See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286840879

Particle packing theories and their application in

concrete mixture proportioning: A review

Article in Indian Concrete Journal · September 2003

CITATIONS READS

16 598

2 authors, including:

Manu Santhanam
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
130 PUBLICATIONS 1,218 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marine Concrete Structures View project

Limestone Calcined Clay Cement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Manu Santhanam on 13 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Particle packing theories
and their application in
concrete mixture
proportioning: A review
Senthil Kumar V and Manu Santhanam
The mixture proportioning for various types of concrete
requires thorough understanding of the material characteristics
of its ingredients and its behaviour in the fresh and hardened
states. The performance of concrete is greatly affected by the
type and degree of packing of its constituents. Thus, a
knowledge of the concept of particle packing and its influence
on concrete performance is required to enable a mixture designer
to select from a wide range of cement replacement materials.
The task of selecting the right combination of materials that
will enhance the performance of the concrete becomes tedious
when adopting trials involving adhoc replacement of materials,
and unexpected behaviour is often encountered in the resultant
concrete. A more suitable method is to design the concrete
mixtures based on optimal packing of the granular particles,
and improved flow properties of the cement paste using a
superplasticiser. This article reviews the research studies of
various particle packing investigations carried out across the
world, with a particular emphasis to concrete. One of the particle
packing model, namely Andreassen model, has been validated
for concrete application. The use of a software based on one of
Andreassen model to design various concrete mixtures has
also been described.
Control of particle packing has been applied in many branches
of industry (for example, fluidised beds, ceramics, concrete,
asphalt and powder technology). Achievement of optimal
packing is of interest to the study of materials such as concrete,
asphalt, and ceramics1. Concrete mixture proportioning is a
volumetric-packing problem. All existing methods of mixture
proportioning incorporate in some way an indirect measure
of particle packing by approximating the aggregate
proportions to an ideal gradation curve 2. However, the ideal
1324
proportions for concrete depend not only on the grading
curve of aggregate but also on the packing characteristics of
the fine components such as cement, fly ash and micro silica.
Using well-established empirical rules for estimating water
demand and reference grading curves for mixture
proportioning impose severe restrictions on developing new
applications or extending the present range of application in
2
concrete technology . These limitations may be overcome
by re-examining the concept of particle packing and its
application to concrete technology.
Proportioning of concrete mixtures outside the normal
range, such as DSP (densified with small particle concrete
with compressive strength of 150 to 200 MPa) and RPC
(reactive powder concrete, with compressive strength upto
800 MPa) is invariably based on particle packing models 3.
Furthermore, evaluation of the effects of packing density of
mixtures on workability suggests that the maximum
workability without bleed water is achieved when the
porosity of the packed powder is just filled with water.
Similarly, in hardened concretes, chloride permeability
measurements showed a strong correlation with reduced
charge flow with increased packing densities 4.
As the properties of concrete are influenced by particle
packing, there has been a revival of interest in this topic. This
paper initially reviews the concept and theories of particle
packing and then a few examples of the application of particle
packing to special types of concrete mixture proportioning
are given.
Significance
The renewed interest in particle packing models, mentioned
above, is signified by several recent technical publications.
The Indian Concrete Journal * September 2003

Fig 1 The concept of particle packing (after Johansen 1)
The Strategic Highway Research Programme (SHRP)
documentation includes two articles, which examine this topic
in depth 5,6.
The green concrete movement in Denmark has set a goal
on reducing the clinker content in concrete to 50 percent of
the consumption level prevailing in 1990 by the year 2012. In
accordance with this declared intention, the ready mixed
concrete industry in Denmark is already supplying structural
grade concrete with ordinary portland cement (OPC) content
as low as 140 kg/m3. The design of such concrete mixtures
with low cement contents that are fit for structural purposes
7
is based on optimal particle packing . Thus, the packing
concept gives the concrete mixture designer an alternative
tool. When these models are incorporated in user-friendly
software, experimentation with trial mixtures can be reduced
to a minimum.
Similar trends can be noticed in France, where work on
role of particle packing with respect to concrete properties
has been underway for the last two decades 8.
Studies on particle packing
Studies on particle packing involve selection of appropriate
sizes and proportions of particulate materials to get suitable
combination for optimal packing, that is,
(i) to understand how the given combination of particles
pack in a system,
(ii) to develop models for
calculating packing densities
and porosities of various
systems, and
(iii) their effect on the properties
of concrete9.
Concept of particle packing
Particle packing models seek to
select proper sizes and proportions
of small particles to fill larger voids.
The small particles in turn contain
smaller voids, that are filled with
smaller particles and so on, Fig 1.
Fig 2 Classification of particle packing models
September 2003 * The Indian Concrete Journal
Packing density (φ) φ1 < φ2 < φ3
Porosity (ε) ε1 > ε2 > ε3
where,
φ = solid volume/total volume
ε = 1–φ
Large single size particles when filled into a container will
have voids as shown in Fig 1(a), which in turn can be filled
with smaller particles, Fig 1(b), thereby reducing the voids or
increasing the packing density. This packing density in turn
can be further improved by introducing a third component
of still smaller size as shown in Fig 1(c) and so on. This concept
has been developed along different lines, giving rise to various
theories, which are classified next.
Classification of particle packing models
The particle packing models may be categorised as: (a) discrete
models and (b) continuous models, as shown in Fig 2. These
models and the corresponding theoretical consideration are
described in the following section.
Discrete models
These refer to packing of systems containing two or more
discrete size classes of particles. In this approach, the coarsest
particles form the base skeleton and its voids are filled by
smaller particles and these in turn by finer particles and so
on, in the order of decreasing particle size. The fundamental
assumption of the discrete approach is that each class of
particles will pack to its maximum density in the volume
available9. The discrete models may be classified as
(i) binary
(ii) ternary, and
(iii) multimodal mixture models, and are described in the
following section.
Binary mixture model
Furnas model:
1
Furnas , considered the ideal packing of a mixture of two
materials:
(i) fine fraction of diameter d1 and volume fraction y1
with packing density φl and
1325
 (ii) coarse fraction of diameter d2 and volume fraction y2
with packing density φ2 .
Depending upon the volume fraction of fine and coarse
component, two cases may be considered:
(i) the volume fraction of small particles is large
(y1 > > y2): This case is called “Fine grain dominant”
smaller particles (diameter ratios > 0.22) will actually be too
large to be situated within the interstices between the larger
particles. The result is a packing of the matrix that may be
considered as (i) a mixture of packed areas mainly consisting
of larger particles and (ii) packed areas that may mainly consist
of smaller particles with larger particles distributed discretely
throughout the matrix of smaller particles.

(ii) the volume fraction of coarse particles is large
(y2 > > y1): This case is called “Coarse grain dominant”
In this description, the diameters of the particles differed
and the smaller particles could be accommodated in the voids
between the larger particles. The model by Furnas is valid
only in the case of d 1<<d 2 (d 1 and d 2 being the particle
diameters). If this condition is not fulfilled, the packing density
of the binary mixtures will also depend on the diameter ratio
For a multi-component system, it is assumed that any
two components form binary mixtures. Then the packing
density for the total multi-component mixture is calculated
by summation of the contribution from all the binary
mixtures.
Johansen et al and D.M. Roy et al used Toufar model in
their studies on particle packing with a few variations in the
procedure for determining the parameters of the model .
5,6

d1/d2 1.
Modified Toufar model
When the diameter d1≈d2, the interaction effects occur
Goltermann et al11 proposed a modification in Toufar model.
between the particles. These effects could be classified as
They also termed the packing degree factor of the individual
(a) wall effect and (b) loosening effect and are described below.
components (φ1 and φ2) as "eigen packing", which is calculated
Wall effect: When an isolated coarse particle is in the matrix according to the procedure mentioned in their work.
of fine aggregate, it disturbs the packing density of fine
Goltermann et al also compared the packing values
aggregate. There exist increased voids near the region of
suggested by Aim model, Toufar model and Modified Toufar
direct contact between the particles, Fig 3. This is termed
model to the experimental packing degree of the binary
as “wall effect”.
mixtures. They found that Toufar model, especially the
Loosening effect: When a fine particle is in the matrix of modified Toufar model, corresponded very well to the
coarse particles and the small particle is too large to fit measured packing degrees. Aim model did not fit the test
into the interstices of the coarse aggregate (d1≈d2), it results well. Ternary packing of particles was also studied,
disturbs the packing density of coarse particles. This will and a theoretical packing diagram was developed based on
increase the void ratio of the mixture and is termed as modified Toufar model to create the packing density contours.
“loosening effect” as shown in Fig 4.
Multi-component mixture models (De Larrard
Powers model: models)
10
Powers in his studies on particle packing took account of Linear packing density model (LPDM)
the above mentioned effect. He proposed an expression to Stovall et al proposed the Linear Packing Density Model
8
get the minimum void ratio of the binary mixture. (LPDM) . They claimed that LPDM showed good
performances in predicting optimal proportions of
Aim and Goff model: superplasticised cementitious materials 12.
Aim and Goff 1 proposed a simple geometrical model to
account for the excess porosity observed
experimentally in the first layer of
spherical grains in contact with a plane
and smooth wall, Fig 3. The work of Aim
and Goff addressed the “wall effect” and
suggested a correction factor when
calculating the packing density of binary
mixtures.

Ternary mixture models

Toufar model
1
Toufar, Klose and Born extended the
binary mixture model to calculate the
packing density of ternary mixtures as
the weighted average of the total
number of binary mixtures for diameter
Fig 3 The wall effect at the interface Fig 4 The loosening effect caused
ratios 0.22 < d1/d2 <1.0. The fundamental
of the aggregate fractions (after by the fine grain particle (after De
concept of the Toufar model is that the Johansen 1 ) Larrard 2 )

1326 The Indian Concrete Journal * September 2003

Modified LPDM
Another extended application of LPDM has been by Glavind
13
et al . They used the concept of “Eigen packing” to calculate
the packing density.
Solid suspension model (SSM)
12
De Larrard and Sedran proposed the solid suspension model
(SSM) with some modification in LPDM. They concluded that
SSM is a valuable tool to optimise high packing density
cementitious materials. The essential innovation is the
distinction between the actual packing density, φ, and virtual
packing density, β — the maximum packing density
achievable with a given mixture, by keeping each particle in
its original shape and placed one by one of a mixture. It was
also anticipated that the model would be suitable for
predicting the plastic viscosity of concentrated suspensions12.
Compressible packing model (CPM)
2
De Larrard presumed that the packing density of the mixtures
depends also on the process of the building of the packing,
such as compaction effort, and proposed the compressible
packing model (CPM). This model was derived from the linear
packing model proposed by Lee and is independent of other
models (that is, LPDM and SSM). He introduced the index K,
to calculate actual packing density, φ, from virtual packing
density, β.
In this model, the hypotheses that led to the definitions of
the virtual packing density values are preserved. However,
the empirical expressions to predict the values of the
interaction coefficients, namely, the “wall effect coefficient”
and “loosening effect coefficient” have been modified. He
also defined the two new concepts, that is, “filling diagram”
and “segregation potential” to characterise the mixtures.
Continuous models
Continuous approach assumes that all possible sizes are
present in the particle distribution system, that is, discrete
approach having adjacent size classes ratios that approach
1:1 and no gaps exist between size classes.
Fuller Thomson model
In 1907 Fuller and Thomson proposed the gradation curves
for maximum density, which is well known as Fuller’s “ideal”
curve. It is described by a simple equation:
n
d
CPFT =   100 (1)
D
where,
CPFT = cumulative (volume) percent finer than,
n = 0.5; the value of n was later revised to 0.45;
these curves find application in highway
pavement mixture design.
The above expression was recently modified by
14
Shakhmenko and Birsh for concrete mixture proportioning
as follows:
CPFT = Tn (di-d0)n (2)
September 2003 * The Indian Concrete Journal
where,
n = degree of an “ideal” curve equation
Tn = is a coefficient, dependent on maximum size
of aggregate and the exponent n.
Andreassen model
Andreassen worked on the size distribution for particle
packing with a continuous approach and proposed the
“Andreassen equation” for ideal packing. Although the
approach is more theoretical, it partly represents an emprical
15
theory of particle packing .
Andreassen assumed that the smallest particles would be
infinitesimally small. Dinger and Funk recognised that the
finest particles in real materials are finite in size and modified
the Andreassen equation considering the minimum particle
size in the distribution. A modified model linking the
Andreassen and Furnas distributions was later developed
and termed as AFDZ (Andreassen, Funk, Dinger and Zheng)
equation for dense packing 16.
According to the Andreassen model,
d
q
CPFT =   100 (3)
D
According to the Modified Andreassen model,
 (d − d0 ) 
q
CPFT =   100 (4)
 (D − d0 ) 

where,
CPFT = the cumulative (volume) percent finer than,
d = the particle size,
do = the minimum particle size of the distribution,
D = the maximum particle size, and
q = the distribution coefficient or exponent.
The exponent, q, in the Andreassen equation could be
varied form 0.21 to 0.37, depending upon the various
workability requirements. If the exponent increases, it means
an increase of the coarse materials, and if it decreases, the
15
amount of the fine materials is increased . The exponent
value, q, gives the indication of the finer fraction that could
be accommodated in the mixture. As the water demand and
water holding capacity of the mixture is controlled by the
volume of fines, this exponent gives a reasonable basis for
choosing the amount of water and rheology modifying agents
like superplasticiser to be added to the mixture.
The exponent value q = 0.25 to 0.3 may be taken for high
performance concrete and conventional concretes depending
upon the slump range. For highly flowable mixes like self-
compacting concretes, q < 0.23 may be taken, and for roller
compacted concrete, q > 0.32 may be taken.
Rosin-Rammler Model
The characteristic diameters of the particle size distributions
for the components of concrete were shown to be adequately
1327
Table 1: Consolidated view of the particle packing studies Summary of particle packing
SNo Year Models Packing system Effect on packing studies
Binary Ternary Multi- Wall Loosening Compaction
modal effect effect effect There has been increased interest towards the
Discrete approach use of particle packing models for scientific
1 1929 Furnas • mixture proportioning of concrete. Table 1
2 1967 Aim and Goff •
3 1969 Powers • •
summarises the similarities and differences
4 1977 Toufar, Klose & Born • • • between the various particle packing models.
5 1986 LPDM • • • Out of these theories some find application for
6 1994 SSM • •
7 1997 Modified Toufar • • •
concrete mixture proportioning in the form of
8 1999 CPM • • • • software tools. These are listed in Table 2.
9 2000 Modified LPDM • • • •
Continuous approach Simulations to assess the packing
1 1907 Fuller and Thomson • characteristics has been developed based on
2 1930 Andreassen •
3 1997 Modified Andreassen • static simulation system by Bentz et al and some
system based on dynamic simulation system
such as SPACE (software package for the
described by the D’ from the Rosin-Rammler equation 6 which assessment of compositional evaluation) by Stroeven et al17.
is written as:
When the number of monosize fractions incorporated in
n
a mixture is gradually increased, the over all granulometry
−D seems to tend towards a continuous distribution.
R (D) = exp  (5)
 D' 
Example of the mixture design approach
where,
using particle packing model
R(D) = the residue fraction (percentage passing)
To demonstrate the application of the particle packing models
D = diameter to the mixture design of various concretes, the software
20
D’ = characteristic diameter “LISA” based on Andreassen model is considered because
of its relevance, simplicity and availability. A detailed
n = constant, ranging from 1.04 - 4, usually
between 1 and 2.
Johansen et al5, D M Roy et al6, and Goltermann et al11 have
used this equation for finding out the characteristic diameter
of the distribution for calculating the packing density of the
mixtures in their discrete approach.

Table 2: List of software available

Software Name Theory / Model Source
EUROPACK Modified Toufar model www.gmic.dk 18
19
RENE-LCPC De Larrard models Ciks.cbt.nist.gov
13
4 C packing Modified LPDM www.danishtechnology.dk
LISA Andreassen models www.silicafume.net 20

Table 3: Mixture design details of mortar mixtures used for

validation of model
3
Ingredients, kg/m Mix A Mix B
Standard sand (G-1) 541 341
Standard sand (G-2) 541 341
Standard sand (G-3) 541 341
Crushed sand (correction) - 341
Cement, (OPC) 541 541
Quartz powder (inert filler) - 150
Micro silica - 60
Water 216 216
SP (PCE) 2 4
w/c 0.40 0.40
w/p 0.40 0.29 Fig 5 Ideal grading curve for q = 0.27 and actual overall
Flow spread, percent 60 60 particle size distribution for the (a) mix A and (b) mix B

1328 The Indian Concrete Journal * September 2003

Table 4: Proportions of various particulate ingredients Mix B. The mixture design details are given in Table 3.
3
Ingredients, kg/m HSC HPC SCC
The flow table spread diameter value at 25 blows was
Coarse aggregate (< 20 mm) 565 520 -
kept constant at 60 percent by adding polycarboxylic ether
Coarse aggregate (< 10 mm) 545 530 748 (PCE) based admixture.
Fine aggregate (< 4.75 mm) 900 868 870
Cement (OPC 53 grade) 270 360 320 The appearance of the ideal gradation curve against the
actual overall gradation curve for Mix A and Mix B is shown
Inert filler (quartz) 55 - -
in Fig 5. It can be seen in Fig 5 that the reference gradation
Fly ash - - 220 curve (smooth curve) is the modified Andreassen curve and
Micro silica 30 42 - the actual overall particle size distribution curve is the irregular
Water 120 144 180 curve. This is adjusted to fit the reference curve to the closest
extent possible by altering the inputs by trial and error.
Superplasticiser- PCE, l 5 8.25(SNF) 2.12
Viscosity modifier, l - - 0.375 The results of compressive strength of the two mortar
Exponent (q) 0.26 0.27 0.22 mixture are shown in Fig 7. The value shown is the average
Workability - slump, mm 100 100 690 (Flow) strength of three 7 cm cube specimens.
Test results
It may be noted that from Table 3, the w/c of 0.4 is kept
Compressive strength, MPa constant for both Mix A and Mix B; only the gradation of Mix
3-day 42 47 14 B is adjusted to fit the Andreassen curve. It is observed from
7-day 63 63 21 Fig 6 that a strength increase of about 28-30 percent could be
achieved at all ages for Mix B. A comparison of Figs 5 (a) and
28-day 83 78 41
(b) and the examination of the increase in compressive
RCPT, coulombs - 350 1296 strengths, Fig 6, due to the altered proportions of the mortar,
HSC: High strength concrete; HPC: High performance concrete; SCC: Self compacting by filling the missing fractions showed that the model by
concrete; RCPT: Rapid chloride permeability test.
Andreassen may lead to optimal mixture proportions.

description of the method of mix design using this software
is given in the user manual of LISA. For this study, the
modified Andreassen model was chosen.
Application in mortar
To demonstrate the modified Andreassen model for concrete
application, a pilot trial on cement mortar was conducted.
The proportions used for the testing of compressive strength
of cement mortar as per IS 4031 : 1996 21 were used to design
the reference mix and denoted as Mix A. Then the missing
zones of particles in the particle gradation were adjusted using
crushed sand, quartz powder and micro silica and denoted as
Application in concrete
The mixture designs for high strength, high performance
and self compacting concrete are illustrated below.
High strength concrete (HSC)
High strength concrete could be designed at low cement
content with proper selection of the ingredients. A typical
mixture proportion of high strength concrete is given in
column 2 of Table 4. The modified Andreassen ideal gradation
curve for q = 0.26 and the actual overall gradation is shown in
Fig 7(a).
High performance concrete (HPC)
High performance concrete requires the usage of
supplementary cementitious materials. A typical mixture
proportioning using micro silica with the aid of modified
Andreassen model with exponent q = 0.27 and the combined
gradation that could be managed with given materials are
shown in Fig 7(b). The details of the mixture proportions are
given in column 3 of Table 4.

Self-compacting concrete (SCC)

Self-compacting concrete is highly flowable and is very
sensitive to overall gradation and the water content. A typical
mixture proportion of SCC is given in column 4 of Table 4.
The ideal gradation for q = 0.22 and the combined grading
obtained with available material are shown in Fig 7(c).

Test results
The results of compressive strength, conducted as per IS 516
Fig 6 Comparison of strength between Mix A and Mix B
: 1959 22 and rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT), as per

September 2003 * The Indian Concrete Journal 1329


Fig 7 Ideal grading curve and actual overall particle size
distribution for (a) high strength concrete (b) high
performance concrete (c) self compacting concrete
ASTM C1202-97 23 are presented in Table 3. From Table 3, it is
observed that a high strength concrete of compressive
strength 83 MPa at 28 days could be produced with a low
cement content of 270 kg/m3. It is also possible to produce a
high performance concrete with compressive strength of 78
MPa and RCPT values of 350 coulombs at 28 days. Also, self-
compacting concrete of 69 cm flow could be produced. Thus
use of particle packing model appears to give a reasonable
basis for selecting mixture proportions for special concretes,
namely, high strength/high performance and self-compacting
concrete.
1330
Summary
The following can be summarised from the above review.
(i) Particle packing models have been reviewed in
general and their application to proportioning of
concrete mixtures has been considered in particular.
These models can be classified as discrete models and
continuous models.
(ii) Among the discrete packing models, the one by Toufar
takes into account of both wall effect and loosening
effect. Several modifications and extensions of Toufar
model are available mainly to account for the observed
results
(iii) Another group of discrete models are from the French
researchers, especially De Larrard. The latest models
from them have moved away from conventional
packing density to virtual packing density
(iv) A parallel approach is to describe an ideal gradation
curve in terms of particle diameter 'd' and quotient 'q'
as in Andreassen model
(v) Examples of application of continuous packing model
and a software “LISA” based on Andreassen model
to four different cases of concrete mixture
proportioning were presented
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mr S. Subramanian, formerly joint
general manager, R&D and Dr B. Sivarama Sarma, assistant
general manager, R&D of Larsen and Toubro Limited - ECC,
Chennai for their valuable contributions.
References
1. ANDERSEN, P .J. and JOHANSEN, V. Particle packing and concrete properties,
Material Science of Concrete: II, 1991, Skalny J and Mindess S (Edited), The
American Ceramic Society, Inc., Westerville, Ohio. pp. 111 -147.
2. DE LARRARD, F. Concrete Mixture Proportioning - A Scientific Approach, 1999,
E & FN Spon, London.
3. AITCIN, P. C. High Performance Concrete, E & FN Spon, London, 1998.
4. ROY, D.M., SCHEETZ, B.E. and SILSBEE, M.R. Processing of optimised cements and
concretes via particle packing, MRS Bulletin, March 1993, pp 45-49.
5. ANDERSEN, P.J. and JOHANSEN, V. A guide to determining the optimal gradation
of concrete aggregates, SHRP- C- 334, Strategic Highway Research Program,
Washington, 1993.
6. ROY, D.M., SCHEETZ, B.E., MALEK R.I.A. and SHI, D. Concrete components packing
handbook, SHRP-C-624, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington,
1993.
7. GLAVIND, M. and MUNCH-PETERSEN, C. Green concrete in Denmark, Structural
Concrete, March 2000, Vol 1, No 1, pp 19-25.
8. STOVALL, T., DE LARRARD, F. and BUIL, M. Linear packing density model of grain
mixtures, Powder Technology, September 1986, Vol 48, No 1, pp 1-12.
9. DINGER, D.R. and FUNK, J.E. Particle-packing phenomenon and their application in
materials processing, MRS Bulletin, December 1997, pp 19-23.
The Indian Concrete Journal * September 2003
 10. POWERS, T.C., The Properties of Concrete, Wiley & Sons, New York, 1968.
11. GOLTERMANN P., JOHANSEN, V., and PALBOL, L. Packing of aggregates: an
alternative tool to determine the optimal aggregate mix, ACI Material Journal,
September-October 1997, Vol 94, No 5, pp 435-443.
21. ______Methods of physical test for hydraulic cement, IS 4031 : 1996, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
22. ______Methods of tests for strength of concrete, IS 516 : 1959, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.

12. DE LARRARD, F and SEDRAN, T, Optimization of ultra-high performance 23. ______Standard test method for electrical indication of concrete’s ability to resist
concrete by the use of a packing model, Cement and Concrete Research, 1994, chloride ion penetration, ASTM C 1202 - 97, American Society for Testing
Vol 24, pp 997-1009. Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 2002.

13. ______www.danishtechnology.dk Nordic Concrete Research.

Mr Senthil Kumar V obtained his post-graduate
14. SHAKHMENKO, G. and BIRSH, J. Concrete mix design and optimization, Second degree from Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
International symposium in civil engineering, Budapest, 1998, pp 1-8. Chennai. Presently, he is working as an engineer in
15. BANERJEE, S. Monolithic Refractories — A Comprehensive Handbook,1998, The
the R&D department with Larsen & Toubro Limited
American Ceramic Society, Ohio, USA. – ECC division, Chennai.

16. REED, J. S. Principles of Ceramics Processing (Second edition), John Wiley & Sons
Inc, New York, 1995.
17. STROEVEN, P. and STROEVEN, M. Assessment of particle packing characteristics
at interfaces by SPACE system, Image Anal Stereol, Vol 19, 2000 pp 85-90.
18. ______www.gmic.dk, G. M. Idorn Consultants.
19. ______Ciks.cbt.nist.gov, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
20. ______www.silicafume.net, Elkem AS.
Dr Manu Santhanam is an assistant professor in
the building technology and construction
management division in department of civil
engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai. He obtained his doctorate from Purdue
University, USA. He has more than two years of
industrial experience in R&D (chemical admixtures) for Sika
Corporation, USA. His areas of interest are high performance
cement-based materials and durability of concrete.

•••

Correct Addresses Wanted

Mr Santosh Kumar Shukla Mr P K Ranade New Delhi 110 001

Lab Incharge Bhageeratha Engg. Ltd Mr Subimal Sengupta
Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd N H 6, WB III Project Dy Manager Technical Services
C/o Raj Kumar Mourya Kolaghat Post, Flat No.A1004
E-2/168, Vinay Khand 2 Midnapore Dist 721 134 Maruti Paradise Co Op Hsg Soc
Post Gomti nagar Sector 15, CBD Belapur
Lucknow 226 010 Navi Mumbai 400 614
Mr H K Sengupta
General Manager
Mr S Mahadevan/Mr B N Reddy Development Consultants Mr Punumalli Srinivasa Rao
Grasim Industries Ltd 3rd Floor, Sahyog Sr Site Engr
RMC Division 58, Nehru Place 23-158, NEC Ltd
102, 2A, 2B, Harlur Village New Delhi 110 019 Maruthi Nagar-IV th Line
Vartur, Hobali, Koramangala Post Narasannapet Post
Bangalore South Srikakulam Dist 532 421
VSL India Pvt Ltd Andhra Pradesh
1st Floor, Unit A
The Area Manager Rajah Annamalai Bldg Annexe Er A Vasan
Fosroc Chemicals (I) Ltd 18/3, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Road Chit Sabha Builders
5A/2, Classic Moon Egmore, Chennai 600 008 5/36, Bharathiyar Street
2nd Floor, Old palasia Karur 639 001
Indore 452 001
Mr H K Pranbhakar Mr Dilip Kumar
Mr Shailendra Kolhe BMS Businees Centre C/o S Paul Choudhury Contractor
Manas, 20B, New Swastik Nagar 10, Plaza Cinema Bldg & Engineers Concern
Badnera Road, Amravati 444 605 Connaught Place Church Road, Silchar 788 004

September 2003 * The Indian Concrete Journal 1331

View publication stats