Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /conbui ldmat

A comprehensive investigation into the effect of water to cement ratioand powder content on mechanical properties of self-compactingconcrete

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.0980950-0618/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 (112) 5280914.E-mail addresses: nikbin@iaurasht.ac.ir (I.M. Nikbin), M.beygi@nit.ac.ir (M.H.A.

Beygi), Kazemi@sharif.edu (M.T. Kazemi), Vaseghi@nit.ac.ir (J. Vaseghi Amiri),Saeed.rabbanifar@yahoo.com (S. Rabbanifar), Ebrahim.rahmani84@gmail.com(E. Rahmani), saman.rahimi.r@gmail.com (S. Rahimi).

1 Tel.: +98 (112) 5280914.2 Tel.: +98 (21) 6616 4237.

I.M. Nikbin a,1,⇑, M.H.A. Beygi a,1, M.T. Kazemi b,2, J. Vaseghi Amiri a,1, S. Rabbanifar a,1, E. Rahmani a,1,S. Rahimi c,1

a Department of Civil Engineering, Babol University of Technology, Iranb Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, P.O. Box 11155-9313, Iranc Department of Civil Engineering, Lameigorgani University, Iran

h i g h l i g h t s

� The effect of w/c ratio and powder content on mechanical properties were studied.� With increase of limestone powder, the compressive and tensile strengths increase.� In lower w/c, limestone powder increases the compressive strength more noticeably.� w/c ratio has greater effect on tensile and compressive strengths than E-modulus.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 November 2013Received in revised form 26 January 2014Accepted 27 January 2014Available online 22 February 2014

Keywords:Self-compacting concretePowder contentMechanical propertiesPrediction equations

a b s t r a c t

Self compacting concrete (SCC), as an innovative construction material in concrete industry, offers a saferand more productive construction process due to favorable rheological performance which is caused bySCC’s different mixture composition. This difference may have remarkable influence on the mechanicalbehavior of SCC as compared to normal vibrated concrete (NVC) in hardened state. Therefore, it is vitalto know whether the use of all assumptions and relations that have been formulated for NVC in currentdesign codes are also valid for SCC. Furthermore, this study presents an extensive evaluation and compar-ison between mechanical properties of SCC using current international codes and predictive equationsproposed by other researchers. Thus, in this experimental study, key mechanical properties of SCC areinvestigated for sixteen SCC mixes with different w/c ratios and different powder contents. In the presentstudy, an extensive data reported by many researchers for SCC and NVC has been used to validate theobtained results.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction around the heavy reinforcements. SCC can also fill sections with

Over the last decades, self-compacting concrete (SCC), as a newgeneration of high-performance concrete, has been known as a sig-nificant progress in concrete industry and consequently consideredas the subject of extensive research studies [1,2]. SCC may be de-fined as concrete with the capacity to spread into mold and pass

more complex shapes, compacting only under its own weightwithout the need for internal or external mechanical vibration dur-ing the casting process. In addition use of SCC prevents segregationand bleeding [3–5]. Moreover, self compacting concrete can bepumped to a great distance and increases the speed of construction[6,7]. SCC also offers significant environmental, technical and eco-nomical benefits such as improved pore structure as a great con-cern in durability of special structures [8,9]. Apart from relevantresearch interests, applications of SCC in building industry havealso increased noticeably due to the successful evolution it hasbrought about in the precast concrete industry in recent years [10].

Typically, in order to attain the special behavior of SCC , higherfine particle content and very powerful superplasticizers must be

70 I.M. Nikbin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80

used compared to normal vibrated concrete (NVC) [11]. Manyresearchers reported that these modifications in the mix designmay have remarkable effects on the mechanical behavior of SCCas compared to NVC in hardened state [12–14]. It has been provedthat mechanical properties are directly related to mix parameters[15]. Studies on the mechanical properties of SCC have been theresearch interest in the recent decades [16–18]. Thus, manyresearchers are interested in precise estimation of mechanicalproperties of SCC in order to reach a safe, serviceable and econom-ical design [16–18]. Most researchers believe that the modificationof mixture composition of concrete makes SCC to have differentmechanical properties from NVC [12,13,16–19]. However, thereare wide contradictions among the reported results.

The results of previous studies show that the increase rate ofcompressive strength of SCC at early ages is higher than that ofNVC. On the other hand, ITZ in SCC is stronger than that of NVCand consequently compressive strength of SCC, for a specific w/cratio, is higher than that NVC [20]. Since, in SCC, aggregate contentis different from NVC, it is expected that the compressive strengthof SCC is affected by these variables [16–19]. Domone [19] statedthat, in SCC, type and content of powder affect the compressivestrength much more than w/c ratio does. Many studies on tensilestrength have shown that, at a specific compressive strength,the tensile strength of SCC is slightly higher than NVC [20–24].Felekoglu et al. [25] also showed that the use of limestone powderin SCC mixes with w/c ratios between 0.37 and 0.6 results in highertensile strength for SCC compared to NVC. Bosiljkov [26] alsoshowed that SCC and NVC have the same tensile strength. It shouldbe noted that the abovementioned results are reported for SCCwith high compressive strength (where high contents of cement(higher than 400 kg/m3) are used accompanied by active additions,such as fly ash or blast furnace slag).

In order to investigate mechanical properties of SCC in strengthrange of medium and low, Parra et al. [12], studying SCC mixeswith w/c ratios of 0.45–0.65, showed that the tensile strength is15% lower than that of NVC. Thus, they proposed that the existingrelations in standard codes for NVC should be modified for SCC. Do-mone [19], collecting comprehensive data from extensive studieson SCC up to 2007, demonstrated that despite high scattering, ten-sile strength of NVC and SCC does not have noticeable difference.Leemann and Hoffmann [18] showed that SCC and NVC have thesame tensile strength. Vilanova et al. [16] concluded that SCCand NVC have the same mechanical properties. They stated thatACI relations are capable of predicting tensile strength of SCC withhigh accuracy. Aslani and Nejadi [14] reported that disregarding ofthe type of aggregate and filler used in proposed models for tensilestrength, SCC and NVC have roughly the same tensile strength. It isparticularly worth noting that any difference between tensilestrength of SCC and NVC disappears as the compressive strengthexceeds 80 MPa.

Considering obvious differences between SCC and NVC in termsof paste volume, maximum aggregate size and rheological behav-ior of SCC, using the proposed relations for NVC in order to predictmodulus of elasticity of SCC might be controversially debatable[13]. Extensive studies have been carried out concerning modulusof elasticity of SCC, but like other mechanical properties, the resultsare highly contradicting, making it more difficult to reach a con-sensus. Some researchers believe that SCC has lower elastic stiff-ness than NVC [25,27–29]. Su et al. [30] showed that decrease ofcoarse aggregate to total aggregate ratio does not change modulusof elasticity of SCC. Domone [19], studying the results reported byother researchers, showed that modulus of elasticity of SCC in lowstrength levels is lower than that of NVC by 40% while in higherstrength levels this value is limited to 5%. Domone [19] believesthat this behavior is attributed to lower content of coarse aggre-gate in SCC compared to NVC. However, Van Itterbeeck et al. [31]

dose not confirm Domone’s findings. Persson [17] reported thatthere is negligible difference between modulus of elasticity ofSCC and NVC when the strength is considered constant. Gramand Piiparinen [32] showed that SCC and NVC have the same mod-ulus of elasticity. Dehn et al. [33] named SCC a soft concrete as ithas lower stiffness than NVC. Jacobs and Hunkeler [34] found that,for a specific strength, modulus of elasticity of SCC is lower thanthat of NVC as smaller aggregate is used in SCC. Felekoglu et al.[25], investigating the ratios of w/c between 0.37 and 0.6, showedthat modulus of elasticity of SCC is lower than NVC. Ashtiani et al.[35] reported that, at high strength levels, the modulus of elasticityof SCC is lower than NVC. Ambriose and Pera [36] and Bonen andShah [37] reported that, due to lower content of aggregate inSCC, the modulus of elasticity of SCC is lower than that of NVC inthe same strength. Panesar and Shindman [13] showed thatin SCC, with compressive strength higher than 50 MPa, modulusof elasticity can be predicted through AASHTO equation. Attiogbeet al. [38] concluded that SCC and NVC have the same modulusof elasticity. Holschemacher and Klug [39] also precluded thatSCC has lower modulus of elasticity than NVC. Leemann and Hoff-mann [18] stated that, due to higher content of paste in SCC, mod-ulus of elasticity of SCC, with the same compressive strength asNVC is 15% lower than NVC. Parra et al. [12] showed that modulusof elasticity of SCC is only 2% lower than NVC which is due to lowerstiffness of paste compare to aggregate. Chopin et al. [29] statedthat the difference between modulus of elasticity of SCC and NVCis at most 5%. Vilanova et al. [16] showed that ACI318 model givesrather overestimated values for modulus of elasticity of SCC.

Since SCC and NVC have different mix designs and the reportedresults for mechanical properties of SCC are highly scattered, it isimportant to analyze the effect of varying key parameters on theproperties of hardened SCC. It is also essential to assess the useof all assumptions and relations that have been formulated forNVC through years of studies and carrying out experiments tosee whether the relations introduced in codes and internationalstandards are valid for SCC. In many recent studies, SCC mixes havebeen reported to have contained active additives like fly ash, slag,silica fume as filler and fewer studies have been carried out on theuse of limestone powder which is a more economical and commonfiller in many countries.

In order to better understand mechanical behavior of SCC, thepurpose of this study is to evaluate two parameters of w/c ratioand powder content in an extensive range including sixteen mixdesigns. In the present study, experiments have been carried outon 144 specimens of hardened concrete and the mechanical prop-erties of SCC have been investigated. Consequently the ratio of testresults to the predicted values, based on prediction relations forSCC proposed by different researchers as well as common predic-tion equations proposed by most international codes, have beeninvestigated. It should also be noted that in the present study, anextensive body of results proposed by many researchers for SCCand NVC has been used to compare and validate the obtainedresults.

2. Experimental programme

2.1. Concrete mixture, materials and mixing procedure

In order to investigate the relation between mechanical properties of SCC, w/cratio and powder content, two series of experimental programs were designedincluding 16 concrete mix designs. The first series consisted of 8 mixes made toinvestigate the effect of w/c ratio on mechanical properties of SCC when w/c ratiovaries from 0.35 to 0.7. The second series was considered to evaluate the effect oflimestone powder volume on mechanical properties of SCC. In this series, therewere 8 mixes with two different w/c ratios of 0.47 and 0.6. In order to investigatedifferent levels of limestone powder addition for each w/c ratio, four SCC mixescontaining different amounts of limestone powder (25%, 50%, 75% and 100% i.e. ra-tio of limestone powder to cement by mass) are considered. In each mix design, fine

Table 1Chemical composition of cement and limestone powder.

Chemical analysis Cement Limestone powder

SiO2 (%) 21.90 0.3Al2O3 (%) 4.86 0.1Fe2O3 (%) 3.30 0.02CaO (%) 63.32 –MgO (%) 1.15 0.2SO3 (%) 2.1 –K2O (%) 0.56 –Na2O (%) 0.36 –Free Cao (%) 1.10 –CaCO3 – 99.3SG (g/cm3) 3.15 2.66Blaine (cm2/g) 3050 2730

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of cement and limestone powder.

I.M. Nikbin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80 71

aggregate used was river type with fineness modulus of 2.85, specific gravity of 2.7and water absorption of 1.5%. The coarse aggregate used had maximum size of12.5 mm, specific gravity of 2.68 and water absorption of 0.8 %. The size distributionof fine and coarse aggregates are shown in Fig. 1. A superplasticizer of the third gen-eration (Gelenium 110) was used. Type II Portland cement made by Mazandaran ce-ment factory (Neka, Iran) with specific gravity of 3.15 was used in this study. Also,limestone powder produced by Negin factory (Neka,Iran) with specific gravity of2.66 was used in order to achieve good flowability as well as viscose properties.The chemical compositions and size distribution of the cement and limestone pow-der are presented in Table 1 and Fig. 2. All solid contents including sand, coarseaggregate, cement and limestone powder are initially mixed for 40 s and then waterand superplasticizer are added to the mix and are again mixed for five minutes untilall particles are completely blended. After mixing, slump flow, L-Box and sieve seg-regation tests were used in order to evaluate essential properties of SCC in plasticstate such as flowability, passing ability and segregation resistance. The tests wereperformed according to EFNARC [40]. Mixture proportions and properties of thefresh concrete for both mix designs are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

2.2. Test methods

In order to determine compressive strength, fc, three standard 100 � 100� 100 mm3 cube specimens were made according to BS EN 12390 [41]. Also, fordetermination of modulus of elasticity, E, and splitting tensile strength, ft, six stan-dard 150 � 300 mm2 cylinders were made from each mix according to ASTM C469[42] and ASTM C496 [43] respectively. Then the cube and cylindrical specimenswere cured under water at about 20 �C until the day of the test. The specimens fromeach mix were tested and the average values were reported. The average values ofexperiments for each series are presented in Tables 4 and 5.

3. Experimental results and discussion

3.1. Compressive strength

Fig. 3 shows variation trend of compressive strength for SCCmixes with various w/c ratios. It can be clearly observed that in-crease of compressive strength can be explained through reductionof free water which is corresponding to w/c reduction. Increase ofw/c from 0.35 to 0.7 results in 66% reduction in compressivestrength. Such trend has also been reported by Felekoglu et al.[25]. This result is in agreement with results reported by AppaRao [44], Mohamad et al. [45] and Fernandes et al. [46]. Increaseof w/c ratio is interpreted as more water among particles and thusmore pores in hardened state creating porosity and consequentlyreducing strength. Fig. 4 displays the relation between w/c andcompressive strength for SCC and NVC mixes according to the re-sults reported by different researchers. As can be seen, variationtrend of w/c and fc for SCC and NVC is the same. However at a spe-cific w/c ratio, SCC has higher compressive strength (about 30%)than NVC which is due to the fact that in SCC, use of powder mate-rial smaller than 0.125 lm improves the microstructures of con-crete, complements the aggregate distribution and thus, the

Fig. 1. Particle size distribu

pores become extremely small. On the other hand, lack of externalvibration creates a stronger bond between paste and aggregate andthus less ITZ is formed due to lower content of aggregate and de-crease of aggregate size. It should be noted that, since use of smal-ler aggregate reduces porosity in ITZ [57], SCC has ITZ of higherquality, compared to NVC. The first equation to relate concretestrength and its non-solid ingredients was proposed by Feret inFrance in 1892 [15]. This relation was later completed and im-proved by Abrams who developed a relation between strengthand w/c ratio as [15]:

f 0c ¼A

Bw=c ð1Þ

tion of the aggregates.

Table 2Compositions and fresh properties of the series I mixtures.

Materials Weight (kg/m3)

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8

Cement (C) 440 411 386 365 345 326 309 295Coarse aggregate 917 917 917 917 917 917 917 917Sand 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750Limestone powder 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205Free water (W) 154 165 174 182 190 196 202 207Superplasticizer 10.2 8 7 5 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.5Vol. of paste (l) 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380w/c (by weight) 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7w/p (by weight) 0.23 0.26 0.29 0.32 0.34 0.37 0.39 0.41w/p (by volume) 0.71 0.79 0.87 0.95 1.02 1.08 1.15 1.21Unit weight (kg/m3) 2476 2456 2439 2424 2411 2398 2386 2376Slump flow (mm) 710 700 730 730 710 730 680 680Flow time (sec) 8 5.9 3.3 2.3 2.5 1.7 2 2.2Sieve test (%) 9.3 10 9.9 5 1 2.5 0.5 0.3L-Box (h2/h1) 0.89 0.88 0.92 0.87 0.88 0.83 0.88 0.91

Table 3Compositions and fresh properties of the series II mixtures.

Materials Weight (kg/m3)

25H 50H 75H 100H 25L 50L 75L 100L

Cement (C) 379.1 379.1 379.1 379.1 278.6 278.6 278.6 278.6Sand 978 925 874 8209 1055 1020 980 940Coarse aggregate 800 757 714 672 865 830 800 770Limestone powder 94.7 189.5 284.3 379.1 69.5 139 208.5 278.6Free water (W) 178.1 178.1 178.1 178.1 167 167 167 167Superplasticizer 6.5 7 8 8.7 2.2 2.5 3.5 4.7Vol. of paste (Lit) 303 303 303 303 260 260 260 260w/c (by weight) 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6w/p (by weight) 0.37 0.31 0.26 0.23 0.48 0.40 0.34 0.30w/p (by volume) 1.14 0.93 0.78 0.67 1.45 1.18 1.00 0.86Unit weight (kg/m3) 2434.9 2433.7 2434.5 2433.3 2440 2439.6 2439.1 2439.2Slump flow (mm) 705 730 695 730 730 720 710 715Flow time (sec) 2.2 2.6 3.8 9 2.8 2.7 3.3 9.5Sieve test (%) 10 8.1 0.2 2 3.5 5.8 2.3 7.5L-Box (h2/h1) 0.81 0.81 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.81 0.92 0.87

Table 4Mechanical properties of the series I mixtures.

Hardened concrete property Number of specimen tested for each mixture Mixture ID

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8

Compressive strength (Mpa) 3 75.5 69.2 58.8 54.8 46.0 42.6 35.5 26.0Tensile strength (MPa) 3 4.54 4.28 3.83 3.67 3.27 3.11 2.74 2.24Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 3 40.5 38.9 35.9 34.7 31.8 30.7 27.5 22.7

Table 5Mechanical properties of the series II mixtures.

Hardened concrete property Number of specimen tested for each mixture Mixture ID

25H 50H 75H 100H 25L 50L 75L 100L

Compressive strength (Mpa) 3 48.7 52.9 60.6 67.2 37.9 39.7 44.6 45.4Tensile strength (MPa) 3 3.34 3.50 3.57 3.74 2.71 2.88 3.13 3.18Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 3 34.2 36.7 37.0 37.3 30.9 33.1 33.9 33.6

72 I.M. Nikbin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80

where w/c is the ratio of water to cement, A and B are constantempirical coefficients that can be determined based on the concretetype, used material and age of concrete.

In this research, considering experimental data and used mate-rial, constant value of A and B in Abrams’ relation for regressionanalysis were obtained as:

f 0c ¼213:8

17w=c R2 ¼ 0:96 ð2Þ

where fc is compressive strength in MPa and w/c is the ratio ofwater to cement.

The prediction values based on the above relation are obtainedfor different SCC mixes and plotted against the results reported byother researchers in Fig. 5. Considering Fig. 5, it can be seen thatprediction values are in acceptable agreement with experimentalresults. Thus, this relation can be used to predict compressivestrength of other SCC mixes, for specific w/c ratios, with acceptableaccuracy. Fig. 6 shows the variation trend of compressive strength

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7

f c (M

Pa)

w/c

Fig. 3. Variation of compressive strength with w/c ratio for SCC mixes.

Fig. 6. Variation of compressive strength with powder volume for SCC mixes.

I.M. Nikbin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80 73

versus limestone powder volume percent for two different w/cratios in SCC mixes. As it can be observed, increase of limestonepowder content, leads to increase of compressive strength. Thesame result has been reported in SCC by Roziere et al. [58].The main reason for the increase of compressive strength is thatpacking density in SCC mix increases with increase of powdercontent. Also increase of powder content improves the bondbetween the aggregate and paste which causes the compressivestrength to increase. It should be noted that Amparano et al. [59]showed that, in NVC, increase of paste volume, from 25% to 55%of concrete volume for a specific w/c ratio of 0.5, increases the

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Com

pres

sive

str

engt

h (M

Pa)

w/c0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Fig. 4. Relation between compressive strength and water–cement r

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 8

Pre

dict

ed c

ompr

essi

ve s

tren

gth

(MP

a)

Experimental compressive stre

Fig. 5. Experimental and predic

compressive strength merely by 10%. The main reason for thedifference between compressive strength of SCC and NVC is thepositive effect of limestone powder used in SCC on mechanicalproperties of SCC. Furthermore, in lower w/c ratios, the effect oflimestone powder on the increase of compressive strength isslightly higher. This can be attributed to the fact that in mixes withlower w/c ratios, there is higher paste volume and thus the mixeshave better uniformity than mixes with higher w/c ratios.

3.2. Tensile strength

Fig. 7 shows the tensile strength of SCC for different w/c ratios.As it can be seen, decrease of tensile strength is results from in-crease of w/c (increase of w/c ratio from 0.35 to 0.7 increases the

Test resultsFelekoglu et al. [25]Leemann et al. [18]Zhu et al. [47]Persson [17]Uysal et al. [48]Domone [19]Rabehi et al [49]Leemann et al. [18]Zhu et al. [47]Rabehi et al [49]karihaloo [50]karihaloo et al [51,52]kim et al [53]Prokopskia et al [54]Carpinteri et al [55]Ince & Alyamace [56]0.7 0.8 0.9

atio. (See above-mentioned references for further information.)

0 100 120

ngth (MPa)

Test results

Felekoglu et al. [25]

Leemann et al. [18]

Zhu et al. [47]

Persson [17]

Uysal et al. [48]

Domone [19]

Rabehi et al [49]

ted compressive strength.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Split

ting

ten

sile

str

engt

h (M

Pa)

Compressive strength (MPa)

Fig. 9. Tensile strength versus compressive strength (data from Refs.[12,13,20,22,25,26,31,39,47,51,52,60–85]).

74 I.M. Nikbin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80

tensile strength by 51%). Siddique et al. [60] reported that w/c ratiohas considerable effect on tensile strength of SCC (the tensilestrength is decreased when w/c ratio is increased). Assuming thatthe relation between compressive strength (f 0c) and tensile strength(ft) can be expressed as a power function, as proposed by mostinternational codes, the relation for tested mixtures is determinedusing regression analysis according to Fig. 8 as:

ft ¼ 0:49ffiffiffiffif 0c

qR2 ¼ 0:94 ð3Þ

where f 0c is the compressive strength and ft is the tensile strength inMPa. Also, considering Fig. 8 and Table 4, it can be seen that, likeNVC, increase of compressive strength, causes the correspondingtensile strength to increase as well (190% increase of compressivestrength causes a 103% increase in the corresponding tensilestrength). Fig. 9 shows the relation between compressive and ten-sile strength for SCC mixes with different w/c ratios. Fig. 9 also pro-vides a comparison between variation trends of tensile strengthversus compressive strength based on results reported for NVCand SCC by different researchers. As it can be seen, the reporteddata by different researchers is highly scattered. This is due to vari-ety of materials used such as type and size of aggregate as well astype and amount of the filler used. Considering Fig. 9, it can be ob-served that there is negligible difference between tensile strength ofSCC and NVC especially in compressive strength range lower than60 MPa. However, this difference gradually increases with increaseof compressive strength. Fig. 10 shows the proportion of tensilestrength obtained from the results of the present study for all SCCmixes to the predicted values considering w/c ratio and the corre-sponding compressive strength based on relations proposed by

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7

f t (M

Pa)

w/c

Fig. 7. Variation of tensile strength with w/c ratio for SCC mixes.

R2 = 0.94

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

f t (M

Pa)

ft =0.49 fc

Fig. 8. Relation between tensile strength and compressive strength for SCC mixeswith different water–cement ratios.

different researchers and well-known international codes as well.The results show that the relations proposed by CEB-FIP [86], ACI363 [87], ACI 318 [89] codes and also those proposed by Parraet al. [12] can yield acceptable prediction with the lowest error pos-sible for SCC with different w/c ratios. However, it can be claimedthat the relations proposed by Topçu and Uygunoglu [64] andAASHTO [90] can also predict the values of tensile strength fromthe values of compressive strength with good accuracy. Vilanovaet al. [16] showed that in SCC, ACI 318 relations can predict the val-ues of tensile strength with acceptable precision. Thus it might besaid that although the relations provided in ACI 318 [89] and CEB-FIP [86] can be used to predict the tensile strength of SCC, manyparameters such as the type of powder used, amount and type ofaggregate might affect the accuracy are predicted for SCC. Fig. 11shows the variation trend of tensile strength versus limestonevolume percent for two different w/c ratios in SCC mixes. As it isobserved, increase of limestone powder content causes tensilestrength to increase (increase of compressive strength for w/c ratiosof 0.47 and 0.6 amounts to 12% and 17% respectively). Roziere et al.[58] reported maximum increases of 10% for tensile strength whenlimestone powder content is increased from 40% to 60% cementcontent. Increase of tensile strength, when powder content is in-creased is due to the fact that limestone powder improves the tran-sition zone between paste and aggregate and tensile strength isincreased. Fig. 12 shows the ratio of tensile strength obtained fromexperimental results of the present study for all SCC mixes to theprediction values considering different contents of the used powderand the corresponding compressive strength according to relationsproposed by different researchers for SCC and standard interna-tional codes. The results show that the relations proposed by CEB-FIP [86], ACI 363 [87], NEN 6722 [88] and ACI 318 [89] codes andalso those reported by Topçu and Uygunoglu [64] and Parra et al.[12] can provide predictions of tensile strength of SCC with differentpowder contents with the lowest error. However, the relations pro-posed by CEB-FIP [86], ACI 363 [87] and ACI 318 [89], in differentcontents of powder, result in over predicted values while those re-ported by NEN 6722 [88] and Topçu and Uygunoglu [64] givesrather under predicted estimates. Thus, it might be said that therelation proposed by Parra et al. [12] can be used to predict tensilestrength of SCC based on a specific compressive strength for differ-ent contents of powder. It should be noted that, as can be seen, thepredicted values by different codes and researchers are almost overpredicted. This is due to the fact that the relations suggested bymost codes and researchers are based on the compressive strengthand since the effect of limestone powder addition on compressivestrength is more significant than tensile strength, predictions basedon compressive strength give higher values.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

f t (t

est)

/ f t

(pre

dict

ed)

rati

o

w/c

Felekoglu et al. [25]

Topçu and Uygunoglu [64]

Parra et al. [12]

CEB-FIP [86]

ACI 363R [87]

NEN 6722 [88]

ACI 318 [89]

AASHTO [90]

Dinakar et al. [61]

Sukumar et al. [62]

Kim [63]

Fig. 10. Water–cement ratio versus the relationship between tensile strength of the various models relative to the experimental values.

Fig. 11. Variation of tensile strength with powder volume for SCC mixes.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7

E (G

Pa)

w/c

Fig. 13. Variation of modulus of elasticity with w/c ratio for SCC mixes.

I.M. Nikbin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80 75

3.3. Modulus of elasticity

Fig. 13 shows the relation between modulus of elasticity and w/c ratio of different mixes in series I. As can be seen, with increase ofw/c ratio and consequently increase of porosity in concrete, mod-ulus of elasticity is decreased. Increase of w/c ratio from 0.35 to0.7 causes modulus of elasticity to decrease by 60%. The sametrend has been reported by Haach et al. [91]. Assuming that therelation between compressive strength (f 0c) and modulus of elastic-ity (E) can be stated as a power function, as suggested in mostinternational codes, the relation was determined for tested mixesusing regression analysis according to Fig. 14 as:

E ¼ 4660ffiffiffiffif 0c

qR2 ¼ 0:99 ð4Þ

where f 0c is the compressive strength in MPa and E is the elasticmodulus in MPa.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

0 20 40 60 80

f t (t

est)

/ f t

(pre

dict

ed)

rati

o

Powder volume (%)

Fig. 12. Powder volume versus the relationship between tensile stre

As can be observed from Fig. 14 and Table 4, with increase ofcompressive strength in SCC, modulus of elasticity is increased, likewhat happened in NVC (190% increase in compressive strength ofresults in 78% increase of modulus of elasticity). Fig. 15 showsthe relation between compressive strength and modulus of elastic-ity versus compressive strength for NVC and SCC reported by otherresearchers. As can be seen, the data reported by other researchersis highly scattered. This is due to various properties of materialsused such as type and size of aggregate, type and amount of fillerused. From Fig. 15 it can be said that the best fitted line accordingto the obtained results of the present study is the same as that ob-tained from data presented by other researchers. It can also be ob-served that variation trend of modulus of elasticity is different for

100 120

Felekoglu et al. [25]

Dinakar et al. [61]

Sukumar et al. [62]

Topçu and Uygunoglu [64]

Kim [63]

Parra et al. [12]

CEB-FIP [86]

ACI 363R [87]

NEN 6722 [88]

ACI 318 [89]

AASHTO [90]

ngth of the various models relative to the experimental values.

R² = 0.99

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5

E (

GP

a)

E =4660 fc

Fig. 14. Relation between modulus of elasticity and compressive strength for SCCmixes with different water–cement ratios.

76 I.M. Nikbin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80

SCC and NVC. This is due to small size and low content of coarseaggregate in SCC. It should be noted that, in lower strength, mod-ulus of elasticity of NVC is slightly less than that of SCC while inhigher strength, the modulus of elasticity of NVC has higher valuethan SCC. This can be attributed to the fact that, in rather high ra-tios of w/c, mineral fillers and small size of aggregate in SCC im-proves the quality of ITZ which compensates for the decrease ofaggregate volume. However, in higher strength, reducing effect ofaggregate volume plays significant role in the deference betweenmodulus of elasticity in NVC and SCC which is due to negligible ef-fect of mineral fillers on quality and porosity decrease of ITZ.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60

Mod

ulus

of

elas

tici

ty (

GP

a)

Compressive s

Fig. 15. Modulus of elasticity versus compressive strength (data from

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

E(t

est)

/ E

(pre

dict

ed)

rati

o

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6w/c

Fig. 16. Water–cement ratio versus the relationship between modulus of elasticity oreferences for further information.)

Fig. 16 shows the ratio of modulus of elasticity obtained fromexperimental results in the present study, for all SCC mixes, tothe predicted values, considering w/c ratio and correspondingcompressive strength based on the relations proposed by differentresearchers for SCC and also well-known international codes. Theresults show that the relations suggested by AASHTO [90], ACI318 [89] and NBR 6118 [110] can give acceptable predictions formodulus of elasticity of SCC with different w/c ratios. However, itcan be said that the relations suggested by CEB [108] code andKim [63] provide acceptable predictions for modulus of elasticityof SCC with w/c ratios lower than 0.6. Thus, it might be said thatalthough the relations included in ACI 318 [89], AASHTO [90] andNBR 6118 [110] can be used to predict modulus of elasticity basedon compressive strength, other parameters such as powder typeand type of the aggregate can affect the accuracy of the above-mentioned relations, as reported by some researchers. Fig. 17shows the variation trend of modulus of elasticity versus limestonepowder volume percent for two different w/c ratios of SCC. As canbe seen, with increase of limestone powder content, modulus ofelasticity of concrete is increased. However, this increase for bothw/c ratios, is about 9%. Such trend was previously reported byRoziere et al. [58]. The reason for this negligible increase in modu-lus of elasticity might presumably be attributed to the fact, on theone hand increase of paste volume reduces modulus of elasticityand on the other hand, as previous researches have shown (Roziereet al. [58] and Parra et al. [12]), use of limestone powder in SCC in-creases the stiffness of the paste which compensates for the aggre-gate content reduction to a great extent. However modulus of

80 100 120 140 160

trength (MPa)

NVCSCCTest resultsNVC (Regression Line)

SCC (Regression Line) Test results (Regression line)

R² = 0.50

R² = 0.59R² = 1.00

Refs. [12,17,18,22,25,39,51,52,61,63–71,73–75,78,84,85,92–107]).

Persson [17]

Leemann and Hoffmann [18]

Felekoglu et al. [25]

Dinakar et al. [61]

Kim [63]

CEB [108]

CEB-FIP [86]

ACI 363R [87]

NS 3473 [109]

NBR 6118 [110]

ACI 318 [89]

AASHTO [90]0.7 0.8

f the various models relative to the experimental values. (See above-mentioned

Fig. 17. Variation of modulus of elasticity with powder volume for SCC mixes.0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

fc E ft

Rel

ativ

e V

alue

w/c = 0.35

w/c = 0.4

w/c = 0.45

w/c = 0.5

w/c = 0.55

w/c = 0.6

w/c = 0.65

w/c = 0.7

Fig. 19. Variation of mechanical properties with w/c ratio.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

fc E ft

Rel

ativ

e Va

lue

V= 25% V= 50% V= 75% V= 100%

Fig. 20. Variation of mechanical properties with different powder volume forw/c = 0.47.

I.M. Nikbin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80 77

elasticity has a very variable and unpredictable nature and otherfactors might have contributed to such slight increase.

Fig. 18 shows the ratio of modulus of elasticity obtained fromthe experimental results in the present study for all SCC mixes tothe predicted values considering powder content percent and thecorresponding compressive strength based on the relations pro-posed by different researchers for SCC and standard internationalcodes. The results show that the relations proposed by CEB [108]and NBR 6118 [110] as well as those suggested by Leemann andHoffmann [18] and Kim [63] can provide acceptable predictionswith low error for modulus of elasticity of SCC with varying pow-der content percentage. As can be observed the relation proposedby Leemann and Hoffmann [18], in different powder contents, un-der predicts the values while the relation proposed by CEB [108]and Kim [63] gives over predicted values for SCC including differ-ent powder contents. Thus, it might be said that the relation in-cluded in NBR 6118 [110] can be used to predict modulus ofelasticity of SCC containing various powder contents based on itscompressive strength. Also, considering Fig. 18 it can be foundout that most relations included in the codes underestimated theexperimental results which can be due to use of limestone powderin this research which increases the stiffness of paste and conse-quently increases modulus of elasticity in SCC mixes. A graphicalcomparison between the compressive strength, tensile strengthand modulus of elasticity of SCC with different w/c ratios has beenprovided in Fig. 19. As can be seen, with increase of w/c ratio, thevalues obtained for compressive strength, tensile strength andmodulus of elasticity are decreased. However, this effect on valuesof compressive and tensile strength is more noticeable than the ef-fect of w/c ratio on the results obtained for modulus of elasticity.This can be due to the fact that increase of w/c ratio substantiallyaffect the microstructure of concrete and that compressivestrength and tensile strength are significantly affected by concretemicrostructure. On the other hand, type, content and properties ofaggregate has more significant effect on modulus of elasticity than

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 20 40 60 80

E(t

est)

/ E

(pre

dict

ed)

rati

o

Powder volume (%)

Fig. 18. Powder volume versus the relationship between modulus of e

compressive and tensile strengths while microstructure has the re-verse effect influencing compressive and tensile strengths moreseriously than modulus of elasticity. A graphical comparison be-tween mechanical properties of SCC containing different powdercontent and w/c ratios, is provided in Figs. 20 and 21. As can beseen the variation trend of compressive strength with increase oflimestone powder contents is more noticeable compared to varia-tion trend of tensile strength and modulus of elasticity. This trendis even more noticeable for w/c ratio of 0.6. However, variation oflimestone powder content does not generally cause noticeablechanges in mechanical properties of SCC. This, as mentioned be-fore, is due to presence of two contradicting effects of addition oflimestone powder. On the one hand, limestone powder addition,which is corresponding to decrease of aggregate volume, decreasesmechanical properties and on the other hand increases paste vol-ume and consequently decreases ITZ volume in the concrete mixand also with increase of packing density, has significant effects

100 120

Persson [17]

Leemann and Hoffmann [18]

Felekoglu et al. [25]

Dinakar et al. [61]

CEB [108]

CEB-FIP [86]

ACI 363R [87]

NS 3473 [109]

NBR 6118 [110]

ACI 318 [89]

AASHTO [90]

Kim [63]

lasticity of the various models relative to the experimental values.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

fc E ft

Rel

ativ

e Va

lue

V= 25% V= 50% V= 75% V= 100%

Fig. 21. Variation of mechanical properties with different powder volume forw/c = 0.6.

78 I.M. Nikbin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80

on improvement of the ITZ quality. Thus, these two effects some-how counterbalance each other resulting in less variation inmechanical properties.

4. Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from the results of thisexperimental work:

1. With increase of w/c ratio from 0.35 to 0.7 the value of com-pressive strength is decreased by 66%.

2. The relation proposed by Abrams can predict compressivestrength of SCC, based on w/c ratio, with acceptable accuracy.

3. With increase of limestone powder content from 25% to100% the compressive strength increases 20% and 38% fortwo w/c ratios of 0.6 and 0.47 respectively.

4. In lower w/c ratios, the effect of limestone powder contenton increase of compressive strength is more noticeable.

5. With increase of w/c from 0.35 to 0.7, tensile strength of SCCis decreased by 51%.

6. The relations proposed by ACI 363 [87], ACI 318 [89] andCEB-FIP [86] codes and the relation suggested by Parraet al. [12] give acceptable predictions for tensile strengthof SCC with different w/c ratios.

7. With increase of limestone powder content from 25% to100%, tensile strength increases by 17% and 12% for w/cratios of 0.6 and 0.47 respectively, which is in good agree-ment with the results reported by Roziere et al. [58].

8. The relations proposed by CEB-FIP [86], ACI 318 [89], ACI363 [87] and NEN 6722 [88] and also those suggested byParra et al. [12] and Topçu and Uygunoglu [64] give accept-able predictions for tensile strength of SCC containing differ-ent limestone contents.

9. With increase of w/c ratio from 0.35 to 0.7, modulus of elas-ticity of SCC is decreased by 44%.

10. Relations proposed by AASHTO [90], ACI 318 [89] andNBR6118 [110] give acceptable predictions for modulus ofelasticity of SCC with different w/c ratios.

11. With increase of limestone powder content from 25% to100%, modulus of elasticity increases roughly by 9% for bothw/c ratios of 0.6 and 0.47 which is compliant with the resultsreported by Roziere et al. [58].

12. The relations proposed by CEB [108] and NBR 6118 [110]and also those suggested by Leemann and Hoffmann [18]and Kim [63] yield acceptable predictions for modulus ofelasticity of SCC with different contents of limestonepowder.

13. The effect of w/c ratio on the variation of compressivestrength and tensile strength is more noticeable than onmodulus of elasticity.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of theBabol University of Technology that made this research possible.

References

[1] Sideris KK, Manita P. Residual mechanical characteristics and spallingresistance of fiber reinforced self-compacting concretes exposed to elevatedtemperatures. Constr Build Mater 2013;41:296–302.

[2] Sua-iam G, Makul N. Utilization of limestone powder to improve theproperties of self-compacting concrete incorporating high volumes ofuntreated rice husk ash as fine aggregate. Constr Build Mater2013;38:455–64.

[3] Sua-iam G, Makul N. Use of recycled alumina as fine aggregate replacement inself-compacting concrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;47:701–10.

[4] Piekarczyk BŁ. The type of air-entraining and viscosity modifying admixturesand porosity and frost durability of high performance self-compactingconcrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;40:659–71.

[5] Cuenca J, Rodríguez J, Morales MM, Zamorano M. Effects of olive residuebiomass fly ash as filler in self-compacting concrete. Constr Build Mater2013;40:702–9.

[6] Felekoglu B, Sarıkahya H. Effect of chemical structure of polycarboxylate-based superplasticizers on workability retention of self-compacting concrete.Constr Build Mater 2008;22:1972–80.

[7] Ferrara L, Bamonte P, Caverzan A, Musa A, Sanal I. A comprehensivemethodology to test the performance of Steel Fiber Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete (SFR-SCC). Constr Build Mater 2012;37:406–24.

[8] Ganesan N, Raj JB, Shashikala AP. Flexural fatigue behavior of self compactingrubberized concrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;44:7–14.

[9] Sideris KK, Anagnostopoulos NS. Durability of normal strength self-compacting concretes and their impact on service life of reinforced concretestructures. Constr Build Mater 2013;41:491–7.

[10] Viacava lR, Cea AAd, Sensale GRd. Self-compacting concrete of mediumcharacteristic strength. Const Build Mater 2012;30:776–82.

[11] Diederich P, Mouret M, Ponchon F. Simple tools for achieving self-compactingability of concrete according to the nature of the limestone filler. Constr BuildMater 2013;48:840–52.

[12] Parra C, Valcuende M, Gomez F. Splitting tensile strength and modulus ofelasticity of self-compacting concrete. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:201–7.

[13] Panesar DK, Shindman B. Elastic properties of self - consolidating concrete.Constr Build Mater 2011;25:3334–44.

[14] Aslani F, Nejadi S. Mechanical properties of conventional and self-compactingconcrete: an analytical study. Constr Build Mater 2012;36:330–47.

[15] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. 4th ed. London: Longman; 1995.[16] Vilanova A, Gomez JF, Landsberger GA. Evaluation of the mechanical

properties of self compacting concrete using current estimating modelsestimating the modulus of elasticity, tensile strength, and modulus of ruptureof self-compacting concrete. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:3417–26.

[17] Persson B. A comparison between mechanical properties of self-compactingconcrete and the corresponding properties of normal concrete. Cem ConcrRes 2001;31:193–8.

[18] Leemann A, Hoffmann C. Properties of self compacting and conventionalconcrete – differences and similarities. Mag Concr Res 2005;57:315–9.

[19] Domone PL. A review of the hardened mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete. Cement Concr Compos 2007;29:1–12.

[20] Koning G, Holsechemacher K, Dehn F, Weibe D. Self-compacting concrete-time development of material properties and bond behavior. In: Ozawa K,Ouchi M, editors. Proceedings of the 2nd international RILEM symposium onself compacting concrete. Tokyo: COMS Engineering Corporation; 2001. p.507–16.

[21] Hauke B. Self-compacting concrete for precast concrete products in Germany.In: Ozawa K, Ouchi M, editors. Proceedings of the 2nd international RILEMsymposium on self-compacting concrete. Tokyo: COMS EngineeringCorporation; 2001. p. 633–42.

[22] Fava C, Bergol L, Fornasier G, Giangrasso F, Rocco C. Fracture behavior ofself-compacting concrete. In: Wallevik O, Nielsson I, editors. Proceedings ofthe 3rd international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete.Reykjavik: RILEM Publications S.A.R.L; 2003. p. 628–36.

[23] Petersson O, Billberg P. Investigation on blocking of self-compacting concretewith different maximum aggregate size and use of viscosity agent instead offiller. First international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete,Rilem Publications S.A.R.L.; 1999. p. 333–44.

[24] Martí J, Serna P, Arbelaez C, Rigueira V. Comportamiento adherente delhormigón autocompactante en transmisión y anclaje (Adhesion behavior ofSCC at transmission and anchorage). Materiales de Construcción2006;56(284):27–42.

[25] Felekoglu B, Turkel S, Baradan B. Effect of water/cement ratio on the fresh andhardened properties of self-compacting concrete. Build Environ2007;42:1795–802.

[26] Bosiljkov VB. SCC mixes with poorly graded aggregate and high volume oflimestone filler. Cem Concr Res 2003;33(9):1279–86.

I.M. Nikbin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80 79

[27] Makishima O, Tanaka H, Itoh Y, Komada K, Satoh F. Evaluation of mechanicalproperties and durability of super quality concrete. In: Ozawa K, Ouchi M,editors. Proceedings of the 2nd international RILEM symposium on selfcompacting concrete. Tokyo: COMS Engineering Corporation; 2001. p.475–82.

[28] Klug Y, Holschemacher K. Comparison of the hardened properties of self –compacting and normal vibrated concrete. In: Wallevik O, Nielsson I, editors.Proceedings of the 3rd international RILEM symposium on self-compactingconcrete. Reykjavik. RILEM Publications S.A.R.L.; 2003. p. 596–605.

[29] Chopin D, Francy O, Lebourgeois S, Rougeau P. Creep and shrinkage of heatcured self-compacting concrete (SCC). In: Wallevik O, Nielsson I, editors.Proceedings of the 3rd international RILEM symposium on self-compactingconcrete. Reykjavik. RILEM Publications S.A.R.L.; 2003. p. 672–83.

[30] Su N, Hsu K, Chai H. A simple mix design method for self-compactingconcrete. Cem Concr Res 2001;31(12):1799–807.

[31] Van Itterbeeck P, Cauberg N, Parmentier B, Vandewalle L, Lesage K. Eurocode2 predictions vs. mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete. In:Khayat K, Feys D, editors. Proceedings of SCC 2010 design, production, andplacement of SCC, vol. 2. Springer, RILEM Publications; 2010. p. 823–32.

[32] Gram HE, Piiparinen P. Properties of SCC-especially early age and long termshrinkage and salt frost resistance. First international RILEM symposium onself-compacting concrete, Rilem Publications S.A.R.L 1999. p. 211–26.

[33] Dehn F, Holschemacher K, WeiXe D. Self-compacting concrete timedevelopment of the material properties and the bond behavior. The Leipzigannual civil engineering report, Germany LACER No. 5, ISSN 1432–6590,2000. p. 115–24.

[34] Jacobs F, Hunkeler F. Design of self-compacting concrete for durable concretestructures. First international RILEM symposium on self-compactingconcrete, Rilem Publications S.A.R.L.; 1999. p. 397–410.

[35] Ashtiani MS, Scott AN, Dhakal RP. Mechanical and fresh properties of high-strength self-compacting concrete containing class C fly ash. Constr BuildMater 2013;47:1217–24.

[36] Ambriose J, Pera J. Design of self-leveling concrete. In: Shah SP, Daczko JA,Lingscheit JN, editors. First North American conference on the design and useof self consolidating concrete; 2002.

[37] Bonen D, Shah SP. The effects of formulation on the properties of self-consolidating concrete. In: Kovler K, Marchand J, Mindess S, Weiss J, editors.Concrete science and engineering a tribute to Arnon Bentur, internationalRILEM symposium. Evanston, USA: RILEM Publications SARL; 2004. p.43–56.

[38] Attiogbe E, See H, Dazco J. Eng Prop Self-Consolid Concr 2002.[39] Holschemacher K, Klug Y. A database for the evaluation of hardened

properties of SCC. Lacer 2002;7.[40] EFNARC. Specification & guidelines for self-compacting concrete. English ed.

Norfolk, UK: European Federation for Specialist Construction Chemicals andConcrete Systems; 2002.

[41] BS EN 12390. Part 3: Testing hardened concrete. Method of determination ofcompressive strength of concrete cubes. British Standards Institution; 2000.

[42] ASTM C496. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of cylindricalconcrete specimens. Annual Book of ASTM Standards; 2004.

[43] ASTM C469. Standard test method for static modulus of elasticity andPoisson’s ratio of concrete in compression. Annual Book of ASTM Standards;2004.

[44] Appa Rao G. Generalization of Abrams’ law for cement mortars. Cem ConcrRes 2001;31(3):495–502.

[45] Mohamad G, Lourenço PB, Camões A, Roman HR. Estudo de caracterizaçãomecânica das argamassas de assentamento para alvenaria estrutural, VIISimpósio Brasileiro de Tecnologia das Argamassas – VII SBTA. Brasil: Recife;2007.

[46] Fernandes V, Silva L, Ferreira VM, Labrincha JA. Evaluation of mixing andapplication process parameters of single-coat mortars. Cem Concr Res2005;35(5):836–41.

[47] Zhu W, Gibbs JC. Use of different limestone and chalk powders in self-compacting concrete. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:1457–62.

[48] Uysal M, Sumer M. Performance of self-compacting concrete containingdifferent mineral admixtures. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:4112–20.

[49] Rabehi M, Mezghiche B, Guettala S. Correlation between initial absorption ofthe cover concrete, the compressive strength and carbonation depth. ConstrBuild Mater 2013;45:123–9.

[50] Karihaloo BL. Fracture toughness of plain concrete from compression splittingtests. Int J Cem Compos Lightweight Concr 1986;8(4):251–9.

[51] Karihaloo BL, Nallathambi P. Fracture toughness of plain concrete from three-point bend specimens. Mater Struct 1989;22:185–93.

[52] Karihaloo BL, Nallathambi P. Notched beam test: Mode I fracture toughness.In: Shah SP, Carpinteri A, editors. Fracture mechanics test methods forconcrete. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991. p. 1–86.

[53] Kim JK, Lee CS, Park CK, Eo SH. The fracture characteristics of crushedlimestone sand Concrete. Cem Concr Res 1997;27:1719–29.

[54] Prokopskia G, Langier B. Effect of water/cement ratio and silica fume additionon the fracture toughness and morphology of fractured surfaces of gravelconcretes. Cem Concr Res 2000;30:1427–33.

[55] Carpinteri A, Brighenti R. Fracture behavior of plain and fiber-reinforcedconcrete with different water content under mixed mode loading. Mater Des2010;31:2032–42.

[56] Ince R, Alyamac KE. Determination of fracture parameters of concrete basedon water–cement ratio. Indian J Eng Mater Sci 2008;15:14–22.

[57] Akcaoglu T, Tokyay M, Celik T. Effect of coarse aggregate size and matrixquality on ITZ and failure behavior of concrete under uniaxial compression.Cement Concr Compos 2004;26:633–8.

[58] Roziere E, Granger S, Turcry Ph, Loukili A. Influence of paste volume onshrinkage cracking and fracture properties of self-compacting concrete. CemConcr Compos 2007;29:626–36.

[59] Amparano FE, Xi YP, Roh YS. Experimental study on the effect of aggregatecontent on fracture behavior of concrete. Eng Fract Mech 2000;67(1):65–84.

[60] Siddique R, Aggarwal P, Aggarwal Y. Influence of water/powder ratio onstrength properties of self-compacting concrete containing coal fly ash andbottom ash. Constr Build Mater 2012;29:73–81.

[61] Dinakar P, Babu KG, Santhanam M. Mechanical properties of high-volume flyash self-compacting concrete mixtures. Struct Concr 2008;9(2):109–16.

[62] Sukumar B, Nagamani K, Raghavan RS. Evaluation of strength at early ages ofself-compacting concrete with high volume fly ash. Constr Build Mater2008;22:1394–401.

[63] Kim Y.H. Characterization of self-consolidating concrete for the design ofprecast, pretensioned bridge superstructure elements. PhD Thesis, TexasA&M University; 2008.

[64] Topçu BI, Uygunoglu T. Effect of aggregate type on properties of hardenedselfconsolidating lightweight concrete (SCLC). Constr Build Mater2010;24:1286–95.

[65] Giacco G, Rocco C, Zerbino R. The fracture energy (GF) of high-strengthconcretes. Mater Struct 1993;26:381–6.

[66] Jenq YS, Shah SP. A fracture toughness criterion for concrete. Eng Fract Mech1985;21(5):1055–69.

[67] Jenq YS, Shah SP. Two parameter fracture model for concrete. J Eng Mech1985;111(10):1227–41.

[68] Malvar JL, Warren GE. Fracture energy for three-point-bend tests on single-edge-notched beams: proposed evaluation. Mater Struct 1987;20:448–54.

[69] Malvar JL, Warren GE. Fracture energy for three-point-bend tests on single-edge-notched beams. Exp Mech 1988;28(3):266–72.

[70] Petersson PE. Crack growth and development of fracture zone in plainconcrete and similar materials, Report No. TVBM-1006, Division of BuildingMaterials Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden; 1981.

[71] Uchida Y, Barr BIG. Tension softening curves of concrete determined fromdifferent test specimen geometries, fracture mechanics of concretestructures. In: Proceedings of the FRAMCOS-3, AEDIFICATIO Publishers,Freiburg, Germany; 1998. p. 387–398.

[72] Zhu W, Sonebi M, Bartos PJM. Bond and interfacial properties ofreinforcement in self compacting concrete. Mater Struct/Materiaux etConstructions 2004;37:442–8.

[73] Van Itterbeeck P, Cauberg N, Parmentier B, Vandewalle L, Lesage K. Evaluationof the cracking potential of young self compacting concrete. In: Khayat K,Feys D, editors. Proceedings of SCC 2010 design, production, and placement ofSCC, vol. 2. Springer, RILEM Publications; 2010. p. 991–1001.

[74] Eskandari H, Muralidhara S, Prasad BKR, Venkataramareddy B. Size effect inself-consolidating concrete beams with and without notches. Sadhana2010;35:303–17.

[75] Hwang SK, Khayat KH. Durability characteristics of self-consolidatingconcrete designated for repair applications. Mater Struct 2009;42:1–14.

[76] Sonebi M, Tamini AK, Bartos PJM. Performance and cracking behavior ofreinforced behavior of reinforced beams cast with self consolidating concrete.ACI Mater J 2003;100(6):492–500.

[77] Arbelaez J, Rigueira V, Marti V, Serna R, Pinto B. Bond characteristics ofprestressed strands in self-compacting concrete. In: Wallevik O, Nielsson I,editors. Proceedings of third RILEM international symposium on selfcompacting concrete Reykjavik Iceland. Bagneux, France: RILEMPublications, PRO 33; 2003. p. 684–91.

[78] Turcry P, Loukili A, Haidar K. Mechanical properties plastic shrinkage and freedeformations of self-consolidating concrete. In: Proceedings of first NorthAmerican conference on the design and use of self-consolidating concreteCentre for Advanced Based Materials. Illinois: North Western University;2002. p. 335–40.

[79] Soylev TA, Francois R. Quality of steel–concrete interface and corrosion ofreinforcing steel. Cem Concr Res 2003;33:1407–15.

[80] Sonebi M, Bartos PJM. Filling ability and plastic settlement of self compactingconcrete. Mater Struct 2002;35:462–9.

[81] Peter JA, Lakshamanan N, Manoharan PD, Rajamane NP, Gopalakrishnan P.Flexural behavior of RC beam using self-compacting concrete. Indian Concr J2004;78(6):66–71.

[82] Naito C, Hoover M. Applicability of self-consolidating concrete for use inprecast bridge beam construction. Proceedings of SCC 2005 conference,Centre for Advanced Cement Based Materials. USA: Northwestern University2005; p. 1037–44.

[83] Brouwers HJH, Radix HJ. Self-compacting concrete: theoretical andexperimental study. Cem Concr Res 2005;35(11):2116–36.

[84] Loser R, Leemann A. Shrinkage and restrained shrinkage cracking of self-compacting concrete compared to conventionally vibrated concrete. MaterStruct 2009;42:71–82.

[85] Wustholz T, Reinhardt HW. Deformation behavior of self-compactingconcrete under tensile loading. Mater Struct 2007;40:965–77.

[86] CEB-FIP. High-strength concrete state of the art report. London: ThomasTelford; 1990.

[87] ACI Committee 363. State of the art report on high-strength concrete. ACI363-R, Farmington Hills (Michigan): American Concrete Institute; 1992.

80 I.M. Nikbin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 57 (2014) 69–80

[88] NEN 6722. Regulations concrete. Construction (VBU 1988), with correctionsheet; 2000.

[89] American Concrete Institute. ACI Committee 318: building code requirementsfor structural concrete. Farmington Hills MI): American Concrete Institute;2005.

[90] AASHTO. Interim bridge design specifications and commentary. Washington(DC): American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO); 2006.

[91] Haach VG, Lourenço PB. Influence of aggregates grading and water/cementratio in workability and hardened properties of mortars. Constr Build Mater2011;25:2980–7.

[92] Vieira M, Bettencourt A. Deformability of hardened SCC. In: Wallevik O,Nielsson I, editors. Proceedings of third RILEM international symposium onself compacting concrete Reykjavik Iceland. Bagneux, France: RILEMPublications, PRO 33; 2003. p. 637–44.

[93] Brunner M. Durability of SCC with high water content. Proceedings of SCC2005 conference Centre for Advanced Cement Based Materials. USA:Northwestern University 2005. p. 333–40.

[94] de Almeida Filho F.M., de Nardin S, de Cresce El Debs A.L.H. Evaluation of thebond strength of self-compacting concrete in pull-out tests. Proceedings ofSCC 2005 conference Centre for Advanced Cement Based Materials. USA:Northwestern University 2005. p. 953–8.

[95] Khayat KH, Trembley S, Paultre P. Structural response of self- consolidatingconcrete columns. In: Skarendahl A, Petersson O. First international RILEMsymposium on self-compacting concrete, Sweden: Stockholm, September13–14, 1999. p. 291–305.

[96] Pons G, Proust E, Assie S. Creep and shrinkage behavior of self compactingconcrete: a different behaviour compared with vibrated concrete. In:Wallevik O, Nielsson I, editors. Proceedings of third RILEM internationalsymposium on self compacting concrete Reykjavik Iceland. Bagneux,France: RILEM Publications, PRO 33; 2003. p. 645–54.

[97] Khayat K.H., Petrov N, Attiogbe E.K., See H.T. Uniformity of bond strength ofprestressed strands in conventional flowable and self-consolidating concretemixtures. In: Wallevik O, Nielsson I, editors. Proceedings of third RILEMinternational symposium on self compacting concrete Reykjavik Iceland.Bagneux, France: RILEM Publications, PRO 33; 2003. p. 703–12.

[98] Issa M, Alhassan M, Shabila H, Krozel J. Laboratory performance evaluation ofself-consolidating concrete. Proceedings of SCC 2005 conference Centre for

Advanced Cement Based Materials. USA: Northwestern University 2005. p.857–62.

[99] Poppe A-M, De Schutter G. Effect of limestone filler on the cement hydrationin self-compacting concrete. In: Wallevik O, Nielsson I, editors. Proceedings ofthird RILEM international symposium on self compacting concrete ReykjavikIceland. Bagneux, France: RILEM Publications, PRO 33; 2003. p. 558–66.

[100] Pineaud A, Cabrillac R, Remond S, Pimienta P, Rivillon P. Mechanicalproperties of self-compacting concrete – influence of compositionparameters. Proceedings of SCC 2005 conference Centre for AdvancedCement Based Materials. USA: Northwestern University 2005. p. 863–8.

[101] Dehaudt S, Rougeau P, Lebourgeois S. Interest of high performance self-compacting concretes for precast concrete products. Proceedings of SCC 2005conference Centre for Advanced Cement Based Materials. USA: NorthwesternUniversity 2005. p. 1179–88.

[102] Fomasier G, Fava C, Zitzer L. Self compacting concrete in Argentina the firstexperience. In: Ozawa K, Ouchi M, editors. Proceedings of the second RILEMinternational symposium on self-compacting concrete Kochi University ofTechnology. Japan: COMS Engineering Corporation; 2001. p. 309–18.

[103] Almeida Filho FM, Barragán BE, Casas JR, El Debs ALHC. Hardened propertiesof self-compacting concrete - a statistical approach. Constr Build Mater2010;24(9):1608–15.

[104] Vieria M, Bettencourt A. Deformability of hardened SCC. In: 3rd Internationalsymposium on self-compacting concrete, Reykjaik, Iceland; 2003. p. 637–44.

[105] Bilek V, Schmid P. Properties of self-compacting concrete with different fineadmixtures and their comparison with properties of usual concrete. CementCombinations for Durable, Concrete 2005; p. 251–60.

[106] Therán M.M.G. Experimental evaluation of the modulus of elasticity of self-consolidating concrete. MSc Thesis, University of Puerto Rico; 2008.

[107] Liu M. Self-compacting concrete with different levels of pulverized fuel ash.Constr Build Mater 2010;24:1245–52.

[108] Comité Euro-International du Béton. CEB-FIP model code 1990. London:Thomas Telford; 1993.

[109] Norwegian Council for Strandardization. Concrete structures design rules. NS3473, Oslo (Norway): Norges Standardiserings Forbund; 1992.

[110] Brazilian association of technical standards NBR 6118: design of concretestructures. Rio de Janeiro; 2003 [in Portuguese].