The Arizona Rock Products Association Concrete Promotion Committee is systematically educating specifiers on concrete through an updated specifications manual and presentations. Their goal is to modernize perceptions of concrete and increase its use. The manual consolidates standards into an easy-to-use guide. Presentations cover topics to dispel myths like those around fly ash. Initial feedback shows the efforts are helping specifiers understand concrete better and encouraging more versatile specifications. Producers expect their persistence will continue increasing concrete's market share over time.

1. ᮣ Modernizing Concrete Education
Phoenix
BLAKELARAMIE
Amodern art sculpture
located in front of a
learning institution, the
Phoenix Public Library, is
an appropriate symbol of
local concrete producers’
efforts to modernize their
own recommendations for
concrete specifications.
Through a systematic
approach, they hope to
make it easier for speci-
fiers to pursue the truth
about concrete and
choose it as the preferred
building material.
About 20 years ago,
the Arizona Rock Products
Association developed
similar recommendations,
but much has changed
since then. Admixture and
placement technologies
have improved the per-
formance of both plastic
and hardened concrete,
and producers have
learned about these tech-
nologies by working with
them every day. If con-
crete is to become the
preferred building materi-
al, specifiers must acquire
the same knowledge.
It will take time, but
local producers know that
if they are persistent, the
many hours they’ve spent
as educators will pay huge
dividends for
the industry.

2. ᮣ Phoenix-area producers are systematically increasing specifiers’
concrete knowledge with a concise manual and ‘show and tell’
T
o the concrete producer in Phoenix,
it’s almost as if a scorching desert sun
has baked and hardened local precon-
ceptions of concrete properties and made
many local specifiers seek refuge under the
shady tree of familiarity. In the case of
highway paving, for example, the shade is
almost completely black, as concrete has
an estimated statewide market share of less
than 10%.
Phoenix-area members of the Arizona
Rock Products Association (ARPA) Con-
crete Promotion Committee know they
face a particularly tough task in upgrading
many specifiers’ concrete sophistication.
They realize that the changes won’t occur
overnight; it’s going to take a methodical
effort, involving trips to specifiers’ own
backyards, to draw specifiers out into the
sunlight of knowledge.
The committee recently completed a
2-year updating of “Arizona Recom-
mended Specifications for Normal
Weight Ready Mixed Concrete” in print
and on CD-ROM. The specifications are
designed as comprehensive resources for
architects and engineers and are a sort of
localized version of the “Optional Re-
quirements Checklist” in ACI 301,
“Specifications for Structural Concrete.”
The manual has a two-column format:
one column is organized according to ACI
301 and references the same standards,
and the other column is titled “Notes to
Specifier.” The manual elaborates where
necessary in the latter section, often sav-
ing specifiers the trouble of referring to
the other standards. This section uses
years of committee members’ field experi-
ence with concrete, and either provides
supplementary information on, or refutes
the need for, some recommendations.
The manual is only part of the equa-
tion. Just as important are presentations
on concrete basics the committee started
making to architectural and engineering
firms last spring. Sure, it would be quicker
and easier to direct-mail the manual and
disk to every architect and engineer who
specifies concrete projects in Arizona, but
the committee members are convinced
that theirs is a more effective, albeit slow-
er, approach.
New and improved promotion
The scattershot approach was the
method of choice about 20 years ago. Back
then, a since-disbanded ARPA concrete
technical committee, led by Chester
Miller, technical service manager for
CliffsNotes for Concrete
B Y D O N TA L E N D
PHOTOS:CRAIGWELLS/LIAISONAGENCY

3. The Arizona Rock Products Association
(ARPA) Concrete Promotion Committee is
updating its recommended normal-
weight concrete specs for specifiers,
with positive early returns. Some key
personnel involved in committee presen-
tations include (top row, from left)
Meghaen M. Duger, ARPA; Joe Nonno,
Hanson Aggregates of Arizona; Thornton
Kelley, Vulcan Materials Co., Western
Division; (bottom row, from left) David
Palmer, United Metro Materials; Terry
Rainey, Rock Solid; and Jim Willson,
P.E., Arizona Cement Association.

4. “By rewriting the specs, those of
us with a lot of experience with
concrete can accomplish two
goals: one, a quality product, and
two, a savings to the con-
crete contractor and the
owner.” —Terry Rainey,
Rock Solid
Arizona Portland Cement Co., completed
and distributed the first recommended
specs. The promotion committee, formed
in the mid-1990s, is revisiting the specs.
Wisely, the committee got its presenta-
tions certified as continuing education
credits, as mandated by the American
Institute of Architects.
“The last time we did this—and it
was just handing out the brochures and
answering questions—it made a dramatic
impact on the local scene,” says Thornton
Kelley, quality control manager at Vulcan
Materials, Western Division in Phoenix,
who has worked in the industry for more
than 30 years. “We updated it for current
recommendations through ACI, and we
didn’t have the computerization we have
now. All we did was make up the note-
book and hand it out to the specification
writers, the architects, and the engineers,
and request that they work with us in fol-
lowing ASTM C 33 [‘Standard Specification
for Concrete Aggregates’] in their specs.”
Of course, much has changed since
then, particularly in concrete admixture
and placement technology. In many cases,
producer committee members say, concrete
specifications are burdensome or contra-
dictory. “A lot of spec writers are giving us
minimum cement contents, water-cement
ratios, and strength, and a lot of times, they
don’t go hand in hand,” says Kelley.
“They’ll say 500 pounds of cement or
cementitious material, a water-cement
ratio of 0.40, and a strength of 3000 psi.
Well, the 0.40 will give you 5500 psi, and
if you use the 0.40, you’re gonna use 750
pounds of cement.”
Worse, specifiers often combine
options A, B, and C for mix-proportioning
responsibility contained in ASTM C 94,
“Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete.”
“Most of the commercial projects today are
using a combination of A, B, and C, which
is making it very difficult to provide con-
crete the way they want us to,” says Kelley.
The goal, he says, is to get more specifiers
to choose option C, which makes the pro-
ducer responsible for mix proportioning.
“That’s what we’re shooting for with our
education program, not just with our archi-
tectural groups, and we’re trying to get out
in front of the engineering community as
well,” he says.
One hurdle the manual and CD-
ROM can overcome is the time-consum-
ing process of referencing several different
texts. It’s human nature to play it safe,
specify whatever has worked before, and
save time. However, notes Terry Rainey,
who works in sales at Chandler-based Rock
Solid, this inflexible mind-set often results
in more expensive bids, since it doesn’t
allow for the cost savings that new tech-
nologies and producers’ expertise often can
provide.
“They’re looking at specifications that
were written years and years ago,” he says.
“They’re under the impression that a low
water-cement ratio is good, a high water-
cement ratio is bad, a high cement content
is good, and a low cement content is not so
good. By rewriting the specs, those of us
with a lot of experience with concrete can
accomplish two goals: one, a quality prod-
uct, and two, a savings to the concrete
contractor and the owner.”
Specific points
The manual elaborates on several
specific references in the manual’s “Notes
to Specifier” section. The notes reinforce
the members’ in-depth presentations on
these topics.
Fly ash. The manual references
ASTM C 618, “Standard Specification for
Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined
Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral
Admixture in Concrete,” and aims to dis-
pel myths regarding fly ash use:
“Fly ash is commonly and successfully
used in Arizona. ADOT, the Uniform
Building Code, and M.A.G. [Maricopa
Association of Government, an association of
Maricopa County and municipal bodies with-
in it] allow fly ash replacement in all mixes.
Class F fly ash is primarily used in Arizona.”
“In Phoenix, there’s pretty much a
canned spec that many architectural and
engineering firms use when they say no fly
ash in flatwork or architecturally exposed
concrete,” says David Palmer, sales repre-
sentative at Phoenix-based United Metro
Materials and chairman of the committee.
“They’re going by the old rule of thumb:
‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,’ and they’re
ignoring the benefits of fly ash.”
“One thing that sticks in my craw and
probably will until it’s changed forever is
‘No fly ash, no fly ash,’” Rainey adds.
“Properly used, you get a more dense con-
crete, a higher-quality concrete, and a less-

5. expensive concrete with fly ash. These
guys didn’t know what fly ash was; they just
had this impression that fly ash was bad.”
“If you can minimize the amount of
cement by using fly ash, you’ll minimize
the water because you’ve reduced the
amount of cement,” adds Kelley. “There are
also advantageous reasons to use fly ash
once the concrete has touched the ground
out here, because the ground is so alkaline.
The fly ash of today is substantially differ-
ent from the fly ash used 10 years ago—it’s
mostly processed material now—and we
have a lot better understanding of how the
fly ash reacts with the cement.
“Sometimes we’ll have a big mat foot-
ing that’s 6 feet thick; you can generate a
lot of heat in 5000 yards of concrete. If we
can use fly ash and get the spec changed
from 28 to 56 days, we can do a lot of
things that are positive for the concrete.”
Air entrainment. The manual refer-
ences ASTM C 260, “Standard Specification
forAir-EntrainingAdmixturesforConcrete,”
under “Admixtures,” and adds a note of
caution:
“Air entrainment normally is not required
for durability in work located in valley areas
at elevations below about 3000 feet, except
where it is desired to improve the imperme-
ability, sulfate resistance, or workability; or in
work which will not be exposed to freeze/thaw
exposures at high elevations. Air entrainment
should be required in all exposed work at ele-
vations above 3000 feet.”
“A lot of companies that are from, say,
Chicago have a Chicago architect, and
they want to build a distribution center or
some stores in Phoenix; they don’t think
about Phoenix,” notes Kelley. “The only
time I see it is with specs for, say, a Wal-
Mart where they use the same set of specs
nationwide,” adds Rainey. He often sub-
mits a mix design that has performed well
in the past, knowing it will be rejected.
“Then I’ll resubmit with some backup data
showing our 3000-psi mix, 0.58 water-
cement ratio, fly ash, and strengths of 3500
or 4000. More often than not, when they
see the backup data, it’s accepted.”
Quality-assurance testing. In this
section, the “Notes to Specifier” distin-
guish testing of cylinders for replication of
the as-delivered properties vs. the in-serv-
ice properties of concrete:
“Field-cured specimens should not be
used to determine compliance of the concrete
as delivered with the specifications. Testing of
field-cured specimens is helpful in determining
the effect of job climactic conditions and cur-
ing procedures on the quality of the in-place
hardened concrete, and in determining when
the in-place concrete has developed sufficient
strength to permit form removal or when the
structure may be placed in service.”
Later, the notes refer to standard
ASTM C 31, “Standard Practice for Making
and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in
the Field.” “...ASTM C 31 is universally
recognized as the standard method of curing to
be employed for specimens used in tests,
which will serve as a basis of acceptance of
concrete as delivered.”
Vulcan Materials, for example, often
does comparative testing, based on the
initial curing provision found in C 31 that
includes use of insulated boxes, to distin-
guish between as-delivered and in-service
concrete. Specifiers need to recognize this
distinction. “The difference is daylight
and dark; it’s a very critical difference,”
says Kelley. “To put the structure in serv-
ice, there is some minimum strength that
you have to have to post-tension; 3000
psi—that’s the norm. We do the same
thing for fast-track highway projects
where they want to open a lane in 3 hours
or 5 hours. But say there’s a second spec
that says the strength of that slab has got
to be 5000 at 28 days. If we use the 28-day
breaks of cylinders stored in a Zonolite
box, we might not hit 5000,” because
rapid strength gain occurs early, then slows
to a crawl after the first few days.
When curing the cylinders without
an insulated box, however, “We’ll get
6000 because you gain strength more
slowly, and it continues to gain, whereas
the other cylinders have a rapid acceler-
ation. What we’re trying to do with the
Zonolite cylinders is duplicate the cur-
ing of the concrete in place. A lot of it
has to do with heat generation; the gen-
eration in mass concrete is a lot greater
than in a 4x8-inch cylinder.”
Hot-weather concreting. Besides
serving as “CliffsNotes for Concrete,” the
manual shares producer committee mem-
bers’ knowledge of local conditions as they
apply to concrete properties.
Kelley is looking forward to an anti-
cipated change in the ACI recommenda-
tion that will increase the as-delivered
“Many architectural
and engineering firms
say no fly ash in flat-
work or architecturally
exposed concrete.”
—David Palmer,
United Metro
Materials

6. concrete temperature limit to 95° F.
“Around here, it sometimes takes more
than 60 minutes just to get to the site, so
we’re out of tolerance even before we get
there, even though it’s still plastic, viable
concrete,” says Kelley. “We are really
fighting hard to maintain under-90° F
temperatures here in Phoenix for any
extended period of haul. Some of these
recommendations are being modified or
we’re getting exemptions from them.”
Taking their act on the road
Preparing a presentation for a partic-
ular firm requires a little tweaking—and
additional hours to those the committee
members already have invested in updat-
ing the manual. Also, besides the
“Fundamentals of Concrete” presentation,
the committee is developing a seminar on
decorative concrete and three others on
subjects yet to be determined.
The presentations remain a work in
progress, as the committee members use
audience feedback on evaluation forms to
make changes. The committee began
making presentations in front of smaller
firms, which have schedules that are easi-
er to coordinate, but it did appear before
nearly 100 members of the Central
Chapter of the Structural Engineers of
Arizona last April.
One of the first attendees, Terry
Sewell of OBA, an architectural firm in
Scottsdale, says the presentation was
worthwhile. “I had some preconceptions
about fly ash; I thought it was just like put-
ting sawdust in,” he says. “I appreciate and
understand a lot better now that it’s an
integral part of things. It’s helpful to the
composition instead of just there. I’ll prob-
ably just use their spec from now on.”
Systematic successes like this will no
doubt keep the committee going as mem-
bers tackle such a daunting task, one firm
at a time, one topic at a time.
“Two years from now, we should
start seeing some major results from
this,” says Kelley. “The more people we
get out in front of, the more word of
mouth we’re gonna have, and it’s just
gonna accelerate.”
“This is a large city, and it’s gonna
take a while, but I’m really excited and
enthused about it,” adds Rainey, who was
interviewed on his cell phone. “For exam-
ple, I’m on the way to about a 500-yard
parking lot. I’ve worked with the concrete
contractor and the owner, and all we have
to do is hit 3000 psi. Now if I had to meet
4000 psi and a ridiculously low water-
cement ratio, this job would be the black
stuff and not concrete.”
For a copy of ARPA’s recommended concrete
specs, circle 1 on the reader service card.
Publication #T01G027
Copyright © 2001 Hanley-Wood, LLC
All rights reserved