Advertisement

Comparison between methods for determining the yield stress of cement pastes

  • Paulo Ricardo de MatosEmail author
  • Ronaldo Pilar
  • Cézar Augusto Casagrande
  • Philippe Jean Paul Gleize
  • Fernando Pelisser
Technical Paper
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

The determination of the yield stress (τ0) of cement-based materials is of great interest for engineering applications, since it accurately describes the flow behavior and assesses empirical properties related to its workability, such as the slump of concretes and the spreading of mortars. In this work, the τ0 of cement pastes was determined by different methods. Specifically, pastes with three different water/cement ratios and two supplementary cementitious materials in Portland cement replacement were produced. The mini slump of the pastes was measured, and its static τ0 and dynamic τ0 were determined by rotational rheometry. In addition, small amplitude oscillatory shear (SAOS) was used to further investigate the rigidification rate of the pastes over time, providing valuable information for the discussion. The results showed that the dynamic τ0 values provided by the different rheological models showed strong correlations. However, these values had weaker correlations with the static τ0. The rest period between the finish of the pre-shear and the test run strongly affected the magnitude of the stress overshoot and therefore the static τ0 value. SAOS indicated that the decrease in the inter-particle distance increased the rigidification rate of the paste within the first minute after mixing, which may affect the mini slump results. Finally, the use of the mini slump as a single test to generally evaluate cement pastes with wide ranges of flowability may not be adequate, in line with the existence of different tests for the evaluation of conventional and self-compacting concretes.

Keywords

Cement paste Yield stress Rheology Oscillatory rheometry Mini slump 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the following Brazilian governmental research agencies for the financial support: National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq); Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES); Santa Catarina Research Foundation (FAPESC). We also would like to acknowledge the staff of the Central Laboratory of Electronic Microscopy (LCME-UFSC) for their assistance, and professor Rafael Giuliano Pileggi (Escola Politécnica-USP) for the insightful discussion that motivated this research. The two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged for their invaluable contributions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferraris CF, Brower LE (2003) Comparison of concrete rheometers. Concr Int 25:41–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roussel N, Lemaître A, Flatt RJ, Coussot P (2010) Steady state flow of cement suspensions: a micromechanical state of the art. Cem Concr Res 40:77–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.08.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang C, Boger DV (1998) The yielding of waxy crude oils. Ind Eng Chem Res 37:1551–1559.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ie970588r CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banfill PFG (2011) Additivity effects in the rheology of fresh concrete containing water-reducing admixtures. Constr Build Mater 25:2955–2960.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laskar AI, Bhattacharjee R (2011) Torque-speed relationship in a concrete rheometer with vane geometry. Constr Build Mater 25:3443–3449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rahman MK, Baluch MH, Malik MA (2014) Thixotropic behavior of self compacting concrete with different mineral admixtures. Constr Build Mater 50:710–717.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saleh Ahari R, Kemal Erdem T, Ramyar K (2015) Effect of various supplementary cementitious materials on rheological properties of self-consolidating concrete. Constr Build Mater 75:89–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.11.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roussel N (2006) Correlation between yield stress and slump: comparison between numerical simulations and concrete rheometers results. Mater Struct Constr 39:501–509.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-005-9035-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roussel N (2007) Rheology of fresh concrete: from measurements to predictions of casting processes. Mater Struct 40:1001–1012.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9313-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roussel N, Stefani C, Leroy R (2005) From mini-cone test to Abrams cone test: measurement of cement-based materials yield stress using slump tests. Cem Concr Res 35:817–822.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.07.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gao J, Fourie A (2015) Spread is better: an investigation of the mini-slump test. Miner Eng 71:120–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2014.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gao J, Fourie A (2015) Using the flume test for yield stress measurement of thickened tailings. Miner Eng 81:116–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2015.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartzentruber LDA, Le Roy R, Cordin J (2006) Rheological behaviour of fresh cement pastes formulated from a self compacting concrete (SCC). Cem Concr Res 36:1203–1213.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.10.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pashias N, Boger DV, Summers J, Glenister DJ (1996) A fifty cent rheometer for yield stress measurement. J Rheol (N. Y. N. Y) 40:1179–1189.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.550780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wallevik OH, Feys D, Wallevik JE, Khayat KH (2015) Avoiding inaccurate interpretations of rheological measurements for cement-based materials. Cem Concr Res 78:100–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roy DM, Asaga K (1979) Rheological properties of cement mixes: III. The effects of mixing procedures on viscometric properties of mixes containing superplasticizers. Cem Concr Res 9:731–739.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(79)90068-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han D, Ferron RD (2016) Influence of high mixing intensity on rheology, hydration, and microstructure of fresh state cement paste. Cem Concr Res 84:95–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de França MS, Cazacliu B, Cardoso FA, Pileggi RG (2019) Influence of mixing process on mortars rheological behavior through rotational rheometry. Constr Build Mater 223:81–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Assaad JJ, Harb J, Maalouf Y (2014) Measurement of yield stress of cement pastes using the direct shear test. J Nonnewton Fluid Mech 214:18–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2014.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cardoso FA, Fujii AL, Pileggi RG, Chaouche M (2015) Parallel-plate rotational rheometry of cement paste: Influence of the squeeze velocity during gap positioning. Cem Concr Res 75:66–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mbasha W, Masalova I, Haldenwang R, Malkin A (2015) The yield stress of cement pastes as obtained by different rheological approaches. Appl Rheol 25:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3933/APPLRHEOL-25-53517 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bala M, Zentar R, Boustingorry P (2019) Comparative study of the yield stress determination of cement pastes by different methods. Mater Struct.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-019-1403-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roussel N, Le Roy R, Coussot P (2004) Thixotropy modelling at local and macroscopic scales. J Nonnewton Fluid Mech 117:85–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2004.01.001 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De la Varga I, Castro J, Bentz DP, Zunino F, Weiss J (2018) Evaluating the hydration of high volume fly ash mixtures using chemically inert fillers. Constr Build Mater 161:221–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Felekoğlu B (2014) Rheological behaviour of self-compacting micro-concrete. Sadhana Acad Proc Eng Sci 39:1471–1495.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-014-0281-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sonebi M, Lachemi M, Hossain KMA (2013) Optimisation of rheological parameters and mechanical properties of superplasticised cement grouts containing metakaolin and viscosity modifying admixture. Constr Build Mater 38:126–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.07.102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roussel N, Coussot P (2005) “Fifty-cent rheometer” for yield stress measurements: from slump to spreading flow. J Rheol (N. Y. N. Y) 49:705–718.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.1879041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    ABNT, NBR 16697 (2018) Cimento Portland-Requisitos 12Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Matos PR, Prudêncio LR, de Oliveira AL, Pelisser F, Gleize PJP (2018) Use of porcelain polishing residue as a supplementary cimentitious material in self-compacting concrete. Constr Build Mater 193:623–630.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Matos PR, de Oliveira AL, Pelisser F, Prudêncio LR (2018) Rheological behavior of Portland cement pastes and self-compacting concretes containing porcelain polishing residue. Constr Build Mater 175:508–518.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yuan Q, Zhou D, Khayat KH, Feys D, Shi C (2017) On the measurement of evolution of structural build-up of cement paste with time by static yield stress test vs. small amplitude oscillatory shear test. Cem Concr Res 99:183–189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kantro DL (1980) Influence of water-reducing admixtures on properties of cement paste: a miniature slump test. Cem. Concr. Agreg. 2:95–102.  https://doi.org/10.1520/CCA10190J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roussel N (2006) A thixotropy model for fresh fluid concretes: theory, validation and applications. Cem Concr Res 36:1797–1806.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.05.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yahia A, Khayat KH (2001) Analytical models for estimating yield stress of high-performance pseudoplastic grout. Cem Concr Res 31:731–738.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00476-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mostafa AM, Yahia A (2016) New approach to assess build-up of cement-based suspensions. Cem Concr Res 85:174–182.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yahia A, Tanimura M (2015) Rheology of belite-cement: effect of w/c and high-range water-reducer type. Constr Build Mater 88:169–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cheng DC-H (1986) Yield stress: a time-dependent property and how to measure it. Rheol Acta 554:542–554.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01774406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Qian Y, Kawashima S (2018) Distinguishing dynamic and static yield stress of fresh cement mortars through thixotropy. Cem Concr Compos 86:288–296.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bentz DP, Ferraris CF, Galler MA, Hansen AS, Guynn JM (2012) Influence of particle size distributions on yield stress and viscosity of cement-fly ash pastes. Cem Concr Res 42:404–409.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liddell V (1996) Yield stress measurements with the vane. J Non-Newton Fluid Mech 63:235–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nguyen QD, Boger DV (1992) Measuring the flow properties of yield stress fluids. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 24:47–88.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fl.24.010192.000403 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Medina-Bañuelos EF, Marín-Santibáñez BM, Pérez-González J, Kalyon DM (2019) Rheo-PIV analysis of the vane in cup flow of a viscoplastic microgel. J Rheol (NYNY) 63:905–915.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.5118900 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Perrot A, Lecompte T, Khelifi H, Brumaud C, Hot J, Roussel N (2012) Yield stress and bleeding of fresh cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 42:937–944.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.03.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roussel N, Ovarlez G, Garrault S, Brumaud C (2012) The origins of thixotropy of fresh cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 42:148–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Overlaz G (2012) Introduction to the rheometry of complex suspensions. In: Roussel N (ed) Understanding the rheology of concrete. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, p 364Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Coussot P (2005) Rheometry of pastes, suspensions, and granular materials: applications in industry and environment. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jiao D, Shi C, Yuan Q (2019) Time-dependent rheological behavior of cementitious paste under continuous shear mixing. Constr Build Mater 226:591–600.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Huang T, Li B, Yuan Q, Shi Z, Xie Y, Shi C (2019) Rheological behavior of Portland clinker-calcium sulphoaluminate clinker- anhydrite ternary blend. Cem Concr Compos 104:103403.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.103403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yahia A (2014) Effect of solid concentration and shear rate on shear-thickening response of high-performance cement suspensions. Constr Build Mater 53:517–521.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vance K, Sant G, Neithalath N (2015) The rheology of cementitious suspensions: a closer look at experimental parameters and property determination using common rheological models. Cem Concr Compos 59:38–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bingham EC (1922) Fluidity and plasticity. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Herschel WH, Bulkley R (1926) Measurement of consistency as applied to rubber-benzene solutions. Am Soc Test Proc 26:621–633Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Feys D, De Schutter G, Verhoeven R (2013) Parameters influencing pressure during pumping of self-compacting concrete. Mater Struct 46:533–555.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9912-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ma K, Feng J, Long G, Xie Y (2016) Effects of mineral admixtures on shear thickening of cement paste. Constr Build Mater 126:609–616.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Guo Y, Zhang T, Wei J, Yu Q, Ouyang S (2017) Evaluating the distance between particles in fresh cement paste based on the yield stress and particle size. Constr Build Mater 142:109–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhao M, Zhang X, Zhang Y (2016) Effect of free water on the flowability of cement paste with chemical or mineral admixtures. Constr Build Mater 111:571–579.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kim JH, Kwon SH, Kawashima S, Yim HJ (2017) Rheology of cement paste under high pressure. Cem Concr Compos 77:60–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Shanahan N, Tran V, Williams A, Zayed A (2016) Effect of SCM combinations on paste rheology and its relationship to particle characteristics of the mixture. Constr Build Mater 123:745–753.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Barnes HA, Nguyen QD (2001) Rotating vane rheometry: a review. J Nonnewton Fluid Mech 98:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0257(01)00095-7 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Divoux T, Mannevilleac C, Sébastien B (2011) Stress overshoot in a simple yield stress fluid: an extensive study combining rheology and velocimetry. Soft Matter 7:9335–9349.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C1SM05740E CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dimitriou CJ, Mckinley GH, Venkatesan R (2011) Rheo-PIV analysis of the yielding and flow of model waxy crude oils. Energy Fuels 25:3040–3052.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef2002348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Baldino N, Gabriele D, Lupi FR, Seta L, Zinno R (2014) Rheological behaviour of fresh cement pastes: influence of synthetic zeolites, limestone and silica fume. Cem Concr Res 63:38–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.04.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    de Larrard F, Ferraris CF, Sedran T (1998) Fresh concrete: a HerscheI–Bulkley material. Mater Struct 31:494–498.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02480474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Application of Nanotechnology in Civil Construction (LabNANOTEC), Department of Civil EngineeringFederal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC)FlorianópolisBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringFederal University of Espírito Santo (UFES)VitoriaBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringFederal University of Pernambuco (UFPB)RecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations