## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Effects of Ceramic Additives  
#### 3.1.1 Rheological Properties  
The average diameters for the J-Ring flow and slump flow for samples containing varying doses of each ceramic additive are shown in Figure 3. As shown in the figure, introducing the additives showed no adverse effects on the flowability of the mix nor does it subject it to segregation, which initially means that all trials containing ceramic additives can be considered. However, ASTM C1621 [15] also states that the numerical difference between the average diameters obtained from the two tests must not exceed 25 mm. Figure 4 shows the numerical difference between the J-Ring flow and slump flow for each of the ceramic additives. The results of the J-Ring flow and slump flow show that the introduction of 10% and 15% CWFA restricts the flowability of the SCC to the point where its results are considered unacceptable. All other doses of ceramic additives, however, met both requirements as stated in ASTM C1621 and therefore are considered successful.  
Figure 3: Results of the J-Ring flow and slump flow for SCC samples containing varying doses of ceramic waste coarse aggregate (CWCA), ceramic waste fine aggregate (CWFA), and ceramic waste powder (CWP).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline
**Material** & **Quantity** \\ \hline Cement (kg/m\({}^{3}\)) & 550 \\ Sand (kg/m\({}^{3}\)) & 600 \\ Coarse aggregates–9.5 mm (kg/m\({}^{3}\)) & 360 \\ Coarse aggregates–4.75 mm (kg/m\({}^{3}\)) & 720 \\ Water (kg/m\({}^{3}\)) & 169 \\ Silica fume (kg/m\({}^{3}\)) & 40 \\ Fly ash (kg/m\({}^{3}\)) & 60 \\ SIKA® ViscoCrete®-5070 (I) & 2.2 \\ Water/cement ratio & 0.26 \\ Water/binder ratio & 0.32 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Mix design proportions of benchmark SCC Mix.  
Figure 5 shows the ratio of H2/H1 for samples containing different doses of each ceramic additive. As shown in the figure, introducing the additives had no adverse effects on the flow-ability of the SCC. All samples of SCC met the requirement to have a minimum H2/H1 ratio of 0.8 as specified in BS EN 12350-10 [16]. Additionally, most samples had ideal flow-ability as their H2/H1 ratio was 1.0. This, along with the J-Ring test results, show that the introduction of ceramic additives to a benchmark SCC mix generally does not undermine its rheological properties.  
Figure 6 shows the time it takes for samples containing different doses of each ceramic additive to pass through a V-Funnel as stated in BS EN 12350-9 [18]. It is worth noting that the benchmark SCC mix initially had undesirable viscosity; the viscosity of the mix is not considered to be a major issue as it is not a key determinant of SCC. It can be inferred that the introduction of CWCA to partially replace 4.75 mm aggregates increases the viscosity of the benchmark SCC mix, which is shown in the figure by the increased time taken for the SCC to pass through the V-Funnel; the result for 15% CWCA replacement can be considered anomalous as it does not follow the general trend shown by the CWCA-replaced SCC. Introducing CWFA at lower and higher ranges to partially replace sand improved the benchmark SCC mix's viscosity and made it meet the criteria for desirable workability  
Figure 4: Numerical difference of the J-Ring flow and slump flow for SCC samples containing varying doses of CWCA, CWFA, and CWP.  
Figure 5: Ratio of H2/H1 obtained from the L-Box Test results for SCC samples containing varying dosages of CWCA, CWFA, and CWP.  
as per the standard. Finally, the introduction of CWP to the mix significantly improved the viscosity of the benchmark SCC mix, making them fall well beneath the cut-off set by the standard.