Development of high-strength, economical self-consolidating concrete

Development of high-strength, economical self-consolidating concrete
Tarun R. Naik a,⇑
, Rakesh Kumar a,1
, Bruce W. Ramme b
, Fethullah Canpolat c
a
UWM Center for By-Products Utilization, Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, P.O. Box 784, Milwaukee, WI 53201, United States
b
Environmental, We Energies, 333 West Everett Street, Milwaukee, WI 53203, United States
c
Yildiz Technical University, Civil Engineering Faculty, Department of Civil Engineering, Davutpasa Campus, Esenler, Istanbul 34220, Turkey
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 March 2011
Received in revised form 3 November 2011
Accepted 2 December 2011
Available online 2 January 2012
Keywords:
Admixture
Bleeding
Compressive strength
Fly ash
High-strength concrete
Self-consolidating concrete
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents information regarding development, properties, and advantages and disadvantages of
using high-strength self-consolidating concrete in the construction industry. It also presents results of a
study recently completed for manufacturing economical high-strength self-consolidating concrete con-
taining high-volumes of fly ash. In this study, portland cement was replaced by Class C fly ash in the range
of 35–55% by the mass of cement. The results of fresh and hardened properties of concrete show that the
use of high-volumes of Class C fly ash in self-consolidating concrete reduces the requirements for superp-
lasticizer (HRWRA) and viscosity modifying agent (VMA) compared with the normal dosage for such
admixtures in self-consolidating concrete. The results further indicate that economical self-consolidating
concrete with 28-day strengths up to 62 MPa can be made using high-volumes of fly ash. Such concretes
can be used for a wide range of applications from cast-in-place to precast concrete construction.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction
Technologies change perceptions. In the last two decades,
concrete has no longer remained a material just consisting of
cement, aggregates, and water, but it has become an engineered cus-
tom-tailored material with several new constituents to meet many
varied requirements of the construction industry. Self-consolidating
concrete, a recent innovation in concrete technology is being re-
garded as one of the most promising developments in the construc-
tion industry due to numerous advantages of it over conventional
concrete. Self-consolidating concrete, as the name indicates, is a
type of concrete that does not require external or internal compac-
tion, but it becomes leveled and compacted under its self-weight
only. It is commonly abbreviated as SCC and defined as a concrete
which can be placed and compacted into every corner of a form
work, purely by means of its self-weight thus eliminating the need
of vibration or other types of compacting effort [1]. Self-consolidat-
ing concrete was originally developed at the University of Tokyo, Ja-
pan, in collaboration with leading concrete contractors during the
late 1980s. The notion behind developing this concrete was concerns
regarding the homogeneity and compaction of cast-in-place con-
crete within intricate (i.e., highly reinforced) structural elements,
and to improve overall durability of concrete [2]. SCC is highly flow-
able and yet cohesive enough to be handled without segregation. It is
also referred as self-compacting concrete, self-leveling concrete,
super-workable concrete, highly-flowable concrete, non-vibrating
concrete, etc. [3].
Hoshimoto et al. [4] visualized and explained the blocking mech-
anism of heavily reinforced section during placement of concrete
and reported that the blockage of the flow of concrete at a narrow
cross-section occurs due to the contact between coarse aggregate
particles in concrete. When concrete flows between reinforcing bars,
the relative locations of coarse aggregate particles are changed. This
develops shear stress in the paste between the coarse aggregate par-
ticles, in addition to compressive stress. For concrete to flow through
such obstacles smoothly, the shear stress should be small enough to
allow the relative displacement of the aggregate. To prevent the
blockage of the flow of concrete due to the contact between coarse
aggregate particles, a moderate viscosity of the paste is necessary.
The shear force required for the relative displacement largely de-
pends on the water-to-cementitious materials ratio (W/Cm) of the
paste. An increase of the water-to-cementitious materials ratio in-
creases the flowability of the cement paste at the cost of decreases
in its viscosity and deformability, as well as, of course, decrease in
its mechanical and durability properties, which are the primary
requirements for a structural-grade self-consolidating concrete.
The self-consolidating concrete is flowable as well as deformable
without segregation [1,3,5,6]. Therefore, in order to maintain defor-
mability along with flowability in the paste, a superplasticizer is
considered indispensable in such concretes to maintain a reduction
in W/Cm. With a superplasticizer, the paste can be made more flow-
able with little concomitant decrease in viscosity [1]. An optimum
0950-0618/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.025
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 414 229 6696; fax: +1 414 229 6958.
E-mail address: tarun@uwm.edu (T.R. Naik).
1
Formerly.
Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 463–469
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Construction and Building Materials
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

combination of water-to-cementitious material ratio and superp-
lasticizer for achievement of self-compactability can be derived for
fixed aggregate content of the concrete through laboratory trial
mixture proportioning. Okamura [1] has suggested a limiting value
of coarse aggregate and fine aggregate for self-consolidating
concrete at around 50% of the solid volume for the concrete for
coarse aggregates and 40% for the mortar for fine aggregates.
Mehta [7] and Neville [8] have suggested a simple approach of
increasing the sand content and reducing coarse aggregate content
by 4–5% to avoid segregation. High flowability requirement of self-
consolidating concrete leads to the use of mineral admixtures such
as coal fly ash in its manufacturing. Fly ash particles are spherical;
leading to reduced friction during flow of the mortar fraction in the
concrete. Use of mineral admixtures such as fly ash, blast furnace
slag, limestone powder, and other similar fine powder additives,
increases the fine materials in the concrete mixture [1]. Use of
mineral admixtures also usually reduces the cost of concrete, espe-
cially in the USA and many other countries where coal fly ash is
readily and abundantly available. The incorporation of one or more
mineral additives or powder materials having different morphol-
ogy and grain-size distribution can improve particle-packing den-
sity and reduce inter-particle friction and viscosity. Hence, it
improves deformability, self-compactability, and stability of the
self-consolidating concrete [9].
Yahia et al. [10] and Naik and Kumar [11] have reported a
reduction in the dosages of superplasticizer by using mineral addi-
tives in self-consolidating concrete requiring similar slump-flow
compared to concrete made with portland cement only. The
well-known beneficial advantages of using fly ash in concrete
[12] such as improved rheological properties and reduced cracking
of concrete due to the reduced heat of hydration of concrete can
also be incorporated in SCC by utilization of fly ash as a filler.
Fly ash was added to help increase fluidity of the concrete be-
cause fly ash particles are spherical and has been known to in-
crease workability and cohesiveness [13,14].
SCC can incorporate several minerals and chemical admixtures,
in particular a HRWRA and a VMA. The HRWRA is used to insure
high-fluidity and to reduce the water-to-cementitious materials
ratio. The VMA is incorporated to enhance the yield value, reduce
bleeding and segregation, and increase the viscosity of the fluid
mixture. The homogeneity and uniformity of the self-consolidating
concrete is not affected by the skill of workers, or the shape and bar
arrangement of the structural elements because of high-fluidity
and segregation-resisting power of SCC [1].
A highly flowable concrete is not necessarily self-consolidating
because self-consolidating concrete should not only flow under its
own weight but also fill the entire form and achieve uniform com-
paction without segregation. Fibers are sometimes used in self-
consolidating concrete to enhance its tensile strength and delay
the onset of tension cracks due to heat of hydration resulting from
high cement content in SCC [3]. Use of high-volume Class F fly ash
in SCC is also reported [11,15] for the development of economical
and environmentally friendly SCC.
2. Development of mixture proportioning for high-strength SCC
Self-consolidating concretes typically have a higher content of
fine particles and improved flow properties compared to the con-
ventional concrete. It has three essential properties when the con-
crete is fresh (i.e., just made): filling ability; resistance to
segregation; and, passing ability. SCC consists of cement, fine and
coarse aggregates, mineral and chemical admixtures, and water.
Self-compactability of concrete can be affected by the physical
characteristics of materials and mixture proportioning. The mix-
ture proportioning is based upon creating a high-degree of flow-
ability while maintaining a low (<0.40) W/Cm. This is achieved
by using high-range water-reducing admixtures (HRWRA) com-
bined with stabilizing agents such as VMA to ensure homogeneity
of the mixture [2].
A number of methods exist to optimize the concrete mixture
proportions for self-consolidating concrete. One of the optimiza-
tion processes suggested by Campion and Jost [2] is:
1. W/Cm equal to regular plasticized concrete, assuming the same
required strength.
2. Higher volume of fines (for example, cement, fly ash, and other
mineral additives) than a regular plasticized concrete.
3. Optimized gradation of aggregates.
4. High-dosage of HRWR (0.5–2% by mass of cementitious materi-
als [Cm], 460–1700 mL/100 kg of Cm, or 7–26 fl. oz/100 lbs of
Cm).
Another method for mixture proportioning for self-consolidat-
ing concrete was suggested by Okamura [1]. In this method:
1. Coarse aggregate content is fixed at 50% of the solid volume.
2. Fine aggregate is placed at 40% of the mortar fraction volume.
3. Water-to-cementitious materials ratio by volume is selected at
0.9 to 1.0 depending on properties of the cementitious
materials.
4. HRWRA dosage and the final W/Cm value are determined so as
to ensure the self-compactability.
Several other mixture proportioning methods for SCC have also
been reported [7,8,16]. However, a rational mixture proportioning
method for self-consolidating concrete should also have a variety
of finer materials, as necessary. Optimum mixture proportions
are sensitive to small variations in the characteristics of the com-
ponents, such as the type of sand and fillers (shape, surface, grad-
ing) and the moisture content of the sand. Therefore, SCC cannot
simply be made on the basis of a recipe.
3. Evaluation of self-compactability of fresh concrete
A number of test methods such as slump-flow, U-flow, V-flow
time, L-box, and J-ring tests are in use for the evaluation of self-
consolidating properties of the concrete. These test methods have
two main purposes. One is to judge whether the concrete is self-
compactable or not, and the other is to evaluate the deformability
or viscosity for estimating proper mixture proportioning if the con-
crete does not have sufficient self-compactability [17]. The most
commonly used methods for this purpose are discussed briefly in
the following sections.
3.1. Slump-flow test
Slump-flow testing is the simplest and most commonly adopted
test method for evaluating the flowability quality of self-consoli-
dating concrete (ASTM C 1611). An ordinary Abram’s slump cone
is filled with concrete without any tamping. The cone is lifted and
the diameter of the concrete after the flow has stopped is measured
(Fig. 1). The mean diameter in two perpendicular directions of the
concrete spread is taken as the value of slump-flow. Self-consoli-
dating concrete is characterized by a slump-flow of 650–700 mm
(26–28 in.). Measurement of slump-flow indicates the flowability
of self-consolidating concrete and determines the consistency and
cohesiveness of the concrete [2]. The slump-flow test measures
the capability of concrete to deform under its own weight against
the friction on the surface of the base plate with no other external
resistance present [9,18–20]. According to Nagataki and Fujiwara
[21], a slump-flow ranging from 500 to 700 mm (20–28 in.) is
464 T.R. Naik et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 463–469

considered as a proper slump required for a concrete to qualify for
self-consolidating concrete. At more than 700 mm, the concrete
might segregate and at less than 500 mm the concrete is considered
to have insufficient flow to pass through congested reinforcement.
According to Bartos [19] the slump-flow test can give an indication
of filling ability and susceptibility to segregation of the self-consol-
idating concrete. The passing ability of concrete is not indicated by
this test. Flowing time from the initial diameter of 200 mm (at the
base of the slump cone) to 500 mm, designated as T50, is sometimes
used for a secondary indication of flow. A time of 3–7 s is acceptable
for general applications and 2–5 s for housing applications [18,20].
However, this test is not sensitive enough to distinguish between
self-consolidating concrete mixtures and superplasticized concrete.
3.2. U-flow test
The U-flow test examines the behavior of the concrete in a sim-
ulated field condition [22]. It is one of the most widely adopted test
methods for characterization of self-consolidating concrete. This
test simulates the flow of concrete through a volume containing
reinforcing steel and considered more appropriate for characteriz-
ing self-compactability of concrete [1,2]. In this test, the degree of
compactability can be indicated by the height that the concrete
reaches after flowing through an obstacle (Fig. 2). This test is per-
formed by first completely filling the left chamber of the U-flow
device, while the sliding door between chambers is closed. The
door is then opened and the concrete flows past the reinforcing
bars into the right chamber. Self-consolidating concrete for use
in highly congested reinforcing areas should flow to about the
same height in the two chambers. If the filling height is at least
70% of the maximum height possible, then the concrete is consid-
ered self-consolidating. The selection of this percentage is arbitrary
and a higher value may be considered for more highly reinforced
sections. In the U-flow device, having the dimensions as shown
in Fig. 2, the maximum filling height is 300 mm, a little more than
half of the height (571 mm) of the U-flow apparatus. Therefore, a
concrete with a final height of more than 200 mm is considered
self-consolidating concrete [22]. This test measures filling, passing,
and segregation properties of self-consolidating concrete.
3.3. V-flow test
Another type of test, which is frequently adopted, is the V-flow
test. It consists of a funnel with a rectangular cross section. The top
dimension is 495 mm by 75 mm and the bottom opening is 75 mm
by 75 mm. The total height is 572 mm with a 150 mm long straight
section (Fig. 3). The concrete is poured into the funnel with a gate
blocking the bottom opening. When the funnel is completely filled,
the bottom gate is opened and the time for the concrete to flow out
the funnel is noted. This is called the V-flow time [22]. A flow time
of less than 6 s is recommended for a concrete to qualify as a self-
consolidating concrete [15].
3.4. L-box test
The L-box test method uses a test apparatus consisting of a ver-
tical section and a horizontal section (Fig. 4). Reinforcing bars are
placed at the intersection of the two areas of the apparatus. The
vertical part of the box is filled with 12.7 l (approximately 30 kg)
of concrete and left to rest for 1 min in order to allow any segrega-
tion and bleeding to occur. The gap between the reinforcing bars is
kept at 35 and 55 mm for 10 and 20 mm maximum-size coarse
aggregates, respectively. The time taken by the concrete to flow
distances of 200 mm (T-20) and 400 mm (T-40) in the horizontal
section of the apparatus, after the opening of the gate from the ver-
tical section, is measured. The heights of concrete at both ends of
the apparatus (H1 and H2) are also measured to determine L-box
results. This test gives an indication of the filling, passing, and seg-
regation-resisting ability of the concrete [9].
Fig. 1. Slump-flow test.
Fig. 2. U-flow test apparatus. Fig. 3. V-funnel flow test apparatus.
T.R. Naik et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 463–469 465

3.5. J-ring test
The J-ring test is another type of method for the study of the
blocking behavior of self-consolidating concrete. The apparatus
consists of re-bars surrounding the Abram’s cone in a slump-flow
test (Fig. 5). The spacing between the re-bars is generally kept
three times of the maximum size of the coarse aggregate for nor-
mal placement of reinforcement consideration [19,20]. The con-
crete flows between the re-bars after the cone is lifted and thus
the blocking behavior/passing-ability of SCC can be assessed.
4. Structural performance of SCC
Mechanical properties of self-consolidating concrete are similar
to regular concrete with similar W/Cm. However, the homogeneity
of self-consolidating concrete is sometimes better; and it can be
seen through micrography analysis. Campion and Jost [2] reported
no difference in composition and in strength of the cores drilled
from wall elements (of an actual structure) at different heights.
They further reported only minor differences between durability
factors such as chloride diffusion and freezing-and-thawing resis-
tance of self-consolidating concrete and regular plasticized con-
crete. Shrinkage measurement studies also revealed similar or
slightly higher shrinkage values for self-consolidating concrete
[2]. Zhu et al. [23] studied the uniformity of in situ properties of
self-consolidating concrete mixtures, in structural columns and
beams, and compared the results of core compression tests, pull-
out test results, and rebound hammer data for the near surface
properties to those of adequately compacted conventional
concrete. Based on the analysis, they noticed no significant differ-
ences in uniformity of in situ properties between the two con-
cretes. A comparative study by Pautre et al. [24] on the structural
behavior of highly-reinforced columns, cast with SCC having
compressive strength in the range of 60 MPa and 80 MPa, as well
as columns cast with adequately compacted controlled concrete
of similar strength exhibited similar ductility but SCC yielded
slightly lower strength (5% less). However, it was reported that
SCC showed greater homogeneity of distribution of in-place com-
pressive strength than conventionally vibration-compacted con-
crete [24–26]. Several other studies [27–33] related to durability
aspects such as chloride permeability, deflection, rupture behavior,
freezing-and-thawing resistance, and chloride diffusivity, and
other properties of self-consolidating concrete reported either
comparable or better results compared with the conventional con-
crete, mainly due to improved homogeneity of the SCC concrete.
4.1. Advantages and disadvantages of using SCC
The use of self-consolidating concrete can yield many advanta-
ges over traditionally placed and compacted concrete.
Saving of costs on machinery, energy, and labors related to con-
solidation of concrete by eliminating it during concreting place-
ment operations.
High-level of quality control due to more sensitivity of moisture
content of ingredients and compatibility of chemical
admixtures.
High-quality finish, which is critical in architectural concrete,
precast construction, as well as for cast-in-place concrete
construction.
Reduces the need for surface defects remedy (patching).
Increase of the service life of the molds/formwork.
Promotes the development of a more rational concrete
production.
Industrialized production of concrete.
Covers reinforcement effectively, thereby ensuring better qual-
ity of cover for reinforcement bars.
Reduction in the construction time.
Improves the quality, durability, and reliability of concrete
structures due to better compaction and homogeneity of
concrete.
Easily placed in thin-walled elements or elements with limited
access.
Ease of placement results in cost savings through reduced
equipment and labor requirement.
Fig. 4. L-box apparatus.
Fig. 5. J-ring test apparatus.

Improves working environment at construction sites by reduc-
ing noise pollution.
Eliminate noises due to vibration; effective especially at precast
concrete products plants.
Eliminates the need for hearing protection.
Improves working conditions and productivity in construction
industry.
It can enable the concrete supplier to provide better consistency
in delivering concrete, thus reduces the need for interventions
at the plants or at the job sites.
Provides opportunity for using high-volume of by-product
materials such as fly ash, quarry fines, blast furnace slag, lime-
stone dust, and other similar fine mineral materials.
Reduces the workers compensation premium due to the reduc-
tion in chances of accidents.
Some of the disadvantages of SCC are:
More stringent requirements on the selection of materials com-
pared with normal concrete.
More precise measurement and monitoring of the constituent
materials. An uncontrolled variation of even 1% moisture con-
tent in the fine aggregate could have a much bigger impact on
the rheology of SCC.
Requires more trial batches at laboratory as well as at ready-
mixed concrete plants.
Costlier than conventional concrete based on concrete material
cost.
5. Development of economical high-strength self-consolidating
concrete
5.1. Materials
Type I portland cement conforming to the requirements of the
ASTM C 150 was used in this investigation. ASTM Class C fly ash
obtained from the Oak Creek Power Plant located in Wisconsin
was used in this study for partial replacement of portland cement.
Cement was replaced by fly ash at a replacement ratio of 1:1.25 by
mass. Physical properties of the fly ash used are given in Table 1.
Natural sand and pea gravel were used as fine aggregate and coarse
aggregate, respectively. These aggregates were obtained from local
sources. Physical properties of the aggregates were determined per
ASTM C 33 requirements. Selected properties of the aggregates are
given in Table 2. Two chemical admixtures, Glenium 3200 HES and
Rheomac VMA 362, were used as a HRWRA and a VMA, respec-
tively. The dosages of admixtures were varied to achieve the de-
sired fresh concrete properties for the SCC mixtures.
5.2. Mixture proportions
The concrete mixture proportions and other details used in this
investigation are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The control mixture
(SC1) was without fly ash while other mixtures SC2, SC3, and SC4
contained Class C fly ash at 35%, 45%, and 55% of replacement of ce-
ment by mass.
Each mixture was batched and mixed in the laboratory in accor-
dance with ASTM C 192. Each mixture was tested for fresh and
hardened concrete properties. The fresh concrete properties were
measured to judge the flow and self-compactability behavior of
the concrete. Tests included slump-flow and U-flow tests. In addi-
tion to these, air content and fresh density of SCC were determined
using applicable ASTM. The hardened SCC was tested for compres-
sive strength using 4 800
cylindrical specimens (ASTM C 39). The
concrete compressive strength was obtained at the ages of 3, 7, and
28 days.
6. Results and discussion
The fresh concrete properties are shown in Table 3 while the
compressive strengths of the self-consolidating concrete mixtures
are given in Fig. 6. Generally higher densities were observed for
higher fly ash contents albeit within a narrow range (35%, 45%,
55% fly ash for the concrete mixtures densities were 2339, 2369,
2377 (kg/m3
). Table 3 shows that the use of high-volumes of Class
C fly ash in SCC significantly reduces the requirements of superp-
lasticizer as well as viscosity-modifying agent. This indicates that
it is possible to manufacture economical self-consolidating con-
crete by using high-volumes of Class C fly ash. It is further obvious
that the use of high-volumes of Class C fly ash not only reduces the
amount of cement but also reduces the superplasticizer and viscos-
ity modifying agents significantly while maintaining the desired
28-day strength of about 48 MPa or higher.
The compressive strength test data are also given in Fig. 6. As
expected, the compressive strength increased with age. The rate
of increase depended upon the level of cement replacement and
age. In general, self-consolidating concrete strength decreased
Table 1
Physical properties of Class C fly ash.
Test parameter OCPP Class C
fly ash (%)
ASTM C 618
limits (%)
Fineness retained on 45 lm sieve (%) 13 634
Specific gravity 2.56 –
Strength activity index with cement,
28-day (% of control)
113 P75
Table 2
Properties of aggregates.
Properties Natural sand Pea gravel
Specific gravity 2.68 2.71
Absorption 1.2 3.0
Maximum nominal size (mm) 4.75 9.5
Table 3
Self-consolidating concrete mixture proportions and fresh properties.
Mixture designation SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4
% Replacement of cement with fly ash 0 35 45 55
FA/(Ct + FA) (%) 0 40 50 60
Cement, Ct (kg/m3
) 431 265 228 182
Class C fly ash, FA (kg/m3
) 0 178 233 285
Sand (kg/m3
) 971 923 942 939
9.5 mm Pea gravel (kg/m3
) 871 845 863 862
Water (kg/m3
) 147 142 136 126
HRWRA (L/m3
) 8.1 4.8 3.0 3.0
VMA (L/m3
) 3.7 3.0 2.0 1.8
W/Cm (water/(cement + fly ash)) 0.34 0.35 0.33 0.31
W/Cma
(water/(cement + fly ash)) 0.36 0.37 0.34 0.32
Slump-flow (mm) 679 686 686 699
Segregation Some NA NA NA
Bleeding Some Some Some None
U-Flow, H1–H2 (mm) 5 6 6 6
U-Flow, H2/H1 (%) 98 98 98 98
Air content (%) 1.7 1.5 1.4 2.7
Density (kg/m3
) 2360 2339 2369 2377
Material costb
($/m3
) 106 78 68 64
NA: Not available.
a
Considering water in chemical admixtures.
b
Calculated by using the following pricing information: $0.1/kg of cement,
$0.045/kg of Class C fly ash, $0.009/kg of sand, $0.009/kg of pea gravel, $4.5/L of
HRWRA, and $2.7/L of VMA.

with increasing fly ash amount at the very early ages, i.e., 3 and
7 days. This is consistent with previously published results [13].
The decrease in the early strength is directly dependent on the
amount of cement replacement by the fly ash. The SCC made by
replacing 35% of cement with fly ash show the strength of
29 MPa even at the age of 3 days. This concrete also achieved high-
er strength than the control concrete mixture at the age of 28 days.
SCC mixtures containing 50% fly ash of the total mass of cement
plus fly ash also outperformed the control concrete at the age of
28 days. SCC mixture containing 60% fly ash also showed a compar-
ative strength at the age 28 days with the control SCC mixture.
Similar results for conventional concretes containing high-volume
of Class C fly ash have been previously published [13,34]. Certainly,
at later ages this concrete will outperform the control mixture of
SCC. In general, all the SCC mixtures containing high-volumes of
Class C fly ash developed high-strength in the range of 48–
62 MPa. This type of high-strength, economical, self-consolidating,
concrete has many applications in the construction industry,
including precast concrete industry.
7. Conclusions
An overview of the development, properties, and advantages
and disadvantages of using self-consolidating concrete has been
outlined. Further, based on experimental study on the develop-
ment of high-strength, economical, self-consolidating concrete
incorporating high-volumes of Class C fly ash, the following gen-
eral conclusions can be drawn:
1. Use of high-volumes of Class C fly ash in the manufacturing of
self-consolidating concrete reduces the cost of the SCC produc-
tion by significantly reducing the amount of superplasticizer
and viscosity modifying agent compared with the normal dos-
age for such admixtures in SCC, because decreased friction
between paste and large aggregate particles resulting from ball
bearing effects of spherical particles of fly ash [35].
2. High-strength, economical self-consolidating concrete for
strength of about 62 MPa at 28 days age can be manufactured
by replacing at least 35% of cement by Class C fly ash.
3. High-strength, economical self-consolidating concrete for
strength in the range of 48–62 MPa at 28 days age can be man-
ufactured by replacing up to 55% of cement by Class C fly ash.
High amounts of fly ash in concrete leads to lower early age
strength.
4. High-strength, self-consolidating, economical concrete for
many applications in construction, including precast industry,
can be manufactured by replacing high-volumes of portland
cement with Class C fly ash.
Acknowledgments
The Center was established in 1988 with a generous grant from
the Dairyland Power Cooperative, La Crosse, Wisc.; Madison Gas
and Electric Company, Madison, Wisc.; National Minerals Corpora-
tion, St. Paul, Minn.; Northern States Power Company, Eau Claire,
Wisc.; We Energies, Milwaukee, Wisc.; Wisconsin Power and Light
Company, Madison, Wisc.; and, Wisconsin Public Service Corpora-
tion, Green Bay, Wisc. Their financial support and additional grants
and support from Manitowoc Public Utilities, Manitowoc, Wisc. are
gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Okamura H. Self-compacting high performance concrete. ACI Concr Int
1997;19(7):50–4.
[2] Campion JM, Jost P. Self-compacting concrete: expanding the possibility of
concrete design and placement. ACI Concr Int 2000;22(4):31–4.
[3] Kurita M, Nomura T. High-flowable steel fiber-reinforced concrete containing
fly ash. In: Malhotra VM, editor. Proceedings, sixth CANMET/ACI international
conference on fly ash, silica fume, slag, and natural Pozzolans in concrete, SP-
178. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 1998. p. 159–79.
[4] Hoshimoto C, Maruyama K, Shimizu K. Study on visualization technique for
blocking of fresh concrete flowing in pipe. Concr Lib Int JSCE 1989;12:139–53.
[5] Naik TR, Ramme BW, Kolbeck HJ. Filling abandoned underground facilities
with CLSM fly ash slurry. ACI Concr Int 1990;12(7):19–25.
[6] Naik TR. Construction of Caisson foundations under water by tremie placement
of concrete. Project Report to Wisconsin Power and Light, Madison, WI; 1974.
[7] Mehta PK. Concrete structure: properties and materials. NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall;
1986.
[8] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. fourth ed. Harlow, UK: Longman; 1986.
[9] Sonebi M, Bartos PJM, Zhu W, Gibbs J, Tamimi A. Final report task 4 on the SSC
project; project no. BE 96-3801; self-compacting concrete: properties of
hardened concrete. Advanced Concrete Masonry Center, University of Paisley,
Scotland, UK, May 2000.
[10] Yahia A, Tanimura M, Shimabukuro A, Shimoyama Y. Effect of rheological
parameter on self-compactability of concrete containing various mineral
admixtures. In: Skarendahl Å, Petersson Ö, editors. Proceeding, first RILEM
international symposium on self-compacting concrete, Stockholm, Sweden,
September; 1999. p. 523–35.
[11] Naik TR, Kumar R. Use of limestone quarry and other by-products for
developing economical self-compacting concrete. Report CBU 2003-15,
UWM center for by-production utilization, University of Wisconsin –
Milwaukee, USA, April 2003.
[12] Canpolat F. The role of coal combustion by-products in sustainable
construction materials. Ind Concr J 2011;86(6):26–38.
[13] Naik TR, Ramme BW. High-strength concrete containing large quantities of fly
ash. ACI Mater J 1989;86(2):111–6.
[14] Naik TR, Ramme BW. Effects of high-lime fly ash content on water demand,
time of set, and compressive strength of concrete. ACI Mater J
1990;87(6):619–26.
[15] Bouzoubaâ N, Lachemi M. Self-compacting concrete incorporating high
volumes of class F fly ash: preliminary results. Cem Concr Res
2001;31(3):413–20.
Table 4
Compressive strength of high-volume fly ash SCC mixtures.
Mixture no. % Replacement of cement FA/(cement + FA) (%) Compressive strength (MPa)
3-day 7-day 28-day
SC1 0 0 45 54 60
SC2 35 40 29 44 62
SC3 45 50 1.4 30 60
SC4 55 60 1 9 48
Fig. 6. Compressive strength of high-volume fly ash SCC.

[16] Su N, Hsu K-C, Chai H-W. A simple mix design method for self-compacting
concrete. Cem Concr Res 2001;31(12):1799–807.
[17] Ouchi M. Self-compacting concrete development, application, and
investigation. www.itn.is/ncr/publications/doc-23-3.pdf [02.04.03].
[18] Skarendahl Å, Petersson Ö. Self-compacting concrete. Cachan Cedex, France:
RILEM Publications S.A.R.L.; 2001. p. 25–39.
[19] Bartos PJM. Measurement of key properties of fresh self-compacting concrete.
In: Proceeding, CEN/STAR PNR workshop on measurement, testing and
standardization: future needs in the field of construction materials, Paris,
June 2000, University of Paisley, Paisley, Scotland, UK, http://bativille.cstb.fr/
CenStarWS/Measurement_key_properties.pdf [27.04.03].
[20] Specification and Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete, EFNARC,
Association House, 99 West Street, Farnham, Surrey GU9. http://
www.efnarc.org/efnarc/SandGforSCC.PDF [06.01.03).
[21] Nagataki S, Fujiwara H. Self-compacting property of highly-flowable concrete.
In: Malhotra VM, editor. Proceedings, second CANMET/ACI international
symposium on advances in concrete technology, SP-154. Farmington Hills,
MI: American Concrete Institute; 1995. p. 301–14.
[22] Ferraris CF, Brower L, Ozyildirim C, Daezko J. Workability of self-compacting
concrete. In: Proceedings, PCI/FHWA/FIB international symposium on high
performance concrete, Orlando, FL, USA, September 2000. p. 398–407.
[23] Zhu W, Gibbs JC, Bartos PJM. Uniformity of in-situ properties of self-
compacting concrete in full-scale structural elements. Cem Concr Compos
2001;23(1):57–64.
[24] Pautre P, Khayat KH, Langlois Y, Trudel A, Cusson D. Structural performance of
some special concrete. In: Proceedings, fourth international symposium on
utilization of HS/HPC, Paris, May 1996. p. 787–96.
[25] Khayat KH, Pautre P, Tremblay S. Structural performance and in-place
properties of self-compacting concrete used for casting highly reinforced
columns. ACI Mater J 2001;98(5):371–8.
[26] Walraven J. Self-compacting concrete in The Netherlands. In: Proceedings, first
North American conference on the design and use of self-compacting concrete,
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA, November 2002. p. 399–404.
[27] Westerholm M, Skoglund P, Trägårdh J. Chloride transport and related
microstructure of self-consolidating concrete. In: Proceedings, first North
American conference on the design and use of self-compacting concrete,
[28] Audenaert K, Boel V, De Schutter G. Durability of self-compacting concrete. In:
Proceedings, first North American Conference on the design and use of self-
compacting concrete, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA, November
2003. p. 377–83.
[29] Raghavan KP, Sharma BS, Chattopadhyay D. Creep, shrinkage and chloride
permeability properties of self-compacting concrete. In: Proceedings, first
[30] Turcry P, Loukili A, Haidar K. Mechanical properties, plastic shrinkage, and free
deformations of self-consolidating concrete. In: Proceedings, first North
American conference on the design and use of self-compacting concrete,
[31] Petersson O. Limestone powder as filler in self-compacting concrete – frost
resistance, compressive strength and chloride diffusivity. In: Proceedings, first
[32] Hiraishi S, Yokoyama K, Kasai Y. Shrinkage and crack propagation of flowing
concrete at early ages. In: Malhotra VM, editor. Proceedings, fourth CANMET/
ACI/JCI on recent advances in concrete technology, SP-179. Farmington Hills,
Michigan: American Concrete Institute; 1998. p. 671–90.
[33] Persson B. A comparison between mechanical properties of self-compacting
concrete and the corresponding properties of normal concrete. Cem Concr Res
2001;31(2):193–8.
[34] Naik TR, Kraus RN, Siddique R, Botha FD. Use of superplasticizers in production
of HVFA concrete containing clean-coal ash and class F fly ash. In: Seventh
CANMET/ACI international conference on superplasticizers and other chemical
admixtures in concrete – supplementary papers, Berlin, Germany, 2003. p.
177–95.
[35] Naik TR, Singh SS, Hassaballah A. Effects of water to cementitious ratio on
compressive strength of cement mortar containing fly ash. In: Proceedings
of the fourth international conference on fly ash, Silica fume, slag, and
natural Pozzolans in concrete, Istanbul, Turkey, May 1992, 23p. http://
www4.uwm.edu/cbu/Papers/1992%20CBU%20Reports/REP-101.pdf.

Development of high-strength, economical self-consolidating concrete

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Development of high-strength, economical self-consolidating concrete

Similar to Development of high-strength, economical self-consolidating concrete (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Development of high-strength, economical self-consolidating concrete