IRJET- Performance of RC Beams Cast using Normal and Self-Compacting Concretes with Different Reinforcement Ratios Compared with ECP and ACI

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 07 | July 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1896
Performance of RC Beams Cast using Normal and Self-Compacting
Concretes with Different Reinforcement Ratios Compared with ECP and
ACI
El-Sayed Kotb El-Sayed El-Abuoky1
1Lecturer, Construction and Building Department, Faculty of Engineering, October 6 University, El-Giza, Egypt
---------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Self-compacting concrete like a construction
material needs more treatises to explorer its structure
performance. Performance of normal concrete with under,
balanced and over reinforcement ratios is very clear but for
self-compacting concrete is still unknown. Deflections
corresponding to the same loads for the same structure
element are different from code to another. In this research
normal concrete and self-compacting concrete beams with
under, balanced and over reinforcement ratios were tested to
scout the self-compacting concrete structure performance.
The tested beams were analyzed using both Egyptian Code of
Practice ECP 203-2017 and American Concrete Institute ACI
318-2014 to verify the difference between deflections
computations. Trial mixes for both normal and self-
compacting concretes were proportioned, and tested in fresh
and hardened states to elect suitable mixes for casting the
reinforced concrete beams with under, balanced and over
reinforcement ratios. A comparative study was performed
between the tested beams to scout the structure performance
of the self-compacting concrete related to normal concrete.
Another comparativeinvestigationwasperformedtoscoutthe
difference in deflection computation for both the Egyptian
Code of Practice and the American Concrete Institute.
Key Words: Normal, Self, Compacting, Concrete,
Reinforcement, Under, Balanced, Over.
1. INTRODUCTION
Self-compacting concrete SCC is identified as a type of
concrete has distinguished segregation opposition and
deformability. SCC is capable of stream through its own
weight and capable of filling the entire framework even
inside serried reinforcement. The SCC is analogous to the
normal concrete hardened properties such as condense,
homogenous and substantiality [1, 2]. SCC has the identical
constituents as normal concrete, that are binding material,
fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and water, in the company
of variable ratios of mineral admixture and chemical
admixture [3]. SCC has verified advantageous and economic
features such as more rapid construction, manpower
reduction in erection field, preferable concrete face finish,
placing facility, enhanced durability, enlarge flexible design,
delicate concrete sections, low noise standard and vibration
lack [4, 5]. Till now, there is no specified design for SCC
mixes but only guidelines differ from agency to other [5, 6].
SCC is implemented by decreasing the volume proportion of
aggregate to binding cementitious substance, augmenting
the paste content and utilizing diverse superplasticizersand
viscosity enhancing element [7,8, 9].
There is a great leakage about the structural performance of
the SCC. The first aim of this research is to investigate the
structure performance of self-compaction concrete beams
with under, balanced and over reinforcement related to
normal concrete beams. The second aim is to verify the
difference between deflectionsequationsof bothEgyptianof
Design and Practice of Concrete Structures ECP 203-2017
and American Concrete Institute ACI 318-14considering the
tested beams.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1 Materials and Mixes
A normal strength ordinary Portland cement C which meets
both Egyptian specification ESS 4756-1/2013 CEM I 42.5N
and European standards BS EN 197-1:2011 CEM I 42.5N
demands was used a binding material. Clean, well graded
and smooth texture natural sand Swasuseda fineaggregate.
Standard sieve No. 4 was used to remove larger grains and
harmful loam. Crushed dolomite CD of lime stone whichwas
sieved using sieve No. 2 to maintain nominal maximum size
equals 20 mm was used a coarse aggregate. Potablewater W
was used for casting both normal concrete mixes, self-
compacting concrete mixes and reinforced concrete beams.
Two concrete additives were used in this investigation for
production of self-compacting concrete, whereas the first
admixture was fly ash FA and the second admixture was
superplasticizer SP. The fly ash is a newgenerationspherical
particles in tender powdered form [10]. Fly ash is high
performance third generation additive for homogenous
concrete production [10]. Superplasticizer confirms with
both ASTM-C-494 Type G and F, and BS EN 934 part 2:2001
demand was used as high-range water-reducer [11].
Trial nine normal concrete mixes were proportioned to
select a concrete mix with plastic consistency and suitable
compression strength. The nine mixes had constant cement
content equals 350 kg, water cement ratios ranging from
0.46 to 0.54, and both crushed dolomite and sand were
calculated using absolute volume equation. Table 1 shows
normal concrete mixes proportion.

Table -1: Normal Concrete Mixes Components
Mix
Concrete Mix Components (kg/m3)
C S CD W
MNC1 350 777 1165 161
MNC2 350 773 1159 164.5
MNC3 350 769 1153 168
MNC4 350 765 1147 171.5
MNC5 350 762 1143 175
MNC6 350 758 1137 178.5
MNC7 350 754 1131 182
MNC8 350 751 1126 185.5
MNC9 350 747 1120 189
For self-compaction concrete mix design, there is no
standard method. In this investigation the directions of the
Technical Specification for Self-Compacting Concrete, 2012
[12] were considered in the self-compacting concrete mixes
proportions. For self-compacting concrete mixes
proportions, cement content was constant and equals 350
kg, water cement ratio W/C was constant and equals 0.4, fly
ash contents were 25, 30 and 35% of cement content [10],
superplasticizer contents were 1, 1.5 and 2% of cement
content by volume [11], and bothsandandcrusheddolomite
were calculated applying absolute volume equation.
According to ETS [12], sand content was assumed equals to
crushed dolomite content. Table 2 shows nine self-
compacting concrete mixes proportions considering the
variables mentioned above.
Table -2: Self-Compacting Concrete Mixes components
Mix
Self-Compacting Concrete Components
(kg/m3)
C S CD W FA SP
MSCC1 350 935 935 140 87.5 3.67
MSCC2 350 924 924 140 105 3.67
MSCC3 350 914 914 140 122.5 3.67
MSCC4 350 933 933 140 87.5 5.51
MSCC5 350 922 922 140 105 5.51
MSCC6 350 911 911 140 122.5 5.51
MSCC7 350 930 930 140 87.5 7.35
MSCC8 350 920 920 140 105 7.35
MSCC9 350 909 909 140 122.5 7.35
2.2 Fresh and Hardened Properties
For normal concrete, mixes were tested in slump test and
compression test for fresh and hardened properties
evaluation. Concrete with slump value ranging from 3 to 12
cm is set a plastic consistencyconcrete.For compression test
both 7-day and 28-day compression strengths were
measured for normal strength mixes. Normal concrete mix
MNC4 had a slump nearest to the average of plastic
consistency range. Therefore normal concrete mix MNC4
was chosen for casting the tested RC beams.
For fresh properties of self-compacting concrete, Concrete
has passingability, fillingability and segregation resistance
properties is set a self-compaction concrete. Passing ability,
filling ability and segregation resistance characteristics are
evaluated by applying slump flow, J-ring and V-funnel tests,
respectively. For slump flow test, average diameter of
concrete in two orthogonal directions daverage and time for
concrete to get to 50 cm in diameter circle t50 cm were
measured. For j-ring test, difference in concrete height
between outside and inside the ring ∆h, average diameter of
concrete in two orthogonal directions daverage and time for
concrete to get to 50 cm in diameter circle t50 cm were
measured. For segregation resistance, time between trap
door opened and light seen from the top the funnel tV-funnel
and time between trap door opened and light seen from the
top the funnel after 5 minutes tV-funnel-5 were measured. For
hardened properties, eachself-compactingconcretemix was
tested in compression test after 7 days and 28 days.
The acceptance limits of the slump test are daverage is ranging
between 600 to 800 mm and t50 cm is ranging between 2 to 5
second [12]. The acceptance limits of the J-ring test Δh is
ranging between 0 to 20 mm, and both daverage and t50 cm are
not available [12]. The acceptance limits of the V-funnel test
are tV-funnel is ranging between 6 to 12 sec and tV-funnel-5min. is
ranging between (tV-funnel+0) and (tV-funnel+3) second [12].
Self-compacting concrete mix MSCC6gavefreshtestsresults
near to the average of the acceptancerangesofthemeasured
terms. Self-compacting concrete MSCC6 gave suitable early
and late compression strengths. Therefore, self-compacting
concrete MSCC6 was chosen for casting the RC beams.
2.3 Reinforced Concrete Beams
Six reinforced concrete beams were cast, curing and tested
up to failure. The six reinforcedconcretebeamswere200 cm
in length, 30 cm in height and 15 cm in width. Three
reinforced concrete beams were cast using normal strength
concrete with under, balanced and over reinforcement
ratios. Also, three reinforced concrete beamswerecastusing
SCC with under, balanced and over reinforcement ratios.
Table 3 shows reinforcement details and compression
strengths for each beam. Figures 1 to 6 show the tested RC
beams.

Table-3: Reinforcement Details and Compression
Strengths of the Tested Beams
Beam
Code
Reinforceme
nt Ratio
Longitudinal
Reinforceme
nt
Shear
Reinforceme
nt
BNCU Under 2Φ12 mm 10Ø8/m
BNCB Balanced 6Φ12 mm 8Φ10/m
BNCO Over 6Φ16 mm 9Φ10/m
BSCC
U
Under 2Φ12 mm 10Ø8/m
BSCC
B
Balanced 6Φ16 mm 10Φ10/m
BSCC
O
Over
6Φ16 mm +
2Φ12 mm
8Φ12/m
Table-3 (Cont.): Reinforcement Details and Compression
Strengths of the Tested Beams
Beam Code
Compression Strength fcu (MPa)
Average fcu 7-day Average fcu 28-day
BNCU 28.34 35.40
BNCB 28.44 35.59
BNCO 28.24 35.51
BSCCU 33.73 42.07
BSCCB 32.95 41.48
BSCCO 32.75 41.87
Fig -1: The tested beam BNCU
Fig -2: The tested beam BNCB
Fig -3: The tested beam BNCO
Fig -4: The tested beam BSCCU
Fig -5: The tested beam BSCCB
Fig -6: The tested beam BSCCO
3. THEORETICAL STUDY
The tested beams were analyzed using both Egyptian of
Design and Practice of Concrete Structures ECP 203-2017
and American Concrete Institute ACI 318-14. Deflections of
the tested beams were calculated applying the equations of
ECP 203-2017 and ACI 318-14 [13, 14]. Deflections of the
tested beam were calculated using equation 1 [15] for both
codes.
(1)
3.1 ECP 203-2017
(N/mm2) (2)
(mm4) (3)
(4)
3.2 ACI 318-14
(psi) (5)
(inch4) (3)
(6)
Where:
- Ec: Modulus of elasticity of concrete,
- fcu: Cube compression strength of concrete,
- Ie: Effective moment of inertia,
- Mcr: Cracking moment,
- Ma: Applied load moment,
- Ig: Gross moment of inertia,
- Icr: Cracking moment of inertia,

- n: Modular ratio,
- fc
: Specified compression strength of concrete, and
- Es: Modulus of elasticity oflongitudinal steel reinforcement.
For calculation of cracked section moment of inertia Icr, the
modular ratio n is considered. According to the ECP 203-
2017, n equals 10 but for ACI 318-14, n is calculated as
mention in equation 6.
4. RESULTS
Table 4 show slumps and compression strengths of the
normal concrete mixes. Charts 1 and 2 show SCC mixes
slump test results. Charts 3, 4 and 5 show SCC mixes J-ring
test results. Charts 6 and 7 show SCC mixes V-funnel test
results. Charts 8 and 9 show both earlyandlatecompression
strengths of SCC mixes, respectively. Load deflection curves
of the tested beams are illustrated in chart 10.Experimental,
ECP 203-17 and ACI 318-14 load deflection curves of the
tested beams are illustrated from chart 11 to 16. Charts 17
and 18 show cracking and failure loads of experimental,ECP
203-17 and ACI 318-14 of the tested beams, respectively.
Table -4: Slumps and Compression Strengths of the
Normal Strength Mixes
Mix Slump (cm)
Compression Strength fcu
(MPa)
fcu 7-day fcu 28-day
MNC1 3.3 31.18 38.83
MNC2 4.6 30.51 37.85
MNC3 6.5 28.83 36.68
MNC4 8.1 28.05 35.61
MNC5 8.8 27.65 34.91
MNC6 10.1 26.87 33.05
MNC7 11.7 25.32 31.48
MNC8 13.4 23.44 29.81
MNC9 15.5 20.96 28.06
Chart -1: Slump test daverage for different variables of FA
and SP of SCC mixes
Chart -2: Slump test t50 cm for different variables of FA and
SP of SCC mixes
Chart -3: J-Ring test ∆h for different variables of FA and SP
of SCC mixes
Chart -4: J-Ring test daverage for different variables of FA
and SP of SCC mixes
Chart -5: J-Ring test t50 cm for different variables of FA and
SP of SCC mixes

Chart -6: V-Funnel tV-Funnel test t50 cm for different variables
of FA and SP of SCC mixes
Chart -7: V-Funnel tV-Funnel-5min. test t50 cm for different
variables of FA and SP of SCC mixes
Chart -8: Early compression strengths for different
Chart -9: Late compression strengths for different
Chart -10: Load deflection curves of the tested beams
Chart -11: Load deflection curves of beam BNCU
Chart -12: Load deflection curves of beam BNCB

Chart -13: Load deflection curves of beam BNCO
Chart -14: Load deflection curves of beam BSCCU
Chart -15: Load deflection curves of beam BSCCB
Chart -16: Load deflection curves of beam BSCCO
Chart -17: Experimental, ECP 203-17 and ACI 318-14
cracking loads of the tested beams
Chart -18: Experimental, ECP 203-17 and ACI 318-14
failure loads of the tested beams
5. DISCUSSIONS OF THE RESULTS
Using 35% fly ash of cement content decreased fillingability
of SCC mixes more than using 30% fly ash and using 30% fly
ash of cement content decreased fillingability of SCC mixes
more than 25% fly ash. Using 35% fly ash of cement content
increased passingability of SCC mixes more than30%flyash
and using 30% fly ash of cement content increased
passingability of SCC mixes more than 25% fly ash. Using
35% fly ash of cement content increased segregation
resistance of SCC mixes more than 30% fly ash and using
30% fly ash of cement content increased segregation
resistance of SCC mixes more than 25% fly ash. Using 35%
fly ash of cement content increased early and late
compression strengthsofSCCmixesmorethanusing30%fly
ash, and using 30% fly ash of cement contentincreasedearly
and late compression strengths of SCCmixesmorethan25%
fly ash.
Using 1% superplasticizer of cement content decreased
fillingability of SCC mixes more than using 1.5%
superplasticizer and using 1.5% superplasticizer of cement
content decreased fillingability of SCC mixes more than 2%
of superplasticizer. Using 1% superplasticizer of cement
content decreased passingability of SCC mixes more than
using 1.5% superplasticizer and using1.5%superplasticizer

of cement content decreased passingability of SCC mixes
more than 2% of superplasticizer.Using1%superplasticizer
of cement content decreased segregation resistance of SCC
mixes more than using1.5%superplasticizerandusing1.5%
superplasticizer of cement content decreased segregation
resistance of SCC mixes more than 2% of superplasticizer.
Using 1% superplasticizerof cementcontentdecreasedearly
and late compression strengths of SCC mixes more than
using 1.5% superplasticizer, andusing1.5% superplasticizer
of cement content decreased early and late compression
strengths of SCC mixes more than 2% of superplasticizer.
At the cracking loads of normal concrete beams with under,
balanced and over reinforcement ratios, the deflections of
beams BSCCU, BSCCB and BSCCO were reduced by about 45,
32 and 25%, respectively compared with beams BNCU,
BNCB and BNCO. At the failure loads of normal concrete
beams with under, balanced and over reinforcement ratios,
the deflections of beams BSCCU, BSCCB and BSCCO were
reduced by about 34, 22 and 18%, respectively compared
with beams BNCU, BNCB and BNCO. Using SCC instead of
normal strength concrete for beams with under, balanced
and over reinforcement ratios increased cracking loads by
about 20, 22 and 9%, respectively and also increased failure
loads by about 30, 18 and 17%, respectively.
At the cracking load of beam BNCU, deflections of the ECP
203-2017 and ACI 318-14 were decreased by about 6.2 and
8.42% compared with the experimental deflection. At the
cracking load of beam BNCB, deflections of the ECP 203-
2017 and ACI 318-14 were decreased by about 1.12 and
cracking load of beam BNCO, deflections of the ECP 203-
cracking load of beam BSCCU, deflections of the ECP 203-
cracking load of beam BSCCB, deflections of the ECP 203-
cracking load of beam BSCCO, deflections of the ECP 203-
4.98% compared with experimental deflection.
At the failure load of beam BNCU, deflectionsoftheECP203-
failure load of beam BNCB, deflections of the ECP 203-2017
and ACI 318-14 were decreased by about 5.15 and 9.88%
compared with the experimental deflection. At the failure
load of beam BNCO, deflections of the ECP203-2017andACI
318-14 were decreased byabout9.74and14.03%compared
with the experimental deflection. At the failure load of beam
BSCCU, deflections of the ECP 203-2017 and ACI 318-14
were decreased by about 8.2 and 11.46%compared withthe
experimental deflection. At the failure load of beam BSCCB,
deflections of the ECP 203-2017 and ACI 318-14 were
decreased by about 8.01 and 12.31% compared with the
experimental deflection. At the failure load of beam BSCCO,
deflections of the ECP 203-2017 and ACI 318-14 were
decreased by about 4.23 and 8.34% compared with
experimental deflection.
The cracking loads of the ECP 203-2017 and ACI 318-14 of
the beam BNCU were increased by about 20 and 30%, and
also, the failure loads were increased by about 9 and 14%,
respectively compared with experimental results. The
cracking loads of the ECP 203-2017 and ACI 318-14 of the
beam BNCB were increased by about 22 and 33%, and also,
the failure loads were increased by about 6 and 9%,
beam BNCO were increased by about 18 and 23%, and also,
beam BSCCU were increased by about 17 and 25%, and also,
beam BSCCB were increased by about 18 and 27%, and also,
beam BSCCO were increased by about 25 and 29%, and also,
respectively compared with experimental results.
6. CONCLUSION
Reducing fly ash content and increasing superplasticizer
content increase fillingabilityofSCCmixes.Increasingflyash
content and increasing superplasticizer content increase
passingability of SCC mixes. Increasing fly ash content and
increasing superplasticizer content increase segregation
resistance of SCC mixes. Increasing fly ash content and
increasing superplasticizer content increase both early and
late compression strengths of SCC mixes. Using SCC mixes
instead of normal concrete reduces deflection,andincreases
both cracking and failure loads of RC beams with under,
balanced and over reinforcement ratios.UsingSCCincasting
RC beams enhanced the structural performanceofRCbeams
with different reinforcement ratios more than normal
concrete. Deflections of ECP 203-14 are closely to the
experimental results of both normal and self-compacting
concrete beams with under, balanced and over
reinforcement more than ACI 318-14. The ECP 203-2017
considers the value of modular ratio n equals 10 but the ACI
318-14 calculates themodularrationvalueconsidering both
reinforcement modulus of elasticityandconcretemodulusof
elasticity. Therefore, load deflection curves for tested RC
beams with different reinforcement ratios of ECP 203-2017
are different from load deflection curves of ACI 318-14.

REFERENCES
[1] B.Geeta, S. Bhadauria and A. Saleem, 2013, "A Review:
Recent Innovations in Self Compacting Concrete,"
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering
Research, Vol. 4, Issue 11, Nov. 2013, pp. 1993–2002.
[2] O. Khaleel, S. Al-Mishhadani and H. Abdul Razak, "The
Effect of Coarse Aggregate on Fresh and Hardened
PropertiesofSelf-CompactingConcrete(SCC)," Procedia
Engineering 14, 2011, pp. 805–813,
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.102.
[3] A. Deepika, S. Kirshnamoorthi and G. S. Rampradheep,
"Study on PropertiesofSelf-ConsolidatingConcretewith
Fly Ash and Silica Fume," International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, engineering and
Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 4, April 2014, pp. 11245–
11249.
[4] H. Moghadam, O. Arasteh Hkoshbin, "Effect of Water–
Cement (w/c) on Mechanical Properties of Self-
Compacting Concrete (case Study)," International
Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural,Construction
and Architecture Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 5, 2012, pp.
317–320.
[5] J. Srishaila, K. Alok, P. Prakash and V. Jawali, "Influence
of Fly Ash and Silica Fumes on Rheology andMechanical
Properties of Self Compacting Concrete," International
Journal of Engineering Research and General Science",
Vol. 3, Issue 3, July–August 2015, pp. 414–421.
[6] V. Kumar, "Study of Mix Design of Self Compacting
Concrete", International researchJournal ofEngineering
and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 02, Issue 05, August 2015,
pp 1076–1078.
[7] N. Pamnani, P. Patel, A. Verma and J. Pitroda,
"Comparison and Optimization of Dosage of Different
Super-Plasticizer for Self Compacted Concrete Using
Marsh Cone," International Journal of Engineering and
Innovative Technology (IJEIT)",Vol. 2,Issue8,February
2013, pp. 79 - 82.
[8] S. Dumne, "Effect of Superplasticizer on Fresh and
Hardened Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete
Containing Fly Ash," American Journal of Engineering
Research (AJER), Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2014, pp. 205–211.
[9] P. Nanak, A. Pamnani and A. Kachwala, "Shear Strength
of M30 Grade Self Compacting Concrete with Different
Water Based Curing Techniques," International Journal
of Advancement in Engineering Technology,
Management and Applied Science, Vol. 2, Issue 11,
November 2015, pp. 6–14.
[10] Sika Fly Ash®, Sika Egypt for Construction Chemicals,
Product Data Sheet, Edition 03/2008, Versionno.03.08,
www.sika.com.eg, 2008.
[11] Sika ViscoCrete®-3425, Sika Egypt for Construction
Chemicals, Product Data Sheet, Edition 03/2008,
Version no. 03.08, www.sika.com.eg, 2010.
[12] Egyptian Technical Specifications for Self-Compacting
Concrete, ETS 2007, Housing and Building National
Research Center HBRC, Edition, 2012.
[13] Egyptian Code of Design and Practice for Concrete
Structures, No. 203, Year 2017, ECP 203-2017.
[14] Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(American Concrete Institute 318-2014) and
Commentary, 2014 - An ACI Standard - Reported by ACI
Committee 318, 2014.
[15] S. EL-Behairy, Reinforced Concrete Design Handbook,
Sixth Edition, 2009.

IRJET- Performance of RC Beams Cast using Normal and Self-Compacting Concretes with Different Reinforcement Ratios Compared with ECP and ACI

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to IRJET- Performance of RC Beams Cast using Normal and Self-Compacting Concretes with Different Reinforcement Ratios Compared with ECP and ACI (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET- Performance of RC Beams Cast using Normal and Self-Compacting Concretes with Different Reinforcement Ratios Compared with ECP and ACI