Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The LCPC BOX: a cheap and simple technique for yield stress measurements of SCC

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Materials and Structures Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper deals with two simple and cheap techniques to quantify the workability of Self Compacting Concrete (SCC). The first one is the standard slump flow test. It is demonstrated that, although the slump flow test is a good quality control empirical test, it is not correlated to the yield stress of the tested material as the thickness of the sample at flow stoppage is of the same order as the size of the largest particles. The second test, the LCPC box, is an alternative new test developed at LCPC. It fulfills all the conditions needed to correlate the measured empirical value to the yield stress of the SCC tested. The analysis, the description and the protocol of this new test are described in this paper.

Résumé

Deux essais permettant la quantification de l’ouvrabilité d’un Béton AutoPlaçant (BAP) sont analysés. Le premier est l’essai standard d’étalement. Nous démontrons que, malgré le fait que cet essai soit un essai de réception et de contrôle de qualité adapté, il n’est pas corrélé comme le cône d’Abrams au seuil d’écoulement du béton testé, l’épaisseur de l’échantillon à l’arrêt de l’écoulement étant du même ordre de grandeur que les granulats constitutifs. Le deuxième test, l’essai à la boite LCPC, est une nouvelle méthode alternative de mesure du seuil d’un BAP qui remplit toutes les conditions théoriques pour corréler le seuil du matériau à la grandeur mesurée. L’analyse de l’essai, sa description et son protocole opératoire clôturent l’article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. de Larrard F, Hu C (1996) The rheology of fresh high-performance concrete. Cem Concr Res 26(2):283–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Operating manual, the BML viscometer, the viscometer 4, Con Tec, 2000

  3. Tatersall GH, Bloomer SJ (1979) Further development of the two-point test for workability and extension of its range. Mag Concrete Res 31:202-210

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ferraris CF, Brower LE (eds) (2004) Comparison of concrete rheometers: International tests at MB (Cleveland OH, USA) in May, 2003. National Institute of Standards and Technology Internal Report 7154

  5. Coussot P, Ancey C (1999) Rhéophysique des pâtes et des suspensions, EDP Sciences, (in French)

  6. Ferraris CF, Brower LE (eds) (2001) Comparison of concrete rheometers: International tests at LCPC (Nantes, France) in October, 2000. National Institute of Standards and Technology Internal Report 6819

  7. Murata J (1984) Flow and deformation of fresh concrete. Mater Struct 98:117–129

    Google Scholar 

  8. Roussel N, Coussot P (2005) “Fifty-cent rheometer” for yield stress measurements: from slump to spreading flow. J Rheol 49(3):705–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pashias N, Boger DV, Summers J, Glenister DJ (1996) a fifty cent rheometer for yield stress measurements. J Rheol 40(6):1179–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clayton S, Grice TG, Boger DV (2003) Analysis of the slump test for on-site yield stress measurement of mineral suspensions. Int J Miner Proce 70:53–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nguyen QD, Boger DV (1985) Direct yield stress measurement with the vane method. J Rheol 29:335–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Roussel N, Stefani C, Le Roy R, (2005) From mini cone test to Abrams cone test: measurement of cement based materials yield stress using slump tests. Cem Concr Res 35:817–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wallevik O (2003) Rheology—a scientific approach to develop self-compacting concrete. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete, RILEM PRO33 Reykjavik, Iceland, pp 23–31

  16. N’Guyen TLH, Roussel N, Coussot P (2006) Correlation between L-box test and rheological parameters of an homogeneous yield stress fluid. Cem Concr Res 36:1789–1796

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Thi Lien Huong N’Guyen and Z. Toutou for their experimental contribution to the present work and P. Coussot for the always useful discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LCPC, 58 bd Lefebvre, 75732, Paris Cedex 15, France

    Nicolas Roussel

Authors
  1. Nicolas Roussel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolas Roussel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roussel, N. The LCPC BOX: a cheap and simple technique for yield stress measurements of SCC. Mater Struct 40, 889–896 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9230-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9230-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation