You are on page 1of 34

ASSIGNMENT 8

MIX DESIGN

GROUP 22
Roelof Jacobs
Benedicto Munthali
John Roxburgh
Tholly Vezi
Kevin Volmink (Group Leader)
Word Count
Main text
Tables (13 x 150)
Figures (5 x 150)
Total

5000
1950
750
7700

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Group Assignment 8: Mix Design


1. A concrete is to be produced from the following materials:
CEMI Portland cement 52.5N (BS EN 197-1)
A gravel (uncrushed) coarse aggregate and an uncrushed fine aggregate with the
properties given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively (BS EN 12620)
Tap water (BS EN 1008)
Design a concrete with strength Class C30/37 and consistence Class S3 (BS EN 206-1)
using
(a) the DoE mix design method
(b) the ACI method
(c) the Basic Mix method.
There are no limiting values for the composition and no other specified concrete
requirements.
2. Compare and contrast the three mix design methods used in Q1, and in particular
comment on their ease of use and any differences in the resulting concrete compositions.
State which one of the mix designs you consider to be the best, giving reasons for your
selection.
3. How would you adjust the composition that you obtained in question 1(a) to produce
(a) a pumpable concrete
(b) a flowing concrete
(c) an underwater concrete
(d) a self-compacting concrete to EFNARC classes SF3, VS1/VF1, PA2 and SR2
(e) an air-entrained concrete.
For each of these you should design a mix for the same strength class as in Q1, and you
can incorporate any other constituent materials locally available to at least one of the group
members in addition to those given in Q1 above.
4. How would you modify the mix composition that you obtained in question 1(a) to achieve
maximum sustainability benefits if you were also able to use one or more of:
(a) fly ash conforming to BS EN 450-1 (Category N)
(b) ground granulated blastfurnace slag conforming to BS EN 15167-1
(c) limestone powder to BS 7979
Notes:
You should clearly set out your reasoning, calculations, assumptions etc. for each
part of Q1, Q3 and Q4.
The conclusion to each part should be the composition that you would use for an
initial trial mix, either in the laboratory or in a batching plant. These are of course best
estimates and in practice may need adjustment depending on the results of the trial
mix.
In Q3 you should also include details of the materials you have chosen to use
(including the manufacturer's data sheets).
The ACI and Basic Mix Design methods are provided in the Mix Design section of the
library.
Overall maximum length 7000 words (excluding report title page, contents,
reference list and appendices, but including words in tables) with each diagram,
figure etc. within the main text to count as 150 words. Ensure that the word length is
declared in the report.

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A class C30/37 strength concrete mix with a class S3 consistence using specific materials
was sort. Three concrete mix design methods, DoE, ACI and Basic, were used to determine
the mix proportions based on required concrete and material properties. These methods
were compared with reference to their ease of use and the differences in the concrete mix
design obtained from each. The DoE and basic mix design methods were found to be more
accurate in the determination of the initial mix design. The composition of the initial mix
design was then adjusted, whilst maintaining the strength requirements, to produce various
special concretes. This was achieved by blending the specified materials, using additions
and admixtures. Finally the initial mix was modified to achieve the maximum sustainability
benefits by incoporating fly ash, GGBS and limestone in various proportions.

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No
1.

CONCRETE MIX DESIGN

1.1

1.4
1.5

Mix Design Requirements 6


1.1.1 Introduction 6
1.1.2 Performance requirements6
1.1.3 Materials 6
1.1.4 Target mean strength (to be used for all mix designs)
7
DoE mix design
7
1.2.1 Stage 1: Selection of target water/cement ratio 7
1.2.2 Stage 2: Selection of free-water content 8
1.2.3 Stage 3: Determination of cement content
9
1.2.4 Stage 4: Determination of total aggregate content
9
1.2.5 State 5: Selection of fine and coarse aggregate contents10
ACI Mix design
11
1.3.1 Step1: Choice of slump 11
1.3.2 Step 2: Choice of maximum aggregate size
11
1.3.3 Step 3: Estimation of mixing water11
1.3.4 Step 4: Selection of water cement ratio 11
1.3.5 Step 5: Calculation of cement content
11
1.3.6 Step 6: Estimating coarse aggregate content
12
1.3.7 Step 7: Estimation of fine aggregate content
12
Basic Mix Method 12
Conclusion 13

2.

COMPARISON OF MIX DESIGN METHODS 14

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7

Introduction 14
Result comparison 14
Ease of use of the different methods
Determination of free water content.
Determination of water to cement ratio
Determination of aggregate content16
Conclusion 17

3.

MIX ADJUSTMENT FOR SPECIAL CONCRETES

3.1

3.2

Self Compacting Concrete 18


3.1.1 Mix design considerations 18
3.1.2 Mix design calculations
19
Air entrainment mix design 21

4.

MIX MODIFICATION FOR SUSTAINABILITY 22

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

Introduction 22
Fly Ash Category N (EN 450-1)
GGBS (EN 15167-1)23
Limestone powder to BS 7979

5.

REFERENCES

1.2

1.3

22
23

25
ii

15
16
16

18

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

APPENDIX A

iii

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Approximate compressive strength (N/mm2) of concrete mixes made with a freeware/cement ration of 0.5.......................................................................................................7
Figure 1-2 Relationship between compressive strength and free-water/cement ratio.............8
Figure 1-3 Approximate free-water contents (kg/m3) required to give various levels of
workability.............................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 1-4 Estimated wet density of fully compacted concrete.............................................10
Figure 1-5 (continued).......................................................................................................... 11

iv

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Coarse (gravel) aggregate......................................................................................6
Table 1-2 Uncrushed fine aggregate.......................................................................................6
Table 1-3 Zone of sand for given grading.............................................................................12
Table 1-4 Summary of mix design results.............................................................................13
Table 2-1 Mix design results from different team members...................................................15
Table 2-2 ACI mix design reworked with w/c of 0.52.............................................................15
Table 3-1 Summary of specifications according to EFNARC 2005.......................................18
Table 3-2 SCC mix adjustment computation.........................................................................19
Table 3-3 Comparison of ACI question 1 mix and proposed air entrained mix......................21
Table 4-1 Mix to be modified for sustainability......................................................................22
Table 4-2 Mix modified by adding fly ash..............................................................................22
Table 4-3 Mix modified by adding GGBS..............................................................................23
Table 4-4 Mix modified by adding limestone.........................................................................23

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 1-1 Coarse (gravel) aggregate

1.

CONCRETE MIX DESIGN

1.1

Mix Design Requirements

1.1.1

Introduction

Table 1-2 Uncrushed fine aggregate

Using three different mix design methodologies, a mix design is created using each
methodology with the given input materials. The following methodologies are used.
The DoE mix design method. This is a British method of mix design and was first
published in the Road Research Laboratorys Road Note No. 4 ('Road Research
Laboratory', 1950). It was subsequently revised in 1975 and again revised and
updated in 1988 in the publication Design of normal concrete mixes (Teychenne,
et al., 1988).
The ACI (American Concrete Institute) method is a method developed by ACI
committee 211 which is described in the ACI publication Standard Practice for
selecting proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1-91)
(ACI Committee 211, 2009)
The Basic Mix Method is a method proposed by Owens in the Basic mix series
published by the Cement and Concrete association (Owens, 1973).
1.1.2

Performance requirements
Strength class C30/37. Consistence class S3 as per BS EN 206-1 (BS EN 2061:2000, 2004). BS EN 206-1 describes a consistence class of S3 as having a slump
of between 100 mm and 150 mm

1.1.3

Materials
Coarse aggregate: Gravel (uncrushed) with maximum nominal size of 20 mm
irregular in shape. As per Table 1-1 in assignment.
Grading

Particle density
(SSD)
Dry rodded bulk
density
Particle shape

Sieve size

% passing by
wt
20mm
96
10mm
35
4mm
4
2mm
1
2.650 Mg/m3
1.46 Mg/m3
irregular

Fine aggregate: Uncrushed fine aggregate with properties given in Table 1-2 of
assignment. From Table 1-2 in assignment the percentage fines passing the 600
micron sieve being 52%. The fineness modulus was calculated to be 2.7.
Grading

Sieve size
4mm
2mm
6

% passing by
wt
98
79

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Particle density
(SSD)

1mm
67
0.5mm
52
0.25mm
22
0.125mm
5
(grading zone 2 for Basic Mix
Method)
2.65 Mg/m3

Cement: CEM I Portland cement 52.5N in accordance with BS EN 197-1


Water meeting the requirements of BS EN 1008.
1.1.4

Target mean strength (to be used for all mix designs)


Assuming 5% defectives allowed and a standard deviation of 6MPa as obtained
from Design of Normal concrete mixes (Teychenne, et al., 1988).
Target mean strength fm = 37 + (1.64 x 6) = 47MPa

1.2

DoE mix design

1.2.1

Stage 1: Selection of target water/cement ratio


For water cement ratio of 0.5 at 28 days, using Figure 1-1, a strength of 48 MPa is
obtained. (used the rapid hardening RHPC part of the table as the strength class of
given cement is 52.5)
From Figure 1-2 the above values are used to adjust the strength down to 47MPa
and a target water cement ratio of 0.52

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Figure 1-2
1-1 Approximate
Relationship between
compressive
compressive
strength strength
(N/mm2) of
and
concrete
free-water/cement
mixes maderatio
with a
free-ware/cement ration of 0.5

1.2.2

Stage 2: Selection of free-water content


Selection of free water content from Figure 1-3
Free water content of 195 litres was obtained for uncrushed aggregate of maximum
size 20mm

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Figure 1-3 Approximate free-water contents (kg/m3) required to give various levels of
workability

1.2.3

Stage 3: Determination of cement content


Cement content = free-water content / (free-water/cement ratio)
= 195 / 0.52 = 375kg of cement.

1.2.4

Stage 4: Determination of total aggregate content


From Figure 1-4 the wet density is calculated at 2355 kg/m 3 assuming an aggregate
relative density of 2.65
Total aggregate content = Wet density of concrete cement content free-water
content
= 2355 375 195 = 1785kg/m3

10

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Figure 1-4 Estimated wet density of fully compacted concrete


1.1.1

1.2.5

State 5: Selection of fine and coarse aggregate contents


From sand grading Table 1-2 the percentage passing the 600 micron sieve is 52%.
Using Figure 1-5 the proportion of fine aggregate is found to be 42%.
Therefore fine aggregate content = 0.42 x 1785 = 750 kg
And coarse aggregate content = 1785 750 = 1035kg

11

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Figure 1-5 (continued)

1.2

1.3

ACI Mix design


All tables referred to in this section are tables within the ACI publication Standard
Practice for selecting proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete
(ACI Committee 211, 2009).

1.3.1

Step1: Choice of slump


Given to be 100 150mm

1.3.2

Step 2: Choice of maximum aggregate size


From assignment to be a maximum size of 20mm.

1.3.3

Step 3: Estimation of mixing water


From Table 6.3.3, 350 pounds of water per cubic yard were obtained for inch
aggregate and a slump of between 4 and 6 inches.
Converted to metric units it comes to 207kg/m3

1.3.4

Step 4: Selection of water cement ratio


Based on a 28 day cylinder strength (applying same margin as to cube above) of
40MPa (5801 PSI) interpolating Table 6.3.4(a) gives a water to cement ratio of 0.42.

1.3.5

Step 5: Calculation of cement content


From steps 3 and 4
Cement content = water content / (water cement ratio)
= 207 / 0.42 = 492kg/m3.
12

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 1-3 Zone of sand for given grading


1.3.6

Step 6: Estimating coarse aggregate content


Percentage volume of coarse aggregate per unit volume of concrete obtained from
table 6.3.6 using a fineness modulus of 2.7 (as calculated above) is 63% hence
volume of coarse aggregate is:
= 0.63 x 1 = 630 litres
Hence mass of coarse aggregate is = 0.63 x 1460 = 920kg
density given in assignment as 1460kg/m3).

1.3.7

(the consolidated bulk

Step 7: Estimation of fine aggregate content


Firstly the plastic density of the fresh concrete is estimated from Table 6.3.7.1 and
this give (after conversion) an estimated density of 2350 kg/m3
The mass of fine aggregate is calculated as follows
Mass fine aggregate = mass concrete mass water mass cement mass coarse
aggregate
= 2350 207 492 920 = 731 kg/m3

1.4

Basic Mix Method


The sand assumed in the introduction fits a zone 2 type sand best see Table 1-3
below. Values taken from booklet Sands for concrete (Newman & Teychenne',
1964)
% passing
Zone 2

mix sand

Zone 3

90-100

98

90-100

75-100

79

85-100

55-90

67

75-100

35-59

52

60-79

8 to 30

22

12-40

0-10

0-10

So from table 3 in Basic mix method (Owens, 1973) using maximum aggregate
size of 20mm and a Zone 2 sand with irregular shaped coarse aggregate and a
slump of between 100mm and 150mm the first trial mix would be
Water = 195kg
Cement = 350kg
Fine aggregate = 730kg
Coarse aggregate = 1040kg
13

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 1-4 Summary of mix design results

1.5

Conclusion
A summary of the mix design results using the different methods is given in Table 14 below.
DoE

ACI

BASIC

Water

195

207

195

Cement

375

492

350

Fine agg

750

731

720

Coarse agg

1035

920

1040

Density

2355

2350

2305

14

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

2.

COMPARISON OF MIX DESIGN METHODS

2.1

Introduction
The ACI, DoE and Basic mix design are discussed below. The discussion includes
the ease of use of each mix design and the results produced by each mix design
with the view to choosing the most suitable with regards to efficiently producing an
effective mix design.

2.2

Result comparison
Different team members using the same input material produced different mix
designs using the same design methods. There was also a difference in the mix
designs produced between the different methods. This is illustrated in Table 2-1.
When analysing the results of the different mix designs a logical approach would be
to quickly and simply make an assessment of the overall mix proportions and ask
the following simple questions:
Does the water content look reasonable?
Does the fine to coarse aggregate ratio look reasonable?
Does the cement content look reasonable?
For the strength requirements does the w/c ratio look reasonable?
The most glaringly obvious would be the water cement ratio. The method according
to BS EN 196-1:2005 ('BS EN 196-1:2005', 2005) used to evaluate the strength
performance class of the given cement, namely the CEM1 52.5N, uses a water
cement ratio of 0.5 and standard CEN (European committee for standardization)
sand to cement ratio of 3. The specimen is given a strength class of 52.5 if it
exceeds 52.5 MPa at 28 days. It therefore follows that for a 47 MPa concrete any
mix design method that does not return a w/c ratio of close to or even higher than
0.5 is using outdated and/or conservative tables or graphs to determine the w/c
ratios. In Table 2-1 it can be seen that the DoE method done by team member BM
and JR delivered the most realistic w/c ratios. It appears that the major cause of
differences between the different mix designs starts with the large differences in the
water cement ratio. Re-doing the ACI mix designs with a fixed w/c ratio of 0.52
resulted in the designs in Table 2-2. This resulted in more comparable mix designs
with reasonable water and cement contents. The basic mix design is unable to cater
for a 47MPa concrete with a 195 litre free water content and hence was not recalculated with the w/c ratio of 0.52.
All design methods produced results with reasonable free water contents with the
DoE and Basic mix design having below 200 litres of water.
Having a substantially larger stone content in comparison to the sand content will
produce a more stable concrete in the hardened state but may be more difficult to
work in the plastic state. The DoE and Basic mix design produced mixes with a
relatively larger stone content while the ACI method produced a heavily sanded mix.
The DoE method results produced consistently the lowest cement contents and
hence protentially the cheapest concrete.
15

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 2-6
2-5 ACI
Mix design
mix design
results
reworked
from different
with w/cteam
of 0.52
members
DoE

TV

BM

KV

JR

Basic
195
350
0.56
720

784

1040

1845

2305

195
406
0.48
958

200
449
0.45
796

195
483
0.40
610

816

910

1040

2375

2355

2329

195
424
0.46
593

205
456
0.45
774

195
350
0.56
720

1148

920

1040

2360

2355

2305

195
375
0.52
750

207
492
0.42
731

195
350
0.56
720

1035

920

1040

2355

2350

2305

Water kg/m3
Cement Kg/m3
W/C
Fine aggregate kg/m3
Coarse aggregate
kg/m3
Plastic density kg/m3
Water kg/m3
Cement Kg/m3
W/C
Fine aggregate kg/m3
Coarse aggregate
kg/m3
Plastic density kg/m3
Water kg/m3
Cement Kg/m3
W/C
Fine aggregate kg/m3
Coarse aggregate
kg/m3
Plastic density kg/m3
Water kg/m3
Cement Kg/m3
W/C
Fine aggregate kg/m3
Coarse aggregate
kg/m3
Plastic density kg/m3

DoE
Water kg/m3
195
Cement Kg/m3
375
W/C
0.52
Fine aggregate kg/m3
750
Coarse
aggregate
1035
kg/m3
Plastic density kg/m3
2355

2.3

ACI
202
420
0.48
440

ACI
207
398
0.52
825
920
2350

Ease of use of the different methods


All mix designs were easy to use. All methods relied on looking up figures on tables
or graphs and the design process was done in stages. The Basic mix design
involved looking up an initial mix on a set of tables and then this mix was adjusted
16

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

to meet the strength requirements. The Basic mix design method was not able to
cater for the 47MPa required strength for the given water content in the initial given
mix. No clear procedure was given to remedy this as the design did not cater for
the changing of the water content to meet the requirements but rather relied on
changing the cement contents. (It should be noted that Basic Mix Method booklet
states on the front cover that this method is for Selection of proportions for medium
strength concretes and as this was published in 1973 a 47MPa concrete may have
been approaching what would have been classified as high strength).

2.4

Determination of free water content.


The DoE method looked this up on a table using the maximum size of aggregate
and the type of aggregate (crushed or uncrushed) along with the required slump as
input parameters.
The ACI method also used the maximum aggregate size and slump as parameters
to look up the free water content on a table but makes no distinction for the
aggregate shape like the DoE method.
The Basic mix design determines the free water content by actual mixes done
taking into account the sand grading and stone shape (rounded, irregular or
angular).
As the DoE and Basic mix designs returned lower free water contents and take the
stone shape into account it suggests that they will give a more accurate measure of
the free water content.

2.5

Determination of water to cement ratio


For the DoE method the w/c ration is looked up on a table which caters for different
types of cement and the stone shape.
The ACI method uses a table to determine the ratio but only with a given strength
as the input parameter.
The Basic mix design method determines the water cement ratio by adjusting the
cement content in the initial mix design found on a table taking into account the
sand grading and stone shape.
It would stand to reason that the DoE and Basic mix design method would return a
better approximation of the required w/c ratio due to the use of more input
parameters in its determination. The Basic mix design does not cater for a shift in
water content to get the required w/c ratio and hence could not cater for the 47MPa
requirement.

2.6

Determination of aggregate content


The DoE mix design determines the overall aggregate content by predicting the
density of the concrete and then subtracting the free water and cement content from
this. The aggregate content is then proportioned into coarse and fine contents using
tables that take the slump, maximum aggregate size, water cement ratio and also
the grading of the fine aggregate (namely the percentage of material smaller than
600 microns) into account.

17

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

The ACI method used a table that takes into account the maximum aggregate size
and the fineness modulus of the sand to look up the coarse aggregate content. The
fine aggregate content is then calculated by difference after estimating the concrete
density off a table.
The Basic mix design method determines the coarse and fine aggregate contents
by doing initial trial mixes that are listed in a table. The coarse aggregate content
then remains the same while the fine aggregate content is adjusted when the
cement content is changed to get the correct w/c ratio.
The DoE and Basic mix design methods make use of both coarse aggregate shape
and fine aggregate grading along with the maximum aggregate size to determine
the contents of these in the mix. The ACI method only uses the maximum
aggregate size and the fineness modulus of the sand to determine the aggregate
proportions and quantities. The fineness modulus does not say anything about the
grading of the sand which is a crucial parameter for the workability of the mix.

2.7

Conclusion
The DoE and Basic mix design methods cater for stone shape and sand
grading in their determination of water content and aggregate content while
the ACI method does not. For a more accurate prediction of an initial mix
design it would appear that DoE and Basic mix design would be a better
choice.

18

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 3-7 Summary of specifications according to EFNARC 2005

3.

MIX ADJUSTMENT FOR SPECIAL CONCRETES

3.1

Self Compacting Concrete


The self compacting concrete design presented here is an adjustment to ACI mix
design proposed in question 1. The mix design has been prepared with guidance of
the European Guideline for Self Compacting Concrete (EFNARC) of 2005. It is
anticipated that the proposed adjustments will achieve specification of SF3,
VS1/VF1, PAR2 and SR2. Literature say that self compacting concrete is designed
on volume based (EFNARC, 2005). This is because mix designs often use volume
as a key parameter because of the importance of the need to over fill the voids
between the aggregate particles (EFNARC, 2005).

3.1.1

Mix design considerations


According to EFNARC 2005 the specifications in question entail the following;
SF3

Slump flow to be achieved

760
850mm

to

VS1/VF1

V funnel time to be achieved

8 sec

PAR2

Passing ability to be achieved

0.80 with
3 rebars

SR2

Segregation resistance to be
achieved

15%

In order to achieve this, our mix design of question 1 has to have the paste volumes
and aggregate content adjusted adequately. EFNARC propose the following
guideline to developing a mix design (Group, 2005);

Evaluate the water demand and optimize the flow and stability of paste

Determine the proportion of sand and dose of admixture to give the required
robustness

Add an appropriate amount of coarse aggregate

Produce the fresh SCC in the laboratory mixer, perform the required tests

Test the properties of the SCC in the hardened state

Produce trial mixes in the plant mixer

In order to achieve a flow and stability of paste, the binder content has to be
increased. Since the cement in question is a 52.5N increase in cement content will
result in excessive creeping, shrinkage and cracking in the concrete. To counter
this, the mix will have fly ash included. This will give higher binder content with low
cement content. Fly ash will also reduce the peak temperatures during heat of

19

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 3-8 SCC mix adjustment computation


hydration and hence minimize thermal cracking. It will also improve workability;
reduce segregation and bleeding in the concrete.
In order to achieve the second and third points, our mix of question 1 shall be
adjusted as follows;

3.1.2

Coarse aggregate to be blended, 50% 13.2 mm stone and 50% 10 mm stone.


This is to be verified with initial tests.

Coarse aggregate to be set at 50% dry robbed weight for concrete

Fine aggregate to be set at 40% of mortar volume

Mix design calculations


There are no standard methods for SCC mix design and many academic
institutions, admixture, ready-mix; precast and contracting companies have
developed their own mix methods (EFNARC, 2005). The method used to adjust the
question 1 mix design is adopted from a paper from the International Journal of
Advances in Engineering & Technology entitled A SIMPLE TOOL FOR SELF
COMPACTING CONCRETE MIX DESIGN (J. Guru Jawahar, C. Sashidhar, I.V.
Ramana Reddy and J. Annie Peter, 2012). For flowability, the maximum aggregate
size has been limited to 13.2mm and the mix is a 50/50 blend of 10mm and 13.2mm
aggregate, the water content has been fixed to match with the question 1 mix, free
w/c has been adjusted to 0.4 and binder content calculated based on this, the
computation is given below in Table 3-1;

Coarse aggregate blending


Specific gravity of 13.2mm &

50 50
2.71

10mm
Dry robbed
Coarse aggregate

1460 kg/m3
50 %

in

robbed
Coarse aggregate weight
Coarse aggregate volume

Mortar volume

dry

730 kg/m3
269.37 litre/m3
26.94%
Concrete

volume

coarse

aggregate

volume
1000-269.37
730.63 litre/m3
% of sand in Mortar volume
Sand volume

specific gravity cement

43.0 %
730.63*43%
314.45 litre/m3
3.15
20

Fultons pg. 324

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Specific gravity fly ash


Air content
Water / binder ratio
% of fly ash by weight
volume of GLENIUM 7500 by

2.12 Assumed
2 %
assumed
0.4
try
30
0.78 litre per 100 kg of binder

weight of binder
volume of GLENIUM STREAM

0.15 litre per 100 kg of binder

2 by weight of binder
Binder
Fly ash
Cement
Water
Volume of cement
Volume of Fly ash
GLENIUM 7500
GLENIUM STREAM 2
Total Paste Volume
Calculations

of

constituent

512.5
153.75
358.75
205
113.9
72.5
4.00
0.77
416.18
material

concrete
Specific gravity of sand
% of absorption of 20mm
% of absorption of 10mm
% of absorption of sand
% of moisture in 20mm
% of moisture in 10mm
% of moisture in sand
% of dry material in GLENIUM
7500
% of dry material in GLENIUM
STREAM 2
Cement
Fly ash
Initial water content
Coarse aggregate
20mm coarse aggregate
10mm coarse aggregate
Sand
3.2

kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
litre/m3
litre/m3
litre/m3
litre/m3
litre/m3
litre/m3

for
2.71
0.3 Assumed
0.3 Assumed
0.1 Assumed
0
0
0
50
50

358.75
153.75
205
730
365
365
852.15

kg/m3
kg/m3
litre/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3

Air entrainment mix design


According to Fultons, our mix design from question one will be adjusted as follows
(Owens, 2009);

Reduce water content by 7%

Increase cement content by 40 kg to get a rich mix (30 MPa)

Use the same amount of stone


21

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 3-9 Comparison of ACI question 1 mix and proposed air entrained mix

Include air volume in the mix design


On the last point, typical air content is between 2 to 6 % but the minimum specified
is 3% (Unknown, 2012)
Using the above guide the proposed air entrained mix for for trial is given below in
Table 3-3;

Water l/m3

205

Air
entrained
mix
191

Cement kg/m3
Fine aggregate kg/m3
Coarse aggregate
kg/m3
Air entrainment agent
%

456
774
920

496
774
920

ACI mix for


Q1

The proposed air entrainment admixture to be used is MB-AE 90 produced by


BASF. Appendix A has the product data sheet. The first trail mix will start with 38.2
ml of admixture; therefore the first trail mix will be as follows;

Water
191 l/m3

Cement
496 kg/m3

Fine aggregate
774 kg/m3

Coarse aggregate
920 kg/m3

MB AE 90
0.038 l/m3

22

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 4-11
4-10 Mix modified
to be modified
by adding
for sustainability
fly ash

4.

MIX MODIFICATION FOR SUSTAINABILITY

4.1

Introduction
The use of extenders fly ash, slag and limestone filler has been proven in the past
to have benefits on the density of the concrete as well as the strength gain at later
ages. With one of the primary reasons for use being the reduction in carbon
footprint and cost. The mix to be modified for sustainability is given in Table 4-1
below.

Water
Cement
Course Aggregate
Fine Aggregate

kg/m
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
W/C

4.2

Base mix
205
456
920
774

R.D.
1,00
3,14
2,56
2,65

Yield
205
145
359
292
1002

Total

0,45

Fly Ash Category N (EN 450-1)

Water
Cement
Fly Ash
Course Aggregate
Fine Aggregate

kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
W/C

Fly Ash
mix
200
319
137
920
735

R.D.

Yield

1.00
3.14
2.20
2.56
2.65

200
102
62
359
277
1001

Total

0.44

Category N indicates that the fineness of the fly ash shall not exceed 40% by mass
when sieved through a 0.045mm mesh sieve. Not making mention of the water
reduction required as per the Category S fly ash. (50450, 2011)
There is a few fly ashes that confirm to the category N requarements in South
Africa. Although most of the research papers that has been pupliched used a
category S fly ash. With work done on the category N a water reduction of 2-5%
were acheaved.
The norm in ready mix concrete (RMC) is to replace up to 30% of the cement
content with fly ash, as we have done in the fly ash mix. This has a delay on the
setting time and the hydration rate of the concrete. (H. Wang, 2006)
The 28day cube results will be lower due to the slower reaction, but with the 5690days surpassing the conventional 28day resuls. Thus when the same 28day cube
results are requared the W/C will have to be adjusted.
The fine aggregates had to be reduced 40kg to allow for the extra fine material that
the ash provides.
23

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

Table 4-13
4-12 Mix modified by adding limestone
GGBS

4.3

GGBS (EN 15167-1)

Water
Cement
GGBS
Course
Aggregate
Fine Aggregate

GGBS
mix
R.D.
Yield
200
1.00
200
228
3.14
73
228
2.84
80

kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3

920
770

W/C

0.44

2.56
2.65

359
291
1003 Total

The use of GGBS varies from 25% to 50% of weight of the cement, (Malhotra,
1997) this is in line with what the RMC us is in South Africa.
GGBS also has a water reduction of 2-5% due to it being able to increase the slump
and ease the compaction of the concrete (Malhotra, 1997). This is however all
dependand on the type of grinding that took place and the shape and size of the
GGBS partiacal.
The same as with fly ash there is a delayed setting but with a higher rate of strength
gain at early age as compared to fly ash (3day). It will have a lower strength at
28days compared to the base mix but 56-90days will be higher.
Adjustments will have to be made to the W/C if the same 28days cube results are
requared.

4.4

Limestone powder to BS 7979


Limestone is usually considered to be the poorest potential performer of cement /
concrete extention material. (M. Compton, Volume 38 No1)

Water
Cement
Limestone
Course Aggregate
Fine Aggregate

kg/m
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
kg/m3
W/C

Limestone mix
R.D. Yield
203 1.00
203
421.8 3.14
134
34.2 2.65
13
920 2.56
359
770 2.65
291
1000 Total
0.45

The limestone powder is usually used and an inert fine filler in concrete at about 7,
5% (M. Compton, Volume 38 No1). It is usually also finer than the cement particle
and thus improves the density of the concrete as well as having a small
improvement on the workability due to particle size distribution.
This might increase the strength slightly but not significantly. In some cases when
using higher than 7.5% replacement a lower strength at 28days will be achieved,
but with similar 56-90day strength compared to the base mix. (E. Gunyisi, 2011)
24

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

5.

REFERENCES
50450, S. E. (2011). SANS EN 50450-1:2011. Pretoria: SANS.
E. Gunyisi, M. G. (2011). Properties of self-compacting portland pozzolana and
limestone blended cement concrete containing defferet replacement levels of slag.
Materials and structures , 1399-1410.
H. Wang, C. Q. (2006). Inter reaction of materials used in concrete. Concrete
International , 46-52.
M. Compton, J. C. (Volume 38 No1). Elevated limestone mineral addition impacts
on laboratory and firld concrete performance. Feature: Concrete Technologies , 2733.
Malhotra, V. (1997). Supplementary Cementing Materials - For concrete.
ACI Committee 211, 2009. Standard Practise for Selecting Proportions for Normal,
Heavyweight, and Mass concrete , Farmington Hills, Michigan: American Concrete
Institute.
'BS EN 206-1:2000', 2004. Concrete - Part 1:Specification, performance, production
and conformity. s.l.:British Standards Institute.
Newman, A. J. & Teychenne', D. C., 1964. A technical and historical review of the
sand grading requirements in British Standard 882*. London, Sand and Gravel
Association of Great Britian.
Owens, P. L., 1973. Basic Mix Method, Selection of proportions for medium strength
concretes, London: Cement and Concrete Association.
'Road Research Laboratory', 1950. Road Note No.4 Design of Concrete Mixes. 2nd
ed. Harmondsworth: Department of Scientific and Industrial research.
Teychenne, D. C., Franklin, R. E. & Erntroy, H. C., 1988. Building Research
Establishment report. Design of normal concrete mixes. Revised edition ed.
Garston: Department of Environment.
'BS EN 196-1:2005', 2005. Methods of testing cement, Part 1: Determination of
Strength. s.l.:British Standards Institute.
EFNARC. (2005). The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete. UK:
EFNARC.
J. Guru Jawahar, C. Sashidhar, I.V. Ramana Reddy and J. Annie Peter. (2012). A
SIMPLE TOOL FOR SELF COMPACTING CONCRETE MIX DESIGN.
International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology (pp. 550-558).
India: International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology.
Owens, G. (2009). Fulton's Concrete Technology. Midrand: Cement & Concrete
Institute,.
Unknown. (2012, 12 14). USAD GOV. Retrieved 12 14, 2012, from USAD GOV:
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/MI/technical/engineering/Training
%20Modules/ConcreteConstruction/Air%20Entrainment%20and%20Concrete.pdf
25

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

APPENDIX A

A-1

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

A-2

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

A-3

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

A-4

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

A-5

GROUP 22
ASSIGNMENT 8 MIX DESIGN

A-6