4.7 Article

Experimental investigation on the flexural behavior of hybrid steel-PVA fiber reinforced concrete containing fly ash and slag powder

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 228, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116706

关键词

Flexural behavior; Four-point bending test; Digital image correlation; Hybrid fiber reinforced concrete; Steel fiber; PVA fiber

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC0806004]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51978515]
  3. Shanghai Sailing Program [19YF1451400]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of four-point bending tests has been performed to investigate the flexural behavior of hybrid steel-PVA fiber reinforced concrete containing slag powder and fly ash. Three hybrid ratios (1:3, 1:1, 3:1) and five total fiber volume contents (1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0%, 2.5%, 3.0%) are highlighted in this work. In addition, Digital Image Correlation (DIC) measurement is used to capture the detailed formation and propagation of cracks during the loading process. The results indicate that Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Concrete (HFRC) has a higher bending strength than the plain concrete. Increasing the steel fiber volume content can improve the bending strength whereas adding more PVA fiber has a bad impact on the bending strength. However, during the post-peak stage, both the steel fiber and PVA fiber could enhance the flexural behavior (e.g., the bending stress and toughness) of HFRC. Furthermore, the toughness corresponding to L/100 is more suitable to evaluate the contribution of PVA fiber. Combining DIC results and images taken during the whole loading process, it is found that the introduce of PVA fiber would cause multiple small cracks, which leads to a higher crack resistance and a better load carrying capacity during the post-peak stage. The steel fibers work as bridges among macrocracks, resulting in the improvement of the bending strength and the toughness of HFRC. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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