00 голосов за00 голосов против

11 просмотров34 стр.Concrete Mix Design

Apr 08, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Concrete Mix Design

© All Rights Reserved

11 просмотров

00 голосов за00 голосов против

Concrete Mix Design

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 34

MIX DESIGN

GROUP 22

Roelof Jacobs

Benedicto Munthali

John Roxburgh

Tholly Vezi

Kevin Volmink (Group Leader)

Word Count

Main text

Tables (13 x 150)

Figures (5 x 150)

Total

5000

1950

750

7700

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

1. A concrete is to be produced from the following materials:

CEMI Portland cement 52.5N (BS EN 197-1)

A gravel (uncrushed) coarse aggregate and an uncrushed fine aggregate with the

properties given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively (BS EN 12620)

Tap water (BS EN 1008)

Design a concrete with strength Class C30/37 and consistence Class S3 (BS EN 206-1)

using

(a) the DoE mix design method

(b) the ACI method

(c) the Basic Mix method.

There are no limiting values for the composition and no other specified concrete

requirements.

2. Compare and contrast the three mix design methods used in Q1, and in particular

comment on their ease of use and any differences in the resulting concrete compositions.

State which one of the mix designs you consider to be the best, giving reasons for your

selection.

3. How would you adjust the composition that you obtained in question 1(a) to produce

(a) a pumpable concrete

(b) a flowing concrete

(c) an underwater concrete

(d) a self-compacting concrete to EFNARC classes SF3, VS1/VF1, PA2 and SR2

(e) an air-entrained concrete.

For each of these you should design a mix for the same strength class as in Q1, and you

can incorporate any other constituent materials locally available to at least one of the group

members in addition to those given in Q1 above.

4. How would you modify the mix composition that you obtained in question 1(a) to achieve

maximum sustainability benefits if you were also able to use one or more of:

(a) fly ash conforming to BS EN 450-1 (Category N)

(b) ground granulated blastfurnace slag conforming to BS EN 15167-1

(c) limestone powder to BS 7979

Notes:

You should clearly set out your reasoning, calculations, assumptions etc. for each

part of Q1, Q3 and Q4.

The conclusion to each part should be the composition that you would use for an

initial trial mix, either in the laboratory or in a batching plant. These are of course best

estimates and in practice may need adjustment depending on the results of the trial

mix.

In Q3 you should also include details of the materials you have chosen to use

(including the manufacturer's data sheets).

The ACI and Basic Mix Design methods are provided in the Mix Design section of the

library.

Overall maximum length 7000 words (excluding report title page, contents,

reference list and appendices, but including words in tables) with each diagram,

figure etc. within the main text to count as 150 words. Ensure that the word length is

declared in the report.

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A class C30/37 strength concrete mix with a class S3 consistence using specific materials

was sort. Three concrete mix design methods, DoE, ACI and Basic, were used to determine

the mix proportions based on required concrete and material properties. These methods

were compared with reference to their ease of use and the differences in the concrete mix

design obtained from each. The DoE and basic mix design methods were found to be more

accurate in the determination of the initial mix design. The composition of the initial mix

design was then adjusted, whilst maintaining the strength requirements, to produce various

special concretes. This was achieved by blending the specified materials, using additions

and admixtures. Finally the initial mix was modified to achieve the maximum sustainability

benefits by incoporating fly ash, GGBS and limestone in various proportions.

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No

1.

1.1

1.4

1.5

1.1.1 Introduction 6

1.1.2 Performance requirements6

1.1.3 Materials 6

1.1.4 Target mean strength (to be used for all mix designs)

7

DoE mix design

7

1.2.1 Stage 1: Selection of target water/cement ratio 7

1.2.2 Stage 2: Selection of free-water content 8

1.2.3 Stage 3: Determination of cement content

9

1.2.4 Stage 4: Determination of total aggregate content

9

1.2.5 State 5: Selection of fine and coarse aggregate contents10

ACI Mix design

11

1.3.1 Step1: Choice of slump 11

1.3.2 Step 2: Choice of maximum aggregate size

11

1.3.3 Step 3: Estimation of mixing water11

1.3.4 Step 4: Selection of water cement ratio 11

1.3.5 Step 5: Calculation of cement content

11

1.3.6 Step 6: Estimating coarse aggregate content

12

1.3.7 Step 7: Estimation of fine aggregate content

12

Basic Mix Method 12

Conclusion 13

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

Introduction 14

Result comparison 14

Ease of use of the different methods

Determination of free water content.

Determination of water to cement ratio

Determination of aggregate content16

Conclusion 17

3.

3.1

3.2

3.1.1 Mix design considerations 18

3.1.2 Mix design calculations

19

Air entrainment mix design 21

4.

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

Introduction 22

Fly Ash Category N (EN 450-1)

GGBS (EN 15167-1)23

Limestone powder to BS 7979

5.

REFERENCES

1.2

1.3

22

23

25

ii

15

16

16

18

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

APPENDIX A

iii

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Approximate compressive strength (N/mm2) of concrete mixes made with a freeware/cement ration of 0.5.......................................................................................................7

Figure 1-2 Relationship between compressive strength and free-water/cement ratio.............8

Figure 1-3 Approximate free-water contents (kg/m3) required to give various levels of

workability.............................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 1-4 Estimated wet density of fully compacted concrete.............................................10

Figure 1-5 (continued).......................................................................................................... 11

iv

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Coarse (gravel) aggregate......................................................................................6

Table 1-2 Uncrushed fine aggregate.......................................................................................6

Table 1-3 Zone of sand for given grading.............................................................................12

Table 1-4 Summary of mix design results.............................................................................13

Table 2-1 Mix design results from different team members...................................................15

Table 2-2 ACI mix design reworked with w/c of 0.52.............................................................15

Table 3-1 Summary of specifications according to EFNARC 2005.......................................18

Table 3-2 SCC mix adjustment computation.........................................................................19

Table 3-3 Comparison of ACI question 1 mix and proposed air entrained mix......................21

Table 4-1 Mix to be modified for sustainability......................................................................22

Table 4-2 Mix modified by adding fly ash..............................................................................22

Table 4-3 Mix modified by adding GGBS..............................................................................23

Table 4-4 Mix modified by adding limestone.........................................................................23

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

1.

1.1

1.1.1

Introduction

Using three different mix design methodologies, a mix design is created using each

methodology with the given input materials. The following methodologies are used.

The DoE mix design method. This is a British method of mix design and was first

published in the Road Research Laboratorys Road Note No. 4 ('Road Research

Laboratory', 1950). It was subsequently revised in 1975 and again revised and

updated in 1988 in the publication Design of normal concrete mixes (Teychenne,

et al., 1988).

The ACI (American Concrete Institute) method is a method developed by ACI

committee 211 which is described in the ACI publication Standard Practice for

selecting proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1-91)

(ACI Committee 211, 2009)

The Basic Mix Method is a method proposed by Owens in the Basic mix series

published by the Cement and Concrete association (Owens, 1973).

1.1.2

Performance requirements

Strength class C30/37. Consistence class S3 as per BS EN 206-1 (BS EN 2061:2000, 2004). BS EN 206-1 describes a consistence class of S3 as having a slump

of between 100 mm and 150 mm

1.1.3

Materials

Coarse aggregate: Gravel (uncrushed) with maximum nominal size of 20 mm

irregular in shape. As per Table 1-1 in assignment.

Grading

Particle density

(SSD)

Dry rodded bulk

density

Particle shape

Sieve size

% passing by

wt

20mm

96

10mm

35

4mm

4

2mm

1

2.650 Mg/m3

1.46 Mg/m3

irregular

Fine aggregate: Uncrushed fine aggregate with properties given in Table 1-2 of

assignment. From Table 1-2 in assignment the percentage fines passing the 600

micron sieve being 52%. The fineness modulus was calculated to be 2.7.

Grading

Sieve size

4mm

2mm

6

% passing by

wt

98

79

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Particle density

(SSD)

1mm

67

0.5mm

52

0.25mm

22

0.125mm

5

(grading zone 2 for Basic Mix

Method)

2.65 Mg/m3

Water meeting the requirements of BS EN 1008.

1.1.4

Assuming 5% defectives allowed and a standard deviation of 6MPa as obtained

from Design of Normal concrete mixes (Teychenne, et al., 1988).

Target mean strength fm = 37 + (1.64 x 6) = 47MPa

1.2

1.2.1

For water cement ratio of 0.5 at 28 days, using Figure 1-1, a strength of 48 MPa is

obtained. (used the rapid hardening RHPC part of the table as the strength class of

given cement is 52.5)

From Figure 1-2 the above values are used to adjust the strength down to 47MPa

and a target water cement ratio of 0.52

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Figure 1-2

1-1 Approximate

Relationship between

compressive

compressive

strength strength

(N/mm2) of

and

concrete

free-water/cement

mixes maderatio

with a

free-ware/cement ration of 0.5

1.2.2

Selection of free water content from Figure 1-3

Free water content of 195 litres was obtained for uncrushed aggregate of maximum

size 20mm

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Figure 1-3 Approximate free-water contents (kg/m3) required to give various levels of

workability

1.2.3

Cement content = free-water content / (free-water/cement ratio)

= 195 / 0.52 = 375kg of cement.

1.2.4

From Figure 1-4 the wet density is calculated at 2355 kg/m 3 assuming an aggregate

relative density of 2.65

Total aggregate content = Wet density of concrete cement content free-water

content

= 2355 375 195 = 1785kg/m3

10

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

1.1.1

1.2.5

From sand grading Table 1-2 the percentage passing the 600 micron sieve is 52%.

Using Figure 1-5 the proportion of fine aggregate is found to be 42%.

Therefore fine aggregate content = 0.42 x 1785 = 750 kg

And coarse aggregate content = 1785 750 = 1035kg

11

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

1.2

1.3

All tables referred to in this section are tables within the ACI publication Standard

Practice for selecting proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete

(ACI Committee 211, 2009).

1.3.1

Given to be 100 150mm

1.3.2

From assignment to be a maximum size of 20mm.

1.3.3

From Table 6.3.3, 350 pounds of water per cubic yard were obtained for inch

aggregate and a slump of between 4 and 6 inches.

Converted to metric units it comes to 207kg/m3

1.3.4

Based on a 28 day cylinder strength (applying same margin as to cube above) of

40MPa (5801 PSI) interpolating Table 6.3.4(a) gives a water to cement ratio of 0.42.

1.3.5

From steps 3 and 4

Cement content = water content / (water cement ratio)

= 207 / 0.42 = 492kg/m3.

12

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

1.3.6

Percentage volume of coarse aggregate per unit volume of concrete obtained from

table 6.3.6 using a fineness modulus of 2.7 (as calculated above) is 63% hence

volume of coarse aggregate is:

= 0.63 x 1 = 630 litres

Hence mass of coarse aggregate is = 0.63 x 1460 = 920kg

density given in assignment as 1460kg/m3).

1.3.7

Firstly the plastic density of the fresh concrete is estimated from Table 6.3.7.1 and

this give (after conversion) an estimated density of 2350 kg/m3

The mass of fine aggregate is calculated as follows

Mass fine aggregate = mass concrete mass water mass cement mass coarse

aggregate

= 2350 207 492 920 = 731 kg/m3

1.4

The sand assumed in the introduction fits a zone 2 type sand best see Table 1-3

below. Values taken from booklet Sands for concrete (Newman & Teychenne',

1964)

% passing

Zone 2

mix sand

Zone 3

90-100

98

90-100

75-100

79

85-100

55-90

67

75-100

35-59

52

60-79

8 to 30

22

12-40

0-10

0-10

So from table 3 in Basic mix method (Owens, 1973) using maximum aggregate

size of 20mm and a Zone 2 sand with irregular shaped coarse aggregate and a

slump of between 100mm and 150mm the first trial mix would be

Water = 195kg

Cement = 350kg

Fine aggregate = 730kg

Coarse aggregate = 1040kg

13

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

1.5

Conclusion

A summary of the mix design results using the different methods is given in Table 14 below.

DoE

ACI

BASIC

Water

195

207

195

Cement

375

492

350

Fine agg

750

731

720

Coarse agg

1035

920

1040

Density

2355

2350

2305

14

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

2.

2.1

Introduction

The ACI, DoE and Basic mix design are discussed below. The discussion includes

the ease of use of each mix design and the results produced by each mix design

with the view to choosing the most suitable with regards to efficiently producing an

effective mix design.

2.2

Result comparison

Different team members using the same input material produced different mix

designs using the same design methods. There was also a difference in the mix

designs produced between the different methods. This is illustrated in Table 2-1.

When analysing the results of the different mix designs a logical approach would be

to quickly and simply make an assessment of the overall mix proportions and ask

the following simple questions:

Does the water content look reasonable?

Does the fine to coarse aggregate ratio look reasonable?

Does the cement content look reasonable?

For the strength requirements does the w/c ratio look reasonable?

The most glaringly obvious would be the water cement ratio. The method according

to BS EN 196-1:2005 ('BS EN 196-1:2005', 2005) used to evaluate the strength

performance class of the given cement, namely the CEM1 52.5N, uses a water

cement ratio of 0.5 and standard CEN (European committee for standardization)

sand to cement ratio of 3. The specimen is given a strength class of 52.5 if it

exceeds 52.5 MPa at 28 days. It therefore follows that for a 47 MPa concrete any

mix design method that does not return a w/c ratio of close to or even higher than

0.5 is using outdated and/or conservative tables or graphs to determine the w/c

ratios. In Table 2-1 it can be seen that the DoE method done by team member BM

and JR delivered the most realistic w/c ratios. It appears that the major cause of

differences between the different mix designs starts with the large differences in the

water cement ratio. Re-doing the ACI mix designs with a fixed w/c ratio of 0.52

resulted in the designs in Table 2-2. This resulted in more comparable mix designs

with reasonable water and cement contents. The basic mix design is unable to cater

for a 47MPa concrete with a 195 litre free water content and hence was not recalculated with the w/c ratio of 0.52.

All design methods produced results with reasonable free water contents with the

DoE and Basic mix design having below 200 litres of water.

Having a substantially larger stone content in comparison to the sand content will

produce a more stable concrete in the hardened state but may be more difficult to

work in the plastic state. The DoE and Basic mix design produced mixes with a

relatively larger stone content while the ACI method produced a heavily sanded mix.

The DoE method results produced consistently the lowest cement contents and

hence protentially the cheapest concrete.

15

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 2-6

2-5 ACI

Mix design

mix design

results

reworked

from different

with w/cteam

of 0.52

members

DoE

TV

BM

KV

JR

Basic

195

350

0.56

720

784

1040

1845

2305

195

406

0.48

958

200

449

0.45

796

195

483

0.40

610

816

910

1040

2375

2355

2329

195

424

0.46

593

205

456

0.45

774

195

350

0.56

720

1148

920

1040

2360

2355

2305

195

375

0.52

750

207

492

0.42

731

195

350

0.56

720

1035

920

1040

2355

2350

2305

Water kg/m3

Cement Kg/m3

W/C

Fine aggregate kg/m3

Coarse aggregate

kg/m3

Plastic density kg/m3

Water kg/m3

Cement Kg/m3

W/C

Fine aggregate kg/m3

Coarse aggregate

kg/m3

Plastic density kg/m3

Water kg/m3

Cement Kg/m3

W/C

Fine aggregate kg/m3

Coarse aggregate

kg/m3

Plastic density kg/m3

Water kg/m3

Cement Kg/m3

W/C

Fine aggregate kg/m3

Coarse aggregate

kg/m3

Plastic density kg/m3

DoE

Water kg/m3

195

Cement Kg/m3

375

W/C

0.52

Fine aggregate kg/m3

750

Coarse

aggregate

1035

kg/m3

Plastic density kg/m3

2355

2.3

ACI

202

420

0.48

440

ACI

207

398

0.52

825

920

2350

All mix designs were easy to use. All methods relied on looking up figures on tables

or graphs and the design process was done in stages. The Basic mix design

involved looking up an initial mix on a set of tables and then this mix was adjusted

16

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

to meet the strength requirements. The Basic mix design method was not able to

cater for the 47MPa required strength for the given water content in the initial given

mix. No clear procedure was given to remedy this as the design did not cater for

the changing of the water content to meet the requirements but rather relied on

changing the cement contents. (It should be noted that Basic Mix Method booklet

states on the front cover that this method is for Selection of proportions for medium

strength concretes and as this was published in 1973 a 47MPa concrete may have

been approaching what would have been classified as high strength).

2.4

The DoE method looked this up on a table using the maximum size of aggregate

and the type of aggregate (crushed or uncrushed) along with the required slump as

input parameters.

The ACI method also used the maximum aggregate size and slump as parameters

to look up the free water content on a table but makes no distinction for the

aggregate shape like the DoE method.

The Basic mix design determines the free water content by actual mixes done

taking into account the sand grading and stone shape (rounded, irregular or

angular).

As the DoE and Basic mix designs returned lower free water contents and take the

stone shape into account it suggests that they will give a more accurate measure of

the free water content.

2.5

For the DoE method the w/c ration is looked up on a table which caters for different

types of cement and the stone shape.

The ACI method uses a table to determine the ratio but only with a given strength

as the input parameter.

The Basic mix design method determines the water cement ratio by adjusting the

cement content in the initial mix design found on a table taking into account the

sand grading and stone shape.

It would stand to reason that the DoE and Basic mix design method would return a

better approximation of the required w/c ratio due to the use of more input

parameters in its determination. The Basic mix design does not cater for a shift in

water content to get the required w/c ratio and hence could not cater for the 47MPa

requirement.

2.6

The DoE mix design determines the overall aggregate content by predicting the

density of the concrete and then subtracting the free water and cement content from

this. The aggregate content is then proportioned into coarse and fine contents using

tables that take the slump, maximum aggregate size, water cement ratio and also

the grading of the fine aggregate (namely the percentage of material smaller than

600 microns) into account.

17

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

The ACI method used a table that takes into account the maximum aggregate size

and the fineness modulus of the sand to look up the coarse aggregate content. The

fine aggregate content is then calculated by difference after estimating the concrete

density off a table.

The Basic mix design method determines the coarse and fine aggregate contents

by doing initial trial mixes that are listed in a table. The coarse aggregate content

then remains the same while the fine aggregate content is adjusted when the

cement content is changed to get the correct w/c ratio.

The DoE and Basic mix design methods make use of both coarse aggregate shape

and fine aggregate grading along with the maximum aggregate size to determine

the contents of these in the mix. The ACI method only uses the maximum

aggregate size and the fineness modulus of the sand to determine the aggregate

proportions and quantities. The fineness modulus does not say anything about the

grading of the sand which is a crucial parameter for the workability of the mix.

2.7

Conclusion

The DoE and Basic mix design methods cater for stone shape and sand

grading in their determination of water content and aggregate content while

the ACI method does not. For a more accurate prediction of an initial mix

design it would appear that DoE and Basic mix design would be a better

choice.

18

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

3.

3.1

The self compacting concrete design presented here is an adjustment to ACI mix

design proposed in question 1. The mix design has been prepared with guidance of

the European Guideline for Self Compacting Concrete (EFNARC) of 2005. It is

anticipated that the proposed adjustments will achieve specification of SF3,

VS1/VF1, PAR2 and SR2. Literature say that self compacting concrete is designed

on volume based (EFNARC, 2005). This is because mix designs often use volume

as a key parameter because of the importance of the need to over fill the voids

between the aggregate particles (EFNARC, 2005).

3.1.1

According to EFNARC 2005 the specifications in question entail the following;

SF3

760

850mm

to

VS1/VF1

8 sec

PAR2

0.80 with

3 rebars

SR2

Segregation resistance to be

achieved

15%

In order to achieve this, our mix design of question 1 has to have the paste volumes

and aggregate content adjusted adequately. EFNARC propose the following

guideline to developing a mix design (Group, 2005);

Evaluate the water demand and optimize the flow and stability of paste

Determine the proportion of sand and dose of admixture to give the required

robustness

Produce the fresh SCC in the laboratory mixer, perform the required tests

In order to achieve a flow and stability of paste, the binder content has to be

increased. Since the cement in question is a 52.5N increase in cement content will

result in excessive creeping, shrinkage and cracking in the concrete. To counter

this, the mix will have fly ash included. This will give higher binder content with low

cement content. Fly ash will also reduce the peak temperatures during heat of

19

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

hydration and hence minimize thermal cracking. It will also improve workability;

reduce segregation and bleeding in the concrete.

In order to achieve the second and third points, our mix of question 1 shall be

adjusted as follows;

3.1.2

This is to be verified with initial tests.

There are no standard methods for SCC mix design and many academic

institutions, admixture, ready-mix; precast and contracting companies have

developed their own mix methods (EFNARC, 2005). The method used to adjust the

question 1 mix design is adopted from a paper from the International Journal of

Advances in Engineering & Technology entitled A SIMPLE TOOL FOR SELF

COMPACTING CONCRETE MIX DESIGN (J. Guru Jawahar, C. Sashidhar, I.V.

Ramana Reddy and J. Annie Peter, 2012). For flowability, the maximum aggregate

size has been limited to 13.2mm and the mix is a 50/50 blend of 10mm and 13.2mm

aggregate, the water content has been fixed to match with the question 1 mix, free

w/c has been adjusted to 0.4 and binder content calculated based on this, the

computation is given below in Table 3-1;

Specific gravity of 13.2mm &

50 50

2.71

10mm

Dry robbed

Coarse aggregate

1460 kg/m3

50 %

in

robbed

Coarse aggregate weight

Coarse aggregate volume

Mortar volume

dry

730 kg/m3

269.37 litre/m3

26.94%

Concrete

volume

coarse

aggregate

volume

1000-269.37

730.63 litre/m3

% of sand in Mortar volume

Sand volume

43.0 %

730.63*43%

314.45 litre/m3

3.15

20

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Air content

Water / binder ratio

% of fly ash by weight

volume of GLENIUM 7500 by

2.12 Assumed

2 %

assumed

0.4

try

30

0.78 litre per 100 kg of binder

weight of binder

volume of GLENIUM STREAM

2 by weight of binder

Binder

Fly ash

Cement

Water

Volume of cement

Volume of Fly ash

GLENIUM 7500

GLENIUM STREAM 2

Total Paste Volume

Calculations

of

constituent

512.5

153.75

358.75

205

113.9

72.5

4.00

0.77

416.18

material

concrete

Specific gravity of sand

% of absorption of 20mm

% of absorption of 10mm

% of absorption of sand

% of moisture in 20mm

% of moisture in 10mm

% of moisture in sand

% of dry material in GLENIUM

7500

% of dry material in GLENIUM

STREAM 2

Cement

Fly ash

Initial water content

Coarse aggregate

20mm coarse aggregate

10mm coarse aggregate

Sand

3.2

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

litre/m3

litre/m3

litre/m3

litre/m3

litre/m3

litre/m3

for

2.71

0.3 Assumed

0.3 Assumed

0.1 Assumed

0

0

0

50

50

358.75

153.75

205

730

365

365

852.15

kg/m3

kg/m3

litre/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

According to Fultons, our mix design from question one will be adjusted as follows

(Owens, 2009);

21

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 3-9 Comparison of ACI question 1 mix and proposed air entrained mix

On the last point, typical air content is between 2 to 6 % but the minimum specified

is 3% (Unknown, 2012)

Using the above guide the proposed air entrained mix for for trial is given below in

Table 3-3;

Water l/m3

205

Air

entrained

mix

191

Cement kg/m3

Fine aggregate kg/m3

Coarse aggregate

kg/m3

Air entrainment agent

%

456

774

920

496

774

920

Q1

BASF. Appendix A has the product data sheet. The first trail mix will start with 38.2

ml of admixture; therefore the first trail mix will be as follows;

Water

191 l/m3

Cement

496 kg/m3

Fine aggregate

774 kg/m3

Coarse aggregate

920 kg/m3

MB AE 90

0.038 l/m3

22

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 4-11

4-10 Mix modified

to be modified

by adding

for sustainability

fly ash

4.

4.1

Introduction

The use of extenders fly ash, slag and limestone filler has been proven in the past

to have benefits on the density of the concrete as well as the strength gain at later

ages. With one of the primary reasons for use being the reduction in carbon

footprint and cost. The mix to be modified for sustainability is given in Table 4-1

below.

Water

Cement

Course Aggregate

Fine Aggregate

kg/m

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

W/C

4.2

Base mix

205

456

920

774

R.D.

1,00

3,14

2,56

2,65

Yield

205

145

359

292

1002

Total

0,45

Water

Cement

Fly Ash

Course Aggregate

Fine Aggregate

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

W/C

Fly Ash

mix

200

319

137

920

735

R.D.

Yield

1.00

3.14

2.20

2.56

2.65

200

102

62

359

277

1001

Total

0.44

Category N indicates that the fineness of the fly ash shall not exceed 40% by mass

when sieved through a 0.045mm mesh sieve. Not making mention of the water

reduction required as per the Category S fly ash. (50450, 2011)

There is a few fly ashes that confirm to the category N requarements in South

Africa. Although most of the research papers that has been pupliched used a

category S fly ash. With work done on the category N a water reduction of 2-5%

were acheaved.

The norm in ready mix concrete (RMC) is to replace up to 30% of the cement

content with fly ash, as we have done in the fly ash mix. This has a delay on the

setting time and the hydration rate of the concrete. (H. Wang, 2006)

The 28day cube results will be lower due to the slower reaction, but with the 5690days surpassing the conventional 28day resuls. Thus when the same 28day cube

results are requared the W/C will have to be adjusted.

The fine aggregates had to be reduced 40kg to allow for the extra fine material that

the ash provides.

23

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 4-13

4-12 Mix modified by adding limestone

GGBS

4.3

Water

Cement

GGBS

Course

Aggregate

Fine Aggregate

GGBS

mix

R.D.

Yield

200

1.00

200

228

3.14

73

228

2.84

80

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

920

770

W/C

0.44

2.56

2.65

359

291

1003 Total

The use of GGBS varies from 25% to 50% of weight of the cement, (Malhotra,

1997) this is in line with what the RMC us is in South Africa.

GGBS also has a water reduction of 2-5% due to it being able to increase the slump

and ease the compaction of the concrete (Malhotra, 1997). This is however all

dependand on the type of grinding that took place and the shape and size of the

GGBS partiacal.

The same as with fly ash there is a delayed setting but with a higher rate of strength

gain at early age as compared to fly ash (3day). It will have a lower strength at

28days compared to the base mix but 56-90days will be higher.

Adjustments will have to be made to the W/C if the same 28days cube results are

requared.

4.4

Limestone is usually considered to be the poorest potential performer of cement /

concrete extention material. (M. Compton, Volume 38 No1)

Water

Cement

Limestone

Course Aggregate

Fine Aggregate

kg/m

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

kg/m3

W/C

Limestone mix

R.D. Yield

203 1.00

203

421.8 3.14

134

34.2 2.65

13

920 2.56

359

770 2.65

291

1000 Total

0.45

The limestone powder is usually used and an inert fine filler in concrete at about 7,

5% (M. Compton, Volume 38 No1). It is usually also finer than the cement particle

and thus improves the density of the concrete as well as having a small

improvement on the workability due to particle size distribution.

This might increase the strength slightly but not significantly. In some cases when

using higher than 7.5% replacement a lower strength at 28days will be achieved,

but with similar 56-90day strength compared to the base mix. (E. Gunyisi, 2011)

24

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

5.

REFERENCES

50450, S. E. (2011). SANS EN 50450-1:2011. Pretoria: SANS.

E. Gunyisi, M. G. (2011). Properties of self-compacting portland pozzolana and

limestone blended cement concrete containing defferet replacement levels of slag.

Materials and structures , 1399-1410.

H. Wang, C. Q. (2006). Inter reaction of materials used in concrete. Concrete

International , 46-52.

M. Compton, J. C. (Volume 38 No1). Elevated limestone mineral addition impacts

on laboratory and firld concrete performance. Feature: Concrete Technologies , 2733.

Malhotra, V. (1997). Supplementary Cementing Materials - For concrete.

ACI Committee 211, 2009. Standard Practise for Selecting Proportions for Normal,

Heavyweight, and Mass concrete , Farmington Hills, Michigan: American Concrete

Institute.

'BS EN 206-1:2000', 2004. Concrete - Part 1:Specification, performance, production

and conformity. s.l.:British Standards Institute.

Newman, A. J. & Teychenne', D. C., 1964. A technical and historical review of the

sand grading requirements in British Standard 882*. London, Sand and Gravel

Association of Great Britian.

Owens, P. L., 1973. Basic Mix Method, Selection of proportions for medium strength

concretes, London: Cement and Concrete Association.

'Road Research Laboratory', 1950. Road Note No.4 Design of Concrete Mixes. 2nd

ed. Harmondsworth: Department of Scientific and Industrial research.

Teychenne, D. C., Franklin, R. E. & Erntroy, H. C., 1988. Building Research

Establishment report. Design of normal concrete mixes. Revised edition ed.

Garston: Department of Environment.

'BS EN 196-1:2005', 2005. Methods of testing cement, Part 1: Determination of

Strength. s.l.:British Standards Institute.

EFNARC. (2005). The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete. UK:

EFNARC.

J. Guru Jawahar, C. Sashidhar, I.V. Ramana Reddy and J. Annie Peter. (2012). A

SIMPLE TOOL FOR SELF COMPACTING CONCRETE MIX DESIGN.

International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology (pp. 550-558).

India: International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology.

Owens, G. (2009). Fulton's Concrete Technology. Midrand: Cement & Concrete

Institute,.

Unknown. (2012, 12 14). USAD GOV. Retrieved 12 14, 2012, from USAD GOV:

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/MI/technical/engineering/Training

%20Modules/ConcreteConstruction/Air%20Entrainment%20and%20Concrete.pdf

25

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

APPENDIX A

A-1

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

A-2

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

A-3

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

A-4

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

A-5

GROUP 22

ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

A-6

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.