Handbook Rheometer

Development of a
Portable Rheometer
for Fresh Portland
Cement Concrete
RESEARCH REPORT ICAR –105-3F
Sponsored by the
Aggregates Foundation
for Technology, Research and Education
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
ICAR 105-3F
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
August 2004
DEVELOPMENT OF A PORTABLE RHEOMETER FOR FRESH 6. Performing Organization Code
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Eric P. Koehler and David W. Fowler Research Report ICAR 105-3F
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
International Center for Aggregates Research
The University of Texas at Austin 11. Contract or Grant No.
ECJ 5.200 Project No. ICAR-105
Austin, Texas 78712-1076
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Aggregates Foundation for Technology, Research, and Education Research Report
1415 Elliot Place NW September 2002-August 2004
Washington, D. C. 20007 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract:
The purpose of this research was to identify an effective field test method for measuring the workability of concrete in general and
of high-microfines concrete in particular. The workability of fresh concrete has traditionally been measured with the slump test, which
provides an inadequate indication of workability. For certain concrete mixtures—such as that containing fiber reinforcement, ground
granulated blast furnace slag, or high contents of aggregate microfines—the slump test can provide inaccurate and misleading results. The
need for a better test method for workability is well established within the concrete industry.
Based on a literature search in which 61 existing workability test methods were identified and on feedback from government,
industry, and academia, criteria for an improved workability test device were developed. It was determined that the best approach to
measuring workability would be to develop a new portable rheometer.
The ICAR rheometer—a low-cost, fully portable test device for concrete—was developed and tested. A first generation prototype
was built using off-the-shelf components. The ICAR rheometer is approximately the size of a drill and can be operated by hand or positioned
above a standard container. It is capable of measuring a flow curve or performing a stress growth test and is appropriate for nearly the full
range of concrete workability ranging from a slump of approximately 2 inches to self-consolidating concrete.
Experimental testing on a wide range of concrete mixtures indicated that the ICAR rheometer was able to detect changes in
workability and rheology successfully. As a dynamic test that adds energy to concrete, it is well suited for measuring high-microfines
concrete and other highly thixotropic concrete mixtures. Field testing confirmed the portability of the ICAR rheometer. The low cost and
portable form factor of the ICAR rheometer can make the routine measurement of concrete rheology in the field an economically viable
solution to characterizing concrete workability.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
ICAR rheometer, fiber reinforcement, ground granulated blast No restrictions.

furnance slag, aggregates, slump test, concrete workability, high
microfines
19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 306
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
DEVELOPMENT OF A PORTABLE RHEOMETER FOR
FRESH PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
Eric P. Koehler
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
and
David W. Fowler
Austin, TX
ICAR Report 105-3F

ICAR 105: Measuring the Workability of High Fines Concrete
Sponsored by:
International Center for Aggregates Research
Aggregates Foundation for Technology, Research and Education (AFTRE)
August 2004
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research described in this report was conducted at the International

Center for Aggregates Research at The University of Texas at Austin. The authors
gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by the Aggregates Foundation for
Technology, Research, and Education. The authors also wish to thank the
following companies for contributing materials used in the research (in
alphabetical order): Aggregate Industries, Boral Material Technologies, Capitol
Aggregates, Edward C. Levy Company, Grace Construction Products, Holcim
(US), Sika Corporation, and Vulcan Materials Company. The BTRHEOM
rheometer used in the research was on loan from the Federal Highway
Administration. The authors acknowledge the helpful input from the participants
of the concrete workability workshop in May 2003 and Degussa Admixtures for
assisting in facilitating the workshop. The authors thank the National Institute of
Standards and Technology for organizing the field testing where the ICAR
rheometer was used. Finally, the authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of
Chiara Ferraris of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in serving
as a consultant to the research project.
ii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to identify an effective field test method
for measuring the workability of concrete in general and of high-microfines
concrete in particular. The workability of fresh concrete has traditionally been
measured with the slump test, which provides an inadequate indication of
workability. For certain concrete mixtures—such as those containing fiber
reinforcement, ground granulated blast furnace slag, or high contents of aggregate
microfines—the slump test can provide inaccurate and misleading results. The
need for a better test method for workability is well established within the
concrete industry.
Based on a literature search in which 61 existing workability test methods
were identified and on feedback from government, industry, and academia,
criteria for an improved workability test device were developed. It was
determined that the best approach to measuring workability would be to develop a
new portable rheometer.
The ICAR rheometer—a low-cost, fully portable test device for
concrete—was developed and tested. A first generation prototype was built using
off-the-shelf components. The ICAR rheometer is approximately the size of a drill
and can be operated by hand or positioned above a standard container. It is
capable of measuring a flow curve or performing a stress growth test and is
appropriate for nearly the full range of concrete workability ranging from a slump
of approximately 2 inches to self-consolidating concrete.
Experimental testing on a wide range of concrete mixtures indicated that
the ICAR rheometer was able to detect changes in workability and rheology
successfully. As a dynamic test that adds energy to concrete, it is well suited for
measuring high-microfines concrete and other highly thixotropic concrete
mixtures. Field testing confirmed the portability of the ICAR rheometer. The low
iii
cost and portable form factor of the ICAR rheometer can make the routine
measurement of concrete rheology in the field an economically viable solution to
characterizing concrete workability.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................. xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1

1.1 Research Background............................................................................ 1
1.2 Historical Perspective............................................................................ 4
1.3 Research Objectives .............................................................................. 8
1.4 Project Scope......................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2: FLUID RHEOLOGY..................................................................... 11

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 11
2.2 Properties of Fluids ............................................................................. 11
2.2.1 Definition of a Liquid................................................................. 12
2.2.2 Constitutive Equations for Fluid Flow ....................................... 14
2.2.3 Thixotropy and Anti-Thixotropy................................................ 17
2.2.4 Dilatancy .................................................................................... 18
2.2.5 Viscosity..................................................................................... 18
2.2.5.1 Definition .................................................................... 18
2.2.5.2 Origin of Viscosity in Fluid Suspensions.................... 21
2.2.6 Yield Stress ................................................................................ 23
2.3 Measurement of Rheology ..................................................................... 25
2.3.1 Capillary Tube Viscometers....................................................... 25
2.3.1.1 Description .................................................................. 25
2.3.1.2 Derivation of Equations for Capillary Tube
Viscometers ....................................................................... 26
2.3.2 Rotational Rheometers ............................................................... 29
2.3.2.1 Description .................................................................. 29
2.3.2.2 Derivation of Equations for Coaxial Cylinders
Rheometers........................................................................ 31
v
2.3.2.3 Effects of Dead Zones in Coaxial Cylinders
Rheometers........................................................................ 37
2.3.2.4 Methods to Correct for Dead Zones in Coaxial
Cylinders Rheometers ....................................................... 45
2.3.2.5 End Effects .................................................................. 51
2.3.3 Special Topics in the Measurement of Rheology....................... 52
2.3.3.1 Deborah Number ......................................................... 52
2.3.3.2 Estimation of Shear Rate............................................. 53
2.3.3.3 Relative Rheometers ................................................... 54
2.3.3.4 Slip at Boundaries (Wall Effect) ................................. 56
2.4 Rheology of Concentrated Suspensions .............................................. 57
2.4.1 Direct Yield Stress Measurements in Rotational Rheometers ... 57
2.4.2 Use of Vane for Direct Yield Stress Measurements .................. 60
2.4.2.1 Overview ..................................................................... 60
2.4.2.2 Vane Dimensions ........................................................ 61
2.4.2.3 Location of Yielding ................................................... 63
2.4.2.4 End Effects and the Calculation of Yield Stress ......... 65
2.4.2.5 Effect of Rotation Speed on Stress Growth Test
Results ............................................................................... 69
2.4.2.6 Measurement System Stiffness ................................... 70
2.4.3 Extension of Vane Geometry to Viscosity Measurements......... 70
2.5 Application of Fluid Rheology Concepts to Concrete ........................ 72
CHAPTER 3: FACTORS INFLUENCING CONCRETE RHEOLOGY AND

WORKABILITY.......................................................................................... 77
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 77
3.2 Effects of Cement................................................................................ 78
3.2.1 Cement Content.......................................................................... 78
3.2.2 Cement Characteristics............................................................... 78
3.3 Effects of Water Content..................................................................... 79
3.4 Effects of Aggregates .......................................................................... 80
vi
3.4.1 Aggregate Volume Fraction ....................................................... 80
3.4.2 Sand-to-Aggregate Ratio............................................................ 80
3.4.3 Shape and Texture...................................................................... 81
3.4.4 Gradation.................................................................................... 81
3.4.5 Microfines Content..................................................................... 82
3.5 Effects of Chemical Admixtures ......................................................... 83
3.5.1 Water-Reducing Admixtures...................................................... 83
3.5.2 Air Entrainment Agents ............................................................. 86
3.5.3 Viscosity Modifying Admixtures............................................... 86
3.6 Effects of Supplementary Cementitious Materials.............................. 87
3.6.1 Fly Ash ....................................................................................... 87
3.6.2 Silica Fume................................................................................. 88
3.6.3 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag...................................... 89
3.7 Effects of Fibers .................................................................................. 90
3.8 Summary ............................................................................................. 90
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL APPROACHES TO

WORKABILITY CHARACTERIZATION ................................................ 93
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 93
4.2 Assessment of Existing Workability Test Methods ............................ 93
4.3 Feedback from Industry, Government, and Academia........................ 98
4.4 Criteria for New Workability Test Methods ..................................... 100
4.5 Selection of the Most Promising Approach for Workability
Characterization ................................................................................ 102
CHAPTER 5: DEVELOPMENT OF THE ICAR RHEOMETER ..................... 105

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 105
5.2 Overview of Development Process ................................................... 105
5.3 Selection of Potential Impellers ........................................................ 107
5.3.1 General Concepts ..................................................................... 108
5.3.2 Evaluation of Existing Impellers.............................................. 111
vii
5.3.2.1 Tattersall Two-Point Device ..................................... 111
5.3.2.2 IBB Rheometer.......................................................... 116
5.3.2.3 Fresh Concrete Tester (FCT 101).............................. 117
5.3.2.4 Commercially Available Mixing Impellers............... 118
5.3.3 Impeller Selection .................................................................... 121
5.4 Evaluation of Conventional Hand Drill Technology ........................ 121
5.5 Selection of Components .................................................................. 123
5.6 Software ............................................................................................ 129
5.6.1 Graphical User Interface .......................................................... 129
5.6.2 Internal Software Operation ..................................................... 136
CHAPTER 6: EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF OPERATING

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ICAR RHEOMETER............................. 139
6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 139
6.2 Materials, Mixtures, and Test Procedures ......................................... 139
6.3 Impeller Type .................................................................................... 141
6.3.1 Series I Tests – Qualitative Observations ................................ 143
6.3.2 Series II Tests – Quantitative Performance.............................. 151
6.3.3 Series III Tests – Spiral Impellers ............................................ 163
6.3.3.1 Background ............................................................... 163
6.3.3.2 Qualitative Descriptions of Observed Flow
Behavior .......................................................................... 166
6.3.3.3 Quantitative Measurements....................................... 170
6.3.3.4 Conclusions .................................................................. 173
6.3.4 Final Selection.......................................................................... 174
6.4 Optimum Speed for Stress Growth Tests .......................................... 175
6.5 Gap Sizes........................................................................................... 178
viii
6.6 End Effects ........................................................................................ 185
6.7 Conclusions ....................................................................................... 193
CHAPTER 7: LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM.................................... 195

7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 195
7.2 Materials............................................................................................ 195
7.3 Mixture Proportions .......................................................................... 201
7.4 Mixing and Testing Procedures......................................................... 202
7.5 Test Results for Conventional Concrete............................................ 207
7.5.1 Fly Ash ..................................................................................... 207
7.5.2 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag.................................... 209
7.5.3 Silica Fume............................................................................... 211
7.5.4 Water-to-Cement Ratio ............................................................ 213
7.5.5 Water-Reducing Admixtures.................................................... 215
7.5.6 Air-Entraining Agent................................................................ 217
7.5.7 Blends of Natural and Manufactured Sand .............................. 219
7.5.8 Sand-to-Aggregate Ratio.......................................................... 221
7.5.9 Aggregate Microfines............................................................... 223
7.5.10 Slag Aggregate ...................................................................... 226
7.6 Rheometer Performance .................................................................... 228
7.6.1 Repeatability of Test Results.................................................... 228
7.6.2 Calculation of Test Results ...................................................... 231
7.7 Relationships between Rheology and Workability ........................... 235
7.8 Self-Consolidating Concrete ............................................................. 239
7.8.1 Mixture Proportions and Test Procedures ................................ 239
7.8.2 Test Results .............................................................................. 242
7.8.3 Relationships between Rheology and Workability .................. 250
7.8.4 Rheometer Performance ........................................................... 257
ix
7.9 Field Testing...................................................................................... 262
7.10 Workability Range ............................................................................ 266
7.11 Conclusions ....................................................................................... 268
CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 271
8.1 Summary ........................................................................................... 271
8.2 Conclusions ....................................................................................... 272
8.2.1 Concrete Workability Characterization.................................... 272
8.2.2 Development of the ICAR Rheometer ..................................... 274
8.2.3 Testing of ICAR Rheometer .................................................... 275
8.3 Recommendations for Future Work .................................................. 277
REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 281
APPENDIX A: LABORATORY TEST DATA FOR CONVENTIONAL

CONCRETE MIXTURES ......................................................................... 291
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TEST DATA FOR SELF-

CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE MIXTURES........................................ 303
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Sample Calculation for Effective Annulus Method ............................. 49
Table 2.2: Recommended Vane Dimensions from Nguyen and Boger (1985) .... 62
Table 2.3: Requirements for Vane for Soil Undrained Shear Strength
Measurements (ASTM D 2573) ....................................................... 62
Table 3.1: Summary of Factors Influencing Concrete Rheology.......................... 91
Table 4.1: Variability in Slump Test Measurements in Highway Applications
(Baker and McMahon 1969) ............................................................ 96
Table 5.1: Preliminary Design Requirements for ICAR Rheometer .................. 106
Table 5.2: Gap Sizes in Existing Concrete Rheometers...................................... 109
Table 6.1: Mixture Proportions for Chapter 6 Tests ........................................... 140
Table 6.2: Qualitative Observations for Mix 1 (5-Inch Slump) .......................... 144
Table 6.3: Qualitative Observations for Mix 2 (1/2-Inch Slump)....................... 146
Table 6.4: Concrete Properties for Series II Impeller Type Tests....................... 151
Table 6.5: Average Percentage Reduction in Torque for Each Impeller ............ 153
Table 6.6: Torque after 90 Seconds of Breakdown............................................. 155
Table 6.7: Average Relative Flow Curve Parameters for Each Impeller............ 157
Table 6.8: Flow Curve Measurements for Mix 1 ................................................ 158
Table 6.9: Flow Curve Measurements for Mix 2 ................................................ 159
Table 6.10: Flow Curve Measurements for Mix 3 .............................................. 160
Table 6.11: Flow Curve Measurements for Mix 4 .............................................. 161
Table 6.12: Manufacturer’s Recommended Uses for Spiral Impellers ............... 165
Table 6.13: Concrete Properties for Series III Impeller Type Tests ................... 166
xi
Table 6.14: Observations for Spiral Impellers .................................................... 167
Table 6.15: Average Percentage Reduction in Torque for Each Spiral Impeller 171
Table 6.16: Average Relative Parameters for Each Impeller (Forward
Direction) ....................................................................................... 172
Table 6.17: Average Relative Parameters for Each Impeller (Mix 4, Reverse
Direction) ....................................................................................... 173
Table 6.18: Concrete Properties for Tests of Optimum Stress Growth Test
Speed .............................................................................................. 175
Table 6.19: Results of Tests for Optimum Stress Growth Test Speed................ 177
Table 6.20: Concrete Properties for Gap Size Tests ........................................... 179
Table 6.21: Testing of Horizontal Side Gap ....................................................... 180
Table 6.22: Effect of Horizontal Side Gap.......................................................... 180
Table 6.23: Effects of Top Cover and Bottom Gap ............................................ 181
Table 6.24: Concrete Properties for End Effects Testing.................................... 185
Table 6.25: Test Data for End Effects Testing.................................................... 186
Table 6.26: Determination of End Effects for Stress Growth Test ..................... 188
Table 6.27: Yield Stress Values Determined from Method 1 ............................. 189
Table 6.28: Yield Stress Values Determined from Method II ............................ 190
Table 6.29: Torque Attributable to Side of Effective Cylinder Based on
Method III for 5-Inch Vane ............................................................ 191
Table 6.30: Determination of End Effects for Flow Curve Measurements......... 192
Table 6.31: Summary of Results from Chapter 6................................................ 194
Table 7.1: Chemical and Physical Properties of Cement .................................... 196
xii
Table 7.2: Aggregate Properties.......................................................................... 197
Table 7.3: Aggregate Particle Size Distributions ................................................ 198
Table 7.4: Proportions of Base Mixtures ............................................................ 202
Table 7.5: Visual Observations of Fresh Concrete ............................................. 206
Table 7.6: Coefficients of Determination from Flow Curve Measurements....... 228
Table 7.7: Self-Consolidating Concrete Mixture Proportions ............................ 240
Table 7.8: Visual Stability Index Ratings (Daczko 2002) .................................. 242
Table 7.9: Mixture Proportions for Field Testing ............................................... 263
Table 7.10: Field Testing Results........................................................................ 265
Table A.1: Fly Ash Test Data.............................................................................. 292
Table A.2: Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Test Data ............................ 293
Table A.3: Silica Fume Test Data ....................................................................... 294
Table A.4: Water-to-Cement Ratio Test Data..................................................... 295
Table A.5: Water-Reducing Admixtures Test Data ............................................ 296
Table A.6: Air-Entraining Agent Test Data ........................................................ 297
Table A.7: Natural Sand/Manufactured Sand Blends Test Data......................... 298
Table A.8: Sand-to-Aggregate Ratio Test Data .................................................. 299
Table A.9: Aggregate Microfines Test Data ....................................................... 300
Table A.10: Slag Aggregate Test Data................................................................ 301
Table B.1: Self-Consolidating Concrete Test Data (Section 1 of 3) ................... 304
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Storage of Limestone Microfines at a Quarry ...................................... 3
Figure 1.2: Apparatus for Slump Flow Test (Ahlers and Walker 1924)................. 7
Figure 2.1: Two-Dimensional Representation of Viscous Flow........................... 12
Figure 2.2: Basic Constitutive Relationships for Flow ......................................... 14
Figure 2.3: Thixotropy .......................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.4: Schematic of Viscosity Decrease at Low Shear Stresses as
Measured in Controlled-Stress Rheometer ...................................... 24
Figure 2.5: Extrusion Capillary Tube Viscometer ................................................ 26
Figure 2.6: Generalized Capillary Tube Viscometer............................................. 26
Figure 2.7: Typical Rotational Rheometer Geometries ........................................ 30
Figure 2.8: Top View of a Coaxial Cylinders Rheometer..................................... 32
Figure 2.9: Flow of a Bingham Material in a Coaxial Cylinders Rheometer –
No Dead Zone .................................................................................. 38
Dead Zone Present ........................................................................... 39
Figure 2.11: Minimum Rotation Speed to Eliminate Dead Zone ......................... 41
Figure 2.12: Influence of Dead Zone on Measured Torque versus Rotation
Speed Curve ..................................................................................... 42
Figure 2.13: Influence of Ratio of Yield Stress to Plastic Viscosity on Errors
due to Neglecting Dead Zone (Rotation Speed = 10 rpm to 60
rpm) .................................................................................................. 43
xiv
Figure 2.14: Influence of Radii Ratio on Errors Due to Dead Zone (Rotation
Speed = 10 rpm to 60 rpm)............................................................... 44
Figure 2.15: Sample Calculation for Effective Annulus Method.......................... 50
Figure 2.16: Typical Relative Rheometer Results for Concrete ........................... 56
Figure 2.17: Wall Effect........................................................................................ 57
Figure 2.18: Typical Results for a Stress-Controlled Stress Growth Test ............ 58
Figure 2.19: Typical Results for a Rate-Controlled Stress Growth Test .............. 59
Figure 2.20: Typical Vane Impeller ...................................................................... 60
Figure 2.21: Yield Surface Superimposed on Finite Element Mesh for a Four-
Bladed Vane (Keentok, Milthorpe, and O’Donovan 1985) ............. 64
Figure 2.22: Schematic Representation of Yielding Process in a Stress Growth
Test (Yan and James 1997) .............................................................. 65
Figure 2.23: Effect of Rotation Speed on Yield Stress (Saak, Jennings, and
Shah 2001)........................................................................................ 69
Figure 2.24: Finite Element Solution Streamlines for Narrow Gap Vane-in-
Cup Rheometer (Barnes and Carnali 1990) ..................................... 71
Figure 2.25: Shear Stress Distribution in Annulus Based on Finite Element
Analysis (Barnes and Carnali 1990)................................................. 72
Figure 2.26: Workability Box for a Specific Application ..................................... 76
Figure 5.1: Mk I Apparatus (Tattersall and Banfill 1983) .................................. 112
Figure 5.2: Square Anchor for Mk I Apparatus (Tattersall and Banfill 1983).... 113
Figure 5.3: Mk II Apparatus and Interrupted Helix Impeller (Tattersall and
Banfill 1983) .................................................................................. 115
xv
Figure 5.4: Two-Blade Impeller (Tattersall and Banfill 1983) ........................... 115
Figure 5.5: H-Shaped Impeller for the Mk III Apparatus (Tattersall and Banfill
1983)............................................................................................... 116
Figure 5.6: IBB Rheometer and Impeller............................................................ 117
Figure 5.7: FCT 101 (from Product Literature) .................................................. 118
Figure 5.8: “Egg Beater” Mixing Impeller for Mortar........................................ 119
Figure 5.9: Drum Mixer for Mortar, Plaster, and Granulates ............................. 120
Figure 5.10: Mixing Impeller for Drywall Joint Compound, Drywall Texture,
and Paint......................................................................................... 120
Figure 5.11: First Generation Prototype of ICAR Rheometer ............................ 124
Figure 5.12: ICAR Rheometer Mounted in Frame and Positioned above
Container ........................................................................................ 126
Figure 5.13: Positioning Rod in Channel ............................................................ 127
Figure 5.14: Rendering of Prototype and Envisioned Mass-Production Version128
Figure 5.15: Graphical User Interface for the ICAR Rheometer Software......... 130
Figure 5.16: Typical Test Summary File ............................................................ 134
Figure 5.17: Typical Speed versus Time Plot for Flow Curve Measurement in
Concrete ......................................................................................... 137
Figure 6.1: Potential Impellers ............................................................................ 142
Figure 6.2: Flow of Concrete around Impellers – Mix 1 (5-Inch Slump) ........... 145
Figure 6.3: Flow of Concrete around Impellers – Mix 2 (1/2 Inch Slump) ........ 147
Figure 6.4: Flow around Vane in Uncovered Case ............................................. 148
Figure 6.5: Voids Left by Impellers – Mix 2 ...................................................... 150
xvi
Figure 6.6: Typical Reduction in Torque over Time (Rotation Speed = 40
rpm) ................................................................................................ 152
Figure 6.7: Percentage Reduction in Torque for Each Mixture .......................... 154
Figure 6.8: Torque after 90 Seconds of Breakdown ........................................... 155
Figure 6.9: Average R2 Terms for Each Impeller, 16-Inch Container ................ 162
Figure 6.10: Spiral Impellers............................................................................... 164
Figure 6.11: Intended Flow Direction for Spiral Impellers (From
Manufacturer’s Packaging) ............................................................ 165
Figure 6.12: Flow of Concrete around Spiral Impellers – Mix 1 (5-Inch
Slump) ............................................................................................ 168
Figure 6.13: Flow of Concrete around Spiral Impellers Operated in Reverse –
Mix 4 (3.5-Inch Slump).................................................................. 169
Figure 6.14: Typical Stress Growth Plots at Various Rotation Speeds............... 176
Figure 6.15: Results of Tests for Optimum Stress Growth Test Speed .............. 178
Figure 6.16: Effect of Top Cover at 0.025 rev/sec (Bottom Gap = 5 Inches)..... 182
Figure 6.17: Effect of Bottom Gap at 0.025 rev/sec (Top Cover = 5 Inches)..... 183
Figure 6.18: Effect of Top Cover at 0.667 rev/sec (Bottom Gap = 5 Inches)..... 184
Figure 6.19: Effect of Bottom Gap at 0.667 rev/sec (Top Cover = 5 Inches)..... 184
Figure 6.20: Determination of End Effects: 0.025 rev/sec, 16-Inch Container .. 187
Figure 7.1: Aggregate Particle Size Distributions............................................... 198
xvii
Figure 7.2: Amount of Microfines Remaining in Each Size Fraction after
Standard Sieving Operation for Limestone and Granite
Manufactured Sands ....................................................................... 201
Figure 7.3: ICAR Rheometer Dimensions .......................................................... 205
Figure 7.4: Influence of Fly Ash on Rheology.................................................... 208
Figure 7.5: Influence of GGBFS on Rheology ................................................... 210
Figure 7.6: Influence of Silica Fume on Rheology ............................................. 212
Figure 7.7: Influence of Water-to-Cement Ratio on Rheology........................... 214
Figure 7.8: Influence of Water Reducers on Rheology....................................... 216
Figure 7.9: Influence of Air Content on Rheology ............................................. 218
Figure 7.10: Influence of Blended Sands on Rheology ...................................... 220
Figure 7.11: Influence of Sand-to-Aggregate Ratio of Rheology ....................... 222
Figure 7.12: Influence of Microfines Content on Rheology ............................... 224
Figure 7.13: Influence of Changing Sand Particle Size Distribution in High-
Microfines Mixtures....................................................................... 225
Figure 7.14: Influence of Slag Aggregate ........................................................... 227
Figure 7.15: Comparison of Rheometer Results from First and Second Tests ... 230
Figure 7.16: Comparison of Yield Value and Yield Stress (First Test).............. 232
Figure 7.17: Comparison of Viscosity Value and Plastic Viscosity (First Test) 233
Figure 7.18: Comparison of Yield Torque and Yield Stress (First Test)............ 234
Figure 7.19: Yield Stress and Plastic Viscosity Measurements for All
Conventional Concrete Tested ....................................................... 235
Figure 7.20: Workability Boxes for Segregation Resistance Rating................... 236
xviii
Figure 7.21: Workability Boxes for Overall Workability Rating ....................... 237
Figure 7.22: Workability Boxes for Average of All Ratings .............................. 237
Figure 7.23: Influence of Water-to-Cement Ratio on SCC Rheology ................ 243
Figure 7.24: Influence of Water-to-Cement Ratio on Slump Flow..................... 244
Figure 7.25: Influence of Cement Content on SCC Rheology............................ 245
Figure 7.26: Influence of Cement Content on Slump Flow ................................ 246
Figure 7.27: Influence of Fly Ash on SCC Rheology ......................................... 247
Figure 7.28: Influence of Fly Ash on Slump Flow ............................................. 248
Figure 7.29: Influence of Sand Type on SCC Rheology..................................... 249
Figure 7.30: Influence of Sand Type on Slump Flow ......................................... 250
Figure 7.31: Yield Stress and Plastic Viscosity from ICAR Rheometer for All
SCC Measurements ........................................................................ 251
Figure 7.32: Slump Flow Test for Excellent SCC Mixture (Mix 5, Test 4,
Slump Flow = 27 Inches, VSI = 0, T50 = 5 sec) ............................. 252
Figure 7.33: No Segregation Evident in Slump Flow Test (Mix 5, Test 4,
Slump Flow = 27 Inches, VSI=0) .................................................. 253

Figure 7.34: Slight Mortar Halo Evident in Slump Flow Test (Mix 8, Test 2,
Slump Flow = 30.5 Inches, VSI=2)................................................ 253
Figure 7.35: Severe Segregation (Mix 13, Test 1, Slump Flow = 31 Inches,
VSI = 3).......................................................................................... 254
Figure 7.36: Relationships between Slump Flow and Rheological Parameters.. 255
Figure 7.37: Relationships between T50 and Rheological Parameters ................ 256
Figure 7.38: Comparison of Parameters from ICAR Rheometer........................ 258
xix
Figure 7.39: Evidence of Flow throughout ICAR Rheometer Container for
SCC Mix......................................................................................... 258
Figure 7.40: Comparison of Rheological Parameters from BTRHEOM and
ICAR Rheometer............................................................................ 259
Figure 7.41: Evolution of Yield Stress and Plastic Viscosity over Time (Mix
10)................................................................................................... 261
12)................................................................................................... 261
Figure 7.43: Field Testing with Rheometer ........................................................ 264
Figure 7.44: Results of Field Testing– Series I................................................... 265
Figure 7.45: Results of Field Testing – Series II................................................. 266
Figure 7.46: Zero Slump Concrete Tested with Vane Impeller (Concrete Filled
to One Inch below Top of Vane).................................................... 267
xx
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND

The workability of fresh concrete—that is, the ease with which it can be
transported, placed, consolidated, and finished—is a critical property that has a
direct impact on the strength, durability, appearance, and cost of concrete. For
more than eighty years, the workability of fresh concrete has been measured
predominately throughout the world with one simplistic test method—the slump
test. In the slump test, a sample of fresh concrete is placed in a 12-inch tall cone
mold. The mold is removed and the vertical distance the concrete subsides, or
slumps, is recorded as a measure of workability. Whereas workability is a broadly
defined term, the slump test measures only one aspect of workability, namely,
consistency. Other aspects of workability are commonly described in subjective,
qualitative terms.
Although the introduction of the slump test as an ASTM standard test
method in 1922 represented an important advance in the design and control of
concrete mixtures, the slump test is now viewed as incapable of providing an
adequate characterization of the workability of today’s much more advanced
concrete mixtures. Modern concrete production systems have not eliminated the
need to monitor concrete workability in the field. To the contrary, the advent of
new so-called high-performance concrete mixes, which can incorporate a wide
array of different materials and can be susceptible to small changes in mixture
proportions, has made the monitoring of workability even more critical. Concrete
mixtures that include certain materials—such as aggregate microfines, fiber
reinforcement, ground granulated blast furnace slag, and new classes of chemical
1
admixtures—cannot be characterized properly with the slump test. Such materials
can have profound effects on workability, yet the slump test often produces false
or misleading results for concretes made with these materials.
The lack of a viable concrete workability test method has engendered
reluctance in the concrete industry in specifying non-standard materials. For
instance, the use of high contents of aggregates microfines are prohibited in
current specifications, such as ASTM C 33, in part because of concerns about
workability. ASTM C 33 was developed based on the use of natural river sand in
the production of concrete. As the availability of natural river sand has decreased,
the use of manufactured sand has become more important. Manufactured sand is
produced extracting rock from a quarry and crushing it down to the size of sand.
This crushing process creates dust-of-fracture microfines, which by definition
have a maximum particle size of 75 µm. Although research has shown that
manufactured sands with up to 20% dust-of-fracture microfines by mass of the
fine aggregate can be used to make high-quality concrete (Ahn and Fowler 2001;
Quiroga 2003), the workability of such concrete can be much different than
concrete made with natural river sands. Specifically, concrete with a high
microfines content may appear to be stiff and unworkable when observed in a
static state (such as with the slump test); however, once flow is initiated in the
concrete, the workability is much better. In order to meet the current ASTM C 33
specification, aggregates producers must wash their crushed aggregates to remove
microfines. The microfines must be stored, as shown in Figure 1.1, and then sold
or disposed. Although limited uses do exist for microfines, much of the material
becomes a waste product. If higher percentages of microfines were permitted in
concrete, the process of washing and storing aggregate microfines could be
sharply reduced, or even eliminated. Therefore, the increased utilization of high-
microfines concrete, enabled by an enhanced test method for concrete
2
workability, would reduce aggregate production costs and create a new market for
a current waste product.
Figure 1.1: Storage of Limestone Microfines at a Quarry
The slump test is also ineffective for self-consolidating concrete (SCC), an

advanced type of highly flowable concrete that can exhibit superior hardened
properties and result in significantly reduced labor costs. SCC is engineered to
flow readily under its own weight through the incorporation of chemical
admixtures and the utilization of improved particle size distributions. In order for
SCC to be used successfully, its workability must be carefully monitored and
controlled.
A robust field test method for concrete workability is clearly needed. Yet
the challenges of developing a new test method that is simple, relevant, and
accurate has proven daunting. A myriad of test procedures for determining
workability has been developed for research, mixture proportioning, and field use;
however, the vast majority of these test methods has never found any use beyond
one or two initial studies. The concrete industry has made strides in applying the
concepts of rheology—that is, the scientific study of the flow and deformation of
matter—to the workability of fresh concrete. By providing a scientific description
3
of the fundamental flow properties of cement paste, mortar, and concrete,
rheology represents a useful method of characterizing concrete workability.
Previous attempts to use rotational rheometers—which measure the amount of
stress needed to generate a range of flow rates in a fluid—for concrete have
proven promising. The existing rheometers that have been built, however, are too
large and expensive for routine use, especially in the field. Even with the increase
in knowledge of concrete rheology, the slump test remains the most commonly
used test method for measuring concrete workability.
The need for improved workability testing technology is well established.
According to the “Roadmap 2030” study for the US concrete industry, which was
facilitated by the Strategic Development Council of the American Concrete
Institute, the development of “portable testing technologies for use at the jobsite”
is a “high priority research need” (SDC 2002, 23). The roadmap specifically
states that “field tests are needed to measure fundamental rheological properties
of fresh concrete” (SDC 2002, 23). A separate survey conducted by the National
Ready Mixed Concrete Association identified the need for a better method to
characterize the workability of high-performance concrete (Ferraris and Lobo
1998). A viable, accurate, and relevant concrete workability test method would
foster an improved understanding of concrete workability, reduce concrete
construction costs, improve hardened concrete quality, and promote the use of
new and underutilized materials.
1.2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Workability has always been a key characteristic of fresh concrete. As
such, considerable effort has been expended to develop rapid, relevant, and robust
test methods for characterizing workability. A brief but instructive look at the
history of workability measurement helps to establish an understanding of the
4
difficulty of measuring concrete workability and to place current rheology-based
test methods in proper perspective.
The American concrete industry at the beginning of the 1900s had no
standard test methods to measure workability. Instead, subjective, qualitative
descriptions of “consistency” were typically given. While recognizing that
concrete consistency was of “utmost importance,” Taylor and Thompson (1922,
250) divided concrete consistency into three simplistic and vague categories:
“dry” consistency, “medium or quaking” consistency, and “wet or mushy”
consistency. Wig (1912) presented research that was representative of the state of
the art of the time. In his study, three different concrete contractors were given
identical quantities of cement and aggregates and instructed to prepare concrete
mixes as they normally would. Beams cast of the resulting concrete differed in
strength by more than 200% for the hand-mixed batches and 90% for the
machine-mixed batches. Summarizing the results, Wig conceded that the water
content “perhaps had the greatest effect upon the strength [emphasis added]” but
stressed the importance of mixing and handling. This lack in understanding of
workability and of the importance of water content on concrete properties
severely impaired concrete quality.
The concrete industry took a dramatic step forward in 1918 when Duff
Abrams, a leading concrete researcher at the time, published his seminal Design
of Concrete Mixtures, in which he showed unequivocally that concrete strength
was directly related to the ratio of water-to-cement—what Abrams called the
water ratio. Whereas other mixture proportioning procedures of that time focused
mainly on achieving an optimum packing of aggregates and considered the water
content to be subordinate, Abrams showed that the water-to-cement ratio was the
most important parameter in developing mixture proportions and that it should be
set as low as possible on the condition that proper workability could be achieved.
To define workability, Abrams suggested determining a “relative consistency”
5
term calculated by measuring the distance fresh concrete slumped after being
molded in a 6-inch by 12-inch cylinder—the slump test. Although it may be
difficult to appreciate today, the concrete industry of the 1920s truly did not
understand the importance of water content. Abrams would later write, “I believe
that the big thing [the slump] test can do is to bring home the importance of water
control in building construction” (Abrams 1922, 178).
The slump test was adopted quickly. In a survey of 40 state highway
departments conducted in 1918 and 1919, only three states had requirements for
slump while all of the other states only had general provisions. By 1924, 25 of 47
state highway departments surveyed had explicit requirements for the slump of
concrete used in concrete road building (Johnson 1924). In comparison, 39 of 50
state departments of transportation had specific requirements for slump for
concrete pavements in 2004 (ACPA 2004).
Although the slump test was quickly accepted due to its simplicity, the
concrete industry immediately recognized that the slump test was inadequate for
fully and properly characterizing workability. From the 1920s to the present, a
profusion of test methods has been introduced to improve workability
characterization. The majority of tests developed since the 1920s are empirical—
that is, they attempt to simulate a field placement condition and measure a value,
such as time or distance, which serves as an index of workability. One early
empirical test, pictured in Figure 1.2, consisted of measuring the horizontal spread
of a concrete specimen formed in a slump cone and subjected to jolting on a drop
table. Attempts have also been made to measure the fundamental properties of
concrete instead of empirical values. Fundamental parameters provide a standard,
scientific description of concrete that is independent of the test device used.
Indeed, devices introduced as early as the 1920s attempted to measure concrete
viscosity, although the thinking behind such devices was inchoate (Smith and
Conahey 1928; Bates and Dwyer 1928). Prior to World War II, several
6
unsuccessful attempts were made to develop rheometers to measure concrete
(Powers 1968). Not until the 1970s, though, were rheometers developed that
could successfully provide reasonably accurate measurements of concrete
(Tattersall and Banfill 1983). Many of the concrete rheometers in use today are
based on the work done in the 1970s. Through the use of these devices, concrete
rheology has emerged as a viable technique for characterizing the workability of
fresh cement paste, mortar, and concrete. Despite the advancements made in
concrete rheology, much more work remains to be done in order to allow
rheology to be used on a widespread basis.
Figure 1.2: Apparatus for Slump Flow Test (Ahlers and Walker 1924)
While the concrete industry has changed significantly over the last eight
decades, the slump test has remained unchanged. The slump test was developed at
a time when water content was directly related to both strength and workability.
By giving an indication of the water content for a given mixture, the slump test
also provided a means of ensuring adequate hardened strength. With the wide
7
array of materials available for use in modern concrete, the relationships between
water content and both strength and workability are no longer as simple as they
once were. While increasing the water content typically increases fluidity and
reduces strength, increasing fluidity does not necessarily reduce strength. This
fact demonstrates the limited usefulness of the slump test. In particular, the slump
test should not be used to define workability in absolute terms or to predict
strength. Instead, it is best suited as a quality control device. According to
Kosmatka, Kerkhoff, and Panarese (2002), the slump test should only be used to
compare concretes with similar mixture proportions in order to detect changes in
the water content, characteristics of materials, mixture proportions, or mixing
operations. In reality, the concrete slump test is used to measure much more,
despite the clear limitations of the test. While the value of ready-mixed concrete
produced annually in the United States now exceeds $100 billion (SDC 2002), the
industry relies on a simple test, for which the equipment cost less than $30, to
attempt to ensure adequate workability. The direct and indirect costs of poor
concrete workability, however, can be significant and point to the clear need for
an improved technique for characterizing workability.
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the research described in this report is to identify an
effective field test method for measuring the workability of concrete in general
and of high-microfines concrete in particular. Such a test method should be
robust, portable, relevant to current concrete materials, low-cost, and accurate.
The test method can be an existing test method, a modification to an existing test
method, or an entirely new test method.
8
1.4 PROJECT SCOPE
To accomplish the research objectives, the research project was divided
into three parts. First, a literature review was conducted to assess the current state
of the art and to determine needs for future workability test methods. The
literature review focused on fluid rheology, concrete workability, and existing
concrete workability test methods. Feedback was sought from industry,
government, and academia. Second, the ICAR rheometer, a new portable test
device, was developed based on the requirements determined in the first stage of
the project. Finally, the ICAR rheometer was tested on a series of concrete
mixtures covering nearly the full range of concrete workability in order to verify
its ability to characterize workability adequately and accurately.
This report is split into eight chapters, including the introduction. The
results of the literature review are presented in Chapters 2 and 3, with Chapter 2
covering fluid rheology and Chapter 3 describing factors influencing rheology and
workability. An associated summary of existing workability test methods was
published separately as ICAR Report 105.1 (Koehler and Fowler 2003). Chapter 4
provides an evaluation of the lessons learned from the literature review and
identifies the ICAR rheometer as the most promising approach for workability
characterization. The development of the ICAR rheometer is described in detail in
Chapter 5. The initial testing conducted to determine certain operating
characteristics of the ICAR rheometer is described in Chapter 6. Chapter 7
describes the series of tests conducted to validate the ability of the ICAR
rheometer to provide an adequate and accurate description of workability. Chapter
8 presents the summary and conclusions for the research project and list
recommendations for future work.
9
This page replaces an intentionally blank page in the original.
CHAPTER 2: FLUID RHEOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Fluid rheology is a well-established, widely used science that is directly
applicable to the workability of fresh concrete. Although fresh concrete can be
considered a fluid, the characterization of the rheology of fresh concrete is
complicated by the fact that concrete is a complex material with time-dependent
properties and a wide range of particle sizes. Essentially, fresh concrete is a
concentrated suspension of aggregates in cement paste. The cement paste itself is
a concentrated suspension of cement grains in water. Fortunately, the rheology
literature is replete with experiences in measuring the rheology of concentrated
suspensions. The lessons learned by others in characterizing materials similar to
concrete are highly relevant to the application of rheology to fresh concrete
workability. This chapter describes the basic concepts of fluid rheology germane
to fresh concrete, including basic fluid properties and the techniques available for
measuring these properties.
2.2 PROPERTIES OF FLUIDS

Although rheology is concerned with the flow and deformation of
matter—including liquids, solids, and gasses—the term rheology is mainly used
to refer to the study of liquids. Topics such as elasticity are not typically
considered in the formal study of rheology.
11
2.2.1 Definition of a Liquid
To define a liquid, it is useful to make a distinction between an elastic
solid and a viscous liquid. If a constant stress is applied to an elastic solid, the
material will undergo a finite deformation; this deformation will be fully
recovered upon removal of the load. For a linear-elastic solid material subjected
to an applied stress, σ , and undergoing a strain, ε , the constitutive equation is
given in Equation (2.1). The coefficient of proportionality relating stress and
strain is the modulus of elasticity, E.
σ = Eε (2.1)
In terms of shear properties, the shear stress, τ , on an elastic solid is

related to the shear strain, γ , by the shear modulus, G:
τ = Gγ (2.2)
In contrast to an elastic solid, a viscous liquid deforms continuously due to

an applied shear stress for as long as the shear stress is applied; this deformation
will not be recovered once the load is removed. The two-dimensional case for the
flow of a liquid between two parallel plates of sufficient length such that end
effects can be ignored is represented in Figure 2.1.
F
v
y
Figure 2.1: Two-Dimensional Representation of Viscous Flow

12
In viscous flow, the shear stress and the time rate at which shear stress is
applied are related—the faster the fluid is sheared the greater the shear stress that
is required. For the case of constant flow, the shear stress, τ , is related to the
shear rate, γ& , by the coefficient of viscosity, η :
τ = ηγ& (2.3)
In the case shown in Figure 2.1, the shear rate is equal to the velocity
gradient:
dv
γ& = (2.4)
dy
As will be shown later in Section 2.3.2.2, Equation (2.4) does not hold true
for all cases, such as for circular flow in a coaxial cylinders rheometer.
The distinction between a solid and a liquid is not as clear as the above
distinction would make it seem. Certain inelastic solid materials can undergo
irrecoverable deformations over a certain range of strains. Likewise, viscous
fluids may behave as elastic solids at very low shear strains. A viscoelastic
material exhibits both a viscous and elastic response under a constant stress. Thus,
from a rheological standpoint, it is not important to distinguish between solids and
liquids in a formal sense but to consider the relevant type of behavior under a
particular loading of a given material. Indeed, Whorlow (1992, 9) states that a
“formal distinction between solids and liquids…is of little practical value.”
Further, it has been argued that given sufficient time, all materials flow (Barnes
1999).
13
2.2.2 Constitutive Equations for Fluid Flow
Equation (2.3) represents one combination of shear stress and shear rate
during steady flow; however, in measuring the rheology of a material it is
important to know the flow properties over a range of shear stresses and shear
rates. The relationship between shear stress and shear rate is represented
graphically in a flow curve. Fluids may be distinguished by their flow curves.
Various models—or constitutive equations—have been developed to idealize flow
curves. Six of the most common constitutive relationships associated with
concrete are plotted in Figure 2.2.
Casson
Herschel-Bulkley
Shear Stress
Bingham
Power Law
(Shear Thickening)
Newtonian
Power-Law
(Shear Thinning)
Shear Rate
Figure 2.2: Basic Constitutive Relationships for Flow
The most basic constitutive equation is for a Newtonian fluid, where the
linear relationship between shear stress and shear rate—given above as Equation
14
(2.3)—applies for the entire range of shear rates. As such, viscosity is a material
constant:
τ = ηγ&
Although the Newtonian model is a simple equation that represents basic

fluid flow, it fails to represent adequately the flow response of most fluids,
including many concrete mixtures. Specifically, the Newtonian model assumes
that the relationship between shear stress and shear rate is linear and that the flow
curve intercepts the shear stress axis at the origin. In reality, most fluids do not
behave linearly. Many fluids possess some minimum stress—namely, a yield
stress—that must be exceeded before flow occurs. The concept of a yield stress is
readily seen in the concrete slump test. When the slump cone is first removed, the
stress induced by gravity is sufficient to exceed the yield stress. As a result, the
concrete flows briefly until the height of the concrete is low enough that the stress
induced by gravity no longer exceeds the yield stress. Materials that exhibit a
yield stress are considered to be viscoplastic materials. The Bingham model
incorporates a yield stress term, τ 0 , but maintains a linear relationship between
shear stress and shear rate:
τ = τ 0 + µγ& (2.5)
In the Bingham equation, viscosity, η , is often replaced with plastic

viscosity, µ . Technically, the terms viscosity and plastic viscosity refer to the
same physical relationship despite the fact that different terminology is used.
One way to represent nonlinearity is with the power-law model, which
still assumes a zero yield stress but represents the shape of the flow curve as an
exponential relationship:
15
τ = aγ& b (2.6)
In the above equation, both a and b are material constants. If the exponent,
b, is set to less than unity, the flow curve will be concave downward. Such a
relationship is known as shear-thinning, or pseudo-plastic, behavior. If b is set to
greater than unity, the resulting flow curve will be concave upward, representing
shear-thickening behavior.
The Herschel-Bulkley model essentially combines the Bingham equation
and power-law equation to represent both a yield stress and a nonlinear flow
relationship:
τ = τ 0 + aγ& b (2.7)
Setting the exponent, b, equal to unity simply results in the Bingham

equation. In concrete, the Hershcel-Bulkley equation may be either concave
upward or downward over the range of shear rates commonly tested.
Another way to represent nonlinearity of flow in fluids with a yield stress
is given by the Casson model:
τ 1 2 = τ 01 2 + µ 1 2 γ& 1 2 (2.8)
Additional listings of constitutive equations for particulate systems are

given by Hackley and Ferraris (2001) and by Whorlow (1992).
Although any of the above constitutive equations can potentially be used
for concrete, the Bingham equation is used most commonly because of its
accuracy in representing most concrete mixtures and its simplicity in only
requiring the determination of two parameters, yield stress and plastic viscosity.
Even for fluids that exhibit nonlinear flow behavior, the linear Bingham equation
16
may be an acceptable equation over a narrow range of low shear rates. Concrete
mixtures subjected to vibration behave as Newtonian fluids for low shear rates
(Tattersall 1991). Self-consolidating concretes have yield stress values near zero,
and thus approach the behavior of Newtonian or power-law fluids.
Whorlow (1992) has identified three drawbacks of the Bingham model for
measuring fluids in general. First, flow curves are rarely linear in reality. Second,
flow hysteresis often occurs when measuring ascending and descending flow
curves. Third, the yield stress is not a well-defined property.
2.2.3 Thixotropy and Anti-Thixotropy

The measured flow curve often depends on the shear history of the
sample. A thixotropic material experiences a reversible, time-dependent decrease
in viscosity when subjected to constant shearing whereas an anti-thixotropic, or
rheopeptic, material experiences an increase in viscosity (Hackley and Ferraris
2001). Depending on the material, this time-dependence of flow properties can
influence readings for time periods ranging from seconds to days. Figure 2.3
depicts the effect of thixotropy for a test where the shear rate is gradually
increased from zero to a maximum value and then decreased back to zero.
For all thixotropic materials, the up-curve will be above the down-curve.
Conversely, the down-curve will be above the up-curve for anti-thixotropic
materials. The area between the up- and down-curves depends in part on the
material and the amount of time for the reading of each shear rate point—longer
readings allow for a more pronounced thixotropic effect—and should not be taken
as a representation of the degree of thixotropy (Whorlow 1992).
17
Shear Stress
Shear Rate
Figure 2.3: Thixotropy
2.2.4 Dilatancy
Dilatancy is the increase in volume of a fluid during shearing. In
concentrated suspensions, particles sliding past each other lead to such an
expansion in volume. Dilatancy should not be confused with shear-thickening
behavior (Whorlow 1992; Hackley and Ferraris 2001).
2.2.5 Viscosity
2.2.5.1 Definition
Viscosity was defined previously as the coefficient of proportionally
relating shear stress and shear rate under a state of steady shear. For Newtonian
fluids, this viscosity is a material constant that applies for all shear rates. If the
viscosity varies as a function of shear rate, it is referred to as the non-Newtonian
18
viscosity. A variety of viscosity terms are used in practice. Those related to
concrete are described in this section.
The viscosity term previously indicated as η and most commonly used in
concrete technology is the dynamic viscosity, which is given in SI units of Pa.s or
CGS units of poise (1 Pa.s = 10 poise). The kinematic viscosity, v , which is
expressed in units of m2/s or stokes (1 m2/s = 10,000 stokes), is the dynamic
viscosity divided by density, ρ :
η
v= (2.9)
ρ
The apparent viscosity is equal to the shear stress divided by the shear rate
for cases where this quotient is dependent on the shear rate. For nonlinear flow
curves, the apparent viscosity is simply the slope of a line drawn from the origin
to a point on a flow curve.
The differential viscosity, η diff , is defined as the derivative of shear stress
with respect to shear rate:
∂τ
η diff = (2.10)
∂γ&
The plastic viscosity, µ , is defined as the limit of the differential viscosity

as the shear rate approaches infinity:
∂τ
η pl = µ = lim (2.11)
γ& → ∞ ∂γ&
For Bingham materials, the plastic viscosity is equal to the differential

viscosity for all shear rates. For non-ideal Bingham materials that are nonlinear at
19
low shear rates but that reach a linear portion at high shear rates, the plastic
viscosity is the slope of this linear portion of the curve.
For non-Bingham materials, the infinite shear viscosity, η ∞ , can be used
to represent the slope of the flow curve at high shear rates. For instance, power-
law fluids may be idealized as two separate linear portions over relevant shear
ranges. In such a case, the slope of the second linear region may be considered as
the infinite shear viscosity.
The zero shear viscosity, η 0 , is the limit of the differential viscosity as the
shear rate approaches zero:
∂τ
η0 = lim (2.12)
γ& → 0 ∂γ&
For nonlinear flow curves, the zero shear viscosity can be used to
represent the linearized first-Newtonian region for a narrow range of shear rates.
The relative viscosity, η r , is given as the ratio of the viscosity of a
suspension or solution to the viscosity of the suspending medium of solvent:
η
ηr = (2.13)
ηs
The specific viscosity, η sp , is then defined as the relative viscosity minus
one:
η sp = η r − 1 (2.14)
20
Fluidity, φ , is the reciprocal of viscosity:
1
φ= (2.15)
η
2.2.5.2 Origin of Viscosity in Fluid Suspensions

Three types of forces act on particles in fluid suspensions: colloidal
particle interaction forces, Brownian forces, and viscous forces (Barnes et al.
1989). Each of these forces contributes to viscosity.
Particle interaction forces are the result of attraction or repulsion
between particles. Attractive forces may be due to van der Waals forces or unlike
electrostatic charges while repulsive forces may be caused by steric repulsion or
like electrostatic charges. These forces exist simultaneously and can result in
complex behavior. Attractive forces tend to cause flocculated structures, which
are broken down by shearing and rebuilt once shearing is ceased. As a result,
flocculated systems typically are thixotropic and exhibit a yield stress. The flocs
trap the suspending fluid and increase the apparent solids volume concentration.
The viscosity of a flocculated structure generally increases with the degree of
flocculation. In contrast, repulsive forces tend to result in a dispersed structure. In
dispersed systems, the viscosity is generally related to the solids concentration but
not to the degree of dispersion.
Brownian forces result in the randomization of the radial distribution and
spatial orientation of particles. Since Brownian forces are strongly size-
dependent, with the biggest effects on particles smaller than 1 µm, their influence
on concrete is minimal.
Viscous forces are proportional to the local velocity difference between a
given particle and the surrounding fluid. Therefore, a change in the viscosity of
21
the suspending medium results in a change in the viscosity of the overall
suspension.
Multiple models have been developed to relate suspension properties to
viscosity. The Einstein model, developed in 1911, relates the viscosity of a
suspension, η , to the viscosity of the suspending medium, η s , and the solids
volume concentration, φ :
η = η s (1 + 2.5φ ) (2.16)
The model is based on spherical particles with uniform size. Higher order
terms of φ can be added to account for particle interaction. Due to the simplicity
of the Einstein model, it is best suited for suspensions with solids volume
concentrations of less than 10% (Barnes 1989). Modifications to the Einstein
model must be made for concentrated suspensions. The Krieger-Dougherty
equation, which is suitable for concentrated suspensions, is based on the Einstein
equation and incorporates the maximum packing fraction ( φ m ) and the intrinsic
viscosity ( [η ] ), as shown in Equation (2.17):
φ −[η ]φ
η = η s (1 − ) m
(2.17)
φm
The maximum packing fraction is defined as the solids volume

concentration at which the particle concentration results in three-dimensional
contact throughout the suspension and the viscosity approaches infinity. The
maximum packing fraction is a function of the type of packing, the particle shape,
and the particle size distribution. Intrinsic viscosity is a dimensionless number
defined by Barnes et al. (1989) as the limiting value of the reduced viscosity as
the solids volume concentration approaches zero. The intrinsic viscosity equals
22
2.5 for spheres and higher values for other shapes. The values of maximum
packing fraction and intrinsic viscosity used in the model can be varied at
different shear stresses for a single shear thinning material.
Although the Krieger-Dougherty model has been applied to concrete
(Szecsy 1997), Ferraris (1999) states that the Einstein and Krieger-Dougherty
models can be used for cement paste but should not be used for concrete.
2.2.6 Yield Stress

Yield stress commonly occurs in multiphase fluids such as concentrated
suspensions. The solid particles interact to form a flocculated, three-dimensional
network structure that resists flow at sufficiently low stresses. The yield stress is
related to the force required to break down this structure and initiate flow.
The questions of how yield stress should be defined and of whether a yield
stress even exists have been debated widely. An extensive history of the debate is
provided by Barnes (1999). The question of whether a yield stress exists is based
on the concept that all materials flow if given sufficient time. The yield stress
determined from a flow curve is based on an extrapolation of the measured points
back to the shear stress at a zero shear rate. Flow models—such as the Bingham
or Herschel-Bulkley model—commonly assume that if lower shear rates could be
measured, the flow curve would continue back to and intercept the shear stress
axis. Accurate data at low shear rates are needed to confirm that flow curves can
be extrapolated to a zero shear rate. The accuracy of such low-shear
measurements is reduced by slip, fracture, and expulsion of the sample. The
advent of modern controlled-stress rheometers has allowed measurements to be
made at significantly lower shear rates than previously possible. These rheometers
have shown that at low shear stresses, the viscosity is very high. When the shear
stress is increased to a certain point, the viscosity begins to decrease rapidly, as
depicted in Figure 2.4. This transition from high viscosity to low is related to what
23
conventionally has been thought of as the transition from elastic behavior to
viscous flow. Despite this new information, some researchers still suggest that the
yield stress exists in certain cases and can be verified.
Viscosity (log)
Shear Stress (log)
Figure 2.4: Schematic of Viscosity Decrease at Low Shear Stresses as

Measured in Controlled-Stress Rheometer
Whether it truly exists or not, yield stress is a term with practical

significance. Nguyen and Boger (1983) state that yield stress is a model parameter
but not a true material property. As Whorlow (1992) points out, the question of
the existence of yield stress may be important in certain applications; however,
for most practical applications, the existence of a true yield stress does not need to
be questioned. Indeed, in many practical cases, the value of the yield stress—
however it is defined—must be known. Liddell and Boger (1996, 236), in
summarizing the yield stress debate, conclude that “a knowledge of the yield
stress and its measurement is essential in industry.” What matters, then, is the
definition of yield stress.
If it is assumed that the yield stress is a relevant parameter to be measured,
the actual measured value can vary significantly depending on the test method
used. Static measurements of yield stress—measured when the material is initially
24
at rest—are typically higher than the measurements of yield stress obtained from
dynamic measurements of flow curves (Whorlow 1992). This discrepancy further
complicates the discussion of the meaning of the yield stress.
2.3 MEASUREMENT OF RHEOLOGY

Rheological properties can be measured in capillary tube viscometers or
rotational rheometers. In concrete, rotational rheometers are used predominately
in cases where the rheological parameters are to be determined in fundamental
units while variations on capillary tube viscometers are used in limited cases.
According to Hackley and Ferraris (2001), rotational methods are
generally better for concentrated suspensions, gels, and pastes despite the fact that
capillary tube methods tend to be more precise in measuring viscosity. Rotational
methods offer the advantage of being able to shear a sample indefinitely in order
to achieve equilibrium and to monitor changes over time. For non-Newtonian
fluids, the distribution of shear rate and shear stress is typically better defined in a
rotational device than a capillary tube device. The problem of temperature rise
due to shearing can be more of a problem in a rotational rheometer, although
methods are available to limit temperature change. Capillary tube viscometers are
typically cheaper and simpler than rotational rheometers (Whorlow 1992).
2.3.1 Capillary Tube Viscometers
2.3.1.1 Description
Capillary tube viscometers can be used to measure Newtonian and non-
Newtonian fluids. A variety of viscometer types are available; however, since
viscometers are not widely used for concrete, only a brief description will be
given here. For concrete, capillary tube viscometers or variations on the concepts
25
of capillary tube viscometers are typically used to determine the viscosity of
highly fluid concrete or to assess pumpability (Tattersall and Banfill 1983).
One common type of capillary tube viscometer is an extrusion capillary
tube viscometer, such as the one depicted schematically in Figure 2.5. In this
arrangement, a piston at one end forces material to flow through a pipe and out
the other end. By measuring the force applied by the piston and the flow rate of
material out of the pipe, viscosity can be determined.
Q
F 2a
L
Figure 2.5: Extrusion Capillary Tube Viscometer
2.3.1.2 Derivation of Equations for Capillary Tube Viscometers

The derivation of equations for a capillary tube viscometer is based on a
tube of finite length, L, and radius, a, shown in Figure 2.6. It is assumed that all
flow occurs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tube. Provided no slippage
occurs at the walls, the fluid velocity varies as a function of radius, with the
maximum velocity at the center of the tube and zero velocity at the walls.
2πrLτ a
r
πr P
2
Figure 2.6: Generalized Capillary Tube Viscometer
26
The force due to a pressure, P, acting at the end of a discrete cylinder of
radius r can be set equal to the opposing viscous force due to shear stress, τ ,
acting along the entire length of the cylinder:
πr 2 P = 2πrLτ (2.18)
Rearranging the above equation in terms of shear stress results in the

following relationship:
Pr
τ= (2.19)
2L
The shear rate in the tube is defined as the derivative of velocity, v, with
respect to radius. In this case, a negative sign is added because velocity decreases
with increasing radius:
dv
γ& = − (2.20)
dr
Next, the derivative of velocity with respect to shear stress is determined

by using the chain rule:
dv dv dr dr 2L
= = −γ& = −γ& (2.21)
dτ dr dτ dτ P
In order that any constitutive equation can be used, it is desirable to

substitute γ& = f (τ ) into the above equation to represent a generic constitutive
equation:
27
= f (τ )
dv 2L
(2.22)
dτ P
Next, Equation (2.22) can be integrated to determine an expression for

velocity:
Pa
dv = ∫ 2 L f (τ )
0 2L
∫v τ P
dτ (2.23)
For a Newtonian fluid, the viscosity varies in the tube as a function of

radius as given by Equation (2.24):
v(r ) =
P
4 Lη
(a2 − r 2 ) (2.24)
The flow rate through the tube can be calculated by integrating the product
of area and velocity over the radius of the tube:
a
Q = ∫ 2πrvdr (2.25)
0
The result for a Newtonian fluid is the well-known Poiseuille equation:
πa 4 P
Q= (2.26)
8ηL
While it is technically possible to make one pressure measurement at one

flow rate for a Newtonian fluid, it is more precise to make a range of
measurements and plot pressure versus flow rate. The slope of the resulting line,
28
which passes through the origin, can be used to determine viscosity. It is also
possible to keep the pressure constant and change the length of the tube.
For a yield stress material, the stress in the center of the tube is equal to
zero, as evident in Equation (2.19). Therefore, a region of material in the center of
the tube—where the stress is less than the yield stress—passes through the tube as
a solid plug. This phenomenon is known as plug flow. Because the shear stress is
always zero at the center of the tube, plug flow can never be completely
eliminated for materials with a yield stress. For a Bingham material, the
Buckingham-Reiner equation accounts for the presence of plug flow:
πa 4 ⎛⎜ 8τ L 16(τ 0 L ) ⎞
4
Q= P− 0 + ⎟ (2.27)
8µL ⎝ ⎜ 3a 3P 3 a 4 ⎟
⎠
By plotting Q versus P, it is possible to determine both yield stress and

plastic viscosity.
2.3.2 Rotational Rheometers
2.3.2.1 Description
Rotational rheometers are able to apply shear stress to a single sample of
material continuously. By measuring a series of combinations of shear stress and
shear rate, a flow curve can be determined. It is possible to impose a range of
shear rates and determine the resulting shear stresses (controlled-rate rheometer)
or to impose a range of shear stresses and measure the resulting shear rates
(controlled-stress rheometer). Compared to a controlled-rate rheometer, a
controlled-stress rheometer typically has higher sensitivity, particularly at very
low shear rates, and can better differentiate between highly non-Newtonian fluids
(Schramm 1994).
29
Multiple geometrical configurations of rotational rheometers are available;
three main rotational rheometer geometries are shown in Figure 2.7. Numerous
variations of each geometry exist; the particular test set-up selected depends on
the properties of the material to be tested. In a coaxial cylinders rheometer, the
fluid is placed between two cylinders. It is possible either to rotate the outer
cylinder at a series of fixed speeds while measuring the resulting torque on the
fixed inner cylinder or to keep the outer cylinder fixed while torque and rotation
speed are measured at the rotating inner cylinder. In a parallel plate rheometer, the
bottom plate is fixed while the top plate rotates. Both torque and rotation speeds
are measured at the top blade. The cone and plate rheometer is similar to the
parallel plate rheometer, with the exception that a cone is used instead of a top
plate. Coaxial cylinders and parallel plate rheometers have been used to measure
the rheology of concrete and cement paste. The cone and plate rheometer
configuration is less applicable to concrete due to the difficulty of fitting
aggregates around the cone. Oscillatory rotational rheometers, which measure the
flow properties by rotating in alternating directions at a fixed frequency, have
been used in limited instances for concrete and for cement but are not discussed in
this report.
Measured Applied/ Applied/

Inner Bob Torque Measured Cone Measured
Top Plate
Outer Torque Torque
Cylinder Fluid Fluid
Fluid
Bottom Plate Bottom Plate

Applied Torque (Fixed) (Fixed)
Coaxial Cylinders Parallel Plate Cone and Plate
Figure 2.7: Typical Rotational Rheometer Geometries
30
In any of the above rheometer geometries, an assumption is made about
the distribution of fluid velocity throughout the material. Therefore, using the
dimensions of the rheometer, it is possible to develop analytical equations relating
the torque and rotation speed measured by the rheometer to the specific
parameters of a given constitutive equation. The equations for a coaxial cylinders
rheometer are provided in Section 2.3.2.2 for Newtonian and Bingham materials.
Equations for other geometries and constitutive equations are available in
rheology texts.
2.3.2.2 Derivation of Equations for Coaxial Cylinders Rheometers

The top view of a coaxial cylinders rheometer is shown in Figure 2.8.
Only the material in the space between the inner and outer cylinders—namely, the
annulus—is considered. Any end effects at the top or bottom of the cylinder or
concrete specimen are ignored. The derivations are based on the assumptions that
laminar flow occurs, that inertial effects can be ignored, and that the velocity of
the material in contact with the surface of a cylinder is equal to the velocity of that
cylinder.
If the width of the annulus is very narrow compared to the radius of the
cylinder, it is possible to use an average radius to compute the shear stress and
shear rate. This case of a “narrow gap” is not applicable to concrete and is not
considered here. Instead, the case of a “wide gap” is considered.
31
Outer Cylinder R1
r
Inner Cylinder
R2
h = cylinder height
Figure 2.8: Top View of a Coaxial Cylinders Rheometer
The velocity gradient at any point within the annulus is defined as the
derivative of velocity with respect to the radius. From the product rule, the
velocity gradient is the sum of the angular velocity, ω , and the shear rate, as
indicated in Equation (2.28).
dv d (rω ) dω
= =ω+r (2.28)
dr dr dr
The shear rate, shown in Equation (2.29), is needed for the derivation of
flow parameters.
dω
γ& = r (2.29)
dr
The shear rate and velocity gradient vary throughout the radius. The
torque generated at a particular shear rate is considered to act along an imaginary
32
cylinder of radius r, as indicated by the dashed line in Figure 2.8. This value of
torque, T, is the product of the surface area of the imaginary cylinder, the shear
stress acting over the surface area of the cylinder,τ ; and the radius of the
cylinder:
T = (2πrh)(τ )(r ) (2.30)
Therefore, the shear stress at any point is simply the torque divided by the
area of the imaginary cylinder:
T
τ= (2.31)
2πr 2 h
The rheometer records the torque acting on either the inner or outer
cylinder—these torques are equal and opposite—and the angular velocity of one
cylinder relative to the other. Using these data, the flow parameters can be derived
based on a known constitutive equation. The derivations for Newtonian and
Bingham fluids are provided as follows.
First, for a Newtonian fluid, the derivation begins with the constitutive
equation, which was given previously as Equation (2.3) and is repeated below:
τ = ηγ&
The Newtonian equation is next rearranged so that shear rate is on the left
side of the equation. Equations (2.29) and (2.31) are plugged in for shear rate and
shear stress, respectively, as shown in Equation (2.33).
τ
γ& = (2.32)
η
33
dω T
r = (2.33)
dr 2πr 2 hη
Equation (2.33) is integrated across the annulus from ϖ = Ω at r = R1 to

ϖ = 0 at r = R2, as shown in Equation (2.34).
0 T R2 1
∫
Ω
dϖ =
2πhη ∫
R1 r3
dr (2.34)
The result of the above integration is an expression for a straight line that
is a function of viscosity, cylinder height, and cylinder radii, as shown in Equation
(2.35). The same result would have been obtained if the outer cylinder rotated
while the inner cylinder was fixed, such that the limits of integration would have
been ϖ = 0 at r = R1 to ϖ = Ω at r = R2.
T ⎛⎜ 1 1 ⎞
Ω= ⎜ − 2 ⎟⎟ (2.35)
4πhη ⎝ R1 2
R2 ⎠
If the output from the rheometer is plotted as torque versus angular

velocity, the slope of the linear fit can be used in Equation (2.36) to solve for
viscosity.
T 4πhη
=
Ω ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ 2 − 12 ⎟ (2.36)
⎜R R2 ⎟⎠
⎝ 1
34
For a Bingham fluid, the derivation of the flow parameters again starts
with the constitutive equation, which was given previously as Equation (2.5) and
is repeated below:
τ = τ 0 + µγ&
Again, the Bingham equation is rearranged to place the shear rate on the
left side of Equation (2.37). Then, Equations (2.29) and (2.31) are plugged in for
shear rate and shear stress, respectively, as shown in Equation (2.38).
τ −τ 0
γ& = (2.37)
µ
dϖ T τ
r = − 0 (2.38)
dr 2πr hµ µ
2
If it is assumed that flow occurs throughout the annulus, integration is

performed between the limits of ϖ = Ω at r = R1 and ϖ = 0 at r = R2.
0 R2 ⎛ T τ ⎞
∫Ω
dϖ = ∫ ⎜⎜
R1
− 0 ⎟⎟dr
⎝ 2πr hµ µr ⎠
3 (2.39)
The result of the above integration is the Reiner-Riwlin equation, as

shown in Equation (2.40). The Reiner-Riwlin equation is an expression for a
straight line where the slope is defined in terms of the plastic viscosity, cylinder
height, and cylinder radii while the intercept is defined in terms of yield stress,
viscosity, and cylinder radii.
35
T ⎛⎜ 1 1 ⎞ τ 0 ⎛ R2 ⎞
⎟ − ln⎜ ⎟
Ω= ⎜ − 2 ⎟ µ ⎜R ⎟ (2.40)
4πhµ ⎝ R1 2
R2 ⎠ ⎝ 1⎠
From the rheometer data of angular velocity versus torque, the slope of the
straight line fit is determined and set equal to Equation (2.41), so that plastic
viscosity can be determined:
T 4πhµ
=
Ω ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ 2 − 12 ⎟ (2.41)
⎜R R2 ⎟⎠
⎝ 1
With plastic viscosity determined, the only remaining unknown is yield

stress, which can be calculated using Equation (2.40). To convert the intercept
and slope values for the plot of torque versus rotation speed to yield stress and
plastic viscosity as needed in the flow curve, the values of the intercept and slope
only need to be multiplied by geometry constants:
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ 2 − 12 ⎟
⎜R R2 ⎟⎠
τ0 = ⎝ 1 (intercept, Nm) (2.42)
⎛ R2 ⎞
ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟4πh
⎝ R1 ⎠
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ 2 − 12 ⎟
⎜R R2 ⎟⎠ (2.43)
µ=⎝ 1 (Slope, Nm.s)
4πh
36
2.3.2.3 Effects of Dead Zones in Coaxial Cylinders Rheometers
For fluids with a yield stress, the range of shear stresses present in the
annulus of a coaxial cylinders rheometer may not be sufficient to cause all
material to flow. The result is a dead zone where no flow occurs. Within the
concrete literature, the presence of a dead zone is often referred to as plug flow,
although this term is a bit of a misnomer because the problem with plug flow is
that not all of the material flows. In general rheology, the term plug flow is used
to describe the movement of yield stress fluids through a pipe.
The flow of a Bingham material in a coaxial cylinders rheometer is
illustrated in Figure 2.9 for a case where the inner cylinder rotates and the outer
cylinder remains stationary. The shear stress throughout the annulus is greater
than the yield stress; therefore, a dead zone does not exist. A 10% increase in
radius results in an approximately 17.4% decrease in shear stress. The angular
velocity and shear rate are maximum at the inner cylinder. At the outer cylinder,
the angular velocity is equal to zero while the shear rate is at its minimum value.
When all material flows, the traditional Reiner-Riwlin equation is applicable.
In contrast, Figure 2.10 demonstrates the case where a dead zone is
present. The portion of the material that flows is subjected to shear stresses
greater than the yield stress while the remainder of the material in the dead zone is
subjected to shear stresses below the yield stress and does not flow. The angular
velocity and shear rate are equal to zero at the transition radius between the
flowing material and the dead zone.
37
Shear Stress
τ
τ0
Shear Rate
γ&
Angular Velocity
ω
Inner Radius
All Material Flows
Outer Radius

No Dead Zone
38
Shear Stress
τ τ0
Shear Rate
γ&
Angular Velocity
ω
Flowing Zone
Inner Radius
Dead Zone
Transition Radius
Outer Radius

Dead Zone Present
39
If the traditional Reiner-Riwlin equation is used for a case where a dead
zone is present, the error in the computed rheological parameters can be
significant. If a dead zone is present, the limits of integration in Equation (2.39)
must be changed to cover only the portion of the annulus where flow occurs. By
definition, flow ceases where the shear stress in the material equals the yield
stress. Therefore, the limits of integration for Equation (2.39) should be changed
to ϖ = Ω at r = R1 and ϖ = 0 at r = ( T 2πhτ 0 )1/2 for the case where the inner
cylinder rotates and the outer cylinder is fixed. The result of the integration with
these new limits is shown in Equation (2.44):
T ⎛⎜ 1 2πhτ 0 ⎞ τ 0 ⎛ T ⎞
Ω= − ⎟− ln⎜⎜ ⎟ (2.44)
⎜
4πhµ ⎝ R1 2 ⎟ 2 ⎟
T ⎠ 2 µ ⎝ 2πhτ 0 R1 ⎠
It is possible to determine the minimum angular speed at which the dead

zone is eliminated by substituting the torque at which the dead zone begins to
occur at the outer cylinder into the Reiner-Riwlin equation. The result is given in
Equation (2.45):
τ ⎡1 ⎛⎛ R ⎞
2
⎞ ⎛R ⎞⎤
Ω= 0 ⎢ ⎜ ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ − 1⎟ − ln⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟⎥ (2.45)
µ ⎢ 2 ⎜⎝ ⎝ R1 ⎠ ⎟
⎠ ⎝ R1 ⎠⎥⎦
⎣
From Equation (2.45), it is evident that the occurrence of a dead zone

during a given flow curve measurement is based on three parameters: the rotation
speed, the ratio of yield stress to plastic viscosity, and the ratio of the outer radius
to the inner radius. The dead zone can be eliminated by increasing the rotation
speed, reducing the ratio of yield stress to plastic viscosity, reducing the ratio of
the outer radius to inner radius, or some combination of the three. The yield stress
and plastic viscosity depend on the material being tested while the rotation speed
40
is determined from the desired shear rate; therefore, in designing a rheometer, the
ratio of the outer radius to the inner radius is the only parameter that can be
changed. The minimum rotation speed to eliminate the dead zone for a given ratio
of yield stress to plastic viscosity is shown in Figure 2.11 as a function of the radii
ratio. This graph indicates that it is advantageous to decrease the ratio of outer to
inner radius.
3
, rad/s
2.5
τ0
µ
Minimum Rotation Speed *
1.5
0.5
0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
R2 R1
Figure 2.11: Minimum Rotation Speed to Eliminate Dead Zone
It is also instructive to consider the influence of the other two parameters

on the errors induced by using the traditional Reiner-Riwlin equation when a dead
zone is present. The influence of the dead zone on the measured torque versus
rotation speed curve is shown in Figure 2.12. If no dead zone exists, the linear
dashed line will be measured. The presence of a dead zone—and concomitant
reduction in the amount of material that flows—reduces the amount of torque
measured at a given rotation speed. In this case, the dead zone is eliminated at a
41
rotation speed of 77.1 rpm. If all points on the flow curve are measured at speeds
above 77.1 rpm, then no error results. When a portion or all of the points on the
flow curve are measured at points below 77.1 rpm, the magnitude of the error due
to the presence of a dead zone depends on the range of rotation speeds measured.
It is clear that erroneously ignoring the dead zone will result in an underestimate
of yield stress and an overestimate of plastic viscosity. While the overall curve
accounting for the dead zone is nonlinear, if a narrow range of rotation speeds is
measured, the portion of the curve over this range may appear linear. The fact that
the curve appears linear over a certain region should not be taken to mean that the
rheometer is correctly measuring the rheology of a Bingham material. For
instance, over a rotation speed range of 10 to 60 rpm, the curve appears to be
approximately linear (R2 = 0.997); however, if the presence of the dead zone is
ignored, the yield stress will be 18% too low and the plastic viscosity will be 22%
too high.
12
No Dead Zone
10
Dead Zone
Measured Torque (Nm)
R2/R1 = 2
τ0
2
= 10
µ
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rotation Speed (rpm)
Figure 2.12: Influence of Dead Zone on Measured Torque versus Rotation

Speed Curve
42
Figure 2.13 shows the influence of the ratio of yield stress to plastic
viscosity on the error in the measured values of yield stress and plastic viscosity
due the dead zone being neglected. The ratios shown in Figure 2.13 are intended
to be representative of those found in typical concrete measurements. For the case
shown, the error in yield stress is greater than plastic viscosity below a ratio of 7.5
while the error in plastic viscosity is greater above a ratio of 7.5. For self-
consolidating concrete with a yield stress near zero, the error due to neglecting the
dead zone is near zero; in stiffer concretes with higher ratios of yield stress to
viscosity, the importance of properly accounting for the possible presence of a
dead zone is greater.
120
Yield Stress
100 Plastic Viscosity
R2/R1 = 2
80
60
Percent Error
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-20
-40
Yield Stress/ Plastic Viscosity
Figure 2.13: Influence of Ratio of Yield Stress to Plastic Viscosity on Errors

due to Neglecting Dead Zone (Rotation Speed = 10 rpm to 60 rpm)
43
Figure 2.14 shows the effect of reducing the ratio of outer radius to inner
radius at a constant ratio of yield stress to plastic viscosity. For a ratio of yield
stress to plastic viscosity of 10, the diminishing return for reducing the ratio of
R2/R1 begins to be pronounced at a value of R2/R1 of approximately 1.6, where
the error in yield stress and plastic viscosity are 3.7% and 3.6%, respectively.
100
80 Yield Stress
Plastic Viscosity
60
τ0
Percent Error
40 = 40
µ
τ0
20 = 10
µ
0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
-20
-40 R2/R1
Figure 2.14: Influence of Radii Ratio on Errors Due to Dead Zone (Rotation
Speed = 10 rpm to 60 rpm)
While it has been suggested (Tattersall and Banfill1983; Ferraris 1999)

that the ratio of outer radius to inner radius should be no greater than 1.1 or 1.2,
the plots in Figure 2.12 through Figure 2.14 indicate that it is necessary to
consider also the material to be measured (ratio of yield stress to plastic viscosity)
and the desired range of shear rates (minimum rotation speed). Still, a policy of
44
minimizing the ratio of outer radius to inner radius to the greatest extent practical
is generally advantageous.
While the calculations of stress and velocity distribution presented above
are based on theoretical calculations, Raynaud et al. (2002) used magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) to measure experimentally the velocity profiles in a
coaxial cylinders rheometer for two thixotropic bentonite suspensions with solids
volume concentrations of 3.2% and 4.6%. The maximum velocity at the inner
cylinder was found to approach the correct theoretical value. The velocity profiles
indicated distinct sheared and unsheared regions in the annulus. The shape of the
velocity profiles were not as expected because the shear rate did not go to zero at
the critical radius between the sheared and unsheared region, but rather
experienced a discontinuity. For transient flow—that is, where the rotation speed
of the inner cylinder was changing over time—the location of and stress at the
critical radius for a given rotation speed varied based on the flow history of the
sample. When a vane was used in place of the inner cylinder, the maximum
velocity occurred at a location within the vane and was below the theoretical
maximum value at the tips of the vane. Distinct sheared and unsheared regions
were still evident in the annulus for the vane measurements. The distribution of
velocity for the vane measurements suggested significant secondary flows in the
proximity of the vane. As a result of the MRI measurements, the authors
concluded that the commonly assumed velocity profiles for coaxial cylinders
rheometers with sheared and unsheared zones are invalid and that the true velocity
profile should be determined for any test by using an MRI measurement or other
suitable technique.
2.3.2.4 Methods to Correct for Dead Zones in Coaxial Cylinders Rheometers

Since the errors from neglecting the dead zone can be significant and since
the ratio of the inner to outer radius cannot be sufficiently reduced to avoid
45
completely the dead zone in tests of concrete, it is necessary to account properly
for the dead zone. Although the actual flows in fresh concrete are complex and
can not be determined precisely by analytical means, approximations can be made
to improve the accuracy of rheometer results. Three such approaches to account
analytically for the presence of the dead zone are described as follows.
Method 1: Point Elimination Method

In the first method, the flow curve is measured over the desired range of
rotation speeds and any points below the minimum speed to prevent the presence
of a dead zone—determined with Equation (2.45)—are eliminated. The remaining
points are used to calculate the flow curve. Such a procedure is used for the BML
viscometer (Ferraris and Brower 2001). In order to use Equation (2.45), the yield
stress and plastic viscosity must be known a priori. Since these parameters cannot
be determined until the dead zone points are eliminated, an iterative process must
be used. In such a process, the yield stress and plastic viscosity are determined
based on all measured points and used to compute the speed at which a dead zone
occurs. All points below this dead zone speed are eliminated and the yield stress
and plastic viscosity are again computed for the remaining points. Based on these
new values of yield stress and plastic viscosity, the dead zone speed is calculated
and additional points removed. This procedure is continued until all points below
the true dead zone speed are eliminated. Since this method eliminates points, it is
possible that all or most points could be eliminated, resulting in an inadequate
number of points. Further, the resulting points at higher shear rates may not
reflect the properties of the material at lower shear rates.
46
Method 2: Independent Yield Stress Method
In the second method, the yield stress is measured independently and used
in Equation (2.44)—that is, the modified Reiner-Riwlin equation—to calculate
plastic viscosity. The independent measurement of yield stress can be
accomplished with a stress growth test or stress decay test, both of which are
described in detail later in Section 2.4.1. This method is complicated by the need
to perform two separate measurements—one for the direct yield stress and one for
the flow curve. The yield stress measured by the direct method is likely to be
different than the yield stress determined from the flow curve (with no errors due
to a dead zone) because of different test conditions.
Method 3: Effective Annulus Method

In the third method, an iterative nonlinear optimization technique is used
to determine the value of yield stress and plastic viscosity based on Equation
(2.44). A similar method is utilized in the CEMAGREF-IMG rheometer (Ferraris
and Brower 2001). The method is based on the assumption that the transition
radius between the flowing zone and the dead zone can be correctly calculated.
The flowing zone, which changes for each flow point, is then used as the
“effective annulus” such that only material in this region is considered in
determining constitutive equation parameters. In effect, the dimensions of the
outer cylinder are changing throughout the test for each rotation speed.
A sample calculation of this procedure is shown in Table 2.1 for a
Bingham material tested in a coaxial cylinders rheometer with an inner cylinder
radius of 0.1 m, an outer cylinder radius of 0.2 m, and a height of 0.2 m. The
measured values of rotation speed and torque are obtained from the rheometer.
Then, in the first iteration, values of yield stress and plastic viscosity are used in
Equation (2.44) to calculate the “modified” rotation speed at each point. If the
yield stress and plastic viscosity are assumed to be 500 Pa and 20 Pa.s,
47
respectively, for the first iteration, the modified rotation speed for the maximum
speed point shown in Table 2.1 is calculated as:
T ⎛⎜ 1 2πhτ 0 ⎞ τ0 ⎛ T ⎞
Ω mod = − ⎟− ⎜ ⎟
⎜
4πhµ ⎝ R1 2
T ⎟ 2µ ln⎜ 2πhτ R 2 ⎟
⎠ ⎝ 0 1 ⎠
13.69 ⎛ 1 2π (0.2)(500) ⎞ (500) ⎛ (13.69) ⎞

Ω mod = ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ − ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
4π (0.2)(20) ⎝ (0.1) 2
(13.69) ⎠ 2(20) ⎝ 2π (0.2)(500)(0.1) 2 ⎠
Ω mod = 5.000 rad/sec
The difference between the measured rotation speed and modified rotation
speed is computed as the error for each point. The mean squared error (mse) for n
flow curve points is determined as:
mse =
∑ (Ω measured − Ω modified ) 2
n
For subsequent iterations, the values of yield stress and plastic viscosity
are varied using a nonlinear optimization technique to minimize the mean sum of
errors. The final values from this nonlinear optimization technique are shown in
Table 2.1.
The same calculation could have been performed by solving Equation
(2.44) for torque and minimizing the error between the measured torque and the
“modified” torque. The measured flow curve points and the corrected fitted line
based on the yield stress and plastic viscosity values determined from the
effective annulus method are shown in Figure 2.15. Had a straight line been fitted
through the measured points, the intercept would have been less and the slope
greater than the theoretical line for no dead zone.
48
Table 2.1: Sample Calculation for Effective Annulus Method
Measured Values Modified Values
Effective
Rotation Rotation
Torque (Error)2 Outer
Speed Speed
Radius
(rad/sec) (Nm) (rad/sec) (rad/sec)2 (m)
6.283 13.69 6.213 0.0049 0.190
5.027 12.45 5.123 0.0093 0.181
3.770 10.89 3.830 0.0036 0.170
2.513 8.92 2.326 0.0350 0.153
1.257 7.46 1.362 0.0111 0.140
mse 0.013
From Measured Values From Modified Values

Yield Value 5.884 Nm Yield Stress 301.6 Pa
Viscosity Value 7.994 Nm.s Plastic Viscosity 32.2 Pa.s
R2 0.995 mse 0.013
Speed to Prevent 7.56
Dead Zone rad/sec
Further, the effective outer radius at a given rotation speed can be

calculated based on Equation (2.30). For the maximum speed point shown in
Table 2.1, the radius at which the dead zone begins is calculated as:
T
R2,eff =
2πhτ 0
13.69
R2,eff =
2π (0.2)(301.6)
R2,eff = 0.190 m
49
20
18 Corrected for Dead Zone
16 Theoretical for No Dead Zone
14
Torque (Nm)
12
10
0
0 2 4 6 8
Rotation Speed (rad/sec)
Figure 2.15: Sample Calculation for Effective Annulus Method
For concrete, it is likely that the actual radius at which flow ceases varies
to some extent due to the presence of aggregates. It is also important to consider
the size of the effective annulus relative to the maximum aggregate size. If this
ratio is too small, the flow in the effective annulus will not be representative.
Of these three approaches to accounting for the dead zone, the Effective
Annulus Method appears to be the most appropriate. The method can be
programmed into a rheometer control software program to calculate the modified
values of yield stress and plastic viscosity automatically.
50
2.3.2.5 End Effects
The derivations presented in Section 2.3.2.2 for coaxial cylinders
rheometers were based only on the distribution of shear stress and shear rate in the
annulus. If the inner cylinder is immersed into the material being tested such that
material exists above or below the inner cylinder, it is clear that the additional
shear stress acting on the top and bottom of the cylinder due to this additional
material will contribute to the total recorded torque. Additionally, the torque per
unit height of cylinder will be less near the ends of the cylinder than near the
middle because the maximum velocity gradient is not directed radially outward at
the ends of the cylinder (Whorlow 1992). These end effects must be taken into
account when computing rheological parameters. It is possible to approximate the
amount of torque attributable to end effects or to modify the inner cylinder in such
a way as to eliminate end effects.
To determine the amount of torque attributable to end effects, Whorlow
(1992) suggests measuring the torque for a given rotation speed with the annulus
filled to various heights. The plot of torque versus immersed cylinder height
should be linear. The slope of the resulting line expresses the torque per unit
height while the intercept is a representation of the amount of torque due to end
effects. The method may not be suitable for fluids with time-dependent properties.
It is also possible to use fully-immersed cylinders of different heights to plot a
similar torque versus cylinder height curve. In some cases, the end effects may be
independent of the rotation speed. End effects typically vary for different
materials, making it necessary to develop individual calibrations for each
material. As a result, it is not possible simply to use one fluid to provide a single
calibration for all materials.
Another approach to eliminating end effects is to modify the geometry of
the rheometer to minimize or eliminate shear stresses acting on cylinder ends
(Whorlow 1992). One solution for a rheometer with a fixed inner cylinder and
51
rotating outer cylinder is to place fixed guard cylinders above and below the inner
cylinder. These fixed guard cylinders are adjacent to but not attached to the inner
cylinder, thus allowing the inner cylinder to rotate through small angles and
measure only stress acting on the side. Such an approach is used in the BML
viscometer for concrete (Ferraris and Brower 2001). Another solution to eliminate
torque on the bottom of the inner cylinder is to trap an air bubble under the
cylinder. This solution is complicated by the difficulty in verifying the existence
of the bubble and the fact that some air may escape during the test. A third
solution is to use a double-gap coaxial cylinders rheometer so that the cylindrical
area is much larger on the sides than the ends. A fourth solution is to assume that
the volume below the cylinder acts as a parallel plate rheometer while the volume
horizontally adjacent to the cylinder acts as a coaxial cylinders rheometer. Then,
the torque from the parallel plate rheometer portion and the coaxial cylinders
rheometer portion are added together to equal the total torque. This procedure is
utilized in the FHPCM rheometer for concrete (Yan and James 1997).
2.3.3 Special Topics in the Measurement of Rheology
2.3.3.1 Deborah Number

In any rheology test, it is important to consider the time scale of
measurement. As indicated earlier, all materials flow if given sufficient time. A
material can behave as a solid or liquid depending on the rate at which shear
stress is applied. To measure a material properly, the time scale of the
measurement must be appropriate for the tested material. This concept is
represented with the Deborah number, De, which is a dimensionless group that
relates the characteristic time of the material,τ , to the characteristic time of the
deformation process, T:
52
τ
De = (2.46)
T
For an ideal linear-elastic solid material, the characteristic time is infinite

while the characteristic time of an ideal Newtonian viscous liquid is zero. High
Deborah numbers are related to solid-like behavior while low Deborah numbers
are associated with liquid-like behavior. If the characteristic time of a material is
too high relative to the characteristic time of the deformation process of a given
fluid rheometer, the material cannot be measured in that particular rheometer.
The concept of the Deborah number is directly applicable to concrete. The
Deborah number can be used to determine the minimum workability that can be
measured with a given fluid rheometer. Most available rheometers for concrete
are only capable of measuring concrete mixtures with slumps greater than
approximately 50 to 100 mm (2 to 4 inches). Not only is the torque required to
operate a rheometer for low-slump concrete mixtures high, it is questionable
whether concepts of fluid rheology can be applied to low-slump concretes. Low-
slump concretes do not readily flow under their own weight without vibration and
behave more like solids than liquids. As such, the Deborah numbers for low-
slump concretes are too high when such materials are tested in existing concrete
rotational rheometers. Therefore, it is inappropriate to attempt to measure low-
slump concretes in existing concrete rotational rheometers.
2.3.3.2 Estimation of Shear Rate

The range of shear rates generated in a rheometer for a given fluid should
be similar to the shear rates present in actual field conditions. Due to the
possibility of non-linearity in the flow curve, the selection of a proper range of
shear rates will ensure that the results are relevant to the given application.
According to Schramm (1994), the shear rate for a given application can be
53
estimated as the maximum speed of a fluid as it flows through a gap divided by
the gap size:
maximum speed
estimated shear rate = (2.47)
gap size
On a jobsite, the speed with which concrete flows through a pump, down a
chute, or through the space between reinforcing bars could be determined and
used in the above equation to determine the shear rate. It is not known whether an
extensive study has been conducted to determine the actual shear rates in the field
for different concrete construction processes. Szecsy (1997) suggests, without
data, that 10 sec-1 is a maximum practical rate in the field.
2.3.3.3 Relative Rheometers

Instead of measuring fluids in an absolute rheometer and determining
rheological parameters in fundamental units, it is possible to use a relative
rheometer to measure values related to but not necessarily equal to rheological
parameters. Such relative rheometers are typically mixers instrumented to
measure the amount of resistance created on mixing blades. The mixers may be
those used in a particular industrial or field process or a mixer designed to
simulate practical conditions. Unlike traditional rheometers where the shear rate
throughout the rheometer is known, the shear rate around a mixing blade is highly
complex and essentially impossible to model analytically. Therefore, converting
measured torque and rotation speed values to constitutive equation parameters is
not generally possible.
According to Schramm (1994), the resistance of the test sample to mixing
is typically proportional to viscosity. Mixers can be used to create either turbulent
flow and high shear action or laminar flow in homogenous materials. The results
54
from mixer tests are specific only to a certain device geometry and manufacturer.
Test results can be compared to standard samples that are known to perform well
or badly in a specific application. According to Schramm (1994), it is necessary to
first establish a matrix of experimental data to relate field performance to mixer
sensor reading based on such factors as test temperature, rotor speeds, length of
shear time, sample volume, and type of fluid.
Whorlow (1992) states that while it might be possible to measure the
viscosity of Newtonain fluids using the flow around a mixing blade, it is
inappropriate to use such a technique to study more complex flow. Schramm
(1994) states that absolute and relative rheology should be used synergistically.
Relative rheological measurements can provide important practical information
that absolute rheological measurements cannot provide.
A variety of measurements can be made with relative rheometers.
Schramm (1994) suggests measuring rheograms of torque versus time. These
rheograms can be used to determine the effects of changes in fluid composition on
rheological properties or how the rheological properties of a fluid with constant
composition change with time. Relative rheometer measurements can be made at
one speed or multiple speeds. For concrete, relative rheometers typically operate
in a manner analogous to traditional absolute rheometers. The devices turn a
mixing impeller at a series of fixed speeds and measure the resulting torque. A
straight line is fitted to a plot of torque versus rotation speed, as shown in Figure
2.16. The intercept of this line with the torque axis, G, is related to yield stress,
while the slope of the line, H, is related to plastic viscosity. Tattersall and Banfill
(1983) have utilized a general method for calibrating a relative rheometer in order
to convert G and H values to yield stress and plastic viscosity. Whorlow (1992)
and Ferraris (1999) have asserted that the accuracies of such calibration
techniques are questionable. One of the main problems with using G and H is
related to the dead zone problem in coaxial cylinders rheometers. As the mixing
55
blade is rotated at faster speeds, the volume of material that flows increases.
Therefore, the increase in torque is attributable both to viscosity and to the fact
that a larger volume of material is flowing.
Torque, Nm
H
G 1
Rotation Speed, rev/sec
Figure 2.16: Typical Relative Rheometer Results for Concrete
2.3.3.4 Slip at Boundaries (Wall Effect)

An important consideration in measuring the rheology of suspensions is
the slip that can occur at boundaries of rheometers or viscometers due to wall
effect, which is depicted in Figure 2.17. The solid particles, such as aggregates,
are normally able to pack together to achieve a certain density; however, solid
particles are not able to pack as efficiently against a wall. The exclusion of solid
particles in the vicinity of the wall results in a region of low solids concentration
where flow is concentrated. Because the flow is not distributed across the
rheometer or viscometer as assumed, the analytical equations to relate measured
parameters to fundamental parameters are invalid. It is possible to reduce slippage
by roughening the rheometer walls to allow improved packing.
56
Low Solids
Concentration
Layer
Figure 2.17: Wall Effect
2.4 RHEOLOGY OF CONCENTRATED SUSPENSIONS

The rheology of concentrated suspension has been studied extensively.
Though concrete is a unique material that requires special approaches to
rheologocal characterization, the lessons learned from other similar concentrated
suspensions are instructive.
2.4.1 Direct Yield Stress Measurements in Rotational Rheometers

The yield stress of a concentrated suspension can be measured in a
rotational rheometer using indirect or direct methods. Indirect methods, which
were discussed previously, involve measuring a flow curve and extrapolating the
curve to find the shear stress at a zero shear rate based on a known constitutive
equation or a fitted curve. The yield stress determined by an indirect method is
dependent on the assumed constitutive model, the accuracy and range of the
experimental flow data, and the type of instrument used (Nguyen and Boger
1983). Indirect methods have been found to be unreliable in certain cases due to
the presence of slip flow and the lack of data at low shear rates.
In contrast, direct methods measure only yield stress, using one of several
approaches. In the stress relaxation technique, the material is sheared at a constant
shear rate, which is then reduced—either gradually or at once—to zero. The
57
remaining shear stress acting on the rheometer upon cessation of flow is defined
as the yield stress. In a stress growth test, which may be performed as a stress-
controlled or rate-controlled test, the stress in the material is gradually increased
until flow beings. In the stress-controlled version of the test, a constant stress is
applied to a sample and the resulting strain is measured over time. This shear
stress is gradually increased—either in steps or at a constant rate—until flow
occurs. A typical stress-controlled stress growth test plot is shown in Figure 2.18.
In the rate-controlled version of the test, the shear rate is maintained at a low,
constant level until flow initiates. The maximum shear stress that develops in the
sample is recorded as the yield stress. A typical rate-controlled stress growth test
plot is shown in Figure 2.19.
Shear Strain
Yield Stress
Exceeded
Incremental Stresses Applied
Time
Figure 2.18: Typical Results for a Stress-Controlled Stress Growth Test
58
Shear Stress
τ0(d)
τ0(s)
Time
Figure 2.19: Typical Results for a Rate-Controlled Stress Growth Test
The stress growth plot in Figure 2.19 consists of three portions (Nguyen
and Boger 1985; Yan and James 1997; Liddell and Boger 1996). In the initial
linear region, the material behaves elastically. Next, as bonds between solid
particles are broken, the plot transitions from the linear region to the curved,
viscoelastic region. Finally, when a sufficient number of bonds are broken to
achieve flow, the yield stress is reached, indicated as the maximum value on the
curve. The portion of the curve after the peak is of little value because the amount
of material flowing in the annulus is not known (Schramm 1994). The amount of
time for shear stress to build up should be sufficiently long so that elastic
deformation dominates. Two different yield stresses are indicated in Figure 2.19.
The first yield stress, which occurs at the transition from elastic to viscoelastic
behavior, is referred to as the static yield stress. The peak shear stress in referred
to as the dynamic yield stress. The dynamic yield stress is generally used as the
indication of yield stress because it is associated with full structural breakdown
and the beginning of plastic flow (Liddell and Boger 1996; Saak, Jennings, and
Shah 2001). The yielding that occurs is generally irreversible because the
hydrodynamic forces at low shear rates are not strong enough to bring particles
close together for the reformation of bonds (Nguyen and Boger 1983).
59
2.4.2 Use of Vane for Direct Yield Stress Measurements
2.4.2.1 Overview
Although the direct yield stress methods can be performed in most
conventional rheometer geometries, device artifacts can potentially distort results
significantly. Instead of using a traditional coaxial cylinders rheometer with
smooth or roughened walls, the inner cylinder can be replaced with a vane, such
as the one shown in Figure 2.20. As it turns, the vane cuts a cylindrical volume,
much like a traditional inner cylinder; however, the slippage due to wall effect is
mitigated because yielding occurs within the material, not at the boundary of the
material. Specifically, the yield surface occurs along a cylindrical surface defined
by the tips of the blade, such that unyielded material exists on either side of the
yield surface. Another advantage of using the vane is that the action of inserting
the vane into the specimen creates minimal disruption to the specimen, which is
particularly important for thixotropic materials where shear history influences
results.
Figure 2.20: Typical Vane Impeller
60
The vane method is generally considered to be best for concentrated
suspensions with yield stresses above 10 Pa (Barnes and Nguyen 2001). Nguyen
and Boger (1983) compared the results from the rate-controlled stress growth test
with a vane to both a stress relaxation measurement with a coaxial cylinders
rheometer and an indirect measurement with a capillary tube rheometer. For tests
of a red mud suspension at a range of solids concentrations greater than 64%, the
three methods provided consistent results. Some discrepancies were found
between the vane geometry and the other two methods at lower solids
contributions. These discrepancies were attributable to a greater contribution from
viscous forces. Yoshimura et al. (1987) measured a series of oil-in-water
emulsions with yield stresses ranging from 50-550 dynes/cm2 and susceptible to
slip. The test results indicated that the concentric cylinder, parallel disk, and vane
geometries gave comparable results. For Bentonite suspensions, Alderman,
Meeten, and Sherwood (1991) found that the vane geometry worked best for
suspensions with yield stresses greater than 10 Pa, while the coaxial cylinders
geometry worked best for suspensions with yield stresses less than 2 Pa. Between
2 Pa and 10 Pa, both geometries worked equally well.
The use of a vane for rheology measurements dates to at least the 1930s.
The concept originated in soil mechanics, where vanes are used to determine the
shear strength of soils, as currently described in ASTM D 2573. Vanes have been
commercially available since the 1950s and, since that time, have been used to
measure a wide variety of concentrated suspensions, as summarized by Barnes
and Nguyen (2001).
2.4.2.2 Vane Dimensions

A variety of recommendations for vane dimensions have been proposed.
Vanes can consist of 4 to 8 individual blades. Yoshimura et al. (1987) found no
difference in measurements of oil-in-water emulsions between using a vane with
61
four blades or eight blades. Based on finite element modeling of a Herschel-
Bulkley fluid, Keentok, Milthorpe, and O’Donovan (1985) determined that a
continuous shearing zone did not form for a two-bladed vane, whereas the
shearing zone for a three-bladed vane was irregularly shaped.
The container should be sufficiently large so that the effect of its
boundaries can be ignored. The recommendations of Nguyen and Boger (1985)
for vane dimensions are shown in Table 2.2. Elsewhere, Nguyen and Boger
(1983) state that the depth of the material should be twice the length of the vane
and the diameter of the container should be twice the diameter of the vane.
Table 2.2: Recommended Vane Dimensions from Nguyen and Boger (1985)
Parameter Requirements
(Vane Height)/(Vane Diameter) H/D < 3.5
(Container Diameter)/(Vane Diameter) DT/D > 2.0
(Vertical Distance from Top of Blade to
Z1/D > 1.0
Surface)/(Vane Diameter)
(Vertical Distance from Bottom of Container
Z2/D > 0.5
to Bottom of Blade)/(Vane Diameter)
The required dimensions for the use of the vane in determining the shear
strength of soil, based on ASTM D 2573, are shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Requirements for Vane for Soil Undrained Shear Strength
Measurements (ASTM D 2573)
Parameter Requirements
Vane Diameter, D 35 to 100 mm (1.5 to 4 in.)
Vane Shaft Diameter, d 12.5 to 16.5 mm (0.5 to 0.65 in.)
Vane Height, H 1D < H < 2.5D
Taper Angle, i Usually 0 (rectangular) or 45 degrees (tapered)
Blade Thickness Average=2mm, max=3mm
Number of Blades 4
Vane Area Ratio Area of vanes/gross area swept < 12%
62
Liddell and Boger (1983) found that yield stress was independent of vane
dimension for the dimensions considered. Alderman, Meeten, and Sherwood
(1991) utilized a set-up where the height below the vane was equal to the blade
height, the height above the vane was half the vane height, and the diameter of the
container was three times larger than the diameter of the vane. Yoshimura (1987)
positioned the top of the vane at the top of the fluid in order to eliminate the
torque contribution from the top of the vane.
In any vane configuration, the vane size should be selected in order to
achieve sufficient torque resolution.
2.4.2.3 Location of Yielding

It is generally assumed that the yield surface occurs along an imaginary
cylinder defined by the tips of the vane. While this assumption is generally
acceptable for most materials, it has been suggested that yielding may actually
occur at a diameter larger than that of the vane (Nguyen and Boger 1985).
Keentok, Milthorpe, and O’Donovan (1985) showed experimentally that
the ratio of the yield surface diameter to the vane diameter could range from 1.00
to 1.05 for four different automotive greases. The experimental data showed that
the location of the yield surface was dependent on yield stress, plastic viscosity,
elasticity, and shear history (for thixotropic materials). The vane diameter had a
negligible effect on the location of the yield surface. Nguyen and Boger (1985)
point out the experimental measurements of Keentok, Milthorpe, and O’Donovan
(1985) were made well after yielding.
An associated finite element computer simulation performed by Keentok,
Milthorpe, and O’Donovan (1985) indicated that a ratio of the yield surface
diameter to the vane diameter of approximately 1.025 was acceptable. Figure 2.21
shows the boundaries of the yielded material superimposed on the finite element
mesh. The outer edge of the yielded material extends beyond the vane blade. The
63
approximately circular shape of the yielded surface was confirmed with
experimental observations.
Boundaries
of yielded
material
Figure 2.21: Yield Surface Superimposed on Finite Element Mesh for a Four-
Bladed Vane (Keentok, Milthorpe, and O’Donovan 1985)
The finite element mesh shown in Figure 2.21 is relatively coarse. Yan
and James (1997) utilized a more sophisticated finite element model with a
substantially finer mesh that incorporated more than 1,300 elements. Their work
was based on a Herschel-Bulkley fluid with a yield stress ranging from 100 Pa to
400 Pa, a plastic viscosity ranging from 1 Pa.s to 50 Pa.s and power index equal
to 0.5 or 1.0. Whereas Keentok, Milthorpe, and O’Donovan (1985) determined
that the shear rate was at its maximum at the tip of the vane blades and lower
elsewhere in the narrow annular region where yielding occurs, Yan and James
(1997) determined that the shear rate and shear stress were nearly uniform in the
narrow annular region. The velocity of the fluid within the cylindrical region
defined by the vane dimensions was equal to the velocity of the vane while the
velocity of the fluid outside the vane was zero. The result was a sharp velocity
gradient along a cylindrical-shaped region defined by the tips of the blade.
64
Figure 2.22 shows schematically the yielding process as confirmed by the
finite element modeling of Yan and James (1997). As the vane first begins to
rotate, elastic deformation occurs and the shear stress and shear strain are
concentrated only at the vane tips. When the stress in the fluid is increased
further, yielding begins to occur at the blade tips and viscoelastic flow occurs due
to the contributions from both elastic deformation and viscous flow. Finally, when
the yielding process is complete, the shear rate and shear stress are distributed
approximately uniformly around the cylinder as viscous flow occurs.
te – Elastic Flow
tve – Viscoelastic Flow
t2 – Viscous Flow
Figure 2.22: Schematic Representation of Yielding Process in a Stress

Growth Test (Yan and James 1997)
The finite element models of Keentok, Milthorpe, and O’Donovan (1985)

and of Yan and James (1997) are based on vanes of infinite length and do not
consider end effects.
2.4.2.4 End Effects and the Calculation of Yield Stress

In order to calculate the yield stress from torque readings, it is necessary to
consider analytically the distribution and magnitude of shear stress acting on the
65
ends of the vane. From equilibrium, the total torque acting on the vane, T, is the
sum of the torques attributable to the side, Ts, and the two ends, Te, of the vane:
T = Ts + 2Te (2.49)
Assuming that yielding occurs at the cylindrical surface defined by the tips
of the blade, the torque attributable to the side of the vane can be expressed in
terms of the vane diameter, D, vane height, H, and the shear stress acting on the
side of the vane, τ s . Because the distribution of stress on the ends of the vane is
unknown, it can be represented with an integral in terms of an unknown function
of end shear stress, τ e (r), and a radius, r, as shown in Equation (2.49).
⎛π ⎞
T = ⎜ D 2 H ⎟τ s + 2⎛⎜ 2π ∫ τ e (r )r 2 dr ⎞⎟
D/2
(2.49)
⎝2 ⎠ ⎝ 0 ⎠
To solve Equation (2.49), additional testing or assumptions are needed.

Three methods are available for this purpose.
Method 1: Uniform Distribution of Shear Stresses

In the first method, the shear stresses acting on the side and ends of the
vane are assumed to be evenly distributed and equal to the yield stress when the
maximum torque is reached. The total torque at yielding is thus given by:
πD 3 ⎛ H1⎞
T= ⎜ + ⎟τ o (2.50)
2 ⎝ D 3⎠
The yield stress can then be calculated based on the maximum torque and
the vane dimensions.
66
Method 2: Power-Law Distribution of End Shear Stresses
In the second method, the shear stresses on the ends of the vane are
assumed to vary with radius based on a power-law relationship. While the shear
stress along the side of the vane is equal to the yield stress, the shear stresses at
the ends of the vane vary from zero at the center of the vane to the yield stress at
the tips of the vane. The end shear stresses may be expressed based on Equation
(2.51):
m
⎛ 2r ⎞
τ e (r ) = ⎜ ⎟ τ s for 0 ≤ r ≤
D
(2.51)
⎝D⎠ 2
Using this power-law relationship, the total torque acting on the vane is
given by Equation (2.52):
πD 3 ⎛ H1 ⎞
T= ⎜ + ⎟τ o (2.52)
2 ⎝ D m + 3⎠
To solve for the two unknowns, τ o and m, the above equation can be
rearranged to the form a straight line, where the independent variable is H/D:
2T H τ
= τo + o (2.53)
πD 3
D m+3
By performing at least two measurements with vanes with different ratios

of H/D, the two unknowns can be determined.
67
Method 3: Unknown Distribution of End Shear Stress
In the third method, no assumption is made about the distribution of shear
stress on the ends of the vane. Instead, Equation (2.49) can be rearranged into the
form of a straight line, where the independent variable is the height of the vane:
⎛π ⎞ D/2
T = ⎜ D 2τ 0 ⎟ H + 4π ∫ τ e (r )r 2 dr (2.54)
⎝2 ⎠ 0
The intercept of the line is equal to the total torque acting on the ends of
the vane. By making measurements with at least two vanes with different heights,
the value of the slope term can be determined and used to calculate yield stress.
Nguyen and Boger (1985) performed experimental measurements with the
above three methods and determined that the third method, which uses a torque
balance to ignore end shear stress, was the most accurate method. Due to the need
to make measurements with at least two different vanes, the first method was
determined to be preferable for practical work. Separately, Nguyen and Boger
(1983, 330) determined that as long as the ratio of H/D is greater than 2, the error
resulting for using a constant end shear stress versus using an end shear stress
based on a power-law distribution “should not be excessive.” Yoshimura et al.
(1987) successfully used the first method with a controlled-stress rheometer.
Alderman, Meeten, and Sherwood (1991) found that end effects depended on
yield stress—and thus solid concentration—for bentonite suspensions. The end
effects were negligible for low yield stress fluids but needed to be considered for
higher yield stress fluids.
68
2.4.2.5 Effect of Rotation Speed on Stress Growth Test Results
The rotation speed used in a rate-controlled stress growth test can have a
significant influence on the yield stress. The effect of rotation speed on yield
stress measurements for cement paste is shown in Figure 2.23.
Figure 2.23: Effect of Rotation Speed on Yield Stress (Saak, Jennings, and
Shah 2001)
If the rotation speed is too high, viscous resistance of the fluid, instrument
inertia and insufficient damping can lead to errors (Nguyen and Boger 1983). If
the rotation speed is too low, the reformation of network bonds and reorientation
of particles can increase the measured yield stress (Liddell and Boger 1996).
Therefore, the optimum rotation speed should correspond to the minimum yield
stress measurement.
While the data presented in Figure 2.23 indicate an optimum value of
rotation speed, Nguyen and Boger (1983) found that for concentrated red mud
suspensions, rotation speeds below 8 rpm had no effect on yield stress. Others
69
have recommended setting the rotation speed to the minimum possible value
(Barnes and Nguyen 2001). It is possible that some authors have not detected the
portion of the curve below the optimum value because some rheometers are not
capable of rotating at sufficiently low rotation speeds for a given material.
2.4.2.6 Measurement System Stiffness

The stiffness of the measurement system in a rheometer can affect the
shape of the torque versus time plot for stress growth tests. Liddell and Boger
(1996) examined this effect with two different rate-controlled rheometers, one of
which was 550 times stiffer than the other. The first rheometer had a stiffness of
0.002 Nm/rad while the other had a stiffness of 1.1 Nm/rad.
The response of the flexible system was characterized by a mainly elastic
response with minimal viscoelastic response. In contrast, the stiff system
exhibited very fast elastic build-up followed by extensive viscoelastic behavior
prior to yielding. Therefore, the stiffer rheometer had to be operated at a slower
speed in order to extend the time of the elastic behavior.
2.4.3 Extension of Vane Geometry to Viscosity Measurements

Given the success of the using the vane for determining yield stress, the
use of the vane has been extended to measurements of viscosity (Barnes and
Nguyen 2001). If the material within the vane moves with the vane, then a vane-
in-cup rheometer should be equivalent to a coaxial cylinders rheometer, with the
exception that slip is prevented.
Barnes and Carnali (1990) developed and experimentally verified a finite
element model of a vane-in-cup rheometer to analyze the flow of material. Figure
2.24 shows the streamlines determined for a Newtonian fluid and power-law fluid
(exponent k=0.2). In the Newtonian fluid case, the streamlines are not circular,
70
indicating some fluid within the swept-out region exchanges with fluid from the
annulus. In the power-law fluid case, the streamlines form concentric circles,
indicating that the assumption of an equivalent cylindrical bob is reasonable. The
transition between circular and non-circular streamlines was found to occur at a
power-law exponent of k = 0.5.
Newtonian Fluid Power-Law Fluid (k=0.2)

Figure 2.24: Finite Element Solution Streamlines for Narrow Gap Vane-in-
Cup Rheometer (Barnes and Carnali 1990)
Figure 2.25 shows a comparison of the shear stress distribution in the

annulus for the vane and coaxial cylinders geometries. In the vane rheometer, the
shear stress distribution is essentially flat except at the vane tip. In order to
prevent the occurrence of a dead zone where no flow occurs, the shear stress in
this flat area must be greater than the yield stress.
71
Vane Blade Bob
Tip
Stress Stress
Radius Radius
Angle Cup Angle Cup
Vane-in-Cup Coaxial Cylinders

Figure 2.25: Shear Stress Distribution in Annulus Based on Finite Element
Analysis (Barnes and Carnali 1990)
2.5 APPLICATION OF FLUID RHEOLOGY CONCEPTS TO CONCRETE

In selecting or designing a rheometer for cement paste, mortar, or
concrete, it is important to take into consideration the properties that are to be
measured and the expected ranges of values for these variables. The measurement
of cement paste or concrete rheology is a highly specialized topic.
The measurement of cement paste rheology is simpler and better
established than concrete rheology. Unlike concrete, which must be measured
with specially made rheometers, cement paste can be measured using
conventional, commercially available rheometers with few modifications. Coaxial
cylinders and parallel plate rheometers are commonly used (Ferraris, Obla, and
Hill 2000; Rahman and Moncef 2003). Furthermore, measuring the rheology of
cement paste instead of concrete allows the use of a substantially smaller sample
size and the elimination of aggregate effects. Measuring cement paste rheology is
an effective way to evaluate the effects of admixtures and supplementary
cementitious materials on flow properties. The rheology of cement paste can be
related to concrete rheology, although the relationship is complex (Ferraris and
72
Gaidis 1992). The measurement of cement paste is beyond the scope of this
report.
Concrete rheology presents several unique challenges due to the nature
and composition of concrete. The main problem with properly characterizing the
rheology of concrete is the large size of coarse aggregates. The general rule for
rheometers is that the gap size, or distance between parts, should be at least ten
times the maximum particle size (Van Wazer et al. 1963; Ferraris 1999). This rule
has been supported by experiments showing that particle packing density begins
to approach a steady value once the ratio of container diameter to particle
diameter reaches ten (McGreary 1961). For common concrete mixtures with a
maximum aggregate size of 1 inch, a 10-inch gap would be required.
A second potential problem results from the dead zone that can occur in
yield stress fluids. As described earlier, the ratio of outer radius to inner radius
should be set to an acceptably low value for the material and range of shear rates
to be tested. For concrete, the maximum value of this radii ratio has been
suggested as 1.2 (Tattersall and Banfill1983) or 1.1 (Ferraris 1999).
If a rheometer were constructed based on the requirements that the ratio of
the gap size to the maximum aggregate size be ten and the ratio of the outer radius
to inner radius be 1.2, the required sample volume for such a rheometer would be
2.6 m3 (3.4 yd3) (Tattersall and Banfill,1983).
A further problem for concrete rheometers is the slippage that occurs at
the walls of rheometers due to wall effect. This problem must be mitigated by
selecting components with proper texture.
Due to the challenges described above in building a conventional, absolute
concrete rheometer—namely, one that directly measures fundamental
parameters—attempts were made beginning at least as early as the 1970s to build
relative rheometers which measure mixing action in order to determine
parameters that are related to but not equal to fundamental parameters. Although
73
relative rheometers can be effective tools for industrial or field settings, it is
desirable to measure rheological parameters in fundamental units. Further, the
calculations presented in Section 2.3.3.3 indicate that the presence of a dead zone
can result in significant errors in using relative parameters in place of determined
fundamental parameters analytically. Given the practical impossibility of
achieving an ideal geometry, it is necessary to make compromises in the
determination of rheological parameters. Although absolute rheometers have been
built, measurement artifacts can significantly distort results. Further, the results
between different absolute rheometers for the same concrete can vary widely.
Mork (1996, 373) states that it is “impossible” to determine shear stress and
velocity profiles in concrete, and, therefore, recommends using relative rheometer
parameters of G and H.
Despite years of availability, relative and absolute concrete rheometers are
used only on a limited basis. While concrete rheometers do provide useful new
information about workability, several significant factors have stymied the
adoption of rheometers for use on a more widespread basis.
First, rheology is still largely an unfamiliar topic for the concrete industry.
Rheology is a multidisciplinary subject incorporating mathematics, physics, and
chemistry and can appear quite complicated. As Barnes et al. (1989) indicated,
“rheology is a difficult subject.” An array of factors must be considered in
selecting a rheometer, determining test settings, and interpreting test results.
Presently, no ASTM International standard test method is available for concrete
rheology. The availability of multiple concrete rheometers with varying features
adds to the complexity of implementing rheology measurements.
Second, concrete rheometers can only be used for a limited range of
workability. Most rheometers are not capable of measuring concretes with slumps
below 50 to 100 mm (2 to 4 inches). For these dry-consistency mixtures, the
torque needed to turn the rheometer is much greater than for more fluid mixes.
74
Further, dryer mixes tend to have higher ratios of yield stress to plastic viscosity;
therefore, the presence of a dead zone is more likely. While it is technically
possible to build a rheometer with a sufficiently large motor and to analytically
account for a potential dead zone, it remains an open question whether it is
appropriate to apply the same concepts of rheology used for moderate- and high-
slump concretes to low-slump concretes, which do not readily flow without
vibration.
Third, the cost of concrete rheometers is prohibitive for many applications.
Prices of commercially available rheometers can range from approximately
$20,000 to upwards of $50,000. The availability of concrete rheometers is limited.
The major worldwide makers of general purpose fluid rheometers do not sell
models appropriate for concrete. Instead, concrete rheometers must be custom
built or purchased from a small number of specialty sources from around the
world.
Fourth, concrete rheometers are still mainly in the research domain and
need additional development work before being used on a widespread basis. Each
existing rheometer has important drawbacks—such as geometry restrictions or a
tendency to cause segregation—that must be overcome prior to widespread use.
Anyone using a rheometer must be familiar with these drawbacks in order to
interpret test results properly. The absolute magnitudes of rheological parameters
can vary significantly between different rheometers even when testing identical
cement paste or concrete mixtures (Rahman and Moncef 2003; Ferraris and
Brower 2001). Ferraris and Martys (2003) have shown that it is possible to relate
the results from different rheometers; however, additional work is needed to
develop and confirm their theory. At the time of this writing, the wide variation in
absolute rheometer results means that absolute rheometers must be used as
relative rheometers, that is, the results from a given absolute rheometer can only
be compared to other test results obtained on that same absolute rheometer.
75
Finally, rheological parameters need to be related to practical field
applications. In a sense, learning to use a rheometer is like learning to convert
from English units to metric units: most workers in concrete have a good sense of
how concrete with a certain slump reading should appear; however, they do not
have a practical understanding of what a concrete with a certain yield stress and
plastic viscosity should look like. Before concrete rheology can be used
extensively, rheological parameters need to be related to actual field applications.
Appropriate ranges of yield stress and plastic viscosity need to be defined for
specific applications, such as for placing bridge decks or casting structural
columns. The concept of a workability box, shown in Figure 2.26, that would
define a zone of acceptable rheology, has been suggested for this purpose
(Tattersall 1991).
Zone of Acceptable
Rheology
Plastic Viscosity
Yield Stress
Figure 2.26: Workability Box for a Specific Application
Despite these drawbacks, concrete rheometers do provide important

information about concrete flow properties. Additional development work can
address these problems and further facilitate the application of fluid rheology to
the fresh concrete.
76
CHAPTER 3: FACTORS INFLUENCING CONCRETE
RHEOLOGY AND WORKABILITY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The rheology and workability of concrete are influenced by nearly every
aspect of the mixture proportions, material characteristics, and construction
conditions. The effects of many of these factors on workability and slump are well
known and widely reported. Less data exist for concrete rheology. This chapter
presents an overview of the influence of key factors on both workability and
rheology. The focus, however, is on rheology because trends in rheology are more
readily quantified and can be used for direct comparison with the results from the
ICAR rheometer.
The generalization of trends in rheology, even for a single factor ceteris
paribus, is fraught with complications. First, a trend in rheology for one variable
is also a function of other characteristics of the concrete mixture. For instance, the
use of an admixture may have a certain effect in one particular concrete mixture
but have a reverse effect when used in a separate concrete mixture of a different
composition. Second, the interactions between different admixtures can be
significant. Third, materials from different sources—or even the same source—
can vary widely in their composition and physical characteristics. A trend drawn
from data for a single material source—such as one fly ash, one ground
granulated blast furnace slag, or one aggregate—should not be extended to all fly
ashes, all ground granulated blast furnace slags, or all aggregates of a particular
mineralogy. Fourth, rheological measurements can be a function of measurement
technique. As shown by Ferraris and Brower (2001), the rheological parameters
77
measured by different concrete rheometers, even on the same concretes, can vary
between different rheometers. Finally, the historical lack of suitable techniques
for quantifying concrete rheology has resulted in a paucity of data in the literature
on the effects of various factors on concrete rheology. While some factors, such
as high-range water reducer (HRWR) dosage, have been reported widely, others
have been reported scarcely, if at all. A broad range of data from various sources
is desirable for drawing general conclusions.
The effects of chemical admixtures and supplementary cementitious
materials are often described in the literature in terms of cement paste rheology.
By measuring just cement paste, the influence of aggregates can be eliminated
and smaller mixtures can be tested. The role of aggregates is important, however,
in relating measurements from cement paste to concrete. In some cases, a trend in
rheology for a particular mixture change in cement paste may be reverse in
concrete (Tattersall and Banfill, 1983).
3.2 EFFECTS OF CEMENT
3.2.1 Cement Content

An increase in the cement content, at a constant water-to-cement ratio,
provides more paste to coat aggregates and to fill the spaces between aggregates,
resulting in improved workability. Smeplass (1994) found that an increase in
cementitious materials content (cement with 5% silica fume) relative to aggregate
volume resulted in a decrease in both yield stress and plastic viscosity.
3.2.2 Cement Characteristics

The chemical composition and physical characteristics of cement can
significantly influence workability. Even for a single type of cement, as defined
78
by ASTM C 150 or ASTM C 1157, the changes in cement characteristics can be
consequential.
Hope and Rose (1990) examined the effects of cement composition on the
water demand required for a constant slump. Although the correlations between
composition and water demand varied between different aggregates and mixture
proportions, the authors were able to draw several conclusions. The water demand
increased for cements with high Al2O3 or C2S contents and decreased for cements
with high loss on ignition, high carbonate addition, or high C3S content. The
particle size distribution of the cement was found to be significant for concrete
made with angular aggregate and less pronounced for concrete made with
rounded aggregate. For the concrete with angular aggregate, the cements with a
higher portion of material smaller than 10µm exhibited higher water demand. The
specific surface, however, had minimal influence on water demand.
Vom Berg (1979) determined that increasing cement fineness resulted in
exponential increases in both yield stress and plastic viscosity for cement pastes.
Mork and Gjoerv (1997) found that the ratio of gypsum-to-hemihydrate in
cement could influence concrete rheology. For a cement with high contents of
C3A and alkalis, a reduction in the gypsum-to-hemihydrate ratio resulted in a
decrease in yield stress but little change in plastic viscosity. When a melamine-
based HRWR was used, the trend was reversed, with a lower gypsum-to-
hemihydrate ratio resulting in an increase in yield stress. For a cement with lower
contents of C3A and alkalis, the effects of the gypsum-to-hemihydrate ratio were
less pronounced. Further, a reduction in the sulfate content from 3 to 1 percent
resulted in a decrease in both the yield stress and plastic viscosity.
3.3 EFFECTS OF WATER CONTENT

An increase in the water-to-cementitious materials ratio in either concrete
or cement paste results in reductions in both yield stress and plastic viscosity
(Tattersall and Banfill 1983; Tattersall 1991; Mork 1996; Szecsy 1997). The
79
addition of water reduces the solids concentration, resulting in less resistance to
flow. Workability is improved with increasing water-to-cementitious materials
ratios up to a certain point, after which segregation can become a problem.
3.4 EFFECTS OF AGGREGATES
3.4.1 Aggregate Volume Fraction

An increase in the total volume fraction of aggregate in concrete results in
increases in yield stress and plastic viscosity (Szecsy 1997; Geiker et al. 2002).
Higher volume fractions of aggregates result in reduced spacing between
aggregates and, thus, greater resistance to flow. The relationship between solids
volume concentration and viscosity is well established for concentrated
suspensions (Barnes et al. 1989).
3.4.2 Sand-to-Aggregate Ratio

Workability can be improved by optimizing the sand-to-aggregate ratio
(S/A). Optimum values of S/A exist for minimizing yield stress and plastic
viscosity (Tattersall 1991; Szecsy 1997). An optimum S/A for yield stress may
not be optimum for plastic viscosity. Increasing or decreasing the S/A from its
optimum value results in increases in yield stress or plastic viscosity. At high
values of S/A, a reduction in sand content results in a reduction in the surface area
of aggregates that must be coated with cement paste and, thus, a reduction in the
resistance to flow. When the sand content is reduced below the optimum value,
the result is a lack of fine aggregates to fill the voids between coarse aggregates
and, thus, increased resistance to flow.
For tests reported by Tattersall (1991), the minimum value of yield stress
occurred at an S/A of about 0.33, while the minimum value of plastic viscosity
80
was reached at an S/A of approximately 0.40. The exact value was a function of
water-to-cement ratio. Szecsy (1997), when testing crushed limestone and river
gravel coarse aggregates, found that the minimum yield stress was achieved at an
S/A of approximately 0.40 while plastic viscosity was minimized at an S/A of
approximately 0.30. In comparison, S/A values of approximately 0.50 are typical
for self-consolidating concrete.
3.4.3 Shape and Texture

Aggregate shape and texture strongly influence concrete workability and
rheology. In concentrated suspensions, any deviation from a spherical shape
results in an increased viscosity (Barnes et al. 1989). Quiroga (2003) found that
aggregates with spherical, cubical, or rounded shapes and smooth textures
required less cement and water to achieve the same slump as aggregates with flat,
elongated, or angular shapes and rough textures. Spherical shapes are preferable
because they more readily flow past each other and have reduced specific surface
area (Tattersall 1991). Quiroga (2003) found that when gradation was held
constant, aggregates with greater packing density, which is related to shape and
texture, produced higher slumps. Tattersall (1991) suggests that particle shape has
a greater influence on plastic viscosity than on yield stress and that texture has no
significant effect on rheology.
3.4.4 Gradation
The gradation, or particle size distribution, of aggregate plays a critical
role in the workability and rheology of concrete. Ideally, the gradation should take
into account all materials, including the cementitious materials and aggregates. In
concentrated suspensions, increasing the polydispersity, or spread of sizes,
decreases viscosity (Barnes et al. 1989).
81
Concretes produced with gap-graded aggregates, which intentionally omit
certain size fractions, can be harsh and more susceptible to segregation. Quiroga
(2003) found that uniform aggregate particle size distributions required less water
for a given slump than other gradations. In designing a concrete mixture, the
gradation can be optimized for a variety of objectives, such as slump, packing
density, uniformity, or plastic viscosity. Quiroga (2003) found that mixtures
optimized for maximum packing density or slump produced harsh mixtures with
poor workability and high susceptibility to segregation. Concrete mixtures above
the line on the 0.45 power chart resulted in stiff mixtures, while mixes below the
line resulted in harsh, segregating mixtures. Quiroga (2003), therefore,
recommends selecting a gradation that strikes a balance between high packing
density and uniform grading.
3.4.5 Microfines Content

The addition of microfines can improve or reduce workability depending
on the quantity and characteristics of the microfines, as well as the composition of
the rest of the concrete mixture. Like larger aggregates, the quantity, shape,
texture, and particle size distribution of the microfines are important in achieving
improvements in workability. The addition of microfines increases the surface
area that must be wetted; however, the provision of fines can improve the particle
size distribution and result in an overall improvement in flow characteristics.
Ho et al. (2002) evaluated the addition of either limestone or granite
powder in a cement paste intended for use in self-consolidating concrete. The
limestone powder and granite powder had approximately 80% and 75% passing
the #200 sieve, respectively, and were obtained as dust from the aggregate
crushing process. In general, the replacement of cement with the inert powders at
rates up to 55% reduced cement paste yield stress and plastic viscosity. All
cement paste samples incorporated one of two different high-range water-
82
reducing admixtures and maintained a constant water-to-powder ratio (cement
and filler). The reduction in Bingham parameters was less pronounced for the
granite powder, which tended to have flakey and elongated shapes.
Ghezal and Khayat (2002) examined the use of a limestone filler material
with a Blaine fineness of 565 m2/kg and 97.2% of particles smaller than 45 µm.
When used in self-consolidating concrete mixtures at rates up to 100 kg/m3 with a
constant water-to-powder ratio, the limestone filler resulted in decreases in yield
stress and plastic viscosity. The change was most pronounced at low cement
levels. The use of limestone filler also enhanced the stability of the concrete
mixtures.
Quiroga (2003) found that the addition of microfines resulted in increased
dosages of water-reducing admixture required to achieve a constant slump;
however, the effect of microfines varied widely, with limestone microfines
requiring less HRWR than granite or traprock microfines. The rate of increase in
demand for HRWR became significantly higher when the percentage of
microfines exceeded 15% of the total fine aggregate mass.
3.5 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES
3.5.1 Water-Reducing Admixtures

Water-reducing admixtures enhance workability by reducing the water-to-
cementitious materials ratio needed to achieve a given slump. Alternatively, they
can be used to increase slump for a given water-to-cementitious materials ratio,
reduce cement content while keeping the water-to-cementitious materials ratio
constant, or some combination of the above applications. The exact effects of
water-reducing admixtures depend on the chemical composition of the admixture
and the mixture proportions of the concretes to which they are added. In general,
83
however, water-reducing admixtures result in significant decreases in yield stress,
while plastic viscosity typically increases or decreases modestly.
Mork (1996) suggests that, in general, low-range water reducers decrease
yield stress and plastic viscosity, while high-range water reducers decrease yield
stress and increase plastic viscosity. For both types of admixtures, the changes in
plastic viscosity are most pronounced at high admixture dosages. Similarly,
Smeplass (1994) found that the use of high-range water reducer in concrete
mainly reduced yield stress but had little impact on plastic viscosity. For cement
paste, Ho et al. (2002) found that two high-range water reducers decreased yield
stress, but resulted in minimal decreases in plastic viscosity.
Tattersall (1991) reported that the use of a lignosulphonate-based low-
range water-reducing admixture in concrete resulted in a reduction in both yield
stress and plastic viscosity, although the effect on yield stress was more
pronounced. The decrease in these values was most pronounced at low dosages
and leveled off at higher dosages. In contrast, the use of melamine sulphonate-,
naphthalene sulphonate-, and lignosulphonate-based high-range water-reducing
admixtures in concrete all resulted in dramatic reductions in yield stress but little
change in plastic viscosity. Again, the effects of using of these admixtures was
most pronounced at low dosages and decreased with increasing dosage.
Tattersall (1991) also presented data showing that the addition of a high-
range water-reducing admixture resulted in an increase in viscosity when used in
a concrete with a low sand content (S/A = 0.35), but a decrease in viscosity when
used in a concrete with a high sand content (S/A = 0.45). The change in yield
stress was approximately the same regardless of the sand content. Tattersall and
Banfill (1983) suggest that at low sand contents, the flocculated cement paste
separates coarse particles; therefore, when the cement is deflocculated, the coarse
particles come closer together and generate greater resistance to flow. The result
is an increase in plastic viscosity of the concrete in spite of the decrease in
84
viscosity of the cement. In mixes with a high sand content, the sand fills more of
the space between coarse particles. As a result, a reduction in viscosity of the
paste results in a reduction in the viscosity of the concrete because the coarse
particles do not move sufficiently closer together.
Billberg, Petersson, and Norberg (1996) used melamine- and naphthalene-
based high-range water-reducing admixtures and found a reduction in both yield
stress and plastic viscosity. The concrete tested had an S/A ratio of 0.57 and a
maximum aggregate size of 16 mm. The reduction in yield stress was greater in
percentage terms—whereas the yield stress was reduced from 600 Pa to
approximately 100 to 200 Pa, the plastic viscosity was reduced from 30 Pa.s to
approximately 15 to 20 Pa.s.
According to Tattersall (1991) the effects of naphthalene- and melamine-
based high-range water reducers depend on cement characteristics. Further,
increasing the cement content increases the potency of high-range water-reducing
admixtures.
Faroug, Szwabowski, and Wild (1999) found that the effects of
naphthalene- and melamine-based high-range water reducers were most
pronounced at low water-to-cement ratios. The use of both types of high-range
water reducers in concrete resulted in decreases in yield stress and plastic
viscosity. The admixtures had essentially no effect on plastic viscosity above a
water-to-cement ratio of 0.40 or on yield stress above a water-to-cement ratio of
0.50. The decline in potency with increasing water-to-cement ratios was attributed
to the increase in the ratio of total water to adsorbed capillary and floc water.
Although the plastic viscosity did not change when the water-to-cement ratio was
increased to 0.50, the additional water released through the action of the high-
range water reducers was sufficient to cause segregation.
85
3.5.2 Air Entrainment Agents
Air-entraining agents improve workability, particularly for lean or harsh
mixtures or mixtures with angular or poorly-graded aggregates. The presence of
entrained air results in a concrete that is more cohesive; however, excessive
entrained air contents can make concrete sticky and difficult to finish. Air
entrainment also reduces segregation and bleeding (Kosmatka, Kerkhoff, and
Panarese 2002).
Tattersall (1991) showed that the use of air-entraining agent in concrete
reduced plastic viscosity to a much greater extent than yield stress. The change in
plastic viscosity was essentially zero above an air content of 5%, although the
yield stress continued to decrease at higher air contents. Likewise, Mork (1996)
suggests that, in general, low dosages of air-entraining agent mainly reduce
plastic viscosity, while higher dosages mainly result in reductions in yield stress.
In cement paste, air entrainment can increase yield stress (Tattersall and
Banfill 1983). This increase is thought to be due to the apparent negative charge
imparted on the air bubbles by the air entrainment agent. This negative charge can
attract hydrating cement grains, resulting in the formation of bridges between the
cement grains. In concrete, the reduction in plastic viscosity is likely due to the
“ball bearing” effect of the spherical air bubbles. The yield stress of the concrete
is not decreased as significantly as the viscosity due to the increase in yield stress
of the cement paste.
3.5.3 Viscosity Modifying Admixtures

Viscosity modifying admixtures (VMAs), also know as anti-washout
admixtures, are typically used in self-consolidating concrete or for placing
concrete underwater. For self-consolidating concrete, VMAs are used to improve
stability by reducing segregation, surface settlement, and bleeding. In underwater
concrete, VMAs reduce the washout mass loss. VMAs increase both the yield
86
stress and plastic viscosity. A thorough overview of VMAs and their effects on
concrete is provided by Khayat (1998).
A range of VMAs with various chemical compositions are commercially
available. VMAs used for concrete typically consist of water soluble polymers,
such as welam gum or cellulose derivatives. Typically, these VMAs increase the
viscosity of the mixing water through a variety of mechanisms, with the precise
mode of action depending on the type of polymer.
The use of a VMA results in shear-thinning, or pseudoplastic, behavior in
cement pastes or mortars. This behavior is advantageous for concrete because the
relatively high viscosity at low shear rates prevents segregation of aggregates
while the relatively low viscosity at higher shear rates ensures excellent
deformability during mixing, pumping, and placing operations. VMAs also
increase thixotropy.
3.6 EFFECTS OF SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS
3.6.1 Fly Ash

The use of fly ash is generally recognized to improve the workability of
concrete by reducing the water content needed to achieve a certain slump. In
terms of rheology, fly ash reduces yield stress but has variable effects on plastic
viscosity. The influence of fly ash depends on whether the cement is replaced
with fly ash on a mass or volume basis.
Two conflicting mechanisms influence the workability of concretes with
fly ash. Since fly ash particles are smaller than the cement particles they replace,
the surface area that must be wetted increases, resulting in a reduction in
workability. However, the spherical shape of fly ash particles produces a “ball
bearing” effect, which allows coarser particles to flow more readily and improves
workability.
87
Tattersall (1991) showed that the use of a mass replacement of fly ash in
concrete mixtures resulted in a reduction of yield stress, while the plastic viscosity
decreased only slightly. The magnitude of reduction in yield stress depended on
the initial cement content, with fly ash having the greatest improvement at lower
initial cement contents. When fly ash was replaced on a volume basis instead of a
mass basis, the changes in yield stress and plastic viscosity were doubled,
suggesting that the increased surface area played a larger role in the incremental
difference in volume between the mass and volume replacements.
Szecsy (1997) found that a 10% fly ash mass replacement level in concrete
mixtures resulted in an increase in yield stress. From 10 to 20%, the use of fly ash
reduced the yield stress. The use of 5% fly ash resulted in a reduction of plastic
viscosity; however, further replacement of cement with fly ash at rates up to 20%
resulted in little additional change in plastic viscosity.
3.6.2 Silica Fume

The use of silica fume can improve workability when used at low
replacement rates but can reduce workability when added at higher replacement
rates. The addition of 2 to 3% silica fume by mass of cement can be used as a
pumping aid for concrete (Tattersall 1991). Like fly ash, the spherical shape of
silica fume particles is advantageous for workability; however, the small diameter
of silica fume particles can significantly increase the surface area that must be
wetted.
According to Tattersall (1991) and Mork (1996), a threshold value of the
silica fume replacement level exists for concrete mixtures, such that below the
threshold value, the use of silica fume reduces plastic viscosity but produces little
change in yield stress. Above the threshold value, both yield stress and plastic
viscosity increase with increasing levels of silica fume replacement.
88
Faroug, Szwabowski, and Wild (1999) measured the rheology of concrete
with the silica fume used as either a replacement or addition to cement. When
used as a replacement, the yield stress increased with increasing replacement
levels up to 20%, above which further silica fume replacement resulted in a
reduction in yield stress. The plastic viscosity decreased at up to a 10%
replacement rate, but then began increasing at higher replacement rates so that the
plastic viscosity was approximately unchanged from the control at a 15%
replacement rate and higher than the control at further replacement rates up to
30%. When used as an admixture at levels up to 10%, silica fume resulted in
increased yield stress across the tested range. Plastic viscosity increased at
addition levels up to 7.5%, above which it began to decrease.
Shi, Matsui, and Feng (2002) tested mortar mixtures and found that the
addition of silica fume resulted in a reduction in both yield stress and plastic
viscosity at replacement rates up to 6% and 9%, respectively. At higher rates,
yield stress and plastic viscosity increased, such that at a 12% replacement rate,
both yield stress and plastic viscosity were higher than the control mixture.
3.6.3 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag

The use of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) generally
improves workability, although its effects can be variable depending on the
characteristics of the concrete mixture in which it is used. According to Tattersall
(1991), the effect of GGBFS on workability is much less than that of fly ash for
cases when a constant slump is maintained.
Tattersall (1991) reported results showing that the effect of GGBFS on
rheology was strongly dependent on the cement content and GGBFS type. For a
low cement content (200 kg/m3), the addition of slag reduced yield stress and
increased plastic viscosity for the two slags, which were used at replacement rates
of 40% and 70%. At a higher cementitious materials content (400 kg/m3) the use
89
of the first slag resulted in minimal change in rheology while the use of the other
slag resulted in increases in yield stress and plastic viscosity. The water content
was held constant when the cementitious materials content was changed;
therefore, the water-to-cementitious materials ratio decreased as the cementitious
materials content increased.
3.7 EFFECTS OF FIBERS

The use of steel or synthetic fibers can dramatically decrease concrete
workability and increase thixotropy. Tattersall (1991) showed that increasing the
content of steel and synthetic fibers resulted in increases in both yield stress and
plastic viscosity. For the steel fibers, increasing the fiber length resulted mainly in
an increase in yield stress but little change in plastic viscosity.
3.8 SUMMARY
The factors influencing concrete rheology and workability are summarized
in Table 3.1. Rheology depends on the concentration, shape, and particle size
distribution of the various solid constituents as well as the use of chemical
admixtures. Due to the wide variation in materials available for concrete
production and the infinite number of possible combinations of these materials,
the information contained herein applies only to general cases. For specific
combinations of materials, trial batches can be tested to confirm trends.
90
Table 3.1: Summary of Factors Influencing Concrete Rheology
Yield Stress Plastic Viscosity
Cement Content Decrease Decrease
Water Content Decrease Decrease
Aggregates
Aggregate Volume Fraction Increase Increase
Sand-to-Aggregate Ratio Optimum value Optimum value
Round or cubical preferred to flat,
Shape
elongated, or angular
Texture Smooth preferred to rough
Uniform gradation, high packing density
Gradation
preferred
Microfines Content Mixed Mixed
Admixtures
Water-Reducing Admixtures Decrease Mixed
Air Entrainment Agent Mixed Decrease
Viscosity Modifying Admixture Increase Increase
Supplementary Cementitious
Materials
Fly Ash Decrease Mixed
Silica Fume (low dosage) Decrease Decrease
Silica Fume (high dosage) Increase Increase
GGBFS Mixed Increase
Fiber Reinforcement Increase Increase
91
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL APPROACHES
TO WORKABILITY CHARACTERIZATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Despite nearly a century of efforts to develop an effective test method to
measure workability quickly and accurately, much work remains to be done. The
61 existing workability test methods described in ICAR Report 105.1 (Koehler
and Fowler 2003) provide a basis for identifying the principles and concepts that
have and have not worked in the past and for developing requirements for a new
test method. This chapter describes the lessons learned from existing test
methods; the feedback obtained from industry, government, and academia;
general requirements for a new test method; and the identification of the most
promising approach for workability characterization.
4.2 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING WORKABILITY TEST METHODS

The 61 test methods described in ICAR Report 105.1 (Koehler and Fowler
2003) provide more information on what has not worked than on what has
worked. Still, an examination of these methods helps identify needs addressed by
earlier researchers and prevents dead ends in future research.
Throughout the literature, numerous references quickly rule out the
possibility of using a field workability test method that does not directly measure
yield stress and plastic viscosity. However, no one has proposed a simple, rugged,
inexpensive field test to measure the fundamental rheological parameters of
concrete. The slump test has endured for nearly 90 years because of its simplicity
and accuracy. In fact, some might say that the concrete industry has become
93
complacent in measuring workability due to the simplicity of the slump test. On
large construction projects where substantial sums of money are spent on
producing and placing concrete, the amount of money spent to measure a property
as important as workability is insignificant. Still, in order for the concrete industry
to spend more money to monitor workability, a compelling alternative to the
slump test in terms of cost, accuracy, and usefulness must be developed. The
development of new high-performance concretes will make the need for more
accurate field characterization of concrete rheology more important. This need for
an improved test method along with new understanding of concrete rheology
should propel the adoption of a test method that is more complex than the slump
test as long as it is economically viable and provides accurate and relevant results.
It is perhaps most instructive to study the slump test because of its
extensive use over more than 80 years. The slump test has even been used as a
simple indication of yield stress for concentrated suspensions other than concrete
(Pashias et al. 1996). The lessons drawn from the slump test must not be
overlooked in the future development of workability test methods. The slump test
has endured longer than any other test method because of its simplicity and the
relevance of its results.
Various references cite different dates for the first introduction of the
slump test (Chapman 1913; Abrams 1918). The slump test was first standardized
into ASTM in 1922.
Even at the time when the slump test was developed, the test’s simplicity
was one of its key selling points. No other test is as simple, fast, and reliable as
the slump test. One of the main disadvantages of the slump test, however, is that it
is a static, not dynamic, test. Dynamic tests provide an indication of the flow
properties of concrete after the yield stress has been exceeded and are better
suited for thixotropic materials such as high-microfines concrete. Any new test
method should be comparable to the slump test in terms of simplicity, speed, and
94
accuracy, while also giving a better indication of the dynamic properties of
concrete under actual placing conditions.
Despite criticism that the results of the slump test can be too easily
“adjusted” to meet a specification, the results of the slump test have been shown
to be sensitive to changes in material properties. To evaluate the ability of the
slump test to detect changes in material properties, Baker and McMahon (1969)
compiled the testing, sampling, and material variances for the slump test on
eleven construction projects from two states. Testing variance is a measure of
testing errors and uncertainties in the test; sampling variance is a measure of
errors and uncertainty in the sampling process; and material variance is a measure
of changes in material properties. In an ideal test, all of the variance will be
attributable to material variance. The testing variances as a percentage of total
variance, as reported in Table 4.1, compare favorably to other commonly used test
procedures. As a percentage of total variance, the pressure method for
determining air content (ASTM C233) has a 21.5% testing variance, the 28-day
compressive strength test (ASTM C39) exhibits a 16.8% testing variance, and the
standard unit weight determination (ASTM C138) has a 51.0% testing variance
(Popovics 1994).
Aside from the slump test, the remaining workability test methods can be
split into two groups: tests that have been used in the concrete industry but not to
the extent of the slump test and tests that have never gained acceptance beyond
any initial studies. The most notable test methods that appear to have found some
use by the concrete industry include the compaction factor test (Powers 1968;
Neville 1981; Bartos 1992; Bartos, Sonebi, and Tamimi 2002; BS 1881-103
1993), Vebe consistometer (Bartos 1992; Scanlon 1994; Bartos, Sonebi, and
Tamimi 2002; ASTM C 1170; EN12350-3), Kelly ball test (Powers 1968; Bartos
1992; Scanlon 1994; Ferraris 1999; Bartos, Sonebi, and Tamimi 2002), inverted
slump cone test (Tattersall and Banfill 1983; McWhannell 1994; Johnston 1994;
95
ASTM C 995-01; Bartos, Sonebi, and Tamimi 2002), flow table test (Tattersall
1991; Bartos 1992; Bartos, Sonebi, and Tamimi 2002; EN12350-5), K-slump
tester (Bartos 1992; Scanlon 1994; Ferraris 1999; US patent 3,863,494; Bartos,
Sonebi, and Tamimi 2002), and trowel test (Bartos 1992; Dobrowlski 1998;
Bartos, Sonebi, and Tamimi 2002). Existing rotational rheometers have gained
limited acceptance. While some other devices do show promise and may be used
more extensively in the future, at the time of this writing they appear to have
gained little acceptance by the concrete industry.
Table 4.1: Variability in Slump Test Measurements in Highway Applications

(Baker and McMahon 1969)
Testing
Overall Variance
Testing Sampling Material
Project Observations Standard Mean as % of
Variance Variance Variance
Deviation Total
Variance
1 184 0.16 0.04 0.26 0.68 2.44 35%
State 1
2 200 0.13 0.02 0.45 0.80 1.50 22%

3 300 0.25 0.09 0.46 0.89 2.76 31%
1 216 0.074 0.00 0.15 0.47 2.04 33%
2 200 0.06 0.06 0.37 0.70 1.86 12%
3 200 0.08 0.025 0.42 0.73 2.34 15%
State 2
4 200 0.027 0.012 0.206 0.495 1.77 11%

5 204 0.066 0.03 0.305 0.633 2.37 16%
6 200 0.033 0.034 0.14 0.456 2.12 16%
7 200 0.084 0.086 0.20 0.609 2.41 23%
8 200 0.158 0.047 0.50 0.844 2.26 22%
Of these seven test methods other than the slump test that have been used
in the concrete industry beyond a few initial studies, all are single-point tests with
at least one major disadvantage to the slump test. The compaction factor test has
been used more extensively in Europe than in the United States, although overall
its use has declined. While the compaction factor test is a dynamic test and does
provide more information than the slump test, it is bulky for common site use and
96
the value of its results are not well understood. The Vebe consistometer is used
for very low-slump concretes; however, it is too large for site use and is not
typically used in cases where the slump test can be used. The Kelly ball test has
been shown to be at least as accurate as the slump test, yet it has never gained
widespread acceptance and has been discontinued as an ASTM standard test
method. The inverted slump cone test shows promise in properly dealing with the
thixotropy of fiber-reinforced concrete; however, the device needs to be better
developed in order to measure a wider range of concretes and to allow
comparison of test results between different individual test apparatuses. The K-
slump tester is commercially available and can be slightly faster than the slump
test; however, it is not as accurate as the slump test. The trowel test is useful;
however, due to its subjectivity, it will likely never be specified or used on a
widespread basis.
Rotational rheometers are still used primarily in the research domain; none
has been extensively marketed to contractors as a field test device. The concepts
used by rotational rheometers do show promise for field use. However, with the
exception of the BTRHEOM rheometer (Hu et al. 1996; de Larrard et al. 1997; de
Larrard 1999; Ferraris and Brower 2001; Bartos, Sonebi, and Tamimi 2002), all
are too bulky for site use. Even the BTRHEOM rheometer, which requires a
computer and includes seals that must be replaced frequently, needs to be made
more rugged for field use. All of the devices are far too expensive, even for most
laboratory work. If any of the rotational rheometers could be developed in a
smaller, more rugged form and on a mass production basis with inexpensive parts,
the cost and practicality of such a rotational rheometer could be competitive with
the slump test, given the additional information such a test device could provide.
97
4.3 FEEDBACK FROM INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT, AND ACADEMIA
Early in the project, a workshop was held to solicit feedback on existing
workability test methods and needs for improved workability characterization.
Workshop participants included representatives from government, industry, and
academia. The workshop considered the full range of workability, with a
particular focus on low-slump concrete.
After the workshop, a statement of conclusions was prepared and sent to
all workshop participants for review. The following conclusions were reached:
• For concrete in general, it is not necessary to measure directly
fundamental flow properties as long as the properties measured are
relevant to the construction operation.
• The measurement of yield stress and plastic viscosity is not relevant to
dry-consistency concrete mixtures (with slumps less than
approximately 2 to 4 inches). Instead, three factors are of greater
relevance:
o The energy applied to initiate movement of the concrete.
o The rate of flow of concrete, expressed as the energy required
to move a certain mass of concrete.
o The energy required to achieve full consolidation.
• Alternatively, a soil mechanics approach may be appropriate for low-
slump concrete mixtures.
• Although it is important to measure flow properties under vibration
because such measurements are representative of actual field
conditions, the meaning of viscosity under vibration is still not well
understood. Indeed, the BTRHEOM rheometer, which can only be
used for mixtures with slumps greater than 4 inches, is the only
currently available rheometer capable of measuring viscosity under
vibration without special modifications.
98
• The use of performance-based specifications will not eliminate the
need to monitor workability. Ensuring proper workability is important
for achieving good strength and durability.
• Finishability is an issue that should be considered separately from
workability. It is related to bleeding, aggregate characteristics, and the
rheology of the paste at the concrete surface.
Additionally, the following assessments were made of the prospect for a

portable concrete rheometer:
• The prospects for building a portable rheometer are promising. The
IBB rheometer, which features an impeller geometry, is capable of
successfully measuring a wide range of concrete from dry sand to self-
compacting concrete. Master Builders has used the IBB successfully
for several years. Developing a portable field device, however,
presents different challenges. Unlike the IBB, the portable drill device
would not be set in a fixed position above a standard volume of
concrete.
• It may be possible to utilize a properly selected axial impeller to
measure low-slump concrete mixtures. The existing portable drill
device (FCT 101), in its current form, features an axial rotation,
whereas the IBB features a planetary rotation.
• It is likely with low-slump concrete mixtures that the scatter of the
data would be large.
• If yield stress and plastic viscosity are not relevant for low-slump
concrete mixtures, using an impeller device may not be appropriate for
such mixtures.
99
4.4 CRITERIA FOR NEW WORKABILITY TEST METHODS
Based on the advantages and disadvantages of existing workability test
methods and the feedback from the workshop, criteria for the creation and
evaluation of future test methods were developed. Any new test method should
provide a more complete description of workability than the slump test is capable
of providing and be competitive with the slump test in terms of speed and
economic viability. The criteria for any new workability test method are described
as follows:
• Parameters Measured: Any new test method should directly or
indirectly measure yield stress and plastic viscosity. The test method
should measure the dynamic properties of moderate- and low-slump
concretes and should appropriately measure concretes that exhibit high
thixotropy. To accomplish this, the test should add energy to the
concrete, such as with vibration.
• Ruggedness: Any new test device must be sufficiently rugged to be
used regularly on a jobsite. Depending on the accuracy of the device, it
may also be used in the lab for research and mix proportioning.
• Workability Range: Any new test method should be able to measure
the widest possible range of workability. The wider the range of
workability, the more versatile the device will be and the greater the
chances that the device will be adopted widely. In reality, no device
can measure all concretes, from zero-slump concrete to self-
consolidating concrete.
• Aggregate Size Restrictions: The device must feature proper geometry
to allow testing of concretes with a wide range of aggregate sizes.
Based on existing tests, such as the slump test, the device should
measure concretes with a maximum aggregate size of up to 1 to 1.5
inches.
100
• Sample Size: The sample size should be kept to a minimum while still
being sufficiently large to determine test parameters accurately.
• Cost: The cost of any device, when mass-produced, must be
competitive with simple, currently available devices, most notably the
slump test.
• Test Duration: The time required to perform the test must be
minimized. The slump test can be performed in several minutes. Other
tests allow workability to be monitored continuously with little
interruption of construction operations.
• Complexity/Training: Any new test device must be sufficiently simple
to be performed and interpreted by field workers. Although the test
may report results in terms of yield stress and plastic viscosity, field
personnel not familiar with concrete rheology must be able to interpret
these values and make quick decisions. The use of nomographs or an
embedded electronic device can facilitate the interpretation of results
in the field.
• Number of People Required to Perform Test: One person should be
able to perform the test method quickly. This person should also be
able to perform other duties on the job site, instead of only monitoring
workability.
• Data Processing: The results of the test should preferably be obtained
directly without any calculations or processing. When data processing
is required, an embedded electronic device should perform all
calculations and display simple results that can be used directly.
• Size and Weight: The device must be small and lightweight so that one
person can easily move it around on a jobsite.
• Electricity: Although any new test device should preferably be able to
operate without electricity, devices requiring power should not be
101
eliminated. Many construction sites have power readily available.
Alternatively, batteries can be used.
Most importantly with any device, it must be accepted by a wide range of

parties within the concrete industry. As such, the device must satisfy the
seemingly conflicting objectives of being simple and rheologically accurate.
Concrete contractors will not decide to use a new test unless it clearly adds value
to their construction operations. Researchers have been skeptical of simple
devices that give a relevant indication of workability but do not directly measure
the fundamental rheological properties of concrete. For instance, in discussing the
inverted slump cone test for fiber-reinforced concrete, Tattersall and Banfill
(1983, 238) write, “it is extremely unfortunate that in a new area of concrete
technology it is proposed to establish yet another empirical and quite arbitrary test
for workability; the long-term result can only be to add to the confusion which
already exists.” A device that meets the majority of the criteria enumerated above
stands the greatest chance of being adopted by all diverse parties in the concrete
industry.
4.5 SELECTION OF THE MOST PROMISING APPROACH FOR WORKABILITY

CHARACTERIZATION
Based on the examination of the state of the art in workability
measurement and the current and future needs of the concrete industry vis-à-vis
workability, it was decided that a low-cost, portable rheometer would be the most
promising approach for measuring concrete workability in the field. Since no such
rheometers existed, it was decided to develop and test the ICAR rheometer, a
completely new portable rheometer designed specifically to meet the changing
needs of the concrete industry. As originally envisioned, the ICAR rheometer
would be approximately the size of a hand drill and would feature a properly
102
designed impeller that could be immersed into a sample of concrete on a jobsite
and rotated at various speeds in order to determine the rheological properties.
The concept of the ICAR rheometer fulfills the requirements for new test
methods described in Section 4.4. The ICAR rheometer can measure the scientific
fundamental flow properties of fresh concrete. The ICAR rheometer can be a
dynamic test by adding energy to the concrete and measuring the flow properties
after the yield stress has been exceeded. As a portable device, the ICAR
rheometer can be constructed to be rugged, lightweight, and compact. It can be
designed to measure a wide range of workability with typical maximum aggregate
sizes. The sample size can be kept to a reasonable value, given the size of
concrete constituents. If properly designed, the cost of building the ICAR
rheometer on a mass-production basis can be significantly less than the cost of
existing laboratory concrete rheometers and can be economically viable relative to
the slump test given the value of the information provided by the ICAR
rheometer. The operation of the test can be designed so that it requires little
training and can be completed by one person in less time than the slump test. A
software program can be used to automate the operation of the test and the
presentation of test results. The use of a rheometer can simplify the process of
workability characterization by eliminating the need for inconsistent, subjective
measurements of workability. Although operation of a rheometer requires
electrical power, the ICAR rheometer can be operated from a battery, just as a
portable hand drill would be operated.
From this initial concept, the development process of a first generation
prototype was commenced, as described in detail in the next chapter. The criteria
described in Section 4.4 were considered throughout the development and testing
process. The thorough consideration of both the lessons learned from past efforts
in characterizing workability and the current and future needs of the concrete
industry helped to enable the creation of a workability test method that balanced
103
the needs of the concrete industry with the challenges and limitations of
measuring concrete workability.
104
CHAPTER 5: DEVELOPMENT OF THE ICAR RHEOMETER
5.1 INTRODUCTION
With the decision made to build a portable rheometer and after a thorough
study of the literature regarding fluid rheology and concrete workability
characterization, the development process for the ICAR rheometer began. While
the basic requirements were known, it was necessary to find a combination of
components that could fulfill the objectives for the ICAR rheometer in terms of
cost, capabilities, accuracy, and portability. This chapter describes the
development process in detail, from the evaluation of available components to the
selection of components and the development of the software program.
5.2 OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

The objective of the development process was to demonstrate the
feasibility of producing and using a portable rheometer for characterizing the
workability of concrete. To this end, a first generation prototype was developed
using all off-the-shelf components. With each decision in the development
process, attention was paid not just to selecting acceptable off-the-shelf
components, but to assessing the feasibility of developing a mass-production
version of the rheometer. The use of off-the-shelf components resulted in a
prototype that was larger and more expensive than a future mass-production
version; however, it dramatically shortened the development time and cost and
permitted the experimental testing of concrete to commence sooner.
105
The development of the ICAR rheometer consisted of three major aspects:
development of an impeller, selection of a motor and gearbox, and development
of a control system. The impeller selection was perhaps the most important
aspect. An impeller was needed that would create favorable flow conditions in the
concrete in order to enable the determination of rheological parameters. The
motor and gearbox needed to be selected to produce sufficient torque and to be
compact and lightweight. Finally, a simple and reliable software program and
associated electronics were needed to automate and control the testing process
and presentation of results.
As a first step, preliminary minimum design requirements were developed
for the ICAR rheometer. These requirements, which are listed in Table 5.1, were
based on the expected operating range of the rheometer, the operating
characteristics of existing laboratory-grade rheometers, a preliminary survey of
available technology, and the specific workability test device requirements
enumerated in Chapter 4.
Table 5.1: Preliminary Design Requirements for ICAR Rheometer

Factor Design Requirements
Maximum Torque 50 Nm (442 in-lb)
Rotation Speed 0 – 1.2 rev/sec
Battery Voltage 18 – 24 VDC
Size As compact as possible
Entire operation automated to the greatest extent
Control
practical
As small as possible while still generating
Impeller representative flow in concrete and minimizing
segregation
With these minimum requirements set, the search for proper components
began. The first approach was to attempt to modify a commercially available hand
drill to operate as a rheometer. This approach is described in Section 5.4. When
106
the components in existing hand drills were found to be unsuitable for a concrete
rheometer, an entire rheometer prototype was built from scratch. Individual off-
the-shelf components were procured and assembled. The initial configuration of
the prototype was tested in concrete to determine its practicality and functionality.
Based on this testing, which is described later in Chapter 6, the design was
modified further to achieve the final design of the first generation prototype.
The final design of the first generation prototype was tested in a series of
concrete mixtures, as described in Chapter 7. While the prototype was found to be
suitable, it will need to be modified further in the future to create a mass-
production version. As with any product in any industry, there is always
opportunity for further development and improvement of the rheometer. Although
the rheometer was developed for measuring concrete, it could likely also be used
for measuring the rheology of other similar coarse-grained suspensions.
5.3 SELECTION OF POTENTIAL IMPELLERS

The key factors to consider in selecting an impeller are the movement of
the concrete generated by the impeller and the dimensions of the impeller relative
to the aggregate size. The geometry must be selected to avoid both segregation
and trapping of aggregate. The impeller must be of sufficient size so that gap sizes
are a proper multiple of the maximum aggregate size and so that the increment of
torque generated at each higher speed increment can be measured accurately.
Still, the torque generated should not be too large in order to avoid requiring an
unreasonably large rheometer motor.
It has been shown that a rheometer’s geometry, gap size, and surface
friction can have a significant influence on the measurement of the rheological
properties of cement paste (Rahman and Moncef 2003). Adding fine and coarse
aggregate further complicates the determination of rheological parameters.
107
Therefore, careful attention must be paid to each aspect of the design of an
impeller.
5.3.1 General Concepts

The tendency of axial impellers when used in dry-consistency concrete
mixes is to push aggregate away from the blade, creating a channel in which the
impeller spins. Planetary impellers can still cause segregation or aggregate
trapping; however, such action does not influence results to the same extent
because the impeller is intended to come into contact constantly with concrete that
has little or no shear history. The shape and speed of the impeller strongly
influence the nature of the generated mixing action and, therefore, the degree of
segregation or aggregate trapping that occurs during the test.
Various studies have been conducted to determine the minimum ratio of
gap size to aggregate size. Ratios ranging from 3 to 10 have been suggested.
Although no one size has been officially accepted, most concrete rheometers
feature gaps less than 4 times the maximum aggregate size. A comparison of gap
sizes is presented in Table 5.2. Results from testing with these rheometers are
generally accepted by concrete rheology researchers as being reasonable (Ferraris
and Brower 2001). The size requirements for rheometers using a higher gap to
aggregate size ratio would be impractical. Only one rheometer, the 500-liter
CEMAGREF-IMG coaxial cylinders rheometer (Ferraris and Brower 2001), is
capable of satisfying the gap size to maximum aggregate size ratio of 10 for
concrete. The ratio of its outer radius to inner radius in the CEMAGREF-IMG,
however, is too large to ensure that a dead zone will not occur in the concrete.
108
Table 5.2: Gap Sizes in Existing Concrete Rheometers
Reported Max
Gap Gap Size
Rheometer Geometry Aggregate Size
Location (Inches)
Size Ratio
1.5 in. 0.5 in*
Coaxial Between
FHPCM (38.1 (12.7 3.0
Cylinders Cylinders
mm) mm)
BML Coaxial Between 1.77 in. 0.98 in**
1.8
Viscometer Cylinders Cylinders (45 mm) (25 mm)
Coaxial
Bertta Between 2.95 in.
Cylinders
Apparatus Cylinders (75 mm)
(Oscillatory)
8.66 in.
CEMAGREF- Coaxial Between
(220
IMG Cylinders Cylinders
mm)
Blades to 1.85 in.
Tattersall Two- Impeller Sides (47 mm)
point – Helix (Axial) 2.17 in.
Blade Width
(55 mm)
Horizontal 2.13 in.
Tattersall Two-
Impeller Inside H (54 mm)
point – H-
(Planetary) Impeller to 2.0 in.
Shaped
Sides (50 mm)
Horizontal 2.13 in.
2.1
Impeller Inside H (54 mm) 1.0 in.***
IBB Rheometer
(Planetary) Impeller to 1.97 in. (25 mm)
2.0
Sides (50 mm)
Vertical
4.0 in.
BTRHEOM Height or 1.0 in.***
Parallel Plate (100 4.0
Rheometer Horizontal (25 mm)
mm)
Space
*Yen et al. (1999)
**Bartos, Sonebi, and Tamimi (2002, 3). It is also reported that larger aggregates may be used,
“dependant on the mix.”
***Ferraris and Brower (2001)
Much of the early research into appropriate gap size was based on using
coaxial cylinders rheometers for ceramic particle suspensions. Van Wazer et al.
(1963) state that for a coaxial cylinders viscometer used to measure particle
suspensions, the gap between the outer and inner cylinders should be ten times the
109
maximum particle size. Wall effect, or the fact that packing density decreases as
the ratio of container dimension to particle size decreases, is a key consideration
in determining this minimum gap size. McGreary (1961) conducted experiments
to determine the packing density of mechanically packed mono-sized particles in
different sized containers. This research indicated that the packing density was
essentially independent of the ratio of container size to particle size when this
ratio was at least 10. The presence of blades in coaxial cylinders rheometers limits
the risk of slippage due to wall effect. The influence of slip has not been fully
explored with impeller and parallel plate rheometer geometries. For coaxial
cylinders concrete rheometers, it has been found that a gap dimension to particle
size ratio of at least 5 is acceptable (Ferraris 1999).
The work based on coaxial cylinders rheometers has also been extended to
other rheometer geometries. A study done with the BTRHEOM rheometer to
examine the effect of gap sizing found that when the ratio of vertical gap to
maximum aggregate size was set to less than 4, the effect of gap size on the
Bingham parameters became significant (Ferraris and Brower 2001).
As a counterpoint to the above requirements, the practicality of any device
must be considered. In addition to accuracy requirements, concrete rheometers
must be small, rugged, and economically viable. It is also useful to consider the
dimensions of common concrete elements, where concrete will be required to
flow and where rheology measurements will be directly relevant. ACI 211.1
requires that the maximum aggregate size be no greater than one-fifth the
narrowest dimension between forms, one-third the depth of slabs, and three-
fourths the clear spacing between reinforcing bars. Concrete in chutes and
pumping pipes will rarely have dimensions greater than 10 times the maximum
aggregate size. Therefore, concrete can rarely be considered a homogenous fluid
subjected to simple gradients under actual flow conditions in the field.
110
Although it is still desirable to know the fundamental properties of a
homogenous fluid, clearly a compromise must be made when measuring concrete
in order to have a practical test device. Given the need for practicality and the fact
that measurements made with existing rheometers typically fit the Bingham
model and are consistent with expectations, rheology experts have come to accept
gap dimension to particle size ratios of 3 to 5.
5.3.2 Evaluation of Existing Impellers

Two existing laboratory concrete rheometers, the Tattersall two-point
device and the IBB rheometer, feature impeller geometries. A study of the
development of the impellers for these rheometers is instructive in developing a
new impeller to measure the widest possible range of workability. Other potential
impellers are currently available. The following subsections describe each of the
currently available impellers. Since it is now generally recognized that rheological
measurements of the same concrete will vary between rheometers due in part to
differences in geometry and surface friction, Ferraris and Martys (2003) have
recommended a method to relate these different measurements by determining a
relative viscosity. Thus, it is realized that no rheometer is likely to make true
“fundamental” measurements and that additional effort will be required to
compare the result from one rheometer to another.
5.3.2.1 Tattersall Two-Point Device

The Tattersall two-point device was reportedly the first rheometer to
measure concrete as a Bingham fluid. The device was developed after other
researchers had made unsuccessful attempts to measure concrete workability
using coaxial cylinders rheometers. The development of the two impellers for the
111
Tattersall device is described by Tattersall and Banfill (1983) and summarized in
the following paragraphs.
The original version of the two-point device, the Mk I apparatus, was first
presented in 1971 and consisted of a Hobart food mixer with a hook-shaped
impeller moving in a planetary motion. This original test device is shown in
Figure 5.1. The intent of the design was to use an impeller that would move in
planetary motion and continuously come into contact with fresh concrete. Speed
was altered by changing the gear settings while torque measurements were made
indirectly with a wattmeter. The three speed settings were 95, 170, and 310
revolutions per minute. The measured flow curves, when used on mixes with
water-to-cement ratios from 0.40 to 0.70, were generally linear.
Figure 5.1: Mk I Apparatus (Tattersall and Banfill 1983)
112
The planetary motion and hook impeller are standard features on
commercially available kitchen mixers. The hook blade is typically intended for
dough. The geometry of the hook varies widely between models.
Later work carried out with a larger Hunt mixer capable of operating at six
different speeds showed that the hook impeller was suitable for low- to moderate-
slump concretes. The device, however, could not be used for high workability
mixes because the increment of power required when the bowl was loaded versus
when it was empty was too insignificant to make precise rheological
measurements. To overcome this problem, a larger impeller that would produce a
higher torque was developed. The “square anchor” impeller was selected for this
purpose after an examination of several other impeller shapes and sizes. This new
impeller, shown in Figure 5.2, worked well for high-slump mixes. It also worked
on lower-slump mixtures, although it produced significantly higher power
readings than the original impeller.
Dimensions: mm
Figure 5.2: Square Anchor for Mk I Apparatus (Tattersall and Banfill 1983)
The results of the tests using the square anchor impeller matched the
trends for the original hook. Anomalous results were obtained for highly fluid
113
mixes. These results were attributed by Tattersall and Banfill (1983) to the
nonlinearity of the torque/power relationship and to the occurrence of turbulence
in the concrete.
While the Mk I apparatus was effective in establishing concrete as a
Bingham fluid, additional work was needed to produce accurate and reliable
results. Based on additional research, the Mk I apparatus was later replaced by the
Mk II apparatus for high workability mixes and the Mk III for low to medium
workability mixes.
The goal of designing the impeller for the Mk II apparatus was to utilize
axial motion with a greater range of speeds than available with the Mk I
apparatus. The impeller selected for the Mk II, shown in Figure 5.3, is an
interrupted helix turning in axial motion. This design was selected over a helical
screw impeller. The presence of gaps between each flat blade is important for
stiffer concretes because it allows concrete displaced by the blades to be replaced.
If a helical screw impeller were used, concrete would move upward to the top of
the impeller and not be fully replaced. The interrupted helix impeller was used for
rotation speeds from 0.25 revs/sec up to 1.25 revs/sec. The impeller was found to
work for mixes with slumps greater than 4 inches.
When used for concretes with slumps generally less than 4 inches, the
interrupted helix impeller of the Mk II pushed concrete to the outside of container
and then rotated in the empty pocket. Therefore, an impeller operating in a
planetary motion was selected for use with low-slump mixes. The interrupted
helix impeller was used in planetary motion; however, dry-consistency concrete
still moved to the outside of the container. The next attempt used a two-blade
impeller, depicted in Figure 5.4, but also produced unsatisfactory results. The
final attempt incorporated an H-shaped impeller moving in planetary motion,
shown in Figure 5.5, and is considered the Mk III apparatus. This impeller, along
114
with the planetary gearbox, fits directly into the existing Mk II apparatus. A larger
bowl is required when using the H-shaped impeller.
Dimensions: mm
Figure 5.3: Mk II Apparatus and Interrupted Helix Impeller (Tattersall and

Banfill 1983)
Dimensions: mm
Figure 5.4: Two-Blade Impeller (Tattersall and Banfill 1983)
115
Dimensions: mm
Figure 5.5: H-Shaped Impeller for the Mk III Apparatus (Tattersall and
Banfill 1983)
The gearboxes used for the Tattersall two-point device and the IBB
rheometer to create planetary motion are simple designs that are easy to install. In
designing such a gearbox, the gear ratio should be a non-integer so that when the
central shaft makes a full revolution, the impeller returns in a different alignment
than in the previous revolution. The offset from the central shaft should be large
enough to avoid aggregate trapping but not so large that the required concrete
container is excessively large. The planetary motion gearbox used in the Tattersall
device and the IBB rheometer have gear ratios greater than one, resulting in an
increase in speed and decrease in torque from the motor to the impeller.
5.3.2.2 IBB Rheometer

The IBB rheometer (Beaupre and Mindness 1994; Bartos, Sonobi, and
Tamimi 2002), shown in Figure 5.6, is a modification of the Tattersall two-point
116
test. The major components of the IBB rheometer are very similar to those of the
Tattersall device. The IBB rheometer includes a planetary H-shaped impeller that
is identical to the Tattersall impeller. The IBB rheometer does not use the
interrupeted helix impeller. It is reported that the IBB rheometer is capable of
measuring the full range of concrete, from approximately a slump of 1 inch up to
self-consolidating concrete (Bartos, Sonebi, and Tamimi 2002).
Figure 5.6: IBB Rheometer and Impeller
5.3.2.3 Fresh Concrete Tester (FCT 101)

The fresh concrete tester (FCT 101) was developed in Germany (Steiner
1996) and is sold commercially by at least two companies in Britain. The device,
shown in Figure 5.7, is not a true rheometer because it only operates at one speed.
Product literature indicates that the results of the test are related to slump.
117
Figure 5.7: FCT 101 (from Product Literature)
The impeller consists of two hemispheres on opposite sides of a shaft that

moves in axial rotation. According to product literature, the device is capable of
measuring concrete with slumps ranging from 7 to 250 mm and maximum
aggregate sizes ranging from 7 to 32 mm.
An assessment conducted by Wong et al. (2000) using a larger version of
the FCT 101 impeller showed that the device was capable of predicting slump.
When used to measure low-slump concrete, the impellers created a channel
through the concrete; therefore, only data from the first revolution were
meaningful.
5.3.2.4 Commercially Available Mixing Impellers

An assortment of mixing blades designed to fit into drills is commercially
available for mixing fluid materials ranging from latex paint to mortar and
granular materials. Though most are not intended for concrete, the mixers are
118
intended to be simple, while providing efficient mixing. The mixers could be used
to mix material in containers ranging in size from a standard 5-gallon bucket to a
55-gallon drum. The impellers are designed to mix the material efficiently and
thoroughly and are not intended to cause segregation when used appropriately. It
is likely that the user would move the impeller around within the material to
ensure complete mixing.
An impeller for mixing mortars and drywall spackling is shown in Figure
5.8. The geometry is simple—the round bars do not continuously direct material
flow in one direction. When used for concrete, both segregation and aggregate
trapping are possible.
Figure 5.8: “Egg Beater” Mixing Impeller for Mortar
A drum mixer intended for mortar, plaster, and granulates is shown in

Figure 5.9. According to product packaging, the impeller can be operated at a
maximum speed of 500 rpm. Smaller versions are available for lower viscosity
materials, such as paints and inks. The blades are designed so that when the
impeller rotates in the clockwise direction, material in the center of the impeller
moves upwards while the material surrounding the impeller moves downward.
119
Figure 5.9: Drum Mixer for Mortar, Plaster, and Granulates
A mixer intended for drywall joint compound, drywall texture, and paint is
shown in Figure 5.10. The manufacturer suggests a speed range of 450 to 800
rpm. The blades are designed to lift, fold, and mix the material.
Figure 5.10: Mixing Impeller for Drywall Joint Compound, Drywall Texture,
and Paint
120
5.3.3 Impeller Selection
Although several different rheometer impellers have been developed, it is
clear that the statement of Tattersall and Banfill (1983) that “an improved form
may yet be developed” remains true. If possible, the impeller should move in an
axial motion, thereby avoiding the cost and complication of a planetary gearbox.
The impeller should be of minimal size, while meeting a gap size to aggregate
size ratio of 3 to 5 for 1-inch aggregate. The movement of the concrete generated
by the impeller should not result in either segregation or trapping of aggregate.
In order to select an impeller, it was necessary to test experimentally
several impeller geometries in concrete. The evaluation of nine potential
impellers, developed based on the information in this section, is described in
Chapter 6. The final impeller selected was a four-bladed vane intended to act as
the inner cylinder of a coaxial cylinders rheometer.
5.4 EVALUATION OF CONVENTIONAL HAND DRILL TECHNOLOGY

Before selecting the components of a rheometer, the prospect of
modifying an existing hand drill to operate as a rheometer was evaluated.
Conventional hand drills are compact, powerful, battery operated, and readily
available. In order to be used as a rheometer, a hand drill would need to be
modified by adding sensors to measure torque and rotation speed, appropriate
electronics to regulate rotation speed, and a data acquisition system to record
sensor measurements. An impeller would be attached with the chuck. If a kit
could be developed to modify an existing drill, the cost and development time of
such a system would be less than the creation of an entirely new device and the kit
could be a viable commercial product.
A wide range of battery-operated hand drills is commercially available.
Battery-operated hand drills typically include a brushed DC motor and a
transmission (gearbox). The transmission gear ratio is usually manually adjustable
121
in order to vary the speed and torque for the given application, such as drilling a
hole or driving a screw. Additionally, many drills allow speed to be varied further
at a constant gear ratio based on how far the user pulls back on the trigger. Battery
voltages commonly range from 9 VDC to 18 VDC, with several models operating
from 24 VDC batteries. The models with higher voltage typically produce higher
peak torques. For a typical 18 VDC drill, the peak torque can range from 350 to
500 inch-pounds at the maximum gear ratio. The maximum rotation speed is
typically 400 to 500 rpm at the maximum gear ratio and 1,500 to 2,000 rpm at the
minimum gear ratio.
The main problem with modifying a hand drill to serve as a rheometer is
the motor. The motors in many of the commercially available drills are able to
provide sufficient torque to turn an impeller in concrete; however, the motors are
designed to deliver this torque at high speeds. The typical low speed setting on a
drill produces a speed that is approximately 5 to 7 times the maximum speed
needed for a flow curve measurement in a rheometer. It would not be feasible to
drastically reduce the voltage supplied to the motor in order to reduce the torque.
The speed could be reduced by replacing the original motor with different motor
designed to turn at slower speeds or by replacing the original transmission with a
different transmission with a larger gear ratio. Both options would likely increase
the size of the drill and would make the simple modification of a drill impractical.
Therefore, it was decided to design and build a rheometer from the beginning with
individual components selected and configured specifically for the rheometer.
Despite the fact that conventional hand drill technology could not be readily
modified, the evaluation of existing hand drill technology demonstrated that high
torque can be delivered in a compact package and from battery power.
122
5.5 SELECTION OF COMPONENTS
The main components of the first generation prototype of the ICAR
rheometer are shown in Figure 5.11. The motor and gearbox provide the
necessary ranges of torque and rotation speed. The motor used is a brushed DC
servomotor that can be operated from 18 VDC or 24 VDC battery power. The
inline planetary gearbox, which features a 50-to-1 gear ratio, reduces the rotation
speed and increases the torque supplied by the motor. A ½-inch keyless chuck
allows the impeller to be quickly attached to the rheometer. Rotation speed is
measured with an incremental optical encoder mounted to the end of the motor. A
non-contact inline torque transducer is connected with couplings between the
gearbox and the keyless chuck. The torque transducer is based on magnetoelastic
technology, which is more reliable than the slip ring torque transducers that
Cabrera and Hopkins (1994) found to be problematic when used in the Tattersall
MK II apparatus. Compared to other non-contact technologies, the magnetoelastic
technology is generally smaller and less expensive. The aluminum frame and the
bearing protect the torque transducer and gearbox from large lateral forces being
transmitted from the impeller shaft. A handle is provided so that the rheometer
can be operated by hand. The components in the first generation device exceed
the requirements of Table 5.1 for rotation speed and torque capacity.
The wires shown in Figure 5.11 return to a separate electronics box. In a
later generation prototype, it is envisioned that all components, included the
electronics, will be housed together. The electronics box consists of a DC speed
controller and a compact USB-based data acquisition system. The DC speed
controller is an open-loop system that regulates the DC voltage supplied to the
motor based on a separate analog signal voltage. The associated computer
software, described in Section 5.6, completes the closed-loop system, which is
needed to adjust for changes in speed due to changes in load. The USB-based data
acquisition system provides excitation voltage to and accepts signals from the
123
encoder and torque transducer and provides the analog signal voltage to the speed
controller. The USB data acquisition system is connected to a laptop computer,
which is used to automate the test operation and presentation of results.
Encoder
Handle
Torque Transducer
DC Motor Bearing
Keyless
Gearbox Chuck
Couplings
Aluminum Frame
Figure 5.11: First Generation Prototype of ICAR Rheometer
The power for the rheometer can be supplied from a DC battery or an

AC/DC converter. While the battery enables field use, the AC/DC converter is
convenient for lab testing where the rheometer will be used on a frequent basis
over a long duration.
The prototype shown in Figure 5.11 can be operated by hand or positioned
above a standard container. If the rheometer is to be operated by hand, the
operator uses both hands to grasp the rheometer and resist the reaction torque
generated as the impeller is turned. The concrete can be contained in any volume
such that there is sufficient distance from the impeller to all boundary surfaces.
Possible examples of appropriate containers include a standard 5-gallon bucket
found on many jobsites, a wheelbarrow, a portable mixer, or a hopper. A depth
124
indicator rod can be provided to ensure the impeller is immersed to the correct
distance. This set-up most nearly matches the original concept of a drill device.
Alternatively, the components shown in Figure 5.11 can be mounted to a
frame, which is subsequently positioned above a container of standard size, as
demonstrated in Figure 5.12. The use of this alternative set-up makes the
operation of the test easier for the user and ensures that the test is performed in a
consistent manner. This alternative set-up is still sufficiently rugged and portable
for use on a jobsite. Laboratory testing with the first generation prototype
indicated that improved accuracy is achieved when the rheometer is mounted in a
fixed frame and placed above a container of standard size. The rheometer simply
slides into the frame and is attached securely. The frame then slides downward
into slots in the top of the container. The slots resist rotation of the
rheometer/frame assemblage. The container may include multiple slots to allow
the rheometer impeller to be immersed to different depths. Provided the container
is placed on approximately level surface, the mass of the portable rheometer is
sufficient to maintain the position of the rheometer/frame assemblage above the
container.
125
Figure 5.12: ICAR Rheometer Mounted in Frame and Positioned above
Container
In order to ensure the rheometer is set above the center of the container,
optional vertical positioning rods attached to each end of the frame slide through
channels on the sides of the container, as shown in Figure 5.13.
Concrete may be placed in the container before or after the
rheometer/frame assemblage is placed above the container. An external or internal
vibrator may be used to consolidate the concrete in the container or to measure the
rheology of concrete under vibration.
For the first generation prototype, a schedule 80 PVC pipe was used for
the container. This choice of material enabled containers of different sizes to be
built quickly. The mass-production version would likely be constructed of a
sturdy, lightweight metal.
126
Figure 5.13: Positioning Rod in Channel
The components selected for the first generation prototype may not be the
best or only available solutions. If the rheometer were produced in larger
quantities, it is likely that most or all of the off-the-shelf components used in the
first generation prototype would be replaced with custom parts made specifically
for the ICAR rheometer. Other aspects of the design could be completely
changed. For instance, torque could be measured by monitoring the power drawn
by the motor instead of with an in-line transducer. The optical encoder could be
replaced with a tachometer.
For the mass-production version of the ICAR rheometer, the components
shown in Figure 5.11 will likely be reduced in size and weight and enclosed in a
case. Figure 5.14 shows a rendering of how such mass-production version may
look. The components from the first generation prototype, or similar
127
replacements, would all fit into a plastic case, which would also include a handle
and power source. A handheld computer (PDA) or similar embedded electronics
would be used instead of a laptop to automate the operation of the device and
presentation of test results. The speed control and data acquisition electronics
could be placed within the case. The entire mass-production version shown in
Figure 5.14 could still be mounted into a frame and secured above a standard
container, just as in the first generation prototype.
Encoder Power
Handle Source
Motor
Gearbox
Torque Case
Transducer
Keyless
Chuck
First Generation Mass-Production Version

Prototype
Figure 5.14: Rendering of Prototype and Envisioned Mass-Production
Version
128
5.6 SOFTWARE
The software to operate the rheometer and compute test results was
written with LabVIEWTM 6.1 from National Instruments, Austin, TX.
LabVIEWTM 6.1 is an object-oriented programming language for test and
measurement applications. The rheometer software can be operated on any
Microsoft Windows operating system using the freely available run-time version
of LabVIEWTM 6.1. As a consequence, the marginal cost of installing the
software on additional computers is zero. The versatile and inclusive software
enables testing operations to be fully automated. The software can be used—with
only minimal modifications—for later generation prototypes consisting of
different components.
5.6.1 Graphical User Interface

The graphical user interface, shown in Figure 5.15, is intuitive and user-
friendly. The test inputs and results are shown on a single screen to ensure that all
information is visible to the user. When information is placed in multiple menus,
it may become easy for the user to overlook an important input. Although the
screen may at first appear cluttered with numerous inputs, the information is laid
out in distinct sections and in simple steps.
The top portion of the software consists of the test settings. In the first
step, the user selects the type or types of tests to be performed. If a direct yield
stress test is selected, the rheometer will perform a stress growth test. For the
absolute flow curve, the Bingham parameters will be calculated based on the
Effective Annulus Method for the vane geometry (cf. Section 2.3.2.4). In
addition, relative units of yield value and viscosity value will also be displayed.
The yield value is defined as the intercept of the straight line fit to the measured
torque versus rotation speed data, while the viscosity value is the slope of this
line. In computing the relative parameters, no corrections are made for the
129
presence of a dead zone; therefore, the precautions of Section 2.3.2.3 should be
considered. If the relative flow curve option is selected, only the yield value and
viscosity value will be calculated. The relative flow curve can be measured for
any impeller geometry. It is possible to perform both a yield stress test and then
measure either a relative or absolute flow curve.
Figure 5.15: Graphical User Interface for the ICAR Rheometer Software
The second step allows the user to specify a pause time period from the
time when the green “GO!” button is pressed until the test actually begins. This
pause gives the operator time to either position the rheometer or to move to a
130
location to view the test better. The pause is particularly intended for cases where
the rheometer is operated in the hand-held drill configuration. The user can press
the “GO!” button and then immerse the impeller into the concrete and prepare to
resist the torque generated by the rotation of the impeller.
In the third step, the stress growth test options are specified. If a stress
growth test is not to be performed, this section may be skipped. The test allows a
breakdown period during which the rheometer operates at a constant speed for a
specific duration. The impeller can then be stopped for a rest period. If the
breakdown time is not needed, the breakdown time and rest time can be set to
zero. The test speed can be set to any value that the rheometer components are
capable of achieving. For the rheometer components of the first generation
prototype, the optimum yield stress speed was determined to be 0.025 rev/sec (cf.
Section 6.4), which is set as the default value.
In the fourth step, flow curve test options are input. First, the speed and
time of the structural breakdown regime are set. Then, the direction of speed
points—either ascending or descending—is selected. Finally, the number of
points on the flow curve, the time for each point, and the minimum and maximum
speeds are set. The software equally distributes the specified number of points
between the maximum and minimum specified speeds. Each input has minimum
and maximum possible values so that if the user specifies a value outside the
operating range of the rheometer components, the input value will be coerced to
the appropriate maximum or minimum. The number of speed points must be an
integer. The form is pre-populated with typical values as defaults.
Next, in step five, the geometry of the impeller is set. These options are
required for stress growth tests or absolute flow curve measurements where the
results are to be computed in fundamental units. The type of impeller (vane, egg
beater, etc.) is selected. For the vane geometry, the height and radius of the vane
131
and the outer radius of the container are specified. Again, the default values are
set for the typical vane used in the first generation prototype (cf. Section 6.3.4).
The next section of the software consists of the file settings. The user can
specify a prefix for file names. The software then appends two values to this
prefix. First, the software adds an underbar ( _ ) and a number. The first number
added is 1. On subsequent tests for the same file prefix saved to the same folder,
the number on the file name is increased by 1 for each test. The use of this
number serves two purposes. First, it allows the order of subsequent tests to be
identified by their file names. Second, it fully prevents existing files from being
overwritten. The software automatically searches the directory where the file is to
be saved and locates any files with the specified prefix. If any such files are
found, the file with the highest number is identified, and the file to be written is
given the next number. If such a system were not in place, the file software would
instead need to prompt the user to confirm the overwrite action or to specify a
new file name. The approach employed in the software saves time and reduces
error. After the prefix and the number, the software then appends either “_raw” or
_summary” depending on the type of file written. Therefore a typical sequence of
files may appear as:
mix1_1_raw
mix1_1_summary
mix1_2_raw
mix1_2_summary
mix2_1_raw
mix2_1_summary
etc…
The user then selects whether to write a summary file, raw data file, or
both. The raw data file is a tab-delimited data file with all internal continuous data
132
generated by the software. The columns, from left to right, are: elapsed time
(seconds), test type (“yield,” “pause,” or the flow curve speed point number),
target speed (rev/sec), actual speed (rev/sec), torque (Nm), and counter value. The
counter value is taken from the encoder and is used internally by the software to
compute the rotation speed. The raw data file is not typically needed unless the
internal operation of the rheometer is to be monitored.
A typical summary file is shown in Figure 5.16. The file is saved with a
“.txt” extension, so it may be opened quickly with an application such a Notepad
in Microsoft Windows. The file consists of the test input options and test results.
Only values relevant to the particular test are printed. The first two lines indicate
the software version and the file name. The date and time of the test are taken
from the internal computer clock. Next, the types of tests performed are shown
followed by the test inputs. The yield stress inputs are preceded by “YS” while
the flow curve inputs are denoted with “FC”. The geometry is indicated in terms
of the type of impeller and the dimensions of the impeller and container.
Numerical test results are printed for the yield stress test, relative flow curve, and
absolute flow curve, as applicable. Finally, the flow curve points are listed in two
columns, which are tab delimited to facilitate copying into a spreadsheet program.
133
Figure 5.16: Typical Test Summary File
With all test inputs set, the test may be started. The “Test Operation”
section consists of three main buttons. The “Zero Torque” button resets the zero
torque voltage offset used in the software. Depending on the electronics used, this
value may vary slightly from test to test. The electronics in the mass production
version should be selected to minimize any fluctuations. In the electronics used in
the first generation prototype, fluctuations were rare and typically were no more
134
than 0.4 Nm. Still, it is helpful to click the zero offset button between each test.
The zero offset button should only be clicked when the rheometer impeller is in
air. If the impeller has been inserted into the material in the container, a net torque
may be imposed on the impeller by the at-rest material. To begin the test, the user
clicks to “GO!” button. If a direct yield stress test has been selected in Step 1 of
the “Test Inputs” section, the stress growth test will be performed first. Otherwise,
the flow curve test is started. For the stress growth test, a real-time torque versus
time plot is displayed on the screen. The user must monitor this plot. Once it is
clear that the peak torque has been reached, the user should press the “Done”
button to stop the stress growth test. The flow curve test, if requested in Step 1,
then automatically starts. The flow curve test is fully automated and requires no
user intervention.
During testing, the green “Test Status” light is illuminated. The test can be
stopped immediately at any time by clicking the “STOP!” button. After the
“STOP!” button has been selected, it turns black and must be clicked a second
time to be deselected. Throughout the test, the target speed setting for either the
yield stress or flow curve measurement is displayed. For the flow curve, the
elapsed time of the test is displayed.
When the speed must be changed quickly, such as at the beginning and
end of a test or between a yield stress test and a flow curve test, the speed setting
is linearly ramped over a period of 2.5 seconds. None of the data recorded during
these periods is used to compute test results. This precaution protects the
rheometer components from spikes in torque. If the speed is immediately
increased or decreased by a significant amount, the dynamic effects can
significantly increase the torque in the rheometer, possibly damaging rheometer
components.
When the testing is finished, all results are shown in the “Test Results”
section. Three types of numerical test results may be shown. First, yield stress
135
results are shown in terms of yield torque, which is the maximum torque achieved
during the stress growth test, and yield stress, which is the yield torque converted
into stress based on the vane geometry. The equation to convert yield torque to
yield stress is based on the assumption that the shear stress on the side and ends of
the vane is uniformly distributed and equal to the yield stress (cf. Section 6.6). If a
relative flow curve is measured, the yield value (Y), viscosity value (V), and R2
value will be shown under the “Relative Parameters” heading. If an absolute flow
curve is measured, the yield stress, plastic viscosity, and mean squared error will
be shown under the “Bingham Parameters” heading and the yield value, viscosity
value, and R2 value will be shown under the “Relative Parameters” heading. Any
informative or specific error messages are shown in the appropriate message box.
General errors are indicated in the error box at the bottom of the window. The
measured flow curve points are plotted on the graph of torque versus rotation
speed. The straight line for the relative parameters (uncorrected) is plotted in red
while the line for the corrected absolute parameters is displayed in green. The
graph is automatically scaled to fit the given data. At the start of any tests, all
results are reset to zero; the final results are not shown until all testing is
completed.
5.6.2 Internal Software Operation

A full description of the internal operations of the software is well beyond
the scope of this report.
The speed is controlled with a PID (proportional, integral, derivative)
closed-loop system. This effective and widely used approach to closed-loop
systems is easily implemented into LabVIEWTM. The PID loop must be “tuned”
for the selected components and for concrete. Once tuned, the PID loop is
effective across essentially the full range of concrete rheology. A typical speed
versus time plot for a flow curve is shown in Figure 5.17. Due to the presence of
136
aggregate, some scatter is expected (as shown as deviation from the black solid
line); however, the average speed over a second or longer consistently equals the
desired speed to within less than 1%. When the speed is changed from one flow
curve point to the next, the actual speed slightly overshoots and then stabilizes. To
account for this stabilization time, the first 0.8 seconds of torque and rotation
speed data are discarded each time the rotation speed is changed.
1.2
1
Rotation Speed (rev/sec)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time (Seconds)
Figure 5.17: Typical Speed versus Time Plot for Flow Curve Measurement in
Concrete
The software obtains readings from the data acquisition system at 20 Hz.
In order to protect the motor, gearbox, and torque transducer, the software
displays an error message and automatically stops the test if a certain maximum
torque is exceeded.
137
CHAPTER 6: EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ICAR
RHEOMETER
6.1 INTRODUCTION
With the basic design of the rheometer complete, it was next necessary to
determine experimentally certain operating characteristics of the rheometer in
order to complete the first generation prototype. First, an impeller that would
minimize segregation, engage surrounding material, and enable an accurate
determination of rheological parameters was selected. Then, using this impeller,
the optimum speed for determining yield stress in a stress growth test was
determined. The horizontal and vertical gap sizes between the impeller and
container boundaries were assessed. Finally, the magnitude and distribution of
shear stress acting on the ends of the impeller were evaluated. This chapter
describes each test that was performed, the results of these tests, and the final
design selections.
6.2 MATERIALS, MIXTURES, AND TEST PROCEDURES

Four different concrete mixtures, covering a range of fresh concrete
characteristics, were used for the tests described in this chapter. The mixture
proportions are shown in Table 6.1. The materials used in these mixtures are
described in greater detail in Chapter 7. The coarse aggregate for the first two
mixtures was a river gravel (RG), while mixes 3 and 4 utilized a crushed
limestone coarse aggregate (LS). Both mixtures incorporated a natural sand and
ASTM C 150 Type I portland cement. The water content was varied slightly for
each mixture to suit the needs of the testing.
139
Table 6.1: Mixture Proportions for Chapter 6 Tests
Target Batch Mass, kg/m3 (lb/yd3)
Coarse Fine
Mix Slump Coarse Fine
Type Type Cement Water
(Inches) Aggregate Aggregate
1104.3 681.5 361.7 180.9
Mix 1 7 RG NS
(1861.3) (1148.7) (609.7) (304.9)
1128.8 696.6 369.8 162.7
Mix 2 3 RG NS
(1902.7) (1174.2) (623.3) (274.2)
1015.5 690.8 385.2 181.1
Mix 3 7 LS NS
(1711.6) (1164.5) (649.3) (305.2)
1043.6 710.0 395.9 158.4
Mix 4 3 LS NS
(1759.1) (1196.8) (667.3) (266.9)
The concrete mixtures were prepared in general accordance with ASTM C

192. All materials were batched at least 12 hours prior to mixing using the
batching procedures described in Chapter 7. The concrete was mixed in a rotating
drum mixer. For mixing, the coarse aggregate and a portion of the mixing water
were added to the mixer, which was then started to blend the aggregates. Next, the
portland cement followed by the rest of the mixing water was added to the mixer.
The concrete was mixed for three minutes, allowed to rest for three minutes,
mixed for another two minutes, and discharged into a wheelbarrow. The slump
was measured during the rest period and the water content was adjusted to ensure
that the slump would be within the target range. Immediately after concrete was
discharged from the mixer, the slump test was performed. Concrete was loaded by
shovel into the rheometer container and testing was started as soon as practical.
Multiple rheometer tests were preformed for each concrete mixture. The time
limit for testing each concrete mixture was 60 minutes from the initial contact of
cement and water. Slump was again measured at the end of all testing for each
concrete mixture.
140
6.3 IMPELLER TYPE
Six potential impellers, shown in Figure 6.1, were tested to identify the
impeller or impellers that minimize segregation and create a favorable flow
pattern in the surrounding concrete. The vane impeller, which measures 5 inches
in diameter and 5 inches in height—is mainly intended to function in a manner
analogous to the inner cylinder in a coaxial cylinders rheometer. As such, the use
of a vane would enable the ICAR rheometer to serve as an absolute rheometer so
that the Bingham parameters could be calculated in fundamental units. The egg-
beater impeller is a commercially available impeller for mixing mortars. The egg-
beater impeller was also cut in half—to create the half egg-beater impeller—so
that it would create less torque and would not trap a plug of concrete within the
four outer bars. The offset egg-beater impeller is a modified version of the half
egg-beater impeller and is designed so that if a channel is created behind one bar,
the second bar will arrive at a different location and displace concrete back into
the channel created by the first bar. Each side of the offset egg-beater has the
same surface area; therefore, the net lateral force in the impeller should be zero.
The joint compound paddle is a large impeller designed mainly to mix materials
without aggregates. Likewise, the spiral impeller is mainly intended to mix paints.
In total, four different spiral impellers were tested. The fact that the joint
compound paddle and the spiral impeller are designed to create certain flow paths
for mixing may make them suitable for testing concrete.
The potential impellers were tested in three series of tests which are
described in the following three subsections. The six impellers shown in Figure
6.1 were tested in the first two series; four different spiral impellers were tested in
the third series.
141
Vane Egg-Beater
Half Egg-Beater Offset-Egg Beater
Joint Compound Paddle Spiral

Figure 6.1: Potential Impellers
142
6.3.1 Series I Tests – Qualitative Observations
In the first series of tests with the impellers, an attempt was made to
visualize experimentally the flow generated by each impeller. The flow in the
concrete was visually observed with each impeller partially covered and fully
covered by concrete.
Each impeller was rotated at two speeds, 1.5 rpm and 40 rpm. For the first
test for each speed, each impeller was allowed to protrude 1 inch above the
concrete surface (“UNCOVERED”). In the second test, each impeller was
covered with 4 inches of concrete (“COVERED”). For all tests, the bottom cover
was 10 inches while the container diameter was 16 inches. The two river gravel
concrete mixtures with different water content were tested: the high-slump mix
had a slump of 5 inches while the low-slump mix had a slump of ½ inch.
Tables 6.2 and 6.3 contain qualitative observations of the flow behavior
for each impeller. In the descriptions, the cut volume is defined as the volume of
concrete inside the outer boundaries of the impeller. Although the observations
are qualitative, they provide key insights into the flow behavior around each
impeller and provide part of the basis for selecting the final impeller. Photographs
of the concrete around each impeller for the uncovered cases are shown in Figure
6.2 and 6.3 for mixes 1 and 2, respectively.
143
Table 6.2: Qualitative Observations for Mix 1 (5-Inch Slump)
Vane
UNCOVERED: Rotation of the vane creates an open void behind the vane. The void begins
near the tip of vane blade and increases in size with time. The final void volume is not
cylindrical in shape, but approximately defined by a linear boundary between the vane tips at
any given instant. Although the vane does engage some concrete outside the cut volume,
minimal flow occurs in this outer zone. A portion of concrete being pushed by the advancing
side of the vane creates a force, which is approximately linear, pointing radially outward from
the vane and acting on the concrete outside the cut volume. Finally, there appears to be some
wall effect inside the cut cylinder adjacent to the blade vanes, resulting in a mortar-rich zone.
This wall effect is exacerbated by shearing—at the end of shearing, mainly mortar remains
within the cut volume. Therefore, the reduction in torque over time is due structural
breakdown, the creation of a channel by the cut volume, and the creation of four mortar
pockets within the vane.
COVERED: During shearing, a conical indication is created above the vane as concrete from
above the vane falls into the void that results when concrete is pushed outside of the cut
cylinder. All material at the surface appears to be in motion locally; however, there does not
appear to be any meaningful amount of flow over time.
Egg-Beater
UNCOVERED: Rotation creates a distinct channel behind the bars. The creation of this
channel eventually results in an isolated plug of concrete that rotates with the impeller (as
opposed to remaining stationary). Some aggregates from inside the plug do try to move
outward. There is significantly less engagement of the concrete surrounding the egg-beater
than in the case for the vane. The wall effect problem with the vane impeller is not a problem
for the egg-beater impeller.
COVERED: At the low speed, some material above the blade settles. This settlement is not
evident at the high-speed setting. There does appear to be some engagement of the aggregate.
Half Egg-Beater
UNCOVERED: Rotation creates a circular channel behind the bars, eventually resulting in a
plug that reduces in volume as shearing continues. The approximately linear radial force acting
from the bars is fairly significant compared to the other impellers.
COVERED: There is some engagement of the aggregates. The location of impeller bars at any
instant is evident from viewing the top of the concrete.
Offset Egg-Beater
UNCOVERED: Rotation creates loose material within the cut volume; however, a distinct plug
is not created. The larger radius bar creates some flow in the area immediately outside the cut
volume; the shorter radius bar does not.
COVERED: There does appear to be some flow evident from surface. After some shearing,
spiral flow lines are visible on the surface.
Joint Compound Paddle
UNCOVERED: Rotation creates a very large channel as the angle on the blade attempts to
reduce the volume of concrete passing through its openings. Some material from outside the
cut volume flows inward but is pushed back out when the blade returns.
COVERED: Maximum torque exceeded, no observations made.
Spiral
UNCOVERED: Rotation does create a void in the cut volume. Although some material in the
cut channel is replaced, the spiral impeller does not engage flow.
COVERED: Very little flow effects are visible.
144
Vane Egg-Beater

Figure 6.2: Flow of Concrete around Impellers – Mix 1 (5-Inch Slump)
145
Table 6.3: Qualitative Observations for Mix 2 (1/2-Inch Slump)
Vane
UNCOVERED: At the low rotation speed, it takes several rotations to create a channel. Some
material initially sticks to the blade; however, after enough shearing all material within the cut
volume is eventually removed.
Egg-Beater
UNCOVERED: Like the vane impeller, the bars of the egg-beater create an approximately
linear force acting radially outward from the vane. A separate plug of concrete within the egg-
beater forms quickly. Eventually, there is a reduction in the volume of this plug. Many spikes
in the torque occur during shearing.
Half Egg-Beater
UNCOVERED: As a void is created within the cut volume, some materials from outside the
cut volume falls into this void. There is some loosening of the material and an associated
dilation. At the high speed setting, lateral and axial forces are generated in the impeller shaft,
causing the rheometer to move around within the channel.
Offset Egg-Beater
UNCOVERED: Creates a loosening and expansion in volume. Rheometer blade moves
around substantially. Due to unequal lengths, there is a preference for the rheometer to “walk”
within the concrete towards the looser material.
Joint Compound Paddle
UNCOVERED: The main effect of rotation is a loosening of concrete. This loosening creates
a loose zone and a stiffer zone. The continual turning of the blade toward the stiffer zone
results in large lateral forces in the impeller. As a result, the test was quickly stopped.
Spiral
UNCOVERED: An overall reduction in the volume of concrete with this spiral occurs,
although some material does fall in behind bars. At the higher speed, concrete moves out of
the cut volume much faster and little torque is generated.
146
Vane Egg-Beater

Figure 6.3: Flow of Concrete around Impellers – Mix 2 (1/2 Inch Slump)
147
For the vane impeller, the visual observations confirmed that the vane
engaged material outside the vane and created a cut volume, which is analogous
to the inner cylinder of a coaxial cylinders rheometer. As expected for a coarse-
grained suspension, wall effect did reduce the coarse aggregate volume
concentration within the cut volume. Provided the ratio of the size of the cut
volume relative to the maximum aggregate size is sufficiently large, the wall
effect should have a negligible effect on test results because the spatial
distribution of aggregates will be approximately uniform at the boundary of the
cut cylinder. The fact that voids were created within the cut volume during
shearing—as represented in Figure 6.4—limits the minimum range of workability
that can be tested at a given rotation speed. The fact that the cut volume was not
circular, but followed a linear shape, was due to the fact that some material from
outside the cut volume flowed back inside during shearing. The conical
indentation that occurred above the vane when it was fully covered indicated that
vertical movement of material occurred and likely resulted in the replacement of
material in the voids behind the vane.
Volume cut by vane more

closely follows a linear shape
than a cylindrical shape
between blade tips.
Void Concrete adjacent to

end of blade pushes
tangentially outward
on concrete outside
Concrete of void.
Figure 6.4: Flow around Vane in Uncovered Case
148
The behavior of the egg-beater impeller was similar to the vane; however,
the egg-beater impeller cut out a distinct cylindrical plug of concrete for both high
and low-slump concrete mixtures. While the plug moved at approximately the
same speed as the vane, the channel created behind the blades of the egg-beater
impeller meant that the inner plug would only act in a manner analogous to the
inner cylinder of a coaxial cylinders rheometer for fluid mixes. The observations
of the covered egg-beater impeller indicated that the impeller engaged much of
the concrete outside the cut volume.
The rotation of the half egg-beater impeller did not result in substantial
mixing of the material or the creation a distinct inner plug. Rather, the impeller
loosened material as it turned, especially at low slumps.
Like the half egg-beater impeller, the offset egg-beater impeller created a
loosening of concrete and an associated expansion in material volume. The outer
bar appeared to dominate the deformation process. It loosened a region of
material as it turned, including the region where the inner bar passes. As a
consequence, greater torque was contributed by the outer bar than the inner bar.
The creation of lateral forces in the shaft was evidence that the forces on the two
bars were not balanced.
The joint compound paddle created too much torque due to its size and
geometry. Because of the angle of the blades, the rotation of the impeller
attempted to reduce the volume of the concrete as it passed through the impeller.
As a result, torque was substantially increased.
The spiral impeller appeared to be too small to engage flow in the
surrounding concrete. In the low-slump concrete mixture, concrete was removed
from inside the spiral, leaving behind an empty void.
The uncovered cases did not fully represent the flow in the rheometer
because they neglected any vertical flow of material that may occur in actual test
conditions. While all impellers displaced concrete and left voids of various sizes,
149
any concrete present vertically above an impeller could presumably flow to
replace any displaced concrete.
Upon removal from the low-slump concrete (1/2-inch), four of the
impellers left a clean void, as shown below in Figure 6.5. The concrete within the
void was either expelled during shearing or formed a plug that adhered to the
impeller or became trapped within the impeller. Whereas the vane and half egg-
beater impellers left relatively rough void side walls, the egg-beater and spiral
impellers left smooth, paste-rich surfaces.
Vane Egg-Beater
Half Egg-Beater Spiral

Figure 6.5: Voids Left by Impellers – Mix 2
150
Based on these qualitative observations of flow behavior, the vane and
egg-beater impeller appeared to create the most favorable flow patterns. The
spiral, half egg-beater, and offset egg-beater impellers appeared to be unsuitable.
With the exception of the joint compound paddle, larger versions of any of the
impellers relative to the maximum aggregate size may provide more favorable
flow patterns in the concrete. For the joint compound paddle, a smaller version
may be acceptable.
6.3.2 Series II Tests – Quantitative Performance

In the second series of tests, the performance of each of the six impellers
was tested quantitatively. The properties of the four concrete mixtures used in this
testing are shown in Table 6.4. Flow curves were measured with each impeller in
order to assess the following factors: degree of structural breakdown, effect of
flow curve measurement sequence (ascending or descending speeds), and the
quality of the flow curve measurement.
Table 6.4: Concrete Properties for Series II Impeller Type Tests

Slump before Slump after Final Elapsed
Mix Testing Testing Time
(Inches) (Inches) (Hr:Min)
Mix 1 6 6 1:00
Mix 2 3.5 3.5 1:00
Mix 3 7.5 7.5 0:59
Mix 4 3.5 3.5 0:51
The first factor considered was the structural breakdown of the concrete
that occurs when shearing is started in the rheometer. This structural breakdown
occurs in all rheometers and is not unique to the ICAR rheometer. A typical plot
of torque versus time for an impeller rotating at a constant speed is shown in
Figure 6.6. The torque initially increases linearly up to a maximum value and then
151
drops—sharply at first and gradually later—to an average steady-state value. The
magnitude of torque reduction and the time for it to take place are important
considerations in selecting an impeller. While the reduction in torque is typically
due mainly to structural breakdown, it can also be due to segregation. Therefore,
assessing the reduction in torque provides an indication of the presence of
segregation. An impeller that exhibits a substantially greater reduction in torque
than the other impellers is likely to be creating more segregation.
20
18
16
14
Torque (Nm)
12
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (seconds)
Figure 6.6: Typical Reduction in Torque over Time

(Rotation Speed = 40 rpm)
In order to quantify the degree of structural breakdown and judge the

relative amount of segregation, each impeller was rotated at a constant speed of
1.0 rev/sec for 90 seconds. The vane was tested in both the 10-inch and 16-inch
containers. The other impellers were tested only in the 16-inch container. The
percentage change in torque from the peak torque achieved in the first few
152
seconds to the steady torque achieved after 90 seconds of shearing was
determined. The percentage reduction in torque, as indicated in Table 6.5 and
plotted in Figure 6.7, ranged from 45 to 94%. The reductions in torque in the half
egg-beater and offset egg-beater impellers were consistently above average for
each mix. On average for the four mixtures the vane and egg-beater impellers
provided slightly below average reductions in torque. The spiral impeller
produced significantly lower than average reductions in torque in two of the three
mixtures in which it was tested and slightly below average reduction in torque in
the other mixture.
Table 6.5: Average Percentage Reduction in Torque for Each Impeller

Impeller Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4
Vane (10" Container) -- 71.6% 83.1% --
Vane (16" Container) 72.1% 68.9% 80.2% 80.8%
Egg-Beater 75.6% 73.1% 79.3% 75.5%
Half Egg-Beater 80.3% 82.4% 94.2% 88.5%
Offset Egg-Beater -- 79.5% 89.5% 84.8%
Joint Cmpd. Paddle -- -- 73.5% --
Spiral -- 44.7% 81.4% 62.3%
Average 76.0% 70.0% 83.0% 78.4%
153
100%
90%
80%
Percentage Reduction in Torque
70%
Vane (10")
60% Vane (16")
EB
50% HEB
OEB
40% JCP
Spiral
30%
20%
10%
0%
Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4
Figure 6.7: Percentage Reduction in Torque for Each Mixture
It is also useful to consider the total torque generated after breakdown,

which is shown in Table 6.6 and Figure 6.8. If the torque measured by the
impeller is too low, the resolution in torque measurements may be insufficient for
accurate flow curve measurements. Further, the low torque may be an indication
that only a small portion of material is flowing. If the torque is too high, the range
of concrete workability that can be measured will be limited. The joint compound
paddle clearly created too much torque—it was unable to measure three of the
four mixtures. The spiral, half egg-beater, and offset egg-beater impellers
produced torques significantly below the other impellers. Interestingly, the offset
egg-impeller produced significantly higher torques than the half-egg beater, which
suggests that the offset egg-beater impeller engages more material than the half-
egg beater impeller.
154
Table 6.6: Torque after 90 Seconds of Breakdown
Torque, Nm
Impeller
Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4
Vane (10-Inch Container) -- 8.23 3.45 --
Vane (16-Inch Container) 3.74 5.56 2.20 4.76
Egg-Beater 3.34 4.95 1.82 3.99
Half Egg-Beater 2.57 2.11 0.56 1.99
Offset Egg-Beater -- 3.30 1.16 3.56
Joint Cmpd. Paddle -- -- 6.61 --
Spiral -- 3.23 0.84 2.44
Average 3.22 4.56 2.38 3.35
7
Torque After Breakdown, Nm
6 Vane 10"
Vane 16"
5 EB
HEB
4 OEB
JCP
3 Spiral
0
1 2 3 4
Figure 6.8: Torque after 90 Seconds of Breakdown
The next consideration was the quality of the flow curves measured by
each impeller. Relative flow curves were measured with each impeller in the four
155
different concrete mixtures. Five points were measured between 0.2 rev/sec and
1.0 rev/sec for each flow curve. One flow curve was measured with descending
speeds after 5 seconds of breakdown, while two curves—the first with descending
speeds and the second with ascending speeds—were measured after 90 seconds of
breakdown. The breakdown speed was 1.0 rev/sec. The average relative
parameters for these measurements—namely, yield value and viscosity value—
are summarized in Table 6.7. It should be cautioned that some impellers were not
used in all tests; therefore, the total magnitude for a given impeller could be
distorted. The actual measurements for each mix are shown in Tables 6.8 through
6.11.
To judge the quality of each of the flow curve measurements, the degree
of linear fit of the torque versus rotation speed data was assessed using the
coefficient of determination (R2). Even considering the fact that dead zones occur
within the rheometer, the R2 terms should still be close to unity.
156
Table 6.7: Average Relative Flow Curve Parameters for Each Impeller
Yield Viscosity
Test R2
Value Value
(Nm) (Nm.s)
Vane (10-Inch Container)
5 sec, descending 3.92 4.24 0.75
90 sec, descending 3.39 2.64 0.93
90 sec, ascending 3.50 1.89 0.79
All 3.47 2.98 0.84
Vane (16-Inch Container)
90 sec, descending 2.77 1.50 0.97
90 sec, ascending 2.78 1.29 0.96
All 2.92 2.11 0.96
Egg-Beater
90 sec, descending 2.64 1.08 0.84
90 sec, ascending 2.58 0.87 0.71
All 2.76 1.52 0.83
Half Egg-Beater
90 sec, descending 1.27 0.78 0.68
90 sec, ascending 1.06 0.83 0.83
All 1.21 0.95 0.68
Offset Egg-Beater
90 sec, descending 1.98 1.20 0.84
90 sec, ascending 1.81 1.05 0.85
All 2.29 2.02 0.87
Joint Cmpd Paddle
90 sec, descending 4.34 2.76 0.97
90 sec, ascending 3.17 3.67 0.94
All 4.30 4.90 0.96
Spiral
90 sec, descending 1.63 0.52 0.85
90 sec, ascending 1.76 0.25 0.43
All 1.66 0.71 0.75
157
Table 6.8: Flow Curve Measurements for Mix 1
Flow Curve
Container Breakdown
Impeller Direction Yield Viscosity
Diameter Time R2
Value Value
(Inches) (Seconds) (Nm) (Nm.s)
5 Desc. 4.13 4.20 0.66
10 90 Desc. 2.88 1.93 0.88
90 Asc. 3.16 1.56 0.81
Vane
5 Desc. 2.93 2.94 0.95
16 90 Desc. 2.47 1.10 0.98
90 Asc. 2.38 0.91 0.98
5 Desc. 3.27 2.17 0.91
10 90 Desc. 2.66 1.00 0.84
Egg- 90 Asc. 2.57 1.11 0.99
beater 5 Desc. 2.92 2.24 0.88
16 90 Desc. 2.65 0.55 0.66
90 Asc. 2.15 1.34 0.98
Half 5 Desc. 2.70 2.74 0.92
Egg- 16 90 Desc. 1.69 1.22 0.47
Beater 90 Asc. 0.94 1.56 0.74
Offset 5 Desc. -- -- --
Egg- 16 90 Desc. -- -- --
Beater 90 Asc. -- -- --
Joint 5 Desc. -- -- --
Cmpd 16 90 Desc. -- -- --
Paddle 90 Asc. -- -- --
5 Desc. -- -- --
Spiral 16 90 Desc. -- -- --
90 Asc. -- -- --
158
Flow Curve
Container Breakdown
Diameter Time R2
Value Value
5 Desc. 6.18 6.37 0.91
10 90 Desc. 5.21 4.50 1.00
90 Asc. 5.31 2.74 0.80
Vane
5 Desc. 4.35 4.53 0.93
16 90 Desc. 4.11 1.86 0.98
90 Asc. 4.32 1.26 0.94
5 Desc. 4.62 3.12 0.98
10 90 Desc. 3.96 1.46 0.99
Egg- 90 Asc. 3.53 1.08 0.69
beater 5 Desc. 1.72 1.42 0.39
16 90 Desc. 1.69 0.75 0.43
90 Asc. 1.65 0.55 0.92
Half 5 Desc. 3.16 4.99 0.97
Egg- 16 90 Desc. 2.77 1.19 0.73
Beater 90 Asc. 2.26 0.90 0.95
Egg- 16 90 Desc. -- -- --
Beater 90 Asc. -- -- --
Joint 5 Desc. 2.16 1.50 0.95
Cmpd 16 90 Desc. 2.62 0.75 0.73
Paddle 90 Asc. 3.01 0.08 0.03
5 Desc. 6.18 6.37 0.91
Spiral 16 90 Desc. 5.21 4.50 1.00
90 Asc. 5.31 2.74 0.80
159
Flow Curve
Container Breakdown
Diameter Time R2
Value Value
5 Desc. 2.23 3.45 0.96
10 90 Desc. 2.08 1.48 0.93
90 Asc. 2.04 1.36 0.78
Vane
5 Desc. 1.35 2.67 0.98
16 90 Desc. 1.42 1.17 0.98
90 Asc. 1.59 0.77 0.99
5 Desc. 1.58 2.08 0.91
10 90 Desc. 1.01 1.01 0.94
Egg- 90 Asc. 1.12 0.69 0.97
beater 5 Desc. 0.43 0.78 0.67
16 90 Desc. 0.25 0.51 0.88
90 Asc. 0.37 0.27 0.89
Half 5 Desc. 1.63 2.06 0.81
Egg- 16 90 Desc. 0.98 0.53 0.85
Beater 90 Asc. 0.68 0.83 0.87
Offset 5 Desc. 5.38 8.30 0.98
Egg- 16 90 Desc. 4.34 2.76 0.97
Beater 90 Asc. 3.17 3.67 0.94
Joint 5 Desc. 0.59 0.57 0.95
Cmpd 16 90 Desc. 0.64 0.29 0.97
Paddle 90 Asc. 0.52 0.42 0.83
5 Desc. 2.23 3.45 0.96
Spiral 16 90 Desc. 2.08 1.48 0.93
90 Asc. 2.04 1.36 0.78
160
Flow Curve
Container Breakdown
Diameter Time R2
Value Value
5 Desc. 1.45 2.15 0.68
10 90 Desc. -- -- --
90 Asc. -- -- --
Vane
5 Desc. 4.26 4.03 0.96
16 90 Desc. 3.10 1.88 0.95
90 Asc. 2.83 2.24 0.93
5 Desc. 3.07 3.01 0.96
10 90 Desc. 2.96 1.30 0.79
Egg- 90 Asc. 3.51 0.37 0.19
beater 5 Desc. 1.52 1.02 0.85
16 90 Desc. 1.46 0.65 0.94
90 Asc. 1.28 0.94 0.80
Half 5 Desc. 4.42 4.37 0.98
Egg- 16 90 Desc. 2.20 1.88 0.95
Beater 90 Asc. 2.48 1.44 0.74
Egg- 16 90 Desc. -- -- --
Beater 90 Asc. -- -- --
Joint 5 Desc. 1.48 1.60 0.90
Cmpd 16 90 Desc. 2.11 0.48 0.50
Paddle 90 Asc. 1.78 0.77 0.86
5 Desc. 1.45 2.15 0.68
Spiral 16 90 Desc. -- -- --
90 Asc. -- -- --
The average R2 terms for each impeller are graphed in Figure 6.9 for tests
performed in the 16-inch container. The R2 terms were generally highest for the 5-
second breakdown time, although both the yield value and viscosity value were
distorted from their true values due to the insufficient breakdown time.
Specifically, the torque decreased over the duration of the flow curve test not only
because the speed was reduced but also because further structural breakdown
occurred. Only the vane and the joint compound paddle produced R2 terms greater
161
than 0.90 for the 90-second breakdown tests. The joint compound paddle was
used in only one mix; therefore, additional testing is needed with this geometry.
The spiral and half-egg beater produced R2 terms below 0.80 for descending
curves measured after 90 seconds of breakdown and are, therefore, unsuitable.
The egg-beater and offset egg-beater produced R2 values between 0.80 and 0.90.
1
0.9
0.8
5-Second
0.7 Breakdown
0.6
90-Second
R^2
0.5 Breakdown,
0.4 Descending
0.3 90-Second
Breakdown,
0.2 Ascending
0.1
0
Vane Egg- Half Egg- Offset JC Paddle Spiral
Beater Beater Egg-
Beater
Figure 6.9: Average R2 Terms for Each Impeller, 16-Inch Container
It should not be implied that a 90-second breakdown time is required for

all tests. Such a time would not only be impractical, it would also be unnecessary.
A breakdown time of 25 to 30 seconds is sufficient for the vast majority of
concrete mixtures.
Based on the quantitative data, the vane, when used in the 16-inch
container, provided the best results. The vane produced high R2 terms for flow
curve measurements, it produced sufficient torque for adequate torque resolution,
and its degree of structural breakdown was comparable to the other impellers. The
162
joint compound geometry was promising; however, its size was too large for use
in concrete. A smaller version may be suitable. While the spiral impeller produced
unacceptably low values of R2 for flow curve measurements, it did produce the
smallest reduction in torque, possibly suggesting that it was too small to engage
sufficient flow in the surrounding concrete. A larger version of the spiral may
produce higher R2 terms while also producing a favorable flow pattern in
concrete.
6.3.3 Series III Tests – Spiral Impellers
6.3.3.1 Background
After the initial spiral impeller appeared to be too small, three additional
spirals were obtained and tested for comparison with the original spiral. The four
spirals tested are shown in Figure 6.10. Like before, the purpose of the testing was
to identify the impeller that created the least segregation while also creating a
favorable flow pattern. Spiral 1, which has a bottom diameter of 4 inches, is the
same impeller used in the Series I and II tests. Spiral 2 is identical to Spiral 1;
however, the bottom ring was removed. Spiral 3, which has a bottom diameter of
4 5/8 inches, is a larger version of Spiral 1. Unlike the first three spirals, which
create a downward direction of flow, Spiral 4 is larger and creates an upward
direction of flow. The vertical gap between blades in Spiral 4 is 3 inches, while
the outside diameter is 4 5/8 inches. Like Spiral 2, the original ring at the bottom
of Spiral 4 was removed.
163
Spiral 1: Spiral 2:
Original Spiral Original Spiral, Bottom Removed
Spiral 3: Spiral 4:
Larger Version of Original Spiral Alternate Geometry
Figure 6.10: Spiral Impellers
The manufacturer’s recommended uses for Spirals 1, 3, and 4 are

indicated in Table 6.12. Figure 6.11 shows the manufacturer’s representation of
the intended flow direction for each spiral.
164
Table 6.12: Manufacturer’s Recommended Uses for Spiral Impellers
Flow Maximum
Spiral Recommended Uses
Direction Speed
Fast mixing paints, inks,
Spiral 1 Downward 800 rpm
liquids
Interior/exterior paints,
Spiral 3 Downward 600 rpm latex paints, wallpaper
adhesives, concrete sludge
Spiral 4 Ready-mix mortar, plaster,
(including Upward 500 rpm gypsum pastes, carpet
bottom ring) adhesives, granulates
Downward Flow Upward Flow

(Spirals 1, 2, 3) (Spiral 4)
Figure 6.11: Intended Flow Direction for Spiral Impellers (From
Manufacturer’s Packaging)
Qualitative observations and quantitative measurements were made with

the four impellers in three concrete mixtures, the properties of which are indicated
in Table 6.13. All testing was conducted in the 16-inch diameter container.
Concrete was remixed with a shovel between each test.
165
Table 6.13: Concrete Properties for Series III Impeller Type Tests
Mix Testing Testing Time
Mix 1 5 3 1:00
Mix 2 3.5 3 0:53
Mix 4 3.75 3.5 1:00
6.3.3.2 Qualitative Descriptions of Observed Flow Behavior

To assess qualitatively the flow behavior around the potential spirals, each
spiral was rotated at two speeds, 1.5 rpm and 40 rpm, and the flow behavior was
observed for Mix 1 and 4. For all tests, the bottom cover was 10 inches and the
container diameter was 16 inches. The top of each spiral was allowed to protrude
1 inch above the concrete surface.
The qualitative observations of the flow behavior for each spiral impeller
are listed in Table 6.14. In the forward direction, the spiral impellers were turned
clockwise in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. In the reverse
direction, the spiral impellers were turned counter-clockwise. Photographs of the
resulting concrete flow are shown in Figure 6.12 and Figure 6.13 for the forward
and reverse directions, respectively.
166
Table 6.14: Observations for Spiral Impellers
Spiral 1
Forward Direction
The rotation of the spiral creates a channel behind the blades, which isolates a plug of
concrete. At low speeds, some concrete is able to fall back in to the channel. At high speeds,
a distinct channel is created quickly and maintained throughout the test.
Reverse Direction
The rotation of the spiral clearly moves concrete upward and outward, although a plug is still
created inside the spiral. The plug of concrete stays relatively stationary as the spiral rotates
around it. A portion of the concrete immediately outside the spiral does slump in towards the
center of the spiral. A mortar-rich region is created at the top of the concrete surface as
mortar is ejected from the upward-moving blades. If the spiral were fully covered, this
mortar-rich region would likely remain at the top of the spiral and may not move to the top of
the concrete surface.
Spiral 2
Forward Direction
A plug is created inside the spiral; however, some material within the plug attempts to flow
outward. Horizontal movement of the surrounding concrete is visible.
Reverse Direction
Rotation of the spiral clearly results in a pushing of material upward and outward. Further,
the rotation of the spiral appears to pull more aggregates through the impeller as compared to
Spiral 1, which pulls more mortar through the impeller.
Spiral 3
Forward Direction
Due to the angle of the blades, rotation of the spiral does pull some concrete into the center of
the spiral. A plug is still created within the spiral. A limited amount of elastic engagement of
surrounding concrete is visible; however, very little overall flow is evident.
Reverse Direction
Rotation of the spiral clearly results in pushing of material upward and outward. A plug is
created. Some mortar is pulled out of the concrete and pushed upward by the rotation of the
spiral; however, the amount of mortar moving through the spiral is less than the amount for
Spiral 1 but more than the amount for Spiral 2.
Spiral 4
Forward Direction
Rotation of the spiral clearly results in a pushing of the concrete upward and outward. A plug
is created.
Reverse Direction
Rotation of the spiral creates an open void inside the spiral blades as no material is available
from above to replace concrete displaced by the spiral.
167
Spiral 1 Spiral 2
Spiral 3 Spiral 4
Figure 6.12: Flow of Concrete around Spiral Impellers – Mix 1
(5-Inch Slump)
168
Spiral 1 Spiral 2
Spiral 3 Spiral 4
Figure 6.13: Flow of Concrete around Spiral Impellers Operated in Reverse
– Mix 4 (3.5-Inch Slump)
The flow pattern created by Spiral 1 was distinctively different for each
direction of rotation. When Spiral 1 was operated in the reverse direction, mortar
was pulled from the concrete and pushed upward to the top of the spiral. Given
the fact that the impeller was uncovered, much less resistance to upward flow
existed than if the impeller had been covered. If the spiral were larger relative to
the maximum aggregate size, it is likely that some coarse aggregates would also
169
flow with the mortar upwards through the spiral. In fact, when the bottom ring
was removed for Spiral 2, which eliminated the narrow gap at the bottom of the
spiral, more coarse aggregates were moved upward by the rotation of the spiral.
Neither Spiral 1 nor 2 appeared to be effective when operated in the
manufacturer’s recommended forward direction, although in Spiral 2, some
horizontal movement of surrounding concrete was visible. Likewise, Spiral 3 was
more effective when operated in the reverse direction; however, it did pull mainly
mortar upward when operated in reverse. Spiral 4 was more effective when
operated in the forward direction rather than the reverse direction. The forward
direction for Spiral 4 resulted in an upward movement of material.
With all of the spirals, solid plugs were still created when they were
rotated in such a direction as to result in an upward movement of material. Most
of the upward movement of material occurred in the vicinity of the outer spiral
blades, while minimal movement occurred inside the outer spiral blades, resulting
in the creation of the plug.
6.3.3.3 Quantitative Measurements

In order to judge the degree of structural breakdown for each spiral
impeller, the percentage change in torque from the peak torque achieved during
the first few seconds to the steady torque achieved after 90 seconds of shearing
was measured. The average reductions in torque for each spiral are shown in
Table 6.15. These results can be compared to the first series of tests using the six
impellers (vane, egg-beater, half-egg beater, offset egg-beater, joint compound
paddle, and Spiral 1), which were tested in similar concrete mixtures. It can be
concluded that the reduction in torque was generally less for the spiral impellers
than for the other impellers.
170
Table 6.15: Average Percentage Reduction in Torque for Each Spiral
Impeller
Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 4 Average
Initial Slump (In.) 5 3.5 3.75
Spiral 1 54.0% 52.7% 66.8% 57.8%
Spiral 2 51.0% 50.6% 58.2% 53.2%
Spiral 3 49.9% 50.0% 61.0% 53.6%
Spiral 4 58.7% 55.0% 69.0% 60.9%
Average 53.4% 52.1% 63.7%
Relative flow curves where measured with each impeller in each concrete
mixture. The average relative parameters are shown in Table 6.16. It is important
to consider the magnitudes of the yield values and viscosity values. Higher values
of these parameters are desirable to ensure sufficient torque resolution.
The lowest values or R2 were obtained in tests with Spiral 2 and Spiral 4.
These spirals both differ from the other two spirals in that their bottom rings were
removed. The bottom ring assists in promoting a certain flow path; however, the
narrow gap between the ring and the spiral blades could prevent coarse aggregate
from moving within the vane. In appears that, on balance, the removal of the
bottom ring was disadvantageous. The average viscosity values were also lower
for Spiral 2 and Spiral 4 than for the other spirals.
The relative parameters for Mix 4 (3.5-inch slump) are indicted in Table
6.17 for the case where the direction of rotation of the spiral was reversed from
the manufacturer’s recommendation. These data indicates that operating the
spirals in reverse direction is of no advantage.
171
Table 6.16: Average Relative Parameters for Each Impeller (Forward
Direction)
Yield Viscosity
Test R2
Value Value
(Nm) (Nm.s)
Spiral 1
5 sec, descending 2.209 1.485 0.686
90 sec, descending 2.053 0.613 0.885
90 sec, ascending 1.930 0.704 0.830
All 2.064 0.934 0.800
Spiral 2
5 sec, descending 2.370 0.806 0.903
90 sec, descending 2.255 0.277 0.486
90 sec, ascending 2.278 0.145 0.278
all 2.301 0.409 0.556
Spiral 3
5 sec, descending 2.016 1.302 0.938
90 sec, descending 1.931 0.564 0.843
90 sec, ascending 1.872 0.505 0.773
all 1.940 0.791 0.851
Spiral 4
5 sec, descending 3.896 0.673 0.485
90 sec, descending 3.590 0.755 0.480
90 sec, ascending 4.454 -0.654 0.328
all 3.980 0.258 0.431
Average
5 sec, descending 2.623 1.067 0.753
90 sec, descending 2.457 0.552 0.674
90 sec, ascending 2.633 0.175 0.552
all 2.571 0.598 0.660
172
Table 6.17: Average Relative Parameters for Each Impeller
(Mix 4, Reverse Direction)
Yield Viscosity
Test R2
Value Value
(Nm) (Nm.s)
Spiral 1 -Reverse
5 sec, descending 2.183 0.779 0.932
90 sec, descending 2.325 0.558 0.547
90 sec, ascending 1.985 0.671 0.564
All 2.164 0.669 0.681
Spiral 2 - Reverse
5 sec, descending 1.723 1.062 0.891
90 sec, descending 1.435 0.673 0.942
90 sec, ascending 1.804 -0.052 0.055
All 1.654 0.561 0.629
Spiral 3 - Reverse
5 sec, descending 2.967 0.986 0.744
90 sec, descending 3.026 0.444 0.436
90 sec, ascending 2.761 0.592 0.800
All 2.918 0.674 0.660
Spiral 4 - Reverse
5 sec, descending 3.873 0.759 0.351
90 sec, descending 2.079 0.965 0.788
90 sec, ascending 2.436 0.141 0.165
All 2.796 0.622 0.435
Average - Reverse
5 sec, descending 2.687 0.897 0.730
90 sec, descending 2.216 0.660 0.678
90 sec, ascending 2.247 0.338 0.396
All 2.383 0.632 0.601
6.3.3.4 Conclusions
All four spirals were unsuitable for measuring concrete rheology. First, the
intended flow patterns for each spiral impeller were invalid for concrete due to the
high viscosities of concrete and the presence of large, coarse aggregates. As a
result, a solid plug formed within the blades of each spiral. Although the plugs
formed in the spirals were not as distinct as in other impellers, the formation of
173
plugs was still problematic. Second, the rotation of the spirals—especially Spiral
4—pulled mortar out of the concrete and left behind the coarse aggregate. Third,
the yield values and viscosity values measured by the spiral impellers were
generally lower than those for other impellers, possibly resulting in inadequate
torque resolution. In most cases for the spiral impellers, the difference in torque
between 0.2 and 1.0 rev/sec was less than 1 Nm. Fourth, the variability of flow
curve points was too high for all spiral impellers, as evidenced by the low values
of R2. Finally, when the spiral impellers pushed material downward, the resistance
provided by the concrete beneath each of the spirals was too large to allow
concrete to move downward as intended. When the spiral impellers pushed
material upward, the concrete was not sufficiently fluid to fill the void left at the
bottom of each of the spirals; therefore, some mortar was sucked from the coarse
aggregate network, resulting in a mortar-rich region at the top of the impeller.
6.3.4 Final Selection

Based on the three series of tests of the candidate impellers, the vane
exhibited the best performance and was selected for use in the ICAR rheometer.
The qualitative observations indicated that the vane clearly engaged flow of
surrounding material and produced favorable flow patterns. The wall effect was
confined to the inside of the cut cylinder where its impact on results was minimal.
When used to measure a flow curve, the vane consistently produced R2 terms
close to unity. The degree of structural breakdown was comparable to other
impellers. The amount of torque generated by the impeller was acceptable for
providing adequate torque resolution while not exceeding the maximum torque
capacity of the rheometer during the breakdown stage. Although the vane
provided better results in the 16-inch container than in the 10-inch container,
other container diameters could be acceptable. The selection of the vane does not
174
preclude the use of alternate impellers, which, if properly designed, could provide
comparable or improved performance.
6.4 OPTIMUM SPEED FOR STRESS GROWTH TESTS

Tests were conducted with the vane to determine the optimum speed for
use in measuring yield stress in stress growth tests. If the speed is too slow, the
structure of the concrete may reform before the yield stress is reached, resulting in
an artificially high yield stress reading. If the speed is too fast, viscous forces and
dynamic forces can amplify the static torque needed to initiate flow. By
determining the yield stress at a range of different speeds, the minimum value of
yield stress should indicate the optimum speed for stress growth tests.
The impeller was rotated in four different concrete mixtures at a range of
constant speeds ranging from 0.00833 rev/sec (0.5 rpm) to 0.1833 rev/sec (11
rpm). The minimum speed was limited by the capacity of the motor. The
properties of the concrete mixtures that were tested are listed in Table 6.18.
During the testing of each concrete mixture, the concrete remained in the
container and was remixed with a shovel between each test. The 5-inch by 5-inch
vane was tested in the 16-inch diameter container, with 5-inch gap sizes above
and below the vane.
Table 6.18: Concrete Properties for Tests of Optimum Stress

Growth Test Speed
Mix w/c Testing Testing Time
Mix 1 0.416 4.5 3.75 0:36
Mix 2 0.387 2.5 2.5 0:28
Mix 3 0.484 8 7 0:40
Mix 4 0.469 3.5 4 0:36
175
Typical stress growth plots for a range of speeds are shown in Figure 6.14.
The test was stopped once it was clear that the yield stress had been exceeded and
the material around the vane was beginning to flow.
35
0.5 rpm
30 2.0 rpm
10.0 rpm
25
Torque, Nm
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time, Seconds
Figure 6.14: Typical Stress Growth Plots at Various Rotation Speeds
The results of the yield stress speed testing are listed in Table 6.19 and
plotted in Figure 6.15. A clear downward trend in peak torque was evident for the
first three speeds of 0.5 rpm to 1.5 rpm in each mix. The rotation speeds of 10 and
11 rpm dis not allow for an elastic build-up of stress and were too fast for
determining yield stress. Based on the plot in Figure 6.15, a rotation speed of 1.5
rpm (0.025 rev/sec) was selected as the optimum speed for stress growth tests.
176
Table 6.19: Results of Tests for Optimum Stress Growth Test Speed
Peak
Rotation Speed
Mix Torque
(rpm) (rev/sec) (Nm)
0.5 0.00833 30.3
1.0 0.01667 27.1
1.5 0.02500 24.1
Mix 1
2.0 0.03333 25.7
10 0.16667 22.1
11 0.18333 25.6
0.5 0.00833 53.4
1.0 0.01667 54.4
Mix 2
1.0 0.01667 54.9
2.0 0.03333 47.7
0.5 0.00833 13.5
1.0 0.01667 13.1
1.5 0.02500 7.5
Mix 3
2.0 0.03333 8.5
10 0.16667 9.2
11 0.18333 9.0
0.5 0.00833 43.6
1.0 0.01667 32.6
1.5 0.02500 36.1
Mix 4
2.0 0.03333 33.3
10 0.16667 24.6
11 0.18333 24.6
177
60.0
Mix 1
Mix 2
50.0
Mix 3
Mix 4
Peak Torque, Nm
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000
Yield Stress Speed, rev/sec
Figure 6.15: Results of Tests for Optimum Stress Growth Test Speed
6.5 GAP SIZES

The effect of the gap sizes between the vane and the container and
between the vane and the free surface of the concrete was examined to determine
the proper container size.
Testing was performed with the 5-inch by 5-inch vane at the stress growth
test speed of 0.025 rev/sec and at a speed of 0.667 rev/sec, which is representative
of flow curve measurements. The vane was first rotated at the stress growth test
speed up to the yield stress. The vane was then rotated at a constant speed of
0.667 rev/sec until structural breakdown occurred and an average steady-state
torque had been reached. The properties of the four standard concrete mixtures
tested are shown in Table 6.20.
178
Table 6.20: Concrete Properties for Gap Size Tests
Mix 1 0.472 5.25 4 0:59
Mix 2 0.470 5 4.5 0:53
Mix 3 0.465 7 6.5 0:49
Mix 4 0.402 4 3.75 0:51
To test the horizontal gap size, the vane was placed in the center of the 10-
inch diameter container and the 16-inch diameter container, resulting in side gap
sizes of 2.5 inches and 5.5 inches, respectively. These gap sizes represented likely
maximum and minimum values. The 2.5-inch gap size would provide a gap size
to maximum aggregate size ratio of 2.5 for a concrete with a 1-inch maximum
aggregate size. This ratio of 2.5 has been found to be suitable by other authors (cf.
Section 5.3.1). The 5.5-inch gap size produced a gap size to maximum aggregate
size ratio of 5.5 for a concrete with a 1-inch maximum aggregate size. This higher
ratio of 5.5 is slightly more than the generally accepted value of 3 to 5 for
concrete.
The test data for each of the four mixes are presented in Table 6.21 As
summarized in Table 6.22, the decrease in gap size from 5.5 inches to 2.5 inches
resulted in an increase in peak torque at 0.025 rev/sec of between 48 and 89% and
an increase in steady torque at 0.667 rev/sec of between 30 and 64%. Aggregate
interlocking effects were presumably the main contributing factor for the increase
in torque in the smaller container. Accordingly, the increase in torque at the yield
stress speed was less for the rounded river gravel than for the angular crushed
limestone. If aggregate interlocking is present to a sufficient degree and the
mortar is sufficiently cohesive, the vane may try to turn the entire volume of
concrete within the container as a single plug. Further, if material tends to move
179
radially outward, the horizontal resistance provided by the smaller container can
increase the torque.
Table 6.21: Testing of Horizontal Side Gap

Peak Steady
Side
Torque Torque
Mix Gap
(0.025rev/s) (0.67rev/s)
(Inches) (Nm) (Nm)
5.5 24.5 6.3
Mix 1
2.5 36.9 10.3
5.5 37.9 9.7
Mix 2
2.5 56.0 12.5
5.5 16.4 4.4
Mix 3
2.5 29.9 6.3
5.5 27.5 7.1
Mix 4
2.5 51.8 --
Table 6.22: Effect of Horizontal Side Gap

(10-Inch Container Torque)/
(16-Inch Container Torque)
Mix 1
0.025 rev/sec 1.51
0.667 rev/sec 1.64
Mix 2
0.025 rev/sec 1.48
0.667 rev/sec 1.30
Mix 3
0.025 rev/sec 1.83
0.667 rev/sec 1.42
Mix 4
0.025 rev/sec 1.89
0.667 rev/sec --
To test for the effect of bottom gap and top cover, the 5-inch by 5-inch
vane was tested in the 16-inch diameter container with varying distances between
the vane and the top of the concrete and bottom of the container. The vane was
180
rotated at a constant speed of either 0.025 or 0.667 rev/sec. The effects of the
bottom gap and top cover distances are shown in Table 6.23.
Table 6.23: Effects of Top Cover and Bottom Gap

Peak Steady
Bottom Top
Torque Torque
Mix Gap Cover
(0.025rev/s) (0.67rev/s)
(Inches) (Inches) (Nm) (Nm)
5 0 18.5 5.5
5 2.5 14.5 5.9
5 5 24.5 6.3
Mix 1
5 10 25.5 6.6
2.5 5 41.7 6.8
10 5 28.5 7.4
5 0 20.2 7.4
5 2.5 26.0 8.7
5 5 37.9 9.7
Mix 2
5 10 33.3 10.3
2.5 5 53.2 10.2
10 5 38.3 9.8
5 0 13.7 4.7
5 2.5 11.5 4.7
5 5 16.4 4.4
Mix 3
5 10 15.2 4.8
2.5 5 17.7 5.9
10 5 19.5 4.8
5 0 18.1 5.7
5 2.5 16.9 7.5
5 5 27.5 7.1
Mix 4
5 10 27.8 7.5
2.5 5 35.6 8.9
10 5 30.2 8.0
At the stress growth test speed, a clear trend in torque was evident, as
shown in Figure 6.16. Whereas the peak torque dropped slightly for three of the
four mixes when the top cover was increased from no cover to 2.5 inches, the
peak torque for all four mixes increased sharply when the cover was further
181
increased to 5 inches. At the low value of top cover, the stress acting on top of the
cylindrical volume cut by the vane was negligible. Once a sufficient amount of
material covered the vane, the torque due to top cover reached an approximately
constant level. The effect of the bottom gap at the stress growth test speed, shown
in Figure 6.17, was pronounced at a distance of 2.5 inches. Above a distance of 5
inches, or 5 times the maximum aggregate size of 1 inch, the torque was constant,
suggesting that a bottom gap distance of 5 inches was suitable.
40
35
30
Peak Torque, Nm
25
Mix 1
Mix 2
20
Mix 3
15 Mix 4
10
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10
Top Cover, Inches
Figure 6.16: Effect of Top Cover at 0.025 rev/sec (Bottom Gap = 5 Inches)
182
60
50
Peak Torque, Nm
40
Mix 1
Mix 2
30
Mix 3
Mix 4
20
10
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10
Bottom Gap, Inches
Figure 6.17: Effect of Bottom Gap at 0.025 rev/sec (Top Cover = 5 Inches)
At the higher speed of 0.667 rev/sec, the effects of bottom gap and top
cover were slightly different than at stress growth test speed. Except for Mix 1,
the increase in top cover resulted in an increase in torque, as indicated in Figure
6.18. For Mix 3, the effect of top cover appeared to be negligible. For the bottom
gap distance, Figure 6.19 indicates that increasing the gap size from 2.5 inches to
5 inches resulted in a decrease in torque for all four mixes. When the gap size was
increased to 10 inches, the torque increased only modestly. Based on these data, it
appears that a bottom gap distance of 5 inches was suitable for the flow curve
speed.
183
12
10
Steady Torque, Nm
8
Mix 1
Mix 2
6
Mix 3
Mix 4
4
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10
Top Cover, Inches
Figure 6.18: Effect of Top Cover at 0.667 rev/sec (Bottom Gap = 5 Inches)
12
10
Steady Torque, Nm
8
Mix 1
Mix 2
6
Mix 3
Mix 4
4
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10
Bottom Gap, Inches
Figure 6.19: Effect of Bottom Gap at 0.667 rev/sec (Top Cover = 5 Inches)
184
Based on the data presented above, it is evident that for bottom gap, top
cover, and side gap, there are minimum distances above which the gap or cover
distance does not have a significant influence on the torque measurement at either
0.025 rev/sec or 0.667 rev/sec. The data indicate that bottom gap and top cover
distances of 5 inches are suitable; however, additional measurements may indicate
that smaller distances are acceptable. Further, the 16-inch container appears to be
suitable, although a smaller container diameter could be acceptable.
6.6 END EFFECTS

For flow curve measurements, it is necessary to know the amount of shear
stress acting on the ends of the vane in order to determine analytically yield stress
in plastic viscosity. Likewise, with direct yield stress measurements, the shear
stress at the ends of the vane must be known. The magnitude of the shear stress
acting on the top and bottom of the cylindrical volume cut by the vane was
assessed at the stress growth test speed (0.025 rev/sec) and a speed representative
of flow curve measurements (0.667 rev/sec). The properties of the concrete tested
are shown in Table 6.24.
Table 6.24: Concrete Properties for End Effects Testing

Mix 1 0.496 6.5 5.5 0:38
Mix 2 0.444 3 2.5 0:47
Mix 3 0.447 6 4.75 0:41
Mix 4 0.401 3.25 3 0:51
Vanes of three heights—5, 7.5, and 10 inches—and a constant diameter of

5 inches were tested at speeds of 0.025 rev/sec and 0.667 rev/sec. The peak torque
was determined for the stress growth test speed and continuous steady-state
185
torque was determined for the representative flow curve speed. The torque
measurements were plotted versus height to determine the contribution of end
shear stresses. The minimum vane height was five inches in order to maintain a
minimum H/D ratio greater than one. For comparison purposes, the tests were
conducted in both the 10-inch diameter and 16-inch diameter containers. The test
data for end effect testing are shown in Table 6.25.
Table 6.25: Test Data for End Effects Testing

Peak Steady
Container Vane
Torque Torque
Mix Diameter Height
(0.025rev/s) (0.67rev/s)
(Inches) (Inches) (Nm) (Nm)
5 14.8 3.6
16 7.5 14.3 5.3
10 17.3 7.1
Mix 1
5 15.8 4.8
10 7.5 22.5 6.7
10 23.0 10.0
5 28.9 7.4
16 7.5 36.0 10.9
10 47.6 14.2
Mix 2
5 45.4 12.1
10 7.5 44.3 16.9
10 51.1 20.4
5 17.4 4.3
16 7.5 15.3 5.3
10 26.0 8.7
Mix 3
5 17.0 5.3
10 7.5 26.5 8.0
10 18.9 10.7
5 28.6 6.0
16 7.5 30.4 9.7
10 35.6 12.0
Mix 4
5 35.5 8.6
10 7.5 40.1 12.7
10 49.6 17.9
186
The end effects for stress growth tests and for flow curve measurements
must be considered separately. The test data for stress growth tests are plotted in
Figure 6.20 and Figure 6.21. Based on these data, the end effects for each mix can
be expressed in two ways. First, a straight line fit of the torque versus height data
can be extrapolated to a vane height of zero to determine a constant quantity of
torque attrituable to the ends of the vane. Second, the straight line fit can be
extrapolated back further to the height axis to determine the marginal effective
height of the vane. Both of these values are presented in Table 6.26.
60
50
Peak Torque, Nm
40
Mix 1
Mix 2
30
Mix 3
Mix 4
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Vane Height, Inches
Figure 6.20: Determination of End Effects: 0.025 rev/sec, 16-Inch Container
187
60
50
Peak Torque, Nm
40
Mix 1
Mix 2
30
Mix 3
Mix 4
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Vane Height, Inches
Table 6.26: Determination of End Effects for Stress Growth Test

Marginal
Container Zero Height
Effective
Mix Diameter Torque
Height
(Inches) (Nm) (Inches)
16 11.75 23.88
Mix 1
10 9.56 6.58
16 9.46 2.53
Mix 2
10 38.46 33.97
16 6.63 3.85
Mix 3
10 18.01 48.78
16 21.00 14.97
Mix 4
10 20.51 7.25
In order to use the end effects data in calculating yield stress, the data was
used in the three methods described previous in Chapter 2 for determining the
yield stress. In Method 1, the shear stress at the peak torque is assumed to be
188
evenly distributed across the cylindrical volume cut by the vane and equal to the
yield stress. While the determination of yield stress by this first method only
requires the use of one vane, the yield stress should be equal for any vane
geometry, assuming the geometry is not such that it distorts test results. The yield
stresses determined for each vane height based on the first method are shown in
Table 6.27 for both the 10-inch and 16-inch containers. The scatter in yield stress
was not unexpected given the scatter of data in Figure 6.20 and Figure 6.21.
Table 6.27: Yield Stress Values Determined from Method 1

Vane Yield Stress (Pa)
Mix Height 16-Inch 10-Inch
(Inches) Container Container
5 3447 3677
7.5 2424 3822
Mix 1 10 2298 3068
Average 2723 3522
CoV 23.2% 11.4%
5 6746 10590
7.5 6095 7514
Mix 2 10 6346 6805
Average 6396 8303
CoV 5.1% 24.2%
5 4050 3964
7.5 2591 4489
Mix 3 10 3462 2511
Average 3367 3655
CoV 21.8% 28.0%
5 6660 8266
7.5 5157 6805
Mix 4 10 4740 6609
Average 5519 7227
CoV 18.3% 12.5%
In the second method, the end shear stress is assumed to be distributed

based on a power-law relationship, with the shear stress equal to zero at the center
189
of the vane and equal to the yield stress at the outer tip of the vane. If the
exponent, m, in the equation is equal to unity, then a linear relationship exists
between the cylinder radius and shear stress. The results, shown in Table 6.28,
indicated that for all 8 determinations, the value of the exponent, m, was negative.
Such a negative value is not reasonable, as it suggests a zero shear stress at the
outer end of the vane and an infinite shear stress at the center of the vane.
Table 6.28: Yield Stress Values Determined from Method II

16-Inch Container 10-Inch Container
Mix Yield Stress Yield Stress
m m
(Pa) (Pa)
Mix 1 765 -2.79 2257 -2.24
Mix 2 5813 -1.02 1759 -2.85
Mix 3 2677 -1.70 574 -2.90
Mix 4 2180 -2.67 4398 -2.31
In Method 3, no assumption is made about the distribution of shear stress

on the ends of the cylinder. For the data generated, this method results in
calculated yield stress values that are equal to the yield stress values computed in
the second method. The results of Method 3 are unreasonable given the relative
amounts of torque attributable to the side and ends of the vane. The percentages
of torque attributable to the side of the effective cylinder cut by the vane are
shown in Table 6.29. Not only is the variation between each mix wide, some of
the values are impractical. For instance, it is not reasonable to assume that 17% of
the torque is attributable to the side of the effective cylinder when the side
comprises half the area and is located at the greatest moment arm distance from
the center of the vane.
190
Table 6.29: Torque Attributable to Side of Effective Cylinder Based on
Method III for 5-Inch Vane
Torque Attributable to Side
Mix 16-Inch 10-Inch
Container Container
Mix 1 17% 46%
Mix 2 65% 12%
Mix 3 50% 11%
Mix 4 25% 40%
The use of the second and third methods is heavily dependent on the fit of
the straight line in the torque versus vane height plots. Given the scatter evident in
these plots, the fact that the second and third methods did not provide reasonable
results was not surprising. Had more data points been available with less scatter,
the second or third methods may have been appropriate. The first method is based
on reasonable assumptions—namely that the shear stress is evenly distributed and
equal to the yield stress. In view of the results of Method 2 and Method 3, the use
of the first method was determined to be appropriate for determining yield stress.
For flow curve measurements, the end effect was determined to be
negligible. When the continuous torque was plotted versus vane height for the 16-
inch and 10-inch containers—shown in Figure 6.22 and Figure 6.23,
respectively—the intercept of the fitted straight line was near the origin for all but
one mixture. As indicated in Table 6.30, the average intercept for the 16-inch
container was 0.14 Nm, resulting in an average marginal effective height of 0.09
inches. These test results do not necessarily imply that the only material engaged
by the vane is the material horizontally adjacent to the vane, namely, in the
annulus. Indeed, visual observations of the concrete in the rheometer indicated
deformation of the concrete at the surface. The limited data do, however, suggest
that shear stress is distributed throughout the concrete—even for different
concrete mixtures—in such a way that the effective height of the vane can be
assumed to be equal to the actual height of the vane.
191
Table 6.30: Determination of End Effects for Flow Curve Measurements
Marginal
Container Zero Height
Effective
Mix Diameter Torque
Height
(Inches) (Nm) (Inches)
16 0.16 0.23
Mix 1
10 -0.52 -0.51
16 0.67 0.50
Mix 2
10 3.98 2.40
16 -0.51 -0.57
Mix 3
10 -0.07 -0.07
16 0.26 0.21
Mix 4
10 -0.82 -0.44
16 0.14 0.09
Average 10 0.64 0.35
All 0.39 0.22
20
15
Steady-State Torque, Nm
10 Mix 1
Mix 2
Mix 3
5 Mix 4
-5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Vane Height, Inches
192
25
20
Steady-State Torque, Nm
15
Mix 1
Mix 2
10
Mix 3
Mix 4
5
-5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Vane Height, Inches
Based on the data for end effects testing, it can be concluded that the first
method for determining yield stress—namely, where shear stress is assumed to be
evenly distributed on the side and ends of the effective cylinder cut by the vane
and equal to the yield stress—is the most appropriate method. For flow curve
measurements, the effective marginal height can be assumed to be equal to zero,
although it cannot be assumed that no stresses act on the ends of the vane.
6.7 CONCLUSIONS
The testing described in this chapter enabled the design of the first
generation prototype of the ICAR rheometer to be further finalized. The results
are summarized in Table 6.31. Additional testing is needed to define in more
detail all of the operating characteristics described in this chapter. The testing
indicated that the 5-inch by 5-inch vane impeller was preferable to the other eight
193
candidate impellers. When used to perform a stress growth test to determine yield
stress, it was determined that the vane should be rotated at a speed of 0.025
rev/sec (1.5 rpm). For both stress growth tests and flow curve measurements, it
was determined that minimum bottom gap, side gap, and top cover distances
existed above which larger distances had minimal impact on the measured torque.
Based on the test data obtained, bottom gap and top cover distances of 5 inches
and side gap distances of 5.5 inches were found to be acceptable. For stress
growth tests, it was determined that the yield stress should be calculated assuming
that the shear stress acting on the cylinder cut by the vane is evenly distributed
and equal to the yield stress. For flow curve measurements, it was found that the
effective height due to end effects can be assumed to be equal the actual height of
the vane.
Table 6.31: Summary of Results from Chapter 6

Parameter Conclusion
Impeller Vane (5-inch by 5-inch)
Optimum Stress Growth Test Speed 0.025 rev/sec
Gap Sizes
Vane to Side of Container Minimum of 5.5 Inches
Vane to Bottom of Container Minimum of 5 Inches
Vane to Top of Concrete Minimum of 5 Inches
End Effects
Shear stress evenly distributed
Speed = 0.025 rev/sec
on ends and equal to yield stress
Effective marginal height of
Speed = 0.667 rev/sec
vane negligible
194
CHAPTER 7: LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
7.1 INTRODUCTION
A series of laboratory tests was conducted to verify the ability of the
ICAR rheometer to detect changes in workability and rheology. Over 100
concrete mixtures, with workability ranging from a slump of 2 inches (50 mm) to
self-consolidating concrete, were tested with the rheometer. The mixtures
included a broad range of materials commonly incorporated into concrete,
including fly ash, silica fume, ground granulated blast furnace slag, air-entraining
agent, viscosity modifying admixture, and three water-reducing admixtures.
Additionally, different aggregates and aggregate gradations were considered. By
comparing the changes in rheology measured by the ICAR rheometer with
changes reported in the literature and with qualitative observations of workability,
it was possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the ICAR rheometer.
This chapter describes the laboratory test program in detail. First, the
materials, mixture proportions, and test procedures are presented. Then, the
results for the conventional concrete mixtures (with slumps from 2 to 9 inches)
are presented followed by the results for the self-consolidating concrete mixtures.
Finally, field testing conducted to demonstrate the portability of the rheometer is
described.
7.2 MATERIALS
The materials used in the testing were selected to be broadly
representative of those typically used in construction. The cement used in all
195
mixtures was an ASTM C 150 Type I portland cement from Capitol Aggregates
in San Antonio, TX. Its chemical composition and physical properties, as
provided by the manufacturer, are shown in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1: Chemical and Physical Properties of Cement

Chemical Composition Percent
Sulfur Trioxide (SO3) 3.30
Silica Dioxide (SiO2) 20.70
Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 1.21
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 1.21
Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 5.11
Equivalent Alkalies (as Na2O) 0.56
Calcium Oxide (CaO) 64.43
Tricalcium Silicate (C3S) 58.60
Tricalcium Aluminate (C3A) 10.35
Property Value
Loss on Ignition (%) 1.59
Insoluble Residue (%) 0.47
Blaine Fineness (m2/kg) 358
Vicat Initial (minutes) 106
Vicat Final (minutes) 147
Seven different aggregates were used throughout the testing. A river

gravel and natural sand were obtained from Texas Industries in Austin, TX. A
crushed limestone coarse aggregate, intermediate aggregate, and manufactured
sand were obtained from Capitol Aggregates in Georgetown, TX. An additional
granite manufactured sand, which was the same material tested by Quiroga
(2003), was used. Finally, a blast furnace slag coarse aggregate was obtained from
the Edward C. Levy Corporation in Detriot, MI. The basic properties of these
aggregates are shown in Table 7.2. The specific gravities (BSGSSD) and
absorption capacities (AC) were determined in accordance with ASTM C 127 for
coarse aggregates and ASTM C 128 for fine aggregates. The particle size
distributions and fineness moduli (FM) of the as-received material, as determined
196
in accordance with ASTM C 136 and ASTM C 117, are shown in Table 7.3 and
plotted in Figure 7.1. The particle size distribution of the granite sand is not
shown because its original gradation was not used.
Table 7.2: Aggregate Properties

Aggregate Designation Source Location BSGSSD AC (%)
Coarse
Crushed Capitol Georgetown,
LS 2.47 5.42
Limestone Aggregates TX
River Gravel RG TXI Austin, TX 2.61 1.02
Slag SlagAgg E.C. Levy Detroit, MI 2.34 2.49
Intermediate
Crushed Capitol Georgetown,
LSI 2.47 5.45
Limestone Aggregates TX
Sand
Natural River
NS TXI Austin, TX 2.56 0.55
Sand
Limestone
Capitol Georgetown,
Manufactured MS 2.45 4.55
Aggregates TX
Sand
Granite
Manufactured GR Unknown Oklahoma 2.73 0.25
Sand
197
Table 7.3: Aggregate Particle Size Distributions
US Mesh Percent Passing
Standard Size
Sieve (mm) LS RG SlagAgg LSI NS MS
1 1/4 in. 31.5 100.0 99.6 100.0
1 in. 25.0 100.0 83.4 98.7
¾ in. 19.0 82.4 44.1 81.1
½ in. 12.5 10.7 17.0 64.8 99.9
3/8 in 9.5 0.6 5.1 45.0 81.3
#4 4.75 0.3 0.5 24.1 11.9 97.3 100.0
#8 2.36 13.6 1.8 86.2 92.3
#16 1.18 11.6 1.2 70.5 67.8
#30 0.600 49.0 46.2
#50 0.300 27.3 29.2
#100 0.150 6.8 16.1
#200 0.075 0.6 11.8
FM -- -- -- -- 2.63 2.55
100%
90% LS
RG
80%
SlagAgg
70% LSI
Percent Passing
NS
60%
MS
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Size, cm
Figure 7.1: Aggregate Particle Size Distributions
198
Except for the mixtures where the gradation was the variable being
changed, the aggregates were used as-received—that is, they were not sieved and
recombined but taken directly from stockpiles. The process of sieving and
reblending fine aggregates can result in significant errors in the achieved
gradation because of inaccuracies in the sieving operation. Some material that
should pass through to smaller sieves is retained erroneously on larger sieves. The
majority of material that that does not pass to the correct sieve is finer than the
#200 sieve. These microfines, which mainly remain as dust on larger particles,
can be removed from the larger size fractions by shaking the sieves for a longer
period of time or by running less material through the sieves at one time.
Regardless of how long the sieves are operated or how little material is added to
the sieves, some microfines will remain on larger sieves. This error must be
addressed when reblending the size fractions for fine aggregate.
At least two approaches for producing accurate sand gradations are
possible. First, the remaining microfines on larger sieves could be removed by
washing the material over a #200 sieve until the water flowing through the sieve
is clear. Since microfines can vary widely in size, shape, and texture, it is
important that the material washed out of larger size fractions be recovered in
order to avoid a systematic elimination of microfines with certain characteristics.
The microfines left on larger size fractions may be different from those that pass
through to the pan. Indeed, Quiroga (2003) found that microfines removed by dry
sieving had a lower methylene blue value than those removed by washing.
Further, the process of recovering the washed material is complicated by the fact
that the microfines suspended in the wash water settle at different rates,
depending on their size. Therefore, the particles remaining in the wash water will
be segregated once the water has dried. A second approach would be to determine
the amount of microfines present in each size fraction after a standard sieving
procedure and account for these microfines when reblending the size fractions.
199
Neither option can exactly replicate the distribution of material achieved when
aggregate is taken directly from a quarry operation; however, both approaches are
preferable to making no corrections. In this project, the second approach was
used. During the sieving process, an approximately constant quantity of sand was
added to the sieves, which were then operated for a fixed period of 10 minutes.
Then, a random sample of material was taken from each aggregate size fraction
and the amount of microfines in the size fraction was determined by washing
based on the procedure described in ASTM C 117. The quantities of microfines
present in each size fraction for the limestone and granite manufactured sands
after the standard sieving operation are shown in Figure 7.2. These quantities
were then used when the aggregate size fractions were reblended to ensure an
accurate reporting of the total amount of microfines in the sand. If this precaution
had not been made, the amount of microfines actually in the material would have
been significantly understated.
All chemical admixtures used in the lab testing were supplied by Grace
Construction Products, Cambridge, MA. The air-entraining agent was Daravair®
1000, which meets the requirements of ASTM C 260. Three different water-
reducing admixtures were used. The high-range water reducer was ADVA® Flow,
a polycarboxylate-based admixture meeting the requirements of ASTM C 494 for
a Type F admixture. The low-range water reducer was WRDA® 82, a
lignosulfonate-based admixture meeting the requirements of ASTM C 494 for a
Type A admixture. The self-consolidating concrete mixtures incorporated
ADVA® Cast 530, a polycarboxylate-based admixture intended specifically for
the production of self-consolidating concrete in precast concrete applications.
ADVA® Cast 530 meets the requirements of ASTM C 494 for a type Type F
admixture and the requirements of ASTM C 1017. The retarder was Daratard® 17,
which meets the requirements of ASTM C 494 for Type B and Type D
admixtures. The viscosity modifying admixture was V-MAR® 3.
200
50%
45% 43.3%
Limestone
40%
Granite
35%
Percent < #200
30%
25.0%
25%
20% 17.5%
15%
11.4%
10%
4.4%
5% 2.2% 2.4%
0.7% 1.5% 0.8% 1.3%
0.3%
0%
#8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
US Standard Sieve Size
Figure 7.2: Amount of Microfines Remaining in Each Size Fraction after

Standard Sieving Operation for Limestone and Granite Manufactured Sands
Three supplementary cementitious materials were used. The class F fly

ash, meeting the requirements of ASTM C 618, was obtained from a Boral
Material Technologies facility in Rockdale, TX. The densified silica fume, Force
10,000® D, was obtained from Grace Construction Products. The ground
granulated blast furnace slag was obtained from a Holcim (US) Incorporated
facility in Chicago, IL.
7.3 MIXTURE PROPORTIONS

Two base concrete mixtures, which were designed in accordance with ACI
211.1, were systematically altered to produce changes in workability. One change
201
to the mixture proportions was made at a time. The first base mixture, designated
RG_NS, consisted of river gravel and natural sand while the second base mixture,
designated LS_NS, consisted of crushed limestone coarse aggregate and natural
sand. The proportions of base mixtures, which are shown in Table 7.4, vary by
more than just the aggregate type; therefore, a direct comparison of river gravel to
crushed limestone coarse aggregate should not be made for any of the data
presented in this chapter. The water contents indicated for each mixture
correspond to slumps of 100 mm (4 inches). Based on anticipated changes in
workability, the water content was adjusted for each mixture series so that the
range of slumps would be between 75 and 175 mm (3 to 7 inches) for all
mixtures. For instance, when high-range water reducer was added to the mixtures,
the water contents of the control mixtures were reduced. When silica fume was
added, the water contents were increased for the control mixtures. Therefore,
control mixtures for different mixture series should not be directly compared.
Table 7.4: Proportions of Base Mixtures

Mass, kg/m3 (lb/yd3)
Mix
Coarse Fine Aggregate
Designation Cement Water
Aggregate (SSD) (SSD)
RG_NS 1114.4 (1878.3) 687.7 (1159.2) 365.0 (615.3) 173.4 (292.3)
LS_NS 1023.4 (1724.9) 696.2 (1173.5) 388.2 (654.4) 174.7 (294.5)
The self-consolidating concrete mixtures utilized different mixture

proportions, which are described later in Section 7.8.
7.4 MIXING AND TESTING PROCEDURES

The concrete mixtures were prepared in general accordance with ASTM C
192. Batching, mixing, and testing operations were conducted in an air-
conditioned room, where the temperature was maintained between 21.1º and 23.3º
202
C (70º and 74º F). All materials—including aggregates, cement, supplementary
cementitious materials, and admixtures—were placed in the mixing room at least
12 hours prior to the start of mixing to allow the materials to reach a constant
temperature. The aggregates, cementitious materials, and water were batched by
weight while the chemical admixtures were batched by volume. With the
exception of the high-microfines mixtures, which were batched in an oven-dry
condition, all other aggregates were batched in a moist condition, close to their
saturated surface dry condition. The moisture content of each aggregate was
determined and batch quantities were adjusted accordingly. The batched materials
were stored in sealed containers between the time of batching and mixing.
The concrete was mixed in a rotating drum mixer. For consistency, the
standard batch size was 0.0623 m3 (2.2 ft3) for all mixtures except for the self-
consolidating concrete mixtures. To begin mixing, all aggregates were placed in
the mixer along with a portion of the mixing water. The mixer was started to
blend the materials. Next, with the mixer stopped, the cement and any
supplementary cementitious materials were added. Finally, the mixer was
restarted and the remaining mixing water and any chemical admixtures were
added. The concrete was then mixed for 3 minutes, allowed to rest for 3 minutes,
mixed for an additional 2 minutes, and then immediately discharged into a
wheelbarrow.
Fresh concrete tests were performed on a consistent, predetermined
schedule starting from the time of contact between water and cement. For mixes
containing an air entrainment agent, the air content was determined by the
pressure method in accordance with ASTM C 237. The air content test was started
at 9 minutes after the contact of water and cement. Concrete was transferred by
shovel from the wheelbarrow into the rheometer container at 12 minutes. The
concrete was dropped into the container from a consistent height; no additional
effort was made to achieve further consolidation of the concrete. The slump test
203
was performed in accordance with ASTM C 143 at 16 minutes. Finally, the
rheometer was started at 18 minutes. After this series of testing, the concrete was
discarded.
The dimensions of the container and vane of first generation prototype of
the ICAR rheometer, which was used in all testing, are shown in Figure 7.3. The
ICAR rheometer was used to perform a stress growth test and to measure a flow
curve. The stress growth test was started as soon as the vane was immersed into
the concrete. The vane was rotated at a constant rotation speed of 0.025 rev/sec
while the build-up in torque was monitored on the computer screen. Once the
peak torque had been reached, the flow curve measurement was started. Five
equally spaced points were measured on the flow curve in descending order from
1.0 rev/sec to 0.2 rev/sec. Upon completion of the flow curve, the vane was
removed and the concrete was remixed with a shovel. The vane was then
reinserted into the concrete and the same test procedure was repeated a second
time. The stress growth test results were reported in terms of maximum torque in
Nm. The flow curve results were expressed in two forms: in terms of yield value
(Nm) and viscosity value (Nm.s) and in terms of yield stress (Pa) and plastic
viscosity (Pa.s). Yield value and viscosity value were determined from a straight
line fit of the torque versus rotation speed data. Yield stress and plastic viscosity
were determined with the Effective Annulus Method.
204
Figure 7.3: ICAR Rheometer Dimensions
In addition to the quantitative fresh concrete measurements, a qualitative

assessment was made of each mixture by rating six aspects of workability on a
scale of 1 to 5. These six aspects of workability along with a key to their ratings
are shown in Table 7.5. For brevity, only ratings of 1, 3, and 5 are described in the
table. All observations and ratings were made by the author.
205
Table 7.5: Visual Observations of Fresh Concrete
Factor Ratings
1 = The concrete clumps and is extremely dry.
3 = The concrete does not clump but is cohesive and difficult to move
Flowability
or shovel.
5 = The concrete is highly fluid and flows with little assistance.
1 = The concrete is extremely harsh due to a deficiency of mortar.
When the slump cone is removed, large voids between coarse
aggregates are clearly visible.
Richness
3 = The concrete exhibits a moderate mortar content.
5 = The concrete exhibits a smooth consistency due to an abundance of
mortar.
1 = The concrete exhibits severe segregation in the mixer and upon
being discharged into the wheelbarrow.
Segregation 3 = The concrete appears stable when at rest but segregates when
Resistance subjected to shearing.
5 = The concrete is uniform throughout even after being subjected to
shearing.
1 = Bleeding is evident when concrete is in the wheelbarrow and
becomes severe when concrete is agitated.
3 = The concrete exhibits moderate bleeding after being agitated.
Bleeding
Water rises to the surface when the concrete is sheared in the
Resistance
rheometer.
5 = The concrete does not bleed, even after being undergoing shearing
in the rheometer.
1 = The concrete requires excessive troweling—including the
application of high vertical pressure—to achieve a smooth finished
surface.
Finishability 3 = The concrete requires a moderate number of passes with a trowel
to achieve a smooth finished surface.
5 = The concrete forms a smooth finished surface after a minimal
number of passes with a trowel.
1 = The concrete exhibits extremely poor workability and could not be
properly placed in the field regardless of the amount of effort.
Overall 3 = The concrete could be properly placed in the field but only with an
Workability above average amount of effort.
5 = The concrete could be properly placed in the field with a minimal
amount of effort.
206
7.5 TEST RESULTS FOR CONVENTIONAL CONCRETE
The results for each change in mixture proportions are presented in the
following subsections. Six graphs in each section report the results in terms of
yield value, viscosity value, yield stress, plastic viscosity, yield torque, and slump.
Full test data for all mixtures are located in Appendix A.
7.5.1 Fly Ash

Fly ash was used as a mass replacement for cement at rates of 10, 20, 35,
and 55%. The 55% replacement level was selected to represent high-volume fly
ash concrete. The test results are shown in Figure 7.4. As expected, the addition of
increasing levels of fly ash resulted in a reduction in yield value, yield stress and
yield torque in both the river gravel and crushed limestone mixtures. Whereas the
viscosity value was reduced with increasing replacement levels of fly ash, the
effect of fly ash on the plastic viscosity was variable. Notably, the general trend
for plastic viscosity was similar for both the river gravel and limestone mixtures.
The addition of fly ash resulted in an increase in slump.
207
9 2.5
RG_NS RG_NS
8 LS_NS LS_NS
2
7
Viscosity Value, Nm.s

6
Yield Value, Nm
1.5
5
4
1
3
2
0.5
1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fly Ash Replacement Level (%) Fly Ash Replacement Level (%)
Yield Value Viscosity Value

2500 35
RG_NS
LS_NS 30
2000
25
Plastic Viscosity, Pa.s
Yield Stress, Pa
1500
20
15
1000
10
500
5 RG_NS
LS_NS
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

45 9
RG_NS
40 8
LS_NS
Yield Torque (Stress Growth), Nm
35 7
30 6
Slump, Inches
25 5
20 4
15 3
10 2
RG_NS
5 1
LS_NS
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Yield Torque Slump

Figure 7.4: Influence of Fly Ash on Rheology
208
7.5.2 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) was used to replace
cement on a mass basis at rates of 20, 35, and 50%. The test results are plotted in
Figure 7.5. At the 20% replacement rate, the yield value, yield stress, and yield
torque all increased for both aggregates. Additional replacement of cement with
slag up to 50% resulted in decreases in these values. The trend in the viscosity
value generally matched that of the yield value. Plastic viscosity increased slightly
at the 20% replacement rate for the river gravel mixture, but otherwise decreased
with increasing levels of GGBFS.
209
7 3
RG_NS
RG_NS
LS_NS
6 LS_NS
2.5

2
Yield Value, Nm
4
1.5
3
1
2
0.5
1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
GGBFS Replacement Level (%) GGBFS Replacement Level (%)

1400 35
RG_NS RG_NS
LS_NS LS_NS
1200 30
1000 25
Yield Stress, Pa
800 20
600 15
400 10
200 5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

35 7
30 6
25 5
Slump, Inches
20 4
15 3
10 2
5 RG_NS 1 RG_NS
LS_NS LS_NS
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Yield Torque Slump

Figure 7.5: Influence of GGBFS on Rheology
210
7.5.3 Silica Fume
Silica fume was used as a mass replacement of cement at rates of 3, 5, and
8%. The test results are shown in Figure 7.6. For the river gravel concrete
mixture, the addition of silica fume resulted in increases in yield value, yield
stress, and yield torque at all addition rates. The yield value, yield stress and yield
torque remained approximately constant for the crushed limestone concrete
mixture. The plastic viscosity decreased for the low replacement rates of 3% and
5% but began increasing for the 8% replacement rate. Only in the river gravel
concrete mixture did the plastic viscosity exceed the control mixture at the 8%
replacement rate. While the slump decreased for the river gravel concrete mixture
with increasing silica fume contents, it remained constant for the crushed
limestone concrete mixture at 3, 5, and 8% replacement rates.
211
7 3
RG_NS
6 LS_NS
2.5

2
Yield Value, Nm
4
1.5
3
1
2
RG_NS
0.5 LS_NS
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Silica Fume Replacement Level (%) Silica Fume Replacement Level (%)

1400 60
RG_NS RG_NS
LS_NS LS_NS
1200
50
1000
40
Yield Stress, Pa
800
30
600
20
400
10
200
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

45 5
RG_NS
40 RG_NS 4.5
LS_NS
LS_NS
4
35
3.5
30
Slump, Inches
3
25
2.5
20
2
15
1.5
10
1
5 0.5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Yield Torque Slump

Figure 7.6: Influence of Silica Fume on Rheology
212
7.5.4 Water-to-Cement Ratio
The water-to-cement ratio was varied to four different values for each of
the concrete mixtures. As shown in Figure 7.7, the addition of water resulted in a
decrease in all rheological parameters–namely, yield value, yield stress, yield
torque, viscosity value, and plastic viscosity. Likewise, the slump increased with
increasing water-to-cement ratio.
213
4.5 3.5
RG_NS RG_NS
4 LS_NS
LS_NS 3
3.5
2.5

3
Yield Value, Nm
2.5 2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
w/c Ratio w/c Ratio

1200 50
RG_NS RG_NS
LS_NS 45 LS_NS
1000
40
35
800
Yield Stress, Pa
30
600 25
20
400
15
10
200
5
0 0
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
w/c Ratio w/c Ratio

60 8
RG_NS RG_NS
LS_NS 7 LS_NS
50
6
40
Yield Torque, Nm
Slump, Inches
30 4
3
20
2
10
1
0 0
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
w/c Ratio w/cm Ratio
Yield Torque Slump

Figure 7.7: Influence of Water-to-Cement Ratio on Rheology
214
7.5.5 Water-Reducing Admixtures
The lignosulfonate-based low-range water reducer and polycarboxylate-
based high-range water reducer were added based on the range of the supplier’s
recommendations. The test results are shown in Figure 7.8. The dosages are
expressed in fluid ounces per 100 pounds of cement (oz/cwt). Although the
dosages are plotted on the same scale, the solids concentrations of the two water
reducers may be different. The high-range water reducer resulted in an
approximately linear decrease in yield value and yield stress. In contrast, the
effect of the low-range water reducer on yield value and yield stress was most
pronounced at the low dosage. The trends in plastic viscosity varied with dosage.
At the low dosage of 3 oz/cwt, the plastic viscosity decreased for both aggregates
and both admixtures. At 6 oz/cwt, the high-range water reducer began to increase
the plastic viscosity while the effect of the low-range water reducer was mixed.
When 9 oz/cwt of high-range water reducer were added to the river gravel
concrete mixture, the plastic viscosity decreased. The slump increased for both
aggregates; however, the high-range water reducer resulted in a greater increase in
slump than the low-range water reducer.
215
4.5 3
RG_NS_HRWR
4 LS_NS_HRWR
RG_NS_WRA 2.5
3.5 LS_NS_WRA

3 2
Yield Value, Nm
2.5
1.5
2
1.5 1
1 RG_NS_HRWR
0.5 LS_NS_HRWR
0.5 RG_NS_WRA
LS_NS_WRA
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Dosage (oz/cwt) Dosage (oz/cwt)

900 45
RG_NS_HRWR
800 LS_NS_HRWR 40
RG_NS_WRA
700 LS_NS_WRA 35
600 30
Yield Stress, Pa
500 25
400 20
300 15
200 10 RG_NS_HRWR
LS_NS_HRWR
100 5 RG_NS_WRA
LS_NS_WRA
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

45 12
RG_NS_HRWR RG_NS_HRWR
40 LS_NS_HRWR LS_NS_HRWR
RG_NS_WRA 10 RG_NS_WRA
35 LS_NS_WRA LS_NS_WRA
30 8
Yield Torque, Nm
Slump, Inches
25
6
20
15 4
10
2
5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Yield Torque Slump

Figure 7.8: Influence of Water Reducers on Rheology
216
7.5.6 Air-Entraining Agent
Air-entraining agent was added to produce a range of air contents typical
for concrete. The effect of entrained air content depended on the concrete mixture,
as shown in Figure 7.9. The yield value and yield stress increased for the river
gravel concrete mixture but decreased for the crushed limestone concrete mixture.
The yield torque decreased with increasing air content for both concrete mixtures.
The plastic viscosity was reduced at low dosages for both aggregates. When the
air content was increased to about 7%, the plastic viscosities for both aggregates
began to increase, although the values still remained below the control values.
217
4.5 2.5
4
2
3.5

3
Yield Value, Nm
1.5
2.5
2
1
1.5
1
0.5
RG_NS RG_NS
0.5
LS_NS LS_NS
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Air Content (%) Air Content (%)

1200 35
30
1000
25
800 Plastic Viscosity, Pa.s
Yield Stress, Pa
20
600
15
400
10
200
RG_NS 5
RG_NS
LS_NS LS_NS
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
40 7
35 6
30
5
Slump, Inches
25
4
20
3
15
2
10
5 RG_NS 1 RG_NS
LS_NS LS_NS
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Yield Torque Slump
Figure 7.9: Influence of Air Content on Rheology
218
7.5.7 Blends of Natural and Manufactured Sand
The natural river sand (NS) was blended with the limestone manufactured
sand (MS) from 100% natural sand to 100% manufactured sand. The results are
shown in Figure 7.10. The addition of manufactured sand resulted in an increase
in yield value, yield stress, and yield torque for both coarse aggregates. For the
crushed limestone coarse aggregate concrete mixture, the plastic viscosity
remained approximately unchanged with increasing manufactured sand content;
however, the use of manufactured sand in the river gravel concrete mixture
resulted in increases in plastic viscosity. This divergence in plastic viscosity
trends was not reflected in the slump test.
219
4 2.5
RG_NS RG_NS
3.5 LS_NS LS_NS
2
3

Yield Value, Nm
2.5
1.5
1.5 1
1
0.5
0.5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Manufactured Sand (%) Manufactured Sand (%)

900 30
RG_NS
800 RG_NS LS_NS
LS_NS 25
700
600 20
Yield Stress, Pa
500
15
400
300 10
200
5
100
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

35 8
RG_NS
LS_NS 7
30
6
25
Slump, Inches
5
20
4
15
3
10
2
5
1 RG_NS
LS_NS
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Yield Torque Slump

Figure 7.10: Influence of Blended Sands on Rheology
220
7.5.8 Sand-to-Aggregate Ratio
The sand-to-aggregate ratio (S/A) was varied from 0.3 to 0.55. The test
results are shown in Figure 7.11. Three of the mixtures—the crushed limestone
mixtures with S/A ratios 0.3 and 0.55 and the river gravel mixture with an S/A
ratio of 0.55—were too stiff to be tested in the rheometer. The yield value and
yield stress both increased with the S/A ratio. It is possible that points with lower
S/A ratios, if tested, would have produced higher yield values or yield stresses,
resulting in the identification of an optimum S/A ratio. The yield torque; however,
did appear to indicate an optimum S/A ratio, at least for the river gravel concrete
mix. For plastic viscosity, the optimum S/A ratio for the limestone mixture
appeared to be 0.45. The plastic viscosity of the river gravel decreased with
increasing S/A ratio. If the S/A ratio of 0.5 is an outlier, then the optimum value
for the river gravel mixture could have been similar to the crushed limestone
concrete mixture. If the base mixtures had been set to higher initial slumps, the
variability would likely have been reduced and more points for high and low S/A
ratios could have been measured. The slump clearly indicated an optimum value
of S/A for the crushed limestone concrete mixture.
221
8 3.5
RG_NS
7 LS_NS 3
6
2.5

Yield Value, Nm
5
2
4
1.5
3
1
2
1 0.5 RG_NS
LS_NS
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
S/A Ratio S/A Ratio

2000 50
RG_NS
1800 45
LS_NS
1600 40
1400 35
Yield Stress, Pa
1200 30
1000 25
800 20
600 15
400 10
200 RG_NS
5
LS_NS
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
S/A Ratio S/A Ratio

30 4.5
RG_NS
4 LS_NS
25
3.5
20 3
Slump, Inches
2.5
15
2
10 1.5
1
5
RG_NS
0.5
LS_NS
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
S/A Ratio S/A Ratio
Yield Torque Slump

Figure 7.11: Influence of Sand-to-Aggregate Ratio of Rheology
222
7.5.9 Aggregate Microfines
Limestone and granite manufactured sands, each with varying contents of
microfines, were tested. Both sands were sieved and reblended to the as-received
gradation of the limestone manufactured sand, which conforms to ASTM C 33
requirements when the microfines content is kept below 7%. The microfines
contents were then adjusted—no other changes to the gradation were made. The
LS_NS base mixture was used, with the sand replaced with either the limestone
manufactured sand or granite manufactured sand on a volume basis. The initial
water content was adjusted such that the slump at 20% microfines was 7.5 to 10
cm (3 to 4 inches). The granite sand required a water-to-cement ratio of 0.603 to
reach a slump of 9 cm (3.5 inches) while the limestone required a much lower
water-to-cement ratio of 0.517 to reach a slump of 7.5 cm (3 inches). The effect of
microfines content on rheology is shown in Figure 7.12.
The addition of microfines resulted in an increase in yield value, yield
stress, and yield torque for both aggregates. When the microfines content of the
limestone concrete mixture was increased to 25% from 20%, the yield value, yield
stress and yield torque decreased. The addition of microfines generally increased
plastic viscosity, although the trend was not uniform. The addition of microfines
resulted in decreases in slump for both sands.
223
5 3.5
Limestone Limestone
4.5
Granite 3 Granite
4
2.5

3.5
Yield Value, Nm
3
2
2.5
1.5
2
1.5 1
1
0.5
0.5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Microfines (%) Microfines (%)

1200 50
Limestone Limestone
Granite 45 Granite
1000
40
35
800
Yield Stress, Pa
30
600 25
20
400
15
10
200
5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

60 9
Limestone
Limestone
8 Granite
Granite
50
40 6
Slump, Inches
5
30
4
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Yield Torque Slump

Figure 7.12: Influence of Microfines Content on Rheology
224
In addition to varying the microfines content, the gradation of the
limestone manufactured sand was changed from the as-received gradation to a
new gradation on the 0.45 power curve. Again, the sand was used in the LS_NS
mixture on a direct volume replacement of the natural sand—the rest of the
gradation remained unchanged. The test results, shown in Figure 7.13, indicate
that improving the gradation resulted in a dramatic reduction in yield stress and a
slight increase in plastic viscosity. This significant reduction in yield stress was
not reflected in the slump or yield torque test results, both of which increased.
This dichotomy between slump, yield torque and the flow curve yield stress was a
key finding. The yield stress from the flow curve is a dynamic measurement while
slump and yield torque are static measurements. The dynamic test is better suited
to measuring high-microfines concrete than the yield torque or the slump test.
1.6
15% Microfines, Original Gradation
1.4 10% Microfines, Original Gradation
15.5% Microfines, 0.45 Power Curve
Normalized Result: (Mixi/Mix15%mf)
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Slump Yield Value Viscosity Yield Stress Plastic Yield
Value Viscosity Torque
Figure 7.13: Influence of Changing Sand Particle Size Distribution in High-

Microfines Mixtures
225
7.5.10 Slag Aggregate
Five mixtures were prepared with the slag aggregate. First the LS_NS base
mixture was produced with the slag aggregate by replacing all of the crushed
limestone coarse aggregate with slag aggregate on a volume basis. Further
changes were then made to the slag aggregate concrete mixture. The results of the
testing are presented in Figure 7.14 by normalizing each slag aggregate mixture
against the original LS_NS base mix. At a constant water-to-cement ratio of
0.457, the slump decreased from 13 cm (5 inches) in the LS_NS mix (Mix 1) to 4
cm (1.5 inches) in the slag aggregate mix (Mix 2). Although this first slag
aggregate mix was too stiff to be tested in the rheometer, it appeared rich and did
not segregate. In order to achieve a similar slump as in the original LS_NS base
mixture, the water-to-cement ratio was increased to 0.525, which resulted in a 14-
cm (5.5-inch) slump (Mix 3). At this higher water-to-cement ratio, the slag
aggregate mixture was harsh and experienced segregation. Despite having similar
slump, the mix exhibited lower yield stress and plastic viscosity.
Next, the S/A ratio was changed from 0.40 (Mix 3) to 0.50 (Mix 4) and
0.35 (Mix 5) At the higher S/A ratio of 0.50, the mix appeared to exhibit better
workability—it was fluid and resisted segregation—despite being sandy. This
increase in sand content resulted in an increase in yield stress but a slight
reduction in plastic viscosity. When the S/A ratio was reduced to 0.35, the
increased quantity of coarse aggregate resulted in a very harsh mix with poor
segregation resistance. Although the yield stress was reduced, the plastic viscosity
was increased substantially and the slump was reduced.
Finally, Mix 3 was modified by using fly ash at a 20% replacement rate
(mix 6). This final mix was still harsh, although it was flowable and exhibited
improved segregation resistance. Compared to Mix 3, the yield stress was
reduced, while the plastic viscosity was increased. The improved segregation
226
resistance and increased average qualitative rating were likely due to this
increased plastic viscosity.
1.4 1) LS_NS, w/c=0.457 2) SlagAgg, w/c=0.457

3) SlagAgg, w/c=0.525 4) SlagAgg, w/c=0.525, S/A=0.5
5) SlagAgg, w/c=0.525, S/A=0.35 6) SlagAgg, w/c=0.525, 20% Fly Ash
Normalized Result: (Mixi)/(Mix LS_NS)
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Slump Yield Value Viscosity t0τ µm Avg. Qual.
0
Value Rating
Figure 7.14: Influence of Slag Aggregate
Although the use of slag aggregate did reduce the workability when
replaced on a direct volume basis, the use of the ICAR rheometer provided
insights into ways to improve the workability. In this case, increasing the sand
content or adding fly ash improved the overall workability.
227
7.6 RHEOMETER PERFORMANCE
In addition to comparing the effects of various mixture changes, the data
generated in the testing of the conventional concrete mixtures were used to assess
the performance of the ICAR rheometer.
7.6.1 Repeatability of Test Results

In any testing, three main sources of variance contribute to the overall
variance of test results: sampling, testing, and material variance. In an ideal test,
all variance should be attributable to material variance, that is, changes in material
properties. An advantage of rheology is that it considers multiple points to plot
one flow curve, instead of a single point for other common field tests such as
slump and air content. High values of the coefficient of determination of the
straight line fit between torque and rotation speed can indicate not only that the
material exhibits linear behavior, but that the testing variance is low. The R2
values for the straight line fit of torque versus rotation speed are summarized in
Table 7.6. The value of R2 was above 0.90 for 85% of all tests. The values of R2
are comparable for the first and second tests. Therefore, the ICAR rheometer does
accurately measure the rheology of the material in the container; however, this
material can change due to sampling errors or unintentional material variance. In
particular, the shear history of the sample can have a significant influence on test
results.
Table 7.6: Coefficients of Determination from Flow Curve Measurements

Test 1 Test 2 All Tests
Maximum 0.999 0.999 0.999
Minimum 0.574 0.654 0.574
Average 0.937 0.942 0.940
Median 0.958 0.961 0.958
Number of Tests 84 83 167
228
To consider further the effect of shear history, the rheological parameters
were compared from the first test to the second test. Although the same concrete
was present in the container for the first and second tests, the material was
remixed with a shovel between tests. Figure 7.15 presents a comparison of
rheometer results from the first test to the second test for yield value, viscosity
value, yield stress, plastic viscosity, and yield torque. The plots indicate that the
test results were strongly dependent on the shear history of the sample, especially
for measurements of viscosity and yield torque. Several features of the plots are
noteworthy. First, the measurements of all parameters generally decreased from
the first test to the second test, suggesting that additional structural breakdown,
segregation, or both occurred between tests. Second, the magnitude of decrease
from the first test to the second test was greatest for the yield torque, which is the
most sensitive to structural breakdown. The first yield torque test was performed
with no structural breakdown, while the second test took place after the intensive
shearing of the first test and the remixing. Third, the variability in measurements
from the first test to the second test was greatest for the viscosity value and plastic
viscosity. This greater variability is not surprising, given the fact that rotational
rheometers are typically less accurate than capillary viscometers in measuring
viscosity (Whorlow 1992). Since the mixtures were manually remixed, as
opposed to being remixed by mechanical means, some variability is to be
expected. Fourth, the variance from the line of equality was greatest at high
values of the rheological parameters. This trend indicates that the rheometer is
better suited for low yield stress concrete materials, which behave more like
homogenous fluids and typically exhibit less structural breakdown and
segregation during shearing.
229
8 3.5
7 3
Viscosity Value-Second Test, Nm.s

Yield Value-Second Test, Nm
6
2.5
5
2
4
1.5
3
1
2
1 0.5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Yield Value-First Test, Nm Viscosity Value-First Test, Nm.s

2500 60
Plastic Viscosity-Second Test, Pa.s 50

2000
Yield Stress-Second Test, Pa
40
1500
30
1000
20
500
10
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Yield Stress-First Test, Pa Plastic Viscosity-First Test, Pa.s

60
50
Yield Torque-Second Test, Nm
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Yield Torque-First Test, Nm
Yield Torque
Figure 7.15: Comparison of Rheometer Results from First and Second Tests
230
Since shear history is an important consideration, particularly for high
yield stress and high viscosity concrete mixtures, it is important to consider ways
to achieve a uniform shear history. In all of the testing described herein, the
concrete was loaded into the rheometer container in a consistent manner and the
structural breakdown was performed consistently before the first flow curve
measurement. Such a testing regime decreased any variability due to shear history
for the first test. The same level of variability was not assured for the second or
any subsequent tests. One option to reduce variability in shear history would be to
consolidate the concrete fully by rodding or vibration. Of the existing concrete
rheometers, only the BTRHEOM rheometer includes a vibrator to consolidate
concrete. While the lack of full consolidation does likely lead to additional
variability in test results, the measurement of fully consolidated concrete is
disadvantageous for three reasons. First, concrete on a jobsite flows in an
unconsolidated state and is not fully consolidated until it reaches its final location.
Therefore, the flow of fully consolidated concrete is not directly relevant to
construction operations. Second, the torque required from the rheometer to
measure fully consolidated concrete would be substantially higher than that
required for partially consolidated concrete. Third, the rotation of the vane would
reduce the degree of consolidation in fully consolidated concrete, thereby
resulting in a zone of loose concrete surrounded by denser concrete.
7.6.2 Calculation of Test Results

The data presented in Section 7.5 indicate that trends in rheology can vary
depending on whether relative parameters of yield value and viscosity value or
absolute parameters of yield stress and plastic viscosity are considered.
Figure 7.16 shows that yield value and yield stress are linearly correlated,
with the largest deviations from the linear fit at high values of yield stress and
yield value. In contrast, the relationship between viscosity value and plastic
231
viscosity, shown in Figure 7.17, is approximately linear but shows wider scatter.
The presence of a dead zone, the dimensions of which are a function of the yield
stress and the rotation speed, means that the relationship between rotation speed
and shear rate is not linear, as it would be in a traditional coaxial cylinders
rheometer where all material flows. The nonlinearity in the relationship between
rotation speed and shear rate mainly influences the slope of the flow curve and not
the intercept with the shear stress axis. Hence, the scatter is larger between
viscosity value and plastic viscosity than between yield value and yield stress.
2500
2000
Yield Stress, Pa
1500
1000
y = 255.59x - 82.132
R2 = 0.9685
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Yield Value, Nm
Figure 7.16: Comparison of Yield Value and Yield Stress (First Test)
232
60
50 y = 14.785x - 1.7327
R2 = 0.6805
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Figure 7.17: Comparison of Viscosity Value and Plastic Viscosity (First Test)
The use of the Effective Annulus Method to calculate yield stress and
plastic viscosity is based on the assumptions that the marginal effective height of
the vane due to end effects is negligible and, by extension, that only flow within
the annulus is relevant. Visual observations of the concrete in the rheometer
during and after the test indicated that flow likely occurred outside the annulus. It
was difficult, however, to assess what material flowed and what material
deformed elastically visually. The assumption that the distinct radius at which
flow ceases can be determined precisely in any coarse-grained material, especially
a material with the sizes of aggregates present in concrete, is questionable. In
reality, the flow pattern is not precisely as assumed, although the deviation is
unknown. The data presented herein are insufficient to conclude which of the two
approaches—relative parameters or absolute parameters—provides the better
indication of rheological properties. Without further experimental testing or
233
computer modeling, it is not possible to describe the true flow pattern. Therefore,
both relative and absolute parameters have been presented. While both calculation
methods have clear limitations, neither method appears to be unreasonable.
Figure 7.18 indicates that the yield stress measured from the flow curve is
a different entity than the yield stress measured in the stress growth test. In
general, the yield value was approximately an order of magnitude less than the
yield torque. The yield torque is a static test conducted without any prior
structural breakdown and is influenced by the degree of thixotropy of the mixture.
In contrast, additional stress due to structural breakdown and thixotropy are
minimized for the yield stress determined from the flow curve, which is a
dynamic measurement. Though different, both values are useful. The yield torque
indicates the amount of force needed to initiate concrete from rest, while the yield
value and flow curve yield stress indicate the amount of stress that must be
continuously applied to keep the concrete moving after structural breakdown.
8 y = 0.0718x + 1.0474
2
R = 0.2624
7
6
Yield Value, Nm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Yield Torque, Nm
Figure 7.18: Comparison of Yield Torque and Yield Stress (First Test)
234
7.7 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RHEOLOGY AND WORKABILITY
In order to relate the measurements from the ICAR rheometer to practical
workability requirements, the measured rheological parameters were related to the
visual observations of each concrete mixture. Figure 7.19 indicates that no
correlation existed between yield stress and plastic viscosity for the concrete
tested. Therefore, it is necessary to consider both parameters in assessing
workability.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Yield Stress, Pa
Figure 7.19: Yield Stress and Plastic Viscosity Measurements for All
Conventional Concrete Tested
If workability is to be assessed with only two variables, yield stress and

plastic viscosity, then it should be possible to define ranges of yield stress and
plastic viscosity that produce good workability. The concept of a workability box,
which was discussed earlier as a possible approach, was implemented using the
qualitative observations of each concrete mixture. Instead of qualitative
235
observations, it would also have been possible to use other quantitative tests—
such as for slump, bleeding, or segregation—to define the workability boxes. The
workability boxes were constructed for combinations of yield value and viscosity
value and of yield stress and plastic viscosity.
Figure 7.20 shows the workability boxes based on the segregation
resistance rating. A segregation rating of five is considered good; a rating of 3-4,
acceptable; and a rating less than 3, bad. It is possible to draw a rectangle around
a zone of good or acceptable points. Although each box does include one bad mix
and omits several good mixes, it is possible to conclude that mixtures falling
within the workability boxes for segregation resistance will likely be resistant to
segregation.
3.5 60
Good (=5)
Acceptable (=3, 4)
3
50 Bad (=1, 2)
2.5
40
2
30
1.5
20
1
Good (=5) 10
0.5
Acceptable (=3, 4)
Bad (=1, 2)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Yield Value, Nm Yield Stress, Pa
Figure 7.20: Workability Boxes for Segregation Resistance Rating
Figure 7.21 shows the workability boxes for the overall workability rating
given to each concrete mixture. For the plot of relative parameters, it was
necessary to draw two boxes covering adjacent regions. Like the workability
boxes for segregation, the workability boxes for the overall rating omit some good
mixes and include some bad mixes; however, they do provide an acceptable
definition of good or acceptable workability. The criteria are slightly different for
236
the overall rating workability boxes—a rating of four or higher constitutes a good
rating.
3.5 60
Good (>=4)
Acceptable (=3)
3
50 Bad (<=2)
2.5

40
2
30
1.5
20
1
Good (=5) 10
0.5
Acceptable (=3, 4)
Bad (=1, 2)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Figure 7.21: Workability Boxes for Overall Workability Rating
Figure 7.22 shows the workability boxes plotted for the average of the six
qualitative ratings. The zones of good or acceptable workability are not as clear as
in the previous workability boxes for segregation and overall rating.
3.5 60
Good (=5)
Acceptable (=3, 4)
3
50 Bad (=1, 2)
2.5
40
2
30
1.5
20
1
Good (>=4) 10
0.5
Acceptable (3-4)
Bad (<=3)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Figure 7.22: Workability Boxes for Average of All Ratings
237
The workability boxes developed above cover similar areas. It would be
possible to combine workability boxes from a variety of criteria to improve the
definition.
Several important caveats apply to the implementation of the workability
boxes shown above. First, the definitions of desirable workability were general.
For a particular application, the requirements for workability will be much more
specific. Second, an extremely wide range of concrete mixtures was considered.
In practice, the workability box should be defined over much narrower ranges of
mixture proportions and materials. Third, the qualitative ratings were based on
observations, which were subject to human error and likely varied from day to
day. To utilize a workability box successfully, qualitative observations, if used,
must be well defined in terms of thresholds for various levels of workability.
Fourth, it is beneficial to use several workability boxes for different features of
the mixture. It is desirable to know more about the mix than just whether it is
good or bad. For example, it would be helpful to know such information as
whether a concrete mixture is too stiff to flow readily or highly fluid and prone to
segregation. Multiple workability boxes could ultimately be combined into a
single workability box for all criteria. Fifth, the workability box does not need to
be a rectangle. Other shapes may be more accurate in defining zones of desirable
workability; however, the rectangle is simple to understand and easy to use in
specifications.
The use of a workability box is appealing for its apparent simplicity. If
used carefully as shown above, the workability box can be effective in enabling
the utilization of only two parameters to describe concrete workability. While
rheology is largely a new concept to the concrete industry, the concept of a
workability box provides an initial framework for the use of the ICAR rheometer
in developing mixture designs and assessing field performance.
238
7.8 SELF-CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE
A separate series of self-consolidating concrete mixtures was tested. The
ICAR rheometer was used to measure the influence of the following factors:
initial water content, high-range water reducer dosage, viscosity modifying
admixture dosage, fly ash content, total cementitious materials content, and
aggregate gradation.
7.8.1 Mixture Proportions and Test Procedures

Thirteen self-consolidating concrete mixtures were prepared. Each mixture
included an initial dosage of admixture. After all fresh concrete tests were
performed on this first mixture, the tested concrete was placed back into the
mixer, the admixture dosage was increased, and the concrete was remixed and
then retested. As a result, up to three or four test tests were performed for each
mixture. The mixture proportions for the base concrete mixtures are shown in
Table 7.7. In order to ensure consistent mixing energy, all concrete mixtures were
produced in 0.113 m3 (4 ft3) batches.
The batching and mixing procedures were identical to those used for the
conventional concrete mixtures, with several modifications. Only the retarder,
which did not vary between mixes, was added with the mixing water. The
concrete with the retarder but no other admixtures was mixed for three minutes so
that all constituents would be blended together. The mixer was then stopped and
the initial dosages of high-range water reducer and, if needed, viscosity modifying
admixture were added. The concrete was then mixed for three minutes, allowed to
rest for three minutes, and mixed for another two minutes. A sufficient quantity of
concrete for the fresh concrete tests was discharged from the mixer. After the
tested concrete was placed back into the mixer and subsequent dosages of
admixtures were added, the concrete was mixed for three minutes, allowed to rest
239
for three minutes, mixed for two minutes, and discharged from the mixer for
testing.
Table 7.7: Self-Consolidating Concrete Mixture Proportions

Aggregate (SSD) Initial
Mix Change Cement Fly Ash w/cm Retarder
Coarse Int Fine HRWR
kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 mL/cwt mL/cwt
(lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) (oz/cwt) (oz/cwt)
564.2 303.8 861.0 385.6 326 130
1 Reduce cement 0.40
(951.1) (512.1) (1451.3) (650.0) (5) (2.0)
677.8 274.8 673.0 445.0 391 130
2 Coarser gradation 0.40
(1142.4) (463.1) (1134.3) (750.0) (6) (2.0)
523.3 281.8 798.6 439.3 261 130
3 w/cm = 0.43 0.43
(882.1) (474.9) (1346.0) (740.5) (4) (2.0)
530.1 285.4 808.9 445.0 391 130
4 w/cm = 0.40 0.40
(893.5) (481.1) (1363.4) (750.0) (6) (2.0)
542.1 291.9 827.3 455.1 456 130
5 w/cm = 0.35 0.35
(913.8) (492.0) (1394.5) (767.1) (7) (2.0)
495.9 267.0 756.8 504.3 261 130
6 Increase cement 0.40
(835.9) (450.1) (1275.5) (850.0) (4) (2.0)
530.1 285.4 808.9 356.0 89.0 326 130
7 20% fly ash 0.40
(893.5) (481.1) (1363.4) (600.0) (150.0) (5) (2.0)
530.1 285.4 808.9 267.0 178.0 196 130
8 40% fly ash 0.40
(893.5) (481.1) (1363.4) (450.0) (300.0) (3) (2.0)
530.1 285.4 808.9 445.0 522 130
9 VMA 0.40
(893.5) (481.1) (1363.4) (750.0) (8) (2.0)
20% fly ash, 542.8 292.3 828.3 364.5 91.1 326 130
10 0.32
w/cm = 0.32 (914.9) (492.6) (1396.1) (614.4) (153.6) (5) (2.0)
537.3 289.3 819.8 451.0 391 130
11 w/cm = 0.37 0.37
(905.6) (487.6) (1381.9) (760.2) (6) (2.0)
Manufactured 530.1 285.4 845.2 445.0 522 130
12 0.40
sand (MS) (893.5) (481.1) (1424.6) (750.0) (8) (2.0)
537.3 289.3 819.8 451.0 717 130
13 Repeat mix 11 0.37
(905.6) (487.6) (1381.9) (760.2) (11) (2.0)
(mL/cwt = mL/100 kg cementitious materials, oz/cwt = oz/100 lb cementitious materials)
Coarse aggregate = crushed limestone (LS)
Intermediate aggregate = crushed limestone (LSI)
Fine Aggregate = natural sand (NS), except Mix 12
Rheological measurements were made with the ICAR rheometer and the
BTRHEOM rheometer. The concrete was discharged directly from the mixer into
the ICAR rheometer container, while concrete was loaded into the BTRHEOM
with a scoop. The test regime for the ICAR rheometer consisted of a 25-second
240
breakdown period at 1.0 rev/sec. Seven flow curve points were measured in
descending order from 1.0 rev/sec to 0.05 rev/sec. Each point was measured for 5
seconds. For the BTRHEOM rheometer, five flow curve points were made in
descending order from 1.0 rev/sec to 0.2 rev/sec. A malfunction of the torque
transducer in the BTRHEOM resulted in errors in the yield stress measurements.
The voltage offset for zero torque shifted slightly for each test. As the voltage
offset shifted upwards or downwards, the torque versus rotation speed plot—and
thus the yield stress—likewise shifted. Whereas the calibration coefficient for
incremental torque (in volts/Nm) did not fluctuate, any shift in the zero torque
offset during a test could have influenced the slope of the torque versus rotation
speed plot—and thus the viscosity. The error in viscosity is believed to have been
inconsequential; however, the error in yield stress cannot be neglected. Some
fluctuation in the zero torque offset is to be expected. In fact, the BTRHEOM
operation software includes a feature to correct for any shift in the zero offset
calibration. Even with this feature, the fluctuations were excessive. The effect of
any fluctuation is most significant for low-yield stress concrete, where the offset
in yield stress is greatest in percentage terms.
The rheometer results were compared to the slump flow test. For the
slump flow test, concrete was poured into the slump cone, which was centered on
a level, plastic plate. No rodding of the concrete was needed. The slump cone was
lifted and three measurements were made: the time for the concrete to flow to a
diameter of 50 cm (T50), the final horizontal spread, and the visual stability index
(VSI). The VSI ratings, which are based on the definition of Daczko (2002), are
shown in Table 7.8. The concrete was considered to be SCC if it exhibited a
minimum slump flow of 25 inches, a VSI of 1 or less, and a T50 between 2 and 7
seconds.
241
Table 7.8: Visual Stability Index Ratings (Daczko 2002)
VSI Criteria
No evidence of segregation in slump flow patty or in mixer drum or
0 wheelbarrow.
No mortar halo or aggregate pile in the slump flow patty but some slight
1 bleed or air popping on the surface of the concrete in the mixer drum or
wheelbarrow.
A slight mortar halo (< 10 mm) and/or aggregate pile in the slump flow
2 patty and highly noticeable bleeding in the mixer drum and wheelbarrow.
Clearly segregating by evidence of a large mortar halo (>10 mm) and/or a
large aggregate pile in the center of the concrete patty and a thick layer of
3 paste on the surface of the resting concrete in the mixer drum or
wheelbarrow.
7.8.2 Test Results

For each mixture change—including water-to-cement ratio, cement
content, fly ash content, and sand type—the effects on fresh concrete properties
are shown in terms of high-range water reducer dosage. The test data for all
mixtures are located in Appendix B.
Figure 7.23 shows the influence of the water-to-cement ratio on SCC
rheology. Whereas the results for yield stress exhibited considerable variability,
the trends for plastic viscosity were clear and consistent between the ICAR
rheometer and the BTRHEOM rheometer. The variability in yield stress
measurements was due to the relatively low values of yield stress. As long the
yield stress was kept sufficiently low, plastic viscosity was the more important
parameter. Each increase in the water-to-cement ratio not only reduced the
viscosity, it also decreased the potency of the high-range water reducer in terms of
viscosity.
242
1.6 6
w/c=0.35 w/c=0.35
1.4 w/c=0.37 w/c=0.37
w/c=0.40 5 w/c=0.40
1.2 w/c=0.43 w/c=0.43

1 4
Yield Value, Nm
0.8
3
0.6
0.4
2
0.2
0 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2
0
-0.4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
HRWR Dosage, oz/cwt HRWR Dosage, oz/cwt
ICAR - Yield Value ICAR - Viscosity Value

350 120
w/c=0.35 w/c=0.35
w/c=0.37 w/c=0.37
300
w/c=0.40 100 w/c=0.40
w/c=0.43 w/c=0.43
250
80
Yield Stress, Pa
200
60
150
40
100
20
50
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
ICAR - Yield Stress ICAR - Plastic Viscosity

800 250
w/c=0.35 w/c=0.35
w/c=0.37 w/c=0.37
600 w/c=0.40 w/c=0.40
200
w/c=0.43 w/c=0.43
400
Yield Stress, Pa
150
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
50
-200
0
-400 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
BTRHEOM - Yield Stress BTRHEOM – Plastic Viscosity

Figure 7.23: Influence of Water-to-Cement Ratio on SCC Rheology
243
The influence of the water-to-cement ratio on slump flow is indicated in
Figure 7.24. In general, as the water-to-cement ratio was decreased, the dosage of
high-range water reducer required to achieve a slump flow of 25 inches was
increased. The trend between water-to-cement ratio and high-range water reducer
dosage for a 25-inch slump flow was not consistent—the high-range water
reducer dosage was approximately 7 oz/cwt for a w/c of 0.40 or 0.43 but then
jumped to approximately 9.5-10 oz/cwt for a w/c of 0.35 or 0.37. This variability
complicates the selection of a high-range water-reducing admixture dosage for
achieving a consistent slump flow.
40
w/cm=0.35
35 w/cm=0.37
w/cm=0.40
30 w/cm=0.43
Slump Flow, Inches
25
20
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
HRWR Dosage, oz/cwt
Figure 7.24: Influence of Water-to-Cement Ratio on Slump Flow
Figure 7.25 demonstrates that increasing the cement content reduced yield
stress and plastic viscosity. The cement content of 386 kg/m3 (650 lb/yd3) is
below the typical range of cement contents for SCC while the value of 504 kg/m3
(850 lb/yd3) is above the typical range cement contents. The potency of the high-
range water reducer was lower at the higher cement contents.
244
3 2.5
386 kg (650 lb) 386 kg (650 lb)
445 kg (750 lb) 445 kg (750 lb)
2.5 504 kg (850 lb) 504 kg (850 lb)
2

2
Yield Value, Nm
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

700 35
386 kg (650 lb) 386 kg (650 lb)
445 kg (750 lb) 445 kg (750 lb)
600 504 kg (850 lb) 30
504 kg (850 lb)
500 25
Yield Stress, Pa
400 20
300 15
200 10
100 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2000 120
386 kg (650 lb) 386 kg (650 lb)
445 kg (750 lb) 445 kg (750 lb)
504 kg (850 lb) 100 504 kg (850 lb)
1500
80
Yield Stress, Pa.s
1000
60
500
40
0 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
-500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 7.25: Influence of Cement Content on SCC Rheology
245
The effect of cement content on slump flow is shown in Figure 7.26. The
dosage of HRWR to achieve a 25-inch slump flow increased from 4 oz/cwt at the
high cement content to 11 oz/cwt at the low cement content. When enough
HRWR was added to bring each mixture to a 25-inch slump flow, the yield
stresses were similar; however, the viscosities varied widely, with the high
cement content exhibited a much lower viscosity. Figures 7.25 and 7.26 can be
used to consider the tradeoffs between adding cement and adding HRWR.
40
386 kg (650 lb)
35 445 kg (750 lb)
504 kg (850 lb)
30
Slump Flow, inches
25
20
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
HRWR Dosage, oz/cwt
Figure 7.26: Influence of Cement Content on Slump Flow
Figure 7.27 indicates that increasing the fly ash content from 0 to 20 or
40% resulted in decreased plastic viscosity. The influence of fly ash content on
yield stress was variable because most values of yield stress were close to zero.
Given the high fluidity of the fly ash mixtures at a w/cm of 0.35, the w/cm was
decreased to 0.32, which increased both Bingham parameters such that the plastic
viscosity was above and the yield stress was below the cement-only control mix
for comparable HRWR dosages. This trend suggests that fly ash can be used to
lower yield stress while avoiding undesirably large decreases in viscosity.
246
3.5 9
PC only, w/cm=0.35 PC only, w/cm=0.35
20% FA, w/cm=0.35 8 20% FA, w/cm=0.35
3
40% FA, w/cm=0.35 40% FA, w/cm=0.35
20% FA, w/cm=0.32 7 20% FA, w/cm=0.32
2.5

6
Yield Value, Nm
2
5
1.5
4
1 3
0.5 2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0
-0.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

500 180
450 20% FA, w/cm=0.35 160 20% FA, w/cm=0.35
40% FA, w/cm=0.35 40% FA, w/cm=0.35
400 20% FA, w/cm=0.32
20% FA, w/cm=0.32 140
350
120
Yield Stress, Pa
300
100
250
80
200
60
150
40
100
50 20
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2500 250
20% FA, w/cm=0.35 20% FA, w/cm=0.35
2000 40% FA, w/cm=0.35 40% FA, w/cm=0.35
200
20% FA, w/cm=0.32 20% FA, w/cm=0.32
1500
Yield Stress, Pa
150
1000
100
500
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
-500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 7.27: Influence of Fly Ash on SCC Rheology
247
Figure 7.28 indicates that the addition of fly ash reduced the HRWR
dosage required to achieve a 25-inch slump flow. The change was most notable
from the cement-only control mixture to the mixture with a 20% fly ash
replacement. The 20% fly ash mix with a w/cm of 0.32 produced a greater slump
flow for the same HRWR dosage than the cement-only control mix, further
indicating the advantage of using fly ash.
35
30
25
Slump Flow, Inches
20
15
10
PC only, w/cm=0.35
20% FA, w/cm=0.35
5
40% FA, w/cm=0.35
20% FA, w/cm=0.32
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
HRWR Dosage, oz/cwt
Figure 7.28: Influence of Fly Ash on Slump Flow
Figure 7.29 shows the effect of replacing the natural sand (NS) with a
limestone manufactured sand (MS) on a direct volume basis. The use of
manufactured sand reduced both yield stress and plastic viscosity. Although SCC
can still be achieved, the HRWR dosage to achieve a slump flow of 25 inches was
increased from 7 oz/cwt to approximately 12 oz/cwt, as indicated in Figure 7.30.
248
1.2 3.5
NS, w/cm=0.40 NS, w/cm=0.40
MS, w/cm=0.40 MS, w/cm=0.40
3
1
2.5
Viscosity Value, Nm
0.8
Yield Value, Nm
2
0.6
1.5
0.4
1
0.2
0.5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

180 70
NS, w/cm=0.40 NS, w/cm=0.40
160 MS, w/cm=0.40 MS, w/cm=0.40
60
140
50
120
Yield Stress, Pa
100 40
80 30
60
20
40
10
20
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

800 140
NS, w/cm=0.40 NS, w/cm=0.40
MS, w/cm=0.40 120 MS, w/cm=0.40
600
100
400
Yield Stress, Pa
80
200
60
0 40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
20
-200
0
-400 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Figure 7.29: Influence of Sand Type on SCC Rheology
249
40
NS, w/cm=0.40
35 MS, w/cm=0.40
30
Slump Flow, Inches 25
20
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
HRWR Dosage, oz/cwt
Figure 7.30: Influence of Sand Type on Slump Flow
7.8.3 Relationships between Rheology and Workability

As with conventional concrete, the rheological measurements must be
related to practical field applications. Figure 7.30 indicates that no correlation
existed between yield stress and plastic viscosity as measured by the ICAR
rheometer; therefore, both of these independent parameters should be considered.
250
180
160
140

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Yield Stress, Pa
Figure 7.31: Yield Stress and Plastic Viscosity from ICAR Rheometer for All
SCC Measurements
It is first important to consider what constitutes an acceptable SCC

mixture. Figure 7.32 shows the results of a slump flow test for an excellent SCC
mixture. The aggregates are uniformly distributed across the concrete sample. The
lack of segregation is evident in the fact that no halo exists at the edge of the
slump flow test specimen, as indicated in Figure 7.33. In contrast, a mortar halo
was evident in the concrete mixture shown in Figure 7.34, resulting in a VSI
rating of 2. The mix shown in Figure 7.35 exhibited severe segregation, and was
rated with a VSI of 3. The mixture had a large mortar halo. Aggregate piling was
evident at the center of the slump flow specimen and in a ring near the perimeter
of the specimen. The excellent self-consolidating concrete mixture shown in
Figure 7.32 and Figure 7.33 had a yield stress of 17.8 Pa and a plastic viscosity of
56.0 Pa.s. In contrast, the mix with the mortar halo in Figure 7.34 exhibited a
higher yield stress of 49.2 Pa and a lower plastic viscosity of 18.5 Pa.s. For the
poor mix shown in Figure 7.35, the yield stress was 3.56 Pa and the plastic
viscosity was 34.0 Pa.s. In selecting an SCC mix, both the viscosity of the
251
concrete and the mortar should be considered. Segregation of coarse aggregates is
a function of the yield stress and plastic viscosity of the mortar. At lower concrete
yield stresses, the viscosity of the mortar must be increased to reduce segregation.
This increased mortar viscosity should result in higher concrete viscosity.
Figure 7.32: Slump Flow Test for Excellent SCC Mixture (Mix 5, Test 4,
Slump Flow = 27 Inches, VSI = 0, T50 = 5 sec)
252
Figure 7.33: No Segregation Evident in Slump Flow Test (Mix 5, Test 4,
Slump Flow = 27 Inches, VSI=0)
Figure 7.34: Slight Mortar Halo Evident in Slump Flow Test (Mix 8, Test 2,
Slump Flow = 30.5 Inches, VSI=2)
253
Figure 7.35: Severe Segregation (Mix 13, Test 1, Slump Flow = 31 Inches,
VSI = 3)
Figure 7.36 indicates that a correlation existed between yield stress and
slump flow for the ICAR rheometer, while no correlation existed between
viscosity and slump flow. The large scatter in the plot of slump flow versus yield
stress for the BTRHEOM was likely due to the torque transducer offset error in
the BTRHEOM. Based on the experimental data, to achieve a slump flow of 25 to
30 inches, the yield stress, recorded by the ICAR rheometer, should be below 50
Pa. Simply achieving a yield stress below 50 Pa, however, does not ensure that
the mix will be SCC.
Figure 7.37 shows the relationship between T50 and the rheological
parameters. Since T50 indicates the speed that the concrete flows, it is reasonable
to assume that T50 should be related to viscosity. While there was no correlation
between T50 and yield stress, a correlation does appear to exist between T50 and
viscosity, although the scatter is large.
254
40 40
35 35
30 30
Slump Flow, Inches
Slump Flow, Inches

25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 2 4 6 8
Yield Value, Nm Viscosity Value, Nm.s

40 40
35 35
30 30
Slump Flow, Inches
Slump Flow, Inches
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 50 100 150 200
Yield Stress, Pa Plastic Viscosity, Pa.s

40 40
35 35
30 30
Slump Flow, Inches
Slump Flow, Inches
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 7.36: Relationships between Slump Flow and Rheological Parameters
255
7 7
6 6
5 5
T50, Seconds
T50, Seconds
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yield Value, Nm Viscosity Value, Nm.s

7 7
6 6
5 5
T50, Seconds
T50, Seconds
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150

7 7
6 6
5 5
T50, Seconds
T50, Seconds
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
-350 -250 -150 -50 50 150 0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 7.37: Relationships between T50 and Rheological Parameters
256
Based on the SCC test data, it is possible to state that an SCC mixture will
exhibit a certain range of yield stress and plastic viscosity. It is not possible,
however, to state that a concrete within that same range of yield stress and plastic
viscosity will be SCC. In general, as yield stress is decreased, plastic viscosity
should be increased to prevent stability problems. The yield stress and plastic
viscosity measurements can be distorted by segregation. Since segregation cannot
be detected with the ICAR rheometer, a separate test for segregation is needed to
define further the fresh concrete properties that constitute excellent SCC mixtures.
7.8.4 Rheometer Performance

As with the conventional concrete mixtures, it is important to assess the
performance of the ICAR rheometer. The first question is the choice of relative or
absolute results from the ICAR rheometer. As shown in Section 7.8.2, the trends
in viscosity value and plastic viscosity were generally very similar but did vary in
some instances. Figure 7.38 indicates that linear relationships existed both
between yield value and yield stress and between viscosity value and plastic
viscosity. The coefficient of determination for viscosity value versus plastic
viscosity was much higher for the SCC mixtures than for the conventional
concrete mixtures. Given the low yield stresses of the SCC mixtures, a much
greater portion of the material in the annulus flowed. The reduction in size or
complete elimination of the dead zone for low-yield stress mixtures resulted in
less variability between the viscosity value and plastic viscosity. When all of the
material in the annulus flows, the relative and absolute parameters are related
simply by constants. The fact that more material was flowing is evident in picture
shown in Figure 7.39. Flow lines were visible on the top of the concrete. These
flow lines extended to the container, suggesting that all material in the container
was flowing. However, the fact that the flow lines were evident on the surface
also suggests that it is inappropriate to consider only material in the annulus—
257
material above and below the annulus flows and should also be considered. Like
the testing of conventional concrete, the data from the testing of SCC are
insufficient to conclude whether relative or absolute parameters provide a more
accurate representation of the true rheological properties of concrete.
700 200
180
600
y = 210.13x - 7.3626 160 y = 21.681x - 2.5235
R2 = 0.9413 R2 = 0.9718
500

140
Yield Stress, Pa
120
400
100
300
80
200 60
40
100
20
0 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10
Yield Value, Nm Viscosity Value, Nm
Yield Value – Yield Stress Viscosity Value – Plastic Viscosity

Figure 7.38: Comparison of Parameters from ICAR Rheometer
Figure 7.39: Evidence of Flow throughout ICAR Rheometer Container for

SCC Mix
258
Figure 7.40 shows a comparison of the results between the ICAR
rheometer and the BTRHEOM rheometer. A portion of the scatter for yield value
and yield stress was likely attributable to the zero torque offset error in the
BTRHEOM rheometer. The scatter for viscosity value and plastic viscosity was
high even though the trends for changes in concrete proportions were generally
similar. This dichotomy in performance was also identified by Ferraris and
Brower (2001) for the BTRHEOM and four other concrete rheometers.
2500 250
BTRHEOM Plastic Viscosity, Pa.s

2000
200
BTRHEOM Yield Stress, Pa
1500
150
1000
100
500
50
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4
0
-500 0 2 4 6 8 10
ICAR Rheometer Yield Value, Nm ICAR Rheometer Viscosity Value, Nm

2500 250
BTRHEOM Plastic Viscosity, Pa.s
2000
200
BTRHEOM Yield Stress, Pa
1500
150
1000
100
500
50
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
-500 0 50 100 150 200
ICAR Rheometer Yield Stress, Pa ICAR Rheometer Plastic Viscosity, Pa.s

Figure 7.40: Comparison of Rheological Parameters from BTRHEOM and
ICAR Rheometer
259
Figure 7.41 shows the variation of rheological parameters versus time for
Mix 10. At the beginning of the plot, the concrete had a slump flow 28 inches and
a VSI of 0. In just 18 minutes, the yield stress more than doubled from 15.6 Pa to
36.4 Pa. The decrease in viscosity was less significant—it dropped from 71.2 Pa.s
to 59.6 Pa.s. Although the rate of variation in rheological properties likely varied
over time and with different concrete mixtures, the changes in properties can be
significant and should be taken into careful consideration when examining the
results of SCC testing. The changes in rheological parameters also present a
challenge in the field for maintaining proper rheology from the time the concrete
is batched until the concrete is in its final location. Figure 7.42 shows similar
results for Mix 12, which started with a slump flow of 29 inches and a VSI of 2.
While the plastic viscosity remained approximately unchanged, the yield stress
increased form 49.6 Pa to 79.2 Pa in the 11 minutes of testing. While the changes
were large in relative terms for both mixes, the changes were not as significant in
absolute terms, given the low yield stresses of the self-consolidating concrete
mixtures.
The results in Figure 7.41 and Figure 7.42 also give an indication of the
repeatability of the test results. For each test, the concrete was left in the
rheometer container and was not remixed between tests.
260
80
70
60
50
General Units 40
30
20
10 Yield Stress, Pa
0
1:04 1:12 1:19 1:26 1:33
Time, h:mm
10)
90
80
70
60
General Units
50
40
30
20
10 Yield Stress, Pa
0
1:12 1:19 1:26 1:33
Time, h:mm
12)
261
7.9 FIELD TESTING
Field testing at a concrete batch plant was conducted to demonstrate the
portability of the ICAR rheometer. The field testing was organized by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology and was part of a larger study of
field measurements of fresh concrete rheology (Amziane, Ferraris, and Koehler
2004). Nine concrete mixtures were sampled from a concrete truck and tested
with the slump test and the ICAR rheometer.
The concrete was mixed in a central batch plant in two separate batches
and discharged into the concrete truck mixer, where it was subsequently modified
further by adding high-range water reducer, viscosity modifying admixture, or
water. The first batch of concrete from central batch plant contained enough
material to fill the concrete truck mixer to half capacity. Concrete was sampled
directly from the end of the mixer truck discharge chute. After five different
mixtures had been tested (Series I), additional concrete was added from the
central batch plant to bring the truck to full capacity. Four subsequent tests were
conducted until the concrete began to set (Series II). A retarding admixture was
added to the original concrete mixtures from the central batch plant to allow a
maximum number of tests to be conducted. The mixture proportions are shown in
Table 7.9.
The admixtures were supplied from Sika Corporation, Lyndhurst, NJ. The
admixtures used were Sika ViscoCrete® 6100, a polycarboxylate-based high-
range water reducer meeting the requirements of ASTM C 494 for Types A and F
admixtures; Sika® Stabilizer VMA, a viscosity modifying admixture; and Sika
Plastiment®, a water-reducing and -retarding admixture meeting the requirements
of ASTM C 494 for Types B and D admixtures. Both concretes were composed of
a natural river sand and a #67 gravel. The mixtures also incorporated Type I
portland cement and ground granulated blast furnace slag.
262
Table 7.9: Mixture Proportions for Field Testing
Mass, kg/m3 (lb/yd3) Admixtures, L/m3 (oz/cwt)
Mix Coarse Fine Cement Slag Water Retarder HRWR VMA
1182.0 879.7 174.9 174.3 91.0 0.92 0 0
1-1
(1992.3) (1482.8) (294.9) (293.8) (153.3) (4.0)
1182.0 879.7 174.9 174.3 91.0 0.92 1.96 0
1-2
(1992.3) (1482.8) (294.9) (293.8) (153.3) (4.0) (8.6)
1182.0 879.7 174.9 174.3 91.0 0.92 3.91 0
1-3
(1992.3) (1482.8) (294.9) (293.8) (153.3) (4.0) (17.2)
1182.0 879.7 174.9 174.3 91.0 0.92 4.75 0
1-4
(1992.3) (1482.8) (294.9) (293.8) (153.3) (4.0) (20.9)
1182.0 879.7 174.9 174.3 91.0 0.92 4.75 0.28
1-5
(1992.3) (1482.8) (294.9) (293.8) (153.3) (4.0) (20.9) (1.2)
951.5 1048.0 209.5 209.2 91.9 1.4 0 0
2-1
(1603.8) (1766.4) (353.1) (352.6) (154.9) (5.2)
951.5 1048.0 209.5 209.2 91.9 1.4 2.8 0
2-2
(1603.8) (1766.4) (353.1) (352.6) (154.9) (5.2) (10.4)
951.5 1048.0 209.5 209.2 91.9 1.4 5.6 0
2-3
(1603.8) (1766.4) (353.1) (352.6) (154.9) (5.2) (20.8)
946.1 1042.0 208.3 208.0 97.0 1.4 5.6 0
2-4
(1594.7) (1756.4) (351.1) (350.6) (163.5) (5.2) (20.8)
The field testing demonstrated the ease with which the ICAR rheometer
could be used routinely on a jobsite. Pictures from the testing are shown in Figure
7.43. The concrete could be sampled directly from the discharge chute and then
tested at the same location in less than 60 seconds. A mass-production version of
the ICAR rheometer, which would likely include smaller components and
streamlined electronics, would be even simpler to operate.
The rapid availability of results means that the results can be used
immediately to confirm that the concrete meets specifications or to adjust the
concrete mixture as needed. For instance, if it is found that the viscosity of the
concrete is too low, the rheometer software could suggest the needed dosages of
admixtures to bring the concrete to the correct rheology. The ability to obtain
263
objective measurements quickly could allow chemical admixtures to be dispensed
accurately and effectively on site.
Concrete Truck Sampling Concrete Testing Concrete
Figure 7.43: Field Testing with Rheometer
The results of the field testing are shown in Table 7.10, Figure 7.44, and
Figure 7.45. In general, the results were consistent with expectations. The three
additions of the high-range water-reducing admixture in Series I resulted in
reductions in yield stress and plastic viscosity. The viscosity modifying admixture
increased both yield stress and plastic viscosity. For Series II, the addition of
high-range water-reducing admixture resulted in decreases in yield stress and
plastic viscosity from the first mix to the second mix. In the final two mixtures,
the setting of the concrete began to dominate the rheology of the concrete.
264
Table 7.10: Field Testing Results
Rheometer Results
Yield Viscosity Yield Plastic Yield
Mix Slump R2 mse
Value Value Stress Viscosity Torque
(cm) (Nm) (Nm.s) (Pa) (Pa.s) (Nm)
1-1 7.0 4.38 2.01 0.995 1092.8 19.00 0.054 24.3
1-2 11.5 3.04 0.97 0.991 818.0 6.51 0.020 10.0
1-3 17.2 2.65 0.73 0.872 667.2 6.81 0.485 9.3
1-4 24.1 1.43 0.54 0.986 372.7 4.22 0.047 4.2
1-5 15.2 1.97 0.95 0.979 478.3 9.77 0.124 9.4
2-1 6.4 4.66 0.97 0.946 1264.4 6.07 0.253 13.7
2-2 12.1 2.73 0.66 0.989 760.7 3.49 0.010 8.8
2-3 6.4 2.34 0.79 0.969 595.6 6.84 0.183 12.3
2-4 3.8 4.11 0.76 0.954 1134.2 4.26 0.227 20.8
1.2
Rheological Parameter, Mixi/Mixbase
0.8
Mix 1-1: Base #1
Mix 1-2: Add HRWR
0.6
Mix 1-3: Add HRWR
Mix 1-4: Add HRWR
0.4 Mix 1-5: Add VMA
0.2
0
Yield Value Viscosity Yield Stress Plastic Yield
Figure 7.44: Results of Field Testing– Series I
265
1.6
Rheological Parameter, Mixi/Mixbase 1.4
1.2
1
Mix 2-1: Base #2
0.8 Mix 2-2: Add HRWR
Mix 2-3: Add HRWR

0.6
Mix 2-4: Add Water
0.4
0.2
0
Yield Value Viscosity Yield Stress Plastic Yield
Figure 7.45: Results of Field Testing – Series II
7.10 WORKABILITY RANGE

While it is desirable to measure the broadest range of concrete workability
possible, it is not practical to measure the full range of workability. The testing of
the first generation prototype of the ICAR rheometer, as presented in Chapters 6
and 7, indicated that the ICAR rheometer was capable of measuring concretes
with slumps greater than approximately 50 to 75 mm (2 to 3 inches). The two
main issues that must be addressed are the maximum torque required to rotate the
impeller and the Deborah number associated with the deformation process. The
maximum torque capacity of 50 Nm for the first generation prototype was
typically achieved when slumps of less than 2 inches were tested. The torque
capacity could always be increased by using a larger motor and gearbox;
however, the characteristic time of the deformation process must also be
considered. To this end, the Deborah number was assessed qualitatively. The fact
266
that concrete did not flow to fill the voids created behind the vane blades for
slumps less than 2 to 3 inches indicates that such concretes are generally too stiff
for testing in the rheometer. A typical example for a zero slump concrete is shown
in Figure 7.46. In general, better results with less scatter were obtained from
higher slump mixtures, indicating that the characteristic time of the deformation
process better matched the characteristic time of higher slump materials for
liquid-like behavior.
Figure 7.46: Zero Slump Concrete Tested with Vane Impeller (Concrete
Filled to One Inch below Top of Vane)
In addition to the fact that low-slump concretes do not readily flow within
the rheometer, other practical problems increase the difficulty of testing low-
slump concrete. These problems are described as follows:
• A given low-slump concrete will exhibit a different response
depending on whether it is in a loose, uncompacted state; a
consolidated, cohesive state; or somewhere in between.
267
• The maximum torque capacity of the rheometer is often exceeded in
the initial torque spike prior to structural breakdown, even if the
steady-state torque is below the maximum torque capacity.
• The vane cannot be inserted downward into low-slump concrete as it
can in more fluid mixes. Instead, concrete must be placed by hand
around the vane.
• Large lateral and axial loads can be transmitted to the vane shaft when
testing low-slump mixtures. Whenever the vane strikes an aggregate,
the supporting material around the aggregate is much stiffer than in
more fluid mixes. The increased resistance of the aggregates results in
larger forces imparted in the vane shaft. The slots in the container used
to connect the rheometer frame to the container are designed to
accommodate such forces. The rheometer frame can twist and can
move laterally about 1/16-inch within in the container slot, reducing
the maximum lateral force in the vane shaft. Once a zone of loose
concrete is created in the sample, the vane can tend to “walk” due to
the lack of a solid connection between the rheometer frame and the
container. Although the rheometer is designed to prevent damage to
the torque transducer or motor, the vane shaft can be bent when large
lateral forces are generated.
• The container is very difficult to empty of dry, cohesive concrete upon
completion of a test.
7.11 CONCLUSIONS
A series of tests on a wide range of concrete mixtures has shown that the
ICAR rheometer is capable of successfully determining the rheology and
268
workability of fresh concrete. The following conclusions can be reached about the
use of the ICAR rheometer:
• The ICAR rheometer is able to detect systematic changes in workability
successfully.
• The ICAR rheometer is capable of measuring concrete mixtures with
slumps greater than 50 to 75 mm (2 to 3 inches) up to self-consolidating
concrete.
• The operation of the ICAR rheometer is simple, fast, and well suited for
use in the field.
• The ICAR rheometer is most effective on high-fluidity mixes because
these materials most closely represent homogeneous “fluids.”
• The ICAR rheometer is a dynamic test and is, therefore, well suited for
measuring high-microfines concrete and other highly thixotropic
materials. The slump test, in contrast, is unsuitable for such concretes.
• The results from the ICAR rheometer are strongly dependent on the shear
history of sample, particularly for concrete mixtures with high yield
stresses and high plastic viscosities.
• Concrete rheology can be related to workability. The use of workability
boxes is one effective way or relating rheology to workability.
• Additional research is needed to determine the best way to compute yield
stress and plastic viscosity. The use of either relative parameters based on
a fit of torque versus rotation speed data or absolute parameters based on
the Effective Annulus Method appears reasonable.
269
CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 SUMMARY
In 1922, Duff Abrams wrote that the search for a method of measuring and
controlling concrete flow properties “is giving engineers more concern today than
probably any other one thing.” More than eight decades later, the concrete
industry has yet to find a test to characterize workability adequately, although
progress has been made. Current techniques for workability characterizations are
inadequate for many concrete mixtures, such as those incorporating aggregate
microfines, fiber reinforcement, ground granulated blast furnace slag, and new
classes of chemical admixtures. The slump test, which is still used predominantly
throughout the world, can provide incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading results.
The purpose of the research described in this report was to identify an effective
field test method for characterizing the workability of concrete in general and of
high-microfines concrete in particular.
A literature search conducted at the beginning of the research identified 61
existing test methods for concrete workability (Koehler and Fowler 2003). Based
on the literature search and feedback from industry, government, and academia,
criteria for a new workability test device were developed. Any new device should
be portable, simple, rapid, and capable of measuring values equal to or related to
fundamental flow properties. Therefore, it was decided to develop the ICAR
rheometer, a low-cost, accurate, and portable rheometer for fresh concrete.
The ICAR rheometer is a controlled-rate rheometer that is capable of
measuring a flow curve or performing a stress growth test. It features a four-
bladed vane, measuring 5 inches in diameter and 5 inches in height, that is
271
immersed into a concrete sample. The rheometer can be operated by hand or
secured to a fixed frame above a standard container.
Experimental testing was conducted to determine certain operating
characteristics of the rheometer, including the optimum rotation speed for
determining yield stress, the effects of container dimensions, and the magnitude
and distribution of shear stress acting on the ends of the vane. The ICAR
rheometer was next tested on a wide range of concrete mixtures ranging from a
slump of 2 inches to self-consolidating concrete. The purpose of the testing was to
verify the ability of the ICAR rheometer to detect changes in workability. For the
self-consolidating concrete mixtures, the ICAR rheometer results were compared
to the BTRHEOM rheometer. Finally, field testing was conducted to demonstrate
the portability of the ICAR rheometer.
8.2 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the literature review; feedback from government, industry, and
academia; development of the ICAR rheometer; and experimental testing, the
following conclusions can be reached:
8.2.1 Concrete Workability Characterization

• Concrete workability is a broadly defined term. No single test method
is capable of measuring all aspects of workability. Workability
encompasses many interrelated properties, such as flowability,
consistency, mobility, pumpability, plasticity, compactability, stability,
cohesiveness, and finishability. These properties are often assessed by
qualitative and subjective means.
• The characterization of concrete workability is complicated by the fact
that concrete is a complex material with time-dependent properties and
272
a wide range of particle sizes. Concrete is essentially a concentrated
suspension of aggregates in cement paste. Cement paste is a
concentrated suspension of cement grains in water.
• A myriad of test methods has been developed for measuring
workability. Most of these test methods are empirical; that is, they
attempt to simulate a field condition and measure a value—such as a
distance or time—that is related to some aspect of workability. In
contrast, fundamental tests measure the scientific flow properties of
concrete. A second distinction can be made between static and
dynamic tests. In static tests, only the force of gravity acts on the
sample. In contrast, dynamic tests add external energy to the concrete
and can typically provide information on the flow properties after the
yield stress has been exceeded. Static tests, such as the slump test, are
inappropriate for highly thixotropic concrete mixtures.
• The slump test is inadequate for a growing portion of mixtures.
Despite being simple and inexpensive, the slump test only measures
consistency and can provide misleading results. The slump test should
not be used to determine workability but can be used as a quality
control device to detect changes in mixture proportions, material
characteristics, or mixing operations.
• A viable, accurate, and relevant test method for concrete workability
would foster an improved understanding of concrete workability,
reduce concrete construction costs, improve hardened concrete quality,
and promote the use of new and underutilized materials.
• The prospect of characterizing concrete workability by measuring
concrete rheological properties is promising. If properly designed,
fluid rheometers are able to characterize the scientific flow properties
of concrete. Fluid rheometers cannot be used for dry-consistency
273
concrete because the Deborah numbers for the associated deformation
processes are too high, resulting in solid-like behavior.
• The rheology and workability of concrete are influenced by nearly
every aspect of the mixture proportions, material characteristics, and
construction conditions.
• The concept of a portable concrete rheometer fulfills the criteria
established for a new workability test method. Such a device can
quickly and accurately measure the relevant fundamental flow
properties of concrete. By being portable and low-cost, such a device
can enable laboratory-type measurements of rheological parameters to
be made in the field on a routine basis.
8.2.2 Development of the ICAR Rheometer

• Most conventional, commercially available fluid rheometers are not
suitable for testing concrete due, in part, to the large maximum
aggregate sizes in concrete. Although fluid rheometers have been
developed specifically for concrete, such devices are too large and
expensive for routine use and include artifacts that limit the accuracy
of their test results.
• The ICAR rheometer addresses many of the limitations of existing
rheometers. It is a low-cost, fully portable rheometer capable of
measuring nearly the full range of workability from a slump of about 2
inches to self-consolidating concrete. It can be used to measure a flow
curve or perform a stress growth test. The ICAR rheometer meets the
original criteria for a new workability test device. It is fully portable
and can be easily transported on a jobsite. The test procedure is
comprehensible and requires no advanced training. The test can be
274
performed quickly—a single flow curve test can be completed in less
than 60 seconds. The rheometer can be used for research and
development, mixture proportioning, and field testing.
• Of the nine impellers evaluated, the vane was selected as the best
impeller for concrete. Other impellers, if properly designed, may also
be suitable.
• Although the ICAR rheometer can be operated by hand, the best
results are obtained when the ICAR rheometer is positioned above a
standard container. The test results should not be influenced by
container dimensions provided each dimension is larger than a certain
minimum size.
8.2.3 Testing of ICAR Rheometer

• The ICAR rheometer was able to detect changes in concrete rheology
and workability successfully. The effects of making various systematic
changes to mixture proportions on the rheological parameters
measured by the ICAR rheometer were generally consistent with
expectations. The ICAR rheometer provided information the slump
test could not provide.
• The rheometer is capable of measuring concretes with slumps greater
than 50 to 75 mm (2 to 3 inches) up to self-consolidating concrete. The
rheometer is most effective on highly fluid mixes because these
materials most closely represent homogeneous “fluids.” The results
from the ICAR rheometer are strongly dependent on the shear history
of sample, particularly for concretes with high yield stresses and high
plastic viscosities.
275
• The ICAR rheometer is effective for measuring concretes with high
microfines contents and other thixotropic concrete mixtures because
the test method adds energy to the concrete and, therefore, provides a
dynamic measurement of workability. Consequently, the test is a
significant improvement over the slump test, which is unable to
measure high-microfines concrete properly.
• The ICAR rheometer can be used successfully to measure self-
consolidating concrete. As long as yield stress is kept sufficiently close
to zero, plastic viscosity is the more important parameter in predicting
how the concrete will flow. Segregation can distort test results;
therefore, a separate test is needed for segregation.
• The relative parameters of yield value and viscosity value can indicate
slightly different trends in workability than the absolute parameters of
yield stress and plastic viscosity. The test data were inconclusive on
the best approach for calculating the correct flow curve parameters.
Given the granular nature of concrete and the limitations on building a
“true” rheometer with flow throughout the annulus, it is not possible to
determine the stress and velocity profiles precisely in any concrete
rheometer.
• The yield stress measured from a stress growth test is a different
physical property than the yield stress measured from the flow curve.
The stress growth test is a static test that is influenced by thixotropy
while the flow curve is based on a dynamic measurement. Both values
are useful in predicting workability.
• Concrete rheology, as measured with the ICAR rheometer, can be
related to workability. Instead of using an assortment of highly
subjective terms to describe concrete workability—as is still
commonly done—it is desirable to measure just two rheological
276
parameters—yield stress and plastic viscosity—to provide a
standardized, scientific description of concrete workability. The use of
workability boxes is one effective way of relating rheology to
workability.
8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

As with any product, further development of the ICAR rheometer is
always possible. Additional work is needed in the following areas:
• Create a streamlined, mass-production version of the ICAR
rheometer. The first generation prototype of the ICAR rheometer can
be made smaller and more lightweight. The off-the-shelf components
in the first generation prototype can be replaced with smaller custom
components, which can be enclosed in a plastic case. The software can
be operated from a handheld computer (PDA) or similar embedded
electronics.
• Develop a better understanding of the flow generated by the ICAR
rheometer. Computer modeling or additional experimental work is
needed to determine more precisely the distribution of stress and flow
velocity within the rheometer. The use of relative parameters likely
understates viscosity; however, more information is needed to improve
the accuracy of the calculations of yield stress and plastic viscosity
from the torque versus rotation speed data. Although the flow in the
rheometer is complex, it may be possible to develop simple, reliable
relationships that could be programmed into the computer to determine
the Bingham parameters.
• Calibrate the ICAR rheometer with standard fluids of known flow
properties. The use of standard fluids of known flow properties can be
277
used to verify the accuracy of the ICAR rheometer further. Currently,
no standard reference material exists for calibrating concrete
rheometers. Newtonian fluids with viscosities similar to concrete have
been used in the past to compare the results from different concrete
rheometers. While a standard reference material for concrete
rheometers would be preferable, a high-viscosity Newtonian fluid
would be an acceptable first step.
• Conduct additional experimental testing to the supplement the
findings of Chapter 6. The testing in Chapter 6 was based on four
concrete mixtures and a limited number of data points. The operating
characteristics considered in Chapter 6 should be evaluated on a
greater number of concrete mixtures covering a wider range of
workability. Further testing may demonstrate that a smaller container
size is acceptable.
• Relate rheology to workability. In order for the results of the ICAR
rheometer to be useful in the field, the rheological parameters
measured by the ICAR rheometer must be related to practical
workability requirements. A better understanding of what constitutes
acceptable workability is needed. Experienced field workers should be
surveyed. A better understanding of the connection between rheology
and workability will be developed over time as a range of parties in the
concrete industry use the ICAR rheometer in a wide array of
applications.
• Develop guidelines and standards for the use of rheology in
concrete. Knowledge of rheology within the concrete industry is
limited. The lack of experience with rheology is due, in part, to the fact
that existing concrete rheometers are too expensive for routine use.
The availability of the ICAR rheometer should make the
278
characterization of rheology economically viable. Guidelines and
standards are needed to demonstrate the use of rheology and to ensure
that rheology is correctly applied to concrete.
• Extend the use of the ICAR rheometer to materials other than
concrete. Although the ICAR rheometer was developed for concrete,
it should be suitable for other cementitious and non-cementitious
coarse-grained materials. If necessary, the vane can be replaced with a
different-sized vane or with an impeller of a different geometry.
Mortar could be tested by using a smaller vane and container.
279
REFERENCES
Abrams, D.A. (1918). “Design of Concrete Mixtures,” Bulletin 1, Structural

Materials Research Laboratory, Lewis Institute, May 1925, Reprints from
Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Portland Cement Association, New
York, December 1918.
Abrams, D.A. (1922). “Proportioning Concrete Mixtures,” Proceedings of the

American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 174-181.
ACI Committee 211 (1991). “Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for
Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete,” ACI 211.1-91, ACI Manual
of Concrete Practice, Detroit, MI.
ACPA (2004). “Database of State DOT Concrete Pavement Practices,” American

Concrete Pavement Association. Skokie, IL.
Alderman, N.J., Meeten, G.H., and Sherwood, J.D. (1991). “Vane rheometry of
bentonite gels,” Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 39(3), 291-
310.
Ahlers, J.G., and Walker, S. (1924). “Field Tests of Concrete,” Proceedings of the
Twentieth Annual Convention of the American Concrete Institute, 20, 358-
397.
Ahn, N., and Fowler, D.W. (2001). An Experimental Study on the Guidelines for
Using Higher Contents of Aggregate Microfines in Portland Cement
Concrete. (ICAR Report 102-1F). Austin, TX: International Center for
Aggregates Research.
Amziane, S., Ferraris, C.F., and Koehler, E.P. (2004). “Measurement of

Rheological Properites of Fresh Concrete Using a Mixing Truck,” to be
submitted to the NIST Journal of Research.
ASTM C 33-02a. “Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates,” ASTM

International.
ASTM C 117-03. “Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75µm (No.
200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing,” ASTM International.
281
ASTM C 127-01. “Standard Test for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity),
and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate,” ASTM International.
ASTM C 128-01. “Standard Test for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity),
and Absorption of Fine Aggregate,” ASTM International.
ASTM C 136-01. “Standard Test Method Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse
Aggregates,” ASTM International.
ASTM C 143/C 143M-00. “Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-

Cement Concrete,” ASTM International.
ASTM C 150-04. “Standard Specification for Portland Cement,” ASTM

International.
ASTM C 192/C 192M-02. “Standard Practice for Making and Curing Test
Specimens in the Laboratory,” ASTM International.
ASTM C 231-97. “Standard Test Method Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete
by the Pressure Method,” ASTM International.
ASTM C 260-01. “Standard Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for

Concrete,” ASTM International.
ASTM C 494/C 494M-04. “Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for

Concrete,” ASTM International.
ASTM C 618-03. “Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined
Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete,” ASTM
International.
ASTM C 995-01. “Standard Test Method for Time of Flow of Fiber-Reinforced

Concrete Through Inverted Slump Cone,” ASTM International.
ASTM C 1017/C 1017M-03. “Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures

for Use in Producing Flowable Concrete,” ASTM International.
ASTM C 1157-02. “Standard Performance Specification for Hydraulic Cement,”

ASTM International.
ASTM C 1170-91. “Standard Test Methods for Determining Consistency and

Density of Roller-Compacted Concrete Using a Vibrating Table,” ASTM
International.
282
ASTM D 2573 (2001). “Standard Test Method for Field Vane Shear Test in
Cohesive Soil,” ASTM International.
Baker, W.M., and McMahon, T.F. (1969). “Quality Assurance in Highway

Construction: Part 3-Quality Assurance of Portland Cement Concrete,”
Public Roads, 35(8), 184-189.
Barnes, H.A. (1999). “The yield stress—a review or ‘ παυτα ρει ’—everything
flows?” Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 81(1-2), 133-178.
Barnes, H.A., and Carnali, J.O. (1990). “The vane-in-cup as a novel rheometer
geometry for shear thinning and thixotropic materials,” Journal of
Rheology, 34(6), 841-866.
Barnes, H.A., Hutton, J.F., and Walters, K. (1989). An Introduction to Rheology,

New York: Elsevier.
Barnes, H.A., and Nguyen, Q.D. (2001). “Rotating vane rheometry-a review,”
Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 98(1), 1-14.
Bartos, P.J.M. (1992). Fresh Concrete: Properties and Tests. Amsterdam:

Elsevier Science Publishers.
Bartos, P.J.M., Sonebi, M., Tamimi, A.K. (Eds.). (2002). “Workability and
Rheology of Fresh Concrete: Compendium of Tests,” Cachan Cedex,
France: RILEM.
Bates, P.H., and Dwyer, J.R. (1928). “Cement as a Factor in the Workability of
Concrete,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Convention of the
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 24-42.
Beaupre, D., and Mindess, S. (1994). “Rheology of Fresh Shotcrete,” P.J.M.

Bartos, Ed., Proceedings, Special Concretes: Workability and Mixing,
Paisley, Scotland: RILEM, 225-235.
Billberg, P., Petersson O., and Norberg, J. (1996). “New Generation of

Superplasticizers,” P.J.M. Bartos, C.L. Marrs, and D.J. Cleland, Eds.,
Production Methods and Workability of Concrete, Proc. of the Conf.
RILEM, E&FN Spon, 295-306.
BS 1881-103:1993 “Testing concrete. Method for determination of compaction

factor,” BSI.
283
Cabrera, J.G., and Hopkins, C.J. (1984). “A modification of the Tattersall two-
point apparatus for measuring concrete workability,” Magazine of
Concrete Research, 36(129), 237-240.
Chapman, C.M. (1913). “Method and Apparatus for Determining Consistency,”

Proceedings. ASTM, V13, Part II, Philadelphia, June 1913, 1045-1052.
Daczko, J.A. (2003). “Stability of Self-Consolidating Concrete – Assumed or

Ensured?,” Conference Proceedings, First North American Conference on
the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, November 12-13,
Chicago, IL.
de Larrard, F. (1999). “Why Rheology Matters,” Concrete International, 21(8),

79-81.
de Larrard, F., Hu, C., Sedran, T., Szitkar, J.C., Joly, M., Claux, F., and Derkx, F.
(1997). “A New Rheometer for Soft-to-Fluid Fresh Concrete,” ACI
Materials Journal, 94(3), 234-243.
Dobrowlski, J. (1998). “Workability,” Concrete Construction Handbook, New

York: McGraw Hill.
EN12350-3: 2000 “Testing fresh concrete – Part 3: Vebe test,” European

Committee for Standardization.
EN12350-5: 2000 “Testing fresh concrete – Part 5: Flow table test,” European
Committee for Standardization.
Faroug, F., Szwabowski, J., and Wild, S. (1999). “Influence of Superplasticizers

on Workability of Concrete,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
11(2), 151-157.
Ferraris, C.F. (1999). “Measurement of the Rheological Properties of High

Performance Concrete: State of the Art Report,” Journal of Research of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 104(5), 461-478.
Ferraris, C.F., and Brower, L.E. (Eds.). (2001). Comparison of concrete

rheometers: International tests at LCPC (Nantes, France) in October
2000. (NISTIR 6819). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards
and Technology.
284
Ferraris, C.F., and Gaidis, J.M. (1992). “Connection between the Rheology of
Concrete and the Rheology of Cement Paste,” ACI Materials Journal,
89(4), 388-393.
Ferraris, C.F., and Lobo, C. (1998). “Processing of HPC,” Concrete International,

20(4), 61-64.
Ferraris, C.F., and Martys, N.S. (2003). “Relating Fresh Concrete Viscosity
Measurements from Different Rheometers,” Journal of Research of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 108 (3), 229-234.
Ferraris, C.F., Obla, K.H., and Hill, R. (2001). “The influence of mineral
admixtures on the rheology of cement paste and concrete,” Cement and
Geiker, M.R., Brandl, M., Thrane, L.N., and Nielsen, L.F. (2002). “On the Effect
of Coarse Aggregate Fraction and Shape on the Rheological Properties of
Self-Consolidating Concrete,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, 24(1),
3-6.
Ghezal, A., and Khayat, K. (2002). “Optimizing Self-Consolidating Concrete with

Limestone Filler by using Statistical Factorial Design Methods,” ACI
Materials Journal, 99(3), 264-272.
Hackley, V., and Ferraris, C.F. (2001). The Use of Nomenclature in Dispersion
Science and Technology. (Special Report 960-3). Gaithersburg, MD:
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Ho, D.W.S., Sheinn, A.M.M., Ng, C.C., and Tam, C.T. (2002). “The use of
quarry dust for SCC applications,” Cement and Concrete Research, 32(4),
505-511.
Hope, B.B., and Rose, K. (1990). “Statistical Analysis of the Influence of

Different Cements on the Water Demand for Constant Slump,” H.-J.
Wierig, Ed., Properties of Fresh Concrete, Proc of the Coll. RILEM,
Chapman and Hall, 179-186.
Hu, C., deLarrard, F., Sedran, T., Bonlag, C., Bose, F., and Deflorenne, F. (1996).
“Validation of BTRHEOM, the new rheometer for soft-to-fluid concrete,”
Materials and Structures, 29(194), 620-631.
Johnson, A.N. (1924). “The Use of Concrete in Road Construction,” Proceedings

of the 20th Annual Convention of the American Concrete Institute, 53-89.
285
Johnston, C.D. (1994). “Comparative Measures of Workability of Fibre-
Reinforced Concrete Using Slump, V-B and Inverted Cone Tests,” P.J.M.
Bartos, Ed., Proceedings, Special Concretes: Workability and Mixing,
Paisley, Scotland: RILEM, 107-118.
Keentok, M., Milthorpe J.F., and O’Donovan, E. (1985). “On the shearing zone
around rotating vanes in plastic liquids: theory and experiment,” Journal
of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 17(1), 23-35.
Khayat, K. (1998). “Viscosity-Enhancing Admixtures for Cement-Based

Materials—An Overview,” Cement and Concrete Composites, 20(2-3),
171-188.
Koehler, E.P., and Fowler, D.W. (2003). “Summary of Concrete Workability Test
Methods,” (ICAR Report 105.1). Austin, TX: International Center for
Aggregates Research.
Kosmatka, S.H., Kerkhoff, B., and Panarese, W.C. (2002). Design and Control of
Concrete Mixtures, Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association.
Liddell, P.V., and Borger, D.V. (1996). “Yield stress measurement with the
vane,” Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 63(2-3), 235-261.
McGreary, R.K. (1961). “Mechanical packing of spherical particles,” Journal of

the American Ceramic Society, 44(10), 512-522.
McWhannell, G. (1994). “The Effects of Polypropylene Fibers in Fresh

Concrete,” P.J.M Bartos, Ed., Proceedings, Special Concretes:
Workability and Mixing, Paisley, Scotland: RILEM, 99-106.
Mork, J.H. (1996). “A Presentation of the BML Viscometer,” P.J.M. Bartos, C.L.
Marrs, and D.J. Cleland, Eds., Production Methods and Workability of
Concrete, Proc. of the Conf. RILEM, E&FN Spon, 369-376.
Mork, J.H., and Gjoerv, O.E. (1997). “Effect of Gypsum-Hemihydrate Ratio in

Cement on Rheological Properties of Fresh Concrete,” ACI Materials
Journal, 94(2), 147-147.
Neville, A. (1996). Properties of Concrete. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Nguyen, .Q.D., and Boger, D.V. (1983). “Yield Stress Measurement for
Concentrated Suspensions,” Journal of Rheology, 27(4), 321-349.
286
Nguyen, Q.D., and Boger, D.V. (1985). “Direct Yield Stress Measurement with
the Vane Method,” Journal of Rheology, 29(3), 335-347.
Pashias, N., Bogera, D.V., Summers, J., and Glenister, D.J. (1996). “A fifty cent
rheometer for yield stress measurement,” Journal of Rheology, 40(6),
1179-1189.
Popovics, S. (1994). “The Slump Test is Useless—Or Is It?” Concrete

International. 16(9), 30-33.
Powers, T.C. (1968). Properties of Fresh Concrete. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Quiroga, P.N. (2003). “The Effect of Aggregate Characteristics on the

Performance of Portland Cement Concrete,” PhD Dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Rahman, A.M., and Moncef, N. (2003). “Effect of Geometry, Gap, and Surface
Friction of Test Accessory on Measured Rheological Properties of Cement
Paste,” ACI Materials Journal, 100(4), 331-339.
Raynaud, J.S., Moucheront, P., Baudez, J.C., Bertrand, F., Guilbaud, J.P., and
Coussot, P. (2002). “Direct determination by nuclear magnetic resonance
of the thixotropic and yielding behavior of suspensions,” Journal of
Rheology, 46(3), 709-732.
Saak, A.W., Jennings, H.M., and Shah, S.P. (2001). “The influence of wall slip on
yield stress and viscoelastic measurements of cement paste,” Cement and
Scanlon, J.M. (1994). “Factors influencing concrete workability,” P. Klieger and

J.F. Lamond, Eds., Significance of tests and properties of concrete and
concrete-making materials. American Society for Testing and Materials,
STP 169C, Philadelphia, PA.
Schramm, G. (1994). A Practical Approach to Rheology and Rheometry.

Karlsruhe, Germany: Haake Rheometers.
SDC. (2002). “Roadmap 2030: The U.S. Concrete Industry Technology

Roadmap,” American Concrete Institute Strategic Development Council,
Farmington Hills, MI.
287
Shi, Y., Matsui, I., and Feng, N. (2002). “Effect of compound mineral powders on
workability and rheological property of HPC,” Cement and Concrete
Research, 32(1), 71-78.
Smeplass, S. (1994). “Applicability of the Bingham Model to High Strength

Concrete,” P.J.M Bartos, Ed., Proceedings, Special Concretes:
Workability and Mixing, Paisley, Scotland: RILEM, 145-151.
Smith, G.A., and Conahey, G. (1928). “A Study of Some Methods of Measuring

the Workability of Concrete,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual
Convention of the American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 24-42.
Steiner, T. (1996). “Continuous Control of Fresh Concrete Using the FCT 101
Tester,” P.J.M. Bartos, C.L. Marrs, and D.J. Cleland, Eds., Production
Methods and Workability of Concrete, Proc. of the Conf. RILEM, E&FN
Spon, 365-367.
Szecsy, R.S. (1997). “Concrete Rheology,” PhD Dissertation, University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Tattersall, G.H. (1991). Workability and Quality Control of Concrete. London:

E&FN Spon.
Tattersall, G.H., and Banfill, P.F.G. (1983). The Rheology of Fresh Concrete.
Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.
Taylor, F.W., and Thompson, S.E. (1922). A Treatise on Concrete Plain and
Reinforced, 3rd Edition, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
United States Patent 3,863,494. “Device for Measuring the Workability and
Compaction of Fresh Concrete,” February 4, 1975.
Van Wazer, J.R., Lyons, J.W., Kim, K.Y. and Colwell, R.E. (1963). Viscosity and
Flow Measurements. New York: Interscience.
Vom Berg, W. (1979). “Influence of specific surface and concentration of solids

upon the flow behavior of cement pastes,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, 31(109), 211-216.
Whorlow, R.W. (1992). Rheological Techniques. Chicheser, West Sussex,

England: Ellis Horwood Limited.
288
Wig, R.J. (1912). “Comparative Tests of the Strength of Concrete in the
Laboratory and the Field,” Proceedings of the National Association of
Cement Users, 522-525.
Yan, J., and James, A.E. (1997). The yield surface of viscoelastic and plastic
fluids in vane rheometer,” Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics,
70(3), 237-253.
Yen, T., Tang, C., Chang, C., and Chen K. (1999). “Flow behavior of high
strength high-performance concrete,” Cement and Concrete Composites,
21(5), 413-424.
Yoshimura, A.S., Prud’Homme, R.K., Princen, H.M., and Kiss, A.D. (1987). “A
Comparison of Techniques for Measuring Yield Stresses,” Journal of
Rheology, 31(8), 699-710.
289
APPENDIX A: LABORATORY TEST DATA FOR
CONVENTIONAL CONCRETE MIXTURES
291
Table A.1: Fly Ash Test Data
Test 1 Test 2
Finishability
Segregation
Flowability
Richness
Fly
Bleeding
Average
Overall
w/cm Slump
Ash
Mix # CA FA Yld T Y V R^2 τ0 µ mse Yld T Y V R^2 τ0 µ mse
(%) (inch) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm.s) (Pa) (Pa.s) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm.s) (Pa) (Pa.s)
01-01 RG NS 0 0.460 2.5 42.1 7.81 2.19 0.881 2071.3 15.8 0.37 31.4 7.61 2.53 0.806 1781.8 30.8 0.65 4 3 4 3 4 3 3.5
01-02 RG NS 10 0.460 5.5 14.2 4.78 1.70 0.961 1201.0 15.6 0.21 12.0 4.32 1.03 0.956 1166.8 6.6 0.19 4 3 3 2 3 3 3.0
01-03 RG NS 20 0.460 6.25 19.5 4.99 1.08 0.574 1118.5 17.8 1.34 15.1 5.36 1.19 0.874 1439.7 8.0 0.37 4 3 2 2 3 3 2.8
292
01-04 RG NS 35 0.460 6.5 13.6 5.17 1.28 0.865 1346.5 10.2 0.45 11.4 4.68 1.73 0.965 1171.2 16.1 0.20 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.8
01-05 RG NS 55 0.460 8 4.3 0.84 1.15 0.972 152.4 20.2 0.12 4.8 0.92 1.10 0.986 195.0 16.0 0.02 4 3 1 2 2 2 2.3
01-06 LS NS 0 0.432 3 32.9 3.24 2.19 0.983 753.3 25.7 0.07 22.5 2.94 2.38 0.981 631.4 33.1 0.11 4 4 5 5 4 4 4.3
01-07 LS NS 10 0.432 5.5 17.8 2.38 2.03 0.996 530.1 26.3 0.02 11.3 2.16 1.61 0.932 448.7 23.9 0.26 4 4 4 5 4 4 4.2
01-08 LS NS 20 0.432 5.5 12.4 1.82 2.02 0.985 358.1 32.4 0.09 11.7 1.83 1.94 0.948 360.3 31.1 0.17 4 4 4 5 5 4 4.3
01-09 LS NS 35 0.432 7 9.2 1.39 1.49 0.902 269.7 24.5 0.3 11.5 1.45 1.52 0.966 294.4 23.1 0.12 4 4 4 4 5 4 4.2
01-10 LS NS 55 0.432 7.5 7.9 0.35 1.15 0.995 50.6 24.0 0.02 3.9 0.85 0.84 0.929 155.8 14.9 0.29 3 3 2 2 3 2 2.5
Table A.2: Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Test Data
Test 1 Test 2
Finishability
Segregation
Flowability
Richness
Bleeding
Average
Overall
Slag w/cm Slump
02-01 RG NS 0 0.483 4.5 14.1 2.02 1.76 0.92 383.3 30.0 0.32 9.6 2.18 1.17 0.94 502.7 14.1 0.24 4 5 5 5 4 4 4.5
02-05 RG NS 20 0.483 2.5 32.3 5.72 2.58 0.88 1315.2 31.6 0.41 29.0 5.10 2.47 0.98 1251.0 24.7 0.11 3 5 5 5 4 4 4.3
293
02-06 RG NS 35 0.483 4.5 18.7 3.85 1.91 0.96 919.5 20.7 0.17 13.0 3.93 1.41 0.97 996.1 12.4 0.16 5 4 4 4 4 4 4.2
02-07 RG NS 50 0.483 5.75 16.0 2.77 1.58 0.91 635.0 19.3 0.26 9.9 2.60 1.58 0.95 658.3 14.8 0.07 5 3 3 4 4 4 3.8
02-08 LS NS 0 0.465 4.5 28.0 2.21 2.04 0.97 456.7 30.4 0.13 14.7 2.24 1.49 0.93 515.0 18.1 0.22 4 3 2 3 3 3 3.0
02-12 LS NS 20 0.465 3.5 30.3 3.90 2.20 0.99 939.9 23.4 0.05 17.8 3.72 1.84 0.97 932.3 17.2 0.09 3 4 4 5 4 4 4.0
02-13 LS NS 35 0.465 5 27.5 2.03 1.76 0.98 425.7 25.6 0.12 13.7 1.80 1.48 0.98 380.4 21.1 0.12 4 3 2 3 3 3 3.0
02-14 LS NS 50 0.465 5.5 31.8 2.33 1.33 0.96 526.2 16.7 0.21 12.7 1.86 1.46 0.95 405.5 19.7 0.17 4 3 2 3 3 3 3.0
Table A.3: Silica Fume Test Data
Test 1 Test 2
Finishability
Segregation
Flowability
Richness
Bleeding
Average
Overall
SF w/cm Slump
02-01 RG NS 0 0.483 4.5 14.1 2.02 1.76 0.92 383.3 30.0 0.32 9.6 2.18 1.17 0.94 502.7 14.1 0.24 4 5 5 5 4 4 4.5
02-02 RG NS 3 0.483 3.75 21.3 2.69 1.84 0.98 607.4 23.1 0.1 12.6 3.17 1.27 0.85 735.0 15.5 0.5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4.3
294
02-03 RG NS 5 0.483 4 23.6 3.16 1.63 0.9 687.7 22.7 0.41 14.6 3.09 1.43 0.96 754.0 14.6 0.17 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.8
02-04 RG NS 8 0.483 2 40.7 5.91 2.72 0.72 1145.5 51.1 0.93 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 3 4 5 3 2 3.2
02-08 LS NS 0 0.465 4.5 28.0 2.21 2.04 0.97 456.7 30.4 0.13 14.7 2.24 1.49 0.93 515.0 18.1 0.22 4 3 2 3 3 3 3.0
02-09 LS NS 3 0.465 3.5 32.4 2.30 2.14 1 496.1 29.5 0.03 16.2 1.86 1.80 0.99 403.9 24.7 0.03 4 3 2 3 3 3 3.0
02-10 LS NS 5 0.465 3.5 27.6 2.24 1.73 0.99 520.5 20.6 0.02 12.0 2.10 1.41 0.97 475.1 17.6 0.13 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0
02-11 LS NS 8 0.465 3.5 34.0 2.09 1.87 0.99 448.0 26.1 0.07 15.3 2.63 1.43 0.97 621.3 15.9 0.13 4 4 4 5 4 4 4.2
Table A.4: Water-to-Cement Ratio Test Data
Test 1 Test 2
Finishability
Segregation
Flowability
Richness
Bleeding
Average
Overall
w/cm Slump
(inch) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm.s) (Pa) (Pa.s) (Nm) (Nm) (Nm.s) (Pa) (Pa.s)
04-01 RG NS 0.500 5.5 18.4 1.70 1.93 0.96 351.0 29.1 0.12 11.4 1.79 1.35 0.94 378.6 19.4 0.22 4 3 3 4 4 4 3.6
04-02 RG NS 0.472 5 20.6 2.42 2.07 0.98 508.3 29.9 0.12 11.0 2.43 1.81 0.99 541.0 23.4 0.08 5 4 4 4 4 4 4.2
295
04-03 RG NS 0.539 7 7.7 0.69 0.94 0.81 113.2 18.5 0.55 4.9 0.73 0.82 0.92 122.4 15.9 0.32 5 4 3 3 3 3 3.5
04-04 RG NS 0.454 3 27.6 3.30 2.96 0.94 672.5 45.2 0.23 15.7 3.19 2.48 0.98 695.6 33.5 0.11 3 4 5 4 5 4 4.2
04-08 LS NS 0.430 3 50.3 4.11 2.84 0.87 831.1 45.0 0.43 20.8 3.68 3.08 0.94 764.0 45.6 0.22 3 4 4 3 3 3 3.3
04-09 LS NS 0.457 4.25 35.2 4.17 1.94 0.95 975.7 22.4 0.27 18.1 3.87 1.77 0.96 948.5 17.7 0.16 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.8
04-10 LS NS 0.485 4.5 20.7 1.62 1.74 1 340.4 25.2 0.02 13.3 1.55 1.56 0.98 312.6 24.0 0.1 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.8
04-11 LS NS 0.525 5.5 13.6 1.47 1.48 0.97 289.9 23.6 0.16 8.6 1.53 0.97 0.99 356.0 11.2 0.06 4 3 2 3 3 3 3.0
Table A.5: Water-Reducing Admixtures Test Data
Test 1 Test 2
Finishability
Segregation
Flowability
Richness
WRA HRWR
Bleeding
Average
Overall
w/cm Slump
Dose Dose
(oz/ (oz/
cwt) cwt)
06-01 RG NS 0 0 0.459 2.75 26.0 3.81 2.34 0.96 851.0 30.2 0.2 22.9 3.67 2.28 0.95 914.1 22.3 0.07 3 4 4 4 3 3 3.5
06-02 RG NS 3 0.459 4.5 18.8 2.83 1.72 0.88 644.4 21.4 0.31 13.1 2.58 1.66 0.96 579.1 21.1 0.17 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0
06-03 RG NS 6 0.459 6.5 15.6 1.56 2.29 1 297.4 38.2 0.02 8.2 1.68 1.48 0.99 367.7 20.0 0.06 5 3 3 4 4 4 3.8
06-04 RG NS 9 0.459 11 5.2 0.84 1.21 0.98 160.7 20.1 0.08 3.9 0.65 1.17 0.99 123.2 19.7 0.01 5 4 3 3 3 3 3.5
296
06-05 RG NS 3 0.459 4.5 19.1 2.54 1.65 0.95 548.0 22.8 0.24 14.7 2.12 1.96 0.95 438.4 29.1 0.19 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0
06-06 RG NS 6 0.459 6 15.7 2.03 2.08 0.94 395.5 33.8 0.21 9.8 2.04 1.65 0.92 402.6 26.7 0.31 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0
06-07 LS NS 0 0 0.413 2.5 39.6 3.07 2.78 0.97 639.2 40.8 0.13 22.9 2.44 2.21 0.95 497.6 33.7 0.2 3 2 5 2 4 3 3.2
06-08 LS NS 3 0.413 4 22.0 2.15 2.10 0.97 428.2 33.2 0.14 7.9 1.93 1.98 0.98 383.6 31.0 0.11 4 4 5 4 5 5 4.5
06-09 LS NS 5 0.413 5 16.7 1.53 1.74 0.97 328.2 24.8 0.05 9.0 1.29 1.72 0.97 238.0 29.6 0.12 4 3 3 3 3 2 3.0
06-10 LS NS 6 0.413 8 10.5 0.88 1.72 0.95 132.9 35.3 0.18 5.5 0.87 1.45 0.98 143.1 27.8 0.12 5 2 2 3 3 2 2.8
06-11 LS NS 3 0.413 3.75 27.5 2.01 1.59 0.94 404.4 24.8 0.26 10.3 1.83 1.77 0.99 384.2 25.7 0.06 4 3 3 3 3 3 3.2
06-12 LS NS 6 0.413 5.5 20.7 1.90 1.35 0.93 386.7 21.0 0.32 10.3 1.83 1.14 0.88 373.4 18.0 0.46 4 3 3 4 4 3 3.5
Table A.6: Air-Entraining Agent Test Data
Test 1 Test 2
Finishability
Segregation
Flowability
Richness
Bleeding
Average
Overall
Air w/cm Slump
04-02 RG NS 1.2 0.472 5 20.6 2.42 2.07 0.98 508.3 29.9 0.12 11.0 2.43 1.81 0.99 541.0 23.4 0.08 5 4 4 4 4 4 4.2
04-05 RG NS 3.6 0.472 4.5 20.2 2.74 1.96 0.95 622.1 24.5 0.15 12.4 3.09 1.17 0.65 653.6 19.0 1.1 5 4 4 3 4 4 4.0
297
04-06 RG NS 4.5 0.472 4 15.3 3.30 1.40 0.94 788.0 15.4 0.27 11.0 3.34 0.65 0.66 816.8 7.6 1.08 5 4 4 4 5 4 4.3
04-07 RG NS 7.5 0.472 4 16.8 3.84 1.92 0.99 963.4 17.9 0.02 10.2 3.67 1.78 0.98 916.0 16.8 0.07 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.8
04-09 LS NS 1.3 0.457 4.3 35.2 4.17 1.94 0.95 975.7 22.4 0.27 18.1 3.87 1.77 0.96 948.5 17.7 0.16 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.8
04-12 LS NS 3.7 0.457 5 23.0 2.92 1.80 0.93 663.9 22.4 0.22 11.1 2.62 1.76 0.99 611.6 20.5 0.05 4 3 2 3 3 3 3.0
04-13 LS NS 6.0 0.457 6 18.0 2.46 1.04 0.75 836.3 1.8 0.06 9.4 1.91 1.29 0.96 448.6 14.8 0.11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0
04-14 LS NS 6.9 0.457 5 12.4 2.55 1.21 0.98 632.0 11.6 0.1 8.5 2.23 1.29 0.95 530.3 14.2 0.14 5 5 4 4 4 4 4.3
Table A.7: Natural Sand/Manufactured Sand Blends Test Data
Test 1 Test 2
Finishability
Segregation
Flowability
Richness
Bleeding
Average
Overall
MS w/cm Slump
05-01 RG N/M 0 0.526 7 8.8 1.62 0.92 0.91 353.6 12.5 0.34 5.8 1.22 1.09 0.99 255.8 15.8 0.09 5 4 3 3 3 4 3.7
05-02 RG N/M 25 0.526 7 11.9 1.79 1.31 0.97 420.9 15.1 0.07 7.4 1.51 1.11 0.96 336.1 14.5 0.15 5 4 4 4 4 4 4.2
05-03 RG N/M 50 0.526 5 15.3 2.20 1.68 0.98 486.5 22.0 0.09 9.6 1.94 1.29 0.93 414.7 18.3 0.27 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0
298
05-04 RG N/M 75 0.526 5 15.1 2.42 1.83 0.93 491.8 28.3 0.29 11.9 2.52 1.32 0.98 597.6 14.5 0.12 4 5 5 4 4 4 4.3
05-05 RG N/M 100 0.526 4 24.6 3.55 2.14 0.92 851.3 23.3 0.19 16.5 3.45 1.65 0.91 805.1 19.4 0.34 3 5 5 4 4 3 4.0
05-06 LS N/M 0 0.492 7 12.9 1.00 1.24 0.98 212.8 18.0 0.02 6.0 1.01 0.97 0.87 175.2 18.7 0.46 4 2 2 2 2 1 2.2
05-07 LS N/M 25 0.492 5.5 12.2 1.31 1.14 0.91 265.0 17.7 0.27 7.2 1.25 0.99 0.95 269.4 13.6 0.16 3 3 2 2 2 3 2.5
05-08 LS N/M 50 0.492 4.5 20.8 1.80 1.20 0.9 408.0 15.1 0.29 11.2 1.65 1.04 0.98 390.6 11.8 0.07 3 2 2 2 2 2 2.2
05-09 LS N/M 75 0.492 5 25.7 2.41 1.25 0.93 562.0 14.5 0.27 13.5 2.00 1.41 0.99 455.7 17.3 0.07 5 3 3 3 3 3 3.3
05-10 LS N/M 100 0.492 4 30.5 2.84 1.63 0.86 650.7 20.1 0.39 20.2 2.58 1.32 0.92 608.4 14.9 0.25 2 3 4 2 3 2 2.7
Table A.8: Sand-to-Aggregate Ratio Test Data
Test 1 Test 2
Finishability
Segregation
Flowability
Richness
Bleeding
Average
Overall
w/cm Slump
Mix # CA FA S/A Yld T Y V R^2 τ0 µ mse Yld T Y V R^2 τ0 µ mse
03-01 RG NS 0.3 0.481 4 26.4 2.04 2.60 0.99 422.7 39.0 0.01 27.1 2.27 1.59 0.78 434.3 27.8 0.7 4 3 2 2 3 2 2.7
03-02 RG NS 0.4 0.481 4 22.1 2.36 1.73 0.89 465.9 28.3 0.43 9.3 1.99 1.38 0.98 445.1 17.8 0.12 4 3 3 2 3 3 3.0
03-03 RG NS 0.4 0.481 3.5 22.4 3.19 1.65 0.89 682.7 23.9 0.46 13.6 3.33 1.25 0.8 741.9 17.4 0.7 5 4 3 4 5 4 4.2
03-04 RG NS 0.5 0.481 4 19.7 3.42 2.06 0.96 813.9 22.7 0.11 14.5 4.55 1.64 0.95 1180.2 13.2 0.15 4 5 5 4 5 4 4.5
299
03-05 RG NS 0.5 0.481 2.75 26.2 6.69 1.30 0.79 1799.3 8.9 0.62 27.4 5.96 1.81 0.95 1555.7 14.1 0.21 4 5 5 4 5 4 4.5
03-06 RG NS 0.6 0.481 1.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 3 3 5 4 2 3.0
03-07 LS NS 0.3 0.440 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 2 1 3 1 1 1.7
03-08 LS NS 0.4 0.440 2 20.2 1.56 2.44 0.97 265.1 45.7 0.13 30.0 1.77 1.68 0.87 313.4 31.4 0.43 4 2 2 2 3 2 2.5
03-09 LS NS 0.4 0.440 3.25 25.8 4.06 2.07 0.94 925.2 25.6 0.28 17.3 3.93 1.92 0.96 929.5 21.6 0.2 5 3 3 4 3 3 3.5
03-10 LS NS 0.5 0.440 3.5 19.7 2.79 1.52 0.89 614.1 20.5 0.38 12.4 2.82 1.67 1 682.8 17.5 0.01 4 5 5 4 5 4 4.5
03-11 LS NS 0.5 0.440 3 25.4 3.76 2.97 0.99 863.6 36.2 0.04 22.3 3.29 2.53 0.99 742.1 31.9 0.05 3 5 5 5 5 4 4.5
03-12 LS NS 0.6 0.440 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 3 3 4 2 1 2.3

Table A.9: Aggregate Microfines Test Data
Test 1 Test 2
Finishability
Segregation
Flowability
Richness
Bleeding
Average
Overall
MF w/cm Slump
08-01 LS MS 10 0.517 5 23.9 1.62 1.72 0.93 302.7 29.7 0.25 16.5 1.62 1.65 0.99 335.1 24.6 0.06 5 3 4 4 4 4 4.0
08-02 LS MS 15 0.517 3.5 34.5 2.11 2.24 0.94 437.3 33.5 0.16 14.9 2.28 1.88 0.99 527.6 22.7 0.01 3 4 4 3 4 3 3.5
08-03 LS MS 20 0.517 3 53.4 4.14 2.06 0.97 979.6 22.9 0.17 34.7 3.74 2.14 0.94 828.9 28.2 0.28 2 4 5 2 4 3 3.3
300
08-04 LS MS 25 0.517 3 37.7 4.14 3.27 0.98 892.2 45.2 0.12 25.4 4.12 2.27 0.97 956.0 26.7 0.16 2 5 5 5 4 3 4.0
08-05 LS MS 15 0.517 3.5 27.0 3.07 2.05 0.97 687.7 26.1 0.14 14.9 2.74 2.35 1 602.0 31.4 0.04 3 4 4 4 4 3 3.7
08-06 LS MS 15 0.517 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 2 3 2 2 2 2.0
08-07 LS MS 16 0.517 4 40.6 1.30 1.98 0.97 237.0 34.8 0.11 34.1 1.00 2.22 0.88 104.8 55.7 0.42 4 3 3 2 3 3 3.0
08-08 LS GR 5 0.603 8 8.8 1.18 1.10 1 250.5 15.5 0.05 6.7 1.37 0.80 0.88 304.5 10.5 0.4 5 4 4 3 4 4 4.0
08-09 LS GR 10 0.603 5.5 18.8 2.29 1.18 0.99 567.2 11.4 0.03 8.7 2.03 0.99 0.92 480.6 11.1 0.31 5 4 4 3 4 4 4.0
08-10 LS GR 15 0.603 5 18.7 2.14 2.08 0.99 461.9 28.8 0.03 11.8 2.37 1.49 0.96 550.1 17.6 0.14 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.8
08-11 LS GR 20 0.603 3.5 33.3 4.62 1.99 0.92 1111.1 21.2 0.3 16.8 4.58 1.50 0.98 1205.9 11.1 0.08 2 5 5 3 4 3 3.7
Table A.10: Slag Aggregate Test Data
Test 1 Test 2
Finishability
Segregation
Flowability
Richness
Bleeding
Average
Overall
S/A w/cm Slump
07-01 LS NS 0.457 5 23.7 1.80 1.78 0.97 377.3 26.0 0.11 10.3 1.65 1.61 0.96 320.3 26.4 0.2 4 3 4 2 4 4 3.5
301
07-02 SGA NS 0.457 1.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 4 4 4 3 3 3.3
07-03 SGA NS 0.4 0.525 5.5 26.7 1.29 1.38 0.92 262.8 21.1 0.22 15.8 1.26 1.42 0.99 249.3 22.5 0.08 3 1 1 2 2 2 1.8
07-04 SGA NS 0.5 0.525 6 11.7 1.76 1.31 0.93 355.4 20.4 0.3 7.8 1.69 1.12 0.97 399.9 12.7 0.09 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0
07-05 SGA NS 0.35 0.525 4.5 33.2 1.12 1.80 0.98 213.5 30.1 0.05 19.2 1.16 1.70 0.96 216.6 28.9 0.11 4 1 2 2 2 2 2.2
07-06 SGA NS 0.525 4 13.7 1.21 1.48 0.95 235.7 24.0 0.15 8.5 0.91 1.83 0.97 142.7 36.6 0.11 4 2 3 3 3 2 2.8
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TEST DATA FOR SELF-
CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE MIXTURES
303
Table B.1: Self-Consolidating Concrete Test Data (Section 1 of 3)
ICAR Rheometer BTRHEOM
Elapsed HRWR VMA Slump
T50 VSI
Mix Test Time Dose Dose Flow
# #
Change Y V R^2 τ0 µ mse Y V R^2 τ0 µ
(oz/ (oz/
(Hr:Min) (Inches) (Sec) (Nm) (Nm.s) (Pa) (Pa.s) (Nm) (Nm.s) (Pa) (Pa.s)
cwt) cwt)
1 1 Reduce Cement 0:22 5 2.78 2.27 0.990 641.5 27.8 0.10 6.1645 2.113 0.996 1711 93
2 0:37 8 16 0.95 1.95 0.994 185.8 32.8 0.02 1.1262 2.453 0.993 313 108
3 0:54 9 17 0.78 1.78 0.999 141.3 31.8 0.02 1.0568 2.166 0.992 293 95
4 1:12 11 24 2 0.25 1.35 0.990 33.6 29.5 0.05 0.7262 1.489 1 202 66
2 1 Coarser Gradation 6 27.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.1198 1.638 0.985 311 72
2 6 1.57 20 0.17 0.85 0.995 27.3 17.5 0.01 0.6116 2.393 0.997 170 105
3 8 4.14 29 2 0.09 0.47 0.857 5.8 12.5 0.57 -0.4695 0.66 0.986 -130 29
304
3 1 w/cm=0.43 0:13 4 12.5 1.46 1.10 0.942 317.5 15.2 0.33 2.6649 2.083 0.934 740 92
2 0:33 6 20.5 0.27 0.83 0.933 56.9 14.1 0.16 -0.0583 1.783 0.991 -16 78
3 0:56 7 24.5 0 0.24 0.75 0.933 36.0 15.5 0.26 -0.2639 1.133 0.976 -73 50
4 1 w/cm=0.40 0:17 6 22.5 6.1 1 0.27 1.57 0.988 44.2 32.2 0.02 0.9831 2.577 0.998 273 113
2 0:48 7 23.5 4.5 1 0.13 1.36 0.992 15.4 30.6 0.03 1.296 1.988 0.957 360 88
3 1:06 9 36 1 3 0.14 0.86 0.964 13.8 20.0 0.15 0.038 0.998 0.993 11 44
5 1 w/cm=0.35 0:13 7 25 6.5 0 -0.21 4.95 0.990 0.0 104.4 0.09 0.25 4.882 0.998 69 215
2 0:34 8 16 0 0.56 3.73 0.992 82.5 79.8 0.02 0.5527 3.683 0.999 153 162
3 0:58 10 27 5 0 0.15 2.51 0.995 17.8 56.0 0.02 -0.38 2.324 0.999 -105 102
6 1 Increase Cement 0:14 4 25.5 2.5 0 0.20 1.10 0.977 38.5 21.1 0.03 -0.0047 1.344 0.999 -1 59
2 0:35 5 26.5 2 0 0.24 0.65 0.891 26.5 15.7 0.47 -0.2226 0.829 0.997 -62 36
3 0:53 6 32 1 3 0.03 0.54 0.938 1.8 12.8 0.25 -0.7302 0.264 0.976 -203 12
7 1 20% fly ash 0:15 5 27.5 4.4 2 -0.01 1.81 0.994 0.1 40.1 0.03 -0.2769 2.818 0.999 -77 124
2 0:38 6 30 1.4 2 0.00 1.51 0.993 0.1 33.8 0.03 -0.7018 1.92 0.999 -195 85
3 1:00 7 31.5 2 0.13 1.32 0.995 18.7 28.7 0.01 -0.5366 0.958 0.995 -149 42
T50 VSI
# #
(oz/ (oz/
(Hr:Min) (Inches) (Sec) (Nm) (Nm.s) (Pa) (Pa.s) (Nm) (Nm.s) (Pa) (Pa.s)
cwt) cwt)
8 1 40% fly ash 0:14 3 15 0.94 1.58 0.987 182.7 26.3 0.07 0.3179 1.678 0.999 88 74
2 0:30 5 30.5 2 0.28 0.97 0.995 49.2 18.5 0.01 -1.0655 0.979 0.999 -296 43
9 1 VMA 0:23 8 25.5 3.4 0 0.03 1.64 0.995 3.6 36.8 0.02 0.4958 2.235 0.995 138 98
2 0:42 8 10 18 0.58 1.65 0.996 99.7 31.3 0.02 1.0943 2.361 0.996 304 104
3 0:59 8 25 14 1.14 1.30 0.995 245.7 18.3 0.05 1.6999 1.674 0.993 472 74
4 1:18 8 40 12 1.65 0.90 0.914 397.6 9.8 0.34 1.6656 1.388 0.997 462 61
4_2 1:20 1.59 0.82 0.986 416.2 6.6 0.04
4_3 1:21 1.60 0.87 0.984 403.3 8.2 0.11
305
4_4 1:22 1.48 1.01 0.958 384.7 9.0 0.06

10 1 20% fly ash, w/cm=0.32 0:15 5 3.05 8.22 0.998 471.9 165.1 0.02 7.1319 2.976 0.98 1980 131
2 0:37 8 28 6.3 0 -0.03 5.09 0.996 0.0 112.7 0.01 -0.7115 4.705 0.998 -197 207
3 1:09 9.5 28 4.8 0 -0.11 3.94 0.997 0.0 84.5 0.02 -0.7045 3.664 0.999 -196 161
3_2 1:12 0.14 3.20 0.994 15.7 71.9 0.02
3_3 1:14 0.11 3.06 0.998 12.8 68.6 0.01
3_4 1:15 0.13 2.84 0.998 16.0 63.3 0.01
3_5 1:16 0.06 2.95 0.997 10.6 65.0 0.01
3_6 1:19 0.15 2.91 0.996 22.2 63.9 0.01
3_7 1:20 0.22 2.73 0.997 26.5 60.9 0.01
3_8 1:22 0.21 2.79 0.999 25.9 62.1 0.01
3_9 1:24 0.28 2.68 0.998 33.7 59.8 0.01
3_10 1:28 0.22 2.90 0.998 27.2 64.4 0.01
3_11 1:29 0.23 2.77 0.991 41.2 58.5 0.02
3_12 1:30 0.18 2.84 0.991 36.4 59.6 0.02

T50 VSI
# #
(oz/ (oz/ (Nm.s

(Hr:Min) (Inches) (Sec) (Nm) (Pa) (Pa.s) (Nm) (Nm.s) (Pa) (Pa.s)
cwt) cwt) )
11 1 w/cm=0.37 0:14 6 16 0.64 3.74 0.998 84.0 82.1 0.02 -0.1333 3.252 1 -37 143
2 0:36 7.5 0.88 2.42 0.997 148.4 46.3 0.03 0.367 3.054 0.995 102 134
3 1:00 9.5 23 5 0 0.30 1.59 0.998 40.6 34.4 0.01 -0.5967 2.142 0.997 -166 94
306
4 1:15 10.5 28.5 2.5 0 0.23 1.42 0.996 27.5 31.6 0.03 -0.861 1.012 0.983 -239 45
12 1 Manufactured sand 0:17 8 12 1.03 2.98 0.999 169.6 57.8 0.02 2.2315 2.483 0.998 619 109
2 0:37 10 22 4.8 0 0.18 1.79 0.992 22.5 39.9 0.03 -0.7351 2.989 0.999 -204 132
3 0:58 11.5 24 4.5 0.09 1.37 0.996 11.5 30.3 0.01 -0.9149 2.178 0.999 -254 96
4 1:17 12.5 29 2.5 2 0.21 1.32 0.947 49.6 24.0 0.10 -1.066 0.487 0.931 -296 21
4_2 1:19 0.36 1.20 0.990 57.6 23.9 0.05
4_3 1:21 0.38 1.25 0.988 61.4 24.6 0.05
4_4 1:22 0.39 1.29 0.981 65.1 25.1 0.06
4_5 1:26 0.41 1.41 0.967 72.3 27.0 0.10
4_6 1:27 0.38 1.34 0.959 67.1 25.5 0.12
4_7 1:28 0.41 1.29 0.980 79.2 23.2 0.03
13 1 Repeat mix 11 0:20 11 31 3 0.03 1.52 0.994 3.5 34.0 0.02 -0.246 1.564 1 -68 69

Handbook Rheometer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook Rheometer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook Rheometer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of a

RESEARCH REPORT ICAR –105-3F

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

15. Supplementary Notes

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

ICAR rheometer, fiber reinforcement, ground granulated blast No restrictions.

ICAR Report 105-3F

Aggregates Foundation for Technology, Research and Education (AFTRE)

The research described in this report was conducted at the International

LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................. xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2: FLUID RHEOLOGY..................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 3: FACTORS INFLUENCING CONCRETE RHEOLOGY AND

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL APPROACHES TO

CHAPTER 5: DEVELOPMENT OF THE ICAR RHEOMETER ..................... 105

CHAPTER 6: EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF OPERATING

CHAPTER 7: LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM.................................... 195

CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

APPENDIX A: LABORATORY TEST DATA FOR CONVENTIONAL

APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TEST DATA FOR SELF-

Table 2.1: Sample Calculation for Effective Annulus Method ............................. 49

Measurements (ASTM D 2573) ....................................................... 62

Table 3.1: Summary of Factors Influencing Concrete Rheology.......................... 91

Table 4.1: Variability in Slump Test Measurements in Highway Applications

(Baker and McMahon 1969) ............................................................ 96

Table 5.2: Gap Sizes in Existing Concrete Rheometers...................................... 109

Table 6.1: Mixture Proportions for Chapter 6 Tests ........................................... 140

Table 6.3: Qualitative Observations for Mix 2 (1/2-Inch Slump)....................... 146

Table 6.6: Torque after 90 Seconds of Breakdown............................................. 155

Table 6.8: Flow Curve Measurements for Mix 1 ................................................ 158

Table 6.9: Flow Curve Measurements for Mix 2 ................................................ 159

Table 6.10: Flow Curve Measurements for Mix 3 .............................................. 160

Table 6.11: Flow Curve Measurements for Mix 4 .............................................. 161

Table 6.16: Average Relative Parameters for Each Impeller (Forward

Direction) ....................................................................................... 172

Direction) ....................................................................................... 173

Speed .............................................................................................. 175

Table 6.21: Testing of Horizontal Side Gap ....................................................... 180

Table 6.22: Effect of Horizontal Side Gap.......................................................... 180

Table 6.24: Concrete Properties for End Effects Testing.................................... 185

Table 6.25: Test Data for End Effects Testing.................................................... 186

Table 6.29: Torque Attributable to Side of Effective Cylinder Based on

Method III for 5-Inch Vane ............................................................ 191

Table 6.31: Summary of Results from Chapter 6................................................ 194

Table 7.1: Chemical and Physical Properties of Cement .................................... 196

Table 7.3: Aggregate Particle Size Distributions ................................................ 198

Table 7.4: Proportions of Base Mixtures ............................................................ 202

Table 7.5: Visual Observations of Fresh Concrete ............................................. 206

Table 7.6: Coefficients of Determination from Flow Curve Measurements....... 228

Table 7.7: Self-Consolidating Concrete Mixture Proportions ............................ 240

Table 7.9: Mixture Proportions for Field Testing ............................................... 263

Table 7.10: Field Testing Results........................................................................ 265

Table A.1: Fly Ash Test Data.............................................................................. 292

Table A.3: Silica Fume Test Data ....................................................................... 294

Table A.4: Water-to-Cement Ratio Test Data..................................................... 295

Table A.5: Water-Reducing Admixtures Test Data ............................................ 296

Table A.6: Air-Entraining Agent Test Data ........................................................ 297

Table A.7: Natural Sand/Manufactured Sand Blends Test Data......................... 298

Table A.8: Sand-to-Aggregate Ratio Test Data .................................................. 299