4.7 Article

Responses and post-impact properties of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete under pendulum impact

期刊

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
卷 208, 期 -, 页码 806-815

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.10.071

关键词

UHPFRC; Impact responses; Post-impact properties; Repeated pendulum impact; Damage index; Analytical modelling

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council
  2. Eindhoven University of Technology
  3. Rijkswaterstaat Grote Projecten en Onderhoud
  4. Graniet-Import Benelux
  5. Kijlstra Betonmortel
  6. Struyk Verwo
  7. Attero
  8. Enci
  9. Rijkswaterstaat Zee en Delta-District Noord
  10. Van Gansewinkel Minerals
  11. BTE
  12. V.d. Bosch Beton
  13. Selor
  14. GMB
  15. Icopal
  16. BN International
  17. Eltomation, Knauf Gips
  18. Hess AAC Systems
  19. Kronos
  20. Joma
  21. CRH Europe Sustainable Concrete Centre
  22. Cement Beton Centrum
  23. Heros
  24. Inashco
  25. Keim
  26. Sirius International
  27. Boskalis
  28. NNERGY
  29. Millvision
  30. Sappi
  31. Studio Roex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present research aims to understand the response and post-impact properties of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) under low-velocity impact. An UHPFRC applying coarse basalt aggregate is developed by using the optimized particle packing theory and considering the mineral oxide engineering and steel fibre utilization. A reliable low-velocity impact method employing pendulum impact test set-up is designed and applied. The results show that the residual strength of UHPFRC beams after impact follows '-e(x)' law with the number of impact, while the residual rigidity, toughness and impact resistance tend to linearly decrease. The rigidity and toughness are more appropriate indicators than ultimate bearing capacity based on the analysis on damage index. An analytical model is proposed to predict the residual impact resistance of UHPFRC beams with the static property of flexural toughness and validated against the experimental data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据