Roy Belton: The Rheological and Empirical Characteristics of Steel Fibre Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete With GGBS and PFA

The Rheological Characteristics of Steel Fibre
Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete with PFA and

GGBS
A thesis submitted to Trinity College Dublin

for the Degree of Master of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering
By
Roy Belton
Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering

Trinity College Dublin
August 2014
DECLARATION
I hereby certify that this dissertation I submit for examination for the Degree of Master of
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering in Trinity College Dublin, is wholly my own
work. No work has been taken from others; any such work that has been used is correctly
cited and acknowledged throughout this text. It has not been submitted for any degree or
examination in any other University or Institution. TCD has my full permission to keep,
lend or copy my work presented here on the condition that any work used in this thesis be
accordingly acknowledged.
Signed:
Date:
ii
ABSTRACT
When testing steel fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete (SFRSCC) on-site, it is not
practical to determine the fundamental properties (yield stress and plastic viscosity) of
SFRSCC by means of rheological testing. Therefore, various empirical tests have been
developed to overcome this rheological shortcoming. These tests attempt to evaluate the
workability of SFRSCC for its successful placement concerning the ability of SFRSCC to
fill and flow into all the areas within the formwork, under its own weight, while maintain
a uniform distribution of constituent materials throughout the composite.
Within this study, the focus is on evaluating both the rheological and empirical parameters
of SFRSCC with both pulverised fly ash (PFA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag
(GGBS) for the partial replacement of cement (CEM II/A-L). By considering both the
rheological and empirical aspects of SFRSCC with 30% PFA and 50% GGBS cement
replacements, a correlation between concrete rheology and concrete workability could be
determined.
The results show that the use of PFA and GGBS caused an overall reduction in g and an
increase in h. Intuitively, a reduction in the relative parameter g means a reduction in yield
stress, while an increase in the relative parameter h means an increase in plastic viscosity.
Therefore, the use of PFA and GGBS for the partial replacement of CEM II/A-L caused an
overall reduction in yield stress and an increase in plastic viscosity. In addition, the GGBS
degraded the passing ability of SFRSCC and the workability of SFRSCC is retained for
longer periods after the addition of water when incorporating 30% PFA and 50% GGBS
cement replacements.
Both the slump flow and slump flow t 500 time showed a reasonably good correlation with,
respectively, g and h, 15 minutes after the addition of mixing water. Therefore, quick and
easy empirical tests (such as the inverted slump flow test) could be used onsite instead of
rheology to determine, once suitable calibration has been carried out, the fundamental
parameters of yield stress and plastic viscosity. In addition, the inverted slump flow test
could be used to determine the actual steel fibre content, when using the relationships of g
to slump flow, h to slump flow t500 time and the variation of g and h with an increase in
steel fibre content as proxy.
In addition, a good correlation was shown to exist between the L-box blocking ratio and
the J-ring step of blocking for all the mixtures.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr Roger P West of Trinity College Dublin, for his outstanding
supervision, guidance, patience, and steadfast encouragement throughout the course of my
study.
Thanks are also extended to the staff of the Department of Civil, Structural and
Environmental Engineering, TCD for their expertise and assistance. In particular, Dr
Kevin Ryan, Michael Grimes, Mick, Dave and, Owen.
Thanks are also extended to Tom Holden of Roadstone for the constituent materials used
in this study.
Finally, my special thanks go to my family and friends for their never-ending love,
support and encouragement.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... iv
Table of contents .........................................................................................................................................v
Chapter 1 Introduction and motivation ..................................................................................................1
1.1. Self-compacting concrete...................................................................................................................1
1.2. Benefits of using self-compacting concrete ........................................................................................1
1.3. Concrete workability .........................................................................................................................2
1.4. Objectives and Scope.........................................................................................................................3
1.5. Limitations ........................................................................................................................................4
1.6. Methodology .....................................................................................................................................5
1.7. Layout of the Thesis ..........................................................................................................................6
Chapter 2 Review of the literature ..........................................................................................................7
2.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................7
2.2. Constituent Materials .........................................................................................................................8
2.2.1. Aggregates .................................................................................................................................8
2.2.2. Fine and Coarse Aggregates .......................................................................................................8
2.2.3. Cements and additions ...............................................................................................................9
2.2.4. Pozzolanic materials................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.5. Superplasticisers ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.6. Viscosity modifying admixtures ............................................................................................... 13
2.2.7. Steel fibres ............................................................................................................................... 14
2.3. Mechanism for achieving self-compactability .................................................................................. 15
2.3.1. Filling Ability .......................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.2. Passing Ability ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.3. Resistance to Segregation ......................................................................................................... 17
2.4. Rheology ......................................................................................................................................... 17
2.4.1. Principles and measurement of rheology .................................................................................. 17
2.4.2. Thixotropy ............................................................................................................................... 23
2.5. Constituent materials and effects on SCC workability and rheology................................................. 25
2.5.1. Influence of coarse and fine aggregates .................................................................................... 25
2.5.2. Cementitious materials ............................................................................................................. 27
2.5.3. Influence of PFA on rheology and workability ......................................................................... 28
2.5.4. Influence of GGBS on rheology and workability ...................................................................... 30
2.5.5. Blended cementitious materials ................................................................................................ 30
2.5.6. Steel fibres ............................................................................................................................... 31
2.5.7. Effect of delaying SP on rheology ............................................................................................ 32
2.5.8. Influence of superplasticiser on rheology ................................................................................. 33

2.6. Concrete rheometers ........................................................................................................................ 33
2.7. Mixer and mix procedure ................................................................................................................. 37
Chapter 3 Empirical and Rheological tests ........................................................................................... 39
3.1. Rheological and workability tests .................................................................................................... 39
3.2. Passing ability tests.......................................................................................................................... 41
3.2.1. J-ring ....................................................................................................................................... 41
3.2.2. L-box test .................................................................................................................................43
3.2.3. U-test ....................................................................................................................................... 44
3.3. Filling ability tests ........................................................................................................................... 45
3.3.1. Slump Flow Test ...................................................................................................................... 45
3.3.2. V-funnel test ............................................................................................................................ 47
3.3.3. Orimet test ............................................................................................................................... 47
3.4. Segregation tests .............................................................................................................................. 48
3.4.1. Visual Inspection ..................................................................................................................... 48
3.4.2. Sieve Stability test .................................................................................................................... 48
3.4.3. Penetration Test ....................................................................................................................... 49
3.4.4. Review of empirical tests for SCC............................................................................................ 50
3.4.5. Two point workability test........................................................................................................ 52
3.4.6. Summary..................................................................................................................................55
Chapter 4 Parametric study on constituent materials and tests........................................................... 56
4.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 56
4.2. Coarse and fine aggregates .............................................................................................................. 56
4.2.1. Particle size distribution of aggregates...................................................................................... 57
4.3. Powders ........................................................................................................................................... 57
4.3.1. Particle size distribution of powders ......................................................................................... 58
4.4. Water............................................................................................................................................... 59
4.5. Chemical admixtures ....................................................................................................................... 59
4.6. Fibres .............................................................................................................................................. 59
4.7. Rheological study of trial mixes ....................................................................................................... 60
4.8. Proposed mix design, mixes and testing procedure........................................................................... 68
4.8.1. Mixing sequence and mixer ...................................................................................................... 69
4.8.2. Testing methods ....................................................................................................................... 70
4.8.3. Trial SCC mixes ....................................................................................................................... 72
4.8.4. Summary..................................................................................................................................74
chapter 5 - Rheological study on SFRSCC with PFA and GGBS. .......................................................... 75
5.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 75
5.2. Testing sequence ............................................................................................................................. 75
5.3. Experimental program on SFRSCC with GGBS and PFA ................................................................ 76
5.3.1. Rheological analysis of SFRSCC with PFA and GGBS ............................................................ 77
vi
5.3.2. Empirical tests ......................................................................................................................... 82

5.3.3. Correlation of empirical tests with rheological parameters ........................................................ 86
5.3.4. Influence of time on the parameters .......................................................................................... 88
5.3.5. Summary..................................................................................................................................94
6. Conclusion and Recommendations....................................................................................................... 96
6.1. Objective Number One: Conclusion.................................................................................................96
6.2. Objective Number Two: Conclusion ................................................................................................ 96
6.3. Objective Number Three: Conclusion .............................................................................................. 97
6.4. Objective Number Four: Conclusion: ............................................................................................... 98
7. References............................................................................................................................................ 100
Appendix A Mix design ........................................................................................................................ 109
A.1
Mix Design for SCC-1 to SCC-7. ........................................................................................ 110
A.2
Mix design for SCC-8 to SCC-14. ....................................................................................... 111
A.3
Mix design for SCC-15 to SCC-21. ..................................................................................... 112
Appendix B Rheological data .............................................................................................................. 113

B.1
- Rheological data ................................................................................................................... 113
Appendix C Time evolution relationships ........................................................................................... 114

C.1
Time evolution relationship of torque versus speed for SCC-1 to SCC-7.............................. 115
C.2
Time evolution relationship of torque versus speed for SCC-8 to SCC-14............................ 116
C.3
Time evolution relationship of torque versus speed for SCC-15 to SCC-21. ......................... 117
C.4
- Hershel-Bulkley Rheological parameters for SCC-1 to SCC-21............................................ 118
Appendix D Compressive strengths .................................................................................................... 120

D.1
- Cube Strengths ..................................................................................................................... 120
Appendix E Correlation between empirical and rheological parameters .......................................... 121

E.1
- Correlations between empirical and rheological parameters for SCC-1 to SCC-7.................. 122
E.2
- Correlations between empirical and rheological parameters for SCC-8 to SCC-14................ 123
E.3
- Correlation between empirical and rheological parameters for SCC-15 to SCC21. ............... 124
E.4
- Correlation between empirical and rheological parameters ................................................... 125
E.5
- Time evolution of empirical tests.......................................................................................... 127
E.6
- Time evolution correlation between empirical and rheological parameters............................ 128
Appendix F Two-point theory and calibration ................................................................................... 131

F.1
- Theory of the Two-point method .......................................................................................... 132
F.2
- Calculation of results and Calibration ................................................................................... 136
Appendix G Technical data sheets ...................................................................................................... 139

G.1
Steel fibres........................................................................................................................... 139
G.2
Admixtures .......................................................................................................................... 139
vii
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION

1.1. Self-compacting concrete
In general, the construction of traditional concrete requires compaction to remove the
trapped air and densify the concrete. This type of concrete composite is known as
traditional vibrated concrete (TVC). On the other hand, self-compacting concrete (SCC)
possesses both superior flowability and a high segregation resistance, which consolidates
under its own weight without the need for conventional vibrating techniques (Goodier,
2003; Kuroiwa, et al, 1993).
1.2. Benefits of using self-compacting concrete

The use of SCC eliminates the need for conventional concrete vibrators, which improves
on-site health and safety by reducing serious health hazards, such as vibration white finger
and deafness. It can also be stated that the use of SCC reduces the potential for human
error in relation to compaction, as over-compacting and under-compacting the concrete
can lead to internal segregation and surface defects (such as honeycombing). Fewer
operatives are needed, but more time is required to test the concrete before placing. The
high binder content and the need for well-graded aggregates improves the concrete, which
produces a dense pore structure between the aggregate and the cement matrix and,
consequently improves concrete strength and durability.
The use of SCC leads to lower overall costs. However, it can lead to an increase and
decrease in direct costs, which are:
significant reductions in labour costs due to eliminating the need for operatives to
place and vibrate the concrete (See Fig 1.1 1.2);
reduced electrical energy requirements as concrete vibrators are not required,

which reduces the costs associated with SCC placement;
reduced placing times as conventional concrete vibrating techniques are not

required, which can increase productivity;
a more durable concrete due to its denser microstructure, particularly within the
concrete cover zone.
Fig 1. 2: A team of two operatives placing and

finishing SCC (after De Schutter et al. 2008).
Fig 1. 1: A team of eight operatives placing and

finishing TVC (after De Schutter et al. 2008).
According to Goodier (2003), the Lafarge Group investigated the overall cost savings
associated with using SCC. In this study, the Lafarge Group constructed two identical
concrete building; one from TVC and the other from SCC. The building constructed using
SCC materials was completed 2.5 months before the traditionally constructed building and
with an overall project saving of 21.4%.
1.3. Concrete workability

The term workability is described as that property of freshly mixed concrete or mortar
that determines the ease at which it can be mixed, placed, consolidated, and finished to a
homogenous condition (Koehler and Fowler, 2003). According to Tattersall (1991),
workability test methods can be placed into categories based on different classifications
(See Table 1.1).
Table 1. 1: Classes of workability measurement (after Tattersall 1991).
Concerning concrete workability test methods, most of the test methods fall into Class II
and Class III. Most test methods for concrete workability have been divided between
single-point tests (Class II) and multi-point tests (Class III). A single-point test measures
only one point on the flow curve relating shear stress to shear strain rate, whereas multipoint tests measure multiple points on the flow curve and, therefore, provides a more
2
complete description of workability by the use of two parameters, namely, the yield stress
and plastic viscosity. For example, a single point test, such as the slump test only provides
one point on the flow curve, namely, the yield stress.
According to Tanner (2009), rheology plays a crucial role in understanding the material
behaviour of fresh concrete. Furthermore, rheology as a science allows one to determine
and evaluate the correct proportions of constituents within the mix. Therefore, the use of
this science, when applied to concrete in its fresh state, allows one to measure and
quantify the rheological properties of fresh concrete and thus provides a better
understanding of the rheological influence of various constituent materials on the fresh
state of concrete (Roussel, 2011).
Fresh concrete is considered a multiphase material, whereby complex interactions between
the paste and the aggregate control the flow of concrete and hence provide a certain level
of workability (De Schutter, et al., 2008). In general, the slump test is used to evaluate
concrete workability. However, different concrete mixtures possessing the same slump
may behave differently concerning flowability and workability (Ferraris, et al., 2001).
Consequently, evaluating concrete flow requires two parameters and not one, as in the
case of the slump test.
According to Ferraris et al. (2001), the slump flow test evaluates concrete yield stress and
shows reasonably good correlations with this parameter; however, the slump flow test
does not evaluate the plastic viscosity; that is, its continual flowability after flow has
initiated. It is important to recognise that evaluating the plastic viscosity allows one to
determine why different concrete mixtures possessing the same slump value differ in
terms of flowability and workability.
1.4. Objectives and Scope

This study presents a review of the constituent requirements for the successful placement
of SCC as well as the influence of these constituent materials on both the rheological and
workability aspects of SCC. In addition, both the importance and fundamental principles
of rheology are highlighted and discussed as well as the various empirical and rheological
test methods. In addition, the physical appearance and the particle size distributions of the
constituent materials used in this study are presented.
The research described in this dissertation had the broad objective of evaluating both the
rheological and empirical parameters of steel fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete
3
(SFRSCC) with both the use of pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and ground granulated blast
furnace slag (GGBS) for the partial replacement of cement (CEM II/A-L). Therefore, it is
possible that, by considering both the rheological and empirical aspects of SFRSCC with
PFA and GGBS cement replacements, a correlation between concrete rheology and
concrete workability could be determined. To achieve this objective, rheology was used to
determine the rheological parameters g and h, which are, respectively, related to the
fundamental parameters of yield stress and plastic viscosity. In addition, the workability
aspects were evaluated by using current empirical tests, such as the slump flow, L-box and
J-ring.
Various steel fibre reinforced self-compacting (SFRSCC) mixtures were used to determine
the effect of both pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag
(GGBS) on both the rheological and empirical parameters of these mixtures. In addition,
the influence of various steel fibre contents on both the rheological and empirical
parameters of SCC were investigated. The workability retention of the different
supplementary cementitious materials (PFA and GGBS) used in this study was also
investigated.
Evaluating the rheological properties of SCC is no easy task; these properties change as
concrete progresses through its various transitional stages of development. The reason for
this is due to progressive chemical changes/reactions occurring within the mix (De
Schutter, et al., 2008). Furthermore, according to De Schutter et al. (2008) the rheological
characteristics behave in a nonlinear manner. Therefore, the influence of time, after the
addition of mixing water, on both the rheological and empirical values was investigated in
this study.
1.5. Limitations
In this study, the main focus was on evaluating the rheological parameters g and h, which
are related and, consequently, used to obtain the fundamental parameters of yield stress
and plastic viscosity. Therefore, this study concentrated on the rheology and workability
of SFRSCC with PFA and GGBS cement replacements. Only one type of steel fibre was
used: Dramix R-65/35 hooked steel fibres. One sand was used in all the mixtures and the
fillers used in this study (i.e. limestone, pulverised fuel ash and ground granulated blast
furnace slag) were each restricted to a single source and, therefore, each one possessed the
same physical and chemical properties.
1.6. Methodology
A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken to better understand the
development and production of SCC as well as the rheology and workability of concrete.
In this undertaking, information was compiled on SCC mix design and SCC testing as
well as various rheological models.
Initially, the laboratory technicians constructed the equipment for the empirical tests, i.e.,
slump flow, L-box and J-ring. Shortly after, the required constituents for all the mixtures
were quantified and ordered. To determine the influence of PFA and GGBS on the
rheological and workability parameters of SFRSCC, the constituent materials were each
acquired from a single source and hence each possessed the same physical and chemical
properties.
The Tattersall two-point apparatus was used to evaluate the rheological parameters g and h
for each mixture. Furthermore, these obtained parameters were not converted into their
fundamental units of shear stress and plastic viscosity by using both Newtonian and nonNewtonian fluids of known flow properties. However, Appendix F gives the theory of the
Tattersall two-point method along with the calibration theory.
Since the author had not previously used the two-point apparatus, it was necessary to
perform tests on trial mixtures. This was done to assess the variability associated with
recording the resulting pressures and, therefore, the obtained torques as well as finding out
if the two-point apparatus was actually working. Also, various functional torque-speed
relationship were investigated and, therefore, their associated correlation coefficients were
investigated.
The workability of the mixtures was measured using the slump flow, L-box and J-ring
tests. The filling ability and segregation resistance were assessed with the slump flow test,
while the passing ability and segregation resistance were assessed with the L-box and Jring tests.
To verify the obtained rheological and empirical parameters, cubes were cast for each
mixture and tested at seven-day for their compressive strengths.
1.7. Layout of the Thesis

Chapter One presents the introduction and motivations, elaborating on the benefits of SCC
and the importance of concrete rheology and concrete workability.
Chapter Two presents the development of SCC, constituent materials and their influence
on concrete rheology and concrete workability, mechanisms for achieving selfcompactability, rheology, concrete rheometers and mix procedure.
All the empirical and rheological tests are described in Chapter Three. This chapter
involves describing the procedures for these tests, their limitations and the expression of
the obtained results. In addition, minimum and maximum criteria for the various empirical
tests are presented.
Chapter Four involves a parametric study on both the constituent material and tests used in
this study as well as a rheological study on trial mixes, the proposed mix design, mixes
and testing procedures.
The experimental program on SFRSCC with PFA and GGBS cement replacements is
presented in Chapter Five. This includes all the test results for all the mixtures that
underwent rheological and workability testing at different times after the addition of
mixing water.
Finally, the last chapter (Chapter Six) summarises the findings and conclusions of this
study. In addition, recommendations are given.
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.1. Introduction
During the late 1980s, and due to the gradual decline of skilled operatives in Japans
construction industry, Professor Okamura of the University of Tokyo proposed and
developed various concepts for self-compacting concrete, and during 1988 the first
prototype was developed. The constituent materials used in SCC are the same as in
traditional concrete except that an increased amount of both fine materials (sand and
binders) and admixtures are needed combined with a reduction in coarse aggregates (See
Fig 2.1). These material requirements are essential in achieving self-compactability. Due
to its higher binder and chemical admixture content, the material costs associated with
SCC are usually 20 - 50% higher than traditional concrete (Nehdi, et al., 2004).
W=Water
C = Cement
S = Sand
G = Gravel
Fig 2. 1: Constituent requirements for TVC and SCC (after Okamura and Ouchi 2002).
In the mid to late 1990s, the development and use of SCC spread from Japan to Europe.
Some of the first research work to be published from Europe was at an International
RILEM (International Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction Materials and
Structures) Conference held in Glasgow in 1996 (Bartos, et al., 1996; Goodier, 2003).
Domone and Chai (1996) produced some of the very first European scientific papers on
the design and testing of SCC, which involved an experimental programme in producing
and evaluating SCC with indigenous UK materials.
In 2000, the first European guidelines on SCC appeared in France and in the Nordic
countries. In 2001, the European Commission approved a SCC testing programme, known
as the Testing-SCC project, which was led by the ACM Centre, the University of Paisley,
Scotland. The project set out to evaluate existing testing methods in order to recommend
appropriate tests for international standardisation.
2.2. Constituent Materials

Concrete is considered a three-phase material, namely, cement, water and aggregates, with
the addition of admixtures. This section will briefly describe the constituents used to
produce SCC.
2.2.1. Aggregates
The choice of aggregates has a significant impact on the fresh and hardened properties of
concrete. In traditional concrete, the inherent characteristics of aggregates (such as shape,
surface morphology, size, grading and type) are known to significantly influence the
hardened properties of concrete (such as strength, robustness, durability, toughness,
shrinkage, creep, density and permeability) and the fresh properties of concrete (such as
workability, segregation, bleeding, finishability and pumpability (Dhir and Jackson, 1996;
Nanthagopalan and Santhanam, 2011). According to De Schutter et al. (2008), the use of
lightweight aggregates is feasible with special attention towards mix design.
According to the European specifications and guidelines for SCC, all constituent materials
shall conform and comply with the requirements set out in IS EN 206 (EFNARC, 2002).
2.2.2. Fine and Coarse Aggregates

In SCC, a sufficiently low coarse aggregate content is required to avoid aggregate bridging
and hence blocking of concrete in and around confined spaces (reinforcement) (De
Schutter, et al., 2008). However, reducing the coarse aggregate content can also cause a
decrease in particle packing, which if overdone can affect the overall performance of the
concrete (Fung and Kwan, 2014). Consequently, one should expect the coarse aggregate
content to affect both the fresh and hardened properties of concrete. Coarse aggregate
content normally ranges from 28 to 35 per cent per cubic meter of SCC (EFNARC, 2002).
Domone (2006) analysed 68 case studies on the use of SCC in many countries, published
during the period 1993 2003. The author stated that crushed rocks were used in over 75
per cent of these in relation to natural gravel deposits. In addition, maximum aggregate
sizes ranged from 16 20 mm, however in some cases larger aggregates of up to 40 mm
were used; it is possible that overall grading plays a more important role than aggregate
size (Domone, 2006). Furthermore, EFNARC (2002) states that consistency of grading is
8
critical for successfully placing SCC. Concerning aggregate conformity, EFNARC (2002)
recommends a limited aggregate size of 20 mm. According to EFNARC (2002), either
crushed or rounded sands are suitable for SCC. The quantity of fine aggregates provides
both lubrication between the coarse aggregates and overall concrete stability, while a
lower coarse aggregate content reduces interparticle friction. It is important to recognise
that fine aggregates below 0.125 mm should be considered as being part of the powder
fraction in SCC mix design (De Schutter, et al., 2008).
Fig 2. 2: Overall aggregate gradings for SCC mixes from testing SCC project partners (after Aarre and
Domone 2003).
In producing SCC, a well distributed overall grading is desirable. However, SCC has been
produced with aggregates of significantly different gradings. Fig 2.2 adapted from
Domone (2003) shows 11 aggregate gradings considered suitable for SCC, originally
compiled by a consortium of twelve partners, known as SCC project partners.
Furthermore, the need for a higher fine aggregate content in SCC is clear (Fig 2.2). In
addition, all aggregates in SCC shall conform to IS EN 12620 (EFNARC, 2002).
2.2.3. Cements and additions

In concrete, powders are the smallest solid particles with sizes less than 250 or 125 m
(Liu, 2009). The powder part of SCC consists of ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and
fillers, which can be nearly inert or latent hydraulic (De Schutter, et al., 2008). SCC
requires a high powder content and a low water/cement ratio, which increases the
exothermic reaction during cement hydration and, therefore, increases the risk of cracking
from thermal effects. As mentioned previously, SCC requires a high cement content,
which results in high costs and thermal cracking (De Schutter, et al., 2008). It is therefore
necessary to reduce the cement content by additions such as limestone filler, fly ash or
9
GGBS. Additions are used in order to control, reduce, improve and/or extend certain
concrete properties. Additions of all types have been previously incorporated into
concrete, of which three types exist; which are: (i) nearly inert (Type I), such as limestone
filler (ii) pozzolanic (Type II), such as fly ash or microsilica, and (iii) latent hydraulic
(Type II), such as ground granulated blast furnace slag (De Schutter, et al., 2008; IS EN
206 1, 2000; EFNARC, 2002).
The performance of SCC in its fresh state is influence by cement composition. This
influence depends on the content of tricalcium aluminate (C3A) and tetracalcium
aluminoferrite (C4AF). Immediately after mixing, the superplasticisers are first absorbed
by the C3A and C4AF; therefore, the effect of a superplasticiser depends on the content of
C3A and C4AF (Liu, 2009). In addition, the C3A content influences the setting rate of
concrete; put simply, a large amount of C 3A will cause an increase in concrete setting,
known as flash set. All cements that conform to IS EN 197-1 can be incorporated in SCC
(EFNARC, 2002).
2.2.4. Pozzolanic materials

A pozzolana is defined as a natural or artificial material containing silica in a reactive
form which by themselves possesses little or no cementitious value (Newman and Choo,
2003). However, in finely divided form and in the presence of water/moisture, SiO2
(silica) and Al2O3 (alumina) react with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) (lime) to form
compounds possessing cementitious properties, mainly calcium silica hydrates (C-S-H)
and calcium silica alumina hydrates (C-S-A-H) (Newman and Choo, 2003). These
cementitious compounds fill the voids in the concrete thus producing a dense impermeable
concrete, while also reducing the thickness of the transitional zone between coarse
aggregate and paste thus improving bond strength, long-term strength development and
durability. In addition, the use of pozzolanic materials for the partial replacement of
cement dilutes the overall C3A content, which reduces the rate of hydration, heat of
hydration and early strength development. It is important to acknowledge that reducing the
C3A content and hence the high heat rate of hydration will reduce the likelihood of
thermal cracking. In addition, the occurrence of shrinkage and creep is a notable factor as
SCC contains a much higher fraction of powder than traditional concrete mixes
(EFNARC, 2002).
10
The definition and effects of some frequently used additions in SCC are listed as follows:
Blast furnace slag is produced by rapid cooling of slag particles as obtained during
the smelting of iron ore (IS EN 197-1:2001). Once cooled, the slag particles are
ground into a fine cementitious powder, known as ground granulated blast furnace
slag (GGBS). As mentioned previously, GGBS possesses latent hydraulicity, i.e.,
the hydraulicity of the slag is locked within its glassy structure (Newman and
Choo, 2003). Details on the acceptable proportions of GGBS and cement clinker
are shown in Table 2.1 as given in IS EN 197-1:2011.
Table 2. 1: Composition for slag cements.
Constituents
(%)
PC Clinker
GGBS
Minor constituents
CEM II
Portland-slag cement
Type A
Type B
80-94
65-79
6-20
21-35
0-5
0-5
CEM III
Blast furnace cement
Type A
Type B
Type C
35-64
20-34
5-19
36-65
66-80
81-95
0-5
0-5
0-5
It should be noted, that replacements of cement clinker are possible up to 95 per

cent. Typically speaking, however, replacement levels between 50-70 per cent are
suited for structural concrete purposes (Newman and Choo, 2003).
Kim et al. (2007) studied the effects of GGBS on concrete strength (tensile) and
fibre bonding; the authors reported that GGBS for the partial replacement of
cement increased the strength and improved fibre bonding.
Fly ash is produced when pulverised coal burns in a power station. It is a fine
powder of mostly spherical glassy particles of silica (SiO 2), alumina (Al2O3), iron
oxide (Fe2O3) and other minor compounds, ranging from 1 to 150 m in diameter,
of which the most of it passes the 45 m sieve (IS EN 197-1:2011; Newman and
Choo, 2003; Tattersall, 2003).
It is well known that the use of fly ash for the partial replacement of cement
increases the workability and contributes towards long-term strength development.
According to Khatib (2008), the use of fly ash in SCC reduces the amount of
superplasticiser needed to achieve a similar flow spread value compared to SCC
containing only Portland cement and/or Portland cement + Limestone filler.
11
Siddique (2011) stated using fly ash reduces the need for stability admixtures such
as viscosity modifying agents. The authors (Khatib, 2008; Xie, et al., 2002;
Gesolu, et al., 2009) reported a reduction in drying shrinkage with increasing
amounts of fly ash, while Khatib (2008) stated that fly ash replacement levels of 80
per cent can reduce drying shrinkage by two thirds compared with binders
comprised of only Portland cement. Details on the acceptable proportions of PFA
and cement clinker are shown in Table 2.2 as given in IS EN 197-1:2011.
Table 2. 2: Composition of fly ash cements.
Constituents
(%)
PC Clinker
Fly ash
Minor constituents
CEM II
Portland-fly ash cement
Type A
Type B
80-94
65-79
6-20
21-35
0-5
0-5
CEM IV
Pozzolanic cement
Type A
Type B
65-89
45-64
11-35
36-55
0-5
0-5
Limestone powder is frequently used in SCC. IS EN 197-1:2011 states that

limestone can replace up to 35 per cent of the cement by mass. According to Pera
et al. (1999) and Ye et al. (2007), additions of limestone powder exceeding 30 per
cent replacement of cement increases the rate of hydration and contributes towards
strength development. This is because the calcium carbonate (CaCO3) increases
the acceleration rate of C3S (tricalcium silicate) and hence increases the rate of
cement hydration, which contributes towards early strength development. Zhu and
Gibbs (2005) stated that incorporating fine limestone powder in SCC could lead to
a reduction in superplasticiser dosage compared to SCC containing only Portland
cement because of improved particle packing, water retention and possible
chemical reactions.
The use of limestone as a filler in SCC is more effective than fly ash in terms of
early strength development. However, beyond 28 days, the use of fly ash achieves
higher strengths when compared to binders consisting of Portland cement and
limestone filler (Felekolu, et al., 2006).
Limestone filler is not a chemically active material; this means that the water
content is fully available for cement hydration (De Schutter, 2011). For example, if
using limestone filler for the partial replacement of CEM II to counteract the
negative effects of just using only CEM II (such as high heat of hydration) then the
12
overall water/cement ratio is available for the CEM II addition and not the
limestone filler. Therefore, it is important to recognise that increasing the
water/cement ratio will significantly influence workability and strength.
2.2.5. Superplasticisers
Superplasticisers improve the deformation capacity of concrete by keeping the
cementitious particles apart, which reduces interparticle friction forces between the
cement particles. However, increasing the dosage beyond the norm can give rise to
decreased stability and hence increased segregation (Tattersall, 2003). Furthermore, the
type and dosage of superplasticiser affects the deformation capacity of SCC. It is
important to recognise that certain types of superplasticisers can give rise to an excessive
air content within the paste; therefore, the volume of air should be added to the volume of
paste within the mix design.
In general, they work in two ways. First, they attach themselves to the individual
cementitious particles which temporarily neutralises the forces of attraction between the
cement particles (provides a negative charge on a once positive charged cement particle)
and this gives the concrete a much more liquid consistency (De Schutter, et al., 2008). In
addition, polycarboxylate ether based superplasticisers bind themselves around the cement
particles by the presence of long neutral molecules (chains and links) which allows the
free water to completely encapsulate the cement particles and hence improves fluidity, this
is known as steric repulsion (De Schutter, et al., 2008; aniewska-Piekarczyk, 2014). In
general, superplasticisers improve SCC fluidity by repelling the cement particles and
decreasing particle flocculation (Roussel, 2011).
aniewska-Piekarczyk (2014) reported that lignosulfonate, sulfonated naphthalene
formaldehyde and sulfonated melamine formaldehyde superplasticisers work by
neutralising the forces of attraction between the cement particles, thus improving concrete
fluidity. Broadly speaking, superplasticisers used in SCC are comprised of a
polycarboxylate ether or a modified acrylic polymer (West, 2009).
2.2.6. Viscosity modifying admixtures

SCC requires a high resistance against segregation while maintaining and/or improving a
uniform suspension of constituent materials. Viscosity modifying agents (VMA) are
water-soluble polymers or inorganic substances that increase the viscosity and cohesion of
the mixture, therefore enhancing concrete stability (Lachemi, et al., 2004). In addition,
13
providing adequate stability will allow the constituents to remain in suspension, which is
important for high segregation resistance. It should be noted, that the combined use of a
VMA with a high range water reducer (superplasticiser) would produce a highly flowable
yet cohesive cementitious material. According to Roussel (2011) the use of a VMA can
enhance the hardened properties of concrete; that is, enhance the bond strength between
reinforcing elements and the aggregates.
One should be cautious when selecting combinations of VMAs and SPs as certain types of
SPs can counteract the performance of the VMA; one of which is a methyl cellulose-based
VMA combined with a naphthalene-based SP (De Schutter, et al., 2008).
2.2.7. Steel fibres

IS EN 14889-1 (2006) defines steel fibres as straight or deformed pieces of cold-drawn
steel wire, straight or deformed cut sheet fibres, melt extracted fibres, shaved cold drawn
wire fibres and fibres milled from steel blocks which are suitable to be homogeneously
mixed into concrete or mortar. There are various types of steel fibres available, which
differ in shape and size. Furthermore, their pull out behaviour can be modified by
optimising the fibre anchorage properties and/or enhancing the chemical and physical
bond between the fibre surface and the cement paste (Cunha, et al., 2009). It was reported
that fibre strength, geometry and orientation have a direct influence on the load bearing
capacity of fibre-reinforced composites without traditional tensile reinforcement
(Holschemacher, et al., 2010). El-Dieb (2009) stated the inclusion of steel fibres improves
the compressive strength of concrete. However, Kayali et al. (2003) reported the opposite;
that is, the addition of steel fibres did not significantly affect the compressive strengths. In
both cases, different constituent (coarse aggregates) materials were used along with
varying amounts of constituents and steel fibres of different geometrical proportions.
Therefore, it is important to recognise that the compressive strength of fibre reinforced
concrete depends on the amount, type and quality of constituents in the mixture. Some
typical profiles of steel fibres used in concrete are presented in Table 2.3.
14
Table 2. 3: Steel fibre profiles (after Cunha et al. 2009).
As mentioned previously, SCC requires a high cement/paste content and a low

aggregate/cement ratio, which can affect the rate of shrinkage and can cause the formation
of cracks and crack development. The use of steel fibres improves cracking resistance thus
reducing the development of cracks. Furthermore, increasing amounts of fibres can be
added in SCC due to its high fine content and low aggregate/cement ratio (Grnewald and
Walraven, 2001). However, fibres all lead to a reduction in filling ability and an increase
in blocking. In 2002, researchers at the Polytechnical University in Italy (Corinaldesi and
Moriconi, 2004) reported that fibre addition in SCC proved very effective in counteracting
the effects of drying shrinkage. In this study, 50 kg/m3 of steel fibres were incorporated in
the mix design.
2.3. Mechanism for achieving self-compactability

SCC is not a new composite material. However, not many understands its complex
behaviour both in its fresh and hardened state (De Schutter, et al., 2008). De Schutter et al.
(2008) defines self-compacting concrete as its ability to flow under its own weight, fill
the required space or formwork completely and produce a dense and adequately
homogeneous material without the need for compaction. Therefore, it is widely
understood that SCC has three characteristics, which are required for the successful
casting of SCC. These three characteristics are:
filling ability;
passing ability;
resistance to segregation.
15
Broadly speaking and according to EFNARC (2002), there are numerous methods to
assess and characterise SCC workability.
2.3.1. Filling Ability

The filling ability of SCC is defined as its ability to flow into and fill all spaces within the
formwork, under its own weight, while passing through openings of heavily congested
reinforcement (Sonebi and Bartos, 2002). Broadly speaking, the main factor affecting
concrete workability is the water to cement ratio (w/c). Increasing the w/c will improve
concrete workability, which will reduce the yield stress. However, increasing the w/c will
reduce the plastic viscosity, which can give rise to segregation.
2.3.2. Passing Ability

During the placement of SCC, the concrete must pass freely through reinforcement
without blocking. As SCC passes through constricted spaces or narrow openings or
reinforcement, it causes an increase in internal stresses between the aggregates (RILEM
TC 7 SCC, 1999). When SCC flows through restricted openings, the energy required for
adequate flowability is consumed by increasing internal particle stresses, consequently
leading to an increased coarse aggregate content around the reinforced areas and,
therefore, blocking (See Fig 2.3).
Fig 2. 3: Blocking due to increased coarse aggregate content (after Von Selbstverdichtendem and Frais
2003).
Okamura and Ouchi (2003) states that a high deformation capacity can only be achieved
by the use of a superplasticiser, while ensuring a low water-cement ratio. West (2003)
stated it is difficult to achieve superior flowability by just altering the grading of
aggregates. Furthermore, the author suggests the need for a supplementary cementitious
material.
16
2.3.3. Resistance to Segregation

In SCC, good segregation resistance involves the uniform distribution of constituent
materials. Consequently, this means in all directions, both horizontal and vertical. De
Schutter et al. (2008) considered segregation of fresh concrete as a phenomenon related
to the plastic viscosity and density of the cement paste. In addition, the author stated that
when the density of the solid particles are greater than the cement paste, the solid particles
tend to sink or segregate. Furthermore, segregation can occur during the placement stage
(dynamic segregation) and after the placement stage (static segregation). Static
segregation occurs when the water separates from the mix and rises to the upper region of
formwork, also known as bleeding. Another form of dynamic segregation is pressure
segregation, which can occur during the pumping of concrete (De Schutter, et al., 2008).
When transporting and placing SCC, the fresh mix must maintain its original distribution
of constituent materials (aggregates). This is known as resistance to segregation.
Furthermore, De Schutter et al. (2008) suggest that segregation can occur in SCC, which
possesses adequate filling and passing abilities. It is important to recognise that inadequate
segregation resistance can cause poor deformability and blocking in and around
reinforcement areas, which will reduce the compressive strength of SCC (Bui, et al.,
2002).
2.4. Rheology
Tattersall and Banfill (1983) define rheology as the science of deformation and flow of
matter. Rheology is of Greek origin, referring to panta rei, everything flows. Rheology is
used to describe the behaviour of materials, which do not conform to the deformation of
simple elastic Newtonian gases, liquids and solids. In essence, rheology is concerned with
relationships between stress, strain, rate of strain and time. According to De Schutter et al.
(2008), rheology allows one to assess the properties of concrete in its fresh and transitional
states of development. Concrete possesses a certain resistance to flow, therefore the
application of a certain force is required for concrete to flow, and that force is known as a
shear stress.
2.4.1. Principles and measurement of rheology

In order to understand the rheology of cementitious materials, an understanding of the
simplest case is required; the simplest case is described by Hookes law. This law states
that the deformation of an ideal elastic material depends only on the applied force, which
means that the strain is proportional to the stress. For example, if a rectangular prism is
17
deformed by equal and opposite forces applied tangentially to opposite faces, then the area
A is deformed under shear stress, = F/A and the angle represents the deformation or
shear strain (See Fig 2.4). Therefore, shear stress is proportional to shear strain and,
therefore, expressed by the following equation:
= n
(2. 1)
where n is the constant of proportionality, also known as the rigidity modulus or shear
modulus.
1.2
1
Shear stress,
0.8
0.6
Slope = n
0.4
0.2
0
0
Fig 2. 4: Hookes law for a material in shear (F/A

= n).
Shear strain,
Fig 2. 5: Hookean solid in shear.
Fig 2.5 illustrates a straight-line relationship if is plotted as a function of whose slope

is equal to n. If a particular shear stress could be applied to a rectangular prism made of
simple fluid, the deformation of the fluid will not result in a definite deformation or shear
strain, but the fluid would deform and continue deforming once the initial shear stress is
applied. This constant deformation depends on the shear stress, and is measured by the
time differential of shear strain. Therefore, the time differential of is proportional to
and is represented by the following equation:
d
= n dt .
(2. 2)
This equation is similar to Hookes law except that the shear strain rate replaces the shear
strain and in this case n represents the constant of proportionality and is known as the
coefficient of viscosity. According to Tattersall and Banfill (1983), a fluid can be
considered as moving in laminar motion relative to two parallel solid planes, which move
relative to each other along one of their directions (See Fig 2.6). Therefore, this represents
Newtons law of viscous flow, which states that shear stress is proportional to the velocity
18
v and inversely proportional to the distance L between the planes, and is expressed by the
following:
=n
dv
(2. 3)
dL
dv/dL is known as the velocity gradient, which can be shown to be the same as d/dt and,
therefore Newtons law of viscous flow can be expressed as:
= n
(2. 4)
where is the rate of shear and n is the constant of proportionality.
Fig 2. 6: Newtons law of viscous flow.
For a Newtonian fluid at a constant temperature, which behaves according to laminar

flow, only one constant n is required to describe the flowing properties. In addition, the
relationship between rate of shear and shear stress passes through the origin (See Fig 2.7)
and the slope is equal to the coefficient of viscosity n.
Shear stress,
= n
Slope = n
Rate of shear,
Fig 2. 7: Newtonian fluid.
In the case of a Newtonian fluid, the relationship between the rate of shear and shear stress
is constant, which does not depend on the shear rate and the length of time for which the
19
shear stress is applied. This is the simplest form to describe the behaviour of a fluid.
Actually the behaviour of most materials (such as concrete) do not conform to this model,
but depend on shearing resistance and, therefore, at least two different shear deformation
rates are required to describe its flow properties. Figure 2.8 illustrates this requirement,
while it can be seen that the straight-line relationship of shear stress to shear strain rate
does not pass through the origin and, therefore the relationship between shear and stress is
not constant, i.e., it intercepts the stress axis. Many authors (Tattersall and Banfill, 1983;
De Schutter, et al., 2008; Gram, 2009; Sheinn, et al., 2002) state that the strain-stress
relationship is described by the two parameters of the Bingham model, the yield stress and
plastic viscosity in the form of
= o +
(2. 5)
where the term is the plastic viscosity, is the rate of shear and o is the distance from
the intercept to the origin, known as the yield value. It is clear that a material that follows
this equation needs two constants to characterise its rheological properties.
= o +
Shear stress,
Slope =
B
o
Rate of shear,
Fig 2. 8: Bingham model.
For non-Newtonian materials (such as concrete), their behaviour is slightly more

complicated than Newtonian materials. Their behaviour is more complex and may behave
in a non-linear manner (See Fig 2.9). If the flow curve is concave towards the shear rate
axis, it is described as shear thinning because the stress is increasing less rapidly than the
shear rate and at higher strain rates the material flows much easier compared to a shear
thickening material, i.e., the structure of a shear thinning material is broken down by an
20
increasing shear strain rate. The following equation represents this and is known as a
power law fluid in the form of
= kn.
(2. 6)
Fig 2. 9: Linear and nonlinear flow curves.
On the other hand, if the flow curve is concave towards the stress axis, it is described as a
shear thickening material, where the shear stress is increasing more rapidly than the rate of
shear strain, which causes the material to become less workable at higher rates of shear
strain.
Feys et al. (2008) investigated the rheological properties of SCC and compared their
finding with the Bingham model. The authors reported that the rheological behaviour is
non-linear (due to negative values of yield stress) and shows shear thickening behaviour,
which can be described by the Herschel-Bulkley model. De Schutter et al. (2008) supports
this nonlinear behaviour. However, the authors do not suggest whether it shows shear
thickening or shear thinning behaviour. The Hershel-Bulkley model can be represented by
the following equation (Feys, et al., 2008):
= o + kn
(2. 7)
where the term is the shear stress, k is a constant related to the consistence of the fluid
(consistency factor), is the imposed shear rate, n is the flow index which represents shear
thickening (n>1) or shear thinning (n<1) and o is the yield stress. When n is equal to 1,
the model takes the form of a Bingham model. In addition, the term k is related to plastic
21
viscosity, where a high k means a greater viscosity. This model is similar to the power law
model but with the addition of a yield value.
The relationship between torque and the angular velocity in a rheometer is similar to the
Hershel-Bulkley model, which can be calculated by integrating the function relating the
velocity and torsional motion imposed by the geometry of the apparatus. This relationship
is in the following form:
T = To + ANb
(2. 8)
where the term T is the torque, A and b are parameters that depend on both the geometry
of the apparatus and the concrete, N is the angular velocity and T o is the amount of torque
needed to shear the concrete.
Zerbino et al. (2009) assessed the rheological properties of SCC; they stated that in most
cases the yield stress of SCC would be close to zero, while the plastic viscosity can vary.
It is important to recognise that non-Newtonian fluids, which exhibit a zero yield stress,
are generally called pseudoplastic materials. As previously stated, the yield stress and
plastic viscosity are important rheological parameters, which describe the behaviour of
fresh concrete. However, these parameters can vary depending on various factors, such as
the exposure conditions, the mixing and testing procedures, the constituents in the mix, the
equipment used in establishing the parameters and the idle time following the mixing
procedure.
As previously mentioned, the flow curve which describes shear thinning is concave
towards the shear rate axis; that is, the slope of the nonlinear relationship of strain to shear
increases as the shear rate increases, which means that the reciprocal of the slope
decreases, which means that the viscosity decreases (See Fig 2.10). The reason for this
decrease in viscosity is that the shearing forces are breaking down the structure that
existed in the material when it was at rest (up-curve). The longer the material is sheared
and until a maximum shear rate (1) is reached, then decreasing the rate of shear strain will
allow the structure to rebuild. In Fig 2.10, the down-curve illustrates this reduction in
shearing due to structural breakdown. Rheometers are normally used to measure this down
curve.
22
Shear thinning
Down-curve
Shear rate,
Shear thickening
o = Dynamic yield
stress
Hysteresis loop
area
Up-curve
o(s) = Static yield stress
Shear stress,
Fig 2. 10: Hysteresis loop for material suffering structural breakdown under shear.
2.4.2. Thixotropy
The area between the up-curve and the down-curve is known as the hysteresis loop or the
degree of thixotropy and, therefore, the greater the area the more thixotropic the material
is (See Fig 2.10). A material that exhibits a hysteresis loop is known as a thixotropic
material; that is, a material becomes thinner, which occurs in pseudoplastic systems under
increased shearing or when a material becomes thicker, which occurs in dilatant systems
under increased shearing. Thixotropy is reversible and time-dependent, which means that
when concrete is at rest, the viscosity increases, and when concrete is sheared, the
viscosity decreases. These changes in viscosities are time-dependent as it takes time to
build up or break down this thixotropic structure. Furthermore, thixotropy only occurs in
non-Newtonian fluids and not Newtonian fluids, as Newtonian fluids will revert to their
original shape, that is, they have identical upward and downward curves. This is because
their viscosity is constant. It is important to recognise that thixotropy is not the same as
shear thinning or shear thickening as these are not time dependent, but is mainly due to the
flocculation of cement particles when at rest, which results in an increase in viscosity,
while then breaking apart the flocs under shearing reduces the viscosity. Furthermore,
SCC is considered highly thixotropic in relation to traditional concrete (Loukili, 2013).
23
Hershel Bulkley Model

= o + kb
Shear rate,
Bingham Model
= o +
1
napp
o = dynamic yield stress
Shear stress,
Fig 2. 11: Apparent viscosity napp as a function of shear rate.
Another important term is used to define thixotropy is the apparent viscosity napp, which
passes through the origin and is the shear stress divided by the shear rate (See Fig 2.11). In
addition, napp is the viscosity of a Newtonian fluid that would behave in a similar manner
as a non-Newtonian fluid at similar shear rates or similar speeds under identical testing
conditions.
Fig 2.11 illustrates shear thickening behaviour, which is represented by the HershelBulkley curve, it be clearly seen that the apparent decreases with an increase in shear
strain rate until a certain shear is reached 2, once this shear is exceeded, the apparent
viscosity increases. This increase in apparent viscosity (after a certain rate of shear)
suggests shear thickening behaviour because as the apparent viscosity increases, a larger
amount of energy is required to further increase the flow rate. The opposite holds true for
a Bingham material, in that, the apparent viscosity decreases with increasing shear rates
and for a shear thinning material the apparent viscosity decreases at larger increments
relative to a Bingham material at incremental shear rates.
In SCC, thixotropy is important as it creates a higher viscosity when concrete is at rest
than when it is flowing and that higher viscosity is critical for formwork pressure
reduction and segregation resistance. On the other hand, placing SCC, which has a high
degree of thixotropy or a high rate of flocculation, will result in distinct layer casting
which produces a weak interface between the concrete layers (See Figure 2.12).
24
Fig 2. 12 Distinct layer casting caused by a high degree of SCC thixotropy.
2.5. Constituent materials and effects on SCC workability and rheology

In general, SCC can be produced with a wide variety of constituent materials. However,
these constituent materials influence the workability and rheology of fresh concrete.
Therefore, this section is aimed at evaluating the effect of constituent materials on both the
workability and rheological parameters of SCC.
2.5.1. Influence of coarse and fine aggregates

Incorporating coarse or fine aggregates into a concrete, mortar or cement mix, then
irrespective of their shape or surface texture, the workability of the mix will be reduced
because of the increase viscous drag provided by the particles (Bartos, 1993). Hu and
Wang (2011) stated that concrete rheology is influenced by various aggregate
characteristics such as gradation, size, shape, surface texture, volume fraction and
variability. Furthermore, as the aggregate volume fraction increases so will the
pseudoplastic parameters; that is, the yield stress and plastic viscosity. Fig 2.13 adapted
from Wallevik and Wallevik (2001) shows the influence of different aggregate shapes and
sand contents on the rheological parameters. Rheologically speaking, the use of rounded,
uncrushed aggregates would be preferable to crushed or flaky aggregates, while
incorporating different quantities of fine aggregates within the mix will influence its
rheological nature.
25
Fig 2. 13: Effect of aggregate shape and sand content (after Wallevik and Wallevik 2011).
The water requirements within SCC decrease as the aggregate particle size increases.
Therefore, fine aggregates require an increased water content for desired consistencies. It
is important to recognise that a high degree of particle packing will require less paste for a
given consistency, where a high degree of particle packing is achieved by sufficient
aggregate grading (Hu and Wang, 2011).
In SCC, achieving near optimum particle packing relative to low particle packing has
proven to increase the rheological performance of the mix, which provides an increased
filling capacity and better stability, when flowing (dynamic segregation). Ghoddousi et al.
(2014) reported that with a higher packing density, more free water is available to act as a
lubricant between the solid particles and, therefore, provides better fluidity; this statement
suggests that there is a connection between the rheological parameters and particle
packing. Figure 2.14 2.15 adapted from Fung et al. (2014) illustrates the importance of
particle packing. Providing a sufficient amount of fine materials reduces interlocking
between the coarse particles, which consequently improves the fundamental characteristics
(yield and viscosity) of SCC.
Fig 2. 14: Maximum packing density (after Fung

et al. 2014).
Fig 2. 15: Maximum mass flow rate (after Fung et

al. 2014).
26
Many authors (Zhao, et al., 2012; Mahaut, et al., 2008; Okamura and Ouchi, 2003;
Grunewald and Walraven, 2001) discuss the influence of coarse aggregate content and
grading on the properties of self-compacting concrete. Zhao et al. (2012) assessed four
SCC mixes comprised of different coarse aggregate ratios. In this study, the water-cement
ratio and fine aggregate content remained constant. They stated that the coarse aggregate
content, which ranged from 5 20 mm, had an influence on the workability of SCC.
Consequently, high volumes of 10 20 mm coarse aggregate content relative to high
volumes of 5 10 mm coarse aggregate caused a decrease in the passing ratio (See Table
2.4).
Table 2. 4: Properties of SCC with various A/B ratios (after Zhao et al. 2012).
A/B
ratio
Coarse aggregate (kg/m3)

5-10mm
10-20mm
(A)
(B)
4/6
434.4
651.6
826
0.96
18.2
5/5
6/4
544
651.6
544
434.4
802
786
0.95
0.92
18.3
18.5
7/3
760.2
325.8
775
0.9
18.7
Initial slump
flow (mm)
L Box test
Ratio
Time
(%)
(s)
2.5.2. Cementitious materials

SCC has a much higher paste volume relative to traditional concrete; this increase in paste
volume decreases the yield stress, while increasing the viscosity. Simply put, increasing
the paste will increase the flowability of the mix, while increasing its cohesion, a
characterisation known as rich or fatty (Newman and Choo, 2003). It is important to
recognise that binders incorporated in SCC comprised of just Portland cements will result
in inadequate cohesion, poor segregation resistance and an increase in hydration
temperatures, therefore supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) (fillers) and/or
admixtures are needed to counteract these effects (Domone and Chai, 1996; Yahia, et al.,
2005). In other words, selfcompacting concrete can be produced by simply increasing the
amount of fine materials, either pozzolanic or non-pozzolanic, without altering the water
content relative to traditional concrete. Another alternative is to incorporate a VMA into
the mix, which will provide sufficient stability (Lachemi, et al., 2004; Bosiljkov, 2003).
Domone and Chai (1996) stated that SCC binder contents are relatively high and typically
range between 450 550 kg per cubic meter.
Newman and Choo (2003) illustrated the rheological effects of replacing cement with
SCM, which causes a reduction in yield stress for both pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and
27
ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) with an increase in viscosity for GGBS and
a decrease in viscosity for PFA. Fig 2.16 adapted from Newman and Choo (2003)
illustrates that an increase in paste volume will increase both the yield stress and plastic
viscosity. It is important to recognise that the appropriate usage of a superplasticisers will
decrease the yield stress, while not affecting the plastic viscosity or concrete stability.
Fig 2. 16: Illustration of the effects on the viscoplastic parameters by replacing cement with SCM (after
Newman and Choo 2003).
2.5.3. Influence of PFA on rheology and workability

It is well known that the inclusion of fly ash (FA) in concrete increases the workability
and enhances long-term strength development. Felekolu et al. (2006) reported that SCC
incorporated with SCMs, such as fly ash, will reduce the water content and enhance
concrete workability. Furthermore, the improvement is most likely due to the spherical
shape of the fly ash particles and possibly its surface texture; this improvement allows the
particles to pass easily around each other and, therefore, reduces the internal particle
stresses between the aggregate particles and the paste. It should be noted that the physical
properties of powders play an important role in rheology, i.e., the shape, surface texture,
fineness, particle size distribution and particle packing (Felekolu, et al., 2006). Indeed,
these physical properties are all equally important concerning rheology.
More recently, in 2014, researchers at the University of Petroleum and Minerals (Rahman,
et al., 2014) investigated the thixotropic behaviour of SCC with different mineral
admixtures; they concluded that the inclusion of fly ash, up to 15% cement replacement,
increased the flocculation rate considerably. In the field, flocculation rates are very
28
important, as SCC is required to flow into and fill all spaces within the formwork, under
its self-weight.
Over the last two decades, many researchers (Xie, et al., 2002; Monosi and Moriconi,
2007; Naik et al., 2012; Siddique, 2011; Bouzoubaa and Lachemi, 2001; Liu, 2010) have
studied the performance of SCC containing SCM, such as, Class C fly ash, Class F fly ash
and ultrafine pulverised fly ash (UPFA). Xie et al. (2002) studied the use of UPFA in
SCC. They stated that the appropriate viscosities could be achieved by replacing VMA
with UPFA. Siddique (2011) and Bouzoubaa and Lachemi (2001) studied the properties of
SCC with various levels of Class F fly ash. Siddique (2011) concluded that it is possible to
incorporate fly ash contents of up to 35% replacement of cement, whereas Bouzoubaa and
Lachemi (2001) stated fly ash contents ranging between 40 60% were achievable. In all
mixtures, both Siddique (2011) and Bouzoubaa and Lachemi (2001) used various
superplasticisers, while Bouzoubaa and Lachemi (2001) also used an air entraining
admixture (AEA). Furthermore, the differences in SCC Class F fly ash usage were most
likely due to a number of factors, mainly, the different chemical admixtures, and various
levels of constituent materials within the mixtures. Nevertheless, it is important to
recognise that fly ash, in general, will improve the rheological parameters, while reducing
the need for chemical admixtures and the level of fly ash usage depends on the types of
chemical admixtures and/or the quality, type, size, grading and quantities of constituent
materials within the mix.
According to Krishnapal et al. (2013), the inclusion of fly ash for cement replacement
levels of up to 30% improves the slump flow value, decreases the V-funnel time and
shows no significant variation in blocking ratio (L-box) when compared to SCC
comprised of only Portland Cement (PC). In this study Class F Fly ash replacements were
used, while various dosages of superplasticiser were used (Polycarboxylic ether based).
The authors reported that the addition of fly ash reduced the need for a superplasticiser in
achieving the same workability. It is important to recognise that reducing the V-funnel
time and increasing the spread capacity allows one to achieve a more workable mix.
However, its workability in terms of abilities must comply with known criteria set out by
EFNARC.
When using fly ash in SCC a reduction in superplasticiser dosage is needed along with an
increase in water/cement ratio in order to keep the slump flow and V-funnel time constant
when compared with zero replacement of fly ash (Liu, 2010).
29
2.5.4. Influence of GGBS on rheology and workability

As mentioned previously, the inclusion of GGBS within SCC mixes reduces the yield
stress and increases the viscosity. Indeed, GGBS can be used as a supplementary
cementitious cement replacement (SCCR) to improve SCC workability and provide longterm strength development (Boukendakdji, et al., 2009). In 2009, Boukendakdji et al.
studied the effect of GGBS upon SCC rheology. A polyether-polycarboxylate based
superplasticiser and various levels of constituent materials were used in this study. In all
the mixtures, the authors concluded that the use of GGBS was found to improve the
workability, with an optimum slag content of 15%. (See Fig 2.17 2.18).
Fig 2. 17: Influence of slag content on filling

ability (after Boukendakdji et al. 2012).
Fig 2. 18: Influence of slag content on passing

ability (after Boukendakdji et al. 2012).
2.5.5. Blended cementitious materials

More recently, in 2009, researchers (Gesolu, et al., 2009) at the University of Gaziantep
studied the properties of SCC made with various blends of SCM. Table 2.5 summarises
the rheological effects of incorporating binary and ternary blends of SCM in SCC. The
authors reported that in all mixtures, relative to a reference mix (Control-PC), L-box
H2/H1 ratios increased, thus improving the passing and filling abilities of SCC. A
Polycarboxylic-ether type superplasticiser and various levels of constituent materials were
used in this study. In all mixtures, the authors reported that only the ternary use of
Portland cement (PC), fly ash (FA) and slag (GGBS) satisfied the acceptable criteria of
EFNARC.
30
Table 2. 5: Fresh properties of SCC with various level of SCM (after Gesolu et al. 2009).
Slump flow
Mix no
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
Mix ID
Control-PC
20FA
40FA
60FA
20GGBS
40GGBS
60GGBS
10FA10GGBS
20FA20GGBS
30FA30GGBS
T50
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.2
3.0
D (cm)
67.0
67.5
73.0
72.0
67.0
71.0
70.5
70.5
69.0
73.0
Acceptable criteria of SCC suggested by EFNARC

Minimum
2.0
65.0
Maximum
5.0
80.0
L-Box
H2/H1
0.706
0.706
0.800
0.950
0.704
0.706
0.732
0.854
0.859
0.904
V-funnel
flow time
(s)
3.2
10.4
6.0
4.0
10.0
14.0
12.0
9.9
6.6
6.2
0.800
1.000
6.0
12.0
2.5.6. Steel fibres

The benefits of using steel fibres in concrete are well known and established. In relation to
traditional concrete, the use of steel fibres enhances the structural performance of
concrete, mainly, improved structural rigidity and resistance to impact. (Holschemacher, et
al., 2010). Intuitively, these structural enhancements can be achieved in SCC, with
significant benefits due to its flowable nature. Cunha et al. (2009) stated that after the
occurrence of matrix cracking, the fibres bridge the crack, which providing a resistance
against increased cracking widths. In essence, the rheological characteristics of SFSCC
will ultimately dictate its performance in its fresh state.
Grnewald and Walraven (2001) investigated the influence of various fibre types and
volumetric proportions on the workability of SCC. In all the mixtures, the authors stated
that both the fibre type and fibre content affects the deformation of SCC. However, mixes
with fibre contents up to 120 kg per cubic meter produced satisfactory flow regimens, but
with some reduction in passing ability. It is important to recognise that incorporating
relatively high fibre content is dependent upon the geometrical proportions of the fibres in
question, i.e., aspect ratio and shape. Fig 2.19 adapted from Grnewald and Walraven
(2001) illustrates the maximum steel fibre content relative to fibre type.
31
Fig 2. 19: Maximum fibre content relative to fibre type for SCC (after Grnewald and Walraven 2001).
Similarly, Ponikiewski (2009) reported that increased fibre content and different aspect
ratios affected concrete workability. Furthermore, they showed that fibre type, volume
fraction, shape and length significantly influence the fresh properties of SCC.
Rheologically speaking, they recommended a fibre volume fraction of 2.0%,
approximately 45kg per cubic meter, while recommending the feasible use of high fibre
contents with short fibre lengths. Hossain et al. (2012) discussed the influence of steel
fibres on the fresh and rheological properties of SCC. They concluded that increasing fibre
content increases the plastic viscosity and yield stress, while the use of short fibres relative
to long fibres enhances flowability.
Grnewald and Walraven (2001) stated that for a required fibre content a lower aspect
ratio would achieve a more workable mix relative to the same fibre content with a higher
aspect ratio. However, its performance in its hardened state would be slightly
compromised as a higher aspect ratio performs somewhat better in its elastic state. The
authors also reported that increasing the amount of fibres decreases the slump flow and
hence decreases the deformation capacity of SCC. Furthermore, increasing the fibre
content while also increasing their aspect ratio increases V-funnel times. Therefore, both
higher fibre contents and aspect ratios will reduce workability in terms of abilities.
2.5.7. Effect of delaying SP on rheology

Aiad et al. (2002) assessed whether the addition of certain admixtures would affect the
rheological properties of cement pastes. More importantly, the authors suggested that
32
delaying certain admixtures, after the addition of water, could significantly reduce the
shear stress, while not greatly altering the relative viscosity.
2.5.8. Influence of superplasticiser on rheology

The use of a superplasticiser improves the ability of concrete to deform under its own
weight therefore improving its deformation capacity and reducing the yield value.
However, superplasticisers should be used with caution as increasing its dosage above the
norm can result in an unstable mix, which can compromise its segregation resistance.
2.6. Concrete rheometers

As previously mentioned, a single parameter such as yield stress does not adequately
describe the behaviour of fresh concrete. Therefore, concrete rheometers can be used to
evaluate the workability of SCC in terms of two parameters. Furthermore, they apply
physical measurements to rheology to measure the flow of concrete. i.e., measure the
resistance of concrete (shear stress) to flow at varying shear rates (Ferraris, et al., 2001).
According to Feraris et al. (2001), various rotational rheometers for concrete are available
and are as follows:
BML (coaxial cylinder)
BTRHEOM (parallel plate)
CEMAGREF-IMG (coaxial cylinder)
IBB (impeller/mixing action)
Two-point (impeller/mixing action)
Two point and IBB based rheometers operate in a similar manner by rotating an impeller
or vane in fresh concrete contained within a container. However, the IBB is fully
automated and uses a data input system, which automatically generates the rheological
parameters, yield stress and plastic viscosity (Feraris, et al., 2001 1). In addition, the IBB
rheometer requires 21 litres of concrete (Fig 2.20 2.21) and is suitable in testing concrete
with slumps ranging from 20 mm to 300 mm and does not require calibration and,
therefore, the results are not expressed in fundamental units.
33
Fig 2. 20: IBB Rheometer (after Feraris et al.

20011).
Fig 2. 21: H impellers for IBB rheometers for

concrete (after Feraris et al. 20011).
The opposite applies to the Two-point apparatus, in that, it is not fully automated and
requires two stage calibration: (i) torque calibration and (ii) calibrating the two constants.
Furthermore, the two-point apparatus possessing a helical vane arrangement, which is
suitable for slumps higher than 100 mm (See Fig 2.22 2.23). In both cases (Twopoint/IBB), the rotational speed of the vane or impeller is increased and then decreased
while the resulting pressure is measured at appropriate speed settings or intervals (Feraris,
et al., 2001; Tattersall and Banfill, 1983; Tattersall, 2003).
Fig 2. 22: Two-point workability rheometer (after

Feraris et al. 20011).
Fig 2. 23: Impeller arrangement and dimensions

(after Feraris et al. 20011).
34
CEMAGREF-IMG and BML are coaxial rheometers. The CEMAGREF-IMF rheometer

(Fig 2.24 2.25) is a large coaxial rheometer, which requires approximately 500 litres of
concrete. Due to its large concrete requirement, it not considered practical. The BML
rheometer (Fig 2.26 2.27) requires approximately 17 litres of concrete with slumps
greater than 120 mm (Roussel. N, 2011). In both cases, a cylinder is rotated at increasing
and decreasing speeds and hence the resulting torque is measured.
Fig 2. 24: CEMAGREF-IMG Rheometer (after

Fig 2. 25: Inside view of CEMAGREF-IMG

Rheometer with grid and blades (after Feraris et
al. 20011).
Fig 2. 26: BML Rheometer-version 3 (after

Fig 2. 27: BML Rheometer-version 4 (after

According to Feraris et al. (2001) evaluating and modelling the flow of concrete in the
IBB and Two-point rheometer is no easy task. In addition, the flow of concrete can be
mathematically modelled for coaxial rheometers (such as BML, CEMAGREF-IMG) and
for the parallel plate rheometer (BTRHEOM), while for the BML, CEMAGREF-IMG and
BTRHEOM rheometers it is possible to express their rheological properties in
fundamental units of plastic viscosity and yield stress by suitable calibration.
35
The BTRHEOM is a parallel plate rheometer (Fig 2.28 2.29) which consists of two
parallel disks, one of which is fixed at the bottom while the other is free to shear the
material and hence its rotational speed and resistance to shear are measured (Feraris, et al.,
2001; Roussel, 2011). According to Roussel (2011), the rotational speed range is between
0.1 rev/s to 1.0 rev/s while its maximum measurable torque is around 14 N/m.
Furthermore, its principal requirements are seven litres of concrete, which must possess a
slump greater than 100 mm.
Fig 2. 29: BTRHEOM Rheometer showing

arrangement of blades at top and bottom (after
Fig 2. 28: BTRHEOM Rheometer (after Feraris et

al. 20011).
During the period 2000 2001, a study was carried out in France (Feraris, et al., 2001),
which involved comparing five different rheometers to assess the appropriate method in
evaluating concrete workability in terms of yield stress and plastic viscosity. It is
important to recognise that no self-compacting mixtures were used in this study.
Nevertheless, their study is a good indication of whether any differences exist in the
rheological properties between different rheometers. Consequently, the authors concluded
that the degree of correlation of both yield stress and plastic viscosity between any two
rheometers possessed considerable differences. Furthermore, they stated that these
differences were most likely due to calibration, wall slippage and volumetric confinement.
Fig 2.30 2.31 adapted from Feraris et al. (2001) illustrates these differences in both yield
stress and plastic viscosity measurement between five different rheometers.
36
Fig 2. 30: Comparison of yield value (after

Fig 2. 31: Comparison of plastic viscosity (after

2.7. Mixer and mix procedure

In SCC, the mixer is a key element in producing a well-mixed concrete. SCC can be
produced with any concrete mixer, such as paddle mixers (free-fall mixers), truck mixers
and force-action mixers. However, force action mixers are preferred if available. The
mixing time is doubled when using a paddle mixer to mix SCC when compared with
traditional concrete (De Schutter, et al., 2008). The reason for this is due to the higher
addition of fine material, which may stick to certain parts of the mixer. According to De
Schutter et al. (2008), adding some of the water with some of the superplasticiser and all
of the coarse aggregates before adding the finer materials may reduce the adhesion of the
fine material to the mixer.
EFNARC (2005) suggests adding two thirds of the water and superplasticiser followed by
the aggregates and cementitious materials. However, previous studies have suggested that
delaying the addition of superplasticiser could significantly reduce the shear stresses
between the cementitious particles, which will improve concrete workability when
compared with stage one addition. Therefore, adding more superplasticiser towards the
second stage could be a very useful means of achieving the required deformation capacity
(650-800 mm) without having to alter the constituents and dosage of superplasticiser in
the mix.
Wallevik and Wallevik (2011) stated that when using a free-fall mixer the dosage of
superplasticiser has to double to maintain the SCC properties (yield value and plastic
viscosity) when compared with using a force action mixer. The reason for this may be due
37
to the high shearing of materials in the force action mixer. Furthermore, the VMA should
be added after the superplasticiser and just before adjusting the water content for
consistency.
Grnewald (2004) and Grnewald and Walraven (2001) suggest the following mixing
procedure for steel fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete:
Fig 2. 32: Mixing procedure for SFSCC in a force action mixer (after Grunewald and Walraven 2001).
It is important to recognise that the above mixing method is used in combination with a
force action mixer. Therefore, adopting this mixing method for a free-fall mixer may
cause the paste to adhere to the drum and it does not allow for the adjustment of water
content and superplasticiser dosage for consistency.
Testing-SCC reported that a change in mixing temperature from 14C to 22C reduced the
slump flow value by approximately 50-100 mm. In addition, they stated that the
temperature should be maintained at 20C 2C.
38
CHAPTER 3 EMPIRICAL AND RHEOLOGICAL TESTS

3.1. Rheological and workability tests
During 1983, it was found that the use of superplasticisers to produce very high workable
concrete led to workability assessment problems because none of the existing British
Standard tests could be used. These tests include the Vebe test, the Compacting Factor test
and the Slump test. For example, the slump test could not be used because concretes
possessing a high degree of workability all give collapsed slumps (See Fig 3.1).
Fig 3. 1: Four types of slump (after Koehler and Fowler 2003).
The solution to this assessment problem was to introduce a new testing procedure, known
as the flow-table test (See Fig 3.2). The apparatus usually consists of an upper wooden
square board with 700 mm sides, which is connected to a baseboard by hinges. In
principle, the cone is filled in two layers while each layer is tamped ten times with a
wooden rod. Once full, and after the resting and cleaning period, the top board is lifted to
the stopping position and allowed to drop, and after 15 consecutive drops the mean of the
largest diameter and the diameter perpendicular to it are recorded. According to Tattersall
(1991), the flow-table test was reasonably good for assessing segregation by visual
inspection, which would suggest that the flow-table method could be used to assess the
consistency of concrete. However, the flow-table test was severely criticised by Dimond
and Bloomer well before its inclusion in British Standards.
39
Fig 3. 2: Slump flow table test (after Koehler and Fowler 2003).
Due to these criticisms, a modified slump test was developed for evaluating high workable
TVC, known as the slump flow test. As SCC possesses a high deformation capacity, the
slump flow test is now one of the primary methods for evaluating SCC workability.
Many tests have been developed in an attempt to characterise the fresh properties of SCC.
The European federation for SCC, EFNARC, sets out specifications and guidelines for
evaluating the fresh properties of SCC. Table 3.1 adapted from EFNARC (2002)
illustrates the various test methods for SCC.
Table 3. 1: Various SCC testing methods (after EFNARC 2002).
1
2
Method
Slump-flow by Abrams cone
T500 slump flow
Property
Filling ability
Filling ability
3
4
5
J-ring
V-funnel
V-funnel at T 5 minutes
Passing ability
Filling ability
Segregation resistance
6
7
8
9
10
L-box
U-box
Fill-box
GTM screen stability test
Orimet
Passing ability
Passing ability
Passing ability
Segregation resistance
Filling ability
In order for SCC to fulfil its workability requirements, that is its passing and filling
abilities, EFNARC (2002) provides minimum and maximum acceptable criteria for each
40

test method (See Table 3.2). In addition, there is no reliable test for segregation; therefore,
it is important to pay close` attention to the risk of segregation.
Table 3. 2: Minimum and maximum criteria for various testing methods (after EFNARC 2002).
Method
1
2
Slump-flow by Abrams cone

T500 slump flow
3
4
5
6
J-ring
V-funnel
V-funnel at T 5 minutes
L-box
7
8
9
10
U-box
Fill-box
GTM screen stability test
Orimet
Unit
mm
sec
Typical range of values

Minimum
Maximum
650
800
2
5
mm
sec
sec
(h2/h1)
0
6
0
0.8
10
12
3
1
(h2-h1) mm
%
%
sec
0
90
0
0
30
100
15
5
3.2. Passing ability tests

SCC is required to achieve self-compactability and possesses a relatively high resistance
against segregation, while also being able to flow in and around heavily congested
reinforcing areas. Amongst the various empirical test methods listed in Table 3.1, the Jring and L-box are the most common methods for assessing the passing ability of SCC.
3.2.1. J-ring
The J-ring test simulates concrete flow through reinforcement by the use of numerous
vertical blocking mechanisms. More specifically, the apparatus is composed of a ring with
12 or 16 vertical steel bars; the latter simulates a more congested reinforcement system
(See Fig 3.3).
41
Fig 3. 3: Dimensions of J-ring and measurement positions.
IS EN 12350-12:2010 sets out the basic procedure, in which the conical mould is lifted at a
steady rate in an upward direction, which allows the concrete to flow through the bars, and
across the base plate. Consequently, the J-ring measures three parameters: flow spread
(SFj), flow time (t500j) and blocking step (Bj). The flow spread and flow time simulates
SCC deformability within confined reinforcement and defines the rate of deformation (De
Schutter, 2005; Testing-SCC, 2005). Once the concrete has ceased flowing and/or reached
a spread diameter of 500 mm, the largest spread diameter, dmax, and the one perpendicular
to it, dperp, are measured and the t500j time is recorded; that is, the time taken for the
concrete to reach a 500 mm spread diameter. The flow spread, SFj, is expressed as the
average of dmax and dperp. In an attempt to quantify the blocking mechanism, the average
relative flow heights outside the J-ring minus the flow height at a central position inside
the J-ring are measured and quantified, called the blocking step value (De Schutter, 2005;
Testing-SCC, 2005; IS EN 12350-12:2010).
42

Drawbacks and limitations (De Schutter, et al., 2008):
(i)
The base plate must be placed on stable level ground to record the appropriate
deformation. An oval shape spread rather than a circular spread indicates
uneven ground. It is important to measure the largest spread diameter and the
spread diameter perpendicular to it.
(ii)
Appropriate results depend on the surface moisture of the base plate therefore
the base plate should be wet, but not too wet.
3.2.2. L-box test

In a similar manner to the J-ring, the L-box simulates concrete flow through reinforcement,
which evaluates the passing ability of SCC. The L-box is composed of a chimney section
and a channel section with different arrangements of vertical bars. The concrete flows from
the chimney section, through the vertical bars and into the horizontal channel section (See
Fig 3.4).
Fig 3. 4: L-box test on a stable SCC and L-box dimensions (after Nguyen et al. 2006).
43

Expression of results
The mean depths of concrete within both the chimney section H1, and channel section H2
are measured and expressed as a ratio, known as the passing ratio PL:
PL = 2 .
(3. 1)
If the concrete flows freely through the vertical bars, then the passing ratio is equal to 1.0.
Likewise, if the ratio is equal to 0.8, then the concrete is too stiff and hence is deemed
unacceptable (De Schutter, 2005). ERNARC (2002) recommends acceptable passing ratios
ranging from 0.8 1.0. Nguyen et al. (2006) stated that yield stress is the most important
parameter in deciding on whether the concrete will flow and fill all the spaces within the
formwork.
(i)
If a concrete has an extremely high passing and filling ability, the passing ratio
maybe greater than 1.0, which can result in the concrete pilling up and
splashing out of horizontal channel. This pilling up and spilling effect will
significantly affect the test results.
3.2.3. U-test
In a similar manner to the L-box test, the U-test is used to evaluate the passing ability of
SCC. The U-test consists of a channel that is divided by a middle wall and hence splits the
channel into two compartments. An opening at the bottom of the apparatus is fitted with a
sliding door and the sliding door consists of an arrangement of vertical bars with centre to
centre spacing of 50 mm (See Fig 3.5).
Fig 3. 5: Schematic of U-box test.
44

The passing ability of the U-box is determined by comparing the heights of the concrete in
both compartment and is expressed as a ratio.
3.3. Filling ability tests

The fundamental principle for filling ability tests is to assess the flowability or the
deformation of concrete under its own weight, while visually inspecting the concrete for
signs of static and dynamic segregation.
EFNARC (2002) recommends various testing methods: slump flow, V-funnel, and Orimet;
amongst these methods, the slump flow, and V-funnel are most commonly used.
3.3.1. Slump Flow Test

The slump flow test is the most widely used test for evaluating the flowability of SCC (Fig
3.6 3.7). It is a modified version of the slump test. The flow test allows the concrete to
flow out in all directions. Therefore, the test evaluates two parameters: horizontal flow
spread and flow time. The flow spread evaluates unconfined deformability and the flow
time evaluates the rate of deformation within a confined flow distance (De Schutter, 2005).
Fig 3. 6: Slump flow test (after Loukili 2013).
Fig 3. 7: Testing in progress (after Testing-SCC

2005).
IS EN 12350-8, 2010 sets out the basic procedure for evaluating the deformation capacity
of SCC. Broadly speaking, the slump cone is lifted at a steady rate, typically 1 to 3
seconds, in an upward direction. Once the concrete has achieved its maximum
deformation, the largest spread distance dmax, and the one perpendicular to it dperp are
measured. Additionally, if the difference between dmax and dperp does not exceed 50 mm, a
mean value is calculated, known as the slump flow value. The t500 time is used to evaluate
45

the deformation of SCC within a defined spread distance. Intuitively, the lower the t500
value, the greater the deformation rate of SCC, providing no dynamic segregation has
occurred. EFNARC (2002) recommends acceptable t500 values in the range of 2 to 5
seconds.
The slump flow test can be performed by inverting the slump cone (See Figure 2.38).
When the slump test is performed with the cone upright, the cone has a tendency to rise up
while the cone is being filled. When using the inverted cone only one operator is required
to carry out the test. According to Ramsburg (2003) there is no difference in both the
slump flow spread values and T500 values when using the inverted cone instead of the
upright cone.
In evaluating the workability of steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC), the inverted slump
cone test is the preferred choice when compared to using the conventional upright slump
cone method (See Fig 3.8). Generally speaking, the inverted slump flow time is
recommended rather than the traditional slump value when evaluating the workability of
SFRC (Kasimmohamed, 2014).
Fig 3. 8: Schematic of upright and inverted cone (after Ramsburg 2003).
The occurrence of a segregation border is an indication of dynamic segregation. If the

coarse aggregates have separated or segregated from the paste/mortar then a pile of coarse
aggregates would be concentrated in the middle of the slump spread. (West, 2003; De
Schutter, et al., 2008).
(i)
The J-ring has various drawbacks and limitations, and these same drawbacks
and limitations apply to the slump flow test.
46
3.3.2. V-funnel test

In principle, the V-funnel is used to assess the viscosity and filling ability of SCC, where
the V-funnel flow time (tv) is used to measure these characteristics. The V-funnel is
composed of rectangular container, which tapers from the top down to a vertical
rectangular channel (See Fig 3.9 3.10).
Fig 3. 10: V-funnel testing in progress (after

Hossain et al. 2012).
Fig 3. 9: V-funnel test (IS EN 12350-9 2010).
As outlined in IS EN 12350-9 (2010), the procedure involves filling the apparatus with
concrete, while ensuring no compaction has taken place. After, approximately 10 2
seconds, a bottom gate is opened thus allowing the concrete to flow. The flow time tv, that
is, the time taken for the cementitious composite to fully discharge is recorded. The
European Federation for SCC conformity (EFNARC, 2002) sets out well-defined
acceptable criteria on which typical tv values range from 6 12 seconds.
(i)
The V-funnel gate cannot be adjusted for mixes comprised of small coarse
aggregates and mortars.
(ii)
Transporting the apparatus is difficult due to its mass and size.
(iii)
Operating the apparatus with a single operator can lead to inaccuracies in

recording the tv times.
3.3.3. Orimet test

The Orimet test is used for evaluating the filling ability of very high workable concrete.
The apparatus consists of an orifice rheometer, which measures the fluidity of concrete by
47

means of the Orimet flow time to, which is the time required for the concrete to pass
through the orifice (See Fig 3.11). The apparatus can be fitted with different orifices of
different diameters, which allows one to assess the filling ability of mortars and grouts.
Fig 3. 11: Orimet testing in progress (Testing-SCC 2005).
3.4. Segregation tests

In SCC, various tests are available to assess the stability of SCC and hence its resistance
against segregation, which are visual inspection, sieve stability, settlement column and
penetration.
3.4.1. Visual Inspection

Visual inspection involves inspecting the concrete for any signs of segregation, for
example, when inspecting the final spread of concrete in the slump flow test; an indication
of segregation resistance would involve a uniform spread of constituents right up to the
boundary. Indeed, this would not hold true if segregation had occurred. Furthermore, both
dynamic and static segregation can be assessed; however, it depends upon the experience
of the operator (Testing-SCC, 2005; Liu, 2009).
3.4.2. Sieve Stability test

The resistance of SCC to segregate can be evaluated by the sieve stability test. In IS EN
12350-11 (2010) the procedure involves pouring a concrete sample from a height, typically
500 50 mm, onto a 5 mm sieve. In general, the test involves evaluating the degree of
separation between the paste/mortar and coarse aggregates (See Fig 3.12 3.13).
48
Fig 3. 13: Testing in progress (Testing-SCC,

2005).
Fig 3. 12: Sieve stability test (IS EN 12350-11,

2010).
In principle, the container is filled with concrete and allowed to rest for approximately 15
0.5 min. The concrete mixture is then poured onto the sieve, whereby the retained mass of
concrete, mps, is subtracted from the initial sieve mass, mp, and divided by the initial mass
of concrete, mc, and expressed as a percentage, known as the segregation index, SI (EN
12350-11, 2010; De Schutter, 2008).
A segregation index value of less than 5 per cent indicates an over cohesive mix, while a
value ranging from 15 30 per cent indicates inadequate segregation resistance (TestingSCC, 2005). Consequently, Testing-SCC (2005) stated an acceptable value within the 5
15 per cent range.
Testing-SCC (2005) stated that the sieve stability test is capable of assessing both static
and dynamic segregation. However, De Schutter (2008) suggests only static segregation is
measured. In addition, good correlations were shown to exist in relation to onsite SCC
placement (Testing-SCC, 2005).
3.4.3. Penetration Test

The penetration test detects the resistance of concrete to segregate. The penetration test
detects a change in coarse aggregate content at the upper region of the concrete sample
(Fig 3.14 3.15), thus it evaluates the occurrence of static segregation (De Schutter, 2008).
49
Fig 3. 14: Penetration for segregation analysis

(after Bui et al. 2002).
Fig 3. 15: Penetration test in progress (TestingSCC 2005).
The penetration test involves placing a penetration device, which has a weight of 54 grams
on top of the concrete. After 2 min, the device is lowered and allowed to penetrate the
concrete. After 45 s, the recorded penetration value, known as the penetration depth, pd, is
used to evaluate the concretes resistance to segregation.
3.4.4. Review of empirical tests for SCC

During the period, 2001 2005, 12 countries participated in an inter-laboratory evaluation
on the performance of test methods used in measuring the properties of fresh SCC.
Testing-SCC (2005) stated that one single test is not sufficient to evaluate the key
characteristics of SCC; consequently, two or three test methods are required. In addition,
visual inspection was noted as useful for identifying the occurrence of segregation
resistance.
The European research project Measurement of properties of fresh SCC recommended
the following four tests for European standardisation: Slump flow, L-box, J-ring and sieve
stability. Concerning the filling ability of SCC, the combined slump-flow and T500 tests
were deemed the best, due to a number of factors, such as, good correlations with the
rheological parameters, good reproducibility, R, and repeatability, r, values and their
simplistic and universal usage (De Schutter, 2005).
Concerning the passing ability of SCC, the L-box and J-ring tests were given equal merit
(De Schutter, 2005). In addition, the author reported reasonably good R and r values. In
relation to the ability of SCC to resist segregation, the sieve stability was deemed the best,
50

mainly due to its close resemblance with onsite conditions and better statistical values, R
and r.
According to Testing-SCC (2005) some correlations were shown to exist between the
slump flow and the L-box as a highly workable concrete easily achieved a minimum L-box
ratio of 0.8. Different formwork materials and the use of surface release agents did not
exhibit significant variations in testing results. Rheologically speaking, good correlations
were shown to exist between plastic viscosity and the L-box t500j times with a correlation
coefficient (R2) of 0.78, when using the three bar arrangement (See Fig 3.16) (TestingSCC, 2005). In addition, the upright slump flow spread value showed a good correlation
with the rheological parameter of yield stress, with a correlation coefficient of 0.79.
However, the t500 tests showed a poor correlation (0.3) with plastic viscosity (See Fig
3.16). De Schutter (2008) and West (2003) stated that the t500 time is related to plastic
viscosity. However, the t500 time does not quantify this rheological parameter (De Schutter,
2008).
Fig 3. 16: Correlation between rheological parameters and empirical test methods (SF: slump flow; H2/H1:
L-box blocking; T50-L: T50 from the L-box; T50: T50 from the slump flow; FT: Orimet; t0: V-funnel)
Good correlations were shown to exist between the L-box and J-ring acceptable values, in
which the L-box minimum ratio of 0.8 corresponded to a maximum blocking step value of
10 mm (See Fig 3.17). More specifically, either the L-box or J-ring were deemed
acceptable in simulating concrete deformation within a confined reinforcement zone.
When using the J-ring severe segregation can be assessed by visual inspection;
consequently, the J-ring has the potential to assess all the physical workability
characteristics of SCC, but not its rheology (Testing-SCC, 2005).
51
Fig 3. 17: Simultaneously performed L-box and J-ring blocking tests (after Testing-SCC 2005).
3.4.5. Two point workability test

In order to characterise the flow properties of concrete, the two-point workability test
measures two data points. In principle, the concrete within the two point apparatus
(typically a rotational rheometer) is sheared between two cementitious surfaces (failure
plane), one of which is rotating by the use of an external device (impeller), where the
rotation speed or angular velocity, and torque are measured (Ferraris and Martys, 2012).
The Two-point workability apparatus was developed to evaluate the workability of
medium to high workability concretes. The concrete sample is placed in a cylindrical
container of 254 mm diameter and 305 mm high (See Fig 3.18). During testing, the
impeller must shear the concrete without giving rise to segregation and/or bleeding. For
this reason, an axial impeller with four angled blades positioned in a helical arrangement
around a central drive was deemed the most successful because the anticlockwise rotation
of the impeller combined with its helical vane arrangement raises the concrete while also
allowing concrete to fall back through the gaps (the MH system). These characteristics
minimise the effects of segregation and bleeding. In addition, an offset H impeller can be
used, which rotates in the concrete in a planetary motion (the LM system). However, the
MH system should be used for high workable concretes in excess of 100 mm slumps
(Banfill et al, 2001).
The required torque-speed relationship is obtained by the use of a half horsepower (hp)
single-phase electric motor, which rotates a drive shaft by the use of a hydraulic
transmission (Carter Gear F10). A right angle reduction gear allows the drive shaft to
52

rotate around the vertical axis while also providing a torque range of 0 16 Nm and a
variable speed range of -3.15 to 3.15 rev/s. The reason for selecting the Carter Gear F10
arrangement is because the torque produced is proportional to the pressure of the oil in the
hydraulic transmission.
Fig 3. 18: Interrupted helix Impeller rotating in concrete (after Banfill et al. 2001).
The final arrangement of the Two-point apparatus is shown in Fig 3.19. The cylindrical
bowl containing the concrete is supported by means of an adjustable arm. This allows the
concrete sample to be raised and supported during testing and lowered following the
testing regime. A speed control knob is provided, which allows the speed setting to be
adjusted, to record the relationship between speed (rev/s) and pressure (lb/in2), the resulting
pressure is recorded by reading the pressure tachometer.
Fig 3. 19: Tattersall Two-point apparatus.
53

Prior to using the Two-point workability apparatus, the gearbox and the hydraulic units
must be filled with appropriate oils, ensuring no trapped air remains in the hydraulic unit.
Removing the trapped air is done by bleeding the unit.
When initialising the apparatus, the apparatus must run for about 30 minutes to allow the
oils to reach their operating temperature, especially for the hydraulic unit, as the hydraulic
oil is used to determine the resulting pressures of the impeller as it rotates through the
shearing plane. During the warmup period, the recommended speed is approximately 0.7
rev/s. However, Wallevik and Gjorv recommended higher speeds of 3 rev/s during the
warmup period because at a warmup speed of 0.7 rev/s the idling pressure can change even
after an 80 minute warmup period.
Following the warmup period in the MH mode, the procedure is as follows.
(i)
The bowl is raised, such that there is a clearance of 60 mm between the bottom
of the bowl and the bottom of the impeller shaft.
(ii)
Fill the bowl with concrete to approximately 75 mm from the top of the bowl,
while the impeller is rotating at 0.7 rev/s.
(iii)
Increase the speed to 1.3 rev/s and allow the pressure to stabilise.
(iv)
Read the speed by tachometer.
(v)
Read the resulting average pressure, while ignoring large oscillations due to
aggregate size and aggregate trapping.
(vi)
Repeat (iv) and (v) at speeds of 1.2, 1.0, 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, and 0.3 rev/s.
(vii)
Remove the bowl and record the idling pressure at each of the speeds used in
the testing.
Expression of results
The pressures obtained by shearing the concrete at various speeds are subtracted from the
idle pressures, known as the net pressures. These net pressures are then converted to torque
and are plotted on a graph against their corresponding speeds. This allows one to calculate
the intercept and slope. It has been shown that the relationship between torque and speed
for TVC conforms to a Bingham model and therefore a linear relationship of torque to
speed describes the flow curve. However, in some cases, the relationship between torque
and speed can conform to a Hershel-Bulkley model and therefore the flow curve is
nonlinear. The equations for a linear and concave relationship are, respectively, as follows:
T = g + hN
(3. 2)
54

and
T = g + ANb
(3. 3)
where, the torque T (N/m) is a measurement of the impellers resistance to rotate in the
concrete. N (rev/s) is the impeller speed, g is the intercept with the torque axis, which is
related to yield stress and h is the reciprocal slope of the line which is related to viscosity
(Tattersall, 2003; Tattersall and Banfill, 1983; Cullen and West, 2001; Banfill, et al.,
2001). The parameters A and b depend on both the geometry of the apparatus and the
concrete, which are related to viscosity.
During the period, 2000 2001, a study was carried out in France (Banfill, et al., 2001),
which involved the comparison of five different rheometers to assess the appropriate
method of evaluating concrete workability in terms of yield stress and plastic viscosity.
Consequently, the authors concluded that a high risk of concrete slippage is associated with
the two-point test, mainly due to the lack of blades on the boundary surfaces.
3.4.6. Summary
There exists various empirical tests for evaluating the workability of SCC. In addition, the
slump flow, L-box and J-ring tests are highly recommended due to their reasonably good
correlations with the rheological parameters of yield stress and plastic viscosity, good
reproducibility, R, and repeatability, r, values and their simplistic and universal usage.
Rheological speaking, good correlation exist between yield stress and the upright slump
flow value, but a poor correlation exists between plastic viscosity and the upright slump
flow t500 time. However, the inverted slump flow test is the preferred choice in evaluating
the workability of SFRC.
55
CHAPTER 4 PARAMETRIC STUDY ON CONSTITUENT MATERIALS AND TESTS

4.1. Introduction
In order to obtain accurate results, it is important to mix and test concrete under identical
conditions throughout the course of this study. This includes using the same equipment, the
same testing procedures and the same materials. To determine the appropriate
characteristic properties of SCC, i.e., adequate passing ability, filling ability and
segregation resistance, various tests are used.
In this chapter, the constituent materials used in this study are described and discussed.
Aggregates, cement, superplasticiser and VMA were obtained from the same source and
hence all materials used in this study were the same. The fly ash and ground granulated
blast furnace slag were obtained from, respectively, Moneypoint Power station and
Ecocem. In addition, trial tests were performed on SCC and TVC in order to, respectively,
determine the correct proportions of constituent materials and assess any variability due to
experimental error. The performed tests used in this chapter and throughout this study were
the Two-point workability, J-ring, L-box and slump flow.
4.2. Coarse and fine aggregates

In this study, the aggregates used were obtained from Belgard plant of Roadstone. During
initial trials, a finer sand was used (Sand A). Rheologically speaking, sand A performed
well, mainly due to its fineness and hence its increased contribution to the overall paste
content and reduced interparticle frictional forces. However, further testing could not be
completed as sand A was in short supply. Therefore, a much coarser and highly available
sand was used (Sand B). The physical appearance of Sand A and B are illustrated in Fig
4.1 4.2).
Fig 4. 1: Sand A.
Fig 4. 2: Sand B.
56
Figure 4.3 illustrates the particle size distribution for both sand A and sand B and the
overall distribution of coarse and fine aggregates (sand B and coarse aggregates). In this
study, the particle size distribution corresponding to sand B and coarse aggregate were
used in all the mixtures undergoing both rheological and workability testing.
4.2.1. Particle size distribution of aggregates

100
PERCENTAGE PASSING %
90
80
Sand A
70
Sand B & Coarse aggregates
60
Sand B
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01
0.1
10
100
PARTICLE SIZE MM
Fig 4. 3: Particle size distribution of aggregates.
4.3. Powders
CEM II/A-L (Portland cement with 6-12 percent limestone replacement), PFA and GGBS
were used in this study. In addition, limestone powder was used as a filler, and this was
also obtained from Roadstone. The physical appearance of all the powders are illustrated in
Fig 4.4 4.7.
Fig 4. 4: CEM II/A-L.
Fig 4. 5: Limestone filler.
57
Fig 4. 6: PFA.
Fig 4. 7: GGBS.
4.3.1. Particle size distribution of powders

Laser Scattering Particle Size Analyser, the Malvern Mastersizer 2000 was used to
determine the particle size distribution of each of the powders. Fig 4.8 illustrates the
particle size distributions of all the powders used in this study. The particle size
distribution of the fly-ash (PFA) is the finest of all powders used and it is expected that
incorporating PFA for the partial replacement of CEM II will improve particle packing and
hence improve workability and consistency (segregation resistance). In addition, the GGBS
is not quite as fine as CEM II (A-L), but finer than the limestone filler.
100
90
PERCENTAGE PASSING %
80
70
60
GGBS
CEM II/A-L
Fly-ash
LS
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
PARTICLE SIZE MM
Fig 4. 8: Particle size distribution of powders.
58
0.1
4.4. Water
Ordinary mains water was used in all mixes throughout this study. It is well known that
water temperature will cause an increase or decrease in workability. However, in this
study, the effects of varying water temperatures were neglected and assumed constant.
4.5. Chemical admixtures

All admixtures used throughout this study were obtained from the Belgard plant of
Roadstone. Glenium 27, a polycarboxylate-based superplasticiser was used to produce
SCC. The normal recommended dosage rate of Glenium 27 is approximately 0.8 - 2.0
percentage weight of cementitious material. As for the viscosity modifying agent, a
RheoMATRIX 100 was used throughout; Appendix G gives the specifications for all the
admixtures. The normal recommended dosage of viscosity modifying agent is
approximately 0.8 1.5 percentage weight of cementitious material.
4.6. Fibres
The steel fibres used in this study were acquired from the UK. Figure 4.9 illustrates the
fibres used throughout this study. Furthermore, their length, diameter and aspect ratio are,
respectively, 35 mm, 0.55 mm and 65, also known as Dramix R-65/35 type fibres (refer to
Appendix G for the technical data sheet).
Fig 4. 9: Steel fibres (Dramix R-65/35).
59
4.7. Rheological study of trial mixes

In this section, trial mixes determine the variability associated with operating the two-point
apparatus. In addition, the torque-speed relationship of TVC and SCC were measured with
the two-point apparatus and experimental values of torque versus speed and hence torque
intercept and slope were obtained by applying both the Bingham and Hershel-Bulkley
models.
Table 4. 1: Quantities of constituent materials per cubic meter of concrete.

Cement
(CEM II)
Filler (LS)
Fine
aggregate
Coarse
aggregate
Water
SP
VMA
Total
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
NVC-1
NVC-2
NVC-3
SCC-4
367
367
367
450
50
571
571
571
960
1057
1057
1057
735
209
147
209
220
8.65
5.85
2204
2142
2204
2433
NVC-1b
367
571
1057
222
2217
Mixture
type
Table 4. 2: Quantities of constituent materials undergoing rheological analysis.
Cement
(CEM II)
Filler
(LS)
Fine
aggregate
Coarse
aggregate
Water
SP
VMA
Total
(Kg)
(Kg)
(Kg)
(Kg)
(Kg)
(Kg)
(Kg)
(Kg)
NVC-1
NVC-2
NVC-3
5.14
5.14
5.14
7.99
7.99
7.99
14.80
14.80
14.80
2.926
2.058
2.926
30.856
29.988
30.856
SCC-4
6.30
0.7
13.44
10.29
3.08
0.121
0.082
34.062
NVC-1b
5.14
7.99
14.80
3.108
31.038
Mixture
type
Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 represents, respectively, the constituent materials per cubic meter
of concrete and the constituent materials undergoing analysis, which corresponds to a
volume of 0.0180 m3. The only difference between Trial 1 (NVC-1) and Trial 2 (NVC-2)
is a difference in water content and hence water-cement ratio. Trial 3 (NVC-3) is similar to
Trial 1 except for an additional idle time of 80 minutes after the addition of mixing water.
The SCC mix (SCC-4) was analysed 60 minutes after the addition of mixing water. In
addition, trial mix NVC-1b underwent two-point workability testing at times
corresponding to 15, 43, 65, 87, 107 and 126 minutes after the addition of water.
60
During testing, the resulting pressures were recorded at speeds varying from 0.3 to 1.3
rev/s and these pressures were calibrated and, consequently, converted to torque by the
following equation proposed by Tattersall and Banfill (1983):
T = 0.0286P
(4. 1)
where T is the resulting torque expressed in N/m and P is the recorded pressure expressed
in lb/in2. However, it was later noted that this calibration factor incorporates a planetary
gear ratio (MK III) and since the two-point workability apparatus (MK II) does not have a
planetary gear ratio, then the conversion factor is as follows:
T = 0.0643P
(4. 2)
The initial calibration factor was used, i.e., T = 0.0286P in the following section. However,
further rheological analysis will be carried out by the appropriate calibration factor, i.e., T
= 0.0643P.
Figure 4.10 and 4.11 illustrates the torque-speed relationship for similar concretes, i.e.
comprised of identical constituent materials concerning quality and quantity. The only
difference between these two concretes undergoing two-point workability testing is the
time at which they were tested. Trial-1 was tested initially after mixing (15 min), while
Trial-3 was tested 80 minutes after the addition of mixing water.
Detailed analysis plots of different correlation coefficients (R2) for the different
relationships between torque and speed, and hence yield stress and plastic viscosity, are
presented in Fig 4.10 4.13.
In considering all the possible functional relationships for the mixes (Fig 4.10 4.13), it is
observed that the polynomial function seems to produce the best-fit correlation between
torque and speed. However, there is a considerable amount of variability associated with
recording the resisting pressures on the two-point workability apparatus. In evaluating the
resisting pressures or torques, large oscillations were encountered mainly due to the
coarse aggregates colliding with the impeller. For example, it can be stated that the
standard deviation and hence the standard error associated with recording the resisting
pressures (lb/in2) decreases with decreasing speeds (rev/s) (See Fig 4.11 and 4.13).
61
T/N chart for Trial 1-NVC, w/c 0.57
3.5
3.0
Torque (N/m)
y = 0.8511x + 1.5972
R = 0.9243
2.5
Torque (N/m)
5.6
2.0
1.5
NVC
Poly. (NVC )
1.0
R = 0.971
Linear (NVC )
0.5
0.0
T/N chart for Trial 3-NVC, 0.57 w/c, 80 min after

mixing
NVC
5.5
Linear (NVC)
5.4
Poly. (NVC)
5.3
Expon. (NVC)
R = 0.9909
R = 0.9624
Power (NVC)
R = 0.8784
5.2
5.1
5.0
4.9
Expon. (NVC )
R = 0.9518
4.8
Power (NVC )
R = 0.8647
4.7
y = 0.4834x + 4.7267
R = 0.9581
4.6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Speed (rev/s)
1.0
1.2
1.4
Fig 4. 10: Relationship between torque and speed

with respect to different functional equations for
Trial-1, 15 min after the addition of water.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Speed (rev/s)
1.2
1.4
Fig 4. 11: Relationship between torque and speed

with respect to different functional equations for
Trial-3, 80 min after the addition of water.
Based on the analysis presented in Fig 4.10 and 4.11, and by using either the Bingham or
Hershel Bulkley models it can be seen that the rheology of concrete is time-dependent. For
example, Fig 4.11 shows an increase in torque intercept and a decrease in slope when
compared with Fig 4.10, and the intercept and slope are related to, respectively, yield stress
and plastic viscosity. Then it may be observed that an increase in idle time, after the
addition of water, caused an increase in yield stress and a decrease in plastic viscosity.
Intuitively, the degree of change concerning the intercept when comparing Trial-1 to Trial3 suggests that the two-point apparatus is operating as it should. However, according to
Tattersall (1991) the plastic viscosity should increase with an increase in time after the
T/N chart for Trial 4-SCC, 60 min after mixing
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
T/N chart for Trial 2-NVC, w/c 0.4

5.0
NVC
Linear (NVC )
4.9
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
addition of mixing water.
y = 0.8582x + 0.6523
R = 0.9166
SCC
Linear (SCC )
Poly. (SCC )
R = 0.9475
R = 0.9382
Expon. (SCC )
R = 0.888
Power (SCC )
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Speed (rev/s)
1.2
Poly. (NVC )
R = 0.9932
Expon. (NVC ) R = 0.952
4.8
Power (NVC ) R = 0.8584
4.7
4.6
y = 0.2474x + 4.4234
R = 0.9491
4.5
4.4
0
1.4
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Speed (rev/s)
1.2
1.4
Fig 4. 13: Relationship between torque and

speed with respect to different functional
relationships for Trial-2, 15 min after the
addition of water.
Fig 4. 12: Relationship between torque and

speed with respect to different functional
equations.
Producing concrete consisting of different water contents and hence different water-cement
ratios has a profound effect on the torsional resistance at different speeds. According to
62
Tattersall (2001), adding more water causes a reduction in both yield and plastic viscosity.
Fig 4.10 (Trial-1) shows a decrease in torque intercept and an increase in slope when
compared to Fig 4.13 (Trial-2). This comparison suggests that increasing the water-cement
ratio causes a reduction in pressure and hence torque, while it also causes an increase in
slope. Based on this analysis, increasing the water-cement ratio reduced the dynamic yield
stress and increases the plastic viscosity. Intuitively, this analysis suggests that the twopoint apparatus is not functioning as normal, as the slope should decrease with an increase
in water content. However, the standard deviation associated with the encountered
variability in recording the resulting pressures is considered large (See Fig 4.11 and 4.13).
During two-point testing, it was clearly seen that a high degree of slippage occurred within
the interface between the concrete sample and the bowl. In addition, a high degree of
slippage was noted at high speeds relative to low speeds. Therefore, the slippage associated
with high speeds and hence high rates of shear causes a decrease in slope and, therefore an
increase in plastic viscosity. It is very likely that this slippage will also influence the
intercept on the torque axis and, consequently, the yield value. In addition, a high degree of
slippage was noted at a speed corresponding to 1.3 rev/s, which diminished to zero
slippage at a speed corresponding to approximately 0.5 rev/s.
The standard deviations associated with the encountered variability in recorded pressures
while testing mixture Trial-4, the SCC mix (See Fig 4.12) is considered low when
compared to the traditional concretes (See Fig 4.11 and 4.13), because a self-compacting
mixture has a lower coarse aggregate content and a higher paste content. Intuitively, these
differences in constituent materials (coarse aggregates and paste) result in reduced
oscillations due to a reduction in coarse aggregates and an increase in viscosity. In
addition, the torque-speed relationship for the SCC mixture (Trial-4 SCC) behaved like a
pseudoplastic material, i.e., exhibited shear thinning behaviour. However, immediately
after testing a high degree of segregation was noted as a considerable proportion of the
coarse aggregates had settled to the bottom of the bowl.
Based on the above analysis, it was necessary to develop a nonlinear model to represent the
torque-speed relationship of concrete. Therefore, the Hershel-Bulkley model was used to
represent the relationship between torque and speed.
Fig 4.14 illustrates the relationship between torque and speed for four concrete samples
undergoing two-point workability analysis. The A and b parameters shown in Fig 4.14
represents the fitted Hershel-Bulkley parameters for each concrete mixture.
63
TWT Apparatus and Concrete Parameters (A & b), Hershel

Bulkley
NVC-1, w/c
6.0
0.57
A = 0.27597 & b = 2.5837
Torque (N/m)
5.0
NVC-2, w/c 0.4
A = 0.12397 & b =2.62
4.0
3.0
A = 0.43014 & b = 2.78585
NVC-3, w/c
0.57, 80 min
after mixing
2.0
1.0
A = 1.144 & b = 0.752
SCC-4, 60 min
after mixing
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Speed (rev/s)
Fig 4. 14: Hershel-Bulkley relationship between torque and speed for NVC-1 to NVC-3 and SCC-4.
As mentioned within the literature, the relationship of shear stress to shear strain rate for a
shear thickening material is concave towards the shear stress axis. This nonlinear
relationship suggests that the apparent viscosity decreases with increasing shear strain rates
until a certain shear rate is reached, shearing beyond this shear rate causes an increase in
apparent viscosity. Fig 4.15 illustrates apparent viscosity as a function of shear rate for the
concretes undergoing analysis. In order to illustrate the influence of shear thickening
and/or shear thinning on the apparent viscosity, it is was necessary to predict the
relationship of shear stress to shear strain rate by the use of the calculated Hershel-Bulkley
rheological parameters K and n. Predicting this relationship seems to be the best approach
as increasing the speed beyond 1.3 rev/s and, therefore increasing the shear strain rate in
the two-point apparatus will cause particle migration and segregation. From Fig. 4.15 it can
be clearly seen that the apparent viscosity increases with increasing shear rates for NVC-1,
which suggests shear thickening behaviour.
Apparent viscosity
350
300
NVC-1, w/c 0.57
250
NVC-2, w/c 0.4
200
NVC-3, w/c 0.57, 80 min after mixing
150
SCC-4, 60 min after mixing
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Shear rate
35
40
45
50
Fig 4. 15: Apparent viscosity as a function of shear strain rate.
64
55
Previous research has indicated that shear thickening is most probably caused by cluster
formation. The phenomenon of cluster formation occurs when under increasing rates of
shear strain, the fine particles join and form clusters, which leads to an increase in apparent
viscosity, and hence shear thickening. This suggests that increasing the volume fraction of
fine material. i.e., sands and powders, consequently, increases the intensity of shear
thickening.
Based on the above analysis, and due to excessively large variations in recording the
resulting pressures, it was deemed necessary to perform further rheological tests on a
traditional concrete sample in an attempt to more accurately determine the resulting
pressures due to large oscillations. Accurately recording the resulting pressure is highly
user dependent. However, the error in recording the resulting pressures can be significantly
reduced by ignoring the oscillations and homing in on the resulting pressure by using the
pressure control valve. The following torque-speed relationships (See Fig 4.16 4.21)
were determined for NVC-Trial 1b for idle times corresponding to 15, 43, 65, 87, 107 and
126 minutes after the addition of mixing water. In addition, detailed analysis plots of
different correlation coefficients (R2) for the different relationships between torque and
speed are presented and the encountered variation, standard deviation, due to recording the
pressure, is presented in the form of error bars. Also Fig 4.16 4.21 shows the torque
intercepts for different torque-speed functional relationships and the equations
corresponding to the straight-line relationship of the Bingham model are also shown. It is
important to recognise that a certain amount of error is associated with the obtained g and h
parameters. For example, Tattersall (2001) states that if the number of experimental points
of torque versus speed is seven, and the correlation coefficient is 0.98; and the rheological
parameter h is 1.49, then the experimental error for g and h is 0.2. Intuitively, if the
correlation coefficient is less than 0.98 and/or the parameter h is greater than 1.49, then the
experimental error for g and h is greater than 0.2.
The mix design for NVC-Trial 1b is presented in Table 4.1 and 4.2 with a water-cement
ratio corresponding to 0.61.
65
NVC-Trial 1b, 15 min after mixing

3.5
3.5
y = 1.3372x + 1.3805
R = 0.885
2.5
2.0
NVC-1b
1.5
Linear (NVC-1b)
1.0
Poly. (NVC-1b)
R = 0.9576
Expon. (NVC-1b) R = 0.9079
0.5
y = 0.7669x + 1.8061
R = 0.9363
3.0
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
3.0
Power (NVC-1b)
0.0
2.5
2.0
NVC-2b
1.5
Linear (NVC-2b)
1.0
Poly. (NVC-2b)
0.5
R = 0.7934
Expon. (NVC-2b)
R = 0.9554
R = 0.9534
Power (NVC-2b)
R = 0.8966
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Speed (rev/s)
1.2
1.4
Fig 4. 16: Relationship of torque and speed for

different functional equations.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Speed (rev/s)
1.2
1.4

.
3.5
y = 0.6844x + 2.1616
R = 0.9615
3.0
y = 0.7714x + 2.3171
R = 0.8992
3.5
3.0
2.5
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)

4.0
2.0
NVC-3b
1.5
Linear (NVC-3b)
1.0
Poly. (NVC-3b)
R = 0.9846
Power (NVC-3b)
R = 0.8828
Expon. (NVC-3b)
R = 0.9702
0.5
2.5
2.0
NVC-4b
1.5
Linear (NVC-4b)
1.0
0.5
0.0
R = 0.9711
Power (NVC-4b)
R = 0.8036
Expon. (NVC-4b)
R = 0.922
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Speed (rev/s)
1.2
1.4

0.4
0.6
0.8
Speed (rev/s)
1.2
1.4

4.5
y = 0.633x + 2.83
R = 0.89
4.0
0.2


4.5
y = 0.5309x + 2.9897
R = 0.7826
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
2.5
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
Poly. (NVC-4b)
NVC-5b
2.0
Linear (NVC-5b)
1.5
Poly. (NVC-5b)
1.0
0.5
R = 0.9725
Power (NVC-5b)
R = 0.7849
Expon. (NVC-5b)
R = 0.9056
0.0
3.0
2.5
NVC-6b
2.0
Linear (NVC-6b)
1.5
Poly. (NVC-6b)
R = 0.8975
1.0
Power (NVC-6b)
R = 0.6454
0.5
Expon. (NVC-6b)
R = 0.7883
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Speed (rev/s)
1.2
1.4

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Speed (rev/s)
1.2
1.4

In considering all the possible functional relationships for TVC (See Fig 4.16 4.21), it is
observed that the polynomial function seems to produce the best-fit correlation between
torque and speed with correlation coefficients (R2) ranging from 0.89 0.96. Furthermore,
these correlation coefficients suggest an error in the fundamental values of g and h of
66
between 0.14 and 0.13. In addition, the standard deviations are considered low as can
be seen from figures 4.16 4.21, which are presented in Fig 4.16 4.21 in the form of
error bars.
Based on the above analysis (See Fig 4.16 4.21), the intercept and slope of the straightline relationship. i.e., the Bingham model for the illustrated graphs suggests that the idle
time has a profound effect on the resulting torque. For example, an increasing in idle time
after the addition of water, consequently, increases the torque intercept. Intuitively, this
suggests that an increasing idle time causes an increase in yield stress, which is to be
expected. Also in Fig 4.16 4.21, it may be observed that the slope remains somewhat
constant except for Trial-1b, 15 min (See Fig 4.16). The occurrence of a constant slope
could be due to the high water-cement ratio (0.61). Furthermore, one can state that the
two-point apparatus is functioning as it should. In addition, the difference in slope
between NVC-Trial 1b, 15 min and its subsequent test is considered large (1.337
0.7669), the reason for this will be discussed shortly.
The Hershel-Bulkley model was fitted to the experimental curves of torque versus angular
velocity. This model fits the curves quite well and the rheological parameters A and b
were determined as illustrated in Fig. 4.22.
TWT apparatus and concrete parameters (A & b), Hershel Bulkley model
5.0
NVC-Trial 1b, 15 min after mixing A = 0.5, b = 1.6
Torque (N/m)
4.5
A = 0.4, b = 1.7
A = 0.3, b = 3.3
4.0

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Speed (rev/s)
Fig 4. 22: Fitted Hershel-Bulkley relationships of torque to speed for Trial-1b, 15 127 min after the
addition of water.
As illustrated in Fig 4.22, the slope of the torque-speed relationship for NVC-Trial 1b, 15
min, which corresponds to an idle time of 15 minutes after the addition of mixing water is
significantly larger than the preceding test (NVC-Trial 1b, 43 min). The reason for this
67
may have been due to a mistake on the authors behalf as the concrete sample within the
two-point workability bowl corresponding to NVC-Trial 1b, 15 min had a clearance of
approximately 40 mm and not the recommended 75 mm. Consequently, the 75 mm
clearance level was marked for further tests.
4.8. Proposed mix design, mixes and testing procedure

Based on the results within the previous section, it was necessary to design a selfcompacting concrete with a high degree of segregation resistance. As previously
mentioned, a high degree of segregation was encountered in SCC-4. This following
section is aimed at designing a self-compacting concrete that conforms to the criteria set
out in EFNARC. In addition, the mixing sequence and the adopted workability tests will
be discussed.
An SCC mix from an external source was acquired, and is presented below in Table 4.3.
Table 4. 3: SCC mix design received in confidence.
Mixture
type
SCC
Cement
(CEM
II/A-L)
(kg/m3)
270
GGBS
Filler
(LS)
Fine
aggregate
Coarse
aggregate
Water
SP
VMA
Total
(kg/m3)
180
(kg/m3)
50
(kg/m3)
960
(kg/m3)
735
(kg/m3)
195
(kg/m3)
4.25
(kg/m3)
3.74
(kg/m3)
2398
In order to determine the appropriate mix design quantities for a SFRSCC mixture
containing zero GGBS and, consequently, a 100% CEM II/A-L content, it was necessary
to perform a vector analysis. Fig. 4.23 illustrates the influence of GGBS for the partial
replacement of cement on the rheological parameters of yield stress and plastic viscosity.
In order to design a SCC mixture without GGBS, and with the same yield and plastic
viscosity as a concrete with GGBS, it is necessary to increase the dosage of both the
superplasticiser and viscosity modifying admixtures (See Fig 4.23). Furthermore, the
particle size of the GGBS will influence the dosage rate of the superplasticiser and
stabilising admixtures. Nevertheless, the inclusion of GGBS for the partial replacement of
cement will reduce the yield value and increase the plastic viscosity.
68

1.2
REF
Yield stress
0.8
SP
0.6
GGBS
0.4
VMA
0.2
0
0
4
6
8
Plastic viscosity
Fig 4. 23: Vector analysis of the influence of GGBS on yield stress and plastic viscosity.
4.8.1. Mixing sequence and mixer

40% Water
50% Water
10 s
Coarse
Fine
Aggregates
Aggregate +
60 s
Superplasti-
10% Water
20 s
ciser
Viscosity
Modifying
Powders
Agent
10 minutes rest
Test
20 s
120 sec mix
The above mixing sequence was used throughout the trial SCC mixtures, and all the tests
throughout this study. Adding 40% of the water to the coarse aggregates minimised the
dust produced during mixing the fine aggregates and powders. In addition, it is important
to recognise that the fine particles, in particular, the powders and the percentage of fine
aggregates which passes the 125 m sieve must be sufficiently saturated before adding the
superplasticiser. From the above mixing sequence, it can be seen that the total mixing time
after the addition of water and cementitious materials corresponds to 230 seconds, with an
additional 10-minute relation time.
As mentioned within the literature, a force-action mixer is the preferred mixer for
producing SCC mainly because of its increased rate of shearing. However, the free-fall
mixer was used throughout this study. Furthermore, the dosage of superplasticiser has to
69
increased when using the free-fall mixer compared with the force-action mixer, mainly
because of the reduced shearing effect of the free-fall mixer
Fig 4. 24: Free-fall mixer.
Fig 4. 25: Force-action mixer.
Prior to commencing mixing, the inside of the free-fall mixing drum was washed out with
water. This cleaned out any particles, and more importantly wetted the mixing drum. This
procedure was carried out throughout this study. In addition, during the final mixing stage
the tilt of free-fall mixer was slightly reduced to promote the shearing effect.
4.8.2. Testing methods

In order to evaluate the rheological and workability properties of SCC, various tests were
used. In this section, the selected test methods are briefly discussed and illustrated.
75 mm clearance
Speed
Pressure
display
gauge
Speed
Pressure
control
control valve
Rack and
pinion
Fig 4. 27: TWT bowl.
Fig 4. 26: TWT apparatus (MK II).
70
Sliding gate
Vertical
30 mm spacing
channel
Horizontal
channel
Fig 4. 28: L-box test.
Fig 4. 29: L-box rebar arrangement.
700 mm
700 mm
circle
circle
500 mm
Inverted
circle
slump cone
Inverted
500 mm
slump cone
circle
Fig 4. 31: J-ring test.
Fig 4. 30: Slump flow test.
Fig 4.26 4.31 illustrates the various tests methods for testing both the rheological and
empirical parameters of steel fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete (SFRSCC). As
mentioned within the literature, the inverted slump cone method was the preferred choice,
and all the tests throughout the course of this study were performed in this manner (See
Fig 4.30 4.31).
71
4.8.3. Trial SCC mixes

In order to design SFRSCC, it was necessary to conduct trial SCC mixes. Intuitively,
incorporating steel fibres in SCC causes a reduction in both filling and passing abilities.
Therefore, a relatively high passing and filling ability was required in order to assess the
feasible use of steel fibres (SF) in SCC with regards to the maximum acceptable criteria
for filling and passing abilities as set out by EFNARC.
Table 4. 4: Initial SCC mix design.
Mixture
type
SCC-4
Cement
(CEM
II/A-L)
(kg/m3)
450
Filler
(LS)
Fine
aggregate
Coarse
aggregate
Water
SP
VMA
Total
(kg/m3)
50
(kg/m3)
960
(kg/m3)
735
(kg/m3)
215.5
(kg/m3)
8.65
(kg/m3)
6.85
(kg/m3)
2429
Table 4.4 summarises the initial constituents undergoing rheological and workability
analysis. The dosage of SP and VMA are, respectively, at 1.92 and 1.5 percentage weight
of cementitious material, and are within the maximum dosages of 2.5% and 1.5% of
cementitious material for SP and VMA, respectively. During testing, however, it was
found that the mix design was incapable of meeting the minimum acceptable criteria
because the sand did not possess a sufficient amount of fine material. Furthermore, the
dosage of VMA used was at a near maximum dosage of 1.4 percentage weight of
cementitious material. Therefore, it was necessary to increase the paste content in order to
provide a sufficient amount of fine material. Also, the coarse aggregate content was
reduced, because the sand was slightly coarse. This was done by increasing the cement
content to 580 kg per cubic meter, decreasing the coarse aggregate content to 630 kg per
cubic meter and increasing the fine aggregate content to 1020 kg per cubic meter. Table
4.5 presents the new mix design.
Table 4. 5: New mix design.
Mixture
type
SCC-4B
Cement
(CEM
II/A-L)
Filler
(LS)
Fine
aggregate
Coarse
aggregate
Water
SP
VMA
Total
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
580
20
1020
630
215.5
8.65
6.85
2429
Table 4.6 represents the initial trial mix (SCC-4B) and subsequent trial mixes (SCC-4B to
SCC-4E) with respect to the dosage of admixtures, water-cement ratio and the obtained
72
empirical values. Achieving the required blocking step value of between 5 mm and 10 mm
presented some minor issues. Therefore, it was decided to increase both the dosage of
VMA and SP in order to, respectively, provide an increase in stability and deformation
capacity. The dosage of SP and VMA are, respectively, at 2.2 and 1.34 percentage weight
of cementitious material, both within the maximum recommended.
Table 4. 6: Evolution of mix design with an increase in both SP and VMA.
Mixture
type
SCC-4B
SCC-4C
SCC-4D
SCC-4E
VMA
SP
(Kg/m3)
(Kg/m3)
6.85
6.85
6.85
7.8
8.65
9.85
10.5
12.5
w/c
0.371
0.371
0.371
0.371
Slump flow
Spread
(mm)
650
690
730
700
t500
(sec)
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.1
L-box
ratio
0.65
0.74
0.75
0.94
Spread
J-ring
Blocking
step
t500
(mm)
(mm)
(sec)
590
620
680
700
17
14
12
7.25
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.1
Trial mix SCC-4E performed well concerning its filling and passing abilities for all the
tests, while also possessing an adequate resistance against segregation (See Table 4.6 and
Fig 4.32 4.33).
From these observations, as shown in Fig 4.32 and 4.33, SCC-4E is considered highly
stable.
Fig 4. 32: SCC-4E flow spread.
Fig 4. 33: L-box test for SCC-4E.
73
4.8.4. Summary
This chapter has presented information on the constituent materials used in this study. In
addition, the physical appearance and particle size distributions of both the powders and
aggregates are presented.
Trial mixes were used to determine the variability associated with TWT. Also, various
functional torque-speed relationships are presented with their associated correlation
coefficients (R2). It may be observed that the polynomial function seems to best describe
the torque-speed relationship.
The proposed mix design is presented along with the selected rheological and empirical
tests, i.e., TWT, slump flow, L-box and J-ring. During the mix design for SFRSCC it was
necessary to increase the paste and the fine aggregate content and decrease the coarse
aggregate content. This was done because the sand used in this study was somewhat
coarse. Therefore, the paste content was increased to 580 kg/m3; the fine aggregate was
increases to 1020 kg/m3 and the coarse aggregate was reduced to 630 kg/m3. In doing so,
and by increasing the dosage of SP and VMA content, a sufficient mix design was
acquired.
During TWT, it was noted that a high degree of slippage occurred in the interface between
the concrete and TWT bowl, especially at high speeds, such as 1.3 rev/s.
When using the TWT apparatus to determine the torque-speed relationship of SCC, the
encountered pressure variations are considered low when compared to traditional concrete,
because SCC has a lower coarse aggregate content and a higher past content.
Consequently, these constituent requirements minimise the colliding effect of the coarse
aggregates on the impeller.
74
CHAPTER 5 RHEOLOGICAL STUDY ON SFRSCC WITH PFA AND GGBS
CHAPTER 5 - RHEOLOGICAL STUDY ON SFRSCC WITH PFA AND GGBS.
5.1. Introduction
In this chapter, the influence of GGBS and PFA on both the rheological and the
workability parameters of SFRSCC are determined. The rheological parameters were
determined by using the Tattersall two-point workability apparatus, while the workability
parameters were assessed by various workability tests, as mentioned in the previous
chapter.
The rheological parameters g and h were determined by plotting the obtained torque-speed
relationships for twenty-one mixes undergoing rheological testing. It is important to
recognise that the parameters g and h are, respectively, used to determine the yield value
and plastic viscosity of SCC. Therefore, this study is aimed at determining these
parameters. The workability aspects were evaluated by empirical tests, i.e., slump flow, Lbox and the J-ring tests. It is well known that the slump flow spread value for SCC is
inversely related to the yield value and the t 500 time is related to the plastic viscosity.
During idle times, the rheology and workability of SCC changes, because SCC is highly
thixotropic, and even more so with the addition of steel fibres. Also, an increase in time
after the addition of water, ultimately, influences concrete rheology and concrete
workability. Therefore, the various mixes throughout this study are evaluated concerning
the evolution of time after the addition of mixing water as well as establishing any
possible relationships between the individual empirical test results and the rheological
parameters for SFRSCC with and without 50% GGBS and 30% PFA cement
replacements.
5.2. Testing sequence

The sequence of tests involved testing the various mixes at different idle times. Initially,
and following the mixing process, the rheological aspects were evaluated by the Tattersall
two-point workability apparatus. Immediately after two-point testing, the concrete
mixtures were tested by using the slump flow, L-box and J-ring tests. In order to evaluate
the effects of time on both the fundamental and empirical parameters; this sequence was
carried out three time. Table 5.1 summarises the twelve tests performed on each individual
sample. After each test, the concrete sample was remixed with the remaining concrete in
the free-fall mixer for approximately 15 - 20 seconds. This was done to try to eliminate the
75
effects of segregation caused by the MK II apparatus and to promote an even distribution

of steel fibres throughout all the tests.
Table 5. 1: SCC-Testing regime.
Test No
1
2
3
4
Test type
TWT-Testing
Slump-flow
L-box
J-ring
Test No
5
6
7
8
Test type
TWT-Testing
Slump-flow
L-box
J-ring
Test No
9
10
11
12
Test type
TWT-Testing
Slump-flow
L-box
J-ring
5.3. Experimental program on SFRSCC with GGBS and PFA

The experimental program on SFRSCC with GGBS and PFA consisted of three selfcompacting reference mixtures with different cementitious compositions, i.e., 100% CEM
II/A-L, 30% PFA CEM II/A-L replacement and 50% GGBS CEM II/A-L replacement.
Various equivalent volumetric proportions of steel fibres were incorporated into each
reference mix, i.e., 5 to 30 kg per cubic meter (See Table 5.2). The constituent materials
were quantified in similar proportions throughout the course of this experimental program.
The constituent materials used in this study were discussed in the previous chapter. Table
5.2 summarises the mix design for SCC-1 to SCC-21. Appendix A presents the mix design
for SCC-1 to SCC-21.
Table 5. 2: Experimental mix design for SCC-1 to SCC-21.
Mixture
type
SCC-1
SCC-2
SCC-3
SCC-4
SCC-5
SCC-6
SCC-7
SCC-8
SCC-9
SCC-10
SCC-11
SCC-12
SCC-13
SCC-14
SCC-15
SCC-16
SCC-17
SCC-18
SCC-19
SCC-20
SCC-21
Cement
(CEM
II)
(Kg)
10.85
10.85
10.85
10.85
10.85
10.85
10.85
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
5.43
5.43
5.43
5.43
5.43
5.43
5.43
PFA
GGBS
Filler
(LS)
Sand
10
mm
Water
SP
VMA
SF
Total
(Kg)
3.255
3.255
3.255
3.255
3.255
3.255
3.255
-
(Kg)
5.425
5.425
5.425
5.425
5.425
5.425
5.425
(Kg)
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
0.374
(Kg)
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
19.07
(Kg)
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
11.78
(Kg)
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.03
(Kg)
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
0.234
(Kg)
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
0.146
(Kg)
0
0.094
0.188
0.282
0.376
0.470
0.564
0
0.094
0.188
0.282
0.376
0.470
0.564
0
0.094
0.188
0.282
0.376
0.470
0.564
(Kg)
46.49
51.49
56.49
61.49
66.49
71.49
76.49
46.49
51.49
56.49
61.49
66.49
71.49
76.49
46.49
51.49
56.49
61.49
66.49
71.49
76.49
76
5.3.1. Rheological analysis of SFRSCC with PFA and GGBS

In this following section, the rheological parameters obtained from two-point testing are
analysed and discussed. The results obtained from both the rheological and workability
analysis for the SCC-1 to SCC-21 can be found in Appendix B. In considering all the
possible time evolution functional relationships for SCC-1 to SCC-21, it may be observed
that the polynomial function seems to produce the best-fit correlation between torque and
speed. An example of a set of fits is given in Fig 5.1; Appendix C gives the full results of
the fits. In addition, Fig 5.1 illustrates the time evolution relationship of torque versus
speed for SCC-1. For example, the time evolution torque-speed relationship for SCC-1, 45
min corresponds to two-point testing time of 45 minutes after the addition of water (See
Fig 5.1).
Fig 5.1 illustrates the fitted Hershel-Bulkley models for the time evolution of SCC-1, i.e.,
the fitted models for SCC-1 corresponding to two-point testing times of 15, 45 and 75
minutes after the addition of water. The model fits the curves quite well and the
rheological parameters A and b were determined as summarised in Table 5.3; Appendix
C.4 gives the full results of the obtained rheological parameters.
SCC-1, 15 min
SCC-1, 45 min
SCC-1, 75 min
Hershel-Bulkley, 15 min
Poly. (SCC-1, 15 min) R = 0.998
Poly. (SCC-1, 45 min) R = 0.9958
Poly. (SCC-1, 75 min) R = 0.9645
Linear (Hershel-Bulkley, 15 min) y = 2.9442x + 1.12
7
6
Torque (N/m)
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Speed (rev/s)
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
Fig 5. 1: Time evolution relationship of torque versus speed for SCC-1.
The correlation coefficients (R2) are shown in Fig 5.1 for the different testing times after
the addition of mixing water. For example, a correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.998 was
obtained for SCC-1, 15 min after the addition of mixing water. The slope values presented
in Fig 5.1 were calculated by a linear approximation of the Hershel-Bulkley model, and
77
are represented by the black dashed lines. Also, the equations of these linear dashed
torque-speed relationships are shown alongside their individual Hershel-Bulkley linear
approximations. Therefore, the slopes and intercepts and hence the h and g parameters can
be seen. In addition, the coloured asterix symbols (SCC-1, 15, 45 and 75) represents the
obtained torques during two-point testing.
8
Torque (N/m)
7
6
SCC-1, 15 min
SCC-2, 15 min
SCC-3, 15 min
SCC-4, 15 min
SCC-5, 15 min
SCC-6, 15 min
SCC-7, 15 min
SCC-8, 15 min
SCC-9, 15 min
SCC-10, 15 min
SCC-11, 15 min
SCC-12, 15 min
SCC-13, 15 min
SCC-14, 15 min
0 kg/m3 SF
5 kg/m3 SF
10 kg/m3 SF
15 kg/m3 SF
20 kg/m3 SF
25 kg/m3 SF
30 kg/m3 SF
7
6
Torque (N/m)
10
0 kg/m3 SF
5 kg/m3 SF
10 kg/m3 SF
15 kg/m3 SF
20 kg/m3 SF
25 kg/m3 SF
30 kg/m3 SF
3
2
SFRSCC
SFRSCC with PFA
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Speed (rev/s)
Fig 5. 2: Comparison of the torque-speed

relationship for the fitted Hershel-Bulkley model
for SCC-1 to SCC-7, 15 min after the addition of
water.
12
SCC-15, 15 min
SCC-16, 15 min
SCC-17, 15 min
SCC-18, 15 min
SCC-19, 15 min
SCC-20, 15 min
SCC-21, 15 min
Torque (N/m)
10
8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Speed (rev/s)
Fig 5. 3: Comparison of the torque-speed

relationship for the fitted Hershel-Bulkley model
for SCC-8 to SCC-13, 15 min after the addition
of water.
0 kg/m3 SF
5 kg/m3 SF
10 kg/m3 SF
15 kg/m3 SF
20 kg/m3 SF
25 kg/m3 SF
30 kg/m3 SF
6
4
SFRSCC with GGBS

2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Speed (rev/s)
Fig 5. 4: Comparison of the torque-speed relationship for the fitted Hershel-Bulkley model for SCC-14 to
SCC-21, 15 min after the addition of water.
Fig 5.2 5.4 illustrates the fitted Hershel-Bulkley relationships of torque to speed for
SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 min after the addition of water. In most cases, the rheological
parameters g and h are increasing with an increase in steel fibre content. Also, this can be
seen in Table 5.3. The HershelBulkley parameters (A and b) presented in Table 5.3 were
determined by plotting ln (T T0) versus ln N. The constant A is determined by the
intercept on the y-axis (ln T T0 axis) and b is the slope of the straight-line relationship. In
78
addition, the yield parameters (g) obtained for the SFRSCC with PFA are lower when
compared with the other two self-compacting mixtures. This suggests that the use of PFA
(30% PFA used in this study) for the partial replacement of cement reduces the yield value
when compared with SFRSCC with and without 50% GGBS. Also, the results suggest that
the rheological parameter h increases when using PFA for 30% replacement of cement.
SFRSCC with GGBS
SFRSCC with PFA
SFRSCC
Table 5. 3: Summarised rheological parameters for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 min after addition of water.
SCC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
min
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
g
0.80
0.89
1.06
1.37
1.43
1.71
1.75
0.55
0.74
0.78
0.89
1.10
1.10
1.32
0.74
0.94
1.14
1.32
1.21
1.32
1.15
h
2.503
2.690
3.049
3.866
3.065
4.527
4.848
3.550
3.954
3.984
4.147
4.066
4.688
3.859
5.222
5.808
5.753
6.265
6.446
6.093
5.302
A
2.466
2.670
2.996
3.757
2.922
4.471
4.720
3.550
3.950
4.000
4.150
4.038
4.650
3.800
5.200
5.800
5.700
6.200
6.430
6.000
4.935
b
1.40
1.20
1.45
1.60
1.60
1.35
1.56
1.00
1.04
0.90
0.96
1.22
1.25
1.40
1.15
1.06
1.20
1.30
1.08
1.40
1.65
As summarised in Table 5.3, and in most cases, the rheological parameter b increases with
an increasing in fibre content for all the self-compacting mixtures (i.e. SFRSCC with and
without GGBS and PFA cement placements), 15 min after the addition of water. This
suggests that an increase in fibre content causes an increase in shear thickening behaviour
and/or an increase in thixotropy. However, it was noted, during two-point testing that an
increase in segregation was encountered with an increase in fibre content. Therefore, it is
likely that the fibres combined with the geometry of the vane are disturbing the mix and,
consequently, giving rise to segregation. However, for the SFRSCC mixture with 30%
PFA cement replacement, the rheological parameter b remains somewhat constant up to an
equivalent fibre content of 20 kg per cubic meter. Increasing the equivalent steel fibre
content beyond 20 kg per cubic meter causes an increase in shear thickening behaviour,
79
i.e., increasing nonlinear behaviour. Therefore, this suggests that the use of PFA reduces
the yield parameter g, which influences the degree of shear thickening with an increase in
steel fibre content. For example, the obtained parameter indicative of yield (g) for the
SFRSCC mixture with 30% PFA cement replacement is somewhat lower than other
concrete mixtures (See Table 5.3).
7
Rheological parameter, h
Rheological parameter, g
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
SFRSCC
0.6
SFRSCC with PFA
0.4
SFRSCC with GGBS
0.2
6
5
4
3
SFRSCC
SFRSCC with PFA
SFRSCC with GGBS
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
Steel fibre content (kg/m3)
Fig 5. 6: Effect of PFA and GGBS replacement

on the fundamental parameter, h.
Fig 5. 5: Effect of PFA and GGBS replacement

on the fundamental parameter, g.
From Fig 5.5 5.6, it can be seen that the use of 50% GGBS increases both the parameters
g and h when compared to 30% PFA replacement of cement. In addition, when comparing
the SFRSCC mixture with the mixtures containing 30% PFA and 50% GGBS cement
replacements, it can be seen that the use of these replacements causes an overall reduction
in yield value (g) and an increase in plastic viscosity (h).
During the two-point operation, it was later found that the idle pressure changes with time.
For example, the rheological parameters associated with SCC-1 were determined at times
corresponding to 15, 45 and 75 minutes after the addition of water. During this testing
regime, the idle pressures were recorded immediately after each test. However, when
testing SCC-2 to SCC-7 the idle pressures were not recorded after each test - instead they
were recorded after the initial test. i.e., the test corresponding to 15 minutes after the
addition of mixing water. In all cases, it was found that the idle pressure reduces with
time, especially at speeds ranging from 0.5 to 1.3 rev/s. Therefore, the obtained torquespeed relationships associated with the rheological tests for SCC-2 to SCC-7 beyond 15
min after the addition of water are most likely incorrect due to changing idle pressures.
Intuitively, this means that both the torque intercept and the slope are, respectively,
overestimated and underestimated. Therefore, the tests carried out beyond 15 min after the
addition of water cannot be used to determine the correlation between the empirical values
and the rheological parameters. Nevertheless, the idle pressures corresponding to 15
80
minutes after mixing were recorded and, therefore can be used to determine, if indeed, a
correlation exists.
Based on the above analysis, the torque intercept and slope and, therefore the yield value
and plastic viscosity increases with an increase in fibre content. However, the cube
strength of SCC-5, which has a lower viscosity when compared to SCC-4, was slightly
less than the encountered cube strengths of SCC-1 to SCC-7 (See appendix D). The reason
for this is most likely due to an error in batching.
4.8
h = 1.9389g2 - 2.7644xg+ 3.6014

R = 0.8552
8
6
SCC-4
SCC-7
SCC-2
SCC-6
3
2
SCC-5
SCC-3
SCC-1
SCC-11
4.6
h = 2.9232e0.3863g
R = 0.8413
4.4
4.2
SCC-13
SCC-12
SCC-14
4
SCC-10
3.8
SCC-9
3.6
SCC-8
3.4
3.2
3
0
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.4
2.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Fig 5. 8: Correlation between g and h for SCC-8

to SCC-13, 15 min after addition of water.
Fig 5. 7: Correlation between g and h for SCC-1

to SCC-7, 15 min after addition of water.
7
y = 4.3618e0.2723x
R = 0.708
6.5
SCC-18
SCC-19
SCC-16
SCC-20
5.5
SCC-17
SCC-15
SCC-21
4.5
4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Fig 5. 9: Correlation between g and h for SCC-8 to SCC-13, 15 min after addition of water.
Fig 5.7 5.9 illustrates the obtained correlation coefficients for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 min
after the addition of water. As shown in Fig 5.7, a second order polynomial function
seems to yield the best-fit correlation between the rheological parameters g and h, with a
best-fit correlation, R2, of 0.85. It is the authors opinion that the obtained rheological
parameters (g and h) associated with SCC-7 are most likely underestimated, because
81
during testing a significant degree of segregation was encountered. Nevertheless, the

results for SCC-7 were included in this analysis. From Fig 5.8 5.9, an exponential
function seems to yield the best fit correlation between g and h for SCC-8 to SCC-13, and
SCC-15 to SCC-20 with best fit correlations of, respectively, 0.84 and 0.71. Also, the
torque-speed relationships and hence the obtained parameters g and h for SCC-14 and
SCC-21 were not included in this analysis, as the obtained torque-speed relationship for
these data points possessed a significant degree of nonlinearity, which is an indication of
segregation. Furthermore, during rheological testing a high degree of segregation was
encountered (i.e., there was a significant amount of coarse aggregates and steel fibres
stuck to the bottom of the mixing bowl) in SCC-14 and SCC-21, 15 min after the addition
of water. Furthermore, the flow index parameter b for SCC-14 and SCC-21 is considered
large, especially for SCC-21. For clarity, the data is not shown (but can be seen in
Appendix C4.1). It may be observed (Fig 5.7 5.9) that an increase in fibre content causes
an increase in g and h and, therefore an increase in, respectively, yield stress and plastic
viscosity. In addition, it may be observed (Fig 5.7 5.9) that the rheological parameter h
increases at a slightly larger rate than the rheological parameter g, with an increasing steel
fibre content.
5.3.2. Empirical tests

This section is aimed at illustrating the results obtained using the empirical test methods,
i.e., Slump flow, L-box and J-ring. Fig 5.10 5.12 illustrates the quantitative empirical
relationships for the obtained slump flow, and J-ring flow values versus the various SCC
mixtures, i.e., SCC-1 to SCC-21. For example, SCC-3, which possesses the equivalent of
10 kg of steel fibres per cubic meter, has a slump flow and J-ring flow of, respectively,
670 and 660 mm. Also from Fig 5.10 5.12, it can be seen that both the slump spread and
the J-ring spread measured values decrease with an increase in fibre content. However, in
some cases the slump and J-ring measured values increase. In considering the slight
increases in slump flow values with an increase in fibre content, this could be due to
experimental variability in recording the true spread value and/or an uneven distribution of
steel fibres prior to testing, i.e., in the mixer. In addition, the results presented in this
section were determined at approximately 15 to 40 minutes after mixing.
82
700
700
690
600
680
500
670
400
660
300
650
200
740
J-ring slump flow (SCC-8 to SCC-14)
Slump flow (SCC-1 to SCC-7)

J-ring slump flow (SCC-1 to SCC-7)
0
3
620
680
600
660
580
640
560
8
SCC mix number
720
680
700
660
680
Slump flow, t500 time (sec)
700
J-ring slump flow (mm)
Slump flow spread value (mm)
JR, t500 time (SCC-15 to SCC-21)
740
640
660
620
17
18
19
20
3.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
2
3
1.5
1
SF, t500 time (SCC-8 to SCC-14)
4.5
1
0
13
3.5
5
2.5
2
1.5
2
1
0.5
JR, t500 (SCC-8 to SCC-14)
4
12
Fig 5. 13: Comparison of measured t 500 times for

both the Slump flow and J-ring versus SCC-1 to
SCC-7.
J-ring, t500 time (sec)
3.5
11
SCC mix number
10
1
0

21
Fig 5. 12: Comparison of measured Slump spread

and J-ring spread values versus SCC-15 to SCC21.
14
SCC mix number
0.5
13
0.5
16
12

and J-ring spread values versus SCC-8 to SCC14.
720
15
11
SCC mix number

and J-ring spread values versus SCC-1 to SCC-7.
760
10
J-ring, t500 time (sec)
640
700
100
630
1
660
720
14
0
15
Concrete mix number
16
17
18
19
20
21
SCC mix number

SCC-21.

SCC-14.
83
J-ring slump flow, t500 (sec)
640
680
Slump flow (SCC-8 to SCC-14)
J-ring spread value (mm)
800
710
In some cases, the J-ring slump value increases with an increase in fibre content, this
could also be due to various errors in testing, both in performing the tests and measuring
the empirical values. Also, an uneven fibre distribution (i.e. in the mixer) would cause an
error in evaluating the true empirical value.
As shown in Fig 5.13 5.15, the slump flow t500 times and the J-ring t500 times are plotted
against their corresponding mix number. i.e., SCC-1 to SCC-21. Also in Figure 5.13
5.15, it can be seen that the t500 times for both the slump flow and J-ring increases with an
increase in fibre content, in most cases. It is important to recognise that a single operator
carried out these empirical tests and, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the measured
values contain errors. For example, the rate of speed at which the slump-cone is lifted will
influence the measured values of both the slump-flow spread and the t500 time. In addition,
the probability of error in recording the t500 time is considered high as a single operator has
to lift the cone and record the t500 time simultaneously.
Fig 5.16 5.18 illustrates the relationship between the measured empirical values of both
the L-box blocking ratio and the J-ring step of blocking versus their corresponding SCC
mix number (SCC-1 to SCC-21). Also from Fig 5.16 5.18, both the measured L-box and
J-ring blocking values indicate an increase in blocking with an increase in fibre content.
1.2
40
30
0.7
0.6
25
0.5
20
0.4
15
0.3
10
0.2
0.1
0
2
18
L-box (SCC-8 to SCC-14)
16
J-ring (SCC-8 to SCC-14)
14
0.8
12
10
0.6
8
0.4
6
4
0.2
2
0
1
L-box blocking ratio (H2/H1)
35
0.8
J-ring, step of blocking (mm)
0.9
SCC mix number
10
11
12
SCC mix number
13
14
Fig 5. 17: Comparison of both the L-box and Jring blocking values for SCC-8 to SCC-14.
Fig 5. 16: Comparison of both the L-box and Jring blocking values for SCC-1 to SCC-7.
84


35
30
25
0.8
20
0.6
15
0.4
10
0.2
1.2
0
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
SCC mix number
Fig 5. 18: Comparison of both the L-box and J-ring blocking values for SCC-15 to SCC-21.
Immediately apparent is the significant difference in the minimum acceptable passing

criteria for both the obtained L-box and J-ring results (See Fig 5.16 5.18). Of particular
significance is the difference between the obtained results for SCC-15 to SCC-21 and
SCC-1 to SCC-14. This is because the initial mix (SCC-1) possessed a relatively high
plastic viscosity, and the addition of GGBS for partial replacement of cement increased
the plastic viscosity, which consequently reduced the passing ability of SCC-15 to SCC21.
SCC-8
1.2
SCC-1 SCC-17
SCC-15
SCC-16 SCC-3
SCC-12
SCC-5
SCC-11
0.8
CV = -1.04
SCC-14
SCC-6
SCC-9
SCC-2
0.6
LB = -0.027JR + 1.098
R = 0.899
SCC-4
SCC-10
0.4
SCC-20
SCC-19
SCC-13 SCC-18
SCC-21
SCC-7
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Fig 5. 19: Correlation between the L-box and J-ring blocking values for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 min after the
addition of water.
Fig 5.19 illustrates the correlation between the L-box blocking ratio (H2/H1) and the J-ring
step of blocking (mm). It may be observed that there exists a good linear relationship
between these empirical parameters, with an obtained correlation coefficient of 0.899.
85
Also, the obtained coefficient of variation (CV) is -1.04 which suggests that J-ring step of
blocking is inversely related to the L-box blocking ratio. The following empirical
relationship may be obtained by the least square regression:
LB = 1.098 0.027(JR)
(5. 1)
It is important to recognise that these tests were not performed simultaneously. Performing
the tests simultaneously eliminates the influence of various chemical reactions, idle times
and over mixing, which affects concrete workability and, consequently errors are included
in the empirical values. Nevertheless, the J-ring test was carried out following the L-box
test with an approximate in-between testing time of 5 to 10 minutes.
5.3.3. Correlation of empirical tests with rheological parameters

When testing SCC on-site it is not practical to determine the rheological characteristics of
SFRSCC by means of rheological testing. Therefore, various empirical tests have been
developed in an attempt to approximate these parameters for the successful placement of
SCC concerning both SCC filling and passing abilities. In this section, the results obtained
using the empirical test methods (i.e. Slump-flow, L-box and J-ring) were compared with
the rheological parameters, i.e., g and h. Therefore, this section is aimed at establishing
any possible correlations between the individual empirical test results and the obtained
rheological parameters for SCC-1 to SCC-21. In addition, the obtained parameters g and h
for SCC-14 and SCC-21 were not included in this analysis, i.e., the occurrence of
segregation.
SCC-8
730
Slump-flow spread value (mm)
720
SCC-21
SCC-15
SCC-10
710
SCC-1 to SCC-7
SCC-1
SCC-15 to SCC-20
SCC-2
700
SCC-9
690
680
SCC-14 and SCC-21
SCC-12
SCC-4
SCC-13
SCC-11
SCC-5
SF = -43g + 730.9
R = 0.796
670
CV = -4.57
660
SCC-19
SCC-16
SCC-3
650
SCC-20
SCC-17
SCC-18
SCC-8 to SCC-13
SCC-6
SCC-7
SCC-14
640
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Fig 5. 20: Correlation between empirical slump flow and the rheological parameter, g, 15 min after addition
of water.
86
The variation in slump flow with g for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 min after the addition of
water is presented in Fig 5.20; Appendix E gives the individual correlations for SCC-1 to
SCC-21. It may be observed that there exists a linear relationship between the slump flow
value and the rheological parameter g with a correlation coefficient of 0.796. Also, in Fig
5.20 it can be seen that the obtained coefficient of variation (CV) is -4.57 which suggests
that the parameter g is inversely related to the slump flow for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 min
after the addition of water. As the parameter g increases, the slump value decreases. The
following empirical relation may be obtained by the least square regression, as illustrated
in Fig 5.20:
SF = 730.9 43(g)
(5. 2)
SCC-17
h = 1.628t500 - 0.68
R = 0.835
SCC-19
SCC-20
SCC-16
CV = 0.717
7
6
SCC-18
SCC-12
SCC-21
SCC-13
SCC-6
SCC-9
SCC-7
SCC-14 SCC-15
SCC-4
SCC-1 to SCC-7
SCC-3
SCC-8 to SCC-13
SCC-5
SCC-15 to SCC-20
5
SCC-8
4
SCC-10
SCC-11
2
SCC-1
SCC-2
SCC-14 and SCC-21
Slump-flow, t500 time (sec)

Fig 5. 21: Correlation between empirical slump flow, t500 time and the rheological parameter, h, 15 min after
addition of water.
Fig 5.21 illustrates the variation of slump flow, t 500 time with h for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15
min after the addition of water; Appendix E gives the individual correlations for SCC-1 to
SCC-21. It may be observed that there exists a linear relationship between the rheological
parameters h and the slump flow t500 times with an obtained correlation coefficient of
0.835. Furthermore, as the rheological parameter h increases, the slump flow t 500 time
increases and therefore the obtained coefficient of variation (CV) is +0.717, which suggest
that the slump flow t500 times are positively related to the parameter h. The following
87
empirical relationship may be obtained by the least square exponential regression, as

illustrated in Fig 5.21:
h = 1.628(t500) -0.68
(5. 3)
It is important to recognise that certain nonlinear (i.e. exponential, polynomial and

logarithmic) regression models give slightly better fits. However, as observed, a linear
regression model was used. In addition, the existence of other correlations were examined,
the results of which can be seen in Appendix E.
5.3.4. Influence of time on the parameters

In this following section, the influence of time on the both the empirical and rheological
parameters after the addition of water are illustrated and discussed. Therefore, this section
is aimed at the following:
(i)
Evaluating the influence of time on both the calculated rheological parameters

g and h, and the measured empirical parameters for SCC-1 to SCC-21.
(ii)
Establishing any possible time evolution relationships between the individual

empirical test results and the obtained rheological parameters (g and h) for
SCC-1 to SCC-21.
3.5
SCC-2
SCC-3
SCC-4
SCC-5
SCC-6
2.5
SCC-7
SCC-1
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
1
SCC-8
SCC-10
SCC-12
SCC-14
0.5
SCC-9
SCC-11
SCC-13
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
15
Time after addition of water (min)
25
35
45
55
65
75
Fig 5. 22: Time evolution of the rheological

parameter, g, for SCC-1 to SCC-7.

88
85
750
Slump spread value (mm)
1.5
1
SCC-15
SCC-17
SCC-19
SCC-21
0.5
SCC-16
SCC-18
SCC-20
0
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
700
650
600
SCC-1
SCC-4
SCC-7
550
SCC-2
SCC-5
SCC-3
SCC-6
500
85
15
Time after mixing (min)
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Fig 5. 25: Time evolution of slump flow for SCC1 to SCC-7.

Fig 5.22 5.24 illustrates the time evolution relationships of the obtained g parameters for
SCC-1 to SCC-21. Immediately apparent in most cases is an increase in the yield value g
with an increase in time after the addition of water, which suggests that SCC-1 to SCC-21
is losing its fluidity over time. In addition, the overall increase in the rheological
parameter g for SCC-8 to SCC-21 is less severe when compared to SCC-1 to SCC-7,
which suggests that the workability of SFRSCC is retained for longer periods when
incorporating 30% PFA and 50% GGBS cement replacements. However, the change in
idle pressures were not recorded during the two-point workability testing of SCC-2 to
800
800
750
750
SCC-7.
700
650
600
550
SCC-8
SCC-9
SCC-10
SCC-11
SCC-12
SCC-13
700
650
SCC-15
SCC-17
SCC-19
SCC-21
600
550
SCC-14
500
SCC-16
SCC-18
SCC-20
500
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
The time evolution of the slump flow spread values for SCC-1 to SCC-21 are shown in
Fig 5.25 5.27. It may be observed that an increase in slump value occurs beyond the 15
89
min testing time. This could be due to a number of things, such as: (i) testing and
recording errors (ii) insufficient mixing duration (approximately 3 minutes) and (iii) over
mixing, due to the number of tests (twelve) performed on the same sample.
6
SCC-2
SCC-3
SCC-4
SCC-5
SCC-6
5
4.5
SCC-7
5.5
SCC-1
4.5
4
3.5
3
4
3.5
3
SCC-8
SCC-10
SCC-12
SCC-14
2.5
2.5
2
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
15
95
12
6.5
10
6
5.5
4.5
SCC-15
SCC-16
SCC-17
SCC-18
SCC-19
SCC-20
35
45
55
65
75
85

parameter, h, for SCC-8 to SCC-14

parameter, h, for SCC-1 to SCC-7.
25
SCC-9
SCC-11
SCC-13
SCC-1
SCC-4
SCC-7
SCC-2
SCC-5
SCC-3
SCC-6
8
6
4
SCC-21
0
4
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
15
85
35
55
75
95
Time after the addition of water (min)
Fig 5. 31: Time evolution of slump flow, t 500 time

for SCC-1 to SCC-7.

parameter, h, for SCC-15 to SCC-21.
Fig 5.28 5.30 shows the time evolution of obtained rheological parameter h and Fig 5.31
5.33 illustrates the time evolution of the measured slump flow t500 times; Appendix E
gives the time evolution relationship of the both J-ring t500 times and spread values. In
most cases, the parameters h and the slump flow t 500 times are increasing with an increase
in time after the addition of water. This suggests a decrease in workability due to an
increase in time after the addition of water.
90
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
SCC-8
SCC-9
SCC-10
SCC-11
SCC-12
SCC-13
5
4
3
SCC-15
SCC-17
SCC-19
SCC-14
1
SCC-16
SCC-18
SCC-20
1
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
Fig 5. 33: Time evolution of slump flow, t500 time

Fig 5. 32: Time evolution of slump flow, t 500 time

It is important to recognise that the occurrence of thixotropy is notable factor, especially

when conducting two-point workability tests on a concrete mixture beyond a sufficient
amount of time after the addition of water. Therefore, performing a two-point analysis on
such a concrete will most likely result in an inaccurate representation of the torque-speed
relationship and, therefore, an inaccurate relationship of shear stress to shear strain rate,
because an increase in energy (torque) at various speeds breaks the concrete structure
which, ultimately underestimates the rheological parameters g and h.
800
y = -47.472x + 761.58
R = 0.3808
Slump flow spread (mm)
750
y = -40.799x + 745.48
R = 0.1531
700
y = -35.468x + 734.67
R = 0.2152
650
y = -42.88x + 730.27
R = 0.7592
600
SCC-1 to SCC-20, 15 min

SCC-1 to SCC-20, 30 - 65 min
550
SCC-1 to SCC-20, 60 - 95 min
CV = -9.98
500
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Fig 5. 34: Time evolution correlation between slump flow spread and the rheological parameter g for SCC-1
to SCC-20, 15 95 min after the addition of water.
91
85
12
10
y = 0.6142x + 0.8365
R = 0.3028
SCC-1 to SCC-20, 30 - 65 min

SCC-1 to SCC-20, 60 - 95 min
CV = 1.0
y = 0.6264x + 0.6168
R = 0.4313
y = 0.5209x + 1.9468
R = 0.1477
4
y = 0.5662x + 0.5478
R = 0.8498
2
0
0
10
Fig 5. 35: Time evolution correlation between slump flow t 500 time and the rheological parameter h for SCC1 to SCC-20, 15 95 min after the addition of water.
Fig 5.34 5.35 illustrates two plots, one of which illustrates the rheological parameter (g)
versus the slump flow value for SCC-1 to SCC-20 at different testing times from the
addition of mixing water (Fig 5.34). For example, the relationship between the measured
slump flows and the calculated rheological parameters of g for all the tests (i.e. SCC-1 to
SCC-20) corresponding to a testing time of 15 minutes after the addition of water are
illustrated in Fig 5.34 by the blue data points. The other (Fig 5.35) illustrates the
rheological parameters (h) versus the slump flow t500 times for SCC-1 to SCC-20 at
different testing times. Also, the obtained results for SCC-14 and SCC-21 were not
included in this analysis, because a high degree of segregation was encountered. In both
figures, linear regression was used and the correlation coefficients were determined. In Fig
5.34 5.35, the black dashed line represents a linear regression of all results obtained from
SCC-1 to SCC-20, 15 to 95 min after the addition of water. As shown in Fig 5.34 5.35, it
may be observed that the obtained g slump flow correlation and coefficient of variance
for all the results is 0.22 and -9.98, respectively and 0.30 and 1.0 for the h slump flow,
t500 time, respectively. In addition, these parameters correspond to testing times ranging
between 15 to 95 minutes after the addition of mixing water; Appendix E.6 gives the
individual correlations. In both cases, the obtained correlation coefficients are considered
low. However, the obtained COV parameters (-9.98 and 1.0) indicate that their relations
are going in the right direction, that is, inversely and positively related. This reason for
these poor correlations could be the result of a number of factors, such as: (i) the degree of
92
thixotropy and/or concrete hydration (setting) (ii) errors in performing the tests and
recording the data and (iii) an insufficient initial mixing time and/or over mixing the
concrete due to the high volume of tests performed on the same sample. What is
interesting is that the data points become more spread out with an increase in time after the
addition of mixing water, which can be observed from the obtained correlation
coefficients (R2) for each data set (See Fig 5.34 5.35).
1.2
SCC-1 to SCC-21, 30 - 65 min

SCC-1 to SCC-21, 60 - 95 min
0.8
SCC-7, 95 min
0.6
y = -0.0291x + 1.091
R = 0.8297
0.4
CV = -2.132
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fig 5. 36: Time evolution correlation between L-box blocking ratio and J-ring step of blocking for SCC-1 to
SCC-21, 15 95 min after the addition of water.
In Fig 5.36, the combined obtained L-box blocking results are plotted versus the J-ring
step of blocking results. Linear regression was used and the correlation coefficient
determined; the obtained L-box J-ring correlation is 0.83 and the obtained coefficient of
variation is -2.132 which suggests that the J-ring step of blocking is inversely related to
the L-box blocking ratio. Also in Fig 5.36, an outlier is illustrated (SCC-7, 95 min). The
main reason for this is because during the L-box testing of SCC-7, 95, the concrete failed
the test, and more importantly, its final resting point was at a considerable distance from
the end of the horizontal channel. For example, the degree of failure in the L-box ranges
from the sliding gate to the end of the horizontal channel, but not in contact with it. In
order to represent the appropriate correlation between the J-ring step of blocking and the
L-box blocking step, the concrete undergoing testing in the L-box must be at a distance of
a few millimetres from the end of the horizontal channel. Therefore, this value was not
included in this analysis. In addition, the data points associated with SCC-14 and SCC-21
were included in this analysis mainly because the concrete was remixed before each Lbox and J-ring test.
93
5.3.5. Summary
This chapter has presented the selected testing sequence for evaluating the rheological and
empirical parameters of SFRSCC with PFA and GGBS CEM II/A-L cement replacements.
In considering the time evolution functional torque-speed relationship for SCC-1 to SCC21, the polynomial function seems to yield the best fit. In addition, the Hershel-Bulkley
model was adapted. Furthermore, the fitted Hershel-Bulkley parameters are presented for
SCC-1 to SCC-21.
A good correlation was shown to exist between the parameter g and h with an increase in
steel fibre contents. However, there is a considerable amount of error associated with the
Tattersall-two point apparatus. In addition, the rheological h increases at a slightly greater
rate than the rheological parameter g with an increase in steel fibre content.
The use of 30% PFA and 50% GGBS replacement of cement in SFRSCC caused an
overall reduction in the obtained rheological parameter g, while incorporating PFA and
GGBS increased the rheological h. In addition, the use of 50% GGBS cement replacement
(CEM II/A-L) reduced the passing ability of SFRSCC when compared to the use of 100%
CEM II/A-L mainly because the initial mix (SCC-1) possessed a relatively high plastic
viscosity.
During TWT, it was found that the idle pressures decreases with time, especially within
speeds ranging from 0.3 to 1.3 rev/s.
Both the slump flow and J-ring spread values decreased with an increase in steel fibre
content, while the slump flow and J-ring t500 times increased with an increase in fibre
content. However, this was not the case in some cases. The reason for this could be due to
experimental variability in performing the tests and measuring the empirical values. Also,
an uneven fibre distribution (i.e. in the mixer) would most likely cause experimental
variability.
A good correlation was shown to exist between the L-box blocking ratio (H2/H1) and the
J-ring step of blocking (0.90) for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 min after the addition of water.
The workability of SFRSCC is retained for longer periods after the addition of water when
incorporating 30% PFA and 50% GGBS CEM II/A-L cement replacements.
In some cases, the obtained empirical values corresponding to 15 min after the addition of
water showed an increase in slump flows and a decrease in slump flow t 500 times when
94
compared to the empirical tests carried out at 15 min after the addition of water. In
addition, poor correlations were shown to exist between the slump flow versus the
rheological parameter g (0.22) and the slump flow t 500 time versus the rheological
parameter h (0.30) for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 to 95 min after the addition of water, which
suggests a third parameter is causing an increase in variation between the three testing
regimes and that parameter is time.
J-ring step of blocking (0.83) for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 to 95 min after the addition of
water. In addition, the obtained CV was -1.043 which suggests that the J-ring step of
blocking is inversely related to the L-box blocking ratio.
The obtained rheological parameters g and h showed reasonably good correlations (R2)
with, respectively, the inverted slump flow (0.796) and the inverted slump t 500 time
(0.835) for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 min after the addition of water and cementitious
materials. The parameter g is inversely related to inverted slump flow with a coefficient of
variation (CV) of -4.57. Therefore, the parameter g decreases as inverted slump flow
increases. In addition, the parameter h is positively related to slump flow t 500 time with a
coefficient of variation of +0.717. Therefore, the parameter h increases as inverted slump
flow t500 time increases. Intuitively, both these reasonably good correlations (R 2) and
coefficients of variations (CV) suggest that the inverted slump flow test could be used
onsite instead of rheology to determine, once suitable calibration has been carried out, the
fundamental parameters of yield stress and plastic viscosity. In addition, the inverted
slump flow test could be used to determine the actual steel fibre content, when using the
relationships of g to slump flow, h to slump flow t500 time and the variation of g and h
with an increase in steel fibre content as proxy.
95
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

At commencement, this dissertation had four main and connected objectives. The author
aimed firstly to carry out a comprehensive literature review relating to:
Constituent materials used in SCC production.
Mechanism for achieving self-compactability.
Rheology and concrete rheometers.
Influence of constituent materials on SCC rheology and workability.
Mix procedure.
Empirical and rheological tests.
The second goal had two primary objectives: (i) to determine the performance of the twopoint workability apparatus and (ii) to determine an appropriate mix design for SFRSCC.
The third goal was to determine the fundamental and empirical characteristics of SFRSCC
with PFA and GGBS.
Finally, and based on the results of the previous three objectives, this dissertation sought
to determine the existence of any correlations between the fundamental and empirical
parameters.
6.1. Objective Number One: Conclusion

Carrying out the literature review proved useful for a number of reasons. The author
gained a vast knowledge of the production of self-compacting concrete. It also give an
insight into the importance of evaluating the fundamental rheological parameters of selfcompacting concrete, i.e., yield stress and plastic viscosity.
6.2. Objective Number Two: Conclusion

To satisfy objective two, two-point workability testing was carried out on both traditional
and self-compacting concrete mixtures. In addition, empirical and rheological tests were
performed on various self-compacting mixtures comprised of different proportions of
constituent materials. This was done to determine an appropriate mix design for SFRSCC
with regards to the minimum and maximum acceptable empirical criteria for SCC, as set
out by EFNARC.
96
The analysis of the two-point workability data for both the TVC and SCC are contained in
Chapter Four. In considering all the possible functional relationships for these mixes, it
may be observed that the polynomial function seems to produce the best-fit correlation
between torque and speed.
During TWT, it was noted that a high degree of slippage occurred within the interface
between the concrete and TWT bowl, especially at high speeds, such as 1.3 rev/s.
Therefore, steel ribs should be welded to the inside of the TWT bowl.
6.3. Objective Number Three: Conclusion

The result of the rheological and empirical characteristics are contained in Chapter Five.
In considering all the time evolution functional relationship of torque to speed, the
polynomial function seems to yield the best fit. Therefore, the Hershel-Bulkley model was
selected to represent these relationships. However, it is the opinion of the author that the
Hershel-Bulkley model is overestimating the obtained rheological parameter g.
Nevertheless, the Hershel-Bulkley model was used as the Bingham model resulted in a
negative g value on one occasion.
During TWT, an increase in segregation was encountered with an increase in steel fibre
content, especially at an equivalent fibre content of 30 kg per cubic meter. This suggests
that the fibres combined with the geometry of the impeller are disturbing the mix and,
therefore shows shear thickening behaviour.
The use of 30% PFA and 50% GGBS cement replacements in SFRSCC improved the
workability by causing an overall reduction in the obtained rheological parameter g.
However, both the use of PFA and GGBS increased the rheological parameter h and,
consequently made the mix more cohesive. The use of 50% GGBS reduced the passing
ability when compared to 100% CEM II/A-L. The reason for this was that the initial mix
(SCC-1) possesses a relatively high plastic viscosity. The workability of SFRSCC is
retained for longer periods after the addition of water when incorporating 30% PFA and
50% GGBS CEM II/A-L cement replacements.
It is important to recognise that the idle pressure changes with time. During TWT, it was
found that the idle pressures decreases with time, especially within speeds ranging from
0.3 to 1.3 rev/s.
97
6.4. Objective Number Four: Conclusion:

The rheological parameter g showed a reasonably good correlation with the rheological
parameter h with an increase in steel fibre content for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 min after the
addition of water. In addition, the rheological h increases at a slightly greater rate than the
rheological parameter g with an increase in steel fibre content.
J-ring step of blocking (0.90) for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 min after the addition of water. In
addition, the obtained CV (-1.043) suggests that the J-ring step of blocking is inversely
related to the L-box blocking ratio. Also, a good correlation was shown to exist between
the L-box blocking ratio (H2/H1) and the J-ring step of blocking (0.83) for SCC-1 to SCC21, 15 to 95 min after the addition of water. Therefore, the J-ring should be used to
evaluate the passing ability of SFRSCC, as the L-box is large and makes testing difficult.
Poor correlations were shown to exist between the slump flow versus the rheological
parameter g (0.22) and the slump flow t 500 time versus the rheological parameter h (0.30)
for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15 to 95 min after the addition of water. The reason for this and the
encountered increases and decreases in the obtained empirical values could be due to the
following:
Experimental variability, both performing the tests and recording the empirical
values;
insufficient mixing time and/or over mixing the concrete due to the high volume of
tests performed on a single sample and
the degree of thixotropy and/or the cement hydration rate.
However, good correlations were showed to exist between the relative parameter g and
slump flow and the relative parameter h and slump flow t500 time, 15 min after the addition
of both mixing water and cementitious materials. Therefore, quick and easy empirical tests
(such as the inverted slump flow test) could be used onsite instead of rheology to
determine, once suitable calibration has been carried out, the fundamental parameters of
yield stress and plastic viscosity. In addition, the inverted slump flow test could be used to
determine the actual steel fibre content, when using the relationships of g to slump flow, h
to slump flow t500 time and the variation of g and h with an increase in steel fibre content
as proxy.
98
It is recommended that the J-ring test be used to evaluate the passing ability of SFRSCC.
This will make passing ability testing of SFRSCC a lot easier, since the L-box test is very
large, heavy and makes testing difficult.
6.5. Recommendations
Further rheological and empirical research on SCC with both different types of
steel fibres and constituent materials. In doing so, once reasonably good
correlations are achieved, one could use quick and easy empirical tests (such as the
inverted slump flow test) on-site instead of rheology to determine, once suitable
calibration has been carried out, the fundamental parameters of yield stress and
plastic viscosity. In addition, once suitable correlations have been determined, the
inverted slump flow test could be used to determine the actual steel fibre content.
Weld steel ribs to the inside on the TWT bowl. In doing so, the degree of slippage
can be minimised.
Fabricate a coaxial vane arrangement for the two-point apparatus. In doing so, one
can evaluate the fundamental parameters of yield stress and plastic viscosity by the
use of the Reiner-Rivlin equation.
Expressing the rheological parameters of g and h into the fundamental units of,
respectively, yield stress and plastic viscosity by using Newtonian and nonNewtonian materials of known flow properties.
The use of concrete simulation software (such as OpenFoam) to simulate the

empirical tests, i.e., slump flow, J-ring and L-box. In doing so, one could
determine, once reasonably good correlations exists between the simulated
empirical tests and the experimental empirical tests, a correlation between
rheology and empiricism.
Research on the influence of supplementary cementitious materials (such as PFA

and GGBS) on the steel fibre cement matrix.
99
REFERENCES
7. REFERENCES
Aarre, T., and Domone, P. (2003). Reference concretes for evaluation of test methods for
SCC. In O. Wallevik, and I. Nielsson (Eds.), International RILEM Symposium on SelfCompacting Concrete (pp. 495-505). RILEM Publications SARL.
Aiad, I., Abd El-Aleem, S., and El-Didamony, H. (2002). Effect of delaying addition of
some concrete admixtures on the rheological properties of cement pastes. Cement and
concrete research, 32(11), 1839-1843.
Bartos, Peter JM, D. J. Cleland, and David L. Marrs, eds. Production methods and
workability of concrete. Vol. 32. Taylor and Francis, 1996.
Bartos, P. J. (Ed.). (1993). Special Concretes-Workability and Mixing (Vol. 24). Taylor &
Francis. Proceedings of the International RILEM Workshop on Special Concretes
Workability and Mixing (pp. 55-65).
Bouzoubaa, N., and Lachemi, M. (2001). Self-compacting concrete incorporating high
volumes of class F fly ash: Preliminary results. Cement and Concrete Research, 31(3),
413-420.
Banfill, P.F.G., Beanpre, D., Chapdelaine, F., De Larrard, F., Domone, P.L., Nachbaur, L.,
Sedran, T., Wallevik, L.E., Wallevik, O. (2001). Comparison of concrete rheometers:
International tests at LCPC (Nantes, France) in October 2000. US Department of
Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Boukendakdji, O., Kadri, E. H., and Kenai, S. (2012). Effects of granulated blast furnace
slag and superplasticiser type on the fresh properties and compressive strength of selfcompacting concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 34(4), 583-590.
Boukendakdji, O., Kenai, S., Kadri, E. H., and Rouis, F. (2009). Effect of slag on the
rheology of fresh self-compacted concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 23(7),
2593-2598.
IS EN 206-1:2000. Concrete specification, performance, production and conformity.
IS EN-197-1:2000. Cement Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for
common cements.
IS EN-12350-12:2010. Testing fresh concrete. Self-compacting concrete, J-ring test.
100
REFERENCES
IS EN-12350-8:2010. Testing fresh concrete. Self-compacting concrete, Slump floe test.

IS EN-12350-10:2010. Testing fresh concrete. Self-compacting concrete. L-box test.
IS EN-12350-11:2010. Testing fresh concrete. Self-compacting concrete, Sieve
segregation test.
Bui, V. K., et al. "Rapid testing method for segregation resistance of self-compacting
concrete." Cement and Concrete Research 32.9 (2002): 1489-1496.
Bosiljkov, V. B. (2003). SCC mixes with poorly graded aggregate and high volume of
limestone filler. Cement and Concrete Research, 33(9), 1279-1286.
Corinaldesi, V., and Moriconi, G. (2004). Durable fibre reinforced self-compacting
concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 34(2), 249-254.
Cullen, R., and West, R. (2005). Development of a hand-held rheology tool and suitable
testing criteria. In Proceedings of the Sixth international congress: repair and renovation
of concrete structures, Dundee, Scotland (pp. 195-202).
Cunha, V. M., Barros, J. A., and Sena-Cruz, J. M. (2009). Pullout behaviour of steel fibres
in self-compacting concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 22(1), 1-9.
Chapdelaine, F., Domone, P., Koehler, E. P., Shen, L., Sonebi, M., Struble, and Wallevik,
J. E. (2004). Comparison of concrete rheometers: international tests at MB (Cleveland,
OH, USA) in May 2003. US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration,
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Dhir, R. K., and Jackson, N. (Eds.). (1996). Civil Engineering Materials. Macmillan
Education.
Domone, P. L. (2006). Self-compacting concrete: An analysis of 11 years of case
studies. Cement and Concrete Composites, 28(2), 197-208.
De Schutter, G., Gibbs, J., Domone, P., and Bartos, P. J. (2008). Self-compacting concrete.
Whittles Publishing.
De Schutter, G. (2005). Guidelines for testing fresh self-compacting concrete. Project
Report from European Project Measurement of Properties of Fresh Self-Compacting
Concrete.
101
REFERENCES
De Schutter, G. (2011). Effect of limestone filler as mineral addition in self-compacting

concrete. In 36th Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures: Recent Advances
in the Technology of Fresh Concrete'(OWIC'S 2011) (pp. 49-54). Ghent University,
Department of Structural engineering.
Domone, P. L., and Chai, H. W. (1996, July). 19 Design and testing of self-compacting
concrete. In Production methods and workability of concrete: proceedings of the
international RILEM conference, Paisley, Scotland, June 3-5, 1996 (p. 223). Taylor &
Francis.
Domone, P. L. (2006). Self-compacting concrete: An analysis of 11 years of case
studies. Cement and Concrete Composites, 28(2), 197-208.
Domone, P. (1998). The slump flow test for high-workability concrete. Cement and
concrete research, 28(2), 177-182.
EFNARC (2002). Specifications and Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete guide
lines. available [online] <http://www.efnarc.org/ pdf/SandGforSCC.PDFhttp:>. Accessed
03 February 2014.
EFNARC (2005). The European Guidelines for Self-compacting Concrete. Available
[online]<http://www.efnarc.org/pdf/SCCGuidelinesMay2005.pdf. Accessed 01 June 2014.
El-Dieb, A. S. (2009). Mechanical, durability and microstructural characteristics of ultrahigh-strength
self-compacting
concrete
incorporating
steel
fibers.Materials
&
Design, 30(10), 4286-4292.

Felekolu, B., Trkel, S., and Baradan, B. (2007). Effect of water/cement ratio on the
fresh
and
hardened
properties
of
self-compacting
concrete. Building
and
Environment, 42(4), 1795-1802.

Felekolu, B., Tosun, K., Baradan, B., Altun, A., and Uyulgan, B. (2006). The effect of
fly ash and limestone fillers on the viscosity and compressive strength of self-compacting
repair mortars. Cement and concrete research, 36(9), 1719-1726.
Ferraris, C. F., Obla, K. H., and Hill, R. (2001). The influence of mineral admixtures on
the rheology of cement paste and concrete. Cement and concrete research, 31(2), 245-255.
102
REFERENCES
Ferraris, C. F., Brower, L. E., Banfill, P., Beaupre, D., Chapdelanine, F., Larrard, F.,
Domone, P., Nauchdaur, L., Sedran, T., Wallevik, O., Wallevik, J. E. (2001)1. Comparison
of concrete rheometers: International tests at LCPC (Nantes, France) in October 2000.
Feys, D., Verhoeven, R., and De Schutter, G. (2008). Fresh self-compacting concrete, a
shear thickening material. Cement and Concrete Research, 38(7), 920-929.
Fung, W. W. S., and Kwan, A. K. H. (2014). Effect of particle interlock on flow of
aggregate through opening. Powder Technology, 253, 198-206.
Gesolu, M., Gneyisi, E., and zbay, E. (2009). Properties of self-compacting concretes
made with binary, ternary, and quaternary cementitious blends of fly ash, blast furnace
slag, and silica fume. Construction and Building Materials, 23(5), 1847-1854.
Gram, A. (2009). Numerical Modelling of Self-Compacting Concrete Flow: Discrete and
Continuous Approach (Doctoral dissertation, KTH).
Ghoddousi, P., Shirzadi Javid, A. A., and Sobhani, J. (2014). Effects of particle packing
density on the stability and rheology of self-consolidating concrete containing mineral
admixtures. Construction and Building Materials, 53, 102-109.
Goodier, C. I. (2003). Development of self-compacting concrete.
Grnewald, S., and Walraven, J. C. (2001). Parameter-study on the influence of steel
fibres and coarse aggregate content on the fresh properties of self-compacting
concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 31(12), 1793-1798.
Grnewald, S. (2004). Performance-based design of self-compacting fibre reinforced
concrete (pp. 6-8). DUP Science.
Grzeszczyk, S., and Lipowski, G. (1997). Effect of content and particle size distribution of
high-calcium fly ash on the rheological properties of cement pastes. Cement and concrete
research, 27(6), 907-916.
Hossain, K. M. A., Lachemi, M., Sammour, M., and Sonebi, M. (2012). Influence of
Polyvinyl Alcohol, Steel, and Hybrid Fibres on Fresh and Rheological Properties of SelfConsolidating Concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 24(9), 1211-1220.
Holschemacher, K., Mueller, T., and Ribakov, Y. (2010). Effect of steel fibres on
mechanical properties of high-strength concrete. Materials & Design, 31(5), 2604-2615.
103
REFERENCES
Hu, J., and Wang, K. (2011). Effect of coarse aggregate characteristics on concrete
rheology. Construction and Building Materials, 25(3), 1196-1204.
Kasimmohamed, A. (2014). Private communication, Trinity College Dublin.
Kayali, O., Haque, M. N., and Zhu, B. (2003). Some characteristics of high strength fibre
reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(2), 207213.
Khatib, J. M. (2008). Performance of self-compacting concrete containing fly
ash. Construction and Building Materials, 22(9), 1963-1971.
Khayat, K. H. "Workability, testing, and performance of self-consolidating concrete." ACI
Materials Journal 96 (1999): 346-353.
Kim, J. K., Kim, J. S., Ha, G. J., and Kim, Y. Y. (2007). Tensile and fibre dispersion
performance of ECC (engineered cementitious composites) produced with ground
granulated blast furnace slag. Cement and Concrete Research, 37 (7), 1096-1105.
Krishnapal, P., Yadav, R. K., and Rajeev, C. (2013). Rheological characteristics of selfcompacting concrete containing fly ash. Int J Cur Res Rev, 5(10).
Kuroiwa, S., et al. "Application of super workable concrete to construction of a 20-story
building." ACI Special Publication 140 (1993).
Kwan, A. K. H., and Li, Y. (2013). Effects of fly ash microsphere on rheology,
adhesiveness and strength of mortar. Construction and Building Materials, 42, 137-145.
Lachemi, M., Hossain, K. M. A., Lambros, V., Nkinamubanzi, P. C., and Bouzouba, N.
(2004).
Self-consolidating
concrete
incorporating
new
viscosity
modifying
admixtures. Cement and Concrete Research, 34(6), 917-926.

aniewska-Piekarczyk, B. (2014). The methodology for assessing the impact of new
generation superplasticisers on air content in self-compacting concrete. Construction and
Building Materials, 53, 488-502.
Liu, M. (2009). Wider application of additions in self-compacting concrete (Doctoral
dissertation, UCL (University College London)).
Liu, M. (2010). Self-compacting concrete with different levels of pulverized fuel
ash. Construction and Building Materials, 24(7), 1245-1252.
104
REFERENCES
Loukili, A. (Ed.). (2013). Self-Compacting Concrete. John Wiley & Sons.

Mahaut, Fabien, et al. "Effect of coarse particle volume fraction on the yield stress and
thixotropy of cementitious materials." Cement and concrete research 38.11 (2008): 12761285.
Monosi, S., and Moriconi, G. (2007). Centre for By-Products Utilization.
Nanthagopalan, P., and Santhanam, M. (2011). Fresh and hardened properties of selfcompacting concrete produced with manufactured sand. Cement and Concrete
Composites, 33(3), 353-358.
Naik, T. R., Kumar, R., Ramme, B. W., and Canpolat, F. (2012). Development of highstrength,
economical
self-consolidating
concrete. Construction
and
Building
Materials, 30, 463-469.

Nehdi, M., Pardhan, M., and Koshowski, S. (2004). Durability of self-consolidating
concrete incorporating high-volume replacement composite cements. Cement and
Concrete Research, 34(11), 2103-2112.
Newman, J., and Choo, B. S. (Eds.). (2003). Advanced concrete technology set.
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Nguyen, T. L. H., Roussel, N., and Coussot, P. (2006). Correlation between L-box test and
rheological parameters of a homogeneous yield stress fluid. Cement and concrete
research, 36(10), 1789-1796.
Nielsson, I., and Wallevik, O. H. (2003, August). Rheological evaluation of some
empirical test methods-preliminary results. In 3rd International Symposium on SelfCompacting Concrete (pp. 59-68).
Okamura, Hajime, and Masahiro Ouchi. "Self-compacting concrete." Journal of Advanced
Concrete Technology 1.1 (2003): 5-15.
Okamura,
Hajime,
and
Masahiro
Ouchi.
"Selfcompacting
high
performance
concrete." Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 1.4 (1998): 378-383.

Ozawa, K. "High performance concrete based on the durability design of concrete
structures." The Second East Asia-Pasific Conference on Structural Engineering &
Construction. 1989.
105
REFERENCES
Pera, J., Husson, S., and Guilhot, B. (1999). Influence of finely ground limestone on
cement hydration. Cement and Concrete Composites, 21(2), 99-105.
Ponikiewski, T. (2009). The rheological properties of fresh steel fibre reinforced selfcompacting concrete. In Proc. Int. Symp.Brittle Matrix Composites (p. 451).
Rahman, M. K., Baluch, M. H., and Malik, M. A. (2014). Thixotropic behaviour of selfcompacting concrete with different mineral admixtures. Construction and Building
Materials, 50, 710-717.
Ramsburg, P. (2003). "The SCC Test: Inverted or Upright?" Concrete Producer.
Ravindrarajah, R., Farrakhzadi, F., and Lahoud, A., (2003). Properties of flowing concrete
and self-compacting concrete with high-performance superplasticisers. In O. Wallevik,
and
I.
Nielsson
(Eds.), International
RILEM
Symposium
on
Self-Compacting
Concrete (pp. 432-441). RILEM Publications SARL.

Roussel, N. (Ed.). (2011). Understanding the rheology of concrete. Elsevier.
Ferraris C. F., Martys N, S. (2012), Concrete rheometers, In understanding the rheology
of concrete, Edi. By N, Roussel, France; Woodhead Publishing, pp 63-82
Sheinn, A. M. M., Ho, D. W. S., and Tam, C. T. (2002, August). Rheological model for
self-compacting concretepaste rheology. In Proceedings of the 27th conference on our
world in concrete and structures. CI Premier, Singapore.
Siddique, R. (2011). Properties of self-compacting concrete containing class F fly
ash. Materials and Design, 32(3), 1501-1507.
Skarendahl, ., and Petersson, . (Eds.). (2000). Report 23: Self-Compacting Concrete
State-of-the-Art report of RILEM Technical Committee 174-SCC (Vol. 23). RILEM
publications.
Sonebi, M., and Bartos, P. J. M. (2002). Filling ability and plastic settlement of selfcompacting concrete. Materials and Structures, 35(8), 462-469.
Tanner, R. I. (2009). The changing face of rheology. Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid
Mechanics, 157(3), 141-144.
Tattersall, G. H., and Banfill, P. F. G. (1983). The rheology of fresh concrete (No.
Monograph). Pitman Advanced Pub. Program.
106
REFERENCES
Tattersall, G. H. (2003). Workability and quality control of concrete. Taylor and Francis.
Testing-SCC (2005). Measurement of properties of fresh self-compacting concrete.
available [online] < http://www2.cege.ucl.ac.uk/research/concrete/ Testing-SCC/ Final %
20project%20report.pdf:> Accessed 20/02/2014
Von Selbstverdichtendem, N., and FRAIS, P. D. (2003). Fresh Properties of SelfCompacting Concrete (SCC). Otto-Graf-Journal, 14, 179.
Wallevik, J. E. (2006). Relationship between the Bingham parameters and slump. Cement
and Concrete Research, 36(7), 1214-1221.
Wallevik, O. H. (2011) Rheology-my-way of life. 36th Conference on our world in
concrete and structures.
Wallevik, O. H., and Wallevik, J. E. (2011). Rheology as a tool in concrete science: The
use of rheographs and workability boxes. Cement and Concrete Research, 41(12), 12791288.
West, R. P. (2003). Self-compacting concrete. Concrete today, Magazine of the Irish
concrete federation, 7-9.
Xie, Y., Liu, B., Yin, J., and Zhou, S. (2002). Optimum mix parameters of high-strength
self-compacting
concrete
with
ultra-pulverized
fly
ash. Cement
and
concrete
research, 32(3), 477-480.

Yahia, A., Tanimura, M., and Shimoyama, Y. (2005). Rheological properties of highly
flowable mortar containing limestone filler-effect of powder content and W/C
ratio. Cement and Concrete research, 35(3), 532-539.
Ye, G., Liu, X., De Schutter, G., Poppe, A. M., and Taerwe, L. (2007). Influence of
limestone powder used as filler in SCC on hydration and microstructure of cement
pastes. Cement and Concrete Composites, 29(2), 94-102.
Zerbino, R., Barragn, B., Garcia, T., Agull, L., and Gettu, R. (2009). Workability tests
and rheological parameters in self-compacting concrete. Materials and structures, 42(7),
947-960.
Zhao, Hui, et al. "The effect of coarse aggregate gradation on the properties of selfcompacting concrete." Materials and Design 40 (2012): 109-116.
107
REFERENCES
Zhu, W., and Gibbs, J. C. (2005). Use of different limestone and chalk powders in selfcompacting concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 35(8), 1457-1462.
Koehler, E., and Fowler, D. W. (2003). Summary of Concrete Workability Test
Methods. Available [online] < http://www.icar.utexas.edu/publications/105/105_1.pdf: >
accessed 20/05/2014
108
APPENDIX A MIX DESIGN

A.1 Mix design for SCC-1 to SCC-7
109
A.1 Mix Design for SCC-1 to SCC-7.

SCC-2
SCC-1
SCC-3
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement (CEM II)
Limestone filler
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0.0
630
1020
580
20
215.5
0.0
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
10.846
0.374
4.030
0.000
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement (CEM II)
Limestone filler
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
580
20
215.5
5
Total
2485.8
46.484
Total
2490.8
Material
Material
Kg
Fig A. 1: SCC-1 mix design.
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement (CEM II)
Limestone filler
Water
Steel fibres
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
10.846
0.374
4.030
0.187
Total
2495.8
46.671
Material
Kg
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
10.846
0.374
4.030
0.094
46.578
SCC-5
SCC-4
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
580
20
215.5
10
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement (CEM II)
Limestone filler
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
580
20
215.5
20
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
10.846
0.374
4.030
0.374
Total
2505.8
46.858
Kg
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement (CEM II)
Limestone filler
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
580
20
215.5
15
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
10.846
0.374
4.030
0.281
Total
2500.8
46.765
Material
SCC-6
Material
Kg
SCC-7
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement (CEM II)
Limestone filler
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
580
20
215.5
25
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
10.846
0.374
4.030
0.468
Total
2510.8
46.952
Material
110
Kg
Kg
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement (CEM II)
Limestone filler
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
580
20
215.5
30
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
10.846
0.374
4.030
0.561
Total
2515.8
47.045
Material
Kg
A.2 Mix design for SCC-8 to SCC-14.

SCC-8
SCC-9
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
PFA
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
406
20
174
215.5
0.00
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
7.592
0.374
3.254
4.030
0.000
Total
2485.8
46.484
Material
Kg
SCC-10
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
PFA
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
406
20
174
215.5
5
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
7.592
0.374
3.254
4.030
0.094
Total
2490.8
46.578
Material
Kg
SCC-12
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
7.592
0.374
3.254
4.030
0.187
Total
2495.8
46.671
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
PFA
Water
Steel fibres
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
7.592
0.374
3.254
4.030
0.374
Total
2505.8
46.858
Kg
Kg
SCC-13
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
406
20
174
215.5
20
Material
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
PFA
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
406
20
174
215.5
10
Material
SCC-11
SCC-14
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
PFA
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
406
20
174
215.5
25
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
7.592
0.374
3.254
4.030
0.468
Total
2510.8
46.952
Material
Kg
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
PFA
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
406
20
174
215.5
30
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
7.592
0.374
3.254
4.030
0.561
Total
2515.8
47.045
Material
Kg
111
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
PFA
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
406
20
174
215.5
15
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
7.592
0.374
3.254
4.030
0.281
Total
2500.8
46.765
Material
Kg
A.3 Mix design for SCC-15 to SCC-21.

SCC-15
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
GGBS
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
290
20
290
215.5
0
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
5.423
0.374
5.423
4.030
0.000
Total
2485.8
46.484
Material
Kg
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
GGBS
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
290
20
290
215.5
5
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
5.423
0.374
5.423
4.030
0.094
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
GGBS
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
290
20
290
215.5
10
Total
2490.8
46.578
Total
2495.8
Material
SCC-19
Material
Kg
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
GGBS
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
290
20
290
215.5
20
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
5.423
0.374
5.423
4.030
0.374
Total
2505.8
46.858
Kg
Kg
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
5.423
0.374
5.423
4.030
0.187
46.671
SCC-20
Material
SCC-18
SCC-17
SCC-16
SCC-21
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
GGBS
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
290
20
290
215.5
25
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
5.423
0.374
5.423
4.030
0.468
Total
2510.8
46.952
Material
Kg
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
GGBS
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
290
20
290
215.5
30
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
5.423
0.374
5.423
4.030
0.561
Total
2515.8
47.045
Material
Kg
112
VMA
SP
20 mm aggregate
10 mm aggregate
Fines/Sand
Cement
Limestone filler
GGBS
Water
Steel fibres
Density
(kg/m3)
7.8
12.5
0
630
1020
290
20
290
215.5
15
0.146
0.234
0.000
11.781
19.074
5.423
0.374
5.423
4.030
0.281
Total
2500.8
46.765
Material
Kg
APPENDIX B RHEOLOGICAL DATA
APPENDIX B RHEOLOGICAL DATA

B.1 - Rheological data
113
APPENDIX C TIME EVOLUTION RELATIONSHIPS

C.1 Time evolution relationship of torque versus speed for SCC-1 to SCC-7.
C.4 Rheological parameters for SCC-1 to SCC21.
114
C.1 Time evolution relationship of torque versus speed for

SCC-3, 15 min
SCC-3, 30 min
SCC-3, 60 min
Poly. (SCC-3, 15 min) R = 0.9852
Poly. (SCC-3, 30 min) R = 0.9891
Poly. (SCC-3, 60 min) R = 0.9743
SCC-1 to SCC-7.
5
4
5
4
3
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Speed (rev/s)
7
6
5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
7
6
4
3
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
Fig C. 3: Time evolution of torque-speed relationship for SCC-3.

SCC-6, 15 min
SCC-6, 45 min
SCC-6, 75 min
Poly. (SCC-6, 15 min) R = 0.9942
Poly. (SCC-6, 45 min) R = 0.9692
Poly. (SCC-6, 75 min) R = 0.9771
9
8
4
3
6
5
4
3
2
0.6
Speed (rev/s)
SCC-5, 15 min
SCC-5, 45 min
SCC-5, 75 min
Poly. (SCC-5, 15 min) R = 0.9902
Poly. (SCC-5, 45 min) R = 0.9859
Poly. (SCC-5, 75 min) R = 0.9873
Torque (N/m)
0.7
Fig C. 2: Time evolution of torque-speed relationship for SCC-2
SCC-4, 15 min
SCC-4, 50 min
SCC-4, 85 min
Poly. (SCC-4, 15 min) R = 0.9947
Poly. (SCC-4, 50 min) R = 0.9807
Poly. (SCC-4, 85 min) R = 0.9961
0.6
Speed (rev/s)
1
1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
0
0
0
0
Speed (rev/s)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
Speed (rev/s)

SCC-7, 15 min
SCC-7, 65 min
SCC-7, 95 min
Poly. (SCC-7, 15 min) R = 0.991
Poly. (SCC-7, 65 min) R = 0.9875
Poly. (SCC-7, 95 min) R = 0.9855
y = 4.8476x + 1.75
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Speed (rev/s)
0.9
1.1
1.2
115
1.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Speed (rev/s)
0.8
0.9
1.1
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
SCC-2, 15 min
SCC-2, 40 min
SCC-3, 70 min
Poly. (SCC-2, 15 min) R = 0.9991
Poly. (SCC-2, 40 min) R = 0.9876
Poly. (SCC-3, 70 min) R = 0.9812
SCC-1, 15 min
SCC-1, 45 min
SCC-1, 75 min
Poly. (SCC-1, 15 min) R = 0.998
Poly. (SCC-1, 45 min) R = 0.9958
Poly. (SCC-1, 75 min) R = 0.9645
1.3
7
6
4
3
8
7
4
3
6
5
4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Speed (rev/s)
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
Fig C. 8: Time evolution relationship of torque versus speed for SCC-8.
7
6
7
6
5
4
3
0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Speed (rev/s)
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
Speed (rev/s)
SCC-13, 15 min
SCC-13, 50 min
SCC-13, 85 min
Poly. (SCC-13, 15 min) R = 0.9899
Poly. (SCC-13, 50 min) R = 0.9613
Poly. (SCC-13, 85 min) R = 0.9874
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
Speed (rev/s)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
Speed (rev/s)
116
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
SCC-14, 15 min
SCC-14, 45 min
SCC-14, 75 min
Poly. (SCC-14, 15 min) R = 0.9961
Poly. (SCC-14, 45 min) R = 0.9891
Poly. (SCC-14, 75 min) R = 0.9504
10
Speed (rev/s)
Torque (N/m)
0.2
Speed (rev/s)
0.1
1.3
3
2
0.1
0.3
0.2
SCC-12, 15 min
SCC-12, 50 min
SCC-12, 85 min
Poly. (SCC-12, 15 min) R = 0.9887
Poly. (SCC-12, 50 min) R = 0.9923
Poly. (SCC-12, 85 min) R = 0.9689
Torque (N/m)
0.1
SCC-11, 15 min
SCC-11, 45 min
SCC-11, 75 min
Poly. (SCC-11, 15 min) R = 0.9879
Poly. (SCC-11, 45 min) R = 0.9866
Poly. (SCC-11, 75 min) R = 0.9793
Torque (N/m)
0
0
SCC-10, 15 min
SCC-10, 45 min
SCC-10, 85 min
Poly. (SCC-10, 15 min) R = 0.9965
Poly. (SCC-10, 45 min) R = 0.98
Poly. (SCC-10, 85 min) R = 0.9743
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
SCC-9, 15 min
SCC-9, 45 min
SCC-9, 65 min
Poly. (SCC-9, 15 min) R = 0.9927
Poly. (SCC-9, 45 min) R = 0.9891
Poly. (SCC-9, 65 min) R = 0.9947
Torque (N/m)
SCC-8, 15 min
SCC-8, 60 min
SCC-8, 80 min
Poly. (SCC-8, 15 min) R = 0.9794
Poly. (SCC-8, 60 min) R = 0.9735
Poly. (SCC-8, 80 min) R = 0.9848
1.3
1.3
9
8
11
10
9
8
5
4
7
6
5
4
1
0
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
SCC-18, 15 min
SCC-18, 35 min
SCC-18, 65 min
R = 0.9985
Poly. (SCC-18, 15 min)
R = 0.9945
R = 0.9938
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Speed (rev/s)
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
Speed (rev/s)
SCC-21, 15 min
SCC-21, 40 min
SCC-21, 80 min
Poly. (SCC-21, 15 min) R = 0.9951
R = 0.9956
R = 0.9897
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
Speed (rev/s)
Fig C. 21: Time evolution relationship of torque to speed for SCC-21.
117
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
SCC-20, 15 min
SCC-20, 35 min
SCC-20, 60 min
R = 0.9985
R = 0.9946
R = 0.9941
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
Speed (rev/s)
Torque (N/m)
0.6
0.7
SCC-19, 15 min
SCC-19, 40 min
SCC-19, 75 min
Poly. (SCC-19, 15 min) R = 0.9991
R = 0.9951
R = 0.9938
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.6
Speed (rev/s)
Fig C. 16: Time evolution relationship of torque versus speed for SCC-16
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
0.7
SCC-17, 15 min
SCC-17, 50 min
SCC-17, 85 min
Poly. (SCC-17, 15 min) R = 0.9901
R = 0.9927
R = 0.9859
Speed (rev/s)
Speed (rev/s)
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.6
Torque (N/m)
Torque (N/m)
12
Torque (N/m)
10
SCC-16, 15 min
SCC-16, 40 min
SCC-16, 65 min
R = 0.9942
R = 0.998
R = 0.9893
Torque (N/m)
SCC-15, 15 min
SCC-15, 30 min
SCC-15, 60 min
Poly. (SCC-15, 15 min) R = 0.9935
Poly. (SCC-15, 30 min) R = 0.9998
Poly. (SCC-15, 60 min) R = 0.9994
1.3
C.4 - Hershel-Bulkley Rheological parameters for SCC-1 to SCC-21.

Table C. 1: Rheological parameters for SCC-1 to SCC-7.
SCC-1
SCC-2
SCC-3
SCC-4
SCC-5
SCC-6
SCC-7
min
15
45
75
15
40
75
15
30
60
15
30
85
15
45
75
15
45
75
15
65
95
g
0.80
0.93
1.12
0.89
1.19
1.19
1.06
1.53
1.41
1.37
1.79
1.63
1.43
1.27
1.47
1.71
2.49
2.22
1.75
2.39
2.99
h
2.503
2.689
2.944
2.690
2.579
3.196
3.049
3.051
3.806
3.866
3.612
4.559
3.065
3.824
3.978
4.527
3.328
3.984
4.848
4.929
5.451
A
2.466
2.650
2.900
2.670
2.550
3.180
2.996
2.950
3.770
3.757
3.356
4.450
2.922
3.821
3.980
4.471
3.176
3.965
4.720
4.690
5.259
b
1.40
1.40
1.38
1.20
1.32
1.17
1.45
1.67
1.27
1.60
2.13
1.55
1.60
1.00
1.00
1.35
1.86
1.18
1.56
1.86
1.72
SCC-8
SCC-9
SCC-10
SCC-11
SCC-12
SCC-13
SCC-14
min
15
60
80
15
45
65
15
45
85
15
45
75
15
50
85
15
50
85
15
45
75
g
0.55
1.08
1.28
0.74
1.01
1.18
0.78
1.09
1.63
0.89
1.01
1.38
1.10
1.31
2.04
1.10
1.78
1.77
1.32
1.71
2.10
h
3.550
3.128
3.344
3.954
4.290
4.435
3.984
4.118
4.345
4.147
4.335
4.611
4.066
4.065
2.962
4.688
4.135
4.785
3.859
3.874
4.005
118
A
3.550
3.100
3.320
3.950
4.280
4.400
4.000
4.100
4.300
4.150
4.300
4.550
4.038
4.000
2.792
4.650
3.890
4.560
3.800
3.780
3.775
b
1.00
1.27
1.23
1.04
1.10
1.25
0.90
1.15
1.30
0.96
1.25
1.36
1.22
1.41
1.99
1.25
2.00
1.86
1.40
1.55
1.99
SCC-15
SCC-16
SCC-17
SCC-18
SCC-19
SCC-20
SCC-21
min
15
30
60
15
40
65
15
50
85
15
35
65
15
40
75
15
35
60
15
40
80
g
0.74
0.82
1.00
0.94
1.00
1.50
1.14
1.22
1.63
1.32
1.49
1.62
1.21
1.45
1.62
1.32
1.56
1.68
1.15
1.67
1.61
h
5.222
5.938
5.928
5.808
6.169
5.748
5.753
6.427
6.251
6.265
6.533
6.750
6.446
6.580
6.714
6.093
6.437
6.682
5.302
5.587
5.727
119
A
5.200
5.900
5.900
5.800
6.100
5.550
5.700
6.380
6.100
6.200
6.450
6.650
6.430
6.500
6.600
6.000
6.340
6.580
4.935
5.230
5.500
b
1.15
1.17
1.77
1.06
1.32
1.70
1.20
1.25
1.35
1.30
1.35
1.39
1.08
1.34
1.43
1.40
1.37
1.40
1.65
2.05
1.77
APPENDIX D COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS
APPENDIX D COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS

D.1 - Cube Strengths
Table D. 1: Obtained seven day cube strengths for SCC-1 to SCC-21.
7 day strength (N/mm)
STDEV
SCC-1
SCC-2
SCC-3
SCC-4
SCC-5
SCC-6
SCC-7
SCC-8
SCC-9
SCC-10
SCC-11
SCC-12
SCC-13
SCC-14
SCC-15
SCC-16
SCC-17
SCC-18
SCC-19
SCC-20
SCC-21
67.9
66.5
67.1
68.1
64.7
65.8
68
35.8
36.7
35.4
34.7
36.8
33.9
36.4
52.6
54.5
54.5
54.5
52.1
56.3
55.6
1.284152
SFRSCC with GGBS
SFRSCC with PFA
SFRSCC
Cube Strengths
1.082765
1.502221
80
7-Day strength (N/mm)
70
60
50
40
30
SFRSCC
20
10
STD: 1.3
SFRSCC with 30% PFA
STD: 1.08
SFRSCC with 50% GGBS
STD: 1.5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Fig D. 1: Comparison of the 7-day strength developments for SCC-1 to SCC-21
120
APPENDIX E CORRELATION BETWEEN EMPIRICAL AND RHEOLOGICAL PARAMETERS

E.1 Correlation between empirical and rheological parameters for SCC-1 to SCC-7
E.4 Correlation between empirical and rheological parameters
E.5 Time evolution of empirical tests
E.6 Time evolution correlation between empirical and rheological parameters
121
E.1 - Correlations between empirical and rheological parameters for SCC-1 to

SCC-7.
710
700
SCC-4
690
y = -36.713x + 724.76
R = 0.7585
6
5
SCC-5
SCC-5
680
SCC-2
SCC-4 SCC-7
Spread (mm)
y = 1.4099x - 0.3086
R = 0.6118
SCC-6
SCC-1
670
SCC-6
660
SCC-3
SCC-3
SCC-7
650
SCC-2
SCC-1
1
0
640
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.9
2.5
Fig E. 2: Correlation between workability

parameters and h for SCC-1 to SCC-7, 15 min
after addition of water.

parameters and g for SCC-1 to SCC-7, 15 min
710
y = 0.5151x - 0.1041
R = 0.4867
SCC-1
700
SCC-2
SCC-6
SCC-4
690
1.5
Spread (mm)
SCC-5
SCC-7
SCC-4
4.5
Slump flow, t500 (sec)
2.5
3.5
SCC-3
SCC-2
SCC-5
680
SCC-3
SCC-6
670
660
SCC-7
SCC-1
0.5
650
y = -15.564x + 732.03
R = 0.8124
640
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
0.7
1.7
2.7
SCC-1
4.7
SCC-2
SCC-4
y = -0.0386x + 1.2043
R = 0.9835
SCC-6
0.8
SCC-3
0.6
SCC-5
SCC-7
0.4
0.2
0
0
5.7
Fig E. 4: Correlation of workability parameters

and h for SCC-1 to SCC-7, 15 min after addition
of water.
Fig E. 3: Correlation of workability parameters

and g for SCC-1 to SCC-7, 15 min after addition
of water.
1.2
3.7
h
10
15
20
25
30
Fig E. 5: Correlation between L-box blocking ratio and J-ring step of blocking, 15 min after addition of
water.
122
E.2 - Correlations between empirical and rheological parameters for SCC-8 to

SCC-14.
1.6
1.4
1.2
y = 0.7282x + 2.0724
R = 0.745
SCC-14
SCC-11
0.6
SCC-8
3.5
SCC-9
0.4
2.5
SCC-14, 15 min
SCC-14
SCC-8
0.2
SCC-12
SCC-10
0.8
SCC-10
SCC-13
SCC-11
SCC-9
4.5
5.5
y = -0.0144x + 10.864
R = 0.8916
SCC-12
SCC-13
SCC-14, 15 min
2
650
675
700
725
750

1.2
y = 0.2452x + 0.1471
R = 0.214
SCC-10 SCC-11
SCC-12
y = -0.0252x + 21.616
R = 0.9263
4.6
SCC-13
4.4
g
0.6
3.4
3.2
0
2.5
SCC-10
3.5

SCC-14, 15 min
640
660
700
720
740


SCC-8
SCC-9
SCC-10
1
0.8
680
Slump flow t500 time (sec)
1.2
SCC-8
3.6

SCC-14, 15 min
2
SCC-9
SCC-12
4
3.8
SCC-8
SCC-11
SCC-14
4.2
SCC-9
0.2
SCC-13
5
4.8
0.8
0.4

SCC-14
1.4
y = -0.0296x + 1.1099
R = 0.9508
SCC-13
SCC-11
0.6
SCC-12
SCC-14
0.4
0.2

Linear (SCC-8 to SCC-14,
0
0
10
15
20
Fig E. 10: Correlation between L-box blocking ratio and J-ring step of blocking, 15 min after addition of
water.
123
E.3 - Correlation between empirical and rheological parameters for SCC-15 to

SCC21.
2
y = -0.0174x + 12.885
R = 0.7815
SCC-20
SCC-19
1.6
6.5
SCC-21
SCC-15
0.8
670
690
SCC-21
SCC-21, 15 min
4
710
730
750

1.8
SCC21
1.6
SCC-20 SCC-19
SCC-20
SCC-17
4.5
SCC-16

SCC-21, 15 min
0.2
0
2.5
y = -0.0241x + 22.231
R = 0.4239
SCC-16
0.4
4.5
5.5
0.8
SCC-15
SCC-18
SCC-18
0.6
SCC-19
6.5
y = 0.6661x - 1.5153
R = 0.7762
1.2
3.5
4

SCC-17
1.4
SCC-15
4.5
SCC-21, 15 min
650
SCC-20
5.5
SCC-19
SCC-17
SCC-17
SCC-16
0.4
SCC-18
SCC-16
SCC-18
1.2
y = 1.2739x + 0.8938
R = 0.802
3
3.5
4
SCC-15
SCC-21

SCC-21, 15 min
3.5
3
660
4.5

680
700
720
740
760

124
E.4 - Correlation between empirical and rheological parameters
1.2
SCC-15
SCC-17
1
0.8
y = -0.0252x + 1.0995
R = 0.908
SCC-16
0.6
SCC-19
SCC-18
0.4
SCC-20
0.2
SCC-21
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fig E. 15: Correlation between L-box blocking ratio and J-ring step of blocking for SCC-15 to SCC-21, 15
min after the addition of water.
750
y = -60.798x + 715.38
R = 0.3176
700
650
600
SCC-1 to SCC-7
SCC-8 to SCC-13
SCC-14 to SCC-20
SCC-14 and SCC-21
550
500
0.5
1
1.5
2.5
Fig E. 16: Correlation between J-ring spread value and the rheological parameter, g for SCC-1 to SCC-21,
15 min after the addition of water.
8
y = 0.5385x + 1.9082
R = 0.3378
7
6
5
4
SCC-1 to SCC-7
3
SCC-8 to SCC-13
SCC-15 to SCC-20
SCC-14 and SCC-21
0
0
4
6
8
J-ring slump-flow, t500 time (sec)
10
12
Fig E. 17: Correlation between the rheological parameter, h and the J-ring, t500 time for SCC-1 to SCC-21,
15 min after the addition of water.
125
1.4
y = 0.0076x - 4.4107
R = 0.506
1.2
1
SCC-1 to SCC-7
0.8
SCC-7 to SCC-13
0.6
SCC-15 to SCC-20
0.4
SCC-14 and SCC-21
0.2
0
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
Slump-flow spread value (mm)

Fig E. 18: Correlation between the L-box blocking ratio and the slump flow value for SCC-1 to SCC-21, 15
min after the addition of water.
1.2
1
y = -0.1021x2 - 0.1446x + 1.0963

R = 0.5547
0.8
0.6
SCC-1 to SCC-7
SCC-8 to SCC-13
0.4
SCC-15 to SCC-20
SCC-14 and SCC-21
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Fig E. 19: Correlation between the L-box blocking ratio and the rheological parameter, g for SCC-1 to SCC21, 15 min after the addition of water.
1.2
y = -0.0651x + 1.0938
R = 0.2087
1
0.8
0.6
SCC-1 to SCC-7
SCC-8 to SCC-13
0.4
SCC-15 to SCC-20
0.2
SCC-14 and SCC-21
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Fig E. 20: Correlation between the L-box blocking ratio and the rheological parameter, h for SCC-1 to SCC21, 15 min after the addition of water.
126
- Time evolution of empirical tests

750
14
700
12
E.5
650
600
550
500
SCC-1
SCC-4
SCC-7
450
400
15
25
35
SCC-2
SCC-5
SCC-3
SCC-6
SCC-1
SCC-4
SCC-7
8
6
4
2
0
45
55
65
75
85
95
15
35
55
75
95
Fig E. 21: Time evolution of J-ring flow value for

SCC-1 to SCC-7.
Fig E. 22: Time evolution of J-ring, t500 time for

SCC-1 to SCC-7.
750
700
SCC-3
SCC-6
10
650
600
550
500
SCC-8
SCC-9
SCC-10
SCC-11
SCC-12
SCC-13
6
5
4
3
2
SCC-8
SCC-11
SCC-14
SCC-14
450
SCC-9
SCC-12
SCC-10
SCC-13
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
15
12
700
750
10
8
6
4
2
35
45
55
65
75
85

SCC-8 to SCC-14.
14
SCC-15
SCC-17
SCC-19
25

SCC-8 to SCC-14.
SCC-2
SCC-5
SCC-16
SCC-18
SCC-20
650
600
550
SCC-15
SCC-17
SCC-19
SCC-21
500
450
SCC-16
SCC-18
SCC-20
400
0
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
15
85
25
35
45
55
65
75
85

SCC-15 to SCC-21.

SCC-15 to SCC-21
127
E.6 - Time evolution correlation between empirical and rheological parameters
750
y = -39.988x + 736.92
R = 0.2987
700
650
y = -35.4x + 721.69
R = 0.703
y = -39.792x + 723.38
R = 0.332
600
550
SCC-1 to SCC-7, 30 - 65 min
y = -34.458x + 697.06
R = 0.2658
SCC-1 to SCC-7, 60 - 95 min
500
0
2
g
Fig E. 27: Time evolution correlations between Slump flow and the rheological parameter, g, for SCC-1 to
SCC-7.
12
Slump spread, t500 time (sec)
10
y = 2.5281x - 4.886
R = 0.7348
SCC-1 to SCC-7, 30 - 65
min
8
y = 1.4426x - 1.6688
R = 0.5079
y = 1.6647x - 2.3488
R = 0.5069
y = 0.4991x + 0.9139
R = 0.6876
2
0
2
4
h
Fig E. 28: Time evolution correlations between Slump flow, t500 time and the rheological parameter, h, for
SCC-1 to SCC-7.
1
0.9
0.8
y = -0.0327x + 1.0911
R = 0.8948
0.7
0.6
0.5
SCC-1 to SCC-7, 30 - 65
min
SCC-1 to SCC-7, 60 - 95
min
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fig E. 29: Time evolution correlation between L-box ratio and J-ring step of blocking for SCC-1 to SCC-7.
128
800
y = -12.993x + 713.98
R = 0.0311
750
700
y = -67.924x + 754.28
R = 0.9183
650
600
y = 5.0466x + 698.9
R = 0.0157 y = -69.341x + 792.22

SCC-8 to SCC-14, 45 - 60 min
550
R = 0.3395
SCC-8 to SCC-14, 60 - 85 min
500
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
SCC-14.
4
y = -0.3436x + 4.096
R = 0.054
Slump spread, t500 time (sec)
3.5
3
2.5
y = 0.0838x + 2.5121
R = 0.0078
1.5
y = 0.1238x + 2.617
R = 0.0509
SCC-8 to SCC-14, 45 - 60 min
0.5
SCC-8 to SCC-14, 60 - 85 min
y = 0.8735x - 0.7338
R = 0.2871
0
2
2.5
3.5
h
4.5
Fig E. 31: Time evolution correlations between slump flow t500 time and the rheological parameter, h for
SCC-8 to SCC-14.
1.2
1
y = -0.0337x + 1.1301
R = 0.9345
0.8
0.6
Scc-8 to SCC-14, 45 - 60 min
0.4
SCC-8 to SCC-14, 60 - 85 min
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
Fig E. 32: Time evolution correlation between L-box ratio and J-ring step of blocking for SCC-8 to SCC-14.
129

780

SCC-15 to SCC-20, 60 - 80 min
SCC-21, 40 min
760
SCC-15 to SCC-20, 30 - 50 min

SCC-21, 15 min
SCC-21, 80 min
y = -8.5556x + 707.72
R = 0.0083
740
720
700
680
660
y = -66.238x + 808.37
R = 0.1877
640
620
y = -40.804x + 723.59
R = 0.6421
y = -38.113x + 751.18
R = 0.2391
600
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
SCC-21.
7
y = 1.183x - 2.9442
R = 0.1634
6
5
y = 1.1617x - 2.7926
R = 0.4173
y = 0.6333x + 0.1835
R = 0.8288
4
3
y = 1.2715x - 3.3153
R = 0.3718
SCC-15 to SCC-20, 30 - 50 min

SCC-15 to SCC-20, 60 - 85 min
SCC-21, 15 - 85 min
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
Fig E. 34: Time evolution correlations between Slump flow, t500 time and the rheological parameter, h, for
SCC-15 to SCC-20.
1.2
1
y = -0.0268x + 1.1263
R = 0.8412
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
SCC-15 to SCC-21, 30 - 50
min
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Fig E. 35: Time evolution correlation between L-box ratio and J-ring step of blocking for SCC-15 to SCC21.
130
APPENDIX F TWO-POINT THEORY AND CALIBRATION

F.1 Theory of the Two-point method
F.2 Calculation of results and calibration
131
F.1
- Theory of the Two-point method
According to Tattersall and Banfill (1983), there are numerous parameters that the affect
power consumption (P) during mixing, such as the diameter of the impeller D, the speed
of the impeller N, the density of the fluid undergoing mixing , the viscosity of the fluid
and gravitational acceleration gr and is expressed in the following form:
P = f(D, N, , , gr)
(F. 1)
The relationship between these various parameters can be expressed in terms of

dimensionless groups:
Np =
Re =
Fr =
P
.

(F. 2)
3 5
(F. 3)
(F. 4)
Where Np is the power number, Re is the Reynolds number and Fr is the Froude number.
Determining these dimensionless groups allows equation (F. 1) to be written as
Np = B Rex Fry .
(F. 5)
Where B is a constant and x and y are unknown. The term B is known as the apparatus
constant and its value depends on the geometry of the apparatus. The terms x and y
depend on the flowing nature of the concrete. According to Tattersall and Banfill (1983),
the term y is zero for baffled mixers and in laminar flow the Froude number is equal to
one. Therefore, equation (F. 5) becomes:
Np = B Rex .
(F. 6)
In order to determine the values of B and x, a range of experimental values are plotted,
i.e., log Np vs log Re. The term x is the slope of this straight-line relationship.
1.2
Log1Np
A
Laminar
0.8
0.6
Turbulent
0.4
0.2
Transitional
0
0
Log Re 8
Fig F. 1: Relationship between power number and Reynolds number for a mixer (after Tattersall 1983).
132
Fig F.1 illustrates the various flow regimes, in that the region between A and B is
consistent with laminar flow, B-C is the transition region and C-D is the turbulent region.
Providing that the flow in the Two-point workability apparatus is consistent with laminar
flow, the slope of this linear laminar region is equal to -1. In this case, the region A-B is
important during mixing conditions as resistance to flow within the laminar region is only
caused by viscous forces and not on inertial forces as is the case for transitional and
turbulent regimes. Therefore, equation (F. 6) can be written as:
Np = B Re-1 .
(F. 7)
If T is the torque and P = 2TN, then equation (F. 2) can be written as:
Np =
T
2 5
Equation (7) can also be written as:

In Np =In B + x In Re
(F. 8)
Where plotting In Np vs In Re determines the constants B and x. The constant B is

determined by the intercept on the y axis (In Np axis) and x is the slope of the straight line
relationship.
As previously mentioned the shear stress for a Bingham material is equal to the viscosity
multiplied by the shear rate ( = ).
Extensive experiments performed by Tattersall and Banfill (1983) found that for a
Newtonian fluid in the Two-point apparatus, the torque is proportional to viscosity and the
rotational velocity of the impeller in the form:
T = GN .
(F. 9)
Where G is the apparatus constant. If G = BD3, then substituting equation (F. 9) in

equation (F. 8), it can be shown that the slope (x) of the log/log plot is equal to -1 in the
form:
Log
Bn
= Log B + x Log Re .
N2
(F. 10
This negative slope of 1 suggests that the apparatus is operating under laminar conditions.
In addition, plotting In Np against In Re as in equation (F. 8) should produce a straight line
relationship with a slope (x) of -1.
133
According to Tattersall and Banfill (1983), the average shear rate in the Two-point
apparatus is proportional to the speed of the impeller, expressed in the following form:
= KN .
(F. 11)
Actuality, the rate of shear varies from point to point on the flow curve. However, it is not
feasible to perform a full shear rate analysis, so equation (F. 11) is assumed and adopted.
where is the shear rate, K is the constant of proportionality or the mean shear rate and N
is the speed (rev/s).
As previously mentioned, and for a Non-Newtonian material, the apparent viscosity is
equivalent to the viscosity of a Newtonian material at similar shear rates. Therefore, the
apparent viscosity for a Bingham material can be determined by the following:
app =
(F. 12)
Substituting equations (F. 11) and (F. 12) in equation (F. 3) allows one to deduce the Re
number with respect to the apparent viscosity in the form:
Re =
D2 N
(KN)+
(F. 13)
Substituting equation (F. 13) into equation (F. 7) yields the following:
D2 N
= B(
2 5
)-1
(KN)+
o
T
2 5
=B(
(KN)
D2 N
)+B(
D2 N
T = BD3 ( K ) + BD3 (N)

T=
BD3
K
o + BD3 N.
(F. 14)
Comparing equation (14) with

T = g + hN
(F. 15)
yields
g=
BD3
K
o,
(F. 16)
h = BD3 .
(F. 17)
134
For a pseudoplastic or dilatant material, the following shear stress-shear rate relationship
can be assumed, which obeys the power law:
= rs .
Re =
(F. 18)
D3
r(KN)(s1)
(F. 19)
Substituting equations (F. 11), (F. 18) and (F. 19) in equation (F. 7) yields the following:
D3
= B (r(KN)(s1))-1
2 5
T
3
T
= B rKs-1
= BD3 rKs-1 Ns .
(F. 20)
In both the Two-point apparatus and rheometer, equation (F. 20) suggests that a power law
fluid should adhere to a power law relationship and the power index (s) should be of the
same value in both the Two-point apparatus and the viscometer undergoing similar
shearing rates. However, the power law relationship between torque and speed for the
two-point apparatus is assumed as equation (F. 18), but in the following form:
T
= pNq .
(F. 21)
Therefore
app =
T/N
G
pNq1
G
(F. 22)
Where G is known as the apparatus constant and is obtained by plotting a straight line
relationship between T/N and for a series of Newtonian materials or a series of different
viscosities for the same Newtonian material, i.e., different temperatures. The terms p and q
are, respectively, constants which describe the consistency of the concrete and the type of
flow curve.
Comparing the value of app from equations (F. 18) and (F. 22), the rate of shear is in the
following form:
p
= ( )1/(s-1) N(q-1)/(s-1)
rG
(F. 23)
If the indices for the power law fluid, q and s, are equal in value, the relationship between
and N does not depend on N and hence the proportionality constant K is given by
135
p
K = ( )1/(s-1)
rG
(F. 24)
If the indices are not equal, it should be written as

K=(
p 1/(s-1) (q-1)/(s-1)
)
N
rG
(F. 25)
In addition, and as G = BD3, equations (F. 16) and (F. 17) can be expressed as
o =
K
G
(F. 26)
and
=
F.2
1
G
(F. 27)
- Calculation of results and Calibration
Calibrating the two-point apparatus involves two-stage calibration. Firstly, the torque must
be calibrated with the pressure, known as the torque/pressure calibration constant. To
determine the torque/pressure calibration constant a lever arm is attached to the impeller
shaft by means of a clamp. A spring balance is then attached to both the free end of the
lever arm and the frame of the apparatus. This allows the resulting breaking force (kg) to
be measured at various pressures (lb/in2). A graph is then plotted of pressure against
breaking force and the slope of this straight-line relationship is used to obtain the
calibration constant C:
C = 9.81 * lever arm (m) * (1/slope)
(F. 28)
Where 9.81 m/s2 converts Kilograms (Kg) to Newtons (N) and the lever arm (m) converts
Newtons (N) to Newton meter (Nm) and therefore the torque T is obtained by the
following equation:
T=C*P
(F. 29)
Where P is the pressures obtained during testing.

By calibrating the rheometer with oils of known rheological properties, one can relate the
measured rheological values g and h with the fundamental parameters 0 and (Tattersall
and Banfill, 1983; Cullen and West, 2005). Fig F.2 adapted from Banfill (2001) illustrates
the relationship between the measured units of both torque and rotational speed with the
fundamental units of shear stress and shear rate.
136
Fig F. 2: Relationship between the measured units and rheological parameters (after Banfill 2001).
Obtaining the calibration constants is very straightforward and this following section will
set out to do just that. As previously mentioned, Tattersall and Banfill (1983) suggested
the following equations for calibrating the two-point workability test with known
rheological parameters for Newtonian fluids:
0 =
=
K
G
1
G
(F. 30)
(F. 31)
As previously mentioned, when shearing the material in the two-point workability

apparatus, the rate of shear varies but it is assumed that there is a mean effective shear rate
which is proportional to the speed of the vane given by
= KN
(F. 32)
The apparatus constant G is obtained by plotting and comparing a straight line relationship
between T/N and for a series of Newtonian materials or a series of different viscosities
for the same Newtonian material, i.e., a Newtonian fluid of different temperatures in both
the two-point apparatus and the rheometer. The viscosity of the Newtonian fluids at
various temperatures in the two-point test are determined by interpolating the viscosities
obtained from the rheometer and hence the apparatus constant is obtained from the
following equation:
G=
T/N
(F. 33)
In addition, the viscosity of the selected Newtonian fluid should fall within the range of
typical viscosities of SCC.
137
The constant K is proportional to the yield stress and is known as the mean shear rate,
which is obtained by comparing the power-law relationship between torque and angular
velocity in the two-point apparatus and that obtained from a rheometer. It is important to
recognise that evaluating the calibration constant K requires the use of a power law fluid
of a known viscosity, and the selected viscosity should represent the concrete undergoing
rheological testing. For example, calibrating the two-point apparatus for testing TVC
would involve selecting a power law fluid of a viscosity ranging from 20 40 pa.s as these
viscosities are closely matched to the typical viscosities of TVC. On the other hand, SCC
possesses viscosities greater than 40 pa.s and, therefore the viscosity of the power law
fluid should be selected to reflect a viscosity greater than 40 pa.s.
According to Tattersall and Banfill (1983), a power-law relationship should exist between
the two-point test and that of a rheometer, which are, respectively, in the following form
T =pNq
(F. 34)
= rs
(F. 35)
Where p, q, r and s are constants, determined from the following equations:

In T = In p + q In N
(F. 36)
In = In r + s In
(F. 37)
In equation (F. 36) the constants q and p are determined by plotting the relationship
between ln Torque (ln T) and ln Speed (ln N) obtained by the Two-point apparatus where
q is slope of the straight line relationship and p is intercept on the ln Torque axis. The
same applies to the constants r and s in equation (F. 37), where r and s are determined by
plotting the relationship between ln shear stress (In ) and ln shear rate (ln ) obtained in
the rheometer where r and s are, respectively, the intercept and slope.
In general, the constant K is calculated from the following equation, providing both the
range of shear rates are the same in both the two-point test and the rheometer and if the
indices for the power law fluid q and s are the same (Banfill et al, 2001):
p
K = ( )1/(s-1)
rG
(F. 38)
If the indices q and s are not equal then the constant K should be calculated by the
following equation:
K=(
p 1/(s-1) (q-1)/(s-1)
)
N
(F. 39)
rG
138
APPENDIX G TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS
APPENDIX G TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS

G.1
Steel fibres
G.2 Admixtures
139

Roy Belton: The Rheological and Empirical Characteristics of Steel Fibre Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete With GGBS and PFA

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Roy Belton: The Rheological and Empirical Characteristics of Steel Fibre Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete With GGBS and PFA

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Rheological Characteristics of Steel Fibre

Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete with PFA and

A thesis submitted to Trinity College Dublin

Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering

2.5.8. Influence of superplasticiser on rheology ................................................................................. 33

5.3.2. Empirical tests ......................................................................................................................... 82

Mix Design for SCC-1 to SCC-7. ........................................................................................ 110

Mix design for SCC-8 to SCC-14. ....................................................................................... 111

Mix design for SCC-15 to SCC-21. ..................................................................................... 112

Appendix B Rheological data .............................................................................................................. 113

- Rheological data ................................................................................................................... 113

Appendix C Time evolution relationships ........................................................................................... 114

- Hershel-Bulkley Rheological parameters for SCC-1 to SCC-21............................................ 118

Appendix D Compressive strengths .................................................................................................... 120

- Cube Strengths ..................................................................................................................... 120

Appendix E Correlation between empirical and rheological parameters .......................................... 121

- Correlation between empirical and rheological parameters ................................................... 125

- Time evolution of empirical tests.......................................................................................... 127

- Time evolution correlation between empirical and rheological parameters............................ 128

Appendix F Two-point theory and calibration ................................................................................... 131

- Theory of the Two-point method .......................................................................................... 132

- Calculation of results and Calibration ................................................................................... 136

Appendix G Technical data sheets ...................................................................................................... 139

Steel fibres........................................................................................................................... 139

Admixtures .......................................................................................................................... 139

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION

1.2. Benefits of using self-compacting concrete

reduced electrical energy requirements as concrete vibrators are not required,

reduced placing times as conventional concrete vibrating techniques are not

Fig 1. 2: A team of two operatives placing and

Fig 1. 1: A team of eight operatives placing and

1.3. Concrete workability

Table 1. 1: Classes of workability measurement (after Tattersall 1991).

1.4. Objectives and Scope

1.7. Layout of the Thesis

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.2. Constituent Materials

2.2.2. Fine and Coarse Aggregates

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.2.3. Cements and additions

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.2.4. Pozzolanic materials

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Table 2. 1: Composition for slag cements.

It should be noted, that replacements of cement clinker are possible up to 95 per

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Limestone powder is frequently used in SCC. IS EN 197-1:2011 states that

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.2.6. Viscosity modifying admixtures

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.2.7. Steel fibres

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Table 2. 3: Steel fibre profiles (after Cunha et al. 2009).

As mentioned previously, SCC requires a high cement/paste content and a low

2.3. Mechanism for achieving self-compactability

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.3.1. Filling Ability

2.3.2. Passing Ability

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.3.3. Resistance to Segregation

2.4.1. Principles and measurement of rheology