Materials Technical Report: The design and testing

of self-compacting concrete mixes.

2026EXQ Structural Analysis and Materials

Group: PT2A-02

Date of Casting Lab – Thursday 08/11/2018

Date of Testing Lab – Thursday 06/12/2018

1
Summary
This subject of this report is the design and testing of self-compacting concrete.
A modified version of the BRE ‘Design of normal concrete’ method was used to incorporate
GGBS and admixture additions to achieve self-compacting concrete. Tests were undertaken prior
to casting and at 28 days curing to assess the workability, viscosity and strength, the results of
which were used to re-design the concrete mix.

The initial trial mix design did not produce self-compacting concrete; therefore, changes were
made to the mix design to increase strength, workability and viscosity. Lowering the
water/cement ratio was a key factor in increasing the strength of the concrete, however this also
decreased the workability. To account for the decrease in workability, an increased amount of
superplasticiser was used as the amount of superplasticiser does not affect the strength of the
concrete. A slight increase in VMA (viscosity modifier) was used to improve the viscosity.

Cement contains high levels of embodied carbon. The inclusion of GGBS as a partial cement
replacement served as a means of reducing the embodied carbon of the concrete to increase
sustainability. The higher the strength of the concrete, the less sustainable it becomes, therefore
using mineral additions such as GGBS can help reduce embodied carbon levels of high strength
concrete.

2
Table of Contents
Summary........................................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................3

List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Method ............................................................................................................................................. 7

Results .............................................................................................................................................. 8

Group Trial Mix Design .............................................................................................................. 8

Workability Tests ......................................................................................................................... 8

Hardened Concrete Tests ............................................................................................................. 9

Mix Re-Design ........................................................................................................................... 10

Results of Whole Class Data ..................................................................................................... 11

Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 17

References ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix 1 – Result Calculations .................................................................................................. 20

Slump Flow ................................................................................................................................ 20

L-Box ......................................................................................................................................... 20

J-Ring ......................................................................................................................................... 20

Pulse Velocity ............................................................................................................................ 20

Concrete Density........................................................................................................................ 20

Hydraulic Press Test .................................................................................................................. 21

Standard Deviation and Characteristic Strength ........................................................................ 21

Elastic Modulus – Cube One ..................................................................................................... 21

Appendix 2 - Individual Trial Mix Design and Re-design Mix ...................................................... 22

Individual Trial Mix Design ...................................................................................................... 22

Re-Design Mix ........................................................................................................................... 24

3
List of Tables

Table 1 - Group PT2A-02: Concrete Mix Design .................................................................... 8

Table 2 - Group PT2A-02: Slump Flow test results .................................................................. 8

Table 3 - Group PT2A-02: V-Funnel test results....................................................................... 8

Table 4 - Group PT2A-02: L-Box test results ........................................................................... 8

Table 5 - Group PT2A-02: J-Ring test results ........................................................................... 9

Table 6 - Group PT2A-02: Pulse Velocity test results .............................................................. 9

Table 7 - Group PT2A-02: Rebound test results ....................................................................... 9

Table 8 - Group PT2A-02: Concrete density results ................................................................. 9

Table 9 - Group PT2A-02: Hydraulic Press test results .......................................................... 10

Table 10 - Group PT2A-02: Standard deviation and characteristic compressive strength of

cubes ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Table 11- Group PT2A-02: Estimation of elastic modulus of each cube ................................ 10

Table 12 - Re-design of Group PT2A-02 mix ......................................................................... 10

Table 13 – Individual mix design ............................................................................................ 24

Table 15 – Comparison of group trial mix design and re-design) ........................................... 25

4
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Graph showing the relationship between amount of super plasticiser and the filling
ability and passing ability of the concrete mix. ....................................................................... 11

Figure 2 - Graph showing the relationship between ultrasonic pulse velocity and density of
the concrete cube samples. ....................................................................................................... 11

Figure 3 - Graph showing the relationship the rebound number and compressive strength of
the concrete cube samples. ....................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4 - Graph showing the % of GGBS addition and the mean compressive strength of the
concrete cubes. ......................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 5 – Correlation curve for UVP, dynamic and static elastic modulus (Davis 2018:1) .. 21

Figure 6 – Relationship between standard deviation and characteristic strength (Building

Research Establishment 1997: 12) ........................................................................................... 22

Figure 7 – Approximate compressive strength (Building Research Establishment 1997: 13) 22

Figure 8 – Approximate free-water content (Building Research Establishment 1997: 13) ..... 22

Figure 9 - Efficiency of GGBS vs GGBS replacement % (Dinakar et al. 2013: 163 .............. 23

Figure 10 – Estimated wet density (Building Research Establishment 1997:14) .................... 23

Figure 11 Estimated proportion of fine aggregate (Building Research Establishment 1997:

14) ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Figure 12 – Redesign: free-water cement ratio (Building Research Establishment 1997: 12) 24

Figure 13 –Re-design: Estimated proportion of fine aggregate ............................................... 25

5
Introduction

This report presents the analysis of data from the testing of self-compacting concrete (SCC)
mixes. Self-compacting concrete mixes produce a non-segregating, highly workable mixture
which can flow easily into formwork without the requirement for additional compaction. By
omitting the requirement for compaction on site, benefits can include reduced resource
requirements and lower noise levels, in addition to a reduced likelihood of poor compaction
which can lead to in a decrease in compressive strength.

The purpose of this report is for the reader to gain an understanding of the effect of mineral
additions and admixtures on concrete properties in order to inform a mix design which will
achieve self-compacting concrete. This will involve:

• Designing an individual self-compacting concrete mix with the addition of GGBS and
admixtures.
• Comparing individual mix-designs and agreeing on a group trial mix design.
• Testing the workability and segregation resistance of the concrete to determine if it has
achieved the required properties of self-compacting concrete.
• Undertaking hardened concrete testing to determine strength, density and elastic modulus.
• Analysing individual group and whole class test results.
• Re-design of the concrete mix based on the analysis of results.
• Assess the effect of GGBS content and characteristic strength of concrete on
sustainability.

The report is structured in the following manner; summary, method, results, discussion,
conclusion, appendices. The summary provides an overview of findings of this report. The
method section states the British Standards which were followed for each test and explains
reasons for any deviation from standard. The results section contains the group mix design,
results from the workability and hardened concrete tests (direct and calculated), the re-designed
mix and 4 graphs showing results from the whole class data. The discussion section further
explains the findings in the results section and analyses the significance of these results.
The conclusion summarises the key findings and the significance of the results. Appendix 1
shows the calculations used to determine the results and appendix 2 contains the calculation
methods used for the individual mix and re-mix designs.

6
Method

Individual and group designs for the trial self-compacting concrete mix were created following
Tim Davies’ modified BRE method using parameters as outlined in the brief.

Three concrete cubes and one reinforced concrete beam were cast in accordance with standard BS
EN 12390-2:2009. The only deviation from standard was that the concrete was not compacted
due to it being a self-compacting concrete mix. There was no visible segregation observed during
casting, however during the casting of the beam it was noted that the concrete was not workable
enough to fill gaps around the rebar, therefore compaction would be required. The group were
advised by the lecturer not to compact the concrete.

Four methods of testing were used to determine the workability; Slump Flow, V-Funnel, L-Box
and J-Ring.

The Slump Flow test was undertaken in accordance with BS EN 12350-8:2010 without deviation
from standard.

The V Funnel test was undertaken in accordance with BS EN 121350-9:2010 without deviation
from standard.

The L box test was undertaken in accordance with BS EN 121350-10:2010 without deviation
from standard.

The J Ring test deviated from standard BS EN 121350-12:2010. Measurements for the difference
in height between the top of the concrete and the top of the J-Ring (∆ℎ#$ , ∆ℎ#& , ∆ℎ'$ , ∆ℎ'& , ∆ℎ( )
were taken incorrectly. Measurements instead were taken for the diameter of the concrete spread.
As these measurements were not taken, the passing ability (𝐵𝑗) could not be calculated.

7
Results
Group Trial Mix Design

Coarse Fine
Water Cement GGBS VMA
Aggregate Aggregate SP (ml)
(l) (kg) (kg) (g)
(kg) (kg)
Design (/m3 ) 825 860 220 315 131
Design (0.045 litre mix) 37.13 38.70 9.90 14.18 5.90 59-238 0.44-2.2
3 824.78 859.78 220.33 315.11 131.11
Actual (/m )
Actual (0.045 litre mix) 37.12 38.69 9.92 14.18 5.90 100 1
Table 1 - Group PT2A-02: Concrete Mix Design

The super-plasticiser and VMA levels used were advised by the lecturer during the casting
lab.

Workability Tests

Date: Thursday 08/11/2018

Location: Concrete Lab, John Laing Building, Coventry University

Slump Flow In accordance with BS EN 12350-8:2010

Time of Test - 09:40
𝒕𝟓𝟎𝟎 (seconds) 𝒅𝟏 (mm) 𝒅𝟐 (mm) 𝑺𝑭 (mm) Notes
No Segregation Observed.
N/A (didn't reach
410 400 405 Concrete mix didn't reach
500mm)
500mm
Table 2 - Group PT2A-02: Slump Flow test results

V-Funnel In accordance with BS EN 12350-9:2010

Time of Test - 09:50
𝒕𝒗 (seconds) 𝒕𝒗 after 5 minutes (seconds) Notes
4.9 5.2 No Segregation Observed.
Table 3 - Group PT2A-02: V-Funnel test results

L-Box In accordance with BS EN 12350-10:2010

Time of Test – 10:02
𝑯𝟏 (mm) 𝑯𝟐 (mm) 𝑷𝑳 (mm) Notes
Measurement One 425 118
Measurement Two 435 108
No Observations made
Measurement Three 426 117
Average 171.33 38.67 0.23
Table 4 - Group PT2A-02: L-Box test results

8
 J-Ring In accordance with BS EN 12350-12:2010
Time of Test – 10:15
𝑫𝟏 (mm) 𝑫𝟐 (mm) 𝑺𝑭𝒋 𝒕𝟓𝟎𝟎<
410 395 402.5 N/A (didn't reach 500mm)
Notes
∆ℎ#$ , ∆ℎ#& , ∆ℎ'$ , ∆ℎ'& , and ∆ℎ( were not recorded due to a deviation from standard. The passing
ability (blocking step 𝐵𝑗) could therefore not be calculated.
Table 5 - Group PT2A-02: J-Ring test results

Hardened Concrete Tests

Date: Thursday 06/12/2018

Location: Concrete Lab, John Laing Building, Coventry University

Pulse Velocity Test

Time Time Average

Block Pulse Velocity Pulse Velocity
taken - taken - Pulse
Cube Dimensions – Result 1 – Result 2
Result 1 Result 2 Velocity
(mm) (km/s) (km/s)
(s) (s) (km/s)
1 148x148x149 40.7 39.2 3.64 3.78 3.71
2 148x148x149 45.1 44.9 3.28 3.30 3.29
3 148x149x149 40.3 40.2 3.67 3.68 3.68
Table 6 - Group PT2A-02: Pulse Velocity test results

Rebound Test

Rebound Rebound Rebound Rebound Average

Cube Number - Side Number - Side Number - Side Number - Side Rebound
1 2 3 4 Number
1 19.5 20.1 24.5 23.2 21.8
2 26.2 24.6 24.8 27.8 25.9
3 23.9 23.4 26.1 25.0 24.6
Table 7 - Group PT2A-02: Rebound test results

Concrete Density

Cube Mass (g) Mass in water (g) Hydrostatic Weight/Density (kg/m3 )

1 7565.9 4266.9 2293.4
2 7668.5 4266.9 2254.4
3 7691.5 4266.9 2246.0
Table 8 - Group PT2A-02: Concrete density results

9
 Hydraulic Press Test

Hydraulic Press Cross—Sectional area of Compressive Strength fc

Cube Maximum Load (kN) cube (mm𝟐 ) (N/mm𝟐 )
1 779.19 21904 35.57
2 835.00 21904 38.12
3 782.87 22201 35.26
Table 9 - Group PT2A-02: Hydraulic Press test results

Standard Deviation and Characteristic Compressive Strength

Mean Compressive Strength fcm Standard Deviation Characteristic Strength fck

(N/mm𝟐 ) (N/mm𝟐 )
36.32 1.28 34.21
Table 10 - Group PT2A-02: Standard deviation and characteristic compressive strength of cubes

Estimation of Elastic Modulus

Poisson Ratio = 0.2

Average Pulse Velocity Density Dynamic Elastic Static Elastic

Cube (km/s) (kg/m3 ) Modulus (kN/mm𝟐 ) Modulus (kN/mm𝟐 )
1 3.71 2293.4 28.4 18
2 3.29 2254.4 21.9 12.5
3 3.68 2246.0 27.3 16
Table 11- Group PT2A-02: Estimation of elastic modulus of each cube

Mix Re-Design

Coarse Fine
Water Cement GGBS VMA
Aggregate Aggregate SP (ml)
(l) (kg) (kg) (g)
(kg) (kg)
Design (/m3 ) 760 700 225 396 166
Design (0.045 litre mix) 34.2 31.5 10.1 17.9 7.5 170 1.2
Table 12 - Re-design of Group PT2A-02 mix

10
Results of Whole Class Data

Super Plasticiser vs Passing Ability Ratio and Slump Flow

Passing Ability Ratio
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
220

200 y = 64.369x + 114.94

R² = 0.3211
Super Placsticiser (ml)

SF (mm)
180

160
Passing Ability
140 Ratio
y = 0.1032x + 88.188
R² = 0.2506
120

100

80
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Slump Flow SF (mm)
Figure 1 - Graph showing the relationship between amount of super plasticiser and the filling ability and passing ability of
the concrete mix.

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity vs Density

4.4
y = 0.0024x - 1.6201
4.2 R² = 0.1436

y = 0.0007x + 2.1157
Pulse velocity (km/s)

4
R² = 0.0936
3.8
y = 0.0006x + 2.4422
R² = 0.0689
3.6

3.4

3.2

3
2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 2400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650
Density (kg/m³)

Cube 1 Cube 2 Cube 3

Linear (Cube 1) Linear (Cube 2) Linear (Cube 3)

Figure 2 - Graph showing the relationship between ultrasonic pulse velocity and density of the concrete cube samples.

11
 Rebound vs Compressive Strength
35
y = 0.3506x + 11.144
R² = 0.3683
30

y = 0.2927x + 13.025
Rebound Number

25 R² = 0.3173
y = 0.3055x + 11.173
20 R² = 0.3213

15

10

5
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Compressive Strength fc (N/mm²)

Cube 1 Cube 2 Cube 3

Linear (Cube 1) Linear (Cube 2) Linear (Cube 3)

Figure 3 - Graph showing the relationship the rebound number and compressive strength of the concrete cube samples.

GGBS % vs Mean Compressive Strength (3 Cubes)

60

50

40
GGBS %

30

20

10

0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0
Mean Compressive Strength fc (N/mm²)

Figure 4 - Graph showing the % of GGBS addition and the mean compressive strength of the concrete cubes.

12
Discussion

Tables 2 and 5 show the results of the Slump Flow and J-Ring tests. The concrete mix failed to
reach the 500mm diameter mark during both the slump and j-ring tests, indicating that the
workability of the mix was low. The slump flow times (𝑡C(( & 𝑡EC(( ) could therefore not be
recorded, and the specified time of 3 seconds was not achieved. 𝑆𝐹 was recorded as 405mm and
𝑆𝐹E as 402.5mm, an average of 46% lower than the slump flow specified in the brief; 750mm.
According to the standards BS EN 12350-8:2010 and BS EN 12350-8:2010, the repeatability and
reproducibility values are not applicable for these tests due to the low values.

Figure 2 shows a clear positive correlation between the amount of superplasticiser used and the
passing and filling abilities of the concrete, therefore increasing the amount of superplasticiser
can result in higher workability of the concrete mix. This can be used to estimate the required
amount of plasticiser to potentially achieve a slump flow of 750mm; approximately 650g.

The blocking step (𝐵E ) could not be calculated due to an error taking the measurements for the
height of the concrete to the top of the J-Ring (ℎ#$ , ℎ#& , ℎ'$ , ℎ'& and ℎ( ) and therefore it is not
known if the specified blocking step of 6mm was achieved.

The results of the V-Funnel test (table 3) show a flow time (𝑡H ) of 4.9 seconds which is 39%
lower than the 8 second flow time specified in the brief. The flow time after 5 minutes was 5.2
seconds, a difference of 0.3 seconds. These results can be used to assess the segregation
resistance and as the difference in time is lower than 3 seconds, this would be adequate for a self-
compacting concrete mix (Day, Aldred and Hudson 2014: 166). Other methods of testing such as
the sieve stability test and penetration test could be used to further assess the segregation
resistance (Gibbs 2004).

Results of the L-Box test (Table 4) shows that the passing ability ratio (𝑃𝐿) of the mix was 0.23,
which is 74% lower than the specified ratio of 0.9. Using figure 2, it can be estimated that
increasing the amount of super plasticiser to 175g could potentially result in achieving a ratio of
0.9.

Segregation was not observed during the workability tests, however, upon curing segregation was
observed in all three concrete cubes. When casting the concrete beam, it was evident that the mix
was not self-compacting due to its low workability and the requirement for further compaction.

13
Table 9 shows the density of each cube with an average of 2254.6 kg/m3 According to the BRE
design process, the assumed relative density for uncrushed aggregate with a free water content of
220 kg/m3 is approximately 2350 kg/m3 . The 4% decrease in density of the cubes could be
attributed to the unknown characteristics of the aggregate which were not specified. As the value
of 2350 kg/m3 is an approximation a 4% decrease in density is to be expected.

Table 7 shows the ultrasonic pulse velocity of each cube with an average of 3.6 km/s. Both cube
1 and cube 2 have an ultrasonic pulse velocity of 3.7 km/s, however there is a 47 kg/m3
difference in density. This is likely due to an error in calculation as the mass of only one of the
cubes was measured in water due to time restrictions in the lab. This was then used to calculate
all three cube densities. If this test was to be repeated, the mass of each cube should be measured.

The results in figure 3 show the relationship between density and ultrasonic pulse velocity from
results within a sample of 35 cubes (12 separate mix designs with 30% GGBS). There is clear
correlation within the data which shows that the higher the density, the higher the ultrasonic pulse
velocity. This is to be expected as a low velocity reading would indicate that there are potentially
voids or cracks within the concrete and therefore the density and overall quality of the concrete is
lower. Due to the size of the transducers, the equipment can only test a small section of the
concrete, therefore there may be an issue with the accuracy of the results. Accuracy could be
increased by recording the velocity in various different positions on the surface.

Within the graph, cubes 1 and 2 have a similar trendline, however cube 3’s trendline shows a
significant increase in rate. This is potentially due to the fact that only 11 samples of data were
available for the third cube, as opposed to 12. Inaccuracies in calculations and measurements also
cannot be discounted. A larger sample set could potentially improve the accuracy of the trendline.

Table 11 shows the mean compressive strength of the three sample cubes (36.32 N/mm& ), the
standard deviation (1.28) and the characteristic strength of the concrete (34.21 N/mm& ). The
standard deviation (1.28) was originally calculated using the ‘stdev.p’ formula in Excel, however
manual calculation of the standard deviation differs slightly (see Appendix 1). The characteristic
strength of the concrete is 2% lower than the specified 35 N/mm& , and the mean compressive
strength is 24% lower than the expected value of 48 N/mm& . This shows that the strength of the
concrete is not sufficient, and a change is required in the mix design.

There is clear correlation between the mean compressive strength and the rebound number as
shown in figure 4; the higher the strength, the higher the rebound number. This is to be expected

14
as both the hydraulic press test and the rebound test are methods of determining compressive
strength. The rebound test is non-destructive; therefore, the sample can be used for further
testing, however it is less accurate as it gives an index number result rather than a unit of
measurement. As the hydraulic press test is a destructive method of testing, further tests cannot
be undertaken on the sample. This test gives a more accurate measurement, although calculation
is required to determine the compressive strength from the maximum load measurement which
can be subject to human error.

There are three anomalies in the data where the rebound number was below 15. These appear to
be from a single group’s data, therefore it is likely that there was an error in measurement or
recording of the data.

Figure 5 shows the relationship between the percentage of GGBS and the mean compressive
strength. There appears to be no correlation between these, therefore the results show that the
percentage of GGBS does not have an effect on the strength of the concrete at 28 days. However,
GGBS gradually increases the strength of concrete after a period of 28 days. Therefore, if the
strength of each of the cubes were further tested at 56, 90 and 100 days, the results should show
that the samples with higher percentages of GGBS have a higher compressive strength.

Table 12 shows the estimated dynamic and static elastic modulus for each cube assuming
Poisson’s ratio of 0.2. The average dynamic elastic modulus is 26 kN/mm& and the static elastic
modulus is 16 kN/mm& . According to Eurocode 2, the dynamic elastic modulus for concrete with
a characteristic strength of 35 should be 34 kN/mm& . The inclusion of GGBS can increase the
elastic modulus, however this is not significant in comparison to a Portland cement (Newman and
Choo 2003: 120).

The concrete mix did not achieve the required strength and workability required for a self-
compacting concrete, therefore changes to the mix design were required. A higher strength can be
achieved by decreasing the free water content and the water/cement ratio, however this will also
reduce workability and therefore the superplasticiser should be used in conjunction to increase
workability. The mix re-design is shown in table 13.

As per the BRE design process, the water/cement ratio was changed from 0.5 to 0.4 based on the
value of the mean compressive strength in table 11. The amount of water required could not be
calculated as the slump was not taken during testing, therefore the free water content was
increased to 225 kg/mN based on the original individual design (this was decreased in the group

15
design to account for the inclusion of the GGBS). The change in water/cement ratio and water
content resulted in a cement content of 565kg/mN , consisting of 166 kg/mN of GGBS and 396
kg/mN of cement.

The average density of the three cubes in table 9 and the free water content were used to calculate
the aggregate content; 1460 kg/mN . A percentage of 48% fine aggregate was estimated using the
new water/cement ratio, which gave 700 kg/mN of fine aggregate and 760 kg/mN of coarse
aggregate.

The required Slump Flow and Passing Ability Ratio outlined in the brief were 750mm and 0.9
respectively. Figure 2 was used to determine the approximate amount of superplasticiser to use in
the re-mix design; 170ml, based on the graph trendlines.

Although the segregation resistance was within limit, segregation was observed after 28 days
curing. Segregation can be prevented by increasing the level of viscosity and reducing yield
stress, this can be achieved by increasing the level of viscosity modifier in the mix (Claisse 2016:
225). For this reason, the amount of viscosity modifier was increased in the remix design to 1.2g.

According to data obtained from the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (2011), the amount of
GGBS can affect the embodied carbon content of the concrete. For example, concrete with a
characteristic strength of 35 N/mm& without GGBS has an embodied carbon content of 0.148
kgCO2e/kg from cradle to gate. An inclusion of 25% GGBS reduces the embodied carbon
content to 0.119 kgCO2e/kg and 50% reduces it further to 0.008 kgCO2e/kg. This shows that the
inclusion of GGBS in concrete decreases the embodied carbon content and therefore increases
sustainability. The characteristic strength of the concrete also has an effect on the embodied
carbon content. For example, concrete with a characteristic strength of 15 N/mm& and 25%
GGBS has an embodied carbon content of 0.088 kgCO2e/kg, compared with 0.153 kgCO2e/kg
for a concrete with 50 N/mm& characteristic strength. Therefore, to make a sustainable high
strength concrete, a high proportion of GGBS is required. It is worth noting that the data only
shows the embodied carbon content from cradle to gate and not cradle to grave.

16
Conclusion

Test results show that the passing ability and filling ability failed to reach the required
specification as set out in the brief. Although a good level of segregation resistance was
achieved, segregation was visible in the hardened concrete and the characteristic strength of
the concrete did not meet the expected parameter. The initial group trial mix would therefore
not be considered a self-compacting concrete mix.

Based on the results, the main objectives for the re-design of the mix were to increase
workability, compressive strength and viscosity in order to achieve a self-compacting
concrete mix. The compressive strength results (mean and characteristic) aided in the re-
design of the main components of the concrete; this included decreasing the water/cement
ratio and fine aggregate content. The whole class data results were used to increase
workability by estimating an appropriate level of superplasticiser based on the correlation
between passing/filling ability and superplasticiser levels. The contradiction between
segregation resistance test results and observations during hardened concrete testing were the
factor in deciding on a slight increase in VMA. This shows the importance of recording
observations during testing.

With regards to sustainability, strength and GGBS content are both important factors and
should be used in conjunction to obtain the required characteristic strength without increasing
the level of embodied carbon. In general, a higher strength concrete will require a higher
percentage of GGBS content in order to increase sustainability.

17
References
British Standards Institution (2014) Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures.
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004. London: British Standards Institute.

British Standards Institution (2010) Testing Fresh Concrete. Part 8: Self-Compacting

Concrete – Slump-flow Test. BS EN 12350-8:2010. London: British Standards
Institute.

British Standards Institution (2010) Testing Fresh Concrete. Part 9: Self-Compacting

Concrete – V-Funnel Test. BS EN 12350-9:2010. London: British Standards Institute.

British Standards Institution (2010) Testing Fresh Concrete. Part 10: Self-Compacting
Concrete – L-Box Test. BS EN 12350-10:2010. London: British Standards Institute.

British Standards Institution (2010) Testing Fresh Concrete. Part 12: Self-Compacting
Concrete – J-Ring Test. BS EN 12350-10:2010. London: British Standards Institute.

British Standards Institution (2009) Testing Hardened Concrete. Part 2: Making and curing
specimens for strength tests. BS EN 12390-2:2009. London: British Standards
Institute.

Building Research Establishment (1997) Design of normal concrete mixes. 2nd edn. Garston:
CRC.

Claisse, P. A. (2016) Civil Engineering Materials. Oxford: Elsevier

Davis, T. (2018) Concrete Mix Design. 4 – Modified BRE process for self-compacting
concrete. [online lecture] module 2026EXQ, 1 October. Coventry: Coventry University.
available from <https://cumoodle.coventry.ac.uk/mod/book/
view.php?id=1840976&chapterid=22187> [20 October 2018]

Davis, T. (2018) Method for estimating (static) elastic modulus of concrete from Ultrasonic Pulse
Velocity (UPV). Unpublished handout. Coventry: Coventry University. Available from <
https://cumoodle.coventry.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/2365421/mod_resource/content/0/Determi
ning%20Elastic%20modulus%20from%20UPV.pdf>

18
Day, K. W, Aldred, J. and Hudson, B. (2014) Concrete Mix Design, Quality, Control and
Specification. 4th edn. Boca Raton: CRC

Dinakar, P, Sethy, K. P. and Sahoo, U. C. (2013) ‘Design of self-compacting concrete with

ground granulated blast furnace slag.’ Materials and Design 43, 161-169

Gibbs, J. (2004) ‘Self-compacting concrete – Getting it right.’ Concrete 38 (6), 10-13

Hammond, G. and Jones, C. (2011) Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE). Version 2.0.
[microsoft excel spreadsheet] Bath: University of Bath. available from
< https://cumoodle.coventry.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=1840980>
[31 December 2018]

Newman, J. and Choo, B.S. (2003) Advanced Concrete Technology. Oxford: Elsevier

19
Appendix 1 – Result Calculations

Slump Flow

𝑑$ + 𝑑& 410 + 400 810

𝑆𝐹 = = = = 405mm
2 2 2

L-Box
𝐻$# + 𝐻$' + 𝐻$[ 425 + 435 + 426 1286
𝐻$ = 600 − = 600 − = 600 −
3 3 3

= 600 − 428.67 = 171.33mm

𝐻&# + 𝐻&' + 𝐻&[ 118 + 108 + 117 343

𝐻& = 153 − = 153 − = 600 −
3 3 3

= 153 − 114.33 = 38.67mm

𝐻& 38.67
𝑃𝐿 = = = 0.23mm
𝐻$ 171.33

J-Ring
𝐷$ + 𝐷& 410 + 395
𝑆𝐹< = = = 402.5mm
2 2
ℎ#$ + ℎ#& + ℎ'$ +ℎ'& 50 + 51 + 50 + 52
𝐵𝑗 = − ℎ( 𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒: − 45 = 5.75mm
4 4

Pulse Velocity
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 (1) 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 (2)
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑒 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = r + u ÷ 2
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 (1) 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 (2)

148 148
𝐶𝑢𝑏𝑒 1 = r + u ÷ 2 = 3.71 km/s
40.7 39.2
148 148
𝐶𝑢𝑏𝑒 2 = r + u ÷ 2 = 3.29 km/s
45.1 44.9
148 148
𝐶𝑢𝑏𝑒 3 = r + u ÷ 2 = 3.68 km/s
40.3 40.2

Concrete Density
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠
𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = × 1000
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 − 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

7565.9
𝐶𝑢𝑏𝑒 1 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = × 1000 = 2293.4 kg/m3
7565.9 − 4266.9
7668.5
𝐶𝑢𝑏𝑒 2 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = × 1000 = 2254.4 kg/m3
7668.5 − 4266.9

20
 7691.5
𝐶𝑢𝑏𝑒 3 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = × 1000 = 2246.0 kg/m3
7691.5 − 4266.9

Hydraulic Press Test

𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 7719.19
𝑓𝑐 = × 1000 𝐶𝑢𝑏𝑒 1: 𝑓𝑐 = × 1000 = 35.57 N/mm2
𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 − 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 21904
835
𝐶𝑢𝑏𝑒 2: 𝑓𝑐 = × 1000 = 38.12 N/mm2
21904
782.87
𝐶𝑢𝑏𝑒 3: 𝑓𝑐 = × 1000 = 35.26 N/mm2
22201

Standard Deviation and Characteristic Strength

ƒ
1
𝑆 = ~ €(𝑥• − 𝜇)&
𝑁
•„$

$
= …N [(35.57 − 36.32)& + (38.12 − 36.32)& + (35.26 − 36.32)& ] = 1.64

Excel ‘stdev.p’ function = 1.28

𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ − 1.64𝑠 = 36.32 − (1.64 × 1.28) = 34.21 N/mm2

Elastic Modulus – Cube One

(1 + 𝑣)(1 − 2𝑣)
𝐸‰ = 𝑥̇ & 𝜌 Œ •
(1 − 𝑣)

(1 + 0.2)(1 − 2(0.2))
= 3.71& × 2293.4 Ž •
(1 − 0.2)

0.72
= 31566.59 Ž • = 31566.59 × 0.9
0.8

= 28409.93

28409.93 ÷ 1000 = 28.4 kN/mm2

Figure 5 – Correlation curve for UVP, dynamic and

static elastic modulus (Davis 2018:1)

21
Appendix 2 - Individual Trial Mix Design and Re-design Mix
Individual Trial Mix Design

Following the BRE design process, the standard deviation should be calculated (figure 6).

The standard deviation (𝑠) is therefore 8 N/mm& .

The margin is calculated by multiplying the
standard deviation by the constant ′𝑘 ‘ , where 𝑘 =
1.64 based on 5% defectives.

𝑀 = 𝑘𝑠
⇒ 1.64 × 8 = 13.12
⇒ 13 N/mm&

The target mean strength (𝐹” ) is calculated by

Figure 6 – Relationship between standard deviation and adding the margin and the characteristic strength.
characteristic strength (Building Research Establishment
1997: 12)
𝐹” = 𝐹• + 𝑀 ⇒ 35 + 13 = 48 N/mm&

If the concrete is made with a free-water cement ratio of

0.5, the approximate compressive strength of the concrete
mix is shown in figure 7.

Based on the use of cement class 52.5 and uncrushed

coarse aggregate, the approximate compressive strength at
28 days is 48 N/mm& .

Figure 7 – Approximate compressive strength

(Building Research Establishment 1997: 13)
The next step of the BRE design process is to determine
the free-water/cement ratio (figure 4). The As the strength
value from table 2 is the same as the target mean strength, the free-water/cement ratio (𝑤/𝑠) is
0.5.

The free water content can now be calculating (figure 8),

based on the maximum aggregate size, aggregate type and
slump.

Based on the use of 10mm uncrushed aggregate and a

100mm slump, the free water content is determined as
225 kg/mN .

Figure 8 – Approximate free-water content

(Building Research Establishment 1997: 13)

The cement content is calculated by dividing the free water content (𝑐) by the free-water cement
ratio (𝑤/𝑠):

22
 – &&C
𝑐 = –/— ⇒ (.C = 450kg/mN (to the nearest 5 kg/mN ).

The GGBS percentage is 30%.

˜C(
0.3 × $.(& = 132.3529 = 132 kg/mN

Cement content = 0.7 × 450 = 315 kg/mN

Total Powder Content

132 + 315 = 447kg/mN

Actual GBBS content = 132 ÷ 447 = 29.5%

Figure 9 - Efficiency of GGBS vs GGBS replacement %
(Dinakar et al. 2013: 163

Figure 10 is used to determine the wet

concrete density using the assumed
relative density for uncrushed aggregate
and the free water content.

The wet concrete density is approximately

2325 kg/mN .

The total aggregate content is calculated as

follows:

𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝐷) − 𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝐶)

− 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝑊)

Figure 10 – Estimated wet density (Building Research 𝐷 − 𝐶 − 𝑊 = 2325 − 447 − 225

Establishment 1997:14)
= 1653 kg/mN

The recommended proportion of fine-aggregate determined using figure 11 is 50%.

The fine aggregate content is then

calculated by multiplying the total
aggregate content by the proportion
of fine-aggregate:

1653 × 0.5 = 826.5 kg/mN to the

nearest 5kg/mN = 825kg/mN

The coarse aggregate content is

then calculated by subtracting the
fine aggregate content from the
total aggregate content:
Figure 11 Estimated proportion of fine aggregate (Building Research
Establishment 1997: 14)
1653 − 825 = 828 kg/mN to the
nearest 5kg/mN = 830kg/mN

23
The FOSROC AYRACAST 200 data sheet recommends 300-1200ml of superplasticiser per
100kg cement, therefore the amount of superplasticiser is estimated as 59-238ml. The VMAR 10
data sheet recommends 300-1200ml of viscosity modifier per 100kg cement, therefore the
amount of superplasticiser is estimated as 0.44 – 2.2g.

Cement Water GGBS Fine Coarse SP VMA

Aggregate Aggregate
𝐦𝟑 315kg 225kg 132kg 825kg 830kg
0.045𝐦𝟑 14.2kg 10.125kg 5.94kg 37.125kg 37.35kg 59-238ml 0.44-2.2g
Table 13 – Individual mix design

Re-Design Mix

Based on figure 12, the new estimate of

water/cement ratio is 0.4

As per figure 8, the free-water content will

be changed to 225 kg/mN
– &&C
𝑐= ⇒ = 565kg/mN (to the
–/— (.˜
N
nearest 5 kg/m ).

The GGBS percentage is 30%.

CœC
0.3 × = 166.17647 = 166 kg/mN
$.(&

Cement content = 0.7 × 565 = 396 kg/mN

Total Powder Content

166 + 396 = 562kg/mN

Actual GBBS content = 166 ÷ 562 =

29.5%

Figure 12 – Re-design: free-water cement ratio (Building

Research Establishment 1997: 12)

Average density of the three cubes is 2246.6 with 220 kg/mN water.

𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝐷) − 𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝐶) − 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝑊)

𝐷 − 𝐶 − 𝑊 = 2246.6 − 562 − 225 = 1460 kg/mN

24
Figure 13 –Re-design: Estimated proportion of fine aggregate

Figure 13 shows the fine aggregate proportion is 48%. The fine aggregate content is therefore:

1460 × 0.48 = 700.8kg/mN to the nearest 5kg/mN = 700kg/mN

The course aggregate content is:

1460 − 700 = 760 kg/mN

Coarse Fine
Water Cement GGBS
Aggregate Aggregate SP (ml) VMA (g)
(l) (kg) (kg)
(kg) (kg)
Original Design (/m3 ) 825 860 220 315 131
Original Design (0.045 litre
37.13 38.70 9.90 14.18 5.90 59-238 0.44-2.2
mix)
Re-mix Design(/m3 ) 760 700 225 396 166
Re-mix Design (0.045 litre
34.2 31.5 10.1 17.9 7.5 150 1.5
mix)
Table 14 – Comparison of group trial mix design and re-design)

25