CHALLENGE JOURNAL OF CONCRETE RESEARCH LETTERS 12 (1) (2021) 20–29

Research Article

Study on concrete proportioning methods:

a qualitative and economical perspective

Shoib Bashir Wani a,* , Tahir Hussain Muntazari a , Nusrat Rafique b

a
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Srinagar, J&K 190006, India
b
Department of Geography & Regional Development, University of Kashmir, J&K 190006, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE INFO

The various approaches, established for concrete mix design, are not universal be- Article history:
cause design mixes are explicit to local climate, available materials, and type of expo- Received 10 September 2020
sure. The new-generation mix design method should be developed based on the per- Revised 19 December 2020
formance criteria. The concrete strength obtained from the designed concrete mix Accepted 4 January 2021
and optimum cement content should not be considered as the only parameter for the
Keywords:
suitability of the concrete mix. This study was carried to compare the proportioning Mix design methods
of concrete mixes obtained by following procedures of Indian Standard (IS), Ameri-
Cement
can Concrete Institute (ACI) and British Standard (BS) of concrete mix design without w/c ratio
the use of admixtures to validate for use in a moderate climate like Kashmir, India. Target mean strength
The concrete mixes have been prepared with the necessary 28 days resistance in Total aggregate content
compression as “15 MPa, 20 MPa, 25 MPa, 30 MPa and 35 MPa”. The assessment of
water-cement (w/c) ratio; cement, water, fine aggregate (FA) and coarse aggregate
(CA) proportion was carried. The w/c ratio among all formulated mixes is signifi-
cantly high in the BS method and low for IS method. The BS method uses less quantity
and IS method uses the maximum quantity of cement. In addition, the ratio of total
aggregate content (TAC) and the aggregate-cement ratio is higher in BS design
method as compared to IS and ACI design methods. The aggregate content in ACI mix
design appears to be consistent and it added to the relative high compressive
strength. The specimens cast following BS guidelines failed to attain the target mean
strength (TMS) due to a higher volume of aggregate content, high w/c proportion,
less quantity of cement in the mix. The specimens cast by ACI and IS mix design upon
compression testing showed higher results than the calculated TMS. The cost analy-
sis per cubic meter of concrete revealed that IS and ACI mix proportioning are expen-
sive than BS method. The IS procedure results in dense concrete followed by ACI pro-
cedure. It is expected that with a comprehensive investigation on selected design pa-
rameters concentrating more on local challenges, the present study will floor the way
for the development and adoption of performance-based design mix selection for mod-
erate climate.

1. Introduction fixed their concrete mix design procedures. These proce-

dures are largely dependent on tables designed as the out-
The concrete mix proportioning is a well-defined way come of experiments and investigations of material prop-
of identifying the mixture of ingredients essential to meet erties, graphs, charts and empirical relations. Many fac-
the required characteristics in the wet and solidified state. tors found to affect the proportions of ingredients of con-
All developed and developing nations have quantified and crete, such as specific gravity of materials, type and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-962-223-8788 ; E-mail address: [email protected] (S. B. Wani)

ISSN: 2548-0928 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.20528/cjcrl.2021.01.003
 Wani et al. / Challenge Journal of Concrete Research Letters 12 (1) (2021) 20–29 21

strength of cement, the minimum and maximum content 2. Summary of Mix Design Procedures
of cement, water-to-cement ratio, mixing water require-
ments, aggregate-to-cement ratio, type, shape and maxi- The Indian standard code IS 10262 (2009) presents
mum size of aggregates, grading of aggregates, the ratio an elementary assumption that “the compressive
of fine to total aggregate, entrapped air content, concrete strength of concrete is governed by the w/c ratio. The
exposure conditions, properties of concrete in green and w/c ratio is adopted as per the concrete grade and sort
hardened concrete. All the existing methods of concrete of exposure and water content is selected based on nom-
mix formulation follow the same basic trial and error inal CA size and slump value”. The guidelines for the use
fundamentals. Different methods can be found to design of any type of admixture in concrete are available. The
a concrete mixture under requirements that are worka- resilience, w/c proportion and cement quantity require-
bility, ingredients and a specific environment. Some of ments are included in IS 456 (2000). The volume of CA is
the prevalent approaches of mix design are framed by dependent upon the zone of FA as per IS 383 (1970)
“Maximum Density Method, Fineness Modulus Method, along with the nominal maximum size of aggregate. The
American Concrete Institute (ACI), Bureau of Indian other aspects which influence the property of concrete
Standard (BIS), Road Research Laboratory procedure, include the grade and quality of cement; water and ag-
and Department of Energy (DOE) or British Standard gregate dimensions. Therefore, the instructions men-
(BS) mix design system" (Raju, 2007). Nataraja et al. tioned in the proportioning of concrete ought to be con-
(1999) have presented a study from the thorough eval- sidered only as a basis of trial which can be changed. The
uation of experimental data, tables and graphs devel- “compressive strength of hardened concrete is to be
oped through in-depth experiments and studies in var- specified based on the cube compression test, deter-
ious mix design procedures. For enhancing the mix de- mined at 28 days” as per IS 516 (1959).
sign procedures, many functions are noted, and up- The ACI 211.1 (1991) takes “workability, consistency,
dated mix design parameters have been suggested to strength, and endurance into consideration. ACI sug-
generate an economical mixture for varying weather gests mixture design processes based on these princi-
conditions. Mohammed et al. (2012) have proposed an ples” (Raju, 2007):
“artificial neural network (ANN)-based design of con- a) In the selection of mix proportion, a wet concrete mix
crete mixes considering six design parameters, namely of specified slump comprising a well-graded FA and
w/c ratio, slump, percentage of fine to total aggregate, CA of maximum dimensions will have essentially fixed
maximum aggregate size, fineness modulus of fine ag- water content no matter of varying w/c or cement
gregate, and compressive strength. They concluded proportion.
that fineness modulus of aggregates has a major effect b) The w/c proportion is reliant on the concrete strength
on the properties of the concrete mix”. Lamond (1997) with a constraint from the durability parameter.
from the analysis of concrete durability has revealed c) The proportion of CA per unit volume of concrete is
that “durability and strength of concrete are two differ- reliant on the CA size and the FA grading, stated as
ent parameters; the strength of concrete is just one of fineness modulus.
the indications of the durability”. Wadud and Ahmad d) Regardless of the process of compaction in concrete,
(2001) studied the ACI mix design procedure. As per some voids occupy the entrapped air which has indi-
their study, if CA with greater voids is used in making the rect proportionality to the maximum dimension of FA
concrete, it fails to uphold a proper ratio between FA and and CA.
CA. Al-khalaf and Yousif (1984) have concluded that “the The disadvantage of ACI method is that for different
correct proportioning of the aggregate-to-cement ratio cement contents the FA cannot be adjusted. There is also
is necessary to produce a consistent mix”. The DOE no guideline to mix the aggregates of varying sizes. No
method uses the compaction factor as a measure of provisions for lightweight aggregate concrete, special
workability, the ACI method uses the slump. Though the admixtures for manufacturing concrete products and no
DOE method discusses the air entrainment, the selection defined provision for concrete using condensed silica
of the w/c ratio is a sole function of the target mean fume. The cement strength perspective is not considered
strength whereas in ACI method, the determination of while framing the mix design. “The ACI method of mix
the w/c ratio, is a combination of both the target design is applicable for normal and heavyweight con-
strength and the type of concrete (whether air entrained crete having 28-days cylinder compressive strength” as
or non-air entrained). per ACI 318-08 (2008).
Nowadays massive concrete structures are con- The BS procedure or Department of Energy (DOE) of
structed worldwide and to assure the safety of life and concrete mix design method relies on these guidelines
property, in-depth studies are carried out for promising (Raju, 2007):
strength, durability and overall performance of concrete. a) The aggregate of two forms of uncrushed and crushed
The present investigation was completed for suggesting is recognized.
the practicality, performance, basic principles of selec- b) Slump values and Vee-bee test time are considered as
tion and further cost analysis on the concrete mixes for- a measure of the workability of concrete mix.
mulated by different guidelines. The major drawbacks c) The workability obtained by a specific water-content
were included and the suitability for moderate climate is proportional to the type of aggregate using different
conditions was discussed. maximum sizes (10 mm, 20 mm, and 40 mm).
d) The FA content is reliant on desired workability, ag-
gregate size and w/c ratio.
22 Wani et al. / Challenge Journal of Concrete Research Letters 12 (1) (2021) 20–29

The disadvantages of BS method include the FA pro- The sieve analysis results of CA and FA are mentioned
portion is greater in the mix design and for varying ce- in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
ment content, the FA cannot be fixed. It doesn't take into The proportioning of ingredients of a concrete mix by
account the flakiness of aggregate, FA, water proportion IS, ACI and BS methods are shown in Table 4. The ingre-
and the effect of aggregate texture. “No specific graphs dients of the mixes were weighed and casting was car-
are recommended to estimate fine aggregate content for ried out using a tilted drum type concrete mixer. Precau-
a maximum size of aggregates between 10 mm and 20 tions were taken to ensure uniform mixing of ingredi-
mm and 20–40 mm. The compressive strength of hard- ents. The specimens were cast in steel moulds and com-
ened concrete is to be specified based on 150 mm cube pacted on a table vibrator following IS 516 (1959) guide-
test determined at 28 days in N/mm2 or 150 mm diame- lines. Cube specimens of size ‘150mmx150mmx150mm’
ter by 300 mm cylinder tests, determined at 28 days in were cast for cube compressive strength. Curing was
N/mm2” as per BS EN 12390-3 (2019). done for 28 days by keeping the specimens completely
immersed in water. All the test results reported repre-
senting the average value obtained from five specimens
3. Experimental Program Summary in each category.
The workability of concrete mix measured in terms of
The concrete mix designs were formulated with basic slump and vee-bee is reported in Table 5, including 7th
material properties listed in Table 1. day and 28th day compressive strength.

Table 1. Material properties.

Property Values
Mean target compressive strength “15MPa, 20MPa, 25MPa, 30MPa and 35MPa”
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) 53 grade, make – Ambuja,
Category of cement
in compliance to IS 12269 (1987) was used.
Nominal maximum dimension of CA 20 mm
Category of CA Crushed natural stone aggregate
Category of FA River Sand
Specific gravity : Cement 3.15
CA 2.62
FA 2.59
Unit weight of : CA 1600 kg/m3
FA 1700 kg/m3
Fineness modulus (FM) CA 7.30
FA 2.44 (Zone II) as specified in IS 383 (1970)
Water absorption : CA 0.57%
FA 1.00 %
Surface moisture : CA 0.00%
FA 2.32%
Admixtures Not used
Note: The experimental temperature was maintained between 25°C to 30°C; a condition of moderate climate temperature.

Table 2. Grading of coarse aggregates.

Sample = 5 kg
Sieve size Retained weight Collective weight retained Collective Collective
(mm) (micron) (kg) (kg) % retained % passing

80 0 0 0 100
40 0 0 0 100
20 1.519 1.519 30.38 69.620
10 3.444 4.963 99.26 0.740
4.75 0.037 5 100 0
2.36 0 5 100 0
1.18 0 5 100 0
600 0 5 100 0
300 0 5 100 0
150 0 5 100 0
Total Sum 5 729.64
F M = (729.64/100) = 7.3
 Wani et al. / Challenge Journal of Concrete Research Letters 12 (1) (2021) 20–29 23

Table 3. Grading of fine aggregates.

Sample = 1000 gram
Sieve size Retained weight Collective weight retained Collective Collective
(mm) (micron) (g) (g) % retained % passing

4.75 11 11 1.1 98.9

2.36 63 74 7.4 92.6
1.18 141 215 21.5 78.5
600 245 460 46.0 54.0
300 214 674 67.4 32.6
150 326 1000 100.0 0
Total Sum : 1000 243.4
F M = (243.40/100) = 2.44 , Grading zone II as per IS 383 (1970) (Chaubey, 2020)

Table 4. Proportioning of ingredients of concrete mix.

Grade of Proportion by volume (kg/m3) Ratio Water content w/c Total aggregate-
Standard
concrete Cement FA CA (Cement:FA:CA) (litre/m3) ratio cement ratio

IS 310.00 758.56 1124.92 1:2.44:3.62 182.63 0.59 6.08

M15 ACI 268.12 862.50 970.00 1:3.21:3.61 180.38 0.80 6.83
BS 200.00 808.80 1092.00 1:4.04:5.46 165.13 0.86 9.50
IS 338.18 730.02 1129.29 1:2.16:3.34 183.02 0.54 5.50
M20 ACI 308.33 787.08 1049.60 1:2.55:3.40 180.82 0.59 5.96
BS 226.67 809.69 1187.00 1:3.57:5.24 166.32 0.73 8.80
IS 372.00 700.90 1130.58 1:1.88:3.03 183.40 0.49 4.92
M25 ACI 349.06 751.53 1049.60 1:2.15:3.00 181.28 0.52 5.16
BS 261.54 775.53 1185.51 1:2.96:4.53 166.76 0.63 7.49
IS 413.33 800.62 991.99 1:1.93:2.40 183.78 0.45 4.33
M30 ACI 411.11 685.44 1115.50 1:1.67:2.71 181.92 0.55 4.38
BS 283.33 644.38 1079.20 1:2.27:3.80 167.15 0.58 6.08
IS 465.00 767.25 994.50 1:1.65:2.13 183.85 0.40 3.79
M35 ACI 462.50 560.05 1115.20 1:1.21:2.41 182.50 0.38 3.62
BS 320.75 384.48 1217.50 1:1.20:3.79 167.57 0.44 4.99

Table 5. Test results.

Mean 7th day Mean 28th day Average weight
Grade of Slump value TMS
Standard compressive strength compressive strength of the specimen
concrete (mm) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa) (kg)
IS 35 20.78 14.67 20.81 8.330
M15 ACI 30 20.78 14.96 20.89 8.478
BS 45 20.78 10.81 15.70 8.256
IS 30 26.60 19.56 27.85 8.334
M20 ACI 35 26.60 19.41 27.78 8.339
BS 30 26.60 16.81 24.37 8.305
IS 40 31.60 22.30 33.11 8.335
M25 ACI 30 31.60 23.41 33.48 8.257
BS 30 31.60 19.41 28.30 8.123
IS 50 38.25 26.52 38.30 8.405
M30 ACI 30 38.25 26.96 38.59 8.352
BS 45 38.25 20.44 29.02 8.269
IS 30 43.25 30.81 43.33 8.443
M35 ACI 30 43.25 30.81 43.26 8.413
BS 60 43.25 22.37 31.85 8.370
24 Wani et al. / Challenge Journal of Concrete Research Letters 12 (1) (2021) 20–29

4. Results and Discussion of cement required in the specified concrete mixes as

per the respective procedure.
a) The BS method is comprehensive and tedious, f) The TAC and the aggregate-cement ratio in BS method
whereas IS and ACI methods are relatively easy and are high as compared to IS and ACI methods. An indi-
precise. rect relationship between TAC and TMS is observed.
b) The mix designed by IS and ACI methods attained the Fig. 5 displays a bar chart of the ratio of total-aggre-
calculated TMS and were found to be consistent gate and cement-content.
whereas the trial mixes designed by BS method failed g) The CA content is maximum in mixes designed by BS
to attain TMS as confirmed by Ejiogu et al. (2018). Fig. procedure followed by IS and ACI mix designs. No
1 displays a bar chart of comparison between 7th day such co-relation in CA content was found in the mixes
compressive strength, 28th day compressive strength from low to high TMS.
and TMS of all the three concrete mix designs. h) The FA content in IS mix design is inversely propor-
c) The w/c ratio is in indirect relation with targeted tional to the targeted strength up to M25 and then in-
mean strength in all three methods. The w/c ratio is creases. Whereas in ACI and BS mix design the FA con-
highest in the BS method, whereas the lowest in IS tent shows an indirect relationship with the TMS. The
method. The variation is shown in Fig. 2 (a, b). consistent proportion of CA: FA in ACI mix designs is
d) The proportion of water-content in BS method is less a reason for a consistent compressive strength as
as compared to the other two methods. It is nearly maximum voids are filled. Fig. 6 (a, b) shows the vari-
identical in IS and ACI methods. Fig. 3 displays a bar ation of CA and FA content in different mixes as per IS,
chart of water-content required in different grades of ACI and BS method of mix design.
concrete in the respective mix design procedures. i) The explanation of the failure of BS method is due to
e) The cement-content is directly proportional to the high values of w/c ratio, lower cement content and
TMS. The IS method utilizes maximum cement pro- higher quantities of total aggregate than the other two
portion and the BS method uses the least which is a methods. As a result, the proportion of cement ap-
factor in the failure of BS mix proportioning method pears to be inadequate to cover all the aggregates and
to achieve the TMS. Fig. 4 (a, b) indicates the amount bind them properly.
Compreesive Strength (MPa)

50
45
40
35
30 M15
25 M20
20
15 M25
10
M30
5
0 M35
7 days 28 TMS 7 days 28 TMS 7 days 28 TMS
days days days
IS ACI BS

Fig. 1. Comparison of 7th day and 28th day compressive strength and TMS.
Compressive Strength (MPa)

Compressive Strength (MPa)

50 35
30
40
25
30 20
20 15
10
10
5
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
w/c Ratio w/c Ratio
(a) IS - 28days ACI - 28days BS - 28days (b) IS - 7days ACI - 7days BS - 7days

Fig. 2. Compressive strength vs w/c ratio.

 Wani et al. / Challenge Journal of Concrete Research Letters 12 (1) (2021) 20–29 25

200
180
Water Content (litre/m3) 160
140
M15
120
M20
100
80 M25
60 M30
40 M35
20
0
Grade IS water- ACI water- BS water-
content content content

Fig. 3. Water-content required in specified concrete mixes.

500
450
400
Cement Content (kg/m3)

350
300 IS
250 ACI
200
BS
150
100
50
0
(a) 15 20 25 30 35

500
450
400
Cement Content (kg/m3)

350
300 IS cement-content
250 ACI cement-content
200 BS cement-content
150
100
50
0
(b) M15 M20 M25 M30 M35

Fig. 4. Variation of cement-content in the designed concrete mixes.

26 Wani et al. / Challenge Journal of Concrete Research Letters 12 (1) (2021) 20–29

10
9
8

Aggregate-cement ratio
7
6 TAC : Cement - IS
5
TAC : Cement - ACI
4
TAC : Cement - BS
3
2
1
0
M15 M20 M25 M30 M35

Fig. 5. Total aggregate content- cement content ratio.

1400

1200
Coarse Aggregate (kg/m3)

1000

800 IS CA-content
ACI CA-content
600
BS CA-content
400

200

0
(a) M15 M20 M25 M30 M35

1000
900
800
Fine Aggregate (kg/m3)

700
600 IS FA-content
500
ACI FA-content
400
BS FA-content
300
200
100
(b) 0
M15 M20 M25 M30 M35

Fig. 6. Variation of coarse aggregate and fine aggregate in designed concrete mixes.
 Wani et al. / Challenge Journal of Concrete Research Letters 12 (1) (2021) 20–29 27

5. Density of Concrete proportioning method can be recommended and for

higher grades (M30 and M35), IS concrete proportion-
The “density of the formulated concrete mix was esti- ing method will be more suitable for a moderate cli-
mated with the attained weight of concrete ingredients mate.
per unit volume” (Ahmed et al., 2016) and represented
in Table 6. The density of the mix characterizes the com-
pactness of the mix and concrete formed with higher 6. Cost Analysis
density will be more suitable to harsh conditions.
From Table 6 it is evident that the wet density of The basic cost of cement, FA and CA was taken from
fresh concrete and hardened density of concrete speci- location Srinagar city (Jammu & Kashmir) as on May
mens (28th day) by mix proportion weight is maximum 2020. The transportation cost was excluded from the to-
for IS specimens followed by ACI specimens in all the tal cost. Table 7 shows the costs of concrete ingredients.
formulated mix proportions. Therefore, for lower The cost per cubic meter of concrete is given in Table 8
grades of concrete (M15, M20 and M25), ACI concrete and Fig. 7 specifies the cost bar chart.

Table 6. Evaluation of density of fresh concrete and hardened concrete.

Grade of Slump value Average fresh Average weight of the Average hardened
Standard
concrete (mm) concrete density cube specimens (kg) concrete density
IS 35 2297.3 8.33 2468.15
M15 ACI 30 2261.4 8.478 2512.00
BS 45 2254.7 8.256 2446.22
IS 30 2369.7 8.334 2469.33
M20 ACI 35 2343.4 8.339 2470.81
BS 30 2335.6 8.305 2460.74
IS 40 2384.4 8.335 2469.63
M25 ACI 30 2352.7 8.257 2446.52
BS 30 2343.1 8.123 2406.81
IS 50 2387.4 8.405 2490.37
M30 ACI 30 2359.7 8.352 2474.67
BS 45 2349.5 8.269 2450.07
IS 30 2399.7 8.443 2501.63
M35 ACI 30 2368.7 8.413 2492.74
BS 60 2356.8 8.37 2480.00

Table 7. Material cost.

Material Cost Quantity Unit Cost of 1kg (₹)
Cement 1500 150 kg 10
FA 2800 2 m3 1.4
CA 2100 2 m3 1.05

Table 8. Cost estimation per 1m3 of concrete.

Grade of Cement Qty. FA CA
Standard Total Cost per m3 (₹)
concrete (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
IS 310.00 758.56 1124.92 5343.15
M15 ACI 268.12 862.50 970.00 4907.20
BS 200.00 808.80 1092.00 4278.92
IS 338.18 730.02 1129.29 5589.58
M20 ACI 308.33 787.08 1049.60 5287.29
BS 226.67 809.69 1187.00 4646.62
IS 372.00 700.90 1130.58 5888.37
M25 ACI 349.06 751.53 1049.60 5644.82
BS 261.54 775.53 1185.51 4945.93
IS 413.33 800.62 991.99 6295.76
M30 ACI 411.11 685.44 1115.50 6241.99
BS 283.33 644.38 1079.20 4868.59
IS 465.00 767.25 994.50 6768.38
M35 ACI 462.50 560.05 1115.20 6580.03
BS 320.75 384.48 1217.50 5024.15
28 Wani et al. / Challenge Journal of Concrete Research Letters 12 (1) (2021) 20–29

8000
7000
6000
5000
Cost/m3 (₹)

4000
3000
2000
1000
0

Grade of Concrete
Fig. 7. Graphical representation of cost analysis.

7. Conclusions  The cost analysis per cubic meter of concrete reveals

that IS and ACI mix proportioning are costly than BS
mix proportioning. The total cost estimation of a con-
Based on the comparative study of mix design proce- crete mix revealed that cost increases with a decrease
dure as per IS, ACI and BS for quality and economical in w/c ratio. However, it showed direct proportional-
perspective, the significant conclusions were drawn as ity with TMS.
follows:
 The method that considers the strength of cement, en-
trapped air and grading of aggregates with a wide- REFERENCES
ranging aggregate size will be more appropriate for
the moderate climate conditions as it will yield com-
pact and durable concrete. ACI 211.1-91 (reapproved 2002). Standard practice for selecting pro-
 The BS method of mix design is considerably more portions for normal, heavyweight, and mass concrete. American
Concrete Institute, USA.
complex and repetitive and appears to be inconsistent
ACI 318-08 (2008). Building code requirements for structural concrete.
for moderate climate (Kashmir, India). American Concrete Institute, USA.
 The water-content specifies direct proportionality Ahmed M, Islam S, Nazar S, Khan RA (2016). A comparative study of
with initial compressive strength and setting time. popular concrete mix design methods from a qualitative and cost-
Less is the water proportion; more will be the 7th day effective point of view for extreme environment. Arabian Journal
compressive strength and vice versa. for Science and Engineering, 41(4), 1403–1412.
 In the three mix design procedures, the general obser- Al-khalaf MN, Yousif HA (1984). Concrete Technology Ministry of
Higher Education and Scientific Research, University of Technology.
vations can be summed as: compressive strength is in-
Anon (1946). Laboratory studies of concrete containing air-entraining
directly proportional to w/c ratio; compressive admixtures. ACI Journal Proceedings, 42(2), 305–360.
strength shows direct relation with cement-content BS EN 12390-3 (2019). Testing hardened concrete. Compressive
and indirect relationship with FA content. strength of test specimens. British Standard Institute, London, UK.
 The TAC and the aggregate-cement ratio in BS method Chaubey A (2020). BRMCA method of proportioning concretes. Practi-
are high as compared to IS and ACI methods. This is cal Concrete Mix Design, 97–108.
one of the few reasons for the failure of BS mix design Chaubey A (2020). ACI method of proportioning concretes. Practical
Concrete Mix Design, 69–79.
specimens in achieving TMS in 28-days. Dewar JD (1995). A concrete laboratory in a computer-case-studies of
 The quality of a concrete mix is determined by the ra- simulation of laboratory trial mixes. In: ERMCO-1995, Proceedings
tio of TAC and cement content. IS and ACI mix design of the XIth European Ready Mixed Concrete Congress, İstanbul, 185–
procedures followed indirect relation with TAC and 193.
cement ratio from low to high TMS. Ejiogu IK, Mamza PA, Nkeonye PO, Yaro AS (2018). Comparative study
 The wet density of fresh concrete and hardened den- of various methods for designing and proportioning normal con-
sity of concrete specimens (28th day) by mix propor- crete mixture. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 19(1),
22–36.
tion weight is maximum for IS specimens followed by IS 383 (1970). Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural
ACI specimens. For lower grades (M15, M20 and M25) sources for concrete (Second Revision). Bureau of Indian Standards,
of concrete, ACI concrete proportioning method can New Delhi, India.
be followed and for higher grades (M30 and M35), IS IS 456 (2000). Plain and reinforced concrete – Code of practice (Fourth
concrete proportioning method can be recommended Revision). Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
for a moderate climate. IS 516 (1959). Methods of tests for strength of concrete. Bureau of In-
dian Standards, New Delhi, India.
 Wani et al. / Challenge Journal of Concrete Research Letters 12 (1) (2021) 20–29 29

IS 10262 (2009). Recommended guidelines for concrete mix design.

Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
IS 12269 (1987). Specification for 53-grade ordinary portland cement.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Lamond JF (1997). Designing for durability. Concrete International, 19,
34–36.
Mehta P, de Larrard F (1990). A Method for Proportioning High-
Strength Concrete Mixtures. Cement, Concrete and Aggregates,
12(1), 47–52.
Mohammed MH, Al-Gburi M, Al-Ansari N, Jonasson JE, Pusch R,
Knutsson S (2012). Design of concrete mixes by systematic steps
and ANN. Journal of Advanced Science and Engineering Research,
2(4), 232–251.
Nataraja MC, Dhang N, Gupta AP (1999). A simple equation for concrete
mix design curves of IS 10262:1982. Indian Concrete Journal, 73(2),
111–115.
Raju NK (2007). Design of Concrete Mixes, Fourth edition. CBS Pub-
lisher, New Delhi, India.
Sobolev KG, Soboleva SV (1996). High strength concrete mix design
and properties optimization, concrete technology in developing
countries. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference, Fama-
gusta, TRNC, 189–202.
Wadud Z, Ahmad S (2001). ACI method of concrete mix design: a para-
metric study. In: 8th East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural En-
gineering and Construction, Nanyang Technological University, Sin-
gapore, 1408–1416.
Wani SB, Ahmed J, Mohammed MHS, Muntazari TH, Rafique N (2020).
Influence of nano-modification on mechanical and durability prop-
erties of cement polymer anticorrosive coating; Challenge Journal
of Concrete Research Letters, 11(4), p. 92–104.
Wani SB, Haji Sheik MS (2021). Study of bond strength of plain surface
wave type rebars with concrete: a comparative study. International
Journal of Engineering, Transactions B: Applications, 34(2), 326–
335.
Zheng SS, Wang XF, Lou HJ, Li ZQ (2011). Optimization design for mix
proportioning of high strength and high-performance concrete. Ad-
vanced Materials Research, 368–373, 432–435.