4.7 Review

Assessment of behaviour and cracking susceptibility of cementitious systems under restrained conditions through ring tests: A critical review

Journal

CEMENT & CONCRETE COMPOSITES
Volume 95, Issue -, Pages 137-153

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.10.016

Keywords

Ring test; Restrained shrinkage; Cracking risk; Cracking sensitivity; Drying shrinkage; Cementitious materials

Funding

  1. Short-term Scientific Mission (STSM) fund
  2. COST Action [TU1404]
  3. FEDER funds through COMPETE2020 -Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalizacao (POCI) [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007633]
  4. FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia
  5. FCT [PTDC/ECM-EST/1056/2014 (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016841)]
  6. FEDER (COMPETE2020) [PTDC/ECM-EST/1056/2014 (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016841)]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cracking occurrence due to shrinkage related effects is a widely recognised issue which is frequently evaluated with the shrinkage restraining ring test. This paper provides a state-of-the-art review of the ring test method, which has been used for the last four decades. The last review on such matter was conducted only in early 2000s; however, a significant amount of studies has been conducted since then and considerable advancements or modifications in this testing method have taken place over the last decade. Studies on the traditional ring test, i.e. a circular concrete ring cast around a steel ring, are identified and the history, tendencies, practices and quantitative methods are analysed thoroughly. Furthermore, any modifications/advancements in the testing method with respect to their purpose, applications and capabilities based on current knowledge, are addressed. Finally, an insight on the challenges that the developers of testing methods for restrained shrinkage are faced with is given together with perspectives for their future potential improvement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available