CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
46
54
179
1 AUTHOR:
N. Roussel
Institut Franais des Sciences et Techn
98 PUBLICATIONS 1,619 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
N. Roussel
LCPC Paris, France
1. Introduction
Fresh cementitious materials, as many materials in industry or nature, behave as fluids with a yield stress,
which is the minimum stress for irreversible deformation and flow to occur. This yield stress is an unique
material property and may, in the case of cement pastes
(i.e. fine particles), be measured using conventional
rheological tools. For example, Couette Viscometer [1]
or parallel plates rheometer [2] are used in the laboratory to measure the yield stress value. In the case
of concretes containing coarse aggregates, large scales
rheometers had to be developed (the BTRHEOM [3],
the BML [4] or the two-point test [5]). Even if, in situ,
simpler and cheaper tests such as the slump test [6]
are still often preferred, these apparatus represent a big
step forward in the field of concrete science. However,
there still exists a discrepancy between the various concrete rheometers, [7,8]. These apparatus give the same
rheological classification of materials but they do not
give the same absolute values of the rheological parameters. On the other hand, the slump test does not
give any value of a physical parameter at all. Its result
can not be expressed in physical rheological units but
it has also proved through the years to be able to classify different materials in terms of their ability to be
cast.
The aim of this paper is to propose a theoretical correlation between slump and yield stress and to compare
it to the experimental correlations obtained in the two
rheometers comparison campaign [7,8]. In the first part
502
2. Literature study
2.1. Relations between slump and yield stress
paste cone
H0 (mm)
Rmin (mm)
Rmax (mm)
300
200
100
50
35
50
Several attempts can be found in the literature in order to relate slump to yield stress. Murata [11] and
Schowalter and Christensen [12] wrote a relation between slump and yield stress by assuming that the cone
could be divided into two parts. In the upper part, the
shear stress does not reach the yield stress and no flow
occurs. In the lower part of the cone, the shear stress
induced by the self-weight of the material is higher
than the yield stress and flow occurs. The height of the
flowing lower part decreases until the shear stress in
this zone becomes equal to the yield stress, after which
the flow stops. Schowalter and Christensen [12] wrote
a relation between the final total height of the cone
and the yield stress that did not depend on the mould
geometry. This relation or similar ones were successfully validated by Clayton and co-workers [13] or Saak
and co-workers [14] in the case of cylindrical moulds.
However, in the case of conical moulds, a discrepancy
between predicted and measured slumps was systematically obtained. In the above studies, the experimental
results suggested that these relations and the fact that
they did not depend on the mould geometry are valid
for high slumps (i.e. low yield stress) (Clayton and coworkers [12], Pashias and co-workers [15], Saak and
co-workers [13]). In the case of the ASTM Abrams
cone, Hu and co-workers [16] gave a semi empirical
correlation between the yield stress 0 (Pa) measured
using the BTRHEOM, the density and the slump
(mm):
s = 300 347
(0 212)
(1)
503
literature, a Bingham model is, in this case, a possible rheological model. On the other hand, when the
above conditions are not fulfilled, it is then needed to
take into account the presence of the particles [23, 24,
25]. This type of approach is a lot more complex but
is the only suitable technique when confined flows or
flows between steel bars are studied. In this paper, we
will only use an homogeneous approach. As a consequence, the validity of the presented results will be
doubtful when the smallest characteristic dimension of
the flow becomes lower than 5 times the biggest particles or, in other words, when the slump is higher than
25 cm.
Other authors have previously developed homogeneous numerical simulations of the slump flow. Tanigawa and Mori [26] developed an innovative viscoplastic finite element analysis introducing a frictional
interface law at the base of the slumping cone. They
calculated the slump in terms of the yield stress but,
as they did not have any experimental way to measure
the rheological parameters of concrete, they did not
compare their results to experimental measurements.
Later, Schowalter and Christensen [12] compared their
analytical prediction to Tanigawa and Mori numerical results and found a good agreement. It should be
noted that both predictions were based on a unidimensional plasticity criterion. Hu [27] assumed that the
shape of the deposit stayed conical and calculated the
state of stress using an elastoplastic finite element analysis. Once again, a unidimensional yield criterion was
considered.
Recently, Chamberlain and co-workers [28] calculated rigorously stresses in a purely plastic cylindrical
sample using either von Mises or Tresca plasticity criterion in order to determine the height of incipient failure,
which is the height of material required to just initiate
flow for a given cylinder radius. This is equivalent to
calculating the critical yield stress for which flow does
start or does not for a given cylindrical geometry. They
found a discrepancy between the mono dimensional
approximation written by Schowalter and Chistensen
[12] and their three dimensional approach. They also
studied the dependency of the critical yield stress on
the cylinder radius.
2.4. Behaviour at the interface
Most analysis in the literature are carried out assuming sticky flow at the base of the deposit. If we go into
504
3. Numerical simulations
The cylindrical frame of reference (O, r, , z) is shown
on Figure 1. p is the pressure, is the stress tensor
and (d) is the deviatoric stress tensor. s is the slump.
s is the dimensionless slump and 0 the dimensionless
yield stress as defined by Showalter and Christensen
[12].
s = s/H0
0 = t0 /g H0
It can already be noted here that, although this scaling was suitable for Schowalter results, it does not apply
505
506
507
(2)
508
6. Conclusion
In the first part of the present work, results of numerical simulations using a three dimensional expression
of the behaviour law and plasticity criterion for the
ASTM Abrams cone and a paste cone test have been
References
1. Shaughnessy R, Clark PE (1988) The rheological behaviour
of fresh cement pastes. Cem Concr Res, 18:327341.
2. Nehdi M, Rahman M-A (2004) Estimating rheological properties of cement pastes using various rheological models for
different test geometry, gap and surface friction. Cement
Concrete Res., 34:19932007.
3. De Larrard F, Hu C (1996) The rheology of fresh highperformance concrete. Cem Conc Res, 26(2):283294.
4. Operating manual (2000) the BML viscometer, the viscometer 4, Con Tec.
5. Tatersall GH, Bloomer SJ (1979) further development of the
two-point test for workability and extension of its range.
Magazine of Concrete Research 31:202210.
6. ASTM Designation C-143-90 (1996) Standard test method
for slump of hydraulic cement concrete. Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, 04.01, Am. Soc. Test. Mat., Easton, MD,
pp. 8587.
7. Ferraris CF, Brower LE editors (2001) Comparison of
concrete rheometers: International tests at LCPC (Nantes,
France) in October, 2000. National Institute of Standards
and Technology Interagency Report (NISTIR) 6819.
8. Ferraris CF, Brower LE editors (2004) Comparison of concrete rheometers: International tests at MB (Cleveland OH,
USA) in May, 2003. National Institute of Standards and
Technology Interagency Report (NISTIR) 7154.
9. ASTM Designation C230/C230M-03, Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 04.01, Am. Soc. Test.
Mat., Easton, MD (2004).
509
22. Coussot P, Ancey C (1999) Rheophysique des pates et des
suspensions, EDP Sciences, (in French).
23. Petersson O (2003) Simulation of Self-Compacting
Concrete- Laboratory experiments and numerical modelling
of testing method, Jring and L-Box test, Proceedings of the
3rd international RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting
Concrete, RILEM PRO33 Reykjavik, Iceland, 202207.
24. Martys NS (2005) Study of a dissipative particle dynamics
based approach for modeling suspensions. Journal of Rheology 49(2):401424.
25. Wallevik JE (2003) Rheology of particle suspensions; Fresh
Concrete, Mortar and Cement Pastes with Various Types of
Lignosulfonates. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
26. Tanigawa Y, Mori H (1989) Analytical study on deformation of fresh concrete, Journal of Engineering Mechanics
115(3):493508.
27. Hu C (1995) Rheologie des betons fluids (rheology of fluid
concretes), th`ese de doctorat de lENPC (PhD Thesis) France
(In French).
28. Chamberlain JA, Clayton S, Landman KA, Sader JE (2003)
Experimental validation of incipient failure of yield stress
materials under gravitational loading, Journal of Rheology,
47(6):13171329.
29. Tatersall GH, Banfill PGF (1983) The Rheology of Fresh
Concrete, Pitman, London.
30. ODonovan EJ, Tanner RI (1984) Numerical study of the
Bingham squeeze film problem. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid
Mech, 15:7583.
31. Papanastasiou TC (1987) Flows of Materials with yield. J.
Rheol., 31:385404.
32. Flow3D version 8.1, Users manual, volume 1, 2004.
33. Oldroyd JG (1947) A rational formulation of the equations of
plastic flow for a Bingham solid. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc.,
43:100105.