Magazine of Concrete Research Magazine of Concrete Research, 2012, 64(2), 129–141

Volume 64 Issue 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/macr.10.00118

Paper 1000118
A comparison of hardened properties of fly- Received 08/07/2010; revised 28/01/2011; accepted 08/02/2011
ash-based self-compacting concrete and Published online ahead of print 06/12/2011

normally compacted concrete under Thomas Telford Ltd & 2012

different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee

A comparison of hardened
properties of fly-ash-based
self-compacting concrete and
normally compacted concrete
under different curing conditions
Debashis Das PhD Abhijit Chatterjee MTech
Scientist, Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur, Scientist, Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur,
West Bengal, India West Bengal, India

In this paper a comparative approach was adopted to study the mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete. The test programme included study of compressive strength in different curing
conditions, split tensile strength, modulus of rupture, stress–strain characteristics and Poisson ratio of both the
concretes. Microstructure of self-compacting concrete was found to be different from that of normally compacted
concrete. This explains the considerable difference observed in some properties of the concretes. New correlations
were developed for the properties of self-compacting concrete. The correlations indicated a difference in the pattern
of strength development and stress–strain behaviour of the concretes. The results are discussed with reference to
the existing literature, guidelines and codes of practice.

Notation
Ap area of the load–deflection curve up to peak load
ft split tensile strength of concrete (MPa)
fc cube compressive strength of concrete (MPa)
f c9 cylinder compressive strength of concrete (MPa)
fcr flexural tensile strength of concrete (MPa)
Introduction
Self-compacting concrete (SCC) compacts under its own weight
and needs no mechanical aid (Okamura and Ouchi, 2003; Ouchi,
2005). Use of SCC mixes shortens the construction period and
they are very useful in a confined zone where vibration compac-
tion is difficult.
A fundamental study on the workability of SCC was carried out
in Japan in the late 1980s (Ozawa et al., 1989). In the 1990s use
of SCC technology spread to Europe and the USA. In India
investigation on SCC began in the late 1990s (Kumar and
Kaushik, 2003; Subramanian and Chattopadhyay, 2002; Vengalia
et al., 2003).
in material properties, mix compositions, and so on. Even for the
same mix proportion, the properties of SCC may differ widely
according to country. A few guidelines on mix composition and
testing procedures are available (Domone, 2006; EFNARC, 2002;
Okamura and Ouchi, 2003).
Normally compacted concrete (NCC) and SCC consist of the
same constituents, but there is a clear difference in their mix
composition and fresh properties (Attiogbe et al., 2002; Bui et
al., 2002; EFNARC, 2002; Kumar et al., 2004). The reasons for
possible differences between hardened properties of SCC and
NCC are discussed below.
Mix composition
The granular skeleton in SCC is different from NCC owing to the
higher content of powder materials and lower content of coarse
aggregates in SCC. The pattern of development of strength of
SCC changes because of different reaction of fillers in the
presence of water and superplasticiser (Bui, 2002; Carbo et al.,
2002; Dattatreya et al., 2003).

The specific material properties of SCC can be achieved by the

co-ordination of high deformability and segregation resistance
(Das et al., 2006; Ravindra Rajah et al., 2003). In spite of much
research worldwide, SCC is perceived as a ‘special’ type of
concrete rather than a standard product. SCC is a very sensitive
material and its rheological properties change with little change
Microstructure
The microstructure of SCC is distinctly different from that
observed in NCC (Fornasier et al., 2001). Consequently, various
hardened properties of SCC could be different compared with
NCC.

129
Magazine of Concrete Research A comparison of hardened properties of
Volume 64 Issue 2 fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee

Fresh properties
The rheological property of fresh SCC is completely different
from that of NCC. The flowability of SCC influences the degree
of compaction and in turn affects the properties in the hardened
state (Fornasier et al., 2001; Ghezal et al., 2002; Holschemacher
et al., 2003). It is reported in some papers that split tensile
strength of SCC achieves higher values. It is also reported that
modulus of elasticity of SCC is slightly lower than that of NCC
(Sheinn et al., 2004). However, other researchers have reported
that the modulus of elasticity of SCC is higher than that of NCC
(Carette and Bilodeau, 1993). Present design methods and codes
are based on the properties of NCC. Before applying the present
design methods to structural design of SCC members, a compara-
tive study of the hardened properties of SCC and NCC is
essential.
The current paper examines the hardened properties of SCC and
NCC made of similar constituents. Both the SCC and NCC had
similar ultimate compressive strength (M60). The NCC was
designed by the ACI method of mix proportioning and the final
mix was adjusted for cement and aggregate contents to achieve
the desired properties. A mortar flow test was executed to
determine the approximate dose of superplasticiser required to
develop SCC. After determining the approximate dose of super-
plasticiser, concrete trial mixes were prepared. By stepwise
replacement of coarse aggregate by fine aggregate, the best SCC
mix was determined. SCC compacted under its own weight. NCC
was compacted using a table vibrator. The cube moulds were
placed on the table and fresh concrete was poured into the
moulds during vibration. Extra concrete was taken off the
moulds. Moulds were removed after complete vibration was
ensured.
Characteristics of materials and mixture
proportions
Constituent materials
OPC 43 grade cement and a low-calcium fly ash obtained from a
super thermal power plant were used in the concrete. The
physical properties of the cement are presented in Table 1. The
physical and chemical characteristics of fly ash and micro-silica
are presented in Table 2. The physical and chemical character-
istics of fly ash and micro-silica satisfied the requirements of the
Indian standard code of practice, IS 3812, 1981 (BIS, 1981) and
Indian standard code of practice, IS 15388, 2003 (BIS, 2003)
respectively.

Characteristics Results obtained Specified value as

per IS:8112 - 1989

Blaine’s fineness: cm2 /g 3048 3500 (maximum)

Specific gravity 3.14 —
Soundness: mm (Le Chatelier test) 2.1 10 (maximum)
Autoclave expansion: % 0.71 0.8 (maximum)
Normal consistency (percent of cement by 27 30
weight): %
Setting time: min
(i) Initial 90 30 (minimum)
(ii) Final 180 600 (maximum)
Compressive strength: MPa
(i) 3 days 25.8 23.0
(ii) 7 days 35.0 33.0
(iii) 28 days 44.3 43.0

Table 1. Physical properties of cement

No. Property Fly ash Micro-silica

1 Blaine’s fineness: cm2 /g 3500 22 000

2 Specific gravity 2.24 2.20
3 Silicon dioxide (SiO2 ): % by mass 57.5 95.1
4 SiO2 + Al2 O3 + Fe2 O3 : by mass 91.0 95.1
5 Loss on ignition: % by mass 0.57 2.79

Table 2. Physical and chemical properties of fly ash and micro-

silica

130
Magazine of Concrete Research A comparison of hardened properties of
Volume 64 Issue 2 fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee

A commercially available superplasticiser based on modified poly Sl Raw materials Quantities:

carboxylic ether and conforming to ASTM C494 (standard no. kg/m3
specification for chemical admixtures of concrete (ASTM, 2010))
types A and F and IS 9103, 1999 (BIS, 1999a)) with specific 1 Cement 490.00
gravity 1.10 was used. The particular molecular configuration of 2 Fine aggregate 690.00
the superplasticiser accelerates the cement hydration. Rapid 3 Coarse aggregate, 12.5 mm nominal size 700.40
adsorption of the molecule on to the cement particles, combined 4 Coarse aggregate, 20 mm nominal size 300.20
with an efficient dispersion effect, exposes increased surface of 5 Water 171.5
the cement grains to react with water. The superplasticiser is used 6 Superplasticiser 2.0
at ambient temperature above 158C. 7 Water–cement ratio 0.35
8 Aggregate–cement ratio 3.45
Concrete mixtures
Concrete mix proportions of NCC and SCC were developed to Table 3. Mix proportions of NCC
achieve the same ultimate compressive strength (Tables 3 and 4).
NCC had water–cement ratio and aggregate–cement ratios of
0.35 and 3.45 respectively. SCC was developed with a water–
powder ratio of 0.32 and aggregate–powder ratio of 2.54. Various Sl Raw materials Quantities:
fresh properties of SCC and NCC are shown in Table 5. The no. kg/m3
fresh properties of SCC satisfied the requirement of EFNARC
guidelines (EFNARC, 2002). 1 Cement 291.20
2 Fly ash 291.20
3 Fine aggregate 1062.40
Experimental procedures 4 Coarse aggregate, 12.5 mm nominal size 320.00
Curing conditions 5 Coarse aggregate, 20 mm nominal size 135.00
The compressive strength tests of NCC and SCC specimens at 6 Microsilica 14.60
various ages were conducted after the specimens were cured 7 Water 186.30
under three different curing conditions. 8 Superplasticiser 10.00
9 Water–powder ratio 0.32
Curing condition 1 10 Aggregate–powder ratio 2.54
Normal water curing: the specimens were demoulded after 24 h
Table 4. Mix proportion of SCC
of casting and placed in a fixed-temperature tank at 27
28C.
The specimens were removed from water after 7, 28, 60, 90, 120
and 150 days and were tested in a surface-dried condition.
placed and returned to boiling within 15 min. After curing for
Curing condition 2 3.5 h
5 min in the tank the specimens were removed from the
Accelerated curing by boiling water method: after the specimens boiling water, and cooled by immersing in a cooling tank at
had been made, they were stored in a place free from vibration, 27
28C for a period of 1 h. The specimens were then surface
in moist air of about 90% relative humidity and at a temperature dried and tested. The specification prescribed in IS 9013 (BIS,
of 27
28C for 23 h
15 min from the time of addition of water 1978) was followed for this curing method.
to the ingredients. Then the specimens were gently lowered into
the curing tank and remained totally immersed for a period of Curing condition 3
3.5 h
5 min. The temperature of the boiling water in the curing Accelerated curing followed by normal water curing: the speci-
tank was at 1008C and at atmospheric pressure. The temperature mens were cured in boiling water for 3.5 h
5 min following the
of the water did not drop more than 38C after the specimens were procedure described in the case of curing condition 2 above.

No. Test SCC NCC

1 Slump flow diameter: mm 650 —

2 U-box rise: % 98 —
3 V-funnel test: s 10 —
4 GTM screen stability test: segregation index, % 5.2 —
5 Slump loss: % 100 20

Table 5. Properties of various fresh concretes

131
Magazine of Concrete Research
Volume 64 Issue 2
After curing for 3.5 h
5 min in the curing tank, the specimens
were removed from the boiling water and placed in a fixed-
temperature tank at 27
28C .The specimens were removed from
the water after 7, 28, 60 and 90 days and were tested after surface
drying.
Hardened properties
15 cm cubes of NCC and SCC were cured under curing condition
1 up to the age of 7, 28, 60, 90 and 150 days and tested for
compressive strength. Similar compressive strength tests were
carried out for specimens cured in curing conditions 2 and 3.
Compressive strength tests were carried out in accordance with IS
516-1959 (BIS, 1959) on a 2000 kN compression testing ma-
chine. The load was applied at a rate of 14 N/mm2 per min.
The split tensile strength of concrete was obtained by placing a
cylindrical specimen (150 mm diameter 3 300 mm high) horizon-
tally between the loading surfaces of the compression testing
machine. The load was applied at a uniform rate of 100 kN/min
up to failure of the test specimen. These tests were carried out as
per specifications of IS 5816–1999 (BIS, 1999b).
Tests for modulus of rupture were carried out as per specifications
of IS 516-1959 (BIS, 1959). Prism type specimens
(100 3 100 3 500 mm) were used for the test. The load was
applied without shock and was continuously increased at the rate
of 180 kg/min. Specimens were cured in curing condition 1 up to
various ages before testing.
Standard 150 3 300 mm cylindrical specimens were prepared and
tested according to standard ASTM C39 (ASTM, 2009). Two
linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) were attached
along the two opposite vertical generators of the specimen. Both
the load cell and the LVDTs were connected to an electronic data
acquisition system to record the stress and the corresponding
strain in the cylinder specimen. Stress–strain characteristics
under compression were determined from the test.
Poisson’s ratio of NCC and SCC was determined by testing
cylindrical specimens (150 mm diameter 3 300 mm high).
The microstructure of the concretes was investigated to under-
stand the behaviour of NCC and SCC in the hardened state.
Concrete samples were collected from the centre of various
specimens after their testing. The samples were immediately
washed with acetone and heat treated to control further hydration
before undergoing scanning electron microscopy (SEM). During
the development of SCC, it was understood that for achieving
self-compacting properties the mix should contain coarse aggre-
gate in lower volume. Mixing order was important in developing
SCC properties. Test results indicated that addition of coarse
aggregate at a later stage of mixing improved the dispersion of
powder materials in the mix. As a result the effect of super-
plasticiser was further enhanced. It was also noted during mixing
that the traditional mixing time of concrete needed to be
132
A comparison of hardened properties of
fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee
increased in the case of SCC to ensure proper dispersion of
powder materials in the presence of relatively high quantities of
superplasticisers.
Results and discussion
Compressive strength
Under curing condition 1 both the SCC and NCC attained similar
compressive strengths at 90 days’ age; see Figure 1 and Table 6.
At 7 days’ curing period the compressive strength of NCC attained
a value of 66% of the 28 days’ compressive strength: At the same
age (7 days) SCC attained only 62.6% of its 28 days’ compressive
strength. The increase in compressive strength of NCC from 28
days to 90 days was only 5.9%, whereas the increase in compres-
sive strength of SCC during that period was 25.3%. This
phenomenon is important in design considerations. The ultimate
strength of SCC should be taken as the strength gained at 90 days,
unlike NCC. The lower rate of gain of strength of SCC up to 28
days in comparison with NCC should be taken into account during
construction and transportation of SCC members. This difference
is attributed to the fact that fly ash reduces the early strength of
concrete. After the rate of strength gain of Portland cement slows
down, the continued pozzolonic activity of fly ash contributes to
the increased strength gain at later ages, if concrete is kept moist.
Hence, concrete containing fly ash with lower strength at early
ages may have an equivalent strength at later ages compared with
concrete without fly ash. It is reported in a few research works
(Mather, 1965) that a higher rate of strength gain of concrete with
fly ash continued with time and resulted in higher later age
strengths, which can also be achieved by using additional cement.
Compressive strength of SCC continued to increase even after 90
70
60
Compressive strengths: MPa
50
40
30
SCC under curing condition 1
20
NCC under curing condition 1
SCC under curing condition 3
10
NCC under curing condition 3
0
0 50 100 150
Age: days
Figure 1. Compressive strengths of SCC and NCC under various
curing conditions
Magazine of Concrete Research A comparison of hardened properties of
Volume 64 Issue 2 fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee

days (6%) but the increase in compressive strength of NCC after

0.88
61.5
54.1

132.8
SCC
90 days was insignificant (0.8%). Mather (1965) reported that
concrete containing fly ash displayed significantly higher perform-
150

ance at ages up to 10 years than concrete without fly ash. The

0.82
NCC

ability of the fly ash to aid in achieving higher ultimate strengths

63.0
51.6

106.8
helped the later age strength development of SCC, see Figure 1.
The results of the compressive strength test under curing condi-
tions 2 and 3 are summarised in Table 7. Both NCC and SCC
0.89
60.0
53.4

129.6
SCC

gained similar compressive strengths at 90 days’ age when cured

under curing condition 3. In this case the 7-day compressive
120

strength of NCC was 73.7% of the 28-day compressive strength,

0.815

whereas the figure for SCC was 75.1% (refer to Table 7). However,
NCC

62.8
51.2

106.4

the 7-day compressive strength of NCC was 66.1% of the 28-day

compressive strength when cured under curing condition 1 (normal
water curing). SCC had gained strength of 62.6% at 7 days under
0.89
58.0
52.1

125.3
SCC

curing condition 1. This indicates that much higher early strength

(7 days) can be achieved by curing condition 3. The 90-day
90

compressive strength of NCC cured in curing condition 3 was

0.81

11.5% lower than the 90-day compressive strength of the same

NCC

62.5
50.6

105.9
Age: days

concrete when cured in curing condition 1, although the 7-day

compressive strengths for both the curing conditions were almost
the same (Figure 1).
0.85
54.3
46.2

117.3
SCC

A similar trend was observed for SCC also. In this case, the initial
60

higher 7-day compressive strength of the concrete under curing

0.82
NCC

condition 3 was lost at 90 days (Figure 1). Thus early strength of

61.0
50.0

103.4

fly-ash-based SCC can be accelerated by initial high-temperature

Table 6. Cube and cylinder compressive strength of NCC and SCC under curing condition 1

curing to approach a similar compressive strength as that achieved

by Portland-cement-based NCC. This is attributed to the fact that
0.89
46.3
41.6

100.0
SCC

concrete subjected to a higher temperature during the early period

of hydration loses some of the strength gained at a later age. This
28

retrogression of the strength explains why faster hydration results

0.81
NCC

in the formation of poor-quality gels with a porous, open structure.

59.0
47.8

100.0

Gels formed slowly at a lower temperature are of better quality as

these are densely compacted in nature. As a result, the initial
higher compressive strength is lost at a later age. In the present
0.86
SCC

29.0
25.2

62.6

investigation NCC suffered a retrogression of strength of 11.5% at

90 days. The same measurement for SCC was only 8.4%.
7

NCC

The compressive strength gained by concrete specimens cured in

39.0
31.2
0.8

66.1

boiling water (curing condition 2) gives an approximate estima-

tion of the strength gained at a later age. In this work the
compressive strength gained by NCC cured in boiling water was
Cylinder compressive strength: N/mm2
Ratio of cylinder-to-cube compressive

51.2% of the 28-day compressive strength gained in normal water

Cube compressive strength: N/mm2

curing (curing condition 1). The SCC gained a compressive

strength of 60.9% in similar conditions. Test results indicated that
Cube compressive strength as
percentage of 28 days’ cube

for NCC the compressive strength gained by the boiling water

compressive strength: %

curing method (curing condition 2), estimated about 50% of the

28-day compressive strength. For SCC compressive strength
gained in curing condition 2, estimated 50% of 75-day compres-
sive strength or 60% of the 28-day strength. It was observed that
the ratio of cylinder-to-cube compressive strength was about 0.8
Properties

strength

for NCC and nearer to 0.9 for SCC. This indicates that in situ
performance of SCC can be better estimated from test specimens
than by comparing to NCC.

133
Magazine of Concrete Research A comparison of hardened properties of
Volume 64 Issue 2 fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee

Properties Curing condition 2 Curing condition 3, age: days

7 28 60 90

NCC SCC NCC SCC NCC SCC NCC SCC NCC SCC

Cube compressive strength: 30.2 28.2 38.6 35.3 52.4 47.0 54.1 50.0 55.3 53.1
N/mm2
Compressive strength as 57.6 60.0 73.7 75.1 100.0 100.0 103.2 106.4 105.5 112.9
percentage of 28 days’
compressive strength under
curing condition 3: %

Table 7. Cube compressive strength of NCC and SCC under curing conditions 2 and 3

Split tensile strength 7

Split tensile strength of SCC was clearly higher than that of NCC
for similar compressive strengths at 90 days; see Table 8 and 6
Figure 2. This was due to the better microstructure (Figures 3 and
Split tensile strength: MPa

4), and especially the lower and uniformly distributed porosity 5

with the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) of SCC. The test results
4
of split tensile strength and compressive strength are compared
with the correlations proposed in the literature (Carette and
3
Bilodeau, 1993) and by ACI (Figure 5). The former model
underestimates the tensile strength of SCC, but the development 2
of split tensile strength of NCC agrees quite closely with that NCC
recommended by Carette and Bilodeau. The following correlation 1
between tensile strength and cube compressive strength for SCC SCC
is proposed from the regression analysis of the test results of the 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
present investigation: Age: days

:
f t ¼ 0:620ð f c Þ0 5 Figure 2. Variation of split tensile strength with age

:
f t ¼ 0:660ð f c9 Þ0 5
cylinder compressive strength of concrete (MPa).

where f t is the split tensile strength of concrete (MPa), f c is the The ACI Committee 363 recommended the following equation
cube compressive strength of concrete (MPa), and f c9 is the for split tensile strength

Type of concrete Split tensile strength: N/mm2

7 days 28 days 60 days 90 days

Normally compacted concrete:

Test results 3.45 4.10 4.18 4.26
Carette and Bilodeau (1993) 3.11 3.84 3.93 3.96
ACI 3.30 4.08 4.17 4.19
Self-compacting concrete (SCC):
Test results 3.26 4.21 4.63 4.68
Carette and Bilodeau (1993) 2.79 3.59 3.78 4.01
ACI 2.96 3.81 4.01 4.26

Table 8. Test results of split tensile strength

134
Magazine of Concrete Research A comparison of hardened properties of
Volume 64 Issue 2 fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee

5·0
Aggregate 4·5
4·0

Split tensile strength: MPa

3·5
3·0
2·5
Microcrack NCC test results
2·0
SCC test results
1·5 Model reported by
Pore Carette and
1·0
Bilodeau (1993)
0·5 ACI model
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Cylinder compressive strength: MPa

Figure 3. Pores and microcracks in NCC Figure 5. Correlation between cylinder compressive strength and
split tensile strength

5·0
Paste
4·5
4·0
Split tensile strength: MPa

Aggregate 3·5
3·0
2·5 Model reported by Carette
2·0 for NCC
1·5 Model reported by ACI
Committee for NCC
1·0
Model proposed from the
0·5 test results for SCC
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Cylinder compressive strength: MPa

Figure 4. Typical microstructure of SCC Figure 6. Comparison of various models for split tensile strength
of various concretes

pffiffiffiffiffi
f t ¼ 0:59 f c9 MPa for 21 MPa , f c9 , 83 MPa
where f c9 is the cylinder compressive strength of concrete (MPa).
The ACI model slightly underestimates the split tensile strength
of SCC but it predicts well the split tensile strength of NCC
(Figure 6). The present design methods are mainly based on the
properties of NCC. To apply the normally compacted design
procedure for SCC members, this new correlation factor should
be taken into account.
Flexural tensile strength (modulus of rupture)
The flexural tensile strength of SCC was distinctly higher than
that of NCC, by around 7.4% (see Table 9). This is again
attributed to the improved microstructure due to lower and
uniformly distributed porosity within the ITZ of SCC. The
increase in flexural tensile strength of NCC from the age of 28
days to 90 days was a mere 1.9%, whereas for the SCC the figure
was 12.6%.
The Indian standard code of practice IS 456 (BIS, 2000)
recommended the following equation to predict flexural tensile
strength of NCC from its compressive strength
pffiffiffiffiffi
f cr ¼ 0:7 f c N=mm2
where f cr is the flexural tensile strength of concrete (MPa) and f c
is the cube compressive strength of concrete (MPa).

135
Magazine of Concrete Research A comparison of hardened properties of
Volume 64 Issue 2 fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee

Type of concrete Flexural tensile strength: N/mm2

7 days 28 days 60 days 90 days

Normally compacted concrete:

Test results 4.24 5.3 5.32 5.4
IS 4.37 5.38 5.47 5.53
ACI 5.25 6.49 6.64 6.69
Self-compacting concrete (SCC):
Test results 4.02 5.15 5.64 5.80
IS 3.77 4.76 5.16 5.33
ACI 4.72 6.06 6.39 6.68

Table 9. Test results of flexural tensile strength

The ACI Committee 363 recommended another equation correlat- 8

ing flexural tensile strength and compressive strength, as follows
7
pffiffiffiffiffi
Flexural tensile strength: MPa

f cr ¼ 0:94 f c9 N=mm2 for 21 MPa , f c9 , 83 MPa 6

5
where f c9 is the cylinder compressive strength of concrete (MPa).
4
The test results of flexural tensile strength and compressive
3 NCC test results
strength are compared with the correlation proposed by the Indian
standard code of practice and ACI Committee (Figures 7 and 8). 2 SCC test results
Development of flexural tensile strength of NCC is in quite
Indian standards model
agreement with the model recommended by the Indian standard 1
code of practice, but the ACI model overestimated the flexural ACI model
tensile strength of NCC by around 24.8%. 0
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Cube compressive strength: MPa
The Indian standard model slightly underestimates the flexural
tensile strength of SCC, to the extent of 8.5%, but the ACI model Figure 8. Correlation between cube compressive strength and
clearly overestimates the flexural tensile strength of SCC by flexural tensile strength
17.7%. The following correlation between flexural tensile

7 strength and cube compressive strength for SCC is proposed from

the regression analysis of the test results of the present investiga-
6 tion
Flexural tensile strength: MPa

5 pffiffiffiffiffi
f cr ¼ 0:762 f c N=mm2
4

where f cr is the flexural tensile strength of concrete (MPa) and f c

3
is the cube compressive strength of concrete (MPa).
2
NCC A comparison of the three models is presented in Figure 9. A
1 comparison of the load–deflection curves in flexure reveals that
SCC
the beams of NCC and SCC fail suddenly and the falling
0 branches of the load–deflection curves are almost vertical. The
0 20 40 60 80 100 flexural toughness index (ASTM C1081-94b (ASTM, 1994)) for
Age: days
plain concrete is equal to 1 in the ASTM method because flexural
Figure 7. Variation of flexural tensile strength with age test specimens of plain concrete fail immediately after the
formation of the first crack (see Figure 10).

136
Magazine of Concrete Research A comparison of hardened properties of
Volume 64 Issue 2 fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee

8 16
NCC at 28 days
7 14 SCC at 28 days
NCC at 90 days
Flexural tensile strength: MPa

6 12 SCC at 90 days

5 10

Load: KN
4 8

3 6
Indian standards model
2 ACI model 4
1 Model proposed from the
2
test results
0
20 30 40 50 60 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0
Cube compressive strength: MPa
Deflection: mm

Figure 9. Comparison of various models for flexural tensile Figure 10. Load–deflection curves in flexure for NCC and SCC
strength

60
For 7 days
For SCC, the same nature of failure is also considered (Figure 50 For 28 days
10) and the toughness index is taken as 1. The area under the For 60 days
Stress: MPa

40
load–deflection curve up to peak load for NCC increases by For 90 days
1.32% as the age of the concrete increases from 28 days to 90 30
days. The same increase for SCC was 7.08% (Table 10). 20

10

Stress–strain characteristics 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2
The stress–strain relationship of concrete essentially consists of
Strain: %
two distinct branches – an ascending branch up to the peak
stress, followed by a descending branch until the concrete crushes Figure 11. Complete stress–strain curves for NCC
(Figures 11 and 12). At age 7 days, the peak stresses of NCC and
SCC occurred at a strain level of 0.28% and 0.27% respectively.
The failure strains of NCC and SCC at 7-day age were 0.5% and
0.55% respectively. days and 90 days for NCC and SCC indicate brittle character-
istics.
The peak strains at 28 days were 0.203% and 0.22% respectively.
The failure strains of NCC and SCC at 90 days were 0.33% and In the present paper, modulus of elasticity of concrete has been
0.35% respectively, see Table 11. For similar compressive determined in terms of initial tangent modulus and the secant
strengths at 60 days and 90 days, the peak strains and failure modulus at 40% of the ultimate stress, see Figure 13. The ACI
strains of NCC and SCC had comparable values. The sudden model proposes the following equation for modulus of elasticity
almost vertical decrease of the stress–strain curves at 28 days, 60 and compressive strength

Type of concrete Property

Ap : kN mm I5 I10

28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days

Self-compacting concrete 2.30 2.463 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Normally compacted concrete 2.198 2.227 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Table 10. Flexural toughness indices

137
Magazine of Concrete Research A comparison of hardened properties of
Volume 64 Issue 2 fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee

60 7 days The Indian standard code of practice proposes a different equa-

28 days tion as follows
50 60 days
90 days
pffiffiffiffiffi
40 Ec ¼ 5000 fc
Stress: MPa

30
where f c is the cube compressive strength.
20

10 The ACI model underestimates the initial tangent modulus of

elasticity of NCC by about 6.5–8.5%, but the Indian standard
0 model overestimates the modulus of elasticity of NCC within 2%
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2
Strain: %
(Figure 13). The ACI model underestimates the initial tangent
modulus of elasticity of SCC by about 9–12%, whereas the
Figure 12. Complete stress–strain curves for SCC Indian standard model slightly overestimates the same figure by
about 8–10% (Figure 14).

45 The following correlation between the modulus of elasticity and

40 cube compressive strength for SCC is proposed based on the
regression analysis of the test results of initial tangent modulus
35 obtained in this investigation
Modulus of elasticity: GPa

30
40
25

20 35
Initial tangent modulus
(test results)
15 30
ACI model
Modulus of elasticity: GPa

10
Indian standards model 25
5
Secant modulus (test results)
20
0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Initial tangent modulus
Cube compressive strength: MPa 15 (test results)

Figure 13. Modulus of elasticity of NCC 10 ACI model

Indian standards model

5
Secant modulus (test results)
pffiffiffiffiffi
Ec ¼ 3320 f c9 þ 6900 MPa 0
20 30 40 50 60
Cube compressive strength: MPa

where Ec is the modulus of elasticity and f c9 is the cylinder Figure 14. Modulus of elasticity of SCC (MPa)
compressive strength.

Type of concrete Age: days

7 28 60 90

Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak

stress: strain: stress: strain: stress: strain: stress: strain:
MPa % MPa % MPa % MPa %

Normally compacted concrete 32.2 0.28 48.0 0.203 49.5 0.208 51.0 0.208
Self-compacting concrete 25.5 0.27 41.5 0.22 47.5 0.223 52.1 0.22

Table 11. Peak stress and strains for various concretes

138
Magazine of Concrete Research A comparison of hardened properties of
Volume 64 Issue 2 fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee

pffiffiffiffiffi
Ec ¼ 3615:6 f c þ 6887:6 MPa
where, f c is the cube compressive strength (MPa). The secant
modulus of elasticity of SCC was found to be similar to that of
NCC (Figure 13).
The toughness or the amount of energy required to cause failure
is given by the area under the stress–strain curves and it is
quantitatively a function of the product of stress and strain.
Toughness is measured as the total area under the stress–strain
curve up to a strain of 1.5%, which is five times the ultimate
concrete strain in concrete, that is 0.3% as adopted in the ACI
building code (Figure 15).
the SCC. Owing to more internal microcracking in NCC as
compared to SCC, the relative increase in lateral strains is higher
for NCC. As a result, the Poisson ratio of NCC is slightly higher
than that of SCC.
Water permeability
Water permeability is intimately related to the durability of
concrete. Concrete permeability plays a critical role in controlling
the properties of concrete and the performance of concrete
structures. Water permeability is also related to the corrosion of
reinforcing steel. The water acts as a direct agent to transport
noxious substances, such as chloride ions, sulfate ions and acid,
and to propel many chemical reactions that speed up the
degradation process of the matrix.

The steep drop in the post-peak response and the brittle character It is seen that the coefficient of water permeability of SCC was
of NCC and SCC is evident in their stress–strain curves, which much lower than that of NCC at all ages. At 7 days of age, the
show very little ductility. coefficient of permeability of SCC was 6.50 3 1010 cm/s, which
was 45.96% lower than that of NCC (12.03 3 1010 cm/s). At 28
Poisson ratio days of age the coefficient of permeability of SCC was
For similar compressive strengths at 90 days, the Poisson ratio of 3.70 3 1010 cm/s, which was 47.88% lower than that of NCC
SCC was slightly lower (8.7%) than that of NCC (Table 12). This (7.10 3 1010 cm/s). At 90 days of age, when NCC and SCC
is due to the denser microstructure and absence of microcracks in gained similar compressive strength, the coefficient of permeabil-
ity of SCC (2.60 3 1010 cm/s) was 61.76% lower than that of
NCC (6.80 3 1010 cm/s).
I5 ⫽ Area OABCI
Area OAJ
The higher coefficient of water permeability of NCC was due to
I10 ⫽ Area OABDH
the presence of microcracks and large pores in the structure. The
Area OAJ
microfiller effect of fly ash and microsilica reduces the porosity
P ⫽ first crack load
and permeability of SCC.
δ ⫽ first crack deflection
Surface finish
SCC specimens had better surface finish (Figure 16). This was
Load, P

due to the presence of a higher content of fine aggregate and

B powder materials (cement, fly ash, silica fume) in SCC. The
A C
D improved surface finish of SCC specimens without any external
E
vibration is an added advantage over NCC.

Conclusions
The aim of the study was to explore the comparative performance
of NCC and SCC in the hardened state.
J I H G
Unlike NCC, SCC gains considerable compressive strength after
Figure 15. Impact factor 28 days. SCC specimens achieved tensile and flexural strength
slightly higher than that of NCC of comparable compressive

Type of concrete Age: days

7 28 60 90

Normally compacted concrete 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.23

Self-compacting concrete 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.21

Table 12. Results of Poisson ratio

139
Magazine of Concrete Research
Volume 64 Issue 2
Figure 16. Typical demoulded specimens of SCC
strength. The later age pozzolonic reaction of the fly ash particles
further lowers the porosity of the SCC by refinement of the pores.
The strength of the ITZ in SCC is bound to increase with time as
a result of the later age reaction between calcium hydroxide and
pozzolona grains. New correlations developed for split tensile
strength and flexural tensile strength for SCC are significant in
design.
A new empirical correlation between the modulus of elasticity
and compressive strength for SCC is proposed from the test
results of the present investigation:
pffiffiffiffiffi
Ec ¼ 3615:6 f c þ 6887:6 MPa
where f c is the cube compressive strength at various ages.
The microstructure, particularly volume of voids and extent of
microcracks, influence the elastic modulus and other hardened
properties of the concrete significantly. Voids and microcracks in
the transition zone which act as broken bridges between the
matrix and aggregate do not permit proper stress transfer. The
absence of large pores and microcracks in the microstructure of
SCC results in improved hardened properties of SCC as com-
pared to NCC. Therefore, a much lower and uniformly distributed
porosity exists within the ITZ of SCC. As a result, the SCC mix
had a similar modulus of elasticity in spite of lower coarse
aggregate content.
The microstructure of the concrete governs its mechanical proper-
ties. SCC contains a high volume of powder materials and lower
volume of coarse aggregates as compared to NCC. Owing to this
change in material composition the microstructure of SCC is
different from that of NCC (Figures 3 and 4). The SEM images
clearly reveal the presence of a microcrack and large pores in the
140
A comparison of hardened properties of
fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee
microstructure of the NCC. The microcrack in the transition zone
passes through the large pores, which is the weakest zone in the
concrete. However, SCC is free from such microcracks and large
pores. Microfiller particles (particles of fly ash and microsilica)
penetrate into the zone between the C–S–H layer and the CH
layer at the aggregate surface. SCC has denser microstructure
than the NCC. This is due to the presence of fly ash and
microsilica particles in the microstructure of SCC.
Acknowledgement
The constant motivation of the Director, Central Mechanical
Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur in writing the manu-
script is gratefully acknowledged by the authors.
REFERENCES
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) (2009) ASTM
C39: Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA.
ASTM (2010) C 494: Standard Specification for Chemical
Admixtures for Concrete. ASTM, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, USA.
ASTM (1994) C1081-94b: Standard test method for flexural
toughness and first-crack strength of fiber-reinforced
concrete (using beam with third-point loading). In Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Concrete and Aggregates. ASTM,
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA, Vol. 04.02, pp.
509–516.
Attiogbe EK, See HT and Daczko JA (2002) Engineering
properties of self-consolidating concrete. Proceedings of 1st
North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-
Consolidating Concrete, USA, pp. 331–336.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) (1959) Indian Standard Code of
Practice IS 516: Method of Test for Strength of Concrete.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
BIS (1978) Indian Standard Code of Practice IS 9013: Method of
Making, Curing and Determining Compressive Strength of
Accelerated Cured Concrete Test Specimens. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
BIS (1981) Indian Standard Code of Practice IS 3812:
Specification for Fly Ash for Use as Pozzolona and
Admixture. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
BIS (1999a) Indian Standard Code of Practice IS 9103: Concrete
Admixtures– Specifications. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India.
BIS (1999b) Indian Standard Code of Practice IS 5816: Splitting
Tensile Strength of Concrete – Method of Test. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
BIS (2000) Indian Standard Code of Practice for General
Structural use of Plain and Reinforced Concrete IS 456:
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
BIS (2003) Indian Standard Code of Practice IS 15388: Silica-
Fume-Specification. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India.
Bui VK (2002) Application of minimum paste volume method in
Magazine of Concrete Research
Volume 64 Issue 2
designing cost effective self-conducting concrete – an
experience in New Zealand. Proceedings of 1st North
American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-
Consolidating Concrete, USA, pp. 121–126.
Bui VK, Shah SP and Akkaya Y (2002) A new approach in mix
design of self- consolidating concrete. Proceedings of 1st
North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-
Consolidating Concrete, USA, pp. 69–74.
Carbo C, Luco LF, Moreno S and Torent R (2002) Self-
consolidating concrete: design and performance. Proceedings
of 1st North American Conference on the Design and Use of
Self- Consolidating Concrete, USA, pp. 95–100.
Carette GG and Bilodeau A (1993) Mechanical properties of
concrete incorporating high volume fly ash from sources in
U.S. ACI Material Journal 90(6): 535–544.
Das D, Gupta VK and Kaushik SK (2006) Effect of maximum size
and volume of coarse aggregate on the properties of SCC.
The Indian Concrete Journal 80(3): 53–56.
Dattatreya JK, Nellamegam M, Rajamane NP and
Gopalakrishnan S (2003) Self-compacting concretes with
high volumes of cement replacement materials. Proceedings
of the 3rd Quinquennial International Symposium on
Innovative World of Concrete, Pune, pp. 45–46.
Domone PL (2006) Self-compacting concrete: an analysis of 11
years of case studies. Cement and Concrete Composites
28(2): 197–208.
EFNARC (Experts for Specialised Construction and Concrete
Systems) (2002) Specification and Guidelines for Self-
Compacting Concrete. EFNARC, see http://www.efnarc.org
for further details.
Fornasier G, Fava C and Zitzer L (2001) Self-compacting cncrete
in Argentina: the first experience. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete,
Tokyo, Japan, pp. 309–318.
Ghezal A, Khayat KH and Beaupre D (2002) Development of
Self-Consolidating Concrete with Low Binder Content and
Mineral Additives. Proceedings of 1st North American
Conference on the Design and Use of Self- Consolidating
Concrete, USA, pp. 75–80.
Holschemacher K, Klug Y and Weibe D (2003) Self-Compacting
Concrete – Hardened Material Properties and Structural
A comparison of hardened properties of
fly-ash-based self-compacting concrete
and normally compacted concrete under
different curing conditions
Das and Chatterjee
Behavior. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Structural and Construction Engineering, Rome, pp.
1913–1919.
Kumar P and Kaushik SK (2003) Can marginal materials be used
to produce self-compacting concrete. Proceedings of the 3rd
Quinquennial International Symposium on Innovative World
of Concrete, Pune, India, pp. 116–119.
Kumar P, Haq MA and Kaushik SK (2004) Early age strength of
SCC with Large volumes of fly ash. The Indian Concrete
Journal 78(6): 25–29.
Mather N (1965) Compressive Strength Development of 193
Concrete Mixtures During 10 Years of Moist Curing. US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksberg,
Miscellaneous Paper No. 6-123, Report 12 (NTIS AD 756 324).
Okamura H and Ouchi M (2003) Self-compacting concrete.
Journal of Advance Concrete Technology 1: 5–15.
Ouchi M (2005) Applications of Self-Compacting Concrete in
Japan, Europe and US. Kochi University of Technology,
Kochi, Japan, pp. 1–18.
Ozawa K, Maekawa K, Kunishima M and Okamura H (1989)
Development of high performance concrete based on the
durability design of concrete structures. Proceedings of the
2nd East- Asia and Pacific Conference on Structural
Engineering and Construction (EASEC-2), Chaing-Mai 1:
445–450.
Ravindra Rajah R, Siladyi D and Adamopoulos B (2003)
Development of high-strength self- compacting concrete with
reduced segregation potential. Proceedings of the 3rd
International RILEM Symposium, Reykjavik, Iceland vol. 1,
p. 1048.
Sheinn AMM, Tam CT and Rodrigo FL (2004) Comparative study
on hardened properties of self-compacting concrete (SCC)
with normal slump concrete (NSC). Proceedings of the 29th
Conference on Our World in Concrete and Structures,
Singapore, pp. 485–494.
Subramanian S and Chattopadhyay D (2002) Experiments for
mix proportioning of self-compacting concrete. The Indian
Concrete Journal 76(1): 13–20.
Vengalia J, Sudarshan MS and Ranganath RV (2003)
Experimental study for self- compacting concrete. The Indian
Concrete Journal 77(8): 1261–1266.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please submit up to 500 words
to the editor at www.editorialmanager.com/macr by 1
August 2012. Your contribution will be forwarded to the
author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by
the editorial panel, will be published as a discussion in a
future issue of the journal.
141