CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

UITM PAHANG, KAMPUS JENGKA

STRUCTURAL AND MATERIAL LABORATORY
ECS268
OPEN-ENDED LAB
MARCH – AUGUST 2024

TITLE OF : WORKABILITY TEST AND COMPACTING FACTOR

EXPERIMENT TEST FOR FRESH CONCRETE
DATE OF : 4 JUNE 2024
EXPERIMENT
GROUP : CEEC110 4A
GROUP MEMBERS : 1. NURIN AINA BASYIRAH BINTI MOHD BAKHTIAR
(2022605976)
2. NUR NAJIHAH BINTI ABDULLAH (2022475628)
3. NUR AFIQAH BINTI WAHID (2022647942)
LECTURER : MADAM DURATUL AIN BINTI THOLIBON
LEVEL OF OPENESS : 0

NO ELEMENT COPO Marks COMMENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

2 BASIC CONCEPT

SUMMARY OF
3
PROCEDURES/METHOD
ANALYSIS AND
4
INTERPETATION OF DATA

5 DISCUSSION OF RESULT 2 4 6 8 10

6 CONCLUSIONS 2 4 6 8 10

TOTAL MARKS /20

 Table Of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION 3
2.0 BASIC CONCEPT 3
3.0 SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES/METHOD 5
4.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 8
5.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULT 9
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 10
REFERENCES 11
APPENDIX 12
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The traditional methods of conducting laboratory activities (assigned as Level 0) will not be
able to provide the avenue for students to enhance independent learning activities and
inculcate creativity and innovation. The traditional method is fully prescriptive where the
three elements namely problem, ways & means, and answers are provided/fully given to the
students. However, it is still necessary to implement as part of the whole laboratory course
activity, especially for first and second year students. In this laboratory activity students will
be exposed to the apparatus and appropriate methods to carry out tests to determine the
workability and compacting factor for fresh concrete and also the process of the mixing,
casting and curing of the concrete cube by referring to British Standard. The objective of this
laboratory is to demonstrate, conduct the experiment and determine the workability and
compacting factor test for fresh concrete.

2.0 BASIC CONCEPT

Fresh concrete is a combination of cement, aggregate and water and is in the condition of
plastic state. Fresh concrete can be easily moulded to a durable structural member and can
be prepared on the spot by giving a wide range of properties such as workability,
temperature, water-cement ratio, segregation, bleeding, plastic shrinkage, setting time and
hydration. However, the most important of the fresh concrete properties is workability or
known as consistency which normally focuses on mixability, playability, compatibility,
transportability, mobility, stability and finish ability. Workability of fresh concrete is defined as
the process in which concrete can be laid and set in the formwork with ease and filling the
formwork with a thorough flow and compacted. Factors that affect the fresh concrete
workability are the influence of mix proportions, the influence of aggregate properties, the
influence of admixtures and the effect of time. There are a lot of workability tests for fresh
concrete such as slump test, compacting factor test, flow test, vee- bee consistency test,
flow table test, k-slump test and Kelly ball test. Nevertheless, the basic test for checking the
workability of fresh concrete is the slump test and compacting factor test. A slump test is
prepared and conducted at the laboratory or construction site during the progress of the
work to determine the workability of fresh concrete. Slump test is the simplest technique and
provides immediate results by involving low cost and is carried out from batch to batch to
check the uniform quality of concrete during construction. The slump is determined in terms
of mm by measuring the difference between the height of the mould and that of the height
point of the concrete specimen after being tested as shown in Figure 2.1. The concrete
slump shape can be observed and classified into four types of slump shape as shown in
Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.1: The slump height measurement.

 Figure 2.2: The classification of the concrete slump shape

The compacting factor test is another type of workability test for fres h concrete which
conducted in a civil engineering material laboratory. Generally, the compacting factor is the
ratio of weights of partially compacted to fully compacted concrete which is used for concrete
with low workability in slump test as shown in the equation.
Compacting Factor Value = [(W1-W) / (W2-W)]
Where,
W1 = The weight of partially compacted concrete
W2 = The weight of fully compacted concrete
W = The weight of an empty cylinder
The description and recommended value of the type of workability and their concrete
application are tabulated in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: The description of workability condition and concrete application
3.0 SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES/METHOD
3.1 APPARATUS
3.1.1 Mixing, Casting and Curing of Concrete Cube
The apparatus used for mixing and casting of fresh concrete is a drum mixer, trowel,
weighing machine, scoop, mould, oil, curing tank and concrete material (aggregate, cement
and water). The example of the drum mixer is shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: The drum mixer used for mixing.

3.1.2 Slump Test
The apparatus used for the slump test is a slump cone, base plate, tamping rod, measuring
tape/ruler, bucket, scope and trowel as shown in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: The example of the slump test

3.1.3 Compacting Factor Test
The apparatus used for the compacting factor test is compacting factor equipment, trowel,
weighing machine, tamping rod and scoop as shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: The example of the compacting factor test apparatus

3.2 PROCEDURES
3.2.1 Mixing, Casting and Curing of Concrete Cube
1. All the required cement, sand, gravel, and water to produce concrete had been
calculated by selecting grades using the mix design process according to
BS5328:1981.
2. All the concrete materials for a specified volume of concrete had been weighed
according to the mix proportion for cement, sand, and coarse aggregate.
3. The room temperature and relative humidity had been noted.
4. The laboratory pan mixer had been wiped with a clean cloth or cleaned using tap
water to prevent cement and fine aggregate from being stuck to the inner surface of
the pan while mixing.
5. Sand had been fed into the laboratory pan mixer, followed by a part of the coarse
aggregate, cement, water, and finally the remainder of the coarse aggregate to break
up any modules of mortar.
6. The mixture had been thoroughly mixed to achieve a uniform color, and then water
had been added.
7. The mixing time had been around 1.5-2 minutes after all concrete materials had been
added, ensuring about 20 revolutions of the pan mixer.
8. The mixer had been stopped.
9. The cube mold had been cleaned and a thin layer of oil had been spread on the inner
surface.
10. The cube mold had been filled in approximately 1/3 depth layers, with each layer
being compacted by hand or vibrator. When compacting by hand, strokes of the bar
had been applied uniformly over the iron section of the mold. When compacting by
vibration, each layer had been compacted using a manual or electric pneumatic
hammer, or vibrating table until the specified condition had been attained.
 11. After the top layer had been compacted, the top surface of the concrete had been
finished and leveled with the top of the mold using a trowel. The mold had been
covered with a damp sack and the test cube had been stored.
12. After 24 ± ½ hours of storage in moist air, the specimen had been demolded. The
specimen had been marked for later identification in a suitable manner and
immediately submerged in water contained in curing tanks unless required for testing
within 24 hours.
13. The specimen had not been allowed to become dry at any time until they were taken
to be tested.

3.2.2 Slump test

1. The internal surface of the mold had been thoroughly cleaned and placed on a
smooth, horizontal, rigid, and non-absorbent surface.
2. The mixed concrete had been placed in the cleaned slump cone in 3 layers, each
approximately 1/3 the height of the mold. Each layer had been tapped 25 times using
the tamping rod.
3. The cone had been removed immediately and raised slowly and carefully in the
vertical direction.
4. As soon as the concrete settlement had come to a stop, the height of the concrete in
mm had been measured. The difference between the height of the slump cone and
the height of the concrete after settlement had been recorded as the slump.

3.2.3 Compacting Factor Test

1. The hopper doors had been fastened.
2. The empty cylinder had been weighed in kg (W).
3. The cylinder had been fixed on the base with fly nuts and bolts.
4. Coarse aggregate, fine aggregates, and cement had been mixed dry until the mixture
was uniform in color, and then with water until the concrete appeared to be
homogeneous.
5. The freshly mixed concrete had been gently filled into the upper hopper with a trowel
without compacting.
6. The trap door of the upper hopper had been released, allowing the concrete to fall
into the lower hopper to bring the concrete into a standard compaction.
7. Immediately after the concrete had come to rest, the trap door of the lower hopper
had been opened, allowing the concrete to fall into the cylinder.
8. The excess concrete above the top of the cylinder had been removed with a trowel.
9. The weight of the cylinder filled with partially compacted concrete had been found in
kg (W1).
10. The cylinder had been refilled with the same sample of concrete and the layer had
been tapped with a tamping rod to obtain full compaction of the concrete. This
process could also have been done using a vibrating table.
11. The mix had been leveled, and the weight of the cylinder filled with fully compacted
concrete had been recorded (W2).
4.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Design mix:
Cement 410kg/m3
Gravel 1120kg/m3
Sand 690kg/m3
Water 220 kg/m3

Size cube : 100mm x 100mm x 100mm

All data collected from the tests may be recorded in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2.
Slump Test
Table 4.1: The result of the slump test

Trial number Slump ( cm )

1 1.3

Compacting Factor Test

Weight of cylinder = 16.40 kg ( W1 )
Table 4.2: The result of the compacting factor test

Trial W W1 W2 ( W1 - W ) ( W2 - W ) Compactio
number n factor
(W1-W) /
(W2-W)

1 6.35 16.40 17.65 10.05 11.30 0.89

Sample Calculation:
W1=16.40 kg
W2=17.65 kg
W= 6.35 kg
Compacting Factor Value = [(W1-W) / (W2-W)]
=［16.40-6.35] / [17.65-6.35］
= 0.89
5.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULT
We conducted the slump test to determine the ability of concrete to flow under its own
weight. The slump test is done in the field to know the consistency for different types of
concrete loads . Other than that, we also conducted the compaction factor test to determine
the compatibility of concrete.
From the the result that we got the slump value for sample number 1 is 1.3cm which show
true slump shape where the concrete mass after the test when slopes evenly all around
without disintegration .This show that the workability of concrete in a low condition and the
compacting factor is 0.89. For the compacting factor test, we label weight of cylinder is
16.40kg as W1 and the weight of the cylinder filled with fully compacted concrete has been
recorded as (W2). We only conduct 1 trial number which is W is 6.35, W1 is 16.40, W2 is
17.65 and result for compaction factor is 0.89.
At the end of experiment we can identify on what can cause the the error. First we need
to make sure that the experiment were conducted carefully as there are many factor that can
lead to the error of the result which is human error, systematic error, and ramdom error. For
example, the human error if we accidentally put more water in the concrete mixture or the
mould were taken out incorrectly. The increasing of the water cement ratio resulted in a
higher slump value.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the slump test result that we got from the experiment that we already
conducted which compacting factor is 0.89 which show that the concrete has a low
workability. The slump test and compacting factor test are both crucial for assessing the
workability of concrete. The slump test measures the consistency and flowability of concrete,
while the compacting factor test evaluates its ability to be compacted. Both tests help ensure
that the concrete mixture is suitable for construction purposes. Lastly , we can know that the
objective of the experiment has been achieved.
REFERENCES
Mishra, G. (2021, May 16). Concrete Slump Test for workability: Procedure and results. The

Constructor. https://theconstructor.org/concrete/concrete-slump-test/1558/

Team, T. (2023, April 6). Concrete slump tests – measuring the workability of concrete. Total

Concrete.

https://www.totalconcrete.co.uk/news/concrete-slump-tests-measuring-the-workability

-of-concrete/

Mishra, G. (2017, November 28). Compaction Factor Test for Concrete Workability – Method

and Procedure. The Constructor.

https://theconstructor.org/concrete/compaction-factor-test/1565/

Testbook. (2024, June 11). Compaction Factor Test for assessing the Concrete Workability.

Testbook.

https://testbook.com/amp/civil-engineering/compaction-factor-test-procedure-apparat

us-and-values
APPENDIX
 LAB REPORT OPEN ENDED LAB (CO3-PO6) TOTAL
MARK
COURSE CODE & NAME ECS268 STRUCTURAL AND MATERIAL LABORATORY
SEMESTER MARCH – AUGUST 2024
LECTURER MADAM DURATUL AIN BINTI THOLIBON
NAME OF EXPERIMENT WORKABILITY TEST AND COMPACTING FACTOR TEST FOR
FRESH CONCRETE

NO AFFECTIVE DOMAIN PERFORMANCE SCALE

AND CRITERIA MARKS
Developing / Need Work Functional / Adequate Proficient Advanced
2 4 6 8 10
(Receiving, A1) Do not submit the Not able to submit the Able to submit the report within
1 Punctuality report report within the time the time given
given
No commitment Shows little commitment to Demonstrates commitment to Demonstrates Actively helps to identify
(Responding, A2) group goals and the group group goals some of the time, commitment to group group goals, share the
does not share the but the group does not share goals most of the time workload equally and work
2 workload the workload equal and carries out the effectively in all roles
Participation and assumed
workload equally most of
Cooperation to
the time
Achieve Group Goals

Description of result is
(Explain, A3) Discussion on results is Result and discussion are
No discussion on the Little discussion on what result generally clear. Some
very difficult to follow, no clearly stated, through
meaning of mean and implications of discussion on what
discussion on the meaning discussion on what results
3 Explain on the experimental results results. Enough errors are results mean and
of results and information is mean and implications of
results. and very difficult to made to be distracting, but implications of results.
so inaccurate that makes results. Provide consistently
(discussion) follow some information is accurate No significant errors are
the report unreliable accurate information
made

No attempt was made Conclusion is derived from Conclusion is good and derived Conclusion is good and Conclusion is excellent and
(Justify, A3) to conclude and the collected and analyzed from the collected and analyzed derived from the derived from the collected and
objectives of the lab data but it is not answering data and not from other sources collected and analyzed analyzed data and not from
4 were not answered the objectives but did not directly answering data and not from other other sources. Conclusion
Verifies
the objectives. sources and directly clearly answers the objectives.
(conclusion)
answer the objectives

TOTAL MARK
 Table 1 : Level of difficulty for each domain based on year

Cognitive

YEAR C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate

Affective

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
Receiving Responding Valuing Organizing Internalizing

1 10 - 20 60 - 80 10 - 20
2 10 - 20 55 - 75 15 - 25
3 10 - 20 50 - 70 20 - 30
Psychomotor
P3 P5
P1 P2 P4
Guided Complex Overt Reponse
Perception Set Mechanism
Reponse
1 55 - 65 35 - 45 0
2 25 - 35 55 - 65 5 - 15
3 15 - 25 55 - 65 15 - 25

PREPARED BY
RESOURCE PERSON ECS268
24 MARCH 2024

NOR MAYUZE BINTI MOHAMAD

FKA UITM PASIR GUDANG, JOHOR