4.7 Article

Creep of UHPC in tension and compression: Effect of thermal treatment

期刊

CEMENT & CONCRETE COMPOSITES
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 493-502

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.12.002

关键词

Design; Interface; Fibers; Prestressed concrete; Thermal treatment; Ultra-high performance concrete

资金

  1. Georgia Department of Transportation [2043]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Steel fiber-reinforced ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) is of increasing interest for use in precast prestressed concrete highway bridge girders due to its superior durability and the potential for reducing or eliminating shear reinforcement, due to the presence of steel fibers. However, the contributions of creep, and especially tensile creep, to long-term performance must be better understood to develop appropriate design specifications. Due to practical considerations, it is also of interest to investigate the influence of varying thermal treatment, including temperatures lower than those recommended by the manufacturer (i.e. 90 degrees C), on the creep of UHPC. In this 1-year study, the effects of three different thermal treatment regimes on tensile and compressive creep performance of UHPC are examined, with complementary characterization by nanoindentation and scanning electron microscopy. Results show that UHPC creeps phenomenologically differently in tension and compression. Both thermal treatments examined resulted in similar tensile creep behavior, suggesting that a lower temperature applied over a longer period could effectively cure UHPC. For the non-thermally cured UHPC, a 10 mu m wide region observed at the fiber/matrix interface was characterized by reductions in elastic modulus as well as greater porosity and microcracking than the bulk paste. It is suggested that the quality of the fiber/matrix interface is a major contributor to the measured increased creep of non-thermally treated UHPC as compared to UHPC treated at 60 degrees C or 90 degrees C. (C) 2011 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