4.7 Article

A micromechanical investigation for the effects of pore size and its distribution on geopolymer foam concrete under uniaxial compression

Journal

ENGINEERING FRACTURE MECHANICS
Volume 209, Issue -, Pages 228-244

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.01.033

Keywords

Foam concrete; Micromechanical investigation; Pore-size effect; Porosity; DEM

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [LP130100884, DP160100775, DP170103793, FT140100408]
  2. Australian Research Council [LP130100884] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the influences of pore-structure and mortar properties on the fracture behaviour of geopolymer foamed concrete. The discrete element method (DEM) is utilised to explicitly describe the internal pore-structure, while the mortar phase is modelled at the micro/meso-scale using a cohesive-frictional model. Numerical tests are conducted on numerous DEM foam concrete specimens with various porosities and pore-size distributions. The numerical results show that the pore-size can have a profound effect on the material's fracture resistance. A decrease in pore size results in higher compressive strength and this influence is more significant for foam concrete with lower porosity. However, the elastic modulus seems to be less sensitive to the pore size variation. Further looking at the fracture process of the foam concrete at the microscale shows a gradual transition contact bonds from compressive to tensile modes, which is triggered by the breakage of contact bonds persisting as the loading continues. The study also demonstrates that the pore size distribution mainly affects the empirical power exponent of Balshin's equation of compressive strength-porosity relationship, while the mortar properties have a profound influence on the strength of the material at zero porosity.

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