KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 173–178 | Cite as

Correlation between v-funnel and mini-slump test results with viscosity

Research Paper Structural Engineering

Abstract

Self-Compacting Mortars (SCM) can be regarded as high flowing mortars, which must show both a good fluidity (to fill complex formwork shapes) and sufficient viscosity (to avoid segregation). The characterization and control of fresh properties are proving to be critical for the success of SCM design. Usually, this task is performed through technological tests such as v-funnel and minislump. However, the use of viscometers can successfully perform better access of fresh properties. The objective of the present work is to correlate experimental results of v-funnel and mini-slump tests with viscosity of SCM, measured at different rotational speeds, and with constants a and b calculated from the power-law viscosity model. Linear relationships between both v-funnel and minislump tests and viscosity were demonstrated. Statistical models are also established to highlight the influence of constants a and b on the v-funnel and mini-slump variations. Results indicate the usefulness of established models to better understand the trade-off between constants a and b on fresh properties measured by v-funnel and mini-slump tests.

Keywords

correlation v-funnel mini-slump viscosity power-law model constants 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AFNOR (2002). Concrete and concrete constituents, Part 1: Specification of concrete and its constituents, 5th Ed., Standards of Building and Public Works, France (in French).Google Scholar
  2. AFNOR (2003). Cement and lime, Standards of Building and Public Works, France (in French).Google Scholar
  3. Assaad, J. Khayat, K., and Daczko, J. (2004). “Evaluation of static stability of self-consolidating concrete.” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 101, No. 3, pp. 207–215.Google Scholar
  4. Bartos, P. J. M. (2005). “Assessment of key characteristics of fresh self-compacting concrete: European approach to standardisation of tests.” Proceedings of the fourth international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete, Hanley Wood Publications, Addison, pp. 807–830.Google Scholar
  5. Bui, V. K., Akkaya, Y., and Shah, S. P. (2002). “Rheological model for self-consolidating concrete” ACI Materials Journal, V. 99, No. 6, pp. 549–559.Google Scholar
  6. EFNARC (2002). Specification and guidelines for self-compacting concrete, The European Federation of Specialist Construction Chemicals and Concrete Systems, Available at http://www.efnarc.org/pdf/SandGforSCC.PDF (Jul. 10, 2010).
  7. Esping, O. (2007). Early age properties of self-compacting concrete, PhD Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  8. Felekoğlu, B., Tosun, K., Baradan, B., Altun, A., and Uyulgan, B. (2006). “The effect of fly ash and limestone fillers on the viscosity and compressive strength of self-compacting repair mortars.” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 1719–1726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferraris, C., De Larrard, F., and Martys, N. (2001). “Fresh concrete rheology: recent developments.” Materials Science of Concrete (VI), American Ceramic Society, Mindess, S., and Skalny, J. (eds.), Westerville, OH, USA, pp. 215–241.Google Scholar
  10. Goupy, J. and Creighton, L. (2007). Introduction to design of experiments with JMP examples, Third Edition, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Güneyisi, E., Gesoðlu, M., and Ozbay, E. (2009). “Effect of marble powder and slag on the properties of self compacting mortars.” Materials and Structures, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 813–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Khayat, K., Assaad, J., and Daczko, J. (2004). “Comparison of fieldoriented test method to assess dynamic stability of self-consolidating concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 101, No. 2, pp. 168–176.Google Scholar
  13. Nielsson, I. and Wallevik, O. H. (2003). “Rheological evaluation of some empirical test methods-preliminary results.” Third International RILEM Symposium, Wallevik, O., and Nielsson, I. (eds.), Reykjavik, Iceland, pp. 59–68.Google Scholar
  14. Sonebi, M. (2001). “Factorial design modelling of mix proportion parameters of underwater composite cement grouts.” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 31, No. 11, pp. 1553–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tregger, N., Ferrara, L., and Shah, S. P. (2008). “Identifying viscosity of cement paste from mini-slump-flow test.” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 105, No. 6, pp. 558–566.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Structures Rehabilitation and Materials Laboratory (SREML)University of LaghouatLaghouatAlgeria
  2. 2.Rheology of Dispersed Media, Research Unit — Materials, Processes and Environment (UR/MPE)University of BoumerdesBoumerdesAlgeria

Personalised recommendations