Materials and Structures

, Volume 45, Issue 7, pp 1087–1100 | Cite as

Repeatability, responsiveness and relative cost analysis of SCC workability test methods

  • Nicolas Ali Libre
  • Rahil Khoshnazar
  • Mohammad Shekarchi
Original Article


There are several workability test methods proposed to evaluate workability of self-consolidating concrete (SCC). Most of these methods are not standard, and their reliability is still under question. In this study, a comprehensive experimental program and statistical analysis were performed to evaluate the repeatability, responsiveness and relative cost of commonly used SCC workability test methods. Ten different tests including the slump flow, V-funnel, J-ring, L-box, U-box, column segregation, segregation probe, flow trough, sieve stability and surface bleeding tests were considered herein. For evaluating the suitability of these tests, each test was repeated several times on SCC mixtures with different workability levels. The obtained results show that the slump flow and the J-ring tests are well suited for evaluating the flowability, and the segregation probe, column segregation and surface bleeding tests are appropriate tests for assessing the stability of SCC. Furthermore, when SCC is planned for use in congestly reinforced members, it is recommended to use the U-box and the V-funnel tests in addition to the former ones to ensure the passing ability of SCC mixture and avoid any blockage.


Self-consolidating concrete Workability test methods Repeatability Responsiveness Relative cost 

Mathematical Subject Classification (2000)




This study was supported by Islamic Azad University, Qazvin branch. The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr. Zahraei, Miss Abbasi and Miss khani for their advice with this study. The authors would also like to acknowledge Construction Materials Institute, university of Tehran for providing the lab equipment, the essentials materials, advice and help whenever required.


  1. 1.
    EFNARC (2002) Specifications and guidelines for self-compacting concrete. SCC.PDF
  2. 2.
    Concrete society (2005) Self-compacting concrete: a review. Technical Report No. 62, CCIP-001, CamberleyGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    El-Chabib H, Nehdi M (2006) Effect of mix design parameters on segregation of self-consolidating concrete. ACI Mat J 103:374–383Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zerbino R, Barragan B, Garcia T, Agullo L, Gettu R (2009) Workability tests an rheological parameters in self-compacting concrete. Mater Struct 42:947–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ozawa K, Sakata N, Okamura H (1995) Evaluation of self-compactibility of fresh concrete using the funnel test. Concrete Library of JSCE 25:59–75Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASTM C1621/C1621 M-09b (2009) Standard test method for passing ability of self-consolidating concrete by J-Ring. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petersson Ö, Billberg P, Van B K (1986) A model for self-compacting concrete. In: Bartos PJM et al. (eds) Proceedings of International RILEM Conference on Production Methods and Workability of Concrete. Chapman & Hall/E & FN Spon, pp 483–490Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haykawa M (1993) Development and application of super workable concrete. In: Bartos PJM et al. (eds) Proceedings of International RILEM Workshop on Special Concretes: Workability and Mixing, pp 183–190Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daczko JA (2003) A comparison of passing ability test methods for self-consolidating concrete. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete. Reykjavik, Iceland, pp 335–344Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mouret M, Escadeillas G, Bascoul A (2008) Metrological significance of the column test in the assessment of the static segregation of self-compacting concrete in the fresh state. Mater Struct 41:663–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    EN 12350-9:2010 (2010) Testing fresh concrete Part 9: self-compacting concrete: V-funnel test. BSI Standards PublicationGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    EN 12350-10:2010 (2010) Testing fresh concrete Part 10: self-compacting concrete: L box test. BSI Standards PublicationGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EN 12350-12:2010 (2010) Testing fresh concrete Part 12: self-compacting concrete: J-ring test. BSI Standards PublicationGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ASTM C1611/C 1611 M-09b. (2009) Standard test method for slump-flow of self-consolidating concrete. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ASTM C1610/C 1610 M-10 (2010) Standard test method for static segregation of self-consolidating concrete using column technique. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rooney MJ, Bartos PJM (2001) Development of the settlement column segregation test for fresh self-compacting concrete. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete, Coms Engineering Corp, Tokyo, pp 109–116Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bui VK, Montgomery D, Hinczak I, Turner K (2002) Rapid testing method for segregation resistance of self-compacting concrete. Cem Concr Res 32(9):1489–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Illinois Test Procedure SCC-7 (2008) Standard test method for static segregation of fresh self-consolidating concrete cylinders using the static segregation probe. FHWA-ICT-08-020Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Illinois Test Procedure SCC-8 (2008) Standard test method for assessment of dynamic segregation of self-consolidating concrete during placement. FHWA-ICT-08-020Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cussigh F et al (2003) Project testing SCC-segregation test methods. In: Wallevik O, Nielsson I (eds) Self-compacting concrete. Third international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete, Reykjavik. RILEM Publications SARL, Bagneux, p 311Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    EN 12350-11:2010. Testing fresh concrete Part 11: Self-compacting concretel: Sieve segregation test. BSI Standards PublicationGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASTM C232 (1999) Test methods for bleeding of concrete. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Powers TC (1939) The bleeding of Portland cement paste, mortar, and concrete. Portland Cement Assoc Bull 2, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Libre NA, Khoshnazar R, Shekarchi M (2010) Relationship between fluidity and stability of self-consolidating mortar incorporating chemical and mineral admixtures. Constr Build Mater 24:1262–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    D’Aloia Schwartzentruber L et al. (2005) Quantifying the segregation risk of self-compacting concrete (SCC) by gammadensitometry. In: Shah SP (ed) SCC 2005. Second North American conference on the design and use of self-consolidating concrete and 4th international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete, vol 2, Chicago. Hanley Wood Publication, AddisonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schwendenmann G et al. (2005) Study of segregation in self-compacting concrete wall using gammadensitometry. In: Shah SP (ed) SCC 2005 Second North American conference on the design and use of self-consolidating concrete and 4th international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete, vol 2, Chicago. Hanley Wood Publication, Addison, p 793Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Picka JD, Jaiswal SS, Igusa T et al (2000) Quantitative description of coarse aggregate volume fraction gradients. Cem Concr Aggr 22(2):133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khayat KH, Guizani Z (1997) Use of viscosity-modifying admixture to enhance stability of fluid concrete. ACI Mat J 94(4):332–340Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Petrou MF, Harries KA, Gadala-Maria F et al (2000) A unique experimental method for monitoring aggregate settlement in concrete. Cem Concr Res 30(5):809–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shen et al. (2005) Testing static segregation of SCC. In: Shah SP (ed) SCC 2005. Second North American conference on the design and use of self-consolidating concrete and 4th international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete, vol 2, Chicago. HanleyWood Publication, Addison, p 729Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    ACI 238.1R-08 (2008) Report on Measurements of Workability and Rheology of Fresh Concrete. American concrete institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ross AA, Nandakumar K, Jain AK (2006) Handbook of Multibiometrics. Springer, New York. ISBN 0-387-22296-0Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pai TY, Hanaki K, Ho HH, Hsieh CM (2007) Using grey system theory to evaluate transportation effects on air quality trends in Japan. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 12:158–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Montgomery DC, Runger GC (2003) Applied statistics and probability for engineers. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Assaad J, Khayat KH, Daczko J (2004) Evaluation of static stability of self-consolidating concrete. ACI Mater J 101(3):207–215Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    ACI 237R-07 (2007) Self-consolidating concrete. ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 1, American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD (2000) Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 53:459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jaglal S, Lakhani Z, Schatzker J (2000) Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the lower extremity measure for patients with a hip fracture? JBJS 82:955–962Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lowe B, Schenkel I, Carney-Doebbeling C, Gobel C (2006) Responsiveness of the PHQ-9 to psychopharmacological depression treatment. Psychosomatics 47:62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG (1990) Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 28:632–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    FORNEY LLC, One Adams place, 310 seven fields boulevard, Seven Fields
  42. 42.
    Azmoon testing equipment, 17 Sindokht North Street, Fatemi West Avenue, Tehran.

Copyright information

© RILEM 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Ali Libre
    • 1
  • Rahil Khoshnazar
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mohammad Shekarchi
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIslamic Azad University, Qazvin BranchQazvinIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Construction Materials Institute (CMI), School of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations