4.7 Article

Experimental investigation on the mechanical behavior of foamed concrete under uniaxial and triaxial loading

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 209, Issue -, Pages 41-51

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.097

Keywords

Foamed concrete; Uniaxial/multiaxial mechanical behavior; Damage constitutive model; Phenomenological yield criterion

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11390362, 11572214]
  2. 1331 project Key Innovation Teams of Shanxi Province
  3. Natural Science Foundation for Young Scientists of Shanxi Province [201801D221026]
  4. School Foundation of Taiyuan University of Technology [2017QN55]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A series of uniaxial and triaxial experiments are performed to analyze the mechanical behavior of foamed concrete (FC). The experimental results indicate that for uniaxial loading, foamed concrete demonstrates brittle failure under a uniaxial tension and small compression deformation. A 10 damage constitutive model is then established and expected to predict the nonlinear responses of foamed concrete under a large compression deformation. For triaxial loading, the level of confining pressure significantly influences the multiaxial mechanical behavior of foamed concrete due to its hydrostatically compressible characteristic. An elliptic phenomenological yield criterion based on three loading paths is further proposed and extended to consider the density-dependent effect by modifying the corresponding material constants as a function of material density. The comparisons between the theoretical predictions and experimental results reveal that the present yield criterion can give a good description of the tension/compression asymmetry, pressure dependence, and density sensitivity of the yield loci under the effective stress-mean stress space. (C) 2019 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