mix design and rheological properties of self -com pacting coconut shell aggregate ... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
VOL. 13, NO. 4, FEBRUARY 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
1465
MIX DESIGN AND RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF
SELF-COMPACTING COCONUT SHELL
AGGREGATE CONCRETE
Idowu H. Adebakin, K. Gunasekaran and R. Annadurai
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, SRM University, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, India
E-Mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This paper presents report of experimental works on the mix design and fresh properties of self-compacting
lightweight aggregate concrete (SCLWC) blended with fly ash using coconut shell as coarse aggregate. After 35 initial trial
mixes, 5 final mixtures were prepared with various amount of cement replacement with fly ash (0 – 25% by weight of
cement) at the same water/binder ratio of 0.33 and same percentage of superplasticizer (1.75% by weight of binder). The
fresh properties of SCLWC were investigated by means of slump flow, T500, V-funnel, L-box, wet sieve segregation and
wet density. Results showed that fly ash blended SCLWC with coconut shell as coarse aggregate performed satisfactorily
in flowability, viscosity and passing ability. In particular, mixtures with15% and 20% cement replacement with fly ash
gave very good results.
Keyword: coconut shell, concrete, fly ash, self-compacting, mix design, lightweight aggregate.
1. INTRODUCTION The usage of lightweight aggregate concrete
(LWC) for structural elements has been successfully
carried-out for many years. It has found acceptability
where light loading, low permeability and high thermal
strength will be beneficial. Lightweight aggregate (LWA)
is generally used in the production of LWC, and can either
be naturally sourced or artificially manufactured from the
by-products of some industrial process. Production of
artificial LWA involves heating the raw materials under
high temperature with its attendance high cost both
financially and environmentally [1].
Coconut shell (CS) can be classified as naturally
occurring lightweight aggregate from agricultural waste
just like palm kernel [2]. For many years, commercially
available LWA has been used widely for production of
LWC, however, issues of materials depletion and
environmental degradation make agricultural wastes like
coconut shell highly beneficial and sustainable in LWC
production.
Researches on normal concrete with coconut as
coarse aggregate revealed that there is good compatibility
of coconut shell-cement composite and there is no need for
pre-treatment [3,4]. It is also reported that though water
absorbing and moisture retaining capacity of CS is high, in
comparison to natural aggregate, CS does not deteriorate
over time once it is encapsulated into the concrete matrix,
hence coconut shell aggregate concrete is confirmed to be
very durable [5].
Self-compacting concrete (SCC) is a new
generation concrete that is highly flowable and hence can
be placed without vibration in narrow or heavily
reinforced formwork, while maintaining excellent
consistency and cohesiveness [6]. Self-compacting
lightweight aggregate concrete (SCLWC) combines the
good properties of lightweight and self-compacting to give
good and durable hardened concrete. Although, a good
number of researches have been made on SCLWC, but
using coconut shell aggregate (CSA) in the production of
SCLWC is a novel research.
2. THEORY
In order to produce good SCC, workability is a
very critical factor. Achieving SCC with good filling
ability, passing ability and high segregation resistance
requires careful mixture design. In the mix proportioning,
aside controlling aggregate quantities and low
water/binder ratio, it is common to apply high range water
reducing admixture to take care of flowability and a large
quantity of powder materials to achieve high resistance to
segregation [7].
The concept of SCC was first proposed by
Okamura in 1986, but it wasn’t until 1988 when the first
prototype was developed by Ozawa in Japan [8].
Basically, the physical properties of the gravel coupled
with the rheological properties of mortar defines SCC
characteristics. Hence, researches has shown that SCC
composed of two major phases: the gravel phase and the
suspending mortar phase [8].
Many mix design methods have been developed
for SCC, since design method for conventional concrete is
not practicable with SCC. Of all the methods, the rational
mix design method proposed by Okamura and Ozawa is
the simplest and most popular [9]. Though, other methods
such as blocking volume ratio, particle packing theory,
paste rheology theory, compression strength method have
been proved to be practicable too. However, all the mix
design methods were developed based on conventional
aggregates, but for LWA with diverse characteristics, there
is need for modification of any of the methods in other to
achieve self-compactability.
The design method proposed by Okamura et al
[10] was based on fixing coarse aggregate content at 50%
of the solid volume, and fine aggregate content at 40% of
the mortar volume. Then water/binder ratio and
superplasticizer’s dosage will be determined by trial
VOL. 13, NO. 4, FEBRUARY 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
1466
mixes. Though simple, but requires rigorous laboratory
testing, especially with new materials like CS.
Concrete rheology defines the flow behaviour of
concrete based on its plastic viscosity (η) and yield stress (τ). Rheology is generally influenced by water/binder (w/b) ratio, type and volume of binder, hydration rate,
mixture temperature and, of course, superplasticizer (SP)
dosage [9]. Mineral admixtures and natural pozzolans are
used to improve rheological properties requirement of
SCC, majorly for improvement in cohesiveness and
segregation resistance. Heat of hydration and thermal
shrinkage are likewise regulated by the addition. The most
commonly used mineral admixture is low carbon class F
fly ash, which is a by-product of the pulverised coal
combustion in electric power generating plants. Fly ash is
finely divided powder with surface areas as low as
200m2/kg [11].
3. MATERIALS
3.1 Cementitious
*Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) 53 grade
conforming to the BIS 12269:1987 [12] was used
throughout this study while class ‘F’ fly ash (FA) sourced
from Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tamil Nadu India
was also used as mineral admixture. Table-1 shows the
chemical compositions, while Figures 1 and 2 are the
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy
dispersive x-ray spectrometry (EDS) analysis of the
materials respectively.
Table-1. Physiochemical properties of OPC and Fly ash.
Composition
(% by mass)
OPC
(53 Grade)
Fly Ash
(Class F)
SiO2 21.0 64.03
Al2O3 5.1 15.50
Fe2O3 3.1 6.50
MgO 2.4 3.00
CaO 64.1 4.62
Na2O 0.3 -
K2O 0.7 -
SO3 2.2 -
Loss on ignition 0.6 4.35
Specific gravity 3.12 2.31
(a) (b)
Figure-1. OPC (a) SEM micrograph (10,000x) (b) EDS analysis.
VOL. 13, NO. 4, FEBRUARY 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
1467
(a) (b)
Figure-2. Fly ash (a) SEM micrograph (5,000x) (b) EDS analysis.
3.2 Aggregates River sand sourced locally but conforming to
grading zone III as specified in BIS 383:1970 [13] was
used as fine aggregates. For coarse aggregates, freshly
seasoned coconut shells were crushed with the mechanical
crusher as shown in Figure-3. The crushed edges were
rough and spiky and the surface texture was fairly smooth
on one face and rough on the other (Figure-4).
(a) (b) (c)
Figure-3. (a) Coconut shell crusher (b) Freshly seasoned CS (c) Crushed CS.
Figure-4. CSA (12.5mm max. size with thickness of 2-8mm).
VOL. 13, NO. 4, FEBRUARY 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
1468
Sizes that passed through 12.5 mm sieve but
retained in 4.75 mm were used in saturated surface dry
(SSD) condition throughout the study. Table-2 compares
the physical properties of the aggregates.
Table-2. Properties of aggregates used.
Physical and mechanical
properties
Coconut shell
aggregate (CSA) River sand
Maximum size (mm) 12.50 4.75 (passing)
Water absorption (%) 24.00 -
Specific gravity (SSD) 1.14 2.61
Fineness Modulus 6.54 3.72
Bulk density (kg/m3) 650 1700
Crushing value (%) 2.56 -
Impact value (%) 4.60 -
3.3 Superplasticizer
Type ‘F’ high range water reducing admixture
Conplast SP430 conforming to specifications in BIS:
9103-1999 [14] was used. Conplast SP430 is made of
Sulphonated Napthalene Formaldehyde with specific
gravity of 1.20 -1.22 at 30 °C
4. MIX DESIGN
4.1 Trial mixes
The constituents of the mixtures were
proportioned based on the principle recommended by
EFNARC [15] and modified version of Okamura and
Ozawa model. Because of its low bulk density and sizes
used, CSA content was fixed at 40% of the solid volume,
while fine aggregate content was fixed at 50% of the
mortar volume.
After laboratory determination of SP dosage to be
between 1.5-2.0 % of total powder content by weight, 35
trial mixes were carried out with cement content ranging
between 350kg/m3 and 510kg/m
3, fly ash replacement of
cement was between 5% and 30%, and w/b ratio between
0.3 and 0.4 by weight. The flowchart in Figure-5 served as
a guide throughout the research. Slump flow, T500, L-box,
V-funnel and GTM screen tests were carried out as
recommended by EFNARC to check for self-
compactability and 7 days compressive tests for strength
check on each trial. From the trials, it was discovered that
510kg/m3, 1.75% and 0.33 were the optimum values for
total powder content, SP dosage and w/b ratio
respectively.
VOL. 13, NO. 4, FEBRUARY 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
1469
Figure-5. Design mix flowchart.
4.2 Final mixes
Finally, five sets of SCLWC were prepared using
CSA (40% of the solid volume) as coarse aggregate and
river sand (50% of the mortar volume) as fine aggregate.
Total powder content, SP dosage and w/b ratio were fixed
at 510kg/m3, 1.75% and 0.33 respectively. OPC was
replaced with FA at 0%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%
sequentially for the five sets.
Because of the high water absorption capacity of
coconut shell [3], CSA was initially soaked in clean water
for 24 hours and later allowed to dry under room
temperature to saturated surface dry (SSD) condition
before using for SCLWC. Figure-6 has the SEM images
showing saturated pores of the shell. Using CSA at SSD
state prevents absorption of mixing water by the aggregate
during mixing.
(a) (b)
Figure-6. SEM micrograph of CS at SSD condition (a) 255x (b) 2500x.
For homogeneity and uniformity in mixture, a
vertical-axis tilting mixer under laboratory condition was
used. Coarse and fine aggregates were mixed together for
30 sec at normal mixing speed of 24 rpm, after which
VOL. 13, NO. 4, FEBRUARY 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
1470
about 30 % of the mixing water was added while mixing
was on-going for 1 min. The mixture was then allowed to
rest for 1 min so as to allow adsorption of the water by the
aggregates. Thereafter, cement and fly ash were added and
mixed for another 1 min before about 50 % of the mixing
water were added. The remaining 20 % mixing water was
added to SP and introduced to the wet mixture while
mixing continued for 3 min. 2 min resting was observed
before final 2 min mixing. This sequence follows the
recommendation by Khayat et al [16]. Table-3 is summary
of the mix proportions.
Table-3. Mix proportions (kg/m3).
S. No Mix ID CSA NFA Cement FA (%)
FA w/b Water SP %
1 SCLWC1 260 510 510 0 0 0.33 168.3 1.75
2 SCLWC2 260 510 459 10 51 0.33 168.3 1.75
3 SCLWC3 260 510 433.5 15 76.5 0.33 168.3 1.75
4 SCLWC4 260 510 408 20 102 0.33 168.3 1.75
5 SCLWC5 260 510 382.5 25 127.5 0.33 168.3 1.75
ID- Identification number, CSA- Coconut shell aggregate, NFA- Natural fine aggregate, FA- Fly ash, w/b- Water/binder,
SP- Superplasticiser.
5. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
With the EFNARC committee recommended
procedure as guide [15], the self-compactability properties
of the mixtures were evaluated using slump flow, T500, L-
box, V-funnel and GTM screen tests. Sketches of the test
apparatus is as shown in Figure-7.
Figure-7. SCLWC test apparatus sketches.
The slump flow test describes the flowability of
the fresh mix under gravity and in the absence of any
obstruction. It is the mean of two perpendicular diameters
of concrete flow after lifting the cone. The slump flow is a
primary check that must be carried-out on SCC, and there
are basically three classes of slump flow depending on the
range of applications as summarised in Table-4.
Table-4. Slump flow, viscosity and passing ability
guidelines by EFNARC [15].
Class Slump flow (mm)
Slump flow classes
SF1 550-650
SF2 660-750
SF3 760-850
1000 mm
1000 mm
.
500 mm
. 300 m
m.
200 mm
.
100 mm.
75mm
.
450 m
m.
150 m
m.
515 mm
.
65 mm
.
225 mm
.
600 m
m.
h1
200 mm
.
700 mm
.
400 mm
.
100 mm
.
150 m
m.
h2
Gate
3-12 mmØ smooth bars
L - Box
V- Funnel
Slump flow
VOL. 13, NO. 4, FEBRUARY 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
1471
Class T500 (s) V-funnel time
(s)
Viscosity classes
VS1/VF1 ≤ 2 ≤ 8
VS2/VF2 >2 9-25
Passing ability
classes
PA1 ≥ 0.8 with two
rebar
PA2 ≥ 0.8 with three
rebar
For this study, the mixtures were designed to
have flow values within class 2 (SF2), that is, average
flow diameter between 660 and 750 mm. Meanwhile, the
time taken for the flow to reach the 500 mm circle from
the centre is noted as the T500, Figure-8 shows the test
procedure.
Figure-8. Slump flow test.
Figure-9. V-funnel test.
Times taken for the SCLWC to pass through the
V-funnel and T500 of the slump flow are measured and
used to assess the viscosity of the mix, Figure-9 is the V-
funnel test set-up.
Three bars L-box was used in the assessment of
the passing ability of the SCLWC, this is to ensure that
there will be neither segregation nor blocking when
SCLWC flows through closely spaced reinforcements or
in a confined area. Figure-10 is the test procedure.
Figure-10. L-box test.
Figure-11. Wet sieve segregation test.
Finally, the GTM screen test was carried out to
assess the stability of the SCLWC. Following EFNARC
guidelines [17], about 10 lit of fresh sample of each mix
was used to evaluate the mix resistance to segregation
using the set-up as shown in Figure-11, from where the
segregation ratio (SR) was determined. Accordingly, SR
should not exceed 15 % for the mix to be stable, though
the lower the value of SR, the more stable the mix should
be [18].
VOL. 13, NO. 4, FEBRUARY 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
1472
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
6.1 Slump flow
As indicated in Table 5, SCLWC produced are
within the slump flow range of 625 and 750 mm. Apart
from SCLWC1, other mixes fall within slump flow class
SF2 and according to EFNARC [15], this type of concrete
is suitable for normal elements like walls and columns. It
was also discovered that the flow diameter steadily
increased as the percentage of the fly ash increases, similar
observations has been made by some researchers too [8,
19- 21].
Table-5. Summary of fresh concrete test results.
Mix ID
Slump
flow
(mm)
T500
(sec)
V-
funnel
(sec)
PA SR
(%) Visual inspection
Wet density
(kg/m3)
SCLWC1 625 10.0 15 0.60 6.72 Heavy segregation 2151
SCLWC2 700 4.1 10.0 0.66 5.17 Bleeding & centre lump 2140
SCLWC3 730 4.0 8.1 0.95 3.38 Very stable & good
flow 2075
SCLWC4 750 4.2 8.3 0.88 3.54 Stable & good flow 2072
SCLWC5 755 4.5 8.5 0.80 4.03 Bleeding 2043
6.2 T500 and V-funnel flow times Figure-12 is a comparison between T500 flow and
V-funnel flow times which fell within the ranges of 4.0-
10.0 and 8.1-15.0 respectively. At this range, the viscosity
of the mixes will give sufficient segregation resistance and
at the same time formwork pressure would be moderate
[15, 7]. It is noticeable that the flow time reduces as the
percentage of fly ash increases up to 15 % replacement. It
is well reported in literatures that partial replacement of
cement with fly ash, to some level, improves the
rheological properties of SCC [22 - 25]. Fly ash particles
have spherical geometry and a coarse particle size, these
lead to reduction in adsorption of free water by the surface
area [25]. This ball bearing effect of the spherical particles
of fly ash must be the likely reason for reduction of mixes
flow time. Most of the SCLWC mixes investigated come
under VS2/VF2 class (Table-4) concrete mixture of this
class can be used for walls/piles with SF2 class of slump
flow [15].
Furthermore, Figure-13 shows that there is a
strong correlation between T500 flow and V-funnel flow
times, similar relationship has been reported for SCC with
different mineral additions [7, 25, 26]. Hence, for this
SCLWC, equation 1 is proposed for prediction of V-funnel
flow times.
𝑉𝑓 = . 7𝑇 + .9 (1)
Where 𝑉𝑓 the V-funnel flow time and T is the T500
flow time.
Figure-12. T500 and V-funnel flow times.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
SCLWC1 SCLWC2 SCLWC3 SCLWC4 SCLWC5
Tim
e (s
ec.)
T500 flow time V-funnel flow time
VOL. 13, NO. 4, FEBRUARY 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
1473
Figure-13. Correlation between V-funnel flow time and T500.
6.3 Blocking ratio (PA) and segregation ratio (SR)
L-box test used in evaluating the passing ability
of the mixes in congested rebar indicated PA ranging from
0.60 to 0.95 (Table-5). As per EFNARC, SCLWC1 and
SCLWC2 showed tendency of blockage in closely spaced
reinforcements. Other mixes showed no tendency of
blockage, with SCLWC3 having highest passing ratio of
0.95.
GTM screen stability test method was used to
evaluate the resistance of the mixtures to segregation
during haulage and after placement in formwork. The
result showed good resistance to segregation by all the
mixes with good stability as the percentage of fly ash
replacement increases. However, SCLWC3 mix has better
consistency than other mixes. Good correlation was also
observed between PA and SR as shown in Figure-14.
Figure-14. Correlation between SR and PA.
6.4 Wet density
The density of the fresh SCLWC was carried out
using the BS EN 12350 part 6 (2000b) [27] as a guide.
Three 100 mm cube moulds were prepared and weights
noted in kg. Then, the moulds were filled with fresh
SCLWC without compaction and the top trowelled
smooth. The weights were noted again in kg. The
difference between the two weights divided by the volume
of the mould in m3 gave the density for each. Average of
the three values was taken as the wet density for each mix
as shown in Table-5. The result indicated that as the
percentage of cement replacement with fly ash increases,
the wet density decreases but not at a constant rate. This is
likely due to the fact that the specific gravity of OPC used
(3.12) is higher than that of the fly ash (2.31).
y = 1.1037x + 3.924
R² = 0.9031
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
V-f
un
nel
flo
w t
ime
(sec
)
T500 (sec)
y = -9.0046x + 11.574
R² = 0.9005
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
SR
(%
)
PA
VOL. 13, NO. 4, FEBRUARY 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
1474
Meanwhile, Figure-15 indicates a good correlation
between the flowability of the concrete and its wet density,
a similar observation was made by H. Zhao et al [28].
Figure-15. Correlation between wet density and slump flow diameter.
7. CONCLUSIONS Production of self-compacting lightweight
aggregate concrete using coconut shell and incorporating
fly ash as mineral admixture is not only eco-friendly in
terms of reduction in solid wastes load on the municipal
landfills, but also contributes to CO2 emission reduction as
cement quantity needed reduces. This study may serve
construction engineering society to develop sustainable
development on the production of self-compacting
coconut shell aggregate concrete. For this purpose, this
paper has reported mix design and rheological properties
of SCLWC using coconut shell as coarse aggregate and fly
ash as partial replacement of OPC at the rate of 0 %, 10 %,
15 %, 20 % and 25 %. The following conclusion can
therefore be drawn:
a) Tests on CS and its general performance in the
production of SCLWC mixes justified CSA as an
excellent material that requires no pre-treatment in the
production of flowable concrete.
b) Replacement of cement with fly ash increased the
slump flow and passing ratio values while there is
reduction in the flow rate, SR and wet density. It
generally showed that addition of fly ash has positive
effect on the passing ability, stability and flowability
of the fresh SCLWC.
c) Increasing fly ash content in the SCLWC mixes
generally results to an increase in viscosity which is
described by the T500 and V-funnel flow times.
Moreover, V-funnel times can be well correlated with
T500 data with a good correlation coefficient of 0.90.
d) Wet density of tested SCLWC fell within the range of
structural lightweight concrete as specified in both IS
and BS standards.
e) Results of this research show that fly ash blended
SCLWC using coconut shell as coarse aggregate can
practically be used in normal construction such as
slabs, beams, walls and columns without fear of
excessive bleeding, segregation or honeycomb.
However, mixes with 15% and 20% fly ash
replacement performed rheologically better than
others.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank SRM University
Management for providing technical support,
Nanotechnology research centre, SRM university for their
assistant in SEM analysis and all those who were directly
or indirectly involved in this study. This research did not
receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. However, the
support of Nigeria Tertiary Education Trust Fund
(TETfund) and Yaba College of Technology, Nigeria, in
sponsoring the first author for his Ph.D. program at SRM
University is greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
[1] Shafigh P. et al. 2013. Engineering properties of oil
palm shell lightweight concrete containing fly ash. Materials and Design. 49: 613-621.
[2] Gunasekaran K., Kumar P.S. and Lakshmipathy M. 2011. Study on properties of coconut shell as an aggregate for concrete. ICI journal July- Sept 2011: 27-33.
[3] Gunasekaran K. et al. 2011. Mechanical and bond properties of coconut shell concrete. Construction and Building Materials. 25: 92-98.
y = -0.7839x + 2654.4
R² = 0.7924
2020
2040
2060
2080
2100
2120
2140
2160
2180
600 650 700 750 800
Wet
den
sity
(k
gm
3)
Slump flow diameter (mm)
VOL. 13, NO. 4, FEBRUARY 2018 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences ©2006-2018 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
1475
[4] Gunasekaran K. et al. 2012. Long term study on compressive and bond strength of coconut shell aggregate concrete. Construction and Building Materials. 28: 208-215.
[5] Gunasekaran K. et al. 2013. A study on some durability properties of coconut shell aggregate concrete. Materials and Structures; 48: 1253-1264.
[6] Wu Z. et al. 2009. An experimental study on the workability of self-compacting lightweight concrete. Construction and Building Materials; 23:2087-2092.
[7] Ranjbar M.M. et al. 2013. Effect of natural zeolite on the fresh and hardened properties of self-compacted concrete. Construction and Building Materials; 47: 806-813.
[8] Wu Q. and An X. 2014. Development of a mix design method for SCC based on the rheological characteristics of paste. Construction and Build Materials. 53: 642-651.
[9] Newman J. and Choo B. S. (eds). 2003. Advanced concrete technology- Process. Oxford, GB. Elsevier.
[10] Shi C. et al. 2015. A review on mixture design methods for self-compacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials; 84: 387-398.
[11] Kosmatka S.H., Kerkhoff B. and Panarese W.C. 2003. Design and control of concrete mixtures. 14
th ed.
Illinois, USA. Portland Cement Association.
[12] IS: 12269. 1987. Specification for 53 grade ordinary Portland cement, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[13] IS: 383. 1970. Specification for coarse and fine aggregate from natural sources for concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[14] IS: 9103. 1999. Indian Standard Code of Practice- Concrete Admixtures Specification. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[15] The European guidelines for self-compacting concrete: Specification, production and use. 2005. EFNARC, UK.
[16] Khayat K. H., Bickley J., and Lessard M. 2000. Performance of self-consolidating concrete for casting basement and foundation walls. ACI Materials Journal. 97, 374-80.
[17] European Project Group. Specification and guidelines for self-compacting concrete. 2002. EFNARC, UK.
[18] Güneyisi E. et al. 2015. Fresh and rheological behavior of nano-silica and fly ash blended self-compacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials. 95: 29-44.
[19] Yang S. et al. 2015. Properties of self-compacting lightweight concrete containing recycled plastic particles. Construction and Building Materials; 84: 444-453.
[20] Güneyisi E., Gesogha M. and Booya E. 2012. Fresh properties of self-compacting cold bonded fly ash lightweight aggregate concrete with different mineral admixtures. Materials and Structures. 45: 1849-1859.
[21] Maghsoudi A.A., Mohamadpour S. and Maghsoudi M. 2011. Mix design and mechanical properties of self-compacting lightweight concrete. International Journal of Civil Engineering. 9(3): 230-236.
[22] Persson B. A. 2001. Comparison between mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete and the corresponding properties of normal concrete. Cement and Concrete Research. 31: 193-198.
[23] Brouwers H.J.H. and Radix H.J. 2005. Self-compacting concrete: Theoretical and experimental study. Cement and Concrete Research. 35: 2116-2136.
[24] Domone P. L. 2006. Self-compacting concrete: An analysis of 11 years of case studies. Cement & Concrete Composites; 28:197-208.
[25] Şahmaran M. et al. 2006. The effect of chemical admixtures and mineral additives on the properties of self-compacting mortars. Cement & Concrete Composites. 28: 432-440.
[26] Felekoğlu B. et al. 2007. Effect of water/cement ratio on the fresh and hardened properties of self-compacting concrete. Building and Environment; 42: 1795-1802.
[27] BS EN 12350 part 6. 2000. Testing fresh concrete density. British Standards Institution.UK.
[28] Zhao H. et al. 2015. The properties of the self-compacting concrete with fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag mineral admixtures. J. of cleaner Production. 95: 66-74.