GROUP MEMBERS

Katureebe H.J 219266042

Sobekwa Oyama 217822711

Neo Tamako 216415055

Elton Mandaza 218021984

Siyabulela Daniels 211065293

Lecturer
MS Madyibi Yonela

CONCRETE MIX
DESIGN
Contents
GRADING ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................. 2
Fine Sand ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Grit (manufactured sand..................................................................................................................... 2
BLENDING RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 3
CUMMULATIVE SIEVE SIZE GRAPH FOR MIX DESIGN 1 ...................................................................... 4
Suitability of Each Fine Aggregate for Concrete Making .................................................................... 5
Bulk Density ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Comments on Bulk density ................................................................................................................. 5
MIX DESIGN 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Trial Mix ............................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Trial mix design calculations ............................................................................................................... 6
CUBE MAKING ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Procedure ........................................................................................................................................ 7
SAMPLE BLOCKS FROM EACH DAY OF CRUSHING TEST 1............................................................... 8
CUBE CRUSHING TEST 1 .................................................................................................................. 9
After 3 days ..................................................................................................................................... 9
After 7 days ..................................................................................................................................... 9
After 14 days ................................................................................................................................... 9
PREDICTION GRAPH SHOWING CUBE CRUSHING TEST 1 ................................................................. 11
Analysis of Graph and Results ............................................................................................................... 10
Conclusion on Preliminary results ........................................................................................................ 12
MIX DESIGN 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 13
SAMPLE BLOCKS FROM CRUSHING TEST 2 ....................................................................................... 13
CUBE CRUSHING TEST 2 ................................................................................................................... 14
After 3 Days ................................................................................................................................... 14
After 7 Days ................................................................................................................................... 14
After 14 Days ................................................................................................................................. 14
CUBE CRUSHING MIX DESIGN 2 ........................................................................................................ 14
PREDICTION GRAPH SHOWING MIX DESIGN 2 AS COMPARED TO MIX DESIGN 1 ........................ 15
Analysis of Graph Results ................................................................................................................. 16
PROJECT CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................... 16
GRADING ANALYSIS
Fine Sand

SABS sieve, Retained by Sieve Cumulative %

Size mm Passing sieve
On Specific Sieve Cumulative %
Mass(g) %Retained on Of total mass
each sieve
9.50 0 0 0 100
6.70 0 0 0 100
4.75 0 0 0 100
2.36 0 0 0 100
1.18 0 0 0 100
0.60 0 0 0 100
0.30 803 80.3 80.3 19.7
0.15 188 18.8 99.1 0.9
0.075 9 0.9 100 0
Pan 0 0 100 0
Total 1000
Grit (manufactured sand
SABS sieve, Retained by Sieve Cumulative %
Size mm Passing sieve
On Specific Sieve Cumulative %
Mass(g) %Retained on Of total mass
each sieve
9.50 0 0 0 100
6.70 90 9 9 91
4.75 160 16 25 75
2.36 220 22 47 53
1.18 160 16 63 37
0.60 130 13 76 24
0.30 180 18 94 6
0.15 50 5 99 1
0.075 10 1 100 0
Pan 0 0 100 0
Total 1000
 BLENDING RESULTS
Sieve size Sand Grit Blend Spec ‫׀‬S-A‫׀‬ ‫׀‬S-B‫׀‬ 0.51A 0.49B Cumulative % Cum % Retained
Specification Mean Passing Blended Blended Sand
Sand

4.75 100 75 88 - 96 92 8 17 51 36.75 87.75 12.25

2.36 100 53 78 - 90 84 16 31 51 25.97 76.97 23.03
1.18 100 37 50 - 80 65 35 28 51 18.13 69.13 30.87
0.60 100 24 40 - 60 50 50 26 51 11.13 62.76 37.24
0.30 11 6 30 - 44 37 18 31 9.69 2.94 12.63 87.37
0.15 0 1 12 - 24 18 18 17 0 0.49 0.49 99.51
0.075 0 0 4-8 6 6 6 0 0 0
151 156

∑ 𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑 151
Percentage Sand = ∑ 𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑+𝐺𝑟𝑖𝑡 =151+156 = 0.49

∑ 𝐺𝑟𝑖𝑡 156
Percentage Grit = ∑ = = 0.51
𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑+𝐺𝑟𝑖𝑡 151+156
CUMMULATIVE SIEVE SIZE GRAPH FOR MIX DESIGN

CUMULATIVE SIEVE SIZE GRAPH FOR MIX DESIGN

120

100
cumulative % passing sieve

80

60
sand
Grit
40

20

0
6.7 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075
sieve size
Suitability of Each Fine Aggregate for Concrete Making
- Fine aggregates are required to make the concrete a uniform paste and sand is used as

a fine aggregate because it’s not reactive to other constituents of cement.

- Sand adds bulk to the concrete and fills the voids between the coarse aggregates and

hence the aim of grading is satisfied.

- Sand gives smooth finish to the concrete surface and in other hand also minimizes the

unnecessary use of cement.

- Sand also helps in limiting the shrinkage of concrete.

- From economic perspective it is comparatively cheaper alternative of fine aggregate.

Bulk Density
Compacted bulk density; Compacted bulk density was determined by filling the container in three
layers and tamped each layer with a rod. After filling in three layers, now levelled the top
surface and evaluate compacted bulk density by using the expression [Mass / volume of container]

Loose bulk density; Loose bulk density can be determined by filling the container with dried
aggregates until it overflows from the container. Now level the top surface of container by rolling a
rod on it. The loose bulk density is evaluated using the same expression as the compacted bulk
density.

Stone calculations

Mass of mould: 11.65 kg

Volume of mould: 0.01414 m3

LBD Mass: 19.48 kg

CBD Mass: 20.97 kg

LBD: 19.48/0.01414 = 3178 kg/m3

CBD: 20.97/0.01414 = 1483 kg/m3

Comments on Bulk density.

Bulk density of aggregates is the mass of aggregates required to fill the container of a unit volume
after aggregates are batched based on volume. It depends on the packing of aggregate i.e.
either loosely packed aggregates or well dense compacted aggregates.
MIX DESIGN
Trial mix design calculations
Target Strength = Specified MPa + A

= 20+10 = 30 MPa

W/C = 0.83

Water = 210 𝑚3

Cement = 210/0.83 = 253 kg

Stone = CBDst (k-0.1FM)

= 1483 (0.94 – 0.1(2.89))

= 965 kg/m3

Sand = (1000-(210/1 + 253/3.15 + 965/2.75))2.65

= 951 kg/𝑚3

Water: 210 (0.009) = 1.89l

Cement: 253 (0.009) = 2.28 kg/m3

Stone : 965 (0.009) = 8.69 kg/m3

Sand : 951 (0.009) = 8.56 kg/m3

Lab Trial Mixes

The purpose of concrete trial mixes is to enable you to check the strength, workability, density and
other properties of concrete mixes. Trial mixes are often undertaken when new materials or
admixtures are to be used. Trials are also undertaken when setting up batch data. Trial mixes can
help you maximize all the materials in the mix and is important for mix optimization.
Initial Mix

1. Made use of 26mm stone size, rather than the required 19mm stone size

2. Made use of a dirty container to measure water which resulted in water being mixed with
foreign particles.

3. The sand had moisture, which resulted in excess water when mixing

Due to these errors the slump was more than the required 75mm in length. This affected the
workability and would result in the required strength not being met.

Adjusted Mix

1. Made use of the required 19mm stone

 2. Made use of clean water

3. We dried the sand

Slump test
To assess the workability and consistency of the concrete mix, we do a slump test on the mix. The
slump could come in three forms namely True Slump; Shear Slump and Collapse Slump. These
together with the measurement taken from the top of the cone to the apex of the slump, will
determine how workable the concrete is.

On our first experiment or mix design we got a slump 25 mm, which renders the concrete
unworkable and very dry. This was obviously going to contribute negatively to our strength of the
concrete. We placed the slump ix back into the machine and added more water to make the
concrete more workable, we then obtained a slump of 54 mm which was satisfactory.

CUBE MAKING
Procedure

 150 mm equal layers of moulds were filled in nine cubes of a linear dimensions 9mm
 A compacting bar was used for compacting the concrete. It was a 380 mm long steel
bar and weighing 1.8 kg.
 During the compaction of each layer with the compacting bar, the strokes were
distributed in a uniform manner over the surface of the concrete and each layer was
compacted to its full depth.
 During the compaction of the first layer, the compacting bar was not forcibly strike
to the bottom of the mould. For the following layers, the compacting bar passed into
the layer immediately below.
 The minimum number of strokes per layer required to produce full compaction
depends upon the workability of the concrete, but at least 28 strokes will be
necessary except in the case of very high workability concrete.
 After the top layer has been compacted, a trowel was used to finish off the surface
level with the top of the mould, and the outside of the mould was wiped clean.
 Immediately after making the cubes we marked them clearly. This was done by
writing the details of the cube in ink on a small piece of paper and placing on top of
the concrete until it demoulded.
 The cubes were placed in water for further curing before testing
 In order to provide adequate circulation of water, adequate space was provided
between the cubes, and the side of the curing tank.

We crushed 3 cubes on days 3, 7 and 14 in order to determine the strength on each of

these days and predict / extrapolate the strength by day 28. The following results were
obtained.
 SAMPLE BLOCKS FROM EACH DAY OF CRUSHING AND COMMENTS ON APPEARANCE

DAY 3 Description of Fractures

Columnar vertical cracking through both
ends, no well-formed cones at the corners

Deduction
Fractures due to normal friction between
the concrete and the steel plates

DAY 7 Description of Fractures

Well-formed cones at the corners and
vertical cracks running through the caps.

Deduction
The well-formed cones at show an
elimination of some friction between the
plates

DAY 14 Description of Fractures

Well-formed cones at the corners and
vertical cracks running through the caps.

Deduction
The well-formed cones at show an
elimination of some friction between the
plates
CUBE CRUSHING TEST 1
After 3 days
Block Number Mass (KG) Compressive Strength (KN)
1 2.221 34.5

2 2.265 53.4

3 1.942 17.1

After 7 days
Block Number Mass (KG) Compressive Strength (KN)
1 2.265 51.6

2 2.046 23.1

3 2.108 63.8

After 14 days
Block Number Mass (KG) Compressive Strength
(KN)
1 2.322 76.7

2 2.210 88.1

3 2.210 79.4

CUBE CRUSHING MIX DESIGN

Average Compressive Strength Achieved

AGE Strength (KN) (MPA)
3 days 35 4.3
7 days 46.2 5.7
14 days 81.4 10.0
Analysis of Graph and Results
From our first Concrete mix design, the extrapolated strength of the concrete blocks at 28 days is 12
MPA, this is below the Target strength that is required. We came to the conclusion that thus mix
design was a failure and identified the reasons that could have caused this which include the
following;

· During the slump test, on visual inspection we found the concrete mix too dry, we then
added water in order to make the concrete more workable. The fact that the water we
added was just estimated could have caused a disproportionality in the concrete mix design
hence causing failure.

· It is also possible that during the making of the cubes, there was poor compaction of the
layers that could have led to entrapped air and lowered the density of the concrete.r5r5

· It is possible that inadequate space was provided between the cubes and the side of the
curing tank thus there was inadequate circulation of water for curing the concrete.

· The machine in which our concrete was mixed was not sufficiently clean this could have
caused unwanted material that wasn’t accounted for in the calculations to enter our mix
design.

· Some of the concrete blocks had pieces broken off while blowing them out of the mould,
this caused uneven dimensions on some of the cubes.

· We made use of 26mm stone size, rather than the required 19mm stone size.

The sand had moisture, which resulted in excess water when mixing
PREDICTION GRAPH SHOWING CUBE CRUSHING TEST 1

PREDICTION GRAPH SHOWING CUBE CRUSHING TEST 1

14.0

12.0 y = 3.6423ln(x) - 0.2092

10.0
Average Strength Achieved (MPA)

10.0

8.0

5.7
6.0

4.3

4.0

2.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of Days
Comments on mix design Preliminary results
Based on the above, we decided to do another concrete mix design putting in mind all our previous
possible errors and to compare both results.

We didn’t find any problems with our calculations step so we just repeated the Slump tests and cube
making procedure.
 MIX DESIGN 2
SAMPLE BLOCKS FROM CRUSHING TEST 2

DAY 3 Description of Fractures

Columnar vertical cracking through
both ends, no well-formed cones at the
corners

Deduction
Fractures due to normal friction
between the concrete and the steel
plates

DAY 7 Description of Fractures

Well-formed cones at the corners and
vertical cracks running through the
caps.

Deduction
The well-formed cones at show an
elimination of some friction between
the plates

DAY 14 Description of Fractures

Well-formed cones at the corners and
vertical cracks running through the
caps.

Deduction
The well-formed cones at show an
elimination of some friction between
the plates
CUBE CRUSHING TEST 2
After 3 Days
Block Number Mass (KG) Compressive Strength (KN)
1 2.319 76.7

2 2.162 98.1

3 2.241 87.4

After 7 Days
Block Number Mass (KG) Compressive Strength (KN)
1 2.223 121.9

2 2.238 115.7

3 2.231 138.9

After 14 Days
Block Number Mass (KG) Compressive Strength (KN)
1 2.322 197.4

2 2.211 155.5

3 2.222 173.6

CUBE CRUSHING MIX DESIGN 2

Average Compressive Force (KN) Strength Achieved (MPA) DAY

87.4 10.8 3
125.5 15.5 7
175.5 21.7 14
PREDICTION GRAPH SHOWING MIX DESIGN 2 AS COMPARED TO MIX DESIGN 1

CUBE CRUSHING MIX DESIGN 1 AND MIX DESIGN 2

30.0

y = 7.0055ln(x) + 2.7115

25.0 TEST 1 TEST 2

21.7

20.0
STRENGTH ACHIEVED (MPA)

Log. (TEST 1) Log. (TEST 2)

15.5
15.0

y = 3.6423ln(x) - 0.2092
10.8
10.0
10.0

5.7
4.3
5.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
AGE (Number of Days)
Analysis of Graph Results
From our second Concrete mix design, the extrapolated strength of the concrete blocks at 28 days is
26.06 MPA, this is slightly below the Target strength that is required. We came to the conclusion
that thus mix design was a relative success as compared to the first mix because of the significant
increase in strength.

However, this strength is still below our target strength (30 MPA) and due to time constraint we
were unable to investigate further as to why this is.

PROJECT CONCLUSION
We drew the following conclusions;

1. Concrete Mix Design

We concluded the different roles of the different components that make up concrete as
follows i.e.

 Cement binds aggregates into a solid mass, fills the gaps between aggregates and
gives strength to the concrete on setting and hardening when it is mixed with water.
 Water makes the concrete more workable.
 Aggregates reduces the shrinkage and cracking. They also fill gaps present in coarse
aggregates and helps in hardening of cement.

2. The slump test

 In our first mix design we had a very low slump of 25mm. This shows that we added
very little water to the concrete mix design and it was not easily workable. On adding
some extra water we were able to obtain a satisfactory slump of 54mm.

3. Cube crushing
 We observed columnar vertical cracking through both ends, no well-formed cones at the
corners of some of the cubes after crushing. This meant that the general structure of the
cubes was satisfactory and the cracks were caused by friction between the plates and the
blocks.
 On other blocks we observed well-formed cones at the corners and vertical cracks running
through the caps of the cubes after crushing. Which essentially means the same as the
previous deduction but the presence of less frictional force between the plates and the
blocks.
References
Anon., 2017. Giatec Science. [Online]
Available at: http://www.giatecscientific.com/education
[Accessed 12 April 2019].

Owens, G., 2013. Fundamentals of concrete. 3rd edition ed. Midrand: The Concrete Institute.

Vladen, F., 22 August 1995. Method for producing construction mixture for concrete patent number,
New York: Adventure works press.