Chapter twenty-one
Concrete mix
21.1 The mix design process
21.2 UK method of ‘Design of normal concrete mixes’ (BRE,
1997)
21.3 Mix design with cement replacement materials (CRMs)
21.4 Design of mixes containing admixtures
21.5 References
Mix design is the process of selecting the propor-
tions of cement, water, fine and coarse aggregates
and, if to be used, cement replacement materials
and admixtures to produce an economic concrete
mix with the required fresh and hardened proper-
ties. The cement and other binder constituents are
usually the most expensive component(s), and
‘economic’ usually means keeping its/their
content as low as possible, without, of course,
compromising the resulting properties. There may
also be other advantages, such as reduced heat of
hydration (Chapter 17) or drying shrinkage
(Chapter 19)
21.1 The mix design process
Figure 21.1 shows the stages in the complete mix
design process; we will discuss each of these in
turn.
21.1.1 Specified concrete properties
The required hardened properties of the concrete
result from the structural design process, and are
therefore provided to the mix designer. Strength
is normally specified in terms of a characteristic
strength (or grade) at a given age (see Preface).
Copyright 2001 Taylor & Francis Group
design
Durability requirements, to be discussed in
Chapter 23, may impose a limit on some mix
proportions, e.g. a minimum cement content or
maximum water/cement ratio, or demand the use
of air-entraining agent or a particular aggregate
type.
The choice of workability will depend on the
methods selected for transporting, handling and
placing the concrete (e.g. pump, skip), the size of
the section to be filled and the density of rein-
forcement. The workability must clearly be suffi-
cient at the point of placing, which in the case of
ready-mixed concrete transported by road to site,
may be some time after mixing.
21.1.2 Constituent material properties
As a minimum, the fine and coarse aggregate size,
type and grading, and the cement type must be
known. The relative density of the aggregates, the
cement composition, and details of any cement
replacement materials and admixtures that are to
be used or considered may also be needed.
21.1.3 Initial estimate of mix proportions
An initial best estimate of the mix proportions
that will give concrete with the required proper-
ties is then made. In doing this, as much use as
possible is made of previous results from concrete
made with the same or similar constituent mater-
ials. In some cases, for example in producing a
new mix from an established site plant, the
behaviour of the materials will be well known. In
 Constituent material properties
Specified concrete properties,
e.g aggregate size and grading,
e.g strength, workability, durability
cement type, admixtures

Initial estimate of
mix proportions

Laboratory trial mix

Adjust mix
proportions
Compare measured and
specified properties

Satisfactory Not satisfactory

Full-scale trial mix Adjust mix

proportions

Satisfactory Not satisfactory

End

FIGURE 21.1 The mix design process.

other circumstances, there will be no such know-
ledge, and typical behaviour such as that given in
the preceding few chapters has to be used.
There are a considerable number of step-by-step
methods of varying complexity that can be used to
produce this ‘best estimate’. Many countries have
their own preferred method or methods, and, as
an example, we will describe a current UK method
below. Whichever method is used, it is important
to recognise that the result is only a best estimate,
perhaps even only a good guess. Because the con-
stituent materials will not be exactly as assumed
and their interaction cannot be predicted with any
great certainty, the concrete is unlikely to meet the
requirements precisely.
21.1.4 Laboratory trial mixes
It follows from the above that a trial mix to
determine the resulting properties of the ‘best
guess’ mix is essential. This is normally first
carried out at a relatively small scale in the labo-
ratory. Some adjustment to the mix portions will
probably be necessary when the test results are
obtained, e.g. a decrease in the water/cement
ratio if the strength is too low. A second trial mix
with the revised mix proportions is then carried
out, and the process repeated until a satisfactory
mix in all respects is obtained.

Copyright 2001 Taylor & Francis Group

 21.1.5 Full-scale trial mixes 21.2.1 Target mean strength
The laboratory trials do not provide the complete As described in the Preface, the specified character-
answer. The full-scale batching and mixing proce- istic strength is a lower limit of strength to be used
dures will not be exactly the same as those in the in structural design. As with all materials, concrete
laboratory, and may cause differences in the con- has an inherent variability of strength, and an
crete properties. Complete confidence in the mix average cube compressive strength (or target mean
can therefore only be obtained with further trials strength) somewhat above the characteristic
at full scale, again with adjustments to the mix strength is therefore required. The difference
proportions and re-testing if necessary. between the characteristic and target mean strength
is called the margin; a 5 per cent failure rate is nor-
mally chosen for concrete, and the margin should
21.2 UK method of ‘Design of
therefore be 1.64 times the standard deviation of
normal concrete mixes’ (BRE, 1997) the strength test results (Figure 0.4).
This method of mix design provides a good This means that a knowledge of the standard
example of the process of making an initial estim- deviation is required. For an existing concrete
ate of the mix proportions. It has the advantage production facility this will be known from previ-
of being relatively straightforward and producing ous tests. Where limited or no data are available,
reasonable results with the materials most com- the upper values given in Figure 21.2,1 which has
monly available in the UK. It should be emphas- been derived from analysis of the data from many
ised that it is not necessarily the ‘best’ method production facilities, can be used. When produc-
available world-wide, and that it may not give tion is under way, this can be reduced if justified
such good results with other materials. by test results, but not below the lower values in
The main part of the method is concerned with Figure 21.2. The advantage of reducing the vari-
the design of mixes incorporating Portland ability by good practice is clear.
cement, water and normal density coarse and fine
aggregates only, and with characteristic strengths
21.2.2 Free water/cement ratio
of up to about 70 MPa. It encompasses both
crushed and uncrushed coarse aggregate. The For a particular cement and aggregate type, the
steps involved can be summarised as follows. concrete strength at a given age is assumed to be
governed by the free water/cement ratio only. The
first step is to obtain a value of strength at
water/cement ratio of 0.5 from Figure 21.3 for
10
the relevant age/aggregate type/cement type com-
bination (this figure has been drawn from data in
s for fewer
a table in the method document). This value is
Standard deviation, s (MPa)

8 than 20
results
then plotted on the vertical line in Figure 21.4 to
6 give a starting point for a line which is con-
Min s for 20 structed parallel to the curves as shown. The
4 or more
results
point of intersection of this line with the horizon-
2 tal line of the required target mean strength then
gives the required free water/cement ratio. The
0 ranges of the axes in Figure 21.4 indicates the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Characteristic strength (MPa)
limits of validity of the method.

1
Figures 21.2 to 21.7 inclusive have been taken from BRE
FIGURE 21.2 Standard deviation versus character- (1997), and Figures 21.2, 21.4, 21.6 and 21.7 are ©BRE and
istic strength of concrete (BRE, 1997). have been reproduced with the permission of BRE.

Copyright 2001 Taylor & Francis Group

 FIGURE 21.3 Compressive
70 strength versus age for concrete
Crushed aggregate
42.5N cement
with a water/cement ratio of 0.5
52.5R cement (BRE, 1997).
60
Compressive strength (MPa)

50

40 42.5N cement
52.5R cement
Uncrushed aggregate

30

20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Age (days)

Starting line with FIGURE 21.4 Compressive

data from Figure 21.3
strength versus water/cement
90
ratio of concrete (BRE, 1997).
80

70
Compressive strength (MPa)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Free water/cement ratio

21.2.3 Free water content method document, from which the free water
content for the appropriate aggregate can be
It is now assumed that, for a given coarse aggreg- obtained.
ate type and maximum size, the concrete work-
ability is governed by the free water content only.
The workability can be specified in terms of
21.2.4 Cement content
either slump or Vebe time (see Chapter 17),
although slump is by far the most commonly This is a simple calculation from the values of
used. Figure 21.5 is a graph of data for slump, free water/cement ratio and free water content
again drawn from data given as a table in the just calculated.

Copyright 2001 Taylor & Francis Group

 FIGURE 21.5 Slump versus
140
free water content of concrete
(BRE, 1997).
120

Uncrushed
aggregate:
100 10 mm
20 mm
40 mm
Slump (mm)

80

60

Crushed
40 aggregate:
10 mm
20 mm
20 40 mm

0
100 150 200 250 300
Free water content (kg/m3)

FIGURE 21.6 Wet density

2800
Relative density of aggregate of fully compacted concrete
(SSD basis) Assume for: versus free water content (BRE,
2700 crushed aggregates
uncrushed aggregates 1997).
2600 2.9
Wet density (kg/m3)

2.8
2500
2.7
2400 2.6

2300 2.5

2.4
2200

2100
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Free water content (kg/m3)

21.2.5 Total aggregate content 21.2.6 Fine and coarse aggregate content
An estimate of the density of the concrete is now The estimated value of the proportion of fine
required. This is obtained from Figure 21.6, using aggregate in the total aggregate depends on the
known or assumed values of the relative density maximum size of aggregate, the concrete work-
of the aggregates. A weighted mean value is used ability, the grading of the fine aggregate (specifi-
if relative densities of the coarse and fine aggreg- cally the amount passing a 600 micron sieve) and
ate are different. Subtraction of the free water the free water/cement ratio. Figure 21.7 shows the
content and cement content from this density relevant graphs for obtaining this proportion for
gives the total aggregate content. a maximum aggregate size of 20 mm. Sufficient

Copyright 2001 Taylor & Francis Group

 % of fine FIGURE 21.7 Proportions
aggregate
passing of fine aggregate according to
600 µm percentage passing 600 m
sieve 80
80 80 80 sieve (for 20 mm max. coarse
aggregate size) (BRE, 1997).
Proportion of fine aggregate (%)

70 70 70 70
15
60 60 60 15 60
15
15 40
50 50 50 40 50
40 40 60
40 40 40 60 40
60 60 80
80 100
30 80 30 80 30 30
100
100 100
20 20 20 20

10 10 10 10
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Free water/cement ratio
Slump: 0– 10 mm 10–30 mm 30–60 mm 60–180 mm

fine aggregate must be incorporated to produce a more complex, and again, trial mixes are essen-
cohesive mix that is not prone to segregation, and tial.
Figure 2.17 shows that increasing quantities are The mix design method described above (BRE,
required with increasing water/cement ratio, 1997) includes modifications for mixes contain-
increasing slump and if the aggregate itself is ing good quality low-lime pfa or ggbs. With pfa:
coarser. The mix design document also gives
equivalent graphs for 10 and 40 mm coarse • the amount, expressed as a proportion of the
aggregate; with the former between 5 and 15 per total binder, first needs to be selected, for
cent more fine aggregate is required, and with the example for heat output, durability or eco-
latter between 5 and 10 per cent less. nomic reasons, subject to a maximum of 40
The fine and coarse aggregate content is now per cent;
calculated by simple arithmetic, and the amounts • the increase in workability is such that the
(in kg/m3) of free water, cement, coarse and fine water content obtained from Figure 21.5 can
aggregates for the laboratory trial mix have now be reduced by 3 per cent for each 10 per cent
all been obtained. of pfa;
It is important to note the simplifying assump- • the effect upon the strength is allowed for by
tions used in the various stages. These make the the use of a cementing efficiency factor, k,
method somewhat simpler than many other which we discussed in Chapter 20. This con-
alternatives, but highlight the importance of trial verts the amount of PFA to an equivalent
mixes and subsequent refinements. amount of cement. The total equivalent
cement content is then C  kF, where
21.3 Mix design with cement C  Portland cement content and F  pfa
content. The value of k varies with the type of
replacement materials (CRMs)
pfa and Portland cement and with the age of
As we have seen, CRMs effect both the fresh and the concrete, but a value of 0.30 is taken for
hardened properties of concrete, and it is often 28-day strength with a class 42.5 Portland
difficult to predict their interaction with the Port- cement. Thus, if w  water content, a value of
land cement with any confidence. The mix design the equivalent water/cement ratio w/(C  kF)
process for concretes including CRMs is therefore is obtained from Figure 21.4;

Copyright 2001 Taylor & Francis Group

 • subsequent calculations follow using C  F
when the total binder content is required.
With ggbs:
• again the amount as a proportion of the
binder is first chosen, with values of up to 90
per cent being suitable for some purposes;
• the improvements in workability are such that
the water contents derived from Figure 21.5
can be reduced by about 5 kg/m3;
• the cementing efficiency factor approach used
for pfa is more difficult to apply as the value
of k is dependent on more factors, including
the water/equivalent cement ratio, and for 28-
day strengths varies from about 0.4 to over
1.0. It is assumed that for ggbs contents of up
to 40 per cent there is no change to the
strength, i.e. k  1, but for higher proportions
information should be obtained from the
cement manufacturer or the ggbs supplier.
21.4 Design of mixes containing
admixtures
21.4.1 Mixes with plasticisers
As we have seen in Chapter 14, plasticisers
increase the fluidity or workability of the con-
crete. This leads to three methods of use:
1. to provide an increase in workability, by
direct addition of the plasticiser with no other
changes to the mix proportions;
TABLE 21.1 Methods of using a plasticiser in average quality concrete (typical data from admixture supplier’s
information)
Mix Cement Water w/c
(kg/m3)
control 325 179 0.55
1 325 179 0.55
2 325 163 0.5
3 295 163 0.55
Note:
1. A ‘standard’ dose.
Copyright 2001 Taylor & Francis Group
2. to give an increase in strength at the same
workability, by allowing the water content to
be reduced, with consequent reduction in the
water/cement ratio;
3. to give a reduction in cement content for the
same strength and workability, by coupling
the reduction in water content with a corre-
sponding reduction in cement content to
maintain the water/cement ratio.
(1) and (2) change the properties of the concrete,
(3) will normally result in a cost saving as the
admixture costs much less than amount of
cement saved.
Table 21.1 gives typical figures for these effects
for an average strength concrete mix and a ligno-
sulfonate-based plasticiser. The figures have been
obtained from data provided by the admixture
supplier. The admixture amount is a ‘standard’
dose. The important changes are, in each case:
1. an increase in slump from 75 to 135 mm;
2. an increase in strength from 39 to 45 MPa;
3. a reduction in cement content of 30 kg/m3.
Plasticisers can have some effect on the setting
times, but mechanical properties and durability at
later ages appear largely unaffected and are
similar to those expected for a plain concrete of
the same water/cement ratio, with two relatively
minor exceptions:
1. there is some evidence of a slight increase in
28-day strength, attributed to the dispersion
of the particles causing an increased surface
Plasticiser dose Slump 28 day strength
(% by wt of (mm) (MPa)
cement)
0 75 39
0.31 135 39.5
0.3 75 45
0.3 75 39
 area of cement being exposed to the mix
water (Hewlett, 1988);
2. some plasticisers entrain about 1–2 per cent
air because they lower the surface tension of
the mix water. This will reduce the density
and strength of the concrete.
21.4.2 Mixes with superplasticisers
For the reasons explained in Chapter 14, it is very
difficult to generalise about the effects and uses of
superplasticisers other than to say that they can
produce greater increases in workability and/or
strength and/or cement reduction than plasticis-
ers. They are more expensive than plasticisers,
and therefore the economic advantages of cement
reduction may not be as great. The suppliers will
provide information for each specific product or
formulation, but a mix designer must ensure
compatibility with the proposed binder. This can
often be judged by tests on paste or mortar in
advance of trial mixes on concrete (Aitcin, 1994).
Superplasticisers enable a much greater range
of concrete types to be produced than with plasti-
cisers, e.g. high workability flowing concrete, self-
compacting mixes and high-strength mixes low
water/cement ratios. These will be discussed in
Chapter 24.
Copyright 2001 Taylor & Francis Group
21.4.3 Mixes with air entraining agents
As discussed in Chapters 14 and 23, air entrain-
ment is used to increase the resistance of concrete
to freeze–thaw damage, but the entrained air
increases the workability and reduces the sub-
sequent strength. The method of mix design
described above (BRE, 1997) includes the follow-
ing modifications to allow for these effects if the
specified air content is within the normal range of
3 to 7 per cent by volume:
• it is assumed that the strength is reduced by
5.5 per cent for each 1 per cent of air; the
target mean strength is therefore increased by
the appropriate amount;
• the slump is reduced by a factor of about two
for the selection of water content from Figure
21.5;
• the concrete density obtained from Figure
21.6 is reduced by the appropriate amount,
21.5 References
Aitcin, P.C., Jolicoeur, C. and MacGregor, J.G. (1994)
Superplasticizers: how they work and why they
occasionally don’t. Concrete International 16, 5,
45–52.
BRE (1997) Design of Normal Concrete Mixes, 2nd
edn, Building Research Establishment, Watford.
Hewlett, P.C. (ed.) (1988) Cement Admixtures: Use
and Applications, 2nd edn, Longman, Essex.