HBRC Journal (2012) 8, 159–169

Housing and Building National Research Center

HBRC Journal

http://ees.elsevier.com/hbrcj

Flow properties of fresh concrete by using

modified geotechnical Vane shear test
Metwally A. Abd Elaty, Mariam F. Ghazy *

Faculty of Engineering, Structural Engineering Department, Tanta University, Egypt

Received 17 April 2012; accepted 4 July 2012

KEYWORDS Abstract An experimental investigation has been performed to study the efficiency of using mod-
Fresh concrete; ified geotechnical Vane shear test to evaluate the fresh properties of concrete. Different concrete
Vane shear test; mixes with different coarse aggregates (both type and size) were conducted. Moreover different
Slump test; shapes and sizes of Vane probes were investigated. Also the influence of using enhancing workabil-
Compacting factor; ity admixtures was studied. The results of the shear Vane test were statistically analyzed and com-
VeBe test; pared with those for standard tests. The results reveal that the Vane shear test with modified blades
Conical blade; can be simply executed to measure workability of concrete anywhere with a good efficiency. Useful
Cylindrical blade
equations with good correlation coefficients are established between the well known standard tests
include compacting factor, slump, VeBe and flow tests and the Vane yield method. Size effect phe-
nomenon related to Vane size is recorded for the Vane yield stress results. The results of the Vane
yield stress could clearly distinguish between not only mixes made up of different aggregate types
but also the aggregate maximum nominal size. The results of the Vane shear test are clearly affected
by using enhancing workability admixtures and its dosage. A direct proportion between Vane yield
stress results and the companion compacting factors test values is strongly noticed which introduces
the Vane test method as a simple instrument that could be simply adapted anywhere to measure the
workability of fresh concrete instead of compacting factor that is a laboratory apparatus.
ª 2012 Housing and Building National Research Center. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
All rights reserved.

Introduction

As soon as concrete is completely mixed it is called fresh con-

* Corresponding author.
crete. It becomes green after initial setting up to being able to
E-mail addresses: drmet28@yahoo.com (M.A. Abd Elaty),
resist stresses. From that moment, the concrete is termed as
dr.mariamghazi@yahoo.com (M.F. Ghazy).
hardened up to its terminal life. For each stage of concrete,
Peer review under responsibility of Housing and Building National
Research Center.
there are many interested properties for all partners of concrete
industry including researchers and Engineers. Properties of
fresh concrete stage are of great interest for construction
industry since concrete is usually put into place in its plastic
Production and hosting by Elsevier form. As well as, ease of placement, consolidation, durability
1687-4048 ª 2012 Housing and Building National Research Center. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2012.07.001
160
and strength strongly depend on the flow properties.
Consistency and workability are two wide spread terms usually
used to describe the flow properties of fresh concrete.
The authors of Ref. [1] mention the following three terms
while referring to concrete rheology: workability, consistency
and plasticity. The definitions given are:
 ‘‘Workability is a measure of how easy or difficult it is to
place, consolidate, and finish concrete’’
 ‘‘Consistency is the ability of freshly mixed concrete to
flow’’
 ‘‘Plasticity determines concrete’s ease of molding’’.
The concrete workability terminology was summarized very
clearly by classifying it into three classes: qualitative, quantita-
tive empirical and quantitative fundamental. The following
items fall in the three classes [2].
 Class I: qualitative-Workability, flowability, compactibility,
stability, finishability, pumpability, consistency, etc. To be
used only in a general descriptive way without any attempt
to quantify.
 Class II: quantitative empirical-Slump, compacting factor,
Ve-be, etc. To be used as a simple quantitative statement
of behavior in a particular set of circumstances.
 Class III: quantitative fundamental-Viscosity, yield stress,
etc. To be used in conformity with the British Standard [3].
An overview of the flow properties of a fluid or a suspen-
sion, followed by a critical review of the most commonly
used concrete rheology tests. Particular attention is given
to tests that could be used for high performance concrete
HPC. Tentative definitions of terms such as workability,
consistency, and rheological parameters are provided [4].
Correlating slump, slump flow, VeBe and flow tests to
rheological parameters of high-performance concrete was
conducted [5].
Numerous experimental tests have been established and
have become as standard for measuring consistency. Test
methods for flow properties of concrete can be divided into
two groups in regard whether the output of the experiments
gives one or two parameters. These groups include, one factor
test and two factors test [4]. One factor tests are the tests used
to measure only one rheological value or factor. These tests in-
clude, slump, Kelly ball, k slump, VeBe, LCL apparatus,
vibration testing, flow cone, turning tube viscometer, filling
ability and Oriment apparatus. Two factor tests are tests can
measure indirectly both the viscosity and yield stress. The most
common tests for this brand include, Tattersal two-point test,
Bertta apparatus, the BTRHEOM Rheometer and modified
slump cone test. The description of the 61 test methods for
measuring concrete workability was conducted [6]. Based on
the successes and failures of past test methods and the current
needs of the concrete industry, requirements for new test meth-
ods are developed.
Among all, the slump test is considered the widest spread
standard test to be used at both field and laboratory to mea-
sure the flow properties of fresh concrete. This because of its
simplicity as well as it is considered as a useful quality control
tool since it can help detect changes in the composition of
concrete delivered, e.g., changes in the amount of mixing
water. But the draw back of this test is that it cannot clearly
M.A. Abd Elaty, M.F. Ghazy
Fig. 1 Bingham’s equation for a fluid.
distinguish between the flow properties of stiff concrete mixes
and floppy ones.
Author of Ref. [2] designed the first and most widely known
instrument (Tattersall two-point rheometer) for measuring the
flow properties of concrete and gave the following equation:
s ¼ ðG=KÞs0 þ ðGgÞN ð1Þ
Where: s = torque, G = constant obtained by calibration
with Newtonian fluids, K = constant obtained by calibration
with non-Newtonian fluids, N = speed of the impeller,
s0 = yield stress, g = viscosity
Therefore, s0 = g/(G/K) and n = h/G, where g and h are
the two values measured.
Because concrete flows as a liquid, Eq. (2) is applicable. The
liquid that obeys that equation is called Newtonian fluid [7].
Many other equations are commonly used for concrete.
Fig. 1 and Eq. (3) show the Bingham’s equation for fluid [2].
Newtonian’s equation s ¼ gc ð2Þ
Bingham’s equation s ¼ s0 þ gc ð3Þ
Where: s = shear stress (Pa), g = viscosity (PaÆs), c = shear
strain rates (s1) and s0 = yield stress (Pa)
The Vane test is a tool that has been used in rheology stud-
ies of material in different fields. This method has been highly
developed in geotechnical field and it is used to determine a
parameter defined as ‘‘strength of the soil’’. In recent years,
with the development of instrumentation techniques, geared
especially towards rheometry. The shear Vane test was intro-
duced as a simple efficient method to measure the yield stress
among other properties of non-Newtonian fluids. The authors
of Ref. [8] used this technique to study rheological properties
in freshly applied mortar. That method managed them to de-
fine clear conditions in the applying of the mortar.
An evaluation of the workability of freshly mixed Portland
cement concrete while it is still in the mixing truck by deter-
mining fundamental rheological parameters (plastic viscosity
and yield stress) was studied [9].
In essence, the field of concrete technology and industry still
needs simple and reliable methods that enable all partners of
concrete industry to simply evaluate the flow properties of
fresh concrete. Few numbers of studies dealing with the imple-
mentation of the geotechnical Vane shear test to measure the
flow properties of freshly cement based mixes are available.
The available studies do not cover using of different blade
shapes, application to different aggregate types, influence of
maximum nominal size, effect of Vane blade size as well as
the influence of using enhancing workability admixtures. So
this study is an experimental attempt to clearly over view the
above issues.
Flow properties of fresh concrete by using modified geotechnical Vane shear test 161

Research significant and objectives

Cylindrical with three blade H · D (100 · 100 mm) (Cy3b10)

Conical with three blade H · D (100 · 100 mm) (Co3b10)
Conical with four blade H · D (100 · 100 mm) (Co4b10)
Properties of fresh concrete are of great interest for construc-

Conical with three blade H · D (50 · 50 mm) (Co3b5)

tion industry due to its major influence in all short and long
term properties. Developing new methods as well as modifying
exist ones to be more reliable and efficient are still strongly
needed. This paper introduces the applications of the geotech-
nical Vane shear test anywhere to measure the flow properties
of freshly mixed concrete not only at laboratory but also at
fields. The main goals of this investigation are to;

– Study the efficiency of the geotechnical shear Vane method

to evaluate the fresh properties of concrete,
– Investigate the influence of both shape and size of Vane
probe’s on the flow properties of freshly mixed concrete,
– Evaluate the influence of both aggregate type and aggregate
Vane probe test

maximum nominal size on the Vane yield stress results and,

– Explore the influence of using workability enhancing
(coded)

admixtures on the Vane yield stress results.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Finally, a comparison between the Vane yield stress results

Compacting factor

obtained with those of the well-known standard workability

and consistency test methods are made through a statistical
Common fresh

study.
concrete tests

Flow %
Slump

Experimental work
V.B.
Tests

1.
2.
3.
4.

An extensive experimental program is designed to study the

efficiency of using geotechnical Vane shear test to assess and
1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5
0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2

measure the flow properties of freshly mixed concrete. The

HRWR (%)

Vane shear yield stress test were conducted in a companion

with the well-know workability and consistency standard test
methods. The commonly test methods conducted in parallel
-

0.467, 0.507, 0.542, 0.609, and 0.675 -

with the Vane test include, slump test, VeBe test, flow test
and compacting factor test. The main parameters of this inves-
0.443, 0.477, 0.51, 0.543 and 0.577

tigation comprise;

– Type of coarse aggregate (gravel and dolomite).

– Maximum nominal size of coarse aggregates (20 mm and
10 mm).
– Different levels of workability and consistency that are gov-
erned through varying water to cement ratio (0.4–0.7) with-
out admixtures.
0.47
Coarse agg. w/c

0.4

110
100 Dolomite 20mm
Size (mm)

Dolomite10mm
90
Schedule of experimental work.

Gravel 20mm
80 Sand
20

20

20

10

70
% passing
Cement:dolomite:sand

Cement:dolomite:sand

Cement:dolomite:sand

60
Group No. Proportions (kg/m3)

Cement:gravel:sand

50
40
350:1100:700

350:1100:700

350:1100:700

350:1100:700

30
20
10
0
0.15 0.31 0.63 1.25 2.5 5 10 20 40
Table 1

Sieve mm
1

Fig. 2 Grading of used aggregates.

162
co3b5
Fig. 3 Vane probe shapes.
– Using of superplasticizer admixtures (HRWR) (0.5%, 1%,
1.5% and 2% by cement weight) which were used to control
both the workability and consistency degrees with fixed
water cement ratio.
– Vane probe with different dimensions (D · H (diame-
ter · height)) and shapes as depicted in Fig. 3 (conical with
three blades (co3b5 and co3b10) and four blades (co4b10)
and cylindrical with three blades (cy3b10)). The blades of
the Vane probe were manufactured from 2 mm steel plates
to enable the use of one torque––meter to capture shear
stresses of the fresh concrete after mixing. Table 1 presents
not only the schedule of experimental work but also include
the proportions of concrete mixes and tests.
Materials
All materials used in this work are available in Egypt local
market. The cement used in all mixes is type I Portland
cement-grade 42.5 N confirmed requirements of the Egyptian
Standard Specifications ESS requirements (4756-1/2007). Nat-
ural siliceous sand with finesses modulus of 2.37 was used.
Two types of coarse aggregates were used namely, natural
gravel and crushed dolomite. The grading curves are shown
in Fig. 2. A Well graded rather rounded in shape with a max-
imum size of 20 mm gravel was obtained from Suez quarries.
Moreover, two sizes of dolomite from Attaka quarries with
20 mm and 10 mm maximum nominal size were employed.
The dolomite particle has a granular porous texture, rough
surface and irregular. Fine and coarse aggregates confirmed
the ESS requirements (1109–2002). Tap water was used for
all mixes. A high range water reducing admixtures (HRWR)
with trade name Sikament-163M. It complies with ASTM
C-494 Type A&F and B.S. 5075 Part 3 with specific gravity
1.2 and it was added within the range recommended by the
manufacturer.
Methodology
Eighteen mixes divided into four groups as shown in Table 1
were prepared and tested. The concrete mixes were mixed in
a portable concrete mixer with a maximum capacity of
100 L. The water (or water and admixtures when used) and
cementitious materials are mixed for a half minute to ensure
the uniformity of the constituents. Sand is simultaneously
charged into the mixer and the mixing process was continued
for a half minute and then coarse aggregate was added. After
that, the total content was mixed for a period of two minutes.
M.A. Abd Elaty, M.F. Ghazy
co3b10 co4b10 cy3b10
After mixing, the test method concept involves basically insert-
ing the different Vane probe in the concrete rested in the mixer
to be tested. Subsequently, the Vane is manually turned
according to a slowly constant strain rate (constant angular
velocity). While torque moment is applied, a shear stress is
generated in the stressed area which is being conical or cylin-
drical one according to the Vane shear blade shape. When
the torque moment produces a shear stress equal to the yield
capacity of the tested concrete mix, the sheared surface starts
to rotate. At that moment and according to the maximum tor-
que measured, the Vane yield stress is calculated. In section:
Derivation of the Vane yield stress equation explains the meth-
od and calculations procedure of the Vane yield stress. After
conducting the Vane shear test, the common tests include
slump test according to the procedure described in Egyptian
Code ECP 203:2009, ASTM C143 and BS 1881 part 102 BS
5075 standards, VeBe test according to BS 1881 EN 12350-3,
flow test according to BS EN 12350-5 and compacting factor
test have been conducted according to ECP 203:2009 and BS
1881 part 103 BS 5073.
It is recommended that the Vane’s rotation speed should be
less than 10 rpm so as to avoid any influence on viscosity resis-
tance and the instrument’s inertia in maximum torque determi-
nation. A recommended velocity of 0.1 rpm (36/min) was
proposed in many studies. In some developed preliminary
studies it was concluded that angular velocities between 30
and 90/min, the measured maximum shear values did not un-
dergo major alterations [8].
Derivation of the Vane yield stress equation
In this study the Vane is turned slowly according to a constant
strain rate (constant angular velocity). The sheared concrete
yields when the applied torque reaches the maximum value
and so causes shearing of the material in the area around the
Vane. The conical Vane probe is tried due to the simplicity
of its immersion into fresh concrete. The maximum torque ob-
tained in the experiment of cone Vane probe scone can be de-
fined as the algebraic sum of the moment exerted on the
surface area s1 and on the Vane upper area s2 as depict below
and calculated according to Eq. (4) derived in this paper as
following:
scone ¼ s1 þ s2
Z R
s2 ¼ 2prdr  r  r
0
Z R
2 1
s2 ¼ 2pr r2 dr ¼ prR3 ¼ prH3
0 3 12
Flow properties of fresh concrete by using modified geotechnical Vane shear test 163

Where: scone: the torque, r: the shear stress, r: radius of the

Table 2 Test results for group 1, gravel (20 mm).
sheared cone
Tests measurements w/c
R
0.443 0.477 0.51 0.543 0.577
" r
R r H Vane yield stress (kPa) Co3b5 3.316 1.745 1.047 0.524 0.349
"dr L Co3b10 1.069 0.960 0.676 0.415 0.371
Co4b10 1.239 1.091 0.764 0.545 0.436
Cy3b10 1.502 0.958 0.710 0.453 0.310
Upper area Side area Slump (mm) 55 110 180 195 220
Compacting factor 0.941 0.967 0.98 0.989 0.999
V.B. (s) 4 3 2 1 0
Flow (%) 16 32 56 100 140

Plane surface area

Table 3 Test results for group 2, dolomite (20 mm).
Z l
2pRx x r Tests measurements w/c
s1 ¼ dX  rxtanh; ¼
0l l R 0.467 0.507 0.542 0.609 0.675
Z l
2pRr Vane yield stress (kPa) Co3b5 5.411 2.095 1.396 0.698 0.262
¼ tanhx2 dX
0 l Co3b10 1.244 1.156 0.927 0.436 0.196
Z l Co4b10 2.057 1.190 1.091 0.600 0.199
2pRr
¼ tanh x2 dX Cy3b10 2.110 1.105 0.716 0.453 0.286
l 0 Slump (mm) 10 50 125 190 230
2pRr l3 Compacting factor 0.816 0.907 0.956 0.987 1
¼ tanh ;
l 3 V.B. (s) 6 4 3 1.5 0
1 Flow (%) 6 20 40 100 160
tanh ¼ ; R ¼ Htanh; H ¼ lcosh
2
1 5
s1 ¼ prRl3 ¼ prH3
3 24
In terms of shear stresses the torque is defined as Table 4 Test results for group 3, dolomite (20 mm) (w/
1 5 7 c = 0.47).
scone ¼ prH3 þ prH3 ¼ prH3 ð4Þ Tests measurements Admixture (%)*
12 24 24
In case of cylindrical Vane probe and as given in Ref. [8], 0.5 1 1.5 2
the maximum torque scy (Eq. (5)) obtained by the algebraic Vane yield stress (kPa) Co3b5 1.5 0.698 0.524 0.349
sum of moment exerted by the surface area s1 and by the Vane Co3b10 0.648 0.467 0.436 0.393
upper and lower areas s2 by the following: Co4b10 0.820 0.545 0.458 0.436
Cy3b10 0.891 0.506 0.382 0.353
r Slump (mm) 140 190 230 250
Compacting factor 0.88 0.962 0.983 0.995
V.B. (s) 4 3 1 0.3
H Flow (%) 25 44 100 150
*
By cement weight.
D

scy ¼ s1 þ s2 using of enhancing workability admixtures as well as the size

 
p 2 and shape of the Vane probe used. The following paragraphs
¼ D2 Hr þ 2 prr3
2 3 explain the influence of each parameter. Tables 2–5 present
  the results of all concrete groups. Eqs. (4) and (5) were used
p 3 H 1
scy ¼ rD þ ð5Þ to calculate the Vane yield stress for conical and cylindrical
2 D 3
Vane probe, respectively.

Results and discussion
The experimental investigation was conducted to study the
ability and the factors influencing the use of the well known
geotechnical Vane shear test to measure and asses the flow
properties of fresh concrete mixes. Four main groups contain-
ing 18 concrete mixes were investigated. The parameters stud-
ied covered the influence of type and size of coarse aggregate,
Results and analysis of Vane yield stress and compacting factor
tests
Results of both of the Vane yield stress and the compacting
factor are given in Tables 2–5 for all mixes. Figs. 4–7 show
the relationship between Vane yield stress and compacting fac-
tor results. It can be noticed that linear regression equations
with high correlation coefficients could be established for all
164 M.A. Abd Elaty, M.F. Ghazy

1.6
Table 5 Test results for group 4, dolomite (10 mm) Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10
(w/c = 0.4). 1.4 Co3b5, Y = -9.8023X + 10.129
R2 = 0.9979

Vane yield stress, kPa

Tests measurements Admixture (%)* 1.2 Co3b10, Y = -2.1584X + 2.5472
R2 = 0.935
1 1.5 2 2.5 1
Co4b10, Y = -3.4018X + 3.8137
R2 = 0.9689
Vane yield stress (kPa) Co3b5 4.189 1.571 1.396 0.873 0.8
Cy3b10, Y = -4.7727X + 5.0909
Co3b10 1.636 1.156 0.873 0.589 R2 = 0.9643
0.6
Co4b10 2.013 1.200 0.916 0.764
Cy3b10 1.012 0.710 0.668 0.573 0.4
Slump (mm) 35 160 210 230
0.2
Compacting factor 0.825 0.92 0.933 0.963 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 1.04 1.06
V.B. (s) 8 5 3 0.5 Compacting factor
Flow (%) 4 28 48 120
*
By cement weight. Fig. 6 Relationship between Vane yield stress and compacting
factor for group 3 (dolomite 20 mm, w/c = 0.47).

5.0 4.5
Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10
Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10 Co3b5, Y = -53.139X + 53.218 4.0
R2 = 0.9838 Co3b5, Y = -24.759X + 24.544
4.0 3.5
Vane yield stress, kPa

Vane yield stress, kPa

2
Co3b10, Y = -13.209X + 13.58 R = 0.9887
2
R = 0.8928 3.0 Co3b10, Y = -7.2492X + 7.6622
3.0 Co4b10, Y = -20.943X + 21.312 R2 = 0.9366
2 2.5
R = 0.9736
Co4b10, Y = -9.2641X + 9.6559
2.0
2.0 Cy3b10, Y = -20.917X + 21.185 R2 = 0.8513
2
R = 0.9633 1.5 Cy3b10, Y = -3.1818X + 3.6368
1.0 R2 = 1
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 0.0
0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 1.04 1.06
Compacting factor Compacting factor

Fig. 4 Relationship between Vane yield stress and compacting Fig. 7 Relationship between Vane yield stress and compacting
factor for group 1 (gravel 20 mm). factor for group 4 (dolomite 10 mm, w/c = 0.4).

6.0 For Vane of 50 mm size (co3b5), the constant values (A)

Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10
approach 53.2, 27.1, 10 and 24.65 for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4,
5.0 Co3b5, Y = -27.004X + 27.172
respectively. And for Vane of 100 mm size (co3b10), those val-
Vane yield stress, kPa

2
R = 0.9725
4.0 Co3b10, Y = -5.6183X + 5.8283 ues approach 13.4, 5.7, 2.35 and 7.46, respectively. The corre-
2
R = 0.9079 sponding values for Vane of 100 mm (co4b10) approach 21.1,
3.0 Co4b10, Y = -11.042X + 11.12
2 11.1, 3.6 and 9.46 for the same groups, respectively. Finally
R = 0.995
Cy3b10. Y = -9.5268X + 9.831 and for Vane of 100 mm (cy3b10), the constant values (A) ap-
2.0 2
R = 0.9892 proach 21, 9.7, 4.9 and 3.4, respectively. The higher the value
1.0 of the constant (A) means more degradation of the Vane yield
stress against the values of the compacting factor and vice ver-
0.0 sa is correct. It could also be noticed that when compacting
0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 1.04 1.06 factor approach unity the Vane yield stress approach the value
Compacting factor
of the constant (A) while it approaches zero when the com-
pacting value reaches unity. The values of this constant are
Fig. 5 Relationship between Vane yield stress and compacting
greater for mixes containing gravel compared with those mixes
factor for group 2 (dolomite 20 mm).
containing dolomite of the same maximum nominal size. While
for mixes containing dolomite of 20 mm maximum nominal
investigated mixes (R2 = 0.85131). The proposed regression size, the values of the constant tend to be smaller with using
equations take the following form Eq. (6). enhancing workability admixtures compared to the corre-
Vane yield stress (kPa) = constant (compacting fac- sponding mixes without admixtures. Also, considering mixes
tor) + constant or, containing 10 mm dolomite maximum size, the constant values
tend to be greater compared with the corresponding mix with
Y ¼ AðX  1Þ ð6Þ
higher aggregate size. In general, the direct proportion between
where, Y = Vane yield stress (kPa), X = compacting factor Vane yield stress results and compacting factors introduces an
and A is a constant instrument could be simply adapted anywhere to measure the
Considering the values of the constant (A), it can be noticed workability of fresh concrete instead of compacting factor that
the following; is a laboratory apparatus. The coefficient (A) joins the rela-
Flow properties of fresh concrete by using modified geotechnical Vane shear test 165

3.5 4.5
4.0 Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10
3.0 Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10
3.5

Vane yield stress, kPa

2
Vane yield stress, kPa

Co3b5, Y = 0.0056X - 0.3104X + 5.1969

2.5 Co3b5, Y = 0.0065X2 - 0.352X + 4.9932
2 3.0 2
R = 0.9861
R = 0.9796 2
2.5 Co3b10, Y = -0.0022X + 0.0065X + 1.6377
2.0 2
Co3b10, Y = -0.002X + 0.0114X + 1.0734 2
R = 0.9894
R2 = 0.9599 2.0 2
Co4b10, Y = -0.0028X + 0.0471X + 1.1651
1.5 2
Co4b10, Y = -0.0018X2 - 0.0014X + 1.3298 1.5 R =1
2 Cy3b1o,Y = -0.0477X + 1.6705
1.0 R = 0.9722 1.0 2
R =1
Cy3b10, Y = 0.0284X2 - 1.2378X + 13.774
0.5
0.5 R2 = 1
0.0
0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0 100 200 300 400 500 slump, mm
slump, mm
Fig. 11 Relationship between Vane yield stress and slump for
Fig. 8 Relationship between Vane yield stress and slump for group 4 (dolomite 10 mm, w/c = 0.4).
group 1 (gravel 20 mm).

5.0
6
Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10 Co3b5, y = 0.326e0.5707x
Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10 4.0 R2 = 0.9947

Vane yield stress, kPa

5
Co3b10, y = 0.3539e0.2957x
Vane yield stress, kPa

Co3b5, y = 0.0133x2 - 0.5151x + 5.3425

4 R2 = 0.8986
3.0 R2 = 0.9536
2
Co3b10, y = 0.0011x - 0.0767x + 1.2492 C04b10, y = 0.4201e0.3085x
3 R2 = 0.9962 2.0 R2 = 0.9898
Co4b10, y = 0.0003x2 - 0.0702x + 1.4353
Cy3b10, y = 0.3067e0.414x
2 R2 = 1 1.0 R2 = 0.9977
Cy3b10, y = -0.0001x2 - 0.0363x + 1.1896
1 R2 = 1 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 V. B., sec
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
slump, mm
Fig. 12 Relationship between Vane yield stress and VeBe for
group 1 (gravel 20 mm).
Fig. 9 Relationship between Vane yield stress and slump for
group 2 (dolomite 20 mm).
6.0
Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10
1.6 5.0 Co3b5, Y = 0.2953e0.4939X
Vane yield stress, kPa

Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10 R2 = 0.9928

1.4 4.0
2 Co3b10, Y = 0.1283e0.4018X
Co3b5, Y = 0.0082X - 0.4177X + 5.7379
Vane yield stress, kPa

1.2 R2 = 0.8896
2
R = 0.9865 3.0
2
Co3b10, Y = -0.0024X + 0.0916X - 0.4209 Co4b10, Y = 0.073e0.6841X
1
2
R =1 2.0 R2 = 0.997
0.8 2 Cy3b10, Y = 0.2865e0.3054X
Co4b10, Y = 0.0018X - 0.0982X + 1.7545 1.0
2
R =1 R2 = 1
0.6
2 0.0
Cy3b10, Y = 0.0028X - 0.148X + 2.312
0.4 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
R =1
V. B., sec
0.2
120 170 220 270 320 370 Fig. 13 Relationship between Vane yield stress and VeBe for
slump, mm group 2 (dolomite 20 mm).

Fig. 10 Relationship between Vane yield stress and slump for

group 3 (dolomite 20 mm, w/c = 0.47). yield stress and the slump values. Second degree regression
equations are plotted for Vane yield stress against slump val-
tionship between the Vane results and the compacting factor ues with higher regression coefficients (R2 = 0.8981). The
values. The values of that coefficient depend on the type of proposed regression equations take the following form Eq. (7);
coarse aggregate, maximum nominal size, size and shape of
Y ¼ A1 X 2 þ A2 X þ A3 ð7Þ
the Vane used and using admixtures.
Where, Y = Vane yield stress (kPa), X = slump (mm) and A1,
Results and analysis of Vane yield stress and slump tests A2 & A3 are constants
That relation has the same trend for all investigated mixes
Vane yield stress and slump values are given in Tables 2–5 for including all sizes and shapes of the investigated Vane instru-
all mixes. Figs. 8–11 present the relationship between the Vane ment. Moreover, it can be noticed that with the increase of
166 M.A. Abd Elaty, M.F. Ghazy

3 5

Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10 Co3b5, Y = 0.3414e0.2844X Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10 Co3b5, Y = 61.79X-1.0356

Vane yield stress, kPa

2 4 R2 = 0.9954
Vane yield stress, kPa

R = 0.9587
2 Co3b10, Y = 0.3969e0.0574X Co3b10, Y = 5.2978X-0.5338
R2 = 0.851 3 R2 = 0.944
Co4b10, Y = 0.4238e0.0836X
Co4b10, Y = 9.1716X-0.6152
1 R2 = 0.9982 2 R2 = 0.9995
Cy3b10, Y = 0.3368e0.1348X
Cy3b10, Y = 25.933X-0.8894
R2 = 0.998
1 R2 = 0.9892
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
V. B., sec 0 50 100 150 200
Flow, %
Fig. 14 Relationship between Vane yield stress and VeBe for
group 3 (dolomite 20 mm, w/c = 0.47). Fig. 16 Relationship between Vane yield stress and flow test for
group 1 (gravel 20 mm).
6
Co3b5, Y = 0.7348e0.2009X Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10
2
5 R = 0.9352 7
Vane yield stress, kPa

0.136X
Co3b10, Y = 0.5666e
Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10 Co3b5, y = 27.682x-0.856
4 R2 = 0.9942 6
R2 = 0.9601

Vane yield stress, kPa

0.0993X
Co4b10, Y = 0.712e 5 Co3b10, y = 16.514x-0.8313
3 R2 = 0.9696
R2 = 0.9244
Cy3b10, Y = 0.5553e0.0617X 4
2 2 Co4b10, y = 84.263x-1.1473
R =1
3 R2 = 0.8803
1 2 Cy3b10, y = 7.8018x-0.6387
R2 = 0.966
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
V. B., sec 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Flow, %
Fig. 15 Relationship between Vane yield stress and VeBe for
group 4 (dolomite 10 mm, w/c = 0.4). Fig. 17 Relationship between Vane yield stress and flow test for
group 2 (dolomite 20 mm).

the slump values a noticeable decrease in the measured values

of the Vane yield stress are recorded. Results of Vane instru- Results and analysis of Vane yield stress and flow tests
ment (co3b5) show a more sensitivity between slump values
and the Vane yield stress. Whereas, other Vane instruments Figs. 16–19 show the results of the Vane yield test versus%
(co3b10, co4b10 & cy3b10) show lower sensitivity rate between flow for all mixes. Power regression equations are constructed
slump values and the Vane yield stress. between the Vane yield and the% flow values with regression
coefficients (R2 = 0.88031). The proposed regression equa-
Results and analysis of Vane yield stress and VeBe tests tions take the following form Eq. (9);
Y ¼ DXE ð9Þ
Figs. 12–15 show the results of the Vane yield test results ver-
sus VeBe times for all mixes. Exponential regression equations Where, Y = Vane yield stress (kPa), X = % flow and D & E
are constructed between the Vane yield and the VeBe time val- are constants
ues with regression coefficients (R2 = 0.891). The proposed Results of Vane instrument (co3b5) show a rapid change
regression equations take the following form Eq. (8); between% flow values and the Vane yield stress especially
for mixes without enhancing workability admixtures.
Y ¼ BeCX ð8Þ
For mixes containing 10 mm dolomite lower workability le-
Where, Y = Vane yield stress (kPa), X = VeBe time (s) and B vel compared to that of the corresponding dolomite mix of
& C are constants 20 mm maximum nominal size was recorded that can be
Results of Vane instrument (co3b5) show a rapid change understood from the results of the Vane yield stress. Whereas,
between VeBe time values and the Vane yield stress especially other Vane instruments (co3b10, co4b10 & cy3b10), show the
for mixes without enhancing workability admixtures. Whereas, same trend but with lower rate of change between% flow val-
that trend is steeper for mix containing dolomite without ues and the Vane yield stress.
admixtures. For mixes containing 10 mm dolomite, lower
workability level was recorded compared to that of the corre- Effect of Vane size on Vane yield stress
sponding dolomite mix of 20 mm maximum nominal size
through the high values of the Vane yield stress. Whereas, The influence of Vane size on the results of the Vane yield
other Vane instruments (co3b10, co4b10 & cy3b10) show the stress is presented in Table 6. For concrete mix containing
same trend but with lower rate of change between VeBe time 20 mm gravel and at relatively low w/c, the Vane yield stress
values and the Vane yield stress. using (co3b5) approaches 3.1 times that recorded for
Flow properties of fresh concrete by using modified geotechnical Vane shear test 167

1.8 compared to those measured using (co3b10). The ratio be-

Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10 Co3b5, Y = 14.209X-0.7382 tween the recorded values using (co3b5) to these recorded by
1.6
R2 = 0.9346
Vane yield stress, kPa

1.4 (co3b10) are reduced with the fluidity of the concrete. This ra-
Co3b10, Y = 0.7789X-0.1325
1.2
tio approaches 1.333 at w/c = 0.675.
R2 = 0.9021
Co4b10, Y = 1.0984X-0.1864
For concrete mix containing 20 mm dolomite with enhanc-
1
R2 = 0.9854 ing workability admixture and at relatively low w/c, the Vane
0.8 yield stress using (co3b5) is greater compared to those mea-
Cy3b10, Y = 1.5624X-0.3003
0.6 R2 = 0.985 sured using (co3b10). The ratio between the recorded values
0.4 using (co3b5) to these recorded by (co3b10) are reduced with
0.2 the fluidity of the concrete. This ratio approaches 0.89 at 2%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 admixture.
Flow, %
For concrete mix containing 10 mm dolomite with enhanc-
ing workability admixture and at relatively low w/c, the Vane
Fig. 18 Relationship between Vane yield stress and flow test for
yield stress using (co3b5) is greater compared to those mea-
group 3 (dolomite 20 mm, w/c = 0.47).
sured using (co3b10). The ratio between the recorded values
using (co3b5) to these recorded by (co3b10) are reduced with
the fluidity of the concrete. This ratio approaches 1.481 at
5
Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10 Cy3b10
2.5% admixture.
4
Co3b5, Y = 7.7587X-0.457 Based on the investigation results, a size effect is recorded.
Vane yield stress, kPa

R2 = 0.9933 Generally for all the conducted concrete mixes, Vane yield
3 Co3b10, Y = 2.6266X-0.2908 stress measured using a relatively small Vane instrument is
R2 = 0.9322 higher compared to those got using Vane instrument with big-
2 Co4b10, Y = 3.1133X-0.2987 ger dimensions. So the bigger the size of the Vane blade the
R2 = 0.9341 lower the values of the Vane yield stress measured and vice ver-
1 Cy3b10, Y = 1.2815X-0.1682 sa is correct.
R2 = 1
0 Effect of coarse aggregate type on the Vane yield stress
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Flow, %
The influence of the coarse aggregate type on the values of the
Fig. 19 Relationship between Vane yield stress and flow test for Vane yield stress is plotted in Fig. 20. The results explain the
group 4 (dolomite 10 mm, w/c = 0.4).
influence of using either gravel or dolomite of the same maxi-
mum nominal size. As it is clear and for the four different Vane
instruments conducted in this study, the values obtained for
(co3b10). The ratio between the recorded values using (co3b5) gravel mixes are smaller compared to the values obtained for
to these recorded by (co3b10) are reduced with the fluidity of the corresponding dolomite mixes. The relative values (for
the concrete. This ratio approaches unity at w/c = 0.577. gravel mixes to dolomite ones) for the implemented Vane
For concrete mix containing 20 mm dolomite and at rela- instruments are 0.375, 0.447, 0.5 and 0.632 for Vane probe
tively low w/c, the Vane yield stress using (co3b5) is greater co3b5, co3b10, co4b10 and cy3b10, respectively. That is agree

Table 6 Effect of Vane probe size for all groups.

Group No. Coarse agg. size w/c HRWR (%) Vane yield stress (kPa) Co3b5/Co3b10
Co3b5 Co3b10
1 Gravel, 20 mm 0.443 - 3.316 1.069 3.102
0.477 - 1.745 0.96 1.818
0.51 - 1.047 0.676 1.548
0.543 - 0.524 0.415 1.263
0.577 - 0.349 0.371 0.941
2 Dolomite, 20 mm 0.467 - 5.411 1.244 4.35
0.507 - 2.095 1.156 1.811
0.542 - 1.396 0.927 1.506
0.609 - 0.698 0.436 1.6
0.675 - 0.262 0.196 1.333
3 Dolomite, 20 mm 0.47 0.5 1.5 0.648 2.316
1 0.698 0.467 1.495
1.5 0.524 0.436 1.2
2 0.349 0.393 0.889
4 Dolomite, 10 mm 0.4 1 4.189 1.636 2.56
1.5 1.571 1.156 1.358
2 1.396 0.873 1.6
2.5 0.873 0.589 1.481
 168 M.A. Abd Elaty, M.F. Ghazy

1.6 ment, the results of the Vane yield stress appeared to be

Gravel 20 mm higher for mixes containing 10 mm maximum nominal size
1.4
Dolomite 20 mm compared to those for 20 mm maximum nominal size. The val-
Vane yield strength, kPa

1.2 ues for 10 mm to those for 20 mm maximum nominal sizes are

3.5, 3.58 and 2.22 for 1%, 1.5% and 2% admixtures content,
1
respectively. It can be concluded that for the same admixture
0.8 content, using smaller values of the maximum nominal sizes
make the mix a relatively stiffer which can be observed from
0.6
the higher values for the Vane yield stress compared to those
0.4 values obtained for mixes containing dolomite of 20 mm max-
0.2
imum nominal size.

0
Co3b5 Co3b10 Co4b10
Vane type
Fig. 20 Effect of coarse aggregate type on the results of Vane
yield stress.
well with the fundamental that the mixes containing dolomite
as a coarse aggregate give a relatively stiffer concrete mixes
compared to those containing gravel as a coarse aggregate
type. Generally, the Vane yield stress values are relatively high-
er for mixes cast with dolomite compared to those for the cor-
responding mixes made up of gravel as a coarse aggregate type.
Effect of coarse aggregate maximum nominal size on Vane yield
stress
Effect of coarse aggregate maximum nominal size on the re-
sults of Vane yield stress is presented in Fig. 21. This figure
covers the influence of both the maximum nominal size for
the dolomite used and the size of the implemented Vane instru-
ment. Considering (co3b5) as instrument and with the same
admixture content, the results of the Vane yield stress ap-
peared to be higher for mixes containing 10 mm maximum
nominal size compared to those for 20 mm maximum nominal
size. The values for 10 mm compared with 20 mm maximum
nominal sizes are 6.0, 3.0 and 4.0 for 1%, 1.5% and 2% admix-
tures content, respectively. Considering (co3b10) as instru-
4.5
Co3b5, 20mm dolomite
4.0
Co3b5, 10mm dolomite
3.5 Co3b10, 20 mm dolomite
Vave yield stress, kPa.
Cy3b10 Conclusions
Based on the results of this investigation the following conclu-
sions could be drawn;
– The geotechnical Vane shear device with modified Vane
blades can be successfully adapted at laboratory or field
to measure the flow properties of freshly mixed concrete
with different workability levels.
– The direct proportionality between Vane yield stress results
and compacting factors introduces the Vane test method as
a simple instrument that could be simply adapted anywhere
to measure the workability of fresh concrete instead of com-
pacting factor that is a laboratory apparatus.
– Size effect phenomenon is recorded for the Vane yield stress
results. Generally for the conducted concrete mixes, Vane
yield stress measured using a relatively small Vane instru-
ment is higher compared to those got using Vane instru-
ment with bigger dimensions. So the bigger the size of the
Vane blade the lower the values of the Vane yield stress
measured and vice versa is correct.
– For the same admixture content, using smaller values of the
maximum nominal sizes make the mix a relatively stiffer
which can be observed from the higher values for the Vane
yield stress compared to those values obtained for mixes
containing dolomite of higher maximum nominal size.
– The results of the Vane yield stress are clearly distinguish
between mixes made up of gravel and those cast with dolo-
mite which agrees well with the results of the traditional
standard test methods.
– With good correlation coefficients useful relations are
established between Vane yield stress and properties of
fresh concrete. The proposed equations take the forms
given in Eqs. (6), (7), (8) and (9) for compacting factor,

3.0 Co3b10, 10 mm dolomite slump, VeBe and flow as standard tests, respectively.
2.5

2.0 References
1.5
[1] S.H. Kosmatka, W.C. Panarese, Design and Control of Concrete
1.0
Mixtures, PCA, 1994.
0.5 [2] G.H. Tattersall, The Workability of Concrete, A viewpoint
Publication, PCA, 1976.
0.0
[3] British Standard Institution BS 5168: Glossary of Standard
1 1.5 2
Rheological Terms, 1975.
% admixture
[4] C.F. Ferraris, Measurement of the rheological properties of high
performance concrete: state of the art report, Journal of Research
Fig. 21 Effect of coarse aggregate maximum nominal size on the of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 104 (5)
results of Vane yield stress. (1999) 461–478.
Flow properties of fresh concrete by using modified geotechnical Vane shear test 169

[5] E.P. Koehler, D.W. Fowler. Summary of Concrete Workability
Test Methods, International Center for Aggregates Research,
Report No. ICAR 105–1, The University of Texas, Austin, 2003.
[6] A.I. Laskar, Correlating slump, slump flow, VeBe and flow tests
to rheological parameters of high-performance concrete,
Materials Research India 12 (1) (2009) 75–81.
[7] P. Bartos, Fresh Concrete: Properties and Tests, Elsevier, 1992.
[8] E. Bauer, J.G.G. de Sousa, E.A. Guimaraes, F.G.S. Silva, Study
of the laboratory Vane test on mortars, Building and
Environment 42 (2007) 86–92.
[9] S. Amziane, C.F. Ferraris, E.P. Koehler, Measurement of
workability of fresh concrete using a mixing truck, Journal of
Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
110 (1) (2005).