LABORATORY REPORT (weighting: 15%)

CIVN3001A: Construction Materials I

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

Group members Student No.

2447552

2441347

2509976

2201804

Plagiarism declaration Student No. Signature / Initials

I am a student registered for CIVN3001A in the current 2447552

year (see date below). I hereby declare the following:
▪ I am aware that plagiarism (the use of someone 2441347
else’s work without their permission and/or without
acknowledging the original source) is wrong.
▪ I confirm that the work submitted for assessment 2509976
for the above course is my own unaided work
except where I have explicitly indicated otherwise. 2201804
▪ I have followed the required conventions in
referencing the thoughts and ideas of others.
▪ I understand that the University of the
Witwatersrand may take disciplinary action against
me if there is a belief that this is not my own
unaided work or that I have failed to acknowledge
the source of the ideas or words in my writing.

Date: 14 Month: April Year: 2023

MARKS
Item (section of report) (x/20) Comment(s)

Aggregate assessment

Fresh and hardened concrete properties

(Prof. Mike Otieno)

 Table of Contents

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2
AGGREGATE ASSIGNMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
OBJECTIVES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
APARATUS AND EXPERIMENT PROCEDURE……………………………………………………………………………………..3
RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
DISCUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…7
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

FRESH AND HARDENED CONCRETE PROPERTIES………………………………………………………………………..9

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….9
OBJECTIVES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..9
APARATUS AND EXPERIMENT PROCEDURE…………………………………………………………………..………………..9
RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
DISCUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………15
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………….16

1 of 17
ABSTRACT

This experiment was broken up in 2 parts (series): namely the Aggregate assessment (series 1) and
concrete properties (series 2). In series 1 we were able to find that aggregates can be conveniently
divided into its parts by means of a sieve analysis. In addition we were able to find that aggregates that
are uniformly graded are preferred as they allow for good workability, are less likely to cause
segregation as well as bleeding. This is due to there being enough differently sized particles to fill voids
in a given volume.
In series 2 we were able to find that concrete properties play an extremely importance role in
determining the properties and characteristics of both fresh and hardened concrete. This in return had a
direct impact on the compressive strength of that concrete mix. We found that by using more coarse
aggregates compared in relation to fine aggregates, we were able to allow the mix to be more workable.

2 of 17
 AGGREGATE ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION
Concrete aggregate is an essential ingredient that is used in the making of cement, consisting of
approximately 70-80% of its volume, and allows for concrete to become dimensionally stable. Due to
them contributing to such a large percentage of the mix, their individual properties are of extreme
significance. They vary in size (small to large) and as well as texture (fine to coarse), and are such as
sand, gravel, and stones. In this experiment we initially observed 6 different aggregate types as shown
under results. They are namely Vein Quartz gravel, Rheebok, Rubber, Olifantsfontein, Dune sand and
Silica. These different types of aggregate samples were our main focus throughout this experiment, all
of which were derived from natural sources in accordance with SANS 1083-2013. A sieve analysis was
done by the lab technician, in accordance with SANS 1083-2013, to obtain the percentage of the
particles passing through each level of the sieve. Each of the aggregate samples was analyzed using the
same procedure, in order to maintain the validity of the results, and the data was recorded for each
allowing us to plot the figures 1 and 2. We used these results to find our FM
This data and the results broaden our understanding of the topic on aggregates and how they add value
to cement.

OBJECTIVES
1. Using the visual examination of the different aggregates to observe the differences in terms of
particle shape, surface texture and the types of aggregates. In addition to understanding the
characteristics and properties of the aggregates, enhancing our understanding of the topic. Use
this knowledge to gain a deeper appreciation of the topic and write a detailed report.
2. Using a sieve analysis to obtain a grading curve for the data and determine our fineness
modulus (FM) which would give us a clear idea of the distribution of the particles that are
present in each aggregate sample.

METHODOLOGY

APPARATUS
● Dish containing different aggregate samples available (already oven dried)
● Test sieves (apertures of the following- coarse aggregate: 6.7, 9.5, 13.2, 16.0, 19.0 and 26.5
mm; fine aggregate: 4750, 26360, 1180, 600, 300, 150, 75 um)
● Mechanical shaker
● A soft brush
● Weigh scale
● A stopwatch

3 of 17
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
1. We weigh the pre-dried samples of the different aggregate types and record the mass.
2. We disassemble (if need be) the stacked sieves and weigh the cleaned sieves individually (cleaned
using the brush to remove particles that were stuck in the holes).
3. After double checking our readings for the masses, we then stack the sieves on top of each other (the
pan goes to the bottom).
4. Pour the aggregate sample into the stacked sieves from above the top sieve. Place the cover on tightly
to ensure no aggregate particles “slip out” and compromise our results.
5. Place the stack in the mechanical shaker and tightly clamp it on. Make sure that it is secure.
6. Set the stopwatch on for 10 minutes and put the mechanical shaker on at the same instant.
7. Stop the shaker after the time and record the mass on each sieve. We then use this data and find how
much of the aggregate sample remained on each level/aperture by subtracting the mass of the sieve with
the aggregate minus the mass of the sieve alone.

RESULTS

Description of Aggregates
Vein Quartz Rheebok Rubber Olifantsfontein Dune Sand Silica
Gravel

Type of Coarse Coarse Fine Coarse Fine Fine

aggregate

Particle Irregular Angular Rounded Angular Rounded Rounde

shape d

Surface Crystalline Rough Rubbery Rough Rubbery/smooth Smooth

texture

Rheebok aggregate Olifantsfontein aggregate Vein Quartz Gravel Aggregates before sieve test
Table 1- Aggregate 1 (Group 1)
Aperture Mass retained on sieve (g) % of total Cumulative % Cumulative %
(mm) (total mass - 1505.8g) mass retained on sieve passing

4.75 460.9-460.7=0.2 0.013 0.013 99.987

2.36 397.2-396.2=1.0 0.066 0.079 99.921

1.18 413.5-387=26.5 1.761 1.84 98.16

0.6 1776.9-342.9=1434 95.320 97.16 2.84

0.3 335.3-295.2=40.1 2.666 99.826 0.174

0.15 458.8-456.8=2 0.133 99.959 0.041

0.075 258.1-257.9=0.2 0.013 99.972 0.028

pan 449.2-448.8=0.4 0.027

4 of 17
Table 2 - Aggregate 2 (Group 2)
Apertur Mass retained on sieve (g) (total % of total Cumulative % retained Cumulative %
e mass - 1507.9g) mass on sieve passing
(mm)

4.75 500.3-460.7=39.6 2.626 2.626 97.974

2.36 849-396.2=452.8 30.029 32.655 67.345

1.18 743.6-387=356.6 23.649 56.304 43.696

0.6 590.7-342.9=247.8 16.433 72.737 27.263

0.3 522-295.2=226.8 15.041 87.778 12.222

0.15 593-456.8=136.2 9.032 96.81 3.19

0.075 296.9-257.9=39 2.586 99.396 0.604

pan 457.9-448.8=9.1 0.603

Table 3 - Aggregate 3 (Group 3)

Apertur Mass retained on sieve (g) (total % of total Cumulative % Cumulative %
e mass - 1501.64g) mass retained on sieve passing
(mm)

19 505.8-505.6=0.2 0.013 0.013 99.987

16 495.6-495.5=0.1 0.01 0.023 99.977

13.2 443.7-443.6=0.1 0.01 0.033 99.967

9.5 585.1-447.3=137.8 9.177 9.21 90.79

6.7 1436.9-468.5=968.4 64.49 73.7 26.3

4.75 791.6-454.2=337.4 22.469 96.169 3.831

pan 506.44-448.8=57.64 3.838

Table 4 - Aggregate 4 (Group 4 & Group 6)

Aperture Mass retained on sieve (g) % of total Cumulative % Cumulative %
(mm) (total mass - 1460.9g) mass retained on sieve passing

19 505.6-505.6=0 0 0 100

16 502.1-495.5=6.6 0.452 0.452 99.548

13.2 508.5-443.6=64.9 4.442 4.894 95.106

9.5 1269.2-447.3=821.9 56.260 61.154 38.846

6.7 930.3-468.5=461.8 31.611 92.765 7.676

4.75 520.8-454.2=66.6 4.559 97.324 2.676

pan 487.9-448.8=39.1 2.676

5 of 17
Table 5 - Aggregate 5 (Group 5)
Aperture Mass retained on sieve (g) % of total Cumulative % Cumulative %
(mm) (total mass - 1500.7g) mass retained on sieve passing

19 1222.8-505.6=717.2 47.791 47.791 52.209

16 912.3-495.5=912.3 27.774 75.565 24.435

13.2 689.5-443.6=689.5 16.386 91.951 8.049

9.5 563-447.3=115.7 7.710 99.661 0.339

6.7 471.4-468.5=2.9 0.193 99.854 0.146

4.75 454.4-454.2=0.2 0.013 99.867 0.133

pan 450.8-448.8=2 0.133

Graphs showing grading curves of different aggregates for each group.

Figure 1: Grading curves for group 3, 4, 5 and 6

Figure 2 Grading curves for group 1 and 2

Table 6 (Fineness Modulus and coefficient of uniformity for each group’s aggregate)
Aggregate 1 Aggregate 2 Aggregate 3 Aggregate 4&6 Aggregate 5

F/M 3.99 4.48 - - -

Cu 1.4 6.3 1.6 1.6 1.4

6 of 17
DISCUSION
i) SANS 1083-2013 Table 1 - Fine aggregate for concrete indicates that for an aggregate to be
classified as a fine aggregate, at least 90% of the aggregate’s mass should pass through a
sieve with square apertures with a nominal diameter of 4.75mm or 5mm. The second
requirement was that less than 5% of the aggregate’s mass passes through a sieve with
apertures with a size of 150µm and F/M of 1.2 - 3.5 with a 0.2 deviation. Of all the
aggregates tested, two of the aggregates met these requirements.
Aggregate 1 (Table 1) had 99.987% of its mass pass through the first sieve with a nominal
aperture size of 4.75mm, and only 0.041% was able to pass through the sieve with an
aperture size of 150µm. This allows the aggregate to be classified as a fine aggregate
despite the F/M value of 3.99 which according to SANS code makes it a coarse aggregate
which it is not, the inflation of the F/M could be due to human/computational error. The
coefficient of uniformity (Cu) has a value of 1.4 this indicate that the aggregate is poorly
graded.
Aggregate 2 (Table 2) also meets the requirements to be classified as a fine aggregate,
97.974% of the total mass passes through the 4.75mm aperture size and only 3.19% passed
through the 150µm aperture sized sieve which is less than the minimum 5%. Thus, allowing
it to be classified as a fine aggregate despite the F/M of 4.48. The Cu of the aggregate is 6.3
which indicates that the aggregate is well graded.
With reference to SANS 1083-2013 the rest of the tested aggregates are classified as coarse
aggregates as for all remaining aggregates none of them passed through the 4.75mm
aperture. Using SANS 1083-2013 Table 2 — Coarse aggregate for concrete:
Aggregate 3 (Table 3) has a dominant aggregate size of 19mm as 99.987% of the aggregate
mass passed through the 19mm aperture. A Cu of 1.6 means the aggregate is poorly
graded. The aggregate tested by group 4 & 6 (Table 4) has a dominant aggregate size of
13.2mm as 100% of the aggregate mass passed through the 19mm aperture. A Cu of 1.6
indicates that the aggregate is uniformly graded.
Aggregate 5 (Table 5) has a dominant aggregate size of 26.5mm as only 52.21% of the
aggregate mass passed through the 19mm aperture. The aggregate mass had a Cu of 1.4
meaning the aggregate is uniformly graded.

ii) Aggregate characteristics have an influence on several properties pertaining to fresh

concrete, one of them being the workability of concrete. The workability is the ease of
mixing, transporting, placing, compacting, and finishing concrete to homogeneous
condition without segregation. Aggregates influence workability through the grading and
size of aggregates. An increase in aggregate size increases surface area and less water is
needed therefore workability is increased. Well graded aggregates have less voids in a given
volume which results in excess paste, making the mixture more cohesive meaning
segregation is less likely and workability is increased. From the tested aggregates the
aggregate with the best workability is Aggregate 2 as it was the highest coefficient of
uniformity (6.3) (Table 6)

Segregation is the separation of the constituents in a concrete mixture such that the distribution is no
longer uniform. It can happen where coarser materials separate out since they settle further along a
slope. This indicates that the size of aggregates influences segregation, as mentioned above with
workability when there are less voids in a given volume there's excess paste and therefore less
segregation. Therefore, smaller sized particles which can fill the voids reduces segregation, an example
of this is the aggregate tested by group 1 which had the smallest aggregate particle size.

Bleeding is a type of segregation where the mix water rises to the top of freshly placed concrete. This is
influenced by the fineness of the particles in the mix because they hydrate earlier. Coarse aggregates
would settle and displace the mix water and cause bleeding therefore the fineness of the aggregate mass
will influence bleeding. Aggregate 1 (Table 1) had the lowest F/M (3.99) and Aggregate 2 (Table 2) had
the highest cumulative % passing through the 0.075mm size apertures of 0.604%. Therefore, these
aggregates are least likely to cause bleeding.

7 of 17
CONCLUSION

Through the analysis of the different types of aggregate samples and the sieve analysis, we are able to
conclude that aggregate 1 and aggregate 2 are fine aggregates as both these aggregates meet
requirements set by the SANS code where at least 90% of the aggregate’s mass should pass through a
sieve with square apertures with a nominal diameter of 4.75mm. This was the most accurate indicator
for whether the aggregate was fine or coarse as the F/M showed otherwise, which would have been
inaccurate. Using the SANS code, it was found that Aggregates 3, 4, and 5 were all coarse aggregates
with their respective dominant stone size found using SANS 1083-2013 Table 2. We are also able to
conclude how influential aggregates are to properties of fresh concrete. Workability is mostly influenced
by the grading of the aggregate and voids in a given volume, which came down to the coefficient of
uniformity of which Aggregate 2 had the highest Cu meaning it was graded well and had the best
workability. The influence on segregation mostly came down to the particle size of the aggregate with
aggregate 1 being the least likely to cause segregation as it had the smallest particle size. Bleeding is a
type of segregation so the influence on bleeding was also the particle shape but more specifically the
fineness of the aggregate, it was concluded that aggregate 1 and 2 were least likely to cause bleeding
because these were the only two fine aggregates. Aggregate 2 had the highest cumulative % passing
through the 0.075mm size apertures of 0.604%.

REFERENCES
1. Otieno, M., 2023 CIVN3001: CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS I, University of the
Witwatersrand
2. SANS 1083-2013 - Aggregates from natural sources-Aggregates for concrete
3. The Constructor, 2021. Uniformity Coefficient(Cu) and Coefficient of Curvature(Cc) of Soil.
Available at: https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/uniformity-coefficient-cu-coefficient-
curvature-cc-soil/34505/ [Accessed 12 April 2023]
4. Vicky, 2019. Workability of Concrete & Factors Affecting It, Available at:
https://civilengineeringnotes.com/workability-of-
concrete/#:~:text=The%20bigger%20the%20size%20of,aggregates%20will%20give%20higher
%20workability. [Accessed 13 April 2023]

8 of 17
 FRESH AND HARDENED CONCRETE PROPERTIES

INTRODUCTION
The accurate use of materials during concrete mix design results in desired fresh and hardened concrete
properties such as workability of concrete and strength of hardened concrete. An appropriate concrete
mix design ought to prevent segregation of fresh concrete. To achieve the required strength in hardened
concrete, concrete needs to be durable and dimensionally stable [1]. The workability of concrete is
determined by how easy it can be mixed, placed and compacted. Therefore, the workability of concrete
is a crucial property of fresh concrete, and it needs to be considered when producing concrete. The
workability of concrete was measured using slump test [2]. The slump test measures how much
consistency is your fresh concrete and this test requires to be done according to SANS 5862 – 1.
From hardened concrete, strength can be tested according to SANS 5863 and using this test the
maximum stress that a hardened concrete can carry can be obtained. To measure the compressive
strength on concrete and to determine how concrete gains strength with time, cube crushing test should
be used. To obtain this compressive strength, the cube crushing test was used to measure stresses of
cubes with different mix proportions after 3, 7 and 28 days of casting [3]. Even though there are factors
such as water/cement ratio, coarse/fine aggregate ratio etc. which can affect the strength of the hardened
concrete [4]. As they were kept constant throughout the experiment so they can be neglected. So how
the strength of hardened concrete develops with age in various mixed proportions is what this report
focuses on.

OBJECTIVES
To investigate how:
• Different mixed proportions can affect the workability of concrete.
• Compressive strength develops in concrete as it ages and to find the relationship.

METHODOLOGY

Slump test (SANS 5862 – 1)

Apparatus
• Fresh concrete of mixed proportions (with or without admixture)
• Shovel
• A flat steel plate.
• A metric ruler or tape measure
• A steel tamping rod
• A scoop
• A standard slump mould.

Procedure
• Place a steel plate on a level ground.
• Place a slump mould on top of the plate with its narrow end facing up and stand on foot
pieces to prevent concrete running out.
• Fill the slump mould with 3 equal depth concrete and tamp through each layer 25 times
with rounded end of tamping rod.
• Fill the mould with the last layer of concrete and tamp it again and remove any excess mix.
Then use a sawing and rolling motion of tamping so that the mix is completely filled and
level.
• Slowly remove the mould up while concrete slump is left on the steel plate. Then place the
slump mould on its narrow end on the plate next to the concrete slump.
• Place the tamping rod on top of the slump mould and measure the distance between the top
of concrete slump and slump mould and round off the distance to 5 mm.
• If the true slump is not achieved repeat the slump test again with different mixed
proportions.

9 of 17
Cube compressive test (SANS 5863)

Apparatus
• 3 x 100 mm cubes for each mix to be measured on day 3, 7 and 28 of casting.
• Wipe
• Cube crushing machine

Procedure
• Remove anything on top of the machine.
• Remove the cube from the bath and wipe it.
• Place the cube at the center so that the load can act at the center.
• Close the door and turn on the machine.
• Apply load in a way that it acts 90° to the direction of casting.
• Apply the load at the rate of 150 kN per minute until it reaches the failure load.
• Record it failure load.

Figure 1: instruments used for slump and compressive strength testing

RESULTS

Table 1: Concrete Mix Proportions

Mix CEM I Fly ash Crusher sand 13.2 mm stone Water Admixture
label 52.5R (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (g)
(kg)

1 3.90 – 6.6 9.4 1.76 –

3 2.93 – 7.4 9.4 1.76 –

4 2.34 1.56 6.2 9.4 1.76 –

5 2.34 1.56 6.2 9.4 1.76 78

2 3.90 – 6.6 9.4 1.76 58 .5

6 3.90 – 6.6 9.4 1.76 58.5

10 of 17
Table 2: Concrete mix proportions in kg/m3 (and l/m3 for admixture)
Mix CEM I Fly ash Crusher 13.2 mm Water Admixture
label 52.5R (kg/m3) sand (kg/m3) stone (kg/m3) (l/m3)
(kg/m3) (kg/m3)

1 433 – 733 1044 196 –

3 326 – 822 1044 196 –

4 260 173 689 1044 196 –

5 260 173 689 1044 196 8.7

2 433 – 733 1044 196 6.5

6 433 – 733 1044 196 6.5

Table 3: Concrete slump test results

Mix No. Slump (mm) Slump type

1 15 True

2 0 Zero

3 17 True

4 18 True

5 20 True

6 145 Collapse slump

Table 4: Compressive test results

Mix Age Dimensions of Saturated Compressive
Failure Density(kg/m3
labe (days Specime specimen(mm surface dry strength(MPa
load(kN) )
l ) n No. ) mass(kg) )
1 100×100×100 2.57 488.6 2570 48.9
2 100×100×100 2.56 484.0 250 48.4
3
3 100×100×100 2.55 454.8 2550 45.5
Average 47.6
1 100×100×100 2.54 524.4 2540 52.4
2 100×100×100 2.58 533.6 2580 53.4
1 7
3 100×100×100 2.50 514.4 2500 51.4
Average 52.4
1 100×100×100 2.49 638.8 2490 63.9
2 100×100×100 2.51 620.2 2510 62.0
28
3 100×100×100 - -
Average 62.95
1 100×100×100 2.52 570.6 2520 57.1
2 100×100×100 2.59 552.8 2590 55.3
2 3
3 100×100×100 2.57 553.2 2570 55.3
Average 55.9

11 of 17
 1 100×100×100 2.53 597.4 2530 59.7
2 100×100×100 2.61 561.8 2610 56.2
7
3 100×100×100 2.57 581.2 2570 58.1
Average 58.0
1 100×100×100 2.63 671.8 2630 67.2
2 100×100×100 2.56 666.8 2560 66.7
28
3 100×100×100 - -
Average 67.0
1 100×100×100 2.58 348.2 2580 34.8
2 100×100×100 2.53 329.4 2530 32.9
3
3 100×100×100 2.48 332.8 2480 33.3
Average 33.7
1 100×100×100 2.51 385.2 2510 38.5
2 100×100×100 2.56 396.6 2560 39.7
3 7
3 100×100×100 2.55 401.4 2550 40.1
Average 39.4
1 100×100×100 2.51 466.0 2510 46.7
2 100×100×100 2.55 472.4 2550 47.2
28
3 100×100×100 - -
Average 47.0
1 100×100×100 2.47 245.4 2470 24.5
2 100×100×100 2.57 244.6 2570 24.5
3
3 100×100×100 2.41 256.8 2410 25.7
Average 24.9
1 100×100×100 2.54 332.0 2540 33.2
2 100×100×100 2.52 339.2 2520 33.9
4 7
3 100×100×100 2.51 310.6 2510 31.1
Average 32.7
1 100×100×100 2.51 464.4 2510 46.4
2 100×100×100 2.43 445.8 2430 44.6
28
3 100×100×100 - -
Average 45.5
1 100×100×100 2.50 279.0 2500 27.9
2 100×100×100 2.52 278.4 2520 27.8
3
3 100×100×100 2.49 279.2 2490 27.9
Average 27.9
1 100×100×100 2.49 344.8 2490 34.5
2 100×100×100 2.55 360.4 2550 36.0
5 7
3 100×100×100 2.52 360.6 2520 36.1
Average 35.5
1 100×100×100 2.49 480.2 2490 48.0
2 100×100×100 2.44 482.4 2440 48.2
28
3 100×100×100 - -
Average 48.1
1 100×100×100 2.52 537.8 2520 53.8
2 100×100×100 2.48 592.8 2480 59.3
3
6 3 100×100×100 2.60 523.4 2600 52.3
Average 55.1
7 1 100×100×100 2.42 647.4 2420 64.7

12 of 17
 2 100×100×100 2.59 595.0 2590 59.5
3 100×100×100 2.43 680.6 2430 68.1
Average 64.1
1 100×100×100 2.48 771.0 2480 77.1
2 100×100×100 2.52 771.6 2520 77.2
28
3 100×100×100 - -
Average 77.2

Figure 2: Compressive strength development curves for the mixes.

DISCUSSION
In this part of the experiment, 3 cubes of standard size (100 x 100mm) were used per testing age (at 3, 7
and 28 days), per mix (6 mixes were completed) were used to examine the effect of mixing proportions
on compressive strength. The water content and coarse aggregate content (stone) remained constant
through the entire laboratory assessment. The type of cement remained the same (Portland cement)
whilst the amount added into each mix varied. This had a direct impact on the water to cement ratio as
seen in table 2. In addition, we note that admixtures are used in mixes 2, 5 and 6. The admixtures used
were SikaTard (on mix 2), SikaRapid (on mix 5), and Sika Viscocrete (on mix 6). We as well note
that the amount of admixtures used is very little, this is because although admixtures do modify and
enhance the properties of concrete, they are relatively expensive and are not always readily available. If
there were several different types of aggregates used in a single block mix, then we would need to
consider the chemical properties and if they were chemically compatible with one another. Trial mixes
would have to be done as this would allow us to examine the properties of the hardened concrete before
mass production. We are allowed to zoom in on the flaws and weaknesses to alter the composition
of the mix to improve the concrete mix.
Through the analysis of table 2 we note that there is a greater amount of coarse aggregates used in each
of the 6 mixes when compared to fine aggregates, this is directly due to the fact that coarse aggregates
are more workable (hence needing less water). They form a better bond with the cement mix and allow
for the mix to be workable. This is because there is a smaller surface area and not as much friction
occurring between the particles. Through this we are able to accomplish a more fluid mixture and hence
we know that this would be more workable.

13 of 17
The next thing that we note is that mix 2 and 6 has the same proportions for all the “ingredients” of the
concrete, however the compressive strength as seen on figure 2 is not the same. Mix 6 has a higher
compressive strength than mix 2. This may be largely due to mix 2 using a more fine crusher sand mix
in comparison to mix 6. More importantly it is due to the type of admixture that was used.

Analysis of admixtures used:

In mix 2 we use SikaTard (as already mentioned). This admixture is a retarder and is used to basically
control the hydration process of the cement mix. In other words, it is used to increase the settling times
of the concrete. Hence the strength gain in mix 2 would take longer to reach the same strength as mix 6.
In mix 6, we use Sika viscocrete (as already mentioned). This admixture is a superplasticizer and allows
for the cement mix to be workable and still have a high compressive strength. This is in correlation with
our results and explains why our slump value is extremely high with a compressive strength that is
directly proportional (as high). This mix displays the effect of a (super)plasticizer on a specific mix. In
conclusion it would lead to a higher workability and higher strength. The reason that we don't use them
all the time is because they are extremely expensive if we need to say build a big project.
The results make sense and the above shows the effect of adding an admixture such as the Sika
viscocrete.
In mix 4, we note that we have the lowest compressive strength (as seen on figure 2). Why is this so?
This is because this mix has a very high water to cement ratio. If we look at table 2, we note that the
specific mix has a w/c ratio of 0.75. This is quite high and could be directly blamed for this mix having
a low compressive strength after the 28 days. However, if we look at mix 5, we note that it has the same
amount of w/c content, why is that so that mix 5 has the same mixing proportions but a slightly higher
compressive strength after 28 days?
This is as well due to the addition of the admixture. Mix 5 uses the admixture known as SikaRapid
(mentioned before). This is an accelerator and basically speeds up the hardening and strength gain of the
concrete.
How would the workability change through the mixes and why?
The workability is directly dependent on the water content of a mix and specific type of admixture that
is used.

Slump test
Mix 1: (Lower slump value) degree of workability.
The slump value, as seen for mix 1 was around 15mm. This indicates a low workability of the concrete
mix.

Mix 2: Very low degree of workability.

This would indicate that this mix was very hard to work with. Meaning that it had a low workability. It
would be difficult to use in a real-life application and hence is not preferred. The mix was stiff as
represented by the 0-slump value. Due to the mixture being too stiff it could lead to problems such as
cracking when the concrete hardened and would not allow us to use it for the designed purpose.
However, despite this, the mix had the fastest early age strength gain and had the second highest
compressive strength out of the 6 mixes at hand. This is due to the addition of the admixture as
previously mentioned.

Mix 3: Very low degree of workability.

Mix 4: Very low degree of workability.

Mix 5: Very low degree of workability.

Mix 6: High degree of workability.

If we analyze the slump value of mix 6, we notice that it has the highest slump value (145mm) out of all
the mixes.

14 of 17
This would allow the mixture to be extremely workable and allow us to mould the mix into any
desirable shape. In some instances, this is preferred, however can lead to the hardened concrete having a
very low strength and failing easily.

Compressive strength
Mix 1:
This mix had an average strength of 46.7MPa on day 3, 52.4MPa on day 7 and 63MPa after 28 days.
This mix had similar mix quantities to mix 2 and mix 6 without the inclusion of an admixture which
would explain why the mix had a lower compressive strength and took longer to develop its strength
than mix 2 and 6. This mix also had pure Portland with no-fly ash meaning it develops.
Mix 2:
This mix had an average strength of 55.9MPa on day 3, 58MPa on day 7 and 67MPa after 28 days. The
increase in strength is due to the admixture. This mix had the exact same mix quantities as mix 6, but
mix 6 had a higher average strength which implies that mix 2 and 6 had different types of admixtures.
Mix 2’s admixture was Sikatard which is a hydration controlling admixture which slowed down the
setting time of mix 2, hence why the average strengths of mix 2 are lower than those of mix 6 while
having the same mix quantities.

Mix 3:
This mix had an average strength of 33.7MPa on day 3, 39.4MPa on day 7 and 47MPa after 28 days.
This mix had no admixtures and was pure Portland cement which could explain why its strength
development was faster than that of Mix 4 which had a mix of Portland cement and fly ash which
increased workability and slowed down strength development.

Mix 4;
This mix had an average strength of 24.9MPa on day 3, 32.7MPa on day 7 and 45.5MPa after 28 days.
This mix is very similar to mix 5 with only the difference being the inclusion of an admixture
(SikaRapid) in mix 5. Mix 4 seems to have a slightly lower average strength than mix 5 but this is due
to the addition of an admixture in mix 5 reducing the water content and accelerating the concrete
setting.

Mix 5:
This mix had an average strength of 27.9MPa on day 3, 35.5MPa on day 7 and 48.1MPa after 28 days.
This mix (as mentioned above) is most similar to mix 4. The average strength is higher than that of mix
4 which can be attributed to the addition of an admixture (SikaRapid), which allowed mix 5 to develop a
higher strength after the same amount of time. The admixture accelerated the setting time, reduced the
w/c ratio and increased strength.

Mix 6:
As mentioned above mix 6 had the exact same mix quantities as mix 2 but different strength results.
This mix had an average strength of 55.1MPa on day 3, 64.1MPa on day 7 and 77.2MPa after 28 days.
Due to the fact the mix quantities are the same the implication is that the admixtures are different where
mix 2 had SikaTard which acted as a retarder and slightly slowed down the setting of the concrete. Mix
6 had SikaViscocrete added which is a water reducing admixture (plasticizer). The admixture reduces
water in concrete meaning the strength increases and mix 6 has a faster setting time than that of mix 2 so
it therefore has higher average strengths compared to mix 2. The plasticizer also increases workability
of the concrete which would explain the slump of mix 6 being high and collapsing.

CONCLUSION
● The slump test allows for the workability of fresh concrete to be assessed with mix quantities
and admixtures having an effect on the slump such as plasticizers increasing slump without
reducing water content.
● The strength of concrete increases as curing age increases. The setting time of the concrete can
be modified by adding admixtures to the mix. The strength and setting time is also reliant on the
mix quantities excluding admixtures.

15 of 17
 ● The admixture SikaRapid accelerated the setting time of the concrete as seen when comparing
mix 4 and mix 5 which had the same quantities except mix 5 had SikaRapid added and had
higher average strength.
● The admixture SikaTard was a retarder and slowed down the setting of mix 2 which was
compared to mix 6 as both had the same exact mix quantities except for the type of admixtures.
● The admixture added to mix 6 (SikaVisocrete) was a plasticizer and water reducing admixture
which allowed for increased workability without w/c reduction in mix 6 which is why it had a
high slump (Table 3).
● The effect of fly ash can be seen in the comparisons of mix 3 and 4 where mix 4 which had fly
ash added had a higher workability but lower setting time, which is why the average strengths
were lower than those of mix 3.

References
1. Arslan, M,Kara, B, İ, (2020). Effects of plasticizer and antifreeze on concrete at elevated
temperatures and different cooling regimes. [online] Available at:
https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0718-
915X2020000300347&script=sci_arttext#:~:text=Plasticizers%20are%20admixtures%20that%
20allow,934%2D2%2C%202011). [Accessed 13 April 2023]
2. Cement.org. (2019). Guide to Durable Concrete. [online] Available at:
https://www.cement.org/learn/concrete-technology/durability/guide-to-durable-concrete
[Accessed 31 Oct. 2019].
3. Madusha, (2017). Difference Between Plasticizer and Superplasticizer[online] Available at:
https://pediaa.com/difference-between-plasticizer-and-superplasticizer/ [Accessed 13 April
2023]
4. www.forconstructionpros.com. (n.d.). StackPath. [online] Available at:
https://www.forconstructionpros.com/concrete/article/21403532/sakrete-how-to-determine-
concrete-slump-testing-slump-step-by-
step#:~:text=In%20technical%20terms%2C%20slump%20is [Accessed 10 Apr. 2023].
5. Scribd. (n.d.). Sans 5863 | PDF. [online] Available at:
https://www.scribd.com/document/357100671/SANS-5863 [Accessed 10 Apr. 2023].
6. The Constructor. (2013). Factors Affecting Strength of Concrete. [online] Available at:
https://theconstructor.org/concrete/factors-affecting-strength-of-
concrete/6220/#:~:text=Concrete%20strength%20is%20affected%20by%20many%20factors%2
C%20such.

16 of 17