Products&PracticeSpotlight
The Rheology of Control
Flow Concrete
Conventional mixtures can be designed to behave almost like self-consolidating
concrete
by Elizabeth G. Burns, Klaus-Alexander Rieder, Joshua W. Curto, and Nathan Tregger
C
onventional concrete is widely used in building
projects because it is easy to produce and deliver to
the jobsite, and it is resistant to small variations in
water content. However, large crews are normally needed to
properly place and finish conventional concrete, and this
presents increasing challenges as labor markets tighten.
Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) has proven itself as a
viable alternative for some applications. Its high flowability,
excellent passing ability, and self-leveling characteristics
make it very easy to place, with minimal labor requirements.
However, it is more expensive to produce due to the
specialized mixture designs, high powder contents, and the
extra quality control efforts required to minimize batch-to-
batch moisture variability.
Control flow concrete bridges the gap between conventional
concrete and SCC, offering significant improvements in
quality, performance, and productivity for concrete producers
and contractors alike. Shown in Fig. 1, control flow concrete
flows more readily but has the same stability or segregation
Fig. 1: Control flow concrete being placed in a flatwork application
resistance as conventional concrete. There is minimal need for
vibration during placement due to its high flow and high
responsiveness to external energy. Because it has a larger
yield stress than SCC, control flow concrete will not flow
uncontrolled in formwork. However, it has high passing
ability through congested reinforcement, with no aggregate
blocking when produced with maximum size aggregate
conforming to ACI 211.1 recommendations.1
GCP Applied Technologies (GCP) recently introduced
CONCERA™ brand admixtures that enable the production of
control flow concrete using mixture proportions typical of
conventional concrete. The new admixtures result in a static
yield stress that is much lower than that of conventional
concrete, allowing control flow concrete to start flowing with
minimal energy input. Yet, the admixtures result in a Bingham
(or dynamic yield) stress that is higher than that of SCC. That
means control flow concrete can be placed in slab-on-ground
applications and does not flow beneath small gaps in
conventional formwork (Fig. 2). Control flow concrete will
Fig. 2: The leading edge of control flow concrete at rest, during
placement of a slab-on-ground
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | JANUARY 2018 43
Products&PracticeSpotlight

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)

44 JANUARY 2018 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com

 Products&PracticeSpotlight

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

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | JANUARY 2018 45

Products&PracticeSpotlight
Fig. 4: Compressive strength of control flow concrete and
conventional concrete. Error bars represent one standard deviation
Fig. 5: Generalized form of rheologic data for evaluation of yield stress
Fig. 6: Raw data for static yield stress (Note: 1 N·m = 0.737 ft-lb)
46 JANUARY 2018 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
concrete are equivalent (Fig. 4). The variation seen in Fig. 4
can be attributed to day-to-day variations in aggregates.
Because the flow properties of the control flow concrete come
from the chemistry of the CONCERA admixture and not
water, there is no decrease in strength.
Static yield stress
Static yield stress is a measure of the force required to
start motion in concrete at rest. The general form of the data is
shown in Fig. 5. As described in Ferraris et al.,8 the shear
stress corresponding to maximum torque is referred to as the
static yield stress.
The raw data from the three types of concrete studied
follow the generalized form sufficiently well. In addition to
the torque values, the time at which the maximum torque is
reached changes (Fig. 6).
Fig. 7: Static yield stress for three types of concrete. Error bars
represent one standard deviation (Note: 1 Pa = 0.000145 psi)
Fig. 8: An ideal Bingham plot for a Newtonian fluid with a yield stress
 Products&PracticeSpotlight

The static yield stress is shown in Fig. 7, as an average

over all samples of a given type for the concrete listed in
Table 1. Conventional concrete has the highest static yield
stress. It requires about two-thirds less force to start
movement in control flow concrete, and SCC moves even
more easily. The reduced static yield stress will allow workers
to move concrete more rapidly with less strain.

Shear Rate Experiments and Bingham Model

Concrete is typically modeled as a Bingham fluid. The
viscosity of such a fluid is given by the slope of the strain rate
versus shear stress plot (Fig. 8) and the Bingham yield stress
is given by the y-intercept.
Conventional concrete may not always follow the Bingham
model, and, in this case, shear thickening was observed (Fig. 9).
Both SCC and control flow concrete are reasonably well-
modeled by the Bingham relationship. For simplicity and
consistency, the Bingham model is used for the data in this Fig. 9: Raw data for Bingham plots—shear rate versus shear strain
article. The modified Bingham and the Herschel-Bulkley experiments (Note: 1 N·m = 0.737 ft-lb)

Save Date
the

Concrete 2029 Workshop:

February 28, 2018
Technology Forum 43:
March 1-2, 2018
The McCormick Hotel 
Scottsdale, AZ, USA

Details at: www.ConcreteSDC.com Follow us: @ACIFoundation

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | JANUARY 2018 47

Products&PracticeSpotlight

models9 improve the fit to the data for conventional concrete,
but they provide less information about the observable
physical properties.
Bingham yield stress
Using the Reiner-Riwlin equations and the data from the
Bingham plot, the yield stress was calculated. The data are
again grouped by concrete type (Fig. 10 and Table 4). The
Bingham yield stresses are significantly lower than the static
yield stresses, almost by an order of magnitude. It clearly
takes more force to start concrete moving from a resting state
than stopping it when it has been moving. While ease of
placement (represented by static yield stress) reduces wear on
people and equipment, it is also useful to have concrete that
comes to rest more easily (represented by the Bingham yield
stress) than SCC. Figure 2, for example, shows control flow
concrete concrete in a slab placement. The concrete has
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)

48 JANUARY 2018 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com

 Products&PracticeSpotlight
SCC. It is easier to begin the flow of control flow concrete
compared to conventional concrete, and control flow concrete
ceases to flow more readily than SCC. The plastic viscosity of
SCC is lower than the other two types of concrete. The dotted
circle in the rheograph represents concrete made by
overdosing with an HRWRA. In this case, segregation made it
impossible to study the rheology.
Conclusions and Outlook
Control flow concrete has distinct rheological behavior
compared to conventional concrete and SCC. This type of
flowable concrete is enabled by CONCERA brand admixtures,
which work with conventional mixtures. Control flow concrete
shows promise in decreasing labor demand and time for
concrete placement, without risk of segregation.
References
1. ACI Committee 221, “Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions
for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1-91) (Reapproved
2009),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1991, 38 pp.
2. ASTM C33/C33M, “Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates,”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, 11 pp.
3. ASTM C150/C150M, “Standard Specification for Portland Cement,”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, 9 pp.
Elizabeth G. Burns joined GCP Applied
Technologies in 2016 to focus on cement
and the polymers PCE. Her career in the
specialty chemical industry has included
time at Eastman Kodak and Cabot.
Burns received her BS in chemistry from
Southern Methodist University, Dallas,
TX, and her PhD from California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, CA, studying
metathesis polymerization.
ACI member Klaus-Alexander Rieder
is a Global R&D Director for Concrete
Products at GCP Applied Technologies.
He is a member of ACI Committees 209,
Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete; 215,
Fatigue of Concrete; 360, Design of
Slabs on Ground; 506, Shotcreting; and
544, Fiber-Reinforced Concrete. He is
also a member of Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 446, Fracture Mechanics of
Concrete, and several ASTM International and RILEM committees.
He received his doctorate degree in physics from the Technical
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, in 1995.
4. ASTM C143/C143M, “Standard Test Method for Slump of
Hydraulic-Cement Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2015, 4 pp.
5. ASTM C1611/C1611M, “Standard Test Method for Slump Flow of
Self-Consolidating Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2014, 6 pp.
6. ASTM C231/C231M, “Standard Test Method for Air Content of
Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method,” ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, 10 pp.
7. Koehler, E.P.; Fowler, D.W.; Ferraris, C.F.; and Amziane, S.;
“A New, Portable Rheometer for Fresh Self-Consolidating Concrete,”
Workability of SCC: Roles of its Constituents and Measurement
Techniques, SP-233, C. Shi and K.H. Khayat, eds., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006, pp. 97-115.
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
Achieving Successful Concrete Performance,” Concrete International,
V. 39, No. 6, June 2017, pp. 43-51.
9. Wallevik, O.H.; Dyes, D.; Wallevik, J.E.; and Khayat, K.H.,
“Avoiding Inaccurate Interpretations of Rheological Measurements for
Cement-Based Materials,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 78, Part A,
Dec. 2015, pp. 100-109.
Selected for reader interest by the editors.
Joshua W. Curto joined the concrete
admixtures group at GCP Applied
Technologies in May 2017. He received
his BS in chemical engineering and his
MS in materials science and engineering
from Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
Worcester, MA.
ACI member Nathan Tregger is a Principal
Scientist at GCP Applied Technologies, Inc.,
Cambridge, MA. He is a member of ACI
Committees 212, Chemical Admixtures;
237, Self-Consolidating Concrete; 238,
Workability of Fresh Concrete; 241,
Nanotechnology of Concrete; 304,
Measuring, Mixing, Transporting, and
Placing Concrete; and 552, Cementitious
Grouting. He received his math and civil
engineering degrees from Lafayette College, Easton, PA; his MS
and PhD from Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, focusing on
topics ranging from stochastic modeling of hardened concrete to
fundamental and practical aspects of concrete rheology; and his
MS in innovation from Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | JANUARY 2018 49