Self-
consolidating
Editor’s quick points
n  Standard self-consolidating concrete (SCC) test methods—
including slump flow, VSI, L-box, and U-box tests—may not ac-
curately predict mixture performance during casting. Mock-up
sections and analysis of cores are necessary for assessing SCC
quality in highly congested sections.
n  Class C fly ash, Class F fly ash, and slag all performed well as
supplementary cementitious materials with up to 40% replace-
ment of cement.
n  Individual gradation of each aggregate and the combined gra-
dation of both coarse and fine aggregates should be taken into
account when designing a workable SCC.
concrete
in congested
sections:
Mixture
character-
istics and
assessment of
performance
Lawrence F. Kahn
and Kimberly E. Kurtis
Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) promises better quality
and better finish and requires less labor than conventional
concrete. Because of these potential advantages over con-
ventional concrete, SCC is used regularly and successfully
at many precast concrete plants around the country.1–7
However, while SCC offers significant potential advan-
tages for the production of precast concrete sections that
are highly congested with reinforcement, this application
has not been well examined in the literature. The flow of
SCC through congested reinforcement presents additional
challenges that must be accommodated through special-
ized mixture proportioning and appropriate testing.8 The
purpose of this research was to identify the SCC mixture-
proportion characteristics and quality-assurance methods
most appropriate for highly congested precast, prestressed
concrete bridge girders and congested bridge diaphragms
and end walls.
Mixtures were assessed through standard methods (for
example, slump flow, visual stability index [VSI], U-box,
and L-box tests). Performance of each mixture in the wall
or beam mock-ups was assessed through visual inspection
of the cast surfaces, comparisons of compressive strength
Wi n t e r 2010 | PCI Journal 79
 Figure 1. The mock-ups were 6-in.-thick × 6-ft-deep × 6-ft-wide (150 mm × 1.8 m × 1.8 m) wall panels.
between cores obtained at different locations and compan-
ion samples cast in the laboratory, and assessment of the
uniformity of aggregate distribution by visual inspection
and digital image analysis of cut sections.
Experiment
Overview
The primary research objective was to develop different
SCCs and to assess their performance in sections congested
with reinforcement. Mixtures were proportioned to vary
from relatively simple (and inexpensive) to more complex
(which included those from Ramage et al.’s laboratory-based
study8 and included blended aggregates and supplementary
cementitious materials). All of the mixtures that were con-
sidered satisfied standard quality-control tests for flowabil-
ity and stability and could be cast at commercial precast
concrete plants to fabricate full-sized mock-up samples.
The mock-ups were eight planar 6-in.-thick × 6-ft-deep ×
6-ft-wide (150 mm × 1.8 m × 1.8 m) wall sections (Fig. 1)
80 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
cast at Tindall Corp. in Atlanta, Ga., and eight 13-ft-long
(4.0 m) PCI bulb-tee (BT-72) beam sections (Fig. 2) cast
at Standard Concrete Products in Atlanta. Different mix-
ture proportions were used for the wall panels and beams
because of variations in aggregate sources, supplementary
cementitious materials (SCMs), and chemical admixtures
used at the two facilities.
To assess the performance of each mixture, the mock-ups
were inspected for their surface conditions and were saw
cut to examine segregation and filling ability along their
lengths and depths. Cores were taken from the mock-ups
and compared with companion cylinders cast from the
same mixtures.
Materials and mixture proportions
Ramage et al.8 examined the impact of different fine and
coarse aggregates from sources throughout the state of
Georgia, the use of fly ash and slag, the use of different
cements, and the chemical admixtures from three different
suppliers on the characteristics of SCC. High-quality SCCs
 Top web
Center web
Bottom flange
Figure 2. This photo shows a 13-ft-long (4.0 m) BT-72 mock-up with notations showing locations for bubble-count (air-void) analysis.
were developed using the different admixtures, making
each one unique. Natural and manufactured sand were used
independently and were blended. Blending natural sands,
manufactured sands, and coarse aggregates to create a
smooth gradation was necessary to ensure good flow, pass-
ing ability, and segregation resistance.
Use of both Class F fly ash and slag combined for up to
40% of the cementitious content proved to enhance SCC
qualities. Use of aggregate larger than no. 7 stone,9 which
has a maximum-sized aggregate less than 1/2 in. (12.5 mm),
caused diminished passing ability in the L-box and U-box
tests where clear spacing between the bars was 11/2 in.
(38 mm). The 11/2 in. spacing was used to model the spacing
between typical prestressing strands in bridge girders. The
three resulting best-performing mixture proportions were
used as a basis for the field-based research in this paper.
Table 1 gives the three mixture proportions used for the
wall panels. Mixtures W-1 and W-2 were based on the
mixtures from Ramage et al.8 Mixture W-3, with its larger
maximum-sized aggregate, was the SCC used at the plant
for casting precast concrete slab sections. Three walls were
cast with mixture W-1, four with mixture W-2, and one
Bottom web
with mixture W-3. Standard slump flow (inverted cone)
and U-box and L-box tests were conducted. Table 1 gives
the ratio of height of the SCC after the gate to that before
the gate H2/H1 for the U-box. For the L-box, it gives the
ratio of the height of the SCC at the end of the box to that
just after the gate Hf /HS1.
For the bulb-tee sections, five trial SCCs were developed in
the laboratory and used at the precasting plant. Slump flow,
L-box, and U-box tests were conducted, and the surface fin-
ishes of highway barriers cast with the SCCs were inspect-
ed. Class C fly ash and Type III cement were used rather
than Class F fly ash and Type I cement because the precast-
er wanted to ensure rapid early-strength development.
The four mixtures in Table 2 were selected to make the
BT-72 mock-ups, which included two beams for each
mixture. As with the wall panels, smaller maximum-sized
coarse aggregate (no. 7, 1/2 in. [13 mm] stone) mixtures,
which are more typical for SCC, were compared with mix-
tures containing larger maximum-sized aggregate (no. 67,
3
/4 in. [19 mm] stone9), which is more typical of standard
precast-concrete-plant mixtures.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 81
 Table 1. Mixture proportions for SCC used in wall panels

Mixture W-1 W-2 W-3

Mixture components S-slag/ash G-slag T-cement

Cementitious materials, lb/yd3

Cement, Type I 720 730 750

Slag 200 225 n.a.

Fly ash, Class F 90 n.a. n.a.

Water 306 350 288

w/cm 0.30 0.37 0.38

Coarse aggregate, lb/yd3

No. 67 stone n.a. n.a. 1465

No. 7 stone 1030 910 n.a.

No. 89 stone 555 485 n.a.

Fine aggregate, lb/yd3

Natural sand (FM = 2.35) 615 600 1331

Manufactured sand (FM = 2.90) 395 580 n.a.

Admixtures, fl oz/cwt

High-range water-reducing admixture Type 1: 7.1 Type 2: 6.9 Type 2: 5.5

Air-entraining admixture n.a. n.a. 0.4

SCC properties

Slump-flow diameter, in. 34 26 18

U-box H2/H1, % 100 100 50

L-box Hf /HS1, % 100 75 50

Visual stability index 1 0 1.5

Concrete compressive strength f c' , psi 11,600 8600 8600

Compressive strength cores, psi 11,000 8600 6650

Note: FM = fineness modulus; H1 = height of SCC before the gate; H2 = height of SCC after the gate; Hf = height of SCC at the end of the box; HS1 =
height of SCC after the gate; n.a. = not appplicable; SCC = self-consolidating concrete; w/cm = water–cementitious materials ratio. No. 7 aggregate
= 1/2 in. diameter; no. 67 aggregate = 3/4 in. diameter; no. 89 aggregate = 3/8 in. diameter. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lb/yd3 = 0.5933 kg/m3; 1 fl oz/cwt =
68.2 mL/100 kg.

Construction details In addition, eight 13-ft-long (40 m) PCI BT-7210 mock-ups

Figure 3 illustrates the reinforcing cage for the wall
panels. The cage on each face was made of 1/2-in.-diameter
(13 mm) prestressing strand spaced about 9 in. × 11 in.
(23 mm × 28 mm) on center. Two walls each of mixtures
W-1 and W-2 were vibrated externally for about 5 sec, as
was one wall using mixture W-3, to determine if vibration
resulted in an improved surface finish.
were constructed (Fig. 4).
The reinforcement included twenty-six 0.6-in.-diameter
(15 mm) strands in the bottom flange, an additional four-
teen 0.6-in.-diameter strands draped to a midpoint harp,
and two strands in the top flange. The cover thickness was
1 in. (25 mm). Shear reinforcement included no. 5 (M16)
two-leg stirrups spaced at 12 in. (30 mm) on center and
five no. 6 (M19) stirrups spaced 3 in. (76 mm) on center at

82 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Table 2. Mixture proportions for BT-72 mock-up beams

Mixture Mixture 1 Mixture 2 Mixture 4 Mixture 5

Beam 7N 7Nv 67N 67Nv 7BL 7BLv 67M 67Mv

Cementitious materials, lb/yd3

Cement, Type III 780 765 780 750 776 754 770 768

Fly ash, Class C 166 163 156 146 163 147 153 156

Water 297 300 277 293 305 308 294 303

w/cm 0.31 0.32 0.30 0.33 0.32 0.34 0.32 0.33

Coarse aggregate, lb/yd3

No. 67 0 0 1164 1176 n.a. n.a. 1439 1443

No. 7 1254 1250 0 0 1259 1223 0 0

No. 89 194 208 215 218 204 182 0 0

Fine aggregate, lb/yd3

Natural sand (FM = 2.30) 1210 1280 1339 1320 199 211 0 0

Manufactured sand (FM = 2.73) 0 0 0 0 1139 1155 1357 1206

Admixtures, fl oz/cwt

High-range water-reducing admixture 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Low-range water-reducing admixture 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.0

Air-entraining admixture 0.15 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.33

SCC properties

Slump-flow diameter, in. 23 27 22 25 29 28 27 27

U-box H2/H1, % 100 100 86 100 100 100 100 100

L-box Hf /HS1, % 75 75 n.d. n.d. 75 100 n.d. n.d.

Visual stability index 1 1.5 1.5 0 1.5 1 1 1

Note: BL = blend of manufactured and natural sand; FM = fineness modulus; H1 = height of SCC before the gate; H2 = height of SCC after the gate;
Hf = height of SCC at the end of the box; HS1 = height of SCC after the gate; M = manufactured sand; N = natural sand; n.a. = not applicable; n.d. = no
data; SCC = self-consolidating concrete; v = vibration of beam for 5 sec; w/cm = water–cementitious materials ratio. No. 7 aggregate = 1/2 in. diam-
eter; no. 67 aggregate = 3/4 in. diameter; no. 89 aggregate = 3/8 in. diameter. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lb/yd3 = 0.593 kg/m3; 1 fl oz/cwt = 68.2 mL/100 kg.

each end. Each end also was reinforced with five horizon-
tal layers of no. 4 (M13) bars, four flange confinement
bars at 12 in. (30 mm) on center, and lifting loops made of
three 1/2-in.-diameter (13 mm) strands. A diaphragm pocket
was located at the center. This section was considered to
represent a typical, heavily reinforced Georgia Department
of Transportation (GDOT) bridge girder. As with the wall
panels, an external vibrator was attached to one form for
each bulb-tee section and was activated for 5 sec.
The mock-ups were cured under a blanket without steam
for 18 hours along with test cylinders. Thereafter the
mock-ups remained outside while the control cylinders
were cured in a fog room at 100% humidity and 73 °F
(23 °C) until age 28 days.
Digital image analysis
To quantitatively assess the aggregate distribution in sec-
tions cut from the hardened SCC, a digital-image-analysis
method was developed.11 A digital image was taken of ev-
ery cross section cut through the bulb-tee beams. Using the
shareware ImageJ 1.34, the color images were transformed
to 8-bit grayscale images. Next, the threshold level of each
image was adjusted. By setting lower and upper threshold
values, the image was segmented into features of interest

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 83

 9 in.
Seven spaces
5 in. at 9 in. on center 5 in. 6 in.
Lift point location

2 in.
No. 4 reinforcing bar at each end

Two at 6 in.
1
/2 in. strand 1
/2 in. strand

Four spaces at 11 in.

each face

72 in.
No. 4 No. 4
reinforcing bar reinforcing bar
each face

Two at 6 in.
72 in.

2 in.
Figure 3. This diagram shows the reinforcement layout for the wall panels. Note: no. 4 = 13M; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

and background. In this study, one feature of interest was
the coarse aggregate (in this case, those of size greater than
the no. 8 sieve, or 0.1 in. [2.5 mm]), and the background
would constitute the mortar fraction.
Pixels with brightness values greater than or equal to the
lower threshold and less than or equal to the upper thresh-
old were displayed in red. When the desired threshold level
was achieved, the picture was then converted into a binary
image where aggregates were represented in white and the
paste in black. Using the shareware’s histogram tool, the
fraction of pixels for each color tablet was analyzed. Fig-
ure 5 illustrates the digital-image-analysis process applied
in this study.
Results
Wall panels
Table 1 reports slump-flow, VSI, U-box, and L-box results.
Based on visual inspection and testing, the wall-panel
mixtures W-1 and W-2 had better flow and passing char-
acteristics than the W-3 mixture. The wall panels were cast
from each SCC through a single funnel, located just toward
the middle of the wall adjacent to a lifting hook. The SCC
flowed from the central placing location to fill the form.
Surface-finish evaluation Both visual and quan-
titative inspections of the SCC wall panels were used to
assess the quality of their surface finishes. The walls cast
with mixtures W-1 and W-2 displayed excellent surface
finishes, but the external vibration did not make any dif-
ference to the quality of the finish. However, the wall cast
with mixture W-3 exhibited poor concrete consolidation
and honeycombing. The larger aggregates of mixture W-3
were trapped within the wall’s reinforcement, thus blocking
the flow (Fig. 6). The lower slump flow of the W-3 mixture
may have exacerbated the blockage.
Compressive strength of core samples To
evaluate the in-place properties of the SCCs, 3-in.-diameter
(76 mm) cores were taken at nine locations on each wall,
three across the length and three through the height. The
cores were drilled and tested 56 days after casting of the
walls. Table 3 gives the strengths of the cores. A single
core was taken at each of the nine positions, and the near
end was that where the SCC was placed. Cores were mois-
ture conditioned per ASTM C42.12
A statistical analysis showed that for mixtures W-1 (made
with slag and fly ash) and W-2 (made with slag), the
vibration, horizontal location, and vertical location of the
cores were not significant factors in the results. That is,
the strength could be considered consistent throughout the
wall panels. Mixture W-3 showed significant horizontal

84 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Figure 4. Eight 13-ft-long (4.0 m), 72-in.-deep (1.8 m) bulb-tee (BT-72) mock-up beams were constructed with forty-two 0.6-in.-diameter (15 mm) strands.
and vertical variation in strength. It was concluded that the
reinforcement significantly inhibited the flow of mixture
W-3 with its larger aggregate and lower slump flow.
Aggregate distribution Each of the wall panels was
sawed vertically to analyze the distribution of aggregates
throughout their cross sections. A vertical cut was made
about 1 ft (30 mm) away from each end of each wall. When
looking at the walls cast with slag and with slag plus, an
even distribution of the aggregates was noticed for all
sections. No voids were found beneath or around the rein-
forcement at any level, indicating that there was excellent
consolidation and that there was no bleeding. However, for
mixture W-3 with portland cement only, the far-end surface
was characterized by large air voids and loose aggregate
without surrounding paste.
Bulb-tee beams
Based on visual inspection and testing (Table 2), each
bulb-tee mixture was considered to be good-quality SCC.
Each 3.0 yd3 (0.76 m3) batch was delivered from the batch
location about 300 ft (90 m) to the beam using a conveyor
truck. The SCC was placed in each beam at a single point
about 20 in. (510 mm) from one end between the pickup
loops and the no. 6 (M19) stirrups. The pickup loops
did inhibit flow of the SCC. The beams are designated
based on the maximum size of aggregate, type of sand,
and whether vibration was used, so beam 7Nv used no. 7
stone, natural sand, and vibration. The M and BL stand for
manufactured sand and blended natural and manufactured
sand, respectively.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 85
 Cropping of color image of cut beam cross section Transformation to grayscale image

Threshold definition Final binary image

Figure 5. The digital-image-analysis method quantified the coarse-aggregate distribution.

Figure 6. The larger aggregates of mixture W-3 were trapped within the wall’s reinforcement, thus blocking the flow.

Surface finish In all beams, except for beam 7BL of atively good test results. The air bubbles and bleeding were
mixture 4, air bubbles and bleeding marks were clustered particularly noticeable at the lifting loops and the draped
around the areas of heavier reinforcement, despite their rel- strands. The bleeding marks were thicker and more com-

86 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Table 3. Core compressive strength of the self-consolidating concrete wall panels

Mixture W-1 (S-slag/ash, f c' of 11.6 ksi, vibrated) Mixture W-1 (S-slag/ash, f c' of 11.6 ksi, vibrated)

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

Top 10.9 10.5 9.8 Top 11.4 9.7 10.7

Middle 11.5 11.3 11.0 Middle 11.5 10.9 10.9

Bottom 11.4 11.5 11.2 Bottom 11.4 11.0 11.2

Mixture W-1 (S-slag/ash, f c' = 11.6 ksi, nonvibrated) Mixture W-3 (T-cement, f c' = 8.6 ksi, vibrated)

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

Top 11.7 10.1 10.7 Top 9.8 2.2 3.7

Middle 11.2 11.0 10.7 Middle 2.9 5.9 9.3

Bottom 11.2 10.8 10.7 Bottom 9.3 8.0 8.8

Mixture W-2 (G-slag, f c' = 8.6 ksi, vibrated) Mixture W-2 (G-slag, f c' = 8.6 ksi, vibrated)

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

Top 8.8 8.6 8.8 Top 8.6 8.5 8.4

Middle 9.6 9.5 9.0 Middle 8.2 8.2 8.5

Bottom 9.5 8.7 8.8 Bottom 8.2 8.4 8.1

Mixture W-2 (G-slag, f c' = 8.6 ksi, vibrated) Mixture W-2 (G-slag, f c' = 8.6 ksi, vibrated)

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

Top 7.8 7.7 8.4 Top 9.3 9.1 9.0

Middle 8.2 8.3 8.5 Middle 8.6 8.6 9.0

Bottom 8.1 7.9 8.1 Bottom 8.9 8.8 8.8

Note: All measurements are in ksi. f c' = 56-day control cylinder concrete compressive strength. 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

mon at the end of the beams where the SCC was placed. In
general, vibrated and nonvibrated beams presented similar
surface-finish quality.
Beams 67M and 67Mv of mixture 5 both showed a particu-
larly poor surface finish. Large voids (honeycombing) and
bleeding lines around the area of the draped strands were
observed for both beams. However, the central area of
the web of these beams displayed a smooth, good-quality
surface finish. This difference in the quality of the sur-
face finish within the beams showed that beams 67M and
67Mv were self-flowing but showed limited ability to flow
through the highly congested reinforcement of the BT-72
sections.
Beams 7BL and 7BLv of mixture 4 presented surface fin-
ishes that were similar to one another. Both beams showed
smooth and clean surfaces with minimal presence of air
bubbles, especially beam 7BLv. The top surface of bot-
tom flanges of these beams appeared to be of the highest
quality compared with the rest of the mixtures. Although
the finish of the bottom flanges was not completely free
of air voids, the sizes of the bubbles were small and the
bubbles were reduced in number. Materials engineers with
GDOT and production personnel with Standard Concrete
Products said that the surface finish of the beams with 7BL
and 7BLv was superior to that obtained in vibrated beams
using conventional concretes.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 87

 30 30
Top web vibrated Top web vibrated
Top web nonvibrated Top web nonvibrated
25 Center web vibrated 25 Center web vibrated
Center web nonvibrated Center web nonvibrated

Number of air bubbles

Bottom web vibrated
Number of air bubbles

Bottom web vibrated

Bottom web nonvibrated 20 Bottom web nonvibrated
20 Bottom flange vibrated
Bottom flange vibrated
Bottom flange nonvibrated Bottom flange nonvibrated
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
1/8 1/4 3/8 > 7/16 1/8 1/4 3/8 > 7/16
Diameter of air bubbles, in. Diameter of air bubbles, in.

Mixture 1, 7N and 7Nv Mixture 4, 7BL and 7BLv

25 25
Top web vibrated Top web vibrated
Top web nonvibrated Top web nonvibrated
Center web vibrated Center web vibrated
20 20
Center web nonvibrated Center web nonvibrated
Number of air bubbles

Number of air bubbles

Bottom web vibrated Bottom web vibrated
Bottom web nonvibrated Bottom web nonvibrated
15 Bottom flange vibrated 15 Bottom flange vibrated
Bottom flange nonvibrated Bottom flange nonvibrated

10 10

5 5

0 0
1/8 1/4 3/8 > 7/16 1/8 1/4 3/8 > 7/16
Diameter of air bubbles, in. Diameter of air bubbles, in.

Mixture 2, 67N and 67Nv Mixture 5, 67M and 67Mv

Figure 7. This graph plots the number of surface bubbles within ±1/16 in. of the different sizes of bubbles. Note: Mixture proportions are listed in Table 2. BL = blend of
manufactured and natural sand; M = manufactured sand; N = natural sand; v = vibration of beam for 5 sec. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

Four 1-ft-square (0.3 m) zones were selected for a bubble-
count quantitative surface analysis (Fig. 2). These were at
the near top, center web, far bottom, and top of the bottom
flange. Figure 7 plots the number of surface bubbles
within ±1/16 in. of the following bubble sizes: 1/8 in., 1/4 in.,
3
/8 in., and > 7/16 in. (3 mm, 6 mm, 10 mm, and > 11 mm).
For all beams, the region with the greatest number of air
bubbles was the top of the bottom flanges. The greater
presence of large bubbles in beams 67N and 67M, includ-
ing 3/8 in. and > 7/16 in. (10 mm and >11 mm) diameter,
were an indication of the poorer consolidation of these
mixtures. The maximum area fractions of air bubbles to
surface of the beams for beams 67N and 67M were 2.11%
and 3.41%, respectively. Both were greater than the 2%
maximum of entrapped air typical for properly consoli-
dated concrete.13 For beams 7N and 7BL, the maximum air
bubbles to surface ratios were only 0.90% and 0.45%.
Compressive strength Compressive strengths of the
various mixtures were determined using laboratory-cured
4 in. × 8 in. (100 mm × 200 mm) control cylinders and by
testing 3 in. × 6 in. (76 mm × 152 mm) cores taken from the
beams. The compressive strength of the mixtures was tested
at 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 28 days, and 56 days, according to
ASTM C39 specifications.14
The average of four cylinders was reported at each time
period for every mixture. Figure 8 shows the mean com-
pressive strength achieved by all mixtures used in casting
of the beams at different ages.
Table 4 shows the compressive-strength results for each of
nine 3-in.-diameter (75 mm) cores taken from the web of
each beam. The side surface of the cores showed the same
air-void distributions as did the surface of the beams. The
coefficient of variation (COV) of the compressive strength
of the cores within a given beam varied among the mixtures,
but all remained below 9.5%, indicating good reproducibil-
ity of the test results. The majority of the mixtures displayed
a COV that ranged from 4.6% to 6.4%, including beams
67M and 67Mv (mixture 5). There was not a statistically

88 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 16,000
14,000
12,000
Compressive strength, psi
10,000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 7 14
Figure 8. This graph compares the mean compressive strengths achieved by the mixtures used in casting the beams at different ages taken from the 4 in. × 8 in. (100 mm
× 200 mm) control cylinders. Note: Mixture proportions are listed in Table 2. BL = blend of manufactured and natural sand; M = manufactured sand; N = natural sand; v =
vibration of beam for 5 sec. 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.
significant difference in compressive strength within any
single beam. Differences in the water–cementitious materi-
als ratio (w/cm) were determined to be the main cause of
differences among the SCCs of the beams.
No significant differences were observed between the
strength of cores and laboratory-cured cylinders, with the
exception of beams 7N, 7Nv, and 67N (Table 5). For these
three mixtures, the cores’ adjusted compressive strengths
were about 15% weaker than the control-cylinder strengths
(Table 5). This suggests that proper consolidation was
not achieved for beams 7N, 7Nv, and 67N in the bulb-tee
beams. In contrast, the compressive strength of core sam-
ples from beams 67M and 67Mv (mixture 5) was similar to
that of their control cylinders. This confirmed that proper
consolidation was achieved by these mixtures in the upper
areas of the beams where the cores were taken and where
less-congested reinforcement was present.
Aggregate distribution The beams were sawed ver-
tically at three locations: 24 in. (610 mm) from each end
and at midlength. The cut closer to the casting point was
defined as the near-end surface; the cut at the opposite end
7N 7Nv
7BL 7BLv
67N 67Nv
67M 67Mv
21 28 35 42 49 56
Time, days
was labeled the far end. A visual inspection of the sawed
surfaces revealed no significant differences in the aggregate
distribution for any of the beams, with the exception of
beam 67M (mixture 5). No major variations were observed
between top and bottom areas in a given cross section
(Fig. 9) or between the near- and far-end surfaces. Also, no
voids were observed around the reinforcement in any of the
beams but 67N and 67M, indicating good consolidation of
the concrete with no evidence of internal bleeding.
However, beams 67M and 67Mv presented noticeable
differences in coarse-aggregate distribution throughout
the beams. That is, although no perceptible differences
were observed within a given sawed surface, considerable
change in the aggregate–to–concrete area ratio was de-
tected when comparing the near-end surface with the far-
end surface for these two mixtures. Coarse aggregate at the
near-end surface occupied a larger percentage of the area
of the bottom flange of the beams, and a similar amount
was present at the middle surface of the beams. However,
the bottom flange at the far-end surface showed a consid-
erable reduction of the area occupied by the aggregate.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 89
 Table 4. Compressive strength of cores taken from the eight beams

Beam 7N Beam 7Nv

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

Top 11.5 11.5 11.0 9.6 10.2 Top 10.3 10.8 12.0 11.0 11.2

Middle 12.1  n.d. 11.2  n.d. 9.0 Middle 10.8  n.d. 12.1  n.d. 10.5

Bottom  n.d.  n.d. 11.0  n.d.  n.d. Bottom  n.d.  n.d. 12.0  n.d.  n.d.

Beam 67N Beam 67Nv

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

Top 12.1 11.1 11.8 11.8 13.0 Top 9.8 9.0 9.4 9.6 9.3

Middle 13.0  n.d. 10.6  n.d. 12.3 Middle 8.9  n.d. 10.4  n.d. 9.8

Bottom  n.d.  n.d. 11.8  n.d.  n.d. Bottom  n.d.  n.d. 10.4  n.d.  n.d.

Beam 7BL Beam 7BLv

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

Top 11.6 12.4 12.7 12.4 11.5 Top 9.3 8.6 8.5 9.3 8.5

Middle 11.2  n.d. 12.9  n.d. 12.6 Middle 9.8  n.d. 9.3  n.d. 9.3

Bottom  n.d.  n.d. 12.6  n.d.  n.d. Bottom  n.d.  n.d. 8.0  n.d.  n.d.

Beam 67M Beam 67Mv

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

Top 11.1 11.8 11.9 11.9 11.0 Top 10.8 10.8 10.7 10.3 10.4

Middle 10.5  n.d. 11.9  n.d. 11.0 Middle 10.9  n.d. 10.5  n.d. 10.9

Bottom  n.d.  n.d. 12.0  n.d.  n.d. Bottom  n.d.  n.d. 10.5  n.d.  n.d.

Note: Table 2 lists mixture proportions for the beams. All measurements are in ksi. BL = blend of manufactured and natural sand; M = manufactured
sand; N = natural sand; n.d. = no data; v = vibration of beam for 5 sec. 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

Further analysis to quantify the amount of aggregate seg-
regation was performed with digital image analysis. Every
beam cross section was divided into five regions: top and
bottom flanges and three 18-in.-long (460 mm) regions
in the depth of the web. Table 6 illustrates the digital-
image-analysis results obtained for each beam. Based on
the mixture proportions, the nominal value for the coarse
aggregate–to–concrete ratio of the mixtures by volume was
32.7%, except for beams 67N and 67Nv (mixture 2), which
was 31.5%.
The general trend found with the digital-image-analysis
method was that the greatest differences in percentage of
aggregate occurred when comparing the bottom flange at
the near end with the top flange at the far end. The maxi-
mum COV within a beam was 9.4% for beam 67M (mix-
ture 5), which was greater than the required 6% specified
in ASTM C9415 for uniformity of the concrete. Beam 7N
had a COV at the upper limit of 6%; yet the COVs for the
rest of the beams were about 3.5%.
The quantitative results obtained in the digital image anal-
ysis corresponded with the qualitative visual inspection of
the sawed surfaces. No significant aggregate segregation
was found in the studied cross sections, except for those of
beams 67M and 67Mv (mixture 5). For the beams where
no segregation was observed, the maximum difference
obtained between the theoretical and in-place aggregate
percentage was 4.6%, which is about equal to the COV
obtained for these beams.

90 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Table 5. Comparison of average compressive strength at 56 days of control cylinders versus core samples of self-consolidated concrete beams

Beam f c' of 4 in. × 8 in. control cylinders, psi f c' of 3 in. × 6 in. cores, psi Strength ratio: core/control, %

7N 13,000 10,600 81.5

7Nv 13,200 11,000 83.3

7BL 11,400 12,000 105.3

7BLv 9300 8800 94.6

67N 14,000 11,800 84.3

67Nv 10,300 9500 92.2

67M 11,300 11,200 99.1

67Mv 10,600 10,500 99.1

Note: 3 in. × 6 in. core strength was adjusted to equivalent 4 in. × 8 in. cylinder strength by multiplying the strength by a factor of 0.98. BL = blend of
manufactured and natural sand; f c' = concrete compressive strength; M = manufactured sand; N = natural sand; v = vibration of beam for 5 sec. Note:
1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

In general, the aggregate-to-concrete ratio was lower at the
far end than at the near end. Also, the ratio was lower at
the top than at the bottom. These two trends showed that
there was some, though slight, aggregate segregation as the
SCC flowed from the near end to far end and as it filled the
beam from bottom to top.
Discussion
Overall, the mock-up tests using wall panels and PCI BT-
72 sections showed similar results. That is, the use of either
Type I (walls) or Type III (BT-72) cement did not signifi-
cantly influence the flowability or passing ability of the
mixtures. Different SCMs were used with no significant
differences in flow and filling ability of the SCCs depend-
ing on the type or percentage of SCM employed. That is,
the slag and Class F fly-ash mixtures in the walls worked
as well as the Class C fly ash used in the BT-72 sections.
Initial and final compressive strengths were more depen-
dent on the w/cm than the fly-ash class or whether slag or
fly ash was the SCM used. However, the size and grada-
tion of the aggregates should be considered the most im-
portant factors affecting the performance of SCC mixtures.
Not only the individual gradation of each aggregate but
the combined gradation of both coarse and fine aggregates
should be taken into account when designing a workable
SCC mixture.
Figure 10 illustrates the aggregate gradation for selected
mixtures, with good-performing mixtures represented
with solid lines and those mixtures with poor performance
represented with dashed lines. The mixtures with the best
plastic performance showed a lower percentage of stones
retained on larger-sized sieves, such as 3/4 in. (19 mm) and
1
/2 in. (13 mm). This result was intuitive: the larger the size
of the stone used, the greater the blockage potential of the

Figure 9. A beam made from mixture 7N shows that no major variations were observed between top and bottom areas in the far-end cut of the beam.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 91

 Table 6. Aggregate distribution for self-consolidating concrete beams, aggregate–to–total concrete area ratio, %

Beam 7N Beam 7Nv

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

TF 30.7 27.9 24.0 TF 29.6 28.7 29.1

TW 29.2 27.8 26.4 TW 29.7 29.3 30.8

MW 28.1 28.6 26.3 MW 29.5 29.3 30.2

BW 29.3 29.7 28.7 BW 31.6 31.7 29.2

BF 29.5 30.1 28.6 BF 32.4 31.6 30.7

Beam 67N Beam 67Nv

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

TF 28.7 28.9 27.4 TF 29.4 26.9 28.1

TW 27.9 29.5 27.7 TW 29.6 29.6 29.2

MW 28.7 30.2 28.1 MW 30.3 29.5 29.7

BW 29.3 30.0 29.6 BW 30.5 30.3 30.7

BF 30.9 30.5 30.0 BF 30.6 29.8 30.9

Beam 7BL Beam 7BLv

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

TF 32.4 29.2 30.9 TF 30.0 32.3 31.2

TW 31.4 29.8 30.4 TW 31.9 31.7 31.8

MW 32.1 30.0 30.5 MW 32.2 31.8 31.3

BW 32.5 30.8 30.8 BW 32.3 32.1 32.8

BF 32.3 31.9 31.2 BF 32.2 32.7 32.6

Beam 67M Beam 67Mv

Near end Center Far end Near end Center Far end

TF 31.5 30.4 26.2 TF 31.1 30.4 28.4

TW 32.8 30.7 26.3 TW 31.2 30.7 30.4

MW 32.5 31.8 23.6 MW 30.3 31.8 31.0

BW 32.8 28.7 29.3 BW 30.4 28.7 30.1

BF 32.5 32.4 29.1 BF 32.5 32.4 32.4

Note: Table 2 lists mixture proportions. BF = bottom flange; BL = blend of manufactured and natural sand; BW = bottom web; M = manufactured sand;
MW = midweb; N = natural sand; TF = top flange; TW = top web; v = vibration of beam for 5 sec.

mixture when flowing through congested reinforcement. data for mixtures with larger maximum-sized coarse ag-
In addition, larger stones were more susceptible to segre- gregate, such as in beam 67M.
gation, as further evidenced by the digital-image-analysis

92 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 35
G-slag
30
7BLv
Weight retained, %

25 67M
T-cement
20

15

10

0
16

30

50

n
8
4
.

.
.

in

in
in

10

Pa
o.

o.
2

8
4

o.

o.

o.

o.
N

N
1/

3/
3/

N
Sieve size

Figure 10. This graph illustrates the aggregate gradation for selected mixtures, with good-performing mixtures represented by solid lines and those mixtures with poor
performance represented by dashed lines. Note: BL = blend of manufactured and natural sand; M = manufactured sand; v = vibration of beam for 5 sec. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

In addition, the workable mixtures displayed a smoother
gradation of the fine aggregate, with a maximum differ-
ence of 7% between the weight of aggregates retained on
sieve no. 16 (0.047 in. [1.18 mm]) and that retained on
sieve no. 50 (0.012 in. [300 μm]).16 This type of gradation
was not achieved by mixture W-3, which displayed large
gaps for both coarse and fine aggregates and corresponded
with its poor performance in wall construction. Poorly
performing beam 67M showed smooth fine-aggregate
gradation similar to that of good-performance mixtures,
yet it slightly differed from those in its coarse-aggregate
gradation, demonstrating the importance in limiting the
maximum aggregate size to produce good-quality SCC for
congested sections.
Indicators proposed by Ramage et al.8 for good stability
and self-consolidating qualities of SCC in laboratory mix-
tures, including fresh VSI numbers from 0 to 1, slump-flow
spread from 22 in. to 28 in. (560 mm to 710 mm), and more
than 85% H2/H1 in the U-flow test, agreed with the results
of good-quality SCCs in this study of field applications.
However, those measurements were not sufficient for
predicting a mixture’s performance in congested sections.
As an example, fresh-state testing of trial batches produced
with only no. 67 (3/4 in. [19 mm]) stone9 as coarse aggre-
gate and manufactured sand as fine aggregate (beams 67M
and 67Mv) showed good results. Nevertheless, casting of
BT-72 mock-up beam sections using these mixtures pro-
duced beams with honeycombing and multiple air voids in
the surface finish. This suggests that construction of mock-
up sections and subsequent analysis of cores and cut cross
sections are necessary for assessing the quality of SCCs
considered for casting highly congested sections.
Conclusion
This research examined the performance of seven different
SCC mixtures, with wall panel mock-ups cast from three
mixtures and bulb-tee-beam mock-ups cast from four mix-
tures. Performance was assessed by measuring compres-
sive strength, where the strengths of cores obtained from
different locations in the mock-ups were compared with
companion samples cast in the laboratory, and by assess-
ment of coarse-aggregate distribution in sections cut in
the mock-ups. In addition to qualitative visual inspection,
digital image analysis for the quantification of coarse-
aggregate distribution at section cuts was developed and
applied.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 93

 Among other factors, the research examined the influence
of aggregate maximum size and gradation and the influ-
ence of some external vibration on the quality of mock-up
sections produced with highly congested reinforcement.
The maximum size and combined gradation of the aggre-
gates were considered the most important factors affecting
the performance of SCC mixtures. Good-quality SCCs
used a blend of coarse and fine aggregates, which cre-
ated a smoother aggregate gradation than those mixtures
using a single type of stone. The good-quality mixtures
included a blend of no. 7 (1/2 in. [13 mm]) stone and no. 89
(3/8 in. [10 mm]) stone and also a blend of fine aggregates,
including natural and manufactured sand. The use of no.
67 (3/4 in. [19 mm]) stone was shown to be inappropriate
when the clear distance between reinforcement was 1.5 in.
(38 mm) or less. Aggregate segregation and honeycombing
occurred when this type of mixture was used in the end-
wall panels and BT-72 beam sections.
The application of 5 sec of external vibration on the
forms was found to have no effect on the external surface
finish compared with samples with no vibration. Further
research should consider whether vibration for a longer
duration would improve surface finish without causing
segregation.
Of significance is the observation that for sections with
highly congested reinforcement, standard SCC test
methods—including slump flow, VSI, L-box, and U-box
tests—may not accurately predict mixture performance
during casting. Although standard testing suggested good
performance for mixtures 67M and 67Mv, they showed ex-
tensive honeycombing and poor surface finish when used
to cast bulb-tee beams with congested reinforcement.
Based on these findings, construction of mock-up sections
is recommended when developing and characterizing SCC
mixtures for use in deep sections with highly congested
reinforcement. While the use of aggregate gradation and
standard slump flow, L-box, and U-box tests are recom-
mended for development of good SCC mixture propor-
tions, construction and inspection of prototype samples are
required to ensure a good-quality product. Digital-image-
analysis methods may also be used to quantitatively assess
the quality of in-place SCC. SCC that passed the standard
laboratory-type evaluations had difficulty passing the
highly congested reinforcement in deep sections.
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this paper was sponsored by the
Georgia Department of Transportation under GDOT task
order no. 02-07, research project no. 2042.
Valuable support and guidance from GDOT were provided
by Paul Liles and Myron Banks. Gary Knight of Holcim
Cement and Bruce Strickland, Darrell Barbee, and Ralph
94 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
Hodgins of Sika Chemical Corp. generously donated time,
knowledge, and materials for this project. Joe Golden
at Tindall Concrete and Craig Thompson, John Howell,
and Richard Potts at Standard Concrete Products were
extremely helpful and cooperative in conducting the field
research. Georgia Institute of Technology student Alen
Horta, with assistance from Robert Haines, Richard Jen-
nings, Mauricio Lopez, Javier Silva, Ford Burgher, and
Catherine Prince, conducted the experimental research.
We especially thank the paper reviewers and Emily Lorenz
and Carrie Wyrick for their careful editing of the manu-
script.
The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those
of the authors and do not represent the opinions, conclu-
sions, policies, standards, or specifications of GDOT or of
the other sponsoring and cooperating organizations.
References
1. Do, Nam, Blake Stanton, and W. Micah Hale. 2006.
High Strength SCC Mixtures for Prestressed Bridge
Girders. In Proceedings PCI National Bridge Confer-
ence, Grapevine, TX, October 2006. CD-ROM.
2. Burgueno, Rigoberto, and David Bendert. 2006.
Experimental Evaluation and Field-Monitoring of
Self-Compacting Concrete Prestressed Box Beams for
Demonstration Bridge. In Proceedings PCI National
Bridge Conference, Grapevine, TX, October 2006.
CD-ROM.
3. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 237.
2007. Self-Consolidating Concrete. ACI 237R-07.
Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
4. Hughes, D. G., G. F. Knight, and E. F. Manski. 2002.
Self-Consolidating Concrete: Case Studies Show
Benefits to Precast Concrete Producers. In First North
American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-
Consolidating Concrete, pp. 361–366. Chicago, IL:
Hanley-Wood LLC.
5. Hughes, J. J. 2002. Evaluation of Self-Consolidating
Concrete Summary Report. In First North American
Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consoli-
dating Concrete, pp. 259–265. Chicago, IL: Hanley-
Wood LLC.
6. Ozyildirim, C., and S. Lane. 2003. Evaluation of Self-
Consolidating Concrete. Final report for the Virginia
Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA,
www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/
03-r13.pdf.
7. PCI. 2003. Guidelines for Self-Consolidating Concrete
in Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute Member
Plants. TR-6-03. Chicago, IL: PCI.
8. Ramage, Brooke, Lawrence Kahn, and Kimberly
Kurtis. 2004. Evaluation of Self-Consolidating Con-
crete for Bridge Structure Applications: Laboratory
Investigation. Research report 04-2, p. 263, School of
Civil & Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
9. ASTM C33-05. Standard Specification for Concrete
Aggregates. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
American Society for Testing and Materials. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Notation
COV = coefficient of variation
f c' = concrete compressive strength
H1 = height of self-consolidating concrete before the
gate in the U-box
H2 = height of self-consolidating concrete after the gate
in the U-box
Hf = height of self-consolidating concrete at the end of
the box in the L-box

10. PCI Bridge Design Manual Steering Committee. 1999. HS1 = height of self-consolidating concrete after the gate
Precast Prestressed Concrete Bridge Design Manual. in the L-box
MNL-133. Chicago, IL: PCI.
w/cm = water–cementitious materials ratio
11. Horta, Alen. 2005. Evaluation of Self-Consolidating
Concrete for Bridge Structure Applications. Mas-
ter’s thesis, p. 228, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA.

12. ASTM C42-05. Standard Test Method of Obtaining

and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Con-
crete. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American
Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohock-
en, PA: ASTM International.

13. Walker, Hollis N. 1992. Petrographic Methods of Ex-

amining Hardened Concrete: A Petrographic Manual.
FHWA/VA-R14. Virginia Transportation Research
Council, Virginia Dept of Transportation, Charlottes-
ville, VA.

14. ASTM C39-05. Standard Test Method for Compres-

sive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. In
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society
for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.

15. ASTM C94-05. Standard Specification for Ready-

Mixed Concrete. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
American Society for Testing and Materials. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

16. ASTM C136-05. Standard Specification for Sieve

Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. In Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Test-
ing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 95

 About the authors
Lawrence F. Kahn, PhD, P.E., is
a professor in the School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering
at Georgia Institute of Technol-
ogy in Atlanta, Ga.
Kimberly E. Kurtis, PhD, is an
associate professor in the School
of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Georgia Institute
of Technology.
Synopsis
Eight planar 6-in.-thick × 6-ft-deep × 6-ft-wide (150
mm × 1.8 m × 1.8 m) wall sections and eight 13-ft-
long (4.0 m) bulb-tee (BT-72) beam sections, all with
highly congested reinforcement, were fabricated in
two precast concrete plants using self-consolidating
concrete (SCC). The compressive strengths of cores,
taken at different locations on each of the walls and
beams, were compared to determine whether proper-
ties varied with location. Also, the specimens were cut
vertically at different locations to assess segregation
96 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
of the SCC throughout the depth and length of the
elements. Analysis included the use of digital image
analysis. While conventional SCC testing by slump
flow, U-flow, and L-box methods suggested that most
of the mixtures were of good quality, this research
showed that such test methods were not sufficient for
predicting a mixture’s performance in congested sec-
tions. Only construction of mock-up sections showed
the true self-consolidating performance in congested
sections.
Keywords
Digital image analysis, flowability, SCC, segregation,
self-consolidating concrete.
Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process.
Reader comments
Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal
editor-in-chief Emily Lorenz at elorenz@pci.org or
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal,
209 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60606. J