Determination of optimum mixture design method for self-compacting concrete: Validation of method with experimental results

Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Determination of optimum mixture design method for self-compacting concrete: Validation of method with experimental results Deepankar Kumar Ashish a,b,⇑, Surender Kumar Verma a a b

Civil Engineering Department, Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Chandigarh, India Civil Engineering Department, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, Maharaja Agrasen University, Baddi, India

h i g h l i g h t s

g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t


A mixture design method for SCC is

proposed to achieve targeted early age strength (up to 120 MPa).
The methodology is based on three approaches that is particle packing, efficiency and compressive strength.
Using the proposed method voids between aggregates can be filled with exact amount of fine particles.
The early age strength was achieved using water-cementitious material ratio instead of water-cement ratio.
Trial and error can be avoided using this method which will decrease time and production process.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 5 January 2019 Received in revised form 15 April 2019 Accepted 6 May 2019 Available online 22 May 2019 Keywords: Self-compacting concrete Mix design Packing factor Strength efficiency factor Supplementary cementitious material Compressive strength

Desired strength

Determine the particle packing

Determine the cementitious materials content

Determine the efficiency factor for SCMs

Determine the watercementitious material ratio

Determine the aggregate content

Determine the SCM content

Determine the water content

Determine the chemical admixture dosage

Adjustment of water content in SCC

Adjustment of aggregate moisture

Determine the final mixture composition

Trail batch adjustment

Self-compacting concrete

a b s t r a c t This paper describes the mixture design method for self-compacting concrete (SCC) while making use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) for the design of concrete mixture to assess early age strength and self-compactability. The proposed procedure ‘‘strength-based mixture design method” also makes use of packing theory to achieve targeted strength, enhanced durability, and minimum paste volume. The factors that primarily influence the strength and durability of concrete are the amount of SCM, cement, and water. Depending on data from past studies, a relationship between compressive strength and the water-cementitious material ratio is introduced in the proposed mixture design method to achieve targeted early age strength. The optimal percentage of SCM for use in concrete was assessed using strength efficiency method. The proposed mixture design method shows that SCC made with an optimal percentage of metakaolin as SCM at W/CM of 0.38, 0.26, and 0.17 achieved the expected strengths of 60, 90, and 120 MPa, respectively, after 28 days of standard curing. Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abbreviations: CPM, Compressible packing method; GGBS, Ground granulated blast furnace slag; HRWR, High range water reducer; k, Efficiency factor/cementing efficiency; NS, Natural sand; PCE, Polycarboxylate ether; PF, Packing factor; PSD, Particle size distribution; SCC, Self-compacting concrete; SCMs, Supplementary cementitious materials; SP, Superplasticizer; VMA, Viscosity modifying agent; VSI, Visual stability index; W/CM, Water/cementitious material ratio; WFS, Waste foundry sand. ⇑ Corresponding author at: Civil Engineering Department, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, Maharaja Agrasen University, Atal Shiksha Kunj, Kalujhanda, Barotiwala, Baddi, Distt. Solan, HP 174103, India. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (D.K. Ashish). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.034 0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the field of concrete technology, SCC is an innovation, concrete that is leveled and compacted under its self-weight [1]. A proper concrete mixture design results in environment-friendly and economically feasible good quality concrete with desired properties [2]. It is generally considered that selection of the type of ingredients, and its quantity can be tailored to meet specifications of concrete mixture design [3], the resulting mixture design should satisfy the mechanical properties as well as fresh properties. The

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

balance between fresh, mechanical, and durability properties is an important and time-consuming task to obtain the desired mixture design [4]. Various mixture design methods of SCC has been studied which comprise six different approaches that include empirical, statistical and factorial, strength, rheology, particle packing, and Eco-SCC mixture design methods. The empirical method is a simple but time-consuming method which requires several trial mixtures. The statistical and factorial approach determines the requisite range of controlling parameters and their effects on the properties of SCC is obtained, but this method also requires a variable number of batches. Methods based on strength uses the pozzolanic material as an additive to enhance SCC properties. This method reduces trial mixtures but needs adjustments in the quantity of materials. Rheology based model minimizes laboratory work while achieving workability; the paste is altered to avoid segregation. Particle packing model minimizes the amount of binders; this model is based on a relationship between aggregates and pastes with varying amount of binders to avoid segregation. In Eco-SCC cement is generally replaced by less reactive material and hence due to high water to powder ratio, mechanical and durability properties are difficult to attain [5]. From these studies and previous experiences, it is known that particle packing plays a vital role in shaping the properties of SCC. To achieve strength property of concrete, particle packing is combined with strength model for SCC mixture design. 2. Literature review 2.1. Particle packing theory Nowadays, many researchers from various fields such as metallurgy, ceramics, and concrete technology are attracted towards the theory of particle packing. The theory is based on the concept of minimization of voids. In the field of concrete technology, particle packing is used to attain a dense structure in concrete. It is a virtual stage where concrete is isolated and fully packed. The workability, strength and durability properties of concrete are results of the interaction between aggregates, cementitious materials, and superplasticizers. The size, shape, and type of parent rock of aggregate play a vital role in achieving maximum packing density. The packing characteristics of aggregate and its influence on the packing of the mixture of aggregates provide the basis for the method. To evaluate packing density, the proper proportion of fine and coarse aggregates mixture is necessary. In this process, voids between coarse aggregates are filled by fine aggregates increases packing density with minimized voids. Thereafter, reducing cementitious materials, and water content. 2.1.1. Review of earlier particle packing based mixture design methods First mixture design method was developed by Okamura and Ozawa [6] in 1995 to attain self-compactability in concrete by keeping water-cement or powder ratio variable with fixed fine and coarse aggregates contents. Later this model was improved by Edamatsu et al. [7] in 2003, by fixing water to powder ratio, superplasticizer (SP) dosage, and fine aggregate ratio. The methodology has been modified by various researchers with different models. In the year 1996, a method was developed based on blocking criteria by Petersson et al. [8] in which concrete was considered as a solid aggregate phase in liquid paste phase, voids between aggregates were filled by paste formed of powder, water, and chemical admixture providing lubricating coat between particles. A simple method was suggested by Su et al. [9] in 2001 based on packing factor in which quantity of fine aggregates increased, but total content of aggregates including coarse aggregates decreased that lead to increased passing ability. Su and Miao [10] in 2003 pre-

665

pared a paste with fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) to fill voids between aggregates and achieved required strength and workability. Brouwers and Radix [11] in 2005 suggested the lowest powder contents in their study with the combinations of three types of sand, gravel, superplasticizer, and slag blended cement. The viscosity of the slurry was analyzed minimum with the constant water content that resulted in tighter packing. In 2005, Hwang and Tsai [12] used the densified mixture design algorithm (DMDA) approach in which fly ash was used as a fine powder to fill voids between the aggregates. Hwang and Hung [12] in 2005 proposed a mixture design method for lightweight concrete in conformity with ACI 318 [13] specification which combines aggregate packing with lubrication technique. Sedran and Larrard [14] in 1999, presented the compressible packing model to determine the virtual packing density for solid particles of varying sizes. In 2017, Chand et al. [15] used the compressible packing method (CPM) developed by Larrard [16] to determine the packing density of recycled aggregate SCC without and with steel fibers. Sebaibi et al. [17] determined the packing factor in 2013 using a compressible packing model, the Chinese method and EN 206-1 [18] standard to establish the mixture design of concrete. Chen et al. [19] used the densified mixture design algorithm in 2013 to analyze the behavior of concrete made with fly ash and slag with distinct water-cementitious material ratios and cement paste contents. Kandasan and Razak [20] in 2014 prepared mixture design with the use of palm oil clinker aggregate as a binder were prepared to satisfy the concrete properties such as workability, density, Ultrasonic pulse velocity, and compressive strength properties. In another approach, Wang et al. [21] in 2014 refined particle packing approach, decreased binder content though sustaining quality and performance of concrete. The literature survey reveals that there is no standard method available to calculate the combined packing factor for both fine and coarse aggregate. The past studies generally show the packing factor for individual aggregates. In the proposed study, an effort is made to calculate the combined packing factor for aggregate mixture so that voids between aggregates can be filled efficiently to achieve dense concrete. 2.2. Strength-based design method There are number of classical mixture design approaches for SCC such as empirical, statistical and factorial, strength, rheology, particle packing, and Eco-SCC mixture design methods. However, no standard procedure is suggested in these methods to attain desired strength as is the case with conventional concrete. These methods give general standards and guidelines on the amount of concrete constituents and are established by trial mixtures to correct the deviation in properties of fresh and hardened concrete. While designing SCC main focus is on passing ability, segregation resistance and filling ability but fresh and hardened properties of concrete are generally not considered. The strength-based design method gives clear standards and specifications to determine the required strengths with variable mixture designs. Moreover, trial mixtures are minimized with the use of compressive strength methods. 2.2.1. Review of earlier strength based mixture design methods In 2009, Alyamaç and Ince [22] suggested an approach based on three laws regarding the compressive strength that is Abrams law [23], Lyse’s law [24], and Molinari’s law [25] with different watercement or powder ratios. A monogram prepared with this approach combined properties of fresh SCC and properties of hardened concrete. Wu et al. [26] proposed a mixture proportion for self-compacting lightweight concrete and its workability in 2009. Two mixture proportions were designed for self-compacting

666

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

lightweight concrete with an overall calculation method, having fixed aggregate content. In 2010, Kheder and Al Jadiri [1] developed a mixture design method using ACI 211.1 [27] and EFNARC [28] methods with some modifications. ACI 211.1 [27] method is used for conventional concrete whereas EFNARC [28] is for SCC. The Strength ranged from 15 to 75 MPa with water-cement ratios varying from 0.80 to 0.29 respectively. Dinakar and co-workers [29–31] suggested different design methods using efficiency concept for different percentages of SCMs such as fly ash, GGBS, and metakaolin in the year 2012, 2013, and 2014 respectively. The design method consisted of five phases. On the basis of required strength, powder contents were fixed in the first phase. The second phase involved in fixing the percentage of SCM content and calculating efficiency factor with the proposed equation, then, the water content is obtained in the third phase. As per DIN 1045 [32] standards, aggregate contents were determined using combined aggregate grading in the fourth phase. As per EFNARC [33], superplasticizer dosage was adjusted for highly flowable SCC after which the mixture proportion was adjusted in later steps. The method was used for mixture design of SCC and achieved strengths ranging from 30 to 120 MPa for different SCMs. 3. Research significance The past mixture design methods examined fresh and hardened properties of concrete but one of their limitations is that gradation of fine, and coarse aggregates and binder paste was not considered, due to which maximum particle density could not be achieved. Literature survey shows that no universal model caters the desired requirement of both early age strength and workability. The present study aims to establish a mixture design method for SCC based on the strength theory that gives clear standards and specifications in addition to particle packing method to achieve desired strength; enhanced durability and minimum paste with the tighter packing of aggregates. 4. Materials 4.1. Aggregates Waste foundry sand and good quality river sand not exceeding size 4.75 mm were used as fine aggregate. To attain dense concrete, coarse aggregate varying 4.75 mm to 12.5 mm size were taken. The particle size distribution (PSD) was determined by sieving WFS,

natural sand, and coarse aggregate as shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, the coarse aggregate having size 12.5 mm has specific gravity 2.66 and fine aggregates having size 4.75 mm has specific gravity 2.65. Table 1 indicates the physical characteristics of WFS, fine and coarse aggregates and Table 2 lists the chemical properties of WFS and natural sand. 4.2. Cementitious materials As per IS: 12269 [34] ordinary Portland cement of 53 grade was used as key cementitious materials with metakaolin as SCM satisfying the requirements according to ASTM C618 [35]. Chemical and physical properties of cement and metakaolin are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. 4.3. Admixtures and water A high range water reducer (HRWR) superplasticizer was used in this study which is based on polycarboxylate ether (PCE) with solid content not less than 40%; water reduction was determined 40% with the use of admixtures. The viscosity modifying agent (VMA) is also used in the present investigation. The physical and chemical properties of admixtures are depicted in Table 4. The present study uses ordinary tap water for mixing.

5. Determination of particle packing 5.1. Sample for aggregates The different proportions of fine and coarse aggregates with varying combinations were prepared to determine particle packing. A range of proportions varying from 0.40 to 0.60 was adopted for fine to total aggregate as suggested by Brouwers and Radix [11]. In the sample calculations presented here waste foundry sand (WFS) was substituted by 15% in place of natural sand (NS). It is worth mentioning that variation in any of the ingredients can affect the packing density as shown in Table 5. Waste foundry sand, natural sand, and coarse aggregate content were calculated from the Eqs. (1)–(3), respectively, for particle packing.

SWFS ¼ AWFS  AFA  SGWFS  q:

ð1Þ

SNS ¼ ANS  AFA  SGNS  q:

ð2Þ

SCA ¼ ACA  SGCA  q;

ð3Þ

where SWFS , SNS , and SCA stands for waste foundry sand, natural sand and coarse aggregate content for packing factor determination (kg/m3), respectively; AWFS , ANS , ANS , and ACA stands for ratio of waste foundry sand to fine aggregate, ratio of natural sand to fine aggregate, ratio of fine aggregate to total aggregate and ratio of coarse aggregate to total aggregate by weight, respectively; SGWFS , SGNS , and SGCA stands for specific gravity of waste foundry sand, natural sand, and coarse aggregate content, respectively;q stands for density of water.

Table 1 Physical properties of WFS, natural sand, and coarse aggregate.

Fig. 1. PSD of WFS, natural sand, and coarse aggregate.

Physical properties

WFS

Natural sand

Coarse aggregate

Specific gravity Free moisture content (%) Water absorption (%) Bulk density (kg/m3)

2.64 0.20 0.75 1820

2.65 0.30 1.85 1720

2.66 0.75 0.80 1680

667

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678 Table 2 Chemical properties of cement, metakaolin, WFS, and natural sand. Oxides

CaO SiO2 Al2O3 MgO Fe2O3 K2O SrO P2O5 TiO2 MoO3 BaO

Chemical analysis (wt. %) Cement

Metakaolin

WFS

Natural sand

73.74 13.13 7.36 3.20 – 1.81 0.08 – – – –

– 52.81 41.81 – 0.46 – – 2.30 1.07 0.04 –

6.29 59.30 23.82 – 1.88 4.97 – – – 0.04 0.26

– 71.35 17.35 1.47 1.12 4.33 – – 0.10 – –

Table 3 Physical properties of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and metakaolin. Property

OPC

Metakaolin

Blain (m2/kg) Specific gravity Loss on ignition (%)

360 3.15 1.60

14,000 2.50 0.89

Table 4 The physical and chemical properties of admixtures.

Step 4: The mixture prepared in step 2 is poured into the tank slowly without any compaction. Sieve F of 75 mm is placed just above the bottom of the tank at level E–E to allow water to enter the tank and hold aggregates at E–E. Step 5: Fill the measuring jar with water above 250 ml (V A ) to be poured to tube A. Water was poured slowly till water level reaches the top surface of aggregate, i.e., level J–J, swiftly water was stopped by closing valve C. 5.3. Calculation of the packing factor

Property

Superplasticizer

Aspect Relative Density at 25 °C pH at 25 °C Cl

Light brown liquid Colourless free flowing liquid 1.01 ± 0.01 1.01 ± 0.01 6 6 <0.2% <0.2%

Viscosity modifying agent

5.2. Test procedure Step 1: In the preparation of mixture design WFS, natural sand, and coarse aggregates were used. The size of WFS and natural sand were below 4.75 mm and size of coarse aggregate ranging from 4.75 to 12.5 mm was taken. Aggregates were soaked in water at room temperature for 24 h. Step 2: Aggregates were later dried until it reaches saturated surface-dry condition. Saturated state prevents the ingress of water into the aggregate while determining particle packing, to prevent loss of fluid due to water absorption. Afterward, aggregates were mixed till a homogeneous mixture is prepared. Step 3: The apparatus in Fig. 2 shows, clean water at room temperature was poured slowly from tube A, meanwhile, valve C and tap D were left open. Once water from tap D starts flowing, stop pouring water from tube A, after that tap D is closed. Now water at level E–E is maintained.

The packing factor for the concrete mixture was obtained from the Eqs. (4)–(7). Packing factor of the aggregate mixture is:

V D ¼ V A  ðV B þ V C Þ:

ð4Þ

Voids ratio ¼ V D =V J :

ð5Þ

Particle packing ðPP Þ ¼ 1  voids ratio:

ð6Þ

Packing factor ðPFÞ ¼ 1=PP:

ð7Þ

V A is total measured water in measuring jar. V B is remaining measured water left after pouring in tube A. V C is water in measuring tube A.V D is water filled in pores of the aggregate mixture. V J is the volume of jar B from E–E to J–J level. Hence, water filled in pores of the aggregate mixture is the actual volume of voids in aggregate. Fig. 3 reveals the packing factor of all fine/total aggregate mixture. The minimum packing factor was attained with fine/total aggregate ratios at 0.50 and 0.55 for WFS-00 and WFS-15, respectively. The lowest packing factor was observed for aggregate mixtures without WFS, i.e., WFS-00 as depicted in the figure, at 0.50 fine/total aggregate mixture packing factor was 1.060 that was lowest relative to other fine/total aggregate mixtures considered for the study. The figure reveals that the packing factor increased for mixtures having a fine/total aggregate ratio lower as well as

Table 5 Proportions of WFS, natural sand, and coarse aggregate for particle packing. Fine/total aggregate ratio

Mix code

0.40

WFS-00 WFS-15 WFS-00 WFS-15 WFS-00 WFS-15 WFS-00 WFS-15 WFS-00 WFS-15

0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

Fine aggregates WFS

Natural sand

0.000 0.060 0.000 0.068 0.000 0.075 0.000 0.083 0.000 0.090

0.400 0.340 0.450 0.382 0.500 0.425 0.550 0.467 0.600 0.510

Coarse aggregate

Packing factor

0.600 0.600 0.550 0.550 0.500 0.500 0.450 0.450 0.400 0.400

1.103 1.094 1.086 1.089 1.060 1.075 1.061 1.056 1.078 1.077

668

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

A B J

J H

I

D E

E F G

C

Fig. 2. Determination of particle packing apparatus.

aggregate ratio packing factor was 1.056 that was lowest relative to other fine/the aggregate mixtures considered for the present study. The figure reveals that the packing factor increased for mixtures having a fine/total aggregate ratio lower as well as higher than 0.55. For mixtures having a fine/total aggregate ratio lower than 0.55 such as for 0.40, 0.45, and 0.50, packing factor was 1.094, 1.089, and 1.075, respectively. For mixtures having the fine/total aggregate ratio higher than 0.55 such as 0.60, packing density was 1.077. In both cases, the increase in packing factor was observed, the reasons for this were the same as aggregates without WFS. 6. Effect of water-cementitious material ratio on compressive strength of concrete

Fig. 3. Packing factor of WFS, natural sand, and coarse aggregate mixture.

higher than 0.50. For mixtures having a fine/total aggregate ratio lower than 0.50 such as for 0.40 and 0.45, packing factor was 1.103 and 1.086, respectively. For mixtures having a fine/total aggregate ratio higher than 0.50 such as 0.55 and 0.60, packing density was 1.061 and 1.078, respectively. In both the cases increase in packing factor was observed, but due to different reasons, mixtures having a fine/total aggregate ratio lower than 0.50 has high packing factor due to lower fine aggregate content in the aggregate mixture that resulted in higher voids between aggregates. In the second case, mixtures having a fine/total aggregate ratio higher than 0.50, increase in packing factor was due to the increased surface area of fine particles with an increase in the quantity of fine aggregate. The lowest packing factor was observed for aggregate mixtures with WFS, i.e. WFS-15 as depicted in the figure, at 0.55 fine/total

The compressive strength of concrete is determined using a proportion of the water-cementitious material under certain curing conditions. At same water-cementitious material ratio, different materials such as cement, aggregates, and other cementitious materials are observed to yield different strengths, so it becomes essential to develop a relationship among water-cementitious material ratio and strength for the materials used. When using SCMs such as fly ash, metakaolin, silica fume, rice husk ash, GGBS, etc. in concrete, a water-cement ratio in addition to pozzolanic material by weight must be considered. For calculating W=CM ratio of the mixture containing Portland cement and SCM, the total weight of cementitious materials remains the same, i.e., W=CM ¼ W=C. A regression analysis of data collected from different sources [12,15,17,20,22,29–31,36–69] was performed as depicted in Fig. 4; it does not include severe conditions of exposure. Abram’s type relation fitted best for compressive strength of concrete (R2 ¼ 0:908).

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678 0

fc ¼

0

fc ¼

A ; Bx

ð8Þ

356:567 23:517ðW=CMÞ

;

ð9Þ

0

where f c is the 28 days compressive strength (MPa) of concrete; A and B are experimental parameters for a given age, material, and curing conditions; x is water/cementitious material ðW=CM Þ ratio by mass.

7. Efficiency factor of metakaolin The efficiency factor generally denoted by factor k can be defined as a portion of cement that can be replaced by SCM for measuring performance to an anticipated compressive strength. Compressive strength creates a basis for the estimation of k factor as it is a simple and consistent method that can be used to assess the durability and other properties of concrete [70]. The efficiency factor k if equals to 1, shows the compressive strength of SCM equivalent to ordinary Portland cement. Value of k less than 1 depicts the strength of SCM less than ordinary Portland cement and value of k more than 1 indicates increased strength of SCM relative to ordinary Portland cement [31]. In few studies, highefficiency factors were achieved by metakaolin at various replacement percentages relative to ordinary Portland cement that shows these materials can be used at various replacements of cement to achieve high strength concrete [31,66,70]. Smith [71] suggested that amount of SCM such as metakaolin, silica fume, fly ash and GGBS multiplied by the value of efficiency factor ðkÞ added to cement content ðC Þ gives equivalent cement content   W , ðC t Þ to calculate water ðW Þ to cementing material ratio CþkSCM

669

8. Proposed mixture design method for SCC The proposed SCC mixture design method develops a high strength SCC using strength-based and particle packing concept. The main consideration is to minimize the voids of aggregates by filling paste of cementitious materials to achieve fully packed concrete for attaining fresh and hardened properties of concrete. To obtain a desired concrete voids need to be filled by pastes. As per ASTM C29 [72] voids in loose aggregates are about 42–48%. Workability of SCC depends upon the content of aggregates, the more the aggregates less will be paste as well as fluidity. SCC with high strength, flowability, and segregation resistance can be obtained by selecting certified materials such as fine and coarse aggregates, cementitious materials, and admixture with the required quantity of water to be mixed. The required compressive strength of SCC determines the quantity of materials. In the same way, cementitious materials can be assessed based upon durability requirements. High volume replacements of cement with different mineral additives/SCM up to 70–80% for low strength SCC and 30–40% for high strength SCC can be used [31]. The efficiency of SCM such as metakaolin is determined at various replacement levels with the efficiency concept discussed earlier based upon an expected compressive strength. There should be specific adjustments between the materials such as fine and coarse aggregate, HRWR, VMA, and water to achieve optimum mixture with required fresh and hardened properties of concrete. The procedure for mixture design is outlined in Fig. 5, and the method is summarized below: Step 1: Determination of cementitious materials content The selection of concrete proportions for required average compressive strength is determined as per ACI 318-05 [13] when data to establish standard deviation is not available. The average com 0   0 pressive strength f cr is obtained from specified strength f c

required water content for cementitious materials.

and deviation caused due to uncertain conditions while operating and producing concrete.

  W W 1 ¼ : ðW=C t Þs ¼ C þ kSCM C 1 þ ðkSCM=C Þ

f cr ¼ 1:10f c þ 4:826:

0

ð10Þ

The value of k determined by Ashish and Verma [66] is used in this study with the particle packing concept to propose a new mixture design method for SCC. In this study, metakaolin is used as SCM in concrete to achieve 120 MPa strength in SCC. Moreover, natural sand is replaced by 15% with WFS.

ð11Þ

The SCC, cementitious materials should not be less than the specified and minimum amount of cement must not be less than 290 kg/m3 [17]. While producing high strength SCC, there is a rise in powder content but to avoid drying shrinkage, increase in cement content should be regulated. The compressive strength of SCC is expected to produce 0.11 to 0.15 MPa/kg of cementitious materials as per laboratory test results. The weight of cementitious materials can be determined with the use of Eq. (12)

W CM ¼

Fig. 4. Water-cementitious material ratio on compressive strength of concrete.

0

fc ; CC

ð12Þ

where W CM is the content of the cementitious materials (kg/m3), f c is the specified compressive strength of concrete at 28 days of curing (MPa), C C is the compressive strength obtained from per kg of cementitious materials. Step 2: Determination of SCM content Ashish and Verma [66] obtained the relation between the compressive strength for various percentage replacements of cement with metakaolin and the same is presented in Fig. 6. The study indicates that at replacement percentage of 18.5% for the mix proportion studied; the maximum compressive strength was seen to be 89.4 MPa at curing age of 28 days. The replacement percentages of metakaolin ranging from 0 to 30% for the mixture design of concretes is shown in Fig. 6. The mixture design methodology presents an efficiency curve ranging from 5 to 30% as depicted in Fig. 7. It is seen that the k values ranged from 1.23 to 1.96 for 28 days of curing at different replacement levels of metakaolin varying from 5 to 30%. As per the requirement of mixture design, the percentage

670

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

Desired strength

Set the parameters

Material selection and physical characterization tests

Determine the aggregate substitution ratio

Determine the cementitious materials content

Determine the watercementitious material ratio

Fix the SCMs replacement percentage

Determine the particle packing

Determine the efficiency factor for SCMs

Determine the cement and SCM content

Determine the water content

Determine the aggregate content

Determine the chemical admixture dosage

Adjustment of water content in SCC

Determine the final mixture composition Firstly, adjust W/CM ratio

Adjust chemical admixture dosage

Conduct trails to meet self-compactability

No

Secondly, adjust cementitious materials content

Is self-compactability fulfilled? Yes

Conduct trails to test strength properties

Is expected compressive strength fulfilled?

No

Yes

Final design mixture proportions

Fig. 5. Flow chart for the proposed mixture design method.

671

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

originally proposed ‘k’ value or efficiency factor in 1967 such that weight ‘W SCM ’ for SCM is similar to weight ‘kW SCM ’ of cement in reference to strength development. The efficiency factor k was investigated with effective water to the cementitious material ratio (Eq. (15)) as suggested by Smith model [71], this model was based on Abrams law [23].

ðW=CÞS ¼

WW : W C þ kW SCM

ð15Þ

In the above equation, W W is the weight of water (kg/m3). On the basis of desired compressive strength water to the cementitious material ratio of conventional concretes ðW=CÞs is taken using the standard water-cementitious material ratio curves shown in Fig. 4. Step 5: Determination of fine and coarse aggregate contents

Packing factorðPF Þ ¼ V AGG þ V SCM þ V C þ V W þ V A ;

Fig. 6. Compressive strength to percentage replacement of metakaolin in concrete.

ð16Þ

where V AGG ¼ volume of total aggregates ðm3 =m3 Þ;V SCM ¼ volume of supplementary cementitious material ðm3 =m3 Þ; V C ¼ volume of cement ðm3 =m3 Þ;V W ¼ volume of water ðm3 =m3 Þ; V A ¼ air content in SCC ð%Þ.

W WFS ¼ V AGG  AWFS AFA  SGWFS  q;

ð17Þ

where W WFS = waste foundry sand content of in SCC (kg/m3); AWFS = ratio by weight of waste foundry sand to fine aggregate; AFA = ratio by weight of fine aggregate to total aggregate; SGWFS = specific gravity of waste foundry sand.

W NS ¼ V AGG  ANS AFA  SGNS  q;

ð18Þ 3

where W NS = natural sand content of in SCC (kg/m ); ANS = ratio by weight of natural sand to fine aggregate; AFA = ratio by weight of fine aggregate to total aggregate; SGWFS = specific gravity of natural sand.

W CA ¼ V AGG  ACA  SGCA  q;

ð19Þ 3

Fig. 7. Efficiency factor to percentage replacement of metakaolin in concrete.

replacement of metakaolin is chosen. The percentage of metakaolin is taken asPSCM .

Supplementary cementitiouscontent ðW SCM Þ ¼ ðW CM  PSCM Þkg=m3 : Cement contentðW C Þ ¼ ðW CM  W SCM Þkg=m3 ;

ð13Þ ð14Þ

where W SCM is the supplementary cementitious materials content (kg/m3). Step 3: Determination of water/cementitious material ratio The water-cementitious material ratio is selected to achieve strength and durability properties using the standard water0

cementitious material ratio curves. The relationship between f c and water to the cementitious material ratio is depicted in Fig. 4, and the water to the cementitious material ratio is selected on the basis of required compressive strength. Step 4: Determination of water content The strength characteristics of SCM generally defines its efficiency with reference to control concrete. Addition of SCM can be evaluated with characteristics like durability factors. Smith [71]

where W CA = coarse aggregate content of in SCC (kg/m ); ACA = ratio by weight of coarse aggregate to total aggregate; SGCA = specific gravity of coarse aggregate. Step 6: Determination of admixture dosage To attain a flowable and segregation resistant SCC adequate quantity of superplasticizers needs to be added. Moreover, VMAs can be added to achieve robustness or stability in concrete. The HRWR dosage and VMA content are taken based on experience. HRWR dosage varies from 0.5 to 2.5% of the total powder content and dosage of VMA varies from 0.05 to 1.0% of the total powder content. The liquid in admixture can be taken as a part of mixing water. The dosage of HRWR and VMA can be determined as follows:

The dosage of HRWR ðW HRWR Þ ¼ PHRWR ðW CM Þ:

ð20Þ

The dosage of VMA ðW VMA Þ ¼ PVMA ðW CM Þ;

ð21Þ

where the dosage of HRWR and VMA is PHRWR and PVMA of the quantity of cementitious materials, respectively. Step 7: Adjustment of water content in SCC The quantity of water required for SCC can be calculated by deducting HRWR and VMA from the total amount of water necessary for cementitious material.

Mixing water content ¼ W W  ðW HRWR þ W VMA Þ:

ð22Þ

Step 8: Adjustments for aggregate moisture According to the condition of moisture content in aggregates, the water content in concrete needs to be adjusted. Step 9: Trial batch adjustments The adjustments in the trial mixture should be made in the light of recommendations made in Table 6 until the required properties

672

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

Metakaolin content for 120 MPa ðW SCM Þ ¼ ð912  25%Þ

Table 6 Validation criteria for SCC in compliance EFNARC [33]. Property

Criteria

Slump flow class in mm SF1 SF2 SF3

550–650 660–750 760–850

¼ 228 kg=m3 )

Cement content for 120 MPa ðW C Þ ¼ ð912  228Þ ¼ 684 kg=m3 )

Viscosity class by V-funnel time in sec VF1 8 VF2 9–25

684 ¼ 0:217 m3 =m3 3:15  1000

Step 3: Determination of water/cementitious material ratio The water/cementitious material ratio was taken 0.38, 0.26, and 0.17 to determine water content in 60, 90, and 120 MPa concrete, respectively. The ratio fulfills durability criteria as stipulated in ACI 211.1 [27] for specified exposure conditions. Step 4: Determination of water content This water-cementitious materials ratio 0.17 is used to determine water content in 120 MPa self-compacting concrete.

Viscosity class by T500 time in sec VS1 2 VS2 >2 Passing ability classes (L-box) PA1 PA2

228 ¼ 0:088 m3 =m3 2:6  1000

0.8 with two rebars 0.8 with three rebars

0:17 ¼ of SCC are attained. The tests for workability such as slump flow, V-funnel, T500 flow time, L-box, U-box, and J-ring tests should satisfy EFNARC [28,33] specifications, and visual stability index (VSI) should satisfy ASTM C1611 [73]. The water-cementitious material ratio must fulfill strength and durability requirements. It needs to be ensured that aggregates mix uniformly. Air content must fulfill the requirement of mixture design. 9. Sample design calculation of SCC The mixture design approach was applied to prepare three different SCC having strength 60, 90, and 120 MPa. The details for the mixture are indicated in Table 7. As an illustration, the steps for the proposed mixture design procedure for SCC with cement replacement 25% and design strength 120 MPa are summarized below. Step 1: Determination of cementitious materials content According to ACI 318 [13] due to non-availability of data to establish standard deviation, the required average compressive strength of SCC is determined based on specified strength for 120 MPa are as follows. 0

W 684 þ 1:48  228

Water content in 120 MPa concrete ¼ 173:68 kg=m3 )

173:68 ¼ 0:174m3 =m3 1000

Step 5: Determination of fine and coarse aggregate contents The packing factor was used to determine aggregate contents for an SCC mixture. From Fig. 3, minimum packing factor 1.060 was taken for aggregate mixture without foundry sand WFS-00 whose fine/total aggregate content is 0.50, and for aggregate mixture with foundry sand WFS-15, minimum packing factor 1.056 was taken whose fine/total aggregate content is 0.55. Aggregate contents in 120 MPa SCC without WFS:

1:060 ¼ V AGG þ 0:088 þ 0:217 þ 0:174 þ 0:015 V AGG ¼ 0:566 m3 =m3 W WFS ¼ 0:566  0  0:50  2:64  1000 ¼ 0:00 kg=m3 W NS ¼ 0:566  1  0:50  2:65  1000 ¼ 750:52 kg=m3 W CA ¼ 0:566  0:50  2:66  1000 ¼ 753:35 kg=m3

f cr ¼ ð1:10  120Þ þ 4:826 ¼ 136:8 MPa The cementitious materials content is expected to produce 0.15 MPa of compressive strength for per kg cement at 28 days of curing. Cementitious materials content for 120 MPa

Aggregate contents in 120 MPa SCC with WFS:

1:056 ¼ V AGG þ 0:088 þ 0:217 þ 0:174 þ 0:015 V AGG ¼ 0:562 m3 =m3

136:8 ¼ 912 kg=m3 ðW CM Þ ¼ 0:15

W WFS ¼ 0:562  0:15  0:55  2:64  1000 ¼ 122:50 kg=m3

Step 2: Determination of metakaolin content The ideal percentage replacement of metakaolin is 20–25% as indicated in Fig. 6, in this study percentage replacement is taken 25% to obtain concrete having compressive strength 60, 90, and 120 MPa.

W NS ¼ 0:562  0:85  0:55  2:65  1000 ¼ 696:78 kg=m3 W CA ¼ 0:562  0:45  2:66  1000 ¼ 673:23 kg=m3

Table 7 Mixture proportions of SCCs. Mixtures

SCC60WFS00 SCC60WFS15 SCC90WFS00 SCC90WFS15 SCC120WFS00 SCC120WFS15

W/CM

0.38 0.38 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.17

Water (kg/m2)

198.36 198.12 197.41 197.06 166.38 165.47

Cementitious material (kg/m2)

472 472 692 692 912 912

Cement (kg/m2)

354 354 519 519 684 684

MK (kg/m2)

118 118 173 173 228 228

Aggregates (kg/m2) 12.5 mm

Natural sand

WFS

912.67 816.61 814.07 727.87 753.35 673.23

909.24 845.18 811.01 753.33 750.52 696.78

0.00 148.59 0.00 132.44 0.00 122.50

SP (%)

VMA (%)

0.40 0.45 0.45 0.50 0.60 0.70

0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.20

673

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

Step 6: Determination of admixture dosage The dosage of HRWR has to be taken to ensure flowability and passing ability, but if it exceeds the required limit, it can cause segregation to the mixture. On the basis of past laboratory experience, HRWR dosage was taken 0.6% with VMA 0.2% of the total cementitious material for 120 MPa SCC without WFS to ensure required performance. For 120 MPa SCC with WFS, HRWR and VMA dosage was taken 0.7% and 0.2%, respectively. Admixture contents in 120 MPa concrete without WFS

100  100  100 mm3. After 12–24 h, specimens were demolded and kept in water for curing till the time of testing. Tap water was used for curing at a temperature of 27 °C having humidity 100%. Testing at the curing age of 7, 28 and 56 days was done [75], three specimens were taken for all curing ages each, and the mean values were considered.

The dosage of HRWR ðW HRWR Þ ¼ 0:0060  912 ¼ 5:47 kg=m3

The dosages of admixtures vary to meet the self-compactability requirements of SCC mixture. The dosage of admixtures influences Self-compactability of SCC and paste composition where paste volume and aggregate volume were kept fixed. The tests performed showed no signs of segregation or bleeding in concrete mixtures while performing a slump flow test. Table 8 depicts the results for fresh properties of concrete. The range for slump flow test varied from 760 to 790 mm. V-funnel and T 500 flow time test ranged from 6 to 8 sec and 2.5–3.1 sec, respectively. The values of L-box and U-box were recorded as 0.94–0.96 and 0.96–0.98, respectively. The height of J-ring step was less than 8 mm in all the mixtures. The value of VSI was recorded as ‘00 for all concrete mixtures. The results of the tests showed that SCC prepared to meet the requirements of slump flow class SF3, viscosity class by V-Funnel time VF1, viscosity class by T500 VS2, passing ability class PA2, as shown in Table 6. For SCC60WFS00 mixture, at 0.38 W/CM ratio, the selfcompactability was achieved with admixtures dosage 0.55% of the total cementitious material where water content was fixed at 198.36 kg=m3 . Whereas, for SCC90WFS00 mixture, W/CM ratio 0.26, water content (197.41 kg=m3 ) was kept similar to 60 MPa SCC, but admixtures dosage was increased to achieve selfcompactability of SCC. The increase in cementitious materials leads to increased admixtures dosage, due to which an increase in surface area of mixture’s particles increased. For SCC120WFS00 mixture, cementitious materials were increased with lower water content compared to 60 and 90 MPa SCC. Moreover, the dosage of admixtures also increased significantly with the increase in cementitious materials to achieve the required selfcompactability in the concrete mixture. This is again due to increased cementitious materials which lead to an increase in surface area of mixture’s particles. On replacement of natural sand with 15% WFS, admixtures dosage was marginally increased to achieve self-compactability of SCC. The WFS used contained 74.8% particles finer than 600 mm as compared to 40.6% in natural sand particles being studied which indicate the presence of more finer particles that lead to a decrease in the fluidity of concrete and therefore more admixture was required.

The dosage of VMA ðW VMA Þ ¼ 0:0020  912 ¼ 1:82 kg=m3 Admixture contents in 120 MPa concrete with WFS

The dosage of HRWR ðW HRWR Þ ¼ 0:0070  912 ¼ 6:39 kg=m3 The dosage of VMA ðW VMA Þ ¼ 0:0020  912 ¼ 1:82 kg=m3 Step 7: Adjustment of water content in SCC The quantity of mixing water required in 120 MPa SCC without WFS:

Mixing water content ¼ 173:68  ð5:47 þ 1:82Þ ¼ 166:4 kg=m3 The quantity of mixing water required in 120 MPa SCC with WFS:

Mixing water content ¼ 173:68  ð6:39 þ 1:82Þ ¼ 165:5 kg=m3 Step 8: Adjustments for aggregate moisture The moisture content in aggregate was less than 1% due to which water content in concrete was not amended. Step 9: Trial batch adjustments The above-determined materials were used to prepare trial batches. Section 9 discusses the methods and test results. 10. Validation of mixture design method The self-compactability and compressive strength properties were determined to check whether the proposed method could meet the design requirements. Different tests were performed to analyze SCC mixture proportion, such as the slump flow test is performed to calculate the flow rate and filling ability; this test also depicts the plastic viscosity of fresh concrete. V-funnel test is performed to determine flow time though V-funnel, plastic viscosity, as well as an arching effect of aggregate, can also be evaluated. Whereas, J-ring test is performed to analyze the passing ability of concrete between reinforcement bars and L-box test is performed to analyze the passing ability of SCC between reinforcement bars without causing segregation and blocking. These tests were carried out as per EFNARC [28,33]. Moreover, the VSI of SCC was observed by visually examining the concrete mixture to determine bleeding and segregation characteristics. As per ASTM C1611 [74], VSI test was performed. The compressive strength of SCC was performed in accordance with BIS 516 [75], using cubic specimens having size

10.1. Self-compactability of SCC

10.2. Compressive strength of SCC The compressive strength of SCC was determined at 7, 14, 28, and 56 days. The SCC was designed for target strengths of 60, 90, and 120 MPa on the basis of packing factor, compressive strength, the efficiency factor of SCMs and compressive strength to

Table 8 Self-compactability of investigated SCCs. Mixtures

Slump flow (mm)

T500 (sec)

V-funnel flow time (sec)

L-box ratio for a gap of 40 mm

U-box for a gap of 50 mm

J-ring (mm)

VSI value

SCC60WFS00 SCC60WFS15 SCC90WFS00 SCC90WFS15 SCC120WFS00 SCC120WFS15

770 780 760 770 780 790

3.0 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5

7 6 8 8 6 7

0.95 0.96 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.96

0.96 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.98

8 7 8 8 6 7

0 0 0 0 0 0

674

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

water-cementitious material ratio relation. Compressive strength more than target value was recorded at 28 days of curing for SCC without WFS, as indicated in Table 9. With reference to 60 MPa SCC, the percentage of compressive strength at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days of curing ages was 80.2, 99.0, 108.0, and 116.3%, respectively. With reference to 90 MPa SCC, the percentage of compressive strength at 7, 14, 28, and 56 days of curing ages was 81.7, 98.0, 104.1, and 113.7%, respectively. With reference to 120 MPa SCC, the percentage of compressive strength at 7, 14, 28, and 56 days of curing ages was 87.2%, 96.8%, 105.1%, and 111.9%, respectively. Besides this, for 60, 90, and 120 MPa SCC having 15% WFS also recorded compressive strength more than target value relative to reference target strength for curing age 28 days. It can be seen that SCC achieved target strengths at 28 days for all SCC mixtures studied. The compressive strength results for mixtures showed that by adjusting values for the packing factor, target compressive strengths could be achieved as the packing factor is closely related to compressive strength. Packing factor defines the porosity in an aggregate mixture of concrete, fine particles in the form of cementitious material is used to fill the pores. If the void content is equal to or less than proposed cementitious material, resultant concrete will be tightly packed with enhanced strength and as well as durability. However, if the void content is higher than proposed cementitious content, tightly packed concrete could not be achieved which may result in strength efficient concrete, but durability will be affected. Research in past involved mixture design methods to find the strength of Portland cement control concrete. As soon as researchers started discovering cementitious properties of SCMs, different mixture design methods were suggested to prepare concretes with a certain quantity of cement replaced by SCM, but this generally resulted in lowering of early age strengths. The type of cement and water-cement ratio are the two factors that influence the strength of the concrete. Generally, the water-cement ratio is altered to achieve target strength for SCMs based concrete. Whereas, while preparing concrete made with SCMs, if the water-cementitious material ratio is used in place of watercement ratio, early strength could be achieved in SCMs concrete. There is a close relationship among water-cement and watercementitious material ratio if using SCMs, water-cementitious material ratio could provide the particular amount of water needed for the hydration process. Concrete made with SCMs in place of partial replacement of cement is more complex due to their combined physiochemical properties. The physical properties of SCMs from on the refinement of pore structure whereas chemical properties are involved in pozzolanic reactions. During these chemical reactions, Calcium Hydroxide crystals replace Calcium-Silicate-Hydrate gel. This transformation creates an immediate dilution effect which reduces strength at early ages. Besides, the slow nature of the pozzolanic reaction contributes to the reduction of strength. Moreover, water-cementitious materials ratio, cement content, age, curing condition are the other factors that relate to strength development

in concrete. Cementing efficiency (k) can be termed as the difference between the contribution of Portland cement and SCM to strength development in concrete.

10.3. Comparison of mixture design method between current and past model Su et al. [9] suggested a mixture design method in 2001 based upon packing theory as depicted in Table 10. The packing factor for variant concrete mixtures ranged from 1.18 to 1.12 for specified strength (27.5–41.2 MPa) which showed variation in slump flow from 600 to 715 mm, variation in V- funnel time was analyzed 14 to 7 s. The calculated values for slump flow falls in different flowability classes SF1 and SF2 classes according to EFNARC [33] guidelines and same is the case with V- funnel time which also falls in different classes that is VF2 and VF1 classes [33]. The results show that the method lacks in flowability and change in the class of flowability due to variation in slump flow and V-funnel shows fragility in concrete. However, the required compressive strength was observed higher by 12.1% to 38.9% at 28 days compared to specified strength using this method. Su and Miao [10] proposed a mixture design method based on packing theory in 2003 as depicted in Table 10. In this method, values for packing factor ranged from 1.14 to 1.22 which indicates variation in slump flow ranging from 230 to 700 mm. The calculated values for slump flow falls in different classes of flowability SF1 and SF2 whereas, some values of concrete mixes do not fall in any slump flow class. The required compressive strength was observed up to 26.8% higher at 28 days compared to specified strength using this method. The specified strength of concrete was kept 28 MPa for this study. The change in the class of flowability due to variation in slump flow and V-funnel suggests a fragile concrete. Sebaibi et al. [17] presented a mixture design method in 2013 based on packing theory as indicated in Table 10. In this method packing factor was kept constant at 1.09 which resulted in slump flow 600 ± 50 mm that falls in SF1 class of flowability. The required compressive strength at 28 days was achieved keeping grade of concrete constant. The change in the grade of concrete can cause variation in results. Kheder and Al-Jadiri [1] presented a mixture design method based on strength theory in 2010. The proposed method was targeted to achieve 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 MPa compressive strength but results achieved were 26.0%, 11.0%, 10.7%, 0.5%, and 14.0%, respectively, compared to specified strength using this method as shown in Table 10. It is clear from the results that the method successfully achieved compressive strength for 15 to 45 MPa, but results were contrary for higher strength grades. The calculated values for slump flow falls in different flowability classes SF3 and SF2 classes. The viscosity values for T500 time falls under VS2 class and values for L-box passing ability class falls under PA2 class according to EFNARC [33] guidelines. The change in the class of flowability due to variation in slump flow and

Table 9 Compressive strength of investigated SCCs. Mixtures

SCC60WFS00 SCC60WFS15 SCC90WFS00 SCC90WFS15 SCC120WFS00 SCC120WFS15

0

Specified strength f c (MPa) 60 60 90 90 120 120

Compressive strength (MPa) 7 days

14 days

28 days

56 days

48.1 47.3 73.5 69.8 104.6 99.8

59.4 57.0 88.2 87.5 116.2 115.8

64.8 65.1 93.7 96.9 126.1 130.6

69.8 74.5 102.3 110.8 134.3 143.5

Table 10 Summary of fresh and hardened properties for SCC from previous research works based upon packing factor and strength based mix design. Year

Additives

W/CM

Packing factor

Slump flow (mm)

T500 (sec)

V-funnel flow time (sec)

L-box ratio

Specified strength (MPa)

Compressive strength at 28 days (MPa)

Compressive strength at 56 days (MPa)

Compressive strength at 90 days (MPa)

Su et al. [9]

2001

Fly ash and GGBS

Su and Miao [10]

2003

Fly ash and GGBS

Sebaibi et al. [17] Kheder and Al-Jadiri [1]

2013 2010

Silica fume Limestone powder

Dinakar [29]

2012

Fly ash

Dinakar et al. [30]

2013

GGBS

Dinakar and Manu [31]

2014

Metakaolin

0.43 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.31 0.38 0.35 0.31 0.29 0.26 0.58 0.37 0.29 0.58 0.37 0.29 0.26 0.31 0.26 0.22

1.18 1.16 1.14 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.09 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

600 695 705 715 700 590 600 590 460 310 230 600 ± 50 770 738 698 670 658 730 710 670 700 670 650 650 680 660 650

– – – – – – – – – – – – 2.2 2.7 4.2 5.5 6.1 – – – – – – – 3.5 5.2 6.8

7 11 12 14 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 14 20 22 18 20 25 25 21 25 28

– – – – – – – – – – – – 0.99 0.97 0.93 0.86 0.82 0.89 0.94 0.85 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.82 0.87 0.81 0.78

27.5 34.3 41.2 48.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 50.0 15.0 30.0 45.0 60.0 75.0 30.0 60.0 90.0 30.0 60.0 90.0 100.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

38.2 42.5 48.7 53.8 28.0 31.0 35.5 34.0 30.5 28.5 – 72 ± 2.5 18.9 33.3 49.8 59.7 64.5 37.9 63.3 89.1 48.3 73.5 92.6 94.6 94.1 105.8 107.5

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 58.8 70.0 92.6 – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 67.6 79.4 98.7 56.0 82.6 105.8 105.5 101.2 112.2 121.2

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

Authors

675

676

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

inefficiency of the mixture design method to achieve compressive strength results in a fragile concrete. Dinakar and co-workers [29–31] introduced variant mixture design methods based on strength theory incorporating fly ash, GGBS, and metakaolin in 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively. As shown in Table 10, the proposed methods achieved targeted strengths at 28 days, 56 days and/or 90 days of curing. The calculated values for slump flow, T500 time, V-funnel, and L-box falls in individual classes for all methods according to EFNARC [33] guidelines. The results show efficient mixture design methods for all replacements, low strength concrete achieved targeted strength at 28 days whereas target strength for high strength concretes was achieved at 56 days and/or 90 days. However, an irregular increase in results of compressive strength can be seen in Table 10, for instance, an increase of 125.3% can be observed in low strength concrete whereas, in high strength concrete an increase of 9.7% can be observed. This irregularity could be because strength is regulated by replacement of cement with additives in this method. In all the three methods, powder content was kept fixed. Where efficiency factor ðkÞ < 1, the lower content of cement is replaced by additives to achieve high strength concrete, where efficiency factor ðkÞ > 1, higher content of cement (limited to this study) is replaced by additives to achieve high strength concrete. According to the proposed method developed, selfcompactability properties for all concrete samples comes under a single class. Properties such as slump flow, V-funnel, T500 time, and L-box falls under SF3 class, VF1 class, VS2, and PA2 class respectively for all concrete mixtures. The proposed method successfully achieved targeted early age strength of 60 MPa, 90 MPa, and 120 MPa at 28 days of curing. The results were higher by 4.1–8.8% and 11.9–24.2%, for 28 and 56 days of curing, respectively, compared to the specified strength. As indicated in Table 9, results observed are uniform for all concrete mixtures and fulfilling the requirements of SCC to achieve fresh properties and desired strength at 28 days. It indicates that SCC can be obtained using the proposed method with desired fresh and hardened properties. The past methods generally satisfy a particular range of mixture grades whereas, the proposed method successfully caters strengths ranging from 60 to 120 MPa.

11. Conclusions The paper presents a mixture design method for SCC using metakaolin considering the compressive strength and efficiency factor of metakaolin with particle packing. Based on the findings of the research on the mixture design method of SCC following conclusions can be drawn:
The proposed mixture design method for SCC made with an optimal percentage of metakaolin as SCM achieved strength higher by 4–9% relative to expected strengths of 60, 90 and 120 MPa at 28 days of curing.
The mixture design was observed to satisfy desired selfcompactability requirements according to guidelines provided in EFNARC [33].
Properties such as slump flow, V-funnel, T500 time, and L-box falls under SF3 class, VF1 class, VS2, and PA2 class respectively for all concrete mixture grades.
The desired degree of early age strength was achieved in concrete having metakaolin using the proposed method. The strength of concrete is distinctly dependent on the respective proportions of SCM, cement, and water.
Packing theory was used to determine the aggregate proportions. The void content from packing factor was used to obtain paste volume for the optimal filling ability of concrete.


The water-cementitious material ratio is used in place of the water-cement ratio in the proposed method; using this approach early strength could be achieved in SCMs concrete.
The water-cementitious material ratio adopted in this approach has ensured the availability of sufficient amount of water needed for the hydration process. The optimal percentage of metakaolin for use in concrete was assessed using strength efficiency method and has yielded satisfactory results. Declaration of Competing Interest We declare that we have no conflict of interest. Acknowledgments The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to Maharaja Agrasen University for providing facilities and requirements required for executing the research work. The author Deepankar Kumar Ashish would like to especially thank Mr. Suresh Gupta, Project In-charge, Maharaja Agrasen University for providing constant support for the accomplishment of research work. The authors are also grateful to Mr. Vikram Abrol and his team BASF India Limited, India for providing the special requirement of chemical admixtures to accomplish the work. References [1] G.F. Kheder, R.S. Al Jadiri, New method for proportioning self-consolidating concrete based on compressive strength requirements, ACI Mater. J. 107 (2010) 490–497, https://doi.org/10.14359/51663969. [2] Y. Sun, Z. Wang, Q. Gao, C. Liu, A new mixture design methodology based on the Packing Density Theory for high performance concrete in bridge engineering, Constr. Build. Mater. 182 (2018) 80–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.CONBUILDMAT.2018.06.062. [3] M.A. DeRousseau, J.R. Kasprzyk, W.V. Srubar, W.V. Srubar III, Computational design optimization of concrete mixtures: a review, Cem. Concr. Res. 109 (2018) 42–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEMCONRES.2018.04.007. [4] D. Jiao, C. Shi, Q. Yuan, X. An, Y. Liu, Mixture design of concrete using simplex centroid design method, Cem. Concr. Compos. 89 (2018) 76–88, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.03.001. [5] D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma, An overview on mixture design of self-compacting concrete, Struct. Concr. 20 (2019) 371–395, https://doi.org/ 10.1002/suco.201700279. [6] H. Okamura, K. Ozawa, Mix-design for self-compacting concrete, Concr. Libr. JSCE. 25 (1995) 107–120. [7] Y. Edamatsu, T. Sugamata, M. Ouchi, A mix-design method for self-compacting concrete based on mortar flow and funnel tests, in: O. Wallevik, I. Nielsson (Eds.), Int. RILEM Symp. Self-Compacting Concr., RILEM Publications SARL, Reykjavik, Iceland, 2003: pp. 345–354. https://www.rilem.net/gene/main. php?base=500218&id_publication=38&id_papier=4210. [8] Ö. Petersson, P. Billberg, B.K. Van, A Model for Self-Compacting Concrete, in: P. J.M. Bartos, D.J. Cleland, D.L. Marrs (Eds.), Prod. Methods Work. Concr., E & FN Span, London, Paisley, Scotland, 1996: pp. 483–492. https:// www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781482271782/chapters/10.1201% 2F9781482271782-55. [9] N. Su, K.-C. Hsu, H.-W. Chai, A simple mix design method for self-compacting concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 31 (2001) 1799–1807, https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0008-8846(01)00566-X. [10] N. Su, B. Miao, A new method for the mix design of medium strength flowing concrete with low cement content, Cem. Concr. Compos. 25 (2003) 215–222, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(02)00013-6. [11] H.J.H. Brouwers, H.J. Radix, Self-compacting concrete: Theoretical and experimental study, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (2005) 2116–2136, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.06.002. [12] C.L. Hwang, M.F. Hung, Durability design and performance of selfconsolidating lightweight concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 19 (2005) 619–626, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.003. [13] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05), 2005. [14] T. Sedran, F. de Larrard, Optimization of Self-compacting Concrete, in: Å. Skarendahl, Ö. Petersson (Eds.), First Int. RILEM Symp. Self-Compacting Concr., RILEM Publications SARL, Stockholm, Sweden, 1999, pp. 322–331. [15] M. Sri Rama Chand, K.L. Radhika, P. Rathish Kumar, S. Rakesh, Mix model for self-compacting concrete with recycled aggregate, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. – Struct. Build. 170 (2017) 131–142, https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.16.00076.

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678 [16] F. de Larrard, Concrete mixture proportioning: a scientific approach, E & FN Spon (1999). [17] N. Sebaibi, M. Benzerzour, Y. Sebaibi, N.E. Abriak, Composition of self compacting concrete (SCC) using the compressible packing model, the Chinese method and the European standard, Constr. Build. Mater. 43 (2013) 382–388, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.028. [18] BS EN 206-1, Concrete – Part 1: Specification, performance, production and conformity, London, UK, 2000. [19] Y.Y. Chen, B.L.A. Tuan, C.L. Hwang, Effect of paste amount on the properties of self-consolidating concrete containing fly ash and slag, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 340–346, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.050. [20] J. Kanadasan, H.A. Razak, Mix design for self-compacting palm oil clinker concrete based on particle packing, Mater. Des. 56 (2014) 9–19, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.10.086. [21] X. Wang, K. Wang, P. Taylor, G. Morcous, Assessing particle packing based selfconsolidating concrete mix design method, Constr. Build. Mater. 70 (2014) 439–452, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.08.002. [22] K.E. Alyamaç, R. Ince, A preliminary concrete mix design for SCC with marble powders, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 1201–1210, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.conbuildmat.2008.08.012. [23] D.A. Abrams, Design of concrete mixtures, Structural Materials Research Laboratory, Lewis Institute, Chicago, 1919. https://archive.org/details/ designofconcrete00abrarich/page/n1. [24] I. Lyse, Tests on consistency and strength of concrete having constant water content, Proc. ASTM, Vol. 32 (1932), p. 629, Reprint No. 32 (32-7), Fritz Laboratory Reports, Paper 2, 1932. http://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civilenvironmental-fritz-lab- (accessed September 11, 2018). [25] P.R. do L. Helene, Contribuição ao estabelecimento de parâmetros para dosagem e controle dos concretos de cimento, Portland, Universidade de São Paulo (1987). [26] Z. Wu, Y. Zhang, J. Zheng, Y. Ding, An experimental study on the workability of self-compacting lightweight concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 2087– 2092, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.08.023. [27] ACI 211.1-91, Standard practice for selecting proportions for normal, heavyweight, and mass concrete, American Concrete Institute, 1997. https:// www.concrete.org/store/productdetail.aspx?ItemID=211191&Language= English&Units=US_Units (accessed September 11, 2018). [28] EFNARC, Specification and Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete, Rep. from EFNARC. 44 (2002) 32. doi: 0 9539733 4 4. [29] P. Dinakar, Design of self-compacting concrete with fly ash, Mag. Concr. Res. 64 (2012) 401–409, https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.10.00167. [30] P. Dinakar, K.P. Sethy, U.C. Sahoo, Design of self-compacting concrete with ground granulated blast furnace slag, Mater. Des. 43 (2013) 161–169, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.06.049. [31] P. Dinakar, S.N. Manu, Concrete mix design for high strength self-compacting concrete using metakaolin, Mater. Des. 60 (2014) 661–668, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.03.053. [32] DIN 1045, Beton und Stahlbeton, Beton Verlag GMBH, Koln, Germany, 1988. [33] EFNARC, The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete: Specification, Production and Use, 2005. [34] BIS 12269, Specification for 53 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement, New Delhi, India, 2013. [35] ASTM C618–17, Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017. doi: 10.1520/C0618-17A. [36] M.H. Beigi, J. Berenjian, O. Lotfi Omran, A. Sadeghi Nik, I.M. Nikbin, An experimental survey on combined effects of fibers and nanosilica on the mechanical, rheological, and durability properties of self-compacting concrete, Mater. Des. 50 (2013) 1019–1029, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.matdes.2013.03.046. [37] M.H.A. Beygi, M.T. Kazemi, I.M. Nikbin, J.V. Amiri, The effect of water to cement ratio on fracture parameters and brittleness of self-compacting concrete, Mater. Des. 50 (2013) 267–276, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.02.018. [38] M.H.A. Beygi, M.T. Kazemi, I.M. Nikbin, J. Vaseghi Amiri, The effect of aging on the fracture characteristics and ductility of self-compacting concrete, Mater. Des. 55 (2014) 937–948, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.10.066. [39] O. Boukendakdji, E.H. Kadri, S. Kenai, Effects of granulated blast furnace slag and superplasticizer type on the fresh properties and compressive strength of self-compacting concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 583–590, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.08.013. [40] T. Bouziani, Assessment of fresh properties and compressive strength of selfcompacting concrete made with different sand types by mixture design modelling approach, Constr. Build. Mater. 49 (2013) 308–314, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.08.039. [41] V.K. Bui, Y. Akkaya, S.P. Shah, Rheological model for self-consolidating concrete, ACI Mater. J. 99 (2002) 549–559, https://doi.org/10.14359/12364. [42] A. Carpinteri, R. Brighenti, Fracture behaviour of plain and fiber-reinforced concrete with different water content under mixed mode loading, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 2032–2042, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.10.021. [43] S. Dadsetan, J. Bai, Mechanical and microstructural properties of selfcompacting concrete blended with metakaolin, ground granulated blastfurnace slag and fly ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 146 (2017) 658–667, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.158. [44] R. Deeb, B.L. Karihaloo, Mix proportioning of self-compacting normal and highstrength concretes, Mag. Concr. Res. 65 (2013) 546–556, https://doi.org/ 10.1680/macr.12.00164.

677

[45] L. Dvorkin, A. Bezusyak, N. Lushnikova, Y. Ribakov, Using mathematical modeling for design of self compacting high strength concrete with metakaolin admixture, Constr. Build. Mater. 37 (2012) 851–864, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.019. [46] P. Dinakar, K.G. Babu, M. Santhanam, Durability properties of high volume fly ash self compacting concretes, Cem. Concr. Compos. 30 (2008) 880–886, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.06.011. [47] B. Felekoǧlu, S. Türkel, B. Baradan, Effect of water/cement ratio on the fresh and hardened properties of self-compacting concrete, Build. Environ. 42 (2007) 1795–1802, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.01.012. [48] L. Ferrara, Y.D. Park, S.P. Shah, A method for mix-design of fiber-reinforced self-compacting concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (2007) 957–971, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.03.014. [49] M. Ghanooni-Bagha, M.A. Shayanfar, A.A. Shirzadi-Javid, H. Ziaadiny, Corrosion-induced reduction in compressive strength of self-compacting concretes containing mineral admixtures, Constr. Build. Mater. 113 (2016) 221–228, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.046. [50] Y.B.B. Guo, G.F.F. Gao, L. Jing, V.P.W.P.W. Shim, Response of high-strength concrete to dynamic compressive loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 108 (2017) 114– 135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.04.015. [51] L. Jin, R. Zhang, Y. Tian, G. Dou, X. Du, Experimental investigation on static and dynamic mechanical properties of steel fiber reinforced ultra-high-strength concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 178 (2018) 102–111, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.conbuildmat.2018.05.152. [52] B.L. Karihaloo, A. Ghanbari, Mix proportioning of self-compacting high- and ultra-high-performance concretes with and without steel fibres, Mag. Concr. Res. 64 (2012) 1089–1100, https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.11.00190. [53] O.R. Khaleel, H. Abdul Razak, Mix design method for self compacting metakaolin concrete with different properties of coarse aggregate, Mater. Des. 53 (2014) 691–700, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.07.072. [54] A. Khaloo, E.M. Raisi, P. Hosseini, H. Tahsiri, Mechanical performance of selfcompacting concrete reinforced with steel fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 51 (2014) 179–186, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.054. [55] H.T. Le, M. Müller, K. Siewert, H.M. Ludwig, The mix design for self-compacting high performance concrete containing various mineral admixtures, Mater. Des. 72 (2015) 51–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.01.006. [56] H.T. Le, H.M. Ludwig, Effect of rice husk ash and other mineral admixtures on properties of self-compacting high performance concrete, Mater. Des. 89 (2016) 156–166, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.09.120. [57] A. Leemann, C. Hoffmann, Properties of self-compacting and conventional concrete – differences and similarities, Mag. Concr. Res. 57 (2005) 315–319, https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.2005.57.6.315. [58] M. Mastali, A. Dalvand, A. Sattarifard, The impact resistance and mechanical properties of the reinforced self-compacting concrete incorporating recycled CFRP fiber with different lengths and dosages, Compos. Part B Eng. 112 (2017) 74–92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.12.029. [59] A. El Mir, S.G. Nehme, Utilization of industrial waste perlite powder in selfcompacting concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 156 (2017) 507–517, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.103. [60] M.S. Nadesan, P. Dinakar, Permeation properties of high strength selfcompacting and vibrated concretes, J. Build. Eng. 12 (2017) 275–281, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.06.003. [61] M.C.S. Nepomuceno, L.A. Pereira-De-Oliveira, S.M.R. Lopes, Methodology for the mix design of self-compacting concrete using different mineral additions in binary blends of powders, Constr. Build. Mater. 64 (2014) 82–94, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.021. [62] M.F. Nuruddin, K.Y. Chang, N.M. Azmee, Workability and compressive strength of ductile self compacting concrete (DSCC) with various cement replacement materials, Constr. Build. Mater. 55 (2014) 153–157, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.conbuildmat.2013.12.094. [63] E. Ozbay, A. Oztas, A. Baykasoglu, H. Ozbebek, Investigating mix proportions of high strength self compacting concrete by using Taguchi method, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 694–702, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.conbuildmat.2008.02.014. [64] M. Pourbaba, E. Asefi, H. Sadaghian, A. Mirmiran, Effect of age on the compressive strength of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 175 (2018) 402–410, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.conbuildmat.2018.04.203. [65] W. Shen, Y. Liu, L. Cao, X. Huo, Z. Yang, C. Zhou, P. He, Z. Lu, Mixing design and microstructure of ultra high strength concrete with manufactured sand, Constr. Build. Mater. 143 (2017) 312–321, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.conbuildmat.2017.03.092. [66] D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma, Cementing efficiency of flash and rotary calcined metakaolin in concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng (2019). [67] M. Soleymani Ashtiani, A.N. Scott, R.P. Dhakal, Mechanical and fresh properties of high-strength self-compacting concrete containing class C fly ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 1217–1224, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.conbuildmat.2013.06.015. [68] K.E. Alyamac, E. Ghafari, R. Ince, Development of eco-efficient self-compacting concrete with waste marble powder using the response surface method, J. Clean. Prod. 144 (2017) 192–202, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2016.12.156. [69] R. Bani Ardalan, A. Joshaghani, R.D. Hooton, Workability retention and compressive strength of self-compacting concrete incorporating pumice powder and silica fume, Constr. Build. Mater. 134 (2017) 116–122, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.090.

678

D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma / Construction and Building Materials 217 (2019) 664–678

[70] H.S. Wong, H.A. Razak, Efficiency of calcined kaolin and silica fume as cement replacement material for strength performance, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (2005) 696–702, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.05.051. [71] I.A. Smith, The Design of Fly-ash Concrete, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 36 (1967) 769– 790, https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1967.8472. [72] ASTM C29/29-M, Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (‘‘Unit Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate, Conshohocken, PA, 2003.

[73] ASTM C1611/C1611M – 14, Standard Test Method for Slump Flow of SelfConsolidating Concrete, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014. doi:10.1520/ C1611_C1611M-14. [74] ASTM C1611, Standard Test Method for Slump Flow of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Annu. B. ASTM Stand. Vol. 04.02. (2009). [75] BIS 516, Method of Tests for Strength of Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 2004.