Materials and Structures

, Volume 40, Issue 10, pp 1001–1012 | Cite as

Rheology of fresh concrete: from measurements to predictions of casting processes

  • Nicolas Roussel
Original Article


This paper tries to make a link between the measurements of the rheological properties of fresh concrete (yield stress and thixotropy) and casting processes. In the first part, methods allowing for the measurement of the yield stress of a given concrete without the use of a rheometer will be described. In a second part, a thixotropy model allowing for the prediction of the apparent yield stress of the material as a function of its flow history will be presented. Finally, in the last part, prediction methods of casting process will be presented. These methods can be considered as practical tools allowing for the prediction of formwork filling, pressure formwork or multilayer casting occurrence. Moreover, they contribute to bringing rheology from research and development into the field of practical applications.


Casting Fresh concrete Yield stress Thixotropy Slump 


  1. 1.
    de Larrard F (1999) Concrete mixture proportioning. E & FN Spon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hu C, de Larrard F (1996) The rheology of fresh high performance concrete. Cem Concr Res 26(2):283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tatersall GH, Banfill PGF (1983) The rheology of fresh concrete. Pitman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roussel N (2005) Steady and transient flow behaviour of fresh cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 35:1656–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Billberg P Development of SCC static yield stress at rest and its effect on the lateral form pressure. In: Shah SP (ed) Proceedings of the Second North American conference on the design and use of self-consolidating concrete and the fourth international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete, Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roussel N (2006) A thixotropy model for fresh fluid concretes: theory, validation and applications. Cem Concr Res 36:1797–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Otsubo Y, Miyai S, Umeya K (1980) Time-dependant flow of cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 10:631–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Banfill PFG, Saunders DC (1981) On the viscosimetric examination of cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 11:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jarny S, Roussel N, Rodts S, Le Roy R, Coussot P (2005) Rheological behavior of cement pastes from MRI velocimetry. Cem Concr Res 35:1873–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Billberg P (2003) Form pressure generated by self-compacting concrete. In Proceedings of the 3rd international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete, RILEM PRO33 Reykjavik, Iceland, pp 271–280Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Assaad J, Khayat KH, Mesbah H (2003) Variation of formwork pressure with thixotropy of self-consolidating concrete. ACI Mater J 100(1):29–37Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ovarlez G, Roussel N (2006) A physical model for the prediction of lateral stress exerted by self-compacting concrete on formwork. Mater Struct 39(2):269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coussot P, Roussel N (2006) Quantification de la thixotropie des matériaux cimentaires et de ses effets. Revue Européenne de Génie Civil 10:45–63 (in French)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shaughnessy R, Clark PE (1988) The rheological behaviour of fresh cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 18:327–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nehdi M, Rahman M-A (2004) Estimating rheological properties of cement pastes using various rheological models for different test geometry, gap and surface friction. Cem Concr Res 34:1993–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hu C, de Larrard F, Sedran T, Boulay C, Bosc F, Deflorenne F (1996) Validation of BTRHEOM, the new rheometer for soft-to-fluid concrete. Mater Struct 29(194):620–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Operating manual (2000) the BML viscometer, the viscometer 4, Con TecGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tatersall GH, Bloomer SJ (1979) Further development of the two-point test for workability and extension of its range. Mag Concr Res 31:202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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, 85–87Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferraris CF, Brower LE (eds) (2001) Comparison of concrete rheometers: international tests at LCPC (Nantes, France) in October 2000, National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency Report (NISTIR) 6819Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferraris CF, Brower LE (eds) (2004) Comparison of concrete rheometers: international tests at MB (Cleveland OH, USA) in May 2003, National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency Report (NISTIR) 7154Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roussel N, Coussot P (2005) Fifty-cent rheometer for yield stress measurements: from slump to spreading flow. J Rheol 49(3):705–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schowalter WR, Christensen G (1998) Toward a rationalization of the slump test for fresh concrete. Comparisons of Calculations and Experiments 42(4):865–870Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ASTM Designation C230/C230M-03 (2004) Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 04.01, Am Soc Test Mat, Easton, MDGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kantro DL (1980) Influence of water-reducing admixtures on properties of cement paste—a miniature slump test. Cem Concr Aggregates 2:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murata J (1984) Flow and deformation of fresh concrete. Mater Struct 98:117–129Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pashias N, Boger DV, Summers J, Glenister DJ (1996) A fifty cent rheometer for yield stress measurements. J Rheol 40(6):1179–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clayton S, Grice TG, Boger DV (2003) Analysis of the slump test for on-site yield stress measurement of mineral suspensions. Int J Miner Process 70:53–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saak AW, Jennings HM, Shah SP (2004) A generalized approach for the determination of yield stress by slump and slump flow. Cem Concr Res 34:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Coussot P, Proust S, Ancey C (1996) Rheological interpretation of deposits of yield stress fluids. J Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech 66:55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Domone P (1998) The slump flow test for high-workability concrete. Cem Concr Res 28:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu FK, Mei CC (1989) Slow spreading of a Bingham fluid on an inclined plane. J Fluid Mech 207:505–529MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roussel N (2006) Correlation between yield stress and slump: comparison between numerical simulations and concrete rheometers results. Mater Struct 39(4):501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Roussel N, Stefani C, Le Roy R (2005) From mini cone test to Abrams cone test: measurement of cement based materials yield stress using slump tests. Cem Concr Res 35(5):817–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roussel N, The LCPC BOX: a cheap and simple technique for yield stress measurements of SCC. Mater Struct 40(9):889–896Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nguyen TLH, Roussel N, Coussot P (2006) Correlation between L-box test and rheological parameters of an homogeneous yield stress fluid. Cem Concr Res 36(10):1789–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Coussot P, Raynaud JS, Bertrand F, Moucheront P, Guilbaud JP, Huynh HT, Jarny S, Lesueur D (2002) Coexistence of liquid and solid phases in flowing soft-glassy materials. Phys Rev Lett 88:218301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu AJ, Nagel SR (1998) Jamming is not just cool any more. Nature 21:396–397Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cheng DH, Evans F (1965) Phenomenological characterization of the rheological behaviour of inelastic reversible thixotropic and antithixotropic fluids. Br J Appl Phys 16:1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Huynh HT, Roussel N, Coussot P (2005) Aging and free surface flow of a thixotropic fluid. Phys Fluids 17(3):033101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mori H, Tanigawa Y (1992) Simulation methods for fluidity of fresh Concrete. Memoirs of the school of engineering. Nagoya University 44:71–133Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kitaoji H, Tanigawa Y, Mori H, Kurokawa Y, Urano S (1996) Flow simulation of fresh concrete cast into wall structure by viscoplastic divided space element method. Trans Jpn Concr Inst 16:45–52Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thrane LN, Szabo P, Geiker M, Glavind M, Stang H (2005) Simulation and verification of flow in SCC test methods. Proceedings of the 4th International RILEM Symposium on SCC, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roussel N, Staquet S, D’Aloia Schwarzentruber L, Le Roy R, Toutlemonde F, SCC casting prediction for the realization of prototype VHPC-precambered composite beams. Mater Struct 40(9):877–887Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Martys N, Ferraris CF (2002) Simulation of SCC flow. Proceedings of the 1st North American Conference on the design and use of self-consolidating concrete, Chicago, pp 27–30Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Saak AW, Jennings HM, Shah SP (2001) The influence of wall slip on yield stress and visco-elastic measurements of cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 31:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Khayat KH, Assad J, Mesbah H, Lessard M (2005) Effect of section width and catsting rate on variations of formwork pressure of self-consolidating concrete. Mater Struct 38:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tchamba JC, Amziane SOvarlez G, Roussel N, Lateral stress exerted by fresh cement paste on formwork: laboratory experiments. Accepted for publication in Cem Concr ResGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Roussel N, Cussigh F, Distinct layer casting of SCC : the mechanical consequences of thixotropy. Accepted for publication in Cem. Concr. Res.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Central des Ponts et ChausséesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations