Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C
onventional concrete is widely used in building resistance as conventional concrete. There is minimal need for
projects because it is easy to produce and deliver to vibration during placement due to its high flow and high
the jobsite, and it is resistant to small variations in responsiveness to external energy. Because it has a larger
water content. However, large crews are normally needed to yield stress than SCC, control flow concrete will not flow
properly place and finish conventional concrete, and this uncontrolled in formwork. However, it has high passing
presents increasing challenges as labor markets tighten. ability through congested reinforcement, with no aggregate
Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) has proven itself as a blocking when produced with maximum size aggregate
viable alternative for some applications. Its high flowability, conforming to ACI 211.1 recommendations.1
excellent passing ability, and self-leveling characteristics GCP Applied Technologies (GCP) recently introduced
make it very easy to place, with minimal labor requirements. CONCERA™ brand admixtures that enable the production of
However, it is more expensive to produce due to the control flow concrete using mixture proportions typical of
specialized mixture designs, high powder contents, and the conventional concrete. The new admixtures result in a static
extra quality control efforts required to minimize batch-to- yield stress that is much lower than that of conventional
batch moisture variability. concrete, allowing control flow concrete to start flowing with
Control flow concrete bridges the gap between conventional minimal energy input. Yet, the admixtures result in a Bingham
concrete and SCC, offering significant improvements in (or dynamic yield) stress that is higher than that of SCC. That
quality, performance, and productivity for concrete producers means control flow concrete can be placed in slab-on-ground
and contractors alike. Shown in Fig. 1, control flow concrete applications and does not flow beneath small gaps in
flows more readily but has the same stability or segregation conventional formwork (Fig. 2). Control flow concrete will
not self-level like SCC, so it can be placed evenly on small protocol was followed. Aggregate and approximately 80% of
grades. Control flow concrete also remains segregation- the water were added to a tumble mixer and mixed for 1
resistant, even if water is added. minute. Cement was added and the sides of the mixer rinsed
In this article, we will briefly describe admixtures suitable with the rest of the water, mixing for an additional 1 minute.
for producing control flow concrete, address the rheological Admixtures were then added and mixing continued for
characterization of control flow concrete, and explore how 3 minutes, followed by a 3-minute rest period, and a final 2
control flow concrete compares to conventional concrete and minutes of mixing. The tail addition of admixtures provided
SCC. These three types of concrete can be distinguished by better distribution and effectiveness of the cement dispersing
comparing slump or slump flow spread (Table 1). components of the admixtures.
Slump, slump flow, visual stability index (VSI), and air
Experiments content of conventional concrete and SCC were measured
Mixture designs for the three types of evaluated concrete according to ASTM C143/C143M,4 C1611/C1611M,5 and
mixtures are shown in Table 2. The mixture design used for C231/C231M (Type B),6 respectively (Table 3). For control
conventional concrete and control flow concrete is a typical flow concrete, the tests have been modified. The slump flow
3500 psi (24.1 MPa) mixture for slabs. A tail-addition mixing was measured by filling a cone with the wider opening on the
slump-flow board, without rodding. The air meter was filled in
three lifts and tapped after each lift but not rodded.
Table 1: Compressive strength test cylinders were likewise tapped but
Key characteristics of conventional, control flow, and not rodded.
SCC mixtures Rheological experiments were carried out on an ICAR Plus
Conventional Control flow from Germann Instruments. The concrete was loaded into the
concrete concrete SCC rheometer and the sides were tapped when the container was
one-third, two-thirds, and completely full. The vane was then
w/c* 0.42 0.42 0.40 inserted into the concrete and the measurements begun
Slump or spread, 6 to 8 16 to 25
according to manufacturer’s recommendations.7
>25 (640) For measurement of static yield stress, the vane speed
in. (mm) (150 to 200) (410 to 635)
ADVA 198 and
was 0.05 rad/s (0.5 rpm). The test was stopped when the
Admixture ADVA® 198 CONCERA EXP 950 maximum torque was reached and began to decrease. For
CP1028 evaluation of the Bingham yield stress, the highest rotational
Water-cement ratio
* velocity was 30 rpm, and the velocity was stepped down in
Note: All admixtures are polycarboxylate-based HRWRAs 4.5 rpm increments until it reached 3 rpm. Each rotational
Table 2:
Mixture proportions for three types of concrete. The proportions for conventional concrete and control flow
concrete mixtures are identical except for the addition of a second admixture
Constituents Conventional concrete Control flow concrete SCC
w/c* 0.42 0.42 0.40
1750 (1038) 1750 (1038)
1450 (860)
Coarse aggregate, lb/yd3 (kg/m3) ASTM C33/C33M ASTM C33/C33M
3/8 in. (9.5 mm) stone
No. 67 gradation† (Ref. 2) No. 67 gradation†
Fine aggregate, lb/yd3 (kg/m3) 1387 (823) 1387 (823) 1334 (791)
Cement, ASTM C150/C150M
611 (362) 611 (362) 846 (502)
Type II (Ref. 3), lb/yd3 (kg/m3)
Admixture 1, 2.5 (163) 2.5 (163) 9 (587)
oz/cwt (mL/100 kg cement) ADVA 198 ADVA 198 EXP 950
Admixture 2,
— 11.5 (751) CONCERA CP1028 —
oz/cwt (mL/100 kg cement)
*
Water-cement ratio
†
Nominal size 3/4 in. to No. 4 (19 to 4.75 mm)
velocity was held for 30 seconds—long enough to equilibrate Results and Discussion
the signal but short enough to minimize the potential for Admixtures
segregation. The rotational velocity and torque were plotted A balance of properties is needed to make control flow
and a straight line fit to the data. The slope and interceptconcrete. High-range water-reducing admixtures (HRWRAs)
were then converted to plastic viscosity and Bingham yield are required to disperse the cement particles and reduce the
stress according to the Reiner-Riwlin equations. yield stress. Good slump flow retention is also necessary for
transportation and placement of the
material. However, high doses of
Table 3: HRWRAs can cause segregation when
Plastic concrete properties. Each value is the average of two or more tests used in conventional concrete mixtures
(Fig. 3(a)). The CONCERA brand of
Slump, mm Slump flow, VSI
admixtures produce segregation-
Mixture type Air, % (in.) mm (in.) (rating)
resistant concrete (Fig. 3(b)) with a
Trial 1 1.9 184 (7.3) — — flow range (spread) of 16 to 25 in.
Trial 2 2.3 165 (6.5) — — (410 to 635 mm) using conventional
mixture designs. These proprietary
Trial 3 1.7 197 (7.8) — —
viscosity-modified polycarboxylate
Conventional Trial 4 1.9 168 (6.6) — — admixtures provide good initial slump
concrete flow and slump flow retention without
Trial 5 2.1 187 (7.4) — —
segregation. Mixtures described in this
168 to 197 article comprise CONCERA CP1028
Range 1.7 to 2.3 — —
(6.5 to 7.4) admixtures, designed for use in
Trial 1 1.9 229 (9.0) 470 (18.5) 0.75 non-air-entrained concrete with
HRWRAs. Other admixtures in
Trial 2 2.0 239 (9.4) 440 (17.3) 0.75
the brand family are for use as
Trial 3 1.5 238 (9.4) 457 (18.0) 0.75 companions to high- and mid-range
Control flow water-reducing admixtures. Still others
concrete Trial 4 1.4 238 (9.4) 464 (18.3) 0.75
have water reduction and control flow
Trial 5 2.0 238 (9.4) 457 (18.0) 0.75 properties built in.
229 to 238 440 to 470
Range 1.4 to 2.0 0.75 Compressive strength
(9.0 to 9.4) (17.3 to 18.5)
The compressive strengths of
SCC Trial 5 0.9 264 (10.4) 638 (25.1) 1.25
control flow concrete and conventional
(a) (b)
Fig. 3: The slump flow test is used to evaluate flowability and segregation resistance: (a) a conventional mixture overdosed with HRWRA
exhibits flow but also segregation; and (b) control flow concrete also exhibits flow, but no segregation
Fig. 7: Static yield stress for three types of concrete. Error bars
Fig. 5: Generalized form of rheologic data for evaluation of yield stress represent one standard deviation (Note: 1 Pa = 0.000145 psi)
Fig. 6: Raw data for static yield stress (Note: 1 N·m = 0.737 ft-lb) Fig. 8: An ideal Bingham plot for a Newtonian fluid with a yield stress
Save Date
the
models9 improve the fit to the data for conventional concrete, yield stresses, almost by an order of magnitude. It clearly
but they provide less information about the observable takes more force to start concrete moving from a resting state
physical properties. than stopping it when it has been moving. While ease of
placement (represented by static yield stress) reduces wear on
Bingham yield stress people and equipment, it is also useful to have concrete that
Using the Reiner-Riwlin equations and the data from the comes to rest more easily (represented by the Bingham yield
Bingham plot, the yield stress was calculated. The data are stress) than SCC. Figure 2, for example, shows control flow
again grouped by concrete type (Fig. 10 and Table 4). The concrete concrete in a slab placement. The concrete has
Bingham yield stresses are significantly lower than the static flowed and then stopped, leaving a rounded front.
Plastic viscosity
Plastic viscosity is related to the slope of the shear rate
versus the shear-stress line by the Riener-Riwlin equations.
For control flow concrete and SCC, the behavior is linear in
the shear-rate regime measured, and the viscosity is constant
with respect to shear rate. Figure 11 shows that control flow
concrete is more viscous (has more resistance to flow) than
SCC. Although the conventional concrete demonstrates
shear thickening, the Riener-Riwlin transformation was
applied to approximate the viscosity. This gives a value
close to that for control flow concrete. Although the
Fig. 10: Bingham yield stress for three types of concrete. Error bars nonlinearity of the speed versus torque plot may affect the
represent one standard deviation (Note: 1 Pa = 0.000145 psi) applicability of the Riener-Riwlin transformation, the
viscosity for conventional concrete is closer to that of
Table 4: control flow concrete than that of SCC. All the shear rates
Comparisons of static and Bingham yield stresses for are relatively low, covering the range of placement and
conventional, control flow, and SCC mixtures. The static finishing. The shear rates relevant for pumping are outside
yield stress is always lower than the Bingham yield the capability of the rheometer.
Static yield stress, Bingham yield
Rheograph
Mixture type Pa stress, Pa
In Fig. 12, the static yield stress is plotted as a function of
Conventional concrete 2106 503 plastic viscosity for the three types of concrete studied, using
Control flow concrete 810 109
the data from Fig. 7 and 10. The yield stress distinguishes
control flow concrete from both conventional concrete and
SCC 95 19
Note: 1 Pa = 0.000145 psi
Fig. 12: Rheograph for the three types of concrete studied, and the
Fig. 11: Plastic viscosity for three types of concrete. Error bars hypothetical position of a concrete made to flow by overdosing with
represent one standard deviation (Note: 1 Pa·s = 1000 cP) an HRWRA (Note: 1 Pa = 0.000145 psi; 1 Pa·s = 1000 cP)
SCC. It is easier to begin the flow of control flow concrete 4. ASTM C143/C143M, “Standard Test Method for Slump of
compared to conventional concrete, and control flow concrete Hydraulic-Cement Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
ceases to flow more readily than SCC. The plastic viscosity of PA, 2015, 4 pp.
SCC is lower than the other two types of concrete. The dotted 5. ASTM C1611/C1611M, “Standard Test Method for Slump Flow of
circle in the rheograph represents concrete made by Self-Consolidating Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
overdosing with an HRWRA. In this case, segregation made it PA, 2014, 6 pp.
impossible to study the rheology. 6. ASTM C231/C231M, “Standard Test Method for Air Content of
Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method,” ASTM International,
Conclusions and Outlook West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, 10 pp.
Control flow concrete has distinct rheological behavior 7. Koehler, E.P.; Fowler, D.W.; Ferraris, C.F.; and Amziane, S.;
compared to conventional concrete and SCC. This type of “A New, Portable Rheometer for Fresh Self-Consolidating Concrete,”
flowable concrete is enabled by CONCERA brand admixtures, Workability of SCC: Roles of its Constituents and Measurement
which work with conventional mixtures. Control flow concrete Techniques, SP-233, C. Shi and K.H. Khayat, eds., American Concrete
shows promise in decreasing labor demand and time for Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006, pp. 97-115.
concrete placement, without risk of segregation. 8. Ferraris, C.F.; Billberg, P.; Ferron, R.; Feys, D.; Hu, J.; Kawashima, S.;
Koehler, E.; Sonebi, M.; Tanesi, J.; and Tregger, N., “Role of Rheology in
References Achieving Successful Concrete Performance,” Concrete International,
1. ACI Committee 221, “Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions V. 39, No. 6, June 2017, pp. 43-51.
for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1-91) (Reapproved 9. Wallevik, O.H.; Dyes, D.; Wallevik, J.E.; and Khayat, K.H.,
2009),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1991, 38 pp. “Avoiding Inaccurate Interpretations of Rheological Measurements for
2. ASTM C33/C33M, “Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates,” Cement-Based Materials,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 78, Part A,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, 11 pp. Dec. 2015, pp. 100-109.
3. ASTM C150/C150M, “Standard Specification for Portland Cement,”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, 9 pp. Selected for reader interest by the editors.
Elizabeth G. Burns joined GCP Applied Joshua W. Curto joined the concrete
Technologies in 2016 to focus on cement admixtures group at GCP Applied
and the polymers PCE. Her career in the Technologies in May 2017. He received
specialty chemical industry has included his BS in chemical engineering and his
time at Eastman Kodak and Cabot. MS in materials science and engineering
Burns received her BS in chemistry from from Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Worcester, MA.
TX, and her PhD from California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, CA, studying
metathesis polymerization.
ACI member Nathan Tregger is a Principal
ACI member Klaus-Alexander Rieder Scientist at GCP Applied Technologies, Inc.,
is a Global R&D Director for Concrete Cambridge, MA. He is a member of ACI
Products at GCP Applied Technologies. Committees 212, Chemical Admixtures;
He is a member of ACI Committees 209, 237, Self-Consolidating Concrete; 238,
Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete; 215, Workability of Fresh Concrete; 241,
Fatigue of Concrete; 360, Design of Nanotechnology of Concrete; 304,
Slabs on Ground; 506, Shotcreting; and Measuring, Mixing, Transporting, and
544, Fiber-Reinforced Concrete. He is Placing Concrete; and 552, Cementitious
also a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Grouting. He received his math and civil
Committee 446, Fracture Mechanics of engineering degrees from Lafayette College, Easton, PA; his MS
Concrete, and several ASTM International and RILEM committees. and PhD from Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, focusing on
He received his doctorate degree in physics from the Technical topics ranging from stochastic modeling of hardened concrete to
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, in 1995. fundamental and practical aspects of concrete rheology; and his
MS in innovation from Northeastern University, Boston, MA.