See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/301778110

The effects of Visual Stability Index (VSI) on fresh segregation of self

consolidating concrete (SCC) using fly ash class C and F

Research · May 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3349.0800

CITATIONS READS

2 4,971

1 author:

Ammar Abd-elssamd El Hassan

University of Tennessee
11 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of SCC mixture for precast and general use View project

Alkali Silica Reactivity (ASR) Risk Assessment in Tennessee View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ammar Abd-elssamd El Hassan on 02 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE EFFECTS OF VISUAL STABILITY INDEX (VSI) ON FRESH SEGREGATION OF

SELF CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE (SCC) USING FLY ASH CLASS C AND F

By

Ammar Elfatih Abdelssamd Elhassan

Approved:

Joseph [Link] Benjamin Byard

Associate Professor of Civil Engineering Adjunct Professor of Civil Engineering
(Thesis Supervisor) (Thesis Co. Supervisor)

Ignatius Fomunung Mbakisya [Link]

Associate Professor of Civil Engineering Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
(Committee Member) (Committee Member)
THE EFFECTS OF VISUAL STABILITY INDEX (VSI) ON FRESH SEGREGATION OF

SELF CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE (SCC) USING FLY ASH CLASS C AND F

By

Ammar Elfatih Abdelssamd Elhassan

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the University of

Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Engineering

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Chattanooga, Tennessee

August 2014

ii
 ABSTRACT

Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is a concrete technology that is growing in popularity

with the precast/prestressed industry and contractors. SCC increases the ease of concrete

placement as well as reduces overall cost by requiring less labor and time for a concrete

placement. This study is part of the proposed project by Tennessee Department of Transportation

(TDOT) carried out by University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) to develop four new SCC

mixtures (two Class P-SCC (precast) and two Class A-SCC (general use), and insure they meet

the minimum strength and durability requirement for TDOT Class P and Class A mixtures. The

objectives of the study presented in this thesis are to analyze a survey of state Departments of

Transportation SCC specifications and requirements and investigate the effect of fly ash class

and aggregate size and shape on fresh properties of Class A-SCC. In addition, investigate the

relationship between Visual stability index (VSI) and fresh segregation of SCC. Finally,

recommend the specifications of fresh performance requirements for the Class A-SCC that the

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) should apply to establish SCC stability and

flowability during the production of general concrete elements.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All praise is to my God ALLAH for giving me the health, opportunity, patience, and

knowledge to complete this thesis with success. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon

Prophet Mohammed. I am very grateful to the moral guidance and prayers of my blessed dear

parents, through whom God made me climb the ladder of success, the immense support of my

blessed fiancé, who maintained her loving care, prayers, and bearing great patience during my

graduate studies in USA faraway from Sudan.

Acknowledgement is due to University of Tennessee at Chattanooga - Civil Engineering

Department for the support given to this study through its excellent facilities and equipment and

for providing me the great opportunity to pursue my Master degree with financial support.

I acknowledge, with deep gratitude and appreciation, the encouragement, remarkable

assistance and continuous support given to me by my thesis advisor, Dr. Joseph Owino. I am also

very grateful to his personal involvement and assistant during all stages of my mixing process in

the laboratory.

I’m deeply indebted and grateful to my co-advisor Dr. Benjamin Byard for his

remarkable assistance and big contribution to my knowledge, working with him was an

opportunity of great learning and experience. He didn’t hesitate to provide me with the necessary

documents and references. The thesis would be a mess, if not for his immense guidance, support,

reviewing, and editing.

iv
 I also acknowledge and appreciate the untiring effort of the laboratory director Mr. Brent

Rollins, who was working very hard to insure all the required materials and equipment are

available for my study. I’m also very grateful for his assistant, technical support and suggestions

during this research. Working with him gave me a great opportunity of learning and experience

the concrete testing and its equipment.

Thereafter, I would like to thank the committee members Dr. Ignatius Fomunung and Dr.

Mbakisya [Link] for their guidance and support.

Finally, I have to thank my friends, colleagues, and roommates, Mohammed (Kalafalla),

Daniel, Walied, Eyad, Hythm, Musab, Mazin and Mogtaba from Peoria, and Abdelkareem badry

for their help and assistance during my mixing process.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................1

1.2 Objectives and Scope of work ...........................................................................3
1.3 Research Approach ............................................................................................4
1.4 Study Outline .....................................................................................................6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 8

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................8

2.2 Test Methods for Measuring SCC Characteristics.............................................9
2.2.1 Slump Flow Test (ASTM C 1611)............................................................9
2.2.2 Visual Stability Index (ASTM C 1611) ..................................................10
2.2.3 T50 (ASTM C 1611)...............................................................................12
2.2.4 J-ring (ASTM C 1621) ............................................................................12
2.2.5 L-box Test ...............................................................................................13
2.2.6 Column Segregation (ASTM C 1610) ....................................................14
2.3 Constituent Materials and Mixture Proportions of SCC Mixtures ..................15
2.3.1 Powders and Water Content....................................................................16
[Link] Portland Cement ...........................................................................16
[Link] Fly Ash .........................................................................................16
[Link] Mixing Water ...............................................................................17
2.3.2 Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate ...................................................17
2.3.3 Admixtures .............................................................................................18

3. SURVEY OF THE STATE SCC MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS ....................20

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................20

vi
 3.2 Survey Requirements .......................................................................................20
3.2.1 Mixture Parameters .................................................................................20
3.2.2 Fresh Performance ..................................................................................21
3.2.3 Hardened Performance............................................................................21
3.3 Summary of The Survey ..................................................................................21
3.3.1 Summary of the Respondents .................................................................22
[Link] Alabama (ALDOT) ......................................................................23
[Link] Arizona (ADOT) ..........................................................................23
[Link] California (Caltrans) .....................................................................23
[Link] Colorado (CODOT) ......................................................................24
[Link] Florida (FLDOT) ..........................................................................24
[Link] Idaho (ID DOT) ............................................................................24
[Link] Kentucky (KY DOT) ....................................................................25
[Link] Maine (ME DOT) .........................................................................25
[Link] Maryland (MD SHA) ...................................................................25
[Link] Michigan (MI DOT) ...................................................................26
[Link] Minnesota (MN DOT) ................................................................26
[Link] Mississippi (MS DOT) ...............................................................26
[Link] New Hampshire (NH DOT) .......................................................27
[Link] New Jersey (NJDOT) .................................................................27
[Link] North Carolina (NCDOT) ..........................................................27
[Link] Nevada (NV DOT) .....................................................................28
[Link] Oregon (OR DOT)......................................................................28
[Link] Rhode Island (RIDOT) ...............................................................28
[Link] South Carolina (SCDOT) ...........................................................28
[Link] South Dakota (SDDOT) .............................................................29
[Link] Texas (TXDOT) .........................................................................29
[Link] Virginia (VADOT) .....................................................................29
[Link] Washington (WSDOT) ...............................................................29
[Link] West Virginia (WVDOT) ...........................................................30
3.3.2 Summary of the specifications ................................................................30
[Link] Mixture Parameters ......................................................................30
[Link] Fresh Performance ........................................................................31
[Link] Hardened Performance .................................................................33

4. EXPERIMENTAL PLAN .....................................................................................39

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................39

4.2 Mix Designs .....................................................................................................40
4.3 Materials Used in The Experimental Plan .......................................................43
4.3.1 Powders ...................................................................................................43
[Link] Cement .........................................................................................43
[Link] Fly ash ..........................................................................................43
4.3.2 Coarse Aggregates .................................................................................44
4.3.3 Fine Aggregates ......................................................................................46
4.3.4 Chemical Admixtures .............................................................................48
vii
 [Link] Mid-Range Water-Reducing Admixture ......................................48
[Link] Full -Range Water-Reducing Admixture .....................................48
[Link] Air-Entraining Admixture ............................................................49
4.3.5 Mixing water ...........................................................................................50
4.4 Preparation of The Experimental Mixes ..........................................................50
4.5 Fresh Property Tests on The Experimental Mixes ...........................................52
4.5.1 Slump Flow Test .....................................................................................52
4.5.2 Visual Stability Index .............................................................................53
4.5.3 T50 ..........................................................................................................54
4.5.4 J-ring test .................................................................................................55
4.5.5 L-box test ................................................................................................56
4.5.6 Column Segregation................................................................................57
4.5.7 Unit Weight of fresh concrete .................................................................58
4.5.8 Air Content by Pressure Method.............................................................59

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................61

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................61

5.2 Mixture Properties ...........................................................................................61
5.3 Discussion of Fresh Properties of Concrete Mixtures ....................................67
5.3.1 Filling Ability and Visual Stability of SCC Mixtures ............................67
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #57 with Natural Sand .68
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #67 with Natural and
Manufactured Sand.......................................................................71
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #7 with Natural ............74
5.3.2 Passing Ability of SCC Mixtures............................................................76
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #57 with Natural Sand ..77
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #67 with Natural and
Manufactured sand .......................................................................79
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #7 with Natural Sand ...81
5.3.3 Stability of SCC Mixtures .......................................................................82
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #57 with Natural Sand .83
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #67 with Natural and
Manufactured Sand ......................................................................84
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #7 with Natural Sand ....85
5.3.4 Initial and Final Time of Setting for SCC and Conventional Concrete
Mixtures ..................................................................................................86
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #57 with Natural Sand .86
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #67 with Natural and
Manufactured Sand ......................................................................87
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #7 with Natural Sand ...88
5.3.5 Air Entrained Admixture Requirements for Concrete Mixtures.............89
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #57 with Natural Sand .89
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #67 with Natural and
Manufactured Sand ......................................................................90
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #7 with Natural Sand ....90
viii
 5.4 Discussion of Hardened Properties of Concrete Mixtures ...............................91
5.4.1 The 7-day Compressive Strength for The Studied Mixtures ..................91

6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................93

6.1 Summary ..........................................................................................................93

6.2 Observations and Conclusions .........................................................................94
6.2.1 Observations and Conclusions from #57 Stone Concrete Mixtures .......94
6.2.2 Observations and Conclusions from #67 Stone Concrete Mixtures .......95
6.2.3 Observations and Conclusions from #7 Stone Concrete Mixtures .........95
6.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................96

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................97

VITA .................................................................................................................................99

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Blocking assessment using J-ring ................................................................................13

3.1 Summary of State DOTs specifications of the mixture parameter for SCC
Alabama - New Hampshire ....................................................................................34

3.2 Summary of State DOTs specifications of the mixture parameter for SCC
New Jersey -West Virginia ....................................................................................35

3.3 Summary of State DOTs specifications of the fresh performance for SCC
Alabama - New Hampshire ....................................................................................36

3.4 Summary of State DOTs specifications of the fresh performance for SCC
New Jersey - West Virginia ...................................................................................37

3.5 Summary of State DOTs specifications of the hardened performance for SCC
Alabama - West Virginia .......................................................................................38

4.1 TDOT Class A mixtures with 20% cement replacement of Class C fly ash ...............41

4.2 TDOT Class A mixtures with 20% cement replacement of Class F fly ash ................42

4.3 The chemical composition of the cement ....................................................................43

4.4 The chemical composition of Class F fly ash ..............................................................44

4.5 The chemical composition of Class C fly ash ..............................................................44

4.6 #57 Stone gradation .....................................................................................................45

4.7 #67 Stone gradation .....................................................................................................45

4.8 #7 Stone gradation .......................................................................................................46

4.9 Natural sand gradation .................................................................................................47

4.10 Manufactured sand gradation .....................................................................................47

4.11 Technical Data of MasterPolyheed 900 .....................................................................48

x
4.12 Technical Data of MasterGlenium 7500 ....................................................................49

4.13 Technical Data of MasterAir AE 90 ..........................................................................49

4.14 Testing Protocol of SCC mixtures .............................................................................51

4.15 Testing Protocol of conventional concrete mixtures .................................................52

5.1 Test results for #57 Aggregate + Natural Sand + C Ash mixture ................................63

5.2 Test results for #57 Aggregate + Natural Sand + F Ash mixture ................................63

5.3 Test results for #67 Aggregate + Natural Sand + C Ash mixture ................................64

5.4 Test results for #67 Aggregate + Natural Sand + F Ash mixture ................................64

5.5 Test results for #67 Aggregate + Manufactured Sand + C Ash mixture .....................65

5.6 Test results for #67 Aggregate + Manufactured Sand + F Ash mixture ......................65

5.7 Test results for #7 Aggregate + Natural Sand + C Ash mixture ..................................66

5.8 Test results for #7 Aggregate + Natural Sand + F Ash mixture ..................................66

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Slump flow test ............................................................................................................10

2.2 Visual Stability Index, (a) VSI = 0 – Concrete Mass is Homogeneous and No
Evidence of Bleeding. (b) VSI = 1 – Concrete Shows Slight Bleeding Observed
as a Sheen on the Surface. (c) VSI = 2 – Evidence of a Mortar Halo and Water
Sheen. (d) VSI = 3 – Concentration of Coarse Aggregate at Center of Concrete
Mass and Presence of a Mortar Halo. .........................................................................11

2.3 J-Ring test ..........................................................................................................................13

2.4 L-Box testing apparatus .................................................................................................... 14

2.5 Column segregation apparatus ...........................................................................................15

3.1 Summary of SCC usage type among responding states .................................................22

4.1 The combined aggregate gradation ....................................................................................46

4.2 The slump flow test ............................................................................................................53

4.3 Visual stability index criteria .............................................................................................54

4.4 T50 measurement ...............................................................................................................55

4.5 J-ring Test ..........................................................................................................................56

4.6 L-box test ...........................................................................................................................57

4.7 The static column segregation............................................................................................58

4.8 Air content test ...................................................................................................................60

5.1 Slump and slump flow of the studied stones .....................................................................67

5.2 Water reducer admixture requirements for the studied stones ..........................................68

5.3 T50 values of the studied stones ........................................................................................68

5.4 Slump and slump flow of #57 stone mixtures....................................................................69

xii
5.5 Water reducer admixture requirements for #57 stone mixtures .........................................70

5.6 T50 values of #57 stone mixtures ......................................................................................71

5.7 Slump and slump flow of #67 stone mixtures....................................................................72

5.8 Water reducer admixture requirements for #67 stone mixtures .........................................73

5.9 The T50 values of #67 stone mixtures ...............................................................................74

5.10 Slump and slump flow of #7 stone mixtures....................................................................75

5.11 Water reducer admixture requirements for #7 stone mixtures .........................................75

5.12 The T50 values of #7 stone mixtures ...............................................................................76

5.13 Slump flow and J-ring difference for the studied stones .................................................77

5.14 The L-Box Ratio for the studied stones ...........................................................................77

5.15 Slump flow and J-ring difference for #57 stone mixtures ...............................................78

5.16 The L-Box Ratio for #57 stone mixtures .........................................................................79

5.17 Slump flow and J-ring difference for #67 stone mixtures ...............................................80

5.18 The L-Box Ratio for #67 stone mixtures .........................................................................80

5.19 Slump flow and J-ring difference for #7 stone mixtures .................................................81

5.20 The L-Box Ratio for #7 stone mixtures ...........................................................................82

5.21 The column segregation for the SCC mixtures ................................................................83

5.22 The column segregation for #57 stone mixtures ..............................................................84

5.23 The column segregation for #67 stone mixtures ..............................................................85

5.24 The Colum Segregation for #7 stone mixtures ................................................................86

5.25 The initial and final time of setting for #57 stone mixtures .............................................87

5.26 The initial and final time of setting for #67 stone mixtures .............................................88

5.27 The initial and final time of setting for #7 stone mixtures ...............................................88

5.28 The AEA requirements for #57 stone mixtures ...............................................................89

xiii
5.29 The AEA requirements for #67 stone mixtures ...............................................................90

5.30 The AEA requirements for #7 stone mixtures .................................................................91

5.31 The 7-Day compressive strength of the studied mixtures ................................................92

xiv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Self-consolidating concrete (SCC), also known as self-compacting concrete, is a highly

flowable, non-segregating concrete; it has the ability of filling formwork under its own weight

without the need of conventional vibration techniques. Generally, SCC is made with

conventional concrete components with the addition of chemical admixture such as viscosity-

modifying admixture (VMAs) to enhance cohesion and control the tendency of segregation

resulting from the highly flowable SCC (ACI, 2007). Also, the amount of SCC fine aggregate is

usually higher than that for conventional concrete in order to provide better lubrication for course

aggregates to enhance workability of the mixture (Adekunle, 2012). The use of SCC was first

used in Japan and has gained acceptance elsewhere since the late 1980s (ACI, 2007). During that

time the durability of concrete structures became an important issue in Japan; thus an adequate

compaction by skilled labors was required to obtain durable concrete structures. This

requirement led to the development of SCC and its first use was reported in 1989 (Okamura &

Ouchi, 2003). SCC was initially used to provide proper consolidation in applications where

concrete durability and service life were of concern. Later, SCC was also proven to be

economically beneficial because of a number of factors as noted below (EFNARC, 2002):

 Accelerating construction times.

 Reduction in site manpower and equipment.

1
  Improved finished surfaces

 Improved ease of placement

 Improved durability

 Greater freedom in design

 Thinner concrete sections

 Reduced noise levels, absence of vibration

 Safer working environment

The use of SCC has been an excellent solution for the precast/prestressed concrete

industry. In the precast industry, congested reinforcement and complex geometrical shapes

make proper filling and consolidation using conventional concrete more difficult. In addition,

due to the relative ease of construction using SCC and superior quality control environment that

is required in the precast industry SCC use has been a relatively easy transition. In North

America, the use of SCC in the precast industry has grown dramatically since 2000. In 2000 the

volume of SCC in the precast market was approximately 177,000 yd3 (135,000 m3) and it

increased to 2.3 million yd3 (1.8 million m3) in 2003 (ACI, 2007). In 2002, 40% of precast

manufactures in the United States had used SCC, and in some cases, new plants are currently

being built around the idea of using SCC technology (Vachon & Daczko, 2002).

Besides the above advantages, SCC has also been proven to have some disadvantages

related to its fluid nature. SCC is a highly flowable concrete; therefore formwork must be

properly sealed and strong enough to inhibit leaking of the SCC paste and resist the higher

hydrostatic pressures that are expected with fluid SCC (Keske, Schindler, & Barnes, 2013). Also,

more studies are needed to study the effects of adding chemical admixtures that give SCC its

fluid nature, higher paste contents, and higher fine contents that may significantly change the
2
fresh and hardened properties of the SCC compared to conventional concrete mixes (Missouri

DOT, 2012).

1.2 Objectives and Scope of work

Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is a concrete technology that is growing in popularity

with the precast/prestressed industry and contractors. SCC achieves the ability to flow and self-

consolidate through modified aggregate gradations, increased cementing materials, and chemical

admixtures; therefore, its hardened properties are similar to conventional concretes. This study is

part of a project funded by Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) carried out by

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) to develop four new SCC mixtures; two Class P-

SCC (precast) and two Class A-SCC (general use), and ensure they meet the minimum strength

and durability requirement for TDOT Class P and Class A mixtures. The research program will

insure that desired fresh properties are achievable with materials available in Tennessee. With

the approval of TDOT management, Class P-SCC and Class A-SCC (with specified fresh and

hardened properties) would appear as an option in TDOT specifications. Using SCC mixtures

can potentially save TDOT money by allowing TDOT suppliers and contractors to utilize this

cost and time saving technology. In addition, greater use of supplementary cementing materials

(SCMs) will improve TDOT’s environmental stewardship.

As stated, this study is part of the TDOT research to investigate the fresh and hardened

properties of SCC. Throughout this study, only the class A (general use) mixtures were selected

for detailed studies of their fresh properties. Therefore the development of the class P (precast)

mixtures is out of the scope of this study. The primary objectives of this study were thus to:

3
  Investigate the fresh properties of Class A-SCC in comparison to conventional

concrete.

 Investigate the relationship between Visual Stability Index (VSI) and fresh-

segregation of Class A- SCC

 Investigate the effect on fresh properties of fly ash Classes C and F, and various

gradations of coarse and fine aggregates.

 Recommend the specification of fresh performance requirements for the general use

(Class A) SCC that the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) should

apply to establish SCC stability and flowability during the production of general

elements.

To achieve the above objectives the following scope of work was implemented: (1)

review other States’ specifications and relevant studies and literature; (2) develop a research

approach; (3) investigate the fresh properties of general use SCC mixes; (4) investigate the

effects of VSI on fresh segregation of SCC mixes; (5) compare the fresh properties of SCC

mixes with conventional concrete mixes; (6) analyze and study the information obtained

throughout the mixing and testing to develop findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and

(7) prepare this study in order to document the information obtained during this investigation,

and provide the TDOT with the specification of fresh performance requirements for SCC for the

general use (Class A) .

1.3 Research Approach

The study was executed in six activities. The first activity involved conducting a

comprehensive literature review and survey the state Department of Transportation (DOT) SCC

4
specifications. The State DOT SCC survey and specifications were reviewed and summarized in

Chapter 3. These specifications were used as a guide to develop the candidate mixture

proportions and the specification of their fresh and hardened properties.

In the second activity, typical Class A materials such as Supplementary Cementitious

Materials (SCMs), coarse aggregate, fine aggregates, cement, Classes C and F fly ash, and some

chemical admixtures were acquired from local TDOT suppliers. Also, in this activity, the test

specimens molds and experimental accessories were prepared as well as necessary equipment

calibration was conducted.

The third activity involved the development of candidate Class A-SCC mixtures. Two Class

A-SCC mixtures were developed, with 20% replacements of cement with Class F fly ash and Class

C fly ash. These mixture proportions were developed based on the trial minimum requirement

determined in activity one. Several conventional concrete mixtures were developed for the Class

A to evaluate the performance of the SCC mixes in comparison to conventional concrete. A total

of 12 batches of each candidate mixture were developed using different coarse aggregate

gradations, natural and manufactured sand as described in Section 4.

In the fourth activity, the 12 batches of each candidate mixture (24 totals) were tested

with a variety of fresh consistencies and aggregate blends. Each Conventional mixture underwent

standard fresh property testing which includes: slump (ASTM C 143); Unit Weight and

Gravimetric Air Content (ASTM C 138); Air Content by Pressure Method (ASTM C 231). In

addition SCC mixtures underwent the same fresh test except slump, and underwent additional

fresh tests which include: Slump Flow and Visual Stability Index (ASTM C 1611);

Consolidating ability by J-Ring (ASTM C 1621); Static Segregation by Column Test (ASTM C

1610); and L-Box.

5
 Castings of SCC specimens for the proposed hardened tests on the candidate mixtures,

which are outside the scope of this study, will be carried out in the fifth activity. Each Class A-

SCC mixture will be tested at 7, 28, and 56 days. Each mixture will undergo standard hardened

property testing which includes: compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, modulus of

elasticity, rapid chloride permeability, and hardened concrete segregation by ultrasonic pulse

velocity.

In the final activity, the fresh properties data were compiled, analyzed and the effects of

Visual Stability Index (VSI) on fresh segregation of SCC was investigated. The final task of this

project, which is not in the scope of this thesis, will be to prepare the final report including the

entire study and conclusions will be compiled from the experimental results and

recommendations will be provided.

1.4 Study Outline

This study consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 discusses the history, advantages, and

disadvantages of using SCC. Also within Chapter 1, the objectives, scope of work, and research

approach are discussed.

The existing literature relating to all aspects of this study is summarized in Chapter 2.

The mixture proportioning as well as the fresh properties of SCC is discussed. Also, Stability and

fresh segregation of SCC, followed by a summary of the methods used to assess the fresh

properties are addressed.

Chapter 3 summarizes the survey of state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) that was

conducted to gather specifications related to SCC use in other states. The survey addresses the

6
mixture parameters, fresh performance, and hardened performance requirements. The results of

the survey were summarized and discussed in chapter 3.

Section 4 documents the development of the 16 SCC mixtures and 8 conventional

concrete mixtures. A detailed description of theses mixtures is discussed which includes, but are

not limited to, the selection of aggregate gradation, cementation materials, chemical admixtures,

and air entrained admixture. Also, the mixing procedure is documented, followed by descriptions

of the fresh properties measured during this study.

The results of the fresh SCC tests are presented in Chapter 5. All conclusions and

recommendations derived from the study are then summarized in Chapter 6.

7
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is a new technology in the market and it is rapidly

growing particular in the precast industry because of its economic benefits and due to the relative

ease of construction and superior quality control environment in that industry segments. SCC has

been described as "the most revolutionary development in concrete construction for several

decades (Vachon & Daczko, 2002). As mentioned earlier, SCC is highly flowable and it is made

with conventional concrete components with chemical admixture such as viscosity-modifying

admixture (VMAs) to enhance cohesion and control the tendency of segregation resulting from

the highly flowable SCC. Generally, SCC achieves the ability to flow and self-consolidate

through modified aggregate gradations, increased cementing materials, and chemical admixtures;

therefore, its hardened properties are similar to conventional concretes but its fresh properties

differentiate it from conventional concrete. SCC should be designed to provide high levels of

deformations while maintaining highly stability. Therefore, the fresh properties of SCC are vital

in determining whether or not it can be placed satisfactorily and with the required characteristics.

The main four characteristics that should be met for SCC are mentioned below (ACI, 2007):

 Filling ability (unconfined flowability): The ability of the SCC to flow and fill

completely all spaces within a mold or form under only self-weight.

8
  Passing ability (confined flowability): The ability to flow through reinforcing bars or

other obstacles without segregation and without mechanical vibration.

 Segregation resistance (stability): The ability to remain homogeneous in composition

during transport and placing.

 Surface quality and finishing.

Throughout this chapter, the most commonly used test methods that are conducted to

measure the SCC characteristics are briefly described. Also a brief description of material

proportion and hardened properties of SCC are discussed.

2.2 Test Methods for Measuring SCC Characteristics

Most of the conventional fresh property tests are not applicable to SCC due to its high

flowable nature. Thus, there are many methods that were derived in order to test the fresh

properties and characteristics of SCC, which are briefly described below:

2.2.1 Slump Flow Test (ASTM C 1611)

The slump flow is the most widely used test to measure the filling ability and flowability

of SCC (ASTM, 2005). It was first developed in Japan to characterize fresh concrete mixtures

for under-water placement (ACI, 2007). The test method is based on the conventional slump test.

The diameter of a SCC “patty” is measured. This patty is formed from SCC free flowing from an

inverted slump cone onto a level surface. The common range of slump flow that is reported by

ACI Committee 237 is 18 to 30 inches (450 to 760 mm) for SCC. The higher the slump flow

value, the greater ability to fill formwork or mold, and the farther the SCC can travel from a

discharge point under self-weight. An example of a slump flow test is shown in Figure 2.1.

9
 Figure 2.1 Slump flow test

2.2.2 Visual Stability Index (ASTM C 1611)

The Visual Stability Index (VSI) is a method for determining the segregation stability of

the mixture, and to evaluate the relative stability of batches of the same SCC mixture. The VSI is

determined through visually rating apparent stability of the slump flow patty based on specific

visual properties of the spread. The SCC mixture is considered stable and suitable for the

intended use when the VSI rating is 0 or 1, and a VSI rating of 2 or 3 gives an indication of

segregation potential (ACI, 2007). Assigning a Visual Stability Index (VSI) value to the concrete

spread using the criteria shown Figure 2.2 (ASTM, 2005).

10
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2.2 Visual Stability Index, (a) VSI = 0 – Concrete Mass is Homogeneous and No
Evidence of Bleeding. (b) VSI = 1 – Concrete Shows Slight Bleeding Observed as a
Sheen on the Surface. (c) VSI = 2 – Evidence of a Mortar Halo and Water Sheen. (d)
VSI = 3 – Concentration of Coarse Aggregate at Center of Concrete Mass and Presence of
a Mortar Halo.

11
2.2.3 T50 (ASTM C 1611)

The T50 value is another fresh property to quantify the flowing ability of SCC, and

provides a relative index of the viscosity. The test measures the time for the slump flow paddy

to reach a diameter of 20 in (50 cm). A longer T50 time indicates a higher viscosity mixture, and

a shorter T50 results from a lower viscosity mixture (ACI, 2007). ACI Committee 237 reports

that a SCC mixture can be characterized as a lower viscosity mixture when the T50 time is 2

seconds or less, and as a higher viscosity mixture with T50 time greater than 5 seconds. The T50

test and slump flow test are typically performed with the same paddy.

2.2.4 J-ring (ASTM C 1621)

The test is used to determine the passing ability of SCC through reinforcement steel and

obstacles. A sample of fresh SCC is placed in a standard slump cone with J-ring based, which

contains steel bars. The mold is raised, the SCC passes through J-ring, and the J-ring patty

diameter is measured (ASTM, 2009a). The higher the J-ring slump flow value, the greater ability

the SCC has to fill a steel reinforced form or mold, and the farther SCC can travel through a

reinforcing bar from a discharge point under its own weight (ACI, 2007). The difference between

the unconfined slump flow and the J-ring slump flow is used to identify the restriction degree of

SCC to pass through reinforcing bars. The mixtures passing ability and the blocking tendency

could be identified according to the ASTM C1621 standard classification shown in Table 2.1. An

example of a J-Ring test is shown in Figure 2.3.

12
 Table 2.1 Blocking assessment using J-ring

Difference Between Slump Flow Blocking Assessment

and J-Ring Flow
0 to 1 in. No visible blocking
>1 to 2 in. Minimal to noticeable blocking
>2 in Noticeable to extreme blocking

Figure 2.3 J-Ring test

2.2.5 L-box Test

The L-box test is based on a Japanese design for underwater concrete (EFNARC, 2002).

The test assesses the flow of the concrete, and also the extent to which it’s subject to blocking by

reinforcement. The apparatus consists of a rectangular-section box in the shape of an ‘L’, with a

vertical and horizontal section, separated by a moveable gate, in front of which vertical lengths

of reinforcement bar are fitted. The SCC is placed in the vertical section, and the gate is lifted to

let the concrete flow into the horizontal section. When the flow stops, the heights of the concrete

are measured at the end of the horizontal section and in the vertical section. The L-Box result is
13
the ratio of the height of concrete in the horizontal section to remaining in the vertical section.

ACI Committee 237 specified the minimum ratio of the heights to be 0.8, and the nearer this

ratio to 1.0 is the better flow potential of the SCC mixture. An example of L-Box testing

apparatus is show in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4 L-Box testing apparatus

2.2.6 Column Segregation (ASTM C 1610)

This test is used to assess the segregation resistance of SCC. A sample of freshly SCC is

placed in one lift in a cylindrical mold without tamping or vibration. The mold is rested for 15

minutes, and then the cylindrical mold is divided into three sections to represent different levels

of the column. The SCC from the top and bottom sections is washed through a No.4 (4.75 mm)

sieve, leaving the coarse aggregate on it. The mass of the coarse aggregate from the top and the

14
bottom levels of the column are determined in order to calculate the percentage of segregation

(ASTM, 2009b). The SCC is generally considered to be accepted if the percent segregation is

less than 10% (ACI, 2007). An example of a column segregation test apparatus is shown in

Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5 Column segregation apparatus

2.3 Constituent Materials and Mixture Proportions of SCC Mixtures

SCC is made with conventional concrete components which includes, coarse and fine

aggregate, cement, supplementary cementing materials, water, air, and with some chemical

admixture such as high-range water reducers and VMAs (ACI, 2007). In addition, SCC contains

larger amount of powder and supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash, silica fume,

GGBFS, limestone powder, etc. in order to enhance the behavior of SCC.

15
2.3.1 Powders and Water Content

Powder includes cement, GGBFS, fly ash, Limestone powder, and any material that

grinds to less than 0.125 mm (No.100 sieve) (ACI, 2007). SCC is comprised of a large amount of

powders that can improve the characteristics of SCC, particles distribution and packing, and

ensuring high cohesive SCC.

[Link] Portland Cement

The selection of the type of cement based on the overall requirements of SCC such as

strength, durability, and the application (Keske et al., 2013; PCI, 2003). For general use concrete,

the cement should not contain more than 10% of C3A to avoid the problems of poor workability

and quick hydration (Hameed, 2005). Therefore most types of the five primary types of Portland

cement can be used in SCC and they should meet one of the flowing specification: ASTM C 150,

C 595, or C 1157 (ACI, 2007). For precast/prestressed concrete, ASTM C 150 type III cement is

preferred due to its high early-age strength characteristics (K. H. Khayat, 1999).

[Link] Fly Ash

Fly ash is spherical with smooth surface particles, resulting from the burning of coal in

coal fired power plants. ASTM C 618 separates fly ash into two classes based on the calcium

oxide content, Class C which contains 15 – 40 percent of calcium oxide, and Class F, which has

less than 10 percent calcium oxide (ASTM C 618, 2003). Fly ash is used to replace portland

cement to decrease the cost and heat of hydration associated with Type III cement. According to

ACI 2007 and Khayat et al. (2003) a replacement between 20 and 40% Class F fly ash in a SCC

mixture led to good workability, with acceptable strength development and frost durability.

16
However some studies showed using Class F fly ash can reduce the early strength at three and

seven days (Keske et al., 2013; Mehta & Monteiro, 2006). Optimum replacement value is

determined by job specification, material availability, cost, and the strength-gain needs of the

application (ACI, 2007; Keske et al., 2013).

[Link] Mixing Water

The relationship between water-to-cementitious-material ratio (w/cm) and the strength of

concrete is an inverse relationship; the strength increases if the w/cm decreases (Keske et al.,

2013; Mehta & Monteiro, 2006). For precast concrete highly early-age strengths are desirable,

thus a lower w/cm should be applied, typically between 0.34 and 0.40 (Keske et al., 2013; Kamal

Khayat & Mitchell, 2009). Therefore, high range water reducers admixtures (HRWRA) are used

to increase the workability of SCC mixtures. Also, the stability of SCC could be increased by

reducing the water content; thus, a suitable amount of water and water reducer is needed to

maintain higher level workability and stability.

2.3.2 Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate

The coarse aggregate size and volume should be chosen according to the required SCC

characteristics (passing ability and stability of the plastic concrete) (ACI, 2007). The passing

ability of SCC is very sensitive to the size and volume of coarse aggregate. Therefore, ACI

committee 237 recommends the nominal maximum size of the coarse aggregate to be one size

smaller than recommended in (ACI Committee 301, 1994) to enhance the passing ability. The

particle shape of coarse aggregate also affects the workability of SCC. A rounded coarse

aggregate provides more filling ability than a crushed-stone of similar size (ACI, 2007) . The

17
fine aggregate, on the other hand, should be well-graded natural or manufactured sand. In

general, it is recommended to blend natural and manufactured sand to improve the stability of

SCC (ACI, 2007).

Generally, the decrease in total coarse aggregate volume enhances the passing and filling

ability of SCC mixtures (Keske et al., 2013; Koehler et al., 2007). In precast/prestressed

application, where a high passing and filling ability are required, the coarse and fine aggregate

could occupy one third of SCC mixture by volume each (Keske et al., 2013; Kamal Khayat &

Mitchell, 2009; Koehler et al., 2007).

2.3.3 Admixtures

Admixtures are an effective component in SCC mixtures. There are many types of

admixtures that are used to enhance the fresh properties of SCC mixtures such as, but are not

limited to, high-range water-reducer admixtures (HRWRAs), Viscosity-Modifying Admixtures

(VMAs), and Air –Entraining admixtures (AEA).

HRWRAs are the most common admixtures that can be used to develop SCC mixtures.

Generally, HRWRAs increase the fluidity of SCC which helps to maintain the water cement ratio

as lower as possible (ACI, 2007). HRWRAs can affect the fresh properties of SCC through

increasing the workability, and the hardened properties, especially strength, are affected by

reducing the w/cm as a result of using HRWRAs (Keske et al., 2013).

Viscosity-Modifying Admixtures are beneficial components for controlling the viscosity

and stability of SCC. A lower viscosity, lower resistance to flow, is required to increase the

traveling distance of SCC during the placement (Keske et al., 2013; Koehler et al., 2007).

VMAs can also be used with HRWRs to maintain a uniform stability at a lower viscosity (Keske

18
et al., 2013; K. H. Khayat, 1999). In general, the use of VMAs is not always necessary, the

viscosity of SCC mixture can be adjusted through aggregate selection and graduation, or by

controlling the amount of water reducer admixtures and viscosity-modifying admixtures (Keske

et al., 2013; KH Khayat, Ghezal, & Hadriche, 2000; Koehler et al., 2007).

Air-Entraining Admixtures are added to concrete to form macroscopic voids and

microscopic bubbles in the concrete volume to provide space for concrete expansion due to the

cyclic freezing and thawing of water caught inside the concrete. AEA provides a uniform

structure of voids, thus making their use popular in precast SCC mixtures (Keske et al., 2013).

Generally, AEA is applied in small dosages; the dosage must be adjusted based on the concrete

fluidity and production techniques employed (Keske et al., 2013).

19
 CHAPTER 3

SURVEY OF THE STATE SCC MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS

3.1 Introduction

A survey of state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) was conducted to gather

specifications related to SCC use in other states. The survey addresses the mixture parameters,

fresh performance requirements, and the hardened performance requirements. The results of the

survey are summarized and discussed in this chapter. In the summary the term “general” will be

used to describe specifications that allow for multiple uses or where a particular use is not

explicitly stated.

3.2 Survey Requirements

The survey was distributed to the state DOTs in the US to gather information related to

SCC specifications. The survey addresses the mixture parameters, fresh performance, and

hardened performance requirements; the items specifically addressed by the survey are:

3.2.1 Mixture Parameters

 Maximum and minimum cement contents.

 Fly ash (and other SCM) usage allowances.

 Coarse aggregate gradation (maximum size) limits.

 Fine-to-total aggregate ratio limits (FA/TA).

20
  Air entrainment requirements (AE).

 Water-to-cement ratio requirements.

3.2.2 Fresh Performance

 Slump flow maximum/minimum limits.

 T-50 limit.

 Visual stability (VSI) limit.

 J-Ring, L-Box, segregation column, and/or other fresh performance requirements.

3.2.3 Hardened Performance

 Compressive strength requirements.

 Flexural/tensile strength requirements.

 Modulus of elasticity requirements.

 Permeability requirements.

3.3 Summary of The Survey

A summary of the 24 state DOTs that responded to the survey is shown in Figure 3.1.

Oregon and Michigan responded that they do not allow SCC on their projects, and South

Carolina responded that there was no industry demand for SCC. Of the states that use SCC, the

survey results showed that 12 states allow for SCC in precast application through specification or

special provision. Seven states allow SCC for general use through specification or special

provision. SCC in drilled shaft foundations is allowed in 4 states through special provision or

specification. Three states allow SCC for other uses (caissons, bridges, and composite arch).
21
 Other Uses, 3

General Use, 7

Drilled Shafts , 4

Precast Use, 12

Figure 3.1 Summary of SCC usage type among responding states

3.3.1 Summary of the Respondents

Survey was sent to 50 states and responses to the survey were received from 24 states.

The specifications of the states that responded are briefly summarized in the next section and

details are provided in Tables 3.1 - 3.5. The respondents generally indicated they do have some

specifications for mixture parameters and fresh performance requirements; however hardened

properties, especially flexural strength, tensile strengths, and permeability were reported to be

project-specific.

22
[Link] Alabama (ALDOT)

The SCC specifications for ALDOT are in the process of being finalized. However, they

provided parameters which are applicable for SCC use in prestressed concrete. The parameters

include the mixture proportions, fresh performance requirements, and the hardened performance

requirements for SCC for precast use. They have specified 5000 psi compressive strength unless

otherwise specified. For their permeability requirement they have specified a maximum 2,000

coulombs in marine environments. Currently ALDOT is considering the use of SCC for use in

drilled shafts and columns.

[Link] Arizona (ADOT)

ADOT responded with the requirements they are using to approve SCC for precast. The

parameters include the mixture proportions, in which they base the cement content loosely off of

the requirements for structural concrete. The SCM content is up to the manufacture, but

ultimately has to be review and approved by the department. They do not require air entrained in

precast or prestressed items. They do not have a FA/TA limit, but they stated they have not

approved a mixture with a FA/TA of more than 0.48. There are no requirements for maximum

aggregate size, but they report a #7 stone is typical. Column segregation is required during trial

batching, and typically monthly during production. Compressive strength is the only hardened

performance requirement and it is as per specification.

[Link] California (Caltrans)

Caltrans provided general specifications for SCC, and it applies only where the job

specifications allow the use of SCC. The provided specification allows for SCC use in several

23
applications and is labeled general purpose for this report. The specifications contain the fresh

performance requirements, the coarse aggregate gradation limits, and the SCMs usage allowance

which include: fly ash, GGBFS, ultra-fine fly ash (UFFA), and metakaolin.

[Link] Colorado (CODOT)

Colorado State provided information on their specifications for SCC for use in caissons

and precast. However, there were no specifications for precast use.

[Link] Florida (FLDOT)

FLDOT provided their specifications for the precast/prestressed concrete fabrication

facilities that are involved in the manufacturing of the products using SCC. The specifications

contain the mixture parameters requirements in which they do not mandate a coarse aggregate

maximum size. Producers are using #67, #78 or #89 and may include additional blending of

these; however, to avoid shrinkage concerns produces are trying to use #67 and #78 maximum

sizes. The cementing and SCM requirements are the same as that for conventional concrete. The

air entrainment requirement is 1% to 6%. The specifications also provide the fresh and hardened

performance requirements which are a project-specific.

[Link] Idaho (ID DOT)

Idaho State SCC specifications are a modification of the Portland cement concrete

specifications. The SCC specification provided is for Class 30 (3000psi) and Class 35 and

greater (3500psi and greater) concrete. It contains the mixture parameter requirements, and the

fresh performance requirements.

24
[Link] Kentucky (KY DOT)

Kentucky DOT reported that SCC is only permitted for qualified precast plants. The SCC

strength requirement is 3500psi for 28 days unless otherwise indicated in project plans. They

specified the cement content, air entrainment, and the water-to-cement ratio requirements in the

mixture parameters section.

[Link] Maine (ME DOT)

Maine DOT reported in their draft specifications that SCC can be used for Class A

(general use), LP (Structural Wearing Surfaces) or P (Precast) mixes when approved by the

Resident Engineer. The SCC should meet the requirements of strength, entrained air and

permeability for the respective concrete Class.

ME DOT also provided a special provision for SCC that they used on bridge project

using carbon-fiber composite arches. The special provision contains the mixture parameters,

fresh performance requirements, and the compressive strength.

[Link] Maryland (MD SHA)

Maryland Department of Transportation’s State Highway Administration (SHA) has been

conducting a pilot program using SCC in a selected number of precast plants producing low-risk

drainage structures for a number of years. Recently the Maryland Transportation Authority

(Maryland’s tolling authority) completed a large-scale project, the Inter-County Connector,

which incorporated a number of prestressed beams utilizing SCC. SHA provided their current

draft specification for SCC in precast and prestressed structures which contains the mixture

parameters, fresh performance requirements, and the hardened performance requirements.

25
 MD SHA administers some 30+ precast/prestressed plants over a ten state region. Due to

the degree of variance in aggregate properties and variable needs for ASR mitigation, MD SHA

does not set absolute aggregate limits. Trial batch results will indicate need for adjustment to

aggregates and SCM. MD SHA reports none of their producers are currently manufacturing a

SCC mixture with any stone or gravel larger than #67.

[Link] Michigan (MI DOT)

MIDOT reported they do not allow SCC usage in their projects.

[Link] Minnesota (MN DOT)

Minnesota State DOT provided their draft performance specifications for SCC. They do

not have a standard specification for SCC at the present. They have used SCC on a couple of

projects, when there were concerns about achieving consolidation around heavily reinforced

locations. In those cases, they use conventional concrete specifications and added requirements

for a VSI of less than 1 and a maximum spread of 28”.

[Link] Mississippi (MS DOT)

Mississippi DOT provided information regarding SCC specifications for general use and

drilled shafts concrete. The specifications are comprised of the mixture parameter requirements

which include SCM usage, maximum size aggregate, air content and w/c. For fresh properties

they specify slump flow separately for precast and general use. In addition, they specify J-ring,

static segregate (column test) and bleeding capacity.

26
[Link] New Hampshire (NH DOT)

New Hampshire DOT has used SCC in precast operations, and they have an Alkali–

silica reaction (ASR) and permeability requirement in which suppliers must use SCMs. For the

fresh performance requirements they responded that all the mixtures used for NHDOT have been

developed by precast manufacturers with assistance of admixture suppliers. A fields test is

required prior to placement to insure the adequacy of the mixture. However, they do not report

specific requirements for the fresh performance properties. NHDOT reported they have

minimum compressive strength and permeability requirement for the hardened performance

requirements, but they did not specify their values.

[Link] New Jersey (NJDOT)

New Jersey provided their SCC specifications for drilled shafts and precast concrete. The

specifications contain the mixture parameters and the fresh performance requirements, and they

specified the compressive strength and the permeability in the hardened performance

requirements.

[Link] North Carolina (NCDOT)

NCDOT provided the standard special provision for SCC for Precast / Prestressed use. It

contains the mixture parameters, fresh performance requirements, and specifies the compressive

strength for hardened performance requirements.

27
[Link] Nevada (NV DOT)

Nevada Department of Transportation allows SCC only in drilled shafts. A minimum of

20% fly ash is required. There is no requirement for maximum aggregate size but 1/2 inch is

typical. There is no specification for FA/TA but the mixtures range from0.57-0.43.

[Link] Oregon (OR DOT)

Oregon DOT reported they do not allow SCC usage in their projects.

[Link] Rhode Island (RIDOT)

RIDOT provided the general specification for SCC which covers the requirements for

modifying all classes of concrete mix designs, except classes B (General Use) and Z (Precast

Elements) for self-consolidating applications. RIDOT does not have different requirements for

conventional and SCC mixtures except for the maximum water/cement ratio, slump and

placement methods.

[Link] South Carolina (SCDOT)

SCDOT does not have specifications for SCC in their standard specifications. They stated

that the prestressed concrete producers in their state are not interested to work with the SCC

mixture, and that they would rather work with a high slump conventional concrete. However, a

few years ago, University of South Carolina (USC) conducted a research study of SCC funded

by SCDOT to investigate the performance and the benefits of lightweight SCC prestressed

concrete bridge girders.

28
[Link] South Dakota (SDDOT)

South Dakota DOT provided their current special provision for cast-in-place SCC which

is a modification of the SDDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges for conventional

concrete. The specification addresses the mixture parameters and the performance requirements

for general use.

[Link] Texas (TXDOT)

TxDOT provided their 2014 concrete specifications. They have allowed SCC concrete in

precast concrete plants that produce girders, retaining walls, and coping for several years.

Currently they don’t allow SCC concrete on the jobsites, but they might start next year (2014) to

allow SCC in drill shaft foundations. The 1500 coulombs permeability requirement reported in

the table is only a required for mixture option 8 (less than 20% SCM replacement).

[Link] Virginia (VADOT)

The Virginia DOT reported they are using SCC mixes with little specification differences

from normal concrete mix designs. The main differences are specifying a slump flow (ASTM

1611) rather than a slump, using the J-ring test (ASTM 1621) to check for flowability around

steel and a different fine aggregate/coarse aggregate ratio. The specified SCC parameters are

considered for general use.

[Link] Washington (WSDOT)

Washington State provided specification for precast elements which allows for SCC use.

SCC is only used on a case-by-case basis for other applications and would have to meet the

29
requirements for testing and submittals of that class of concrete. The Mix design parameters are

the same for SCC as for conventional precast concrete. The aggregate size is limited either by

intended use (form work and rebar spacing) or limits in specification by class of mix. In

addition, they also specify the fresh performance parameters and the compressive strength for

hardened performance.

[Link] West Virginia (WVDOT)

West Virginia reported they do not have a specification for the SCC in their standards.

When SCC has been used, it has either been specified by special provision or on a case-by-case

approval with direct coordination with the precast fabricator. West Virginia provided their

special provision specifications that they used on projects in which prestressed concrete box

beams, prestressed beams, and drilled shafts that were constructed with SCC.

3.3.2 Summary of the specifications

The information provided by the respondents are tabulated and provided in Tables 3.1 -

3.5. The respondents addressed the mixture parameters, fresh performance requirements, and the

hardened performance requirements for SCC which are summarized below:

[Link] Mixture Parameters

Selection of the maximum and minimum cement contents depends on the overall

requirements for concrete, such as strength and durability. Of the responding states, 75% (18

states) provided cement content requirements which is ranged between 470 -850 lb/yd3 for

precast and 317 – 800 lb/yd3 for general use.

30
 Of the states that responded 79% (19 states) allow fly ash, silica fume, and/or ground

granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS).

The maximum size of the aggregates depends on the particular application. Of the

responding agencies, 62.5% (15 states) specify coarse aggregate gradation (maximum size or

Nominal maximum size) limits, and about 46.7% of these agencies (7 of 15 states) specified ¾

inch as a maximum aggregate size.

The fine aggregate volume to total aggregate volume ratio is an important parameter for

SCC. Eleven of the responding states (45.8%) provided a fine-to-total aggregate ratio limit,

which is ranged between 0.4 to 0.5 for general use and 0.4 to 0.6 for precast use. In addition, 5

of the 11 (45.5%) states specified a 0.5 as a maximum fine-to-total aggregate ratio.

When a proper air-void system is provided SCC can exhibit excellent resistance to

freezing and thawing cycles and to deicing salt scaling. Of the responding agencies, 18 (75%)

specified ranges of air entrainment requirements, which ranged between 0 to 9%. In addition, 10

of 18 states (55.5%) reported 6.0± 1.5 % as air entrainment requirements.

Higher strengths in the SCC are generally achieved by lowering the water-cement ratio

(w/c) of the concrete mixture. Of the respondents, 83.3% (20 states) addressed w/c limits, and 8

of the 20 (40%) specified 0.45 as a maximum w/c limit. Generally w/c ranged from 0.30 to 0.50

for both precast and general use.

[Link] Fresh Performance

SCC in its fresh state exhibits different characteristics than conventional concrete. SCC

by definition must flow under its own weight without the need for mechanical vibration. In

addition, it must exhibit filling ability, passing ability, and segregation stability, so that when

31
SCC consolidates it completely fill formwork and surround any steel reinforcement or

prestressing strands.

The slump flow is the most widely used test to measure the filling ability of the SCC. Of

the responding agencies, 19 (79.2%) specified a slump flow limits; it is ranged between 25 ±7in

for general use and 26±3in for precast use.

The T50 is a method to quantify the flowing ability of SCC, and gives a relative index of

the viscosity. The test measures the time for the concrete spread paddy to reach the 20 in. (50

cm). Seven states (29.1%) provided a T50 limits. Of these states, 4 out of 7 (57.1%) specified 2

to 7 sec for T50 test for the both precast and general use.

The Visual Stability Index (VSI) is a method for determining the stability of the mix and

is determined through rating apparent stability of the slump flow patty. Of the responding

agencies, 16 (66.7%) addressed a VSI limit, and 12 out of 16 agencies (75%) stated that a VSI of

one or less would result in a stable batch.

The J-ring and L-Box are tests to measure the passing ability of SCC. The results show

the J-ring is more commonly used by the responding states compared to L-Box test. The survey

showed that 15 states (62.5%) are using the J-ring test, and 6 out of 15 states (40%) specified the

difference between the conventional slump flow and the J-ring slump flow to be less than 2

inches for general use, and two states specified 3 inches as a difference for precast use. Also, 5

out of 15 states (33.3%) stated the J-ring slump flow to be less than 2 inch for the both general

and precast use. Only one state (North Carolina) specified limits for the L-Box test which is 0.8

to 1.0 as the ratio of the height in the horizontal section relative to the vertical section.

Column segregation is a test to evaluate the static stability of a concrete mixture by

quantifying aggregate segregation. Of the respondents, 10 states (41.6%) use this test to measure

32
the stability of SCC, and 4 out of 10 states (40%) reported 10% as a maximum column

segregation limit, and 3 out of 10 (30%) specified 15% as a maximum limit.

[Link] Hardened Performance

The Hardened properties of SCC may be engineered through the mixture proportion to be

similar to those of a conventional concrete mixture. The hardened properties addressed in this

survey are compressive strength (fc), modulus of elasticity (Ec), flexural/tensile strength, and

permeability. Of the respondents, 17 (70.8%) states have compressive strength requirements and

9 states (37.5%) have permeability requirements. The average of minimum compressive strength

ranged between 3,000 to 8,000 psi among the states, and the maximum current (permeability)

ranged from 1500-3000 coulombs for general use and 1500-4000 coulombs for precast use.

Modulus of elasticity and tensile strengths were not specified.

33
 Table 3.1 Summary of State DOTs specifications of the mixture parameter for SCC Alabama -
New Hampshire:

Mixture Parameters
State Type Notes
Cement Max
SCMS FA/TA AE% W/C
(lb/yd3) Agg.
Fly Ash,
AL Precast 600-850 GGBFS, 3/4 in 0.45 - 0.55 4-6 0.40 max
Silica Fume
Fly Ash,
AZ Precast 715 GGBFS, ½ in 0. 48 max NS 0.40 max
Silica Fume
Fly Ash,
GGBFS,
CA General NS UFFA, 2 in NS NS NS
Metakaolin,
Silica fume
Caissons 610 min Fly Ash NS 0.50 8 max 0.38-0.45
CO
Precast NS NS NS NS NS NS
Fly Ash,
FL Precast 470- 752 min NS 0.50 max 1- 6 0.45
GGBSF
Fly Ash,
Max 0.40 -
ID General 560 min GGBFS, NS NS 6.5±1.5
0.45
Silica Fume
KY Precast 564 min NS NS NS 6± 2 0.46 max
Special
Composite
850 min 3/8 in 0.50 min 3 (±3) 0.43 max provision
Arch Tube Fly Ash,
ME
GGBFS,
General 660 max NS NS 7.50 NS

MD Precast 615 min DC DC DC 6.5± 1.5 0.32-0.50

MI Not allowed
Fly ash
Special
MN Bridge NS GGBFS NS NS 6±2 0.45 max
provision
Silica Fume
Fly ash
General NS 1 in NS 3-6 0.45 max
GGBFS
MS
Drilled Fly ash ( F)
Shafts
NS
GGBFS
¾ in NS NS 0.45 max

NH Precast NS NS ¾ in NS NS 0.45 max

NS = not specified.
DC = as per design criteria.

34
 Table 3.2 Summary of State DOTs specifications of the mixture parameter for SCC New Jersey -
West Virginia

Mixture Parameters
State Type Notes
Cement MAX
SCMS FA/TA AE% W/C
(Ib/yd) agg
Drilled
611 Fly Ash, 0.443
Shafts
NJ GGBFS, 3/8 in 0.5 max 7.5 ± 2.0
Precast 564 - 658 Silica fume 0.4
Fly Ash,
Special
NC Precast 639 - 850 GGBFS, NS 0.40- 0.60 6.0±1.5 0.48
provision
silica fume,
fly ash,
Drilled Special
NV 639-925 silica fume, NS 0.57-0.43 4-7 0.4
Shafts provision
GGBFS
OR Not allowed
aggregate of
Fly Ash, 1.5 in.
RI General 400 – 700 GGBFS, 3/4 in NS 5-9 0.36 max allowed by
Silica Fume special
provision
SC No interest from industry or vendors
Special
SD General 700-800 Fly Ash 3/4 in 0.55 max 5.0 -7.5 0.45 max
Provision
Fly Ash,
GGBFS,
TX Precast 700 max 1 in NS NS 0.45
Silica fume,
Metakaolin
Fly Ash (F),
GGBFS,
VA General 423 - 800 NS 0.40-0.50 4-8 0.45
Silica fume,
Metakaolin
Fly Ash
WA Precast 564 - 660 3/4 in NS 4.5 - 7.5 NS
GGBFS
Drilled Fly Ash(F), Special
566-752 4.5 -7.5 0.42
Shafts GGBFS, provision
WV 3/4 in 0.50 max
Silica fume, Special
Precast NS 4-6 0.42 max
Metakaolin provision
NS = not specified.
DC = as per design criteria.

35
 Table 3.3 Summary of State DOTs specifications of the fresh performance for SCC Alabama -
New Hampshire

Fresh Performance

State Type Slump T-50 Notes

J-Ring/L-Box
flow VSI
/column
limits sec
Δ slump flow
AL Precast 27” ± 2” NS < 2.0
J-Ring flow <3.0 in

Column Segregation
AZ Precast 30” max NS < 2
under 8%

Δ slump flow
J-Ring flow <2.0 in,
CA General 20"min 2-7 ≤1
Column Segregation< 15%,
Bleeding Capacity < 2.5 %
Δ slump flow Static Segregation
Caissons 21” ± 3” NS NS
J-Ring flow ≤ 2.0 in, <10%
CO
Precast NS NS NS NS NS
Δ slump flow
FL Precast 27” ± 2.5” 2-7 ≤ 1 J-Ring flow <2.0 in,
Column Segregation <15%
Δ slump flow
ID General 25” ± 7” NS 1.5max. J-Ring flow ≤1.5 in,
Column Segregation ≤10%
KY Precast NS NS NS NS
Composite
Arch 27” ± 3” 1.5max. Special provision
ME Tube NS NS
General NS 0-1
J-ring
MD Precast 25” ± 3” 6±4 0 -1
Column segregation
MI Not allowed

MN Bridge Max 28” NS ≤ 1 NS Special provision

Δ slump flow
J-Ring flow <1.5 or 2.0 in,
General 28” ±4” NS NS
Column Segregation <15%,
MS
Bleeding capacity < 2.5 %
Drilled
21” ±3” NS NS Column Segregation <10% Special provision
Shaft
NH Precast NS NS NS NS
NS = not specified.
DC = as per design criteria.

36
 Table 3.4 Summary of State DOTs specifications of the fresh performance for SCC New Jersey -
West Virginia

Fresh Performance
State Type Notes
Slump T-50 J-Ring/L-Box
VSI
flow limits sec /column
Drilled Special
21" ± 3" NS ≤ 1 NS
Shafts provision
NJ
Precast 26" ± 2" NS ≤ 1 NS
Δ slump flow
Special
NC Precast 27" ± 3" NS NS J-Ring flow <3.0 in,
provision
L-box Ratio: 0.8 - 1.0
Drilled Δ slump flow Special
NV 23" ± 5" NS ≤ 1
Shafts J-Ring flow <2.0in provisio
OR Not allowed
Δ slump flow
RI General 23" ± 3"” NS NS
J-Ring flow <2.0 in
SC No interest from industry or vendors
Δ slump flow
SD General 25" ± 3" NS ≤1
J-Ring flow <2.0 in
Δ slump flow
J-Ring flow ≤ 2 in,
TX Precast 25" ± 2" 2-7 0 or 1
Column Segregation<10%,
Bleeding < 2.5%
Δ slump flow
VA General 25 ± 3" NS 0 or 1
J-Ring flow <2.0 in
Δ slump flow
WA Precast NS < 6 ≤ 1 J-Ring flow ≤1.5 in,
Column segregation <10%
Δ slump flow
Drilled Special
22" ± 1" 2-7 < 1.5 J-Ring flow <1.5 in,
Shafts provision
WV Column Segregation <12%
Δ slump flow Special
Precast 23" ± 2" 2- 7 ≤1
J-Ring flow <1.5 in provision
NS = not specified.
DC = as per design criteria.

37
 Table 3.5 Summary of State DOTs specifications of the hardened performance for SCC Alabama
- West Virginia

Hardened Performance
State Type f´c (psi) flexural Permeability Notes
Ec(ksi)
28 day /tensile (coulombs)
Permeability requirement for
AL Precast 5000 NS NS Max 2,000
marine environments
AZ Precast DC NS NS NS
CA General DC NS NS NS
Caissons 4000 NS NS NS
CO
Precast DC NS NS NS
3000 -
FL Precast NS NS NS
8500
ID General 3000-3500 NS NS NS
KY Precast 3500 NS NS NS
Composite
6000 NS NS NS Special provision
ME Arch Tube
General 4350-5075 NS NS 2000 - 2400
MD Precast DC NS NS 2500
MI Not allowed
MN Bridge 4300 NS NS NS Special provision
General NS NS NS
MS 4000
Drilled Shaft NS NS NS Special provisions
NH Precast DC NS NS NS
Drilled Shaft 4600 NS NS NS Special provision
NJ
Precast 5400 min NS NS max 1000
NC Precast NS NS NS NS Special provision
NV Drilled Shaft 4000 NS NS NS Special provision
OR Not allowed
3000 -
RI General NS NS 1500 -3000
5000
SC No interest from industry or vendors
SD General 4500 min NS NS NS
TX Precast DC NS NS <1500
VA General DC NS NS NS
WA Precast DC NS NS NS
Drilled Shaft 4500 min NS NS NS Special provision
WV
Precast 8000 NS NS 1500 Special provision
NS = not specified.
DC = as per design criteria.

38
 CHAPTER 4

EXPERIMENTAL PLAN

4.1 Introduction

Throughout this chapter, the mixtures proportions, materials and suppliers, and the fresh

tests used in the experimental program are discussed. As mentioned in the first chapter This

study is part of the proposed project by Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) carried

out by University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) to develop four new SCC mixtures (two

Class P-SCC (precast) and two Class A-SCC (general use)), and insure they meet the minimum

strength and durability requirement for TDOT Class P and Class A mixtures. Throughout this

study, only the Class A (general use) mixtures were selected for detailed studies of their fresh

properties. Therefore the development of the Class P (precast) mixtures is out of the scope of this

study.

During this project the survey of state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) was

conducted to gather specifications related to SCC use for general and precast elements in other

states. The survey addressed the mixture parameters, fresh performance requirements, and the

hardened performance requirements. The findings of the survey were used to develop and select

the mixture proportions and components, and selecting the appropriate methods to evaluate the

fresh characteristics of Class A SCC mixtures. In accordance with the requirements of this

project, the materials used in the study were procured from local suppliers within the state of

Tennessee and are TDOT approved materials.

39
4.2 Mix Designs

The mixture parameters used by other states were analyzed and the mix designs for Class

A concrete (general use) were then established according to the other states specifications, and

TDOT Class A requirements. A total of 24 mixtures were developed which represent two Class

A-SCC mixtures and some conventional concrete as control mixtures.

The Class A mixtures were designed with 20% cement replacement using Class C fly ash

for one mixture, and Class F for the other. Each Class A mixtures was duplicated 12 times with

varying visual stability index values of 1 and 2, different aggregate sizes (ASTM C 33 #57,#67, and

# 7), and with natural and manufactured sand as shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Different HRWR

dosages were used to provide different fresh properties and to achieve the high flowability of the

SCC without increasing the w/cm. Typically, the mixtures were designed with HRWR dosages of

7 oz/cwt and 9 oz/cwt to to provide a VSI of 1 and 2 respectively, and dosage of 4 oz/cwt of mid-

range water reducer to provide conventional concrete mixtures with a slump of 3 to 5.5 in.. HRWR

doses were later adjusted and corrected during the mixing to attain the desirable fresh properties.

SCC mixtures were designed with 50% sand to total volume to provide the necessary filling,

passing, and flowability characteristics, and a 44% sand ratio was used for conventional concrete

mixtures. Typically, all the mixtures were designed with 0.45 water cementation materials ratio. In

addition, the TDOT Class A mixtures were developed to have a 6% air entertained using Air

entrained admixtures (AEA) to provide the necessary durability of SCC. Mixture proportions of

the experiential mixtures are provided in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. The aggregate weights are provided

for the saturated-surface dry condition.

40
 Table 4.1 TDOT Class A mixtures with 20% cement replacement of Class C fly ash

Mixture No 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
VSI 1 2 Con. 1 2 Con. 1 2 Con. 1 2 Con.
Cement 496 496 496 496 496 496 496 496 496 496 496 496
Class F-Ash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Class C-Ash 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
# 57 stone 1504 1504 1684 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# 67 stone 0 0 0 1504 1504 1684 1504 1504 1684 0 0 0
# 7 stone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1504 1504 1684
Natural sand 1426 1426 1256 1426 1426 1256 0 0 0 1426 1426 1256
Manufactured sand 0 0 0 0 0 0 1504 1504 1324 0 0 0
Design Air 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Water 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1
AEA (oz/yd) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
H/MRWR (oz/cwt) 7 9 4 7 9 4 7 9 4 7 9 4
w/cm ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Sand ratio by volume 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.44

All weights in lbs./yd³.

HRWR and AEA dosages are design values, the actual values are shown in Chapter 5.
Admixture demands are dependent on aggregates.
Con.: Conventional concrete.

41
 Table 4.2 TDOT Class A mixtures with 20% cement replacement of Class F fly ash

Mixture No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
VSI 1 2 Con. 1 2 Con. 1 2 Con. 1 2 Con.
Cement 496 496 496 496 496 496 496 496 496 496 496 496
F-Ash 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
C-Ash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# 57 stone 1504 1504 1684 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# 67 stone 0 0 0 1504 1504 1684 1504 1504 1684 0 0 0
# 7 stone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1504 1504 1684
Natural sand 1426 1426 1256 1426 1426 1256 0 0 0 1426 1426 1256
Manufactured sand 0 0 0 0 0 0 1504 1504 1324 0 0 0
Design Air 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Water 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1 279.1
AEA (oz/yd) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
H/M-RWR (oz/cwt) 7 9 4 7 9 4 7 9 4 7 9 4
w/cm ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Sand ratio by volume 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.44

All Weights in lbs. /yd³.

HRWR and AEA dosages are design values, the actual values are shown in Chapter 5.
Admixture demands are dependent on aggregates.
Con.: Conventional concrete

42
4.3 Materials Used in The Experimental Plan

4.3.1 Powders

[Link] Cement

The cement type used in this study was an ASTM C 150 Type I. Enough cement was

procured locally from Buzzi Unicem USA- Chattanooga, TN Plant for the entire project. The

stock was stored in the laboratory during the study period. The chemical composition of the

cement is shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 The chemical composition of the cement.

Weight
Component Weight % Component %
SiO2 19.8 C3S 64.1
Al2O3 4.6 C2S 8.3
Fe2O3 3.5 C3A 6.2
CaO 63.3 C4AF 10.7
MgO 3 C3S+4.75C3A 93.3
SO3 2.7 CO2 1.2
Total alkalis(Na2O +0.658 K2O 0.53 Limestone 3.1
Ignition Loss 1.7 CACO3 in Limestone 89.2
Insoluble Residue 0.3 - -

[Link] Fly ash

Two types of fly ash were used during this study; ASTM C 618 Classes C and F. Fly ash

was used to replace 20 % of portland cement in the mixtures. Enough Class F fly ash sourced

locally from The SEFA Group Cumberland City, TN for the entire project, and was kept in the

laboratory during the study period. Enough Class C fly ash sourced from Plant Miller, GA. The

chemical composition of Class F and C fly ash are shown in Table 4.4 and 4.5 respectively.

43
 Table 4.4 The chemical composition of Class F fly ash.

Component Weight %
SiO2 44.29
Al2O3 18.39
Fe2O3 19.23
Sum of Constituents 81.9
CaO 8.87
MgO 0.86
SO3 2.72
Loss on Ignition 1.65
Moisture Content 0.16
Available Alkalis as Na2O 0.84

Table 4.5 The chemical composition of Class C fly ash.

Component Weight %
SiO2 37.58
Al2O3 18.39
Fe2O3 6.15
Sum of Constituents 62.12
SO3 1.88
CaO 24.41
MgO 5.58
Na2O 1.82
K 2O 0.58
Moisture 0.13
Loss on Ignition 0.51
Available Alkalis, as Na2O 1.49

4.3.2 Coarse Aggregates

The coarse aggregates employed in this study were crushed stone type, sourced locally

from Vulcan Materials, Chattanooga, TN. Different aggregate sizes were used during this study

44
which includes ASTM C 33 #57 Stone, #67 Stone, and #7 Stone, and all met TDOT standards.

All the coarse aggregates had bulk specific gravity of 2.74 and absorption of 0.62 %. Tables 4.6,

4.7, and 4.8 show the coarse aggregate grading for #57 Stone, #67 Stone, and #7 Stone

respectively, and the combined aggregate graduation is shown in Figure 4.1.

Table 4.6 #57 Stone gradation

Sieve Opening Cumulative Percent Passing

1.25 in. 100%

1 in. 95%
¾ in. 76%
½ in. 42%
3/8 in. 26%
NO. 4 6%
Pan 0%

Table 4.7 #67 Stone gradation

Sieve Opening Cumulative Percent Passing

1 in. 100%
¾ in. 90%
½ in. 51%
3/8 in. 35%
NO. 4 8%
Pan 0%

45
 Table 4.8 #7 Stone gradation

Sieve Opening, inch Cumulative Percent Passing

¾ in. 100%
½ in. 99%
3/8 in. 80%
NO. 4 11%
NO. 8 1%
Pan 0%

100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent Passing

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Sieve Size (in.)

#57 Stone #67 Stone #7 Stone Natural sand Manufactured sand

Figure 4.1 The combined aggregate gradation

4.3.3 Fine Aggregates

Two types of fine aggregate were used in this study; natural and manufactured sand, the

both meet the TDOT standards. The natural sand (River sand) was sourced locally from Pine

Bluff Materials, Nashville, TN. The bulk specific gravity of the natural sand was 2.6 and the

absorption was 1.30 %. The manufactured sand was also sourced locally from Vulcan Materials,

46
Chattanooga, TN, which has bulk specific gravity of 2.74 and absorption of 0.64 %. The natural

and manufactured sand gradations are shown in Tables 4.9 and 4.10 respectively, and their

graduations are shown in Figure 4.1.

Table 4.9 Natural sand gradation

Sieve Opening Cumulative Percent Passing

3/8 in. 100.0%

NO. 4 97.9%
NO. 8 91.6%
NO. 16 82.0%
NO. 30 61.8%
NO. 50 9.0%
NO. 100 0.3%
NO. 200 0.1%
Pan 0.0%

Table 4.10 Manufactured sand gradation

Sieve Opening Cumulative Percent Passing

3/8 in. 100.0%

NO. 4 99.6%
NO. 8 78.2%
NO. 16 45.1%
NO. 30 26.4%
NO. 50 13.0%
NO. 100 5.0%
NO. 200 2.0%
Pan 0.0%

47
4.3.4 Chemical Admixtures

[Link] Mid-Range Water-Reducing Admixture

MasterPolyheed 900 is a Mid-Range Water-Reducing Admixture that was used to

improve the workability of conventional concrete mixtures, to attain a 4 in slump without

increasing the water cement ration. MasterPolyheed 900 admixture meets ASTM C 494/C 494M

requirements for Type A, water-reducing admixtures. It was sourced from the BASF

Corporation. Its technical data sheet that was obtained from the supplier is summarized in Table

4.11.

Table 4.11 Technical Data of MasterPolyheed 900

Data Specification

Initial Set time (hr:min) 5:18

Water reduction 9 - 10 %
Storage Temperature 35 to 105 °F
Minimum shelf life 18 months
Recommended dosage range 3 to 15 fl oz/cwt of cementitious materials

[Link] Full -Range Water-Reducing Admixture

MasterGlenium 7500 is a Full -Range Water-Reducing Admixture that was used to

produce SCC mixtures with different levels of flowability, without increasing the water cement

ratio. MasterGlenium 7500 admixture meets ASTM C 494C/ 494M compliance requirements for

Type A, water-reducing, and Type F, high-range water-reducing admixtures. It was also sourced

from the BASF Corporation. Its technical data sheet obtained from the supplier is summarized in

Table 4.12.

48
 Table 4.12 Technical Data of MasterGlenium 7500

Data Specification

Water reduction 5 - 40%

Storage Temperature above 40 °F
Minimum shelf life 9 months
Recommended dosage range 2 to 15 fl oz/cwt of cementitious materials

[Link] Air-Entraining Admixture

MasterAir AE 90 is an air-entraining admixture, was use to provide a uniform structure

of voids in concrete mixtures; in order to improve its resistance to damage from cyclic freezing

and thawing. MasterAir AE 90 meets the requirements of ASTM C 260, AASHTO M 154 and

CRD-C 13. It was sourced from the BASF Corporation. The exact dosage of air-entraining

admixture needed for the 6% air content of concrete varied between the mixtures, and it was

adjusted during the trial batching process. MasterAir AE 90 technical data sheet obtained from

the supplier and summarized in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13 Technical Data of MasterAir AE 90

Data Specification

Water reduction 5 - 40%

Storage Temperature 31 °F (-0.5 °C) or higher
Minimum shelf life 18 months
Trial mixture recommended dosage 0.25 to 4 fl oz/cwt of cementitious
range materials

49
4.3.5 Mixing water

Municipal tap water was used throughout the experimental mixtures. The average water

temperature was 70 +/- 2 °F.

4.4 Preparation of The Experimental Mixes

During this study, TDOT Class A (General use) mixes were selected for detailed studies

of their fresh properties. Typically, a batch of four and a half cubic feet was prepared to provide

concrete for the fresh and hardened property test samples of the SCC, and only three cubic feet of

conventional concrete was required. Conventional concrete required a smaller batch due to the

fewer fresh tests than the SCC.

Coarse and fine aggregate were stock piled outside the Laboratory area. Aggregate moisture

corrections were used to adjust the batch components (water and aggregates) before mixing to

account for moisture condition of the aggregates. The moisture content of aggregate was calculated

after weighing a representative sample from the aggregate pile before and after drying it using an

electric heater. Appropriate weights of components (4.5 ft3 of SCC, or 3 ft3 of conventional

concrete) were measured, adjusted, and then added together in the six cubic foot electric drum-type

mixer. Firstly, the coarse and fine aggregates were added together and mixed for one minute with

75% of the required water. The water contained the AEA if needed. The cement and fly ash were

then added to the stopped mixer and mixed for three minutes with the remaining mixing water

which was added gradually while the mixer was running, followed by three minutes rest, and

followed by two minutes final mixing. The high range water reducing admixture was added

gradually while the mixer was running. After thorough mixing, the mixture was ready for taking

50
the samples for fresh and hardened property tests of SCC and conventional concrete, as outlined in

the testing protocol in Tables 4.14 and 4.15.

Table 4.14 Testing Protocol of SCC mixtures

Fresh Concrete Testing

Slump Flow and Visual Stability Index 1 per batch
(ASTM C 1611)
Consolidating ability by J-Ring (ASTM 1 per batch
C 1621)
Static Segregation by Column Test 1 per batch
(ASTM C 1610)
Unit Weight and Gravimetric Air Content 1 per batch
(ASTM C 138)
Air Content by Pressure Method (ASTM 1 per batch
C 231)
Time of setting of Concrete Mixtures by 1-6.5*6.5 inch cylinder per batch
Penetration Resistance (ASTM C 403)
Hardened Concrete Testing
Compressive Strength 1 (ASTM C 39) 2-6x12 inch cylinders per test time
1
Static Modulus of Elasticity (ASTM C The 2-6x12 compressive strength cylinders
469) will also be used for modulus per test time
1
Splitting Tensile Strength (ASTM C 496) 2-6x12 inch cylinders per test time
1
The hardened properties will be tested at 7 days only.

51
 Table 4.15 Testing Protocol of conventional concrete mixtures

Fresh Concrete Testing

Slump Flow (ASTM C 143) 1 per batch
Unit Weight and Gravimetric Air Content 1 per batch
(ASTM C 138)
Air Content by Pressure Method (ASTM 1 per batch
C 231)
Time of setting of Concrete Mixtures by 1-6.5*6.5 inch cylinder per batch
Penetration Resistance (ASTM C 403)
Hardened Concrete Testing
Compressive Strength 1 (ASTM C 39) 2-6x12 inch cylinders per test time
1
Static Modulus of Elasticity (ASTM C The 2-6x12 compressive strength cylinders
469) will also be used for modulus per test time
1
Splitting Tensile Strength (ASTM C 496) 2-6x12 inch cylinders per test time
1
The hardened properties will be tested at 7 days only.

4.5 Fresh Property Tests on The Experimental Mixes

The main objectives of this study are to investigate the fresh characteristics and the fresh

segregation potential of SCC mixtures. Several methods were used to test the fresh properties

and characteristics of SCC, which are briefly described below:

4.5.1 Slump Flow Test

The main apparatus for this test was the conventional cone which has 8 in base diameter,

4 in top diameter, and 12 in height. The cone was filed with fresh SCC, while firmly holding the

cone on the center of damped base plate, with the smaller opening facing down. The top of the

cone was stuck off using the strike-off bar to remove any excess materials. The cone was gently

raised vertically in about four seconds, forming a patty. After the concrete stopped flowing the

largest diameter of the patty was measured in two perpendicular directions. The average value of

the two diameters was recorded as the slump flow diameter. The range of slump flow was kept
52
between 18 to 30 inches (450 to 760 mm) for SCC as recommended by ACI Committee 237.

Figure 4.2 shows the slump flow test.

1 2

3 4
Figure 4.2 The slump flow test

4.5.2 Visual Stability Index

The VSI was determined through visually rating the apparent stability of the slump flow

patty based on specific visual properties of the spread patty. The SCC mixtures were designed

with a VSI of 1 and 2 which illustrates a stabilized and segregated mixtures respectively. The

desirable VSI values were achieved during mixing by HRWR dosages. Assigning the VSI

values (1 or 2) to the concrete spread was conducted using the criteria shown in Figure 4.3

(ASTM C1611C1611M).

53
 VSI = 1 – No evidence of segregation and slight VSI = 2 – A slight mortar halo # 0.5 in.(# 10 mm)
bleeding observed as a sheen on the concrete mass and/or aggregatepile in the of the concrete mass

Figure 4.3 Visual stability index criteria

4.5.3 T50

The T50 value was measured during the slump flow test to quantify the flowing ability of

SCC, and to provide a relative index of the viscosity. During the slump flow test, the time for the

concrete paddy to reach a diameter of 20 in (50 cm) from the time the cone was first lifted was

measured in seconds using a stopwatch, as shown in Figure 4.4.

54
 1 2

Figure 4.4 T50 measurement

4.5.4 J-ring test

A sample of fresh SCC was poured in a moistened standard slump cone with the J-ring

base which contains steel bars. The cone was firmly held on the center of damped base plate with

the smaller opening facing down. Then the top of the cone was stuck off using the strike-off bar

to remove the excess materials. The mold was then raised, the SCC passed through J-ring, and

the average of diameters measured in two perpendicular directions was recorded as the J-ring

flow diameter. An example of a J-Ring test is shown in Figure 4.5.

55
 2
1

3 4

Figure 4.5 J-ring Test

4.5.5 L-box test

L-Box test was used to evaluate the passing ability of the SCC mixtures. The SCC was

poured in the vertical section to its full height; the top of the section was struck off using the

strike-off bar, to remove any excess materials. The gate was then lifted to allow the concrete to

flow into the horizontal section. When the flow stopped, the heights of the concrete were

measured at the end of the horizontal section and in the vertical section. The ratio of the height

of concrete in the horizontal section to remaining in the vertical section was recorded. An

example of L-Box testing is shown in Figure 4.6.

56
 2
1

3 4

Figure 4.6 L-box test

4.5.6 Column Segregation

Column Segregation was used to assess the fresh segregation resistance of SCC. A

sample of freshly SCC was poured in one lift in the cylindrical column without tapping or

vibration. After 15 minutes the column sections were separated using a cutting plate. The SCC

from the top and bottom sections was collected and washed through a No.4 (4.75 mm) sieve,

leaving the coarse aggregate on it. The coarse aggregate from the top and the bottom levels of the

column were brought to the surface-dry condition by rolling them in a dry towel. The weights of

57
the aggregates were determined in order to calculate the percentage of segregation using

equation 4.1. An example of the column segregation test apparatus is shown in Figure 4.7

[ ] …. Equation 4.1

Where:

S = static segregation, percent.

CAT = mass of coarse aggregate in the top section of the column.

CAB = mass of coarse aggregate in the bottom section of the column.

Figure 4.7 The static column segregation

4.5.7 Unit Weight of fresh concrete

This test was conducted to determine the density of freshly mixed concrete, in accordance

with the ASTM C 138 standard. The main apparatus is a cylindrical container made of steel with

8 in diameter and 8.5 in height. The conventional concrete was placed in three layers using a

scoop. Each layer was rodded 25 times with a tamping rod, and then the sides of the measure

58
were tapped about 10 times using rubber mallet. The top of the mold was then stuck off using the

strike-off bar, to remove excess materials. The mass of the mold and concrete were then

determined, and the density was calculated using the equation 4.2. Same method was used for the

SCC mixtures, but the concrete was poured in one layer without rodding or tapping.

……..Equation 4.2

Where:

D = density (unit weight) of concrete, lb/ft3

Mc = mass of the measure filled with concrete, lb

Mm = mass of the measure, lb

4.5.8 Air Content by Pressure Method

This method was used to determine the air content of freshly mixed concrete through the

observation of the change in volume of concrete with a change in pressure, in accordance with

the ASTM C 231 standard. The main apparatus is a Meter type B which consists of cylindrical

container made of steel with 8 in diameter and 8.5 in height, and a cover assembly which is fitted

with a pressure gauge, air valves, and petcocks for bleeding off. The conventional concrete was

placed in three layers using a scoop. Each layer was rodded with 25 stokes of a tamping rod, then

the sides of the measure were tapped 10-15 times using rubber mallet. The top of the mold was

then stuck off using the strike-off bar, to remove the excess materials. After that, the cover

assembly was placed and clamped, the main air valve was closed, and both the petcocks thought

the cover were opened. Clean water was injected through one petcock until the water emerged

from the other petcock with no bubbles. After that, the air bleeder valve was closed, and the air

was pumped into the air chamber until the gauge reached the initial pressure line. Eventually, the
59
main air valve was released, and the percentage of air was read on the dial of the pressure gauge.

The same method was used for the SCC mixtures; however the SCC was poured in one layer

without rodding or tapping. An example of the air content measurement is shown in Figure 4.8

1 2

Figure 4.8 Air content test

60
 CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

Throughout this chapter, the results of the fresh property tests and the seven-day

compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and the concrete elastic modulus are presented,

for the 24 mixtures conducted during this study. The correlations between these mixtures using

different aggregate sizes (#57 stone, #67 stone, and #7 stone, natural and manufactured sand) and

fly ash classes (C and F) are presented and discussed. Since the main objective of this study is to

investigate the relationship between VSI and segregation potential of SCC mixtures, an

assortment of graphs have been produced to represent the effects of VSI of 1 and 2, using Class

F and C fly ash , on the fresh properties of the mixtures

5.2 Mixture Properties

Using Class A (general use) mixture proportions represented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 in

Chapter 4, a total of 24 mixtures, comprised of SCC and conventional concrete, were developed

with different fresh properties and characteristics. SCC mixtures were produced with VSI values

of 1 and 2, to achieve varying degrees of fresh characteristics such as filling ability, passing

ability, and stability. Conventional concrete mixtures were developed, as control mixtures for

SCC, with a slump range of 3 to 5.5 in. The fresh and seven-day hardened properties, including

slump flow, density, air content, T50, VSI, J-ring, L-Box, column segregation, initial and final

61
set time, compressive strength, tensile splitting strength, and concrete elastic modulus, are

represented in Tables 5.1 to 5.8, for the different aggregate sizes (#57 stone, #67 stone, and #7

stone) and fly ash Class C and F. Table 5.1 provides the results of the testing for the mixture

with #57 stone, natural sand and Class C fly ash. Table 5.2 shows the results of the testing for the

mixture with #57 stone, natural sand and Class F fly ash. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 represent the results

for the mixture with #67 stone and natural sand with fly ash Class C and F respectively. The

results of the testing for the mixture with #67 stone and manufactured sand are represented in

Tables 5.5 and 5.6 for fly ash Class C and F respectively. Table 5.7 shows the results of the

mixture with #7 stone, natural sand and Class F fly ash, and Table 5.8 represents the results of

the mixture with #7 stone, natural sand and Class C fly ash.

62
 Table 5.1 Test results for #57 Aggregate + Natural Sand + C Ash mixture

Fresh properties
L-
Mix Slump Temp Air Content [Link] T-50 J-Ring Box
No Type (in.) (F.) (%.) Ibs/ft3 (sec.) VSI (in.) ratio
25 SCC 26.25 74 6.5% 138.4 0.9 1 23 0
26 SCC 29.25 76 6.0% 139.6 0.43 2 28.25 0.75
27 Conv. 4 67 6.7% 141 - - - -
7-Day hardened
Fresh properties
properties
Mix Column AEA HRWR [Link] [Link] Fc Splitting E
No Type segregation (oz/yd3) (oz/cwt) (hr:min) (hr:min) (psi) (psi) (Ksi)
25 SCC 8.14% 1.8 5.8 5:30 7:10 5000 380 4550
26 SCC 19.42% 1.4 6.5 6:00 7:45 5370 405 5050
27 Conv. - 7.5 0.0 5:15 7:00 4540 370 4500

Table 5.2 Test results for #57 Aggregate + Natural Sand + F Ash mixture

Fresh properties
Air
Mix Slump Temp Content [Link] T-50 J-Ring L-Box
No Type (in.) (F.) (%.) Ibs/ft3 (sec.) VSI (in.) ratio
38 SCC 24.5 82 6.0% 139.2 2.25 1 22.75 0
37 SCC 26 80 5.2% 140 0.75 2 25.5 0.75
39 Conv. 5.5 68 5.6% 142 - - - -
Fresh properties 7-Day hardened properties
Mix Column AEA HRWR [Link] [Link] Fc Splitting
No Type segregation (oz/yd3) (oz/cwt) (hr:min) (hr:min) (psi) (psi) E (Ksi)
38 SCC 11.26% 2.0 4.8 6:00 7:43 4150 345 4250
37 SCC 16.67% 2.2 5.8 7 8:42 3870 330 4850
39 Conv. - 7.5 0.0 5:36 7:35 4360 325 4900

63
 Table 5.3 Test results for #67 Aggregate + Natural Sand + C Ash mixture

Fresh properties
Mix Slump Temp Air Content [Link] T-50 J-Ring L-Box
No Type (in.) (F.) (%.) Ibs/ft3 (sec.) VSI (in.) ratio
28 SCC 24.5 82 7.2% 136 1:47 1 23.5 0
29 SCC 29.5 79 6.0% 137 1:44 2 27.75 0.59
30 Conv. 4.25 75 5.4% 141 - - - -
Fresh properties 7-Day hardened properties
Mix Column AEA HRWR [Link] [Link] Fc Splitting E
No Type segregation (oz/yd3) (oz/cwt) (hr:min) (hr:min) (psi) (psi) (Ksi)
28 SCC 5.0% 1.6 4.2 6:00 7:51 4800 340 4400
29 SCC 7.0% 1.6 5.8 6:42 8:08 4500 395 4350
30 Conv. - 3.0 0.0 4:50 6:45 5280 430 5150

Table 5.4 Test results for #67 Aggregate + Natural Sand + F Ash mixture

Fresh properties
Mix Slump Temp Air Content [Link] T-50 J-Ring L-Box
No Type (in.) (F.) (%.) Ibs/ft3 (sec.) VSI (in.) ratio
40 SCC 27.5 81 6.0% 139 1:09 1 26.75 0.89
41 SCC 28.375 78 5.2% 140 0:40 2 27.0625 0.76
42 Conv. 3 76 6.0% 141 - - - -
Fresh properties 7-Day hardened properties
Mix Column AEA HRWR [Link] [Link] Fc Splitting E
No Type segregation (oz/yd3) (oz/cwt) (hr:min) (hr:min) (psi) (psi) (Ksi)
40 SCC 10.5% 2.0 6.5 6:12 7:53 4450 365 4500
41 SCC 14.1% 3.2 7.4 6:55 8:36 3580 250 4350
42 Conv. - 7.5 0.0 5:30 7:30 4190 355 3350

64
 Table 5.5 Test results for #67 Aggregate + Manufactured Sand + C Ash mixture

Fresh properties
Mix Slump Temp Air Content [Link] T-50 J-Ring L-Box
No Type (in.) (F.) (%.) Ibs/ft3 (sec.) VSI (in.) ratio
31 SCC 22 73 5.1% 141 2:25 1 19 0
32 SCC 28.5 75 5.4% 137 1:50 2 26.5 0
33 Conv. 5.5 72 5.7% 140 - - -
Fresh properties 7-Day hardened properties
Mix Column AEA HRWR [Link] [Link] Fc Splitting E
No Type segregation (oz/yd3) (oz/cwt) (hr:min) (hr:min) (psi) (psi) (Ksi)
31 SCC 12.3% 0.8 5.3 4:54 6:36 5180 435 4500
32 SCC 14.1% 1.6 5.8 5:20 7.15 4180 440 4100
33 Conv. - 3.0 0.0 5:18 7:15 4660 335 4600

Table 5.6 Test results for #67 Aggregate + Manufactured Sand + F Ash mixture

Fresh properties
Mix Slump Temp Air Content [Link] T-50 J-Ring L-Box
No Type (in.) (F.) (%.) Ibs/ft3 (sec.) VSI (in.) ratio
43 SCC 24.5 78 6.2% 137 2.91 1 21.75 0
44 SCC 27.38 73 5.7% 140 1.81 2 26 0.1
45 Conv. 3 76 6.0% 143.4 - - - -
Fresh properties 7-Day hardened properties
Mix Column AEA HRWR [Link] [Link] Fc Splitting
No Type segregation (oz/yd3) (oz/cwt) (hr:min) (hr:min) (psi) (psi) E (Ksi)
43 SCC 9.0% 2.0 6.8 4:30 6:06 4280 440 4350
44 SCC 10.3% 0.8 8.9 5:40 7:12 4580 395 4450
45 Conv. - 3.0 4.1 5:00 6:30 4560 400 3750

65
 Table 5.7 Test results for #7 Aggregate + Natural Sand + C Ash mixture

Fresh properties
Mix Slump Temp Air Content [Link] T-50 J-Ring L-Box
No Type (in.) (F.) (%.) Ibs/ft3 (sec.) VSI (in.) ratio
34 SCC 23.5 71 5.7% 137 1.12 1 22 0.65
35 SCC 28.75 77 6.4% 137 0.66 2 28.5 0.86
36 Conv. 4.75 73 5.6% 138 - - - -
Fresh properties 7-Day hardened properties
Mix Column AEA HRWR [Link] [Link] Fc Splitting E
No Type segregation (oz/yd3) (oz/cwt) (hr:min) (hr:min) (psi) (psi) (Ksi)
34 SCC 7.50% 1.2 5.8 6:20 8:15 4430 330 4100
35 SCC 8.60% 1.0 9.0 6:25 8:30 5200 435 4850
36 Conv. - 2.7 0.0 5:30 7:10 5090 325 5100

Table 5.8 Test results for #7 Aggregate + Natural Sand + F Ash mixture

Fresh properties
Mix Slump Temp Air Content [Link] T-50 J-Ring L-Box
No Type (in.) (F.) (%.) Ibs/ft3 (sec.) VSI (in.) ratio
46 SCC 24.5 76 6.0% 138 1.09 1 21.25 0.36
47 SCC 29 74 6.0% 137 0.47 2 28 0.75
48 Conv. 3.2 78 5.5% 138 - - - -
Fresh properties 7-Day hardened properties
Mix Column AEA HRWR [Link] [Link] Fc Splitting E
No Type segregation (oz/yd3) (oz/cwt) (hr:min) (hr:min) (psi) (psi) (Ksi)
46 SCC 6.9% 0.0 7.4 6:06 8:00 5260 310 5050
47 SCC 18.4% 0.0 10.7 7:51 9:48 2230 170 3900
48 Conv. - 6.0 0.0 4:30 5:51 4090 360 3750

66
5.3 Discussion of Fresh Properties of Concrete Mixtures

5.3.1 Filling Ability and Visual Stability of SCC Mixtures

As mentioned earlier in Chapter 4, the slump flow test was conducted to measure the

filing ability (deformability) of the studied mixtures. Different HRWR dosages were used to

produce SCC mixtures with VSI of 1 and 2. The VSI values were determined through a visual

rating of the slump flow patty. The T50 value is also another fresh property that was measured to

quantify the flowing ability of SCC, and to provide a relative index of the viscosity. The results

of slump flow, VSI, and T50 tests were obtained for different aggregate sizes as shown in

Section 5.2 and summarized in Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. Each aggregate size is discussed below

in more details.

35
Slump or Slump flow (in)

30
25
20
15
Fly ash-C
10
Fly ash-F
5
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.
Natural sand Natural sand Manufactured sand Natural sand
#57 stone #67 Stone #7 Stone

Figure 5.1 Slump and slump flow of the studied stones

67
 12
Water reducer amount (oz/cwt )
10
8
6
4 Fly ash-C

2 Fly ash-F

0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.
Natural sand Natural sand Manufactured sand Natural sand
#57 stone #67 Stone #7 Stone

Figure 5.2 Water reducer admixture requirements for the studied stones

3.5
3
2.5
T50 (sec.)

2
1.5
Fly ash-C
1
Fly ash-F
0.5
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2
Natural sand Natural sand Manufactured sand Natural sand
#57 stone #67 Stone #7 Stone

Figure 5.3 T50 values of the studied stones

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #57 with Natural Sand

Coarse aggregate #57 was the largest aggregate size used in this study which has

maximum aggregate size of 1.0 in. A total of six mixtures, four SCC and two conventional, were

produced using natural sand. Two classes of fly ash were used to replace 20% of the cement
68
content; three mixtures (Mix No 25, 26, and 27) contained fly ash Class C and the other three

contained fly ash Class F (Mix No 37, 38, and 39), as mentioned earlier in Chapter 4. The slump

flow, VSI, and T50 results are represented in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, for #57 stone, and then

summarized in the Figures 5.4 to 5.6.

Figure 5.4 shows the slump flow results for #57 stone, and it is obvious and anticipated

that the mixtures with the VSI of 2 show higher slump flow compared with the VSI of 1, which

is due to the high flowabilty of VSI of 2 mixtures and the higher HRWR dosages. As can be seen

from Figure 5.4, all SCC mixes have slump flow within the range of 20 - 30 in, which is in

agreement with the recommended slump flow range by most of the State DOTs specifications

reported in Chapter 3. It may also be noticed from Figure 5.4 that the conventional concrete

mixture produced using fly ash Class F shows higher slump than that made with Class C fly ash,

without adding any water reducer admixtures.

35
30
Slump or Slump flow (in)

25
20
Fly ash-C
15
Fly ash-F
10
5
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.

Figure 5.4 Slump and slump flow of #57 stone mixtures

69
 Figure 5.5 summarizes the water reducer admixture requirements for #57 stone; it

indicates that the fly ash Class C needs more WRA, to attain the VSI of 1 and 2, than that needed

for Class F fly ash mixtures. Therefore it can be concluded the fact that fly ash Class F improves

the flowability of #57 stone SCC mixtures with lesser amount of WRA than Class C fly ash

mixtures. This fact is in agreement with ACI committee report 237 and FANG et al. (1999); they

mentioned a replacement between 20 and 40% Class F fly ash in a SCC mixture could led to

good workability. So the only reason behind having higher slump flow in the mixtures

containing fly ash Class C, as shown in Figure 5.4, because of adding more HRWR to these

mixtures to attain the desirable VSI values. For the same reason and as shown in Figure 5.6, the

fly ash Class C mixtures show shorter T50 time than that of the fly ash Class- F mixtures. In

accordance with the ACI Committee 237 report, a SCC mixture can be characterized as a lower

viscosity mixture when the T50 time is 2 seconds or less, and as a higher viscosity mixture with

T50 time greater than 5 seconds. Thus the #57 stone mixtures can be considered as lower

viscosity mixtures.

7
Water reducer amount (oz/cwt )

6
5
4
3
Fly ash-C
2
Fly ash-F
1
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.
Natural sand
#57 stone

Figure 5.5 Water reducer admixture requirements for #57 stone mixtures.
70
 2.5

T50 (sec.)
1.5
Fly ash-C
1 Fly ash-F
0.5

0
VSI 1 VSI 2

Figure 5.6 T50 values of #57 stone mixtures

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #67 with Natural and Manufactured Sand

Coarse aggregate #67 was recommended by many of the State DOTs specifications as

described in Chapter 3. Coarse aggregate #67 has a maximum aggregate size of 3/4 in. A total of

12 mixtures, eight SCC and four conventional concrete, were produced using 67 stone. Six out of

the 12 mixtures, were devolved using natural sand, three of them (Mix No 28,29, and 30) were

produced with 20% cement replacement using fly ash Class C, and the other three (Mix No 40,

41, and 42) were produced using 20% cement replacement using Class F fly ash, as shown in

Tables 5.3 and 5.4. The same six mixtures repeated using manufactured sand instead of the

natural sand (Mix No 31, 32, 33, 43, 44, and 45) as shown in Tables 5.5 and 5.6.

The slump flow values and water reducer rdmixture requirements that are shown in

Tables 5.3 to 5.6 were summarized in Figures 5.7 and 5.8. As can be seen from Figure 5.7, all

SCC mixes have slump flow within the range of 20 - 30 in, and the mixtures with the VSI of 2

show higher slump flow than that of the VSI of 1, as same as #57 coarse aggregate.

It may also be noticed from Figure 5.7, the mixtures made with the natural sand shows

slightly higher slump flow than that made with the manufactured sand, despite the higher amount

71
of HRWR that was added to the manufactured sand as shown in Figure 5.8. This behavior could

be attributed to the particle gradation and shape difference between the natural and manufactured

sand. It should be noted that the Class C fly ash mixtures exhibit greater slump flow in both

conventional and SCC with a VSI of 2 than Class F fly ash mixes. This performance was

demonstrated despite Class F fly ash mixtures having greater water reducer dosages, as shown in

Figure 5.8. The above performance exists in the #67 stone mixtures, but the opposite is true in

the #57 stone mixtures, as discussed in Section [Link].

35
30
Slump or Slump flow (in)

25
20
15 Fly ash-C

10 Fly ash-F

5
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.
Natural sand Manufactured sand

Figure 5.7 Slump and slump flow of #67 stone mixtures

72
 10

Water reducer amount (oz/cwt )

9
8
7
6
5
4 Fly ash-C
3
2 Fly ash-F
1
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.
Natural sand Manufactured sand
#67 Stone

Figure 5.8 Water reducer admixture requirements for #67 stone mixtures

Figure 5.9 shows the T50 values for the #67 stone mixtures. Obviously, the mixtures

containing natural sand show lower viscosity (T50 less than 2 sec.) than that containing

manufactured sand. It is also notable; the natural sand mixed with the fly ash Class F is showing

less viscosity, contrary to the manufactured sand; which is showing less relative viscosity with

fly ash C. This behavior could be attributed to the particle gradation and shape difference

between the natural and manufactured sand; the natural sands tend to be rounded shape whereas

manufactured sands tend to be angular (Kandhal, Motter, & Khatri, 1991).

73
 3.5

2.5

T50 (sec.)
2

1.5 Fly ash-C

1 Fly ash-F

0.5

0
VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2
Natural sand Manufactured sand

Figure 5.9 The T50 values of #67 stone mixtures

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #7 with Natural Sand

Coarse aggregate #7 was the smallest aggregate size used in this study, which has

maximum aggregate size of 0.5 in. Similar to #57 stone and #67 stone, a total of six mixtures

(Mix No 34, 35, 36, 46, 47, and 48) four SCC and two conventional, were produced using

natural sand and fly ash Class F and C. The slump flow values, water reducer admixture

requirements, and the T50 values that are shown in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 are summarized in Figures

5.10 , 5.11, and 5.12 respectively. It is clear in Figure 5.10 that all SCC mixes have slump flow

within the range of 20 - 30 in. Also it is clear in Figure 5.11, using Fly ash Class C shows higher

slump flow, in the conventional and SCC with VSI of 2, than the mixtures made with Class F fly

ash. Despite the fact that a higher amount of HRWR was added to the Class F fly ash mixtures to

attain the desirable VSI values. Therefore we can conclude that the fly ash Class C improves the

flowability of #67 & #7 stone mixtures with less amount of WRA than Class F fly ash mixtures,

which is adverse to the case of #57 stone, as discussed in Section [Link]. This phenomenon

74
could be attributed to the large aggregate size of #57 stone, 1 in as maximum aggregate size,

besides the chemical composition difference between fly ash Class F and C which could be the

main reasons behind having different fly ash effects in the flowability of #57 stone and the other

#7 and #67 stones.

35

30
Slump or Slump flow (in)

25

20
Fly ash-C
15
Fly ash-F
10

0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.

Figure 5.10 Slump and slump flow of #7 stone mixtures

12
Water reducer amount (oz/cwt)

10
8
6
4 Fly ash-C
2 Fly ash-F
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.
Natural sand
#7 Stone

Figure 5.11 Water reducer admixture requirements for #7 stone mixtures

75
 In Figure 5.12, as same as #67 stone with the natural sand, the fly ash Class F mixtures

show shorter T50 time than that of the fly ash Class C mixtures, which is due to the high dosages

of WRA that was added to Class F fly ash mixtures to attain the desirable VSI values.

1.2

0.8
T50 (sec.)

0.6 Fly ash-C

Fly ash-F
0.4

0.2

0
VSI 1 VSI 2

Figure 5.12 The T50 values of #7 stone mixtures

5.3.2 Passing Ability of SCC Mixtures

As mentioned before in Chapter 4, the J-ring and L-box tests were conducted to measure

the passing ability of the studied mixtures. The mixtures passing ability and the blocking

tendency could be identified according to the ASTM C1621 standard classification shown in

Table 2.1 in Chapter 2. The ACI committee report 237 recommends the L-box ratio to be near to

the 1.0 as an indication of good passing ability. The results of J-ring and L-box tests were

obtained for different aggregate sizes as described in Section 5.2 and summarized in Figures 5.13

and 5.14. The results of each aggregate size are discussed in the following section.

76
 3.5
Slump Flow, J-Ring Difference (in.)
3
2.5
2
1.5
Fly ash-C
1
Fly ash-F
0.5
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2
Natural sand Natural sand Manufactured sand Natural sand
#57 stone #67 Stone #7 Stone

Figure 5.13 Slump flow and J-ring difference for the studied stones

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
L-Box ratio

0.6
0.5
0.4 Fly ash-C
0.3
Fly ash-F
0.2
0.1
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2
Natural sand Natural sand Manufactured sand Natural sand
#57 stone #67 Stone #7 Stone

Figure 5.14 The L-Box Ratio for the studied stones

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #57 with Natural Sand

Figure 5.15 below shows the difference between the slump flow and J-ring values, which

are shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 for #57 stone mixtures. As can be seen from Figure 5.15, the

77
mixtures with VSI of 2 showed better passing ability than that of VSI of 1 mixture, which is

anticipated and attributed to the high flowabilty of VSI 2 mixtures. It may also be observed, the

mixtures containing fly ash Class F show better passing ability than that of fly ash Class C

mixtures, about half the difference. In addition, Most of the State DOTs specifications specify

the difference between the conventional slump flow and the J-ring slump flow to be less than 2

inches (minimal to noticeable blocking), which is in agreement with the results of the mixtures

containing fly ash F, as shown in Figure 5.15.

3.5
Slump Flow, J-Ring Difference (in.)

2.5

2
Fly ash-C
1.5 Fly ash-F

0.5

0
VSI 1 VSI 2

Figure 5.15 Slump flow and J-ring difference for #57 stone mixtures

As can be seen from Figure 5.16, which is showing the L-box ratio for #57 stone, using

fly ash Class F produced L-box ratio of 0.5, in the VSI of 1 mixture, compared to the zero L-

box ratio (Blocking ) resulted from using fly ash Class C. The large aggregate size of #57 stone

and the weak flowability of VSI of 1 mixture could be the main reason of having blocking in L-

78
box test. On the other hand, the VSI of 2 showed higher passing ability compared to that of VSI

of 1, which is in agreement with the results of J-ring test shown in Figure 5.15.

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
L-Box ratio

0.4 Fly ash-C

0.3 Fly ash-F

0.2

0.1

0
VSI 1 VSI 2

Figure 5.16 The L-Box Ratio for #57 stone mixtures

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #67 with Natural and Manufactured Sand

As shown in Figure 5.17, the manufactured sand shows very low passing ability

(noticeable to extreme blocking) than that of the natural sand, especially in the VSI of 1

mixtures. Similar to #57 stone, the fly ash Class F improves the passing ability of the #67 stone

mixtures, which is clear in Figure 5.17 that all the fly ash Class F mixtures show less slump flow

and J-ring difference (high passing ability, No visible blocking) than that of fly ash Class C. It

can be observed from Figure 5.12, all #67 stone mixtures are in agreement with the State DOTs

specifications (less than 2 in. difference), except the manufactured sand with the VSI of 1 shows

more than 2 in. difference between the slump flow and J-ring . Another sign of the poor passing

ability of the manufactured sand can be seen clear in the L-box results as shown in figure 5.18,

79
which is showing blocking (zero L-box ratio) in the VSI of 1 mixture and only 0.1 L-box ratio in

the VSI of 2.

Slump Flow, J-Ring Difference (in.) 3.5

3
2.5
2
1.5 Fly ash-C

1 Fly ash-F

0.5
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2
Natural sand Manufactured sand

Figure 5.17 Slump flow and J-ring difference for #67 stone mixtures

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
L-Box ratio

0.6
0.5
Fly ash-C
0.4
0.3 Fly ash-F
0.2
0.1
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2
Natural sand Manufactured sand

Figure 5.18 The L-Box Ratio for #67 stone mixtures

80
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #7 with Natural Sand

As shown in Figure 5.19, the coarse aggregate #7 has good passing ability (No visible

blocking) in the VSI of 2 mixtures, and a noticeable to extreme blocking in the VSI of 1

mixtures. Similar to #57 and #67 stones mixture results, the fly ash Class F shows good passing

ability compared to that of Class C fly ash. That could be attributed to the difference in calcium

oxide content between the two classes of fly ash; which causes different effects on the fresh

properties of SCC, as mentioned by SKeske 2011.

3.5
Slump Flow, J-Ring Difference (in.)

2.5

2
Fly ash-C
1.5 Fly ash-F
1

0.5

0
VSI 1 VSI 2

Figure 5.19 Slump flow and J-ring difference for #7 stone mixtures

Figure 5.20 summarizes the L-box results for #7 stone that shown in Tables 5.7 and 5.8.

There is a notable different effect of fly ash Class F in # 7 stone than that in the #57 and #67

stones. As have been noticed in the L- box results for #57 and #67 stones, shown in Figure 5.16

and 5.18 respectively, the fly ash Class F shows more passing ability (high L-Box ratio) than that

of fly ash Class C. This is not the case in the Figure 5.20; the fly ash Class C shows more passing

81
ability than that of fly ash Class F. This phenomenon could be attributed to the small size of

aggregate #7 stone, which could be the main reason behind having different fly ash effects in the

L-box test for #7 stone and the other #57 and #67 stones. In general L-box test showed some

difficulties; high force accompanied by some vibrations was applied while lifting the gate which

affected the test accuracy and precision.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
L-Box ratio

0.6
0.5 Fly ash-C
0.4 Fly ash-F
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
VSI 1 VSI 2

Figure 5.20 The L-Box Ratio for #7 stone mixtures

5.3.3 Stability of SCC Mixtures

The Column Segregation test was used to assess the segregation resistance of SCC

mixtures. The SCC is generally considered to be accepted if the percent-segregation is less than

10% (ACI, 2007). However, some of the State DOTs specifications specify 15% as a maximum

column segregation limit. The results of the Column Segregation test were obtained for different

aggregate sizes as described in Section 5.2 and summarized in Figure 5.21. Most the VSI 1

82
mixtures meet the 10% limit and all meet the 15% requirements as shown in Figure 5.21. Each

aggregate size is discussed proceeding sections.

20%
18%
Column segregation (%.)

16%
14%
12%
10%
8% Fly ash-C
6%
Fly ash-F
4%
2%
0%
VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2
Natural sand Natural sand Manufactured sand Natural sand
#57 stone #67 Stone #7 Stone

Figure 5.21 The column segregation for the SCC mixtures

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #57 with Natural Sand

As mentioned earlier in this Chapter, the #57 coarse aggregate is the largest aggregate

size used in this study. Thus, it was anticipated to see high segregation potential for #57 stone

mixtures due to the gap gradation of #57 stone shown in Figure 4.1. So it can be seen clearly in

Figure 5.22 the VSI of 2 mixtures possess high segregation values (between15% to 20%) which

are incompatible with the ACI requirements (greater than 10%). Conversely, the VSI of 1 shows

reasonable segregation, especially in the mixtures containing fly ash Class C and it is in

agreement with the ACI requirements.

83
 20%
18%
16%

Column segregation (%.)

14%
12%
10% Fly ash-C
8% Fly ash-F
6%
4%
2%
0%
VSI 1 VSI 2

Figure 5.22 The column segregation for #57 stone mixtures

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #67 with Natural and Manufactured Sand

It may be noticed from Figure 5.23, the natural sand shows a little less segregation

potential than that of the manufactured sand. Also, it can be seen clearly, the VSI of 2 for the

mixtures containing the manufactured sand show high segregation values (greater than 10%)

which are incompatible with the ACI requirements. It is also notable, and in agreement with #57

stone, the fly ash Class C shows lower segregation potential, in the natural sand mixtures with

VSI of 1, than that of Class F fly ash mixture. While the manufacture sand adversely shows

lower relative segregation potential with fly ash Class F rather than Class C. This contradiction

in the fly ash effects could be attributed to the difference in natural and manufactured sand

gradation and particles shape.

84
 16%

14%

Column segregation (%.)

12%

10%

8%
Fly ash-C
6%
Fly ash-F
4%

2%

0%
VSI 1 VSI 2 VSI 1 VSI 2
Natural sand Manufactured sand

Figure 5.23 The column segregation for #67 stone mixtures

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #7 with Natural Sand

The coarse aggregate #7 was the smallest size used in this study. Therefore it was

anticipated to show less segregation potential than that of the other aggregate sizes. This trend

could also be attributed to the well-graded #7 stone mixtures as show in Figure 4.1. Studies show

that the well-graded mixtures tend not to have as many problems as gap-graded mixes in terms of

workability and segregation during vibration (Richardson, 2005). As observed from Figure 5.24,

all the mixtures show acceptable segregation potential except the one with the 18.35 %

segregation. This high segregation value could be attributed to the high amount of HRWR that

was added in this mixture as shown in Figure 5.11.

85
 20%
18%
16%

Column segregation (%.)

14%
12%
10% Fly ash-C
8% Fly ash-F
6%
4%
2%
0%
VSI 1 VSI 2

Figure 5.24 The Colum Segregation for #7 stone mixtures

5.3.4 Initial and Final Time of Setting for SCC and Conventional Concrete Mixtures

The Time of setting of concrete mixtures by penetration resistance was conducted for the

both SCC and conventional concrete mixtures. The test was conducted on a mortar sample that

was obtained by sieving a representative sample of fresh concrete through a 4.75-mm sieve. Thus

it was not anticipated to notice much variation between the different aggregate sizes. The results

of the different aggregate sizes are discussed below in details.

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #57 with Natural Sand

Figure 5.25 shows the initial and final time of setting for #57 stone, which ranged

between 5 to 8.5 hours, and it was anticipated to notice such variation between the setting time

between VSI of 1 and 2 and the conventional mixtures. This variation in the time of setting can

be attributed to the different HRWR dosages among the mixtures; the VSI of 2 possessed the

highest HRWR dosage and it showed higher time. In addition, it is noticeable that fly ash Class F

86
is showing longer setting time than that of fly ash Class C, which due to the chemical

composition deference between C and F fly ash; fly ash Class C contains higher amount of

calcium oxide than fly ash Class F.

10:00

8:45
Concrete Set time (hr:min)

7:30

6:15

5:00
Fly ash-C
3:45 Fly ash-F
2:30

1:15

0:00
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.

Figure 5.25 The initial and final time of setting for #57 stone mixtures

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #67 with Natural and Manufactured Sand

As shown in Figure 5.26, the natural sand shows quicker setting time than that of the

natural sand. Which could be due to the different particles gradation of the manufactured sand;

which was contained larger particles than that of the natural sand. Also it can be seen, similar to

#57 stone, the fly ash Class C shortened the initial and final time of setting more than that of

Class F fly ash.

87
 10:00

Concrete Set time (hr:min)

8:45
7:30
6:15
5:00
3:45
Fly ash-C
2:30
Fly ash-F
1:15
0:00

Initial
Initial

Final

Initial

Final

Initial

Final

Initial

Final

Initial

Final

Final
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.
Natural sand Manufactured sand

Figure 5.26 The initial and final time of setting for #67 stone mixtures

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #7 with Natural Sand

The same observations that were noticed in Figures 5.25 and 5.26 could be confirmed in

Figure 5.27 for #7 stone.

11:15
10:00
Concrete Set time (hr:min)

8:45
7:30
6:15
5:00 Fly ash-C
3:45 Fly ash-F
2:30
1:15
0:00
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.

Figure 5.27 The initial and final time of setting for #7 stone mixtures
88
5.3.5 Air Entrained Admixture Requirements for Concrete Mixtures

As mentioned earlier in Chapter 4, the AEA was used to provide 5.5 % to 7.5 % air

content within the concrete mixtures. The dosages of AEA for the different aggregate sizes are

discussed below.

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #57 with Natural Sand

As can be seen in Figure 5.28, the SCC mixtures (VSI 1 and 2) require less AEA dosages

than that for the conventional concrete mixture. This could be attributed to the HRWR effect

which reduces the amount of air-entraining admixture necessary to achieve a given air content,

as mentioned by Skeske 2011.

1.4
1.2
1.0
AEA (oz/cwt )

0.8
0.6
Fly ash-C
0.4
Fly ash-F
0.2
0.0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.
Natural sand
#57 stone

Figure 5.28 The AEA requirements for #57 stone mixtures

89
[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse Aggregate #67 with Natural and Manufactured Sand

The same observations that have noticed in Figures 5.28 can be confirmed in Figure 5.29

for #67 stone mixtures. It can also be observed; the natural sand requires more AEA dosages to

attain the desirable air contents than that for the manufacture sand, which can be attributed to the

effect of different gradation between the natural and manufactured sand.

0.9
0.8
0.7
AEA (oz/cwt )

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3 Fly ash-C
0.2 Fly ash-F
0.1
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.
Natural sand Manufactured sand
#67 Stone

Figure 5.29 The AEA requirements for #67 stone mixtures

[Link] Mixtures Containing Coarse aggregate #7 with Natural Sand

It can be seen clearly in Figure 5.30, the #7 coarse aggregate needed less AEA dosages

than that for #57 and #67 aggregate, as shown in Figures 5.28 and 5.29 respectively. The small

aggregate size of #7 could be the main reason behind the AEA reduction.

90
 1.2
1

AEA (oz/cwt )
0.8
0.6
0.4 Fly ash-C
0.2 Fly ash-F
0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.
Natural sand
#7 Stone

Figure 5.30 The AEA requirements for #7 stone mixtures

5.4 Discussion of Hardened Properties of Concrete Mixtures

As the fresh properties of concrete mixtures is the primary focus of this study, only the

seven day compressive strength for the studied mixtures was discussed below.

5.4.1 The 7-day Compressive Strength for The Studied Mixtures

Figure 5.31 shows the 7-day compressive strength results for different aggregate sizes as

described in Section 5.2. Most of mixtures showed 4,000 to 5,000 psi in the 7-day compressive

strength test. It can be observed, the compressive strength of VSI of 2 is little less than that of

VSI of 1. This could be attributed to the higher segregation tendency of VSI of 2 mixtures. For

the same reason the VSI of 2 mixture with #7 stone showed low compressive strength which is

due to the high segregation and high amount of HRWR that was added in this mixture as shown

in Figure 5.11 and 5.24. Also, it is noticeable in Figure 5.31, the fly ash Class F shows less

compressive strength than that of the fly ash Class C, which is in agreement with Mehta and

Monteiro 2006; early strength gains at three and seven days are reduced more when using fly ash

91
Class F than when using Class C, as mention by Skeske 2011. This is because Class C fly ash is

partly cementitious in nature due to its higher Calcium Oxide content, whereas Class F fly ash is

almost completely pozzolanic in nature and is much slower to hydrate.

6000
7-Day Compressive strength(psi)

5000

4000

3000
Fly ash-C
2000
Fly ash-F

1000

0
VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv. VSI 1 VSI 2 Conv.
Natural sand Natural sand Manufactured sand Natural sand
#57 stone #57 stone #7 stone

Figure 5.31 The 7-Day compressive strength of the studied mixtures

92
 CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summary

This study is part of the a study funded by the Tennessee Department of Transportation

(TDOT) carried out by University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) to develop four new SCC

mixtures two precast and two general use, and insure they meet the minimum strength and

durability requirement for TDOT Class P (precast) and Class A (general use) mixtures. This

study only addressed the Class A (general use) mixtures which were selected for detailed studies of

their fresh properties. The primary aims of this study were to investigate the fresh properties of

Class A SCC using different aggregate sizes (ASTM C 33 #57, #67, and #7 stone), natural and

manufactured sand, and using two classes of fly ash C and F. In addition, it aimed to investigate

the effects of Visual stability index (VSI) on fresh segregation of SCC mixtures.

Before developing the trial mixtures of Class A concrete, the survey of state Departments

of Transportation (DOTs) was conducted to gather specifications related to SCC use for general

and precast elements in other states. The survey addressed the mixture parameters, fresh

performance requirements, and the hardened performance requirements. The findings of the

survey were summarized in Chapter 3 and then used to develop and select the mixture

proportions and components, and choose the appropriate methods to evaluate the fresh

characteristics of SCC mixtures.

93
 Two Class A mixtures were designed with 20% cement replacement using fly ash class C

for one mixture, and class F for the other. Each Class A mixtures duplicated 12 times with an array

of visual stability index values of 1 and 2, different aggregate sizes (#57,#67, and # 7), and with

natural and manufactured sand as discussed in Chapter 4.

Many methods were conducted to evaluate the fresh properties and characteristics of SCC

mixtures which are described in Chapter 4 and summarized below:

 Slump flow test, Visual Stability Index, and T50 time were conducted to assess the filling

ability of SCC mixtures,

 J-ring and L-box tests were conducted to assess the passing ability of SCC mixtures, and

 Column Segregation test was used to assess the fresh stability of SCC mixtures.

The fresh property test results from the 24 mixtures were collected based on the VSI

values of 1 and 2 and then compared with each other and with the results of conventional

concrete mixtures. Then, the observations, conclusions, and the recommendation made during

the collection and analysis of these fresh property results are discussed below.

6.2 Observations and Conclusions

6.2.1 Observations and Conclusions from #57 Stone Concrete Mixtures

 The #57 stone mixed with natural sand exhibited acceptable filling ability. The fly ash Class

F improves the flowability of #57 stone SCC mixtures with less amount of WRA than Class

C fly ash mixtures.

 The #57 mixtures, containing natural sand and Class C fly ash, exhibited acceptable passing

ability with the VSI of 2, and poor passing ability with the VSI of 1. While using fly ash

Class F provides acceptable passing ability in the both VSI of 1 and 2.

94
  A high segregation tendency is expected in the #57 stone mixtures with VSI of 2. Using fly

ash Class C in the #57 stone mixtures could reduce the segregation potential.

 The VSI of 2 mixtures possess longer setting time than that of VSI of 1 mixture. Using

fly ash Class F can lengthen the setting time more than that of fly ash Class C.

6.2.2 Observations and Conclusions from #67 Stone Concrete Mixtures

 The natural sand provides higher slump flow and good filling and passing ability for #67

stones than that of the manufactured sand. The manufactured sand possesses a poor

passing ability and high segregation potential (greater than 10% Column Segregation).

 Using fly ash Class C improves the flowability of #67 stone mixtures with less amount of

WRA than that with using Class F fly ash. In addition, using Class C can reduce the

segregation potential of #67 stone mixtures.

 The mixtures containing natural sand show lower viscosity (T50 less than 2 sec.) and

longer setting time than that containing manufactured sand.

 The fly ash Class F improves the natural sand viscosity and passing ability, while the fly

ash Class C improves the manufactured sand viscosity and reduces its segregation

potential.

 Generally, The #67 stone mixtures show better fresh properties than that of #57 stone

mixtures.

6.2.3 Observations and Conclusions from #7 Stone Concrete Mixtures

 In general, the #7 stone is more convenient for making the SCC mixtures and it exhibits

acceptable characteristics (filling, passing, and stability) than the other #57 and #67 stones.
95
  The fly ash Class C improves the flowability of #67 & #7 stone mixtures with less

amount of WRA than Class F fly ash mixtures.

 The coarse aggregate #7 that contains fly ash Class F has acceptable passing ability in the

both VSI of 1 and 2 mixtures.

6.3 Recommendations

 The results of this study have indicated that SCC mixes made with the #57 stone, #67

stone, or manufactured sand, with the VSI value of 2, show high segregation potential.

Therefore VSI value of 2 is not recommended with these aggregates.

 The #7 aggregate is highly recommended in order to produce SCC mixtures with high

flowability, high passing ability, and with less segregation potential.

 It is not recommended to use the manufacture sand as pure fine aggregate in the SCC

mixtures; it shows high segregation potential and poor passing ability.

 Using fly ash C and F is very important to improve the fresh characteristics of SCC

mixtures.

 It is also recommended for future work to investigate the fresh properties of using a

blended fine aggregate with natural and manufactured sand and study their effect on the

fresh characteristics of SCC. In addition, the #7 stone mixtures with HRWR show low or

no air entraining agent dosages to provide their design air contents, so it is recommended

for future work to study the air voids produced by the HRWR alone to make sure they

provide resistance to the damage by freeze/thaw cycles.

96
 REFERENCES

ACI, Committee 237. (2007). 237R-07 self-consolidating concrete. 30.

ACI Committee 301. (1994). Specifications for Structural Concrete (ACI 301). ACI Materials
Journal, 91(1).

Adekunle, Saheed Kolawole. (2012). A study on developing Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC)

utilizing indigenous natural and industrial waste materials. (1533649 M.S.), King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals (Saudi Arabia), Ann Arbor. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses A&I database.

ASTM. (2005). C 1611/C 1611M-05 standard test method for slump flow of self-consolidating
concrete: US: ASTM Intema—tional, 2005: 1.

ASTM. (2009a). C1621 . Standard test method for passing ability of self-consolidating concrete
by J-Ring. West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/C1621.

ASTM. (2009b). C/CM-10 Standard test method for static segregation of self-sonsolidating
soncrete using column technique: ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA, USA.

ASTM C 618. (2003). 618. Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural
pozzolan for use in, concrete.

EFNARC. (2002). Specifications and guidelines for self-compacting concrete.

Hameed, Mohammed Abdul. (2005). A study of mix design and durability of self compacting
concrete. Civil Engineering.

Kandhal, Prithvi S, Motter, John B, & Khatri, Maqbool Ahmed. (1991). Evaluation of particle
shape and texture: manufactured versus natural sands: National Center for Asphalt
Technology.

Keske, Samuel D, Schindler, Anton K, & Barnes, Robert W. (2013). Assessment of stability test
methods for self-consolidating concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 110(4).

Khayat, K. H. (1999). Workability, testing, and performance of self-consolidating concrete. ACI

Materials Journal, 96(3), 346-353.

97
Khayat, Kamal, & Mitchell, Denis. (2009). Self-consolidating concrete for precast, prestressed
concrete bridge elements (Vol. 628): Transportation Research Board.

Khayat, KH, Ghezal, A, & Hadriche, MS. (2000). Utility of statistical models in proportioning
self-consolidating concrete. Materials and Structures, 33(5), 338-344.

Koehler, Eric P, Fowler, David W, Foley, Erin H, Rogers, Gregory J, Watanachet, Sorawit, &
Jung, Min Jae. (2007). Self-consolidating concrete for precast structural applications:
Mixture proportions, workability, and early-age hardened properties.

Mehta, Povindar Kumar, & Monteiro, Paulo JM. (2006). Concrete: microstructure, properties,
and materials (Vol. 3): McGraw-Hill New York.

Missouri DOT. (2012). Self‐Consolidating Concrete (SCC) for infrastructure elements: hardened
mechanical properties and durability performance. 183.

Okamura, Hajime, & Ouchi, Masahiro. (2003). Self-compacting concrete.

PCI. (2003). Interim guidelines for the use of self-consolidating concrete in precast/prestressed
concrete institute member plants: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute.

Richardson, David N. (2005). Aggregate gradation optimization-literature search.

Vachon, M, & Daczko, J. (2002). US Regulatory work on SCC. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the First North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-
Consolidating Concrete.

98
 VITA

Ammar Elhassan was born in Sudan, Nyala, on 31 December 1988, the son of Elfatih

Abdelssamd and Thouraya Elmahadi. He is the fifth of six children, older three brothers and one

sister and a younger one brother. He received his Bachelor degree of Civil Engineering from

University of Khartoum, Sudan, in September 2010. After graduation, during 2010 – 2012, he

worked for Asawer Oil and Gas Company, Sudapet, as a Civil and Structural Engineer and for

the University of Khartoum as a Teaching Assistant which was the impetus for him to continue

his higher education. Ammar moved to USA in August 2012 after accepting a graduate research

assistantship at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in the Master of Civil Engineering

Program. He graduated with a Master’s of Science degree in Engineering in August 2014.

99

View publication stats