Performance-Based
Requirements for
Concrete
A summary of ITG-8R-10
by Nicholas J. Carino
T his is the second in a series of three articles dealing
with performance-based requirements for concrete.
The first article by Mark Chrzanowski appeared in the
May 2011 issue of CI and provided an introduction to this
hot topic within the concrete industry.1 In this article,
I’ll summarize the content of the report ITG-8R-10,2
prepared by Innovation Task Group (ITG) 8. I’ll also
provide examples of the topics covered in the report,
which is the first ACI document devoted to the subject
of performance-based requirements for concrete. The
third article will review case studies of projects that
used performance specification.
Objectives and Content
The objectives of ITG-8R-102 are to:
■■ Introduce performance specification and compare it
with prescriptive specification;
■■ Discuss the essential features of performance
specification; and
■■ Discuss how performance-based requirements can be
used as an alternative to prescriptive requirements.
The report includes seven chapters and a list of
references. Chapter 1 provides a brief history of the
formation of ITG 8, much of which was summarized in
Chrzanowski’s article. The first chapter also compares
the advantages and disadvantages of performance-
based requirements. This comparison is based largely
on the P2P Phase I Report.3 It should be emphasized
that performance specification does not preclude the
inclusion of some prescriptive requirements if the latter
approach is more practical.
Chapter 2 provides an extensive list of definitions of
common terms used in the report. Some of these
definitions are based on AASHTO R94 and the Glossary
of Highway Quality Assurance Terms.4 The report avoids
the use of the term “performance-based specifications,”
a term with a very specific meaning in the highway
pavement community that is not applicable (at this
time) to the building community.
Chapter 3 focuses on the elements of performance-
based requirements and the test methods that are
available for assessing compliance with acceptance
criteria. While many test methods exist for evaluating
different aspects of durability, there is no suite of
practical methods for routine quality assurance testing
for durability.
Chapter 4 takes a closer look at the factors involved
in developing the acceptance criteria for performance-
based requirements. Key among these is quantifying the
purchaser’s and producer’s risk associated with the
acceptance criteria.
Chapter 5 covers some of the factors to consider in
implementing performance-based requirements on a
project. While effective communication among the
various members of the owner’s team and the
construction team is always important for effective
project delivery, it’s critical to the success of
performance-based projects. The responsibilities of
Concrete international / June 2011 47
the various team members need to be stated clearly
and understood. The chapter also discusses the use of
pay-factor adjustments as an alternative to the more
common accept-or-reject approach used in prescriptive
specifications. It concludes with a discussion of the
challenges in implementing performance specifications in
the building industry.
Chapter 6 presents examples of how the current
prescriptive requirements for durability in ACI 318-085
might be presented in terms of performance. These
examples are based largely on the P2P Phase II Report.6
The examples are illustrative and additional consensus
is required before they would be considered for
presentation to the building code committee.
Chapter 7 summarizes the key ideas in the report and
discusses eight topics that may prove to be important for
the widespread implementation of performance-based
requirements for concrete.
ACI codes and specifications
Their audience and purpose
ACI committees produce two types of documents—
standardized and nonstandardized. The former are
written in mandatory language, go through the ACI
standardization process, and are designated as “ACI
standards.” Two important types of ACI standards are
ACI code requirements (ACI codes) and ACI reference
specifications. ACI codes provide minimum requirements
for the design of structures to safeguard public safety,
health, and general welfare. They are written for
Licensed Design Professionals (LDPs) and they become
law when adopted by local authorities. Reference
specifications, on the other hand, are written for
contractors and provide an explicit set of requirements
to complete the work defined within the document’s
scope. When referenced in a project specification, ACI
reference specifications become part of the binding
contract between owner and contractor.
ACI codes, such as ACI 318, contain minimum
construction requirements to ensure that the completed
structure will meet basic design assumptions. As such,
project specifications have been known to reference
ACI 318 for construction requirements. As stated in
the introduction of ACI 318-08,5 this practice should be
avoided because “the contractor is rarely in a position
to accept responsibility for design details or construction
requirements that depend on a detailed knowledge of
the design.” The exception is if the project is governed
by a design-build contract. The construction requirements
in ACI 318 are intended to be placed into the contract
documents by the LDP. Alternatively, the design
professional can reference ACI 301-10,7,8 which is written
to satisfy the minimum construction requirements of
ACI 318.
48 June 2011 / Concrete international
Prescription to performance
Both ACI 318 and ACI 301 have a combination of
prescriptive and performance-based requirements for
concrete. Chapter 4 of ACI 318-085 contains durability
requirements for various exposure conditions in terms of
the maximum water-cementitious material ratio (w/cm),
minimum specified compressive strength, total air
content, limits on chloride content, and requirements for
cement types. While these requirements are prescriptive
in nature, there are no limits on the amounts of cement,
supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), or water.
The only exception is a limit on the amount of SCMs for
concrete exposed to deicers.
In 2008, a new provision was added to ACI 318 that
captures the essence of performance-based requirements.
The new provision permits the use of alternative
combinations of cementitious materials to provide
sulfate resistance by referencing a standard test method
for demonstrating performance and specifying limits
for acceptability.
ACI 301 is largely prescriptive in nature and contains
default requirements that are generally conservative.
The intent is to provide a set of defaults that will
result in an acceptable structure. The specifier,
however, is permitted to modify certain provisions to
take advantage of the abilities of more sophisticated and
knowledgeable contractors. The Optional Requirements
Checklist in ACI 301 guides the specifier in making
these decisions.
Chapter 6 of ITG-8R-102 discusses the nature of the
prescriptive requirements in ACI 318 and ACI 301 in greater
detail. It discusses performance-based requirements for
concrete as alternatives to w/cm and c¢ limits given for
the different exposure classes. As recommended
in the P2P Phase II Report,6 coulomb limits based on
ASTM C1202-10 are suggested as alternative limits
when the primary objective is to provide resistance
to fluid penetration. The challenge for ACI committees
will be to develop a consensus on the exact acceptance
criteria for these alternative performance-based
requirements.
Testing
Prequalification testing
Under a performance specification, the likelihood of
having unacceptable hardened in-place concrete may
be reduced by requiring evidence that the proposed
concrete mixture has the potential to meet specification
requirements. The component materials and concrete
mixtures may need to be prequalified on the basis of
historical performance records or by providing laboratory
performance test data. Ideally, acceptability should be
based on the results of performance tests that measure
properties that control in-place performance.
Identity tests
Because of the inherent variability in concrete
production, even if a mixture has been prequalified, it’s
still necessary to confirm that the delivered concrete
is the same as the prequalified mixture. As part of
prequalification testing, the fresh and hardened properties
of the concrete are also measured using routine test
methods. During construction, the owner performs a
suite of identity tests to verify that the delivered concrete
is not different from the prequalified concrete. Such
identity testing could be some combination of tests for
water content, fresh density, air content, or strength at a
specified age. To confirm in-place properties, there may
also be periodic performance tests on cores extracted
from the structure.
Surrogate tests
The owner generally prefers to use performance
tests to evaluate the suitability of the final product.
Unfortunately, some performance tests are impractical as
acceptance tests because of cost, complexity, or the long
time to obtain test results. Thus, the owner may elect to
base final acceptance on the results of surrogate tests.
The acceptance limits for results of the surrogate tests
should be based on correlations with performance tests
developed during prequalification testing. A standard
statistical procedure will have to be developed to define
the appropriate limits for the results of surrogate tests.
Point of delivery versus point of placement
Ready mixed concrete is generally delivered in a mixer
truck and samples for testing are taken routinely from the
truck chute, which may be defined as the point of delivery.
Because the owner is interested in the concrete properties
in the structure, sampling at point of delivery may not
be adequate for performance specifications. Thus, a
performance specification might require sampling at the
point of placement. Unfortunately, there are no standard
practices for sampling at the point of placement and the
project specification will have to include specific directives
to be used for such sampling.
There is a significant difference in terms of responsibility
between sampling at the point of delivery versus sampling
at the point of placement. In the former case, testing
evaluates the quality of concrete as delivered, which is the
responsibility of the producer. In the latter case, placement
and curing procedures affect the in-place properties, which
results in shared responsibility between the concrete
producer and the contractor. The agreement between the
concrete producer and purchaser should clearly state
how shared responsibilities will be handled if the owner
requires sampling at the point of placement. The producer
may, for example, perform tests at the point of delivery to
document the properties of the concrete as delivered.
Acceptance criteria
Key elements
A performance specification defines required results
and the criteria that will be used to judge actual
performance. Performance criteria are defined as “a set
of explicit and quantitative rules to determine whether
the work meets the performance specified.”2 Effective
acceptance criteria are essential for successful
performance specification. The key elements of effective
criteria include:
■■ The properties to be used as the basis for acceptance
and the specified value of that property;
■■ The plan used to obtain representative samples from
the lot to be evaluated;
■■ A standardized procedure for preparing and conditioning
the test specimens;
■■ A standardized procedure for measuring the
relevant properties;
■■ The criteria to evaluate whether the test results
indicate an acceptable level of performance, including
the statistical methods; and
■■ Actions to be taken if test specimens fail to meet
the criteria.
The acceptance criteria for concrete strength given
in ACI 318 provide a good illustration of properly
formulated acceptance criteria. Our challenge will be to
develop corresponding acceptance criteria for durability-
related properties.
Controlling risks
Ideal acceptance criteria would result in the rejection
of concrete that is unacceptable and the acceptance of
concrete that is acceptable. Unfortunately, due to
uncertainties associated with various elements and the
inherent variability of concrete, acceptance criteria will
have a certain probability of accepting a lot of concrete
that’s unacceptable or rejecting concrete that’s accept-
able. The first probability is termed the “purchaser’s
risk” and the second is termed the “producer’s risk.”
Any acceptance criteria should result in equitable levels
of risk to both the purchaser and producer.
Operating characteristic curve
The behavior of acceptance criteria can be summarized
by the operating characteristic (OC) curve, which
indicates the probability of accepting a lot of concrete as
a function of the percent defective (PD). The PD indicates
the percentage of concrete in a lot that doesn’t meet the
specification limit(s). Figure 1 illustrates the concept of
an OC curve. The vertical axis is the probability of
acceptance of the lot and the horizontal axis is the PD.
The acceptable quality level (AQL) is the value of
the PD that the purchaser is willing to accept for full
payment. The rejectable quality level (RQL) is the value
Concrete international / June 2011 49

Fig. 1: Schematic of operating characteristic (OC) curves
of the PD at which the purchaser can require removal
and replacement.
An ideal OC curve would have the shape shown by the
blue dashed line in Fig. 1. The probability of acceptance
is 1.0 when the PD is less than the AQL; the probability
of acceptance is 0 if the PD exceeds the AQL. Real OC
curves, however, have shapes similar to the curve shown
by the solid line. The producer’s and purchaser’s risks
are also indicated in the plot.
Pay factor adjustments
In a prescriptive specification with accept-or-reject
criteria, the owner has the right to reject a lot of concrete
if the test results fail to meet specification requirements.
Lot rejection might not be necessary if the concrete can
provide a lower level of acceptable performance, even
if it’s not in strict compliance with the requirements. In
statistically based acceptance plans, the average X
and standard deviation s of the test results for a lot of
concrete in combination with the specification limit
(SL) can be used to calculate the quality index (QI) for
that lot
X − SL
QI =
s assess the reliability of different proposed models.
The QI and the number of test results, in turn, will
define the percentage within limits (PWL) of the lot
(Chapter 5 of ITG-8R). The PWL can be used by the owner
to establish payment adjustment factors, whereby
50 June 2011 / Concrete international
concrete with less than fully acceptable levels of quality
may be accepted at reduced payments, provided that the
safety of the structure is not compromised. Conversely,
the owner may choose to provide a bonus payment for
quality exceeding the AQL. Pay adjustment factors have
been used successfully in highway projects.9 The
challenge will be to examine whether similar provisions
can be established for the building industry, for which
there are different life safety considerations.
Durability design code
Service life
A major focus in the move toward performance
specifications is the development of a set of performance-
based requirements as alternatives to current prescriptive
requirements for durability, as given in Chapter 4 of
ACI 318-08.5 A major challenge is to develop property
limits for relevant performance tests that will ensure the
desired service life. The development of an ACI durability
design code would provide a standardized approach for
arriving at such limits.
Current ACI codes, such as ACI 318, focus on structural
safety and include certain limits to provide some degree
of durability in the finished structure. That intended
degree of durability, however, is not defined explicitly.
With a durability design code, on the other hand,
structures will be designed to sustain environmental
loads associated with different exposure conditions for
a desired service life. The limit states will depend on the
exposure conditions; for example, a limit state could be
the initiation of corrosion due to either carbonation or
chloride ion ingress. Whereas a structural code aims to
control the risk that the actual structural capacity is
less than the imposed loads, a durability code would
minimize the risk that the actual service life is less than
the required design life.
Service-life models
For durability design, the designer will consider the
exposure conditions and design the structure to meet
the owner’s service-life requirement. The designer will,
therefore, need mathematical models for computing
service life under the anticipated exposure conditions.
The development of reliable models for predicting
service life is a challenge. The complexities of different
degradation mechanisms and the long time scales
involved make it difficult to verify the accuracy of model
predictions. Without such verification, it’s difficult to
Summary
This article offers just a glimpse of the topics covered
in ITG-8R-10.2 The ITG-8 report is the first step in the
development of useable performance specifications
as alternatives to traditional
prescriptive specifications. ACI
Committee 329, Performance Criteria
for Ready Mixed Concrete, is in the
process of adopting ITG-8R-10 as
a committee report and is planning
the next steps to promote performance
specification.
Implementation of performance
specification will require a
construction team that understands
the responsibilities of the team
members and is committed to the
success of the project. Performance
specification won’t be the most
practical method of project delivery
in all cases. By focusing on the
end result, however, performance
specification will lead to structures
with predictable performance and will
foster innovation and sustainability
within the concrete industry.
References
1. Chrzanowski, M.F., “Performance-
Based Requirements for Concrete 101,”
Concrete International, V. 33, No. 5,
May 2011, pp. 49-52.
2. ACI Innovation Task Group 8, “Report
on Performance-Based Requirements for
Concrete (ACI ITG-8R-10),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2010, 46 pp.
3. Bickley, J.R.; Hooton, R.D.; and Hover,
K.C., “Preparation of a Performance-Based
Specification for Cast-in-Place Concrete,”
RMC Research Foundation, 2006, 155 pp.
4. Transportation Research Board,
“Glossary of Highway Quality Assurance
Terms,” Research Circular E-C137,
Washington, DC, 2009, 44 pp.
5. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2008, 473 pp.
6. Bickley, J.R.; Hooton, R.D.; and
Hover, K.C., “Guide to Specifying Concrete
Performance,” RMC Research Foundation,
2008, 53 pp.
7. ACI Committee 301, “Specifications for
Structural Concrete (ACI 301-10),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2008, 77 pp.
8. McCall, W.C., “The New ACI 301,
‘Specifications for Structural Concrete,’”
Concrete International, V. 33, No. 4,
Apr. 2011, pp. 66-69.
9. Ozyildirim, C., “Virginia’s End-Result
Specifications,” Concrete International,
V. 33, No. 3, Mar. 2011, pp. 41-45.
Note: Additional information on the
AASHTO and ASTM standards discussed
in this article can be found at
www.transportation.org and
www.astm.org, respectively.
Selected for reader interest by the editors.
ACI Honorary
Member Nicholas J.
Carino is a Concrete
Technology
Consultant in
Chagrin Falls, OH.
Formerly, he was a
Research Structural
Engineer at the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology, from which he retired after
25 years of service. He is well known for
his work in nondestructive testing of
concrete and standards development.
He has been an active member of ACI
and ASTM International for more than
30 years and has received numerous
awards in recognition of his contributions
to research and standards development.
Carino currently serves on ACI Committees
228, Nondestructive Testing of Concrete;
301, Specifications for Concrete; 329,
Performance Criteria for Ready Mixed
Concrete; 437, Strength Evaluation of
Existing Concrete Structures; and ACI
Subcommittee 318A, General, Concrete,
and Construction. He also serves on
new ACI Committee E707, Specification
Education. He is a graduate of
Cornell University.
Concrete international / June 2011 51