Cement and Concrete Research 36 (2006) 1595 – 1602

An experimental research on the fluidity and mechanical properties of

high-strength lightweight self-compacting concrete
Yun Wang Choi a,*, Yong Jic Kim b, Hwa Cheol Shin c, Han Young Moon b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Semyung University, San 21-1 Shinweol-Dong, Jecheon, Chungbuk 390-711, South Korea
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-Dong, Seongdong-Gu, Seoul, 133-791, South Korea
c
Technical Institute of Daeshin Structural Engineering Co., LTD, 640-4 Dongho, Building, Ilwon-Dong, Kangnam-Gu, Seoul 135-230, South Korea

Received 12 May 2004; accepted 1 November 2004

Abstract

This paper evaluates the high-strength lightweight self-compacting concrete (HLSCC) manufactured by Nan-Su, of which the main factor
PF of its design mixing method has been modified and improved.
The study analyzes HLSCC performance at its fresh condition as well as its mechanical properties at the hardened condition.
The evaluation of HLSCC fluidity has been conducted per the standard of second class rating of JSCE, by three categories of flowability,
segregation resistance ability and filling ability of fresh concrete.
For the mechanical properties of HLSCC, the study has been conducted as follows: compressive strength with elapsed age, splitting
tensile strength, elastic moduli and density, all at its cured after 28 days.
As a result, HLSCC at its fresh condition has been rated as less than LC 75% and LF 50% for the mix ratio of lightweight aggregate, thus
satisfying the second class standard of JSCE.
The compressive strength of HLSCC at 28 days has come out to more than 40 MPa in all mix except the case with LC 100%, while the
structural efficiency in relation to its density tended to increase proportionally as the mixing ratio of LF increases. The relationship between
the splitting tensile and compressive strength has been calculated as f s=0.076f ck+0.5582. The range of elastic moduli has come out as 24–33
GPa, comparably lower than the control concrete.
Compressive strength and structural efficiency of HLSCC at 28 days from the multiple regression analysis resulted as
f c=0.07619LCA+0.08648LFB+46.714 and f se=0.00436LCA+0.0627LFB+20.257, respectively.
D 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: High-strength lightweight self-compacting concrete (HLSCC); Fresh concrete; Compressive strength; Elastic moduli

1. Introduction However, the lightweight concrete requires specific mix

design method that is quite different from conventional
Lightweight concrete is known with its advantage of concrete. Using conventional mix design method would
reducing the self-weight of the structures, reducing the areas give rise the material segregation as well as lower the
of sectional members as well as making the construction strength by the reduced weight of the aggregate. To avoid
convenient [1,2]. Thus, the construction cost can be saved such problems, it is recommended to apply the mix design
when applied to structures such as long-span bridge and method of high-performance self-compacting concrete for
high rise buildings. the lightweight concrete. Lightweight concrete designed by
the mix method of high-performance self-compacting
concrete increases viscosity in its fresh condition, avoids
the material segregation and stabilizes its quality, thus is
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 43 649 1331; fax: + 82 43 649 1778. possible for a production of concrete with more than 35
E-mail address: [email protected] (Y.W. Choi). MPa of compressive strength. Such aspects have brought
0008-8846/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.11.003
1596 Y.W. Choi et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 36 (2006) 1595–1602

Table 1 appropriate for the site application, as well as its use for the
Chemical compositions of OPC and ALA (wt.%) lightweight aggregate.
Components OPC ALA Furthermore, multiple regression analysis was carried
SiO2 21.60 74.20 out to determine and review the compressive strength and
Al2O3 6.00 13.20 structural efficiency per mixed ratio of lightweight
Fe2O3 3.10 1.00
aggregate and to project the estimated equation for a
CaO 61.41 1.00
MgO 3.40 0.10 suggestion.
SO3 2.50 –

2. Experimental outline
numerous studies conducted and are still being held in
recent days [3–6]. 2.1. Materials
Excellent in segregation resistance ability and its
flowability at its fresh condition, self-compacting con- Cement used in the study was the ordinary portland
crete is generally known as the concrete capable of cement (OPC) typically produced in Korea, with density of
filling up the given structure only using its self-weight 3.15 g/cm3 and blaine fineness of 3539 cm2/g, while the
without an additional compaction. It was first developed artificial lightweight aggregate (ALA) was used with its
in Japan during 1986, with further mix design method major ingredients of rhyolite powder. Chemical ingredients
introduced by professor Okamura of Tokyo university in of OPC and ALA are shown in Table 1.
1993 [7,8]. Mix method used for the self-compacting Natural coarse (NC) aggregate of crushed stone with 20
concrete is significantly different from the typical method mm of G max and the same size of lightweight coarse (LC)
as well as its rating standards and testing since the aggregate were used. Natural fine (NF) aggregate used was
design of method needs to consider the two opposite river sand. Physical properties of the aggregates are
properties of flowability and segregation resistance ability measured according to Korean industry standard (KS), as
at the same time to assure the compacting capacity of shown in Table 2.
the concrete. Furthermore, crushing ratio of aggregate was measured
The most popular mix design method used for the by BS 812. For manufacturing of high-strength lightweight
self-compacting concrete is introduced by professor self-compacting concrete (HLSCC), high-range water
Okamura. His method conducts the cement paste and reducing of polycarbonate acid (HRWR) and air entraining
mortar test before moving onto evaluating properties of agent (AEA) were used. Specific gravity of HRWR and
the superplasticizer, cement, fine aggregate and pozzo- AEA are 1.10F0.02 and 1.04F0.01, the amount of HRWR
lanic material for saving the process from the redun- and AEA are about 0.5–2.0% and 0.005% of cement weight,
dancy of unnecessary testing, although its complicated respectively.
procedure makes it difficult to apply to companies which
manufacture the ready-mixed concrete. Overcoming such 2.2. Mixture proportion of concrete
obstacle, Taiwan-based Nan-Su suggested a new mix
design method that is more convenient. Apart from its Concrete mix design in this study has been modified
simplicity, Nan-Su’s new method has some problems and improved from Nan-Su’s method. In other words, PF
with the fluctuating range of PF, which is the most value was obtained through the pretest to solve the
important variable [9,10]. obscurity in assumption of PF value that is a main factor
Therefore, this study introduces a production of HLSCC within Nan-Su’s method. PF revised through this study is
by utilizing PF-modified and improved version of Nan- the percentage of unit weight at the compacted stage from
Su’s mix design method of self-compacting concrete the loosely filled aggregate according to Korean industry
[11,12].
Through a series of test mixes conducted during the study,
the quality of the concrete at its fresh condition has been
evaluated with the second class rating standards of self- Table 2
Physical properties of aggregate
compacting concrete published by JSCE, especially focused
in its flowability, segregation resistance ability and filling Components NF NC LF LC
ability [13]. Density (g/cm3) 2.55 2.72 1.86 1.58
The measurement of the mechanical properties of (1.61)a (1.23)a
Bulk density (kg/m3) 1677 1695 1127 793
concrete, including compressive strength ( f c), splitting Absorption (%) 2.43 0.80 13.71 28.09
tensile strength ( f t) at 28 days, elastic moduli and density, Percentage of solids (%) 62.6 62.3 60.3 50.2
as well as its structural efficiency ( f se) were carried out [14]. Fineness moduous 2.81 6.72 2.64 6.40
Modified and simplified mix design method was applied Crusing value (%) – 15 – 24
a
to find out whether it could be suitable for the HLSCC, Density under oven-dry condition.
 Y.W. Choi et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 36 (2006) 1595–1602 1597

Fig. 1. Step of determining the PF value.

standard, thereby indicating the value obtained by applying coarse aggregate as compared to 1376 kg/m3 at the loose
the added weight per fine aggregate to be added into the stage and 1666 kg/m3 at the compacted stage for the fine
mixed concrete. aggregate. Fine aggregate ratio of 53% was applied to
Determination of appropriate PF value has saved calculate its PF value, which came out to be approximately
significant amount of redundancy in time and efforts during 1.18 as illustrated in Eq. (1).
the pretesting phase, which was designed to obtain the  
Unit weight of coarse aggregate ðcompacted stageÞ S
proper concrete mix. PF ¼  1
Unit weight of coarse aggregate ðloosely filled stageÞ a
Fig. 1 shows the steps of determining the PF value Unit weight of fine aggregate ðcompacted stageÞ S
through measuring the unit weight of fine and coarse þ  ð1Þ
Unit weight of fine aggregate ðloosely filled stageÞ a
aggregate as Fig. 2 illustrates application of the determined
PF value to design mix of SCC. S/a—volume ratio of fine aggregates to total aggregates.
After obtaining the PF value through such mix design Table 3 shows the mixture proportion of concrete as its
process followed by mixing the concrete with decision of categories of group A, B, C, D are divided per use of
fine aggregate ratio and amount of SP to review its lightweight fine (LF) and coarse (LC) aggregate.
fluidity. If in case the fluidity appear inappropriate, more
proper PF values from the testing will be taken for the 2.3. Test methods
better mix. The unit weight measured from the compacted
stage compared to the loosely filled stage of the aggregate As for the evaluation of fluidity of HLSCC, the
according to KS have resulted as 1461 kg/m3 at the loose testing for slump flow (mm), time required to reach 500
condition and 1668 kg/m3 at the compacted stage for the mm of slump flow (s), time required to flow through V-

Fig. 2. Flowchart of the SCC mix design method.

1598 Y.W. Choi et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 36 (2006) 1595–1602

Table 3
Mixture proportions of concrete
Group No. Mix No. PF S/a W/C LC/(LC+NC) LF/(LF+NF) Unit weight (kg/m3)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
W C NC LC NF LF
A 1 1.18 53 38 0 0 175 460 810 0 861 0
B 2 1.18 53 38 25 0 175 460 608 117 861 0
3 1.18 53 38 50 0 175 460 405 234 861 0
4 1.18 53 38 75 0 175 460 203 352 861 0
5 1.18 53 38 100 0 175 460 0 469 861 0
C 6 1.18 53 38 0 25 175 460 810 0 645 158
7 1.18 53 38 0 50 175 460 810 0 430 316
8 1.18 53 38 0 75 175 460 810 0 215 473
9 1.18 53 38 0 100 175 460 810 0 0 631
D 10 1.18 53 38 75 50 175 460 201 353 433 315
11 1.18 53 38 75 75 175 460 201 353 217 473

funnel (s) and filling height of U-box test (mm) has compared and reviewed along with the combination of
been conducted immediately after the mixing of the LC and LF (group D).
concrete, while its method borrowed from testing
methods for the self-compact concrete published by
JSCE, and its standards are shown in Table 4. 3. Results and discussion
Specimen for concrete testing has been manufactured
as 100200 mm (b) without the compacting. Its mold 3.1. Properties of fresh concrete
was taken out after 24 h followed by standard curing
until the next test. Compressive strength of the concrete Figs. 3, 4 and 5 illustrate the flowability, segregation
was tested at 3rd, 7th and 28th days, while splitting resistance ability and filling ability of HLSCC. As shown in
tensile strength, elastic moduli and density were meas- Fig. 3, the result of slump flow test to rate the fluidity came
ured after 28th days of curing. out as 600–700 mm at all mixes, which satisfied the range of
In addition, multiple regression analysis has been standard capacity of self-compacting concrete per the
carried out by using SPSS, the statistics program used to second class rating of JSCE. Such result seemed to be
determine the characteristics per mix of the lightweight caused by reduced self-weight of the concrete when mixing
aggregates ratio for the hardened concrete. For the the lightweight aggregate, allowing satisfactory level of
analysis, mix ratios of LC (group B) and LF (group flowability, and the increase of water content by prewetting
C) were designated as the independent variable, while [15,16].
the mechanical properties of the hardened concrete, the Fig. 4 illustrates the relationship between the time
compressive strength at the 28th day and structural required to reach 500 mm of slump flow (s) and the time
efficiency were assumed to be the dependent variable. required to flow through V-funnel (s) to determine the
Proposed formula obtained from this analysis was then

Table 4
Specification of SCC proposed by JSCE
Rank 1 2 3
Construction condition
Minimum gap between 30–60 60–200 z200
reinforcement (mm)
Amount of reinforcement z350 100–350 V100
(kg/m3)
Filling height of U–box z300 z300 z300
test (mm)
Absolute volume of coarse 0.28–0.30 0.30–0.33 0.30–0.36
aggregates per unit volume
of SCC (m3/m3)
Flowability slump flow (mm) 650–750 600–700 500–650
Segregation resistance ability
Time required to flow 10–20 7–20 7–20
through V-funnel (s)
Time required to reach 5–25 3–15 3–15
500 mm of slump flow (s)
Fig. 3. Slump flow.
 Y.W. Choi et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 36 (2006) 1595–1602 1599

caused by the higher viscosity per proportional increase in

powder from LF mix ratios.
Fig. 5 illustrates the result of filling height of U-box
test (mm) for the filling ability of HLSCC. As shown in
this figure, all mixes, including the standard (Mix No. 1)
and mixes with LC (Mix No. 2–5) satisfied the expected
level of result. For the mixes with LF, however, only the
mix with 25% of LF (Mix No. 6) satisfied the standard
caused by relative decrease in fluidity and increase in
viscosity due to the proportional increase in the similar to
Figs. 3 and 4 [16].

3.2. Mechanical properties

Fig. 6 represents the result of testing HLSCC for the

compressive strength with elapsed age. As shown in the
figure, contrasting results occurred depending upon the
mix ratio of the lightweight aggregate, where the com-
Fig. 4. Relationship of time required to flow through V-funnel and to reach
500 mm of slump flow.
pressive strength of the LC mix ratio up to 75% (Mix No.
2–4) seem to show merely 6% decrease (average)
compared to the control concrete (Mix No.1), yet the LC
material segregation resistance ability of HLSCC at its fresh mix ratio of 100% (Mix No. 5) decreased almost 31%.
condition. However, for the LF-mixed concrete, more than 50% ratio
The time required to reach 500 mm of slump flow (s) (Mix No. 8–9) showed 8–20% increase in the strength
shown in Fig. 4 satisfied the expected capacity range at all compared to the mix up to 50% (Mix No. 6–7) that had
mixes. However, time required to flow through V-funnel (s) similar 6% decrease in relation to the control concrete
satisfied only with standard mix (Mix No. 1), mix with LC (Mix No. 1). Such result seems to be caused by some
(Mix No. 2–4) and the mix with LF (Mix No. 6). On the physical properties of the lightweight aggregate, more
contrary, the mix with more than 50% of LF (Mix No. 7–9) specifically as follows: (1) lower compressive strength as
did not satisfy the expected level of result. the LC mix ratio increased caused by the crushing ratio of
Particularly for mixing with LF, both time required to LC that is approximate 63% higher than NC, making the
reach 500 mm of slump flow (s) and time required to flow strength of the aggregate less and (2) absorption ratio of
through V-funnel (s) has increased as the percentage of LF LC of 28.09% is significantly higher than the absorption
increased (Mix No. 6–9) as opposed to the slump flow that rate of NC, thus causing the increase in overall volume of
comparatively decreased. Such tendency is assumed to be the mix per prewetting [17]. However, (3) the reason why
the compressive strength increases as the LF mix ratio
increases is because the more microparticles are produced

Fig. 5. Filling height of U-box test. Fig. 6. Compressive strength at days.

1600 Y.W. Choi et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 36 (2006) 1595–1602

Table 5
Calculation of structural efficiency
Group Mix Density Compressive Structural
No. No. (kg/m3) strength (MPa) efficiency
(103 MPa m3/kg)
A 1 2306 49 21.2
B 2 2221 46 20.7
3 2135 45 21.1
4 2051 46 22.8
5 1965 34 17.0
C 6 2248 45 20.0
7 2191 46 21.0
8 2133 53 24.8
9 2076 59 28.3

as LF mix ratio increases and roles as a filler to fill up the

voids. Fig. 8. Relationship of compressive strength and splitting tensile strength.
For typical concrete mix with the lightweight aggregate,
compressive strength is decreased as the density decreases,
and such tendency is evaluated upon the structural and 33%, respectively. This seemed to be caused by the
efficiency that is a ratio of the strength and density of the development of compressive strength.
concrete. Hence, the results converted into the structural Fig. 8 represents the relationship between the compres-
efficiency are listed in Table 5 and illustrated in Fig. 7. sive and splitting tensile strength of HLSCC at 28 days
As shown in Fig. 7, the structural efficiency of HLSCC through the regression analysis with 90% reliability.
appears different upon the mix ratio of the lightweight As shown in this figure, correlation coefficient came
aggregate. out as 92%. In addition, for the concrete with only LC or
Mix with only LC at its ratio of 75% (Mix No.4) LF, the ratio of splitting tensile and compressive strength
showed 7% increase in structural efficiency compared to ( f c/f t) came out to be 10.5–12.8 depending upon the mix
the control concrete (Mix No. 1), while the mix with ratio.
100% (Mix No. 5) showed 20% decrease in its structural The relationship between the compressive strength and
efficiency. Such result for the 100% LC mix seemed to be the elastic moduli of the concrete at 28 days per mix ratio is
affected by the 31% decrease in its compressive strength shown in Fig. 9. Upper and lower curve of this figure
compared to the control concrete (Mix No. 1). On the indicates the standard of 318/318R from ACI per each unit
other hand, concrete mixes with LF showed increase in weight. As shown in the figure, the relationship between the
structural efficiency proportional to the mix ratio as the compressive strength and the elastic moduli for both
mix with LF 75% (Mix No.8) and 100% (Mix No.9) HLSCC mix with LC and LF satisfies the range curve of
showed the structural efficiency to be increased by 17% ACI standard. In general, elastic moduli of the lightweight

Fig. 7. Structural efficiency. Fig. 9. Relationship of compressive strength and elastic moduli.
 Y.W. Choi et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 36 (2006) 1595–1602 1601

Table 6
Relation of between tested and estimated result
Group No. Mix No. Compressive Structural efficiency
strength (MPa) (103 MPa m3/kg)
Tested Estimated Tested Estimated
A 1 49 47 21.2 20.3
B 2 46 45 20.7 20.1
3 45 43 21.1 20.0
4 46 41 22.8 19.9
5 34 39 17.0 19.8
C 6 45 49 20.0 21.8
7 46 51 21.0 23.4
8 53 53 24.8 25.0
9 59 55 28.3 26.5

B) and LF mix ratio (group C) as an independent variable.

Eq. (2) represents the compressive strength at 28 days ( f c),
Fig. 10. Relationship of compressive strength between tested and estimated Eq. (3) incorporates the structural efficiency ( f se) both of
values.
equations used as a dependent variable.
fc ¼  0:0762 LCA þ 0:0865 LFB þ 46:714 R ¼ 0:83
concrete are affected by the types and properties of the ð2Þ
aggregate, as well as the compressive strength and unit
weight of the concrete, marking around 40–70% compared
fse ¼  0:0044 LCA þ 0:0627 LFB þ 20:275 R ¼ 0:80
with normal concrete. This is because the elastic moduli of
the aggregate itself are comparably small. ð3Þ
The range of the elastic moduli shown in Fig. 9, LCA LFB —A, B is replacement ratio of each lightweight
approximately 71–82% for LC mix and 88–97% for LF aggregate (LC and LF).
mix, were recorded in comparison to the control concrete Figs. 10 and 11 show the summarized result of Table 6.
(Mix No. 1) [16]. Fig. 10 shows the comparison of testing and the estimated
values regarding as compressive strength of the concrete,
3.3. Statistics analysis by multiple regression showing that the slope of 0.99 represents the testing value
slightly lower than that of estimated value. Fig. 11 is the
Eqs. (2) and (3) were obtained from the multiple comparison of value calculated using the formula for
regression analysis by taking each of LC mix ratio (group the structural efficiency, of which its slope 0.99 indicates
the testing value little less than the calculated value from the
analysis.
Eqs. (2) and (3) are obtained from the multiple regression
analysis of HLSCC that is manufactured each with LC and
LF, while the level of similarity between the testing and
estimated value for the mix of both LC and LF (group D) is
evaluated in Table 7.
As Table 7 indicates, the difference between the testing
and estimated value of both compressive strength and
structural efficiency ranged within 10%, showing a fairly
good result.

Table 7
Relation of between tested and estimated result
Items Mix No. 8 Mix No. 9
Tested Estimated Tested Estimated
Compressive 44 45 43 47
Strength (MPa)
Fig. 11. Relationship of structural efficiency between tested and estimated Structural efficiency 23.8 23.1 24.0 24.6
values. (103 MPa m3/kg)
1602 Y.W. Choi et al. / Cement and Concrete Research 36 (2006) 1595–1602

4. Conclusions Acknowledgements

(1) Although the tests of slump flow (for measuring of This work was sponsored and funded by the Ministry of
flowability) and time required to reach 500 mm of Construction and Transportation in Korea through the
slump flow (s) (for measuring of segregation project: the development of construction system and high
resistance ability) of HLSCC satisfied the expected strength–low weight precast concrete deck with new low-
capacity level in all mixes, time required to flow weight aggregate by Ecological Technology (2002. 12–
through V-funnel (s) (for measuring of segregation 2005. 12).
resistance ability) only satisfied the level in most of
the LC mixed concrete (Mix No. 2–4) and one of LF
References
mixed concrete (Mix No. 6).
(2) From the result of filling height of U-box test (mm) to [1] E. Yasar, C.D. Atis, A. Kilic, H. Gulsen, Strength properties of
determine the filling ability of HLSCC, all mixes with lightweight concrete made with basaltic pumice and fly-ash, Materials
LC (Mix No. 2–5) satisfied the second class rating of Letters 57 (2003) 2267 – 2270.
JSCE as pursued by this thesis, while only the mix [2] J.A. Rossignolo, M.V.C. Agnesini, J.A. Morais, Properties of high-
performance LWAC for precast structures with Brazilian lightweight
with LF 25% (Mix No. 6) satisfied the expected level.
aggregate, Cement and Concrete Composites 25 (2003) 77 – 82.
(3) As a result of compressive strength test, LC mixes up [3] A. Kilic, C.D. Atis, E. Yasar, F. Ozcan, High-strength lightweight
to 75% showed an average decrease of 6% compared concrete made with scoria aggregate containing mineral admixtures,
to the control concrete, in contrast to LC 100% which Cement and Concrete Research 33 (2003) 1595 – 1599.
caused a substantial 31% decrease. For LF mixes, [4] M.N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, O. Kayali, Strength and durability of
ratio up to 50% tends to decrease approximately 6% lightweight concrete, Cement and Concrete Composites 26 (2003)
307 – 314.
compared to the control concrete, while higher [5] J.A. Rossignolo, M.V.C. Agnesini, Mechanical properties of polymer-
percentage of mix resulted 8% to 20% increase in modified lightweight aggregate concrete, Cement and Concrete
compressive strength development. Research 32 (2002) 329 – 334.
(4) The structural efficiency of HLSCC tended to increase [6] P.C. Aitcin, High-Performance Concrete, E&FN Spon, London, 1998.
7% for the LC mix with 75%, while 100% mix caused [7] H. Okamura, K. Maekawa, K. Ozawa, High Performance Concrete,
Gihoudou Pub, Tokyo, 1998.
20% decrease. For LF mixes, the structural efficiency [8] H. Okamura, Self-compacting High Performance Concrete, Social
increased proportionally as the mix ratio increased as System Institute, Tokyo, 1999.
LF 75% and LF 100% indicated 17% and 33% [9] N. Su, B. Miao, A new method for the mix design of medium strength
increase, respectively. flowing concrete with low cement content, Cement and Concrete
Composites 25 (2003) 215 – 222.
(5) The relationship between the compressive and split-
[10] N. Su, K.C. Hsu, H.W. Chai, A simple mix design method for self-
ting tensile strength at 28 days of HLSCC was compacting concrete, Cement and Concrete Research 31 (2001)
evaluated by the linear regression analysis per mix 1799 – 1807.
ratio of the lightweight aggregate. In result, correlation [11] Y.W. Choi, M.Y. Jung, J.S. Chung, D.J. Moon, S.I. An, Optimum
coefficient is 92%, indicating a close relationship mixture proportion of self-compacting concrete considering packing
between the two strengths. The relationship between factor of aggregate and fine aggregate volume ratio, Proceedings of
the Korea Concrete Institute 14 (2002) 549 – 554.
the compressive strength and elastic moduli per mix [12] Y.W. Choi, S.K. Cho, W. Choi, K.H. Kim, S.I. An, Properties of
ratio of the lightweight aggregate was tested by the medium strength self-compacting concrete with simple mix design
ACI 318/318R standard, and its result was satisfied method, Proceedings of the Korea Concrete Institute 15 (2003) 83 – 88.
within the upper and lower curve range of ACI [13] Japanese Society of Civil Engineering, Guide to Construction of High
standard unit weight. Flowing Concrete, Gihoudou Pub, Tokyo, 1998.
[14] S. Chandra, L. Berntsson, Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, Noyes,
(6) As for the compressive strength and estimated value New York, 2002.
of structural efficiency from the multiple regression [15] T.Y. Lo, H.Z. Cui, Effect of porous lightweight aggregate on strength
analysis, with LC and LF as independent variables, of concrete, Materials Letters 58 (2004) 916 – 919.
the testing value appeared to be smaller than the [16] T.Y. Lo, H.Z. Cui, Z.G. Li, Influence of aggregate pre-wetting and fly
estimated value. For the comparison of the testing and ash on mechanical properties of lightweight concrete, Waste Manage-
ment 24 (2004) 333 – 338.
estimated value for the HLSCC mix with LC and LF [17] K.S. Chia, M.H. Zhang, Water permeability and chloride penetrability
together, the values were within 10% differences for of high-strength lightweight aggregate concrete, Cement and Concrete
both compressive and structural efficiency. Research 32 (2002) 639 – 645.