Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: To enable an overall view on the mechanical performance of Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC), a database
Received 1 November 2013 was constructed. Included within this database are informations with regard to: mix-design, fresh and
Received in revised form 29 March 2014 hardened properties. This dataset contains results of more than 250 papers, of researches conducted
Accepted 31 March 2014
worldwide on SCC during the last two decades.
Available online 13 April 2014
In this paper, an in depth analyses is provided on the modulus of elasticity and the tensile strength of
SCC. The SCC results collected within the database are compared with those predicted from the formu-
Keywords:
lations and existing models developed and validated for vibrated concrete (e.g. Eurocode 2 and the Model
SCC
Modulus of elasticity
Code (MC 90 and/or MC 2010)). The influences of different mix-design parameters (aggregate type, paste
Tensile strength volume, etc.) on the E-modulus and the tensile strength are analysed, and a more detailed view on the
Database performance of SCC, and the different models, is obtained.
Eurocode 2 Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Model Code
⇑ Corresponding author at: HUB-KAHO University College, Association K.U. 2.1. Database development
Leuven, Campus Dirk Martens, Kwalestraat 154, B-9320 Aalst, Belgium. Tel.: +32
53727170. Over 250 papers international journals were reviewed. Informa-
E-mail address: bart.craeye@hubkaho.be (B. Craeye). tion on the mixture proportion and design, the fresh concrete
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.011
0958-9465/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
54 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61
Nomenclature
properties and the hardened properties of SCC is collected for the Pineaus et al. [6] studied the effect of paste volume and
SCC database, which contains a wide range of SCC types (e.g. Pow- W/B-ratio separately by using a mix design method based on
der-type SCC, VMA-type SCC, Combination-type SCC, etc.) [3]. The volumetric substitutions. By varying the paste volume between
collected information on the mixture composition includes water 359 l/m3 and 452 l/m3, an increase in Ec was found for decreasing
content, cement content and type (Portland, binary types, etc.), filler paste volume. The influence of the W/B-ratio on the modulus of
content and type (limestone, fly ash, blast furnace slag, silica fume, elasticity was found to be comparable to that observed on the com-
etc.), viscosity modifying agent content, superplasticiser content pressive strength.
and type (PCE, MFS, NFS, etc.), air entrainment content and aggre- A survey conducted by Domone [1] indicated that the difference
gate type, aggregate content and maximum grain size (Fig. 1). between SCC and VC in Ec is greater for concrete with lower com-
To be able to quantify the self-compacting properties of the pressive strengths. According to Klug and Holschemacher [7] the
mixtures, the consistency, work-ability, flow-ability and segrega- variation of the SCC results is smaller, causing all results to remain
tion resistance of SCC results of tests such as slumpflow, V-funnel within an acceptable band for design using Model Code (MC 90).
time, L-Box, U-Box, sieve segregation were also included into data- Therefore the common relationship between the modulus of elas-
base. The information on hardened concrete includes the compressive ticity and the characteristic compressive strength is still valid. In
strength, direct tensile strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural ten- the survey by Van Itterbeeck et al. [8] it is also found that Ec tests
sile strength, Young’s modulus and test age, adopted testing stan- results of SCC correlate well with those predicted by EC 2 and the
dards, and specimens sizes and type (cylinder, cube, prism, etc.). Model Code (MC 1978). For SCC as well as for VC a similar overall
Based on the data stored in the database, the influence of scatter was observed within this study.
parameters that may be of major interest to the user and designer,
e.g. water-to-cement ratio (W/C-ratio), water-to-binder ratio
(W/B-ratio), water-to-powder ratio (W/P-ratio), cement-to-pow- 2.3. Tensile strength of SCC
der ratio (C/P-ratio), sand-to-aggregates ratio (S/A-ratio), total filler
content, ratio of cylinder to cube compressive strength, compres- For the evaluation of the tensile strength of concrete, there are
sive strength development, etc. are retrieved. three well-known methods: (i) the direct tensile strength, (ii) the
splitting tensile strength and (iii) the flexural tensile strength
(3-point bending or 4-point bending). Due to the high degree of
2.2. Modulus of elasticity of SCC difficulty during execution, direct tensile strength tests are rather
scarce. EC 2 or Model Code (MC 1990 or MC 2010) makes it possi-
Due to the considerable contribution of aggregates to the over- ble to convert these test results from one to another. However, it is
all stiffness of concrete, it is often assumed that SCC – with its not quite clear whether these conversion factors can still be used
higher paste content – is characterised by a lower modulus of elas- for SCC.
ticity (Ec). Van Itterbeeck et al. [8] studied 6 SCC mixtures with limestone
Some studies [1,2,4,5] have reported that the modulus of elas- filler or fly ash, with W/C-ratio ranging from 0.45 to 0.61 and
ticity of some SCC mixes was lower than that of the VC mixes with C/P-ratio between 0.50 and 0.67. Their data indicates that the con-
a similar compressive strength. version factor Asp, for converting splitting tensile strength into
B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61 55
direct tensile strength, is slightly lower (0.84 ± 0.04) than the val- According to the study performed by Van Itterbeeck et al. [8] a
ues proposed by EC 2 and MC 1990 (Asp = 0.9) or by MC 2010 rather good prediction (small underestimation) of the splitting ten-
(Asp = 1.0). The conversion factor for bending Asfl (0.59 ± 0.10) [8] sile strength evolution can be obtained for the self-compacting
was also significantly lower than the proposed value of 0.69 of mixes made with Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), using the
EC 2 and MC 2010. This study concluded that using the conversion model proposed by EC 2.
factors proposed by EC 2, MC 90 or MC 2010 might lead to an over-
estimation of the direct tensile strength. 3. Results and discussion
The authors of [1] found that the cylinder splitting tensile
strength of SCC falls well within the 5–95% percentile ranges of 3.1. Mix design parameters of SCC
that predicted by EC 2 for the predicted splitting tensile strength,
with the majority being in the upper half, and a few above the As the database contains results from more than 250 papers
upper limit. An explanation for this statement could, according to (and is still expanding), it can provide insights in SCC property
[8], be found in a possible underestimation of the used conversion ranges. Table 1 summarizes most of the mixture properties and
factor between cylinder and cube compressive strength, which proportions collected in the database. Besides the maximum and
consequently would lead to an overestimation of the tensile minimum values, the mean values, the 10% centile and the 90%
strength when utilising the equations provided by EC 2 and centile, and the standard deviations (SD) are also provided.
expressing the results in function of cube compressive strength, It can be seen from Table 1 that the applied cement, sand and
as is the case in [1]. coarse aggregate content of SCC are varying in a wide range, which
Anagnostopoulos et al. [10] studied the relationship between covers almost the entire ranges found for VC. With respect to the
the cylinder splitting tensile strength and the cube compressive W/C-ratio, values between 0.19 and 2.73 are observed with a mean
strength of SCC and VC mixtures produced with limestone and sili- value of 0.54 (SD = 0.19). The maximum applied W/C-ratio is rela-
ceous aggregates. The splitting tensile strength of SCC was found to tively high, but it has to be emphasized that, in general, also other
be slightly lower (with a decrease of 6–8%) than the splitting ten- types of binders are used. Different types of cement were used
sile strength of VC for mixtures with equal W/C-ratio, cement con- throughout the different studies: CEM I, CEM II, CEM III (according
tent and both containing quartz aggregates. The authors observed a to EN 197-1), ASTM type I and type II, CEM type GU (according to
similar splitting tensile strength for the SCC mixtures and the VC American standards), etc. The W/B-ratio recorded for SCC ranges
mixtures when crushed limestone aggregates were used. They con- from 0.15 to 1.33 with a mean value of 0.46. The majority of the
cluded that the tensile strength of SCC and VC mixtures with sim- mixes present a W/B-ratio between 0.3 and 0.7 (Fig. 2).
ilar W/C-ratio is predominantly influenced by the aggregate type Inert as well as puzzolan filler materials are used within the dif-
[10]. ferent studies. The most common materials being limestone, fly
A limited amount of test results can be found in literature on ash, blast furnace slag and silica fume, but also marble powder,
the evolution of the splitting tensile strength with concrete age. glass powder, rice husk ash, metakaolin, volcanic ash, granite pow-
These results can be valuable, e.g. for the evaluation of the early- der, etc. are used. Cement together with additions (fine-grained
age (thermal) cracking behaviour of massive concrete structures. inorganic materials: inert or nearly inert additions and puzzolanic
56 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61
Table 1
Applied ranges of mix proportion parameters of SCC.
Note:
Most common used types of chemical admixtures: MFS, NFS, PCE, lignosulphonate, acrylic copolymers.
Most common used types of binders: Portland cement, fly ash, blast furnace slag, silica fume, metakaolin.
Most common used types of aggregates: gravel, limestone, basalt, dolomitic, marble, quartzite, sandstone, recycled.
Table 2
Ranges of fresh properties of SCC.
18%
SF1 SF2 SF3
16%
14%
12%
Frequency [-]
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
625
650
675
700
725
750
775
800
825
850
875
900
925
950
975
1000
Slump-flow [mm]
Fig. 3e. Histogram of SCC hardened properties: flexural tensile strength.
Fig. 3a. Histogram of SCC fresh properties, e.g. slump-flow values.
Fig. 4b. Influence of aggregate type on E-modulus without taking into account the
Fig. 3d. Histogram of SCC hardened properties: splitting tensile strength. correction factor according to EC2 (276 results).
58 B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61
With:
Fig. 5a. Direct tensile strength vs. equivalent cube compressive strength of SCC Fig. 6a. Splitting tensile strength (sample shape: cylinder or cube) vs. equivalent
mixtures and the effect of the coarse aggregates (CA) shape (25 results out of 6 cube compressive strength of SCC mixtures and the effect of coarse aggregates
studies). shape (crushed vs. uncrushed) (536 results out of 49 studies).
are used, this is not the case, this data conforms well to the mean The determination of fct,fl by means of 3-point bending testing
relation proposed by EC 2. methods provides an overestimation of the flexural tensile
Further analysis of the database shows that there is not a signif- strength. Therefore, it is advised to use 4-point bending to obtain
icant effect of coarse aggregate size or paste volume on the corre- realistic values for the flexural tensile strength.
lation between splitting tensile strength and compressive strength. No noticeable influence of the shape of the coarse aggregates
However, according to [11] larger maximum size of aggregates and could be observed by means of the results within the database.
higher coarse aggregate volumes (thus: smaller paste volume) lead Also no significant tendencies were found with regard to aggregate
to higher splitting tensile strengths. The influence of C/P-ratio or type, paste volume, C/P-ratio, or filler type. Due to the very limited
filler type is negligible according to the results contained within amount of data it remains very precarious to draw any definite
the database. conclusions. More experimental results are necessary to obtain
It can be concluded that by using models proposed by EC 2 and more reliable information with regard to parametric influences
Model Code (MC 2010) for estimating the tensile strength of SCC, a on the flexural tensile strength of SCC.
safe and realistic approach is obtained.
4. Conclusions
3.3.4. Flexural tensile strength of SCC
For the evaluation of the flexural tensile strength of SCC, a lim- Self-compacting concrete is a relatively new type of concrete.
ited amount of test results can be found in literature (4-point Developed in the late eighties, literature concerning this topic only
bending: 27 data results originating from 4 studies, 3-point bend- boomed in the last two decades. Within this period the main focus
ing: 78 data results from 7 studies, all data have a ratio specimen of most studies was related to mix-design, rheology, durability, etc.
side/span length between 3 and 4). The correlation between flex- and less attention was devoted to the mechanical performance of
ural tensile strength and fccub,150,eq is given in Fig. 7. Note that all the material. However, most studies do include information on
compressive test results have been converted into fccub,150,eq by compressive strength and, in lesser amount, on tensile strength,
using Eqs. (1) and (4). and modulus of elasticity. As part of the deliverables of the RILEM
According EC 2 it is possible to convert the direct tensile TC228-MPS an extensive database was constructed, grouping
strength fct into the flexural tensile strength fct,fl by using the rela- results from more than 250 scientific papers dealing with SCC.
tionship in Eq. (9): Within this paper the modulus of elasticity and tensile strength
of SCC was evaluated by means of this database. The influence of
fct;fl ¼ max½ð1:6 h=1000Þ fct ; f ct Þ ð9Þ
mixture parameters was closely analysed and the applicability of
According MC 2010 it is possible to convert the direct tensile current design codes was evaluated (Eurocode 2, ACI 318-11,
strength fct into the flexural tensile strength by using a conversion Model Code 1990 and 2010).
factor Afl, presented in Eq. (10): Following conclusions can be drawn with respect to the modu-
lus of elasticity of SCC based on this database:
fct ¼ Afl fct;fl ð10Þ
The modulus of elasticity of SCC seems to be very similar to that
With:
of VC, with an important but similar scatter present on the
results for both types of concrete.
Afl = 0.71 (for beams with depth 200 mm).
All results seem to conform to EC 2 predictions and fit well into
the bandwidth expected for the secant E-modulus according to
As could be expected, higher values are found for fct,fl in case a
the Model Code 1978. The ACI318-11 also captures the evolu-
3-point bending test is conducted: most of those results lay above
tion between compressive strength and E-modulus reasonably
the mean value and even above the upper range proposed by EC 2
well, but seems to provide an underestimation of the absolute
and MC 2010.
value of the modulus of elasticity.
When the 4-point bending experiments are considered, the
One might argue that a slight effect of paste volume could
results tend to follow the mean value proposed by EC 2 and MC
be observed on the modulus of elasticity of SCC. However
2010 and all of the data are located between the upper and lower
with the wide scatter present on the results no definite con-
ranges proposed by the codes.
clusions can be drawn with regard to the influence of paste
volume on modulus of elasticity of SCC. There is no signifi-
cant effect of aggregate type on the modulus of elasticity
of SCC.
Due to the very limited amount of data for direct and flexural
tensile strength, it remains difficult to state whether the trends
conform with design codes such as EC 2 and MC 2010. More
experimental results are necessary to draw reliable conclusions.
The results for splitting tensile strength seem to conform to the
relationships proposed by design codes such as EC 2 and MC
2010. The effect of aggregate type was noticed: SCC mixtures
with granite coarse aggregates lay in the upper half or above
the ranges proposed by EC 2 and MC 2010, which is not the case
Fig. 7. Flexural tensile strength (3-point or 4-point bending) vs. equivalent cube
for SCC mixtures based on gravel or limestone aggregates. No
compressive strength of SCC and the effect of coarse aggregates shape (crushed vs. significant effect of paste volume, filler type or coarse aggregate
uncrushed) (105 results out of 11 studies). size was observed.
B. Craeye et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 54 (2014) 53–61 61
Acknowledgements use of self-consolidating concrete and the 4th international RILEM symposium
on self-compacting concrete. Chicago: Hanley Wood Publications; 2005. p.
863–8.
This paper is part of the work of the RILEM technical committee [7] Klug Y, Holschemacher K. Comparison of the hardened properties of self-
228 on ‘‘Mechanical Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete’’ compacting and normal vibrated concrete. In: Wallevik O, Nielsson I, editors.
(TC-228 MPS), whose contribution and dedication is greatly Proceedings of 3rd international RILEM symposium on self-compacting
concrete. Reykjavik: RILEM Publications S.A.R.L; 2003. p. 596–605.
acknowledged. [8] Van Itterbeeck P, Cauberg N, Parmentier B, Vandewalle L, Lesage K. Eurocode 2
predictions vs. mechanical properties of self compacting concrete. In: Khayat
References KH, Feys D, editors. CD proceedings of design, production and placement of
self-consolidating concrete (SCC2010). Montreal; 2010.
[9] Topçu IB, Uygunoglu T. Effect of aggregate type on properties of hardened self-
[1] Domone PL. A review of the hardened mechanical properties of self- consolidating lightweight concrete (SCLC). Constr Build Mater
compacting concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2007;29(1):1–12.
2010;24:1286–95.
[2] Holschemacher K, Klug Y. A database for the evaluation of hardened properties [10] Anagnostopoulos N, Sideris KK, Georgiadis A. Mechanical characteristics of
of SCC. LACER 2002;7:123–34. self-compacting concretes with different filler materials, exposed to elevated
[3] De Schutter G, Bartos PJM, Domone P, Gibbs J. Self-compacting temperatures. Mater Struct 2009;42:1393–405.
concrete. Caithness: Whittles Publishing; 2008. [11] Almeida Filho FM, Barragán BE, Casas JR, El Debs ALHC. Hardened properties of
[4] Brite-EuRam. Task 4-properties of hardened self-compacting concrete – Final
self-compacting concrete—A statistical approach. Constr Build Mater
Report; 2005. 2010;24:1608–15.
[5] Georgiadis AS, Anagnostopoulos NS, Sideris KK. Mechanical characteristics of [12] Boel V, Craeye B, Desnerck P, Van Der Vurst F, De Schutter G. Influence of
self-compacting concrete produced with different filler materials. In: De specimen shape and dimensions on the compressive strength of self-
Schutter G, Boel V, editors. Proceedings of 5th international RILEM symposium compacting concrete. In: Roussel N, editor. Proceedings of the 7th
on self-compacting concrete. Ghent; 2007. p. 611–8.
international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete. Paris, RILEM
[6] Pineaus A, Cabrillac R, Rémond S, Pimienta P, Rivillon P. Mechanical properties Publications S.A.R.L., RILEM Proceedings PRO 90; 2013. p. 596–605.
of self-compacting concrete – influence of composition parameters. In: Shah
SP, editor. Proceedings of 2nd North-American conference on the design and