Design of

Soranakom, C., and Mobasher, B.
, Correlation Of Tensile And Flexural Behavior Of Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites, Ferro8, proceedings of the 8th International Ferrocement and thin reinforced cement composites Conf, Bangkok, Thailand, 2006.
CORRELATION OF TENSILE AND FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR OF FIBER REINFORCED CEMENT COMPOSITES

Chote Soranakom1 and Barzin Mobasher2 Graduate Research Assistant, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA 2 Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA
1
Abstract
This paper presents a model based on parameterized uniaxial constitutive response for cement based composites in order to correlate the tensile and flexural experimental data. The model consists of a parabolic curve to describe the compression and a trilinear curve to describe the tension response. Two cutoff points for ultimate compressive strain and ultimate tensile strain can be used to terminate the calculation of the moment-curvature diagram. By using a conventional iterative strain compatibility analysis, the moment curvature diagram for homogenous material can be derived explicitly according to the level of applied tensile strain. Approaches are presented to express the moment and curvature response in dimensionless forms in order to eliminate the effect of specimen size and material properties. These moment curvature relationships can be used in the context of plastic analysis of structures to solve a variety of structural loading cases.
1. Introduction
Several approaches have been employed to enhance tension capacity, increased fracture toughness, and minimize crack width of cement based materials. The techniques include use of continuous fiber systems or utilization of a much higher volume fraction than standard fiber reinforced concrete (FRC). The most traditional form of continuous fiber cement composites are the ferrocement products. In contrast to thin section composites reinforced with randomly distributed short fibers, ferrocement [1] utilizes small wire mesh as a main reinforcement and mortar as the matrix. Small scales of ingredients, reinforcement and sand, minimize the flaw sizes in material; consequently, leading to the increase in overall strength. Alternatives to steel, other materials such as polypropylene (PP) [2], asbestos, and glass have also been shown to improve the tension capacity and
Soranakom, C., and Mobasher, B., Correlation Of Tensile And Flexural Behavior Of Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites, Ferro8, proceedings of the 8th International Ferrocement and thin reinforced cement composites Conf, Bangkok, Thailand, 2006.
ductility. Examples of the range of new products developed include materials such as slurry infiltrated concrete (SIFCON) [3], slurry infiltrated mat concrete (SIMCON) [4], [5] and pultruded and cast textile reinforced composite (TRC) materials which exhibit mechanisms of distributed cracking and strain hardening behaviors [6][7] and [8]. The addition of these new materials to the already well developed range of ferrocement products requires a rethinking in the development of analytical procedures for design and analysis. While it is possible to develop an empirical material model for each individual system using unique compression and tension behaviors, the task of developing a common base to rationally compare various competitive systems and their performances becomes difficult. It would be ideal to develop theoretical formulations based on a uniform and unique set of parametric material models for design guides.
2. Homogenization concept
The proposed material model is based on nonlinear uniaxial response of composites observed in experiments. Homogenization concepts are routinely used in order to represent a uniform response of a composite material. In order to develop a material model based on a smeared reinforcement concept, the homogenization approach uses constitutive tensile and compressive response of the combined fibers and matrix. A ferrocement composite that is symmetrically and uniformly reinforced with several layers of steel is considered. While it is technically feasible but computationally intensive to model the different phases of steel and paste as independent components, it is preferable to evaluate a homogenized composite with nonlinear stress-strain response. In order to approximate ferrocement as homogenized material, two questions arise. How many layers of reinforcement are needed for the ferrocement to behave like a homogenized material and how the positioning of the reinforcement affects the moment curvature diagram? To answer these questions, a case study was conducted to study the effect of number of layers and reinforcement positions for typical fiber contents (1% - 5%).
3. Case study on number of layers and reinforcement positions

A typical reinforced concrete beam section 100x100 mm was used to study the parameters affecting homogenization. The details of the section and reinforcement are shown in Fig. 1. Material models and their parameters for concrete and steel are described in Fig. 2. Tension response of concrete was modeled by a linear and power decay functions while the compression response was described by a parabolic curve:
t Et 0 t = f t tn 0 for t t0 for t0 < t tu for t > tu
(1.a)
2 2 c ' c fc c = c0 c0 0
for c cu for c > cu
(1.b)
h h h h h h
(i) 2 Layers
(ii) 4 Layers
(iii) 6 Layers
Figure 1- Homogenized layered reinforced concrete section fc
(a)
c0
ft fsh t0 tu c fsy
fs
(b)
f c
sy
sh
su
Figure 2 - Tension and compression models: a) concrete; and b) steel The material properties used in this parametric study were defined as: t0 = 0.0001, ft = 2.0 MPa, Et0 = 20 GPa, = 10, n = 0.2, tu = 0.001 while the compression response was governed by fc= -30 MPa, c0 = -0.002, cu = -0.003. Properties of steel were modeled by means of a bilinear stress-strain response in compression and tension as:
E s s f s = f sy + ( s sy ) Esh f ( su s ) sh ( su sh )
for s sy for sy < s sh for s > sh
(2)
The material parameters used were: sy = 0.002, fsy= 400 MPa, Es = 200 GPa, sh = 0.030, fsh = 440 MPa, and tu = 0.032. To study the effect of number of layers, a constant steel content was distributed into 2, 4 and 6 layers. To study the effect of reinforcement position, the steel layers were placed at -0.25h, 0.00 and +0.25h inward or outward from the center of sub thickness h. The studies were conducted at two steel contents, low 1% and high 5%. A conventional strain compatibility analysis program was used to construct a moment curvature diagram and the values are presented in a normalized form by dividing the moment by its elastic moment at yielding and the curvature by its elastic curvature at yielding. For individual material model, strain of concrete and steel varies linearly across the depth of the section and the stresses were obtained from individual concrete and steel material models. Location of neutral axis was found by solving the internal equilibrium of the forces. On the other hand, homogenized model first combined uniaxial compression and tension from individual material and then created the moment curvature diagram. Figure 3a&b show the effect of number of layers on the moment curvature diagram for 1%, and 5% volume fraction of steel respectively. It can be seen that the homogenized concept is applicable with only 2 layers of discretization. As number of reinforcement increases to 4, 6 layers, the behavior quickly converge to a homogenized material. Figure 3c&d show the effect of the reinforcement position. As expect, shifting reinforcement outward or inward to increase or decrease moment arm highly affects the moment capacity, especially for the 2 layered in Fig. 3c. However, as can be seen from Fig. 3d, the effect of the reinforcement position decreases substantially when more layers (6 layers) were used. It must be noted that based on experimental results [9], moment capacity was much less sensitive to the reinforcement arrangement than what expected from the theoretical values. From theoretical and experimental studies, ferrocement that normally has several layers of reinforcement and the alignment may be off from the intended position due to difficulty of laying up can be approximated with a homogenized material. The next section will demonstrate the use of homogenized material to predict moment capacity and load deformation response of ferrocement.
4. Prediction of flexural load deformation response from tensile data

In order to simulate the flexural response form tensile data, one needs to collect composite properties experimentally and then use an algorithm to convert the
experimental stress-strain response into moment-curvature relationships. The moment curvature relationship can be used as section property in nonlinear finite element analysis in order to calculate the load-deflection response of various structural systems. The case study presented in the previous section points out to the importance of developing models based on parameterized material properties. It is however noted that in order to develop a full scale parametric model, all the parameters need to be expressed as independent constants and non-dimensional variables which can be varied independently. This requirement implies that mixing of variables representing strength and strain result in conditional statements which affect the validity of any parametric representation.
6
16
(a)
4
(b)
6/(bd2Et0t0)Moment
12
6/(bd2Et0t0)Moment
2 As 1 % 2 Layers 4 Layers 6 Layers homogenized 0 0 40
As 5 % 2 Layers 4 Layers 6 Layers homogenized 0 20
d/(2t0)Curvature
80
120
160
200
d/(2t0)Curvature
40
60
80
100
20
20
(c)
16 16
(d)
6/(bd2Et0t0)Moment
6/(bd2Et0t0)Moment
12
12
8 As 5%, 2 Layers +0.25h 0.00h - 0.25h homogenized 0 20
8 As 5 %, 6 Layers +0.25h 0.00h - 0.25h homogenized 0 20
d/(2t0)Curvature
40
60
80
100
d/(2t0)Curvature
40
60
80
100
Figure 3 - Effect of number of layers and reinforcement position on non-dimensional moment curvature diagram: a) low steel content 1%; b) high steel content 5%; c) reinforcement position with 2 layers; and d) reinforcement position with 6 layers
Based on the above, it would be preferable to construct the entire stress-strain relationship based on independent constants and non-dimensional parameters of a strain based formulation as shown in Fig. 4. The stress strain relationship for the compression response was approximated with a parabola and a cutoff point at ultimate compressive strain cu. The uniaxial tension response was approximated with three straight lines (trilinear) to describe: linear ascending from zero to the yield stress, linear hardening from the yield stress to the ultimate tensile strength and linear descending from the ultimate tensile strength to zero. Optionally, an arbitrary cutoff point at ultimate tensile tu strain can be placed in the model to terminate the computation. A set of material parameters described in Fig. 4 can be obtained by fitting experimental tensile and compressive data of composite materials to the homogenized material model proposed. The parameters of a trilinear tensile stress strain response are defined by the initial stiffness Et0, secondary stiffness, Et1, and three strain measures respectively, first crack strain t0, strain corresponding to maximum tensile strength t1, and also the termination strain, t2. These can be represented with only two independent variables, Et0, and t0 and three normalizing parameters , and 1 and 2 as shown in Equation 3. Parameter defined in the range of [0...1] represents the reduced modulus of the composite after the first cracking of matrix. A value of 0 represents a perfectly plastic modulus whereas a parameter 1 represents perfect elastic behavior. An intermediate value between 0 and 1 represents the strain hardening modulus of the composite. parameters 1 and 2 are positive numbers which represent the magnitude of ultimate tensile strain and strain at the termination of softening zone normalized with respect to the first cracking strain t0. Additionally the compressive response can be represented by two parametric variables representing the ratio of compressive to tensile modulus and describing compression softening rate, i.e. = 1 represents equal moduli in tension and compression and = 0 represents a linearly elastic compression response: Stress Et1 Et0 cu c0 t0 t1 tu t2 Strain
Ec0 f c Figure 4 - Material model for homogenized cement based composite
E for 0< t 0 t0 t = Et0 t0 +Et1 ( t0 ) for t 0 < t1 ( t2 ) ( Et0 t0 + Et1 ( t1 t0 )) for t1< t 2 ( t2 t1 )
(3.a)
c = Ec0 ( 2 ) where Et1 = Et0
for 0 < cu
(3.b)
Ec0 = Et0
t1 = 1 t0
t2 = 2 t0
The objective was to use the model as a homogenized material and predict the load deformation response of a beam under four points bending test. Three sets of the samples from tensile and flexural experimental results [9] were selected as the experimental data and used for comparison purposes. In these specimens the reinforcement was evenly distributed and the conditions were in agreement with the homogenization concept. The dimension of dog-bone tension specimens was 50x25x300 mm with the enlarged width of 100 mm at both ends. The flexural specimens for four point bending test were 100x25x380 mm with a tested clear span of 300 mm. The mortar mix ratio, cement: sand: water (by weight) was 1.0: 1.5: 0.45. The mortar had a compressive strength, modulus of rupture, and modulus of elasticity of 50, 4.8, and 27000 MPa all measured at 7 days. The reinforcement was steel wire mesh with a grid size of 8.5x8.5 mm, diameter 0.87 mm, yield stress 245 MPa, ultimate tensile strength 371 MPa and modulus of elasticity 140 GPa. Steel wire meshes were placed evenly 4, 6 and 8 layers with 3 mm cover at the top and bottom to provide the reinforcement in longitudinal direction Vf = 1.05%, 1.51% and 2.09%, respectively. The parameters for trilinear tension model shown in Fig. 4 were obtained by fitting the model to the uniaxial tension test results such that the areas under curves of the model and the experiment were approximately the same. Since there was no compression test on the ferrocement specimens, the parameters for compression model were estimated from the information given in literature; Ec0 for ferrocement was estimated by the rule of mixture as follows:
Ec 0 = EmVm + EsVs
(4)
where Ec0, Em and Es are Young modulus of ferrocement, mortar and steel, respectively. Vm and Vs are the volume fraction of mortar and steel, respectively. Parameter was then calculated by Ec0/Et0 and the ultimate strength of ferrocement fc was estimated by their proportions as follows:
' f c' = f mcVm + f syVs
(5)
where fmc and fsy are the yield stress of matrix and steel, respectively. Other parameters and additional information for compression model can be obtained by working out the
relationship between the standard Hognestads parabola [10] and the parabola compression model described in Fig. 4:
2 2 f c = f c' c c = Ec 0 ( c c ) c0 c0
(6)
Ones can obtain the strain at ultimate compressive strength c0 = 2fc/Ec and parameter for compression softening rate = 1/(2c0). The ultimate compressive strain cu for ferrocement was assumed to be -0.006. A complete set of material parameters for the simulations of beams under four point bending test is listed in Table 1, while the tension and compression models are shown in Fig. 5a&b. Table 1- Material parameters for simulation of four point bending test; = scale factor for tensile and flexural load deflection correlation; c0 = -0.0037 and cu= -0.006 Material Parameters Additional Information Ec fc' GPa MPa 28.19 52.0 28.19 52.0 28.71 52.9 28.71 52.9 29.36 54.1 29.36 54.1
Vf % 1.05 1.05 1.51 1.51 2.09 2.09

10
1.00 1.28 1.00 1.37 1.00 1.26
t0
10 4.0 5.1 4.8 6.5 3.5 4.4
-4
Et0 GPa 9.25 9.25 11.3 11.3 20.0 20.0
10-4 3.12 3.12 6.43 6.43 4.33 4.33
1
87.5 87.5 73.7 73.7 100 100
2
90 90 76 76 103 103
3
99 99 83 83 113 113
-60
3.05 3.05 2.55 2.55 1.47 1.47
135 135 135 135 135 135
(a)
Compressive Stress (MPa)
8
(b)
-40
Tensile Stress (MPa)
4 Vf=1.05% (Exp.) Vf=1.05% (Trilinear) Vf=1.51% (Exp.) Vf=1.51% (Trilinear) Vf=2.09% (Exp.) Vf=2.09% (Trilinear) 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
-20
Vf=1.05% Vf=1.51% Vf=2.09% 0 0 -0.002 -0.004 -0.006
Tensile Strain
Compressive Strain
Figure 5- Homogenized material model for ferrocement specimen: a) tension model; and b) compression model
With the known tensile and compressive stress strain curves in Fig.5, the moment capacity of the three specimens can be predicted from the moment curvature diagram (solid lines in Fig. 6b) generated by the strain compatibility analysis as before. Table 2 shows the accuracy of the predicted ultimate moment compared to the test results by using homogenized model and other calculation methods. It can be seen that, the homogenized model underestimated the ultimate moments by 26% for Vf=1.05%, 31% for Vf=1.51% and 21% for Vf=2.09% or an average of 26%, which were comparable to other prediction methods (11% - 44%) [11][12] and [13]. Since compression strength was much stronger than the tensile strength (Table 1), the ultimate load was governed by the tension capacity of the beam. One can propose and solve an inverse problem by seeking to find the tensile stress strain response which would fit the experimental results. In order to match the experimental result, it was found that the trilinear tension models for samples Vf=1.05%, 1.51% and 2.09% must be increased by 28%, 37% and 26%, respectively (the percent increase was approximately equal to the percent under prediction). The increases were achieved by scaling the first cracking base strain from t0 to 1.28 t0, 1.37 t0 and 1.26 t0, respectively. The scaling parameter was defined as parameter which modified first cracking strain model, so that the tensile response can be utilized in predicting flexural capacity and load-deflection response. The modification of three specimens suggests that the flexural tensile capacity is about 1.30 times the value predicted by the uniaxial tensile capacity for a light steel content (1.05% - 2.09%). This discrepancy is somewhat similar to the experimental observation of plain concrete that uniaxial tensile strength is lower than the flexural tensile strength. The modification of tension capacity by a parameter led to the change of moment curvature diagram in Fig. 6b (dot lines) and resulting in an experiment/prediction approximately equaled to 1.00 in the last column of Table 2. Table 2 - Accuracy of prediction method for ultimate flexural strength Fiber Content Vf = 1.05 % Vf = 1.51 % Vf = 2.09 % Experiment Moment (N-mm) Experimental / Predicted Moment Ratio a 1.35 1.44 1.53 1.44 0.07 b 1.31 1.35 1.35 1.34 0.02 c 1.26 1.30 1.25 1.27 0.02 d 1.26 1.31 1.31 1.29 0.02 e 1.13 1.11 1.08 1.11 0.02 f 1.26 1.31 1.21 1.26 0.04 g 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.01 0.00
137,500 202,500 237,500 Average Standard deviation
a) BSI-CP 110 [14]; b) ACI 318-77 [15]; c) Logan and Shah [16]; d) Mansur and Paramasivam [17]; e) Mechanism approach [18]; f) Homogenized; g) Homogenized with modification
10
(a)
8
250,000
(b)
200,000
Tensile Stress (MPa)
Moment (N-mm)
150,000
4
Vf=1.05% Vf=1.05% (1.28t0)
100,000
Vf=1.51% Vf=1.51% (1.37t0) Vf=2.09% Vf=2.09% (1.26t0)
50,000
Vf=1.05% Vf=1.05% (1.28t0) Vf=1.51% Vf=1.51% (1.37t0) Vf=2.09% Vf=2.09% (1.26t0) 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Tensile Strain
Curvature (1/mm)
Figure 6 - Using uniaxial tension test data to predict flexural capacity: a) fitted trilinear tension model (solid lines) and the modified based tensile strain t0 model (dashed line); and b) moment-curvature diagram of the fitted and modified models The prediction of load deflection curve of the beam under four point bending test can be simulated using finite element software ABAQUS [18]. The specimen (Vf = 1.51% in Fig 6b) was modeled using coarse mesh 4 and fine mesh 40 beam (B23) elements. Nonlinear moment curvature diagram of sample Vf = 1.51% were used as an input section properties in ABAQUS. Four and forty beam elements were placed to create a clear span of 300 mm with a pin support and a roller supports. In order to obtain the complete load deflection curve from pre-peak to the post-peak, a displacement control was used in the analysis. Two nodes located at 1/3 and 2/3 of a span were imposed an 8 mm downward displacement in an incremental fashion. The load deformation response was then obtained from the sum of the vertical reactions at the supports and plotted vs. deflection at mid span. Fig.7 shows the predicted load deformation of the sample Vf = 1.51%. It can be seen that the fitted model underpredicted the experimental curve by 33%, approximately the same as underpredicted moment capacity 31% in Table 2 and the experimental results can be matched by the modified based tensile strain 1.37t0 model. It was also note that the discretization using 4 and 40 elements yield the same load deflection curves for both fitted and modified model. Thus, the nonlinear four point bending test can be modeled efficiently with as little as 4 beam elements.
5. Conclusions
The study showed that homogenization concept was applicable as early as 2 layers of uniform and symmetrical reinforced composite and became better with more number of layers were evenly distributed. The effect of placing reinforcement away from the center of each sub layer that could increase or decrease moment arm had a significant effect on the moment capacity, especially when 2 layers were used. However, this effect tended to disappear when more layer were used.
The approximation of ferrocement with homogenized material predicted load deformation response and flexural capacity of a beam under four point bending test lower than the experimental results, but they were in agreement with other prediction methods that also predicted the lower values. It was observed that the first crack strain levels in the trilinear tension model was increased by about the same amount of the unpredicted strength, the predicted response can match the experimental results. This may suggest that there is an inherent relationship of uniform tensile stress in uniaxial tension test and triangular tensile stress in bending test. More investigation on this issue needs to be done for the success of using the approximate homogenized material model.
4000
Total Load 2P (N)
3000
2000
1000
Vf=1.51% (Experiment) Vf=1.51% (ABAQUS, 4 elems) Vf=1.51% (ABAQUS, 40 elems) Vf=1.51% (ABAQUS 1.37t0, 4 elems) 0 4 8 12
Mid Span Deflection (mm)
Figure 7 - Prediction of load deflection response of sample Vf = 1.51% by finite element software ABAQUS
6. Acknowledgements
This program has been supported by a research grant through the national Science Foundation, NSF (#MSM 0324669-03). This support is greatly acknowledged.
7. References
1. Naaman A.E., and Shah S.P. (1971) Tensile test of ferrocement, J. American Concrete Institute 68: 693-698. 2. Naaman A.E., Shah, S.P. and Throne J.L. (1984) Some developments in polypropylene fiber for concrete. Publication SP American Concrete Institute: 375-96.
3. Umekawa, S. and Nakazawa, K. (1970) On mechanical properties of stainless steel fiber and fiber-reinforced stainless-SN-PB alloy composite, J. Japan Institute of Metals 34: 222-227. 4. Bayasi, Z. and Zeng, J. (1997) Flexural behavior of slurry infiltrated mat concrete (SIMCON), Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 9:194-199. 5. Krstulovic-Opara, N. and Malak, S. (1997) Tensile behavior of slurry infiltrated mat concrete (SIMCON), ACI Material Journal 94(January-February): 39-46. 6. Swamy, R.N. and Hussin, M.W. (1989) Woven polypropylene fabricsan alternative to asbestos for thin sheet application: Fibre reinforced cement and concretes, recent developments, Elsevier Science: 99100. 7. Peled, A., Bentur, A. and Yankelevsky, D. (1998) Effects of woven fabric geometry on the bonding performance of cementitious composites, mechanical performance, Advanced Cement Based Materials 7:20-27. 8. Peled, A. and Mobasher, B. (2005) Pultruded fabric-cement composites, ACI Materials Journal 102(Jan-Feb): 15-23. 9. Paramasivam, P. and Ravindrarajah, R.S. (1988) Effect of arrangements of reinforcements on mechanical properties of ferrocement, ACI Structural Journal (January-February): 3-11. 10. Hognestad, E. (1951) A study of combined bending and axial load in reinforced concrete members, University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station, Bulletin Series No. 399(November): 128 pp. 11. Singla, N. (2004) Experimental and theoretical study of fabric cement composites for retrofitting masonry structures. MS Thesis, Arizona State University. 12. Wee, T.H., Lu, H.R. and Swaddiwudhipong, S. (2000) Tensile strain capacity of concrete under various states of stress, Magazine of Concrete Research 52(June): 185-193. 13. Marikunte, S., Aldea, C. and Shah, S.P. (1997) Durability of glass fiber reinforced cement composites: effect of silica fume and metakaolin. Advanced Cement Based Materials 5:100-108. 14. Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete, (CP 110-1972), British Standards Institution, London: 440pp. 15. ACI Committee 318 (1977) Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Detroit: 102pp. 16. Logan, D., and Shah, S.P. (1973) Moment capacity and cracking behavior of ferrocement in flexure, ACI Journal, Proceedings 70(12): 799-804. 17. Mansur, M.A., and Paramasivam, P., (1985) Cracking behaviour and ultimate strength of ferrocement in flexure, Proceedings, 2nd International Symposium on Ferrocement, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok: 47-59. 18. ABAQUS Users Manual Version 6; Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorenson, Inc.: Providence, RI.

Design of

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Design of

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Soranakom, C., and Mobasher, B.

CORRELATION OF TENSILE AND FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR OF FIBER REINFORCED CEMENT COMPOSITES

3. Case study on number of layers and reinforcement positions

for c cu for c > cu

Figure 1- Homogenized layered reinforced concrete section fc

for s sy for sy < s sh for s > sh

4. Prediction of flexural load deformation response from tensile data

2 As 1 % 2 Layers 4 Layers 6 Layers homogenized 0 0 40

As 5 % 2 Layers 4 Layers 6 Layers homogenized 0 20

8 As 5%, 2 Layers +0.25h 0.00h - 0.25h homogenized 0 20

8 As 5 %, 6 Layers +0.25h 0.00h - 0.25h homogenized 0 20

Ec0 f c Figure 4 - Material model for homogenized cement based composite

c = Ec0 ( 2 ) where Et1 = Et0

Vf % 1.05 1.05 1.51 1.51 2.09 2.09

1.00 1.28 1.00 1.37 1.00 1.26

Et0 GPa 9.25 9.25 11.3 11.3 20.0 20.0

10-4 3.12 3.12 6.43 6.43 4.33 4.33

3.05 3.05 2.55 2.55 1.47 1.47

135 135 135 135 135 135

Tensile Stress (MPa)

Vf=1.05% Vf=1.51% Vf=2.09% 0 0 -0.002 -0.004 -0.006

137,500 202,500 237,500 Average Standard deviation

Tensile Stress (MPa)

Vf=1.51% Vf=1.51% (1.37t0) Vf=2.09% Vf=2.09% (1.26t0)

0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Total Load 2P (N)

Mid Span Deflection (mm)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen