Inconsistencies in standards and codes result in confusion, increased costs, and do not promote the efficient use of concrete. In addition to inconsistencies, the lack of science-based approaches and data used for defining criteria in these standards and codes can limit the reliability and trust of these requirements. A review of industry documents indicates that inconsistencies and lack of science-based approaches exist across many documents, both throughout the industry and within ACI, relating to the corrosion of steel reinforcement embedded in concrete. This paper proposes to address five key issues to promote science-based standardization of requirements necessary for reinforced concrete systems exposed to corrosive conditions. These five issues include the need for: 1) standardization of chloride testing methods and requirements; 2) standardization of chloride reporting units; 3) standardization of terminology for specifying chlorides in cementitious systems; 4) standardization of exposure classifications for corrosive conditions; and 5) standardization of allowable chloride limits. This paper presents current inconsistencies in guide documents and codes for each of the items listed previously and then proposes an approach to standardize each using either available data and/ or a scientifically based approach. Recommendations for testing, reporting, definition of exposure classifications, and allowable chloride limits are then proposed. It is hoped that the systematic approach used herein will lead to standardization and consistency, less confusion, and will promote the efficient use of durable and economical concrete.

The use of industrial waste in concrete and controlled low-strength mixtures (CLSM) along with the experimental analysis of the fresh and hardened properties was investigated in this research. Four waste materials were used to design 17 mixtures. Fly ash and glass powder were investigated at high rates of replacement for cement, from 60 to 90%. This information is scarce in published literature and can help practitioners and concrete batchers in developing mixtures with a high level of replacement. Additionally, natural sand was substituted by glass sand which, in combination with fly ash and glass powder as cement replacement, provides an entirely new body of knowledge of concrete mixtures that use limited newly produced materials. Adequate strength and flowability was achieved with the use of recycled waste materials for both normal concrete and CLSM. All normal concrete mixtures except one, which had a 90% fly ash replacement, achieved a 28-day compressive strength of at least 29 MPa. Concrete with this compressive strength has multiple applications that represent a significant portion of the concrete produced. Using these mixtures has the potential to significantly reduce the amount of virgin products, especially cement that has a significant carbon footprint. All CLSM mixtures except two had a compressive strength of less than 2 MPa, therefore meeting the walkability and excavability requirements as set out in American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines and codes. Finally, an equation was proposed to predict the 28-day compressive strength of concrete with high volumes of fly ash replacement (>60%). As far as the authors are aware, there is no method to calculate the compressive strength of this type of concrete. This equation represents a significant contribution not only to the research body but also to practitioners and concrete batchers.

This paper investigates the structural performance of large-scale lightweight self-consolidating concrete (LWSCC) and lightweight vibrated concrete (LWVC) beams made with expanded slate coarse aggregates (ESCAs) and expanded slate fine aggregates (ESFAs) under flexural loads. Nine large-scale concrete beams were cast with different types of lightweight aggregate (either ESCA or ESFA), coarse-to-fine aggregate ratios (0.5 to 1.5), and total binder contents (550 and 600 kg/m3 [34.3 and 37.5 lb/ft3]). The structural performance of the tested beams was assessed based on the characteristics of the load-deflection response, cracking pattern, displacement ductility, energy absorption, cracking moment, and ultimate flexural strength. The reliability of code-based expressions in predicting the cracking and ultimate moment capacity of the tested beams was also investigated in this study. The results indicated that using ESFA better improved the beam’s cracking moment capacity, deformability, ductility, and energy absorption capacity compared to using ESCA. Although LWSCC exhibited a lower modulus of elasticity than normal-weight SCC, the deflection values observed in the LWSCC beams under service loads were well within the allowable limit provided by BS 8110. The measured crack widths at the service loads for all tested beams ranged from 0.20 to 0.26 mm (0.008 to 0.01 in.), satisfying the limits proposed by ACI 318, CSA A23.3, and BS 8110 design codes for durability aspects.

The use of seawater as mixing water in reinforced concrete (RC) is currently prohibited by most building codes due to potential corrosion of conventional steel reinforcement. The issue of corrosion can be addressed by using noncorrosive reinforcement, such as glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP). However, the long-term strength development of seawater-mixed concrete in different environments is not clear and needs to be addressed. This study reports the results of an investigation on the effect of different environments (curing regimes) on the compressive strength development of seawater-mixed concrete. Fresh properties of seawater-mixed concrete and concrete mixed with potable water were comparable, except for set times, which were accelerated in seawater-mixed concrete. Concrete cylinders were cast and exposed to subtropical environment (outdoor exposure), tidal zone (wet-dry cycles), moist curing (in a fog room), and seawater at 60°C (140°F) (submerged in a tank). Under these conditions, seawater-mixed concrete showed similar or better performance when compared to reference concrete. Specifically, when exposed to seawater at 60°C (140°F), seawater-mixed concrete shows higher compressive strength development than reference concrete, with values at 24 months being 14% higher. To explain strength development of such mixtures, further detailed testing was done. In this curing regime, the seawater-mixed concrete had 33% higher electrical resistivity than the reference concrete. In addition, the reference concrete showed calcium hydroxide leaching, with 30% difference in calcium hydroxide values between bulk and surface. Reference concrete absorbed more fluid and had a lower dry density, presumably due to greater seawater absorption. Seawater-mixed concrete performed better than reference concrete due to lower leaching because of a reduction in ionic gradients between the pore solution and curing solution. These results suggest that seawater-mixed concrete can potentially show better performance when compared to reference concrete for marine and submerged applications.

The world becomes ever smaller and thus the global construction industry moves closer together. For this reason, civil engineers are looking for possibilities to harmonize design—for example, in the field of reinforced concrete structures. The streamlining would ease working in an international context and could offer opportunities for optimization: harmonization allows the identification of the technically best and most economical solution. This also holds for the provisions to calculate the development length of deformed reinforcing bars which, to date, differ notably from code to code. It is not reasonable that local codes define different development lengths for identical situations in terms of geometry and material used. This paper analyzes the provisions for the calculation of the development lengths according to internationally selected national codes as a basis for this discussion.