ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on

Computational Methods in Tunnelling (EURO:TUN 2007)

J. Eberhardsteiner et.al. (eds.)
Vienna, Austria, August 27-29, 2007

SHOTCRETE FROM A PERFORMANCE BASED PERSPECTIVE

Olga Río, Luis Fernández-Luco, Ángel Castillo

Institute of Construction Sciences Eduardo Torroja (IETcc), CSIC, Madrid, Spain

e-mail: rio@ietcc.csic.es

Keywords: shotcrete, sprayed concrete, performance-based characterization, strength,

durability, pumpability

Abstract: Shotcrete or sprayed concrete for tunnelling is a structural concrete whose quality
depends on the same factors as conventional concrete used for structural linings and other
issues related to the execution process, i.e., pumping and projection [1, 3]. Although present
design and control tools, based mainly on a prescriptive approach [3-19], permits to ensure
in some way an adequate quality, results are ascertain and mix design procedures do not
provide “a priori” sound information on mechanical and durability related properties [20-
21]. Moreover, prescriptive approaches and a too-tight regulatory environment (mainly
prescriptive or deemed-to-satisfy rules [3-18]) are not innovation- friendly [22-23].
Performance Base Approach is attracting research interest in different areas [25-32] due to it allows,
among others, for a more comprehensible specification and design process and it integrates
the quality control procedures under the same concept [20-21].

PB approach directly related to the actual performance for a determined purpose or its
“fitness for use”. Under a PB approach, the design process is inverted and so, the starting
point is the actual definition of requirements for the material, process, structure or structural
element. This paper deals with the application of a PB approach to characterisation of
shotcrete for tunnelling were also main advantages will be highlighted.
 O. Río, L. Fernandez-Luco; A. Castillo

1 INTRODUCTION
Existing standards, guidelines and regulations governing concrete and/or shotcrete (as it is
the scope of this paper) are suitable to make an overview of present knowledge as they are
common agreed references used in practice although only few of actual structural codes are at
present obligatory. Engineers, material suppliers and contractors approach the aspects
contained in the codes or standards, mainly prescriptive and not always available (such is the
case of innovative products or those not cover by standards that will be regulated in a
different way in order to have a CE mark [30]).
Standards and specifications for shotcrete or sprayed concrete can be grouped in general
and specific ones; while some deal with testing and sampling methods, other establish the
requirements for shotcrete materials and shotcrete properties (see [6-18] as example). Most of
them follow a prescriptive approach, thus defining the products by their constitutive
characteristics with independence of the functions in the work-site along their service life.
They prescribe by example minimum cement content, aggregate gradations or in the case
of shotcrete it defines it by its mix proportions [5, 6, 18 and 19] because also parameters like
mechanical strength or cover thickness is quite difficult to determine or ensure a-priori.
Prescriptive approach can be considered traditional and as such, it is much easier to be
followed and accepted by manufacturers and construction companies due ensure quality. The
main disadvantage of this approach is the difficulties arisen by using new materials or
components (if no specific standard exist), thus preventing innovation to be implemented.
Moreover, the specifications are not directly related to the actual performance for a
determined purpose or its “fitness for use” due they follow a deemed-to-satisfy rules.
The attractive of a performance-based assessment (PBA) applied at first time by CSTB in
the early 50s and adopted by the European Organisation of Technical Approvals in the 90s in
the Construction Product Directive lies mainly in its ability to evaluate the function to be
fulfilled with independence of the nature or characteristics of the material. These technical
approvals give also best specifications for durability aspects evaluation.
In the case of shotcrete the use of these criteria means to specify it by its mechanical
strength or tightness and the evaluation method directly related to such type of requirements
and not by its mix proportion. This approach might also help to harmonise specification,
design, execution and quality control stages but need of further research and also the
development of new methods and testing equipment in order to evaluate parameters such as
pumpability or projectability accordingly.
In present paper the main characteristics of the PB proposal use for the characterisation of
shotcrete for tunnelling is presented that tries to be comprehensive by responding to the
demand related to the introduction of performance parameters for the different shotcrete
stages and that being suitable for quality control mainly using also non destructive techniques
for testing. The chosen parameters are compressive strength and elasticity modulus, fast
setting time or shotcrete efiiciency among others for the characterisation of the shotcrete layer
(early age and hardened state) while pumpability or projectability for evaluating
functionalities related the process itself. Its basis are presented briefly and applied to some
examples of the approach to different concrete mixes designed accordingly in order to show
its main advantages.

2 PERFORMANCE BASED CRITERION

Under a PB approach, the design process is inverted and so, the starting point is the actual
definition of requirements for the final product [20, 21, 29-31]. The performance required is
 O. Río, L. Fernandez-Luco; A. Castillo

closely related to the industrial and technological needs (identification of goal or objective,
see Figure 1), but these needs have to be expressed as quantitative value (definition of
requirement and its indicators and sub-indicators) associated to specific testing methods on
defined samples (see 0, and Table 1). These protocols for sampling and testing have to be
used for validation (verification of compliance to conformity criteria) and then, according to
the values obtained, to determine the acceptance or rejection of the structure, structural
element or material.

Superior
Superior
Strength,
Strength,
toughness,
toughnes,
toughnes,ductility
ductility
Ability
Abilityfor
for
self -diagnosis,
self -diagnosis, Enhanced
Enhanced
self -healing
self -healingand
and durability/service
durability/servicelife
life
structural
structuralcontrol
control

Increased
Increased
Aesthetics
Aestheticsand
and Resistance
Resistance to
to
to
environmental
environmental Shotcrete
Shotcretelining
lining abrasion, corrosion
abrasion, corrosion , ,
compatibility
compatibility chemicals
chemicals, fatigue
, fatigue

Ease
Easeofof Initial
Initialand
and
manufacture
manufacture& & life-cycle
life-cycle
application
application cost
costefficiencies
efficiencies
ororinstallation
installation Improvedresponse
Improvedresponse
inin
extremeevents
extremeevents asas
natural disasters
natural disasters
fire
fire

Figure 1: Shotcrete Goals

Figure 2: Triangle of PB approach concept

The whole concept can be shown by the following example. Let´s associate the
performance to mechanical properties (see the structural stability safety indicator of functional
requirements in Table 1 were a check list of general technical and non technical requirements
are shown). It is customary to establish the required structural strength (sub-indicator) in
terms of compressive strength, lets say 25 MPa. This value, by itself, is not enough as the
 O. Río, L. Fernandez-Luco; A. Castillo

testing method, the age of measurement and the type of sample are also a key issue in the
value obtained.

General requirements Indicator (I) Sub-Indicators (SI)

Economical Costs Direct costs of materials and construction
Indirect costs due to the lack of operational ability
Indirect costs due to loss of investments during repair
Maintenance costs
Functional Structural Checking of the structure strength
stability- Considerations about a failure that could happen
Safety Experience
“ Durability Service life
Accidental attacks
Environmental conditions
Quality control
Compatibility
“ Execution Execution control
Execution difficulties
Perturbations, environnemental impact
Safety and health of workers
Climatic conditions
Environmental factors Health & Environmental effects
Sustainability Resources consume
Safety of users
Social and cultural Social Insurance and future liabilities
perception Strength of local economy
(public Improvement of asset values
confidence) Cultural Heritage

Political Media and press

Government policies and initiatives
Legal Legal issues
Table 1: Check list of general technical and non technical performance requirements

Thus, if the required performance is the mechanical strength, it will be assessed through
the compressive strength test of cores taken from standard panels and tested at given ages
according to present standards, by example 28 days. A number should be associated to the
required performance, lets say 25 MPa in the example and, at last, a compliance criterion
must be used to determine whether the required performance is fulfilled or not. The
compliance criterion should be better based on a probabilistic approach, balancing the
probability of Type I and Type II error in the decision-making process. This aim is rather
challenging and often impossible and thus, other simpler criteria can also be used. 0 shows the
performance approach on strength, already included in different Standards [8,18].

Performance Quantitative Sampling and testing Compliance

statement property related procedure criteria
Mechanical Compressive strength Cylindrical cores EN 14487-1
strength Nominal value: X Age of coring: > 7 d f’c > k X
MPa Testing procedure: EN 14487-1
Table 2: Compliance with Mechanical strength requirement
 O. Río, L. Fernandez-Luco; A. Castillo

3 REQUIREMENTS AS THEY ARE DEFINED IN STANDARDS.

At present, Standards design base concrete (the one to be shotcreted) following a deemed-
to-satisfy rules methodology as approach. Then the end product, as well as some of the
parameters of the process is checked in order to determine shotcrete quality and the quality of
execution. 0 summarises both types of indicators according to EFNARC [24].
As a matter of fact, not all requirements and indicators are due at a time; they depend on
particular situations. Moreover, although some of these issues are shared with Performance-
based approaches, focus is different and so is methodology.
Permeability can be taken as an example to highlight these differences. EFNARC [24]
indicates that “When water-tight sprayed concrete is required, the maximum value of
penetration in accordance with EN 7031 shall be 50 mm, and the mean average value shall be
less than 20 mm.” From a performance-based approach, permeability requirements depend on
the exposure condition and the design of the structure. Then, if permeability of shotcrete
becomes an issue, a certain value has to be selected as threshold value (conformity criterion)
and, at last, an acceptance-rejection should be adopted.

Shotcrete lining properties Process parameters

Compressive strength and density Pumping capacity
Flexural strength and residual strength Rebound
Energy absorption class (plate test) Applied shotcrete (as difference between
pumping capacity and rebound)
Modulus of elasticity Thickness of the shotcrete layer
Bond strength Conveyor pressure
Permeability Air consumption
Frost resistance Air pressure
Determination of fiber content Accelerator consumption
Dust emission
Table 3: General requirements stated by Standards

4 ACTUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO SHOTCRETE

Performance-based approach (PBA) can be applied to check also any constituent material
as well as the shotcrete once is placed and the material to be shotcreted (base concrete). The
procedure is equivalent but suitable indicators should be identified for each case. Under a
PBA variables and attributes can be used and thus this approach can be applied to compare
between alternatives and also be applied at a multilevel decision making process.
Other significant advantage of the PBA is its ability to include innovative concepts in the
evaluation. In the following paragraphs some examples of the application of PB approach (in
order to show its advantages) are given, ranging from constituent materials to the hardened
concrete.

4.1 Influence on shotcrete constituents selection

Present standards and codes limit the applicability of current materials for concrete under
a prescriptive basis, based on previous experience. As an example, crushed aggregate is
usually discarded as fine fraction due to its shape and texture. Moreover if the requirement is
defined as “Pumpability” (PB Indicator defined and proposed) and a low pumpability is the
only valuable reason for a CE marking aggregate to be discarded such type of aggregate is
 O. Río, L. Fernandez-Luco; A. Castillo

now valid. Other parameters most related with the indicator projectability (as is the
subindicator rebound) must be also adopted in order to complete the approach in this sense.
The selection of the cement is another example. Usually, CEM I type are recommended
for shotcrete, [24] as the specific admixtures, i.e. nozzle accelerators, are designed for this
type. From a PBA, if the combination of cement type and the admixtures is suitable to achieve
good results, in terms of adherence, homogeneity, fast setting time or strength, there are no
reasons for the cement to be rejected.
The use of CEM II 42.5 R (A-V) as an alternative for CEM I 52.5 R has been assessed on
a comparative basis, as no specific strength-related requirement have been defined (this
parameters will depend on design considerations related to an specific tunnel area). Should
early-age strength and 28-day strength are defined by a specific project, the approach to be
followed is the determination of the following indicators by means of the selected methods:
compatibility (setting time), early age compressive strength evolution, compressive strength at
the age of 28d says.
Compatibility of CEM II 42.5 (A-V) with nozzle accelerator is assessed by some of the
above mentioned parameters. In Figure 3 and 4, compressive strength vs. log age is
represented. All small points indicated by the ellipse shows the behaviour of CEM I 52.5
while the red circle illustrates the value obtained for CEM II 42.5 (A-V) obtained with one of
the new mixes designed for developing as well as validating the whole testing methodology.
Experimental plan includes also other mixes (not included on this paper) with and without
mineral admixtures in their composition and other proportions. As the red circle falls in the
range of CEM I 52.5 R values at a standard dosage, it can be concluded that compatibility
requirements are fulfilled.

Constituent Kg/m3 Densities (Kg/dm3)

Cement (CEM II /A-V 42,5 R) 450 3,15
Water 179 1,00
Coarse aggregate 206 2,62
Medium-size aggregate 588 2,61
Sand 979 2,60
HRWRA (Viscocrete TSG) 4,5 1,10
Table 4: Mix proportions of the selected mix example (water/cement =0.4).

FAST SETTING - COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN NOZZLE ACCELERATOR AND

PORTLAND CEMENT CEM II 42,5 (A-V)
16
Note: Ambient temperature =
14 13º C for evaluation mix. Other
cases correspond to 20º ± 2ºC
Compressive strength (MPa)

12

10

8
Fast-setting of CEM II 42,5 (A-V) with the
nozzle accelerator at a standard dosage
6
2
R =1
4
2
R = 0,903
2

0
1 10 100 1000 Age [min] (log) 10000

Figure 3: Fast-setting of CEM II 42.5 (A-V) measured according [9]

 O. Río, L. Fernandez-Luco; A. Castillo

Compressive strength at 28 days obtained is in the upper range of the strength classes and
thus, CEM II 42.5 R (A-V) can be considered as an option for CEM I 52.5 R, according to the
results obtained with the selected performance indicators.

18
2
R = 0,9183
16
2
R = 0,9145
14
Compressive strength (MPa)

Note: Ambient temperature = 2

13º C for evaluation mix. Other R = 0,8904
12
cases correspond to 20º ± 2ºC 2
R = 0,9692
10

0
1 10 100 1000 Age [min] (log) 10000

Figure 4: Early-age strength of CEM II 42.5 (A-V) [9]

The methodology was also useful not only for assessing the influence of available on
market as well as new accelerating admixtures effective homogeneity but also for defining the
basis of the new non destructive test under development at the moment [33]. .

4.2 Shotcrete mix assessment under PB criterion

The assessment of a shotcrete mix under a PB criterion can be performed following the
same approach shown in Table 1, i.e, it is necessary to identify the relevant mix properties, to
to select suitable indicators in order to evaluate its suitability to shotcrete execution,
mechanical properties, dimensional stability, mix efficiency or durability.
Special properties of shotcrete mix are relevant when other issues than strength come into
consideration. If the sustainability of the solution is concerned, the use of cement with less
clinker content (clinker is responsible for CO2 emissions) and the efficiency of the mix are
key aspects. The efficiency of shotcrete is an innovative performance indicator proposed on
this research to compare different solutions. In the following paragraphs the assessment of
shtocrete homogeneity and the calculus and use of the efficiency are described as examples of
the application of the methodology under development.
The term homogeneity can be applied to shotcrete to identify the degree of compaction in
one sample, to compare successive samples from the same batch or even to compare different
batches.
If one single concrete batch can be considered uniform, i.e., no segregation occurs in the
mixing drum, differences in shotcrete can be attributed to other causes than the basic concrete
itself, i.e. projection, accelerating admixture dosage, etc.
The uniformity can be assess by determining the coefficient of variation (CV) of
measurements made using non-destructive techniques or from the results obtained from
cylinders cored from panels.
The interpretation of the results obtained is not straightforward, as complementary
information on the origin of the samples, the sampling method and the intrinsic variability of
the method used as well. Figure 5 is an example of the assessment of uniformity by
calculating the CV of the density of cores, determined in saturated, dry surface (SSD).
 O. Río, L. Fernandez-Luco; A. Castillo

Density statistical distribution

30
Average: 2,234
25 Std Dev: 0,01
C. of Var (%): 0,6 %
20
Frequency

15

10

0
2,16 2,18 2,2 2,22 2,24 2,26 2,28 2,3
3
kg/dm
Figure 5: Density statistical distribution for density of cylindrical cores
taken from standard shotcreted panels.

The efficiency of shotcrete as far as compressive strength is concerned can be defined as

the ratio between the compressive strength of cores taken from standard panels of shotcrete to
the compressive strength, at the same age, of standards cylinders cast with the concrete mix
before it enters the pump (base concrete use for prepare shotcrete panel).
The addition of accelerating admixture at the nozzle and the compaction achieved may
have a detrimental effect on strength. The efficiency, indeed, is capable of showing, in one
single parameter, the execution and the suitability of the mix to be shotcrete.
Figure 6 shows the average efficiency achieved when a performance-based approach is
taken for the selection and mix design as compared to a value taken from previous results
obtained from shotcrete in a tunnel.

1
0,9
Efficiency (shotcrete / basic

0,8
0,7
concrete)

0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
Usual New-mixes

Fig. 4: Efficiency of shotcrete mixes designed under a PB approach as

compared to usual values
 O. Río, L. Fernandez-Luco; A. Castillo

4.3 Other mix assessment parameters under PB criterion

As it has been mentioned above the approach is also useful for the definition and
assessment of functional requirements related to execution process such as the case of mix
pumpability where not standard tests exist. On this sense a new equipment named as pumping
rheometer (as well as the corresponding method) have been developed [35] in order to
determine the yield stress and the dynamic viscosity in a simple way on lab and on site. Those
parameters are determinant to know the behaviour of the mix during pumping process by
means of the equation of the Bingham type fluid in a pipe under differential pressures.

5 CONCLUSIONS
Performance-based approach has been successfully applied to shotcrete constituents as
well as to shotcrete mixes and related process parameters also. The criterion is flexible and
allow for new parameters and methods to be defined; even comparative assessment suit into
this approach.
Under this approach, less common constituents, such as CEM II 42.5 (A-V) have shown
to be comparable to CEM I cement. The advantages of shifting to cements with mineral
additions is clear as far as sustainability is concerned.
On a comparative basis, new mixes developed and tested have proven to be more efficient
than usual ones. The impact of this parameter on energy and cost savings is clear a poor
efficiency must be compensated with higher cement contents.
The application of the PB approach to constituents and the mix has lead to very good
mechanical properties for the shotcrete, as compressive strengths in the upper range of
EFNARC and EN 14487-1 have been reached.
Limits to aggregate type and grading set by present codes and standards should be
considered only as a reference but suitable (pumpable and projectable) mixes can be produced
using aggregates which do not fulfil these limits, neither recommendations on shape and
texture.
Suitable mix design procedure might lead to a “tailor made” material, but caution should
be exercised as pumpability and projectability strongly impose limits on many characteristics
of the mix.
Other mix properties more related the execution process need of innovative testing
methods as the ones that have been developed for the case of pumpability assessment,

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors want to express thanks to the other collaborators of the IETcc involved in some
of the different experimental tasks developed up now in this research topic. Thanks are
extended to J.L. Rivas and other members of SIKA team, A. Rodriguez and other members of
AITEMIN team and also to the personnel of “Fundación Santa Barbara”, for their
contribution with materials and facilities and for their collaboration in the sample and tests
preparation among others. This research presented here was founded partially by the Spanish
Ministry of Education and Sciences under TUNPRO-GUNMAT Project BIA2004-05562-
C02-00 and by the EU TUNCONSTRUCT Project No. IP 011817-2.
 O. Río, L. Fernandez-Luco; A. Castillo

7 REFERENCES
[1] Lukas, W. / Kusterle, W. / Pichler, W.: Innovations in shotcrete technology. Shotcrete
for underground support, VII. Proceedings of the Engineering Foundation Conference
Telfs, Austria, 11-15 June 1995.
[2] J.L Rivas, Túneles y obras subterraneas 2001.
[3] A. Rodriguez, L. Fernández-Luco, O. Río “Report of the SoA on monitoring and mix-
design specification and QC of concrete at the fresh state”, TUNCONSTRUCT
D2.3.1.1, February 2006.
[4] A. Rodríguez, G. Fondeur, J.L. Rivas, C. López “State of Art Report on Shotcreting
Machine Monitoring, Control and Admixture Dosing”. TUNCONSTRUCT D2.3.2.1,
October 2006.
[5] European Specification of Sprayed concrete Guidelines for Specifiers and Contractors
EFNARC (2002).
[6] prEN 14487-1:2004 Sprayed concrete – Part 1: Definitions, specifications and
conformity
[7] prEN 14487-2:2003 Sprayed concrete – Part 2: Execution
[8] prEN 14488-1:2002-09 Testing sprayed concrete – Part 1:- Sampling fresh and
hardened concrete
[9] prEN 14488-2:2002 Testing sprayed concrete – Part 2: Compressive strength of young
sprayed concrete
[10] prEN 14488-3:2002-09 Testing sprayed concrete - Part 3: Flexural strengths (first peak,
ultimate and residual) of fibre reinforced beam specimens
[11] prEN 14488-4:2002-09 Testing sprayed concrete - Part 4: Bond strength of cores by
direct tension
[12] EN 14488-5:2003-03 Testing sprayed concrete - Part 5: Determination of energy
absorption capacity of fibre reinforced slab specimens
[13] EN 14488-6:2003-11 Testing sprayed concrete - Part 6: Thickness of concrete on a
substrate
[14] prEN 14488-7:2002-10 Testing sprayed concrete - Part 7: Fibre content of fibre
reinforced concrete
[15] prEN 14889-1:2004 Fibres for concrete – Part 1: Steel fibres – Definition, specifications
and conformity
[16] prEN 14889-2:2004 Fibres for concrete – Part 2: Polymer fibres – Definition,
specifications and conformity
[17] prEN 14487-1:2004 Sprayed concrete – Part 1: Definitions, specifications and
conformity.
[18] ACI 506R-2000- Guide to Shotcrete.
[19] L. Fernández-Luco, O. Río, J. Schreyer, J.L. Rivas, “State of the Art. Report
highlighting needs on standards and in technological research and operational
innovations”, TUNCONSTRUCT D2.4.1.1, December 2005.
[20] L. Fernández-Luco, O. Río, A. Rodríguez “Performance Based Concrete Design:
Comparative Analisis between convencional concrete and shotcrete”. FIB Symp.
Structural Concrete and Time, La Plata. 2005.
[21] O. Río, L. Fernández-Luco, A. Castillo, A. Rodriguez. “Es posible predecir el
comportamiento del hormigón proyectado?” (Is it possible to predict shotcrte
behaviour?). Ingeopress, 162, September 2006. Pp. 82-86.
[22] Vision 2030: A Vision for the U.S. Concrete Industry.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/imf/pdfs/concrete_vision.pdf, January 2001.
[23] Rio, O, “Partial Vision on the future Underground Construction Materials”, ECTP,
Underground F.A. Madrid Meeting, 11/02/05. www.ectp.org (Private area).
 O. Río, L. Fernandez-Luco; A. Castillo

[24] TG37 - Performance-Based Building Regulatory Systems: Performance-Based Building

Regulatory Systems, CIB Publication 299
[25] CIB Proceedings of World Building Congress 2001: “Performance in Product and
Practice".
[26] D. Hammond, J. Dempsey, F. Szigeti, G. Davis.- Integrating a Performance-based
approach into practice: a case study.- Building Research& Information, March-April
2005,33·,2, 128-141C. Andrade, I. Martínez, “Methodology for monitoring and
assessing performance”. CONREPNET. Special Seminar. Madrid, Nov. 2005
[27] FIB (CEB-FIP). 1998. 'Strategies for Testing and Assessment of Concrete Structures'.
Work group 5.4 'Assessment, Maintenance and Repair'.
[28] J-L. Chevalier - Prediction of Service Life of Building Materials and Components:
CIB.- W080 .28 April 2005
[29] C. Andrade, O. Río, A. Castillo, M. Castellote. “Prediction of reinforced concrete
service life through the measurement of electrical resistivity of specimens subjected to
natural exposure conditions”. 10DBMC International Conférence LYON [France] 17-20
April 2005.
[30] R. Leucker, F. Leismann, C. Andrade, I. Martinez, Ch. Choquet, C. Larive, F. Rival, M.
Hohermuth, C. Hunt, “Report for service life cost models”. TUNCONSTRUCT
D4.4.2.2
[31] Andrade, C.; Martínez I, Castellote M and Zuloaga P. “Some principles of service life
calculation of reinforcements and in situ corrosion monitoring by sensors in the
radioactive waste containers of El Cabril disposal (Spain). J. of Nuclear Materilas 358
(2006). Pps. 82-95.
[32] I. Smith. “Increasing knowledge of structural performance”. Structural Engineering
International.3/2001. pps. 191-195.
[33] TUNPRO-GUNMAT Project BIA2004-05562-C02-00, lead by O. Río. (2004-2007)
[34] TUNCONSTRUCT EU Project No. IP 011817-2. SP2 IETcc-CSIC RTD (2005-2009).
[35] Río, O.; Fernández-Luco, L.; and Rodriguez, A. “Procedimiento y dispositivo para la
determinación de la aptitud para el bombeo de suspensiones concentradas de sólidos
tales como el hormigón fresco”. Patent application number: 200700620.