4.7 Article

The effect of specimen size on autogenous and total shrinkage of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC)

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 327, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126952

关键词

Ultra-high performance concrete; Autogenous shrinkage; Water to binder ratio; Silica fume; Capillary tension; Sample size dependency

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [190102650]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study experimentally investigates the shrinkage mechanism of low water to cement ratio concrete and finds a strong specimen size dependency in its shrinkage, which is different from normal strength concrete. Existing shrinkage models are not applicable to this type of concrete.
Unlike normal strength concretes, in which drying is the dominant form of shrinkage, in concretes with very low water to cement ratios autogenous and chemical shrinkage mechanisms can dominate. While the impact of specimen size and shape on drying shrinkage is well understood, the same is not true for autogenous and chemical shrinkage, and this lack of understanding may limit model precision and accuracy. To address this issue, this paper presents the results of a series of experiments conducted to measure the dependency of shrinkage of UPHC on specimen size. Results, recorded from 2 days after water addition, demonstrate a strong specimen size dependency when tested under both sealed and unsealed conditions, thereby indicating that the underlying mechanism is fundamentally different from normal strength concrete, with autogenous shrinkage exhibiting a large influence. Existing shrinkage models (AS3600, B4, CEB-FIP, GL2000 and ACI209) are evaluated for their potential calibration and/or extension to low water to binder ratio concretes and it is shown that commonly used parameters to account for size dependency in normal strength concrete (volume to surface area ratio and hypothetical thickness) do not capture size dependency in UHPC.

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