I was hoping to learn something substantive from the "I think my contractor may have screwed up... " thread, but Ugh, virtually no real info there.

However in that thread was referenced an article about a mix contest, here. In it, the winning mix which flowed, worked, and set the best for ICF was:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Aggregate #1: 350 lbs.
Fine Aggregate #5: 1483 lbs.
Course Aggregate #7: 1150 lbs.
Admixture 332N by Master Builders: 12oz./yd
Admixture 3000 NS by Master Builders: 61 oz./yd.
Admixture AE90 by Master Builders: 2.6 oz./yd.
Cement: 422 lbs.
Water per yd: 265 lbs.
W/C ratio: 0.43
Fly Ash #3: 189 lbs.
Design slump: 9 inches
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I was shocked at the slump. I'd believed that higher slumps drastically reduce concrete strength due to higher water content, but find that in some cases 20" is used! In the referenced video the mud flows almost like water. WTF is that about?

Now; this winning mix does not have enough flyash for me, as I build as green as possible. My preference is to request the ICF mix with the max 40% flyash and 5". And I still believe high slumps would be a disaster in blowouts.

If you are confident with your recipe, please tell us what you use, why, and where you are. No one here should bash another's choices, and nobody cares about all your experience or qualifications. (I have an MBA in Land Use Economics... see, you don't care)

The goal here is to share technical information; everything else is just baggage. Almost no one here is in the same market area, so if we are all forthright and respect others, I'll bet we'll all learn something and benefit.

Anyone know what's going on with Europe and high slumps?

hmmm,

             I'm a little disappointed that none of the big players on the board cared to answer this thread.... You
would believe that a mix is a mix and without being merged with good/qualified labor is useless...

N'way hope people suck it up and post some Responses...

One thing is for sure, the chances of getting large air pockets or behives in the wall is pratically
impossible when it flows like that ! But like Quantum says: a blowout with such a flowing concrete
would be the equivalent of a hemophiliac with a cut off arm...

F.

I'm a bit disappointed myself.

But those who withhold information do not realize the information others have which they miss out on. We are not in each others' market areas (other than E*** being in mine, but there are other issues there), so I don't see any problem. But I guess some behaviors are just reflexive. (and self-destructive, since I and others shutup in response)

I have seen SCC's work well in concrete, however you need a good plant, and a good concrete mix design engineer who can control the mix precisely, and ensure its all placed within the correct time frames. Do I believe it is for everyone....NO. Secondly, there is the cost of concrete, and the code requirements for proper consolidation, which the ACI will not include SCC as part of the codes......YET. However I see a potential, in the future for it, there is just a very limited number of concrete suppliers, with the knowledge and personell capable of providing, and teaching installers, in its proper placement and use. Where SCC's fail, is when a crew has a blow out, falls behind, and trucks start backing up. There is a limited usable service life on plasticizers, and most are only 15 working minutes, this is where a lot of issues can occur. Fluid concrete does place higher pressures on forms, tends to move forms, with a higher degree of post creep issues that standard mixes.

Hence, I prefer to stay with tried and proven, as well as code approved installations. Cheaper and better. However your choice, I am not here to argue the point, or be "reflexive", I am more than happy, to have you on one of our pours where you can construct and place a wall identical to another, and you can then compare what you believe to be the best way to do it. This is a training technique I have used before, and has yet to fail as an eye opener for speed, accuracy, quality cost, cleanliness and ease of placement.

Mark Ross

SCC's can mean a broad range of things to different people. Using various recipies of different admixes can often do more harm than good. I use polycarb's ,SRA's, and VMA's for my sinks and countertops. The technology is there but it is expensive and should be left to the experienced for each particular use. I recomend using mid range water reducers with class C fly ash when using such high cement replacements. Also look into using VCAS from Vitrominerals as it is a non toxic industrial byproduct that does not increase water demand like Metakaolin. I have people in my industry using up to 80% fly ash CMT replacement in addition to high fiber loading. If using SCC's you better have water tight formwork. I just do not believe using SCC's with ICF's is the proper application.

Here is what we use in Dallas TX.

Total Cementations Material 564 lbs.
% of Fly Ash (by wt. of total) 20%
lbs.of course agg. #2 1700 lbs.
Gals. of water\ Cu. Yd 32 gals.
Midrange water reducer 8 ozs. cwt.

Cement ASTM C150 451
Fly Ash ASTM C618 113
#2) 1" to # 8 pea gravel 1700
Natural sand 1501
Admixture Plastimix type A or D 41 oz.
Water 32 gals.

We place this at a 5 to 6 inch slump. I have read some posts here that recomend placement at 4 inch slump. This seems to be a recipie for poor consolidation. We have used ICF for retaining walls and have stripped thousands of sq ft of foam from our walls. We have never encountered the so called graveling. I have however seen some segregation of materials at the starting point of a pour. This occured when we placed concrete in a 16 ft tall screen wall. We stripped the end cap and noticed that the 1st 2' was mostly gravel with very little paste. We stripped the foam and observed that we had a triangle of segregated concrete approximately 3 sq ft in area starting at the end cap 2 ft high and disipating down to fully consolidated concrete after about 1 1|2 ft to the right of the start of the pour. The issue seems to be that when the concrete falls more than 12' the aggregates and the fluids start to seperate. I think this may be a result of the differing specific gravities of the materias or it could be something more simple such as the aggregates bouncing off of the rebar over and over again untill the cement paste is vibrated off of the gravel. We now make sure that we do not allow the concrete to free fall more than 10 to 12 ft. This has solved the problem.