Sensitivity that Self-compacting Concrete shows towards Repeatability in Roclas Precast Environment

Jason Matthew Roberts 208044205

A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Engineering, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the B Tech Degree in Civil Engineering

Cape Town November 2012

ii

Declaration
I declare that this research dissertation is my own unaided work. It is being submitted for the B Tech Degree at Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in any other University.

2012/11/01

X
Jason Roberts BTech Civil Engineer

This dissertation contains sensitive content with regards to the SCC mix design in Section 3.4.5. Copyright 2012, Jason Roberts

iii

Abstract
Self-compacting concrete (SCC) has been around for more than three decades, and has only recently been used in South Africa. SCC has the ability to flow through dense reinforcement and fill voids under its own weight without the need of vibration. The benefits of using SCC are significant, in terms of cost, time saving, and an improved work environment. However, the use of SCC in South Africa has only been considered on a small number of projects due to the lack of available information, and experience with regards to this product. Rocla started conducting trial tests using SCC, but failed to achieve acceptable repeatability results. Problems that occurred were severe segregation pour joints and excessive bug holes. This brought about the scope for the dissertation, by studying and conducting tests to identify the key variables that affect repeatability and are responsible for the sensitive nature of SCC at Rocla. This was done using a number of SCC test methods provided by European guidelines and standards. With the aid of these test methods, three variable changing tests were conducted in attempt to analyse the moisture and quality control of SCC in Rocla's precast environment. The results had shown that the SCC mix used at Rocla was very stable, with a 6% variance moisture content having no detrimental effects on the concrete. However when concluding the quality control test, it had become clear that problems are more likely to arise due to the way SCC is implemented, rather than the sensitivity of the materials it consists of.

iv

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following people and organisations for making this dissertation possible. Prof. Haldenwang, for the advice and guidance through the research process. Rocla (Pty) Ltd, for giving me the opportunity to get involved with SCC and funding the material and equipment required for the testing. Gerhard Rossouw, Servaas Le Roux and Justin Kretzmar from Rocla Head Office, for the advice and guidance from a civil engineering point of view, proposing the research topic and supporting me throughout the year. AfriSam for supplying the required cement and lending of specimen test moulds. Murray & Roberts Centre of Concrete Excellence (CCE), for allowing the use of their facilities, the concrete laboratory and required material. (Sephaku fly ash and silica fume) Warren McKenzie from CCE, for assisting with laboratory procedures, vast insight of concrete technology and guidance through the testing and research process. As well as for all the support with regards to meeting different admixture companies and technologists. Anthony Offenberg from MAPEI SA, for supplying the required admixture and assisting with technical information regarding SCC. I would lastly like to thank my family and friends for the support and understanding the importance of this dissertation. Jason Matthew Roberts November 2012

Table of Contents
Page
Declaration ............................................................................................................................................. ii Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................................viii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. x Nomenclature............................................................................................................................................ xi Terms and concepts .................................................................................................................................xiii

Chapter 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 14 Background and Motivation ........................................................................................... 14 Research problem ........................................................................................................... 14 Research Question .......................................................................................................... 14 Objectives and outcomes ............................................................................................... 14 Significance ..................................................................................................................... 15 Delineation ..................................................................................................................... 15 Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 15 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 15 Organisation of dissertation ........................................................................................... 16

Chapter 2 Literature review and theory ....................................................................................... 17 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 17 2.1.1 What is Self Compacting Concrete ............................................................................... 17 2.1.2 Where did SCC originate from?.................................................................................... 18 2.1.3 The use of SCC in South Africa ..................................................................................... 18 2.2 Mix Design ...................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1 Mix design for this study .............................................................................................. 19 2.3 Variables responsible for SCC sensitivity ........................................................................ 19 2.3.1 Moisture Control .......................................................................................................... 20 2.3.2 Course and fine aggregates.......................................................................................... 20 2.3.3 Particle packing principle ............................................................................................. 22 2.3.4 Cement Extenders ........................................................................................................ 22 2.3.5 Water-Cement Ratio .................................................................................................... 22 2.3.6 Admixture..................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.7 Temperature ................................................................................................................ 23 2.3.8 Casting SCC ................................................................................................................... 24 2.3.9 Compressive strength and Curing ................................................................................ 24 2.3.10 Workability of SCC........................................................................................................ 24 2.3.11 Quality Control ............................................................................................................. 25 2.4 Testing self-compacting concrete................................................................................... 26 2.4.1 European guidelines for SCC ........................................................................................ 26 2.4.2 Slump-flow and T500 time test ...................................................................................... 27 2.4.3 J-ring test ...................................................................................................................... 27

vi

2.4.4 2.4.5 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7 2.8

U-box test ..................................................................................................................... 28 GTM Sieve stability test ............................................................................................... 29 Material analysis ............................................................................................................. 29 Grading ......................................................................................................................... 29 Fineness modulus (FM) ................................................................................................ 29 Flakiness Index (FI) ....................................................................................................... 29 Repeatability ................................................................................................................... 30 Definition...................................................................................................................... 30 Statistics ....................................................................................................................... 30 Precision of test methods ............................................................................................ 31 SCC Trial Tests ................................................................................................................. 31 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 31

Chapter 3 Research methodology ................................................................................................ 32 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 32 3.2 Research design .............................................................................................................. 32 3.2.1 Experimental research ................................................................................................. 32 3.2.2 Comparative research .................................................................................................. 32 3.3 Research methodology ................................................................................................... 32 3.3.1 Data collection ............................................................................................................. 32 3.3.2 Precision and conformity criteria for SCC .................................................................... 33 3.3.3 Research equipment and instruments......................................................................... 34 3.3.4 Test methods and procedures ..................................................................................... 34 3.4 Specifications and properties of the mix design ............................................................ 41 3.4.1 Aggregate Analysis ....................................................................................................... 41 3.4.2 Chemical Admixture ..................................................................................................... 43 3.4.3 Cementitious Material ................................................................................................. 43 3.4.4 Water ........................................................................................................................... 43 3.4.5 Mix Proportions ........................................................................................................... 43 3.5 Test Procedure ................................................................................................................ 44 3.5.1 Lab conditions .............................................................................................................. 44 3.5.2 Aggregate preparation ................................................................................................. 44 3.5.3 Testing preparation ...................................................................................................... 44 3.5.4 Batching and mixing ..................................................................................................... 44 3.5.5 Testing .......................................................................................................................... 45 3.6 Analysis and presentation of results .............................................................................. 47 Chapter 4 Results ......................................................................................................................... 48 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 48 4.2 Slump-Flow Test ............................................................................................................. 48 4.2.1 Slump-Flow Spread ...................................................................................................... 48 4.2.2 Slump Flow T500 Time ................................................................................................... 49 4.3 J-Ring Test ....................................................................................................................... 51 4.3.1 J-Ring flow spread ........................................................................................................ 51 4.3.2 J-Ring flow T500J time .................................................................................................... 52 4.3.3 J-Ring blocking step data .............................................................................................. 53 4.3.4 Moisture effect on the flow spread ............................................................................. 55

vii

4.4 4.5 4.6

Sieve stability test ........................................................................................................... 56 U-Box .............................................................................................................................. 57 7 and 28-day compressive strength ............................................................................... 59

Chapter 5 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 60 5.1 Moisture Control ............................................................................................................ 60 5.1.1 Slump-Flow test ........................................................................................................... 60 5.1.2 Slump-Flow T500 time.................................................................................................... 61 5.1.3 J-Ring flow spread ........................................................................................................ 61 5.1.4 J-ring T500J time ............................................................................................................. 61 5.1.5 J-ring blocking step....................................................................................................... 61 5.1.6 Sieve stability test ........................................................................................................ 62 5.1.7 U-box ............................................................................................................................ 62 5.1.8 Additional laboratory observations ............................................................................. 62 5.2 Quality Control................................................................................................................ 63 5.2.1 Slump-flow test ............................................................................................................ 63 5.2.2 Slump-flow T500 time .................................................................................................... 63 5.2.3 J-ring flow spread ......................................................................................................... 63 5.2.4 J-ring T500 time............................................................................................................ 63 5.2.5 J-ring blocking step....................................................................................................... 64 5.2.6 Sieve stability test ........................................................................................................ 64 5.2.7 U-box ............................................................................................................................ 64 5.3 Compressive Strength..................................................................................................... 64 Chapter 6 6.1 6.2 Chapter 7 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................. 65 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 65 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 66 References ................................................................................................................... 67

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 70 Appendix A. Equipment and Instruments................................................................................. 70 Appendix B. SCC testing equipment properties ....................................................................... 77 Appendix C. Aggregate Properties............................................................................................ 79 Appendix D. Mapei Dynamon SX Data Sheet............................................................................ 83 Appendix E. AfriSam Cement Data Sheet ................................................................................. 86 Appendix F. Sephaku Smart Ash (classified ash) Data Sheet ................................................... 88 Appendix G. Testing Results...................................................................................................... 90

viii

List of Figures
Page

Body
Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.10 Figure 2.11 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10 Figure 4.11 Figure 4.12 Figure 4.13 Figure 4.14 Figure 4.15 Figure 4.16 The difference in the mix proportioning in self-compacting concrete compared to conventional vibrated concrete (Okamura & Ouchi, 2003) .............................................. 17 The Nelson Mandela suspension bridge situated in Johannesburg CBD (Taiwan Holidays, 2012) ................................................................................................................................. 18 An angular flaky shaped aggregate typically found in South Africa (MBWilkes, 2012) .... 21 A round river aggregate with a smooth surface texture used in European countries (MBWilkes, 2012) .............................................................................................................. 21 Particle packing of spheres before and after optimisation (TecEco, n.d.) ........................ 22 The effect of having a superplasticiser in relation to the workability and water content of the concrete (Neville, 1995) .............................................................................................. 23 The loss of slump flow in SCC over time due to different aggregates (Billberg, 2006:60) 25 The loss of slump flow in SCC over time due to different superplasticisers (Billberg, 2006:60) ............................................................................................................................ 25 The J-ring apparatus (Geneq inc., 2012) ........................................................................... 28 The U-box apparatus (Matest, 2012) ................................................................................ 28 Various distribution graphs based on their standard deviation and mean (DPlot, 2012) 30 The positions at which the average height differences are measured on the J-ring (European guidelines, 2005) ............................................................................................. 37 The U-Box, clearing showing the two chambers and the flow of the concrete once the dividing gate has been opened (EFNARC, 2002:28). ......................................................... 40 A sample of 6.7 mm dolomitic stone sourced from Lyttelton Quarries ........................... 41 A sample of dolomitic sand sourced from Lyttelton Quarries .......................................... 42 A sample of filler sand sourced from Magnum Sand & Stone .......................................... 42 Preparation of aggregate samples .................................................................................... 44 Cast concrete cubes .......................................................................................................... 46 Slump-flow Test Results .................................................................................................... 49 Slump-flow Test Normal Distribution ............................................................................... 49 Slump-flow T500 test results............................................................................................. 50 Slump-flow T500 normal distribution ............................................................................... 50 J-ring flow spread test results ........................................................................................... 51 J-ring flow spread normal distribution .............................................................................. 52 J-Ring T500J time test results ............................................................................................ 53 J-Ring T500J time normal distribution .............................................................................. 53 J-ring blocking step test results ......................................................................................... 54 J-ring blocking step normal distribution ........................................................................... 54 Slump-flow and J-ring in affected by the changed in water percentage .......................... 55 The actual Increasing flow compared to a projected constant (linear) flow .................... 56 Sieve stability test results.................................................................................................. 57 Sieve stability test normal distribution ............................................................................. 57 U-Box test results ............................................................................................................. 58 U-Box nominal distribution .............................................................................................. 58

ix

Figure 4.17 Figure 4.18

7 and 28-day compressive strengths results ..................................................................... 59 The average 7 and 28-day compressive strengths for each test ...................................... 59

Appendices
Figure A.1 Figure A.2 Figure A.3 Figure A.4 Figure A.5 Figure A.6 Figure A.7 Figure A.8 Figure B.1 Figure B.2 Figure B.3 Figure C.1 Figure C.2 Figure C.3 Figure C.4 Aggregate grading equipment used prior to testing. .......................................................... 70 Equipment use to conduct SCC test methods. .................................................................... 71 Measuring instruments used during testing. ...................................................................... 72 Aggregate batching equipment. .......................................................................................... 73 Equipment used to make concrete cube specimens........................................................... 74 An oven maintaining a temperature between 105 - 110 C................................................ 75 Mac Africa 135l drum mixer. ............................................................................................... 75 CONTROLS concrete press. .................................................................................................. 76 The slump flow cone and base plate (EFNARC, 2002) ......................................................... 77 The dimensions of the J-ring apparatus (EFNARC, 2002) .................................................... 77 The dimensions of the U-box apparatus (EFNARC, 2002) ................................................... 78 6.7 mm Dolomite stone properties ..................................................................................... 79 Dolomite crusher sand properties ....................................................................................... 80 Mogol filler sand properties ................................................................................................ 81 Bolomey curve ..................................................................................................................... 82

List of Tables
Page

Body
Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 List of test methods for workability properties of SCC (EFNARC, 2002) ........................... 26 The recorded data for each test........................................................................................ 33 Typical classes for a range of applications (European guidelines, 2005:11-14)................ 33 Summary of the conformity criteria used for each test method ...................................... 34 Precision values and conformity criteria for Slump-flow and T500 time.......................... 35 Precision values and conformity criteria for J-ring, T500J time and blocking step. ............ 38 Precision values and Conformity criteria for the sieve segregation resistance test. ........ 39 The mix design used for the testing of SCC using an admixture by Mapei SA. ................. 43 Test methods used for SCC characterisation .................................................................... 47 Slump flow spread data comparison................................................................................. 48 The slump flow T500 time test comparison ...................................................................... 50 J-ring flow spread data comparison .................................................................................. 51 J-ring T500J time data comparison ...................................................................................... 52 J-ring blocking step time data comparison ....................................................................... 54 Sieve stability test data comparison ................................................................................. 56 U-box test data comparison .............................................................................................. 58

Appendices
Table A.1 Table A.2 Table A.3 Table A.4 Table A.5 Table G.1 Table G.2 Table G.3 Table G.4 Gives reference to Figure A.1 .............................................................................................. 70 Gives reference to Figure A.2 .............................................................................................. 71 Gives reference to Figure A.3 .............................................................................................. 72 Gives reference to Figure A.4 .............................................................................................. 73 Gives reference to Figure A.5 .............................................................................................. 74 Test 1 Baseline Mix ........................................................................................................... 90 Test 2 Increase Water Content by 3% .............................................................................. 91 Test 3 Decrease Water Content by 3% ............................................................................. 92 Test 4 15 Minute Standing Time ....................................................................................... 93

xi

Nomenclature
Constants
BJ dmax dperp FI FM H1 H2 N Pa Pb r R1 R2 S SJ SD T500 T500J Wc Wp Wps xi
J-ring blocking step ratio (mm) Largest flow spread diameter (mm) Diameter perpendicular to dmax (mm) Flakiness index (%) Fineness modulus (-) U-box average height reading taken in chamber R1 (mm) U-box average height reading taken in chamber R2 (mm) Number of tests related to the Standard Deviation formula (-) Individual percentage retained (%) Percentage of aggregate passing the slots (%) Repeatability precision limit (-) The U-box chamber in which concrete is poured into (-) The U-box chamber in which concrete flows into from R1 (-) Slump-flow spread (mm) J-ring flow spread (mm) Standard Deviation (-) Slump-flow time (sec) J-ring flow time (sec) The weight of the poured concrete sample (g) The weight of pan (g) The weight of pan with the sieved materials (g) Individual test results related to the Standard Deviation formula (-)

xii

Greek letters

Standard Deviation (-) The notation for the summation of all the test results (-) Mean of test results (-) Sieve segregation ratio (%) U-box filling height difference (mm) Central height difference of the J-ring (mm) First x-direction height difference on the J-ring peripheral (mm) Second x-direction height difference on the J-ring peripheral (mm) First y-direction height difference on the J-ring peripheral (mm) Second y-direction height difference on the J-ring peripheral (mm) Density (kg/m3)

H h0 hx1 hx2 hy1 hy2

Subscripts/superscripts
a b c Individual percentage retained (%) Percentage of aggregate passing the slots (%) Gives reference to the term concrete (-) Substitute value of summation (-) Gives reference to the J-ring Relates to the largest or maximum dimension (mm) Indicates a pan (-) Relates to a perpendicular dimension (mm) Indicates a pan with the sieved materials (-)

i
J max p perp ps

xiii

Terms and concepts

For the purpose of this study, the following terms and concepts apply: CCE CNCI CSF CVC EFNARC EN EU GGBFS ISO NCHRP NPCA PFA RILEM SCC SF SR VMA VS W/C Murray & Roberts Centre of Concrete Excellence Cement and Concrete Institute Condensed Silica Fume Conventional Vibrated Concrete The European Federation of Specialist Construction Chemicals and Concrete Systems. European Standard Precision conformity criteria based on European guidelines Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag International Organisation for Standardisation National Cooperative Highway Research Program National Precast Concrete Association (America) Pulverised Fly Ash International Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction Materials, Systems, sand Structures Self-Compacting/Consolidating Concrete Slump-Flow Class Sieve Segregation Resistance Class Viscosity Modifying Agent Viscosity Class Water-Cement Ratio

14

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1
Background and Motivation

Concrete needs to be compacted in order to release entrapped air voids. This is the first step to ensure that hardened concrete achieves its strength and durability. However, self-compacting concrete (SCC), has the ability to compact itself under its own weight, compared to conventional vibrated concrete (CVC) that is compacted using various methods of vibration. In many countries, SCC has replaced CVC due to its benefits and its ability to produce a highly durable concrete. The advantage of using self-compacting concrete in the precast industry is apparent, but Rocla has been unable to produce SCC at a consistent quality in the tests that were performed in January 2012. It has become clear that the sensitivity of SCC towards process and repeatability was the main concern. The scope of this research was therefore to identify the main contributors to SCCs sensitive nature and to perform repeatability tests on these variables.

1.2

Research problem

Self-compacting concrete due to high sensitivity lacks the ability to be repeated in Roclas precast environment.

1.3

Research Question

What are the most critical variables that are sensitive towards the process and repeatability of SCC in Roclas precast environment?

1.4

Objectives and outcomes

The aim of this research work was to study the sensitivity that SCC shows towards process and repeatability in Roclas precast concrete environment. In order to accomplish this, the following objectives had to be achieved:

To ensure accurate results in testing and that test procedures are carried out as specified in a quality controlled environment, within a specific time period; To produce a set of sensitivity graphs that will identify the most critical variables in the repeatability use of SCC; To allow Rocla to make strategic decisions on whether the implementation of SCC in their precast environment is a viable option, based on this research.

The expected outcomes of this project were:

To have sufficient knowledge and experience with SCC; and to ensure precise and accurate results during testing using European guidelines and South African standards; To understand the effects that different variables have on the repeatability of SCC by doing a literature study and conducting variable changing tests, using SCC test methods; To interpret and discuss results by the end of August 2012, so that they could be used by Rocla to make a decision on whether to further pursue the application of SCC.

15

1.5

Significance

The theoretical significance to this research would offer a better understanding of how SCC works in the precast environment and the way certain variables affect the repeatability of SCC. Results have been compared to European guidelines and comply with European and South African standards when applicable. This has allowed for precision comparison during the testing process, as well as observing the possible causes of irregularities. Further significance would be to practically apply this theory in a quality controlled environment to ensure efficient and reliable results.

1.6

Delineation

An SCC mix was not designed for this research; instead a mix design by Mapei SA (construction chemical company) was used as a baseline, which was available prior to the initiation of the project. The financial benefits with regards to the use of SCC were neither calculated nor analysed. Although this topic would appear in the scope of work as a benefit, these calculations have already been developed and would only be necessary if Rocla were to pursue the application of SCC, which would be decided post project completion. Not every SCC test method was used and only that mentioned in this research dissertation would apply. The following is the list of SCC test methods mentioned in the European guidelines that was excluded from this study; L-box test V-funnel test Orimet test Penetration test

1.7

Assumptions

Although EFNARC mention the use of a 5 mm sieve, the sieve stability test was conducted using a 4.75 mm sieve, as this sieve is readily available at most concrete laboratories in South Africa, specifically Rocla.

1.8

Methodology

Using an SCC mix designed for Rocla, experimental research was done to observe and analyse what effect the different variable changes had on SCC. These variable changing tests were based on literature as well as problems found at the Rocla plant in Roodepoort. These tests include:

Increasing the total water content of the prescribed mix design Decreasing the total water content of the prescribed mix design Allowing the mix to stand for a set period of time before SCC tests are conducted

Once the variable changing tests were identified, a repeatability study was conducted by batching ten mixes for each test and analysing them with a series of SCC test methods. These test methods were based on European guidelines and literature recommendations from other SCC research projects. Each test method went about analysing the different properties of SCC, namely its filling ability, passing ability and segregation resistance. The following test methods were used:

16

Slump-flow test J-ring test Sieve stability test U-box

Every mix was tested for compressive strength, at 7 and 28-days. These results along with the SCC test results, were then interpreted, evaluated and discussed using comparative research to answer the proposed research question and achieve the set out objectives and outcomes.

1.9

Organisation of dissertation

Chapter 1 Introduction This chapter provides an initial understanding to the research problem, possible research questions to base the investigation on and the objectives. It also includes the assumptions made and the work that was not covered in the dissertation. Chapter 2 - Literature review and theory The literature review was used to give an in-depth understanding on the research problem and provided a theory base structure to build and shape this study. Research was gathered, analysed and concluded; based on relevant topics to the study and reference given to the authors. This provided a factual understanding about the topic and what has already been investigated with regards to the research problems. Chapter 3 Research methodology This chapter went about describing in-depth, the methodology used to solve the research problem. This included the specific research design used, the data collected, the different test methods and procedures and specifications on the actual mix design and material used. Chapter 4 Results The actual outcome of the results was presented in this chapter. These results were logically organised, clearly showing what was found in relation to the aim of the study. These results were presented in the form of tables, line graphs and normal distribution curves that allowed for easy interpretation and comparison. Chapter 5 Discussion The results from Chapter 4 were interpreted, evaluated and discussed in order to provide an understanding of the results obtained and to draw up a conclusion to the research study. Chapter 6 Conclusion and recommendations This chapter provides a number of brief conclusions summarising the progress and findings of the research work. Using these conclusion as a basis, recommendation were made that could be carry out in future research studies.

17

Chapter 2 Literature review and theory

Investigation into the initial testing of Self-compacting concrete (SCC) carried out by Rocla, showed that there was a problem related to the repeatability of SCC. In order to carry out a repeatability study on self-compacting concrete, the properties and testing procedures of SCC had to be investigated. The different materials and properties in the proposed mix design for this project were analysed to observe what effect it had on the sensitivity of SCC. Furthermore, from the feedback received after the initial testing, research was done into possible causes on why the SCC was not showing repeatable results and how they affect the concretes sensitivity to change. This provided specific variable tests that could be carried out, to analyse how this changes the characteristics of SCC. Within those tests there are several methods available for testing the workability of SCC, of which only four were selected to test the SCCs passing and filling ability as well as its segregation resistance. The selection of these tests was based on specific budget, time, available information and the precision of the results that each apparatus produces. Once the required information and tests had been identified, investigation into a suitable method to express repeatability was concluded. The topics discussed in this chapter included an introduction to SCC, the mix design used in the study, variables that are responsible for the sensitive nature of SCC, how SCC is tested, and defining the interpretation of the results using repeatability.

2.1
2.1.1

Introduction
What is Self Compacting Concrete

Self-compacting concrete, originally known as high performance concrete, is a highly workable material that can flow through dense reinforcement and fill voids under its own weight without the need of vibration (Weiss, 2006). The different materials used to create SCC is the same as conventional vibrated concrete (CVC) except that it contains a lower content of coarse aggregate and a higher fines content, with a superplasticiser to increase the viscosity of the fresh concrete (Ahmad et al, 2008). This can be seen in Figure 2.1, which compares the differences of mix proportions in that of SCC and CVC. The reason for the less aggregate would be that less internal stress occurs in the concrete when it deforms, which would essentially prevent blockages and allow aggregate to easily pass through reinforcement (Okamura & Ouchi, 2003). Self Compacting Concrete (with superplasticiser)

Air

Cement

Sand

Stone

Air

Conventional Concrete Figure 2.1 The difference in the mix proportioning in self-compacting concrete compared to conventional vibrated concrete (Okamura & Ouchi, 2003)

18

2.1.2

Where did SCC originate from?

In the 1980s, the availability of skilled labour in Japan was slowly deteriorating, which lead to poor quality in construction work as the compaction of concrete was dependent on the workforce and their level of expertise. This lack of skills and the desire to produce high quality and durable concrete structures did not go hand in hand. A solution to overcome this was to introduce SCC, a concrete that would be able to compact under its own weight, and fill in spaces of formwork without manual labour. In 1986, SCC was proposed by Okamura (2003:5) who did a basic study on SCC and by 1988 the first prototype of SCC had been completed. 2.1.3

The use of SCC in South Africa

In many countries like Europe, Asia and America, SCC has in essence replaced CVC due to its benefits and ability to produce a highly durable concrete. In South Africa, the use of SCC has only been considered on a small number of projects, largely due to CVC being near impossible or very difficult to cast. At a RILEM conference, Geel et al (2007) discussed the challenges of introducing a new technology like SCC into the construction industry of South Africa. They found that the acceptance of SCC into the local industry is very limited due to a number of reasons, one; being that there is a lack of enthusiasm from these local industries. Furthermore, there is a very limited knowledge and experience with regards to the SCC, with no South African guidelines or standards to assist with the production and application of this concrete. As South Africa is still in its formative years with regards to using SCC, only two main mix designs exist, one with a viscosity modifying agent (VMA) and one without. An example of a structure successfully built using SCC, is the Nelson Mandela Bridge in the city of Johannesburg, which boasts as the countrys largest cable stay bridge, shown in Figure 2.2. SCC was used in this structure because vibration in the pylons would be near impossible due to placing restrictions (Concrete and Cement Institution, n.d).

Figure 2.2

The Nelson Mandela suspension bridge situated in Johannesburg CBD (Taiwan Holidays, 2012)

19

2.2

Mix Design

One of the main differences in the mix design of SCC compared to CVC, is that when designing a highstrength concrete the water-cement ratio is selected, whereas in an SCC mix, the water-cement ratio is not controlled by the required concrete strength instead it is adjusted to achieve compactability. Due to this, it may be commonly found that SCC has a higher strength, than what is required. In order to achieve a concrete with a high flowability and an increase in segregation resistance, reference should be made to a standard SCC mix design proposed by Okamura & Ouchi (2003:5), shown below. This mix design guideline was provided to ensure self compactability of the concrete with variations to the watercement ratio and superplasticisers. Companies that supply these superplasticisers generally indicate the dosages required to produce an SCC mix. SCC mix design guidelines as follows: Course aggregate makes up approximately 50 % of the solid volume Fine aggregate makes up approximately 40% of the mortar volume Water-Cement ratio in volume is generally around 0.9 to 1.0 depending on the cement type Superplasticisers vary according to the different companies that produce them, but all have similar effects on the workability. Although this study was focused on the sensitivity SCC shows towards repeatability, understanding the different properties of an SCC mix design was required as these are the main contributors to its sensitive nature. 2.2.1

Mix design for this study

An SCC mix that was designed by Mapei, using a polycarboxylate ether (PCE) based superplasticiser, was used as the baseline for this study. The mix according to Mapei is successful and falls within SCC acceptance values, but to Rocla, the same thing could not be said. When initial trial testing was carried out, severe cases of segregation and surface air voids were observed. However, other cases showed that in a product consisting of two casts, the first batch seemed visually acceptable; where the second batch didnt, and a clear pour joint was visible between the two casts. In order to resolve this problem, the possible reasons responsible for SCCs sensitivity needed to be addressed using this mix design. The mix design for this project can be found in Section 3.4.5.

2.3

Variables responsible for SCC sensitivity

To most precast companies who have tried this new innovative product, SCC has become a hit or miss affair by which either it works or it doesnt, and leads to many precasters relinquishing the idea completely. However, after a lot of determination, many of those who had initially given up decided to try SCC out again, and have never looked back. One of the reasons for their success was having a better understanding on how SCC works and what are the main variables responsible for the sensitive nature of SCC. Factors that influence SCC are things such as moisture, the type additive, particle size and shape, cement extenders and placing procedures (National Precast Concrete Association, 2010).

20

2.3.1

Moisture Control

In an article posted by the National Precast Concrete Association in America (NPCA), they state that moisture control is one of the most important aspects to consider when it comes to SCC, and the total moisture content in the aggregate should be monitored to less than 1%. If moisture control is not in place, a mix with less moisture would affect the workability of the concrete and mixes with more moisture will cause segregation and excess foaming (NPCA, 2010). Moisture tests need to be carried out within one and a half hours before batching of SCC so that the necessary adjustment can be made to the mix design. As segregation is always a potential problem in fresh concrete, if the amount of water retained in your fine aggregate is not noted, it will only reinforce the possibility of segregation arising. Depending on the different mixers and the stability of the SCC mix design, water retained in the mixer after discharge, could be the difference between a successful mix and a failed one (W.R. Grace & Co, n.d.). 2.3.2

Course and fine aggregates

The combined grading between the coarse and fine aggregate, have an important role in the sensitive nature of SCC and should be controlled when possible. The reason for this is that the grading of the aggregate that comes from a specific quarry will never be consistent. The change in various aggregate sizes will result in the surface area of the aggregate to either increase or decrease, changing the amount of mortar required. If consideration is not taken, there might be too little or too much mortar in the mix (NPCA, 2010). The materials used in the production of SCC should generally comply with the European standards and guidelines. These standards and guidelines recommend using a maximum aggregate size of 20 mm and any material smaller than 0.125 mm should be considered as fines. However, in a study conducted by Li et al (2010:8) it was concluded that the main factors that influence segregation in SCC were the aggregate size and viscosity coefficient. From this study it was show that a viable aggregate size should not be more than 25 mm. Furthermore, Haldenwang and Fester (2009) also showed that aggregates used from a Western Cape region, produced a successful SCC. Although this dissertation and its research was conducted in the Gauteng province, it goes to show that even though aggregates and their shape are one of the reasons for SCCs sensitive nature, it is possible to use local materials within South Africa to design a successful SCC mix. 1.1.1.1 Course Aggregate When the topic of course aggregate arises with regards to SCC in South Africa, it has always been mentioned that the reason behind SCC not being repeatable is due to the fact that South Africa uses a more flaky shaped aggregate seen in Figure 2.3. The shape of this aggregate generally depends on the crushing procedure at the specific quarry. In many European countries and American states, a natural rounded aggregate is used, which is obtained from river banks and pits seen in Figure 2.4. The round aggregate, which has a smoother surface texture, reduces the friction in the mix, which not only makes it more workable but requires less water and cement (Amsterdam, 2007:105-106).

21

Figure 2.3

An angular flaky shaped aggregate typically found in South Africa (MBWilkes, 2012)

Figure 2.4

A round river aggregate with a smooth surface texture used in European countries (MBWilkes, 2012)

On the Mandela Bridge, a 9.5 mm andesite stone (an extrusive igneous, volcanic rock) was used. In projects on a smaller scale, case studies have shown the use of a 9.5 mm dolomite stone (Concrete and Cement Institution, n.d.). According to a report by the NCHRP an aggregate size of 9.5 mm had a higher filling capacity and passing ability compared to mix design containing 19 mm stone. The reason the 9.5 mm stone performed better than the 19 mm is due to the particle packing principle, using the Bolomey curve. The more the combined material grading curve imitates the Bolomey curve, the less entrapped air, resulting in better rheology (Khayat & Mitchell, 2009). 1.1.1.2 Fine Aggregate As explained by Amsterdam (2007:107), the fine aggregates main purpose is to act as void filler between stone and cement. A fine aggregate with a low percentage of fines, can produce concrete that tends to bleed and segregate. In most cases, standard crusher sand or river sand is generally used in SCC with a maximum particle size of 4.75 mm (Khoshnazar et al, 2012). Moisture in the fine aggregate is of high importance as even a 1% (with relation to the overall moisture in the mix) difference in moisture can cause segregation.

22

2.3.3

Particle packing principle

Aggregates make up about 60 - 80% of the total volume of SCC. As mentioned in the previous section, the aggregate type and particle size distribution can affect the physical properties of the concrete. The optimisation and packing of this aggregate therefore plays a critical role in the concrete mix design, especially in SCC. The particle packing principle is clearer seen in Figure 2.5 below. Although the image on the left has a fine particle packing, this can be optimised by using smaller particles to fill the voids, seen in the image on the right. In order to determine the aggregate mix composition, a principle grading curve can be used. In this study, a Bolomey curve was used to analyse the particle packing principle, and how the combined grading compares to this curve. Although the Bolomey curve is generally used to assess the aggregate only, the cementitious material was also included, shown in Appendix C, Figure C.4.

Figure 2.5 2.3.4

Particle packing of spheres before and after optimisation (TecEco, n.d.)

Cement Extenders

Cement extenders are generally used to increase the durability and workability of concrete. The most common cement extenders used in South Africa, are Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS), Pulverised Fly Ash (PFA) and Condensed Silica Fume (CSF). Although these extenders are used in concrete for the same purpose, their origins differ. GGBFS is a by-product of the iron-making process and PFA is collected from the flues of a coal power station. CSF on the other hand is a condensed vapour by-product of the ferro-silicon smelting process. It is an extremely fine powder, and is generally used with GGBFS and PFA. Practical SCC tips by Mel Marshall (NPCA, 2010) suggested that the addition of 20% PFA can improve the stability of the mix. In this research study, PFA was used in the mix design, along with a micro silica fume. 2.3.5

Water-Cement Ratio

When referring to the term water-cement ratio, it is the ratio of water to cementitious product, which would include the cement and cement extender. When designing a CVC mix, the first step would be to select a water-cement ratio to satisfy the strength requirements. A lower water-cement ratio would generally produce a higher concrete strength, depending on the cementitious content (Amsterdam, 2007:113). In an SCC mix design, as mentioned before the water-cement ratio is not necessarily controlled by the required concrete strength instead it is adjusted to achieve compactability. The water-

23

cement ratio used in this study was 0.51 (based on mass, not volume), which was used to classify a compressive strength of 45 MPa at 28-days. 2.3.6

Admixture

The admixture that makes SCC possible is the high range water reducers (HRWR) or commonly known as a superplasticiser. Like a plasticiser which is used to increase the slump of the concrete, consequently reducing the cement content for the same strength, the superplasticiser performs the same role but with a greater effect. A reproduced graph in Figure 2.5 shows the effect a superplasticiser has on the concrete. Using a HRWR with a PCE base, the typical dosage rate is about 0.2% to 0.8% of the required cement weight, depending on the different superplasticisers (Sika, 2012). Mapeis Dynamon SX used in the baseline mix for this study, was dosed at 0.7% of cementitious mass.
600

Flow table spread (mm)

500 With superplasticiser 400 Without Superplasticiser

300 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Water Content (kg/m3)

Figure 2.6

The effect of having a superplasticiser in relation to the workability and water content of the concrete (Neville, 1995)

2.3.7

Temperature

Research done by Tsai et al (n.d.) concluded that majority of workability loss in SCC is within 30 minutes after mixing, while conducting tests at different environmental temperatures ranging from 15C to 35C. It was further noted that this workability could be kept if the concrete is continuously mixed at a low speed due to the thixotropy behaviour of SCC. Room temperature (22C to 25C) showed the best results when testing 3 different water-cement ratios, and anything close to 15C was detrimental to SCCs workability. Temperature of the aggregate can also create possible problems with SCC. If the aggregate is exposed to high temperatures for a long period of time without rain, the aggregate moisture content will be lower than the saturated surface dry (SSD). This will result in having to increase the moisture content in your mix to compensate for the extra absorption from the aggregate. A simple solution would be to lightly hose down the aggregates on a hot summer day (NPCA, 2010).

24

2.3.8

Casting SCC

SCC is considered a new animal to precast companies, and special attention to certain procedures in order to handle this new material is required, of which most have been covered in this literature review already. One specifically that has not been mentioned is the casting of SCC. Advice that has been noted from precasters with experience using SCC has suggested a few placement tips that differ from normal concrete. For special products, like culverts, the SCC should be cast along the wall of the mould, and filled over the top, rather than to pour directly on the top, which could result in the harden concrete sticking to the mould, due to a release agent that is washed out during this process (NPCA, 2010). Another issue that usually arises, not only in SCC but also with CVC, is surface voids, also known as bug holes. These bug holes dont necessarily affect structural integrity but does destroy surface quality and there are many related problems to this which can be prevented. When casting SCC, pouring from one location is essential, as pouring from more than one, will result in a large amount of air voids appearing on the concrete surface. Pouring too quickly is also seen as a general cause of these bug holes (NPCA, 2010). The reason SCC has this name, is due to the fact that it compacts itself, and working with a new product like SCC, rules need to be abided by at all times. During the investigation on the trial mixes initially done by Rocla in Roodepoort, it was mentioned that a poker vibrator was used to move along some of the concrete. Case studies from precast companies using SCC (NPCA, 2010), state that this only creates a non uniform mix, and should never been done at any point of time, the SCC should just be allowed to flow under its own force. 2.3.9

Compressive strength and Curing

The required compressive strength of concrete is extremely important not only to be able to handle induced loads when in use, but also to handle the applied forces during handling and stripping. Early compressive strength is also important, and allows these products to be stripped within a specific time period. Steam curing aides this ability by increasing the concrete strength and further helps the precast factory to increase production. A set of three test specimens were prepared for each strength date; 7-day and 28-day compressive strength. These were sampled, prepared and cured according to SANS 5861 part 2 and 3 (2006) without the compaction procedure. These test samples were cured using a conventional method of water curing, with a water temperature of 22C to 25C. 2.3.10

Workability of SCC

Maintaining the workability retention plays an important role to achieve the required consistency in concrete. Workability in terms of SCC is the ability to flow after being discharged into formwork, without the aid of external vibration and still produce a durable concrete with no segregation (Khrapko, 2012: 56-59). The workability of concrete is affected by a number of factors, such as:

The type of admixture used Properties of aggregate and mix proportions Moisture content of the mix Cementitious material characteristics

25

These factors are all applicable to self-compacting concrete. However, SCC is in suspension and shows thixotropy behaviour, which in layman's terms is the recovery of workability loss. In a thesis by Peter Billberg (2006:60), the open time of SCC is discussed, which showed that different thixotropic properties are produced when using different types of aggregate and superplasticisers. Figure 2.7 shows that the slump flow loss is affected over time using a different particle size distribution. Specific superplasticisers as mentioned before contain polycarboxylate ether (PCE) to produce a high deformity in SCC. Different types of PCE also have an effect on the workability loss, which can be seen if Figure 2.8. This figure also illustrates the effects using a combination of different mixer types and moisture in the aggregate.

Figure 2.7

The loss of slump flow in SCC over time due to different aggregates (Billberg, 2006:60)

Figure 2.8

The loss of slump flow in SCC over time due to different superplasticisers (Billberg, 2006:60)

With this said, the loss of workability in SCC is very similar to that of CVC, with the rate of workability loss being higher in SCC. Understanding the rheological properties of fresh SCC is of high importance, and allows a basis to be set to determine the workability, and the rate at which it is lost. 2.3.11

Quality Control

Although the above mentioned variables are important to the sensitivity of SCC, it is even more important to have a quality control system in place to ensure that the these variables are carried out accurately, as these are key aspects to producing a quality self-compacting concrete (W.R. Grace & Co, n.d.). Having a mix design that has been successfully produced in a laboratory, doesnt indicate that it will work in a precast factory, one reason being the carrying out procedures and the different variables

26

within these procedures. This production procedure for SCC needs to comply with the European Standard 206-1, clause 9 and provided guidelines (EFNARC, 2002).

2.4
2.4.1

Testing self-compacting concrete

European guidelines for SCC

Over the years, several organisations have done SCC testing with intend to recommend test methods for European standards. They also set out to produce a range of results which would enable non-specialists to identify whether the SCC is suitable for a given application. In 2005, a pan-European group released their work on repeatability and reproducibility, by studying and testing the properties of fresh SCC. Using this information as a foundation, The European guidelines for SCC was published to address issues related to the lack of European specifications, standards and agreed test methods. In this document, several methods were made available for testing the workability of SCC and were regarded as a standard at a European level. Each test evaluates one or more of the different properties of SCC, namely its passing ability, filling ability and segregation resistance (EFNARC, 2002). Table 2.1 shows the number of available test methods and properties they evaluate. Table 2.1 List of test methods for workability properties of SCC (EFNARC, 2002) Method Slump-flow T500 Slump-flow J-ring V-funnel V-funnel T5minutes L-box U-box Fill-box GTM screen stability test Orimet Property Filling ability Filling ability Passing ability Filling ability Segregation resistance Passing ability Passing ability Passing ability Segregation resistance Filling ability

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The most commonly used tests include the Slump-flow and J-ring, as well as the L-box and V-funnel. However, in recent studies by Khoshnazar et al (2012), on the repeatability of SCC test methods, it was shown that high repeatability was achieved in only a number of these available tests. They concluded that when evaluating the flowability of SCC, the Slump-flow and J-ring tests produced the most repeatable results. With regards to the passing ability, the U-box test showed a higher repeatability than that of the L-box with a lesser margin of error, thus being able to produce consistent data. Before initiating any of these tests, an investigation was done to achieve a complete understanding on how they work, what their specific purpose is, and how to interpret the results achieved from each individual test. These specifications and guidelines have been adopted from The European guidelines for SCC by De Schutter (2005), and the European federation of specialist construction chemicals and concrete systems, EFNARC (2002).

27

In this study the following test methods were used to analyse the workability of the SCC:

2.4.2

Slump-flow and slump-flow time tests J-ring flow, J-ring time and J-ring blocking step tests U-Box test Sieve stability test

Slump-flow and T500 time test

The slump-flow test is used to assess the filling ability of SCC and is the primary test used to determine a slump. Unlike CVC where the slump is measured vertically, in SCC, due to its high viscosity, the slump will always collapse and is the reason why a horizontal measurement is taken (EFNARC, 2002). Depending on the type of reinforcement, both high and low flows may be acceptable. For a light reinforcement, a lower flow is required (500-600 mm) where as in a heavily reinforced structure a higher flow is required (700-760 mm). As little as 1% water added to the mix, could increase the slump flow up to 75 mm, and removing 1% will reduce the slump flow by 50 to 75 mm (W.R. Grace & Co, n.d.). This test also includes the T500 slump-flow time, which measures the time for the slump-flow to reach a 500 mm diameter mark on the base plate. The properties of this test can be seen in Figure B.1, under Appendix B. 2.4.3

J-ring test

The J-ring test is used to assess the passing ability of SCC and can be used in conjunction with the slumpflow test. It also, to a degree, tests the filling ability and segregation resistance of SCC. The problem however is that it does not give a completely accurate reading on the passing ability of SCC as it does not reproduce the way concrete behaves in practise (EFNARC, 2002). The J-ring also includes the T500J Jring flow time and blocking step test. The properties of this test can be seen in Figure B.2, under Appendix B. EFNARC (2002) has noted, to an extent, that from certain observations, one can tell whether a mix has segregated or not. If segregation has occurred, a large amount of the aggregate in the mix can be found in the centre of the spread, with the mortar on the outer edges. This observation however isnt entirely accurate, due to time playing a role in this aspect. A particular issue regarding the J-ring, was the bar size and spacing. EFNARC (2002) have mentioned that the bar sizes and spacing between them can be different, but under the required equipment they have specified 10 mm diameter bars, compared to the European guidelines (2005) which used 18 mm diameter bars. On further inspection, EFNARC have made the conformity values for the J-ring the same as the slump flow. In conclusion, the values of repeatability provided by the European standards were used as a precision criterion, along with the conformity values provided by EFNARC. The J-ring apparatus can be seen in Figure 2.9 on the next page.

28

Figure 2.9 2.4.4

The J-ring apparatus (Geneq inc., 2012)

U-box test

The U-box, like the J-ring is used to assess the passing ability of SCC but with a greater accuracy. The apparatus has two chambers, as seen in Figure 2.10 with a gate separating the two. When the gate is raised, concrete from the first chamber passes through the reinforcement bars and fills up the second chamber to a certain height. This simulates a better flow through reinforcement than that of the J-ring and can also be used to test the concretes filling ability (EFNARC, 2002). The properties of this test can be seen in Figure B.2, under Appendix B.

Figure 2.10 The U-box apparatus (Matest, 2012)

29

2.4.5

GTM Sieve stability test

This is used to analyse the segregation resistance of SCC. Concrete is poured into the 5 mm sieve and the amount of mortar that passes through is weighed. This will illustrate to an extent whether the SCC is stable or not (EFNARC, 2002:30). The reason for using this is due to the simplicity of the test, compared to other segregation tests and has proved to show more repeatable results (Libra et al, 2012). Although EFNARC mention the use of a 5 mm sieve, this test was conducted using a 4.75 mm sieve, as this sieve is readily available at most concrete laboratories, sites and precast plants in South Africa.

2.5

Material analysis

Apart from the SCC sensitivity tests, specific tests required to analyse the different properties of the material being used, had to be carried out. This was done according to South African National Standards (SANS), a division of SABS standards. 2.5.1

Grading

The grading of aggregate is a method used to separate various particles sizes from each other, to analyse the grade of the aggregate. The grading of the mix was analysed to determine whether the aggregate was suitable for SCC or not. This was done according to SANS 201 (2008). The bulk density and the voids content was also analysed according to SANS 5845 (2008), along with the relative density according to SANS 5844 (2008). This is used to assist with the particle packing and concrete mix design. 2.5.2

Fineness modulus (FM)

The FM is used to characterise how fine or coarse an aggregate is determined according to SANS 201 (2008). FM is calculated by dividing the sum of the cumulative percentages of the material retained on the each sieve (4750 m to 150 m) by 100. More coarse sand would have a FM of about 2.9 and above, with finer sand having a FM of less than 1.0. Anything found between this is considered medium sand (Addis & Owens, 2001). 2.5.3

Flakiness Index (FI)

Experiments have shown (Smith, 2001:130) that the shape of course aggregate can have a negative effect on the properties on fresh concrete. The shape of a crushed aggregate can range from being round and angular to flaky and elongated. A high content of flaky aggregate in a mix can decrease the mobility and workability of concrete. The flakiness index is used to measure the flatness of the aggregate and is determined using a flakiness gauge with Equation 2.2. In the trial tests the flakiness was analyse according to SANS 5847 (2008) for coarse aggregate, shown in Appendix C, Figure C.1.

FI =

(Pa Pb )
100
Individual percentage retained Percentage passing slots

(2.1)

Pa Pb

The flakiness index FI is expressed as a percentage.

30

2.6
2.6.1

Repeatability
Definition

Repeatability is the ability to produce results that are consistent when done by the same observer, with ent the same measuring instruments and material, used under the same conditions, location and s ocation environment over a short period of time for each test. 2.6.2

Statistics

Repeatability can be measured using standard deviation, which is a way of showing how far results s deviate from a mean. Standard deviation can be calculated using Equation 2.3 (Johnson, 2000: Johnson, 2000:116).

=
xi
-

1 N

(x
i =1

)2

(2.2)

Individual test (x) results Mean of test results Number of tests

By using the mean and standard deviation values from a number of test results, a normal probability distribution also known as a bell-curve can be generated. Bell-curves are symmetrical with a central curve curves peak representing the mean of the data. The spread of the curve however is controlled by the standard senting T deviation. The less the results deviate from each other (higher repeatability), the steeper the curve. The y-axis is simply used to generate points to plot the bell-curve at different intervals on the x-axis. enerate bell curve x By analysing these statistical graphs, an observation can immediately be made to which variables are more sensitive than others. An example of a standard normal distribution can be seen by the red graph c in Figure 2.11. The green graph shows slightly less consistency of data with a lower mean average than . onsistency the red. The blue graph shows the same mean average as the red graph but with a higher repeatability. a Lastly, the yellow graph has the same average mean as the red and blue graph, but had the worst repeatability of the four.

Figure 2.11

Various distribution graphs based on their standard deviation and mean (DPlot, 2012)

31

2.6.3

Precision of test methods

The statistical precision, expressed as repeatability and reproducibility, have been extensively studied by a pan-European group, including 8 laboratories, 16 operators and 2 replicates, which was interpreted in accordance to ISO 5725:1994. The repeatability limit r indicates the expected difference between two test results under repeatability conditions, with a probability of 95 %. This limit can be obtained by multiplying the standard deviation by a factor of 2.8 and is expressed in Equation 2.4 (De Schutter, 2005). The repeatability precision values are shown for each specific test method in Section 3.3.4.

r = 2 .8 s D
r SD

(2.3) Repeatability Limit Standard Deviation

2.7 SCC Trial Tests

Using the repeatability limit, the results of tests conducted in this study could be compared with the European guidelines. The following repeatability tests are based on the investigated variables responsible for SCC sensitive nature. Each of these tests were analysed with regards to the grading, fineness modulus and moisture content of the aggregate; environmental and fresh concrete temperature; mixing time; and the compressive strengths. All the tests were repeated a minimum of ten times, using procedures and test methods that comply with European standards (EN), guidelines and specification, as well as and South African standards (SANS). Each test excluding test 1, went through an initial trial testing to produce a value in order to test for repeatability. This was achieved by taking each test to the extreme to find a limiting value within the acceptance range for the specific test methods. The reason for using an extreme limiting value to test for repeatability is to not only find which variables are the cause of SCCs volatile nature, but to identify how stable this specific mix is, if it were to be introduced at Rocla.

2.8 Conclusion
The literature review explains what SCC is, where it originated from and where it has been used in South Africa. A number of references have been reviewed and their results and procedures have been concluded to allow for the proper carrying out of tests and recording of results in a quality controlled manner. It has been shown that a robust SCC mix can be designed with various aggregate types and grading. The major problem with repeatability with regard to sensitivity is the procedure to developing SCC. All the tests that were conducted are related to this problem, and they will also aid in comparing what might have possibly gone wrong in a specific test and how SCC reacts to different variables.

32

Chapter 3 Research methodology

3.1
Introduction

Due its high sensitivity, SCC lacks repeatability in Roclas precast environment. This raises the question as to the most critical variables that could be causing the perceived sensitivity and affecting the repeatability of the concrete. Hence, the aim of this study was to conduct tests by tweaking the variables of SCC and then represent the effected changes to the concrete. In order to accomplish this, the following objectives had to be achieved:

To ensure accurate results in testing and that test procedures are carried out as specified in a quality controlled environment; To produce a set of sensitivity graphs that will identify the most critical variables tested in the repeatability use of SCC; To allow Rocla to make strategic decision on whether the implementation of SCC in their precast environment is a viable option, based on this research.

3.2
3.2.1

Research design
Experimental research

The experimental research was conducted at the Murray & Roberts Centre for Concrete Excellence (CCE Lab) in Amalgam, Gauteng, from the 15th May till the 2nd August 2012. 3.2.2

Comparative research

By using a dimensionless response, results of different test can be compared to analyse repeatability amongst results. This also allows work to be compared to research conducted by others. The results obtained in this study were also compared to a conformance criteria and precision values that were adopted from European guidelines and specifications (EFNARC, 2002; De Schutter, 2005)

3.3

Research methodology

The research methodology of this project includes the description of the required test methods, their procedures, the instruments used, and how the information was extracted by using experimental and comparative research. 3.3.1

Data collection

In order to test the repeatability of SCC, a minimum of ten tests were required for each variable change, to statically produce effective results. In order to achieve the main objective of this study, specific tests had to be conducted. The data recorded from each of these tests are shown in Table 3.1.

33

Table 3.1

The recorded data for each test Reference and Date European Guidelines, 2005 European Guidelines, 2005 EFNARC, 2002 EFNARC, 2002 EFNARC, 2002 European Guidelines, 2005 EFNARC, 2002 SANS 5863, 2006 Data recorded Slump-flow spread in mm Slump-flow time in sec J-ring flow spread in mm J-ring flow time in mm Blocking step in mm U-box height difference in mm % of sieved concrete Cube compressive strength in MPa

Test Slump-Flow Slump-Flow T500 J-Ring Flow J-Ring T500 J-Ring Blocking Step Sieve Stability U-Box Compressive strength

Other than the above mentioned test, the following was also recorded:

3.3.2

Curing method and temperature Environmental temperature Mixing time

Precision and conformity criteria for SCC

The precision of the results can be expressed as a repeatability limit explained in Section 2.6.3. These limits are then compared to the repeatability precision values provided by the European guidelines and have been listed under their specific test method in Section 3.3.4. The results obtained from each test method have to conform to specific SCC requirements. Each test method has a range of classes for its required application. The classification and its application for the test methods used can be seen in Table 3.2 below. Table 3.2 Typical classes for a range of applications (European guidelines, 2005:11-14) Application Unreinforced or lightly reinforced applications Normal applications like walls and columns Highly reinforced products, with complex formwork Good filling ability, but can suffer from bleeding and segregation Likely to show thixotropic effects and could have a negative effect on the concrete surface. Slabs and vertical applications with a flow distance less than 5 metres Vertical applications with a flow distance more than 5 metres

Test and Class Slump-flow Class SF1 Class SF2 Class SF3 Slump-flow T500 time Class VS1 Class VS2 Sieve Stability Class SR1 Class SR2

34

These classes form part of the conformity criteria of SCC in its fresh state. However, the European guidelines only specify a class for a number of these tests. Therefore the criterion was adapted from two sources due to this lack of information. Table 3.3 indicates the criteria and its reference for each of the test methods. The actual criteria values have been listed under their specific test method in Section 3.3.4. Table 3.3 Summary of the conformity criteria used for each test method Conformity Criteria Class SF1, SF2 and SF3 Class VS1 and VS2 650 750 mm 2 5 sec 10 mm Class SR1 and SR2 30 mm Reference European Guidelines, 2005 European Guidelines, 2005 EFNARC, 2002 EFNARC, 2002 EFNARC, 2002 European Guidelines, 2005 EFNARC, 2002

Test Slump-Flow Slump-Flow T500 J-Ring Flow J-Ring T500 J-Ring Blocking Step Sieve Stability U-Box

3.3.3

Research equipment and instruments

All the required instruments and equipment were newly bought items and their description can be found in Appendix A, with supporting figures and tables. 3.3.4

Test methods and procedures

This section mentions the different test methods that were conducted, their requirements, and procedures. 3.3.4.1 Slump Flow test

The slump-flow and T500 time tests were used to assess the filling ability and the viscosity of SCC. The specifications of this apparatus can be found in Appendix B, Figure B.1. Requirements

A steel base plate and slump cone Tape measure Scoop Trowel Stopwatch 6 litres of SCC

35

Procedure The procedure was carried out the same way as a conventional slump test according to SANS 5862-1 (2006), with an inverted cone and no tamping. Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: The base plate and cone were wiped down with a damp cloth before testing commenced. The cone was then placed inverted onto the base and concrete was scooped into the cone while holding it down firmly. Once filled, the top was levelled out with a trowel and excess concrete was removed around the base. The cone was raised vertically at a uniform speed; simultaneously a lab assistant started the stop watch to time how long it takes in seconds, for the concrete to reach the 500 mm diameter mark. Once the concrete came to a rest, the largest diameter was measured and recorded as dmax to the nearest 5 mm. The perpendicular diameter was measured in the same way and recorded as dperp. The average spread diameter was calculated using Equation 3.1 below. The spread was checked for segregation in the centre and the peripheral of the slump.

Step 5:

Step 6:

The test was completed within 5 minutes. a) The Slump-flow spread (S) is the average of the perpendicular diameters of the flow achieve during the test (EFNARC, 2002).

S =

(d

max

+ d perp ) 2

(3.1)

d max
d perp

Maximum diameter of the slump flow The perpendicular diameter to the maximum

Precision and conformity criteria The repeatability values and conformity criteria provided by the European guidelines (2005) are given in Table 3.4 below. Table 3.4 Precision values and conformity criteria for Slump-flow and T500 time

Repeatability precision values Slump-flow S (mm) < 600 600 750 Repeatability r n/a 42 Slump-flow T500 time (sec) < 3.5 3.5 6.0 Repeatability r 0.66 1.18 Conformity Criteria SF1 SF2 520, 700 640, 800 VS1 VS2 2 >2

> 750 22 >6 n/a

Slump-flow S * Acceptance Range (mm) Slump-flow T500 time Acceptance Range (sec)

SF3 740, 900 * 80mm of target value

36

3.3.4.2

J-ring test

The J-ring, T500J and the blocking step test were used to assess the filling ability and the passing ability of SCC. The specifications of this apparatus can be found in Appendix B, Figure B.2. Requirements

J-ring apparatus An inverted slump cone Scoop Trowel Spirit level Stopwatch 6 litres of SCC

Procedure The procedure was carried out the same way as the slump-flow test with the addition of the J-ring apparatus. Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: The base plate and cone were wiped down with a damp cloth before testing commenced. The J-ring and the inverted slump cone were placed centrally on the base plate. Concrete was scooped into the cone while being held down firmly. Once filled, the top was levelled out with a trowel and excess concrete was removed around the base. The cone was raised vertically at a uniform speed; simultaneously a laboratory assistant started the stop watch to time how long it takes in seconds, for the concrete to reach the 500 mm diameter mark. Once the concrete came to a rest, the largest diameter was measured and recorded as dmax to the nearest 5 mm. The perpendicular diameter was measured in the same was and recorded as dperp. The average spread diameter was calculated using Equation 3.2. The spread was checked for segregation, in the centre and the peripheral. Using the spirit level, the centre height h0 was measure from the top of the concrete to the bottom of the level. Four height measurements (hx1, hx2, hy1, hy2) were also taken down perpendicular to each other. These measurements were used to calculate the blocking step of SCC.

Step 6:

Step 7: Step 8:

A detailed diagram showing the location of these measurements can be found in Figure 3.1. The test was completed within 5 minutes.

37

Figure 3.1

The positions at which the average height differences are measured on the J-ring (European guidelines, 2005)

Because Rocla uses a very small reinforcement bar in the majority of their products, the J-ring used has 10 mm diameter bars for which EFNARC has provided acceptance values that can be compared to the results achieved during testing. a) The J-ring flow spread (SJ) is the average of the perpendicular diameters of the flow achieve during the test (European guidelines, 2005).

SJ =

(d

max

+ d perp ) 2

(3.2)

d max
d perp

Maximum diameter of the slump flow The perpendicular diameter to the maximum

b) The J-ring blocking step (BJ) is calculated using Equation 3.3 with reference to the different heights shown in Figure 3.1. The x-direction being largest spread diameter (European guidelines, 2005).

38

BJ =

(h

x1

+ h x 2 + h y1 + h y 2 ) 4

h0

(3.3)

All the dimensions in equation 3.2 and 3.3 are in millimetres. Precision and conformity criteria The repeatability precision values were provided by the European guidelines (2005) are given in Table 3.5. The conformity criterion for the J-ring was provided by EFNARC (2002). Table 3.5 Precision values and conformity criteria for J-ring, T500J time and blocking step.

Repeatability precision values J-ring flow spread SJ (mm) < 600 600 750 Repeatability r 59 46 J-ring flow time T500J (sec) < 3.5 3.5 6.0 Repeatability r 0.7 1.23 J-ring blocking step BJ (mm) 20 > 20 Repeatability r 4.6 7.8 Conformity criteria J-ring flow spread SJ (mm) 650 -750 J-ring flow time T500J (sec) 2-5 J-ring blocking step BJ (mm) 10

> 750 25 >6 4.34

3.3.4.3

Sieve segregation resistance test

The sieve segregation resistance test was used to assess the resistance of SCC to segregation. The equipment and instrument requirements for this test can be seen in Appendix A. Requirements

4.75 mm sieve 10 litre bucket Sieve pan Balance accurate to 5 g Stopwatch 10 litres of SCC

39

Procedure Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6: The 10 litres of concrete is poured into a bucket and allowed to stand for 15 minutes. During this time, the weight of the sieve pan (Wp) was recorded and the combined pan and 4.75 mm sieve was placed on the scale, and reset to zero. After 15 minutes, approximately 2 litres of the concrete was poured into the 4.75 mm sieve at a height of 500 mm in one slow continuous motion. The weight of the concrete was recorded (Wc) and allowed to stand for a further 2 minutes. After two minutes the 4.75 mm sieve was removed and the weight of the pan and sieved through concrete was weighed (Wpc). This data was used to calculate the percentage of sample passed.

The test was completed within 20 minutes. Anything lower than 5% can result in a poor surface quality, with the formation of bug holes and anything larger than 15%, specifically 30%, has a great probability of segregation occurring (EFNARC, 2002:30).

a) The sieve portion ( ), which is the percentage of the concrete sample passing through the sieve, is calculated using Equation 3.4 below (De Schutter, 2005:16).

(W PS W P ) x 100
Wc

(3.4)

WPS

The weight of pan with the sieved materials The weight of pan The weight of the poured sample

WP
Wc

All the dimensions in Equation 3.4 are in grams, and the sieve portion ( ) is expressed as a percentage to the nearest 0.1. Precision The repeatability values provided by the European guidelines are given in Table 3.6. These results were based on using a perforated sieve size of 5 mm, instead if a 4.75 mm that was used in this study. Table 3.6 Precision values and Conformity criteria for the sieve segregation resistance test.

Repeatability precision values Segregated portion % < 20 Repeatability r (%) 3.7 Conformity criteria Segregated portion % SR1 Acceptance Range (%) 23

> 20 10.9

SR2 18

40

3.3.4.4

U-box

The U-box was used to assess the passing ability of SCC. The specifications of this apparatus can be found in Appendix B. Figure B.3. Requirements The U-box apparatus Bucket Scoop Trowel Stopwatch Spirit level 15 litres of SCC

Procedure Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: The U-Box was placed firmly on the ground, with the gate in the closed position. Concrete was poured straight from the drum mixer into the first chamber (R1) of the U-Box in one continuous motion and allowed to stand for one minute. The gate was opened at a constant rate to allow the concrete to flow into the second chamber. Once the concrete had come to a rest, the height difference was measured in the two chambers, H1 and H2 for chamber R1 and R2, respectively. This can be seen in Figure 3.2 below, and calculated with Equation 3.5. Three measurements were taken to produce an average height for each.

The test was completed within 3 minutes.

Figure 3.2

The U-Box, clearing showing the two chambers and the flow of the concrete once the dividing gate has been opened (EFNARC, 2002:28).

41

a) The filling height ( H ) difference would simply be the difference of the concrete height H1 and H2 in chamber R1 and R2 respectively (EFNARC, 2002:28).

H = (H 2 H1 )
All the dimensions in Equation 3.5 are in millimetres. Precision

(3.5)

As a control, water would have a height difference (H2 H1) equal to zero, so the lower the value, the better passing ability the concrete has. No precision values exist for this test in the European guidelines (2005), however EFNARC (2002) have provided a conformity criterion of 30 mm as the height difference.

3.4

Specifications and properties of the mix design

In this section, the materials used and proposed mix designs are explained in detail. 3.4.1 a)

Aggregate Analysis
Course Aggregate

A 6.7 mm stone shown in Figure 3.3 was sourced from Lyttelton Quarries in Pretoria and analysed at the Centre for Concrete Excellence (CCE Lab). The parent rock is Dolomitic and of acceptable quality, with no visible weathered material. The sieve analysis and physical properties of this stone can be found in Appendix C, Figure C.1. The grading of the sample falls slightly outside the recommended limits of SANS 1083 (2006).

Figure 3.3

A sample of 6.7 mm Dolomitic stone sourced from Lyttelton Quarries

42

b)

Fine Aggregate

Dolomitic crusher sand shown in Figure 3.4 was sourced from Lyttelton Quarries in Pretoria, and analysed at the CCE Lab. The sample complies with SANS 1083 (2006), derived from mechanical crushing or milling. The sieve analysis and physical properties of the sand is represented in Appendix C, Figure C.2. The sample has a fair particle shape, predominantly less than 1.180 mm.

Figure 3.4

A sample of dolomitic sand sourced from Lyttelton Quarries

Mogol (a.k.a Mokolo) river sand shown in Figure 3.5 was sourced from Magnum Sand & Stone and analysed at the CCE Lab. The sieve analysis and physical properties of the sand is represented in Appendix C, Figure C.3. From the grading curve shown in this figure, the river sand falls within SANS 1083 (2006) recommended limits and is a acceptable material to use as a filler.

Figure 3.5

A sample of filler sand sourced from Magnum Sand & Stone

43

The blended ratio of 50% crusher sand and 50% river sand is suitable for the current requirements of SCC at the Rocla factory in Roodepoort. 3.4.2

Chemical Admixture

Dynamon SX, a chemical admixture based on acrylic modified polymer (PCE) for concrete, was used in the mix design, to achieve the high workability required for SCC. The data sheet for this admixture can be found in Appendix D. 3.4.3

Cementitious Material

A blend of 68% CEM I with 29% Fly Ash and 3% Micro Silica Fume, was used in the design. The data sheet with the physical properties of the cement and fly ash can be found in Appendix E and F respectively. 3.4.4

Water

Potable water was stored in a 20 litre container to ensure a constant room temperature of 22C to 25C at all times, when using water for the mix. 3.4.5 Table 3.7

Mix Proportions
The mix design used for the testing of SCC using an admixture by Mapei SA. 45 MPa Self-Compacting Concrete 320 135 15 700 485 485 240 3.3 0.51

Classification at 28-day strength Class of Concrete 52.5 CEM I Fly Ash Micro Silica Fume 6.7 mm Stone Crusher Sand River Sand Water () Dynamon SX () W/C Ratio

Notes; i. No allowance has been made for wastage. ii. The proportions are by dry mass, (kg/m). iii. The aggregate was supplied by Rocla and sourced from Lyttelton Quarries, and Magnum Sand & Stone iv. The 52.5 CEM I, was sourced from AfriSam, Roodepoort. v. The Fly Ash was sourced from Sephaku, vi. The Dynamon SX was sourced from Mapei SA. This mix design remains the property of Rocla (Pty) Ltd and you would need written permission to make use of it.

44

3.5

Test Procedure

In this section, the test procedure is explained in detail as well as the different sensitivity tests that were conducted. 3.5.1

Lab conditions

The laboratory temperature, batching and mixing area ranged from 22C to 25C at all times. The cube curing baths were monitored daily, with temperatures ranging from 22C to 25C. 3.5.2

Aggregate preparation

Before any materials were batched, the material was spread out and allowed to air dry at room temperature overnight shown in Figure 3.6. The material was then riffled and placed into sample bags.

Figure 3.6 3.5.3

Preparation of aggregate samples

Testing preparation

Before any mix was done, the concrete mixer was inspected to ensure it was dry and clean. Clean stating that there was no concrete or moisture on the blades or on the wall of the drum. A set of 6 cubes were placed out for each test, and ensured that they were clean from any debris and then oiled. All the necessary equipment required was clean and readily available for testing. 3.5.4

Batching and mixing

The batching of prepared materials and mixing of fresh concrete was done in accordance to SANS 58611 (2006). The only exception was with clause 5.3 b) that specifies a mixing time no longer than 3 minutes.

45

Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4:

Step 5:

Before any dry material was batched on the day, the scale was calibrated using the required weights. The dry material was mixed for 30 seconds, before roughly 80 % of the water was added to the mix. After another minute of mixing, the admixture was added with the remaining water. Once all the material had been added, the concrete was allowed to mix for an additional 4 minutes before testing could start. The average mixing time from step 2 was about 6 to 7 minutes for each test. During mixing time, the room temperature was recorded and complied with SANS requirements.

3.5.5

Testing

In this study a 30 litre mix was prepared of which approximately 15 litres was used for the U-box and sieve stability test, 6 litres for the slump-flow test and 6 litres for the J-ring test. Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Once the concrete was mixed, the temperature of the fresh concrete was recorded. During the mixing time, the U-box was placed close enough to the drum mixer to simply pour the concrete into the apparatus. The U-box test was done as per the procedure stated under Section 3.3.4.4. The concrete from this test was then poured into a 10 litre bucket and allowed to stand for 15 minutes for the sieve stability test, as per the procedure in Section 3.3.4.3. The remaining concrete in the U-box was disposed of. The concrete in the mixer was agitated for 30 seconds and approximately 6 litres of concrete was then poured from the mixer into a bucket to conduct the slump-flow test. The test was done as per the procedure stated in Section 3.3.4.1. The concrete collected from the base plate at the end of the test was used to make 3 of the 6 cubes shown in Figure 3.7 and the remaining concrete on the base plate was disposed of. The remaining concrete in the mixer was agitated for another 30 seconds and was again poured into a bucket to conduct the J-ring test. The test was done as per the procedure stated in Section 3.3.4.2. The remaining concrete from the J-ring test was used to make the last 3 cubes of the required 6 shown in Figure 3.7. After 15 minutes, the sieve segregation test was completed as stated in Section 3.3.4.3 and the remaining concrete disposed of. All the equipment and instruments were then washed down and dried for the next test. Once all the tests have been done for the day, they were labelled for identification.

Step 5:

Step 6:

Step 7:

Step 8:

46

Figure 3.7

Cast concrete cubes Test 1 Baseline

3.5.5.1

The first test was to reproduce the baseline mix ten times. These results can be found in Appendix G, Table G.1. 3.5.5.2 Test 2 Increasing the water percentage content

Test 2 was based on increasing the water content of SCC mix. To see where the limit of increasing the water content would be for this compared to the baseline mix, a number of trial tests were done to achieve a testing value. This also showed how much had been allowed for error when the mix was designed. These results can be found in Appendix G, Table G.2.

3.5.5.3

Test 3 Decreasing the water percentage content

Test 3 was based on based on decreasing the water content of SCC mix. To see where the limit of decreasing the water content would be for this compared to the baseline mix, a number of trial tests were done to achieve a testing value. This also showed how much had been allowed for error when the mix was designed. These results can be found in Appendix G, Table G.3. Test 2 and 3 were used to analyse the effect that moisture control has on SCC compared to the baseline mix. 3.5.5.4 Test 4 Standing time

This test will show the rate at which the baselines mix loses its workability over time. These results can be found in Appendix G, Table G.4. The procedure for this test was done the same as that of test 1, with a 15 minute standing time. After 15 minutes, the concrete in the mixer was agitated for 30 seconds before the test was conducted. Test 4 was used to analyse the effect of poor quality control on SCC compared to the baseline mix.

47

3.6

Analysis and presentation of results

In order to analyse the results obtain from SCC testing, a compliance criteria was used to compare the results obtained in the laboratory, with the precision results provided by the European guidelines (2005).These guidelines have recommended specific test methods for the different characteristics of SCC, namely its passing ability, filling ability and segregation resistance (EFNARC, 2002). This specific characteristic can be analysed using one or more test methods shown in Table 3.8. Table 3.8 Test methods used for SCC characterisation Test method(s) J-ring and the U-Box test Slump-flow test Sieve segregation test

Characteristic Passing ability Filling ability and Viscosity Segregation resistance

Each specific test method produced different types of data mentioned in Table 3.1. A standard deviation and mean was calculated from this and converted to repeatability limits, as explained in Section 2.6.3. These repeatability limits were then compared to precision values given by the European guidelines (2005). Test methods that did not have precision values, were compared to recommended acceptance values provided by EFNARC (2002). Using a series of line graphs, the data collected for each test method could be compared to one another. This illustrates what results were obtained for each test and how they differ from each other. The standard deviation and mean were also used to generate normal distribution graphs to analyse the repeatability of not only the different methods used, but also the different trial tests conducted. By conducting different water content tests, two line graphs could be produced showing the effects of the increase and decrease of the total water content had on the different characteristics of the SCC.

48

Chapter 4 Results
4.1 Introduction
This chapter summarises all the results obtained from the different tests conducted on SCC using the fore mentioned test methods. The objective was to produce a set of sensitivity graphs to highlight the most critical variables in the repeatability of SCC. By using normal distribution graphs (bell-curves), the repeatability of each test and test method can be easily compared. A table is given for each SCC test method which summarises the results in Appendix C, and supports the graphs that follow. This includes the mean value of the data, the standard deviation, its conformity criteria, the repeatability limit and the repeatability precision results. The repeatability explained in Section 2.6.3 is expressed as r was compared to the repeatability precision results provided by the European guidelines (2005), EU. The line graph in each test method represents the actual results achieved for each mix and how they vary. These results were compared to a conformity criteria provided by either EFNARC or the EU, were applicable. The normal distribution graph indicates the repeatability of each test for that specific SCC test method. The centre peak of the curve represents the mean of the data and the spread of the curve is controlled by the standard deviation (SD). Smaller standard deviations are therefore indicative of more concentrated data sets (steeper the graph), thus resulting in a higher repeatability. The chapter concludes with the compressive strengths of each test, and how the average 7 and 28-day strength differ from each other as well as the classified strength of 45 MPa.

4.2 Slump-Flow Test

4.2.1

Slump-Flow Spread

The slump-flow results are presented in Figure 4.1, with the normal distribution of these results shown in Figure 4.2. The SF2 and SF3 classes were used (explained in Section 3.3.2) as the acceptance criteria for the slump-flow mean. The repeatability limit (explained in Section 2.6.3) is expressed as r which can compared to the repeatability precision results, EU in Table 4.1 below. Table 4.1 Test Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Slump flow spread data comparison Description Baseline Added 3% Water Less 3% Water 15 Min Standing Time Mean (mm) 716 787 713 713 SF2 (mm) 640 - 800 640 - 800 640 - 800 640 - 800 SF3 (mm) 740 - 900 740 - 900 740 - 900 740 - 900

SD (mm)
25 21 24 29

r 70 59 67 81

EU 42 42 42 42

49

900 Baseline 850 Increase Water Decrease Water 15min Standing Time SF2 (640, 800) 600 550 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mixes SF3 (740, 900)

Slump flow (mm)

800 750 700 650

Figure 4.1

Slump-flow Test Results

Higher Baseline Increase Water % Repeatability Decrease Water % 15min Standing Time SF2 (640, 800) SF3 (740, 900) Lower 550 650 750 Flow Spread (mm) 850

Figure 4.2 4.2.2

Slump-flow Test Normal Distribution

Slump Flow T500 Time

The slump-flow T500 time results are presented in Figure 4.3, with the normal distribution of these results shown in Figure 4.4. The class VS1 was used (explained in Section 3.3.2) as the acceptance criteria for the T500 time mean. The repeatability limit (explained in Section 2.6.3) is expressed as r which can compared to the repeatability precision results, EU in Table 4.2 below.

50

Table 4.2 Test

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4

The slump flow T500 time test comparison Description Baseline Added 3% Water Less 3% Water 15 Min Standing Time Mean (sec) 0.94 0.81 1.08 0.95 VS1 (sec) 2 2 2 2

SD (sec)
0.18 0.16 0.13 0.27

r 0.49 0.46 0.36 0.75

EU 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

2.5

2.0 Baseline

T500 time (sec)

1.5

Increase Water Decrease Water 15min Standing Time VS1 (2 sec)

1.0

0.5

0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mixes

Figure 4.3

Slump-flow T500 test results

Higher

Baseline Repeatability Increase Water % Decrease Water % 15min Standing Time VS1 (< 2sec) Lower 0.0 0.5 1.0 T500 time (sec) 1.5 2.0

Figure 4.4

Slump-flow T500 normal distribution

51

4.3
4.3.1

J-Ring Test
J-Ring flow spread

The J-ring results are presented in Figure 4.5, with the normal distribution of these results shown in Figure 4.6. The conformity of the results as specified by EFNARC in Table 3.5 (under Section 3.3.4.2), was used as an acceptance criteria for the J-ring flow spread. The repeatability limit (explained in Section 2.6.3) is expressed as r which can be compared to the repeatability precision results, EU in Table 4.3 below. Table 4.3 J-ring flow spread data comparison

Test Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4

Description Baseline Added 3% Water Less 3% Water 15 Min Standing Time

Mean (mm) 648 719 660 664

EFNARC (mm) 650 - 750 650 - 750 650 - 750 650 - 750

SD (mm)
24 28 20 40

r 67 78 56 112

EU 46 46 46 46

800 750

Baseline Increase Water %

Slump flow (mm)

700 Decrease Water % 650 15min Standing Time 600 EFNARC (650-750mm) 550 500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mixes EFNARC (650-750mm) 50mm

Figure 4.5

J-ring flow spread test results

52

Higher Baseline Increase Water % Repeatability Decrease Water % 15min Standing Time EFNARC (650-750mm) Lower 550 650 750 Flow Spread (mm) 850 EFNARC (650-750mm) 50mm

Figure 4.6 4.3.2

J-ring flow spread normal distribution

J-Ring flow T500J time

The J-ring T500J time results are presented in Figure 4.7, with the normal distribution of these results shown in Figure 4.8. The conformity of the results as specified by EFNARC in Table 3.5 (under Section 3.3.4.2), was used as an acceptance criteria for the J-ring flow time. The repeatability limit (explained in Section 2.6.3) is expressed as r which can be compared to the repeatability precision results, EU in Table 4.4 below.

Table 4.4 Test

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4

J-ring T500J time data comparison Description Baseline Added 3% Water Less 3% Water 15 Min Standing Time Mean (sec) 1.06 1.03 1.25 1.18 EFNARC (sec) 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-5

SD (sec)
0.29 0.17 0.26 0.22

r 0.81 0.48 0.73 0.62

EU 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

53

2.5 2 Baseline Increase Water % Decrease Water % 1 15min Standing Time 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mixes EFNARC Limit (2-5 sec)

T500 time (sec)

1.5

Figure 4.7

J-Ring T500J time test results

Higher

Baseline Repeatability Increase Water % Decrease Water % 15min Standing Time EFNARC Limits (2-5 sec) Lower

0.00

0.50

1.00 T500 time (sec)

1.50

2.00

Figure 4.8

J-Ring T500J time normal distribution

4.3.3

J-Ring blocking step data

The J-ring blocking step results are presented in Figure 4.9, with the normal distribution of these results shown in Figure 4.10. The conformity of the results as specified by EFNARC in Table 3.5 (under Section 3.3.4.2), was used as an acceptance criteria for the J-ring blocking step. The repeatability limit (explained in Section 2.6.3) is expressed as r which can be compared to the repeatability precision results, EU in Table 4.5 below.

54

Table 4.5

J-ring blocking step time data comparison

Test
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4

Description Baseline Added 3% Water Less 3% Water 15 Min Standing Time

Mean (mm) 6.4 4.6 4.9 6.0

EFNARC (mm) 10 10 10 10

SD (mm)
1.4 1.6 1.3 1.8

r 3.9 4.5 3.6 5.0

EU 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mixes 7 8 9 10 Baseline Increase Water % Decrease Water % 15min Standing Time EFNARC Limit (10 mm)

Figure 4.9

Blocking Step

J-ring blocking step test results

Higher

Baseline Increase Water % Repeatability Decrease Water % 15min Standing Time EFNARC Limit (<10 mm) Lower 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00

J-ring blocking step (mm)

Figure 4.10

J-ring blocking step normal distribution

55

4.3.4

Moisture effect on the flow spread

After conducting a number of moisture control tests, the effect of changing the water content had on the SCC can be clearly seen in Figure 4.11 below. This graph compares the change in flow in the slumpflow and J-ring tests, against the change in water percentage. The conformity criterion as specified by EFNARC was used to analyse these results. EFNARC have given the limits 650 mm to 750 mm for the flow spread for both tests, with a further allowance of 50 mm.

900 850 800 Slump Flow

Flow Spread (mm)

750 700 650 600 550 500

J Ring

EFNARC Limit (650-750mm) EFNARC (650750mm) 50mm

-5

-4

-3

-2 -1 0 Percentage of Water

Figure 4.11

Slump-flow and J-ring in affected by the changed in water percentage

As the amount of moisture content increases, naturally the flow increases as well. The rate at which this flow increases can been seen in Figure 4.12. The actual slump-flow of the results was compared to a projected linear flow increase starting at 1%.

56

800 790 780

Slump-flow (mm)

770 760 750 740 730 720 710 0 1 2 Water content increase (%) 3 4 Increasing Flow Constant Flow

Figure 4.12

The actual Increasing flow compared to a projected constant (linear) flow

4.4 Sieve stability test

The sieve stability results are presented in Figure 4.13, with the normal distribution of these results shown in Figure 4.14. The SR1 and SR2 classes were used (explained in Section 3.3.2) as the acceptance criteria for the sieve stability test. The repeatability limit (explained in Section 2.6.3) is expressed as r which can compared to the repeatability precision results, EU in Table 4.6 below. Table 4.6 Test
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4

Sieve stability test data comparison Description Baseline Added 3% Water Less 3% Water 15 Min Standing Time Mean (%)
6.3 10.8 8.8 6.7

SR2 (%)

SD (%)
1.4 2.2 1.6 2

r
3.9 6.2 4.5 5.6

EU
3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7

15 15 15 15

57

16.0 14.0

Sieve Segregation %

12.0 10.0

Baseline Increase Water % Decrease Water %

8.0 6.0 4.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mixes

15min Standing Time SR2 (15%)

Figure 4.13

Sieve stability test results

Higher

Baseline Increase Water % Repeatability Decrease Water % 15min Standing Time SR2 (<15 %)" Lower 0.00 5.00 10.00 Segregation (%) 15.00 20.00

Figure 4.14

Sieve stability test normal distribution

4.5 U-Box
The U-Box results are presented in Figure 4.15, with the normal distribution of these results shown in Figure 4.16. The conformity criteria as specified by EFNARC under Section 3.3.4.4, was used as a acceptance criteria for the U-Box test. The European guidelines do not specify a repeatability limit. The EFNARC criterion of 30 mm does not appear on the graph, this was omitted to increase the size of the graph for better observation of the results.

58

Table 4.7

U-box test data comparison

Test
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4

Description Baseline Added 3% Water Less 3% Water 15 Min Standing Time

Mean (mm)
4.1 2.3 4.2 3.6

SD (mm)
1.0 0.95 0.92 0.94

r
2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5

EFNARC (mm) 30 30 30 30

10 9

U Box Height Difference (mm)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mixes Baseline Increase Water % Decrease Water % 15min Standing Time EFNARC Limit (30mm)

Figure 4.15

U-Box test results

Higher

Baseline Repeatability Increase Water % Decrease Water % 15min Standing Time EFNARC Limit (30mm) Lower 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

U-box height difference (mm)

Figure 4.16

U-Box nominal distribution

59

4.6 7 and 28-day compressive strength

In Figure 4.17 below, the 7 and 28-day strength results for each mix can be found. The dashed line represents the 28-day strengths and the solid line represents the 7-day strengths. The average 7 and 28day strengths for each test can be seen in Figure 4.18.

65.0

28 Day Strengths
7 and 28 Day Compressive Strength (mPa)
60.0

Baseline Increase Water %

55.0 Decrease Water % 50.0 15min Standing Time 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 Baseline Increase Water % Decrease Water %

7 Day Strengths
25.0 1 2 3 4 5 Mixes 6 7 8 9 10 15min Standing Time

Figure 4.17
70 60

7 and 28-day compressive strengths results

58.7

56.7

57.2

56.4

Compressive strength (Mpa)

50 40 30 20 10 0 Baseline 37.6 37.4 39.2 37.6

45 MPa

7 Day strength 28 Day strength Classified Strength at 28 Days

Incease Water % Decease Water % Standing Time Tests

Figure 4.18

The average 7 and 28-day compressive strengths for each test

60

Chapter 5 Discussion
This chapter discusses the process of interpretation and evaluation that was followed with the results presented in Chapter 4, with the research objectives in mind. All the results were compared to a conformity criteria and a repeatability limit were possible according to European guidelines and standards. The results have been discussed in two separate sections, namely moisture control and quality control, with the baseline (test 1) serving as a control to compare the repeatability and performance of the other variable changing tests.

5.1

Moisture Control

Literature shows that SCC is highly sensitive to moisture change. However this varies with different types of SCC and their applications. A higher viscosity SCC would generally be affected if there was insufficient amount of water in the mix, where a lower viscosity SCC would segregate by a slight increase of water content. Using a conformity criteria, and repeatability limits, the SCC mix could be classified to a specific application, and illustrated how sensitive it is to moisture control. In order to analyse the effects of moisture control on the SCC mix, a series of baseline tests had to be conducted to firstly determine which category the SCC fits into. These results were then compared to test 2 and 3 to analyse what effect the moisture had of the properties of SCC. 5.1.1

Slump-Flow test

The slump-flow results in Figure 4.1 shows that the baseline test fell well within the SF2 Class, with an average flow of 716 mm. Although this doesnt place the concrete within the repeatability limit according to EU, it is still a suitable SCC for normal applications, with a standard deviation of 25 mm. After increasing the water content by 3%, all the results fall within the SF3 class, making it a suitable concrete for dense reinforcement structures and complex formwork. The average flow increased to 787 mm with a slightly lower standard deviation of 21 mm compared to the baseline. Although it may seem that increasing the water content resulted in more repeatable results, with SCC having such a large acceptance range, the change in repeatability can be hardly noted. However, in the first mix of test 2, a flow of 825 mm was achieved and clear signs of segregation were observed, with the paste slowly segregating from the aggregate at the periphery of the slump-flow spread. In Figure 4.11, it shows that the mix is very stable, with an average increase of 23 mm of flow for every percentage of water added. However, care should be taken when increasing the water content, by referring to Figure 4.12, it can be seen that the increase in flow is not constant, and slowly becomes greater. Decreasing the water by 3% had almost no effect on the slump with a similar average of 713 mm and a standard deviation of 24 mm. The repeatability of these tests can be clearly seen in Figure 4.2, with this test and the baseline, being almost identical. Even with a 5% water decrease, shown in Figure 4.11 (consisting of only three tests) changes to the slump flow are marginal.

61

5.1.2

Slump-Flow T500 time

The results for the T500 test are present in Figure 4.3. All the results for this test fell well within the repeatability limit provided by EU, with decreasing the water by 3% having the greatest repeatability shown in Figure 4.4. The average flow times range from 0.94 to 1.08 seconds, illustrating that the flow rate is extremely fast, which could lead to bleeding and mild segregation. Although the repeatability of these results can be distinguished amongst each other, the average time difference was within 0.1 seconds shown in Table 4.2. These results are extremely close and could easily differ due to human error. Due to the fast flow rate of the concrete and the marginal difference between tests results, the T500 makes it very difficult to analyse the repeatability. It can however show that the concrete had a significant flow rate in all the tests, but as mentioned before, care should be taken, as bleeding and segregation could occur. 5.1.3

J-Ring flow spread

Using a different means of conformity compared to that of the slump-flow results, each test fell within the EFNARC acceptance criteria of 650 to 750 mm, except for the baseline having a marginal average of 648 mm, shown in Table 4.3. Further analysis shows that in Figure 4.5, 50% of the baseline results fell outside this lower limit of 650 mm, although EFNARC does specify that the limit itself has an acceptance criterion of 50 mm, thus making these results still acceptable. This illustrates that all the results for each test are acceptable with accordance to EFNARC. In terms of repeatability, although all the results fell outside the EU limit of 46, test 3, showed the best precision with a repeatability value of 56 and a standard deviation of 20 mm. This can also been seen in Figure 4.6, in comparison to the repeatability of the other test results. Increasing the water content, as expected, resulted in a higher average flow of 719 mm, and a standard deviation of 28 mm, seen in Table 4.3. All three tests showed great passing ability, with almost identical results in test 1 and 3. 5.1.4

J-ring T500J time

Similar to the results found in the slump-flow test, due to the fast flow rate of the concrete and the marginal difference between tests results, the T500J time makes it very difficult to analyse the repeatability, shown in Table 4.4. However, when compared to the repeatability limits in Table 4.2 of the slump-flow test, a clear ranking can be seen from which test had more repeatable results. In both cases increasing the water percentage was the only result that fell within the EU repeatability limits of the three tests, ranking it as the most repeatable test, with test 3 and 1 following after. This can clearly been seen in Figure 4.8, showing the repeatability of the results. 5.1.5

J-ring blocking step

The blocking step is an illustration of the passing ability of the concrete, with the greater difference in height indicating a lower passing ability. All three tests fell within the EU repeatability limits, and well within the conformity criteria of less than 10 mm shown in Table 4.5. However, an interesting observation was made when analysing Table 4.5, although the water content was increased and decreased in test 2 and 3 respectively, these test results had a lower blocking step than that of the

62

baseline mix. These results were much unexpected and could be that there was no major effect on the passing ability of SCC with the change in moisture content of 3% either way. 5.1.6

Sieve stability test

From Table 4.6 and Figure 4.13, although none of the tests were within the EU repeatability limit of 3.7 all the tests fell within conformity criteria of class SR2, which means that the SCC is suitable for vertical applications with a flow distance more than 5 metres. As expected, increasing the water content resulted in a lower segregation resistance, with 11% of the paste passing through the sieve. The baseline and test 3 were relatively low with percentages of 6.3 and 8.8 respectively. These two tests also had the best consistency out of the three. Increasing the water percentage generally showed a higher repeatability with better precision in the previously mention test, but in Figure 4.14, it can clearly be seen that increasing the water content of the mix, shows signs instability, and could result in segregation if this is not monitored. 5.1.7

U-box

According to EFNARC, this test assess the filling ability of self-compacting concrete. However it can also examine the flow and passing ability. The results for each test can be seen in Figure 4.15 with test 1 and 3 having maximum a height difference of 6 mm. Increasing the water content produced an average height of 2 mm, a third less than that of the baseline. Looking at Figure 4.16, all three tests had an extremely high repeatability with a very high flow. As no repeatability limits exist for the U-box, these values can only be compared to the EFNARC acceptance value of less than 30 mm, but can be used as a conformity criteria to assess the SCC for future applications. 5.1.8

Additional laboratory observations

During the initial testing of SCC, the drum mixer was not completely cleaned from excess concrete prior to the next mix. The reason behind this was to simulate an on-site situation where there will always be a small excess of concrete remaining on the inside walls of the mixer. At first, this seemed to have no significant effect on the SCC. A gradual increase in the slump-flow was later observed, but was still within the maximum EFNARC limit and the European class SF2 of 800 mm. However, after the fifth consecutive mix, the slump-flow increased drastically from 775 mm to 840 mm, more than a 60 mm jump, just as W.R. Grace & Co. had specified, mention in Section 2.4.2. This was much unexpected, and a moisture test was conducted with the remaining concrete left in the mixer. Results had shown that there was more than 7% moisture in the mixer, prior to batching the next mix. Although the SCC mix was stable within a 3% increase in moisture content, it started showing highly unpredictable results with 7% moisture still in the mixer. One possible explanation for this can be observed Figure 4.12 that shows the actual Increasing flow compared to a projected linear flow. The flow spread of the SCC does not climb at a constant (linear) rate, but tends to rises as the moisture content increases. Another laboratory observation was made when a pan mixer was used. It should be noted that only one mix was conducted using a 50 litre pan mixer, and was not included in the analyses of the repeatability tests. This test produced a slump-flow of 580 mm, which falls outside the EFNARC limit of 600 mm and

63

the European class SF2 of 640 mm. Although only one test was conducted, not one of the mixes during the SCC testing fell outside this limit, with the closest being 640 mm, after a 25 minute standing time.

5.2

Quality Control

As mentioned before, quality control is of the utmost importance when working with SCC, to ensure consistency and durability of the concrete. This can be clearly seen when conducting a test by allowing the concrete to stand for 15 minutes before any SCC tests were done. The workability and stability of the mix will be affected if problems occur during the batching of SCC, which could result in delays of 15 to 25 minutes, especially if there is no means to reagitate the mix, as SCC does show thixotropy flow behaviour. The 15 minute standing time test was analyse in comparison to the baseline mix and the European guidelines (2005). 5.2.1

Slump-flow test

In Figure 4.1, all of the standing time results fell within the SF2 class, with an average flow of 713 mm, making the SCC still very workable in terms of flow. All the results were within 60 mm of the mean, with an unexpected flow of 770 mm for mix 4. One possible reason for this could be SCC does have a small chance due to it sensitivity, to fall out of the standard deviation, and could be the reason EFNARC has specified an allowance of 50 mm flow extra flow, outside the criteria of 650 mm to 750 mm. The important aspect of this is that, although this result was unexpected, it still falls within the acceptance range provided by the European guidelines (2005). 5.2.2

Slump-flow T500 time

As mentioned in Section 5.1.2, it is very difficult to analyse the repeatability of the mix due to the fast flow rate of the concrete and the marginal difference between tests results. With this said, in Figure 4.4 the repeatability of the standing time test was the worst of the tests although it had an average time of 0.95 seconds, almost identical to the baseline mix. The mix still fell within the VS1 class of less than 2 seconds; therefore the SCC still has an acceptable flow rate. 5.2.3

J-ring flow spread

The flow spread of the J-ring in Figure 4.5 shows very similar results to the slump-flow, with mix 4 deviating the most from the average flow spread of 664 mm. The average flow is actually slightly higher than the baseline test of 648 mm, showing that there was no major change after 15 minutes. However, shown in Figure 4.6 the repeatability was very low with a limiting value of 112, which was more than double the recommended value by the European guidelines shown in Table 4.3. 5.2.4

J-ring T500 time

As mentioned in Section 5.1.4, it is very difficult to analyse the repeatability of the mix due to the fast flow rate of the concrete and the marginal difference between tests results. The test still fell within the precision limit of 0.7 even though mix 7 had a high flow rate time of 1.6 seconds in Figure 4.7.

64

5.2.5

J-ring blocking step

In Figure 4.9, the results of the standing time have been plotted with mix 7, again standing out from the rest, and falling just inside the recommend blocking step criteria of 10 mm or less. This test also fell outside the repeatability limit provided by the European guidelines. Mix 7 causing the large amount of inconsistency, the repeatability can be seen in Figure 4.10, which is slightly lower compared to the baseline mix. Although the mix still has sufficient spread and a high flow rate, the amount of blocking step is the highest, with a largest inconsistency. 5.2.6

Sieve stability test

When analysing the segregation resistance after the concrete was allowed to stand for 15 minutes, Table 4.6 shows that there was less than 1% difference compared to the baseline mix, with both tests falling outside the recommended EU precision values. In Figure 4.13 and 4.14, the repeatability was slightly lower than the baseline, but was not the worst of the tests conducted. Falling in the class SR2, the SCC will be able to withstand vertical applications with a flow distance more than 5 metres. 5.2.7

U-box

The mean of the results was 3.6 mm, with less than half a millimetre difference from the baseline mix. The SCC after 15 minutes still had sufficient filling and passing ability, falling below the EFNARC limits, seen in Table 4.7. In terms of repeatability, the U-box test has shown to produce the highest consistency amongst all the other test methods, and in Figure 4.16, surprisingly the repeatability was almost identical to the baseline after allowing the concrete to stand for 15 minutes.

5.3

Compressive Strength

Knowing how the above mentioned tests and results achieved affect the concrete strength, is highly important, as this is one of the major deciding factors on whether implementing SCC is viable or not. The 7 and 28-day compressive strength results for each test are presented in Figure 4.17 and Figure 4.18. The average 7-day strength for the baseline mix was 37.6 MPa reaching 28-day strength of 58.7 MPa. The rest of the variable changing tests had almost no effect on the concrete strength, with decreasing the water having the highest strength of 39.2 MPa. In 28-days, the difference can be seen more clearly, with the baseline now having the highest strength. The 28-day strengths didnt vary much between each other, with a maximum variance of 2.5%.

65

Chapter 6 Conclusions and recommendations

6.1
a)

Conclusions
Although more than half of the tests did not fall within the precision criteria provided by the European guidelines, all the tests did produce acceptable SCC results, with regards to the conformity criteria according to EFNARC and the European standards. Looking at the moisture content results, even after changing the moisture content of the mix design by 3% either way, the SCC still fell within acceptance ranges with a considerable amount of repeatability. This goes to show that although SCC is sensitive to moisture changes as little as 1%, one can still achieve an acceptable SCC that shows no segregation by using a stable mix design. Increasing the moisture content of the mix did have a greater effect on the flow spread and time, than decreasing the moisture content. Although the moisture content varied by 6% (Test 2 and 3 each having a deviation of 3%), there were no signs of it having a major effect on the strength of the concrete, with a maximum variance of 2 MPa at 28-days. Taking the additional laboratory observations into account, the remaining concrete left over in the drum mixer showed significantly unpredictable results in terms of its sensitivity towards moisture content. When conducting a test with the pan mixer, the water demand had risen, showing a slump-flow of 580 mm, which could affect the passing and filling ability of the SCC due to the low flow.

b)

c)

While changing moisture content still maintained a high repeatability, increasing the standing time had the worst effect on repeatability out of the tests conducted. A standing time of 15 minutes implies a significant loss in workability which could imply unpredictable results. When comparing the moisture and quality control results, it has become clear that problems are more likely to arise due to the way SCC is implemented, rather than the sensitivity of the materials it consists of.

d)

In practical terms, the time tests for the slump-flow and J-ring test would not be able to accurately observe the passing ability of SCC, due to its high flow rate. The U-box was by far the most repeatable, and if something was wrong with the SCC, it could clearly be seen with this test. It would be difficult to implement the U-box test on site though. A more accurate and plausible measure would therefore be to measure the slump flow spread. The tests were all done in a quality controlled environment, within the specific time frame. The results obtained were able to show which variables affected SCC the most, and Rocla was able to make use of this research to conduct successful SCC trials.

e)

66

6.2
a)

Recommendations
The test results in this dissertation and their precision can be used as conformance criteria for other SCC testing conducted in specifically in South Africa, with similar properties. To truly test the stability of the mix, further moisture tests can be done, increasing the moisture variance by 10%, and along with a repeatable number of tests for each percentage difference. A further recommendation would be to conduct similar research by using a pan mixer instead. The reason for the limited amount of tests were due to the time span of the project, hence only the tests required were conducted.

b)

c)

Practical recommendations for the use of SCC at Rocla would be to introduce a quality control system before trial testing to ensure that there are no delays and that batching, mixing and placing procedures are according to the European guidelines. Using the slump-flow spread test on site would generally give an appropriate indication on the flow of the concrete and whether it would be successful or not. This goes along with a visual observation to analyse whether segregation could occur. One problem mentioned in the literature was that there are no South African guidelines or standards for SCC. By conducting these tests with accordance to European guidelines, European standards and the South African National Standards, these results could be considered for standardisation along with further research.

d)

e)

67

Chapter 7 References
Ahmad, S., Azad A.K. & Hameed M.A. 2008. A study of Self-Compacting Concrete made with marginal aggregates. The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. 23 (2B), 437-442. http://ajse.kfupm.edu.sa/articles/ [15 February 2012] Amsterdam, E. 2007. Construction materials for civil engineering. Cape Town: Juta & Co. Addis, B. & Owens, G. 2001. Fultons concrete technology. Midrand: Cement and concrete institute. Anglia Ruskin University. 2012. Harvard System of Referencing Guide http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm [16 April 2012] Billberg, P. 2006. Form Pressure Generated by Self-Compacting Concrete Influence of Thixotropy and Structural Behaviour at Rest. PhD thesis, Stockholm, Sweden. Concrete and Cement Institution. n.d. Self Compacting Concrete. http://www.cnci.org.za/cnci/selfcompacting.htm [16 February 2012] De Schutter, G. 2005. Guidelines for testing fresh self-compacting concrete. Measurement of properties of fresh self-compacting concrete, September. DPlot. 2012. Graph Software for Scientists and Engineers. http://www.dplot.com/probability-scale [08 March 2012} EFNARC. 2002. Specications and guidelines for self-compacting concrete. http://www.efnarc.org/pdf/SandGforSCC.PDF [15 February 2012] The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete. 2005. Specification, Production and Use. http://www.britishprecast.org/publications/documents/scc_guidelines_may_2005_final.pdf [22 February 2012] Geneq Inc. 2012. Scientific Instruments Distributor. http://www.geneq.com/ [08 March 2012] Geel, A., Beushaunsen, H. & Alexander, M.G. 2007. SCC in South Africa - The challenge to introduce a new technology to the construction industry. In De Schutter, G & Boel, V. (ed.) Fifth International RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete, 2007. Haldenwang, R. and Fester, V.G., The reproducibility of a SCC mix developed using regional Western Cape materials. Rilem International Symposium on Rheology of Cement Suspensions such as Fresh Concrete, Rijkjavik, Iceland. (2009) 221-229. Johnson, R. A. 2000. Probability and Statistics for Engineers. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Khayat, K.H. & Mitchell, D. 2009. Self-Consolidating Concrete for Precast, Prestressed Concrete Bridge Elements. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/ [15 February 2012]

68

Khoshnazar, R., Libre, N.A. & Shekarchi M. 2012. Repeatability, responsiveness and relative cost analysis of SCC workability test methods. Materials and Structures. http://www.libre.ir/en/wpcontent/uploads/2010/06/ [15 February 2012] Khrapko, M. 2012. Maintaining the required workability of SCC, Concrete Plant International, 2:56-59, April. Li, Z., Zhen, G., Zhidong, L., Erhong, T. & Rui, J. 2010. Study on the impact of aggregate size to SCC segregation. 35 Th Conference on our world in concrete & structures, Concrete Institute ofSingapore, 25 - 27 August 2010. Matest. 2012. Material Testing Equipment. http://www.matest.com/ [08 March 2012] MBWilkes. 2012. Sands, Soils, Gravels and Decorative Stones. www.mbwilkes.com/ [20 February 2012] Neville, A.M. 1995. Properties of concrete. 4th edition. Essex: Longman. National Precast Concrete Association. 2010. Working With SCC Neednt Be Hit or Miss. http://precast.org/2010/07/working-with-scc-neednt-be-hit-or-miss/ [13 April 2012] Okamura, H. & Ouchi, M. 2003. Self-Compacting Concrete. Journal of Advance Concrete Technology. 1 (1): 5-15. [15 February 2012] Sika. 2012. Sika ViscoCrete-25 MP. http://www.sika.com.my/my-con-pds sika_viscocrete_25_mp.pdf [16 February 2012] Smith, M R. & Collins, L. 2001. Aggregates : sand, gravel and crushed rock aggregates for construction purposes. London: Geological Society. South African National Standards, 2008. SANS 1083:2006 Aggregates from natural sources - Aggregates for concrete, Pretoria: Standards South Africa South African National Standards, 2008. SANS 201:2008 Sieve analysis, fines content and dust content of aggregates, Pretoria: Standards South Africa. South African National Standards, 2008. SANS 5844:2006 Particle and relative densities of aggregates, Pretoria: Standards South Africa South African National Standards, 2008. SANS 5845:2006 Bulk densities and voids content of aggregates, Pretoria: Standards South Africa South African National Standards, 2008. SANS 5847:2008 Flakiness index of course aggregate, Pretoria: Standards South Africa. South African National Standards, 2008. SANS 5861-1:2006 Concrete tests Part 1: Mixing fresh concrete in the laboratory, Pretoria: Standards South Africa South African National Standards, 2008. SANS 5861-2:2006 Concrete tests Part 2: Sampling of freshly mixed concrete, Pretoria: Standards South Africa

69

South African National Standards, 2008. SANS 5861-3:2006 Concrete tests Part 3: Making and curing of test specimens, Pretoria: Standards South Africa South African National Standards, 2008. SANS 5862-1:2006 Concrete tests Consistence of freshly mixed concrete Slump test, Pretoria: Standards South Africa South African National Standards, 2008. SANS 5863:2006 Concrete tests Compressive strength of hardened concrete, Pretoria: Standards South Africa Taiwan Holidays. 2012. All About Africa. http://www.taiwanholidays.com.au/africa [16 February 2012] TecEco. 2012. The Importance of Particle Packing for Strength. http://www.tececo.com/technical.particle_packing.php [25 May 2012] Tsai, W.P., Chen, H.J., Peng, H.S. & Huang, C.H. n.d. Research on the engineering properties of selfcompacting concrete. Unpublished PhD thesis, National Chung-Hsing University, Taiwan. Weiss, J. 2006,Self-Consolidating Concrete, AT1, Anaheim, CA, NPCA, 1-25, January W.R. Grace & Co. n.d. Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC) Production Tips. Technical Bulletin TB 1505. http://www.na.graceconstruction.com/custom/concrete/downloads/tb_1505b.pdf [16 February 2012]

70

Appendices
Appendix A. Equipment and Instruments

This appendix includes the different instruments and equipment used to carry out the testing. Where necessary, all the equipment conforms to European guidelines, standards and SANS.

5 4

Figure A.1 Table A.1 Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Aggregate grading equipment used prior to testing.

Gives reference to Figure A.1 Item Description Set of grading sieves according to SANS 201:2008 Aggregate riffle-box Aggregate collector bin Balance accurate to 0.02g Density cylinder with a volume of 2,630l Flakiness Gauge

71

7 6

Figure A.2

Equipment use to conduct SCC test methods.

Table A.2 Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Gives reference to Figure A.2 Item Description Steel slump plate (1000 x 1000 mm) Slump cone according to SANS (Figure B.1 Appendix B) J-ring (Figure B.2 Appendix B) U-box (Figure B.3 Appendix B) 4.75mm Sieve and Pan Spirit level Steel trowel Steel float

72

2 1 4 3

Figure A.3

Measuring instruments used during testing.

Table A.3 Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Gives reference to Figure A.3 Item Description Steel measuring tape (1 metre) Steel rule (300 mm) Digital thermometer accurate to 0.3 C 5 litre measuring jug 1 litre measuring cylinder 10 litre plastic bucket

73

3 4

Figure A.4

Aggregate batching equipment.

Table A.4 Item No. 1 2 3 4

Gives reference to Figure A.4 Item Description Balance accurate to 5g Aggregate batching basins Calibration weight 10kg Steel scoop

74

Figure A.5

Equipment used to make concrete cube specimens

Table A.5 Item No. 1 2 3 4 5

Gives reference to Figure A.5 Item Description 100 x 100 mm Cast iron cube moulds SuperStrip shutter release agent Steel scrapper used to clean moulds Spanner used to strip concrete specimens Nylon brush and steel cylinder used to apply release oil

75

Figure A.6

An oven maintaining a temperature between 105 - 110 C.

Figure A.7

Mac Africa 135l drum mixer.

76

Figure A.8

CONTROLS concrete press.

77

Appendix B.

SCC testing equipment properties

Figure B.1

The slump flow cone and base plate (EFNARC, 2002)

Figure B.2

The dimensions of the J-ring apparatus (EFNARC, 2002)

78

Figure B.3

The dimensions of the U-box apparatus (EFNARC, 2002)

79

Appendix C.

Aggregate Properties

Figure C.1

6.7 mm Dolomite stone properties

80

Figure C.2

Dolomite crusher sand properties

81

Figure C.3

Mogol filler sand properties

82

Bolomey Curve
As mentioned in Section 2.3.3, the optimisation of the aggregate plays a critical role in the concrete mix design. In this study, a Bolomey curve, shown in Figure C.4 was used to analyse the particle packing, and how the grading compares to the ideal curve.

Figure C.4

Bolomey curve

83

Appendix D. Mapei Dynamon SX Data Sheet

84

85

86

Appendix E.

AfriSam Cement Data Sheet

87

88

Appendix F.

Sephaku Smart Ash (classified ash) Data Sheet

89

90

Appendix G. Testing Results

This appendix contains the results obtained from the repeatability tests. Table G.1 Test 1 Baseline Mix

91

Table G.2

Test 2 Increase Water Content by 3%

92

Table G.3

Test 3 Decrease Water Content by 3%

93

Table G.4

Test 4 15 Minute Standing Time