318A Minutes, Dallas Combined

ACI 318 Sub A General Concrete and Construction
[ACI 318 Chapters 1, 2, 3 (excluding 3.5), 4, 5, 6, and 22

Reorganized Chapters 5, 22, and 23]
Dallas Meeting
Tuesday, 20 March 2011, 1:30 PM to 6:00 PM, Meeting Room Moreno B
DRAFT MINUTES
1.
Call to order at 1:30 pm.
2.
Introductions and Membership changes. Sign up sheet is attached.

Brian Gerber of ICC-ES has joined Sub A
3.
Approval of Agenda. Approved as presented.
4.
Approval of Minutes: Cincinnati Meeting, 18 October 2011. Approved as presented.
5. Old Business: Please see the following Table for the agenda for the bulk of todays meeting. Note that
the experiment allotting times for individual segments of the agenda failed miserably!
Item
5.1
Description
General update from Steering Committee meeting
Responsible
Terry
The schedule for completing the code and commentary was discussed. It looks like we are back to looking at a 2014 document with
minimal new business items included. Sub A will work to include the most critical changes to our chapters.
5.2
Resolution of issues from 318 LB of CA 026
Terry
1. CA 026 ballot results were reviewed and minor changes were made. The final version was approved by Sub A by a vote of 12
affirmative and 1 not present.
2. CA026 was presented on the floor of the 318 meeting on Wednesday. All negatives were either withdrawn or found non
persuasive. There were additional changes made on the floor. CA 026 was approved by 318. A copy of this item, as approved by
318, is attached. The final responses as approved by 318 are also attached.
3. The changes resulting from CA 026 were incorporated into Chapter 22, and this chapter with commentary is on the 6 April 318 LB.
5.3a
Chapter 5, Resolution of negatives and significant comments from Sub A ballot on Commentary
Tony
1. The proposed responses to the ballot on the commentary of Chapter 5 were discussed. Changes were made to satisfy the
subcommittee. The final version was approved by Sub A by a vote of 12 affirmative and 1 not present. A copy of the final approved
responses is attached. Note that a number of new business items were developed during this review.
2. The responses have been incorporated into the chapter. The current target is to have Chapter 5 with commentary on the 6 May 318
LB.
5.3b
Chapter 5, Recommendations for top 3 new business items
Tony
Not discussed because of a lack of time.

5.4a
Nick
1. The proposed responses to the ballot on the commentary of Chapter 22 were discussed. Changes were made to satisfy the
subcommittee. The final version was approved by Sub A by a vote of 10 affirmative and 3 not present. A copy of the final approved
responses is attached.
2. The responses have been incorporated into the chapter. Chapter 22 with commentary is on the 6 April 318 LB.
5.4b
Chapter 22, Recommendations for top 3 new business items

Not discussed because of a lack of time.
Nick
5.5
Chapter 23, Comments from presentation at Steering Committee meeting
Terry
1. The overall organization of Chapter 23, as approved by Sub A in Denver, was accepted by the Steering Committee.
2. Subs B and G agreed to take responsibility for their respective sections of the chapter. They will also look at t he section on
embedments to determine who should be responsible for this material.
3. It was agreed to keep a separate section on submittals as a part of the chapter.
4. All subs agreed to look at the orphans at the end of the chapter to determine where they should be located in the code.
5. Since the meeting, a copy of Chapter 23 as balloted by Sub A was sent to all of the subs. Additionally, the Sub A ballot comments
were provided for use by the other subs.
6. A target date of the May 318 LB was established for a 318 ballot on this chapter.
5.6
Colin
1. Overall direction from the subcommittee was defined.

2. The chapter is to be a listing of items that are relevant to building officials and contractors. No separation of items directed at one
or the other.
3. There can be pointers as necessary to other chapter where information required in the construction documents may be located.
4. The Chapter 23 Task Group will work on addressing the comments from the Sub A ballot.
5.7
CA 104, Resolution of Negatives from last ballot
Doug
Not discussed because of a lack of time. Further actions on this item will be handled electronically.
5.8
Formation of Task Group to review ASTM C 1600 cements

The Task Group will be Kosmatka, Weiss, and Barth. Jason will be the chair. ASTM C 1600 will be made available to the
subcommittee for review. The goal of the task group is to make a recommendation s to whether C1600 should be added to the Code.
If the recommendation is to add this standard, are there any restrictions that need to be added?
Terry
5.9. Summary of all CA items. An updated list of all CA items was sent out after the Cincinnati meeting.
This list showed 17 active items. Many of these active items have been referred to the Chapter 5 and
Chapter 22 Task Groups to be included in the list of potential new business.
An updated list after the Dallas meeting is attached. There are currently 17 open items.
5.10. Code reorganization.
5.10.1 Task Groups for Code Reorganization. Following are the current Task Groups. Note changes
below to reflect that the work on the original Chapter 23 has been completed.
Chapter 5, Material Properties and Durability. Tony, CH, Fred, Doug, Jason
Chapter 22, Concrete Materials and Quality Assurance, Nick, CH, Ken B., Brian
Chapter 23, Construction Documents. Colin, CH, Steve, Ken H., Harry, Florian, Dean
5.10.2 Current Status: See the actions in the Table on page 2.
The following items will not be discussed during the Dallas meeting.
5.11. Use of 4 x 8 inch cylinders. Rachel Detwiler sent Sub A a copy of a paper that she has prepared.
Mike Bartlett has also provided comments on this paper. Colin Lobo also provided additional information
on this topic. The committee agreed that we would like to see data from additional labs before making any
changes to the requirement for testing three 4 x 8 in. cylinders. Harry Gleich reported that the precast
industry has converted to testing only two cylinders. Colin Lobo will forward additional test data. The
committee agreed to reopen this item. Steve Kosmatka and Colin Lobo were appointed to summarize
current data and to prepare a new b allot item for consideration. This item is assigned CA 105. Steve and
Colin will update references in CA 105 and send for a Sub A ballot. Status?
5.12. Performance specifications and implications for 318. Topic remains open for possible action during
this code cycle.
5.13. Adding alkali-silica reactivity (ASR) to the Code. Of all of the major durability issues with concrete,
only ASR is not addressed in the Code. After discussion, a Task Group of Folliard, Hooton, and Fiorato
was formed to review this issue and make a recommendation to the committee during the meeting in New
Orleans. In Chicago, Tony reported that ASTM C09 is preparing a specification for dealing with ASR.
Sub A agreed to put any action on hold until that document is completed. It was agreed that it is still
premature for Sub A to take any action here. This item will remain on the agenda until action is taken.
5.14. Determining Lambda. Carino had the following comment on Sub A Ballot A02-09:
I have some questions about the splitting tensile strength. First, fct is defined as the average
splitting tensile strength, so this is not a function of f'c, but a function of the average compressive
strength of the concrete. So it is not correct to say that fct is 6.7 sqrt(f'c). Second, I'd like an
explanation of how an engineer would determine lambda for the second alternative. The code
language is not clear. I think the fct in the equation should be measured average splitting tensile
strength. Maybe Fred or Ken can explain to us how the equation in 8.6.1 is supposed to be used to
choose lambda.
This issue is being addressed as a CA items that will be sent out with the ballot on Chapter 5 commentary.
The ballot item will clean up the method of calculating lambda. Further work remains on lambda versus
unit weight issues. Also, the question of whether the method of calculating lambda is actually used by
designers has bee raised as new business.
5.15. Sulfate resistance: The following email was sent to Cathy French. Colin Lobo responded as shown.
I hope your sabbatical is going well. I had a question for you when
> you have a minute. On our wind farm projects in some parts of the
> country we are running into situations where we have severe sulfate
> exposures and it seems that I am continually at odds with local
> concrete suppliers over the interpretation of the sulfate resistance
> portions of chapter 4 of ACI 318. Is this one of your fields of
> expertise or can you recommend someone I could talk to so I can make
> sure I am doing the right thing?
>
>
>
> The issue that I keep running into is that, the way I read section
> 4.3, for severe sulfate exposures, type V cement is required. Type I
> or II cement with the addition of class F fly ash can be used if the
> mixture meets the requirements of section 4.5 when tested according to
> ASTM C1012. The problem is that the test takes 6 months or a year to
> run and I have yet to run into a concrete supplier who has run it on
> any of their mixes. The suppliers that I talk to want to offer me a
> test result from ASTM C452 but I have found multiple references in the
> literature to the fact that this test is not accurate for mixes
> containing cement blended with pozzolans. I have continued to insist
> that the C1012 test be run if anything is to be substituted for the
> type V cement but I seem to be the only engineer that these suppliers
> are running into that is requiring them to do this.
Colin Lobo:
I will attempt a response. The sulfate provisions in the code are not
ideal for compliance in practice.
In the footnote to table 4.3.1 "The amount of the specific source of the
pozzolan or slag to be used shall not be less than the amount that has
been determined by service record..."
This note permits the LDP to use customary practice on mix composition
in lieu of test. It is realized the test duration is too long for mix
submittals. It is unlikely that concrete suppliers will have C1012 data.
It is more likely that blended cements by C595 or C1157 will have data
in their certifications, but S3 requires additional SCM.
In CA for instance the use of 25% fly ash in addition to a sulfate
resistant cement has been considered adequate for severe sulfate
conditions. I think it is accepted by CALTRANS. I am not sure of the
area of your projects, but slag as an SCM might be an option too. Slag
has been entering the CA market more recently and these suppliers (as
with the fly ash people) might have C1012 data but it wont be with the
specific cement for the project. What is important in the cement would be
the C3A used in the test relative to that used on the project. If that
on the project is equal to or less than that used in the test, it should
be OK.
ASTM C 452 is not an appropriate test - it is an optional test to

qualify Portland cements for sulfate resistance only.
You might consult with Eric Tolles who is a code official for the city
of Irvine in CA (if that's where you are operating). Eric is on 318 and
aware of these provisions.
Does Sub A need to take action here? This item was not discussed in New Orleans, Chicago, Pittsburgh,
Tampa, or Denver because of a lack of time. Status?
6. New Business:
Note that the following new business items are listed by title only because we will probably not have time
to address them. If time is available or if a topic is of interest to a member, we will address these items.
6.1. Core waiting period.
6.2. Add recycled aggregate to the Code.
6.3. Top bar effects in self-consolidating concrete.
6.4. Fix mixture proportioning flow chart in Commentary.
This item is now moot. It will be dropped from the agenda.
6.5. Various new work items resulting from review of Version 1 of the reorganized Code.
These items are being incorporated into the possible new work lists as chapters are adopted.
6.6. w/cm versus strength for durability.
6.7. Chloride ion restrictions in concrete containing aluminum embedments.
6.8. Request to add ASTM C 1600 Rapid hardening Hydraulic Cements to the Code.
See item 5.8 above. A task group has been formed to look into this issue.
6.9. Inquiry regarding appropriate strength for w/cm for durability.
6.10. Ward Malish issues regarding brackish water.
Note: Other than as indicated, these items have been addressed to date because of lack of time.
7. Adjourn
SUMMARY OF SUB A ITEMS -- AFTER DALLAS MEETING

Total Sub A items
Last CA Number Assigned
SOURCES
48
CA 114
Carryover from 2008 Code cycle

Added from public 2008 comments
Added during this Code cycle
Total
16
11
20
47
Total
6
24
1
17
48
RESOLVED Adopted, 2011 Code

Not adopted, 2011/2014 Code
Adopted, 2014 Code
Active items
ACTIVE ITEMS
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
RESPONSIBLE
COMMENTS
CA 002
Curing issues, 5.6.4.1 and 5.11. New

Chapter 22
Hover
25 Mar 12, email to Hover regarding

future of this item.
CA 056
Harmonize chloride limits. New Chapter 5
Weiss
On hold, coordinate with ACI 201

and ACI 222
CA 065
Maximum size of aggregate between reinf

and forms. New 22.3.2.1
Holland, CH 22
TG
Passed Sub A. To CH 22 TG to
consider.
CA 069
Incorporate certified inspectors into the

Code. New Chapter 22.
Holland and
Carino
Sub A ballot 10-2006, DNP. Holland

to update and ballot.
CA 070
Cementitious materials for chlorides. New

Chapter 5.
Lobo/Weiss
On hold, coordinate with ACI 201

and ACI 222
CA 077
Rewrite Ch 5, construction issues. New

Chapter 23.
Hover
Sub A ballot A01-2009, DNP, revise

and reballot. Will be addressed once
CH 23 is available.
CA 088
2008 Code, PC 38, Gustafson 318 ballot

Hooton, CH 5 TG Was on Sub A A04-2011, did not
comment. Table R.4.3.1, second sentence
pass Sub A. To CH 5 TG to
below table. Delete sentence regarding
consider.
epoxy and zinc coated bars. New Chapter
5.
CA 092
2008 Code, PC 69, Cunningham. 2.2 and Carino

5.6.2.4, add definition of strength test to Ch.
2. New Chapters 2 and 22.
CA 093
2008 Code, PC 414, Green. R8.6.1, give

justification for interpolation in values of
lamda. New Chapter 5.
Bondy/Meyer, CH Passed Sub A. To CH 5 TG to

5 TG
consider.
CA 099
Clarify use of term f'c, various locations.

New Chaapter 22.
Fiorato
Passed Sub A -- 14 Oct 11 -- to Ch

22 TG for inclusion in new business
CA 101
Clarify requirements regarding measuring

air. New Chapter 5.
Hover, CH 5 TG
Passed Sub A. To CH 5 TG to
consider.
Passed Sub A -- 14 Oct 11 -- to Ch

22 TG for inclusion in new business
CA 103
Add "and roofs" to 6.4.4 (misc Item #3) New Holland

Chapter 23
Passed Sub A. Will be addressed

once CH 23 is available.
CA 104
Remove Exposure Cat. "Permeability" from Lobo/Hooton

Ch. 4; misc edits to Ch. 4 (misc item # 4);
includes clarification of Cats C and F. New
Chapter 5.
On Sub A ballot A06-2011, did not

pass. Discuss in Cincy
CA 105
Number of 4x8 inch cylinders required.

New Chapter 22.
Kosmatka
Assigned at San Antonio meeting.

Waiting on additional documentation
CA 111
Additional lamda issues -- can lamda be

defined on basis of unit weight? New
chapter 5 and elsewhere.
Meyer
Assigned in Pittsburgh. Meyer is

working on this.
CA 113
Combination of several definitions. Various CH 5 TG. CH 22 All have passed Sub A. To CH 5 and
locations.
TG
CH 22 TG to c0nsider
CA 114
Various editorial items in Chapter 22
Holland
318 LB with Commentary for this

chapter
ACI 318A
January, 2012
CA 026
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Subject: Revision of Section 22.4

Code sections: 22.4 and R22.4
Basis: CA 026 originated in a previous Code cycle. It is based on recommendations
from Holland that the detailed statistical requirements related to mixture proportioning
that are in the Code be deleted because these topics are beyond the scope of the Code and
the information is readily available in other ACI publications.
Reason for Change: To remove statistical requirements related to establishing mixture
proportioning from the Code because this information is not directed to the licensed
design professional and it is available elsewhere in ACI publications.
History: CA 026 was balloted on 318 LB 11-5 and received 27 comments of which 9
were negatives. Most of the negatives were resolved during discussions in Cincinnati.
However, because several changes were made to resolve negatives, it was necessary to
reballot this item at the Sub A level. CA 026 has now been reapproved by Sub A. Note
that this version also contains commentary. This commentary language was either
derived from existing commentary or was newly written for this version. Commentary is
shown in boxed text following the applicable code section.
Background: The provisions on mixture proportioning have been in the Code for many
years, but the Code has evolved and it is now understood that the Code addresses the
licensed design professional's responsibilities to ensure life safety. In this revision,
emphasis is placed on evaluation of documentation for verifying mixture characteristics
(22.4.2) and on the acceptance criteria for the concrete delivered to the project (22.5
which is 5.6 in the current code), not on how to proportion concrete mixtures. The
detailed statistical requirements for establishing the basis for selecting mixture
proportions are being removed from the Code because there are appropriate ACI
documents that cover these details. ACI 301 provides these instructions to the contractor,
and ACI 214R, which is referenced in the Commentary, is a resource for routine
statistical quality control analysis and for establishing the required average strength to
ensure a high likelihood of meeting the acceptance criteria. Also, many concrete
producers are capable of using their quality control processes to develop appropriate
mixtures without following the procedure currently called for in the Code. The Code
addresses the responsibilities of the design professional and these prescriptive
requirements on mixture proportioning are directed to the contractor. ACI 301 is the
proper document for these instructions to the contractor. The Code needs only to provide
the general performance requirements for concrete mixtures and the acceptance criteria
for the delivered concrete.
The requirement for the licensed design professional to review some mixtures has been in
the Code for a long time. ACI 318-89 contained the following provision:
5.4.1 If data required by 5.3 are not available, concrete proportions shall be
based on water-cement ratio limits in Table 5.4, if approved by the engineer or
architect.
ACI 318A
January, 2012
CA 026
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
This provision has been modified over the years and is still present in ACI 318-11.
5.4.1 If data required by 5.3 are not available, concrete proportions shall be
based upon other experience or information, if approved by the licensed design
professional.
The Code lacks a requirement on what is supposed to be done with the mixture
proportioning documentation that is required to be developed. The proposed change
requires that this information be submitted to the LDP for review. This review is deemed
essential to ensure that the requirements, both for strength and durability, are met by the
proposed concrete mixture. However, nothing in this change proposal alters the
requirement that the concrete producer is ultimately responsible to provide concrete
meeting the acceptance criteria of 22.5.
Suggested Revisions to ACI 318-XX:

NOTE: The following section 22.4 is taken from the Approved Version of Chapter 22
(dated 11-07-28) as posted on the Reorganization web site.
CODE and COMMENTARY (Note that Commentary follows Code sections)
22.4 Proportioning of concrete mixtures

R22.4 Proportioning of concrete mixtures
The 2014 edition of the Code does not include the statistical requirements for
proportioning concrete that were in previous editions. The Committee believes that this
information does not belong in the Code because it is not a responsibility of the licensed
design professional to proportion concrete mixtures. Further, this information is
available in other ACI documents, such as ACI 301 and ACI 214R. Finally, the quality
control procedures of some concrete producers allow meeting the acceptance criteria of
the Code without following the exact process that has been included in previous editions
of the Code.
83
22.4.1 Selection of concrete proportions
84
85
86
87
22.4.1.1 Proportions of materials for concrete shall be established so that the

concrete is in accordance with (a), (b), and (c): <5.2.1> Concrete mixture
proportions shall be established so that the concrete satisfies (a) through (c):
88
89
90
(a) Provides workability and consistency to permit concrete to be worked

readily into forms and around reinforcement under conditions of placement to
be used, without segregation or excessive bleeding;
ACI 318A
January, 2012
CA 026
91
92
(a) Can be placed readily without segregation into forms and around
reinforcement under placement conditions to be used;
93
94
(b) Meets requirements for applicable assigned exposure classes of Chapter

5;
95
(c) Conforms to strength test requirements of 22.5.
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
R22.4.1 Selection of concrete proportions

R22.4.1.1 This section provides requirements for developing mixture proportions. The
concrete has to have workability that is appropriate for the intended placement and
consolidation methods and it has to meet the durability and strength requirements of the
Code. The term "without segregation" is intended to provide for a cohesive mixture in
which aggregates remain well distributed until setting occurs. It is recognized that some
segregation in the form of bleeding will occur. The required workability will depend on
reinforcement congestion, member geometry, and the placement and consolidation
methods to be used. Requirements of the contractor should be considered in establishing
required workability of the concrete.
The Code does not include provisions for especially severe exposures, such as chemical
contact, high temperatures, temporary freezing and thawing conditions during the
construction period, abrasive conditions, alkali-aggregate reactions, or other unique
durability considerations pertinent to the structure. Also, the Code does not address
aesthetic considerations such as surface finishes. If applicable, these items should be
covered specifically in the contract documents.
22.4.1.2 -- Concrete mixture proportions shall be established in accordance with
Section 4 of ACI 301 or by an alternative method acceptable to the licensed
design professional. Alternative methods shall have a probability of meeting the
requirements of 22.5.3.2 that meets or exceeds the probability associated with
the method in ACI 301.
R22.4.1.2 Section 4 of ACI 301 contains the statistical procedures for selecting the
required average strength that were included previously in the Code. The exception
allows the concrete producer to provide evidence that the concrete can be proportioned
by an alternative method to meet the project requirements and the acceptance criteria of
22.5. The Code presumes that the probability of failure to meet the acceptance criteria in
22.5.3.2 is not more than 1 in 100. Following the method of proportioning in ACI 301
will maintain this level of risk. A key factor in evaluating any proposed alternative
proportioning method would be its ability to preserve this presumed level of risk. Refer
to ACI 214R22.8 additional information.
22.4.1.2 3 Cementitious Concrete materials used in the Work shall correspond
to those used in selecting to develop concrete mixture proportions. <3.2.2>
3
ACI 318A
January, 2012
CA 026
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
22.4.1.3 4 If different materials concrete mixtures are to be used for different

portions of proposed Work, each combination mixture shall comply with 22.4.1.1.
<5.2.2>
R22.4.1.4If more than one concrete mixture is used for the project, each mixture is
required to satisfy Code requirements. A change in concrete constituents, such as sources
or types of cementitious materials, aggregates, or admixtures, is considered a different
mixture. A minor change in mixture proportions made in response to field conditions is
not considered a new mixture.
22.4.1.4 Once fc has been determined based on strength requirements or
durability, concrete mixture proportions for the required average compressive
strength, f'cr, shall be established in accordance with 22.4.2 or 22.4.3. <5.2.3>
22.4.1.5 Requirements Verification that the requirements for fc are satisfied
shall be based on tests results of cylinders made, cured, and tested as
prescribed in 22.5.3.
<5.1.2>
22.4.2 Establishing f'cr based on field experience
Delete this entire section
22.4.2.1 Sample standard deviation

22.4.2.1.1 If a concrete production facility has strength test records less than 12
months old, a sample standard deviation, ss, shall be established for determination of f'cr.
Test records from which ss is calculated shall be in accordance with (a) through (c):
<5.3.1.1>
(a) Represent materials, quality control procedures, and conditions similar to
those expected; and changes in materials and proportions within the test records
shall not have been more restrictive than those for proposed Work;
(b) Represent concrete produced to meet a specified compressive strength or
strengths within 1000 psi of fc;
(c) Consist of at least 30 consecutive tests or two groups of consecutive tests
totaling at least 30 tests as defined in 22.5.1.1, except as provided in 22.4.2.1.2.
22.4.2.1.2 If a concrete production facility does not have strength test records meeting
requirements of 22.4.2.1.1(c), but does have test records less than 12 months old based on
15 to 29 consecutive tests, ss shall be established as the product of the standard deviation
calculated from the smaller number of tests and the corresponding modification factor of
Table 22.4.2.1.2. To be acceptable, test records shall meet requirements (a) and (b) of
ACI 318A
January, 2012
CA 026
180
181
182
183
184
185
22.4.2.1.1, and represent only a single record of consecutive tests that span a period of at
least 45 calendar days. <5.3.1.2> <Table 5.3.1.2>
Table 22.4.2.1.2 Modification factor for sample
standard deviation if fewer than 30 tests
are available
Modification factor
No. of tests*
15
20
25
30
1.16
1.08
1.03
1.00
*Interpolate for intermediate numbers of tests.
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
22.4.2.2 Required average strength

22.4.2.2.1 Required average compressive strength, fcr,used as the basis for selection
of concrete proportions shall be determined from Table 22.4.2.2.1 using the sample
standard deviation, ss, calculated in accordance with 22.4.2.1. <5.3.2.1> <Table 5.3.2.1>
Table 22.4.2.2.1 Required average compressive strength if
data are available to establish a sample standard deviation
fc, psi
fcr, psi
fc 5000
The greater of fc + 1.34ss

(a) and (b):
fc + 2.33ss 500
fc > 5000
The greater of
(c) and (d):
22.4.2.2.1(a)
22.4.2.2.1(b)
fc + 1.34ss
22.4.2.2.1(c)
0.90 fc + 2.33ss
22.4.2.2.1(d)
22.4.3 Establishing f'cr without field experience Delete this entire section
22.4.3.1 If a concrete production facility does not have field strength test records for
calculation of ss meeting requirements of 22.4.2.1, fcr shall be determined from Table
22.4.3.1 and documentation of average strength shall be in accordance with requirements
of 22.4.4.3. <5.3.2.2> <Table 5.3.2.2>
Table 22.4.3.1 Required average
compressive strength if data are not available to
establish a sample standard deviation
fc, psi
fcr, psi
5
ACI 318A
January, 2012
CA 026
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
fc < 3000
fc + 1000
22.4.2.2.2(a)
3000 fc 5000
fc + 1200
22.4.2.2.2(b)
fc > 5000
1.10 fc + 700
22.4.2.2.2(c)
22.4.4 Documentation of average compressive strength Delete this entire section

22.4.4.1 Documentation that proposed concrete proportions will produce an average
compressive strength equal to or greater than required average compressive strength, fcr,
shall consist of a field strength test record, several strength test records, or trial mixtures.
<5.3.3>
22.4.4.2 If test records in accordance with 22.4.2.1 are used to demonstrate that
proposed concrete proportions will produce fcr, such records shall comply with (a)
through (c): <5.3.3.1>
220
221
222
(a) Materials and conditions shall be similar to those expected. Changes in

materials, conditions, and proportions within the test records shall not have been
more restrictive than those for proposed Work;
223
224
225
(b) For the purpose of documenting average strength potential, test records
consisting of between 10 and 30 consecutive tests are acceptable, provided test
records encompass a period of time of at least 45 days;
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
(c) Required concrete proportions shall be permitted to be established by

interpolation between the strengths and proportions of two or more test records,
each of which meets the other requirements of this section.
22.4.4.3 If an acceptable record of field test results to document f'cr is not available,
concrete proportions established from trial mixtures meeting (a) through (e) shall be
permitted: <5.3.3.2>
(a) Materials shall be those for the proposed Work.
(b) Trial mixtures shall include a range of proportions that will produce a range of
compressive strengths including fcr;
(c) Trial mixtures shall have slumps within the range required for the proposed
Work.
For air-entrained concrete, air content shall be within the tolerance
specified for the
proposed Work;
(d) For each trial mixture, at least two 6 x 12 in. or three 4 x 8 in. cylinders shall
be
made and cured in accordance with ASTM C192. Cylinders shall be tested at 28
days or
at test age designated for fc;
ACI 318A
January, 2012
CA 026
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
(e) The compressive strength results, at designated test age, from the trial
mixtures shall be used to establish the composition of the concrete mixture proposed for
the Work.
22.4.5 Proportioning without field experience or trial mixtures Delete this entire
section
22.4.5.1 If data required by 22.4.2 are not available, and if f'c is not greater than 5,000
psi, concrete proportions shall be based on other experience or information, if approved
by the Licensed Design Professional. The required average compressive strength, fcr, of
concrete produced with materials similar to those proposed for use shall be at least 1200
psi greater than fc. <5.4.1>
22.4.6 Reduction in required average compressive strength Delete this entire
section
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
22.4.6.1 As data become available during construction, it shall be permitted to reduce

the amount by which the required average concrete strength fcr must exceed fc, provided
the durability requirements of 5.3 are met and (a) or (b) are satisfied. <5.5>
(a) Thirty or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that
required by 22.4.2.2.1, using a sample standard deviation, ss, calculated in
accordance with 22.4.2.1.1;
(b) Fifteen to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that
required by 22.4.2.2.1 using ss calculated in accordance with 22.4.2.1.2;
22.4.2 Documentation of concrete mixture performance characteristics
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
22.4.2.1 Documentation of concrete mixture characteristics shall be reviewed

by the licensed design professional before the mixture is used and before
making changes to mixtures already in use. Evidence of the ability of the
proposed mixture to comply with the requirements of 22.4.1.1 shall be included in
the documentation. The evidence shall be based on field test records or
laboratory trial batches. Field or laboratory data shall be based on materials
intended to be used in the proposed Work. Field test records shall represent
conditions similar to those anticipated during the proposed Work.
285
286
287
288
289
R22.4.2.1 Review of the proposed concrete mixture is necessary to ensure that it is

appropriate for the project and meets all of the requirements as established by the
licensed design professional for strength and durability. The licensed design professional
typically reviews the documentation on a proposed concrete mixture to evaluate the
likelihood that the concrete will meet the acceptance requirements of 22.5 and includes
7
ACI 318A
January, 2012
CA 026
290
291
acceptable materials. The statistical principles discussed in ACI 214R can be useful in
evaluating the likelihood that a proposed mixture will meet the requirements of 22.5.
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
22.4.5.1 2.2 If field or laboratory data required by 22.4.2 are not available, and
fc is not greater than 5,000 psi, concrete proportions shall be based on other
experience or information, if approved by the licensed design professional. If fc
exceeds 5,000 psi, test data documenting the characteristics of the proposed
mixtures are required. The required average compressive strength, fcr, of
concrete produced with materials similar to those proposed for use shall be at
least 1200 psi greater than fc. <based on 5.4.1>
300
301
Note: This provision requiring the LDP to review the concrete mixture under the
cited circumstances has been in the Code since at least 318-89.
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
R22.4.2.2 If f'c is not greater than 5000 psi and test data are not available, concrete
mixture proportions should be established to produce a sufficiently high average strength
such that the likelihood that the concrete would not meet the strength acceptance criteria
would be an acceptably low probability. Guidance on an appropriate average strength is
provided in ACI 214R. The purpose of this provision is to allow work to continue when
there is an unexpected interruption in concrete supply and there is not sufficient time for
testing and evaluation or for a small project where the cost of trial mixture data is not
justified.
311
312
313
314
315
22.4.2.3. As data become available during construction, it shall be permitted to

modify a mixture that consistently exceeds the acceptance criteria of 22.5,
provided that acceptable evidence is furnished to the licensed design
professional to demonstrate that the modified mixture will comply with the
requirements of 22.4.1.1. <based on 5.5>
316
317
318
319
320
R22.4.2.3 Often, at the beginning of a project, concrete mixtures will be proportioned

conservatively to ensure passing acceptance criteria. As test data showing actual
variability become available, it may be appropriate to proportion the mixture to be less
conservative. See ACI 214 R22.8 for guidance.
22.5 Evaluation and acceptance of concrete.
321
322
Note: This section and remainder of chapter are unchanged by this proposal.
Section 22.5.3 is provided for reference only.
323
324
325
326
327
22.5.3 Acceptance criteria for standard-cured specimens

22.5.3.1 Specimens for acceptance tests shall be in accordance with (a) and
(b):
8
ACI 318A
January, 2012
CA 026
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
(a) Sampling of concrete for strength test specimens shall be in

accordance with ASTM C172; <5.6.3.1>
(b) Cylinders for strength tests shall be made and standard cured in
accordance with ASTM C31 and tested in accordance with ASTM C39.
Cylinders shall be 4 x 8 in. or 6 x 12 in. <5.6.3.2>
22.5.3.2 Strength level of an individual class of concrete shall be acceptable if
(a) and (b) are satisfied: <5.6.3.3>
(a) Every arithmetic average of any three consecutive strength tests
equals or exceeds fc;
(b) No strength test falls below fc by more than 500 psi if fc is 5000 psi or
less; or by more than 0.10 fc if fc is greater than 5000 psi.
22.5.3.3 If the requirements of 22.5.3.2 are not satisfied, steps shall be taken
to increase the average of subsequent strength test results. <5.6.3.4>
347
ACI 318-14
Ballot LB12-2 Sorted Comments
Issued: February 11, 2012

Revised February 13, 2012
March 13, 2012
Due Date: Monday, March 12, 2012
Sorted Comments for ACI 318 Ballot LB12-2

As of March 13, 2012
NOTE: This version contains FINAL responses as approved during the 318 meeting in Dallas.
Last Name
Submittal
#
Becker
CA026
Vote:
Y
Line
C*
Comments
#
N**
A
0
N
I reiterate my previous negative about any requirement that
the LDP has to review a concrete mix before it can be used. I
do not agree with the implication that this has been in 318
since at least 89. The reference to 5.4.1 can (and I believe
should) be interpreted as the LDP allowing a different
procedure. The current language does not require review of
the mix design or review of the documentation for a mix
design. Other than this, I would support the proposal.
Roger is concerned that on small and medium sized projects,
there should not be a requirement for submitting mixture
proportions. He would withdraw his negative if Sub A makes
the requirement to mix submittal as an optional for the LDP to
specify in Chapter 23.
Line 272.
Much discussion on recommended language. Only resolved
by returning to original and finding Roger NP. Found NP,
language remains same as balloted.
22.4.2.1 Documentation of concrete mixture

characteristics shall be reviewed by the licensed
design professional before the mixture is used and
before making changes to mixtures already in use.
Documentation shall demonstrate the ability of the
proposed mixture to comply with the requirements
of 22.4.1.1.
Jirsa
CA026
I appreciated the inclusion of the commentary material.

OK
Wyllie
CA026
My pervious negative vote on this issue was ruled Non

Persuasive by Sub A. See my comments on page 6330. I
am willing to work with Sub A, but I believe too many LDPs
do not understand concrete mixture design and since they
only have ACI 318 on their desk that may be their only
reference. We need to maintain enough in code and
commentary to help this marginal LDP understand what a
LDP needs to know. My response to Sub As NP is a NP
back.
Found NP.
ACI 318-14
Corley

CA026
54
March 13, 2012
This gives no guidance to the LDP.

The line cited is an excerpt from the current Code that is
included in the Background statement. Negative withdrawn
French
CA026
77
Change to:
This edition of tThe 2014 does not include
OK, make editorial change.
Wood
CA026
81
Suggest changing available elsewhere in ACI documents to

available in other ACI documents. Also suggest adding a
comma after documents.
OK, make editorial change
French
CA026
84
Change to included previously in previous editions of the

Code.
Wyllie
CA026
84
This commentary is a good start but lets add a sentence that

this section will attempt to give guidance to LDP on preparing
specifications and review concrete mixture designs.
Find NP. Found NP
1. Code is not a textbook
2. LDP does not prepare concrete proportions
3. Specification exists Section 4 of ACI 301
Rabbat
CA026
96
The LDP specifies an exposure class. An exposure category

is not sufficient. Change:
assigned exposure categories classes
Correct, editorial change. Negative withdrawn based on
changes.
Rabbat
CA026
103
Where are the general requirements listed?

Withdrawn based upon changes.
This section provides requirements
French
CA026
107
Change to remain well distributed until setting occurs.

Otherwise it sounds like the aggregates just remain welldistributed until setting and then they segregate.
Leave as is aggregate wont be moving around after
setting!
Parra
CA026
107
Change The Code recognizes to It is recognized

Wyllie
CA026
110
Delete this sentence that the contractor is in the best

position. I have experienced too many contractors not in
that position who only want to add water so the concrete will
flow better in the forms.
Negative withdrawn based upon changes during

318 meeting.
The required workability will depend on
ACI 318-14
March 13, 2012
reinforcement congestion, member geometry, and

the placement and consolidation methods to be
used. Requirements of the contractor should be
considered in establishing required workability of
the concrete.
French
CA026
113
This sentence needs to be reworded so that the items are

parallel. When you list the examples of exposures rather than
saying chemicals should it be chemical contact
abrasion resistance isnt an example of exposure, it is a
quality of the concreteshould it be abrasive conditions?
Etc.
OK, make editorial changes. Negative withdrawn based on
changes.
Cook
CA026
121
The shall be reference to Part 4 of ACI 310 satisfies my

previous negative since that does give the same statistical
requirements for the concrete as in ACI 318-11 Chapter 5.
My problem is with the blanket statement or by an
alternative method acceptable to the licensed design
professional. The current statistical requirement is fcr = fc
+1.34s so basically the designer is insured that fc = fcr
1.34s. This nominal concrete strength goes hand in hand
with the ACI 318 values for . If the licensed design
professional decided to go with fcr = fc +1.0s without
changing then I think the overall reliability of the design
decreases. I know in Appendix D we require alternative
methods to use the same 5% fractile as built into the
Appendix D equations and that a 5% fractile with 90%
confidence is the mean 1.64s. I am not sure what fractile
fcr 1.34s represents but any alternative method needs to be
required to maintain this or reduce accordingly.
My negative can be resolved any one of the following:
1. Deleting or by an alternative method acceptable to
the licensed design professional.
2. Requiring that the LCD reduce factors if the
alternative method does not produce the same
fractile value for fc as the ACI 301 method.
Show that the 22.5 field tests alone insure that the original
ACI 318 statistical requirements for fc have been met
regardless of whatever alternative method is used.
Withdrawn upon change
22.4.1.2 -- Concrete mixture proportions shall be

established in accordance with Section 4 of ACI
301 or by an alternative method acceptable to the
licensed design professional. Alternative methods
ACI 318-14
March 13, 2012
shall have a probability of meeting the

requirements of 22.5.3.2 that meets or exceeds
the probability associated with the method in ACI
301.
R22.4.1.2 Section 4 of ACI 301 contains the
statistical procedures for selecting the required average
strength that were included previously in the Code.
The exception allows the concrete producer to provide
evidence that the concrete can be proportioned by an
alternative method to meet the project requirements and
the acceptance criteria of 22.5. The Code presumes that
the probability of failure to meet the acceptance criteria
in 22.5.3.2 is not more than 1 in 100. Following the
method of proportioning in ACI 301 will maintain this
level of risk. A key factor in evaluating any proposed
alternative proportioning method would be its ability to
preserve this presumed level of risk. Refer to ACI
214R for additional information.
French
CA026
121
Should there be a year associated with ACI 310?

Actually ACI 301; year will be added in reference section.
Must not be worded that ACI 301 is adopted as part of this
Code.
French
CA026
124
Should there be a year associated with ACI 310?

Actually ACI 301; year will be added in reference section.
Must not be worded that ACI 301 is adopted as part of this
Code.
Rabbat
CA026
124
Provide on Line 129 the citation for ACI 301 to be listed in

Chapter 3, Referenced Standards.
ACI 301 will be added as a reference for both Code and
Commentary. In Code, must not be worded that ACI 301 is
adopted as part of this Code.
Wyllie
CA026
124
Good start. Add a long paragraph for my LDP who only

reads 318 about the process, experience data, test mixes,
etc, in the order they should be used.
Find NP Found NP. Code is not a textbook. ACI 301
provides specification language to be used.
Wyllie
CA026
130
The term Work is not code language. Sounds like a

government specification. Rather than adding yet another
definition, change this Work to structure and the work on
line 134 to project.
Withdrawn upon discussion.
Dolan
CA026
134
As written the clause is not enforceable since it only says the

mixture has to be evaluated. I suggest adding in
accordance with 24.4.1.1 to provide an acceptance criterion.
ACI 318-14
March 13, 2012
Resolved. See Rabbat line 134

Rabbat
CA026
134
Some clarification is needed. Is each mixture evaluated or

reviewed and approved by the LDP per 22.4.2.1?
Withdrawn based upon changes.

If different concrete mixtures are to be used for
different portions of proposed Work, each
combination mixture shall be evaluated comply
with 24.4.1.1.
Rabbat
CA026
140
Define minor change.

Discuss. How about something along the lines of A minor
change in mixture proportions, such as in the ratio of fine to
coarse aggregate or admixture dosages, made in response to
Withdrawn upon discussion
French
CA026
274
Can documents demonstrate?

Suggest changing to:
Evidence of the ability of the proposed mixture to comply with
the requirements of 22.4.1.1 shall be included in the
documentation. The evidence shall be based on field test
records or laboratory trial batches.
OK, make editorial changes. Negative withdrawn based on
chaanges.
French
CA026
281
Change to Review of the proposed concrete mixture is

necessary to ensure that the mixture it
OK, make editorial changes
Rabbat
CA026
290
When field or laboratory data are not available, is review of

the mixes based on specified or required strength? R22.4.2.2
implicitly requires knowledge of the required strength that
was provided in the deleted Table 22.4.3.1.
Withdrawn after discussion.
Corley
CA026
292
This is too vague. Refer to 214R in code.

Withdrawn. Cannot refer to 214R in the Code
French
CA026
295
Change to Documenting the characteristics of the proposed

mixtures
French
CA026
303
Reword such that there will be a high likelihood that the

concrete will meet the strength acceptance criteria
high likelihood makes it sound like there is a big chance it
might not meet the criteria.
Consider turning the sentence around to say:
such that the likelihood that the concrete would not meet the
strength acceptance criteria would be an acceptably low
ACI 318-14
March 13, 2012
probability
Wyllie
CA026
315
This proposed Commentary sentence says same as the

code. Can you be a bit more creative and helpful?
Agree. How about: Often, at the beginning of a project,
concrete mixtures will be proportioned conservatively to
ensure passing acceptance criteria. As test data showing
actual variability become available, it may be appropriate to
proportion the mixture to be less conservative. See ACI 214
R for guidance.
Withdrawn based upon change
Wyllie
CA026
346
Too much has been deleted, I believe. We need to retain

most of old 5.6, requiring concrete to be tested, the
frequency, number of cylinders, what a standard-cured
specimen is, etc. etc Maybe some of this is retained before
Sub A cleaned out Chapter 22 but these provisions must be
retained.
Withdrawn.
These items were not deleted. They now follow the revised
section on proportioning. They are included in the approved
Chapter 22 that is posted on the web site.
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
1.
2.
Name
Ballot
Item
[DRAFT RESPONSES TO NEGATIVES AND COMMENTS 4/8/12]

Pg #
Holland
Barth
4.
Carino
Y/C
R
5.2.1
33
R
5.2.1
36
38
38
R
5.2.1
6.
Y/C or
N
Barth
3.
5.
Line #
Barth
Lobo
38
Y/C
Due Date: 29 February, 2012
Comment
Proposed Response
We need to add the source of the commentary

sections as was done for the code sections:
<x.x.x> I have identified most of the source
sections and will make my comments available
when this is prepared to go to 318.
Agree that Terry should do this.
Since this chapter no longer includes mixing,

consider:
Requirements for concrete
productionmixtures are based on
Rest of old commentary (318-11) R 5.1 are
missing and need to be in the code somewhere,
could be good introduction to this chapter.
Delete "and 22.5" because only 22.4 deals with
proportioning. Section 22.5 is on acceptance.
The statement as written does not appear
correct as we could use anything in design not
necessary linked with production of the
concrete. The original text in R 5.1.1 is appears
better.
Consider:
It is emphasized that tThe average
compressive strength of concrete as produced in
accordance with 22.4 and 22.5 willshould
always exceed the value of fc used in the
structural design calculations.
Retain original wording. The chapter does

provide requirements for the mixtures to be
produced, and we are looking to remove
information on how the concrete should be
produced.
Assume this refers to the first paragraph of the
old commentary R5.1 (ACI 318-11). This
material would seem more appropriate for
Chapter 1 and Chapter 22.
Agree that and 22.5 should be deleted.
Persuasive. Revise as follows:
Concrete mixtures proportioned in accordance
with 22.4 should achieve an average
compressive strength that exceeds the value of
fc used in the structural design calculations.
Suggest the following revision. The strength

See response to Barth comment on Line 38 (No.
target of the mix is as proportioned and not as
5)
produced.
The concrete mixture is proportioned to achieve
an average compressive strength in accordance
with 22.4 and 22.5 and will always exceed the
1 of 12
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
Name
Ballot
Item

Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
Comment

Proposed Response
value of fc used in the structural design

calculations.
Holland
7.
8.
Holland
9.
Lobo
39
39
Y/C
39
Y/C
10.
Carino
40
11.
Carino
42
Not clear on this negative? The term required

The required average strength is a term that is
average strength is not used.
no longer used in the code. Need to rewrite this
sentence.
Negative Withdrawn.
Dont understand the will always exceed
The existing language in R5.1 is should always
comment that has been inserted. Was this
exceed. See response to Barth comment on
existing language or was this something new
Line 38 (No. 5)
that was inserted? Need to clarify what is
intended here.
Agree. Suggest the following wording:
Suggest the following revision. The value by
which the average strength of concrete exceeds
The amount by which the average strength of
fc is based on probabilistic concepts. When
concrete exceeds fc is based on probabilistic
concrete is designed to achieve this strength
concepts. When concrete is designed to achieve
level, it ensures that the concrete strength tests
this strength level, it ensures that the concrete
will have a high probability of meeting the
strength tests will have a high probability of
strength acceptance criteria in 22.5 and
meeting the strength acceptance criteria in
provide the specified design strength in the
22.5.
member.
I don't agree with the statement as written. The
over strength is to ensure a high likelihood of
passing the acceptance criteria. The end result
is that about 90 % of the concrete has to have a
strength in excess of f'c. Revise as follows:
"The required excess strength is based on
probabilistic concepts, and is intended to ensure
a high likelihood that concrete strength test
results will meet the acceptance criteria in
22.5."
We could also refer to ACI 214R.
I think this sentence can also be changed to
better reflect the intended meaning. We do not
2 of 12
Persuasive. See response to Lobos comment on

Line 39. (No. 9)
Persuasive. Change to read:
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
Name
Ballot
Item

Pg #
R
5.2.1
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Line #
Y/C or
N
46
Barth
Gleich
Lobo
46
Meyer
Carino
R
5.2.1
17.
Barth
18.
Carino
46
Comment
Proposed Response
have a acceptance requirement on average

concrete strength.
"The durability requirements prescribed in
Table 5.3.2 are to be satisfied in addition to
meeting the minimum specified strength
requirements of 5.2.1."
First sentence is unclear when it is difficult to
determine the w/cm.
Consider:
Because it is difficult to accurately determine
the w/cm of concrete at any time, the fc
specified should be reasonably consistent with
the w/cm required for durability.
Through line 47: Why is it difficult to
determine the w/CM of concrete? Do we know
what reasonable w/cm to strength is? If so
should we tell the less knowledgeable?
"The durability requirements prescribed in

Table 5.3.2 are to be satisfied in addition to
meeting the minimum specified strength
requirements of 5.2.1."
Move the discussion on w/cm (46-60) to

commentary associated with durability 5.3
46
Y/C
2
2
47
47
C
N
47
Also on lines 49, 58 and 375, the formatting for

fc' did not take.
Delete "reasonably". It adds nothing.
The second sentence states that if you select an
fc consistent with w/cm you will not exceed in
the field. That may not be true when water is
added in the field, hence the addition of likely
Consider:
Selection of an fc that is consistent with the
maximum permitted w/cm for durability will
help ensure that the maximum w/cm is likely
not exceeded in the field.
I think we need more words to explain the
intent of this sentence. The idea is to use
3 of 12
Agree that the wording could be improved.

Revise as follows:
Because it is difficult to accurately verify
determine the w/cm of concrete,
No change. This could require significant
additional wording. The Code is not a textbook.
The existing wording makes the point.
Persuasive. Move section and coordinate with
Line 156. See response to Lobo negative on
Line 156 (No. 41).
Staff to handle.
Agree. Delete reasonably
See response to Carinos negative on Line 47
(No. 18).
Persuasive. Reword as follows:
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
Name
Ballot
Item
R
5.2.1
19.
20.
21.
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
49
49
Y/C
Barth
Holland
Carino
50
Holland
22.
23.
24.
25.
Gleich
50
Y/C
55
55
Carino
Bondy
82
Y/C
Comment
Proposed Response
compressive strength evaluation as a surrogate

for w/cm determination.
"Selection of an f'c that is consistent with the
maximum permitted w/cm for durability will
help ensure that the results of strength tests can
be used as indications that the maximum w/cm
is not exceeded in the field."
Disagree with example! Designers always note
the required average compressive strength for
concrete and provide maximums limits w/cm.
Remove example or rewrite.
Selection of an fc that is consistent with the

maximum w/cm required for durability will
permit results of strength tests to be used as a
surrogate for w/cm, and thus help ensure that
the maximum w/cm is not exceeded in the field.
Change would back to should as in current

code.
I really don't understand how having test results
higher than the specified strength can result in
concrete exceeding the w/cm limits. I have no
suggestion, because I don't know what we are
trying to say. Either revise the sentence so the
explanation is clear or delete it.
The sentence starting with Because needs
help. Consider an introductory portion: If the
w/cm and fc do not agree I think this is
what the original is trying to say.
Through line 60: I dont understand why the
w/cm cant be specified for lightweight
concrete other then the foot note?
I think this should be moved to R5.3.2. Section
5.2.1 is addressing the selection of specified
strength.
Agree. Change would to should
Suggest for consistency with the rest of the

sentence, R5.2.2 The modulus of elasticity
4 of 12
Persuasive. See change made in response to

Holland comment on Line 49 (No. 20).
Persuasive. This is current Code wording, but it

is not clear. Delete the sentence.
See response to Carino negative on Line 50

(No. 21).
New Business
Nonpersuasive. Section 5.2.1 also references
durability. And this commentary language fits
with the discussion of strength and w/cm.
Negative Withdrawn
No change. Section 5.2.2.1 uses modulus of
elasticity for concrete so the existing wording
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
Name
Ballot
Item

Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
Comment
26.
82
27.
Lobo
28.
Carino
Gleich
29.
Hooton
82
83
83
84
85
Carino
Y/C
30.
31.
Y/C
Proposed Response
seems consistent.
Assume this refers to R8.5.1. Agree the omitted
sentence should be added back. It would read:
This commentary is from R8.5.2. Why was the Studies leading to the expression for modulus
first portion of that section omitted? It seems to of elasticity of concrete in 5.2.2 are summarized
provide useful information.
in Reference 5.x where Ec was defined as the
slope of the line drawn from a stress of zero to
a compressive stress of 0.45fc.
Consider including information in first sentence Agree. See response to Holland comment on
of R8.5.1
Line 82 (No. 26).
Insert "elastic" before "modulus".
Agree. Insert elastic
Through line 84: I have seen lower measured
modulus of concrete and it has been verified
No Change. New Business
since 1976 to be as low as 60 percent of
calculated
I am surprised that measurement of E modulus
Nonpersuasive. This requires change in the
by ASTM C469 is only mentioned in the
current Code. Take up as New Business.
Commentary R.5.2.2. Why isnt there an option
(c) in 5.2.2 that allows for direct measurement
of E, rather than only allowing calculation
options?
We need to have more information to indicate
Persuasive. See response to Holland comment
that Eq. 5.2.2.1.a is an approximation and does on Line 82 (No. 26). Also see response to
not account for all the factors that affect elastic Hooton negative on Line 84 (No. 30).
modulus. In situations where elastic modulus is
a critical design parameter, tests should be
conducted with the concrete materials similar
those that might be used in construction to
verify that the estimated elastic modulus is
accurate. We should restore the reference to the
work by Pauw so we don't lose track of the
basis of this equation. Without such
information, Eq. 5.2.2.1.a is going to take on an
exactness that is not warranted.
5 of 12
for of concrete
Holland
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
Name
Ballot
Item
Hooton
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
32.
33.
89
Lobo
Holland
89
106
N
N
Comment
Proposed Response
There is no option to measure modulus of

rupture directly in this clause. So you are only
allowed to estimate MOR by calculation? At
least a Commentary should be added to mention
ASTM C78 in a similar fashion to E modulus in
5.2.2.
Nonpersuasive. This would require a change in

the current Code. Take up as New Business.
(Note, it is not clear that ASTM C78 would
always be appropriate for determining MOR.)
Add commentary to indicate the reason for

estimating fr. Suggest: The modulus of rupture
is used in this Code to estimate immediate
deflection (provide code reference equivalent to
9.5.2.3)
There is a note in the approved version of this
chapter regarding 5.2.4.2. This note should be
included Until the issue is resolved. Are we
considering that the issue raised in the note has
been resolved by the commentary for 5.4.2?
Nonpersuasive. Such language does not need to

be located in this section. It does not impact the
equation in 5.2.3.1. If added it should be located
where fr is used.
There is commentary at current R5.1.5 that

6 of 12
Persuasive. Add the following:
34.
35.
Holland
115
Reinsert Note
The note states:
Note: Sub A agrees with the voters for
Comments 67 through 74 in 318 LB 10-1
regarding Section 5.2.4.2. A change is being
processed to address these issues. Because this
is a major change, we prefer to propose the
changes using the normal change process
showing proposed changes to the code and
commentary and the supporting background
information. In the interim, Subcommittee A
believes that the balloted wording is acceptable
and is an improvement of current provisions in
5.1.4 and 8.6.1 in ACI 318-08. Note that the
balloted wording in 5.2.4.2 does not present any
technical changes. It is simply an editorial
revision to combine the provisions of 5.1.4 and
8.6.1.
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
Name
Ballot
Item
R.
5.2.4
36.
37.
38.
39.

Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
118
118
Barth
Carino
Gleich
Carino
130
130
Comment
Proposed Response
should be added for 5.2.4.3.
R5.2.4.3 Tests for splitting tensile strength of

concrete (as required by 5.2.4.2) are not
intended for control of, or acceptance of, the
strength of concrete in the field. Indirect control
will be maintained through the normal
compressive strength test requirements
provided by 22.5.
See response to Carino comment on Line 118
(No. 37).
Editorial, consider:
A reduction factor, , must be used fFor the
design using lightweight concrete to reflect the
lower tensile strength of lightweight concrete
which can reducedue to it inherrent, shear
strength, friction properties, splitting resistance,
bond between concrete and reinforcement, and
development length requirements compared
with normalweight concrete of the same
compressive strength.are not taken as
equivalent to normalweight concrete of the
same compressive strength. A reduction factor,
, must be used.
Delete the last sentence on line 122, and revise
as follows:
"The modification factor is used to account
for the lower tensile-to-compressive strength
ratio of lightweight concrete compared with
normalweight concrete."
Through line 135: Can the answer for l be
higher than 1?
In using Eq. 5.2.4.2, fct has to be the splitting
tensile strength corresponding to concrete with
average compressive strength equal to the
specified strength. Revise as follows:
"The second alternative to determine is based
on laboratory tests of the lightweight concrete
7 of 12
Agree. Change last sentence to read:

"The modification factor is used to account
for the lower tensile-to-compressive strength
ratio of lightweight concrete compared with
normalweight concrete."
No change. Comment not clear. What is
requested?
Persuasive. Replace the sentence starting on
Line 130 with the following:
"The second alternative to determine is based
on laboratory tests of the lightweight concrete
having an average compressive strength
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
40.
41.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Bondy
Lobo
135
156
42.
Line #
160
Y/C or
N
Y/C
Carino
Comment
Proposed Response
having an average compressive strength equal

to the specified strength used in the design."
Eventually we are going to have to address the
incorrect use of fc here.
As suggested consider including the discussion
on w/cm from lines 46-60 before 156. Also
suggest this wording as a lead in: Durability of
concrete addressed in this Code is impacted by
the permeability and diffusion of chemicals in
water-saturated concrete. Reduced
permeability and diffusion are primarily
impacted by w/cm and the composition of
cementitious materials used in concrete. Use of
fly ash, slag cement and silica fume improve
these characteristics of concrete at the same
w/cm compared to concrete made with portland
cement only. This Code places emphasis on
w/cm for durability requirements. An
alternative performance-based indicator of low
permeability of concrete is ASTM C1202, which
is more reliable in laboratory evaluations than
for field-based acceptance.
Alternatively, this discussion and lines 46-60
can be included prior to line 242.
Retain only the first sentence up to the word
"temperatures". The rest of this deals with
mixture proportioning, which is Chapter 22.
The draft commentary in CA026 includes the
other information.
corresponding to the specified strength used in

the design."
Agree. A proposed change is being processed as
CA111.
Persuasive. Change as follows:
Durability of concrete addressed in this Code is
impacted by the resistance to fluid penetration.
This is primarily affected by w/cm and the
composition of cementitious materials used in
concrete. Use of fly ash, slag cement and silica
fume improve these characteristics of concrete
at the same w/cm compared to concrete made
with portland cement only. This Code places
emphasis on w/cm for achieving low
permeability to meet durability requirements. A
performance-based indicator of resistance to
fluid penetration of concrete is ASTM C1202.
Also add material from Lobo negative on Line
46 (No. 14).
Persuasive. Change first sentence (Line 160) to
read:
The Code does not include provisions for
especially severe exposures, such as acids or
high temperatures.
Delete remainder of paragraph.
43.
Holland
161
Y/C
Editorial change: Change to read:

8 of 12
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
44.
45.
Name
Barth
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
R.
5.3
162
R.5.3
164
166
Y/C
174
174
Y/C
174
Y/C
189
Y/C
217
Barth
Holland
46.
47.
Gleich
1
48.
49.
Fiorato
Holland
Hooton
50.
51.
Carino
Comment
Proposed Response
temperatures, and the Code is not concerned
The original wording fit better:

..and should be covered
specificallyexplicitly in the project
I am not sure if the word any is necessary.
See old text without it. I am OK either way.
.requirements stated in the Code and any the
additional requirements of contract documents.
Delete the title Exposure categories and
classes. There is no corresponding title in the
code.
(No. 42).
(No. 42).
(No. 42).
OK. Delete title (although it would seem a title
makes the Commentary easier to follow).
Agree. See response to Fiorato comment on

Line 174 (No. 48).
Suggest deleting the phrase as defined in Table Agree. Delete as defined in Table 4.2.1
4.2.1 because it is not needed and it adds an
internal reference that must be tracked when
Code changes are made. Case in point, Table
4.2.1 should read Table 5.3.1.
Delete as defined in Table 4.2.1. None of the Agree. See response to Fiorato comment on
other categories have s similar reference.
Line 174 (No. 48).
I believe that columns and walls within 3 or 4
New Business?
feet of horizontal surfaces should be F2
exposure and not F1 as indicated. This is where
snow and ice accumulates in northern climates,
eg. around entrances where there may be a sublevel below and not soil. I think the term in
contact with soil should be replaced with
something like, in contact with soil or
horizontal surfaces where it may be in contact
with snow and ice accumulation.
Table should 5.3.1 not 4.2.1
Revise as follows:
Agree. Change sentence to read:

9 of 12
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
Name
Ballot
Item

Pg #
Holland
Line #
Y/C or
N
242
Y/C
9
9
9
247
252
265
C
C
C
266
52.
53.
54.
Carino
Carino
55.
Carino
56.
Carino
57.
Lobo
275
Y/C
58.
Lobo
276
Y/C
59.
Lobo
10
295
60.
61.
Bondy
Fiorato
1
1
10
295
295
Y
Y/C
Comment

Proposed Response
"Examples of exposures to external sources of

chlorides include concrete in direct contact with Examples of exposures to external sources of
deicing chemicals, salt, salt water, brackish
chlorides include concrete in direct contact
water, seawater, or spray from these sources."
with deicing chemicals, salt, salt water,
brackish water, seawater, or spray from these
sources.
Delete the title: Requirements for concrete by
OK. Delete title (although it is not clear that
exposure class. There is no corresponding title there needs to be a corresponding title in the
in the code.
Code, and a title makes the Commentary easier
to follow).
Delete ", respectively."
Agree. Delete , respectively
Insert "specified" before "strength."
Agree. Insert specified
Revise as follows:
Agree. Change to read:
" and under ASTM C1157 it is Type MS."
" and under ASTM C1157 it is Type MS."
Revise as follows:
Agree. Change to read:
"For Exposure Class S2 (severe exposure),
"For Exposure Class S2 (severe exposure),
Type V cement with a C3A content of up to 5
Type V cement with a C3A content of up to 5
percent is specified."
percent is specified."
Consider whether line 275 to 279 needs to be
No change.
addressed here or moved to R5.3.4.
Suggest including the following: ASTM C1012 The existing sentence clearly refers to
cannot be used to evaluate the improved sulfate combinations of cementitious materials.
resistance of mixtures containing only portland
Consider addition as New Business.
cement.
I prefer not to delete this. This helps evolution
Nonpersuasive. While this may help in the
to performance based requirements. I agree its
evolution of performance-based requirements, it
not in the right place. Consider my comment 6
is informational and not a code requirement.
for moving this statement under a general
What does the LDP do with this statement?
discussion onw/cm.
Negative Withdrawn. See response to Lobo
negative on Line 156 (No. 41).
Approve the strikeout
Agree
Agree that this sentence should be deleted.
Agree
10 of 12
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
62.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Holland
Line #
Y/C or
N
295
Y/C
Comment
Proposed Response
Agree with the proposed deletion regarding

C1202.
Agree
Gleich
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
10
Lobo
Barth
10
R.
5.3.2
303
311
Y/C
Bondy
Browni
ng
Fiorato
Holland
1
1
Lobo
73.
Carino
Suggest this section title be changed to:

Chloride Limits for Exposure Category C.
I notice no decimals if larger than one when
referring to percent. 1 percent looks awkward
written as 1.00 percent but if that is the rule I
am OK.
Delete to line 346. This leads to ambiguity. It
also outdated. ACI 222.1 has been replaced by
ASTM C1524, which deals only with testing
aggregate.
Editorial: add the before same as.
331
11
336
346
Y/C
348
348
Y/C
Why delete?
348
348
Y/C
Y/C
Agree that this sentence should be deleted.

Agree with the proposed deletion regarding
epoxy and zinc covered bars. If we believe this
to be true, it ought to be in the code.
I am fine with this deletion. However, a similar
statement is in line 303.
11
71.
72.
Change the sentence to read epoxy or zinc

coated bars or non-corrosive reinforcement or
cover greater than
10
Carino
Hooton
11
12
348
370
Approve the strikeout
Y/C
Delete the sentence beginning with "Target

11 of 12
Nonpersuasive. Non-corrosive reinforcement is

not defined within the context of the types of
reinforcement permitted by the Code.
New Business
Change title to Chloride Limits for Exposure
Category C
The use of 1.00 is based on the precision of the
limit required in Table 5.3.2.
Persuasive. Delete Lines 336 through 346.

(No. 66).
Agree
Because it implies an exception to a Code
requirement.
Agree
Agree
Point is well taken. However, Line 303 is not
quite as egregious because it does not imply an
exception to the Code. It does say it might be
desirable.
No change.
Persuasive. Delete the following sentence:
Ballot: A01a 2012

No.
Name
74.
Barth
75.
Carino
76.
R.
5.3.3.
1
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
13
375
13
375
13
389
Carino
Hooton
77.
Ballot
Item
1
390
Y/C
Comment
Proposed Response
values" It adds nothing other than to state

that the table has values of target air contents.
Target values are provided for Exposure Class

F1 (moderate) and both Exposure Classes F2
and F3 (severe) exposures depending on the
exposure to moisture or deicing salts.
The use of 1.0 is based on the precision of the
limit required in Section 5.3.3.1.
Reference is made to 1.0 percent single

decimal.?
(See comment page 10 line 331 above)
Revise to: "permits a 1.0 percentage point
lower"
I suggest we explain why we have these limits.
"To mitigate surface scaling, Table 5.3.3.2
establishes limitations on the amount of fly ash,
other pozzolans, silica fume, and slag cement
that can be included in concrete exposed to
deicing chemicals (Exposure Class F3) based
on research studies.4.10,4.11"
I would add another sentence stating that the
limitations in Table 5.3.3.2 are mainly directed
at flatwork, especially where hand finishing is
used.
12 of 12
Agree. Change to "permits a 1.0 percentage

point lower"
Persuasive. Change as follows:
To reduce the risk of deicer scaling,
New Business?
Ballot: A02 2012 Approved Responses to Comments Dallas Meeting

No.
1.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Holland
Line #
Y/C or
N
Y/C
2.
Fiorato
Hooton
43
61
Y/C
3.
4.
Carino
5.
Barth
62
63
Y/C
Due Date: 7 March, 2012
Comment
Task Group Response
We need to add the source of the

commentary sections as was done for
the code sections: <x.x.x> I have
identified most of the source sections
and will make my comments
available when this is prepared to go
to 318.
Suggest revising to read:
R22.3.1.1Type IS (70) is a
blended cement under ASTM C595
that contains slag cement as an
interground component, or slag
cement as a blended component, in a
quantity equal to or exceeding 70
percent by mass.
R22.3.2.2 Comment: I would like to
see long history modified as
follows, long documented history in
similar exposures. If non-spec
aggregates have been used
successfully, this needs to be more
than a hand waving acceptance,
especially regarding freeze/thaw in
wet exposures, and ASR.
The wording can be improved. The
word "long" leads to unnecessary
ambiguity.
"Aggregates conforming to ASTM
specifications are not always
economically available and, in some
instances, noncomplying materials
may have a documented history of
satisfactory performance."
General: I am unclear what the
1 of 16
OK Will be included for Main ballot.

Terry will add them.
OK, make changes as suggested.
OK. See response to #4
OK, revise as follows:

Aggregates conforming to ASTM
specifications are not always economically
available and, in some instances,
noncomplying materials have a long history
of satisfactory performance may have a
documented history of satisfactory
performance under similar exposure."
The 318 editorial guidelines are being used

No.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
Weiss
82
Y/C
Weiss
89
Y/C
90
Y/C
6.
7.
8.
Gerber
R22.3.3
.1
Comment

Task Group Response
steering committees directives are

in making some these word changes.
regarding commentary. Is the
objective to edit and improve
language or import commentary
verbatim at this point to minimize
discussion at the main committee? I
am indifferent to some of the edits,
however, we have managed pass on
the message in the past and I wonder
whether some of the changes such as
the one here from when to if may
justify the possible main committee
discussion. Same hold true for line
65 the change from whenever to if
possible and many others
Should this talk about aggregates
OK, make the following revision: (Line 83)
being screened by the rebar
"The size limitations on aggregates are
provided to ensure proper encasement of
reinforcement and to minimize
honeycombing due to blockage by closelyspaced reinforcement."
Should this talk about silt, algae or
The commentary describes acceptable
sugars. Also should this talk about
potable water. Some of these issues need to
reuse
be addressed in C1602. Add mention of wash
water as an example of nonpotable water:
(line 97)
"ASTM C1602 allows the use of potable
water without testing and includes methods
for qualifying nonpotable sources of water,
such as from concrete production operations,
with consideration of effects on setting time
and strength."
OK, make the following revision:
Propose revising sentence as follows:
Excessive impurities in mixing water
"Excessive impurities in mixing water may
2 of 16

No.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
1
9.
Fiorato
10.
Gerber
11.
Carino
Carino
R22.3.3
.1
12.
13.
14.
Barth
Carino
92
Y/C
92
Y/C
93
94
94
Y/C
95
Comment
Task Group Response
may affect setting time, concrete

strength, and volume stability (length
change), and may also cause
efflorescence or corrosion of
reinforcement.
affect not only setting time, concrete

strength, and volume stability (length
change), butand may also cause
efflorescence or corrosion of reinforcement."
Suggest deleting the following

sentence: Where possible, water
with high concentrations of dissolved
solids should be avoided. It is
ambiguous and ASTM C1602 covers
this issue quantitatively.
Is there a common understanding of
what is meant by high
concentrations of dissolved solids?
Change "Where" to "If."
OK, delete the sentence.

Where possible, water with high
concentrations of dissolved solids should be
avoided.
Move this paragraph to line 101

because it results in a more logical
flow of ideas.
Prefer original text additive over
revised add
The current wording doesn't capture
the intent and is not written clearly.
We only need to convey the idea is
that these additional sources of
impurities need to be considering in
establishing the total impurities in the
concrete. We've already stated that
these impurities may affect
reinforcement. Revise as follows:
"These additional amounts are to be
considered in establishing the total
impurities that may be present in the
concrete."
3 of 16
See #9
See #9
No change. The paragraph in line 94 deals
with admixtures and aggregates, not the
added mixing water.
See #14
No change. The word "additive" following
"admixture" can be confusing.
OK, revise as suggested:
"These additional amounts are to be
considered in evaluating the acceptability of
the total impurities that may be deleterious to
concrete or steel establishing the total
impurities that may be present in the
concrete."

No.
Name
Barth
Ballot
Item
Pg #
17.
126
Y/C
16.
Fiorato
Y/C or
N
15.
Barth
Line #
126
Y/C
1
4
Hooton
126
Y/C
126
Y/C
Comment
Task Group Response
Consider: The presence of chloride

ion may cause produce corrosion of
embedded..
Code 22.3.4.3 includes limitations for
prestressed concrete but the revised
commentary sentence R 22.3.4.3
omitted reference prestressed
concrete?
Suggest rewording as follows:
R22.3.4.3The presence of
chloride ions may produce promote
corrosion of embedded aluminum
R22.3.4.3 Comment: This
commentary does not say anything
about the effects of chloride on
corrosion of prestressing steelsthe
main point of the Code clause. There
should be a sentence added stating
that prestressing steels have a lower
chloride tolerance than rebars and
reference the corrosion document.
See #18
18.
19.
Carino
128
Change "23.X" to "23.6".

4 of 16
See #18
See #18
OK, add the following sentence:

"Corrosion of prestressing steel is of greater
concern than corrosion of nonprestressed
reinforcement because of the possibility of
local reduction in cross section and failure of
the prestressing steel (ACI 222R)22.x. The
presence of chloride ion may produce cause
corrosion of embedded aluminum (e.g.,
conduit), especially if the aluminum is in
contact with embedded steel and the concrete
is in a humid environment. Protection
requirements for embedded aluminum are
given in 23.6."
Add to the reference list:
This will be the first reference that appears in
the Commentary.
22.x ACI Committee 222, Protection of
Metals in Concrete Against Corrosion,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 2001, 41 pp.
OK See #18.

No.
Name
Fiorato
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
20.
4
Hooton
136
Y/C
145
Y/C
146
Y/C
294
Y/C
300
Y/C
21.
Fiorato
22.
4
Hooton
23.
Gerber
24.
R22.5.1
8
Comment

Task Group Response
Should the sentence read: R22.3.4.4

In some cases,The use of
admixtures in concrete
containing?
R22.3.5.1 Comment: Why is there a
concern with steel fibres used with
stainless steel rebars? I am told that
there is no concern with plain rebars
being used in combination with
stainless bars (and certainly being
done by our highway Dept.). So why
are steel fibres thought to be
different, regardless of lack of
references?
Should the second sentence on
galvanic corrosion be relocated?
Perhaps R22.3.4.3 or R5.3.2 or even
R6.X.X?
R22.5.1.1 Comment: there is only
one reference cited (22.4) regarding
increased variation of 4x8 cylinders
relative to 6x12 cylinders, and that
reference (in the title) is for 12,000
psi high strength concretes. Other
references, eg. R. Day 1994, Cement,
Concrete and Aggregates, Vol.16,
No.1 pp21-30 conclude that there is
no increase in variability for
strengths ranging from 3000 to
10,000 psi concretes.
Testing three instead of 4 by 8 in.
cylinders preserves the confidence level
5 of 16
OK, make change as suggested.

"In some cases, the use of admixtures in
concrete containing ASTM C845 expansive
cements has resulted in reduced levels of
expansion or increased shrinkage values."
Delete sentence because Code has no
requirements on the use of fibers in
combination with other metals. Commentary
cannot be used to imply a Code requirement.
Because data are not available on the
potential for corrosion problems due to
galvanic action, the use of deformed steel
fibers in members reinforced with stainless
steel bars or galvanized steel bars is not
recommended.
See #21
While the title of the reference implies highstrength concrete, the 20 % figure is based
on review of past data presented in the
source report for the SP paper. See attached
excerpts after this table. We have an agenda
item on this topic.
OK Revise as follows:
"Testing three instead of two 4 by 8 in.
cylinders preserves the confidence level of

No.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
Comment
Task Group Response
of the average strength because 4 by 8

in. cylinders tend to have approximately
20 percent higher within-test variability
the average strength because 4 by 8 in.

cylinders tend to have approximately 20
percent higher within-test variability than 6
by 12 in. cylinders.22.4"
OK Make revision suggested:
"ASTM C1077 identifies and defines the
duties, responsibilities, and minimum
technical requirements and qualifications of
testing agency personnel and the technical
requirements for equipment used in testing
concrete and concrete aggregates used in
construction."
22.4
than 6 by 12 in. cylinders.
Carino
25.
Gerber
26.
309
R22.5.1
.2
315
The scope of C1077 states: This

practice identifies and defines the
duties, responsibilities, and minimum
technical requirements of testing
agency personnel and the minimum
technical requirements for equipment
utilized in testing concrete and
concrete aggregates for use in
construction. The wording in the
Commentary doesn't say exactly the
same thing. I suggest the following
revision:
"ASTM C1077 identifies and defines
the duties, responsibilities, and
minimum technical requirements of
testing agency personnel and the
technical requirements for equipment
used in testing concrete and concrete
aggregates used in construction."
Delete the names, and add evaluation

authority which is term used in C1077.
"Agencies that test cylinders or cores to
If we are going to give names, the
determine compliance with Code
International Accreditation Service
(IAS) needs to be added as a recognized requirements should be accredited or
agency. Or remove all agencies and refer inspected for conformance to the
to a recognized accreditation body
requirement of ASTM C1077 by a
conforming to the requirements of
recognized evaluation authority agency such
ISO/IEC 17011 (taken from ACI 355.4) as the American Association for Laboratory
Accreditation (A2LA), AASHTO Materials
Reference Laboratory (AMRL), National
6 of 16

No.
Name
Gerber
27.
28.
29.
30.
Carino
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
R22.5.1
.3
8
324
Y/C
326
Holland
335
Y/C
348
357
402
Y/C
Carino
Carino
31.
Hooton
32.
Comment

Task Group Response
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

(NVLAP), Cement and Concrete Reference
Laboratory (CCRL), or their equivalent."
OK Make revision
Concrete testing laboratory personnel
"Concrete testing laboratory personnel
should be certified in accordance with
should be certified in accordance with the
the requirements of ACI Concrete
requirements of ACI Concrete Laboratory
Laboratory Testing Technician, Concrete Testing Technician, Concrete Strength
Strength Testing Technician, the
Testing Technician, or the requirements of
requirements of ASTM C1077, or an
ASTM C1077, or an equivalent program.
equivalent program.
Add a comma after "1077."
The term required average strength
is no longer used in the Code.
Rewrite to eliminate.
The commentary refers specifically
to 22.5.2.1(c), so revise to
"R22.5.2.1(c)"
This commentary is general
information on the topic of sampling.
It is not specific to 22.5.2.2. This
should be moved to be commentary
for 22.5.2.1. Change to "R22.5.2.1."
R22.5.3.3 Comment: We could add
another item to the list. (g) improved
dispersion of cementitious materials
using water reducing admixtures.
This is well known, and I assume that
most, but not all, suppliers use water
reducers. It would be preferable to try
this option rather than, for example
throwing more cement at it.
7 of 16
See #27
OK, revise as follows:
"A complete record of testing allows the
concrete producer to reliably establish the
required average strength appropriate
mixture proportions for future work.
OK, Change the section number as
suggested.
OK, Move as suggested. This will go before
the Commentary in line 348.
OK Add as suggested. But make it (c):

"(a) An increase in cementitious materials
content;
(b) Reduction in or better control of water
content;
(c) Using a water reducing admixtures to
improve the dispersion of cementitious
materials;
(d) Other changes in mixture proportions;

No.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
Browning
420
Y/C
Browning
422
Y/C
422
425
428
430
Y/C
Y/C
Y/C
Y/C
Fiorato
Fiorato
Fiorato
Hooton
1
1
1
10
11
11
Comment

Task Group Response
This may need to be added to

Chapter 23.
425 and 428 as well Reverse the 4
& 6 in <5.6.4.1>
Replace <5.4.6.1> with <5.6.4.1>
Replace <5.4.6.3> with <5.6.4.3>
Replace <5.4.6.2> with <5.6.4.2>
R22.5.4.1 Comment: One of the big
issues with using field cured
cylinders is that large structural
elements that will generate
temperature rise during curing. Test
cylinders will not mimic the strength
gain of such elements. A warning
statement related to this needs to be
added.
38.
8 of 16
(e Reduction in delivery time;

(f) Closer control of air content;
(g) An improvement in the quality of the
testing, including strict compliance with
ASTM C172, ASTM C31, and ASTM C39."
This is a note for the Chapter 23 Task Group.
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK Add a new paragraph as follows:
The Code provides a specific criterion in
22.5.4.2 for judging the adequacy of field
curing. For a reasonably valid comparison to
be made, field-cured cylinders and
companion laboratorystandard-cured
cylinders are made from the same sample.
Field-cured cylinders are cured under the
same conditions as the structure. If the
structure is protected from the elements, the
cylinders should be protected.
Cylinders related to members not directly
exposed to weather should be cured adjacent
to those members and provided with the
same degree of protection and method of
curing. The field cylinders should not be
treated more favorably than the elements
they represent.
In evaluating test results of field-cured
cylinders, it should be recognized that even if
cylinders are protected as the structure they
may not experience the same temperature

No.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Weiss
Line #
Y/C or
N
Comment
430
Y/C
I have been confused about what is

meant by lab cured.
11
434
Y/C
Should the two instances of the word

are be replaced with should be in
this line (two different sentences).
11
445
Some changes are suggested to

tighten up the language:
"R22.5.4.2Positive guidance is
provided in the Code concerning the
interpretation of tests of field-cured
cylinders. Research has shown that
the strength of cylinders protected
and cured to simulate good field
practice should be at least about 85
percent of the strength of standardcured cylinders, if both are tested at
the age designated for f'c. This
percentage has been set as a rational
basis for judging the adequacy of
field curing. The comparison is made
between the measured strengths of
companion field-cured and
laboratory-cured cylinders, not
between the strength of field-cured
cylinders and the specified value of
f'c. However, test results for field9 of 16
39.
Fiorato
40.
41.
Carino

Task Group Response
history as the concrete in the structure. This

is because heat of hydration may be
dissipated differently in a cylinder compared
with the structural element.
See #38 and #41 We need to change all
occurrences of "laboratory-cured" to
"standard-cured" in the following provisions
of the approved version of Chapter 22:
22.5.4.1.(a), 22.5.4.2, 22.5.6.1
The word "are" is used because the
Commentary cannot relieve Code
requirements. "Should" implies an option is
acceptable.
OK Make suggested changes:
Positive guidance is provided in the Code
concerning the interpretation of tests of fieldcured cylinders. Research has shown that the
strength of cylinders protected and cured to
simulate good field practice should be at
least about 85 percent of standard-cured
cylinders, if both are tested at the age
designated for f'c. This percentage has been
set as a rational basis for judging the
adequacy of field curing. The comparison is
made between the measured strengths of
companion field-cured and standard
laboratory-cured cylinders, not between the
strength of field-cured cylinders and the
specified value of f'c. However, test results
for the field-cured cylinders are considered
satisfactory if the strength of field-cured
cylinders exceed the f'c by more than 500
psi, even though they fail to reach 85 percent
of the strength of companion laboratory

No.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Browning
Line #
Y/C or
N
453
Y/C
457
42.
Fiorato
43.
11
Comment
Task Group Response
cured cylinders are considered

satisfactory if the strength of fieldcured cylinders exceed f'c by more
than 500 psi, even though they fail to
reach 85 percent of the strength of
companion laboratory-cured
cylinders.
standard-cured cylinders.
The 85 % percent criterion is based on the
assumption that concrete is maintained above
50 F and in a moist condition for at least the
first 7 days after placement, or high-earlystrength concrete is maintained above 50 F
and in a moist condition for at least the first 3
days after placement.
The 85 percent criterion is based on

the assumption that concrete is
maintained above 50 F and in a
moist condition for at least the first 7
days after placement, or high-earlystrength concrete is maintained above
50 F and in a moist condition for at
least the first 3 days after placement."
Is this new commentary? I did not
This is new Commentary based on the
find it in 318-11.
current "R5.11.4 In addition to requiring a
minimum curing temperature and time for
normal- and high-early-strength concrete, the
Code provides a specific criterion in 5.6.4 for
judging the adequacy of field curing."
Not sure what to recommend here.
Tony is right. This commentary should be
The sentence If the tests indicate a
paired with 22.5.6.1. The provisions on fieldpossible serious deficiency in
cured cylinders are intended to apply to the
strength of concrete in the structure,
Contractor responsible for protection and
core tests may be required, with or
curing and is an acceptance of the concrete in
without supplemental wet curing, to
the structure as opposed to acceptance of the
check the structural adequacy, as
concrete delivered to the project. The use of
provided in 22.5.6. is confusing.
these tests is at the option of the LDP or
Does it imply acceptance of concrete building official.
22.5.6.1 If any strength test of laboratorybased on field curing? What
cured cylinders falls below fc by more than
supplemental wet curing are we
talking about? Is this sentence in the the values given in 22.5.3.2(b) or if tests of
10 of 16

No.
Name
Barth
44.
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
1
11
Browning
457
Y/C
461
Y/C
504
45.
12
46.
47.
Comment
Task Group Response
correct location? Should it be

somewhere in 22.5.6?
field-cured cylinders in accordance with

22.5.4 indicate deficiencies in protection and
curing, steps shall be taken to ensure that
structural capacity of the structure is not
jeopardized. <5.6.5.1>
What is possible serious

deficiency? Revised and provide
clear guidance.
It would flow/read better if 22.5.5
came after 22.5.6
Carino
The word "safe" is not needed.

Revise as follows:
"For cores, if required, conservative
acceptance criteria are provided in
22.5.6.4 that should ensure structural
adequacy for virtually any type of
construction.22.9-22.12"
Holland
I would make the discussion of cores

a new paragraph.
504
Y/C
11 of 16
Move the two sentences to Commentary to

R22.5.6.1
"If the strength of field-cured cylinders do
not conform to 22.5.4.2 provide satisfactory
strength by this comparison, steps need to be
taken to improve the curing. If the
supplemental in-place tests (see R22.5.6)
confirm a possible serious deficiency in
strength of concrete in the structure, core
tests may be required, with or without
supplemental wet curing, to check the
structural adequacy, as provided in 22.5.6.
See #43
Comment withdrawn
Note: Remove hyphen from title
22.5.6 Investigation of low strength test
results (no hyphen needed)
"For cores, if required, conservatively safe
acceptance criteria are provided in 22.5.6.4
that should ensure structural adequacy for
virtually any type of construction.22.9-22.12"
"the same structure rather than as
quantitative estimates of strength.

No.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
Carino
12
508
Carino
13
543
13
547
554
Y/C
N
48.
49.
50.
Browning
Carino
51.
52.
Bondy
13
556
Y/C
Comment

Task Group Response
Improve the wording as follows:

"If the strength of cores obtained in
accordance with 22.5.6.3 fail to
comply with 22.5.6.4, it may be
practical, particularly in the case of
floor or roof systems, for the building
official to require a load test (Chapter
24)."
The word "common" has multiple
meanings and its use in this sentence
is ambiguous. Change "common" to
"standard".
At the end of 22.5.6.4 add <5.6.5.4>

Improve the wording:
"An average core strength of at least
85 percent of the specified strength is
realistic.22.10 It is not realistic,
however, to expect the average core
strength to be equal to f'c , because of
differences in the size of specimens,
conditions of obtaining specimens,
degree of consolidation, and curing
conditions.
I realize this wording is the same as 31811, but do not permit equal values to
be obtained is pretty all-encompassing.
Do we really want to say that? How
12 of 16
For cores, if required, conservatively"

"If the strength of cores core tests performed
obtained in accordance with 22.5.6.3 fail to
comply with 22.5.6.4, it may be practical,
particularly in the case of floor or roof
systems, for the building official to require a
load test (Chapter 24)."
Thus, to provide reproducible moisture
conditions that are representative of in-place
conditions, a common standard moisture
conditioning procedure that permits
dissipation of moisture gradients is
prescribed for cores.
OK
OK Make the suggested changes:
Core tests having aAn average core strength
of at least 85 percent of the specified strength
are is realistic.22.10 To expect core tests to be
equal to f'c is not realistic, It is not realistic,
however, to expect the average core strength
to be equal to f'c, because of differences in
the size of specimens, conditions of
obtaining specimens, samples, and
procedures for degree of consolidation, and
curing conditions., do not permit equal
values to be obtained.
See #51

No.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
Comment

Task Group Response
about softening it a bit, and

procedures for curing, do not permit
equal values to be obtained generally do
not result in equal values being
obtained.
53.
Lobo
Fiorato
54.
13
556
Y/C
14
571
Suggest adding this statement to

cores because of concern out there
that age of cores is later than age for
fc and therefore should be at a
higher level than permitted:
These criteria for core strengths are
established with consideration that
cores will typically be extracted at an
age later than that specified for fc.
Suggest rewording as follows:
Past success experience with grout
for bonded tendons has indicated that
portland cement can be successfully
used. A blanket endorsement of all
cementitious materials for use with
this grout is inappropriate because of
There is a lack of experience or tests
with cementitious materials other
than portland cement and a concern
that some cementitious materials
might introduce chemicals that are
harmful to tendons. Therefore such
systems are not currently permitted in
the Code.
OK Add the following:

"The acceptance criteria for core strengths
have been established with consideration that
cores for investigating low strength test
results will typically be extracted at an age
later than specified for f'c. The Code does not
intend that core strengths be adjusted for the
age of the cores."
OK See also #57. Make the following
changes:
"Past success Experience with grout for
bonded tendons has been with indicates that
portland cement can be used successfully. A
blanket endorsement of all cementitious
materials for use with this grout is
inappropriate because of There is a lack of
experience or tests with cementitious
materials other than portland cement and a
concern that some cementitious materials
might introduce chemicals that are harmful
to tendons. Therefore, such systems are not
permitted in the Code.
Use of finely graded sand in the grout should

Use of finely graded sand in the grout only be considered with large ducts having
should only be considered with large large void areas. Neat cement grout is used
ducts having large void areas.
in almost all building construction.
Guidance can be found in xxx.
13 of 16

No.
Name
Ballot
Item
Pg #
Line #
Y/C or
N
Comment

Task Group Response
Guidance on materials for grout and grout

properties can be found in ACI 423.8R22.y
and the PTI grouting specification.22.x"
Add these references:
22.y 423.8R, 2010, Report on Corrosion and
Repair of Grouted Multistrand and Bar Tendon
Systems
22.x PTI Committee on Grouting Specifications,
2003, Specification for Grouting of PostTensioned Structures, second edition, PostTensioning Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 60
pp.
Hooton
571
Y/C
55.
Fiorato
14
591
Y/C
Fiorato
14
592
56.
57.
R22.6.1 Comment: I am surprised

that only Portland cement is still
recommended for grouting. Our
highway dept. has used silica fume
modified PT grouts for at least 20
years to improve resistance to
corrosion and I know that fly ash is
used in other areas for PT grouts.
Is the statement Aluminum powder
or other expansive admixtures, if
approved, should produce an
unconfined expansion of 5 to 10
percent. a Code provision in
disguise? New Business?
Suggest deleting Neat cement grout

is used in almost all building
construction. How does it help the
LDP? Part of the problem may be the
14 of 16
We are waiting on Sub G to update 22.6.
Delete sentence. Code has no provision

related to expansive components. See #54.
"Substances known to be harmful to tendons,
grout, or concrete are chlorides, fluorides,
sulfites, and nitrates. Aluminum powder or
other expansive admixtures, if approved,
should produce an unconfined expansion of 5
to 10 percent. Neat cement grout is used in
almost all building construction."
OK Move sentence to R22.6.1. See #54.

No.
Name
Fiorato
58.
Ballot
Item
Pg #
15
Line #
599
Y/C or
N
Comment

Task Group Response
fact that this sentence is no longer

connected to the sentence on use of
finely graded sand (see Comment
11).
Suggest rewording to read: The
handling and placing properties of
grout are usually given more
consideration of more concern than
strength when designing grout
mixtures.
15 of 16
OK Revise as follows:
"The handling and placing properties of
grout are usually given more consideration of
more concern than strength when
proportioning designing grout mixtures."

Background report for statement in Ref. 22.4
16 of 16

318A Minutes, Dallas Combined

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

318A Minutes, Dallas Combined

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ACI 318 Sub A General Concrete and Construction

[ACI 318 Chapters 1, 2, 3 (excluding 3.5), 4, 5, 6, and 22

Call to order at 1:30 pm.

Introductions and Membership changes. Sign up sheet is attached.

Approval of Agenda. Approved as presented.

Approval of Minutes: Cincinnati Meeting, 18 October 2011. Approved as presented.

Resolution of issues from 318 LB of CA 026

Chapter 5, Recommendations for top 3 new business items

Not discussed because of a lack of time.

Chapter 22, Recommendations for top 3 new business items

Chapter 23, Comments from presentation at Steering Committee meeting

1. Overall direction from the subcommittee was defined.

CA 104, Resolution of Negatives from last ballot

Formation of Task Group to review ASTM C 1600 cements

ASTM C 452 is not an appropriate test - it is an optional test to

SUMMARY OF SUB A ITEMS -- AFTER DALLAS MEETING

Carryover from 2008 Code cycle

RESOLVED Adopted, 2011 Code

Curing issues, 5.6.4.1 and 5.11. New

25 Mar 12, email to Hover regarding

Harmonize chloride limits. New Chapter 5

On hold, coordinate with ACI 201

Maximum size of aggregate between reinf

Incorporate certified inspectors into the

Sub A ballot 10-2006, DNP. Holland

Cementitious materials for chlorides. New

On hold, coordinate with ACI 201

Rewrite Ch 5, construction issues. New

Sub A ballot A01-2009, DNP, revise

2008 Code, PC 38, Gustafson 318 ballot

2008 Code, PC 69, Cunningham. 2.2 and Carino

2008 Code, PC 414, Green. R8.6.1, give

Bondy/Meyer, CH Passed Sub A. To CH 5 TG to

Clarify use of term f'c, various locations.

Passed Sub A -- 14 Oct 11 -- to Ch

Clarify requirements regarding measuring

Passed Sub A -- 14 Oct 11 -- to Ch

Add "and roofs" to 6.4.4 (misc Item #3) New Holland

Passed Sub A. Will be addressed

Remove Exposure Cat. "Permeability" from Lobo/Hooton

On Sub A ballot A06-2011, did not

Number of 4x8 inch cylinders required.

Assigned at San Antonio meeting.

Additional lamda issues -- can lamda be

Assigned in Pittsburgh. Meyer is

Various editorial items in Chapter 22

318 LB with Commentary for this

Subject: Revision of Section 22.4

Suggested Revisions to ACI 318-XX:

22.4 Proportioning of concrete mixtures

22.4.1 Selection of concrete proportions

22.4.1.1 Proportions of materials for concrete shall be established so that the

(a) Provides workability and consistency to permit concrete to be worked

(b) Meets requirements for applicable assigned exposure classes of Chapter

(c) Conforms to strength test requirements of 22.5.

R22.4.1 Selection of concrete proportions

22.4.1.3 4 If different materials concrete mixtures are to be used for different

Delete this entire section

22.4.2.1 Sample standard deviation

*Interpolate for intermediate numbers of tests.

22.4.2.2 Required average strength

The greater of fc + 1.34ss

22.4.4 Documentation of average compressive strength Delete this entire section

(a) Materials and conditions shall be similar to those expected. Changes in