Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: This paper describes the results of an experimental test program designed to correlate the tensile
and bending response of fiber reinforced cement composites tested under the same conditions. Several objectives were sought: 1) to correlate tensile and bending behavior of specimens having about the same cross section; 2) to ascertain that a strain hardening composite in tension leads surely to a deflection hardening composite in bending; 3) to observe scale effects on bending behavior; and 4) to verify if some theoretical correlation
between post-cracking tensile strength and bending resistance (modulus of rupture) are validated by experiments. The final objective of this study is to provide hard data needed to determine if the tensile stress-strain
response of fiber reinforced cement composites can be predicted from their load-deflection response, as currently surmised in some test standards and in some finite element studies claiming that tensile response can be
uniquely back-calculated from bending behavior. The test program included several parameters, among
which 2 types of high strength steel fibers (hooked and twisted) with identical volume fractions of fibers (1%),
and three different sizes of cross section for the beams, namely, 5025 mm, 100100 mm, and 150150 mm.
Key observations are described and conclusions drawn.
1 INSTRUCTIONS
Much research has been conducted to increase the
ductility of cement based composites by adding short
fibers, because cement based matrices have innate
weakness in terms of brittle failure under tensile and
flexural loading. To remedy such weakness, Fiber
Reinforced Concrete (FRC) and High Performance
Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites (HPFRCC) have been developed. FRC and HPFRCC are
usually first differentiated by their uniaxial tensile response. FRC shows strain softening behavior under
uniaxial tensile load while HPFRCC shows strain
hardening behavior. (Naaman & Reinhardt 1996)
Although all fiber reinforced cement composites can
be simply characterized according to their tensile response, so far there is no standard tensile test method
for fiber reinforced cement composites. Many researchers are still using different tensile test set-ups
e.g., different boundary conditions, sizes and geometries of specimens, gage length, and measurement
techniques. For example, some researchers have
been using bell shaped tensile specimens with hinge
to hinge boundary conditions while others have been
using coupon type specimens with fixed boundary
conditions. Since there is no standard tensile test
method for FRC and HPFRCC, and since such test-
J = D ( h,either
T )h a deflection-softening or a deflectiongenerate
(1)
hardening response due to the structural effect under
flexural
Naaman (2003)
suggested
practical
The load.
proportionality
coefficient
D(h,T)a is
called
condition
for
deflection
hardening
response,
when
moisture permeability and it is a nonlinear function
) in tensionTis(Baant
higher
the
post
cracking
strength
( pctemperature
of the
relative
humidity
h and
than
the
first
cracking
strength
(
)
multiplied
with
cc balance requires
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass
.
athat
factor,
k,
smaller
than
1,
i.e.,
the variation in time of the waterpc massccper The
unit
factor
ranges
between
and 1,wwith
0.4 being
volumek of
concrete
(water1/3content
) be equal
to thea
recommended
firstmoisture
approximation.
Soranakom &
divergence of the
flux J
Mobasher (2007) proposed a closed form solution
forwthe moment-curvature response of FRC, and the
(2)
= Jresults, using their model, indicated that
simulation
t
the direct use of uniaxial tensile stress strain response
under-predicts
response.
The water
content
wthe
canflexural
be the
expressed
as theinThey
sum
explained
this
discrepancy
by
difference
the
of
the
evaporable
water
we (capillary water, water
strain
gradient
profile
and
the
volume
of
the
stressed
vapor, and
adsorbed
water) andand
the non-evaporable
region
between
the tensile
tests.
(Mills
1966,
(chemically
bound)
water
wn flexural
Soranakom
& Mobasher
(2008) also
Pantazopoulo
& size
Millseffect
1995).
It is mentioned
reasonablethat
to
the
brittleness
and
are
more
pronounced
in
assume
that
the
evaporable
water
is
a
function
of
the
flexural
responseh,ofdegree
brittle of
materials,
while
more
relative
humidity,
hydration,
materic, and
accurate
predictions
are
obtained
with
ductile
we=we(h,c,s)
degreeTherefore,
of silica fume
reaction,
s, i.e. FRC
als.
in inverse
estimating
tensile
re=
age-dependent
sorption/desorption
isotherm
sponse
from
their
flexural
response,
the
size
of
flex(Norling
Mjonellshould
1997).beUnder
this assumption
and
ural
specimens
carefully
selected.
It
is
by substituting
Equation
1strong
into size
Equation
2in one
well
known
that
there
is
a
effect
the
obtains
behavior of cementitious composites due to their
brittle behavior (Bazant & Planas (1998), Bazant et
w
w h
al.
(1994)).
Ward &wLie &
(1990)
the
e investigated
&s + w&nbeams(3)
+ ( D h ) =
e
c +
flexural
of
reinforced
mortar
h tbehaviorhof fiber
c
s
different sizes and proposed the ratio between flexural strength and tensile strength as a parameter to
where wthe
e/h is the slope of the sorption/desorption
describe
brittleness of material. The ratio deisotherm
called moisture
capacity).
The
creases as (also
the brittleness
of the material
increases.
governing
equation
(Equation
3)
must
be
completed
Bazant et al. (1994), using extensive laboratory reby appropriate
boundary
sults,
also concluded
thatand
all initial
types conditions.
of brittle failures
relation
betweenexhibit
the amount
of size
evaporable
of The
concrete
structures
a strong
effect.
water
and
relative
humidity
is
called
adsorption
Lepech & Li (2004) investigated size effect in ECC
isotherm (plain
if measured
with increasing
relativity
structural
and reinforced
with steel
bars)
humidity
and
desorption
isotherm
in
the
opposite
beams and reported that there is negligible size
effect
case.
Neglecting
difference
(Xi etHowever,
al. 1994),the
in
in
ECC
comparedtheir
to brittle
concrete.
the
following,
sorption
isotherm
will
be
used
with
results were based only on comparing the equivalent
reference
to bothstrength
sorptionbutand
conditions.
elastic
bending
diddesorption
not consider
the deBy
the
way,
if
the
hysteresis
of
the
moisture
flection capacity.
isotherm
would be
account,of two
different
In evaluating
thetaken
tensileinto
behavior
ductile
fiber
relation,
evaporable
water
vs
relative
humidity,
reinforced cement composites, the strain capacitymust
be used according
to the Therefore,
sign of the variation
of isthea
paramount
parameter.
in this experirelativity
humidity.
Theeffect
shape
of themembers
sorption
mental
program,
the size
in flexural
is
isotherm for not
HPConly
is influenced
by many
parameters,
investigated
with respect
to bending
resisespecially
those
that influence
extentat and
of the
tance
but also
to deflection
capacity
peakrate
stress.
explicitly accounts
for the
of tests
hydration
prepared.
Direct tensile
testsevolution
and flexural
were
reactionoutand
SFa content.
This sorption
carried
using
servo-controlled
hydraulicisotherm
testing
reads (MTS810). All the tensile test series led
machine
to a strain-hardening behavior. For the flexural tests,
three different geometries of specimens, S (small),
M
1
(medium), and L (large) were prepared
to investigate
w (h, , s ) =on
G1 (the
c , s )1
+
thee sizeceffect
flexural behavior
of
HPFRCC.
10(g
)h
(4)
c
1 c
K1 (composition
1
The matrix mix
and proportions
c , s )e
are
are
shown in Table 2. A VMA (Viscosity Modifying
where the
(gelmatrix
isotherm)
represents
the
Agent)
was first
addedterm
to the
to increase
viscosity
physically
water and
the matrix.
second
and
ensure bound
uniform(adsorbed)
fiber distribution
in the
term compressive
(capillary isotherm)
capillary
The
strength ofrepresents
the matrixthewas
measwater.from
This100200
expression
valid only
content
ured
mm is
cylinders
and for
thislow
matrix
was
amount of
SF. The coefficient
G1 represents
aofself-consolidating
mixture
developed the
earlier.
Table
1. Matrix
composition
weight
ratio and compressive
relative
humidity,
and itbycan
be expressed
(Norling
strength.
Mjornell 1997) as
Cement (Type III)
0.80
c
s s
GFly(ash
c s ) = k vg c c + k vg s0.20
(5)
Sand (Flint)
1.00
where
Silica k and k are material
0.07 parameters. From the
maximum amount of water per unit volume that can
Super-Plasticizer
fill
all pores (both capillary0.04pores and gel pores), one
can
calculate K1 as one obtains
VMA
0.012
c
vg
fume
s
vg
Water
0.26
10 g
'
1 c
G 1 e
w0 0.188 c s + 0.2284
s
c (MPa)
s 1
K ( c s ) =
,
Table 2. Properties of
Fiber type
g c c hstudy.
10used
fibers
inthis
1
Hooked
(6)
Twisted
The material
Diameter
(mm) parameters k and k and
0.30* g1 can
be calibrated by fitting experimental data relevant to
Length(evaporable)
(mm)
30
30
free
water content
in concrete
at
various
ages
(Di
Luzio
&
Cusatis
2009b).
Density (g/cc)
7.9
7.9
c
vg
0.38
s
vg
the grips and out of the gage length. The gage length
was
to be 175mm (=7 inch), between two
q = selected
T
(7)
infrared markers; displacement between the markers
was measured using a non-contacting motion measwhere instrument
q is the (OPTOTRAK
heat flux, TSystem)
is the placed
absolute
uring
at
temperature,
and
is
the
heat
conductivity;
in this
about one meter from the specimen; the measurement
accuracy was 0.001 mm. Beams of three different
= D ( h , T ) h
w
t
162.5
OPTOTRAK MARKERS
Apply
Displacement
Support
Apply
Displacement
50.0
Support
GAGE LENGTH
75.0
175.0
200.0
162.5
UNIT : MM
T = 25
125.0
25.0
w
w h
e mm+100 (mm
(b) M Type
( 100
Dh300
h) =mm) e
h t
w
&c + e &s + w
c
s
(2)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Hooked fibers 1%
w h0
e +0 (0.2D h0.4) = w0.6e 0.8 we1 0
(3)
s
n
Strain
h upto peak
loadc(%)
h t
c
s
(b) Hooked fibers 1%
Figure 4. Tensile behavior of both Twisted and Hooked fibers
reinforced
(Kimslope
et al. of
2008).
the sorption/desorption
where wspecimen
e/h is the
&+
& + w&
10
10
12
1.6
c c+ ks s
G ( c s ) = k vg
c Deflection
vg s (mm)
(5)
0
2.8
c
vg
2.4
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
s + 0.22 s G
0.188
)=
K ( c s0.4
1
1
g c 8c h
g c c h
10
1
L/150
10
L/75
1
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
c
s
Deflection (inch)
vg
vg
(6)
150X150X450
fibers
2.2 Temperature
evolution Twisted
Hooked fibers
2.4
16
Note that,2 at early age, since the chemical reactions
associated with cement hydration and SF12reaction
1.6
are exothermic,
the temperature field is not uniform
for non-adiabatic
systems even if the environmental
1.2
temperature
is constant. Heat conduction8 can be
described
0.8 in concrete, at least for temperature not
4
exceeding
100C (Baant & Kaplan 1996),
by
0.4
Fouriers law, which reads
L/150
L/75
Equiv. bending stress (MPa)
we (h c s ) = G ( c Deflection
s ) (mm)
+
(g
)h
0
1
2
3
e 4 c 5 c 6 (4)
2.8
50X25X300
)h
(g
2.4
c
c 16
( fibers
KTwisted
)e
c
s
Hooked
fibers
2
Equiv. bending stress (ksi)
0.4
The proportionality
coefficient D(h,T) is called
Deformation (mm)
moisture0 permeability
and
it 1.5is a nonlinear function
0.5
1
1
of the relative
humidity h and temperature T (Baant
& Najjar
1972). The moisture mass6 balance requires
0.8
that the variation in time of the water
mass per unit
5
volume0.6 of concrete (water content w4 ) be equal to the
divergence of the moisture flux J
explicitly
accounts
for strength
the evolution
hydration
the
post cracking
tensile
of FRC,ofpost
crackreaction
andvalues
SF content.
This sorption
isotherm
ing
strength
for both Twisted
and Hooked
fireadsshould be noted, i.e., the post cracking strength
bers
with Twisted fibers is about 5.5MPa while that with
Hooked was about 5.2MPa.
(1)
J = Test
D (h,results
T ) h
3.3
= T 0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.2
Deflection (inch)
0
0.24
(7)
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
The proportionality
150X150X450 coefficient D(h,T)
100X100X300
moisture permeability
50X25X300 and it is a nonlinea
16
of the relative humidity h and
temperature
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc
that the variation in time of12 the water mas
volume of concrete (water content w) be eq
divergence of the moisture flux J
Twisted fiber
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
(1)
3.5
= J
w
t
0.5
The
water content
w can be expressed a
L/150
L/75
of
the
evaporable
water
w0e (capillary wa
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-e
Deflection / Span
(chemically
bound) water wn (Mil
(a) Twisted fibers
Pantazopoulo
& Mills 1995). It is reas
assume that the evaporable water is a fu
Deflection
/ Span h, degree of hydration
relative
humidity,
0
0.005
0.01
0.02
degree of silica 0.015
fume reaction,
s, i.e. we=w
3.5
=
age-dependent
sorption/desorption
Hooked fiber
150X150X450
16
(Norling Mjonell
1997). Under
this assum
100X100X300
3
50X25X300
by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
obtains
2.5
12
1.5
w h
e + ( D h) = we
h
8 c
h t
PL
bh 2
f =
J Deflection
= D (h, T )/ Span
h
& + e & + w
s
the sorption/
where we/h is the slope of
4
isotherm
(also
called
moisture
capac
0.5
governing equation (Equation 3) must be
L/75
L/150
by appropriate
boundary
and
0
0 initial conditi
0
0.005The 0.01
0.015
0.02
relation between the amount of e
Deflection
Span
water
and /relative
humidity is called
(b) Hooked if
fibers
isotherm
measured with increasing
Figure 6. Equivalenthumidity
bending stress
normalized
deflec- in th
and versus
desorption
isotherm
tion curves.
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al.
the
following, sorption
isotherm
will be
Figure 6 and the reference
cracking behavior
of typical
specito
both
sorption
and
desorption
c
mens is illustratedBy
in Figure
7. if the hysteresis of the
the
way,
It can be observed
from would
Figure be
6 that
both
isotherm
taken
intoequivaaccount,
two
lent bending strength
and
deflection
capacity
de- humi
relation,
evaporable
water
vs
relative
crease as the sizebeofused
specimen
increases.
Theofdeaccording
to isthehigher
sign
the varia
flection capacity relativity
of S type specimens
than of the
humidity.
The
shape
L/75, while the deflection
capacity
M and L type
isotherm
for
HPCMoreover,
isof influenced
by
many p
specimens is lower
than
L/150.
theextent
de- and
especially
those
that
influence
flection capacity chemical
of M typereactions
specimens
and,is generally
intheturn,
determ
higher than that ofstructure
L type specimens
although
dif- (waterand
pore
size
distribution
ference is small. ratio,
The maximum
equivalentcomposition,
bending
cement
chemical
SF
strength also shows
strong
size
dependency.
Normalcuring
time
and
method,
temperature,
mix
ized equivalent bending
of Twisted
fibersformulatio
reetc.).
Instrength
theforliterature
various
inforced specimens
are
2.87
S,
3.02
for
M,
and
found
to describe
the sorption
isotherm
2.31 for L sizes,concrete
while that
of
Hooked
fibers
rein(Xi et al. 1994). However, in th
forced specimens are 2.69 for S, 2.20 for M, and
paper
the
semi-empirical expression pro
2.22 for L sizes, respectively. The range of normalNorling
Mjornell
(1997) is adopted b
ized equivalent bending strength is 2.20 to 3.02, and
1
J =
D (h, Tis)reasonable
h
this
range
according to theoretical pre(1)
dictions (Naaman, 2003)
(2)
w
t
w h
e + ( D h) = we
h
h t
w
&c + e &s + w&n
c
s
(3)
L type of
(Hooked)
the sorption/desorption
where we/h is the(f) slope
Figure
7.
Cracking
behavior
of
flexural
isotherm (also called moisturespecimens.
capacity). The
explicitly
accounts
for theThis
evolution
of hydration
from direct
tensile tests.
is very close
to anareaction
SF content.
Thisconditions
sorption (Naaman,
isotherm
lytically and
predicted
best case
reads
2003).
y As the size of specimen decreases, both the equiva the deflection capacity
(h, , ) = G ( , ) 1
wcrease.
+
c s 10(g )h
e c s
1
y The ratio of equivalent bending
strength
direct
c to
1 c
e
(4)
tensile strength for all test series ranged from about
range
) e
K1 ( c , s2003
1
analytically (Naaman,
)
(5)
k vg are material
parameters.
From
the
where
k vg anddescribed
The
research
herein was
sponsored
by the
maximum
amount
of water
per unitunder
volume
that No.
can
US
National
Science
Foundation
Grant
fill all0754505
pores (both
capillary
pores of
andMichigan.
gel pores), The
one
CMS
to the
University
obtains
can calculate
K1 as one
opinions
expressed
in this
paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
sponsor.
g h
c
c
w
s + s G e
c
s
(6)
( ) =
K
REFERENCES
c s
g h
e c c
c
10
0.188
0.22
10
= D ( h , T ) h
w
t
w h
e + ( D h) = we
h
h t
w
&c + e &s + w
c
s