Construction and Building Materials 168 (2018) 113–123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Development of an optimum mix design method for self-compacting

concrete based on experimental results
Alireza Habibi a,⇑, Jian Ghomashi b
a
Civil Engineering Department, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
b
Civil Engineering Department, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran

h i g h l i g h t s

An optimum mix design method has been developed for SCC.

The optimum mix resulting from the proposed method is more suitable than Taguchi method.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main objective of this study is to develop an optimum mix design method for self-compacting con-
Received 18 October 2016 crete (SCC) based on experimental results. For this purpose, mix design of self-compacting concrete is for-
Received in revised form 13 February 2018 mulated as an optimization problem. Given the importance of manufacturing costs of concrete, the total
Accepted 16 February 2018
cost of one cubic meter of self-compacting concrete is considered as the objective function in the opti-
mization problem, which must be minimized. Limitation of the 28-day compressive strength and slump
flow of self-compacting concrete are considered as the main inequality constraints. To ensure that sum of
Keywords:
concrete components makes unit volume, an equality constraint is considered. To formulate the self-
Self-compacting concrete
Optimum mix design
compacting concrete mix design optimization problem based on experimental data, forty-two different
Compressive strength mix designs of self-compacting concrete are presented and three cylinder specimens are made and tested
Slump flow for each of them. Two mathematical models are developed to estimate the strength and the slump of the
Sequential quadratic programming concrete and used to define the main constraints in the mix design optimization model. The concrete
specimens are prepared in a construction site in Sanandaj in Iran. Considering importance of sand grading
on the compressive strength of self-compacting concrete, stone powder is used to improve sand fineness
modulus. The sequential quadratic programming is employed to solve the optimal mix design problem of
self-compacting concrete based on proposed model. In order to verify the proposed method, the mix
design problem is solved for several case studies and then the final optimal mix designs are made in lab-
oratory and mechanical properties of specimens are evaluated. The results show that the proposed
method satisfies the mechanical characteristics of the self-compacting concrete, besides minimizing
the cost of the concrete and automating the mix design process.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tion costs that is unfavorable. Costs of materials used in concrete

Self-compacting concrete is a concrete mixture that flows under
its own weight and does not require any external vibration for
compaction. Many researchers around the world are looking for
finding the appropriate mix design for self-compacting concrete
as well as its mechanical properties and durability. In making this
concrete, the increased use of cement usually leads to high produc-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ar.habibi@uok.ac.ir (A. Habibi), structureeng2014@gmail.com
(J. Ghomashi).
structures are not the same and their amount must be optimized
based on requirements of each structure. Application of some
admixtures aims to reduce cement consumption. This aim can be
effectively obtained by choosing the appropriate aggregation and
optimizing the mix without adding additives. Achieving self-
compacting concrete mix design with minimum cost is very impor-
tant for consumers. The cost of materials such as concrete is an
important factor affecting the cost of construction of concrete
structures and can be one of the main reasons for the development
and popularity of special concrete. The first serious work in this
area was conducted by Simon et al. [1]. These researchers con-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.113
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
114 A. Habibi, J. Ghomashi / Construction and Building Materials 168 (2018) 113–123
ducted an experiment by statistical mixing for high-performance
concrete mix design. They used quadratic polynomials to find the
relation between compressive strength and design variables.
Ashby used a multi-objective optimization method to meet given
design requirements for selection of a material [2]. In his study,
it was found that trade-off surfaces give a way of visualizing the
alternative compromises, and utility functions identify the part of
the surface on which optimal solutions lie. Karihaloo and Lange-
Kornbak employed rigorous mathematical programming tech-
niques for design of fiber-reinforced concrete mixes to have both
high tensile strength and high ductility [3]. Microstructural-
macroscopic relationships were used to formulate the correspond-
ing optimization problem. Ghezal and Khayat optimized self-
compacting concrete with stone powder using statistical factorial
design [4]. In their study, to reduce the cost of concrete, stone pow-
der was used as a filler material. They employed response surface
methods to optimize a four component concrete containing lime-
stone filler subject to eight performance criteria. Muthukumar
and Mohan optimized mix proportions of polymer concrete to have
minimum void [5]. For each polymer concrete combination, the
mechanical properties were studied. Each mechanical property
was individually optimized for maximum values and compared
with the experimental data. Yeh presented a computer-aided
design method for determining optimum concrete mixtures [6].
The strength and slump was modeled using a modeling module
based on neural networks. In his study, it was found that the mod-
eling module can generate rather accurate models for compressive
strength and slump for concrete and the optimization module can
generate the lowest cost mixtures. Ozbay et al. were analyzed mix
proportion parameters of high strength self-compacting concrete
by using the Taguchi’s experiment design methodology for optimal
design [7]. In their study, the best possible levels for mix propor-
tions were determined for maximization of ultrasonic pulse veloc-
ity, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength and for the
minimization of air content, water permeability, and water absorp-
tion values. Lian and Zhuge investigated effects of various mix
designs on the compressive strength and permeability of perme-
able concrete [8]. The optimum aggregate and mix components
design were consequently recommended for enhanced permeable
concrete. Soto-Pérez et al. applied response surface methodology
to optimize the cement paste mix design with fly ash and nano-
iron oxide as admixtures [9]. They found the optimum ratios of
water-to-binder, fly ash-to-binder and nano-iron oxide-to-binder.
Moini et al. were considered aggregate packing to optimize con-
crete mixtures by establishing the correlation of compressive
strength and aggregate packing [10]. They used power curves
and coarseness chart for aggregate optimization. Lindquist et al.
implemented of a step-by-step concrete mixture design procedure
to determine an optimized aggregate gradation [11]. The design
process was iterative and was dependent on the gradations of
available aggregates, the cementitious material content of the con-
crete mixture, and the maximum aggregate size. The main objec-
tive of this study is to develop a method for optimizing self-
compacting concrete mix design. For this purpose, first, the self-
compacting concrete mix design optimization problem is formu-
lated based on experimental results stablishing mathematical
models for slump flow and compressive strength of the concrete.
Then the problem is solved by sequential quadratic programming.
The ability and efficiency of the proposed method are demon-
strated by testing real-life concrete mixes.
2. Experimental study
In this study, experimental data are produced to develop the
model for optimal self-compacting concrete mix design. In this sec-
tion, properties of materials used in the study, mixing the aggre-
gates, self-compacting concrete mix designs, concrete specimens
and test results are studied.
2.1. Properties of materials
Materials used in this study included a type I Portland cement,
tap water, gravel, sand, stone powder, and a polycarboxylate-based
superplasticizer (Type RM of Abadgaran Company). Detailed char-
acteristics of cement have been listed in Table 1. The coarse aggre-
gate was a gravel with a maximum aggregate size of 19 mm and a
bulk density of 2.84. River sand had a bulk density of 2.75 and a
sand equivalent of 75. The stone powder was used to modify prop-
erties of the sand. Super plasticizer was used to obtain the self-
compacting concrete characters at fresh state. The specific weight
of superplasticizer was 1.12 g/cm3. The amount of the super plas-
ticizer has been ranged from 0.3% to 0.9% by weight of cement in
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The grad-
ing of the aggregates and the powder are given in Table 2.
2.2. Concrete mix designs
The mix composition shall satisfy all performance criteria for
the concrete in both the fresh and hardened states. Generally, it
is advisable to design conservatively to ensure that the concrete
is capable of maintaining its specified fresh properties despite
anticipated variations in raw material quality. In the present study,
in the first step, several initial mix compositions were prepared
and laboratory trials were used to verify their properties. Then
adjustments to the initial mix compositions were made and 42
main self-compacting concrete mix designs, shown in Table 3,
were prepared and tested. All concrete mixes were designed based
on the ENFARC [12]. Mix design selection and adjustment can be
made according to the procedure shown in Fig. 1.
2.3. Concrete specimens
Forty-two different mix designs were considered in this study
and three cubic specimens of 150  150  150 mm were made
for each of them. Accordingly, one hundred twenty-six specimens
were casted in the laboratory. All concrete mixes were prepared in
a pan mixer. The batching sequence consisted of mixing the dry
ingredients for one minute, then adding the water with super plas-
ticizer and mixing the concrete for another four minutes. The spec-
imens were demolded after 24 h and then kept in lime-saturated
water at a temperature of 25 °C for 28 days.
2.4. Test results
Since compressive strength of the concrete is very important to
determine a mix design and some of the mechanical characteristics
such as tensile strength and Young’s modulus are dependent on it,
in this study, compressive strength is considered as the main
parameter to control the mix design. Slump test is a meaningful
indication for showing the flow range of self-compacting concrete.
There are some other methods such as U box and V box for measur-
ing the flow of SCC but the slump is more reliable. Therefore, the
slump test is selected to be used for testing the flow of self-
compacting concrete. In the present study, compressive strength
and slum flow of the self-compacting concrete mixes are investi-
gated to determine the optimum proportion of SCC. Two experi-
mental tests including the compressive strength and slump tests
are performed on all the specimens. To obtain the compressive
strength for each mix design, three cubic specimens of 150 
150  150 mm are tested and the average of their compressive
strengths is considered as the final compressive strength of the
 A. Habibi, J. Ghomashi / Construction and Building Materials 168 (2018) 113–123 115

Table 1
Characteristics of cement used in the study.

No. Name Results No. Name Results No. Name Results

1 SiO2 % 20.7 ± 0.3 9 L.O.I 1 ± 0.5 17 Auto Clave Method % 0.08 ± 0.02
2 Al2 O3 % 5.2 ± 0.2 10 I.R 0.5 ± 0.1 18 Setting TIME IN (min) 140 ± 20
3 Fe2 O3 % 4.6 ± 0.2 11 Free Cao% 1.3 ± 0.2 19 Auto Clave Method % 240 ± 20
4 Cao% 65 ± 0.5 12 C3 S 59.47 20 Comp. strength 2 days kg/cm2 210 ± 10
5 Mgo% 1.8 ± 0.2 13 C2 S% 14.48 21 Comp. strength 7 days kg/cm2 440 ± 10
6 SO3 % 2.2 ± 0.4 14 C3 A% 6 22 Comp. strength 28 days (kg/cm2) 530 ± 10
7 K2 O% 0.5 ± 0.6 15 C4 AF% 14 23 Sieve 0.09 mm 1.2 ± 0.1
8 Na2 O% 0.15 ± 0.05 16 Blaine (cm2/g) 3200 ± 100 24 Density g/cm3 3.13 ± 0.01

Table 2 mix. The slump flow test is conducted in accordance to the

Percentage of passed aggregate mix.
EFNARC.
Sieve No. Aggregate The results of the 28-day compressive strength and slump flow
Gravel Sand Stone powder tests, are given in Table 4. Comparing the strength and slump of
3.4 100 100 100
various mix designs is shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3; respectively.
3.8 69 100 100
4 5 92 100
8 1.7 60 100
3. Optimization model for the concrete mix design
16 0 32 93
30 0 17 75
50 0 10 62 To provide an optimization model for self-compacting concrete
100 0 3 44 mix design, it is necessary that its components including design
variables, objective function and constraints be appropriately

Table 3
Self-compacting concrete mix designs tested in the study.

Design No. Water (kg) Superplasticizer (%) Superplasticizer (kg) Stone powder (kg) Gravel (kg) Sand (kg) Cement (kg) W/C
1 223.4 0.7 2.2 343.7 515.9 859.7 315.1 0.71
2 247.2 0.5 1.8 333.5 500.9 834.5 363 0.68
3 249.7 0.7 2.6 339.9 510.5 851 369.9 0.68
4 220.5 0.5 1.9 339.3 508.9 848.2 377 0.59
5 198 0.7 2.5 350.4 525.6 876 360 0.55
6 200.8 0.7 2.6 348.9 523.3 872.1 365 0.55
7 203.5 0.5 1.9 347.3 521 868.3 370 0.55
8 210 0.5 1.9 345 517.5 862.5 375 0.56
9 212.8 0.5 1.9 343.4 515.2 858.6 380 0.56
10 215.6 0.7 2.7 341.9 512.8 854.7 385 0.56
11 218.4 0.5 2 340.3 510.5 850.8 390 0.56
12 226.8 0.5 2 335.8 503.8 839.6 405 0.56
13 237.8 0.5 2.1 332.6 499 831.6 410 0.58
14 232.4 0.5 2.1 325.7 488.6 814.3 415 0.56
15 235.6 0.7 2.9 330.9 496.4 827.4 420.7 0.56
16 197.4 0.7 2.9 330.9 496.4 827.4 420 0.47
17 239 0.7 3 335.7 490.7 817.9 426.7 0.56
18 200.6 0.7 3 335.7 490.7 817.9 426.7 0.47
19 240.1 0.5 2.1 337.3 505.9 843.1 428.7 0.56
20 201.5 0.5 2.1 337.3 505 843.1 428.7 0.47
21 262 0.5 1.6 430.2 516.8 777.9 315.7 0.83
22 244.1 0.5 1.8 418.9 502.7 751.3 364.3 0.67
23 207.5 0.7 2.9 408.1 489.7 760.8 415 0.5
24 215.8 0.5 2.1 414.8 497.8 746.7 415 0.52
25 213.2 0.7 2.9 419.2 503 754.6 410 0.52
26 218.4 0.7 2.9 415.4 498.5 747.7 420 0.52
27 225.3 0.5 2.1 412.4 494.9 742.4 425 0.53
28 222.8 0.7 2.8 418.1 501.7 752.5 405 0.55
29 225.2 0.5 2 420 504 755.9 395 0.57
30 225.2 0.7 2.8 420 504 755.9 395 0.57
31 210.9 0.5 1.9 429.8 515.7 773.6 370 0.57
32 196.5 0.5 1.6 536.1 536.1 701.8 327.5 0.6
33 214.8 0.7 2.6 520.1 520.1 692.5 376.9 0.57
34 177.1 0.7 2.6 520.1 520.1 692.5 376.9 0.47
35 221.8 0.5 2.1 493.8 493.8 655.6 418.5 0.53
36 217.3 0.5 2.1 502.4 502.4 669.9 410 0.53
37 222.8 0.7 2.8 494.2 494.2 658.9 405 0.55
38 233.7 0.7 2.9 497.5 497.5 663.3 410 0.57
39 222.3 0.7 2.7 506.9 506.9 675.9 390 0.57
40 224.2 0.5 1.9 509.3 509.3 679.1 380 0.59
41 218 0.5 2.2 335 502 837 436 0.5
42 211.5 0.9 4.1 354 531 885 450 0.47
116 A. Habibi, J. Ghomashi / Construction and Building Materials 168 (2018) 113–123

Fig. 1. Mix design procedure for self-compacting concrete.

Table 4 35
Experimental test results.

Compressive strength (MPa)

30
Design No. Compressive Strength (MPa) Slump Flow (mm)
1 13.6 540 25
2 17.7 680
20
3 15.9 690
4 17.9 700
15
5 24.5 650
6 25 640 10
7 24.5 640
8 24 640 5
9 23.7 630
10 24.9 640 0
11 24.4 650 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
12 24.5 650
Mix design number
13 25.5 650
14 25 630
Fig. 2. Comparing the strengths of mix designs.
15 21.7 670
16 30 520
17 23.2 710
18 29.9 540 800
19 22.8 640
700
20 30.3 550
21 11.5 550 600
Slump flow (mm)

22 22.8 680
23 18.1 650 500
24 23.5 650
400
25 24 650
26 24.4 670 300
27 24.2 650
28 23.9 680 200
29 22 680 100
30 24.5 740
31 27.2 630 0
32 22.5 550 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
33 22.4 740
Mix design number
34 29 480
35 21.3 600
Fig. 3. Comparing slump flows of mix designs.
36 24.8 600
37 24 600
38 23 580
39 26 730 compacting concrete including water weight ðx1 Þ, amount of the
40 25.5 700 super plasticizer ðx2 Þ, stone powder weight ðx3 Þ, weight of the
41 27.5 480 gravel ðx4 Þ, weight of the sand ðx5 Þ, and weight of the cement
42 29 550
ðx6 Þ, are considered as design variables. A numerical value should
be given to each variable to specify a trial SCC mix design.

determined and the problem be formulated in accordance with the
actual conditions. These components are discussed in this section.
3.1. Design variables
The first step for defining an optimization model is to identify a
set of variables that describe the design, called design variables.
The design variables should be independent of each other as far
as possible. In this study, the constituting components of self-
3.2. Objective function
There can be many feasible mix designs for SCC, and some are
better than others. To compare different designs, a proper criterion
called objective function, which is a function of the design variable
and needs to be optimized, must be defined. A valid objective func-
tion must be influenced directly or indirectly by the design vari-
ables. Given the compressive strength and cost of concrete are
significantly influenced by the components of the concrete; they
 A. Habibi, J. Ghomashi / Construction and Building Materials 168 (2018) 113–123 117

can used to define meaningful objective functions for the optimiza-
tion model. In this study, two objective functions including the cost
of a unite volume (a cubic meter) of self-compacting concrete and
the ratio of the cost to the compressive strength are considered.
Minimization of the cost gives an economical design and mini-
mization of the ratio of the cost to the strength gives a possible
minimum cost and a possible maximum strength. Then both objec-
tive functions leads to desirable mix designs. These two objective
functions of the mix design are formulated as follows:
F 1 ðXÞ ¼ c1 x1 þ c2 x2 þ c3 x3 þ c4 x4 þ c5 x5 þ c6 x6
F 1 ðXÞ
F 2 ðXÞ ¼
f cp
where C 1 , C 2 , C 3 , C 4 , C 5 and C 6 are costs of unit weight of water,
super plasticizer, stone powder, gravel, sand and cement; respec-
tively. F 1 ðXÞ is the cost of unit volume of concrete. f cp is the com-
pressive strength estimated by the proposed mathematical model
based on the experimental results, that will presented in the next
section. The cost coefficients are changeable and applying different
values for them based on local conditions will not affect the opti-
mization process.
3.3. Design constraints
All restrictions placed on a design are collectively called con-
straints. The final step in the formulation process is to identify all
constraints and develop expressions for them. Most realistic mixes
of SCC must be designed and fabricated within given resources and
performance requirements. The purpose of the concrete mix design
is to minimize the objective function (the cost or the ratio of the
cost to the strength), as well as to meet design requirements. In
this study, according to the importance of the results of the slump
flow and compressive strength, they are limited to their allowable
values based on the ENFARC [12]. Therefore these two limitations
are considered as the main design constraints (Inequality con-
straints 2 & 3). In addition, the proposed method can be more effi-
ciently by adding a constraint to the optimization model to
guarantee that 1 to 6 makes 1 m3 concrete. For this purpose,
equality constraint 4 is added to the model. Also, the upper and
lower bounds on water, super plasticizer, stone powder, gravel,
sand, and cement, are considered as side restrictions based on their
ranges in the experimental program (Eq. (5)). Accordingly, the
design constraints related to the mix design are formulated as
follows:
f cp P f c
sp P s
Vm ¼ 1
The volume of self-compacting concrete mix appeared in Eq. (4)
can be obtained by the following equation:
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6
Vm ¼ þ þ þ þ þ þ Va ð6Þ
c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6
where V a is the air content of the concrete, and c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 , c5 and
c6 are specific weights of water, super plasticizer, stone powder,
gravel, sand and cement, respectively.
To determine proper relationship between the strength and the
ð1aÞ slump, and the design variables, the experimental results of 42
self-compacting concrete mix designs in Table 5 are used. Nonlin-
ear regression analysis is performed to represent a regression
ð1bÞ model for predicting the strength and slump as nonlinear functions
of predictor design variables. The following functions are sug-
gested to fit the models to experimental data.
f cp ¼ a7 xa11 xa22 xa33 xa44 xa55 xa66 ð7Þ
Sp ¼ b7 xb11 xb22 xb33 xb44 xb55 xb66 ð8Þ
The coefficients ai and bi are constants whose values are
obtained by using the least square method to minimize the error
between predicted mathematical models (Eqs. (7) and (8)) and cor-
responding experimental results. The values of these coefficients
are given in Table 5. The coefficients of determination of regression
(r-squared value), which are statistical measures of how close the
data are to the fitted regression models, are 0.86 and 0.76 for the
Eqs. (7) and (8); respectively. This indicates a good fit of the regres-
sion equations to the data. Compressive strength model according
to Eq. (7) shows that water, super plasticizer, stone powder, and
sand have inverse relation with compressive strength. However,
gravel and cement have direct relation with compressive strength.
According to the slump model (Eq. (8)), only gravel has inverse
relation with the slump while other components (water, super
plasticizer, stone powder, sand, and cement) have direct relation
with that. The relations show that the super plasticizer has the
lowest effect on both the strength and slump while the effect of
gravel is the highest.
To check the sensibility of variables in Eqs. (7), (8), changes in
values of the strength and slump must be calculated by changing
values of the design variables. That is, the strength and the slump
can highly affected by changing gravel while super plasticizer has
negligible effect on them. For example, if change in value of 5
(sand) be 5% and values of other variables be assumed constant,
change in value of fcp (strength) will be 15%. Since the total volume
of each mix must be 1 m3, by changing 5, values of other vari-
ables must be changed. Accordingly, this change (15%) is not reli-
ð2Þ
able amount. To clarify and demonstrate this point, the following
mix design with 1 m3 concrete is considered:
ð3Þ
x1 ¼ 261:998; x2 ¼ 1:57; x3 ¼ 536:14 ¼ x4 ¼ 536:13 ¼ x5
ð4Þ ¼ 655:640; x6 ¼ 385:986

xil 6 xi 6 xiu i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 6 ð5Þ By using Eqs. (7), (8), fcp and sp are achieved to 24.7 MPa and
561 mm, respectively, for the above mix. 5% increase in x4 (gravel)
where f cp is the estimated compressive strength according to the
proposed mathematical model in the study, f c is the expected Table 5
design strength, sp is the estimated slump according to the pro- Constant coefficients for mathematical models of the strength and the slump.
posed mathematical model in the study, s is the expected slump i xi Variable ai bi
flow, Vm is the volume of self-compacting concrete mix, and xil
1 x1 Water 1.2801 0.68307
and xiu are the lower and upper bounds for the design variable xi ; 2 x2 Super plasticizer 0.11433 0.018127
respectively. In order to determine f cp and sp and apply the main 3 x3 Powder 1.8128 1.1149
design constraints, it is necessary to establish relationships between 4 x4 Gravel 6.2254 2.2498
the strength as well as slump and design variables. These relation- 5 x5 Sand 3.4241 1.9367
6 x6 Cement 1.8153 0.092233
ships are established based on experimental results of several self- 7 – – 0.0029 0.0349
compacting concrete mix designs, made in the laboratory.
118 A. Habibi, J. Ghomashi / Construction and Building Materials 168 (2018) 113–123

and 8% decrease in x6 (cement) can produce another mix with the for which predicted results are more than experimental ones, the
same 1 m3 volume as follows: difference is unconservative. For the purpose of practical mix
design, considering the safety of the design, a conservative equa-
x1 ¼ 261:998; x2 ¼ 1:57; x3 ¼ 514:6944; x4 ¼ 522:7268; x5
tion can be suggested. The safety factor for each of Eqs. (7) and
¼ 688:4220; x6 ¼ 385:986 (8) can be considered based on the average deviations and errors,
or engineering judgment. According to the average error which is
By using Eqs. (7), (8), fcp and sp are achieved to 28.8 MPa and
less than 10% for both equations, the safety factor can be assumed
499 mm, respectively, for the second mix. This shows that fcp
to be 0.9.
change is 16.6% while it is 35.5% ignoring the decrease of x6. sp
change is 11.1% and it is 10.4% ignoring the decrease of x6. That
3.4. Formulating and solving the optimization problem
is the real change is obtained by changing all or some of the design
variables based on their sensitivities to guarantee that x1 to x6
Based on the design variables, objective function and design
makes 1 m3 concrete. Therefore, evaluating sensibility of a variable
constraints defined in three previous sections, the optimization
ignoring effect of other variables can be unreliable.
problem can be formulated according to one of the following forms
By inserting the values of design variables (weights of materi-
dependent on type of selected objective function:
als) related to the 42 mix designs into Eqs. (7) and (8), the strength
and the slump are calculated and compared with actual experi-
Min:F 1 ðXÞ ¼ c1 x1 þ c2 x2 þ c3 x3 þ c4 x4 þ c5 x5 þ c6 x6
mental results in Table 6. The relative differences (errors) between
the predicted values from Eqs. (7) and (8), and the actual ones Subjected to :
given in Table 6 show that maximum and minimum errors of Eq. a7 xa11 xa22 xa33 xa44 xa55 xa66 P f c
(7) are 23.37% and 24.33%; respectively. Also, maximum and
minimum errors of Eq. (8) are 14.82% and 31.56%; respectively. b7 xb11 xb22 xb33 xb44 xb55 xb66 P S ð9aÞ
As can be seen in Table 6, it is clear that the predicted slumps x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6
þ þ þ þ þ þ Va ¼ 1
and strengths are different from the results of experiments. This c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6
difference is conservative for the slumps or the strengths whose
values are less than the experimental ones but for the mix designs xil 6 xi 6 xiu i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 6

Table 6
Comparison between the predicted and the actual results.

Design No. Experimental strength Predicted strength Experimental slump Predicted slump Error of Eq. (7) Error of Eq. (8)
1 13.6 15.6 540 619 14.7 14.6
2 17.7 17.6 680 653 0.6 4
3 15.9 17.6 690 674 10.7 2.3
4 17.9 22 700 616 22.9 12
5 24.5 23.2 650 588 5.3 9.5
6 25 23.3 640 592 6.8 7.5
7 24.5 24.2 640 593 1.2 7.3
8 24 23.6 640 604 1.7 5.6
9 23.7 23.7 630 608 0 3.5
10 24.9 22.8 640 616 8.4 3.8
11 24.4 23.7 650 616 2.9 5.2
12 24.5 23.8 650 628 2.9 3.4
13 25.5 22.6 650 645 11.4 0.8
14 25 23.3 630 625 6.8 0.8
15 21.7 22.9 670 644 5.5 3.9
16 30 28.6 520 570 4.7 9.6
17 23.2 21.8 710 664 6 6.5
18 29.9 27.2 540 589 9 9.1
19 22.8 24.4 640 659 7 3
20 30.3 30.3 550 587 0 6.7
21 11.5 12.6 550 724 9.6 31.6
22 22.8 17.5 680 676 23.2 0.6
23 18.1 22 650 652 21.6 0.3
24 23.5 25 650 630 6.4 3.1
25 24 24.2 650 634 0.8 2.5
26 24.4 24.2 670 641 0.8 4.3
27 24.2 24.5 650 648 1.2 0.3
28 23.9 22.3 680 650 6.7 4.4
29 22 22 680 652 0 4.1
30 24.5 21.2 740 656 13.5 11.4
31 27.2 21.9 630 630 19.5 0
32 22.5 23.2 550 575 3.1 4.5
33 22.4 23.2 740 630 3.6 14.9
34 29 29.6 480 553 2.1 15.2
35 21.3 26.5 600 618 24.4 3
36 24.8 26.3 600 622 6.1 3.7
37 24 23.6 600 627 1.7 4.5
38 23 22.9 580 652 0.4 12.4
39 26 22.8 730 636 12.3 12.9
40 25.5 22.5 700 637 11.8 9
41 27.5 28.2 480 616 2.5 28.3
42 29 30.6 550 639 5.5 16.2
 A. Habibi, J. Ghomashi / Construction and Building Materials 168 (2018) 113–123 119

c 1 x1 þ c 2 x2 þ c 3 x3 þ c 4 x4 þ c 5 x5 þ c 6 x6 in this section. The objective of the first case study is to demon-

Min:F 2 ðXÞ ¼
a7 xa11 xa22 xa33 xa44 xa55 xa66 strate the consistency of the proposed method with experimental
Subjected to : results and the capability of the proposed method to obtain practi-
a7 xa11 xa22 xa33 xa44 xa55 xa66 P f c cal and feasible mix designs. In the second and third case studies,
ð9bÞ the newly proposed concept is used to obtain optimum mix
b7 xb11 xb22 xb33 xb44 xb55 xb66 P S designs for two self-compacting concrete mix design problems,
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 and the results are compared to those of existing methods in the
þ þ þ þ þ þ Va ¼ 1
c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 literature. For all the case studies, cost coefficients are assumed
xil 6 xi 6 xiu ı ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 6 to be 10, 10,000, 80, 145, 80 and 110, for water, super plasticizer,
stone powder, gravel, sand and cement; respectively.
Formulation (9a) is used to minimize the cost of a unite volume
of self-compacting concrete while formulation (9b) is used to min-
4.1. Case study I
imize the ratio of the cost to the compressive strength. In these two
formulations, x1 tox6 are the unknowns of the optimization model
In the first case study, five mix design problems are formulated
and other coefficients are constant values.
and solved by using the proposed method and then achieved five
In constrained optimization, the general aim is to transform the
optimum mixes are constructed in the laboratory to measure their
problem into an easier subproblem that can then be solved and used
compressive strengths and slumps. The safety factor is considered
as the basis of an iterative process. A characteristic of a large class of
to be 0.9 for this case study. The optimization problem is solved for
early methods is the translation of the constrained problem to a
five different cases (Optimum Mix Design 1 to 5, OMD1-OMD5).
basic unconstrained problem by using a penalty function for con-
Expected minimum compressive strength for OMD1, OMD2,
straints that are near or beyond the constraint boundary. In this
OMD3 and OMD4 is assumed to be 20, 25, 30 and 35 MPa; respec-
way the constrained problem is solved using a sequence of param-
tively. The expected minimum compressive strength for OMD5 is
eterized unconstrained optimizations, which in the limit (of the
assumed 20 MPa. Expected minimum slump for all the five mixes
sequence) converge to the constrained problem. These methods
is assumed to be 500 mm. The construction cost of a cubic meter
are now considered relatively inefficient and have been replaced
of concrete according to Eq. (1a), as the objective function, is min-
by methods that have focused on the solution of the Karush-
imized for these four cases. For the last case (OMD5), the cost to
Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) equations. The KKT equations are necessary
the compressive strength ratio according to Eq. (1b) is considered
conditions for optimality for a constrained optimization problem.
as the objective function that must be minimized. That is, four
The solution of the KKT equations forms the basis to many nonlinear
optimum mix designs (OMD1-OMD4) are obtained by solving the
programming algorithms. These algorithms attempt to compute the
problem (9a) and the one (OMD5) is achieved by solving the prob-
Lagrange multipliers directly. Constrained quasi-Newton methods
lem (9b). For each obtained optimum design, the objective function
guarantee superlinear convergence by accumulating second-order
is non-decreasing in feasible directions (feasible directions are
information regarding the KKT equations using a quasi-Newton
those vectors from the current point that locally satisfy the con-
updating procedure. These methods are commonly referred to as
straints. They either point to the interior of the region where the
Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) methods, since a QP sub-
constraints are satisfied, or are tangent to the boundary of binding
problem is solved at each major iteration. To solve the optimization
constraints), to within the value of the function tolerance, and con-
problem, the SQP algorithm is used in this study. SQP is relatively
straints are satisfied to within the value of the constraint tolerance.
new and has become quite popular as a result of its generality,
The optimization results have been detailed in Table 7. As it can be
robustness, and efficiency [13]. Also, it can incorporate second-
observed, upper bounds of the water and the gravel as well as
order information about the problem functions relatively easily.
lower bounds of the superplasticizer and the sand are active for
This method generally implements two main steps. In the first step,
all the optimum designs except OMD5 for which the optimum
a search direction in the design space is calculated by utilizing the
value of the water is slightly lower than the corresponding upper
values and the gradients of the problem functions; a quadratic pro-
bound. These results are logical due to the high cost of superplas-
gramming subproblem is defined and solved. In the second step, a
ticizer, the low cost of water, and the high effect of the gravel on
step size along the search direction is calculated to minimize a des-
the strength and the slump rather than sand.
cent function; a step size calculation subproblem is defined and
To verify the results of the proposed method, three specimens
solved. In the SQP method, the linearized cost function is modified
for each of five achieved optimum mix designs were constructed
by adding a second order term so that it becomes a quadratic func-
in laboratory and the strength and flowability tests were per-
tion. Thus the direction-finding subproblem becomes a quadratic
formed on them. The results of the 28-day compressive strength
programming subproblem, and it becomes a bounded problem as
and the properties of fresh self-compacting concrete have been
well. More details of the method can be found in [13].
given in Table 8. As the results shows, the optimum designs have
the appropriate compressive strength and flowability. The results
4. Case studies of Table 7 show that the compressive strength of OMD1, OMD2,
OMD3, and OMD5 designs are more than the required strength
To evaluate the proposed method developed for optimum self- (20, 25, 30, and 20 respectively). Therefore, in most of the cases
compacting concrete mix design, three case studies are presented the achieved strengths are more than the design strengths. How-

Table 7
Optimum mix design results for case study I.

Mix design Water (kg) Super plasticizer (kg) Stone powder (kg) Gravel (kg) Sand (kg) Cement (kg) Cost/Strength
OMD1 262 1.6 536.1 536.1 655.6 386 9784
OMD2 262 1.6 534.6 536.1 655.6 387.5 9666
OMD3 262 1.6 511.2 536.1 655.6 409.7 8074
OMD4 262 1.6 491.2 536.1 655.6 428.6 6934
OMD5 257.8 1.6 482.5 536.1 655.6 450 6059
120 A. Habibi, J. Ghomashi / Construction and Building Materials 168 (2018) 113–123

Table 8
Experimental results of optimum mix designs for case study I.

Mix design Slump (mm) Loop J (cm) BOX V (cm) Box U (cm) Box L (h2/h1) Compressive strength (MPa)
OMD1 650 12 20 20 0.7 29.9
OMD2 600 17 19 38 0.7 30.3
OMD3 640 19 14 18 0.8 31.3
OMD4 520 17 18 20 0.8 31.4
OMD5 490 15 15 25 0.9 35.3

ever, the strength of OMD4 is less than the required strength (the
difference between the optimum value and the experimental one is
10.3%) and the slump of OMD5 is slightly less than the required
slump (the difference between the optimum value and the exper-
imental one is 2%). This deficiency can be improved by increasing
the safety factor or increasing the number of mix designs that both
of these suggestions need to be more investigated in future studies.
It must be noticed that the expected minimum strength of OMD4
(35 MPa) is greater than the maximum strength resulted from
experiments (30.3 MPa related to mix design #20). That is the
expected minimum strength for this case is out of experimental
range and this can be the reason of the difference. Therefore it is
suggested that the proposed method be used based on experimen-
tal range to obtain reliable optimum results. For comparing the
optimum mix design 5 (OMD5) with the conventional mix designs
and other optimum designs, the ratio of the cost to the strength has
been shown in Fig. 4 for all the mix designs. Fig. 4 shows that the
ratio of the cost to the strength for all the conventional mix designs
(Designs 1–42) as well as four optimum mix designs (OMD1–
OMD4) is higher than that for optimum mix design 5 (OMD5).
Therefore as expected, minimum value of the cost to the strength
ratio is related to OMD5. Accordingly, the proposed method is able
to obtain the best mix design with minimum value of the cost to
the strength ratio.

25000
Rao of the cost to the strength

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 OMD1

OMD3
OMD4
OMD5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 OMD2
Mix design

Fig. 4. Comparing the optimum mix designs and the conventional ones for case study I.

Table 9
Self-compacting concrete experimental results for case study II [14].

Design No. Water (kg) Superplasticizer (kg) Powder (kg) Gravel (kg) Sand (kg) Cement (kg) Strength (MPa) Slump (cm)
1 188 8 143 861 736 464 31.1 72
2 188 8.5 151 861 736 464 29.3 74
3 188 7.5 150 861 736 464 30.3 67
4 179 8 143 878 736 442 27.8 65
5 179 8.5 151 878 736 442 27 75
6 179 7.5 150 878 736 442 27.3 67
7 183 8 143 832 736 438 28.3 74
8 183 8.5 151 832 736 438 27.5 77
9 183 7.5 150 832 736 438 27.6 75
10 179 8.5 143 861 718 438 26.6 76
11 179 7.5 151 861 718 438 26.7 73
12 179 8 150 861 718 438 26.8 75
13 183 8.5 143 878 718 464 32.7 75
14 183 7.5 151 878 718 464 33.4 71
15 183 8 150 878 718 464 33.7 73
16 188 8.5 143 832 718 442 27.5 77
17 188 7.5 151 832 718 442 28.9 74
18 188 8 150 832 718 442 28.7 74
19 183 7.5 143 861 770 442 26.7 71
20 183 8 151 861 770 442 25.2 73
21 183 8.5 150 861 770 442 24.7 76
22 188 7.5 143 878 770 438 24.8 71
23 188 8 151 878 770 438 24.2 73
24 188 8.5 150 878 770 438 24.7 76
25 179 7.5 143 832 770 464 36.2 71
26 179 8 151 832 770 464 36.6 75
27 179 8.5 150 832 770 464 34.5 77
 A. Habibi, J. Ghomashi / Construction and Building Materials 168 (2018) 113–123 121

4.2. Case study II
In this case study, optimum mix design of a practical sample,
which has been previously studied by Esmaeilnia Omran and Nor-
ian Bahmand [14], is determined by applying the proposed
method. Experimental results of 27 self-compacting concrete mix
designs including compressive strength and slump flow values
have been listed in Table 9 [14]. Expected minimum compressive
strength is 20 MPa and expected minimum slump is 500 mm.
The goal is to minimize the cost and optimize the mix design by
using the method presented in this study and compare the results
with those of Taguchi method. The optimization results for the
case study are given in Table 10. Comparing the optimum results
by the method in this study and optimum results using Taguchi
method, which has been listed in Table 10, shows that the opti-
mum values of components except cement whose value resulting

Table 10
The optimization results for case study II.

i xi Design variable ai bi Optimum value (this study) Optimum value (Taguchi method)

1 x1 Water 1.463 0.121 188 179

2 x2 Super plasticizer 0.222 0.522 7.5 8.5
3 x3 Powder 0.249 0.332 151 143
4 x4 Gravel 1.618 0.8 878 832
5 x5 Sand 0.511 0.024 758.4 718
6 x6 Cement 3.980 0.231 464 464
7 – – 14.79 2660.72 – –
Cost (Rial) – – – – 3,202,030 3,337,920

Fig. 5. Comparing optimum mix designs with conventional mix designs for case study II.

Table 11
Self-compacting concrete experimental results for case study III [15].

Row W/P SP (%) PFA (kg/m3) Sand (kg/m3) Coarse (kg/m3) Cement (kg/m3) Compressive strength (MPa) Slump flow (mm)
1 0.45 0.8 100 913 837 290 42.7 434
2 0.55 0.5 261 478 837 250 17.0 705
3 0.65 0.8 100 910 837 210 19.1 575
4 0.55 0.5 160 742 837 250 24.1 625
5 0.45 0.8 220 786 837 210 26.7 555
6 0.65 0.2 100 709 837 290 26.6 623
7 0.45 0.2 220 625 837 290 32.9 345
8 0.55 0.5 160 742 837 250 26 605
9 0.55 0.5 160 742 837 250 28.5 625
10 0.55 0.5 160 742 837 250 26.4 605
11 0.55 0 160 739 837 250 27.3 419
12 0.45 0.2 100 1066 837 210 54.3 200
13 0.55 0.5 160 594 837 317 29.1 697
14 0.55 0.5 29 1006 837 250 51.7 200
15 0.65 0.2 220 562 837 210 10.2 737
16 0.55 0.5 160 742 837 250 25.3 600
17 0.38 0.5 160 919 837 250 36.3 200
18 0.55 1 160 746 837 250 26.7 790
19 0.72 0.5 160 566 837 250 11 880
20 0.55 0.5 160 891 837 183 22.1 361
122 A. Habibi, J. Ghomashi / Construction and Building Materials 168 (2018) 113–123

Table 12
The coefficients and the results of the optimization problem for case study III.

i xi variables ai bi Optimum value

1 x1 W
P
0.7019 1.5283 0.49
2 x2 SP 0.0032 0.0109 0.2
3 x3 PFA 0.0997 0.5228 146.8
4 x4 Sand 1.3338 0.1198 843.7
5 x5 Coarse – – 837
6 x6 Cement 1.4410 0.6669 317
7 – – 1.4660e06 5:3731 –
Cost (Rial) – – – – 2,445,230
Rao of the cost to the strength

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

opmum
Mix design
Fig. 6. Comparing optimum mix design with conventional mix designs for case study III.

from both methods is the same, are different. According to Fig. 5, it
is observed that cost of 1 m3 volume of the optimum mix resulting
from the proposed method is lower than the cost of the optimum
design using Taguchi method as well as all the conventional mix
designs except mix design #3 whose cost is almost equal to the
optimum cost. Also, it can be observed that the optimum mix
design of Taguchi method is 4.2% more than the proposed method.
4.3. Case study III
Objective of case study III is to obtain optimum mix design for a
practical sample previously studied by Sonebi [15]. Experimental
results of twenty self-compacting concrete mix designs including
compressive strength and slump flow values have been given in
Table 11 [15]. The objective function is assumed to be the cost to
the strength ratio for this case study. Expected minimum compres-
sive strength is 20 MPa and expected minimum slump is 500 mm.
Optimum mix design is determined by solving problem (9b) and
the results are compared with results of the conventional mix
designs. The optimization results for the case study are listed in
Table 12. It can be observed in Fig. 6 that the cost of the optimum
mix design is lower than the cost of eighteen conventional mix
designs. The results show that the optimum cost is greater than
the cost of mix designs #12 and #14 whose slumps (200 mm)
are less than expected minimum slump (500 mm) and are not
acceptable designs. Therefore it can be concluded that the opti-
mum cost is less than all the acceptable conventional mix designs.
5. Conclusion
In this study an optimum mix design method was developed for
self-compacting concrete based on experimental results. For this
purpose, the mix design was defined as an optimization problem
by developing proper relations for the strength and the slump.
After solving the optimization problem, the optimal mix designs
for different levels of compressive strength were obtained. Five
optimum mixes were constructed and tested in the laboratory
and satisfactory results were achieved. The optimum self-
compacting concrete mixes had the lowest cost and the most suit-
able flowability and compressive strength. To validate the devel-
oped method, the results of two previous studies were also
examined and compared with the results of proposed method,
and it was observed that the optimum mix resulting from the pro-
posed method is more suitable than Taguchi method. It was shown
that the proposed method can optimize the self-compacting con-
crete mix design with minimum cost (or cost-strength ratio) by
simultaneously meeting compressive strength and flowability
constraints.
Acknowledgments
We hereby thank two anonymous referees for valuable com-
ments which helped us improve the article.
References
[1] M.J. Simon, E.S. Lagergren, K.A. Snyder, Concrete mixture optimization using
statistical mixture design methods, International Symposium on High
Performance Concrete, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1997.
[2] M.F. Ashby, Multi-objective optimization in material design and selection, Acta
Mater. 48 (2000) 359–369.
[3] B.L. Karihaloo, D. Lange-Kornbak, Optimization techniques for the design of
high-performance fiber reinforced concrete, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 21
(2001) 32–39.
[4] A. Ghezal, K.H. Khayat, Optimizing self consolidating concrete with limestone
filler by using statistical factorial design method, ACI Mater. J. 99 (2002) 264–
272.
[5] M. Muthukumar, D. Mohan, Optimization of mechanical properties of polymer
concrete and mix design recommendation based on design of experiments, J.
Appl. Polym. Sci. 94 (2004) 1107–1116.
[6] I.C. Yeh, Computer-aided design for optimum concrete mixtures, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 29 (2007) 193–202.
 A. Habibi, J. Ghomashi / Construction and Building Materials 168 (2018) 113–123
[7] E. Ozbay, A. Oztas, A. Baykasoglu, H. Ozbebek, Investigating mix proportions of
high strength self-compacting concrete by using Taguchi method, Constr.
Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 694–702.
[8] C. Lian, Y. Zhuge, Optimum mix design of enhanced permeable concrete–an
experimental investigation, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 2664–2671.
[9] L. Soto-Pérez, V. López, S.S. Hwang, Response Surface Methodology to optimize
the cement paste mix design: time-dependent contribution of fly ash and
nano-iron oxide as admixtures, Mater. Des. 86 (2015) 22–29.
[10] M. Moini, I. Flores-Vivian, A. Amirjanov, K. Sobolev, The optimization of
aggregate blends for sustainable low cement concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 93
(2015) 627–634.
[11] W. Lindquist, D. Darwin, J.A. Browning, H.A.K. Mc Leod, J. Yuan, D. Reynolds,
Implementation of concrete aggregate optimization, Constr. Build. Mater. 74
(2015) 49–56.
123
[12] EFNARC, Specification and Guidelines for Self-compacting Concrete, European
Federation of Producers and Applicators of Specialist Products for Structures,
2002.
[13] J.S. Arora, Introduction to Optimum Design, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
2004.
[14] M. Esmaeilnia Omran, M. Norian Bahmand, Optimizing self-compacting
concrete mix by using Tagochi method, The 6th National Congress on Civil
Engineering, University of Semnan, Semnan, Iran, 2011.
[15] M. Sonebi, Medium strength self-compacting concrete containing fly ash:
Modeling using factorial experimental plans, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 1199–
1208.