Self-Compacting Concrete Use in Bridge Transfer Beams

Marcin Wieloch
1
, Van Bui
2
, Huber Madrio
3
and Don Wimpenny
4

1
Senior Engineer, Halcrow
2
BASF Construction Chemicals
3
Bridge and Structural Engineering, RMS

4
Principal Engineer, Halcrow


Abstract: This paper describes the development of self-compacting concrete to cast two 34m long, 1.6m
wide and 2.3m deep transfer beams. The beams were to facilitate sliding a new bridge deck to replace an
existing railway underbridge.
Construction of the beams presented some challenges. The beams were cast within 3.5m diameter, 15m
long pipe culverts constructed through the railway embankment at the existing bridge abutments. Because
of extremely restricted working space and congested reinforcement, it was decided that a 40MPa self-
compacting mix should be used. Semi-adiabatic temperature monitoring and finite element modelling was
undertaken to assess the temperature rise due to concerns over the risk of early-age thermal cracking.
Trials were undertaken at the plant and on site to assess the suitability of the mix using a suite of
workability tests based on the then draft RMS QA B80 specification. Trial beams were cast and cut into
sections to assess compaction and segregation.
The transfer beams were successfully cast and the bridge slide completed over a Christmas-New Year
track possession in 2011.
A number of practical lessons were learnt during the trials and casting which have implications for other
users of self-compacting concrete.

Keywords: Self-compacting, Thermal, Modelling, Bridge.

1. Background
Self-compacting or self consolidating concrete (SCC) is defined by the American Concrete Institute (1) as
highly flowable, non-segregating concrete that can spread into place, fill the formwork, and encapsulate
the reinforcement without any mechanical consolidation.
From the early development of SCC in Japan in the late 1980s, SCC is now widely used in most parts of
the world. In the last decade, specifications and test methods have been standardised in Europe and
North America paving the way for wider applications and acceptance of SCC for use in the concrete
industry (1, 2).
This paper describes the process of development of SCC for casting of difficult pours large beams with
congested reinforcement and within restricted working space. The beams were to facilitate sliding a new
bridge deck to replace an existing railway underbridge at Roseville, NSW during a limited track
possession. The existing bridge had inadequate headroom of 4.2m and was subject to frequent bridge
strikes and associated maintenance and temporary closures. The method of construction allowed the
main portion of the bridge deck to be constructed in advance of the closure and minimize disruption.
Figure 1 provides some details of the beams. The transfer beams are 34m long, 1.6m wide and typically
2.3m deep. They are heavily reinforced with multiple layers of single and paired N36 or N40 bars and N16
links at 150mm-300mm spacing. The nominal cover is 50mm. The beams are also penetrated by piles
and embedded items, including two rows of 137mm diameter corrugated post tensioning ducts at 600mm
spacing. The top surface of the beam carries a stainless steel sliding plate secured by drilled anchors.
One of the beams is 1.9m deeper over part of its length and this lower portion of the beam was cast
earlier than the remaining top portion.



Figure 1. Details of the Transverse Beams.

Construction of the beams presented some challenges. Existing twin rail tunnels run only 8m below
ground at the bridge location and the risk of load and vibration being transferred to the tunnels during
construction and in-service had to be carefully considered by Arup in the design (3). The transfer beams
transfer the loading from the new deck to 1.4m diameter piles positioned at least 3m away from the
nearest point of the tunnel lining.
In order to minimize disruption to rail services and the adjacent road network, including the Pacific
Highway, the 2.3m deep beams were cast within 3.5m diameter, 15m long pipe culverts constructed
through the railway embankment at the existing bridge abutments. Working space in the culvert for placing
and compacting concrete was extremely restricted and because of this it was decided that a SCC mix
should be used.
A lack of standardised testing methodology posed another challenge. However, this project provided an
opportunity to carry out testing in accordance with the requirements for SCC in the then draft Roads and
Maritime Services (RMS, formerly RTA) QA Specification B80 Edition 6 Concrete Work for Bridges (RMS
QA B80 Ed. 6 (4)), which adopted the use of SCC after an extensive literature review, laboratory and full
scale field trials, and project verification (5).
A number of practical lessons were learnt during the trials and casting of the beams. These lessons have
practical implications for other users of SCC and are discussed in this paper.

2. Mix Requirements and Testing Methods
The transfer beams required a 40MPa cylinder strength concrete with self-compacting properties
assessed against the draft RMS QA B80 Ed. 6. In addition, a maximum peak temperature of 57C for the
maximum placing temperature of 27C was imposed to address concerns over the risk of early-age
thermal cracking to the beams. This temperature limit in combination with the other requirements for the
concrete significantly constrained the mix design.
With regard to the compliance testing, whilst the Concrete Institute of Australia publication Z40
Recommended practice on Super Workable Concrete (6) provides some useful advice it does not
include the suite of test methods appropriate for SCC (5). The draft RMS QA B80 Ed. 6 requires testing of
trial mixes across a suite of five tests and then site acceptance testing as summarised in Table 1. The key
characteristics assessed are:
Filing ability by ASTM C1611 (7) slump flow test
Passing ability by ASTM C1621 (8) J-ring test (effect of a simulated rebar cage on slump flow)
Stability by ASTM C1712 (9) rapid segregation test
Viscosity by T500 time (time for spread to reach 500mm diameter in ASTM C1611 test).

Table 1. Summary of Testing Requirements for SCC.

Test Method Limit Comment
Slump flow ASTM C1611 550-800mm
T500 ASTM 1611
EPG (2)
2-5 seconds
Visual Stability Index (VSI) ASTM C1611 <2
During trials and each batch on site
(preferred slump flow for project was
600-700mm)
J-Ring ASTM C1621
EN12350-12
flow 25-50mm
height 15 mm
During trials and
initial batch on site
Rapid segregation/Stability
penetration depth
ASTM C1712 10mm depth During trials and
initial and every 4
th
batch on site
Sieve segregation test EN 12350-11(13) 15% on sieve During trials for correlation with stability
penetration test
Temperature 10-25C
Air content AS1012.4 5%
Additional project specific test during
trials and pours

The rapid segregation test, ASTM C1712 (9), can be used to rapidly assess the static stability of SCC in
laboratory and on site. This test requires a sample of freshly mixed SCC to be placed in an inverted slump
mould without tamping or vibration. The hollow cylinder of the penetration apparatus is then lowered on to
the surface of the concrete and released to freely penetrate into the fresh concrete (Figure 2). The
penetration depth is then determined, with a greater depth indicating a higher risk of static segregation of
SCC (10,11,12). A useful subjective assessment of the plastic stability of the mix in the form of a Visual
Stability Index (VSI) can also be made from the appearance of the outer rim of the spread concrete in the
slump flow test.


(highly stable SCC) (stable SCC) (unstable SCC)

Figure 2. Rapid Assessment of Static Segregation.

3. Trials
The development and testing of the mix was undertaken by Boral Resources Pty Ltd and Halcrow with
assistance from RMS.
Trials were undertaken at the batching plant and on site to assess the suitability of the mix, as well as to
provide an essential opportunity for the personnel involved in producing, testing and placing the concrete
to witness its properties prior to casting the beams. Initial site trial had to be abandoned, as the mix was
not supplied from the intended plant and did not have the required properties. This highlights the need for
careful coordination and planning by all parties.
The semi-adiabatic temperature rise of the concrete was measured using a 1 litre capacity vacuum flask
and an insulated block of concrete (hot-block) approximately 0.43x0.43x0.39m in size. Heat of hydration
properties were derived and used in a finite element model to predict the temperature rise in the beams.
The plant and field trials used mixes with cementitious contents of 480-500kg/m
3
and fly ash contents of
approximately 30% and 40%. High range water reducing/plasticizing and viscosity modifying admixtures
from BASF were employed. The fine aggregate is predominantly quartz sand and the coarse aggregate is
a partially crushed meta-sandstone/quartz porphyry gravel.
The results of the testing carried out during site trials are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of Site Trial Data.

Result
Test
Mix 1 (30% fly ash) Mix 2 (40% fly ash)

Comment
28-day cylinder compressive
strength (MPa)
56.0 54.0
Slump flow (mm) 585 660
T500 (seconds) <5 <5
Visual Stability Index (VSI) 0 1
J-Ring flow (mm)
height (mm)
35
<5
30
<5
Stability penetration (mm) 2 3
Sieve segregation test (%) 4 9
Temperature (C) 21 22
Air content (%) - 4.5
Slump flow of Mix 1 slightly low
compared to project target of 600-
700mm.

Sample size in sieve segregation test for
Mix 1 was approximately 4.5kg instead
of 4.6kg minimum required by BS EN
12350-11.

Both mixes passed the draft RMS QA B80 Ed. 6 criteria. Mix 2 had better filling and passing
characteristics but this was accompanied by a slight reduction in stability. During the trials the slump
meter on the truck was also monitored in order to provide a useful additional indication of concrete
workability prior to discharge. The slump meter showed a value around 150 for the intended mix, but the
value needs to be established for the specific size of the load.
Two trial beams 10m long, 0.35m in width and 0.50m deep were cast using the proposed mixes and
pumping equipment. The beams included reinforcement and embedded items to simulate the transfer
beams. A stop-end was inserted midway along the 20m long mould and concrete was pumped from the
centre towards the two ends. The air content of the mix was high, particularly given the presence of fly ash
which would normally act as a defoaming agent. It was noticed during casting that an aerated layer of
grout formed on the top of the concrete and accumulated as the concrete flowed along the beam. It was
also noted that the top surface of the concrete had a shallow angle of repose of approximately 3 to the
horizontal. In response to these observations it was recommended that the maximum distance for
concrete to flow should be reduced to 5m by having pump discharge locations at nominal 6m centres
along the beam, including two within the culvert. This highlights the need for careful planning of the
discharge locations.
After striking the sides and bottom faces of the beams and the sawn cross-sections were examined. There
was no evidence of honeycombing or significant segregation and the encapsulation of the rebar and
surface finish was satisfactory (Figure 3). However, it was noticed that there was some evidence of
excessive entrained air towards the top of the beam consistent with the observations during casting.
In terms of thermal characteristics, the estimated peak temperature for Mix 2 based on the plant trials was
59C with a high temperature differential of 37C as shown in Figure 4.
In view of this it was recommended that Mix 2 be slightly modified by replacing 15-20% of the Portland
cement by ground granulated blastfurnace slag. This mix was subject to laboratory trials and semi-
adiabatic hot-block testing. The data from this work is summarised in Table 3.
The revised mix had an acceptable predicted peak temperature of 57C for a concrete placing
temperature of 25C. This mix was used for casting the beams.




Figure 3. Typical Elevation and Cross-section of Trial Beam.




Figure 4. Predicted Temperature Development in Beam.


Table 3. Summary of Final Mix Data from Laboratory.
Surface temperature 2, 3
Temperature differential
(core to surface)
Core temperature - 1

Parameter Value
28-day cylinder compressive strength 54.5 MPa
Cementitious content 480 kg/m
3

Water/cementitous ratio 0.36
Binder SL Portland cement/Fly Ash/Slag
Aggregate/cement ratio 3.4
Slump flow 700mm
VSI 1
T500 4 seconds
J-Ring flow 20mm
Placing temperature 22 C
Peak temperature 45C at 25 hours

4. Casting
The transfer beams were cast over three separate days in June and July 2011. The concrete was placed
in each beam over approximately 6 hours using two pumps positioned adjacent to each end of the culvert.
A concrete testing check list and rules for site water and admixture addition and trouble-shooting were
developed based on the trials. Less than 5% of deliveries had to have additions on site.
The test data from the beam pours is summarised in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of Beam Pour Data.

Result

Test
Beam 1/lower portion

Beam 1/upper portion

Beam 2
28-day cylinder compressive
strength (MPa)
42.5-48.5 39.0-56.5 44.5-51.5
56-day cylinder compressive
strength (MPa)
51.0-56.0 47.5-66.5 53.5-62.0
Slump flow (mm) 615-710 610-700 610-700
Visual Stability Index (VSI) 0-1 0-1 0-1
Stability penetration (mm) 6-9 - 2-3
Temperature (C) 18-21 17-21 17-20
Air content (%) 4.8-4.9 3.5-4.8 3.0-4.0

The mean 28-day cylinder compressive strength was approximately 50MPa. There was one result less
than 40MPa at 28 days, but the 56-day strength was 47.5MPa as a result of continued strength
development.
Great care has to be taken during placement of SCC to avoid any input of external energy, e.g. vibration
from adjacent plant or use of floats during placing or finishing as this will promote segregation. The side
shutters were extended at least 100mm above the intended finished level to allow the concrete to be
surcharged to assist in placing and allow any accumulations of grout to be removed from the ends. It was
noted that 100mm depth of grout accumulated at the upper ends of the beams, but this was reduced to
50mm after grout removal.
During the casting of Beam 2 a leakage of concrete occurred due to a failure to make sure the shutter was
grout tight against the ground. Whilst prompt corrective action was able to address the issue, this
underlines the importance of taking specific precautions when using SCC.
In line with the recommendations for the temperature control, a layer of 50-75mm insulation was placed
over the top surface of the beams to reduce temperature differentials and the associated risk of thermal
cracking. Temperature monitoring of the lower portion of Beam 1 gave a peak temperature of 55C at 52
hours which met the 57C peak temperature limit. The mix used in this pour was identical to the mix
design used in the upper portion with the exception of a 10mm maximum aggregate size due to the
congested reinforcement.
The surface finish achieved to the transfer beams was generally acceptable with no excessive
segregation, compaction or blowholes. A single minor crack was evident to the top surface of Beam 1 at
one location. Figure 5 shows the typical appearance of the transfer beams.



Figure 5. Transfer Beam at South Abutment.

The installation of the new deck was completed over a Christmas-New Year track possession in 2011. It
involved:
demolishing the existing bridge
removing the temporary pipe culverts and embankment to expose the transfer beams
sliding and jacking the 1200 tonne central section of the bridge deck into place
completing the deck and approach slabs and restoring the track.
The bridge slide took just 50 minutes. The bridge was finished on time in March 2012.

5. Conclusions
Adequately designed SCC can be used for casting of difficult and large pours. At this project, SCC was
successfully used to cast two 34m long bridge transfer beams within the confines of 3.5m diameter and
15m long pipe culverts. SCC provided real practical benefits due to the restricted access for placing and
compacting of the concrete and due to the congested reinforcement. The mix was designed to comply
with the draft RMS QA B80 Ed. 6 as well as strict limits on temperature development.
Laboratory, plant and site trials were undertaken as part of this project to develop the concrete mix and
the placing procedures as well as to give staff from all parties an essential opportunity to get familiar with
the mix prior to casting the transfer beams. Semi-adiabatic testing and thermal modelling was undertaken
to provide an estimate of likely temperature development in the concrete.
Trial beams with reinforcement and embedded items were cast to simulate the transfer beams. These had
satisfactory surface finish and there was no evidence of excessive segregation within sawn cross-
sections. However, important lessons were learnt during the trials. The concrete was observed to form a
mound with a shallow angle of repose 3 to horizontal and accumulations of aerated grout were noted at
the surface. As a result of these observations the pump discharge locations were altered to reduce the
maximum flow distance to 5m and the formwork was extended by 100mm upwards above the finished
level to allow the forms to be surcharged and any grout accumulations to be removed from top of the pour.
When using SCC, it is crucial for all parties to understand the special requirements of SCC and to
carefully coordinate planning of pours. Design of formwork and methods of handling of concrete need to
be adapted to allow for fluid properties of SCC and to control the risks of leakage/spillage and
segregation.

6. Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the role of Arup as designers, Boral as suppliers of the concrete and the testing
services and RailCorp for kind permission to publish details of the project.

7. References

1. American Concrete Institute, Self-consolidating Concrete (ACI 237), ACI Committee 237, 2007,
Michigan.
2. European Project Group (EPG, CEMBUREAU, ERMCO, BIBM, EFCA), The European
Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete. Specification, Production and Use, May 2005.

3. Muscat, J. and Clancy, O., Replacement of the Railway Underbridge over Boundary Street at
Roseville, Proceedings of the Small Bridges Conference 2012, 19 November, 2012.
4. RMS, QA Specification B80, Concrete Work for Bridges, Ed. 6 Rev. 0, April 2012.
5. Madrio, H. and Chirgwin, G., RTA Study on the Use of Self-Compacting Concrete, Proceedings
of the Eighth Austroads Bridge Conference, November 2011, pp 435-453.
6. Concrete Institute of Australia Z40, Recommended Practice on Super Workable Concrete,
September 2005, ISBN 0 909375690.
7. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Slump Flow of Self-Consolidating Concrete
(ASTM C1611), 2009.
8. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Passing Ability of Self-Consolidating Concrete by
J-Ring (ASTM C1621), 2009.
9. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Rapid Assessment of Static Segregation
Resistance of Self-Consolidating Concrete Using Penetration (ASTM C1712), 2009.
10. Bui, V., Montgomery, D. et al., Rapid testing method for segregation resistance of self-
compacting concrete, Cement and Concrete Research Journal, 32(9), 2002, pp 1489-1496.
11. Bui, V., Attiogbe, E. et al., A Rapid Test for Segregation Resistance of Self-Consolidating
Concrete, NRMCA Concrete Technology Forum, Dallas, Texas, USA, May 22-24, 2007.
12. Bui, V. and Attiogbe, E., A Rapid Evaluation of Stability of Self-Consolidating Concrete,
Proceedings of Third North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating
Concrete, Chicago, USA, November 10-12, 2008.
13. British Standards Institution, Testing fresh concrete. Self-compacting concrete. Sieve
segregation test (BS EN 12350-11), 2010.