EFFECT OF W/C RATIO ON SELF

COMPACTING CONCRETE OF M70

GRADE WITH FLY ASH AND MICRO
SILICA AS FILLER MATERIAL
By
E. SRINIVASA RAO
Under the Guidance of
Smt. P. SRI LAKSHMI
Associate Professor
JNTUH College of Engineering
Hyderabad



INTRODUCTION
What is Self Compacting Concrete (SCC) ?
Defined as: Concrete that is able to flow and
consolidate under its own weight, completely fill the
formwork even in the presence of dense
reinforcement, whilst maintaining homogeneity and
without the need for any additional compaction.
Why it is needed ?
Concrete is a versatile material extensively used in
construction applications throughout the world.
Properly placed and cured concrete exhibits
excellent compressive-force-resisting characteristics
and engineers rely on it to perform in a myriad of
situations.
However, if proper consolidation is not provided, its
strength and durability could be questionable.
The growing use of concrete in special architectural
configurations and closely spaced reinforcing bars
have made it very important to produce concrete that
ensures proper filling ability, good structural
performance and adequate durability.
To help alleviate these concerns, Japanese researchers
in the late 1980s developed a concrete mixture that
deformed under its own weight, thus filling around
and encapsulating reinforcing steel without any
mechanical consolidation.



Self-Compacting Concrete offers new possibilities
and prospects in the context of durability and strength
of concrete.
As a result of the mix design, some properties of the
hardened concrete can be different for SCC in
comparison to normal vibrated concrete.
Mix design criterions are mostly focused on the type
and mixture proportions of the constituents.
Adjustment of the water/cement ratio and
superplasticizer dosage is one of the main key
properties in proportioning of SCC mixtures.

Therefore, it is important to verify the mechanical
properties of SCC before using it for practical
applications, especially if the present design rules are
applicable or if they need some modifications.

Recently, a great native interest had been derived
towards self-compacting concrete.

Objective
The aim of the present dissertation is to study the
effect of water-cement ratio (referred also as water-
binder ratio) on workability and mechanical
properties of self-compacting concrete of M70 grade
with fly ash and micro silica as filler material.


Discussion Includes:
1. Basic Concepts of SCC
2. Review of Literature
3. Test Methods on SCC
4. Experimental Investigations
5. Results and Discussions
6. Conclusions
BASIC CONCEPTS OF SCC
Functional Requirement of SCC
Filling ability The ability of SCC to flow under its
own weight into and fill completely all spaces within
intricate formwork, containing obstacles, such as
reinforcement.
Passing ability The ability of SCC to flow through
openings approaching the size of the mix coarse
aggregate, such as the spaces between steel
reinforcing bars, without segregation.
Resistance to segregation The ability of SCC to
remain homogeneous during transport, placing, and
after placement.
Constituents of SCC
With regard to its composition, SCC consists of the
same components as conventionally vibrated
concrete, which are
Cement
Aggregates
Water
Chemical Admixtures i.e. Superplasticisers and
Viscosity Modifying Agents
Mineral Admixtures i.e., Fly ash, Silica Fume,
GGBFS etc.

Physical and Chemical Process of SCC
The physical process is due to the particles fineness
of the supplementary cementing materials that are
much smaller than that of the cement, thereby
providing densely packed particles between fine
aggregates and cement grains, and, hence, the
reduction in porosity.
The chemical process is due to the activation of the
non-crystalline silica, by the calcium hydroxide
produced from the hydrating cement to form
secondary calcium silicate hydrate that also fills the
pore spaces and further reduces the porosity.

Advantages of SCC
Elimination of problems associated with vibration.
Ease of placement results in cost savings through
reduced equipment and labour requirement.
Improves the quality, durability, and reliability of
concrete structures due to better compaction and
homogeneity of concrete.
Faster construction
Improves working conditions and productivity in
construction industry.
Greater freedom in design.

Disadvantages of SCC
More stringent requirements on the selection of
materials .
More precise measurement and monitoring of the
constituent materials.
Requires more trial batches at laboratory as well as at
ready-mixed concrete plants.
Costlier than conventional concrete based on concrete
material cost (exception to placement cost).
Lack of globally accepted test standards and mix
designs
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Hajime Okamura et al. (2003)
[4]

In early 1980s, the problem of the durability of concrete
structures was a major topic of interest in Japan.

The creation of durable concrete structures requires
adequate compaction by skilled workers.

Lack of uniform and complete compaction as the primary
factor responsible for poor performance of concrete
structures.

Okamura solved the issue of degrading quality of concrete
construction due to lack of compaction by the employment
of SCC which is independent of the quality of construction
work.


Introduced SCC in the late 1980s.

Early 1990s limited public knowledge about SCC, mainly
in the Japanese language.

The prototype of SCC was completed in 1988 with
available materials in the market and is shown below.

Self Compacting Concrete
(Admixture: Superplasticizer)

Air W Powder S G
Air W C S G
Conventional Concrete
Limited Gravel Content
Appropriate Mortar

50% of Solid Volume

Limited Sand Content

Higher Deformability

Moderate Viscosity

40% of Mortar Volume

Higher Dosage of SP

Lower W/C Ratio

Mechanism for achieving Self Compactability
(Okamura & Ozawa)
Okamura and Ozawa proposed simple mix design method.
The coarse aggregate content in concrete is fixed at 50% of
solid volume.
The fine aggregate content is fixed at 40% of mortar
volume.
The water-powder ratio in volume is assumed as 0.9 to 1.0,
depending on the properties of the powder.
The SP dosage and the final w/b ratio are determined so as
to ensure self compactability.
Nan Su et al. (2001)
[14]

Proposed new Mix design method based on experimental
investigation carried out in Taiwan.
Packing Factor is used to determine the aggregate contents.
The volume of fine aggregate is more than coarse
aggregate.
Simpler, easier for implementation and less-time
consuming, requires smaller amount of binders and saves
cost as compared to the method developed by JRMCA
(Japanese Ready-Mixed Concrete Association).

Soo-Duck Hwang et al. (2006)
[24]

Studied the suitability of various test methods for
workability assessment and proposed performance
specifications.
70 SCC mixes with w/c ranges of 0.35 and 0.42.
For structural applications slump flow ranges of 620 to
720mm, L-box ratio (h2/h1)0.7, J-Ring flow of 600 to
700mm, V-Funnel Flow time 8 sec.
Paratibha Aggarwal et al. (2008)
[20]
Presented the experimental procedure to obtain the SCC
mixes based on Japanese Method of mix design.
Initially trial mixes, CA 50% by volume of concrete, FA -
40% by volume of mortar with a w/c ratio of 0.90.
Later on by reducing the coarse aggregate from 45% to
37% and increasing fine aggregate contents from 40% to
47.5% to attain the required results in all the tests i.e.,
slump flow, V-funnel and L-Box.

Dr. Hemant Sood et al. (2009)
[2]
Presented the experimental investigation of SCC using
Flyash and Rice husk ash as mineral admixtures and testing
rheological properties as per European Standards.

S. Venkateswara Rao et al. (2010)
[25]

Aims at developing standard and high strength SCC with
different sizes of aggregate based on Nan-sus mix design
procedure.
The variables involved in the study are size of aggregate,
dosage of fly ash and grade of concrete.
SCC can be developed with all sizes of graded aggregate
satisfying the SCC characteristics.
Noticed that the fresh properties improved with increase in
fly ash percentages.
This study illustrated that the optimum dosages of fly ash
were 52% addition in case of standard grade SCC and it is
31% addition in case of high strength Self Compacting
Concrete.
C. Selvamony et al. (2010)
[1]

Studied the effectiveness of various percentages of mineral
admixtures in producing SCC.
Okamura's method, based on EFNARC specifications, was
adopted for mixed design.
In this study, the effect of replacing the cement, coarse
aggregate and fine aggregate by limestone powder (LP)
with silica fume (SF), quarry dust (QD) and clinkers
respectively.
At the same constant SP dosage (0 8%) and mineral
additives content (30%), LP showed the better workability.
More than 8% replacement of cement by lime stone powder
with silica fume showed very significant reduction in the
compressive strength.
N R Gaywala et al. (2011)
[15]

Studied the strength properties of SCC when cement is
replaced by different proportions of fly ash ranging from
15% to 55% and are compared with M25 concrete.
The experimental result shows that the 15% fly ash mix
gives the better strength characteristics as compared to the
other fly ash mixes.

Prof. Shriram H. Mahure et al. (2013)
[22]

Aimed to develop Self Compacting Concrete using two
industry wastes: cement kiln dust (CKD) and fly ash (FA).
CKD was used to replace the cement content by three
various percentages (5, 10 and 15%) and fly ash was kept
as constant (20%).
The fresh properties of SCC follow direct relations with
the CKD contents for all grades of concrete.

The compressive strength & flexural strengths increases
with increase in CKD contents up to 10%.

The mechanical properties of SCC follow direct relations
with the CKD contents for all grades of concrete.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Contd..
Summary:
The literature review clearly indicates that the SCC
having wider research scope and advantages in regard
of performance, strength, quality and durability, etc.
Proper selection of materials, mix proportions based
on various mix design methods, type of mineral and
chemical admixtures, test methods and workability
specifications are key concerns in the optimization
and control testing of self compacting concrete.
In most of the test data evaluated that the design
methods developed to predict the characteristics of
SCC is based on different mix proportions, materials
and on experimental work.
Therefore investigations are still to be required for
making the self compacting concrete as a standard
practice concrete from the economical and
conventional applications point of view.
In this literature Nan Su mix design shows that it is a
simpler, easier for implementation and less time
consuming and cost effective method. This method is
based on the investigation work carried out in
Taiwan.
Hence in the present investigation work, Nan Su mix
design was adopted for Indian conditions and
examines the workability characteristics of SCC for
different water binder ratios.


TEST METHODS ON SCC
Tests on Fresh Concrete
Slump-Flow Test
The slump-flow and T
500
time is the easiest and
most familiar test to evaluate the flowability and
the flow rate of self-compacting concrete in the
absence of obstructions. The diameter of the
concrete circle is a measure of the filling ability of
concrete.
The higher the slump flow value, the greater its
ability to fill formwork under its own weight.



V-Funnel Test and V-Funnel at 5 minutes
This test is used to determine the filling ability
(flowability) of the concrete. The funnel is filled
with about 12 litres of concrete and the time taken
for it to flow through the apparatus measured.
After this the funnel can be refilled concrete and
left for 5 minutes to settle.
This test measured the ease of flow of the
concrete: shorter flow times indicate greater
flowability. After 5 minutes of setting, segregation
of concrete will show a less continuous flow with
an increase in flow time.



L-Box Test
This test is used to evaluate the fluidity of self-
compacting concrete and its ability to pass through
steel bars. The L-box consists of a chimney
section and a channel section as described by
Wu et al. With the L-box, the height of concrete in
chimney, h1, the height of concrete in the channel
section, h2, and the time for self-compacting
concrete to reach 400 mm from three steel bars,
T400, can be measured.
According to EFNARC , when the ratio of h2 to h1
is larger than 0.8, self compacting concrete has
good passing ability.

U-Box Test
This test is used to evaluate to the fluidity of self-
compacting concrete and its ability to pass through
steel bars. The U-box consists of a vessel that is
divided by a middle wall in to two compartments.
An opening with a sliding gate is fitted between
the two sections. Reinforcing bars with nominal
diameter of 13mm are installed at the gate with
centre to centre spacing of 50mm. This creates a
clear spacing of 35mm between the bars.
Tests on Hardened Concrete
Compressive Strength Test
Split Tensile Strength Test
Flexural Strength Test



EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
The present experimental investigations are focused
to study the effect of water-cement ratios on fresh
and hardened properties of self compacting concrete
of M70 Grade.
The Concrete mixes contains different proportions of
Fly Ash, Super plasticizers, water binder ratios and
constant proportions of Cement, Micro Silica, VMA,
Coarse aggregate and Fine aggregate.
A total of 5 concrete mixes with different
combinations of water/cement ratios i.e., 0.23, 0.24,
0.25, 0.26 and 0.27 were evaluated.
Materials Used
Cement
Ordinary Portland Cement 53 grade (OPC 53-Grade)
was used throughout the experimental work.
Cement used has been tested for various proportions
as per IS: 4031-1988 and found to be confirming to
various specifications of IS: 12269-1987.
The physical properties of the cement are shown in
Table 1.
Table 1: Testing of Ordinary Portland Cement as per IS: 4031 - 1988
Test Parameter Test Value
IS 12269 :1987
Recommendation
Specific Gravity 3.01 -----
Standard Consistency
( % of cement by weight)

30.0

-----
Setting Time ( Minutes )
(1) Initial
(2) Final

96
207

30 (Min.)
600 (Max.)
Compressive Strength ( MPa )
(1) 3 day
(2) 7 day
(3) 28 day

29.4
38.9
54.6

27 (Min.)
37 (Min.)
53 (Min.)
Soundness ( mm ) 2.0 10 (Max.)
Fine Aggregate
The sand used for the experimental program was
locally available river sand.
The physical properties of the fine aggregate are
shown in Table 2.

Coarse Aggregate
A locally available crushed stone aggregate of
maximum nominal size 10 mm was used as coarse
aggregate.
The physical properties of the coarse aggregate are
shown in Table 3.
Water
Tap water free from deleterious materials is used for
casting as well as curing of the specimens.

Fly Ash
Procured from ACC RMC Limited, Bachupally,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Typical oxide composition of Indian fly ash is shown
in Table 4.
Micro Silica
Obtained from Oriental Trexim Pvt. Ltd, Navi
Mumbai, India.
The typical oxide composition details of micro silica
are shown in Table 5.

Superplasticizer
GLENIUM B233 conforming to IS: 9103-1999 and
ASTM C494 Types F was used.
The details of the superplasticizer used are shown in
Table 6.

Viscosity Modifying Agent (VMA)
The VMA used in this investigation was GLENIUM
STREAM-2 which is a product of BASF construction
chemicals.
The typical composition details of VMA are shown in
Table 7.

MIX PROPORTIONING OF SCC
In the present investigations, Nan Su method of mix
design was adopted to design the SCC mix.
The parameters that influence the mix proportions are
packing factor, fine aggregate-total aggregate ratio
and powder content.
The packing factor of aggregate is defined as the ratio
of mass of aggregate of tightly packed state to that of
loosely packed state.
The amount of fine aggregates will be more as
compared to coarse aggregate from this method of
mix which enhances the passing ability through gaps
of reinforcement.


This method is simpler, easier for implementation and
less time-consuming, requires a smaller amount of
binders due to the increased sand content as
compared to other mix design methods and hence
saves cost.
The concrete mix was prepared for different water-
binder ratios i.e., 0.23, 0.24, 0.25, 0.26 and 0.27, with
a packing factor of 1.12 by maintaining the constant
proportions of Cement, Micro Silica, VMA, Coarse
aggregate and Fine aggregate.
The mix proportions of the concrete used in this study
are shown in Table 8.
The typical mix design calculation is shown in Table
8A.






Table 8.0: Mix proportions of concrete containing different water-binder ratios
Mix
Constituen
ts
Mix Designation
M1
(W/C=0.23)
M2
(W/C=0.24)
M3
(W/C=0.25)
M4
(W/C=0.26)
M5
(W/C=0.27)
Qty.
(kg/m
3
)
Prop.
Qty.
(kg/m
3
)
Prop.
Qty.
(kg/m
3
)
Prop.
Qty.
(kg/m
3
)
Prop.
Qty.
(kg/m
3
)
Prop.
Cement 574 1 574 1 574 1 574 1 574 1
Fly Ash 41.00 0.071 34.30 0.06 27.60 0.05 20.90 0.04 14.20 0.02
Micro
Silica
40.18 0.07 40.18 0.07 40.18 0.07 40.18 0.07 40.18 0.07
Fine
Aggregate
844.48 1.47 844.48 1.47 844.48 1.47 844.48 1.47 844.48 1.47
Coarse
Aggregate
805.32 1.4 805.32 1.4 805.32 1.4 805.32 1.4 805.32 1.4
Water to
Binder
ratio
140.68 0.229 143.82 0.236 146.97 0.244 151.18 0.254 153.25 0.261
Super
Plasticizers
11.07 0.018 10.95 0.018 10.83 0.018 10.71 0.018 10.59 0.018
VMA 1.722 0.003 1.722 0.003 1.722 0.003 1.722 0.003 1.722 0.003
PREPARATION OF TEST SPECIMENS
A total of five batches for each mix based on the
above mix proportions have been prepared.
The mixing process is done in electrically operated
concrete mixer.
The predetermined quantities of fine and coarse
aggregates are added to the mixer and mixed for
thirty seconds.
After that the cement, fly ash and micro silica were
added to the mixer and mixed together with the
aggregates for one minute.

The various amounts of water, superplasticizer and
viscosity admixture were added and mixed
thoroughly.
This process of production was adopted for the whole
quantum of work.
The mixes immediately after the preparation were
used for carrying out the fresh concrete tests i.e.,
slump flow, V-funnel, L-box, U-box etc.
Sufficient number of cubes, cylinders and prisms
were casted, cured and tested after the recognized
ages to evaluate the properties of hardened concrete.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
TEST RESULTS ON FRESH CONCRETE
The workability tests i.e., Slump flow test, V-Funnel
test, L-Box test and U-Box test results obtained for
different water-cement ratios are presented in Table
9.
The graphical representations of water-cement ratio
vs each of the workability tests are shown in Fig. 1
to Fig. 6.
Table 9.0: Test Results on Fresh Concrete and Acceptance Criteria for SCC
S. No Method Unit
Water/Cement Ratio
EFNARC
[3]
Specification
Remarks
0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27
1
Slump
Flow Test
mm 655 660 665 680 700
SF1: 550-650
SF2: 660-750
SF3: 760-850
SF2
2 T500 sec 3.94 3.88 3.82 3.32 2.50
VS1: T500 2
VS2: T500 > 2
VS2
3 V-Funnel sec 8.50 8.35 8.10 7.95 6.89
VF1: 8
VF2: 9-25
VF2
4 T5min sec 11.89 10.92 10.66 10.23 9.95
5 L-Box h2/h1 0.950 0.959 0.969 0.975 0.980
PA1: > 0.8
(2 rebars)
PA2: > 0.8
(3 rebars)
PA2
6 U-Box mm 9 7 6 5 4 0-30
[23]
OK
655
660
665
680
700 y = 1100x + 397
R = 0.9098
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28
S
l
u
m
p

F
l
o
w

i
n

m
m

W/C Ratio
Slump Flow
Slump Flow Linear (Slump Flow)
Fig. 1. W/C Ratio vs Slump Flow
Fig. 2. W/C Ratio vs T500
3.94
3.88
3.82
3.32
2.50
y = -34.4x + 12.092
R = 0.8037
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28
T
5
0
0

i
n

s
e
c

W/C Ratio
T500
T500 Linear (T500)
Fig. 3. W/C Ratio vs V-Funnel
8.50
8.35
8.10
7.95
6.89
y = -36.2x + 17.008
R = 0.8148
5
6
7
8
9
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28
V
-
F
u
n
n
e
l

i
n

s
e
c

W/C Ratio
V-Funnel
V-Funnel Linear (V-Funnel)
Fig. 4. W/C Ratio vs T5
11.89
10.92
10.66
10.23
9.95
y = -45.7x + 22.155
R = 0.9303
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28
T
5

i
n

s
e
c

W/C Ratio
T5
T5 Linear (T5)
Fig. 5. W/C Ratio vs L-Box Ratio
0.950
0.959
0.969
0.975
0.980
y = 0.76x + 0.7766
R = 0.9803
0.945
0.950
0.955
0.960
0.965
0.970
0.975
0.980
0.985
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28
L
-
B
o
x

R
a
t
i
o

W/C Ratio
L-Box Ratio
L-Box Ratio Linear (L-Box Ratio)
Fig. 6. W/C Ratio vs U-Box
9
7
6
5
4
y = -120x + 36.2
R = 0.973
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28
U
-
B
o
x

V
a
l
u
e

i
n

m
m

W/C Ratio
U-Box
U-Box Linear (U-Box)
TEST RESULTS ON HARDENED CONCRETE
The strength tests i.e., compressive strength, split
tensile strength and flexural strength test results on
hardened concrete at the age of 7 days and 28 days
obtained for different water-cement ratios are
presented in Table 10.
The graphical representations of water-cement ratio
vs each of the strength tests are shown in Fig. 7 to
Fig. 9.
Table 10.0: Test Results on Hardened Concrete
Concrete
Mix
Compressive
Strength
(N/mm
2
)
Split tensile Strength
(N/mm
2
)
Flexural
Strength
(N/mm
2
)
7days 28days 7days 28days 7days 28days
M1
(W/C=0.23)
61.64 82.22 3.72 4.09 5.92 6.76
M2
(W/C=0.24)
59.73 82.07 3.63 4.08 5.84 6.52
M3
(W/C=0.25)
53.11 81.62 3.43 4.05 5.72 6.20
M4
(W/C=0.26)
52.53 81.29 3.40 3.99 5.46 5.86
M5
(W/C=0.27)
52.48 80.53 3.37 3.89 5.18 5.69
Fig. 7. W/C Ratio vs Compressive Strength
82.22 82.07
81.62
81.29
80.53
61.64
59.73
53.11
52.53 52.48
y = -41.6x + 91.946
R = 0.9446
y = -255.2x + 119.7
R = 0.8301
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

i
n

M
P
a

W/C Ratio
Compressive Strength
Compressive Strength at 28 Days Compressive Strength at 7 Days
Linear (Compressive Strength at 28 Days) Linear (Compressive Strength at 7 Days)
Fig. 8. W/C Ratio vs Split Tensile Strength
4.09
4.08
4.05
3.99
3.89
3.72
3.63
3.43
3.4
3.37
y = -4.9x + 5.245
R = 0.8827
y = -9.3x + 5.835
R = 0.8953
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28
S
p
l
i
t

T
e
n
s
i
l
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

i
n

M
P
a

W/C Ratio
Split Tensile Strength
Split Tensile Strength at 28 Days Split Tensile Strength at 7 Days
Linear (Split Tensile Strength at 28 Days) Linear (Split Tensile Strength at 7 Days)
Fig. 9. W/C Ratio vs Flexural Strength
6.76
6.52
6.20
5.86
5.69
5.92
5.84
5.72
5.46
5.18
y = -28x + 13.207
R = 0.9899
y = -18.6x + 10.274
R = 0.9413
5
5.25
5.5
5.75
6
6.25
6.5
6.75
7
0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28
F
l
e
x
u
r
a
l

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

i
n

M
p
a

W/C Ratio
Flexural Strength
Flexural Strength at 28 Days Flexural Strength 7 Days
Linear (Flexural Strength at 28 Days) Linear (Flexural Strength 7 Days)
DISCUSSION ON TEST RESULTS
Based on the above experimental results, the
observations are as follows:
Slump flow increases with the increase of
water/cement ratio.
T500 time, V-funnel time, T5 time and U-box
values are decreases with the increase of w/c
ratio.
L-box value increases with the w/c ratio.
All the workability test results are well in comply
with the EFNARC specifications of SCC and
acceptance criteria are shown in Table 9.
Compressive strength, tensile strength and flexural
strengths are decreasing as the w/c ratio increases.
Marginal increase in the compressive strength at 28
days of concrete as the w/c ratio decreases.
Compressive strength and split tensile strength
decreases at higher rate for 7 days strength when
compared to 28 days strength, whereas it is also
observed that flexural strength value decreases at
higher rate for 28 days strength when compared to 7
days strength.
The variation of % decrease in strengths at 7 days
and 28 days with w/c ratios are shown Fig. 10 to
Fig. 11.

Fig. 10. W/C Ratio vs % Decrease in Strength at 7 days
0
3.10
13.84
14.78
14.86
0
2.42
7.80
8.60
9.41
0
1.35
3.38
7.77
12.50
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e

o
f

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

i
n

%


W/C Ratio
% Variation of Strengths @ 7 days with W/C Ratio
Compressive Strength @ 7 days Split Tensile Strength @ 7 days Flexural Strength @ 7 days
Fig. 11. W/C Ratio vs % Decrease in Strength at 28 days
0
0.18
0.73
1.13
2.06
0
0.24
0.98
2.44
4.89
0
3.55
8.28
13.31
15.83
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e

o
f

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

i
n

%


W/C Ratio
% Variation of Strengths @ 28 days with W/C Ratio
Compressive Strength @ 28 days Split Tensile Strength @ 28 days Flexural Strength @ 28 days
CONCLUSIONS
All the mixes used in this study exhibits the good
workability characteristics, in accordance with the
EFNARC specifications.

Workability characteristics i.e., passing ability,
filling ability and segregation resistance of the SCC
mixes are linearly increasing with the increase of
water-cement ratio.

It is observed that the w/c ratio increases, the
compressive strength decreases by 14.9%, split
tensile strength decreases by 9.4% and flexural
strength decreases by 12.5% at 7 days age of
concrete.

It is observed that as the w/c ratio increases, the
compressive strength decreases by 2.1%, split tensile
strength decreases by 4.9% and flexural strength
decreases by 15.8% at 28 days age of concrete.

It is observed that compressive strength and split
tensile strength decreases at higher rate for 7 days
strength when compared to 28 days strength,
whereas it is also observed that flexural strength
value decreases at higher rate for 28 days strength
when compared to 7 days strength.

Therefore from the experimental results, the
compressive strength, split tensile strength and
flexural strength decreases as the w/c ratio increases.

With these experimental results, all the mixes were
able to develop a higher strength concrete without
any vibration, with complies all the workability
requirements of SCC.

The relation between the strengths and water cement
ratios, flow values and water cement ratios are
almost linear.


Scope of Future Work:

The present investigation will be extended to the
more number of concrete strength ranges and also on
the structural elements i.e., beams and slabs etc..

The investigation may be extended to the alkaline
and thermal effects.

The investigations may be extended with different
proportions and different types of mineral
admixtures apart from fly ash and silica fume.

PHOTOGRAPHS

SPECIMENS DURING CASTING
SPECIMENS DURING CASTING
SPECIMENS DURING CURING
SPECIMENS DURING TESTING
SPECIMENS DURING TESTING
SLUMP FLOW TEST
V FUNNEL TEST
L-BOX TEST
REFERENCES

1.
C. Selvamony, M. S. Ravikumar, S. U. Kannan

and S. Basil Gnanappa, Development of High Strength
Self Compacting Self Curing Concrete using Lime Stone Powder and Clinkers, ARPN Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 3, March 2010.
2.
Dr. Hemant Sood, Dr.R.K.Khitoliya and S. S. Pathak, Incorporating European Standards for Testing Self
Compacting Concrete in Indian Conditions, International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering, Vol.
1, No. 6, May 2009, pp. 41-45.
3.
EFNARC (The European Federation of Specialist Construction Chemicals and Concrete Systems), The
European Guidelines for Self Compacting Concrete Specification, Production and Use, SCC 028, May
2005.
4.
Hajime Okamura, Masahiro Ouchi, Self-Compacting Concrete, Journal of Advanced Technology, Vol.
1, No. 1, April 2003, pp. 5-15.
5.
IS: 383-1970, Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregate from Natural Sources for Concrete, Bureau
of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
IS: 456-2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak
Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
7.
IS: 516-1959, Methods of Test for Strength of Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
8.
IS: 2386 (Part-I)-1963, Methods of Test for Aggregate for Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards,
Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
9.
IS: 3812-1981, Specification for Fly Ash for Use as Pozzolana and Admixture, Bureau of Indian
Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.

10.
IS: 5816-1999, Method of Test for Splitting Tensile Strength of Concrete Cylinders, Bureau of
Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
11.
IS: 9103-1989, Concrete Admixtures-Specification, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
12.
IS: 12269-1987, Ordinary Portland Cement 53 Grade-Specification, Bureau of Indian Standards,
Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
13.
Kazim Turk, Mehmet Karatas, and Tahir Gonen, Effect of Fly Ash and Silica Fume on Compressive
Strength, Sorptivity and Carbonation of SCC, KSCE (Korean Society of Civil Engineers) Journal of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 1/January 2013, pp: 202-209.
14. Nan Su, Kung-Chung Hsu, His-Wen Chai A simple mix design method for self-compacting
concrete, Cement and Concrete Research 31 (2001), pp. 17991807.
15.
N. R. Gaywala and D. B. Raijiwala, Self Compacting Concrete: A Concrete of Decade, Journal of
Engineering Research and Studies, JERS/Vol. II/ Issue IV/October-December, 2011/213-218.
16.
Nguyen, T.L.H., Roussel, N. and Coussot, P. Correlation between L-box test and rheological
parameters of a homogeneous yield stress fluid, Cement and Concrete Research, 36, 2006, pp. 1789-
1796.
17.
Okamura, H., Self Compacting High Performance Concrete, ACI Concrete International, Vol. 19,
No. 7, July 1997, pp. 50-54.
18.
P. A. Ganeshwaran, Suji, S. Deepashri, Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Self Compacting
Concrete with Manufactured Sand and Fly Ash, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), pp. 60-69.
19.
PCI (Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute), Interim Guidelines for the use of Self Consolidation
Concrete in Precast/Prestressed Member Plants, TR-6-03, April 2003.
20.
Paratibha Aggarwal, Rafat Siddique,Yogesh Aggarwal, Surinder M Gupta Self-Compacting Concrete-
Procedure for Mix Design, Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies, Issue 12,
January-June 2008, pp. 15-24.
21.
Prof. Kishor S. Sable, Prof. Madhuri K. Rathi, Comparison of Self Compacted Concrete with Normal
Concrete by Using Different Type of Steel Fibres, International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT), Vol. 1, Issue 6, August 2012.
22.
Prof. Shriram H. Mahure, Mayur B. Vanjare, Experimental Investigation On Self Compacting Concrete
Using Cement Kiln Dust, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) Vol. 2
Issue 1, January- 2013.
23.
Shetty, M.S., (2002), Concrete Technology, Theory and Practice, Chand, S. and Company Limited,
Ramnagar, New Delhi 110 055.
24.
Soo-Duck Hwang, Kamal H. Khayat, and Olivier Bonneau, Performance-Based Specifications of Self-
Consolidating Concrete Used in Structural Applications, ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2006, pp.
121-129.
25.
S. Venkateswara Rao, M. V. Seshagiri Rao and P. Ratihish Kumar, Effect of size of aggregate and fines
on standard and high strength self-compacting concrete, Journal of Applied Science Research, 2010,
6(5): 433-442.
26.
Wu, Z., Zhang, Y., Zheng, J. and Ding, Y., An experimental study on the workability of self-compacting
lightweight concrete, Construction and Building Materials, 23, 2009, pp. 2087-2092.