Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Testing pumpability of concrete using Sliding Pipe Rheometer

Viktor Mechtcherine a,⇑, Venkatesh Naidu Nerella a, Knut Kasten b
a
Technische Universität Dresden, Institute of Construction Materials, Dresden, Germany
b
Putzmeister Engineering GmbH, Aichtal, Germany

h i g h l i g h t s

 Need for new and reliable device to test pumpability of concrete is emphasized.
 Sliding Pipe Rheometer (Sliper) is introduced and its operating procedure elaborated.
 Influence of concrete composition on pumpability is investigated.
 Advantages of Sliper are demonstrated through comparison with other test methods.
 Sliper estimations are validated using full-scale pumping measurements.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The pumping of concrete is an important part of modern construction processes. Irrespective of the
Received 27 September 2013 immense practical significance of this process, pumping pressure is still being estimated using conven-
Received in revised form 1 November 2013 tional methods such as the slump test, which has proved inadequate. The Sliding Pipe Rheometer (Sliper)
Accepted 12 November 2013
is a new device developed to resolve this problem and provide reliable estimations of pumping pressures.
Available online 25 December 2013
Using this device, a series of laboratory tests to investigate the pumpability of concretes with various
compositions was performed. The results obtained provide a solid basis to demonstrate the links between
Keywords:
mixture parameters, e.g., water-to-binder ratio, aggregate shape, admixtures, and consistency class, and
Concrete
Pumping
the pumpability of concrete. For the sake of comparison, all the concretes were tested using a concrete
Rheology viscometer and the flow table test as well. This comparison emphasized the advantages of using Sliper
Sliding Pipe Rheometer to determine the rheological behavior of concrete during pumping, while a good correlation between
Sliper the results obtained in the test series with Sliper and the concrete viscometer was found. Finally, the pre-
Viscosimeter dicting capability of Sliper was validated under field conditions by measuring full-scale pumping
Flow table test pressure.
Pumpability Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction concrete by accelerating its transport and placement, thereby

The global construction industry is currently witnessing enor-
mous growth and change in terms of construction technology
and methodology. Reducing construction time is a major change
separating modern and conventional modes of construction. Con-
crete pumping is one of the key reasons for this tremendous
change. It has made feasible the construction of very large struc-
tures, i.e., bridges and skyscrapers, within very short times. Thus,
concrete pumping is a significant, very important activity in mod-
ern construction. The pumping of concrete not only reduces signif-
icantly the total time of construction, but it also reduces the total
cost of construction by reducing labor requirements. Concrete
pumping also helps ensure the designed workability of the fresh
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 351 463 35 920; fax: +49 351 463 37 268.
E-mail address: mechtcherine@tu-dresden.de (V. Mechtcherine).
reducing time-dependent effects.
Fresh concrete is a heterogeneous suspension with various con-
stituents of different shapes, sizes, and material properties. The
workability of concrete depends very much on its composition
[1]. Since even a slight variation in the mix design can have a pro-
nounced impact on the behavior of concrete in fresh state [2,3] and
since compositions of modern concretes are complex and vary con-
siderably from case to case, it is difficult to establish the quantita-
tive links between the mixtures’ compositions and their
rheological properties. This makes it very challenging to predict
and optimize the rheological characteristics of fresh concrete in or-
der to meet specific requirements resulting from particular techno-
logical processes [2].
Concrete pumping is done by pushing concrete at high pressure
into pipes made of either flexible, abrasion-resistant material or
steel [3]. The pressure applied provides the necessary thrust to
move the concrete forward, i.e., it causes the concrete material to

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.037
 V. Mechtcherine et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323
deform in the direction of the applied force and, hence, to transmit
the force further. Since coarse aggregates cannot be deformed eas-
ily, fresh mortar plays the major role in the deformation behavior
of concrete. For most of the concretes it is evident from previous
studies that concrete flows as a plug in the pumping pipelines
[4–9], as illustrated in Fig. 1; coarse aggregates move towards
the center of pipe forming a core (plug), while an easily deform-
able, lubricating layer is formed at the internal walls of the pipe-
lines, leading to a considerable reduction in the required
pumping pressure. The lubricating mortar layer consists of cement
paste (cement, water, mineral admixtures and chemical additives)
and fine aggregates.
The fine mortar content in concrete has a significant influence
on the pressure required to move fresh concrete forward at a par-
ticular flow rate. Accordingly, the mix composition should be pre-
determined in such a way that the fresh concrete has sufficient
mortar content and can flow without stagnation over the distances
required, particularly through pipe bends and narrow sections. At
the same time, a pronounced segregation of mix constituents must
be avoided in order to prevent losses of homogeneity and block-
ages in the pipes. In achieving all these aims, the concrete mixture
must, in addition to having sufficient mortar content, have a high
packing density of the solid components as well as good cohesion
[3].
Obviously the rheological properties of concrete are crucial to
its flow characteristics, and they define to a great extent the pump-
ing pressure required. The rheology of concrete influences the
pumping process in two ways: (1) by affecting the force transmis-
sion inside the core (plug), and (2) by influencing the shearing
behavior of lubricating layer at the walls of the pipe. The rheolog-
ical behavior of fresh concrete can be satisfactorily described by
the Bingham model, with its two parameters: yield stress s0 and
plastic viscosity l [10]. Both these parameters are sensitive to vari-
ations in the mix composition, and both parameters affect the
pumping behavior of fresh concrete, although to different extents.
Conventionally, the pumpability and workability of fresh con-
crete have been determined using the standard slump test
[11,12] or flow table test [13,14]. General quantitative estimation
of required pumping pressure using, for example, nomographs
based on slump or spread values have been proposed and dis-
cussed in a number of previous publications [15,16]. However,
these methods have many limitations, as nomographs do not in-
clude the complete range of certain parameters, e.g., very high
spreads and pipe lengths. More importantly, some crucial parame-
ters, as examples aggregate shape, grading, paste volume, etc., can-
not be taken into consideration while estimating pumping
pressures using nomographs. Even in the case of the allowed range
of nomographs, estimated pumping pressures based on slump or
spread are not necessarily reliable for modern concretes like SCC
and HPC [4,7]. One powerful explanation of this is that the slump,
slump flow, or spread values correlate well with only one of the
Bingham parameters, namely the yield stress s0, i.e., the stress
needed to begin the deformation process starting at the zero shear
rate [17–20]. The correlation of slump with the second Bingham
parameter – plastic viscosity l – is very poor.
However, plastic viscosity is very important [5,21,22] to the
estimation of the resistance of concrete to pressure in the pipe
since this parameter is a measure of the increase in shear stress
Lubricating
Plug layer
Fig. 1. Schematic view of plug flow of concrete during pumping.
313
with increasing shear rate. Higher concrete flow rates Q (with their
higher shear rates!) can be achieved at a constant pressure P (shear
stress!) if the plastic viscosity l is reduced. In other words, for a gi-
ven value of Q the required pumping pressure P increases with
increasing plastic viscosity.
Another significant point of note is the difference in flow condi-
tions during the slump (flow) test or table flow test and during
concrete pumping. The slump (flow) test, the deformation of the
concrete ‘‘cake’’ for softer consistencies in conjunction with some
radial, surface flow with low deformation rate, cannot reproduce
the flow conditions of fresh concrete inside a pumping hose line,
i.e., plug flow with a lubricating layer and high deformation rate.
The influence of the lubricating layer on the pumpability of con-
crete is enormous, as has been emphasized in previous research
[4,7,9]. Therefore, the absence of the lubricating layer in the slump
flow test makes an estimation of pumping pressure based on such
a test even less reliable.
More advanced concrete testing devices such as rheometers and
viscometers can be used to estimate both parameters of the Bing-
ham model and are, therefore, more suitable for estimating the
pumpability of fresh concrete. However, portability and ease of
operating of the testing equipment play considerable role in the
selection of testing equipment for use on site, especially if the loca-
tion is remote or nomadic, such as in the construction of roads, ca-
nal beds, etc. The inadequacy of current equipment and the
scarcity of sound methodologies give birth to the demand for ded-
icated, portable, yet reliable testing equipment for the quantitative
estimation of pumping pressure and the determination of con-
crete’s pumpability. A new concrete testing equipment, Sliding
Pipe Rheometer (Sliper) has been developed [7] by Putzmeister
to solve the above-mentioned problems.
While Sliper seems to meet all the above-mentioned demands
of portability, reliability, and a methodology optimized with re-
spect to concrete pumping, no systematic scientific parameter
studies have been performed with this device as yet as it relates
to various concrete compositions. Furthermore, it is not known
how well the results obtained with Sliper would correlate with
the results of measurements performed using a concrete viscome-
ter or conventional empirical methods, indeed such as the slump
test or the flow table test.
In the article at hand the new, specialized device for testing
concrete pumpability – the Sliding Pipe Rheometer – is introduced
and its working procedure briefly explained. Furthermore, a
parameter study on the effects of mixture composition on the
pumpability of fresh concrete performed with Sliper is presented.
These results are discussed and compared with those obtained
using both the concrete viscometer and the flow table test. Finally,
the predictive capacity of the approach based on Sliper measure-
ments for estimation of pumping pressure is demonstrated.
2. Sliding Pipe Rheometer (Sliper)
The crucial difference Sliper has in comparison with regular
rheometers is its very close adaption to real pumping processes
as well as its relatively simple and robust setup. By using as its cen-
tral element a piece of pipe with the actual geometry of the pipe in
operation and by applying a testing procedure which mimics
pumping at various speeds, the physical conditions in the concrete
pumping process can be efficiently reproduced, see Fig. 2. The
pumpability is tested by filling the pipe placed in the topmost po-
sition with fresh concrete and eventually letting the pipe slide
downwards under the force of the weights attached to the pipe.
While the pipe moves, the concrete body remains in the initial po-
sition, pressing against a pressure sensor positioned at the head of
the metal piston along which the pipe slides down. Various speeds
314 V. Mechtcherine et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323

Pipe

Reflecting-
plate
(b) (c)
Weight
couplings

Pressure
Piston
Distance
transducer
Flow rate
(a)
(d)
Fig. 2. (a) Sliding Pipe Rheometer; (b) pressure sensor (in dotted circle); (c) computer system; and (d) schematic view of P–Q plot (A = parameter related to yield stress,
B = parameter related to plastic viscosity, PH = deadweight pressure of concrete).

of the pipe in the subsequent measurements are achieved by
applying various weights. The speed of the pipe, measured by a dis-
tance sensor, corresponds to the concrete flow rate Q in the pipe,
while the pressure P of concrete at the piston head is associated
with the pumping pressure. Both parameters are recorded using
a computerized measuring and analysis system. Eventually the
readings can be combined to plot a pressure vs. flow rate relation-
ship P–Q; see Fig. 2d. Analogous to the Bingham model, two impor-
tant parameters, here denoted as a and b, are calculated from the
pressure and flow rate values. The parameter a is a function of
the intercept of the linear regression line with the P-axis; it is di-
rectly related to the yield stress of concrete in the vicinity of the
pipe wall. The parameter b is a function of the slope of P–Q curve
related to the plastic viscosity of concrete in the same region.
Kaplan et al. [4] suggested that concrete flows as slip flow,
when the shear stress si at the concrete-pipe wall interface is lower
than the yield stress s0 of the concrete, i.e., at lower shear rates.
Furthermore, it becomes slip-plus-shear flow after the interface
stress si exceeds the yield stress s0 of the concrete. The relationship
between shear stress si in the interface layer and shear rate m can
be described by Eq. (1):
si ¼ s0i þ li  m
where s0i is the yield stress and li is the plastic viscosity of the
lubricating interface layer.
As slip-plus-shear flow occurs only after the stress si at the inter-
face exceeds the yield stress s0 of the concrete, the shear rate m0 at
which this transition occurs can be determined according to Eq. (2):
s0  s0i
m0 ¼
li
Kaplan et al. further proposed and validated the following ana-
lytical models using Bingham and interface parameters:
 
2L Q  li
for slip flow P ¼ þ s0i
R p  R2  k
" Q
2L pR2 k  4l s0i þ 3l s0
R R
for slip-plus-shear flow P ¼  li þ s0i
R 1 þ 4Rl li
where P is the pumping pressure, Q is the flow rate, L and R are
length and radius of the pipe, k is the filling coefficient, and l is
the plastic viscosity of concrete.
In order to determine the type of concrete flow (slip or slip-
plus-shear) in Sliper, experiments were conducted by coloring
the concrete in the vicinity of pipe wall. Based on these experi-
ments and Eq. (2) it was observed that concrete flows as slip flow
during Sliper experiments. This implies that Eq. (3) is applicable for
Sliper. By rearranging, replacing radius with diameter, including
deadweight pressure and considering influence of lubricating layer
Eq. (3) can be adapted to the testing conditions of Sliper to derive
Eq. (5). This model makes it feasible to estimate field discharge
pumping pressures as the sum of pressures associated with three
different parameters: the yield stress Py, plastic viscosity Pv and
deadweight pressure PH; see Eq. (5):
4l 16  l li
P ¼ Py þ Pv þ PH ¼ s0i þ Q þqgH )
d p  d3 e
4l 16  l  Q
P ¼ Py þ Pv þ PH ¼ a þ bþqgH ð5Þ
d p  d3
where a = s0i is the equivalent of yield stress at the interface layer,
ð1Þ b = li/e is the equivalent of effective viscosity at the interface layer,
Q is flow rate, d and l are the diameter and length, respectively, of
the Sliper pipe, e represents thickness of the lubricating interface
layer (theoretically 1–5 mm), q is the density of concrete, and H is
the pumping height. It must be noted that the thickness of the lubri-
cating layer e cannot be measured experimentally with Sliper,
hence the parameters li and e cannot be calculated separately.
However, since the concrete flow conditions during Sliper tests
ð2Þ
are assumed to be the same as under field conditions during actual
pumping, the thickness of the lubricating layer is assumed to be the
same in both cases, so that parameter e does not need to be consid-
ered explicitly in estimating the pumping pressure on the basis of
the results obtained from Sliper tests. The term PH represents the
ð3Þ
deadweight pressure, which varies based on the pumping circuit
# and location. In the case of Sliper the pumping height, the length
of Sliper pipe, is 0.5 m and thus the term PH is less significant. It
must be calculated from the concrete density and the pumping
height. Further, the pressure sensor reading is set to zero during
ð4Þ every experiment just before filling the concrete into the Sliper pipe
 V. Mechtcherine et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323
in order to exclude the influence of atmospheric pressure variations.
Thus, the measured pressure readings shown in the P–Q plot were
recorded after excluding the influence of the atmospheric pressure;
see Fig. 6.
For a real pumping circuit under field conditions, pumping pres-
sure P can be determined using Eq. (6):
4L 16  L  Q
P ¼ Py þ Pv þ PH ¼ aþ bþqgH
D p  D3
Thus, to determine pumping pressure, one must know the
diameter D of the pipeline and its length L as well as the desired
flow rate Q. These parameters are provided by the geometry spec-
ifications and construction requirements. However, the rheological
parameters a and b must be determined experimentally by using
Sliper from the P–Q plot. Both these parameters vary significantly
depending upon the concrete’s composition.
From the literature [4,7] we can assume, as is shown in Fig. 2
and discussed above, that,
P ¼AþBQ
From Eqs. (5) and (7), the formulae to calculate a and b can be
derived as,
3 As illustrated in Fig. 3, nearly all the mixtures tested in the
dA Bpd
a¼ ;b ¼
4l 16  l
where, A is the P-intercept of the P–Q curve, B is the slope of P–Q
curve and l and d are the length and diameter of Sliper pipe,
0.5 m and 0.126 m, respectively.
Since Sliper is a new device, its operating procedure should be
presented here briefly. The first step in testing with Sliper is to
assemble all its components and initialize the computerized mea-
suring system. Then the fresh concrete is filled into the pipe and
gently tapped using a stick to ensure proper filling. The formation
of the lubricating layer depends on the distance through which
concrete is moved and sheared in the pipe. This means, in the con-
text of Sliper, the thickness of the lubricating layer immediately
after filling is almost negligible, increasing gradually as the Sliper
pipe is moved up and down. This process reaches a saturated, fully
developed state after a few strokes of Sliper. This leads to some ini-
tial effects, as the characteristics of lubricating layer at the first
measurement and last measurement with the same weight will
vary significantly. Understanding the exact variation of the lubri-
cating layer’s characteristics is not trivial, as they depend strongly
on the particular concrete’s composition, which is varied widely in
the current experimental regimen. In order to avoid the initial ef-
fect described, a fully developed lubricating layer and, thus, a char-
acteristic velocity profile in the pipe are achieved by applying some
5–10 pre-strokes (sliding the pipe up and down manually without
recording any values). Once the lubricating layer and velocity pro-
file are developed, the actual pressure-vs.-discharge readings are
noted using gradually increasing weights. By following this proce-
dure the initial effects are greatly minimized, if not completely
eliminated.
After performing pre-strokes, weights are attached to the pipe
depending on the desired speed of pipe movement. After this the
pipe is unlocked and let to freely slide downwards, overcoming
the resistance of the stationary concrete inside it. The concrete
pressure acting on the sensor increases with increasing speed of
the pipe and depends on the concrete’s properties. The pressures
and the pipe velocities are measured dynamically with the help
of the corresponding sensors and recorded. It is advisable to per-
form each individual measurement, i.e., for a given weight/speed,
at least twice in order to recognize possible handling errors. The
time delay between each measurement was maintained at approx-
imately 5 s. The measured values are analyzed further with the
help of the analytical tool. The pressure P is plotted vs. flow rate
315
Q using a MS-Excel worksheet. The rheological parameters a and
b are obtained from these data, and finally, the required pumping
pressure can be estimated using Eq. (6).
3. Experimental program
ð6Þ A total of twelve different concrete mixes were formulated and
tested in the laboratory using Sliper. The major objective was to
examine systematically the sensitivity of Sliper to demonstrate
the influence of various constituents of concrete on its rheological
properties and pumpability. The following parameters of the con-
crete composition were varied:
(1) Cement type (CEM I, CEM II).
(2) Type of concrete (ordinary concrete (OC), high performance
concrete (HPC)).
(3) Type of coarse aggregates (rounded (gravel), crushed).
(4) Water-to-binder ratio (0.60 and 0.45 for OC, 0.30 for HPC).
ð7Þ
(5) Consistency class (F3, F5 according to EN 206:1990 [23]).
(6) Admixtures (none, silica fume, fly ash).
ð8Þ framework of the current research were prepared using compos-
ite cement CEM II 42.5 A-LL type cement (produced by Schwenk,
Germany) containing up to 20% limestone powder. In order to
identify the influence of the cement type, mixture 12 was pre-
pared with the CEM I 42.5 R-HS type Portland cement (also pro-
duced by Schwenk). According to the type of concrete the
mixtures can be subdivided into two groups, i.e., ordinary con-
crete (1 through 4 and 12) and high performance concrete (5
through 11). Mixtures of both the groups are further divided
based on coarse aggregate type, i.e., rounded aggregates – gravel
with grain size ranging from 2 to16 mm – (mixtures 1, 5, and 12)
and crushed aggregates – basalt split with grain size from 2 to
16 mm (all other mixtures). Natural quartz sand 0/2 mm was
used as the fine aggregate in all mixtures. Additionally, some
quartz sand fraction of 0.06/0.2 was used to compensate for the
low content of fine aggregates in the sand fraction 0/2. The corre-
sponding sieve analysis curves are presented in Figs. 4 and 5. All
HPC mixtures had a water-to-binder ratio (w/b) of 0.30. OC mix-
tures were produced with a w/b of 0.45 except for mixture 2,
which had w/b of 0.60. Further classification was done based on
consistency class: F5, mixtures 4, 9, 10, and 11, and F3, all other
mixtures. To study the effects of mineral admixtures on pumpa-
bility, further distinction of mixtures was made by adding silica
fume (mixtures 7 and 9) and fly ash (8, 10 and 12). All mix com-
positions are presented in Table 2. It should be noted that water-
to-binder ratio was calculated according to the formula w/b = w/
(c + SF + 0.4  FA), where SF is the amount of silica fume and FA
is the amount of fly ash in the mixture. The coefficient of 0.4
for fly ash was used according to the German code DIN EN
1045-2, which means that only a fraction of fly ash (40%) was as-
sumed to contribute to the formation of C–S–H phases and there-
fore only this fraction was considered as binder.
Comparative analysis of test results for different concrete mix-
tures should provide an insight into the influences of various
parameters of concrete composition on its pumpability. This can
be done by comparing mixture couples or triples as presented in
Table 1. The mix composition in such individual couples or triples
varies only in the indicated parameter under investigation. For
example, mixtures 1 and 3 both have the same constituents except
coarse aggregates, hence the influence of aggregate type can be
elaborated by comparing mixtures 1 and 3.
To achieve the desired consistency of each class while keeping
the planned water-to-binder ratio and other parameters constant,
316 V. Mechtcherine et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323

Cement Concrete Aggregate Water-to- Consistency Mixture

Type Type Type binder Ratio Class Number

Rounded
(Ottendorfer
0.45 F3 1
gravel
2-16 mm)
Ordinary
Concrete 0.60 F3 2
Crushed
(Basalt split F3 3
2-16 mm)
CEM II 42.5 N
A-LL 0.45
F5 4

F3 5
Concrete composition

0.30
Rounded

6
High F3
Performance Silica Fume
7
Concrete (ELKEM-971U)

Fly Ash
(Safament HKV) 8
Crushed 0.30

F5 9

Silica Fume 10

Fly Ash 11

CEM I 42.5 Ordinary 0.45 12

Rounded F3
R-HS Concrete

Fig. 3. Mix-design parameters for tested concrete mixtures.

100 100
Fraction 0-2 96.6 99.9 Fraction 2-5 97.0
Passing Volume [%]

99.3 96.2 95.3

Passing Volume [%]

91.3
Fraction 2-8 92.1 Fraction 5-8
80 73.4 80
Fraction 8-16 Fraction 8-11
67.1 64.9
Fraction 11-16
60 60

39.9
40 40
20.1
20 10.4 20 15.3 13.2
4.9 6.3 13.5
1.6 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.8
0.1 0.2 0 2.5 0.6
0 0 0.7
0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 31.5 1 2 2.8 4 5.6 8 11.2 16 22.4
Sieve size [mm] Sieve size [mm]

Fig. 4. Sieving curves for rounded, natural quartz aggregates. Fig. 5. Sieving curves for crushed basalt aggregates.

a superplasticizer was used as the fine tuning constituent. This

explains the variations in the dosage of super plasticizer as given Table 1
in Table 2. All concrete mixtures were tested using the flow table Identification of mixtures suitable for comparative analysis.
test according to EN DIN 12350 [13,14] in order to ensure that
Parameter under investigation Mixtures for comparing
the desired consistency class was obtained before testing the mix-
ture with Sliper and concrete viscometer. Mixture 9 alone did not Cement type 1 M 12
Aggregate type 1 M 3; 5 M 6
satisfy this requirement. This high performance concrete mixture Water-to-binder ratio 2 M 3 M 6; 1 M 5
with a w/b of 0.3 was designed to match in the consistency class Consistency class 3 M 4; 7 M 10; 8 M 11
F5. After repetitive trials, it was found to be impossible to achieve Addition of silica fume 6 M 7; 9 M 10
a flow table spread of over 560 mm without adding a considerable Addition of fly ash 6 M 8; 9 M 11
Silica fume vs. fly ash 7 M 8; 10 M 11
amount of superplasticizer. However, this measure resulted in
 V. Mechtcherine et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323 317

Table 2
Mixture compositions of the tested concrete mixtures.

Mix-design number Density 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

3 3
Constituent kg/m Dosage (kg/m )
CEM I 42.5 R-HS 3150 – 350.0
CEM II 42.5 N A-LL 3100 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 450.0 450.0 450.0 450.0 450.0 450.0 450.0 –
Micro silicaa 250–350 – 45.0 – 45.0 –
Fly ashb (compacted) 2215 – 100.0 – 100.0
Quartz sand 0.06/0.2 2650 135.2 125.5 135.2 135.2 133.5 47.7 36.4 17.6 47.7 36.4 17.6 135.2
Quartz sand 0/2 2650 482.7 663.1 714.4 714.4 476.6 791.2 764.8 740.8 791.2 764.8 740.8 482.7
Quartz sand/gravel 2/8 2650 540.6 – 533.8 – 540.6
Quartz gravel 8/16 2650 772.3 762.6 772.3
Basalt split 2/5 2800 – 179.2 193.1 193.1 – 190.6 182.1 194.0 190.6 182.1 194.0 –
Basalt split 5/8 2800 215.1 231.7 231.7 228.8 218.5 211.7 228.8 218.5 211.7
Basalt split 8/11 2800 268.8 289.6 289.6 305.0 291.3 282.2 305.0 291.3 282.2
Basalt split 11/16 2800 340.5 366.9 366.9 343.2 327.8 317.5 343.2 327.8 317.5
Water 1000 157.5 210.0 157.5 157.5 135.0 135.0 148.5 147.0 135.0 148.5 147.0 157.5
SPc 1050 ± 20 4.3 0.0 7.7 13.3 13.0 23.3 11.7 11.7 0.0 14.0 14.3 3.4d
a
ELKEM Grade 971-U.
b
Safament HKV.
c
Superplasticizer Sky 593.
d
1 kg/m3 upper case stabilizer on a methylcellulose basis (BASF) was added to this mixture.

Table 3
Experimental results of flow table, Sliper and viscometer tests.

Mixture-Nr (aggregate-consistency-w/b-admixtures) Flow table test Sliper test Viscometer test

D1 (mm) D2 (mm) a Pa b Pa s/mm s0 Pa l Pa s
Mixture-1 (R-F3-0.45) 520 415 251 0.59 245 76
Mixture-2 (C-F3-0.60) 455 435 191 0.14 450 38
Mixture-3 (C-F3-0.45) 440 400 199 0.81 533 230
Mixture-4 (C-F5-0.45) 600 555 151 0.65 – –
Mixture-5 (R-F3-0.30) 370 440 210 2.30 299 236
Mixture-6 (C-F3-0.30) 480 430 130 2.74 – –
Mixture-7 (C-F3-0.30-SF) 430 390 240 1.74 575 164
Mixture-8 (C-F3-0.30-FA) 500 410 256 3.25 – –
Mixture-10 (C-F5-0.30-SF) 555 485 169 1.15 253 126
Mixture-11 (C-F5-0.30-FA) 600 530 140 3.10 55 291
Mixture-12 (R-F3-0.45-CEM1) 510 430 218 0.58 – –

Note: R and C stand for rounded and crushed aggregates, respectively; SF and FA stand for silica fume and fly ash, respectively.

bleeding of the concrete. Hence, mixture 9 was excluded from fur-
ther testing.
For each composition 30 dm3 of concrete was produced – the
amount needed to provide material for testing by means of all
three methods (Sliper, viscometer, flow table test). The entire pro-
cedure consisted of six steps as presented below; the time-line (in
minutes) of each step is indicated in the closed brackets.
(1) Mixing (begin 0 min): In Elba mixer at 50 rpm speed for
about 7–10 min.
(2) Flow table test 1 (10th min): Flow table test with 15 strokes.
(3) Slow mixing (13th min): In Elba mixer at 3 rpm speed for
about 15 min.
(4) Flow table test 2 (28th min): Flow table test with 15 strokes.
(5) Sliper test (28th min): Pumpability test with Sliper.
(6) Viscometer test (28th min): Rheology test with ConTec vis-
cometer 5.
In the first step the tested concrete was mixed in the Elba lab-
oratory mixer with a mixing speed of 50 rpm, and then the first
flow table test was performed. The flow table test is a modified ver-
sion of the slump flow test and is widely used in Germany. In this
method, the mold, the frustum of a cone of bottom diameter
200 mm, top diameter 130 mm, and height 200 mm, is filled with
concrete after fixing it to a wooden plate. Then the frustum is
lifted, and within 15 s 15 shocks/strokes are applied to the slump
by lifting and dropping the wooden plate. Eventually the diameter
of the concrete ‘‘cake’’ is measured. The next step was further
15 min mixing of concrete at slower rotational speed, 3 rpm, which
was supposed to replicate the transportation of fresh concrete from
mixing plant to the construction site. After slow mixing, i.e.
approximately 25–28 min from water addition, Sliper tests, as de-
scribed in previous section, viscometer, and the second flow table
test were carried out in parallel.
A coaxial cylinder ConTec viscometer 5 [24] was used to charac-
terize the rheological properties of fresh concrete. It uses the Rein-
er-Rivlin equation to describe the calculated rheological behavior
by the fundamental parameters of the Bingham model: yield stress
and plastic viscosity. Flow curves were determined by conducting
continuous-shear-rate-controlled tests. In these tests a predefined
rotational velocity range was applied and the resulting torque val-
ues were measured. Applied rotational velocity first gradually in-
creased and then decreased after the maximum rotational
velocity was achieved. The measured torque was plotted against
applied rotational velocity. Finally, the plotted curve was linearly
approximated through linear regression analyses to obtain the
yield stress and plastic viscosity from the Y-intercept and the slope
of the regression curve, respectively.
While there was no problem in testing the mixtures with Sliper
or with the flow table, some mixtures could not be properly tested
using the concrete viscometer. In particular, for mixtures 6, 8 and
12 the inner cylinder, with its ribs, could not penetrate into the
318 V. Mechtcherine et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323
35
11
30
25 8 Mixture-3
20
w/b = 0.30
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30
Fig. 6. Pressure P vs. flow rate Q curves obtained from Sliper tests.
concrete after it had been filled into the outer cylinder. All these
mixtures had relatively stiff consistencies (F3) and mixtures 6
and 8 had a low water-to-binder ratio (0.3) as well. Hence, these
concretes were found to be too stiff to test with the viscometer.
A different problem was observed for mixture 4; the measured re-
sults were found to scatter considerably on the torque-to-rota-
tional-velocity diagram and linear regression curve delivered a
negative yield stress value. No plausible explanation for this prob-
lem has been found as yet.
4. Results and analysis
An overview of the results obtained from the tests with Sliper,
viscometer, and flow table is presented in Table 3. Flow table
spread diameter (D1) after initial mixing and flow table spread
diameter (D2) after slow mixing for 15 min are the results of the
flow table tests 1 and 2, respectively. Sliper tests provided the
parameters a and b, representing equivalents of the lubricating
interface layers’ yield stress and plastic viscosity, respectively.
Viscometer tests delivered the values of yield stress s0 and plastic
viscosity l for concrete. Flow table test results showed the well-
known time dependency of fresh concrete. All the tested mixtures
except mixture 5, in which some extra superplasticizer (50 g per
30 dm3) was added after flow table test 1 to achieve the desired
consistency, yielded a reduction in flow table spread with increas-
ing time.
All the results obtained were evaluated in order to explain the
influence of concrete composition on its three major properties
in the fresh state: (1) pumpability, (2) plastic viscosity and (3) yield
stress. In the following subsections these individual properties will
be presented and discussed.
4.1. Influence of concrete composition on its pumpability
There is no ‘‘single parameter’’ available to describe the pumpa-
bility of concrete. A straightforward and probably best representa-
tion involves using a pumping pressure P vs. flow rate Q curve. A
steeper slope of the P–Q curve means poor pumpability of the fresh
concrete since a high pumping pressure must be applied to obtain
even a relatively low flow rate. Fig. 6 presents all the P–Q curves of
tested mixtures, so that they can be easily compared. Note that
mixtures with water-to-binder ratios of 0.60, 0.45 and 0.30 are rep-
resented with dotted, dashed and continuous lines, respectively.
Circles indicate rounded, angular symbols crushed aggregates. F3
and F5 consistency classes are represented by single and double
Mixture-1
6
5 Mixture-2
7
10 Mixture-4
4 Mixture-5
3 12
Mixture-6
1
Mixture-7
Mixture-8
w/b = 0.45 2 Mixture-10
Mixture-11
w/b = 0.60
Mixture-12
40 50 60 70 80
lines, respectively. Filled triangles mark mixtures with silica fume,
while the mixtures with fly ash addition are marked with filled
squares.
Keeping in mind that different flow rates are achieved by apply-
ing various weights on the Sliper pipe, the particular number of P
and Q readings measured for each type of concrete varied based
on concrete type and experimental conditions; see Fig. 6. High flow
rates, >50 m3/h, can be achieved with weights less than 25 kg for
concretes with low viscosity and therefore high pumpability. Con-
trarily, for concretes with high viscosity flow rates higher than
50 m3/h couldn’t be achieved even with weights totaling more
than 35 kg. Further increases in weight were avoided out of con-
cern for Sliper’s design limits and the stability of results.
Results of the experiments with Sliper clearly demonstrated the
effect of various parameters of mixture composition on pumping
pressure needed to ensure particular flow rates. The influence of
water-to-binder ratio could be observed most clearly: all P–Q
curves of concrete mixtures with w/b of 0.30 are considerably stee-
per than those of the mixtures w/b of 0.45 and even much steeper
in comparison to the mixture with w/b of 0.60. This result clearly
emphasizes the well-known effect of water-to-binder ratio on
the pumpability of concrete: The higher the w/b the lower the re-
quired pumping pressure if other parameters of mixture composi-
tion are more or less unchanged. It can also be observed from Fig. 6
that all the curves fell closely grouped on the P–Q plot area,
depending on the water-to-binder ratio; note that these groups
are marked with continuous, dashed and dotted ovals for w/b of
0.30, 0.45 and 0.60, respectively. This indicates that the flow rate
of concrete Q at certain pumping pressure depends primarily upon
w/b. However, it is worthy of note that although higher water-to-
binder ratios reduce the required pumping pressure, they can
cause problems related to segregation and eventually lead to
blockage. The concrete mixture should have enough cohesion in
order to be able to flow at bends and vertical pipelines without
stagnation. To achieve good cohesion at higher water-to-binder ra-
tios a relatively high content of fines, a steady aggregate size distri-
bution, and the addition of stabilizers can be used.
Furthermore, Fig. 6 shows that mixtures with rounded aggre-
gates are more highly pumpable than are mixtures with crushed
aggregates. In other words, rounded aggregate mixtures can be
pumped at higher flow rates at the given pumping pressure or with
lower pumping pressure at the given flow rate in comparison to
the corresponding mixtures with crushed aggregates. This is tied
to the rounded aggregates’ facing less resistance from the mortar
matrix during shear deformation of the concrete, as compared to
those with crushed aggregates. Moreover crushed aggregates can
 V. Mechtcherine et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323
25
[Nm]
20
Torsional Moment
15
10
5 1
0
0 0.1 0.2
Rotational Velocity
Fig. 7. Torsional moment T vs. rotational velocity N diagrams of mixtures tested with the viscometer.
interlock with each other and prevent the smooth flow of the con-
crete because of blocking. And, as reported by Guptill et al. [15], the
crushed aggregates have a greater surface area per unit volume as
compared to rounded aggregates, and thus require more mortar to
coat the surface for pumpability.
It was observed that adding silica fume and extra water, as with
mixtures 7 and 10, increases the pumpability of concrete and
yields a shallower P–Q curve for mixture 7 than for the correspond-
ing mixture 6 without silica fume addition while the addition of fly
ash, as with mixtures 8 and 11, exerted a negative influence on the
pumpability of the concretes tested. This can be concluded from
the steeper course of P–Q curve in Fig. 6. Wallevik [8] reported that
plastic viscosity decreased when moderate amounts of silica fume
were added to the concrete as a replacement for the cement.
Spherical particles of silica fume are much smaller than those of
cement and can fill the voids between cement particles, thus
increasing the packing density and decreasing the water demand
of the mixture. Furthermore, it should be considered that because
of the addition of silica fume and extra water, the latter in order to
keep w/b constant, the mixtures become richer in fines and cement
paste and poorer with respect to aggregates. This is another reason
for the decrease in plastic viscosity and, thus, the easier pumpabil-
ity of concrete. The addition of fly ash and some extra water also
increased the cement paste content of fresh concrete. Considering
this and the favorable, mostly spherical shape of fly ash particles
one could expect an improvement in pumpability. However, since
only 40% of fly ash was considered as binder, a relatively low
amount of water was added to keep the effective water-to-binder
ratio constant; see Section 3. As a result, the complete water de-
mand of added fly ash was obviously not covered by extra water,
which in turn leads to an increase in plastic viscosity and a de-
crease in pumpability, as indicated by a steeper slope of the P–Q
curves.
As expected, mixtures of the consistency class F5 yielded much
higher flow rates, hence better pumpability, than the correspond-
ing mixtures of the consistency class F3 at the same pumping pres-
sures. Finally, the change from CEM II type cement (mixture 1) to
CEM I type cement (mixture 12) affected only very slightly the rhe-
ological behavior of concrete in the Sliper tests. This result cer-
tainly does not allow any general conclusions on the effect of
cement type, and can be considered as a first reference for further
investigations.
As stated above, a further goal of this study was to compare the
findings from the Sliper tests with the results of more ‘‘traditional’’
test methods, in particular viscometer and flow table tests. Fig. 7
presents torque T vs. rotational velocity N graphs for all mixtures
tested using the viscometer. The presented results are the linear
319
11
5
3
Mixture-1
Mixture-2
7
Mixture-3
Mixture-5
10 Mixture-7
2 Mixture-10
Mixture-11
0.3 0.4 0.5
[rps]
approximations of experimental measurements as is common
when the Bingham model is applied in evaluating the data. In gen-
eral, it can be observed that the order and trends of T–N graphs in
Fig. 7 are similar to those of P–Q curves presented in Fig. 6; a more
comprehensive evaluation follows in the following sections. It
must be noted, however, that this conclusion is made by taking
the slope of T vs. N graph, representing the plastic viscosity of
the concrete, as the deciding criterion. The only exception was
mixture 3, which yielded a steeper slope of T–N curve in compari-
son to mixtures 7 and 10, thus contradicting the results of Sliper
tests. In authors’ opinions this can be result of a false viscometer
measurement for mixture 3 because of either a handling or system
error.
4.2. Influence of concrete composition on viscosity parameter b
obtained from Sliper tests and plastic viscosity l from viscometer
testing
Values of the parameter b representing the plastic viscosity of
the lubricating interface layer were calculated using Eq. (8) on
the basis of the results of Sliper tests presented in Fig. 6. The values
of plastic viscosity l were calculated as the slopes of the linear
regression lines obtained on the basis of the results of viscometer
tests and presented in Fig. 7. Table 3 gives these values for the con-
crete compositions under investigation. In the following the main
findings are stated briefly.
Concrete mixtures with higher water-to-binder ratios, i.e., 0.45
and 0.60 (mixtures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 12), have lower b and l values
than those of concrete mixtures with a low water-to-binder ratio,
i.e., all other mixtures. This result once again confirms the strong
influence of water-to-binder ratio on the rheological properties
of concrete. The influence of aggregate shape on plastic viscosity
parameters of concrete or its lubricating layer can be revealed by
comparing the results of mixtures 1 and 3 as well as 5 and 6. Mix-
tures 1 and 5 with rounded aggregates, gravel, possess lower b and
l values than the corresponding mixtures 3 and 6 with crushed
aggregates. The addition of silica fume to the concrete mixture re-
duces its viscosity parameter b, compare mixtures 6 and 7, while
the addition of fly ash lead to an increase of this parameter, com-
pare mixtures 6 and 8. This also explains why adding fly ash re-
duced the pumpability of concrete; see Fig. 6. The influence of
consistency class (F3 or F5) on the viscosity parameters of concrete
is evident from the comparison of the results obtained for mixture
couples 3 and 4; 7 and 10 as well as 8 and 11: The higher the con-
crete consistency, the lower the values of the parameters l and b;
for l a direct comparison is possible only for mixtures 7 and 10.
The effect of the cement type on the plastic viscosity of the
320 V. Mechtcherine et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

Viscosity parameter from Sliper

Viscosity parameter from Sliper

2.5 2.5

[Pa s/mm] R² = 0.99

[Pa s/mm]
2.0 2.0
R² = 0.00
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 350 400 450 500 550 600
Plastic viscosity from viscometer Flow table spread [mm]
[Pa s]
(a) (b)
400
Plastic viscosity from viscometer

300

R² = 0.29
[Pa·s]

200

100

0
350 400 450 500 550 600
Flow table spread [mm]
(c)
Fig. 8. Correlations for viscosity measurements: (a) Sliper vs. viscometer, (b) Sliper vs. flow table and (c) viscometer vs. flow table.

lubricating layer was negligible in this study; compare mixtures 1 4.3. Influence of concrete composition on the parameter a obtained
and 12. from Sliper tests and yield stress s0 measured using viscometer
From the evaluation as presented above it is evident that the
values of the viscosity parameter of the lubricating layer b and Though plastic viscosity is the major parameter in defining the
the plastic viscosity l show similar dependences on the parame- dynamic flow behavior of fresh concrete, yield stress affects it as
ters of concrete composition and thus must correlate well with well. The a values related to the yield stress of the lubricating inter-
each other. Indeed, a comparison of both parameters, here face layer and presented in Table 3 were calculated using Eq. (8) on
excluding mixture 3 because of suspected measurement error, the basis of the results of the Sliper tests presented in Fig. 6. The
as illustrated in Fig. 8a shows a nearly perfect linear correlation values of the concretes’ yield stresses s0, also given in Table 3, were
with a correlation coefficient R2 of 0.99; see Section 4.1. Contrary calculated according to the Bingham model on the basis of the re-
to this finding, the direct comparison of viscosity parameter b ob- sults of viscometer tests presented in Fig. 7.
tained from Sliper tests with flow table spread D2 obtained from Increasing the water-to-binder ratio results in a much less pro-
the table flow tests showed no correlation at all; see Fig. 8b. This nounced effect on both parameters, a and s0, in comparison to the
clearly demonstrates that flow table test or similar established effect observed on viscosity parameters; see Section 4.2. This can
empirical measurement techniques (like slump or slump flow be traced back to the fact that the mixtures with low water-to-bin-
tests) are inadequate to the task of estimating the pumpability der ratios contain superplasticizer which, as is well known,
of concrete since they are not able to measure its viscous proper- strongly reduces the yield stress of concrete. This effect counter-
ties. This last point is confirmed by the comparison of the flow ta- acts an increase in yield stress due to the decrease in water-to-ce-
ble spread from the flow table tests with the plastic viscosity ment ratio. Obviously, these counteracting effects lead to different
measured with the viscometer; see Fig. 8c. The correlation coeffi- test results depending on the testing technique. For the mixture
cient R2 is a mere 0.29. pair 2 and 3 both parameters a and s0 increased with decreasing
 V. Mechtcherine et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323 321

260 260

Yield stress paramter from Sliper

Yield stress paramter from Sliper
220 220

R² = 0.75
R² = 0.72

[Pa]
[Pa] 180 180

140 140

100 100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 350 400 450 500 550 600
Yield stress from viscometer Flow table spread [mm]
[Pa]
(a) (b)
600
[Pa]

500
Yield stress from viscometer

400

R² = 0.94
300

200

100

0
350 400 450 500 550 600
Flow table spread [mm]
(c)
Fig. 9. Correlation for yield stress measurements: (a) Sliper vs. viscometer, (b) Sliper vs. flow table and (c) viscometer vs. flow table.

water-to-binder ratio, even if the a-value changed very slightly; OC Field

14
see Table 3. For the mixture pair 1 and 5 the value s0 increased OC Sliper
with decreasing w/b while the value a clearly decreased. An even 12 OC-F1 Field
Pressure P [MPa]

stronger decrease of the value a was observed for the mixture pairs OC-F1 Sliper

2 and 6. It should be noted that mixture 6, of all the compositions 10 SCC-F2 Field
SCC-F2 Sliper
tested, had the highest content of superplasticizer. 8
Aggregate shape has a noticeable influence on the yield stress s0
of the concrete; compare mixtures 1 and 3 in Table 3: Even if mix- 6
ture 3, with crushed aggregates, has a higher dosage of superplast-
4
icizer, it exhibits a higher yield stress than the corresponding
mixture 1, which contains rounded aggregates. However, for the 2
value a representing the yield stress of lubricating layer in the Sli-
0
per experiments, a contrary tendency was recorded; compare mix- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ture 1 with mixture 3 as well as mixture 5 with mixture 6. The
Flow rate Q [m3/h]
explanation for this phenomenon seems straightforward: Since
the lubricating layer does not contain coarse aggregates, their ef- Fig. 10. Comparison of the pressure-flow rate relationships estimated on the basis
fect diminishes, while the effect of the higher dosage of superplast- of Sliper measurements with the results of field measurements of on a concrete
icizer increases; once again: for the mixtures containing basalt pumping circuit.
split a higher amount of superplasticizer was used in comparison
to the corresponding mixtures containing quartz gravel. extra water; and 8, additional fly ash plus some extra water; see
The influence of silica fume and fly ash addition on parameter a Table 3. The values of the parameter a of mixtures 7 and 8 were
obtained from the Sliper tests can be recognized by comparing the found to be higher than that of mixture 6. To what extent this
results for mixtures 6, the reference; 7, additional silica fume and effect results from the addition of pozzolanic materials cannot
322 V. Mechtcherine et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323
however be is stated, since mixtures 7 and 8 had a considerably
lower content of superplasticizer; as was explained above, the
superplasticizer has a very pronounced effect on yield stress of
concrete, or its lubricating interface layer.
Considering the effect of the type of cement it can be stated that
mixture 1 (CEM I) exhibited a slightly lower yield stress than did
mixture 12 (CEM II). Since mixture 12 had a slightly lower content
of superplasticizer and since some stabilizer was added to this
mixture to prevent bleeding, the observed effect cannot be attrib-
uted solely to the changes in the type of cement. Finally, the influ-
ence of the consistency classes on the parameter a is obvious: The
higher consistency class leads to a lower a value, compare values of
mixtures 3 and 4, 7 and 10 as well as 8 and 11, respectively.
Fig. 9 shows the value correlations related to yield stress as ob-
tained using the three various testing techniques. The comparison
of the values obtained using Sliper and viscometer shows a good
linear correlation with a correlation coefficient R2 of 0.72; see
Fig. 9a. It must be noted that the yield stress value of mixture 1
measured with the viscometer was excluded from this statistical
evaluation since it is clearly fell out of the overall tendency. If this
value were considered, the correlation coefficient would fall to
0.28. The reason for the experimental error has not been clarified
as yet, but this evaluation example clearly shows how sensible cor-
relation functions are to the incorrectness of individual data when
overall number of measurements is moderate. Fig. 9b illustrates
the correlation between the yield stress parameter a of the lubri-
cating interface layer obtained from Sliper measurements and
slump flow diameter D2 obtained from flow table test. Again, there
is good linear correlation, with a determination coefficient R2 of
0.75. However, again a Sliper measurement, this time for mixture
6, was excluded from the statistical evaluation, since it clearly ex-
cluded itself from the overall tendency. Under consideration of this
value, certainly together with the corresponding value of the flow
table spread, the determination coefficient R2 would decrease to
0.48. Finally, from Fig. 9c it can be seen that the comparison of
the yield stress values obtained from the viscometer measure-
ments and the flow table spread from the flow table tests provided
a very good correlation with the determination coefficient R2 of
0.94. Following the explanation given to Fig. 9a, the data for mix-
ture 1 were excluded from this evaluation. Under consideration
of that data the determination coefficient would drop to 0.72.
4.4. Verification of the predictive capacity of pumping pressure based
on Sliper measurements
In order to verify the Sliper’s capability to estimate pumping
pressure under field conditions, validations were carried out on
the basis of field measurements by Putzmeister Engineering
GmbH. Two ordinary concretes and a high-performance concrete
were tested among others using Sliper under field conditions. By
using the results of Sliper measurements, i.e., the parameters a
and b, pumping pressures for various flow rates were estimated
by using Eq. (6). Furthermore, pressure and flow rate data recorded
at a horizontal pumping circuit with pipe length L of 58 m and pipe
inner diameter D of 0.125 m were compared with the estimated
values based on the measurements by Sliper. Fig. 10 shows that
the estimated relationship between the pumping pressure and
the flow rate agrees well the field measurements on the pumping
system. In Fig. 10, concretes denoted with ‘OC’ indicates ordinary
concrete of the strength class C35/45 with cement as only binder
constituent, ‘OC-F1’ indicates ordinary concrete of the strength
class C35/45 with addition of 60 kg/m3 fly-ash (18% by mass of ce-
ment) and ‘SCC’ a self-compacting concrete of the strength class
C50/60 containing 190 kg/m3 fly-ash (58% by mass of cement).
5. Conclusions
Estimating pumping pressure for various types of concrete and
optimizing concrete composition and machines for the successful
and unproblematic pumping of fresh concrete are important tasks
in modern construction technology. As yet, pumping pressure is
still being estimated using conventional methods like the slump,
slump flow tests, which have been proven inadequate to this task,
especially when high-performance concretes are used. In the arti-
cle at hand a new device, the Sliding Pipe Rheometer (Sliper), is
presented. This apparatus has been developed to resolve this prob-
lem and provide reliable estimations of pumping pressures. Using
this device, a series of laboratory tests to investigate the pumpabil-
ity of concretes with various compositions was performed. For the
sake of comparison, the same concrete mixtures were also tested
using a concrete viscometer and the flow table test. Additionally,
some field measurements on a real pumping system were per-
formed to verify the estimation of pumping pressure made on
the basis of Sliper tests. The obtained results can be summarized
as follows:
 Sliper has proven to be an easy-to-use, robust testing device
which could provide rheometrical data also for stiffer mixtures,
which cannot be tested using the ConTec viscometer 5.
 Sliper clearly demonstrates variations in pumpability with
respect to changes in the concrete’s composition; the influences
of water-to-binder ratio, the shape of coarse aggregates, the
addition of pozzolanic admixtures, or the addition of superp-
lasticizer were clearly observed and discussed.
 The viscosity parameter b obtained from Sliper tests correlates
very well with the plastic viscosity l measured using concrete
viscometer; there is no correlation of this parameter with flow
table spread values obtained from flow table tests; the plastic
viscosity measured using concrete viscometer correlates only
very slightly with flow table spread.
 The comparison of the parameter a related to the yield stress of
lubricating interface layer of concrete in Sliper tests with yield
stress s0 measured using concrete viscometer showed a good
linear correlation; a similar good correlation was observed
between parameter a and flow table spread; the correlation
between the yield stress s0 and flow table spread was found
to be very good.
 Relationships between flow rate and pumping pressures esti-
mated on the basis of Sliper tests for various concrete composi-
tions were fully confirmed by the field measurements on a real
pumping system.
With this study a first step towards the simple, robust, and reli-
able testing of concrete pumpability has been accomplished. The
authors have been developing the Sliper apparatus further and
investigating systematically the effects of various parameters on
the rheological behavior of fresh concrete during pumping. Fur-
thermore, numerical analysis of Sliper experiments have been per-
formed in this context using the discrete element method [25,26]
and computational fluid mechanics [27]. The results of these stud-
ies are to be published shortly.
Acknowledgements
This research work was accomplished with the help of Dr. Mar-
ko Butler and Egor Secrieru, M.Sc. Both are working at the Institute
of Construction Materials, TU Dresden. The authors gratefully
acknowledge their cooperation.
 V. Mechtcherine et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 312–323 323

References [14] Mor A, Ravina D. Flow table test. Concr Int 1986.
[15] Guptill NR, Akers DJ, Kelsey RA, Pierce JS, Bognacki C, King JC, et al. Placing
concrete by pumping methods-report by ACI committee 304. ACI 304.2R-96
[1] Ferraris CF, Obla KH, Hill R. The influence of mineral admixtures on the
1996:1–25.
rheology of cement paste and concrete. Cem Concr Res 2001;31:245–55.
[16] Singh BB. Some issues related to pumping of concrete. Indian Concr J
[2] Felekoğlu B, Türkel S, Baradan B. Effect of water/cement ratio on the fresh and
2004:41–4.
hardened properties of self-compacting concrete. Build Environ 2007;42:
[17] Tattersall GH, Banfill PFG. The rheology of fresh concrete. Pitman, 1983.
1795–802.
[18] Roussel N. Correlation between yield stress and slump: comparison between
[3] Canusa. Pumpable concrete info. Canusa Equipment Limited, Canada, http://
numerical simulations and concrete rheometers results. Mater Struct
canusaequipment.com/wp-content/canusamedia/
2006;39:501–9.
PUMPABLE%20CONCRETE%20INFO-PDF.pdf. n.d.
[19] Bilgil A, Öztürk B, Sßamandar A. Application of numerical analysis for
[4] Kaplan D, De Larrard F, Sedran T. Design of concrete pumping circuit. ACI Mater
investigation of relationship between slump values and other rheological
J 2005;102:110–7.
properties of fresh concrete. Sci Res Essays 2010;5(10):1111–21.
[5] Jacobsen S, Mork JH, Lee SF, Haugan L. Pumping of concrete and mortar – state
[20] Wallevik JE. Relationship between the Bingham parameters and slump. Cem
of the art report. COIN Project Rep 2008;5.
Concr Res 2006;36:1214–21.
[6] Kasten K. Concrete technology for concrete pumps. Stuttgart: Putzmeister
[21] Feys D, Verhoeven R, De Schutter G. Pumping of self compacting concrete: an
Concrete Pumps GmbH; 2011.
insight into a daily application. In: Walraven J, Stoelhorst D, editors. Tailor
[7] Kasten K. Gleitrohr – rheometer, Ein Verfahren zur Bestimmung der
made Concrete structures. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group; 2008. p.
Fließeigenschaften von Dickstoffen in Rohrleitungen. PHD thesis, TU
385–90.
Dresden; 2010 [in German].
[22] Jolin M, Burns D, Bolduc L-S, Bissonnette B, Gagnon F. Understanding the
[8] Wallevik OH, Wallevik JE. Rheology as a tool in concrete science: the use of
pumpability of concrete. In: Shotcrete for underground support XI –
rheographs and workability boxes. Cem Concr Res, Elsevier Ltd, 2011; 41:
engineering conferences international, proceeding, 2009.
1279–1288.
[23] European Standard-EN 206-1:2000 European standard for concrete – Part 1:
[9] Seon DJ, Park CK, Jeong JH, Lee SH, Kwon SH. A computational approach to
Specification, performance, production and conformity, CEN: European
estimating a lubricating layer in concrete pumping, 2(3). CMC, Tech Science
committee for standardization, 2000. p. 19.
Press; 2012. p. 189–210.
[24] ConTec. Viscometer 5. <http://www.contec.is/page11.htm> n.d. 24.01.13.
[10] Banfill PFG. The rheology of fresh cement and concrete – a review. In:
[25] Mechtcherine V, Gram A, Krenzer K, Schwabe J-H, Shyshko S, Roussel N.
Proceedings of the 11th international congress on the chemistry of cement
Simulation of fresh concrete flow using discrete element method (DEM):
(ICCC): cement’s contribution to development in the 21st century, Durban,
theory and applications. Mater Struct. http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-
South Africa, 2003. p. 50–62.
0084-7.
[11] American society for testing materials. ASTM Designation C-143-90: standard
[26] Shyshko S, Mechtcherine V. Developing a discrete element model for
test method for slump of hydraulic cement concrete. Annual book of ASTM
simulating fresh concrete: experimental investigation and modeling of
standards, Easton, MD, USA: ASTM; 1996. p. 85–7.
interactions between discrete aggregate particles with fine mortar between
[12] CEN. European Standard-Testing fresh concrete-Part 2- Slump test EN 12350-
them. Constr Build Mater 2013;47:601–15.
2, Brüssels: CEN: European Committee for Standardization; 2009.
[27] Roussel N. Correlation between yield stress and slump: comparison between
[13] CEN. European standard-testing fresh concrete – Part 5 – Flow table test. DIN
numerical simulations and concrete rheometer results. Mater Struct 2006;37:
EN 12350-5; Prüfung von Frischbeton – Teil 5: Ausbreitmaß. Deutsche Fassung
469–77.
DIN EN 12350-5, Brüssel: CEN: European Committee for Standardization;
1999. p. 1–7.