Modeling the rheological properties with shear stress limit and compressive strength of ordinary Portland cement modified with polymers

  • Warzer Sarwar
  • Kawan Ghafor
  • Ahmed MohammedEmail author
Research Article


In this study, the effect of two water reducer polymers on the thermal stability, rheology, and compressive strength of Gasin Ordinary Cement (GC) was investigated. The behavior of cement in the liquid phase (slurry) and hardened phase modified with two types of polymer varied from 0 to 0.06% (%wt) were investigated. XRD and TGA tests were conducted to identify the effect of polymers on the behavior of GC. The compressive strength of cement mixed with polymers was tested from the early aged of 1 days to 28 days of curing. The shear stress versus shear strain rate of cement slurry was modeled and the results of prediction using Vipulanandan rheological model were compared to the Vocadlo model. High reduction in the total weight loss of the GC at 800 °C when the cement modified with 0.06% of polymers detected using TGA test. The rheological properties of the cement slurry such as viscosity, yield stress, and the compressive strength of GC were increased significantly with increasing the polymer contents. Addition of polymers reduced the required water to reach the desired fluidity by about 43% based on the type of polymer. The results showed that the Vipulanandan rheological model predicted the shear-thinning relationship between the shear stress and shear strain rate of the cement slurry modified polymers very well. Also, the Vipulanandan rheological model has a maximum shear stress limit were as the Vocadlo model did not have a limit on the maximum shear stress. Based on the Vipulanandan rheological model the maximum shear stress produced by the cement slurry modified with 0% and 0.06% of polymers at the temperature of 25 °C were increased from 38.7 to 171.3 Pa and to 184.8 Pa respectively due to the addition of polymers. Nonlinear models were used to separate the effect polymer quantity, water–cement ratio, and curing time on the rheological properties and compressive strength of cement.


TGA test Polymers Rheological properties Compressive strength Modeling 



University of Sulaimani, Civil Engineering Department, Gasin Cement Co. and Zarya Construction Co. supported this study.


  1. 1.
    Amer AA, El-Sokkary TM, Abdullah NI (2015) Thermal durability of OPC pastes admixed with nano iron oxide. HBRC J 11(2):299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kırgız MS (2016) Strength gain mechanism for green mortar substituted marble powder and brick powder for Portland cement. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 20(sup1):s38–s63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashikhmen VA, Pronina LÉ (1986) Rheological properties of dispersed cement grouts. Power Technol Eng (formerly Hydrotech Constr) 20(10):598–603Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosquoët F, Alexis A, Khelidj A, Phelipot A (2003) Experimental study of cement grout: rheological behavior and sedimentation. Cem Concr Res 33(5):713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christodoulou DN, Droudakis AI, Pantazopoulos IA, Markou IN, Atmatzidis DK (2009) Groutability and impact iveness of microfine cement groutsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lim SK, Tan CS, Chen KP, Lee ML, Lee WP (2013) Effect of different sand grading on strength properties of cement grout. Constr Build Mater 38:348–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benyounes K, Benmounah A (2014) Effect of bentonite on the rheological behavior of cement grout in presence of superplasticizer. Int J Civ Arch Struct Const Eng 8(11):1095–1098Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen JJ, Li LG, Ng PL, Kwan AKH (2017) Impact s of superfine zeolite on strength, flowability and cohesiveness of cementitious paste. Cem Concr Compos 83:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mohammed A, Raof H, Salih A (2018) Vipulanandan constitutive models to predict the rheological properties and stress–strain behavior of cement grouts modified with metakaolin. J Test Eval 48(5):1Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shaikh FUA, Supit SWM (2015) Compressive strength and durability of high-volume fly ash concrete reinforced with calcium carbonate nanoparticles. Fillers and reinforcements for advanced nanocomposites. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, pp 275–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Al-Martini S, Nehdi M (2007) Effect of chemical admixtures on rheology of cement paste at high temperature. J ASTM Int 4(3):1–17Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soroka I, Ravina D (1998) Hot weather concreting with admixtures. Cem Concr Compos 20(2–3):129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Konsta-Gdoutos MS, Metaxa ZS, Shah SP (2010) Multi-scale mechanical and fracture characteristics and early-age strain capacity of high performance carbon nanotube/cement nanocomposites. Cem Concr Compos 32(2):110–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheung J, Jeknavorian A, Roberts L, Silva D (2011) Impact of admixtures on the hydration kinetics of Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 41(12):1289–1309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ezziane K, Ngo TT, Kaci A (2014) Evaluation of rheological parameters of mortar containing various amounts of mineral addition with polycarboxylate superplasticizer. Constr Build Mater 70:549–559. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jolicoeur C, Simard MA (1998) Chemical admixture-cement interactions: phenomenology and physico-chemical concepts. Cem Concr Compos 20(2–3):87–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Plank J, Hirsch C (2007) Impact of zeta potential of early cement hydration phases on superplasticizer adsorption. Cem Concr Res 37(4):537–542. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gallias JL, Kara-Ali R, Bigas JP (2000) The effect of fine mineral admixtures on water requirement of cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 30(10):1543–1549. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khudhair MH, Elharfi A, El-Youbi MS (2018) The effect of polymeric admixtures of water reduce of superplasticizer and setting accelerator on physical properties and mechanical performance of mortars and concretes. J Environ Res 1(1):4Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mikanovic N, Jolicoeur C (2008) Influence of superplasticizers on the rheology and stability of limestone and cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 38(7):907–919. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khudhair MHR, Elyoubi MS, Elharfi A (2017) Study of the influence of water reducing and setting retarder admixtures of polycarboxylate “superplasticizers” on physical and mechanical properties of mortar and concrete. J Mater Environ Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vipulanandan C, Sunder S (2012) Impact s of meta-kaolin clay on the working and strength properties of cement grouts. In: Grouting and deep mixing, pp 1739–1747Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mohammed AS (2018) Vipulanandan model for the rheological properties with ultimate shear stress of oil well cement modified with nanoclay. Egypt J Pet 27(3):335–347MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Livescu S (2012) Mathematical modeling of thixotropic drilling mud and crude oil flow in wells and pipelines—a review. J Pet Sci Eng 98:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mohammed AS (2017) Effect of temperature on the rheological properties with shear stress limit of iron oxide nanoparticle modified bentonite drilling muds. Egypt J Pet 26(3):791–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed AS (2014) Hyperbolic rheological model with shear stress limit for acrylamide polymer modified bentonite drilling muds. J Pet Sci Eng 122:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2015) XRD and TGA, swelling and compacted properties of polymer treated sulfate contaminated CL soil. J Test Eval 44(6):2270–2284Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Qadir W, Ghafor K, Mohammed A (2019) Characterizing and modeling the mechanical properties of the cement mortar modified with fly ash for various water-to-cement ratios and curing times. Adv Civ En 2019:11 (Article ID 7013908) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A, Ganpatye AS (2018) Smart cement performance enhancement with NanoAl2O3 for real time monitoring applications using Vipulanandan models. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mohammed Ahmed S, Vipulanandan Cumaraswamy (2014) Compressive and tensile behavior of polymer treated sulfate contaminated CL soil. Geotech Geol Eng 32(1):71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mohammed Ahmed, Vipulanandan Cumaraswamy (2015) Testing and modeling the short-term behavior of lime and fly ash treated sulfate contaminated CL soil. Geotech Geol Eng 33(4):1099–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mohammed AS (2018) Vipulanandan models to predict the electrical resistivity, rheological properties and compressive stress–strain behavior of oil well cement modified with silica nanoparticles. Egypt J Pet 27(4):1265–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2015) Smart cement modified with iron oxide nanoparticles to enhance the piezoresistive behavior and compressive strength for oil well applications. Smart Mater Struct 24(12):125020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2015) Smart cement rheological and piezoresistive behavior for oil well applications. J Pet Sci Eng 135:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vipulanandan C, Krishnamoorti R, Mohammed A, Boncan V, Narvaez G, Head B, Pappas JM (2015) Iron nanoparticle modified smart cement for real time monitoring of ultra deepwater oil well cementing applications. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2015) Effect of nanoclay on the electrical resistivity and rheological properties of smart and sensing bentonite drilling muds. J Pet Sci Eng 130:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2017) Rheological properties of piezoresistive smart cement slurry modified with iron-oxide nanoparticles for oil-well applications. J Test Eval 45(6):2050–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2018) Smart cement compressive piezoresistive, stress–strain, and strength behavior with nanosilica modification. J Test Eval 47(2):1Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A, Samuel RG (2018) Fluid loss control in smart bentonite drilling mud modified with nanoclay and quantified with Vipulanandan fluid loss model. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mohammed A, Vipulanandan C (2019) Magnetic field strength and temperature effects on the behavior of oil well cement slurry modified with iron oxide nanoparticles and quantified with Vipulanandan models. J Test Eval 48(6):1Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mohammed A, Mahmood W (2019) New Vipulanandan p-q model for particle size distribution and groutability limits for sandy soils. J Test Eval 48(5):1Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2018) New Vipulanandan failure model and property correlations for sandstone, shale and limestone rocks. IFCEE 2018:365–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mohammed AS (2018) Electrical resistivity and rheological properties of sensing bentonite drilling muds modified with lightweight polymer. Egypt J Pet 27(1):55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mohammed AS (2018) Property correlations and statistical variations in the geotechnical properties of (CH) clay soils. Geotech Geol Eng 36(1):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A, Samuel RG (2017) Smart bentonite drilling muds modified with iron oxide nanoparticles and characterized based on the electrical resistivity and rheological properties with varying magnetic field strengths and temperatures. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Afolabi RO, Orodu OD, Seteyeobot I (2018) Predictive modelling of the impact of silica nanoparticles on fluid loss of water based drilling mud. Appl Clay Sci 151:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mohammed A, Mahmood W (2018) Statistical variations and new correlation models to predict the mechanical behavior and ultimate shear strength of gypsum rock. Open Eng 8(1):213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mohammed A, Mahmood W (2018) Vipulanandan failure models to predict the tensile strength, compressive modulus, fracture toughness and ultimate shear strength of calcium rocks. Int J Geotech Eng 1:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mohammed AS (2019) Vipulanandan models to predict the mechanical properties, fracture toughness, pulse velocity and ultimate shear strength of shale rocks. Geotech Geol Eng 37(2):625–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Meng W, Kumar A, Khayat KH (2019) Effect of silica fume and slump-retaining polycarboxylate-based dispersant on the development of properties of Portland cement paste. Cement Concr Compos 99:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cardoso SS, Cartwright JH, Steinbock O, Stone DA, Thomas NL (2017) Cement nanotubes: on chemical gardens and cement. Struct Chem 28(1):33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, College of EngineeringUniversity of SulaimaniSulaymaniyahIraq

Personalised recommendations