THE USE OF HIGH STRENGTH/HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE IN

AMERICA: A CODE AND APPLICATION PERSPECTIVE

John J MYERS
Associate Professor, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering,
Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, USA.

ABSTRACT:
Concrete technology for structural applications has continued to advance throughout the years to meet the demands
of designers and innovative structural systems. Since the mid 1980’s these advances in concrete technologies and
rheology have been quite significant with rapid changes through the development of new chemical admixtures and
the incorporation of supplementary mineral admixtures to enhance the performance and sustainability of concrete.
This paper provides an overview of recent code and guide developments in the United States (US) related to
high-strength concrete (HSC), highlight major national HSC research initiatives, and provide a brief overview of
sample applications in the US that are of interest to many design engineers that specify concrete.

Keywords: ACI, AASHTO, code developments, high performance concrete, high-strength concrete, NCHRP.

1. INTRODUCTION sensitive with proper mix constituent considerations.

The use of High-Strength Concrete (HSC) has become
more commonplace in the building and transportation
industry in the United States (US) because of its
beneficial economical and material properties. HSC is
advantageous since it reduces material requirements in
axial or flexural members, permits longer member
spans and allows for increased member spacing;
thereby reducing material and total project costs.
As one considers advances in concrete technologies,
perhaps the one concrete property that comes to mind
most readily is the compressive strength aspect of
structural concrete. Prior to the development of
specifications that were primarily performance based in
nature, many concrete specifications focused on
compressive strength as a critical acceptance criteria
with a few additional fresh concrete property limits set
on the mix design such as concrete slump, concrete air
content, and minimum cement content / maximum
water to cement (w/cm) ratio. In the 1950s, concrete
with a compressive strength of 34.8 MPa (5,000 psi)
was considered high strength. In the 1960s, concrete
with compressive strengths up to 52.1 MPa (7,500 psi)
were produced commercially. With the advent and
implementation of high range water reducers (HRWR)
to the ready mix and precast concrete industry the water
to cement ratio (ie. water to binder ratio) of the concrete
mix design could be lowered significantly without
sacrificing workability for placement. This significant
advancement in the use of chemical admixtures led to
improved cement particle distribution in the mix design
for more efficient cement utilization. It also allowed
structural designers to utilize smaller cross sections,
fewer members, or extend the span lengths of current
member cross sections. This resulted in more efficient
and cost effective designs that were not serviceability
Prior to the early 1990’s, a 41.7 MPa (6,000 psi)
concrete mix design or above was generally considered
high strength concrete (HSC) by many in the US
including the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
High-Strength Concrete Committee 363. By the end of
the decade this threshold was viewed to be closer to
55.6 MPa (8,000 psi) by many in the US although
concrete compressive strengths well above this level
were produced daily in many pockets of the US and
within many precast concrete plants. Today many of the
worldwide design codes including those developed in
the United States (US) for structural concrete such as
the ACI 318 Building Code and the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications for Bridge Design are working to
implement design guidance for strength levels as high
as 125.1 MPa (18,000 psi) that were once only
imagined.
2. DEFINITION OF HIGH-STRENGTH
CONCRETE (HSC) IN THE UNITED STATES
Although HSC may be considered a relatively new
material within some regions or areas, its development
has been gradual over many years in the US. As the
development has continued, the definition of HSC has
changed as reported by the American Concrete Institute
(ACI) 363 HSC Committee [1]. In the 1950s, concrete
with a compressive strength of 34 MPa (5,000 psi) was
considered high strength. In the 1960s, concrete with 41
and 52 MPa (6,000 and 7,500 psi) compressive
strengths were used commercially. In the early 1970s,
62 MPa (9000 psi) concrete was being produced in the
US.
For many years in the US, concrete with compressive
strength in excess of 41 MPa (6,000 psi) was
commercially available at only a few locations. Many
ready-mix producers particularly in rural areas were not
familiar with the advances in chemical and mineral
admixtures. However, since the early 1990s, the
applications of HSC have increased, and HSC has now
been used in many parts of the US and around the
world.
More recently, compressive strengths approaching 250
MPa (36,000 psi) known as Ultra-High-Performance
Concrete (UHPC) have been produced in the US.
UHPC is generally considered to be a concrete with a
compressive strength that is greater than 153 MPa
(22,000 psi), typically has internal fiber reinforcement
to ensure non-brittle behavior, and has a high binder (ie.
high cementitious) content with special aggregates. The
discussion in this paper will focus on more traditional
HSC produced without internal fibers below 139 MPa
(20,000 psi) in strength.
The following definition of High-Strength Concrete
was adopted by ACI Committee 363 in 1992 [1]:
“Concretes that have specified strengths for
design of 40 MPa (6,000 psi) or greater, but for
the present time, considerations shall not
include concrete made using exotic materials
or techniques.”
The word “exotic” was included in the 363 definition to
indicate that concretes such as polymer-impregnated
concretes, epoxy concrete, or concrete made with
artificial normal weight and heavy weight aggregates
for the time being would not be considered HSC by
ACI Committee 363. Although 40 MPa (6,000 psi) was
selected as the lower limit, it was not intended to imply
that there is a drastic change in mechanical properties,
production and inspection techniques, or testing
methods that occur above this strength level. In reality,
all changes that occur above 40 MPa (6,000 psi) are a
progressive process.
In 2002, ACI Committee 363 revised its working
definition of High-Strength Concrete to be that of
“Concretes that have a specified strength for design of
56 MPa (8,000 psi) or greater.” Much discussion was
given at the committee meeting to specifying the
revised definition of HSC at an even higher level at that
time; however, 56 MPa (8,000 psi) was selected as the
benchmark because the committee consensus was
focused on a lower bound strength level where special
attention was required to attain HSC. In some pockets
around the US it was difficult to achieve concrete
strengths levels above 56 MPa (8,000 psi) without
importing higher quality aggregates because of the lack
of high quality aggregates locally. Furthermore, the
committee felt that this was also an appropriate strength
level where special attention is needed when
developing a quality control and quality assurance
(QC/QA) program [2] so the revised working definition
was set at 56 MPa (8,000 psi).
3. DESIGN CODES IN THE UNITED STATES
The two primary codes in the Unites States that provide
guidelines on the design of structural concrete are the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-08 Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary [3] and the American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications (2007) [4]. The ACI
318-08 design code is developed with building design
more in mind, while the AASHTO LRFD design code
is more specialized for bridge design. Because of the
lack of test data and practical experience with concretes
having compressive strengths greater than 69.5 MPa
(10,000 psi), the 1989 version of ACI Building Code
[5] imposed a maximum value of 69.5 MPa (10,000
psi) for use in calculations of shear strength of concrete
beams, joists, and slabs. This limit for shear strength
still exists in the 2008 version of the code today.
The 1998 version of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specification also placed limitations on the use
of higher strength concretes. Within the specifications it
stated:
“Concrete strengths above 69.5 MPa (10,000
psi) shall be used only when physical tests are
made to establish the relationships between
the concrete strength and other properties.”
In order to advance the state of knowledge and more
freely allow the use of higher strength concretes in
bridge structures in the US a series of multi-year studies
were undertaken under the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP). The objective
of these studies was to extend the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications provisions for reinforced
and prestressed concrete structures to compressive
strengths greater than 69.5 MPa (10,000 psi). Several of
these NCHRP studies are highlighted in Section 4 of
this paper.
3.1 ACI 363R State of the Art Report on HSC
ACI Committee 363 on High Strength Concrete
published its first Report on High-Strength Concrete in
1992 [1]. This committee report provided information
on the selection of materials, concrete mix
proportioning, batching, mixing, transporting, curing
and control procedures, properties of HSC, structural
design considerations, economic considerations, and
applications. It was reapproved by the committee in
1997. A revised version of this document is undergoing
the ACI review process and expected to be finalized
and published in the near future.
3.2 ACI 363.2R Guide on QC and Testing of HSC
In 1998, ACI 363 published its first quality control
(QC) document on HSC entitled Guide to Quality
Control and Testing of High-Strength Concrete [2].
Preconstruction and construction procedures are
covered, including planning trial mixtures,
preconstruction meetings, batching, placing, curing,
and testing. The concept of prequalifying suppliers and
laboratories is introduced. A method for the evaluation
of data is included. A revised version of this document
is also undergoing the ACI review process and expected
to be finalized and published shortly after the 363R
document.
4. NCHRP INVESTIGATIONS
This section provides a brief overview of recent
NCHRP studies undertaken in the United States and
their contribution to code development and the
state-of-the-art in the area of HSC. A series of NCHRP
studies on high-strength concrete were undertaken in
the 2000s to advance the body of knowledge to address
certain design aspects to allow the use of higher
strength concrete for structural applications. The
NCHRP studies undertaken by the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) primarily address issues
associated with bridge design. However, both the
American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (1998) and the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) Building Code 318-08 placed
limitations on the use of high-strength concrete used
above 69.5 MPa (10,000 psi). The objective of these
studies was to extend the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications provisions for reinforced and
prestressed concrete structures to compressive strengths
greater than 69.5 MPa (10,000 psi).
4.1 NCHRP Study 496
The design of prestressed concrete members requires
accurate prediction of the force in the prestressing
strands, which is reduced over time by prestress losses.
A variety of methods are available for prestress loss
prediction, each falling into three categories: total lump
sum estimates, rational approximate methods, and
detailed time-dependent analyses. Most of these
methods are presented in the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge
Design Specifications [4], the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) Design Handbook [6] and the
PCI Bridge Design Manual [7].
NCHRP Study 496 was entitled “Prestress Losses in
Pretensioned High-Strength Concrete Bridge Girders”
[8]. The project objective was to develop guidelines to
help bridge designers obtain realistic estimates of
prestress losses in high-strength pretensioned concrete
bridge girders and thus achieve economical designs.
This study was undertaken because recent research
indicated that the current provisions used for
calculating prestress losses in normal-strength concrete
(NSC) did not provide reliable estimates for HSC
bridge girders. Thus, research was needed to evaluate
the applicability of the current provisions for estimating
prestress losses in HSC bridge girders. The sources of
possible inaccuracies focused on (a) incorrect theory
and (b) inaccurate estimate of material properties. The
report concluded that the prestress losses prediction
formulas used in 1998 version of the AASHTO
Specifications did not account for the variability in
material properties. The authors of the 496 report
suggested revisions which were adopted by AASHTO
in the fourth edition.
Study 496 proposed modifications for the modulus of
elasticity, shrinkage, creep, as well as recommendations
for a detailed and approximate method for estimation of
prestress losses. These recommendations were largely
adopted into the fourth edition of the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. For further details
regarding the AASHTO prestress loss estimation
approach, the paper by Brewe and Myers [9] included
in these conference proceedings may be referenced.
For a detailed review and understanding of the NCHRP
496 study findings and recommended code provision
changes, the final report should be referenced and
reviewed.
4.2 NCHRP Study 595
NCHRP Study 595 was entitled “Application of the
LFRD Bridge Design Specifications to High-Strength
Structural Concrete: Flexure and Compression
Provisions” [10]. The project objective was to develop
recommended revisions to the LRFD Specifications to
extend the applicability of its flexural and compression
design provisions for reinforced and prestressed
concrete members for concrete strengths up to 124 MPa
(18,000 psi).
The research was conducted to extend the current
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications to
include HSC up to 124 MPa (18,000 psi) concluded the
following current AASHTO Code Provisions to be
adequate and/or conservative up to 124 MPa (18 ,000
psi) [10]:
• poisson’s ratio, ν, of 0.2.
• stress block parameter, β1.
• ultimate concrete compression strain value of
0.003.
• tie spacing and the minimum volumetric ratio of
spiral.
• 20 percent reduction in the axial load capacity of
the tied column with HSC to account for
unintentional eccentricity.
• determination of transfer length of prestressed HSC
girders.
• the nominal flexural strength of a composite
prestressed HSC girder section in which the neutral
axis is below the deck.
• the nominal flexural strength of a prestressed HSC
girder section without a composite deck using the
newly proposed relationship for α1 from the study.
The study recommended modifications in the following
parameters or code provisions [10]:
• The equation for the modulus of elasticity, Ec, as
the current provision over-estimated the elastic
 modulus for all specimens studied.
• The equation for modulus of rupture, fr, as the
current provision over-estimated the elastic
modulus for HSC.
• A reduction in the stress block parameter, α1, of
0.85 for compressive strengths beyond 69 MPa
(10,000 psi). A new α1 is recommended for
concrete compressive strengths up to 124 MPa
(18,000 psi).
• A revised level of minimum reinforcement ratio for
compression members up to 124 MPa (18,000 psi).
For a detailed review and understanding of the NCHRP
495 study findings, the final report should be
referenced and reviewed.
4.3 NCHRP Study 579
NCHRP Study 579 was entitled “Application of the
LFRD Bridge Design Specifications to High-Strength
Structural Concrete: Shear Provisions” [11]. The
primary objective of the study was to extend the shear
provisions of the LRFD Specifications to concrete
strengths greater than 69.5 MPa (10,000 psi).
Four primary issues for normal-weight concretes with
compressive strength, f´c, values up to 124 MPa (18,000
psi) were addressed by this research [11]: (1) the
validity of the angle for diagonal compression Ө used
in the LRFD tables; (2) the validity of the concrete
contribution as controlled by the parameter β; (3)
minimum shear reinforcement requirements; and (4)
maximum shear strength limits. The principal
conclusions reached on those issues were as follows:
• Issues (1) and (2): The LRFD tabular values for Ө
and β are safe to use for the design of members
with f´c up to 124 MPa (18,000 psi). Similarly, the
alternative shear design provisions that are
incorporated for the first time in the fourth edition
of the LRFD specifications are also applicable for
the design of members with f´c up to 124 MPa
(18,000 psi).
• Issue (3): The minimum shear reinforcement
requirements were valid for f´c up to 124 MPa
(18,000 psi).
• Issue (4): The maximum shear stress limit needs to
be restricted to 0.18f´c + vp unless the end region of
the member is designed by strut-and-tie procedures
or the end of the member is built integrally into its
support. The research also found that use of the
staggered shear design concept of the LRFD
commentary should be discontinued.
For a detailed review and understanding of the NCHRP
579 study findings, the final report should be
referenced and reviewed.
4.4 NCHRP Study 12-60
NCHRP Study 12-60 was entitled “Transfer,
Development, and Splice Length for
Strand/Reinforcement in High-Strength Concrete” [12].
The primary objective of the study was to review the
2004 LRFD Specifications pertaining to transfer,
development, and splice length for strand/reinforcement
and revise accordingly to extend their use to
high-strength normal weight concrete up to 104 MPa
(15,000 psi).
The report recommended a new transfer and
development length expression for incorporation into
the LFRD Specifications. Additionally, a new
requirement was introduced for the purpose of
qualifying the basic bonding properties of prestressing
strand entitled “Standard Test Method for the Bond of
prestressing Strands.” The test method requires that
prestressing strands obtain an average minimum
pull-out value of 4763 kg (10,500 lbs) for 12.7 mm (0.5
in.) strands and 5715 kg (12,600 lbs) for 15.24 mm (0.6
in.) strands.
Additional commentary was suggested to address the
material property of the prestressing strand as the 2004
LRFD Specifications only addressed the mechanical
properties of the prestressing strand (ie. breaking
strength, yield strength, and strand size). The report
further recommended that concrete strength be a
parameter within the transfer and development length
equations. The full details of the study may be
referenced for a comprehensive understanding of the
report findings.
5. FHWA INVESTIGATIONS
This section provides a brief overview of a recent
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study
undertaken in the United States and its contribution to
code development and the state-of-the-art in the area of
HSC and HPC.
5.1 FHWA Study HRT 05-057
FHWA Study HRT 05-057 was entitled “Compilation
and Evaluation of Results from High-Performance
Concrete Bridge Projects, Vol. I: Final Report” [13].
The first part of this project involved collecting and
compiling information from each joint State-FHWA
HPC bridge project and other HPC bridge projects. The
compilation is available on a CD-ROM and includes
information on the benefits of HPC, costs, structural
design, specified concrete properties, concrete mix
proportions, measured properties, associated research
projects, sources of data, and specifications.
Information from nineteen (19) bridges in fourteen (14)
States is included. A summary of the compiled
information is provided in this final report [13].
The second part of this project involved a review of the
American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard
Specifications for Transportation Materials and
Methods of Sampling and Testing, the AASHTO
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, the
AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Bridge Design Specifications, and the AASHTO LRFD The full details of the study may be referenced for
Bridge Construction Specifications for provisions that specific commentary for a comprehensive
directly impact the use of HPC. The detailed review is understanding of the report findings and
included in this report [13]. recommendations.

The third part of the project involved developing
proposed revisions to the AASHTO specifications
where sufficient research results exist to support the
revisions. Proposed revisions to fifteen (15) material
specifications, fourteen (14) test methods, thirty (30)
articles of the standard design specifications, 17 articles
of the LRFD design specifications, and 16 articles of
the LRFD construction specifications are included in
this report. These proposed revisions were submitted to
the appropriate AASHTO technical committees for
consideration for adoption into the relevant
specifications [13].
The fourth part of the project involved developing
specific recommendations for needed research where
sufficient results do not exist to support needed changes
in the specifications. Six research problem statements
related to concrete materials and four research problem
statements related to structural design are
6. ACI 363R State-of-the-Art HSC Review
The following sections will highlight a few material
and structural aspects discussed in current working
document of the ACI 363 Report on High-Strength
Concrete under review.
6.1 Material Properties of High-Strength Concrete
(1) Modulus of Elasticity (MOE)
Many investigators have reported values for the
modulus of elasticity of high-strength concretes of the
order of 31 to 52 GPa (4.5 to 7.5 x 106 psi) depending
on the method of determining the modulus and the
mixture constituents and proportions. A comparison of
several reported empirical equations including the
expression given in ACI 318-08, for a concrete density
of 2346 kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) is presented in Fig. 1.
2 4 6 8 10 12
9

recommended. These research problem statements have Ec=2,101,775+26,200 (f'c)0.5 (psi) 60

been submitted to the appropriate Transportation

8 Ec=57,000 (f'c)0.5 (psi)
Ec=40,000 (f'c)0.5+106 (psi)

Research Board technical committees for prioritization

Ec=w2.55 (f'c)0.315 (psi)
7 Ec=w2.5 (f'c)0.325 (psi)

and funding recommendations [13].

Ec=309,500 (f'c)0.3 (psi)

6
Ec (145/w)1.5 x 10-6 , psi

40

Volume II of this series was entitled “Compilation and 5

Normal Weight Concrete
Martinez, Nilson & Slate

Evaluation of Results from High-Performance Concrete 4

Carrasquillo, Nilson & Slate
Kaar, Hanson & Capell

Bridge Projects, Vol. II: Appendixes,” consisted of the

Perechio & Kleger
Ritchart Draffin, Olson & Heltman
Pauw

appendices for Volume I.

3 Hanson 20
Bower & Viest
Richart & Jensen
Ekenel & Myers
2 Light Weight Concrete
Martinez, Nilson & Slate Myers
Kluge, Sports & Tuma Diatta

Specifically, FHWA Study HRT-05-057 recommended 1

Richart & Jensen
Price & Cordon
Hanson
Legeron & Paultre
Li
Cusson & Paultree

the following:
Hanson
Shideler Le Roy
Yang, Shen, & Myers

0 0

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

• Proposed revisions to fifteen (15) AASHTO

material specifications plus the inclusion of one (1)
new materials specification.
• Proposed revisions fourteen (14) AASHTO test
methods plus one (1) new test method.
• Proposed revisions to thirty (30) articles in the
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges.
• Proposed revisions to seventeen (17) articles in the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
• Proposed revisions to sixteen (16) articles in the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction
Specifications.
• The study recommended the submission of ten (10)
problem statements to appropriate Transportation
Research Board (TRB) Technical Committees and
the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research.
• The study recommended the submission of ten (10)
problem statements submitted to other research
organizations such as the American Concrete
Association (ACI), Portland Cement Association
(PCA), and the Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Institute (PCI).
Fig. 1. Modulus of elasticity versus square root of
measured concrete strength (incorporating lower and
higher strength concrete data)
Several reported empirical models are presented in Eqs.
1-5 as a representative sample.
EC = w1.5 ( f c )0.5 psi ( AASHTO / ACI 318) (1)
EC = 40, 000( f c )0.5 + 106 psi ( ACI 363R − 97 HSC ) (2)
EC = w2.5 ( f c )0.315 psi (Cook − 1989) (3)
EC = w2.5( fc )0.325 psi (Shah et al. - 1985 (4)
EC = 2,101, 775 + 26, 200( f c )0.5 ( Radain et al. − 1993) (5)
Similar empirical expressions have been developed for
light-weight density high-strength concrete using
different data sets. It may be noted that no single
empirical expression estimates the modulus of elasticity
for concretes with compressive strengths over 55 MPa
 (8000 psi) to a high degree of accuracy for the data set compressive strength for the design of high-strength
given in Fig. 1. Deviation from estimated values are concrete members through a trial field batching series
highly dependent on the properties and proportions of on the specific mix design or by documented
the coarse aggregate as well as the curing condition as performance.
illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3. Fig. 2 highlights the fact
that not only does the course aggregate (CA) percent (2) Modulus of Rupture (MOR)
play a major role in the MOE, but so does the curing The values reported by various investigators for the
condition or location. HSC representative of within the modulus of rupture (MOR) of both lightweight and
member develops MOE much faster, but also at a lower normal density high-strength concretes fall in the range
ultimate level compared to standard moist cured of 0.62√f’c to 0.62√f’c (MPa) [7.5√f’c to 12√f’c (psi)],
cylinders that may be used for QC purposes. where both the modulus of rupture and the compressive
strength are expressed in psi. ACI 318-08 references
Eq.6 as its empirical equation for MOR.
8000
ASTM Moist Cured Specimens Match Cured
P/C Beam

7000
Specimen
fr = 7.5(f’c)0.5 (psi) ACI 318-08 (6)
Elastic Modulus, ksi
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa

6000 56-day MOE

28-day MOE
The current ACI 318-08 empirical equation for MOR
7-day MOE does not follow the trend of data presented in Fig. 4. As
5000
1-day MOE discussed previously with the MOE, the aggregate type
4000 and mix constituents will influence the MOR of the
concrete.
3000
36% 40% 44% 44% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2000
Coarse Aggregate Content
by percentage of Mix Constituents
f'r = 7.5 (fc)0.5 psi
12
Fig. 2. Modulus of elasticity versus coarse aggregate 1600
f'r = 11.7 (fc)0.5 psi

f'r = 0.71 (fc)0.79 psi

content by weight and curing condition

Modulus rupture fr , MPa

Modulus rupture fr , psi

[Adapted from Ref. 14]

1200
8

9000
AASHTO &
ASTM Moist Cured Specimens / 56-Day Results
ACI 318 ACI 363 SOTA '97
8000 800 Legeron & Paultre
Elastic Modulus, ksi

Mokhtarzadeh & French

Bakhsh, Wafa, & Akhtaruzzaman

7000 Carrasquillo, Nilson & Slate

Khan, Cook, & Mitchell
4
Li, Park & Tanaka
Gonnerman & Schuman
400
6000 Walker & Bloem
Gopalan & Haque
ACI 363 Wafa & Ashour
Burg & Ost
5000 Malhotra
Mokhtarzadeh & French
0 0
4000 0 40 80 120 160

3000
Dolomitic Limestone River Gravel Trap Rock Calcitic Limestone Fig. 4. Relationships between modulus of rupture and
2000 square root of measured compressive strength
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Sq Rt Compressive Strength, psi
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa (3) Split Tensile Strength (STS)
Splitting tensile strength results for high-strength
Fig. 3. Modulus of elasticity versus square root concrete are shown in Fig. 5.
compressive strength by coarse aggregate type
[Adapted from Ref. 14] 4 6 8 10

1600

Fig. 3 illustrates the influence that different aggregate f' sp = 6.7 (fc)0.5 psi 10

sources may play in MOE and compressive strength f' sp = 7.4 (fc)0.5 psi

development. The variable in this figure was largely the 1200 f' sp = 1.98 (fc)0.63 psi
Splitting Tensile Strength f'sp, psi

Splitting Tensile Strength f'sp, MPa

aggregate type as the other mix constituents and

contents were very similar. Selection of the most
6
appropriate aggregate type for a specific application 800

yields a significant influence on the MOE. This

highlights the greater sensitivity of HSC compared to 4

conventional or normal strength concrete that in many 400

cases is not considered within empirical relationships

ACI 363 SOTA '97
2
Myers
Mokhtarzadeh & French

that predict MOE. Yang, Shen, & Myers

0 0

Due to the significant influence of the aggregate type, 40 60 80 100 120 140

content, and other mix constituents, Myers and

Carrasquillo [14] recommended and the ACI 363 Fig. 5. Relationships between split tensile strength
committee concurs [15] that the design engineer verify and square root of measured compressive strength
any modulus of elasticity which is assumed based on
ACI 318-08 references Eq. 7 as its empirical equation
for STS.
fct = 6.7(f’c)0.5 (psi) ACI 318-08
Carrasquillo et al. [16] recommended Eq. 8 for
estimating splitting tensile strength of normal density
concrete. Other researchers have reported empirical
expressions that are relatively similar including the
effects of curing for particular data sets as shown in Eq.
9 [17].
fsp = 7.4(f’c)0.5 (psi) for 3,000 psi < f'c < 12,000 psi
fsp = 1.98(f’c)0.63 (psi)
It may be noted that the empirical equations reported by
Mokhtarzadeh and French [17] are higher than ACI Eq.
(7). As the compressive strength increases, the values
for the splitting strength fall in the upper range of the
empirical equations presented as shown in Fig. 5. Note
that many researchers have shown that power function
equations other than 0.5 fit the data better. It is apparent
that the square root function does not follow the correct
trend with increasing strength.
Other topics including stress-strain behavior, poisson’s
ratio, fatigue strength, thermal properties, heat
evolution due to hydration, strength gain with age,
freeze-thaw resistance, shrinkage, creep, permeability,
and abrasion resistance as they related to HSC are also
discussed in the ACI 363 SOTA document, but not
presented within this discussion.
6.2 Structural Design Considerations
High-strength concretes have some characteristics and
engineering properties that are different from those of
lower strength concretes. The use of higher-strength
concretes permits more efficient structural designs,
allowing members to span longer distances, be smaller
in cross section, and carry larger loads. These designs
are more likely to be controlled by serviceability and
other practical design considerations instead of strength.
As a result, special considerations may be required in
the design of high-strength concrete structural members
[15].
(1) Axial Strength of HSC Columns
Tests by several researchers have shown that the current
ACI 318-08 code relationship for HSC columns under
pure axial compression is less than predicted by Eq. 10.
Po = 0.85f' c (A g − A st ) + f y A st
where:
f'c = specified compressive strength of the
concrete;
fy = yield strength of steel;
Ag = gross area of section; and
Ast = total area of longitudinal steel.
This is associated with premature spalling of cover
concrete. The early spalling of cover concrete in HSC
columns is attributed to differences in the rate of drying
shrinkage between the cover concrete and the inner
(7) core. NCHRP Study 595 and other researchers have
suggested a modification to the 0.85 factor (α1) based
on the compressive strength of the concrete.
(2) Effects of Confinement in HSC Columns
Lateral reinforcement in columns, particularly in the
form of continuous spirals, has two beneficial effects on
column behavior: (1) it greatly increases the strength of
the core concrete inside the spiral by confining the core
(8) against lateral expansion under load; and (2) it
increases the axial strain capacity of the concrete,
(9) permitting a more gradual and ductile failure, that is, a
tougher column [15]. This relationship for confined
columns is illustrated in Fig. 6. Confinement is less
effective for HSC columns due to reduced lateral
expansion of the concrete core [15]. This reduced
effectiveness can be attributed to less lateral expansion
of the concrete core, which leads to lower stresses in
the spirals at the peak load in high-strength concrete
columns.
Axial
Load
With Adequate
Confinement
Without
Confinement Axial
Displacement
Fig. 6. Confinement of Axial Load-Axial
Displacement Relationship for Columns
The ACI 318-08 equation for minimum volumetric
ratio of spiral is:
⎛ Ag ⎞ f' (11)
ρ s = 0.45⎜⎜ − 1⎟⎟ c
⎝ Ac ⎠ fy
where:
ρs = ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to
volume of concrete core;
Ag = gross area of concrete section;
Ac = area of concrete core;
f'c = specified compressive strength of
concrete; and
fy = yield strength of spiral steel.
Several authors report a correlation between axial
ductility and the parameter shown in Eq. 12 [15].
(10)
ρs f y
(12)
f c'
Experimental data suggests similar trends for tied
high-strength concrete columns as for high-strength
concrete columns with spirals. As noted in Section 4.2,
NCHRP Study 495 did not recommend changes to the
AASHTO guidelines for ties or spiral reinforcement
provisions. An important observation relating to
spirally reinforced columns is that the level of
confinement stress corresponding to spirals designed by
ACI 318-08 is generally rather low for all columns. The
confinement stress becomes significantly lower for
larger-diameter columns, assuming that the cover
requirements remain constant. On-going work in this
area continues to examine the current ACI code
provisions.
(3) Flexural Strength of HSC Columns
Tests by several researchers [15] have shown that the
flexural strength of HSC columns is less than predicted
by the ACI 318-99 equivalent rectangular stress block
approach. Fig. 7 illustrates the variation in stress
distribution for NSC and HSC. To account for this
variation modifications in the stress block parameter,
β1, has been suggested by several authors including
under NCHRP Study 495.
Fig. 7. Stress Distribution in NSC and HSC
(4) Flexural Strength of HSC Beams
The flexural strength of beams is largely controlled by
the magnitude of the internal tensile force in the
reinforcement (T = Asfy). Therefore, the flexural
strength is not very sensitive to the compressive
strength, f’c, of the member. The shape of the
compressive stress block only affects the location of the
resultant compressive forces. Many stress blocks have
been proposed by researchers including rectangular,
triangular, and trapezoidal. The current ACI 318-08
equivalent rectangular stress block results in predicted
flexural strengths that vary by less than 5 percent.
(5) Ductility of HSC Beams
Section ductility is important because it allows for
plastic hinging to develop in beams. The formation of
plastic hinges, as illustrated in Fig. 8, allows for
adequate deformability to warn of impending failure,
and allows for the redistribution of moments in
structurally indeterminate systems.
Fig. 8. Plastic Hinging of a Beam
Ductility can be defined in many ways, including as a
ratio of the deflection (or cross-section curvature) at
failure to the deflection (or curvature) at the load
producing yield of the reinforcement as shown in Eqs.
13 and 14.
Δu
μ=
Δy
(13)
ψ
μ= u
ψy
(14)
where:
μ = ductility index;
Δu = beam deflection at failure load;
Δy = beam deflection at the load producing
yielding of tensile steel;
ψu = cross-section curvature at failure load;
ψy = cross-section curvature at the load
producing yielding of tensile steel.
Researchers have investigated the plastic rotation
capability of HSC beams. Some research has shown
that the top fiber compressive strain at failure ecu shows
a decreasing trend with increasing f’c. However, for the
same quantity and strength of tensile reinforcement,
neutral axis depth will be smaller for beams with higher
f’c. These two aspects counteract each other and
therefore the plastic rotation capability has been found
to be comparable to NSC beams.
Confinement is important for ductility, but HSC beams
are less sensitive to confinement because of less
volume dilation. There are more explosive failures for
HSC beams, with less softening and HSC beams do not
exhibit the gradual reduction in capacity that a NSC
beam will exhibit.
(6) Shear and Diagonal Tension
Current ACI 318-08 shear and diagonal tension
provisions are widely regarded to be conservative for
both NSC and HSC. Although some researchers have
found that the level of conservatism in the ACI concrete
shear contribution term, Vc, in the prediction equations
decrease as f’c increases. It may be noted that the
aggregate interlock contribution to Vc will often be
reduced for HSC since fracture may occur through the
aggregate at the shear crack interface. The failure crack
will also normally be smoother. Researchers have also
noted that increasing the minimum level of transverse
(shear) reinforcement could overcome potential
deficiencies in the Vc term. As noted earlier, the current
ACI 318-08 code provisions imposed a maximum value
of 69.5 MPa (10,000 psi) for use in calculations of
shear strength of concrete beams, joists, and slabs.
Other topics including bond and development, torsion,
cracking, deflection, and prestress losses as they related
to HSC are also discussed in the ACI 363 SOTA
document, but not presented within this discussion.
7. APPLICATIONS
High-strength concrete has been primarily used in
high-rise buildings, long-span bridges, and offshore
structures. This chapter contains a summary of some
of the applications In the United States.
7.1 Buildings
The largest application of high-strength concrete and
most rapid implementation of HSC have occurred in
building industry in the United States. This has been
primary in building columns and shear walls of
high-rise structures. HSC provides the most economical
material to carry a compressive load while minimizing
the interruption to rentable floor space that has been a
driving force to use HSC in the US. A representative
example is Chicago’s 225 West Wacker Drive, shown in
Fig. 9, whose building columns utilize 97.3 MPa
(14,000 psi) specified compressive strength concrete in
1988 to minimize column size. This building was
among the wave of late 1980 and early 1990s building
to incorporate HSC. Since that time numerous other
building applications have been undertaken commonly
using compressive strength levels that the local
aggregates can support.
Fig. 9. Chicago’s 225 West Wacker Drive,
Chicago, Illinois, USA
In some instances strength is not the governing criteria
in building column design; for example, in 1987, 131
MPa (19,000 psi) HSC was indirectly specified in Two
Union Square in Seattle, WA to achieve a high modulus
of elasticity.
7.2 Bridges
The technology transfer of HSC into bridge structures
was implemented at a slower pace compared to the
building industry in the US. To expedite the use of HSC,
the FHWA spurred its utilization under its Strategic
Highway Research Program (SHRP) in the 1990s. The
first two of these HSC bridges were constructed in the
State of Texas, USA. The Louetta Road Overpass in
Houston, Texas utilized the newly developed
prestressed precast Texas “U-beam” as illustrated in Fig.
10 with design compressive strengths of 91 MPa
(13,100 psi) in the U-beam girders.
Fig. 10. Louetta Road Overpass
Houston, Texas USA [14]
The highest strength concrete in a bridge to date in the
US is the North Concho River Overpass in San Angelo,
Texas (see Fig. 11) which was also part of the SHRP
HSC Bridge initiative. This project used AASHTO
Type IV girders with a specified design strength of 101
MPa (14,700 psi) for some of the girders. The required
release strength for these girders was 74 MPa (10,800
psi). Upon completion of construction girder
compressive strengths were measured above 118 MPa
(17,000 psi). HSC was required to achieve a span
length of 47.9 (157 ft), with a simple span 1.37 m (54
in.) deep beam. A combination of straight pretensioned
strands and draped post-tensioned strands was used to
achieve the required prestress force.
Fig. 11. North Concho River Overpass
San Angelo, Texas, USA [14]
To date most State Department of Transportation
(DOTs) have used HSC in some aspect of their bridge
design and construction. Among the earliest states to
use HSC included Texas, Virginia, New Hampshire,
West Virginia, Washington, Colorado, Ohio, Louisiana,
Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, and Missouri.
High-strength concrete has also been used in
cable-stayed bridges in the US.
7.3 Other Structures
HSC has been used in other structures including
stadiums, offshore facilities, concrete polls, thin arch
dams and elsewhere. A special column application for
HSC included Reliant Stadium, in Houston, TX. The
entire retractable roof structure of this building is
supported on four massive super columns. Each
column is 46.6 m (153 ft) tall and contains 90 MPa
(13,000 psi) compressive strength concrete.
REFERENCES
1. American Concrete Institute Committee 363,
“Report on High-Strength Concrete,” ACI 363R-97,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1997, pp. 55.
2. American Concrete Institute Committee 363,
“Guide to Quality Control and Testing of
High-Strength Concrete,” ACI 363.2R-98,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1998, pp. 18.
3. American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-08,
“Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary,” Farmington Hills, MI,
2008, 465 pp.
4. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, "AASHTO-LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications," Fourth Edition, Washington,
DC, 2007.
5. American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-89,
“Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary,” Detroit, MI, 1989.
6. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, "PCI Design
Handbook, Precast and Prestressed Concrete," Sixth
Edition, Chicago, IL, 2004.
7. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, "PCI Bridge
Design Manual," First Edition, Chicago, IL, 2000.
8. Tadros, M.K., Al-Omaishi, N., Seguirant, S.J., and
Gallt, J.G. “Prestress Losses in Pretensioned
High-Strength Concrete Bridge Girders,”
Transportation Research Board, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Report 496, Washington, D.C., 2003, 73 pp.
9. Myers, J.J., Brewe, J.E., Myers, J., “Prestress Loss
Behavior of High-Strength SCC Girders Subjected
to Elevated Compressive Fiber Stresses,”
Proceeding for the 8th High-Strength/High
performance Concrete International Symposium,
Tokyo, Japan, Published on CD Rom, October 2008,
9 pp.
10. Rizkalla, S., Mirmiran, A., Zia, P., Russell, H., and
Mast, R. “Application of LFRD Bridge Design
Specifications to High-Strength Structural Concrete:
Flexure and Compression Provisions,”
Transportation Research Board, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Report 595, Washington, D.C., 2007, 37 pp.
11. Hawkins, N.M., Kuchma, D.A. “Application of
LFRD Bridge Design Specifications to
High-Strength Structural Concrete: Shear
Provisions,” Transportation Research Board,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 579, Washington, D.C., 2007, 206
pp.
12. Ramirez, J.A. and Russell, B.W., “Transfer,
Development, and Splice Length for
Strand/Reinforcement in High-Strength Concrete,”
Transportation Research Board, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Report 12-60, Washington, D.C., 2007, 431 pp.
13. Russell, H.G., Miller, R.A., Ozyildirim, H.C., and
Tadros, M.K., “Compilation and Evaluation of
Results from High-Performance Concrete Bridge
Projects, Volume I: Final Report,” Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Research, Development
and Technology Report FHWA HGT-05-056,
McLean, VA, October 2006, 178 pp.
14. Myers, J.J., Carrasquillo, R.L. “The Production and
Quality Control of High Performance Concrete in
Texas Bridge Structures,” Center for Transportation
Research, Preliminary Report Number 580-589-1,
Submitted November 1999.
15. American Concrete Institute Committee 363,
“Guide to Quality Control and Testing of
High-Strength Concrete,” ACI 363.2R, Revised
Edition, Under TAC Review, Farmington Hills, MI,
2008, pp. 59.
16. Carrasquillo, R. L.; Slate, F. O.; and Nilson, A. H.,
"Microcracking and Behavior of High Strength
Concrete Subject to Short-Term Loading," ACI
Journal, Proceedings V. 78, No. 3, Mar., 1981, pp.
179-186.
17. Mokhtarzadeh, and A., French, C., “Mechanical
Properties of High-Strength Concrete with
Consideration for Precast Applications,” ACI
Materials Journal, V. 97, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., 2000, pp.
136-148.