Cement & Concrete Composites 26 (2004) 613–621 www.elsevier.


A comparison of mix proportioning methods for high-strength concrete
M.F. Alves, R.A. Cremonini *, D.C.C. Dal Molin
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Escola de Engenharia, Departamento de Engenharia Civil/NORIE, Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99 Porto Alegre 90035-190, RS, Brazil Received 2 July 2001; accepted 3 February 2003

Abstract The use of high-strength concrete (HSC) has increased all over the world. Among the factors that justify this increased use is the strength increase for structural aspects and durability. The production of this material results in large consumption of natural sources and energy, as, in general, it is characterized by larger consumption of cement, when compared to the conventional concretes (compressive strength 6 50 MPa). In Brazil, little emphasis has been given to the HSC mix proportioning methods, for their use is not common practice in the construction industry yet, the production of HSCs being achieved through proportioning methods used for conventional strength concretes. The use of these methods, besides presenting technical difficulties, also generates high cement consumption, large consumption of energy and high consumption of raw materials in general. For the present study four proportioning methods were selected, one being for conventional concrete and three specifically for high strength. The resulting concretes are compared for compressive strength, cement consumption and economic viability. The results obtained indicate the advantage of using specific proportioning methods for HSC, as for the same compressive strength at 28 days, savings up to 50% in the consumption of cement were achieved, which represents a significant reduction of energy, raw material consumption and costs. Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: High-strength concrete; Mix proportioning; Compressive strength; Cement consumption; Concrete industry; High performance

1. Introduction For many decades, concrete has been largely used as a construction material, whether in moderate aggressive environments, or in strongly aggressive environments. This is due to the fact that it possesses excellent water resistance, can be moulded in a variety of shapes and sizes, and for being cheaper and more easily available in the field. To illustrate such statement, Mehta and Monteiro [1] estimated that the world consumption of concrete reaches the order of 5.5 billion tonnes a year. Besides the aspects mentioned above, the use of concrete as structural material is favoured by its mechanical properties, mainly compressive strength, a very significant parameter for design engineers and for those who perform quality control. This property is highly important for characterizing the material, serving as reference for its classification. The advance of concrete


Corresponding author. Fax: +55-51-3316-9999. E-mail address: rac@ufrgs.br (R.A. Cremonini).

technology, as well as the development of new materials and components have resulted in increased performance and strength needs, which were not being adequately satisfied any longer. Material degradation, the bad condition of structures in the long term and the large demand of new architectural forms have accelerated research on concrete microstructure, generating the need to elaborate new codes and standards. The satisfactory performance of structures, in the long term, has become vital for the economy of all nations. In that context, concrete has been the largest provider of stable and reliable structures, since the Greek and Roman civilization [2]. In what concerns durability, Mehta [3] explains that the low water/cement ratios used in the manufacture of high-strength concrete (HSC) already guarantee that durability requirements, such as low permeability, are already being considered. Although presently there are already parameters and mixing criteria for the production of HSC, the materials and their corresponding proportions are still chosen empirically through extensive laboratory testing.

0958-9465/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0958-9465(03)00036-2

thus enabling the correlation of strength X water/cement ratio. low water/ cement or water/cementitious materials ratio. Main principles: (a) For HPC. Metha/Aitcin method [11]: The Mehta/Aitcin method was chosen due to its easy development and execution. high consumption of cement. and the presence of various chemical and mineral admixtures [5]. with the lowest cost [9]. from which four were chosen to be executed in accordance with the criteria of practicability. Besides. particularly. Step-by-step: (a) Minimum cementitious material content determination: Its necessary to define a minimum cementitious material content. and PC + FA + condensed silica fume.02 of entrapped air. and can be executed in the field. 2. Initially one trial batch is prepared and variations in the materials proportions are done. (b) The slump and maximum size aggregate (MSA) are not necessary for consideration since slump can be controlled by the superplasticizer dosage. Besides. the Mehta/Aitcin method [11]. which can be used in its production. Alves et al. it is necessary to determine the optimum dry-mortar ratio. cement and fine aggregates relating to cement. • It is possible to build a ‘‘Proportioning Diagram’’ for each mix and modelling concreteÕs behaviour considering aspects such as compressive strength. the optimization of the material proportions is harder for HSC than for conventional concrete. as the proportioning methods specifically developed for HSC are few [4]. fine and coarse aggregates by mass) and the water amount to given workability measured by slump test. many existing proportioning methods for concrete are based on data and knowledge of existing materials in a specific region or country. IPT/EPUSP method [10]: The IPT/EPUSP method was selected for being widely used in Brazil. water/cement ratio X dry aggregates (m) and aggregates X cement consumption.F. costs. workability. (a) Volume fraction of cement paste components: considering that the total volume of cement paste is 0. aggregates/cement ratio and cement content per cubic meter.35 and it contains 0. incorporating mineral and chemical admixtures. The present study is based. water/cement ratio. material consumption and technical feasibility. aggregates and water. the Toralles Carbonari method [12]. presents a complex internal structure. there are three options: Portland cement (PC) alone. In accordance with Domone and Soutsos [6]. HSC mixes are generally characterized by low water/binder ratios. an analysis of the various mixing methods was made. One with higher and other with smaller cement consumption and the same workability and mortar ratio. PC + fly ash (FA) or blast furnace slag (BFS). capable to give a desirable workability. Step-by-step: Estimation of mixing water: based on experience with high-slump superplasticized concrete mixtures containing 12–19 mm MSA. HSC. It is a practical method which can be applied in the field. fundamental principles and technical limitations of each method. (b) After the optimum dry-mortar ratio and water amount are established at least two other batches are prepared. A brief description of each method is presented. which makes the use and the extrapolation of the classic proportioning methods difficult. (c) Specimens are moulded for testing at the required ages. The chosen proportioning methods for this research were the IPT/EPUSP method [10]. Experimental programme In order to verify the influence of the different mixing methods on the production of HSC. Main principles: It is based on experimental determinations to establish the dry-mortar ratio (corresponds to the ratio between . (c) Mineral admixtures are necessary to obtain technical benefits. other analysis can be found in [8]. it is easy to apply. This choice having been made following some efficiency criteria. it seems that 35% cement paste by volume represents an optimum solution in balancing the conflicting requirements of strength. These methods are not adequate for the optimization of the many factors that must be considered for mixing HSC. (d) The optimum proportion between fine aggregate and coarse aggregate is 65% by volume. / Cement & Concrete Composites 26 (2004) 613–621 Consequently. HSC ends up being produced using mixing methods of conventional concretes. To do so. without the need of special testing laboratory.614 M. due to the following aspects: compatibility between the admixture and binder. The objective of any proportioning method is to determine an adequate and economic rate for the materials making-up the concrete. and generally are restricted to Portland cement. among other characteristics. and the Aitcin method [9]. and dimensional stability. and the efficiency of the admixture in relation to the batching sequence as well as to the loss of properties with time [7]. on cement consumption and the cost per cubic meter of concrete. evaluating the workability and practical observations. giving as close as possible the desired properties.

Alves et al. Step-by-step: (a) A suggestion of water/cementitious materials ratio can be found by a nomogram (from 40 to 160 MPa at 28 days). If the saturation point is not known.06 kg/dm3 . (b) Estimation of minimum water dosage. and two for the other two methods. To this mix should be added an amount of binder. three repetitions were established for each batch executed by the IPT/EPUSP and the Toralles Carbonari methods. Planning of tests For each proportioning method. • coarse aggregate consisting of basalt crushed stone with 19 mm maximum size (MSA) and density ¼ 3. heavyweight and mass Concrete (1989) and it is a combination of empirical results and mathematical calculations based on the absolute volume method. 2. FA. in separate. Toralles Carbonari method [12]: The Toralles Carbonari method was developed by a Brazilian researcher. (a) Fine and coarse aggregates optimization: it is necessary to find the fine and coarse aggregateÕs mix which presents the minimum void content. silica fume and aggregates. the calculated mix proportions for the first trial batch serve only as a guide.5% as an initial estimate of entrapped air content. and then adjusting it on the basis of the result obtained with the trial mix. Main principles: • Follows the same approach of ACI 2111 Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for normal. Several laboratory trials using the actual materials may be required before one arrives at the right combination of materials and mix proportions which satisfy the given criteria of workability and strength. a minimum of four concrete batches were defined in order to enable to draw the Abrams Curve. • There is an ideal mix of fine and coarse aggregates that contains the minimum void content. (e) Trial batch adjustment: due to the assumptions underlying the proposed method. starting from excess zero (binder content ¼ voids content) up to 10% of binder excess.22 kg/dm3 and specific surface determinated by nitrogen absorption ¼ 1420 m2 /kg. assume a 2:3 volumetric ratio between fine and coarse aggregate for grade A (lowest strength). (d) The coarse aggregate content can be found according to its shape.2. It was based on a sample size analysis to check the number of repetitions needed for each batch. / Cement & Concrete Composites 26 (2004) 613–621 615 (b) Estimation of aggregate content: from the total aggregate volume (0.M. according to the superplasticizer saturation point. (f) A Mix Design Sheet is presented and should be completed in order to calculate the mix proportion of the materials and establish the first trial batch proportions.65). Test specimens produced through different combinations of cementitious materials and aggregates mixes are tested for compressive strength to define the combination which gives the desired compressive strength with a desired workability. • fine aggregate consisting of natural river sand with a fineness modulus of 2. and made modifications considered necessary to the initial method. Aitcin method [9]: The Aitcin method was chosen as an evolution of an already existing method (Mehta/ Aitcin method) which the authors have possibly improved.24 kg/dm3 and 40% solids content. (b) Cementitious materials and aggregates mix: several different combinations of cementitious materials contents and aggregateÕs mixes are made. Main characteristics of the silica fume are given in Table 2. To do so. . BFS. and reaching the best mix of both. • silica fume with density ¼ 2.63 kg/dm3 . Main characteristics of the cement are given in Table 1. the cementitious materials and the aggregates.1. it is suggested to start with a trial dosage of 1. (c) The superplasticizer dosage can be deduced from the dosage at the saturation point. higher than the minimum void content. called cementitious materials excess.11 kg/dm3 ).0%. (e) The authors suggest using 1.42 and density ¼ 2. Step-by-step: Cementitious materials optimization: it is necessary to determinate a water/cement + admixture ratio and estimates the superplasticizer saturation point. (d) Superplasticizer dosage: start with 1% superplasticizer (on anhydrous solid basis) by weight of cementitious materials. • sulphonated naphthalene superplasticizer with density ¼ 1. 2. Materials The present study involved the use of the following materials: • High initial strength Portland cement (density ¼ 3. (c) Calculation of batch weights: the mix proportions for the first trial batch are calculated considering the specific gravity values for normal PC. the dry rodded unit weight is determined.F. Main principles: The main idea concerning this method is that HSC can be produced by optimizing.

33 1.08% 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.98% 59.00 17 1.63 2.00 1.37 1.24% 0. Table 3 shows the mix proportions used for the various mixes.89% 0.00 Aitcin method 15 1.76 1.10 0.00 13 1.380 0.35 1.F. Test results Six cylindrical test specimens.20 1.19 1.00 1.10 0. / Cement & Concrete Composites 26 (2004) 613–621 Table 2 Characteristics of silica fume Characteristics 2.10 0.27% 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.45 2. Concrete production The following parameters were established for all the mix proportioning methods.00 1.92 1.341 0.10 0.00 14 1.11 433 m2 /kg 198 min 292 min 25.00 1.28 1.08 1.10 0.36 2.25 1.00 16 1.00 2.56 3.3.92% 11.10 0.344 0.6 43.214 0.00 1. 2.50 1.537 0.247 0.00 1.00 1.616 Table 1 Characteristics of cement Characteristics Chemical Properties Ignition loss MgO SO3 Na2 O K2 O CaO C3 S C2 S C3 A M.50 2.50 1.10 0.10 0.11% 3.13% 1.00 19 1.90 1.10 0.9 51. • mineral admixture: 10% by mass of cement.258 0.80 0.44 1.10 0.10 0.00 1.10 0.34 1.09% 0. 10 Â 20 cm.20 2.00 1.55 2.21 1.10 0.446 0.32 1.30 1.44% 0.23 2.1 38.93% 2.25 2.79% 5.29 1.288 0. Alves et al.10 0.226 0. Table 3 Concrete batches (by mass of dry materials) Batch Cement Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate Silica fume 3.93 w/cement ratio Cementitious materials (kg/m3 ) Cement Silica fume Total IPT/EPUSP 1 2 3 4 5 Mehta/Aitcin 6 7 8 9 10 method 1.271 0.10 0.411 0.22 1420 m2 /kg Physical Physical Specific gravity Finess––specific surface Initial setting time Final setting time Compressive Compressive Compressive Compressive strength strength strength strength (1 day) (3 days) (7 days) (28 days) Mechanical • chemical admixture: added to the concrete during mixing.1% 0.18 2.00 2.361 0.253 378 455 568 759 912 431 472 514 541 576 587 638 642 693 353 400 444 491 534 38 45 57 76 91 43 47 51 54 58 59 64 64 69 35 40 44 49 53 416 500 625 835 1003 474 519 565 595 634 646 702 707 762 388 439 488 540 587 Toralles Carbonari method 11 1.10 0.70 3.00 .00 12 1. were moulded for each mix in accordance with the NBR 5738/94 [13] for determination of compressive strength Chemical admixture (% of binder) 0.00 1.10 0.22% 0.275 0.10% 0.23 1.00 method 1.00 0.10 0. so that the results obtained could be compared.32% 2. in minimum quantity.51% 3.230 0.80 2.50 0.00 1.00 0.62 1.50 1.72 1.83 2.42 2.00 1. sufficient to reach the required workability.45 2. These are: • Workability evaluated by the slump test: 120 Æ 20 mm.67 2.289 0.00 18 1.308 0.76 0.9 MPa MPa MPa MPa Chemical Properties SiO2 Fe2 O3 CaO Al2 O3 MgO Na2 O K2 O Ignition loss Density (kg/dm3 ) Specific surface 95.385 0.21 3.10 0.

2 46.4 66.4 48. The equations and correlation coefficient are given in Table 7. 4.8 65.5 75. which is about HSC. since there is still some doubt whether this trend is similar to that of conventional concrete.2 88.1 76.2 5 60.19248 0.0 82.192 0.12195 0.2 3 47.6 54.0 88.192 Dm 6 Da Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Normal? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Obs: fc3.6 77. The results presented in Table 4 give the average of those values [15].2 64.4 Aitcin method 15 16 17 18 19 41.15317 0. the verification of the normality of the distributions represented by each sample was checked.9 14 62. 7 and 28 days. If Dm 6 Da . w/c X aggregates (Table 3) and aggregates X cement (Table 6).0 10 71.12987 0.11057 0. The equations and correlation coefficient are given in Table 7.4 617 Gauss normal distribution. and it was found that the compressive strength test results of the HSC obey the Gauss normal distribution. It is known that ‘‘strength X w/c’’ relation obeys AbramÕs law.7 Mehta/Aitcin method 6 45.0 69.3 Toralles Carbonari method 11 43.5 28 days 45. / Cement & Concrete Composites 26 (2004) 613–621 Table 4 Compressive strength test results at 3. To guarantee the reliability of the results obtained in the tests. this trend has to be proven.1 48.9 72. This test consists on a comparison between observed accumulated frequencies (Dm) and the estimated frequencies by normal distribution (Da).159 0. in accordance with NBR 5739/94 [14]. principally the simple compressive strength results. but the correlation value shown to be as equal as linear adjustment. According NBR 12655/96 the highest value of each batch was selected at 3. the distribution is normal.7 69.13359 0. fc7 and fc28––compression strength distribution at 3.4 7 days 38.11394 0.1.3 7 55.192 0. it is clear that the Aitcin method is the one that represents the lowest consumption.192 0.8 12 57. which presents the second lowest at 3.1 58.192 0.4 13 64.1 84.2 4 59. Alves et al.09133 Da 0.16875 0.12087 0.159 0.9 75.1 71.2 68. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test was adopted to verify the normality of the distributions.213 0. particularly in the case of the present research.7 76.13006 0. Discussion of test results It is well known that the majority of the conventional concrete strength results experimentally obtained obey Table 5 Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality tests Method (age) IPT (fc3) IPT (fc7) IPT (fc28) Mehta/Aitcin (fc3) Mehta/Aitcin (fc7) Mehta/Aitcin (fc28) Toralles Carbonari (fc3) Toralles Carbonari (fc7) Toralles Carbonari (fc28) Aitcin (fc3) Aitcin (fc7) Aitcin (fc28) Dm 0.M.0 80. The results of this analysis are given in Table 5.159 0.4 83.0 61.8 55.2 75. 7 and 28 days by each repetition. 7 and 28 days. Cement consumption per m3 of concrete Table 6 presents the cement and cementitious materials consumption per cubic meter of concrete for the different mixes and methods studied.4 62.0 79.08260 0.1 61.4 69.F. . However.213 0. All the correlations presented are linear model (y ¼ ax þ b). 7 and 28 days Batch Compressive strength (MPa) 3 days IPT/EPUSP method 1 32.6 8 58.1768 0. 4. so by simplicity the linear adjustment was adopted. The test specimens were cured according NBR 5738/94 (relative humidity P95% at 23 Æ 2 °C) and tested for compressive strength.3 60.9 62.4 50. followed by the Mehta/ Aitcin method. Concerning cement consumption per m3 of concrete.1 51.192 0. Strength ranges were established so it was possible to compare the different methods for the same strength.5 54.7 58. The values presented in Table 6 were obtained by regression analysis of strength results (Table 4) X w/c (Table 3).9 86.5 9 69.7 73.6 2 39. The hypothesis of normality cannot be rejected when Dm 6 Da.4 65.

The Toralles Carbonari method presents the highest consumption of cement per m3 of concrete for the range between 60 and 65 MPa.F.00 0. Alves et al. Table 7 Correlation analysis Method IPT/EPUSP Equation w=c ¼ À0:0089 fc28 þ 0:9379 m ¼ 11:295 w=c À 1:0589 cem ¼ À149:17m þ 1076:8 cost ¼ À32:147m þ 226:45 w=c ¼ À0:0076 fc28 þ 0:9082 m ¼ 6:4323 w=c þ 1:8704 cem ¼ À121:17m þ 972:09 cost ¼ À52:161m þ 323:5 w=c ¼ À0:006 fc28 þ 0:7268 m ¼ 1:2302 w=c þ 2:2525 cem ¼ À328:6m þ 1494:4 cost ¼ À153:49 þ 530:67 w=c ¼ À0:0046 fc28 þ 0:6456 m ¼ 17:305 w=c À 0:886 cem ¼ À78:156m þ 797:67 cost ¼ À11:793m þ 161:17 Correlation coefficient (R) 1. m ¼ aggregates (sand + coarse aggregate. being surpassed by the IPT/EPUSP method in the range from 70 to 80 MPa.96 1. 1. consumption of that material.91 0.00 0.98 0.96 0. As the methods cover different strength ranges. Concrete cost per m 3 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 For the cost analysis of this research the following values were considered: Fig.2. cem ¼ cement consumption by cubic meter. Fig.94 Metha/Aitcin Toralles Carbonari Aitcin Obs: fc28 ¼ Compressive strength at 28 days.99 0.618 M. .74 0.00 0. 4.97 0.95 0.00 1.99 0. / Cement & Concrete Composites 26 (2004) 613–621 Table 6 Cement and cementitious materials consumption per m3 of concrete. in kg fc28 (MPa) IPT/EPUSP Cement 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 329 404 479 554 629 704 779 854 – – Cementitious materials 362 444 527 609 692 774 857 939 – – Mehta/Aitcin Cement – – – 393 423 452 482 511 541 – Cementitious materials – – – 432 465 497 530 562 595 – Toralles Carbonari Cement – – – 606 618 630 642 654 667 – Cementitious materials – – – 667 680 693 706 719 734 – Aitcin Cement – – 336 367 398 429 460 491 523 – Cementitious materials – – 370 404 438 472 506 540 575 – Obs: fc28 ¼ compressive strength at 28 days. 1 has been prepared to show the cementitious material consumption for the range from 45 to 85 MPa. by mass).84 0.97 1. w/c ¼ water/cement ratio. Cement consumption for the compressive strength range from 45 to 85 MPa.

Fig.00/m3 . due to the innumerable advantages it brings. Proportioning diagram From the proportioning diagram it is possible to estimate the cement (binder) consumption.M. although not representing the highest costs does present rather high costs if compared to the Mehta/Aitcin and Aitcin methods. when compared to the use of conventional concrete or construction materials.F. The Toralles Carbonari method. It can be seen that they cover a wide range of costs. the (cement) binder:aggregate ratio (‘‘m’’) and the w/b ratio for any compressive strength within the studied range and with the materials used. Coarse aggregate: U$ 10. . Conclusions The use of HSC is increasing.33/kg. three being specific for HSC and one for conventional concrete. the Mehta/ Aitcin method appears to be slightly more cost saving one. from 80 MPa onwards. it may be noted that there are some points where the curves cross each other. The present research investigated four mix proportioning methods for concrete. in U$ Compressive strength at 28 days (MPa) 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 IPT/EPUSP 65 82 98 114 130 146 162 178 – – Mehta/Aitcin – – – 74 87 100 112 125 138 151 Toralles Carbonari – – – 116 121 127 133 138 144 – Aitcin – – 91 96 101 106 110 115 120 – 619 • • • • • Cement: U$ 0.12/kg. Alves et al. depending on the strength wished to be reached. does not allow building a proportioning diagram. Cost of m3 concrete for the compressive strength range from 45 to 85 MPa. Fig. and based on departing different principles. it practically classifies as the least cost saving one for all levels of compressive strength studied. From Fig. In the range from 65 to 75 MPa. / Cement & Concrete Composites 26 (2004) 613–621 Table 8 Concrete cost per m3 . The cost has to be analyzed for each compressive strength range. Fig. For the range from 45 to 50 MPa.3. Fig. the IPT method ap- pears to be as good as any other method. Fine aggregate: U$ 7. 2. Table 8 presents the cost comparison per cubic meter of concrete for the different strength ranges and for the different mix proportioning methods. should fall on one or another method. Superplasticizer: U$ 3. Mehta/Aitcin and Aitcin methods. 2 illustrates the cost per cubic meter of concrete.25/kg. indicating that there is no method that will always be the most cost saving one. 2 shows that it does not always represent the highest savings. the IPT method appears to be an efficient method for conventional concrete. 4. For concretes of the order of 55 MPa. However. 2.22/m3 . The Toralles Carbonari method. for following different criteria. from 60 MPa onwards. Although the Aitcin method has shown the lower consumptions of cement per cubic meter of concrete. the Mehta/Aitcin and Aitcin methods appear to give the lowest cost. There are different proportioning methods for HSC that differ from one another in terms of characteristics of materials. At the moment the choice of the method. 3 shows the proportioning diagram for the IPT. for the different strength ranges and for the four methods studied. 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 5. Silica fume: U$ 0. However.

1994. In: HSC International Symposium on Utilization on High Strength Concrete. Proportioning diagram. [7] Toralles Carbonari BM.F. [9] Aitcin PC. 2.60 M1 M1 Workability =120 ± 20mm M2 M2 M3 6 M3 m(kg/kg) Fig. As to the compressive strength all proportioning mixing methods enabled concrete of the order of 80–90 MPa to be obtained. It is known that there must be a limit to the cement consumption in order to avoid cracking due to thermal changes and drying. Microstructural basis of selection of materials and mix proportions for high strength concrete. Concerning the cost per cubic meter of HSC.620 M. Estudo comparativo de m etodos de dosagem para concreto de alta resist^ encia. References [1] Metha PK.16(10):26– 31. London: Edward Arnold. always the most expensive one. 3. [4] Mindess S. Concreto: estrutura. The material consumption per cubic meter of concrete. Advancements in concrete technology. Aitcin PC. Alves et al. [6] Domone P. Fundamentals of high strength high performance concrete. and for HSC specific methods this consumption is highly reduced. particularly of cement. [5] Mehta PK. . varies considerably from one method to another. 1990. 2.50 w/b 0. Porto Alegre.30 0. 5. 149p. S~ ao Paulo: PINI. Terzian P. 1996. Floriano [8] Alves MF. Concr Int 1999. High performance concretes and applications. There is a significant difference between producing HSC as per HSC specific proportioning methods and proportioning methods for conventional concrete. Monteiro P. Concr Int 1994. London: E & FN Spon. Floriano Encontro Nacional da Tecnologia do Ambiente Constru ıdo. 3. An approach to the proportioning of high-strength concrete mixes. propriedades e materiais. It was possible to produce concrete with a compressive strength of an order of 85 MPa with cement consumption from 500 to 550 kg/m3 . [2] Nawy EG. 591p. necessarily. 349p. 4. London: Longman Group Ltd.  polis. 76p. 1998. Manual de Dosagem e Controle do Concreto. Concreto de alto dese rio   polis: ENTAC–– mpenho: do laborato a obra. [3] Mehta PK. 1994.(June):69–76. vol. Soutsos M. Thesis (MsC)–– Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul . S~ ao Paulo: PINI. 1998. / Cement & Concrete Composites 26 (2004) 613–621 fc (MPa) 100 90 M2 M3 M1 IPT Method (M1) Mehta /AitcinMethod (M2) Aitcin Method (M3) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 C(kg/m³) 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 1 2 3 4 5 0. 2000.Porto Alegre.20 0. CA. Carbonari G.40 0. [10] Helene P. 1992. it is shown that the concrete having the highest consumption of cement per cu m3 of concrete is not. Berkeley. High-performance concrete. From the results achieved for the compressive strength tests it is possible to draw the following conclusions: 1.

621 [13] Associac ao Brasileira de Normas T ecnicas. / Cement & Concrete Composites 26 (2004) 613–621 [11] Mehta PK. Thesis (PhD) Universitat Polit ecnica de Catalunya. 174p. Alves et al.12(2): 70–8.M. 1994. Cement. Moldagem e cura de ß~ corpos de prova de concreto cil ındricos ou prism aticos: NBR 5738. . Rio de Janeiro. Ensaio de compress~ ao ß~ de corpos de prova cil ındricos de concreto: NBR 5739. Rio de Janeiro. Barcelona. Principles underlying production for high strength performance concrete. Barcelona. Rio de janeiro. [12] Toralles Carbonari BM.F. [14] Associac ao Brasileira de Normas T ecnicas. 1996. 1996. 1994. Estudio param etrico de variables y  n y produccio n de componentes relativos a la dosificacio hormigones de altas prestaciones. Concr Aggr 1990. Aitcin PC. controle e ß~ recebimento de concreto: NBR 12655. [15] Associac ao Brasileira de Normas T ecnicas. Preparo.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful