Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Li and Rangaraju
4 Zhengqi Lia
5 Graduate Student
6 Glenn Department of Civil Engineering
7 Clemson University
8 Clemson, SC 29634
9 E-mail: zhengql@clemson.edu
10 Tel: (864)633-9882;
11
12 Prasada Rao Rangarajub*
13 Associate Professor
14 Glenn Department of Civil Engineering
15 Clemson University
16 Clemson, SC 29634
17 E-mail: prangar@clemson.edu
18 Tel: (864)-656-1241
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Corresponding Author: Prasada Rao Rangaraju, e-mail: prangar@clemson.edu
26
27 Initial Manuscript Submission date: 8/1/2014
28 Revised Manuscript Submission date: 10/31/2014
29 Word count: 5087 + 9 Tables/Figures x 250 words (each) = 7337 words
30
31
2
Li and Rangaraju
32 ABSTRACT
33 The workability and compressive strength of a high performance cementitious mortar (HPCM) produced using a
34 natural siliceous sand were studied as a function of sand content (expressed as sand-to-cementitious materials ratio –
35 s/cm), silica fume (SFU) content and high-range water reducing admixture (HRWRA) dosage. The purpose of this
36 study is to maximize the sand content without negatively affecting workability, mechanical and durability properties,
37 while achieving these characteristics at a low cost. An index (Flow Reduction Factor – 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 ) was introduced to
38 reveal the sensitivity of the workability of HPCMs to the changes in the sand content. The test results indicated
39 that the workability of HPCM became less sensitive to sand content when the SFU content increased. Statistical
40 analysis was used to study the effect of increasing the sand content on the compressive strength of HPCMs. Rapid
41 chloride ion penetration (RCP) and drying shrinkage tests were conducted to investigate the effect of sand content
42 on the durability of HPCM without SFU. The compressive strength of self-consolidating HPCM was not
43 significantly impacted by sand content up to a certain maximum level, depending on the HRWRA and SFU dosage.
44 In this study, based on a combined consideration of both workability and compressive strength the maximum sand
45 content that can be used to produce a self-consolidating HPCM without SFU was 1.6 (s/cm ratio), and the maximum
46 sand content for producing a self-consolidating HPCM with SFU content at 10% and 20% was 1.6 and 2.0,
47 respectively. Also, a HRWRA dosage of 1% by weight of cementitious materials was found to be optimal to
48 maximize the sand content in the HPCM. Increasing the sand content was helpful in improving the durability of
49 HPCM, as chloride ion permeability and drying shrinkage decreased.
50
51 Keyword: Self-consolidating HPCM; Maximum sand content; Workability; Compressive strength; RCP; Drying
52 shrinkage
3
Li and Rangaraju
53 INTRODUCTION
54
55 Self-consolidating high performance cementitious mortar (HPCM) has been increasingly adopted as a pour-in-grout
56 for construction of shear keys in precast bridges. With good workability, self-consolidating HPCM is able to flow
57 into restricted spaces and consolidate well under its self-weight without segregation. It is preferable to use HPCM in
58 the application where narrow formwork and dense reinforcement are inevitable.
59 Self-consolidating HPCM commonly consists of cement, sand (fine aggregate), supplementary
60 cementitious material (SCM), and high range water reducing admixture (HRWRA). In the context of present
61 investigation, HPCM is characterized by low water-cementitious materials ratio (w/cm from 0.2 to 0.35), high
62 content of HRWRA and SCM, which are considered essential for achieving superior workability, compressive
63 strength and durability (1-3).
64 Low w/c and high content of HRWRA produce HPCM with a sticky consistency even at high workability,
65 which is different from normal cementitious mixtures (1; 4; 5). Such a sticky paste reduces the chance of
66 segregation (5-7). Low w/c also decreases the risk of segregation by lowering the difference in density between sand
67 and paste (8). Silica fume (SFU) is one of the widely used SCMs in HPCM formulations. Its super fine particles and
68 pozzolanic reactivity improve the compressive strength and durability of HPCM significantly (1-3). SFU is able to
69 reduce bleeding and increase the cohesiveness of mortar mixtures (4). Many studies also showed that HPCM with
70 SFU has improved fluidity (4; 9; 10), despite that SFU has large specific surface area. For example, a study on the
71 rheology of cementitious paste found that for mixtures in which less than 10% of cement was replaced by equal
72 volume of SFU the viscosity of paste decreased as the silica fume content increased when polyacrylate based
73 HRWRA was used(10). This was explained by the packing of SF particles between cement grains which displaced
74 water and by a ball-bearing effect of silica spheres (10). Sand is another component of mortar. The particle angularity,
75 shape and gradation of sand influence the workability and compressive strength of formulated mortar (1; 11). A
76 comprehensive study on the effect of sand content on the properties of normal strength mortar showed that
77 increasing sand content decreased the workability of mortar, and the increasing sand content might increase or
78 decrease the compressive strength which depended on the use of HRWRA (12).
79 It should be noted that, in many of the previous studies related to HPCM, the investigations have focused
80 on studying the influence of w/cm, SCM dosage and HRWRA dosage on various properties of HPCM. However,
81 there is limited information on the influence of sand content on the fresh and hardened state properties of
82 self-consolidating HPCM. Considering the economic benefit of increasing the sand content in the production of
83 self-consolidating HPCM, it is important to have a detailed knowledge on this topic.
84 The study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, the workability and compressive strength of
85 HPCMs were studied as a function of sand content, SFU content, and HRWRA dosage. In this study, the sand
86 content of a mixture was quantified as sand-to-cementitious materials ratio (s/cm). An index – Flow Reduction
87 Factor, 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 was introduced to reveal the sensitivity of the workability of HPCMs to the changes in s/cm.
88 Statistical analysis was conducted to study the effect of increasing s/cm on the compressive strength of HPCMs. A
89 combined consideration of both workability and compressive strength of HPCM was applied to determine the
90 maximum s/cm for the self-consolidating HPCM both with and without SFU. In the second stage of the study, rapid
91 chloride ion penetration (RCP) and drying shrinkage tests were conducted to investigate the effect of s/cm on the
92 durability of HPCM without SFU.
93
4
Li and Rangaraju
94 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
95
96 Materials
97 Type III portland cement meeting ASTM C150 specification was used for HPCM formulation. The principal oxide
98 composition of cement was as follows: CaO - 64.4%, SiO2 - 20.4%, Al2O3 - 6%, Fe2O3 - 3.5%, Na2Oeq - 0.49% and
99 SO3 - 3.5%. The specific surface area of cement was 540m2/kg.
100 In this study, the SFU was a white-colored silica fume with a low loss on ignition value of 0.22% and SiO2 content
101 of 92%. It was used as an SCM in addition to cement, not as a cement replacement material. The specific surface
102 area of SFU determined by BET method was 20000m2/kg. The sand used in this study was round natural siliceous
103 sand meeting the gradation specification in ASTM C33 for fine aggregates. The gradation of fine aggregate is shown
104 in Table 1. The specific gravity, water absorption, and fineness modulus of the sand were 2.62, 0.3%, and 2.65,
105 respectively. A polycarboxylic ether based HRWRA in a powder form was used to make workable HPCM.
106
107 Table 1 Gradation of fine aggregate
Sieve Percent Passing
9.5-mm 100.0
4.75-mm 99.8
2.36-mm 97.1
1.18-mm 82.0
600-µm 41.9
300-µm 14.0
150-µm 0.5
75-µm 0.1
108
109 Mixture proportions
110 Thirty seven different HPCMs were produced in this investigation to carry out experiments in order to study the
111 influence of sand content on the fresh and hardened state properties of HPCM at various SFU and HRWRA contents.
112 SFU was proportioned at three levels, 0%, 10%, and 20% by weight of cement. The HRWRA was dosed at four
113 levels - 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, and 1.5% by weight of cementitious material. Sand content, expressed as s/cm ratio by
114 weight, of the mixtures was studied at 0, 0.5, 1.25, 1.6, and 2. For the entire study, the w/cm by weight was fixed at
115 0.20. No coarse aggregate was used in this study. The identifications of HPCMs (HPCM ID) are listed in Table 2.
116
117
5
Li and Rangaraju
210 It should be mentioned that among all the flowable HPCMs, the HPCM H3-5 mixture has the lowest flow
211 value (i.e. 69%) that did not require any external vibration to consolidate. Therefore, based on these observations,
212 a flow value of 69% (about 70%) is considered as a minimum threshold value that distinguished non-flowable
213 HPCMs from flowable HPCMs. Figure 1 shows a threshold line marked at 69. HPCMs that were non-flowable were
214 subjected to external vibration during casting of the specimens for compressive strength test.
215 Both Figure 1b and 1c show that SFU seemed to be helpful in improving the workability of HPCM. The
216 effect of SFU in rendering the workability of HPCM less sensitive to the changes in sand content is discussed later.
300
HRWRA:0.5%
HRWRA:0.75%
250
HRWRA:1.0%
HRWRA:1.5%
200
Flow (%)
150
100
50
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm
(a)
300 300
SFU:0%
SFU:0% SFU:10%
250 SFU:10% 250
SFU:20%
SFU:20%
200 200
Flow (%)
Flow (%)
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm s/cm
(b) (c)
FIGURE 1 Flow of HPCMs: (a) HPCMs without SFU, (b) HPCMs with SFU (HRWRA dosage
at 0.75%), and (c) HPCMs with SFU (HRWRA dosage at 1%). The horizontal dashed line
delineates flowable versus non-flowable mixtures.
217
218 Sensitivity of workability to changes in sand content
219 An index (𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟) 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 was introduced to understand the effect of SFU on the changes in the
220 workability of HPCM in response to the changes in the sand content. 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 was defined as the ratio of the
221 reduction of flow to the increase in s/cm, see equation (1).
𝐹0 −𝐹𝑠/𝑐𝑚
222 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 = (1)
𝑠/𝑐𝑚−0
9
Li and Rangaraju
223 Where
224 𝐹0 is the flow of HPCM with sand content at 0
225 𝐹𝑠/𝑐𝑚 is the flow of HPCM with sand content at s/cm
226 𝑠/𝑐𝑚 is the sand-cementitious material ratio of HPCM
227 For example, 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 of HPCM L3-4 (SFU=10%; HRWRA dosage=1%; s/cm=1.6) was calculated as follow,
275% − 131.3%
𝑅1.6 = = 89.8%
1.6 − 0
228 The value of 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 indicated how sensitive the workability of HPCM was to the changes in sand content.
229 The calculated 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 of HPCMs are shown in Figure 2a and 2b.
140 140
SFU:0%
120 120 SFU:10%
SFU:20%
100 100
Rs/cm (%)
Rs/cm (%)
80 80
60 60
40 40
SFU:0%
20 SFU:10% 20
SFU:20%
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm s/cm
(a) (b)
FIGURE 2 Calculated 𝑹𝒔/𝒄𝒎 of HPCM: (a) HRWRA dosage at 0.75% and
(b) HRWRA dosage at 1%
230
231 It can be noticed from Figure 2a that when the HRWRA dosage was 0.75%, 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 decreased with the
232 increasing addition of SFU at all s/cm levels. For example, when the sand content was at s/cm=1.25, 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 of
233 HPCM with SFU content at 0%, 10%, and 20% was 115%, 80%, and 50%, respectively. This indicated that the
234 workability of HPCM became less sensitive to the increased sand content as the SFU content increased. When the
235 HRWRA dosage was 1.0% (see Figure 2b), 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 of HPCM with SFU content at 0% and 10% was pretty close.
236 However, HPCM with SFU content at 20% showed significant lower 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 at all s/cm levels. Probably the
237 increase in the HRWRA dosage diminished the difference in 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 of HPCM when SFU contents were low (0%
238 and 10%).
239 Thus far, all the HPCMs studied in this research can be classified into two groups - flowable HPCMs and
240 non-flowable HPCMs. The dashed line in Table 2 distinguishes these two groups. The HPCMs on the left side of the
241 dash line were flowable mixtures which were consolidated under self-weight during casting. HPCMs on the right
242 side of the dash line were non-flowable HPCMs which were consolidated under external vibration during casting.
243
244 Compressive strength
245
246 Compressive strength of HPCM without SFU
247 The effect of sand content on the 1-day and 28-day compressive strength of HPCM without SFU at various HRWRA
10
Li and Rangaraju
248 dosages is presented in Figures 3a and 3b. The HPCMs that consolidated under self-weight are indicated in the plots
249 using hollow symbols, and those that were subjected to external vibration are indicated using filled symbols.
250 As shown in Figures 3a and 3b, both the 1-day and 28-day compressive strength of HPCM seemed to
251 fluctuate around certain values as the sand content increased. No clear trends of compressive strength being affected
252 by sand content were observed. An analysis of variance is presented later to evaluate the influence of sand content
253 on the compressive strength of HPCM.
254 The increased HRWRA dosage appeared to have negative effect on the compressive strength of HPCMs,
255 especially at the age of 1 day. The 1-day compressive strength of HPCMs with s/cm=0.5 revealed that mixtures with
256 HRWRA dosages of 0.75%, 1%, and 1.5% had lower strength compared to mixture with 0.5% HRWRA dosage by
257 16%, 29%, and 40%, respectively. Although no calorimetric or setting time studies were conducted on these
258 mixtures in the present study, it is suspected that higher dosage levels of HRWRA may cause set-retardation
259 resulting in lower compressive strengths at early ages (1; 14).
260 A similar comparison of HPCMs with s/cm=0.5 at the age of 28 days revealed that the compressive
261 strength of HPCM with HRWRA dosages of 0.75% and 1% were 6% higher and 0.4% lower, respectively, compared
262 to mixture with HRWRA dosage of 0.5%. The effect of HRWRA dosage up to 1% on the compressive strength was
263 not significant at the age of 28 days. However, the compressive strength of HPCM with HRWRA dosage of 1.5%
264 was 23% lower than that of HPCM with HRWRA dosage of 0.5%. Similar findings were reported in another
265 research study, where the optimal HRWRA dosage was observed to be at 1% by weight of cement, and beyond
266 which compressive strength was negatively affected (12). The improved compressive strength with an increase in
267 HRWRA dosage up to 1% was explained by better dispersion of cement, while the reduced compressive strength
268 beyond 1% dosage of HRWRA was explained by segregation (12). However, in the present study no segregation
269 was observed in the HPCMs even with HRWRA dosage of 1.5%, and therefore it is unlikely for segregation to be
270 the reason for the observed reduction in the 28-day compressive strength. Considering that some HRWRA typically
271 tend to entrain air at high dosage levels, even in the absence of air-entraining agents, it is suspected that at HRWRA
272 dosage levels of 1.5%, increase in the air content of HPCM may have resulted in lowering of the 28-day
273 compressive strength compared to HPCMs with lower HRWRA dosage (1; 15-17).
274 Considering that the HRWRA dosage of 1% was determined as the saturation dosage from a workability
275 perspective and the HRWRA dosage of 1.5% was determined as an overdose in early part of this study, it is
276 reasonable to assume that from a compressive strength perspective the HRWRA dosage of 1% was also the
277 saturation dosage, and HRWRA dosage higher than 1% (i.e. 1.5%) was an overdose which had a lasting negative
278 effect on the compressive strength of HPCMs.
279
280 Compressive strength of HPCM with SFU
281 The effect of sand content on the 1-day and 28-day compressive strength of HPCM with various SFU contents was
282 studied under two HRWRA dosages. The HPCMs with HRWRA dosage at 0.75% are shown in Figure 3c and 3d.
283 The HPCMs with HRWRA dosage at 1% are shown in Figure 3e and 3f. Similarly to what was shown in Figures 3
284 (a) and (b), the HPCMs consolidated under self-weight are plotted as hollow symbols. The HPCMs consolidated
285 under external vibration are plotted as filled symbols.
286
11
Li and Rangaraju
120 140
100
80
80
60
60
40 HRWRA:0.5% HRWRA:0.5%
HRWRA:0.75% 40 HRWRA:0.75%
HRWRA:1.0% HRWRA:1.0%
20 HRWRA:1.5%
HRWRA:1.5% 20
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm s/cm
(a) (b)
100 140
90
120
80
70 100
60
80
50
60
40
30 40
SFU:0% SFU:0%
20 SFU:10%
SFU:10%
20
10 SFU:20% SFU:20%
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm s/cm
(c) (d)
100 160
90
140
28-day compressive strength (MPa)
1-day compressive strength (MPa)
80
120
70
100
60
50 80
40
60
30
SFU:0% 40 SFU:0%
20 SFU:10% SFU:10%
SFU:20% 20 SFU:20%
10
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm s/cm
(e) (f)
FIGURE 3 Compressive strength of HPCM: (a) HPCM without SFU at 1-day, (b) HPCM without
SFU at 28-day, (c) HPCM with SFU at 1-day (HRWRA dosage at 0.75%), (d) HPCM with SFU at
28-day (HRWRA dosage at 0.75%), (e) HPCM with SFU at 1-day (HRWRA dosage at 1%), and
(f) HPCM with SFU at 28-day (HRWRA dosage at 1%).
287
12
Li and Rangaraju
288 From the Figures 3c, 3d, 3e, and 3f, it is difficult to tell the relation between compressive strength and sand content.
289 An analysis of variance is presented later to evaluate the influence of sand content on the compressive strength of
290 HPCM. However, it can be observed that increased SFU content at either 10% or 20% seemed to reduce the
291 compressive strength of the HPCMs at the age of 1 day. Reminding the w/cm was kept constant for HPCM with
292 SFU, it is reasonable to assume that the higher actual w/c probably attribute to the reduced 1-day compressive
293 strength of HPCM with higher SFU content. But, at the age of 28 days, the compressive strength of HPCM with
294 SFU was pretty close to that of HPCM without SFU. This increase could be because of the pozzolanic effect of SFU
295 which was more prominent at later ages (1).
296
297 Statistical analysis of compressive strength being affected by sand content
298 The purpose of the statistical analysis was to find out whether the change in sand content would cause statistically
299 significant difference in either 1-day or 28-day compressive strength of self-consolidating HPCMs. Analysis of
300 variance (F-test) on the compressive strength of HPCMs was only conducted on HPCMs consolidated under
301 self-weight. For each F-test at the age of either 1 day or 28 days, only HPCMs with same SFU content and same
302 HRWRA dosage were included. As shown in Table 4, HPCMs are sorted into eight groups, and HPCMs in each
303 group have same SFU content and same HRWRA dosage. Total sixteen F-tests were conducted on eight groups of
304 HPCMs (two F-tests for each group at 1 day and 28 days, respectively).
305 Before starting the analysis of variance the following assumptions were made:
306 a. The compressive strength of each HPCM had a normal distribution.
307 b. Under the same SFU content and the same HRWRA dosage, the variances of compressive strength
308 of HPCMs with various sand contents were equal.
309 c. The compressive strength of HPCMs with various sand contents was independent from each other.
310 The problem of the hypothesis testing was stated as,
𝐻0 : µ0 = µ0.5 = ⋯ = µ𝑠/𝑐𝑚
𝐻𝑎 : At least one of the mean compressive strength of HPCM is different from the rest
311 Where µ𝑠/𝑐𝑚 is the mean compressive strength of HPCM with sand content at s/cm.
312 The possibility of Type I error was set at α=0.05. If the p-value of F-test was larger than α, we did not have
313 enough evidence to reject 𝐻0 , which inferred that the sand content did not have statistically significant effect on the
314 compressive strength of HPCM. However, if the p-value of F test was equal or less than α, we had enough
315 evidence to reject 𝐻0 , which inferred that the sand content had statistically significant effect on the compressive
316 strength of HPCM. The results of analysis of variance are presented in Table 4.
317 It can be observed that the calculated p-values of HPCMs without SFU were larger than α when HRWRA
318 dosage varied from 0.5% to 1%, which indicated that sand content did not have significant effect on both the 1-day
319 and 28-day compressive strength of HPCM with HRWRA dosage ranging from 0.5% to 1%. When the HRWRA
320 dosage was 1.5%, the decision was to reject H0 for 1-day compressive strength (p-value=0.041<α), but failed to
321 reject H0 for 28-day compressive strength (p-value=0.058>α). This inferred that when the HRWRA dosage was
322 1.5%, the changes in sand content resulted in changes in the 1-day compressive strength of HPCM, but it did not
323 have significant influence on the 28-day compressive strength. However, it was necessary to notice that these
324 decisions for HPCM with HRWRA dosage at 1.5% were not statistically strong, because the p-values were very
325 close to α which was set at 0.05 in this study. If lower α was set, say 0.04, the decision would be fail to reject H0 for
326 both 1-day and 28-day compressive strength. So far, a conclusion is drawn that, with HRWRA dosage at 1%, the
13
Li and Rangaraju
327 maximum sand content was able to go up to s/cm=1.6 without having statistically strong influence on either the
328 1-day or 28-day compressive strength of HPCM without SFU.
329
330 TABLE 4 Analysis of variance of compressive strength
Dosage of 1-day 28-day
SFU (%) HPCMs included a
HRWRA (%) p-value Decision p-value Decision a
0.5 C1-1,C1-2 0.716 N 0.432 N
0.75 C2-1,C2-2,C2-3 0.449 N 0.354 N
0
1 C3-1,C3-2,C3-3,C3-4 0.191 N 0.197 N
1.5 C4-1,C4-2,C4-3,C4-4 0.041 Rej. 0.058 N
0.75 L2-1,L2-2,L2-3,L2-4 0.019 Rej. 0.052 N
10
1 L3-1,L3-2,L3-3,L3-4 0.302 N 0.789 N
0.75 H2-1,H2-2,H2-3,H2-4 0.091 N 0.002 Rej.
20
1 H3-1,H3-2,H3-3,H3-4,H3-5 0.599 N 0.713 N
a
331 Note: N-did not reject H0 or Rej.-rejected H0
332
333 For HPCMs with SFU content at 10%, rejections to H0 only occurred for 1-day compressive strength when
334 the HRWRA dosage was 0.75%. When HRWRA dosage was 1%, we failed to reject H0 for both 1-day and 28-day
335 compressive strength. This indicated that when HRWRA dosage was at 0.75%, the change in s/cm from 0 to 1.6
336 resulted in noticeable changes in the 1-day compressive strength of HPCMs. However, when HRWRA dosage was at
337 1%, s/cm went up to 1.6 failed to cause significant changes in either 1-day or 28-day compressive strength of
338 HPCMs.
339 Similarly, for HPCMs with SFU content at 20%, rejections to H0 only occurred for 28-day compressive
340 strength when the HRWRA dosage was 0.75%. The decision was strong since p-value is remarkably smaller than α
341 (0.002< α). A test of Fisher’s least significant difference procedure (LSD) identified that HPCM with s/cm=1.6 had
342 the most significantly different 28-day compressive strength from the rest HPCMs. Considering the results presented
343 in Figure 3b, it was noticed that sand content at s/cm=1.6 resulted in remarkable compressive strength loss at the age
344 of 28 days. However, when HRWRA dosage was 1%, we failed to reject H0 for both 1-day and 28-day compressive
345 strength, which indicated that sand contents up to s/cm=2 did not have statistically significant influence on either the
346 1-day or 28-day compressive strength of HPCM.
347
348 Discussion of maximum sand content of self-consolidating HPCM
349 From the point of lowering economic cost, it is generally preferable to increase the sand content of HPCM. However,
350 increasing sand content would reduce the workability and cause compressive strength loss. The maximum sand
351 content at which the HPCM still maintained the ability of self-consolidating and the compressive strength of HPCM
352 was not significantly lowered is important in the design of self-consolidating HPCM. Based on a combined
353 consideration of both workability and compressive strength of HPCM in this study, it is reasonable to believe that
354 for self-consolidating HPCM with SFU contents at 0%, 10%, and 20%, the maximum sand content could go up to
355 1.6, 1.6, and 2, respectively. It should be reminded that such maximum sand contents are affected by many factors,
356 such as gradation and texture of sand. Different maximum sand contents of self-consolidating HPCM likely exist
357 when different type of sand was used.
14
Li and Rangaraju
358
359 Rapid Chloride Ion permeability
360
361 The RCP of HPCM without SFU was studied on HPCM C3-1, C3-2, C3-3, C3-4, and C3-5. The experimental
362 results are presented in Figure 4, which depicts the RCP values at different s/cm ratios and a prediction equation.
3400
𝑘= + 800
𝑒 3𝑟
2
R =0.999
385 Where
386 y is dependent variable
15
Li and Rangaraju
391 Where
392 k is charge passed
393 r is s/cm
394 The plot of Equation (3) is shown in Figure 4.
395
396 Drying shrinkage
397
398 The drying shrinkage of HPCM without SFU was studied on HPCM C3-1, C3-2, C3-3, C3-4, and C3-5. The drying
399 shrinkage developments of HPCM without SFU are shown in Figure 5a.
Period of Exposure (days)
0
0 15 30 45 60 75
-0.05
Drying shrinkage (%)
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
s/cm:0 s/cm:0.5
s/cm:1.25 s/cm:1.6
s/cm:2.0
-0.25
(a)
0.14
𝐷=− − 0.04
𝑒 1.7𝑟
2
R =0.997
(b)
FIGURE 5 Drying shrinkage of HPCM without SFU: (a) Drying shrinkage development and
(b) Influence of s/cm on the maximum drying shrinkage.
400
16
Li and Rangaraju
401 It was obvious that HPCM with high sand content presented lower drying shrinkage than HPCM with low
402 sand at all testing ages, and the curves of drying shrinkage development of HPCMs became almost flat after 56 days
403 of exposure. The drying shrinkage of 56 days of exposure was assumed to be the maximum drying shrinkage of
404 studied HPCM, which is shown as dot in Figure 5b. A simple calculation revealed that the maximum drying
405 shrinkage of HPCM with sand content at s/cm=0.5, 1.25, 1.6, and 2 was 44%, 65%, 72%, and 75% lower than that
406 of HPCM without sand, respectively. The reduction in drying shrinkage as sand content increased was likely because
407 of the reduced volume of cement paste, which is the main component resulting in shrinkage under drying (1).
408 The relationship between the 56-day shrinkage as a function of s/cm can be described by equation (4)
409 which is a three-parameter regression equation based on five data points (also see Figure 5b).
0.14
410 𝐷=− − 0.04 (R2=0.997) (4)
𝑒 1.7𝑟
411 Where
412 D is the maximum drying shrinkage
413 r is s/cm
414
415 CONCLUSIONS
416
417 The workability, compressive strength and durability of self-consolidating HPCM with and without containing SFU
418 were experimentally studied. Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions are drawn:
419 For HPCM without SFU, the workability was influenced by the combination of HRWRA dosage and sand
420 content. Increasing HRWRA dosage or decreasing sand content improved the workability of HPCM, however
421 HRWRA exceeding saturation dosage did not increase the workability further. Based on the material and mixture
422 proportions used in this study, the saturation dosage of HRWRA was established at 1% by weight of the cement.
423 The workability of HPCM became less sensitive to the changes in the sand content when the SFU content
424 increased, which was revealed by the index 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 .
425 The compressive strength of self-consolidating HPCM was not significantly influenced by the sand
426 content up to a maximum sand content, depending on the dosage of SFU and HRWRA. In this study, with HRWRA
427 at saturation dosage (1%), the maximum sand content for self-consolidating HPCM without SFU was able to go up
428 to s/cm=1.6, and the maximum sand content for self-consolidating HPCM with SFU content at 10% and 20% was
429 able to go up to s/cm=1.6 and s/cm=2, respectively.
430 For self-consolidating HPCM without SFU, increased sand content was helpful in improving the
431 durability of HPCM. Lower chloride permeability and less drying shrinkage were observed as the sand content
432 increased.
433 Based on materials and proportions used in this study, it is recommended that to produce a workable HPCM
434 with good compressive strength a sand-to-cementitious materials ratio between 1.6 and 2.0 should be used,
435 depending on the dosage of SFU and HRWRA. It should be noted that round siliceous natural sand is highly
436 recommended for this purpose. Using sand of different angularity or particle size distribution than that was used in
437 this study may result in slightly different maximum s/cm.
438
439 REFERENCES
440 [1] Mindess, S., J. F. Young, and D. Darwin. Concrete. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003.
17
Li and Rangaraju
441 [2] Graybeal, B. A. Material property characterization of ultra-high performance concrete. Report
442 FHWA-HRT-06-103, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006.
443 [3] Durekovic, A. Cement Pastes of Low Water to Solid Ratio - an Investigation of the Porosity Characteristics
444 under the Influence of a Superplasticizer and Silica Fume. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1995,
445 pp. 365-375.
446 [4] Nehdi, M., S. Mindess, and P. C. Aitcin. Rheology of high-performance concrete: Effect of ultrafine particles.
447 Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 28, No. 5, 1998, pp. 687-697.
448 [5] Libre, N. A., R. Khoshnazar, and M. Shekarchi. Relationship between fluidity and stability of self-consolidating
449 mortar incorporating chemical and mineral admixtures. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 24, No. 7,
450 2010, pp. 1262-1271.
451 [6] Schwartzentruber, L. D., R. Le Roy, and J. Cordin. Rheological behaviour of fresh cement pastes formulated
452 from a Self Compacting Concrete (SCC). Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 36, No. 7, 2006, pp. 1203-1213.
453 [7] Khayat, K. H. Workability, testing, and performance of self-consolidating concrete. Aci Materials Journal, Vol.
454 96, No. 3, 1999, pp. 346-353.
455 [8] Saak, A. W., H. M. Jennings, and S. P. Shah. New methodology for designing self-compacting concrete. Aci
456 Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No. 6, 2001, pp. 429-439.
457 [9] Zhang, X., and J. H. Han. The effect of ultra-fine admixture on the rheological property of cement paste. Cement
458 and Concrete Research, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2000, pp. 827-830.
459 [10] Vikan, H., and H. Justnes. Rheology of cementitious paste with silica fume or limestone. Cement and Concrete
460 Research, Vol. 37, No. 11, 2007, pp. 1512-1517.
461 [11] Cortes, D. D., H. K. Kim, A. M. Palomino, and J. C. Santamarina. Rheological and mechanical properties of
462 mortars prepared with natural and manufactured sands. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 38, No. 10, 2008,
463 pp. 1142-1147.
464 [12] Han, V., S. Ros, and H. Shima. Effects of Sand Content, Superplasticizer Dosage, and Mixing Time on
465 Compressive Strength of Mortar. Aci Materials Journal, Vol. 110, No. 1, 2013, pp. 23-31.
466 [13] Punkki, J., J. Golaszewski, and O. E. Gjorv. Workability loss of high-strength concrete. Aci Materials Journal,
467 Vol. 93, No. 5, 1996, pp. 427-431.
468 [14] Pinto, R., and K. Hover. Effect of Silica Fume and Superplasticizer Addition on Setting Behavior of
469 High-Strength Mixtures. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol.
470 1574, No. -1, 1997, pp. 56-62.
471 [15] Lazniewska-Piekarczyk, B. The methodology for assessing the impact of new generation superplasticizers on
472 air content in self-compacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 53, 2014, pp. 488-502.
473 [16] Papayianni, I., G. Tsohos, N. Oikonomou, and P. Mavria. Influence of superplasticizer type and mix design
474 parameters on the performance of them in concrete mixtures. Cement & Concrete Composites, Vol. 27, No. 2,
475 2005, pp. 217-222.
476 [17] Lazniewska-Piekarczyk, B., and J. Szwabowski. The Influence of the Type of Anti-Foaming Admixture and
477 Superplasticizer on the Properties of Self-Compacting Mortar and Concrete. Journal of Civil Engineering and
478 Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2012, pp. 408-415.
479 [18] Winslow, D. N., M. D. Cohen, D. P. Bentz, K. A. Snyder, and E. J. Garboczi. Percolation and Pore Structure in
480 Mortars and Concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1994, pp. 25-37.
481