Correlation between Yield Stress and Slump: Comparison between Numerical Simulations and Concrete Rheometers Results

  • N. Roussel


Results of numerical flow simulations for two slump geometries, the ASTM Abrams cone and a paste cone, are presented. These results are compared to experimental results in the case of a cone filled with cement pastes in order to validate the proposed numerical method and the chosen boundary conditions. The correlation between slump and yield stress obtained numerically for the ASTM Abrams cone is then compared to the experimental correlations obtained by testing concrete with different rheometers during comparative studies that were organized at LCPC Nantes (France) in 2000 and MB Cleveland (USA) in 2003.


Cement Paste Dissipative Particle Dynamic Fresh Concrete Plastic Viscosity Self Compact Concrete 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Shaughnessy R, Clark PE (1988) The rheological behaviour of fresh cement pastes. Cem Concr Res, 18:327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nehdi M, Rahman M-A (2004) Estimating rheological properties of cement pastes using various rheological models for different test geometry, gap and surface friction. Cement Concrete Res., 34:1993–2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Larrard F, Hu C (1996) The rheology of fresh high-performance concrete. Cem Conc Res, 26(2):283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Operating manual (2000) the BML viscometer, the viscometer 4, Con Tec.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tatersall GH, Bloomer SJ (1979) further development of the two-point test for workability and extension of its range. Magazine of Concrete Research 31:202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASTM Designation C-143-90 (1996) Standard test method for slump of hydraulic cement concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 04.01, Am. Soc. Test. Mat., Easton, MD, pp. 85–87.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferraris CF, Brower LE editors (2001) Comparison of concrete rheometers: International tests at LCPC (Nantes, France) in October, 2000. National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency Report (NISTIR) 6819.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferraris CF, Brower LE editors (2004) Comparison of concrete rheometers: International tests at MB (Cleveland OH, USA) in May, 2003. National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency Report (NISTIR) 7154.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ASTM Designation C230/C230M-03, Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 04.01, Am. Soc. Test. Mat., Easton, MD (2004).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen QD, Boger DV (1985) Direct yield stress measurement with the vane method. J. Rheol., 29:335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murata J (1984) Flow and deformation of fresh concrete. Materials and Structures RILEM, 98:117–129.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schowalter WR, Christensen G (1998) Toward a rationalization of the slump test for fresh concrete: comparisons of calculations and experiments. J. Rheol., 42(4):865–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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., 70:53–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Pashias N, Boger DV, Summers J, Glenister DJ (1996) a fifty cent rheometer for yield stress measurements. J. Rheol. 40(6):1179–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hu C, de Larrard F, Sedran T, Boulay C, Bosc F, Deflorenne F (1996) Validation of BTRHEOM, the new rheometer for soft-to-fluid concrete. Materials and Structures, RILEM, 29(194):620–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coussot P, Proust S, Ancey C (1996) Rheological interpretation of deposits of yield stress fluids. Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 66(1):55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Covey GH, Stanmore BR (1981). Use of the parallel plate plastometer for the characterisation of viscous fluids with a yield stress, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 8:249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lipscomb GG, Denn MM (1984) Flow of Bingham fluids in complex geometries. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 14:337–346.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilson SDR (1993) Squeezing flow of a Bingham material. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 47:211–219.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adams MJ, Aydin I, Briscoe BJ, Sinha SK (1997) A finite element analysis of the squeeze flow of an elasto-viscoplastic paste material. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 71:41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coussot P, Ancey C (1999) Rhéophysique des pâtes et des suspensions, EDP Sciences, (in French).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petersson O (2003) Simulation of Self-Compacting Concrete- Laboratory experiments and numerical modelling of testing method, Jring and L-Box test’, Proceedings of the 3rd international RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete, RILEM PRO33 Reykjavik, Iceland, 202–207.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martys NS (2005) Study of a dissipative particle dynamics based approach for modeling suspensions. Journal of Rheology 49(2):401–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wallevik JE (2003) Rheology of particle suspensions; Fresh Concrete, Mortar and Cement Pastes with Various Types of Lignosulfonates. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tanigawa Y, Mori H (1989) Analytical study on deformation of fresh concrete, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 115(3):493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hu C (1995) Rheologie des bétons fluids (rheology of fluid concretes), thèse de doctorat de l'ENPC (PhD Thesis) France (In French).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chamberlain JA, Clayton S, Landman KA, Sader JE (2003) Experimental validation of incipient failure of yield stress materials under gravitational loading, Journal of Rheology, 47(6):1317–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tatersall GH, Banfill PGF (1983) The Rheology of Fresh Concrete, Pitman, London.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    O'Donovan EJ, Tanner RI (1984) Numerical study of the Bingham squeeze film problem. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech, 15:75–83.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Papanastasiou TC (1987) Flows of Materials with yield. J. Rheol., 31:385–404.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Flow3D version 8.1, User's manual, volume 1, 2004.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oldroyd JG (1947) A rational formulation of the equations of plastic flow for a Bingham solid. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc., 43:100–105.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM has copyright 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Roussel
    • 1
  1. 1.LCPC ParisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations