ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL

Title no. 103-M14

TECHNICAL PAPER

Performance-Based Specifications of Self-Consolidating Concrete Used in Structural Applications

by Soo-Duck Hwang, Kamal H. Khayat, and Olivier Bonneau
Proper selection of test methods and workability specifications are key concerns in the optimization and control testing of selfconsolidating concrete (SCC). An experimental program was carried out to evaluate the suitability of various test methods for workability assessment and to propose performance specifications of such concrete used in structural applications. Various workability characteristics were determined for approximately 70 SCC mixtures made with water-cementitious material ratios (w/cm) of 0.35 and 0.42. Workability responses included the slump flow, J-Ring, V-funnel flow time, L-box, filling capacity, and surface settlement tests. Comparisons of various test methods indicate that the L-box blocking ratio (h2/ h1) and the J-Ring flow diameter can be related to filling capacity values determined using the caisson test. It is recommended that SCC used in structural applications should have slump flow values of 620 to 720 mm. To ensure proper filling capacity greater than 80%, such concrete should have high passing ability that corresponds to L-box blocking ratio (h2/ h1) 0.7, J-Ring flow of 600 to 700 mm, slump flow minus J-Ring flow diameter 50 mm, or V-funnel flow time 8 seconds. Such SCC should have a settlement rate of 0.16%/h at 30 minutes, corresponding to 0.5% maximum settlement.
Keywords: rheology; segregation; self-consolidating concrete; workability.

INTRODUCTION Workability characteristics and test methods Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is a new class of highperformance concrete that can spread readily into place under its own weight and fill restricted sections as well as congested reinforcement structures without the need of mechanical consolidation and without undergoing any significant separation of material constituents. The use of SCC can improve productivity in structural applications such as repair, and facilitate the filling of restricted sections. Such concrete has been widely used to facilitate construction operations, especially in sections presenting special difficulties to casting and vibration, such as bottom sides of beams, girders, and slabs. Workability requirements for successful casting of SCC include high deformability, passing ability, and proper resistance to segregation.1,2 Deformability refers to the ability of SCC to flow into and completely fill all spaces within the formwork, under its own weight. Deformability is the property most commonly associated with SCC and provides the justification for the acceptance of the technology. Ensuring high deformability and dynamic stability is essential for the successful use of SCC in structural applications. Such SCC can achieve complete encapsulation of the reinforcement and spread fully among closely spaced obstacles. This is necessary to ensure proper bond to the reinforcing steel and secure homogeneous distribution of in-place properties of the hardened concrete, including durability characteristics. ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2006

The dynamic stability refers to the resistance of concrete to the separation of constituents during placement into the formwork. This characteristic of concrete is required to ensure uniform distribution of solid constituents upon transport and placement into the formwork.3 This can be evaluated by determining the ability of concrete to pass among various obstacles and narrow spacing in the formwork without blockage (passing ability). Concrete with high deformability and good passing ability can achieve adequate filling capacity in restricted and congested sections that are typical in structural repair applications. Static stability refers to the resistance of the fresh concrete to segregation, bleeding, and surface settlement after casting while the concrete is still in a plastic state. Several test methods are used to assess the dynamic stability of SCC. Khayat et al.4 investigated the suitability of a number of different tests for evaluating deformability and passing ability of SCC and found that SCC with apparent yield stress (g) values of 0.3 to 1.7 Nm and torque plastic viscosity (h) values of 17 to 27 Nms can achieve high passing ability determined using the L-box flow time of 4 to 8 seconds. The authors reported that the L-box, U-box, and J-Ring tests that are primarily employed to evaluate the passing ability can also enable the evaluation of deformability and resistance to segregation.4 In particular, the L-box test is recommended along with the slump flow test for fieldoriented quality control testing of SCC. The rheological parameters (g and h values) were determined using a modified two-point workability rheometer (IBB).5,6 The rheometer had an H-shaped impeller rotating in a planetary motion. The testing protocol consisted of gradually increasing the mixing speed up to a maximum velocity. Subsequently, the speed was reduced in predetermined steps varying from 0.6 to 0.1 rps, the required torque to shear the material was recorded, and the data were used to derive the rheological parameters assuming a Bingham fluid. The slope of the linear regression and the intercept with the torque axis at zero shear rate were determined and related to the torque plastic viscosity (h, Nms) and apparent yield stress (g, Nm), respectively. The reader should refer to the work of Ferraris et al.7 for a comparison of rheological parameters carried out on concrete mixtures using five types of rheometers, including the modified two-point rheometer used in this research.
ACI Materials Journal, V. 103, No. 2, March-April 2006. MS No. 04-377 received November 23, 2004, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the JanuaryFebruary 2007 ACI Materials Journal if the discussion is received by October 1, 2006.

121

Soo-Duck Hwang is a PhD candidate at the Universit de Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. His research interests include workability, transport properties, and visco-elastic properties of self-consolidating concrete. Kamal H. Khayat, FACI, is Professor of Civil Engineering at the Universit de Sherbrooke. He is a member of ACI Committees 234, Silica Fume in Concrete; 236, Material Science of Concrete; 237, Self-Consolidating Concrete; and 552, Geotechnical Cement Grouting. His research interests include self-consolidating concrete, rheology, and concrete repair. ACI member Olivier Bonneau is a research assistant at the Universit de Sherbrooke and coordinator of the Research Centre on Concrete Infrastructure. His research interests include self-consolidating concrete and concrete repair.

Table 1Workability characteristics, test methods, and recommended values

Workability characteristic Test methods Recommended values suggested in 1 to 6 1. Authors: 620 to 720 mm 2. EFNARC: 650 to 800 mm (MSA up to 20 mm) 3. JSCE: 600 to 700 mm 4. PCI: 660 mm 5. RILEM TC 174: N/A 6. Swedish Concrete Association: 650 to 750 mm 2. 2 to 5 seconds 4. 3 to 5 seconds 6. 3 to 7 seconds 1. <8 seconds 2. 6 to 12 seconds 4. 6 to 10 seconds 2. >0.8 4. >0.75 6. >0.8 2. h2/h1: 0 to 30 mm 3. Rank 1 (35 to 60 mm reinforcing bar spacing) Rank 2 (60 to 200 mm reinforcing bar spacing) 4. Rank 1 2. <10 mm 4. <15 mm 1. 80% 2. 90 to 100% Same as passing ability Same as passing ability Same as passing ability

Deformability and flow rate (filling ability, unrestricted flow)

Slump flow

T-50 V-funnel* L-box, h2/h1

Passing ability (narrow-opening passing ability, confined flow, restricted flow, dynamic stability)

U-box, Bh

J-Ring Filling capacity (filling ability + passing ability, restricted deformability) Static stability Filling vessel (caisson) L-box, h2/h1 U-box, Bh J-Ring

(resistance to Penetration 5 and 6. 8 mm segregation, bleeding, and settlement) GTM screen stability 2. 15%
*V-funnel opening of 65 x 75 mm. Rank 1 refers to Bh of 305 mm through 5 to 10 mm-diameter bars with 35 mm clear spacing. Rank 2 refers to Bh of 305 mm through 3 to 12 mm-diameter bars with internal and external spacing of 35 to 45 mm, respectively. J-Ring value is determined by difference in height of concrete between inside and outside in J-Ring.

Surface settlement 1. 0.5% Visual stability index 4. 0 or 1

testing the passing ability. In particular, the filling vessel (caisson) tests provide a small-scale model of a highly congested section and are suitable to evaluate the filling capacity of SCC and its self-consolidating characteristics.10,11 Filling capacity tests can also provide visual assessment of the self-leveling ability of the concrete. These tests, however, are difficult to perform on site and necessitate relatively intensive labor. Ozawa et al.12 and Khayat et al.13 proposed the combined use of the V-funnel flow time and slump flow tests to assess the filling capacity of SCC. Multiple regression relationship correlating the filling capacity, slump flow, and V-funnel flow time, can be expressed as follows: filling capacity (%) = 8.1 + 0.107 slump flow (mm) 1.107 flow time (in seconds).13 This relationship is valid for concrete with slump flow values between 550 and 780 mm, filling capacity greater than 40%, V-funnel flow time of less than 20 seconds, and for SCC made with maximum size aggregate (MSA) of 20 mm, and for concrete that does not contain any air entrainment. A number of test methods have been used to assess static stability. For example, the V-funnel test can be used to measure the variation of flow time following a given period of rest to evaluate the resistance of the SCC to segregation after casting.14 Other tests include the surface settlement test,15 the penetration apparatus test proposed by Van et al.,16 segregation resistance of hardened concrete,17 and electrical conductivity approach.18 The visual stability index (VSI) from the slump flow test is also useful for the qualitative assessment of segregation.19 The column surface settlement test has been extensively used by the authors to evaluate the static stability of SCC, both in the laboratory and in the field. Assaad et al.19 compared the suitability of various test methods to assess static stability of SCC, which included the column surface settlement, column segregation, and electrical conductivity tests. The surface settlement test is appropriate to assess stability over the dormant period of cement hydration. This test, however, is long, as it involves the monitoring of settlement until the onset of hardening. The column segregation test involves the determination of the distribution of coarse aggregate in a concrete column and is suitable for use at a batching plant or at a job site. The authors related the segregation index Iseg determined from the column segregation test to the g and h values determined using the modified Tattersall two-point workability rheometer.19 SCC with g and h values of 0.3 to 1.7 Nm and 17 to 30 Nms, respectively, can develop adequate resistance to segregation with Iseg values of 2 to 4%.19 Performance specifications of self-consolidating concrete Various test methods to assess workability characteristics of SCC are summarized in Table 1, which also includes some limit values recommended by the European Federation of National Trade Associations (EFNARC),20 Precast/ Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Interim Guidelines,3 RILEM TC 174,2 Swedish Concrete Association (SCA),21 and the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE).14,22 For each workability characteristic (deformability, passing ability, filling capacity, and static stability), various test methods are recommended in the aforementioned specifications. The recommended test methods and performance specifications are normally used in combination for various types of SCC. For example, according to SCA21 and the Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute (SCCRI),23 SCC ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2006

SCC mixtures designated for structural applications should flow through restricted spacing and completely fill the form without any mechanical vibration. A number of test methods can be used to assess the filling capacity of SCC, including mock-up tests developed for acceptance testing.8,9 These tests can simulate concrete behavior in actual construction with respect to deformability, passing ability, resistance to dynamic segregation, and rate of deformation. As indicated in Table 1, the filling capacity, referred to as restricted deformability, has been evaluated, though indirectly, by 122

Table 2Fresh property limits adequate for various member characteristics

Slump flow 560 to <560 mm 660 mm >660 mm <3 seconds Low Reinforcement Medium level High Low Element shape Medium intricacy High Element depth Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Element length Medium High Low Wall thickness Medium High Low Medium High Low Placement energy
*

T-50 3 to 5 seconds

L-box (h2/h1)

V-funnel*

6 to >5 seconds <75% 75 to >90% <6 seconds 10 seconds >10 seconds 90%

Surface finish importance

Coarse aggregate content

Medium High

V-funnel opening of 65 x 75 mm.

used for civil engineering structures should have a slump flow of 650 to 750 mm, T-50 time of 3 to 7 seconds, and L-box blocking ratio (h2/h1) greater than 0.8. The performance specification of SCC can be a function of the aggregate characteristics. For example, the University College London24 proposed workability recommendations for concrete made with MSA of 10 and 20 mm. For mixtures made with 10 mm MSA, slump flow consistency of 600 to 700 mm, V-funnel flow time of 2 to 4 seconds, and U-box height of 300 to 350 mm are recommended. In the case of SCC prepared with 20 mm MSA, these values can be 650 to 700 mm, 4 to 10 seconds, and 300 to 350 mm, respectively. The level of workability of SCC should be compatible with the placement technique.3 Several placement techniques, such as truck discharge, pumping, conveyor, buggy, and drop tube, can provide different energy during the initial flow of SCC. In the PCI Interim Guidelines,3 recommendations for workability of SCC take into consideration the placement energy provided by the casting method as well as the characteristics of the cast element, including reinforcement level, element shape intricacy, element depth, surface finish importance, element length, wall thickness, and coarse aggregate content (Table 2). These recommendations are based on work reported by Constantiner and Daczko.25 According to these recommendations, SCC used for casting highly reinforced elements with intricate shape (such as typically encountered in structural repair) should have slump flow greater than 660 mm, T-50 time of 3 to 5 seconds, L-box blocking ratio (h2/h1) higher than 0.75, and V-funnel flow time of 6 to 10 seconds. Shaded areas in Table 2 represent potential problem situations. ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2006

According to the German SCC guideline,26 the J-Ring test can be used in conjunction with the slump flow test to evaluate the passing ability of SCC. This guideline proposes that the difference between flow diameters of the two tests should not exceed 50 mm for the concrete to achieve sufficient flow through the reinforcement. However, limited information is available regarding relationships between workability responses in the specifications previously reviewed, and no proven combination of test methods has achieved global acceptance. The main objective of the study reported in this paper is to propose a set of test methods and performance specifications of SCC used in structural applications that often involve placement of concrete in highly restricted and thin sections with relatively low placement energy. In total, 70 SCC mixtures made with various commercially available admixtures and binder combinations were evaluated. The mixtures were tested for deformability, passing ability, filling capacity, and static stability. Correlations between the various tests are used to recommend a number of field-oriented test methods for quality control of SCC. The design compressive strength was 35 to 40 MPa at 28 days of moist curing. Optimized mixtures were also tested for hardened properties of SCC, including mechanical, visco-elastic, transport properties, airvoid system, and frost durability. The results of the hardened concrete properties will be presented in a future publication. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE With the increasing use of SCC in structural applications, it is important to provide reliable test methods and performance specifications for mixture proportioning and quality control. 123

Fig. 1Particle size distribution of aggregate. Table 3Chemical and physical characteristics of cementitious materials
Type GU SiO2, % Al2O3, % Fe2O3, % CaO, % MgO, % Na2O equivalent, % Blaine surface area, m /kg Mean apparent diameter, m Specific gravity Percent passing 45 m Bulk unit weight, kg/m3 Loss on ignition, %
2

given in Table 3. Continuously graded crushed limestone aggregate with 10 mm MSA and well-graded siliceous sand were employed. The combined gradation of the sand and coarse aggregate is plotted in Fig. 1. The coarse aggregate and sand have fineness moduli of 6.4 and 2.5, bulk specific gravities of 2.73 and 2.64, and absorption values of 0.5% and 1.2%, respectively. The SCC mixtures were prepared with 475 kg/m3 of cementitious materials. The sand-to-coarse aggregate ratio (by volume) was fixed to 1. For SCC mixtures made with 0.35 w/cm, a blend of CSA Type GU cement (similar to ASTM C 150 Type I cement), 30% Class F fly ash, and 5% silica fume, by mass of cementitious materials, was used. The CSA Type GUb-F/SF cement containing approximately 25% Class F fly ash and 5% silica fume, by mass of cementitious materials, was used for mixtures made with 0.42 w/cm and VEA. The HRWRA and AEA content was adjusted to secure initial slump flow consistency of 660 20 mm and 6.5 1.5%, respectively. Mixing procedure The concrete was prepared in 80 L batches using an openpan mixer of 100 L capacity. The mixing sequence consisted of homogenizing the sand and coarse aggregate for 30 seconds before introducing half of the mixing water and AEA. The AEA diluted in half of the water was then added. After 30 seconds of mixing, all of the cementitious materials were introduced along with the remaining water that was used to dilute the HRWRA. The concrete was mixed for 3 minutes and kept at rest for 5 minutes before remixing for 3 additional minutes. The concrete was kept at rest for one additional minute before sampling and testing. The temperature of mixtures during the sampling and testing remained at 20 2 C. Test methods The slump flow test was used to evaluate deformability and filling ability of the SCC (ASTM C 143). The passing ability was determined using the V-funnel, L-box, and J-Ring tests. As shown in Fig. 2, the V-funnel that was employed in this study has an outlet of 75 x 75 mm;27 this is different from the 65 x 75 mm outlet proposed by Ozawa et al.14 The test is used to evaluate the ability of aggregate particles and mortar to change their flow paths and spread through a restricted section without segregation and blockage.4 In this test, the concrete is cast in the funnel and left for a given period of time, usually 1 minute, before removing the dividing gate. The time required for the concrete to flow through the tapered outlet is then determined. The L-box apparatus had 12 mm-diameter bars set at clear distance of 35 mm between adjacent bars.28 The vertical part of the box is filled with 12.7 L of concrete and left at rest for 1 minute. The gate separating the vertical and horizontal compartments is then lifted, and the concrete flows out through closely spaced reinforcing bars at the bottom. The time for the leading edge of the concrete to reach the end of the 600 mm-long horizontal section is noted. The height of concrete remaining in the vertical section (h1 = 600 H1) and that at the leading edge (h2 = 150 H2) are determined. The L-box blocking ratio (h2/h1) was used to evaluate the narrow-opening-passability and self-leveling characteristics of the SCC. The J-Ring test was used to assess the passing ability of SCC.29 The J-Ring measured 300 mm in diameter, 100 mm in height, and had a gap of 35 mm between deformed bars.29 ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2006

Class F fly ash 43.6 23.6 21.4 4.06 0.33 1.39 310 25 2.43 19 91 2.2

Silica fume 92.4 0.42 0.52 1.93 0.77 17,500 0.1 2.22 100 2.8

Type GUb-F/SF 32.3 8.7 5.0 45.5 1.4 0.6 530 19 2.91 16 96 1.4

21.0 4.2 3.1 62.0 2.9 0.74 420 19 3.17 17 95 2.5

The study reported herein proposes a set of performancebased specifications for the workability of structural SCC that can be used for casting highly restricted or congested sections. Proven combinations of test methods to assess filling capacity and stability are proposed and should be of interest to engineers and contractors using SCC. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Materials and concrete mixtures For the proportioning of structural concretes suitable for repair applications, two sets of mixtures were prepared in this study: the first made with a relatively low watercementitious material ratio (w/cm) of 0.35 and no viscosityenhancing admixture (VEA), and the second with w/cm of 0.42 and VEA to ensure adequate stability. The mixtures were prepared with various admixtures available in North America. One polynaphthalene sulfonate-based high-range water reducing admixture (PNS-based HRWRA) and five polycarboxylate (PCP)-based HRWRAs of various compositions and molecular weights were used. From the manufacturer of each HRWRA, compatible air-entraining admixtures (AEAs) and liquid-based VEAs were selected to secure stable air-void systems and adequate resistance to segregation. One blended binder and CSA Type GUb-F/SF cement typically employed in repair applications were used. The chemical and physical characteristics of the cementitious materials are 124

Fig. 3Variation in slump flow and J-Ring values with filling capacity.

Fig. 2Schematics of V-funnel, L-box, and caisson filling capacity apparatuses.4,11 The ring was positioned around the base of the slump cone. The test was conducted in the same fashion of the slump flow test. The mean diameter of the concrete at the end of slump flow was determined. The filling capacity was determined by casting concrete in a transparent box (caisson) measuring 300 mm in width, 500 mm in length, and 300 mm in height that contained closely spaced smooth horizontal tubes of 16 mm in diameter and with 34 mm clear spacing in both the horizontal and vertical directions (Fig. 2).11 The concrete was introduced from a tremie pipe equipped with a hopper at constant rate, approximately 20 L/min, up to a height of 220 mm from the bottom part of the box. Once the flow of the SCC among the bars ceased, the area occupied by the concrete in the restricted section was used to calculate the filling capacity, as indicated in Fig. 2. The column surface settlement test was used to evaluate the stability of concrete and its ability to ensure proper suspension of aggregate and fines. 15 This involved the monitoring of the settlement of concrete cast in a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) column measuring 200 mm in diameter and 800 mm in height. The column was filled with concrete to a height of 600 mm.15 A linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) was fixed on top of a thin acrylic plate placed at the upper surface of the concrete sample to monitor surface settlement. Changes in height were monitored until reaching steady state conditions, which corresponded approximately to the beginning of hardening. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Comparisons of workability responses with filling capacity determined by caisson test The filling capacity test was aimed to evaluate both the narrow-opening passing ability and the self-leveling ability simultaneously.2 Correlation coefficients (R2) for the variations of filling capacity and those of the slump flow, L-box, V-funnel, and J-Ring test values were determined. The J-Ring and the slump flow test values are compared in Fig. 3 with the caisson filling capacity test. The correlation ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2006

Fig. 4Relation between blocking ratio and caisson filling capacity values. coefficient (R2) established between the slump flow and filling capacity was 0.77 and that for the J-Ring flow and filling capacity was 0.73. The L-box blocking ratio (h2/h1) values are compared with the filling capacity values in Fig. 4. The h2/h1 index is shown to increase with the filling capacity. From the derived correlations, the minimum slump flow, J-Ring flow, and L-box blocking ratio (h2/h1) values that correspond to a filling capacity of 80% are determined to be 620 mm, 600 mm, and 0.7, respectively. As noted in Fig. 3 and 4, considerable scattering exists between the slump flow, J-Ring, and L-box tests, and filling capacity results. For example, several mixtures having filling capacity values greater than 80% also exhibited h2/h1 results lower than 0.7. For these mixtures, the spread between slump flow and J-Ring flow values were also higher than 50 mm. More accurate assessment of the filling capacity is then required for specifying this key SCC characteristic using simple and field-oriented test methods. The results of the V-funnel could not be well correlated to the filling capacity values. This agrees with other research findings12,13 that showed that the passing ability determined with the V-funnel test is not sufficient to evaluate the ability of SCC to flow through highly restricted areas. The V-funnel flow time combined with slump flow value can, however, be employed to assess the filling capacity of SCC. 125

and with a maximum spread of 50 mm between the slump flow and J-Ring flow can exhibit a minimum filling capacity of 80%. The mixtures lying below the lower line in Fig. 6, with difference between the slump flow and J-Ring flow diameters greater than 50 mm, exhibited relatively lower resistance to segregation and surface settlement. A combination of the slump flow and L-box tests as well as that of the slump flow and J-Ring tests can be used to assess the restricted deformability of SCC. Multiple regression equations relating the filling capacity values to these combined test values can be expressed as follows filling capacity (%) = 49.1 + 0.149 slump flow (mm) (1) + 51.3 h2/h1 (R2 = 0.86) filling capacity (%) = 77.5 + 0.162 slump flow (mm) (2) Fig. 5Workability box relating filling capacity with respect to blocking ratio and slump flow consistency. + 0.094 J-Ring flow (mm) (R2 = 0.84) The filling capacity can also be expressed as a function of the difference between slump flow and J-Ring flow diameter, as follows filling capacity (%) = 72.3 + 0.25 slump flow (mm) (3)

0.09 {Slump flow (mm) J-Ring flow (mm)} (R2 = 0.84) The filling capacity can also be correlated to slump flow and V-funnel flow time, as follows filling capacity (%) = 23.5 + 0.175 slump flow (mm) (4) 0.425 V-funnel flow time (s) (R2 = 0.64) The aforementioned multiple regression equations are valid for stable mixtures with slump flow values between 500 and 720 mm and made with 10 mm MSA. Unlike Eq. (1) to (3), the last correlation coefficient was quite low. As mentioned previously, the majority of the tested mixtures, targeted for structural repair applications, exhibited filling capacity values greater than 80%. This type of SCC can have high flowability and stability without any significant blockage, thus leading to relatively small variance in the V-funnel flow time. With the small range of results, observational error can increase scattering. Khayat et al.13 also developed a multiple regression approach that considers the results of the slump flow and V-funnel time to estimate the filling capacity. As indicated in Fig. 7, the existing model13 underestimates the filling capacity compared to the relationship proposed in Eq. (4). This is in part due to the fact that the latter model was developed for SCC mixtures with 10 mm MSA and with air entrainment, whereas the previous model13 was established for non-air-entrained SCC with 20 mm MSA. Air entrainment reduces plastic viscosity, which would decrease the V-funnel flow time. This could lead to greater filling capacity. Figure 8 shows contour diagrams of the filling capacity related to the slump flow and h2/h1 index. A decrease in filling capacity is accompanied with a drop in h2/h1 index for a given slump flow value, which is due to the reduction in cohesiveness of the paste that increases the tendency of blockage. In addition, mixtures with 0.7 h2/h1 index can ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2006

Fig. 6Workability box relating filling capacity with respected to J-Ring flow and slump flow. Combined test methods to evaluate restricted deformability of SCC Despite the advantages of the filling capacity test to evaluate the ability of concrete to fill restricted spacing without blockage, this test necessitates intensive labor and relatively long testing time. The filling capacity of SCC refers to both filling ability and passing ability. Therefore, a passing ability test can be used in conjunction with a deformability test to evaluate the level of filling capacity. Measured filling capacity values are plotted as a function of slump flow and h2/h1 values in Fig. 5. Mixtures with high h2/h1 index and slump flow values exhibited high filling capacity. Slump flow values higher than 620 mm and h2/h1 values higher than 0.7 are shown to be adequate limits to secure minimum filling capacity of 80% determined from the caisson test. The filling capacity values are plotted as a function of slump flow and J-Ring flow values in Fig. 6. A workability box can be clearly identified for mixtures with slump flow and J-Ring flow values corresponding to minimum filling capacity values of 80%. As indicated in Fig. 6, most of the tested SCC mixtures with slump flow values of 620 to 720 mm 126

Fig. 9Contour diagrams between filling capacity, slump flow, and J-Ring flow (Eq. (2)). Fig. 7Caisson filling capacity values calculated by Eq. (4) and Khayat et al.13

Fig. 10Contour diagrams between filling capacity, slump flow, and V-funnel flow time (Eq. (4)). Fig. 8Contour diagrams between filling capacity, slump flow, and L-box blocking ratio (Eq. (1)). exhibit slump flow and filling capacity values of 620 mm and 80%, respectively, and slump flow and filling capacity values of 690 mm and 90%, respectively. The shaded area in Fig. 8 refers to a workability region corresponding to mixtures with filling capacity greater or equal to 80% (a slump flow of 620 to 720 mm and h2/h1 index of 0.7 to 1.0). This region coincides with the workability box presented in Fig. 5. Figure 9 shows contour diagrams of the filling capacity values that vary with slump flow and J-Ring flow. For a given slump flow, a decrease in filling capacity is accompanied by a drop in J-Ring flow. SCC mixtures with J-Ring spread of 600 mm and slump flow of 620 mm can have filling capacity of 80%, and those with the same J-Ring spread and slump flow of 650 mm can exhibit filling capacity of 85%. The shaded area in Fig. 9 refers to a workability region with mixtures having a high filling capacity of 80 to 100% (a slump flow of 620 to 720 mm and J-Ring spread values of 600 to 700 mm). Similar contour diagrams for filling capacity of mixtures with different slump flow and V-funnel flow values are presented in Fig. 10. This figure also identifies a workability region where SCC can develop filling capacity greater than 80%, corresponding to slump flow of 620 to 720 mm and V-funnel flow time of less than 8 seconds. ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2006 Static stability determined from surface settlement test In general, SCC used in structural applications should have a maximum surface settlement of 0.5% of the concrete column height. Figure 11 illustrates a typical variation of surface settlement of SCC with slump flow of 660 mm. As mentioned previously, despite the suitability of this test to evaluate static stability, the test involves the determination of the capacity of the concrete to undergo surface settlement or consolidation. In addition to determining the settlement capacity, the rate of settlement (expressed as relative settlement per hour) can be evaluated to describe the kinetics of segregation. This settlement rate can be expressed as follows settlement rate (%/h) = [{St(%) St5(%)}/5(min)]/60(min) (5) where St is the settlement value at a given time t (in minutes), St5 is the settlement value at time of t minus 5 minutes. The settlement values are calculated at 5-minute intervals. The settlement stabilizing time is considered as the elapsed time before the settlement rate approaches zero. The decrease in settlement rate with time is due to the decrease in the rate of consolidation and water migration of the fresh suspension. The settlement rate values determined at 15, 30, and 60 minutes after the beginning of the surface settlement test can be correlated to the maximum settlement results (Fig. 12). 127

Table 4Combined test methods and recommended workability values*

Combined test methods 1 Air content Deformability Passing ability Combined test methods 2 Combined test methods 3

Fresh air volume: 5 to 8% Slump flow: 620 to 720 mm J-Ring flow: 600 to L-box 700 mm V-funnel flow blocking ratio (Slump flow J-Ring time 8 seconds (h2/h1) 0.7 flow) 50 mm Maximum surface settlement 0.5% Settlement rate at 30 minutes 0.16 (%/h)

Static stability
*

Fig. 11Typical variations in surface settlement and rate of settlement.

To secure filling capacity 80% suggested for SCC used in structural applications. Air volume of 6 to 8% is recommended for some polycarboxylate-based high-range water-reducing admixtures. V-funnel opening of 65 x 75 mm.

Fig. 12Relationship between rate of settlement and maximum settlement. The increase in settlement rate leads to an increase in maximum settlement at the three time periods. Assaad et al.20 showed that good correlation can be obtained between the initial rate of surface settlement and maximum surface settlement. Therefore, the rate of settlement determined at the early stages of testing can indeed be used to estimate the maximum settlement value. The R2 value for the relationship in Fig. 12 obtained at 60 minutes is 0.86 and those at 30 and 15 minutes are 0.83 and 0.77, respectively. The 30-minute value is selected to speed up the surface settlement testing. Therefore, the settlement rate at 30 minutes corresponding to 0.5% maximum surface settlement can be determined as 0.16%/h. Recommended test methods and specifications Proven combinations of test methods adequate for field application can reduce time and labor as well as the number of tests required for quality control. A minimum filling capacity value of 80% is considered as a lower limit to achieve proper filling of highly congested or restricted sections typically found in structural applications. The h2/h1 index from the L-box test, J-Ring flow, or the spread between the slump flow and J-Ring flow, as well as the V-funnel flow time can be combined with the simple slump flow to evaluate the restricted deformability of SCC. Three combined test methods for evaluating the filling capacity are shown as follows. Combined test methods 1: slump flow and L-box blocking ratio (h2/h1 index); Combined test methods 2: slump flow and J-Ring flow, 128

or spread between slump flow and J-Ring flow; and Combined test methods 3: slump flow and V-funnel flow time. Table 4 presents a set of performance specifications of SCC that can be used in structural applications such as repair of concrete infrastructure. Such concrete should have slump flow value of 620 to 720 mm and, depending on the passing ability test, L-box blocking ratio (h2/h1) greater than 0.70, J-Ring flow of 600 to 700 mm, slump flow minus J-Ring flow lower than 50 mm, or V-funnel flow time of less than 8 seconds. Such values can lead to SCC with high filling capacity (greater than 80%). Settlement rate of 0.16%/h determined after 30 minutes of testing can be specified to ensure proper static stability. As indicated in Table 4, fresh air volume of 5 to 8% is recommended to secure adequate spacing factor and frost durability. In some cases, the use of PCP-based HRWRA could cause the entrapment of large air bubbles, depending on the type and content of the defoamer in use. SCC mixtures with 5% air volume in the fresh state would not provide an acceptable spacing factor in the hardened state. Therefore, a minimum air content of 6% is recommended for air-entrained concrete made with some PCP-based HRWRAs. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results reported herein, the following conclusions appear to be warranted: 1. Performance-based specifications are suggested for high-performance SCC designated for the filling of restricted sections typically found in structural applications. Instead of testing the filling capacity of concrete by using a mock-up test or the caisson test, a combination of passing ability and nonrestricted deformability can be used to assess the filling capacity of SCC; 2. A combination of the slump flow and either the L-box blocking ratio (h2/h1), J-Ring, or V-funnel flow time can be used to assess filling capacity of SCC for quality control and design of SCC for placement in restricted sections or congested elements, typically encountered in structural applications; 3. SCC designed for structural applications should have a slump flow of 670 50 mm, an h2/h1 index greater than 0.70, a J-Ring flow of 650 50 mm, a spread between slump flow and J-Ring flow lower than 50 mm, and a V-funnel flow time of less than 8 seconds; and 4. A settlement rate of 0.16%/h determined at 30 minutes, corresponding to 0.5% maximum settlement, can be specified to ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2006

ensure proper static stability of SCC. This value can reduce the time required to monitor the surface settlement response. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study presented herein is part of a 3-year project aimed at the development of high-performance SCC for repair applications supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada as well as Axes, Chris, Ciment Quebec, City of Montreal, Degussa, Euclid Canada, Handy Chemicals, Lafarge Canada, Ministry of Transport of Quebec, St.-Laurence Cement, and W.R. Grace. The assistance of D. Mayen-Reyna in carrying out part of the experimental program is especially acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. Daczko, J., Stability of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Assumed or Ensured? Proceedings, 1st North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Ill., 2002, pp. 245-251. 2. Skarendahl, ., and Petersson, ., State-of-the-Art Report of RILEM Technical Committee 174-SCC, Self-Compacting Concrete, Report No. 23, 2001, 141 pp. 3. PCI Interim SCC Guidelines TR-6-03, Interim Guidelines for the Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete in Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute Member Plants, Apr. 2003, 148 pp. 4. Khayat, K. H.; Assaad, J.; and Daczko, J., Comparison of Field-Oriented Test Methods to Assess Dynamic Stability of Self-Consolidating Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 101, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2004, pp. 168-176. 5. Beaupr, D., The Rheology of High-Performance Shotcrete, doctoral thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada, 1994, 250 pp. 6. Tattersall, G. H., The Workability of Concrete, A Viewpoint Publication, Cement and Concrete Association, 1976, 138 pp. 7. Ferraris, C. F.; Brower, L. E.; Beaupr, D.; Chapdelaine, F.; Domone, P.; Koehler, E.; Shen, L.; Sonebi, M.; Struble, L.; Tepke, D.; Wallevik, O.; and Wallevik, J. E., Comparison of Concrete Rheometers: International Tests at MB, May, 2003, NISTIR 7154, National Institute of Standards and Technology, C. F. Ferraris and L. E. Brower, 2004, 116 pp. 8. Ouchi, M.; Ozawa, K.; and Okamura, H., Development of a Simple Self-Compactability Testing Method for Acceptance at Job Site, Proceedings of Cairo First International Conference on Concrete Structures, 1996, pp. 9.11-9.20. 9. Watanabe, T.; Nakajima, Y.; Ouchi, M.; and Yamamoto, K., Improvement of the Automatic Testing Apparatus for Self-Compacting Concrete at Jobsite, Proceedings, 3rd International Symposium on SelfCompacting Concrete, Iceland, 2003, pp. 895-903. 10. Ozawa, K.; Maekawa, K.; and Okamura, H., Development of High Performance Concrete, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, No. 3, 1992, pp. 381-439. 11. Yurugi, M. et al., Development of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Annual Report of Kajima Research Institute, V. 39/1992-11, 1992. 12. Ozawa, K.; Sakata, N.; and Okamura, H., Evaluation of SelfCompactibility of Fresh Concrete using the Funnel Test, JSCE Concrete Library, V. 25, 1995, pp. 59-75. 13. Khayat, K. H.; Ghezal, A.; and Hadriche, M. S., Factorial Design Models for Proportioning Self-Consolidating Concrete, Materials and Structures, V. 32, 1999, pp. 679-686.

14. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Recommendation for SelfCompacting Concrete, JSCE Concrete Engineering Series 31, T. Omoto and K. Ozawa, eds., 1999, 77 pp. 15. Manai, K., Evaluation of the Effect of Chemical and Mineral Admixtures on the Workability, Stability, and Performance of SelfCompacting Concrete, masters thesis, Universit de Sherbrooke, Qubec, Canada, 1995, 182 pp. (in French) 16. Van, B. K.; Montgomery, D. G.; Hinczak, I.; and Turner, K., Rapid Testing Methods for Segregation Resistance and Filling Ability of SelfCompacting Concrete, Advances in Concrete Technology, Proceedings of the Fourth CANMET/ACI/JCI International Conference, SP-179, V. M. Malhotra, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1998, pp. 85-103. 17. Khayat, K. H., and Guizani, Z., Use of Viscosity-Modifying Admixtures to Enhance Stability of Fluid Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 94, No. 4, July-Aug. 1997, pp. 332-340. 18. Khayat, K. H.; Pavate, T. V.; Assaad, J.; and Jolicoeur, C., Analysis of Variations in Electrical Conductivity to Assess Stability of CementBased Materials, ACI Materials Journal, V. 100, No. 4, July-Aug. 2003, pp. 302-310. 19. Assaad, J.; Khayat, K. H.; and Daczko, J., Evaluation of Static Stability of Self-Consolidating Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 101, No. 3, May-June 2004, pp. 207-215. 20. European Federation of National Trade Associations (EFNARC), Specification and Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete, UK, 2002, 32 pp. 21. Swedish Concrete Association, Self-Compacting Concrete, Recommendations for Use, Concrete Report No. 10(E), 2002, 84 pp. 22. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Recommendation for Construction of Self-Compacting Concrete, Technical Session: Recommendations and Materials, pp. 417-437. 23. Billberg, P., Self-Compacting Concrete for Civil Engineering Structuresthe Swedish Experience, CBI Report 2:99, Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, 1999, 80 pp. 24. Domone, P., and Chai, H., Optimum Mix Proportioning of SelfCompacting Concrete, Proceedings, International Conference on Innovation in Concrete Structures: Design and Construction, Dundee, 1999, pp. 277-285. 25. Constantiner, D., and Daczko, J., Not All Applications are Created Equal; Selecting the Appropriate SCC Performance Targets, Proceedings, 1st North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Chicago, Ill., 2002, pp. 179-184. 26. Brameshuber, W., and Uebachs, S., Practical Experience with the Application of Self-Compacting Concrete in Germany, Proceedings, 2nd International Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete, Tokyo, Japan, 2001, pp. 687-696. 27. Khayat, K. H., Workability, Testing, and Performance of SelfConsolidating Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 96, No. 3, May-June 1999, pp. 346-353. 28. Petersson, .; Billberg, P.; and Van, B. K., A Model for SelfCompacting Concrete, Proceedings, International RILEM Conference on Production Methods and Workability of Concrete, P. J. M. Bartos et al., eds., Chapman & Hall, Paisley, 1996, pp. 483-490. 29. Bartos, P. J. M., An Appraisal of the Orimet Test as a Method for On-Site Assessment of Fresh SCC Concrete, International Workshop on Self-Compacting Concrete, Japan, 1998, pp. 121-135.

ACI Materials Journal/March-April 2006

129