See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357166853

DRYING SHRINKAGE OF CONCRETE WITH BLENDED CEMENTITIOUS

BINDERS: EXPERIMENTAL STUDY AND APPLICATION OF MODELS

Article in Indian Concrete Journal · October 2021

CITATIONS READS

3 373

3 authors:

T. Sakthivel Ravindra Gettu

PSG Institute of Technology and Applied Research Indian Institute of Technology Madras
8 PUBLICATIONS 276 CITATIONS 261 PUBLICATIONS 4,781 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Radhakrishna Pillai
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
164 PUBLICATIONS 1,444 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fresh properties of Limestone calcined clay cement View project

Online NPTEL Course on Advanced Topics in the Science and Technology of Concrete View project

All content following this page was uploaded by T. Sakthivel on 19 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TECHNICAL PAPER
DRYING SHRINKAGE OF
CONCRETE WITH BLENDED
CEMENTITIOUS BINDERS:
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY AND
APPLICATION OF MODELS
Abstract
Use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) has
substantially increased in the construction industry in recent
years. Long-term data on the effect of different SCMs on
shrinkage and creep are scarce. Also, the appropriate prediction
of shrinkage is important to ensure that the design can address
the structural requirements when blended concrete systems
are used. Towards this, an elaborate experimental programme
and application of shrinkage prediction models have been
performed on typical blended concretes used in India. The
study involved concrete mixes with water to binder ratios (w/b)
varying from 0.50 to 0.65, and binary and ternary blended binder
contents varying from 280 kg/m3 to 340 kg/m3, having slag and
fly ash as partial replacement of cement. The results show that
the addition of fly ash and slag does not influence the drying
shrinkage strain evolution significantly in comparison with the
conventional concrete with same w/b and binder content. Also,
it is seen that there could be considerable differences between
the shrinkage strains determined experimentally and those
predicted by models considered in this study.
Key words: Shrinkage, SCM, Fly ash, Slag, Prediction Models.
1. INTRODUCTION
Shrinkage strains in concrete, particularly drying shrinkage, are
of concern of structural engineers since they directly increase
the risk of cracking in reinforced concrete, leading to durability
and serviceability issues. It is considered that the shrinkage
strains of a normal strength concrete (say, with characteristic
cube compressive strengths between 20 and 40 MPa) are
predominantly caused by drying, with minimal autogenous
shrinkage [1,2]. Drying shrinkage is caused by the reduction in
volume due to the loss of capillary water through diffusion,
though the volume changes due to drying are less than the
volume of water removed [3], as the loss of free water from the
larger pores does not affect the contraction. In recent decades,
34 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021
T. SAKTHIVEL*,
RAVINDRA GETTU,
RADHAKRISHNA G. PILLAI
supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) have been
incorporated in structural concrete to enhance the performance,
and to reduce cost and environmental impact. SCMs, with
different physical properties and chemical compositions, could
influence the shrinkage response, the apprehension of which
has made structural engineers hesitate specifying SCMs in
applications that require limited long-term deformations.
Previous studies reported that the effect of SCMs on shrinkage
response of concrete is highly variable and cannot be
generalized. It has been reported by some that the addition
of SCMs increases drying shrinkage [4-6], while others observed
a significant decrease of shrinkage in SCM blended concrete
[7,8]
. On the other hand, the incorporation of slag was shown to
produce only a marginal effect on the shrinkage of concrete, for
similar mix proportions [9-12]. Many studies [11,13-19] have concluded
that the incorporation of fly ash as a replacement of OPC in
concrete reduces its shrinkage, with the beneficial effect being
more pronounced at replacement levels [11, 20-25]. It has also been
shown [26] that the concretes with Class C fly ash undergo more
shrinkage than those with Class F fly ash and only OPC due
to the higher Ca/Si ratio and lower alkali content. However,
in ternary blended systems with Class F or Class C fly ash in
combination with silica fume or slag, the drying shrinkage of
concrete is found to be further reduced [27].
Over the past years many models have been developed
for predicting shrinkage and creep response in concrete
structures, such as those of the American Concrete Institute
(ACI), RILEM – International Union of Laboratories and Experts
in Construction Materials, Systems and Structures, and the
International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib). The most
widely accepted models for the prediction of shrinkage strains
are those of ACI 209R-92, 2008 [28]; B4 and B4s, 2015 [29]; fib
Model Code, 2010 [30] and IS 1343, 2012 [31]. Models that consider
compressive strength of concrete as the primary factor affecting
the shrinkage are referred to here as strength-based prediction
*Corresponding author : T. Sakthivel, Email: thanga.sakthivel@gmail.com
 TECHNICAL PAPER

models, with the IS 1343, fib MC 2010 and B4s models falling
under this category. The ACI 209 and B4 shrinkage prediction
models are considered as composition-based models since the
input parameters and the formulations include fresh concrete
properties, such as slump and air content, and the composition
of concrete, including cement content, aggregate type and
water-binder ratio. Among the different models, the B4, B4s
and fib MC 2010 models consider autogenous shrinkage strain
separately. Further, the B4 models explicitly account for the
type and dosage of mineral and chemical admixtures in the
predictions. A detailed step-by-step procedure to calculate the
shrinkage response of concrete with these models has been
provided in the Annex.
2. RESEARCH NEED
Estimates of shrinkage strain of typical normal strength
concretes, especially with SCMs are limited, which makes
it difficult to implement the parameters of these materials
in rational structural design. Hence, there is a need for a
comprehensive assessment of long-term shrinkage performance
so that appropriate comparisons can be made with conventional
concrete, and the model predictions can be done confidently
at the design stage. Consequently, an elaborate laboratory
experimental programme was performed on concrete mixes
with water to binder ratios (w/b) varying from 0.50 to 0.65, and
binary and ternary blended binder contents varying from 280 kg/
m3 to 340 kg/m3, having slag and fly ash as partial replacement
of cement.
compositions of the materials used. Crushed granite size
fractions of 5-10 mm and 10-20 mm were used in the proportions
of 40:60, along with locally-available river sand with maximum
grain size of 5 mm; the proportions of coarse to fine aggregate
was 60:40.
3.2. Concrete mixtures
Concretes were prepared with CmP and CmA cements for
water-binder ratios and binder contents of 0.65 and 280 kg/
m3, 0.55 and 340 kg/m3, 0.50 and 310 kg/m3, 0.60 and 310 kg/
m3, and blended with slag and fly ashes at replacement levels
of 15%, 30%, 50% for producing binary blends and with 20%
slag + 20% fly ash for the ternary blended concrete systems.
The nomenclature used for the concrete mixtures is shown in
Figure 1. The first three letters indicate the cement type (e.g.,
‘CmP’), the next two numbers and three letters represent
the level of binder replacement by the SCM (in %) and its
type, in binary blends. For ternary blends, the level of binder
replacement with the second SCM and its type follows. For
example, a ternary blend with 20% Slag B and 20% Class F fly
ash will be denoted as ‘-20SgB-20FaF-’. If there only OPC in the
mix, then, it is denoted as ‘NoSCM’. The two numbers following
this indicate the w/b (e.g., ‘-0.55-’). The last three digits indicate
the total binder content. For example, CmP-15SgA-0.50-310
indicates a mix with cement CmP and 15% replacement
with Slag A (SgA) for w/b of 0.50 and total binder content of
310 kg/m3. The different mixtures tested are listed in Table 2.

3. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
Name of cement Water-binder
(= P) ratio

3.1 Materials
CmP – 15SgA – 0.50 – 310
Concretes in this study contained two ordinary portland
cements (denoted as CmP and CmA) of 53 Grade as per
Indian Standards, ground granulated blast furnace slag from % (=15), type of SCM (=Slag), Total binder
name of SCM (=A) content (kg/m3)
two different sources (SgA and SgB), and Class F and Class C
fly ashes; Table 1 provides the physical parameters and oxide Figure 1: Nomenclature Used for the Concrete Mixtures

Table 1: Oxide composition and physical properties of the materials used

SPECIFIC SURFACE AREA
BINDER Al2O3 CaO Fe2O3 K2O MgO Na2O SiO2 SO3
GRAVITY (m2/kg)

CmP 4.07 56.61 5.37 0.27 0.82 0.23 20.42 - 3.18 320

CmA 4.73 65.11 3.86 0.54 1.20 0.50 19.44 - 3.15 340

SgA 17.38 35.61 1.04 0.58 8.03 0.36 33.82 - 2.86 360

SgB 21.06 31.45 1.87 0.88 8.57 0.36 32.38 - 2.89 430

FaF 29.95 1.28 4.32 1.44 0.61 0.16 59.32 0.16 2.49 330

FaC 31.45 13.76 6.17 0.12 2.28 0.59 39.89 3.19 2.46 390

THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021 35

 TECHNICAL PAPER

Table 2: Compressive strength and shrinkage strains after 2.5 years

SL. COMPRESSIVE TOTAL SHRINKAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND
NO. STRENGTH AT 28 DAY STRAIN AT 2.5 YEARS PREDICTED STRAINS AFTER 2.5 YEARS OF DRYING
CONCRETE MIXTURE (MPa) (MICROSTRAIN) (IN MICROSTRAIN)
STD. STD. fib
MEAN MEAN B4s IS 1343 ACI 209 B4
DEV. DEV. MC2010
1 CmP-NoSCM-0.65-280 30.2 0.7 440 30 41 64 -31 -64 -60
2 CmP-30SgA-0.65-280 31.1 0.8 400 40 87 106 18 14 10
3 CmP-30SgB-0.65-280 33.3 1.5 380 40 101 116 30 -3 20
4 CmP-30FaF-0.65-280 22.3 1.3 400 50 108 175 25 -25 -10
5 CmP-NoSCM-0.55-340 44.4 2.2 380 40 64 50 7 27 10
6 CmP-15SgA-0.55-340 40.7 1.2 420 20 41 37 -25 -2 -10
7 CmP-15SgB-0.55-340 48.1 1.0 370 30 74 55 19 38 50
8 CmP-15FaF-0.55-340 39.8 1.4 450 30 0 -6 -60 -51 -40
9 CmP-15FaC-0.55-340 43.7 0.7 450 20 -6 -19 -62 -48 -30
10 CmP-NoSCM-0.50-310 45.7 0.5 440 10 -3 -17 -59 -44 -110
11 CmP-15SgA-0.50-310 52.5 0.7 420 60 -1 -24 -49 -20 -80
12 CmP-15SgB-0.50-310 52.6 1.1 380 40 43 21 -8 44 -40
13 CmP-15FaF-0.50-310 35.6 0.7 400 40 38 81 -28 -35 -60
14 CmP-15FaC-0.50-310 42.0 1.5 430 20 57 13 -6 -3 -100
15 CmP-30SgB-0.50-310 52.2 0.9 440 30 -26 -47 -81 -72 -110
16 CmP-30FaF-0.50-310 37.0 0.9 440 10 27 27 -35 -40 -100
17 CmP-30FaC-0.50-310 47.1 0.9 460 10 -20 -37 -73 -74 -120
18 CmP-50SgB-0.50-310 42.1 1.7 350 20 94 83 37 42 -10
19 CmP-50FaF-0.50-310 21.2 1.0 380 50 158 241 70 23 -30
20 CmP-20SgB-20FaF-0.50-310 32.7 1.3 340 30 133 150 61 41 -10
21 CmP-20SgB-20FaC-0.50-310 39.6 0.7 350 10 93 88 33 23 -20
22 CmP-20FaF-20FaC-0.50-310 43.7 1.7 360 50 89 79 28 37 -20
23 CmP-NoSCM-0.60-310 32.4 1.2 440 30 61 77 -9 -43 -30
24 CmP-15SgA-0.60-310 43.8 0.8 470 30 -14 -28 -67 -56 -40
25 CmP-15SgB-0.60-310 32.5 0.5 430 70 0 18 -72 -76 -70
26 CmP-15FaF-0.60-310 31.3 0.8 380 40 137 156 68 55 50
27 CmP-15FaC-0.60-310 34.7 1.1 400 70 40 46 -25 -48 -30
28 CmA-NoSCM-0.55-340 43.7 0.6 360 20 72 59 14 30 20
29 CmA-15SgA-0.55-340 39.5 1.5 310 40 129 132 75 102 80
30 CmA-15SgB-0.55-340 44.6 1.4 350 30 73 59 17 36 30
31 CmA-15FaF-0.55-340 40.2 2.3 330 50 115 109 55 56 60
32 CmA-15FaC-0.55-340 42.5 2.0 350 50 96 86 38 48 50
33 CmA-NoSCM-0.50-310 43.2 1.3 370 30 62 51 5 4 -60
34 CmA-15SgA-0.50-310 43.8 0.4 380 20 61 49 4 4 -50
35 CmA-15SgB-0.50-310 48.1 1.8 340 30 74 57 21 49 -20
36 CmA-15FaF-0.50-310 46.6 2.7 370 20 46 38 -1 10 -50
37 CmA-15FaC-0.50-310 44.0 1.2 340 20 72 66 22 26 -20
38 CmA-NoSCM-0.60-310 31.4 1.2 350 30 110 136 45 36 30
39 CmA-15SgA-0.60-310 32.8 2.4 350 20 161 144 60 52 50
40 CmA-15SgB-0.60-310 39.4 1.2 350 80 115 111 54 38 60
41 CmA-15FaF-0.60-310 35.9 1.2 370 20 84 98 28 14 30
42 CmA-15FaC-0.60-310 27.0 1.6 340 10 154 198 75 26 50

36 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021

 TECHNICAL PAPER

3.3 Specimen preparation and testing

methodology
As recommended by RILEM TC 107-1998 [32], cylinders of
150 mm diameter and 300 mm height were used to evaluate
the shrinkage response. Three specimens for each concrete
were used to measure the total and autogenous shrinkage
strains. After 28 days of curing (i.e., t0 = 28 days) in a mist room,
the specimens were transferred to a controlled environment
with temperature of 25ºC and 65% RH. A digital demountable
mechanical (DEMEC) strain gauge, with 150 mm gauge length,
with a dial gauge having a least count of 0.001 mm, as shown
in Figure 2, was used for the measurements. Reference discs of
9 mm diameter were fixed using a two-component epoxy-based
adhesive, along two diametrically opposite lines, with the help of
an invar setting-out bar, to yield a gauge length of 150 mm. The
autogenous shrinkage specimens were sealed with aluminium
tape, of 0.06 mm thickness, having high performance acrylic
adhesive. In the specimens used for determining total shrinkage,
only the top and bottom faces were sealed to ensure radial
drying conditions. The preparation of specimens was completed
within two hours, immediately after which the measurement for
shrinkage commenced. Two sets of measurements were taken
on each side of the specimen (i.e., AB and BA), and the average
values were used to calculate the shrinkage strain with reference
to the original distance. The average considering both sides was
used for the calculations.
Figure 3: Prepared concrete specimens for measuring shrinkage strain
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS those of the conventional (unblended) concretes. Table 2 also
The compressive strength of the concrete has been obtained in provides the final shrinkage strains along with the standard
accordance with IS 516: 2000, [33] at the ages of 2, 7, 28, 90 and deviations. The total shrinkage strain of concretes after about
365 days, to assess the strength development [34]. As expected, 2.5 years with CmP and CmA cements was in the range of 350
prolonged curing of binary blended concrete resulted in to 500 microstrains and 300 to 380 microstrains, respectively.
substantial increase in the compressive strength beyond 28 days, It could be seen that within the groups of concrete having the
as seen in Table 2. The mean 28-day strengths ranged from 20 to same w/b and binder content, there was not much difference
50 MPa, with lower strengths for higher fly ash contents, though in shrinkage values, as far the ranges of incorporation levels
the slag blended concretes had strength values comparable to considered here for fly ash and slag. This follows the suggestion
[35]
that water-binder ratio does not have a strong effect on
drying shrinkage since factors such as total porosity and pore-
size distribution may have competing influence that can offset
the trend. The important observation from the present study is
that, in general, the incorporation of SCMs does not significantly
change the shrinkage response of concrete.

In order to evaluate the application of the existing prediction

Figure 2: Demountable Mechanical (DEMEC) strain gauge
models, a comparison was made with the shrinkage strains
from the models and the 2.5-year laboratory data; Figure 4
through Figure 8 show the comparison for the concrete mixture
with w/b:0.55 and total binder content 340 kg/m3. Sample
calculations for CmA-NoSCM-0.55-340 concrete with the
different prediction models can be found elsewhere [36]. From
the present study, it is found that the fib Model Code 2010

THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021 37

 TECHNICAL PAPER

Figure 4: Comparison of experimental results and fib MC 2010 prediction: in (a) normal and (b) log scales

38 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021

 TECHNICAL PAPER

Figure 5: Comparison of experimental results and IS 1343 prediction: in (a) normal and (b) log scales

THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021 39

 TECHNICAL PAPER

Figure 6: Comparison of experimental results and B4s prediction: in (a) normal and (b) log scales

40 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021

 TECHNICAL PAPER

Figure 7: Comparison of experimental results and ACI 209 prediction: in (a) normal and (b) log scales

THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021 41

 TECHNICAL PAPER

Figure 8: Comparison of experimental results and RILEM B4 prediction: in (a) normal and (b) log scales

42 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021


overpredicts the shrinkage strain significantly, with the half-time
shrinkage strain at about 800 days in the model prediction,
which is much higher than the experimental values of around
200 days. On the other hand, the B4s model only slightly
overestimates the strains at later ages of drying (say, beyond
200 days), and the B4 model predictions are slightly over-
conservative. In the case of ACI 209, the shrinkage predictions
are comparable with the upper bounds of the measured strain
values.
CONCLUSIONS
An extensive study, consisting of drying shrinkage tests on 42
concretes with ordinary portland cement, fly ash and slag, has
been performed over 2.5 years. It is seen, for the materials and
ranges considered here, that there is no significant difference in
the shrinkage strains within groups of concretes that have same
water-binder ratios and binder contents. Also, the source of
slag and class of fly ash did not change the shrinkage evolution
significantly. The fib Model Code 2010 over-estimates the
strain by about 50% at the end of 1000 days. In the case of the
B4s prediction model, the error is in the range of -10 to 240
microstrain at the end of 1000 days of exposure. The error in the
prediction of total shrinkage by IS 1343 model at the age of 90
and 1000 days of drying was 130 and 75 microstrain, respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study was conducted in the IITM-Lafarge Laboratory for
Durability and Long-term Performance of Concrete, in the Dept.
of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras. The authors are thankful to W
R Grace (India), Ambuja Cements and Jindal Steel Works for
providing some of the materials used in the research.
REFERENCES
[1] Tia, M., Liu, Y., and Brown, D. (2005). Modulus of
elasticity, creep and shrinkage of concrete. U.F. Project
No. 49104504973-12, Department of Civil and Coastal
Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida, USA.
[2] Holt, E. (2005) Contribution of mixture design to chemical
and autogenous shrinkage of concrete at early ages.
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 35, pp. 464-472.
[3] Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. M. (2006). Concrete
Structure, Properties, and Materials, 2nd Edition. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[4] Al-Sugair, F. H. (1995). Analysis of time dependent volume
reduction of concrete containing silica fume. Magazine of
Concrete Research, Vol. 47, pp. 77-81.
[5] Bloom, R. and Bentur, A. (1995). Free and restrained
shrinkage of normal and high strength concretes, ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 92, pp. 211-217.
TECHNICAL PAPER
[6] Wiegrink, K., Marikunte, S., and Shah, S. P. (1996).
Shrinkage cracking of high strength concrete. ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 93, pp. 409-415.
[7] Alsayed, S. H. (1998). Influence of superplasticizers,
plasticizers, and silica fume on the drying shrinkage of high
strength concrete subjected to hot dry field conditions,
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 28, pp.1405-1415.
[8] Jianyong, L., and Yan, Y. (2001). A Study on creep and
drying shrinkage of high-performance concrete. Cement
and Concrete Research, Vol. 31, pp. 1203-1206
[9] Whiting, D.A., Detwiler, R.J., and Lagergren, E. S. (2000).
Cracking tendency and drying shrinkage of silica fume
concrete for bridge deck applications. ACI Materials
Journal, vol. 97, pp. 96- 100.
[10] Lee, K. M., Lee, H. K., Lee, S. H., and Kim, G. Y. (2006).
Autogenous shrinkage of concrete containing granulated
blast-furnace slag, Cement and Concrete Research,
Vol. 36, pp. 1279-1285
[11] Gesoǧlu, M., Güneyisi, E., and Özbay, E. (2009). Properties
of self-compacting concretes made with binary, ternary,
and quaternary cementitious blends of fly ash, blast
furnace slag, and silica fume, Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 23, pp. 1847-1854.
[12] Tazawa, E., Yonekura, A., and Tanaka, S. (1989). Drying
shrinkage and creep of concrete containing granulated
blast furnace slag, Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural
Pozzolans in Concrete, American Concrete Institute,
Trondheim, Norway, Vol. 114, pp. 1325-1343.
[13] Yuan, J., Lindquist, W., Darwin, D., and Browning, J. (2015)
Effect of Slag Cement on Drying Shrinkage of Concrete,
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 112, pp 267-276
[14] Symons, M. G., and Fleming, K. H. (1980). Effect of post
Augusta fly ash on concrete shrinkage. Civil Engineering
Transactions, Vol. 22, pp. 181-185.
[15] Ghosh, R. S., and Timusk, J. (1981). Creep of Fly Ash
Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 78, pp 78-30.
[16] Cripwell, J. B., Brooks, J. J., and Wainwright, P. J. (1984).
Time dependent properties of concrete containing
pulverized fuel ash and a superplasticiser. Proc., 2nd Int.
Conf. on Ash Technology and Marketing, Central Electricity
Generating Board, London, pp. 115-120.
[17] Dunstan, E., (1984). Fly ash and fly ash concrete.
Engineering and Research Center Report No. REC-
ERC-82-1, Bureau of Reclamation U. S. Department of the
Interior, USA.
THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021 43
 TECHNICAL PAPER
[18] Nelson, P., Srivivatnanon, V., and Khatri, R. (1992).
Development of high-volume fly ash concrete for
pavements. Proc., 16th ARRB Conference. Vol.2, pp. 37-47.
[19] Borsoi, A., Collepardi, M., Collepardi, S., and Troli R.
(2009). Influence of fly ashes on the drying shrinkage of
superplasticized concretes in the presence of SRA, Special
Publication-262-21, American Concrete Institute, USA,
Vol. 262, pp. 297-296.
[20] Atis, C. D. (2003). High-volume fly ash concrete with high
strength and low drying shrinkage. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, Vol.15, pp.153-156.
[21] Atis, C. D., Kilic, A., and Sevim U. K. (2004). Strength and
shrinkage properties of mortar containing a nonstandard
high calcium fly ash. Cement and Concrete Research,
Vol. 34, pp.99-102.
[22] Rivest, M., Bouzoubaa, N., and Malhotra, V. (2004).
Strength development and temperature rise in high-
volume fly ash and slag concretes in large experimental
monoliths. Eighth CANMET/ACI International Conference
on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural Pozzolans in
Concrete, pp. 859-878.
[23] Yang, E. H., Yang, Y. Z., and Li, V. C. (2007). Use of high
volume of fly ash to improve ECC mechanical properties
and material greenness. ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 104,
pp. 303-311
[24] Khatib, J., M. (2008). Performance of self-compacting
concrete containing fly ash. Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 22, pp. 1963-1971
[25] Davis, D. A. (2012). Effects of high-volume fly ash and
powder activators on plastic and hardened concrete
properties. MS Thesis. Missouri: Missouri Institution of
Science and Technology (Online).
Available at: http://www.scholarsmine.mst.edu
[26] Deshpande, S., Darwin, D., and Browning, J. (2007),
“Evaluating Free Shrinkage of Concrete for Control of
Cracking in Bridge Decks,” SM Report No. 89, University of
Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS, pp. 290.
44 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021
[27] Guneyisi, E., Gesoǧlu, M., Ozbay, E. (2010). Strength and
drying shrinkage properties of self- compacting concretes
incorporating multi-system blended mineral admixtures.
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 23,
pp. 1878-1887.
[28] ________American Concrete Institute Building Code
Requirements for Modelling and Calculating Shrinkage
and Creep in Hardened Concrete, ACI 209.2R: 2008,
American Concrete Institute, USA.
[29] Bažant, Z. P., Hubler, M. H., and Wendner, R. (2015) Model
B4 for Concrete Creep and Shrinkage including Multi-
Decade Applicability, Materials and Structures, Vol. 48,
pp. 753-770.
[30] ________fib Mode Code for Concrete Structures 2010,
(2013). Earnest and Soln, Germany.
[31] ________Indian standard code for prestressed concrete-
code of practice, (second edition), IS 1343:2012, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[32] ________RILEM TC 107-CSP: (1998). Creep and Shrinkage
Prediction Models: Principles of their Formation, Materials
and Structures, pp. 507-512.
[33] ________Indian standard methods of tests for strength of
concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 516 (2004) New
Delhi, India.
[34] T. Sakthivel, Gettu, R. and Pillai, R.G. (2019) “Compressive
Strength and Elastic Modulus of Concretes with Fly Ash
and Slag” Journal of Institution of Engineers (India): Series
A. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-019-00376-w
[35] Bissonnette, B., Pierre, P., and Pigeon, M. (1999). Influence
of key parameters on drying shrinkage of cementitious
materials. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 29,
pp.1655-1662.
[36] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ij-
eyh0k7XDPARjeic6PBa8z1HnASqLj/edit#gid=1602688727
 TECHNICAL PAPER

ANNEX
Table A.1: Input parameters considered for the calculations of shrinkage prediction models
SL. NO INPUT PARAMETERS UNITS ACI 209 B4 B4s fib MC 2010 IS 1343

1 Cement content (c) kg/m3

2 Water to cement ratio -

3 Aggregate to cement ratio (a/c) -

4 Cement type -

5 Density of concrete kg/m3

6 Fine aggregate content (ψ) kg/m3

7 Slump (s) mm

8 Air content (a) %

9 Relative humidity (h, RH,) decimal

10 Temperature (T) °C

11 Volume-surface area (v/s) mm

12 Cross sectional area to perimeter (Ac/u) mm

13 Age of concrete (t) days

14 Curing time (tc or t0 or ts, ) days

15 Mean cube compressive strength (fck) MPa

16 Mean cylinder compressive strength (fcm or f̄c,) MPa

17 Specimen geometry mm

Considered for the calculation of shrinkage prediction

Not considered for the calculation of shrinkage prediction

Table A.1: provides the input parameters considered for the calculation of shrinkage prediction models
that are evaluated in this study. The standard values for the calculation are mentioned below. The constant
parameters for the calculation are listed below along with the values for all types of concrete.
1. Relative humidity 65%

2. Temperature 25°C

3. V/S 37.5 mm

4. h0 75 mm

5. Curing period 28 days

6. Age of exposure 28 days

7. Cement type Type I cement (OPC 53 grade cement)

THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021 45

 TECHNICAL PAPER

1.1 STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE FOR (A-1.2.2)

SHRINKAGE PREDICTION USING ACI 209
MODEL Uh/R and Us/R was taken as 4000 K

Step 1: Correction factors Step 2: Estimate of the ultimate drying

The following correction factors was applied for the ultimate shrinkage
shrinkage strain
Ultimate drying shrinkage strain is given by:
(i) Correction factor for curing (sh tc)
γsh tc = 1.202 – 0.2337 log (tc)
(A-1.2.3)
(ii) Correction factor for ambient relative humidity (γsh Rh)
γsh Rh = 1.4 - 1.02h
Parameter ϵcem and the exponential components pϵa, pϵw, and pϵc
(iii) Correction factor for volume to surface ratio (γsh vs) are cement type dependent quantities as shown in Table A.2.
γsh vs = 1.2e[-0.00472 (v/s)]

(iv) Correction for slump (γsh s) Step 3: Shrinkage halftime

γsh s = 0.89 + 0.00161s Drying shrinkage halftime which characterizes the rate of the
(v) Correction for fine aggregate (γsh ψ) shrinkage and it is depends on the effective thickness of the
γsh = 0.30 + 0.014ψ member.

(vi) Correction for cement content (γsh c) (A-1.2.4)

γsh c = 0.75 + 0.00061c
where τ0 is a time factor obtained as
(vii) Correction for air content (γsh α)
γsh α= 0.95+0.008α

γsh = γsh tc × γsh RH × γsh vs v γsh s × γsh ψ × γsh c × γsh α (A-1.1.1) (A-1.2.5)

Step 2: Ultimate shrinkage strain (eshu)
shu = 780 × γsh 10-6
Step 3: Shrinkage strain at any age (t)
Where, f = 26e (0.0142 × V/S) and α = 1
1.2. STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE FOR
SHRINKAGE PREDICTION USING B4 MODEL
Step 1: Equivalent time
The equivalent time was introduced to capture the effects of
temperature on shrinkage and aging rates (t0̃ and t)
The parameter τcem, and the exponents pτa, pτw, pτc are empirical
constants depending upon the type of cement used in concrete,
(A-1.1.2) which are reproduced in Table A.2. kta is a dimensionless factor
which depends on the aggregate type according to Table A.3.
The value of kta has been taken as 1 or 4 (as suitable for granite
aggregates). If no data is available, it is recommended that the
(A-1.1.3)
value can be taken as 1. The shape related parameter D = 2V/S,
which is taken as 37.5 for a 150 mm diameter cylinder of 300 mm
height considering the top and bottom surface to not take part
in the drying (πr2h/2πrh). The value of ks, which is also a shape
related factor, is taken as 1.15 for the case of infinite cylinder.
Step 4: Shrinkage correction: (for the effect of
aging on elastic stiffness)
(A-1.2.6)

t0̃ = t0 βTh where kϵa is a dimensionless factor, which depends on the

t̃ = (t – t0) βTs aggregate type according to Table A.3. The value of kta has been
taken as 1 or 1.05 (as suitable for granite aggregates). If no data
The βTh and βTs coefficients are obtained using the following is available, it is recommended that the value can be taken as 1.
expressions
Step 5: Elastic modulus growth
(A-1.2.1) The evolution of elastic modulus with age is captured and
numerically estimated using the two E(t) terms as given below.

46 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021

 TECHNICAL PAPER

Step 12: Total Shrinkage

(A-1.2.7)
(A-1.2.15)
Using this relation, the elastic modulus is estimated for the two
ages specified in the Equation A-1.2.8 and Equation A-1.2.9 The effects of admixture and their interactions are taken care
of by admixture-dependent scaling factors. Based on the
replacement levels of slag and fly ash, and the superplasticizers
dosage on the concretes considered, the multiplying parameters
(A-1.2.8) was taken from the Table A.5

Table A.2: Shrinkage parameters depending on

cement type for B4
RAPID SLOW
(A-1.2.9) NORMAL
PARAMETER HARDENING HARDENING
CEMENT (R)
CEMENT (RS) CEMENT (SL)
The values for the ratio between the moduli at these two ages is
τcem (days) 0.016 0.08 0.01
always near to 1.
pτa -0.33 -0.33 -0.33
Step 6: Time curve pτw -0.06 -2.40 3.55
pτc -0.10 -2.70 3.80
ϵcem 360×10-6 860×10-6 410×10-6
(A-1.2.10)
pϵa -0.80 -0.80 -0.80
This function governs the shape of the shrinkage curve since the
term, which has the variable t, is only appearing here. pϵw 1.10 -0.27 1.00
pϵc 0.11 0.11 0.11
Step 7: Humidity dependence
Table A.3: Aggregate dependent parameter scaling
(A-1.2.11)
factors for shrinkage for B4
Aggregate Type kτa kϵa
Step 8: Mean drying shrinkage strain in the
cross section Diabase 0.06 0.76

Quartzite 0.59 0.71

(A-1.2.12)
Limestone 1.80 0.95

Sandstone 2.30 1.60

Step 9: Autogenous shrinkage half time
Granite 4.00 1.05

(A-1.2.13) Quartz Diorite 15.00 2.20

Step 10: Final autogenous shrinkage Table A.4: Autogenous shrinkage parameters
depending on cement type for B4
(A-1.2.14) RAPID SLOW
NORMAL
PARAMETER HARDENING HARDENING
CEMENT (R)
CEMENT (RS) CEMENT (SL)
Refer Table A.4 for τau,cem, ϵau,cem, and the exponential components
rϵa, rϵw, rτw. τau,cem (days) 1.00 41.00 1.00
rτw 3.00 3.00 3.00
Step 11: Mean autogenous shrinkage
rt -4.50 -4.50 -4.50

(A-1.2.15) rα 1.00 1.40 1.00

ϵau,cem 210×10-6 -84×10-6 0
rϵa -0.75 -0.75 -0.75
The parameter rα and the exponential components rt are related rϵw -3.50 -3.50 -3.50
to the cement type and the same is taken from the Table A.4.

THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021 47

 τau,cem and rτf .
TECHNICAL PAPER

Table A.5: Admixture dependent parameter scaling Step 3: Autogenous shrinkage half time
factors for shrinkage for B4
×τcem ×ϵau,cem ×rϵw ×rα
(A-1.3.3)
ADMIXTURE CLASS (% OF c)

Re(≤0.5), Fly(≤15) 6.00 0.58 0.50 2.60 Refer Table A.7 Autogenous shrinkage parameters for B4s
Re(>0.5, ≤0.6), Fly(≤15) 2.00 0.43 0.59 3.10 model for the values of τau,cem and rτf .

Re(>0.5, ≤0.6), Fly(>15, ≤30) 2.10 0.72 0.88 3.40

Step 4: Final autogenous shrinkage
Re(>0.5, ≤0.6), Fly(>30) 2.80 0.87 1.60 5.00
Re(>0.6), Fly(≤15) 2.00 0.26 0.22 0.95 (A-1.3.4)
Re(>0.6), Fly(>15, ≤30) 2.10 1.10 1.10 3.30
The values of ϵau,cem and rεf are given in Table A.7
Re(>0.6), Fly(>30) 2.10 1.10 0.97 4.00
Fly(≤15), Super(≤5) 0.32 0.71 0.55 1.71 Step 5: Autogenous shrinkage
Fly(≤15), Super(>5) 0.32 0.55 0.92 2.30
(A-1.3.5)
Fly(>15, ≤30), Super(≤5) 0.50 0.90 0.82 1.25
Fly(>15, ≤30), Super(>5) 0.50 0.80 0.80 2.81 where the values of ∝s and rt are given in Table A.7

Fly(>30), Super(≤5) 0.63 1.38 0.00 1.20 Table A.6: Shrinkage parameters depending on
Fly(>30),Super(>5) 0.63 0.95 0.76 3.11 cement type for B4s
Super(≤5), Silica(≤8) 6.00 2.80 0.29 0.21 RAPID SLOW
NORMAL
PARAMETER HARDENING HARDENING
Super(≤5), Silica(≥8) 3.00 0.96 0.26 0.71 CEMENT (R)
CEMENT (RS) CEMENT (SL)
Super(≥5), Silica(≤8) 8.00 1.95 0.00 1.00
τs,cem 0.027 0.027 0.032
Silica(≤8) 1.90 0.47 0.00 1.20
sτf 0.21 1.55 -1.84
Silica(>8, ≤18) 2.60 0.82 0.00 1.20 ϵs,cem 590 x 10 -6
830 x 10 -6
640 x 10-6
Silica(>18) 1.00 1.50 5.00 1.00 sϵf -0.51 -0.84 -0.69
AEA(≤0.05) 2.30 1.10 0.28 0.35
AEA(>0.05) 0.44 4.28 0.00 0.36
Table A.7: Autogenous Shrinkage parameters for
B4s for regular cement (R), rapid hardening cement
WR(≤2) 0.50 0.38 0.00 1.90
(RS) and slow hardening cement (SL)
WR(>2, ≤3) 6.00 0.45 1.51 0.30
Normal Cement (R), Rapid Hardening Cement
WR(>3) 2.40 0.40 0.68 1.40 Parameter
(RS), Slow Hardening Cement (SL)
τau,cem 2.26
1.3 STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE FOR rτf 0.27
SHRINKAGE PREDICTION USING B4S ϵau, cem 78.2 x 10-6
STRENGTH BASED MODEL rϵf 1.03
Step 1: Estimate of drying shrinkage ∝s 1.73
The estimated ultimate drying shrinkage strain is given by: rt -1.73

(A-1.3.1) 1.4 STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE FOR

SHRINKAGE PREDICTION USING FIB MODEL
where, ϵs,cem is a shrinkage parameter dependent on cement type
as shown in Table A.6
CODE 2010

Step 2: Drying Shrinkage halftime Step 1: Notational basic shrinkage co-efficient

Drying shrinkage halftime can be calculated as: (A-1.4.1)

(A-1.3.2)
Step 2: Basic time function
The parameters τs,cem and sτf can be obtained from Table A.6. (A-1.4.2)

48 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021

 TECHNICAL PAPER

Step 3: Basic shrinkage at time (t) kh is a coefficient depending on the notional size h0. The
code suggests the h0 values from 100. However, the concrete
(A-1.4.3) specimens in the present work have h0 of 75. Hence, an
extrapolation was carried out and given in the Table A.9, and the
Step 4: Notational drying shrinkage co-efficient same was accounted for the calculation purpose.
(A-1.4.4)
Table A.9: Co-efficient depending on the notional size
The co-efficient αbs, αds1, αds2 are taken from Table A.8 depend on h0 (mm) kh
the type of cement used 75* 1.04*
100 1.00
Step 5: Relative humidity co-efficient
200 0.85
(A-1.4.5) 300 0.75
≥500 0.70
Step 6: Drying time function * Extrapolate values

εcd is the unrestrained drying shrinkage depending on the

(A-1.4.6)
characteristic cube compression and the kh. The standard offers
where h is the notional size of the member. ( ), and Ac and the value for 50 and 80%. The relative humidity in the present
u are the cross sectional area of and perimeter of the member in work was 65%. So, an interpolation was carried out and given
contact with the atmosphere. in Table A.10. As seen in the Table A.10, the code provides the
value for selected fck values. Other than the values mentioned in
Step 7: Drying shrinkage at any time (t) the Table A.10 was obtained by interpolation.

(A-1.4.7) Table A.10: Unrestrained Drying Shrinkage Values

Step 8: Total shrinkage at any time (t) UNRESTRAINED DRYING SHRINKAGE VALUES (Ɛcd ×
fck 106) FOR CONCRETE WITH PORTLAND CEMENT, WITH
(MPa) RELATIVE HUMIDITY
(A-1.4.8)
50% 65%* 80%
Table A.8: Co-efficient used for basic and drying 25 535 417 300

shrinkage of concrete 50 420 330 240

75 330 260 190
Strength class of cement abs ads1 ads2
*Interpolate value
32.5 N 800 6 0.013

32.5 R, 425 N 700 4 0.012 Step 3: Autogenous shrinkage time function

42.5 R, 52.5 N, 52.5 R 600 6 0.012
(A-1.5.3)

1.5 STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE FOR Step 4: Development of autogenous shrinkage

SHRINKAGE PREDICTION USING IS 1343 at time (t)
MODEL (A-1.5.4)
The values for other than provided in the Table A.11 are found
Step 1: Drying shrinkage time function by interpolation.

(A-1.5.1) Table A.11: Unrestrained Autogenous Shrinkage

(Ɛca ×106)
h0 is the notional size of the member. ( ), where Ac and u GRADE OF CONCRETE Autogenous shrinkage Ɛca ×106
are the cross-sectional area of and perimeter of the member in M30 35
contact with the atmosphere. M35 45

Step 2: Development of drying shrinkage at M45 65

time (t) M50 75

M60 95
(A-1.5.2)

THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021 49

 TECHNICAL PAPER

T. SAKTHIVEL is Senior Grade Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at

Dr. Mahalingam College of Engineering and Technology, Pollachi. He holds Ph.D. degree from Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, and M.E., (Structural Engineering) from Annamalai University. His Ph.D.
work at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras focused on effects of admixtures on shrinkage and creep
response of blended cement concrete. His research interest includes, structural performance of RC elements,
development of sustainable and durable concrete systems and non-destructive testing methods for concrete
structures. Email: thanga.sakthivel@gmail.com

RAVINDRA GETTU is the Dean for Industrial Consultancy and Sponsored Research, and the
V. S. Raju Chair Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras.
He is the Immediate Past President of RILEM, the International Union of Laboratories and Experts in
Construction Materials, Structures and Systems, based in Paris; and Fellow of the Indian National Academy
of Engineering. He works closely with industry to promote technology implementation, and has co-authored
more than 500 publications in the areas of concrete technology and characterization, and sustainability.
Email: gettu@iitm.ac.in

RADHAKRISHNA G. PILLAI is an associate professor in the Dept. of Civil Engg. at Indian

Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras. Since 2010, he has been at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras
and has graduated 5 Ph.D. and 5 MS research scholars. His areas of interest are corrosion and its control,
construction materials, concrete technology, and repair, rehabilitation, and service life of concrete structures.
With 55 journal papers, more than 50 international conference papers, and involvement in BIS committees, he
contributes to solving challenges faced by the industry. He is also active in ICI, NACE, and RILEM.
Email: pillai@civil.iitm.ac.in

Cite this article: Sakthivel, T., Gettu, R. and Pillai, R. G. (2021). “Drying Shrinkage of Concrete with Blended Cementitious Binders:
Experimental Study and Application of Models”, The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 95, No. 10, pp. 34-50.

50 THE INDIAN CONCRETE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2021

View publication stats