Correlating Aggregate Properties and Concrete Rheology

to Dynamic Segregation of Self-Consolidating Concrete

Lin Shen 1; Hamed Bahrami Jovein 2; and Qian Wang 3

Abstract: Segregation is a common problem in self-consolidating concrete (SCC), which is sensitive to mix proportions such as super-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 09/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

plasticizer dosage, as well as the size, volume, and gradation of the aggregate. Dynamic segregation, when coarse aggregate lags behind
during the flowing process, is distinguishable from static segregation, when coarse aggregate settles in concrete at rest. In the research
reported in this paper, a flow trough and a concrete rheometer were used to study the effects of various aggregate properties and concrete
rheology on dynamic segregation of SCC. An equation for the drag force was found useful to understand how various mix proportions and
concrete rheology affecting dynamic segregation. Higher paste volume, lower superplasticizer percent by weight of cement, lower slump
flow, smaller coarse aggregate, and better gradation may increase dynamic stability. Smaller aggregate size has more significant effect than
other aggregate properties. Mixtures with dynamic yield stress less than 50 Pa exhibited severe segregation from both flow trough and visual
stability index (VSI) tests. Mixtures with static yield stress of 250 Pa or higher had satisfactory dynamic stability, while mixtures with static
yield stress of 100 Pa or lower showed severe dynamic segregation. No clear correlation was observed between concrete plastic viscosity and
dynamic segregation. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001325. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Segregation; Dynamic segregation; Stability; Self-consolidating concrete (SCC); Flow trough; Rheology.

Introduction
Segregation refers to movement of the coarse aggregate relative to
the mortar and segregation resistance is a critical functional require-
ment for self-consolidating concrete (SCC; Khayat 1999). Exces-
sive segregation may cause lower flowability, aggregate blocking,
higher drying shrinkage, and nonuniform compressive strength.
Two distinguishable types of segregation may exist in a mixture, as
follows: (1) static segregation, and (2) dynamic segregation. Static
segregation is the separation of mortar and coarse aggregate when
the concrete is at rest, typically in a vertical direction after place-
ment. And dynamic segregation occurs when coarse aggregate lags
behind mortar while the concrete is flowing, generally in a near
horizontal direction while being cast into the formwork.
Compared with ordinary concrete, the composition and rheo-
logical properties of SCC should be closely controlled in order to
satisfy the requirements of flowability, passing ability, and segre-
gation resistance simultaneously. Small fluctuations of the plastic
viscosity and yield stress of paste (as a result of changes in w=cm
and other properties of cement such as fineness), and the size,
volume, gradation, as well as moisture content of the fine and
coarse aggregates could adversely affect workability, composition,
and durability (Bonen and Shah 2005).
Researches have shown that segregation can be controlled by
limiting free-water content and incorporating fine powders such
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Hawaii, Manoa, HI 96822 (corresponding author). E-mail:
linshen@hawaii.edu
2
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Hawaii, Manoa, HI 96822. E-mail: hamedbj@hawaii.edu
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY 10471.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 9, 2014; approved on
March 6, 2015; published online on May 18, 2015. Discussion period open
until October 18, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for indivi-
dual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/04015067(9)/$25.00.
as silica fume, fly ash, or limestone filler (Khayat 1999; Daczko
2002; Khatib 2008). A viscosity-modifying admixture (VMA)
may also be utilized to reduce segregation by enhancing the mix-
ture’s capacity to retain free water and increasing the viscosity of
the suspended liquid phase (Khayat et al. 2004; Lachemi et al.
2004; Leeman and Winnefeld 2007). Decreasing slump flow (in-
creasing concrete yield stress), water:cement (W:C) ratio, paste
volume, aggregate size, increasing plastic viscosity, as well as using
well-graded coarse aggregate may reduce dynamic segregation
(Esmaeikhanian et al. 2014). Regardless of these strategies, segre-
gation problems are still commonly observed in SCC mixtures.
And there is still a lack of understanding of the mechanism of how
various aggregate properties and the rheology of cement paste and
concrete affecting dynamic segregation.
The main objective of the research reported in this paper is
to study the effects of aggregate properties and concrete rheology
on dynamic segregation of SCC mixtures based on experimental
tests and rheological models. The test methods to assess dynamic
segregation included the VSI [ASTM C1611 (ASTM 2007)] and
flow trough test (Shen et al. 2008).
Experimental Program
Details of Materials
Type I portland cement complying with ASTM C150/C150M-12
(ASTM 2012b) and Type C fly ash complying with ASTM
C618-12a (ASTM 2012a) were used. Coarse Aggregate (CA) 1,
i.e., CA1, is crushed basalt rock, has maximum size of 19 mm,
and Coarse Aggregate CA2 is crushed basalt rock, has maximum
size of 9.5 mm. The properties and the gradation curve of coarse and
fine aggregate (FA) are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1, respectively.
A polycarboxylate-based superplasticizer (SP) was used. It was
a solution with a specific gravity of 1.06 and a solid content of
35%. The VMA (methylhydroxyethylcellulose) used had a specific
gravity of 1.00 and a solid content of 35%.

© ASCE 04015067-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 Table 1. Aggregate Properties
Aggregate Bulk density Bulk specific gravity, Fineness modulus, Absorption Packing density
name [kg=m3 (lb=ft3 )] dimensionless dimensionless capacity (%) dimensionless
CA1 1,473 (93.07) 2.74 3.97 2.66 0.54
CA2 1,491 (90.53) 2.7 2.95 3.61 0.54
FA1 1,460 (91.13) 2.71 1.55 2.3 0.54
FA2 1,675 (104.67) 2.64 3.5 5.16 0.63

100 • Mixer was restarted, and SP and/or VMA were slowly poured
CA2
90 and mixed for 2 min before the slump flow, flow trough, and
CA1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 09/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cumulative Passing (%)

80
FA1
70
FA2
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 quantify dynamic segregation accurately and effectively. For static
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve Size (mm)
Fig. 1. Gradation curves of coarse and fine aggregates
Mix Proportions
As shown in Table 2, a total of 29 mixtures were tested to study the
effects of aggregate volume, size, gradation, and packing density,
mineral and chemical admixtures, and concrete viscosity and yield
stress on dynamic segregation.
Four basic types of mixtures were designed, as follows:
(1) graded aggregate (GA), (2) mineral admixture (MA), (3) VMA,
and (4) well-balanced (WB). Graded aggregate mixtures had three
types of aggregate, relatively high packing density, and a FA:CA
ratio of 1. Mineral admixture mixtures used fly ash to increase paste
volume, had two types of aggregates, and a FA:CA ratio of 1. The
VMA mixtures used VMA to improve the viscosity, had two types
of aggregate, and a FA:CA ratio of 0.87. Well-balanced mixtures
combined the benefits of VMA and graded aggregate mixtures.
Within each basic mixture type, the volume, gradation, packing
density, maximum size of aggregate, as well as slump flow may
also be modified to explore the effects of these properties on dy-
namic segregation. Labels þ5% P, −5% P, LS, HP, and SA indicate
that compared with the basic mixture, a modified mixture has 5%
more paste volume, 5% less paste volume, lower slump flow, higher
aggregate packing density, and smaller coarse aggregate size, re-
spectively. For example, GA þ5% P mixture has 5% higher paste
volume than the basic GA mixture, and VMA-HP mixture has
higher aggregate packing density than the basic VMA mixture.
Mixing Procedure
Each batch of concrete has a volume of about 43 L (1.5 ft3 ) and was
prepared in a drum mixer with a capacity of 58 L (2 ft3 ). The fol-
lowing procedure was used:
• Sand, coarse aggregate, and one-third of water were put in a
drum mixer and mixed for 30 s;
• Cement and mineral admixture, if any, were put in the mixer and
mixed for 3 min and remaining water was slowly added during
the first minute of mixing process;
• Mixer was stopped for 3 min; and
rheology tests.
The fresh concrete performance data right after mixing is not
inevitably representative for the concrete performance after a while
and over the course of time
Dynamic Segregation Test
To study dynamic segregation of SCC, it is important to be able to
segregation, commonly used methods include column segrega-
tion [ASTM C1610/C1610M-10 (ASTM 2010)], penetration test
[ASTM C1712-09 (ASTM 2009)], V-funnel test (JSCE 1999),
electrical conductivity (Jolicoeur et al. 2000), sieve segregation re-
sistance test (EFNARC 2005), hardened visual stability index [VSI;
AASHTO PP58-08 (AASHTO 2008)], image analysis of hardened
cylinder (Shen et al. 2005), and segregation probe (Shen et al. 2007;
Shen and Bahrami 2013), among others. The V-funnel, L-box,
U-box, and J-ring tests (Khayat et al. 2004; Assaad et al. 2004)
do not predict segregation directly, but are related to both static
and dynamic segregation by considering the rheological properties
measured by these tests (Tregger et al. 2012). The only specific
standarderized method directly measuring dynamic segregation is
the visual stability index determined by observation of the periph-
ery of concrete during the slump flow test [ASTM C1611 (ASTM
2007)]. A VSI value from 0 and 1 (stable) to 2 and 3 (unstable) can
be given based on criteria in ASTM C1611 (ASTM 2007). Since
the VSI value was based on observation of a very small flow length,
it was found to only provide a rough estimation of dynamic seg-
regation and some researchers question whether it identifies static
or dynamic segregation (Tregger et al. 2010). Other methods such
as the V-funnel (JSCE 1999), LCPC method (Roussel 2007), and
sieve segregation resistance test (EFNARC 2005) can also give use-
ful information on predicting dynamic segregation, although these
tests do not provide direct measurements of dynamic segregation.
A reliable dynamic segregation test is urgently needed in order to
better quantify dynamic segregation and understand the mecha-
nisms responsible.
A satisfactory laboratory test for dynamic segregation should
meet the following requirements: (1) flowing distance should be
long enough to give useful information about dynamic segregation
in typical field conditions, (2) test should be sensitive enough to
detect meaningful differences in dynamic segregation, (3) apparatus
should be portable and the amount of sample concrete should be
small enough for both laboratory and field applications, and (4) test
results must be sufficiently precise and accurate that results can be
used with confidence.
To meet these requirements, the flow trough shown in Fig. 2 was
developed (Shen et al. 2008). It was made by assembling 25-mm
(1-in.) thick wood boards to form a 0.15 × 0.15 × 1.80 m (6 in: ×
6 in: × 6 ft:) trough. The 0.23-m (9-in.) height difference between
two ends gives a 7° angle of inclination, which was found to be
the smallest slope that allowed the SCC to flow to the lower

© ASCE 04015067-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 09/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 2. Proportions of SCC Mixtures

Material (kg=m3 ) Aggregate propertiesa Admixture (mL=m3 )

© ASCE
Mix Cement, Fly ash, Aggregate CA1 Viscosity-modifying
Mix Mix type identifier Water:cement Type 1 Class C CA1 CA2 FA1 FA2 Water (%) FA:CA (%) ϕm Superplasticizer admixture
1 Graded aggregate GA 0.35 450 107 198 579 756 0 195 59 1.00 0.13 0.67 9,707 0
2 GA-LS 0.35 450 107 198 579 756 195 59 1.00 0.13 0.67 3,269 0
3 GA-HS 0.35 450 107 198 579 756 195 59 1.00 0.13 0.67 10,576 0
4 GA þ 5% P 0.35 506 120 181 530 692 219 54 1.00 0.13 0.67 7,908 0
5 GA − 5% P 0.35 394 94 214 629 821 171 64 1.00 0.13 0.67 11,696 0
6 GA-A 0.38 405 96 193 989 557 190 64 0.47 0.11 0.70 8,974 0
7 GA-A 0.38 486 93 178 688 739 219 59 0.85 0.11 0.68 3,481 0
8 GA-A 0.46 372 88 208 650 844 213 63 1.00 0.12 0.73 5,175 0
9 Mineral admixture MA 0.31 442 239 693 0 678 211 53 1.01 0.50 0.65 9,299 0
10 MA-LS 0.31 442 239 693 678 211 53 1.01 0.50 0.65 5,000 0
11 MA-HS 0.31 442 239 693 678 211 53 1.01 0.50 0.65 10,692 0
12 MA þ 5% P 0.31 487 263 627 621 233 48 1.01 0.50 0.65 8,804 0
13 MA − 5% P 0.31 398 215 749 743 190 58 1.01 0.50 0.65 10,501 0
14 MA-A 0.39 393 212 168 647 683 234 56 0.85 0.11 0.71 9,018 0
15 MA-A 0.39 393 212 168 647 683 234 56 0.85 0.11 0.71 5,881 1,567
16 MA-A 0.39 358 194 196 612 794 213 60 1.00 0.12 0.73 7,906 0
17 Viscosity-modifying VMA 0.41 515 0 854 0 729 209 62 0.87 0.53 0.66 3,051 1,371
18 admixture VMA-LS1 0.41 515 854 729 209 62 0.87 0.53 0.66 2,370 1,371
19 VMA-LS2 0.41 515 854 729 209 62 0.87 0.53 0.66 2,716 1,371
20 VMA-HS 0.41 515 854 729 209 62 0.87 0.53 0.66 4,807 1,371
21 VMA þ 5% P 0.41 582 783 670 236 57 0.87 0.53 0.66 2,823 809
22 VMA − 5% P 0.41 447 923 789 181 67 0.87 0.53 0.66 3,497 881
23 HP 0.41 585 468 593 585 238 59 0.56 0.28 0.71 8,044 1,360

04015067-3
24 VMA-A 0.51 467 469 593 586 238 61 0.56 0.28 0.71 4,651 1,683

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

25 VMA-A 0.51 457 186 718 759 234 62 0.85 0.11 0.71 5,813 4,809
26 Well-balanced WB-SA 0.42 474 0 712 188 748 199 63 1.34 0.00 0.66 4,090 1,424
27 WB1 0.42 502 533 115 222 743 211 61 1.53 0.33 0.74 3,383 1,131
28 WB2 0.42 502 509 136 445 522 211 61 1.53 0.31 0.71 5,007 1,131
29 WB3 0.36 502 534 142 467 547 181 64 1.53 0.31 0.71 6,495 646
a
CA = course aggregate; and FC = fine aggregate.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 Fig. 2. Flow trough for dynamic segregation; trough dimensions are
0.15 × 0.15 × 1.80 m (6 in: × 6 in: × 6 ft; image by Hamed Bahrami
Jovein)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 09/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

end. The surface of the trough was painted to make it water-

resistant and easy to wash.
The test was performed based on the following procedure:
• Before the test, the surface of trough was slightly wetted with
water and superficial water was wiped off;
• Fresh concrete was measured using a single lift into one
100 × 200 mm (4 × 8 in:) cylinder mold, one 150 × 300 mm
Fig. 3. Vane-type concrete rheometer (image by Hamed Bahrami
(6 × 12 in:) cylinder mold, and a water-tight container having
Jovein)
a volume of around 13.5 L (∼3.5 gal.);
• The concrete in the 150 × 300 m mold was poured onto the
trough from the higher end as a priming step;
• After the concrete stopped flowing, the trough was straightened
up vertically for 30 s to let the priming concrete flow off and
leave a mortar layer on the trough surface;
• The trough was then put back into initial inclined position and
the concrete in 13.5-L container was poured gradually and con-
tinuously on the trough from the higher end;
• An empty 100 × 200 mm (4 × 8 in:) mold was filled with the
leading portion of concrete flowing through the trough;
• Coarse aggregates were collected from the concrete samples
in the two 100 × 200 mm molds, one collected at the beginning
of the flow test and the other collected at the end of the test, Fig. 4. Rheological protocol to determine yield stress and viscosity of
by washing the concrete samples over a 4.8-mm (0.19-in.) concrete for the vane-type rheometer
No. 4 sieve;
• Each coarse aggregate sample was weighed; and
• The dynamic segregation index (DSI) was then calculated as perpendicular directions. A visual stability index ranges from 0
(stable) and 1 (stable), to 2 (unstable) and 3 (unstable) was assigned
DSI ¼ ðwCA1 − wCA2 Þ=wCA1 ð1Þ
to the mixture by observation of the separation of mortar and coarse
where wCA1 = weight of coarse aggregate in the first mold, col- aggregate of the slump flow patty.
lected at the beginning of the test; and wCA2 = weight of coarse
aggregate in the second mold, collected at the end of the test. Concrete Rheology Test
The purposes of the priming step are to eliminate variations in
surface friction when different materials are used to construct the Rheological properties were measured using a portable rheometer
flow trough, and to better simulate the actual situation in the field, with vane geometry (Fig. 3). After the mixture was prepared in
where SCC typically flows over previously poured concrete. accordance with the steps in the section of mixing procedure
The flow trough can be used in the laboratory or in the field and transferred into the rheometer, a stress growth test was per-
and dynamic segregation measured using this test was shown to formed immediately to determine the static (at-rest) yield stress.
correlate well with dynamic segregation observed in the field (Shen A stress growth test involves rotating the vane at a low, constant
et al. 2008). speed of 0.025 revolutions=s while monitoring the buildup in
torque and the maximum measured torque used to calculate yield
stress. Then a flow curve test was performed immediately. The test
Slump Flow Test
protocol consisted of a 20-s preshear period at a constant speed of
The slump flow test followed the procedure in ASTM C1611 0.50 revolutions=s and then seven flow curve points in descending
(ASTM 2007) and was performed on a flat, smooth, and level steel order from 0.50 to 0.05 revolutions=s (Fig. 4). The purpose of the
plate with a size of 1 × 1 m. After raw materials were thoroughly preshear period is to minimize the effects of thixotropy and to pro-
mixed in a drum mixer according to steps listed in the Mixing vide a consistent shear history. The dynamic yield stress and plastic
Procedure section, fresh concrete was transferred to a bucket viscosity were calculated from the flow curve. The calculation of
and filled into an inversed slump cone with one lift without tamp- the Bingham model parameters of yield stress and plastic viscosity
ing. The top surface of the concrete was then trowelled flat and the is based on the Reiner–Riwlin equation. Different concrete rheom-
slump cone was lifted carefully and vertically to allow the concrete eters apply different geometries; therefore, significant difference
to flow under its own weight. The slump flow was measured after could exist between rheological parameters obtained from different
concrete stopped as the average diameter of the concrete pie in two rheometers.

© ASCE 04015067-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 Table 3. Experimental Results of SCC mixtures
Visual Dynamic Plastic
Mix Slump stability segregation Static yield Dynamic yield viscosity
Mix Mix type identifier Water:cement mm index index (%) stress (Pa) stress (Pa) (Pa · s)
1 Graded aggregate GA 0.35 710 1 5 164.1 113.9 6.1
2 GA-LS 0.35 610 0 15 —
3 GA-HS 0.35 762 2 22 5.8 0.1 21.9
4 GA þ 5% P 0.35 710 1 11 134.7 125.0 1.2
5 GA − 5% P 0.35 710 1 14 304.0 234.0 5.5
6 GA-A 0.38 660 3 10 —
7 GA-A 0.38 686 1 8
8 GA-A 0.46 710 0 7
9 Mineral admixture MA 0.31 710 0 3 188.8 64.8 14.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 09/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10 MF-LS 0.31 635 0 3 —

11 MA-HS 0.31 762 3 10
12 MA þ 5% P 0.31 710 0 4 230.9 135.9 13.8
13 MA − 5% P 0.31 710 2 21 173.2 8.6 31.2
14 MA-A 0.39 737 3 21 —
15 MA-A 0.39 737 1 7
16 MA-A 0.39 710 2 26 204.0 40.7 12.3
17 Viscosity-modifying VMA 0.41 710 1 15 433.3 107.4 26.7
18 admixture VMA-LS1 0.41 585 0 — —
19 VMA-LS2 0.41 635 0 6
20 VMA-HS 0.41 762 1 12 313.5 129.2 10.4
21 VMA þ 5% P 0.41 710 1 13 219.0 116.3 2.0
22 VMA − 5% P 0.41 660 1 2 338.0 31.8 43.7
23 HP 0.41 660 1 12 185.0 95.5 5.9
24 VMA-A 0.51 686 1 10 145.0 76.1 2.3
25 VMA-A 0.51 686 1 16 159.0 104.0 3.1
26 Well-balanced WB-SA 0.42 660 0 6 380.4 305.6 7.0
27 WB1 0.42 660 2 31 82.7 26.7 8.4
28 WB2 0.42 660 1 23 197.9 30.0 32.5
29 WB3 0.36 660 2 22 184.0 43.0 32.9

Results and Discussions
The experimental results of the 29 SCC mixtures are summarized
in Table 3. The effects of aggregate volume, size, gradation, slump
flow, SP dosage, and concrete viscosity and yield stress on dynamic
segregation will be discussed in detail as described next.
Effects of Aggregate Volume on Dynamic Segregation
Fig. 5 shows the DSI of the GA series mixtures and the MA series
mixtures. Compared with the GA mixture, GA þ 5% P mixture had
5% more paste volume, and GA − 5% P mixture had 5% less paste
volume. Similarly, MA þ 5% P mixture had 5% more paste volume
25
Dynamic Stability Index (%)
and MA − 5% P mixture had 5% less paste volume compared with
the MA mixture. Other mix proportions were virtually identical
within the same series of mixtures. The slump flow was controlled
at 710 mm for all six mixtures (by varying SP dosage).
The DSI for GA, GA þ 5% P, and GA − 5% P mixture were
5, 11, and 14%, respectively. And the DSI for MA, MA þ 5% P,
and MA − 5% P mixture were 3, 4, and 21%, respectively. It seems
that reducing paste volume may increase dynamic segregation, as
the highest DSI occurred in the mixture with the least paste volume
for each series (GA − 5% P and MA − 5% P mixture).
One factor that may help to explain the higher dynamic segre-
gation for mixtures with less paste volume is paste rheology con-
trolled by the dosage of SP. The SP dosages (solid percent by
weight of cementitious materials) of GA type of mixturewere
0.58% (GA þ 5% P), 0.80% (GA), and 1.10% (GA − 5% P). And
the SP dosages of MA type of mixtures were 0.67% (MA þ 5% P),
0.78% (MA), and 0.98% (MA − 5% P). For each type of mixtures,

20
21 the mixture with highest SP dosage coincided with highest dynamic
segregation.
15 To further understand how SP dosage affecting dynamic segre-
14 gation, it may be helpful to examine the drag force acting on the
11 GA aggregate by the paste during the flowing process of a SCC mixture
10
MA (Shen et al. 2009). The drag force acting by the paste on the ag-
gregate, FA , can be expressed as
5 5
3
4     
ϕ ϕ ϕ 21 ϕ1 ϕ2 ϕ3
FA ¼ abc 9ηpl ΔV 21 þ 22 þ 23 þ π2 τ 0 þ þ
0 r1 r2 r3 4 r1 r2 r3
(-)5% 0 (+)5%
ð2Þ
Paste Content (%)
where a, b, and c = dimensions (height, width, and length) of the
Fig. 5. Effects of aggregate volume on dynamic segregation
concrete sample; ϕ1 , ϕ2 , and ϕ3 = volume fractions of different

© ASCE 04015067-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 types of aggregates; ηpl = paste plastic viscosity; r1 , r2 , and r3 =
radii of the aggregates; ΔV = velocity difference between aggregate
and paste, calculated from the initial conditions and forces; and
τ 0 = paste yield stress.
According to Eq. (2), higher paste plastic viscosity and yield
stress correspond to higher drag force by the paste to carry the
aggregate forward, and thus reduce the chance and extent of
dynamic segregation. Because the slump flow was kept constant
for the mixtures under comparison, mixtures with higher paste
content (lower aggregate volume) had less interparticle friction and
required less SP to achieve the same slump flow. Less SP percent
by weight of cementitious materials increases paste yield stress
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 09/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and viscosity, raises the drag force, and thus reduces dynamic
segregation.
From Eq. (2), it seems that a mixture with higher aggregate
volume (ϕ1 , ϕ2 , and ϕ3 ) should have higher drag force and thus
less dynamic segregation. However, higher aggregate volume also
corresponds to higher aggregate mass and the acceleration due
to drag force, FA =mass, will not change significantly because of
higher aggregate volume and mass.
As discussed in a subsequent section, this relationship between
SP dosage and dynamic segregation is not obvious when different
series of mixtures with various average aggregate size and grada-
tion are compared, which could also be expected from Eq. (2).
All the observations discussed previously were performed right
after the mixing procedure was stopped. The effects of factors such
as hydration, admixture adsorption, and thixotropy on dynamic
segregation will be studied in future tests.
Effects of Slump Flow on Dynamic Segregation
Fig. 6 shows how the slump flow is related to dynamic segregation
of the GA, MA, and VMA series of mixtures. Within the same
series of mixtures, the slump flow was varied by changing dosage
of superplasticizer while other mix proportions were virtually
identical.
For the GA series, the DSI of mixtures with slump flow of
610, 710, and 762 mm were 15, 5, and 22%, respectively. For the
MA series, the DSI of mixtures with slump flow of 635, 710, and
762 mm were 3, 3, and 10%, respectively. And for the VMA series,
the DSI of mixtures with slump flow of 635, 710, and 762 mm were
6, 15, and 12%, respectively. For each series, the mixture with low-
est slump (610 or 635 mm) always showed less dynamic segrega-
tion than the mixture with highest slump (762 mm), which indicates
reducing slump flow could reduce dynamic segregation. The trend
of higher DSI with higher slump flow was also observed when
superplasticizer was added in a single mixture and slump flow and
DSI were monitored (Shen et al. 2015).
25
Dynamic Stability Index (%)
20
15
10
5
0
600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780
Slump Flow (mm)
Fig. 6. Effects of slump flow on dynamic segregation
© ASCE
The reason why lower slump flow coincided to better resistance
to dynamic segregation may also be justified by higher paste yield
stress and viscosity. The SP dosages of the GA type of mix-
tures were 0.27% (610-mm slump flow, 15% DSI) and 0.87%
(762-mm slump flow, 22% DSI). The SP dosages of the MA type
of mixtures were 0.42% (635-mm slump flow, 3% DSI) and 0.90%
(762-mm slump flow, 10% DSI). And the SP dosages of the VMA
type of mixtures were 0.20% (635-mm slump flow, 6% DSI) and
0.35% (762-mm slump flow, 12% DSI). Again, according to
Eq. (2), less SP percent means higher paste yield stress, higher drag
force to carry the coarse aggregate forward, and thus less dynamic
segregation.
Effects of Aggregate Size and Gradation on Dynamic
Segregation
Fig. 7 illustrates how dynamic segregation was influenced by ag-
gregate size and gradation. The WB-SA mixture had only medium-
size (9.5 mm) coarse aggregate and packing density of 0.66, while
the WB1 and WB2 mixtures had both large-size (19 mm) and
medium-size (9.5 mm) coarse aggregate and higher packing density
(0.74 for WB1 and 0.71 for WB2). Compared with the WB1 mix-
ture, WB2 mixture has smaller average aggregate size (less 19-mm
coarse). There is no other major difference in mix proportions
between these mixtures. The DSI of WB-SA, WB1, and WB2 mix-
tures were 6, 31, and 23%, respectively. It seems that reducing the
aggregate size had a more significant effect on improving dynamic
segregation resistance compared with better gradation and higher
aggregate packing density.
The improved dynamic segregation resistance with smaller
aggregate can still be explained by Eq. (2). The reduction in DSI
is mainly attributed to increased drag force provided by cement
paste on smaller aggregates (smaller radii r1 , r2 , and r3 ), which
have higher surface area/mass ratios. Another possible factor is
static segregation; concrete with larger aggregates is more likely to
experience static segregation, and when more aggregates settle to
the bottom and the frictional force provided to the aggregate by the
underlying surface increases, dynamic segregation increases (Shen
et al. 2009).
One may also analyze dynamic stability using other analytical
methods such as the LCPC box test. For example, the LCPC box
test (Roussel 2007) can use spread length and shape to calculate
concrete yield stress, which in turn affects dynamic segregation.
35
30
Dynamic Stability Index (%)
25
20
GA 15
MA
VMA 10
5
0
WB-SA WB1 WB2
Fig. 7. Effects of aggregate size and gradation on dynamic segregation
04015067-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 350

300

Dynamic Yield Stress (Pa)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Visual Stability Index
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 09/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Effect of concrete dynamic yield stress on visual stability

index
Fig. 8. Effects of superplasticizer percent by weight of cement on
dynamic segregation; all mixture had water:cement of around 0.41

500
450

Static Yield Stress (Pa)

350 400
350
300
Dynamic Yield Stress (Pa)

300
250
250
200
200 150
100
150
50
100 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
50
Dynamic Stability Index (%)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Fig. 11. Effect of concrete static yield stress on dynamic segregation
Dynamic Stability Index (%) index
Fig. 9. Effect of concrete dynamic yield stress on dynamic segregation
index
500
450
Static Yield Stress (Pa)

400
Effects of SP Dosage on Dynamic Segregation 350
300
Previous sections indicate that higher SP dosage increases dynamic 250
segregation within the same type of mixture (GA, MA, VMA, and 200
so on). The reason is because less SP dosage means higher paste 150
yield stress, and thus higher drag force is available for the paste to 100
50
carry the coarse aggregate forward, which in turn results in less
0
dynamic segregation. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Fig. 8 shows how dynamic segregation index was influenced by Visual Stability Index
SP percent by weight of cement when different series of mixtures
were compared together. The W:C ratio was controlled at around Fig. 12. Effect of concrete static yield stress on visual stability index
0.41 for all mixtures. No clear correlation between SP dosage and
dynamic segregation was observed when mixtures with various
aggregate properties are compared. Based on Eq. (2), the drag force (six of seven, or 86%) were higher than 20%, indicating severe
is a function of not only yield stress and viscosity of paste, but also dynamic segregation.
aggregate size, volume, and gradation. Furthermore, rheological Fig. 10 illustrates how VSI was influenced by dynamic yield
properties of paste also depend upon early hydration phases and stress. For mixtures with VSI of 0 and 1, there is a wide range of
anions, which varies between difference series of mixtures. The ef- dynamic yield stress values and no clear correlation was found. For
fect of paste rheology (via SP dosage) became less obvious when mixtures with VSI of 2, all dynamic yield stress values (five of five,
more variables were introduced. The paste rheology is going to be or 100%) are less than 50 Pa.
measured in future test to further validate the theory. Fig. 11 plots the relationship between concrete static yield stress
and DSI. All mixtures (five of five, or 100%) with static yield stress
of 250 Pa or higher had DSI values of 15% or less, while all mix-
Effects of Concrete Rheology on Dynamic Segregation
tures (two of two, or 100%) with static yield stress of 100 Pa or
Fig. 9 shows how DSI was affected by dynamic yield stress of lower had DSI value of 20% or higher. For mixtures with static yield
mixtures. When the dynamic yield stress was higher than 50 Pa, stress between 100 and 250 Pa, the DSI values are highly variable.
most DSI values (11 of 12, or 92%) were less than 15%, whereas Fig. 12 shows the correlation between static yield stress and
when the dynamic yield stress was less than 50 Pa, most DSI values VSI. All mixtures (five of five, or 100%) with static yield stress

© ASCE 04015067-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 50
45 aggregate size seem to have more significant effect compared
Plastic Viscosity (Pa.s)
40 with better gradation.
35 • No clear reverse relationship between SP percent by weight of
30
cement and dynamic segregation was observed when mixtures
25
20
with various aggregate properties are compared. This is because
15 the drag force is a function of not only yield stress and viscosity
10 of paste, but also aggregate size and volume. The effect of paste
5 rheology (via SP dosage) became less obvious when more vari-
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ables were introduced.
Dynamic Stability Index (%) • Most mixtures with dynamic yield stress higher than 50 Pa had
DSI less than 15%, and mixtures with the dynamic yield stress
Fig. 13. Results of concrete plastic viscosity and flow trough test less than 50 Pa typically had DSI higher than 20%.
•
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 09/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Most mixtures with VSI of 2 or higher had dynamic yield stress

less than 50 Pa, while mixtures with VSI of 0 and 1 exhibited a
wide range of dynamic yield stress values.
50 • Most mixtures with static yield stress of 250 Pa or higher had
45
DSI values of 15% or less and VSI of 0 or 1 (stable), and most
Plastic Viscosity (Pa.s)

40
mixtures with static yield stress of 100 Pa or lower had DSI
35
30
value of 20% or higher and VSI of 2 (unstable) or 3 (unstable).
25 For mixtures with static yield stress between 100 and 250 Pa, the
20 DSI and VSI values are highly variable.
15 • No direct relationship was observed between concrete plastic
10 viscosity and dynamic segregation (DSI and VSI).
5 • The paste rheology of the mixtures will be measured and the
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 effects of hydration, time-dependent adsorption of admixtures
Visual Stability Index (%) (Flatt et al. 1998; Plank and Hirsch 2007), and thixotropy on
dynamic segregation will be studied in future tests of dynamic
Fig. 14. Results of concrete plastic viscosity and visual stability index segregation.

of 250 Pa or higher had VSI of 0 or 1 (stable), while all mixtures
(two of two, or 100%) with static yield stress of 100 Pa or lower had
VSI of 2 (unstable). For mixtures with static yield stress between
100 and 250 Pa, the VSI values are variable.
Figs. 13 and 14 show how DSI and VSI were influenced by
concrete plastic viscosity. No clear correlation was found.
The paste rheology of the mixtures in Table 2 is planned be mea-
sured in future research of dynamic segregation.
Conclusions
From the results obtained from the research reported in this paper
(limited range of mixtures, 29 mixtures), the following conclusion
can be drawn:
• The drag force equation in Eq. (2) and other rheological analysis
such as the one used in the LCPC box (Roussel 2007) design
can be used to explain how various factors affect the dynamic
segregation. Nevertheless, caution should be taken when one
factor affects multiple variables in the equation simultaneously.
• Higher paste volume may reduce dynamic segregation by re-
quiring less SP percent by weight of cementitious materials
to maintain the same slump flow. Less SP dosage causes higher
paste plastic viscosity and yield stress, higher drag force pro-
vided by the paste to carry the aggregate forward, and thus less
dynamic segregation.
• Lower slump flow may reduce dynamic segregation due to
higher paste plastic viscosity and yield stress.
• Smaller coarse aggregate may improve dynamic segregation re-
sistance due to higher aggregate surface area/mass ratio (result
in higher drag force and higher concrete plastic viscosity), and
possibly less static segregation.
• While both smaller aggregate size and better gradation can im-
prove dynamic segregation resistance of SCC mixtures, smaller
References
AASHTO. (2008). “Static segregation of hardened self-consolidating con-
crete cylinders.” PP58-08, Washington, DC.
Assaad, J., Khayat, K., and Daczko, J. (2004). “Evaluation of static stability
of self-consolidating concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 101(3), 207–215.
ASTM. (2007). “Test method for slump flow of self-consolidating
concrete.” C1611, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2009). “Test method for rapid assessment of static segrega-
tion resistance of self-consolidating concrete using penetration test.”
C1712-09, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2010). “Test method for static segregation of self-
consolidating concrete using column technique.” C1610/C1610M-10,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2012a). “Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or
calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete.” C618-12a, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2012b). “Standard specification for portland cement.” C150/
C150M-12, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bonen, D., and Shah, S. P. (2005). “Fresh and hardened properties of
self-consolidating concrete, concrete construction.” Prog. Struct. Eng.
Mater., 7(1), 14–26.
Daczko, J. (2002). “Stability of self-consolidating concrete, assumed or
ensured?” Proc., First North American Conf. on the Design and Use
of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Hanley Wood Publications,
Washington, DC, 245–251.
EFNARC (European Federation of Specialist Construction Chemicals
and Concrete Systems). (2005). “The European guidelines for self-
compacting concrete: Specification, production and use.” Self-
compacting concrete, European Project Group, Switzerland.
Esmaeikhanian, E., Khayat, K., Yahia, A., and Feys, D. (2014). “Effects of
mix design parameters and rheological properties on dynamic stability
of self-consolidating concrete.” Cement Concrete Compos., 54, 21–28.
Flatt, R. J., et al. (1998). “Analysis of superplasticizers used in concrete.”
Analysis, 26(2), 28–34.
Jolicoeur, C., Khayat, K. H., Pavate, T. V., and Page, M. (2000). “Evalu-
ation of effect of chemical admixture and supplementary materials on
stability of concrete-based materials using in-situ conductivity method,

© ASCE 04015067-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 superlasticizers and other chemical admixtures in concrete.” Proc.,
Sixth Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CAN-
MET)/American Concrete Institute (ACI) Int. Conf., V. M. Malhotra,
ed., Farmington Hills, MI, 461–483.
JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers). (1999). “Recommendation
for self-consolidating concrete.” JSCE concrete engineering, Vol. 77,
T. Omoto and K. Ozawa, eds., Tokyo.
Khatib, J. M. (2008). “Performance of self-compacting concrete containing
fly ash.” Constr. Build. Mater., 22(9), 1963–1971.
Khayat, K. H. (1999). “Workability, testing, and performance of self-
consolidating concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 96(3), 346–353.
Khayat, K. H., Assaad, J., and Daczko, J. (2004). “Comparison of field-
oriented test methods to assess dynamic stability of self-consolidating
concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 101(2), 168–176.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 09/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Lachemi, M., Hossain, K. M. A., Lambros, V., Nkinamubanzi, P. C., and
Bouzoubaa, N. (2004). “Self-consolidating concrete incorporating
new viscosity modifying admixtures.” Cement Concrete Res., 34(6),
917–926.
Leemann, A., and Winnefeld, F. (2007). “The effect of viscosity modify-
ing agents on mortar and concrete.” Cement Concrete Compos., 29(5),
341–349.
Plank, J., and Hirsch, C. (2007). “Impact of zeta potential of early cement
hydration phases on superplasticizer adsorption.” Cement Concrete
Res., 37(4), 537–542.
Roussel, N. (2007). “The LCPC box: A cheap and simple technique for
yield stress measurements of SCC.” Mater. Struct., 40(9), 889–896.
© ASCE 04015067-9
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Shen, L., and Bahrami Jovein, H. (2013). “Robustness of self-consolidating
concrete: New testing method and design strategy.” Proc., Seventh Int.
RILEM Symp. on Self-Consolidating Concrete, Bagneux, France.
Shen, L., Bahrami Jovein, H., Sun, Z., Wang, Q., and Li, W. (2015). “Test-
ing dynamic segregation test of self-consolidating concrete.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 75(1), 465–471.
Shen, L., Struble, L., and Lange, D. (2007). “New testing method for static
segregation.” J. Test. Eval., 35(3).
Shen, L., Struble, L., and Lange, D. (2008). “Measuring dynamic segrega-
tion of SCC.” Proc., Third North American Conf. on the Design
and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC), Curran Associates,
New York.
Shen, L., Struble, L., and Lange, D. (2009). “Modeling dynamic seg-
regation of self-consolidating concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 106(4),
375–380.
Shen, L., Struble, L. J., and Lange, D. (2005). “Testing static segregation
of SCC.” Proc., Second North American Conf. on the Design and Use
of Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC), S. Shah, ed., Hanley Wood
Publications, Washington, DC, 729–737.
Tregger, N., Ferrara, L., and Shah, S. P. (2010). “Predicting dynamic
segregation of self-consolidating concrete from the slump-flow test.”
J. ASTM Int., 7, 1–7.
Tregger, N., Gregori, A., Ferrara, L., and Shah, S. P. (2012). “Correlating
dynamic segregation of SCC to the slump-flow test.” Constr. Build.
Mater., 28(1), 499–505.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.