Water/Cement ratio*
Disputed Gauge of Concrete Quality
arly in the history of concrete construction it
E was noted that the durability of concrete struc-
tures was variable. Whereas many of the earliest
concrete buildings and pavements are still in
use and in good condition, some began to deteriorate
after short exposure to weathering.
There was little known then regarding the importance
of mix proportions and quality of ingredients. Shortly
before the turn of the century a few investigators won-
dered in print if the proportion of water to cement might
have a bearing upon concrete durability. It remained,
however, for a pioneering American concrete technolo-
gist named Duff A. Abrams to formally state the wa-
ter/cement ratio law: For a given cement and conven-
*Water/cement ratio is perhaps most frequently stated on a volume
basis in gallons of water per sack of cement. Where the ratio is
given on a weight basis (pounds of water per pound of cement),
conversion to gallons per sack may be accomplished by multiplying
by 11.27.
tional aggregates in workable mixtures, under similar
conditions of placement, curing and test, the strength of
concrete is solely a function of the ratio of cement to the
free water in the plastic mixture. Especially in recent
years there have been many challenges regarding the
usefulness and practicality of this rule as a field aid in
proportioning concrete mixtures.
When comparing concrete made with aggregates, wa-
ter, and cement that are absolutely uniform and in
which aggregate gradation and volume are unvarying,
few would challenge the applicability of the water/ce-
ment ratio. The lower the quantity of water in propor-
tion to the amount of cement in a plastic mix, the high-
er would be the potential strength of this mix. In other
words, we have an inverse proportion.
There are two key words in the foregoing paragraph:
unvarying and potential. Unvarying materials for
concrete are practically impossible to achieve in the lab-
oratory, let alone in the field. Imagine trying to find or
produce aggregates which did not vary in gradation, in-
ertness, organic material content, and shape. Cement,
water and admixtures also can introduce appreciable
variations. The manner in which concrete ingredients
are introduced into the mix, the type of drum used, the
mixing time, ambient and materials temperatures will all
have a bearing on the important performance charac-
teristics that will be developed by the concrete. The max-
imum size of the aggregates also appears to have a bear-
ing on the strength that will be developed.
Even if the potential strengths of two concrete mixes
were exactly the same and they were delivered to two dif-
ferent job sites, it is most unlikely that they would devel-
op the same strengths in place. This is due to variations
in transporting, placing and curing of the concrete. Al-
though the water/cement ratio acknowledges the role
these factors play in strength development, many prac-
titioners applying the pronouncement fail to take note of
them. What would be the strength of concrete that was
transported by steep non-lined chutes, moved horizon-
tally for great distances in the form with vibrators, and
then left uncured on a hot, dry, windy day? Contrast it
with identical concrete that is deposited directly in well-
constructed forms, carefully vibrated and then thor-
oughly cured.
Even when concrete is handled and placed by the
same men using the same equipment, there are usually
enough variations in practice to result in measurable dif-
ferences in the concrete in place. For example, the time
of day during which the concrete is placed might have
an important bearing on its quality. Or the proximity of
the formwork to the point of ready mix truck discharge
could account for differences.
Much more than in any other phase of construction,
quality in concrete depends on intelligent, informed co-
operation by all members of the construction team. The
architect must know the characteristics of the material
with which he works. The engineer must use enlight-
ened design practices and provide workable details. The
contractor must be informed in the proper concrete
construction practices. The ready mixed concrete pro-
ducer must provide concrete of the required strength,
slump and air content. The owner, too, must do his part
by anticipating current and projected needs and by pro-
viding adequate maintenance.
Failure by any one of these parties will generally have
an adverse effect on the performance of the concrete in
place. The challengers of the water/cement ratio pro-
nouncement challenge not so much the ratio itself but
the use to which it is presently being put in some cases.
If we view the water/cement ratio as a generalized over-
all guide in working with concrete, its value is great in-
deed. There is no doubt that if a plastic mix is delivered
to a job site and is subsequently watered, it will not de-
velop the strength that would have been possible with-
out the addition of water.
Today we have many dependable guideposts to aid in
the correct proportioning of concrete mixtures. Almost
all of them have evolved from the basic water/cement
ratio. There are still a great many people in the construc-
tion industry who either do not know of it or do not ap-
ply it in their everyday contact with concrete. If we all
made sure that we correctly understood this relatively
simple inverse proportion and used it as a guide in our
work, we would find that many questions would virtual-
ly answer themselves. For example, it would be quite ob-
vious why we cant just add water to a mix when we want
increased workability.
Understanding of the water/cement ratio is the first
step to be taken on the long road toward concrete con-
struction knowledge. But as with many other concepts,
an important adjunct to understanding Abrams law is to
be aware of its limitations.
PUBLICATION#C630211
Copyright 1963, The Aberdeen Group
All rights reserved