REVIEW ON HSC BY USING DIFFERENT METHODS OF MIX PROPORTIONING

© 2025, SIJMR All Rights Reserved Page No. 25 SANGAM International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 03, Issue 01, September (2025) E-ISSN: 2584-086X REVIEW ON HSC BY USING DIFFERENT METHODS OF MIX PROPORTIONING D.S. Sorte1*, Dr. P. Pandey2, Mohit3 1*Research Scholar Civil Engineering, Sangam University, Bhilwara, India 2Associate Professor Civil Engineering, Sangam University, Bhilwara, India 3Assistant Professor Civil Engineering, Sangam University, Bhilwara, India [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Corresponding Author: [email protected], Tel.: +91-9371782554 Available online at: www.sijmr.org Received: 04-08-2025, Accepted: 18-09-2025, Online: 30-09-2025 Abstract— Nowadays the most important building material is high-strength concrete because of its properties of being stronger, lasting longer, and having better operating conditions than normal concrete. The method used for mixing the HSC changes its properties. The objective of the project is to simplify and compare the different methods of mix proportioning of HSC by performing various trials. The analysis focuses on the water-cement ratio, aggregate size, types of admixture, superplasticizer, curing methods, and which property is responsible for enhancing strength, durability, and workability. The results will enhance the understanding of how the mixing method affects HSC's long-term performance and will assist in selecting the best mixing method for the project.. Keywords— High strength concrete, mix proportioning, ACI method, IS method, water-cement ratio, aggregate size, admixtures, curing techniques I. INTRODUCTION Concrete having more than 60 MPa is known as highstrength concrete. It is a modern material that is being used in new modern construction projects for stronger, longerlasting, high-rise, long-span structures to make structural members small. HSC has many positive impacts, but the proper method of mix proportion is also very important. For high-strength concrete, the selection of supplementary cementitious material plays a very important role according to its properties[1]. To simplify the problems of mix proportioning of HSC, the study aims to methodically examine various mix proportioning techniques for M80M90 grade HSC, also focusing on the fresh properties, strength, durability, and cost-effectiveness[5]. The aim is to create the flow diagram for selecting the most reliable and effective method for field projects. As HSC handles more stress and lower the cost of the project it can be used in wild range of things including high rise building, bridges, offshore structures, precast elements, and where durability and performance are mandatory[5,10,21,23]. When working on a project, it is essential to focus on the mix proportion of High-Strength Concrete (HSC). To achieve the desirable strength and properties like high strength, durability, and workability, a more carefully mixed design is needed[35]. It's all about the quantities of all materials of cement, aggregates, SCMs, admixtures, and water. The water-to-cement ratio plays a very crucial and important role in the strength and durability of the mix. Using extra cementitious materials (like silica fume and fly ash) and chemical admixtures (like superplasticizers) makes the process of figuring out the right mix even harder [23]. The size, shape, and grading of the aggregate, as well as the curing process, are also crucial in determining the mix design and the final performance of HSC [2].The main goal of this review is to compare different ways of mixing high-strength concrete. The review looks at both empirical and performancebased methods to see how different methods affect the performance, durability, and sustainability of HSC This review will look at both academic and industrybased a pproaches. Thefirst type focuses on getting the best perfor mance while using the least amount of materials,while thes econd type focuses on making things easier to use and chea per. This comparison will help you choose the best ways to mix HSC for different construction projects [17]. II. RELATED WORK There has been a lot of research on high-strength concrete (HSC), especially on how different mix proportions affect strength, durability, and sustainability. A lot of people employ empirical approaches like ACI 211.4R-93, DoE, and IS 10262. [17] found that ACI-based mixes tend to have slightly greater compressive strengths, but IS standards are more cautious, and durability is mostly the same across codes. Analytical methodologies, such as particle packing and optimization models [11], have demonstrated the capability to attain strengths exceeding 100 MPa while enhancing cement efficiency and sustainability; recent innovations even encompass machine Vol. 03, Issue 01, September (2025) E-ISSN: 2584-086X © 2025, SIJMR All Rights Reserved Page No. 26 learning applications for mix optimization [12]. Performance-based proportioning, as emphasized in ACI 363R (2010) and further elaborated [26], transitions the emphasis from prescriptive ratios to the attainment of specified performance objectives regarding strength and durability, thereby providing adaptability for contemporary infrastructure. The performance of high-strength concrete (HSC) has also improved a lot thanks to new admixtures and supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) like silica fume, fly ash, and GGBS[8,13,18,36]. Studies have shown that HSC has higher tensile strength, lower permeability, and longer durability [10,13,23]. Also, sustainable methods like using recycled aggregates have been looked into, and they have been shown to work well with strengths of 70–80 MPa and only a small loss of workability [5,20,23,35]. Other combinations, such silica fume and high-volume Class C fly ash, showed great resistance to freeze-thaw and chloride penetration [1,2,8,14,22,,31,40]. These studies show a significant shift from old empirical methodologies to analytical and performance-based approaches. This is reinforced by the use of SCMs and recycled materials, which is in line with worldwide aims for high performance and sustainability in concrete technology. III. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORMAL AND HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE Normal concrete is conventional structural concrete used in most buildings and civil engineering works. The characteristic compressive strength is typically from about 20–40 MPa (designations like M20, M25, M30, etc.).[2,3] The High-strength concrete (HSC) is a concrete designed to give substantially higher compressive strength. Practically HSC is often considered concrete with characteristic strengths above about 40–50 MPa. Ultrahigh strength of HSC is much higher i.e. > 80–100 MPa.[2,3,5,9,23] There is no stepwise difference between mix-proportioning methods for High-Strength Concrete (HSC) and Normal Concrete (NC) and the goal for both is the same i.e. to get required strength, workability and durability. The methodology for HSC is far more performance-driven, iterative, and sensitive. HSC mix design focuses on microstructure (low porosity, excellent particle packing and rheology) and therefore uses different inputs, tighter controls, more trials and often different test methods than ordinary mixes.[3,6,15,17] Broad methodological differences (Design philosophy): Normal concrete frequently designed with prescriptive code methods (e.g., “nominal mixes” or code mix-design procedures) and single trial mix to confirm. But in case of HSC it is performance-based. Setting of a target strength and durability goals and then optimize materials and proportions by iterative lab trial mixes and testing is done. VI. MIX-PROPORTIONING METHODS FOR NC AND HSC Though the Mix-proportioning methods for NC and HSC are same but are differs in practice. The steps of Mixproportioning of IS 10262, DOE and ACI are tabulated below. [2,3,7,17,39] TABLE 1: STEPS OF MIX PROPORTIONING OF DIFFERENT METHOD VII. MIX-PROPORTIONING STEPS Parameter IS Method (IS 10262:2019 / IS 456:2000) ACI Method (ACI 211.1 / ACI 211.4R) DOE Method (UK Dept. of Environment, 1988) Target Mean Strength f_tm = f_ck + 1.65S OR f_tm = f_ck + X f’cr = f’c + margin (std. deviation based) f_m = f_ck + 1.64S (DOE charts) Standard Deviation (S) Typical 4–8 MPa Typical 4–7 MPa Typical 4–8 MPa Air Content 0–2% (non-air entrained HSC) 0–2% (unless freeze-thaw exposure) 0–2% typical Water Content 120–185 kg/m³ w/c = 0.25–0.35 120–190 kg/m³ w/cm = 0.20– 0.35 120–190 kg/m³ w/c = 0.25–0.35 Cementitious Content 400–700 kg/m³ (cement + SCMs) Check IS 456 limits 400–800 kg/m³ (use SCMs, trial based) 400–700 kg/m³ (with SCM replacement) Fine Aggregate (FA) 600–800 kg/m³ (balance volume method) 600–850 kg/m³ (absolute volume method) From DOE tables; similar ranges Coarse Aggregate (CA) 900–1100 kg/m³ (IS tables, size & sand zone based) 900–1200 kg/m³ (packing & absolute volume) DOE ratios; ~900–1200 kg/m³ Permissible % of Admixtures SP/HRWR: 0.3– 2.0% of cement Silica fume: 5– 12% GGBS: up to 50% Metakaolin: 5– 15% SP/HRWR: 0.2–2.5% Silica fume: 5–12% Fly ash: 25– 40% Slag: up to 50%+ SP: 0.2–2.0% Silica fume: 5– 12% Slag/Fly ash: 30–60% Max Permissible Cement Content Practical upper limit ~450–500 kg/m³ OPC Higher with SCMs but control shrinkage/heat No strict max; practical 600–800 kg/m³ total binder (trial validated) ≤700 kg/m³ total binder; SCMs recommended to reduce OPC In general the important design steps of all codes are 1. Select target characteristic strength (e.g., M20, M25). 2. Select maximum aggregate size and nominal mix proportions from code tables. 3. Choose w/c ratio to meet strength/durability (from code limits). 4. Estimate cement content and water content using charts. 5. Determine aggregate proportions by absolute volume method. 6. Make 1 or 2 trial mixes, check workability (slump), adjust admixture or water if needed. 7. Cast test specimens, confirm 7and 28-day strengths. Vol. 03, Issue 01, September (2025) E-ISSN: 2584-086X © 2025, SIJMR All Rights Reserved Page No. 27 8. Approve mix for production if tests meet requirements. But the design steps of HSC differs philosophically and methodologically to achieve high and ultra high strength, more density and durability and overall performance. 1. Set performance targets: 28-day strength, durability requirements (permeability, chloride resistance), allowable shrinkage/creep limits. 2. Choose max aggregate size smaller (10–12 mm commonly) and select high-quality, well-graded aggregates. 3. Decide binder system: cement + one or more SCMs (e.g., silica fume for strength and pore refinement; GGBS for workability/durability). 4. Select an initial very low w/c value based on target strength and past experience. 5. Choose a suitable high-range water reducer (superplasticizer) and Viscosity Modifying Agent as needed. 6. Use particle packing principles (adjust fines, silica fume, microfillers) to minimize voids by calculating initial proportions. 7. Run multiple trial mixes varying binder content, fines, and admixture dosage. Measure fresh properties with appropriate rheology tests (V-funnel, flow table, L-box for SCC) rather than just slump. 8. Cast specimens and test for compressive strength, modulus, shrinkage, permeability, and bond at relevant ages. Evaluate early-age behavior (heat, shrinkage). 9. Iterate and optimize proportions until all targets are met. Document admixture doses and mixing/curing regimes. 10. Implement tight production QC (frequent sampling, admixture dosing checks, temperature control). I. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR HSC The extra care of various aspects should be taken to achieve the targeted high-strength concrete propereties. 1. Very low free water: superplasticizers must be well dispersed; improper dosing causes balling/segregation. 2. Silica fume and very fine fillers: increase water demand and can cause poor workability unless properly handled. 3. Early-age thermal & autogenous shrinkage: Can cause cracking — requires internal curing, shrinkage reducers, controlled temperatures or extended curing. 4. Strength is sensitive to small changes: In w/c, admixture dosage and raw material quality — hence tighter control and frequent testing. 5. Testing method changes: Slump alone is inadequate for very fluid or very stiff HSC; use rheology measures. [23,29,31,34] II. ADDDITIVES USED IN HSC The additives (mineral admixtures) like GGBS, Silica Fume, and Alccofine (AF) are used widely in high-strength and durable concrete. 1. Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS): GGBS is the by-product of iron and steel industry (slag from blast furnaces), cooled rapidly by water to form a glassy powder. It is rich in amorphous silica and alumina. Role in High-Strength Concrete: During the pozzolanic action of GGBS it reacts with calcium hydroxide (CH) produced during cement hydration forms additional C-S-H gel, which is main strength-giving compound in concrete. The Fineness of GGBS improves particle packing, reduces porosity and therefore increases strength. GGBS is also a thermal resistance material, it reduces heat of hydration which is useful in mass concrete and for gaining highstrength to concrete mixes.[14, 18, 36] GGBS improves the long-term compressive strength, increases the durability i.e. resistance to sulfate attack, chloride ingress, alkali-silica reaction, Makes concrete dense & impermeable which is crucial for highperformance structures. Also it is a sustainable material which reduces clinker consumption and CO₂ emissions. 2. Silica Fume (Micro-silica): Silica Fume is a very fine (100x finer than cement), amorphous silica is a by-product from silicon or ferrosilicon alloy industry. Silica Fumes plays considerable role in achieving HighStrength to Concrete. Its micro-filler effect fills extremely fine particles in voids between cement grains resulting drastically reduction in permeability. Due to its pozzolanic reaction it reacts quickly with CH to forms extra C-S-H gel, giving higher early strength. It also improves bond strength between paste and aggregate. Silica Fume is a key ingredient for very high strength concrete (M70–M100). It increases the early-age strength useful in high-performance precast elements. It also enhances abrasion resistance (industrial floors, pavements) and resistance to chloride penetration which increases the durability ideally for bridges, coastal, and RCC structures exposed to salts. Silica Fume is effective in reducing the permeability again excellent for marine and aggressive environments.[1,4,8,16,27,31] 3. Alccofine (AF – 1203 grade): Alccofine is a ultra-fine, processed slag-based product from high glass content granulated slag. It is much finer than cement and GGBS (particle size < 5 micron). Role in High-Strength Concrete: due to its High reactivity i.e. immediate pozzolanic activity which is faster than GGBS, Micro-filler effect and property to enhances flowability & workability of high-performance concrete (important for self-compacting concrete) it imparts a great role in HSC. Vol. 03, Issue 01, September (2025) E-ISSN: 2584-086X © 2025, SIJMR All Rights Reserved Page No. 28 Alccofine substantially increases early & later compressive strength, improves pumpability & cohesiveness of concrete (SCC, HPC), provides very low permeability resulting into enhanced durability, reduces bleeding and segregation in concrete. It also makes mixes more economical compared to high % of silica fume even partial replacement is also possible. The Combined Importance of GGBS, Silica Fume, and Alccofine in High-Strength Concrete when used strategically, these additives together is as follows, 1. Increase strength: Silica fume + Alccofine for early and ultimate strength. 2. Enhance durability: GGBS for chemical resistance + silica fume for impermeability. 3. Improve workability: Alccofine improves flow in dense reinforcement concreting. 4. Sustainability: GGBS and Alccofine reduce cement usage → lower CO₂ footprint. 5. Performance balance: Silica fume = very high strength, but reduces workability (sticky mix). Alccofine = improves workability, reduces need for extra water/plasticizer. GGBS = improves long-term durability & strength. In practice M60+ concrete mixes usually contain 5–10% silica fume, 8–12% Alccofine, and 30–50% GGBS (depending on design requirements). typical combinations are widely used in high-rise buildings, bridges, metro projects, marine structures, nuclear plants.[ 14, 18, 28, 30, 36] TABLE 2.Comparative Table: GGBS vs Silica Fume vs Alccofine Aspect GGBS (Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag) Silica Fume (Micro-silica) Alccofine (AF1203) Source By-product of iron & steel industry (blast furnace slag, rapidly cooled) By-product of silicon/ferrosilicon alloy industry Processed ultrafine slag with high glass content Particle Size Finer than cement but coarser than silica fume (~350–450 m²/kg Blaine fineness) Extremely fine (100x finer than cement, ~15,000– 25,000 m²/kg) Ultra-fine (particle size < 5 μm, ~12,000 m²/kg) Reactivity Slow → contributes to long-term strength Very reactive → contributes to early and ultimate strength Highly reactive → contributes to early & later strength Main Action Pozzolanic + latent hydraulic Pozzolanic + micro-filler effect Micro-filler effect + rapid pozzolanic activity Strength Contribution Improves strength after 28 days (longterm gain) Increases earlyage & ultimate strength Improves both early-age and long-term strength Workability Effect Improves workability (smooth, glassy particles) Reduces workability (makes mix sticky) Improves flowability & cohesiveness (ideal for SCC) Durability High resistance to sulfate attack, chloride ingress Very low permeability, high chloride resistance Very low permeability, dense matrix Heat of Hydration Low → reduces cracking in mass concrete Slightly increases heat due to rapid reaction Moderate → better control of shrinkage & cracking Typical Dosage 30–50% replacement of cement 5–10% replacement 8–12% replacement Applications Mass concrete, bridges, foundations, marine works High-strength concrete (M70+), precast, bridges, marine Highperformance concrete, SCC, high-rise, precast Cost Factor Economical (bulk use reduces cement) Expensive (small % used) Moderate (cheaper than silica fume, more than GGBS) Special Feature Sustainability (major cement replacement, eco-friendly) Key for very high strength, abrasion resistance Balances strength + workability + durability III. CONCLUSION HSC is gaining importance in modern construction. It plays vital role in construction of high-rise buildings, longspan bridges, metro & nuclear projects as they need stronger materials. HSC improves the Load-bearing capacity and allows slimmer sections, reduces dead load, and increases usable floor space. It also improves the durability of concrete which is very much needed in aggressive environments (marine, industrial, coastal) for longer service life. HSC improves the overall performance of structure. It is essential for earthquake resistance, high fatigue loads, abrasion resistance, and high traffic structures. Use of HSC may be economical as it can reduce quantity of concrete & reinforcement due to higher strength, lowering overall costs in mega projects. HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE IS THE NEED OF MODERN CONSTRUCTION FOR STRENGTH, DURABILITY, ECONOMY, AND SUSTAINABILITY. ITS FUTURE LIES IN SMART, GREEN, AND INNOVATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE WORLDWIDE Vol. 03, Issue 01, September (2025) E-ISSN: 2584-086X © 2025, SIJMR All Rights Reserved Page No. 29 REFERENCES [1] Abd El-Fattah, H., Abd El-Zaher, Y., & Kohail, M. (2024). “A study of chloride binding capacity of concrete containing supplementary cementitious materials,” Scientific Reports, Vol. 14, Article 12970, pp. 1–15. [2] ACI Committee 211. (2008). Guide for selecting proportions for high-strength concrete using Portland cement and other cementitious materials (ACI 211.4R-08). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA. [3] ACI Committee 363. (2010). State-of-the-art report on high-strength concrete (ACI 363R-10). American Concrete Institute. [4] Ahmed, A., & Kumar, S. (2024). “A critical review on use of supplementary cementitious materials in ultra-high performance concrete to enhance rheological parameters,” Nanotechnology Perceptions, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 5161– 5172. [5] Alexander, M., & Mindess, S. (2010). Properties of concrete and durability aspects. CRC Press, pp. 1–540. [6] Basu, D., Mushtaq, S. M., Sharma, S., & Tripathi, S. (2024). “Enhancing quality control in the mix design of high-strength concrete using a capacity-based approach,” International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, Vol. 18, Article 78, pp. 1–15. [7] Bentz, D. P., & Stutzman, P. E. (2006). “Internal curing of high-performance blended cement mortars,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 103, No. 5, pp. 390–398. [8] Bhanja, S., & Sengupta, B. (2005). “Influence of silica fume on the tensile strength of concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 743–747. [9] Du, H., & Tan, K. H. (2014). “Properties of highvolume recycled aggregate concrete,” Materials and Structures, Vol. 47, No. 8, pp. 1441–1451. [10] Fode, A. T. A., Jande, Y. A. C., & Kivevele, T. (2023). “Effects of different supplementary cementitious materials on durability and mechanical properties of cement composite – comprehensive review,” Heliyon, Vol. 9, No. 8, e17924. [11] Fuller, W. B., & Thompson, S. E. (1907). “The laws of proportioning concrete,” Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 67–143. [12] Gupta, R., Prasad, R., & Kumar, V. (2021). “Machine learning applications in optimizing high-strength concrete mix design,” Journal of Advanced Civil Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 45–57. [13] Juenger, M. C. G., & Siddique, R. (2015). “Recent advances in understanding the role of supplementary cementitious materials in concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 78, pp. 71–80. [14] Karthikadevi, S., & Saraswathi, R. (2022). “Enhancement of the mechanical properties of a geopolymer concrete due to chemical and microstructural interaction of the binder material,” Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol. 46, pp. 2639–2653. [15] Kim, J. K., Ha, G. J., & Lee, S. Y. (2010). “Optimized mix design for high-strength concrete,” Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 312–320. [16] Kumar, D., & Daniyal, M. (2025). “Application of industrial supplementary cementitious materials in concrete: A review,” Journal of Civil Engineering and Applications, Vol. 6, No. 1B, pp. 44–50. [17] Kumar, R., & Rao, V. (2020). “Comparative study on mix proportioning methods for high-strength concrete,” Journal of Construction Engineering, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 132–141. [18] Kumar, R., & Verma, A. (2022). “Experimental study of the physical properties of concrete prepared with Metakaolin, Alccofine, and GGBS as partial cement replacement,” International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 2758–2765. [19] Lallas, Z. N., Gombeda, M. J., & Mendonca, F. (2023). “Review of supplementary cementitious materials with implications for age-dependent concrete properties affecting precast concrete production,” PCI Journal, Vol. 68, No. 6, pp. 37–52. [20] Malhotra, V. M., & Mehta, P. K. (2017). “Highperformance, high-volume fly ash concrete: A sustainable development material,” Supplementary Cementitious Materials for Sustainable Development, pp. 112–130. [21] Mehta, P. K., & Monteiro, P. J. M. (2014). Concrete: Microstructure, properties, and materials. McGraw-Hill Education, pp. 1–700. [22] Moghadam, M. A., & Izadifard, R. A. (2020). “Effects of zeolite and silica fume substitution on the microstructure and mechanical properties of mortar at high temperatures,” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 253, Article 119206. [23] Neville, A. M. (2011). Properties of concrete. Pearson Education, pp. 1–850. [24] Pacheco-Torgal, F., & Jalali, S. (2011). “Cementitious building materials reinforced with vegetable fibres: A review,” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 575–581. [25] Pang, L., Liu, Z., Wang, D., & An, M. (2022). “Review on the application of supplementary cementitious materials in self-compacting concrete,” Crystals, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 180–195. Vol. 03, Issue 01, September (2025) E-ISSN: 2584-086X © 2025, SIJMR All Rights Reserved Page No. 30 [26] Prakash, S., & Gettu, R. (2020). “Challenges and strategies for achieving durable high-strength concrete in India,” Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 22, pp. 432– 440. [27] Ramezanianpour, A. A., & Malhotra, V. M. (1995). “Effect of curing on the compressive strength, resistance to chloride-ion penetration and porosity of concretes incorporating slag, fly ash, or silica fume,” Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 125–133. [28] Saikiran, I. D., & Rao, C. S. (2021). “Performance of high strength concrete consisting of alccofine and metakaolin as a partial replacement of cement and copper slag as fine aggregate,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 1206, No. 1, pp. 012043. [29] Siddique, R. (2011). “Utilization of silica fume in concrete: Review of hardened properties,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55, No. 11, pp. 923–932. [30] Singh, A. K., Patel, M., & Sharma, S. (2021). “Use of Alccofine-1203 in concrete: review on mechanical and durability properties,” Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 44, pp. 103374. [31] Thomas, M. D. A., & Wilson, M. L. (2002). “Alkalisilica reaction in concrete containing silica fume,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 939–945. [32] Valenzuela-Leyva, C., Soto-Felix, M., GaxiolaCamacho, J. R., Ojeda-Farias, O. F., Herrera-Ramirez, J. M., & Carreño-Gallardo, C. (2025). “Improving durability and compressive strength of concrete with rhyolite aggregates and recycled supplementary cementitious materials,” Buildings, Vol. 15, No. 13, Article 2257, pp. 1– 12. [33] Wang, Z., Sun, T., Sun, Y., Liu, N., et al. (2025). “Evaluating the strength properties of high-performance concrete in the form of ensemble and hybrid models using deep learning techniques,” Scientific Reports, Vol. 15, Article 25453, pp. 1–20. [34] “Durability of concrete produced with an alternative supplementary cementitious material: Literature review” (2020). National Concrete Pavement Technology Center Report, pp. 1–45. [35] “Effects of supplementary cementitious materials on strength, workability and durability of concrete: A comparative study” (2024). Discover Civil Engineering, Vol. 1, Article 154, pp. 1–18. [36] “Innovative blends of GGBFS, Metakaolin, and Alccofine for enhanced mechanical properties in green concrete” (2024). MM Science Journal, Vol. 2024, No. 6, pp. 7241–7248. [37] “Mechanical and durability performance of sustainable concretes with conventional supplementary cementitious materials” (2023). Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 420, pp. 140–158. [38] “Optimization of concrete mix design for enhanced performance and sustainability considering fine and coarse aggregates properties” (2024). SN Applied Sciences, Vol. 6, Article 7370, pp. 1–18. [39] “Use of operational research techniques for concrete mix design: A review and classification framework” (2023). Heliyon, Vol. 9, No. 5, e101616, pp. 1–14. [40] Yazici, H. (2007). “The effect of silica fume and highvolume Class C fly ash on mechanical properties, chloride penetration, and freeze-thaw resistance of self-compacting concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 1106–1112. AUTHORS PROFILE Mrs. D. R. Sorte pursed B. Tech. from Rashtrasanat Tukdoji Maharaj University, Nagpur(MH), M.Tech. from Rrabindranath Tagore University,Bhopal(MP), and Pursuining Ph.D. from Sangam University, Bhilwara,(RJ) in 2016, 2019 . Main research work focuses on Mix proportioning method of HSC.