26
Point of View
Table 1a. Failure rate for Individual test result
criterion before Amendment No. 3 to IS 456:2000
SD
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
ITRf1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
z
-3.65
-3.25
-2.98
-2.79
-2.65
-2.54
-2.45
-2.38
-2.32
-2.27
-2.22
-2.18
-2.15
AFL
0.00013
0.00058
0.00143
0.00261
0.00402
0.00556
0.00714
0.00872
0.01026
0.01174
0.01316
0.01451
0.01578
%AFL
0.013
0.058
0.143
0.261
0.402
0.556
0.714
0.872
1.026
1.174
1.316
1.451
1.578
ITRf2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
z
-3.15
-2.85
-2.65
-2.51
-2.40
-2.32
-2.25
-2.20
-2.15
-2.11
-2.08
-2.05
-2.03
AFL
0.00082
0.00219
0.00402
0.00609
0.0082
0.01026
0.01222
0.01407
0.01578
0.01736
0.01883
0.02018
0.02143
%AFL
0.082
0.219
0.402
0.609
0.820
1.026
1.222
1.407
1.578
1.736
1.883
2.018
2.143
Problem statement
27
Point of View
Concrete properties
for examining the test
samples
The above test samples are
to be examined against the
following concrete:
Grade of concrete = M30
Standard deviation of 28
day compressive strengths
of concrete = 5 MPa.
Target mean compressive
strengths of concrete at
28 day
= fm
= fck + 1.65 * SD
= 30 + 1.65 * 5 = 38.25
MPa
= Population mean
strength of the concrete mix
=
fcindividual fck 3
fcindividual 30 3
28
fcindividual 27 MPa
It is worthwhile to recognise here that, for given fck ,
i.e., grade of concrete, there could be different values
of Standard Deviation, SDpop , then for each pair of
fck and SDpop , there is only one average compressive
strength computable as per the Codal provision given
in Column 2 of Table 11 of IS 456:2000. However,
for checking against Individual Test Result (ITR)
criterion, SD of concrete is not required. If we recognise
that SD represents the degree of quality control on the
site, then by not considering SD, the ITR criterion is
applicable to the given concrete grade produced under
any quality control.
Point of View
Test data set A
(i) 35, (ii) 33, (iii) 33, (iv) 34 MPa
Each of the above test results is more than 27 MPa and
hence, this concrete is acceptable from Individual Test
Result criterion. However, the concrete test data has to
be scrutinised against other criteria of the Code also for
deciding about the concrete itself.
Test data set B
(i) 35, (ii) 27, (iii) 40, (iv) 34 MPa
Three of the above test results are more than 27 MPa and
one test result is equal to 27 MPa. Hence, this concrete
is still acceptable from Individual Test Result criterion.
However, the concrete test data has to be scrutinised
against other criteria of the Code also for deciding about
the concrete itself.
Test data set C
(i) 35, (ii) 25, (iii) 41, (iv) 34 MPa
Three of the above test results are more than 27 MPa, but,
one test result is less than 27 MPa. Hence, this concrete
is not acceptable from Individual Test Result criterion.
Hence, the concrete test data need not be scrutinised
against other criteria of the code and we can now declare
that the concrete as unacceptable as a whole.
Test data set D
(i) 38, (ii) 26, (iii) 27, (iv) 44 MPa
Among the above four consecutive test results, two
are more than 27 MPa, and, one test result is equal to
27 MPa. But, there is a test value of 26 MPa, which is
1 MPa less than 27 MPa. Hence, the concrete represented
by the above four samples test values is not acceptable
from Individual Test Result criterion. Therefore, the
concrete test data need not be scrutinised against other
criteria of the Code and it is possible to decide about the
unacceptability of the concrete itself, immediately after
checking against the ITR criterion.
Test data Set E
(i) 38, (ii) 28, (iii) 29, (iv) 44 MPa
All of the above test results are more than 27 MPa.
Hence, this concrete is acceptable from Individual Test
Result criterion. However, the concrete test data has to
be scrutinised against other criteria of the Code also for
deciding about the concrete itself.
29
Point of View
It can be proved that the integration of the equation of
the curve given above is equal to unity.
9. The spread of the curve is related to SD; a lower
SD means narrower distribution of strengths and
a higher peak in the middle.
10. fck is a point on x-axis such that 5% of the area of
curve lies to left side and remaining 95% area lies
towards right. This indicates that an fck is a specific
point where 5% of the test results can be less than
this value and 95% of the test results can be more
than this value. Thus, if fck is considered, there is
a 1 in 20 chance that the strength from tests will
be less than this. The point, fck , is situated at a
distance of 1.65*SD from mean value, fm , situated
at the middle of the ND curve.
11. A Standard Normal Distribution is a normal
distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation
1. The abscissa of this curve is given by the
following equation:
z = ( x ) / = ( fc Xbar-pop ) / SDpop where fc is any
strength on x-axis
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Point of View
(viii) For example, for fck, the characteristic
strength, which is situated at a distance of
1.65*SDpop, the value of z for this point is
fck = Xbar-pop 1.65 * SDpop
Z = ( fc Xbar-pop ) / SDpop
= ( fck Xbar-pop ) / SDpop
= 1.65
Corresponding to a measurement value of z = 1.65, the
fraction of the area to the left of this point is an area of
0.049471 (from Standard Table) which is approximately
5%. Thus, it can be said that 5% the fc values can be
expected to fall below fck, which alternately confirms
that 95% the fc values are expected to exceed fck.
The above procedure can be used to estimate the
percentage of fc values to fall below at any z. This will
give us a technique to know the probability of occurrence
of ITR value suggested in the Code.
35
Point of View
deviation of the concrete itself. However, the failure rate
of this must be less that of fck itself which has a failure
rate of about 5% as seen earlier. The data regarding the
area falling to the right of the minimum ITR value for
any grade of concrete, but, with different SD values, is
given in Tables 1a and 1b, and Figure 3. It is seen that
the probability of getting strength lower than strength
of ITR criterion increases with increase in SD and hence,
lower value of SD is always preferable. When the SD is
normally adopted/observed SD of 5 MPa gives a failure
rate of 1 in 140, which has less probability of occurrence
than that of fck, where the probability is 1 in 20 only,
before Amendment No 3 to IS 456:2000 (Table 1a). But
after considering the Amendment No 3 to IS 456:2000
(Table 1b), for a SD of 5 MPa, the failure rate becomes 1
in 82, which has less probability of occurrence than that
of fck, where the probability is 1 in 20 only. Thus, the
data from the Tables 1a and 1b, represented in Figure3,
it is seen that the failure rates have increased at each SD.
Probably, the amended clause demands a higher level
of quality control.
Concluding remarks
1. Concrete is a heterogeneous material and
hence, each portion of its total volume can have
a different strength. Therefore, compressive
strength of concrete is treated mathematically as a
random variable. However, the concrete strength
of a given grade follows generally a Normal
Distribution Curve and hence, the concrete can
be characterised by statistical parameters for the
purpose of quality control, mix design, quality
control, and evaluation of sample test results for
conformity to acceptance criteria of BIS Codes.
2. Practically every structural concrete, for the
purpose of quality checking, according to
IS 456:2000, should be always defined by two
parameters: (a) its grade (numerically equal
to its characteristic strength, fck) and (b) its
standard deviation, SD. But, for checking against
Individual Test Result criterion, SD is not
required even though the probability of the ITR
value being not reached depends upon SD itself.
As the SD increases (meaning that with lower
quality control systems), the probability of the
ITR value occurring is more. Hence, it is always
necessary to maintain the stricter quality control
so that the SD anticipated is never exceeded in
actual concrete mixes.
36
Point of View
8. It is pertinent to observe that slightest changes
in acceptance criteria can have severe financial
and practical ramifications in the field. Therefore,
discussions among the experienced engineers
is necessary in trying to arrive at consensus
for evolving practical guidelines. BIS as a body
can plan a programme to collect different view
points on the ITR to bring about meaningful
and practically acceptable modifications to the
provisions in IS 456.
9. There is a need for special consideration to be
given for practising engineers concern related
to minimum acceptance value and strength
for structural design, while fixing lower bound
values of concrete strength in the form of ITR.
Though the mean strength and standard deviation
define a concrete represented by the Normal
Distribution Curve, mean strength, fm, (with 50%
probability of occurrence as seen from the ND
curve) is taken for laboratory design of concrete
mix (often called as Target Mean Strength) and
the Characteristic Strength, fck, (a 95% probability
value from ND Curve) for structural design. The
minimum acceptable strength value on site should
also be taken logically from ND curve. This is the
ITR value of the IS 456 and this definitely should
have rationally probability much lower than both
fm and fck. Considering this, a probability of 99%
(i.e, 1 in 100 failure) value (mentioned in Criterion
No 3 under paragraph 4.3.3 of ACI 214R) or much
more stricter than this can be suggested for the
ITR which represents the minimum acceptance
value. Instead of mentioning openly probability
value for defining the ITR, another suggestion
could be (fck-SD) as ITR which means a value of
(fm-2.65*SD) since the fck is at a distance of 1.65
from the fm (on the ND curve). The data in Table1
shows that, this could mean a failure rate of more
than 1 in 700 which may seem to be a little stiff
criterion.
Acknowledgements
37