Available online at www.CivileJournal.

org

Civil Engineering Journal

Vol. 4, No. 1, January, 2018

Use of Fillers for Optimal Formulation of Self-Compacting

Concretes
Abdelhamid Noufid a*, Sougrati Belattar b
a
Ph.D.Student, Faculty of Science Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco.
b
Professor, Faculty of Science Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco.
Received 06 January 2018; Accepted 02 February 2018

Abstract
The objective of this study is to achieve an optimal formulation of self-compacting concrete using local materials from
the country of Morocco, the use of this type of concrete remains very limited compared to a concrete vibrated in this
country, due to lack mastery by companies. We will therefore try to study an optimal formulation that respects European
standards and gives comparable results, even improved, to those of vibrated concrete, in order to be able to replace
vibrated concrete with self-compacting concrete in construction sites. Thus, SCC mixtures containing amounts of fillers
were examined, and with different Portland cement dosages: 350; 375 and 400 kg/m 3. The method of formulation is
made in accordance with French regulations. The results obtained were compared to these vibrated concrete counterparts
containing the same cement dosages. Tests include compression, traction and flexion tests at 3, 7 and 28 days of age.
Several studies have been carried out internationally, but at the national level, there is no study to this effect. The results
obtained show that there is an improvement in the strength of concrete, in addition to the liquid appearance of concrete. It
is this last aspect that characterizes the SCC, which allows it a flow in the areas inaccessible by the vibrator, thus saving
time and performance of the structure to achieve.
Keywords: Self-Compacting Concrete; Formuation; Fillers; Resistance.

1. Introduction
Self-consolidating concretes (SCCs), which have been developed over the past three decades by Japanese
researchers [1], are still referred to as "new concretes" because their use remains modest, although they have a high
potential for development. The specificity of SCC compared to traditional concretes lies in the fact that they are
extremely fluid and don’t require vibration to be implemented. Compacting under their own weight, they can be cast
in very scrapped areas or in areas of complex architecture and difficult to access [2].Their origin seems to stem from
the need to use materials that are more and more "efficient" to offset a reduction in the quality of constructions due to
a bad Placement of the material [3]. The use of a traditional concrete requires a vibration phase in order to properly fill
the formwork. This step determines the quality of the final structure, but it is also a laborious task that requires special
know-how. The solution proposed was to use a very fluid material capable of compacting under its own weight
without external vibration. One of the main advantages of the SCC is that it allows the production of high-quality
facings; also, it has an excellent deformability and high resistance to segregation [4-5]. SCCs are formulated
differently from ordinary concretes: they contain less gravel, more fine elements and fluidifiers. This is of course what
gives them an auto-compacting character. However, it is also likely that these results in a different mechanical
behavior compared to ordinary concretes.

* Corresponding author: abdelhamid.noufid@ced.uca.ac.ma

http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/cej-030969
 This is an open access article under the CC-BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
© Authors retain all copyrights.

67
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, January, 2018

In this research, we will study mixtures of self-compacting concrete, at first we will try to find an optimal and
adequate formulation, and in a second time we will compare the mechanical tests of this formulation with those of an
ordinary concrete, more particularly the compressive strengths at the age of 3, 7 and 28 days. In the first step, the
research concerns the formulation; that is to say, find the dosage of the different components, namely, the gravel, the
sand, the cement, the fillers and the water. The mixtures studied are from MX1 to MX9, which are grouped by dosage
of Portland cement, the first group of MX1 to MX3, are dosed at 350 Kg/m 3, the second group of MX4 to MX6, are
dosed at 375 Kg/m3 and the third group from MX7 to MX9, are dosed at 400 Kg/m3. These mixtures are subject to
preliminary tests, namely the Abrams cone collapse test, the LBOX box flow test and the sieving stability test. These
tests are carried out according to European standards, and according to the results of these tests, we will discard
mixtures that do not meet the specifications of the standards. The mixtures that pass these tests will be subject to a
second measurement campaign, these are the tests of compressive and tensile strengths at different ages of 3, 7 and 28
days. In a second step, these self-compacting concrete mixtures with vibrated concrete counterparts will be compared
in terms of compressive strength. From these results, we can judge the use of self-healing concrete as an alternative of
vibrated concrete in Moroccan construction sites.

2. Principal Characteristics Of Self-Compacting Concrete

2.1. Principle
The main difference between a SCC and a traditional concrete (TC) is the behavior of the material in the fresh state
and therefore in its implementation, the specificity of a SCC is to be extremely fluid. It compacts under the effect of its
own weight and therefore doesn’t require vibration to be set up. Furthermore, the material must be stable to ensure the
homogeneity of the final structure. In terms of implementation, SCCs offer more flexible conditions than traditional
concrete due to the suppression of vibration [6]. One of the major advantages of SCCs is the reduction of the duration
of the casting phase: the emptying of the bucket takes place more quickly, the flow of the material is obviously easier,
the vibration phase is suppressed and the upper is easier to achieve. In general, SCCs have the same cement dosage
and therefore it is mainly the addition of an addition, in water only the TC, as well as a volume of sand quite close [2].
The role of the paste is to separate the gravel to limit the contacts. The large volume of fine elements also guarantees
the compromise between stability and maneuverability [6].
2.2. Characteristics in Fresh State
2.2.1. Workability
Workability characterizes the capacity of concrete to flow under its own weight:
 Possibility of casting heavily scraped areas,
 Possibility of casting areas of complex architecture and difficult to access,
 Obtaining very good siding qualities.
The reference test for characterizing the workability of SCCs is: Abrams Cone Spread Test [7]: The conventional
Abrams cone test is used to measure spreading. It therefore gives an indication of its capacity to self-compact in an
unconfined environment. This cone is placed on a plasterboard having a clean, moistened surface and of sufficient size,
then it is filled with concrete the cone is lifted and the concrete emerges therefrom forming a wafer which widens under
its own energy without the need to raise and drop the plate as in the conventional spreading test. The spreading value
corresponds to the average diameter of the concrete cake thus obtained, which should be between 600 and 800 mm [2].

Figure 1. Slump flow test for self-compacting concrete

2.2.2. Homogeneity
Once the filling has been completed, the material must flow and pass through more or less dense frames. To realize
this property, various tests are available to highlight the capacity of a SCC to flow through reinforcement more or less

68
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, January, 2018

dense. If the aggregates are blocked and arched at the reinforcement bars, the filling of the formwork will not be done
properly. The reference test to characterize this property is: L-box test [8].
It is possible to test the mobility of the concrete in a confined environment. During the test, the vertical part of a L-
shaped box is first filled. After one minute, the trap is lifted allowing the flow through three reinforcements. The final
filling rate H2 / H1 indicates the mobility of the concrete in a confined medium must be greater than 0.8 [2]. A bad
flow of the concrete through the reinforcement informs us of a problem of blocking or segregation.

Figure 2. L-box test

A second test also allows judging the homogeneity of the concrete is the test of stability to the sieve; it makes to
judge the possibility of segregation of the concrete. At the end of the mixing, ten liters of concrete are poured into a
tray. After a waiting period of fifteen minutes, a mass of 4.8 kg of concrete is poured from the tray on to a sieve of 5
mm mesh [2]. Two minutes later, the quantity of paste that had passed through the sieve was weighed. A high
percentage of milt relative to the initial mass is an indicator of low resistance to segregation.

Figure 3. Sieve stability test

2.3. Formulation of Self-Compacting Concrete
To formulate ordinary concretes, the most widely used method in the industry is the modified Dreux-Gorisse
method [9]. It proposes different charts to estimate the water and cement dosages in order to obtain the desired
strength and sag. The development of a SCC formulation is much more complex, in addition to the cone test, the L-
box test and the sieve stability test The characteristics of SCCs; A concrete rich in a fluid paste is very sensitive to
segregation. The different studies carried out made it possible to put forward a simple principle of formulation for the
SCC: it is necessary to reduce the inter-granular friction at the different scales (cement, sand and aggregate). Thus, the
volume of the paste must be increased to the detriment of gravette [10-11]. Thus, the volume of paste must be
increased. However, SCCs must have a low flow threshold so that the flow begins rapidly and their viscosity has to be
moderate in order to limit the flow time. That is why the volume of paste in a SCC represents 35 to 45% of the total
volume, whereas in traditional concrete it is 20 to 35% and a superplasticizer is used to thin the paste. Other
parameters must also be taken into consideration such as:
 Maximum aggregate diameter (Dmax): It appears that the risk of blocking, for a given reinforcement, increases
when the maximum diameter of the aggregates increases. In order to limit the risk of blockage, the maximum
diameter of the aggregates must therefore be reduced compared to that of a traditional concrete. The maximum
diameter of the chippings is between 10 and 20 mm [2]. The choice of a larger maximum diameter is possible but
is justified only when confinement and density of reinforcement are low.
 Volume of large aggregates: The quantity of large aggregates has a strong influence on the ability of concrete to
pass through reinforcements. The smaller the aggregate, the higher the filling capacity. However, the gravel
increases the granular compactness of the skeleton, which makes it possible to limit the quantity of binder
necessary to obtain the desired rheological and mechanical characteristics. It is therefore a question of finding a
compromise during the formulation of the material. The quantity of aggregates must be reduced to limit the risk of

69
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, January, 2018

blockage. As a result, the quantity of suspending material is increased. But the quantity of sand contained in the
mortar should not be too great since this increases the flow resistance and viscosity. In the case of SCCs, the
maximum diameter of the aggregates is limited (on the order of 16 to 20 mm) [2].
 Role of superplasticizers: superplasticizers are used widely to produce flowable, strong, and durable Portland
cement concretes and mortars [12]. The hydration behaviors of Portland cement in the presence of
superplasticizers have been investigated by a number of researchers [13-16]. It is thus possible to manufacture
very fluid concretes, even with less water than is necessary to hydrate the cement, and thus to make concretes
with a low Water / Cement ratio that are easy to install. The time of introduction of the superplasticizer during
kneading plays a role in the saturation dosage. If the introduction is delayed, the saturation dosage is lower; it is
obtained for a smaller quantity of superplasticizer. Thus, delaying its introduction allows the superplasticizer to be
more efficient and to obtain mixtures more fluid than if it had been introduced at the beginning of mixing.
 Role of fines: Superplasticizers therefore make it possible to obtain very fluid concretes by reducing the friction
between cement grains and by releasing a certain quantity of water. Their use is not sufficient in the case of SCCs.
Interactions between larger grains must also be reduced. In order to increase the quantity of paste of a SCC, it is
then possible to envisage increasing the quantity of cement [17]. However, this would lead to a significant
increase in the cost of the material but also to problems of shrinkage due to the rise in temperature during the
hydration of the cement. It is therefore necessary to replace part of the cement with mineral additions. Different
additions are cited in the literature [18]: fly ash, blast furnace slag, silica fume and calcareous filler. These
materials can have a chemical influence and / or a physical role depending on their nature.
SCCs are formulated with a higher volume of paste and sand / gravel ratio than in vibrated concrete. Moreover, they
generally contain large quantities of adjuvants.

3. Experimental study
3.1. Materials
The materials used in this study come from the following quarries:
 Gravette G1 and Grain de Riz from Oued CHERRAT/Morocco of limestone nature;
 Crushed sand from the quarry Ouled ABBOU/Morocco of dolomite nature (SC);
 Sand dune from the town of KENITRA/Morocco of siliceous nature (SM);
 Mixing water is the drinking water of the network.
The different aggregates were subjected to a laboratory characterization; Table 1. summarizes the results. Figure 4.
schematizes the curves of the particle size analysis performed on the concrete formulation materials. There is clearly
continuity between the three curves, in other words an overlap zone between these curves, and subsequently the matrix
contains the various dimensions from the finest to the largest elements, therefore a texture of the concrete and a
consistent appearance.

Figure 4. Curves of granulometric analyzes of aggregates

70
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, January, 2018

Table 1. Identification tests on aggregates

Nature of material Gravette SC SM

Particle size analysis NM 10.1.700 [19] See the chart above

Coefficient of flattening A(%) NM 10.1.155 [20] 15 - -
Actual density of gravel ρr (t / m3 ) NM 10.1.146 [21] 2.67 - -
Gravel absorption coefficient Ab (%) NM 10.1.146 [21] 0.9 - -
Porosity of Gravette (%) NM 10.1.146 [21] 2.4 - -
Actual sand density ρr (t/m3) NM 10.1.149 [22] - 2.62 2.60
Sand absorption coefficient Ab (%) NM 10.1.149 [22] - 0.2 0.3
Surface cleanliness P (%) NM 10.1.169 [23] 0.4 - -
Equivalent of Sand SE (%) NM 10.1.147 [24] - 63 89
Los Angeles coefficient LA (%) NM 10.1.138 [25] 23 - -

3.2. Research Methodology

The main objective of this study is to identify the various parameters related to the composition of concrete. The
formulations adopted at a first level were deduced by the application of the general formulation recommendations
referred to in the report of section 2, namely:
 Percentage of gravels between 28 and 35% relative to the total volume of the mixture.
 Determination of fine elements (cement + fine elements) between 400 and 600 kg/m3, vary the cement dosage
between 350 and 400 kg/m3.
 The rest of the fine elements (<80μm) comes from the fine fraction of the crushing sand used.
 Volume of water less than 200 L/m3 to be adjusted according to the required rheological characteristics of the
concrete. It should be noted that this volume must take into account the water content of the different aggregates
and their absorption coefficient.
 The remainder of the volume is completed by sand.
The studied mixes are shown in the Table 2.
Table 2. Self-compacting concrete mixtures studied
Mixes MX1 MX2 MX3 MX4 MX5 MX6 MX7 MX8 MX9
Cement 350Kg/m3 X X X
Cement 375 Kg/m3 X X X
Cement 400 Kg/m3 X X X
Water 100 l/m3 X X X
Water 150 l/m3 X X X
Water 200 l/m3 X X X

3.2.1. Different Stages of the Experimental Study and Spefications

Starting from a ratio G / S (mass of gravette to mass of sand) close to one, the dosage was varied in fine elements
by adopting the following parameters:
 The volume of paste varies between 327 and 350 L/m3.
 The cement mass varies between 350 and 400 kg/m3, while the fines are obtained by sand fines of 50, 100 and
150 kg/m3. The total mass of the fines thus obtained in the mixture varies between 400 and 500 kg/m3.
 The specifications to be satisfied are as follows: the specifications to be satisfied are grouped in Table 3.
Table 3. Fresh concrete specifications

Characteristic Min Max

Slump flow (mm) [2 ] 600 800

L-Box (ratio) [11] 0.8 1

Sieve Stability (%) [2] 5 15

The mixtures thus obtained are given in Table 4.

71
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, January, 2018

Table 4. Preliminary formulation of self-compacting concrete

Mixes MX1 MX2 MX3 MX4 MX5 MX6 MX7 MX8 MX9
Cement 350 375 400
Fillers 50 102 151 101 151 49 101 148 81
Total fine elements 400 452 501 476 526 424 501 548 481
Aggregate (G) 873 860 833 846 828 894 838 817 868
Sand 874 874 837 892 834 950 879 826 898
Distribution of sand:
Sand of dune 600 312 2 332 1 677 319 8 453
Crushing sand 274 562 835 561 834 273 560 818 445
Water 195 180 185 170 180 150 170 180 160
Ratio Gravette/aggregate 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.49
Report G/S 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.94 0.95 0.99 0.97

A) Optimization of the quantity of paste

The formulation method based on the optimization of the quantity of paste i.e. to find the minimum quantity of paste
which will allow us to avoid blockages during the flow, and therefore to ensure the maneuverability of the mixture.
Thus, for the same cement dosage, several tests were carried out to obtain the optimum quantity of the fines and the
adjuvant dosage as shown in Table 4.
Table 5. Optimization of the quantity of paste
Mixture Observations Preliminary conclusions Continuation of the study
 Low spreading :D=490 mm
MX1  LBOX : Blocking of aggregates Low paste volume Test the Mix MX3
 Sieve stability : 2%
The aggregates appear to
 Acceptable spread D =610 mm Testing again MX1 and MX3
be trapped in the paste.
MX3  Vault formation at armature level with a stronger adjuvant
Increase the adjuvant
 Paste too viscous dosage 1.5%, 1.8% and 2%
dosage
 Spreading : D=420 mm
MX1  L-Box ; Blocking of aggregates Same conclusion as in the
Test MX3
 Sieve stability : 1.6% first MX1 test

 Spreading D= 660 mm Despite a higher level of

 Flow more freely but still insufficient adjuvant, the aggregates Test an intermediate mixture
MX3
H2 /H1 = 0.5 don’t seem to be released MX2
 Sieve stability 8,8% from the too viscous paste
 Spreading D = 730 mm
 L-Box : Absence of aggregate blocking Reduce the quantity of water
MX2 Segregation Phenomenon
(H2 / H1 = 1) and / or adjuvant
 Sieve stability : 20%

Thus, it is deduced that the best mixture of rheological behavior of a SCC is that obtained from a mixture MX2
comprising approximately 100 kg of calcareous fines. This conclusion was verified for the other cement measurements.
B) Skeletal optimization
The formulation of the SCCs is also based on an optimization of the granular skeleton. Thus, one of the most
important parameters to study was the Gravette / Aggregate Total (G / GT) ratio or the Gravette/Sand (G / S) ratio.
Table 5. presents the different experiments carried out.
Table 6. Optimization of the granular skeleton
Reports studied Phenomenon observed Preliminary Findings Continuation of the study
 Spreading : D=650 mm Difficulty of the concrete
G/GT= 0.50  L-BOX : H2 / H1 = 0.3 to pass between the Reduce G / GT Report
 Sieve stability : 8% reinforcements
 Spreading : D =710 mm
Good appearance of fresh
G/GT =0.48  L-BOX : H2/H1=0.8 Reduce again G / GT
concrete
 Sieve stability : 12%
 Spreading : D=700 mm
Good appearance of fresh
G/GT=0.45  LBOX : H2/H1=0.8 Reduce again G / GT
concrete
 Sieve stability : 12%
 Spreading : D =610 mm
The aggregates appear to
G/GT=0.42  Vault formation at armature level Limit G / GT to 0.45
be trapped in the paste
 Paste too viscous

72
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, January, 2018

3.2.2. Plan of the final mixture

At the end of these various tests, six formulations were studied. Table 6. shows the mixtures adopted for the rest of
the study.
Table 7. Formulations adopted for the study of self-compacting concrete

Mixes MX1 MX2 MX3 MX4 MX5 MX6

Cement (kg/m3) 350 350 375 375 400 400
Total fines+ cement (kg/m3) 452 452 476 476 501 501
Sand of dune (kg/m3) 397 347 384 342 388 317

Crushing sand (kg/m3) 562 562 561 561 560 560

Gravette 6.3/16 (kg/m3) 788 825 780 822 769 814

G/GT 0.45 0.48 0.45 0.48 0.45 0.48

The quantity of adjuvant was set at 2% of the cement mass.

3.3. Results and Discussion
3.3.1. Test on SCC
A) Rheological characteristic on SCC
The various characterization tests on SCC in the fresh state were carried out, these are:
 Spreading at the cone of Abrams,
 L-shaped box (or L-BOX),
 Sieve Stability Test.
The different results obtained are given in Table 7.

Table 8. Results in the fresh state of the various mixtures

Test MX1 MX2 MX3 MX4 MX5 MX6
Spreading (mm) 715 700 660 625 610 665
L-Box 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8
Sieve Stability (%) 11.6 12 10.2 12.5 9 12.5

It is then noted that the different results show that the concrete studied exhibits rheological characteristics
conforming for a self-compacting concrete with the exception of concrete MX5.
B) Tests on hardened SCC
Figures 5 and 6. show the evolution of the compressive strength and the tensile strength of the different mixtures
studied. As regards Figure 5, the various mixtures studied, namely MX1 up to MX6, are represented along the x-axis,
and along the y-axis are represented the values of the compressive strengths at the age of 3, 7 and 28 days. According to
this figure, the minimum values of compressive strengths correspond to the MX1 mixture, which are 22, 30 and 43 MPa
for the three ages, while the maximum values are those found for the MX6 mixture, which are 30, 39 and 56 MPa for
the three ages. For Figure 6, the studied mixtures are shown along the x-axis and the results of the tensile strengths at 28
days of age are shown along the y-axis. According to this graph, the maximum resistance is recorded for the mixture
MX6 and which is worth 3.6 MPa, while the minimum resistance is recorded for the mixture MX3 and which is worth
5.0 MPa. The tests are carried out in accordance with the current standards [26-27].

73
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, January, 2018

Tensile strength (MPa)

5

Tensile Strength (MPa)

4

0
MX1 MX2 MX3 MX4 MX5 MX6
Mixtures

Figure 5. Compressive strength at the age of 3, 7 and 28 days for different SCC mixtures

Figure 6. Tensile strength at the age of 28 days for the various mixtures
It is then noted that the compressive strength of the studied mixtures greatly exceed those required by a class B1
concrete in accordance with standard NM 10.1.008 [28] and in all cases exceed 40 MPa. It is also noted that the
concretes having a ratio G / GT = 0.48 give slightly higher compressive strengths. The compressive and tensile strength
results give values similar to those published by other research carried out on self-placing concrete [29-31].
3.3.2. Test on Vibrated Concrete
In order to compare this type of concrete with traditional concretes, we studied three types of vibrated concrete
(VC), measured at 350, 375 and 400 kg/m3. In the fresh state, the VC has a slump of 4 cm. Table 8. shows the mixtures
adopted for VC.
Table 9. Formulation of vibrated concrete
Type of mixture VC1 VC2 VC3

Gravette 6.3/16 1091 1075 1102

Sand of sea 261 280 259

Crushed Sand 561 533 510

Cement 350 375 400

Water Mixing 190 180 185

Figures 7, 8 and 9. show the results of the compression resistances obtained by the two concretes VC and SCC.

74
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, January, 2018

70

60

Compressive Strength (MPa)

50

40
MX3
30
MX4
20 VC
10

0
3 days 7 days 28 days

Test Age (days)

Figure 7. Comparison of compressive strength between SCC and VC for dosing of 350 Kg/m3

70
Compressive Strength (MPa)

60

50

40 MX5
30 MX6

20 VC

10

0
3 days 7 days 28 days
Test Age (days)

Figure 8. Comparison of compressive strength between SCC and VC for dosing of 375 Kg/m3

60
Compressive Strength (MPa)

50

40
MX1
30
MX2
20
VC
10

0
3 days 7 days 28 days
Test Age (days)

Figure 9. Comparison of compressive strength between SCC and VC for dosing of 400 Kg/m3
Figures 7, 8 and 9. attempt to compare the compression tests at the age of 3, 7 and 28 days of SCC mixtures with
those of VC. First, Figure 7. shows the formulations studied with a Portland cement dosage of 350 kg/m3, it is mixtures
MX1 and MX2 for SCC and VC1 for vibrated concrete. According to this figure, there is an improvement of this
resistance, which reaches 10% for MX1 and 18% for MX2. Secondly, Figure 8. shows this comparison for a Portland
cement dosage of 375 kg/m3. The mixtures relate to MX3 and MX4 for SCC and VC2 for vibrated concrete. There is an
improvement of the resistance of SCC compared to VC; this evolution of resistance reaches 20% for MX3 and 16% for

75
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, January, 2018

MX4. Finally, Figure 9. also shows an improvement in the resistance of MX5 and MX6 with respect to VC3. The
dosage adopted is 400 kg/m3 of Portland cement, the increase reaches 8% for MX5 and 10% for MX6. The results
obtained make it possible to conclude that the compressive strengths of the vibrated concretes are lower than the
resistances of the self-compacting concretes.

4. Conclusions
The experimental study led to a first overview of the various parameters having a direct or indirect impact on the
different characteristics of the SCCs. In this context, it is important to note the following findings:
 At the material level, the experiment showed that it is quite possible to produce self-compacting concretes from
fired crusher sands.
 With these materials, the dosages of fine elements (Cement + fine elements from crushing sand) are between
450 and 500 kg/m3 with a G / GT ratio of between 0.45 and 0.48.
 The tested formulations resulted in a self-compacting concrete with the following characteristics:
- A spreading between 610 and 715mm;
- An H2 / H1 coefficient at the L-Box between 0.7 and 0.9;
- A Sieve Stability Coefficient of between 9 and 12.5%;
 The compressive and tensile strengths far exceed the characteristic resistances of a Type B1 concrete in the
sense of Moroccan Standard NM 10.1.008. They also exceed the resistances obtained by a control vibrated
concrete.

5. References
[1] Ozawa K., Maekawa K., Kunishima M. and Okamura H. “Performance of Concrete Based on the Durability Design of Concrete
Structures”. Proceedings of the Second East Asia-Pacific Conf Structural Engineering and Construction, Chiang Mai, Thailand
(1989).
[2] EFNARC. “The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete” (2002).
[3] Agustin, P. Hugas. “Mix Proportion and Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete, Report TVBM-5041, Division of building
Materials, Lund Institute of Technology” (1999).
[4] Aslani Farhad. and Nejadi Shami. “Mechanical Properties of Conventional and Self-Compacting Concrete: An Analytical
Study.” Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012): 330–347. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.034.
[5] Shindoh T., Yokota K. and Yokoi K. “Effect of Mix Constituents on Rheological Properties of Super Workable Concrete.”
Proceedings of the International RILEM conf, Production Methods and Workability of Concrete, Paisely, Scotland (1996).
[6] Yazicioglu S., Caliskan S., & Turk K. “Effect of Curing on the Engineering Properties of Self-Concrete.” Indian Journal of
Engineering & Materials Sciences 13 (2006): 25-29.
[7] EN 12350-8. “Self Compacting Concrete. Part 8 – Slump Flow Test, European Standard” ( 2010).
[8] EN 12350-10. “Self Compacting Concrete. Part 10 – L Box test, European Standard” (2010).
[9] Dreux G., Gorisse F. and Simonnet J. “Composition des Bétons : Méthode Dreux-Gorisse, Annales de l’Institut Technique du
Batiment et des Travaux Publics, France” (1983).
[10] Nagamoto N. and Ozawa K. “Mixture properties of Self-Compacting, High-Performance Concrete.” Proceedings of Third
CANMET/ACI International Conferences on Design and Materials and Recent Advances in Concrete Technology, SP-172, V. M.
Malhotra, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich (1997).
[11] Khayat K.H. and Ghezal A. “Utility of Statistical models in Proportioning Self-Compacting Concrete.” Proceedings, RILEM
International symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete, Stockholm (1999).
[12] Shi Chen, He Ting-shu, Zhang Ge, Wang Xi and Hu Yanyan. “Effects of Superplasticizers on Carbonation Resistance of
Concrete.” Construction and Building Materials 108 (2016): 48–55. doi : 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.01.037.
[13] Yamada Kazuo, Takahashi Tomoo, Hanehara Shunsuke and Matsuhisa Matsuhisa. “Effects of the Chemical Structure on the
Properties of Polycarboxylate-Type Superplasticizer.” Cement & Concrete Researsh, 30 (2000): 197–207. doi: 10.1016/S0008-
8846(99)00230-6.
[14] Kreppelt Fritz, Weibel Martin, Zampini Davide and Romer Micheal. “Influence of solution chemistry on the hydration of
polished clinker surfaces—a Study of Different Types of Polycarboxylic Acid-Based Admixtures.” Cement & Concrete Researsh
32 (2002): 187–198. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00654-8.
[15] Carazeanu Ionela, Chirila Elisabita and Georgescu Maria. “Investigation of the Hydration Process in 3CaO–Al2O3–CaSO4–
2H2O–Plasticizer–H2O Systems by X-ray Diffraction.” Talanta 57 (2002): 617–623. doi: 10.1016/S0039-9140(02)00100-5.
[16] Yu Yinhui, Liu Jiaping, Ran Qianping, Qiao Min and Zhou Dongliang. “Current Understanding of Comb-Like Copolymer

76
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, January, 2018

Dispersants Impact on the Hydration Characteristics of C3A–Gypsum Suspension.” J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 111 (2013): 437–444.
doi: 10.1007/s10973-012-2430-3.
[17] Felekoglu Burak. “A comparative Study on the Performance of Sands Rich and Poor in Fines in Self-Compacting Concrete.”
J. Cons.Bui. Mat. 22 (2008): 646–654. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.10.007.
[18] Aggarwal P., Siddique R., Aggarwal Y. and Gupta S.M. “Self-Compacting Concrete - Procedure for Mix Design.” Leonardo
Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies 12 (2008): 15-24.
[19] NM 10.1.700. “Essais pour Déterminer les Caractéristiques Géométriques des Granulats - Détermination de la Granularité -
Analyse granulométrique par Tamisage, Morrocan Standards” (2008).
[20] NM 10.1.155. “Granulats - Mesure du coefficient d'aplatissement, Morrocan Standards » (1995).
[21] NM 10.1.146. “Granulats-Mesure des Masses Spécifiques de la Porosité du Poefficient d'Absorption de la Teneur en Eau des
Gravillons et Cailloux, Morrocan Standards (1995).
[22] NM 10.1.149. “Granulats-Mesure des Masses Spécifiques, Coefficient d'Absorption et Teneur en Eau des Sables, Morrocan
Standards” (1995).
[23] NM 10.1.169, “Granulats-Détermination de la Propreté Puperficielle, Morrocan Standards” (1995).
[24] NM 10.1.147. “Granulats - Equivalent de Sable, Morrocan Standards” (1995).
[25] NM 10.1.138. “Granulats - Essai Los Angeles, Morrocan Standards” (1995).
[26] EN 12390-3. “Testing Harderned Concrete. Part 3 – Compressive Strength of Test Specimens, European Standards” (2002).
[27] EN 12390-5. “Testing harderned concrete. Part 5 – Flexural Strength of test Specimens, European Standards” (2002).
[28] NM 10.1.008. “Béton : Spécifications, Performances, Production et Conformité, Morrocan Standards” (2007).
[29] Ravinder Kaur Sandhu and Rafat Siddique. “Influence of rice husk ash (RHA) on the properties of self-compacting concrete:
A review.” J. Cons.Bui. Mat. 153 (2017): 751–764. doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.165.
[30] Stefania Manzi, Claudio Mazzotti and Maria Chiara Bignozzi. “Self-compacting concrete with recycled concrete aggregate:
Study of the long-term properties.” J. Cons.Bui. Mat. 157 (2017): 582–590. doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.129.
[31] Miguel C.S. Nepomuceno, L.A. Pereira-de-Oliveira and S.M.R. Lopes. “Methodology for the mix design of self-compacting
concrete using different mineral additions in binary blends of powders.” J. Cons.Bui. Mat. 64 (2014): 82–94.
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.021.

77