Plastic Shrinkage Cracking
Plastic Shrinkage Cracking
Plastic Shrinkage Cracking
TECHNICAL PAPER
by Paul J. Uno
Freshly placed concrete exposed to hot, windy conditions is often prone to
plastic shrinkage cracking (though other conditions can also promote this
phenomenon). This type of cracking is normally noticed on slabs, pavements, beams, and generally other flat concrete surfaces. Many factors
affect plastic shrinkage cracking, in particular the evaporation of water
from the surface of freshly placed concrete. Other factors also influence the
likelihood of plastic shrinkage cracking such as water-cement ratio, fines
content, member size, admixtures, and on-site building practices. Evaporation itself is a function of climatic variables such as relative humidity, air
temperature, the temperature of the evaporating surface, and very importantly the wind velocity at the surface.
This paper primarily explains the background to the evaporation nomograph found in ACI 305R-96, Hot Weather Concreting (Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 2-1996), where the graph provides a means of
estimating the rate of evaporation of surface moisture from concrete. The
paper offers an alternative nomograph and various formulas to predict an
evaporation rate of surface water (primarily bleed water) from freshly
placed concrete surfaces. Other factors related to evaporation and plastic
shrinkage cracking are also addressed.
Keywords: air temperature; concrete temperature; cracks in concrete;
durability; evaporation; high-strength concrete; hot weather concreting;
humidity; plastic shrinkage; solar radiation; vapor pressure; wind.
INTRODUCTION
Anyone associated with the concrete industry and confronted by hot weather problems has periodically used the
ACI Hot Weather Concreting evaporation nomograph1 (see
Fig. 1). This graph provides a method of estimating the evaporation rate of bleed water from the surface of freshly placed
concrete. The evaporation rate is calculated so as to give
some indication of the possible onset of plastic shrinkage
cracking.
The ACI report states: Plastic shrinkage cracking is frequently associated with hot weather concreting in arid climates. It occurs in exposed concrete, primarily in flatwork,
but also in beams and footings and may develop in other climates whenever the evaporation rate is greater than the rate
at which water rises to the surface of recently placed concrete by bleeding.
In 1992 the author began researching at a personal level
the origin of the ACI nomograph and in particular the origin
of Menzels formula upon which the nomograph is based.
ACIMaterialsJournal/July-August1998
365
Author
ACI
member
Bio statement
Paul J. Uno
appears
is the
in State
this box.
EngineerStructural
The first paragraph
andinBuilding,
the box New
should
South
use
Wales,
the format
for BiographyLA
the Cement and
to insert
Concrete
a 20Association
pica line abovethe
of Australia,
box, and
Sydney
the last
Office.
paragraph
He has
gained
should be
over
assigned
20 years
style
experience
BiographyLB
in structural
so that adesign
20 picaand
linecivil
is niserted
engineering
belowconstructhe line.
tion in Australia. He has also written papers on the acoustic and thermal advantages
of concrete.
(1)
where
W = weight (lb) of water evaporated per square foot of surface per hour (lb/ft2 /hr),
eo = pressure of saturated vapor pressure at the temperature of the evaporating surface, psi,
ea = vapor pressure of air, psi, and
V = average horizontal air or wind speed measured at a
level about 20 in. higher than the evaporating surface, mph.
The ACI nomograph is still the preferred method for predicting the evaporation rate of bleed water from the surface
of freshly placed concrete due to the difficulty in using Menzels equation. The Menzel formula requires the input of vapor pressure of air and the pressure of saturated vapor over
the water surface of the concreteboth conditions being difficult to measure on site. It is interesting to note that in Menzels original paper he also presented an evaporation
nomograph but it required the values of dewpoint to establish
vapor pressuresagain difficult parameters to measure or
obtain generally. As mentioned in the introduction, the origin of Menzels formula, in particular the derivation of the
constants in his formula, has not been apparent to many involved in concrete research and development.6,7
ORIGIN OF MENZELS FORMULA
Many researchers have questioned the applicability of
Menzels formula under particular weather conditions, but as
Mather8 states, The formula is valid regardless of whether
the water surface from which the evaporation is taking place
is a lake, pond, reservoir, pan, the bleed water layer over a
366
(2)
where
E = evaporation rate,
(eo ea) = pressure difference, and
f(u)= wind function.
While Dalton did not produce the standard formula above,
he provided the scientific principles upon which this type of
formula was based. However, if one refers to the many hundreds of books and papers written on evaporation and hydrology since that period, one will find many equations for
predicting evaporation. So how did Menzel arrive at his formula?
In December 1948 various U.S. government bodies, including the Weather Bureau, decided to undertake research
testing in the area of water loss from reservoirs. They ultimately carried out extensive water loss investigations at
Lake Hefner between 1950 and 195210,11 measuring air temperatures, humidities, wind velocities, solar radiation, precipitation, pan evaporations, and pan water temperatures
(using various pan types and sizes). One of the objectives of
ACI Materials Journal/July-August1998
0.88
( 0.37 + 0.0041u )
(3)
where
E = evaporation rate, in./day,
u = wind velocity, miles/day, and
(eo ea) = pressure difference, in. Hg.
This was not the equation that Menzel used as this equation was based on the evaporation rates derived from the
Standard Class A pan tests. These pans were 4 ft (122 cm) in
diameter and 10 in. (25 cm) deep and supported on a wood
frame above ground level. The test results from which Menzel derived his constants in Eq. (1) came from the Lake
Hefner tests where the BPI (Bureau of Plant Industry) sunken pans had been used since these pans were of larger diameter (6 ft or 183 cm) and deeper (2 ft or 61 cm) than the
Standard Class A pans and as such provided a better index.
In fact the Lake Hefner report stated, The physical characteristics of the BPI (sunken) pan seem to be most nearly representative of those of a natural body of water and therefore
this pan merits high consideration on a theoretical basis.
Two standard forms of evaporation formula were quoted
in the Lake Hefner report as both being suitable for use
[see Eq. (4) and (5)]. The report stated, Although these two
equations appear almost quite different they fit observed data
almost equally well because of the limited range of wind data. The two equations are shown below where a, b, c, and n
are constants derived from tests and u is the wind velocity.
E = ( eo e a ) ( a + b u)
(6)
where
es = saturation vapor pressure, psi, and
T = temperature, F.
Metric units
17.3T
es = 0.61 exp---------------------------( 237.3 + T )
(7)
(4)
where
es = saturation vapor pressure, kPa, and
T = temperature, C.
or
E = c ( e o ea )u
(5)
(8)
367
where
E = evaporation rate, lb/ft2/hr
eso = vapor pressure at concrete surface (psi) from Eq. (6)
esa = vapor pressure of air (psi) from Eq. (6)
r = (RH percent)/100
V = wind velocity, mph
Metric units
E = 0.313 ( e so r e sa ) ( 0.253 + 0.06V )
where
E =
eso =
esa =
r =
V =
(9)
Example 1
Air temperature T a
= 80 F (26.7 C)
Conc. temperature T c = 85 F (29.4 C)
Relative humidity RH = 50 percent
Wind velocity V
= 20 mph (32 kph)
gives
Air vapor pressure esa6 (esa7) = 0.508 psi (3.51 kPa)
Conc. vapor pressure eso6 (eso 7)= 0.598 psi (4.11 kPa)
thus
Evaporation rate E8 (E9 ) = 0.329 lb/ft 2/hr (1.60 kg/m 2/hr)
Evaporation rate Eaci nomo =0.33 lb/ft2 /hr (1.6 kg/m 2/hr)
The author has developed a single operation equation
(based upon Menzels formula) which can be used on a simple hand-held calculator and which does not require vapor
pressure precalculations. This is possible since a temperature-vapor pressure relationship, with a correlation coefficient of 0.99 for the temperature range 15 to 35 C (59 to 95
F), has already been incorporated into the equation. This formula is very appropriate for on-site quick checks to see if
evaporation is going to be a critical factor in plastic shrinkage cracking. These simpler formulas are shown below as
Eq. (10) and (11)
In.-lb units
E = (Tc
where
E =
Tc =
Ta =
r =
V =
2.5
r.T a
2.5
) ( 1 + 0.4V ) 1 0
(10)
Metric units
E = 5 ( [ T c + 1 8]
where
368
2.5
r [ T a + 1 8]
2.5
) ( V + 4 ) 1 0
(11)
E
Tc
Ta
r
V
=
=
=
=
=
Group
Condition
Increase
wind
speed
Decrease
relative
humidity
Increase
concrete
temperature
and air
temperature
Decrease
air
temperature
Wind
speed,
kph (mph)
Evaporation
Eq. (1) Menzel,
kg/m 2/hr
(lb/ft 2/hr)
Evaporation
Eq. (9) [Eq. (8)]
Uno,
kg/m2 /hr
(lb/ft2 /hr)
Evaporation
Eq. (11) [Eq. (10)]
Uno,
kg/m 2/hr
(lb/ft2/hr)
0 (0)
0.07 (0.015)
0.06 (0.012)
0.06 (0.012)
8 (5)
0.19 (0.038)
0.17 (0.035)
0.17 (0.036)
16 (10)
0.30 (0.062)
0.28 (0.058)
0.28 (0.061)
24 (15)
0.42 (0.085)
0.40 (0.081)
0.40 (0.086)
32 (20)
0.54 (0.110)
0.51 (0.104)
0.51 (0.110)
40 (25)
0.66 (0.135)
0.62 (0.127)
0.63 (0.135)
Case
Concrete
Air
Relative
temperature, temperature, humidity,
C (F)
C (F)
percent
21 (70)
Cold air
high RH
and wind
70
90
0.10 (0.020)
0.09 (0.019)
0.09 (0.20)
70
0.30 (0.062)
0.28 (0.058)
0.28 (0.061)
0.49 (0.100)
0.47 (0.097)
0.47 (0.102)
10
21 (70)
30
0.66 (0.135)
0.66 (0.135)
0.66 (0.143)
11
10
0.86 (0.175)
0.85 (0.174)
21 (70)
50
0.85 (0.184)
10 (50)
10 (50)
0.13 (0.026)
0.14 (0.028)
0.12 (0.026)
13
16 (60)
16 (60)
0.21 (0.043)
0.21 (0.041)
0.20 (0.041)
14
21 (70)
21 (70)
0.30 (0.062)
0.28 (0.058)
0.28 (0.061)
15
27 (80)
27 (80)
0.38 (0.077)
0.41 (0.081)
0.41 (0.085)
16
32 (90)
32 (90)
0.54 (0.110)
0.54 (0.112)
0.53 (0.115)
17
38 (100)
38 (100)
0.88 (0.180)
0.76 (0.152)
0.70 (0.150)
18
27 (80)
0.00 (0.000)
0.00 (0.004)
0.00 (0.004)
19
21 (70)
0.30 (0.062)
0.28 (0.058)
0.28 (0.061)
0.60 (0.125)
0.62 (0.127)
0.66 (0.143)
0.81 (0.165)
0.79 (0.163)
0.87 (0.187)
1.00 (0.205)
1.05 (0.206)
1.13 (0.235)
0.63 (0.130)
0.64 (0.129)
0.72 (0.154)
0.35 (0.075)
0.38 (0.072)
0.45 (0.088)
0 (0)
0.17 (0.035)
0.16 (0.033)
0.17 (0.035)
16 (10)
0.79 (0.162)
0.79 (0.161)
0.84 (0.179)
40 (25)
1.75 (0.357)
1.73 (0.353)
1.84 (0.395)
0.86 (0.175)
0.88 (0.174)
0.88 (0.183)
0.49 (0.100)
0.47 (0.097)
0.47 (0.102)
0.22 (0.045)
0.22 (0.039)
0.20 (0.036)
0.34 (0.070)
0.34 (0.070)
0.32 (0.069)
16 (10)
1.64 (0.336)
1.63 (0.336)
1.60 (0.345)
40 (25)
3.58 (0.740)
3.56 (0.735)
3.50 (0.760)
20
21 (70)
10 (50)
70
70
22
27 (80)
23
21 (70)
24
16 (60)
26
4 (40)
100
21 (70)
4 (40)
50
27
7
Average
weather
conditions
High concrete
and air
temperature + low
RH
28
27 (80)
29
21 (70)
30
16 (60)
21 (70)
50
31
32
16 (10)
16 (10)
1 (30)
25
6
16 (10)
12
21
5
21 (70)
32 (90)
32 (90)
10
33
16 (10)
16 (10)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2Evaporation rates when air and concrete temperature are the same: (a) relative
humidity; (b) air temperature vs. wind speed
z
ln ---- + 1
z
V
0
------ = ------------------------VX
z
l n ----1 + 1
z0
(12)
z k
V = V X --- z 0
(13)
or
where
V =
Vx =
z =
zo =
z1 =
k =
370
(14)
where
ACI Materials Journal / July-August 1998
Calm
<1
<1
<1
<1
On land
<1
Light air
1-3
1-3
1-2
1-5
1-3
Light breeze
4-6
4-7
3-4
6-11
4-7
Gentle
breeze
7-10
8-12
5-8
12-19
8-12
Moderate
breeze
11-16
13-18
9-12
20-28
13-18
Fresh breeze
17-21
19-24
13-16
29-38
19-25
Strong
breeze
22-27
25-31
17-20
39-49
26-32
* Equivalent wind speeds [as per Eq. (14)] to be used in evaporation equations
Ve
= equivalent wind velocity at 20 in. (0.5 m)
Vstd = wind velocity at the standard height of 10 m (33 ft)
When using Beaufort tables it is important to note that the
wind speeds shown are at the standard height of 10 m (33 ft)
above open flat ground. 19 The author has included an extra
column (equivalent wind speeds) in the standard Beaufort table (see Table 2) based on Eq.(14) for use with the evaporation prediction methods nominated in this paper.
Air temperature
Measurement of this variable is quite straightforward and
basically no different to the standard way in which most people would measure air temperature, the only provision being
to measure away from the direct rays of the sun (thus minimizing the direct solar radiation component).
Air temperatures for the Lake Hefner tests were based on
mean three hourly readings then averaged for the day. In all
cases the measurements were recorded without direct sun on
the air temperature instrumentation.
Relative humidity
Relative humidity is the ratio of the actual amount of moisture (lb/ft 3 or kg/m3) present in a unit volume of air to the
amount of moisture (lb/ft3 or kg/m 3) the air could hold (saturation) at a particular temperaturenormally expressed as
a percentage. When relative humidity reaches 100 percent,
evaporation normally ceases unless other forces (e.g. wind)
replace the saturated air with nonsaturated air.
Relative humidity readings can be obtained by contacting
the Weather Bureau or they can be recorded on site by means
of a hand-held sling psychrometer or even a simple wet bulb/
dry bulb thermometer.
Concrete (water) temperature
As explained earlier, it is really the temperature of the
bleed (or surface) water that needs to be measured to establish the vapor pressure difference between the air and water
ACI Materials Journal / July-August 1998
surface. Since it is difficult to measure the bleed water temperature, the concrete temperature is assumed to be at the
same temperature as the bleed water above and so it is the
concrete temperature that is measured. It would be difficult,
however, to accurately assign a temperature component from
any heat of hydration in the first few hours after placement.
Solar radiation
Solar radiation affects overlying air and land mass temperatures. It takes only 2.5 kJ (540 cal) of energy to convert one
gm (1/28 oz) of water from a liquid to a vapor and considering
between 16 and 24 MJ of energy falls on each square meter
of land mass in Australia on an average summer day (21 to
33 MJ, i.e., 20 to 31 thousand BTUs in the U.S.A.); evaporation (and subsequent precipitation) is a major function of solar radiation.
Although the ACI nomograph does not include solar radiation as a variable it is accounted for in Menzels equation
since the Lake Hefner pans were exposed to direct and diffuse solar radiation for both clear and cloudy days during the
two years of measurement. The solar contribution to evaporation was quantified by Kohler and others but required the
measurement of solar radiation on site, e.g., by use of a
pyrheliometer.
While many evaporation formulas have been quoted21
over the past 100 years, they mainly fell into one of two approaches, those that were based upon energy budget principles (i.e., the inflow and outflow of energy which then
influences the vaporization of water), and those that were
was based upon aerodynamic principles as outlined in this
paper so far. The energy budget method takes into account
the net radiation absorbed by the water and energy increase
stored in the water, the latent heat of vaporization, and the ratio of heat loss by conduction to heat loss by evaporation (the
Bowen Ratio). In 1948 Penman22 successfully combined
these two approaches to produce his well-known combination formula [Eq.(15)], namely
371
Q n . + .Ea
E = ----------------------------( + )
(15)
where
E = total evaporation,
= slope of the saturation curve,
4098.es
= -----------------------------,
2
( 237.3 + T )
= pschrometric constant,
= 0.066 kPa/C,
Q n = solar radiation (see Ref. 20 for formula), and
E a = evaporation from aerodynamic formulas.
While this equation has the advantage of quantifying the
contribution to evaporation by aerodynamic effects and solar
radiation respectively, one drawback it has (besides having
to record accurate radiation values) is that it is based on the
premise that the water temperature and the air temperature
are the same. This assumption, as Kohler states, can result
in an appreciable overestimation of evaporation under calm,
humid conditions and a corresponding underestimate for dry,
windy conditions.
The question remains, Does the water evaporate faster or
slower when exposed to direct clear sky (i.e., more intense)
radiation as opposed to diffuse cloudy sky (i.e., less intense) radiation and does it hinder or help plastic shrinkage
cracking? Various researchers have expressed differing
points of view in this area. Research by Hasanain et al. 23 indicated that shading concrete from direct, intense sun can reduce evaporation by as much as 50 percent. Tests on cement
mortars by Ravina and Shalon24 showed evaporation to be
greatest when the samples were exposed to radiation. Van
Dijk and Boardman25 indicate that while radiation raises the
temperature of the surface of the concrete and the rate of
evaporation, it also induces accelerated hydration of the cement and thus strengthens the concrete surface. Due to this
phenomenon, they indicate that slabs cast in the shade sometimes exhibit more cracking than slabs cast in the sun.
Having commented on the environmental factors which
cause evaporation of bleed water, let us now address the
bleeding rate of fresh concrete.
BLEEDING RATE
The ACI report states that precautions should be taken
when the rate of evaporation is expected to approach 0.2 lb/ft 2/hr
(1.0 kg/m2/hr). The Canadian Code26 nominates 0.75 kg/m2/hr
as the critical value while Australian references 27 quote
0.5 kg/m2 /hr as a value at which precautions should be taken
and a value of 1.0 kg/m2 /hr as that value where plastic
shrinkage cracking is likely to occur. The 0.2 lb/ft2 /hr ACI
figure first appeared in the July 1960 NRMCA article.2 It appeared again in Modern Concrete (Oct. 1960) referenced as
Technical Information Letter No. 171 for the NRMCA.28
Both stated, Data in literature suggest that concrete bleed
rates for usual conditions of slab construction will lie in the
range of about 0.1 to 0.3 lb/ft2 /hr. Thus, when evaporation
rate exceeds the lower of these figures, trouble with plastic
cracking is potentially in the making. Conditions producing
372
(16)
where
Emax = max allowable evaporation rate, kg/m 2/hr, and
fc
= strength of concrete, MPa.
In.-lb units
6
(17)
where
Emax = max allowable evaporation rate, lb/ft 2/hr, and
fc
= strength of concrete, psi.
While Eq.(16) and (17) are based only on the few tests carried out by Samman et al., the author believes an equation of
this form addressing the concrete strength (or w/c ratio) versus evaporation relationship should be present in the ACI
recommendations rather than the single figure approach.
ACIMaterialsJournal/ July-August1998
Admixtures
The concretes of today, while not that unlike those in the
40s and 50s, do on many occasions have a variety of admixtures introduced into the mix which have an influence on
plastic shrinkage cracking. The use of water-reducing agents
(water reducers), high-range water-reducing agents (superplasticizers), accelerating and retarding agents (accelerators
and retarders), and oxides all affect the plastic state of the
concrete in some manner. Research by Cabrera37 indicates
that concretes containing superplasticizers, while bleeding
less, tend to resist or prolong the onset of plastic shrinkage
cracking due to the modification in concrete surface tension.
Research generally has shown that excess use of retarding
admixtures can make freshly placed concrete more susceptible to plastic shrinkage cracking due to the slower set and
strength gain of the mix. 38 In relation to water-reducing admixtures, oxides, and accelerating admixtures, the use of a
water-reducing admixture would affect the plastic state of
the concrete and so would have to be addressed as per the
comments in the section on plastic state; oxides relate to the
fines content of a mix and so the section on Fines concrete
would apply; while accelerators hasten set and so should decrease the likelihood of cracking.
Fibers
The use of fibers in concrete over the past few years has
resulted in much research39,40 being carried out in this area,
in particular with polypropylene fibers. The general consensus is that polypropylene fibers do provide some improvement to reducing the onset of plastic shrinkage cracking by
holding or stitching the plastic concrete surface together,
thus minimizing the formation of early microcracks. One
point to note is that the introduction of fibers can reduce the
bleed rate of the concrete via the increased fiber surface area
introduced into the mix. This can in some cases result in concrete placers adding more water to the mix to make it more
workable, thereby reducing the concrete strength accordingly.
Sub-base preparation
The sub-base materials under a concrete slab have also
been shown to have a definite effect on plastic shrinkage
cracking (and longer term drying shrinkage cracking). Tests
carried out by Campbell et al.41 using three sub-base conditions, plastic sheeting (polyethylene), sand, and sand-cement
mix respectively, showed that extensive cracking only developed on exterior concrete slabs with plastic sheeting underneath; however, Turton 42 disputes this phenomenon based
upon his observations in the U.K.
Surface sprays
Tests carried out in the U.S. by Koberg and others43 between 1959 and 1960 looked at the suppression of evaporation control from lakes and reservoirs by the use of
monomolecular films (alkanols). This research stemmed
from earlier tests done in Australia in 1952 by Mansfield
where field testing of monolayers reported evaporation reductions in the order of 30 percent. Subsequent testing done
in 1965 at Utah University 44 confirmed that evaporation of
bleed water could also be suppressed by the application of
374
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
39.37 in.
0.621 mph
2.204 lb
0.205 lb/ft2 /hr
0.145 psi
947.8 BTU
5/9 (F 32)
REFERENCES
1. ACI 305R-96. Hot Weather Concreting. Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 2. Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute, 1996.
2. Bloem, Delmar. Plastic Cracking of Concrete. Engineering Information , National Ready Mixed Concrete Association/National Sand and
Gravel Association, July 1960, 2 p.
3. Lerch, William. Plastic Shrinkage. ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 53,
No. 8, Feb. 1957, pp. 797-802.
4. Prevention of Plastic Cracking in Concrete. Concrete Information,
Portland Cement Association, 1955.
5. Menzel, Carl A. Causes and Prevention of Crack Development in
Plastic Concrete. Portland Cement Association Annual Meeting, 1954, pp.
130-136.
6. Cebeci, O. Z., and Saatci, A. M. Estimation of Evaporation from
Concrete Surfaces. Concrete in Hot Climates, Proceedings , Third International RILEM Conference, England, 1992, pp. 25-31.
7. Uno, P.; Kosmatka, S. H.; and Fiorato, A. Unpublished communication, facsimile to Portland Cement Association, 1995.
8. Mather, Bryant, Discussion by Mather on paper by Zawde Berhane,
Evaporation of Water from Fresh Mortar and Concrete at Different Environmental Conditions, ACI J OURNAL, Nov.-Dec. 1985, pp. 931-932.
9. Dalton, John. Experimental Essays on Evaporation. Manchester Lit.
Phil. Soc. Mem. Proc., V. 5, 1802, pp. 536-602.
10. Water Loss Investigations: Lake Hefner Studies, Technical Report.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 269, 1954 (originally. Geological
Survey Circular 229, 1952).
11. Kohler, M. A.; Nordenson, T. J.; and Fox, W. E., Evaporation from
Pans and Lakes, Research Paper No. 38, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, May 1955.
12. Rohwer, Carl, Evaporation from Free Water Surfaces. Technical
Bulletin No. 271, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington,
Dec. 1931.
13. Goff, J. A., and Gratch, S., Low Pressure Properties of Water from
160 to 212 F, Trans. Am. Soc. Heat. Vent. Eng, V. 52, Paper 1286, 1946,
pp. 95-122.
14. Psychrometrics. ASHRAE Handbook, 1993.
15. Tetens, O., Uber einige meteorologische Begriffe Z., Geophys. V.
6, 1930, pp. 297-309.
16. Murray, F. W., On the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure.
J. Appl. Meteor., V. 6, Feb. 1967.
17. Dilley, A. C., On the Computer Calculation of Vapor Pressure and
Specific Humidity Gradients from Psychometric Data. J. Appl. Meteor., V.
7, Aug. 1968.
18. Mills, G. A., A Comparison of Some Formulae for the Calculation
of Saturation Vapor Pressure Over Water. Meteorological Note No. 82,
Bureau of Meteorology, Australia, Nov. 1975.
19. Observing the Weather, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Dept. of
Science, 1991.
20. Linsley, Ray. K.; Kohler, Max. A.; and Paulhus, Joseph L. H.,
Hydrology for Engineers, third ed., McGraw-Hill, 1988.
21. Veihmeyer, Frank J., Evapotranspiration, Handbook of Applied
Hydrology, Ven Te Chow, editor, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
22. Penman, H. L., Natural Evaporation from Open Water, Bare Soil,
and Grass, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 193, 1948, pp. 120-146.
23. Hasanain, G. S.; Khallaf, T. A.; and Mahmood, K., Water Evaporation from Freshly Placed Concrete in Hot Weather. Cement and Concrete
Research, V. 19, 1989, pp. 465-475.
24. Ravina, Dan., and Shalon, Rahel, Plastic Shrinkage Cracking. ACI
JOURNAL , Proceedings April 1968, pp. 282-291.
25. Van Dijk, J., and Boardman, V. R., Plastic Shrinkage Cracking of
Concrete, Proceedings, RILEM International Symposium on Concrete
and Reinforced Concrete in Hot Countries, Technion, Israel Institute of
Technology, Haifa, 1971, pp. 225-239.
26. CSA Standard A23.1 as referenced in Design and Control of Mixes,
fifth Canadian Metric ed., Canadian Portland Cement Association, 1991.
27. Cracks in Concrete Due to Plastic Shrinkage and Plastic Settlement, Technical Bulletin 95/1, Australian Pre-Mixed Concrete Association, Oct. 1995.
28. Plastic Cracking in Concrete, Technical Information Letter No.
171-NRMCA, Modern Concrete, Oct. 1960, pp. 63-64.
29. Powers, Treval. C., The Bleeding of Portland Cement Paste, Mortar
and Concrete, Portland Cement Association Research Bulletin No. 2, June
1939.
30. Powers, Treval. C., The Properties of Fresh Concrete, John Wiley
and Sons, 1968.
31. Swayse, M. A., Early Concrete Volume Changes and Their Control. ACI JOU RNA L, Proceedings V. 38, 1942, pp. 425-440.
32. Wittman, F. H. On the Action of Capillary Pressure in Fresh Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 6, 1976, pp. 49-56.
33. Samman, T. A.; Mirza, W. H.; and Wafa, F. F., Plastic Shrinkage
Cracking of Normal and High-Strength Concrete: A Comparative Study,
ACI Materials Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1996, pp. 36-40.
34. Shaeles, Christos. A., and Hover, Kenneth C., Influence of Mix Proportions and Construction Operations on Plastic Shrinkage Cracking in
Thin Slabs, ACI Materials Journal, V. 85, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1988, pp. 495504.
35. Schiessl, P., and Schmidt, R., Bleeding of Concrete, RILEM Proceedings of the Colloquium, Hanover, 1990, pp. 24-32.
36. Kral, S., and Gebauer, J., Shrinkage and Cracking of Concrete at
Early Ages, Proceedings , International Symposium on Slabs, Dundee,
1979; Advances in Concrete Slab Technology, London, Permagon Press,
1980, pp. 412-420.
37. Cabrera, J. G.; Cusens, A. R.; and Brookes-Wang, Y., Effect of
Superplasticizers on the Plastic Shrinkage of Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 44, No. 160, Sept. 1992, pp. 149-155.
38. Soroka, I., Concrete in Hot Environments , E & FN Spon, 1993.
39. Berke, N. S., and Dallaire, M. P., The Effect of Low Addition Rates
of Polypropylene Fibers on Plastic Shrinkage Cracking and Mechanical
Properties of Concrete, symposium abstract, SP-142. Detroit: American
Concrete Institute, 1993.
40. Balaguru, P., Contribution of Fibers to Crack Reduction of Cement
Composites During the Initial and Final Setting Period, ACI Materials
Journal, May-June 1994, pp. 280-288.
41. Campbell, Richard H.; Wendell, Harding; Misenhimer, Edward;
Nicholson, Leo P.; and Sisk, Jack, Job Conditions Affect Cracking and
Strength of Concrete In-Place, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings Jan. 1976, pp.
10-13.
42. Turton, Colin D., Discussion on paper Influence of Mix Proportions
and Construction Operations on Plastic Shrinkage Cracking in Thin Slabs,
by Shaeles et al., ACI Materials Journal , Sep.-Oct. 1989, pp. 531-532.
43. Koberg, Gordon E.; Cruse, Robert R.; and Shrewsbury, Charles L.,
Evaporation Control Research, 1959-60, Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1692, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, pp. 1-53.
44. Cordon, William A., and Thorpe, J. Derle, Control of Rapid Drying
of Fresh Concrete by Evaporation Control, ACI JO URN AL, Proceedings
Aug. 1965, pp. 977-984.
45. Jaegermann, C. H., and Glucklich, J., Effect of Exposure of Fresh
Concrete to High Evaporation and Elevated Temperatures on the LongTime Properties of Hardened Concrete. Proceedings , RILEM Symposium, Israel, V. 1, Aug. 1971, pp. 383-422.
46. Kraai, P. O., Proposed Test to Determine the Cracking Potential
Due to Drying Shrinkage of Concrete, Concrete Construction, Sept. 1985,
pp. 775-778.
375