The Properties of Self-Compacting Ultra-High Performance Concrete with Different Types of Mineral Admixtures
by
Lin Wang
1,*, 
Xiying Tian
1, 
Yuefan Pan
1,
Dingyuan Wu
2,
Shengli Xu
2,
Hangyang Wang
3,
Xiaolu Tian
2,
Yubo Xu
1,
Hong Guo
4 and
Min Zou
5 1
School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China
2
The Fourth Engineering Co., Ltd., China Railway 16th Bureau Group, Beijing 101499, China
3
School of Civil Engineering and Geographical Environment, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315000, China
4
Shanxi Huaxing Design and Testing Co., Ltd., China Railway 17th Bureau Group, Taiyuan 030012, China
5
School of Civil and Resource Engineering, Beijing University of Science and Technology, Beijing 100083, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Coatings 2025, 15(5), 591; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15050591
Submission received: 13 April 2025
/
Revised: 12 May 2025
/
Accepted: 13 May 2025
/
Published: 16 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Surface Treatment and Mechanical Properties of Sustainable Pavement Materials)
Abstract
:This paper investigates the effects of silica fume, cenosphere, fly ash, and ground slag powder on the rheological properties and mechanical strengths of self-compacting ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). The mass ratio of each mineral admixture varies from 0% to 15%, while the water-binder ratios are set at 0.18, 0.20, and 0.22. The slump flow and plastic viscosity of fresh UHPC are measured, and the corresponding flexural and compressive strengths of UHPC cured for 3 days and 28 days are determined. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) are employed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the observed performance changes. The results indicate that the addition of silica fume and mineral powder negatively impacts the fluidity of fresh UHPC but positively affects its plastic viscosity. Conversely, the inclusion of cenosphere and fly ash enhances the fluidity of fresh UHPC while having the opposite effect on its plastic viscosity. Increasing the water-binder ratio improves the fluidity of fresh UHPC but reduces its plastic viscosity. Mechanically, silica fume enhances the strengths of UHPC. In contrast, the cenosphere, fly ash, and mineral powder decrease the strengths of UHPC cured for 3 days but increase those cured for 28 days. UHPC containing silica fume exhibits the most compact hydration products and the lowest content of Ca(OH)2.
1. Introduction
Recently, various new types of building have emerged, necessitating materials with high strength, excellent durability, and functional requirements [1,2]. It is difficult for ordinary concrete to meet the requirements of ultra-high strength, high workability, high durability, and irregular complex structures due to its high water/cement ratio, low strength, poor workability, and low compactness [3,4]. Consequently, studying ultra-high strength self-compacting concrete has become one of the development directions for addressing this issue.
Self-compacting concrete (SCC) is a high-performance concrete that can flow, fill, and compact structures without the need for vibration, relying solely on its own gravity [5,6]. SCC possesses a large amount of cementitious materials, a high sand ratio, and ultra-high fluidity, which can significantly improve the efficiency of pouring and pumping, especially for dense steel structures, irregular structures, and structures that are difficult to vibrate [7,8]. The rheological properties of self-compacting concrete (SCC) are closely associated with the effectiveness of building construction processes [9]. However, SCC characterized by excessively high fluidity often exhibits bleeding phenomena, which can compromise the material’s performance. Therefore, it is of significant importance to formulate SCC that possesses high fluidity while simultaneously avoiding segregation and bleeding [10]. To achieve this goal, mineral admixtures such as silica fume, slag powder, and fly ash are commonly incorporated into SCC mixtures. These admixtures serve to enhance both the flowability and cohesion of SCC, thereby improving its self-compacting capability and effectively preventing bleeding [11]. The preparation of SCC typically requires a substantial amount of cementitious materials [12]. Notably, mineral admixtures can be utilized as cementitious components in SCC formulations. Studies have reported that ultra-fine silica fume powder, fly ash, and high-grade slag powder can increase the compressive strengths of SCC by up to 21.1%, 15.6%, and 17.8%, respectively [13]. Furthermore, ultra-fine silica fume powder and high-grade slag powder are effective in increasing the plastic viscosity and yield shear stress of fresh SCC, contributing to its improved stability and resistance to bleeding. In contrast, fly ash can enhance the fluidity of fresh SCC, facilitating its placement and compaction during construction.
Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) is a cement concrete with ultra-high mechanical strengths and excellent durability [14]. The macroscopic performance and microscopic mechanisms of UHPC have been reported by some researchers [15,16]. Silica fume, furnace ash, and steel slag powder have been proven to increase the flexural strength of UHPC by 17.3%, 18.1%, and 22.4%, respectively [17,18]. The corresponding compressive strengths have been increased by 25.6%, 27.3%, and 29.1% [19]. Moreover, the addition of garbage fly ash, furnace ash, and steel slag powder can increase resistance to chloride and sulfate erosion [20,21]. Furthermore, these cementitious materials are reported to improve the corrosion resistance of the inner steel bars in UHPC [22,23]. Although several studies on UHPC have been reported, the influence of various mineral admixtures on the performance of self-compacting UHPC has not been investigated [24,25]. In previous studies, ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) often suffered from insufficient fluidity. Adding a large amount of water-reducing agent to UHPC can improve its fluidity, but it is prone to bleeding and segregation [26]. Based on these findings, mixing multiple mineral admixtures and a water-reducing agent may ensure the flowability and cohesiveness of freshly mixed self-compacting UHPC. In addition, mineral admixtures can promote the development of concrete’s mechanical strengths, which are the most important performances of building structures [27,28]. However, few studies have conducted comprehensive comparative analyses on the rheological, mechanical, and microscopic properties of self-compacting UHPC after adding different combinations of multiple mineral admixtures.
In this study, the slump flow and plastic viscosity of fresh UHPC with mineral admixtures including silica fume, cenosphere, fly ash, and grade slag powder are measured. The flexural and compressive strengths are tested. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis are selected to reflect the mechanisms of performance changes. The mass ratios of silica fume, cenosphere, fly ash, and grade slag powder range from 0% to 15%. This research will provide a reference for the application of different mineral admixtures in UHPC and their impact on UHPC performance.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Raw Materials
The Dunshi P-I type 52.5 Portland cement produced by Tangshan Jidong Cement Co., Ltd., Tangshan, China was used in this study. The initial setting time and the final setting time of the Portland cement are 130 min and 185 min, respectively, with a specific surface area of 350 m2/kg. In addition, the class F fly ash according to the standard ASTM procedures [29] and S105 grade slag powder produced by Hebei Weiran Building Materials Technology Co., Ltd., Langfang, China, silica fume offered by Shandong Boken Silica Material Co., Ltd., Rizhao, China, and cenosphere provided by Lingshou Jiagong Mineral Products Co., Ltd., Lingshou, China were used in this study. The coarse aggregate was of sizes (5–10) mm. Polycarboxylic acid, highly adaptable water-reducing agent produced by Jiangsu Subot New Material Co., Ltd., Nanjing, China, was used for adjusting the fresh UHPC’s fluidity. Table 1 and Table 2 show the chemical composition and the basic performance index of the raw materials.
2.2. Specimen Preparation
The specimens were prepared by the following steps. Firstly, the cement, quartz sand, and other cementitious materials were poured into the UJZ-15 mortar mixer and mixed for 30 s. Then, water mixed with the water reducer was added to the mixer, and stirring was provided for 8 min. Some fresh UHPC was used to measure the slump flow and plastic viscosity using the self-compacting concrete stability jumping table cement–mortar flowability tester, manufactured by the Yuzhan Instrument Equipment (Cangzhou) Co., Ltd., Cangzhou, China, and the Rongjida concrete rheometer, offered by Shanghai Rongjida Instrument Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China. The remaining sample was poured into molds to prepare the specimens. After the samples hardened, the specimens were moved to the standard curing room (temperature of 21.1 °C, humidity of 97.8%) for standard curing. Table 3 shows the mixing proportions of UHPC per one cubic meter. The mixing proportions were obtained based on the maximum density theory obtained from prior research [30]. The mass ratio of each mineral admixture by the total mass of binder materials ranging from 0% to 15% (corresponding to the mass ranging from 0 kg to 135 kg in Table 3) is calculated from Table 3. The quartz sand including the particle sizes of 0.73 mm~1.1 mm, 0.36 mm~0.58 mm, and 0.14 mm~0.295 mm with a mass ratio of 1:1.5:1 was used as the aggregate of the UHPC.
2.3. Measuring Methods
2.3.1. The Measurement of Rheological Parameters
The self-compacting concrete stability jumping table cement–mortar flowability tester, manufactured by the Yuzhan Instrument Equipment (Cangzhou) Co., Ltd., Cangzhou, China, and the Rongjida concrete rheometer, offered by Shanghai Rongjida Instrument Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China, were used for measuring the slump flow and plastic viscosity of fresh UHPC. For testing the slump flow, fresh UHPC was first poured into the truncated cone mold and scraped flat with a scraper. Then, the mold was lifted vertically upwards, and at the same time, the fresh UHPC flowed onto the glass plate for 30 s. The maximum circle diameter and the corresponding perpendicular diameter were measured. The average value of these diameters was the slump flow of the fresh UHPC. The rotor of the rheometer was placed in a beaker with a diameter of 70 mm. Then, the rotor was inserted into the fresh UHPC, and the plastic viscosity of the fresh UHPC was obtained.
2.3.2. Mechanical Strengths
Specimens with dimensions of 40 mm × 40 mm × 160 mm were used for determining the flexural and compressive strengths after curing for 3 days and 28 days. First, the specimens were moved to the flexural strength testing fixture. Then, a flexural load was applied at a loading rate of 0.05 kN/s until the specimens failed (i.e., were destroyed). The broken specimens resulting from the flexural load were used for measuring the compressive strengths. The specimens were then moved to the compressive strength testing fixture, where a compressive load was applied at a loading rate of 2.4 kN/s until the specimens failed. Six specimens were applied in the measurement of each group. In this study, the preparation and measurements of UHPC were conducted according to the Chinese standard GB/T 31387-2025 [31].
2.3.3. Experiments of Microscopic Properties
The ultra-high strength self-compacting concrete samples were soaked in anhydrous ethanol to terminate hydration. Subsequently, the samples were dried at 60 ± 5 °C. In the scanning electron microscope (SEM) experiment, a Czech TESCAN MIRA LMS microscope, with a resolution of 3.5 nm, an acceleration voltage range of 500–30,000 V, a magnification range of 18–30,000×, and a sample stage diameter of 30 mm, was used to observe the microstructure. After being sprayed with gold, the flat, rice-sized samples were placed in a vacuum environment for observation. An Ultima IV X-ray diffractometer from Bruker, Germany, was used in the XRD experiment. The samples were pulverized through a 0.075 mm sieve. The internal standard method was employed, with 10% ZnO as the marker. The scanning method was continuous slow scanning, with a working voltage of 40 kV, a current of 40 mA, a scanning speed of 0.6°/min, and a scanning range of 5–70°. After the experiment was completed, XRD patterns were obtained. The measuring process is shown in Figure 1.
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. The Rheological Parameters
Figure 2 illustrates the slump flow and plastic viscosity of fresh UHPC with a varying mass ratio of silica fume. The water-to-binder ratios of UHPC are 0.18, 0.20, and 0.22. As depicted in Figure 2, the slump flow of fresh UHPC decreases from 240 mm, 225 mm, and 200 mm to 220 mm, 190 mm, and 170 mm, respectively, for water-to-binder ratios of 0.22, 0.20, and 0.18. The corresponding decreasing rates are 8.3%~15%. Silica fume particles are characterized by ultra-fine, amorphous, spherical glass-like structures. The small size (0.1–0.2 μm) and large specific surface area of silica fume increase the corresponding water demand [32,33]. Concurrently, a notable decline in fluidity occurs. Meanwhile, the plastic viscosity of fresh UHPC increases from 1987.2 mPa·s, 3500 mPa·s, and 5076.3 mPa·s to 3182.0 mPa·s, 5963.8 mPa·s, and 8233.9 mPa·s, respectively, for water-to-binder ratios of 0.22, 0.20, and 0.18. The plastic viscosity’s increasing rates are 60.1%~62.2%. As reported in prior research, the plastic viscosity and slump flow exhibit an anti-correlation [34,35]. Therefore, the decreased slump flow leads to an increased plastic viscosity. As observed in Figure 2, a higher water-to-binder ratio results in higher slump flow and lower plastic viscosity. This is due to the fact that a higher water-to-binder ratio provides more free water in the fresh UHPC, thereby increasing the slump flow and decreasing the corresponding plastic viscosity [36,37].
Figure 3 shows the influence of cenosphere content on the slump flow and the plastic viscosity of fresh UHPC. The water to binder ratios are 0.18, 0.20, and 0.22. In Figure 3, it can be seen that the fresh UHPC increases with the added mass ratio of cenosphere. The fresh UHPC’s slump flow is increased from 200 mm, 225 mm, and 240 mm to 210 mm, 237 mm, and 248 mm, showing the increasing rates of 3.33%~5%. This can be ascribed to the fact that the microspheres consist of spherical particles which act as lubricants, thereby increasing the fresh UHPC’s flowability [38,39]. Furthermore, an increase in the water-to-binder ratio also enhances the slump flow of fresh UHPC. This is due to the higher availability of free water in the mixture, which promotes greater fluidity. Meanwhile, the fresh UHPC’s plastic viscosity is decreased with the increased mass ratio of cenosphere by rates of 16.6%~36.8%. This can be explained by the fact that the relationship between the fresh UHPC’s slump flow and the plastic viscosity complies with the anti-correlation relationship [40,41]. Consequently, both the addition of cenospheres and an elevated water-to-binder ratio contribute to a decrease in the plastic viscosity of fresh UHPC. In Figure 2 and Figure 3, the slump flow of each group is higher than 160 mm and the corresponding plastic viscosity is higher than 1000 mPa·s. Fresh UHPC with the slump flow and plastic viscosity has a self-compacting effect without bleeding [42].
The fresh UHPC’s slump flow and plastic viscosity are shown in Figure 4. As observed in Figure 4, the slump flow increases by the decreasing rates of 1.7%~2.5% and the plastic viscosity decreases with the mass ratio of fly ash with the increasing rates of 9.7%~18.3%. The spherical shape of fly ash particles contributes to the enhanced fluidity of fresh UHPC upon the addition of fly ash [43]. However, when the fly ash content increases from 0% to 15%, the observed decrease in plastic viscosity is a result of the addition of fly ash itself. This behavior aligns with the inverse correlation between fluidity and plastic viscosity in fresh UHPC [44]. Consequently, the plastic viscosity decreases as the fly ash content increases. Additionally, as illustrated in Figure 4, an increase in the water-to-binder ratio can lead to an increase in slump flow and a decrease in plastic viscosity. This is attributed to the higher availability of free water resulting from an increased water-to-binder ratio [45].
Figure 5 shows the slump flow and plastic viscosity of fresh UHPC. As illustrated in Figure 5, the slump flow decreases with the added mineral powder and the corresponding plastic viscosity is increased by adding the mineral powder. When the mass ratio of mineral powder increases from 0% to 15%, the slump flow decreases from 200 mm, 225 mm and 240 mm to 180 mm, 202 mm, and 225 mm, showing the decreasing rates of 6.25%~10%. The plastic viscosity of the samples increased from 5076.3 mPa·s, 3500 mPa·s, and 1987.2 mPa·s to 6055.8 mPa·s, 4432.8 mPa·s, and 2633.5 mPa·s, showing the increasing rates of 19.29%~32.52%. This can be attributed to the larger specific surface area of mineral powder thus absorbing more free water and decreasing the slump flow and the plastic viscosity [46]. In Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5, it can be seen that the fluidity of fresh UHPC shows in the order of UHPC with cenosphere > UHPC with fly ash > UHPC with mineral powder > UHPC with silica fume. Meanwhile, the results of the fresh UHPC’s plastic viscosity is contrary to that of fluidity. This can be ascribed to the fact that the specific surface areas of the mineral admixtures exhibit in the order of cenosphere < fly ash < mineral powder < silica fume; therefore, the slump flow of fresh UHPC shows in this order.
3.2. The Mechanical Strengths
Table A1 and Table A2 show the results of the mechanical strengths. The flexural and compressive strengths of UHPC with silica fume are shown in Figure 6. As depicted in Figure 6, the UHPC’s flexural and compressive strengths increase with the increasing dosages of the mass ratio of silica fume. The flexural strength of the samples with the water-binder ratios of 0.18, 0.20, and 0.22 cured for 3 days increased from 12.8 MPa, 11.6 MPa, and 11.2 MPa to 13.3 MPa, 12.5 MPa, and 12.1 MPa, showing the increasing rates of 3.9%~8.0%. Meanwhile, the corresponding compressive strengths are increased from 59.2 MPa, 55.4 MPa, and 52.1 MPa to 64.3 MPa, 60.2 MPa, and 58.0 MPa with the increasing rates of 8.6%~11.3%. When the specimens are cured for 28 days, the flexural strengths increase from 16.0 MPa, 15.8 MPa, and 15.0 MPa to 17.1 MPa, 16.6 MPa, and 15.9 MPa with the increasing rates of 6%~6.9%. Meanwhile, the corresponding compressive strengths are increased from 110.1 MPa, 101.0 MPa, and 95.6 MPa to 119.5 MPa, 109.1 MPa, and 103.8 MPa, showing the increasing rates of 8.5%~8.6%. This can be ascribed to the fact that the silica fume contains the amount of nanoscale SiO2 exceeding 90%, leading to an improvement in the corresponding secondary hydration and an increase in the corresponding mechanical strengths [47]. The mechanical strengths are increased by the decreased water/cement ratios. This can be ascribed to the fact that UHPC with lower water/cement ratio shows lower porosity [48]. As reported from prior research studies, the lower porosity leads to higher mechanical strengths. Therefore, the mechanical strengths are increased by the decreased water/cement ratios.
The UHPC’s mechanical strengths with cenosphere are exhibited in Figure 7. In Figure 7, it can be seen that the flexural and compressive strengths with the curing ages of 3 days decrease by rates of 5.3%~7.8% and 4.0%~8.9% with the increasing dosages of cenosphere. This can be attributed to the fact that the added cenosphere can delay the early cement hydration of the UHPC [49]. Therefore, the mechanical strengths are decreased by the increasing mass ratio of cenosphere. Meanwhile, when the specimens are cured for 28 days, the flexural and compressive strengths are increased with the increasing rates of 3.8%~5.6% and 4.3%~5.0% by the addition of cenosphere, due to the decreased cracking induced by the hydration heat [50]. Moreover, as depicted in Figure 8, the mechanical strengths are increased by higher curing age. This can be ascribed to the increased hydration degree induced by the increased curing age [51].
The mechanical strengths of UHPC with fly ash are exhibited in Figure 8. It can be seen in Figure 8 that the UHPC’s mechanical strengths cured for 3 days are increased by the increasing dosages of fly ash. Meanwhile, when the specimens are cured for 28 days, the addition of fly ash demonstrates a positive effect on the mechanical strengths. The decreased water/binder ratio shows an increasing effect on the mechanical strengths of the UHPC. The flexural strength of the specimens containing 15% fly ash decreased from 12.8 MPa, 11.6 MPa, and 11.2 MPa to 11.8 MPa, 11.1 MPa, and 10.6 MPa with the decreasing rates of 5.4%~7.9%. The compressive strengths of the specimens decline from 59.2 MPa, 55.4 MPa, and 52.1 MPa to 55.0 MPa, 52.0 MPa, and 50.6 MPa, showing the decreasing rates of 2.9%~7.1%. Meanwhile, the flexural strength of the specimens at the curing age of 28 days increase from 16.0 MPa, 15.8 MPa, and 15.0 MPa to 16.3 MPa, 15.9 MPa, and 15.2 MPa with the increasing rates of 1.3%~1.9%. Meanwhile, the corresponding compressive strengths increase from 110.1 MPa, 101.0 MPa, and 95.6 MPa to 113.4 MPa, 102.9 MPa, and 98.0 MPa, showing the increasing rates of 2.5%~3%. The reason for the mechanical strengths is similar to the above research results.
The mechanical strengths of UHPC with different dosages of mineral powder are shown in Figure 9. As depicted in Figure 9, the mineral powder demonstrates a negative effect on the UHPC’s mechanical strengths when the curing time is 3 days. However, when the curing time is 28 days, the results are the opposite. When the curing time is 3 days, the added mineral powder can decrease the flexural strengths from 12.8 MPa, 11.6 MPa, and 11.2 MPa to 12.1 MPa, 11.4 MPa, and 10.7 MPa with the decreasing rates of 4.5%~5.5%. The compressive strengths decrease from 59.2 MPa, 55.4 MPa, and 52.1 MPa to 57.3 MPa, 54.0 MPa, and 51.4 MPa, showing the decreasing rates of 1.3%~3.2%. Meanwhile, when the specimens are cured for 28 days, the flexural strengths increase from 16.0 MPa, 15.8 MPa, and 15.0 MPa to 16.5 MPa, 16.2 MPa, and 15.6 MPa with the increasing rates of 3.1%~4%. The compressive strengths are increased from 110.1 MPa, 101.0 MPa, and 95.6 MPa to 115.1 MPa, 105.0 MPa, and 98.9 MPa, showing the increasing rates of 3.4%~4.5% by adding the mineral powder. Based on the results of the mechanical strength tests, it has been observed that the relationships between the mechanical strengths and the mass ratios of the mineral admixture adhere to linear functions. The fitting degrees (R2 values) of these equations exceed 0.8, thereby ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the fitting results. The strengths’ error bars are less than 10% of the average values, ensuring the experimental accuracy.
3.3. The Scanning Electron Microscope and X-Ray Diffraction Spectrum
Figure 10 presents the scan electron microscopy energy spectrum analysis (SEM-EDS) images of UHPC samples incorporating 10% silica fume (SF), 10% cenosphere, 10% fly ash (FA), and 10% mineral powder (MP). All specimens were cured for 28 days. From the morphology and element distribution of measuring points in Figure 10, it can be seen that hexagonal and needle-like substances, which are possibly hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) and ettringite (AFt), are observed. The Ca/Si ratio contained in the hydration product enclosed by a rectangular frame ranges from 2.14 to 3.43, which are highly likely to be calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H). As depicted in Figure 10, the hydration products identified include calcium, and calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H). Notably, the UHPC sample containing cenosphere exhibits the highest content of Ca(OH)2, whereas the UHPC sample with silica fume demonstrates the lowest Ca(OH)2 content. Furthermore, the UHPC sample incorporating silica fume displays the most densely packed hydration products.
The X-ray diffraction spectrum of UHPC containing different mineral admixtures is presented in Figure 11. The samples, incorporating 10% silica fume (SF), 10% cenosphere, 10% fly ash (FA), and 10% mineral powder (MP), were Ca(OH) cured for 28 days. As shown, diffraction peaks corresponding to calcium hydroxide (C2), tricalcium silicate (C3S), dicalcium silicate (C2S), calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H), and ettringite (AFt) are observed. The UHPC with SF exhibits the lowest intensity of Ca(OH)2 diffraction peaks. This is attributed to the highest degree of cement secondary hydration in the UHPC with SF, which consumes the most Ca(OH)2. These findings further confirm that UHPC with SF demonstrates the highest mechanical strengths.
4. Conclusions
The influence of several mineral admixtures on the performance of self-compacting ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) was investigated. The conclusions obtained are as follows.
The silica fume and mineral powder can decrease the fresh UHPC’s slump flow by rates of 8.3%~15% and 6.25%~10%. Meanwhile, the slump flow is increased by the cenosphere and fly ash with rates of 3.33%~5% and 1.7%~2.5%. The fresh UHPC’s plastic viscosity can be increased by rates of 60.1%~62.2% and 19.29%~32.52% with the added silica fume and mineral powder. Meanwhile, the cenosphere and fly ash decrease the plastic viscosity by rates of 16.6%~36.8% and 9.7%~18.3%. An increased water-to-binder (w/b) ratio enhances fluidity but negatively impacts plastic viscosity.
The silica fume can increase the flexural strength and compressive strength by rates of 3.9%~8.0% and 8.6%~11.3%. When the curing age is 3 days, the cenosphere, the fly ash, and the mineral powder decrease the flexural strengths by rates of 5.3%~7.8%, 5.4%~7.9%, and 4.5%~5.5%. The corresponding compressive strengths are decreased by rates of 4.0%~8.9%, 2.9%~7.1%, and 1.3%~3.2%. Meanwhile, when the UHPC is cured for 28 days, the cenosphere, the fly ash, and the mineral powder increase the flexural strengths by rates of 3.8%~5.6%, 1.3%~1.9%, and 3.1%~4%. The corresponding compressive strength is increased by rates of 4.3%~5.0%, 2.5%~3%, and 3.4%~4.5%.
The scanning electron microscope (SEM) images reveal that the UHPC containing SF exhibits the densest hydration products and the lowest calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) content.
Author Contributions
Methodology, L.W.; Validation, L.W. and Y.P.; Formal analysis, S.X. and H.W.; Investigation, H.W.; Resources, L.W., Y.P., D.W., S.X. and M.Z.; Data curation, X.T. (Xiying Tian), X.T. (Xiaolu Tian) and H.G.; Writing – original draft, L.W. and D.W.; Writing – review & editing, Y.P. and X.T. (Xiaolu Tian); Visualization, Y.X.; Supervision, Y.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was supported by Shanxi Province Key R&D Program horizontal project of China: Beijing Jianzhu University and China Railway No.16 Bureau (202102150401018, H24333).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
Dingyuan Wu, Shengli Xu and Xiaolu Tian are employed by the company The Fourth Engineering Co., Ltd., Hong Guo is employed by the company Shanxi Huaxing Design and Testing Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
The mechanical strengths of UHPC at 3 days.
| W/B | Silica Fume | Cenosphere | Fly Ash | Grade Slag Powder | Flexural Strength (MPa) | Compressive Strength (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.18 | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.8 | 59.2 |
| 0.18 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.0 | 59.9 |
| 0.18 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.1 | 60.5 |
| 0.18 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.8 | 64.3 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 12.5 | 57.1 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 12.2 | 55.8 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 11.8 | 53.9 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 12.3 | 56.1 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 11.9 | 55.3 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 11.8 | 55.0 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 12.6 | 58.6 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 12.6 | 58.1 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 12.1 | 57.3 |
| 0.20 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.8 | 56.9 |
| 0.20 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.5 | 59.6 |
| 0.20 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.9 | 60.2 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 11.4 | 54.3 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 11.2 | 53.8 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 10.8 | 52.4 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 11.5 | 54.3 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 11.3 | 53.6 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 11.0 | 52.0 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 11.5 | 55.2 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 11.5 | 54.8 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 11.4 | 54.0 |
| 0.22 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.4 | 53.6 |
| 0.22 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.9 | 57.3 |
| 0.22 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.1 | 58.0 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 11.1 | 52.1 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 10.9 | 51.7 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 10.6 | 50.0 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 11.1 | 52.1 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 10.8 | 51.7 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 10.6 | 50.6 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 11.1 | 52.0 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 11.0 | 51.8 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 11.2 | 51.4 |
Table A2.
The mechanical strengths of UHPC at 28 days.
| W/B | Silica Fume | Cenosphere | Fly Ash | Grade Slag Powder | Flexural Strength (MPa) | Compressive Strength (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.18 | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.0 | 110.1 |
| 0.18 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.2 | 111.4 |
| 0.18 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.9 | 118.6 |
| 0.18 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17.1 | 119.5 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 16.1 | 112.0 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 16.3 | 113.5 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 16.9 | 115.2 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 16.0 | 111.4 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 16.2 | 111.3 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 16.3 | 113.4 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 16.2 | 112.0 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 16.5 | 113.9 |
| 0.18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 16.5 | 115.1 |
| 0.20 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.3 | 108.6 |
| 0.20 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.5 | 109.1 |
| 0.20 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.6 | 110.8 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 15.8 | 102.2 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 16.2 | 104.5 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 16.4 | 106.1 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 15.8 | 101.1 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 15.8 | 101.5 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 15.9 | 102.9 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 16.0 | 102.4 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 16.0 | 103.8 |
| 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 16.2 | 105.0 |
| 0.22 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.6 | 100.7 |
| 0.22 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.9 | 102.0 |
| 0.22 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.9 | 103.8 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 15.2 | 96.1 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 15.6 | 98.4 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 15.8 | 99.7 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 0 | 15.0 | 96.2 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 0 | 15.2 | 96.6 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 0 | 15.2 | 98.0 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5% | 15.3 | 96.6 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10% | 15.4 | 97.3 |
| 0.22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15% | 15.6 | 98.9 |
References
- Zong, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Guo, Z.; Lin, S.; Jiang, T. Carbonation resistance of sustainable self-compacting concrete with recycled concrete aggregate and fly ash, slag, and silica fume. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2024, 28, 2177–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, Y.; Qin, L.; He, X.; Sun, H.; Wu, Z.; Hou, Y. Mechanical properties and constitutive model of fibre-reinforced high-performance class-F fly ash foam concrete. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2024, 28, 437–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hua, C.; Tang, R.; Lu, X. Radon emission characteristics and pore structure evolution of self-compacting concrete with silica fume-molybdenum tailings under different curing environments. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 97, 110769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Chen, Z.; Wang, S.; Xu, L. A Review on the Damage Behavior and Constitutive Model of Fiber Reinforced Concrete at Ambient Temperature. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 412, 134919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Qiao, P.; Sun, J.; Chen, A. Influence of Fibers on Tensile Behavior of Ultra-High Performance Concrete: A Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 430, 136432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Z.; Wang, K.; Peng, X.; Wang, H.; Huang, R. Influence of NaCl Solution External Erosion on Corrosion Resistance of RPC Reinforced with Straw Fiber. Coatings 2023, 13, 1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grzymski, F.; Musiał, M.; Trapko, T. Mechanical Properties of Fibre Reinforced Concrete with Recycled Fibres. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 198, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhagifarov, A.M.; Akhmetov, D.A.; Suleyev, D.K.; Zhumadilova, Z.O.; Begentayev, M.M.; Pukharenko, Y.V. Investigation of Hydrophysical Properties and Corrosion Resistance of Modified Self-Compacting Concretes. Materials 2024, 17, 2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djebien, R.; Hebhoub, H.; Belachia, M.; Berdoudi, S.; Kherraf, L. Incorporation of Marble Waste as Sand in Formulation of Self-Compacting Concrete. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2018, 67, 87–91. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.; Huang, F.; Tu, H.; Sun, D.; Wang, Z.; Yi, Z.; Yang, Z.; Xie, Y. Pumpability of Manufactured Sand Self-compacting Concrete. J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. Mater. Sci. Ed. 2023, 38, 1382–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adhikary, S.K.; Ashish, D.K.; Sharma, H.; Patel, J.; Rudzionis, Z.; Al-Ajamee, M.; Thomas, B.S.; Khatib, J.M. Lightweight Self-compacting Concrete: A review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2022, 15, 200107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.; Pasla, D.; Saravanan, T.J. Self-Compacting Lightweight Aggregate Concrete and Its Properties: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 375, 130861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, P.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Taylor, P.; Li, C.; Sun, Q.; Ma, Y. Assessment of Rheological and Toughening Behavior of Basalt Fiber Sprayed Cementitious Composites (BFSCC). Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 426, 136169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ElNemr, A.; Shaltout, R. Rheological and Mechanical Characterization of Self-Compacting Concrete Using Recycled Aggregate. Materials 2025, 18, 1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anish, V.; Logeshwari, J. A review on ultra high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete with nanomaterials and its applications. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2024, 71, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, X.; Ren, Z.; Li, P. Review on physical and chemical activation strategies for ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). J. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2024, 149, 105519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ullah, R.; Qiang, Y.; Ahmad, J.; Vatin, N.I.; El-Shorbagy, M.A. Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC): A State-of-the-Art Review. Materials 2022, 15, 4131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, J.; Chen, W.; Zhang, B.; Yu, J.; Liu, H. The Mechanical Properties and Damage Evolution of UHPC Reinforced with Glass Fibers and High-Performance Polypropylene Fibers. Materials 2021, 14, 2455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ge, J.; Du, S.; Chen, P.; Huang, W.; Yang, R.; Gao, X.; Ji, X. Preparation and Compressive Fracture Characteristics of Fiber Foam Concrete. J. Concr. 2024, 12, 213–218. [Google Scholar]
- Miyazaki, Y.; Nakayama, R.; Yasuo, N.; Watanabe, Y.; Shimizu, R.; Packwood, D.M.; Nishio, K.; Ando, Y.; Sekijima, M.; Hitosugi, T. Bayesian Statistics-Based Analysis of AC Impedance Spectra. AIP Adv. 2020, 10, 045231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, S.; Liu, Q.; Han, F.; Liu, S.; Han, T.; Yan, H. Basic Mechanical Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete Prepared with Aeolian Sand and Recycled Coarse Aggregate. Buildings 2024, 14, 2949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.J.; You, I.; Kim, S.; Shin, H.O.; Yoo, D.Y. Self-Sensing Capacity of Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Containing Conductive Powders in Tension. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 125, 104331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashteyat, A.; Obaidat, A.T.; Qerba’a, R.; Abdel-Jaber, M. Influence of basalt fiber on the rheological and mechanical properties and durability behavior of self-compacting concrete (SCC). Fibers 2024, 12, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, J.; Zaid, O.; Aslam, F.; Shahzaib, M.; Ullah, R.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Khedher, K.M. A Study on the Mechanical Characteristics of Glass and Nylon Fiber Reinforced Peach Shell Lightweight Concrete. Materials 2021, 14, 4488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Z.; Guo, B.; Yang, Z. Influence of fiber type on UHPC performance and its strengthening mechanism research progress. J. Jiangxi Build. Mater. 2024, 5, 13–15. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, W.; Kong, J.; Sun, Q. Preparation and Properties of Ultra-High Performance Concrete Incorporation Multi-Mineral Admixtures. Mater. Res. Express 2024, 11, 085311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Liu, P.; Sha, F.; Yin, J.; He, S.; Li, Q.; Yu, Z.; Chen, H. Study on the Mechanical and Rheological Properties of Ultra-High Performance Concrete. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2022, 17, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju, M.; Jeong, J.-G.; Palou, M.; Park, K. Mechanical Behavior of Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregate Concrete with the Mineral Admixtures. Materials 2020, 13, 2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTM C1856/C1856M-17; Standard Practice for Fabricating and Testing Specimens of Ultra-High Performance Concrete. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
- Cheng, X.; Mu, R.; Liu, X. Research progress on preparation and mechanical properties of ultra-high performance concrete. Silic. Bull. 2024, 43, 4295–4312. [Google Scholar]
- GB/T 31387-2025; Ultra High Performance Concrete. Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2025.
- Pourjahanshahi, A.; Madani, H. Chloride diffusivity and mechanical performance of UHPC with hybrid fibers under heat treatment regime. Mater. Today Commun. 2021, 26, 102146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teng, L.; Meng, W.; Khayat, K.H. Rheology Control of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Made with Different Fiber Contents. Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 138, 106222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, D.Y.; Kang, M.C.; Choi, H.J.; Shin, W.; Kim, S. Electromagnetic interference shielding of multi-cracked high-performance fiber-reinforced cement composites—Effects of matrix strength and carbon fiber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 261, 119949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, K.; Liang, Z.; Peng, X.; Wang, H. Research into Preparation and Performance of Fast-Hardening RPC Mixed with Straw. Materials 2023, 16, 5310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, J.; Xie, X.; Li, L. Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties and Durability of Grafted Nano-SiO2 Modified Rice Straw Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 347, 128575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tai, Y.; Yang, L.; Gao, D.; Kang, K.; Cao, Z.; Zhao, P. Properties Evolution and Deterioration Mechanism of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) under the Coupling Effect of Carbonation and Chloride Attack. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 95, 110275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tu, Y.; Liu, D.; Yuan, L.; Zhang, Y. Corrosion Resistance of Concrete Strengthened with Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Sheets. Mag. Concr. Res. 2022, 74, 54–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdel-Jaber, M.; Beale, R.; Makhoul, N. Self-compacting concrete (SCC) strength prediction via optimized duple-deep-learning model and distance ranked fire-hawk optimizer (DRFO). Civ. Eng. Archit. 2023, 11, 2447–2460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, D.; Guo, M.; Zhou, Y.; Zhu, Z. Use of nano-silica to improve the performance of LC3-UHPC: Mechanical behavior and microstructural characteristics. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 411, 134280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaban, W.M.; Heniegal, A.M.; Amin, M.; Zeyad, A.M.; Agwa, I.S.; Hassan, H.H. Effect of agricultural wastes as sugar beet ash, sugarcane leaf ash, and sugarcane bagasse ash on UHPC properties. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 98, 111359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khayat, K.H.; Meng, W.; Vallurupalli, K.; Teng, L. Rheological Properties of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete-An Overview. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 124, 105828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, X.; Liu, W. Study on temperature crack prevention and control measures for self-compacted large volume concrete with machine-made sand. J. China Cement 2024, 8, 88–90. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, Z.; Zhi, T.; Liu, X.; Yin, K.; Pan, H.; Feng, H.; Song, Y.; Su, Y. Effects of different nanomaterials on the early performance of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC): C–S–H seeds and nano-silica. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2023, 142, 105211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, R.; Liu, K.; Yin, T.; Tang, L.; Ding, M.; Shui, Z. Comparative study on the effect of steel and polyoxymethylene fibers on the characteristics of Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC). Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 127, 104418. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, J.; Liu, J.; Li, W.; Jin, L. Mechanical properties of magnesia fiber reinforced magnesium cement mortar composite materials. J. Compos. Mater. 2024, 41, 5492–5503. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Mu, J.; Wang, F.; Wang, X.; Ding, Q. Research on the Effect of Apparent Density on the Rheological Properties of Lightweight and Heavyweight Concrete. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 95, 110111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tariq, S.; Scott, A.; Mackechnie, J.; Shah, V. Glass powder replacement in self-compacting concrete and its effect on rheological and mechanical properties. J. Sustain. Cem.-Based Mater. 2022, 11, 240–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajasekar, A.; Arunachalam, K.; Kottaisamy, M. Assessment of strength and durability characteristics of copper slag incorporated ultra high strength concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 402–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Xiong, Z.; Yu, Y.; Chen, D.; Wu, C. Residual behaviour and damage assessment of UHPC-filled double-skin steel tubular columns after lateral impact. Thin-Walled Struct. 2024, 205, 112602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ting, T.Z.H.; Rahman, M.E.; Lau, H.H.; Ting, M.Z.Y. Recent development and perspective of lightweight aggregates based self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 201, 763–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
The measuring process.
Figure 2.
The rheological parameters of fresh UHPC with silica fume.
Figure 3.
The rheological parameters of fresh UHPC with cenosphere.
Figure 4.
The rheological parameters of fresh UHPC with fly ash.
Figure 5.
The rheological parameters of fresh UHPC with mineral powder.
Figure 6.
The mechanical strengths of UHPC with silica fume.
Figure 7.
The mechanical strengths of UHPC with cenosphere.
Figure 8.
The mechanical strengths of UHPC with fly ash.
Figure 9.
The mechanical strengths of UHPC with mineral powder.
Figure 10.
The scanning electron microscope photos of UHPC.
Figure 11.
The X-ray diffraction spectrum of UHPC.
Table 1.
Chemical composition of the raw materials (%).
| Types | Chemical Composition (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SiO2 | Al2O3 | Fe2O3 | MgO | CaO | SO3 | K2O | Na2O | |
| Portland cement | 21.7 | 4.76 | 3.57 | 2.12 | 63.01 | 1.98 | 2.15 | 0.71 |
| Fly Ash | 55.76 | 32.86 | 3.65 | 0.34 | 2.44 | 0.72 | 0.98 | 3.25 |
| Grade Slag Powder | 27.74 | 14.84 | 0.89 | 3.24 | 48.45 | 2.49 | 0.46 | 1.89 |
| Silica fume | 95.6 | 0.41 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.12 | - | - | 3.05 |
| Cenosphere | 95.3 | 0.44 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.11 | - | - | 3.06 |
| Quartz sand | 98.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | - | 0.2 |
Table 2.
Basic performance index of the raw materials.
| Types | Fineness (45 μm%) | Density (g/cm3) | Water Demand Ratio (%) | Specific Surface Area (m2/kg) | Heat Loss (%) | Mobility Ratio (%) | 28 d Activity Index (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portland cement | 6.7 | 3.14 | 25.40 | 350 | - | - | - |
| Fly ash | 5.5 | 2.21 | 92 | 560 | 2.9 | - | - |
| Grade slag powder | 3.47 | 2.85 | - | 450 | - | 86 | - |
| Silica fume | - | 2.05 | 110 | 22,000 | 5.10 | - | 125 |
| Cenosphere | - | 2.23 | 113 | 215 | 4.03 | - | 73 |
| Quartz sand | 3.4 | 2.65 | - | 430 | 0.5 | - | - |
Table 3.
Mixing proportions of UHPC per one cubic meter (kg).
| Water | Cement | Silica Fume | Cenosphere | Fly Ash | Grade Slag Powder | Sand | Water Reducing Agent | Water-Binder Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 162 | 900 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 855 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 810 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 765 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 855 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 810 | 0 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 765 | 0 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 855 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 810 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 765 | 0 | 0 | 135 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 855 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 810 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 162 | 765 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 135 | 1350 | 18 | 0.18 |
| 180 | 900 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 855 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 810 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 765 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 855 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 810 | 0 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 765 | 0 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 855 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 810 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 765 | 0 | 0 | 135 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 855 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 810 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 180 | 765 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 135 | 1350 | 18 | 0.20 |
| 198 | 900 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 855 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 810 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 765 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 855 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 810 | 0 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 765 | 0 | 135 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 855 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 810 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 765 | 0 | 0 | 135 | 0 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 855 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 810 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
| 198 | 765 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 135 | 1350 | 18 | 0.22 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Wang, L.; Tian, X.; Pan, Y.; Wu, D.; Xu, S.; Wang, H.; Tian, X.; Xu, Y.; Guo, H.; Zou, M. The Properties of Self-Compacting Ultra-High Performance Concrete with Different Types of Mineral Admixtures. Coatings 2025, 15, 591. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15050591
AMA Style
Wang L, Tian X, Pan Y, Wu D, Xu S, Wang H, Tian X, Xu Y, Guo H, Zou M. The Properties of Self-Compacting Ultra-High Performance Concrete with Different Types of Mineral Admixtures. Coatings. 2025; 15(5):591. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15050591
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Lin, Xiying Tian, Yuefan Pan, Dingyuan Wu, Shengli Xu, Hangyang Wang, Xiaolu Tian, Yubo Xu, Hong Guo, and Min Zou. 2025. "The Properties of Self-Compacting Ultra-High Performance Concrete with Different Types of Mineral Admixtures" Coatings 15, no. 5: 591. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15050591
APA StyleWang, L., Tian, X., Pan, Y., Wu, D., Xu, S., Wang, H., Tian, X., Xu, Y., Guo, H., & Zou, M. (2025). The Properties of Self-Compacting Ultra-High Performance Concrete with Different Types of Mineral Admixtures. Coatings, 15(5), 591. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15050591
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
