4.5 Article

Mechanical properties of high-performance concrete under triaxial compression

期刊

MAGAZINE OF CONCRETE RESEARCH
卷 74, 期 8, 页码 419-431

出版社

ICE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1680/jmacr.20.00364

关键词

compressive strength; pressure-related properties; strain

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [51668007, 51508112]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi [2018GXNSFAA050007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigated the mechanical properties of high-performance concrete (HPC) through experimental study. The results showed that the lateral confinement pressure effectively increased the triaxial compressive strength of the concrete, but also increased its brittleness. The failure criterion of the HPC was analyzed using the Drucker-Prager yield criterion and Kotsovos failure theory.
It is well known that the mechanical properties of a material are related to lateral confinement. In this paper, 60 cylindrical high-performance concrete (HPC) specimens with different concrete strength grades were cast and subjected to a conventional triaxial experiment to study the mechanical properties of the material. The experimental results indicated that the specimens exhibited longitudinal splitting failure patterns under uniaxial compression and inclined plane shear failure patterns under triaxial compression. The stress-strain curves were divided into three stages: an elastic rising stage, a plastic rising stage and a softening descending stage. The application of lateral confining pressure effectively increased the triaxial compressive strength. As the concrete strength increased, the descending stage of the stress-strain curves became steeper, indicating an increase in brittleness. Based on the experimental results, the failure criterion of the HPC was analysed using the Drucker-Prager yield criterion and Kotsovos failure theory. The parameters of the Drucker-Prager yield criterion were determined, and the applicable range of the Kotsovos failure theory was also obtained.

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

4.5
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