Advertisement

Materials and Structures

, 52:12 | Cite as

Direct shear test for the assessment of rheological parameters of concrete for 3D printing applications

  • Roshan Jayathilakage
  • Jay Sanjayan
  • Pathmanathan RajeevEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Rheology of concrete plays a major role in concrete 3D printing applications, where the concrete is pumped at high pressure and extruded through a nozzle at low speed to build the structural component. The 3D printable concrete should be stiff and is different to normal or self-compacting concrete. Hence, the common testing methods used to estimate the rheological parameters are not suitable for 3D printable concrete. In this study, the direct shear test is trialled as a potential method to measure the rheological parameters of different mixes of concrete. The effects of water–cement ratio and shear rates on rheological parameters were examined. The tests were carried out with varying shear rates, ranging from 0.5 to 15 min−1, and normal stresses, ranging from 2 to 15 kPa, for mixes with water–cement ratios of 0.3, 0.4 and 0.6. Further testing was carried out on mixes with varying aggregate to cement and fine to total aggregates ratios to study the effect of binder and aggregate proportions on the rheology of mortar. It was found that the shear rates, 0.5 to 15 min−1, have little effect on the cohesion values and friction angles. Further, the behaviour of the mixes was found to be following the Mohr–Coulomb model.

Keywords

3D concrete printing Rheology Flow Yield stress Shear rate 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Wolfs R, Salet T, Hendriks B (2015) 3D printing of sustainable concrete structures. In: Proceedings of IASS annual symposia, vol 2. International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS), pp 1–8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lim S, Buswell RA, Le TT, Austin SA, Gibb AG, Thorpe T (2012) Developments in construction-scale additive manufacturing processes. Autom Constr 21:262–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alfani R, Guerrini G (2005) Rheological test methods for the characterization of extrudable cement-based materials—a review. Mater Struct 38(2):239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferraris CF, Brower LE, Banfill P (2001) Comparison of concrete rheometers: international test at LCPC (Nantes, France) in October, 2000. National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Le TT, Austin SA, Lim S, Buswell RA, Gibb AG, Thorpe T (2012) Mix design and fresh properties for high-performance printing concrete. Mater Struct 45(8):1221–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Assaad JJ, Harb J, Maalouf Y (2014) Measurement of yield stress of cement pastes using the direct shear test. J Nonnewton Fluid Mech 214:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perrot A, Rangeard D, Pierre A (2016) Structural built-up of cement-based materials used for 3D-printing extrusion techniques. Mater Struct 49(4):1213–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roussel N, Lanos C, Toutou Z (2006) Identification of Bingham fluid flow parameters using a simple squeeze test. J Nonnewton Fluid Mech 135(1):1–7zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Assaad JJ, Harb J (2012) Assessment of thixotropy of fresh mortars by triaxial and unconfined compression testing. Adv Civ Eng Mater 1(1):1–18Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lu G, Wang K (2010) Investigation into yield behavior of fresh cement paste: model and experiment. ACI Mater J 107(1):12Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Girish S, Santhosh B (2012) Determination of Bingham parameters of fresh Portland cement concrete using concrete shear box. Bonfring Int J Ind Eng Manag Sci 2(4):84Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lu G, Wang K (2011) Theoretical and experimental study on shear behavior of fresh mortar. Cement Concr Compos 33(2):319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bingham EC (1922) Fluidity and plasticity, vol 2. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M’barki A, Bocquet L, Stevenson A (2017) Linking rheology and printability for dense and strong ceramics by direct ink writing. Sci Rep 7(1):6017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buswell RA, Leal da Silva WR, Jones SZ, Dirrenberger J (2018) 3D printing using concrete extrusion: a roadmap for research. Cem Concr Res 112:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roussel N (2006) A thixotropy model for fresh fluid concretes: theory, validation and applications. Cem Concr Res 36(10):1797–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharma MR, Baxter CD, Hoffmann W, Moran K, Vaziri H (2011) Characterization of weakly cemented sands using nonlinear failure envelopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1(48):146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toutou Z, Roussel N, Lanos C (2005) The squeezing test: a tool to identify firm cement-based material’s rheological behaviour and evaluate their extrusion ability. Cem Concr Res 35(10):1891–1899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schanz T, Vermeer P (1996) Angles of friction and dilatancy of sand. Géotechnique 46(1):145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bolton M (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique 36(1):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vermeer PA, De Borst R (1984) Non-associated plasticity for soils, concrete and rock. J HERON 29(3):1984Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Di Carlo T, Khoshnevis B, Carlson A (2013) Experimental and numerical techniques to characterize structural properties of fresh concrete. In: ASME 2013 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp V009T010A062–V009T010A062Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wolfs R, Bos F, Salet T (2018) Early age mechanical behaviour of 3D printed concrete: numerical modelling and experimental testing. Cem Concr Res 106:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Centre for Sustainable InfrastructureSwinburne University of TechnologyHawthornAustralia

Personalised recommendations