Sedran1 PDF

Page 1 (81)
SCC
Brite EuRam Proposal No. BE96-3801 18/06/2000
Brite EuRam Contract No. BRPR-CT96-0366
RT5_v2.doc
Self Compacting Concrete
FINAL REPORT OF TASK 5
Doc. No.: RT5_v2.doc

Rev. No.: 2 Date: 2000-02-24
Task No: 5
Task name: Mix-design methods
Author: Dr. T. SedranPartner: LCPC
Page 2 (81)
SCC
Brite EuRam Proposal No. BE96-3801
RT5_v2.doc
Table of content
1. Introduction....................................................................................................................3
2. CBI mix-design method .................................................................................................. 4
3. LCPC mix-design model ................................................................................................. 8
3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................8
3.2. Analysis ......................................................................................................................8
3.2.1. The Compressible packing model.........................................................................8
3.2.2. Relation between Abrams cone and rheology ..................................................... 10
3.2.3. Relation between mix design and rheology......................................................... 17
3.2.4. Relation between mix design and blocking ......................................................... 30
3.2.5. Relation between mix design and static segregation ........................................... 33
3.3. Practical mix design method ...................................................................................... 37
3.3.1. Data to enter in SCCMix ................................................................................... 37
3.3.2. Definition of a set of requirements ..................................................................... 47
3.3.3. Simulations with SCCMix ................................................................................. 48
3.3.4. Adjustments of the mix in the lab ....................................................................... 49
4. Validation of LCPC models by SIKA ............................................................................ 50
4.1. Objectives ................................................................................................................. 50
4.2. Materials................................................................................................................... 50
4.3. Tests......................................................................................................................... 51
4.4. Analysis .................................................................................................................... 54
4.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 57
5. Validation of LCPC models by Betongindustri .............................................................. 58
5.1. Objectives ................................................................................................................. 58
5.2. Materials................................................................................................................... 58
5.2.1. Saturation amount of superplasticiser ................................................................ 58
5.2.2. Packing densities ............................................................................................... 59
5.3. Tests......................................................................................................................... 61
5.4. Analysis .................................................................................................................... 63
5.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 66
6. Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 67
7. Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 68
8. Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................ 72
9. Annex 1 ........................................................................................................................ 73
10. Annex 2 ........................................................................................................................ 76
2
Page 3 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
1. Introduction
The objective of the task 5 is to propose a mix design method for self compacting concrete.
Such a method is necessary because a SCC have to comply with several requirements at the
same time: high fluidity, no segregation, high filling ability through reinforcements...Then if a
rational mix design process is not used, the number of trial tests in laboratory may increase
very quickly. Moreover, a simple trials-and-errors method may lead to too high paste volume
in SCC, and then to higher cost and higher delayed strains (which may decrease the durability
of the concrete).
In the chapter 2, we present the method proposed by CBI. This method was used since task 1
to design preliminary mixes of SCC. It is very useful but unfortunately it is not complete (for
example, the segregation is not accounted for).
Then a new method was developed at LCPC based on mathematical models of granular
packing. The chapter 3 presents the development of this theoretical approach and its validation
on batches made within tasks 2 and 3. To make this method practical for material engineers, a
software called SCCMIX and including the models was written at LCPC. The complete mix
design method based on this software is presented in chapter 3.3
In chapter 4, we present a partial validation of the LCPC method on batches made at SIKA
Spain with other aggregates, cement and superplasticizer.
3
Page 4 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
2. CBI mix-design method

The model for mix design of SCC is outlined in Fig. 1 , see référence [46].
Construction Criteria Void Content Blocking Criteria
Paste Volyme
Mortar
Binder and Superplasticizers
Filler Viscosity Agent
Concrete (SCC)
Fig. 1 - Simplified process for mix design of SCC.
The different steps are the following:
Construction criteria are given by the special demand that exits for each project. Some of them
can be:
* Concrete strength.
* Concrete strength by time.
* Durability
* Gap between reinforcement
For bridge project in Sweden the demands are accordingly to rules in BRO 94 e.g.: Water
cement ratio, WCR ≤ 0.40 and frost resistant concrete. The concrete strength should be K45
MPa. Gap between reinforcement is defined to 34 mm for the mix design of blocking.
Next step is to find the minimal paste volume from the mixture between coarse and fine
aggregate. This is done by measuring the void content for different coarse to fine aggregate
ratio. The coarse to fine aggregate ratio affects not only the void content but also the total
aggregate surface area. The method used to find the void content is based on a slightly
modified ASTM C 29/C29M, Van [2].
4
Page 5 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
The minimum paste volume (Vpw) should fill all voids between the aggregate and also cover all
surfaces of the aggregate particles. Two different mixtures of fine and coarse aggregate can
have different surface area even if they have the same solid volume. Larger surface area of the
aggregate requires larger covering paste volume to give the same deformability.
Fig. 2 shows the particle size distribution curves for two typical aggregate.
100
90
80
70 Gävle 0-8
Gävle 8-16
60
Strängnäs 0-8
Passing [%]
Strängnäs 8-18
50
40
30
20
10
0
0,1 1 10 100
Sive [mm]
Fig. 2 - Particle size distribution curves for aggregate from Gävle and Strängnäs.
Van [67], Tangtermsirikul and Van [59] have studied blocking of aggregate. At CBI we have
studied the blocking risk for aggregate type Underås (river coarse aggregate). We found a
relationship accordingly to Fig. 3 between blocking volume aggregate ratio (nabi) and clear
spacing to particles fraction ratio (c/Daf). In Fig. 3 a curve from reference [48] is also shown,
the aggregate type is crushed coarse limestone aggregate.
5
Page 6 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
nabi
CBI
0,4 Ref [5]
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
c/Daf
Fig. 3 - Blocking volume ratio to clear spacing to fraction diameter of particle
nabi = Vabi Vt
Vabi = Blocking volume of aggregate group i
Vt = Total volume of the concrete mix
c = Clear spacing between reinforcement
Daf = Mi-1 + 3/4 (Mi - Mi-1),
Mi and Mi-1= Upper and lower sieve dimension of aggregate
With the model, accordingly to Fig. 3, we can calculate the maximum total aggregate content
for not causing blocking. The following Eq. 1can be used for calculation of maximum allowed
aggregate volume (means minimum paste volume) corresponding to ratio between coarse and
total aggregate according to blocking criteria.
n n n
(Vai Vt )
Risk of blocking = ∑ (nai nabi ) = ∑
(V V ) i =1
= ∑ (Vai Vabi ) = 1 (Equ. 1)
i =1 i =1 abi t
Vai = Volume of aggregate group i

Vabi = Blocking volume of aggregate group i
The void content for the mixture between coarse aggregate and fine aggregate is investigated
accordingly to method mentioned earlier. Ten different ratios between amount of coarse
aggregate to total aggregate have been investigated for the aggregate used. By using equation
1 together with the blocking criteria accordingly to Fig. 3 we can calculate the minimum paste
content for different gravel to total aggregate ratios. We combined the curves to find and
decide the amount of paste depending on free spacing between reinforcement (gap), see Fig. 4
where the example aggregate curves from Fig. 2 have been used.
6
Page 7 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Minimum paste volume [litre/m³ concrete]
600
500
Gävle
400 Strängnäs
Gävle
300
Strängnäs
Gävle
200
Strängnäs
100
0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
Gravel to total aggregate ratio
Fig. 4 - Relation between minimum paste volume for a gap between reinforcement of 34 mm. The paste volume
curve for different ratio between gravel to total aggregate is also shown in the figure.
From the mix design process (and concrete tests) the following paste contents per m3 were
chosen for Strängnäs mix 415 liter and Gävle 385 liter.
Comparative studies are carried out to investigate fine mortar in a paste viscosity meter for
different types of filler and superplasticizers. The method used is described in [48]. By this
method we can optimized the mortar of the mix before making trials with concrete.
We have used the mix design model to achieve mixes for different bridge and housing project
with positive results. We make the final adjustment on concrete with the slump flow and the L-
box. Our criteria for slump flow are between 600 to 720 mm depending on construction
element (and also if it is housing and civil engineering concrete). In the L-box we want to
achieve a blocking ratio greater then 0.8.
7
Page 8 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
3. LCPC mix-design model

3.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the analysis of the results of the two experimental programs (program A
and program B) on fresh concrete properties done at LCPC within task 2 and 3. Please refer
to the LCPC tasks 2 & 3 report for more details on these two programs and on the
components properties.
The properties studied are rheological behavior, slumping behavior, risks of blocking and risk
of segregation. The analysis is done within the frame of the granular model developed at LCPC
and called the Compressible Packing Model ([10] and [52]), then a mathematical model for
each property is proposed.
These models have been implemented in a software called SCCmix distributed to the partners
of the project. A practical mix proportioning method using the SCCmix software is proposed in
the last chapter.
3.2. ANALYSIS
3.2.1. The Compressible packing model
The results of the tests presented in the task 3 report were analyzed within the frame of a
theoretical packing model developed at LCPC: the Compressible Packing Model. This model is
entirely described in [10] and [52] and is an evolution of the Solid Suspension Model already
presented in [54] and [24]. The following sections summarize the main principles of this model.
Let consider a set of n monosized granular classes with a mean diameter of di where
d1≥d2≥...≥dn. A class is defined by two consecutive sieves in the standardized series
( d max d min = 10 10 according to the French standard). The virtual packing density γof any mix
of these classes is given by
γ= inf ( γi )
i
where
βi
γ= γi =
i− 1   1 
n  βi 
1− ∑ y 1 − β
j =1
j i + b i , jβi 
 β  −

1 − 
j 
∑ y 1 − a
j= i + 1
j i,j

βj 

(
a i,j = 1 − 1 − d j / d i ) 1,02
( )
1,5
b i, j = 1 − 1 − d i / d j
The virtual packing density is the maximum packing density attainable with the material
considered with an infinite amount of packing energy.
8
Page 9 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
ai,j describes the loosening effect exerted by the class j on the class i (if di ≥ dj which means
i≤j) and bi,j the wall effect exerted by the class j on the class i (if dj ≥ di which means j≤i). The
yi value is the volume content of class i (in proportion of the total volume of the dry skeleton).
For concrete, these values are simply calculated from the proportions and the size distribution
of each constituent (powders, sand, gravel). The βi value represents the virtual packing density
of the class i. These values are not measured for each class (which would be cumbersome!) but
simply deducted from the packing density of each constituent. This packing density is
measured on dry material for sand and gravel, and in presence of water and eventually of
superplasticizer for powders (di <80 µm). The model can thus be applied very easily to concrete
granular optimization.
A concrete can be considered as suspension of a solid skeleton (from fine powders to coarse
gravel) in water. By analogy with some viscosity models, we have defined a compaction index
K' which conventionally describes the degree of compaction of the suspension: the more dilute
the suspension, the lower the compaction index. K' is given by:
 yi 
 
 βi 
n n
K ′= ∑ K′
i = ∑ 1 1 
High K'i
i =1 i =1
 Φ − γ
 i  Low K'i
where Φ is the solid content of the concrete (that is the complement to 1 of the water content).
As shown in equation 5, the compaction index K' of the concrete is the sum of partial indexes
K'i which express the participation of the class i to the compaction of the suspension.
Fig. 5 - A simplified representation of a concrete
This notion is more clearly explained on the figure 5 , where the concrete is almost saturated
with coarse aggregates (it is difficult to add one more in the given volume). So the coarse class
heavily participates to the blocking and its partial index is high. On the contrary, it appears
quite easy to add small aggregates and the partial index of the small class is low.
Near a container boundary, the packing density βi of a granular class with a mean diameter
equals to di is loosen to kβi (k<1) when the distance from the container is less than di /2. The
compressible packing model accounts for this effect just by replacing βi in the previous
equations by:
 v v
βi = 1 −  βi + k βi
 V V
9
Page 10 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
where V is the volume of the container, v the volume of the disturbed zone (figure 6) and k a
constant fitted to 0.87 for rounded aggregate and 0.73 for crushed [10].
d/2
v
Fig. 6 - Boundary wall effect
For example, in the L box test, the effect of two bars, with a clear space equals to e, on the
concrete blocking is supposed to be the same as two parallel plans separated by the same
space. So the confining effect of the bars is included in the model through the following ratio
v di
=
V e
In a pumping pipe with a diameter of D, the ratio is

v D − (D − d i )
2 2
=
V D2
3.2.2. Relation between Abrams cone and rheology

3.2.2.1. The slump
Some authors (Tanigawa and Mori.[58], Tanigawa and al.[61], Kurokawa and al. [32],
Christensen [3]) propose a complete description of the slump test based on finite elements
simulations considering that concrete is a Bingham fluid. Although they use different
assumptions on slip between concrete and ground surface, these models show that the main
parameter governing the slump is the shear yield stress of the concrete. More precisely a
dimensional analysis shows that the slump is controlled by the term τ0/gM where τ0 is the
shear yield stress in Pa, M the specific mass of concrete in kg/m3 and g the acceleration due to
gravity. This relation is in fact relatively intuitive because the slump measures an equilibrium of
the concrete and then mainly describes a static behavior like the shear yield stress. Tattersall
[63] has measured, by analogy to the flow behavior of the concrete, a yield torque with its two
points workabilty apparatus and has verified a long ago the existence of such a relationship
between the slump and the yield torque. The relationship with the shear yield stress has been
10
Page 11 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
shown more directly with the BTRHEOM rheometer developed at LCPC by Hu [28] and de
Larrard and Ferraris [21]. Mizuguchi [34] has concluded in the same way by using a concrete
plastometer.
A simplified approach consist in considering the equilibrium of the concrete in the slump test
making an assumption on the final geometry of the sample. Then assuming that the sample
keeps its truncated conic form with a constant area on the upper face, Hu [28] has proposed
the following model:
270τ0
Sl = 300 − (Equ. 2)
M
where Sl is the slump in mm.
Thanks to a similar approach, Kurokawa et al [32] report the following equation:

303 τ0
Sl = 300 − (Equ. 3)
M
Other authors (Pashias and Boger [44], Schowalter and Christensen [51]) obtain more
complex equations when assuming that only the lower part of the sample is sheared under its
own weight. We can observe that, on experimental data presented in task 3 report, a linear
relationship is sufficient enough when the formula proposed by Schowalter et Christensen [51]
greatly underestimate the slump values. Fitting of the results gives for slump greater than 100
mm (which is the acceptable range for the BTRHEOM rheometer) the following equation:
269( τ0 − 57)
Sl = 300 − (mean absolute error of 16 mm) (Equ. 4)
M
This equation has also been validated by Sedran [52] on mortars and concretes without
superplasticizer (program 1) but the following equation was obtained for concretes with
superplasticizer (program 2):
269( τ0 + 277)
Sl = 300 − (mean absolute error of 19 mm) (Equ. 5)
M
11
Page 12 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
300
250
200
Theoretical slump (mm)

150
100
Prog n°1
50 Prog n°2
Prog A
0 Prog B
-50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Experimental Slump (mm)
Fig. 7 - Comparison between experimental and theoretical slump calculated with equations 4 and 5.
Prog n°1 and 2 are extracted from Sedran [52]
It is surprising to find two different equations. Yet, because both equations have the same
slope, the difference is certainly not due to a material parameter but more probably to a shift of
the zero of the torque measurement on the BTRheom. In fact all these experimental programs
have been made during a long period of time when the apparatus was still in development.
More research is then needed to confirm the equation 4 and find the origin of the shift of the
zero.
Validation of these two models is given by figure 7
3.2.2.2. The slump flow

By analogy with what has been done for slump, we will try to find a relationship between the
slump flow and the term τ0/gM. We can first make assumption on the geometry of the final
spread. As the volume of the sample stays constant, it is then possible to find a unique
relationship between the slump flow and the slump and finally between the slump flow and the
shear yield stress. For example, Kurokawa and al. [32] make the assumption that the sample
keeps a truncated conic form with a diameter of the upper face equal to half of the one of the
lower face. This leads to the following equation:
12 10 6
Sf = where Sl is the slump in mm et Sf the slump flow in mm.
Sl − 300
It can been seen on figure 8, that this assumption is not satisfactory.
12
Page 13 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
1000
900 NIST
800 Prog. 2
Slump Flow (mm)

700 Prog. A
Prog. B
600
500
400
300
200
150 200 250 300
Slump (mm)
Fig. 8 - Relationship between slump and slumpflow for different concretes. Points of the series NIST are
extracted from de Larrard et Ferraris [20]. Points of the series Prog. 2 are extracted from Sedran [52]. Solid
line is the model proposed by Kurokawa et al. [32]
Coussot and al. [8], have made an analytical analysis of the profile of a fluid with a yield stress
in the slump flow test. Their work lead to the following equation:
1
 M 5
Sf = 279   where Sf is the slump flow in mm.
 τ0 
Yet, these calculations are based on assumptions which lead to the necessity to have a final
spread with a diameter of 2 meters. This is of course not the case for the slump flow test with
concrete. This explains why these predictions are generally far from the experimental results
obtained in the programs A and B. In fact, it is probably not relevant to try to predict the slump
flow only thanks to the rheological parameters of the concrete: they describe the concrete as an
homogeneous fluid while the thickness of the final pancake in the slump flow test is
comparable to the size of the aggregate. Thus the volume and the shape of the aggregate have
certainly a great influence on the slip between concrete and surface and then on the slump
flow. In the same way, we should account for the maximum size of the aggregate for great
diameter of spread. Let consider the extreme case of two concretes with almost the same small
yield stress, and with maximum size of aggregate dmax1 and dmax2. If these concretes tend to
have a final spread of Sf1 et Sf2 with a constant thickness and without segregation, the
conservation of the volume gives the following equation:
d
Sf 1 = Sf 2 2
d1
We must also consider that this geometrical effect should diminish very quickly when the yield
stress increases (or the spread decreases). Finally, segregation can greatly disturb the spread
results.
13
Page 14 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
800
750
700
Slump Flow (mm)

650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
tau'0/M
Fig. 9 - Relation between slump flow and τ0/M. Circles: Prog. 2 extracted from Sedran [52]; Triangles:
Program B.
Figure 9 shows the relationship between the slump flow and τ0/M for the program 2 extracted
from Sedran [52]and program B (circles for the program 2 and triangles for the program B).
The data are relatively dispersed; this is not surprising if we consider the previous remarks. In
program B, the maximum diameter (defined as the diameter for which 90% of the concrete,
fine particles included, are passing through the sieve) almost equals to 13 mm except for
concretes n° 350, 371 et 377 which have a maximum diameter of 10 mm. These three
concretes are drawn in solid triangles on the figure. In the program 2, three mortars have been
tested and are represented by solid circles. We can see that these particular points are in the
middle of the other data and do not allow us to underline the influence of the maximum size of
aggregate. Results obtained by de Larrard et Ferraris [20] on mortars and concretes lead to the
same conclusion as shown on figure 10.
Because, no secondary parameter has been clearly shown, a simple linear relationship has been
fitted on the experimental results. The following equation was found for the program B:
Sf = 808 − 1174
τ0 (Equ. 6)
M
with a mean error of 46 mm for slump flow greater than 500 mm.
This equation has been validated on the data of the program 2 with a mean error of 86 for
slump flow greater than 500 mm.
For the program A, a better fit is given by the following equation (mean error of 44 mm for
slump flow greater than 500 mm) :
Sf = 945 − 1174
τ0 (Equ. 7)
M
Mean error is relatively high for each program but the mean error made on the measurement of
the yield stress is around 100 Pa. which generates a mean error near 50 mm on the slump flow,
according to the previous equations. Yet, this error can not explain the difference obtained
between the different programs.
14
Page 15 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
1000
Prog. 2
900 Prog. A
Prog.B
800 LCPC
Slump Flow (mm)
Slite
700 NIST-Concretes
NIST-Mortars
600
500
400
300
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50
tau'0/M
Fig. 10 - Relation between slump flow and τ0/M for different programs.
Solid line: equation 6; doted line: equation 7
The figure 10 presents the two models proposed here and different results in which LCPC was
involved. Concretes of the series "Slite" have been produced within the task 2 of the project
during the Slite Lab-Week. Aggregates were crushed with a maximum size of 14 mm and
concretes contained different viscosity agents. Concretes of the series " LCPC" were made of
crushed micro-diorite and Loire river rolled aggregates with a maximum size between 6 and
13 mm. Mortars and Concrete of the series "Nist" are extracted from de Larrard and Ferraris
[20]. The maximum size of aggregate was 8 mm. Concretes from series "Prog. 2" are extracted
from Sedran [52]. The concretes were made of crushed calcareous aggregate from Le
Boulonnais with a maximum size of 20 mm.
We were not able to find a relevant mix design parameter amoung all these data to explain the
gap observed between the different programs. Moreover, it is not clear that this gap can be
explained by a shift of the zero of the BTRheom because the shift observed here on the shear
yield stress (137 Pa) does not correspond to the one previously observed for slump test.
In conclusion, the prediction of the slump flow thanks the rheological properties of the
concrete is very difficult. Yet, in a first step, we can use the equation 6 which is the most
severe in term of yield stress to evaluate the slump flow. According to this, for a specific
gravity 2400 kg/m3, a shear yield stress less than 400 Pa. guarantees a slump flow greater 600
mm.
Finally, we can wonder about the representatively of the slump flow test versus the behavior of
the concrete in real case of casting. In fact, even for slabs, the thickness of the concrete layer is
greater and the flow behavior are certainly very different from that observed with the Abrams
cone. In order to have a more relevant test, one should avoid to form such a too thin layer of
concrete. A solution could be, for example, to demold an Abrams cone (with adjusted
dimensions) in a plate with borders. The concrete could the be characterized by the height of
the cake so formed.
15
Page 16 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
3.2.2.3. Spreading time T500

During the slump flow test, it is possible to measure the time T500 from the moment the cone is
left up to the moment the spread is 500 mm in diameter. For the same slump flow, the more
viscous the concrete, the longer it will take it to flow and the greater T500. So the viscosity
should be related to the spreading time. KUROKAWA and al. [32] have analyzed the flow of a
concrete versus time with a viscoplastic finite elements model. They have deducted from their
simulation a relationship between T500 on one hand and the viscosity and the final spread on the
other hand.
Assuming that the concrete sample keeps the geometry of a truncated cone with a lower
diameter twice the upper one, the deduced the following equation:
 40000  25000 
µ' = 0,0545 M 1 − 1 − t
 Sf 2  Sf 2  500
This equation applied to the program B and gives a mean error of 65 Pa.s. When fitting the
multiplying coefficient the equation becomes the following with a mean error of 50 Pa.s :
 40000  25000 
µ' = 0,0414 M 1 − 1 − t
 Sf 2  Sf 2  500
A simple dimensional analysis lead to search a relation between µ'/M/t500 and the final spread.
A linear function fits satisfactorily the data from program B with no segregation. We finally
obtain:
M
µ' = (0,026Sf − 2,39)t 500 (Equ. 8)
1000
The mean error is 35 Pa.s for viscosities between 50 and 350 Pa.s (see fig. 11) which is the
order of the repeatability of the measurements with the BTRheom. We thus will preferably use
this equation. According to it, for a slump flow greater than 650 mm and a specific gravity of
2300 kg/m3, a T500 less 6 s. guarantees a viscosity lower than 200 Pa.s which is helpful when
the concrete must be pumped (Hu [28]). This equation applied to the results obtained in task 2
during the Slite Lab Week gives a mean error of 50 Pa.s is then obtained. Yet, it is probable
that this relation will give a higher mean error when applied to more results for the reasons
presented before concerning the slump flow test.
400
Theoretical viscosity (Pa s)
350
300
250
200
150
100 Prog. B.
50 Slite
0
0 100 200 300 400
Experimental viscosity (Pa s)
16
Page 17 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Fig. 11 - Comparison between experimental viscosity and theoretical one calculated with equation 8
In conclusion, even if the slump flow test is an interesting tool to control the variations in the
mix proportions of the concrete on site, it can not precisely evaluate, according to the present
results, the rheological parameters of SCC. Tanigawa and al. [62] have recently developed a
numerical method (the suspension element method) to represent the concrete as a granular
suspension in calculations. This method needs long computing time but has been applied to bi-
dimensionnal flows of concrete. It could perhaps help us in the future to better understand all
the phenomena involved in the slump flow test.
3.2.3. Relation between mix design and rheology

Fitting and calculation of mean error only accounts for results obtained with mortars and
concretes with a slump higher than 100 mm, which is in the scope of rheometer (Hu [28]).
3.2.3.1. Viscosity
A granular model
A lot of papers present viscosity models for Newtonian fluids. Farris, for example, has
proposed a viscosity model for polydispersed suspensions, assuming that the different fractions
of particles in the concrete skeleton have very different mean diameters. Coming back to this
model, Hu [28] has described the concrete as gravel in suspension in mortar, the latter being a
suspension of sand in paste, the latter being a suspension of binder in water. He proposed then
a model which reproduces the main tendencies ( increase of the viscosity when the water
content decreases for example) but which do not predict with accuracy the viscosity. This is
not surprising because the simplifying assumption made by Farris is not verified (the skeleton is
continuous) and leads to neglect the interactions between the different fractions of particles.
Different models are also proposed as increasing functions of φ/φ* where φis the solid content
(in volume ) of the suspension and φ* is the packing density [28]. This function tends to be
infinite when φ/φ* tends to 1.
One of the most famous model is certainly the one proposed by Krieger et Dougherty [30]:
− ηφ*
 φ
η = η f 1 − * 
 φ
where η is the suspension viscosity and ηf the viscosity of the interstitial fluid .
This model is compatible with the calculation proposed by Einstein for the dilute
suspensions: η = η f (1 + 2.5 φ)
More recently, Chang and Powell [6] have studied the viscosity of suspensions made of binary
skeletons. They have shown that all their results fit to a master curve in function φ/φ*.
As we are able to calculate the packing density φ* with the Compressible Packing Model, we
have naturally tried to find this type of relation for concrete. In the following chapters, the
packing density of the skeleton, made of all dry particles from the binders to the gravel, of
17
Page 18 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
mortars and concretes have been calculated for a compaction index of 9 (see &3.2.1) As we do
not know, a priori, the air content of the concrete, φ represents the efficient water content E
(water added plus water in superplasticizer minus water absorbed by aggregate) per cubic
meter of de-aerated concrete (i.e. without accounting for the air volume.
1000 − E
φ= (E in liters) (Equ. 9)
1000
The term φ/φ* will be called normalized solid content of the suspension.
Validation on mortars and concretes

Normalized solid contents for program A and B are summarized in tables 2 and 3. Let first
consider the results obtained within the program 4, where different amounts of superplasticizer
(in % of dry extract with respect to the cement mass) have been used. It can be seen on figure
12, that the results seem to fit a unique master curve whatever the superplasticizer content.
400
SP=0,3%
350
SP=0,25%
Plastic viscosity (Pa s)
300 SP=0,2%
250 SP=0.15%
200
150
100
50
0
0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98
Φ /Φ ∗
Fig. 12 - Relation between normalized solid concentration and plastic viscosity for concretes of program B
with different amounts of superplasticizer (in % of dry extract with regard to the cement content.
All the results of program A and B are put together with other results available at LCPC on
figure 13.
We first propose the following power law function tending to infinite for φ/φ* tending to 1:
− 1,185
 φ
µ ′= 3,437 1 − * 
 φ
This equation gives a mean error of 47 Pa.s but it does not give a good prediction of the low
values of viscosity (fig 13). De Larrard and Ferraris [21] have proposed on a total of 78
mortars and concretes with and without superplasticizer, the following relation:
 φ 
µ ′= exp26,75 * − 0,7448
 φ 
18
Page 19 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Based on this form of equation, our data are fitted by:

 φ 
µ ′= exp45,88 * − 0,8512 (Equ. 10)
 φ 
The mean error is 46 Pa.s, which is almost the same as with the power law function but with a
better fitting of the low viscosities.
500
Prog.2 with retarder
450 Prog. 2 without retarder
Prog. A
400
Prog. B
de Larrard et Ferraris
350
Plastic Viscosity (Pa s)
Power law model

300 Exponential model
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00
φ/φ∗
Fig. 13 - Relation between normalized solid concentration and plastic viscosity for different programs.
Points of the series NIST are extracted from de Larrard and Ferraris [20].
Points of the series Prog. 2 are extracted from Sedran [52].
Prog. 2 contains mortars and concretes with superplasticizer.
The latter model is, in this form, precise enough to be used for practical purposes. It will be, a
priori, difficult to diminish the mean error because first the repeatability of the viscosity
measurement with the BTRheom rheometer is around 10% and sometimes higher for unstable
concretes. Moreover, the term Φ is calculated with a precision around 1% which leads to great
variations of the theoretical viscosity for concretes with low water content.
Nevertheless, we are not able to explain the difference between equation 10 and the function
proposed by de Larrard and Ferraris. We can note that the test procedure used by these
researchers was lightly different from the one used in the programs A and B: a 15 seconds 40
Hz previbration five torque measurements with rotating speed decreasing between 0.8 et 0.2
rounds per second. More research is needed on that matter.
3.2.3.2. Yield stress
19
Page 20 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
A granular model
The shear yield stress τ'0 can be considered as the macroscopic result of the friction between
the solid particles in the concrete. For a given monodisperse fraction of particles, it seems
obvious that the nearer the skeleton from the packing state, the higher the inter-granular
friction. Moreover, for the same solid content, when the mean diameter decreases the number
of particles increases, then the number of inter-granular contacts. So for the same packing
state, the inter-granular friction should increase when the mean diameter decreases. and finally
the inter-granular friction increases. On these basis, de Larrard and Ferraris [21] have recently
proposed a granular model for yield stress which is explained in the following paragraphs.
As explained in &3.2.1, the participation of a monosized class i to the compaction of the
suspension (or, expressed in another words, the degree of saturation of the suspension by the
class i) is mathematically expressed in the Compressible Packing Model by the term K'i :
yi
 φ βi
K′i = H *  = 1 (see &3.2.1)
φ  1
−
φ γi
φi is the class i content (in volume) of the concrete
φ*i is the class i maximum content (in volume) of the concrete
φis the solid content of the concrete calculated with equation 9
γi is calculated according to &3.2.1
K'i is the contribution of the class i to the compaction index of the concrete.
De Larrard et Ferraris suggest a function with the following form:

n 
τ′ = f ∑ a i K ′ i
0
 i =1 
where ai is a parameter increasing when the mean diameter of the class i is decreasing. On the
basis of the tests presented previously (de Larrard and Ferraris [21]), they deduce the
following equation for the concretes without superplasticizer:
 
( )
n
τ′ = exp  2,537 + ∑ 0,736 − 0,216 log(d i ) K ′
i
0
 i =1 
The influence of the superplasticizer in taken into account in two ways in that model. First, its
defloculating role, is described by a diminution of the terms βi of the fines (<80 µm) particles,
which represents the virtual packing density of the class i (see &3.2.1), leading to a diminution
of the respective terms K'i . The superplasticizer has also a lubricating role which can be
described through a decrease of the terms ai corresponding to fine particles. Thus, de Larrard
and Ferraris the following equation:
 
( )
0,736 − 0,216 log(d i ) K ′
n
τ′0 = exp 

2,537 + 0 ,224 K ′
c + ∑ i


aggregate
where K'c is the contribution of the cement to the compaction index of the concrete. It is
calculated by summing all the terms K'i for the classes i constituting the cement.
20
Page 21 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
They finally proposed the general equation whatever the dosage of superplasticizer between 0
and Sp*:
   Sp  
3

(
+ ∑ 0,736 − 0,216 log(d i ) K i′ )
n
τ′      
0 = exp 2,537 + 0,224 + 0,9101 − *  K c′

(Equ. 11)
   Sp   aggregate 
where
Sp is the superplasticizer content in % of dry extract with respect to the cement mass,
Sp* is the superplasticizer saturation content in % of dry extract with respect to the cement
mass
Validation on mortars and concrete

In order to facilitate the modelization, and accounting for the additivity of the terms K'i, we
simplify the equation 11 as following:
0 = exp( a 0 + a c K c′
τ′ + af K′
f + a s K s′+ a S K S′+ a g K g′+ a G K G′) (Equ. 12)
where
a0=2,537
K'c , K'f, K's , K'S, K'g, et K'G are the respective contributions of cement, calcareous filler, fines
of sand (<80µm), coarse particles of sand (≥ 80µm), fine gravel and coarse gravel to the
compaction index of the concrete.
The terms ac , af, as, aS, ag, et aG are the friction terms with the same signification of the indexes.
There are calculated from the mean diameter d (corresponding to 50% of passing) of each
fraction or component (see table 1) by the following function:
a i = 0,736 − 0,216 log( d i ) (Equ. 13)
Grading curves are given in the annex of LCPC task 2 &3 report.
Name of the component Mean

diametrer d
(mm)
Calcaire concassé du Boulonnais 12.5/20 16,2
Calcaire concassé du Boulonnais 10/14 12.5
Calcaire concassé du Boulonnais 5/12.5 9
Calcaire concassé du Boulonnais 0/5 >80 µm 0.9
Calcaire concassé du Boulonnais 0/5 <80 µm 0.056
Silico-calcaire semi concassé de Seine: Val de Reuil 10/16 13
Silico-calcaire semi concassé de Seine:Val de Reuil 4/10 8
Silico-calcaire semi concassé de Seine: Val de Reuil 0/4 0,63
CPA CEM I 52.5 PM CP de St Vigor (Usine de Lafarge au Havre) 0,014
Table 1 -Mean diameter of the components used in programs A and B
Batch K'G K'g K'S K'c φ/φ*

0,4 0,49 0,18 4,641 2,733 0,9864
0,45 0,552 0,203 4,411 2,721 0,9840
21
Page 22 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
0,5 0,614 0,225 4,205 2,712 0,9818

0,56 0,688 0,252 3,985 2,7 0,9796
0,625 0,769 0,282 3,772 2,69 0,9777
0,75 0,925 0,338 3,427 2,672 0,9748
0,86 1,063 0,388 3,176 2,659 0,9733
1 1,24 0,452 2,91 2,642 0,9721
1,3 1,621 0,589 2,475 2,618 0,9724
1,5 1,88 0,681 2,256 2,603 0,9739
Table 2 - Results of the calculations with the compressible packing model for the program A for tests without
confinement.
In presence of superplasticizer, the terms ac, as et af are equals and calculated by:
 Sp 
a i = 0,224 + 0,910 1 − S * 
 where (Equ. 14)
 p 
Sp is the superplasticizer content in % of dry extract with respect to the mass of all the fines
particles;
Sp* is the superplasticizer saturation content in % of dry extract with respect to the mass of all
the fines particles;
In fact the calcareous filler Picketty used in the program B fixed almost no superplasticizer
then we have:
Sp/Sp*=Spc/Spc*
where
Spc is the superplasticizer content in % of dry extract with respect to the cement mass,
Spc* is the superplasticizer saturation content in % of dry extract with respect to the cement
mass
Table 2 and 3 summarize the values necessary for the calculations
Batch K'G K'g K'S K's K'c K'f φ/φ* Spc

315 0,829 0,498 1,942 0,341 2,536 0,342 0,9587 0,31
316 0,857 0,512 2,048 0,373 2,353 0,75 0,9676 0,32
317 0,872 0,524 2,128 0,395 1,979 1,209 0,9718 0,34
329 0,887 0,535 2,332 0,413 3,147 0 0,9752 0,30
321 0,863 0,519 2,221 0,381 2,839 0 0,9653 0,30
318 0,841 0,504 2,122 0,353 2,587 0 0,9557 0,30
330 0,858 0,515 2,046 0,378 3,438 0 0,9746 0,30
327 0,836 0,501 1,957 0,35 3,104 0 0,9648 0,30
314 0,825 0,493 1,915 0,337 2,959 0 0,9600 0,30
320 0,815 0,487 1,876 0,326 2,83 0 0,9552 0,30
322 0,837 0,499 1,804 0,335 3,724 0 0,9745 0,30
319 0,816 0,485 1,73 0,311 3,359 0 0,9647 0,30
345 0,816 0,485 1,73 0,311 3,359 0 0,9647 0,30
346 0,809 0,48 1,72 0,302 3,195 0 0,9604 0,30
364 0,809 0,48 1,72 0,302 3,195 0 0,9604 0,30
22
Page 23 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
333 1,202 0,729 1,938 0,328 3,029 0 0,9726 0,30

334 1,079 0,64 1,442 0,247 3,285 0 0,9635 0,30
336 0,652 0,392 2,494 0,443 2,748 0 0,9635 0,30
335 0,611 0,362 1,822 0,325 2,994 0 0,9515 0,30
331 0,82 0,49 1,904 0,339 3,073 0 0,9622 0,20
325 0,822 0,491 1,807 0,31 2,899 0 0,9553 0,20
328 0,811 0,48 1,664 0,284 2,671 0 0,9444 0,20
338 0,811 0,48 1,664 0,284 2,671 0 0,9444 0,20
337 0,801 0,474 1,632 0,275 2,568 0 0,9397 0,20
326 0,803 0,475 1,643 0,28 2,658 0 0,9430 0,15
332 0,783 0,462 1,582 0,263 2,459 0 0,9337 0,15
350 0 1,296 1,774 0,294 2,819 0 0,9508 0,20
351 0 1,278 1,739 0,284 2,704 0 0,9461 0,20
365 0,562 0,335 2,056 0,36 2,717 0 0,9482 0,20
370 0 0,982 2,03 0,337 2,567 0 0,9438 0,20
371 0 0,98 2,021 0,335 2,546 0 0,9429 0,20
372 0,726 0,427 1,453 0,246 2,915 0 0,9424 0,20
375 0,509 0,3 1,774 0,313 2,776 0 0,9397 0,20
377 0 1,423 1,984 0,321 2,576 0 0,9522 0,25
Table 3 - Results of the calculations with the compressible packing model for the program B and for slump
flow tests; Sp superplasticizer content (in % with respect to the cement mass); the saturation amount is 0.3%.
Let first analyze the results of the program A. The main varying parameter was the gravel to
sand ratio while the volume and the composition of the paste was kept constant. This explains
why K'c is varying only a little while K'G and K'S vary in a large range (see table 2). The
superplasticizer was used at its saturation dosage then, according to equation 14, ac=0,224.
The other terms have been calculated according to the equation 13 and the theoretical shear
yield stress has been calculated with the equation 12.
The figure 14 shows that the model evaluates quite precisely the experimental shear yield stress
(mean error: 125 Pa). This confirms the form of the function in equation 13 giving the terms
for aggregate (particles coarser than 80 µm).
2000
1800 Experiments
Shear yield stress (Pa)
1600
Model
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
(G+g)/S
Fig. 14 - Prediction of the yield stress by the equation 12 for the program A with a0=2,537 ac=0, 224.
23
Page 24 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
In the program B, let have a look on concretes with a saturation amount of superplasticizer
(i.e. with 0,3% of superplasticizer). In that case and according to the equation 14 , the terms
ac et as are equal to 0,224. The other terms are calculated according to the equation 13.
Let consider the concretes n° 322, 319, 345,346 et 364 which have the same skeleton but with
varying water contents. It can be seen, on figure 15 that there is a certain variability in the
yield stress measurements and that the model largely underestimates the sensitivity of the
concretes to water.
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
175 180 185 190
Efficient water (l/m3)
Fig. 15 - Comparisons between the experimental yield stress (solid points) and the theoretical yield stress
(solid line) calculated with the equation 12 with a0=2,537 ac=as=0, 224 (concrete staturated with
superplasticizer) for the concretes 322, 319, 345, 346 et 364 in program B.
If we admit that equation 13 is universal and is still valid for the crushed calcareous aggregate
le Boulonnais used in program B, we can only play with the term a0+acK'c+asK's in the
equation 12 to fit more precisely the experimental results.
We have seen, in the program A, that we get a good prediction of the shear yield stress with a
term a0+acK'c+asK's=2,537+ 0,224 K'c (K's=0 in the program A because in that program the
sand is a river sand with no fines). Yet in the program A, K'c is almost constant and equal to
2,7. Then if we have to find new coefficients a0 and ac, they must verify a0+ac(K'c+K's)=3,14
assuming that we have ac=as for concretes containing superplasticizer. When minimizing the
square error between the model and the experimental points of the program B we find for
saturated concretes:
a0=0,154
ac=as=1,1039
Once the term a0 fixed, we have the optimize in the same way the values of ac=as for concretes
of the program B with a superplasticizer content less than the saturation content. The figure 16
shows the relationship between ac and the superplasticizer content.
We can then write that, for the Sikament 10 superplasticizer, and within the program 4, we
have:
24
Page 25 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
 Sp 
a c = a s = 11039
, + 0,2326
1 − S * 
 (Equ. 15)
 p 
1.24
1.22
1.20
1.18
Ac
1.16
1.14
1.12
1.10
1.08
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Amount of superplasticizer (%)
Fig. 16 - Friction coefficient for the cement ac fitted on results of program B for a0=0,154 in function of the
superplasticizer content (in % with respect to the cement mass)
For the three saturated concretes containing the calcareous filler, we have fixed af=ac=1,1039.
The figure 17 shows the comparison between the experimental shear yield stress and the
theoretical one for the program B. The mean error is 164 Pa.
When applying the equations 12, 13 and 15 to the program A, we find by construction the
good results previously presented in the figure 14.
These equations have been successfully used to predict the yield stress of concretes extracted
from Sedran [52] (program 2) and containing the same superplasticizer Sikament 10. These
concretes were lightly over saturated (Sp/Sp*=0,5/0,45) then, according to the equation 15,
ac=1,04. The mean error made by the model for the concretes without retarder is low (88 Pa).
Note that the points diverging from the equality line refer to concretes for which difficulties in
mixing process were pointed out. Some of the concretes contained also a retarder
Sikaretarder. The dosage was high in order to avoid slump loss problems, nevertheless we
have observed with such a high dosage, the sikament 10 seemed to be less efficient. The
difference was not observed on the deflocculation, as the packing density of the cement with or
without retarder was the same. The no difference occured on the term K'c. Then we have
adjust the lubricating effect by taking a term ac=1,19. The mean error made by the model was
still high (310 Pa) but these results have to be taken with great care because we can not explain
the incompatibility appeared between the superplasticizer and the retarder.
25
Page 26 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
1000
SP=0,3%
900
Theoretical shear yield stress (Pa)

SP=0,25%
800 SP=0,2%
SP=0,15%
700 w ith filler
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Experimental shear yield stress (Pa)
Fig. 17 - Comparison between experimental yield stress for the program B and the theoretical yield stress
calculated with equation 12 with a0=0.154, ac=as=af calculated with the equation 15 and the other ai
calculated with the equation 13
1500
1250 w ithout retarder

w ith retarder
1000
750
500
250
0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
Fig. 18 - Comparison between experimental yield stress for the program 2 extract from Sedran [52] and the
theoretical yield stress calculated with equation 12 with a0=0.154, ac=as=af calculated with the equation 15
and the other ai calculated with the equation 13. For concretes with retarder ac=as=1,19
In conclusion we have seen that the equation 12 allows to predict successfully the shear yield
stress of concrete (mean error almost equal to the repeatability error of the measurements
witrh the rheometer), if we correctly adjust the terms a0 and ac=as=af in function of the
superplasticizer content.
In the case of concrete without superplasticizer, we have to use the following equation where
the value is depending of the cement.
26
Page 27 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
 
( )
0,736 − 0,216 log( d i ) K i′
n
τ′
0 = exp a 0 +

∑
i =1


(Equ. 16)
In fact in this equation the friction coefficients of the cement depends on the grading of the
cement contrary to the case with superplasticizer. And because these terms are the greatest, we
understand that the quality of the grading curve measurement will influence the quality of the
shear yield stress model. Yet, we have observed important difference between the results given
by differente types of laser granulometer. This is certainly why we have to fit the value a0.
When the superplasticizer SIKAMENT 10 is used we have here proposed the following
equation:
   S p  
( ) ( ( ))
n
τ′0 = exp 0,154 + 11039
  , + 0,2326

1 − 
 S *  cK ′+ K ′
f + K ′+
s ∑ 0 ,736 − 0,216 log d i K ′
i
  p  granulats 
(Equ. 17)
with
Sp is the superplasticizer content in % of dry extract with respect to the mass of all the fines
particles;
Sp* is the superplasticizer saturation content in % of dry extract with respect to the mass of all
the fines particles;
This equation has only been validated for superplasticizer content higher than one half of the
saturation amount. Moreover it is not coherent with the equation 16 without superplasticizer
when Sp tend to 0. More validation is the needed for such low dosages, but as far as SCC are
concerned, the amount of superplasticizer is generally high and the equation 17 is sufficient.
It is important to note, that the coefficients a0 and ac seem to depend only on the
superplasticizer type and not on the cement nature because different cements were used in
programs A and B. These coefficients will have to be fitted for each superplasticizer and it is
theoretically possible to fit a0 et ac by measuring the yield stress (or the slump which is
calculated from the yield stress) of three concretes designed with three different dosages of
superplasticizer and for each dosages two water contents with a constant paste volume and a
constant gravel to sand ratio. For example, de Larrard et Ferraris have used a naphthalene
based DARACEM 19 when SIKAMENT 10 is a vinylic copolymer which certainly justify the
difference observed between equations 14 and 15.
Finally, as illustration, we present on figure 19 the experimental slump flow obtained in the
program B and the theoretical slump flow calculated with the equations 17 et 6 ;the mean error
is 60 mm. This is relatively satisfactory when considering the lack of repeatability of the slump
flow measurements observed in that program.
27
Page 28 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
800
750
Theoretical slump flow (mm)

700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
300 400 500 600 700 800
Experimental slump flow (mm)
Fig. 19 - Comparison of the experimental slump flow for the program B and the theoretical one calculated
with equation 17
3.2.3.3. Effect of the confinement

We have found in the previous chapter two models to predict the plastic viscosity and the shear
yield stress of concrete in infinite medium. We try, in this chapter to predict the rheological
properties in confined conditions. As presented in the LCPC task 2&3 report concrete in
program A have been tested with BTRHEOM inter-blades distances varying from 10 cm (for
unconfined tests) to 4 cm for the concrte with few gravel. Figures 20 a) and b) show the
evolution of the rheological properties versus the confinement. It can be seen that the higher
the gravel content, the higher the sensitivity of the concrete to the confinement. Moreover, it
seems that the viscosity is more disturbed by the confinement than the shear yield stress.
2500 1200
G/S=0,75 1000 G/S=0,75

2000
Plastic viscosity (Pa s)
G/S=1 G/S=1
G/S=1,3 800 G/S=1,3
1500
G/S=1,5 G/S=1,5
600
1000
400
500
200
0 0
4 6 8 10 4 6 8 10
Inter-blades distance (cm) Inter-blades distance (cm)
Fig. 20 a) and b) - Evolution of the rheological properties with the gravel to sand ratio and the distance
between the blades on the BTRHEOM.
28
Page 29 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
In order to simplify the analysis, we assume that the concrete behaves in the same way in the
modified rheometer as between two parallel planes. This means that we neglect the local
effects near the blades: the concrete in the blades is at rest and only the concrete between the
two blades is sheared during the test. If a class of particles with a mean diameter of di and a
virtual packing density βi is disturbed on a thickness of αdi and if, in this area, its virtual
packing density becomes kβi (see &3.2.1), we can write that the packing density of the class i
in confined conditions in the equals to :
 2α d i 
βi = 1 − (1 − k ) β with h the inter-blades distance in the rheometer (see &3.2.1).
 h  i
By analogy made on dry mixes of crushed aggregates, we take k=0,73. These values are
injected in the Compressible packing model to calculate the terms φ* and K'i in confined
conditions. Then we can calculate the plastic viscosity and the shear yield stress in confined
conditions thanks the equation 10 and 17. The constant α has then been fitted to minimize the
mean error made by the models. For the shear yield stress we obtain α=0,5 and the mean error
is 115 Pa, when it was 174 Pa for α=0 (see fig. 21 a and b). We find again the same value α as
for dry packing. This is not surprising because the shear yield stress is a static characteristic
and it seems normal that a concrete can be disturbed in the same way as a dry packing.
2000 2000
h=10 cm h=10 cm
1750 h=6,6 cm
h=6,6 cm 1750
h=5 cm h=5 cm
1500 1500
h=4,5 cm h=4,5 cm
1250 h=4 cm h=4 cm

1250
1000
1000
750
750
500
500
250
250
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Fig. 21 - Comparisons between experimental and theoretical yield stress with different account for the
confinement
a) b)
α=0: confinement is neglected α=0.5: di class is disturbed in a distance of 0.5di
The optimization for viscosity leads α=0.9. The precision of the model is not very good (see
fig. 22) but we have to note that even the measurements in unconfined conditions (h=10) are
dispersed. Nevertheless, we can deduct that the perturbation due to the wall effect, is
spreading in a greater thickness when the concrete is flowing. This thickness should probably
increase when increasing the shearing rate
29
Page 30 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
In conclusion, we have estimated the influence of the confinement on the rheological properties
with the modified BTRheom. These data could in the future be introduced in finite elements
calculations to predict complex flows as done by some authors (Tanigawa and al. [61]). For
example, we could predict the flow in narrow formworks. Yet, these first results must be more
widely validated. This is not really possible with our prototype because the grid put on the
upper blade is difficult to adjust precisely. Moreover, it greatly disturbs the pouring of the
concrete in the bowl which leads to high segregation for very fluid concretes. Finally for higher
confinement, it does not seem relevant to try to characterize the concrete like an homogeneous
fluid because the flow is greatly disturbed by blocking particularly for high shear rates. That is
why we prefer now to focus on the sensitivity of the concrete to blocking risk as measured by
the L box test.
1000 1000
h=10 cm
h=6,6 cm
800 800 h=5 cm
Plastic viscosity (Pa.s)
Plastic viscosity (Pa.s)
h=4,5 cm
600 600 h=4 cm
Model
h=10 cm
400 h=6,6 cm 400
h=5 cm
h=4,5 cm
200 200
h=4 cm
Model
0 0
0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00
φ/φ∗ φ/φ*
Fig. 22 - Comparisons between experimental and theoretical viscosity with different account for the
confinement
a) b)
α=0: confinement is neglected α=0.5: di class is disturbed in a distance of 0.9di
3.2.4. Relation between mix design and blocking

We try to find in this chapter, a parameter to evaluate the risk of blocking in a given confined
condition. For that we analyse the results obtained in the program B with the L box test.
A first approach consists in considering that when a concrete is blocked in the L box, it is near
the packing state near the reinforcements. In this context, the more dilute the concrete, the less
chance we have to observe a blockage. We have seen in & 3.2.1 that the dilution can be
characterize by the compaction index of the concrete K':
yi
βi
K ′= ∑ K i′ =∑
1 1
i i
−
φ γi
30
Page 31 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
where φ is the solid content of the deaerated concrete calculated thanks the equation 9. This
index must be calculated accounting for the confinement effect exerted by the reinforcements
on the concrete. To simplify the analysis, we assume that two bars with a clear space equals to
e exert the same effect as two parallel plans separated by the same space. This assumption is,
on one hand, quite severe because aggregates can rearrange themselves by rotation around
bars when it is not possible near a plan. On the other hand, we neglect the wall effect exerted
by the base of the L box. In conclusion, the assumption made should be quite correct.
As suggested by the results obtained on shear yield stress in the previous chapter, each class of
particles with a mean diameter of di should be disturbed by the wall effect at a distance of di /2
because the concrete has a limited flow rate in the L Box. According to &3.2.1 the confined
virtual packing densities in confined conditions are then calculated with:
 d 
βi = 1 − (1 − k ) i βi (Equ. 18)
 e
where e is the clear space between two reinforcements, k a multiplicative loosening coefficient
(<1) which decreases the packing density in the disturbed area. In the program A we have used
crushed aggregate then k=0,73, βi is the virtual packing density in confined conditions,
So for each concrete in the program B, we have calculated the compaction index K' in confined
conditions. Figure 23 shows that, unfortunately these values are not well related to the final
height of flow in the L Box . We have then to find another parameter.
500
450
400
350
H1 (mm)
300
e=47 mm
250
e=39 mm
200 e=35 mm
150 e= 32mm
100 e=28 mm
50 e=25 mm
0
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5
K'
Fig. 23 - Relation between compaction index of concrete in confined condition and the height of flowing H1 in
the L-box for different clear spaces (e) between reinforcements.
In fact, coarse gravel play a particular role in blocking because they tend to form arches when
the concrete flows though reinforcements and finally initiate the blocking. So we have to give a
special weight to gravel in the analysis. Let assume that the concrete is a material containing on
one hand the coarse gravel and on the other hand a micro-concrete made of the finer classes
which can percolate through the coarse gravel. Blocking will occurs if the coarse gravel almost
saturate the concrete whatever the nature of the micro-concrete which will tend to flow
31
Page 32 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
through gravel, by definition. As explained in &3.2.1, the saturation of the concrete by the
coarse gravel can be expressed by the sum of the terms K'i corresponding to the class
constituting the gravel. We will then try to relate this sum to H1 but before we have to explain
more precisely what is coarse gravel.
If we define the grading curve according the Renard suite where di+1/di = 10 10 and if we group
the granular classes four by four in clusters [di ;di+3], we have a discontinuous representation of
the granular skeleton of the concrete in which a cluster i-1 has a mean diameter 2.5 times
( 10 0.4 ) less than the cluster i. De Larrard [10] has shown that, in this condition, all clusters
smaller than a given cluster may percolate through it. Then we will call the coarse gravel, the
group of the 4 greatest classes of particles constituting the concrete skeleton. Yet, the ends of
grading curves are generally not well fixed, then we define d90 as the sieve diameter for which
90% of the skeleton is passing and K'cg is the sum of the terms K'i for di ≥d90/2.5 calculated
while accounting for the confinement exerted by the bars in the L box thanks the equation 18.
The for example, in the progam B, for the concretes containing the gravel Boulonnais 10-14
the coarse gravel include the classes 16-12,5, 12,5-10, 10-8 and 8-6,3. On the contrary, for the
concretes containing only the gravel Boulonnais 5-12,5, the coarse gravel include only the
classes 12,5-10, 10-8, 8-6,.3 et 6,3-5 mm because there are only few percents of passing 12.5
mm.
The figure 8 clearly shows (except for one point) that K'cg is effectively a good index to
evaluate the risk of blocking of a concrete. Below 1.4, the concrete will have a good filling
ability (great values of H1).
500
450
400
350
H1 (mm)
300
e=47 mm
250
e=39 mm
200 e=35 mm
150 e=32 mm
100 e=28 mm
e=25 mm
50
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
K'cg
Fig. 24 - Relation between partial compaction index of the 4 coarsest classes of aggregate (K'CG) in confined
condition and the height of flowing H1 in the L-box for different clear spaces (e) between reinforcements.
In the global granular approach adopted here ,we explicitly account for the nature of the
aggregates and the interactions between the different classes through the measurement of the
packing density.Then the limit of 1.4 should be independent of the nature, size and shape of the
aggregates because these properties are taken into account in the calculation of K'i . A
contrario, the method proposed by Tangtermsirikul and Van [59] or by Petersson and al. [46]
impose to determine a master curve for each type of aggregate. Thus, if we use rounded
32
Page 33 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
aggregates, it will decrease the K'cg for a fixed aggregate volume. Then we can add more
gravel for the same blocking risk and then decrease the paste volume and the cost of the
concrete. This fact has already be mentioned by different authors (Okamura et Ozawa [37] et
Tangtermsirikul et Van [59], Petersson et al. [46]).
These results must be more widely validated. We could, for example, study the flow of
concrete with maximum size of aggregate closer to the clear space between reinforcements, or
the effect of the paste for a fixed aggregate grading. In fact we can wonder, if the use of
viscosity agent displaces the limit for K'cg by a lubricationg effect.
3.2.5. Relation between mix design and static segregation

In order to have a good quality structure made of SCC, it is necessary that the concrete has a
high fluidity- measured for example by the slump flow- and a good filling ability -measured for
example by the L Box- but it is also necessary that the concrete remains stable after casting and
before hardening, to have homogeneous mechanical properties.
We will try in this chapter to relate the mix design to the segregation risk on the base of the
results obtained in the program B. In this program the segregation proneness of aggregates
was quantified by 3 measurements as explained in the LCPC task 2&3 report:
• the mean sinking height of the two higher aggregates (with a diameter more than 8 mm)
measured on a half Ø16x32 cm cylinder splitted in a splitting tensile test after hardening.
The cylinder was cast without any rodding nor vibration;
• the width of the halo of mortar around the final spread in the slump flow test;
• a ball test.
The reference test is the measurement on the splitted hardened concrete. We have fixed a 5
mm depth as an upper limit for segregation. We can observed on figure that an homogeneous
spread is not a sufficient condition to avoid segregation in cylinders. This was confirmed by
observation in formworks on site. On a practical point of view, it will not be possible to accept
a SCC only on the view of a slump flow with no halo. On the contrary, a concrete with a
mortar halo in the slump flow test must be refused.
25
Depth of sinking (mm)
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
Mortar halo (cm)
Fig. 25 - Relation between the width of the mortar halo around the concrete disc in the slump flow test and the
depth of penetration of aggregates coarser than 8 mm observed on hardened concrete.
33
Page 34 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Concerning the ball test, we have not find any correlation between the time needed by the ball
to sink at a given depth and the segregation observed on splitted hardened cylinders (see fig.
26). We have also failed in finding a relationship with the final depth reached by the ball
cylinders (see fig. 27).
Nevertheless, it is open to criticism to start the test by putting the ball at an initial depth of 20
mm (its diameter), when the maximum segregation observed on hardened cylinders is around
20 mm. This option was taken because in some cases, a kind of skin appeared very quickly on
the surface of the concrete which blocked the ball sinking. For that reason we have decided to
proceed in parallel in program B ball tests while starting the test with the ball just touching the
surface of the concrete. The results are also disappointing (fig. 27).
30
Temps pour un enfoncement de la
25
bille donné (s)
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Enfoncement des gravillons (mm)
Fig. 26 - Relation between the time necessary for the ball to penetrate 10 mm of concrete and the depth of
penetration of aggregates coarser than 8 mm observed on hardened concrete. A 30 s time corresponds in fact
to infinite time.
The apparent density of the ball was 20 in order to accelerate its sinking compared to the other
aggregates in the concrete. In fact with a more realistic density of 2,7, we could only find very
small displacements of the ball. It is yet possible that such a high apparent density disturb the
result and that we have to choose an intermediate apparent density. The ball test have then to
be improved. Recently, Van and al. [66] have proposed a similar test. The authors measure the
depth of sinking after 45 s. of a Ø 75x50 mm cylinder initially put on the concrete surface. No
precision is given on the cylinder weight.
In conclusion, in this chapter, the segregation proneness is finally estimated with the depth of
sinking measured on hardened splitted cylinders.
34
Page 35 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Enfoncement maximal de la bille
100 100
Enfoncement maximal de la bille

90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
(mm)
(mm)
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Enfoncement des gravillons (mm) Enfoncement des gravillons (mm)
a) the ball is initially put 20 mm under the concrete surface b) the ball is initially put on the concrete surface
Fig. 27 - Relation between the maximum penetration of the ball and the depth of penetration of aggregates
coarser than 8 mm observed on hardened concrete.
Let now consider the concrete as a diphasic material made of aggregate on one hand and a
paste on the other hand. It is intuitive to think that the segregation of aggregates will be
controlled by the viscosity of the paste and then, by the saturation of the concrete by the
powders. So, on a first set of concretes, containing a pure Portland cement, crushed aggregate
with fines particles in the sand and different amounts of superplasticizer, we have tried to
connect the depth of segregation to the term K'p, sum of the partial index K'i for di≤80µm.
According to Stokes law, the coarser aggregates will first sink. So, the first idea is to consider
the concrete as a diphasic material made of aggregates on one hand and a mortar on the other
hand. It is intuitive to think that the segregation of aggregates will be controlled by the
stickiness of the mortar which can be characterized by the sum of the partial index K'i for
di≤5mm (see & 3.2.1). In fact we observed that the correlation with the depth of sinking is not
good. Then we have considered the concrete as a diphasic material made of aggregates (di >80
µm) on one hand and a paste (water, cement, fines of sand, mineral admixture...) on the other
hand. We have defined the partial compaction index of the powders as the sum of the terms K'i
for di <80 µm, and we obtained the figure 28.
35
Page 36 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
25
Depth of sinking (mm)

SP=0,3%
20
SP=0,2%
15 SP=0,15%
10
0
2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
K'p
Fig. 28 - Relation between the sum K'p of partial compaction index of thepowders (fines <80 µm) and the
segregation of the concretes of the program B. Segregation is measured the depth of penetration of aggregates
coarser than 8 mm observed on hardened concrete.
The % of superplasticizer are expressed in dry extract compared to the cement weight.
The figure 9 shows that there is a quite good linear relationship between these two values for a
given dosage of superplasticizer. These values appear to depend only on the superplasticizer
nature
We can see on figure 28, that for a given superplasticizer content, the higher K'p (i.e the
stickiest the paste), the lowest the segregation. It is noticeable that the linear relationship
between K'p and the depth of sinking depends on the superplasticizer content. By fixing an
acceptable upper limit to the segregation (e=5 mm for example), it is then possible to
determine for each dosage of superplasticizer, the minimum acceptable value K'pmin.
(respectively 3,5, 3,05 et 2,55 for a ratio Sp/Sp* equal to à 1, 0.33 et 0.5). In this range of
dosage we have:
2
 Sp 
K p′ = 35
min
. − 38
. 1 −  (Equ. 19)
 Sp *
More research is now needed to widely validate these results and study the influence of the
superplasticizer nature on K p′
min
in the equation 19.
36
Page 37 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
3.3. PRACTICAL MIX DESIGN METHOD

The Compressible Packing Model developed at LCPC and already presented in &3.2.1 and all
the equations based on this model and presented in this report have been included in a software
developed under Windows™ system by LCPC and called SCCMix.
A first method to design SCC has been proposed based on the solid suspension model in [56]
but it was too simple to produce good stable SCC. That is why this chapter presents a new
proposal for a practical mix design method based on the use of this software SCCMix.
3.3.1. Data to enter in SCCMix

3.3.1.1. Size distribution
The grading curve of coarse particles (>80 µm) is determined with the sieves according to the
standards (EN 933-1 or ASTM C 117, 136, NF P 18-560).
The grading curve of fine particles (<80 µm) is determined with a laser granulometer in wet
conditions. The sample preparation used at LCPC is the following:
-put some powder (generally few grams) in distilled water;
-submit the suspension to 1' of ultrasound;
-submit the suspension to 2' of mechanical agitation (with a magnetic agitator);
-submit the suspension again to 1' of ultrasound;
-put your suspension in your laser granulometer.
This preparation aims at having a powder in a repeatable defloculated state. It is not sure that
this preparation is the best one and the granularity obtained is certainly not the same as the one
obtained in the concrete where the suspension is more concentrated and the powders are
defloculated by the friction of the aggregates and by the presence of superplasticizer. So the
proposed method gives only a reference value for the packing model and it could be modified
in the future (with only 1'of ultrasound for example). It is important to note that part of the
error made on the grading curve is compensated in the model when fitting the experimental
packing density.
If a sand contains few fine particles (<5%) then you can make the assumption that there is no
passing at 60 µm. The error on the grading curve will be compensated when fitting the packing
density of the sand. If the sand contains high volume (>5%) of fine particles you the
calculations will be more precise if you sieve them and treat them separately as a powder.
For ultrafine particles (silica fumes for example), if the laser granulometer is not able to
determine the grading curve, it may be extrapolated by a linear function of ln(d) where d is the
diameter (see figure 29).
37
Page 38 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
p(x)
100 % Extrapolated
curve
Measured
curve
dmin dl dmax
ln(x)
Fig. 29 - Linear extrapolation of the grading curve
In that case, if we assume that all the particles are spherical then dmin and the granularity can be
deducted from the following equation :
60  l ∂p(x ) max ∂p(x ) 
d d
S=
M 
 ∫ x + ∫ x 
d min dl
where S (in m2/g) is the specific surface of the powder determined by the Blaine or the BET
method, M (kg/m3) the specific gravity of the powder and p(x) the cumulated percentage
passing for a given particle diameter of x (in µm).
3.3.1.2. Water absorption

The water absorption of the aggregate is the porosity accessible to water. It can be measured
according to the following standards for example: pr EN 1097-6 (in Europe), ASTM C 70,
127, 128, 566 (in USA) NFP 18-554, 18-555 (in France). It is calculated according to the
following equation :
P − PD
WA = SSD
PD
where WA is the water absorption in percentage, PD is the mass of a dry sample, PSSD the mass
of the same sample in saturated surface-dry conditions.
Typical values for aggregate are some percent.
As we are not able to estimate the water absorption of fines (<80µm), we will assume here that
their water absorption is null.
The water absorption is used to calculate the efficient water in a concrete mix (water added,
plus water given by the superplasticizer minus the water absorbed by the aggregates).
38
Page 39 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
3.3.1.3. Specific gravity

The specific gravity you need to introduce in SCCMix refers to the weight of a dried particle
divided by its apparent volume (which is the volume of the solid plus the total porosity of the
particle ; see figure 30)
Porosity non
accessible
Porosity
accessible
Apparent volume
Fig. 30 - Apparent volume of a particle
It can be measured according to the following standards, for example: pr EN 1097-6 (in
Europe), ASTM C 127, 128 (in USA) NFP 18-554, 18-555 (in France). It is calculated
according to the following equation :
PD
M=
PSSD − PW
where Μ is the specific gravity in kg/m3, PD is the mass of a dry sample, PSSD the mass of the
same sample in saturated surface-dry conditions, Pw the apparent mass in water of the sample
in saturated surface-dry conditions.
For the fine particles (<80µm), the specific gravity is determined thanks the ASTM C188
standard (using a pycnometer) classically used for cement.
Typical values is 2650 kg/m3 for calcareous aggregate and 3140 kg/m3 for cement.
3.3.1.4. Saturation amount of superplasticizer for powders

A cementitious material becomes more fluid when superplasticizer is added to it but it exists a
limit dosage over which the superplasticizer is no more efficient. This dosage is defined as the
saturation dosage of superplasticizer for the considered powder. It is generally expressed by
the ratio (in percentage) between the mass of dry extract of the superplasticizer and the mass
of the powder.
39
Page 40 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
In SCCMix the calculation of the rheological parameters of a concrete with superplasticizer is

extrapolated from those without superplasticizer and those with a saturation amount of
superplasticizer. The determination of the saturation dosage is then of first importance.
At LCPC, this saturation amount is determined with the AFREM method [17] by measuring
the flow time through a Marsh cone of grouts with various amounts of superplasticizer. For the
Brite Euram project, a lightly different procedure was adopted:
• evaluate the efficient water to powder ratio to be adopted in the concrete;
• make 1.5 liter of a paste with approximately the same efficient water to powder ratio with
a high dosage of superplasticizer (higher than the estimated dosage of saturation).
• in a mortar mixer (CEN 196-1) put the water and one-third of the proportion of
superplasticizer in the bowl;
• pour the powder in the bowl and start the chronometer (t0) ;
• mix at low speed for 1 min ;
• stop mixing for 30 s. and scrape the bowl with a spatula for the first 15 s. of
stoppage.
• add the remaining two-thirds of superplasticizer ;
• resume mixing at low speed for 15s and the at high speed for 1 min. 45 s.
• make sure that the inner surface of the Marsh cone is wet and pour1 liter of paste in it ;
• measure the flow time which is the time needed for the first 500 ml of paste to flow;
• the diameter of the nozzle of the marsh cone is chosen to give approximately a flow time of
15 s. with this high amount of superplasticizer ;
• repeat the same procedure with the so chosen nozzle for different amounts of
superplasticizer. In order to keep the efficient water constant, you have to correct the water
added by the amount included in the superplasticizer.
• as the saturation amount is not always easy to determine, the following procedure has been
adopted :
• plot the experimental points of the curve of Log (T) (decimal logarithm of the flow
time in s.) versus the percentage of dry extract of superplasticizer with respect of
the mass of powder.
• joint the experimental points by straight lines
• the last point of tangency (starting from the low contents of superplasticizer) with a
straight line having a slope of 2/5 (for example the hypotenuse of a triangle having a
base of 1% and a height of 0,4 Log unit) gives the saturation amount: in the
following case the saturation amount is Sp2
40
Page 41 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
1.75
1.7
1.65
0,4
log(t)
1.6
1.55 1%
1.5
1.45
Sp1 Sp2
SP(% of dry extract)
Fig. 31 - Flow time versus dosage of superplasticizer. The saturation amount is Sp 1.
This method can be directly used to determine the saturation amount of superplasticizer for a
cement. Yet, because the superplasticizer needs to be in presence of cement to be efficient, we
have to proceed in another way for a mineral admixture. We first determine the saturation
amount for the cement alone and then we determine the saturation amount for a mix with a
mass ratio of cement equal to x and a mineral admixture mass ratio of 1-x. We can calculate
the saturation amount for the mineral addition alone by the following equation :
Sp * = xSpc * + (1 − x )Spa *
where
• Spc* saturation dosage for the cement. This dosage is expressed by the ratio in percentage
of the mass of the dry extract of the superplasticizer and the mass of the cement;
• Spa* saturation dosage for the mineral. This dosage is expressed by the ratio in percentage
of the mass of the dry extract of the superplasticizer and the mass of the addition;
• Sp* saturation dosage for the mix. These dosage is expressed by the ratio in percentage of
the mass of the dry extract of the superplasticizer and the mass of the mix of cement and
addition;
The figure 32 shows an example of this method. The saturation amount of the cement alone is
0,3% (in dry extract with respect to the mass of cement). The saturation amount of the mix
with 65% of cement and 35% of calcareous filler in mass is 0,23% (in dry extract with respect
to the mass of the mix cement and addition). The saturation amount of the calcareous filler is
then 0,1%.
41
Page 42 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
1,75
Mix
1,7
Cement
1,65
log(t)
1,6
1,55
1,5
1,45
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
SP or SPc
Fig. 32 - Flow time in Marsh cone for a cement paste and a cement-calcareous filler mix paste.
Sp percentage of dry extract of superplasticizer with respect to the mix mass
Spc percentage of dry extract of superplasticizer with respect to the cement mass
Note that the saturation amount of superplasticizer of a cement or a mineral addition is

automatically calculated from the experimental points with the BtlTools software that can be
called from SCCMix with the Tools button.
If the ratio between the cement and the mineral admixture is fixed at the beginning of the mix
design process, it is simpler to consider the mix cement+mineral addition as one unique powder
and determine the saturation amount only for the mix.
Classical values for cement with a melamine superplasticizer are 0,5 to 1% that is 0,5 to 1 kg
of dry extract for 100 kg of cement. If the dry extract is 30% of the superplasticizer, for
example, the saturation dosage is then 0,5*100/30 to 1*100/30 kg of superplasticizer in its
commercial form for 100 kg of cement. With the new generation superplasticizer, saturation
amounts are smaller (around 0,2 % in dry extract).
3.3.1.5. Residual packing densities βi

A class of particles is composed of all the particles comprised between two successive sieves
in the Renard series (the ratio between two sieves is approximately 1,25 in that series). All the
granular calculations in SCCMix are based on the knowledge of the packing densities βi of
each class of each component of the concrete obtained with an infinite packing energy in an
infinite volume. These packing densities are called the residual packing densities (see &3.2.1)
You can enter these values manually in SCCMix, but generally these values are not accessible
by the experience. Then, you will have first to measure the packing density of each fraction of
each component and SCCMix will fit all the βi , assuming that all the βi are constant in the same
fraction, to find by calculation the measured packing density of the considered fraction.
Moreover βi must be determined without superplasticizer and with a saturation amount of
superplasticizer. Yet, it is assumed in SCCMix that for all the particles greater than 80 µm, the
superplasticizer has not effect, then βi without superplasticizer is the same as βi with a
saturation amount of superplasticizer.
42
Page 43 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
3.3.1.6. Packing density

The packing density of the gravel is measured as following: a 7,5-kg sample is poured into a
Ø16*32-cm cylinder fixed on a vibrating table and covered by a piston exerting a 10 kPa
pressure. The sample is then subjected to a 150-Hz vibration for 1 min. The experimental
packing density is then given by the mean (on at least two samples) of:
m
C=
MV
where m is the mass of gravel (in kg), M is the bulk specific gravity (in kg/m3) and V the final
volume (m3) after compaction. V is simply determined by measured the final height of the
piston on two orthogonal diameters.
Of course, a different kind of container can be used but its minimum size should be preferably
at least 8 times the maximum size of gravel. In the same way a different mass of gravel can be
used but it should be representative enough. In order to account to the wall effect, note the
dimensions of the compacted sample.
For the sand, the packing density is determined with almost the same procedure : a 3-kg
sample is poured into a Ø16*16-cm cylinder fixed on a vibrating table and covered by a piston
exerting a 10 kPa pressure. The sample is then subjected to a 150-Hz vibration for 1 min. The
experimental packing density is then given by the mean (on at least two samples) of:
m
C=
MV
where m is the mass of sand (in kg), M is the bulk specific gravity (in kg/m3) and V the final
volume (m3) after compaction. V is simply determined by measured the final height of the
piston on two orthogonal diameters.
However, as explained just before, the packing density is used to fit the residual packing
densities βi of the particles classes assuming that all the βi are constants on the same fraction.
Even if part of the error made in the calculations are compensated by the fact that the βi are
fitted, the error will be minimized if the span of the considered fraction is reduced. Generally
the ratio Dmax/Dmin is limited to 4. That is why a sand should be generally separated in three or
four fractions :
• if the sand contains few fine particles (<5%) then it must be separated in three fractions : 0-
315µ, 315µ-1.25mm and 1.25mm-Dmax and the packing density must be measured on each
fraction ;
• if the sand contains high volume (>5%) of fine particles then it must be separated in four
fractions : 0-80 µ, 80-315µ, 315µ-1.25mm and 1.25mm-Dmax. The packing density must be
measured on the three coarser fraction as explained before. The smallest fraction must be
treated as fines and the packing density determined by a water demand test.
Of course, a different kind of container can be used but its minimum size should be preferably
at least 8 times the maximum size of the fraction. In the same way a different mass of sand can
be used but it should be representative enough. In order to account to the wall effect, note the
dimensions of the compacted sample.
43
Page 44 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
The packing density of the fines (fines of the sand, cement mineral additions...) is determined
by a water demand test in order to account for the agglomeration of the particles in the water
and the effect of admixtures (plasticizers, superplasticizers, retarder,etc.). The procedure is the
following :
• make a reserve of tap water at 20°C
• pour a given weight Pp (about 350 g) of powder in a mortar mixer (CEN 196-1) with some
water containing all the admixtures. Make sure before each measurement that the surface of
the bowl and the blade is wet but without excess of water
• mix for one minute at low speed and one minute at high speed
• make the zero on a balance with the plastic bottle containing water on it
• add some water by successive trials with the plastic bottle (see figure) till the mix changes
from a wet soil state (with formation of balls) to a smooth homogeneous paste.
Fig. 33 - Water added with the plastic bottle
Fig. 34 - from a wet soil state (with formation of balls) to a smooth homogeneous paste
44
Page 45 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
• weight the plastic bottle. The negative value gives the water added in the mixer. Deduce
the total weight Pw of water1 just necessary to make this change.
• confirm this value by repeating the water demand but with an initial water content nearer to
the final Pw value first obtained.
• the powder packing density C is then given by the mean on two tests where less than 5 g of
water have been added with the plastic bottle of the following equation :
1000
C=
P
1000 + M w
Pp
where M is the bulk specific gravity of the powder (in kg/m3).

This method can be directly used to determine the water demand for a cement. Yet, because
the superplasticizer needs to be in presence of cement to be efficient, we have to proceed in
another way for a mineral admixture. First determine the water demand measurements on
mixes with 90/10 and 80/20 mineral addition/cement ratio in weight. The water demand of the
mineral addition is the deducted by a linear extrapolation.
The water demand must be determined without superplasticizer and with a saturation amount
of superplasticizer if concrete with superplasticizer have to be designed.
Example of calculation :
The superplasticizer has 30% of dry extract
Cement Calcareous Filler

Specific density (kg/m3) 3140 2650
Saturation amount (% in dry extract) 0,3 0,1
Saturation amount (% in dry extract) :

for the mix 90/10 : 0,9*0.1+0.3*0,1=0,12 % with regard to the mass of mix
for the mix 80/10 : 0.8*0,1+0.3*0,2=0,14 % with regard to the mass of mix
Specific density (kg/m3) :

for the mix 90/10 : 1/(0,9/2650+0,1/3140)=2692 kg/m3
for the mix 80/10 : 1/(0,8/2650+0,2/3140)=2735 kg/m3
Saturation dosage of superplasticizer for 350g of powder in its commercial form :

for the mix 90/10 : (350*0,12/100)/(30/100)=1.4g
for the mix 80/10 : (350*0,14/100)/(30/100)=1,63g
Water contained in the superplasticizer :

for the mix 90/10 : 1,4*(70/100)=0,98g
for the mix 80/10 : 1,63*(70/100)=1,14g
1 including the water contained in the admixtures
45
Page 46 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
If the water added in the mix 90/10 is 85,7g then the packing density is
C=1000/(1000+2692*(85,7+0,98)/350)=0,6
If the water added in the mix 80/20 is 78.4 g then the packing density is
C=1000/(1000+2735*(78,4+1,14)/350)=0,617
Then the packing density of the admixture with a saturation amount of superplasticizer is
C=0,6- (0,617-0,6)=0,583
If the ratio between the cement and the mineral admixture is fixed at the beginning of the mix
design process, it is simpler to consider the mix cement+mineral addition as one unique powder
and determine the water demand only for the mix.
Note that the packing density of aggregates and the water demand of cement or mineral
addition is automatically calculated from the experimental results with the BtlTools software
that can be called from SCCMix with the Tools button.
3.3.1.7. Compaction index

The packing density of a component depends on the component but also on the energy of
compaction. For a given component, the higher the energy, the greater the packing density.
The energy of compaction is accounted for in the Compressible Packing Model through the
compaction index K. The following table summarizes the compaction index to enter in
SCCMix for each method of compaction.
Type of Simple Rodding Vibration Water Vibration+pressure

compaction pouring demand (10 kPa)
Compaction Index 4,1 4,5 4,75 6,7 9
3.3.1.8. Wall effect

As seen, in &3.2.1, the packing density of the concrete skeleton can be disturbed by a wall
effect due to the container in which the concrete is poured. This effect is of particular
importance for blocking risks (see & 3.2.4).
To account for this effect in SCCMix, you have to enter the geometry of the container or the
ratio v/V where V is the volume of the container and v the volume of the disturbed knowing
that a granular class with a mean diameter equal to di is disturbed at distance from the
container less than di /2.
For example, in the L box test, the effect of two bars, with a clear space equals to e, on the
concrete blocking is supposed to be the same as two parallel plans separated by the same
space. So the confining effect of the bars is included in the model through the following ratio
v di
=
V e
46
Page 47 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
In a pumping pipe with a diameter of D, the ratio is

v D − (D − d i )
2 2
=
V D2
3.3.1.9. Properties of the superplasticizer

The results presented in this report and those of de Larrard et Ferraris [21] suggest that
generally speaking the yield stress may be calculated by:
   Sp  
n

( )
n
τ0′  
= expa 0 + a + b1 −

 

K
 p ′+ ∑ 0 ,736 − 0,216 log ( d i ) K ′
i (Equ. 20)
  Sp *  granulats 
where Sp and Sp* are respectively the actual and the saturation amount of superplasticizer (in
percentage of the weight of all fine particles, K'p the partial index of compaction of all the fine
particles lower than 80 µm, a0, a, b and n constants depending on the superplasticizer nature
(see &0). In this equation all the parameters can be calculated by SCCMix but a0, a, b and n
have to be entered as characteristics of the superplasticizer.
It should be theoretically possible to characterize the role of the superplasticizer by measuring
the yield stress (or the slump which is calculated from the yield stress) of three concretes
designed with three different dosages of superplasticizer and for each dosages two water
contents with a constant paste volume and a constant gravel to sand ratio.
Moreover we have seen in &3.2.5 that for a given dosage of superplasticizer the penetration
depth of the aggregate is a linear function of the term K'p. Then measuring this depth on
Ø16*32cm cylinders made of the six previous concretes, it should be easy to determine the
minimum value K'pmin to avoid segregation in function of Sp/ Sp* as in equation 19. This is
theoretical and due to the experimental dispersion it certainly will be necessary to make more
than six concretes.
SCCMix can be used to fit the properties of the superplasticizer. First, put a0, a, b and n at 1
and simulate the concrete that have been tested. SCCMix then calculates the terms K’p and . It
is then easy to fit a0, a, b and n with an excel sheet to adjust the theorical yiels stress to the
experimental one.
For the sikament 10 used in this project we have
a0=0,154
a=1,1039
b=0,2326
n= 1
3.3.2. Definition of a set of requirements

All the results presented in this report are summarized here to form a set of requirements that a
Self Compacting Concrete has to fit :
• first a compressive strength must be fixed ;
47
Page 48 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
• the yield stress must be less than 400 Pa to be sure to have a diameter larger than 600 mm
in the slump flow test. This limit of yield stress is not so clear and it seems that we may go
up to 700 Pa. More research is needed on this matter ;
• in order to avoid too slow flows of concrete and bubbles on walls, we will choose according
to our experience a viscosity lower than 200 Pa.s. This criterion becomes important when
the concrete must be pumped.
• in order to avoid a blocking risk we should have the following equation: K'GG<1,4. The K'GG
represents the contribution to the packing index of the concrete in confined conditions, of
all the coarse aggregates greater than D90/2,5 where D90 is the diameter corresponding to
90% of passing in the concrete granularity. For the calculation of this term we need to know
the real confinement exerted on the concrete during its flow. In fact the geometry of the
structure impose a minimal clear space e between two obstacles though which the concrete
will have to pass. We consider that the confinement exerted by these obstacles is equivalent
to the one exerted by two infinite plans separated by a distance of e. Then the confinement
function describing the ratio between the volume disturbed by the obstacles v and the total
volume V will be equal to v/V=d/em for a unidimensional class of grains with a diameter of
d.
• finally the condition of non segregation of gravel is translated by the following equation:
K'p>K'pmin.
• we have to add a final requirement which is the minimal cost.
Table 4 summarizes the set of requirements.
Commentaire Properties Reference

Sufficient slump flow τ0≤400 Pa equ. 6 and 20
Pumpability µ'≤200 Pa.s equ. 10
No segregation of aggregate K'p>K'pmin &3.2.5and equ. 19
No blocking K'GG<1,4 &3.2.4
Price minimum
Table 4 - set of requirements for SCC at fresh state
3.3.3. Simulations with SCCMix

Now the mix designer has to answer this set of requirements following the mix design process :
• on the basis of personal knowledge and the availability of the local materials select a limited
set of constituents. For example, the following points can be considered:
• a long slump keeping will need a good compatible cement/superplasticizer couple;
• it will be interesting to replace a great part of the cement by fly ash for SCC used in
massive structures;
• if a high strength at the early age is needed without any excess of strength in the
long term he may use limestone filler;
• etc...
• enter the relevant properties of the constituents in SCCMix as explained before ;
48
Page 49 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
• simulate different recipes with SCCMix to fit the previous set of requirements for the
minimum cost. Note that the compressive strength can also be computed with, for example,
generalized Feret's law proposed by de Larrard [10].
3.3.4. Adjustments of the mix in the lab

Of course the models presented in this report must be validated more widely but they give a
theoretical frame to analyze further research. For example, in the equation giving the shear
yield stress, the exact role of the superplasticizer has to be confirmed. Moreover, we have
supposed that all the fine particles (<80 µm) behave like the cement ; it is necessary to validate
this assumption.
In conclusion, the theoretical optimum recipe obtained with SCCMix in the previous step has
to be adjusted in the laboratory. This chapter presents a frame for these adjustments.
First of all we make a test with the BTRHEOM and a slump flow test.
• If the yield is too high or the slump flow to low :

• if the viscosity is correct and if we are under the saturation amount in
superplasticizer, we add some superplasticizer;
• otherwise we increase the paste volume with the same water to binders ratio.
• If a paste halo is observed around the disc of concrete in the slump flow test (generally with
bleeding):
• we can add a viscosity agent;
• we can diminish the dosage of superplasticizer and increase the paste volume with
the same water to binders ratio;
• we can also add a fine sand if there is a discontinuity of the granularity in the interval
0,1/0,6 mm.
• If a mortar halo is observed around the disc of concrete in the slump flow test:
• we can diminish the gravel to sand ratio;
• we can increase the continuity of the skeleton;
• When the slump flow is correct, we make a L-box test with the required clear space
between reinforcements. If blocking occurs then we diminish the gravel to sand ratio or we
increase the the paste volume with the same water to binders ratio;
• Then we verify the absence of segregation (measured with the penetration depth of
aggregates observed on a splitted Ø16 *32 cm hardened cylinder). If segregation occurs:
• we can diminish the gravel to sand ratio;
• we can increase the continuity of the skeleton.
• Finally when the behavior at the fresh state is correct then the strength is adjusted by
modifying the proportions between cement and additions with a constant powder volume.
This method comes directly from this work but has to be faced to real cases of mix design.
49
Page 50 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
4. Validation of LCPC models by

SIKA
4.1. OBJECTIVES
The aim of this part is to validate the equation 20 proposed by LCPC to calculate the shear
yield stress from the mixture proportions. The validation, will more precisely focus on the
influence of the fines (<80 µm) and the superplasticizer content on the shear yield stress.
4.2. MATERIALS
The gravel used are natural river silica rounded type;
The sand is a natural river silica sand, which is a mix of rounded and semi crushed sand;
The cement is SUPERDRAGON CEM I 52.5 R;
The superplasticizer is the Viscocrete from Sika. Its dry content is 23.3%.
The saturation amount of superplasticizer was evaluated according to the AFREM method but
on paste (see & 3.1.4 ). On the following figure, on can see that the saturation amount is equal
to 2% of the cement weight in its commercial form (i.e 0.466% in dry extract).
1.45
1.4
1.35
Decimal log of flow time
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Dosage of Viscocrete 2 (% in dry extract)
Fig. 35 - Saturation curve of the cement with Viscocrete 2
50
Page 51 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
The properties of the materials are summarized in the annex 1;
4.3. TESTS
The different recipes tested are presented in the following tables. As the validation focuses on
the fines and on the superplasticizer effect, the proportions of aggregates are fixed.
The mixing procedure is the following:

• all dry material mixed during 30sec;
• 1/2 water amount (without SP) is added and mixed during 1min;
• the mixing is stopped, then the cement is added
• mixing for 30sec;
• the rest 1/2 of the water is added with the SP diluted on it
• mixing for 1min 30sec.
The total mixing time is then 3min.30sec.
After mixing the Abrams cone is filled with a scope and compacted if necessary with a steel
bar. The height and the diameter of the Slump flow is measured and also the segregation
border width, if it happens. The depth of sinking of the coarse gravels is also measured
through the drilling of standard cylinder concrete specimens, performed in each concrete batch.
51
Page 52 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Batch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Gravel 7-15 (kg/m3) 365.6 360.1 358.8 358.4 332.3 364.5 362.6 372.5 370.0 369.2 367.4 342.6
Gravel 3-7 (kg/m3) 512.7 505.1 503.2 502.7 466.1 511.2 508.6 522.4 518.9 517.8 515.4 480.6
Sand (kg/m3) 878.3 865.1 862.0 861.0 798.3 875.7 871.2 894.9 888.9 887.0 882.8 823.2
Cement (kg/m3) 332.3 327.4 326.2 325.8 302.1 378.7 376.7 387.0 384.4 383.6 381.7 356.0
Efficient Water (kg/m3) 209.2 221.0 223.8 224.7 281.2 194.9 199.1 175.9 181.5 183.2 187.1 242.0
Admixture : ViscoCrete 2 (kg/m3) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 1.88 3.87 3.84 3.84 3.82 3.56
Gravel 7-15 (% in vol of agg. vol.) 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55
Gravel 3-7 (% in vol of agg. vol.) 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58
Sand (% in vol of agg. vol.) 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86
Admixture dosage (in % of cement weight) 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1
Slump (cm) 10 13.5 17 21 25 11 13 9.5 13 17 21.5 27.5
Slump Flow (cm) 23 25.5 31 34.5 81 25 27 24 26.5 31 37.5 72.5
Segregation Halo (cm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Depth coarse agg. (mm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Remarks: No vibr. No vibr. No vibr.
Batch 13 15 14 16 17 20 18 19 21 22
Gravel 7-15 (kg/m3) 374.1 370.2 368.4 366.6 341.8 376.8 375.8 375.0 371.3 340.4
Gravel 3-7 (kg/m3) 524.8 519.2 516.7 514.2 479.4 528.4 527.2 525.9 520.8 477.4
Sand (kg/m3) 898.9 889.4 885.1 880.9 821.2 905.2 903.0 900.9 892.1 817.8
Cement (kg/m3) 437.3 432.7 430.6 428.5 399.5 440.4 439.3 438.3 434.0 397.8
Efficient Water (kg/m3) 155.0 163.9 168.0 171.9 228.0 147.2 149.3 151.2 159.6 229.6
Admixture : ViscoCrete 2 (kg/m3) 6.12 6.06 6.03 6.00 5.59 8.81 8.79 8.77 8.68 7.96
Gravel 7-15 (% in vol of agg. vol.) 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55 20.55
Gravel 3-7 (% in vol of agg. vol.) 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58 28.58
Sand (% in vol of agg. vol.) 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86 50.86
Admixture dosage (in % of cement weight) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 2 2 2 2 2
Slump (cm) 9 15 19.5 23 28 13 16 20 23 27.5
Slump Flow (cm) 22.5 28 33 43 75 27 28 31 37 62.5
52
Page 53 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Segregation Halo (cm) 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 7

Depth coarse agg. (mm) 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 5
Remarks: No vibr. No vibr.
53
Page 54 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
4.4. ANALYSIS
The analysis was done with SCCMix software.
SCCMix allows to calculate the contribution K'p of the fines to the packing index and the
aggregate contribution AC to shear yield stress. According to equation 20:
n
AC = ∑ (0,736 − 0,216 log( d ))K ′
aggregates
i i
As SIKA has no concrete rheometer, the shear yield stress of the mixes was evaluated with the
slump thanks the equation 4.
The terms a0, a, b and n were then adjusted in the following equation (cf equ.20) to fit the
experimental results.
  Sp  
n 
τ′  a + b K ′+ AC
0 = exp a 0 +  1− 
  Sp *  
p
   
All the data are summarized in the following tables.
The constants for the Viscocrete 2 were found to be the following with a mean error of 132
Pa on the shear yield stress (or a 1.5 cm mean error on the slump)
a0 2.537
a -0.219
b 0.994
n 1.168
Table 5 - Fitted constants for viscocrete 2
The following figure shows the good correlation between experimental and theoretical slump
calculated from equa 20 and 4.
54
Page 55 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
30
25
Theoretical slump (cm)

20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30
Experimental slump (cm)
Fig. 36 - Comparison between experimental and theoretical slump
55
Page 56 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Batch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
K'f from SCCMix 1.521 1.387 1.358 1.205 0.926 1.762 1.7 1.826 1.736 1.709 1.653 1.1
Agg. contribution to shear yield stress AC 3.855 3.543 3.479 2.999 2.453 4.037 3.905 4.643 4.415 4.356 4.214 2.854
from SCCMix
Shear yield stress (Pa) according to exp. 1769 1458 1158 819 463 1704 1526 1856 1543 1192 797 266
Slump and equ 4
Theo. shear yield (Pa) stress according to 1942 1281 1175 646 301 1703 1448 1976 1542 1444 1238 281
equa 20.
Theo. slump (cm) according to equ 20 and 4 8.0 15.6 16.8 23.0 27.0 11.0 13.9 8.1 13.0 14.1 16.4 27.3
Theo. slump flow (cm) according to equ 19 65 66
and 6
Batch 13 15 14 16 17 20 18 19 21 22
K'f from SCCMix 2.417 2.205 2.118 2.041 1.301 2.37 2.317 2.272 2.087 1.192
Agg. contribution to shear yield stress AC 4.968 4.617 4.462 4.322 2.898 5.234 5.147 5.068 4.724 2.843
from SCCMix
Shear yield stress (Pa) according to exp. 1930 1387 985 674 226 1580 1309 950 679 268
Slump and equ 4
Theo. shear yield (Pa) stress according to 1930 1352 1155 1002 237 1412 1309 1222 902 167
equa 20.
Theo. slump (cm) according to equ 20 and 4 9.0 15.4 17.6 19.3 27.9 14.9 16.0 17.0 20.5 28.7
Theo. slump flow (cm) according to equ 20 69 72
and 6
Table 6 - Data for the calibration of the superplasticizer constants a0, a, b and n (see equ.20)
56
Page 57 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
4.5. CONCLUSION
It seems that the equation 20 proposed by the LCPC can be used to evaluate the slump of
concrete containing Viscocrete 2, if the values a0, a, b and n are adjusted as shown in the
previous paragraph.
Only four values of slump flow are available for validation. It can be seen on the tables that the
equations 19 and 5 give only a rough estimation of these values. Nevertheless, equation 20 is
sufficient to detect shear yield stress lower than 400 Pa which is the real requirement for a
SCC.
57
Page 58 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
5. Validation of LCPC models by

Betongindustri
5.1. OBJECTIVES
The aim of this part is to validate the equation 20 proposed by LCPC to calculate the shear
yield stress from the mixture proportions. The validation, will more precisely focus on the
influence of the fines (<80 µm) and the superplasticizer content on the shear yield stress. In
order to fulfil the objective two different studies have been carried out at the Scancem
Research Laboratory in Slite:
• in a first study, a validation of the model has been performed on concrete containing
Sikament 10 which have already been tested (see & 3.3.1.9).
• in a second study, the equation 20 was also tested on concrete containing Glenium 51,
which is the most commonly used superplasticizer in Sweden
5.2. MATERIALS
The aggregates were natural rounded gravel and sand of the type Rikssten 8-16 and Rikssten
0-8 respectively.
The cement is a CEM II/A-L 42,5 R: Byggcement Slite.
In the first part of the study limestone filler of the type Köping 500 was used while no filler
was used in the second part.
Two different types of superplasticizers have been used: Sikament 10 (with a dry content of 21
%) and Glenium 51 (with a dry content of 35 %).
All the properties of the constituents are presented in the annex 2.
5.2.1. Saturation amount of superplasticiser

The saturation amount of superplasticizer for the cement and filler was evaluated on paste
according to the AFREM method as described in section 3.3.1.4. Results from each of the
studies performed here are presented below.
Study 1 – Sikament 10
In the following figure the flow-time through the Marsh cone (logarithmic scale) is plotted as a
function of the amount of superplasticiser, Sp, expressed as % of dry extract with respect to
the weight of the powder. From the figure it has been concluded that the saturation amount of
Sikament 10 for the cement alone is about 0,168 % while the corresponding value for a
combination of 31,6 % of filler and 68,4 % of cement is 0,126 %. The saturation amount of
58
Page 59 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
sikament 10 for the filler is then calculated to 0,035 % by using the equation specified in
section 3.3.1.4.
1,7
1,6
1,5
1,4
1,3
Cement
1,2
1,1
Cement + filler (68,4%/31,6%)
1
0,9
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35
Amount of Sikament 10 (% dry extract of powder)
Fig. 37 - Saturation curve of the cement with Sikament 10
Study 2 – Glenium 51
In the second study no filler was used and thus the saturation amount was estimated for the
cement alone. From the figure below the saturation amount of Glenium 51 for the cement has
been evaluated to 0,21 % (in dry extract with respect to the weight of the cement). However, it
should be mentioned that, based on this curve, it is possible to choose almost any saturation
amount between 0,14 and 0,21 %.
1,36
1,34
1,32
1,3
1,28
1,26
1,24
1,22
1,2
1,18
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4
Amount of Glenium 51 (% dry extract of C)
Fig. 38 - Saturation curve of the cement with Glenium 51
5.2.2. Packing densities
59
Page 60 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Background and test procedure for obtaining the packing densities of all particles in concrete
are thoroughly described in section 3.3.1.6. Here follows a brief description of the procedure
used at the Scancem Research laboratory in Slite. The packing density of the sand, dmax= 8
mm, was obtained in the following way:
• The sand was divided into three fractions; 0-0.5, 0.5-2 and 2-8 mm. As only a very small
fraction of particles (3-4 %) passes the 0.125 mm sieve for the Rikssten 0-8 no water
demand test was done for the finest fraction of the sand.
• For each of the three fractions a sample of 2 kg was put in a cylindrical container of
diameter 100 mm which was fixed on a vibrating table and covered with a 7,85 kg weight
giving a pressure of about 10 kPa. The sample was then vibrated for 1 minute and the
packing density was calculated from the final volume of the sample.
• For the coarse gravel (d = 8–16 mm) the procedure was almost the same as for the sand.
The only differences were that the cylindrical container used for the gravel had a diameter of
150 mm and the weight covering the sample was 17,46 kg giving approximately the same
pressure. Also, the weight of the sample was 6,954 kg in this case. Results from the packing
tests on the fine and coarse gravel can be found in the following table.
Fraction Weight of Diameter of Height of the Packing

(in mm) the sample the sample sample density
(in kg) (in mm) (in mm)
0 – 0,5 2 100 151 0,63
0,5 – 2 2 100 154 0,62
2-8 2 100 146 0,65
8 - 16 6,954 150 226 0,65
Table 7 - Packing densities of aggregates
The packing densities of cement and filler were obtained from water demand tests (see section
3.3.1.6).
The water demand of the cement and the calcareous filler with a saturation amount of
Sikament 10 were 0.55 and 0.66 respectively.
The following figure shows the cement packing density for different amounts of Glenium 51: 0,
0.063, 0.147 and 0.21 % (in dry extract with respect to the weight of the cement).
60
Page 61 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
0.56
0.55
Packing density 0.54
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.5
0.49
0.48
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
% of Glenium (in dry extract vs cement weight)
Fig. 39 - Packing densities of the cement with Glenium 51
5.3. TESTS
In the following tables the mix designs of the concrete from the two studies are shown.
The mixing procedure of 25 liter batches was the same in the two studies and can be described
as follows:
• Aggregates, cement and (in case of) filler was added and mixed for 10 – 15 sec.
• All water and superplasticizer was added
• Everything was then mixed for 3 min.
After mixing a slump test was performed and the slump and (in case of) the slump flow was
measured. Then the concrete was tested with the BML viscometer. From this device it is
possible to measure an apparent viscosity and shear yield stress for the concrete (g in Nm and h
in Nm s).
As can be seen, 7 mixes were produced and tested with Sikament 10. All the concrete
contained a saturation amount of Sikament 10.
Mix Gravel Sand Cement Calc. Sikament 10 Eff. Air Slump Slump g h
n° (%) (%) (kg/m3) Filler (%dry Water (%) (cm) flow (Nm) (Nm s)
(kg/m3) extract vs (kg/m3) (cm)
cement)
1 40,0 60,0 319,5 147,5 0,400 180,3 3.6 26 53 0,47 8,89
2 40,0 60,0 322,7 149,0 0,400 187,2 2.8 26 63 0,09 6,1
3 40,0 60,0 317,1 146,4 0,400 169,1 4.4 22 35 3,01 15,56
4 40,0 60,0 321,9 178,3 0,400 181,8 3 27 62,5 0,45 10,29
5 40,0 60,0 315,9 175,0 0,400 178,4 4.8 26 56 0,51 9,02
6 40,0 60,0 318,5 117,6 0,400 179,6 4.1 27 61 0,17 6,97
7 35,0 65,0 313,8 144,8 0,400 181,9 5.4 26 59 0,14 5,8
61
Page 62 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Table 8 - Mixes with Sikament 10
In the second series with Glenium 51, the ratio of fine to coarse aggregates was kept constant
and equal to 1 for all mixes and variation were made on the cement, superplasticizer and water
contents. In this study the concrete was reinstated in the mixer and some water was added.
Then it was mixed for another minute before the slump, slump flow and BML parameters were
measured again. This procedure was repeated a few times until the segregation of the concrete
appeared to be severe. Reusing the same concrete is not the best way to evaluate its because
some paste is lost each time and mixing order has some influence. Yet, mixes 9 and 11 made
on new batches show only a small influence of this procedure compared to mixes 8 and 10.
That is why this first approach was adopted due to lack of time.
Mix n° Gravel Sand Cement Glenium 51 (% of Eff, Water Slump Slump g (Nm) h (Nm s)
(%) (%) (kg/m3) dry extract vs (kg/m3) (cm) flow
cement) (cm)
1 50,0 50,0 361,8 0,000 189,0 6
2 50,0 50,0 358,1 0,000 197,3 10 6,01 6,83
3 50,0 50,0 350,9 0,000 213,4 15 4,4 4,54
4 50,0 50,0 344,0 0,000 228,8 20 2,49 3,4
5 50,0 50,0 331,0 0,000 258,0 23 43 1,71 0,94
6 50,0 50,0 327,9 0,000 265,0 26 58
7 50,0 50,0 421,5 0,063 182,9 9 8,59 9,65
8 50,0 50,0 412,8 0,063 199,7 19 2,71 5,62
9 50,0 50,0 412,8 0,063 199,7 17 3,69 4,56
10 50,0 50,0 404,4 0,063 215,9 23 41 1,53 3,16
11 50,0 50,0 404,4 0,063 215,9 21 2,13 2,39
12 50,0 50,0 396,4 0,063 231,5 23 52 1,27 1,23
13 50,0 50,0 388,7 0,063 246,4 59
14 50,0 50,0 469,1 0,147 171,3 15 5,05 13,80
15 50,0 50,0 464,3 0,147 179,8 23 40 2,02 11,00
16 50,0 50,0 459,6 0,147 188,2 23 39 1,58 5,55
17 50,0 50,0 454,9 0,147 196,4 24 49 1,08 5,09
18 50,0 50,0 445,9 0,147 212,3 26 63 0,97 1,50
19 50,0 50,0 437,2 0,147 227,6 27 66
20 50,0 50,0 463,8 0,210 148,9 0
21 50,0 50,0 459,1 0,210 157,6 7
22 50,0 50,0 454,4 0,210 166,1 12 5,04 17,47
23 50,0 50,0 449,9 0,210 174,5 17 3,43 11,65
62
Page 63 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
24 50,0 50,0 441,1 0,210 190,6 22 42 1,72 6,73

25 50,0 50,0 432,6 0,210 206,2 25 53 1,13 2,34
26 50,0 50,0 424,4 0,210 221,2 64 1,16 0,70
Table 9 - Mixes with Glenium 51
5.4. ANALYSIS
The analysis was realized as explained in 4.4. The calculated values are summarized in the
following tables. Because the BML does not give directly a shear yield stress in Pa, it has been
calculated from slump or slump flow with equations 4 and 6.
Mix n° Density Calculated Kf** AC** Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical

(kg/m3) Shear yield stress Shear yield stress Slump Flow viscosity***
(Pa) * (Pa) (cm) (Pa s)
1 2179.3 516 2.925 2.914 543 51.6 201
2 2188.2 332 2.793 2.762 403 59.2 144
3 2177.5 849 3.221 3.158 961 29.0 351
4 2162.7 337 3.145 2.759 593 48.6 206
5 2122.5 448 3.154 2.861 663 44.1 235
6 2196.6 370 2.712 3.056 495 54.4 196
7 2130.2 396 2.825 3.093 581 48.8 211
*deduced from slump or slump flow with equation 6
** see 4.4
*** deduced from equation 10
Table 10 - Data for the validation of Sikament 10 constants a0, a, b and n (see equ.20)
As the constants of Sikament 10 had already been evaluated (see & 3.3.1.9), the same values
were taken here without any fitting. An acceptable agreement was obtained on shear yield
stress (mean error of 203 Pa) and slump flow (mean error of 4,8 cm) which confirms these
values (see following figure).
Theoretical slump flow (cm)
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
20 40 60 80
Experimental slump flow (cm)
Fig. 40 - Comparison between experimental and theoretical slumpflow with Sikament 10
Mix n° Density Calculated Kf** AC** Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical

(kg/m3) Shear yield stress Shear yield stress Slump viscosity***
63
Page 64 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
(Pa) * (Pa) (cm) (Pa s)
1 2412,7 2210 2,869 2,837 2462 3,2 214

2 2398,3 1840 2,613 2,698 1840 10,0 134
3 2370,2 1379 2,219 2,461 1149 17,6 54
4 2343,3 928 1,932 2,298 823 21,2 25
5 2292,5 654 1,533 2,001 482 25,0 5
6 2280,4 396 1,458 1,937 433 25,6 4
7 2430,6 1954 3,31 2,649 1723 11,6 262
8 2401,1 1039 2,733 2,412 1040 19,0 102
9 2401,1 1217 2,733 2,412 1040 19,0 102
10 2372,7 674 2,329 2,246 730 22,4 44
11 2372,7 851 2,329 2,246 730 22,4 44
12 2345,5 667 2,09 2,091 560 24,2 19
13 2319,4 431 1,8 1,953 426 25,7 9
14 2456,1 1427 4,083 2,628 1590 13,2 485
15 2441,1 692 3,642 2,506 1200 17,4 301
16 2426,3 688 3,288 2,41 959 20,0 192
17 2411,9 595 2,998 2,327 795 21,8 125
18 2383,9 411 2,551 2,161 573 24,2 53
19 2357,0 320 2,22 2,013 438 25,7 23
20 2492,9 2837 4,766 3,062 2814 0,3 1054
21 2477,7 2175 4,15 2,9 1942 9,5 651
22 2462,8 1705 3,682 2,786 1479 14,5 420
23 2448,2 1240 3,308 2,673 1164 17,8 271
24 2419,8 777 2,757 2,46 780 22,0 114
25 2392,5 502 2,362 2,273 566 24,3 49
26 2366,2 339 2,067 2,112 436 25,7 15
*deduced from slump or slump flow with equations 4 and 6
** see 4.4
*** deduced from equation 10
Table 11 - Data for the calibration of the superplasticizer constants a0, a, b and n (see equ.20)
The constants for the Glenium 51 were found to be the following with a mean error of 140 Pa
on the shear yield stress (or a 1.6 cm mean error on the slump)
a0 3,266
a 0,339
b 0,256
n 1,997
Table 12 - Fitted constants for Glenium 51
The following figure shows the good correlation between experimental and theoretical slump.
64
Page 65 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
30.0
Theoretical slump (cm) 25.0
20.0
15.0
Sp=0
10.0 Sp=0,063
5.0 Sp=0,147
SP=0.21
0.0
0 10 20 30
Experimental slump (cm)
Fig. 41 - Comparison between experimental and theoretical slump with Glenium 51
Finally we also tried here to compare the h-values obtained with the BML rheometer in these
two series of tests to the theoretical viscosity calculated with equation 10 which should be
measured by BTRHEOM rheometer. The following figure show a clear relationship between
the two parameters which can be fitted by the following equation:
h = 0,0391 µ theo (Equ. 21)
Nevertheless, during the comparison tests realized in Slite (task 2) between BML and
BTRheom on approximatively 10 concretes, the following relationship was obtained:
h = 0,1019 µ theo
Further research will be needed to explain this difference.
18
16
14
Experimental h (Nm s)
12
10 With Glenium 51
8 With Sikament 10
6
4
2
0
0 200 400 600
Theoretical viscosity (Pa s)
65
Page 66 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Fig. 42 - Comparison between experimental h-value and theoretical plastic viscosity
5.5. CONCLUSION
The constants of the Sikament 10 proposed in section 3.3.1.9 seem to be confirmed by some
results obtained at Betongindustri.
It seems that the equation 20 proposed by the LCPC can also be used to evaluate the slump of
concrete containing Glenium 51, if the values a0, a, b and n are adjusted as shown in the
previous paragraph. Yet, it must pointed out that during these experiments, some basic mixes
were re-used after several additions of water to evaluate the evolution of workability. This is
not the best way to do these measurements and the results will certainly be different if they had
been realized on new mixes at each time. Nevertheless, the results obtained here are very
encouraging.
Finally, the results have shown that it is possible to predict the h-value measured by the BML
rheometer, from the equation 10 and 21
66
Page 67 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
6. Conclusion
A new mix design method for Self Compacting Concrete based on models dealing with
granular packing has been developed at LCPC. It accounts for the workability, the filling
ability through reinforcement and the segregation resistance of the concrete. These models
have been implemented in a software under Windows environment called SCCMIX. Thus the
models can be used on practical cases by practitioners.
These models have been developed on a set a mixes made at LCPC within tasks 2 and 3. In
order to validate them more widely, supplementary tests have been realized at SIKA and
BetongIndustri on concrete made of different constituents. The results have confirmed that the
proposed models are relevant to predict the workability of concrete.
Yet, more validation would be necessary and particularly concerning the filling ability and the
segregation resistance. This validation has not been made within the task 5 due to a lack of
time. Nevertheless the mathematical frame proposed is a promising tool to design SCC.
67
Page 68 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
7. Bibliography
[1] C. BARBILLON: "Influence du confinement sur les bétons autonivelants", Rapport de
DEA de l'ENS Cachan, juin, 1997.
[2] J. BARON et R. LESAGE: "Pour une étude pratique de la maniabilité: le maniabilimètre
Lesage, du LCPC", Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées n° 13,
Mai/juin, 1965.
[3] R. BEN-AIM: "Etude de la texture des empilements de grains. Application de la
perméabilité des mélanges binaires en régime moléculaire, intermédiaire, laminaire.", Thèse
d'état de l'université de Nancy, 1970.
[4] M. BUIL, P.WITIER, F. DE LARRARD, M DETREZ and A-M. PAILLERE:
"Physicochemical Mechanism of the action of the Naphtalene Sulfonate Based
Superplasticizers on Silica Fume Concretes", 2nd International ACI-CANMET Conference on
Fly Ash, Silica fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, SP 91 vol 2, pp 959-971,
Madrid, Spain, 1986.
[5] A. CAQUOT: "Le rôle des matériaux dans le béton", Mémoire de la Société des Ingénieurs
Civils de France, pp 562-582, juillet-août, 1937.
[6] C. CHANG and R. L. POWELL: "Effect of Particle Size Distribution on the Rheology of
Concentred Bimodal Suspensions", Journal of rheology, V38, issue1, Jan\Feb, 1994.
[7] G. CHRISTENSEN: "Modeling the flow of fresh concrete", Ph. D., Princeton University,
1991.
[8] P. COUSSOT, S. PROUST, C. ANCEY: "Rheological interpretation of deposits of yield
stress fluids", Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 66, pp 55-70, 1996.
[9] D.J. CUMBERLAND and R.J. CRAWFORD: "The Packing of Particles", Handbook of
powder technology, Elsiever, 150 p, 1987.
[10] F. de LARRARD: "Concrete Mixture-Proportionning: a scientific approach", E & FN
SPON, 1999.
[11] F. DE LARRARD, T. SEDRAN, C.HU, J.C. SZITKAR, M. JOLY, F. DERKX:
"Evolution of the Workability of Superplasticized Concretes: assesment with BTRHEOM
Rheometer", RILEM International Conference on Production Methods and Workability of
Concrete, pp 377-388, Glasgow, Scotland, 3-5 june, 1996.
[12] F. DE LARRARD and T. SEDRAN: "Computer-Aided Mix Design: Predicting Final
Results", Concrete International, pp 39-41, December, 1996.
[13] F. DE LARRARD, T. SEDRAN , D. ANGOT et G. BONNET: "Prévision de la
compacité des mélanges granulaires par le modèle de suspension solide. n° 1: fondements
théoriques et calibration du modèle", Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et
Chaussées n°194, nov./décembre, 1994.
[14] F. DE LARRARD, T. SEDRAN , D. ANGOT et G. BONNET: "Prévision de la
compacité des mélanges granulaires par le modèle de suspension solide. Partie 2: validation.
Cas des mélanges confinés", Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées
n°194, nov./décembre, 1994.
[15] F. DE LARRARD: "Formulation et propriétés des bétons à très hautes performances",
Rapport de recherche LPC n°149, 1988.
68
Page 69 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
[16] F. DE LARRARD et C. PUCH: "Formulation des bétons à hautes performances: la

méthode des coulis", Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées n°161, mai-
juin, 1989.
[17] F. de LARRARD, F. BOSC, C. CATHERINE and F de FLORENNE: "The AFREM
Method for the Mix Design of HPC", Materials and Structures Vol. 30, No 201, pp 439-446,
August-Septembre, 1997.
[18] F. DE LARRARD, C.HU, J.C. SZITKAR, M. JOLY, F. CLAUX et T. SEDRAN: "Le
nouveau rhéomètre LCPC pour bétons très plastiques à fluides", Annales de l'ITBTP, n°527,
octobre, 1994.
[19] F. de LARRARD: "Réflexions pour un nouvel essai de mesure de la consistance du
béton", Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées, n°166, mars-avril, 1990.
[20] F. de LARRARD and C. F. FERRARIS: "Rhéologie du béton frais remanié. I: plan
expérimental et dépouillement des résultats", Bulletin des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées,
n° 213, pp 73-89, janvier-février, 1998.
[21] F. de LARRARD and C. F. FERRARIS: "Rhéologie du béton frais remanié. II: relations
entre composition et paramètres rhéologiques", Bulletin des Laboratoires des Ponts et
Chaussées, n° 214, pp 69-79, mars-avril, 1998.
[22] F. de LARRARD and C. F. FERRARIS: "Rhéologie du béton frais remanié. III: l'essai au
cône d'Abrams modifié", Bulletin des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées, n° 215, pp 53-60,
mai-juin, 1998.
[23] F. DE LARRARD,C. F. FERRARIS and T. SEDRAN: "Fresh Concrete: a Herschel-
Bulkley Material", Materials and Structures, vol 31,pp494-498, august-september, 1998.
[24] F. DE LARRARD, C. HU and T. SEDRAN: "Best Packing and Specified Rheology: Two
Key Concepts in High-Performance Concrete Mix-Design", Adam neville Symposium,
Advances in Concrete Technology, Las Vegas, June, 1995.
[25] O. E. GJORV: "Workability: a new way of testing", Concrete International, Septembre,
1998.
[26] J. FAURY: "Le béton: influence des constituants inertes. Régles à adopter pour sa
meilleure composition, sa confection et son transport sur les chantiers.", Etudes de synthèse et
de documentation, Dunod, Paris, 1958.
[27] C. HU F. de LARRARD and T. SEDRAN: "A New Rheometer for High Performance
Concrete", BHP 96, fourth International Symposium on the Utilization of High Strength/High
Performance Concrete, vol.2, pp179-186, Paris, 29-31 may, 1996.
[28] C. HU: "Rhéologie des bétons fluides", Etudes et recherches des Laboratoires des Ponts
et Chaussées OA 16, Septembre, 1995.
[29] K. KHAYAT: Logiciel PHOTO, Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
[30] I.M. KRIEGER a,d T. J. DOUGHERTY: "", Transactions of the Society of Rhéology ,
vol III, pp 137-152, 1959.
[31] S. KUROIWA, Y. MATSUOKA, M. HAYAKAWA and T. SHINDOH: "Application of
Super Workable Concrete to Constuction of a 20-Story Building", American Concrete
Institute SP140, "High Performance Concrete in Severe Environments", Detroit, pp 147-161,
1993.
[32] Y. KUROKAWA, Y TANIGAWA, H. MORI, R. KOMURA: "A Study on the Slump
Test and Slump-Flow Test of Fresh Concrete", Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute,
vol 16, pp 25-32, 1994.
69
Page 70 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
[33] LCPC: "Manuel d’utilisation du BTRHEOM". Document délivré par le LCPC.

[34] H. MIZUGUCHI: "Correlation Between Yield Value, Plastic Viscosity and Consistency
of Plain Fresh Mortar and Concrete", Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute vol 7, pp33-
40, 1985.
[35] M. MOONEY: "The Viscosity of concentred Suspension of Spherical Particles", Journal
of Colloïds and Interfaces Science, vol 6, p162, 1951.
[36] S. NISHIBAYASHI, S. INOUE, A. Yoshino, T KURODA and T. KUME: "A study on
the flow of highly Superplasticized Concrete", 4th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, ACI SP 148, pp177-187, 1994.
[37] H. OKAMURA and K. OZAWA: "Mix design for Self-Compacting Concrete", Concrete
Library of JSCE, n°25, june, 1995.
[38] H. OKAMURA and K. OZAWA: "Self-Compactable High Performance Concrete in
Japan", International Workshop on High performance Concrete, Bangkok, 21-22 november,
1994.
[39] H. OKAMURA: "Self Compacting High Performance Concrete", Concrete International,
pp50-54, july, 1997.
[40] M. OUCHI, M. HIBINO and H. OKAMURA: "Effect of Superplasticizer on self
Compactability of Fresh Concrete", Transportation Research Board, 76 th annual meeting,
Washington, D.C., 12-16 january, 1997.
[41] M. OUCHI, K. OZAWA and H. HOKAMURA: "Development of a Simple Self-
compactability Testing Method for Acceptance at Job Site", Cairo 1rst Conference on
Concrete Structures, Cairo University, January, 1996.
[42] K. OZAWA, N. SAKATA and H. OKAMURA: "Evaluation of Self Compactibility of
Fresh Concrete using the Funnel Test", Concrete Library of JSCE, n°25, june, 1995.
[43] K. OZAWA, K. MAEKAWA and H. OKAMURA: "Development of High Performance
Concrete", Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo Vol XLI, pp381-439,
1992.
[44] N. PASHIAS and D.V. BOGER: "A fifty cent rheometer for yield stress measurement",
Journal of Rheolology vol 40, issue 6, Nov/Dec, 1996.
[45] S. PERLO: "Validation du modèle de suspension solide pour les coulis à base de ciment et
d'addition minérale", Raport de stage de DEA, LCPC, juin, 1995.
[46] O. PETERSSON, P. BILLBERG and B. K. VAN: "A Model for Self-Compacting
Concrete", International Rilem Conference on "Production Methods and Workability of
Concrete", RILEM Proceedings 32, 1996.
[47] O. Petersson: Communication personnelle, 1998
[48] Ö Petersson, P Billberg, J Norberg, A Larsson, Effects of the second generation of
superplasticizers on concrete properties, Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute,
CBI report 2:95, Stockholm 1995
[49] T. C. POWERS: "The properties of Fresh Concrete", Edited by John Wiley & Sons,
664p, 1968.
[50] J. SAKAMOTO, Y. H. MATSUOKA, T. SHINDOH and S. TANGTERMSIRIKUL:
"Application of Super Workable Concrete to Actual Construction", Conference Concrete
2000, Dundee, 7-9 September, 1993.
70
Page 71 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
[51] W.R. SCHOWALTER and G. CHRISTENSEN: "Toward a rationalization of the slump

test for fresh concrte: comparisons of calculations and experiments", journal of rheology, 42
(4), pp865-870, july/august, 1998.
[52] T. SEDRAN: "Rheologie et rhéométrie des bétons. Application aux bétons autonivelants.
(Rheology and Rheometry of concrete. Application to SCC"), Doctoral Thesis of Ecole
Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, March 1999.
[53] T. SEDRAN et F. DE LARRARD: "René LCPC: un logiciel pour optimiser la granularité
des matériaux de génie civil", Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées
n°194, nov./décembre, 1994.
[54] T. SEDRAN and F. DE LARRARD: "René-LCPC: a Software to Optimize the Mix
Design of High Performance Concrete", BHP 96, fourth International Symposium on the
Utilization of High Strength/High Performance Concrete, vol.2, pp 169-178, Paris, 29-31may,
1996.
[55] T. SEDRAN et F. DE LARRARD: "René LCPC: un logiciel pour optimiser la granularité
des matériaux de génie civil", Journées des sciences de l'ingénieur, Presqu'île de Giens, France,
4-7 octobre, 1994.
[56] T. SEDRAN, F. DE LARRARD, F. HOURST and C. CONTAMINES: "Mix design of
Self-Compacting Concrete", RILEM International Conference on Production Methods and
Workability of Concrete, pp 439-451, Glasgow, Scotland, 3-5 june, 1996.
[57] M. SIDKY, C. LEGRAND et M. BARRIOULET: "Influence de la concentration en
granulats et du temps sur la ségrégation interne dans le béton frais", Matériaux et
Constructions, vol 15, n°85, pp 11-19, 1982.
[58] T. STOVALL, F. de LARRARD and M.BUIL: "Linear Packing Density Model of Grain
Mixtures", Powder Technology, vol 48, 1986.
[59] S. TANGTERMSIRIKUL and B.K. VAN: "Blocking criteria for Aggregate Phase of
Self-compacting High Performance Concrete", Proceedings of Regional Symposium on
Infrastructures Development in Civil Engineering, SC-4, pp 58-69, 19-20 December, 1995,
Bangkok, Thailand.
[60] Y. TANIGAWA and H. MORI: "Rheological Analysis of Slumping Behavior of Fresh
Concrete", Proceeding of the 29th Japan Congress on Materials Research Published by Soc. of
Mat. Science, Kyoto, pp 129-136, March, 1986.
[61] Y. TANIGAWA, H. MORI and K. WATANABE: "Computer simulation of consistency
and rheology test of fresh concrete by visco plastic finite element method.", Proceedings of the
RILEM Colloquium on "Properties of Fresh Concrete", pp301-308,Hanover, 3,5 october,
1990.
[62] Y. TANIGAWA, H. MORI and K. WATANABE: "Analytical Study of flow of Fresh
Concrete by Suspension Element Method", Proceedings of the RILEM Colloquium on
"Properties of Fresh Concrete", pp309-316,Hanover, 3,5 october, 1990.
[63] G. H. TATTERSALL: "Workability and Quality Control", E & F. SPON, 262 p, 1991.
[64] A. TRUDEL: "Mise au point d'un essai rapide de mesure de la résistance à la ségrégation
du béton frais", Rapport interne LCPC, septembre, 1995.
[65] H. UMEHARA, T. UEHARA, Y. ENOMOTO and S. OKA: "Development and Usage of
Lightweight High Performance Concrete", International Conference on High Performance
Concrete, ACI SP149 supplemantary papers pp 339-353, Singapore, 1994.
71
Page 72 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
[66] B. K. VAN, D.G. MONTGOMERY, I. HINCZAK and K. TURNER: "Rapid testing

Methods for Segregation Resistance and Filling Ability of Self Compacting Concrete",
International RILEM Worshop on "Self-Compacting Concrete", Kochi, Japan, 23-26 august,
1998.
[67] B. K. VAN: "A method for the optimum proportioning of the aggregate phase of highly
durable vibrations-free concrete", A Master thesis submitted to AIT, Bangkok 1994.
8. Acknowledgement
This report was written by LCPC and is a final report of the task 5 “Mix-design methods”.
This study is part of the Brite EuRam project “Rational production and improved working
environment through using self-compacting concrete” contract no. BRPR-CT96-0366. The
partners in the project are: NCC AB (Sweden, Co-ordinator), Betongindustri AB (Sweden),
Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute (Sweden), Luleå University of Technology
(Sweden), GTM Construction (France), LCPC (France), University of Paisley (Scotland),
SIKA S.A. (Spain) and N.V. Bekaert S.A. (Belgium).
72
Page 73 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
9. Annex 1
Properties of the constituents used for validation at SIKA
Viscocrete 2
Density (kg/l): 1.069
Dry extract (%): 23.3
Gravel 7/15
Density (kg/m3): 2602

Water absorption (%): 0.53
Diameter Passing %
5 mm 0
6.3 mm 1.3
8 mm 17.1
10 mm 65.7
12.5 mm 100
Experimental packing density with a compaction index of 9 and without confinement C=0.64
Gravel 3/7

Diameter Passing %
2.5 mm 0
3.15 mm .6
4 mm 5.4
5 mm 12.3
6.3 mm 59
8 mm 95.3
10 mm 100
Experimental packing density with a compaction index of 9 and without confinement C=0.663
73
Page 74 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Sand Arena 0.5

Diameter Passing %
63 µ 0
80 µ .7
100 µ 1.6
125 µ 2.6
160 µ 6.7
200 µ 10.4
250 µ 15
315 µ 19.8
400 µ 32.9
500 µ 41.9
630 µ 50.5
800 µ 65.4
1 mm 75.6
1.25 mm 82.3
1.6 mm 95.2
2 mm 98.1
2.5 mm 99.5
3.15 mm 99.6
4 mm 99.8
5 mm 99.9
6.3 mm 100
Experimental packing density with a compaction index of 9 and without confinement
Fraction C
63 µ / 315 µ 0.536
315 µ / 1.25 mm 0.6
1.25 mm / 6.3 mm 0.578
74
Page 75 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Cement SUPERDRAGON CEM I 52.5 R
Bogue composition
% C3S: 52.1
% C2S: 18.65
% C3A: 8.76
% C4AF: 10.31

Saturation amount (%): .47
Diameter Passing %
1µ 0
1.25 µ 5.1
1.6 µ 10.7
2µ 15.8
2.5 µ 20.9
3.15 µ 26.2
4µ 31.6
5µ 36.7
6.3 µ 42
8µ 47.5
10 µ 52.5
12.5 µ 57.6
16 µ 63.3
20 µ 68.4
25 µ 73.5
31.5 µ 78.7
40 µ 84.2
50 µ 89.3
63 µ 94.5
80 µ 100
Experimental packing density with a compaction index of 6.7 and without confinement
Dosage of Viscocrete 2 (weight of C

commercial product in % of cement weight
0 0.580
0.5 0.609
1 0.643
1.4 0.653
2 0.676
75
Page 76 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
10. Annex 2
Properties of the constituents used for validation at
Betongindustri
Glenium 51
Density (kg/l): 1.2
Dry extract (%): 35
Rikssten 8-16

Diameter Passing %
2 mm 0
2.5 mm 0.5
3.15 mm 1
4 mm 1.5
5 mm 1.9
6.3 mm 2.4
8 mm 2.9
10 mm 24.7
12.5 mm 59.5
16 mm 97.9
20 mm 100
Experimental packing density with a compaction index of 9. Diameter of the sample 150 mm,
height of the sample 226 mm: 0.65
76
Page 77 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Rikssten 0-8

Diameter Passing %
80 µ 0
100 µ 3
125 µ 3.1
160 µ 5.7
200 µ 8
250 µ 10.4
315 µ 15.6
400 µ 20.9
500 µ 25.9
630 µ 33.5
800 µ 41.4
1 mm 48.7
1.25 mm 55.2
1.6 mm 62.4
2 mm 68.9
2.5 mm 74
3.15 mm 79.2
4 mm 84.6
5 mm 88.8
6.3 mm 93.2
8 mm 97.7
10 mm 100
Fraction 80 µ / 500 µ 500 µ / 2 2 mm / 10 mm

mm
Packing density 0.63 0.62 0.65
Diameter of the sample (mm) 100 100 100
Height of the sample (mm) 151 154 146
Packing index 9 9 9
77
Page 78 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
CEM II/A-L 42,5 R: Byggcement Slite
Constituents
% Clinker (K): 88
% Calcareous filler (L): 12
Bogue composition
% C3S: 60
% C2S: 20
% C3A: 5
% C4AF: 10

Saturation amount of Sikament 10 (% of dry extract vs weight of cement): 0.168 %
Saturation amount of Glenium 51 (% of dry extract vs weight of cement): 0.21 %
With a saturation amount of Sikament 10: 0.55
Dosage of Glenium 51 (weight of dry C

extract in % of cement weight
0 0.489
0.063 0.519
0.147 0.536
0.21 0.552
78
Page 79 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
Diameter Passing %
0.02 µ 0
0.025 µ 0.5
0.032 µ 1
0.04 µ 1.5
0.05 µ 2
0.063 µ 2.5
0.08 µ 3
0.1 µ 3.5
0.125 µ 3.9
0.16 µ 4.5
0.2 µ 4.9
0.25 µ 5.4
0.315 µ 5.9
0.4 µ 6.4
0.5 µ 6.9
0.63 µ 7.4
0.8 µ 7.9
1µ 8.4
1.25 µ 11.2
1.6 µ 14.3
2µ 17.5
2.5 µ 21
3.15 µ 24.6
4µ 28.3
5µ 32.1
6.3 µ 36.6
8µ 42.4
10 µ 48.7
12.5 µ 55.7
16 µ 63.5
20 µ 70.9
25 µ 78.4
31.5 µ 85.2
40 µ 92.3
50 µ 96
63 µ 97.7
80 µ 98.1
100 µ 98.4
125 µ 98.8
160 µ 99.4
79
Page 80 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
200 µ 100
Calcareous filler Koping 500

Saturation amount of Sikament 10 (% of dry extract vs weight of filler): 0.035 %
With a saturation amount of Sikament 10: 0.66
Diameter Passing %
0.5 µ 0
0.63 µ 2.9
0.8 µ 5.9
1µ 8.7
1.25 µ 11.3
1.6 µ 14.1
2µ 16.8
2.5 µ 19.7
3.15 µ 22.7
4µ 25.8
5µ 28.6
6.3 µ 31.9
8µ 35.7
10 µ 39.6
12.5 µ 43.2
16 µ 47.2
20 µ 51.3
25 µ 55.9
31.5 µ 61.6
40 µ 67.4
50 µ 72.8
63 µ 78
80 µ 82.4
100 µ 86.5
125 µ 90.6
160 µ 92.6
200 µ 94.5
250 µ 95.7
315 µ 97
400 µ 98.4
80
Page 81 (81)
SCC
RT5_v2.doc
500 µ 99.6
630 µ 99.7
800 µ 99.9
1 mm 100
81

Sedran1 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Sedran1 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Page 1 (81)

FINAL REPORT OF TASK 5

Doc. No.: RT5_v2.doc

2. CBI mix-design method

Construction Criteria Void Content Blocking Criteria

Fig. 1 - Simplified process for mix design of SCC.

The different steps are the following:

Fig. 3 - Blocking volume ratio to clear spacing to fraction diameter of particle

Vai = Volume of aggregate group i

Minimum paste volume [litre/m³ concrete]

3. LCPC mix-design model

Fig. 5 - A simplified representation of a concrete

Fig. 6 - Boundary wall effect

In a pumping pipe with a diameter of D, the ratio is

3.2.2. Relation between Abrams cone and rheology

Thanks to a similar approach, Kurokawa et al [32] report the following equation:

Theoretical slump (mm)

3.2.2.2. The slump flow

Slump Flow (mm)

Slump Flow (mm)

3.2.2.3. Spreading time T500

3.2.3. Relation between mix design and rheology

Validation on mortars and concretes

Based on this form of equation, our data are fitted by:

Power law model

3.2.3.2. Yield stress

De Larrard et Ferraris suggest a function with the following form:

Validation on mortars and concrete

Name of the component Mean

Batch K'G K'g K'S K'c φ/φ*

0,5 0,614 0,225 4,205 2,712 0,9818

Table 2 and 3 summarize the values necessary for the calculations

Batch K'G K'g K'S K's K'c K'f φ/φ* Spc

333 1,202 0,729 1,938 0,328 3,029 0 0,9726 0,30

Theoretical shear yield stress (Pa)

1250 w ithout retarder

Theoretical slump flow (mm)

3.2.3.3. Effect of the confinement

G/S=0,75 1000 G/S=0,75

1250 h=4 cm h=4 cm

3.2.4. Relation between mix design and blocking

3.2.5. Relation between mix design and static segregation

Enfoncement maximal de la bille

Depth of sinking (mm)

3.3. PRACTICAL MIX DESIGN METHOD

3.3.1. Data to enter in SCCMix

3.3.1.2. Water absorption

3.3.1.3. Specific gravity

3.3.1.4. Saturation amount of superplasticizer for powders

In SCCMix the calculation of the rheological parameters of a concrete with superplasticizer is

Fig. 31 - Flow time versus dosage of superplasticizer. The saturation amount is Sp 1.

Note that the saturation amount of superplasticizer of a cement or a mineral addition is

3.3.1.5. Residual packing densities βi

3.3.1.6. Packing density

Fig. 33 - Water added with the plastic bottle

where M is the bulk specific gravity of the powder (in kg/m3).

Cement Calcareous Filler

Saturation amount (% in dry extract) :

Specific density (kg/m3) :

Saturation dosage of superplasticizer for 350g of powder in its commercial form :

Water contained in the superplasticizer :

1 including the water contained in the admixtures

3.3.1.7. Compaction index

Mix n° Density Calculated Kf AC Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical

Mix n° Density Calculated Kf AC Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical