1

Self Consolidating Concrete:

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Sponsored by
David A. Lange
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
ILLINOIS
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Co-workers: Prof. L. Struble, Matt DAmbrosia, Ben Birch,
Lin Shen, Fernando Tejeda
2
SCC: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
1967
3
Background
Developed in Japan in the late 1980s
Flows into formwork without vibration or mechanical
consolidation
Flowable properties achieved with:
Ultra high-range water reducer
(polycarboxylate)
Viscosity Modifying Admixture (VMA)
High cementitious materials or
powder content
Small coarse aggregate and
higher sand fraction
ACI 237 ETS Report
4
Potential benefits of SCC
Improved consolidation
Reduced labor cost
Accelerated construction
Reduced noise
Performance Requirements
Flowability into formwork and through reinforcement
Stability (resistance to segregation)
but what about hardened concrete properties?
5
UIUC database of SCC proportions
shows a departure from normal OPC
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
AGGREGATE CONTENT (%)
F
A
/
C
A

R
A
T
I
O
SCC Database
Mixtures studied
SCC4
OPC1
SCC3
SCC2
SCC1
Typical non-SCC
materials, according to
ACI mixture
proportioning method

6
UIUC SCC Control Mixtures
SG UNIT OPC 1 SCC 1 SCC 2 SCC 3 SCC 4
Cement (Type I) 3.15 lb/yd
3
726 661 601 685 679
Fly Ash (Class C) 2.65 lb/yd
3
0 157 325 0 151
Coarse Aggregate, 3/4" (20mm) 2.70 lb/yd
3
1853 367 1365 1627 579
Coarse Aggregate, 3/8" (10mm) 2.70 lb/yd
3
0 1075 0 0 1018
Fine Aggregate (FM = 2.57) 2.64 lb/yd
3
1192 1403 1336 1389 1389
Water 1.00 lb/yd
3
290 311 301 278 267
Superplasticizer (CAE) 1.06 fl oz/yd
3
22 63 29 49 36
Viscosity Modifying Admixture (VMA) 1.00 fl oz/yd
3
22
Slump flow (standard slump for OPC) in 5 30 28 26 27
Paste content by Volume % 32 37 40 33 34
FA/CA ratio -- 0.64 0.97 0.98 0.85 0.87
w/cm 0.40 0.38 0.33 0.41 0.32
Graded
Aggregate
Mineral
Filler
VMA Strong
Wall
Precast
Beam
7
How do SCC strategies affect
performance?
SCC Strategies
high paste content
VMA (thickeners)
smaller aggregate &
controlled gradation
HRWR, SP (CAE)
Mineral fillers & additives
Properties
Stability
Shrinkage and creep
Strength and Stiffness
Performance
Segregation
Early age cracking
Deformation
Prestress Loss
Long Term Durability
8
SCC Flow Characteristics: The Good!
Flowing into concrete pump
MDD-UIUC
9
Standard tests have been developed
Slump flow test (ASTM C1611)

L-box test

10
J-ring test, also for passing ability
(ASTM WK7552)
Test is performed using a standard slump cone
Height difference is measured on each side of ring
11
Rheological parameters used to define
flow behavior
Concrete rheometer measures yield stress and viscosity
Yield stress: 86 Pa (< 100 for SCC, ~200-300 for normal concrete)
Plastic Viscosity : 517 Pa.s (about same as normal concrete)
y = 1.7941x + 0.3206
y = 1.8014x + 0.2719
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Rotational speed (rad/sec)
T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
.
m
)
test 1 test 2 Linear (test 2) Linear (test 1)
y = 1.7941x + 0.3206
y = 1.8014x + 0.2719
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Rotational speed (rad/sec)
T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
.
m
)
test 1 test 2 Linear (test 2) Linear (test 1)
12
Segregation of SCC: The Bad
5
6
"
16
1
m =18g
13
How do we evaluate segregation?
Hardened Visual Stability Index (VSI) Rating Criteria for
Concrete Cylinder Specimens
0: Stable
No paste or mortar layer
visible at top of cylinder,
no apparent difference
in the size and area
percentage of coarse
aggregate through
depth
1: Stable
No paste or mortar layer
visible at top of cylinder,
slight difference in the
size and area
percentage of coarse
aggregate through
depth
2: Unstable
Slight paste or mortar
layer visible (<1), slight
difference in coarse
aggregate through
depth
3: Unstable
Significant paste or
mortar layer visible
(>1), obvious difference
in the size and area
percentage of coarse
aggregate through
depth
0 1 2 3
14
HVSI and Image Analysis
Coarse aggregate % measured at different levels in SCC cylinder
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8
Depth
C
o
a
r
s
e

a
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e

%

15
What about fresh SCC?
Column Segregation Test
ASTM Work Item WK3224
26 h x 8 vertical column
Fresh concrete placed in tube, then split
into four sections after 15 min rest
Coarse aggregate washed and weighed for
each section
Segregation Index (SI) defined as weight
% top vs. bottom





Not an adequate field test!
( ) M1 M4
2
1
M1 - M4
SI
+
=
16
The Segregation Probe
Applicability:
Rapid surface segregation measurement
Sensitive to small changes in stability of SCC
Suitable for field measurement

Procedure:
Cast fresh concrete into 6 x 12 cylinder
Wait for 15 min, avoid excessive disturbance
Put ring on surface gently
Wait for at least 1 min until ring stops settling
Take reading
5
6
"
16
1
m =18g
17
Segregation Probe relates to HVSI
rating of cylinder
Segregation
Probe
results
1/8 2 2 2
HVSI 0 1 3 3 3
18
Robustness of SCC
Robustness can be evaluated with respect to flow or stability
Why examine robustness of SCC:
Due to its high flowability, SCC is much more susceptible to
stability problem than normal concrete
Small changes in moisture content of aggregates or dosage of
admixtures may affect the fresh properties significantly
Procedure
Mix raw material or sample from truck
Set segregation probe gently on surface
Wait 1 min for ring to settle
Take reading
Add incremental dose of water or superplasticizer
Repeat step 1~5
19
Slump Flow vs. Robustness
Increasing slump flow significantly reduced the robustness




20
Paste Content Affects Robustness
Higher paste content enhanced robustness




21
Dynamic Segregation of SCC
Flowing SCC may have a tendency to segregate during
placement
How far can SCC travel without segregation?
Test: Measure coarse aggregate fraction as function of
distance.
22
Dynamic
segregation
occurred
abruptly after
45 of flow
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance Traveled (ft)
A
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
A
0
E
44
F
53
G
56
D
366
B
20
C
29
Static segregation
tests do not predict
dynamic segregation
23
Segregation Acceptance Criteria
How does segregation effect hardened properties?
Differential stress development
Model used layered approach
Properties of paste, mortar, and concrete

24
Segregation Shrinkage Test
Cast vertically to produce a
segregated cross section

+ Laid flat to measure
deflection caused by
autogenous shrinkage of
segregated layer
25
Model validation typical results
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Concrete Age (d)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Measured Deflection
FEM Calculated Deflection
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)

Concrete Age (d)
26
Model confirms HVSI judgment
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 1 2 3
HVSI Rating
M
a
x

S
t
r
e
s
s

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

(
p
s
i
)
SCC1 SCC2
SCC3 SCC4
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
i
)

HVSI Rating
27
Early Age Cracking: The Ugly!
0.016 (0.4 mm)
28
Early age tensile stress was greater in
SCC than most previous test results
UIUC
Restrained
Stress
Database
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Age (days)
S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
i
)
SCC-wall
IDL41R1
IDL44R1
ISL39R1
ISF39R1
ISL44R1
ISF44R1-2
ISL50R1
IKL44R1
IKF44R1
IBL44R1
IBF44R1
ISTD
IHPC1
IHPC2
IHPC4
IHPC1F
IHPC2F
29
Restrained Stress Test Machine (RSTM)
LVDT Extensometer
Load cell
Actuator
3 in (76 mm)
3 in (76 mm)
Feedback Control
Sealed for 24h, then dried at 50% RH, 23
o
C
Companion specimen for free shrinkage measurement
30
Typical Restrained Test Data
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (days)
S
t
r
a
i
n

(

c
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A
p
p
l
i
e
d

L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Restrained Specimen
Free Specimen
Load (kN)
Creep
Cumulative Shrinkage +
Creep
-
c tot sh
c c c =
o
c
c
c
t t J = ) ' , (
( )
1
n
tot el
i
i
c c
=
=

( )
c
el
E t
o
c
=
31
Stress development in SCC indicates
potentially poor cracking performance
Autogenous shrinkage in low w/c materials generates
significant stress at early age
A minimum w/c ratio can reduce early age cracking in
restrained concrete
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 2 4 6 8 10
Age (days)
S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
i
)
OPC1, w/c = 0.40
SCC1, w/c = 0.39
SCC2, w/c = 0.33
SCC3, w/c = 0.41
SCC4, w/c = 0.34
32
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Age (d)
S
t
r
e
s
s
-
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

R
a
t
i
o
OPC1, w/c = 0.40
SCC1, w/c = 0.39
SCC2, w/c = 0.33
SCC3, w/c = 0.41
SCC4, w/c = 0.34
Microcracking in one or two days
High stress-strength ratio induces microcracking damage
Lack of creep relaxation intensifies stress rapidly
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Age (days)
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

C
r
e
e
p

(
x
1
0
-
6

m
/
m
/
p
s
i
)
OPC1, w/c = 0.40
SCC1, w/c = 0.39
SCC2, w/c = 0.33
SCC3, w/c = 0.41
SCC4, w/c = 0.34
33
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Age (days)
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

C
r
e
e
p

(
x
1
0
-
6

/
p
s
i
)
OPC1, w/c = 0.40
SCC1, w/c = 0.39
SCC2, w/c = 0.33
SCC3, w/c = 0.41
SCC4, w/c = 0.34
OPC-MB3
SCC1-MB3
SCC2-MB3
SCC3-MB3
SCC5-MB3
Models of SCC Creep Compliance at
Early Age depends on w/c and paste%
0.39, 37%
0.34, 34%
34
Early age shrinkage of SCC varies with
paste content and w/b ratio
0.39, 37%
0.34, 34%
0.41, 33%
0.40, 32%
0.33, 40%
w/b, paste%
-1000
-900
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)
F
r
e
e

S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e

(
x
1
0
-
6
)
OPC1, w/c = 0.40
SCC1, w/c = 0.39
SCC2, w/c = 0.33
SCC3, w/c = 0.41
SCC5, w/c = 0.34
Typical Concrete
Safe Zone ?
35
-180
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (d)
A
u
t
o
g
e
n
o
u
s

S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e

(
1
0
-
6

m
/
m
)
OPC1, w/c = 0.40
SCC1, w/c = 0.39
SCC2, w/c = 0.33
SCC3, w/c = 0.41
SCC4, w/c = 0.32

Low w/c drives autogenous shrinkage
Typical Concrete
Safe Zone ?
0.39, 37%
0.34, 34%
0.41, 33%
0.40, 32%
0.33, 40%
w/b, paste%
36
Can we design SCC mixture
proportions for low shrinkage?
Tazawa et al found that 0.30
was an acceptable threshold
In our study, 0.34 keeps total
shrinkage at reasonable levels
0.42 eliminates autogenous
shrinkage
Application specific limits
High Restraint: 0.42
Med Restraint: 0.34
Low Restraint: w/c based on
strength or cost

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42
w/cm
A
u
t
o
g
e
n
o
u
s

S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e

S
t
r
a
i
n

(
x
1
0
-
6
)
Autogenous Shrinkage (28d)
Total Shrinkage (28d)
37
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% 42%
Paste Content by Volume
A
u
t
o
g
e
n
o
u
s

S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e

S
t
r
a
i
n

(
x
1
0
-
6
)
Autogenous Shrinkage (28d)
Total Shrinkage (28d)
Limit Paste Content too
Below 32%, SCC has questionable
fresh properties
Is 34% a reasonable compromise?
Application specific limits
High Restraint: 25-30%
Med Restraint: 30-35%
Low Restraint: Based on cost
TABLE 4.3 From Draft of ACI 237 ETS
Summary of Self-Consolidating Concrete Proportioning
Trial Mix Parameters
Coarse aggregate by volume 28% - 32%
Paste Content by volume 34% - 40%
Mortar Fraction by volume 68%-72%
Typical w/cm 0.32 0.45
Typical powder content 650* 800 pounds
38
SCC Rapid Placement: The Good
UIUC Strong Wall (80L x 5W x 30H)
Pumped in one continuous pour, tight reinforcing prohibited vibration
Interstate 74 retaining walls in Peoria, IL
39
SCC Formwork Pressure -- The Bad
ACI 347-01 Guide to
Formwork for Concrete
guidance does not address
SCC directly
Pressure equations apply
to normal concrete
When in doubt, design
for full hydrostatic
pressure
Result: expensive form
work or shorter pour
heights
Little field data available
concerning actual pressure
readings from cast in place
operations.
40
SCC formwork pressure tests
SCC approaches full hydrostatic pressure during rapid
placement
PVC column tests to study the effect of
Consistency of concrete
Set-modifying admixtures
Temperature of concrete
Mixture design approach

on SCC formwork pressure
41
How is SCC different from OPC?
After one hour, SCC pressure decreased 10%
vs. 40% for regular concrete
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [Hr]
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
/
H
y
d
r
o
s
t
a
t
i
c

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

2.5" slump
31" slump flow
28" slump
flow
20" slump
flow
42
Temperature significantly affects
formwork pressure
43
Mechanism of pressure decay
Pressure decrease is a combination of physical (internal
friction) and chemi-physical (gelation) phenomena
Internal friction is a function of the aggregate content and the
workability of concrete
All this happens well BEFORE SET

44
Modeling approach is semi-empirical
Step 1: Characterize the characteristic pressure decay of the
material
Step 2: Impose variable pressure head on the material that is
undergoing gelation, stiffening
45
Step 1: Mathematical Fit for Pressure Decay
Signature
Measured and Model Values
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time [min]
H
y
d
r
o
s
t
a
t
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
20 C
10 C
40 C
Model 40 C
Model 20 C
Model 10 C

C(t) =
C
0
(at
2
+1)
o
Where:
C
0
= Initial value
(Approx. 0.90 1.00)
a, alpha = Define
the initial and final
slope of curve


Difficult to find one family of curves to model the different
behavior
46
Relate Horiz Pressure to Vert Pressure
Rt t C t P
h
) ( ) ( =
Where:
Pv=Vertical pressure
Ph=Horizontal pressure
= Unit weight of the
concrete
R= Rate of pouring
t = time
C(t) is experimentally
obtained from the lab
column result
The maximum pressure will
be the equilibrium between
the increase in head and the
value of K(t)



P
v
=
h
=>
weight
P
h
=
CP
v
P
h
=
C (

h )
since h
=
Rt
47
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8
Time [hr]
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
]

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
C
(
t
)

Head 1
Lat. Press. 1
Model 20 C
48
Note:

Maximum
lateral
pressure is
reached long
before end
of of pour.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8
Time [hr]
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
]

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
C
(
t
)

Head 1
Lat. Press. 1
Model 20 C
49
Modeling Variation in Pour Rate
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [hr]
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
]

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

C

(
t
)

Head 16 ft/hr
Horiz. Press. 16 ft/hr
Head 8ft/hr
Horiz. Press. 8ft/hr
Head 4 ft/hr
Horiz. Press. 4 ft/hr
Funct. press. decrease
16 ft/hr
8ft/hr
4 ft/hr
Note how the
maximum pressure
is very different for
two different
pouring rates using
the same concrete.

50
Lab Test to Validate
Model
Fill first 3 column
Fill second 3 column
Creates a 6 column
Measure pressure in formwork as
concrete hardens

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 2 4 6
Time [hr]
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
]
Head
51
Observed Pressure
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 2 4 6
Time [hr]
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
]

MEASURED
Head
Second Pour
Time 1 hr
First Pour
Time 0
52
C(t)
0.000
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
0 2 4 6 8
Time [hr]
C
(
t
)

C(t) for 20 C
53
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [hr]
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
]
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
V
a
l
u
e

f
o
r

C
(
t
)
MEASURED
Head
Model
Prediction
C(t) for 20 C
Second Pour
Time 1 hr
First Pour
Time 0
54
Field Data Collection
Sensors mounted in forms
Pressure readings taken
continuously during placement
Fill rate data also recorded
55
Typical Results
Use depth measurements from
start and stop of individual
trucks
To generate filling height curve for
duration of placement of concrete
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
time(min)
F
i
l
l
i
n
g

H
e
i
g
h
t
(
f
t
)
56
Typical Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
time(min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
)

a
n
d

F
i
l
l
i
n
g

H
e
i
g
h
t
(
f
t
)
Filling Height
Pressure
Max pressure = 5.2 psi @ 21 minutes with 7.05 ft of concrete 20.14 ft/hr
Total height = 15.88 ft, filled in 91 minutes 10.47 ft/hr
57
Fraction of Hydrostatic Pressure
Calculated pressure as a function of height of concrete
1 ft of concrete fully liquid 1 psi of pressure
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
time(min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
)

a
n
d

F
i
l
l
i
n
g

H
e
i
g
h
t
(
f
t
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

H
y
d
r
o
s
t
a
t
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Filling Height
Pressure
Fraction of Hydrostatic Pressure
58
Case Study: Application of modeling
approach to I-74 project at Peoria
59
Example: Column from Field Measurement
Measured from 2.5 column of concrete
Calculated C(t) from column data
Generate curve to match measured data to
create model curve
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420
time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420
time(min)
C
(
t
)
column
model
60
Example: Filling Rate Curve and Measured
Pressure from Field
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)

o
r

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

(
f
t
)
Height of Concrete Over
Sensor
Measured Pressure
61
Example: Overlay C(t) Model Curve
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)

o
r

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

(
f
t
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
C
(
t
)
Height of Concrete Over
Sensor
Measured Pressure
C(T) model curve
62
Example: Model vs. Actual Pressure
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)

o
r

H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

(
f
t
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
C
(
t
)
Height of Concrete
Over Sensor
Measured Pressure
Predicted Pressure
C(T)
63
Advantages of model
Provides a better approximation than assuming full liquid head
Uses a simple, repeatable test for generating model curve
Model seems to be conservative

64
Effect of Energy in Placement
Laboratory Work
Look at pressure when column is vibrated after placement
Field Work
Look at behavior of wall pours when placed using truck dump, pumper
placement, and bucket dump
65
Lab Column with vibration every 10
min
Concrete placed in Column
Vibrated every 10 minutes with pencil vibrator for 30 seconds
SCC will maintain hydrostatic pressure if agitated
Effect of agitation will be minimized with increasing cover height and time
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420
Time (min)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
5.5 feet deep
4 feet deep
2.5 feet deep
1 foot deep
66
SCC doesnt have to be ugly!
Todays problems
Segregation
Sensitivity to slight changes in water
Cracking tendencies
Higher formwork pressure
are becoming addressed through research & experience
67
Summary
SCC: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Good,
Improved consolidation for tight forms or bar spacing
Labor cost savings
Aesthetic finish
Rapid placement

the Bad,
Avoid segregation problems with proper testing in the lab and field
Formwork Pressure models will assist formwork design

and the Ugly
Limit w/b and paste content to avoid cracking