## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Workability Properties  
Table 7 summarizes the workability properties of all SCC mixtures considered in this investigation. SCC mixtures designed for low filling ability had slump flow between 550 and 650 mm (22 and 26 in. ), while those designed for high filling ability had slump flow between 650 and 750 mm (26 and 30 mm). T50 was found to be \(\leq\)2 s for all mixtures, which indicates the low viscosity of the tested mixtures. Most mixtures had satisfactory passing ability as \(\Delta\)D is \(\leq\)50 mm (2 in.) and \(\Delta\)H \(\leq\) 15 mm (0.6 in.). Only a few mixtures, mostly with NMSA = 19 mm (\({}^{3}\)/\({}_{4}\) in. ), presented higher probability of blockage. All mixtures had adequate filling capacity more than 70%. Most SCC mixtures had adequate static stability as the penetration values (average of two measurements) were less than 25 mm (1 in.) and column segregation percentage was less than 15%. A few mixtures, mostly with NMSA = 19 mm (\({}^{3}\)/\({}_{4}\) in. ), had lower static stability as penetration was equal to 25 mm (1 in.) and column segregation percentage was between 15% and 20%, which might be acceptable for some cast-in-place components. The VSI and HVSI for all SCC mixtures were either 0 or 1, which indicated adequate stability. It should be noted that VSI and HVSI are qualitative test methods that depend on the operator judgment; however, the guidelines presented in test standards were followed to minimize the subjectivity of the assessment. Dynamic stability was measured using the flow-through method for only SCC mixtures with high slump flow. Results indicated that most mixtures had exhibited either high dynamic stability (segregation \(\leq\)20%) or moderate dynamic stability (segregation \(\leq\)30%). Most SCC mixtures with high slump flow and \(\frac{3}{4}\) in. NMSA had shown poor dynamic stability, making them inappropriate for long or deep components. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Model Name** & **Drying Shrinkage Strain Prediction** \\  & **Equation, \(\epsilon\)(\(t\),\(t_{c}\))** \\ \hline AASHTO LRFD [2] & \(k_{s}\)\(k_{hs}\)\(k_{t}\)\(k_{d}\)\(0.48\times 10^{-3}\) \\ ACI 209 [3,4] & \(\frac{(t-tc)^{s}}{f+(t-tc)^{s}}\). \(\varepsilon_{shu}\) \\ CEB-FIP MC90-99 [5] & \(\varepsilon_{so}\)\(\beta_{s}(t-t_{c})\) \\ B3 [6] & \(\varepsilon_{sho}\)\(\kappa_{h}\)\(\beta(t-t_{c})\) \\ GL 2000 [7] & \(\varepsilon_{slu}\)\(\beta(t-t_{c})\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Drying shrinkage strain prediction models. Figure 4: Drying shrinkage specimens. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Coance** \\ **Aggregate** \\ **Type** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **NMSA** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **ID** \\ **T0s (s)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Slump Flow** \\ **VSI** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **J-Ring** \\ **VSI** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Calsion** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Calsion** \\ **Technology** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Location** \\ **Technology** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Long** \\ **Stability** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Static** \\ **Stress** \\ **Viscosity** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Dynamic** \\ **Tooling** \\ **Tooling** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} **Tidal** \\ **Tongue** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Slope** \\ **Tooling** \\ **Tooling** \\ \end{tabular}