Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Polymer concrete (PC) is a mixture of aggregate and
monomer that hardens through polymerization of the
monomer. Due to its rapid setting, high strength-to-density
ratio, and ability to withstand corrosive environment, PC is
increasingly being used as an alternate to cement concrete in
many applications.1 To minimize material cost, it is imperative
to use the least possible amount of polymer in PC formulations
to achieve desired properties depending on its applications. This
has led to the study of the effect of fiber addition in the PC
system. Steel fibers are one of the most popular fibers for matrix
reinforcement. Ohama and Nishimura2 studied the effect of steel
fibers and reported increases in compressive, flexural and impact
strength. Glass fibers are also very popular because of their close
proximity (chemically) to fine aggregates (sand) used in PC
systems. Mebarkia and Vipulanandan3 and Vipulanandan
and Dharmarajan 4 studied the effect of glass fibers and
reported compressive strength enhancement. Carbon
fibers are increasingly becoming popular among
researchers because of their high tensile strength, high
tensile modulus, and unique characteristics like electrical
conductivity and thermal insulation.
In this study, the mechanical properties of carbon fiberreinforced polymer concrete (CFRPC) were investigated and
the performance was compared with glass fiber systems
(GFRPC). The fiber content varied up to 6% by weight. The
applicability of two popular nondestructive testing methods,
the impact resonance method and the pulse velocity method,
was studied to characterize the PC systems.5-7 Both the tests
were performed to determine dynamic Youngs modulus,
dynamic shear modulus, and dynamic Poissons ratio. In
both nondestructive methods, the effects of the shape of the
specimens on the dynamic properties of the PC system were
studied. Damping properties of the PC system were also
30
ACI member Kallol Sett is an MS student in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Tex. He received his BS in civil engineering
from Jadavpur University, Calcutta, India.
ACI member C. Vipulanandan is Chairman and Professor of the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston. He is also Director of the
Center of Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT) at the University of
Houston. He received his PhD and MS from Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. He is a
member of ACI Committees 446, Fracture Mechanics, and 548, Polymers in Concrete.
the aspect ratio of glass fibers were 80% lesser than that of
carbon fibers. Also, SEM and visual inspection showed rougher
surface texture of glass fibers compared with carbon fibers.
In preparing the PC specimens, cobalt napthanate was first
added to the polyester resin and the solution was mixed
thoroughly; methyl ethyl ketone peroxide was then added.
After further mixing, sand and fibers were added slowly and
mixed long enough to obtain a uniform mixture.12 Teflon
molds were used to cast the specimens. Cylindrical specimens,
100 mm in length and 38 mm in diameter, were used for
destructive compression tests, and 200 mm in length and
60 mm in diameter were used for nondestructive tests. The
prism specimens used for the nondestructive tests were 300
x 50 x 50 mm. For the direct tensile tests, dog bone-shaped
specimens were used with proper metal grips13 (for detailed
dimensions of the tension test specimen refer to CIGMAT
PC-214 ). Specimens were cured at room temperature
(about 25 C) for 24 h followed by 80 C for 24 h in an oven.
Test procedures and principles
To optimize the composition of PC based on workability
and performance, various resin contents were investigated.
Resin content varied up to 20% by weight of composite.3 For
fiber-reinforced polymer concrete (FRPC) systems, specimens
were prepared with different fiber content. Fiber content was
varied up to 6% by weight of polymer concrete (polymer +
sand) for both GFRPC and CFRPC systems. But it should be
noted that the volume fraction of carbon fibers in the CFRPC
system was 1.5 times more than that of glass fibers in a
comparable GFRPC system.
For the FRPC systems, resin contents were chosen based
on workability. The resin contents chosen for this study were
18 and 20% (by weight of composite) for GFRPC and
CFRPC, respectively.
Destructive tests
At least three cylindrical specimens were tested under
uniaxial compression to obtain the mechanical properties
under each condition. Specimens were loaded using a
2000 kN-capacity universal testing machine at a displacement rate of 0.05 mm/min (CIGMAT PC-5).13,15-17 Direct
tension tests were performed using a 50 kN-capacity screwtype machine at a displacement rate of 0.05 mm/min
(CIGMAT PC-2).14 Commercially available 12 mm strain
gages having a least-count of 106 strain/strain were used to
measure strains during compressive and tensile loading.
Strain gages were attached to the specimens directly. Test
data was analyzed to obtain the compressive and tensile
strengths, moduli, and stress-strain relationships.
Nondestructive tests
Impact resonance testImpact resonance tests were
performed as per ASTM C 215.5 The test specimens were
made to vibrate as a whole in one of their natural frequency
modes: transverse, longitudinal, or torsional.7,18-20 The
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2004
G = V S
(1)
M = V S
(2)
Constituent
material
Function
PC
Polyester
resin
Binder
Up to 20%
*
GFRPC
CFRPC
18%
20%
MEKPO
Initiator
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%*
CN
Promoter
0.3%*
0.3%*
0.3%*
Blasting sand
Aggregate
Up to 86%
82%
Glass fiber
Microreinforcement
Up to 6%
Carbon fiber
Microreinforcement
80%
Up to 6%
By weight of polymer.
By weight of (polymer + blasting sand).
31
(1 v )
M = ------------------------------------- E
( 1 + v ) ( 1 2v )
(3)
12
(4)
( 1 + v ) ( 1 2v ) 2
E = ------------------------------------- V p
(1 v)
(5)
E
1
--------- = --------------------------------------------P
1
X
A
E
---------------------- + mX A
23
1 CV
(6)
PC
E
1
--------- = -----------------------------------------------------P
( 1 XA )
E
+ mX A
Z --------------------------23
(1 CV )
(7)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
23
+ ( 1 Z ) ( 1 X A ) ( 1 C V ) + -----Am
Compression
test
18% polymer
PC
20% polymer
Tension test
14% polymer
0% fiber
Compression
test
4% fiber
GFRPC
6% fiber
Tension test
6% fiber
0% fiber
Compression
test
4% fiber
6% fiber
CFRPC
0% fiber
2.5% fiber
Tension test
4% fiber
6% fiber
Peak strain, %
Modulus, GPa
55
0.45
19.44
56
0.45
19.5
55
0.45
19.5
55
0.56
19.9
50
0.55
19.6
52
0.54
19.6
61
0.78
18.57
59
0.77
18.21
57
0.78
18.29
0.055
15
7.5
0.05
14.5
0.055
15
55
0.56
19.9
50
0.55
19.6
52
0.54
19.6
65
0.8
18.57
63
0.78
18.2
68
0.81
18.5
80
0.85
21
82
0.88
21.6
58
0.38
21.8
13
0.105
18.5
12.5
0.1
18.4
13.5
0.11
18.6
61
0.78
18.57
59
0.77
18.21
57
0.78
18.29
60
0.9
17.8
55
0.79
17.1
61
0.88
17.9
65
0.95
17.5
68
0.92
17.6
65
0.98
17
7.33
0.063
13.5
7.5
0.071
13.1
7.1
0.059
13.3
9.5
0.08
14.1
9.27
0.075
14.3
9.2
0.072
13.9
10.55
0.095
14.4
10.6
0.095
14.4
10.7
0.095
14.3
11.5
0.19
14
11.3
0.195
13.8
11.5
0.19
14
55
0.45
0.04
0.63
55
0.56
0.07
0.49
61
0.85
0.08
0.39
0.055 0.015
0.85
55
0.56
0.07
0.49
65
0.8
0.06
0.44
80
0.85
0.3
0.45
13
0.105 0.095
0.55
61
0.85
0.05
0.39
60
0.9
0.05
0.37
65
0.95
0.05
0.39
7.3
0.063
0.05
0.86
9.3
0.075 0.065
0.86
10.6
0.095 0.065
0.85
11.5
0.19
0.82
0.07
33
E
1
--------- = -----------------------------------------------------------P
1
X
A
E
--------------------- + mX A + X EP
23
1 Cp
(8)
1
E
-------- = ------------------------------------------------P
Z [ ZA ] + ( 1 Z ) [ Z B ]
E
(9)
1 XA
- + mX A + X EP and
where Z A = --------------------23
1 Cp
23
ZB = ( 1 XA ) ( 1 C p
X
) + -----A- + X EP
m
Fig. 8Compressive
GFRPC systems.
stress-strain
relationships
of
FRPC
AT
= ( ) ( 4 ) + ( 1 4 ) ( 1 C V ) t
(10)
AS
+ Xf
and considering the change in strength (Model 3)
FRPC
( t
PC
t ) t
PC
= K1 Xf
AS
K1 = t
(11)
Stress-strain model
A model8,10,11 that has been used in the past to describe
PC behavior is proposed to predict the stress-strain behavior
of PC, GFRPC, and CFRPC systems in both tension and
compression. The proposed model is (Reference 9)
---c
- c
= -----------------------------------------------------------------------(p + q )
q + ( 1 p q ) ---- + p ----
c
c
(12)
----------------p
E
q = -----s
Ei
(13)
Dynamic G
---
----d
c c
---
----d
c c
= CM ( n )
E
Dynamic = ------- 1
2G
= BM ( n )
(16)
(17)
(18)
(14)
= DM ( n )
(15)
Fig. 16Typical frequency spectrum (X-f) of 6% GFRPC
cylinder for longitudinal mode of vibration.
37
= 2 where = ln ( y n y n + 1 )
(19)
PC
Pulse velocity
No.
EiL,
GPa
Longitudinal
wave velocity,
m/s
EiTr,
GPa
Gi ,
GPa
Shear wave
velocity, m/s
vi
P-wave
velocity,
Vp, m/s
14%
polymer
21.92
3210
17.27
9.20
1932
0.19
3226
2027
0.63
0.17
8.92
20.93
21.90
3199
17.86
9.99
2027
0.10
3215
2020
0.63
0.17
8.91
20.92
18%
polymer
20.94
3114
18.18
10.22
1980
0.02
3297
2041
0.62
0.19
9.18
21.83
22.47
3234
17.57
10.90
2010
0.03
3279
2069
0.63
0.17
9.39
21.95
20%
polymer
21.13
3250
17.79
8.84
1993
0.20
3268
2041
0.62
0.18
8.5
20.07
21.79
3234
17.14
10.22
2016
0.07
3261
2055
0.63
0.17
8.98
21.02
20.94
3114
18.18
10.22
1980
0.02
3297
2041
0.62
0.19
9.18
21.83
22.47
3234
17.57
10.90
2010
0.03
3279
2069
0.63
0.17
9.39
21.95
20.32
3227
17.10
9.47
1987
0.07
3233
2020
0.62
0.18
8.13
19.17
21.77
3246
17.58
9.93
2016
0.10
3293
2013
0.61
0.2
8.55
20.54
22.37
3332
18.97
10.42
2091
0.07
3389
2095
0.62
0.19
9.03
21.49
22.48
3334
18.72
9.79
2066
0.15
3393
2097
0.62
0.19
9.08
21.62
21.13
3250
17.79
8.84
1993
0.20
3268
2041
0.62
0.18
8.5
20.07
21.79
3234
17.14
10.22
2016
0.07
3261
2055
0.63
0.17
8.98
21.02
21.56
3210
17.39
10.24
2034
0.05
3257
2041
0.63
0.18
8.99
20.93
21.06
3256
17.82
10.25
2023
0.03
3272
2041
0.62
0.18
8.44
19.95
20.29
3210
17.95
9.61
1992
0.06
3243
2027
0.63
0.18
8.25
19.47
21.08
3257
17.89
9.89
2011
0.07
3279
2076
0.63
0.17
8.74
20.37
0% fiber
GFRPC 4% fiber
6% fiber
0% fiber
CFRPC 4% fiber
6% fiber
Shear wave
velocity, Vs
Vs /Vp
vp
Gp, GPa
Ep, GPa
PC
vi
Shear wave
velocity, Vs
Vs /Vp
vp
Gp,
GPa
Ep, GPa
No.
EiL,
GPa
14%
polymer
21.09
3198
18.7
8.16
1989
0.29
3250
2031
0.63
0.18
8.69
20.49
21.37
3224
18.7
8.19
1995
0.31
3262
2052
0.63
0.17
8.84
20.73
18%
polymer
21.75
3234
17.9
8.06
1968
0.35
3339
2074
0.62
0.19
9.13
21.65
22.5
3235
18.9
8.49
1986
0.33
3397
2096
0.62
0.19
9.64
22.99
20%
polymer
20.82
3186
17.1
7.87
1959
0.32
3275
2026
0.62
0.19
8.59
20.44
20.98
3206
17.3
8.01
1980
0.31
3257
2020
0.62
0.19
8.5
20.19
21.75
3234
17.9
8.06
1968
0.35
3339
2074
0.62
0.19
9.13
21.65
22.5
3235
18.9
8.49
1986
0.33
3397
2096
0.62
0.19
9.64
22.99
21.54
3182
18.8
8.55
2003
0.26
3210
2031
0.63
0.17
8.95
20.89
21.64
3176
18.9
8.5
1990
0.27
3236
2031
0.63
0.18
9.03
21.22
24.05
3328
20
8.57
1985
0.4
3363
2111
0.63
0.17
9.88
23.22
23.51
3302
20.4
9.42
2090
0.25
3361
2105
0.63
0.18
9.76
22.97
20.82
3186
17.1
7.87
1959
0.32
3275
2026
0.62
0.19
8.59
20.44
20.98
3206
17.3
8.01
1980
0.31
3257
2020
0.62
0.19
8.5
20.19
21.84
3217
18.4
8.46
2001
0.29
3273
2010
0.61
0.2
8.7
20.84
20.29
3193
17.6
7.88
1990
0.29
3257
2031
0.62
0.18
8.37
19.79
21.05
3197
18.2
7.98
1968
0.32
3230
2031
0.63
0.17
8.67
20.34
21.26
3196
17.9
8.07
1969
0.32
3248
2036
0.63
0.18
8.81
20.72
0% fiber
GFRPC 4% fiber
6% fiber
0% fiber
CFRPC 4% fiber
6% fiber
38
Pulse velocity
P-wave
velocity,
Vp, m/s
Longitudinal
wave velocity,
m/s
EiTr,
GPa
Gi ,
GPa
Shear wave
velocity, m/s
PC
Cylinder
Prism
Cylinder
Prism
14%
polymer
0.80
0.92
1.15
1.32
2.74
2.84
0.88
0.92
1.03
1.32
2.82
2.79
18%
polymer
0.92
0.95
1.3
1.41
2.9
2.95
0.86
0.95
1.2
1.38
2.83
2.89
20%
polymer
1.18
1.2
1.78
1.65
3.32
3.51
1.1
1.1
1.82
1.79
3.41
3.39
0.92
0.95
1.3
1.41
2.9
2.95
0.86
0.95
1.2
1.38
2.83
2.89
4% fiber
6% fiber
0% fiber
CFRPC
Prism
0% fiber
GFRPC
Specimen
4% fiber
6% fiber
Cylinder
1.01
1.13
1.6
1.65
3.81
3.99
1.05
1.19
1.52
1.49
3.72
4.01
1.17
1.26
1.75
1.8
4.96
4.9
1.23
1.3
1.7
1.76
4.91
4.85
1.18
1.2
1.78
1.65
3.32
3.51
1.1
1.1
1.82
1.79
3.41
3.39
1.71
1.82
0.3
0.23
2.2
2.41
1.69
1.77
0.27
0.38
2.29
2.53
1.98
2.01
0.35
0.3
2.42
2.53
1.89
1.92
0.32
0.33
2.3
2.44
39
CONCLUSIONS
For PC systems, the optimum combination (lowest
polymer content at which strength and/or modulus are
maximum) was obtained at 14% polymer content. For the
GFRPC system, the mechanical properties improved with
the addition of glass fibers, but, based on workability, the
optimum combination was 6% glass fibers with 18%
polymer. For the CFRPC system, though the compressive
properties were almost independent to fiber addition, tensile
properties improved significantly. Based on the tensile
properties and workability, for the CFRPC systems, the
optimum system was with 6% carbon fibers and 20%
polymer. Based on the destructive and nondestructive tests
performed on over 45 PC, GFRPC, and CFRPC specimens, the
following conclusions are advanced:
1. Polymer concrete is a bimodulus material with a tensileto-compressive modular ratio of 0.75. A combination of
series and parallel iso-stress models predicted the modulus
of PC systems reasonably well;
2. The tensile strength of the PC system improved by 85
and 60% with the addition of 6% glass fibers and 6% carbon
fibers (by weight), respectively. The tensile strength model
predicted the strength increase in PC systems with fibers.
Glass fiber addition improved the compressive strength of
polymer concrete, but carbon fibers did not. Polymer
concrete with glass and carbon fibers also behaved as a
bimodulus material with a tensile-to-compressive modular
ratio of 0.85 and 0.78, respectively;
40
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 548, Guide for the Use of Polymers in Concrete
(ACI 548.1R-97), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
1997, 29 pp.
2. Ohama, Y., and Nishimura, T., Properties of Steel Fiber Reinforced
Polyester Resin Concrete, Proceedings of the 22nd Congress on Material
Research, Society of Material Sciences, Kyoto, Japan, 1979, pp. 364-367.
3. Mebarkia, S., and Vipulanandan, C., Compressive Behavior of Glass
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, V. 4, No. 1, Feb. 1992, pp. 91-105.
4. Vipulanandan, C., and Dharmarajan N., Flexural Behavior of Polyester
Polymer Concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 17, 1987, pp. 219-230.
41