Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 80–90

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

Only tall things cast shadows: Opportunities, challenges and research

needs of self-consolidating concrete in super-tall buildings
Moncef L. Nehdi ⇑
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Western University London, Ontario N6A 5B9, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s

 Experience with self-consolidating concrete (SCC) in tall building construction is outlined.

 Pumping SCC to high altitude, workability retention and lateral pressure on formwork are examined.
 Elastic, shrinkage and creep shortening of SCC super-tall columns and walls need special care.
 Seismic, fire and wind performance of SCC are analyzed; related design provisions are discussed.
 Research needs and innovations pertinent to SCC in tall buildings are highlighted.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The world’s tallest skyscrapers are taking concrete to ever higher altitudes. Indeed, high-strength flow-
Received 24 January 2013 able concrete has become a material of choice for the construction of tall buildings. However, technolog-
Received in revised form 13 June 2013 ical challenges associated with using concrete in super-tall buildings are daunting. For instance, Dubai’s
Accepted 24 June 2013
Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building completed in 2010 standing 828-m tall with 163 floors, had plans
to take concrete higher abandoned somewhere around an altitude of 580-m due to pumping challenges.
In 2012, the Holy City of Makah’s Royal Clock Tower became the world’s second tallest building, standing
Keywords:
601-m tall. This building also experienced the dares of pumping concrete beyond 520-m in height. The
Self-consolidating concrete
Tall building
City of Jeddah’s Kingdom Tower is expected to exceed one kilometer in height upon completion and will
Pumping take concrete higher than ever before in stringent hot weather conditions. This article discusses the expe-
Workability rience with flowable and self-consolidating concrete in skyscrapers, examines the opportunities and
Hot weather technical challenges facing SCC construction in super-tall buildings and highlights needed innovations
Modulus of elasticity and technological breakthroughs.
Shrinkage Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Creep
Fire
Seismic

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2. Experience with SCC in super-tall buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3. Technical challenges of SCC in super-tall buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.1. Pumping and workability retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.2. Lateral pressure on formwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.3. Modulus of elasticity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.4. Shrinkage, creep and differential shortening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.5. Massive SCC foundations and heat of hydration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.6. High Strength SCC reinforced with high-strength rebar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.7. Performance of SCC under cyclic and seismic loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.8. Performance of SCC in fire events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.9. SCC and wind design of super-tall buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

⇑ Tel.: +1 519 661 2111x88308.

E-mail address: mnehdi@uwo.ca

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.051
 M.L. Nehdi / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 80–90 81

3.10. Summary and concluding remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

1. Introduction buildings because concrete systems have twice the dampening ef-
fect compared to steel due to increased mass. This has been further
As early as 1956, architect Frank Lloyd Wright unveiled design bolstered by the perception of better fire resistance in the after-
for a mile-high skyscraper, yet recognized that construction mate- math of the twin-tower tragic collapse in New York. Arguably,
rials available at that time were inadequate for his vision. With ad- most super-tall buildings in the future will be made of HPC, with
vances in high-performance concrete, leaps in elevator technology, a steel or composite spire at the top.
integrated approach to the building envelope, mechanical and elec- Owing to its inherent advantages, including easier pumping,
trical systems and subsequent reduction in energy consumption, ability to flow through congested reinforcing steel and fill form-
and innovations in safety such as flame-, smoke-, chemical-, and work effectively with little or no vibration, SCC which is a spe-
gas-resistant refuge floors, buildings are now soaring taller and tal- cial form of HPC, has become essential for super-tall buildings.
ler [1]. For instance, the construction of the 508-m tall Taipei 101
When urban development cannot expand laterally, it grows ver- (Fig. 1a), which was the world’s tallest building in 2004, and
tically. This is the main thrust for several super-tall buildings in the 85-storey Tungtxt & Chingtai Towers in Taiwan required
congested urban and pricey land locations. Yet, building taller concrete with a slump flow in the range of 580–620-mm and
has also become an expression of economic power and national compressive strength of 56-MPa. In the fall of 2005 during the
sovereignty, a statement of ‘‘we are here and we are important’’. construction of the 423-m tall Trump International Hotel and
Indeed, we have entered an era of super-tall structural concrete Tower (Fig. 1b), a 3-m-thick, 3600-m3 mat slab was cast at
buildings. Hence, concrete technology needs to be prepared for the core of the building using 69-MPa SCC at 56-d. The concrete
the upcoming challenges. was placed in a single pour primarily by conveyor over the
Back in the 1980s, it took more than a decade for the record of
tallest reinforced concrete (RC) building to be broken. The Water
Tower Place in Chicago (262-m), which had held the title since
1976, has seen two projects topping it out in a single year: The
311 South Wacker Drive (295-m), and the Two Prudential Center
(274-m) entitled Chicago to the world’s three tallest reinforced
concrete buildings in 1989 [2].
The situation has changed considerably since then. Most new
super-tall buildings (more than 80 stories tall) will be erected in
places other than North America and Western Europe. In 2012,
out of the 20 tallest buildings in the world, 18 are in Asia, with 9
in China, 6 in the Middle East, and 3 in Malaysia and Taiwan. Cur-
rently, among the world’s tallest 100 buildings, 23 are in the City of
Dubai alone. The 828-m tall Burj Khalifa, which became in 2010
the world’s tallest building, will likely not hold the record for over
5 years.
This haste to build taller and take concrete to greater loftiness
escalates technical concrete technology challenges and brings
about problems that have not yet been solved. This article dis-
cusses the experience gained and the challenges and possibilities
of SCC construction in super-tall buildings and highlights needed
technological breakthroughs.

2. Experience with SCC in super-tall buildings

According to the Council on Tall Buildings and the Urban

Habitat [3], there have been 320 proposed buildings 500-m or
taller; with 97 buildings taller than 300-m already under construc-
tion around the world in year 2012. The vast majority of these has
been or will be constructed primarily with RC [4]. This is because
high-performance concrete (HPC) has become vital for the con-
struction of skyscrapers from a structural and economical point
of view. Higher mechanical strength is crucial to carry loads and
reduce the cross-sections of vertical load-bearing elements, while
a high modulus of elasticity is necessary to limit deflections and
wind sway. Added to the high early-strength of HPC, prefabricated
reinforcing steel cages and advances in slip- and climb-form
technology, construction schedules with HPC can be accelerated
dramatically. Thus, HPC has become a much stronger contender
Fig. 1. The (a) Taipei 101 (Taiwan), (b) Trump Tower (Chicago), (c) Infiniti Tower
for super-tall buildings compared to structural steel. Structural (Dubai), and (d) Tower One, World Trade Centre New York all used SCC in their
concrete is expected to be the material of choice for future tall construction (Photos from [3]).
82 M.L. Nehdi / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 80–90
course of approximately 22 h, requiring more than 600 trips
made by 30 ready mix trucks [5]. This was believed to be the
largest single pour of SCC in North America [6]. While the grav-
ity framing system only required 35 MPa concrete, cylinder
strengths of 83-MPa at 90 days were specified for all vertical
column and wall elements up to Level 51. Moreover, local areas
in the outrigger zones required 110-MPa concrete at 90 days.
Since such concrete was located in areas with high reinforce-
ment congestion, SCC with a minimum slump flow of 610-mm
was used. It was argued that this was the first application of
110 MPa SCC pumped and placed at an elevation up to 200 m
above grade [7].
The 75-story iconic Infinity Tower (Fig. 1c) twists a full 90°
from its base to its crown located 300-m above ground level. It
required the use of a high-performance concrete with 70-MPa
cube compressive strength and 49-GPa modulus of elasticity at
90 days. High workability was required for placement in zones
of high reinforcement congestion. Hence, SCC was specified for
all vertical concrete and for the entire perimeter moment frame.
The SCC mixture utilized a ternary fly ash-silica fume-Portland
cement binder with a water-to-cementitious materials (w/cm) ra-
tio of 0.3 and high-range water reducing and viscosity modifying
admixtures, with a targeted slump flow of 600-mm [5]. Moreover,
Tower One at the World Trade Center (Fig. 1d) required 97-MPa
at 56-d SCC for the shear walls from the foundations to the
30th floor [8].
Burj Khalifa (Fig. 2a), the current record holder for world’s tall-
est building used C60 and C50 SCC in its piles and rafted founda-
tion, respectively, along with 80-MPa concrete in columns and
core-walls up to around 440-m, and 60-MPa thereafter until
around 586-m high (all cube strength values). The 80-MPa mix-
ture contained 13% fly ash and 10% silica fume with a maximum
aggregate size of 20-mm, with an average slump flow of around
600-mm. When the pumping pressure exceeded approximately
200 bar around floor 127, the structural requirement reduced to
60 MPa, and a mix containing 10-mm maximum aggregate was
used. The concrete having a slump flow of around 600-mm is a
high workability HPC that can be considered ‘‘virtually’’ SCC.
The Kingdom Tower (Fig. 2a), which will shutter the 1-km height
for the first time, will use high-strength SCC in its piles, raft foun-
dation and in vertical column and building core elements.
Fig. 2. The (a) Burj Khalifa (Dubai), and (b) rendering of Kingdom Tower (Jeddah)
have (or will) use SCC in their construction (Photos from [3]).
3. Technical challenges of SCC in super-tall buildings
3.1. Pumping and workability retention
Prior to Burj Khalifa, pumping of concrete to very high eleva-
tions used relatively lower grade concrete [9]. In Tower Two of
the Petronas Towers, 30-MPa concrete was pumped to 380-m high,
while 40-MPa was pumped up to 383-m in Shanghai’s Jin Mao
Building. Taipei 101 has seen the pumping of 27.6 MPa concrete
to 470-m height. The previous record held by the 1994 pumping
of 25 MPa concrete to 532-m in the Riva del Garda hydroelectric
power plant was shuttered when Burj Khalifa used single-stage
pumping of high-strength concrete to 586-m above ground. The
pumping of concrete for Burj Khalkifa was described in detail in
[9].
Pumping blockage in super-tall buildings due to very high
pumping pressure especially in hot weather, casting delays, forma-
tion of aggregate plug, problems with concrete mixtures, etc., are
serious and costly concerns. Thus, large-scale pumping tests prior
to construction, careful monitoring of concrete rheology during
construction and using adequate instrumentation for on-site pipe
pressure monitoring are paramount. The hauling distance and time
of pumping delivery of concrete to reach high altitude and the
changes in the rheology of concrete during such pumping need
careful consideration. The effects of coarse aggregate size and abra-
siveness, type and fineness of sand, cementitious materials and
compatibility with chemical admixtures, workability retention,
flow and passing ability of SCC and its stability (resistance to
bleeding and segregation) and the relationship between rheology
and pumping require a thorough understanding in the pre-qualifi-
cation of concrete mixtures for super-tall building construction.
There is mixed opinions as to whether effort should be in devel-
oping more powerful stationary pumps for single stage pumping to
very high altitudes, or whether multi-stage pumping should be
used, possibly with chemical admixture tempering at intermediate
pumping stages. As the capabilities of existing stationary pumps
are being stretched, there is even consideration of installing full-
scale concrete batch plants that can temporarily occupy a few
floors at mid-height of super-tall buildings. In such a case, concrete
ingredients are lifted to mid-height; concrete is mixed and
pumped from there to higher altitude. It is, however, believed that
advances in chemical admixtures could lead to smart concretes
with controlled setting, whereby concrete can be pumped to high
altitudes, even in hot weather, without any loss of workability,
while cement hydration and setting can be induced at any appro-
priate time by the user.
3.2. Lateral pressure on formwork
The cost related to formwork may exceed the material cost of
concrete and reinforcing steel combined, and this becomes even
more critical for super-tall buildings considering the additional
challenging logistics and safety considerations. The use of SCC in
such structures is associated with the additional care needed for
handling SCC’s increased pressure on formwork. Usually, SCC is as-
sumed to exert full hydrostatic pressure on formwork. Hence, SCC
users often adopt highly conservative assumptions that lead to
limitations on lift height and rate of pouring, and overly strong
formwork [10].
RILEM Technical Committee 233-FPC on form pressure held a
round robin test series to carry out a field validation of various
models proposed for predicting the lateral form pressure exerted
by SCC [11]. Experts in the area representing various models gath-
ered in Stockholm, Sweden in May 2012 to carry out the field eval-
uation on eight instrumented wall elements having different
 M.L. Nehdi / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 80–90 83

geometries and cast using SCC with different mix designs and
pouring rates. Lateral pressure was monitored using pressure
transducers mounted on panel surfaces. The necessary parameters
used as inputs in the various parameters were evaluated simulta-
neously from the same batch. The SCC casting yielded a wide scope
of form pressures. It was concluded that all the ten models evalu-
ated could predict SCC lateral pressure on formwork satisfactorily.
Simple parameters such as slump flow or T50 were found not to be
sufficient to predict form pressure. No correlation could be found
between the casting rate and the relative maximum lateral form
pressure. It was therefore argued that the behavior of concrete at
rest must be taken into consideration for an accurate prediction
of SCC form pressure. Moreover, it was insinuated that for a de-
signer to create an acceptance criterion for SCC delivered to the
job site based on a truly effective form pressure model, a process
for quantifying the effects of admixture dosage, temperature and
moisture compensation is needed.
Alawneh et al. [12] compared the formwork pressure prediction
models of self-consolidated concrete against several practical data
obtained from full-scale field experiments. The objective was to
evaluate the prediction accuracy of each model, its ability to in-
clude extrinsic parameters contributing to the boundary condi-
tions, the dependability of equations for pressure calculation, and
the practicality of the models for regular use. They concluded that
Galeota’s model was the most accurate versus field data. Khayat’s
model had the most provisions for boundary conditions. Gardner’s
model offered most dependability. The DIN model seemed to be
the simplest and most practical to use. All models had strengths
and weaknesses, and the maximum pressure predicted using all
considered models averaged 72% of the corresponding hydrostatic
pressure.
While there have been several studies on the pressure decay of
SCC versus time, the effects of thixotropy and gelation, etc., there is
currently no accurate predictive tools for the formwork pressure
applied by SCC after it has undergone pumping to high altitudes;
this aspect still needs dedicated research. Table 1 summarizes data
of lateral pressure on formwork compiled by McCarthy et al. [13].
The maximum formwork pressure of SCC ranged from as low as
20% of the hydrostatic pressure, to levels beyond 100%. Hence,
[17] recommends designing the formwork to full liquid head until
research becomes available to support the use of a less conserva-
tive approach. Low w/cm high-early strength SCC is increasingly
being used in tall building construction. Such SCC is associated
with high-early autogenous shrinkage strains. Considering the dif-
ficulties in moist-curing of vertical columns and walls at high alti-
tude, innovative controlled permeability formwork that is both
adequate for rapid rise SCC casting and capable of moisture supply
to SCC at early-age is highly sought-after.
3.3. Modulus of elasticity
In modern tall buildings, heavy masonry partitions have been
often replaced with lightweight partitions. Combined with the
wide use of ultimate-strength design, this has led to increased
loads on relatively smaller section columns. Thus, higher elastic
modulus SCC is necessary to reduce the elastic shortening of verti-
cal RC structural elements.
To mitigate excessive friction in pipes and blockage of flow in
congested RC sections, SCC is often designed with reduced coarse
aggregate content, which is not conducive to developing higher
modulus of elasticity. While the use of harder aggregates can in-
crease the elastic modulus of SCC, the abrasion characteristics of
the coarse aggregate influence the rate of wear of the pipeline, par-
ticularly at high pressure. For instance, when abrasive igneous
aggregate is used, the lifespan of a pipeline can be reduced to
around 10,000 m3, which can be a serious cost consideration [4].
Increasing the elastic modulus of SCC through increasing its com-
pressive strength entails using a lower water-to-cementitious
materials (w/cm) ratio, which in turn implies more stringent rheo-
logical and pumping complications. Therefore, achieving high elas-
tic modulus SCC for super-tall buildings is a compromise that
compels careful consideration of the concrete mechanical strength,
elastic, shrinkage and creep deformations, aggregate type and con-
tent, and type of cementitious materials used.

Table 1
Data of SCC lateral pressure on formwork from selected references.

Studya Slump flow Additions/ Element number & Pour height Rate of concrete rise Max. pressure Max. pressure/
(mm) fillersb typec (m) m/h kN/m2 hydrostatic (%)
McCarthy et al. [13] 780 LS 1C-job site 4.6 14.0 123.5 116
600–730 LS 5W-job site 4.6–5.6 2.7–7.0 55.5–142.5 51–116
700 LS 1W-job site 2.4 0.3 6.5 11
640–680 FA 4C control 7.7–7.9 3.0, 80.0 52.5–121 61–82
750 GGBS 1W-control 8.0 0.3 46.0 25
GGBS
Cauberg and Desmeyer 685–810 NA 3C 3.8 10.0 69.0–85.0 85–97
(2007)
Assaad and Khayat (2006) 540, 745 FA/SF 2C 2.8 10.0 49.5–58.0 88, 94
Tejeda-Dominguez et al. 600–740 FA 1C 7.9 18.3 54.5 79
(2005)
600–740 FA 1W 2.9 1.2 38.5 24
Fedroff and Frosch (2004) 660–710 LS 2W 3.3 1.2 21.0–26.0 34, 37
Vanhove et al. (2004) 700 LS 1C 10.4 24.0 197.5 80
700 LS 1C 10.4 10.3 174.5 74
Leemann and Hauffmann 700 FA/ 1W 3.9 18.8 97.0 110
(2003)
570–660 Retarder FA 3C 2.6 8.0 50.5–52.0 87–90
Billberg (2003) 650–780 LS 7W 2.9 0.8–2.3 12.5–49.5 34–77
Proske and Graubner 550–780 FA 5C 2.9 25–60 40.0–90.0 43–97
(2002)
Bernabeu (2000) 720–890 LS 3C 5.0 11.0–60.0 110.5–120.5 96–105
580–890 LS 5C 2.2–5.0 10.0–150.0 46.0–114.5 83–100
620–800 LS 8W 2.1–7.5 6.0–120.0 32.5–111.5 29–100
a
Details on References listed in this column can be found in McCarthy et al. [13].
b
LS: limestone filler, FA: fly ash, GGBS: ground granulated blast furnace slag, SF : silica fume.
c
C: column, W: wall (as per CIRIA 108 definition).
84
Domone [14] examined the relationships between cube com-
pressive strength and static elastic modulus values of normally vi-
brated concrete (NC) and SCC. Considerable scatter in the data
collected from the literature was observed as expected from con-
crete made with different mix designs, ingredients and curing
parameters. However, it was established that the best fit line for
the NC data was very close to that of the approximate relationship
given in the Euro-code (EC2), but the stiffness of the SCC mixtures
was on average, about 40% lower than that of the NC mixtures at
low strength levels (i.e. around 20 MPa), with the difference reduc-
ing to less than 5% at high strengths (i.e. around 90–100 MPa). It
was argued that this behavior is consistent with the lower coarse
aggregate content in SCC.
More recently, Garcia-Theran et al. [15] evaluated the modulus
of elasticity of 40 laboratory SCC mixtures made using materials
and admixtures commercially available in Puerto-Rico, with vary-
ing w/cm ratios, coarse-to-total aggregate ratios, and total aggre-
gate volume content. The modulus of elasticity of SCC had
similar value to that of NC provided both mixtures have similar
aggregate volume content. A lower modulus of elasticity was ob-
tained for SCC having lower total aggregate volume. Expressions
given in the ACI code to compute the modulus of elasticity were
found applicable for SCC.
Craeye et al. [16] examined the mechanical behavior of SCC
with particular focus on the modulus of elasticity and tensile
strength based on data from more than 250 studies from 35 differ-
ent countries. The results obtained from the database were com-
pared with existing models developed for NC in the EC2 and the
Model Code (MC90 and/or MC2010). Their results show that the
modulus of elasticity of SCC is similar to that on NC, with an impor-
tant but similar scatter. The data conformed well to the EC2. While
the [17] reasonably captured the relationship between compres-
sive strength and E-modulus, it tended to underestimate the mod-
ulus of elasticity.
The C80 concrete for the lower portion of Burj Khalifa had a
specified Young’s Elastic Modulus of 43,800 MPa. A survey of de-
signs of some of the world’s tallest buildings has shown that struc-
tural engineers still use equations developed for NC (e.g. [44]
Section 8.5.1) to calculate the elastic modulus of HPC and SCC.
However, various studies in the literature have shown that such
equations tend to overestimate the elastic modulus of HPC and
SCC. For instance, Gardoni et al. [18] argued that most of the exist-
ing models used in practice for predicting the elastic modulus of
SCC have been developed for NC and only two models available
in the literature have been specifically developed for SCC. Available
models are shown to provide biased and inaccurate elastic modu-
lus estimates when applied to SCC.
Table 2 exhibits a comparison between the modulus of elastic-
ity of 65, 75, 85 and 100-MPa SCC calculated using the equation of
ACI 318-08 Section 8.5.1, versus predictions made by various other
Table 2
Modulus of elasticity of various high-strength concrete grades calculated using various equations and experimental values for two SCC mixture designs.
Modulus of elasticity prediction method
pffiffiffiffi
ACI 318-08 (Section 8.5.1) (Ec ¼ 4700 fc0 )
ACI-363 – Corrasquillo et al. (1982)
pffiffiffiffi q
Ec ¼ ð3:32 fc0 þ 6:9Þ  ð2346 Þ
Gardner and Zhao [59] Ec ¼ 9ðfc0 Þ
1=3
0:3 q 1:5
Norwegian code Ec ¼ 9:5ðfc0 Þ  ð2400Þ
q 2 f 0 1=3
Noguchi et al. [60] Ec ¼ k1 k2  33500  ð2400Þ  ð60c Þ
Mix design
Mix with (940 kg/m3-3/800 ) aggregate
Mix with (560-1/200 + 380-3/800 ) kg/m3 aggregate
M.L. Nehdi / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 80–90
methods specifically developed for HPC. Actually measured values
by the author for two different SCC mixture designs are also
shown. Results indicate that there is need to adopt accurate and
suitable predictive tools for the elastic modulus of SCC. Considering
the substantial effect of the construction sequence on the vertical
shortening of columns and walls in tall buildings, elastic modulus
predictive tools for SCC and HPC must consider the particular mix-
ture design, curing conditions, and age of concrete as input param-
eters. The elastic modulus should be perceived as a time-evolving
parameter since the construction of a tall building can take several
years with variable loading history on columns and walls.
It is believed that advances in nanotechnology and nano-sized
fibers, novel aggregates and their surface treatments, and innova-
tions in confined concrete modular systems can lead to ultra-high
elastic modulus special concrete for super-tall buildings in the fu-
ture. However, this requires dedicated research and concerted ef-
forts through the various sectors of tall building stakeholders.
3.4. Shrinkage, creep and differential shortening
Differential shortening of columns, walls and vertical core ele-
ments in a tall building can cause structural and non-structural
deficiencies. Thus, measures to reduce differential shortening be-
tween the perimeter columns and interior walls are crucial. Creep
due to sustained load can result in redistribution of member forces,
possibly increasing the lateral deflections of columns and hence
the moment magnification. Vertical members that shorten less re-
ceive additional load from the adjacent vertical members. As the
concrete shortens due to creep and shrinkage, reinforcing rebar
must attract additional compressive stress to maintain the same
strain as the concrete. Hence, part of the load in a reinforced con-
crete column is transferred from the concrete to the rebar. This
mechanism reduces the creep in the concrete since it carries less
stress, but the additional stress in the rebar should be accounted
for.
Differential shortening of columns and walls can also instigate
improper functioning of elevators, damage or deformation of pipe-
lines, cracking of partitions and finishes, damage to curtain walls or
other building envelope materials, along with several other ser-
viceability problems [19]. Furthermore, the attached horizontal
structural members could tilt from their original horizontal posi-
tions and develop additional shear and moment loads that can
cause serious structural problems if not accounted for properly in
design. Adjacent vertical elements can have dissimilar cross-sec-
tional areas, reinforcement levels, and different loads applied at
different ages. For instance, the construction of the central core
of a super-tall building usually advances several floors ahead of
the perimeter columns. Hence, it is arduous to eliminate this prob-
lem entirely; differential shortening of columns due to long-term
creep and shrinkage is inevitable.
Predicted modulus of elasticity (MPa)
C65 C75 C85 C100
37,893 40,703 43,332 47,000
35,590 37,840 40,290 42,732
36,187 37,954 39,571 41,774
34,910 36,663 38,295 40,208
36,738 38,444 41,480 42,646
Measured compressive strength (MPa) – Measured elastic modulus (MPa) –
28 days 28 days
104 42,600
96 41,600
 M.L. Nehdi / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 80–90 85

Accurately calculating vertical shortening (elastic, shrinkage,

All SCC mixes exhibited higher creep

(SCC had larger comp. strength than

2 SCC had slightly higher creep than

SCC generally had higher creep than

Creep of SCC 30% higher than NC at

creep) for super-tall buildings is tedious and complex. Highly

Creep of SCC coincided with that of

SCC had 18% lower creep at 365-d

NC at same compressive strength.

SCC had 10–20% higher @ 300-d
elaborate and complex procedures requiring large computational

control, 1-SCC had 70% higher

efforts that utilize stress transfer methods and age-adjusted

same compressive strength

effective modulus methods are available to evaluate creep and

SCC creep versus control

shrinkage effects in tall buildings. However, it is common in

creep strain @ 90d

super-tall building projects to perform creep and shrinkage test-

than that of NC.

ing, for example as per the provisions of [20]. Still, similar to nor-
mal concrete, there is no agreed upon procedure as to what are
the exact ages at which the creep loading should be applied,
nor is it widely accepted what the load level and duration should

NC)

NC
be. Moreover, how relevant this test data would be is closely re-
lated to the construction sequence and rate of vertical rise in the

NC with w/cm = 0.29–

HPC with w/cm 0.34,

320 kg/m3 of cement

NC with w/cm = 0.42

NC w/cm 0.285–0.42

0.80, 250–400 kg/m3

NC with w/c = 0.47,
building, which are not fully predictable at the design stage and

NC with w/c = 0.40

410 kg/m3 cement.
Control specimens
the onset of construction.

NC w/cm = 0.46

300–380 kg/m3
In Burj Khalifa, time-dependent effects of creep, shrinkage, and

cement, SF
variation of concrete stiffness with time, sequence of loading and

cement
foundation settlement were analyzed using various three-dimen-

0.38
sional finite-element models, each representing a discrete time
during construction. The GL2000 model [21] with additional

10 MPa applied at
28–37 at 28 days
loading time (%)
equations to incorporate the effects of reinforcement and com-

and 0.70 @ 2, 7,
0.20, 0.40, 0.55
35, 55 at 7 or

40 at 29 days

25–31 at 7-d
plex loading history was used to predict creep and shrinkage ver-

28 and 90d
Load/comp
strength @
sus time up to 50 years for various volume-to-surface (V/S) ratios

28 days
ranging from 38-mm to 500-mm. The predicted creep was within

28d
33
a range of 15%, while the predicted shrinkage range was 40%. It
was argued that understanding the time-dependent inelastic

28d@20 ± 2 °C RH = 60 ± 5% Creep test

7 days at RH > 98 ± 1% then at 50 ± 1%

24 h @ 20 °C and 90% RH Then 20 °C

creep and shrinkage strains of concrete with high V/S ratios needs

1d @ 20 ± 2 °C and RH > 90% then

20 °C and RH = 70% up to 91 days

further research [22].
SCC typically has a high cement paste volume to achieve the de- After demolding 20 °C, RH = 60%
sired fresh characteristics, which can increase its shrinkage and

Steam curing age 2–16 h

18–25 °C and RH = 60%

creep. Table 3 summarizes creep testing data of SCC versus control

and 70% RH up to 91d

@ 20 ± 2 °C RH > 90%
NC from selected sources. There is compelling experimental evi-
Curing conditions

dence that SCC undergoes greater shrinkage and creep compared

RH and 23 °C.
to NC with similar strength grade, but larger coarse aggregate con-
tent and lower cement paste volume. It should be noted that sev-
eral parameters affecting creep are not captured in Table 3; the
reader is referred to the original sources for such details.
Comparison of experimental creep data from selected sources in the open literature for SCC and NC.

While the findings of various studies are not coherent, the

0–4 mm: 32%, 4–8 mm: 16%,
8–16 mm: 17%, 16–32 mm:
29.0–39.0 Coarse aggregate

creep coefficient and the specific creep seem to be typically 5–

10% higher for SCC compared to that of NC having similar binder
37–60 S/A mass ratio, %

Sand/gravel = 0.67–1.22
aggregate volume ratio

aggregate mass ratio

0.39–0.54 Sand/total

0.48–0.60 Sand/total
composition (e.g. [30]. The higher creep of SCC is often related to
0.55 S/A mass ratio
Aggregate details

its higher paste volume. For instance, Heirman et al. [27] showed
35% (by mass)

that when the w/cm and grain-size distribution of the aggregates

used for NC and SCC are identical, the higher paste volume of SCC
volume, %

(around 150 l/m3) causes larger creep strain and creep coeffi-
cients of SCC compared to that of NC.
Furthermore, since autogenous shrinkage generally increases
III + 107–177 kg/m3 FA

with increasing paste volume at constant w/cm ratio, SCC usually

cements, 14% LS, 18%
520 kg/m3 of various

240, 300 kg/m3 LS or

376–427 kg/m3 Type
440–500 kg/m3 Type

shrinks more than NC having similar binder composition and

360 kg/m3 cement

260 to 500 kg/m3

cements + 100–

271–408 kg/m3
355–400 kg/m3

strength class [31]. Similarly, due to its higher volume of paste,

cement 22% FA
MS, HE 20% FA
199 kg/m3 LS

FA, 70 GGBS

slag cement

the total shrinkage of SCC is larger than that of NC (e.g. [30]. At

cement SF

constant w/cm ratio, increasing the paste volume leads to a linear

various
Binder

increase of drying shrinkage. When integrated over a super-tall

element, the increased creep and shrinkage deformations of SCC
cannot be neglected.
w/cm

0.45–

0.34–

0.23–

0.46–

0.33–

0.24–

Kim et al. [25] observed that the [32], ACI 209 [33], and [34] mod-
0.57

0.28

0.46
0.40

0.40

0.60

0.80

els provide fairly good predictions of the creep compliance for both
NC and high-early strength SCC. Yet, for more accurate predictions,
Mazzotti and Savoia [23]

Leeman & Hoffman [28]

such models need to be calibrated with data from full-scale struc-

Long and Khayat [24]

tural elements. Long and Khayat [24] and Khayat and Long [35] eval-
Heirman et al. [27]
Leeman et al. [26]

uated the shrinkage and creep of 16 SCC mixtures with a slump flow
Kim et al. [25]

of 680 ± 20 mm made with various binder types and contents, w/cm

Persson [29]
Reference

ratios, dosages of viscosity-modifying admixture, and sand-to-total

aggregate ratios. Two HPC mixtures with w/cm of 0.34 and 0.38
Table 3

were tested as control mixtures. SCC developed 5–30% higher drying

shrinkage at 300 days than the control HPC, but with similar
86 M.L. Nehdi / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 80–90
autogenous shrinkage. SCC also had up to 20% higher creep than HPC
of similar w/cm. The [36] and modified [37] models provided
adequate predictions of shrinkage and creep for pre-stressed SCC.
Baidya et al. [38] evaluated code provisions for assessing the
elastic modulus, shrinkage and creep strains for NC and HSC. Com-
paring the predictions of such equations to laboratory data yielded
large variations. It was argued that accurate numerical predictions
of such properties and their effects on structural behavior are ex-
tremely difficult. They suggested using upper and lower limits
for shrinkage strains and creep coefficient in the design stage when
such predictive models are used.
Generally, much more experimental data is yet needed to ac-
quire greater confidence in predictive equations for the elastic
modulus, shrinkage strain and creep coefficient of SCC. There is
also need to quantify the implications of possible increased shrink-
age and creep of SCC on the construction sequence of tall buildings
and develop systematic provisions to define the needed modifica-
tions in reinforcement detailing and construction sequence. In
addition, existing predictive models for shrinkage and creep have
been developed for NC and generally do not capture the effect of
the paste volume. The various SCC mixture designs and ingredients
used make the development of a versatile and accurate model
complicated. Adjustments of existing models for various types of
SCC having different binders and formulations may be required.
3.5. Massive SCC foundations and heat of hydration
The use of low-heat cement in SCC rafts is not new. For instance,
the Akashi–Kaikyo Bridge, the world’s longest suspension bridge
with a main span of 1990-m, which was completed in 1998 used
such concrete [39]. Both the current world’s tallest building (Burj
Khalifa) and the one that will possibly claim the title in about
5 years (Kingdom Tower) use massive rafted foundations on a large
number of deep piles cast under seawater. Anti-washout SCC is
ideal for casting such piles and a material of choice for the massive
foundations. Due to the large thickness (typically 3–5-m) of such
massive foundations and their congested reinforcement, NC is
not suitable for their construction. However, to provide a colloidal
volume allowing greater cohesiveness and resistance to bleeding
and segregation, SCC mixture designs often involve increased pow-
der content. Furthermore, the coarse aggregate content and its
maximum particle size are often reduced to mitigate friction and
blockage of SCC flow. Such measures are not conducive to develop-
ing SCC for mass concrete applications requiring reduced heat of
hydration and enhanced resistance to thermal cracking.
The Burj Khalifa foundation consisted of 3.7-m-thick mat slab cast
with C50 (cube strength) SCC supported on 194 bored cast-in-place con-
crete piles [40,41]. Thermal cracking mitigation was considered in the
pile and raft mixture design. The piles are 1.5-m in diameter and approx-
imately 43-m long. C60-SCC was placed for the piles by the tremie meth-
od utilizing polymer slurry. The SCC had 25% fly ash, 7% silica fume, w/
cm of 0.32 and incorporated a viscosity modifying admixture, achieving
a slump flow of 675 ± 75-mm. The 50-MPa SCC raft mixture incorpo-
rated 40% fly ash and a w/cm of 0.34. Large 3.7  3.7-m test mock-up
cubes of the raft were poured to verify the placement procedures. These
were also instrumented to monitor the concrete temperature rise and la-
ter checked by petrographic analysis [40].
The Donald Trump Tower adopted 3-m thick, 3600-m3 mat slab
using 69-MPa SCC. Limits were required on concrete temperature
at the time of placement, during hydration, and on differential
temperature limits during the curing process. The top surface of
the mat was insulated to minimize the temperature gradient over
the depth of the mat. The SCC mixture incorporated Type II Port-
land Cement, Class C fly ash, high-range water reducing and viscos-
ity-modifying admixtures, with a w/cm ratio of 0.26–0.28, and a
target flow spread of up to 710-mm [5].
Nehdi et al. [42] carried out a study on three 5.5-m thick and
42.6–44-m diameter massive slab foundations cast 70-m below
ground level. A total of 24,000 m3 of SCC with high-volume
replacement ternary cement was used in the SCC foundations,
which were instrumented for thermal data acquisition. Surface
insulation was used to mitigate the thermal gradient between
the core and surface. The massive foundations were successfully
built without thermal cracking.
Fig. 3a illustrates thermal data [42] (unpublished work) for an
instrumented C60 SCC raft foundation 3-m thick, 15-m wide and
50-m long with surface insulation. The concrete mixture had
330 kg/m3 of Type I cement, 40 kg/m3 silica fume and 120 kg/m3
fly ash. The thermal differential between the core and surface
was minimized due to the presence of effective surface insulation.
Fig. 3b shows thermal data from an instrumented 1.5-m diameter
column made with C100 SCC without surface insulation. It is
shown that the thermal differential can reach 40 °C and thus ther-
mal cracking mitigation scenarios should be considered.
It should be noted that casting massive raft foundations for tall
buildings can take more than 24-h. The bottom layers of the raft
would have undergone significant hydration and reached high
temperature, while the top layers with significant time delay
would still be cool. This tends to generate substantial thermal gra-
dients at very early age when the concrete has not yet gained sig-
nificant tensile strength and its coefficient of thermal expansion is
relatively much higher.
The trend for using anti-washout SCC and low-heat SCC for deep
piles and raft foundations of tall buildings, respectively, will likely
grow rapidly. Yet, there is still dearth of information on using SCC
in mass concrete applications. Research is needed on low-heat SCC
having adequate mechanical strength and durability for super-tall
building construction. Likewise, there is need for computational
tools that can account not only for the mixture design of SCC, the
environmental conditions, exact geometry and boundary condi-
tions, but also the casting sequence and the time-dependent
3-dimensional development of tensile strength and thermal stress
to compute the overall risk of thermal cracking. Such computa-
tional tools can substitute for costly and time consuming large-
scale mock-ups, which cannot fully replicate the construction
sequence and boundary conditions of tall building foundations.
3.6. High Strength SCC reinforced with high-strength rebar
To significantly reduce the cross-sectional area of vertical RC
elements in super-tall buildings, adequate wind and seismic design
measures and reductions of dead load, for example through the use
of lightweight partitions and horizontal elements can help. Yet,
congested steel reinforcement remains a challenge in the design
of RC tall buildings, particularly for seismic and wind load
resistance.
Compared to the industry standard 400-MPa steel, it was re-
ported that using 690-MPa high-strength steel can reduce the
amount of seismic confinement steel in columns and shear-wall
boundary elements by about 40%, and can make the construction
of beam-column connections 25% faster [43]. However, the use of
high-strength steel in the design of tall buildings is still limited
in design codes. For instance, ACI-318M Section 9.4 (Design
Strength for Reinforcement) indicates that values of the specified
strength for reinforcement, fy shall not exceed 550 MPa, except
for pre-stressing steel and for transverse reinforcement. The use
of high-strength SCC reinforced with high-strength steel can offer
a desirable solution for accelerating the construction of tall build-
ings. Yet, it appears that there is currently lack of relevant research
and supporting data to warrant consideration of this option in de-
sign codes.
 M.L. Nehdi / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 80–90 87

3.7. Performance of SCC under cyclic and seismic loading
The typically reduced coarse aggregate content of SCC and pos-
sible effect on the aggregate interlock at cracks and energy dissipa-
tion during cyclic loading has been a concern. However, related
experimental data have been mixed. For instance, Domone [14] ar-
gued that there are conflicting data on the toughness and ductility
of SCC. Fracture toughness tests on plain concrete indicated that
SCC may have similar to or lower toughness than that of NC, yet
structural performance tests on reinforced concrete elements
showed greater ductility, especially for columns. Restrepo et al.
[45] tested 35%-scale bridge column units made with 55-MPa
SCC to compare their seismic performance when built using
high-performance reinforcing steel and conventional ASTM A-706
Grade 60 reinforcement. It was observed that the presence of
SCC did not adversely affect the response of the tested units.
However, Kim et al. [46] investigated the influence of aggregate
and paste volumes on the shear capacity of SCC and compared re-
sults with those obtained on similar NC. Twelve SCC mixture pro-
portions made with two aggregate types (river gravel and
limestone), and three different volumes of coarse aggregate were
evaluated. A total of 48 push-off samples (36 SCC and 12 NC sam-
ples) were examined for shear characteristics. The crack slip, crack
width, normal stress, shear stress and energy absorption were
measured to evaluate the aggregate interlock of SCC versus that
of NC. Their results indicate that the SCC specimens exhibited less
aggregate interlock than their NC counterparts.
Lin and Chen [47] explored the shear behavior of two types of
SCC beams: Type I (SCC1) contained a greater amount of coarse
aggregate, whereas Type II (SCC2) contained a lesser amount of
coarse aggregate. In total eight NC beams, eight SCC1 beams,
and eight SCC2 beams were tested. The overall performance of
beams made with SCC1 having high coarse aggregate outranked
or was comparable to that of NC beams, whereas beams with
lower aggregate content SCC2 achieved inferior structural perfor-
mance than that of NC beams in many regards. Hegger and Bülte
[48] reported that tests on pre-stressed beams revealed that SCC
did not significantly affect the shear capacity, while SCC’s smaller
aggregates and higher cement paste volume reduced the crack-
friction capacity.

Fig. 3a. Illustration of thermal data for C60 SCC raft foundation 3-m thick, 15-m wide and 50-m long with surface insulation.

Fig. 3b. Illustration of thermal data for C100 SCC column without surface insulation.
88 M.L. Nehdi / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 80–90

More recently, Itterbeeck et al. [49] tested full-scale beam spec-
imens under four point-bending and monitored force versus
deflection along with the crack development. The shear capacity
of several SCC beams was also examined and compared to that of
NC counterparts. The effect of the reinforcement ratio and geome-
try of the beams on the shear capacity was investigated and the
failure modes of specimens were noted. Their results indicate that
SCC had similar or slightly better shear capacity than NC and that
the EC2 provided reasonable prediction of the shear capacity of
SCC. These static test results however, do not capture cyclic loading
effects.
Soleymani Ashtiani et al. [50] compared the behavior of three
beam-column joints (BCJ) (two SCC and one NC) designed as per
the New Zealand standards NZS3101. One SCC subassembly was
designed with about half of the required joint shear reinforcement.
The BCJs were tested under a displacement-controlled quasi-static
reversed cyclic regime. It was found that none of the seismically
important features were compromised in SCC BCJs.
Said and Nehdi [51] compared the seismic performance of rein-
forced NC and SCC full-scale BCJs and found that reducing the
coarse aggregate content in SCC mixtures can reduce the contribu-
tion of the aggregate interlock mechanism to the total shear resis-
tance, which led to more rapid deterioration under cyclic loading
(Fig. 4). There is still need for research to quantify the exact effect
of the coarse aggregate content in SCC on its shear behavior and
performance under cyclic loading, and to examine whether this
behavior has any implications in the seismic and wind design of
tall buildings.
3.8. Performance of SCC in fire events
Fire events in tall buildings are associated with substantial risk
because of difficult evacuation and fire-fighting access and logis-
tics. Hence, considering the rapidly growing use of high-strength
SCC in tall building construction, the performance of this material
in fire should be studied with caution. Fang et al. [52] conducted 3-
h tests using ISO-834 [53] standard fire exposure on two full-scale
beam-column specimens made of NC and SCC and designed for
seismic conditions according to ACI 318-08. It was observed that
the vertical deflections at load points, horizontal displacement,
and rotation at the freely supported beam-end of each beam of
thermal conductivity, specific heat, and thermal expansion than
that of HPC and FAC in the 20–800 °C temperature range. While
mitigation mechanisms of HPC spalling under fire, such as the
addition of fibers and air entrainment [56,57] are also beneficial
in SCC, research is needed to quantify the time–temperature
dependent fire damage of SCC with various strength grades,
w/cm ratio, type of cementitious materials, aggregate types and
dosages, and to rationally relate such a behavior to possible fire
events in super-tall buildings.
3.9. SCC and wind design of super-tall buildings
Increasingly taller, more slender and irregularly shaped con-
temporary buildings are highly susceptible to the actions of wind.
Their structural design is generally governed by the demand for
adequate strength and stiffness against dynamic movements in-
duced by strong wind. Lateral drift and motion perception criteria
become therefore greater serviceability requirements as a building
grows taller, and mitigating wind-induced sway and vibrations in
tall buildings becomes a more critical challenge in the design pro-
cess [58].
Extensive wind tunnel testing is usually used for the wind engi-
neering of tall buildings. The experimental data is used along with
dynamic properties of the building to compute its dynamic re-
sponse and overall full-scale wind force distributions, with impli-
cations on the design of the towers stiffness and mass
distribution [40]. In this regard the strength and stiffness of the
concrete have a very influential role. At present, high elastic mod-
ulus concrete probably offers the best option for constructing
super-tall buildings with least wind sway. Reducing wind sway
has been a major attractive feature for using RC in modern tall
buildings. However, there is still lack of quantitative information
on the performance and cost variation due to using SCC having
different values of elastic modulus in super-tall buildings versus
other construction options such as structural steel. Moreover,
nanotechnology innovations, the use shape-memory alloys,
150
100
Beam tip load (kN)

the two assemblies were comparable during the heating phase

50
and residual strength tests. However, the SCC specimen exhibited
-200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200
more severe explosive spalling. Both specimens failed in ductile
flexural mode with the residual flexural strength of approximately
80% times that calculated at ambient condition. -50
Reinhardt and Stegmaier [54] argued that the fire behavior of
SCC is not fully understood and related existing data are conflict- -100

ing. Therefore, they subjected to ISO-834 fire testing specimens

-150
with an edge length of 300 mm made with different types of SCC Beam tip displacement (mm)
having compressive strengths from 25 to 65 MPa. After fire expo-
sure, they measured the compressive strength at 28 days, weight 150
loss due to drying, spalling of specimens, and the residual com-
100
pressive strength. The data was compared to the performance of
control NC specimens. No significant difference between the refer-
Beam tip load (kN)

50
ence concrete and the SCC mixtures was found with respect to
spalling and residual compressive strength after fire. Since their -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200

tests were conducted on plain non-loaded specimens, and consid-

ering contradictory results of plain and reinforced specimens sub- -50
jected to loading in the literature, they recommended performing
systematic fire tests on loaded specimens. -100
Kodur and Khaliq [55] evaluated the specific heat, thermal con-
ductivity, and thermal expansion of HPC, SCC, and fly ash concrete -150
Beam tip displacement (mm)
(FAC), in the temperature range of 20–800 °C, taking into account
the effects of steel, polypropylene, and hybrid fibers on thermal Fig. 4. Illustration of beam tip load versus beam tip displacement of (a) NC beam
properties. Their experimental results indicate that SCC had higher column joint, and (b) SCC beam column joint under quasi-static cyclic loading.
 M.L. Nehdi / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 80–90
synthetic super-hard aggregates, confined ultra-high strength
concrete, etc. can lead to innovations in making stiffer concrete
structural systems for super-tall buildings. Dedicated research on
ultra-high elastic modulus SCC and its wind and seismic design
in super tall buildings is an open research area.
3.10. Summary and concluding remarks
We have entered an era of super-tall RC buildings. With that
came several technical concrete technology challenges that need
concerted efforts, dedicated research and innovative solutions.
There is need for concrete that can be pumped to altitudes of sev-
eral hundred meters even in stringent environmental conditions,
maintain its workability and stability during extended periods of
high-pressure pumping, and can effectively fill congested sections
without blockage, bleeding or segregation. Such a concrete must
also have very high compressive strength to reduce the cross-
sections of vertical load-bearing columns and walls, very high
elastic modulus, and low shrinkage and creep to reduce differential
shortening in super-tall structures. This concrete must also provide
adequate behavior for wind and seismic design and suitable per-
formance in fire events. This concrete is also needed for massive
elements in tall buildings such as piles, rafted foundations, and
large columns and building core elements, which further require
mitigation of thermal cracking. Obviously, the design of such con-
crete involves several conflicting parameters.
Research on such ‘‘super-concrete’’ for super-tall buildings of-
ten requires large-scale testing including several hundred meters
long pumping test systems, massive thermal test mock-ups and a
large number of frames for long-term creep tests, for which many
concrete research laboratories are not equipped. Furthermore, the
existing related design provisions and predictive equations and
models are not adequate to compute the time-, curing-, and load-
ing history-dependent elastic, shrinkage and creep deformations of
such concrete. There is need to develop comprehensive experimen-
tal databases specifically for high-strength SCC in order to develop
and properly calibrate more accurate predictive models for its
properties and adequate design provisions.
Knowledge in this area has mainly been driven by experience
acquired in tall building projects under the pressures of budget
and profit demands and tight construction schedules, which is
not conducive to fostering typically incremental scientific break-
throughs and innovations. Hence, it is reasoned herein that organi-
zations such as ACI and RILEM should dedicate technical
committees for concrete in tall buildings and that industry invests
in research that addresses the various gaps of knowledge and tech-
nical hurdles for super-tall RC construction.
References
[1] Jones WD. How to build a mile-high skyscraper. IEEE spectrum; 2007. p. 52–
53.
[2] Cosgrove T. Tall concrete buildings come of age. Eng News-Record
1989;223(22):25.
[3] CTBUH. The Skyscraper Database, <http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/
?list_type=1> [accessed 25.12.12].
[4] Aldred J. Burj Khalifa – a new high for high performance concrete. Proc ICE Civil
Eng 2010;163:66–73.
[5] Pawlikowski JJ, Rankin DS, Young BS. SCC in iconic supertall towers: trump
tower, Chicago, USA; Infinity Tower, Dubai, UAE; Burj Khalifa, Dubai, UAE. In:
Proceedings of 5th North American conference on design and use of self-
consolidating concrete, Chicago, IL, USA, May 12–15, 2013, 11 p.
[6] Nasvik J. Reaching new heights in Chicago: trump towers over the rest as the
tallest structurally reinforced concrete building in the US. Concr Construct
2007;52(4):24–9.
[7] Baker W, Korista S, Sinn R, Pennings K, Rankin D. Trump international hotel
and tower: design and construction of Chicago’s concrete colossus. Concr Int
2006;28(7):28–32.
[8] Phelan WS. Self-consolidating concrete (SCC): Today’s challenge and
tomorrow’s prosperity. In: Proceedings of 5th North American Conference on
89
design and use of self-consolidating concrete, Chicago, Il, USA, May 12–15,
2013, 4 p.
[9] Aldred J. Pumping concrete on the Burj Dubai. In: Hoff GC, editor. CANMET/ACI
T.C. Holland symposium of advances in concrete technology; 2007. p. 66–73.
[10] Lange D. How tall, how fast, how safe? New insights into form-work pressure
of self-consolidating concrete. Concr Construct 2008;53(11):33–5.
[11] Billberg PH et al. Field validation of models for predicting lateral form pressure
exerted by SCC. In: Proceedings of 5th North American conference on design
and use of self-consolidating Concrete, Chicago, IL, USA; 2013. 13 p.
[12] Alawneh M, Sekpe V, Elkady M, Morcous G. Comparison of self-consolidated
concrete formwork pressure prediction models. In: Proceedings of 5th North
American conference on design and use of SCC, Chicago, Il, USA; 2013. 12 p.
[13] McCarthy MJ, Dhir RK, Caliskan S, Ashraf MK. Influence of self-compacting
concrete on the lateral pressure on formwork. Struct Build
2012;165(SB3):127–38.
[14] Domone PL. A review of the hardened mechanical properties of self-
compacting concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2007;29:1–12.
[15] Garcia-Theran M, Caceres A, Pando M. Experimental evaluation of the modulus
of elasticity for self-consolidating concrete. In: Proceedings of 5th North
American conference on the design and use of SCC, Chicago, Illinois, USA;
2013. 12 p.
[16] Craeye B, Itterbeeck PV, Desnerck P, Boel V, De Schutter G. Survey on the
modulus of elasticity and the tensile strength of SCC. In: Proceedings of 5th
North American conference on design and use of SCC, Chicago, IL, USA; 2013.
11 p.
[17] ACI Committee 237R-07. Self-consolidating concrete. American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA, 30 p.
[18] Gardoni P, Trejo D, Vannucci M, Bhattacharjee C. Probabilistic models for
modulus of elasticity of self-consolidated concrete: Bayesian approach. J Eng
Mech 2009;135(4):295–306.
[19] Jayasinghe MTR, Jayasena WMVPK. Effects of axial shortening of columns on
design and construction of tall reinforced concrete buildings. Pract Period
Struct Design Construct 2004;9(2):70–8.
[20] ASTM C512/C512M – 10, Standard test method for creep of concrete in
compression. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA.
[21] Gardner NJ. Comparison of prediction provisions for drying shrinkage and
creep of normal strength concretes. Can J Civil Eng 2004;30(5):767–75.
[22] Baker WF, Korista DS, Novak LC, Pawlikowski J, Youn B. Creep and shrinkage
and the design of supertall buildings – a case study: The Burj Dubai Tower. ACI
SP-246-8; 2007. pp. 133–148.
[23] Mazzotti C, Savoia M. An experimental campaign on the long-term properties
of self-compacting concrete. Adv Struct Eng 2012;15(7):1155–66.
[24] Long WJ, Khayat KH. Creep of prestressed self-consolidating concrete. ACI
Mater J 2011;108(5):476–84.
[25] Kim YH, Trejo D, Hueste MBD. Experimental study on creep and durability of
high-early-strength self-consolidating concrete for precast elements. ACI
Mater J 2011;108(2):128–38.
[26] Leemann A, Lura P, Loser R. Shrinkage and creep of SCC – the influence of paste
volume and binder composition. Construct Build Mater 2011;25(5):2283–9.
[27] Heirman G, Vandewalle L, Van Gemerta D, Boel V, Audenaer K, De Schutte G,
et al. Time-dependent deformations of limestone powder type self-
compacting. Concr Eng Struct 2008;30:2945–56.
[28] Leemann A, Hoffmann C. Properties of self-compacting and conventional
concrete – differences and similarities. Mag Concr Res 2005;57(6):315–9.
[29] Persson B. A comparison between mechanical properties of self-compacting
concrete and the corresponding properties of normal concrete. Cem Concr Res
2001;31:193–8.
[30] Loser R, Leemann A. Shrinkage and restrained shrinkage cracking of self-
compacting concrete compared to conventionally vibrated concrete. Mater
Struct 2009;42:71–82.
[31] Rozière E, Granger S, Turcry P, Loukili A. Influence of paste volume on
shrinkage cracking and fracture properties of self-compacting concrete. Cem
Concr Compos 2007;29:626–36.
[32] AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 3rd ed. American
Association of State and Highway Officials, Washington, DC, 2004, 1436 pp.
[33] ACI 209.2R-08, Guide for modeling and calculating shrinkage and creep in
hardened concrete. Reported by ACI Committee 209, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
[34] CEB-FIP. Structural concrete—textbook on behaviour, design and performance
updated knowledge of the CEB/FIP Model Code 1990. FIP Bulletin 2, vol. 2.
Federation Internationale du Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland; 1999. p. 37–52.
[35] Khayat KH, Long WJ. Shrinkage of precast, prestressed self-consolidating
concrete. ACI Mater J 2010;107(3):238–476.
[36] CEB-FIP, CEB-FIP Model Code 90, CEB Bulletin No. 213/214; 1990. 460 p.
[37] AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th ed. American
Association of State and Highway Officials, Washington, DC, 2007. 1518 pp.
[38] Baidya N, Mendis P, Fragomeni S. Evaluation of creep, shrinkage and modulus
of elasticity models for high strength concrete. In: Fragomeni, Venkatesan,
Lam, Setnge, editors. Incorporating sustainable practice in mechanics of
structures and materials. London: Taylor and Francis; 2011. p. 239–44.
[39] Nobuaki F, Masaaki T. Technical innovation for realization of Akashi–Kaikyo
bridge. Proc Inst Civil Eng: Struct Build 1994;104(3):285–96.
[40] Baker WF, Korista DS, Novak LC. Engineering the world’s tallest–Burj Dubai.
Council on Tall Building and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) 8th World Congress,
Dubai, 3–5 March, 2008, p. 1–10.
90 M.L. Nehdi / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 80–90
[41] Palmer WD, Nasvik J. Mega projects. Concr Construct – World Concr
2004;49(9):26–32.
[42] Nehdi ML, Al Shareef K, Kamil H. Massive SCC slab foundations at world’s
deepest water pumping station. In: Proceedings of 5th North American
conference on design and use of self-consolidating concrete, Chicago; 2013. 11
p.
[43] Post NM. High-strength rebar called revolutionary. ENR (Eng News Record)
2007;259(8):10–2.
[44] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318M-08) and commentary. Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American Concrete
Institute; 2008.
[45] Restrepo J, Seible F, Stephan B. Seismic testing of bridge columns incorporating
high-performance materials. ACI Struct J 2006;103(4):496–504.
[46] Kim YH, Trejo D, Hueste MD. Shear characteristics of self-consolidating
concrete for precast prestressed concrete members. ACI Special, Publication
SP-247-05; 2007. p. 53–66.
[47] Lin CH, Chen JH. Shear behavior of self-consolidating concrete beams. ACI
Struct J 2012;109(3):307–15.
[48] Hegger NW, Bülte S. Bond strength and shear capacity of pre-stressed beams
made of SCC. ACI, Publication SP-247-11; 2007. p. 123–38.
[49] Itterbeeck PV, Cauberg N, Parmentier B, Gysel AV, Vandewalle L. Shear capacity
of self-compacting concrete. In: Proceedings of the fifth North American
conference on the design and use of SCC, Chicago, Illinois, USA; 2013. 10 p.
[50] Soleymani Ashtiani M, Dhakal RP, Scott AN. Shear behavior of high-strength self-
compacting concrete beam-column joint panels. iN: Proceedings of 5th North
American conference on design and use of SCC, Chicago, Il, USA; 2013. 11 p.
[51] Said A, Nehdi M. Behavior of reinforced SCC frames under reversed cyclic
loading. J Struct Build 2007;160(SB2):95–103.
[52] Fang K, Sullivan I, Patrick JE, Lee CC, Fang IC, Yeh TY, et al. Fire resistance of
beam-column sub-assemblage. ACI Struct J 2012;109(1):31–9.
[53] ISO 834-1:1999/Amd 1:2012, Fire resistance tests – elements of building
construction. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
Switzerland.
[54] Reinhardt HW, Stegmaier M. Self-consolidating concrete in fire. ACI Mater J
2006;103(2):130–5.
[55] Kodur V, Khaliq W. Effect of temperature on thermal properties of different
types of high-strength concrete. J Mater Civil Eng ASCE 2011;23(6):793–801.
[56] Tao J, Yuan Y, Taerwe L. Compressive strength of self-compacting concrete
during high-temperature exposure. J Mater Civil Eng ASCE
2010;22(10):1005–11.
[57] Khaliq W, Kodur VKR. Effect of high temperature on tensile strength of
different types of high-strength concrete. ACI Mater J 2011;108(4):394–402.
[58] Chan CM, Huang MF, Kwok KCS. Stiffness optimization for wind-induced
dynamic serviceability design of tall buildings. J Struct Eng ASCE
2009;135(8):985–97.
[59] Gardner NJ, Zhao J-W. Creep and shrinkage revisited. ACI Mater J
1993;90(3):236–46.
[60] Noguchi T, Tomosawa F, Nemati KM, Chiaia BM. Fantilli AR [2009]. A practical
equation for elastic modulus of concrete, J Struct Eng ASCE
2009;106(5):690–6.