Proposed field test for drying
shrinkage of concrete
Shrinkage values help in predicting cracking behavior of concrete
BY PAUL P. KRAAI
CONCRETE CONSULTANT
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
S ome of the many variables that
affect the cracking of concrete
are:
• materials and design
• placing and finishing techniques
• temperature and humidity
• curing practices
• ground conditions (for slabs on
grade)
• structural loads
There is no standard condition for
evaluating cracking tendencies.
Many engineers equate the cracking
potential of concrete with its drying
shrinkage characteristics. The dry-
ing shrinkage is usually measured
according to ASTM C 157, “Standard
Test Method for Length Change of
Hardened Cement Mortar and Con-
crete.”
Difficulties with existing test
One problem with the ASTM
method is a lack of agreement be-
tween laboratory and field testing
(based on the same materials and
using the same test method). Unfor-
tunately, the shrinkage observed in
ASTM tests is much higher than the
shrinkage results obtained from a
structure containing the same con-
crete. I believe this difference is due
in part to the size of the test speci-
men—4x4x11 inches (see Figure 1).
Another reason is ASTM test condi-
tions such as the required satura-
tion before drying shrinkage mea-
surements start. This can be mis-
leading when applied to field
concrete which starts to dry imme-
diately after placing and screeding.
Evaporation during the first week of
concrete’s life has a significant effect
on the cracking tendencies. The test
p ro c e d u re does not consider this
important time.
Shrinkage specifications support-
ed by this type of information will
limit the use of calcium chloride
(admixture or accelerator in con-
crete). Current test data (upper
curve of Figure 2) show significantly
greater shrinkage for a 1 percent cal-
cium chloride content when tested
according to ASTM. Most engineers
would agree that these results are
typical. When the comparison is
based on tests using a 4x4-foot slab
8 inches thick, the chloride effect on
shrinkage appears negligible
(shown in the lower curve of Figure
2). CONCRETE CO N S T RU C T I O N
confirmed (September 1981, page
729) that usual amounts of calcium
chloride cause increased shrinkage,
but they do not always result in in-
creased cracking.
New standard test specimen
proposed
Based on considerable field expe-
rience, I recommend the 4x4-foot
slab 8 inches thick (0.4 cubic yard)
as a new standard test specimen.
This size of specimen will give
Figure 1. How specimen size affects
drying shrinkage test results.
Comparisons are based on actual
tests of 4x4x11-inch prisms and 4-
foot-square slabs 8 inches thick. The
prisms were tested according to
ASTM C 157, but the slabs were 100
percent field cured. Information for
the two smaller prism sizes was
based on conversion factors taken
from Table 4 in the reference cited in
the editor’s note. Note that the
highest percentage of shrinkage
occurs with the smallest specimens.

Figure 2. Laboratory shrinkage test
results compared with field
measurements on 4x4-foot slabs, 8
inches thick. The same concrete mixes
were used for both types of test. Slab
specimens were measured at the same
times as ASTM prisms, but without the
initial saturation period. Three chloride-
containing slabs were measured, each
having five sets of measuring studs. A
7-day base-line was used in accordance
with local California specifications.
Figure 3. Comparison of shrinkage of
chloride- and non-chloride-containing
concretes, using 4x4-foot slab
specimens, 8 inches thick. Measuring
studs were placed in the slabs at 24
hours, and the base-line reading was
taken at that time. Difference in
shrinkage between the two concretes
appears to be greatest between 7 and
14 days, then to diminish gradually.
Temperatures ranged between 50 and
80 degrees for these tests, with
humidity from 65 to 78 percent.
shrinkage test values similar to
structure shrinkage measurements.
Figure 3 shows a comparison of the
effects of chlorides on shrinkage
c h a ra c t e ristics of concrete, using
this larger slab as the test specimen.
The measuring studs were placed at
24 hours and the initial or base-line
reading was established at that time.
The test data show a maximum dif-
ference at 7 days between the two
types of concrete, with a gradual de-
crease up to the age of 35 days. The
difference in shrinkage at 35 days,
0.005 percent, if applied to a 20x20-
foot slab could be the basis for pre-
dicting a cracking difference of only
1/64 inch due to the presence of cal-
cium chloride in the concrete. This
difference would amount to an in-
significant hairline crack (20 feet x
12 inches x 0.00005 = 0.012 inch).
Prevention of cracking
Because of test experience such
as that shown in Figure 3, I consider
use of ASTM C 157 method to pre-
dict cracking of concrete to be errat-
ic, misleading and excessively ex-
pensive. The artificial conditions of
the test procedures and the small
specimen size give data which do
not relate to actual field conditions.
The differences apparent from
study of Figures 2 and 3 illustrate
misconceptions that are possible
when this type of test is applied to
actual field conditions. Good mate-
rials can be discriminated against
unnecessarily.
After many years of field experi-
ence I certainly believe the best
method of minimizing cracking ten-
dencies of concrete is proper atten-
tion to site preparation, concrete
materials and design, placing and
finishing techniques, and good cur-
ing pro c e d u re s. There is no easy
way—ASTM C 157 or otherwise—to
specify crack-free concrete.
Editor’s note:
For additional information supporting
the views presented here, please refer
to an article by Paul P. Kraai, “Con-
crete Drying Shrinkage: Facts or Fal-
lacies,” published on pages 25-51 of
the American Concrete Institute Publi-
cation SP-76, Designing for Creep and
Shrinkage in Concrete Structures,
available from American Concrete In-
stitute, Box 19150, Detroit, Michigan
48219.
To purchase copies of the referenced
test method, ASTM C 157, contact
American Society for Testing and Ma-
terials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
PUBLICATION #C840663
Copyright © 1984, The Aberdeen Group
All rights reserved