1

Li and Rangaraju

1 Effect of Sand Content on the Properties of Self-Consolidating High

2 Performance Cementitious Mortar
3

4 Zhengqi Lia
5 Graduate Student
6 Glenn Department of Civil Engineering
7 Clemson University
8 Clemson, SC 29634
9 E-mail: zhengql@clemson.edu
10 Tel: (864)633-9882;
11
12 Prasada Rao Rangarajub*
13 Associate Professor
14 Glenn Department of Civil Engineering
15 Clemson University
16 Clemson, SC 29634
17 E-mail: prangar@clemson.edu
18 Tel: (864)-656-1241
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Corresponding Author: Prasada Rao Rangaraju, e-mail: prangar@clemson.edu
26
27 Initial Manuscript Submission date: 8/1/2014
28 Revised Manuscript Submission date: 10/31/2014
29 Word count: 5087 + 9 Tables/Figures x 250 words (each) = 7337 words
30
31
 2
Li and Rangaraju

32 ABSTRACT
33 The workability and compressive strength of a high performance cementitious mortar (HPCM) produced using a
34 natural siliceous sand were studied as a function of sand content (expressed as sand-to-cementitious materials ratio –
35 s/cm), silica fume (SFU) content and high-range water reducing admixture (HRWRA) dosage. The purpose of this
36 study is to maximize the sand content without negatively affecting workability, mechanical and durability properties,
37 while achieving these characteristics at a low cost. An index (Flow Reduction Factor – 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 ) was introduced to
38 reveal the sensitivity of the workability of HPCMs to the changes in the sand content. The test results indicated
39 that the workability of HPCM became less sensitive to sand content when the SFU content increased. Statistical
40 analysis was used to study the effect of increasing the sand content on the compressive strength of HPCMs. Rapid
41 chloride ion penetration (RCP) and drying shrinkage tests were conducted to investigate the effect of sand content
42 on the durability of HPCM without SFU. The compressive strength of self-consolidating HPCM was not
43 significantly impacted by sand content up to a certain maximum level, depending on the HRWRA and SFU dosage.
44 In this study, based on a combined consideration of both workability and compressive strength the maximum sand
45 content that can be used to produce a self-consolidating HPCM without SFU was 1.6 (s/cm ratio), and the maximum
46 sand content for producing a self-consolidating HPCM with SFU content at 10% and 20% was 1.6 and 2.0,
47 respectively. Also, a HRWRA dosage of 1% by weight of cementitious materials was found to be optimal to
48 maximize the sand content in the HPCM. Increasing the sand content was helpful in improving the durability of
49 HPCM, as chloride ion permeability and drying shrinkage decreased.
50
51 Keyword: Self-consolidating HPCM; Maximum sand content; Workability; Compressive strength; RCP; Drying
52 shrinkage
 3
Li and Rangaraju

53 INTRODUCTION
54
55 Self-consolidating high performance cementitious mortar (HPCM) has been increasingly adopted as a pour-in-grout
56 for construction of shear keys in precast bridges. With good workability, self-consolidating HPCM is able to flow
57 into restricted spaces and consolidate well under its self-weight without segregation. It is preferable to use HPCM in
58 the application where narrow formwork and dense reinforcement are inevitable.
59 Self-consolidating HPCM commonly consists of cement, sand (fine aggregate), supplementary
60 cementitious material (SCM), and high range water reducing admixture (HRWRA). In the context of present
61 investigation, HPCM is characterized by low water-cementitious materials ratio (w/cm from 0.2 to 0.35), high
62 content of HRWRA and SCM, which are considered essential for achieving superior workability, compressive
63 strength and durability (1-3).
64 Low w/c and high content of HRWRA produce HPCM with a sticky consistency even at high workability,
65 which is different from normal cementitious mixtures (1; 4; 5). Such a sticky paste reduces the chance of
66 segregation (5-7). Low w/c also decreases the risk of segregation by lowering the difference in density between sand
67 and paste (8). Silica fume (SFU) is one of the widely used SCMs in HPCM formulations. Its super fine particles and
68 pozzolanic reactivity improve the compressive strength and durability of HPCM significantly (1-3). SFU is able to
69 reduce bleeding and increase the cohesiveness of mortar mixtures (4). Many studies also showed that HPCM with
70 SFU has improved fluidity (4; 9; 10), despite that SFU has large specific surface area. For example, a study on the
71 rheology of cementitious paste found that for mixtures in which less than 10% of cement was replaced by equal
72 volume of SFU the viscosity of paste decreased as the silica fume content increased when polyacrylate based
73 HRWRA was used(10). This was explained by the packing of SF particles between cement grains which displaced
74 water and by a ball-bearing effect of silica spheres (10). Sand is another component of mortar. The particle angularity,
75 shape and gradation of sand influence the workability and compressive strength of formulated mortar (1; 11). A
76 comprehensive study on the effect of sand content on the properties of normal strength mortar showed that
77 increasing sand content decreased the workability of mortar, and the increasing sand content might increase or
78 decrease the compressive strength which depended on the use of HRWRA (12).
79 It should be noted that, in many of the previous studies related to HPCM, the investigations have focused
80 on studying the influence of w/cm, SCM dosage and HRWRA dosage on various properties of HPCM. However,
81 there is limited information on the influence of sand content on the fresh and hardened state properties of
82 self-consolidating HPCM. Considering the economic benefit of increasing the sand content in the production of
83 self-consolidating HPCM, it is important to have a detailed knowledge on this topic.
84 The study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, the workability and compressive strength of
85 HPCMs were studied as a function of sand content, SFU content, and HRWRA dosage. In this study, the sand
86 content of a mixture was quantified as sand-to-cementitious materials ratio (s/cm). An index – Flow Reduction
87 Factor, 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 was introduced to reveal the sensitivity of the workability of HPCMs to the changes in s/cm.
88 Statistical analysis was conducted to study the effect of increasing s/cm on the compressive strength of HPCMs. A
89 combined consideration of both workability and compressive strength of HPCM was applied to determine the
90 maximum s/cm for the self-consolidating HPCM both with and without SFU. In the second stage of the study, rapid
91 chloride ion penetration (RCP) and drying shrinkage tests were conducted to investigate the effect of s/cm on the
92 durability of HPCM without SFU.
93
 4
Li and Rangaraju

94 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
95
96 Materials
97 Type III portland cement meeting ASTM C150 specification was used for HPCM formulation. The principal oxide
98 composition of cement was as follows: CaO - 64.4%, SiO2 - 20.4%, Al2O3 - 6%, Fe2O3 - 3.5%, Na2Oeq - 0.49% and
99 SO3 - 3.5%. The specific surface area of cement was 540m2/kg.
100 In this study, the SFU was a white-colored silica fume with a low loss on ignition value of 0.22% and SiO2 content
101 of 92%. It was used as an SCM in addition to cement, not as a cement replacement material. The specific surface
102 area of SFU determined by BET method was 20000m2/kg. The sand used in this study was round natural siliceous
103 sand meeting the gradation specification in ASTM C33 for fine aggregates. The gradation of fine aggregate is shown
104 in Table 1. The specific gravity, water absorption, and fineness modulus of the sand were 2.62, 0.3%, and 2.65,
105 respectively. A polycarboxylic ether based HRWRA in a powder form was used to make workable HPCM.
106
107 Table 1 Gradation of fine aggregate
Sieve Percent Passing
9.5-mm 100.0
4.75-mm 99.8
2.36-mm 97.1
1.18-mm 82.0
600-µm 41.9
300-µm 14.0
150-µm 0.5
75-µm 0.1
108
109 Mixture proportions
110 Thirty seven different HPCMs were produced in this investigation to carry out experiments in order to study the
111 influence of sand content on the fresh and hardened state properties of HPCM at various SFU and HRWRA contents.
112 SFU was proportioned at three levels, 0%, 10%, and 20% by weight of cement. The HRWRA was dosed at four
113 levels - 0.5%, 0.75%, 1%, and 1.5% by weight of cementitious material. Sand content, expressed as s/cm ratio by
114 weight, of the mixtures was studied at 0, 0.5, 1.25, 1.6, and 2. For the entire study, the w/cm by weight was fixed at
115 0.20. No coarse aggregate was used in this study. The identifications of HPCMs (HPCM ID) are listed in Table 2.
116
117
 5
Li and Rangaraju

118 TABLE 2 Identifications of HPCMs

SFU HRWRA s/cm (level)
Content (%) level Dosage (%) level 0(1st) 0.5(2nd) 1.25(3rd) 1.6(4th) 2(5th)
0.5 1st C1-1 C1-2 C1-3 - -
nd
0.75 2 C2-1 C2-2 C2-3 C2-4 -
0 C rd
1 3 C3-1 C3-2 C3-3 C3-4 C3-5
th
1.5 4 C4-1 C4-2 C4-3 C4-4 C4-5
nd
0.75 2 L2-1 L2-2 L2-3 L2-4 L2-5-
10 L rd
1 3 L3-1 L3-2 L3-3 L3-4 L3-5
nd
0.75 2 H2-1 H2-2 H2-3 H2-4 H2-5-
20 H rd
1 3 H3-1 H3-2 H3-3 H3-4 H3-5
119 Note: For HPCM ID, the letter in the front indicates the SFU content (C:0%, L:10%, and H:20%). The following two numbers, i-j,
120 indicate dosage level of HRWRA and s/cm, respectively. For example, L2-3 indicates HPCM with 10% SFU, the second level of
121 HRWRA dosage which is 0.75%, and the third level of s/cm which is 1.25; - Data unavailable. The dashed line in the table
122 represents the distinction between mixtures that were flowable (to the left) and non-flowable (to the right).
123
124 The detailed mixing proportions of selected HPCMs are shown in Table 3.
125
126 TABLE 3 Mixing proportions for 1 m3 of selected HPCMs
Constituent (kg) Constituent (kg)
HPCM ID HPCM ID
Cement SFU FA Water HRWRA Cement SFU FA Water HRWRA
C1-1 1933 0 0 387 9.7 L2-3 904 90 1244 203 7.5
C1-2 1413 0 707 285 7.1 L2-4 799 80 1406 180 6.6
C1-3 1007 0 1259 205 5.0 L2-5 705 70 1550 160 5.8
C2-1 1933 0 0 387 14.5 L3-1 1716 172 0 377 18.9
C2-2 1413 0 707 285 10.6 L3-2 1263 126 694 280 13.9
C2-3 1007 0 1259 205 7.6 L3-3 904 90 1244 203 9.9
C2-4 888 0 1421 182 6.7 L3-4 799 80 1406 180 8.8
C3-1 1933 0 0 387 19.3 L3-5 705 70 1550 160 7.7
C3-2 1413 0 707 285 14.1 H2-1 1542 308 0 370 13.9
C3-3 1007 0 1259 205 10.1 H2-2 1141 228 685 276 10.3
C3-4 888 0 1421 182 8.9 H2-3 821 164 1231 201 7.4
C3-5 783 0 1565 161 7.8 H2-4 725 145 1393 178 6.5
C4-1 1933 0 0 387 29.0 H2-5 641 128 1538 158 5.8
C4-2 1413 0 707 285 21.2 H3-1 1542 308 0 370 18.5
C4-3 1007 0 1259 205 15.1 H3-2 1141 228 685 276 13.7
C4-4 888 0 1421 182 13.3 H3-3 821 164 1231 201 9.8
C4-5 783 0 1565 161 11.7 H3-4 725 145 1393 178 8.7
L2-1 1716 172 0 377 14.2 H3-5 641 128 1538 158 7.7
L2-2 1263 126 694 280 10.4
127
 6
Li and Rangaraju

128 Specimen preparation

129 Fresh HPCMs were prepared by using a UNIVEX M20 planetary mixer. At first, the cementitious materials, sand,
130 and HRWRA were dry mixed for 3 min at low speed (about 100 RPM), followed by the addition of mixing water.
131 The mixing continued at low speed for 4 or 5 min until the mixture became flowable. Finally, the flowable mixtures
132 were mixed for another 2 min at medium speed (about 300 RPM). The entire mixing process lasted for about 10 min.
133 Then, the flow test was conducted immediately.
134 Fresh mixture was poured into molds to prepare specimens for the test of hardened properties of HPCM.
135 Flowable HPCMs were allowed to consolidate in the molds under self-weight. However, for the other HPCMs
136 which were not able to flow, they were consolidated under external vibration for about 30 s. After casting, specimens
137 were kept in the moist room which was setup in accordance with ASTM C511. Specimens were de-molded 24 hr.
138 later. For the study of compressive strength and RCP, the specimens were stored in the moist room until right before
139 conducting the test. For the study of drying shrinkage, the specimens were stored following the procedures in ASTM
140 C596.
141
142 Test methods
143
144 Workability
145 The method to determine the flow of mortar in ASTM C1437 was slightly modified for self-consolidating HPCM.
146 The fresh HPCM was allowed to spread freely on a level plastic plate, instead of being dropped on a flow table for
147 25 times. When the mixture stopped spreading (about 5 min after the removal of the flow mold) the diameter of the
148 mixture was measured for calculating the flow described in ASTM C1437.
149
150 Compressive strength
151 Compressive strength of each HPCM was determined by testing three 50×50×50 mm cubes at the ages of 1 and 28
152 days. The compressive strength test was conducted in accordance with procedures in ASTM C109.
153
154 Rapid Chloride Ion Permeability
155 Two cylindrical specimens with diameter of 100 mm and height of 50 mm were prepared by sawing sections from a
156 cylinder with diameter of 100 mm and height of 200 mm. ASTM C1202 was followed for RCP test at the age of 28
157 days.
158
159 Drying shrinkage
160 Three specimens with dimensions of 25×25×285 mm were prepared for each of the studied HPCM. Length
161 comparator reading of each specimen stored in the environmental chamber was taken at selected ages, in accordance
162 with ASTM C596. Inside the environmental chamber, the temperature and the relative humidity was maintained at
163 23±2 oC and 50±4%, respectively, which was in accordance with ASTM C157.
164
165 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
166
167 Workability
168
 7
Li and Rangaraju

169 Workability of HPCM without SFU

170 The flow of HPCMs without SFU is presented in Figure 1a. Each of the four curves in Figure 1a indicates the effect
171 of increasing sand content on the workability of HPCM at a constant HRWRA dosage. It can be observed that when
172 the HRWRA dosage was fixed the workability of HPCMs decreased as the sand content increased, which was the
173 expected behavior (12). It also can be observed that when the sand content was kept constant, increased HRWRA
174 dosage increased the workability of HPCMs. However, when the HRWRA dosage was higher than a certain level,
175 the workability of HPCMs did not show significant increase. For example, by comparing HPCMs with s/cm at 1.25
176 (HPCM C1-3, C2-3, C3-3, and C4-3), it can be observed that the flow of HPCM with HRWRA dosage at 0.75%, 1%,
177 and 1.5% was 125%, 263%, and 275% higher than that with HRWRA dosage at 0.5%, respectively. The rise in
178 HRWRA dosage from 1% to 1.5% only caused minimal increase in the workability of HPCM. A dosage of HRWRA
179 beyond which minimal increase in workability is observed is known as saturation dosage (13). In this study, the
180 saturation HRWRA dosage was determined to be 1%, and therefore a HRWRA dosage of 1.5% may be considered
181 as an overdose.
182 The results from flow tests indicated that the workability of HPCM without SFU is affected by the
183 combination of sand content and HRWRA dosage. The workability of HPCM can be increased through either
184 reducing the sand content at a fixed HRWRA dosage or by increasing HRWRA dosage at a fixed sand content.
185 However, the former approach is not economically preferable since manufacturers want more sand in HPCM to
186 reduce the cost. The latter approach also has its limitation, since excessive HRWRA dosage does not increase the
187 workability much further but causes other problems such as segregation and delayed setting (1; 5; 7). For
188 economical self-consolidating HPCM, a balance would probably be reached by finding out the maximum sand
189 content when HRWRA was dosed at the saturation dosage.
190 It should be noted that HPCMs with flow value ranging from 44% to 56% (HPCM C1-3, C2-4, C3-5, and
191 C4-5) had poor workability. They were not considered self-consolidating HPCMs, because external vibration was
192 required during casting the specimens for compressive strength test. Other HPCMs were assumed to be
193 self-consolidating HPCMs, because they exhibited flowable workability and seemed to be able to consolidate well
194 under self-weight. As Figure 1a shows, when the HRWRA was dosed at saturation dosage (1%), the maximum sand
195 content for flowable HPCM without SFU was s/cm=1.6.
196
197 Workability of HPCM with SFU
198 The workability of HPCMs with various SFU contents was studied at two HRWRA dosages, 0.75% and 1%. The
199 flow values are presented in Figure 1b and 1c, respectively.
200 Similar trends were observed for HPCM with SFU when compared with HPCM without SFU, in which the
201 increasing sand content reduced the workability of HPCM at both HRWRA dosages. When the HRWRA dosage was
202 0.75% (Figure 1b), the maximum sand content at which the HPCM without SFU remained flowable was s/cm=1.25,
203 and the maximum sand content at which the HPCM with SFU content at either 10% or 20% remained flowable was
204 s/cm=1.6. When the HRWRA dosage was 1% (Figure 1c), the maximum sand content at which the HPCM without
205 SFU remained flowable was s/cm=1.6, and the maximum sand content at which the HPCM with SFU content at 10%
206 and 20% remained flowable was s/cm=1.6 and s/cm=2, respectively. These HPCMs consolidated under self-weight
207 during casting and needed no external vibration. In mixtures with sand content exceeding the maximum s/cm ratios
208 (i.e. HPCM C2-4, L2-5, H2-5, C3-5, and L2-5), the workability was observed to be poor, indicated by flow values
209 ranging from 32% to 50%. For these HPCMs external vibration was applied during casting.
 8
Li and Rangaraju

210 It should be mentioned that among all the flowable HPCMs, the HPCM H3-5 mixture has the lowest flow
211 value (i.e. 69%) that did not require any external vibration to consolidate. Therefore, based on these observations,
212 a flow value of 69% (about 70%) is considered as a minimum threshold value that distinguished non-flowable
213 HPCMs from flowable HPCMs. Figure 1 shows a threshold line marked at 69. HPCMs that were non-flowable were
214 subjected to external vibration during casting of the specimens for compressive strength test.
215 Both Figure 1b and 1c show that SFU seemed to be helpful in improving the workability of HPCM. The
216 effect of SFU in rendering the workability of HPCM less sensitive to the changes in sand content is discussed later.
300
HRWRA:0.5%
HRWRA:0.75%
250
HRWRA:1.0%
HRWRA:1.5%
200
Flow (%)

150

100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm

(a)
300 300
SFU:0%
SFU:0% SFU:10%
250 SFU:10% 250
SFU:20%
SFU:20%
200 200
Flow (%)

Flow (%)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm s/cm
(b) (c)
FIGURE 1 Flow of HPCMs: (a) HPCMs without SFU, (b) HPCMs with SFU (HRWRA dosage
at 0.75%), and (c) HPCMs with SFU (HRWRA dosage at 1%). The horizontal dashed line
delineates flowable versus non-flowable mixtures.
217
218 Sensitivity of workability to changes in sand content
219 An index (𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟) 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 was introduced to understand the effect of SFU on the changes in the
220 workability of HPCM in response to the changes in the sand content. 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 was defined as the ratio of the
221 reduction of flow to the increase in s/cm, see equation (1).
𝐹0 −𝐹𝑠/𝑐𝑚
222 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 = (1)
𝑠/𝑐𝑚−0
 9
Li and Rangaraju

223 Where
224 𝐹0 is the flow of HPCM with sand content at 0
225 𝐹𝑠/𝑐𝑚 is the flow of HPCM with sand content at s/cm
226 𝑠/𝑐𝑚 is the sand-cementitious material ratio of HPCM
227 For example, 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 of HPCM L3-4 (SFU=10%; HRWRA dosage=1%; s/cm=1.6) was calculated as follow,
275% − 131.3%
𝑅1.6 = = 89.8%
1.6 − 0
228 The value of 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 indicated how sensitive the workability of HPCM was to the changes in sand content.
229 The calculated 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 of HPCMs are shown in Figure 2a and 2b.
140 140
SFU:0%
120 120 SFU:10%
SFU:20%

100 100

Rs/cm (%)
Rs/cm (%)

80 80

60 60

40 40
SFU:0%
20 SFU:10% 20
SFU:20%
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm s/cm
(a) (b)
FIGURE 2 Calculated 𝑹𝒔/𝒄𝒎 of HPCM: (a) HRWRA dosage at 0.75% and
(b) HRWRA dosage at 1%
230
231 It can be noticed from Figure 2a that when the HRWRA dosage was 0.75%, 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 decreased with the
232 increasing addition of SFU at all s/cm levels. For example, when the sand content was at s/cm=1.25, 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 of
233 HPCM with SFU content at 0%, 10%, and 20% was 115%, 80%, and 50%, respectively. This indicated that the
234 workability of HPCM became less sensitive to the increased sand content as the SFU content increased. When the
235 HRWRA dosage was 1.0% (see Figure 2b), 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 of HPCM with SFU content at 0% and 10% was pretty close.
236 However, HPCM with SFU content at 20% showed significant lower 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 at all s/cm levels. Probably the
237 increase in the HRWRA dosage diminished the difference in 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 of HPCM when SFU contents were low (0%
238 and 10%).
239 Thus far, all the HPCMs studied in this research can be classified into two groups - flowable HPCMs and
240 non-flowable HPCMs. The dashed line in Table 2 distinguishes these two groups. The HPCMs on the left side of the
241 dash line were flowable mixtures which were consolidated under self-weight during casting. HPCMs on the right
242 side of the dash line were non-flowable HPCMs which were consolidated under external vibration during casting.
243
244 Compressive strength
245
246 Compressive strength of HPCM without SFU
247 The effect of sand content on the 1-day and 28-day compressive strength of HPCM without SFU at various HRWRA
 10
Li and Rangaraju

248 dosages is presented in Figures 3a and 3b. The HPCMs that consolidated under self-weight are indicated in the plots
249 using hollow symbols, and those that were subjected to external vibration are indicated using filled symbols.
250 As shown in Figures 3a and 3b, both the 1-day and 28-day compressive strength of HPCM seemed to
251 fluctuate around certain values as the sand content increased. No clear trends of compressive strength being affected
252 by sand content were observed. An analysis of variance is presented later to evaluate the influence of sand content
253 on the compressive strength of HPCM.
254 The increased HRWRA dosage appeared to have negative effect on the compressive strength of HPCMs,
255 especially at the age of 1 day. The 1-day compressive strength of HPCMs with s/cm=0.5 revealed that mixtures with
256 HRWRA dosages of 0.75%, 1%, and 1.5% had lower strength compared to mixture with 0.5% HRWRA dosage by
257 16%, 29%, and 40%, respectively. Although no calorimetric or setting time studies were conducted on these
258 mixtures in the present study, it is suspected that higher dosage levels of HRWRA may cause set-retardation
259 resulting in lower compressive strengths at early ages (1; 14).
260 A similar comparison of HPCMs with s/cm=0.5 at the age of 28 days revealed that the compressive
261 strength of HPCM with HRWRA dosages of 0.75% and 1% were 6% higher and 0.4% lower, respectively, compared
262 to mixture with HRWRA dosage of 0.5%. The effect of HRWRA dosage up to 1% on the compressive strength was
263 not significant at the age of 28 days. However, the compressive strength of HPCM with HRWRA dosage of 1.5%
264 was 23% lower than that of HPCM with HRWRA dosage of 0.5%. Similar findings were reported in another
265 research study, where the optimal HRWRA dosage was observed to be at 1% by weight of cement, and beyond
266 which compressive strength was negatively affected (12). The improved compressive strength with an increase in
267 HRWRA dosage up to 1% was explained by better dispersion of cement, while the reduced compressive strength
268 beyond 1% dosage of HRWRA was explained by segregation (12). However, in the present study no segregation
269 was observed in the HPCMs even with HRWRA dosage of 1.5%, and therefore it is unlikely for segregation to be
270 the reason for the observed reduction in the 28-day compressive strength. Considering that some HRWRA typically
271 tend to entrain air at high dosage levels, even in the absence of air-entraining agents, it is suspected that at HRWRA
272 dosage levels of 1.5%, increase in the air content of HPCM may have resulted in lowering of the 28-day
273 compressive strength compared to HPCMs with lower HRWRA dosage (1; 15-17).
274 Considering that the HRWRA dosage of 1% was determined as the saturation dosage from a workability
275 perspective and the HRWRA dosage of 1.5% was determined as an overdose in early part of this study, it is
276 reasonable to assume that from a compressive strength perspective the HRWRA dosage of 1% was also the
277 saturation dosage, and HRWRA dosage higher than 1% (i.e. 1.5%) was an overdose which had a lasting negative
278 effect on the compressive strength of HPCMs.
279
280 Compressive strength of HPCM with SFU
281 The effect of sand content on the 1-day and 28-day compressive strength of HPCM with various SFU contents was
282 studied under two HRWRA dosages. The HPCMs with HRWRA dosage at 0.75% are shown in Figure 3c and 3d.
283 The HPCMs with HRWRA dosage at 1% are shown in Figure 3e and 3f. Similarly to what was shown in Figures 3
284 (a) and (b), the HPCMs consolidated under self-weight are plotted as hollow symbols. The HPCMs consolidated
285 under external vibration are plotted as filled symbols.
286
 11
Li and Rangaraju
120 140

28-day compressive strength (MPa)

1-day compressive strength (MPa)
100 120

100
80

80
60
60
40 HRWRA:0.5% HRWRA:0.5%
HRWRA:0.75% 40 HRWRA:0.75%
HRWRA:1.0% HRWRA:1.0%
20 HRWRA:1.5%
HRWRA:1.5% 20

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm s/cm
(a) (b)
100 140

90
120

28-day compressive strength (MPa)

1-day compressive strength (MPa)

80

70 100

60
80
50
60
40

30 40
SFU:0% SFU:0%
20 SFU:10%
SFU:10%
20
10 SFU:20% SFU:20%

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm s/cm
(c) (d)
100 160

90
140
28-day compressive strength (MPa)
1-day compressive strength (MPa)

80
120
70
100
60

50 80

40
60
30
SFU:0% 40 SFU:0%
20 SFU:10% SFU:10%
SFU:20% 20 SFU:20%
10

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
s/cm s/cm
(e) (f)
FIGURE 3 Compressive strength of HPCM: (a) HPCM without SFU at 1-day, (b) HPCM without
SFU at 28-day, (c) HPCM with SFU at 1-day (HRWRA dosage at 0.75%), (d) HPCM with SFU at
28-day (HRWRA dosage at 0.75%), (e) HPCM with SFU at 1-day (HRWRA dosage at 1%), and
(f) HPCM with SFU at 28-day (HRWRA dosage at 1%).
287
 12
Li and Rangaraju

288 From the Figures 3c, 3d, 3e, and 3f, it is difficult to tell the relation between compressive strength and sand content.
289 An analysis of variance is presented later to evaluate the influence of sand content on the compressive strength of
290 HPCM. However, it can be observed that increased SFU content at either 10% or 20% seemed to reduce the
291 compressive strength of the HPCMs at the age of 1 day. Reminding the w/cm was kept constant for HPCM with
292 SFU, it is reasonable to assume that the higher actual w/c probably attribute to the reduced 1-day compressive
293 strength of HPCM with higher SFU content. But, at the age of 28 days, the compressive strength of HPCM with
294 SFU was pretty close to that of HPCM without SFU. This increase could be because of the pozzolanic effect of SFU
295 which was more prominent at later ages (1).
296
297 Statistical analysis of compressive strength being affected by sand content
298 The purpose of the statistical analysis was to find out whether the change in sand content would cause statistically
299 significant difference in either 1-day or 28-day compressive strength of self-consolidating HPCMs. Analysis of
300 variance (F-test) on the compressive strength of HPCMs was only conducted on HPCMs consolidated under
301 self-weight. For each F-test at the age of either 1 day or 28 days, only HPCMs with same SFU content and same
302 HRWRA dosage were included. As shown in Table 4, HPCMs are sorted into eight groups, and HPCMs in each
303 group have same SFU content and same HRWRA dosage. Total sixteen F-tests were conducted on eight groups of
304 HPCMs (two F-tests for each group at 1 day and 28 days, respectively).
305 Before starting the analysis of variance the following assumptions were made:
306 a. The compressive strength of each HPCM had a normal distribution.
307 b. Under the same SFU content and the same HRWRA dosage, the variances of compressive strength
308 of HPCMs with various sand contents were equal.
309 c. The compressive strength of HPCMs with various sand contents was independent from each other.
310 The problem of the hypothesis testing was stated as,
𝐻0 : µ0 = µ0.5 = ⋯ = µ𝑠/𝑐𝑚
𝐻𝑎 : At least one of the mean compressive strength of HPCM is different from the rest
311 Where µ𝑠/𝑐𝑚 is the mean compressive strength of HPCM with sand content at s/cm.
312 The possibility of Type I error was set at α=0.05. If the p-value of F-test was larger than α, we did not have
313 enough evidence to reject 𝐻0 , which inferred that the sand content did not have statistically significant effect on the
314 compressive strength of HPCM. However, if the p-value of F test was equal or less than α, we had enough
315 evidence to reject 𝐻0 , which inferred that the sand content had statistically significant effect on the compressive
316 strength of HPCM. The results of analysis of variance are presented in Table 4.
317 It can be observed that the calculated p-values of HPCMs without SFU were larger than α when HRWRA
318 dosage varied from 0.5% to 1%, which indicated that sand content did not have significant effect on both the 1-day
319 and 28-day compressive strength of HPCM with HRWRA dosage ranging from 0.5% to 1%. When the HRWRA
320 dosage was 1.5%, the decision was to reject H0 for 1-day compressive strength (p-value=0.041<α), but failed to
321 reject H0 for 28-day compressive strength (p-value=0.058>α). This inferred that when the HRWRA dosage was
322 1.5%, the changes in sand content resulted in changes in the 1-day compressive strength of HPCM, but it did not
323 have significant influence on the 28-day compressive strength. However, it was necessary to notice that these
324 decisions for HPCM with HRWRA dosage at 1.5% were not statistically strong, because the p-values were very
325 close to α which was set at 0.05 in this study. If lower α was set, say 0.04, the decision would be fail to reject H0 for
326 both 1-day and 28-day compressive strength. So far, a conclusion is drawn that, with HRWRA dosage at 1%, the
 13
Li and Rangaraju

327 maximum sand content was able to go up to s/cm=1.6 without having statistically strong influence on either the
328 1-day or 28-day compressive strength of HPCM without SFU.
329
330 TABLE 4 Analysis of variance of compressive strength
Dosage of 1-day 28-day
SFU (%) HPCMs included a
HRWRA (%) p-value Decision p-value Decision a
0.5 C1-1,C1-2 0.716 N 0.432 N
0.75 C2-1,C2-2,C2-3 0.449 N 0.354 N
0
1 C3-1,C3-2,C3-3,C3-4 0.191 N 0.197 N
1.5 C4-1,C4-2,C4-3,C4-4 0.041 Rej. 0.058 N
0.75 L2-1,L2-2,L2-3,L2-4 0.019 Rej. 0.052 N
10
1 L3-1,L3-2,L3-3,L3-4 0.302 N 0.789 N
0.75 H2-1,H2-2,H2-3,H2-4 0.091 N 0.002 Rej.
20
1 H3-1,H3-2,H3-3,H3-4,H3-5 0.599 N 0.713 N
a
331 Note: N-did not reject H0 or Rej.-rejected H0
332
333 For HPCMs with SFU content at 10%, rejections to H0 only occurred for 1-day compressive strength when
334 the HRWRA dosage was 0.75%. When HRWRA dosage was 1%, we failed to reject H0 for both 1-day and 28-day
335 compressive strength. This indicated that when HRWRA dosage was at 0.75%, the change in s/cm from 0 to 1.6
336 resulted in noticeable changes in the 1-day compressive strength of HPCMs. However, when HRWRA dosage was at
337 1%, s/cm went up to 1.6 failed to cause significant changes in either 1-day or 28-day compressive strength of
338 HPCMs.
339 Similarly, for HPCMs with SFU content at 20%, rejections to H0 only occurred for 28-day compressive
340 strength when the HRWRA dosage was 0.75%. The decision was strong since p-value is remarkably smaller than α
341 (0.002< α). A test of Fisher’s least significant difference procedure (LSD) identified that HPCM with s/cm=1.6 had
342 the most significantly different 28-day compressive strength from the rest HPCMs. Considering the results presented
343 in Figure 3b, it was noticed that sand content at s/cm=1.6 resulted in remarkable compressive strength loss at the age
344 of 28 days. However, when HRWRA dosage was 1%, we failed to reject H0 for both 1-day and 28-day compressive
345 strength, which indicated that sand contents up to s/cm=2 did not have statistically significant influence on either the
346 1-day or 28-day compressive strength of HPCM.
347
348 Discussion of maximum sand content of self-consolidating HPCM
349 From the point of lowering economic cost, it is generally preferable to increase the sand content of HPCM. However,
350 increasing sand content would reduce the workability and cause compressive strength loss. The maximum sand
351 content at which the HPCM still maintained the ability of self-consolidating and the compressive strength of HPCM
352 was not significantly lowered is important in the design of self-consolidating HPCM. Based on a combined
353 consideration of both workability and compressive strength of HPCM in this study, it is reasonable to believe that
354 for self-consolidating HPCM with SFU contents at 0%, 10%, and 20%, the maximum sand content could go up to
355 1.6, 1.6, and 2, respectively. It should be reminded that such maximum sand contents are affected by many factors,
356 such as gradation and texture of sand. Different maximum sand contents of self-consolidating HPCM likely exist
357 when different type of sand was used.
 14
Li and Rangaraju

358
359 Rapid Chloride Ion permeability
360
361 The RCP of HPCM without SFU was studied on HPCM C3-1, C3-2, C3-3, C3-4, and C3-5. The experimental
362 results are presented in Figure 4, which depicts the RCP values at different s/cm ratios and a prediction equation.

3400
𝑘= + 800
𝑒 3𝑟
2
R =0.999

FIGURE 4 Influence of s/cm on RCP of HPCM without SFU

363
364 It can be observed that the amount of charge passed decreased as the s/cm increased, which indicated that
365 the chloride permeability of HPCM decreased as more siliceous sand was added into the mixture. Considering the
366 sand was less permeable than cement paste, the reduced chloride permeability of HPCM was likely because of the
367 reduced volume of cement paste through which the charge passed. However, when the sand content went up to
368 s/cm=2, the reduction in charge passed was not significant. For HPCM with sand content at s/cm=2 the charge
369 passed was only 3% lower than HPCM with sand content at s/cm=1.6. The lack of significant decrease in chloride
370 ion permeability beyond s/cm ratio of 1.6 can be attributed to two conflicting effects – the reduction in the cement
371 paste volume (which should reduce the permeability) and the percolation effect in cement paste due to interfacial
372 transition zone (ITZ) (which should increase the increase the permeability).
373 With increasing sand content, the volume of cement paste in the HPCM is proportionately reduced and
374 therefore the permeability of the HPCM should decrease. However, with increasing sand content, the volume of
375 paste that is in the ITZ is relatively more compared to the paste that is considered as bulk paste. These conflicting
376 effects neutralize any effect on the chloride permeability of HPCMs in which s/cm ratio is between 1.6 and 2.0.
377 This was attributed to the increased volume of interfacial transition zone (ITZ) as sand content increased (1; 18). As
378 it is widely known, ITZ which surrounds sand particles has higher porosity than the cement paste (1; 18). If sand
379 content goes up to certain point when adjacent ITZs start to percolate, the permeability of the whole structure of
380 concrete increases significantly (1; 18). The RCP of HPCM affected by increasing sand content is assumed to be a
381 function of reduced paste content and increased ITZ in the present study.
382 The following three-parameter regression equation based on five data points was used to describe the
383 charge passed during RCP test for HPCMs without SFU ( also see Figure 4),
a
384 𝑦= +c (2)
𝑒 b𝑥

385 Where
386 y is dependent variable
 15
Li and Rangaraju

387 x is independent variable

388 a, b, and c are constants to be determined by the test results
389 In this study, the following equation was proposed,
3400
390 𝑘= + 800 (R2=0.999) (3)
𝑒 3𝑟

391 Where
392 k is charge passed
393 r is s/cm
394 The plot of Equation (3) is shown in Figure 4.
395
396 Drying shrinkage
397
398 The drying shrinkage of HPCM without SFU was studied on HPCM C3-1, C3-2, C3-3, C3-4, and C3-5. The drying
399 shrinkage developments of HPCM without SFU are shown in Figure 5a.
Period of Exposure (days)
0
0 15 30 45 60 75

-0.05
Drying shrinkage (%)

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2
s/cm:0 s/cm:0.5
s/cm:1.25 s/cm:1.6
s/cm:2.0
-0.25

(a)

0.14
𝐷=− − 0.04
𝑒 1.7𝑟
2
R =0.997

(b)
FIGURE 5 Drying shrinkage of HPCM without SFU: (a) Drying shrinkage development and
(b) Influence of s/cm on the maximum drying shrinkage.
400
 16
Li and Rangaraju

401 It was obvious that HPCM with high sand content presented lower drying shrinkage than HPCM with low
402 sand at all testing ages, and the curves of drying shrinkage development of HPCMs became almost flat after 56 days
403 of exposure. The drying shrinkage of 56 days of exposure was assumed to be the maximum drying shrinkage of
404 studied HPCM, which is shown as dot in Figure 5b. A simple calculation revealed that the maximum drying
405 shrinkage of HPCM with sand content at s/cm=0.5, 1.25, 1.6, and 2 was 44%, 65%, 72%, and 75% lower than that
406 of HPCM without sand, respectively. The reduction in drying shrinkage as sand content increased was likely because
407 of the reduced volume of cement paste, which is the main component resulting in shrinkage under drying (1).
408 The relationship between the 56-day shrinkage as a function of s/cm can be described by equation (4)
409 which is a three-parameter regression equation based on five data points (also see Figure 5b).
0.14
410 𝐷=− − 0.04 (R2=0.997) (4)
𝑒 1.7𝑟

411 Where
412 D is the maximum drying shrinkage
413 r is s/cm
414
415 CONCLUSIONS
416
417 The workability, compressive strength and durability of self-consolidating HPCM with and without containing SFU
418 were experimentally studied. Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions are drawn:
419  For HPCM without SFU, the workability was influenced by the combination of HRWRA dosage and sand
420 content. Increasing HRWRA dosage or decreasing sand content improved the workability of HPCM, however
421 HRWRA exceeding saturation dosage did not increase the workability further. Based on the material and mixture
422 proportions used in this study, the saturation dosage of HRWRA was established at 1% by weight of the cement.
423  The workability of HPCM became less sensitive to the changes in the sand content when the SFU content
424 increased, which was revealed by the index 𝑅𝑠/𝑐𝑚 .
425  The compressive strength of self-consolidating HPCM was not significantly influenced by the sand
426 content up to a maximum sand content, depending on the dosage of SFU and HRWRA. In this study, with HRWRA
427 at saturation dosage (1%), the maximum sand content for self-consolidating HPCM without SFU was able to go up
428 to s/cm=1.6, and the maximum sand content for self-consolidating HPCM with SFU content at 10% and 20% was
429 able to go up to s/cm=1.6 and s/cm=2, respectively.
430  For self-consolidating HPCM without SFU, increased sand content was helpful in improving the
431 durability of HPCM. Lower chloride permeability and less drying shrinkage were observed as the sand content
432 increased.
433 Based on materials and proportions used in this study, it is recommended that to produce a workable HPCM
434 with good compressive strength a sand-to-cementitious materials ratio between 1.6 and 2.0 should be used,
435 depending on the dosage of SFU and HRWRA. It should be noted that round siliceous natural sand is highly
436 recommended for this purpose. Using sand of different angularity or particle size distribution than that was used in
437 this study may result in slightly different maximum s/cm.
438
439 REFERENCES
440 [1] Mindess, S., J. F. Young, and D. Darwin. Concrete. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003.
 17
Li and Rangaraju

441 [2] Graybeal, B. A. Material property characterization of ultra-high performance concrete. Report
442 FHWA-HRT-06-103, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006.
443 [3] Durekovic, A. Cement Pastes of Low Water to Solid Ratio - an Investigation of the Porosity Characteristics
444 under the Influence of a Superplasticizer and Silica Fume. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1995,
445 pp. 365-375.
446 [4] Nehdi, M., S. Mindess, and P. C. Aitcin. Rheology of high-performance concrete: Effect of ultrafine particles.
447 Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 28, No. 5, 1998, pp. 687-697.
448 [5] Libre, N. A., R. Khoshnazar, and M. Shekarchi. Relationship between fluidity and stability of self-consolidating
449 mortar incorporating chemical and mineral admixtures. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 24, No. 7,
450 2010, pp. 1262-1271.
451 [6] Schwartzentruber, L. D., R. Le Roy, and J. Cordin. Rheological behaviour of fresh cement pastes formulated
452 from a Self Compacting Concrete (SCC). Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 36, No. 7, 2006, pp. 1203-1213.
453 [7] Khayat, K. H. Workability, testing, and performance of self-consolidating concrete. Aci Materials Journal, Vol.
454 96, No. 3, 1999, pp. 346-353.
455 [8] Saak, A. W., H. M. Jennings, and S. P. Shah. New methodology for designing self-compacting concrete. Aci
456 Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No. 6, 2001, pp. 429-439.
457 [9] Zhang, X., and J. H. Han. The effect of ultra-fine admixture on the rheological property of cement paste. Cement
458 and Concrete Research, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2000, pp. 827-830.
459 [10] Vikan, H., and H. Justnes. Rheology of cementitious paste with silica fume or limestone. Cement and Concrete
460 Research, Vol. 37, No. 11, 2007, pp. 1512-1517.
461 [11] Cortes, D. D., H. K. Kim, A. M. Palomino, and J. C. Santamarina. Rheological and mechanical properties of
462 mortars prepared with natural and manufactured sands. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 38, No. 10, 2008,
463 pp. 1142-1147.
464 [12] Han, V., S. Ros, and H. Shima. Effects of Sand Content, Superplasticizer Dosage, and Mixing Time on
465 Compressive Strength of Mortar. Aci Materials Journal, Vol. 110, No. 1, 2013, pp. 23-31.
466 [13] Punkki, J., J. Golaszewski, and O. E. Gjorv. Workability loss of high-strength concrete. Aci Materials Journal,
467 Vol. 93, No. 5, 1996, pp. 427-431.
468 [14] Pinto, R., and K. Hover. Effect of Silica Fume and Superplasticizer Addition on Setting Behavior of
469 High-Strength Mixtures. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol.
470 1574, No. -1, 1997, pp. 56-62.
471 [15] Lazniewska-Piekarczyk, B. The methodology for assessing the impact of new generation superplasticizers on
472 air content in self-compacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 53, 2014, pp. 488-502.
473 [16] Papayianni, I., G. Tsohos, N. Oikonomou, and P. Mavria. Influence of superplasticizer type and mix design
474 parameters on the performance of them in concrete mixtures. Cement & Concrete Composites, Vol. 27, No. 2,
475 2005, pp. 217-222.
476 [17] Lazniewska-Piekarczyk, B., and J. Szwabowski. The Influence of the Type of Anti-Foaming Admixture and
477 Superplasticizer on the Properties of Self-Compacting Mortar and Concrete. Journal of Civil Engineering and
478 Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2012, pp. 408-415.
479 [18] Winslow, D. N., M. D. Cohen, D. P. Bentz, K. A. Snyder, and E. J. Garboczi. Percolation and Pore Structure in
480 Mortars and Concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1994, pp. 25-37.
481