Experimental Study on Compressive Properties of Ultrahigh Toughness Cementitious Composites
1
Layout
Background Experimental Program Experimental Results
4
Experimental Program
Table 1. Specimen Information of Each Group
Test series Specimen shape
Specimen size/mm
UHTCC
Prism
40×40×160
Matrix
Prism
40×40×160
Specimen
The chart shows the comparison between the predictions and the test data of UHTCC
The predicted curves are obtained by using the experimental strain value at peak stress instead of the fixed value of 0.002.
2
Background
Numbers of studies carried out
➢ permeability and carbonation properties ➢ tensile and bending properties ➢ freeze-thaw properties
no uniform test available for the compressive properties
c c3 c2
(c30.2c2源自0.8)Strain hardening branch: c1 p c2
c
Horizontal branch: c3 p c
c c3 c2
( c3
0.2c2
0.8 )
Descending branch: c3 p c
0.2c
8
Comparison of stress-strain curves
structural applications are limited
3
Experimental Program
For serial number from 1 to 5, the sand-binder ratio was varied from 30 to 45% with other parameters constant.
9
Comparison of compressive strength
10
Conclusions
The prism compressive strength decreases because of the fiber addition.
The strain at peak stress is larger than that of matrix because of the fiber addition
➢ Comparison of compressive strength between UHTCC and matrix
➢ Comparison of strain at peak stress between UHTCC and matrix
A theoretical stress-strain curve model Conclusions
number 9a 9a
Suffix representation
p40u p40m
5
Results
Comparison of compressive strength
Fig. 1. Comparison of prism compressive strength between UHTCC and matrix
For serial number from 6 to 9, the water-binder ratio was varied from 28 to 35% with other parameters constant.
For serial number from 10 to 13, the mineral admixturebinder ratio was varied from 50 to 80% with other parameters constant.
A theoretical model is provide which is needed for modeling its mechanical behavior or for permitting its use in various structural applications.
11
Thank You !
6
Results
Comparison of strain at peak stress
Fig. 3. Comparison of strain at peak stress between UHTCC and matrix
7
Theoretical model
Ascending branch:c1 c2
12