Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Center for
By-Products
Utilization
DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH-STRENGTH SELF-
CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE
By Tarun R. Naik, Yoon-moon Chun, Rakesh Kumar,
and Bruce W. Ramme
Report No. CBU-2003-14
REP-508
March 2004
Submitted for publication in Construction and Building Materials
Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics
College of Engineering and Applied Science
THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN – MILWAUKEE
1
Development of High-Strength Self-Consolidating Concrete
by
Tarun R. Naik
Academic Program Director and Professor of Structural Engineering, UWM Center for
By-Products Utilization
Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201
Yoon-moon Chun
Postdoctoral Fellow, UWM Center for By-Products Utilization
Rakesh Kumar
Postdoctoral Research Associate, UWM Center for By-Products Utilization
and
Bruce W. Ramme
Manager – Land Quality
Environmental Department
We Energies
333 W. Everett St., Room A231
Milwaukee, WI 53203
ABSTRACT
This paper presents information regarding development, properties, and advantages and
disadvantages of using high-strength self-consolidating concrete in the construction
industry. It also presents results of a study recently completed for manufacturing
economical high-strength self-consolidating concrete containing high-volumes of fly ash.
In this study, portland cement was replaced by Class C fly ash in the range of 35 to 55%
by the mass of cement. The results of fresh and hardened properties of concrete show
that the use of high-volumes of Class C fly ash in self-consolidating concrete drastically
reduces the requirements for superplasticizer (HRWRA) and viscosity modifying agent
(VMA) compared with the normal dosage for such admixtures in self-consolidating
2
concrete. The results further indicate that economical self-consolidating concrete with
28-day strengths up to 9,000 psi can be made using high-volumes of fly ash. Such
concretes can be used for a wide range of applications from cast-in-place to precast
concrete construction.
ACI Fellow Tarun R. Naik is Director of the UWM Center for By-Products Utilization
(UWM-CBU) and Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee, WI. He is a member of ACI Board Task Group on Sustainable
Development, and Committees 232, Fly Ash and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete; 214,
Evaluation of Results of Tests Used to Determined the Strength of Concrete; and 123,
Research. He was also Chairman of the ASCE Technical Committee on Emerging
Materials (1995-2000).
Yoon-moon Chun is a postdoctoral fellow at the UWM-CBU. His research interests
include the use of coal fly ash, coal bottom ash, and used foundry sand in concrete and
masonry units; the use of fibrous residuals from pulp and paper mills in concrete;
autogenous shrinkage of concrete; and self-consolidating concrete.
Rakesh Kumar is a Scientist in Bridges Division of Central Road Research Institute,
New Delhi, India. He was formerly at the UWM-CBU as a Postdoctoral Research
Associate. His research interest includes pore structure of concrete, high-performance
concrete, self-consolidating concrete, repair and rehabilitation of distressed structures,
and durability of concrete.
3
Bruce W. Ramme is Manager of Land-Quality in We Energies Environmental
Department in Milwaukee, WI. He is a member of ACI, ASCE, and the Engineers and
Scientists of Milwaukee. He also serves on ACI Committees 213C, By-Product
Lightweight Aggregates; 213, Lightweight Concrete; 229, Controlled Low-Strength
Materials (CLSM); and 232, Use of Fly Ash and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Technologies change perceptions. In the last two decades, concrete has no longer
remained a material just consisting of cement, aggregates, and water, but it has become
an engineered custom-tailored material with several new constituents to meet many
varied requirements of the construction industry. Self-consolidating concrete, a latest
innovation in concrete technology is being regarded as one of the most promising
developments in the construction industry due to numerous advantages of it over
conventional concrete. Self-consolidating concrete, as the name indicates, is a type of
concrete that does not require external or internal compaction, but it becomes leveled and
compacted under its self-weight only. It is commonly abbreviated as SCC and defined as
a concrete which can be placed and compacted into every corner of a form work, purely
by means of its self-weight thus eliminating the need of vibration or other types of
compacting effort.1 Self-consolidating concrete was originally developed at the
University of Tokyo, Japan, in collaboration with leading concrete contractors during the
late 1980s. The notion behind developing this concrete was the concern regarding the
homogeneity and compaction of cast-in-place concrete within intricate (i.e., highly
4
reinforced) structural elements, and to improve overall durability of concrete.2 SCC is
highly flowable and yet cohesive enough to be handled without segregation. It is also
referred as self-compacting concrete, self-leveling concrete, super-workable concrete,
highly-flowable concrete, non-vibrating concrete, etc.3
Hoshimoto et al.4 visualized and explained the blocking mechanism of heavily
reinforced section during placement of concrete and reported that the blockage of the
flow of concrete at a narrow cross-section occurs due to the contact between coarse
aggregate particles in concrete. When concrete flows between reinforcing bars, the
relative locations of coarse aggregate particles are changed. The relative displacement of
coarse aggregate particles develops shear stress in the paste between the coarse aggregate
particles, in addition to compressive stress. For concrete to flow through such obstacles
smoothly, the shear stress should be small enough to allow the relative displacement of
the aggregate. To prevent the blockage of the flow of concrete due to the contact
between coarse aggregate particles, a moderate viscosity of the paste is necessary. The
shear force required for relative displacement largely depends on the water-to-
cementitious materials ratio (W/Cm) of the paste. An increase of the water-to-
cementitious materials ratio increases the flowability of the cement paste at the cost of
decreases in its viscosity and deformability, as well as, of course, its mechanical and
durability properties, which are the primary requirements for a structural-grade self-
consolidating concrete. The self-consolidating concrete is flowable as well as deformable
without segregation.1,3,5,6
Therefore, in order to maintain deformability along with
flowability in paste, a superplasticizer is considered indispensable in the concrete to
maintain of reduce W/Cm. With a superplasticizer, the paste can be made more flowable
5
with little concomitant decrease in viscosity.1 An optimum combination of water-to-
cementitious material ratio and superplasticizer for achievement of self-compactability
can be derived for fixed aggregate content concrete through laboratory trial mixture
proportioning. Okamura1 has suggested a limiting value of coarse aggregate and fine
aggregate for self-consolidating concrete at around 50% of the solid volume for concrete
and 40% for mortar.
Mehta7 and Neville
8 have suggested a simple approach of increasing the sand
content and reducing coarse aggregate content by 4% to 5% to avoid segregation. High
flowability requirement of self-consolidating concrete leads the use of mineral
admixtures such as coal fly ash in its manufacturing. Fly ash particles are spherical;
therefore, leading to reduced friction during flow of the mortar fraction in the concrete.
Use of mineral admixtures such as fly ash, blast furnace slag, limestone powder, and
other similar fine powder additives, increases the fine materials in the concrete mixture.1
Use of mineral admixtures also usually reduces the cost of concrete, especially in the
USA and many other countries where coal fly ash is readily and abundantly available.
The incorporation of one or more mineral additives or powder materials having different
morphology and grain-size distribution can improve particle-packing density and reduce
inter-particle friction and viscosity. Hence, it improves deformability, self-
compactability, and stability of the self-consolidating concrete.9
Yahia et al.10
and Naik and Kumar11
have reported a reduction in the dosages of
superplasticizer by using fly ash and blast furnace slag in self-consolidating concrete
requiring similar slump-flow compared to concrete made with portland cement only. The
6
well known beneficial advantages of using fly ash in concrete such as improved
rheological properties and reduced cracking of concrete due to the reduced heat of
hydration of concrete can also be incorporated in SCC by utilization of fly ash as a filler.
SCC often incorporates several mineral and chemical admixtures, in particular a
HRWRA and a VMA. The HRWRA is used to insure high-fluidity and to reduce the
water-to-cementitious materials ratio. The VMA is incorporated to enhance the yield
value, reduced bleeding and segregation, and viscosity increase of the fluid mixture. The
homogeneity and uniformity of the self-consolidating concrete is not affected by the skill
of workers, or the shape and bar arrangement of the structural elements because of high-
fluidity and segregation-resisting power of SCC.1
A highly flowable concrete is not necessarily self-consolidating because self-
consolidating concrete should not only flow under its own weight but also fill the entire
form and achieve uniform consolidation without segregation. Fibers are sometimes used
in self-consolidating concrete to enhance its tensile strength and delay the onset of
tension cracks due to heat of hydration resulting from high cement content in SCC.3 Use
of high-volume fly ash in SCC is also reported11,12
for the development of economical
and environmentally friendly SCC.
2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF MIXTURE PROPRTIONING FOR HIGH-STRENGTH
SCC
Self-consolidating concrete typically has a higher content of fine particles and
improved flow properties than conventional concrete. It has three essential properties at
fresh level, i.e. filling ability, resistance to segregation, and passing ability. However, its
mixture components are similar to other plasticized concrete. SCC consists of cement,
7
fine and coarse aggregates, mineral and chemical admixtures, and water. Self-
compactability of concrete can be affected by the physical characteristics of materials and
mixture proportioning. The mixture proportioning is based upon creating a high-degree of
flowability while maintaining a low (< 0.40) W/Cm. This is achieved by using high-
range water-reducing admixtures (HRWRA) combined with stabilizing agents such as
VMA to ensure homogeneity of the mixture.2
A number of methods exist to optimize the concrete mixture proportions for self-
consolidating concrete. One of the optimization process suggested by Campion and Jost2
is given below:
1. W/Cm equal to regular plasticized concrete, assuming the same required strength;
2. Higher volume of fines (for example, cement, fly ash, and other mineral fines)
than most plasticized concrete;
3. Optimized gradation of aggregates; and
4. High-dosage of HRWR (0.5 to 2% by mass of cementitious materials [Cm], 460
to 1700 mL/100 kg of Cm, or 7 to 26 fl. oz/100 lbs of Cm).
Another method for mixture proportioning for self-consolidating concrete was
suggested by Okamura and Ozawa.1 In this method:
1. Coarse aggregate content is fixed at 50% of the solid volume.
2. Fine aggregate is placed at 40% of the mortar fraction volume.
3. Water-to-cementitious materials ratio by volume is selected at 0.9 to 1.0
depending on properties of the cementitious materials.
8
4. HRWRA dosage and the final W/Cm value are determined so as to ensure the
self-compactability.
Several other mixture proportioning methods for SCC have also been
reported.7,8,13
However, a rational mixture proportioning method for self-consolidating
concrete consisting of a variety of finer materials is necessary. Optimum mixture
proportions are sensitive to small variations in the characteristics of the components, such
as the type of sand and fillers (shape, surface, grading) and the moisture content of the
sand. Success and failure are relatively near to each other. Therefore, SCC cannot
simply be made on the basis of a recipe.
3.0 EVALUATION OF SELF-COMPACTABILITY OF FRESH CONCRETE
A number of test methods such as slump-flow, U-flow, V-flow time, L-box, and
J-ring tests are in use for the evaluation of self-consolidating properties of the concrete.
These test methods have two main purposes. One is to judge whether the concrete is self-
compactable or not, and the other is to evaluate deformability or viscosity for estimating
proper mixture proportioning if the concrete does not have sufficient self-
compactability.14
The most commonly used methods for this purpose are discussed
briefly in the following sections.
3.1 Slump-Flow Test
Slump-flow testing is the simplest and most commonly adopted test method for
evaluating the flowability quality of self-consolidating concrete. An ordinary Abram’s
slump cone is filled with concrete without any tamping. The cone is lifted and the
diameter of the concrete after the flow has stopped is measured (Fig. 1). The mean
9
diameter in two perpendicular directions of the concrete spread is taken as the value of
slump-flow. Self-consolidating concrete is characterized by a slump-flow of 660 to 720
mm (26 to 28 inches). Measurement of slump-flow indicates the flowability of self-
consolidating concrete and determines the consistency and cohesiveness of the concrete.2
The slump-flow test measures the capability of concrete to deform under its own weight
against the friction on the surface of the base plate with no other external resistance
present.9, 15-17
According to Nagataki and Fujiwara18
, a slump-flow ranging from 500 to
700 mm (20 to 28 inches) is considered as a proper slump required for a concrete to
qualify for self-consolidating concrete. At more than 700 mm, the concrete might
segregate and at less than 500 mm the concrete is considered to have insufficient flow to
pass through congested reinforcement. According to Bartos16
the slump-flow test can
give an indication of filling ability and susceptibility to segregation of the self-
consolidating concrete. The passing ability of concrete is not indicated by this test.
Flowing time from the initial diameter of 200 mm to 500 mm, designated as T50, is
sometimes used for a secondary indication of flow. A time of 3 to 7 seconds is
acceptable for general applications and 2 to 5 seconds for housing applications.15,17
However, this test is not sensitive enough to distinguish between self-consolidating
concrete mixtures and superplasticized concrete.
3.2 U-Flow Test
The U-flow test examines the behavior of the concrete in a simulated field
condition.19
It is one of the most widely adopted test method for characterization of self-
consolidating concrete. This test simulates the flow of concrete through a volume
containing reinforcing steel. This test is considered more appropriate for characterizing
10
self-compactability of concrete.1,2
In this test, the degree of compactability can be
indicated by the height that the concrete reaches after flowing through an obstacle (Fig.
2). This test is performed by first completely filling the left chamber of the U-flow
device, while the sliding doors between chambers are closed. The door is then opened
and the concrete flows past the rebars into the right chamber. Self-consolidating concrete
for use in highly congested areas should flow to about the same height in the two
chambers. If the filling height is at least 70% of the maximum height possible, then the
concrete is considered self-consolidating. The selection of this percentage is arbitrary
and a higher value might be considered for more highly reinforced sections. In the U-
flow device, having the dimensions as shown in Fig. 2, the maximum filling height is 300
mm, a little more than half of the height (571 mm) of the U-flow apparatus. Therefore, a
concrete with a final height of more than 200 mm is considered self-consolidating
concrete.19
This test measures filling, passing, and segregation properties of self-
consolidating concrete.
3.3 V-Flow Test
Another type of test, which is frequently adopted, is the V-flow test. It consists of
a funnel with a rectangular cross section. The top dimension is 495 mm by 75 mm and
the bottom opening is 75 mm by 75 mm. The total height is 572 mm with a 150 mm long
straight section. The concrete is poured into the funnel with a gate blocking the bottom
opening. When the funnel is completely filled, the bottom gate is opened and the time for
the concrete to flow out the funnel is noted. This is called the V-flow time.19
A flow
time of less than 6 seconds is recommended for a concrete to qualify as a self-
consolidating concrete.12
11
3.4 L-Box Test
The L-box test method uses a test apparatus consisting of a vertical section and a
horizontal section (Fig. 3). Reinforcing bars are placed at the intersection of the two
areas of the apparatus. The vertical part of the box is filled with 12.7 liters
(approximately 30 kg) of concrete and left to rest for one minute in order to allow any
segregation and bleeding to occur. The gap between the reinforcing bars is generally
kept at 35 and 55 mm for 10 and 20 mm maximum-size coarse aggregates, respectively.
The time taken by the concrete to flow distances of 200 mm (T-20) and 400 mm (T-40)
in the horizontal section of the apparatus, after the opening of the gate from the vertical
section, is measured. The heights of concrete at both ends of the apparatus (H1 and H2)
are also measured to determine L-box results. This test gives an indication of the filling,
passing, and segregation-resisting ability of the concrete.9
3.5 J-Ring Test
The J-ring test is another type of method for the study of the blocking behavior of
self-consolidating concrete. The apparatus consists of re-bars surrounding the Abram’s
cone in a slump-flow test (Fig. 4). The spacing between the re-bars is generally kept
three times of the maximum size of the coarse aggregate for normal reinforcement
consideration.16,17
The concrete flows between the re-bars after the cone is lifted and thus
the blocking behavior/passing-ability of SCC can be detected.
4.0 STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF SCC
The mechanical properties of self-consolidating concrete are similar to regular
concrete with similar W/Cm. The homogeneity of self-consolidating concrete can be
seen through micrography analysis. Campion and Jost2 reported no difference in
12
composition and in strength of the cores drilled from wall elements (of actual structure) at
different heights. They further reported only minor differences between durability factors
such as chloride diffusion and freezing-and-thawing resistance of self-consolidating
concrete and regular plasticized concrete. Shrinkage measurement studies also revealed
equal value or slightly higher shrinkage values for self-consolidating concrete.2 Zhu et
al.20
studied the uniformity of in-situ properties of self-consolidating concrete mixtures,
in structural columns and beams, and compared the results of core compression tests,
pull-out test results, and rebound hammer for near surface properties to those of properly
compacted conventional concrete. Based on the analysis, they noticed no significant
differences in uniformity of in-situ properties between the two concretes. A comparative
study by Pautre et al.21
on the structural behavior of highly-reinforced columns, cast with
SCC having compressive strength in the range of 60 MPa and 80 MPa, as well as
columns cast with properly compacted controlled concrete of similar strength exhibited
similar ductility but yielded slightly lower strength (5% less). However, it was reported
that SCC showed greater homogeneity of distribution of in-place compressive strength
than conventionally vibration compacted concrete.21-23
Several other studies24-30
related
to durability aspects such as chloride permeability, deflection, rupture behavior, freezing-
and-thawing resistance, and chloride diffusivity, and other properties of self-
consolidating concrete reported either comparable or better results compared with the
conventional concrete.
4.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Using SCC
The use of self-consolidating concrete can yield many advantages over
traditionally placed and compacted concrete.
13
Saving of costs on machinery, energy, and labors related to consolidation of
concrete by eliminating it during concreting.
High-level of quality control due to more sensitivity of moisture content of
ingredients and compatibility of chemical admixtures.
High-quality finish, which is critical in architectural concrete, precast construction
as well as for cast-in-place concrete construction.
Reduces the need for surface defects remedy (patching).
Increases of the service life the molds/formwork.
Promotes the development of a more rational concrete production.
Industrialized production of concrete.
Covers reinforcement effectively, thereby ensuring better quality of cover for
reinforcement bars.
Reduction in the construction time by accelerating the construction process.
Improves the quality, durability, and reliability of concrete structures due to better
compaction and homogeneity of concrete.
Easily placed in thin-walled elements or elements with limited access.
Ease of placement results in cost savings through reduced equipment and labor
requirement.
Improves working environment at construction sites by reducing noise pollution.
Eliminate noises due to vibration; effective especially at precast concrete products
plants.
Eliminates the need for hearing protection.
Improves working conditions and productivity in construction industry.
14
It can enable the concrete supplier to provide better consistency in delivering
concrete, thus reduces the need for interventions at the plants or at the job sites.
Provides opportunity for using high-volume of by-product materials such as fly
ash, quarry fines, blast furnace slag, limestone dust, and other similar materials.
Reduces the workers compensation premium due to the reduction in chances of
accidents.
Some of the disadvantages of SCC are:
More stringent requirements on the selection of materials in comparison with
normal concrete.
More precise measurement and monitoring of the constituent materials. An
uncontrolled variation of even 1% moisture content in the fine aggregate could
have a much bigger impact on the rheology of SCC.
Requires more trial batches at laboratory as well as at ready-mixed concrete
plants.
Costlier than conventional concrete based on concrete material cost.
5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH-STRENGTH SELF-CONSOLIDATING
CONCRETE
5.1 Materials
Type I portland cement conforming to the requirements of the ASTM C 150 was
used in this investigation. ASTM Class C fly ash obtained from the Oak Creak Power
Plant located in Wisconsin was used in this study for partial replacement of portland
cement. Cement was replaced by fly ash at a replacement ratio of 1:1.25 by mass.
15
Physical properties of the fly ash used are given in Table 1. Natural sand and pea gravel
were used as fine aggregate and coarse aggregate, respectively. These aggregates were
obtained from local sources. Physical properties of the aggregates were determined per
ASTM C 33 requirements. Some of the properties of the aggregates are given in Table 2.
Two chemical admixtures, Glenium 3200 HES and Rheomac VMA 362, were used as a
HRWRA and a VMA, respectively. The dosages of admixtures were varied to achieve
the desired fresh concrete properties for the mixtures.
5.2 Mixture Proportions
The concrete mixture proportions and other details used in this investigation are
presented in Table 3. The Control mixture (SC1) was without fly ash while other
mixtures SC2, SC3, and SC4 contained Class C fly ash at 35%, 45%, and 55% of
replacement of cement by mass.
Each mixture was batched and mixed in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM
C 192. Each mixture was tested for fresh and hardened concrete properties. The fresh
concrete properties were measured to judge the flow and self-compactability behavior of
the concrete. Tests included slump-flow and U-flow tests. In addition to these, air
content and fresh density of SCC were determined using applicable ASTM. The
hardened SCC was tested for compressive strength using 4 x 8" cylindrical specimens
(ASTM C 39). The concrete compressive strength was obtained at the ages of 3, 7, and
28 days.
5.3 Results and Discussion
The fresh concrete properties are shown in Table 3 while the compressive
strengths of the self-consolidating concrete mixtures are given in Fig. 5. The fresh
16
density (unit weight) values of the concrete mixture containing high-volumes of Class C
fly ash vary within a narrow range for all mixtures. However, SCC containing high-
volume of Class C fly ash showed higher density than the control SCC mixture. Table 3
shows that the use of high-volumes of Class C fly ash in SCC significantly reduces the
requirements of superplasticizer as well as viscosity-modifying agent. This indicates that
it is possible to manufacture economical self-consolidating concrete by using high-
volumes of Class C fly ash. It is further obvious that the use of high-volumes of Class C
fly ash not only reduces the amount of cement but also reduces the superplasticizer and
viscosity modifying agents significantly while maintaining the desired 28-day strength of
about 7,000 psi or higher.
The compressive strength test data are also given in Fig. 5. As expected, the
compressive strength increased with age. The rate of increase depended upon the level of
cement replacement and age. In general, self-consolidating concrete strength decreased
with increasing fly ash amount at the very early ages, i.e., 3 and 7 days. This is consistent
with previously published results.31
The decrease in the early strength is directly
dependent on the amount of cement replacement by the fly ash. The SCC made by
replacing 35% of cement with fly ash shows strength of 4140 psi even at the age of 3
days. This concrete also achieved higher strength than the control concrete mixture at the
age of 28 days. SCC mixtures containing 50% fly ash of the total mass of cementitious
materials also outperformed the control concrete at the age of 28 days. SCC mixture
containing 60% fly ash also showed a comparative strength at the age 28 days with the
control SCC mixture. Certainly, at later ages this concrete will outperform the control
mixture of SCC. In general, all the SCC mixtures containing high-volumes of Class C fly
17
ash developed high-strength in the range of 7,000 to 9,000 psi. This type of high-strength
self-consolidating, economical concrete has many applications in the construction
industry, including precast concrete industry.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
An overview of the development, properties, and advantages and disadvantages of
using self-consolidating concrete has been outlined. Further, based on limited
experimental study on the development of high-strength self-consolidating concrete
incorporating high-volumes of Class C fly ash, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Use of high-volumes of Class C fly ash in the manufacturing of self-consolidating
concrete significantly reduces the amount of superplasticizer and viscosity modifying
agent compared with the normal dosage for such admixtures in SCC.
2. High-strength self-consolidating concrete for strength of about 9,000 psi at 28 days
age can be manufactured by replacing 35% of cement by Class C fly ash.
3. High-strength self-consolidating concrete for strength in the range of 7,000 to 9,000
psi at 28 days age can be manufactured by replacing up to 55% of cement by Class C
fly ash.
4. High-strength, self-consolidating, economical concrete for many applications in
construction, including precast industry, can be manufactured by replacing high-
volumes of portland cement with Class C fly ash.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Center was established in 1988 with a generous grant from the Dairyland
Power Cooperative, La Crosse, WI; Madison Gas and Electric Company, Madison, WI;
National Minerals Corporation, St. Paul, MN; Northern States Power Company, Eau
18
Claire, WI; We Energies, Milwaukee, WI; Wisconsin Power and Light Company,
Madison, WI; and, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Green Bay, WI. Their
financial support and additional grants and support from Manitowoc Public Utilities,
Manitowoc, WI are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Okamura, H., ―Self-Compacting High Performance Concrete,‖ ACI Concrete
International, Vol. 19, No. 7, July 1997, pp. 50-54.
2. Campion, J. M.; and Jost, P., ―Self-Compacting Concrete: Expanding the Possibility
of Concrete Design and Placement,‖ ACI Concrete International, Vol. 22, No. 4,
April 2000, pp. 31-34.
3. Kurita, M.; and Nomura, T., ―High-Flowable Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Containing Fly Ash,‖ Proceedings, Sixth CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, SP-178, V. M.
Malhotra, Ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998, pp.159-179.
4. Hashimoto, C.; Maruyama, K.; and Shimizu, K., ―Study on Visualization Technique
for Blocking of Fresh Concrete Flowing in Pipe,‖ Concrete Library International,
JSCE, No.12, March 1989, pp.139-153.
5. Naik, T. R.; Ramme, B. W.; and Kolbeck, H. J., ―Filling Abandoned Underground
Facilities with CLSM Fly Ash Slurry,‖ ACI Concrete International, Vol. 12, No. 7,
July 1990, pp. 19-25.
6. Naik, T. R., ―Construction of Caisson Foundations Under Water by Tremie
Placement of Concrete,‖ Project Report to Wisconsin Power and Light, Madison, WI,
1974.
19
7. Mehta, P. K., ―Concrete Structure: Properties and Materials,‖ Prentice-Hall, NJ,
USA, 1986.
8. Neville, A. M., ―Properties of Concrete,‖ 4th
Ed., Longman, Harlow, UK, 1986.
9. Sonebi, M.; Bartos, P. J. M.; Zhu, W.; Gibbs. J.; and Tamimi, A., ―Final Report Task
4 on the SSC Project; Project No. BE 96-3801; Self-Compacting Concrete: Properties
of Hardened Concrete,‖ Advanced Concrete Masonry Center, University of Paisley,
Scotland, UK, May 2000.
10. Yahia, A.; Tanimura, M.; Shimabukuro, A.; and Shimoyama. Y., ―Effect of
Rheological Parameter on Self-Compactability of Concrete Containing Various
Mineral Admixtures,‖ Proceeding, First RILEM International Symposium on Self-
Compacting Concrete, Å. Skarendahl and Ö. Petersson, Eds., Stockholm, Sweden,
September 1999, pp. 523-535.
11. Naik, T. R.; and Kumar R., ―Use of Limestone Quarry and Other By-Products for
Developing Economical Self-Compacting Concrete,‖ Report CBU 2003-15, UWM
Center for By-Production Utilization, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, USA,
April 2003.
12. Bouzoubaâ, N.; and Lachemi, M., ―Self-Compacting Concrete Incorporating High
Volumes of Class F Fly Ash: Preliminary Results,‖ Cement and Concrete Research,
Vol. 31, No. 3, March 2001, pp. 413-420.
13. Su, N.; Hsu, K.-C.; and Chai, H.-W., ―A Simple Mix Design Method for Self-
compacting Concrete,‖ Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 31, No.12, December
2001, pp. 1799-1807.
20
14. Ouchi, M., ―Self-Compacting Concrete Development, Application, and
Investigation,‖ <www.itn.is/ncr/publications/doc-23-3.pdf > (April 2, 2003).
15. Skarendahl, Å.; and Petersson, Ö., ―Self-Compacting Concrete,‖ RILEM Publications
S. A. R. L., Cachan Cedex, France, 2001, pp. 25-39.
16. Bartos, P. J. M., ―Measurement of Key Properties of Fresh Self-compacting
Concrete,‖ Proceeding, CEN/STAR PNR Workshop on Measurement, Testing and
Standardization: Future Needs in the Field of Construction Materials, Paris, June
2000, University of Paisley, Paisley, Scotland, UK,
<http://bativille.cstb.fr/CenStarWS/Measurement_key_properties.pdf> (April 27,
2003).
17. ―Specification and Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete,‖ EFNARC, Association
House, 99 West Street, Farnham, Surrey GU9 7EN, UK, February 2002
<http://www.efnarc.org/efnarc/SandGforSCC.PDF> (January 6, 2003).
18. Nagataki, S.; and Fujiwara, H., ―Self-Compacting Property of Highly-Flowable
Concrete,‖ Proceedings, Second CANMET/ACI International Symposium on
Advances in Concrete Technology, SP-154, V. M. Malhotra, Ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1995, pp. 301-314.
19. Ferraris, C. F.; Brower, L.; Ozyildirim, C.; and Daezko, J., ―Workability of Self-
Compacting Concrete,‖ Proceedings, PCI/FHWA/FIB International Symposium on
High Performance Concrete, Orlando, FL, USA, September 2000, pp. 398-407.
20. Zhu, W.; Gibbs., J. C.; and Bartos, P. J. M., ―Uniformity of In-Situ Properties of
Self-Compacting Concrete in Full-Scale Structural Elements,‖ Cement and Concrete
Composite, Vol. 23, No.1, February 2001, pp. 57-64.
21
21. Pautre, P.; Khayat, K. H.; Langlois, Y., Trudel, A.; and Cusson, D., ―Structural
Performance of Some Special Concrete,‖ Proceedings, Fourth International
Symposium on Utilization of HS/HPC, Paris, May 1996, pp. 787-796.
22. Khayat, K. H.; Pautre, P.; and Tremblay, S., ―Structural Performance and In-Place
Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete Used for Casting Highly Reinforced
Columns,‖ ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No. 5, September-October, 2001, pp.
371-378.
23. Walraven, J., ―Self-Compacting Concrete in The Netherlands,‖ Proceedings, First
North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Compacting Concrete,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA, November 2002, pp. 399-404.
24. Westerholm, M.; Skoglund, P.; and Trägårdh, J., ―Chloride Transport and Related
Microstructure of Self-Consolidating Concrete,‖ Proceedings, First North American
Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Compacting Concrete, Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL, USA, November 2003, pp. 355-361.
25. Audenaert, K.; Boel, V.; and De Schutter, G., ―Durability of Self-Compacting
Concrete,‖ Proceedings, First North American Conference on the Design and Use of
Self-Compacting Concrete, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA, November
2003, pp. 377-383.
26. Raghavan, K. P.; Sharma, B. S.; and Chattopadhyay D., ―Creep, Shrinkage and
Chloride Permeability Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete,‖ Proceedings, First
North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Compacting Concrete,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA, November 2003, pp. 341-347.
22
27. Turcry, P.; Loukili, A.; and Haidar, K., ―Mechanical Properties, Plastic Shrinkage,
and Free Deformations of Self-Consolidating Concrete,‖ Proceedings, First North
American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Compacting Concrete,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA, November 2003, pp. 335-340.
28. Petersson, O., ―Limestone Powder as Filler in Self-Compacting Concrete – Frost
Resistance, Compressive Strength and Chloride Diffusivity,‖ Proceedings, First
North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Compacting Concrete,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA, November 2003, pp. 391-396.
29. Hiraishi, S.; Yokoyama, K.; and Kasai, Y., ―Shrinkage and Crack Propagation of
Flowing Concrete at Early Ages,‖ Proceedings, Fourth CANMET/ACI/JCI on Recent
Advances in Concrete Technology, SP-179, V.M. Malhotra, Ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1998, pp.671-690.
30. Persson, B., ―A Comparison between Mechanical Properties of Self-Compacting
Concrete and the Corresponding Properties of Normal Concrete,‖ Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 31, No. 2, February 2001, pp.193-198.
31. Naik, T. R.; and Ramme, B. W., ―High-Strength Concrete Containing Large
Quantities of Fly Ash,‖ ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 86, No. 2, March-April 1989, pp.
111-116.
23
Table 1. Physical properties of Class C fly ash
Test Parameter OCPP Class C Fly Ash, % ASTM C 618 limits, %
Fineness Retained on 45 µm
Sieve (%) 13 34
Specific Gravity 2.56 —
Strength Activity Index with
Cement, 28-day (% of Control) 113 75
Table 2. Properties of aggregates
Properties Natural Sand Pea Gravel
Specific Gravity 2.68 2.71
Absorption 1.2 3.0
Maximum Nominal Size (mm) 4.75 9.5
24
Table 3. Self-consolidating concrete mixture proportions and fresh properties
Mixture Designation SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4
Laboratory Mixture Number 15R 18 19 20
% Replacement of Cement
with Fly Ash
0 35 45 55
FA/(Ct + FA) (%) 0 40 50 60
Cement, Ct (lb/yd3) 727 447 385 306
Class C Fly Ash, FA (lb/yd3) 0 300 393 480
Sand (lb/yd3) 1636 1556 1588 1582
3/8 " Pea Gravel (lb/yd3) 1468 1424 1454 1453
Water (lb/yd3) 248 239 229 212
HRWRA (gal./yd3) 1.64 0.96 0.6 0.6
VMA (gal./yd3) 0.75 0.6 0.4 0.36
W/Cm 0.34 0.35 0.33 0.31
W/Cm* 0.36 0.37 0.34 0.32
Slump-Flow (in) 26.75 27 27 27.5
Segregation Some NA NA NA
Bleeding Some Some Some None
U-Flow, H1 - H2 (in.) 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.25
U-Flow, H2/H1 (%) 98 98 98 98
Air Content (%) 1.7 1.5 1.4 2.7
Density (lb/ft3) 151.8 147.3 150.1 149.6
Material Cost† ($/yd3) 81 60 52 49
* Considering water in chemical admixtures.
NA: Not available.
† Calculated by using the following pricing information:
$0.045/lb of cement, $0.020/lb of Class C fly ash, $0.004/lb of sand, $0.004/lb of
pea gravel, $17/gal. of HRWRA, and $10/gal. of VMA.
Table 4. Compressive strength of SCC mixtures
Mixture
No.
% Replacement
of Cement
FA/
(Cement + FA) (%)
Compressive Strength (psi)
3-day 7-day 28-day
SC1 0 0 6530 7900 8650
SC2 35 40 4140 6310 9055
SC3 45 50 205 4405 8650
SC4 55 60 130 1245 6930
25
Fig. 1. Slump-flow test
Fig. 2. U-flow test apparatus
26
Fig. 3. L-Box apparatus
Fig. 4. J-ring test apparatus
27
Fig. 5. Compressive strength of high-volume fly ash SCC
