4.7 Article

Wedge-splitting tests for tensile strength and fracture toughness of concrete

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED FRACTURE MECHANICS
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 263-275

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2017.09.006

关键词

Wedge-splitting (WS); Concrete; Aggregate size; Tensile strength; Fracture toughness

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51779095, 51679092]
  3. Science and Technology Planning Project of Zhengzhou City of China [153PKJGG111]
  4. UWA, Tsinghua University
  5. Dalian University of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a new approach for determination of tensile strength f(t) and fracture toughness K-IC of concrete using wedge-splitting (WS) specimens as neither property can be easily measured because of the heterogeneous material structures. The Boundary Effect Model (BEM) was extended to WS geometry and relevant equations were derived so that more concrete properties can be determined by the load and displacement measurements. The new model considers the influence of coarse aggregate structures on concrete fracture by linking the fictitious crack growth Delta alpha(fic) at peak load P-max to the maximum aggregate size d(max). The random aggregate distribution and inevitable variations in Delta alpha(fic) and P-max are considered by a discrete number beta. WS results of concrete specimens with d(max) from 10 mm to 25 mm and specimen size W from 150 mm to 1200 mm reported in literature are analyzed for a range of beta from around 0.2 to 2.0. It is found that on average beta approximate to 1 is a good approximation for common WS specimens with W/d(max) < 20. Then reliable f(t) and K-IC, which is the asymptotic limit for a large structure with a long crack, can be obtained, regardless whether WS specimens are geometrically similar, or have the same size but different notch lengths. Finally, it is concluded that quasi-brittle fracture of concrete is fully predicted if both K-IC and f(t) are known.

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