International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),

ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 34-41 IAEME
34











COMPARISON OF COST ANALYSIS BETWEEN SELF COMPACTING CONCRETE
AND NORMAL VIBRATED CONCRETE


1
N. Krishna Murthy,
2
A.V. Narasimha Rao,
3
I.V.Ramana Reddy

1
Ph.D. Scholar of S.V. University, Tirupati and Asst. Executive Engineer,
Irrigation and CAD Department, AVRHNSS, Madanapalle, A.P., India
2 & 3
Professor Department of Civil Engineering, S.V.University, Tirupati, India




ABSTRACT

In this study an attempt is made to develop SCC mixes of different Strengths by using
var i ous ranges of cement, Metakaolin and Fly ash with appropriate quantity of Super
plasticizer. A total of 11 (eleven) mixes has been prepared by this research. This chapter is mainly
focused on the cost analysis of the designed SCC mixes and Normal Vibrating Concrete (NVC)
mixes. The number of skilled labour, vibrator operators and the number of defects can drastically be
reduced, owing to user-friendly characteristics of SCC. The time, cost and quality are the three
important factors which assume significance in construction due to their impact on the industry as a
whole. Any development which has a positive impact on these factors is always in the interest of
civil engineering. As SCC requires a higher volume of fines replacement of cement content by
mineral admixtures like fly ash which increases the viscosity and workability of fresh concrete and
reduces the cost of SCC.

Keywords: SCC, NVC Metakaolin, Flyash, Cost analysis.

I. COST ANALYSIS

Cost analysis of the concrete mixes is based on the cost of the materials only, and it has been
analysed as per common Schedule of Rates (SoR) (as on April -2014).The mixes selected for
calculation and analysis are those which could pass maximum properties of fresh mixed concrete. The
labour charges, work items, conveyance rates of materials and hire charges have been considered
based on the Common SoR (2013-14).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)


ISSN 0976 6308 (Print)
ISSN 0976 6316(Online)
Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 34-41
IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.9290 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJCIET
IAEME
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 34-41 IAEME
35

Goodie (2003) studied SCC is not expected to ever completely replace normal vibrated
concrete, the use of the material in both the precast and ready- mix markets in the UK, Europe and
the rest of the world is expected to continue to increase as the experience and technology improves,
the clients demand a higher-quality finished product and the availability of skilled labour continues
to decrease. By employing self compacting concrete, the cost of chemical and mineral admixtures is
compensated by the elimination of vibrating compaction and work done to the surface of the normal
concrete (Khayat et al., 1999). Though the initial material cost of SCC may be 10-15% higher than
that of NVC (Pai, 2004) depending on the strength class and the availability of fines, it is estimated
that SCC may result in up to 40% faster construction than using NVC (Perssoiv, 1998; Nocher,
2001) .The benefits of SCC are apparent at many levels of the construction process, from production,
to placement, to the quality of the finished product. All of these benefits would offset the initial SCC
cost and reduce the total SCC cost. The economic impact of SCC in precast/pre-stress applications
can be assessed in three categories: concrete mixture proportions and raw materials, production
costs, and finished product improvements (LuisA.Mata, 2004).

II. BENEFITS OF SCC OVER NVC

Cost savings and performance enhancement tend to be the driving forces behind the added
value of SCC. Engineers, Contractors, producers and owners are under greater pressure to produce
better quality construction at lower costs of labour, materials and equipment. SCC offers some
benefits over NVC in all of the mentioned areas (Bernabeu, 2000; concrete: Technical Bulletin,
2005). Due to the larger quantities of Portland cement or supplementary cementitious materials used
in SCC, the cost of the raw materials is usually greater. Cementitious material may be required more
to increase the fines content, to achieve stability that is needed on the basis of strength alone. In
addition to cement, the cost of admixtures, such as HRWR and possibly a Viscosity Modified
Admixture (VMA), will also increase the cost of SCC. Chemical admixtures can increase the cost of
the SCC mixes, but are necessary to achieve the desired concrete properties.
The extra cost would be around 2% of the cost of the mixture, but can yield savings by
minimizing the need to increase the cement content in the SCC mixture, allow a broader variety of
aggregates to be used and minimize the impact of moisture content in the aggregates (Martin, 2002).
The SCC mixes cost can also be reduced by the use of pozzolanic materials such as fly ash, which is
typically one-third to one-half the cost of cement. Fly ash can also help to improve the flowability
and stability of the SCC mixture (Lachemi, et al., 2003). The extra cost of the SCC mixes is
compensated by production cost efficiencies such as reduction in placing time, vibrator use and
maintenance, form maintenance, and improved workers safety. Placing time is the time it takes to
transfer the concrete from the transportation unit to the form and consolidate it. Improved
productivity by reducing the time, labour or equipment may easily be compensated for additional
material costs. A case study for tracking the time required for placing double-tee beds in a precast
plant reported a reduction of 20% compared to a conventional mixture, with a 32% reduction of
labour involved in the process (Martin, 2002). Regardless of the applications, an average reduction in
labour during the placing process is estimated to be about 30% using SCC (Schlagbaum, 2002).
The service life of vibration equipment and forms will increase with the use of SCC. A
reduction in vibration operations will not only reduce maintenance and investment cost, but also
improves the operating conditions at the plant by reducing noise levels. It reduces the exposure of
workers and eliminates requirements for hearing protection which in turn reduces insurance and
safety costs. Due to the elimination of vibration to consolidate the mixtures, the forms used in the
precast operations will receive less wear and tear, decreasing the regular maintenance costs and the
costs of investing in new forms (LuisA.Mata, 2004).
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 34-41 IAEME
36

Patching operations and finished product improvements may be critical for certain precast
concrete producers, especially for architectural panels. Properly proportioned SCC has been proven
to reduce the number of bugholes, honeycombing and other surface imperfection on the finished
concrete surface (Martin, 2002). In many examples of structural, architectural, and utility products,
producers in the United States have reported a decreased labour cost from 25-75% (Martin, 2002)
and other benefits include quieter construction, lesser consumption of energy (no vibration required)
and a better end product. Owing to the flowable properties of SCC, it may be made to flow straight
from the truck thus eliminating the need for additional heavy equipment, thus realizing additional
savings.

III. REDUCED CAST IN-SITU COST

Productivity improvements SCC increases the speed of construction, improves formed surface
finish and thus reduces repair and patching costs, reduces maintenance costs and provides faster form
and truck turn-around time.

Reduced labour costs - SCC reduces the labour demands and compensates for lack of skilled
workers to perform the rigorous work required for quality concrete construction.

Improved work environment and safety - SCC eliminates the use of vibrators for concrete
placement, thus minimizing the vibration and noise exposures and fall hazards.

Improved aesthetics - SCC reduces the number of bugholes, honeycombing and other surface
imperfections on the finished concrete surface.

Ghezal et al., (2002) felt that SCC is typically proportioned with relatively high contents of
cementitious materials and chemical admixtures leading to relatively high cost. The relatively high
cost can be justified if it is for a special application or the cost can be justified by other
considerations like ease of construction and saving in energy etc. It is felt that efforts are still
required to reduce the material cost further to gain wider acceptance in a variety of applications.
Pai (2004) has reported the economics of self-consolidating concrete and mentioned that
there is a feeling amongst certain engineers that the cost of SCC is more than that of NVC. His study
showed that the cost of the ingredients of SCC is marginally higher by about 10-15 percent. The high
range water reducing admixture (HRWR) has a major contribution in the increase of cost.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

The aim of this research investigation is to develop a cost effective SCC with and without
SCMs .Cost analysis of SCC and NVC has been done in order to promote the SCC in the field
constructions to a large extent. Having discussed the SCC fresh, hardened ,durability and micro-level
properties in the previous chapters, the same SCC mixes SCC (100% OPC), MK5, MK10, MK15,
MK20, FA10, FA20, FA30, (MK15 + FA10), (MK10 + FA20) and (MK5 + FA30) have been
chosen for cost analysis. The mix types with percentage relative proportions and quantity analysis of
constituent materials of SCC mixes and NVC are shown in Tables 1and 2.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 34-41 IAEME
37

TABLE. 1: Quantity analysis for Self Compacting Concrete (SCC) Mixes
Designation of mix Material Weight (kg/m
3
) Specific gravity Volume (m
3
)
volume
proportions
Quantity required
per 1cum
a b c d=b/c e=d/g f=e1.52/h
SCC (100%OPC)
Cement 536 3.15 170.16(g) 1.00 0.330
Sand 836 2.6 321.54 1.89 0.640
Ca:16mm 439 2.66 165.11 0.97 0.330
Ca:12.5mm 293 2.66 110.08 0.65 0.220
Total volume of proportions 4.51(h) 1.52
MK5
Cement 506 3.15 160.63(g) 1.00 0.320
Sand 836 2.6 321.54 2.00 0.650
Ca:16mm 439 2.66 165.11 1.03 0.330
Ca:12.5mm 293 2.66 110.08 0.69 0.220
Total volume of proportions 4.71(h) 1.52
MK10
Cement 477 3.15 151.43(g) 1.00 0.310
Sand 836 2.6 321.54 2.12 0.650
Ca:16mm 439 2.66 165.11 1.09 0.340
Ca:12.5mm 293 2.66 110.08 0.73 0.220
Total volume of proportions 4.94(h) 1.52
MK15
Cement 448 3.15 142.22(g) 1.00 0.290
Sand 836 2.6 321.54 2.26 0.660
Ca:16mm 439 2.66 165.11 1.16 0.340
Ca:12.5mm 293 2.66 110.08 0.77 0.230
Total volume of proportions 5.20(h) 1.52
MK20
Cement 419 3.15 133.02(g) 1.00 0.280
Sand 836 2.6 321.54 2.42 0.670
Ca:16mm 439 2.66 165.11 1.24 0.340
Ca:12.5mm 293 2.66 110.08 0.83 0.230
Total volume of proportions 5.49(h) 1.52
FA10
Cement 472 3.15 149.84(g) 1.00 0.300
Sand 836 2.6 321.54 2.15 0.660
Ca:16mm 439 2.66 165.11 1.10 0.340
Ca:12.5mm 293 2.66 110.08 0.73 0.220
Total volume of proportions 4.98(h) 1.52
FA20
Cement 411 3.15 130.48(g) 1.00 0.270
Sand 836 2.6 321.54 2.46 0.670
Ca:16mm 439 2.66 165.11 1.27 0.350
Ca:12.5mm 293 2.66 110.08 0.84 0.230
Total volume of proportions 5.57(h) 1.52
FA30
Cement 352 3.15 111.75(g) 1.00 0.240
Sand 836 2.6 321.54 2.88 0.690
Ca:16mm 439 2.66 165.11 1.48 0.350
Ca:12.5mm 293 2.66 110.08 0.99 0.240
Total volume of proportions 6.34(h) 1.52
MK15+FA10
Cement 378 3.15 120.00(g) 1.00 0.260
Sand 836 2.6 321.54 2.68 0.680
Ca:16mm 439 2.66 165.11 1.38 0.350
Ca:12.5mm 293 2.66 110.08 0.92 0.230
Total volume of proportions 5.97(h) 1.52
MK10+FA20
Cement 355 3.15 112.70(g) 1.00 0.240
Sand 836 2.6 321.54 2.85 0.690
Ca:16mm 439 2.66 165.11 1.47 0.350
Ca:12.5mm 293 2.66 110.08 0.98 0.240
Total volume of proportions 6.29(h) 1.52
MK5+FA30
Cement 325 3.15 103.17(g) 1.00 0.220
Sand 836 2.6 321.54 3.12 0.700
Ca:16mm 439 2.66 165.11 1.60 0.360
Ca:12.5mm 293 2.66 110.08 1.07 0.240
Total volume of proportions 6.78(h) 1.52


International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 34-41 IAEME
38

Table. 2: Quantity analysis for Normal Vibrated Concrete (NVC) Mixes.
Grade of concrete
Material Weight (kg/m3) Specific gravity Volume (m3)
volume
proportions
Quantity
required per
1cum
a b c d=b/c e=d/g f =e1.52/h
M
40

Cement 350 3.15 111.11(g) 1.00 0.20
Sand 850 2.6 326.92 2.94 0.58
Ca:20mm 664 2.66 249.62 2.25 0.44
Ca:12.5mm 443 2.66 166.54 1.50 0.30
Total volume of proportions 7.69(h) 1.52
M
50

Cement 437 3.15 138.73(g) 1.00 0.27
Sand 699 2.6 268.85 1.94 0.52
Ca:20mm 592 2.66 222.56 1.60 0.43
Ca:12.5mm 395 2.66 148.50 1.07 0.29
Total volume of proportions 5.61(h) 1.52
M
60

Cement 510 3.15 161.90(g) 1.00 0.32
Sand 655 2.6 251.92 1.56 0.50
Ca:20mm 556 2.66 209.02 1.29 0.42
Ca:12.5mm 370 2.66 139.10 0.86 0.28
Total volume of proportions 4.71(h) 1.52
M
70

Cement 547 3.15 173.65(g) 1.00 0.35
Sand 619 2.6 238.08 1.37 0.49
Ca:20mm 538 2.66 202.26 1.16 0.41
Ca:12.5mm 358 2.66 134.59 0.78 0.27
Total volume of proportions 4.31(h) 1.52

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 3 gives hardened concrete properties, while the comparison of costs of SCC and NVC
are given in Table 4.

TABLE. 3: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF VARIOUS SCC MIXES AND EQUIVALENT
GRADE OF NVC
S. No Designation of Mix
Compressive Strength (MPa) Approximate mix grade of
NVC (Based on Compressive
Strength of SCC)
7 days 28 days 90 days
180
days
1 SCC (100% OPC) 43.7 62.22 64.44 65.18 M
60

2 MK5 46.22 63.11 65.18 66.37 M
60

3 MK10 48.74 67.26 69.48 70.52 M
60

4 MK15 53.48 75.11 77.78 78.96 M
70

5 MK20 50.81 70.07 72.44 73.48 M
70

6 FA10 37.18 54.22 64.74 67.7 M
50

7 FA20 32.59 48.74 60.15 65.18 M
40

8 FA30 30.22 43.26 53.48 58.22 M
40

9 MK15+FA10 45.48 65.18 70.07 72.3 M
60

10 MK10+FA20 42.22 60.3 65.33 68.59 M
60

11 MK5+FA30 35.56 50.07 56.59 60.44 M
50


International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 34-41 IAEME
39

TABLE. 4: COST COMPARISON OF SCC Vs NVC
S.
No
Designation of
Mix
Equivalent
grade of NVC
Cost of
SCC per cum
Cost of
NVC per cum
Excess
(%)
Less
(%)
1 SCC (100% OPC) M
60
5643 5927 - 4.79
2 MK5 M
60
5915 5927 - 0.20
3 MK10 M
60
6202 5927 4.64 -
4 MK15 M
70
6493 6170 5.24 -
5 MK20 M
70
6769 6170 9.71 -
6 FA10 M
50
5452 5788 - 5.81
7 FA20 M
40
5304 5491 - 3.41
8 FA30 M
40
5147 5491 - 6.26
9 MK15+FA10 M
60
6233 5927 5.16 -
10 MK10+FA20 M
60
5862 5927 - 1.10
11 MK5+FA30 M
50
5431 5788 - 6.17

The cost analysis of SCC per cum for different mixes is compared with that of equivalent
grade of NVC per cum. The equivalent grade of NVC is decided based on the compressive strength
of SCC. From the Table 8.4,it is seen that the cost of SCC (100% OPC) is 4.79% less than that of
NVC. It is also observed that for SCC mixes FA10, FA20, FA30, MK10 + FA20 and MK5+FA30
,the cost of SCC is less than that of NVC by 5.81%, 3.41%, 6.26%, 1.10% and 6.1% respectively.
Whereas for SCC mixes MK10, MK15, MK20 and MK15 + FA10, the cost of SCC is higher than
that of NVC by 4.64%, 5.24%, 9.71% and 5.16% respectively. It is found that the cost of SCC mix
MK5 is almost equal to that of NVC. While comparing the cost of SCC and NVC, only the basic cost
of concrete is considered which includes the cost of material, conveyance charges and labour
charges. The costs of steel and fabrication charges are excluded. From the aforementioned
discussion, it is concluded that the cost of SCC is comparable to that of NVC and is superior to NVC
in many respects. Hence SCC may be the preferred choice, not only when laying of concreting
conditions are difficult, but also for making good finished surfaces.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

1. From the above observations, taking into account the finding from this study, the following
conclusions can be drawn as given below.
2. From the aforementioned discussion, it is concluded that the cost of SCC is comparable to that
of NVC and is superior to NVC in many respects. Hence SCC may be the preferred choice,
not only when laying of concreting conditions are difficult, but also for making good finished
surfaces.
3. It should be the preferred choice when concreting conditions are difficult.
4. Cost of SCC may appear to be slight variation, say about 5 to 10 percent or so.
5. However, on a more rational basis of the total costs, the labour charges can reduced up to 40%
of cost of concrete over NVC for formwork, vibration, placing, and making good finished
surfaces, SCC will be more advantageous than NVC.
6. From holistic considerations, SCC will be more cost-effective.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 34-41 IAEME
40

REFERENCES

1. ACT 237R-07. Self-Consolidating Concrete. 2007
2. Akhras, N.M.: Durability of metakaolin to sulfate attack. Cem. Concr. Res. 36(9), 17271734
(2006)
3. Collepardi M. Admixtures used to enhance placing characteristics of concrete. Cement and
Concrete Composites, Vol. 20, No. 2-3, 1998, pp 103-1 12.
4. De Schutter G, Bartos PJM, Domone PU, Gibbs JC. Self-compacting concrete. Whittles
Publishing. 2008.
5. EFNARC (European Federation of National Trade Association Research Center), specification
and guidelines of SCC, Feb. 2002, 2005 and 2006.
6. IS 10262. Concrete Mix Proportioning-Guidelines. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
2009.
7. IS 12269. Specification for 53 grade ordinary Portland cement. Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi. 1987.
8. IS 23 86. Methods of test for aggregates for concrete. Part III - Specific gravity, Density,
Voids, Absorption and Bulking. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 1963.
9. IS 383. Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for concrete. Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 1970.
10. IS 456. Plain and reinforced concrete code for practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi. 2000.
11. IS 516., Methods of tests for strength of concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
1991.
12. IS 5816. Splitting tensile strength of concrete method of test. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi. 1999.
13. JSCE. Japan Society of Civil Engineers. Recommendation for construction of self-compacting
concrete. 1998
14. Krishna Murthy N., A.V. Narasimha Rao , I.V. Ramana Reddy, M.Vijaya Sekhar Reddy,
Mix Design Procedure for Self Compacting Concrete, International Journal Organization of
Scientific Research (IOSR), Volume 2, Issue 9, (September-2012) , pp. 33-41.
15. Krishna Murthy N., A.V. Narasimha Rao .I.V. Ramana Reddy , M.Vijaya Sekhar Reddy,
P. Ramesh, Properties of Materials used in Self Compacting Concrete (SCC), International
Journal of Civil Engineerin and Technology (IJCIET),Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December
(2012) , pp. 353-368.
16. Krishna Murthy N., A.V. Narasimha Rao,M.Vijaya Sekhar Reddy, P.Ramesh, The Influence
of Metakaolin on the Modulus of Elasticity, International Journal Organization of Scientific
Research (IOSR), Volume 2, Issue 10, (November-2012) , pp. 18--23.
17. Krishna Murthy N., N. Aruna, A.V. Narasimha Rao .I.V. Ramana Reddy , M.Vijaya Sekhar
Reddy, Self compacting mortars of binary and ternary cementatious blending with metakaolin
and fly ash, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4,
Issue 2, March- April (2013 , pp. 369-384.
18. Krishna Murthy N., N.Aruna, A.V. Narasimha Rao .I.V. Ramana Reddy, B.Madhusudana
Reddy, M.Vijaya Sekhar Reddy, Influence of metakaolin and fly ash on fresh and hardened
properties of self compacting concrete, International Journal of Advanced Research In
Engineering and Technology (IJARET),Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013), pp. 223-239.
19. Krishna Murthy N., Pro. A.V.Narasimha Rao ,C.Sasidhar Influence of Metakaolin on the
strength properties of concrete, National Conference on Environmental Effects on Civil
Engineering Structures(2006), pp. 113-119
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 34-41 IAEME
41

20. Manu Santhanam and Subramanian, S. Current developments in self-compacting concrete
Indian Concrete Journal, June, Vol., pp11-22.
21. Martin, D. J., Economic Impact of SCC in precast applications, First North American
Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Center for Advanced
Cement-Based Materials, North western University, Nov 2002, Evanst Mehta PK, Monteiro
PJM. Concrete: Microstructure, Properties and Materials, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York,
2006.
22. Mehta PK, Monterio PJM. Concrete: structure, properties and materials, Second edition,
Prentice Hall mc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 1993, pp 548.
23. Mehta PlC, Monterio PJM. Concrete: microstructure, properties, and materials, McGrav-Hill,
New York. 2005, pp 659.on, IL, USA, pp 147-153
24. Montgomery DG. Fly ash in concrete - A microstructure study, Cern Concr Res, Vol. 11,
1981, pp 59l-603.
25. Pai, B. V. B. (2004). How economic is self-compacting concrete, Indian Concrete J,
pp. 5859.
26. Poon, C.S., Kou, S.C. and Lam, L. (2002), Pore size distribution of high performance
metakaolin concrete, Journal of Wuhan University Of Technology-Materials Science Edition,
17(1): 42-46.
27. Ramachandran, V. S., Beaudoin, J. J., (2001). Techniques in concrete science and technology.
Principles, techniques and applications, William Andrew & Noyes Publications, USA. ISBN-
13: 978-0815514374
28. Schedule of Rates(SoR) as per A.P. revised standard data for the year 20 13-2014. Part-I.
Andhra Pradesh, India.
29. Su N, Hsu KC, Chai HW. A simple mix design method for self compacting concrete. Cement
and Concrete Research, Vol. 3 1, No. 12, 2001, pp l799-l 807.
30. Abbas S. Al-Ameeri and Rawaa H. Issa, Effect of Sulfate on the Properties of Self
Compacting Concrete Reinforced by Steel Fiber, International Journal of Civil Engineering
and Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013) , pp. 270 - 287.