STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES

ON
SELF-COMPACTING CONCRETE
USING
TERNARY BLENDED MINERAL ADMIXTURES.
A REPORT
Submitted By
GYANENDRA SAH
in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
Under Guidance
Of
PEERZADA DANISH
(Assistant Professor)

STUDENT OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY
PHAGWARA, PUNJAB
 ABSTRACT

Self-Compacting concrete is a special and most innovative type of concrete that flow by itself
under its weight and gets compacted without applying any means of compacting tools. This work
of literature review summarizes the statistical and experimental analysis by evaluating the
performance on SCC using Slump flow, V-funnel, L-box, J-ring tests including fresh and hardened
properties of SCC like slump flow, segregation resistance, compressive strength, tensile strength.
Also in previous researches work, durability properties of SCC like sulfate resistance, water
absorption has carried out. The effect of dosage amount of water-binder ratio, water-cement ratio
and superplasticizer on the properties of self-compacting concrete is revealed based on the survey
of previous literature. Particular emphasis is placed on the availability and economic effectiveness
of partial replacement of a certain amount of cement by mineral admixtures, rice husk ash, fly ash,
marble powder, and silica fumes instead of cement. Self - Compacting Concrete is mixed with
three different superplasticizers and three different VMA with a chosen fly ash content were
prepared by varying combinations and the dosages and their properties in the fresh state viz,
passing ability, filling ability and segregation resistance were studied for the assessment of the self
- compatibility. Cube specimens were cast in the mixes, which performed satisfactorily in the fresh
state, to determine the density and compressive strength in the hardened state. From the density
and compressive strength results, the better combination and dosage of VMA and superplasticizer
to produce good Self – Compacting concrete were selected. From the studies conducted, it was
observed that silica fume play a dynamic role in improving the strength of concrete, particularly at early
ages. From the durability point of view, all three mineral admixtures perform well. But the drying shrinkage
was more in silica fume mortar than in metakaolin and fly ash mortar For its remedy, alteration at the
gradation of fine aggregate or addition of glass fibers is recommended.
 CHAPTER 01
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Recognizing the lack of uniformity and complete compaction of concrete by vibration, researchers at the
University of Tokyo, Japan, started in the late 1980s to develop Self - Compacting concrete (SCC)[1][2].
By the early 1990s, Japan has developed and used SCC that does not require vibration to achieve full
compaction[2]. By the year 2000, SCC has gained popularity in Japan for prefabricated products and ready-
mixed concrete[3]. Modern application of self-compacting concrete is focused on high performance, better
and more reliable and uniform quality.
The utilization of self-compacting concrete started growing rapidly. European Federation of natural trade
associations representing producers and applicators of specialist building products has drawn up
specification and guidelines to provide a framework for design and use of high-quality SCC, during 2002
and revised in 2005[4]

Self-compacting concrete has been described as “the most revolutionary development in concrete
construction for several decades” and defined as “A concrete that is able to flow and fill every part and
corner of the formwork, even in the presence of dense reinforcement, virginally by means of its own weight
and without the need for any vibration or other type of compaction”[1]. Originally, SCC was developed in
Japan to counterbalance a growing shortage of skilled labor.
In present-day Self - Compacting concrete can be classified as an advanced construction material. The SCC,
as the name advises, it does not require any mean of vibration tools to achieve full compaction. This
contributes many benefits and advantages over conventional concrete. These include improved quality of
concrete and reduction of on-site repairs, faster construction times, lower overall cost and facilitation of
introduction of automation into concrete construction[5]. An important improvement of health and safety
is also achieved through the elimination of the usage of vibrators and a significant reduction of
environmental noise loading on and around a site. The composition of SCC mixes includes considerable
proportions of finely-grained inorganic materials. This deals possibilities for the utilization of waste
products which have no practical applications and are costly to dispose of.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

Concrete is one of the most extensively used construction materials in the world. However, the production
of Portland cement, an essential constituent of concrete, leads to the release of a substantial amount of CO2,
a greenhouse gas. The production of one tonne of Portland cement clinker produces one tonne of CO2 and
other greenhouse gases[6]. Environmental issues will show a vigorous role in the sustainable development
of the cement and concrete industry in this century.
According to the World Commission on Environment and Development, sustainability means “Meeting the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.”
Sustainability is an idea for concern for the well being of our planet with continued growth and human
development.
Environmental issues associated with the emission of CO2 from the production of Portland cement, energy
demand for cement production, resource conservation consideration and economic impact due to the high
cost of Portland cement manufacturing plants demand that supplementary cementing materials like fly ash
can be used in increasing quantities to replace Portland cement in concrete.
Concrete is environmentally very friendly material. As good engineers, we must use more in construction.
Concrete has been used for over 2,000 years. Concrete is best known for its long-lasting and dependable
nature. However, additional ways that concretely contribute to social progress, economic growth, and
environmental protection are often overlooked. Concrete structures are superior in energy performance.
They provide flexibility in design as well as affordability and are environmentally more responsible than
steel or aluminum structures. Therefore, there is a need to render the durability of the concrete structures to
be independent of the quality of the construction worker. Self-compacting concrete is the obvious answer
to overcome this problem. The application of SCC in the place of congested reinforcement is shown in
Figure 1.1.

Fig. 1.1 Application of SCC in congested reinforcement.

1.3 NEED FOR THE PRESENT STUDY
A well and acceptable design of self-compacting concrete need significantly more fines content (less than
0.1 mm) as compared to the traditional concrete[2]. In structural concrete, the cement content usually varies
from 300-450 kg/m³. Due to growing and advancing world and its demand creates more negative effects
on the environment as well. So the main purpose of the study is to utilize the by-products in the construction
world. This can further help to reduce the problem of carbon emission as utilization of waste decrease the
demand for cement production and on another hand, it fulfills the desired properties of self-compacting
concrete.
But one should be very careful while replacing or adding the concrete constituents with the other materials
like fly ash, silica fume, rice husk ash, marble powder, iron slag, and m any more, checking their properties
like fineness, specific gravity, silica content and so on. Also the replacing and additional material should
have a comparatively lower cost. And the most important thing that one should take care, i.e. application
of superplasticizer high water reducing agent, viscosity modifying agent and more. These should also bear
a lower cost.
1.4 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The main objective of the research is to investigate the change in overall properties of self-compacting
concrete when the concrete constituents get replaced or addition with the different admixtures like silica
fume, fly ash, rice husk ash, marble powder. And the properties of self-compacting concrete like fresh
properties (slump flow, L-box test, J-ring test, U-box test ), hardened properties ( compressive strength,
tensile strength ) and durability properties (chloride penetration test, water absorption test, sorptivity ). The
overall objectives of the study are as follows:
 To select the proper materials and reach at the optimum mixture proportion of self-compacting
concrete.
 To find a well-suited superplasticizer and viscosity modifying agent and their dosage that is suitable
for the production of good performance Self - Compacting Concrete.
 To optimize the percentage of admixtures in Self - Compacting concrete based on fresh properties
of SCC prescribed by EFNARC and hardened properties of SCC compared with normal concrete.
 To get an optimum w/c ratio with well-suited superplasticizer and viscosity modifying agent,
admixtures in self - compacting concrete compared with the ordinary concrete
 CHAPTER 02
LITERATURE REVIEW
The authors have said that 12.5% to 50% of the residue of masonry can be replaced with the cement
bearing good workability and self compaction. The slump value obtained is in the range of
diameter of 660 mm to 700 mm. The L-box tests have given the value of height 0.8 cm that is less
than specified by the EFNARC. The compressive strength obtained was not up to the mark during
90 days of curing. But the compressive strength obtained with the mixes of 12.5%, 25% and 37.5%
of the residue of masonry showed equal or greater performance. According to the author, the
replacement of cement with 37.5% of the residue of masonry can give desired SSC[5].
The author has prepared three different types of mixes named as SCC-1, SCC-2, and SCC-3 with
targeted compressive strength of 20, 30 and 40 N/mm2 with same amount of sand, crushed granite
and superplasticizer that are 960 kg/m3, 813 kg/m3, and 1.5 litre/100 kg of cement respectively
with varying amount of w/c ratio, cement and granite dust. These three variable quantity used are
0.5, 0.45 , and 0.4 ; 450 , 500, and 533 kg/m3 ; and 135, 100, and 80 kg/m3 respectively. The slump
value obtained for SSC-1, SSC-2, and SSC-3 is 670, 655, 665 mm in diameter respectively. The
results for V-funnel tests obtained are 10, 11, and 11seconds respectively for all three different
mixes. These all results obtained are within the guideline of EFNARC. The compressive strength
obtained for all three mixes are 18.1, 30.1, and 39.2 N/mm2 and tensile strength obtained are 2.8,
4.4, and 5.7 N/mm2 for all three mixes that are SSC-1, SCC-2 and SSC-3 respectively[7].
The author has prepared 13 different mixes using 10% to 40% of fly ash (FA) and palm oil fuel
ash (POFA) with the stepping of 10. The slump value obtained for the mixes are in the ranges of
700 mm to 800 mm, J-ring tests showed the value between 600 mm to 700 mm, T500 tests showed
the result between 1.4 to 4 seconds and segregation was less than 20%. The result showed that mix
using 10% of FA and POFA has only a positive change in compressive and tensile strength and all
rest of the mixes showed decreases in compressive and tensile strength. The compressive strength
and tensile strength for 10% of mixes are 58 and 68 Mpa and 5 and 5.5 Mpa respectively at the
curing days of 28 and 90[8].
The author has made seven different mixes using natural coarse aggregate (NCA) and recycled
coarse aggregate (RCA) varying from 25% to 100% with the stepping of 25. The mixes were
containing the same proportion of cement, limestone powder, superplasticizers and different
proportion of sand dune, crushed fine sand and both types of aggregate. The slump value obtained
for the mixes were in the range of 660 mm to 740 mm and the least value obtained was 610 mm
for mix number 4. T500 tests had given the value in the range of 5.25 to 3 seconds. Here 5.25
second for the last mix. L-box ratio was in the range of 0.2 to 0.95, and segregation was in the
range of 2 to 14 %. Here 0.95, 610, and 5.25 were beyond the EFNARC suggested value. The
compressive strength obtained was above the targeted strength that is 25 Mpa for all type of mixes
except for the mix made of 100% replacement[9].
The author has made thirteen mixes using fly ash (FA), and limestone powder with the replacement
of cement in different proportions. The author has done experiment mainly for shrinkage and
electrical resistivity tests. The author has started adding the fly ash from 30% to 60% that showed
the decrease in the compressive strength. Replacing of cement by 30 to 60% of FA had a significant
reduction in autogenous shrinkage and 17 to 45% in drying shrinkage[10].
The author has made ten mixes using fly ash and metakaolin with replacement starting from 30 to
60%. According to the result obtained, the addition of fly ash had started from 15% incorporating
with metakaolin. The slump value obtained for the mixes were in the range of 685 mm to 715 mm,
T500 tests had the value in the range between 2 to 6 seconds, V-funnel had the value in between 8
to 19 seconds, and L-box had the ratio in between 0.82 to 0.99. The compressive strength obtained
was higher than 60 Mpa at the curing days of 180. And beyond this curing days, the compressive
strength was increased by only 2%[11].
The author had made nine mixes using coal bottom ash (CBA), recycled coarse aggregate (RCA),
and normal fine aggregate (NFA). The replacing had started from 10 to 30% of CBA and up to
100% of RCA. The best result was obtained for 10% of CBA and less than 50% of RCA. The
slump value obtained was in the range of 675 mm to 695 mm, L-box’s value in between 1.25 to
2.0, and V-funnel’s value in between 6.17 to 8.45 mm. The compressive strength of mixes has
gone more than 60% at the curing days of 7 and that of control mixes has gained more than 65%
at the curing days of 28[12].
The author has made twelve different mixes by using silica fume (SF) and roof tile powder (RTP)
in different proportion. The mix made up of using 5% of SF, 20% of RTP and w/c as 0.32 with
superplasticizer of 1.5% gave the slump value more than 650 mm and compressive strength of
67.72 Mpa. The second mix that is made up of 0.35 w/c and superplasticizer of 1% gave the
compressive strength and tensile strength of 44.11 and 3.25 Mpa respectively[13].
The author had made eight mixes keeping the amount of cement, sand, limestone filler, gravel, and
w/c ratio (350, 890, 170, 900, and 0.37 respectively) constant for all mixes and varying only the
amount of superplasticizer that is from 0.3 to 1%. The slump value goes on increasing from 642
mm to 861.6 mm, V-funnel’s value goes on decreasing from 20.8 to 6.6 seconds, L-box ratio goes
on increasing from 0.812 to 1, and yield stress’s value goes on decreasing from 85.8 to 2.24 pa
with the increase in superplasticizer. The compressive strength goes on increasing for only two
successive mixes for curing days of 7 and 28. And the compressive strength obtained was 33.33
to 60.8 Mpa and 50.8 to 73.8 Mpa for 7 and 28 days of curing respectively. And for the rest of all
mixes, the compressive strength goes on decresing[14].
The author had made five mixes keeping coarse aggregate and fine aggregate (590 nads 910 kg/m3)
constant and varying the content of cement, fly ash, w/c ratio and superplasticizer (465 to 355, 85
to 195, 227.7 to 241.6 and 11.01 to 9.91 kg/m3 respectively ). The slump value obtained was higher
for the second mix than all others that is 690 mm. The J-ring's value obtained was higher for the
fourth mix i.e. 626.7 mm. The V-funnel time’s value was obtained least for the second mix i.e. 4.5
seconds. The compressive and tensile strength for 28 and 90 days of curing was 35.19 Mpa and
58.89 Mpa and 2.40 Mpa and 2.68 Mpa respectively for the first mix. And for all other mixes, the
values goes on decreasing[15].
The author had made four mixes using cement, sand, water, fly ash, gravel, superplasticizer, and
retarder. The amount of cement was kept varying (477, 424, 530, and 530 kg/m) and water and
flyash also (180, 180, 191, 180, and 53, 106, 0, 0 respectively). And all other kept constant (800,
880, 4.24, and 0.53 respectively ). The slump value; V-funnel and compressive strength obtained
as 675, 695, 690, and 660 mm; 9.2, 8.7, 6.8, and 9.5 seconds and 55.6, 52.8, 54.8, and 58.2 Mpa
respectively. These all value are lower in comparison to the control mix[16].
The author had made six mixes including control mixes using steel slag powder (SSP). The
contents like crushed stone, recycled aggregate, fine aggregate, natural sand, polycarboxylate
superplasticizer and w/c ratio in constant amount (624, 267, 107, 772, 1.16, and 176 kg/m3
respectively). The other contents like cement and SSP were added variably (426, 384, 341, 298,
256, 213 and 0, 43, 85, 128, 171, and 213 kg/m3 ). The replacement level was 0 to 50% by the
weight of cement. The slump value obtained was in the range of 680 to 740 mm. The growth rate
of compressive strength for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% of SSP were 0.48%, 15.71%, 27.38%,
43.81%, 51.67% respectively on the curing day of 7 and split tensile strength for the same
proportion were 3.3 MPa, 2.6 MPa, 2.3 MPa, 2.0 MPa and 1.8 MPa respectively. The growth rate
of coulomb electric flux (chloride penetration test) containing SSP of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and
50% were -17.32%, 29.73%, 77.36% and 130.12% on Day 28[6].
The author had made nine mixes using pond ash, lime stone powder, GGBS with the proportion
of 20, 40, and 60% replacement with cement and sand. The slump, V-funnel, L-box and U-box’s
value obtained was in the range of 680, 620, and 725 mm; 6, 6, and 8 seconds; 0.9, 0.8, and 0.8mm;
29, 10, and 10 mm respectively. The compressive strength and tensile strength obtained for 28
days of curing were 45.33, 47, and 26.2 Mpa and 4.12, 4.19, and 2.09 Mpa respectively[17].
The author had made ten mixes including control mixes using glass powder and steel slag in
different proportion keeping glass powder constant. The maximum value obtained was 740 mm
for slum flow and 721 mm for J-ring flow. The compressive and tensile strength obtained was 23.7
Mpa and 2.53 Mpa for curing day of 28. Compressive strength, splitting tensile strength improved
with increasing granular steel slag content at a constant level of glass powder with a maximum
increase of 11%, 13.2%, 19.3%, and 20% respectively, compared to the control mix[18].
The author had made fifteen mixes using marble and granite powder in different proportion
varying from 0 to 20 % replacement keeping the w/c ratio constant. The best result obtained was
under 5% of replacement. The maximum value of compressive strength was obtained at the same
ratio that is 37.7 Mpa at the curing day of 28 days[19].
The author had made mixes by using flyash and glass fiber and adjusting the water-binder ratio
and superplasticizer. The SSC prepared without fiber had the slump value of 720 mm, V-funnel
had the value 7.5 seconds and L-box ratio was of 0.91 and that with fiber had 710 mm, 8 seconds
and 0.90 respectively. There were not so many variations in the value with flyash and without glass
fiber. The compressive strength of SSC with flyash obtained was 45 Mpa and that with fiber was
47 Mpa for 28 days of curing. The tensile strength of SSC without fiber obtained was 4.2 Mpa and
that with fiber was 4.7 Mpa[1].
The author had made the mixes using fly ash with different proportion of viscosity modifying
agent (VMA) and keeping all other contents constant. The slump value obtained for the mix was
720 mm, 700 mm, 680 mm and 610 mm with VMA of 0, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 respectively. The
compressive strength for the same mix obtained was 46.77, 48.33, 50.87, and 49.34 Mpa for curing
day of 28. The contents of cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, water, flyash, and
superplasticizer were 400, 830, 805, 140, 60 kg and 0.8% respectively[20].
The author had made fourteen mixes using a different proportion of os metakaolin (MK), GGBS,
and silica fume (SF). The best mixes were with 5% to 10% of SF, 20% to 25 %, and 25% to 50%
as cement replacement. This mixes had given the value of 720 mm for slump flow. The
compressive obtained was 5.4 to 5.76 Mpa for 28 days of curing[21].

The author has made nine mixes using cement, fly ash, slag powder, coarse aggregate, sand
aggregate and other different admixtures like an expansive agent, VMA, superplasticizer. In this
paper, the author had kept all the ingredients constant except the amount of superplasticizer and
air entraining agents. The slump value of 700 mm was obtained for the mix made by using 7.50
and 0.075 kg/m3 of superplasticizer air entaraining agent respectively. For the same mix, the air
content and yield stress obtained were 6.1% and 160 pa respectively[22].

The author had made the eleven mixes using nano-additives of varying proportion ( 0.5% to 4% ).
The additives like SiO2, TiO2, and Al2O3. And keeping all other ingredients like cement,
aggregate, water, and superplasticizer constant. The slump value of 760 mm was obtained for the
mix having 2% of each of nano-additives. The maximum compressive strength of 72 Mpa was
obtained for the mix having 4% of each of nano-additives[23].

The author had made a total of nine mixes by using porcelain polishing residue (PPR) in different
proportions incorporating with varying amount of superplasticizer. The PPR added to the mix from
10 to 30% of cement. The best result was obtained for compressive strength lies in the range of 10
to 20% of PPR. And the compressive strength of 65 Mpa was obtained for the mix made by using
10% of PPR. The compressive strength had reached a maximum level of 95 % of the control
mix[24].

The author had made a total of four mixes using 5% to 20% of rice husk ash as partial replacement
of cement. The slump value of 625 mm was obtained for the mix 5% of RHA and with w/c ratio
of 0.5. The compressive strength of 57.8 Mpa was obtained for the same mix at 28 days of curing.
And for all other mixes, the compressive strength goes on decreasing even than the control
mix[25].

The author had made a total of four mixes by using metakaolin (MK) and rice husk ash (RHA) in
the proportion of 0% to 15% at stepping of 5%. The mix that is made of 0% is controlled mix. The
slump, U-box, L-box, and V-funnel’s value were obtained as 755 mm, 8 mm, 0.9, and 8 seconds
respectively. These are the maximum output obtained for the mix of 5% of both admixtures. The
compressive strength was as 52.4 Mpa for the mix of 10% of replacement. It is the highest output
for the mix among all mixes. The water absorption rate was as 2.05 % for the mix 5% of
replacement as the highest output for a period of 28 days[26].

The author had made a total of four mixes including control mix by using red mud sand and also
fly ash in a little amount. In this research paper, the author had performed the tests by replacing
some amount of fly ash with red mud sand in the proportion of 12.5%, 25% and 50% by weight.
The initial value for the slump value for the mix lies in between the 490 mm to 593 mm. The
replacement of red mud sand with the flyash didn’t show a better result. The compressive strength
and tensile strength obtained were as 53 Mpa and 4.9 Mpa respectively for the curing day of 28
days. This was the best result obtained with the replacement by 12.5% of flyash than among all
other mixes[27].

The author had made three mixes by using sugarcane bagasse ash (SBA) in the proportion of 97.20,
82.63 and 72.69 kg/m3 and the cement in the proportion of 431.99, 367.25, and 323.08 kg/m3
respectively with the different proportion of superplasticizer ( 5.208, 4.675, and 3.824 kg/m3 ) and
water ( 173.66, 166.53, and 163.42 kg/m3 ) respectively. The maximum value of slump, V-funnel,
and J-ring were obtained as 730 mm, 8.3 and 710 seconds for the second number of mixe. The
segregation test contained was as 5 % for first and last and 9% for the second mix. The compressive
obtained was as 51.9 Mpa for the second mix, which is the maximum output[28].

The author had made twelve mixes using natural pozzolan and recycled aggregate in varying
proportions. The natural pozzolan were varying from 5 to 20% stepping of 5 and the recycled
aggregate was added in the proportion of 0%, 50 %, 75%, and 100%. The best output for the slump,
V-funnel, J-ring tests obtained were as 800 mm, 5 seconds and 750 mm. The compressive strength
obtained was as 33 Mpa for the curing days of 28[29].

The author had made a total five mixes by using volcanic materials like Tolima (TVM), Puracé
(PVM) and Bocayá (BVM). The incorporation of this material had given the good result for
rheological properties and medium for the hardened properties. The mixing percentage were from
10 to 30% incorporating with each other. The best result obtained for slump was 753 mm for the
mix with 20% of TVM, for V-funnel was as 4.32 seconds for the mix with 20% of TVM and 10%
of PVM, and for L-box was as 0.89 for 20% of TVM and 10% of PVM and also for the combination
of 20% of TVM and 10% of BVM. The targeted compressive strength was 25 Mpa to 35 Mpa but
only 21 Mpa was achieved for the curing day of 28. The results for the compressive strength was
in the range of were 29, 26 and 27 MPa, respectively for the mix combination of 20% TVM, 20%
TVM + 10% PVM and 20% TVM + 10% BVM SCCs. These results fall in the targeted region[30].

The author had prepared the mixes using high fly ash and silica fume in the partial replacement of
cement. The proportion of fly ash was used in between 40 to 70% the silica fume was used in the
range between 0 to 10%. This helps to replace the cement in the range between 50 to 70% by
weight. The compressive strength of the control mix was 84 Mpa and that of mix with 10% of
silica fume was 100.5 Mpa. The compressive strength for the ternary mix that is for 40% of fly ash
and 10% of silica fume was 85 Mpa. This result was the best result obtained among all mixes.
The w/c ratio used are 0.3, 0.35, and 0.4. The above-mentioned result was for the w/c of 0.3. The
resistance to chloride penetration was increased by 92.2 % for the same mix as above
mentioned[31].

The author had prepared the mix using silica fume and Ultrafine GGBS in different proportions.
The silica fume and GGBS were replaced in the range between 5 to 15% to each other. The best
result obtained for the slump, V-funnel, and J-ring were 725 mm for 5% of silica fume, 8.12
seconds for 5% of GGBS, and 8 mm for 15% of GGBS. The best compressive strength obtained
as 65 Mpa for 10% of silica fume and the tensile strength for the same mix was as 4.8 Mpa for 28
days of curing. The water absorption for the mix with 10% of silica fume was reduced very rapidly.
The resistance to chloride penetration and sorptivity was improved by a significant amount[32].
The author had prepared the mix using pumice, slag, fly ash and silica fume. The admixtures except
silica fume were replaced in the range from 10 to 50% with the cement by weight. The silica fume
was replaced with 5 to 10% with the cement. Every mix had got the same slump value of 650 mm
and the best V-funnel time obtained was 5 seconds with the mix of 5% of silica fume and 20% of
pumice. The J-ring test had got the maximum value of 30 mm for 25% of pumice and 5% of silica
and 50% of GGFS. The maximum value of compressive strength of 55 Mpa was obtained for the
mix 40% of pumice and 10% of silica fume. It is greater than the compressive strength obtained
from a mix of 20% of flyash[33].

The author had prepared twenty mixes using crumb rubber (CR), silica fume (SF), and metakaolin
(MK). The CR used in the range of 5%, 10%, 20%, 25%, and 40% and silica fume 5 to 10%. The
maximum slump value was obtained as 710 mm for the mix 5% CR and SF. The maximum
compressive strength of 62.12 Mpa was obtained for the same mix. The study of this paper says
that the addition of up to 25% of CR can be beneficial to obtain good results[34].

The author had prepared a total of 48 samples of cube specimen under seven concrete mixes using
fly ash and silica fume. The fly ash was used in the proportion of 25%, 40% and 55% and the silica
fume used were as 5%, 10%, and 15%. The samples were prepared with the constant w/c ratio i.e.
0.35 with all type of mixes. The slump value obtained for the mix of 5% of silica fume fall under
the class SF1 and the values lie within 550 to 650 mm. The rest of all other mixes fall under the
class of SF2 that lies between 650 to 750 mm. The result obtained for all the mix was less than 8
seconds. The results obtained for L-box and U-box lies within the blocking ratio of 0.84 to 0.91
which is the required range. The compressive strength obtained for 28 days of curing was 87 Mpa
for the mix with 15% of silica fume[35].

The author had prepared a total of five mixes using fly ash(FA), silica fume(SF), and quarry dust
powder (QDP) with the w/c ratio of 0.38 and 0.4. The mix were prepared using 8% QDP and
w/cm ratio of 0.40 (M1), 8% QDP and w/cm ratio of 0.38 (M2), 10% QDP and w/cm ratio of 0.4
(M3), 8% QDP plus 5% SF and w/cm ratio of 0.40 (M4), and 30% FA and w/cm ratio of 0.40
(M5). The best result obtained for compressive strength was 78 Mpa for the mix M5 and the tensile
strength obtained was 6.5 Mpa for the mix M2 for the curing days of 90[36].

The author had prepared the mix using silica fume and fly ash. The fly ash varies from 10 to 30 %
and silica fume varies from 10 to 20%. But the best result obtained for the compressive strength
was 29.2 Mpa for the mix of 10% of silica fume and 10% of fly ash. This was the result of the
combination. If only the result obtained for the mix of 10%of silica fume with cement in terms of
addition or replacement was taken, then the highest was as 35 Mpa[37].

The author had prepared mixes using 5 to 15% of silica fume and 12.5 to 50% of fly ash. The best
result was obtained for the mix combination of 10% of silica fume and 10% of fly ash. The
segregation index was less little than the 20%, the difference in the U-box was less than 30 mm
and the slump flow was obtained as 650 mm. The best result obtained for the sorptivity was as the
sorptivity coefficient of 0.39*10-4 g/mm2/min0.5 with the compressive strength of 74.55 Mpa for
the 28 days of curing[38].
The author had prepared mixes using silica fume and nano silica in the ratio of 2.5%, 5%, and
7.5% % with the replacement of cement. The slump flow was obtained as 817.5 mm for the mix
of 7.5% of nSF and SF. The V-funnel time was as 5.04 seconds for the same mix. The L-box ratio
was obtained as 1for the same mix and this was the greatest achievement. And the flow for J-ring
was obtained as 820 mm. The compressive strength was obtained as 82.17 Mpa for the 28 days of
curing for the mix 2.5% of both nano-silica and silica fume. And the tensile strength was obtained
as 6.55 Mpa for the mix combination of 5% of nano silica and silica fume[39].

The author had made a total of eighteen mixtures using silica fume of the ratio varying from 2.5%,
5%, 7.5% and 10% including control mix. The slump flow lies in the range of 690 mm to 800 mm
for all mixes and the highest slump flow obtained for the mix was 12.5% of silica fume, J-ring
flow was in the range of 680 mm to 790 mm and the highest value for the same mix, the V-funnel
time was 4 to 5 seconds and the highest value for the same mix. And the L-box ratio was in the
range of 0.84 to 0.96. These all values were within the guideline of EFNARC. The highest
compressive strength obtained for the mix combination of 5% of silica fume[40].

CONCLUSION

Here a total of 40 research paper has been reviewed and most of the paper deals with the mix
combination of silica fume and fly ash. Very few of them deals with the mix combination of
limestone powder, GGBS, roof tile powder, marble powder, fly ash, silica fume and also few are
with the application of fiber like steel and rubber. The fiber added SCC is reviewed only to know
the difference between fresh properties of SSC that is without incorporation of fiber but only with
the mineral admixture. This is true things that the SSC incorporated with the fiber bear lower value
for slump flow in comparison to SCC with mineral admixture only. In this literature review, mainly
two admixtures are focused i.e. fly ash and silica fume.

The mineral admixtures with the application of superplasticizer have been utilized to form SCC.
The addition of superplasticizer was the most to obtain the desired result mainly for the
workability. The fly ash, silica fume or any other mineral admixture have been used as either an
additional material or replacing materials to the cement or sand. The ratio of fly ash used in this
literature review are from 5% to 55% and that of silica fume is from 2.5% to 20%. The water-
binder ratio is used in the range of 0.32 to 0.4. The ratio of superplasticizer used in this literature
review within 2%. In this literature review, the recycled aggregate has also been used to form SSC
and the proportion used from 10 to 100% replacement with the crushed aggregate.

In this literature review, it is found that the best result obtained for almost all the parameter like
compressive strength, tensile strength, slump flow are due to the mix combination of 10% of silica
fume and 10% of fly ash. If SCC is incorporated only with the silica fume, it gives even better
result in comparison to the ternary combination. Only some parameter like water absorption and
chloride penetration tests results in lack behind the optimum result. For the recycled aggregate, the
optimum result was obtained at 50% of replacement aggregates.
 REFERENCES

[1] P. Engineering, T. Authors, C. C. By-nc-nd, T. Authors, and C. C. By-nc-nd, “No Title,”

vol. 173, pp. 807–813, 2017.

[2] E. Güneyisi, M. E. Kocabag, V. Bayram, and K. Mermerdas, “Fresh and hardened

characteristics of self compacting concretes made with combined use of marble powder ,
limestone filler , and fly ash,” vol. 37, pp. 160–170, 2012.

[3] W. Street and S. Gu, “Specification and Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete,” vol.
44, no. February, 2002.

[4] T. E. Guidelines and S. Concrete, “ERMCO The European Guidelines for Self-
Compacting Concrete,” no. May, 2005.

[5] Y. F. Silva, D. A. Lange, and S. Delvasto, “Effect of incorporation of masonry residue on

the properties of self-compacting concretes,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 196, pp. 277–283,
2019.

[6] Z. Pan et al., “Investigating the effects of steel slag powder on the properties of self-
compacting concrete with recycled aggregates,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 200, pp. 570–
577, 2019.

[7] M. A. Akinpelu, S. O. Odeyemi, O. S. Olafusi, and F. Z. Muhammed, “Evaluation of

splitting tensile and compressive strength relationship of self-compacting concrete,” J.
King Saud Univ. - Eng. Sci., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 19–25, 2019.

[8] B. H. Nagaratnam, M. A. Mannan, M. E. Rahman, A. K. Mirasa, A. Richardson, and O.

Nabinejad, “Strength and microstructural characteristics of palm oil fuel ash and fly ash as
binary and ternary blends in Self-Compacting concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 202,
pp. 103–120, 2019.

[9] N. Arabi, H. Meftah, H. Amara, O. Kebaïli, and L. Berredjem, “Valorization of recycled

materials in development of self-compacting concrete: Mixing recycled concrete
aggregates – Windshield waste glass aggregates,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 209, pp.
364–376, 2019.

[10] A. Duran-Herrera, J. De-León-Esquivel, D. P. Bentz, and P. Valdez-Tamez, “Self-

compacting concretes using fly ash and fine limestone powder: Shrinkage and surface
electrical resistivity of equivalent mortars,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 199, pp. 50–62,
2019.

[11] P. R. de Matos, M. Foiato, and L. R. Prudêncio, “Ecological, fresh state and long-term
mechanical properties of high-volume fly ash high-performance self-compacting
concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 203, pp. 282–293, 2019.

[12] N. Singh, M. M, and S. Arya, “Utilization of coal bottom ash in recycled concrete
aggregates based self compacting concrete blended with metakaolin,” Resour. Conserv.
 Recycl., vol. 144, no. September 2018, pp. 240–251, 2019.

[13] B. Herbudiman and A. Mulyawan, “Self-Compacting Concrete with Recycled Traditional

Roof Tile Powder,” Procedia Eng., vol. 54, pp. 805–816, 2013.

[14] M. Benaicha, A. Hafidi Alaoui, O. Jalbaud, and Y. Burtschell, “Dosage effect of

superplasticizer on self-compacting concrete: correlation between rheology and strength,”
J. Mater. Res. Technol., no. x x, pp. 1–7, 2019.

[15] R. Siddique, “Properties of self-compacting concrete containing class F fly ash,” Mater.
Des., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1501–1507, 2011.

[16] H. Ye, X. Gao, and L. Zhang, “Influence of time-dependent rheological properties on

distinct-layer casting of self-compacting concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 199, pp.
214–224, 2019.

[17] A. D. Academics, K. Lakshmaiah, E. Foundation, and A. Pradesh, “EXPERIMENTAL

INVESTIGATION OF SELF COMPACTING CONCRETE ( SCC ) WITH
CONFINEMENT BY PARTIAL REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT WITH GGBS , LIME
STONE AND FINE AGGREGATE WITH POND ASH,” vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 489–501,
2018.

[18] S. Rehman, S. Iqbal, and A. Ali, “Combined influence of glass powder and granular steel
slag on fresh and mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete,” Constr. Build.
Mater., vol. 178, pp. 153–160, 2018.

[19] I. Taji et al., “Application of statistical analysis to evaluate the corrosion resistance of
steel rebars embedded in concrete with marble and granite waste dust,” J. Clean. Prod.,
2018.

[20] S. Ahmad and A. Umar, “Characterization of Self-Compacting Concrete,” Procedia Eng.,

vol. 173, pp. 814–821, 2017.

[21] S. S. Vivek and G. Dhinakaran, “Fresh and hardened properties of binary blend high
strength self compacting concrete,” Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1173–
1179, 2017.

[22] F. Huang, H. Li, Z. Yi, Z. Wang, and Y. Xie, “The rheological properties of self-
compacting concrete containing superplasticizer and air-entraining agent,” Constr. Build.
Mater., vol. 166, pp. 833–838, 2018.

[23] P. Niewiadomski, J. Hoła, and A. Ćwirzeń, “Study on properties of self-compacting

concrete modified with nanoparticles,” Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 877–886,
2018.

[24] P. R. de Matos, L. R. Prudêncio, A. L. de Oliveira, F. Pelisser, and P. J. P. Gleize, “Use of

porcelain polishing residue as a supplementary cimentitious material in self-compacting
concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 193, pp. 623–630, 2018.
[25] E. Molaei Raisi, J. Vaseghi Amiri, and M. R. Davoodi, “Mechanical performance of self-
compacting concrete incorporating rice husk ash,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 177, pp.
148–157, 2018.

[26] A. S. Gill and R. Siddique, “Durability properties of self-compacting concrete

incorporating metakaolin and rice husk ash,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 176, pp. 323–332,
2018.

[27] W. C. Tang, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, and H. Z. Cui, “Influence of red mud on fresh and hardened
properties of self-compacting concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 178, pp. 288–300,
2018.

[28] J. P. Moretti, S. Nunes, and A. Sales, “Self-compacting concrete incorporating sugarcane

bagasse ash,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 172, pp. 635–649, 2018.

[29] M. Omrane, S. Kenai, E. H. Kadri, and A. Aït-Mokhtar, “Performance and durability of

self compacting concrete using recycled concrete aggregates and natural pozzolan,” J.
Clean. Prod., vol. 165, pp. 415–430, 2017.

[30] D. M. Burgos, Á. Guzmán, N. Torres, and S. Delvasto, “Chloride ion resistance of self-
compacting concretes incorporating volcanic materials,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 156,
pp. 565–573, 2017.

[31] W. Wongkeo, P. Thongsanitgarn, A. Ngamjarurojana, and A. Chaipanich, “Compressive

strength and chloride resistance of self-compacting concrete containing high level fly ash
and silica fume,” J. Mater., 2014.

[32] A. Mohan and K. M. Mini, “Strength and durability studies of SCC incorporating silica
fume and ultra fine GGBS,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 171, pp. 919–928, 2018.

[33] R. Bani, A. Joshaghani, and R. D. Hooton, “Workability retention and compressive

strength of self-compacting concrete incorporating pumice powder and silica fume,”
Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 134, pp. 116–122, 2017.

[34] B. H. Abdelaleem and A. A. A. Hassan, “Development of self-consolidating rubberized

concrete incorporating silica fume,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 161, pp. 389–397, 2018.

[35] F. Bing and I. Tohumcu, “Effects of different curing regimes on the compressive strength
properties of self compacting concrete incorporating fly ash and silica fume,” vol. 51, pp.
12–18, 2013.

[36] H. A. F. Dehwah, “Mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete incorporating

quarry dust powder , silica fume or fly ash,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 547–
551, 2012.

[37] H. A. Mohamed, “Effect of fly ash and silica fume on compressive strength of self-
compacting concrete under different curing conditions,” Ain Shams Eng. J., vol. 2, no. 2,
pp. 79–86, 2011.
[38] H. Y. Leung, J. Kim, A. Nadeem, J. Jaganathan, and M. P. Anwar, “Sorptivity of self-
compacting concrete containing fly ash and silica fume,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 113,
pp. 369–375, 2016.

[39] J. Bernal, E. Reyes, J. Massana, N. León, and E. Sánchez, “Fresh and mechanical behavior
of a self-compacting concrete with additions of nano-silica , silica fume and ternary
mixtures,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 160, pp. 196–210, 2018.

[40] V. Naderi, A. Fouroghi-asl, V. Nourani, and H. Ma, “On the pore structures of lightweight
self-compacting concrete containing silica fume,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 193, pp.
557–564, 2018.