4.3 Article

Water-Cement Ratio on High-Cycle Fatigue in the Theory of Critical Distances of Plain Concrete

出版社

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s40996-022-00887-w

关键词

Concrete; Fatigue limit; High-cycle fatigue (HCF); Linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM); Brittle fracture

资金

  1. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia [08G82, 20J44]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article investigates the influence of critical distance theory on the fatigue characteristics of concrete under different water-cement ratios and finds that the variation in water-cement ratio has a significant impact on the fatigue limit of concrete. Currently, there is limited research on the fatigue limits of concrete and comparisons between different mixtures.
The theory of critical distances (TCD) represents a new area of research on fatigue damage in concrete that is primarily used to characterise fatigue and fracture behaviours. Although TCD is accurate, it appears inconsistent when considering the water-cement ratio of concrete. Such inconsistency is related to the tendency to overlook the effects of the water-cement ratio owing to the small differences observed in tensile strength. The study's main objective is to explore how sensitive fatigue characteristics in concrete are to different water-cement ratios. This research is important because information on concrete's fatigue limits-especially regarding comparisons between different concrete mixes-is scarce. There is a lack of standard procedures for testing the fatigue and fracture behaviour of plain concrete, thus being inconsistent and slow. Thus, the current study has utilised the TCD concept to assess fatigue. However, TCD seems to be susceptible to changes in the water-cement ratio of concrete. Water-cement ratios of 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 increased concrete's fatigue limit to 2.883, 3.022, and 3.903 MPa, respectively. These increases were confirmed to be significant. Thus, this research will improve the current understanding of TCD's value in fatigue analyses of concrete structures.

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

4.3
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