2019 Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE)

Fresh and mechanical properties of self-compacting

lightweight concrete containing Ponza aggregates

Sara Ali Almawla

Civil Engineering Department Mahmoud Khashaa Mohammed Abdulkadir Ismail Al-hadithi
University of Anbar) Civil Engineering Department Civil Engineering Department
Ramadi, Iraq University of Anbar University of Anbar
sar17e111@uoanbar.edu.iq Ramadi, Iraq Ramadi, Iraq
mahmoud.mohammed@uoanbar.edu.iq abdulkader.alhadithi@uoanbar.edu.iq

Abstract— The main aim of this study is to investigate the

lightweight aggregates[6]. In addition, the improper
fresh and mechanical properties of self-compacting lightweight
concrete SCLC in which natural aggregates replaced by natural compaction of lightweight concrete leads to the float of light
lightweight coarse aggregate (Ponza) at different levels of 0%, aggregates to the surface, causing a weak layer in the concrete
40%, 60%, 80% and 100%. For this purpose, a total of five surface[7]. Incorporating of lightweight aggregates in self-
mixes were designed (MR, M40, M60, M80, M100) and the fresh compacting concrete can be very helpful to overcome this
properties of these mixes were evaluated using slump flow problem as self-compacting concrete does not need to be
diameter, the time required to reach 500 mm of flow (T500mm), compacted. This will reduce the float of lightweight
L-box height ratio, and sieve segregation test. For mechanical aggregates on the concrete surface (less segregation).
properties, compressive Strength at 7 and 28 days, splitting Therefore, self-compacting lightweight concrete SCLC
tensile and flexural strengths and dry bulk density of the
hardened concrete at 28 days were measured. The test results
combines between the positive properties of both lightweight
show that increasing the replacement level of lightweight coarse concrete and self-compacting concrete and eliminates some
aggregate LWCA caused an increase in the filling ability and led of the negative features of each type[8][9]. SCLC has good
to a decrease in T500mm time. Better performance in passing durability characteristics[10] and it also demonstrated good
ability was recorded, although there was a slight decrease in overall performance when it is used for strengthening
segregation resistance as compared to the SCC with natural reinforced concrete beams to improve their bending moment
aggregate. However, all results were still within acceptable capacities[11].Some of previous researchers studied the mix
ranges for SCC fresh requirements. The mechanical properties design, fresh and mechanical properties of SCLC using
of the produced SCLC reduced. However, a considerable different types of natural lightweight aggregates, while some
reduction in the dry bulk density was recorded with good
mechanical performance and this is extremely useful for
of them decided to use of industrial lightweight aggregate for
reducing the total weight of concrete structures. their studies. Choi et al. used an artificial lightweight coarse
aggregate type to produce SCLC and they concluded that all
Keywords— self compacting light weight concrete, ponza the fresh properties tested (slump flow, T500mm, time required
aggregates, fresh properties, mechanical properties. to flow through V-funnel, and filling height of U-box)
satisfied the fresh requirements for all mixes of SCC.
I. INTRODUCTION Additionally, it was deduced that the structural efficiency
Self-Compacting Concrete SCC is a highly flowable concrete (ratio of the strength to density) tended to increase as the ratio
that can totally compact under its own self weight unlike of lightweight fine aggregate increased in concrete[12].
conventional concrete that needs for an external vibration for Madandoust et al. showed that SCLC containing expanded
compaction. It spreads into places and goes through the polystyrene (EPS) with the density higher than 1900 kg/m3
reinforcement without bleeding and separation between (by volume of EPS up to22.5%) met the rheological and fresh
cement paste and aggregate, Further, improves structure properties of SCC[7]. Kim et al. studied the effect of two
durability and decreases permeability can be obtained using types of lightweight aggregates (LC1 with a density of 1.58
this type of concrete. SCC is therefore, one of the most g/cm3 and LC2 with a density of 2.07 g/cm3) on the properties
important developments in concrete technology[1][2][3]. of a SCC. The results showed that the flowability improved
Lightweight concrete (LWC) has many advantages and it has and segregation resistance decreased when the density of the
been used for many applications such as bridges and lightweight aggregates is lesser. In contrast, the strength of
buildings. The dead load of the concrete elements can be SCC with LC1 was 31% lower than the control concrete,
reduced considerably through the use of lightweight concrete. while it was 20% less in SCC with LC2 [13]. Gesoۜlu et al.
Thus, a reduction in the dimensions of the concrete section explained that the lightweight coarse aggregate LWCA had
can be obtained and consequently, the construction cost will the most significant effect than lightweight fine aggregate
be reduced. Moreover, lightweight concrete has good heat LWFA to achieve the same fresh properties[14]. Güneyisi et
insulation due to low thermal conductivity as well as it has al. indicated that the SCLC made with cold bonded fly ash
superior sound insulation. It is expected in the recent decades (FA) lightweight aggregate treated with glass water has a
to increase the use of lightweight concrete as construction better fluidity, passing ability, resistance to segregation, and
material[4][5]. Nonetheless, there are some disadvantages in compressive strength than SCLC with untreated LWA[15].
lightweight concrete as it suffers from the segregation of The scientific objective is to produce innovative type of
aggregate from the mix because of the low density of concrete called self-compacting lightweight concrete using

978-1-7281-3021-7/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 100

DOI 10.1109/DeSE.2019.00028

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Brighton. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 09:34:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
natural lightweight aggregates which is locally called Ponza, other four mixtures with the same w/b, binder content and
as well as investigating the fresh and mechanical properties. fine aggregates proportion. High range water reducing
The fresh and hardened requirements of SCLC in terms of admixture HRWRA was used in a content of 10 kg/m3 to
filling ability, passing ability, and resistance to segregation, improve the fresh properties of all mixes. TableIII shows the
dry density (less than 2000 kg/m3) in addition to compressive concrete mix proportions in kg/m3.
strength (more than 17 MPa) were considered in this study.
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TABLE II. SIEVE ANALYSIS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF ALL USED
AGGREGATE
A. Materials
Sieve size Cumulative Passing%
1) Cement and fly ash (mm)
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) Type1 was used to produce 12.5 100 100 ---
all the concrete mixes in this study. The Blaine fineness and
the specific gravity of this cement are 325 m2/kg and 3.15 9.5 86.76 93 ---
respectively. Class F fly ash (FA) type was used as a 4.75 14.12 30 95.3
secondary binder with a replacement level of 20% by weight
of cement. The Blaine fineness of this type was 380 m2/kg 2.36 0.16 4.7 85.9
whereas the specific gravity was 2.01. Table I illustrates the
1.18 --- 1.8 77.3
chemical properties of the used cement and fly ash.
0.6 --- --- 62.4
2) Aggregate
0.3 --- --- 16.8
Crushed gravel with a maximum size of 10 mm, specific
gravity 2.65 and water absorption of 0.53% was used as 0.15 --- --- 2.0
natural coarse aggregates. A natural fine aggregate also was
0.075 --- --- 0.005
used as fine aggregate with a maximum size of 4.75mm and
the specific gravity and water absorption of this aggregate
were 2.63 and 0.77 % respectively. The sieve analysis of the
two types, as listed in Table II, confirm the requirements of
ASTMC33[16]. Lightweight aggregate LWA named Ponza,
which is used as volume replacement level of natural
aggregates, was a clayey crushing stone from the mountains
in Iran as shown in Table II. The physical properties of this
type of aggregate were evaluated in terms of specific gravity
based on saturated surface dry condition and water absorption Natural Lightweight Natural
and they were 1.25 and 41.6%, respectively. The sieve Sieve coarse coarse fine
analysis of LWA, which also illustrated in Table II, confirms analysis aggregates aggregates aggregates
the requirements of ASTMC330[17].
C. Mixing procedure
The same procedure of mixing was used for all mixtures. Due
TABLE I. CHEMICAL PROPERTY OF CEMENT AND FLY ASH
to the high absorption of lightweight aggregates, it was
Chemical Compositions Cement Fly ash immersed in water for 24 hours and then spread out in the
% by weight laboratory for a suitable time to obtain saturated surface dry
CaO 61.95 18.1
SiO2 20.91 38.8
SSD condition to avoid absorption of mixing water. This did
Al2O3 5.31 14.7 not affect to the properties of ponza aggregates, where it
Fe2O3 3.33 19.48 remains strong. The coarse and fine aggregates were mixed
SO3 2.5 1.5 for one minute in a ban type mixer. Then cement and fly ash
MgO 2.35 3.3 were added and mixed together until the dry materials
K2O 0.92 1.79
Na2O 0.17 0.38
become homogeneous. Finally, the water containing
Loss on ignition 2.08 1.32 HRWRA was added and the wet mixing continued for further
5 minutes.

B. Mix Proportion D. Testing Program

To satisfy the SCC requirements, the final proportions of the The traditional slump flow test, which includes the
control SCC named as MR have been determined using trial measurement of slump flow diameter in millimeter and slump
and error in which water/binder ratio (w/b) and total binder flow time to obtain 500mm concrete spread T500mm in second,
content were 0.354 and 500 kg/m3 respectively. The best were utilized to describe the flowability of the concrete
fresh properties of SCC were attained when fly ash was added mixes. Slump flow cone, wooden plate, length measuring tool
at replacement levels 20% and 40% by weight of cement[18]. and a stopwatch were used for this purpose. L-box test as
Therefore, 20% by weight of cement was replaced by fly ash. shown in Fig.1 was used to measure the passing ability of
The natural coarse aggregates are then replaced with a concrete mixes. This test describes the effect of obstruction
lightweight coarse aggregate with different replacement such as reinforcing steel on concrete flowing. The indicator
ratios ranging from 40% to 100% by volume. This is to obtain

101

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Brighton. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 09:34:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE III. MIX PROPORTIONS

Binder content Natural aggregates

Mix Lightweight
Water HRWRA
w/b aggregates
Cement Fly ash Coarse Fine

MR 0.354 400 100 790 850 0 177 10

M40 0.354 400 100 474 850 149.2 177 10
M60 0.354 400 100 316 850 223.6 177 10
M80 0.354 400 100 158 850 298.11 177 10
M100 0.354 400 100 0 850 372.64 177 10

for the L-box test is a blocking ratio, which represents a ratio Flow times T500mm for the concrete mixes are shown in Fig.
between heights of concrete in the horizontal part H2 to 4. The lower time was recorded for the mixture containing
height of concrete in vertical part H1. Sieve segregation was high replacement level of lightweight aggregate (M100). For
used to measure resistance of segregation as shown in Fig.1. SCC containing natural and artificial LWA, this result was in
In this test, a sealed container is filled with 10 l of fresh agreement with those obtained by Kim et al[13], and Gesoۜlu
concrete for 15 minutes. Then, 4.8kg ± 0.2kg of fresh et al[14]. T500mm is used to evaluate viscosity in concrete in
concrete was poured into 5mm sieve from 50cm height. The according to EFNARC[19], for VS1 the slump flow time
segregation index SI is calculated by dividing the mass of should be less than 2 sec whereas for VS2, the flow time
concrete passing from the sieve to the total weight of poured should be between 2-5 sec. M100 mix was too closed to VS2
concrete. All fresh tests were conducted according to class. However, all produced mixtures can be classified as
EFNARC[19]. For the hardened concrete, six 100mm cubes VS2 including the control mix. Fig. 5. shows the blocking
were made to measure the compressive strength of 7, 28 days. ratio of the concrete mixtures. Concrete has a good passing
For each age, the mean of three cubes was calculated ability when the blocking ratio is between 0.8 and 1 according
according to BS EN 12390-3:2002 [20]. The same testing to EFNARC [19]. Therefore, all mixtures are within an
machine was used to determine splitting tensile strength at acceptable range as indicated in Fig. 5. The lower value of
age of 28 days using three cylinders (100 mm in diameter and blocking ratio (H2/H1) was observed in MR (0.86) while in
200 mm in height) and the test was performed according to M100, it was equal to 0.94. This means that incorporation of
ASTMC496 [21]. Flexural strength was determined as an LWA increased the passing ability. From the results of the
average of three prisms (500×100×100mm) at 28 days sieve segregation test shown in Fig.6, the minimum
according to ASTMC78 [22]. segregation index SI was 4.8% in MR mixture while it was
gradually increased when the replacement level of
III. RESULTS AND DICUSSION lightweight aggregates increased. The test results indicated
The photographs in Fig.2 shows a comparison between that, the existence of LWCA increases the viscosity of the
obtained slump flow in the control mixture MR and that concrete as determined throughT500 test. Due to the difference
containing 100% of Ponza LWA whereas Fig.3 presents the in density between concrete components when using LWA,
obtained diameter of flow in mm of all mixes and the which is characterized by low density compared to cement
limitation of EFNARC [19]. Compared to the control paste, the concrete mix tends to segregate more [24].
concrete MR, it was deduced that increasing the replacement However, all the obtained results for SI were lower than 8%
ratio of LWCA caused an increase in the slump flow diameter which is considered as good segregation resistance as stated
by approximately 2.7%,4.05%,4.73%,5.40% for M40, M60, by EFBARC guidelines. To ensure the structural
M80, M100 mixes respectively. According to EFNARC [19], requirements of the produced SCLC, both the compressive
the control mixture can be classified as SF2 class while the strength at 7 and 28 days as well as the dry density at 28 days
rest of the mixtures followed SF3 class. The increase in slump were checked. Fig. 7, Fig. 8.shows these results respectively.
flow diameter may be attributed to aggregate shape that is
close to the spherical and to the smooth surface texture of
ponza aggregate. These aggregate features might lead to a
lower internal friction causing an increase in flow [23].

Fig. 2. Flow diameter of MR and M100 mixes

Fig. 1. L-box and Seive segregation tests of fresh concrete

102

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Brighton. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 09:34:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 for structural purposes. Another important property that
should be checked is the tensile strength. Both splitting
strength and flexural strength were evaluated in this study and
the results are presented in Fig.9. In general, there was a
decrease in both splitting and flexural strength with the
increase of LWA replacement in SCC.

Fig. 3. Slump flow diameter of fresh concrete

Fig. 6. Segregation Index of fresh concrete

Fig. 4. T500 of fresh concrete

The measured compressive strength ranged from 24.71-56.7

MPa and 35.55-66.48 MPa for 7 and 28 days respectively.
The results indicate that replacing the crushed natural coarse
aggregate by LWA in different levels resulted in a gradual
decrease in compressive strength. The compressive strength at
28 days of MR was 66.48 MPa while that of M100 was only
35.55 MPa. The decrease in compressive strength might be
due to the weakness of LWA compared to natural
aggregates[25]. The reduction in compressive strength is
counterpoised by a decrease in dry bulk density as the ratio of Fig. 7. Compressive strength of hardened concrete
replacement of LWCA increases. Dry density of MR mixture
was 2305 kg/m3 and it decreased by about 11.49%, 16.53%,
21.08%, and 26.12% for M40, M60, M80, and M100
respectively. According to EN206-1[26], “lightweight
concrete should has an oven-dry density and not more than
2000 kg/m3”. Thus, M60, M80, and M100 can be classified as
SCLC and it can be used for structural purposes. The
compressive strength of these mixtures was too higher than 17
MPa which is the limit of using the concrete

Fig. 8. Dry density of hardened concrete

Fig. 5. Blocking ratio of fresh concrete

103

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Brighton. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 09:34:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 [3] A. T. Jasim and M. J. Murad, “Performance Of Self Compacting
Concrete Placed Underwater,” no. September, 2015.
[4] M. N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, and O. Kayali, “Strength and durability of
lightweight concrete,” Cem. Concr. Compos., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 307–314,
2004.
[5] A. A. Maghsoudi, S. Mohamadpour, and M. Maghsoudi, “International
Journal of Civil Engineering Mix design and mechanical properties of self
compacting light weight concrete,” Int. J., vol. 9, no. 3, 2011.
[6] Z. Wu, Y. Zhang, J. Zheng, and Y. Ding, “An experimental study on the
workability of self-compacting lightweight concrete,” Constr. Build.
Mater., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 2087–2092, 2009.
[7] R. Madandoust, M. M. Ranjbar, and S. Yasin Mousavi, “An
investigation on the fresh properties of self-compacted lightweight concrete
containing expanded polystyrene,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 25, no. 9, pp.
3721–3731, 2011.
[8] M. Kaffetzakis and C. C. Papanicolaou, “Lightweight Aggregate Self-
Compacting Concrete (LWASCC) semi-automated mix design
methodology,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 123, pp. 254–260, 2016.
[9] N. Bozkurt and V. Taúkin, “Design of self compacting lightweight
concrete using acidic pumice with different powder materials,” Acta Phys.
Pol. A, vol. 132, no. 3, pp. 779–782, 2017.
[10] H. Y. Wang, “Durability of self-consolidating lightweight aggregate
Fig. 9. Tensile strengths of hardened concrete concrete using dredged silt,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 23, no. 6, pp.
2332–2337, 2009.
[11] S. Iqbal, A. Ali, K. Holschemacher, T. A. Bier, and A. A. Shah,
“Strengthening of RC beams using steel fiber reinforced high strength
lightweight self-compacting concrete (SHLSCC) and their strength
predictions,” Mater. Des., vol. 100, pp. 37–46, 2016.
[12] Y. W. Choi, Y. J. Kim, H. C. Shin, and H. Y. Moon, “An experimental
IV. CONCLUSIONS research on the fluidity and mechanical properties of high-strength
Based on the results obtained, the following conclusions can lightweight self-compacting concrete,” Cem. Concr. Res., vol. 36, no. 9, pp.
1595–1602, 2006.
be drawn: [13] Y. J. Kim, Y. W. Choi, and M. Lachemi, “Characteristics of self-
consolidating concrete using two types of lightweight coarse aggregates,”
• The flowing ability, passing ability and resistance to Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 11–16, 2010.
segregation are good in all produced mixes where slump [14] M. Gesoۜlu, E. Güneyisi, T. Özturan, H. Ö. Öz, and D. S. Asaad,
“Self-consolidating characteristics of concrete composites including
flow diameter, slump flow time (T500mm), L-box
rounded fine and coarse fly ash lightweight aggregates,” Compos. Part B
(blocking ratio H2/H1, and sieve segregation Eng., vol. 60, pp. 757–763, 2014.
(segregation Index %) satisfied requirements of SCC [15] E. Güneyisi, M. Gesoglu, O. A. Azez, and H. Ö. Öz, “Effect of nano
according to EFNARC. silica on the workability of self-compacting concretes having untreated and
surface treated lightweight aggregates,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 115, pp.
• Increasing the replacement level of LWCA instead of 371–380, 2016.
natural aggregate resulted in an increase in slump flow [16] ASTM, “Astm C33-03,” vol. i, no. C, pp. 1–11, 2010.
diameter and blocking ratio H2/H1. [17] ASTM International, “ASTM C330-09. Standard Specification for
• The high flow diameter and H2/H1 were 780 mm and Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete,” Annu. B. ASTM Stand.,
vol. 552, no. 18, p. 4, 2009.
0.94 respectively for M100 mixture. [18] A. M. Ahmed Zeyad and A. Mustafa Saba, “Influence of Fly Ash on
• Low density of LWCA caused a reduction in the Properties of Self-Compacting Fiber Reinforced Concrete,” J. Steel
segregation resistance. Therefore, segregation index Struct. Constr., vol. 03, no. 01, pp. 1–8, 2017.
[19] EPG, “ERMCO The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting
increased and slump flow time (T500) decreased as the
Concrete,” Eur. Guidel. Self Compact. Concr., no. May, 2005.
ratio of LWCA increased. [20] B. Standard, “Standard BS EN 12390-3:2002,” no. August, 2003.
• Incorporation of LWCA caused a reduction in the [21] C. C. Test, T. Drilled, C. C. Test, and B. Statements, “Standard Test
compressive strength and dry bulk density of SCLC. Method for,” vol. i, pp. 1–5, 2011.
[22] ASTM Standard C78/C78M, “Standard Test Method for Flexural
The control mixture MR had a compressive strength and Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading),”
dry bulk density at 28 days of 66.48MPa and ASTM Int., vol. C78-02, no. C, pp. 1–4, 2010.
2305kg/m3 respectively whereas the compressive [23] M. Gesoۜlu, E. Güneyisi, T. Özturan, H. Ö. Öz, and D. S. Asaad,
strength and dry bulk density at 28 days of M100 “Permeation characteristics of self compacting concrete made with partially
substitution of natural aggregates with rounded lightweight aggregates,”
mixture were 35.55 MPa and 1703 kg/m3. Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 59, pp. 1–9, 2014.
• From flexural and splitting tensile strength tests, [24] Q. L. Yu, P. Spiesz, and H. J. H. Brouwers, “Ultra-lightweight
concrete mixes showed an average decrease in flexural concrete: Conceptual design and performance evaluation,” Cem. Concr.
strength of 11%,30%, 39%, and 45% for M40, M60, Compos., vol. 61, pp. 18–28, 2015.
[25] I. B. Topçu and T. Uygunoۜlu, “Effect of aggregate type on properties
M80, and M100, respectively whereas the decrease in of hardened self-consolidating lightweight concrete (SCLC),” Constr.
splitting tensile strength was up to 41% for M100 mix Build. Mater., vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1286–1295, 2010.
as compared to the control mix MR. [26] B. P. Spécification, “En 206-1,” pp. 1–72, 2000.

REFERENCES
[1] P. Aggarwal, R. Siddique, Y. Aggarwal, and S. M. Gupta, “Self-
compacting concrete - Procedure for mix design,” Leonardo Electron. J.
Pract. Technol., vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 15–24, 2008.
[2] A. Khaloo, E. M. Raisi, P. Hosseini, and H. Tahsiri, “Mechanical
performance of self-compacting concrete reinforced with steel fibers,”
Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 51, pp. 179–186, 2014.

104

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Brighton. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 09:34:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.