High Strength Concrete:

Effects of Materials, Curing and

Test Procedures on Short-Term
Compressive Strength
Catherine W. French, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Civil and
Mineral Engineering
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
As part of a multiyear study on applications of high strength
concrete to the precast, prestressed concrete industry, a
laboratory investigation was conducted to determine the effect
of various parameters on uniaxial compressive strength.
Parameters investigated includec;J mold size, mold m?terial,
aggregate type , type of curing, age and specimen end
condition. More than 650 specimens for strength evaluation
were cast from 10 high strength concrete mixes having 28-day
compressive strengths ranging from 9000 to 15,000 psi (62 to
103 MPa). In this study, Type Ill Portland cement concrete as
well as Type Ill Portland cement concrete incorporating fly ash,
microsilica and their combination were used.
igh strength concrete is com- allow for the use of more slender

H monly available in metropolitan

Alireza Mokhtarzadeh
Graduate Research Assistant
Department of Civil and
Mineral Engineering
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
areas throughout the United
States. Because of the superior me-
chanical properties and the significant
economic savings offered by high
strength concrete, the use of it has ac-
celerated far beyond the current status
of research on the material. Up to
now, the major application of high
strength concrete has been for cast-in-
place columns in tall buildings. How-
ever, the use of high strength concrete
in the precast, prestressed concrete in-
dustry can offer several benefits.
For instance, the use of high
strength concrete, in general, can
shorten turnover times of casting beds
and speed up construction time. Also,
the increased concrete strength would
members, thus reducing the dead load
of sections. It would also allow for an
increase in the length of members ,
limited only by stabil ity and trans-
portation concerns.
Although relatively little research
has been conducted on the application
of high strength concrete in precast,
prestressed concrete construction, an
ongoing analytical and experimental
research activity at the Department of
Civil and Mineral Engineering of the
University of Minnesota is focused on
the application of high strength con-
crete to the precast, prestressed con-
crete industry. A major portion of the
research constitutes material tests on
what is considered to be representa-
tive of materials and procedures used

76 PCI JOURNAL
in the precast, prestressed concrete in-
dustry. The specific objective of the
material tests is to document the ef-
fects of mix designs and curing condi-
tions on compressive strength, tensile
strength, modulus of elasticity, creep
characteristics and durability of high
strength concrete.
A preliminary study of some of the
factors that may have an effect on
compression test results of standard
high strength concrete cylinders was
considered to be essential. These pa-
rameters included mold size, mold
material and specimen end condition.
A range of results has been observed
in past tests conducted to investigate
these parameters. 1•2•3•4 It was believed
that the results from this part of the
study would help the investigators in
selecting parameters to be used in the
main body of tests.
Most of the precast, prestressed con-
crete plants have testing machines
with a nominal compressive capacity
of about 250,000 lb (113,400 kgf).
Limitation on the capacity of existing
testing machines suggests the use of
4 x 8 in. (100 x 200 mm) concrete
cylinders instead of the usual 6 x 12 in.
(150 x 300 mm) specimens. Other ad-
vantages of using 4 x 8 in. (100 x 200
mm) molds are easier fabrication, eas-
ier handling and transportation,
smaller required storage space, and
less concrete and capping compound
needed to make test specimens.
Availability, ease of use and other
advantages offered by single-use plas-
tic molds have made them a practical
mold option for the concrete construc-
tion industry. It is of interest to com-
pare and find a relation between the
compressive strength test results ob-
tained from concrete cylinders cast in
single-use plastic molds and those ob-
tained from companion cylinders cast
in heavy-gauge reusable steel molds.
Also, the limit on the compressive
strength of commercially available
capping compounds [about 16,000 psi
(110 MPa)] makes it necessary to look
for other practical options for end
preparation of high strength concrete
specimens. Two alternative approaches
for end preparation of high strength
concrete cylinders were considered:
grinding both ends of cylinders and
using unbonded neoprene caps.
PCI JOURNAL
The objective was to establish a
comparative relationship of the com-
pressive strength test results with al-
ternative end conditions.
Because different combinations of
Portland cement, fly ash and microsil-
ica (silica fume) are to be used in the
full-scale investigation, it was decided
to investigate the effect and interaction
of different cementitious material
compositions on different types of ag-
gregates. The types and sources of ag-
gregates were selected based on their
past satisfactory performance in the
local precast, prestressed concrete
plants. Study of the effect of different
curing conditions on the interaction of
materials was also part of this prelimi-
nary study.
EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRAM
Material Properties
All concrete was produced, cured
and tested in the Structural Engineer-
ing Laboratory of the Department of
Civil and Mineral Engineering at the
University of Minnesota.
Coarse aggregates with nominal
maximum size of X in. (13 mm) con-
forming to the grading requirements
of ASTM C33 for size No. 7 were
used. In order to minimize the effect
of cleanness and gradation of coarse
aggregate on the physical properties
of concrete in both fresh and hard-
ened stages, coarse aggregates were
washed, separated into individual size
fractions and then recombined to pro-
duce a standard gradation. For fine
aggregate, natural river sand with a
fineness modulus of 2.80 and a grada-
tion within the limits of ASTM C33
was used.
Different combinations of ASTM
C 150 Type III Portland cement,
ASTM C618 Class C fly ash and dry,
densified microsilica were used as ce-
mentitious materials for high strength
concrete mixes. The only admixture
used was a modified naphthalene sul-
fonate superplasticizer.
Concrete Mix Characteristics
For this portion of the study, all
concrete mixes contained a total of
750 lb/yd 3 (445 kg/m3) of cementitious
material. Fly ash, microsilica or their
combination were used in several
mixes. Replacement rates of fly ash
and microsilica were 10 and 7.5 per-
cent, respectively. The coarse aggre-
gate to fine aggregate ratio was kept
constant at 1.5.
Superplasticizer was added to all
mixes to bring the concrete slump in the
range of 4 to 6 in. (100 to 150 mm). In
some cases (highly dependent on the
cementitious materials composition),
increased dosages of superplasticizer
over that which was recommended by
the admixture manufacturer were found
to be necessary to bring the slump
in the desired range [up to 35 oz./cwt
(220 g/100 kg)].
Equipment Used
The following equipment was used
for mixing, curing and testing the con-
crete cylinders:
1. Mixer- A 10 fe (0.3 m3) fixed-
drum mixer powered by a 5 hp (3730
W) electric motor was used to mix all
the concrete used in this study. The
moving shaft inside the fixed drum
was equipped with two open-web spi-
ral blades which shovel concrete from
one side of the drum to the other, re-
sulting in a uniform mix. Rubber
scrapers were mounted at the edges of
the blades to prevent cement paste
from sticking to the sides of the drum.
2. Curing tank- A 385 gal. (1460 1)
curing tank equipped with an electric
heater and thermostat with a range of
0 to 100°F (-18 to 38°C) was used to
cure the concrete cylinders. A sub-
mersible pump circulated the saturated
lime water through the heating coils to
provide uniform temperature through-
out the tank [73.4 ± 3°F (23 ± 1.7°C)].
An independent thermometer was in-
stalled to verify the accuracy of the
thermostat setting.
3. Heat curing chamber - In
order to simulate the curing process
typical of precast, prestressed concrete
manufacturers, the walk-in heating
chamber at the Structural Engineering
Laboratory of the Department of Civil
and Mineral Engineering, University
of Minnesota, was used as the heat
curing room. The chamber has the ca-
pacity to raise the temperature to
150°F (71 °C). The temperature inside
77
the chamber was verified by an inde- room temperature]. Parameters Investigated
pendent thermometer. The heat-curing 4. Test machine - Concrete cylin-
process used in this study consisted of ders were tested for uniaxial compres- The effects of the following parame-
the following stages: sive strength using an MTS 810 Mate- ters on the compressive strength of
(a) An initial delay prior to heating of rial Testing System. The system has a high strength concrete were studied
about three hours (room temperature). capacity of 600,000 lb (270,000 kgf) during the course of this portion of the
(b) Temperature increase period of (tension or compression) and can be investigation:
two-and-a-half hours [from room tem- programmed to operate in either load or 1. Effect of mold size [6 x 12 in.
perature to 150°F (71 °C)]. displacement control modes. For the (150 X 300 mm) VS. 4 X 8 in. (100 X
(c) Constant temperature period of purpose of this study, the load was con- 200 mm) single-use plastic molds].
12 hours [150°F (71 °C)]. tinuously applied to the cylinder by 2. Effect of mold material [6 x 12
(d) Temperature decrease period moving the top spherical bearing block in. (150 x 300 mm) single-use plastic
of two hours [from 150°F (71 °C) to at a rate of 0.05 in. (1.3 mm) per minute. molds vs. heavy-gauge reusable steel
molds].
3. Effect of coarse aggregate type
(crushed limestone from two sources,
and round glacial gravel).
4. Effect of curing condition [heat
'(jj
c. curing at 150°F (71 °C} - typical of
~ precast, prestressed concrete manufac-
(J) en
"0
c:
"0 turing plants; immersion in saturated
.£:
>. caIJJ lime water for the entire life - ASTM
0 :J
0 standard procedure; and air-curing -
-~ .c c simulated worst field condition].
C\1
T""

X
5. Effect of age of specimen at the
<0 time of uniaxial compressive strength
test (one, seven, 14 and 28 days).
6. Effect of specimen end condition
during the uniaxial compressive
strength test (grinding both ends of
concrete cylinder, using unbonded
Inn Ref. 1 -------- Ref. 2 -------- Ref. 3 neoprene caps, or capping with a high
............... Ref. 4 -This Study strength capping compound) .
7. Effect of cementitious material
composition (cement only, cement
Fig. 1. Effect of specimen size on compressive strength of concrete. with 10 percent fly ash, cement with
7.5 percent microsilica, and cement
with 10 percent fly ash and 7.5 percent
microsilica, all as replacement by
'iii 15
c. weight of cement).
~-- 14
(J)
"0 13
.£: 12
(3- en MAKING, CURING AND
11
"0 "0
c: PREPARING SPECIMENS
0 ca 10
:E IJJ
:J The interior of the mixer was
u 0 9
.c
~ c 8 sprayed with water and completely
a: 7 drained immediately before loading
-~ 6 the mixer. The coarse aggregate and
C\1
,_ 5
about half of the mixing water were
X loaded and premixed by turning on the
co 4
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 mixer for a few seconds. The coarse
6 x 12 in. Steel Mold Cylinders, psi aggregate was permitted to absorb
(Thousands) water for approximately 10 minutes
inside the mixer; this procedure helped
J .......... Ref. 3 - - This Study to avoid early loss of slump. Then the
cementitious materials and fine aggre-
gate, together with the remainder of
Fig. 2. Effect of mold material on compressive strength of concrete. water and superplasticizer, were added

78 PCI JOURNAL
 from the unhardened concrete, the sur-
'Cii 16 l
faces of those specimens which were
c. l moved to the heat-curing chamber
CJi

E
!:
0
15
14
/
v were covered immediately with a
piece of plastic wrap. A rubber band
"C 13
0
!: (i)
/ kept the wrap in place. The specimens
"C 12
() !:
CIS v were heat-cured according to the

~
"C
!: 11
Ill
:I aforementioned curing procedure. No
w 0
.... .c. external source of moisture was pro-

-Q)
10
.c. 1:::- vided in this process. Surfaces of air-
0
9
,s; 8 .d/ cured specimens were covered by
co 7
? ---·-·····-·
plastic wrap only for the first 24
>< hours. Moist-cured specimens were
v 6
13 14 16
immediately immersed in saturated
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15
4 x 8 in. Capped, psi lime water.
(Thousands) All concrete cylinders were stripped
after 24 hours. Air-cured and heat-
j-- Ground Ends ............. Unbonded Neop. Cap cured specimens were then moved to a
storage site and exposed to the labora-
tory ambient humidity and tempera-
Fig. 3. Effect of end condition on compressive strength of concrete. ture for the rest of their lives. Moist-
cured specimens were returned to the
saturated lime water tank until the mo-
ment of test.
12
RESULTS AND
'Cii
c. DISCUSSION
-
..:.
Ol 8 Specimen Size

-
!: (i)
~ "C
!:
(/) CIS Comparisons of compressive strength
Ill 6 test results of 6 x 12 in. (150 x 300
~ :::1
0
'Cii .c. mm) cylinders vs. 4 x 8 in. (100 x 200
Ill
~ 1:::- 4 mm) cylinders are shown in Fig. 1. All
c.
E cylinders were capped with high
0
() 2 strength capping compound. Also
shown are the results from four other
0 reported studies. '·2•3.4
3 7 28 Except for Ref. 3, all other tests, in-
Age, Days cluding this study, predicted higher
compressive strength results for 4 x 8
j ~ Limestone "A" ~ Limestone "B" in. (100 x 200 mm) concrete cylinders.
It is observed that, on average, 4 x 8 in.
(100 x 200 mm) cylinders tested 6 per-
Fig. 4. Effect of type of aggregate- Limestone A vs. Limestone B (reference mix). cent higher than companion 6 x 12 in.
(150 x 300 mm) cylinders. Excellent
agreement with results reported by
and mixed for five minutes. Addi- dating the molds. For 4 x 8 in. ( 100 x
Ref. 2 was observed.
tional superplasticizer was added, in a 200 mm) molds, the tamping rod was
few of the mixes, to bring the slump in a % in. (10 mm) diameter rod with
the range of 4 to 6 in. (100 to 150 both ends rounded to a hemispherical Mold Material
mm). The mix was then dumped into a tip of the same diameter. A similar Fig. 2 shows the effect of mold ma-
watertight, clean, damp metal pan. % in. (16 mm) diameter rod was used terial on the compressive strength of 6
One day before mixing, the interiors for consolidating the 6 x 12 in. (150 x x 12 in. (150 x 300 mm) concrete
of all molds were lightly oiled with 300 mm) molds. The surface of the cylinders. On average, the compres-
form coating oil. Molds were filled concrete was stricken off with the sive strength of cylinders cast in
with concrete in accordance with the tamping rod and the specimens were heavy-gauge reusable steel molds was
provisions of ASTM C 192. With the moved immediately to the appropriate 2.5 percent higher than that of cylin-
exception of the tamping rod, identical curing sites. ders cast in flexible single-use plastic
tools were used in filling and consoli- To prevent evaporation of water molds. This result is consistent with

PCIJOURNAL 79
CD
0
1 1
1 1
"Cii 1 "Cii 1
a.

-" 1 a.
~
Cl
1:
~
Ci5
(i)
1:
111
1
1
1
-"
~
Cl
1:
~
(i)
1:
1
1
1
1
en Ci5 111
en
-~en ::l
-~en
::l
0 0
en .s::: en .s:::
~ t::.. ~ t::..
a. a.
E E
0 0
(.) (.)

FA=Fly Ash 7 28 7 28
SF =Silica Fume Age, Days Age, Days

I~ Round Gravel ~ Crushed Limestone I~ Round Gravel 1Z:2J Crushed Limestone

Fig. Sa. Effect of type of aggregate; heat-cured, 0 percent FA and 0 percent SF (ref.). Fig. 5b. Effect of type of aggregate; heat-cured, 10 percent FA and 0 percent SF.

1
1
"Cii "Cii 1
a.

-"
a. 1

-"
~
Cl
1:
(])
'-
(i)
1:
~
Cl
1:
~
(i)
1:
1
1
1
Ci5 111 Ci5 111
en
(])
en (]) ::l
::l
> 0 -~
en 0
"Cii
en .s::: en .s:::
t::..
~ t::.. (])
'-
a. a.
E E
0 0
(.) (.)

14
7 28 7 28
Age, Days Age, Days
""0
Q
c... I~ Round Gravel ~ Crushed Limestone I~ Round Gravel 1Z:2J Crushed Limestone
0
c
:Il
z)>
r Fig. sc. Effect of type of aggregate; heat-cured, 0 percent FA and 7.5 percent SF. Fig. 5d. Effect of type of aggregate; heat-cured, 10 percent FA and 7.5 percent SF.
l)
Q 1
c._
0 1
c "iii 1 "iii
:D 0. 1 0.
z
~
~
-
c 00 1
Cl

~ "0 1
1 ~
.....
Cl
c
~
00
"0
c
Ci) cCIS Ci) CIS
(IJ
(IJ

~ -~
:::1 :::1
0 0
"iii ..r: (IJ ..r:
(IJ
t::, (IJ
t::,
~ ~
0. 0.
E E
0 0
() ()

1 14 14
FA= Fly Ash 7 28 7 28
SF =Silica Fume Age, Days Age, Days

I~ Round Gravel ~ Crushed Limestone I~ Round Gravel ~ Crushed Limestone

Fig. 6a. Effect of type of aggregate; moist-cured, 0 percent FA and 0 percent SF (ref.). Fig. 6b. Effect of type of aggregate; moist-cured, 10 percent FA and 0 percent SF.

"iii "iii
0. 0.
~
.....Cl .r:i
.....
Cl
c 00 c m
~ "0
c ~ "0
c
Ci) CIS Ci5 CIS
(IJ (IJ

-~
:::1
0 ~ :I
0
(IJ ..r: "iii ..r:
CIJ t::, (IJ
Q) t::,
~ ....
0. 0.
E E
0 0
() ()

14
7 28 7 28
Age, Days Age, Days

I~ Round Gravel ~ Crushed Limestone I~ Round Gravel ~ Crushed Limestone

~ Fig. 6c. Effect of type of aggregate; moist-cured, 0 percent FA and 7.5 percent SF. Fig. 6d. Effect of type of aggregate; moist-cured, 10 percent FA and 7.5 percent SF.
 -
CD
1\)

16~----------------------------~ 16.----------------------------,
15 ....................... . ......................... . 15
14 ............................................................................ -.. Reference Mix 14 ........................................ Reference Mix

n1
13 ..........................................................................
'(ij
c. ~ '(ij 13 .... ~
12 ................................................... c.
1:::::::::~::
- l!.
10% Fly Ash
-
~
Cl
c::
~
!i)
u
11 .............. .
10. I· I . ~
7.5% Silica Fume
~
Cl
c::
~
!i)
'0
10% Fly Ash
~
7.5% Silica Fume
c:: c::
~ t:••····~~
Ci5
(J)
>
'(ij
111
Ul
:I
0
.c
; =::-:1 .......... v
D
10% FA & 7.5% SF
Ci5
(J)
.2:
Ul
111
Ul
:I
0
.c
9 ·····················

~ ~ ~
D
10% FA & 7.5% SF
······ v
~ •••• I
Ul
~ t:. a+···········~~ Ul
t:.
c.
E
51 ~
~ v
~
c.
E v -~~
~
0 4-1··-··············I!IY/= 4
0
0 3 0 3
2 e v
1
2 ~ v
o+---~~L,~~~-W~UL~~~--~ 6+-~~u_.=~~~~~~~~L-~
1 14
7 28
Age, Days

Fig. ?a. Fly ash and silica fume effect; heat-cured, round gravel. Fig. 7b. Fly ash and silica fume effect; moist-cured, round gravel.

'(ij
c.
£
g> !i)
16•~---------------------------,
15 .
14 .
13
12 .
11
10 ..
-
Reference Mix
~
10% Fly Ash
~
'(ij

-
~
c.
Cl
16
15
14

12
11
c:: !i) 10
... .... ...

13 ···························································
..

a
Reference Mix
~
10% Fly Ash
~
7.5% Silica Fume 7.5% Silica Fume
~ -g 9 ~ '0 c:: 9
m a. . . . . . . . . . .,.,.. D Ci5 111
8 '············~ D
~
Ul
10% FA & 7.5% SF
·m
~
t.._ ~ :· ·
:I
~
'(ij
Ul
~
:I
.c
0
t:.
7
6
...............
v 10% FA & 7.5% SF

c. 5· c. 5 1/.
E 4·+···········-~l= E 4
8 3 0
0
3 1/
2 ......... v
2
1 1
QI+---~~L,~~~~~LL~~~--~
0
14 14
""0
Q 7 28 7 28
t.. Age, Days Age, Days
0
c
::D
z
)>
r Fig. 7c. Fly ash and silica fume effect; heat-cured, limestone. Fig. 7d. Fly ash and silica fume effect; moist-cured, limestone.
"'0
Q 1
c....
0 1
c 'iii 1 'iii
:Il c.. c..
z)>
r
-
.c
Ol
c::
~
Ci)
(jj'
'0
c::
1
1
1
1
-
.c
Cl
c::
~
(j)
'0
c::
rn
en
Ci) rn
en
~ :J
0
CJ)
> :J
0
'iii .s:: -~ .s::
en
~ t:. ~ t:.
c.. c..
E E
0 0
(.) (.)

1 14 1
7 28 7 28
Age, Days Age, Days

j~ Heat Cured E222l Moist Cured § Air Cured , . Heat Cured ~ Moist Cured ~ Air Cured

Fig. 8a. Effect of curing condition; round gravel, reference mix. Fig. 8b. Effect of curing condition; round gravel, 10 percent fly ash.

16.---------------------------------------~
15 .... ··························································-·······
'iii 14 ................ ···························· 'iii
c.. c..

-
.c
Cl
c::
~
(jj'
'0
c::
13 ··································································-·······
12
10 ......
9 .......
..... ·················
11,································································· -
.c
Cl
c::
~
Ci)
(j)
'0
c::
Ci) rn 8 ....... rn
en
CJ)
en CJ) :J
> :J 0 7 ................ . >
'(jj 0
'iii .s:: 6 ···················· .s::
en en
.... t:.
CJ)
5· .... t:.
CJ)

c.. c..
E 4 E
0 3 0
(.) (.)
2
1
0+---
14 1
7 28 FA=Fly Ash 7 28
Age, Days SF = Silica Fume Age, Days

I~ Heat Cured E222l Moist Cured § Air Cured I~ Heat Cured ~ Moist Cured ~ Air Cured

~ Fig. Be. Effect of curing condition; round gravel, 7.5 percent silica fume. Fig. 8d. Effect of curing condition; round gravel, 10 percent FA and 7.5 percent SF.
 "iii "iii
a. a.

-
.c
Ol -
.s=
Ol

-!::
...
Q)

Cl)

~
"iii
Cii"
"C
!::
ro
en
::I
0
-
!::
~
Cl)

~
"iii
Cii"
"C
!::
ro
en
::I
0
.!: .!:
en
~ c. en
~ c.
a. a.
E E
0 0
() ()

7 28 7 28
Age, Days Age, Days

I~ Heat Cured ~ Moist Cured ~ Air Cured I~ Heat Cured ~ Moist Cured ~ Air Cured

Fig. 9a. Effect of curing condition; limestone, reference mix. Fig. 9b. Effect of curing condition; limestone, 10 percent fly ash.

~
1~
1 ..
1~ . -~5

I
"iii .. "iii
a. .. ~E a.

-
. . !.,....,.-
. .

- 1 . . ...
.c 1c. ~
~-
r:;. . . . ~ ~~ .. .s=
Ol 1 ~ ... ~
~~
Ol
Cii"

-
!::
~ ~
-
!:: Cii"
1n ~ "C
~ "C
~~
...
!:: ::: ... ~ ... ~ !::
ro
··:::~~-
ro Cl)
Cl)
en ~ t;;; . . . . 1:% ~- en
~
...
~ -~en
Q)
::I ::I
> 0
0
~ .. ~-
~ ~~
"iii .!:
en .!:
c. ~-
en
c.
~§ . . .
~

II ~-
~ ...

~
a. a.
E ..; ~~=
E
~
I
... 0
0
() :::c. ~= .. ()
~§ !/jl
0
'l:S: t'l
14
7 28 FA= Fly Ash 7 28
Age, Days SF = Silica Fume Age, Days
lJ
()
c...
0 I~ Heat Cured ~ Moist Cured ~ Air Cured I ~ Heat Cured ~ Moist Cured ~ Air Cured
c
JJ
z
)>
r Fig. 9c. Effect of curing condition; limestone, 7.5 percent silica fume. Fig. 9d. Effect of curing condition; limestone, 10 percent FA and 7.5 percent SF.
that reported by Ref. 3, also shown in
Fig. 2. It appears that as long as the
manual rodding method is used to
consolidate concrete, the effect of
mold material on the compressive
strength of concrete is insignificant.
End Condition
Compressive strength test results of
4 x 8 in. (100 x 200 mm) high strength
concrete cylinders with two alternative
end conditions vs. those capped with a
high strength capping compound are
shown in Fig. 3. The compressive
strength of ground cylinders and con-
crete cylinders tested with unbonded
neoprene caps was slightly higher than
that of concrete cylinders capped with
a high strength capping compound.
However, the grinding process is
costly and the advantage obtained by
grinding both ends is so insignificant
(about 1.0 percent) that grinding
should be used as the last resort.
The effect of the use of unbonded neo-
prene caps on compressive strength of
4 x 8 in. ( 100 x 200 mm) high strength
concrete cylinders was investigated in
another portion of the study [i.e., more
than 300 concrete cylinders from 11
other concrete mixes were used in es-
tablishing the results. The 28-day
compressive strength of these mixes
varied from 9000 to 1S,800 psi (62 to
109 MPa)]. The stored energy in the
neoprene pads during the compressive
strength test of high strength concrete
cylinders resulted in a more violent
break of test specimens.
Type of Aggregate
Limestone A vs. Limestone B -
Fig. 4 shows the compressive strength
test results of 6 x 12 in. (lSO x 300 mm)
cylinders made with limestone from
two sources in otherwise identical
mixes. Limestone B was more porous
and had a higher rate of absorption
compared to Limestone A (2.9 percent
vs. l.S percent, respectively). No signif-
icant difference in the compressive
strength test results was observed.
Limestone vs. round gravel -
Compressive strength test results of 4
x 8 in. (100 x 200 mm) concrete cylin-
ders of high strength concrete mixes
made with limestone vs. those made
PCI JOURNAL
Table 1. Percentage of the 28-day compressive strength gained at one day for dif-
ferent cementitious material compositions, aggregate types and curing conditions.
Round gravel
High strength Heat-cured Moist-cured Air-cured Heat-cured Moist-cured Air-cured
concrete mix (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Reference mix* 74 62
10 percent fly ash 79 62
7.5 percent
silica fume 83 55
10 percent fly ash
and 7.5 percent
silica fume 84 50
*750 lb/yd (445 kg/rn ) of Type lii Portland cement.
3 3
with round gravel are shown in Figs.
Sa through Sd and 6a through 6d. Figs.
Sa through Sd show the test results for
heat-cured concrete cylinders while
Figs. 6a through 6d show the results
for moist-cured companion cylinders.
Concrete made with limestone con-
sistently resulted in higher compres-
sive strengths compared with concrete
made with round gravel. Limestone
particles showed very strong bond with
cement paste and the plane of fracture
in limestone concrete crossed most of
the coarse aggregate particles. In con-
trast, round gravel particles showed
poor bond strength with cement paste
and, except for small-sized particles,
the plane of fracture passed around
coarse aggregate particles.
Cementitious Material
Composition
Figs. 7a through 7d show the com-
pressive strength test results of 4 x 8
in. (100 x 200 mm) concrete cylinders
of eight high strength concrete mixes
having different cementitious material
composition and made with round
gravel or limestone.
Four sets of cementitious material
composition were selected for each of
the two aggregate types. The reference
mix contained 7SO lb/yd3 (44S kg/m3) of
ASTM ClSO Type III Portland cement
for cementitious material. The other
three mixes had 7SO lb/yd3 (44S kg/m3 )
of cementitious material containing
ASTM ClSO Type III Portland cement
with 10 percent fly ash, with 7.S percent
microsilica, or with 10 percent fly ash
and 7.S percent microsilica (all as re-
placement by weight of cement).
Figs. 7a and 7b show the test results
Limestone
(percent) (percent)
70 78 64 70
70 73 63 66
62 84 61 65
58 85 56 62
for heat-cured and moist-cured high
strength concrete made with round
gravel. Figs. 7c and 7d show the same
results for the companion high
strength concrete mixes made with
limestone.
Inclusion of 10 percent fly ash re-
duced the early age compressive
strength of all concrete mixes. Many
studies have shown that fly ash does
not increase compressive strength
until later ages (90 to 180 days). For
the limestone concrete, the difference
in compressive strength of the refer-
ence mix with the mix containing fly
ash reduced rapidly as age progressed.
Inclusion of 7.S percent microsilica
improved the compressive strength of
concrete at all ages. In particular, in-
clusion of microsilica increased the
compressive strength of round gravel
concrete significantly. This improve-
ment was more notable for moist-
cured specimens.
The effect of inclusion of the combi-
nation of 10 percent fly ash and 7.5
percent microsilica was more or less
similar to the effect of inclusion of mi-
crosilica alone; however, a small in-
crease in compressive strength at later
ages was observed in some of the tests.
Curing Method
The effect of different curing condi-
tions on compressive strength of high
strength concrete cylinders for differ-
ent types of aggregate with different
cementitious material composition at
different test ages is shown in Figs. 8a
through 8d for round gravel high
strength concrete and in Figs. 9a
through 9d for limestone high strength
concrete.
85
 Results summarized in Table 1 indi-
cate that heat-curing improves the per-
formance of microsilica at early ages.
On average, heat-cured samples con-
taining 7.5 percent microsilica (alone
or in combination with 10 percent fly
ash) gained about 85 percent of their
28-day compressive strength during
the first 24 hours. This percentage was
approximately 75 percent for refer-
ence mixes or for the mixes with 10
percent fly ash only.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study,
the following conclusions can be
made.
1. On average, 4 x 8 in. (100 x 200
mm) cylinders tested 6 percent higher
than companion 6 x 12 in. (150 x 300
mm) cylinders.
2. On average, for the manual rod-
ding consolidation method, 6 x 12 in.
(150 x 300 mm) cylinders cast in
heavy-gauge reusable steel molds
tested 2.5 percent higher than those
cast in single-use plastic molds.
3. On average, 4 x 8 in. ( 100 x 200
mm) cylinders with ground ends or
capped with unbonded neoprene pads
tested 1.0 percent higher than those
capped with high strength capping
compound.
4. Concrete made with limestone
showed higher compressive strength
than that made with round gravel.
Limestone particles exhibited a supe-
rior bond characteristic with cement
paste and the plane of fracture in lime-
stone concrete crossed most of the
coarse aggregate particles. In contrast,
round gravel particles showed poor
bond with cement paste and, except
for small-sized particles, the plane of
fracture passed around coarse aggre-
gate particles.
5. Replacement of cement by fly ash
on a 1 to 1 basis reduced the amount of
superplasticizer required for a given
slump. Also, the inclusion of fly ash re-
duced segregation, bleeding and appar-
ent improved fmishability of concrete.
6. A fly ash content of 10 percent by
weight of cement decreased compres-
sive strength of concrete made with
round gravel at all ages up through 28
days.
86
7. A fly ash content of 10 percent by
weight of cement decreased compres-
sive strength of high strength concrete
made with limestone at early ages.
8. The required amount of super-
plasticizer for a given slump increased
when cement was replaced by mi-
crosilica on a 1 to 1 basis. The inclu-
sion of microsilica increased cohesive-
ness and reduced segregation and
bleeding of the fresh concrete. This in-
creased cohesiveness demands a
higher slump to match the workability
of a control mix.
9. A microsilica content of 7.5 per-
cent by weight of cement significantly
improved the compressive strength of
high strength concrete made with
round gravel. Moist-curing enhanced
the benefit obtained from inclusion of
micro silica.
10. A microsilica content of 7.5
percent by weight of cement slightly
improved the compressive strength of
high strength concrete made with
limestone. Moist-curing enhanced the
benefit obtained from inclusion of
microsilica.
11. Replacement by weight of
ASTM C150 Type III Portland cement
with 10 percent fly ash and 7.5 percent
microsilica had the same effect, more
or less, as the microsilica content of
7.5 percent by weight of cement
through 28 days.
12. The 28-day compressive strength
of high strength concrete made with
round gravel was more sensitive to
curing conditions than that of a com-
panion mix. made with limestone. For
high strength concrete made with
round gravel, the moist-cured speci-
mens consistently tested higher than
heat-cured or air-cured specimens.
13. The 28-day compressive strength
of high strength concrete made with
limestone was not sensitive to curing
conditions.
14. There was a limit to the com-
pressive strength of concrete made
with limestone. This limit was reached
when the cement paste became
stronger than the aggregate. At this
limit, the plane of failure passes
through almost all the coarse aggre-
gate particles. This limit for the partic-
ular limestone used in this study was
found to be approximately 15,000 psi
(103 MPa) for 4 x 8 in. (100 x 200
mm) cylinders.
15. As noted in Conclusion 9, the
addition of microsilica had the greatest
effect on the mixes made with round
gravel. This is attributed to improved
bond between the aggregate and the
paste. More aggregate fractures were
noted in the round gravel mixes con-
taining microsilica than in those round
gravel mixes without microsilica. Be-
cause the fracture of the aggregate
controlled the limestone mixes, the ad-
dition of microsilica had little effect
on those mixes.
EPILOGUE
The relationship between the com-
pressive strength test results obtained
from 4 x 8 in. (100 x 200 mm) and 6 x
12 in. (150 x 300 mm) high strength
concrete cylinders was found to be
consistent with that established by
Ref. 2. It was concluded that using 4 x
8 in. (100 x 200 mm) molds instead of
the current 6 x 12 in. (150 x 300 mm)
standard molds is a practical approach
in testing high strength concrete.
An analysis of compressive strength
test results from high strength concrete
cylinders cast in heavy-gauge reusable
steel molds and from single-use plastic
molds indicated that, for manual rod-
ding concrete consolidation, speci-
mens cast in heavy-gauge steel molds
test only slightly higher.
No significant advantage was ob-
served in testing high strength con-
crete cylinders with ground ends. Un-
bonded neoprene caps appeared to be
a practical option for testing high
strength concrete specimens. The re-
sults obtained from all three types of
end condition (ground, capped with
unbonded neoprene pads and capped
with high strength capping compound)
yielded compressive strength values
within 1.0 percent.
Because of its superior bond charac-
teristic, limestone coarse aggregate
was selected for the majority of the re-
maining tests on the mechanical prop-
erties of high strength concrete. How-
ever, additional tests will be per-
formed using other types of aggregates
and other types and brands of cement
and admixtures in search for the best
PCI JOURNAL
performance. Also, other combinations
of microsilica and fly ash in cementi-
tious material contents of high strength
concrete mixes will be studied.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research investigation was con-
ducted under the joint sponsorship of
the Minnesota Prestress Association
and the National Science Foundation
Grant No. BCS-8451536 at the De-
partment of Civil and Mineral Engi-
neering, University of Minnesota. The
views expressed herein are those of
the authors and do not necessarily re-
flect the views of the sponsors.
PCI JOURNAL
The valuable assistance of the fol-
lowing companies in providing some
of the materials and equipment used in
this study is greatly appreciated:
Lehigh Cement Company, National
Minerals Corporation, J .L. Shiely
Company, Edward Kraemer & Sons,
Inc., W. R. Grace & Co., and Elk River
Concrete Products.
REFERENCES
1. Janak, Karl J., "Comparative Compres-
sive Strength of 4-in. x 8-in. versus 6-in.
x 12-in. Concrete Cylinders Along with
the Investigation of Concrete Compres-
sive Strength at 56 Days," Report No. 3-
I-4-116, Materials and Tests Division,
Texas State Department of Highway and
Public Transportation, Austin, TX,
March 1985, 36 pp.
2. Howard, Nathan L., and Leatham,
David M., "The Production and Deliv-
ery of High-Strength Concrete," Con-
crete International, V. 11, No. 4, April
1989, pp. 26-30.
3. Carrasquillo, P. M., and Carrasquillo,
R. L., "Evaluation of the Use of Current
Concrete Practice in the Production of
High-Strength Concrete," ACI Materials
Journal, V. 85, No. 1, January-February
1988, pp. 49-54.
4. Peterman, M. B., and Carrasquillo,
R. L., "Production of High-Strength
Concrete," Research Report No. 315-lF,
Center for Transportation Research,
University of Texas, Austin, TX, Octo-
ber 1983, 286 pp.
87