Methodology to select water-cement ratio and water reduction for pumping

concrete made using superplasticizer

Tabish Izhar1, Pronab Roy2 *
1

M.Tech Student, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of TechnologyDurgapur, Durgapur, West Bengal 713209,
Email: tabish.ez@gmail.com
2*
Corresponding Author: Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Durgapur,
Durgapur, West Bengal 713209, Email: pronabroy@rediffmail.com

ABSTRACT
Pumping method of placing concrete is becoming popular at construction sites all over the world. Selection of
water cement ratio in the mix proportioning of pumping concrete using superplasticizer is yet to be standardised.
In the presented paper the approach for the selection of water cement ratio and water reduction has been
developed under the guidelines of Indian Standard codes. Indian Standard (IS) has not yet dealt with the
complexity in the mix proportioning of pumping concrete. Indian Standard has left the mix proportioning of
pumping concrete largely on the experience of a designer. Selection of water cement ratio and water reduction
for a mix is left over to designer to decide just on the basis the data available for the mix design of hand placed
concrete. Pumping capability of the mix has not been discussed anywhere by the Indian Standard. This does not
seem to be justified as mix design of pumping concrete carry more variables and is more complicated than the
hand placed concrete mix design. The present paper is the humble effort in selection of water reduction and
water-cement ratio (w/c) in a mix design of pumping concrete to ensure required strength and pumpability
capability on the basis of paste content. The present paper deals with the mixes having water cement ratio
ranging from 0.37 to 0.48 each with various water reduction percentages to ensure the strength of M25, M30
and M35 grade of concrete. Empirical equation has also been derived to predict water cement ratio and water
reduction at known water cement ratio.
Keywords: Mix design, Pumping concrete, Indian Standard method, Paste content

1. INTRODUCTION
Use of pumpable concrete is gradually increasing in the construction fields. Concrete pumping is especially
useful where space for construction equipment is limited and in the construction of high rise buildings. Indian
Standard defines pumping concrete as concrete having slump above 75 mm [1] where as American Concrete
Institute (ACI) defines it as concrete that is transported through hose or pipe by means of a pump [2]. There is
quite difference between the definition given by two giant concrete using country. Where Indian Standard code
only talks about workability, ACI focuses on pumping ability. There is no specific Indian Standard code for mix
design of pumping concrete. IS: 10262- 2009 [3] is used for mix design of pumping concrete same as hand
placed concrete. This IS code has dealt with the mix proportioning of pumping concrete merely with a
numerical example without any theoretical backup. This leads to number of queries in the mind of a designer,
who has no option but to follow the steps empirically. There is also an uncertainty of pumpability of concrete.
There are no guidelines on the selection of water reduction or pumping security. Due to the complexity of the
mix proportioning of pumping concrete, it becomes difficult task for a new designer to design an appropriate
mix with the missing guidelines without many number of trials. Trial mixes of concrete intended for pumping is
first prepared and tested in a laboratory. Tests and observations indicate whether the slump, cohesiveness,
finishability and strength are acceptable. Even if the mix looks good in the laboratory, its pumpability for
complex projects is verified with a full-scale pumping test under field conditions. The wastage of materials, time
and money can be reduced if Indian Standard deals more precisely with the guidelines and pumping security of
mix design of pumping concrete.

In the mix design of pumping concrete most components are pushed to their limits. Cement consumption
becomes quite high due to increase in water needed to attain desired slump. This is where use of
superplasticizers becomes significant. Thus water reduction becomes an important parameter in mix
proportioning of pumping concrete. Its a misconception that the water reduction is to be decided based on
superplasticizer in a mix design. But the vice-versa, that superplasticizers should be decided based on water
reduction needed in a mix design is more significant and logical. As water reduction affects the amount of
cement paste present in a mix, it directly modifies the compressive strength of concrete [4]. It is the paste
volume (cement and water) that first is used to fill the voids of the aggregate than remaining paste is used to
lubricate the mixture by forming the layer around the aggregates [5, 6]. Paste volume plays an important part in
the pumping of concrete along with the other factors such as well gradation of aggregate, size of aggregate,
consistency and workability [7, 8, 9]. During pumping vertical distance reduces than that of the horizontal
pumping distance because three to four times more pressure is required per foot of vertical rise than is necessary
per foot of horizontal movement [10, 11]. The difficulties and challenges with small-line pumping are very
similar to those found when pumping over long distances or over long periods of time [9].
Pumped concrete moves as a cylinder riding on a thin lubricant film on the inside diameter of the pipe line [7,
12, 13, 14]. Once concrete flow through the pipe line is established, the lubrication is maintained as long as
pumping continues with properly proportional and consistent mixture [2, 7, 12, 13]. Lubricant layer is formed of
the paste comprising of cement, water, admixture and fine aggregate. The procedure in which concrete pumping
through pipe takes place is similar in both shotcreting and normal concrete pumping. Formation of lubrication
layer and movement of concrete through pipe are similar in shotcreting and normal concrete pumping. Certain
percentage of cement paste from the mix is used to form the lubricating layer [8, 9, 15]. By involving the effect
of paste in a mix, IS method of mix proportioning can be simplified.

2. OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH
The aim of this research work is not to propose a new method of mix proportioning but to give some precise
points about prediction of water reduction at known water cement ratio (w/c), w/c ratio on the basis of strength
and paste requirement in mix proportioning of pumping concrete using superplasticizer. It may result in some
valuable addition in the method of mix proportioning without relying on experience to the existing methodology
of mix design.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW
Pumpable concrete requires sufficient amount of fines, enough slump, continuous grading of aggregates,
uniformly and thoroughly mixed materials. The consistency of the concrete mix has an important effect on the
pumping pressure. The right consistency of the concrete mix is essential to avoid excessive frictional resistance
in the pipe lines due to stiff mixes or segregation with too wet mixes. Stiff concrete requires higher pumping
pressure to pass through in the pipeline. The Indian Standards (IS) code, ACI method and British method does
not provide the traditional curves expressing the relationship between w/c ratio and the strength by
testing concretes made with chemical admixtures [18, 31]. It is uneconomical and time consuming to use the
traditional empirical approach of making alternative trial mixes of all possible combinations to arrive at the
optimum mix. Further, there is no recognized laboratory apparatus or precise piece of equipment available to
test the pumpability of a mix in the laboratory. The procedures of existing IS mix design method that are
commonly adopted for designing normal strength concrete with low workability cannot be directly applied for
designing pumping concrete mixes[19]. Mix design of high workable concrete leads to much higher cement
content than that of low workable concrete at the same w/c ratio. Its a general known fact that cement content
influences the strength of the concrete, high cement content leads to higher strength [4]. It is the cement paste
that disperses and lubricates the aggregate particles [6]. The properties of the fresh concrete are largely
influenced by the volumetric content and rheology of the cement paste. The water in a cement paste is divided
into two parts based on its usage in a mix. One part is the filling water, which is used to fill the voids between

solid particles and does not contribute to the fluidity of the paste [4, 5]. Theother part is the surface water, which
forms a water film on the surface of each solid particle and contributes to the fluidity of the paste [4, 5]. The
cement paste has to be more than sufficient to fill up the voids between the aggregate particles and to provide a
thin film of paste coating each aggregate particle to lubricate the concrete mix [6]. The excess paste contributes
tothe workability of fresh concrete and leads to high cement content, making a mix design uneconomical. This is
where the role of superplasticizer becomes significant. It is known that superplasticizer can decrease the water
demand. Itdecreases the water in surface layer but not the filling water [20]. The superplasticizers have positive
effects on properties of concrete, both in the fresh and hardened states [21]. In the fresh state, utilization of
superplasticizer normally reduces the tendency to bleed due to the reduction in water cement ratio or water
content of concrete [21]. The use of superplasticizers increases compressive strength by enhancing the
effectiveness of compaction to produce denser concrete. Risk of drying shrinkage is reduced by retaining the
concrete in liquid state for longer period of time [21]. For the cement containing pozzolan, the maximum and
the minimum water cement ratio to attain a desired strength of concrete is related to the specific surface and
content of pozzolan [20]. The finer the pozzolanic material, the greater is the maximum water cement ratio at
which desired strength is achieved [20]. It is because the addition of pozzolanic material increases the packing
density of the system thus decreases the filling water [20]. Mixing water includes both filling water and the
water in surface layer of the particles. The addition of finer pozzolanic materials can decrease filling water, but
increases the water in surface layer [20, 22]. Superplasticizer can decrease the water in surface layer, however
the amount of the filling water is not affected. Water demand can be greatly reduced when a fine pozzolanic
material is added with a superplasticizer. The addition of a fine pozzolanic material reduces both pore sizes and
porosity [22]. It further increases the workability of concrete by making it more slippery without adding more
water and increases strength [22]. Requirement of the paste can also be reduced by a better mixture proportion
of the aggregate such that void space is least between the aggregates, packing the mixing materials more
densely.
In a concrete pumping line, concrete moves in the form of a cylinder separated from the pump line wall by a
lubricating layer of water, cement, and fine sand-the mortar component of the mix [7, 8, 9]. The concrete mix
must be designed so the concrete cylinder can bend around and up in the line. The mix must be workable, dense,
and have sufficient mortar to keep moving through the line. The amount of mortar required depends on the size
of the line being used, the efficiency of the concrete pump valve, and the pressure that pushes the concrete [8, 9,
15]. When concrete is pumped, water in the mix transmits the pump pressure to the concrete mixture. If the
voids between aggregates are not filled with mortar, pump pressures cause segregation forcing water through the
mix. When this happens the lubricating layer is lost, coarse particles get interlocked increasing friction and
causing concrete blockage [8, 9, 15]. Studies have been carried out to evaluate the thickness of the lubricating
layer.Average thickness of the lubricating layer is found out to be 2 mm, which does not depend upon flow rate
but on concrete mix design and potentially on pipe diameter [12, 23]. Jolin et al. [9] and Burn [15] found that
cement paste thickness in lubricating layer is 1 mm irrespective of flow rate, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate
and diameter of pipe. Jolin et al. [15] have also stated that the thickness of cement paste in the lubricating layer
is constant regardless of the pipe diameter and is approximately 1 mm, but amount of paste required to form 1
mm thick layer is different for different internal diameter of the pipe. The actual paste volume changes as
pressure is applied to the concrete as the air volume diminishes to negligible values during pumping [8, 9, 15,
24]. Minimum quantity of effective paste available for mobility in the pipeline under pressure is termed as real
paste. When mix is designed by IS guidelines, the real paste is the initial paste of the mix as air volume is not
considered in the mix proportioning of concrete. The stability and mobility of concrete under pressure is usually
focused during the pumpability of concrete [25]. Both the aspects have been considered in the concept of real
paste content [9, 15].The real paste represents the amount of paste required to create the lubricating layer and to
fill the intergranular voids. The relative amount of paste required for forming a lubricating layer in the pipe
increases with smaller pipe diameter, as can be seen from Fig. 1 (9, 15).

Relative amount of paste required for

lubrication layer (%)

12
10

Paste required (%) = ((2

2)/

(r2)) 100

r - internal pipe radius

6
4
2
0
0

50

100

150

200

Internal pipe diameter (mm)

Fig. 1: Relative amount of paste required for a 1 mm thick lubricating layer in the hose (adapted from
Jolin et al. (9))
The paste required to form lubricating layer and to fill the inter-granular voids, together gives the real paste
content at which pumping just starts to take place, but gets blocked after moving some distance through pipe.
When a safety factor of 1 is added to real paste content it is found that concrete starts to pump successfully
without blockage [9, 15]. It makes the concept of real paste content a unique and useful tool for optimizing mix
design of concrete intended for pumping.The real paste required for successful pumping through a known
concrete delivery pipe can be calculated using Eq. (1) [9].
p P+
Where,
s

r - rr

* 100

p = Minimum paste required for pumping

r = Radius of pipe for pumping
P = Porosity of well graded aggregate in percentage

(1)

The approach of real paste content alone does not guarantee pumpability. Well graded aggregate, workability
and stable rheological properties are other requirements for successful pumping of concrete. Maximum size of
the coarse aggregate is considered while selecting the pipeline diameter. Generally, the pipeline diameter must
be 3 to 4 times greater than the maximum aggregate size [2, 7, 10]. For uncrushed (rounded) aggregates, the
maximum size should be limited to 40% of the pipe or hose diameter [32]. The shape of the coarse aggregate,
whether crushed or uncrushed has an influence on the mix proportions, although both shapes can be pumped
satisfactorily. The crushed pieces have a larger surface area per unit volume as compared to uncrushed pieces
and thus require relatively more mortar to coat the surface [33]. Coarse aggregate of a very bad particle shape
should be avoided [32]. Fine aggregate of Zone II as per IS [27] is generally suitable for pumped concrete
provided 15 to 30% sand should pass the 300 micron sieve and 5 to 10 percent should pass the 150 micron sieve
[32]. However, the lowest practical sand content should be established by actual trial mixes and performance
runs.
The 100 mm slump is most desirable for the pumping of concrete [1, 10]. Loss of 10-30% of initial slump is
expected after 45 minutes of mixing [16, 17]. A loss of slump during pumping is normal and should be taken
into consideration when proportioning the concrete mixes. A slump loss of 25 mm per 300 meters of conduit
length is not unusual [32], the amount depending upon ambient temperature, length of line, pressure used to
move the concrete, moisture content of aggregates at the time of mixing, truck-haulage distance, whether mix is
kept agitated during haulage etc. The loss is greater for hose than for pipe, and is sometimes as high as 20 mm
per 30 meter [32].

As it is noticed that water and cement percentage in a mix not only influence the strength but also paste content
which is independent of the materials used. Water reduction reduces the water content of the mix and reduced
water content greatly affects the paste content of the mix. Thus water reduction indirectly becomes an important
factor in the mix proportioning of pumping concrete. Thus the selection of water cement ratio is not possible
without considering the water reduction in the mix proportioning of pumping concrete using superplasticizers.
The approach has been presented for the selection of water reduction on a particular water cement ratio and
selection of water cement ratio on the basis of strength and paste requirement in the mix proportioning of
concrete using superplasticizer.

4. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
4.1. Materials used
The cement used in all mixture was Portland pozzolana cement (PPC) conforming to IS [26]. The percentage
blending of fly ash in PPC is 28%.The specific gravity of cement was taken 3.15. The coarse aggregate used in
mixes were crushed and angular having maximum size of 20 mm. The grading of aggregate was done and
brought to well-graded system as demanded by IS [27] by mixing 20 mm and 10 mm nominal size aggregate in
60% and 40% proportion respectively. The specific gravities coarse aggregate was found to be 2.70. The river
bed sand was used as fine aggregate. The gradation of fine aggregate was done and according to IS code [27], it
belonged to zone II. The fineness modulus and specific gravity of fine aggregate was found to be 2.67 and 2.62
respectively. Dry coarse and fine aggregate was used in mix proportioning with null moisture content. All the
material testing was done under the guidelines of IS [30]. Three different water reducers were used in the mixes.
First superplasticizer is based on chemical base sulphonated naphthalene polymers with water reduction
capacity of 16-25%. Second and third superplasticizer is based on modified lingosulphate with water reduction
capacity of 5-10% and 10-18% respectively. Specific gravity of superplasticizers were taken 1.22, 1.16 and 1.16
respectively, as provided by the seller. Porosity of the aggregate phase was measured to be 24.4%.
4.2. Mix proportion
All the mixes were designed under the guidelines of IS code [3] with slump value of 125 mm. Workability of
the mixes was tested by the standard slump test. The mixes were tested at different w/c ratios ranging from 0.38
to 0.48 with the variation of 0.01 and water reduction was varied from 8% to 25% at each w/c ratio accordingly
to observe the compressive strength behaviour with water reduction and to achieve M25, M30 and M35 grade of
concrete. Under the guidelines of IS code [28], superplasticizer was added to the mix to get 125 mm slump.A
total of 90 trial mixes were tested, all the variation in w/c ratios and water reduction are shown in Table 1.Some
mixes were discarded due to low slump values.Amount of superplasticizers added in the mix for lower water
reduction varied 0.2 to 0.6% of the weight of cement and 0.8 to 1.2% of the weight of cement for higher water
reduction.
Table 1: Variation of water reduction in w/c ratios used for trail mixes
Trial Mixes
W/C
Ratio
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.43

Water Reduction in 125 mm slump (%)

8
8
8
9
9
8

9
9
9
10
10
9

10
10
10
11
11
10

11
11
11
12
12
11

12
12
12
13
13
12

14
14
14
15
14

16
15
16
16

16
18
17

20
18

19

20

0.42
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.38

9
8
12
14
15

10
9
13
16
18

11
10
14
18
21

12
11
15
20
24

13
12
16
22
-

14
14
18
24
-

16
16
20
-

18
18
22
-

19
20
24
-

20
22
-

22
24
-

24
25
-

4.3. Mixing, casting and testing

A concrete mixer was used to mix the ingredients of the concrete mix. The aggregate and the cement were first
poured into the mixer and mixed under dry condition for 1 minute. Then70%of the total water was poured into
the mixer and the concretemix was mixed for 1.5minutes. After the first phase of mixing, remaining water with
superplasticizer was poured into the mixer and was mixed for another 2 minutes. After the mixing was
completed, the freshconcrete mix was taken out immediately for slump flow test. After the slump flow test, six
150 mmcubes were casted for each mix design. The concrete was poured into the moulds in three layers each
layer being compacted by 25 strokes of a 16 mm diameter steel rod with a rounded end. Then slight vibration
was used to throw out air bubbles. The top surface of cubes, finished by a trowel, was not plane and smooth but
enough for testing. After remaining 24 hours in the moulds, the specimens were removed and placed in water
tank for 7 days, and 28 days.
4.4. Measuring cube compressive strength
Three cubes were tested after 7-days and three cubes after 28-daysfor their cube compressive strengths in
accordance with IS [29].In order to reduce experimental errors in the measured strengths, three concrete cubes
from the same concrete mix were tested at the same time and was averaged to give one cube strength result.
4.5. Derivation of equations and verification
The relationship between the paste content and water reduction in the mixes were plotted at each water cement
ratio used in trial mixes. The values of water reduction at different water cement ratios were also plotted at
successful mix designs for M25, M30 and M35 grade of concrete. The behaviour was then presented in terms of
equations of the best fitting lines of the plotted data in order to predict w/c ratio and water reduction for
appropriate mixes for M25, M30 and M35 grade of concrete. Further, mixes for M25, M30 and M35 grade of
concrete was predicted and was designed for testing. 9 cubes were casted and tested after 28 days in each mix
design that was carried out on predicted values of w/c ratio and water reduction.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1. Effect of water reduction on paste content
A mix design of pumping concrete has significant importance of water reduction at different water cement ratios
as it influences the paste content which affects the strength and pumpingcapacity of the mix. Different water
reduction results in varying paste content at different water cement ratios. Reducing the percentage of water
reduction increases the paste content of a mix at particular water cement ratio. Paste content including the
amount of superplasticizer shows variation from the gradual trend of points, thus making difficult to plot a best
fitting curve with high R2 value. The amount of superplasticizerto be used in a mix varies with the efficiency of
it. Superplasticizers effect on paste content varies from 0.05 to 0.60 depending upon the amount of its usage.
Additional percentage of superplasticizer always increases the paste content and benefits in improving pumping
capability of concrete mix.The variation of paste content (excluding superplasticizer) with water reduction in
125 mm slump at different w/c ratios is presented in Fig. 2.

Water reduction in 125 mm slump

(%)

30

W/C - 0.48
W/C - 0.47

25

W/C - 0.46
W/C - 0.45
W/C - 0.44

20

W/C - 0.43
W/C - 0.42

15

W/C - 0.41
W/C - 0.40

10

W/C - 0.39
W/C - 0.38

5
26

28

30
Paste formed (%)

32

34

Fig. 2: Water reduction in different w/c ratios producing different amount of paste
Straight lines are the perfect fit to the data plotted between paste content and water reduction for every line. The
constant (c) value of the equations for every fitting line shown in Fig. 2 is found to be same irrespective of
different w/c ratios and slump value. The slope (m) of the equations of the fitting lines only depends on the
slump value. The slope (m) of the equations of the fitting linesalong with the constant and R2values are shown
in Table 2. Single equation can be formed to represent the relationship between the water reduction and paste
formed in a mix at different w/c ratios. It can be done by using common constant value and by representing the
slope by another equation. The slopes were plotted with different w/c ratios to find the representing equation
which can be used to form a single equation for all the fitting lines in Fig. 2, is shown in Fig. 3.
Table 2: Values of slope, constant and R2 of equations for best fitting
lines at different w/c ratios as shown in Fig. 2
W/C Ratio
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.42
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.38

Slope (m)
-2.9689
-2.9439
-2.9184
-2.8921
-2.8652
-2.8375
-2.8091
-2.7799
-2.7499
-2.7191
-2.6874

Constant (c)
100
100.01
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

R2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Slope of equations (m)

0.35
-2.65

0.37

0.39

W/C Ratio
0.41
0.43

0.45

0.47

0.49

-2.7
-2.75

y = -2.8115x - 1.6248
R = 0.9986

-2.8
-2.85
-2.9
-2.95
-3

Fig. 3: Variation of slope of equation in Fig. 2 with respective water cement ratio
Using the constant value and slope equation from Fig. 3, single equation is formed to represent the family of
lines in Fig. 2. The Equation is shown below:
wr =
Where,

- .

wc .

(2)

wr = Maximum water reduction needed to achieve certain paste p at particular w/c ratio
w/c = Water cement ratio
p = paste content

Water reduction required to get particular amount of paste in a mix is independent of the material properties. It
only depends upon the w/c ratio and slump value. Eq. (2) can be used to find the water reduction required to
achieve desired paste content. Eq. (2) has no relation with strength of concrete. Strength of concrete cannot be
predicted by producing a mix based on values given by Eq. (2).
5.2. Effect of water reduction on strength
Based on the result of 28 days compressive strength obtained by the testing of cubes for M25, M30 and M35
gradeof concrete, variation of water reduction with different w/c ratios is shown in Fig. 4. Best fitting curve has
been used to know the equation and R2 value as shown in Fig. 4.
0.50

Water - Cement ratio

0.48
y = -0.0034x + 0.4908
R = 0.9953

0.46
0.44

M35
M30

0.42
0.40

M25

0.38
y = -0.0033x + 0.4407
R = 0.9783

0.36

y = -0.0032x + 0.4598
R = 0.9887

0.34
0.32
0

10

15

20

25

Water reduction in 125 mm slump (%)

30

Fig. 4: Water reduction in different w/c ratios required to achieve different grade of concrete
The constant value of the equations is represents the maximum w/c ratios at which particular grade of concrete
can be achieved. The values of constant (c) is found to be 0.49, 0.46 and 0.44 for M25, M30 and M35 grade of
concrete respectively when rounded off to 2 decimal place, which is in order with IS code (1).The relation
between water cement ratios and water reductions for M25, M30 and M35 grade of concrete can be incorporated
into one equation. To give a single equation slope of the equations must be same.As the slopes of the equations
are almost near to each other, thus to combine slope of the equations average of the slopes of the equations is
taken to give the nearest result. The combined equation is:

Where

w/c = m wr c
(3)
w/c = Water cement ratio
wr = Maximum water reduction needed to achieve certain grade of concrete at particular w/c ratios
c = Constant
m = Slope = - ((0.0034 + 0.0032 + 0.0033)/3) = -0.0033

The Eq. (3) can be broken into 3 equations representing the equations of the line in Fig. 4. Eq. (4), Eq. (5) and
Eq. (6) represents the water reduction needed at particular w/c ratio to achieve the strength of M25, M30 and
M35grade of concrete respectively.
w/c= - .

wr

(4)

w/c= - .

wr

(5)

w/c= - .

wr

(6)

In Eq. (4), Eq. (5) and Eq. (6) w/c ratio and water reduction is completely based on strength of concrete and it
does not predict the paste content. It is noticed that same strength is achieved at different w/c ratios with
different water reduction, varying in paste content.
5.3. Derivation of equation for w/c ratio
The Eq. (2) represents water reduction needed at given w/c ratio to acquire certain amount of paste p whereas
the Eq. (3) represents w/c ratio with water reduction needed to get M25, M30 and M35 grade of concrete. The
values of w/c ratio and water reduction from Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) may or may not be same. It is difficult to select
a particular w/c ratio with water reduction which not only satisfies strength but also satisfy the required paste for
successful pumping. Simultaneously solving the Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) to get an equation will not ensure not only
the strength of the concrete but also the required paste. The Eq. (7) is obtained by simultaneously solving the
Eq. (2) and Eq. (3), the equation is given below.
w/c =

e p-

p .

e p-

(7)

The equations presented above are formed on the best fitting line of practical results obtained on compressive
strength of cube after 28 days. Thus, the Eq. (7) can be used to predict water cement ratio to start a trial for a
mix proportioning of pumping concrete.
5.4. Verification of equations
The verification of the equations were done by testing another 20 mixes based on the value given by the above
equations. Mixes were tested at w/c ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.47, 0.38 to 0.44 and 0.37 to 0.38 for M25,
M30 and M35 grade of concrete respectively. Water reduction was calculated using Eq. (3) and paste content
was calculated using Eq. (7). If calculated paste content matches the paste content of the mix, then Eq. (7) can
be verified for the calculation of w/c ratio. Detail of the verifying mixes is presented in Table 3. The predicted
and actual results of the mixes are shown in Table 4.

Table 3: Detail of the mix proportioning on predicted water reduction

Grade of
Concrete

W/C ratio

Water
reduction

PPC Content
(kg/m3)

Cement : Fine Agg.

: Coarse Agg.

Super
plasticizer
(%)

Total Paste
content (%)

M25
M25
M25
M25
M25
M25
M25

0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.47

24
21
18
15
12
9
6

375.81
381.34
386.62
391.66
396.47
401.07
405.48

1 : 2.15 : 2.98
1 : 2.10 : 2.90
1 : 2.06 : 2.82
1 : 2.02 : 2.75
1 : 1.99 : 2.68
1 : 1.95 : 2.61
1 : 1.91 : 2.54

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.4

27.73
28.45
29.16
29.87
30.63
31.25
32.07

M30
M30
M30
M30
M30
M30
M30

0.38
0.39
0.41
0.40
0.42
0.43
0.44

24
21
18
15
12
9
6

405.48
410.68
415.62
420.31
424.79
429.05
433.13

1 : 1.93 : 2.75
1 : 1.90 : 2.68
1 : 1.87 : 2.62
1 : 1.84 : 2.55
1 : 1.80 : 2.49
1 : 1.77 : 2.43
1 : 1.73 : 2.35

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.4

28.70
29.41
30.11
30.79
31.55
32.14
32.96

M35
M35
M35
M35
M35
M35

0.37
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.42

21
18
15
12
9
6

432.88
437.49
441.87
446.03
449.98
453.75

1 : 1.77 : 2.53
1 : 1.74 : 2.47
1 : 1.71 : 2.42
1 : 1.68 : 2.35
1 : 1.66 : 2.31
1 : 1.64 : 2.26

1.2
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.8

30.21
30.89
31.57
32.39
33.04
33.78

Table 4: Comparison of the predicted result with actual test results

Actual results obtained after testing on the
predicted data

Predicted values by equations

M25
M25
M25
M25
M25
M25
M25

0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.47

Predicted
water
reduction
using Eq.
(3)
24.24
21.21
18.18
15.15
12.12
9.09
6.06

M30
M30

0.38
0.39

24.24
21.21

Grade of
Concrete

Assumed
w/c ratio

Predicted
Paste
Content
using Eq.
(7)
27.29
28.09
28.88
29.66
30.42
31.17
31.90
28.14
28.96

Target
strength
28 days
(N/mm2)

W/C
ratio

Water
reduction

Strength
28 days
(N/mm2)

Paste
content
(Excluding
Admixture)

31.60

0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.47

24
21
18
15
12
9
6

32.22
32.48
32.05
32.19
31.83
31.68
32.12

27.34
28.12
28.90
29.67
30.43
31.18
31.93

38.25

0.38
0.39

24
21

38.59

28.28
29.05

M30
M30
M30
M30
M30

0.41
0.40
0.42
0.43
0.44

18.18
15.15
12.12
9.09
6.06

29.77
30.56
31.33
32.09
32.84

0.41
0.40
0.42
0.43
0.44

18
15
12
9
6

M35
M35
M35
M35
M35
M35

0.37
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.42

21.21
18.18
15.15
12.12
9.09
6.06

29.58
30.39
31.19
31.98
32.74
33.50

0.37
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.42

21
18
15
12
9
6

43.25

39.46
38.44
37.93
39.00

43.41
43.16
43.45
43.24

29.82
30.58
31.33
32.07
32.81
29.76
30.51
31.26
32.00
32.73
33.46

From the Table 4, it can be noticed that the actual test results were almost same to the predicted values.
Although the desired strength of some mixes was not satisfying, optimum mix can be designed in second or in
third trial. Thus reducing a large number of trial mixes to achieve the right mix proportion. Table 4 successfully
verifies the equations to be used in mix proportioning of pumping concrete.
The above presented equations can be used to predict water cement ratio and water reduction. If the diameter of
pipe to be used in pumping is known, required paste can be calculated using Eq. (1) considering the safety
factor. Mix which is pumpable through a pipe of certain diameter, same mix can be used in pipe with
comparatively higher diameter. This is possible because paste required for pumping decreases with increase in
diameter of the pipe. It is observed that in order to increase the paste content with strength just higher w/c ratio
can be selected than that has been given by the Eq. (7) and water reduction can be calculated using Eq. (3). If
water reduction which has been got using Eq. (3) is reduced than both paste content and strength of concrete
increases. The calculated w/c ratio with water reduction using Eq. (7) and (3) can be used to start as a trial mix.
The calculated value of w/c ratio and paste content should be rounded off to decimal place two. It is done in
order use standard w/c ratio and to make calculation easier involving paste content. Water reduction should be
rounded off to near whole number. In order to increase the concrete strength, either of the three method
presented can be used. Firstly, lower w/c ratio can be selected than the calculated value that has been got using
Eq. (3). Secondly, same w/c ratio can be used with lower water reduction than the calculated value that has been
got using Eq. (3) and lastly just higher w/c ratio can be used than that has been given by Eq. (7) with lower
water reduction than that has been given by Eq. (3). One of the three methods can be used according to the need
to maintain paste content or to reduce the cement content. First method can be used to reduce the cement
consumption in the mix design, whereas second and third method can be used to increase the paste content. In
case w/c ratio is not known, diameter of the pipe can be estimated according to the discharge of the fresh
concrete required. Knowing the diameter of the pipe, paste content can be estimated by Eq. (1). After that w/c
ratio can be calculated using Eq. (7).
5.5. Generalisation of water reduction with different slump value
In this paper water reduction percentage has been related to strength and paste content of the mix. Water
reductions given by above equations are only valid for 125 mm slump, water reduction will be different for
different slump values. If the mix proportion materials and values of all the constituent of a mix are same then it
gives almost same strength and paste content (without superplasticizer) for different slump values. As in the IS
method of mix proportioning water content at particular w/c ratio is the first factor for the calculation of other
materials, if the amount of water in a mix is kept same for different slump values then it results in same mix
proportion. Volume of superplasticizer in a mix is always very small in comparison to other constituents that it
results in negligible change in the amount of coarse and fine aggregate. Thus, this negligible change has been
neglected in the generalisation of water reduction.

Water reductions corresponding to

wr in 125mm slump (%)

Percentage of water reduction can be generalised for different slump values to give same mix proportion, if it is
adjusted to give the same water content. Water reduction at different slump values has been related to the water
reduction at 125 mm slump to give exact water content for the mix proportioning of pumping concrete. The
relation between the water reductions at different slump values with the water reductions at 125 mm slump is
shown in Fig. 5.
40.00

y = 0.9478x + 5.2174
R = 1

35.00

100 mm
slump

y = 0.9237x + 7.6271
R = 1

30.00

150 mm
slump

25.00

175 mm
slump

20.00
y = 0.9732x + 2.6786
R = 1

15.00

200 mm
slump

10.00
y = 1.0283x - 2.8302
R = 1

5.00
0.00
0

10
20
30
Water reduction in 125 mm slump (%)

40

Fig. 5: Corresponding water reductions at 100, 150 and 175 mm slump to water reductions at 125 mm
slump to give same mix proportion

Slopes of the lines relating wr at

different slump to wr at 125mm
slump

The water reductions at other slump values to water reduction at 125 mm slump have perfect linear relation. In
Fig. 5 linear line have different slopes and constant values for different slumps. Thus relationship between the
slopes values and constant values can be established by relating slump values with each slopes and constants.
Variation of slopes with slump and variation of constants with slump are shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7
respectively.
1.04
1.02
1
0.98
0.96
0.94

y = -1.05x + 1.13
R = 1.00

0.92
0.9
0

0.05

0.1
0.15
Slump (m)

0.2

0.25

Fig. 6: Variation of slopes of the equations with different slump values for generalisation of water
reduction

Constants of the lines relating wr at

different slump to wr at 125mm
slump

10
y = 104.53x - 13.14
R = 1.00

8
6
4
2
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

-2
-4
Slump (m)

Fig. 7: Variation of constants of the equations with different slump values for generalisation of water
reduction

Slopes and constants of the lines in Fig. 5 have linear relation with slump values. Thus, equations from Fig. 6
and 7 can be used to form a general equation to convert water reduction in 125 mm slump to water reduction in
any slump values. The equation is presented below:
wrs = (-1.05* s + 1.13)* wr + (104.53*s -13.14)
where,

(8)

s = Slump value in m
wr = water reduction in 125 mm slump as calculated from Eq. (3)
wrs = water reduction in s slump corresponding to wr

Eq. (8) gives the value corresponding to water reduction in 125 mm slump. Equation (2) to (7) can be used for
the mix proportioning of pumping concrete at other slump values with the addition of Eq. (8). Water reduction
at 125 mm slump can be converted to water reduction at other slump with same water cement ratio given by Eq.
(7). Water reduction given by Eq. (8) gives mix proportion and paste content with negligible difference which
can be neglected and trail mix can be carried out. Comparison of mix proportion of other slump value with mix
proportion of 125 mm slump is given in Table 5.
Table 5: Comparison of water and paste content of other slump values with 125 mm slump by Eq. (8)
125 mm slump
W/
C
Rati
o

0.48
0.48
0.48

100 mm slump

150 mm slump

Water
reducti
on

Water
content
(lit/m3)

Paste
content
(without
superplastici
zer) (%)

Water
reducti
on

Water
content
(lit/m3)

Paste
content
(without
superplasti
cizer) (%)

Water
reducti
on

Water
content
(lit/m3)

Paste
content
(without
superplastic
izer) (%)

6
12
18

190.58
178.41
166.25

31.66
29.64
27.62

3.463
9.613
15.763

190.33
178.21
166.08

31.62
29.61
27.59

8.37
14.21
20.04

190.87
178.72
166.56

31.71
29.69
27.67

0.46
0.46
0.46

8
14
20

186.52
174.36
162.19

31.52
29.47
27.41

5.513
11.663
17.813

186.29
174.17
162.04

31.49
29.44
27.39

10.32
16.15
21.99

186.82
174.67
162.51

31.58
29.52
27.47

0.44
0.44
0.44

10
16
22

182.47
170.30
158.14

31.41
29.32
27.22

7.563
13.713
19.863

182.25
170.12
158.00

31.37
29.29
27.20

12.26
18.10
23.93

182.77
170.62
158.46

31.46
29.37
27.28

0.42
0.42
0.42

14
20
26

174.36
162.19
150.03

30.61
28.48
26.34

11.663
17.813
23.963

174.17
162.04
149.91

30.58
28.45
26.32

16.15
21.99
27.82

174.67
162.51
150.36

30.67
28.53
26.40

0.40
0.40
0.40

18
24
28

166.25
154.08
145.97

29.82
27.64
26.18

15.763
21.913
26.01

166.08
153.96
145.87

29.79
27.61
26.16

20.04
25.88
29.77

166.56
154.41
146.30

29.88
27.70
26.24

0.38
0.38
0.38

22
28
32

158.14
145.97
137.86

29.02
26.79
25.30

19.863
26.013
30.11

158.00
145.87
137.79

29.00
26.77
25.29

23.93
29.77
33.66

158.46
146.30
138.20

29.08
26.85
25.37

6. CONCLUSION
This experiment has been performed over a wide range of w/c ratios ranging from 0.37 to 0.48 with water
reduction upto 25%. The equations presented in paper were completely based on experimentation and
calculation done by Indian Standard method of mix proportioning. Mix proportioning of a pumpable concrete
with any workability can be related to successful mix proportion at different w/c ratio with accurate relations.
Laborious work of designing mix proportion at large combination of water cement ratios and water reductions
can also be reduced by the accurate relations among defining components and characteristics of a mix
proportion. Water reduction done due to the addition of superplasticizer influences the water content of the mix
and other components of the mix are correlated to the water content, thus water reduction controls the strength
of the mix at different water cement ratios. Water reduction can be related to water cement ratios on the basis of
strength. Selection of water cement ratio can be standardised on the basis on paste content at different water
reductions. The presented equations deal with all the relations crucial for the mix proportioning of mix using
superplasticizer as it is done in pumping concrete mix design. Water reduction below 4 % for water cement ratio
higher than 0.42 results in large variation in strength from the expected result. Thus water reduction below 4 %
may be rejected for water cement ratio higher than 0.42 and for lower water cement ratios minimum water
reduction must be checked with the maximum permissible limit of cement content as given by Indian Standard
code [1] on the basis of durability.
The proposed approach if used in conjunction with the Indian standard (IS) method, can lead to proper design
mix for pumping concrete ensuring the pumping capability of mix without merely relying on the experience and
discretion of the designer. The proposed method can be used for first trial mix, which allows designer to select
nearest possible w/c ratio and water reduction rather than being dependent on the experience. This technique
greatly reduces the large number of trials required to reach the appropriate mix design which will not only
guarantee strength but also higher probability of concrete being pumpable. Additionally, it also allows a
designer to control the amount of cement needed for the mix. This approach may not be give exact result due to
the variation in the properties of aggregate and cement quality but greatly near enough to give a designer a better
idea to predict the right water cement ratio and water reduction for the mix design of pumping concrete and to

reduce the number of trials to achieve one thus saving time, money and labour. It may be expected that the
finding of present work may serve as a useful guideline for judiciously applying the concept of minimum paste
content to predict pumping ability in mix and to quantify the water reduction needed at different w/c ratios
which can lead to improvement in the IS method of mix design of pumping concrete.
The presented approach of relating water cement ratio, water reduction and paste content can be done with
different materials using different codes of mix proportioning. It can be used to establish a new set of guidelines
for the successful mix proportioning within few trials. Repetition of trials of same mix at different palaces can
be prevented by the approach of relation for selection the mix proportioning components that governs the rest
components values. It can further be used to generate the traditional curve for water cement ratio and strength
using superplasticizers which has not yet been achieved yet.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research is funded by National Institute of Technology Durgapur, India under the Research Initiation Grant
(RIG). The authors express gratitude and acknowledge it.

REFERENCES
[1] IS: 456-2000, Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete (fourth revision) Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
[2] ACI 304.2R-96, Placing concrete by pumping methods,Reported by ACI Committee 304, American
Concrete Institute, U.S.A.
[3] IS: 10262-2009, Concrete Mix proportioning- Guidelines (first revision) Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India.
[4] P.K Chang, An approach to optimizing mix design for propertiesof high-performance concrete, Cement and
Concrete Research 34 (2004), 623629.
[5] A.K.H. Kwan, L.G. Li, Combined effects of water film thickness and paste filmthickness on rheology of
mortar, Materials and Structures 45 (2012), 13591374.
[6] H. H. C. Wong, A. K. H. Kwan, Rheology of Cement Paste: Role of excess water to solid surface area ratio,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE 20(2) (2008), 189197.
[7] M.S. Shetty, Concrete Technology- Theory and Practice, Sixth edition, S. Chand and Company Ltd,
Ramnagar, New Delhi, 2011, pp. 254-255.
[8] M. Jolin, F. Chapdelaine, F. Gagnon, D. Beaupre, Pumping concrete: a fundamental and practical approach,
The proceedings of the 10th Conference on Shotcrete for Underground Support, Whistler, Canada, (September,
2006).
[9] M. Jolin, D. Burns, B. Bissonnette, F. Gagnon, L.S. Bolduc, Understanding the pumpability of concrete,
Shotcrete for Underground Support XI, Engineering Conferences International, Canada, ECI Digital
Archives,(June, 2009).
[10] A.M. Neville, J.J. Brooks, Concrete Technology, Second edition, Pearson Education Ltd, England, 2010,
pp. 129-131.

[11] B. Singh, S.P. Singh, B. Singh, Some issues related to pumping of Concrete, The Indian Concrete Journal
(2004 (September)), 41-44.
[12] M.S. Choi, N. Roussel, Y.J. Kim, J.K. Kim, Lubrication layer properties during concrete pumping, Cement
and Concrete Research 45(2013), 6978.
[13] M.S. Choi,Y.J. Kim, J.K. Kim, Prediction of concrete pumping using various rheological
International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 8(4) (2014 (December)), 269278.

models,

[14] S. Jacobsen, L. Haugan, T.A Hammer, E. Kalogiannidis, Flow conditions of fresh mortar and concrete in
different pipes, Cement and Concrete Research 39(2009), 9971006.
[15] D. Burns, Characterization of wet-mix shotcrete for small Line Pumping, M.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, Laval University, Quebec, Canada, 2008.
[16] S. Erdogdu, Effect of retempering with superplasticizer admixtures on slump loss and compressive strength
of concrete subjected to prolonged mixing, Cement and Concrete Research 35(2005), 907912.
[17] S. Erdogdu, C. Arslanturk, S. Kurbetci, Influence of fly ash and silica fume on the consistency retention
and compressive strength of concrete subjected to prolonged agitating, Cement and Concrete Research
25(2011), 1277-1281.
[18] G.N. Ramarao, M.N. Seshagiri Rao, High performance concrete mix proportioning with rice husk ash as
mineral admixture, New Building Materials & Construction World 10(7) (2005), 100-108.
[19] S. Gopalkrishnan, N.P. Rajmane, M. Neelamegam, J.A Peter, J.K. Dattatreya, Effect of partial
replacement of cement with fly ash on the strength and durability of HPC, The Indian Concrete Journal
75(5) (2001), 335-341.
[20] Z. Chengzhi, W. Aiqin, T. Mingshu, L. Xiaoyu, The filling role of pozzolanic material, Cement and
Concrete Research 26(6) (1996), 943-947.
[21] S. Alsadey, Effects of superplasticizing admixture on properties of concrete, international conference on
transport, Environment and Civil Engineering (ICTECE), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, (2012, August), 25-26.
[22] A. Wang, C. Zhang,W. Sun, Fly ash effects: I. The morphological effect of fly ash, Cement and Concrete
Research 33(2003), 20232029.
[23] M. S. Choi, Y. J. Kim, K. P. Jang, S. H. Kwon , Effect of the coarse aggregate size on pipe flow of pumped
concrete, Construction and Building Materials 66 (2014), 723730.
[24] L. Du, K. J. Folliard, Mechanisms of air entrainment in concrete, Cement and Concrete Research,
35(2005), 1463 1471.
[25] D. Kaplan, F. D. Larard, T. Sedran, Design of concrete pumping circuit, ACI Materials Journal, 102(2)
(2005),110117.
[26] IS: 1489(Part 1) -1991, Portland - pozzolana cement - specification: Part 1 fly ash based (third revision)
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.

[27] IS: 383-1970, Specifications for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for concrete (second
revision) Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[28] IS: 9103-1999, Specification for admixtures for concrete (first revision) Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India.
[29] IS: 5161959 (Reaffirmed 1999), Methods of tests for strength of concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, India.
[30] IS: 2386(Part III) 1963 (Reaffirmed 1997), Method of test for aggregate for concrete. Part III- Specific
gravity, density, voids, absorption and bulking, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[31] M.C. Nataraja, L. Das, Comparison with IS 10262:1982 and ACI 211.1-91, The Indian Concrete Journal
(2010 (September)), 64-70.
[32] K. Kaushal, Mix Design for Pumped Concrete, Journal of Central Board of Irrigation and Power 49(2)
(1992 (April)), 81-92.
[33] K. Kaushal, Concrete Mix Design with Fly Ash and Superplasticizer, ICI Bulletin No. 59, (April-June)
1997, 29-30.