Materials and Structures

, 52:5 | Cite as

Relating early hydration, specific surface and flow loss of cement pastes

  • Sara MantellatoEmail author
  • Marta Palacios
  • Robert J. Flatt
50 years of Materials and Structures
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. 50 years of Materials and Structures


Flow loss in superplasticized systems has been mainly explained in qualitative and comparative ways over the past years. This is due to the intrinsic complexity of the underlying mechanism involving a change in the agglomeration degree as a result of cement hydration. The lack of robust and reliable experimental methodologies must have additionally discouraged researchers from attempting to understand the phenomena of flow loss in quantitative terms. Thanks to new analytical methods, it was possible to prove that after the so-called onset point, yield stress increases exponentially with the increase of both heat rate measured by isothermal calorimetry and specific surface. This paper also identifies the existence of a direct proportionality between the increase of heat rate and the increase of specific surface area during the acceleration period, most likely reflecting the nucleation and growth nature at this stage of the cement hydration.


Superplasticizers Yield stress Heat rate Isothermal calorimetry BET model 



Funding for Sara Mantellato was provided by the SNSF Project (No. 140615) titled “Mastering flow loss of cementitious systems” and the SNSF National Centre for Competence in Research in Digital Fabrication—Innovative Building Processes in Architecture. The authors wish to thank Lukas Frunz (SIKA AG Schweiz) for providing the polymers and Giulia Gelardi (ETH Zürich) for their characterization.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11527_2018_1304_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (94 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 95 kb)
11527_2018_1304_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (135 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 135 kb)
11527_2018_1304_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (139 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 140 kb)


  1. 1.
    Flatt RJ (2004) Towards a prediction of superplasticized concrete rheology. Mater Struct 37:289–300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yamada K, Takahashi T, Hanehara S, Matsuhisa M (2000) Effects of the chemical structure on the properties of polycarboxylate-type superplasticizer. Cem Concr Res 30:197–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vickers TM Jr, Farrington SA, Bury JR, Brower LE (2005) Influence of dispersant structure and mixing speed on concrete slump retention. Cem Concr Res 35:1882–1890. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Uchikawa H, Sawaki D, Hanehara S (1995) Influence of kind and added timing of organic admixture on the composition, structure and property of fresh cement paste. Cem Concr Res 25:353–364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aiad I (2003) Influence of time addition of superplasticizers on the rheological properties of fresh cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 33:1229–1234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang M-H, Sisomphon K, Ng TS, Sun DJ (2010) Effect of superplasticizers on workability retention and initial setting time of cement pastes. Constr Build Mater 24:1700–1707. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nkinamubanzi P-C, Mantellato S, Flatt RJ (2016) 16-Superplasticizers in practice. In: Aïtcin P-C, Flatt RJ (eds) Science and technology of concrete admixtures. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, pp 353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barnes HA (1997) Thixotropy—a review. J Non Newton Fluid Mech 70:1–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roussel N, Ovarlez G, Garrault S, Brumaud C (2012) The origins of thixotropy of fresh cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 42:148–157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roussel N (2006) A thixotropy model for fresh fluid concretes: theory, validation and applications. Cem Concr Res 36:1797–1806. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tattersall GH, Banfill PFG (1983) The rheology of fresh concrete. Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kovler K, Roussel N (2011) Properties of fresh and hardened concrete. Cem Concr Res 41:775–792. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jiang SP, Mutin JC, Nonat A (1995) Studies on mechanism and physico-chemical parameters at the origin of the cement setting. I. The fundamental processes involved during the cement setting. Cem Concr Res 25:779–789. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang SP, Mutin JC, Nonat A (1996) Studies on mechanism and physico-chemical parameters at the origin of the cement setting II. Physico-chemical parameters determining the coagulation process. Cem Concr Res 26:491–500. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flatt RJ, Houst YF (2001) A simplified view on chemical effects perturbing the action of superplasticizers. Cem Concr Res 31:1169–1176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giraudeau C, D’Espinose De Lacaillerie J-B, Souguir Z et al (2009) Surface and intercalation chemistry of polycarboxylate copolymers in cementitious systems. J Am Ceram Soc 92:2471–2488. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Plank J, Dai Z, Andres PR (2006) Preparation and characterization of new Ca–Al–polycarboxylate layered double hydroxides. Mater Lett 60:3614–3617. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dalas F, Pourchet S, Rinaldi D et al (2015) Modification of the rate of formation and surface area of ettringite by polycarboxylate ether superplasticizers during early C3A–CaSO4 hydration. Cem Concr Res 69:105–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Delphine Marchon, Patrick Juilland, Emmanuel Gallucci et al (2017) Molecular and submolecular scale effects of comb-copolymers on tri-calcium silicate reactivity: toward molecular design. J Am Ceram Soc 100:817–841. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meier MR, Rinkenburger A, Plank J (2016) Impact of different types of polycarboxylate superplasticisers on spontaneous crystallisation of ettringite. Adv Cem Res 28:310–319. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pourchet S, Comparet C, Nonat A, Maitrasse P (2006) Influence of three types of superplasticizers on tricalciumaluminate hydration in presence of gypsum. In: Proceedings 8th CANMET/ACI international conference on superplasticizers and other chemical admixtures in concrete, Sorrento, ACI, SP-239, pp 151–168Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marchon D, Sulser U, Eberhardt A, Flatt RJ (2013) Molecular design of comb-shaped polycarboxylate dispersants for environmentally friendly concrete. Soft Matter 9:10719–10728. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prince W, Espagne M, Aïtcin P-C (2003) Ettringite formation: a crucial step in cement superplasticizer compatibility. Cem Concr Res 33:635–641. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kreppelt F, Weibel M, Zampini D, Romer M (2002) Influence of solution chemistry on the hydration of polished clinker surfaces—a study of different types of polycarboxylic acid-based admixtures. Cem Concr Res 32:187–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zingg A, Holzer L, Kaech A et al (2008) The microstructure of dispersed and non-dispersed fresh cement pastes—new insight by cryo-microscopy. Cem Concr Res 38:522–529. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mantellato S (2017) Flow loss in superplasticized cement pastes. Doctoral dissertation, ETH ZurichGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gelardi G, Sanson N, Nagy G, Flatt RJ (2017) Characterization of comb-shaped copolymers by multidetection SEC, DLS and SANS. Polymers 9:61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Flatt RJ, Schober I, Raphael E et al (2009) Conformation of adsorbed comb copolymer dispersants. Langmuir 25:845–855. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wadsö L, Winnefeld F, Riding K, Sandberg P (2016) 2-Calorimetry. In: Scrivener K, Snellings R, Lothenbach B (eds) A practical guide to microstructural analysis of cementitious materials. Taylor & Francis, pp 37–74Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mantellato S, Palacios M, Flatt RJ (2015) Reliable specific surface area measurements on anhydrous cements. Cem Concr Res 67:286–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mantellato S, Palacios M, Flatt RJ (2016) Impact of sample preparation on the specific surface area of synthetic ettringite. Cem Concr Res 86:20–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saak AW, Jennings HM, Shah SP (2004) A generalized approach for the determination of yield stress by slump and slump flow. Cem Concr Res 34:363–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Murata J (1984) Flow and deformation of fresh concrete. Mater Constr 17:117–129. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pashias N, Boger DV, Summers J, Glenister DJ (1996) A fifty cent rheometer for yield stress measurement. J Rheol 40:1179–1189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Clayton S, Grice TG, Boger DV (2003) Analysis of the slump test for on-site yield stress measurement of mineral suspensions. Int J Miner Process 70:3–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roussel N, Coussot P (2005) “Fifty-cent rheometer” for yield stress measurements: from slump to spreading flow. J Rheol (1978-Present) 49:705–718. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Flatt RJ, Larosa D, Roussel N (2006) Linking yield stress measurements: spread test versus Viskomat. Cem Concr Res 36:99–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zimmermann J, Hampel C, Kurz C et al (2009) Effect of polymer structure on the sulfate–polycarboxylate competition. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACI international conference on superplasticizers and other chemical admixtures. pp 165–176Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pierre A, Lanos C, Estellé P (2013) Extension of spread-slump formulae for yield stress evaluation. Appl Rheol 23:63849Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Regnaud L, Nonat A, Pourchet S et al (2006) Changes in cement paste and mortar fluidity after mixing induced by PCP: a parametric study. In: Proceedings of the 8th CANMET/ACI international conference on superplasticizers and other chemical admixtures in concrete, Sorrento, 20–23 Oct 2006, pp 389–408Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yamada K, Ogawa S, Hanehara S (2001) Controlling of the adsorption and dispersing force of polycarboxylate-type superplasticizer by sulfate ion concentration in aqueous phase. Cem Concr Res 31:375–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Flatt RJ, Zimmermann J, Hampel C et al (2009) The role of adsorption energy in the sulfate–polycarboxylate competition. Spec Publ 262:153–164Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lootens D, Jousset P, Martinie L et al (2009) Yield stress during setting of cement pastes from penetration tests. Cem Concr Res 39:401–408. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Roussel N (2005) Steady and transient flow behaviour of fresh cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 35:1656–1664. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Marchon D (2016) Controlling cement hydration though the molecular structure of comb copolymer superplasticizers. Doctoral dissertation, ETHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Suraneni P, Flatt RJ (2015) Use of micro-reactors to obtain new insights into the factors influencing tricalcium silicate dissolution. Cem Concr Res 78(Part B):208–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nicoleau L, Bertolim MA (2016) Analytical model for the alite (C3S) dissolution topography. J Am Ceram Soc 99:773–786. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Young JF, Tong HS, Berger RL (1977) Compositions of solutions in contact with hydrating tricalcium silicate pastes. J Am Ceram Soc 60:193–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bullard JW, Flatt RJ (2010) New insights into the effect of calcium hydroxide precipitation on the kinetics of tricalcium silicate hydration. J Am Ceram Soc 93:1894–1903. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kumar A, Bishnoi S, Scrivener KL (2012) Modelling early age hydration kinetics of alite. Cem Concr Res 42:903–918. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Subramaniam KV, Wang X (2010) An investigation of microstructure evolution in cement paste through setting using ultrasonic and rheological measurements. Cem Concr Res 40:33–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lecompte T, Perrot A (2017) Non-linear modeling of yield stress increase due to SCC structural build-up at rest. Cem Concr Res 92:92–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bellotto M (2013) Cement paste prior to setting: a rheological approach. Cem Concr Res 52:161–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Perrot A, Pierre A, Vitaloni S, Picandet V (2014) Prediction of lateral form pressure exerted by concrete at low casting rates. Mater Struct 48:2315–2322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Juilland P, Gallucci E, Flatt R, Scrivener K (2010) Dissolution theory applied to the induction period in alite hydration. Cem Concr Res 40:831–844. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nicoleau L, Nonat A, Perrey D (2013) The di- and tricalcium silicate dissolutions. Cem Concr Res 47:14–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bullard JW, Scherer GW, Thomas JJ (2015) Time dependent driving forces and the kinetics of tricalcium silicate hydration. Cem Concr Res 74:26–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Garrault S, Nonat A (2001) Hydrated layer formation on tricalcium and dicalcium silicate surfaces: experimental study and numerical simulations. Langmuir 17:8131–8138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Thomas JJ, Jennings HM, Chen JJ (2009) Influence of nucleation seeding on the hydration mechanisms of tricalcium silicate and cement. J Phys Chem C 113:4327–4334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Valentini L, Favero M, Dalconi MC et al (2016) Kinetic model of calcium-silicate hydrate nucleation and growth in the presence of PCE superplasticizers. Cryst Growth Des 16:646–654. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Artioli G, Valentini L, Voltolini M et al (2015) Direct imaging of nucleation mechanisms by synchrotron diffraction micro-tomography: superplasticizer-induced change of C–S–H nucleation in cement. Cryst Growth Des 15:20–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Garrault-Gauffinet S, Nonat A (1999) Experimental investigation of calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) nucleation. J Cryst Growth 200:565–574. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Stark J, Möser B, Bellmann F (2007) Nucleation and growth of C–S–H phases on mineral admixtures. In: Grosse CU (ed) Advances in construction materials 2007. Springer, Berlin, pp 531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    ASTM C191 (2008) Standard test methods for time of setting of hydraulic cement by Vicat needle. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    ASTM C403/C403M (2016) Standard test method for time of setting of concrete mixtures by penetration resistance. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Trtnik G, Turk G, Kavčič F, Bosiljkov VB (2008) Possibilities of using the ultrasonic wave transmission method to estimate initial setting time of cement paste. Cem Concr Res 38:1336–1342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Reinhardt HW, Grosse CU (2004) Continuous monitoring of setting and hardening of mortar and concrete. Constr Build Mater 18:145–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zongjin Li, Lianzhen Xiao, Xiaosheng Wei (2007) Determination of concrete setting time using electrical resistivity measurement. J Mater Civ Eng 19:423–427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Building MaterialsETH ZürichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Eduardo Torroja Institute for Construction ScienceMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations