Shear Behavior of SCC Beams with Different

Coarse-to-Fine Aggregate Ratios and

Coarse Aggregate Types
Assem A. A. Hassan, Ph.D. 1; Mohamed K. Ismail 2; and Justin Mayo 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 04/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The effect of mixture composition and coarse aggregate density on the shear strength and cracking behavior of self-consolidating
concrete (SCC) beams are presented in this study. The experimental test parameters included coarse/fine (C=F) aggregate ratio (ranging from
0.7 to 1.2), coarse aggregate size (10 and 20 mm), coarse aggregate type/density (slag, expanded slate, and crushed stone), and varying
compressive strengths (26–72 MPa). The density of the tested mixtures varied from 1,848 to 2,286 kg=m3 . The study investigates the fresh
properties of all tested mixtures and the shear strength and cracking behavior of 16 full-scale concrete beams. Based on some selected design
codes, the ultimate shear strength of the tested beams is also predicted. The results showed that SCC mixtures with a higher C=F ratio or
bigger normal-weight aggregate had better flowability and less high range water reducer admixtures (HRWRA) demand. Although all tested
beams showed comparable normalized shear strength, beams with a high C=F ratio or bigger normal-weight aggregate had higher post-
diagonal cracking resistance. The results also showed that the expanded slate and slag lightweight aggregates were found to be relatively
strong (compared to most common lightweight aggregates) as they did not entirely break along the diagonal crack. Increasing the volume of
these lightweight aggregates in SCC mixtures not only reduced the mixture density but also enhanced the postdiagonal cracking resistance.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001276. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction investigation showed that increasing MK up to 25% of cement in-

Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is a type of concrete that can
spread and fill the formwork under its own weight without applying
any type of compaction or mechanical vibration and without seg-
regation or bleeding problems. It also has enough flowability and
filling ability to fix the problem of concrete flowing through con-
gested reinforcements (Lachemi et al. 2003). SCC mixtures can be
developed by (1) incorporating one or more supplementary cemen-
titious materials (SCM) such as fly ash, ground granulated blast
furnace slag, metakaolin (MK), and/or silica fume (Sonebi 2004;
Lachemi et al. 2003); (2) adding viscosity modifying admixtures
(Lachemi et al. 2003; Khayat et al. 2001) or high range water
reducer admixtures (HRWRA) (Khayat 2000; Safiuddin et al.
2012; Rao et al. 2012); and (3) decreasing the content of coarse
aggregate in the mixture (Khayat et al. 1997; Lachemi et al. 2005).
Recent studies have begun to show that the use of MK in
developing SCC greatly enhances the mixtures’ viscosity, which
is effective against coarse aggregate segregation (Cyr and Mouret
2003; Justice and Kurtis 2007). Hassan et al. (2010) studied the
effect of various percentages of MK and silica fume as a partial
cement replacement on the rheological properties of SCC. Their
1 upward toward the concrete surface during vibrations, and thus seg-
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science,
Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada
A1B 3X5 (corresponding author). E-mail: ahassan@mun.ca
2
Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant, Faculty of Engineering
and Applied Science, Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland, St. John’s,
Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X5. E-mail: mohamed.ismail@mun.ca
3
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial Univ. of
Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X5. E-mail:
Jmayo@mun.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 24, 2014; approved on
January 14, 2015; published online on March 6, 2015. Discussion period
open until August 6, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/04015022(11)/$25.00.
creased the 28-day compressive strength up to 22% and improved
the plastic viscosity more than twice the value of the control mix-
ture. Madandoust and Mousavi (2012) observed in their investiga-
tion that adding MK significantly enhanced the stability of SCC
mixtures; however, making highly flowable concrete cannot be
practically achieved without adding large amounts of HRWRA.
Rahmat et al. also found that the addition of MK enhanced the com-
pressive strength, tensile strength, and electrical resistivity of SCC
mixtures by 27, 11.1, and 26%, respectively, compared to control
mixtures without MK.
Lightweight concrete (LWC) is frequently used in different
structural applications to reduce the self-weight of concrete struc-
tures, which represents a large portion of total load, and thus min-
imizes the cross sections of structural elements. Optimized design
means less concrete volume and less reinforcement, and therefore
a lower cost [National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
(NRMCA) 2003]. The manufacturing of LWC mainly depends
on replacing the normal-weight coarse aggregate, which generally
occupies a large proportion of the total weight, by a lightweight
aggregate. The low density of lightweight aggregate compared
to the density of mortar matrix makes the aggregates tend to move
regation may take place (Chia and Zhang 2004). However, the in-
creased viscosity helps to improve the aggregates’ suspension in the
mixture, preventing coarse aggregate segregation and keeping the
mixture homogenous (Fujiwara et al. 1996).
Lightweight self-consolidating concrete (LWSCC) merges the
favorable properties of SCC and LWC. The first application of
LWSCC occurred in Japan in 1922 with the construction of a cable-
stayed bridge’s main girder (Okamura 2003). In the past few years,
LWSCC has been used in a number of structural applications, such
as precast stadium benches (Hubertova and Hela 2007), prestressed
beams with spans reaching up to 20 m (Dymond 2007), and com-
posite slabs (Mechtcherine et al. 2010). Kwasny et al. (2012)

© ASCE 04015022-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015022

 Table 1. Chemical and Physical Properties of All SCMs Used strength of 16 full-scale concrete beams without shear reinforce-
Chemical properties (%) Cement Metakaolin Fly ash ment made with normal-weight SCC and LWSCC mixtures. The
test parameters include coarse aggregate volume, size, type/density,
SiO2 19.64 51–53 52
as well as concrete strength. The performance of code-based design
Al2 O3 5.48 42–44 23
Fe2 O3 2.38 <2.2 11
equations in predicting the shear resistance of SCC beams is also
FeO — — — presented.
TiO2 — <3.0 —
C — — —
P2 O 5 — <0.2 — Research Objectives and Significance
SO4 — <0.5 —
CaO 62.44 <0.2 5 There are concerns among designers/engineers that SCC may not
MgO 2.48 <0.1 —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 04/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

be strong enough in resisting shear because of the reduced aggre-

Na2 O — <0.1 — gate interlock (as a result of using smaller size and/or less volume
C3 S 52.34 — —
of coarse aggregate) in SCC compared to NC. The aggregate inter-
C2 S 16.83 — —
C3 A 10.50 — —
lock is even more significant in high-strength SCC and in LWSCC
C4 AF 7.24 — — as the cracks are more likely to penetrate the coarse aggregate and
MnO — — — lead to smooth fractured surfaces and subsequent development of a
K2 O — <0.4 — weak aggregate interlock mechanism. Currently, very little infor-
Loss on ignition 2.05 <0.5 — mation is available about the effect of lightweight aggregates on
Blaine fineness (m2 =kg) 410 19,000 420 the shear behavior of SCC beams, especially when lightweight slag
Specific gravity 3.15 2.56 2.26–2.38 and/or expanded slate were used. This investigation aims to evalu-
ate the effect of cementitious materials, type of coarse aggregate,
and coarse-to-fine aggregate ratio on shear strength and cracking
succeeded to develop semi-lightweight self-consolidating concrete behavior of full-scale SCC beams. In particular, the paper develops
mixtures with a density ranging from 2,025 to 2,125 kg=m3 and SCC mixtures containing lightweight slag and expanded slate
slump flow varying from 700 to 800 mm. Two types of lightweight coarse aggregate, and also discusses the effect of MK in improving
aggregate (sintered pulverized fuel ash and expanded clay) were the compressive strength and enhancing the mixture viscosity. The
used as a coarse aggregate. Their results indicated that mixture con- recommendations of this paper can be of special interest to design-
taining 29% of lightweight coarse aggregate and 71% of sand (by ers considering the use of SCC in structural applications.
mass) achieved 1-day and 28-day compressive strengths above
20 and 40 MPa, respectively.
The coarse aggregate interlock along the diagonal failure crack Experimental Work
surface is the main factor influencing the shear transfer in concrete
beams (Taylor 1974). In SCC, this factor is even more significant
Materials Used
due to the different mixture proportions, particularly the lower vol-
ume and size of coarse aggregate compared to normal concrete Canadian portland cement type GU [similar to ASTM C150
(NC). In high-strength concrete, cracks are more likely to penetrate (ASTM 2012b) Type 1], FA [similar to ASTM C618 (ASTM
the aggregates (which are weaker compared to the strong paste ma- 2012a) Type F], and MK [similar to ASTM C618 (ASTM
trix), creating a smooth diagonal crack surface that resists the post- 2012a) Class N] were used as binders for all SCC mixtures.
diagonal cracking loads by means of friction rather than aggregate The chemical and physical properties of all binders are shown
interlock. Whereas in low-strength beams, the aggregates tended to in Table 1. Natural crushed stones (with 10- and 20-mm maximum
fracture less, resulting in a greater aggregate interlock effect (Kim aggregate sizes) and natural sand were used in normal-weight SCC
et al. 2010). Similar to high-strength concrete, the use of weaker mixtures for the coarse and fine aggregates, respectively. Each ag-
lightweight aggregate is also likely to reduce the aggregate inter- gregate type had a specific gravity of 2.6 and absorption of 1%. In
lock in LWC. LWSCC mixtures, either 12.5-mm lightweight expanded slate or
There is limited information about the effect of mixture compo- 10-mm lightweight slag aggregates (Fig. 1) were used instead of
sition and coarse aggregate characteristics/density on the shear the crushed stone. The specific gravities of the lightweight slate
strength and cracking behavior of SCC beams, especially when and slag aggregates were 1.53 and 1.75, respectively. The aggre-
using slag or expanded slate lightweight coarse aggregates. This gates gradations of the 10- and 20-mm maximum size crushed
paper presents the fresh properties, cracking behavior, and shear stones, natural sand, lightweight expanded slate, and lightweight

Fig. 1. Coarse aggregate: (a) crushed stone aggregate; (b) expanded slate aggregate; (c) lightweight slag aggregate (images by Mohamed K. Ismail)

© ASCE 04015022-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015022

 100
Crushed Stone 20-mm Specimen Preparation
Percentage Passing (%) 90
Crushed Stone 10-mm
80 Natural Sand
Sixteen full-scale concrete beams were prepared from the same
70 Slag mixtures to investigate the cracking behavior and shear strengths
60 Expanded Slate of the developed mixtures. Two identical beams were tested for
50 each mixture to improve analysis of the results. All beams were
40 cast without shear reinforcement and tested under a four-point sym-
30 metrical vertical loading condition until shear failure (Fig. 3). The
20 shear span-to-depth ratio of all beams was kept constant at 2.5 to
10 ensure shear failure rather than bending failure (Kani et al. 1979).
0 All beams were cast without consolidation; the concrete was
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 poured in the formwork from one end until it flowed and reached
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 04/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Sieve Size (mm)
Fig. 2. Grading curves for both fine and coarse aggregates
slag aggregates are presented in Fig. 2. HRWRA similar to ASTM
C 494 Type F (ASTM 2013) was employed to adjust the cohesive-
ness and to control the flow of SCC mixtures. Two different bar
diameters of 10 and 25 mm were used, as shown in Fig. 3. All steel
bars and stirrups had an average yield stress of 480 MPa and an
average tensile strength of 725 MPa.
the other end. The poured beams were then moist cured in con-
trolled room temperature of 25
1.5°C for 28 days before testing.
The beams were designated by C=F ratio, concrete strength, coarse
aggregate size, and coarse aggregate type. The beam designation
included a combination of letters and numbers: 0.7, 0.9, or 1.2
to indicate the C=F ratio (by mass of total aggregate); NS or HS
to indicate normal-strength or high-strength concrete; 10 or 20 to
indicate aggregate size; and SG or SL to indicate slag or expanded
slate lightweight coarse aggregate.
Test Methods

Mix Design Development Fresh Concrete Property Tests

Sixteen SCC mixtures were developed with varying compressive
strengths and different coarse aggregate size, type=density, and dif-
ferent coarse-to-fine aggregate (C=F) ratio. The 16 SCC mixtures
were detailed as follows: (1) three normal-strength SCC (NSSCC)
mixtures (0.7–1.2 C=F ratio) with 10-mm crushed stone; (2) three
NSSCC mixtures (0.7–1.2 C=F ratio) with 20-mm crushed stone;
(3) two high-strength SCC (HSSCC) mixtures (0.7 and 1.2 C=F
ratio) with 10-mm crushed stone; (4) two HSSCC mixtures (0.7
and 1.2 C=F ratio) with 20-mm crushed stone; three lightweight
mixtures (0.7–1.2 C=F ratio) with slag aggregate; and (5) three
lightweight mixtures (0.7–1.2 C=F ratio) with slate aggregate. All
high-strength SCC mixtures used 20% MK while 60 and 50% fly
ash (FA) were used in all other normal-strength mixtures. A higher
cement percentage was used in NSSCC mixtures containing light-
weight slag or slate to compensate for the drop in compressive
strength as a result of using weaker coarse aggregate. All SCC mix-
tures had a total binder content of 500 kg=m3 and a constant
water-to-binder (w/b) ratio of 0.4. The HRWRA was added in dif-
ferent dosages to achieve a comparable slump flow diameter in all
SCC mixtures [the slump flow test was performed according to
ASTM C1611 (ASTM 2011)]. The mixture proportions of all
tested beams are presented in Table 2.
The fresh properties tests included slump flow, T500 (the time it
takes a mixture to reach 500 mm in the slump flow test), V-funnel,
and sieve segregation tests. The slump flow test was performed as
per ASTM C1611 (ASTM 2011). The T500 was used to evaluate the
viscosity of the developed mixtures. The T500 was measured accu-
rately for all mixtures using a videotape recording device. The sieve
segregation Eq. (1) and V-funnel tests were performed according to
the European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete (Eurocode
2005). These tests were performed for LWSCC mixtures only to
evaluate their stability and viscosity
SR ¼ W cp =W ct % ð1Þ
where SR = segregation resistance; W cp = concrete mass that
passed into the receiver (g); and W ct = total mass of concrete
on the sieve (g).
Hardened Concrete Property Tests
The 28-day compressive strength [ASTM C39 (ASTM 2001)] and
shear behavior were evaluated for all tested mixtures in this study.
Fig. 3 shows the test setup and reinforcement details for all tested

130 495 mm 130 495 mm 130

mm mm mm
6 Stirrups 2#10M
#10M
250

250
mm

mm
30 mm

250 2#25M
190 1120 mm 190 mm
mm mm
1500 mm

Fig. 3. Dimensions and reinforcement of tested beams

© ASCE 04015022-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015022

 Table 2. Mixture Proportions for Tested Mixtures
Binder Maximum Coarse
Beam amount Cement SCM SCM coarse aggregate aggregate Fine aggregate Water HRWR Density
type (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 ) type (kg=m3 ) C=F ratio size (mm) (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 ) (L=m3 ) (L=m3 ) (kg=m3 )
0.7NS10 500 200 FA 300 0.7 10 653 933 200 2.50 2,286
0.9NS10 500 200 FA 300 0.9 10 751 835 200 1.95 2,286
1.2NS10 500 200 FA 300 1.2 10 865 721 200 1.75 2,286
0.7NS20 500 200 FA 300 0.7 20 653 933 200 2.08 2,286
0.9NS20 500 200 FA 300 0.9 20 751 835 200 1.67 2,286
1.2NS20 500 200 FA 300 1.2 20 865 721 200 1.39 2,286
0.7HS10 500 400 MK 100 0.7 10 679 970 200 5.42 2,349
1.2HS10 500 400 MK 100 1.2 10 899 749 200 3.96 2,348
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 04/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.7HS20 500 400 MK 100 0.7 20 679 970 200 4.67 2,349
1.2HS20 500 400 MK 100 1.2 20 899 749 200 3.41 2,348
0.7SG 500 250 FA 250 0.7 10 544 777 200 2.22 2,021
0.9SG 500 250 FA 250 0.9 10 611 679 200 1.98 1,990
1.2SG 500 250 FA 250 1.2 10 684 570 200 1.67 1,954
0.7SL 500 250 FA 250 0.7 12.5 507 724 200 1.125 1,931
0.9SL 500 250 FA 250 0.9 12.5 564 627 200 1.042 1,891
1.2SL 500 250 FA 250 1.2 12.5 626 522 200 0.954 1,848
Note: FA = fly ash; HS = high strength; MK = metakaolin; NS = normal strength; SG = slag aggregate; SL = slate aggregate.

beams. The load was applied through a hydraulic jack at a single
point and then distributed into two points acting on the beam sur-
face. The beams were loaded gradually, with a constant loading rate
through three stages of loading until failure (50, 75, and 100% of
the theoretically calculated failure load). After each stage of load-
ing, the cracks were marked and their widths were recorded and
plotted on each crack pattern. The overall behavior of beams, in-
cluding the development of cracks, crack patterns, crack widths,
crack heights, and failure modes, was observed and sketched for
all beams (Fig. 4).
Test Results and Discussions
Fresh Properties of SCC Mixtures
HRWRA Demand
Increasing the C=F ratio from 0.7 to 1.2 decreased the HRWRA
demand in all mixtures (Table 2). The HRWRA decreased by
30 and 33% in NSSCC mixtures with 10-mm and 20-mm aggre-
gate, respectively, when the C=F ratio increased to 1.2. The same
observation was noted in HSSCC mixtures, in which the HRWRA
was reduced by 27% in mixtures with 10-mm and/or 20-mm ag-
gregate. LWSCC mixtures also showed a reduction in HRWRA as
the C=F aggregate ratio increased from 0.7 to 1.2. This reduction
was 24.8% in slag mixtures and 15.2% in expanded slate mixtures.
Changing the aggregate size from 10 to 20 mm also showed a
decrease in the HRWRA demand. The average HRWRA demand
was 2.1 L=m3 in NSSCC mixtures with 10-mm aggregate com-
pared to an average of 1.7 L=m3 in NSSCC mixtures with
20-mm aggregate. Also, the average HRWRA demand in HSSCC
mixtures with 10-mm aggregate was 4.7 L=m3 compared to
4.0 L=m3 in HSSCC mixtures with 20-mm aggregate. It should
be noted that increasing the C=F ratio or increasing the aggregate
size decreases the total aggregate surface area and therefore de-
creases the HRWRA demand.
The addition of MK also proved to require more HRWRA in
SCC mixtures. The average HRWRA demand in SCC mixtures
with 10-mm coarse aggregate was 2.1 L=m3 in NSSCC compared
to 4.7 L=m3 in HSSCC mixtures (which had 20% MK). Also, the
average HRWRA demand in NSSCC mixtures with 20-mm coarse
aggregate was 1.71 L=m3 compared to 4.0 L=m3 in HSSCC
mixtures.
Mixture Viscosity
As seen in Table 3, the results of all tested mixtures indicated an
increase in the viscosity as the C=F ratio increased from 0.7 to 0.9.
The results of the T500 showed an increase in the time as the C=F
ratio increased from 0.7 to 0.9, but further increasing the C=F ratio
to 1.2 resulted in lower T500. This was not clear in the LWSCC
mixtures, which showed a continuous increase in the viscosity
when increasing the C=F ratio from 0.7 to 1.2.
The results also showed that when the coarse aggregate size
increased from 10 to 20 mm the viscosity of the mixture reduced.
Increasing the aggregate size also reduced the total surface area of
the coarse aggregate (Neville 1995), which decreased the amount of
water required to wet the aggregate surface during mixing (leaving
more free water in the mixture) and therefore reduced the viscosity.
The average T500 for NSSCC with 10-mm aggregate was 1.77 s
compared to 1.6 s for NSSCC with 20-mm aggregate. Also, the
average T500 for HSSCC with 10-mm aggregate was 3.25 s com-
pared to 3 s for HSSCC with 20-mm aggregate. These results match
those found by other researchers (Hu and Wang 2011), which also
indicated reduction in mixture viscosity alongside increases in the
coarse aggregate size.
On the other hand, the results of T500 indicated an increase in the
mixture viscosity when MK was used. The average T500 for
HSSCC mixtures (which contained 20% MK) with 10-mm aggre-
gate was 3.25 s compared to 1.77 s for NSSCC mixtures with the
same aggregate size. Also, the average T500 for HSSCC mixtures
with 20-mm aggregate was 3 s compared to 1.6 s in NSSCC
mixtures with 20-mm aggregate.
Unlike normal-weight SCC mixtures, LWSCC mixtures have a
higher chance of segregation. In LWSCC mixtures, the low density
of lightweight aggregate compared to the density of mortar paste
makes the aggregates tend to move upward toward the concrete
surface during mixing, and thus segregation may take place.
For this reason, the sieve segregation and V-funnel tests were per-
formed for all LWSCC mixtures only. The results of these tests
are presented in Table 4. Although the results of the segregation
resistance (SR) of the sieve segregation test took an incremental

© ASCE 04015022-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015022

 Failure Load = 141.1 kN Failure Load = 252 kN
2.8 1.5
4.1 0.30 7.5
0.16
1.5 0.36 8.2 mm
5.0 mm 0.30 2.4
0.29 0.36
0.23 0.52 0.56 0.49

0.7NS10 0.7HS20

Failure Load = 145.9 kN Failure Load = 241 kN

0.90 1.3 0.55
3.5 0.36
0.32 1.1 6.4
0.27 1.8 0.49 0.69
0.34 0.29 4.5 mm 0.32 7 mm
0.56
0.65 0.52 1.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 04/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.9NS10 1.2HS20

Failure Load = 147.7 kN Failure Load = 131 KN

1.2 2.5 4.1
0.27 1.9 0.16
2.0 0.36 3.0 mm 0.21 0.09
0.18 1.5 4.6 mm
0.29 0.3 0.41 0.19

1.2NS10 0.7SG

Failure Load = 145.1 kN Failure Load = 127KN

1.3 3.6 3.9
1.3
0.3 0.32
4.3 mm 0.68 0.42
0.29 0.31 0.42 4.0 mm 0.56
0.29 0.36

0.7NS20 0.9SG

Failure Load = 152.9 kN Failure Load = 117 KN

3.8
1.8 0.29 0.34 3.4 0.34 0.85
0.3 1.8 4.1 mm
3.8 mm 0.29 0.31 0.56 1.2
0.25 0.56

0.9NS20 1.2SG

Failure Load = 170.1 kN Failure Load = 143 kN

0.09
2.7 2.0 1.0 4.0
1.3 0.3 0.09 0.41
1.0 5.0 mm
0.36
0.32 3.2 mm 0.12 3.0
0.31 0.29 0.52 0.15 0.13 0.21
0.15

1.2NS20 0.7SL

Failure Load = 241.6 kN Failure Load = 136 kN

1.8 1.8 mm 0.1
0.54 8.2
0.32 0.35 1.9
0.06 0.08
2.2 0.48 0.29 0.53 9.5 mm 3.8 0.14
0.16 0.04 0.03 0.12
0.1

0.7HS10 0.9SL

Failure Load = 242.3 kN Failure Load = 134 kN

6.8 3.1 0.4
2.7 4.2 0.3 0.03 0.03
0.29 0.32 7.5 mm 0.45 mm
0.32 0.05 1.0 0.5
0.25
0.22 0.67 0.54 0.21
0.04 6.1
0.1 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.18

1.2HS10 1.2SL

Fig. 4. Crack patterns of tested beams at failure (crack width in mm)

trend with the increase of C=F ratio, all mixtures did not exceed the
maximum acceptable value (18%), according to the European
guidelines (Eurocode 2005). It should be noted that the Eurocode
(2005) specifies two viscosity classes for V-funnel time: VF1 per-
tains to mixtures with a V-funnel flow time of less than
8 s while VF2 pertains to mixtures with a V-funnel flow time
ranging from 9 to 25 s. According to this, 0.7SG and 0.7SL
mixtures can be classified as VF1, which is recommended to be
used in multiple applications such as floors, slabs, piles, and walls.
Meanwhile, 0.9, 1.2, 0.9, and 1.2SL mixtures can be classified as
VF2, which is recommended to be used in certain applications such
as ramps.

© ASCE 04015022-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015022

 Table 3. Slump Flow Readings of SCC Mixtures 9.5% in 10- and 20-mm aggregates, respectively. In LWSCC mix-
Concrete type Slump flow diameter (mm) T 500 (s) tures, this decrease was even more pronounced, reaching up to 25.8
and 22.4% in slag and slate SCC mixtures, respectively. The reason
0.7NS10 760 1.60
for this decrease is related to the increase of weaker lightweight
0.9NS10 780 1.90
1.2NS10 750 1.80
coarse aggregates in the mixture. In HSSCC mixtures, the addition
0.7NS20 790 1.50 of MK enhanced the microstructure and improved the ITZ of the
0.9NS20 770 1.70 mixtures. The reduction of the compressive strength with an in-
1.2NS20 790 1.60 creased C=F ratio in HSSCC mixtures did not exceed 3% in both
0.7HS10 695 3.00 10- and 20-mm aggregate mixtures.
1.2HS10 700 3.50
0.7HS20 690 2.80
1.2HS20 700 3.20 General Cracking Behavior of SCC Beams
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 04/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.7SG 745 1.20 Fig. 4 shows the crack patterns/widths of all tested beams at failure
0.9SG 740 2.50 stage. During early stages of loading, fine vertical flexural cracks
1.2SG 750 3.50 appeared around the midspan of all beams, as expected. Increasing
0.7SL 755 1.20
the applied load formed new flexural cracks away from the midspan
0.9SL 710 1.80
1.2SL 715 2.00 on both sides of the beam. Further increasing the load showed addi-
tional flexural cracks start to occur away from the midspan and
propagate diagonally towards the loading points. At failure stage,
one main diagonal crack began to form separately, with an angle
Table 4. Results of V-Funnel and Sieve Segregation Test for LWSCC ranging from 24 to 34° (Fig. 4). The failure diagonal crack surface
Mixtures of NSSCC beams was rough and showed unfractured coarse aggre-
Concrete type V-funnel (s) SR (%)
gate protruding along the surface. This finding could be attributed
to the higher strength of the coarse aggregate compared to the sur-
0.7SG 6 2.08 rounding mortar paste. On the other hand, in HSSCC mixtures, the
0.9SG 9.7 8.33 strength of mortar paste was relatively high compared to that in
1.2SG 17.4 12.5
NSSCC, which means the propagation of the failure diagonal crack
0.7SL 4.5 6.52
0.9SL 9.9 8.33 can take place in the coarse aggregates and the mortar paste to-
1.2SL 13.0 11.12 gether. This behavior was confirmed after checking the failure sur-
faces of HSSCC beams as they were relatively smooth, with broken
coarse aggregates, indicating that the cracks had penetrated the
28-Day Compressive Strength of the Tested Mixtures coarse aggregates. Slag or slate LWSCC beams showed partially
fractured coarse aggregate along the failure surface. Table 5 shows
The 28-day compressive strengths of the 16 tested mixtures are the loads at the first diagonal crack, the crack characteristics (num-
shown in Table 5 and Fig. 5(a). It can be observed that increasing ber of cracks, crack angle at failure, failure crack width), and the
the C=F ratio decreased the 28-day compressive strengths in both failure loads of all SCC beams.
normal-weight and LWSCC mixtures. An increase in the C=F ag-
gregate ratio led to an increase in the interfacial transition zone
Effect of Concrete Strength and Type on the Cracking
(ITZ) between the coarse aggregate and surrounding mortar, which
Behavior of the Tested Beams
is considered a good medium for crack propagation during loading
(Larbi 1993). In general, HSSCC beams developed more cracks, larger crack
In NSSCC mixtures, the decrease in 28-day compressive widths, and had cracking extend higher at failure compared to
strengths with an increased C=F ratio reached up to 12 and NSSCC beams (Table 5). The reason for that could be related to

Table 5. Shear Loads and Cracking Behavior of the Tested Beams at Failure
Number First diagonal Ultimate Normalized
Beam 28-day Failure of cracks cracking shear load shear strength Postdiagonal Crack angle at
type (SCC) fc0 (MPa) type at failure load (kN) (V u , kN) [Eq. (2), V nz ] cracking (%) failure (degrees)
0.7NS10 31 Shear 6 110 70.56 0.26 22.05 31
0.9NS10 29.3 Shear 6 108 72.93 0.27 25.96 28
1.2NS10 27.3 Shear 7 107 73.83 0.29 27.54 30.5
0.7NS20 30.4 Shear 6 97 72.54 0.27 33.14 28
0.9NS20 29 Shear 7 94 76.46 0.29 38.53 30
1.2NS20 27.5 Shear 9 95 85.06 0.33 44.16 29
0.7HS10 72 Shear 9 140 120.79 0.29 42.05 27
1.2HS10 70 Shear 9 138 121.15 0.29 43.04 27
0.7HS20 69.7 Shear 10 142 126.01 0.31 43.65 26
1.2HS20 68.8 Shear 11 132 120.52 0.29 45.24 28
0.7SG 27.1 Shear 8 108 65.50 0.25 17.56 31
0.9SG 26.1 Shear 8 102 63.50 0.25 19.69 32
1.2SG 20.1 Shear 9 94 58.50 0.26 19.66 32
0.7SL 30.8 Shear 8 116 71.50 0.26 18.88 25
0.9SL 26.8 Shear 9 108.5 68.00 0.27 20.22 30
1.2SL 23.9 Shear 10 105 67.00 0.28 21.64 29

© ASCE 04015022-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015022

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 04/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Effect of C=F aggregate ratio: (a) 28-day compressive strength; (b) number of cracks at failure; (c) postdiagonal cracking (%); (d) normalized
shear strength
the higher deflection that high-strength beams can resist before fail-
ure compared to normal strength beams. In addition, compared to
both NSSCC and LWSCC beams, the failure of HSSCC beams
happened suddenly and with a loud noise. The angle of the diago-
nal crack failure ranged from 28 to 31° in NSSCC beams, while it
ranged from 26 to 28° in HSSCC beams. Slag and slate lightweight
beams showed less cracks and less average crack widths compared
to HSSCC beams. Also, beams made with lightweight slag aggre-
gate showed no significant difference in terms of crack patterns,
number, widths, or failure crack angles compared to beams made
with lightweight slate aggregate.
Effect of Varying C=F Aggregate Ratio and Coarse
Aggregate Size on the Cracking Behavior of the
Tested Beams
Increasing the C=F ratio or increasing the coarse aggregate size
seemed to increase the number of cracks and reduce the average
crack widths at failure in NSSCC and LWSCC beams [Figs. 4
and 5(b)]. This could be related to the extra resistance gained after
the formation of the diagonal cracks as a result of increasing the
aggregate interlock in beams with higher C=F ratio or bigger ag-
gregate size. This extra resistance allowed more cracks to develop
in the beams before failure, which resulted in a reduction in the
crack widths. HSSCC beams, however, did not seem to benefit
from the improvement in the aggregate interlock with an increased
C=F ratio or size, and therefore showed no significant differences in
© ASCE 04015022-7
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015022
terms of crack number or crack widths as the C=F ratio or aggregate
size increased. As mentioned earlier, unlike all other tested beams,
the cracks in HSSCC beams penetrated the coarse aggregate, result-
ing in a smoother failure surface and lower aggregate interlock
(Kim et al. 2010).
Postdiagonal Cracking Resistance
The first diagonal cracking load was visually observed and re-
corded in all tested beams (Table 5). The first diagonal cracking
load was also confirmed by the sudden jump in the reading of
any of the linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) placed
along the bottom of the beam or the sudden jump in the reading of
any of the strain gauges glued along the length of the longitudinal
bar. The postdiagonal cracking resistance of each beam (which is
defined as the maximum resistance the beam can withstand after the
first occurrence of the diagonal crack) was obtained using
½ðMax Failure Load − Load at First Diagonal CrackÞ=
Max Failure Load%
Increasing the C=F ratio from 0.7 to 1.2 improved the postdiag-
onal cracking resistance of all NSSCC beams [Table 5 and
Fig. 5(c)]. NSSCC beams showed 25% and 33% improvement
in postdiagonal cracking resistance in beams containing 10- and
20-mm aggregate, respectively, as the C=F ratio increased to
1.2. Increasing the C=F ratio in normal-strength concrete increased
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 the volume of the coarse aggregate, which resulted in longer and
more complicated cracking paths (higher aggregate interlock). This
is due to the fact that in normal-strength concrete the cracks trav-
elled through the ITZ around the aggregate (Joseph 2010; Lachemi
et al. 2005). The improvement of the postdiagonal cracking resis-
tance in HSSCC beams was not pronounced compared to the other
tested beams. HSSCC beams showed only 2.3 and 3.6% increase in
the postdiagonal cracking resistance in 10-mm and 20-mm aggre-
gate mixtures, respectively. As mentioned previously, the smoother
fractured surface of HSSCC mixtures was the reason behind the
limited improvement of the beam resistance after the first diagonal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 04/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cracking load.
Lightweight slag or slate beams also showed improvement in
the postdiagonal cracking resistance as the C=F ratio increased.
This improvement, however, was relatively less than that of
NSSCC beams. The improvement of the postdiagonal cracking
resistance was 12 and 15% in slag and slate LWSCC beams, respec-
tively. The reason for the limited postdiagonal cracking improve-
ment in LWSCC beams compared to NSSCC beams could be
related to the fact that lightweight slag or slate aggregates were
partially fractured along the diagonal failure crack. It should be
noted that the maximum 28-day compressive strength of the tested
LWSCC mixtures was 30.8 MPa. More investigation is needed to
study the performance of LWSCC mixtures with higher compres-
sive strengths in order to evaluate the minimal compressive strength
under which all the lightweight aggregates fracture along the
diagonal crack surface. The results of the postdiagonal cracking
resistance also showed that beams with a larger coarse aggregate
had higher postdiagonal cracking resistance. NSSCC beams with
20-mm coarse aggregate showed 33% improvement in the post-
diagonal cracking resistance compared to a 25% improvement in
NSSCC beams with 10-mm aggregate.
Shear Strength of SCC Beams
To analyze and compare the shear strength of all beams, the ulti-
mate shear load (V u ) is normalized to account for the difference in
compressive strengths between all tested SCC beams. Since the
shear strength is proportional to the square root of the compressive
strength of the concrete (fc0 ), the normalized shear strength (V nz )
was calculated as follows:
pffiffiffiffiffi
V nz ¼ V u =bd fc0 ð2Þ
Effect of Concrete Strength and Type on the
Normalized Shear Strength
Although the failure shear strength was dependent on the concrete
type/strength, no significant difference in terms of normalized shear
strength was noted in any of the tested beams. However, Table 5
shows that, contrary to NSSCC beams, the normalized shear failure
of HSSCC was not highly dependent on the C=F ratio. As men-
tioned before, the expected increase of the aggregate interlock
(which increases the shear capacity) with the increased C=F ratio
was not a factor in HSSCC beams.
Effect of Varying C=F Ratio and Coarse Aggregate
Size on the Normalized Shear Strength
Table 5 and Fig. 5(d) show the variation of the normalized shear
strength (V nz ) of all tested beams. In general, increasing the C=F
ratio increased the V nz in NSSCC and lightweight slag or slate SCC
beams. However, this increase was more pronounced in NSSCC
© ASCE 04015022-8
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015022
beams compared to slag or slate LWSCC beams. For example,
as the C=F ratio increased from 0.7 to 1.2, the V nz increased by
23.3% in NSSCC beams with 20-mm aggregate, while this increase
was only 3.7 and 6.3% in slag and slate LWSCC beams, respec-
tively. The results also showed that increasing the coarse aggregate
size from 10 to 20 mm resulted in an improvement in V nz . When
the C=F ratio increased from 0.7 to 1.2, the beams with 10-mm
aggregate showed 11.4% improvement in the V nz compared to
an improvement of 23.3% in beams with 20-mm aggregate. In
HSSCC beams, it was shown that the normalized shear strength
did not significantly change as the C=F ratio was increased from
0.7 to 1.2. In addition, increasing the coarse aggregate size from 10
to 20 mm in HSSCC beams did not show any significant variation
(did not exceed 6%) in the normalized shear failure.
Codes’ Review for Shear Prediction of Reinforced
Beams without Stirrups
This section discusses the margin of safety for different design
codes in predicting the shear capacity of normal concrete and
semi-lightweight concrete. Four international design codes were in-
cluded in this investigation: ACI 318-08 (ACI 2008), CSA (2004),
AASHTO (2007), and Eurocode 2 (2005). Predicted values and
factor of safety for each code are presented in Table 6 and Fig. 6,
respectively.
American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-08)
According to the ACI, evaluation of the shear strength of a rein-
forced concrete member is based on the average shear stress on
the full effective area of the web cross section. In cases of members
without shear reinforcement, the shear stress is totally carried by
the concrete cross section and longitudinal steel within the web.
As per the ACI, the predicted ultimate shear force (V u ) of beams
without shear reinforcement can be obtained by
pffiffiffiffiffi Vfd pffiffiffiffiffi
V u ¼ 0.158λ f c0 bd þ 17.24ρw bd ≤ 0.29 fc0 bd ð3Þ
Mf
where f c0 (MPa) = specified concrete compressive strength; λ =
lightweight concrete modification factor taken as 1.0 for normal-
weight concrete, 0.85 for sand-lightweight concrete, and 0.75
for all lightweight concrete (Section 8.6.1 of ACI 318-08);
V f (N) = factored shear force at section; M f (N · mm) = factored
moment at section; b (mm) = beam width; d (mm) = effective depth
of beam cross section; ρw = ratio of As =bd; and As = area of non-
prestressed tension reinforcement in the beam.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA A23.3-04)
As per CSA specification, the shear force (V u ) for beams without
shear reinforcement can be obtained by
pffiffiffiffiffi
V u ¼ λβ fc0 bdv ð4Þ
The factor β can be calculated as
β ¼ 520=½ð1 þ 1,500εx Þð1,000 þ Sze Þ ð5Þ
Sze ¼ 35Sz =15 þ ag ≤ 0.85Sz ð6Þ
where λ = factor that accounts for low-density concrete (λ ¼ 1 for
normal concrete and 0.85 for structural semi-low-density concrete
with an air-dry density between 1,850 and 2,150 kg=m3 );
dv (mm) = effective shear depth, which can be taken as the greater
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Table 6. Shear Resistance of SCC Beams from Experiments and Code-Based Predictions
Code-based prediction, V u (kN)
Experimental shear load/predicted shear load
Beam
designation (SCC) ACI 318-08 CSA-04 AASHTO-LRFD (2007) EC2-2004 V Exp: =V ACI V Exp: =V CSA V Exp: =V AASHTO V Exp: =V EC2
0.7NS10 50.23 57.58 51.98 46.81 1.40 1.23 1.36 1.51
0.9NS10 49.02 55.07 50.53 45.94 1.49 1.32 1.44 1.59
1.2NS10 47.55 52.83 48.78 44.87 1.55 1.40 1.51 1.65
0.7NS20 49.81 56.24 51.47 46.51 1.46 1.29 1.41 1.56
0.9NS20 48.80 53.49 50.28 45.78 1.57 1.43 1.52 1.67
1.2NS20 47.70 49.26 48.96 44.98 1.78 1.73 1.74 1.89
0.7HS10 72.06 61.32 69.67 61.99 1.68 1.97 1.73 1.95
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 04/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.2HS10 72.06 61.21 69.67 61.41 1.68 1.98 1.74 1.97

0.7HS20 71.92 59.71 69.52 61.32 1.75 2.11 1.81 2.05
1.2HS20 71.50 61.41 69.07 61.06 1.69 1.96 1.74 1.97
0.7SG 45.54 47.43 41.31 42.61 1.44 1.38 1.59 1.54
0.9SG 39.39 47.22 46.70 41.69 1.61 1.34 1.36 1.52
1.2SG 35.86 43.01 35.58 37.81 1.63 1.36 1.64 1.55
0.7SL 43.59 48.46 44.04 43.30 1.64 1.48 1.62 1.65
0.9SL 41.12 46.33 41.08 40.85 1.65 1.47 1.66 1.66
1.2SL 39.21 44.06 38.79 38.81 1.71 1.52 1.73 1.73

of 0.9 of the beam depth or 0.72 of the beam height; εx = longi- where bv ðmmÞ = effective web width taken as the minimum web
tudinal strain at middepth of the member due to factored loads, width within the depth dv ; β = factor indicating the ability of diago-
which can be derived as nally cracked concrete to transmit tension. For lightweight con-
crete,
pffiffiffiffiffi if the average splitting tensile
pffiffiffiffiffistrength is lacking, the term
εx ¼ ðM f =dv þ V f Þ=2Es As ð7Þ fc0 shallpbe 0
ffiffiffiffiffi replaced by 0.75 f c for all lightweight concrete
and 0.85 fc0 for sand-lightweight concrete.
M f ðN · mmÞ = factored moment at section; V f (N) = factored shear
force at section; Es (MPa) = modulus of elasticity of non-
prestressed reinforcement; Sz ð¼ dvÞ = crack spacing parameter Eurocode 2
dependent on crack control characteristics of longitudinal
reinforcement; and ag = maximum size of aggregate in the con- According to the Eurocode 2, the design value for the shear force
0 V Rd;c is given by (SI units)
crete. For high-strength concrete with fpc greater
ffiffiffiffiffi than 70 MPa,
ag shall be taken as zero. The term of f c0 shall not be taken pffiffiffiffiffi 1=3
greater than 8 MPa (as mentioned in clause 11.3.4). V Rd;c ¼ ½ð0.18=γÞKð100ρw η fc0 Þ bw d ð9Þ

AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specification (2007) with a minimum value

The AASHTO-LRFD bridge design specifications are derived
from the fundamentals presented in the modified compression
field theory rather than empirical equations, unlike the ACI 318-08
code provisions. According to the AASHTO-LRFD, the contribu-
tion of concrete in a shear resistance of cross section can be
computed by
pffiffiffiffiffi
V u ¼ 0.083β fc0 bv dv ð8Þ
V RD:C min ¼ ðvmin þ k1 σcp Þbw d ð10Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where K = size effect factor (K ¼ 1 þ 200=d ≤ 2.0); γ = con-
crete partial safety factor and equals 1.50; ρw = longitudinal
reinforcement ratio; η = factor to account for lightweight concrete
(η ¼ 0.4 þ 0.6ρ=2,200); ρ = concrete density (kg=m3 ); fc0 (MPa) =
specified concrete compressive strength; bw (mm) = beam width;
and d (mm) = effective depth of the beam pffiffiffiffifficross section; vmin =
minimum shear stress equal to 0.035k3=2 f c0 ; k1 = constant equal
to 0.15 in the British Annex of the Eurocode; and σcp = axial stress
on the cross section equal to N ed =AC where N ed is the axial force
due to loading or prestressing.

Effect of Concrete Strength and Type on the

Performance of Code-Based Shear Prediction
of SCC Beams
Tables 5 and 6 present the ultimate shear load derived from the
experiments and the code-based predictions, respectively. Fig. 6
compares the average margin of safety (the average of the different
C=F ratios of each concrete type/aggregate size) in the four inves-
tigated codes. It can be observed that all design codes were
conservative in predicting the ultimate shear strength. Eurocode
2 provided the highest safety margins (an average of 1.71 for all
Fig. 6. Margin of safety for different codes’ predictions
tested beams) compared to the other design codes. All design codes

© ASCE 04015022-9 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015022

 presented higher margins of safety in LWSCC beams compared to
normal-weight beams. The average margin of safety in the normal-
weight beams was 1.54, 1.37, 1.51, and 1.59 in ACI, CSA,
AASHTO-LRFD, and Eurocode 2, respectively. On the other hand,
the average margin of safety in the LWSCC beams was 1.72, 1.88,
1.75, and 1.93 in ACI, CSA, AASHTO-LRFD, and Eurocode 2,
respectively. CSA correlated much better with the actual shear
strength for normal-weight SCC beams in which the average
V experimental =V Predicted ratio was 1.37 compared to 1.54, 1.51, and
1.59 in ACI, AASHTO-LRFD, and Eurocode 2, respectively.
Meanwhile, ACI and AASHTO-LRFD had lower experimental/
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 04/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
predicted values compared to CSA and Eurocode 2 in LWSCC
beams. Although the CSA had reasonable margins of safety in
normal-weight SCC beams (an average of 1.59), it showed the
highest margins of safety compared to the other tested codes (an
average of 1.93) in LWSCC beams. The results also showed that
the ACI code had the most precise prediction for the ultimate shear
strength, in which the margin of safety ranged from 1.4 to 1.78 in
all tested beams. ACI and AASHTO-LRFD showed a good
correlation between the predicted values where the difference
did not exceed 7% and 13% in normal-weight and lightweight
SCC beams, respectively.
Effect of Varying C=F Ratio and Coarse Aggregate Size
on the Performance of Code-Based Shear Prediction of
SCC Beams
In general, increasing the C=F aggregate ratio led to an increase in
the aggregate interlock, thus enhancing the shear resistance of the
SCC beams. This improvement has a direct impact on increasing
the margin of safety for the predicted values by design codes
(Table 6). This is because the investigated code provisions do
not consider the effect that the C=F ratio has on the predicted ulti-
mate shear strength. In NSSCC beams with 10-mm coarse aggre-
gate, varying the C=F aggregate ratio from 0.7 to 1.2 increased the
margin of safety by 9.3, 10.7, 13.82, and 11% in the Eurocode 2,
ACI, CSA, and AASHTO-LRFD, respectively. Also, in NSSCC
beams with 20-mm coarse aggregate, varying the C=F aggregate
ratio from 0.7 to 1.2 increased the margin of safety by 21.15,
21.92, 34.1, and 23.4% in the Eurocode 2, ACI, CSA, and
AASHTO-LRFD, respectively. The results also indicated that in-
creasing the coarse aggregate size from 10 to 20 mm increased
the margin of safety in all design codes.
Conclusions
Sixteen SCC mixtures with varying C=F ratios, coarse aggregate
sizes, coarse aggregate type/density, and varying compressive
strengths were developed to cast 16 concrete beams without shear
reinforcement. The fresh properties of the tested mixtures, together
with the crack pattern, crack width, crack load, crack angle, failure
modes, and ultimate shear resistance of the tested beams, were criti-
cally analyzed and discussed. The performance of some code-based
design equations in predicting the ultimate shear resistance of the
tested beams was also discussed. Based on the results presented in
this paper, the following conclusions are warranted:
1. SCC mixtures with a 1.2 C=F ratio or bigger normal-weight
aggregate size (20 mm instead of 10 mm) showed better
mixture flowability and less HRWRA demand. Also, SCC
mixtures containing MK showed higher HRWRA demand
compared to SCC mixtures without MK.
2. HSSCC beams showed higher numbers of cracks and wider
final cracks at failure than NSSCC and LWSCC beams. Also,
lightweight slag or slate SCC beams had slightly less cracks
© ASCE 04015022-10
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015022
and less average crack widths at failure compared to NSSCC
beams. In addition, beams with a higher C=F ratio or bigger
coarse aggregate size seemed to exhibit higher numbers of
cracks and lower average crack widths at failure compared
to beams with a lower C=F ratio or smaller aggregate size.
No significant difference in all tested beams was noticed in
the angle of the diagonal failure cracks, which ranged from
24 to 34° in all tested beams.
3. Increasing the C=F ratio from 0.7 to 1.2 improved the normal-
ized shear strength and postdiagonal cracking resistance of
NSSCC beams but had a limited effect on HSSCC beams.
Beams with expanded slate or slag also showed some improve-
ment in the normalized shear strength and postdiagonal crack-
ing resistance as the C=F ratio increased from 0.7 to 1.2. This
improvement, however, was slightly less compared to that in
NSSCC beams.
4. The investigated design codes were found to be conservative
in predicting the ultimate shear strength and can be used safely
for any SCC regardless of the mixture’s composition and ag-
gregate type.
5. In general, all design codes presented higher V experimental =
V Predicted ratios in LWSCC beams compared to normal-weight
beams. However, Eurocode 2 showed the most conservative
prediction of the ultimate shear strength compared to the other
investigated design codes. On the other hand, the ACI code
presented the most precise prediction with a margin of safety
ranging from 1.4 to 1.78 in all tested beams.
References
AASHTO. (2007). “AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications and
commentary.” SI Units, Washington, DC.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2008). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary (ACI 318
R-08).” Committee 318, Farmington Hills, MI.
ASTM. (2001). “Standard test method for compressive strength of cylin-
drical concrete specimens.” C39, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2011). “Standard test method for slump flow of self-consolidating
concrete.” C1611, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2012a). “Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or cal-
cined natural Pozzolan for use in concrete.” C618, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2012b). “Standard specification for portland cement.” C150/
C150M, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2013). “Standard specification for chemical admixtures for
concrete.” C494/C494M, West Conshohocken, PA.
Chia, K. S., and Zhang, M. H. (2004). “Effect of chemical admixtures
on rheological parameters and stability of fresh lightweight aggregate
concrete.” Mag. Concr. Res., 56(8), 465–473.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). (2004). “Design of concrete
structures.” CSA A23.3-04, Committee A23.3, Rexdale, ON, Canada.
Cyr, M., and Mouret, M. (2003). “Rheological characterization of super-
plasticized cement pastes containing mineral admixtures: Consequences
on self-compacting concrete design.” ACI SP-217, 241–256.
Dymond, B. Z. (2007). “Shear strength of APcbt-53 girder fabricated with
lightweight, self-consolidating concrete.” Master’s thesis, Virginia
Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
EFNARC (European Federation for Specialist Construction Chemicals,
and Concrete Systems). (2005). The European guidelines for self-
compacting concrete specification, production and use, English Ed.,
Norfolk, U.K.
Eurocode 2. (2005). “Design of concrete structures. Part 1: General rules
and rules for buildings.” EN 1992-2-2005, Thomas Telford, London.
Fujiwara, H., Nagataki, S., Otsuki, N., and Endo, E. (1996). “Study on
reducing unit powder content of high-fluidity concrete by controlling
powder particle size distribution.” Concr. Lib. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng.,
28, 117–128.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Hassan, A. A. A., Lachemi, M., and Hossain, K. M. A. (2010). “Effect of
metakaolin on the rheology of self-consolidating concrete.” Design,
production and placement of self-consolidating concrete, RILEM book
series 1, Springer, 103–112.
Hu, J., and Wang, K. (2011). “Effect of coarse aggregate characteristics on
concrete rheology.” Constr. Build. Mater., 25(3), 1196–1204.
Hubertova, M., and Hela, R. (2007). “The effect of metakaolin and silica
fume on the properties of lightweight self-consolidating concrete.” ACI
SP-243-3, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 35–48.
Joseph, D. (2010). “Influence of aggregate on fracture properties of con-
crete.” M.S. thesis, College of Engineering, Trivandrum, India.
Justice, J. M., and Kurtis, K. E. (2007). “Influence of metakaolin surface
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPA - Universidade Federal Do Para on 04/11/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
area on properties of cement-based materials.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.,
19(9), 899–1561.
Kani, G. N. J., Huggins, M. W., and Wittkopp, R. R. (1979). Shear in
reinforced concrete, Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, 225.
Khayat, K. H. (2000). “Optimisation and performance of air-entrained,
self-consolidating concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 97(5), 526–535.
Khayat, K. H., Manai, K., and Trudel, A. (1997). “In situ mechanical prop-
erties of wall elements using self-consolidating concrete.” ACI Mater.
J., 94(6), 491–500.
Khayat, K. H., Paultre, P., and Tremblay, S. (2001). “Structural perfor-
mance and in-place properties of self-consolidating concrete used for
casting highly reinforced columns.” ACI Mater. J., 98(5), 371–378.
Kim, Y. H., Hueste, M. B. D., Trejo, D., and Cline, D. B. H. (2010).
“Shear characteristics and design for high-strength self-consolidating
concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000194,
989–1000.
Kwasny, J., Sonebi, M., Taylor, S., Bai, Y., Owens, K., and Doherty, W.
(2012). “Influence of the type of coarse lightweight aggregate on prop-
erties of semilightweight self-consolidating concrete.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000527, 1474–1483.
© ASCE 04015022-11
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015022
Lachemi, M., Hossain, K. M. A., and Lambros, V. (2005). “Shear resistance
of self-consolidating concrete beams—Experimental investigation.”
Can. J. Civ. Eng., 32(6), 1103–1113.
Lachemi, M., Hossain, K. M. A., Lambros, V., and Bouzoubaâ, N. (2003).
“Development of cost-effective self-compacting concrete incorporating
fly ash, slag cement, or viscosity-modifying admixtures.” ACI Mater. J.,
100(5), 419–425.
Larbi, J. (1993). “Microstructure of the interfacial zone around aggregate
particles in concrete.” HERON, 38(1), 1–69.
Madandoust, R., and Mousavi, S. Y. (2012). “Fresh and hardened proper-
ties of self-compacting concrete containing metakaolin.” Constr. Build.
Mater., 35, 752–760.
Mechtcherine, V., Lieboldt, M., and Butler, M. (2010). “Application of tex-
tile reinforced concrete (TRC) in prefabrication.” Proc., ACI Spring
Convention, Chicago.
Neville, A. M. (1995). Properties of concrete, 4th Ed., Longman, Harlow,
U.K.
NRMCA (National Ready Mixed Concrete Association). (2003). “Struc-
tural lightweight concrete.” MD.
Okamura, H. (2003). “Self-compacting concrete.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol.,
1(1), 5–15.
Rao, S. V., Rao, S. M. V., Ramaseshu, D., and Kumar, R. P. (2012).
“Durability performance of self compacting concrete.” Mag. Concr.
Res., 64(11), 1005–1013.
Safiuddin, M., Salam, M. A., and Jumaat, M. Z. (2012). “Flowing ability of
self-consolidating concrete and its binder paste phase including palm oil
fuel ash.” Mag. Concr. Res., 64(10), 931–944.
Sonebi, M. (2004). “Medium strength self-compacting concrete containing
fly ash: Modelling using factorial experimental plan.” Cem. Concr.
Res., 34(7), 1199–1208.
Taylor, H. P. J. (1974). “The fundamental behavior of reinforced concrete
beams in bending and shear.” ACI SP-42, Detroit, 43–77.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.