Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
N. Banthia
1
Nemkumar Banthia is a Professor and Distinguished University
Scholar at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. A
fellow of the ACI, the Canadian Soc. of Civil Engg., Indian Concrete
Institute and the Canadian Academy of Engineering, his awards include
the Wason Medal of the ACI and the Solutions through Research Award
of the Innovation Council of British Columbia.
INTRODUCTION
There are currently 200,000 metric tons of fibers used for concrete
reinforcement. Table 1 shows the existing commercial fibers and
their properties. Steel fiber remains the most used fiber of all (50% of
total tonnage used) followed by polypropylene (20%), glass (5%)
and other fibers (25%).
2
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF FIBER
REINFORCED CONCRETE
Reinforcement Mechanisms
In the hardened state, when fibers are properly bonded, they interact
with the matrix at the level of micro-cracks and effectively bridge
these cracks thereby providing stress transfer media that delays their
coalescence and unstable growth (Fig. 2). If the fiber volume fraction
is sufficiently high, this may result in an increase in the tensile
3
strength of the matrix. Indeed, for some high volume fraction fiber
composite [3], a notable increase in the tensile/flexural strength over
and above the plain matrix has been reported (Fig. 3). Once the
tensile capacity of the composite is reached, and coalescence and
conversion of micro-cracks to macro-cracks has occurred, fibers,
depending on their length and bonding characteristics continue to
restrain crack opening and crack growth by effectively bridging
across macro-cracks. This post-peak macro-crack bridging is the
primary reinforcement mechanism in the majority of commercial
fiber reinforced concrete composites.
Fiber-Matrix Bond
4
For a fiber embedded in a cementitious matrix and subjected to a
pull-out load (Fig. 5), shear-lag will occur and interfacial debonding
will commence at the point of fiber entry which will slowly
propagate towards the free end of the fiber. Thus, some energy
absorption will occur at the fiber-matrix interface while the bond is
being mobilized and the fiber prepares to slip. Early in the
development of fiber reinforced concrete it became apparent that for
large, macro-fibers with small surface areas, a straight fiber will pull-
out at low values of interfacial stress and will generate stress in fiber
far below its tensile strength. Most commercial macro-fibers of steel
and other materials (polypropylene, for example) are now deformed
to enhance their bond with the surrounding matrix. However, even
here there is a limit. If deformed excessively, fibers may develop
stresses that exceed their strength and fracture in the process (Fig. 3).
The energy absorption in such cases is limited, and although some
fiber slippage may precede fracture, poor toughening ensues. For
maximized fiber efficiency, a pull-out mode of fiber failure where
pull-out occurs at a fiber stress close to its tensile strength is
preferred. It is important to mention that fiber failure mode is highly
dependent on the angle at which fiber is inclined with respect to the
direction of the pull-out force.
5
and fail to define conditions for continued crack growth. To define
both crack initiation and growth, there is now general agreement
that a continuous curve of fracture conditions at the crack tip is
needed as done in an R-curve [9]. An R-curve (Figure 6) is a
significantly more suitable representation of fracture in FRCs, as
one can monitor variations in the stress intensity as the crack
grows and derive a multi-parameter fracture criterion.
6
major issue that needs to be dealt with is that of inertial loading.
Specimen accelerates during a test and all measurements are made
while the specimen is still under acceleration. One commonly
adopted technique is to carry out direct measurements of
accelerations, and then use the principle of virtual work to derive
expressions for generalized inertial loads. For a simply supported
plate specimen impacted in the center, the generalized inertial load
(Pi(t)) is given by [19]:
hl 2 .x
Pi (t) u(x, l/2, t).cosec (1)
4 l
where, l is width (also length) of the plate, is the mass density, h
is the thickness of the plate and ü(x,y,t) = acceleration at any point
(x,y) on the plate at time t. Once the generalized inertial load is
obtained, the plate can be modelled as a Single Degree of Freedom
(SDOF) system and the generalized bending load can be obtained
from the Equation of dynamic equilibrium,
Pb (t) Pt (t) Pi (t) (2)
7
uncracked concrete. On the other hand, it results in fiber slippage,
wi, below the neutral axis and corresponding forces, fi, as the fibers
pull-out. Thus, the flexural load carried during the post-crack
phase is obtained by satisfying the equilibrium of moments:
2M e
P (3)
l
c' N
M e c b.dy y f i y i (equilibrating moments) (5)
0 1
8
at a distance ‗y‘ from the neutral axis is averaged over the entire
range of embedment and inclination that is possible, the value of
‗fi‘ in Equations 4 and 5 may be computed as follows (24):
1 f 0 w f w 1
fi f 22.5 w f 45 w f 67.5 w 90 f geometry w (7)
2 2 2 4
or
1 f w f w 1
f i 0 f15 w f 30 w f 45 w f 60 w f 75 w 90 f geometry w (8)
2 2 2 6
9
There is an increased interest these days in bio-inspired fiber
reinforced cementitious composites. These are based on bio-
degradable and recyclable natural fibers (such as cellulose) and are
both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Current research at
The University of British Columbia is focussing on such
composites, and the preliminary indications are that such bio-
inspired materials are highly promising in building and
regenerating a sustainable infrastructure.
Their data are plotted in Fig. 15. Notice that under conditions of
no-stress, fibers reduce the permeability of concrete, and the
reduction appears to be proportional to the fiber volume fraction.
Data further indicates that stress has a significant influence on the
permeability of concrete. When stress was first increased to 0.3fu,
both plain and FRC showed a decrease in the permeability.
However, when the stress was increased to 0.5fu, plain and FRC
showed very different trends. At 0.5fu, the permeability of plain
concrete increased substantially over that of the unstressed
specimen, but for FRC, while there was an increase in the
permeability over 0.3fu, the permeability still stayed below that of
the unstressed specimen.
10
The above observations can be related to cracking. At 0.3fu, it is
conceivable that in both plain and FRC, there is no discernible
cracking that can affect the flow of water. However, at 0.3fu, the
stress-strain response for both plain and FRC would become non-
linear indicating the presence of cracking. As given by the
Poiseuille Law, Edvardsen [28], the flow of water through cracks
is proportional to the cube of the crack width. In the case of FRC,
one can expect the fibers to suppress cracking and hence maintain
the rate of flow similar to an unstressed specimen. When combined
with the phenomenon of ‗pore compression‘, this implies that the
permeability of FRC under stress can in fact be lower than that of
an unstressed specimen.
c 0.31 f
K w exp 4.3 4.0 (10)
w
c 0.3 f
7.0
D 1.7 x10 w (11)
where,
11
w= water content of concrete, in kg/m3
f= fly-ash content of concrete, in kg/m3
Assuming that the effective pore radius in Eqs. (12) and (13) is the
same, a general relationship between permeability K (m2) and
diffusion coefficients D (m2/s) emerges,
2
reff
K D (14)
8 Do
Further, it is to be noted that an interconnected pore system is
necessary for a continuous network of flow paths to be available
for various transporting media. In saturated conditions, the steady
state flow coefficient can be related to the water permeability
coefficient as the two processes occur simultaneously,
12
K (15)
Kw
g
*
rnormalized F 0.25 S 0.25 reff (17)
13
K normalized CF 0.5 S 0.5 D (18)
2
reff g
where C = is a constant proportional to second power of the
8 Do
effective pore radius of plain concrete under zero stress condition.
For plain concrete and zero stress condition F=S=1 and for this
case:
K normalized K w plain unstressed CxD (19)
C C
D (21)
t x x
Here, the diffusion coefficient D may be a constant or a function of
other variables such as chloride concentration, location, time,
temperature, etc.
14
For a simple case with known geometry and boundary conditions
where the diffusion coefficient D can be assumed to be a constant,
solution to Eq. (21) is given by Newman [34]:
x
C ( x, t ) C s 1 erf (22)
2 Dt
2 z t 2
erf ( z ) e dt (23)
0
where,
erf is a standard error function,
x is effective concrete cover depth,
C s is the concentration of the chloride ions at the outside surface
of the concrete and is assumed to be constant with time. That is,
C C s for x = 0 and for any t
C i is the concentration at the depth of the reinforcement; assumed
to be zero at t =0.
C t is the threshold concentration required to initiate steel
reinforcement corrosion. The initiation period is accomplished
when C i C t and,
t = time
Eq. (22) can be solved by using a normal standard distribution
Bertolini et al. [35]:
erf ( z) 2 N ( z 2 ) 1 (24)
t2
1 z 2 2
N (z 2) e dt (25)
2
15
Solving the above equation for Ct = threshold concentration of
chloride ions = 0.50 % (based on the mass of cement), C s =chloride
ions concentration at the surface of concrete = 0.70 % (based on
the mass of cement), x = 25 mm, and diffusion coefficients, D,
from Table 1:
x2
t ti (26)
0.2678D
Notice that a lower value of 0.50% threshold concentration of
chloride ions was chosen due to the presence of fly-ash in concrete
which is known to increase the rate of corrosion. The above
equation predicts that service life of any concrete is proportional to
x2, and holds an inverse relationship with the chloride ion diffusion
coefficient. Therefore doubling the concrete cover increases
service life of concrete by a factor of 4, whereas a 10-fold
reduction in diffusion coefficient will result in a 10-fold increase in
the predicted service life. Substituting the values of diffusion
coefficient from Table 3 into Eq. 26 for different concrete types
and stress conditions, the Durability Factors were computed and
are plotted in Fig. 16. Notice in Figure 16 that as per the model,
fiber reinforcement can be effective in enhancing the durability of
concrete under both stressed and unstressed conditions.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
16
REFERENCES
[1]. Weiss, W.J., Shah, S.P., ―Recent trends to reduce shrinkage cracking in
concrete pavements,‖ Proceedings of the Airfield Pavement Conference,
Aircraft/Pavement Technology: In the Midst of Change, pp. 217-228; 1997.
[2]. Banthia, N., Gupta R., and Mindess, S. Developing crack resistant FRC
overlay materials for repair applications, NSF Conference, Bergamo, Italy;
2004.
[3]. Banthia, N. and Sheng, J., Fracture Toughness of Micro-Fiber Reinforced
Cement Composites, Cement and Concr. Composites., 18: pp. 251-269;
1996.
[4]. Bindiganavile, V and Banthia, N., Polymer and Steel Fiber Reinforced
Cementitious Composites under Impact Loading, Part 1: Bond-Slip
Response, American Concrete Institute, Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No.1,
pp. 10-16: 2001.
[5]. Hillerborg, A. et al, Cement and Concrete Research, 6, pp. 773-82; 1976.
[6]. Jeng, Y.S. and Shah, S.P., ASCE J of Engineering Mechanics, 111(10): pp.
1227-41;1985.
[7]. Hillerborg, A., Cement and Concrete Composites, 2, pp. 177-84; 1980.
[8]. Mindess, S. et al, Cement and Concrete Research, 7, 731-742; 1977.
[9]. Mobasher, B., Ouyang, C. and Shah, S.P., Int. J. of Fracture, 50, pp. 199-
219; 1991.
[10]. Banthia, N., and Genois, I., Controlled Crack Growth Tests for Optimization
of Micro-Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites, ACI, Special Publication:
Application and Testing of Fracture Mechanics Concepts (Ed. C.
Vipulanandan), SP-201, pp. 55-74; 2000.
[11]. Banthia, N. and Trottier, J.-F., ―Test Methods of Flexural Toughness
Characterization: Some Concerns and a Proposition,‖ Concrete Int.: Design
& Construction, American Concrete Institute, Materials Journal, 92(1), pp.
48-57; 1995.
[12]. Barr, B., Gettu, R., Al-Oraimi, S.K.A., and Bryars, L.S., ―Toughness
Measurements-the Need to Think Again,‖ Cement and Concrete Composites,
18, pp. 281-297; 1996.
[13]. Gopalaratman, V.S., et al, ―Fracture Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete‖,
ACI Materials Journal, July-August 1991, pp. 339-353, and Johnston, C.D.,
Discussion of above paper, ACI Materials Journal, pp. 304-309; May-June
1992.
17
[14]. ASTM C 1609/C 1609M – 05, Standard Test Method for Flexural
Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point
Loading), ASTM International, PA, United States.
[15]. ASTM C 1399-98, ―Test Method for Obtaining Average Residual-Strength of
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete,‖ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02.
Japan Society of Civil Engineers; 2004.
[16]. Standard SF-4 Method of Test for Flexural Strength and Flexural Toughness
of Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Japan Society of Civil Engineers; pp. 58-66;
1984.
[17]. Banthia, N. and Mindess, S., Toughness Characterization of Fiber Reinforced
Concrete: Which Standard to Use? ASTM, J. of Testing and Evaluation, 32(2),
pp. 138-139; 2004.
[18]. Banthia, N., Mindess, S., Bentur, A. and Pigeon, M., Expt. Mech. 29 (2): pp.
63-69; 1989.
[19]. Gupta, P. et al., Journal of Materials in Civil Engrg., ASCE, 12 (1) 81-90;
2000.
[20]. Bindiganavile, V. and Banthia, N., Generating Dynamic Crack Growth
Resistance Curves for Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Experimental Mechanics
in press. 2004.
[21]. Bindiganavile, V and Banthia, N., Polymer and Steel Fiber Reinforced
Cementitious Composites under Impact Loading, Part 2: Flexural
Toughness, American Concrete Institute, Materials Journal, Vol. 98(1): pp.
17-24; 2001.
[22]. Kaadi, G.W., MS Thesis, The University of Illinois, Chicago, (1983).
[23]. Banthia, N., Impact and Blast Protection with Fiber Reinforced Concrete,
Conference Proceedings - BEFIB, Veronna, Italy, RILEM, 39, pp. 31-44;
2004.
[24]. Armelin, H. and Banthia, N., ACI Mat. J., 94(1): pp. 18-31; 1997.
[25]. Bentur, A., et al. 2005. Comprehensive Approach for the Design of
Concrete for Durability and Long Term Performance of Structures.
ConMat05 Mindess Symposium Proc., University of British Columbia (Ed.
Banthia, Bentur and Shah), 10 pp.
[26]. Banthia, N. and Bhargava, A., 2007. American Concrete Institute, Materials
Journal, 104(1), pp. 303-309.
[27]. Bhargava, A. and Banthia, N. 2008. RILEM, Materials and Structures, 41:
363-372.
[28]. Edvardsen, C., 1999. ACI Materials Journal, 96(4): 448-454.
18
[29]. Tuutti, K., 1982. Corrosion of steel in concrete. Swedish Cement and
Concrete Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. CBI Research Report no.
4.82.
[30]. Hedegaard, S.E. and Hansen, T.C., 1992. Materials and Structures, 25: 381-
387.
[31]. Hansen, T.C., Jensen, J., Johannesson, T. 1986. Cement and Concrete
Research, 16(5): 782-784.
[32]. Garboczi, J., Cement and Concrete Research, 20 (4) (1990) 590-601.TITLE
[33]. Crank J., ―Mathematics of diffusion‖, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.
[34]. Newman, A.B. 1970. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Vol. 27
pages.
[35]. Bertolini, L., Elsener, B., Pedeferri, P., and Polder, R., WILEY-VCH Verlag
GmbH and Co. kGaA, Weinheim (2004).
19
TABLES
20
Table 2. Description of Test Methods
Standards ASTM C 1609-08 JSCE SF-4 ASTM C 1399-98
Test
Specimen
Load, N
A
B C D
E Reloading Curve (Pre-cracked Beam)
Typical
Curve F G H P0.5 P0.75 P1.0 P1.25
I J
oδ 3δ 5.5δ 10.5δ δtb = L/150
Net Deflection, mm
Net Deflection, mm
21
Table 3. Computed Values of Chloride Ion Diffusion Coefficient
Fiber Applied Normalized Chloride
Volume Stress water ion
Fraction Level permeability F S diffusion
Vf coefficient coefficient
Knormalizedx10- Dx10-13
10
(m/s) (m2/s)
0.0fu 1.66 1 1 12.24
0.0% 0.3fu 103 1 0.62 9.64
0.5fu 2.30 1 1.38 14.43
0.0fu 0.95 0.57 1 9.27
0.1% 0.3fu 0.53 0.57 0.57 6.85
0.5fu 0.71 0.57 0.76 7.95
0.0fu 0.60 0.36 1 7.37
0.3% 0.3fu 0.32 0.36 0.53 5.40
0.5fu 0.45 0.36 0.75 6.38
0.0fu 0.30 0.18 1 5.21
0.5% 0.3fu 0.10 0.18 0.33 3.02
0.5fu 0.18 0.18 0.62 3.97
22
FIGURES
2.5 F1 F2
F3 F4
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4%
Volume Fraction (%)
peak
Micro crack Macro crack
Formation Formation
23
Fig. 3. (Left) A CFRC Composite in Tension and (Right) Stress-Strain
Curves Showing Strain-Hardening at High Fiber Volume Fractions.
0.35
0.3
0.2
0.1
Undeformed
0.05
0
0 5 10 15
Slip (mm)
24
Fig. 5. Shear-Lag in a Bonded
Fiber with Inelastic Mechanisms
25
90
80 Steel Fiber
Toughness (Nm) Polypropylene
70
Fiber
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
200 500 750 1000
Drop Height (mm)
350
300
250 Low Strain-Rate Impact
Load (kN)
200
150 High Strain-Rate Impact
100
Quasi-Static
50
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Deflection (mm)
26
0
0
uncracked
strains
c
section
displacements
f2 f1
2 ƒi = f(w i , i , li )
fi.. f3
wi 3
i
45
Experimental Response Analytical Response
40 Peak Load
38 34
(kN)
35 JSCE
Toughness 6.30 7.05
30 Factor (MPa)
load (kN)
25
20
15
10
5 Experimental
Analytical
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
deflection (mm)
27
Fig. 13. Effect of Crack Width on Permeability [1].
28
-1 0
. 2.5
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Stress Level ( f u )
4.5
4
Durability Factor, D
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Stress Level (f u )
29