40 ConcreteInternational

satisfied by a number of practical gradings. This is right and

proper because at this stage, when the contractor has not yet
been chosen, it is not known which source of aggregate will
be used. Thus the detailed properties of the materials to be
used are unknown. The same applies to the plant or the meth-
od of transportation, compaction, curing, and other site ac-
tivities.
With the move to performance-type specifications, the sit-
uation has improved somewhat in that at least certain behav-
ioral characteristics of concrete are ensured. Nevertheless,
many other properties of con-
crete are unknown and unpre-
dictable at the structural design
stage. Is it surprising then that,
in many cases, problems arise
during the life of the structure?
At this stage, I would like to
forestall the criticism that all
this is inevitable because, unlike automobiles and aircraft,
concrete structures are nearly always of a one-off variety and
are built in situ in the open, in variable weather, often under
difficult conditions, using a labor force that is not static and,
let us be frank, less skilled than their factory-based counter-
part. Yes, this is so, but need the consequences continue for-
ever?
In what follows I propose, first, to show the close interde-
pendence of structural design and the properties of concrete,
and then to offer some pointers toward ameliorating the
present situation.
Deformational characteristics of concrete
The structural engineer is well-educated and trained in struc-
tural analysis and design. He or she can derive the appropri-
ate equations, or use existing analytical solutions. But these
equations and solutions involve parameters describing mate-
rial properties. In the case of concrete, compressive strength
is the obvious one and it is generally most easily dealt with.
But for the strength of a structure, we require also the defor-
mational characteristics of the concrete: its modulus of elas-
ticity, including the fact that the material is not truly elastic,
and we have to account for creep of concrete.
In numerous design calculations, creep is dealt with as a
coefficient with a single, or at best a two- or three-step value.
However, in reality, creep is a complex function of concrete
mix proportions, age at loading, age at load removal, temper-
ature, and exposure conditions. In addition to creep, concrete
undergoes drying shrinkage, which is not stress-related, but
is influenced by numerous factors. In the days of an increas-
ing use of high-performance concrete, we require the knowl-
edge of autogenous shrinkage in the concrete element;
indeed, this is a topic just now being intensely studied.
Bridge piers under some conditions offer an excellent ex-
ample of shrinkage-induced problems. In the case of contin-
uous girders on tall supports, there is a substantial difference
in the shrinkage of those over water and those over dry land
where the shrinkage is much higher; this induces stresses in
the girder.
As for creep, there can be a large differential vertical de-
formation in high-rise buildings. Some of this is avoidable
by controlling variations in the sustained stress and in the re-
inforcement in the columns, and also their conditions of ex-
posure (although this is not always possible). However, at
the design stage, the creep characteristics of the concrete to
be used, which are age-dependent, are unknown and cannot
be controlled. The same applies to the effects of the creep of
concrete columns on the cladding whose deformational char-
acteristics are likely to differ from one another. Clearly, an
allowance for creep of concrete is necessary, but how much
creep will there be?
Most engineers are familiar with cases of unexpected
shrinkage cracking which may well be due to the shrinkage
characteristics of the aggregate or of the mixture used. At the
design stage, these features are unpredictable, and specifica-
tion limits are generally very broad.
My contention is that the in-
fluence of these various pa-
rameters is so great that the
designer must be fully familiar
with them. One cannot simply
use a handbook of physical
constants.
Structural design
and durability
The same applies in the case of durability, which is by far the
major problem with concrete structures in many parts of the
world. Numerous cases of inadequate durability of concrete
structures built in the 1960s and the 1970s were traced to the
selection of concrete mixtures on the basis of strength alone.
In fact, because of the changes in the cement properties, the
same strength as previously specified could now be achieved
at a higher water-cement ratio. In consequence, for a given
28-day strength, the concrete was more permeable than the
concrete of the 1950s.
The factors affecting the durability of concrete are extrin-
sic as well as intrinsic, so that to take them properly into ac-
count the designer must have a good knowledge of chemical
and physical phenomena of the interaction between concrete
and the environment. There exist other examples of the rela-
tion between the behavior of concrete and the performance
of concrete structures in service. One example is the influ-
ence of shape of the structure on durability; slab jetties in
seawater are less liable to reinforcement corrosion than beam
and deck construction. Such knowledge is especially impor-
tant when the design is to ensure a specific service life of the
structure a requirement increasingly being invoked.
Structural engineers knowledge of concrete
My contention is that most structural designers, with honor-
able exceptions, lack the necessary knowledge of the behav-
ior of concrete. Universities do not teach the requisite
knowledge, as demonstrated by the Portland Cement Asso-
ciation survey in 1995: only 22 percent of American civil en-
gineering departments require a full semester hour course in
concrete technology. On the job, acquisition of knowledge is
too fragmentary, or dependent on chance, and without ade-
quate scientific rigor.
It can be argued that one person cannot have all the neces-
sary knowledge so that the designer should simply consult a
materials specialist. The trouble is that, in the vast majority
of cases, the materials specialist is a pure scientist who
lacks knowledge of structural action or structural behavior.
In consequence, he or she does not know what questions to
answer, and the designer does not always know what ques-
tions to ask. It is almost as if the surgeon lacked an adequate
knowledge of pathology and relied exclusively on the labo-
ratory scientist for the decision on what to do.
...the structural designer and the
concrete technologist are perceived as
people involved in quite separate
activities...