4.7 Article

Influence of thixotropy determined by different test methods on formwork pressure of self-consolidating concrete

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 173, Issue -, Pages 189-200

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.046

Keywords

Self-consolidating concrete; Thixotropy methods; Formwork pressure

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [MAG 109 M615]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this experimental study, the influence of thixotropy determined by different test methods on the formwork pressure of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) with varying compositions was investigated. In order to determine the effect of water/binder (w/b) ratio, slump flow diameter and coarse aggregate/total aggregate (CA/TA) ratio on thixotropy and formwork pressure of SCC, fifteen concrete mixtures were prepared. Four different test methods i.e., structural break-down area (SBDA), break-down percentage (BDP), drop in apparent viscosity (DAV) and yield value at rest (YVR) were performed to determine the thixotropy of the SCC mixtures. Test results showed that the SBDA, DAV and YVR methods were more appropriate to evaluate the thixotropy of SCC than the BDP method. A strong correlation between thixotropy and formwork pressure was found using SBDA, DAV and YVR methods in SCC mixtures having low w/b ratio. There was a strong relationship between thixotropy determined by SBDA, BDP and DAV methods and formwork pressure in low slump flow SCC mixtures, while thixotropy determined by the YVR method showed good correlation with the formwork pressure in SCC mixtures having high slump flow values. Finally, new models were developed to estimate the formwork pressure of all kinds of mixtures as a function of thixotropy and time. The models were found to be successful for each of the thixotropy measurement method. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available