicted changes to 

be able to adapt with future developments. This manuscript reports on the development and 

implementation of digital education modules for standards for concrete infrastructure. 

2. Development of the Modules 

The modules were developed with a Canvas framework and published as open access: 

https://canvas.vt.edu/courses/123210. Figure 1 illustrates typical screen capture images of the 

Canvas website. Modules were developed in four thematic areas: (1) Cements and Structural 

Concrete, (2) High Performance Concrete, (3) Cement and Concrete Sustainability, and (4) Future 

of Concrete Design and Manufacture. The online interactive learning modules were designed for 

vertical integration in relevant thematic course groupings at the undergraduate and graduate levels 

to achieve an increasing progression of student knowledge. As such, any student enrolled at 

Virginia Tech was able to self-register and complete the learning modules at their own pace. The 

modules were made available to students as optional activities in their respective undergraduate or 

graduate courses, with the added incentive of earning extra credit towards their final grade. The 

amount of extra credit earned varied based on the number of modules completed. 

After the completion of the modules, students could expect to be: (1) broadly educated on 

the societal role of standards and standards development; (2) provided with the knowledge 

necessary to apply cement and concrete standards to ensure the necessary quality and safety 

attributes of concrete in the built environment; (3) appreciative of standards as constraints and 

drivers for innovation in future concrete construction; and (4) knowledgeable about and 

experienced with the societal role of standards and standards development, the importance and 

necessity of quality and safety attributes of concrete in the built environment, and the synergistic 

interrelationship between research, innovation, and standardization in modern and future concrete 

construction.
3

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 1. Screen capture images of the Digital Standards Education Modules Canvas site: (a) 

landing page, (b) Module 1 introduction, (c) typical narrated video lecture, and (d) example 

questionnaire.

2.1. Cements and Structural Concrete Module

The entry-level Cements and Structural Concrete Module is aimed at junior and senior

undergraduates and provides an overview of technical standards and the standardization process. 

Five submodules were created, which culminate in a student-led exercise based on the knowledge 

gained. The five submodules are: Why Do We Need Standards?, What is a Standard?, Standards 

for Quality Control, Prescriptive and Performance Standards, and Standardization in Building 

Design Codes. This content includes narrated lectures, lecture slides, and a transcript of the lectures

and covers topics of the history of standards, modern standards developing organizations, types of 

standards from ASTM International, examples of common quality control standards used in the 

concrete industry, prescriptive vs. performance standards, and the difference between standards 

and building design codes. To assess student learning, a Likert scale questionnaire is given before 

and after completing the module and a technical assessment quiz is given after completing the 

module. The Likert scale questions are given in Table 1. 
4

Module 1 ends with a student-led case study. A short presentation introduces the topic and 

concept and then it is the student’s responsibility to complete the activity. In short, the activity 

requires the students to critically think about the construction of the world’s tallest building, the 

Burj Khalifa. During construction, the Burj Khalifa broke a number of construction records and 

utilized a number of novel materials and approaches, not all of which had been standardized. To 

complete the activity, the student researches the construction of the Burj Khalifa using online 

resources and then brainstorms and discusses the challenges presented by constructing a supertall 

structure and how engineers were able to accommodate materials and designs that may not have 

been standardized. 

2.2. High Performance Concrete Module

The second module, which centers on High Performance Concrete, targets junior and 

senior undergraduate students while also providing enough technical depth to cater to entry-level 

graduate students. This module provides an overview of a various special topics in high 

performance concrete (HPC), which are concretes that are specifically designed to meet specific 

performance criteria that may not be achieved by conventional or “general purpose” concrete. 

Eight submodules were created: Physical and Material Characteristics of HPC, High Strength 

Concrete, High Early Strength Concrete, High Durability Concrete, Ultra High Performance 

Concrete, Self-Consolidating Concrete, Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, and High Performance 

Reinforcing Bars. This content includes narrated lectures, lecture slides, and a transcript of the 

lectures. To assess student learning, a Likert scale questionnaire is given before and after 

completing the module and a technical assessment quiz is given after completing the module. The 

Likert scale questions are given in Table 1.

2.3. Cement and Concrete Sustainability Module

The third module on Cement and Concrete Sustainability is aimed at senior undergraduate 

and graduate students and provides a presentation on sustainability and the future outlook on 

standards for sustainable concrete. Two submodules were created, which culminate in a studentled exercise based on the knowledge gained. The two submodules are: Cement Production and 

Carbon Dioxide and Standards for Low Carbon Dioxide Concrete. This content includes narrated 

lectures, lecture slides, and a transcript of the lectures and cover topics of why cement production 

produces so much CO2, why concrete has a relatively large carbon footprint, current industry-led 

initiatives on how to reduce or eliminate the carbon footprint of concrete, current and future options 

to reduce the carbon footprint of concrete, and a perspective on how future standards can impact 

the carbon footprint of concrete. To assess student learning, a Likert scale questionnaire is given 

before and after completing the module and a technical assessment quiz is given after completing 

the module. The Likert scale questions are given in Table 1.

Module 1 ends with a student-led activity. The first activity requires students to access an 

online tool from Circular Ecology [28] to calculate the carbon footprint of concrete by considering 

the mix design, transport, construction, and reinforcing steel. Through a guided procedure, the 

students first use the Circular Ecology tool to calculate the carbon footprint for various concrete 

mixes and then compare the results to discuss how such tools or data could be used in a standard 

or building design code. The second activity requires the students to review at least one industry 

roadmap to achieve carbon neutrality in the cement and concrete industries. Links to the two 

roadmaps are provided from the Global Cement and Concrete Association [21] and the Portland 

Cement Association [29]. Following the review of one or both roadmaps, students are encouraged 
5

to share their perspective on the feasibility of the roadmap's objectives and the role of standards 

and building design codes in attaining those objectives.

2.4. Future of Concrete Design and Manufacture Module

Given that the future of concrete design and manufacturing is evolving rapidly, the PIs 

realized that a static set of lectures would be outdated shortly after completion. Therefore, Module 

4 was redeveloped from its original proposal, transforming into a student-led project. The concept 

of Module 4 is for the students to explore the latest data and newest information about future 

concrete technology, considering such topics as 3D printing, structural health monitoring, building 

information modeling, the use of drones or digital twins during concrete construction, production 

of carbon negative concrete, or extraterrestrial concrete construction on the Moon or Mars. Module 

4 is intended for senior undergraduate and graduate students, particularly as an activity to engage 

and excite students about the latest and greatest advancements in concrete design, manufacturing, 

and technology. 

For this specific iteration of Module 4, the decision to focus on 3D printing of concrete in 

the student-led exercise was influenced by several factors: 1) many students are very interested in 

the topic and the PIs have fielded many questions about it during class; 2) it is a current “hot topic” 

in concrete technology; and 3) it aligns with the objectives of the digital modules to discuss the 

context of standards, since many researchers and practitioners have clearly identified the need for 

standards and building design codes for 3D printed concrete structures [30–32]. For the activity, 

the students are required to implement the knowledge gained in Modules 1, 2, and 3 to research 

the current and future outlook in 3D-printed concrete structures. The deliverable for the activity is 

a presentation of at least five lecture slides that discuss the benefits, applications, disadvantages, 

regulatory limitations, and need for standardization for 3D-printed concrete structures. To equip 

students with a foundation for their own research, an introductory lecture on 3D printed concrete 

was provided at the beginning of Module 4. However, it was the students' responsibility to explore 

the literature and news articles independently and prepare their slides based on their own 

understanding of 3D printed concrete. To assess student learning, a Likert scale questionnaire is 

given before and after completing the module, the questions of which are given in Table 1.

3. Results and Discussion

The content from all four modules has been piloted to a total of 323 undergraduate and

graduate students at Virginia Tech. The term and number of students that completed the activities 

is shown in Table 2. Piloting in Fall 2021 and Fall 2022 included senior undergraduate students 

and first-year graduate students. Piloting in Spring 2023 included junior and senior undergraduate 

students. In Spring 2023, not all undergraduate students completed all modules. 
6

Table 1. Likert Scale Questions Used in Modules 1, 2, 3, and 4

Module Likert Scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) Questions 

1. Cements and 

Structural 

Concrete

• I know what a “standard” is.

• I understand why standards are needed in civil engineering. 

• I understand how standards are used for concrete materials and construction 

quality control. 

• I know the difference between prescriptive standards and performance 

standards.

2. High 

Performance 

Concrete

• I feel confident in my understanding of the role that standards and 

specifications play in ensuring the quality and consistency of cementitious 

materials used in concrete.

• I understand that specifications for high performance concrete are often 

established on a project-by-project basis to satisfy specific design and 

constructability requirements, and that not all properties can be achieved 

simultaneously.

• I understand the importance of proper selection, optimization, and batching 

aggregates, supplementary cementitious materials, and chemical admixtures in 

the behavior of high performance concrete.

• I understand the need for research and testing to advance the capabilities and 

properties of high performance concrete, while at the same time the need for 

standards and specifications to ensure its quality, consistency, and reliability in 

different applications and environments.

3. Cement and 

Concrete 

Sustainability

• I know how CO2 is produced during cement production and how this relates to 

the carbon footprint of concrete.

• I understand how the carbon footprint of concrete can be reduced.

• I understand the role that standards play, either now or in the future, in 

considering concrete with low carbon footprints.

4. Future of 

Concrete Design 

and Manufacture

• In general terms, I am confident that I know what "additive manufacturing" or 

"3D printing" is.

• I am confident in my ability to describe the process of 3D printing of concrete 

and other cement-based materials.

• I can effectively communicate the limitations of 3D printing of concrete with 

regard to the need for standardization and/or building design code provisions.

Table 2. Details of Piloting the Modules

Term Module

Piloted

Number of 

Undergraduate Students

Number of 

Graduate Students

Fall 2021 1 32 7

Fall 2022 1 41 5

3 41 5

Spring 2023

1 59 0

2 54 0

3 54 0

4 25 0
7

3.1. Piloting Partial Modules in Fall 2021 

The draft content for Module 1 was piloted in Fall 2021 to a class of 39 students that 

included 32 senior undergraduates and 7 first-year graduate students. The course topic was on 

concrete materials. The feedback gained from this semester was used to improve the content and 

delivery of Module 1. The capstone activity for Module 1 was not implemented until Fall 2022. A 

Likert scale questionnaire was not developed for piloting in Fall 2021, although the students were 

asked the question “How are standards used in the concrete industry and why do we need 

standards?” before and after completing the draft Module 1 content. The students were also asked 

to reflect if and why their answer changed after completing the draft Module 1 content. 

Of the 32 senior undergraduate students: 18/32 (56%) reported that their answer to the 

question definitely changed and that the draft Module 1 content was helpful, 6/32 (19%) reported 

that their answer only changed slightly but that the content was still useful, 7/32 (22%) reported 

that their answer to the question did not change but that they found the content helpful to remind 

them about the importance of standards, and 1/32 (3%) found that their answer to the question did 

not change and that the content in Module 1 was not useful. Therefore, 31/32 (97%) of senior 

undergraduate students reported that the draft Module 1 content either informed them or reminded 

them about the importance of standards. As the content for Module 1 is intended for junior and 

senior undergraduate students, the draft Module 1 content was validated as appropriate for these 

students. 

Of the 7 first-year graduate students, 1/7 (14%) reported that their answer to the question 

changed significantly and 6/7 (86%) reported that their general answer to the question did not 

change but that they found the content helpful to remind them about the importance of standards. 

As the content for Module 1 is intended for junior and senior undergraduate students, it was not 

surprising that the majority of first-year graduate students did not find that the Module 1 content 

changed their understanding of standards in the concrete industry, since they were already aware 

of the importance of standards from other coursework, from on-the-job training and experience, 

and/or from their graduate research. 

3.2. Piloting Partial Modules in Fall 2022

The final versions of Modules 1 and 3, including the capstone activities, were piloted in 

Fall 2022 to a class of 46 students that included 41 senior undergraduates and 5 first-year graduate 

students. The course topic was on concrete materials. The feedback gained from this semester was 

used to improve the questionnaire and technical quiz. A Likert scale questionnaire was not 

developed for piloting in Fall 2022, although the students were asked the questions “What is a 

standard? What is the purpose of a standard? Why do civil engineers specify standards in designs?” 

before and after completing Module 1. The students were also asked to reflect if and why their 

answer changed after completing Module 1. A technical quiz was given after the completion of 

Module 1 to assess student comprehension of the content. For Module 3, the students were asked 

questions to consider their knowledge of the topic, but they were not asked to reflect on those 

answers after completing the module. However, the students were asked for feedback on the 

usefulness of Module 3 in improving their understanding of sustainability in concrete materials. 

Of the 41 senior undergraduate students: 13/41 (32%) reported that their answer to the 

questions definitely changed, 17/41 (41%) reported that their answer only changed slightly but that 

the content was still useful and/or that the content refined their answers, and 11/41 (22%) reported 

that their answer to the question did not change but that they found the content helpful to remind 

them about the importance of standards. None of the students reported that Module 1 was 
8

unhelpful, and all of the undergraduate students did provide feedback they thought that the content 

of Module 1 was helpful.

Of the 5 first-year graduate students, 4/5 (80%) reported that their answer to the questions 

did change and that the module updated or reminded them about standards and 1/5 (20%) reported 

that their answer to the questions did not change. All graduate students provided positive feedback, 

expressing that the content of Module 1 was beneficial in aiding their understanding of the role of 

standards in concrete construction.

After the completion of Module 1, the students were given a technical quiz to assess student 

comprehension of the content. The quiz questions were all multiple choice, and the students had 

the ability to access Module 1 during the quiz. The 44 total students scored an average of 94% on 

the four technical questions, so the level of difficulty of the questions were deemed appropriate for 

the module. 

For Module 3, 36/39 (92%) of senior undergraduate students and 5/5 (100%) of first-year 

graduate students found the content helpful to understand sustainability in concrete materials. A 

number of students specifically highlighted that at least one of the capstone activities was 

enjoyable or informative. As the content for Module 3 is intended for senior undergraduate and 

graduate students, the Module 3 was validated as appropriate for these students.

3.3. Piloting All Modules in Spring 2023

The final versions of Modules 1, 2, 3, and 4 were piloted in Spring 2023 to 59 junior and 

senior undergraduate students in two courses, although not all students completed all modules. The 

course topics were on civil engineering materials and reinforced concrete design. The Likert scale 

questions in Table 1 were implemented for this session. Technical quizzes were given after the 

completion of Modules 1, 2, and 3 to assess student comprehension of the content. Since the 

students were allowed an unlimited number of submissions on the quizzes in order to learn from 

any incorrect answers, all students received 100% on the quizzes. After completing each module, 

the students were also given Likert scale questions to assess their impressions of the effectiveness 

of the module: “The module provided me with useful information about standards that I did not 

know before” and “Overall, I found this module to be helpful in increasing my knowledge of 

standards related to cements and structural concrete.”

For the Module 1 results, the Likert scale answers for “Strongly agree” increased for all 

four questions (Table 3). In fact, after completing Module 1, all students answered “Strongly 

agree” or “Agree” for all four questions, while a few students answered “Neutral” or “Disagree” 

before completing Module 1. From the results, it is evident that many junior and senior civil 

engineering students are already confident in their knowledge of standards and that Module 1 

served to increase that confidence. The most dramatic impact was for differentiating prescriptive 

and performance standards; before Module 1, more than half of the students reported not knowing 

the difference, but after Module 1 all students reported “Strongly agree” or “Agree.” 
9

Table 3. Percent of Student Responses to the Module 1 Likert Scale Questions 

Question Likert Scale Before After

“I know what a standard is.”

Strongly agree 36% 78%

Agree 57% 22%

Neutral 7% 0%

Disagree 0% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0%

“I understand why standards 

are needed in civil 

engineering.”

Strongly agree 57% 86%

Agree 41% 14%

Neutral 2% 0%

Disagree 0% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0%

“I understand how standards 

are used for concrete materials 

and construction quality 

control.”

Strongly agree 36% 66%

Agree 43% 34%

Neutral 15% 0%

Disagree 7% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0%

“I know the difference 

between prescriptive standards 

and performance standards.”

Strongly agree 25% 68%

Agree 21% 32%

Neutral 26% 0%

Disagree 28% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0%

For the Module 2 results, the Likert scale answers for “Strongly agree” increased for all 

four questions (Table 4). It is evident that, before completing Module 2, a large percentage of 

students were not confident in their knowledge of high performance concrete, but after completing 

Module 2, 98% to 100% of students answered “Strongly agree” or “Agree” for all four questions, 

with more than 50% answering “Strongly agree.” 

For the Module 3 results, the Likert scale answers for “Strongly agree” increased for all 

three questions (Table 5); more than 70% of responses for “Strongly agree” after module 

completion while 17% to 22% of students had that response before Module 3. This suggests that 

Module 3 was very effective at educating students on the importance of the carbon footprint of 

concrete and how standards will impact the future of concrete sustainability. 
10

Table 4. Percent of Student Responses to the Module 2 Likert Scale Questions

Question Likert Scale Before After

“I feel confident in my understanding of the role 

that standards and specifications play in ensuring 

the quality and consistency of cementitious 

materials used in concrete.”

Strongly agree 21% 57%

Agree 41% 43%

Neutral 34% 0%

Disagree 3% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0%

“I understand that specifications for high 

performance concrete are often established on a 

project-by-project basis to satisfy specific design 

and constructability requirements, and that not all 

properties can be achieved simultaneously.”

Strongly agree 0% 63%

Agree 38% 35%

Neutral 29% 2%

Disagree 14% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0%

“I understand the importance of proper selection, 

optimization, and batching aggregates, 

supplementary cementitious materials, and 

chemical admixtures in the behavior of high 

performance concrete.”

Strongly agree 29% 65%

Agree 41% 33%

Neutral 26% 2%

Disagree 3% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0%

“I understand the need for research and testing to 

advance the capabilities and properties of high 

performance concrete, while at the same time the 

need for standards and specifications to ensure its 

quality, consistency, and reliability in different 

applications and environments.”

Strongly agree 29% 63%

Agree 48% 37%

Neutral 19% 0%

Disagree 3% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0%

Table 5. Percent of Student Responses to the Module 3 Likert Scale Questions

Question Likert Scale Before After

“I know how CO2 is produced 

during cement production and how 

this relates to the carbon footprint 

of concrete.”

Strongly agree 22% 76%

Agree 33% 20%

Neutral 37% 4%

Disagree 7% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0%

“I understand how the carbon 

footprint of concrete can be 

reduced.”

Strongly agree 17% 73%

Agree 30% 24%

Neutral 33% 4%

Disagree 19% 0%

Strongly disagree 2% 0%

“I understand the role that 

standards play, either now or in the 

future, in considering concrete 

with low carbon footprints.”

Strongly agree 22% 75%

Agree 41% 22%

Neutral 30% 4%

Disagree 6% 0%

Strongly disagree 2% 0%

For the Module 4 results, the Likert scale answers for “Strongly agree” nearly quadrupled 

after completing the module (Table 6). While a majority of students responded that they knew 

what 3D printing was in general terms before Module 4, it is evident that they were not familiar 

with 3D printing of concrete and why standards are important. After completing Module 4, all 

students responded with “Strongly agree” or “Agree” for all three questions, indicating that 

Module 4 was very effective at educating students about the need for standardization and building

codes with 3D-printed concrete structures. 
11

Table 7 shows the summary of the Likert scale questions for students to assess the 

effectiveness of the four modules. Nearly all students (93% to 96%) found Modules 1, 2, and 3 

and all students (100%) found Module 4 to be informative and to increase knowledge about 

standards, as evident by the answers of “Strongly agree” and “Agree.” 

Table 6. Percent of Student Responses to the Module 4 Likert Scale Questions

Question Likert Scale Before After

“In general terms, I am confident 

that I know what "additive 

manufacturing" or "3D printing" is.”

Strongly agree 24% 88%

Agree 40% 12%

Neutral 26% 0%

Disagree 10% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0%

“I am confident in my ability to 

describe the process of 3D printing 

of concrete and other cement-based 

materials.”

Strongly agree 22% 84%

Agree 20% 16%

Neutral 34% 0%

Disagree 20% 0%

Strongly disagree 4% 0%

“I can effectively communicate the 

limitations of 3D printing of concrete 

with regard to the need for 

standardization and/or building 

design code provisions.”

Strongly agree 22% 84%

Agree 16% 16%

Neutral 38% 0%

Disagree 16% 0%

Strongly disagree 8% 0%

Table 7. Percent of Student Responses to the Module Effectiveness Likert Scale Questions

Question Likert Scale Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4

“The module provided me 

with useful information 

about standards that I did not 

know before.”

Strongly agree 71% 67% 73% 84%

Agree 22% 26% 20% 16%

Neutral 7% 7% 5% 0%

Disagree 0% 0% 2% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0% 0% 0%

“Overall, I found this 

module to be helpful in 

increasing my knowledge of 

standards related to cements 

and structural concrete.”

Strongly agree 69% 69% 75% 84%

Agree 24% 28% 20% 16%

Neutral 7% 4% 5% 0%

Disagree 0% 0% 0% 0%

Strongly disagree 0% 0% 0% 0%

4. Conclusions

The goal of this project was to combine standards education in concrete and cementitious 

materials with future and emerging technologies to prepare students for sustainability and 

resilience of the built environment. Four digital modules were developed to focus on (1) Cements 

and Structural Concrete, (2) High Performance Concrete, (3) Cement and Concrete Sustainability, 

and (4) Future of Concrete Design and Manufacture. After piloting draft content during two 

semesters, the revised and final modules were piloted in Spring 2023 to junior and senior 

undergraduate students. The results of Likert scale questionnaires strongly indicated that the 

modules were effective and informative. Overall, 93% to 100% of students agreed that the modules 

provided new and useful information about standards and increase knowledge of standards in the 

concrete industry.
12

5. Recommendations

The digital modules proved to be effective in junior and senior undergraduate courses. It is 

recommended that the content be used in courses related to civil engineering materials, concrete 

materials, reinforced concrete design, construction technology, and any other course where 

concrete is discussed. 

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the NIST Standards Coordination 

Office Curricula Development Cooperative Agreement Program. The authors wish to thank Laurie 

Metzler, Kiran Kumar, Shivani Agrawal, and Dr. Roberto Leon for their assistance with the 

development of content for the modules. The authors would like to thank David Mokarem and 

Zachary Coleman for their assistance with piloting the modulus in their courses in Spring 2023. 

References

[1] 2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers, 

Reston, 2021. https://infrastructurereportcard.org/.

[2] Failure to Act: Economic Impacts of Status Quo Investiment Across Infrastructure Systems, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 2021. https://infrastructurereportcard.org/theimpact/failure-to-act-report/.

[3] G. Koch, J. Varney, N. Thompson, O. Moghissi, M. Gould, J. Payer, International Measures 

of Prevention, Application, and Economics of Corrosion Technologies Study, NACE 

International, Houston, TX, 2016.

[4] W.J.W. Botzen, O. Deschenes, M. Sanders, The economic impacts of natural disasters: A 

review of models and empirical studies, Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy. 13 (2019) 167–188. 

doi:10.1093/reep/rez004.

[5] NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and 

Climate Disasters, (2023). doi:10.25921/stkw-7w73.

[6] A.B. Smith, R.W. Katz, US billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: Data sources, 

trends, accuracy and biases, Nat. Hazards. 67 (2013) 387–410. doi:10.1007/s11069-013-

0566-5.

[7] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, The World Bank, Fiscal 

Resilience to Natural Disasters: Lessons from Country Experiences, OECD Publishing, 

Paris, 2019. doi:10.1787/27a4198a-en.

[8] M. Coronese, F. Lamperti, K. Keller, F. Chiaromonte, A. Roventini, Evidence for sharp 

increase in the economic damages of extreme natural disasters, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116 

(2019) 21450–21455. doi:10.1073/pnas.1907826116.

[9] P. Gardoni, J.M. LaFave, Multi-hazard Approaches to Civil Infrastructure Engineering: 

Mitigating Risks and Promoting Resilence, in: P. Gardoni, J.M. LaFave (Eds.), MultiHazard Approaches to Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., Springer, Cham, 2016: pp. 3–12. 

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29713-2_1.

[10] M. Reda Taha, B.M. Ayyub, K. Soga, S. Daghash, D. Heras Murcia, F. Moreu, E. Soliman, 

Emerging technologies for resilient infrastructure: Conspectus and roadmap, ASCE-ASME 

J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. Part A Civ. Eng. 7 (2021) 03121002. 

doi:10.1061/AJRUA6.0001134.

[11] P. Bocchini, D.M. Frangopol, T. Ummenhofer, T. Zinke, Resilience and sustainability of 

civil infrastructure: Toward a unified approach, J. Infrastruct. Syst. 20 (2014) 04014004. 
13

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177.

[12] T.P. McAllister, Developing Guidelines and Standards for Disaster Resilience of the Built 

Environment: A Research Needs Assessment (NIST TN 1795), National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, 2013. doi:10.6028/NIST.TN.1795.

[13] J. Rossberg, R.T. Leon, Evolution of codes in the USA, in: Forty-Fourth Meet. Jt. Panel 

Wind Seism. Eff., National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Gaithersburg, 2013. 

https://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/UJNR_2013_Rossberg_Manuscript.pdf.

[14] E. Vaughan, J. Turner, The Value and Impact of Building Codes, Washington D.C., 2013. 

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/the-value-and-impact-of-building-codes.

[15] A.K. Hatfield, Cement, in: Miner. Commod. Summ., USGS, Reston, 2022. 

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/cement-statistics-and-information.

[16] International Energy Agency, Cement Sustainability Initiative, Technology Roadmap: 

Low-Carbon Transition in the Cement Industry, World Business Council for Sustainable 

Development, 2018. https://www.iea.org/reports/technology-roadmap-low-carbontransition-in-the-cement-industry.

[17] P.J.M. Monteiro, S.A. Miller, A. Horvath, Towards sustainable concrete, Nat. Mater. 16 

(2017) 698–699. doi:10.1038/nmat4930.

[18] R.M. Andrew, Global CO2 emissions from cement production, Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 10 

(2018) 195–217. doi:10.5194/essd-10-195-2018.

[19] D.N. Huntzinger, T.D. Eatmon, A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: 

Comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies, J. Clean. Prod. 17 (2009) 

668–675. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.007.

[20] M. Schneider, The cement industry on the way to a low-carbon future, Cem. Concr. Res. 

124 (2019) 105792. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105792.

[21] Global Cement and Concrete Association, Concrete Future: The GCCA 2050 Cement and 

Concrete Industry Roadmap for Net Zero Concrete, Global Cement and Concrete 

Association, London, 2021. https://gccassociation.org/concretefuture/.

[22] R.D. Hooton, Current developments and future needs in standards for cementitious 

materials, Cem. Concr. Res. 78A (2015) 165–177. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.05.022.

[23] V.M. John, M. Quattrone, P.C.R.A. Abrão, F.A. Cardoso, Rethinking cement standards: 

Opportunities for a better future, Cem. Concr. Res. 124 (2019) 105832. 

doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105832.

[24] R.D. Hooton, Future directions for design, specification, testing, and construction of durable 

concrete structures, Cem. Concr. Res. 124 (2019) 105827. 

doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105827.

[25] M.A. Sanjuán, A. Zaragoza, J.C. López Agüí, Standardization for an innovative world, 

Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (2011) 767–774. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.015.

[26] R.D. Hooton, Bridging the gap between research and standards, Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (2008) 

247–258. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.09.012.

[27] J.S.J. van Deventer, C.E. White, R.J. Myers, A roadmap for production of cement and 

concrete with low-CO2 emissions, Waste Biomass Valor. 12 (2021) 4745–4775. 

doi:10.1007/s12649-020-01180-5.

[28] Circular Ecology, Concrete Embodied Carbon Footprint Calculator, (2019). 

https://circularecology.com/concrete-embodied-carbon-footprint-calculator.html.

[29] Portland Cement Association, Roadmap to Carbon Neutrality, Portland Cement 

Association, Skokie, 2021. https://www.cement.org/sustainability/roadmap-to-carbon-
14

neutrality.

[30] R.A. Buswell, W.R. Leal De Silva, S.Z. Jones, J. Dirrenberger, 3D printing using concrete 

extrusion: A roadmap for research, Cem. Concr. Res. 112 (2018) 37–49. 

doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.05.006.

[31] R. Robayo-Salazar, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, M.A. Villaquirán-Caicedo, S. Delvasto Arjona, 

3D printing with cementitious materials: Challenges and opportunities for the construction 

sector, Autom. Constr. 146 (2023) 104693. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104693.

[32] J. Maxwell, The shape of concrete to come, Stand. News. (2021). 

https://sn.astm.org/?q=features/shape-concrete-come-ma21.html.