Materials and Structures

, 50:163 | Cite as

Numerical simulation of self-consolidating concrete flow as a heterogeneous material in L-Box set-up: coupled effect of reinforcing bars and aggregate content on flow characteristics

  • Masoud Hosseinpoor
  • Kamal H. KhayatEmail author
  • Ammar Yahia
Original Article


A computational fluid dynamics software was employed to simulate the coupled effect of reinforcing bar spacing and coarse aggregate content on the blocking resistance and shear-induced segregation of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) along the horizontal channel of the L-Box apparatus. The rheology of the modelled suspending fluid, which corresponds to the stable and homogeneous portion of the mixture, consists of plastic viscosity value of 25 Pa s, yield stress values of 75 Pa, fluid density of 2500 kg/m3, and shear elasticity modulus value of 100 Pa. Two different values of 20-mm spherical particles (135 and 255 particles in total), as well as three bar arrangements consisting of 0, 3, and 18 bars distributed along the horizontal channel of the L-Box were considered in the numerical simulations. A new approach is proposed to evaluate the coupled effect of reinforcing bar arrangements and the number of spherical particles on the flow performance of SCC.


Blocking Dynamic segregation Flow simulation Heterogeneous analysis L-Box test Self-consolidating concrete 



The authors wish to thank the financial support of the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the 16 industrial partners participating in the NSERC Chair on High Performance Flowable Concrete with Adapted Rheology, held by Professor Kamal H. Khayat of the Université de Sherbrooke.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    ACI Committee 237 (2007) Self-consolidating concrete, ACI 237R-07. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khayat KH, Mitchell D (2009) Self-consolidating concrete for precast, prestressed concrete bridge elements. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 628. Transporation Research Board of the National AcademiesGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roussel N (2012) Understanding the rheology of concrete, 1st edn. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston. ISBN 9780857090287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thrane LN (2007) Form filling with self-compacting concrete. Ph.D. Dissertation, Danish technological instituteGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khayat KH (1999) Workability, testing, and performance of self-consolidating concrete. ACI Mater J 96(3):346–353Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khayat KH (1998) Use of viscosity-modifying admixture to reduce top-bar effect of anchored bars cast with fluid concrete. ACI Mater J 95(2):158–167Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sonebi M, Grünewald S, Walraven J (2007) Filling ability and passing ability of self-consolidating concrete. ACI Mater J 104(2):162–170Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    EFNARC (2002) Specification and guidelines for self-compacting concrete. EFNARC, Norfolk. ISBN 0-9539733-4-4Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nguyen TLH, Roussel N, Coussot P (2006) Correlation between L-box test and rheological parameters of a homogeneous yield stress fluid. Cem Concr Res 36:1789–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lashkarbolouk H, Chamani MR, Halabian AM, Pishevar AR (2013) Viscosity evaluation of SCC based on flow simulation in the L-box test. Mag Concr Res 65(6):365–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turgut P, Turk K, Bakirci H (2012) Segregation control of SCC with a modified L-box apparatus. Mag Concr Res 64(8):707–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nepomuceno MCS, Preira-de-Oliveira LA, Lopes SMR, Franco RMC (2016) Maximum coarse aggregate’s volume fraction in self-compacting concrete for different flow restrictions. Constr Build Mater 113:851–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yahia A, Khayat KH, Sayed M (2012) Statistical modelling of the coupled effect of mix design and rebar spacing on restricted flow characteristics of SCC. Constr Build Mater 37:699–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roussel N, Geiker MR, Dufour F, Thrane LN, Szabo P (2007) Computational modeling of concrete flow: general overview. Cem Concr Res 37:1298–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yammine J, Chaouche M, Guerinet M, Moranville M, Roussel N (2008) From ordinary rheology concrete to self compacting concrete: a transition between frictional and hydrodynamic interactions. Cem Concr Res 38:890–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roussel N, Gram A, Cremonesi M, Ferrara L, Krenzer K, Mechtcherine V, Shyshko S, Skocec J, Spangenberg J, Svec O, Thrane LN, Vasilic K (2016) Numerical simulations of concrete flow: a benchmark comparison. Cem Concr Res 79:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shen L, Struble L, Lange DA (2009) Modeling dynamic segregation of self-consolidating concrete. ACI Mater J 106(4):375–380Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spangenberg J, Roussel N, Hattel JH, Stang H, Skocek J, Geiker MR (2012) Flow induced particle migration in fresh concrete: theoretical frame, numerical simulations and experimental results on model fluids. Cem Concr Res 42:633–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spangenberg J, Roussel N, Hattel JH, Sarmiento EV, Zirgulis G, Geiker MR (2012) Patterns of gravity induced aggregate migration during casting of fluid concretes. Cem Concr Res 42:1571–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vasilic K, Schmidt W, Kühne HC, Haamkens F, Mechtcherine V, Roussel N (2016) Flow of fresh concrete through reinforced elements: experimental validation of the porous analogy numerical method. Cem Concr Res 88:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hirt CW, Nichols BD (1981) Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. J Comput Phys 39(1):201–225CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hosseinpoor M, Khayat KH, Yahia A (2016) Numerical simulation of self-consolidating concrete flow as a heterogeneous material in L-box set-up—effect of rheological parameters on flow performance. Cem Concr CompositesGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vanhove Y, Djelal C (2013) Friction mechanisms of fresh concrete under pressure. Int J Civil Eng Technol (IJCIET) 4(6):67–81Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    FLOW-3D user guide.
  25. 25.
    RILEM State of the Art Report, Technical Committee 222-SCF (2014) Simulation of fresh concrete flow. Springer, Imprint. ISBN 978-94-017-8883-0Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Körner C, Thies M, Hofmann T, Thürey N, Rüde U (2005) Lattice Boltzman model for free surface flow for modeling foaming. J Stat Phys 121(1):179–196MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Man H-K, van Mier JGM (2011) Damage distribution and size effect in numerical concrete from lattice analyses. Cement Concr Compos 33:867–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eliáš J, Stang H (2012) Lattice modeling of aggregate interlocking in concrete. Int J Fract 175(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thrane LN (2007) Form filling with self-compacting concrete. Ph.D. thesis, Danish Technological InstituteGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masoud Hosseinpoor
    • 1
  • Kamal H. Khayat
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ammar Yahia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental EngineeringMissouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations