Materials: Mix Design and Mechanical Properties of High-Performance Pervious Concrete

materials
Article
Mix Design and Mechanical Properties of
High-Performance Pervious Concrete
Chao-Wei Tang 1,2,3, *, Chiu-Kuei Cheng 4 and Ching-Yuan Tsai 4
1 Department of Civil Engineering & Geomatics, Cheng Shiu University, No. 840, Chengching Rd.,
Niaosong District, Kaohsiung 83347, Taiwan
2 Center for Environmental Toxin and Emerging-Contaminant Research, Cheng Shiu University, No. 840,
Chengching Rd., Niaosong District, Kaohsiung 83347, Taiwan
3 Super Micro Mass Research & Technology Center, Cheng Shiu University, No. 840, Chengching Rd.,
Niaosong District, Kaohsiung 83347, Taiwan
4 Department of Agribusiness Management, National Pingtung University of Science & Technology, No. 1,
Shuefu Rd., Neipu, Pingtung 91201, Taiwan
* Correspondence: tangcw@gcloud.csu.edu.tw; Tel.: +886-7-735-8800

Received: 25 July 2019; Accepted: 10 August 2019; Published: 13 August 2019
Abstract: The mechanical properties of traditional pervious concrete are insufficient, which limits
its application. In view of the imperfections of traditional permeable concrete in mechanics, this
paper aimed to find a suitable material composition that can be used as a feasible mix design of
high-performance pervious concrete, to essentially improve its mechanical properties. Based on the
view that concrete is a two-phase material, in order to understand the rheological properties of the
matrix, it was subjected to a rheological test, and then the filler aggregate was uniformly incorporated
into the aforementioned matrix to further explore the composition and properties of the resulting
pervious concrete. For the matrix, the orthogonal array employed was L16 (45 ), which consisted
of five factors, each with four levels. Base on the fluidity and compressive strength of the tested
matrix, three groups of suitable matrixes mix proportions were selected to serve as the matrix type for
pervious concrete mix proportion design. Then, an orthogonal array L9 (34 ), which consisted of four
controllable three-level factors, was adopted in the pervious concrete. The parameters investigated
included the coarse aggregate size, fine aggregate content, matrix type, and aggregate-to-binder ratio.
The test results demonstrate that the key factors affecting the compressive strength of the matrix and
the pervious concrete were closely related to the cementitious material. In the matrix, the proportion
of the cementitious material was the most important factor, while in the pervious concrete, the type of
matrix was the most important factor.
Keywords: high-performance pervious concrete; mix design; engineering properties
1. Introduction
Most urban areas of the world are covered by reinforced concrete buildings and impervious roads,
mainly due to the continuous development of contemporary urbanization [1]. Compared to natural
soils, concrete pavements generally lack the ability to breathe, absorb heat, and infiltrate rainwater,
leading to a series of environmental problems. As an example, nonpoint source pollution (NPS) is
caused by surface runoff, rainfall, drainage, and seepage, which has been proven to be an important
factor affecting the water quality of receiving waters [2]. Most of these runoffs are caused by impervious
pavements in large parking lots, roads, and roofs. With the increasing population and urbanization
of countries around the world, it is estimated that by 2050, the global urban population will have
increased by more than two billion from the current level [3]. If this undue trend continues to develop,
Materials 2019, 12, 2577; doi:10.3390/ma12162577 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 2577 2 of 20
it will not only lead to the rapid expansion of the urban area but will also extend the corresponding
area of surface impervious pavement [4]. To effectively increase the infiltration of rainwater at the
surface to alleviate the drastic decline of the city’s groundwater level and other urban environmental
problems such as NPS, pervious concrete has emerged.
Pervious concrete is a porous, lightweight concrete made from aggregates, hydraulic cement, and
water, containing a large number of connected pores [4,5]. In pervious concrete, a carefully controlled
amount of water and cementitious material is used to form a paste that forms a suitable coating around
the aggregated particles and forms a highly permeable, interconnected void system that quickly drains
water [4–6]. The literature shows that pervious concrete pavement is a unique and effective means of
meeting the growing needs of the environment [6]. Compared to ordinary concrete pavements, the use of
pervious concrete pavements in cities has many advantages [6–26], such as reducing stormwater runoff,
reducing or eliminating detention tanks, reducing the impact and cost of rainwater treatment facilities,
supplementing the groundwater level and underground aquifer, allowing more efficient land development,
reducing surface pollutants, reducing the urban heat island effect, reducing flash floods, reducing water
accumulation and backflow, preventing contaminated water from entering rivers to avoid affecting marine
habitats, reducing dizziness caused by solar reflection, and supporting sustainable construction.
The proportion of pervious concrete varies from region to region. The standard pervious concrete
used in the United States is a mixture of single-sized coarse aggregates and cement combined at
a low water-to-cement ratio [25]. However, pervious concrete used in Europe and Japan is made
with small-sized aggregates, sometimes with a small amount of fine aggregates [25]. The important
hardening properties of typical pervious concrete, such as the density or unit weight, porosity,
permeability, compressive strength, and flexural strength, are shown in Table 1 [6,11,25–36]. The unit
weight of pervious concrete in the general field is approximately 1600–2000 kg/m3 , which is already
close to the upper limit of lightweight concrete [16]. In order to promote water permeation or flow
in hardened concrete, there must be sufficient interconnected pores in the concrete, and the porosity
should be at least 15%. Therefore, a generally pervious concrete mixture contains little or no sand to
produce a large void content [6]. In general, the porosity of cast-in-place pervious concrete is 20% to
25%. However, a higher porosity will result in lower strength, whereas a lower porosity will result
in higher strength [25]. According to the literature, if the porosity of pervious concrete is between
15% and 25%, its 28 day compressive strength can be greater than 13.8 MPa, and its permeability
is about 3.4 mm/s [6,22,25,37]. From the point of view of sustainable development, replacing some
of the cement with pozzolanic materials not only contributes significantly to energy conservation
and carbon reduction but also improves the fresh properties and durability of pervious concrete
materials [4,14,20,24,31,38–40]. It is worth noting that the use of fibers can also improve the low
strength and low tensile resistance of pervious concrete [14,18,41–45].
Table 1. Properties of pervious concrete.
Void Ratio Unit Weight Permeability 28 day Compressive Flexural Strength

Reference
(%) (kg/m3 ) (mm/s) Strength (MPa) (MPa)
15–35 N/A * N/A N/A 2.5–3.9 [11]
19–34 1666–2034 10.2–15.0 13.5–25.2 N/A [25]
19 N/A N/A 26.0 4.4 [27]
20–30 1890–2083 NA 17.6–32.1 3.9–5.7 [28]
11–15 N/A 0.25–1.78 N/A 4.2–7.5 [29]
18–31 N/A N/A 11.0–25.0 N/A [30]
N/A N/A N/A 19.0 N/A [12]
15–25 1602–2002 2.0–5.3 5.5–20.7 1.0–3.8 [31]
18–31 N/A 4.3–17.0 3.2–18.6 1.1–3.1 [6]
21–28 N/A 8.6–19.8 5.1–15.9 1.9–3.2 [32]
23–26 1890–1930 7.5–10.2 14.5–17.5 N/A [33]
15–27 1766–1985 8.9–12.2 2.6–13.6 N/A [34]
28–37 1750–1830 9.2–17.3 5.7–10.1 N/A [35]
NA 1965–2067 3.8–6.1 8.5–17.2 1.1–4.8 [36]
Note: * N/A = not available.
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 3 of 20
Pervious concrete has been proven to have the potential to protect the environment and improve
road safety. It has gradually become an important material for constructing parking lots and
roads [7–13,25]. Compared with ordinary concrete, however, pervious concrete has low durability and
strength and is mostly used in low traffic areas (such as parking lots, road shoulders, streets, and local
roads). Therefore, to improve the existing shortcomings of pervious concrete and promote its further
application, the present study aimed to determine a suitable material composition, as a feasible mix
design of high-performance pervious concrete, to essentially improve its engineering properties. The
parameters investigated included the coarse aggregate size, fine aggregate dosage, matrix type, and
aggregate-to-binder ratio. Moreover, the effects of the experimental factors on the performance of the
tested matrix and pervious concrete were evaluated by range analysis and variance analysis.
2. Experimental Details
2.1. Materials
The materials used in the test included cement, silica fume, ultra-fine silica powder, coarse
aggregates, fine aggregates, superplasticizers, a viscous agent, and polypropylene fiber. A locally
produced Type I Portland cement with a specific gravity of 3.15 and a fineness of 3400 cm2 /g was used.
The silica fume was locally manufactured with a specific gravity of 2.75. Ultra-fine silica powder was
purchased from abroad, and its specific gravity was 2.73. The fine aggregate was natural river sand
with a specific gravity of 2.57, a water absorption of 1.45%, and a fineness modulus of 2.7. The coarse
aggregate was gravel with a specific gravity of 2.59 and a water absorption of 1.30%. Superplasticizers
and the viscous agent were local products (in accordance with the Chinese National Standards or the
American Society for Testing Materials). The fibers were polypropylene fibers with a water absorption
of 0% and a density of 0.9 g/cm3 .
2.2. Test Variables and Experimental Design

In the matrix, the test parameters included the water–binder ratio, the relative proportions of
cementitious materials (cement (C):Silica fume (SF):Ultra-fine silica powder (SFP)), the superplasticizer
content, the viscous agent content, and the fiber content. As for pervious concrete, the test parameters
included the coarse aggregate size, the fine aggregate content (the percentage of fine aggregates in the
total aggregates), the matrix type, and the aggregate-to-binder ratio (A/B). Table 2 lists the levels of each
test parameter of the matrix and its performance parameters, while Table 3 lists the levels of each test
parameter of the concrete and its performance parameters. There are some disadvantages to considering
all combinations of factors in a full-factorial design, such as the large number of experiments required,
the long working hours, and the high cost [46]. In contrast, the Taguchi method utilizes orthogonal
arrays for experimental design and concise analysis of variance and can be economically, operationally,
and robustly based on only limited experimental data [47–50]. Therefore, the experimental scheme was
designed using the Taguchi method. A typical Taguchi orthogonal array is named after La (bc ), which
represents a total of c factors that can accommodate a maximum of b levels in a groups of experiments;
that is, an experimental array has a rows and c columns. As shown in Table 4, an orthogonal array
L16 (45 ) was adopted for the matrix, which consisted of five controllable four-level factors. Moreover,
an orthogonal array L9 (34 ) was adopted for pervious concrete, which consisted of four controllable
three-level factors (Table 5). Based on the test results of the fresh properties and compressive strength
of the matrix, three groups of suitable matrix mix proportions were selected to serve as the matrix
types for the pervious concrete mix proportion design. In Table 5, there are three types of matrix, CM1,
CM2, and CM3, corresponding to M4, M1, and M7 in Table 4, respectively.
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 4 of 20
Table 2. Parameters and design levels for matrix.
Parameter (Experimental Levels of Parameter Performance

Control Factor) 1 2 3 4 Parameter
Water–Binder Ratio, A 0.28 0.31 0.34 0.37

Proportion of Cementitious Flow value (mm)
PA * PB PC PD
Materials, B 7-day Compressive
Superplasticizer Content, C (%) 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 Strength (MPa)
Viscous Agent Content, D (%) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Fiber Content, E (%) 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100
Notes: * PA = C (cement):SF (silica fume):SFP (ultra-fine silica powder) = 10:0:0; PB = C:SF:SFP = 9.6:0.2:0.2; PC =
C:SF:SFP = 9.2:0.4:0.4; PD = C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6.
Table 3. Parameters and design levels for pervious concrete.
Parameter (Experimental Levels of Parameter

Performance Parameter
Control Factor) 1 2 3
Coarse Aggregate Size, A (mm) 4.75–9.5 9.5–12.5 12.5–19.0 Compressive Strength (MPa)
Fine Aggregate Content, B (%) 0 5 10 Elastic Modulus (MPa)
Matrix Type, C CM1 * CM2 CM3 Flexural Strength (MPa)
Aggregate to Binder Ratio, D High Medium Low Splitting Strength (MPa)
Notes: * There are three types of matrix, CM1, CM2, and CM3, corresponding to M4, M1, and M7 in Table 4,
respectively.
Table 4. L16 (45 ) orthogonal array for matrix.
Parameter (Level)
Experiment Viscous Agent
Number Water–Binder Proportion of Cementitious Superplasticizers Fiber Content
Content
Ratio Materials Content (%) (%)
(%)
M1 0.28 (1) * PA (C:SF:SFP = 10:0:0) (1) 0.25 (1) 0.05 (1) 0.025 (1)
M2 0.28 (1) PB (C:SF:SFP = 9.6:0.2:0.2) (2) 0.50 (2) 0.10 (2) 0.050 (2)
M3 0.28 (1) PC (C:SF:SFP = 9.2:0.4:0.4) (3) 0.75 (3) 0.15 (3) 0.075 (3)
M4 0.28 (1) PD (C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6) (4) 1.00 (4) 0.20 (4) 0.100 (4)
M5 0.31 (2) PA (C:SF:SFP = 10:0:0) (1) 0.50 (2) 0.15 (3) 0.100 (4)
M6 0.31 (2) PB (C:SF:SFP = 9.6:0.2:0.2) (2) 0.25 (1) 0.20 (4) 0.075 (3)
M7 0.31 (2) PC (C:SF:SFP = 9.2:0.4:0.4) (3) 1.00 (4) 0.05 (1) 0.050 (2)
M8 0.31 (2) PD (C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6) (4) 0.75 (3) 0.10 (2) 0.025 (1)
M9 0.34 (3) PA (C:SF:SFP = 10:0:0) (1) 0.75 (3) 0.20 (4) 0.050 (2)
M10 0.34 (3) PB (C:SF:SFP = 9.6:0.2:0.2) (2) 1.00 (4) 0.15 (3) 0.025 (1)
M11 0.34 (3) PC (C:SF:SFP = 9.2:0.4:0.4) (3) 0.25 (1) 0.10 (2) 0.100 (4)
M12 0.34 (3) PD (C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6) (4) 0.50 (2) 0.05 (1) 0.075 (3)
M13 0.37 (4) PA (C:SF:SFP = 10:0:0) (1) 1.00 (4) 0.10 (2) 0.075 (3)
M14 0.37 (4) PB (C:SF:SFP = 9.6:0.2:0.2) (2) 0.75 (3) 0.05 (1) 0.100 (4)
M15 0.37 (4) PC (C:SF:SFP = 9.2:0.4:0.4) (3) 0.50 (2) 0.20 (4) 0.025 (1)
M16 0.37 (4) PD (C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6) (4) 0.25 (1) 0.15 (3) 0.050 (2)
Note: * The numbers in parentheses indicate the level of the factor. The level of each factor has been explained in
Table 2.
Table 5. L9 (34 ) orthogonal array for pervious concrete.
Parameter (Level)
Experiment
Number Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate Aggregate-to-Binder
Matrix Type
Size (mm) Content (%) Ratio (weight ratio)
C1 4.75–9.5 (1) 0 (1) CM1 (1) 6.2 (1)
C2 4.75–9.5 (1) 5 (2) CM2 (2) 5.9 (2)
C3 4.75–9.5 (1) 10 (3) CM3 (3) 5.6 (3)
C4 9.5–12.5 (2) 0 (1) CM2 (2) 5.6 (3)
C5 9.5–12.5 (2) 5 (2) CM3 (3) 6.2 (1)
C6 9.5–12.5 (2) 10 (3) CM1 (1) 5.9 (2)
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 5 of 20
Table 5. Cont.
Parameter (Level)
Experiment
Number Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate Aggregate-to-Binder
Matrix Type
Size (mm) Content (%) Ratio (weight ratio)
C7 12.5–19 (3) 0 (1) CM3 (3) 5.9 (2)
C8 12.5–19 (3) 5 (2) CM1 (1) 5.6 (3)
C9 12.5–19 (3) 10 (3) CM2 (2) 6.2 (1)
Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate the level of the factor. The level of each factor has been explained in
Table 3.
2.3. Mix Proportions and Casting of Specimens

According to the aforementioned orthogonal arrays, namely L16 (45 ) and L9 (34 ), the mix proportions
of the matrix and the pervious concrete are listed in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. The mixing of the
matrix, cement, silica fume, ultra-fine silica powder, and fiber were first uniformly blended, and then
water, superplasticizers, and the viscous agent were added. As for the pervious concrete, aggregates
were cured indoors until the required saturated surface-dry condition was reached prior to mixing. The
cementitious material, fine aggregates, and coarse aggregates were then evenly mixed, followed by the
addition of water, superplasticizer, and the viscous agent. After thorough mixing, the fresh properties
of these mixtures were measured and recorded. Afterwards, matrix specimens (50 by 50 by 50 mm
cube) were cast from each mixture for the compressive strength test. In addition, the pervious concrete
specimens required for each test were cast and compacted using an external vibrator. Along with
each mix, cylindrical specimens (100 mm in diameter and 200 mm in height) were cast to determine
the compressive strength and elastic modulus tests of concrete, cylindrical specimens (150 mm in
diameter and 300 mm in height) were cast to determine the splitting strength test of concrete, and prism
specimens (360 mm in length, 100 mm in width, and 100 mm in thickness) were cast to determine the
flexural strength of concrete. After the specimens were cast, they were covered with wet hessian and
polyethylene sheets overnight for 24 h. Demolding was then carried out, and each sample was placed
in a laboratory water bath until the day before the mechanical test. Three representative samples were
prepared per test for each mixture, and the average value was taken.
Table 6. Mix proportions of matrix.
W C SF UFS SP VA PP
Mix No. W/B
(kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 )
M1 0.28 450.24 1673.75 0.00 0.00 16.74 1.67 0.23
M2 0.28 442.18 1601.85 33.37 33.37 21.69 3.34 0.45
M3 0.28 434.07 1530.39 66.54 66.54 26.70 5.01 0.68
M4 0.28 425.99 1459.37 99.50 99.50 31.70 6.65 0.90
M5 0.31 467.45 1593.73 0.00 0.00 21.63 4.98 0.90
M6 0.31 469.65 1525.49 31.78 31.78 16.58 6.37 0.68
M7 0.31 459.29 1457.65 63.38 63.38 30.28 1.59 0.45
M8 0.31 461.14 1390.20 94.79 94.79 25.42 3.17 0.23
M9 0.34 485.47 1521.00 0.00 0.00 25.35 6.32 0.45
M10 0.34 481.11 1456.07 30.33 30.33 30.02 4.56 0.23
M11 0.34 496.01 1391.51 60.50 60.50 15.21 3.03 0.90
M12 0.34 512.10 1387.63 90.50 90.50 19.72 1.51 0.68
M13 0.37 506.34 1454.63 0.00 0.00 28.74 3.14 0.68
M14 0.37 510.22 1392.70 29.01 29.01 25.10 1.45 0.90
M15 0.37 510.62 1331.11 57.87 57.87 18.91 5.80 0.23
M16 0.37 536.42 1327.56 86.58 86.58 14.51 4.34 0.45
Notes: W/B = water–binder ratio; W = water; C = cement; SF = silica fume; USF = ultra-fine silica powder; SP =
superplasticizers; VA = viscous agent; PP = polypropylene fiber.
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 6 of 20
Table 7. Mix proportions of pervious concrete.
W C SF UFS SP VA PP CA FA
Mix No. W/B
(kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 )
C1 0.28 51.76 177.32 11.96 11.96 3.85 0.81 0.11 1249.31 0.00
C2 0.28 59.24 220.23 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.22 0.03 1234.39 64.70
C3 0.31 69.38 220.19 9.57 9.57 4.57 0.24 0.07 1206.25 134.03
C4 0.28 60.35 224.36 0.00 0.00 2.24 0.22 0.03 1256.43 0.00
C5 0.31 61.82 196.18 8.53 8.53 4.08 0.21 0.06 1256.01 66.11
C6 0.28 60.25 206.42 14.07 14.07 4.48 0.94 0.13 1245.54 138.39
C7 0.31 62.57 198.59 8.63 8.63 4.13 0.22 0.06 1273.57 0.00
C8 0.28 61.03 209.08 14.26 14.26 4.54 0.95 0.13 1263.97 66.52
C9 0.28 61.42 228.34 0.00 0.00 2.28 0.23 0.03 1274.15 141.57
Notes: W/B = water–binder ratio; W = water; C = cement; SF = silica fume; USF = ultra-fine silica powder; SP =
superplasticizers; VA = viscous agent; PP = polypropylene fiber; CA = coarse aggregate; FA = fine aggregate.
2.4. Test Methods and Data Analysis

The rheology of the matrix was tested using a viscometer (Brookfield HBDV-II + Mode, Middleboro,
MA, USA) with a viscosity measurement accuracy of ±1% of the measurement range and a type spindle
(#HB04) was selected. The fluidity test of the matrix was in accordance with ASTM C230 [51], and
the compressive strength test was in accordance with ASTM C109 [52]. The unit weight of pervious
concrete specimens was tested under air-dry conditions. The tests of void content and infiltration rate
were performed according to ASTM C1688 [53] and ASTM C1701 [54], respectively. The void ratio
of pervious concrete was determined by calculating the difference in weight between the oven dry
sample and the saturated under water sample. The permeability of the pervious concrete samples
was determined using a falling head permeability test apparatus. A 500 kN MTS servo controlled
universal testing machine (MTS, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) with a viscosity measurement accuracy
of ±1% of the measurement range was used for various mechanical tests. According to ASTM C39
specification [55], a compressive axial load was applied to the specimens at a continuous rate until
failure occurred. The compressive strength was determined by dividing the maximum load by the
cross-sectional area of the specimen. According to ASTM C469 [56], a series of compressive stress cycles
up to approximately 40 percent of the measured compressive strength was applied. The modulus
of elasticity of the specimen was corresponded to the average slope of the stress-strain responses
captured during cyclic loading. Following the ASTM C496 [57], a diametric compressive load was
applied along the length of the sample at a continuous rate until failure occurred. This loading induced
tensile stresses on the plane containing the applied load, causing tensile failure of the specimen. The
splitting tensile strength was determined by dividing the maximum applied load by the appropriate
geometrical factors. In terms of flexural strength, ASTM C78 [58] was used to measure the flexural
strength of concrete by using a simple beam with third-point loading. The specimen failed within the
middle third of the span length in the tension area or underside of the specimen and the modulus of
rupture was calculated.
In the Taguchi experimental design method, the deviation between the experimental value and
the expected value is usually calculated by a so-called loss function. Traditionally, the value of the loss
function is usually converted to the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) ratio (η) [50]. In general, there are three
categories of performance characteristics, as follows [50]:
1 Xn
The-smaller-the-better: η = −10 × log10 (MSD) = −10 × log10 ( y2 ) (1)
n i=1 i
1 Xn 1
The-larger-the-better: η = −10 × log10 (MSD) = −10 × log10 ( ) (2)
n i = 1 y2i
1 Xn
The nominal-the better: η = −10 × log10 (MSD) = −10 × log10 ( ( yi − y0 )2 ) (3)
n i=1
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 7 of 20
where MSD is the mean squared deviation around the target value; n is the number of repetitions or
observations; yi is the observed data; and y0 is the desired nominal value.
where MSD is the mean squared deviation around the target value; n is the number of repetitions or
In this study, the observed flow values of the matrixes were set to a nominal level, while the
observations; yi is the observed data; and y0 is the desired nominal value.
observed values of the mechanical properties of the matrixes and pervious concretes were set to
In this study, the observed flow values of the matrixes were set to a nominal level, while the
maximum levels. In addition, optimization of the observations was further detected by variance
observed values of the mechanical properties of the matrixes and pervious concretes were set to
analysis. This was mainly achieved by separating the total variability of the S/N ratios into the
maximum levels. In addition, optimization of the observations was further detected by variance
contributions of each of the process parameters and the errors [59].
analysis. This was mainly achieved by separating the total variability of the S/N ratios into the
contributions of each of the process parameters and the errors [59].
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Test Results of Matrixes
3.1. Test Results of Matrixes
3.1.1. Rheological Behavior of Matrixes
3.1.1. Rheological Behavior of Matrixes
Fresh matrix can be regarded as a thick suspension that is obtained by uniformly adding cement
FreshBasically,
to water. matrix canthe be rheological
regarded as behavior
a thick suspension that is obtained
of this suspension structureby uniformly
is closelyadding
relatedcement
to the
to water. Basically,
water–binder ratio, the sizerheological behavior of this
and distribution suspension
the binder structure
particles, is closely related
the interactions between to the
water–binder
binder particles, ratio,
and thethe
size and distribution
ability of the binder of particle
the binder particles,
surfaces the interactions
to adsorb between The
water molecules. the binder
initial
particles, and theformation
stage of matrix ability of (inthethis
binder
case,particle surfaces
a relatively thinto solution),
adsorb water molecules.
usually the cement The initial stage
particles, of
will
matrix
show an formation
agglutination(in this case, a relatively
phenomenon calledthin solution),and
flocculation, usually cement particles,
then the flocculation tendswill
to linkshowintoana
agglutination phenomenon
continuous aggregate, this called flocculation,
time called and then
the flocculent the flocculation
state. When stirring tendsthetofresh
link into a continuous
matrix, the shear
aggregate, this time
force generated by called the flocculent
the stirring will break state.
orWhen
destroy stirring the freshflocculation
the original matrix, the shear forceso
structure generated
that the
by the stirring
previously will breakparticles
aggregated or destroy canthe
beoriginal
uniformly flocculation
dispersed structure
in water, so and
that the
thispreviously
behavior isaggregated
the cause
particles can beIfuniformly
of thixotropy. the sheardispersed
rate of the in water,
spindle and is this
keptbehavior is thevalue,
at a certain cause of thethixotropy. If the shear
matrix maintains an
rate of the spindle
equilibrium structureis kept
andatexhibits
a certain value, the
a distinct and matrix maintains
invariable an equilibrium
viscosity. structure force
When the shearing and exhibits
ceases,
athe
distinct
exact and invariable
opposite of theviscosity. When the
above process shearing
occurs, i.e., force ceases, the exact
the flocculation opposite
structure of the above
is formed again.
process
Therefore, occurs, i.e., the
depending onflocculation structureapplied,
the shear conditions is formed again.
both Therefore,
opposing conditionsdepending
may occur.on the In shear
other
conditions
words, when applied, both force
the shear opposing
acts,conditions
the cementmay occur.
slurry In other
exhibits words,
a fluid when the
behavior, andshear
on force
standing,acts, the
cement slurry
flocculation exhibitsmakes
structure a fluidthebehavior,
matrixand on standing,
comparable the flocculation
to a weak solid and has structure makesyield
significant the matrix
stress.
comparable
In view of this,to atheweak solid and behavior
deformation has significant
of theyield
matrix stress.
under Instress
view of this, the
should deformation
be essentially behavior
interpreted
of
bythe
thematrix
viscosity under
test stress
results.should be essentially interpreted by the viscosity test results.
As is clear from Figure 1, the measured torque value of the spindle immersed in the matrix was
initially
initially high,
high,regardless
regardlessofofthe therising
risingororfalling
fallingbranch
branch of of
thethe
torque
torqueversus
versustimetime
curve. Especially
curve. Especially at 100
at
and 50 revolutions per minute (RPM), the torque value of the spindle
100 and 50 revolutions per minute (RPM), the torque value of the spindle was relatively large. When was relatively large. When the
spindle rotated
the spindle for a period
rotated of time,of
for a period thetime,
agglomeration structure around
the agglomeration structure it was interrupted
around it was successively,
interrupted
resulting in a resulting
successively, gradual decrease in torque,
in a gradual so the
decrease drop in so
in torque, thethe
torque
dropvalue
in thewastorquelarge.
valueThiswas
situation was
large. This
not obvious at low speeds (20, 10, and 5 RPM). In other words, the
situation was not obvious at low speeds (20, 10, and 5 RPM). In other words, the torque versus timetorque versus time curve at low
speeds
curve atwaslowfairly
speeds flat, as shown
was in Figure
fairly flat, as shown 1. This indicates
in Figure thatindicates
1. This the measured that thetorque
measureddata did not have
torque data
adid
large
notdrop
have and approached
a large drop andaapproached
stable value. The test
a stable results
value. Theshow that atshow
test results high that
rotation speeds,
at high the
rotation
torque
speeds,versus time curve
the torque versustook timeabout
curve30took seconds
aboutto30 become
seconds gentler, i.e., togentler,
to become be in a more
i.e., tostable
be instate.
a more
800 800
700 700
Torque (Dyne-cm)
Torque (Dyne-cm)
600 100 RPM 600 100 RPM

500 500
50 RPM 50 RPM
400 400
300 20 RPM 300 20 RPM
200 10 RPM 200 10 RPM

100 100
5 RPM 5 RPM
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Time (Sec) Time (Sec)
(a) (b)
Figure 1. The relationship between torque and time of matrix (M13): (a) the spindle’s rotational speed
under acceleration conditions; (b) the
the spindle’s
spindle’s rotational
rotational speed
speed under
under deceleration
deceleration conditions.
conditions.
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 8 of 20
In addition
additiontoto thethe
above,
above,the hysteresis loop phenomenon
the hysteresis loop phenomenonalso showed an effect on
also showed an the rheological
effect on the
test results of the matrix, which was caused by the difference in the rotational
rheological test results of the matrix, which was caused by the difference in the rotational speed of speed of the spindle
from high tofrom
the spindle lowhigh
or from lowortofrom
to low high.
low According to the testtoresults,
to high. According the testthere were
results, hysteresis
there loops in
were hysteresis
different matrixes, matrixes,
loops in different as shown as in Figure
shown2, inbut fortunately,
Figure they were not
2, but fortunately, large.
they wereMoreover,
not large.the relationship
Moreover, the
between torque and speed in the “down” curves was linear in comparison
relationship between torque and speed in the “down” curves was linear in comparison with that in with that in the ”up”
curves,
the ”up”indicating that the test
curves, indicating method
that the testinmethod
the “down”in thecurves
“down” wascurves
more in linemore
was within the rheological
line with the
behavior measurement, making it more resilient. Taken together with
rheological behavior measurement, making it more resilient. Taken together with the above the above test results and test
the
literature
results and[60], the speed[60],
the literature of thetheexperimental instrument should
speed of the experimental not be
instrument too small
should not be(about 0.06(about
too small RPM
or
0.06less),
RPM because
or less),anbecause
insufficient rotational rotational
an insufficient speed willspeed
not bewill
ablenot
to be
break
ablethe agglomerate
to break structure
the agglomerate
continuously, resulting in
structure continuously, a high in
resulting measured viscosity.viscosity.
a high measured Therefore, the rotational
Therefore, speed ofspeed
the rotational the spindle
of the
used
spindle in this
usedstudy was
in this relatively
study high (5–100
was relatively RPM),
high (5–100andRPM),
the speed
and thewasspeed
gradually
was decreased, that is, the
gradually decreased,
change in rotational
that is, the change inspeed of thespeed
rotational spindle 100 → was
wasspindle
of the 20 →
50 →100 → 5010 →→ 20 → 10 → 5 RPM.
5 RPM.
20 7
6
Torque (milli Newton-m)

15
5
10 4
Up curve 3 Up curve
5 2
Down curve Down curve
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0
-5 -1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
RPM RPM
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Hysteresis loop of matrixes: (a) M9; (b) M13.
3.1.2. Rheological Test

3.1.2. Rheological Test Results
Results of
of Matrixes
Matrixes
The
The results
results of
of the
the rheological
rheological tests
tests on
on the
the matrixes
matrixes are
are shown
shown in in Table
Table 8.
8. The
The mix proportions of
mix proportions of
the M1, M5, M9, and M13 are pure cement pastes. Pure cement pastes can be
the M1, M5, M9, and M13 are pure cement pastes. Pure cement pastes can be divided intodivided into two
two parts:
parts:
The
The liquid
liquid phase
phase (water)
(water) and
and the
the solid
solid phase
phase (cement
(cement particle). It can
particle). It can be
be seen
seen from
from Table
Table 88 that
that the
the
main factor affecting the rheological behavior of the pure cement pastes is the water/cement
main factor affecting the rheological behavior of the pure cement pastes is the water/cement ratio. ratio.
Table 8. Results of the apparent viscosity of matrixes.

Table 8. Results of the apparent viscosity of matrixes.
Apparent
Apparent Viscosity
Viscosity (centi-Poise, cP)
(centi-Poise, cP)
Proportion of of
Proportion
W/B
MixMix
No.No. W/B Cementitious
Cementitious Materials Rotational
Rotational Speed
Speed ofof Spindle(RPM)
Spindle (RPM)
Materials 100 100 50 50 2020 10 5 5
M1 M1 0.28
0.28 C:SF:SFP
C:SF:SFP = 10:0:0 3627
= 10:0:0 3627 40114011 5973 5973 8160
8160 12480
12480
M2 M2 0.28
0.28 C:SF:SFP
C:SF:SFP = 9.6:0.2:0.2 4720
= 9.6:0.2:0.2 4720 57175717 9227 9227 12147
12147 18480
18480
M3 M3 0.28
0.28 C:SF:SFP
C:SF:SFP = 9.2:0.4:0.4 6085
= 9.2:0.4:0.4 6085 73287328 10247 10247 13547
13547 19947
19947
M4 0.28 C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6 5664 8256 12400 19893 31040
M4 0.28 C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6 5664 8256 12400 19893 31040
M5 0.31 C:SF:SFP = 10:0:0 2080 1995 2000 2453 3307
M5 M6 0.31
0.31 C:SF:SFP
C:SF:SFP = 9.6:0.2:0.2 2080
= 10:0:0 3969 1995 4192 2000
6133 2453
8213 3307
11307
M6 M7 0.31
0.31 C:SF:SFP
C:SF:SFP = 9.2:0.4:0.4 3969
= 9.6:0.2:0.2 3580 41924267 6133 6347 8213
9707 11307
14933
M7 M8 0.31
0.31 C:SF:SFP
C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6 3580
= 9.2:0.4:0.4 5237 42676528 6347 9600 13653
9707 20160
14933
M8 M9 0.34
0.31 C:SF:SFP = 10:0:0 5237
C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6 2011 65281973 9600 2400 3093
13653 4480
20160
M10 0.34 C:SF:SFP = 9.6:0.2:0.2 3248 2304 2560 3467 6400
M9M11 0.34
0.34
C:SF:SFP = 10:0:0
C:SF:SFP = 9.2:0.4:0.4
2011 4251
1973 5184
2400
7707
3093
11053
4480
16000
M10M12 0.34
0.34 C:SF:SFP = 9.6:0.2:0.2
C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6 3248 5000 2304 5792 2560
9173 3467
12533 6400
19627
M11M13 0.34
0.37 C:SF:SFP
C:SF:SFP = 10:0:0 4251
= 9.2:0.4:0.4 795 5184 747 7707960 11053
1120 16000
1280
M12M14 0.37
0.34 C:SF:SFP
C:SF:SFP = 9.6:0.2:0.2 5000
= 8.8:0.6:0.6 1653 57921557 9173 1760 3200
12533 8960
19627
M13M15 0.37
0.37 C:SF:SFP
C:SF:SFP = 9.2:0.4:0.4 795
= 10:0:0 2213 747 2325 9603147 4693
1120 6720
1280
M16 0.37 C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6 4000 4512 6427 8747 12907
M14 0.37 C:SF:SFP = 9.6:0.2:0.2 1653 1557 1760 3200 8960
M15 0.37 C:SF:SFP = 9.2:0.4:0.4 2213 2325 3147 4693 6720
M16 0.37 C:SF:SFP = 8.8:0.6:0.6 4000 4512 6427 8747 12907
Materials 2019,
Materials 2019, 12,
12, 2577
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99 of 21
of 20
In addition, Figure 3a shows the correlation curve between the rotational speed of the spindle
and In
theaddition,
apparent viscosity
Figure 3a showsof the
thepure cementcurve
correlation pastes. As isthe
between clear from the
rotational speedfigure,
of thethe apparent
spindle and
viscosity
the apparentdecreased
viscosity as of
thethewater–cement
pure cement ratio
pastes. increased.
As is clearThis
fromis mainly because
the figure, the freshviscosity
the apparent cement
pastes gradually
decreased became colloidal
as the water–cement ratiosuspensions
increased. Thisof solid particles
is mainly of different
because the freshsizes,
cementandpastes
their structures
gradually
were mainly
became controlled
colloidal by the size
suspensions distribution
of solid particlesofofthe cementsizes,
different particles.
and When the water–cement
their structures were mainlyratio
increased, by
controlled thethesolid-phase particle
size distribution content
of the cement in particles.
the unit Whenvolume theofwater–cement
the slurry decreased, and the
ratio increased,
interparticleparticle
solid-phase distancecontent
became inlarger so that
the unit volumethe attractive
of the slurryforces betweenand
decreased, thethe
particles becamedistance
interparticle smaller
and the larger
became viscosityso that
that could be possessed
the attractive forcesbecame
between relatively smaller.
the particles As can
became be seen
smaller from
and theFigure 3b,
viscosity
under
that the same
could rotational
be possessed speed relatively
became conditions, the larger
smaller. the be
As can water–cement
seen from Figureratio was, the smaller
3b, under the samethe
torqueconditions,
rotational speed was, and there was a linear
the larger relationship between
the water–cement ratio was, the torque
the smaller(T)the
androtational
rotationaltorque
speed
(N) of
was, andthethere
spindle.
was aThislinearresult shows that
relationship these the
between matrixes
torquehad appropriate
(T) and rotationalrheological
speed (N) of behavior and
the spindle.
confirmed
This that they
result shows thatcomplied with the
these matrixes Bingham
had model.
appropriate Moreover,behavior
rheological the y-intercept, g, and the
and confirmed thatslope,
they
h, in the with
complied T–N thecurve can bemodel.
Bingham obtained from Figure
Moreover, 3b. It cang,be
the y-intercept, andfound that h,
the slope, theinvalues
the T–Nofcurve
g and canh
decreased
be obtainedwithfroman increase
Figure 3b. Itincan
thebewater–cement
found that theratio,
valuesandof gthe
andchanging
h decreasedtrend was
with an quite
increaseobvious.
in the
Therefore, the ratio,
water–cement rheological
and the parameters can bewas
changing trend used to evaluate
quite obvious.the rheological
Therefore, theproperties
rheological ofparameters
the matrix.
Thebe
can smaller
used to theevaluate
g valuethe is, the easier the
rheological matrix toofovercome
properties the matrix.theTheflow obstruction
smaller is; theis,smaller
the g value the
the easier
value
the of h to
matrix is, overcome
the smaller thethe
flowviscosity of theis;matrix
obstruction is.
the smaller the value of h is, the smaller the viscosity of
the matrix is.
16000 30
M1
14000 25
Apparent viscosity (cP)
M1 M5 M5
12000
20 M9
10000
M9 M13 15 M13
8000
6000 10
4000 5
2000
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -5
RPM
RPM
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Rheological test results of pure cement pastes: (a) relationship
Figure relationship between viscosity
viscosity and spindle
spindle
speed;
speed; (b)
(b) relationship
relationship between
between torque
torque and
and spindle
spindlespeed.
speed.
The
The rheological
rheological analysis
analysis results
results confirmed
confirmed that
that the
the water–binder
water–binder ratioratio is
is an
an important
important factor
factor
affecting
affecting the rheological properties of the cement paste. For example, in the case of a cement paste
the rheological properties of the cement paste. For example, in the case of a cement paste
having
having aa relatively
relatively high
high water–binder
water–binder ratio,
ratio, the
the water
water molecules
molecules can can disperse
disperse the
the attraction
attraction between
between
the
the cementitious
cementitious particles
particles and
and thus
thus exhibit
exhibit aa low
low viscosity.
viscosity. With
With low
low water–binder
water–binder ratios,
ratios, where
where thethe
number of bonds between the cementitious particles, the bonding strength, and the
number of bonds between the cementitious particles, the bonding strength, and the friction between friction between the
particles are relatively
the particles increased,
are relatively an additional
increased, dispersant
an additional such as superplasticizers
dispersant must be considered
such as superplasticizers must be
to obtain plasticity
considered to obtainand flow. Therefore,
plasticity and flow.this study used
Therefore, this silica
studyfumeused and ultra-fine
silica fume and silica powders
ultra-fine to
silica
replace part of the cement. Each matrix was subjected to a rheological test under
powders to replace part of the cement. Each matrix was subjected to a rheological test under conditions in which
the amountsinofwhich
conditions superplasticizer,
the amountsviscous agent, and polypropylene
of superplasticizer, viscous agent, fiber
andwere changed. Figure
polypropylene 4 shows
fiber were the
that as the amounts
viscosities of silicaalso
of the matrixes fume and ultra-fine
changed. Takingsilica powder
matrixes withincreased, the viscosities
a water-to-binder ratio ofof the
0.28matrixes
as
also changed. Taking matrixes with a water-to-binder ratio of 0.28 as an example (i.e., M1, M2, M3, and
M4), when40000the amounts of viscous agent and polypropylene 25000 fiber increased, the apparent viscosities of
35000
the matrixes also increased significantly. In particular, at 20000 low speeds, the apparent M5viscosity of M4 was
30000 M1
more than25000
30,000 cP. M2
M6
15000 M7
20000 M3
M8
3.1.3. Flow15000
Value and Compressive
M4 Strength of Matrixes10000
10000
5000
Table 5000
9 shows the experimental results of the matrixes and the corresponding S/N ratios using
Equation (2).0 As shown in Table 9, the flow value of each matrix
0 ranged from 43.7 to 265.5 mm. The
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
M8 mix had the smallest flowRPMvalue (43.7 mm), and the M13 mix had the largest
RPM
flow value (265.5 mm),
as shown in Figure 5. It can be seen from Table 9 that some of the matrixes were more viscous and
(a) (b)
Torque (milli Newton
20
Apparent viscosity
M9
10000
M9 M13 15 M13
8000
6000 10
4000 5
2000
0
Materials 2019, 12,
0 2577 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 10 of 20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -5
RPM
RPM
their flow values were less(a) than 60 mm; however, some of the matrixes had (b) low viscosity values, and
their flow
Figure
Materials values
2019, were
3.12,Rheological
x FOR PEERgreater
test than
results
REVIEW of 200
puremm. cement Inpastes:
order (a)
to relationship
avoid the phenomenon
between viscosity of the
and paste 10drain
spindle of 21
downspeed;
in pervious concrete,
(b) relationship the target
between torquevalue of the speed.
and spindle flow was set to 90 mm. The 7 day compressive
strength of25000
the matrixes ranged from 61.3 to 87.3 MPa. The 16000water–binder ratio of M16 was 0.37, and its
14000
compressive strength
The rheological was the lowest (61.3
M9
MPa), while
analysis results confirmed that the water–binder the M1 mix had a ratio water-to-binder
isM13an importantratio offactor
0.28

20000
M10 12000 M14
and the highest
affecting the
15000
compressive
rheological strengthof
properties (87.3
M11
theMPa).
cement Although
paste. Abram’s
For
10000 example, law in(anthe
empirical
case
M15
of equation
a cementfor the
paste
having a relatively of concrete
high water–binder as a function
M12ratio, of
the its water-to-cement
water molecules
8000 canratio) does
disperse not
the
M16 apply to
attraction permeable
between
10000
concrete, it still plays
the cementitious a keyand
particles role.thus
A higher
exhibitwater–binder
a low viscosity. ratio
6000 maylow
With make the matrix of
water–binder the permeable
ratios, where the
4000
concrete
number of less
5000viscous, and if subjected to slight vibrations, the slurry may fill the voids in the concrete;
bonds between the cementitious particles, the bonding strength, and the friction between
2000
however, a lower water–binder ratio makes
the particles0 are relatively increased, an additional dispersant mixing difficult
0 and the slurry cannot evenly
such as superplasticizers must coat thebe
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
coarse aggregates
considered to obtainandplasticity
cannot fully and exert
flow. itsTherefore,
bonding effect,
this thereby
study usedreducing
silica the strength
fume and of pervious
ultra-fine silica
RPM RPM
concrete.
powders Iftothe amount
replace of cementitious
part of the cement. materials
Each is determined,
matrix there is antooptimal
was subjected water–binder
a rheological ratio
test under
(c) (d)
that allows the slurry, such as a thin shell, to adhere evenly to the surfaces
conditions in which the amounts of superplasticizer, viscous agent, and polypropylene fiber were the of the coarse aggregates so
that the
viscositiespervious
Figure 4. the
of concretebetween
Relationship
matrixes can
alsoachieve
changed. theTaking
the viscosity maximum
and thecompressive
spindle
matrixes withspeed strength.
of matrixes: (a)ratio
a water-to-binder W/B of = 0.28;
0.28 (b)
as
W/B = 0.31; (c) W/B = 0.34; (d) W/B = 0.37.
40000 25000
3.1.3. Flow35000
Value and Compressive Strength of Matrixes20000 M5
30000 M1 Apparent viscosity (cP)

M6
Table25000
9 shows the experimental M2 results of the matrixes 15000 and the corresponding M7 S/N ratios using
20000 M3
Equation (2). As shown in Table 9,M4the flow value of each matrix ranged from 43.7 to 265.5 mm. The
10000
M8
15000
M8 mix had 10000
the smallest flow value (43.7 mm), and the M13 mix had the largest flow value (265.5
5000
mm), as shown 5000 in Figure 5. It can be seen from Table 9 that some of the matrixes were more viscous
0
and their flow 0
values20
were40
less
60
than80 60 mm;
100
however,
120
some0 0of the20matrixes
40
had low
60 80
viscosity
100 120
values,
and their flow values were greater RPM than 200 mm. In order to avoid the phenomenon
RPM of the paste drain
down in pervious concrete, (a) the target value of the flow was set to 90 mm.
(b) The 7 day compressive
strength of25000
the matrixes ranged from 61.3 to 87.3 MPa. 16000 The water–binder ratio of M16 was 0.37, and
its compressive strength was the lowest M9 (61.3 MPa), while 14000 the M1 mix had a water-to-binder
M13 ratio of
20000
0.28 and the highest compressive strength (87.3 MPa). Although Abram’s law (an empirical equation
M10 12000 M14
15000 M11 10000 M15
for the compressive strength of concrete as a function of its water-to-cement ratio) does not apply to
M12 8000 M16
permeable10000 concrete, it still plays a key role. A higher water–binder 6000 ratio may make the matrix of the
permeable 5000 concrete less viscous, and if subjected to slight 4000vibrations, the slurry may fill the voids in
the concrete; however, a lower water–binder ratio makes 2000

mixing difficult and the slurry cannot
0 0
evenly coat the 0 coarse
20 aggregates
40 60 and
80 cannot
100 120 fully exert its
0 bonding
20 40 effect,
60 thereby
80 100 reducing
120 the
strength of pervious concrete. If the amount of cementitious materials is determined, there is an
RPM RPM
optimal water–binder ratio(c) that allows the slurry, such as a thin shell, to adhere (d) evenly to the surfaces
of the coarse aggregates so thatthethe pervious concrete can achieve the(a)maximum= 0.28; compressive
Figure 4. Relationship
4. Relationshipbetween
between theviscosity and
viscosity andthe spindle
the spindlespeed of matrixes:
speed of matrixes: W/B
(a) W/B (b) W/B
= 0.28; (b)
strength.
= 0.31;
W/B (c) W/B
= 0.31; = 0.34;
(c) W/B (d) W/B
= 0.34; = 0.37.
(d) W/B = 0.37.
3.1.3. Flow Value and Compressive Strength of Matrixes

Table 9 shows the experimental results of the matrixes and the corresponding S/N ratios using
Equation (2). As shown in Table 9, the flow value of each matrix ranged from 43.7 to 265.5 mm. The
M8 mix had the smallest flow value (43.7 mm), and the M13 mix had the largest flow value (265.5
mm), as shown in Figure 5. It can be seen from Table 9 that some of the matrixes were more viscous
(a) (b)
and their flow values were less than 60 mm; however, some of the matrixes had low viscosity values,
and their flow values were greater than
Figure 5. Flow200 mm.
state of In order to
matrixes. (a)avoid the
M4; (b) phenomenon of the paste drain
M13.
down in pervious concrete, the target value of the flow was set to 90 mm. The 7 day compressive
Dueof
strength tothe
theTable
characteristics
rangedoffrom
theresults
9. Experimental
matrixes selected
61.3 and orthogonal array,
signal-to-noise
to 87.3 MPa. The (S/N)the effects
ratios
water–binder of theofmatrixes.
ratioeach
of M16test was
parameter at
0.37, and
different levels can be evaluated separately. Taking the water–binder ratio as an example,
its compressive strength was the lowest (61.3 MPa), while the M1 mix had a water-to-binder ratio of the mean S/N
ratio of the Experimental Results the S/N S/N Ratio (dB) The influence
0.28 and thefirst level compressive
highest was calculated by averaging
strength (87.3 MPa). ratios ofAbram’s
Although experiments M1–M4.
law (an empirical equation
Mix
of No. 7-Day Compressive 7 Day Compressive
foreach selected
Flow
the compressive factor
Value on(mm)
the performance
strength of concrete ascharacteristic
a function ofinvestigated
Flow Valueis described
its water-to-cement ratio)indoes
detail
notbelow.
apply to
Strength (MPa) Strength
permeable concrete, it still plays a key role. A higher water–binder ratio may make the matrix of the
M1 97.3 87.3 –17.27 38.82
permeable concrete less viscous, and if subjected to slight vibrations, the slurry may fill the voids in
M2 54.5 85.7 –31.00 38.66
the concrete; however, a lower water–binder ratio makes mixing difficult and the slurry cannot
M3 51.0 79.1 –31.82 37.96
evenly coat the coarse aggregates and cannot fully exert its bonding effect, thereby reducing the
M4 70.0 69.1 –26.02 36.79
strength of pervious concrete. If the amount of cementitious materials is determined, there is an
M5 207.0 82.5 –41.36 38.33
optimal water–binder ratio that allows the slurry, such as a thin shell, to adhere evenly to the surfaces
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 11 of 20
Table 9. Experimental results and signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios of the matrixes.
Experimental Results S/N Ratio (dB)

Mix No. 7-Day Compressive 7 Day Compressive
Flow Value (mm) Flow Value
Strength (MPa) Strength
M1 97.3 87.3 −17.27 38.82
M2 54.5 85.7 −31.00 38.66
M3 51.0 79.1 −31.82 37.96
M4 70.0 69.1 −26.02 36.79
M5 207.0 82.5 −41.36 38.33
M6 79.0 69.5 −20.83 36.84
M7 116.7 76.5 −28.53 37.67
M8 43.7 67.0 −33.31 36.52
M9 145.9 64.2 −34.95 36.15
M10 241.5 85.7 −43.61 38.66
M11 88.5 79.2 −3.52 37.97
M12 95.0 65.0 −13.98 36.26
M13 265.5 78.7 −44.89 37.92
M14 249.5 67.1 −44.06 36.53
M15 132.6 64.0 −32.59 36.12
M16 67.1 61.3 −27.20 35.75
Table 10 lists the mean S/N ratio at each parameter level for flow value, while Figure 6 shows
the S/N response graph for flow value. The delta column in Table 10 shows the difference between
the maximum and minimum values of the mean S/N ratio from Level 1 to Level 4. In theory, the
importance can be evaluated by the delta value of each factor—the larger the delta value is, the greater
the influence of the level of change of the factor on the performance parameter and the more important
the factor is. As shown in Equation (3), the larger the S/N ratio is, the smaller the variance in flow value
around the desired value is (i.e., the nominal—the better). From Table 10 and Figure 6, it can be seen
that the superplasticizer content was the most important factor affecting the responses; the maximum
response value occurred with the lowest superplasticizer content. However, the degree of influence
of each factor on the test results cannot be estimated with precise quantities, and a criterion cannot
be put forward to judge whether the examined factors are significant. In view of this, a statistical
method, variance analysis, was used to further explore the test results. The results of the analysis
of variance of the flow value are given in Table 11. In addition, the F values were obtained with a
95% level of confidence, and the percentage contribution of each parameter was also calculated. The
superplasticizer content was the most significant factor that contributed to the target value of the flow
of the matrix. The percentage contributions of these factors were as follows: superplasticizer content
(53.37%), proportion of cementitious materials (18.78%), water–binder ratio (18.19%), and viscous
agent content (9.65%). Thus, based on the results of the S/N ratio and variance analysis, the optimal
combination of the experimental control factors for achieving nominal flow value is A3 B3 C1 D1 E3 , i.e.,
water–binder ratio at level 3, proportion of cementitious materials at level 3, superplasticizer content at
level 1, viscous agent content at level 1, and fiber content at level 3.
Table 10. S/N response table of matrixes.
Performance Parameter Mean S/N Ratio (η, Unit: dB) Delta

Rank
Parameter (Experimental Control Factor) (Max. η − Min. η)
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Water–Binder Ratio, A −26.53 −31.01 −24.01 −37.18 13.167 2
Proportion of Cementitious
−34.62 −34.87 −24.12 −25.13 10.759 3
Flow Value Materials, B
Superplasticizer Content, C (%) −17.20 −29.73 −36.03 −35.76 18.831 1
Viscous Agent Content, D (%) −25.96 −28.18 −36.00 −28.60 10.040 4
Fiber Content, E (%) −31.69 −30.42 −27.88 −28.74 3.815 5
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 12 of 20
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Table 10. Cont. 12 of 21
Performance Parameter Mean S/N Ratio (η, Unit: dB) Delta

Superplasticizer Content, C (%)
(Experimental Control Factor)
37.35 37.34 36.79 37.76 0.968
(Max. η − Min. η)
Rank4
Parameter Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Viscous Agent Content, D (%) 37.32 37.77 37.68 36.48 1.293 3
Water–Binder Ratio, A 38.06 37.34
Fiber Content, E (%) 37.53 37.26 36.58
37.06 37.25 37.41 1.477
0.473 1
5
Compressive 37.80 37.67 37.43 36.33 1.475 2
Materials, B
Strength
Superplasticizer Content, C (%) 37.35 37.34 36.79 37.76
Table 11. Variance analysis and F test for matrixes. 0.968 4
Viscous Agent Content, D (%) 37.32 37.77 37.68 36.48 1.293 3
Fiber Content, E (%) 37.53 37.06
Sum of 37.25 37.41 F 0.473 5
Performance Parameter Degree of Variance Percentage
Square Value
Parameter (Experimental Control Factor) Freedom (MSZ) Contribution (PZ)
Table 11. Variance analysis(SSZ)and F test for matrixes. (FZ)
Water–Binder Ratio, A 400.27 3 133.42 11.46 18.19
Percentage
Performance Proportion of Cementitious Sum of
Parameter Degree of Variance F Value
412.14 3 137.38 11.80(F ) Contribution
18.78
Parameter (Experimental Control Factor)
Materials, B Square (SSZ ) Freedom (MS Z ) Z
(PZ )
Superplasticizer
Water–Binder Content,
Ratio, A C (%) 932.11
400.27 33 310.70
133.42 26.6911.46 53.37
18.19
Flow Value
Viscous
ProportionAgent Content, D (%)
of Cementitious 228.75 3 76.25 6.55 9.65
412.14 3 137.38 11.80 18.78
Materials, B
Fiber Content, E (%) 34.92 3 11.64 1.00 0.00
Flow Value Superplasticizer Content, C (%) 932.11 3 310.70 26.69 53.37
All Other/Error
Viscous Agent Content, D (%) 34.92
228.75 33 11.64
76.25 – 6.55 –9.65
Total
Fiber Content, E (%) 2008.20
34.92 315 669.40
11.64 – 1.00 1000.00
All Other/ErrorRatio, A
Water–Binder 34.924.37 33 11.64
1.46 8.68 – 23.69–
Total 2008.20 15 669.40 – 100
Water–Binder Ratio, A 4.375.41 33 1.80
1.46 10.758.68 30.04
23.69
Materials, B
Compressive Superplasticizer Content, C (%) 5.411.89
Materials, B
33 1.80
0.63 3.7610.75 30.04
23.91
Compressive
Strength Superplasticizer Content, C (%)
Viscous Agent Content, D (%) 1.894.16 3 3 0.63
1.39 8.26 3.76 23.91
22.37
Strength
Viscous Agent Content, D (%) 4.16 3 1.39 8.26 22.37
Fiber
Fiber Content,
Content, E (%)E (%) 0.500.50 33 0.17
0.17 1.001.00 0.00
0.00
AllAll Other/Error
Other/Error 0.500.50 33 0.17
0.17 – – – –
Total
Total 16.34
16.34 1515 5.45
5.45 – – 100100
S/N response
Figure 6. S/N response graph showing the flow values of matrixes.
From Table
From Table1010and Figure
and 7, it can
Figure 7, itbecan
seenbethat the water–binder
seen ratio and proportion
that the water–binder ratio and ofproportion
cementitiousof
materials were the significant factors affecting compressive strength; the maximum
cementitious materials were the significant factors affecting compressive strength; the maximum response occurred
at the lowest
response water–binder
occurred ratio. On
at the lowest the other hand,
water–binder theOn
ratio. results of the hand,
the other variance
theanalysis
results for compressive
of the variance
analysis for compressive strength are given in Table 11. The proportion of cementitious materialsfactor
strength are given in Table 11. The proportion of cementitious materials was the most significant was
contributing
the to the compressive
most significant strength to
factor contributing of the
the matrix.
compressiveThe percentage
strength ofcontributions
the matrix. Theof these factors
percentage
were as follows:
contributions of Proportion
these factors of cementitious
were as follows: materials (30.04%),
Proportion of superplasticizer content (30.04%),
cementitious materials (23.91%),
water–binder ratio (23.69%), and viscous agent content (22.37%). Thus, based on the
superplasticizer content (23.91%), water–binder ratio (23.69%), and viscous agent content (22.37%). results of the S/N
ratio and variance analysis, the optimal combination of the experimental control
Thus, based on the results of the S/N ratio and variance analysis, the optimal combination of the factors for achieving
maximum compressive
experimental strength
control factors is A1 B1 C4maximum
for achieving D2 E1 . compressive strength is A1B1C4D2E1.
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 13 of 20
Figure 7. S/N
Figure7. S/N response
response graph showing the compressive
strength of
ofthe
thematrixes.
matrixes.
3.2. Test Results of Pervious Concretes

3.2. Test Results of Pervious Concretes
The 28-day test results of the pervious concretes and the corresponding S/N ratios are shown in
The 28-day test results of the pervious concretes and the corresponding S/N ratios are shown in
Table
Table12.
12.As
Ascan
canbebeseen
seen from
from Table
Table 12,
12, the
the unit
unit weight
weight ofof pervious
pervious concrete
concretespecimens
specimenswas wasbetween
between
1507 3
1507and
and1708
1708kg/m
kg/m3,, the
the void
void content
content ofof the
the pervious concrete was
pervious concrete was between
between20.6%
20.6%andand25.7%,
25.7%,and
and
the hydraulic conductivity was between 21.6 and 24.2 mm/s. It can be seen from
the hydraulic conductivity was between 21.6 and 24.2 mm/s. It can be seen from the composition of the composition
ofthe
thepervious
pervious concrete
concrete that
that as as
thethe amount
amount of of
finefine aggregate
aggregate increased,
increased, the the
voidvoid content
content tended
tended to
todecrease.
decrease.InIn addition, the unit weight was inversely proportional to the void content,
addition, the unit weight was inversely proportional to the void content, while the while the
hydraulic
hydraulicconductivity
conductivityincreased
increased as
as the
the void
void content increased. Overall,
content increased. Overall,the
themechanical
mechanicalproperties
propertiesofof
the
theC3
C3mix
mixare
aresuperior.
superior.
Table 12. Experimental results and S/N ratios of pervious concretes.

Table 12. Experimental results and S/N ratios of pervious concretes.
Experiment Unit
Experim Unit Weight Vc Experimental
k Experimental Results
Results (MPa)
(MPa) S/NS/N Ratio
Ratio (dB) (dB)
Number (kg/m3 ) (%) (mm/s) 0 0
ent weight Vc (%) k (mm/s) f c Ec fr f s f c Ec fr fs
f c′ E c f r f s f c′ E c f r f s
NumberC1 (kg/m31507) 25.7 24.2 10.5 9479.2 2.14 1.53 20.42 79.54 6.61 3.69
C1C2 1507 1581 25.7 23.8 24.2 23.1 11.0
10.5 9479.2 2.14 13209.3 2.19 2.10 20.83
1.53 20.42 79.54 6.61 82.42 6.81 6.44
3.69
C3 1654 21.5 22.1 21.3 29001.5 2.99 2.69 26.57 89.25 9.51 8.60
C2C4 1581 1544 23.8 24.8 23.1 23.6 11.0 12.2 13209.315057.82.19 1.88 2.10 1.43 20.83 82.42
21.73 83.56 6.81 5.48 6.44 3.11
C3C5 1654 1602 21.5 23.1 22.1 22.8 21.314.629001.5 18082.92.99 2.40 2.69 1.8326.57 23.2989.25 85.15 9.51 7.60 8.60 5.25
C4C6 1544 1684 24.8 21.0 23.6 21.8 15.5
12.2 15057.8 1.88 15222.2 2.13 2.22 23.81
1.43 21.73 83.56 5.48 83.65 6.57 6.93
3.11
C7 1556 24.2 23.3 13.0 13002.6 2.12 2.04 22.28 82.28 6.53 6.19
C5 1602 23.1 22.8 14.6 18082.9 2.40 1.83 23.29 85.15 7.60 5.25
C8 1635 22.3 22.4 17.9 17101.6 1.97 1.94 25.06 84.66 5.89 5.76
C6C9 1684 1708 21.0 20.6 21.8 21.6 15.510.115222.2 15662.22.13 2.03 2.22 2.2223.81 20.0983.65 83.90 6.57 6.15 6.93 6.93
C7
Note: Vc =1556 24.2
void content; 23.3 conductivity;
k = hydraulic 13.0 13002.6 2.12 strength;
fc 0 = compressive 2.04 E 22.28 = elastic 82.28
modulus; 6.53
f = 6.19
flexural
c r
C8 s = splitting22.3
strength; f1635 strength. 22.4 17.9 17101.6 1.97 1.94 25.06 84.66 5.89 5.76
C9 1708 20.6 21.6 10.1 15662.2 2.03 2.22 20.09 83.90 6.15 6.93
3.2.1. Note:
Compressive Strength
Vc = void content; k = hydraulic conductivity; fc’ = compressive strength; Ec = elastic modulus; fr
It= can
flexural strength; fs = splitting strength.
be seen from Table 12 that the 28 day compressive strength of the pervious concrete was
between 10.1 and 21.3 MPa. The C9 mix had the lowest compressive strength (10.1 MPa), and the
3.2.1. Compressive Strength
C3 mix had the highest compressive strength (21.3 MPa). The difference between the compressive
It can
strengths of be
theseen frommixtures
various Table 12wasthatvery
the 28 day compressive
significant. Under the strength of the pervious
same conditions concrete
of coarse was
aggregate
between
size, 10.1 and 21.3strength
the compressive MPa. The C9 mix had
generally the lowest
increased withcompressive
the increase strength (10.1 MPa),
of the amount and
of fine the C3
aggregate
mix had
content the highest
or void content.compressive
Taking C1–C3 strength
mixtures (21.3
withMPa). Theaggregate
a coarse difference between
size betweenthe4.75compressive
and 9.5 mm
asstrengths
an example,of thethe
various mixturesstrength
compressive was very wassignificant.
inverselyUnder the sametoconditions
proportional of coarseasaggregate
the void content, shown in
size, the compressive strength generally increased with the increase of the amount of
Figure 8. This result shows that the compressive strength of pervious concrete is closely related to its fine aggregate
content
mix or void content. Taking C1–C3 mixtures with a coarse aggregate size between 4.75 and 9.5
proportions.
mmMoreover,
as an example, thelists
Table 13 compressive
the mean S/N strength
ratio atwas inversely
each level forproportional
the compressiveto the void content,
strength as
parameters,
shown in Figure 8. This result shows that the compressive strength of pervious
whereas Figure 9 shows the S/N response graph for compressive strength. From the analysis results concrete is closely
ofrelated
Table to 13its mix
and proportions.
Figure 9, it can be concluded that the aggregate-to-binder ratio was the significant
factor affecting compressive strength; the maximum response occurred at an aggregate-to-binder ratio
of 0.34. For the variance analysis results for compressive strength, the matrix type was the most
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 14 of 20
important factor affecting the compressive strength of the pervious concrete, as shown in Table 14. The
percentage contributions of these factors were as follows: Matrix type (43.54%), aggregate-to-binder
ratio (39.99%), and fine aggregate content (16.47%). Therefore, based on the analysis results of the
above range analysis and variance analysis, the optimal combination of the experimental control factors
for achieving
Materials 2019, 12,maximum
x FOR PEERcompressive
REVIEW strength is A2 B3 C3 D3 . 14 of 21
30
20
10
0
C1 C2 C3
Void Content (%) Compressive Strength (MPa)
Relationship between compressive strength and void content.

Table 13. S/N ratio response table of pervious concretes.

Moreover, Table 13 lists the mean S/N ratio at each level for the compressive strength parameters,
whereas Figure 9 shows the
Performance S/N response graph
Parameter MeanforS/N
compressive strength.
Ratio (η, Unit: dB) From the analysis results
Delta
Rank
Parameter (Experimental
of Table 13 and Figure 9, it can Control Factor)
be concluded that1the aggregate-to-binder
Level Level 2 Level 3 ratioη −
(Max. Min.
was η) significant
the
factor affecting compressive
Coarse Aggregatestrength; the maximum
Size, A (mm) 22.61 response
22.94 occurred
22.47 at an 0.466
aggregate-to-binder
4
Compressive
ratio of 0.34. For the variance analysis results for compressive strength, the matrix type was the3most
Fine Aggregate Content, B (%) 21.48 23.06 23.49 2.010
Strength Matrix Type, C 23.10 20.88 24.04
important factor affecting the compressive strength of the pervious concrete, as3.164
shown in Table 2
14.
Aggregate-to-Binder Ratio, D 21.27 22.30 24.45 3.185 1
The percentage contributions of these factors were as follows: Matrix type (43.54%), aggregate-to-
Coarse Aggregate Size, A (mm) 83.73 84.12 83.61 0.504 4
binder ratio (39.99%),
Elastic
and fine aggregate content
Fine Aggregate Content, B (%)
(16.47%).
81.79
Therefore,
84.07 85.60
based on the analysis results
3.808 1
of
the above
Modulusrange analysis and
Matrix variance
Type, C analysis, the
82.62 optimal
83.29combination
85.56 of the experimental
2.943 control
3
factors for achievingAggregate to Binder
maximum Ratio, D
compressive 82.86
strength is 82.78
A2B3C3D3.85.82 3.039 2
Coarse Aggregate Size, A (mm) 7.64 6.55 6.19 1.455 2
Flexural Fine Aggregate
TableContent, B (%) response
13. S/N ratio 6.21 table of
6.77
pervious 7.41
concretes. 1.204 3
Strength Matrix Type, C 6.36 6.15 7.88 1.734 1
Aggregate-to-Binder Ratio, D 6.79 Mean6.63 S/N Ratio6.96
(η, Unit: dB) 0.328 Delta 4
Parameter
Coarse Aggregate Size, A (mm) 6.24 5.09 6.29 (Max. η − Min. 4Rank
1.198
(Experimental Control Factor) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Splitting Fine Aggregate Content, B (%) 4.33 5.82 7.48 3.152 η) 1
Strength Matrix Type,
Coarse C
Aggregate 5.46
Size, A (mm) 5.49
22.61 6.68 22.47
22.94 1.220 0.466 3 4
Fine Aggregate Content, B (%) 21.48 23.06 23.49 2.010 3
Compressive Strength
Matrix Type, C 23.10 20.88 24.04 3.164 2
Table 14. Variance analysis
Aggregate-to-Binder D F test
Ratio,and 21.27for pervious
22.30 concretes.
24.45 3.185 1
Coarse Aggregate Size, A (mm) 83.73 84.12 83.61 0.504
Percentage 4
Performance Parameter Sum of Degree of Variance F Value
Parameter
Fine Aggregate
(Experimental Control Factor)
Content, B (%)
Square (SSZ )
81.79
Freedom
84.07 (MSZ )
85.60 (FZ )
3.808
Contribution1
Elastic Modulus
Matrix Type, C 82.62 83.29 85.56 2.943 (PZ ) 3
Coarse Aggregate Size, A (mm)
Aggregate to Binder Ratio, D 0.35 82.86 3 82.78 0.12 85.82 1.00 3.039 0.00 2
Fine Aggregate Content, B (%) 6.72 3 2.24 19.42 16.47
Compressive Coarse Aggregate
Matrix Type, C
Size, A (mm)
15.82
7.64 3
6.55 5.27
6.19 45.68
1.455 43.54
2
Strength Fine Aggregate
Aggregate-to-Binder Content, 15.83
Ratio, D B (%) 6.21 3 6.77 5.28 7.41 45.71 1.204 39.99 3
Flexural Strength All Other/Error
Matrix Type, C 0.35 6.36 3 6.15 0.12 7.88 – 1.734 – 1
Total 38.72 12 12.91 – 100.00
Coarse Aggregate Size, A (mm)
Coarse Aggregate Size, A 0.42 (mm) 6.24 3 5.09 0.14 6.29 1.00 1.198 0.00 4
Fine Aggregate Content, B (%) 4.33 5.82 7.48 3.152 1
Elastic
Splitting Strength Matrix Type, C 14.26 3 4.75 34.35 28.33
Modulus Aggregate-to-Binder Ratio,Type,
Matrix D C 18.02 5.46 3 5.49 6.01 6.68 43.39 1.220 32.16 3
All Other/Error 0.42 3 0.14 – –
Total 54.73 12 18.24 – 100.00
Coarse Aggregate Size, A (mm) 3.44 3 1.15 21.35 29.38
Flexural Table Content,
Fine Aggregate 14. Variance
B (%) analysis and F test for3pervious concretes.
2.18 0.73 13.52 18.08
Strength Matrix Type, C 5.38 3 1.79 33.38 52.54
Parameter
Aggregate-to-Binder Ratio, D Sum0.16of 3 0.05 F1.00 Percentage
0.00
Performance Degree of Variance
(Experimental Control Square Value Contribution
Parameter Freedom (MSZ)
Factor) (SSZ) (FZ) (PZ)
Coarse Aggregate Size,
0.35 3 0.12 1.00 0.00
A (mm)
Compressive
Fine Aggregate
Strength 6.72 3 2.24 19.42 16.47
3.44 3 1.15 21.35 29.38
A (mm)
Fine Aggregate
2.18 3 0.73 13.52 18.08
Content, B (%)
Flexural Strength Matrix Type, C 5.38 3 1.79 33.38 52.54
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 Aggregate-to-Binder 15 of 20
0.16 3 0.05 1.00 0.00
Ratio, D
All Other/Error 0.16 3 0.05 – –
Total Table
11.16 14. Cont. 12 3.72 – 100.00
Coarse Aggregate Size, Percentage
Performance Parameter 2.76of
Sum 3 of
Degree 0.92
Variance 1.21
F Value 2.06
Contribution
Parameter (ExperimentalA (mm)Factor) Square (SSZ )
Control Freedom (MSZ ) (FZ )
(PZ )
Fine Aggregate
Flexural All Other/Error 14.92
0.16 33 4.97
0.05 6.52 – 55.24–
Strength Content,
Total B (%) 11.16 12 3.72 – 100.00
Splitting Strength Matrix Type, C
Coarse Aggregate Size, A (mm) 2.90
2.76 33 0.97
0.92 1.271.21 42.71
2.06
Aggregate-to-Binder
Splitting Matrix Type, C 2.29
2.90 33 0.76
0.97 1.001.27 0.00
42.71
Strength
Ratio, D
Aggregate-to-Binder Ratio, D 2.29 3 0.76 1.00 0.00
All
All Other/Error
Other/Error 2.29
2.29 33 0.76
0.76 – – – –
Total
Total 22.86
22.86 1212 7.62
7.62 – – 100.00
100.00
Figure9.9. S/N
Figure S/N response
response graph for the
the compressive
compressivestrength
strengthof
ofpervious
perviousconcretes.
concretes.
3.2.2.
3.2.2.Elastic
ElasticModulus
Modulus
InInterms
termsof ofthe
theelastic
elastic modulus,
modulus, the test results
the test results showed
showedvalues
valuesbetween
between9479.2
9479.2andand29001.5
29001.5 MPa.
MPa.
The C1 mix had the lowest elastic modulus (9479.2 MPa), and the C3 mix
The C1 mix had the lowest elastic modulus (9479.2 MPa), and the C3 mix had the highest elastic had the highest elastic
modulus
modulus(29001.5
(29001.5MPa).
MPa). The
The maximum
maximum valuevalue was
was three
three times
timesthe
theminimum
minimumvalue,value,indicating
indicatinga avery very
significant
significantdifference
differencebetween
betweenthe theelastic
elastic moduli
moduli of the various
various mixtures.
mixtures.In Inthe
thecase
casewhere
wherethe thecoarse
coarse
aggregate
aggregatehad hadthe thesame
same particle
particle size,
size, the
the elastic modulus
modulus generally
generallydecreased
decreasedasasthe thevoid
voidcontent
content
increased.
increased.InInother
otherwords,
words,the the elastic
elastic modulus of thethe pervious
perviousconcrete
concreteisisclosely
closelyrelated
relatedtotoitsitsmaterial
material
composition. Taking the C1–C3 mixtures as an example, the elastic modulus
composition. Taking the C1–C3 mixtures as an example, the elastic modulus was inversely was inversely proportional
toproportional
the void content,to the as shown
void in Figure
content, 10. in Figure 10.
as shown
40
30
20
10
0
C1 C2 C3
Void Content (%) Elastic Modulus (GPa)

Figure10. Relationship between elastic modulus
modulus and
and void
voidcontent.
content.
According
Accordingto tothe average S/N
theaverage S/N ratio
ratio of the elastic modulus
modulus parameters
parametersof ofTable
Table1313and
andthetheelastic
elastic
modulus S/N
modulus S/N response
response diagram
diagram of of Figure
Figure 11, the fine aggregate
aggregate content
content waswas anan important
importantfactor
factor
affecting
affectingthe
theelastic
elasticmodulus
modulus of of pervious
pervious concrete, and the the maximum
maximum response
responsewas wasatatthe
thethird
thirdfine
fine
aggregate
aggregate content level. Further,
content level. Further,thethe results
results of the
of the variance
variance analysis
analysis forelastic
for the the elastic
modulusmodulus
are givenare
given in Table
in Table 14. It14. It can
can alsoalso be confirmed
be confirmed fromfrom Table
Table 14 14 that
that thethe fineaggregate
fine aggregatecontent
contentisisthe
themost
most
importantfactor
important factoraffecting
affectingthe
theelastic
elasticmodulus
modulusofofthe thepervious
perviousconcrete.
concrete.The
Thepercentage
percentagecontributions
contributionsof
of these
these factors
factors werewere as follows:
as follows: Fine aggregate
Fine aggregate contentcontent
(39.51%)(39.51%) and aggregate-to-binder
and aggregate-to-binder ratio
ratio (32.16%).
(32.16%). Therefore, based on the aforementioned analysis results, the optimal combination of the
experimental control factors for achieving maximum elastic modulus is A2B3C3D3.
88
86
According to the average S/N ratio of the elastic modulus parameters of Table 13 and the elastic
modulus S/N response diagram of Figure 11, the fine aggregate content was an important factor
affecting the elastic modulus of pervious concrete, and the maximum response was at the third fine
aggregate content level. Further, the results of the variance analysis for the elastic modulus are given
in Table
Materials 14.12,It2577
2019, can also be confirmed from Table 14 that the fine aggregate content is the 16 most
of 20
important factor affecting the elastic modulus of the pervious concrete. The percentage contributions
of these factors were as follows: Fine aggregate content (39.51%) and aggregate-to-binder ratio
Therefore, based on the
(32.16%). Therefore, aforementioned
based analysis results,
on the aforementioned the optimal
analysis combination
results, the of the experimental
optimal combination of the
control factors for achieving maximum elastic modulus is A
experimental control factors for achieving maximum elastic 2modulus B C D .
3 3 3 is A2B3C3D3.
Figure 11. S/N

Figure11. S/N response graph showing the
the elastic
elastic modulus
modulusof
ofpervious
perviousconcretes.
concretes.
3.2.3. Flexural Strength

3.2.3. Flexural Strength
As
Asfor
forthe
thebending
bending strength
strength of
of the pervious concrete,
the pervious concrete, the
the test
testresults
resultsshowed
showedvalues
valuesbetween
between1.881.88
and 2.99 MPa. The C4 mix had the lowest value (1.88 MPa), and the C3 mix
and 2.99 MPa. The C4 mix had the lowest value (1.88 MPa), and the C3 mix had the highest value had the highest value
(2.99
(2.99MPa).
MPa).There
Therewas wasaasignificant
significantdifference
differencebetween
betweenthetheflexural
flexuralstrength
strengthofofthe
thevarious
variousmixtures.
mixtures.In
the case where the coarse aggregate had the same particle size, the flexural strength
In the case where the coarse aggregate had the same particle size, the flexural strength generally generally decreased
as the void content increased. This shows that the flexural strength of the pervious concrete
decreased as the void content increased. This shows that the flexural strength of the pervious concrete is closely
related to its
is closely material
related to itscomposition. Taking the
material composition. C1–C3
Taking themixtures as an example,
C1–C3 mixtures the flexural
as an example, strength
the flexural
was inversely
strength
Materials was
2019, proportional
12,inversely
x FOR PEER to the
proportional
REVIEW void content, as shown in Figure 12.
to the void content, as shown in Figure 12. 17 of 21
30
20
10
0
C1 C2 C3
Void Content (%) Flexural Strength (MPa)

Relationship between flexural strength and void content.
On the
On the other
other hand,
hand, asas can
can be
be seen
seen from
from Table
Table 1313 and
and Figure
Figure 13,
13, the
the matrix
matrix type
type was
was anan important
important
factor affecting the flexural strength of the pervious concrete, and the maximum response waswas
factor affecting the flexural strength of the pervious concrete, and the maximum response at
at the
the third level. Moreover, the results of the variance analysis for flexural strength in
third level. Moreover, the results of the variance analysis for flexural strength in Table 14 also confirm Table 14 also
confirm
that that thetype
the matrix matrix
wastype was the
the most most significant
significant factor affecting
factor affecting thestrength
the flexural flexural of
strength of the
the pervious
pervious concrete. The percentage contributions of these factors were as follows: matrix
concrete. The percentage contributions of these factors were as follows: matrix type (52.54%), coarse type (52.54%),
coarse aggregate
aggregate size (29.38%),
size (29.38%), and and
fine fine aggregate
aggregate content
content (18.08%).Summarizing
(18.08%). Summarizingthe the aforementioned
aforementioned
analysis results, it can be inferred that the optimal combination of the experimental
analysis results, it can be inferred that the optimal combination of the experimental control control factors for
factors
achieving maximum flexural strength
for achieving maximum flexural strength is is A B
1 A C D .
3 1B33C33D3.
3.2.4. Splitting Strength

9
Regarding the splitting

8
strength of pervious concrete, the test results showed values between
1.43 and 2.69 MPa. The C4 mix had the lowest value (1.43 MPa), and the C3 had the highest value
S/N ratio (dB)
(2.69 MPa). The maximum

7
value was 1.88 times the minimum value, indicating a very significant
difference between the splitting strength of the various mixtures. In the case where the coarse aggregate
had the same particle6 size, the splitting strength generally as the void content increased. In other
words, the splitting strength of the pervious concrete is closely related to its material composition.
5
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Coarse aggregate size Fine aggregate dosage Matrix type Aggregate/binder ratio
Experimental control factors and their levels
Figure 13. S/N response graph showing the flexural strength of pervious concretes.
8
On the other hand, as can be seen from Table 13 and Figure 13, the matrix type was an important
S/N ratio (dB)

factor affecting the flexural strength of the pervious concrete, and the maximum response was at the
third level. Moreover, 7the results of the variance analysis for flexural strength in Table 14 also confirm
that the matrix type was the most significant factor affecting the flexural strength of the pervious
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 17 of 20
6
concrete. The percentage contributions of these factors were as follows: matrix type (52.54%), coarse
aggregate size (29.38%), and fine aggregate content (18.08%). Summarizing the aforementioned
5
Taking
analysistheresults,
C1–C3 itmixtures as
1 an
can be inferred 2 example,
3 that the 1the 2 splitting
optimal 3 strength
combination
1 2 3 was
of inversely
the
1 3 proportional
experimental
2 to the
control void
factors
Coarse aggregate size Fine aggregate dosage Matrix type Aggregate/binder ratio
content, as shown
for achieving in Figure
maximum 14. strength
flexural is A 1B3C3D3.
Experimental control factors and their levels
Figure 13. S/N response graph showing the flexural strength of pervious concretes.
3.2.4. Splitting Strength

Regarding the splitting strength of pervious concrete, the test results showed values between
(2.69 MPa). The maximum value was 1.88 times the minimum value, indicating a very significant
difference between the splitting strength of the various mixtures. In the case where the coarse
aggregate had the same particle size, the splitting strength generally as the void content increased. In
other words, the splitting strength of the pervious concrete is closely related to its material
composition. Taking the C1–C3 mixtures as an example, the splitting strength was inversely
proportionalFigure
to the13.
Figure void
13. S/Ncontent,
S/N responseasgraph
response shown in Figure
showing 14.
flexural
the flexural strength of
strength of pervious
perviousconcretes.
concretes.
3.2.4. Splitting Strength 30
Regarding the splitting strength

20 of pervious concrete, the test results showed values between
(2.69 MPa). The maximum value 10 was 1.88 times the minimum value, indicating a very significant
difference between the splitting strength of the various mixtures. In the case where the coarse
aggregate had the same particle0 size, the splitting strength generally as the void content increased. In
C1 C2 C3
other words, the splitting strength Void of the(%)pervious
Content Splittingconcrete is closely related to its material
Strength (MPa)
composition. Taking the C1–C3 mixtures as an example, the splitting strength was inversely
proportional
Materials tox the
2019, 12, FOR void
PEERcontent,
Figure
Figure 14.
REVIEW as shown
14. Relationship
Relationship in Figure
between 14. strength
splitting strength and
and void
void content.
content. 18 of 21
On
Onthetheother
otherhand,
hand, the
the analysis
analysis
30 results of Table
results of Table 13
13 and
and Figure
Figure 1515 confirm
confirmthat
thatthe
thefine
fineaggregate
aggregate
content was a significant factor affecting the splitting strength of the pervious
content was a significant factor affecting the splitting strength of the pervious concrete. Moreover, concrete. Moreover,
the
theresults
results of varianceanalysis
of the variance analysis
20 forthe
for the splitting
splitting strength
strength areare
givengiven in Table
in Table 14, the
14, and andresults
the results
also
also correspond
correspond to fact
to the the fact
that that the fine
the fine aggregate
aggregate content
content was was the most
the most significant
significant factorfactor affecting
affecting the
10
the splitting strength of pervious concrete. The percentage contributions of these
splitting strength of pervious concrete. The percentage contributions of these factors were as follows: factors were as
follows: fine aggregate
fine aggregate contentcontent
(55.24%) (55.24%)
0
and matrix
and matrix type (42.71%).
type (42.71%). Summarizing
Summarizing the results
the results of Tables
of Table 13 and13
and 14, 14,
Table it can be inferred
it can that the
be inferred thatoptimal combination
the optimal
C1 of
combination
C2 the experimental
ofC3the control
experimental factors
control for achieving
factors for
Void Content (%) Splitting Strength (MPa)
maximum
achieving splitting
maximum strength
splittingis strength
A3 B3 C3 Dis2 .A3B3C3D2.
Figure 14. Relationship between splitting strength and void content.
15. S/N
Figure15.
Figure S/N response
response graph showing the splitting
splitting strength
strength of
ofpervious
perviousconcretes.
concretes.
3.2.5. Confirmation Tests

3.2.5. Confirmation Tests
To verify the optimal combination of the experimental control factors obtained using the Taguchi
To verify the optimal combination of the experimental control factors obtained using the Taguchi
method,
method, confirmation tests were
confirmation tests werecarried
carriedout.
out.Table
Table
15 15 shows
shows the the results
results ofconfirmation
of the the confirmation tests.
tests. The
The confirmation test results show that the optimal combination of the experimental control
confirmation test results show that the optimal combination of the experimental control factors factors
proposed
proposedbyby thethe
Taguchi method
Taguchi can obtain
method the maximum
can obtain test results
the maximum test for each for
results performance parameter.
each performance
parameter.
Table 15. Results of the confirmation tests.
Performance Initial Test Results Optimal Test Results

Materials 2019, 12, 2577 18 of 20
Table 15. Results of the confirmation tests.
Initial Test Results Optimal Test Results

Combination (MPa) Combination (MPa)
Compressive Strength A1 B3 C3 D3 21.3 A2 B3 C3 D3 22.1
Elastic Modulus A1 B3 C3 D3 29001.5 A2 B3 C3 D3 29843.2
Flexural Strength A1 B3 C3 D3 2.99 A1 B3 C3 D3 3.02
Splitting Strength A1 B3 C3 D3 2.69 A3 B3 C3 D2 2.75
4. Conclusions
The results show that the key factors affecting the compressive strength of the matrix and the
pervious concrete are closely related to the cementitious material. For the matrix, the superplasticizer
content was shown to be the most important factor affecting the target value of flow, while the
proportion of cementitious material was the most important factor affecting the compressive strength.
Based on the fluidity and compressive strength of the tested matrix, three matrixes with suitable mix
proportions were selected to serve as the matrix types for the mix proportion design of pervious
concrete. The test results confirmed that the matrix type was the most significant factor affecting the
compressive strength of the pervious concrete. The percentage contributions of each factor were as
follows: matrix type (43.54%), aggregate-to-binder ratio (39.99%), and fine aggregate content (16.47%).
Further, the matrix type was also the most significant factor affecting the flexural strength of the
pervious concrete. On the other hand, the fine aggregate content was the most significant factor that
contributed to the elastic modulus of the pervious concrete. Moreover, the fine aggregate content was
also the most significant factor affecting the splitting strength of the pervious concrete. The percentage
contributions of each factor were as follows: Fine aggregate content (55.24%) and matrix type (42.71%).
Author Contributions: C.-W.T. designed the experiments and performed the experiments. C.-K.C. and C.-Y.T.
analyzed the data (ANOVA) and wrote part of the paper.
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, grant number [MOST
105-2221-E-230-002].
Acknowledgments: The authors express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to the Ministry of Science and
Technology, Taiwan for financing this research work.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1. Chandrappa, A.K.; Biligiri, K.P. Pervious concrete as a sustainable pavement material—Research findings
and future prospects: A state-of-the-art review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 111, 262–274. [CrossRef]
2. Barrett, M.E., Jr.; Malina, J.F.; Charbeneau, R.J. Characterization of Highway Runoff in Austin, Texas, Area.
J. Environ. Eng. 1998, 124, 131–139. [CrossRef]
3. United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects—The 2014 Revision; Department of Economic and Social Affairs:
New York, NY, USA, 2014; p. 32.
4. Zhong, R.; Wille, K. Material design and characterization of high performance pervious concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2015, 98, 51–60. [CrossRef]
5. ACI. 522R-10 Pervious Concrete; American Concrete Institute Committee: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2010.
6. Tennis, P.D.; Leming, M.L.; Akers, D.J. Pervious Concrete Pavements; Portland Cement Association: Skokie, IL,
USA; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2004.
7. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Porous Pavement;
EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; p. 6.
8. Haselbach, L.; Boyer, M.; Kevern, J.T.; Schaefer, V.R. Cyclic heat island impacts on traditional versus pervious
concrete pavement systems. J. Transp. Res. Board 2011, 2240, 107–115. [CrossRef]
9. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD). Pervious Concrete Evaluation Materials Investigation;
Thompson Materials Engineers Inc.: Denver, CO, USA, 2008.
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 19 of 20
10. Houle, K.M. Winter Performance Assessment of Permeable Pavements—A Comparative Study of Porous
Asphalt, Pervious Concrete, and Conventional Asphalt in a Northern Climate. Master’s Thesis, University
of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA, September 2008.
11. Olek, J.; Weiss, W.J.; Neithalath, N.; Marolf, A.; Sell, E.; Thornton, W.D. Development of Quiet and Durable
Porous Portland Cement Concrete Paving Materials; Final Report SQDH 2003-5; Purdue University: West
Lafayette, IN, USA, 2003.
12. Park, S.; Tia, M. An experimental study on the water-purification properties of porous concrete. Cem. Concr.
Res. 2004, 34, 177–184. [CrossRef]
13. Bean, E.Z.; Hunt, W.F.; Bidelspach, D.A. A field survey of permeable pavement surface infiltration rates.
ASCE J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2007, 133, 249–255. [CrossRef]
14. Hesami, S.; Ahmadi, S.; Nematzadeh, M. Effects of rice husk ash and fiber on mechanical properties of
pervious concrete pavement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 53, 680–691. [CrossRef]
15. Pilon, B.S.; Tyner, J.S.; Yoder, D.C.; Buchanan, J.R. The Effect of Pervious Concrete on Water Quality
Parameters: A Case Study. Water 2019, 11, 263. [CrossRef]
16. Obla, K.H. Pervious concrete—An overview. Indian Concr. J. 2010, 84, 9–18.
17. National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. Concrete in Practice; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association:
Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2004.
18. Rehder, B.; Banh, K.; Neithalath, N. Fracture behavior of pervious concretes: The effects of pore structure
and fibers. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2014, 118, 1–16. [CrossRef]
19. Bonicelli, A.; Giustozzi, F.; Crispino, M. Experimental study on the effects of fine sand addition on differentially
compacted pervious concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 91, 102–110. [CrossRef]
20. Yang, J.; Jiang, G. Experimental study on properties of pervious concrete pavement materials. Cem. Concr.
Res. 2003, 33, 381–386. [CrossRef]
21. ACI Committee. Pervious concrete mixture proportioning. In 522 Report on Pervious Concrete; American
Concrete Institute Committee: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2010; Chapter 6; p. 522R.
22. Neithalath, N.; Sumanasooriya, M.S.; Deo, O. Characterizing pore volume, sizes, and connectivity in pervious
concretes for permeability prediction. Mater. Charact. 2010, 61, 802–813. [CrossRef]
23. Nguyen, D.H.; Sebaibi, N.; Boutouil, M.; Leleyter, L.; Baraud, F. A modified method for the design of pervious
concrete mix. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 73, 271–282. [CrossRef]
24. Nguyen, D.H.; Boutouil, M.; Sebaibi, N.; Leleyter, L.; Baraud, F. Valorization of seashell by-products in
pervious concrete pavers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 49, 151–160. [CrossRef]
25. Schaefer, V.; Wang, K.; Suleiman, M.; Kevern, J. Mix Design Development for Pervious Concrete in Cold Weather
Climates; No. 2006-01; Iowa Dept. of Transportation: Ames, IA, USA, 2006.
26. Ghaharia, S.A.; Mohammadib, A.; Ramezanianpourc, A.A. Performance assessment of natural pozzolan
roller compacted concrete pavements. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2017, 7, 82–90. [CrossRef]
27. Zhong, R.; Wille, K. Compression response of normal and high strength pervious concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2016, 109, 177–187. [CrossRef]
28. Beeldens, A.; Gemert, D.V.; Caestecker, C. Porous Concrete: Laboratory Versus Field Experience.
In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Concrete Roads, Istanbul, Turkey, 4–7 April 2004.
29. Beeldens, A. Behavior of Porous PCC Under Freeze-Thaw Cycling. In Proceedings of the Tenth International
Congress on Polymers in Concrete, Honolulu, HI, USA, 21–24 May 2001.
30. Kajio, S.; Tanaka, S.; Tomita, R.; Noda, E.; Hashimoto, S. Properties of Porous Concrete with High Strength. In
Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Concrete Roads, Lisbon, Portugal, 13–16 September 1988.
31. Tamai, M.; Yoshida, M. Durability of Porous Concrete. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference
on the Durability of Concrete, Thessaloniki, Greece, 1–7 June 2003.
32. Mahalingam, R.; Mahalingam, S.V. Analysis of pervious concrete properties. Građevinar 2016, 68, 493–501.
33. Kovč, M.; Sičáková, A. Pervious Concrete as an Environmental Solution for Pavements: Focus on Key
Properties. Environments 2018, 5, 11. [CrossRef]
34. Sharif, A.A.M.; Shahidan, S.; Koh, H.B.; Kandash, A.; Zuki, S.S.M. Strength development of pervious concrete
containing engineered biomass aggregate. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 271, 012002. [CrossRef]
35. Aoki, Y.; Ravindrarajah, R.S.; Khabbaz, H. Properties of pervious concrete containing fly ash. Road Mater.
Pavement Des. 2012, 13, 1–11. [CrossRef]
Materials 2019, 12, 2577 20 of 20
36. Hamdulay, H.N.; John, R.J.; Suroshe, D.R. Effect of Aggregate Grading and Cementitious Byproduct on
Performance of Pervious Concrete. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2015, 4, 6890–6897.
37. Chen, Y.; Wang, K.; Wang, X.; Zhou, W. Strength, fracture and fatigue of pervious concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2013, 42, 97–104. [CrossRef]
38. Torres, A.; Hu, J.; Ramos, A. The effect of the cementitious paste thickness on the performance of pervious
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 95, 850–859. [CrossRef]
39. Arhin, S.A.; Madhi, R.; Khan, W. Optimal Mix Designs for Pervious Concrete for an Urban Area. Int. J. Eng.
Res. Technol. 2014, 3, 42–50.
40. Zaetang, Y.; Wongsa, A.; Sata, V.; Chindaprasirt, P. Use of coal ash as geopolymer binder and coarse aggregate
in pervious concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 96, 289–295. [CrossRef]
41. Nayak, B.H.; Prasad, K.S.B.; Kumar, M.P. An Experimental Study on Strength Characteristics of Pervious
Concrete by Partial Addition of Glass Fiber and Polyester Fiber. Int. J. Eng. Res. 2015, 4, 545–549. [CrossRef]
42. Rehman, H.A.A. Some properties of fiber reinforced no fine concrete. Al-Qadisiya J. Eng. Sci. 2012, 5, 439–450.
43. Huang, B.; Wu, H.; Shu, X.; Burdette, E.G. Laboratory evaluation of permeability and strength of
polymer-modified pervious concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 818–823. [CrossRef]
44. Chang, J.J.; Yeih, W.; Chung, T.J.; Huang, R. Properties of pervious concrete made with electric arc furnace
slag and alkali-activated slag cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 109, 34–40. [CrossRef]
45. Kevern, J.T. Advancement of Pervious Concrete Durability. Ph.D. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA,
USA, 2008.
46. Fisher, R.A. Statistical Methods for Research Workers; Oliver & Boyd: London, UK, 1925.
47. Taguchi, G. Introduction to Quality Engineering: Designing Quality into Products and Processes; Asian Productivity
Organization: Tokyo, Japan, 1987.
48. Roy, R.K. A Primer on the Taguchi Method, Competitive Manufacturing Series; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New
York, NY, USA, 1990.
49. Phadke, M.S. Quality Engineering Using Robust Design; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1989.
50. Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
51. ASTM. C230/C230M-14 Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
52. ASTM. C109/C109M-13e1 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using
2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens); ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013.
53. ASTM. C1688/C1688M-14a Standard Test Method for Density and Void Content of Freshly Mixed Pervious Concrete;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014; Available online: http://www.astm.org (accessed
on 20 May 2019).
54. ASTM. C1701/C1701M-17a Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of In Place Pervious Concrete; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017; Available online: http://www.astm.org (accessed on
20 May 2019).
55. ASTM. C39/C39M-18 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018; Available online: http://www.astm.org (accessed on
20 May 2019).
56. ASTM. C469/C469M-14 Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in
Compression; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
57. ASTM. C496/C496M-11 Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004.
58. ASTM. C78/C78M-18 Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point
Loading); ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018; Available online: www.astm.org
(accessed on 20 May 2019).
59. Neville, A.M. Properties of Concrete; Longman: Essex, UK, 1994.
60. Banfill, P.F.G. The rheology of cement paste: Propress since 1973. In Rheology of Fresh Cement and Concrete;
The British Society of Rheology: London, UK, 1991.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Materials: Mix Design and Mechanical Properties of High-Performance Pervious Concrete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Materials: Mix Design and Mechanical Properties of High-Performance Pervious Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

materials

Keywords: high-performance pervious concrete; mix design; engineering properties

Materials 2019, 12, 2577; doi:10.3390/ma12162577 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Table 1. Properties of pervious concrete.

Void Ratio Unit Weight Permeability 28 day Compressive Flexural Strength

2.2. Test Variables and Experimental Design

Table 2. Parameters and design levels for matrix.

Parameter (Experimental Levels of Parameter Performance

Water–Binder Ratio, A 0.28 0.31 0.34 0.37

Table 3. Parameters and design levels for pervious concrete.

Parameter (Experimental Levels of Parameter

Table 4. L16 (45 ) orthogonal array for matrix.

Table 5. L9 (34 ) orthogonal array for pervious concrete.

2.3. Mix Proportions and Casting of Specimens

Table 6. Mix proportions of matrix.

Table 7. Mix proportions of pervious concrete.

2.4. Test Methods and Data Analysis

600 100 RPM 600 100 RPM

200 10 RPM 200 10 RPM

Torque (milli Newton-m)

3.1.2. Rheological Test

Table 8. Results of the apparent viscosity of matrixes.

Torque (milli Newton-m)

Apparent viscosity (cP)

Apparent viscosity (cP)

30000 M1 Apparent viscosity (cP)

Apparent viscosity (cP)

the concrete; however, a lower water–binder ratio makes 2000

3.1.3. Flow Value and Compressive Strength of Matrixes

Table 9. Experimental results and signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios of the matrixes.

Experimental Results S/N Ratio (dB)

Table 10. S/N response table of matrixes.

Performance Parameter Mean S/N Ratio (η, Unit: dB) Delta

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Table 10. Cont. 12 of 21

Performance Parameter Mean S/N Ratio (η, Unit: dB) Delta

3.2. Test Results of Pervious Concretes

Table 12. Experimental results and S/N ratios of pervious concretes.

Relationship between compressive strength and void content.

Table 13. S/N ratio response table of pervious concretes.

Figure 10. Relationship

Figure 11. S/N

3.2.3. Flexural Strength

Figure 12. Relationship

3.2.4. Splitting Strength

Regarding the splitting

(2.69 MPa). The maximum

S/N ratio (dB)

3.2.4. Splitting Strength

3.2.4. Splitting Strength 30

Regarding the splitting strength

Figure 14. Relationship between splitting strength and void content.

3.2.5. Confirmation Tests

Table 15. Results of the confirmation tests.

Performance Initial Test Results Optimal Test Results

Table 15. Results of the confirmation tests.

Initial Test Results Optimal Test Results

You might also like