How to evaluate
petrographic reports
Separating facts from conclusions
BY BRUCE A. SUPRENANT AND WARD R. MALISCH
petrographic report is often used in construc-
A tion disputes or litigation as evidence of poor
workmanship by contractors. In many of the re-
ports contractors have sent us over the past 10
years, the petrographer concludes that the con-
crete was overfinished or that the air content, water-ce-
ment ratio, or both were outside specified values. Con-
tractors may accept these conclusions because they
don’t understand the limitations of petrographers’ tech-
niques. But because of these limitations, we think some
of the conclusions should be challenged.
Check the sampling plan
Petrographic examination of hardened concrete can
cost up to $1,000 per sample. Because of this, the num-
ber of samples the petrographer sees is sometimes lim-
ited. In some cases, the petrographer’s conclusions may
not be valid because the sample size is too small or the
sampling plan is inadequate. Use ASTM C 823-95 (Ref.
1) as a guide for sample plans and sizes.
If testing of hardened concrete is to be used to deter-
mine compliance with codes or contract documents,
ASTM C 823 states that not less than five samples
should be taken from each category of concrete for each
test. Thus conclusions based on a sample size of less
than five don’t meet that criterion.
Also, don’t automatically accept the conclusions of a
petrographic examination if only a sample of “bad” con-
crete was analyzed. Ideally, the petrographer gets to see
samples of concrete known or suspected to be defective,
plus samples of concrete believed to be of good quality.
This is especially important for concrete with surface de-
fects such as scaling. In such instances, what is “good”
and “bad” can only be a relative comparison. Otherwise,
what is “bad” is considered from the petrographer’s pre-
vious experience, which may or may not relate to the
concrete on your project.
Facts vs. conclusions
When reading a petrographic report, you must first
separate factual information from conclusions. You may
agree that a petrographer can determine the air content
of hardened concrete, within appropriate precision and
bias limits, but you may not agree with the conclusions
regarding how the measured air content affects the
durability of the structure. Thus it’s important to note
what the petrographer observed, evaluate the accuracy
of that observation, and then decide if the observation
and the accuracy support the conclusion.
Based on the factual observations we’ve seen in some pet-
rographic reports, conclusions regarding overfinishing, air
content, and water-cement ratio were of dubious validity.
Overfinishing
Some petrographers conclude that surface defects are
caused by overfinishing, citing a thick layer of mortar
and reduced air content in this paste layer as evidence
that the concrete was overfinished. They also note as ev-
idence oval-shaped voids near the surface, as compared
with spherical voids in the main body of the concrete.
Mortar-layer thickness. How thick must the mortar
layer at the surface be to indicate overfinishing? And will
the thickness vary with the mortar content of the mix? ACI
309R-96 (Ref. 2) states that “mortar thicknesses over coarse
aggregate in excess of 1⁄8 inch (3 mm) indicate overvibration
or overfinishing, which can result in reduced abrasion resis-
tance.” ACI also indicates that this could mean the mix
used had an excessive mortar content.
It’s difficult to establish a single mortar-layer thick-
ness that indicates overfinishing. It’s best to evaluate the
mortar-layer thickness based on a “good” and “bad” sam-
ple from the same concrete. Even then, a thicker mortar
layer may not be the cause of surface defects.
ACI Committee 302 studied the effect of finishing
techniques on delaminations (Ref. 3). In this field
study, four panels were finished with float pans and
float blades. One panel contained air-entrained con-
crete and the others didn’t. In addition, finishers began
floating one non-air-entrained panel while the bleed-
water sheen was still visible. The petrographic report
indicates that the mortar layer was 1 to 2 mm thick for
all panels except the one finished early. For this panel,
the half finished initially by float pans had a 3- to 4-
mm-thick mortar layer while the half finished by float
blades had a 1- to 2-mm-thick mortar layer at the sur-
face.
Was the panel with the thicker 3- to 4-mm mortar
layer overfinished? That might be a reasonable conclu-
sion since finishing started while bleedwater was on the
surface and the panel did receive more finishing than the
other three panels. But the thicker mortar layer in this
case didn’t cause delaminations to form. The air-en-
trained concrete panel, however, with a surface mortar
layer 1 to 2 mm thick, did delaminate.
Loss of air content. As evidence of overfinishing,
many petrographers point to the air content in the top
surface. If it’s less than that of the main body of concrete
and the air bubbles are distorted (oval) rather than spher-
ical, they attribute surface defects, such as freeze-thaw
deterioration, to overfinishing.
However, in 1964, Mielenz (Ref. 4) stated: “Air content
in the uppermost part of a concrete slab, particularly
within 1⁄2 inch of the finished surface, is characteristically
less than that in the concrete at greater depth because
Ref. 8
Relationship between the air contents of fresh and hardened
concrete (Ref. 8).
the manipulation removes a large portion of the larger
voids. This action may decrease the air-void content of
the topmost 1⁄16 inch to one-third or less of the air content
of the concrete as a whole. Nevertheless, if the concrete
was originally adequately air-entrained, the spacing fac-
tor is not significantly modified.”
Newlon (Ref. 5) verified Mielenz’s finding based on ex-
perimental work. He found that the average near-surface
air-void content was reduced by about 70% compared
with the void contents within the concrete mass.
Newlon concludes: “Thus, the changes in the air-void
system indicate that the volume of air is reduced, but
that the air lost is in the form of the larger bubbles,
which offer little protection. The more important void
properties, specific surface, and spacing factor are im-
proved. This finding is consistent with Mielenz.”
Backstrom et al. (Ref. 6) previously indicated that the
air-bubble shape becomes distorted during concrete plac-
ing and finishing due to the compactive effort. The dis-
torted bubble, however, does not diminish its ability to
ensure freeze-thaw resistance of the concrete.
A loss in air content and distorted bubble shapes are typi-
cal consequences of the normal procedures for placing and
finishing concrete. As Mielenz states, the paste layer can
have an air content of one-third or less of that in the main
body and still provide adequate freeze-thaw resistance.
These published data and reports provide little support
for the belief that overfinishing invariably produces infe-
rior concrete.
Air content of hardened concrete
Petrographers normally measure the air content of
hardened concrete microscopically, using a polished sec-
tion of concrete taken from a core. ASTM C 457-98 (Ref.
7) is the test method used.
Don’t expect the air content of hardened concrete to
match that of fresh concrete. The graph on page 29 rep-
resents over 400 separate comparisons of fresh and hard-
ened air contents taken from a variety of laboratory and
field studies. For this data, the mean fresh and hardened
air content is 6.0%. The mean absolute difference be-
tween fresh and hardened concretes is 1.3%. Typically,
the difference in the air contents of the same fresh and
hardened concrete will be within ±2% (Ref. 8).
ASTM C 457 indicates the variability to expect in mea-
suring hardened-concrete air content. A study sponsored
by ASTM showed that in 95% of all cases the expected
difference between two independent measurements of air
content on a single specimen would be less than or equal
to 0.82% if the two tests were performed in the same lab-
oratory. The expected difference would be less than or
equal to 1.16% if tested in two different laboratories. In-
dependent tests by Sommers (Ref. 7) showed that the ex-
pected difference between two measurements of air con-
tent on the same specimen would be 1.61% within the
same laboratories, and 2.01% if performed in different
laboratories.
As Hover (Ref. 9) points out, none
of these studies has replicated the
typical conditions on a concrete pro-
ject, with random sampling on
nonuniform concrete combined
with variable surface preparation
and local variations in procedures,
operators, and equipment. ASTM C
457 therefore advises: “The variabil-
ity of the test method would be
higher in actual practice for speci-
mens sampled and prepared from in-
place concrete since additional varia-
tion due to sample selection and
surface preparation in different labo-
ratories would increase the coeffi-
cient of variation.”
So if the specifications call for 5%
to 7% air and the air content of a
hardened concrete is reported as 8%,
it doesn’t necessarily mean that the
contractor or producer has somehow
increased the air content to beyond
the specified value. It can simply
mean that normal variability ac-
counts for the difference.
The precision of the fresh-con-
crete air test is better than that of
the hardened-concrete air test. Thus
to obtain a level of confidence for air
content of hardened concrete that
equals that of fresh concrete, more
samples are required. Yet petrogra-
phers rarely measure air content of
hardened concrete on as many sam-
ples as are used for fresh concrete.
ASTM C 457 does, however, state
a minimum sample requirement:
“For referee purposes or to deter-
mine the compliance of hardened
concrete with requirements of speci-
fications for the air-void system, ob-
tain samples for analysis by this test
method from at least three ran-
domly selected locations over the
area or throughout the body of con-
crete to be tested.” This would apply
only when the project specification
requests measurement of the hard-
ened-concrete air-void system.
If properties of the air-void system
in hardened concrete are not within
commonly accepted ranges, does
this mean that the concrete will al-
ways perform poorly? For instance,
if the petrographer finds the air-
void-system spacing factor is 0.01 in-
stead of the recommended 0.008,
but the concrete surface is in good
condition, does this mean poor fu-
ture performance? In concrete tech-
nology there are few absolutes. Con-
crete with the 0.01 spacing factor
may perform adequately under some
conditions (Ref. 10) and inade-
quately under others. Perhaps the
pertrographer should recommend
scaling-resistance tests on samples of
the in-place concrete.
Estimating water-cement
ratio
Petrographers often estimate the
water-cement ratio of hardened con-
crete. Their reports may indicate that
they have performed the examina-
tion in accordance with ASTM C
856-95 (Ref. 11). This standard, how-
ever, doesn’t contain a methodology
for determining water-cement ratio.
It simply states in section 4.2.5 that
an “unusually high water-cement
ratio” of the paste can be described.
In 1981, Campbell (Ref. 12) said
that “an interpretation of concrete
water-cement ratio can be made uti-
lizing an estimate of the unhydrated
portland cement abundance and the
types and distributions of hydration
products, combined with other pet-
rographic data such as paste hard-
ness, color, and luster and the depth
of carbonation.” He also indicated
that the interpretation must be re-
fined by knowledge of the curing
conditions of the concrete and the
environment to which it has subse-
quently been subjected.
Petrographers typically have pre-
pared samples of concrete with vary-
ing water-cement ratios for use as
comparison samples. Thin slices,
called thin sections, are removed
from these concretes and examined
at magnifications up to 400X. The
petrographer can then estimate the
water-cement ratio of the field-con-
crete samples by comparing their
characteristics with those of the
samples with known water-cement
ratios. Unfortunately, ASTM C 856
doesn’t provide a precision and bias
statement for the estimation of
water-cement ratio of hardened con-
crete.
A recent textbook, Concrete Petrog-
raphy (Ref. 13), states: “In practice, ac-
curate estimation of the water-ce-
ment ratio in a concrete is rarely
necessary. Often the petrographer
will only be required to establish
whether or not a particular concrete
had a water-cement ratio which sig-
nificantly exceeded a given value. Al-
though there is relationship between
the proportion of residual unhy-
drated cement particles and water-ce-
ment ratio, the degree of hydration is
also strongly dependent upon curing
conditions and the properties of the
particular cement involved.”
According to French (Ref. 14), “the
amount of unhydrated portland ce-
ment (residual clinker) is related to
the original water-cement ratio of
the mixture and the conditions and
duration of curing. In concretes
made at normal ambient tempera-
tures of around 20° C (68° F) and
where curing is limited to a few days,
the amount of unhydrated portland
cement is directly dependent on the
original water-cement ratio. In prac-
tice, it is found that if the water-ce-
ment ratio is approximately 0.61 or
0.62, the cement powder is virtually
completely hydrated. At water-ce-
ment ratios of about 0.5, between 3%
and 4% of the total cement paste
typically consists of unhydrated ma-
terial, and if the water-cement ratio
is as low as 0.4, 7% or 8% of the ma-
terial may be unhydrated.”
French also acknowledges that the
amount of unhydrated portland ce-
ment in concrete may increase or
decrease depending on the ambient
temperature at which the concrete is
placed. For concretes placed in cold
weather, he says, “the unhydrated
portland cement of the concrete
may appear to have a water-cement
ratio of about 0.4 when in fact it was
made with a ratio of 0.6 or above.”
Because curing temperatures can in-
fluence the amount of unhydrated
portland cement, a few petrogra-
phers supplement the estimate of
the water-cement ratio by examin-
ing the size, amount, and distribu-
tion of calcium hydroxide crystals in
the cement paste. The estimated
amount of unhydrated portland ce-
ment may also be influenced by the
presence of some supplementary ce-
mentitious materials that react with
available mixing water and reduce
the amount of calcium hydroxide in
the cement paste.
In the reports we reviewed, it ap-
pears that most petrographers esti-
mated the water-cement ratio based
primarily on the amount of unhy-
drated portland cement. Above a
water-cement ratio of about 0.60,
there is very little (less than 1%) un-
hydrated portland cement that can
be observed in thin section. This is
why ASTM C 856 states that a petro-
grapher can determine when a con-
crete has an usually high water-ce-
ment ratio.
However, determining a water-ce-
ment ratio below 0.60 becomes
more difficult, as evidenced by the
varied conclusions in the petro-
graphic reports we reviewed. One
petrographer stated in his report
that there was 3% to 5% unhydrated
portland cement in the concrete,
and estimated the water-cement
ratio as 0.50 to 0.55. Another petro-
grapher indicated that 3% to 5% un-
hydrated portland cement shows
concrete with a water-cement ratio
of 0.45 to 0.55. Another indicated
that 5% to 10% unhydrated port-
land cement shows concrete with a
water-cement ratio of 0.45 to 0.50.
And a fourth indicated that 9% to
12% unhydrated portland cement
indicates a water-cement ratio of
0.42 to 0.50.
Most surprising was the conclu-
sion of one petrographer who exam-
ined a polished concrete section at
magnifications up to only 60X and
estimated the water-cement ratio at
0.55 to 0.60. This estimate wasn’t
based on the amount of unhydrated
portland cement since that can’t be
seen in polished sections at 60X.
The petrographer stated that a thin-
section analysis was beyond the
scope of the investigation. Unfortu-
nately, the petrographer’s estimate
of water-cement ratio is being used
to determine whether the producer
or contractor met the maximum
water-cement ratio required by the
specifications or the approved mix
design.
The legal community and some
consultants and petrographers are
using water-cement ratios estimated
from a very limited sample size to
make statements about whether all
the concrete on a project is in com-
pliance with the specifications. Since
1956, the past three editions of
ASTM 169 (Refs. 15, 16, and 17) in-
dicate that the ability to evaluate
water-cement ratio is in the range of
±0.05. It would appear that many
petrographers are estimating water-
cement ratios with a greater accu-
racy than can be justified.
Contractors shouldn’t conclude
that all petrographic reports are
flawed. But we’ve seen enough bad
reports to conclude that they should
be carefully read and the conclu-
sions evaluated. When unwarranted
conclusions have been drawn from
the facts presented, those conclu-
sions should be challenged. m
References
1. ASTM C 823-95,”Standard Practice
for Examination and Sampling of Hard-
ened Concrete in Constructions,”
ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa.,
1995.
2. ACI 309R-96, “Guide for Consolida-
tion of Concrete,” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1996.
3. Carl Bimel, “Is Delamination Really a
Mystery?” Concrete International,
American Concrete Institute, January
1998.
4. R.C. Mielenz, “Diagnosing Concrete
Failures,” Stanton Walker Lecture, Uni-
versity of Maryland, 1964.
5. Howard H. Newlon Jr., “Comparison
of Properties of Fresh and Hardened
Concrete in Bridge Decks,” Virginia
Highway Research Council, Char-
lottesville, Va., June 1971.
6. James E. Backstrom, Richard W.
Burrows, Richard C. Mielenz, and
Vladimir E. Wolkodoff, “Origin, Evolu-
tion, and Effects of the Air Void System
in Concrete, Part 3: Influence of Water-
Cement Ratio and Compaction,” Jour-
nal of the American Concrete Institute,
September 1958.
7. ASTM C 457-98, “Standard Test
Method for Microscopical Determina-
tion of Parameters of the Air-Void Sys-
tem in Hardened Concrete,” ASTM,
1998.
8. David A. Whiting and Mohamad A.
Nagi, Manual on Control of Air Content
in Concrete, Portland Cement Associa-
tion, Skokie, Ill., and National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association, Silver
Spring, Md., 1998.
9. Kenneth C. Hover, “Air Content and
Unit Weight of Hardened Concrete,”
chap. 28 in Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete-
Making Materials, ASTM 169C, Paul
Klieger and Joseph F. Lamond editors,
ASTM, 1994.
10. Kenneth C. Hover, “Specifying Air-
Entrained Concrete,” Concrete Con-
struction, May 1993, pp. 361-367.
11. ASTM C 856-95, “Standard Prac-
tice for Petrographic Examination of
Hardened Concrete,” ASTM, 1995.
12. Donald H. Campbell, “Application of
the Microscope in the Concrete Indus-
try,” Proceedings of the Third Interna-
tional Conference on Cement Mi-
croscopy, Houston, 1981.
13. Donald A. St. John, Alan W. Poole,
and Ian Sims, Concrete Petrography,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1998.
14. W.J. French, “Concrete Petrogra-
phy: a Review,” Quarterly Journal of En-
gineering Geology, Vol. 24, No. 1, The
Geological Society, 1991.
15. Bernard Erlin, “Petrographic Exami-
nation,” chap. 22 in Significance of
Tests and Properties of Concrete and
Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM
169C, Paul Klieger and Joseph F. Lam-
ond editors, ASTM, 1994.
16. Katharine Mather, “Petrographic Ex-
amination,” Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete
Aggregates, ASTM 169, 1956.
17. Katharine Mather, “Petrographic Ex-
amination,” chap. 11 in Significance of
Tests and Properties of Concrete and
Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM
169B, 1978.
Publication #C99K027
Copyright© 1999, The Aberdeen Group,
a division of Hanley-Wood, Inc.
All rights reserved