See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263889691

Concrete Laboratory Report

Technical Report October 2013

CITATION READS

1 1,154

1 author:

Nick Bester
Aurecon Cape Town
6 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Nick Bester
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 02 October 2016
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIV5002Z

STRUCTURAL CONCRETE PROPERTIES AND PRACTICE

Laboratory Report

Plagiarism Declaration
1. I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use anothers work and to pretend that it is ones own.

2. I have used the Harvard Convention for citation and referencing. Each significant contribution to and
quotation in this report form the work or works of other people has been attributed and has been cited
and referenced.

3. This laboratory report is my own work

4. I have not allowed and will not allow anyone to copy my work with the intension of passing it as his or
her own work.

Student No: BSTNIC005 Surname: Bester

Date: 14/10/2013 Signature: ____

 i

Summary
This report was initiated by a concrete laboratory report brief given out by Professor Mark
Alexander in the CIV5002Z: Structural Concrete Properties and Practice postgraduate course. It
contains trial mix designs (mix requirements and mix proportions) and experimental results
(compressive strength, shrinkage and heat of hydration) of two concrete mixes to be used for two
different applications (high-strength columns and moderate-strength large-diameter piers).

Trial Mix 1 is to be used for high-strength columns. It requires a design strength of 45 MPa
due to the high loads to be taken by the column, minimal creep and shrinkage to reduce vertical
shorting of the building and adequate workability so that the concrete could be placed
appropriately. A 70/30 blend CEM I 52.5N cement and fly ash was used the cement providing
the required strength of the concrete at a reasonable water/binder ratio and the fly ash aiding in
increasing workability. A water binder ratio of 0.45 was required and a slump of 100 mm was
specified for adequate workability. A 50/50 blend of dune and crusher sand was used as fine
aggregate with a 19 mm greywacke stone as coarse aggregate. A water content of 180 /m3 was
specified and superplasticing admixture was specified to increase workability.

Trial Mix 2 is to be used for moderate strength large-diameter piers. It requires a design
strength of 20 MPa due to the relatively low loads and large cross-sectional area of the pier, low
heat of hydration to prevent thermal cracking and minimal shrinkage to avoid surface cracking. A
70/30 blend CEM II M-B (L-S) 42.5N cement and fly ash was used the cement providing the
required strength of the concrete at a reasonable water/binder ratio as well as aiding in reducing
the heat of hydration, and the fly ash aiding in decreasing the heat of hydration as well as in
increasing workability. A water binder ratio of 0.70 was required and a slump of 75 mm was
specified for adequate workability. A 50/50 blend of dune sand and crusher sand was used as fine
aggregate with a 19 mm greywacke stone as coarse aggregate. A water content of 175 /m3 was
specified.

Experimental test procedures to determine the compressive strength, shrinkage and heat of
hydration of the trial mixes were conducted. The compressive strength was determined at ages of
7, 14 and 28 days by crushing standard 100 x 100 x 100 mm cube specimens. The compressive
strength development rate was inferred from the measured compressive strengths. The shrinkage
was determined using an accelerated shrinkage test whereby shrinkage of 100 x 100 x 200 mm
prismatic specimens was monitored from 7 days until 13 days. The heat of hydration was
determined using a semi-adiabatic test where the temperature was measures every 1.5 hours from
casting until an age of 72 hours. The heat of hydration evolution rate was inferred from the
measured heat of hydration.

The results of Trial Mix 1 suggest that the mix did not have sufficient workability as it had
a failed slump and was observed to be lacking in cohesion and segregate. A 28 day compressive
strength of 51.3 MPa was achieved with very low variance which met the required characteristic

Summary
 ii

strength of 45 MPa. Additionally, a high strength development rate of between 3.0 and 5.5
MPa/day was observed up to an age of 7 days. Variance of the shrinkage results was too large and
so the readings could not be deemed acceptable. Nevertheless, shrinkage strains of 280 microstrains
were recorded which were sufficiently low as they result in a vertical shortening of approximately
1mm every 3m or per storey. Although not a requirement, a high heat of hydration temperature of
53.5 C and a significantly high peak heat of hydration evolution rate of 2.1 C/hour were
recorded. It is recommended that the dosage of the admixture be reduced to 0.20% by mass of
binder to reduce the segregation of the mix and that the shrinkage test be reconducted to obtain
results of sufficiently low variance.

The results of Trial Mix 2 suggest that the mix had sufficient workability, as it had a slump
of 95 mm slump and was observed to be moderately cohesive and not segregate. A 28 day
compressive strength of 20.7 MPa was achieved with low variance which did not meet the required
characteristic strength of 20 MPa. A low strength development rate of between 1.0 and 2.0
MPa/day was observed up to an age of 7 days. Variance of the shrinkage results was too large and
so the readings could not be deemed acceptable. Nevertheless, shrinkage strains of 190 microstrains
were recorded however it was not possible to conclude whether this would or would not cause
shrinkage-induced surface cracking. A low heat of hydration temperature of 33.6 C and a low peak
heat of hydration evolution rate of 0.75 C/hour were recorded and were deemed sufficiently low so
as to not cause thermal cracking. It is recommended that a water-reducing admixture be added to
the mix or if this is not possible, the water/binder ratio of the mix be reduced to 0.60 to increase
the compressive strength of the mix to the required characteristic strength of 20 MPa and that the
shrinkage test be reconducted to obtain results of sufficiently low variance. Furthermore, it is
recommended that a ring test be conducted to determine whether shrinkage-induced cracking
occurs.

Summary
 iii

Table of Contents
Summary i
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures v
List of Tables v
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation for and Subject of Report 1
1.2 Objectives of Report 1
1.3 Scope and Limitations 1
1.4 Layout of Report 1
2. Trial Mix Design 2
2.1 Mix 1: High-Strength Columns 2
2.1.1 Mix Requirements 2
2.1.2 Trial Mix Design 3
2.2 Mix 2: Moderate Strength Large-Diameter Piers 5
2.2.1 Mix Requirements 5
2.2.2 Trial Mix Design 6
3. Experimental Test Procedures 9
3.1 Compressive Strength 9
3.2 Shrinkage 9
3.3 Heat of Hydration 9
4. Observations and Results 10
4.1 Workability 10
4.2 Compressive Strength 10
4.3 Shrinkage 11
4.4 Heat of Hydration 12
5. Discussion 13
5.1 Mix 1: High-Strength Columns 13
5.1.1 Workability 13
5.1.2 Compressive Strength 13
5.1.3 Shrinkage 14
5.1.4 Heat of Hydration 14
5.2 Mix 2: Moderate Strength Large-Diameter Piers 15
5.2.1 Workability 15
5.2.2 Compressive Strength 15
5.2.3 Shrinkage 16
5.2.4 Heat of Hydration 16
6. Conclusions and Recommendations 18

Table of Contents
 iv

6.1 Mix 1: High-Strength Columns 18

6.2 Mix 2: Moderate Strength Large-Diameter Pier 18
7. References 20
Appendix A: Detailed Trial Mix Design 21
A1: Mix 1 Detailed Trial Mix Design 21
A2: Mix 2 Detailed Trial Mix Design 25
Appendix B: Detailed Experimental Results 30
B1: Compressive Strength Results 30
B2: Shrinkage Results 31
B3: Heat of Hydration Results 31
Appendix C: Concrete Laboratory Brief 33

Table of Contents
 v

List of Figures
Figure 4.1: Compressive strength development of the two trial mixes. 10
Figure 4.2: Compressive strength development rate of the two trial mixes. 11
Figure 4.3: Shrinkage results for the two trial mixes. 11
Figure 4.4: Heat of hydration evolution of the two trial mixes. 12
Figure 4.5: Heat of hydration evolution rate of the two trial mixes. 12
Figure A.1: Manufacturers cement strength development curves and the selection of the
appropriate water/cement ratio. 22
Figure A.2: Manufacturers cement strength development curves and the selection of the
appropriate water/cement ratio. 26

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Trial Mix 1 mix proportions and key mix properties. 3
Table 2.2: Trial Mix 2 mix proportions and key mix properties. 6
Table 2.3: Trial Mix 2 mix proportions and key mix properties (continued). 7
Table 4.1: Workability results for Trial Mix 1 and 2. 10
Table A.1: Trial Mix 1 proportions, batch masses and volumes, and key mix properties. 25
Table A.2: Trial Mix 2 proportions, batch masses and volumes, and key mix properties. 28
Table A.3: Trial Mix 2 proportions, batch masses and volumes, and key mix properties
(continued). 29
Table B.1: Compressive strength results for Trial Mix 1 specimens. 30
Table B.2: Compressive strength results for Trial Mix 2 specimens. 30
Table B.3: Shrinkage results for Trial Mix 1 specimens. 31
Table B.4: Shrinkage results for Trial Mix 2 specimens. 31
Table B.5: Heat of hydration results for both trial mix specimens. 31
Table B.6: Heat of hydration results for both trial mix specimens (continued). 32

List of Figures and Tables

 1

1. Introduction
1.1 Motivation for and Subject of Report
This report was initiated by a concrete laboratory report brief given out by Professor Mark
Alexander in the CIV5002Z: Structural Concrete Properties and Practice postgraduate course at
the University of Cape Town. The purpose of the laboratory report is to expose students to
concrete mix design, experimentation and technical report writing.

The report contains trial mix designs (mix requirements and mix proportions) and
experimental results (compressive strength, shrinkage and heat of hydration) of two concretes to be
used for different applications (high-strength columns and moderate strength large-diameter piers),
as per the Concrete Laboratory Brief (see Appendix C).

1.2 Objectives of Report

The objectives of the report were to:

Provide and explain the mix requirements of each mix given their applications.
Provide mix designs for the two concrete applications (high-strength columns and moderate
strength piers) and give reasoning as to the selection and proportioning/quantity of materials
for the mix design of each concrete.
Outline the methodology followed in the experimental testing of the two concrete mixes.
Present the observations and results attained.
Provide a discussion on the observations and results attained.
Draw conclusions and make recommendations relating to the suitability of the two concrete
mixes for their respective applications.

1.3 Scope and Limitations

The scope of the report was to provide mix designs for the two concretes and present, discuss and
make conclusions on the results obtained from experimentation conducted on the trial mix
specimens. There were limitations associated with both the mix design and the experimentation;
the former was limited to a select number of materials/ingredients (listed in the Concrete
Laboratory Brief attached in Appendix C) whilst the latter was limited by the number of
specimens that could be used. Furthermore, an added limitation of only one trial mix limited the
refinement of the trial mixes.

1.4 Layout of Report

An introduction to the report is provided in Section 1. The mix requirements and the trial mix
designs are then provided in Section 2 followed by the experimental procedures followed (Section
3). Observations and results are then provided in Section 4 after which the observations and results
are discussed in Section 5. Conclusions and recommendations are then made in Section 6. Detailed
mix designs and experimental results are provided in Appendix A and B respectively.

Section 1: Introduction
 2

2. Trial Mix Design

Trial mix designs for the two concrete mixes are provided in this section. For each mix, the mix
requirements, trial mix proportions and the reasoning for the choice materials and mix proportions
are provided and discussed. Detailed mix designs for the two mixes can be found in Appendix A.

2.1 Mix 1: High-Strength Columns

2.1.1 Mix Requirements
The application and a summarised list of the requirements for Mix 1 are given below. The full
description of the application and mix requirements can be found in Concrete Laboratory Brief (see
Appendix C). The reasoning for these mix requirements are discussed in Sections 2.1.1.1 to 2.1.1.3.

Application: Columns for a high-rise building

Direct compressive stresses carried are approximately 15 MPa
Minimal creep and shrinkage
Sufficient workability for highly reinforced 300 mm columns

2.1.1.1 Compressive Strength

The direct compressive stress of 15 MPa translates into a design strength of 45 MPa (see Appendix
A1). This is a relatively high design strength and is required as the concrete application is a
column of a high-rise building. High-rise buildings, due to their inherent increased height, have
significantly high loads that must be carried by vertical load-bearing members such as columns. In
order to carry these loads without having columns of excessively large cross-sections, higher
strength concrete must be used along with heavily reinforced steel cages.

2.1.1.2 Creep and Shrinkage

Creep and shrinkage deformations are crucial in high-rise buildings. The total vertical shortening of
a column of a high-rise building (or any other vertical load-bearing member) is the sum of the
elastic deformation and the inelastic deformations due to creep and shrinkage; the latter
deformations can be significantly larger than the former. If not minimised, creep and shrinkage can
cause significant vertical shortening of load bearing members potentially resulting in damage to
elevators, pipelines, curtain walls, etc. Additionally, differential shortening of vertical columns can
result in increased stresses which should be accounted for in rebar of vertical members that shorten
less.

2.1.1.3 Workability
The need for heavily reinforced steel cages in columns, as discussed in Section 2.1.1.1, means that
the rebar cages can be very dense. For this reason, adequate workability is required to ensure that
concrete can flow through the rebars to the cover region of the cross-section (as the concrete is
poured in centre of the rebar cage) when vibrated, without segregating.

Section 2: Trial Mix Design

 3

2.1.2 Trial Mix Design

The mix design was done according to the Cement and Concrete Institute (C&CI) volumetric mix
design method. The trial mix design proportions obtained for one cubic metre of concrete for Trial
Mix 1 are provided in Table 2.1. The reasoning for the choice of the materials and mix proportions
are provided in Sections 2.1.2.1 to 2.1.2.11. It should be noted that the choice of materials for
mixes was limited to those specified (see Appendix C). The detailed mix design is provided in
Appendix B1.

Table 2.1: Trial Mix 1 mix proportions and key mix properties.
Mix Proportions
Mass or Volume
Material Type
(kg/m3 or /m3) 1
Water - 180
Binder CEM I 52.5N (70%) 280
Extender Fly Ash (30%) 120
Coarse Aggregate Crushed Greywacke (19mm) 1110
Philippi Dune Sand (50%) 355
Fine Aggregate
Crusher Sand (50%) 355
Admixture Superplasticiser 1.0
Key Mix Properties
Target Strength (MPa) 60
Water/Binder Ratio 0.45
Slump (mm) 100
1
Solid materials have units kg/m3 and liquid materials have units /m3.

2.1.2.1 Target Strength

The direct compressive stresses carried in the column are approximately 15 MPa. These direct
stresses were increased by a factor of safety of 1.4 to give a factored working stress of
approximately 20 MPa. The characteristic strength was then determined by dividing the factored
working stress by the cylinder-cube conversion (0.8) and the cube-beam conversion (0.85), and
multiplying by the material safety factor ( = 1.5). It was assumed that a good site control will
be achieved and so the standard deviation required for calculating target strength was 5 MPa
(Table 16.1; McDonald, 2009). The target strength was determined to be 53 MPa.

2.1.2.2 Cement Type, Extender Type and Adjusted Target Strength

The CEM I 52.5N cement was chosen due to its relatively higher compressive strength potential,
compared to the two other available cements, as it is ground finer and so is more reactive. Fly ash
shall be used at a replacement level of 30% (by mass) as it improves the workability, due to the
spherical shape of its particles, by reducing the water requirement for a given slump. The use of fly
ash slows the strength development (as it requires a high pH of around 13.2 for its glass material
to break down so that its pozzolanic reaction can commence) but increases the strength at later
ages due to the refinement of the microstructure that it provides. In order to achieve the relatively

Section 2: Trial Mix Design

 4

high 28 day characteristic strength with the 30% fly ash replacement (by mass), the target
strength was increased by 20%. The target strength for the trial mix was therefore 60 MPa.

2.1.2.3 W/B Ratio

Using the manufacturers cement characterisation curves, the water/cement ratio corresponding to
the target strength of 60 MPa was read off and was determined to be approximately 0.45. No
maximum water/cement ratio was specified for durability as this was not an explicit requirement.

2.1.2.4 Coarse Aggregate Size and Type

A 19 mm crushed greywacke stone was used as coarse aggregate as this was the only aggregate size
and type available for selection (see Appendix C). A bulk consolidated density (CBD) of 1520
kg/m3 was assumed.

2.1.2.5 Slump
A slump of about 100 mm was specified. This slump is slightly higher than usual and is governed
by the need for adequate workability when placing the concrete due to the high rebar density
expected in the concrete column (see Section 2.1.1.3).

2.1.2.6 Fine Aggregate Type and Proportion

A 50/50 blend of Philippi dune sand and crusher sand was used to ensure a good fine aggregate
grading. Dune sand is an aeolian sand and so is round in shape and singly graded. In contrast,
crusher sand is angular in shape and is well graded (due to the crushing process). The dune sand
increases workability due to its rounded shape, making up for the lack of workability of the angular
crusher sand. The well-graded crusher sand tends to increase workability, making up for the
decrease in workability of the singly-graded dune sand. A 50/50 blend of the two sands therefore
provides an effective particle shape and fine aggregate grading that tends to increase workability.

2.1.2.7 Water Content

The water content was estimated by considering suggested water contents (Table 11.2; McDonald,
2009) and by using prior experience. The water content was determined by taking into account the
particle shape of the fine aggregate (a 50/50 blend of rounded and angular sand), the maximum
size of the coarse aggregate (19 mm), the required slump (100 mm), the binder type (a 70/30 blend
of CEM I 52.5N and fly ash). The use of a 50/50 blend of Philippi dune sand and crusher sand
tended to increase the workability (as discussed in Section 2.1.2.6). Additionally, the use of fly ash
as a binder increased workability of the mix. (as discussed in Section 2.1.2.2). From these
considerations, a water content of 180 /m3 was chosen to achieve the required slump and therefore
sufficient workability of the mix.

2.1.2.8 Cement and Extender Content

Using the water/binder ratio of 0.45 and the water content of 180 /m3, the mass of binder was
determined to be 400 kg/m3. The mass of each binder type was then given by the blend ratio of
70/30. The mass of CEM I 52.5N was determined to be 280 kg/m3 and the mass of fly ash to be
120 kg/m3.

Section 2: Trial Mix Design

 5

2.1.2.9 Coarse Aggregate Content

The coarse aggregate content was calculated using the CBD, K value and the fineness modulus. A
CBD of 1520 kg/m3 was used (see Section 2.1.2.4). A recommended K value of 0.94 was used as a
slump of 100mm was required and the maximum aggregate size was 19 mm (Table 11.4 Addis &
Goodman, 2009). The effective fineness modulus of the blended fine aggregate was used. This
yielded a coarse aggregate content of 1110 kg/m3.

2.1.2.10 Fine Aggregate Content

The fine aggregate content was determined by calculating the remaining volume required to
achieve a mix volume of 1 m3. This yielded a fine aggregate content of approximately 710 kg/m3.
The mass of each sand type was then given by the blend ratio of 50/50. The mass of each sand
type was therefore 355 kg/m3.

2.1.2.11 Admixture Type and Content

A superplasticising admixture was used to increase the workability of the mix and because they
have negligible secondary effects. The superplasticiser is a polycarboxylate ether-based admixture
which provides maximum water reduction and early strength development. A slightly lower than
typical dosage of 0.25% by mass of binder (typical dosages being 0.4% to 1.0% (Marais, 2009)) was
specified as the mix only required a relatively small increase in workability.

2.2 Mix 2: Moderate Strength Large-Diameter Piers

2.2.1 Mix Requirements
The application and a summarised list of the requirements for Mix 2 are given below. The full
description of the application and mix requirements can be found in Concrete Laboratory Brief (see
Appendix C). The reasoning for these mix requirements are discussed in Sections 2.2.1.1 to 2.2.1.3.

Application: Large-diameter bridge pier

Concrete has a design strength of 20 MPa
Heat of hydration development to be kept to a minimum
Minimise shrinkage strains to avoid surface cracking

2.2.1.1 Compressive Strength

The low design strength of 20 MPa of the pier is due to its large cross-sectional area. For a given
load (force), the greater the cross-sectional area, the lesser the stress over the cross-section will be.
The pier is stated to be a large-diameter pier and so the corresponding large cross-sectional area
will result in a much lower stress in the concrete which means that the concrete requires a
relatively low compressive strength.

2.2.1.2 Heat of Hydration

Significant thermal gradients can develop across mass concrete members. The thermal gradients
are established as the concrete increases in temperature (due to hydration) and then when it
decreases in temperature (due to cooling). In the case of the former, the surface portion of the

Section 2: Trial Mix Design

 6

concrete cools relatively rapidly as it is exposed to the environment whilst the inner zone portion
does not cool as quickly, due to the low diffusivity of the concrete, and so remains relatively hotter
than the surface portion of the concrete. The internal portion of the concrete expands but is
restrained by the cooler surface concrete which induces tensile stresses in the surface concrete and
may cause cracking (if the tensile stresses induced exceed the tensile strength of the concrete). In
the case of the latter, when the inner concrete portion cools, the already cool surface concrete
restrains contraction of the inner concrete in which tensile stresses are generated in the inner
portion of the concrete and potentially cracking (if the induced tensile stresses are greater than the
tensile strength of the concrete).

These thermal gradients, as well as the induced tensile stresses, become greater with an
increase in the heat of hydration (larger thermal gradient) and so an increase the risk of cracking.
The cracks may reduce the durability of the pier by significantly increasing the piers penetrability.
The heat of hydration of the concrete must therefore be kept to a minimum to ensure sufficient
durability of the pier and a sufficiently long service life.

2.2.1.3 Shrinkage Strains

The need to minimise shrinkage of the concrete is to avoid surface cracking. Shrinkage, when
restrained, will induce tensile stresses in the concrete. These stresses however are somewhat
reduced due to relaxation of the concrete. If these stresses (after relaxation) exceed the tensile
stress of the concrete then cracking will occur. These cracks may be of appreciable size and so can
be aesthetically unpleasing and have an adverse effect on durability. Minimising the shrinkage
strains to a sufficiently low magnitude will result in tensile stresses being induced that are less than
the tensile strength of the concrete and so cracking will not occur.

2.2.2 Trial Mix Design

The mix design was done according to the Cement and Concrete Institute (C&CI) volumetric mix
design method. The trial mix design proportions obtained for one cubic metre of concrete for Trial
Mix 2 are provided in Table 2.2. The reasoning for the choice of the materials and mix proportions
are provided in Sections 2.2.2.1 to 2.2.2.10. It should be noted that the choice of materials for
mixes was limited to those specified (see Appendix C). The detailed mix design is provided in
Appendix B2.

Table 2.2: Trial Mix 2 mix proportions and key mix properties.
Mix Proportions
Mass or Volume
Material Type
(kg/m 3 or /m 3 ) 1
Water - 175
Binder CEM II M-B (L-S) 42.5N (70%) 175
Extender Fly Ash (30%) 75
Coarse Aggregate Crushed Greywacke (19mm) 1180
Philippi Dune Sand (50%) 395
Fine Aggregate
Crusher Sand (50%) 395

Section 2: Trial Mix Design

 7

Table 2.3: Trial Mix 2 mix proportions and key mix properties (continued).
Key Mix Properties
Target Strength (MPa) 25
Water/Binder Ratio 0.7
Slump (mm) 75
1
Solid materials have units kg/m3 and liquid materials have units /m3.
2.2.2.1 Target Strength
The concrete has a design (characteristic) strength of 20 MPa. It was assumed that a good site
control will be achieved and so the standard deviation required for calculating target strength was
5 MPa (Table 16.1; McDonald, 2009). The target strength was determined to be approximately 25
MPa.

2.2.2.2 Cement Type and Extender Type

A CEM II M-B (L-S) 42.5N was chosen due to its low heat properties due to the reasonable
amount of ground granulated blastfurnace slag which undergoes a latent hydraulic reaction
(ground granulated blastfurnace slag requires hydroxyl ions released from the hydration of ordinary
Portland cement to breakdown its glass material so that its hydraulic reaction can commence).
This aids in reducing the high early rate of heat of hydration evolution a requirement for the
concrete application (see Section 2.2.1.2). It was chosen over a CEM II M-B (L-S) 32.5N cement as
it is more economical - for the given compressive strength, a lower water/binder ratio may be used
and therefore less cement is needed. Fly ash was also used at a replacement level of 30% (by mass)
as it also aids in reducing the early rate of heat of hydration evolution as it requires a high pH of
around 13.2 for its glass material to break down so that its pozzolanic reaction can commence.

2.2.2.3 W/B Ratio

Using the manufacturers cement characterisation curves, the water/cement ratio corresponding to
the target strength of 25 MPa was read off and was determined to be approximately 0.70. No
maximum water/cement ratio was specified for durability as this was not an explicit requirement.

2.2.2.4 Coarse Aggregate Size and Type

A 19 mm crushed greywacke stone was used as coarse aggregate as this was the only aggregate size
and type available for selection (see Appendix C). A bulk consolidated density (CBD) of 1520
kg/m3 was assumed.

2.2.2.5 Slump
A slump of 75 mm was specified. This slump is within the range of typical slumps. The slump was
not required to be any higher as the form that the concrete needs to take is massive and so only
moderate workability would be required.

2.2.2.6 Fine Aggregate Type and Proportion

A 50/50 blend of Philippi dune sand and crusher sand was used to ensure a good fine aggregate
grading. Dune sand is an aeolian sand and so is round in shape and singly graded. In contrast,
crusher sand is angular in shape and is well graded (due to the crushing process). The dune sand

Section 2: Trial Mix Design

 8

increases workability due to its rounded shape, making up for the lack of workability of the angular
crusher sand. The well-graded crusher sand tends to increase workability, making up for the
decrease in workability of the singly-graded dune sand. A 50/50 blend of the two sands therefore
provides an effective particle shape and fine aggregate grading that tends to increases workability.

2.2.2.7 Water Content

The water content was estimated by considering suggested water contents (Table 11.2; McDonald,
2009) and by using prior experience. The water content was determined by taking into account the
particle shape of the fine aggregate (a 50/50 blend of rounded and angular sand), the maximum
size of the coarse aggregate (19 mm), the required slump (175 mm), the binder type (a 70/30 blend
of CEM II M-B (L-S) 42.5N and fly ash). The use of a 50/50 blend of Philippi dune sand and
crusher sand tended to increase the workability (as discussed in Section 2.2.2.6). Additionally, the
use of fly ash as a binder increased workability of the mix (as discussed in Section 2.2.2.2). Taking
into account these considerations, a water content of 175 /m3 was chosen to achieve the required
slump and therefore sufficient workability of the mix.

2.2.2.8 Cement and Extender Content

Using the water/binder ratio of 0.70 and the water content of 175 /m3, the mass of binder was
determined to be 250 kg/m3. The mass of each binder type was then given by the blend ratio of
70/30. The mass of CEM II M-B (L-S) 42.5N was determined to be 175 kg/m3 and the mass of fly
ash to be 75 kg/m3.

2.2.2.9 Coarse Aggregate Content

The coarse aggregate content was calculated using the CBD, K value and the fineness modulus. A
CBD of 1520 kg/m3 was used (see Section 2.2.2.4). A recommended K value of 1.00 was used as a
slump of 75 mm was required and the maximum aggregate size was 19 mm (Table 11.4; Addis &
Goodman, 2009). The effective fineness modulus of the blended fine aggregate of 2.55 was used.
Due to the use of fly ash, the aggregate content could be increased by about 5% (Table 11.5; Addis
& Goodman, 2009). This yielded a coarse aggregate content of 1180 kg/m3.

2.2.2.10 Fine Aggregate Content

The fine aggregate content was determined by calculating the remaining volume required to
achieve a mix volume of 1 m3. This yielded a fine aggregate content of approximately 790 kg/m3.
The mass of each sand type was then given by the blend ratio of 50/50. The mass of each sand
type was therefore 395 kg/m3.

Section 2: Trial Mix Design

 9

3. Experimental Test Procedures

Experimental tests to determine the compressive strength, shrinkage and heat of hydration of the
trial mixes were carried out on trial mix specimens. The procedures followed in the experimental
testing are outline in Sections 3.1 through 3.3. References are made to the relevant SANS codes
that were followed and details of the specimens and test procedures, where they differed from the
relevant code, are provided.

3.1 Compressive Strength

The compressive strength of the trial mixes was determined using a standard cube crushing
procedure. Nine cube specimens, of dimensions 100 x 100 x 100 mm, were cast for each trial mix
with the mix proportions listed in Table 2.1 and 2.2. Three specimens of each trial mix were tested
at ages of 7, 14 and 28 days. The test procedure followed that provided by SANS 5863:2006.

The compressive strength development rate was obtained by calculating the gradient of the
compressive strength development between measured compressive strengths at successive ages and
then plotting the gradient (rate) at the middle of the two ages concerned.

3.2 Shrinkage
The shrinkage of the trial mixes was determined using an accelerated shrinkage test. Three
prismatic specimens, of dimensions 100 x 100 x 200 mm, were cast for each trial mix with the trial
mix proportions listed in Table 2.1 and 2.2. Shrinkage readings were taken from an age of 7 days
until and age of 13 days, every alternate day. The test procedure followed that provided by SANS
6085:2006.

3.3 Heat of Hydration

The heat of hydration of the trial mixes was determined using a semi-adiabatic test. One cube
specimen, of dimensions 150 x 150 x 150 mm, was cast for each trial mix with the trial mix
proportions listed in Table 2.1 and 2.2. The heat of hydration of the each specimen was measured
every 1.5 hours from casting until an age of 72 hours.

The heat of hydration evolution rate was obtained by calculating the gradient of the heat of
hydration between measured temperatures for successive ages and then plotting the gradient (rate)
at the middle of the two ages concerned.

Section 3: Experimental Test Procedures

 10

4. Observations and Results

The results obtained from the experimental procedures followed in Section 3 are provided in
Sections 4.1 through 4.4. Detailed results of the compressive strength, shrinkage and heat of
hydration of the two trial mixes can be found in Appendix B1, B2 and B3 respectively.

4.1 Workability
The workability of the trial mixes was recorded quantitatively by a slump test and qualitatively by
visual assessment of cohesiveness. The workability results are provided in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Workability results for Trial Mix 1 and 2.

Workability
Mix 1 Mix 2
Measure

Slump (before
No Slump 95
admixture) (mm)

Slump (with
Failed Slump -
admixture) (mm)
Lacked cohesion and was
Cohesiveness Moderately cohesive; no
very runny; segregation
(after admixture) visible segregation
was evident

4.2 Compressive Strength

The compressive strength development of the two trial mixes with age is shown in Figure 4.1.

60
Compressive Strength (MPa)

50

40
Mix 1
Mix 2
30

20

10

0
0 7 14 21 28
Age (days)

Figure 4.1: Compressive strength development of the two trial mixes.

Section 4: Observations and Results

 11

Strength Development Rate 6

4
Mix 1
(MPa/day)

Mix 2
3

0
0 7 14 21 28
Age (days)

Figure 4.2: Compressive strength development rate of the two trial mixes.

4.3 Shrinkage
The shrinkage results for the two trial mixes are shown in Figure 4.3.

300

250
Shrinkage Strain (10-6)

200

150 Mix 1
Mix 2
100

50

0
0 7 14
Age (days)

Figure 4.3: Shrinkage results for the two trial mixes.

Section 4: Observations and Results

 12

4.4 Heat of Hydration

The heat of hydration evolution of the two trial mixes is shown in Figure 4.4 and the rate of heat
of hydration evolution of the two trial mixes is shown in Figure 4.5.

65

55
Tempertaure (C)

45 Mix 1
Mix 2

35

25

15
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
Age (hours)

Figure 4.4: Heat of hydration evolution of the two trial mixes.

2.5
Heat Evolution Rate (C/hour)

2.0
Mix 1
Mix 2
1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
Age (hours)

Figure 4.5: Heat of hydration evolution rate of the two trial mixes.

Section 4: Observations and Results

 13

5. Discussion
The observations and results of Trial Mix 1 and 2 provided in Section 4 are discussed in Sections
5.1 and 5.2 respectively.

5.1 Mix 1: High-Strength Columns

5.1.1 Workability
Before the addition of the superplasticising admixture to the trial mix, the mix was very stiff and
so it followed that no slump was achieved. Once the superplasticising admixture was dosed, the
trial mix failed the slump test. Furthermore, the mix lacked cohesion, was observed to be very
runny and segregate. This would cause severe problems if the mix was used in the application it
was designed for (high-strength column with high density rebar cages). The observations suggest
that the superplasticising admixture dosage may have been too high for the trial mix. A reduction
in the superplasticiser dosage to 0.20% by mass of binder should increase cohesion and therefore
decrease segregation of the mix. Additionally, this should ensure that the slump does not fail but
rather approaches a slump closer to the target slump. The reduction in the superplasticiser dosage
is a preferable over a reduction in the fly ash replacement level as the superplasticers have a
significantly greater influence on the workability of the mix and would result in a more cost-
effective mix.

5.1.2 Compressive Strength

The mix achieved a relatively high compressive strength, as it was design to. This high strength
was largely due to the use of a low water/binder ratio and a high strength cement (CEM I 52.5N).
The low water/binder ratio results in a refined microstructure, especially in the interfacial
transition zone (ITZ) between the paste and aggregate which is the weak link in terms of
compressive strength. The high strength cement (CEM I 52.5N) results in increased microstructure
refinement due to its increased fineness. This yields a higher compressive strength, due to increased
microstructure refinement, for a given water/cement ratio compared to other lower strength
cements.

In order for the compressive strength to be deemed acceptable, the measured strength must
meet the requirements of clause 14.3.3.1 of SANS 10100-2. The standard stipulates that no
individual result may be more than 3 MPa less than the specified characteristic strength and that
the mean of any three results must be greater than 2 MPa of the specified characteristic strength.
Comparing the minimum 28 day compressive strength obtained of 50.3 MPa (see Table B.1) to the
characteristic strength of 45 MPa (See Section 2.1.2.1 or Appendix A1), it is clear that the mix
meets the minimum strength requirement. Comparing the mean 28 day compressive strength
obtained of 51.3 MPa (see Table B.1) to the characteristic strength of 45 MPa, it is evident that
the mix meets the mean strength requirement and so the mix can be deemed acceptable.

Section 5: Discussion
 14

In terms of the variance of results, it is evident that there was a very low variance. This is
confirmed by the low coefficient of variation of between 1.76 and 1.95%, as given in Appendix B1.

The strength development rate shown in Figure 4.2 shows the significantly high rate of
strength development of the mix up to an age of 7 days. This is expected and can be attributed the
use of CEM I 52.5N cement which has a high fineness. The high fineness increases the reactivity of
the cement and therefore results in rapid hydration and therefore rapid strength development
during early ages of up to about 7 days. This rate of strength development may potentially have
been even greater at lower replacement percentages of fly ash as it tends to reduce early age
strength. After about 7 days the rate of strength development starts to stabilise around a rate of
0.5 MPa/day (this rate obviously diminishes slowly with age).

Although not a specified requirement, the rapid strength development of approximately 40

MPa at 7 days is beneficial for high-rise construction. Rapid strength gain allows reduces the
construction time of vertical load bearing members which can significantly reduce the overall
construction time and cost of the building.

5.1.3 Shrinkage
Shrinkage results presented in Figure 4.3 show that the mix experienced shrinkage strains of
approximately 280 microstrains. This strain magnitude is more or less what is expected for the trial
mix given its mix proportions of a coarse aggregate content of approximately 68% by volume and a
water/binder ratio of 0.45 (Alexander & Beushausen, 2009). This magnitude of shrinkage would
result in a relatively small vertical shortening of approximately 1 mm for every 3 m or per storey.

It should however be noted that the variability of the shrinkage results were significant. A
coefficient of variation of approximately 15% was observed for the shrinkage readings (see Table
B.3) with results varying from 210 to 360 microstrains. In order for the shrinkage strain results to
be deemed acceptable, SANS6085:2006 stipulates in clause 7e that the range of results obtained
may not exceed 20% of its mean. The range was found to be approximately 45% of the mean and
so the test results are not valid. No explanation can be found for the significant variation in
results.

5.1.4 Heat of Hydration

A temperature of 53.5 C was reached at an age of 45 hours whereafter it remained constant, as
shown in Figure 4.4. This is a relatively high heat of hydration but is expected given the mix
proportion and can be attributed to the relatively high cementitious content of the mix of 280
kg/m3. The high cementitious content results in more hydration and corresponding heat given off
in the hydration reaction. The use of fly ash, has negligible influence on the total heat evolved but
does have a positive influence of the rate of heat of hydration evolution as discussed in the
following paragraph.

Section 5: Discussion
 15

A relatively high peak heat of hydration evolution rate of 2.1 C/hour was attained as shown in
Figure 4.5. This is expected and is most likely due to the high fineness of the CEM I 52.5N cement.
The high fineness of the cement results in a rapid hydration reaction, due to its increased surface
area, which results in a high rate of heat of hydration evolution as was observed. This rate of heat
of hydration evolution may have been even higher if partial replacement of flay ash at 30% by
mass was not used. This is because the fly ash has a delayed pozzolanic reaction which requires a
high pH (alkali activated) to break down its glass material so that its pozzolanic reaction can
commence which tends to reduce the rate of heat of hydration evolution in the first 24 hours.

5.2 Mix 2: Moderate Strength Large-Diameter Piers

5.2.1 Workability
A slump of 95 mm, 20 mm more than the target slump, was achieved after mixing. The mix was
observed to be moderately cohesive and no visible segregation was observed. The reasonably high
workability of the mix may be attributed to the use of fly ash as it has round shaped particles
which tend to increase workability. These results suggest that the mix has adequate workability for
its application and so no adjustments to the mix need to be made for workability requirements.

5.2.2 Compressive Strength

The mix achieved a relatively low compressive strength, as it was design to. This low strength was
largely due to the use of a high water/binder ratio (0.70) and a moderate strength blended cement
(CEM II M-B (L-S) 42.5N). The high water/binder ratio results in a microstructure with a
relatively high porosity due to the increased volume of capillary pores as more water than that
required for hydration is present in the mix. The moderate strength blended cement (CEM II M-B
(L-S) 42.5N), due to the replacement of ordinary Portland cement with ground granulated blast
furnace slag, results in delayed strength development and so the strength at 28 days however may
be slightly less than that of the use of 100% ordinary Portland cement.

In order for the compressive strength to be deemed acceptable, the measured strength must
meet the requirements of clause 14.3.3.1 of SANS 10100-2. The standard stipulates that no
individual result may be more than 3 MPa less than the specified characteristic strength and that
the mean of any three results must be greater than 2 MPa of the specified characteristic strength.
Comparing the minimum 28 day compressive strength obtained of 19.8 MPa (see Table B.2) to the
characteristic strength of 20 MPa (See Section 2.2.2.1 or Appendix A2), it is evident that the mix
meets the minimum strength requirement. Comparing the mean 28 day compressive strength
obtained of 20.7 MPa (see Table B.1) to the characteristic strength of 20 MPa, it is clear that the
mix does not meet the mean strength requirement and so the mix may not be deemed acceptable.
In order to increase the strength of the mix, it is suggested that a water-reducing admixture be
added to the mix. This would lower the water content required and would in turn lower the
water/binder ratio of the mix resulting in an increased compressive strength, lower shrinkage and
lower heat of hydration. Alternatively, a reduction in the water/binder ratio to 0.60 would increase

Section 5: Discussion
 16

the compressive strength however this may increase the heat of hydration which could lead to
thermal cracking.

In terms of the variance of results, it is evident that there was a reasonably low variance.
This is confirmed by the reasonably low coefficient of variation of between 4.02% and 4.77%, as
given in Appendix B2.

The strength development rate shown in Figure 4.2 shows the relatively low high rate of strength
development of the mix up to an age of 7 days. This is expected and can be attributed the use of
CEM II M-B (L-S) 42.5N cement and 30% replacement of fly ash by mass. The use of ground
granulated blastfurnace slag and fly ash, both of which experience latent reactions, hydraulic in the
former and pozzolanic in the latter, results in a slowed rate of strength development. After about 7
days the rate of strength development started to approach a strength development rate of
approximately 0.25 MPa/day. It should however be noted that ground granulated blastfurnace slag
tends to increase the later age strength and so this strength development rate may increase
slightly.

5.2.3 Shrinkage
Shrinkage results presented in Figure 4.3 show that the mix experienced shrinkage strains of
approximately 190 microstrains. This strain magnitude is approximately what is expected for the
trial mix given its mix proportions of a coarse aggregate content of approximately 73% by volume
and a water/binder ratio of 0.70 (Alexander & Beushausen, 2009). Although the water/binder ratio
is relatively high, the shrinkage of the concrete is diluted by the high aggregate content. The
shrinkage of the concrete is therefore somewhat independent of the water/binder ratio and is
largely determined by the aggregate content (Alexander & Beushausen, 2009). It is not possible to
predicted from shrinkage alone whether shrinkage-induced surface cracking will occur as this is
largely a function of the shrinkage, elastic modulus, tensile relaxation, tensile strength and degree
of restraint, all of which vary with time (Alexander & Beushausen, 2009). However, the lower the
shrinkage of the mix, the lower the risk of shrinkage-induced cracking.

It should be noted that the variability of the shrinkage results were significantly large. A
coefficient of variation of around 28% was observed for the shrinkage readings (see Table B.4) with
results varying from 120 to 270 microstrains. In order for the shrinkage strain results to be deemed
acceptable, SANS6085:2006 stipulates in clause 7e that the range of results obtained may not
exceed 20% of its mean. The range was found to be between 67 to 81% of the mean and so the test
results are not valid. No explanation can be found for the significant variation in results.

5.2.4 Heat of Hydration

A temperature of 33.6 C was reached at an age of 54 hours whereafter it remained constant as
shown in Figure 4.4. This is a relatively low heat of hydration and according to Neville (2004) an
approximate temperature differential of 20 C is required for thermal cracking to occur in mass
concrete members. The heat of hydration is therefore sufficiently low as it is unlikely that a

Section 5: Discussion
 17

temperature differential of 20 C will be exceeded. The low heat of hydration is expected given the
mix proportions and can be attributed to the relatively low cementitious content of the mix of 175
kg/m3. The low cementitious content results in less hydration and so the corresponding heat of
hydration is lowered. The cement type, which incorporates a blend of ground granulated
blastfurnace slag, and the partial replacement of cement with fly ash has negligible influence on the
total hydration heat evolved but does have a positive influence on the rate of heat of hydration
evolution as discussed in the following paragraph.

A relatively low peak hydration heat of hydration evolution rate of 0.75 C/hour was
attained as shown in Figure 4.5. This is expected and is most likely due to the cement type (CEM
II M-B (L-S) 42.5N) and the partial replacement of cement with fly ash at a replacement level of
30% by mass. The cement used incorporates a blend of ground granulated blast furnace slag.
Ground granulated blastfurnace slag is alkali activated and so it has a latent reaction (which is
hydraulic). This reduces the heat of hydration evolution rate in the early ages of hydration (up to
around 24 hours). Similar reasoning for the partial fly ash replacement applies however the
reaction is pozzolanic and not hydraulic.

Section 5: Discussion
 18

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

The conclusions and recommendations, which follow from the discussion of the trial mixes provided
in Section 5, for Trial Mix 1 and 2, are provided in Sections 6.1and 6.2 respectively.

6.1 Mix 1: High-Strength Columns

The mix after the dosing of the superplasticing admixture had a failed slump, lacked cohesion and
was observed to segregate. It is therefore recommended that the superplasticing admixture dosage
be reduced to 0.20%, by mass of binder, in order to increase the mixs cohesion and therefore
decrease segregation. The reduction in the superplasticiser dosage is a preferable over a reduction
in the fly ash replacement level as the superplasticers have a significantly greater influence on the
workability of the mix and would result in a more cost-effective mix.

A relatively high 28 day compressive strength of 51.3 MPa was achieved with a very low
variance. The high compressive strength was attributed to the low water/binder ratio. The
compressive strength of the mix was deemed acceptable according to SANS 10100-2 and so no
adjustments need to be made to the mix for the compressive requirement. A significantly high rate
of strength development of between 3.0 and 5.5 MPa/day was observed up to an age of 7 days, this
being attributed to the high fineness of the cement. Although not a requirement, this high strength
development rate is beneficial in high-rise construction due the reduction in construction time.

Significantly large variations in the shrinkage results were observed, so much so that the
results were not deemed to be acceptable according to SANS6085:2006. The shrinkage test
therefore needs to be reconducted in order to make justifiable conclusions on the shrinkage of the
mix. Nevertheless, shrinkage strains of around 280 microstrains were recorded. These strains are in
the range of expected strains for the given mix proportions and result in a relatively small vertical
shortening of 1 mm for every 3 m or per storey.

Although not a requirement, a high heat of hydration of 53.5 C and a significantly high peak
heat of hydration evolution rate of 2.1 C/hour was recorded. The high hydration temperature was
attributed to the high cementitious content of the mix whilst the high peak heat of hydration
evolution rate was attributed to the high fineness of the cement. No adjustments need to be made
to the mix for heat of hydration.

6.2 Mix 2: Moderate Strength Large-Diameter Pier

A slump of 95mm was achieved after mixing. The mix was observed to be moderately cohesive and
no visible segregation was observed. The reasonably high workability of the mix was attributed to
the use of fly ash. No adjustments need to be made to the mix for workability requirements.

Section 6: Conclusions
 19

A relatively low 28 day compressive strength of 20.7 MPa was achieved with a low variance. The
low compressive strength was attributed to the high water/binder ratio. The compressive strength
of the mix was not deemed acceptable according to SANS 10100-2 and so the mix needs to be
adjusted in order for the compressive requirement. It is recommended that this adjustment is made
by the addition of a water-reducing admixture to the mix however if this is not possible, a
reduction of the water/binder ratio to 0.60 may be adequate. A low rate of strength development
of between 1.0 and 2.0 MPa/day occurred up to an age of 7 days, this being attributed to the large
proportion of latent-reaction cement extenders.

Significantly large variations in the shrinkage readings were observed, so much so that the
results were not deemed to be acceptable according to SANS6085:2006. The shrinkage test
therefore needs to be reconducted in order to make justifiable conclusions on the shrinkage of the
mix. Nevertheless, shrinkage strains of around 190 microstrains were recorded. These strains are in
the range of expected strains for the given mix proportions. Although the water/binder was
relatively high, the shrinkage of the mix was not significantly high as the shrinkage was largely
dependent on the high volume of coarse aggregate which tended to dilute the mix. It is not possible
to predict whether the shrinkage measured is large enough to cause shrinkage-induced surface
cracking as this is a function of the shrinkage, elastic modulus, tensile relaxation, tensile strength
and degree of restraint, all of which vary with time. It may be beneficial to conduct a ring test to
determine whether shrinkage-induced cracking will occur.

A relatively low heat of hydration of 33.6 C and a low peak heat of hydration evolution rate
of 0.75 C/hour was recorded. The heat of hydration is therefore sufficiently low as it is unlikely
that a temperature differential of 20 C will be exceeded. Thermal cracking is therefore not likely
to occur and so no adjustments need to be made to the mix for the heat of hydration requirement.
The low heat of hydration was attributed to the low cementitious content of the mix whilst the low
peak heat of hydration evolution rate was attributed to the high fineness of the cement. No
adjustments need to be made to the mix for the heat of hydration requirement.

Section 6: Conclusions
 20

7. References
Addis, B. & Goodman, J., 2009. Concrete mix design. In: G. Owens, ed. Fulton's Concrete
Technology (Ninth Edition). Midrand, South Africa: Cement & Concrete Institute, pp. 219-
228.

Alexander, M. & Beushausen, H., 2009. Deformation and Volume Change of Hardened Concrete.
In: G. Owens, ed. Fulton's Concrete Technology. Midrand, South Africa: Cement & Concrete
Institute, pp. 111-154.

Marais, A., 2009. Chemical Admixtures. In: G. Owens, ed. Fulton's Concrete Technology (Ninth
Edition). Miodrand, South Africa: Cement & Concrete Institute, pp. 71-82.

McDonald, M., 2009. Control of concrete quality. In: G. Owens, ed. Fulton's Concrete Technology
(Ninth Edition). Midrand, South Africa: Cement & Concrete Institute, pp. 287-295.

Neville, A. M., 2004. Properties of concrete. 4th ed. United Kingdom: Pearson Prentice Hall.

South African National Standard (SANS), 1992. SANS 10100-2 - The structural use of concrete.
Pretoria: South African National Standards.

South African National Standard (SANS), 2006. SANS 5863 - Concrete tests - Compressive
strength of hardened concrete. Pretoria: South African National Standards.

South African National Standard (SANS), 2006. SANS 6085 - Concrete tests - Initial drying
shrinkage and wetting expansion of concrete. Pretoria: South African National Standards.

Section 7: References
 21

Appendix A: Detailed Trial Mix Design

The detailed mix designs are provided herein. The detailed mix design for Mix 1 and Mix 2 are
provided in Section A1 and A2 respectively.

A1: Mix 1 Detailed Trial Mix Design

Target Strength
The direct compressive stresses carried in the column are approximately 15 MPa (see Appendix C).
A factor of safety must be applied to this the direct compressive stresses to yield a factored
compressive stresses. A safety factor of 1.4 was assumed. The characteristic strength is therefore,
1.4
=
0.8 0.85
1.4 15
= 1.5
0.67
= 47.3 MPa
45 MPa

Assuming a good site control, SD = 5 MPa (Table 16.1; McDonald, 2009). The target strength is
therefore,
= + 1.64 SD
= 45 + 1.64 5
= 53.2 MPa
53 MPa

Cement Type, Extender Type and Adjusted Target Strength

The CEM I 52.5N cement was chosen due to its relatively higher compressive strength potential,
compared to the two other available cements, as it is ground finer and so is more reactive. Fly ash
shall be used at a replacement level of 30% (by mass) as it improves the workability, due to the
spherical shape of its particles, by reducing the water requirement for a given slump. The use of fly
ash slows the strength development (as it requires a high pH of around 13.2 for its glass material
to break down so that its pozzolanic reaction can commence) but increases the strength at later
ages due to the refinement of the microstructure that it provides. In order to achieve the relatively
high 28 day characteristic strength with the 30% fly ash replacement (by mass), the target
strength must be increased by 20%.
= 1.2 53
= 63.6 MPa
60 MPa

Appendix A: Detailed Trial Mix Design

 22

Cement Characterisation and Water/Binder Ratio

The manufacturers cement strength development curves for the three available cements are shown
in Figure A.1. The water/binder ratio corresponding to the target strength of 60 MPa was
read off from Figure A.1 to be about 0.45.

80
CEM I 52.5N
70
Target 28 Day Compressive Strength

CEM II B-M (L-S) 42.5N

60 CEM II B-M (L-S) 32.5N

50
(MPa), fc,target

40

30

20

10

0
0.45
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
W/C Ratio

Figure A.1: Manufacturers cement strength development curves and the selection of
the appropriate water/cement ratio.
The effective particle density of the blend of CEM I 52.5N and fly ash is,
100
RD =
%CEM I + %FA
RD RD
100
RD =
70 30
3.14 + 2.3
RD = 2.83

Coarse Aggregate Size, Type and Characterisation

A 19 mm crushed greywacke stone was used as coarse aggregate as this was the only aggregate size
and type available for selection (see Appendix C). It was assumed that this stone had a
consolidated bulk density (CBD) of 1520 kg/m3.

Slump
A slump of about 100 mm was specified. This slump is slightly higher than usual and is governed
by the need for adequate workability when placing the concrete due to the high rebar density
expected in the concrete columns.

Appendix A: Detailed Trial Mix Design

 23

Fine Aggregate Type, Proportion and Characterisation

A 50/50 blend of Philippi dune sand (PDS) and crusher sand (CS) was used to ensure a good fine
aggregate grading. Dune sand is an aeolian sand and so is round in shape and singly graded. In
contrast, crusher sand is angular in shape and is well graded (due to the crushing process). The
dune sand increases workability due to its rounded shape, making up for the lack of workability of
the angular crusher sand. The well-graded crusher sand tends to increase workability, making up
for the decrease in workability of the singly-graded dune sand. A 50/50 blend of the two sands
therefore provides an effective particle shape and fine aggregate grading that tends to increase
workability. The effective relative density of the fine aggregate is,
100
RD =
%PDS + %CS
RD RD
100
RD =
50 50
2.67 + 2.70
RD = 2.68

The fineness modulus of the blend is,

FM + FM
FM =
2
2.0 + 3.1
FM =
2
FM = 2.55

Water Content
The water content was estimated by considering suggested water contents (Table 11.2; McDonald,
2009) and by using prior experience. The water content was determined by taking into account the
particle shape of the fine aggregate (a 50/50 blend of rounded and angular sand), the maximum
size of the coarse aggregate (19 mm), the required slump (100 mm), the binder type (a 70/30 blend
of CEM I 52.5N and fly ash). The use of a 50/50 blend of Philippi dune sand and crusher sand
tended to increase the workability. Additionally, the use of fly ash as a binder increased
workability of the mix. From these considerations, a water content of 180 /m3 was chosen to
achieve the required slump and therefore sufficient workability of the mix.

Cement and Extender Content

Given the water/binder ratio of 0.45 and the water content of 180 /m3, the total binder content
is,
water content
M =
water/binder ratio
180
M =
0.45
M = 400 kg/m

Appendix A: Detailed Trial Mix Design

 24

Since a 30% replacement of fly ash (FA) by mass of cement was used, the mass of cement is Mc =
280 kg/m3 and the mass of fly ash is MFA = 120 kg/m3.

Coarse Aggregate Content

A CBD of 1520 kg/m3 was assumed (see Coarse Aggregate Size, Type and Characterisation). A K
value of 0.94 was used as a slump of 100 mm is required and the maximum coarse aggregate size is
19 mm (Table 11.4; Addis & Goodman, 2009). The fineness modulus of the blend of fine aggregate
is 2.55 (see Fine Aggregate Type, Proportion and Characterisation). Due to the use of fly ash, the
aggregate content can be increased by about 5% (Table 11.5; Addis & Goodman, 2009). The mass
of coarse aggregate is therefore given by,

M = 1.05 CDB(K 0.1FM)

M = 1.05 1520 (0.94 0.1 2.55)
M 1110 kg/m

Fine Aggregate Content

The fine aggregate content is determined by calculating the remaining volume required to achieve
a mix volume of 1 m3. The fine aggregate content is therefore given by,
M M M
M = RD 1000 1
RD 1000 RD 1000 1 1000
400 1110 180
M = 2.68 1000 1
2.83 1000 2.7 1000 1 1000
M = 718 kg/m
M 710 kg/m

Since a 50/50 blend of Philippi dune sand and crusher sand is used, the mass of each fine aggregate
type is 355 kg/m3.
Admixture Type and Proportion
A superplasticising admixture was used to increase the workability of the mix and because they
have negligible secondary effects. The superplasticiser is a polycarboxylate ether-based admixture
which provides maximum water reduction and early strength development. A slightly lower than
typical dosage of 0.25% by mass of binder (typical dosages being 0.4% to 1.0% (Marais, 2009)) was
specified as the mix only required a relatively small increase in workability.

Trial Mix Proportions

The trial mix proportions are provided as a mass for a cubic meter batch and for the 20 batch in
Table A.1.

Appendix A: Detailed Trial Mix Design

 25

Table A.1: Trial Mix 1 proportions, batch masses and volumes, and key mix
properties.
Mix Proportions

Batch Mass
Mass or Volume
Material Type or Volume
(kg/m 3 or /m 3 ) 1
(kg or ) 2
Water - 180 3.6
Binder CEM I 52.5N (70%) 280 5.6
Extender Fly Ash (30%) 120 2.4
Coarse Aggregate Crushed Greywacke (19mm) 1110 22.2
Philippi Dune Sand (50%) 355 7.1
Fine Aggregate
Crusher Sand (50%) 355 7.1
Admixture Superplasticiser 1.0 0.02
Key Mix Properties
Target Strength (MPa) 60
Water/Binder Ratio 0.45
Slump (mm) 100
1
Solid materials have units kg/m3 and liquid materials have units /m3.
2
Solid materials have units kg and liquid materials have units .

A2: Mix 2 Detailed Trial Mix Design

Target Strength
The concrete has a design strength of 20 MPa (see Appendix C). Assuming a good site control,
SD = 5 MPa (Table 16.1; McDonald, 2009). The target strength is therefore,

= + 1.64 SD
= 20 + 1.64 5
= 28.2 MPa
25 MPa

Cement and Extender Type

A CEM II M-B (L-S) 42.5N was chosen due to its low heat properties due to the reasonable
amount of ground granulated blastfurnace slag which undergoes a latent hydraulic reaction
(ground granulated blastfurnace slag requires hydroxyl ions released from the hydration of ordinary
Portland cement to breakdown its glass material so that its hydraulic reaction can commence).
This aids in reducing the high early rate of heat of hydration evolution a requirement for the
concrete application (see Section 2.2.1.2). It was chosen over a CEM II M-B (L-S) 32.5N cement as
it is more economical - for the given compressive strength, a lower water/binder ratio may be used
and therefore less cement is needed. Fly ash was also used at a replacement level of 30% (by mass)
as it also aids in reducing the early rate of heat of hydration evolution as it requires a high pH of
around 13.2 for its glass material to break down so that its pozzolanic reaction can commence.

Appendix A: Detailed Trial Mix Design

 26

Cement Characterisation and Water/Binder Ratio

The manufacturers cement strength development curves for the three available cements are shown
in Figure A.1. The water/binder ratio corresponding to the target strength of 25 MPa was
read off from Figure A.2 to be about 0.45.

80
CEM I 52.5N
Target 28 Day Compressive Strength

70
CEM II B-M (L-S) 42.5N
60 CEM II B-M (L-S) 32.5N
(MPa), fc,targe

50

40

30
25.0
20

10

0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
W/C Ratio

Figure A.2: Manufacturers cement strength development curves and the selection of
the appropriate water/cement ratio.
The effective particle density of the blend of CEM II M-B (L-S) 42.5 and fly ash is,
100
RD =
%CEM II M B (L S) %FA
RD + RD
100
RD =
70 30
2.9 + 2.3
RD = 2.69

Coarse Aggregate Size, Type and Characterisation

A 19 mm crushed greywacke stone was used as coarse aggregate as this was the only aggregate size
and type available for selection. It was assumed that this stone had a consolidated bulk density
(CBD) of 1520 kg/m3.

Slump
A slump of 75 mm was specified. This slump is within the range of typical slumps. The slump was
not required to be any higher as the form that the concrete needs to take is massive and so only
moderate workability would be required.

Appendix A: Detailed Trial Mix Design

 27

Fine Aggregate Type, Proportion and Characterisation

A 50/50 blend of Philippi dune sand (PDS) and crusher sand (CS) was used to ensure a good fine
aggregate grading. Dune sand is an aeolian sand and so is round in shape and singly graded. In
contrast, crusher sand is angular in shape and is well graded (due to the crushing process). The
dune sand increases workability due to its rounded shape, making up for the lack of workability of
the angular crusher sand. The well-graded crusher sand tends to increase workability, making up
for the decrease in workability of the singly-graded dune sand. A 50/50 blend of the two sands
therefore provides an effective particle shape and fine aggregate grading that tends to increase
workability. The effective relative density of the fine aggregate is,
100
RD =
%PDS %CS
RD + RD
100
RD =
50 50
2.67 + 2.70
RD = 2.68
The fineness modulus of the blend is,
FM + FM
FM =
2
2.0 + 3.1
FM =
2
FM = 2.55

Water Content
The water content was estimated by considering suggested water contents (Table 11.2; McDonald,
2009) and by using prior experience. The water content was determined by taking into account the
particle shape of the fine aggregate (a 50/50 blend of rounded and angular sand), the maximum
size of the coarse aggregate (19 mm), the required slump (175 mm), the binder type (a 70/30 blend
of CEM II M-B (L-S) 42.5N and fly ash). The use of a 50/50 blend of Philippi dune sand and
crusher sand tended to increase the workability (as discussed in Section 2.2.2.6). Additionally, the
use of fly ash as a binder increased workability of the mix. (as discussed in Section 2.2.2.2). Taking
into account these considerations, a water content of 175 /m3 was chosen to achieve the required
slump and therefore sufficient workability of the mix.
Cement and Extender Content
Given the water/binder ratio of 0.45 and the water content of 180 /m3, the total binder content
is,
water content
M =
water/binder ratio
170
M =
0.70
M 250 kg/m

Appendix A: Detailed Trial Mix Design

 28

Since a 30% replacement of fly ash (FA) by mass of cement was used, the mass of cement is Mc =
175 kg/m3 and the mass of fly ash is MFA = 75 kg/m3.

Coarse Aggregate Content

A CBD of 1520 kg/m3 was assumed (see Coarse Aggregate Size, Type and Characterisation). A K
value of 1.00 was used as a slump of 75 mm is required and the maximum coarse aggregate size is
19 mm (Table 11.4; Addis & Goodman, 2009). The fineness modulus of the blend of fine aggregate
is 2.55 (see Fine Aggregate Type, Proportion and Characterisation). Due to the use of fly ash, the
aggregate content can be increased by about 5% (Table 11.5; Addis & Goodman, 2009). The mass
of coarse aggregate is therefore given by,

M = 1.05 CDB(K 0.1FM)

M = 1.05 1520 (1.0 0.1 2.55)
M 1180 kg/m

Fine Aggregate Content

The fine aggregate content was determined by calculating the remaining volume required to
achieve a mix volume of 1 m3. The fine aggregate content is therefore given by,
M M M
M = RD 1000 1
RD 1000 RD 1000 1 1000
250 1180 175
M = 2.68 1000 1
2.69 1000 2.7 1000 1 1000
M = 791 kg/m
M 790 kg/m

Since a 50/50 blend of Philippi dune sand and crusher sand is used, the mass of each fine aggregate
type is 395 kg/m3.
Trial Mix Proportions
The trial mix proportions are provided as a mass for a cubic meter batch and for the 20 batch in
Table A.2 and Table A.3.

Table A.2: Trial Mix 2 proportions, batch masses and volumes, and key mix
properties.
Mix Proportions
Batch Mass
Mass or Volume
Material Type or Volume
(kg/m 3 or /m 3 ) 1
(kg or ) 2
Water - 175 3.5
Binder CEM II M-B (L-S) 42.5N (70%) 175 3.5
Extender Fly Ash (30%) 75 3.5
Coarse Aggregate Crushed Greywacke (19mm) 1180 23.6
Philippi Dune Sand (50%) 395 7.9
Fine Aggregate
Crusher Sand (50%) 395 7.9

Appendix A: Detailed Trial Mix Design

 29

Table A.3: Trial Mix 2 proportions, batch masses and volumes, and key mix
properties (continued).
Key Mix Properties
Target Strength (MPa) 25
Water/Binder Ratio 0.7
Slump (mm) 75
1
Solid materials have units kg/m3 and liquid materials have units /m3.
2
Solid materials have units kg and liquid materials have units .

Appendix A: Detailed Trial Mix Design

 30

Appendix B: Detailed Experimental Results

The detailed experimental results are provided herein. The compressive strength, shrinkage and
heat of hydration results for both mixes are provided in Section B1 to B3 respectively.

B1: Compressive Strength Results

Table B.1: Compressive strength results for Trial Mix 1 specimens.
Mean
Cube Cube Mean Fail. Comp.
Age Mass Density Comp. CoV *
Label Dim. Density Load Str.
Str.
(-) (days) (g) (mm) (kg/m 3 ) (kg/m 3 ) (kN) (MPa) (MPa) (%)
1-7-1 7 2429 100 2429 404 40.4
1-7-2 7 2454 100 2454 2429 390 39.0 39.7 1.76
1-7-3 7 2405 100 2405 397 39.7
1-14-1 14 2390 100 2390 441 44.1
1-14-2 14 2465 100 2465 2435 440 44.0 43.6 1.79
1-14-3 14 2450 100 2450 427 42.7
1-28-1 28 2410 100 2410 514 51.4
1-28-2 28 2440 100 2440 2415 523 52.3 51.3 1.95
1-28-3 28 2395 100 2395 503 50.3
*
Coefficient of Variation.

Table B.2: Compressive strength results for Trial Mix 2 specimens.

Mean
Cube Cube Mean Fail. Comp.
Age Mass Density Comp. CoV *
Label Dim. Density Load Str.
Str.
(-) (days) (g) (mm) (kg/m 3 ) (kg/m 3 ) (kN) (MPa) (MPa) (%)
2-7-1 7 2375 100 2375 147 14.7
2-7-2 7 2385 100 2385 2383 134 13.4 14.0 4.77
2-7-3 7 2389 100 2389 138 13.8
2-14-1 14 2415 100 2415 183 18.3
2-14-2 14 2420 100 2420 2413 172 17.2 17.4 4.46
2-14-3 14 2405 100 2405 168 16.8
2-28-1 28 2450 100 2450 198 19.8
2-28-2 28 2475 100 2475 2448 210 21.0 20.7 4.02
2-28-3 28 2420 100 2420 214 21.4
*
Coefficient of Variation.

Appendix B: Detailed Experimental Results

 31

B2: Shrinkage Results

Table B.3: Shrinkage results for Trial Mix 1 specimens.
Spec. 1 Spec. 2 Spec. 3 Range/
Age Mean Range CoV *
(10 - 6 ) (10 - 6 ) (10 - 6 ) Mean
(days) (10 - 6 ) (10 - 6 ) (%)
A B A B A B (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
7 300 270 280 210 330 260 275 120 43.6 14.7
9 300 270 290 230 360 260 285 130 45.6 15.5
11 300 270 290 230 360 260 285 130 45.6 15.5
13 300 270 290 230 360 260 285 130 45.6 15.5
*
Coefficient of Variation

Table B.4: Shrinkage results for Trial Mix 2 specimens.

Spec. 1 Spec. 2 Spec. 3 Range/
Age Mean Range CoV *
(10 - 6 ) (10 - 6 ) (10 - 6 ) Mean
(days) (10 - 6 ) (10 - 6 ) (%)
A B A B A B (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
7 140 120 180 270 190 220 185 150 81.1 29.4
9 140 130 190 260 190 230 188 130 69.0 26.7
11 140 130 200 260 190 250 193 130 67.2 28.1
13 140 130 200 260 190 250 193 130 67.2 28.1
*
Coefficient of Variation.

B3: Heat of Hydration Results

Table B.5: Heat of hydration results for both trial mix specimens.
Mix 1 Mix 2
Age
Temp. Temp.
(hours)
(C) (C)
0.0 20.0 20.0
1.5 20.4 20.4
3.0 20.6 20.5
4.5 21.4 20.7
6.0 22.5 21.0
7.5 24.0 21.5
9.0 25.7 22.1
10.5 27.8 22.9
12.0 30.1 23.6
13.5 32.8 24.5
15.0 35.9 25.4
16.5 39.0 26.4
18.0 40.9 27.3
19.5 42.5 28.3
21.0 44.0 28.8
22.5 45.3 29.2

Appendix B: Detailed Experimental Results

 32

Table B.6: Heat of hydration results for both trial mix specimens (continued).
Mix 1 Mix 2
Age
Temp. Temp.
(hours)
(C) (C)
24.0 46.4 29.6
25.5 47.4 30.0
27.0 48.2 30.4
28.5 49.0 30.8
30.0 49.6 31.1
31.5 50.2 31.4
33.0 50.7 31.6
34.5 51.2 31.9
36.0 51.6 32.1
37.5 52.0 32.3
39.0 52.2 32.4
40.5 52.7 32.6
42.0 52.8 32.8
43.5 53.0 32.9
45.0 53.3 33.0
46.5 53.3 33.1
48.0 53.4 33.2
49.5 53.5 33.3
51.0 53.5 33.4
52.5 53.5 33.4
54.0 53.5 33.5
55.5 53.5 33.5
57.0 53.5 33.6
58.5 53.5 33.6
60.0 53.5 33.6
61.5 53.5 33.6
63.0 53.5 33.6
64.5 53.5 33.6
66.0 53.5 33.6
67.5 53.4 33.6
69.0 53.4 33.6
70.5 53.4 33.6
72.0 53.4 33.6

Appendix B: Detailed Experimental Results

 33

Appendix C: Concrete Laboratory Brief

Appendix C: Concrete Laboratory Brief

 UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIV5002Z: STRUCTURAL CONCRETE PROPERTIES AND PRACTICE: 2013

CONCRETE LABORAT0RY, 2013

Students are required to design 2 trial concrete mixes as follows:

1. Concrete for use in columns in a high-rise structure, for which creep and shrinkage must be
minimal. Column dimensions are about 300 mm diameter, and direct compressive stresses to be
carried are approximately 15 MPa. The columns are heavily reinforced, which needs to be
considered for in the workability of the mix.
2. Concrete for use in the construction of a large-diameter bridge pier. Due to the dimensions of the
structure, the development of hydration heat must be kept to a minimum. The concrete has a design
strength of 20 MPa. Shrinkage strains are to be minimised to avoid surface cracking.

Each individual student should submit trial mix sheets for the above mixes on 28 August 2013, after which
representative mixes will be selected for testing in the laboratory.

Laboratory work
The class will perform trial concrete mixes. Mix quantities should be based on 0,02 m3 per mix. The
results of the trial mixes will be used to select final mix proportions for a mix of volume 0,02 m3 if
necessary. 9 x 100 mm cubes will then be cast, to be tested for strength at 7, 14 and 28 days. 3 x [100 x
100 x 200 mm] prisms will be cast for Shrinkage measurements. Shrinkage will be measured over a period
of 4 weeks. Hydration heat will be measured in 150 mm cubes. (Note: the lab staff will carry out all testing,
and results will be made available to the students).

Materials available
Students are at liberty to use any of the following materials:
- Cementitious materials: CEM I- 52,5, Fly Ash, GGBS
- Fine Aggregate: Philippi Dune Sand (FM = 2,0); Crusher sand (FM = 3.1)
- Coarse Aggregate: 19 mm crushed greywacke
- Admixtures: Plasticiser or Superplasticiser (details are available).

Laboratory Reports
Students are required to submit
i) Mix designs for the 2 concretes above.
Give detailed reasons for the choice of materials and mix quantities. Explain the requirements for the
respective mixes, focusing on fundamental concrete technology aspects (e.g. why are the columns required
to have low creep and shrinkage? What are the mechanisms involved? Why must the hydration heat be kept
to a minimum in the large piers, and what are the mechanisms involved when hydration heat develops?
Show fundamental understanding of the topic.
ii) Lab report on trial mixes undertaken in the lab, containing the following:
- Mix design. Summarise reasons for the choice of materials and mix quantities
- Laboratory sheets, utilizing all laboratory data. These are to contain essential details only:
- Observations and results (fresh concrete, hardened concrete test results)
- Discussion
- Conclusions

Laboratory reports must be submitted on Monday 30 September 2013 and will be allocated 20% of the
total course mark.

MGA/HB 26 Aug 2013