See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274119788

Concrete Mix Design Methods, Verification Study

Conference Paper · December 1998

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3953.5200

READS

813

1 author:

Amr Ibrahim Ibrahim Helmy

The British University in Egypt, Alsherouk cit…
24 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Amr Ibrahim Ibrahim Helmy

Retrieved on: 31 July 2016
Concrete Mix Design Methods, Verification Study

By Amr Helmy

1. ABSTRACT

The paper compares the concrete mix design using four universal methods namely; the ACI

method, the British Standard method, the High-Strength Concrete method and the Specific Surface

Area method. It provides the basis and methodology of each method. A comprehensive computer

code was built to facilitate the design process. A designed concrete mix is presented using the four

different methods as an illustrative example. An experimental program was carried out to verify the

results of the illustrative example by casting 12 standard cylinders for each mix. The cylinders were

tested after 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 28 days to determine the rate of development of strength.

The results were presented and were critically discussed.

2. INTRODUCTION

Concrete mix design may be achieved either experimentally or using some well-known methods of

design. The mix design is the process by which the designer engineer selects the relative share of

the several suitable and available constituents of concrete. The target of the concrete mix design is

to produce a concrete with pre-defined minimum properties in both fresh and hardened states in the

most economic way. Although the properties of hardened concrete are defined by the designer

engineer, the properties of the fresh concrete depend on the available practical techniques and

equipment during production of concrete. Since the concrete should possess minimum specific

properties, the factors influence these properties will certainly affect the mix design method.

Traditional mixes were expressed in terms of cement content, the water/cement ratio and the

fine-to-coarse aggregate ratio. Although different mixes may have the same cement content, they

vary widely in strength depending on the type, shape, strength, surface texture and grading of the

1
aggregate. Introducing new factors leave no room to produce economic concrete. Therefore, the

specifications only laid down limiting values for the properties that form the basis in the mix design

such as minimum strength to fulfill the structural requirements, maximum cement content to avoid

cracking due to temperature and shrinkage, maximum water/cement ratio to provide sufficient

durability, and minimum density is required to achieve impermeable and dense concrete.

The ingredients, used to produce concrete, have a wide range of variation in their properties

and can not be precisely defined. Thus, concrete mix design is an intelligent guess about the

optimum share of the constituents in the concrete mix. This guess depends on the well-known

relations between the ingredients' properties and those of the required concrete in both the fresh

and the hardened states. Figure 1[1] represents the factors that influence the mix proportions and

the ideal sequence of the decision making to achieve these proportions. Trial mixes, in either the

laboratory or the site, are necessary to check and then to adjust the ingredients shares in the mix.

Therefore, concrete mix design needs theoretical and experimental knowledge of the concrete

properties.

3. OBJECTIVE

Many concrete mix design methods are being used in many parts of the world. The report provides

a critical comparison among four universally applicable methods; namely, the ACI method[2,3], the

British Standard (BS) method[5,6,7], the Specific Surface Area (SSA) method[10,11] and the High-

Strength (HS) method[1,9]. It includes the theoretical basis and the methodology used in the

concrete mix design process of each method. A comprehensive computer code capable of carrying

out the design process using any method of the four design methods was built to facilitate the mix

design process. An illustrative example was carried out for a concrete mix designed according to

each one of the four methods using the same raw material. A critical comparison between the

results of the four methods is presented. An experimental verification program was carried out in

the laboratory by casting 12 standard cylinders for each method. The compressive strengths of the

2
standard cylinders were checked at 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 28 days to track the development of

strength of the four mixes.

4. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (ACI) MIX DESIGN METHOD

Figure 2 summarizes the steps of the design using the American Concrete Institute mix design

method[1,2,3,4]. The method adopts few assumptions as follows;

1. The mix consistency, expressed in either the slump test, VeBe test or the compacting factor,

depends solely on the water content regardless of the mix proportions.

2. The optimum ratio of the bulk volume of coarse aggregate per unit volume of concrete depends

solely on the nominal maximum size of the coarse aggregate and the fine aggregate grading.

3. The characteristic strength of the concrete mix may be defined using the available degree of

control during the production of concrete, the standard deviation and the percentage of defects.

4. The method does not differentiate between different types of hydraulic cements or different

types of aggregates.

5. BRITISH STANDARD (BS) MIX DESIGN METHOD

Figure 3 illustrates the steps of the design using the British Standard mix design method[5,6]. The

method adopts few assumptions as follows;

1. The method is applicable to Ordinary Portland cement (type I), Rapid-Hardening Portland

cement (type II) and Sulphate Resisting Portland cement (type V).

2. The method differentiates between crushed and uncrushed aggregate since the difference in the

behaviour is quite significant. It ignores the grading of the coarse aggregate providing that it

satisfies the BS 882-1973. However, it considers the grading of the fine aggregate as it will

affect the degree of workability of the concrete mix.

3. The water content in the concrete mix is affected solely by the required degree of workability,

expressed in either the slump test or VeBe test, for a particular nominal maximum size of the

3
 particular type of coarse aggregate, regardless of the mix proportions.

4. The optimum ratio of the bulk volume of coarse aggregate per unit volume of concrete depends

on the nominal maximum size of the coarse aggregate and the grading of the fine aggregate.

5. The characteristic strength of the concrete mix may be defined using the available degree of

control during the production of concrete, the coefficient of variation and the percentage of

defects.

6. The method adopts a hypothetical concrete mix with moderate cement content with w/c ratio of

0.5, well compacted, properly cured, cast with different types of cement and coarse aggregate

and tested at different ages. The optimum water/cement ratio may be defined using this

hypothetical concrete mix and the characteristic strength of the concrete mix.

6. SPECIFIC SURFACE AREA (SSA) MIX DESIGN METHOD

The Specific Surface Area method[10] is referred to as Ain-Shams University mix design method[11].

Figure 4 shows the steps of the design using the Specific Surface Area mix design method. The

method adopts few assumptions as follows;

1. The compressive strength of the concrete mix depends on the specific surface area of the

combined aggregate for a given cement content and degree of workability. The range at which

the optimum compressive strength is achieved ranges between 22-26 cm2/gm, the higher the

cement in the mix, the lower the optimum specific surface area.

2. The water content is directly related to the specific surface area of the combined aggregate for a

given cement content and degree of workability.

3. Although the experimental basis of the method was carried out using ordinary portland cement,

it assumes that the relation in not sensitive to the type of cement.

4. The method is applicable to any type of coarse and fine aggregates providing that the shape

factor can be easily calculated as the ratio between the percentage of voids in loose and fully

compacted aggregate.

4
5. The degree of workability was defined in loose terms such as low, medium and high workability

and was not related to any of the standard tests.

7. HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE (HSC) MIX DESIGN METHOD

Figure 5 shows the steps of the design using the High-Strength Concrete mix design method[9]. The

method adopts few assumptions as follows;

1. The method uses irregular gravel or crushed granite with two nominal maximum sizes and

natural sand at a fixed mixing ratio of 30% sand in the combined aggregate. It assumes that

choosing suitable mix proportions and aggregate with high ceiling of strength will achieve high

strength concrete.

2. The required mix is defined with a reference number that is defined using the characteristic

strength, the cement type, the type of coarse aggregate and the age of the concrete at which

the strength is required.

3. The water/cement ratio depends on the characteristic strength of the mix, the cement type, the

aggregate type and the required degree of workability that is well defined using either the slump

cone test or the compacting factor.

4. The aggregate-to-cement ratio depends on the same factors as the water/cement ratio and the

nominal maximum size of the aggregate and the water/cement ratio. Although aggregate-to-

cement ratio is of secondary influence on the concrete strength, it was noted that the leaner the

concrete mix the higher the strength.

5. Similar to the BS mix design method, the characteristic strength of the concrete mix may be

defined using the degree of control available during the production of concrete, the coefficient of

variation and the percentage of defects.

8. CRITICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CONCRETE MIX DESIGN

METHODS

5
1. The concrete strength, in the mix design methods, referred to the standard cube compressive

strength except for the ACI method, it referred to the standard cylinder compressive strength. It

was expressed in either [MPa] or [psi] for all mix design methods except in the SSA, it was

expressed in old metric units kg/cm2.

2. The ACI method was the only method that specifies the percentage of air entrapped voids

during mixing. It was also the only method that introduced the durability requirements for the

percentage of air entrained agents. This would affect the wet density of the fresh concrete.

3. All methods, except the SSA method, utilized the same assumption by relating the free water

content in the concrete mix to the nominal maximum size of the coarse aggregate. The ACI

method expressed the water content for the plastic mix, then the water content in other mixes

with different degrees of workability was calculated as a percentage of this mix. Both the BS

and the HSC methods expressed the water content directly for the different degrees of

workability.

4. All methods, except the SSA method, used the principle of characteristic strength rather than the

mean strength. The ACI method used the standard deviation whether in the site or the

laboratory, the degree of control and the expected percentage of defects. The BS and the HSC

method defined the characteristic strength using the coefficient of variation and the minimum

strength as a percentage of the mean strength.

5. The BS method differentiated between crushed and uncrushed aggregate since the difference in

behaviour and properties of each type is quite significant. On the other hand, the ACI method

assumed that the aggregate is well shaped angular particles. The SSA method assumed that

the specific surface area principle is applicable to any type of aggregate providing that the shape

factor is calculated properly. The HSC had limited, by definition, the types of aggregate to

crushed gravel and crushed granite that possess high ceiling of strength.

6. All methods, except the HSC method, acknowledged the effect of fine aggregate on the mix

proportions. The BS method accounted for the effect of the fine aggregate in defining the fine-

6
 to-total aggregate content in the mix through the compliance of the aggregate grading with the

grading zones. The ACI method introduced the fineness modulus of the fine aggregate in

determining the bulk volume of the coarse aggregate. In the SSA method, the fine-to-coarse

aggregate ratio was determined based on the specific surface area of each aggregate and the

required surface area for the combined aggregate. The HSC method assumed that the fine

aggregate is always natural sand at a fixed mixing ratio of 30% sand in the total aggregate.

7. The BS method estimated the wet density of fresh fully compacted concrete depending on the

specific gravity of the aggregate. All other methods adopted the use of the absolute volume

theory in their calculations.

8. Although the HSC is applicable to high strength concrete, a quick comparison between the

compressive strength in the HSC method and the corresponding strength in the BS method

revealed that the later method possess higher strength than the former. The SSA method is

applicable to normal strength concrete with an upper strength ceiling of no more than 42 MPa.

9. The degree of workability of the concrete mix was well defined in all methods, except the SSA

method, either by slump test or VeBe test or the compacting factor, while it was expressed in

loose terms in the SSA method.

9. PROGRAM CONMIX

A comprehensive computer program, coded in BASIC language, was developed to calculate the

concrete mix design using all four previously mentioned mix design methods. It facilitates the

mathematical computations of the design steps. Figure 6 represents an over-all flow chart for the

sequential procedures of the program. The program is an interactive, user-friendly and easy-to-use.

Sometimes, a concrete mix design may not be achieved due to requirements that can not be met

due to inexperienced user. The program may identify and report the problem to the user allowing

the user to re-input the corrected data. However, for tiny problems that may arise during the design,

the program can overcome them by slightly changing the design requirements and reporting that to

7
the user.

The design methods gave the weight of the dry aggregate. Yet, as a rule, the aggregate is

wet. Program CONMIX accounts for the moisture content in the aggregate and modifies the design

to give the final, and not dry, weight of the aggregate. The design methods gave the effective water

in the mix. Only the water in excess of that required to bring the aggregate to a saturated surface

dry condition is considered to be the effective water in the mix. Program COMMIX accounts for this

fact and modifies the water content to account for the difference between the aggregate moisture

content and the percentage of absorption of the aggregate.

10. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE

A concrete mix with fixed properties was designed four different times, each design was carried out

using one of the previously mentioned mix design methods. Table 1 represents the concrete mix

properties and the concrete input data while Table 2 represents the proportions of the designed

concrete mixes with quantities sufficient to cast 1 m3. The target 28-day compressive strength was

set at 40 MPa, using ordinary portland cement, crushed limestone with 20 mm as maximum

aggregate size, concrete sand, and low workability (slump 10-30 mm).

11. CRITICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN CONCRETE MIXES

The results, presented in Table 2, may lead to the following remarks;

1. The ACI mix design method produced a mix with fine aggregate-to-cement ratio of 1:1. It may

be regarded as coarse aggregate bonded together with rich mortar. The design proportions had

led to the minimum water/cement ratio thus confirming to the stiff mix requirements. Since, the

mix design method accounted for the air entrapped voids, it had led to the lowest wet density.

Yet, it was still within acceptable limits.

2. The BS mix design method produced a mix with the lowest cement content. This implies that it

would be the most economic mix. Yet, the method resulted in the highest water content. Thus it

is expected to produce the highest workability. The method resulted in the highest density

8
 suggesting that it will possess sufficient strength and durability.

3. The SSA mix design method produced a mix with moderate proportions and was pretty much

similar to the BS mix. Yet, it was the easiest mix design method since it needs very limited

computational efforts. The method produced the highest coarse aggregate content due to the

specific surface area requirements of the combined aggregate.

4. The HSC mix design method resulted in a mix that is pretty much similar to the ACI mix. Yet, it

is the richest mix implying that it is an uneconomic design. Special care should be taken to

reduce the effect of shrinkage due to the high cement content. As was expected, the mix

produced the highest wet density suggesting higher strength.

12. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION PROGRAM

An experimental verification program, shown in Figure 7, was developed to check the properties of

the fresh and hardened concrete mixes designed previously. Twelve standard cylinders (φ=150

mm) were cast for each designed concrete mix with a total of 48 standard cylinders. The main

objectives were to track the development of strength for each concrete mix, to check that the target

strength will be achieved after 28 days for each mix, to choose the most economic design among

the four concrete mixes and to check the slump requirements for fresh concrete.

All concrete mix design methods defined the compressive strength as the strength of the

standard cube, except the ACI method that defined it as the compressive strength of the standard

cylinder. The strength of the standard cylinder, as a rule, is less than the strength of the standard

cube at any given age. Thus, if the concrete mix satisfied the strength requirement when using the

standard cylinder, it would satisfy the requirement if the standard cube is used. In addition,

standard cube molds were not available in the concrete laboratory when the experimental program

was carried out.

The concrete mixes were batch by weight and were mixed using a flat pan mixer. No

additives or admixtures were added to any of the mixes. All concrete mixes were cast on the same

9
day and using the same mixer. The slump test was checked and recorded for each fresh concrete

mix. The concrete were cast in reusable plastic molds. The cylinders were compacted using

mechanical vibrator (shaking table). All cylinders were capped with plastic lids to ensure round top

edge. All cylinders were covered with wet burlap and a plastic sheet in the first 24 hours. The

cylinders were stripped out of the plastic molds and cured in the moist room at 23°C at 100%

relative humidity until testing. Just before testing the top surface of each cylinder was sawed on the

sawing machine to get as smooth surface as possible. Both ends of the cylinder were capped with

black capping compound. The cylinders were not allowed to dry before the compression test was

carried out. The compression test was carried out at 24 hours, 3 days, 7 days and 28 days using

three standard cylinders for each age. Table 3 represents the results of the slump test on the fresh

concrete and the compressive strength on the hardened concrete.

13. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. As can be seen from Table 3, the slump test on the fresh concrete during the experimental work

gave slump values agreeing with the pre-defined range of slump for all concrete mixes. As was

expected, the BS mix design method gave the best workability among all concrete mixes and

consequently gave the highest slump value (30 mm). Contrary to what was expected, the HSC

mix design method produced the stiffest mix among all mixes that required a lot of effort in

placing and compacting.

2. Figure 8 represents the average concrete compressive strength of the standard cylinders for the

four concrete mixes. As can be seen from Figure 8, all mix design methods had resulted in

higher 28-day compressive strength than the target strength. This was expected since the

mean strength of the concrete mix should be higher than the minimum strength. The standard

cylinder compressive strength was “assumed” at 85% of the standard cube compressive

strength at 28 days although the conversion factor should not be taken as a constant along the

whole range of strength. Thus, all mix design methods, except the SSA method, had reached

10
 the target strength at 7 days rather than at 28 days.

3. Vigorous quality control that was easily achieved in a confined environment such as the

laboratory was much higher than what was defined in the input data. If it were well defined, it

may have led to lesser characteristic strength. Compaction using the mechanical vibrator may

lead to higher strength by over consolidating the concrete. Curing is vital for high strength

concrete with higher cement content such as the designed mixes especially during early ages.

Optimum curing in the moist room until the date of testing had led to higher strength.

4. As was expected, the ACI and the BS mix design methods was the most reliable mix design

methods. They did not produce a concrete with the highest strength. Yet, they delivered the

required strength. The BS method is more economic than the ACI method since it uses less

cement content. Besides, it had a higher degree of workability.

5. The HSC mix design method resulted in the highest strength. The concrete mix was

uneconomic due to the highest cement content in the mix. High cement content may lead to

higher shrinkage cracks if not properly cured.

6. The SSA method had delivered what was promised at 28 days, although it uses an old

fashioned principle. It is believed that this strength may be its upper ceiling of strength. It is an

economic mix with adequate degree of workability. Although the method had a slightly higher

cement content than the BS method, it was trailing behind at all ages suggesting its sensitivity to

the aggregate properties.

14. CONCLUSION

The concrete mix design is an art and is not an automatic procedure. It requires a lot of experience

knowledge about the ingredients and the methods of mixing, placing, compaction, curing, ...etc. As

a rule, the concrete properties depend on the properties of its ingredients. The more information the

designer engineer knows about the ingredients and their properties, the more accurate the concrete

mix “design” would be. The report leads to the following conclusions:

11
1. All the concrete mix design methods seemed to be just an intelligent guess about the relative

share of the concrete constituents in the mix. This may be due to the variation in the

interpretation of the ingredients’ properties among the methods, especially the aggregate and

the different assumptions implied in each mix design method. Thus, it was expected that the

design reached by each method would differ from the others.

2. Concrete mix design is not a theoretical process and can not be 100% automated. A

comprehensive computer code “CONMIX” was built to carry out the design by means of four

different methods. It may be used to facilitate the mathematical computations that is required in

the design process. The computer code may help in the design process by trying different

scenarios and speeding up the calculations. However, the engineering sense and experience

were essential in understanding the design.

3. It was obvious from “CONMIX” results that each mix design method gave concrete properties

substantially different from the other methods. Yet, the target strength, the required workability

and all the concrete main input properties were kept constant. This may be due to the different

assumptions implied in each mix design method.

4. The experimental results of the fresh concrete, for all the mix design methods, were in excellent

agreement with the required workability. This may be due to the well-defined degree of

workability in “most” methods.

5. All the four mixes had led to a higher 28-days strength than what was expected. The mean

strength of the concrete mix should be higher than the minimum strength. In addition, this may

be due to the vigorous quality control, good compacting and optimum curing that was easily

achieved in a laboratory environment and on the small batches used for each mix.

6. The results from this small verification study can not be generalized unless a comprehensive

experimental program is carried out to check different strength requirements at different degrees

of workability. The designer engineer is advised to exercise good care when using any of the

mix design methods and to use their results only after checking them with trial mixes. Trial

12
 mixes and successive adjustment to the concrete mix were essential in any concrete mix design.

They are the only accurate and available way to achieve the desired concrete mix although it

seems to be a non-scientific design.

7. The durability requirements were ignored in all methods except in the ACI method that specified

a certain percentage of air entrained voids for air-entrained concrete. The report had dealt with

the concrete mix design from the point of view that concrete with adequate strength would be

durable enough under normal conditions of exposure. Durability is vital in hardened concrete

subjected to any of the common deterioration problems. It is advised to develop an expert

system based on the recommendations of the ACI Guide to Durable Concrete to help the

designer engineer speed up the design process based on durability and strength requirements.

15. REFERENCES

1. Neville, A.M., “Properties of Concrete”, The English Language Book Society, London , 3rd

Edition, 1983

2. ACI Committee 211, “Recommended Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal and

Heavyweight Concrete”, ACI 211.1-77, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, v 66, No. 8,

1969, pp. 612-629, v 70, No. 4, 1973, pp. 253-255, v 71, No. 11, 1974, pp. 577-578, v 74, No. 2,

1977, pp. 59-60.

3. ACI Committee 211, “Recommended Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal and

Heavyweight Concrete”, ACI 211.3-75, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, v 71, No. 4,

1969, pp. 153-170.

4. ACI Committee 214, “Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Strength Test Results of

Concrete”, ACI 214-77, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, v 73, No. 5, 1976, pp. 265-

278.

5. Road Research, “Design of Concrete Mixes”, D.S.I.R. Road Note No. 4, London, H.M.S.O. ,

(1950).

13
6. Teychennw, D.C. , Franklin, R.E., and Erntroy, H., “Design of Normal Concrete Mixes”,

Department of Environment, London, H.M.S.O. , (1975).

7. BS 5328 - 1976, “Concrete Mix Proportions”.

8. BS 882 - 1973, “Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete”.

9. Erntroy, H. and Shacklock, B.W., “Design of High-Strength Concrete Mixes”, Proceeding of

Symposium on Mix Design and Quality Control of Concrete, London, Cement and Concrete

Association, May 1954, pp. 55-65.

10. Kamel, I.A., “Design of Mixes for High Quality Concrete”, M.Sc. Thesis, Structural Engineering

Department, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, 1964, *** pp.

11. Atta, A. and Al-Arian, A., “Concrete Technology”, Allam Al Kutub, Cairo, 3rd Edition, 1976.

16. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to express his sincere thanks to Prof. R.D. Hooton, the Department of Civil

Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, for his fruitful suggestions and

cooperation throughout the course of the this study.

14
Table 1 Concrete Input Data.

a- General data:
The 28-day compressive strength fc’ = 40 MPa
The type of cement Ordinary portland cement
The degree of quality control Good / Fair
Percentage of Defects 10%
Degree of workability Low or
Slump test [10-30] mm
Type of coarse aggregate Crushed limestone
Nominal maximum size 20mm
Type of fine aggregate Concrete sand
Fineness modulus 2.55

b- Grading of aggregate: (Percentage of Pass)

Sieve size (mm) 40 20 13 10 5 2.5 1.25 .630 .315 .160
Coarse aggregate (%) 100 90 42 21.5 11.7 0 0 0 0 0
Fine aggregate (%) 100 100 100 100 96 85 70.4 50 22.5 8.3

c- Physical properties of aggregate:

Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate
Relative density 2.66 2.67
Bulk density (kg/m3) 1640 1850
Percentage of moisture content (%) 1.3 1.8
Percentage of natural absorption (%) 1.6 1.42
Shape factor 1.4 1.4
Specific surface area (cm2/gm) 2.98 69.2

15
Table 2 The Concrete Mix Proportions for 1 Cubic Metre of Concrete in kg/m3.

Mix Slump Concrete Proportions Wet

Design Cement Fine Coarse Water Air Density
Method mm Agg. Agg. Voids γ wet
ACI 0-30 483 526 1226 178 2% 2413
1 1.09 2.54 0.36
BS 10-30 410 607 1213 189 -- 2419
1 1.48 2.96 0.46
SSA Low 427 579 1246 180 -- 2432
1 1.35 2.92 0.42
HSC V. Low 493 532 1228 192 -- 2445
0-25 1 1.08 2.49 0.39

16
Table 3 The Experimental Results of Fresh and Hardened Concrete.

Mix Design Slump Compressive Strength in [MPa]

Method mm 24 hours 3 days 7 days 28 days
16.89 22.5 40.6 54.4
ACI 10 17.83 27.8 42.8 56.2
19.58 31.0 44.7 59.4
12.76 19.30 31.2 44.4
BS 30 14.20 20.7 33.1 45.4
15.62 22.4 35.7 47.3
10.58 17.51 29.9 41.8
SSA 20 11.80 18.39 31.3 42.4
12.42 18.99 32.5 44.5
16.92 21.2 37.3 49.6
HSC <10 17.54 24.8 39.2 52.2
18.14 25.9 41.5 55.2

17
 Method of Size of Section or Spacing
Type of Structure
Compaction of Reinforcement

Quality Minimum Required Maximum Size Aggregate

Control Strength Workability of Aggregate Shape and
Texture

Mean Type of Age of

Durability
Strength Cement Concrete

Water/Cement Ratio

Aggregate/Cement Aggregate
Ratio Grading

Proportions of each Fraction

Capacity of the Mixer Mix Proportions

Weights of Ingredients per

Batch

Figure 1 Basic Factors in the Process of Concrete Mix Design [1]

18
 Start

Input Concrete Data

Compressive Strength fc’ at 28 days
Degree of Control
Percentage of Defects
Degree of workability
Type of Concrete (Air entrained Concrete
or non-air entrained + Degree of exposure)

Input Aggregate Data

Bulk Density
Specific Gravity
Fineness Modulus
Nominal Maximum Size

Estimate
The Standard Deviation
The Coefficient k
The Characteristic Strength
The Water Content
The Water/Cement Ratio
The Percentage of Voids
The Bulk Volume of Coarse Aggregate
Moisture Data of Coarse Aggregate
Moisture Data of Fine Aggregate

Calculate
The Cement Content
The Bulk Volume of Fine Aggregate

Correction
(due to moisture content in aggregate)
The Corrected Coarse Aggregate Content
The Corrected Fine Aggregate Content
The Corrected Water Content

Print
The Concrete Mix Design Proportions

End

Figure 2 A Flow Chart for the American Concrete Institute Mix Design Method

19
 Start

Input Concrete Data

Compressive Strength fc’
Age of Concrete
Degree of Control
Percentage of Defects
Degree of workability

Input Aggregate Data

Type of Coarse Aggregate
Bulk Density
Specific Gravity
Grading Zone
Nominal Maximum Size
Moisture Data of Coarse Aggregate
Moisture Data of Fine Aggregate

Estimate
The Coefficient of Variation
The Coefficient k
The Characteristic Strength
The Water Content
The Water/Cement Ratio
The Wet Density of Concrete
The Percentage of Fine Aggregate

Calculate
The Cement Content
The Fine Aggregate Content
The Coarse Aggregate Content

Correction
(due to moisture content in aggregate)
The Corrected Coarse Aggregate Content
The Corrected Fine Aggregate Content
The Corrected Water Content

Print
The Concrete Mix Design Proportions

End

Figure 3 A Flow Chart for the British Standard Mix Design Method

20
 Start

Input Concrete Data

Compressive Strength fc at 28 days
or The Cement Content
Degree of workability

Input Coarse Aggregate Data

Grading of Coarse Aggregate
Specific Gravity of Coarse Aggregate
Bulk Density of Coarse Aggregate
Nominal Maximum Size
Original Sieve Size
Shape Factor of Coarse Aggregate
Moisture Data of Coarse Aggregate

Input Fine Aggregate Data

Grading of Fine Aggregate
Specific Gravity of Fine Aggregate
Bulk Density of Fine Aggregate
Original Sieve Size
Shape Factor of Fine Aggregate
Moisture Data of Fine Aggregate

Estimate
The Minimum Cement Content
or The Maximum Compressive Strength
The Optimum Specific Surface Area
The Water Content

Calculate
The SSA of Coarse Aggregate
The SSA of Fine Aggregate
The Percentage of Fine/Total Aggregate
The Percentage of Coarse/Total Aggregate
The Fine Aggregate Content
The Coarse Aggregate Content

Correction
(due to moisture content in aggregate)
The Corrected Coarse Aggregate Content
The Corrected Fine Aggregate Content
The Corrected Water Content

Print
The Concrete Mix Design Proportions

End

Figure 4 A Flow Chart for the Specific Surface Area Mix Design Method

21
 Start

Input Concrete Data

Compressive Strength fc’
Age of Concrete
Degree of Control
Percentage of Defects
Degree of workability

Input Aggregate Data

Type of Coarse Aggregate
Bulk Density
Specific Gravity
Nominal Maximum Size
Moisture Data of Coarse Aggregate
Moisture Data of Fine Aggregate

Estimate
The Coefficient of Variation
The Coefficient k
The Characteristic Strength
The Concrete Reference Number
The Water/Cement Ratio
The Aggregate/Cement Ratio

Calculate
The Cement Content
The Combined Aggregate Content
The Fine Aggregate Content
The Coarse Aggregate Content

Correction
(due to moisture content in aggregate)
The Corrected Coarse Aggregate Content
The Corrected Fine Aggregate Content
The Corrected Water Content

Print
The Concrete Mix Design Proportions

End

Figure 5 A Flow Chart for the High Strength Concrete Mix Design Method

22
 Start

Print: Main Menu

1- The ACI Mix Design Method
2- The BS Mix Design Method
3- The SSA Mix Design Method
4- The HSC Mix Design Method

Input: Your Choice

ACI BS SSA HSC

Identify NO Design Ends

the Error Successfully

Yes

Print
The Concrete Mix Proportions

Go to
The Main Menu

Figure 6 A Flow Chart for Program CONMIX

23
 Experimental Program

Concrete Mix
ACI BS SSA HSC
Design Method

Fresh
Slump Test
Concrete

Hardened
Compression Test
Concrete

Age and 24 hours 3 days 7 days 28 days

No. of Cylinders 3 3 3 3

Total Number of 12 12 12 12
Cylinders per Mix. Cylinders Cylinders Cylinders Cylinders

Figure 7 The Experimental Verification Program

24
 60

American Concrete Institute Mix Design Method

British Standard Mix Design Method

Average Compressive Strength of Standard Cylinder [MPa]

50 Specific Surface Area Mix Design Method

High-Strength Concrete Mix Design Method

40

30

20

10

0
24 hours 3 days 7 days 28 days
Age of Concrete
Figure 8 Mean Compressive Strength of Standard Cylinders

25