Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petrou
INTRODUCTION
The major weakness of concrete is its poor response in tension. Thus, the entire framework of structural
design is evolving around elimination or mitigation of the effects of tension. In older times the motto of concrete
design was to place reinforcement so that it crosses all possible crack paths; this is the intent behind the addition
of steel fibers the first type of fibers systematically studied as a means of mass reinforcement. Addition of
polypropylene (PP), carbon (CF), and polyvinyl-alcohol fibers (PVA) is a more recent innovation with
promising results as the fineness of these fibers gives a very large number of filaments per unit volume as
compared with steel fibers, and their elastic compliance has shown them more efficient in producing very large
strain capacities under tension. All these developments became possible only in the context of self consolidating
concrete where the viscosity increase caused by the addition of fibers may only partly compromise the
rheological properties of the mix during casting. Today the type and content of fibers used vary over a large
range of possibilities, and design may even be optimized in light of the performance requirements of the final
product. One type of Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC) with reported strain capacities in direct tension
in excess of 5%, developed by Lepech and Li[1] reinforced with surface-treated PVA fibers is used as a point of
reference in the mix design considered in the present investigation. The research presented herein is attempting
to develop such a composite product with the use of the available materials in Cyprus. Two different types of
fibers are used in the study, with appropriate mix designs. The paper summarizes the test results along with an
analysis of the experimental findings.
Additional adjustments were made to the quantity of the high range water reducer (HRWR) used as it was
proven by experiments that for the specific HRWR available in this experimental investigation, approximately
twice the amount was required to achieve the required self-consolidating performance of the mix.
2.3 Mix design
The mix designs proposed in the reference studies[2,3] for the two types of fibers along with the one adopted
in the present investigation are listed in Table 1. Note that the surface properties of the fibers are considered in
the design; for example in the mix with the hydrophobic PP fibers a higher amount of fly ash was required.
Mix
Fly Ash Sand (fine
Cement
Designation
(Type F) silica sand)
M45[2]
testM45
PP[3]
testPP
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1.2
1.2
2.8
2.8
0.8
0.8
1.12
Water
0.56
0.56
0.88
1.37
High Range
Fiber
Water Reducer
(Vol. %)
(HRWR)
0.012
0.02
0.024
0.02
0.016
0.02
0.024
0.02
Table 1 : Proposed and adopted mix designs (by weight unless stated otherwise)
2.3 Fabrication of the specimens
To prepare the PP1 mix sand was mixed with two thirds of the water for 1min and subsequently, cement, fly
ash and HRWR with the remaining one third of the water were added mixing continuously for 3min; lastly, the
fibers were added slowly and mixed for another 6min. This sequence presented some difficulties in that the
volume of the final composite was much less than the capability of the available mixing drum and from the start
it was noticed that the material added (only sand and water) could not be thoroughly mixed. The procedure had
to be stopped several times so that the contents of the drum would be manually mixed.
Prior to the addition of fibers the mix was clearly very flowable. After the fibers were introduced the mix
became evidently viscous with clumping of the fibers. Additional water was added in the mix. The additional
water made the mix more flowable, and reduced the stiffness that was introduced by the fibers. It was attempted
to compact the material when placed in the molds but it was obvious that the mix did not behave well to that.
Some compaction was obtained by tapping on the walls of the mold from the outside. Due to the poor
flowability, cavities of air were trapped on the side surfaces of the molds for the PP1 mix design, as became
obvious after demolding. The specimens were demolded more than 24hours later, (but the mix took several more
days to fully harden), and were placed in water for 28days.
In the second mix design (PVA-M45) a deferent mixing sequence was tested for comparison. The amount of
composite was too low for the specific drum dimensions so all the dry materials were firstly added together.
After mixing for 2-3min the full amount of water and half the superplasticizer were added and mixed thoroughly
until no clumps were visible. At this phase the mixing was stopped and the cement showed signs of very good
flowability. Then the fibers were slowly added with the rest of the superplasticizer and mixing was continued till
they were evenly distributed.
Prior to the addition of fibers the mix seemed to have self consolidating properties. As soon as the fibers
were added, even though in the relatively small percentage of 2% by volume, the mix became instantly less
flowable and the addition of extra water reducer (super-plasticizer) was necessary this time.
Usually when specimen size is very small from the stage of casting a marked bias emanates from the
tendency of the fibers to get layered in a two-dimensional plane rather that acting as actual mass reinforcement.
This was seen in the specimens of the first mix, and therefore in subsequent tests specimens were cut off from
bigger blocks to secure the three-dimensionality of dispersion. Only early samples of the PVA1 mix which were
cast directly in small molds (approximately 8mm equal to the length of the fiber) may be assumed to suffer from
a 2-D dispersion of fibers these are considered in this presentation in a qualitative light only.
Prior to testing the density of the mixes was measured. The specimens were weighted and according to their
volume the density is listed in the table:
density (g/cm3)
PP1
PVA1
cement
3.14
1.00
1.00
Fly Ash
2.248
2.80
1.20
Sand
2.61
1.12
0.80
Water
1.37
0.56
Superplasticizer
1.05
0.02
0.02
0.91 / 1.3
0.4
0.4
1797.82
1928.26
density (kg/m )
PVA1
71.37
8.07
103.50
4
PVA1A
55.68
8.19
80.25
28
PVA1B
53.20
8.75
80.25
28
PP1A
50.50
18.70
130.15
50
PP1B
50.50
18.70
130.15
58
However, this characteristic disappeared when the same mix (PVA1) was tested at a later stage (28 days);
rather, a significant reduction of ductility with localization of deformation in a single crack was noted, followed
by an extreme rise of strength (almost double). The fibers bonding in the matrix increased with age altering the
deformation pattern of the individual fibers: from controlled pullout which led to distributed cracking in the early
stage, bond increased with age. At 28 days the adhesion was strong enough to render the fiber itself the most
compliant component of the mix whereby crack opening now occurred due to fiber elongation rather than
pullout, leading to brittle fracture of the fibers and severe localization of all deformation in a single crack. Even
in this case, however, the strain capacity attained by the composite was about 100 times more than the value
expected for conventional normal strength concrete whereas the tensile strength became much higher.
Note that the average fibre stress, ff , at a smeared axial strain of f, is equal to the macroscopic tensile
strength of the material after cracking, multiplied by the number Nf of fibres crossing a unit sectional area of the
final material (a value of 25Vf/(df2lf/4) has been proposed[4] in the past, where Vf the volumetric ratio of fibres
(here 2%)). Thus, for an average material tensile strength of 6 MPa, the multiplier would be 52.345, and the
corresponding fibre stress, 6x52.345=314 MPa. It has been shown[4] that ff = min {2ublf/df ; kff}ffu; where, ub is
the bond stress developing along the fibre surface (it changes with aging), kf is the axial stiffness of the fibre, and
ffu the fibre rupture strength. For example in the case of the PVA fibre, with an lf/df ratio of 8000/39, and kf=40
GPa, ffu<1600 MPa, the fibre stress at a strain of 1% corresponds to a fibre tensile stress of 400MPa, whereas the
corresponding fibre stress due to bonding would be, 205 MPa and 410 MPa for ub values of 0.5MPa and 1MPa,
respectively; although these values for bond are postulated, the range illustrates that in one case response would
be controlled from bond whereas in the other case it would be controlled from fibre axial deformation.
RESULTS
a (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
Pmax
(kN)
max (Mpa)
PP1C
48.2
48.87
52.2
81.08
34.42
PP1D
47.8
49
52.1
84.36
36.02
3PL
2bd 2
(1)
Where:
R is the Modulus of rupture, MPa, P is the maximum applied load indicated by the testing machine, (in N), L is
the span length (in mm), and b/d is the average cross section aspect ratio (width/depth) of the specimen (in mm).
PVA1
PVA1A
PVA1B
PP1A
PP1B
Pmax (N)
200
378
352
698
632
R (MPa)
6.69
12.18
10.40
7.72
6.99
600
PP1B-50days
500
PVA1A-28days
PVA1B-28days
P (N)
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
(mm)
PVA1A
PVA1B
PP1A
PP1B
L/15
6.90
5.35
5.35
8.68
8.68
1.08
0.36
0.30
3.28
3.54
RTD,15
150T15D
100%
fbd 2
(2)
PVA1
PVA1A
PVA1B
PP1A
PP1B
52
12
11
36
43
11 CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented results from a preliminary experimental investigation on sample tests conducted on
engineered composites with unconventionally high tensile strain capacity and toughness. Two types of fiber were
used with the cementitious mixes, namely Polypropylene (PP) and Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) fibers. Modulus of
rupture tests were conducted to establish the achieved material toughness. From the tests it was seen that best
crack control, marked by formation of a network of fine cracks yielding superior material toughness was
provided by the PVA fiber on relatively young concrete (4 days old specimens made with early high strength
cement). This response was eliminated, however, in identical specimens aged to 28 days, whose failure was
marked by the formation of a single crack under the point load. A similar type of failure mode but much better
toughness was obtained by the PP mixes. Flexural strengths measured during the tests ranged from 6.5 to 12
MPa, with respective toughness values in the range of 0.3-3.54; beam chord rotations were more than 10% in all
cases considered prior to the onset of strength deterioration. These preliminary findings suggest that a whole
new generation of Cement based materials in possible where tensile strength and strain capacities are so high that
they provide a totally different context for formulation of concrete mechanics and consequent reinforcement
detailing.
REFERENCES
[1] Yang, En-Hua, Li, V.C. (2010), Strain-hardening fiber cement optimization and component tailoring by
means of a micromechanical model J. Construction and Building Materials 24, pp. 130-139.
[2] Lepech, M.D., Li, V.C. (2008), Large-Scale Processing of Engineered Cementitious Composites ACI
Materials Journal V105, No. 4, pp. 358-366.
[3] Yang, En-Hua (2008), Design Added Functions in Engineered Cementitious Composites, PhD dissertation,
University of Michigan
[4] Manita, P., Pantazopoulou S.J. (2002) "Constitutive Model for the Stress-Strain Response of Fibre
Reinforced Concrete in Compression" Composite Materials in Concrete Construction: Proceedings of the
International Seminar Held at the University of Dundee, Scotland, UK on 5-6 September, 2002. Vol. 4.
Thomas Telford Services Limited
[5] Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Center-Point Loading),
ASTM Standard C293, 2010
[6] Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with ThirdPoint Loading), ASTM Standard C1609, 2010