4.7 Article

Experimental study on the effect of strain rates on the dynamic flexural properties of rubber concrete

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 224, Issue -, Pages 408-419

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.084

Keywords

Dynamic flexural test; Rubber concrete; Dynamic Euler-Bernoulli beam model; Split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB)

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [51278132, 51475392]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China [2016A030310346]
  3. Science and Technology Foundation of Guangdong Province Communications Department, China [2017-02-034]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Static and dynamic flexural tests were carried out with a 100-mm-diameter split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) apparatus on rubber concrete for which the fine aggregate was replaced with rubber particles made from waste tires at various volume ratios (0%,10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%). The incident and transmission bars of the SHPB apparatus were each sleeved on a modified pad for a three-point flexural test. Experimental results showed that the flexural strength and mid-span displacement of the rubber concrete had a strain-rate effect. The rubber concrete had a more sensitive strain rate than the normal concrete when the replacement ratio of rubber particles was below 30%. However, excessive rubber content (40% and 50%) decreased the sensitivity of strain rate. The strain-rate effect of the rubber concrete was due to a short test duration, which caused more aggregates to be broken, and compressive behavior during the tests. Rubber concrete with a replacement ratio of 30% demonstrated the greatest deformability and had a lower cracking speed than the normal concrete. These results demonstrated that, under a dynamic flexural load, rubber particles can reduce the brittleness of concrete without excessive mixing. (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