USE OF “CONCRETE FAMILY” CONCEPT FOR CONFORMITY

CONTROL OF READY MIXED CONCRETE

Lu Jin Ping*, American Concrete Institute – Singapore Chapter
Soh Guan Hong, Admaterials Technologies Pte Ltd, Singapore
Goh Lee Yong, Admaterials Technologies Pte Ltd, Singapore

35th Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 25 - 27 August 2010, Singapore

Article Online Id: 100035011

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://cipremier.com/100035011

This article is brought to you with the support of

Singapore Concrete Institute

www.scinst.org.sg

All Rights reserved for CI Premier PTE LTD

You are not Allowed to re distribute or re sale the article in any format without written approval of
CI Premier PTE LTD

Visit Our Website for more information

www.cipremier.com
35th Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 25 – 27 August 2010, Singapore

USE OF “CONCRETE FAMILY” CONCEPT FOR CONFORMITY

CONTROL OF READY MIXED CONCRETE

Lu Jin Ping*, American Concrete Institute – Singapore Chapter

Soh Guan Hong, Admaterials Technologies Pte Ltd, Singapore
Goh Lee Yong, Admaterials Technologies Pte Ltd, Singapore

Abstract

On 4 Jan 2010, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) issued a circular
on “REQUIREMENT FOR READY-MIXED CONCRETE (RMC) CERTIFICATION
FOR STRUCTURAL WORKS”. The Singapore Accreditation Council (SAC) has
also launched a Certification Scheme for Ready-Mixed Concrete (RMC) which
provides for third-party certification of RMC producers in accordance to SS EN
206-1 and SS 544 standards.

Under the new certification scheme, BCA will require concrete products for
building and civil engineering structures to be certified, and supplied by RMC
plants which are certified under the Singapore Accreditation Council (SAC)
Certification Scheme for RMC. This will include on-site batching plants, as well
as plants supplying concrete for structural precast elements. To allow RMC
producers sufficient time to prepare and obtain the certification, there will be a
grace period of 9 months, effective from 1 Jan 2010, before this requirement
takes effect from 1 Oct 2010.

In Singapore, concrete plants are required to supply a very wide range of

concrete mixes, with different strengths, consistencies, admixtures, aggregate
sizes, etc. As a result of these largely differentiated requests, a plant often does
not produce enough of some particular concrete mixes to apply the conformity
criteria of EN 206-1 for individual concretes. However, the concrete family
concept allows the producers to combine strength results of different mixes for
the conformity assessment, and allows a more continuous control of the
production process.

In this paper the principle and concept of concrete family will be introduced. The
application of the concrete family concept in conformity control of compressive
strength will be discussed. Some examples of the application of concrete family
concept will be presented. The assessment of conformity control for concrete
family will be also discussed.
1. Introduction

In January 2010, BCA issued a issued a circular on “REQUIREMENT FOR READY-MIXED

CONCRETE (RMC) CERTIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL WORKS”. Under the certification
scheme, concrete products for building and civil engineering structures are to be certified by a
SINGLAS accredited certification body. According to SS EN 206-1, in the assessment of
conformity, concrete mixes may be evaluated as an individual concrete, or as a concrete family.

2. Concept of Concrete Family

SS EN 206-1 defines a concrete family as a group of concrete compositions for which a reliable
relationship between relevant properties is established and documented. The relationships
between members of the family may be established by initial testing, existing production data
and/or theory. However, high strength concrete (>C55/67 or >LC55/60) is excluded from the
concrete family concept. In addition, lightweight concrete cannot be grouped into the same family
as normal weight concretes, but they can form another family on their own.

In applying the concept of concrete families, a Reference Concrete is chosen. The Reference
Concrete is usually the most commonly produced, or one from the mid-range of the concrete
family.

Concrete families may be formed by concretes with:

a) Cement of one type, strength class and source;
b) Demonstrably similar aggregates and Type 1 additions;
c) Water reducing/plasticising admixtures or without;
d) Full range of consistence classes;
e) A few strength classes.

It is also to note that concretes containing Type II additions (eg. Pozzolanic or latent hydraulic
addition), high range water reducer or superplasticizer, retarder or air-entraining admixtures
should be put into a separate family or assessed as individual concretes.

An example of a concrete family is given in Table 1. In this example, all members of the concrete
have cement of the same type (OPC), demonstrably similar aggregates, and this concrete family
consists of concrete from Grade C12/15 to C45/55 with consistency classes S2 to S4.

1. Advantages of Applying the Concrete Family Concept

In the assessment of conformity, at least 35 test results are required for initial production
assessment. For common concrete grades such as C28/35 and C32/40, there should be no
problems achieving the 35 test results for assessment. However, in Singapore, the concrete
orders may be varied, in terms of strengths, consistencies, admixtures used, aggregate sizes etc.
Hence, there may be difficulties to achieve sufficient test data for certain grades of concrete.

As such, combining different concrete grades into a concrete family can result in a more effective
production control. Furthermore, combining data into families can reduce the time taken to detect
any significant changes in production quality. For example, if three concretes are tested daily and
15 test results are needed to detect significant changes, it would only take 5 days to collect the
results and detect if there are any significant changes, when the concrete are grouped into a
family. Whereas if they are individual concretes, it would take 15 days before any changes are
detected.

In addition, the concept is that if a constituent material were to change in a way that affected
concrete strength, all those concretes made with that constituent material would be affected. This
is logical and shows that a change that affects one concrete will also affect others. By pooling the
information on the performance of different concrete, a change in performance can be detected
more quickly and appropriate action can be taken.
Theoretically, applying the concrete family concept will lead to smaller producers’ and end-users’
risk compared to conformity control using individual concrete, due to the higher number of data
available when using the concrete family concept. Pooling data normally leads to higher standard
deviations when the spread in the standard deviations of the members is not too large. In
applying the concrete family concept, the standard deviation, , is higher. Thus, this results in a
larger margin and increased factor of safety in the assessment of conformity control.

Table 1: Example of Concrete Family

Source: Admaterials Technologies Pte Ltd Product Certification Department

2. Transposition Methods

All members’ compressive strength results need to be transposed to that of the Reference
Concrete. The three methods of transposing are as follows, with the first method (Method A)
being the most common:

Method A: Strength method based on a straight line relationship between strength and
water/cement ratio
Method B: Strength method based on a proportional effect
Method C: w/c ratio method
The actual method of transposing is not critical, as they give similar results over a limited range
of strength classes.

In Method A, the difference between the specified characteristic strength and the actual strength
of the tested concrete is determined. This strength difference is then applied to the characteristic
strength of the Reference Concrete to obtain the equivalent strength.

For example, a C20/25 concrete is tested and it gave a cylinder strength of 28 MPa. The
difference between the characteristic strength (20 MPa) and the actual strength (28 MPa) is thus
+8 MPa. Applying this difference to the characteristic strength of the Reference Concrete
(C25/30), the equivalent strength is 33 MPa. More details of the transposition are shown in Table
2.
Table 2: Transposition of data

Original Data, MPa Transposed Data, MPa

C20/25 C25/30 C30/37 C20/25 C25/30 C30/37
28.0 36.0 46.0 33.0 36.0 41.0
32.0 37.5 50.0 37.0 37.5 45.0
32.0 40.5 47.0 37.0 40.5 42.0
22.5 37.0 40.0 27.5 37.0 35.0
32.0 37.5 41.5 37.0 37.5 36.5

3. Applying the Concrete Family Concept in Conformity Control

In the assessment of conformity control, three criterion need to be satisfied. When a family
member is tested, the original compressive strength result has to conform to Criterion 2 in Table
14 of SS EN 206-1. The member’s result will be transposed to equivalent values of the
Reference Concrete and assessed for conformity (Criterion 1, Table 14 of SS EN 206-1).
Transposition of data may be based on strength, w/c ratio, or cement content. In addition, it has
also to be assessed that each individual member belongs to the family (Criterion 3, Table 15 of
SS EN 206-1). In the case where a member fails to meet Criterion 3, it is removed from the
family and assessed individually for conformity. See Tables 3 and 4 for the three criterions.

In Singapore, the use of 100mm cubes for compressive strength test is recommended.

Table 3: Criterion 1 and 2 for initial and continuous production according to SS EN 206-1: 2009

Production Number n of test Criterion 1 Criterion 2

results for Mean of n results Any individual test
compressive (fcm) N/mm2 result (fci)
strength in the group N/mm2
Initial 3 fck + 4 fck - 4
Continuous 15 fck + 1.48 fck - 4

Table 4: Criterion 3, confirmation criterion for family members according to SS EN 206-1: 2009

Number n of test results for compressive Criterion 3

strength for a single concrete Mean of n results (fcm) for a
single family member
2
N/mm
2 fck – 1.0
3 fck + 1.0
4 fck + 2.0
5 fck + 2.5
6 fck + 3.0

Figure 1 shows the procedure to be adopted, when assessing concrete families as part of the
whole conformity control process.
 Figure 1: Flow chart for the assessment of membership and conformity of a concrete family

At 28 days is each individual test results fck – 4 No Declare the batch or load as
(Criterion 2) non conforming
Yes

For each family member tested, check at each Remove this concrete from the
assessment period using confirmation criterion if No family and assess as an
the member belongs to the family individual concrete
(Criterion 3)
Yes

At each assessment period, is the mean strength Declare the family as non
No
of all the transposed results greater than or equal conforming over the
to the characteristic strength of the Reference assessment period
Concrete plus 1.48 x family standard deviation
(Criterion 1)
Yes

Declare the family as conforming over the

assessment period

4. Example of Applying the Concrete Family Concept in Conformity Control

a) Introduction

This example illustrates the use of the concrete family system to control concretes over three
strength classes containing aggregates of 20 mm maximum sizes and to detail some ways in
which data can be transposed. The assessment period is for initial production.

b) The family

The following concretes are included within this particular example of a concrete family and
within the production control system:

- CEM I-42.5;
- demonstrably similar aggregates, crushed Granite and natural sand;
- strength classes in the range C16/20 to C40/50;
- slump classes S2 to S4;
- concretes with and without water reducing/plasticizing admixture.

The criteria for demonstrably similar aggregates are:

- same geological type;
- same deposit/quarry;
- similar grading and shape;
- similar filler content;
- similar methylene blue value for the limestone based sand.
-
c) Reference Concrete

The Reference Concrete is strength class C32/40 which is the most produced concrete product.

d) Assessment period
The assessment period is 3 months. This example is based on actual production data taken
during the first three months of 2010.

e) Initial testing and relationships

Based on an exponential equation, the relationship between the strength and w/c ratio is
established from laboratory trials and theory. For this plant the relationship was 150mm cube
strength.

fcyl = 135 / exp (2,50 w/c ratio) [1]

The target mean strength for a concrete is obtained from

target mean strength = specified fck + K

where = standard deviation obtained from previous production data

K = a constant greater than1,65.

The value of this constant reflects the production capabilities of the plant and the degree of
commercial risk the producer is willing to assume. In reality producers do not work on the basis
of 5% of the actual test results being below the characteristic value. In this case the value of K
was 1,95.

Using the target mean strength, the producer applies Equation 1 to obtain the w/c ratio.

The free water content of the concrete is obtained from the following equation that again has
been obtained by a combination of laboratory trials and theory

water content, w = 165 + (0,65S/M0,33) - (0,8M/log10(1 + S/5)) [2]

where w = water content in l/m3;

M = nominal maximum aggregate size in mm;
S = average slump for the class in mm.

The average slumps used are 70mm for S2, 125mm for S3 and 190mm for S4.

Equation 2 is used to obtain the water content and from the water content and the w/c ratio, the
cement content is calculated.

f) Relationships between members of the family and the Reference Concrete

In this example, the strength method based on a straight line relationship between strength and
w/c ratio is used.

g) Strength method based on a straight-line relationship between strength and w/c ratio

In order to make the assumed straight-line relationship between strength and w/c ratio
reasonable, the strength range has to be limited. The difference in strength between the
specified characteristic strength and the actual strength of the tested concrete is determined.
This strength difference is then applied to the characteristic strength of the Reference Concrete
to obtain the equivalent strength.

For example,
A C15/20 concrete is tested and it gave a 150mm cube test result of 31,7 MPa. The difference
between the characteristic cube strength (20) and the actual strength is +11,7 MPa. This is
applied to the characteristic cylinder strength of the Reference Concrete (40) to give an
equivalent strength of 51,7 MPa.
 h) Conformity control

Each individual original result is checked against the criterion 2 in 8.2.1.3 of EN 206-1 i.e. fck -
4, and all 42 results passed.

The Reference Concrete containing all the transposed data was assessed against the criterion 1
in 8.2.1.3 of EN 206-1 for initial production: the mean strength of 3 non-overlapping consecutive
test results fcm
Mean strength fck + 4
As shown in table 5, this criterion is satisfied.

Table 5, Conformity Criterion 1 and 2

Criterion 2 Converted to
Actual Mean strength (3 Criterion 1
S/n Grade Actual strength Reference Concrete
Strength non-overlapping) fcm > 40 + 4
> fck-4 (G40)
1 G40 53.5 PASSED 53.5
2 G40 55.3 PASSED 55.3 52.9 PASSED
3 G40 50.0 PASSED 50.0
4 G40 50.5 PASSED 50.5
5 G40 49.7 PASSED 49.7 52.4 PASSED
6 G40 57.2 PASSED 57.2
7 G40 51.2 PASSED 51.2
8 G40 48.7 PASSED 48.7 49.8 PASSED
9 G40 49.7 PASSED 49.7
10 G40 49.7 PASSED 49.7
11 G40 55.3 PASSED 55.3 54.1 PASSED
12 G40 57.2 PASSED 57.2
13 G40 53.7 PASSED 53.7
14 G40 48.5 PASSED 48.5 50.8 PASSED
15 G40 50.3 PASSED 50.3
16 G40 57.0 PASSED 57.0
17 G40 49.7 PASSED 49.7 55.6 PASSED
18 G40 60.0 PASSED 60.0
19 G40 49.8 PASSED 49.8
20 G40 61.5 PASSED 61.5 57.7 PASSED
21 G40 61.7 PASSED 61.7
22 G40 54.8 PASSED 54.8
23 G40 53.2 PASSED 53.2 54.8 PASSED
24 G40 56.3 PASSED 56.3
25 G45 65.5 PASSED 60.5
26 G45 62.7 PASSED 57.7 63.4 PASSED
27 G45 62.2 PASSED 57.2
28 G40 60.5 PASSED 60.5
29 G40 52.5 PASSED 52.5 56.2 PASSED
30 G40 55.5 PASSED 55.5
31 G30 40.0 PASSED 50.0
32 G35 54.7 PASSED 59.7 49.3 PASSED
33 G35 53.2 PASSED 58.2
34 G35 52.0 PASSED 57.0
35 G40 57.7 PASSED 57.7 55.1 PASSED
36 G40 55.7 PASSED 55.7
37 G45 59.2 PASSED 54.2
38 G30 50.8 PASSED 60.8 53.6 PASSED
39 G35 50.8 PASSED 55.8
40 G45 65.5 PASSED 60.5
41 G45 59.0 PASSED 54.0 57.3 PASSED
42 G30 47.3 PASSED 57.3
The assessment of relationships is given in Table 6. An inspection of the data given in Table 6
shows that the confirmation tests (Criterion 3) are passed, and consequently all the concretes
are retained within the family.

Table 6: Assessment of test data for conformity control

Strength Consistence No of Mean Conformity

Class, Class Data Strength Control
150mm (Aggregate (Criterion 3)
cube Size)
G30 All 2 45.5 Pass
S2 1 40.0
S3 1 50.8
G35 All 4 52.7 Pass
S3 1 50.8
S4 3 53.3
C40 All 31 54.1 Pass
S2 2 56.7
S3 10 52.3
S4 19 54.8
C45 All 5 61.7 Pass
S3 2 59.1
S4 3 63.5
n = 42

5. Conclusion

In the assessment of conformity control in accordance to SS EN 206-1, it is useful and

advantageous to group different concretes into concrete families. In Singapore, where concrete
products are varied, it is an efficient way of collecting enough test data for conformity
assessment, and it is advantageous to both producers and end users in terms of detecting
changes in concrete quality. Examples have been given to demonstrate the application of the
concrete family concept, and the assessment for conformity in a concrete family.

References

[1] SS EN 206-1: 2009: Specification for Concrete Part 1: Specification, performance, production
and conformity, SS EN 206-1: 2009

[2] CR 13901: The Use of the concept of concrete families for the production and conformity
control of concrete, CEN Technical Report, 2000

[3] Harrison, T.A: Guidance on the application of the EN 206-1 conformity rules, Quarry Products
Association, 2001.