4.7 Review

A review on split Hopkinson bar experiments on the dynamic characterisation of concrete

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 190, Issue -, Pages 1264-1283

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.187

Keywords

Split Hopkinson bar; UHPC; Concrete; Dynamic loading

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our living standards are substantially influenced by the advent and development of new materials. The need for stronger building materials has led to useful innovations such as the fortification of concrete to produce Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC). Since numerous structures constructed by various types of concrete and UHPC, experience high rate of loading in their service life, reliable databehavior of this material is an important issue. In the current study, the behavior of different reinforced and unreinforced concrete, and also various UHPCs with and without fiber are comprehensively reviewed based on experiments by Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB). The investigated parameters for the tests performed included matrix constituents, temperature condition, sample size, fiber material, and loading rate. The available results indicate that Ultra-High-Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC) is the most favorable material for utilization in impact-resistance structures. Since the fibers show crucial role in the dynamic strength, fibers material and their aspect ratio should be selected precisely. Applications of numerical simulations can significantly accelerate the material development process, therefore results of computational constitutive modeling are also presented in this paper. The summarized data can be used not only for comparison and the improvement of load carrying capacities of cement-based materials, but also can be beneficial in the development of new computational models. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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