Materials and Structures

, Volume 45, Issue 10, pp 1547–1564 | Cite as

Field-oriented test methods to evaluate structural build-up at rest of flowable mortar and concrete

  • K. H. Khayat
  • A. F. OmranEmail author
  • S. Naji
  • P. Billberg
  • A. Yahia
Original Article


Thixotropy of flowable mortar and concrete is an important property that affects stability and form pressure characteristics. The increase in thixotropy can reduce lateral pressure on formwork systems. On the other hand, low thixotropy or a continuous casting is required to eliminate the formation of weak interface between lifts in multilayer casting. Thixotropy can be assessed by determining the rate of structural build-up at rest, which necessitates the use of simple and robust test methods to be quantified. Five field-oriented test methods that can be used for the determination of structural build-up at rest of mortar and concrete are proposed in this paper in an attempt to select a reliable field-oriented test. This includes the inclined plane (IP), portable vane (PV), undisturbed slump spread (USS), cone penetration (CP), and K-slump test methods. The repeatability of these test methods was determined four times using two concrete-equivalent mortars and two self-consolidating concretes (SCC) of different thixotropy levels. The IP, PV, and USS tests showed relative error (RE) values of 0.5–37 %. The CP test was successfully used to determine structural build-up of mortar; however, it was difficult to assess the thixotropy of concrete. The K-slump test exhibited a RE, less than 12 % for SCC mixtures with low thixotropy, but up to 76 % for highly thixotropic SCC. Good correlations were established among the various structural build-up indices determined from the proposed test methods and those determined by rheometric tests using various concrete.


Concrete-equivalent mortar Self-consolidating concrete Structural build-up at rest Static yield stress Thixotropy 



The authors would like to acknowledge their colleagues and technicians in the Cement and Concrete Research Group at the Department of Civil Engineering at the Université de Sherbrooke for their help in conducting parallel thixotropic testing, in particular Ms. J. Roby and Dr. T. Pavate. The authors acknowledge the financial support of the National Ready-Mix Concrete Education Research Foundation and the Strategic Development Council (SDC) of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), and member companies of SDC.


  1. 1.
    Moller PCF, Mewis J, Bonn D (2006) Yield stress and thixotropy: on the difficulty of measuring yield stress in practice. J Mater Chem 16:274–283Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coussot P, Nguyen QD, Huynh HT, Bonn D (2002) Avalanche behavior in yield stress fluids. Phys Rev Lett 88(17):175501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Assaad J, Khayat KH, Mesbah H (2003) Assessment of thixotropy of flowable and self-consolidating concrete. ACI Mater J 100(2):111–120Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roussel N (2006) A thixotropy model for fresh fluid concretes: theory, validation and applications. Cem Concr Res 36:1797–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khayat KH, Mitchell D (2009) Self-consolidating concrete for precast, prestressed concrete bridge elements. NCHRP report 628 for National Cooperative High Way Research Program, vol 99Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roussel N, Cussigh F (2008) Distinct-layer casting of SCC: the mechanical consequences of thixotropy. Cem Concr Res 38:624–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Banfill PFG, Saunders DC (1981) On the viscometric examination of cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 11(3):363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Douglas R, Gregori A, Sun Z, Bonen D, Shah SP (2005) The effect of ingredients and shear history on the thixotropic rate of rebuilding of SCC. In: Shah SP (ed) Proceedings, 2nd North American conference on the design and use of self-consolidating concrete and the 4th international RILEM symposium on self-compacting concrete, Chicago, pp 591–596Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lapasin R, Longo V, Rajgelj S (1979) Thixotropic behaviour of cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 9:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ovarlez G, Roussel N (2006) A physical model for the prediction of lateral stress exerted by self-compacting concrete on formwork. RILEM Mater Struct 39(2):269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Billberg P (2006) Form pressure generated by self-compacting concrete—influence of thixotropy and structural behaviour at rest. PhD Thesis, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Division of Concrete Structures, Royal Institute of Technology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coussot P, Boyer S (1995) Determination of yield stress fluid behaviour from inclined plane test. Rheol Acta 34:534–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bauer E, de Sousa JGG, Guimarães EA, Silva FGS (2007) Study of the laboratory vane test on mortars. Build Environ 42:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Billberg P (2005) 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. Hanley Wood, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dzuy NQ, Boger DV (1985) Direct yield stress measurement with the vane method. J Rheol 29(3):335–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Amziane S, Perrot A, Lecompte T (2008) A novel settling and structural build-up measurement method. Meas Sci Technol 19(105702):8Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oremus, Richard M (2006) A one dimensional model of dense snow avalanches using mass and momentum balances. A thesis, presented to the faculty of Humboldt State University, ArcataGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khayat KH, Omran AF, Pavate T (2010) Inclined plane test method to determine structural build-up at rest of self-consolidating concrete. ACI Mater J 107(5):515–522Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Omran AF, Naji S, Khayat KH (2011) Portable vane test to assess structural build-up at rest of self-consolidating concrete. ACI Mater J 108(6):628–637Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yahia A, Khayat KH (2006) Modification of the concrete rheometer to determine rheological parameters of self-consolidating concrete. In: Marchand J et al (eds) Proceedings, 2nd international symposium on concrete through science and engineering, Quebec City, pp 375–380Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schwartzentruber A, Catherine C (2000) Method of the concrete equivalent mortar (CEM)—a new tool to design concrete containing admixture. Mater Struct J 33(8):475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. H. Khayat
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. F. Omran
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Naji
    • 1
  • P. Billberg
    • 3
  • A. Yahia
    • 1
  1. 1.Université de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.Missouri University of Science and Technology, 224 Engineering Research LaboratoryRollaUSA
  3. 3.Swedish Cement and Concrete Research InstituteStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations