Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Rheology of fresh cement paste with superplasticizer and nanosilica admixtures studied by response surface methodology

  • Published:
Materials and Structures Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Thirteen cement pastes, keeping the water/cement ratio constant at w/c = 0.30, with different amounts of two admixtures were prepared. A superplasticizer (modified polycarboxylic ether polymer) was studied in the range of 0.14–1.00% (over cement weight), while a viscosity-modifying admixture (nanosilica aqueous dispersion) was tested at 0.50–3.00% range (over cement weight). Oscillatory and steady shear rheometry, as well as results of modified slump test and Marsh funnel flow time of 13 formulations were evaluated by response surface methodology, in order to find the optimum recipe that reduces the viscosity while keeping the paste workability. It was predicted that a formulation with 0.39% w/w of superplasticizer and 2.78% w/w of viscosity-modifying admixture would provide a paste with a fifth of the viscosity of control (cement paste without any admixture), but with an acceptable slump. This formulation was prepared and tested, and the plastic viscosity was 1.00 Pa-s, while the oscillatory yield stress was 330 Pa. The admixtures did not affect the compression strength (48 MPa average, after 28 days), compared with the control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ASTM Standard test method C 39/C 39M – 05. Current edition approved Nov. 1, 2005

  2. ASTM Standard test method D 6910/D 6910M – 09. Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2009

  3. ASTM Standard test method C 143/C 143M – 10a. Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2010

  4. Banfill PFG (1991) Rheology of fresh cement and concrete. E & FN Spon, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Banfill PFG, Starrs G, Derruau G, McCarter WJ, Chrisp TM (2006) Rheology of low carbon fibre content reinforced cement mortar. Cem Concr Compos 28:773–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Box GEP, Draper N (2007) Response surfaces, mixtures and ridge analyses, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Box GEP, Wilson KB (1951) On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions (with discussion). J R Stat Soc B 13(1):1–45

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Browers HJH, Radix HJ (2005) Self-compacting concrete: theoretical and experimental study. Cem Concr Res 35:2116–2136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dzuy NQ, Boger DV (1985) Direct yield stress measurements with the vane method. J Rheol 29:335–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Geiker MR, Brandl M, Thrane LN et al (2002) On the effect of coarse aggregate fraction and shape on the rheological properties of self-compacting concrete. Cem Concr Aggreg 24:3–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Leemann A, Winnefeld F (2007) The effect of viscosity modifying agents on mortar and concrete. Cem Concr Compos 29:341–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Li GY (2004) Properties of high-volume fly ash concrete incorporating nano-SiO2. Cem Concr Res 34:1043–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mahaut F, Mokeddem S, Chateau X, Roussel N, Ovarlez G (2008) Effect of coarse particle volume fraction on the yield stress and thixotropy of cementitious materials. Cem Concr Res 38:1276–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mehta PK, Monteiro PJM (2006) Concrete—microstructure, properties and materials, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2009) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments, 3rd edn. Wiley, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Napper DH (1984) Polymeric stabilization of colloidal dispersions. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nehdi M, Al Martini S (2009) Estimating time and temperature dependent yield stress of cement paste using oscillatory rheology and genetic algorithms. Cem Concr Res 39:1007–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Newman J, Choo BS (2003) Advanced concrete technology. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nguyen VH, Remond S, Gallias JL, Bigas JP, Muller P (2006) Flow of Herschel–Bulkley fluids through the Marsh cone. J Non-Newton Fluid Mech 139:128–134

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Ovarlez G, Mahaut F, Bertrand F et al (2011) Flows and heterogeneities with a vane tool: magnetic resonance imaging measurements. J Rheol 55:197–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Papo A, Piani L (2004) Effect of various superplasticizers on the rheological properties of Portland cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 34:2097–2101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pashias N, Boger DV, Summers J, Glenister DJ (1996) A fifty cent rheometer for yield stress measurement. J Rheol 40:1179–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rixom R, Mailvaganam N (1999) Chemical admixtures for concrete, 3rd edn. E & FN Spon, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Roussel N, Coussot P (2005) Fifty-cent rheometer for yield stress measurements: from slump to spreading flow. J Rheol 49:705–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Roussel N, Le Roy R (2005) The Marsh cone: a test or a rheological apparatus? Cem Concr Res 35:823–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Saak AW, Jennings HM, Shah SP (2001) The influence of wall slip on yield stress and viscoelastic measurements of cement paste. Cem Concr Res 31:205–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schultz MA, Struble LJ (1993) Use of oscillatory shear to study flow behavior of fresh cement paste. Cem Concr Res 23:273–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Senff L, Labrincha JA, Ferreira VM, Hotza D, Repette WL (2009a) Effect of nano-silica on rheology and fresh properties of cement pastes and mortars. Constr Build Mater 23:2487–2491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Senff L, Barbetta PA, Repette WL, Hotza D, Paiva H, Ferreira VM, Labrincha JA (2009b) Mortar composition defined according to rheometer and flow table tests using factorial designed experiments. Constr Build Mater 23:3107–3111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shih JY, Chang TP, Hsiao TC (2006) Effect of nanosilica on characterization of Portland cement composite. Mater Sci Eng A 424:266–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Toutou Z, Roussel N (2006) Multi scale experimental study of concrete rheology: from water scale to gravel scale. Mater Struct 39:189–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Verwey EJW, Overbeek JThG (1999) Theory of the stability of lyophobic colloids. Dover Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zhu H, De Kee D (2008) Double concentric cylinder geometry with slotted rotor to measure the yield stress of complex systems: a numerical study. J Rheol 52:913–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Roberta M Martins acknowledges CAPES (Brazilian Government Agency) for the graduate research fellowship. We also thank BASF do Brasil, who kindly supplied us with the Glenium and Rheomac admixtures. By the compressive strength results, we are in debt with Professor Luciano Floriano Barbosa.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratório de Reologia Hans Martin Laun, ICE, Universidade Federal de Itajubá, Av. BPS 1303, Itajubá, MG, 37500-903, Brazil

    Roberta Moraes Martins & Antonio José Faria Bombard

Authors
  1. Roberta Moraes Martins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio José Faria Bombard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio José Faria Bombard.

Appendix

Appendix

The slump pictures are not necessary for the comprehension of the text, neither for optimization of admixtures. However, we considered them elucidative enough, to evidence the effect of admixtures on the slump, which would justify showing them. Figures 19 and 20 show the pictures of adapted slump, for the control and the centroid point (0.57% w/w superplasticizer + 1.75% w/w nS). Figures 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 show the pictures of adapted slump for the other pastes in Table 1.

Fig. 19
figure 19

Slump for the control paste. Only CP + water, no admixture. w/c = 0.30

Full size image
Fig. 20
figure 20

Slump for the centroid paste (0, 0): 0.57% Glenium + 1.75% nS

Full size image
Fig. 21
figure 21

Slump for the point (−1, −1): cement paste with 0.286% w/w Glenium + 0.86% w/w nS

Full size image
Fig. 22
figure 22

Slump for the point (1, −1): cement paste with 0.86% w/w Glenium + 0.86% w/w nS

Full size image
Fig. 23
figure 23

Slump for the point (−1, 1): cement paste with 0.286% w/w Glenium + 2.64% w/w nS

Full size image
Fig. 24
figure 24

Slump for the point (1, 1): cement paste with 0.86% w/w Glenium + 2.64% w/w nS

Full size image
Fig. 25
figure 25

Slump for the point (−√2, 0): cement paste with 0.143% w/w Glenium + 1.75% w/w nS

Full size image
Fig. 26
figure 26

Slump for the point (0, √2): cement paste with 0.57% w/w Glenium + 3.00% w/w nS

Full size image
Fig. 27
figure 27

Slump for the point (√2, 0): cement paste with 1.00% w/w Glenium + 1.75% w/w nS

Full size image
Fig. 28
figure 28

Slump for the point (0, −√2): cement paste with 0.57% w/w Glenium + 0.50% w/w nS

Full size image

From Figs. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, one can see that the paste with admixtures which looks like to the control paste, was the point (−1,1), shown in Fig. 23: 0.286% Glenium + 2.64% Rheomac. So, we conclude that to keep an acceptable low slump, and the workability of cement pastes, the level of this superplasticizer must be less than 0.5% w/w (preferably ~0.3% w/w), and the nS (in the range 2.5–3.0% w/w) must be added together with superplasticizer. The use of superplasticizer alone will reduce both the viscosity and the yield stress, and therefore, the slump will be excessive too.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martins, R.M., Bombard, A.J.F. Rheology of fresh cement paste with superplasticizer and nanosilica admixtures studied by response surface methodology. Mater Struct 45, 905–921 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-011-9807-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-011-9807-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation