Goal is to not have to vibrate our precast forms. Max w/c is .44 for our vaults.

After the addition of Adva 575 HRWRA a is unstable and segregates. A grace rep said get the batch to a 1" to 3" slump before adding the HRWR, however to a max .44 W/C. Is it acceptable to use a WRA and a hwrda together? As in reach a higher slump with the WRA before a Current mix: 1yd Cem 650 lbs 3/4 chip 788 lbs 3/8 chip 788 lbs Sand 1400 lbs H2o 285 lbs Fiber mesh 1lb Additives: 26oz per yard Grace 575 Advacast HRWRA 2oz per yard Air for 5 to 6 percent air entrainment. Pulling my hair out getting this stuff stable and eliminating voids We also have access to Grace WRA 27 and VMAR 3. Thanks
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

concretemasonry (Structural)

Vibration can be magical when it comes to manufacturing concrete products in a plant environment. Usually, with a de matter of fine tuning the mix design, moisture and the vibration frequency. - different aggregate gradations and shape should be able to use. Angular aggregates can be a problem because you really want high densities and rounded fines The vibration frequencies could alter the air entrainment admix if you want to maintain the 5-6%. Look to other admix suppliers that may have more experience (with similar products)using the local aggregates.

My experience is manly in the area of zero slump or low slump mixes used for extruded zero slump or pre-stressed mix accelerated curing controls and rapid turn-over - for what is worth, since your mix seems a little wet. Engineer and international traveler interested in construction techniques, problems and proper design.
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

hokie66 (Structural)

Resistance to the need to compact concrete seems to be a recurring theme lately, with lots of folks wanting their concr believe in this philosophy, and don't have much sympathy when such schemes fail.
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

Ron (Structural)

Continuing with hokie66's theme (with which I agree), the various admixtures and processes available to enhance conc circumvent or supplant good concrete practice. Admixtures have their limitations. You will likely find that you have to match the capability of the concrete, not the reverse.
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

LKPRECAST (Structural)

Thanks for the responses. Unfortunately round agg around here is rare. (Idaho) Everything is crushed. A void free fin we have had it working for a while, but then recently something has changed. Aggregate gradiations or Im wondering spoiling our Cement to agg ratio. Going back to vibrating could be beneficial, though with an SCC mix it can segregate the large aggregates.
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

LKPRECAST (Structural)

Anyone see any issues with my batch weights? Thinking about taking out some of the sand to reduce some of the surf

Can I use a WRA to meet the w/c ratio and then use the HRWR to get it self concolidate or is that redundant? My grac compatible.
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

LKPRECAST (Structural)

Did a trail batch today. Used 3oz per 100wt of WRDA 27 to reach a 2.5 inch slump maintaining a .44 w/cm , then mix 100wt. Im pleased with the results. The mix was stable and flowed well, but I think I can push it further, either a high Some small air voids are still present, but not excessive for an under ground vault, but this may be due to the form oil,
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

Hoaokapohaku (Geotechnical)

It is not only acceptable to use those two types of admixtures together, it is virtually a standard practice. I don't think uses a high range water reducer that didn't also use a Type A water reducer such as WRDA-27, and can't think of any to. All designs for self consolidating concrete will include both types of water reducers.

A LOT can be done to "push it further" with this mix, but in what direction do you want to push? Higher strength (usin cost? More slump? Less segregation?

I notice you don't mention any air entrainment. That seems a bit odd for freeze/thaw conditions in Idaho. Did you jus specifications say you may not use it, there are a bunch of reasons why you should - including better workability and lo
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

LKPRECAST (Structural) Most of our product line only requires 4000psi. Though with the current design over 6000 is common

I am using a small amount of air. 2 oz per yard (650 lbs cem) was giving me 5%, however this was with my old mix de Almost 1600 lbs. I think I need to increase it but I wont know with out doing an air test.

Ultimately the direction I would like to go is slighlty more slump, and stability, along with form finish. As of now the mi After the addition of the ADVA 575 mixing requirments seem a bit long just over 10min (mixing in a truck). The slump the forms though Im still getting an "airy" finish. Small voids on most of the horizontal finsh.

Getting the cost down would be good for the company provided I still maintaned an scc mix with good form finish, and Updated Disign" 1yd Cem 650 lbs 3/4 chip 788 lbs 3/8 chip 788 lbs Sand 1400 lbs H2o 285 lbs Fiber mesh 1 lb Aditives: WRDA 27 3.5 oz per 100wt ADVA 575 4 oz per 100wt Air .5 oz per 100wt Thanks for all the input. Having a lot of fun, learning a lot!
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

Hoaokapohaku (Geotechnical)

For starters, use the maximum recommended dose for your Type A water reducer, 6 oz/ctw. This will reduce the wate about 10 to 15 pounds. I would trial batch with the increased WRDA-27 at the 6 oz and probably reduce the water to 2 cement content in the trial batch by the amount required to maintain your present .44 w/c ratio. You don't have to wo lower cement content. As long as you maintain the same w/c ratio and reduce the amount of both water and cement y this trial batch is to find the amount of water and cement required to hit your desired slump while using the maximum hit your target first time around, make adjustments and trial batch again. Repeat as necessary until you get the target for workability, virtually everything about concrete gets better with less water (up to a point anyway, and you arent an case, you are going to get the workability you need by your high range water reducer (HRWR) so the d ifficult workabil a factor. Cement is expensive; WRDA-27 is comparatively not expensive so this modification will have significant cost a

As long as you are at the same slump before adding the Adva as you were in your previous design, the same dose rate dosing as before, though the total amount of admixture added will be less because of your lower cement content.

By saying you want better stability. Im assuming that you mean you want a mix that is less prone to segregation. If done at this point will have already helped because of the reduced water content. If trial batching that includes Adva in able to increase your Adva dose rate to gain more flow. You will gain more stability yet by using a viscosity modifying a you use all Grace admixtures, you should look into their V-MAR-3. Personally, I use BASF products for this use so I can but I expect one would get similar results. VMA admixtures help hold all the mix together and therefore will help get yo these admixtures make great band-aids for problems with aggregate gradation and particle shape. Based on your pro surface and the fact that your previous design used to work but now doesnt when no other variables were changed, y

aggregate gradation or particle shape (flat and/or elongated particles) problem. You may not have control of this and V problems.

Your problems with surface voids is probably a fine aggregate gradation problem. This happens a lot with crushed sand mix with more of a certain size aggregate than will fit in the overall aggregate void structure, usually the size passing a (4.75 mm x 2.36 mm). If the particles are flat or elongated so that they sit in a horizontal orientation on the surface of worse. When the mason trowels the surface, the over abundant particles pop out, creating a void and angry cursing m this without blending a natural sand is to produce a crushed sand with less of the offending particle size. If you dont h source, lots of luck with that! Youll probably have to live with angry cursing masons.

Regarding your desire for a mix time under 10 minutes, that may be an unrealistic expectation. You can verify that the excessively worn or have excessive concrete build up. Also make sure the aggregates' moisture content exceeds the ag condition for at least 12 hours before mixing. A full explanation is longer than I want to type, but in my own operation until a minimum of 20 minutes have passed since water and cement mixed. The reason for the needed time is related cement, so the timing can be expected to vary with different cements, but 10 minutes is very fast.

Also, increase your entrained air to 7%. Normally, it will improve your mix in virtually every aspect without strength los cause strength loss in proportion to the added air. I'm curious, from what kind of rock are your aggregates produced?
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

LKPRECAST (Structural)

First off...I wish I could reach through this screen and shake your hand sir. This is like a dream, finally talking to some actually knows what's going on. Thank you.

I did a batch today, increased the air to .53 oz per 100wt, increased the Type A to 4oz/100wt, and decreased the ADV great, though the flow was down. Definately not a true scc mix, but very workable. Form finish is unknown, will see to done. Back when the company had me at 1500+lbs of sand per yard, only 2oz of air per yard gave me 5 to 6 percent. would assume it needs more. Hopefully I havent exceeded 7% with just .53oz per 100wt.

I like the idea of maxing out the WRDA 27 and reducing cement and water. Though Im wondering two things. One, Im need to make up for it in some aggregate no? If so what size is beneficial. Two, if I reduce the cement, wont that cut make the HRWR less stable? A 2" slump is what I have been keeping the mix at before the addition of the HRWR beca was unstable. I have no slump target per say. Would a higher slump be better before adding the HRWR? I just kept it grace rep told me. His exact words were "get the mix to a 1 to 3 inch slump by adjusting with water"!!!!! Guess they d acceptable. He then said add the ADVA 575 and mix for 6 minutes. So there again the only reason I was mixing it for 1 over mixing was bad and you only have about 30 minutes with the HRWR.

Now that im using the Type A, I do a moisture test on the sand, minus 1% for what it probably absorbs and figure my Daravair 1000 is going in with the water at the begining, then the wrda 27 in torwards the end with the sand after all c minute later I add the HRWR with the last of the sand and my washdown. I hold out about 20 gallons for washdown. B the production bay and checking the slump, and then adding the HRWR by hand into the truck.

Before I was concerned about stability, but now with the increased air and WRDA 27 it seems very stable for the amou seems I have a lot of kinks to work out. Ideally I want a good mix that I can just adjust the HRWR for the amount of p

On the VMA. I do have VMA-3. I thougt it reduced workability, however did save a load when it was unstable. This was wrda 27 and a different HRWR. It was adva 555, and I guess it is already mixed with a VMA, though not 100% on that

and for the amount im using it is about 1/3 the cost. Though I would be curious to see how the 555 performs with the Our sand definately has flat particles. I have noticed them popping up here and there. But I don't think it is excessive, down. I beleive the crushed agg here is granite, seems to have quite a bit of quartz in it.

The SSD condition I have always wondered about. The process to find the aggregates absorption value seems very com absorption values from the agg suppliers they don't seem to know what im talking about. I thought they were suppose aggregate below SSD is bad? We do have sprinklers over the agg piles but never knew they should soak for 12 hours.

If 20 minutes of mixing the cement and water is good practice, when are you adding the water reducers? Both the WR 15 min, then adding the HRWR and mixing for 10 min. Yesterday and today I just added them both torwards the end, total. Thanks again. You really know your stuff! I owe you big time, Feel like we should send you a check!
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

Hoaokapohaku (Geotechnical) ThanksIll consider my hand shaken!

About whether your design is a SCC mix or not, actually it doesnt look like one to me, but I didnt want to say that b dont know your materials. It looks like a standard mix with HRWR to make it free flowing. It doesnt really matter if it performs as needed.

About your form finish, I may have some comments about that but lets see how your latest test comes out first. Re wondering item #1 Yes, you must adjust your batch weights to replace the reduced volume of cement and water of cement, water and course aggregate, air and the amount of fine aggregate is whatever quantity needed to make th equal 27 cubic feet (1 CY). In my own designs, I also account for the water content of all my admixtures and include it ACI, you must do this when the total admix is more than gallon/CY, but its a pain to sometimes do it, sometimes n but always permitted, I always do it. Then I also know no matter how I may adjust my admixtures, I will not inadverte admixture water.

Re wondering item #2 Probably not, though I cant say for sure because again I dont know your materials. Ive got can imagine, crushed Hawaii basalt and I know I could produce a mix suitable with your needs with 500 to 550 pounds but thats probably a bigger jump than either you or your company want to take all at once. In the case of the current cement and water, but you are replacing it with air and fine aggregate, which are both in the mortar fraction of the mi cant produce a mix like this, it is very likely a problem with the aggregate. Either it is gap graded, or t here is an exces elongated in the course. If this is the case, and if your specifications allow, you would be better off with only one cours you do have an aggregate problem and you cant fix it, for sure use the VMA. If the Grace product doesnt do it for you a BASF VMA because we found it worked better in our situation, though we use mostly Grace for other admixtures. Yo

About the slump before dosing unless the mix is a very low w/c ratio mix with a strength requirement significantly hi an economic question. The lower the initial slump, the more HRWR it takes to gain a given amount of slump. Ive pro d where it took up to 16 oz/ctw of a particular very expensive HRWR just to get the first quarter inch of slump, another 6 4, and 1 oz to get every 1-1/2 of slump needed after that. At a certain point, the HRWR gets too expensive and its ch other cementitious materials. However, the mix needs a certain amount of fluidity to effectively get the HRWR into the cases, you can add the HRWR, or a portion of it, with the head water to facilitate mixing. There are issues with that, b with adjustments in the batch cycle.

Your Grace rep is not wrong. It is easier to work with a HRWR if you attain a slump in that range first or even 4, bu And the 6 minutes is correct too, providing that at the end of the 6 minutes it has also been at least 20 minutes since t

To find your own local minimum time from batch to pour, batch a load at about 3 design slump. Mix it for 5 minutes o competent technicians with wheelbarrows and slump cones sample and slump one after another as fast as they can. R chart. You will see rapid slump loss for a period of time, probably about 12 to 15 minutes, then a short slowing of slum then a long period of relative slump stability for probably about 3 hours with a slump loss of about 1 pe r hour. Your m that amount of time that it takes to get to the period of slump stability. I didnt answer all your questions this time, but for now Im out of time. Ill try to add more later.
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

dik (Structural) Hoaokapohaku: Excellent information, thanks. Is there much difference in what you've noted if the mix design has say 25% flyash? Dik
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

Hoaokapohaku (Geotechnical) Dik:

No, not much difference with fly ash. Admixture rates must be based on total cementitious materials so in that regard pound of cement. However, use of fly ash usually requires less water to attain a given slump because the spherical par bearings in the mix, allowing it to flow more easily. This is one reason it is helpful in pump mixes.

There is a lot of variability from one to another fly ash product, so there is little that can be said about fly ash that is u mixes with fly ash require less water, develop less early strength, and overcome ASR problems with reactive aggregate
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

dik (Structural) and with a 25% or so flyash substitution, there may be a bit of a cost savings, too. Thanks very much... one of the more informative postings. Dik
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

concretemasonry (Structural)

LKPRECAST -

Just out of curiosity, what are the required properties (texture, appearance, absorption, strength, tolerance, etc.) of th the requirement of no vibration of the precast molds? I assume the products are cured in some manner within the mol

I have been through hundreds of concrete plants internationally in 40+ countries, and usually the products properties absorption, freeze-thaw resistance, density, etc., are the main requirements. These ranged from 400' beds for 6" high cut to length, to 3 sandwich layers of different concrete (air entrained, lightweight and non entrained with a smooth fin 8'x20' panels 10" thick, thousands of 3" thick 2 room bath modules with embedded piping and many others, in addition beams.

They all had a common thread in that the product properties control, are critical and the products must be made on a plants with large aggregate storage, multiple cements/fly ashes and accelerated curing. Local aggregate were within 1 economical rail shipment option. They were all in the broad range of concrete from zero slump to normal weight and li

I ask this because it is fascinating what can be done with different raw materials and processes to achieve a necessary Europe that makes both plain or pigmented and architectural concrete block (24/7) in a totally automated plant and als cast copies of classic painted in 2" thicknesses of concrete that are pigmented and sold as wall hangings for $2,000 - $ possible. Dick Engineer and international traveler interested in construction techniques, problems and proper design.
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

LKPRECAST (Structural)

Sorry for the delay in response. I stopped getting emails for some reason. Anywho. Initially I mis-spoke. Horizontal for work, and can get smooth or stamped if needed. It is the vertical finish from the form where i am still seeing air voids. and am still not where I want to be.

Our products vary quite a bit, but mostly we do vaults such as septic tanks, sand and grease traps,man holes, sometim strength requirment is 4000psi, however I still need to be able to strip and roll most items the next day.

As advised, I did max out the WRDA 27, and reduced the cement to 610 at a .44 w/c. It was good the first go around, some agg blocking. From reading the grace specs sheets on SCC, the cement to agg ratio needs to be increased so I u said it's not really SCC but just a standard mix with high flow.

One mistake I made when I cut the cem down to 610 is I made up the weight in course agg and not in sand, but what slow down the flow???

Our 3/4 agg is very irregular with lots of elongated pieces. Additionaly it seems to vary quite a bit from load to load. Th only available source here and is what others use as well. As for batching with only the 3/8 agg, I have never tried it, a with.

Our form finishes dont have to be spotless, but customers like a tank that looks pretty, even if it is going in the ground segregation occurs, and leaves sandy trails on the sides. As for vibration, with this mix the tanks or manholes I vibrate look worse than the ones that were not vibrated! I have

well and the one I didnt vibrate still looks better. Todays batch: Cem 630 H20 277 (.44 w/c) Adjusted for agg moisture 3/4 798 3/8 798 Sand 1400 WRDA 27 @ 6oz/100wt ADVA 575 4oz/100wt AIR 3oz per yard VMA 15oz per yard Mixed for 20 mins, then added 575 and mixed another 10min. Batch was stable, flow was ok, could be better. From the sound of it, our batch weights need some serious adjusting and cut out a lot of the 3/4 At this point....my brain is smoking Thanks again for all the info.
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

LKPRECAST (Structural)

From what I see, our mix time needs to be a bit over 20 minutes. At 20 minutes the slump seems lower, and stability w mixing it another 10, the flow is increased and the mix is stable. Still getting air voids.
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

concretemasonry (Structural) LKPRECAST -

Your approach is different than most precasters since it is relying on mix design and admixtures only and rather the a to consistently produce a product that meets the appearance and property requirements economically. The need for an not realistic unless you have extra mixing capacity that is not needed.

There are many different admixture types and vibration methods (uni-directional, bi-directional and omni-directional) t selective combinations, especially with harsh angular aggregates and a concern for appearance, since the mix design a Your 24 hour or next day form use is very common since I assume you will be using specialized form for stripping and Just an opinion. Dick Engineer and international traveler interested in construction techniques, problems and proper design.

Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

Hoaokapohaku (Geotechnical) LK...

Ok...in your last post I think you touched on the the root of your problem. You have a lot of flat and/or elongated part particles varies widely. The same production variables that usually cause flat/elong particles also cause variations in gr because they change the void structure in the course aggregate portion of the mix. The amount of mortar needed in a of voids that must be filled in the course aggregate structure. You need enough mortar to fill all the voids and push ap just enough to allow the course aggregate particles to be easily manipulated. If you have just enough mortar to fill the very unworkable because the course aggregate does not have room to move and rotate in the mix. If your volume of m voids in the course aggregate, you WILL have segregation and/or surface voids because you simply don't have enough have more mortar than you need, you will have reduced flow. This is because of greater friction in the mix. Friction is a surface area. Fine aggregate has much higher friction than course aggregate because there is a much higher ratio of s fine aggregate compared to the course aggregate. Also, mixes with higher internal surface area present more surface a cement paste to bond the mortar to the stone. Because of this, mixes with excessive fine aggregate require higher am given result.

Your problem is likely that because of the wide variability in your course aggregate particle shape and gradation, there structure. Because its void structure is varying, the amounts of needed sand, cement, and water are also varying. This seem to work fine and appear "stable" on one day , but unstable when the same design is used on other days.

A couple approaches come to mind to fix or work around the problemk, listed below. Only the first is a true fix, the sec

1. Get your aggregate producer to produce course aggregate of consistent gradation and particle shape, or buy better less flat and/or elongated particles when tested IAW ASTM D4741 with a 3:1 ratio. Many specs call for =<8%, and you are the devil and the lower you can get the better. My guess is you are too small a fish to apply a lot of pressure on yo need is to understand your needs and they can do better.

2. Proportion your design for worst case (highest voids) course aggregate void content when tested IAW ASTM C29 in probably be the aggregate that has the most flat/longs. I don't know if you are familiar with C29 or if you have access quality time with Google and I'm sure you'll get it. It's a simple test that you can probably perform yourself. There is a spanish. Using this work around, you will always have enough mortar for your mix and you can counteract the negativ and possibly cement by adjusting using a little higher dose of HRWR as needed. I would test the worst case 3/4" first, amounts of the 3/8" and find the blend with the lowest voids. Then, test the 3/8" alone and determine the voids, if the your best 3/4"-3/8" blend (which it probably will), and if your specs allow, I would just use the 3/8" and leave out the even if the voids are a bit higher than your best blend assuming the 3/8" is more consistent. Then the amount of voids blend and the gradation of the fine aggregate will determine the required amount of course aggregate (See ACI 211, T requirements will determine the amounts of water, cement, air, admixtures, etc., and the balance will be sand. You pro you are now so you can just leave all of your current design intact except for the ratio between course and fine aggreg from there.

Question - Who does your testing? Do you have your own lab? It's pretty tough to do the kind of work you're trying to want to spend lot's of money for independent testing. On the other hand, most of what you would need is cheap and t investment.

About ConcreteMasonry's comments about vibration - I've been assuming that for whatever reasons you might have, e an option. If that is not the case, I agree with CM is that your best option is a good design and vibration. All of what I if you use vibration.
Like this post?

Red Fl

Star it!

this pos

concretemasonry (Structural) LKPRECAST -

I assume you are trying to come up with a practical mix design compatible with your production facility, production lim aggregates and using an admix to provide the adjustments for those limitations. That is a very real challenge to monito facilities you have and how minor variations will affect the product. It is not as simple as specifying a result as a design

You are dealing with angular aggregates (probably crushed), where small variation can create a very large difference i variations can have a larger than the gradations, depending on the screens (square or slotted) used in production and On top of that, you are concerned with appearance that is a visually, non-scientific measure of quality/properties. Look to alternate solutions from others in the concrete products industry (producers, suppliers, associations, etc) for a

I came to the concrete products industry after experience in high-tech concrete and concrete use followed by heavy in position with a firm was to go to a five day national convention to learn, never take a free meal from a supplier and to eat/treat and talk with suppliers, similar producers to learn. The next assignment was to go to every national associatio committee association possible (ASTM, ACI, etc.) and to gain more experience. Your situation may not offer the same others in an industry that have the practical, proven procedures and controls are worth pursuing. Dick Engineer and international traveler interested in construction techniques, problems and proper design.
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

karma134 (Civil/Environmental) @ Hoaokapohaku

I would like to quote what you said earlier in this post "Our problems with surface voids is probably a fine aggregate g lot with crushed sand. It is caused by over-packing the mix with more of a certain size aggregate than will fit in the ov usually the size passing a #4 and retained on #8 sieve (4.75 mm x 2.36 mm)"

I also have the same problem at my site. And my question is what is the limit to passing a #4 and retained on #8 siev Thank you in advance
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

Hoaokapohaku (Geotechnical) @karma

I can't give a definitive answer to your question because it varies depending on the particle shape and texture of the a question, and the larger particles that create void space for those particles. Flat and elongated particles, particularly in the problem dramatically. However, from what I've gathered reading other's experience, my situation is pretty typical. the #8 or an FM higher than 3.0 spells trouble. Since we are talking sand, 100% passes #4. I aim for 85% passing #8 little higher than 85 if I could, but certain local specifications make that problematic.

Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos

Hoaokapohaku (Geotechnical) LK...I've been wondering how it's going with your mix. Update?
Like this post? Star it!

Red Fl this pos