Materials and Structures (2006) 39:501–509
DOI 10.1617/s11527-005-9035-2
Correlation between yield stress and slump: Comparison
between numerical simulations and concrete rheometers
results
N. Roussel
Received: 29 June 2005 / Accepted: 21 July 2005

C RILEM 2006
Abstract 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 nu-
merical method and the chosen boundary conditions.
The correlation between slump and yield stress ob-
tained numerically for the ASTM Abrams cone is then
compared to the experimental correlations obtained
by testing concrete with different rheometers dur-
ing comparative studies that were organized at LCPC
Nantes (France) in 2000 and MB Cleveland (USA) in
2003.
Résumé Des résultats de simulations numériques
d’écoulements sont présentés pour deux géométries
d’essais, le cône d’Abrams et le mini cône. La valida-
tion de la méthode numérique et des choix portant sur
les conditions aux limites de l’écoulement est réalisée
par comparaison avec des résultats expérimentaux
sur pâtes de ciment dans le cas du mini cône. La
corrélation obtenue numériquement dans le cas du
cône d’Abrams est ensuite comparée aux corrélations
expérimentales obtenues pour différents rhéomètres à
bétons lors des campagnes de comparaisons orga-
nisées au LCPC Nantes (France) en 2000 et à MB
Cleveland (USA) en 2003.
N. Roussel
LCPC Paris, France
1. Introduction
Fresh cementitious materials, as many materials in in-
dustry or nature, behave as fluids with a yield stress,
which is the minimum stress for irreversible deforma-
tion and flow to occur. This yield stress is an unique
material property and may, in the case of cement pastes
(i.e. fine particles), be measured using conventional
rheological tools. For example, Couette Viscometer [1]
or parallel plates rheometer [2] are used in the labo-
ratory to measure the yield stress value. In the case
of concretes containing coarse aggregates, large scales
rheometers had to be developed (the BTRHEOM [3],
the BML [4] or the two-point test [5]). Even if, in situ,
simpler and cheaper tests such as the slump test [6]
are still often preferred, these apparatus represent a big
step forward in the field of concrete science. However,
there still exists a discrepancy between the various con-
crete rheometers, [7,8]. These apparatus give the same
rheological classification of materials but they do not
give the same absolute values of the rheological pa-
rameters. On the other hand, the slump test does not
give any value of a physical parameter at all. Its result
can not be expressed in physical rheological units but
it has also proved through the years to be able to clas-
sify different materials in terms of their ability to be
cast.
The aim of this paper is to propose a theoretical cor-
relation between slump and yield stress and to compare
it to the experimental correlations obtained in the two
rheometers comparison campaign [7,8]. In the first part
502
Fig. 1 Initial cone shape and cylindrical coordinates.
Table 1 Cone geometries
Cone ASTM Abrams cone paste cone
H0 (mm) 300 50
Rmin (mm) 200 35
Rmax (mm) 100 50
of the present work, results of numerical simulations
are presented for the ASTM Abrams cone [6] and a
paste cone test [9]. The geometries of these molds are
given in Figure 1 and Table 1. It should be noted that
we are not using here what is called mini slump but
the “ASTM C230 flow table conical mold” This cone
is used usually in conjunction with the flow table. It
is not the case here. The originality of the present ap-
proach lies in using a rigorous three dimensional ex-
pression of the behaviour law and plasticity criterion
(read 2.2).
The numerical results are first compared to the
paste cone test results and standard Vane test mea-
surements [10] on cement pastes. The good agree-
ment between the obtained numerical results and ex-
perimental values over a wide range of yield stress
confirms the validity of the numerical approach and
allows us to use the numerical results obtained for
ASTM Abrams cone to predict slump in terms of yield
stress.
In the last part of this paper, the numerical correla-
tion between slump and yield stress is compared to the
correlation between slump and yield stress obtained for
three concrete rheometers: the BTRHEOM, the BML
and the two-point test.
Materials and Structures (2006) 39:501–509
2. Literature study
2.1. Relations between slump and yield stress
Several attempts can be found in the literature in or-
der to relate slump to yield stress. Murata [11] and
Schowalter and Christensen [12] wrote a relation be-
tween slump and yield stress by assuming that the cone
could be divided into two parts. In the upper part, the
shear stress does not reach the yield stress and no flow
occurs. In the lower part of the cone, the shear stress
induced by the self-weight of the material is higher
than the yield stress and flow occurs. The height of the
flowing lower part decreases until the shear stress in
this zone becomes equal to the yield stress, after which
the flow stops. Schowalter and Christensen [12] wrote
a relation between the final total height of the cone
and the yield stress that did not depend on the mould
geometry. This relation or similar ones were success-
fully validated by Clayton and co-workers [13] or Saak
and co-workers [14] in the case of cylindrical moulds.
However, in the case of conical moulds, a discrepancy
between predicted and measured slumps was systemat-
ically obtained. In the above studies, the experimental
results suggested that these relations and the fact that
they did not depend on the mould geometry are valid
for high slumps (i.e. low yield stress) (Clayton and co-
workers [12], Pashias and co-workers [15], Saak and
co-workers [13]). In the case of the ASTM Abrams
cone, Hu and co-workers [16] gave a semi empirical
correlation between the yield stress τ0 (Pa) measured
using the BTRHEOM, the density ρ and the slump
(mm):
(τ0 − 212)
s = 300 − 347 (1)
ρ
2.2. Yield criterion
It should be noted that all the above analytical ap-
proaches involve a unidimensional expression of the
yield criterion and behaviour law: flow occurs or stops
when the shear stress becomes higher or lower than the
yield stress. The other components of the stress ten-
sor are not taken into account when writing a scalar
yield criterion. This greatly simplifies the analysis of
the flow but is valid only if the flow is dominated by
shear stresses (i.e. the diagonal terms of the devia-
toric stress tensor can be neglected compared to the
Materials and Structures (2006) 39:501–509
shear stress). In fact, this assumption is true only in
the ideal two-dimensional case studied by Coussot and
co-workers [17] (very high slumps). This simplifica-
tion is similar to the use of the lubrication theory in
the squeezing flow literature [18]. The squeezing flow
test is a simple compression test carried out on cylin-
drical samples with reduced slenderness. The appa-
ratus consists in two coaxial circular parallel plates,
without any rotation. By using the lubrication theory,
only the shear stress is considered and the flow can be
easily studied but this theory generates what is called
the “squeezing flow paradox”. On the plane of sym-
metry between the two plates, the shear stress equals
zero. The unidimensional yield criterion is of course
not fulfilled and the material should flow as a solid
body (i.e. “plug flow”). But Lipscomb and Denn [19]
have demonstrated that plug regions can not exist in
squeezing flow of yield stress fluids. Clearly a solid
body can not move radially outward with a velocity
that increases with the radial coordinate as the con-
servation equations demand. Wilson [20] has pointed
out that this paradoxical “yielded/unyielded” region is
due to the neglect of the extensional stresses close to
the centre plane where they are of a higher order than
the shear stress. A proper three-dimensional criterion is
thereafter needed to avoid this paradox and Adams and
co-workers [21] can be quoted “a comprehensive yield
criterion is one which is based upon a combination of
all the acting components of the stress”. In this paper,
a 3D yield criterion will be used as it is the only way to
obtain correct quantitative results when the flow is not
a purely shearing flow.
2.3. Numerical simulations
Several authors have also developed numerical simu-
lations of this free surface stoppage flow. Two types
of method are available when trying to simulate the
flow of a rough suspension such as concrete. The first
method consists in only considering an homogeneous
fluid whereas the second one takes into account the
presence of the particles. The homogeneous approach
is easier to implement but is valid only when the small-
est characteristic dimension (thickness of the flow, size
of the mould, spacing between bars) of the flow is high
compared to the size of the biggest particle (5 times
larger for example in [22]) and when the material stays
homogeneous (which seems to be the case during a
slump test on a standard concrete). As accepted in
503
literature, a Bingham model is, in this case, a possi-
ble rheological model. On the other hand, when the
above conditions are not fulfilled, it is then needed to
take into account the presence of the particles [23, 24,
25]. This type of approach is a lot more complex but
is the only suitable technique when confined flows or
flows between steel bars are studied. In this paper, we
will only use an homogeneous approach. As a con-
sequence, the validity of the presented results will be
doubtful when the smallest characteristic dimension of
the flow becomes lower than 5 times the biggest parti-
cles or, in other words, when the slump is higher than
25 cm.
Other authors have previously developed homoge-
neous numerical simulations of the slump flow. Tani-
gawa and Mori [26] developed an innovative visco-
plastic finite element analysis introducing a frictional
interface law at the base of the slumping cone. They
calculated the slump in terms of the yield stress but,
as they did not have any experimental way to measure
the rheological parameters of concrete, they did not
compare their results to experimental measurements.
Later, Schowalter and Christensen [12] compared their
analytical prediction to Tanigawa and Mori numeri-
cal results and found a good agreement. It should be
noted that both predictions were based on a unidimen-
sional plasticity criterion. Hu [27] assumed that the
shape of the deposit stayed conical and calculated the
state of stress using an elastoplastic finite element anal-
ysis. Once again, a unidimensional yield criterion was
considered.
Recently, Chamberlain and co-workers [28] calcu-
lated rigorously stresses in a purely plastic cylindrical
sample using either von Mises or Tresca plasticity crite-
rion in order to determine the height of incipient failure,
which is the height of material required to just initiate
flow for a given cylinder radius. This is equivalent to
calculating the critical yield stress for which flow does
start or does not for a given cylindrical geometry. They
found a discrepancy between the mono dimensional
approximation written by Schowalter and Chistensen
[12] and their three dimensional approach. They also
studied the dependency of the critical yield stress on
the cylinder radius.
2.4. Behaviour at the interface
Most analysis in the literature are carried out assum-
ing sticky flow at the base of the deposit. If we go into
504
further details, the following distinction could be made.
In the case of fluid concretes (i.e. low yield stress, high
slumps), this assumption is probably valid as these con-
cretes behaves just like suspensions but, in the case of
high yield stresses, this assumption should be ques-
tioned. A concrete with a high yield stress may be ob-
tained by two different trends in the mix proportioning.
On one hand, the amount of cement or fine particles
may be high. The colloidal force network that can be
built between these fine particles increases the yield
stress of the mixture. The concrete is similar to a dense
fine suspension and, in this case, the assumption of a
sticking flow is also valid as experimentally obtained by
Pashias [15]. On the other hand, the amount of coarse
particles may be high. The behaviour of the obtained
concrete becomes closer to the behaviour of a cohesive
granular material. In this case, as for a granular ma-
terial, the behaviour at the interface may be frictional.
Because of the uncertainty in the behaviour at the inter-
face, the results obtained with a sticky flow assumption
should be considered with care in the case of high yield
stress concretes as the validity of the assumption of a
sticking flow depends on the tested material aspect and
mix proportioning.
More recently, Chamberlain and co-workers [28]
studied the influence of the plate roughness on the crit-
ical yield stress assuming a coulomb type friction law
at the interface involving a friction coefficient μ equal
to zero for a perfect slip case. They showed that, above
a critical value μc depending on the cylinder radius,
there was no influence of the friction parameter on the
height of incipient failure (or critical yield stress) and
that the interface could then be considered as perfectly
rough. They also showed that the difference between
height of incipient failure predicted for the perfect slip
(μ = 0) and perfectly rough (μc = 0) cases increased
from zero for small radii to 18% for a radius equal to
2τ0 /ρg. In the case of typical concrete, this reference
radius becomes 0.16 m (yield stress of the order of mag-
nitude of 2000 Pa and density around 2500 kg/m3 ). The
radius of the ASTM Abrams cone being equal to 0.1
m, the error made while neglecting the friction at the
interface in the case of concrete should be lower than
18% for low slumps and high yield stress.
2.5. Effect of the inertia
In all the above analytical studies, inertia (or dynamic)
effects are neglected. Because of this simplifying
Materials and Structures (2006) 39:501–509
assumption, the influence of the lifting speed of the
mould (that depends on the operator) or of the plastic
viscosity (if a Bingham model is chosen to describe
the material behaviour) on the measured slump have
not been studied: the velocity of the flow and its ki-
netic energy are not taken into account and the final
shape is calculated as a quasi static state assuming it is
reached slowly enough. In other words, what happens
before stoppage of the flow does not influence the shape
at stoppage. Tatersall and Banfill [29] experimentally
concluded that the slump of fresh concrete is indeed
highly correlated with yield stress but is not signifi-
cantly affected by the plastic viscosity. This conclusion
was also reached by Murata [11]. Let us check here that
neglecting inertia effects is a correct assumption on a
theoretical point of view: let us roughly compare the
typical inertia stress (I = ρV 2 ) to the material yield
stress. For a small slump the flow duration is of the or-
der of magnitude of 1s for a slump of the order of 10 cm.
We thus have I ≈ 20 Pa, a value much smaller than the
material yield stress in that case (typically larger than
several hundreds of Pa). For a large slump the flow du-
ration is of the order of magnitude of 2–3 s for a slump
of the order of 20 cm. We thus have again I ≈ 20 Pa, a
value once again much smaller than the material yield
stress in that case (typically larger than several tenths
of Pascals). This confirms the experimental deductions
of [29] and [11].
As the final shape only depends on the yield stress
and as the final shape is the only point of interest for
the engineer, we will only study this aspect of the flow
in his paper.
3. Numerical simulations
The cylindrical frame of reference (O, r, θ, z) is shown
on Figure 1. p is the pressure,  is the stress tensor
and  (d) is the deviatoric stress tensor. s is the slump.
s is the dimensionless slump and τ0 the dimensionless
yield stress as defined by Showalter and Christensen
[12].
s = s/H0
τ0 = t0 /ρg H0
It can already be noted here that, although this scal-
ing was suitable for Schowalter results, it does not apply
Materials and Structures (2006) 39:501–509
so well to the present results as they appear to depend
on the cone geometry. We chose to use this scaling
however as it allows us to plot the predicted results for
the two studied geometries on the same figure.
As already stated, in this work, we wanted to im-
plement a proper three dimensional yield criterion (see
2.2). A 3D Bingham model was thus used to describe
the tested fluid behaviour. Moreover, in order to avoid
the undetermination of the strain state when the yield
criterion is not fulfilled, the material was assumed to be-
have as an incompressible elastic solid up to the yield
stress, beyond which it behaves as a Bingham fluid.
Other methods exist to avoid this undetermination such
as the biviscosity model introduced by O’Donovan and
Tanner [30] or the exponential model proposed by Pa-
panastasiou [31] but, as whether or not flow starts is
concerned, it was of particular interest to use a type of
model where a situation of no flow at all (just deforma-
tion) can exist. This was the case here. The computa-
R
tional fluid mechanics code Flow3D [32] was chosen
R
to solve the fluid mechanics equation. Flow3D is a
general purpose computer program with many capa-
bilities. Using input data, the user can select different
physical options to represent a wide variety of fluid
flow phenomena. The program can be operated in sev-
eral modes corresponding to different limiting cases
of the general fluid equations. In the opinion of the
present author, FLOW3D is very user friendly when
dealing with otherwise complex free surface transient
flow of non Newtonian fluids.
The invariant generalization of a Bingham fluid used
here is the one proposed by Oldroyd [33] based on the
three dimensional von Mises yield criterion:
  1/2  
 1  yielded zone (usual in this type of simulation) can be
 (d) = τ0  d : d  + η d, 1  (d) :  (d) ≥ τ 2
2  2 0
where d is the strain rate tensor and η the plastic vis-
cosity. When the flow is dominated by shear stress and
shear rate, the previous relation simplifies to the famous
Bingham scalar model:
τ = τ0 + η · γ , τ ≥ τ 0
The generated grid in the case of the paste cone is
shown in Figure 2. The one used for the ASTM Abrams
cone is similar. The cell size is smaller in the zones
where the shearing is the highest.
505
Fig. 2 Calculation grid and initial hydrostatic pressure in the
cement paste before lifting of the paste cone mould. Note that
the horizontal to vertical scale ratio is not equal to 1.
The initial pressure is hydrostatic and the speed at
which the mould is numerically lifted is infinite as
the mould simply disappeared at t = 0 s. This “bru-
tal” lifting could have generated non negligible iner-
tia effects taken into account by the code. The final
predicted shape could have been affected by the high
mean kinetic energy of the flow that is not, as in real-
ity, dissipated by the lifting of the mould. To solve this
problem, we chose to study numerical fluids with high
plastic viscosity. This indeed generated slow flows, in
which inertia effects were negligible no matter the lift-
ing speed. The calculations were thus carried out with
a plastic viscosity equal to 300 Pa.s for concrete in the
ASTM Abrams cone and 10 Pa.s for cement paste in the
paste cone (far above the traditional plastic viscosities
of these materials). It may be reminded here that, as
the final shape only depends on the yield stress when
inertia effects are negligible which is the case of the
real ASTM Abrams cone (read 2.5), the values chosen
for the plastic viscosity do not matter. The obtained nu-
merical results are plotted on Figure 3. Examples of
two dimensional predicted shapes are shown on Figure
4 for the ASTM Abrams cone. The presence of an un-
noted.
The calculated values of the slump confirm the fact
that slump depends of course on yield stress and den-
sity but also on the tested volume and initial height.
Indeed, the predicted dimensionless slump is differ-
ent for the two cone geometries. As already stated, the
scaling suggested by Schowalter and Christensen [12],
although suitable for his own experimental results, does
not apply here.
4. Comparison with experimental results
Measurements were carried out using the paste cone
geometry given in Table 1 while the yield stress
506 Materials and Structures (2006) 39:501–509

Fig. 3 Dimensionless slump in terms of dimensionless yield

stress for the ASTM Abrams cone and paste cone. Both numerical
predictions and experimental results are plotted for the paste cone
test.

was measured using the Vane procedure described by

N’Guyen and Boger [10]. It can be noted that two dif-
ferent Vane test geometries were used on the HAAKE

R
ViscoTester VT550 to measure the yield stresses of
the tested mixtures. Indeed, as the yield stresses of the
studied mixtures varied from 0.6 Pa to 300 Pa, it was
necessary to change the geometry of the rotating tool
in order to measure an acceptable torque with a suffi-
cient precision. Several types of cements and mix pro-
portioning were tested but the mixing procedure was
Fig. 4 Examples of obtained shapes for the ASTM Abrams
always the same: the dry ingredients are first mixed for cone (a) yield stress = 2600 Pa (b) yield stress = 2000 Pa. Den-
2 min at the lowest mixer rpm setting (260 rpm), then sity = 2500 kg/m3 for both simulations.
the fluids are added and all are mixed for 2 min. The
mixer is then stopped to scrape its edges. A higher ro-
tation speed (700 rpm) is applied for 15 min followed time between the filling of the mould and its lifting to
by a 15 min final mixing phase at the lowest mixer rpm prevent any thixotropic effect from increasing the yield
setting. This chosen mixing procedure had two advan- stress. The mould was slowly lifted in order to elimi-
tages: it ensured good particle dispersions in the fluid nate any inertial effects that could take place. But, as
phase and gave any chemical binders enough time to different operators realized these tests, this slow lift-
act. ing speed was probably not constant. The spread and
The cone experimental results were obtained by var- height measurements were done after a 2 min waiting
ious users over a year period. The plate surface was the time. For each test, two perpendicular diameters and
same for all the tests. The maximum particle size of the maximum thickness of the collapsed sample were
these materials was 100 μm. It was largely smaller measured. The obtained results are plotted on Figure 3.
than the characteristic size of the mould. It was also The agreement between the numerical simulations and
smaller than the minimum height measured after col- the experimental results is very good. The experimental
lapsing of the sample (4 mm). There was no waiting critical dimensionless yield stress seems to be around
Materials and Structures (2006) 39:501–509
0.58. It is however difficult to precisely check the value
of this critical yield stress as it is impossible not to de-
form the cone while lifting the mould. The good agree-
ment between numerical and experimental results on
the entire studied range of yield stress confirm the fact
that no sliding occurs at the base of the deposit and that
the use of a proper three-dimensional plastic criterion
allows a correct quantitative numerical prediction of
the final slump.
5. Astm abrams cone and concrete rheometers
The validation of the proposed numerical method ob-
tained in the previous section allowed us to use the
proposed numerical method to predict the ASTM cone
slump in terms of the tested concrete yield stress. Apart
from the possible sliding at the interface that may occur
in the case of high yield stress concretes (see §2.4), the
flow in the case of the ASTM Abrams cone is identi-
cal. The numerical correlation between slump in mm
and the ratio yield stress/density is plotted on Figure 5
along with the experimental results obtained in the two
rheometers comparison campaign. MBT-LCPC com-
parison carried out at LCPC (Nantes, France) in 2000
[7] and at MB (Cleveland, USA) in 2003 [8]. It has to
Fig. 5 Yield stress-slump correlations. Experimental results for
various rheometers and numerical correlations.
507
be emphasized that we do not have at the moment any
way to measure the real value of the yield stress. It has
been proven in [7] and [8] that the rheometers did not
give the same results. This does not mean that one is
correct and the others are wrong, this could mean that
they are all wrong or at least that none of them is cor-
rect on the entire range of yield stress tested. Thus, the
yet unanswered question is “What is the real correla-
tion between yield stress and slump?” In the frame of
this paper, this means that we do not have any way to
conclude on the validity on the simulations in the case
of concrete unless by reminding that they proved to be
very efficient to simulate the flow of cement pastes and
that all the theoretical assumptions to carry valid simu-
lations in the case of concrete are fulfilled in the range
of 5 to 25 cm slump.
It should be emphasized that, as the behaviour at the
base of the deposit is unknown for high yield stresses
(possible sliding, read Section 2.4.), the validity of the
obtained numerical results should be limited to slumps
higher than 5 cm. Moreover, for slumps higher than
25 cm, the thickness of the flowing layer of concrete
becomes of the same order as the size of the biggest
aggregate and the homogeneous fluid mechanics ap-
proach proposed here is not valid any more (read Sec-
tion 2.3.).
However, from the numerical predicted results, a
simple linear approximation may be written for slumps
between 5 cm and 25 cm.
τ0
s = 25.5 − 17.6 (2)
ρ
It is not the aim of the present work to conclude about
the efficiency of any concrete rheometer compared to
another. However, it seems that, in the 5–25 cm slump
range, the BTRheom correlation between measured
yield stress and measured slump is the closest to the
numerical correlation. For the lowest yield stresses and
the highest slumps, it seems that the BTRheom correla-
tion overestimates the yield stress. This may be linked
to the fact that the sliding assumption at the peripheral
interface needed in the analysis of the BTRheom data is
correct in the traditional concrete range (see §2.4) but,
when the yield stress becomes lower, the behaviour
at the interface becomes sticky and the shear stress
at the interface may not be neglected any more com-
pared to the measured yield stress. The spontaneous
formation of a limit layer (made up with water and fine
508
elements) limiting the friction may not occur for low
yield stress concrete that behave just like traditional
suspensions and the flow pattern may differ from the
theoretical one used to calculate the yield stress from
the torque measurements. During the comparison cam-
paign at MB (Cleveland, USA) [8], this specificity of
the BTRHEOM was already spotted when comparing
the various rheometers by measuring purely viscous
oils. Concerning the two other apparatus, their main
potential drawbacks may be reminded here:
- The ratio between the gap between the BML cylin-
ders and the maximum particle size is small. In the
geometry used in [8], the gap was only 45 mm, thus
only allowing, on a theoretical point of view, the test-
ing of concretes with particles smaller than 9 mm
[22]. When it is not the case, the consequence, if
there is one, is very difficult to predict. However, in
the case of fluid concretes such as Self Compacting
Concretes (SCC) often prepared with smaller parti-
cles, the BML could prove the most suitable of the
three apparatus in the opinion of the present author.
It can be noted that the BML correlation between
yield stress and slumps gets closer to the numerical
predictions obtained here when the yield stress is of
the order of several hundreds Pa.
- Because of the complexity of the flow in the two-
points test, the stress (or velocity) field can not be rig-
orously calculated. The rheological parameters are
simply extrapolated from the global measurements
without taking into account the fact that some non
flowing zones, the sizes of which depend on the ro-
tation speed and of the tested material itself, might
appear in the sample closed to the rotating impeller
or to the external walls. However, in the case of
fluid concretes or SCC, this phenomenon may be
neglectible. As for the BML, the two points test cor-
relation between yield stress and slumps gets closer
to the numerical predictions obtained here when the
yield stress decreases below the order of several hun-
dreds Pa.
6. Conclusion
In the first part of the present work, results of numer-
ical simulations using a three dimensional expression
of the behaviour law and plasticity criterion for the
ASTM Abrams cone and a paste cone test have been
Materials and Structures (2006) 39:501–509
presented. The obtained numerical results have been
first compared to paste cone test results and standard
Vane test measurements on cement pastes. The good
agreement between the obtained numerical results and
experimental values over a wide range of yield stress
have confirmed the validity of the proposed numerical
approach and its associated boundary conditions and
allowed us to use the numerical results obtained for
ASTM cone to predict slump in terms of yield stress. A
simple numerical correlation between slump and yield
stress has then been proposed.
In the last part of this paper, this numerical correla-
tion has been compared to the experimental correlation
between slump and yield stress obtained for three con-
crete rheometers: the BTRHEOM, the BML and the
two-point test during comparison campaigns held in
2000 and 2003. It seems that, in the range of traditional
concretes (slump between 50 mm and 250 mm), there
is a good agreement between the BTRHEOM measure-
ment and the theoretical prediction.
References
1. Shaughnessy R, Clark PE (1988) The rheological behaviour
of fresh cement pastes. Cem Concr Res, 18:327–341.
2. Nehdi M, Rahman M-A (2004) Estimating rheological prop-
erties of cement pastes using various rheological models for
different test geometry, gap and surface friction. Cement
Concrete Res., 34:1993–2007.
3. De Larrard F, Hu C (1996) The rheology of fresh high-
performance concrete. Cem Conc Res, 26(2):283–294.
4. Operating manual (2000) the BML viscometer, the viscome-
ter 4, Con Tec.
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.
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.
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.
8. Ferraris CF, Brower LE editors (2004) Comparison of con-
crete rheometers: International tests at MB (Cleveland OH,
USA) in May, 2003. National Institute of Standards and
Technology Interagency Report (NISTIR) 7154.
9. ASTM Designation C230/C230M-03, Standard Specifica-
tion for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 04.01, Am. Soc. Test.
Mat., Easton, MD (2004).
Materials and Structures (2006) 39:501–509
10. Nguyen QD, Boger DV (1985) Direct yield stress measure-
ment with the vane method. J. Rheol., 29:335–347.
11. Murata J (1984) Flow and deformation of fresh concrete.
Materials and Structures RILEM, 98:117–129.
12. Schowalter WR, Christensen G (1998) Toward a ratio-
nalization of the slump test for fresh concrete: compar-
isons of calculations and experiments. J. Rheol., 42(4):865–
870.
13. Clayton S, Grice TG, Boger DV (2003) Analysis of the slump
test for on-site yield stress measurement of mineral suspen-
sions. Int. J. Miner. Process., 70:53–21.
14. Saak AW, Jennings HM, Shah SP (2004) A generalized ap-
proach for the determination of yield stress by slump and
slump flow. Cem Concr Res 34:363–371.
15. Pashias N, Boger DV, Summers J, Glenister DJ (1996) a
fifty cent rheometer for yield stress measurements. J. Rheol.
40(6):1179–1189.
16. Hu C, de Larrard F, Sedran T, Boulay C, Bosc F, Deflo-
renne F (1996) Validation of BTRHEOM, the new rheometer
for soft-to-fluid concrete. Materials and Structures, RILEM,
29(194):620–631.
17. Coussot P, Proust S, Ancey C (1996) Rheological interpre-
tation of deposits of yield stress fluids. Journal of Non-
Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 66(1):55–70.
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.
19. Lipscomb GG, Denn MM (1984) Flow of Bingham fluids in
complex geometries. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 14:337–
346.
20. Wilson SDR (1993) Squeezing flow of a Bingham material.
J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 47:211–219.
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.
509
22. Coussot P, Ancey C (1999) Rhéophysique des pâtes et des
suspensions, EDP Sciences, (in French).
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.
24. Martys NS (2005) Study of a dissipative particle dynamics
based approach for modeling suspensions. Journal of Rhe-
ology 49(2):401–424.
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 En-
gineering, The Norwegian University of Science and Tech-
nology.
26. Tanigawa Y, Mori H (1989) Analytical study on deforma-
tion of fresh concrete, Journal of Engineering Mechanics
115(3):493–508.
27. Hu C (1995) Rheologie des bétons fluids (rheology of fluid
concretes), thèse de doctorat de l’ENPC (PhD Thesis) France
(In French).
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.
29. Tatersall GH, Banfill PGF (1983) The Rheology of Fresh
Concrete, Pitman, London.
30. O’Donovan EJ, Tanner RI (1984) Numerical study of the
Bingham squeeze film problem. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid
Mech, 15:75–83.
31. Papanastasiou TC (1987) Flows of Materials with yield. J.
Rheol., 31:385–404.
32. Flow3D version 8.1, User’s manual, volume 1, 2004.
33. Oldroyd JG (1947) A rational formulation of the equations of
plastic flow for a Bingham solid. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc.,
43:100–105.