Session A6:Ecological and Economic Optimisation

Development of cost-efficient UHPC with local materials in

Colombia
Prof. Joaquín Abellán1,3, Andrés Núñez², Prof. Nancy Torres3, Prof. Jaime Fernández4
1: PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spai n.
2: Cementos Argos SA, Medellín, Colombia.
3: Department of Materials and Structures, Escuela Colombiana de Ingeniería Julio Garavito, Bogotá, Colombia.
4: Department of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spain.

1 Introduction
Compared with normal strength concrete, ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) is
characterized by high particle packing density, combined with the use of superplasticizer to
reduce the water-to-cementitious materials ratio. These extremely low porosity and low
permeability characteristics of UHPC give it improved durability and mechanical properties over
other types of concrete [1] [2].
However, in terms of sustainability and cost, this class of material must still be evaluated
regarding its value of the higher average dosage of binder compared to regular concrete.
The research program reported on herein was aimed at detemining eco-friendly UHPC
dosages in which the cement content was kept as low as possible while reaching compressive
strength al 28 days (R28) over 150 MPa using local avalible components in the Colombian
market and without using any heat treatment.

2 Materials
The materials used to manufacture the concrete were local available in Colombia. In all
dosages, ASM Type HE cement (C), 100 kg/m3 of silica fume (SF), silica sand (SS) with
maximum particle size of 600 µm, tape water and polycarboxylate-ether-superplasticizer
(HRWR), were used. As suppelemtary cementitious materials (SCM) several options were
tested: Electric Arc Slag Furnace (EASF), Ground Granulated Blast Slag Furnace (GGBSF),
Limestone Powder (LP), Micro-Limestone Powder (MLP), Recycled Glass Powder (RGP),
Recycled Glass Flour (RGF), local high unburned carbon fly ash (FA), and fluid catalytic
cracking catalyst residue (FC3R), as partial substitution of cement and silica fume. A reference
dosage without restrictions in the amount of silica fume which doesn’t use any of the SCM
aforementioned, was used as reference.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 1: On the left: Paticle size distribuition of the components used in this research. On the right FSEM of
several supplementay cementitious materials used: a)FC3R, b)MLP, c)RGP, d)RGF, e)EASF, and d)FA.

97
Session A6:Ecological and Economic Optimisation

3 Mixture design and results

Statistical tools such as Design of Experiments (DoE) and multiobjectiove optimization were
used to better adjust the goal of compressive stgrength while using the less amount of cement
and maintining the mixture in a reasonable cost. The factors analysed in each combination of
components were cement content in kg/m3 (Factor A), water to binder ratio (Factor B) and
percentage of superpasticizer in volume used (Factor C). The rest of components were
adjusted to the A&Amod curve using q=0.264 [3]. The optimization was based on the
desirabilities approach developed by Derringer and Suich [4]. In every combination a 18-run
DoE was used. The combinations analysed are depicted in Table 1 as well as their
mathematical optimization and the respective experimental verification.

Table 1: Combinations analysed in the research. COP = Colombian Pesos. R28 in MPa. Cement in kg/m3
Cement w/b HRWR Model R28 Experiment Cost/m3
DoE SCM al R28 (x1000COP)
REF - 870 0.191 3.05% 174 170 1350
DoE01 LP+MLP+EASF 651 0.161 2.62% 155 152 900
DoE02 RGF+MLP+EASF 621 0.164 2.55% 158 156 848
DoE03 RGP+MLP+FC3R 654 0.172 2.83% 153 150 900
DoE04 RGF+RGP+MLP 603 0.165 2.05% 155 152 809
DoE05 MLP+RGF 590 0.163 2.11% 157 155 806
DoE06 MLP+FA 711 0.168 2.86% 151 148 890
DoE07 GGBFF+RGF 674 0.164 2.57% 153 157 841
DoE08 GGBSF+RGP+RGF 681 0.166 2.28% 152 151 876

4 Conclusions
Based on the obtained results from this analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn: (i)
Partial substitution of cement and silica fume is possible with different options, however there is
a drop in the resistance in all cases;(ii) limestone powder and especially recycled glass allow to
reduce the superplasticizer content which has a notable impact on the final cost;(iii) local fly ash
dogage presents the greater need for cement due to the high unburned carbon over 12%;(iv)
lower final cost an cement content is achieved when blending micro-limestone powder and
recycled glass flour as partial substitution of cement and silica fume.

References
[1] Soliman, N. A. and Tagnit-Hamou, A., “Using particle packing and statistical approach to optimize
eco-efficient ultra-high-performance concrete”, ACI Mater. J., vol. 114, no. 6, pp. 847–858, 2017.
doi: 10.14359/51701001.
[2] Abellán, J., Fernández, J., Torres, N., and Núñez, A.“Statistical Optimization of Ultra-High-
Performance Glass Concrete,” ACI Mater. J., vol. 117, no. M, pp. 1–12, 2020. doi:
10.14359/51720292
[3] Abellan, J., Torres, N., Núñez, A. and Fernández, J. ,“Influencia del exponente de Fuller, la relación
agua conglomerante y el contenido en policarboxilato en concretos de muy altas prestaciones”, in IV
Congreso Internacional de Ingenieria Civil, La Havana, Cuba, 2018.
[4] Derringer, G., & Suich, R. “Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response Variables.” Journal of
Quality Technology, 21(4), 214–219, 1980.

98