Special Concretes – 2

Self Compacting Concrete

 Outline
• Definition of self compactability
• Fresh concrete characteristics of SCC
• Design aspects
• Hardened state characteristics?
• Case studies
 Self compacting concrete
Little or no vibration
required

https://theconstructor.org/concrete/self-compacting-
concrete-properties-tests/7683/
http://www.selfconsolidatingconcrete.org/mixdesign.html

EFNARC Guidelines – guiding document on SCC

 World of possibilities with SCC
http://www.sika.c
om/en/concrete-
redirect/concrete-
additives/concrete
-handbook-
2013/concrete-
application/self-
compacting-
concrete--scc-
.html

http://www.arcspace.com/features/unstudio/mumuth/

Concrete best suited to

meet architects’ demands!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-1340539/EXCLUSIVE-
Sportsmails-Magnificent-7-2012-Olympic-Village.html
http://www.tectonica-
online.com/products/1683/glenium_concrete_compacting_hac_scc_superplasticizer/
 SCC applications

Traditional mix

SCC mix
Courtesy: Master Builders Technologies (Degussa)
 Pioneered by L&T-ECC in India
Mock-up trial at L&T – ECC (2001) Construction of Shiva temple at L&T - ECC

Smooth finish
Sharp edges
 Famous applications

• Anchorages for Akashi-Kaikyo bridge, Japan

• Wall for LNG tank in Osaka, Japan
• Viaduct in Yokohama city, Japan
• Number of bridges in Sweden
• Several projects in India
 Challenges with SCC

• Optimal mixture design to obtain fresh

characteristics – many ingredients lead to
complex interplay of factors
• Resistance to cracking when fresh
• Suitable hardened concrete characteristics
Sufficiently complicated concrete
Ingredients: Special
Mix design: Special
Concrete mixing: Special
Flow retention: Special
Transportation: Special
http://www.selfconsolidatingconcrete.org/mixdesign.html
Formwork: Special
Placement: Special
SP
(High VMA
Hardened concrete: Normal!
dose)

Filler
type!
 Self Cracking Concrete
Possibilities of plastic shrinkage cracking
very high!
- use of large amount of fines
- generally slower setting

Cracks may go through depth also!

Inadequate top cover in slabs can also
cause plastic settlement!
Segregating Category Concrete
What causes segregation in
SCC?
Inappropriate proportions of
ingredients
Minor retempering or redosing
Inadequate design for blocking
(especially at beam-column
junctions)
Accidental / excess vibration
Pouring from a height
Rheological control of SCC

Domone, UK
 Modified laboratory tests
•Slump flow test
•T50 Flowability
•V-funnel; Orimet

•U-box test
•L-box test Passing ability
•J-Ring test

•Sieve stability test

•Settlement column test Segregation potential
•Penetration test
 Slump-based tests
Modified slump test – (i)
Overall slump, and (ii)
Speed of slump

Slump flow test for SCC – (i)

Overall spread, and (ii) time to
spread 500 mm
Slump
cone D = 500 mm,
t=?
 U-tube and V-funnel

U-tube test V-funnel test

U-tube test evaluates the potential of the SCC to overcome obstacles (in
this case, the reinforcement gate); after flow, the height difference in the
two limbs of the tube is measured (< 30 mm recommended)
In V-funnel test, time taken to flow out of the funnel indicates the
flowability of the SCC (6 – 12 sec recommended); also, a flow without
break is considered satisfactory; test can be repeated at 5 minutes – to
assess segregation impact
 L-box test
Concrete Obstacle

h1
h2

The L-box test simulates a real life condition of filling up

a formwork with concrete. Concrete flows through an
obstacle (similar to the U-tube test) due to a potential
energy gradient; the comparison of the final height h2
to the initial height h1 indicates the self-compacting and
self-levelling nature of the SCC (0.8 – 1.0
recommended)
 J-Ring with Slump Flow

Courtesy: Ravindra Gettu

A difference of 50 mm in the flow with and without J-
ring indicates satisfactory performance
 Box filling test

Blocking ratio, BR ≥ 0.8

Courtesy: Ravindra Gettu
 Testing for segregation
160
160

100 1

570 570

2 3

100 100
460
800
Requirement: Segregation ratio (RS) ≥ 0.90

Courtesy: Ravindra Gettu

 General remarks regarding tests

• Presence of obstacles (reinforcement cage) could

cause blocking of flow if the mixture design is not
proper (i.e. volume fraction of aggregates is high,
or the maximum size of aggregate is large, etc.)
• Resistance to segregation can be checked by
evaluating cut sections – or by settlement test
 On-Site All Acceptance Test - Japan

All the concrete has to flow through the box without blocking for acceptance
Courtesy: Ravindra Gettu
 EFNARC Classes for SCC
Type Test Classes
Filling ability Slump flow (with or without SF1 – 550 – 650 mm
J-Ring) SF2 – 660 – 750 mm
SF3 – 760 – 850 mm
V-funnel VF1: t ≤ 8 s
VF2: 9 ≤ t ≤ 25
Passing ability Passing Ratio (height ratio) PR1 ≥ 0.80 with 2 bars
in L-box PR2 ≥ 0.80 with 3 bars
Flow rate T500 in slump flow test VS1 ≤ 2 s
Called ‘Viscosity Class’ VS2 > 2 s
Segregation index Sieve segregation – SI1 ≤ 20
segregation index SI2 ≤ 15
 Issues with SCC
• Choice of mixture design approach – not standardized yet;
EFNARC still preferred; rheology combined with particle
packing used by many researchers
• Characterization of locally available materials, particularly
aggregates
- Accounting for aggregate shape
- Alternative sources (manufactured sand)
• Correlating rheological properties with empirical
measurements!!
Possible effect of flaky and elongated aggregate
 Issues….
• Application driven design of SCC
• Tendency for higher early age shrinkage!!
• Hardened properties – Strength, creep, durability 
research has shown that all these are equal to or better
than conventional concrete!
• Pumping pressure – not much different from normal
concrete except when casting rates are high
Application based design

Walraven (Netherlands)
Possibly tie up the consistency classes
with the water content and/or powder
content…
Design of SCC combining (i) Particle
Packing and (ii) Rheology

Based on PhD thesis of Dr. Prakash Nanthagopalan,

2009
 Steps in design
• Optimization of powder composition (i.e. degree
of fly ash replacement in cement)
• Optimization of aggregate combination by
particle packing approach
• Determination of paste content required for
slump flow
• Rheological characterization of paste
 Optimization of powder composition
Puntke test:
• Basic principle - The water fills the
voids in between the particles. The
water, which is in excess after
completely filling the voids,
appears at the surface of the mix,
indicating the saturation limit.

• Easy to perform, requires simple apparatus, consumes only small

amount of material and the results are reliable.
(Puntke 2002)
 Puntke test procedure
– Dry mixing for homogenisation Humid
Cement

– Water is added gradually to the mixture

particles

working with a stirrer until it acquires a closed

structure after repeated tapping of the beaker
until the saturation point is reached
– Transition from a humid cement particles to a
thick paste may need very few drops of water.
– At this point, the surface smoothes itself after
repeated tapping of the beaker and appears
glossy
– The experiment is repeated 3 times to get the
least water required to achieve saturation Saturated
Cement
particles
 Results of Puntke test
Vw
Packing density Фp = 1 - Vp+Vw
Vw – Volume of water

100 80
Fly ash (% Volume)
60 40 20 0
Vp - Volume of powder
0.64 100
Kerosene
Water with SP
0.63 Only Water 80
Packing density

0.62 60

0.61 40

20
0.60 Cement : Fly ash = 60 : 40 (by vol.)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cement (% Volume)
Development of Ternary Packing
Diagram (TPD) of Aggregates
 Test set up
12.5 mm 20 mm

River sand

34 cm

14 cm 31 cm

20 cm
 Packing density calculation
Void content = (Vc - (M1 / S1) - (M2 / S2) - (M3 / S3)) / Vc

Vc = Volume of the container

M1, M2, M3 = Mass of each aggregate type
S1, S2, S3 = Specific gravity of corresponding aggregate type

Packing density = 1 - void content

 Ternary Packing Diagram (TPD)

0.1
0.0
1.0
0.9
Interpolation 0.1
0.0
1.0
0.9
0.2 0.2
e)

0.56
0.8 0.8
um

0.54
0.58
0.3 0.3
vol

0.7 0.7

12.

12
)
(%

l. %
5m
0.4 0.4

.5
0.6 0.60 0.63 0.6

mm
mm

(Vo
m(
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5

mm

(Vo
%
20

0.64

vol
0.6 0.6

l. %
20
0.4 0.4

um
0.66

)
0.7 0.7

e)
0.3 0.3
0.8 0.8
0.2 0.68 0.2
0.69
0.9 0.9
0.1 0.1
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
River sand (% volume) River sand (Vol. %)
McGeary, 1961
 Applicability of TPD
• Best suited for Ready Mixed Concrete Plants

• Suitable for large scale construction sites having batching

plant
For individual user?
Developing TPD - Not a practicable solution
How to determine the packing density of aggregates?
Factors affecting packing density
Particle size distribution
shape
Method of compaction
Wall effect
Particle size distribution (PSD) Packing density
Why not make use of psd parameters,
such as Coefficient of uniformity Cu
 Why Cu ?
• It indicates how well the particles are graded

• Larger the Cu value, wider the range of particles

• As the range of particle sizes dictates the packing density of the particles,
it was decided to use Cu for further investigations

• Coefficient of Uniformity Cu = D60 / D10

where
D60 = 60 % of the particle finer than this size
D10 = 10 % of the particle finer than this size
 Mapping PSD to the packing density of aggregates
0.69 y = 0.0045x + 0.5395
2
R = 0.9692
 Good correlation exists
0.67

0.65 between the packing density

Packing density

0.63

0.61 of aggregates and the Cu

value
0.59

0.57

0.55
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Cu

Packing density = Cu * 0.0045 + 0.5395

 No significant variation in the Cu values for different aggregate proportions having same
packing density
 Influence of packing density of aggregates on
properties of SCC
• The paste composition and paste volume (388 lit/m3) was kept constant

Proportions of aggregates Packing Slump flow Slump flow with J Compressive strength
(by vol.) density (mm) ring (mm) (MPa)
FA : CA 12.5 mm : CA 20 mm

40 : 50 : 10 0.64 420 380 40.5

40 : 30 : 30 0.66 500 465 42.7
40 : 10 : 50 0.68 615 600 45.6

From these results, it is well understood that the packing density of the
aggregates has a significant influence on the fresh and hardened concrete
properties of SCC
 Influence of different proportions of aggregates having same
packing density (0.68) on the properties of SCC
Aggregate proportions Slump T500 J ring Compressive Remarks
(by vol.) flow (mm) (s) (mm) Strength (MPa)
FA : CA 12.5 mm: CA 20 mm

40:10:50 720 1.50 710 44.9 Agg. stayed in centre

45:10:45 690 2.20 670 44.7 Agg. stayed in centre

45:15:40 700 2.06 670 44.3 Agg. stayed in centre

50:10:40 660 3.12 635 43.6 No segregation

50:20:30 635 3.04 615 44.8 No segregation
55:05:40 570 4.00 520 44.6 No segregation
55:15:30 555 5.00 505 44.2 No segregation
60:10:30 530 5.20 495 43.9 No segregation
60:20:20 480 - 415 44.2 No segregation
65:05:30 445 - 380 43.8 No segregation
 Effect of w/p and paste volume on SCC
Powder content = 350 to 650 kg/m3
W/P (by volume) = 0.7 to 1.7
• Slump flow increases with w/p ratio and powder content as well
• With 350 kg/m3 powder content, its possible to achieve SCC
1000
350 powder content
450 powder content
900 550 powder content
650 powder content

800
Slump flow (mm)

700

600

500

400
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
w/p ratio (by volume)
How much excess paste required to achieve SCC?

But what about

paste
characteristics??
50 to 70 litres of paste is essential over and above the void content to achieve 550
mm of slump flow
Rheological characterization of SP for SCC

180 W/P ratio Mini-Slump Optimum dosage

160 (by Vol.) spread (mm) (% by weight of cementitious material)
Mini-Slump Spread (mm)

0.8 w/p
140 0.9 w/p
1.0 w/p
120 1.1 w/p
1.2 w/p 0.8 178 0.21
100
0.9 170 0.18
80
1.0 169 0.16
60
1.1 166 0.14
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
SP (% by weight of cementitious materials)
1.2 174 0.12
 Rheological studies
Test was performed using
Brookfield viscometer –
concentric cylinder
arrangement. Only for
pastes with optimum SP
dosage
Experimental shearing profile:
1. Preshearing from 0 – 30s-1 in 60 s to erase the previous shear history of the
past due to mixing
2. 30 seconds pause to make the paste to stabilize
3. Ramping up shear rate from 0 to 60 s-1 in 105 seconds (data recording for
every 15 seconds)
4. Ramping down from 60 to 0 s-1 in 90 seconds (data recording for every 15
seconds)
 Results
35
0.8 wp with opt. SP dosage
0.9 wp with opt. SP dosage
Same pastes were used
30

25
1.0 wp with opt. SP dosage
1.1 wp with opt. SP dosage to prepare concrete for
1.2 wp with opt. SP dosage
validation of the SP
Shear Stress (Pa)

20

15 dosage determination
10

5 Paste to aggregate ratio

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 was maintained constant
Shear rate (1/s) for the designs
w/p ratio Yield stress (Pa) Plastic viscosity (m Pa s)
0.8 0 533
0.9 1.75 313 Fresh and hardened SCC
1.0 1.18 244
1.1 1.82 194
properties were
1.2 2.19 146 studied…
 Concrete properties
W/P Powder Paste Aggregate Slump flow T500 (s)
ratio content content content (mm)
(Vol.) (kg/m3) (lit. /m3) (lit. /m3)

0.8 550 388 612 555 6.0

0.9 521 388 612 600 5.0
1.0 495 388 612 600 4.0
1.1 472 388 612 610 1.9
1.2 450 388 612 635 1.0