×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

4" by 8" cylinders

4" by 8" cylinders

4" by 8" cylinders

(OP)
Do you see many companies using the smaller cylinders ?
Does this met ASTM C-39 ?

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

I've used the small cylinders before for mixes with smaller nominal aggregate size (but the real reason was that our contractor (remote area of Laos) ran out of the big ones and wanted to use small ones.  ASTM C470 indicates mould diameters ranging from 2 inches to 18 inches.  However, under ASTM C31, section 6.1 indicates that the cylinder should be at least 3 times the nominal maximum size of the coarse aggregate.  Further, the specification indicates that for acceptance testing only 6 inch and 4 inch cylinders are permitted (the latter when specified).  I have spoken with our company's gurum in concrete in the past when dealing with a project in SE Asia and he was quite happy to go to the smaller cylinders for our nominal aggregate size of 25 mm.

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

They are being used in many parts of the country (USA).

The latest version of C 31 allows for use of 4 x 8 inch cylinders in lieu of 6 x 12 inch cylinders when job specs permit their use. However, since the version of ASTM C 31 recognized by the IBC does not permit for the use of 4 x 8 in cylinders as a standard specimen size, it is prudent to sell the idea to the building dept and EOR before using them.

There are several structural engineering associations currently evaluating the use of 4 x 8 in cylinders in lieu of standard 6 x 12 in cylinders. They will be relying on companion test results obtained from testing labs.

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

henri2 - interesting on the IBC not permitting the smaller mould use.  This is why codes/standards, etc. are such a mish-mash of mixed signals, that in the end provides a most discombobulated picture that benefits only the shrinks! wink

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

BigH, chapter 35 of the latest IBC (2006) lists ACI 318-05 as a referenced standard. ACI 318-05 also has ASTM referenced standards for tests and specifications, many of which are listed in IBC-05.

What I find interesting, is that the IBC accepts most of the editions of the ASTM standards listed in ACI 318, but when it comes to ASTM C 31, it references the 98 edition, while ACI 318 references the 03 edition.

The 98 edition of C31, stipulates 6 x 12 in as the standard compressive strength specimen size (for acceptance testing for specified strength) but the 03 edition of C 31 stipulates the 6 x 12 inches and allows the 4 x 8 inches when specified.

Was the listing of C31-98 as a referenced standard in the IBC an oversight or deliberate; deliberate because committee members did not feel there was not enough data out there to justify the use of 4 x 8 inches to verify compliance with the specified compressive strength?

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

in my experience, the concrete company QC's use the 4x8s for their internal QC and to defend against bad breaks from "independent CMT inferior testing methods".  The concrete company QC bring 6x12s to the independent CMT lab when they are establishing a new mix design.  We would only make a big deal about getting 4x8s permitted by the EOR if concrete would consistently be above 5ksi for large projects.  

Even though concrete companies use the 4x8s, i don't think they would like 4x8s blanket approved for acceptance testing since the impact of a small flaw is magnified.  Concrete companies have more lobbying power than CMTs too (read: all the power vs none).

off the subject,
i worked on a project where we were testing side by side with the concrete QC. The GC got test results from the concrete company and us separately.  (Concrete QC doesn't usually distribute results until conflict) The EOR happened to see the results after a meeting in the trailer and compared with ours.  The EOR asked the GC why the results would be consistently different, which they were.  The GC passed this on to the concrete company that there was a consistent discrepency between the two.  The QC at the concrete plant put together a letter to the owner & EOR trashing our technician's testing methods based on observations by the field QC for the concrete plant.
PUNCHLINE:  Our breaks were consistently higher! Dumba$$

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

(OP)
That is good for a laugh DarthSoilsGuy.
I have been down that road before.
We like to use the 4 X 8 's but half the time we don't get the spec until the job is half over or there is a problem.

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

I did a bit of research into this issue and found out that:

1. Chapter 35 of the 2007 supplement to the 2006 IBC references C31-03a. As pointed out earlier, unlike earlier editions of C31, this edition of C 31 allows for 4 x 8 in cylinders when specified.  http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/2007-08cycle/2007Supplement/IBC07S.pdf

2. Proposed Changes to 2005 ACI 318... will permit for either 6 x 12 in or 4 x 8 in cylindrical compressive strength specimens...and there'll be no language like "when specified" in the case of the 4 x 8 in specimens. The wording of the revised Sec 5.6.2.4 reads as follows " A strength test shall be the average of the strengths of at least two 6 by 12 in cylinders or at least three 4 by 8 in cylinders made from the same sample of concrete and tested at 28 days or at test age designated for determination of f'c".
http://www.aci-int.org/Technical/FlashHelp/wf_njs.htm

The 4 x 8 in cylinders will make life much easier for folks who do not like lifting 30 lb 6 x 12 in concrete specimens. And C 31-03 does permit internal vibration in lieu of rodding when consolidating specimens. How much easier can it get for concrete field technicians? They certainly need a break.

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

Seattle allows the use of 4x8's for virtually all sampling and testing. This it to include mixes over 8K. We have found that 4x8's provide acceptable results, and have even been found to provide more consistent results. We noticed that 6x12's sometimes disappeared, were 'damaged' on site, not to mention during transport. Having the smaller size made it easier to transport, protect, and hide!

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

DarthSoilsGuy (Geotechnical) wrote, "PUNCHLINE:  Our breaks were consistently higher! Dumba$$"

Maybe I'm the dumb-ass because I do not get, and frankly will never get, what the heck one set of test results being "higher" than a companion set of test results has to do with anything.

We still don't know if your test results were actually ACCURATE.  It's entirely possible, and plausible, that both sets of tests were equally inaccurate!

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

boffin,

it's a lot more than one set of cylinders. it was a consistent common difference throughout the project.  the story sounds fun, but it wasn't at the time. we internally investigated our own operations and found nothing.  the only thing that makes sense is that the concrete company's break machine was off and low. The point of that story is to show how knee-jerk the "blame the ITL" reaction is at the concrete plant, even when there isn't a problem.  

i don't believe you would have reacted the same as the concrete QC manager, so i don't accept your claim to potential dumb-assness.

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

Darthsoilsguy,

With that concrete QC discrepancy.  I've never had a conflict like that with another agency and never want to, but I live in Seattle, and a big factor in our compressive strength is temperature of the cure.  It gets so cold here in the wintertime that even our cure boxes don't insulate things properly, and this affects our breaks, especially on the high-early or PT.  

It seems like to me there must have been other factors.  Probably a dead issue by now, but that type of thing still sets me off.  Find the problem and fix it, don't have blaming the other guy your first mode of action.  
It could have been awhile before their load cell was calibrated, or your load cell was calibrated, pads were changed, ect.  They could have forgone a cure box, or left it out in the sun (I'm pretty sure some of ours do).  Results for the same concrete will differ even from cylinder to cylinder of the same mud, but to me methods of making them are pretty much foolproof, especially when there's someone watching over your shoulder.  Water under the bridge, but that water's comin' from somewhere...

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

That's it. i'm calling the joke police to report a misdemeanor assault on my anecdotal story.

"but that type of thing still sets me off. Find the problem and fix it, don't have blaming the other guy your first mode of action."
--Would you be talking about the Concrete Company QC for writing the letter, the ITL who refers to them as dumbasses?
ironically, your point is same as the moral of the story i was telling, right.

as i've said before, it was investigated thoroughly on our side.  People will just have to trust me on that. how else would i have been able meet this statement "the only thing that makes sense is that the concrete company's break machine was off and low."?

---------------

OK, now after you've accepted that there wasn't a consistent common error made by our lab/field testing method to give falsely high breaks.

The punchline to this story is that:
1. the letter issued by the concrete company observed ways our samples were incorrectly made.
2. our breaks were higher than theirs.
3. [speculation] the concrete company did not check to see what was going on before they wrote it, and probably thought the ITL breaks were lower (because that's how that letter read)

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

don't get me started on the supplier versus testing firm...(see my other thread). hey, if it blows up, instead of the supplier making companion cylinders some where else, have both the supplier and testing firm make extra companion cylinders (same size specimens). store the extras with the other guy's specimens. have each break their sets as usual and send the extras to the other's place for breaking (both parties do this). the suppliers specimens should break the same and the testing firm's should break the same regardless of where they are broken. if you want to rule out someone dropping them in route, deliver the darn things to each other's place of work. take it one step farther, be present at the other guy's place when the specimens are broken.

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

msugco -

You are living in an idealistic land when it comes to testing concrete cylinders.

Cylinder testing is a low profit, variable volume testing process for local laboratories that helps them keep in contact with engineers, contractors and suppliers. Because of the variable volume, much of the actual preparation of samples and testing during the period of heavy construction activity is done by "grunts" with little real training. This even applies to certified laboratories because of the cyclical nature of construction.

ASTM standards represent the most responsible authority when it comes to standards and procedures. It is unfortunate that we have to deal with making the older standards and codes fit into the construction process while trying to retain a professional level of design and construction. This is in spite of the slow and tedious process of getting new findings, materials and procedures adopted by code authorities that really have little effect.

The idea of having parallel studies (size vs. aggregate) is not reponsible unless there is absolute long term uniformity of sample preparation, identical curing conditions, sample preparation by the same personnel, testing in the same facility with the same personnel and using the same testing equipment. This step has a major effect on the design and construction of all new structures.

Despite the the controls on the rate of loading (adjusted for sample size), larger testing machines with more rigid frames will provide higher and more consistant results.

In the past, independent laboratories provided the most accurate results compared to local suppliers results. With the advent of vertical integration of the concrete industry, supplier laboratories have surpassed many independent labs because of the international interest in research, quality control and local involvement. The days of "mom and pop" concrete plants are gone and the muscle of the the big four (or five) cement companies are concentrated on bringing the level of concrete oriented products up to the level of other advanced construction technologies.

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

to the contrary, i understand that cylinder testing is not perfect and is variable from batch to batch, sample to sample, etc. over the long term of a project, the data should be trending though...and that is what should be looked at. cylinders don't mean jack when it comes to what's actually in place but they're a good place to start...plus, the industry has set them as the standard so we're stuck with it. what kills me is that the suppliers i have dealt with 100% of the time fall back to "kick the testing guy" because a break came up 100psi...GIVE ME A BREAK! if 29 out of 30 come up 100 psi low, it's probably a problem with the mix or the contractor is taking too long to place it. by no means is the building going to fall down but the owners and architects will want a credit for that 100psi they didn't get. i always try to remind architects of aci's low break acceptance criteria just to keep from getting in to it over a hundred psi...but some people see the cylinder as being the rosetta stone of how strong the building is...

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

re-reading through the thread, maybe i see where concretemasonry thinks i'm living in an idealistic world since i wasn't clear. when i said the supplier's and testing lab's cylinder should bread the same, i'm referencing more within the range of variability. i eluded to this a little in my last post but thought i'd clarify. i don't actually expect the supplier's cylinder to break at 3,200 and the lab's break at 3,200. the range of variability could be several hundred psi within the same set of cylinders. my main point was that i've seen folks point the finger at me because our cylinders broke 100psi less than the supplier's cylinder and tried to claim we were doing something wrong even though the trend for the job was very good. hope that makes my ramblings a little less confusing.

anyway, since ibc currently recognizes c31-03a and aci318-05 does too, how are you guys getting around using 4x8 cylinders? are you asking the engineer if they can be used on each and every job or are 4x8 cylinders typically included as acceptable on the plans in your area?

i suspect ibc may pick up c31-06 on the next round of supplements (which would then allow either size cylinder). anyone know when that date might be since i can't seem to find it? also, when might the aci changes go in to effect (since you'd have to make 3 instead of 2 28-day cylinders for the smaller size)?

i'll keep looking and post if i find the answer to my own question...

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

well, i happened to run across march 10 as the date that the code changes will be posted (still not sure if that means immediate adoption by code or if there's some time after that...i would think immediate or almost immediate)
http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/2007-08cycle/index.html

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

Does the new ASTM allow the use of 4*8's as opposed to 6*12" yet?? Have not heard anything about it. Read somewhere that you will have to make 2 4*8's for every 1 6*12. How much room is that actually going to save??Roughly 40%. Problem I feel w/ the smaller test samples is they are more prone to temperature varibles,fabrication process as well as damage.
How many times have cyls. been damaged due to an arguement with the contractor. As well as people using them for tables.When this comes into affect, plan to be doing alot of windsor probes as well as cores.  

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

astm and code allow 4x8 cylinders if approved by the structural engineer. the newest version of the astm says that you can use either 4x8 or 6x12 (no approval needed). however, ibc has not adopted the newest astm yet so technically, approval is still required. aci says that 3 4x8 cylinders will be required at 28 days to account for the added variability in the test results. currently, 2 6x12 cylinders are needed at 28 days to make up a set.

i don't suggest windsor probe because it's hoaky for footings. it might be more applicable to slab areas but it's dependent on the finish...by the time you windsor probe the whole slab area, you could've just used cores. cores are ultimately required by all the engineers i've run across. i wouldn't trust windsor probe for evaluating in place strength.

i don't think the 4x8's are more prone to damage during fabrication...less chance of dropping the things since they weigh so much less.

just make sure to calculate the strength for the appropriate sized cylinder...been down that road where the supplier said we made the cylinders wrong because their companion cylinder broke much much higher than ours. as it turns out, they typically make 4x8 where they made 6x12 on this occassion since we were making 6x12. they forgot to adjust to the correct area of the specimen. they sat in a meeting basically called us incompetent. then they were forced to submit a letter to the owner stating that they'd screwed up and were wrong to make such accusations against the testing firm. turns out the whole thing was pretty funny looking back on it now. some of you may have read my thread about this incident before...

back to the subject of the thread...i expect ibc may adopt the newest astm in the next month or two. there again, it may be next year...who the heck knows. my guess is that it'll be adopted by summer time.

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

I agree with msucog.  The smaller size samples are actually easier to protect and do not get "thrown" around.  Also, it's interesting to note that the rationale behind the three 4x8s versus two 6x12s is not really based on any data.  There are hunches and a lot of people have data on correlating the two sizes but no one has taken the time to write anything up and design the experiment so that it stands up to statistical standards.  There will be a push in the near future to produce that document.  It's part of a two step process.  First, remove the "when specified" language in ASTM (it's only there because there wasn't a precision and basis statement for 4x8's).  Second step, produce a 30 sample multi-region batch-to-batch statistical document showing that the batch-to-batch variables are identical whether using 4x8s or 6x12s.  ACI just took a conservative approach for ACI 318-08 when choosing 3 cylinders instead of 2 for 4x8s.  When in doubt, be conservative and error on the safe side.  Unfortunately, the reduction to two 4x8s in ACI 318 probably will not occur until 2011.  Until then, you can always get approval to reduce it to 2 cylinders from the structural engineer if they are willing.

And in regards to volume, we have implemented this and the space savings are tremendous, not to mention the greater ease in handling and processing.

RE: 4" by 8" cylinders

The only time I have ever seen all the required concrete testing methods performed was while I was working as QA  during the construction of a nuclear power plant.

Supplier QC technicians and Independent Laboratory QC technicians are the SAME! Some are experienced and some are not.

Concrete tests in the field do NOT represent the area being placed. The tests represent the mix design.

All cylinder breaking machines must be calibrated yearly.

4x8 cylinders are just as accurate as 6x12's



   

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources