## 2 Factorial Plan
### Data Set  
Table 2 presents the experimental findings reported by [PERSON] [13] concerning the response variables D-flow, T-funnel, F,24h and Rc,24h. [PERSON] [13] considered the average of two results obtained for D-flow as shown in Table 2. The F,24h has an average of 3 test records for each single mixture, and the Rc,24h has an average of 6 test records [13].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **Units** & \(-\)**2.378** & \(-\)**1** & **0** & **+1** & **+2.378** \\ \hline X1: Vw/Vc & - & 0.682 & 0.805 & 0.895 & 0.984 & 1.108 \\ X2: Sp/p & \% & 0.9101 & 0.0217 & 0.0236 & 0.0255 & 0.0281 \\ X3: Vw/Vp & - & 0.4344 & 0.5130 & 0.5700 & 0.6270 & 0.7056 \\ X4: Vs/Vm & - & 0.306 & 0.432 & 0.480 & 0.528 & 0.594 \\ X5: Vs/Vs & - & 0.043 & 0.250 & 0.400 & 0.550 & 0.757 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Correspondence of actual and coded values of input mixture parameters.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Coded Values**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Responses**} \\ \cline{2-10}
**CCD** & **Vw/Vc** & **Sp/p** & **Vw/Vp** & **Vs/Vm** & **Vfs/Vs** & **D-Flow** & **T-Funnel** & **F,24h** & **Rc,24h** & **CCD** \\
**Point** & **Vw/Vc** & **Sp/p** & **Vw/Vp** & **Vs/Vm** & **Vfs/Vs** & **D-Flow** & **T-Funnel** & **F,24h** & **Rc,24h** & **[MPa]** & **[MPa]** & **[MPa]** \\ \hline C1 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 346.50 & 14.98 & 11.77 & 59.89 & Full, A, Small \\ C2 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 346.00 & 13.77 & 12.29 & 62.10 & Full, A, Small \\ C3 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 339.50 & 14.15 & 11.28 & 59.31 & Full, A, B, Small \\ C4 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 348.00 & 14.74 & 12.08 & 60.90 & Full, A, B, Small \\ C5 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 339.50 & 14.53 & 11.96 & 60.00 & Full, A, B, Small \\ C6 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 341.00 & 14.38 & 11.89 & 62.17 & Full, A, B \\ C7 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 345.00 & 13.56 & 11.05 & 60.18 & Full, B \\ C8 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 344.50 & 14.23 & 11.03 & 59.63 & Full, B \\ \hline F1 & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & 330.00 & 18.89 & 11.60 & 72.54 & Full, B, Small \\ F2 & \(1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & 349.00 & 12.26 & 11.05 & 57.80 & Full, A \\ F3 & \(-1.00\) & \(1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & 338.50 & 16.70 & 12.64 & 70.09 & Full, A \\ F4 & \(1.00\) & \(1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & 354.50 & 11.32 & 10.50 & 56.06 & Full, B \\ F5 & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & \(-1.00\) & 375.00 & 9.24 & 11.26 & 67.05 & Full, A \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Coded values used for determining mixtures’ contents’ the corresponding experimental findings are used to adjust models and CCD points for each CCD.  
Figure 1a depicts the T-funnel against D-flow experimental results obtained by [PERSON] [13]. As expected, with a decrease in flow time, an increasing trend for the slump-flow diameter  
is observed. The experimental plan enveloped a wide range of deformability and viscosity, with D-flow varying from 168 to 398 mm and T-funnel varying from 6.94 to 104 s. According to [PERSON] et al. [1] and EFNARR recommendations, self-compacting mortars must present a target D-flow between 250 and 260 mm and T-funnel of 10 s, meaning self-compatibility was reached within CCD. All D-flow and T-funnel results are also listed in the first three columns of Table 2. The CCD points F25, CC1, and CC9 do not present T-funnel values due to blocking in the V-funnel, and testing was impossible to perform.  
Figure 1b presents mechanical strength results. As can be seen, a scattered distribution occurred, and flexure results seem to have experienced narrow variation (9.43-12.79 MPa) while compressive strength varied between 48.92 and 78.42 MPa.