LeHTN PDF

HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE AND FIBER-REINFORCED
CEMENT COMPOSITES FOR POTENTIAL APPLICATION
IN PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES
LE HOANG THANH NAM
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2017
HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE AND FIBER-REINFORCED
CEMENT COMPOSITES FOR POTENTIAL APPLICATION
IN PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES
LE HOANG THANH NAM
(M.Eng. & B.Eng., HCMUT)
A THESIS SUBMITTED
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2017
Supervisors:
Professor Zhang Min-Hong, Main Supervisor
Assistant Professor Poh Leong Hien, Co-Supervisor
Examiners:
Associate Professor Ong Khim Chye, Gary
Associate Professor Tam Chat Tim
Professor Jos Brouwers, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work and it has been written by
me in its entirety. I have duly acknowledged all the sources of information
which have been used in the thesis.
This thesis has also not been submitted for any degree in any university
previously.
Le Hoang Thanh Nam
30 December 2016
i
Acknowledgements
First of all, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisors, Professor
Zhang Min-Hong for her patience, encouragement, support, and invaluable
guidance during my research and Assistant Professor Poh Leong Hien for his
enthusiastic support and detailed advice.
I would also like to express my gratitude to my thesis committee
members, Professor Tam Chat Tim and Professor Gary Ong Khim Chye for
their comments and advice.
I am also grateful to Dr Wang Shasha and Dr Feng Huajun, who always
share their knowledge regarding fiber reinforced concretes and chemical
mechanisms. This helps me a lot in my research. Experimental work is also
carried out with the great help from undergraduate students Natahari Christian,
Lu Xueya, Eugene Chua Ken Xiu, and Yang Jieyu.
I would like to thank the staff from Structural and Concrete Laboratory
and Impacts Laboratory with special thanks to Mr. Ang Beng Oon, Mr. Koh
Yian Kheng, Mr. Wong Kah Wai, Mr. Low Chee Wah, and Mr. Choo Peng Kin
for their kind assistance and support in experimental work.
I would also like to acknowledge the research scholarship provided by
the National University of Singapore and AUN/SEED-Net.
Finally, I want to express my appreciation to my beloved father Le Van
Loi, mother Hoang Thi My, brother Le Hoang Ngoc Quynh, wife Le Thi Thuy,
and other family members for all things they have supported and sacrificed.
ii
Table of Contents
Declaration........................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ii
Table of Contents ..............................................................................................iii
Summary ............................................................................................................. x
List of Tables ....................................................................................................xii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................xiii
List of Notations .............................................................................................. xvi
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background and motivation ....................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives and scope.................................................................................. 3
1.3 Organization of the thesis .......................................................................... 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................ 7
2.1 High strength concrete ............................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Typical features of high strength concrete (HSC) .............................. 7
2.1.2 Fracture of HSC under uniaxial compression ..................................... 9
2.1.3 Current recommendations to increase the compressive strength of
HSC ............................................................................................................ 11
2.2 Numerical models of concrete ................................................................. 12
2.2.1 Meso-scale model of concrete .......................................................... 12
2.2.2 Plastic damage model of concrete ..................................................... 14
2.2.3 Framework for the plastic damage model of concrete ...................... 16
iii
2.2.4 Cohesive surface model for interface ............................................... 20
2.3 Strain-hardening cement composite (SHCC)........................................... 21
2.3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 21
2.3.2 Strain hardening behavior under tensile and flexural loadings ......... 22
2.3.3 Behavior under static compressive loading ...................................... 25
2.3.4 Comparison between SHCC and conventional fiber reinforced
concrete (FRC) ........................................................................................... 26
2.4 Rate dependence of cement composites .................................................. 27
2.4.1 Equations to predict dynamic increase factors in model codes ........ 29
2.4.1.1 Dynamic increase factor in compression tests ........................... 29
2.4.1.2 Dynamic increase factor in tension tests .................................... 31
2.4.2 Effect of high strain rate on compressive behavior of FRC .............. 32
2.4.3 Effect of strain rate on compressive behavior of SHCC ................... 33
2.4.4 Effect of strain rate on tensile behavior of SHCC ............................ 35
2.5 Cement composites under impact of high velocity flying objects ........... 37
2.5.1 Localized damage of concrete specimen .......................................... 38
2.5.2 Effects of parameters of the projectile and impact velocity ............. 40
2.5.3 Effects of parameters of the concrete specimen ............................... 41
2.5.3.1 Compressive strength of concrete .............................................. 41
2.5.3.2 Other parameters of concrete ..................................................... 42
2.5.3.3 Penetration resistance of fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) ........ 44
iv
2.5.3.4 Penetration resistance of strain-hardening cement composite
(SHCC) .................................................................................................. 46
2.5.4 Prediction of localized damage on concrete ..................................... 48
2.5.4.1 Prediction of penetration depth .................................................. 48
2.5.4.2 Prediction of scabbing thickness ................................................ 50
2.5.4.3 Prediction of perforation thickness ............................................ 51
List of tables of Chapter 2 .............................................................................. 52
List of figures of Chapter 2 ............................................................................ 56
Chapter 3 Critical Parameters for the Compressive Strength of High
Strength Concrete ............................................................................................ 60
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 60
3.2 Strategy .................................................................................................... 61
3.3 Experimental-numerical characterization of single inclusion block ........ 61
3.3.1 Experimental details and results ....................................................... 62
3.3.1.1 Experiment on high-strength mortar (HSM) and granite ........... 62
3.3.1.2 Experiment on single inclusion block (SIB) .............................. 64
3.3.2 Numerical models ............................................................................. 65
3.3.2.1 Plasticity-damage model for mortar matrix and inclusion ......... 65
3.3.2.2 Determination of parameters for granite and HSM ................... 65
3.3.2.3 Cohesive model for interfacial transition zone (ITZ) ................ 66
3.3.2.4 Determination of parameters for ITZ ......................................... 67
v
3.3.2.5 Model of SIB and calibration of the friction coefficient for ITZ
................................................................................................................ 68
3.3.3 Failure process at the end surfaces of single inclusion block ........... 69
3.4 Parametric study on the compressive strength of single inclusion block 71
3.4.1 Strength of inclusion ......................................................................... 71
3.4.2 Elastic modulus and strength of matrix ............................................ 72
3.4.3 Strain capacity of matrix ................................................................... 74
3.4.4 Summary of SIB parametric study .................................................... 75
3.5 Experiment with high-strength concretes ................................................ 76
3.5.1 Experimental details.......................................................................... 77
3.5.2 Results and discussion ...................................................................... 78
3.5.2.1 Compressive strength and fracture of coarse aggregate ............ 78
3.5.2.2 Elastic modulus and strengths of mortar matrix ........................ 80
3.5.2.3 Strain capacity of mortar matrix ................................................ 80
3.6 Summary of Chapter 3 ............................................................................. 83
List of tables of Chapter 3 .............................................................................. 86
List of figures of Chapter 3 ............................................................................ 91
Chapter 4 Effect of High Strain Rate on Compressive Behavior of
Strain-Hardening Cement Composites in Comparison with that of
Conventional Fiber Reinforced High Strength Concretes ........................... 99
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 99
4.2 Experimental details............................................................................... 100
vi
4.2.1 Mix proportions .............................................................................. 100
4.2.2 Materials ......................................................................................... 101
4.2.3 Workability and specimen preparation ........................................... 102
4.2.4 Static tests ....................................................................................... 104
4.2.5 Intermediate strain rate compression tests ...................................... 105
4.2.6 High strain rate compression tests and data processing .................. 105
4.2.6.1 Fundamental principles of split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB)
tests ...................................................................................................... 105
4.2.6.2 Principles of data processing ................................................... 106
4.2.6.3 Test method in the present study ............................................. 110
4.3 Results and discussion ........................................................................... 111
4.3.1 Basic properties ............................................................................... 111
4.3.2 Behavior under static flexural loading ............................................ 111
4.3.3 Behavior under static compressive loading .................................... 114
4.3.4 Behavior under compressive loading of intermediate strain rate (10-4
– 10-1 s-1)................................................................................................... 116
4.3.5 Behavior under high strain rate compressive loading (30 – 300 s-1)
.................................................................................................................. 117
4.3.5.1 Failure pattern of specimens .................................................... 117
4.3.5.2 Stress-strain curves .................................................................. 119
4.3.5.3 Dynamic increase factor for compressive strength .................. 120
4.3.5.4 Dynamic increase factor for toughness in compression .......... 124
vii
4.4 Summary and conclusions of Chapter 4 ................................................ 125
List of tables of Chapter 4 ............................................................................ 127
List of figures of Chapter 4 .......................................................................... 129
Chapter 5 Behavior of High Performance Cement Composites against
High Velocity Projectile Impact ................................................................... 139
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 139
5.2 Experimental details............................................................................... 140
5.2.1 Mixture design and materials used ................................................. 140
5.2.2 Workability and specimen preparation ........................................... 141
5.2.3 Tests for mechanical properties and Rockwell hardness ................ 143
5.2.4 High velocity projectile impact (HVPI) tests .................................. 143
5.3 Results and Discussion .......................................................................... 145
5.3.1 Mechanical properties and effective hardness index ...................... 145
5.3.1.1 Compressive strength and elastic modulus .............................. 145
5.3.1.2 Behavior under third-point bending ......................................... 146
5.3.1.3 Rockwell hardness and “effective hardness index” ................. 146
5.3.2 Effect of various properties of composites on the resistance to high
velocity projectile impact (HVPI) ............................................................ 148
5.3.2.1 Effects of compressive strength ............................................... 148
5.3.2.2 Effects of aggregates ................................................................ 150
5.3.2.3 Influence of “effective hardness index” and elastic modulus .. 152
5.3.2.4 Effects of fibers ........................................................................ 155
viii
5.3.3 Prediction of penetration depth ....................................................... 157
5.3.3.1 Comparison between experimental and predicted penetration
depths ................................................................................................... 157
5.3.3.2 Proposed revision of ConWep equation for predicting
penetration depth .................................................................................. 159
5.4 Summary of Chapter 5 ........................................................................... 162
List of tables of Chapter 5 ............................................................................ 165
List of figures of Chapter 5 .......................................................................... 169
Chapter 6 Summary and Recommendations ........................................... 178
6.1 Summary and conclusions ..................................................................... 178
6.1.1 Critical parameters for the compressive strength of high-strength
concrete .................................................................................................... 178
6.1.2 Behavior of cement composites under high strain rate compression
.................................................................................................................. 179
6.1.3 Behavior of cement composites under high velocity projectile impact
.................................................................................................................. 181
6.2 Research contribution ............................................................................ 183
6.3 Recommendations for future work ........................................................ 184
References ....................................................................................................... 185
Publications .................................................................................................... 198
Curriculum Vitae ........................................................................................... 199
ix
Summary
This study investigates the static and dynamic behaviors of high performance
concretes for protective structures. From the motivation identified in the
literature review, research on the performance of high-strength concrete (HSC),
fiber-reinforced high-strength concrete (FRHSC), and strain-hardening cement
composite (SHCC) has been conducted.
In the first part of the research, attempts were made to obtain a better
understanding of the critical parameters governing the compressive strength of
HSC. A combined experimental-numerical approach was used with an idealized
composite model. In the numerical simulation, a plasticity-damage model with
an over-nonlocal gradient enhancement approach was adopted from literature.
Experiment on the idealized composite was conducted to provide the input data
and validate the numerical model. Numerical parametric study was conducted
to qualitatively examine effects of various parameters on the compressive
strength of the composite. From the findings in the parametric study,
experiments were carried out to investigate the influence of the identified
parameters on the compressive strength of HSC. Numerical and experimental
results show that the lateral strain capacity of the mortar matrix seems to be the
most critical parameter for the compressive strength of HSC.
In the second part of the study, the behavior of the two SHCCs under
high strain rate compressive loadings was investigated in comparison with that
of the two FRHSCs of comparable compressive strengths. Strain rates ranging
from 10-4 to 10-1 s-1 were generated by the hydraulic compression machine,
whereas strain rates from 30 to 300 s-1 were obtained with the split Hopkinson
pressure bar (SHPB) system. Experimental results show that when subjected to
x
high strain rate compression, the damage of the SHCC specimens is less severe
than that of the FRHSC specimens. The results also show that the SHCCs
exhibit lower strain rate dependence with lower dynamic increase factor (DIF)
for compressive strength and toughness than the FRHSCs. Equations in model
codes developed for ordinary concrete seem to overestimate the DIF for
compressive strength of the SHCCs and FRHSCs at the strain rates from 30 to
300 s-1.
In the third part of the study, behavior of the SHCCs, FRHSCs, and
fiber-reinforced high-strength mortar (FRHSM) under high velocity projectile
impact (HVPI) was experimentally investigated. Effects of the compressive
strength, Rockwell hardness, elastic modulus, coarse aggregate, and fibers on
the localized damage of the SHCCs, FRHSCs, and FRHSM under HVPI were
examined. Ogive nose-shaped projectiles with a mass of 249 grams and a
diameter of 28 mm were launched at the impact velocities of about 400 m/s.
After the HVPI tests the penetration depth is significantly greater in the SHCCs
than in the FRHSCs of comparable compressive strengths indicating that in
addition to the compressive strength, other parameters may affect the
penetration depth of the composites. The penetration depth generally decreases
with the increase in “effective hardness index” and elastic modulus of the
composites. With no change on parameters of the projectile, a revision is
proposed to the US Conventional Weapons effects program for prediction of
penetration depth. It shows that the prediction equation based on elastic
modulus provides better prediction than that based on the compressive strength
indicating more important role of the former in predicting the penetration depth
under HVPI.
xi
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Effect of high strain rate on compressive behavior of FRC .............. 52
Table 2.2 Effect of high strain rate on compressive behavior of SHCC ............ 53
Table 2.3 Effect of high strain rate on tensile behavior of SHCC ..................... 54
Table 2.4 Results of high-velocity projectile impact tests on SHCC in literature

............................................................................................................................ 55
Table 3.1 Experimental results of high-strength mortar (HSM), granite, and

single inclusion block (SIB)............................................................................... 86
Table 3.2 Parametric study using the SIB models ............................................. 87
Table 3.3 Mix proportions of high-strength mortars and high-strength concretes

............................................................................................................................ 88
Table 3.4 Results of the splitting tension and compression tests ....................... 89
Table 3.5 Compressive strengths of coarse aggregate and respective HSC ...... 90
Table 4.1 Mix proportions and workability of SHCCs and FRHSCs .............. 127
Table 4.2 Fibers properties .............................................................................. 127
Table 4.3 Information on experiments conducted ........................................... 128
Table 4.4 Static properties ............................................................................... 128
Table 5.1 Mix proportions ............................................................................... 165
Table 5.2 Information on experiments conducted ........................................... 165
Table 5.3 Results on static properties and high velocity projectile impact tests
.......................................................................................................................... 166
Table 5.4 Comparison between experimental and predicted penetration depths

.......................................................................................................................... 167
Table 5.5 Results of the regression analyses ................................................... 167
Table 5.6 Comparison between the revised ConWep equation incorporating

compressive strength and elastic modulus ....................................................... 167
xii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Typical failure patterns for concrete specimens under static
compression ....................................................................................................... 56
Figure 2.2 Illustration of crack opening in width of conventional fiber

reinforced concrete (left) and steady-state cracking of SHCC (right) (Li 2008)
............................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 2.3 (a) Uniaxial tensile stress-strain curves and (b) flexural stress-
deflection curves of SHCC (ECC) and FRC (Li 1998) ..................................... 56
Figure 2.4 Effect of strain rate on the DIF for compressive strength of FRC in
literature ............................................................................................................. 57
Figure 2.5 Effect of strain rate on the DIF for toughness of FRC in literature .. 57
Figure 2.6 Effect of strain rate on the DIF for compressive strength of SHCC in
literature ............................................................................................................. 58
Figure 2.7 Effect of strain rate on the DIF for tensile strength of SHCC in
literature ............................................................................................................. 58
Figure 2.8 Three modes of damage on the concrete specimen subjected to high
velocity projectile impact ................................................................................... 59
Figure 2.9 Fracture regions in concrete specimen when subjected to projectile

impact, after Clifton (1982) ............................................................................... 59
Figure 3.1 Flow chart of the strategy ................................................................. 91
Figure 3.2 Single Inclusion Block (SIB)............................................................ 91
Figure 3.3 Numerical stress-strain curves of high-strength mortar (HSM) ....... 92
Figure 3.4 Numerical stress-strain graph of granite........................................... 92
Figure 3.5 Preparation of the single inclusion block (SIB) specimens .............. 93
Figure 3.6 Setup of SIB compression test .......................................................... 93
Figure 3.7 Experimental and numerical stress-strain graphs of SIB with the
friction coefficient  = 1.2 ................................................................................. 94
Figure 3.8 One eighth in shaded region of specimen in numerical analysis ...... 94
Figure 3.9 An end surface of SIB in (a) specimen #1, (b) specimen #2, and (c)
numerical damage profiles when the crack initiation occurs in each phase ...... 95
xiii
Figure 3.10 Stress-strain curves of control HSM and high strain capacity
mortars ............................................................................................................... 96
Figure 3.11 Damage profiles at the maximum stress of (a) control SIB, (b) SIB
with matrix M5, and (c) SIB with matrix M6 .................................................... 96
Figure 3.12 Compressive strengths of different types of coarse aggregate and

the respective HSC in several studies ................................................................ 97
Figure 3.13 Fractured specimens of the HSC after compression test ................ 97
Figure 3.14 Stress-strain curves of granite and different HSMs: (a) HSM and
ESi-HSM, (b) ESi-HSM and FRHSM-1 ............................................................ 98
Figure 4.1 Set-up of a compression split Hopkinson pressure bar test ............ 129
Figure 4.2 Time distances during shifting waves ............................................ 129
Figure 4.3 Flexural stress-deflection curves of FRHSCs and SHCCs ............. 130
Figure 4.4 Cracking pattern of the FRHSC and SHCC under flexural loading
.......................................................................................................................... 131
Figure 4.5 Compressive stress-strain curves of the SHCC and FRHSC.......... 132
Figure 4.6 Dynamic increase factor for compressive strength of SHCCs and
FRHSCs in comparison with values recommended by equations from codes and
a previous study ............................................................................................... 133
Figure 4.7 Cracking pattern of FRHSC-60 vs. SHCC-PVA at different stress

levels during SHPB tests .................................................................................. 134
Figure 4.8 Failure patterns of specimens after SHPB tests .............................. 135
Figure 4.9 Fiber pull-out and rupture observed in specimens after SHPB tests
.......................................................................................................................... 135
Figure 4.10 Percentage of steel fibers ruptured in the specimens of the FRHSC-
85 (Wang 2011) and that of the SHCC-ST+PE in the present study after SHPB
tests. ................................................................................................................. 136
Figure 4.11 Stress-strain curves at different strain rates of SHCCs and FRHSCs
.......................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 4.12 Dynamic increase factor for toughness in compression ............... 138
Figure 5.1 Set-up of the high velocity projectile impact test and supports of the
specimen .......................................................................................................... 169
Figure 5.2 Shape and dimensions of the projectile .......................................... 169
xiv
Figure 5.3 Determination of crater area ........................................................... 170
Figure 5.4 Scanning device .............................................................................. 170
Figure 5.5 Average load-deflection curves of SHCCs and FRHSCs in bending

tests .................................................................................................................. 170
Figure 5.6 Model for estimating the “effective hardness index” of the
composites........................................................................................................ 171
Figure 5.7 Effect of compressive strength on the penetration depth ............... 171
Figure 5.8 Effect of “effective hardness index” on the penetration depth of

specimens ......................................................................................................... 172
Figure 5.9 Effect of elastic modulus on the penetration depth of specimens .. 172
Figure 5.10 Relationship between “effective hardness index” and projectile

mass loss .......................................................................................................... 173
Figure 5.11 Impact faces of the specimens ...................................................... 173
Figure 5.12 Scanned images of crater on specimens ....................................... 174
Figure 5.13 Effect of fracture toughness on the crater volume ........................ 174
Figure 5.14 Experimental penetration depths compared with those predicted

from equations ................................................................................................. 175
Figure 5.15 Experimental penetration depth compared with predicted value

when (a) compressive strength or (b) elastic modulus is incorporated in the
prediction equation........................................................................................... 177
xv
List of Notations
Nomenclature
strain
̇ strain rate
̇ strain rate in compression
̇ strain rate in tension
̇ non-associative plastic flow rate
̇ volumetric plastic strain rate
̅ Lode angle
̂ damage history parameter
plasticity history parameter
friction coefficient
Poisson’s ratio
̅ norm of the deviatoric stress tensor in the effective
(undamaged) space
concrete density
stress
̅ stress tensor in the effective (undamaged) space
̅ volumetric stress in the effective (undamaged) space
damage variable
strain hardening parameter
length scale parameter
df diameter of fiber
elastic modulus of the composite
xvi
softening parameter
equibiaxial compressive strength
uniaxial compressive strength
yield function
tensile strength
shear modulus of the composite
plastic potential
scabbing thickness
effective hardness index
perforation thickness
cohesive stiffness matrix
projectile mass
weight factor in nonlocal enhancement
friction parameter
direction of the plastic flow
nose shape factor
Pd penetration depth
hardening law
volumetric effective stress
ratio of negative volumetric plastic strain rate to total
volumetric plastic strain rate
Willam-Warnke function
̅ deviatoric stress tensor in the effective (undamaged) space
Vf volume fraction of fiber
xvii
nominal cohesive traction
Acronyms
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CRH caliber radius head
DIF dynamic increase factor
DIFfc dynamic increase factor for compressive strength
DIFft dynamic increase factor for tensile strength
DIFmc dynamic increase factor for elastic modulus in compression
DIFscc dynamic increase factor for strain capacity in compression
DIFsct dynamic increase factor for strain capacity in tension
DIFtc dynamic increase factor for toughness in compression
ESi-HSM epoxy-based silane high strength-mortar
ESi-HSC epoxy-based silane high strength-concrete
FRC fiber-reinforced concrete
FRHSC fiber-reinforced high-strength concrete
GGBS ground granulated blast-furnace slag
HPC high performance concrete
HSC high-strength concrete
HSM high-strength mortar
HVPI high velocity projectile impact
ITZ interfacial transition zone
L/D length to diameter ratio
MC1990 CEB-FIP Model Code 1990
MC2010 fib Model Code 2010
xviii
PVA polyvinyl alcohol
PE polyethylene
SF silica fume
SHCC strain-hardening cement composite
SHCC-PE strain-hardening cement composite reinforced with
polyethylene fibers
SHCC-PVA strain-hardening cement composite reinforced with
polyvinyl alcohol fibers
SHCC-ST+PE strain-hardening cement composite reinforced with steel and
polyethylene fibers
SHPB split Hopkinson pressure bar
SIB single inclusion block
TBP tributylphosphate
UHPC ultra-high performance concrete
UHSC ultra-high strength concrete
VMA viscosity modifying admixture
w/c water to cement ratio
w/cm water to cementitious materials ratio
xix
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background and motivation
Concrete is the most widely used material in construction. With the
advancement in concrete technology, high performance concretes (HPCs) with
special features have been developed for years. The term “high performance”
implies one or more desirable properties of concrete, e.g. high strength, high
elastic modulus, high toughness, and/or high ductility. For simplicity, cement
composites without coarse aggregate are also referred to as concretes here.
Accordingly, high-strength concrete (HSC), fiber-reinforced high-strength
concrete (FRHSC), and strain-hardening cement composite (SHCC) are
considered as HPCs.
With the increasing demand for construction materials for protective
structures, HPCs have been widely investigated due to their superior properties.
Being materials for protective structures, they may be required to resist various
severe loadings, especially dynamic loadings. As a matter of fact, all structures
are subjected to static loadings. Static properties such as compressive strength
and elastic modulus are often used as basis for the selection of materials and
design of structures. In addition, the static compressive strength is also included
in model codes CEB-FIP (1990) and fib (2010) to predict the dynamic
properties of concrete. Thus, the static and dynamic behaviors of HPCs are
highly relevant, and need to be investigated.
Among various types of HPCs, HSC has been widely used for years.
Other than protective structures, typical applications of HSCs include high-rise
buildings, bridges, and offshore platforms. A significant amount of work has
1
been done on improving the compressive strength of HSCs and enhancing their
performance in these applications. Specifically, when subjected to high velocity
projectile impact (HVPI) loading, concrete with higher compressive strength
often has better penetration resistance although the trend may change if coarse
aggregate is eliminated (Dancygier and Yankelevsky 1996; Zhang et al. 2005).
The parameter of compressive strength is usually included in empirical
prediction equations on the penetration depth in literature (Hyde 1992; Kennedy
1966; Li and Chen 2003). In addition, when coarse aggregate is included Mehta
and Aïtcin (1990) believe that the fracture of coarse aggregate probably affects
the compressive strength of HSC, whereas a literature review by Yoo and
Banthia (2016) shows that it may not. It is thus of interest to understand the
critical parameters that govern the compressive strength of HSC containing
coarse aggregate in order to improve the compressive strength and performance
under impact loading.
As plain HSC is a brittle material, fiber-reinforced cement composites
have been developed for years to deal with this weakness. Remarkable
developments have taken place in the performance of cement composites such
as FRHSC and SHCC in the last two decades. These composites, especially
SHCCs, have higher tensile strength, toughness, and energy absorption capacity
than those of ordinary concrete (Li et al. 2001; van Zijl et al. 2012). These
characteristics are usually identified with static loadings, whereas impact
loadings may generate an exceptionally large amount of energy in a short
period of time. A thorough understanding on the behavior of these composites
and a comparison between them when subjected to impact loadings is thus
needed for the design and selection of materials.
2
Among different types of dynamic loadings, the behavior of FRHSCs
under high strain rate compressive loading has been investigated extensively,
whereas that of SHCC has not been fully explored. Many studies have been
conducted on the static (Jun and Mechtcherine 2014; Wang and Li 2005; Wang
and Li 2006; Wang and Li 2007) and dynamic properties (Chen et al. 2013;
Yang and Li 2012) of the SHCCs reinforced by polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers,
but their behavior under HVPI has not been studied yet. No information is
available in literature on the comparison of the behaviors between SHCC and
FRHSC when subjected to high strain rate compressive and HVPI loadings.
Furthermore, relationships between the static and dynamic properties of
materials are needed so that dynamic properties of cement composites can be
estimated based on static properties and used as input in numerical simulations.
Available analytical and/or empirical prediction equations in literature for these
relationships may not be applicable for SHCC and FRHSC as they were usually
developed for ordinary concrete.
1.2 Objectives and scope
The main objective of this research is to investigate the static and dynamic
behaviors of HPCs, with specific objectives described below:
(a) Understanding the critical parameters for the compressive strength of
high-strength concrete (HSC);
(b) Evaluating the effect of high strain rates on the compressive
behavior of strain-hardening cement composite (SHCC) in comparison with
that of fiber-reinforced high-strength concrete (FRHSC) of similar compressive
strength;
3
(c) Evaluating the effect of parameters on the behavior of cement
composites when subjected to high velocity projectile impact (HVPI).
Mixtures of plain HSC, FRHSC, and SHCC were included in the
research with the compressive strengths ranging from about 60 to 150 MPa.
The specific scope corresponding to each objective is described below.
To obtain a comprehensive understanding on the critical parameters for
the compressive strength of HSC, an experimental and numerical study was
conducted with an idealized composite model and verified by a series of
experiments. For the idealized composite, effects of two parameters of the
inclusion (compressive and tensile strength) and four parameters of the mortar
matrix (compressive and tensile strength, elastic modulus, and strain capacity)
on the compressive strength of the composite were examined numerically. The
experiment on HSC for verification included one type of coarse aggregate, three
types of mortar matrix, and three corresponding types of HSCs.
To evaluate the effect of high strain rate, two types of SHCC and two
types of conventional FRHSC with comparable compressive strengths of about
60 and 85 MPa were studied. One SHCC was mortar reinforced by 2.0 volume
% of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers, whereas the other one was cement paste
reinforced by 0.5% steel and 1.5% polyethylene (PE) fibers. The FRHSCs were
reinforced by 0.5% steel fibers. Experiments were conducted with static (about
10-5 s-1), intermediate (10-4 – 10-1 s-1), and high (30 – 300 s-1) strain rate
compressive loadings.
To evaluate the effects of various parameters on the behavior of cement
composites against HVPI loading, six composites including the two SHCCs and
two FRHSCs mentioned above and another FRHSC and one fiber-reinforced
4
high-strength mortar (FRHSM) with the target compressive strengths of 110 –
150 MPa were studied. The HVPI tests were conducted with velocities of
around 400 m/s.
1.3 Organization of the thesis
The thesis consists of six chapters.
In Chapter 1, background is provided for the motivation of the study.
Objectives and scope are also presented.
Chapter 2 provides a literature review relevant to the objectives and
scopes of this study. In addition, frameworks for the plasticity-damage model
and cohesive surface model used in the present study are summarized.
Chapter 3 presents the first part of the research on the critical parameters
for the compressive strength of HSC. Details of the experimental-numerical
characteristics of the idealized composite are provided. Results of the numerical
parametric study on the idealized composite and the experimental study on
HSCs for verification are summarized and discussed.
Chapter 4 presents the experimental study on the behavior of SHCCs
under high strain rate compressive loading in comparison with that of FRHSCs.
Results of the static tests (bending and uniaxial compression) and dynamic
compression tests (intermediate and high strain rates) are presented and
discussed.
Chapter 5 presents a study on the behavior of cement composites under
HVPI loading. From the experimental results, effects of various parameters on
the localized damage of the composites are examined. Prediction of the
penetration depth by three available equations in literature is discussed and
5
assessed. Based on the assessment, a revision of the equation in the US
Conventional Weapons effects program (Hyde 1992) is proposed in this
chapter.
Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes key findings in the present study and
provides recommendations for future work.
6
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 High strength concrete
2.1.1 Typical features of high strength concrete (HSC)
High-strength concrete (HSC) has been used as a construction material for
several decades. In the present study, the term “high-strength concrete” refers to
concrete having compressive strength greater than 60 MPa and containing both
coarse and fine aggregate. In comparison with ordinary concrete, HSC exhibits
a different mechanical behavior when subjected to uniaxial compressive
loading. The difference is attributed to the significant improvements in
microstructure of HSC (Aitcin 2004), which are briefly reviewed below.
Concrete is generally considered as a three-phase composite including
mortar matrix, coarse aggregate, and an interfacial transition zone (ITZ)
between the mortar and aggregate phases (Aitcin 2004; Mehta and Monteiro
2006). The cement paste in mortar and ITZ, in turn, consists of multiple sub-
phases, e.g. C-S-H gel, portlandite, ettringite, in addition to the voids, pores,
and microcracks. For ordinary concrete, the mortar matrix and ITZ phases are
usually weaker and less stiff than the coarse aggregate.
Specifically, the ITZ surrounds the aggregate particles with the
thicknesses of 15 – 40 m (Mindess et al. 2003; Ollivier et al. 1995). The
microstructure and mechanical properties of the ITZ are substantially different
from those of the mortar matrix with a higher porosity and higher amount of
ettringite and oriented crystals of calcium hydroxide but lower amount of
unhydrated cement particles and calcium-silicate-hydrate gel (C-S-H) (Mehta
and Monteiro 2006). Furthermore, experimental results based on nano-
7
indentation technique shows that the ITZ is extremely heterogeneous compared
with the matrix (Mondal et al. 2009). It can thus be expected that the ITZ is the
weakest link between coarse aggregates and mortar matrix in ordinary concrete.
As a result, the strength of ordinary concrete is mainly controlled by the
initiation and propagation of microcracks in the ITZ and the formation of
networks of cracks in the ITZ and mortar matrix.
The microstructures of the mortar matrix and ITZ in HSC, however, are
significantly improved. The water to cementitious materials ratio (w/cm) is
often low, e.g. 0.14 – 0.30, to obtain compressive strengths of 80 – 150 MPa
(Khanzadi and Behnood 2009; Wang et al. 2012a). The porosity of mortar
matrix and ITZ can be reduced significantly if the cement paste can be
compacted properly. The ITZ in HSC is not only dense and strong, but also thin
or even invisible (Aitcin 2004).
In addition, the coarse aggregate size in HSC is usually smaller than that
in ordinary concrete. Large aggregate size may increase stress concentration
between the coarse aggregate and mortar phases (Neville 1997). Nominal
maximum aggregate size, therefore, is mainly in the range of 10 and 19 mm
(Wang et al. 2012a; Wee et al. 1996) although HSC with coarse aggregate up to
32 mm can be produced (Wittmann 2002).
The use of silica fume not only creates additional calcium silicate
hydrates but also acts as a filler to increase the density of both the mortar matrix
and the ITZ (Mindess et al. 2003). Wang et al. (2012a) show relatively
homogenous morphology of the cement paste in the mortar matrix of the HSC
by SEM examination. From the SEM analysis, compacted ITZ microstructure is
8
observed with mainly C-S-H gel and almost no calcium hydroxide and
ettringite.
As the mortar matrix and ITZ in HSC are significantly improved, the
effect of ITZ on the compressive strength of concrete may be less significant
than in ordinary concrete. Other parameters of HSC such as strain capacity and
elastic modulus may also increase with the compressive strength (Lu et al.
2012; Lu and Zhao 2010; Neville 2012; Rashid et al. 2002). The Poisson’s ratio
of HSC is generally not significantly different from that of ordinary concrete at
0.15 – 0.24 (Iravani 1996; Logan et al. 2009; Newman and Choo 2003).
2.1.2 Fracture of HSC under uniaxial compression
Under uniaxial compression, a concrete specimen is subjected to tensile strain
in a direction perpendicular to the loading caused by Poisson’s effect (Neville
2012). Hence, the failure of concrete specimens in a uniaxial compression test
is usually a tensile failure in the lateral direction (Mehta and Monteiro 2006). In
addition, the lateral strain at the contact surface of the loading plates is less than
that of the concrete specimen due to the higher stiffness of the former (Neville
2012). Thus, the friction between the specimen and the loading plates leads to a
lateral confining pressure near the ends of the specimens (Mindess et al. 2003).
The failure patterns of concrete cylinders with and without the end confinement
are illustrated in Figure 2.1.
For HSC, although the stiffness of concrete is increased leading to a
decreased lateral strain, the failure pattern of the HSC cylinders with end
confinement is similar to that of ordinary concrete as illustrated in Figure 2.1b
(del Viso et al. 2008; Khanzadi and Behnood 2009). This indicates that the
9
lateral confining effect may still be significant when HSC is subjected to
uniaxial compression loading.
It is usually known that HSC is more brittle than ordinary concrete
(Aitcin 2004; Gettu et al. 1990). As described above, the microstructure of
mortar matrix and ITZ are significantly improved in HSC, leading to an
increase in their strength and stiffness. As the aggregates are usually stronger
and stiffer, such properties of the matrix and ITZ may approach those of
aggregates in HSC. Thus, HSC is expected to be more “homogeneous” than
ordinary concrete (Tang et al. 2008). This results in the change of the
characteristic length of concrete, which is related to the length of the fracture
process zone ahead of the crack tip (Bažant and Pijaudier-Cabot 1989).
Experimental studies show that the characteristic length of HSC is significantly
shorter than that of ordinary concrete (Gettu et al. 1990; Tang et al. 2008; Wu et
al. 2001; Zhou et al. 1995).
Specifically, the failure surfaces of HSC often pass through the coarse
aggregates, which differs from the failure in ordinary concrete (Aitcin 2004;
Carrasquillo et al. 1981; Khanzadi and Behnood 2009). The failure surfaces
going around the coarse aggregate and through the ITZ of HSC may also be
observed due to the poor surface texture of coarse aggregate or the weak ITZ
(Aïtcin and Mehta 1990; Khanzadi and Behnood 2009; Kılıç et al. 2008).
Nevertheless, the failure of coarse aggregate in HSC is much more frequent
than that in ordinary concrete. For instance, Wu et al. (1999) reports that the
rupture probability of coarse aggregate, which is defined as the ratio of area of
ruptured coarse aggregate to the total projected area of coarse aggregate, is 36 –
43% in ordinary concrete, but 75 – 85% in HSC.
10
2.1.3 Current recommendations to increase the compressive strength of HSC
Significant effort has been made to increase the compressive strength of HSC in
order to enhance its performance in various applications including high-rise
buildings, bridges, offshore platforms, and protective structures against impact.
Current recommendations to further improve the compressive strength of HSC
include: reduce the mismatch in elastic moduli of phases, select stronger coarse
aggregates, reduce the maximum aggregate size, or eliminate coarse aggregates
(ACI Committee 363 2010; Mehta and Aïtcin 1990).
A significant amount of work has been done on improving the
mechanical properties of high-strength mortar (HSM) matrix in order to
increase the compressive strength of HSC. The reduced mismatch in elastic
moduli between the mortar and coarse aggregate of HSC can be obtained by
increasing the elastic modulus of the mortar. It should be noted that the
compressive strength and elastic modulus of the mortar are usually increased
concurrently. With a given compressive strength of the matrix, the influence of
an increased elastic modulus of matrix on the compressive strength of HSC has
not been experimentally investigated based on literature review. In addition, a
change in the elastic modulus of the mortar matrix results in a corresponding
change in concrete, which can affect the strain capacity of concrete (Houghton
1976). Mehta and Monteiro (2006) suggest that the tensile strain capacity may
affect the compressive strength of ordinary concrete, though it has yet to be
validated experimentally and/or analytically.
As abovementioned, the coarse aggregates are frequently fractured in
the uniaxial compression tests of HSC. Thus, the compressive strength of
11
coarse aggregate is often viewed as a limiting factor governing the compressive
strength of HSC (Giaccio et al. 1992; Kılıç et al. 2008; Wu et al. 2001). Based
on experimental investigation, de Larrard and Belloc (1997) report that the type
of coarse aggregate may affect the compressive strength of HSC but no direct
relationship between the compressive strength of coarse aggregate and that of
HSC is established.
For applications in protective structures, it is reported that the higher
compressive strength of HSC is beneficial for its penetration resistance against
high velocity projectile impact (HVPI), though only to a certain extent (Zhang
et al. 2005). They show that the elimination of coarse aggregate and a further
decrease in water to cement ratio (w/c) can improve the compressive strength of
HSC but do not result in a beneficial effect in its penetration resistance. For the
purpose of resisting the penetration under HVPI, the coarse aggregates should
be retained.
2.2 Numerical models of concrete
In practice, the combination of different parameters collectively influences the
compressive strength of HSC. It is in general difficult to isolate each individual
parameter experimentally to study its effect on the strength of HSC. To this
end, numerical simulations provide an alternative platform to facilitate such
investigations.
2.2.1 Meso-scale model of concrete
A meso-scale concrete model usually comprises of the mortar, coarse
aggregate, and ITZ phases (Ghouse et al. 2011; Grassl and Jirásek 2010; Keinde
12
et al. 2014; Ren et al. 2014). In literature, the failure of mortar matrix can be
simulated with an isotropic damage, or damaged plasticity model, or with the
insertion of a discontinuous surface representing a crack (Du et al. 2014;
Ghouse et al. 2010; Grassl and Jirásek 2010). For ease of implementation, the
aggregates in ordinary concrete are often modeled as an isotropic linear elastic
material without accounting for any damage (Ghouse et al. 2011; Grassl and
Jirásek 2010; Keinde et al. 2014). However, this non-damage assumption may
be not applicable for HSC since coarse aggregates are generally fractured
during the failure process of HSC. Some numerical studies have accounted for
the fracture of coarse aggregate in HSC (Buyukozturk and Hearing 1998;
Wittmann 2002), albeit for flexural rather than compressive loading. For the
ITZ, several models including the damage, plasticity-damage, and cohesive
models can be adopted to simulate its response (Hao and Hao 2011; Kim and
Al-Rub 2011; Ren et al. 2014).
In general, a high-resolution numerical study with the exact meso-
structural arrangement of the different phases can be difficult to calibrate and
validate against experiment data, particularly so if several parameters are
involved. To this end, an idealized meso-structure is often adopted in numerical
and/or experimental studies to obtain useful insights into the underlying
mechanisms. In several studies, a single inclusion embedded within a mortar
matrix has been used to investigate the fracture of concrete (Buyukozturk and
Hearing 1998; Ghouse et al. 2010; Han et al. 2014). In these experiments, the
inclusion involves a steel ball or a natural rock cylinder (Akçaoğlu et al. 2004;
Buyukozturk and Hearing 1998; Han et al. 2014). Different volume fractions of
the inclusion are used in these studies although some of the values adopted in
13
numerical studies may not be representative of materials used in practice, e.g.
below 10% by volume.
In the limited number of studies using idealized models to investigate
the fracture of concrete under uniaxial compressive loading, effects of specific
parameters of the phases on the overall response of concrete have been
examined. For instance, Akçaoğlu et al. (2004) suggest that the larger coarse
aggregate size may lead to a more adverse effect of the ITZ, and that the bond
strength plays a minor role on the compressive strength of the concrete. Ghouse
et al. (2010) also report that the compressive strength of the idealized model
with or without the ITZ is almost the same. On the other hand, Kim and Al-Rub
(2011) show that the mechanical properties of the ITZ, which may not be easily
determined experimentally, together with the volume fraction of aggregate have
significant influence on the behavior of the concrete.
2.2.2 Plastic damage model of concrete
Concrete is a composite material with a complex behavior under general
loading condition. When concrete fails, it exhibits irreversible deformation and
stiffness degradation. The irreversible deformation of concrete can be attributed
to the formation of microcracks, while the growth of microcracks leads to the
stiffness degradation (Liu et al. 2013). In modeling, irreversible deformation
and stiffness degradation can respectively be described by plasticity and
damage mechanisms, though each mechanism alone is not able to capture both
phenomena (Grassl and Jirásek 2006b; Grassl et al. 2002). The combination of
plasticity and damage mechanics has thus been adopted for concrete models in
many studies (Grassl and Jirásek 2006a; Liu et al. 2013; Lubliner et al. 1989;
14
Nguyen and Korsunsky 2008; Poh and Swaddiwudhipong 2009; Zheng et al.
2012).
During compression tests, concrete strain softens, i.e. its tangent
stiffness becomes negative after the ultimate stress is reached. In an early
review of concrete, rock, and soil, Read and Hegemier (1984) report the
difficulties in modeling the softening regime, where the localization of
deformation becomes strongly dependent on the mesh size and/or mesh
orientation (Bažant 1976; Pietruszczak and Mróz 1981). This limitation occurs
because a classical continuum model is no longer adequate during strain
softening, i.e. the localized band of deformation becomes strongly
inhomogeneous at the local scale, which violates the smooth field assumption in
a standard continuum model (Bažant and Jirásek 2002; Read and Hegemier
1984).
In order to resolve the mesh dependency limitation in standard concrete
models, nonlocal continuum approach models have been formulated (Bažant
and Jirásek 2002; Bažant and Lin 1988a; Grassl and Jirásek 2006b). Generally,
the variable characterizing the strain softening behavior is replaced by its spatial
average within a domain of influence (Bažant and Lin 1988a; Bažant and Lin
1988b). The characteristic length defining the failure process zone is proposed
to be 2.7 times of the maximum aggregate size (Bažant and Pijaudier-Cabot
1989). For ease of numerical implementation, a nonlocal gradient enhancement
with only C0 continuity requirement can be adopted in place of the nonlocal
integral formulation which requires complicated averaging procedure
(Mroginski and Etse 2013; Poh and Swaddiwudhipong 2009; Samal et al.
2008).
15
2.2.3 Framework for the plastic damage model of concrete
In this work, we adopt the plastic-damage model by Grassl and Jirásek (2006a)
with the over-nonlocal gradient enhancement by Poh and Swaddiwudhipong
(2009) for our numerical analyses. Detailed discussions can be found in the
original papers. For completeness, a brief summary of the model is provided
here.
The definition of the yield function in the plastic-damage model by
Grassl and Jirásek (2006a) is given by:
̅ ̅ ̅
{[ ( )] ( ) √ }
√
̅ ̅ (2.1)
( )* ( ̅) +
√
̅ ̅
[ ( )] ( )
√
where is a dimensionless variable defined in Equation (2.7); is the
uniaxial compressive strength.
The volumetric effective stress is given by: ̅ , where ( ̅)
and ̅ is the effective stress tensor.
The norm of the deviatoric effective stress is: ̅ √ , where
̅ ̅ and ̅ is the deviatoric effective stress tensor.
√
The Lode angle is: ̅ ( ( ) ) where (̅ )
The friction parameter controlling the shape of the meridians can be
determined from:
16
( )
(2.2)
where is the eccentricity parameter; ; is the equibiaxial
compressive strength, is the tensile strength; .
The Willam-Warnke function ( ̅ ) controls the shape of the
deviatoric section:
( ̅)
( ) ̅ ( ) (2.3)
( ) ̅ ( )√ ( ) ̅
The non-associative flow rate in this model is adopted as:
̇ ̇ ̇ (2.4)
̅
where is the direction of the plastic flow. The plastic potential is defined
as:
̅ ̅ √ ̅
[ ( )] ( )
√
{ } (2.5)
̅ (̅ )
( )( )
√
where is a function controlling the deviatoric and volumetric parts of the
flow direction.
̅
(̅ ) . / (2.6)
where ; ; and is the

( ) ( ) ( )
dilation parameter.
17
The hardening law is given by:
( ) ( )
( ) , (2.7)
where is a history parameter with the following evolution law.
(‖ ‖ ̅)
̇ ̇ ̇ (2.8)
(̅ )
The scaling function ( ̅ ) is defined as:
(̅ )
( ) ( ) (̅ )
(̅ ) (2.9)
(̅ )
( ) (̅ )
{
where model parameters: , , , and are calibrated from experiment,
( )
, and ( ̅ ) is a linear function of the
volumetric effective stress defined as:
̅
(̅ ) (2.10)
The evolution rate of the internal damage parameter is defined by:
̇ { ̇ (2.11)
(̅ )
where ̇ ( ̇ ) is the volumetric plastic strain rate; ( ̅ ) is a function
describing the softening ductility as
(̅ ) (̅ )
(̅ ) , (2.12)
√ (̅ ) (̅ )
where is a model parameter
The parameter is defined as the ratio of the negative volumetric
plastic strain rate ̇ to the total volumetric plastic strain rate ̇ :
18
̇
(2.13)
̇
The negative volumetric plastic strain rate ̇ is given by:
̇ ∑〈 ̇ 〉 (2.14)
The damage variable is controlled by the internal damage parameter:
{ (2.15)
( )
where is a parameter controlling the slope of softening. A threshold damage
parameter is introduced here to produce a delayed damage effect altering
the strain capacity before strain softening. Note that in the original
model of the material.
In order to ensure a mesh independent solution during strain softening,
an over non-local enhancement is adopted for the history parameter ( ̂ )
driving the damage process. Referring to the framework in Poh and
Swaddiwudhipong (2009), the over non-local enhancement is given by
̂ ( ) ̅ ( ) ( ) ( ) (2.16)
where is a weight factor. The nonlocal variable ̅ is in turn, obtained from
the Helmholtz expression below:
̅ ( ) ̅ ( ) ( ) (2.17)
where c is a length scale parameter.
Due to the lack of experimental data, the recommended values can be
adopted as , , , , and
following Grassl and Jirásek (2006a) and the erratum in Grassl and Jirasek
19
(2011); following Poh and Swaddiwudhipong (2009). The
parameters to be calibrated from experimental data thus reduce to and
2.2.4 Cohesive surface model for interface
A cohesive surface defines the relationship between the traction and separation
at the ITZ:
(2.18)
{ } [ ]{ }
where is the nominal traction stress vector ( is the normal traction; are
the two shear tractions); is the cohesive stiffness matrix; is a separation
vector capturing the displacement jump at the cohesive surface. Following
Tijssens et al. (2001), an uncoupled traction-separation law is assumed for the
ITZ in the cementitious composite, i.e. .
The damage initiation is defined by the maximum stress criterion as
follows:
〈 〉 (2.19)
, -
where , , and are the maximum normal and shear tractions,
respectively.
The damage evolution is such that the cohesive surface degrades
linearly with the effective separation, the slope of which is obtained from the
specified material fracture energy.
20
2.3 Strain-hardening cement composite (SHCC)
2.3.1 Introduction
As plain concrete is a brittle material, efforts have been made to improve its
ductility. One of the commonly used methods is incorporating fibers in concrete
to increase its ductility and toughness (ACI Committee 544 2009). Among
various types of fiber-reinforced concrete, or more generally cement composite,
strain-hardening cement composite (SHCC) is known with moderate tensile
strength but extremely high ductility (van Zijl et al. 2012). The SHCC is also
referred to as engineered cementitious composite (ECC), which was originally
developed by Li and Wu (1992) and Li (1998).
In general, SHCC is fiber-reinforced cement paste or mortar. Mineral
admixtures used for the SHCCs can be silica fume, fly ash, or blast-furnace slag
(Chen et al. 2013; Maalej et al. 2005; Soe et al. 2013b), whereas aggregate, if
used, is normally fine silica sand (Chen et al. 2013; Li et al. 2001; Zhou et al.
2014). In the early development of the SHCC, various types of fibers are used
such as steel fibers, carbon fibers, and more commonly polyethylene (PE) fibers
(Li and Obla 1994; Li and Wu 1992; Li et al. 1996). Recently, polyvinyl
alcohol (PVA) fibers have been used more commonly for SHCCs (Li et al.
2001; van Zijl et al. 2011), probably due to their lower cost compared with that
of PE fibers. Generally, production method and materials of the SHCC are
similar to those of the fiber reinforced concretes (JSCE Concrete Committee
2008).
Various advantages of the SHCC are reported when subjected to static
tensile loading (Wang and Li 2005), repeated tensile loading (Jun and
Mechtcherine 2014), and fire exposure (Sahmaran et al. 2010). Impact
21
resistance of the SHCC is also of interest in several studies (Maalej et al. 2005;
Soe et al. 2013a; Yang and Li 2014). In addition, the durability of the SHCC is
promising due to the effective crack control with fine crack width (van Zijl et
al. 2012). Thus, SHCC appears to be a potential construction material for
various applications. In fact, the SHCC has already been used in practice for
bridge deck link slabs and beam-column joints (Maalej et al. 2012;
Mechtcherine 2013) although early age cracking could be observed partially
due to the autogenous shrinkage caused by the low w/cm (Yang et al. 2015).
2.3.2 Strain hardening behavior under tensile and flexural loadings
As its name suggests, the SHCC displays a pseudo strain hardening behavior
when subjected to tensile and flexural loadings (Li 1998; Li et al. 2001; van Zijl
et al. 2012). After the first cracking, when the tensile strain or deflection
increases, the tensile stress or flexural stress, respectively, can be sustained and
even increased. The tensile stress-strain curve or flexural stress-deflection curve
fluctuates after the first cracking until the maximum stress is obtained. The
strain of the SHCC in the strain hardening range is mostly attributed to the
formation of multiple cracks. It leads to a relatively high tensile strain at the
ultimate stress, i.e. high tensile strain capacity or high deflection at the peak
flexural stress in the uniaxial tensile and bending tests, respectively. The tensile
strain capacity of the SHCC can be up to 5.6% (Li 1998), which is much higher
than that of ordinary concrete, for instance, 0.012 – 0.016% (Swaddiwudhipong
et al. 2003).
22
Among various types of fiber reinforced cement composites, the
characteristic strain hardening behavior of the SHCC is obtained by two main
conditions.
The first condition requires that the necessary stress to open a new crack
is lower than the maximum stress transferred by bridging fibers (Li and Leung
1992; Li and Wu 1992). This condition ensures that when the stress exceeds the
first cracking strength of the matrix, the fibers can still transfer the stress into
the adjacent zones leading to the formation of new cracks at the adjacent zones.
For this reason, the first cracking tensile strength of the SHCC is normally not
high, ranging from 1.9 to 3.9 MPa with cement paste matrices (Ahmed et al.
2007; Yang and Li 2012) and from 2.5 to 4.5 MPa with mortar matrices (Li et
al. 2001; Yang and Li 2012). Moderate contents of high-strength fibers, e.g.
around 2.0 – 2.2% in volume fractions (Mechtcherine et al. 2011b; Wang and
Li 2005) and 1600 – 2600 MPa in tensile strengths (Li et al. 1996; Soe et al.
2013b), are normally adopted to obtain an effective bridging and strain
hardening behavior of the composite. In addition, the great lengths of fibers and
high frictional bond strength between the matrix and fibers are preferred, but
only to certain extents (Li 1998). According to Wang and Li (2005), high
chemical bonding between PVA fibers and cement paste matrix is not favorable
to the strain hardening behavior, and oil coating is, therefore, often applied on
the fiber surface to reduce the bonding.
The second condition requires that when a crack extends, its opening
remains constant at any location, i.e. “flat” crack, except for the zone near the
crack tip (Figure 2.2). As a result, SHCC is prevented from a localized fracture
induced by the rapid development of the crack width as the case of conventional
23
fiber reinforced concrete (Li and Leung 1992). On the aspect of energy, the
external energy from the applied load is absorbed by the crack opening only
near the crack tip, which is mainly affected by the toughness of the matrix.
Thus, the toughness of SHCC matrix should be lower than the necessary energy
required to open the crack mouth which is maintained by the fiber bridging
capacity (Li 2003; Wang and Li 2005). For this reason, high ratios of fly ash to
cement in the range of 1.0 – 1.5 are often used to retain relatively low
toughnesses of the mortar matrices of the SHCC although they lead to decreases
in the strengths of the composites (Wang and Li 2007).
The tensile strength and tensile strain capacity of SHCC vary in a wide
range depending on the fiber and matrix type. Maalej et al. (2005) believe that
the use of fibers with low elastic modulus such as PE fibers may lead to high
tensile strain capacity but low tensile strength, whereas the use of fibers with
high elastic modulus such as steel fibers may lead to lower tensile strain
capacity but higher tensile strength. The SHCCs reinforced with PE fibers
(SHCC-PE) have relatively high tensile strain capacities ranging from 4.4% to
5.6% but moderate tensile strengths from 2.5 to 4.6 MPa (Li 1998; Li and Wu
1992). Compared with the SHCC-PE, SHCCs reinforced with steel fibers
(SHCC-ST) have higher tensile strengths but significantly lower tensile strain
capacities, e.g. 8.4 MPa and 0.5%, respectively (Li et al. 1996). The tensile
strength of SHCCs reinforced with PVA fibers (SHCC-PVA) is comparable to
that of the SHCC-PE, i.e. 1.7 – 5.4 MPa, but the tensile strain capacity seems to
be smaller and varies in a wider range of 0.4 – 4.8% (Douglas and Billington
2011; Li 2003; Wang and Li 2005). A combination of steel and PE fibers or
24
steel and PVA fibers is expected to take advantages of the steel and polymer
fibers (Maalej et al. 2005; Soe et al. 2013b).
In the present study, the term “strain-hardening cement composite”
refers to fine-grained cement matrix reinforced with fibers which exhibits the
strain hardening behavior under static uniaxial tensile or flexural loadings.
2.3.3 Behavior under static compressive loading
Although the most characteristic feature of the SHCC is the strain hardening
behavior under tension, structures constructed with the SHCC are subjected to
compressive loadings. When the matrix is mortar, Kesner and Billington (2004)
believe that the compressive response of the SHCC is similar to that of mortar.
However, Zhou et al. (2014) report that when subjected to uniaxial
compression, SHCC has mainly ductile shear failure mode due to the fiber
bridging effect while the failure mode of plain mortar is brittle splitting.
The static compressive strength of SHCC is normally in the range of 30
– 70 MPa (Soe et al. 2013b; van Zijl et al. 2011). Higher compressive strength
of SHCC up to 166 MPa, however, is reported in a study by Ranade et al.
(2013) based on a matrix developed by O’Neil (2008). This matrix was
produced from cement, silica fume, silica flour, and silica sand to obtain a high
particle packing density and high compressive strength. In order to obtain the
strain hardening behavior under tension, the matrix was reinforced by 2% of PE
fibers with relatively high aspect ratio of 454 (diameter 0.028 mm and length
12.7 mm) and high tensile strength (3000 MPa).
Due to the absence or presence of small amounts of aggregates, the
elastic modulus of the SHCC is generally low, e.g. 18 – 22 GPa with cement
25
paste matrices (Ahmed et al. 2007; Li 1998) or 15 – 24 GPa with mortar
matrices (Mechtcherine et al. 2011b; Soe et al. 2013b; Zhou et al. 2014). It is
worth noting that the lower elastic modulus results in high compressive strain
capacity of SHCC, which is about 50 – 100% higher than that of ordinary
concrete with similar compressive strength (Li 1998). A higher elastic modulus,
however, is desirable for structures requiring low deformation. Initial efforts
were made by Li et al. (1995) to increase the elastic modulus in compression by
increasing the aggregate content and/or decreasing the w/cm but this has an
adverse effect on its strain hardening behavior in tension. More recently,
Ranade et al. (2013) successfully produced high strength SHCC (166 MPa in
compressive strength) having the elastic modulus in compression of 51.2 GPa
when the tensile strain capacity is still maintained at 3.4%. With such high
compressive strength and elastic modulus, the compressive strain capacity of
the SHCC in Ranade et al. (2013) is about 0.5%, slightly lower than that of the
SHCC in Li (1998) at 0.7%.
2.3.4 Comparison between SHCC and conventional fiber reinforced concrete
(FRC)
Although SHCC has similar ingredients with conventional fiber reinforced
concrete (FRC), the SHCC is specially designed to obtain the strain hardening
behavior under tension with multiple cracks as described above. Coarse
aggregate, which is normally present in FRC, is eliminated from the SHCC
since they adversely influence its performance (Li and Kanda 1998). As noted
above, the fiber content of around 2% is generally sufficient to obtain the strain
hardening behavior of SHCC. Such a fiber content is generally higher than that
26
for most conventional FRC, e.g. 0.5 – 1.5% (Almusallam et al. 2013; Wang et
al. 2011a; Zhang et al. 2007).
Limited studies have been conducted to make a direct comparison in the
performance of these two types of composites. Li (1998) reported that with
comparable uniaxial tensile strength, the SHCC exhibited strain hardening
behavior under tension with tensile strain capacity of 160 times higher than that
of FRC which displayed the strain softening behavior (Figure 2.3a). In an
earlier study, Maalej and Li (1994) reported a ratio of 5 for the flexural strength
to the first cracking strength under uniaxial tension of SHCC, significantly
higher than a ratio of 3 for FRC. With similar uniaxial tensile strength, the
flexural strength of the SHCC was slightly higher than that of the FRC (Figure
2.3b) although the first cracking strength of the former was significantly lower
than that of the latter (Li 1998; Maalej and Li 1994).
A comparison in the compressive behavior of the SHCC and FRC was
also conducted in the experimental study by Li (1998) although the
compressive strengths of the two composites were not similar. The compressive
strength (69 MPa) and compressive strain capacity (0.67%) of the SHCC were
25% and 40% higher than those of the FRC, respectively. Li (1998) believes
that the post-peak ductility of the SHCC in compression is similar to that of the
FRC.
2.4 Rate dependence of cement composites
Protective structures can be subjected to loads with a wide range of strain rates.
Quasi-static load may have the strain rates of about 10-5 s-1, whereas that of
intermediate and high strain rate loads can be up to 50 and 1000 s-1, respectively
27
(Nemat-Nasser 2000). Various types of experiments have targeted specific
ranges of strain rates to investigate the rate dependence of cement composites.
Strain rates generated by a hydraulic testing machine can be from 10-5 to 0.2 s-1
(Douglas and Billington 2005; Rostásy and Hartwich 1985), whereas that by a
drop-hammer is from 0.002 to 50 s-1 (Bischoff and Perry 1991; Chew 2003;
Ross et al. 1996). A test with split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) equipment
is capable of generating strain rates of 20 – 300 s-1 (Lok and Zhao 2004; Wang
et al. 2012b).
Behavior of concrete subjected to high strain rate loading in general
differs from that under static loading. In order to assess the effect of high strain
rate loading on the concrete performance, the dynamic increase factor (DIF) is
commonly used, which is defined as the ratio of the dynamic properties such as
strength, strain capacity, and elastic modulus to the corresponding static
properties (CEB-FIP 1990; fib 2010). Understanding the relationship between
the strain rate and the DIF is essential when designing protective structures
subjected to dynamic loading, especially for those made of newly developed
materials.
With various types of concrete and cement composites, it is difficult to
establish a general relationship between the strain rate and the corresponding
DIF. As an estimation a set of equations is suggested in the CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990 (MC1990), which is applicable mainly to normal weight aggregate
concrete (CEB-FIP 1990). Another set of equations is given in fib Model Code
2010 (MC2010), which is applicable to both normal weight and lightweight
aggregate concretes (fib 2010).
28
2.4.1 Equations to predict dynamic increase factors in model codes
2.4.1.1 Dynamic increase factor in compression tests
The MC1990 proposes an equation for the DIF for compressive strength (DIFfc)
of concrete as follows:
̇
( ) ̇
̇
(2.20)
̇
( ) ̇
{ ̇
where: fc,imp and fcm is the impact and static compressive strength, respectively
̇ is the strain rate (s-1), ̇
As shown in Equation (2.20), there is a “transition strain rate” of 30 s-1
beyond which the expression of the equation changes. The relationship between
the DIFfc and strain rate is also affected by the static compressive strength fcm
through the parameter s. More specifically, with the same strain rate, higher
compressive strength concrete has lower DIFfc.
Equation (2.21) of the DIFfc in MC2010 below, however, is independent
of the static compressive strength although its transition point (30 s-1) and
applicable strain range (from 30×10-6 to 300 s-1) are the same as those in
MC1990. The equation in MC2010 is given by:
̇
( ) ̇
̇
(2.21)
̇
( ) ̇
{ ̇
29
From Equations (2.20) and (2.21), one can infer that when the strain rate
̇ the expression of MC2010 is equivalent to that of MC1990 if the
compressive strength is 75.9 MPa in Equation (2.20). When the compressive
strength is either less or greater than 75.9 MPa, the DIFfc predicted by MC1990
is either higher or lower than that by MC2010, respectively. Similarly, when the
strain rate ̇ , the two expressions are equivalent if the compressive
strength is 80.8 MPa in Equation (2.20). The predicted values by MC1990 are
also either higher or lower than those by MC2010 if the compressive strength is
either less or greater than 80.8 MPa, respectively in this range of strain rate.
According to both MC1990 and MC2010 model codes, the effect of
strain rate on the DIF for the strain capacity in compression (DIFscc) is
expressed as in Equation (2.22). It predicts that the DIFscc depends only on the
strain rate.
̇
( ) (2.22)
̇
where and is the impact and static compressive strain capacity,
respectively.
Similarly, the DIF for elastic modulus in compression (DIFmc) may be
predicted by Equation (2.23) according to both MC1990 and MC2010 codes.
̇
( ) (2.23)
̇
where and is the impact and static elastic modulus, respectively
No equation in both model codes is suggested to predict the effect of
strain rate on the toughness of concrete.
30
2.4.1.2 Dynamic increase factor in tension tests
According to MC1990, the DIF for tensile strength of concrete (DIFft) can be
predicted by Equation (2.24):
̇
( ) ̇
̇
(2.24)
̇
( ) ̇
{ ̇
where: fct,imp and fctm is the impact and static tensile strength, respectively
̇ is the strain rate (s-1), ̇
Similar to the case of compression tests, the prediction equation for the
DIFft in MC2010 is also independent of the static compressive strength of
concrete. The transition strain rate in MC2010 is 10 s-1, lower than that in
MC1990:
̇
( ) ̇
̇
(2.25)
̇
( ) ̇
{ ̇
The equation of DIF for tensile strain capacity (DIFsct) in MC1990 and
MC2010 is similar to that for compressive strain capacity, i.e. Equation (2.22),
except that ̇ for MC1990 and ̇ for MC2010.
31
2.4.2 Effect of high strain rate on compressive behavior of FRC
Static and dynamic properties of FRC in several studies in literature are
summarized in Table 2.1. The range of w/cm is 0.35 – 0.89 and that of static
compressive strengths is 25 – 91 MPa. Straight or hooked steel fibers are used
with the volume fraction in the range of 0.5% and 1.5%. Experiments were
conducted with a hydraulic testing machine at a strain rate of 0.17s-1 (Rostásy
and Hartwich 1985) and with SHPB equipment at strain rates from 20 to 275 s-1
(Lok and Zhao 2004; Wang et al. 2012b).
As shown in Figure 2.4, the increase in strain rate generally leads to an
increase in DIFfc of FRC (Lok and Zhao 2004; Rostásy and Hartwich 1985;
Wang et al. 2012b). Furthermore, the DIFfc predicted by Equation (2.20) of
MC1990 appears to be higher than that by Rostásy and Hartwich (1985). Other
than that, predictions by Equations (2.20) and (2.21) correspond reasonably
well with the experimental results by Lok and Zhao (2004) and Wang et al.
(2012b).
The compressive strain capacity also seems to increase with the strain
rates (Rostásy and Hartwich 1985; Wang et al. 2012b). However, in SHPB
tests, the calculated strain histories could be affected by the data processing
(Wang et al. 2012b). Incident, reflected, and transmitted waves have to be
shifted to calculate the strain and strain rate since the waves were not recorded
directly from the specimen. Due to the resolution of the testing devices, this
shifting of waves might not be absolutely precise. The dynamic compressive
strain capacity and the DIFscc, therefore, could be affected by this issue. Details
of the data processing will be described and discussed in Section 4.2.6.2.
32
The DIF for elastic modulus (DIFmc) is slightly higher than 1.0 (Rostásy
and Hartwich 1985) or roughly equal to 1.0 (Wang et al. 2012b). Thus, the
experimental values of the DIFmc are significantly lower than those predicted by
MC1990 and MC2010. The dynamic elastic modulus and the DIFmc of FRC
might also be affected by the shifting process as described above (Wang et al.
2012b).
Another parameter that can be of interest is the dynamic toughness of
FRC. In a study by Wang et al. (2012b), toughness was calculated based on the
areas under stress-strain curves. Following this approach, there are two
toughness values, one based on the area under pre-peak stress, and the other
based on the area under full stress-strain curve. It can be seen in Table 2.1 and
Figure 2.5 that the DIF for toughness increases with the increase in strain rate.
The DIF increases from 3.9 to 6.7 for full toughness and from 5.6 to 8.0 for pre-
peak toughness when the strain rate increases in the range of 105 and 275 s-1
(Wang et al. 2012b).
2.4.3 Effect of strain rate on compressive behavior of SHCC
Limited information is available in literature on the behavior of SHCC under
high strain rate compressive loadings (Table 2.2). In the studies by Douglas and
Billington (2005) and Chen et al. (2013) the static compressive strengths are in
the range of 46 – 73 MPa. Both studies used PVA fibers and mortar matrices
with partial replacement of cement by fly ash (Douglas and Billington 2005) or
ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) (Chen et al. 2013). Experiments
were conducted using hydraulic testing machine with strain rates from 2×10-4 to
33
0.2 s-1 (Douglas and Billington 2005) and split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB)
equipment with higher strain rates from 85 to 185 s-1 (Chen et al. 2013).
Experimental results in these studies show that the DIF for compressive
strength (DIFfc) of the SHCC increases significantly with the increase in strain
rate (Table 2.2 and Figure 2.6). More specifically, Douglas and Billington
(2005) show an increase in DIFfc of SHCC in the range of 1.0 and 1.3 with the
increase in strain rate up to 0.2 s-1. Chen et al. (2013) also report an increasing
trend of DIFfc from 1.0 to 1.6 with the strain rates in the range of 85 and 180 s-1.
In comparison with the experimental results on FRC, e.g. DIFfc of 1.0 – 1.8 with
the strain rate of 20 – 275 s-1 (Lok and Zhao 2004; Wang et al. 2012b), the
obtained range of strain rate and the DIFfc of SHCC are slightly narrower and
lower, respectively.
Although Equation (2.20) by the MC1990 is applicable to normal
weight concrete, the equation can provide rough estimation of DIFfc for SHCC
with a static compressive strength of 46 MPa (Figure 2.6) up to the strain rate of
0.2 s-1. It can be seen in Figure 2.6 that the DIFfc of SHCC predicted by both
Equation (2.20) from MC1990 and Equation (2.21) from MC2010 is
significantly higher than the experimental results in the range of strain rates
from 85 – 185 s-1 by Chen et al. (2013). Chen et al. (2013) proposed
relationship between the DIFfc and strain rate as follows:
̇ ̇
{ (2.26)
̇ ̇
The expression, however, seems to be applicable only for the studied
range of strain rates, i.e. 85 – 185 s-1, where limited data on SHCC is available.
No obvious trend of the DIF for compressive strain capacity (DIFscc)
with the change of strain rate is reported by Douglas and Billington (2005) and
34
Chen et al. (2013). At lower strain rates of 2×10-4 – 0.2 s-1 the DIFscc is about
0.8 – 0.9 according to Douglas and Billington (2005). At higher strain rates
from 85 to 185 s-1, on the other hand, Chen et al. (2013) report higher DIFscc of
1.7 – 3.8. These values are lower and higher than the predicted DIF scc from
Equation (2.22) in the model codes, respectively, which are 1.0 – 1.2 and 1.3 –
1.4.
Douglas and Billington (2005) also report a slight increase in the DIF
for elastic modulus (DIFmc) from 1.0 to 1.1 when the strain rate increased from
2×10-4 to 0.2 s-1. These results imply that the elastic modulus of the SHCC is
not affected by strain rate significantly within this range.
From literature review, it seems that the effect of high strain rate
compressive loading on the behavior of SHCC has not been thoroughly
investigated. No information on the behavior of SHCC reinforced with hybrid
fibers such as steel and polyethylene fibers under this type of loading is
available.
2.4.4 Effect of strain rate on tensile behavior of SHCC
Since the most characteristic properties of SHCC is the strain hardening
behavior under tensile loadings, effect of strain rate on the tensile behavior of
SHCC is of great interest. Most experimental studies are conducted at
intermediate strain rates up to 50 s-1 by using hydraulic testing machine
(Douglas and Billington 2011; Maalej et al. 2005; Mechtcherine et al. 2011b;
Yang and Li 2006; Yang and Li 2012). A study by higher strain rates, about
160 s-1 with SHPB equipment, is reported by Mechtcherine et al. (2011a).
Experimental results in these studies are summarized in Table 2.3.
35
Figure 2.7 plots the DIF for tensile strength (DIFft) against the strain rate
of SHCCs in literature. The values of DIFft predicted by MC1990 and MC2010
for ordinary concrete are also plotted in Figure 2.7 for comparison. The DIFft is
generally increased with the strain rate. When the strain rate is less than 10 s-1,
the DIFft varies in the range of 1.0 and 2.2 (Mechtcherine et al. 2011b; Yang
and Li 2006), which is either similar or slightly higher than that estimated by
model codes.
At the strain rates from 10 to 160 s-1, higher values of DIFft from 1.7 to
6.7 are reported which is explained by the formation of multiple cracks and the
large plastic deformation of fibers (Mechtcherine et al. 2011a; Mechtcherine et
al. 2011b). The DIFfc at this range of strain rates is significantly higher than that
predicted by the model codes, e.g. 2.7 times higher at the strain rate
approximately160 s-1. The limited information seems to indicate that the model
code equations may not be applicable for SHCC. Further investigations may be
needed.
At a given strain rate in the range of 10-5 – 10 s-1, the difference in the
DIFft of SHCCs produced with PVA fibers, steel plus PE fibers, or only PE
fibers is not significant among different studies (Figure 2.7). For the length of
fiber, Yang and Li (2006) reported that with the same matrix component and
PVA fiber diameter, the SHCC with shorter fibers of 8 mm has lower dynamic
tensile strength than that with longer fibers of 12 mm at a strain rate of 0.1 s -1
(Table 2.3). However, no information is available on the DIFft of the former for
comparison with the latter.
Since the strain hardening behavior of SHCC is normally characterized
by a high strain capacity in tension, the effect of strain rate on the DIF for strain
36
capacity in tension (DIFsct) of SHCC is also important. Reported values of the
DIFsct of SHCC varies from 0.2 to 0.8 at strain rates of 0.1 – 10 s-1 (Douglas and
Billington 2011; Maalej et al. 2005; Mechtcherine et al. 2011b; Yang and Li
2006) and 0.5 – 1.2 at strain rates of 10 – 50 s-1 (Mechtcherine et al. 2011b).
These values are significantly lower than the DIFsct predicted by the equations
in the model codes, which is about 1.3 – 1.4 at the strain rates ranging from
about 0.1 to 50 s-1.
Yang and Li (2012) explain that the low DIFsct of SHCC reinforced with
PVA fibers could be due to the increased chemical bond of the fiber-matrix
interface at higher strain rate, which might be a violation of the strain hardening
conditions. They thus propose to use a higher content of fly ash or to replace
PVA fibers by PE fibers to achieve the DIFsct of ≥1. Yang and Li (2006) report
earlier that a decrease in the length of PVA fibers from 12 to 8 mm may lead to
an increase in dynamic tensile strain capacity at the strain rate of 0.1 s-1
although the dynamic tensile strength is decreased as mentioned above. They
explain that the shorter fibers may reduce the chemical bond. Nevertheless, no
information on the DIFsct of the SHCC with 8 mm-PVA fibers is available for
comparison.
2.5 Cement composites under impact of high velocity flying objects
When a reinforced concrete structure is impacted by high velocity flying objects
such as projectiles, munition fragments, or secondary fragments from adjacent
damaged structures, global response of the structure and localized damage of
concrete are two major concerns. The resistance of the concrete structure
depends on the velocity, mass, hardness, shape, and size of the flying objects
37
which may vary within wide ranges. To simulate such impact and evaluate
localized damage on concrete in laboratories, experiments are generally
conducted using high velocity projectiles launched by gas guns. This part of the
literature review focuses on the localized damage due to such impact.
2.5.1 Localized damage of concrete specimen
The localized damage of a concrete specimen is usually observed on the impact
and distal faces, i.e. the face where the projectile first impacts and the opposite
face of the specimen, respectively (Figure 2.8a). The localized damage of the
concrete can be classified into three modes as shown in Figure 2.8 (Beppu et al.
2008; Kennedy 1976). For the cratering mode, the projectile impact creates a
crater at the impact face but without affecting much on the distal face of the
concrete target. A hole with the diameter slightly larger than the projectile
diameter may be formed within the crater zone (Figure 2.8a). For the scabbing
mode (Figure 2.8b), in addition to the crater at the front face, fragments are
ejected from the distal face but the projectile does not go through the concrete
specimen. For the perforation mode, the projectile may travel additional
distance from the distal face of the concrete specimen (Figure 2.8c).
In literature, several parameters are used to measure the localized
damage of concrete specimen (Maalej et al. 2005; Sovják et al. 2015; Wu et al.
2015b; Zhang et al. 2005). Specifically, the penetration depth, crater diameter,
and crater volume are the depth, diameter (usually equivalent diameter), and
volume, respectively of the crater on the impact surface. Scabbing diameter can
be measured on the distal face if the scabbing or perforation mode occurs.
Among these parameters, the penetration depth is measured in most studies on
38
projectile impact. With a given impact velocity, perforation thickness is defined
as the maximum thickness of a concrete specimen which will be perforated by a
projectile, whereas scabbing thickness is defined as the depth required to
prevent scabbing on the distal face of specimens.
The fracture regions including the crater, crushed aggregate, and
cracking regions in concrete specimen subjected to high velocity projectile
impact are shown in Figure 2.9 (Clifton 1982). According to Clifton (1982),
when the projectile impacts the concrete specimen, the concentrated force is
applied and transmitted inward which then produces the crushing effect. The
crater is then formed in the region surrounding the impact point, whereas the
coarse aggregate in the larger region is also crushed. The propagation of elastic
stress wave becomes less dispersed and attenuated in the extensive cracking
region (Clifton 1982). Kennedy (1976) predicts that with a minimum velocity
of 1800 m/s, the compression and shear waves are able to propagate more than
9 m from the impact point into the concrete during the impact time of about
0.005 s. Thus, in most cases the compression wave is propagated throughout the
whole specimen during the impact time. When the compression wave reaches
the distal face, it is reflected back into the specimen leading to the formation of
the tensile stress wave (Almusallam et al. 2013; Leppänen 2005). If the tensile
stress exceeds the dynamic tensile strength at a certain zone in the specimen, a
crack is formed. Similarly, the scabbing at the distal face of the concrete
specimen is formed if the tensile stress exceeds the dynamic tensile strength at
the adjacent zone (Almusallam et al. 2013).
39
2.5.2 Effects of parameters of the projectile and impact velocity
Different types of projectiles have been used to evaluate the resistance of
concrete materials. Effects of the mass, hardness, shape, and size of the
projectiles as well as the impact velocity are briefly summarized below.
The projectile mass and impact velocity are associated with the total
kinetic energy of projectile prior to the impact. In literature, the mass of the
projectiles varies in a wide range, e.g. from 15 g to 100 kg (Kennedy 1976;
Zhang et al. 2005). Generally, an increase in the mass of the projectile leads to
the greater kinetic energy and thus results in greater penetration depth on the
concrete specimen (Chen and Li 2002; Frew et al. 1998).
The impact velocity may significantly affect the deformation of both the
projectile and concrete specimen (Chen and Li 2004; Wu et al. 2014). At an
impact velocity less than 1000 m/s the projectile often has negligible
deformation, whereas the localized damage of concrete is strongly affected by
the its mechanical properties. With given projectile and concrete specimen,
their deformation is more significant at higher impact velocities from 1000 to
3000 m/s. When the impact velocity exceeds 3000 m/s the strengths of both
projectile and concrete specimen become negligible and the impact can be
characterized by hydrodynamic interaction (Wu et al. 2014).
Behavior of concrete subjected to high velocity projectile impact
(HVPI) with the velocities in the range of 100 and 800 m/s has been
investigated and reported in literature (Bell 2011; Beppu et al. 2008; Kerr 2012;
Maalej et al. 2005; Sovják et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2015b; Zhang et al. 2005).
With this range of impact velocities, the higher impact velocity generally
creates a greater penetration depth (Forrestal et al. 1994; Forrestal et al. 2003;
40
Wang et al. 2015). The term normalized penetration depth, which is defined as
the ratio of the penetration depth to the respective impact velocity, has been
used in literature (Zhang et al. 2005). Although the impact velocity significantly
affects the penetration depth, the crater diameter of concrete is not always
increased with the increase of impact velocity (Wu et al. 2015a; Wu et al.
2015b; Zhang et al. 2005).
The projectiles in the studies mentioned above were often made of steel.
In-service projectiles with lead core and steel or copper jacket were also used in
several studies (Bell 2011; Kerr 2012; Sovják et al. 2015). Frew et al. (1998)
reported that the hardness of the projectile may affect the penetration depth but
the effect is not significant. Projectiles with smaller diameter and sharper nose
may create greater penetration depth (Chen and Li 2002).
2.5.3 Effects of parameters of the concrete specimen
The localized damage of the concrete, especially the penetration depth, is of
concern in several studies on the behavior of concrete under HVPI. The crater
and scabbing diameters of concrete specimens may also be of interest.
Information about the effects of the compressive strength, aggregate
component, and specimen size on the localized damage of concrete under HVPI
in literature is reviewed below. The penetration resistance of FRC and SHCC is
also reviewed.
2.5.3.1 Compressive strength of concrete
The compressive strength is usually taken into account for estimating the
penetration depth in concrete when subjected to HVPI. The decrease in
41
penetration depth is often reported with an increase in concrete compressive
strength (Dancygier and Yankelevsky 1996; Zhang et al. 2005). However, the
penetration depth may decrease only to a certain extent with the increase in
compressive strength. Zhang et al. (2005) report that beyond a certain level, the
increase in compressive strength of concrete by the reduction in w/c and
elimination of coarse aggregate does not lead to further decrease in the
penetration depth.
The effect of the compressive strength on the penetration depth is also
investigated in several analytical studies. According to Gao et al. (2009), the
compressive strength is one of the parameters affecting the normal compressive
stress which is the main form of the penetration resistance of concrete. In
comparison with experimental results, they found that the effect of the
compressive strength in typical models (Chen and Li 2002; Forrestal et al.
1994) may be over-emphasized with high impact velocities. Alavi Nia et al.
(2013) show that the compressive strength may affect the response of concrete
material around the projectile tip but the effect is significant only in a certain
range of compressive strength. They believe that the compressive strength may
not be a separate term in the resistance formulation of concrete.
2.5.3.2 Other parameters of concrete
Other than the compressive strength, the size of the concrete specimen and the
coarse aggregate component may also affect its behavior when subjected to
HVPI.
By testing concrete specimens cast in steel culverts of different
diameters, Frew et al. (2006) found that a concrete specimen with a larger
42
diameter is damaged less severely at the impact surface with smaller crater
volume. However, they also reported that the penetration depth does not seem
to be significantly affected by the specimen diameter. According to Hansson
(2004), on the other hand, the larger concrete specimen may lead to a decrease
in the penetration depth, probably due to the increased confinement effect of the
large specimen.
The coarse aggregate of concrete is often explained as an important
parameter affecting the resistance of concrete to HVPI (Bludau et al. 2006;
Dancygier et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2005). Specifically, Dancygier et al. (2007)
show that the larger coarse aggregate may lead to a decreased penetration depth
but an increased scabbing diameter, probably due to the increase in volume of
hard coarse aggregate but decrease in specific surface area and bond strength,
respectively. Zhang et al. (2005) indicate the beneficial effect of coarse
aggregate on the reduced penetration depth but point out that the response of
concrete can be different when the projectile with relatively small diameter
strikes the coarse aggregate or the mortar. Furthermore, Dancygier et al. (2007)
and Bludau et al. (2006) suggest that the type of coarse aggregate can also
influence the penetration depth of HSC. They believe that the hardness of
coarse aggregate has an important effect but no relationship between this
parameter of coarse aggregate and the penetration depth of concrete has been
established.
Hardness of material is an engineering property that can be conveniently
measured by nondestructive tests. Depending on the measuring method, there
are different scales of hardness used for coarse aggregate such as Mohs and
Rockwell hardness scales. Chang and Su (1996) report that the Rockwell
43
hardness of coarse aggregate may be relevant to its compressive strength
although the relationship between them is not linear.
2.5.3.3 Penetration resistance of fiber reinforced concrete (FRC)
Other than the effects of the parameters mentioned above, the penetration
resistance of fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) is influenced by fibers. Important
findings in literature on the localized damage of FRC including the crater
diameter, scabbing diameter, and penetration depth are summarized below.
Generally, the crater and scabbing diameter of FRC is significantly
reduced with the introduction of fibers (Almansa and Cánovas 1999;
Almusallam et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2011c; Wu et al. 2015a; Zhang et al. 2007).
For instance, when the volume fraction of steel fibers increases up to 1.5% the
crater diameter decreases 25 – 45% compared with that in the plain concrete
(Wu et al. 2015a; Zhang et al. 2007). Higher amount of fibers, however, is not
recommended in these studies considering the workability of fresh concrete and
the cost of material. Almansa and Cánovas (1999) report that with the addition
of 1% steel fibers, the scabbing thickness decreases by about 20% compared
with plain concrete, i.e. thinner FRC specimen than that of plain concrete is
sufficient to resist the scabbing.
The decrease in crater and scabbing diameter of FRC can be related to
the bridging effects of fibers (Zhang et al. 2007). Lok and Zhao (2004) indicates
that the high strain rate beyond 50 s-1 may reduce the effect of fibers on the
ductility of FRC. Zhang et al. (2007) suggest that high strain rates may be
induced by HVPI but the strain rate will decrease with the distance from the
impact point due to the degradation of stress wave. Thus, fibers distant from the
44
impact point may still be able to reduce the crater and scabbing diameter of
concrete. By comparing the penetration resistance of plain HSC, polymer
cement composite with high tensile strength, and FRC with high toughness,
Wang et al. (2011c) show that the increase in toughness rather than tensile
strength may have an important effect on reducing the crater area.
The length and type of fibers can also affect the crater diameter of FRC
(Almusallam et al. 2013; Yu et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2007). An increase in
fiber length may lead to an increase in the crater diameter due to the larger
disturbed zone induced by longer fibers (Zhang et al. 2007). For the fiber type,
steel fibers having higher tensile strength and elastic modulus can bring more
benefit to the resistance of FRC than polyethylene and polypropylene fibers
(Almusallam et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2007). The combinations of steel and
polypropylene or polyolyphene fibers (Almusallam et al. 2013) and hooked and
long straight steel fibers (Yu et al. 2016) may help to reduce the crater and
scabbing diameters, respectively.
The addition of fibers leads to only a slight decrease in the penetration
depth (Wu et al. 2015a; Zhang et al. 2007). For instance, Zhang et al. (2007)
report the decrease of normalized penetration depth by 10% when 0.5% of steel
fibers are introduced into the plain concrete, whereas it does not change
significantly when the fiber content increases from 0.5% to 1.5%. Similarly, a
decrease in penetration depth is only up to 4% with the fiber volume fraction up
to 1.5% in Wu et al. (2015a). For the fiber type, Almusallam et al. (2013)
indicate that it also does not have significant influence on the penetration depth
of FRC.
45
2.5.3.4 Penetration resistance of strain-hardening cement composite (SHCC)
As mentioned in Section 2.3, strain-hardening cement composite (SHCC) can
consist of PVA fibers (SHCC-PVA), PE fibers (SHCC-PE), a combination of
steel and PE fibers (SHCC-ST+PE) or steel and PVA fibers (SHCC-ST+PVA).
Some available experimental results from HVPI tests of the SHCC-ST+PE and
SHCC-ST+PVA (Bell et al. 2012; Bell 2011; Kerr 2012; Maalej et al. 2005;
Soe et al. 2013a) are summarized in Table 2.4. There is no information
available in open literature on the penetration resistance of SHCCs reinforced
with only polymer fibers, e.g. SHCC-PVA.
The most promising feature of SHCC for protective structures may be
the great resistance to shattering with distinctly limited zones of damage when
subjected to HVPI (Maalej et al. 2005). More specifically, with the impact
velocity in the range of 300 and 750 m/s, the crater diameter of the SHCC-
ST+PE (55 MPa) and SHCC-ST+PVA (67 MPa) is only 21 – 40 mm and 49 –
84 mm, respectively (Table 2.4). These values are significantly smaller than
that of plain concrete (58 MPa) at 136 mm with similar range of impact velocity
and type of projectile reported by Zhang et al. (2005). They are also smaller
than that of the FRC (70 MPa) at 90 mm in the other study by Zhang et al.
(2007). The decreased crater diameter of SHCCs may be attributed to increased
ductility and toughness which lead to increased energy absorption of SHCCs in
the HVPI test (Maalej et al. 2005; Soe et al. 2013a).
Experimental results also show that the crater diameter of SHCC does
not seem to be affected by the impact velocity (Bell et al. 2012; Maalej et al.
2005; Soe et al. 2013a), similar to that observed for plain concrete. Bell (2011)
and Kerr (2012) report that the crater diameter of the SHCC-ST+PVA seems to
46
be affected by the projectile diameter (Table 2.4). More specifically, the
increase in projectile diameter from 7.62 to 12.96 mm leads to an increase in
crater diameter from 45 to 81 mm for the SHCC-ST+PVA.
The penetration depth of SHCC is increased with the impact velocity
varying from 300 to 780 m/s (Bell et al. 2012; Maalej et al. 2005; Soe et al.
2013a). Effect of the compressive strength on the penetration resistance of
SHCC has not been investigated. As shown in Table 2.4, SHCCs at only one
level of compressive strength are used in each study.
Generally, the penetration depth of SHCC is not much different from
plain concrete with comparable compressive strength and impact velocity.
Maalej et al. (2005) report that the penetration depth of the SHCC (55 MPa) is
similar to that of ordinary concrete (45 MPa) from their previous study when
the impact velocity is 600 – 700 m/s.
Furthermore, the normalized penetration depth of the SHCC-ST+PE in
Maalej et al. (2005) is 0.067 – 0.090 mm.s/m. We can also calculate the
normalized penetration depth of the SHCC-ST+PVA (55 – 69 MPa) in Bell et
al. (2012) and Soe et al. (2013a) at 0.039 – 0.054 mm.s/m as shown in Table
2.4. These values are, respectively, larger and smaller than that of the plain
concrete (58 MPa) reported by Zhang et al. (2005), i.e. 0.062 mm.s/m, tested
using similar equipment and projectiles. The normalized penetration depth of
the FRC (70 MPa) in Zhang et al. (2007) is 0.056 mm.s/m, also falling between
those of the SHCC-ST+PE and SHCC-ST+PVA above.
Maalej et al. (2005) and Soe et al. (2013a) found that the projectile is
deflected during the penetration into SHCC. Soe et al. (2013a) explain the
47
projectile deflection is due to the presence of fibers, especially steel fibers
which have significantly higher modulus than that of polymer fibers.
Another feature of SHCC is the reduced fragments size. Maalej et al.
(2005) report that no fragment or only a few thin ones smaller than 10 mm were
found after the impact on the SHCC-ST+PE specimens. Similarly, Soe et al.
(2013a) report that the average mass of fragments ejected from the SHCC-
ST+PVA panels was only 4.7 g, whereas those from the plain concrete and
FRC were 21.4 g and 11.9 g, respectively.
2.5.4 Prediction of localized damage on concrete
Prediction of the localized damage induced by high velocity projectile impact
(HVPI) is essential for the design of protective structures. Penetration depth,
scabbing thickness, and perforation thickness can be predicted by empirical
equations or equations based on a combination of theoretical and empirical
analyses. In the following subsections, some commonly used equations are
reviewed.
2.5.4.1 Prediction of penetration depth
The equation below is suggested in the US Conventional Weapons effects
program (ConWep program) (Hyde 1992):
(2.27)
( )
where is penetration depth, fc is concrete compressive strength, M is
projectile mass, D is projectile diameter, N is nose shape factor or nose
48
performance coefficient, CRH is Caliber Radius Head calculated as the ratio of
tangent ogive radius (R) to projectile diameter (D), V is impact velocity.
Based on an equation suggested by the US National Defense Research
Committee (NDRC) in 1946, Kennedy (1966) proposed a modification of the
equation to predict the penetration depth as in Equation (2.28). The equation is
commonly referred to as modified NDRC equation.
{ (2.28)
( )
( )
√
where G is an impact function, N = 1.14 for sharp projectile.
A dimensionless equation for predicting the penetration depth is given
as follows based on a combination of theoretical and empirical analyses by Li
and Chen (2003):
( )
* +
( )
(2.29)
( )
√
{ ( )
( )
( )
49
where c is concrete density, S is an empirical constant of concrete, N* is nose
factor, k is sharpness of the projectile nose, H is nose height (m), I is impact
function.
The above equations were originally developed for conventional
concrete and thus probably not applicable for high performance concrete and
strain-hardening cement composites. Hansson (2003) reported that the ConWep
equation seems to underestimate the penetration depth of high strength concrete
of ≥ 65 MPa in compressive strength and concretes containing coarse aggregate
of low hardness such as limestone. Hanchak et al. (1992) report that the
penetration depth of concretes does not change significantly with the change of
compressive strength in the range of 40 – 140 MPa, which is consistent with
that observed by Wen and Yang (2014) for concretes with compressive
strengths in the range of 75 – 150 MPa.
2.5.4.2 Prediction of scabbing thickness
The modified NDRC equation for the prediction of the scabbing thickness is as
follows:
{ (2.30)
where Pd is calculated from Equation (2.28).
According to Chang (1981), the scabbing thickness can be predicted by
Equation (2.31), which was established based on limited experimental data:
( )
( ) (2.31)
50
2.5.4.3 Prediction of perforation thickness
As mentioned in Section 2.5.1 perforation thickness is defined as the maximum
thickness of a concrete specimen which will be perforated by a projectile. A
prediction equation suggested by Ballistic Research Laboratory of the United
States in 1941, cited by Kosteski et al. (2015), is as follows:
(2.32)
√
where hp is perforation thickness, fc is concrete compressive strength, M is
projectile mass, D is projectile diameter.
According to the modified NDRC equation (Kennedy 1966), the
perforation thickness can be predicted by:
{ (2.33)
where Pd is calculated from Equation (2.28).
In Equation (2.33), the perforation thickness hp is generally greater than
the penetration depth Pd. When the depth of the target is slightly greater than
the predicted penetration depth and the impact velocity is high enough, the
projectile can penetrate through the target. According to Li and Tong (2003),
this may be explained by the shear failure of the concrete material between the
nose of the projectile and the distal face of the specimen.
51
List of tables of Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Effect of high strain rate on compressive behavior of FRC

References Materials Equipment Specimen Strain rate, Compressive strength Toughness
w/cm Steel Fiber Fiber Fiber size, mm s-1 Static, Dynamic, DIF Static, Dynamic, DIF
fiber volume, length, diameter, MPa MPa J/cm3 J/cm3
type % mm mm
Rostásy and 0.89 straight 0.8 25 0.40 hydraulic ds=80 0.17 25.0 30.0 1.2 - - -
Hartwich 1.5 testing l s =300 30.5 1.2 - - -
(1985) machine
hooked 0.8 30 0.50 31.0 1.3 - - -
1.5 30.5 1.2 - - -
Lok and 0.35 hooked 0.6 35 0.54 SHPB ds=70 20 - 103 91.0 107.3 1.0 – 1.8 - - -
Zhao (2004) ls=140 –154.4
Wang et al. 0.36 – straight 0.5 13 0.16 SHPB ds=77 105 - 275 90.7 146.6 - 1.6 - 1.7 0.2(#) 1.1 - 1.5(#) 5.6 - 8.0(#)
(2012b) 0.37 ls=38 155.6 0.6(*) 2.3 -4.1(*) 3.9-6.7(*)
Note: (#) based on area under pre-peak portion; (*) based on area under full stress-strain curves; w/cm = water to cementitious materials ratio; ds = diameter
of specimen cylinder; ls = length of specimen cylinder
52
Table 2.2 Effect of high strain rate on compressive behavior of SHCC
References Materials Equipment Specimen Strain rate, s-1 Compressive strength
w/cm Fly ash Fine Fiber Fiber Fiber Fiber size, mm Static, Dynamic, DIF
or GGBS aggregate type volume, length, diameter, MPa MPa
/cement /cm % mm mm
Douglas and 0.39 0.4 0.50 PVA 2 NA NA hydraulic ds=51, 2×10-4–0.2 46 47 – 61 1.0 – 1.3
Billington testing ls=102
(2005) machine
(*)
Chen et al. 0.27 1.0 0.36 PVA 2 8 0.04 SHPB ds=38, 93 – 171 73 89 – 120 1.2 – 1.6
(2013) 1.5 (*) l s =20 91 – 185 67 77 – 106 1.2 – 1.6
(*)
2.3 85 – 179 58 60 – 88 1.0 – 1.5
(*)
4.0 95 – 178 55 55 –78 1.0 – 1.4
(*)
Note: ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS); cm = cementitious materials; w/cm = water to cementitious materials ratio; PVA = polyvinyl alcohol;
ds = diameter of cylindrical specimen; ls = length of cylindrical specimen; static strain rate ≤ 2×10-5 s-1
53
Table 2.3 Effect of high strain rate on tensile behavior of SHCC
References Materials Static Equipment Specimen Strain rate Tensile strength
-1
w/cm Fly Fine Fiber Fiber Fiber Fiber comp- size (mm) (s ) Static Dynamic DIF
ash or aggregate type volume length diameter ressive (MPa) (MPa)
SF/ /cm (%) (mm) (mm) strength
cm (MPa)
(*)
Maalej et al. 0.25 0.1 0 Steel 0.5 13 0.16 55 hydraulic 300×75×15(#) 2×10-4 – 0.2 3.2 3.6 – 6.0 1.3 – 1.9
(2005) +PE +1.5 12 0.04 testing
machine
Yang and Li 0.24 1.2 0.4 PVA 2.0 12 0.04 60 hydraulic 220×75×12.7 2×10-4 – 0.1 5.3 5.5 – 8.7 1.0 –1.6
(#)
(2006) testing
8 - machine 0.1 - 6.8 -
(#) -4
Mechtcherine 0.29 1.2 0.5 PVA 2.2 12 0.04 - hydraulic 250×24×40 10 – 0.01 4.5 5.3 –5.5 1.2 – 1.2
et al. (2011b) testing
machine 10 – 50 7.8 –11.9 1.7 – 2.6
Mechtcherine 0.30 1.2 0.5 PVA 2.2 12 0.04 61 SHPB ds = 75, ~ 160 3.8 25.7 6.7
et al. (2011a) ls = 250
Douglas and 0.39 0.3 0.5 PVA 2.0 12 0.04 - hydraulic ds = 51, 2×10-4 – 0.2 1.7 2.2 – 3.8 1.3 – 2.2
Billington testing ls = 102
(2011) 0.24 0.6 0.4 machine 2.3 2.2 – 2.6 1.0 – 1.1
-4
Yang and Li 0.26 1.2 0.4 PVA 2.0 12 0.04 53 hydraulic 304.8×76.2× 10 – 0.1 5.3 5.5 – 8.6 1.0 – 1.6
(2012) 2.8 0.4 PVA 12 0.04 40 testing 12.7(#) 10-3, 0.1 4.8 5.7, 5.9 ~1.2
1.6 0 PE 38 0.04 48 machine 0.1 2.3 4.2 1.8
(*) (#)
Note: silica fume (SF); dumbbell specimen; cm = cementitious materials; w/cm = water to cementitious materials ratio; PVA = polyvinyl alcohol; PE =
polyethylene; ds = diameter of cylindrical specimen; ls = length of cylindrical specimen; static strain rate ≤ 2×10-5 s-1
54
Table 2.4 Results of high-velocity projectile impact tests on SHCC in literature
Refer- Materials Static Static Static Specimen Equip- Projectile’s mass; Impact Crater Pene-Normal-
ences w/ FA Fine Fiber Vf Lf df fc ft tensile size (mm) ment shape; and size velocity diameter tration
ized pene-
cm or aggregate type (%) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) SC (%) (mm) (m/s) (mm) depth tration
SF /cm (mm)depth (10-3
/cm mm.s/m)
Maalej 0.25 0.1(*) 0 steel 0.5 13; 0.16; 55 3.1 3.1 300×170 gas gun 15g; ogive-nose; 300 - 750 21 - 40 20 – 71, 67 - 90
et al. + PE +1.5 12 0.04 ×h, dmax=12.6; lp=23.9 perforated
(2005) h=55-150
Bell 0.25 1.2 0.36 steel 0.8 NA NA 69 NA NA 300×170 gas gun 15g; ogive-nose; 318 - 658 55 - 67 14–24, 42 - 46
(2011), +PVA +1.3 ×55 dmax=12.0; lp=23.9 perforated
Bell et military 9.6g; ogive-nose ~778 60 perforated -
al. rifle cylindrical shank
(2012) dmax=7.82; lp=70
44g; ogive-nose, 81
cylindrical shank
dmax=12.96; lp=138
Kerr 0.25 1.2 0.36 steel 0.6 13; 0.20; 55 5.3 0.23 400×400 military NA; ogive-nose, 752 - 770 45 perforated -
(2012) +PVA +1.5 8 0.04 ×h rifle cylindrical shank
h=55; 75 dmax=7.62; lp=51
Soe et 0.25 1.2 0.36 steel 0.5 13; 0.20; 67 NA NA 300×170 gas gun NA; ogive-nose 306 - 658 49 - 69 12 – 27, 39 - 54
al. +PVA +1.5 8 0.04 ×55 dmax=12.6; lp=23.9 perforated
(2013a) 0.6 49 - 84 13 - 25, 40 - 48
+1.8 perforated
Note: (*) silica fume (SF); w/cm = water to cementitious material ratio; C = cement; FA = fly ash; PVA = polyvinyl alcohol; V f = volume of fiber; Lf = length
of fiber; df = diameter of fiber; fc = compressive strength; ft = tensile strength; SC = strain capacity; dmax = maximum diameter of projectile; lp = length of
projectile.
55
List of figures of Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Typical failure patterns for concrete specimens under static compression,
cylinder with L/D = 2: (a) no end confinement, (b) with end confinement (Mindess et
al. 2003)
Figure 2.2 Illustration of crack opening in width of conventional fiber reinforced

concrete (left) and steady-state cracking of SHCC (right) (Li 2008)
Figure 2.3 (a) Uniaxial tensile stress-strain curves and (b) flexural stress-deflection
curves of SHCC (ECC) and FRC (Li 1998)
56
Figure 2.4 Effect of strain rate on the DIF for compressive strength of FRC in literature
Figure 2.5 Effect of strain rate on the DIF for toughness of FRC in literature. Pre-peak
and full toughnesses are calculated as the area under pre-peak and full compressive
stress-strain curve, respectively.
57
Figure 2.6 Effect of strain rate on the DIF for compressive strength of SHCC in
literature
Figure 2.7 Effect of strain rate on the DIF for tensile strength of SHCC in literature
58
Figure 2.8 Three modes of damage on the concrete specimen subjected to high velocity
projectile impact: (a) cratering, (b) scabbing, and (c) perforation, after Beppu et al.
(2008)
Figure 2.9 Fracture regions in concrete specimen when subjected to projectile impact,
after Clifton (1982)
59
Chapter 3 Critical Parameters for the Compressive Strength of
High Strength Concrete
3.1 Introduction
Referring to the literature review in Chapter 2, the effect of an increased elastic
modulus with a given compressive strength of the mortar matrix on the
compressive strength of HSC has not been examined experimentally. For the
coarse aggregate, the compressive strength of this component is often explained
as one of the critical parameters for the compressive strength of HSC but the
former is often much higher than the latter. The effect of strain capacity on the
compressive strength of concrete has also not been validated experimentally
and/or analytically. It is thus not clear about the critical parameters for the
compressive strength of HSC.
In this part of the research, attempts are made to have a better
understanding on the critical parameters governing the compressive strength of
HSC. Experiments and numerical simulations were conducted on an idealized
three-phase composite model consisting of inclusion, matrix, and interfacial
transition zone (ITZ). Effects of the compressive and tensile strength of the
inclusion, the compressive and tensile strength, elastic modulus, and strain
capacity of the matrix on the compressive strength of the composite were
examined numerically. Experiments were then carried out on granite, three
types of HSC, and the corresponding three types of high strength mortar (HSM)
to investigate the effects of these parameters on the compressive strength of
HSC.
60
3.2 Strategy
The flow chart of the strategy is shown in Figure 3.1. In the following, we first
consider an idealized composite, namely single inclusion block (SIB),
consisting of a granite cylindrical core embedded within a HSM matrix (step a).
The simple configuration of the SIB, as depicted in Figure 3.2, facilitates the
qualitative understanding of failure mechanism underlying HSC, via an
experimental-numerical approach. Experimentally, the responses of granite
cylinders, HSM cubes, and SIB under uniaxial compressive load are
determined. Numerically, the three phases including the inclusion, HSM matrix,
and ITZ in the SIB are described with suitable models in literature. The material
parameters in the numerical models are then extracted and/or calibrated against
the experimental results.
Next, a series of material parameters is identified based on available
guidelines in literature, and isolated individually in the validated numerical
model to assess its influence on the overall response of the idealized composite
under uniaxial compressive load (step b). This provides a qualitative
understanding on the failure mechanism of HSC.
Based on the insights obtained from the idealized composite, a matrix of
parameters are identified and further investigated with HSC. A series of
experimental tests is designed to determine the extent of influence of these
parameters on the compressive strength of HSC (step c).
3.3 Experimental-numerical characterization of single inclusion block
The first step of the research outline, listed as (a) in the flowchart in Figure 3.1,
entails the experimental and numerical characterization of the three phases in
61
SIB, as well as the overall response of the idealized composite. Below, the
experimental details are first documented, followed by parameter calibration
and validation of the adopted numerical model.
3.3.1 Experimental details and results
3.3.1.1 Experiment on high-strength mortar (HSM) and granite
The experiments carried out on the two components of the SIB, high-strength
mortar (HSM) and granite, are described below.
The HSM consists of ASTM Type I normal Portland cement,
undensified silica fume, and natural silica sand with a fineness modulus of 2.66.
A water to cementitious materials ratio (w/cm) of 0.26 is adopted. The silica
fume and sand to cement ratios are 0.10 and 1.57, respectively.
Polycarboxylate-based superplasticizer1 is added to improve the workability.
The flow of the HSM is 140 mm determined according to ASTM C1437. For
the compression test, HSM is cast in 100-mm cubes, similar in shape with the
SIB specimens. A load cell in the compression machine and two strain gauges
attached on the two opposite sides along the loading direction of each cube are
used to obtain the stress-strain data for the calibration purpose of the HSM. The
compressive strength and elastic modulus are also determined from the stress-
strain data. Cylinders of 75×150 mm are cast for HSM in a different batch to
determine the splitting tensile strength and Poisson’s ratio under uniaxial
compression. After casting, the molded HSM are covered with wet linen for the
first 24 hours. They are then cured in a fog room for another 6 days followed by
exposure in laboratory air for 21 days. Granite cylinders of 75×130 mm are
1
ADVA® 181-N, W. R. Grace Singapore Pte, Ltd
62
drilled from natural rock. The length to diameter ratio is less than the standard
requirement of 2.0 due to the difficulties involved in obtaining such cored
specimens.
Uniaxial compression tests are done on the HSM and granite specimens.
Teflon sheets can be inserted between the contact surfaces of the specimen and
loading plates to minimize the end frictional effect (Ciancio and Gibbings 2012;
van Mier et al. 1997). In the present study, 1 mm-Teflon sheets are used in the
compression tests of the HSM cubes. For the granite cylinders, however,
standard compression tests without Teflon sheets are conducted. The end
frictional effect on the compressive strength of granite cylinders is assumed to
be negligible due to its longer slenderness ratio than cubes and relatively
smooth surfaces. Splitting tensile strength (ASTM C496) and Poisson’s ratio
(ASTM C469) are determined on the HSM and granite cylinders.
Experimental results on the compressive strength, elastic modulus,
Poisson’s ratio, and splitting tensile strength of the HSM and granite are
summarized in Table 3.1. The experimental compressive stress-strain graphs for
the HSM and granite are shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4.
The compressive strength of the HSM is only 60.2 MPa, despite a
relatively low w/cm of 0.26 and the incorporation of silica fume. This may be
partially attributed to the presence of Teflon sheets resulting in a lower
compressive strength compared to that from standard tests (95.5 MPa, see
Section 3.5). The reduced compressive strength induced by Teflon sheets is also
observed by van Mier et al. (1997) and van Vliet and van Mier (1996). The
variability of sand may also affect the compressive strength of the HSM. In
addition, the volume of this batch is relatively smaller leading to probable
63
negative effects on the homogeneity of the mixture when mixing in the Hobart
mixer.
3.3.1.2 Experiment on single inclusion block (SIB)
Single inclusion blocks of 110×110×130 mm are prepared from the same batch
used to cast the HSM cubes. Each block is cast by placing one 75×130 mm
granite cylinder at the center of the mold and embedding it within HSM, as
shown in Figure 3.5a. The volume fraction of the granite inclusion in the SIB is
36%, similar to that of the coarse aggregate in a typical HSC with mix
proportions given in Section 3.5. After casting, the SIB specimens are cured in
the same conditions as the HSM, i.e. 1 day in covered mold, 6 days in fog room
and 21 days in laboratory air. On the 7th day after casting, the front and rear
surfaces of 110×110 mm of the SIB specimen, which are called “end surfaces”
in the following sections, are ground to expose the inclusion surfaces (Figure
3.5b). Only two specimens of the SIB are prepared due to the scarcity of the
granite cylinders.
The setup for the compression tests of the SIB is shown in Figure 3.6.
To reduce the end frictional effect, Teflon sheets are inserted between the
contact surfaces of the specimen and the loading plates. Strain gauges are
attached to the front and rear surface of the SIB specimen at both granite and
mortar phases to measure the axial strain. Two cameras are utilized to capture
the formations of cracks at the front and rear surfaces of the SIB specimen.
Experimental results on the compressive strength and elastic modulus of
the SIB are summarized in Table 3.1. No significant difference in the strain
measurements and initiation of crack was observed on the front and rear
64
surfaces of each specimen. The average compressive strength of the two SIB
specimens is 41.6 MPa, with a difference of <5% between the two specimens.
The stress-strain graph of the SIB is shown in Figure 3.7.
3.3.2 Numerical models
3.3.2.1 Plasticity-damage model for mortar matrix and inclusion
The plasticity-damage model by Grassl and Jirásek (2006a) is adopted for the
mortar phase of the SIB. Since the cracks are expected to propagate through the
inclusion based on HSC experimental observations (Aitcin 2004), damage has
to be accounted for in the inclusion. For simplicity, the same plasticity-damage
model adopted for mortar is also utilized for the inclusion, similar to the
approach by other researchers (Wittmann 2002; Zhou and Hao 2009).
It is well reported that standard continuum models suffer from mesh
sensitivity problem during strain softening (Bažant 1976; Pietruszczak and
Mróz 1981). To resolve this issue, the over-nonlocal gradient enhancement in
Poh and Swaddiwudhipong (2009) is adopted. For completeness, the plasticity-
damage model and its numerical implementation are summarized in Section
2.2.3. Detailed discussions should be referred to Grassl and Jirásek (2006a) and
Poh and Swaddiwudhipong (2009).
3.3.2.2 Determination of parameters for granite and HSM
The material model requires several parameters such as the compressive and
tensile strength, elastic modulus, and Poisson’s ratio, which are obtained from
the experimental results in Section 3.3.1.1, as summarized in Table 3.1. For the
other parameters in the models, the recommended values in the original study
65
(Grassl and Jirásek 2006a) are utilized in the present study due to the lack of
relevant data (see Section 2.2.3). In addition, the strain hardening (Bh) and
softening parameters (ef) are calibrated against the experimental compressive
stress-strain curves of the HSM and granite. However, no experimental data for
strain softening response of the granite is available due to the sudden failure of
specimens post the peak stress. In literature, an almost vertical softening regime
and even snapbacks have been reported for granite with special control methods
and testing equipment (Okubo and Nishimatsu 1985; Wawersik and Fairhurst
1970). Accordingly, we assume a vertical softening post-peak response for the
granite.
Specifically, the calibrated values are Bh = 6×10-4, ef = 2×10-5 for the
HSM and Bh = 1×10-4, ef = 1×10-6 for the granite. Based on these parameters,
the numerical results match closely with the experimental compressive stress-
strain curves, as depicted in Figures 3.3 and 3.4 for the HSM and granite,
respectively.
3.3.2.3 Cohesive model for interfacial transition zone (ITZ)
Cohesive models have been adopted in literature to simulate the behavior of
ITZ between the mortar matrix and coarse aggregate of concrete (Ren et al.
2014; Tijssens et al. 2001). The surface-based cohesive model described in
Section 2.2.4, which is available in the commercial finite element package
ABAQUS, is adopted in the present study.
In the cohesive model, cohesive forces can be exerted in both normal
and sliding directions at the ITZ, see Equations (2.18) and (2.19). In the sliding
direction, a frictional resistance exists in addition to the shear cohesive forces
66
(Mohamad et al. 2015). Therefore, it is essential to determine not only the
numerical parameters for the cohesive surface model, but also the friction
coefficient of the ITZ.
3.3.2.4 Determination of parameters for ITZ
Parameters for the cohesive surface ITZ are determined from the experimental
results of the HSM, granite, and SIB.
The cohesive stiffness in the model of the ITZ has to be sufficiently
high such that its influence on the effective stiffness is negligible, yet low
enough to avoid numerical difficulties (Dunbar et al. 2014; Turon et al. 2007).
In general, the cohesive stiffness can be calculated according to Equations (3.1)
and (3.2).
(3.1)
(3.2)
( ) ( )
where is the surface stiffness in the normal cracking direction, while
and are in the crack sliding direction; is a numerical parameter affecting
the compliance of the composite; is the size of the composite along the
loading direction; and are the elastic modulus and shear modulus of the
composite;  is the Poisson’s ratio.
Following Turon et al. (2007) and Neville (2012), we adopt n = 50 and
 = 0.2, respectively; Ec = 40.2 GPa (Table 3.1); L = 0.11 m. The normal and
tangential surface stiffnesses of the ITZ are thus Knn = 1.83×1013 N/m3 and Kss
= Ktt = 7.63×1012 N/m3.
67
In general, the ITZ in HSC has a higher strength than in ordinary
concrete (Aitcin 2004). Since the mix proportions of the SIB mimic those of an
HSC, the maximum normal cohesive stress is assumed to be 4.0 MPa,
which is equivalent to the tensile strength of the HSM (Table 3.1). For
simplicity, the same value is assumed for the shear cohesive strength and
, following Ren et al. (2014).
The fracture energy of the ITZ between different types of mortars and
rocks was investigated experimentally by Hassanzadeh (1995). For a mortar
incorporating silica fume and with a w/cm of 0.25, similar to the HSM in our
study, the fracture energy of ITZ between mortar and granite was reported to be
24 N/m. This value is adopted in our numerical study.
3.3.2.5 Model of SIB and calibration of the friction coefficient for ITZ
Taking into account the geometrical symmetry, only one eighth of the SIB
specimen is considered in the numerical simulation of SIB (Figure 3.8). The
three-phase model consists of the inclusion, mortar matrix, and ITZ. The
behavior of the SIB under uniaxial compression is simulated with all the
parameters mentioned above for mortar, inclusion, and ITZ except for the
friction coefficient between granite and HSM, of which no experimental data is
available to our knowledge.
In general, the friction coefficients between concrete and other materials
vary over a wide range. For instance, the friction coefficient between concrete
layers cast at different times lies in the range of 0.5 – 1.4 (fib 2010), whereas
that between concrete and steel bars is in the range of 0.6 – 1.4 (ACI Committee
318 2002). Based on the experimental graph of SIB, the friction coefficient is
68
calibrated as  = 1.2. The match between the numerical and experimental
graphs is shown in Figure 3.7.
3.3.3 Failure process at the end surfaces of single inclusion block
The appearance of the first crack in each phase, i.e. ITZ, mortar, and inclusion,
at the front and rear surfaces of SIB is captured experimentally from the videos
recorded by the two cameras. The time recorded by the two cameras and the
data logger of the compression machine is synchronized to derive the stress and
strain levels of the crack initiation in each phase. In general, the crack
initiations at the two end surfaces of a SIB specimen do not occur at the same
time. For ease of visualization, the average stress levels at which the crack
initiation occurs at the two end surfaces of each specimen is indicated on the
stress-strain graph (Figure 3.7). The strain softening response of the SIB
specimen is not captured experimentally due to the lack of information on the
strain although the stress can still be determined from the load cell. Some
symbols are thus plotted on the numerical graph, based on the determined stress
level.
In general, the crack first appears at the ITZ, then at the matrix, and
finally at the inclusion (Figures 3.7 and 3.9). More specifically, cracks appear at
the ITZ before the peak load. Cracks in the mortar phase appear before or just
after the peak. Cracks in the inclusion are only observed after the peak stress is
reached. These observations seem consistent with those in HSC reported by
Carrasquillo et al. (1981). They report that in the pre-peak region of the stress-
strain curve cracks are observed in the ITZ and mortar phases, whereas no crack
69
is observed in the coarse aggregate although the fracture of coarse aggregate is
observed after the tests.
Qualitatively, the predicted damage process agrees well with the
experimental observations, as depicted in Figure 3.9. In the numerical model,
an interfacial failure can be observed at ε = 0.089% in Figure 3.9c. As
deformation increases to ε = 0.112%, significant damage develops in the matrix.
At the later stage of ε = 0.115%, a high damage develops in the matrix close to
the ITZ, together with a significant damage in the inclusion. The predicted
failure process at the end surfaces matches closely the experimental
observations from the two SIB specimens. This suggests that the models
adopted are adequate for the phases, and the associated parameters have been
calibrated correctly.
The failure process in an idealized model of the SIB may not accurately
reproduce the complex mechanical interactions between aggregates and mortar
in HSC which may cause difficulties in numerical modeling and calibration of
material parameters against experimental data. Specifically, only one inclusion
is adopted. In a single particle model of concrete the cracks are mainly induced
by the relative deformation of the matrix around the particle, whereas in a
multiple particle model the cracks are also generated by the interaction of
various particles even though the global failure in the two models may be
similar (van Mier 1996). As with other single inclusion models in literature
(Akçaoğlu et al. 2004; Buyukozturk and Hearing 1998; Han et al. 2014), the
SIB model in the present study may be used to qualitatively understand the
effect of various parameters on the failure of concrete.
70
3.4 Parametric study on the compressive strength of single inclusion block
We now proceed to part (b) of the flowchart in Figure 3.1, i.e. to numerically
investigate the influence of different material parameters on the compressive
strength of the SIB. The identified parameters associated with the inclusion are
its compressive and tensile strength and elastic modulus. Regarding the HSM,
its compressive and tensile strengths, elastic modulus, and strain capacity are to
be considered. The strain capacity here denotes the strain at the peak stress just
before strain softening, which can be further defined in the axial and lateral
directions, i.e. axial strain capacity and lateral strain capacity, respectively. The
matrix of parameters considered in this section is summarized in Table 3.2, with
the SIB numerical model in Section 3.3 taken as a control.
3.4.1 Strength of inclusion
The strength of coarse aggregate is often suggested as one of the governing
parameters of the compressive strength of HSC (ACI Committee 363 2010;
Mehta and Aïtcin 1990). In practice, an increase in the compressive strength of
coarse aggregate is achieved by choosing an appropriate type of rock.
Associated parameters such as elastic modulus and tensile strength may also
change significantly with different choices of rocks. In order to understand the
effect of each individual parameter, as well as the combined effects of various
factors on the compressive strength of the SIB, three cases are investigated.
In the first case (SIB-I1) the parameters for quartzite as reported in the
experimental study by Hassanzadeh (1995) are adopted for the inclusion (I1) in
the SIB model. Compared to the granite, the quartzite has about 40% higher
compressive and tensile strengths, but 7% lower elastic modulus, as shown in
71
Table 3.2. The numerical result shows that the compressive strength of the SIB-
I1 is 40.1 MPa, similar to that of the control.
In order to isolate the effect of the compressive strength of the inclusion,
a fictitious inclusion is considered in the second case (SIB-I2). Compared to the
control inclusion, the compressive strength of the inclusion I2 is 40% higher,
with all other parameters remaining the same (Table 3.2). The numerical
compressive strength of the SIB-I2 is also similar to that of the control.
Since tensile failure is usually observed in the planes parallel to the
loading when HSC is subjected to uniaxial compression, we next investigate the
effect of the inclusion tensile strength. In SIB-I3, the tensile strength of the
inclusion is increased by about 40% compared to that of the control, with all
other parameters remaining the same. The numerical results indicate that the
compressive strength of the SIB-I3 is 40.3 MPa, a negligible difference from
the control (Table 3.2).
3.4.2 Elastic modulus and strength of matrix
As indicated in Table 3.1, the elastic modulus of the granite (65.0 GPa) is
significantly higher than that of the HSM (33.5 GPa). An increase in the elastic
modulus of the matrix can therefore reduce the mismatch in stiffness. Four
cases are considered as follows.
In general, the elastic modulus, compressive strength and tensile
strength of HSM increase concurrently with a change in mix design. Among
these parameters, the compressive strength is usually one of the main targets in
designing a mixture. We consider an increase in compressive strength of 40%
of the matrix, i.e. the same level of improvement in compressive strength
72
following the inclusion (I1) above. According to the fib model code (fib 2010),
with the compressive strength 84.3 MPa of a mortar M1, we can estimate its
elastic modulus and tensile strength at 37.1 GPa and 4.9 MPa, which are 11%
and 23%, respectively higher than those of the control. As a first glimpse into
the combined effect of these enhancements, we consider here composite SIB-
M1 with the matrix parameters from those of the mortar M1 – see Table 3.2.
The predicted compressive strength of the SIB-M1 is 50.7 MPa, a significant
improvement of 26% compared to the control. The following cases examine the
influence of HSM elastic modulus, compressive strength, and tensile strength
individually, with the corresponding parameters summarized in Table 3.2.
In the second case (SIB-M2), the elastic modulus of the matrix is 11%
higher, with all other parameters identical to those of the control. The
compressive strength of the SIB-M2 is 40.5 MPa, almost the same with that of
the control. Hence, an increase in the elastic modulus of the matrix does not
have much beneficial effect on the compressive strength of the SIB.
In the third case (SIB-M3), only the compressive strength of the matrix
is increased by 40% compared to the control. The numerical compressive
strength of the SIB-M3 is 45.9 MPa, about 14% higher than that of the control.
This improvement in the compressive strength of the SIB-M3 is notable, though
not as significant as that of the SIB-M1. The results from the SIB-M1, SIB-M2,
and SIB-M3 suggest that an increase in the compressive strength, rather than
the elastic modulus of the matrix, has a more significant effect on the
compressive strength of SIB. Note, however, that an increase in compressive
strength also induces a corresponding increase in the axial and lateral strain
73
capacity, the effect of which will be investigated further in the following
section.
In the fourth case (SIB-M4), the tensile strength of the matrix increases
by 23% compared to the control. An increase of 4% in the numerical
compressive strength of the SIB-M4 is obtained. Therefore, the tensile strength
of the matrix may also slightly affect the compressive strength of the
composite.
3.4.3 Strain capacity of matrix
As observed in Table 3.2, the strain capacity is affected by the elastic modulus
and compressive strength of mortar. In order to eliminate the effects of the
elastic modulus and compressive strength in the numerical analyses, the strain
capacity is altered by introducing a delayed damage effect. Specifically, a
threshold parameter ( ) is incorporated into Equation (2.15) such that
damage does not occur before this threshold value – see Section 2.2.3 for
details.
As suggested by Mehta and Monteiro (2006), the tensile strain capacity
may affect the compressive strength of concrete. In the compression test, the
specimen tends to expand in lateral direction. Thus, the lateral strain capacity is
considered in this parametric study. We consider an increase in lateral strain
capacity of about 40% for mortar M5, i.e. the same level of improvement in
compressive strength following M1, and about 20% for mortar M6 to confirm
the general trend. The corresponding numerical axial strain capacity improves
19% and 12%, respectively for M5 and M6. As shown in Figure 3.10, the
stress-strain graphs of the HSMs M5 and M6 are identical to that of the control
74
before softening sets on. Hence, the three different HSMs under consideration
have the same elastic modulus and compressive strength. For the fictitious
mortars M5 and M6, softening develops only after a certain threshold is
reached.
Numerical results show that the effect of the matrix strain capacity on
the compressive strength of the SIB is more pronounced than those of the
matrix elastic modulus, compressive and tensile strengths. The compressive
strengths of the SIB-M5 and SIB-M6 are 51.1 and 48.5 MPa, which are 27%
and 21% higher than that of the control, respectively.
The damage profiles at the peak stress for the control SIB, SIB-M5, and
SIB-M6 are presented in Figure 3.11. For the control SIB, the HSM matrix is
damaged first (Figure 3.11a), before propagating to the granite inclusion as
discussed in Section 3.3.3 and depicted in Figure 3.9c. In contrast, when the
strain capacity of the matrix is increased with all other parameters fixed, the
inclusions in the SIB-M5 and SIB-M6 are damaged earlier than the matrix, as
shown in Figure 3.11b & c. These results suggest a change in the failure process
in the numerical model of the SIB when the strain capacity of the HSM matrix
is increased.
3.4.4 Summary of SIB parametric study
Parametric study with the SIB model suggests that the increases in the
compressive and tensile strengths of the inclusion do not provide significant
benefit to the compressive strength of the SIB for the range of values
investigated. It seems that for these cases, the failure in the ITZ and mortar
phases develops first. With the failure of these two phases, the peak stress of the
75
composite is reached. Since the cracks in the inclusion occur only after the peak
stress, an improvement in the inclusion strengths does not seem to increase
effectively the compressive strength of the SIB. For the range considered, the
improvement in elastic modulus of the matrix is also not highly beneficial to the
compressive strength of the SIB. The improvement does not seem to reduce the
stiffness mismatch significantly between the mortar and inclusion phases.
Among the parameters investigated, the strain capacity of the HSM may
be the most important parameter affecting the compressive strength of the SIB,
whereas the compressive and tensile strengths of the HSM are probable
parameters. Specifically, once the strain capacity of the mortar matrix is
increased beyond a certain limit, the inclusion may be damaged prior to the
mortar matrix and ITZ (SIB-M5 and SIB-M6) indicating a more critical role of
the inclusion for the failure of the composite.
Based on the insights gleaned from the numerical analysis on the SIB,
we next proceed to part (c) of the flowchart in Figure 3.1. In the following
section, a series of experiments is carried out to further investigate the extent of
influence of these identified parameters on the compressive strength of HSC.
3.5 Experiment with high-strength concretes
In this section, a series of experiments with different mix design is presented, in
order to illustrate the influence of the identified parameters on the compressive
strength of HSC. The effect of the compressive strength of coarse aggregate is
also investigated by analyzing available experimental data from literature, to
corroborate the findings from Section 3.4.
76
3.5.1 Experimental details
The experimental design consists of three concretes made with one type of
coarse aggregate but different mortars. The mix proportions of the concretes
and mortars are summarized in Table 3.4. The volume fraction of the granite
coarse aggregates in the concretes is about 36%, similar to that of the granite
inclusion in the SIB. Apart from the presence of coarse aggregate in concretes,
the proportions of the other ingredients in the concretes are identical to the
corresponding mortars.
The granite coarse aggregates with a nominal maximum size of 10 mm
are of the same source as the cored granite cylinders of the SIB. The ingredient
materials for the HSM are similar to those used for the SIB matrix. Based on
the control HSM mix design, admixtures and fibers are introduced into different
specimens in order to effect a change in the matrix elastic modulus,
compressive strength, tensile strength, and strain capacity – the identified
parameters to be investigated in this section. Specifically, epoxy-based silane
and tributylphosphate (TBP) are used in liquid state as coupling agent and
defoamer, respectively, to achieve a higher elastic modulus in the epoxy-based
silane mortar and concrete, denoted as ESi-HSM and ESi-HSC, respectively
(Feng et al. 2016). To increase the matrix strain capacity, one percent steel
fibers with a diameter of 0.16 mm and a length of 13 mm are used as
reinforcement in the fiber-reinforced mortar (FRHSM-1) and fiber-reinforced
concrete (FRHSC-1).
Cylindrical specimens of 75×150 mm are cast for all the mixtures of
mortars and concretes. They are cured in moist condition for 7 days (1 day in
mold and 6 days in a fog room) followed by exposure in laboratory air for 21
77
days. The splitting tensile strength (ASTM C496) and compressive strength
(ASTM C39) of the mortars and concretes at 28 days are determined. Four
strain gauges, two each in the axial and lateral directions, are glued at the mid-
points of each cylinder specimen before the compression tests. The stress-strain
curves, elastic modulus, and Poisson’s ratio are obtained from the compression
tests. No Teflon sheets are used in these standard compression tests.
3.5.2 Results and discussion
3.5.2.1 Compressive strength and fracture of coarse aggregate
As shown in Table 3.4, the three concretes have relatively high compressive
strengths of 112.2 – 132.7 MPa. They are, however, significantly lower than
that of the granite at 238.5 MPa. In order to investigate the effect of the coarse
aggregate compressive strength, we refer to available data in literature (de
Larrard and Belloc 1997; Giaccio et al. 1992; Kılıç et al. 2008; Wu et al. 2001).
As shown in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.12, the compressive strength of
concretes does not always increase with that of coarse aggregate in the referred
studies. For each group of data with the same mortar matrix, an increase in the
compressive strength of coarse aggregate up to about 130 MPa seems to be
beneficial to the compressive strength of concretes. In Giaccio et al. (1992), the
increasing trend of the concrete strength with the coarse aggregate strength is
still observable when the aggregate strength is 160 MPa. In other studies,
however, the compressive strengths of concretes in each group made with
coarse aggregate of 160 – 285 MPa compressive strength are almost the same,
i.e. ± 1%, or even lower by 16% - 23% than concretes made with coarse
aggregate of 130 – 160 MPa compressive strength. It shows that with the mortar
78
matrices investigated in these experimental studies, further increase in the
compressive strength of coarse aggregate above a level of about 130 – 160 MPa
does not seem to be beneficial to the compressive strength of concretes.
Note the various aggregates not only differ in their compressive
strengths but also in elastic modulus and surface characteristics, which may
collectively affect the compressive strength of the respective concretes. Kılıç et
al. (2008) postulate that the smooth surface texture of the quartzite coarse
aggregate provides lower bond strength to the mortar matrix than basalt
aggregate. Therefore, in their study concrete made with quartzite coarse
aggregate has lower compressive strength than that comprising of basalt coarse
aggregate, although the quartzite has a higher compressive strength than the
basalt. Notwithstanding the intricate collective effect from several coarse
aggregate characteristics, we note that the compressive strength of granite in the
present study (238.5 MPa) lies within the range of 160 – 285 MPa. The
numerical study in Section 3.4 suggests that selection of coarse aggregate with
greater compressive strength (SIB-I2) may not be beneficial to the compressive
strength of the concrete. Qualitatively, the numerical observations agree with
the reported experimental data.
In the present study, the coarse aggregates in the HSC specimens are
fractured after a compression test, as shown in Figure 3.13, despite having a
much higher compressive strength than the HSM. One possibility is that the
coarse aggregate is fractured after the mortar matrix as reported by Carrasquillo
et al. (1981).
79
3.5.2.2 Elastic modulus and strengths of mortar matrix
As can be seen in Table 3.4, the elastic modulus of the control HSM is 34.1
GPa, significantly lower than that of the granite at 65.0 GPa. With the
incorporation of the silane, the elastic modulus of the ESi-HSM increases by
12% to 38.4 GPa. In addition, the compressive strength and splitting tensile
strength of the ESi-HSM is 20% and 38% higher than that of the HSM
respectively, whereas the lateral and axial strain capacities of the ESi-HSM are
not significantly different from those of the control HSM (Figure 3.14a).
Accordingly, the compressive strength of the ESi-HSC is 119.6 MPa, 6.6%
higher than that of the control HSC.
Based on the numerical study in Section 3.4, a small increase in the
elastic modulus of the matrix does not significantly reduce the stiffness
mismatch and affect the compressive strength of the composite. In practice, a
significant increase in elastic modulus of mortar without a corresponding
change in compressive and tensile strengths may not be easily achievable. Since
the effect of the elastic modulus is likely to be minimal, the 6.6% increase in
the compressive strength of the ESi-HSC may be mainly attributed to the
increase in the compressive and tensile strengths of the ESi-HSM as the lateral
and axial strain capacities are comparable for the mortars with and without the
silane.
3.5.2.3 Strain capacity of mortar matrix
As widely reported, the introduction of fibers can improve several mechanical
properties of cement composites, including the strain capacity and toughness
(ACI Committee 544 2009; Nawy 2008). Specifically, the fibers induce a
80
bridging effect which restrains and delays crack propagation, leading to the
increased strain capacity (ACI Committee 544 2009). In this section, the effect
of the strain capacity on the compressive strength of concrete is investigated
through the incorporation of fibers in mortar and concrete (FRHSM-1 and
FRHSC-1).
As shown in Table 3.4, the compressive strength and elastic modulus of
the FRHSM-1 are 114.0 MPa and 37.6 GPa, respectively, similar to those of the
ESi-HSM. Effect of these two matrix parameters is thus eliminated when
comparing the FRHSC-1 and ESi-HSC. Unfortunately, the splitting tensile
strength of FRHSM-1 is not available in the present study. It may be expected
that the splitting tensile strength of the FRHSM-1 is higher than that of the
HSM, i.e. greater than 4.0 MPa, since the compressive strength of the former is
higher than that of the latter. However, it is not sure whether the tensile
strengths of the FRHSM-1 and ESi-HSM are similar since the fibers in the
FRHSM-1 may affect its tensile strength. The axial and lateral strain capacities
of the FRHSM-1 are 3% and 90% higher than those of the ESi-HSM,
respectively.
The compressive strength of the FRHSC-1 is 132.7 MPa, 18.3% and
11.0% higher than that of the HSC and ESi-HSC, respectively. To understand
the effect of the strain capacity of mortar matrix, we compare the FRHSC-1 and
ESi-HSC. In the numerical study, the compressive strength of the SIB is
increased 21% and 27% when the lateral strain capacity of the mortar matrix
increases about 20% and 40%. The numerical and experimental results seem to
have a qualitative agreement on the effect of the lateral strain capacity on the
compressive strength of the SIB and concrete.
81
It is worth noting that in the numerical study, the lateral and axial strain
capacities increase concurrently with the increase of the threshold parameter
( ). It is thus not clear if the lateral or axial strain capacity governs the
compressive strength of the composite SIB. In this experiment, the
improvement of the compressive strength of the FRHSC-1 compared with that
of the ESi-HSC may be attributed mainly to the 90% increase in the lateral
strain capacity rather than the 3% increase in the axial strain capacity of the
FRHSM-1 than the ESi-HSM.
The beneficial effect of the increased lateral strain capacity may be
explained by the increased load carrying capacity upon the development of
vertical cracks when concrete is subjected to uniaxial compressive loading. For
plain concrete, the mortar matrix is often cracked in the pre-peak range of the
concrete (Carrasquillo et al. 1981). The stress may not be transferred across the
cracking planes which results in a drop of the load carrying capacity of the
concrete. In the present study, the increase in the lateral strain capacity of the
mortar matrix is obtained by the incorporation of fibers. Due to the fiber
bridging effect, the stress may still be transferred in the material even with the
presence of vertical cracks. This leads to an increase in the load carrying
capacity of the FRHSC-1.
Other than the increased lateral strain capacity, the incorporation of
fibers may also result in an increased toughness. The toughness is generally
measured based on the area under the stress-strain or load-deflection curves to a
prescribed strain or deflection, e.g. to the deflection of 1/150 of the span length in
the bending tests according to ASTM C1609. While the increased lateral strain
capacity is associated with the fiber bridging effect and stress transfer in the
82
pre-peak range, the increased toughness is mainly in the post-peak range. Thus,
the increased compressive strength of the FRHSC-1 may be attributed mainly to
the increased lateral strain capacity of the FRHSM-1.
The compressive strength and strain capacity of the mortar may be
improved further by decrease in w/c, use of pressure during the casting, and
high temperature curing as normally used to produce ultra-high strength
concrete (UHSC). Once the strain capacity of the mortar exceeds a limit as
mentioned in Section 3.4, the damage of coarse aggregate may govern the
compressive strength of HSC. In such a case, the coarse aggregates are
eliminated in UHSC in order to achieve higher compressive strength.
3.6 Summary of Chapter 3
In this part of the study, the influence of possible parameters on the
compressive strength of high-strength concrete (HSC) is investigated. Firstly,
an idealized single inclusion block (SIB) is considered for ease of numerical
modeling and the calibration of material parameters against experimental data.
Thereafter, the direct influence of different parameters on the compressive
strength of SIB is studied numerically. Finally, a series of experiments is
designed, based on the insights obtained from the SIB, to further determine the
critical parameters influencing the compressive strength of HSC. The following
conclusions are drawn:
(1) With the adopted models for the ITZ, matrix, and inclusion the compressive
strength and failure process of the composite SIB are in agreement with the
experimental result and observations.
83
(2) The numerical parametric study indicates that the lateral and axial strain
capacity of matrix may be the most critical parameters governing the
compressive strength of the SIB. There are probable effects from the
compressive and tensile strength of matrix. Other parameters such as elastic
modulus of the matrix and compressive and tensile strength of the inclusion
have negligible influence.
(3) In the experiments undertaken in this study, the compressive strength of
coarse aggregate is 238.5 MPa, which is much higher than those of mortars and
concretes. Experimental results in several studies (de Larrard and Belloc 1997;
Giaccio et al. 1992; Kılıç et al. 2008; Wu et al. 2001) show that when the
compressive strength of coarse aggregate is above a level of 130 – 160 MPa, it
does not significantly affect the compressive strength of HSC. This is consistent
with the numerical findings with the SIB.
(4) It is found experimentally that an increase of 12% in elastic modulus of the
epoxy-based silane mortar (ESi-HSM) is not particularly beneficial to the
compressive strength of the epoxy-based silane concrete (ESi-HSC). It is,
however, unclear whether further increase in the elastic modulus of mortar
leading to a significant reduction in the mismatch of elastic stiffness can have a
more significant effect. The compressive and tensile strength of the mortar have
a notable influence on the compressive strength of HSC, similar to the
numerical results of the SIB.
(5) With similar compressive strength and elastic modulus, but higher lateral
strain capacity of the mortar matrix, the compressive strength of the fiber-
reinforced concrete (FRHSC-1) is 11.0% higher than that of the ESi-HSC. The
84
experimental results corroborate the numerical findings that the lateral strain
capacity of the mortar matrix is critical for the compressive strength of HSC.
85
Table 3.1 Experimental results of high-strength mortar (HSM), granite, and single
inclusion block (SIB)
Splitting Tensile Compressive Elastic
Materials Poisson’s ratio
strength, MPa strength, MPa modulus, GPa
HSM 4.0  0.5 60.2  1.7(*) 33.5 ± 1.8(*) 0.20  0.00
Granite 10.6 238.5  12.2 65.0  7.2 0.22  0.01
SIB NA 41.6(*) 40.2(*) N.A.
Note: (*)determined with Teflon sheets; results expressed as average value  standard
deviation for tests with ≥3 specimens, average value provided for tests with only two
specimens, N.A.- not available.
86
Table 3.2 Parametric study using the SIB models
Designation Parameters SIB
Inclusion Matrix
E, GPa fc, MPa ft, MPa E, GPa fc, MPa ft, MPa ASC, % LSC, % fc, MPa
Control 65.0 238.5 10.6 33.5 60.2 4.0 0.268 0.112 40.2
SIB-I1 60.2 332.0 15.0 33.5 60.2 4.0 0.268 0.112 40.1
SIB with high strength
SIB-I2 65.0 332.0 10.6 33.5 60.2 4.0 0.268 0.112 40.2
inclusion
SIB-I3 65.0 238.5 15.0 33.5 60.2 4.0 0.268 0.112 40.3
SIB-M1 65.0 238.5 10.6 37.1 84.3 4.9 0.315 0.122 50.7
SIB with high elastic modulus SIB-M2 65.0 238.5 10.6 37.1 60.2 4.0 0.251 0.109 40.5
and/or high strength matrix SIB-M3 65.0 238.5 10.6 33.5 84.3 4.0 0.341 0.128 45.9
SIB-M4 65.0 238.5 10.6 33.5 60.2 4.9 0.268 0.112 42.0
SIB with high strain capacity SIB-M5 65.0 238.5 10.6 33.5 60.2 4.0 0.318 0.155 51.1
matrix SIB-M6 65.0 238.5 10.6 33.5 60.2 4.0 0.300 0.139 48.5
Note: E = elastic modulus; fc = compressive strength; ft = tensile strength; ASC = axial strain capacity; LSC = lateral strain capacity
87
Table 3.3 Mix proportions of high-strength mortars and high-strength concretes
Proportion per cubic meter (kg/m3) Flow (mm),

Vf SP Fiber
Materials w/cm Silica Coarse Vebe time (s),
(%) Water Cement Sand Silane TBP (l/m3) (kg/m3)
fume aggregate or slump (mm)
3
Density (kg/m ) 1000 3150 2300 2600 2650
Mortar High-strength
0.26 0 229 799 80 1255 0 0 0 3.6 0 140(#)
mortar (HSM)
Epoxy-based silane
0.26 0 228 796 80 1250 0 4.0 0.20 3.8 0 145(#)
HSM (ESi-HSM)
Fiber reinforced
0.26 1.0 228 797 80 1225 0 0 0 3.7 78 7(^)
HSM (FRHSM-1)
Concrete High-strength
0.26 0 145 505 51 793 975 0 0 5.0 0 60(+)
concrete (HSC)
Epoxy-based silane
0.26 0 144 504 50 791 973 2.5 0.13 5.0 0 95(+)
HSC (ESi-HSC)
Fiber reinforced
0.26 1.0(*) 145 505 51 776 975 0 0 6.9 50 8(^)
HSC (FRHSC-1)
Note: (*)based on volume of the mortar phase; (#)flow (mm); (^)Vebe time (s); (+)slump (mm); w/cm – water to cementitious materials ratio, Vf – volume fraction,
SP – superplasticizer, TBP – tributylphosphate.
88
Table 3.4 Results of the splitting tension and compression tests
Splitting tensile Compression tests
Materials strength, MPa Compressive Elastic modulus, Axial strain Lateral strain
Poisson’s ratio
strength, MPa GPa capacity, % capacity, %
Granite 10.6 238.5  12.2 65.0  7.2 0.22  0.01 0.36 ± 0.04 0.20 ± 0.04
High-strength mortar
4.0  0.5 95.5  3.3 34.1  0.8 0.20  0.00 0.33 ± 0.01 0.10 ± 0.02
(HSM)
Epoxy-based silane HSM
Mortar 5.5 ± 0.8 114.7 ± 2.3 38.4 ± 0.3 0.19 ± 0.01 0.36 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.01
(ESi-HSM)
Fiber reinforced HSM
N.A. 114.0 ± 3.8 37.6 ± 2.8 0.20 ± 0.01 0.37 ± 0.02 0.19 ± 0.04
(FRHSM-1)
High-strength concrete
6.6 ± 0.7 112.2 ± 8.5 40.6 ± 1.7 0.19  0.01 0.30 ± 0.03 0.08 ± 0.00
(HSC)
Epoxy-based silane HSC
Concrete 6.9 ± 0.2 119.6 ± 4.9 44.6 ± 3.8 0.19 ± 0.00 0.30 ± 0.01 0.09 ± 0.03
(ESi-HSC)
Fiber reinforced HSC
12.0 ± 0.7 132.7 ± 1.9 47.2 ± 1.7 0.21 ± 0.01 0.32 ± 0.02 0.14 ± 0.07
(FRHSC-1)
Note: results expressed as average value  standard deviation for tests with ≥3 specimens; average value provided for tests with only two specimens, N.A.-not
available
89
Table 3.5 Compressive strengths of coarse aggregate and respective HSC
References Mortar Coarse Coarse aggregate HSC
compressive aggregate compressive strength, compressive
strength, type MPa strength, MPa
MPa Range Strength
limestone 70 61.9
Giaccio et < 130
94 granite 114 80.0
al. (1992)
basalt ≥ 160 160 91.9
limestone-1 <130 111 89.0
de Larrard
limestone-2 130-160 160 107.7
and Belloc 102-106
basalt 250 90.9
(1997) > 160
flint 285 86.8
marble 95 79.8
< 130
Wu et al. limestone 100 83.4
N.A.
(2001) granite 130-160 150 99.1
quartzite ≥ 160 210 98.2
sandstone 52 53.0
< 130
limestone 110 107.7
Kılıç et al.
N.A. basalt 130-160 132 134.6
(2008)
quartzite 160 103.0
≥ 160
gabbro 247 136.4
90
(a) Characterization of single inclusion block (SIB)

•Experiments on mortar, granite, and SIB
•Numerical models of mortar, granite, and ITZ
(b) Parametric study using SIB

•Strength of inclusion
•Elastic modulus and strengths of mortar
•Strain capacity of mortar
(c) Experiment on high strength concretes

•Control high strength mortar (HSM) and high strength concrete (HSC)
•HSC produced from HSM with higher strengths and elastic moduls
•HSC produced from HSM with higher strain capacity
Figure 3.1 Flow chart of the strategy
Figure 3.2 Single Inclusion Block (SIB)
91
Figure 3.3 Numerical stress-strain curves of high-strength mortar (HSM) with Bh =
6×10-4 and ef = 2×10-5; shaded region from experimental data
Figure 3.4 Numerical stress-strain graph of granite with Bh = 1×10-4 and ef = 1×10-6;
shaded region from experimental data
92
Figure 3.5 Preparation of the single inclusion block (SIB) specimens: (a) casting
method and (b) specimens after grinding
Figure 3.6 Setup of SIB compression test
93
Figure 3.7 Experimental and numerical stress-strain graphs of SIB with the friction
coefficient  = 1.2. The symbols denote when the crack appears at the ITZ, mortar, and
granite inclusion in the experiment. The two specimens are indicated as (1) and (2).
Figure 3.8 One eighth in shaded region of specimen in numerical analysis
94
Figure 3.9 An end surface of SIB in (a) specimen #1, (b) specimen #2, and (c)
numerical damage profiles when the crack initiation occurs in each phase. In the two
specimens, the crack initiation occurs sequentially from (i) to (iii) in the ITZ, mortar,
and inclusion. The damage profiles of the numerical model are shown at the
corresponding axial strains within the experimentally observed ranges.
95
Figure 3.10 Stress-strain curves of control HSM and high strain capacity mortars
Figure 3.11 Damage profiles at the maximum stress of (a) control SIB, (b) SIB with
matrix M5, and (c) SIB with matrix M6
96
Giaccio et de Larrard & Wu et al. Kılıç et al. (2008),
al. (1992), Belloc (1997), (2001), fcmortar: NA
fcmortar = fcmortar=102- fcmortar: NA
94 MPa 106 MPa
300
Compressive strength (MPa)
250
fccoarse aggregate
200
150 fcmortar
100
50
fcconcrete
0
Coarse aggregate type

Figure 3.12 Compressive strengths of different types of coarse aggregate and the
respective HSC in several studies. Similar mortar matrix was used in each study. Bars
represent the HSC strength (fcconcrete), symbols represent the respective coarse aggregate
strength (fccoarse aggregate), and dashed lines represent the respective mortar strength where
applicable (fcmortar).
Figure 3.13 Fractured specimens of the HSC after compression test
97
Compressive
250
stress (MPa)
200
Granite
(a) HSM
150
ESi-HSM
100
50
0 Strain (%)
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
250 Compressive
stress (MPa)
200
Granite
150 ESi-HSM
(b)
FRHSM-1
100
50
0 Strain (%)
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Figure 3.14 Stress-strain curves of granite and different HSMs: (a) HSM and ESi-
HSM, (b) ESi-HSM and FRHSM-1
98
Chapter 4 Effect of High Strain Rate on Compressive Behavior
of Strain-Hardening Cement Composites in Comparison with
that of Conventional Fiber Reinforced High Strength Concretes
4.1 Introduction
As reviewed in Chapter 2, strain-hardening cement composite (SHCC) exhibits
substantially better ductility and crack width control than conventional fiber
reinforced concrete (FRC). With their excellent strain capacity, the SHCC can
absorb high amount of energy, which seems promising as a material for
protective structures. Effect of high strain rate compressive loading on the
behavior of SHCCs, however, has not been thoroughly investigated, especially
in comparison with that of FRC. In addition, the difference in the behavior of
mono-fiber SHCC and hybrid-fiber SHCC under high strain rate loading has
not been thoroughly studied in literature. Such information is useful for the
design and application of SHCCs in protective structures.
In this chapter, the behavior of two SHCCs under static and high strain
rate compressive loadings is investigated in comparison with that of two FRCs
with comparable compressive strength. One SHCC has relatively high content
of fly ash and PVA fibers (SHCC-PVA), whereas the other has a combination
of steel and polyethylene steel fibers (SHCC-ST+PE). The behavior of these
two SHCCs is compared with that of the FRCs with compressive strengths of
60 and 85 MPa, namely FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85, respectively.
The SHCC-PVA was based on a mixture developed by Wang and Li
(2005) and this SHCC is further explored in a number of studies by Sahmaran
et al. (2010); Sakulich and Li (2011); Yang and Li (2014); and Yang and Li
99
(2005). As reviewed in Chapter 2, the SHCC-PVA exhibits the characteristic
strain hardening behavior under tension with reasonable cost of PVA fibers.
The water to cementitious materials ratio (w/cm) of the SHCC-PVA in this
study was adjusted slightly to obtain the targeted strength and workability. The
SHCC-ST+PE mixture reinforced with steel and PE fibers was according to that
in Maalej et al. (2005). This mixture seemed to be the first SHCC reinforced
with a combination of two types of fibers investigated for dynamic
performance. Since then, different combinations of steel and polymer fibers
have been introduced in a number of studies on the dynamic performance of
SHCCs (Bell et al. 2012; Chin 2007; Soe et al. 2013a). The FRHSC-60 and
FRHSC-85 mixtures were chosen to represent typical fiber reinforced concretes
with steel fibers, coarse and fine aggregate and with similar compressive
strength as that of the two SHCCs.
Due to the significant time and effort required to experimentally
determine the behavior of each mixture at static and various high strain rate
loadings, the behavior of the SHCC-PVA was independently determined in this
thesis, whereas the data of the SHCC-ST-PE were from Teoh (2013). The
experiments on the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85 were conducted in collaboration
with a research fellow in our research group.
4.2 Experimental details
4.2.1 Mix proportions
The mix proportions of the SHCCs and FRHSCs are presented in Table 4.1.
The FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85 were designed to have compressive strengths
comparable with those of the SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE, respectively.
100
The SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE had the same w/cm of 0.25. Matrix
of the SHCC-PVA was mortar with a fly ash to cement ratio of 1.2 and a sand
to cement ratio of 0.8. The SHCC-ST+PE matrix was cement paste with a silica
fume to cement ratio of 0.1. The FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85 had similar coarse
aggregate contents, whereas their w/c was 0.50 and 0.35, respectively.
The total fiber content of the SHCC was 2.0% by volume of SHCC,
including 2.0% PVA fibers in the SHCC-PVA and 0.5% steel fibers plus 1.5%
PE fibers in the SHCC-ST+PE. The steel fiber content in both FRHSCs was
0.5% by volume of the concrete to obtain good impact resistance with
satisfactory workability and low cost (Wang et al. 2012b).
4.2.2 Materials
ASTM type I normal Portland cement was used in all mixtures. Class F fly ash
(ASTM C618) and dry undensified silica fume (ASTM C1240) were used in the
SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE mixtures, respectively. Fine silica sand with a
maximum size of 0.25 mm was used in the SHCC-PVA, whereas no aggregate
was used in the SHCC-ST+PE. Fine and coarse aggregates of the FRHSCs were
natural silica sand with a fineness modulus of 2.66 (ASTM C136) and crushed
granite with a nominal maximum size of about 10 mm, respectively.
The properties of all fibers used in this study are summarized in Table
4.2. With similar length but larger diameter, the aspect ratio of the steel fibers 2
is less than one third of those of polyethylene (PE) fibers3 and polyvinyl alcohol
(PVA) fibers4. Furthermore, the steel fibers have significantly higher elastic
modulus than those of the polymer fibers, which may lead to smaller
2
Dramix® OL 13/.16 Bekaert Belgium Pte, Ltd.
3
SPECTRA® 900, MiniFIBERS, Inc.
4
KuralonTM REC-15, Kuraray Co., Ltd.
101
deformation of the former at similar stress level. The tensile strength of the steel
fibers is 2500 MPa, similar to that of the PE fibers (2610 MPa) but significantly
higher than that of the PVA fibers (1612 MPa).
The use of fly ash in the SHCC-PVA was expected to reduce the
chemical bond between the PVA fibers and cement paste matrix which can be
unfavorable to the strain hardening behavior (Wang and Li 2007). In addition,
the chemical bond can also be reduced by the application of oil on the PVA
fibers surface (Li et al. 2002). The PVA fibers used in this study were coated
with oiling agent by manufacturer.
Naphthalene-based superplasticizer5 was used for the SHCC-ST+PE
according to Ahmed (2004) and FRHSC-85 mixtures, whereas polycarboxylate-
based superplasticizer6 was used for the SHCC-PVA according to Felekoglu
and Felekoglu (2013). No superplasticizer was needed for the FRHSC-60 with a
w/c of 0.50. Viscosity modifying admixture (VMA)7 was used in the SHCC-
PVA to increase plastic viscosity, which was essential for mixing under high
shear force for even distribution of the PVA fibers throughout the SHCC (Li
and Li 2013).
4.2.3 Workability and specimen preparation
The SHCC and FRHSC mixtures were prepared in a Hobart and a pan mixer,
respectively. Fibers were added after the mixture with aggregate, cementitious
materials, water, and admixtures had achieved a consistent state. Workability
was determined immediately after mixing by Vebe test (BS EN 12350-3) for
the FRHSCs as recommended by ACI Committee 544 (2009) and flow table
5
Daracem® 100, W. R. Grace Singapore Pet, Ltd.
6
ADVA® 181-N, W. R. Grace Singapore Pte, Ltd.
7
MethocelTM Cellulose Ethers, The Dow Chemical Company
102
test (ASTM C1437) for the SHCCs. The Vebe times of 8 and 9 seconds and
flow values of 150 and 165 mm were obtained for the FRHSCs and SHCCs,
respectively (Table 4.1).
The specimens prepared and testing ages of the respective tests are
summarized in Table 4.3. Prisms of 100×100×400-mm and cylinders of
100200-mm were cast in steel molds, whereas cylinders of 77200-mm
were cast in PVC molds. One day after casting the prisms and 100 cylinders
were demolded. All the specimens were then transferred to a fog room and
cured for another 20 days at the temperature of 28 – 30 oC.
During the curing period between 15 and 21 days after casting, the
77×200-mm cylinders were cut and ground to obtain the designed
thicknesses. Two ends with a minimum thickness of 10 mm were removed to
eliminate the effect of casting surfaces. Three cylinders were cut and ground to
obtain a length of about 154 mm with a length to diameter ratio (L/D) of 2.0 for
the static compression tests (ASTM C192). For the remaining 77×200-mm
cylinders, each cylinder was cut into four shorter cylinders with the thickness of
~45 mm. These shorter cylinders were ground to the thickness of 38.0  0.5 mm
for the intermediate and high strain rate compression tests. The L/D of these
short cylinders was about ½ which is essential to minimize the inertia effect
under high strain rate loading (Wang et al. 2011a). Once the designed
thicknesses were obtained, the PVC molds were removed from all the cylinders
before they were returned to the fog room for curing until three weeks after
casting.
After 21 days from casting, all specimens were placed in a chamber with
the temperature and relative humidity controlled at 30oC and 65%, respectively,
103
until the time of testing. For the intermediate and high strain rate compression
tests, the prolonged period of more than 60 days in such conditions would
facilitate to achieve more consistent moisture condition of the specimens since
the moisture condition may affect the dynamic behavior of concrete under
compression (Ross et al. 1996; Zhou and Ding 2014).
4.2.4 Static tests
Static compression tests were conducted on 100200-mm and 77154-mm
cylinders at 28 days with the same method for the HSC cylinders described in
Chapter 3. The loading rate for these tests was of about 1×10-5 s-1 to comply
with ASTM C39 requirement. The stress-strain curves, compressive strength,
elastic modulus, and Poisson’s ratio were determined from the standard 100
cylinders. The diameter of the 77 cylinders was selected to be the same as the
specimens for the intermediate and high strain rate tests (Wang et al. 2011b).
The L/D of 2 of the 77 cylinders was selected according to ASTM C192. The
compressive strength determined from the 77 cylinders was used to calculate
the dynamic increase factor for compressive strength (DIFfc) at high strain rates
of 30 – 300 s-1.
Third-point bending tests (ASTM C1609) were conducted by an Instron
testing machine on 100×100×400-mm prisms at 28 days. Two LVDTs were
installed to measure the deflection at the mid-point of the prism, whereas the
load was measured by a load cell. The load and deflection were recorded by a
data logger to show strain-hardening or strain-softening behaviors of the
SHCCs and FRHSCs, respectively.
Failure pattern of the specimens was visually observed for comparison.
104
4.2.5 Intermediate strain rate compression tests
The intermediate strain rate compression tests were conducted on the short
cylinders of 77×38 mm by the servo-hydraulic MTS. Data from the load cell
and strain gauges were recorded by a digital oscilloscope. The obtained strain
rates were mainly in the range of 10-4 and 10-1 s-1.
Since the slenderness ratio of the 77×38 mm cylinders was ½, the
compressive strength can be affected by the interaction between the surfaces of
the specimen and loading plates. Therefore, the static compressive strength of
the 77×38 mm cylinders was also determined with the same equipment but at
the strain rate of 10-5 s-1. This static compressive strength is used to calculate
the DIFfc of the specimens tested at intermediate strain rates.
4.2.6 High strain rate compression tests and data processing
4.2.6.1 Fundamental principles of split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) tests
Schematic setup of a typical SHPB test is illustrated in Figure 4.1a. An SHPB
apparatus normally consists of a compressed gas launcher, a striker bar, two
bars having the same diameter and length namely input and output bars, and a
shock absorber used to stop the output bar (Gray III 2000). Besides that, a
bearing system has to allow the bars to move easily along horizontal axis with
minimal friction. Strain gauges and a data acquisition system are also needed
for measuring the strain histories during the tests.
When the striker bar impacts the input bar, a pulse is generated. The
incident wave then travels through the input bar. At the contact surface between
the input bar and the specimen, the pulse is partially reflected back to the input
105
bar and partially transmitted through the specimen. At the contact surface
between the specimen and output bar, the pulse is also partially reflected back
to the specimen and partially transmitted to the output bar. When the pulse
travels to the other end of the input and output bars which is not in contact with
the specimen, the pulse is reflected again but with lower energy. The behavior
of the specimen when the first pulse propagates through the specimen is of
interest.
The wave of the pulse leads to the time-dependent strain which can be
measured by strain gauges attached to the midpoints of the input and output
bars. The incident and reflected waves are measured on the input bar, whereas
the transmitted wave is measured on the output bar. Data on the measured time-
dependent strains at the two bars are used to calculate the stress, strain rate, and
strain histories of the specimen, and the data processing is described in the
following section.
4.2.6.2 Principles of data processing
According to Gray III (2000) and Wang (2011), the data processing can be
carried out based on one-wave theory.
The wave equation when travelling in steel is adopted in Equation (4.1)
according to Graff (1975):
(4.1)
where u is the displacement, x is the location, t is the time, √ = 5090
m/s is the velocity of sound in the bar, and are the density and elastic
modulus of the steel, respectively.
106
Solution of the equation includes two sub-function f and g:
( ) ( ) ( ) (4.2)
The incident strain , reflected strain , and transmitted strain can
be written as:
(4.3)
(4.4)
(4.5)
Similarly, the incident velocity , reflected velocity , and transmitted
velocity are:
(4.6)
(4.7)
(4.8)
The velocities of the specimen at the end in contact with the input bar
( ) and the end in contact with the output bar ( ) can be written as:
( ) (4.9)
(4.10)
Based on the two velocities ( ) and the length of the specimen ,
the strain rate can be derived:
107
̇ ( ) (4.11)
The strain at the time T will then be determined:
∫ ̇ ∫ ( ) (4.12)
The force on the end of specimen contacting with the input bar:
( ) (4.13)
The force on the end of specimen contacting with the output bar:
(4.14)
where is the area of the cross section of the steel bar.
The average stress of the specimen having the cross-sectional area of
can be derived as follows:
( ) (4.15)
It is assumed that the stress and strain are uniform within the specimen
and the specimen is in force equilibrium (Wang 2011), i.e. . From
Equations (4.13) and (4.14), the relationship of incident, reflected, and
transmitted strains can be obtained as follows:
(4.16)
The strain rate, strain, and stress can then be derived:
̇ (4.17)
∫ (4.18)
108
(4.19)
Since the strain gauges are attached at the midpoint along the length of
the input and output bars, the recorded waves are either earlier or later than the
waves on the end surface of the specimen. Therefore, before applying the
Equations (4.17), (4.18), and (4.19) above the recorded waves have to be shifted
along the time axis (Figure 4.2). Details of the shifting can be found in
references (Follansbee and Frantz 1983; Li and Lambros 1999; Wang 2011).
The first pulse of the incident, reflected, and transmitted waves recorded
on the input and output bars is shown in Figure 4.2. The starting point of the
incident wave can be selected in order that the entire incident pulse falls inside
the time window. That of the reflected wave and transmitted wave is
determined by adding certain distances on the time axis to the starting point of
the incident wave according to Equations (4.20) and (4.21) below, respectively:
(4.20)
(4.21)
where is the distance from the midpoint to one end surface of
the input and output bars which have the length of , is the time for the
wave to propagate through the specimen.
In the experiment, the strain rate is not constant. As recommended by
Wang et al. (2011a), the strain rate can be calculated as average value during
the time when the stress exceeds 80% of the peak stress. Since the SHPB test is
not standardized, there have been different approaches of determining the strain
109
rates. For comparison with the experimental data from Teoh (2013), the same
approach used in this references is adopted in the present study.
4.2.6.3 Test method in the present study
Setup of the SHPB test equipment in the present study is shown in Figure 4.1b.
Components of the SHPB testing system in the present experiment were similar
to those described above (Figure 4.1a).
A specimen of 77×38 mm was placed between the input and output
bars of 80×5000 mm. The two end surfaces of the specimens were coated
with a thin layer of grease to reduce the friction between the specimen and the
end surfaces of the steel bars. As reported by Hao et al. (2013), a low friction
coefficient of the specimen-bar interfaces leads to minimal confinement effect
of the specimen in the SHPB tests.
In addition, a pulse shaper was stuck by grease on the surface of the
input bar near the striker. The pulse shaper was an aluminum disk with a
diameter of 25 – 30 mm and a thickness of 1 mm. According to Frew et al.
(2002), after the impact the pulse shaper could deform plastically and spread the
pulse in the input bar which may help to obtain the equilibrium in stress and
nearly constant strain rate. A new pulse shaper was used for each test. Failure of
most specimens in the SHPB tests was recorded by a high-speed camera.
Different strain rates were achieved by changing the gas pressure used
to launch the striker bar. In general, a high strain rate can be obtained with a
high gas pressure although the relationship is not linear. In addition, the strain
rates obtained are also affected by the type of composites. With the facility and
110
characteristics of the composites studied, the strain rates obtained in the SHPB
tests were mainly in the range of 30 – 300 s-1.
4.3 Results and discussion
4.3.1 Basic properties
Results of density, compressive strength, elastic modulus, and Poisson’s ratio of
the two SHCCs and two FRHSCs are summarized in Table 4.4. Since the
SHCCs contained either fine or no aggregate, the density of the SHCCs is lower
than that of the FRHSCs. The 100-mm cylinder compressive strengths of the
SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE are comparable to those of the FRHSC-60 and
FRHSC-85, respectively. With comparable compressive strengths, the elastic
moduli of the SHCC-PVA (23.4 GPa) and SHCC-ST+PE (21.1 GPa) are lower
than those of the FRHSC-60 (35.1 GPa) and FRHSC-85 (37.6 GPa),
respectively. This can be explained by the absence of coarse aggregate in the
SHCCs. The elastic modulus of the SHCC-PVA is higher than that of the
SHCC-ST+PE even though the compressive strength of the former is lower
than that of the latter, probably due to the absence of fine aggregate in the latter.
The Poisson’s ratio of the SHCCs (0.23 and 0.26) is somewhat higher than that
of the FRHSCs (0.20 and 0.21). The behavior of SHCCs and FRHSCs under
static compressive loading will be discussed in detail in Section 4.3.3.
4.3.2 Behavior under static flexural loading
The flexural stress-deflection curves of the SHCC-PVA, SHCC-ST+PE,
FRHSC-60, and FRHSC-85 are plotted and compared in Figure 4.3. Typical
cracking patterns of the SHCC-ST+PE and FRHSC-85 are shown in Figure 4.4.
111
The cracking patterns of the FRHSC-60 and SHCC-PVA are similar to those of
the FRHSC-85 and SHCC-ST-PE, respectively. The appearance of a crack in
the matrix normally leads to a drop in tensile stress. For the FRHSCs, the drop
in the flexural (tensile) stress occurs a single time before the stress decreases
gradually indicating the strain softening behavior (Figure 4.3a) and the
appearance of a large single crack (Figure 4.4a). For the SHCCs, on the other
hand, the flexural stress-deflection curves indicate the strain hardening behavior
(Figure 4.3b) and the formation of multiple cracks (Figure 4.4b). Hence, the
first cracking-flexural strength, i.e. the flexural stress just before the first drop,
of the FRHSCs is the flexural strength, whereas that of the SHCCs is lower than
their flexural strength.
As shown in Table 4.4, the first cracking-flexural strength of the
FRHSCs and SHCCs varies from 5.9 to 8.2 MPa. With similar compressive
strength, the first cracking-flexural strength of the SHCC-PVA is 20% lower
than that of the FRHSC-60, and the corresponding deflections of the SHCC-
PVA and FRHSC-60 are similar. The lower first crack strength of the SHCC-
PVA may be attributed to the incorporation of a large amount of fly ash in the
matrix. In contrast, the first cracking-flexural strength of the SHCC-ST+PE is
about 20% higher than that of the FRHSC-85 which may be attributed to the
improvement of the paste matrix induced by silica fume in the SHCC-ST+PE.
The SHCC-ST+PE also has higher deflection at the first crack which may be
attributed not only to the improved paste matrix but probably also to the lower
elastic modulus compared with the FRHSC-85.
More importantly, the flexural strength or modulus of rupture of the
SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE is about 50% and 60% higher than that of the
112
FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85, respectively (Figure 4.3c & d). In addition, the
deflection at the peak stress of the SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE is 20 and 36
times higher than that of the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85, respectively.
Therefore, the areas under the flexural stress-deflection curves of the SHCCs
are significantly larger than those of the FRHSCs (Figure 4.3c and d),
indicating significantly higher flexural toughnesses and energy absorption
capacities of the SHCCs. According to ASTM C1609, the flexural toughness
is determined as the area under a load-deflection curve up to the
deflection of 1/150 of the span, i.e. 2.0 mm, for the specimen with a depth of
100 mm. The toughness of the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85 is 20.6 and
30.9 Nm, whereas that of the SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE is 56.4 and 62.9
Nm, respectively.
The higher flexural strengths and energy absorption capacities of the
SHCCs than those of the FRHSCs may be attributed mainly to the type and
content of the fibers. The higher amount of the fibers with higher aspect ratios
in the SHCCs may have greater ability to transfer the stress than that in the
FRHSCs. In addition, the lower elastic modulus and higher elongation of the
polymer fibers (Table 4.2) in the SHCCs may also allow greater deformation of
the fibers bridging the cracks that may increase energy absorption capacity.
As shown in Figure 4.3a, the behavior of the FRHSCs under flexural
loading is not significantly different except for the flexural strength. The
flexural behavior of the SHCC-PVA, however, differs from that of the SHCC-
ST+PE significantly (Figure 4.3b) due to different matrices and fibers.
Although both SHCCs show strain hardening behavior, the first cracking-
flexural strength and flexural strength of the SHCC-ST+PE are higher than
113
those of the SHCC-PVA. The higher first cracking-flexural strength of the
SHCC-ST-PE may be attributed to the stronger matrix, whereas the higher
flexural strength may be attributed also to the higher tensile strength of the PE
and steel fibers. On the other hand, the deflection at the peak stress of the
SHCC-PVA is substantially higher than that of the SHCC-ST+PE. This greater
deflection of the SHCC-PVA is probably due to the lower elastic modulus (41
GPa) and higher elongation capacity (6.6%) of the PVA fibers than those of the
steel (200 GPa and <3.5%) and PE fibers (66 GPa and 3.6 – 3.9%).
The PE and steel fibers were mainly pulled out with insignificant
rupture as observed in the experiment. The PVA fibers, on the other hand, were
frequently seen ruptured. The difference in the failure patterns of fibers may
explain the higher residual flexural stress of the SHCC-ST-PE versus the rapid
drop of the flexural stress of the SHCC-PVA in their post-peak range (Figure
4.3b).
4.3.3 Behavior under static compressive loading
As already noted in Table 4.4, the 100×200-mm cylinder compressive
strengths of the SHCC-PVA (62.0 MPa) and SHCC-ST+PE (80.4 MPa) are
comparable to those of the FRHSC-60 (60.5 MPa) and FRHSC-85 (85.4 MPa),
respectively. The elastic modulus and the slope of the ascending branch of the
SHCCs, however, are significantly lower than those of the corresponding
FRHSCs (Table 4.4 and Figure 4.5a & b). The lower elastic modulus of the
SHCCs compared with that of the FRHSCs can be attributed mainly to the
significant difference in the aggregate content. From the mix proportions given
in Table 4.1, the aggregate volume fraction of the SHCC-ST+PE and SHCC-
114
PVA is 0% and 18%, whereas that of the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85 is 64%
and 65%, respectively. Furthermore, even a small amount of fine sand in the
SHCC-PVA results in higher elastic modulus (23.4 GPa) than that of the
SHCC-ST+PE (21.1 GPa) although the compressive strength of the former is
lower than that of the latter.
For the descending branch of the stress-strain curves, with a given strain
the stress of the SHCC-ST+PE is higher than that of the FRHSC-85 (Figure
4.5b). This may be attributed to the higher fiber content in the SHCC-ST+PE
(0.5% steel fibers + 1.5% PE fibers) than the FRHSC-85 (0.5% steel fibers).
The additional 1.5 volume % of PE fibers in the former provides more fiber
bridging effect. On the other hand, the difference in the descending branch of
the SHCC-PVA and the FRHSC-60 is not significant (Figure 4.5a) although the
fiber content of the former (2.0%) is higher than that of the latter (0.5%). This
may be attributed to the lower tensile strength of the PVA fibers leading to their
more frequent rupture than the steel fibers.
Plain concrete with higher compressive strength tends to be more brittle
(Neville 2012). The brittleness or ductility of fiber-reinforced concretes or
composites, however, is affected not only by their strength but also by the fiber
reinforcement. The descending branch of the FRHSC-85 is in general
comparable to that of the FRHSC-60 (Figure 4.5c) as they are reinforced with
the same type and content of fibers. However, the descending branches of the
SHCC-ST+PE appear less steep than those of the SHCC-PVA (Figure 4.5d)
although the compressive strength of the former is higher. The more rupture of
the PVA fibers compared with that of the PE and steel fibers may explain the
steeper descending branch of the SHCC-PVA.
115
4.3.4 Behavior under compressive loading of intermediate strain rate (10-4 –
10-1 s-1)
Effect of intermediate strain rate on the dynamic increase factor for
compressive strength (DIFfc) of the SHCCs and FRHSCs is shown in Figure
4.6. An increase in strain rate generally leads to an increase in the DIF fc of the
SHCCs and FRHSCs. However, the increase in the DIFfc of the FRHSCs and
SHCCs under intermediate strain rates is not significant with the DIFfc values
within the range of about 1.0 and 1.2.
The DIFfc of SHCCs is similar to that of the corresponding FRHSCs of
comparable compressive strength within the intermediate strain rate (Figure
4.6a & b). No significant difference in the DIFfc is observed between the two
SHCCs (Figure 4.6c) and between the two FRHSCs (Figure 4.6d). It can be
seen in Figure 4.6a that at similar strain rates the DIFfc of the SHCC-PVA in the
present study does not seem significantly different from that of the SHCC-PVA
with lower compressive strength (46 MPa) by Douglas and Billington (2005).
At the strain rates of 0.02 – 0.2 s-1, however, no experimental data in the present
study are available for the SHCC-PVA, whereas the DIFfc of the SHCC-PVA
by Douglas and Billington (2005) exceeds 1.3.
The values of DIFfc predicted by CEB-FIP (1990) and fib (2010) for
concrete and an empirical equation proposed by Wang et al. (2011a) for
FRHSC are also plotted in Figure 4.6 for comparison. Among these equations,
effects of the static compressive strength and the presence of fibers are not
significant at intermediate strain rates. Generally speaking, the DIFfc of the
116
SHCCs and FRHSCs in the present study can be conservatively predicted by
these equations in this range of strain rates.
4.3.5 Behavior under high strain rate compressive loading (30 – 300 s-1)
4.3.5.1 Failure pattern of specimens
The cracking pattern of the SHCC-PVA and FRHSC-60 specimens during an
SHPB test is shown in Figure 4.7 with corresponding images captured from the
recorded video at three stress levels in the stress-strain curves: (1) σ ≈ 10% fc in
the ascending branch, (2) σ ≈ fc, and (3) σ ≈ 30% fc in the descending branch.
Most of the cracks observed are parallel to the loading direction. These cracks
are distributed along the full depth of the specimens indicating that the end
effect of the specimens may be insignificant. This might be attributed to the
application of grease on the specimen surface and reduced kinetic friction
coefficient between the specimen ends and input/output bars (Wang et al.
2011b). Furthermore, multiple cracks were observed on the SHCC-PVA and
FRHSC-60 specimens when subjected to high strain rate loading, whereas only
a limited number of cracks were observed with static compressive loading. The
difference may be explained that when the loading rate is extremely high, the
strain may exceed the strain capacity rapidly at various segments of the
specimen, and the formation of new cracks may be faster than the opening of
the initial cracks.
At the peak stress, fine cracks parallel to the loading direction can be
observed in the recorded videos for the SHCC-PVA and FRHSC-60. The cracks
on the FRHSC-60 specimen, however, appear to be thicker than those on the
SHCC-PVA. In the post-peak range, the cracking on the FRHSC-60 is
117
extremely severe compared with that on the SHCC-PVA. Similarly, the
recorded videos also show that the cracking of the FRHSC-85 is more severe
than that of the SHCC-ST+PE.
The failure pattern of the SHCCs and FRHSCs after the SHPB tests with
various strain rates is presented in Figure 4.8. The specimens subjected to
loadings with similar strain rates are selected for comparison. It can be seen that
the damage of the specimens after the SHPB tests appears more severe with the
increase in the strain rate. The final damage of the SHCCs is also less severe
than the FRHSCs as observed from the recorded videos. At similar strain rates,
the SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE specimens were broken into fewer pieces
than the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85 specimens. These may be explained by the
higher fiber volume fraction (2.0%) and fiber aspect ratios (81 – 333) in the
SHCCs than those in the FRHSCs (0.5% and 81, respectively).
Since the fibers play an important role when the specimen is subjected
to high strain rate loading, it is of interest to observe the failure of fibers in
various specimens after the SHPB tests. As can be seen in Figure 4.9, the length
of the exposed PVA fibers at the fractured surfaces of the SHCC-PVA is short
indicating fiber rupture, whereas that of most exposed fibers from the SHCC-
ST+PE and FRHSC specimens is relatively long implying fiber pull out. The
difference in the failure patterns of the fibers may be attributed to the lower
tensile strength of the PVA fibers than that of the steel and PE fibers.
It was difficult to separate polymer fibers from the specimens. Thus,
only the rupture of steel fibers from the SHCC-ST+PE specimens was
determined in the present study. To quantify the amount of ruptured steel fibers,
the tested FRHSC-85 and SHCC-ST-PE specimens were broken and the steel
118
fibers were separated by a magnet. Fibers with the remaining length less than
the original length, i.e. 13 mm, were considered as the ruptured fibers. The
mass percentage of the ruptured steel fibers over the total collected steel fibers
was calculated for the specimens at four selected strain rates and results are
plotted in Figure 4.10.
From Figure 4.10, it seems that the portion of the ruptured steel fibers in
the FRHSC-85 is increased with the strain rate, whereas that in the SHCC-
ST+PE is not affected by the strain rate. As shown earlier in Figure 4.8d, the
FRHSC-85 specimens are fractured with more fragments at higher strain rates
that can lead to more fibers being ruptured. On the other hand, the high amount
of PE fibers (1.5% in volume) with relatively high tensile strength might have
restrained the crack propagation and thus the SHCC-ST+PE specimens have
less fragments (Figure 4.8b) and ruptured steel fibers (Figure 4.10).
After the SHPB tests, the matrices of the SHCC specimens appears
powdered in the damaged part, whereas fractured coarse aggregates and cement
paste matrices and cracks in the interfacial transitional zone (ITZ) between
aggregate and paste matrix were observed in the FRHSC specimens. One
possible explanation is that in the FRHSCs the strong coarse aggregate reduces
crushing of the mortar or cement paste matrix. It is also observed that the
damage of the FRHSC-60 matrix is more severe than that of the FRHSC-85 due
to the lower strength of the former.
4.3.5.2 Stress-strain curves
The stress-strain curves of the specimens under high strain rate compressive
loadings by the SHPB equipment are shown in Figure 4.11 in comparison to
119
those under the static compressive loading. The shape of the stress-strain curves
of the four composites under high strain rate compressive loading is similar to
that under the static loading. The peak of the stress-strain curves of the four
composites, i.e. the dynamic compressive strength, is generally increased with
the strain rate. At similar strain rate in the range of 30 – 300 s-1, the
compressive strain capacity of the SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE is higher
than that of the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85, respectively, as observed under the
static loading. The higher compressive strain capacity may be attributed mainly
to the lower elastic modulus of the SHCCs than the FRHSCs. The area under
the stress-strain curves, which can be considered as a measure of toughness in
compression, also appears to increase with the strain rate. The effect of the
strain rate on the dynamic increasing factor of compressive strength (DIF fc) and
toughness (DIFtc) are discussed in the following sections.
4.3.5.3 Dynamic increase factor for compressive strength
The static compressive strength of the SHCC-PVA at one year is significantly
higher than that at 28 days due to slow pozzolanic reaction of the fly ash,
whereas no data of the static compressive strength of other mixtures are
available at that time (Table 4.4). Since the intermediate and high strain rate
compression tests were conducted from 80 days to 1.5 years after casting, the
long-term static strength, i.e. at 1 year, of the SHCC-PVA is used as the static
strength to calculate its DIFfc. According to Wang (2011), the compressive
strength of the FRHSCs does not change significantly after 28 days when the
specimens are cured at relative humidity of 65%. With the low w/cm and the
incorporation of silica fume, the increase in compressive strength of the SHCC-
120
ST+PE after 28 days in the same curing conditions is probably also not
significant. The DIFfc of the SHCC-ST+PE and FRHSCs is thus calculated
based on the static compressive strength of the 77×154-mm cylinders at 28
days.
As shown in Figure 4.6, the DIFfc of the four composites varies from 1.0
to 2.3 with the strain rates from 30 to 300 s-1. The DIFfc is generally increased
with the strain rate although the magnitude of rate dependence is different
among the four composites. Explanations for the increase in DIFfc of concrete
with strain rate, i.e. the increase in dynamic strength, are provided in the report
by ACI Committee 446 (2004). It is known that inherent flaws are distributed
throughout the hardened concrete. Under static loading, cracks are developed
from some of the flaws and have time to propagate into the weakest zones such
as the ITZ. When the strain rate increases, more flaws are activated and forced
to propagate into high strength phases in the concrete such as the coarse
aggregate and unhydrated cement particles leading to an increase in the strength
of concrete. Furthermore, ACI Committee 446 (2004) reports that the size of
the fracture process zone in front of the crack tip is decreased with the increase
in the strain rate leading to greater brittleness of concrete.
The DIFfc of the SHCC-PVA and FRHSC-60 is plotted in Figure 4.6a
for comparison. With similar static compressive strength, the DIFfc of the
FRHSC-60 seems to vary in a wider range than that of the SHCC-PVA. At
similar strain rates, the DIFfc of the FRHSC-60 is generally higher than that of
the SHCC-PVA. As mentioned above, the increase in the DIFfc may be related
to the crack propagation through the higher strength phases such as aggregates
and unhydrated cement grains in the composites. The FRHSC-60 contains both
121
coarse and fine aggregates. Thus, its compressive strength can be significantly
increased when the cracks go through these higher strength phases. The SHCC-
PVA matrix, on the other hand, includes mainly cementitious materials with
only a small amount (<18% by volume) of fine aggregate particles with sizes
less than 0.25 mm. With the relatively homogeneous matrix, the difference in
crack resistance at various strain rates may not be significant for the SHCC-
PVA. Moreover, the higher fiber content of the SHCC-PVA than that of the
FRHSC-60 may also lead to the lower DIFfc of the former than the latter. The
reason is that a higher amount of fibers may significantly slow down the crack
velocity leading to a decreased dependence of the concrete strength on the
strain rate (ACI Committee 446 2004).
From Figure 4.6a, it can be observed that the DIFfc values of the SHCC-
PVA and FRHSC-60 in the current study are significantly lower than the values
predicted by CEB-FIP (1990) and fib (2010). This may be due to the absence of
coarse aggregate in the SHCC-PVA and the presence of fibers in the two
composites as discussed above since the CEB-FIP (1990) and fib (2010) were
developed for ordinary concrete without fibers. The empirical equation in Wang
et al. (2011a) obtained from an experimental study on FRHSCs generally
provides better prediction of the DIFfc for the FRHSC-60 than those from the
model codes. The difference between the predicted values by Wang et al.
(2011a) and the experimental results is within 12% except for a few data points
at the strain rates of 100 – 150 s-1 which are overestimated by 20 – 30%. The
corresponding values predicted by CEB-FIP (1990) and fib (2010) equations
are 40 – 60% higher than the experimental results. However, this empirical
equation was proposed for FRHSCs, not for SHCCs.
122
Figure 4.6a also shows that the DIFfc of the SHCC-PVA in the reference
by Chen et al. (2013) is similar or lower than that of the SHCC-PVA in the
present study. With the strain rates ranging from 80 to 150 s-1, the DIFfc in Chen
et al. (2013) is about 1.0 – 1.5, whereas that in the present study is 1.4 – 1.7. At
the strain rates from 150 to 180 s-1, the DIFfc of the SHCC-PVA in the two
studies is similar at 1.4 – 1.8. No experimental data are available in Chen et al.
(2013) at higher strain rates from 180 to 300 s-1.
A comparison in the DIFfc of the SHCC-ST+PE and FRHSC-85 is
shown in Figure 4.6b. With comparable static compressive strength, the DIFfc
of the FRHSC-85 is significantly higher than that of the SHCC-ST+PE. The
explanation is similar to that on the FRHSC-60 and SHCC-PVA. The DIFfc of
FHRSC-85 can be roughly predicted by the empirical equation by Wang et al.
(2011a) but lower than the values predicted by CEB-FIP (1990) and fib (2010),
whereas that of the SHCC-ST+PE is significantly lower than all predicted
values. Similar explanations about the absence of aggregate and presence of
fibers may also be given here.
Figure 4.6c compares the DIFfc of the SHCC-ST+PE and SHCC-PVA.
With a given strain rate, the DIFfc of the SHCC-ST+PE seems to be lower than
that of the SHCC-PVA. It can also be seen that the increasing trend of the DIFfc
of the SHCC-ST+PE with the strain rate is less consistent than the SHCC-PVA.
Since the SHCC-ST+PE does not include any aggregate, its dependence on the
strain rate is thus lower than that of the SHCC-PVA.
A comparison between the DIFfc of the two FRHSCs is shown in Figure
4.6d. No significant difference is observed at the strain rates of 30 – 200 s-1. At
higher strain rates from 200 to 300 s-1, the DIFfc of the FRHSC-85 seems to be
123
lower than that of the FRHSC-60. This may be explained by the influence of
the concrete strength induced by w/c. As the w/c is reduced, the mortar matrix
as well as the ITZ between the coarse aggregate and the mortar in the FRHSC-
85 is significantly improved compared with the FRHSC-60. As a result, the
difference in the strength of mortar and coarse aggregate in the FRHSC-85 is
reduced leading to the lower DIFfc.
Data of the DIFfc around the transition point of the four composites
studied are not available (Figure 4.6). As mentioned earlier in sections 4.2.5 and
4.2.6, the hydraulic testing system was unable to generate strain rates beyond
about 0.1 s-1, whereas the SHPB system was not able to generate strain rates
below about 30 s-1 for the composites studied. For future studies, other testing
methods and equipment may be needed to obtain the strain rates in the range of
0.1 – 30 s-1 for the SHCCs and FRHSCs.
4.3.5.4 Dynamic increase factor for toughness in compression
In this section, the toughness in compression is defined as the area under the
full compressive stress-strain curves of the composites. As shown in Figure
4.12, the DIF for the toughness in compression (DIFtc) of the SHCCs and
FRHSCs increases with the increase in strain rate.
The DIFtc of the SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE is generally lower than
that of the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85, respectively, at a given strain rate. Since
the elastic modulus and the shape of the stress-strain curves are not changed
significantly with the strain rates (Figure 4.11), the dynamic toughness and
dynamic compressive strength may increase concurrently. Therefore, it is
reasonable that the DIFtc of the FRHSCs is higher than that of the SHCCs of
124
comparable static compressive strengths since the DIFfc of the former is higher
than that of the latter. The explanations for the differences of the DIFfc between
two SHCCs in the previous section may also be used to explain their
differences on the DIFtc.
For the two FRHSCs, the DIFtc values of the FRHSC-85 seem to be
higher than those of the FRHSC-60. However, the difference decreases with the
increase in the strain rate and becomes minimal at the strain rates beyond about
200 s-1. When the strain rate increases, more cracks are forced to go through
coarse aggregate leading to the increases in strength and toughness. For the
FRHSC-60, the difference in strength and toughness between the mortar and
coarse aggregate is more pronounced than that in the FRHSC-85. Therefore, the
increase in the dynamic toughness is more significant (exhibited by the steeper
regression line) for the FRHSC-60 than that of the FRHSC-85.
4.4 Summary and conclusions of Chapter 4
(1) The SHCCs exhibit strain-hardening behavior under static flexural loading
with multiple cracks. The FRHSCs, however, display strain-softening behavior
with a single crack. The SHCCs have lower elastic moduli than those of the
FRHSCs of comparable compressive strength under the static compression
tests.
(2) The compressive strengths or the DIFfc of SHCC and FRHSC increase with
strain rate. The increase is more significant in the high strain rates from the
transition strain rate to about 300 s-1 compared with that in the intermediate
strain rates from 10-4 to 10-1 s-1.
125
(3) The DIFfc values of SHCC are lower than those of the corresponding
FRHSC at a given strain rate. This indicates that SHCC is less sensitive to high
strain rate than FRHSC of a similar strength. The lower strain rate sensitivity of
SHCCs may be attributed to the absence of coarse aggregates and higher fiber
content.
(4) Based on the SHPB test results, the DIFfc values of SHCC-ST+PE are
generally lower than those of SHCC-PVA at a strain rate beyond 200 s-1, and
the DIFfc values of FRHSC-85 appear to be slightly lower than those of
FRHSC-60. This indicates that the strain rate sensitivity of SHCC and FRHSC
may be related to their compressive strength.
(5) At a given strain rate level, the damage of the SHCC specimens after the
SHPB tests is less severe than the FRHSC specimens, which may be attributed
to the higher total fiber content in the SHCCs than that in the FRHSCs. With
the increase in the strain rate, more steel fibers are ruptured in the FRHSC
specimens after the SHPB tests, whereas the percentage of ruptured steel fibers
in the SHCC-ST+PE specimens does not seem to be sensitive to the strain rate.
(6) Both CEB-FIP 1990 and fib 2010 equations can be used to estimate the
DIFfc values of SHCC and FRHSC at intermediate strain rates up to the order of
0.1 s-1. However, at the strain rates from 30 to 300 s-1, both equations
overestimate the DIFfc values of SHCCs and FRHSCs.
(7) The DIF for the toughness of the SHCCs and FRHSCs increases with the
strain rate and the trend is similar to that of the DIF for compressive strength.
126
Table 4.1 Mix proportions and workability of SHCCs and FRHSCs

Proportion per cubic meter, kg/m3
Flow,
Type Silica
w/ Vf Coarse SP, mm or
Material of Ce- fume Wa-
cm (%) aggre- Sand Fiber VMA l/m3 Vebe
fibers ment or fly ter
gate time, s
ash
Density, 2300,
3150 1000 2650 2600
kg/m3 2420(*)
SHCC-PVA 0.25 PVA 2.0 587 704(*) 323 0 469(#) 26 2.9 10(p) 165
SHCC- ST 0.5 39(ST)
0.25 1478 148 414 0 0 0 17(n) 150
ST+PE +PE +1.5 +14(PE)
FRHSC-60 0.50 ST 0.5 410 0 205 946 760 39 0 0 8(^)
FRHSC-85 0.35 ST 0.5 480 0 168 946 776 39 0 10 9(^)
(*) (#) (^) (p)
Note: fly ash; fine sand (smaller than 0.25 mm); Vebe time; polycarboxylate-
based superplasticizer; (n)naphthalene-based superplasticizer; Vf = fiber volume
fraction, ST = steel fiber, PE = polyethylene fiber, PVA = polyvinyl alcohol fiber;
VMA = viscosity modifying admixture
Table 4.2 Fibers properties

Fiber Diameter, Length, Aspect Tensile Elastic Elongation, Density,
μm mm ratio strength, modulus, % g/cm3
MPa GPa
PVA 40 12 300 1612 41 6.6 1.30
PE 39 12 308 2610 66 3.6-3.9 0.97
Steel 160 13 81 2500 200 < 3.5% 7.80
Note: PVA = polyvinyl alcohol fiber, PE = polyethylene fiber
127
Table 4.3 Information on experiments conducted
Compressive Specimen Number of Curing condition
Properties to be determined Testing age
strain rate, s-1 size, mm specimens
1. Flexural performance under static loading N.A. 100×100×400 3 moist curing for 28 days
2. Compressive stress-strain curve, elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio ~ 10-5 100×200 3 21 days + 28 days
3. Compressive strength ~ 10-5 77×154 3 exposure at 65% 28 days
4. Compressive behavior under static and intermediate strain rates 10-4 – 10-1 77×38 7 relative humidity 1.0-1.5 years
5. Compressive behavior under high strain rate loading 30 – 300 77×38 40 until testing day 80-110 days
Table 4.4 Static properties

Material Density, Compression test at 28 days Cylinder Flexural tensile test at 28 days
kg/m3 77×154- 100×200- Elastic Poisson’s compressive First First Modulus Deflection
mm cylinder mm cylinder modulus, ratio strength at 1 cracking- cracking of rupture, at peak
compressive compressive GPa year flexural deflection, MPa stress, mm
strength, MPa strength, MPa strength, mm
MPa
SHCC-PVA 2033 ± 7 64.5 ± 1.6 62.0 ± 4.0 23.4 ± 0.4 0.23 ± 0.00 81.2 ± 3.7 5.9 ± 0.3 0.04 ± 0.01 10.7 ± 1.3 1.43 ± 0.30
SHCC-ST+PE 2111 ± 3 83.8 ± 0.6 80.4 ± 6.8 21.1 ± 0.5 0.26 ± 0.00 N.A. 8.2 ± 0.1 0.07 ± 0.02 11.1 ± 1.2 0.78 ± 0.19
FRHSC-60 2424 ± 6 69.3 ± 1.6 60.5 35.1 0.21 N.A. 7.1 ± 0.3 0.04 ± 0.00 7.1 ± 0.3 0.04 ± 0.00
FRHSC-85 2417 ± 3 90.7 ± 1.9 85.4 ± 3.3 37.7 ± 1.0 0.20 ± 0.00 N.A. 6.9 ± 0.1 0.04 ± 0.01 6.9 ± 0.1 0.04 ± 0.01
Note: results expressed as average value  standard deviation for tests with ≥3 specimens, average value provided for tests with only two specimens.
128
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.1 Set-up of a compression split Hopkinson pressure bar test: (a) schematic
setup, modified from Gray III (2000), (b) in the present study
Figure 4.2 Time distances during shifting waves
129
16
16 (a) (b)
FRHSC-85 SHCC-ST+PE
FRHSC-60 12 SHCC-PVA
12
Flexural stress (MPa)

8 8
4 4
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
16
(c) 16 (d)
SHCC-PVA SHCC-ST+PE
12 FRHSC-60 12 FRHSC-85
8 8
4 4
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.3 Flexural stress-deflection curves of FRHSCs and SHCCs: (a) FRHSC-85 vs.
FRHSC-60; (b) SHCC-PVA vs. SHCC-ST+PE; (c) SHCC-PVA vs. FRHSC-60; and
(d) SHCC-ST+PE vs. FRHSC-85
130
Figure 4.4 Cracking pattern of the FRHSC and SHCC under flexural loading:
(a) single macro crack in the FRHSC-85 specimen, (b) multiple cracks in the SHCC-
ST+PE specimen
131
90
(a) 90 (b)
Compressive stress (MPa)

SHCC-PVA SHCC-ST+PE
60 FRHSC-60 60 FRHSC-85
30 30
0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
Strain () Strain ()
90 (c) 90 (d)
FRHSC-85
Compressive stress (MPa) SHCC-ST+PE
FRHSC-60 SHCC-PVA
60 60
30 30
0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
Strain () Strain ()
Figure 4.5 Compressive stress-strain curves of the SHCC and FRHSC: (a) SHCC-PVA
vs. FRHSC-60; (b) SHCC-ST+PE vs. FRHSC-85; (c) FRHSC-85 vs. FRHSC-60; and
(d) SHCC-PVA vs. SHCC-ST+PE
132
(a) 2.9 SHCC-PVA, ~62 MPa, SHPB (b) 2.9
SHCC-ST+PE, ~80 MPa, SHPB
2.7 SHCC-PVA, ~62 MPa, MTS 2.7 SHCC-ST+PE, ~80 MPa, MTS
FRHSC-60, ~61 MPa, SHPB
2.5 2.5 FRHSC-85, ~85 MPa, SHPB
DIF for compressive strength

FRHSC-60, ~61 MPa, MTS

SHCC-PVA, 55-73 MPa, SHPB (Chen et al. 2013) 2.3 FRHSC-85, ~85 MPa, MTS
2.3
SHCC-PVA, 46 MPa, MTS (Douglas & Billington 2005) CEB-FIP 1990 for fc=85 MPa concrete
2.1 2.1 fib 2010 for concrete
CEB-FIP 1990 for fc=61 MPa concrete
1.9 fib 2010 for concrete 1.9 formula for fc=85 MPa FRHSC (Wang et al. 2011a)
formula for fc=61 MPa FRHSC (Wang et al. 2011a)
1.7 1.7
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.1 1.1
0.9 0.9
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Strain rate (s-1) Strain rate (s-1)
(c) 2.90 (d) 2.9
SHCC-ST+PE, ~80 MPa, SHPB 2.7 FRHSC-60, ~61 MPa, SHPB
2.70 SHCC-ST+PE, ~80 MPa, MTS FRHSC-60, ~61 MPa, MTS
2.50 SHCC-PVA, ~62 MPa, SHPB 2.5 FRHSC-85, ~85 MPa, SHPB

SHCC-PVA, ~62 MPa, MTS 2.3 FRHSC-85, ~85 MPa, MTS

2.30 CEB-FIP 1990 for fc=61 MPa concrete CEB-FIP 1990 for fc=61 MPa concrete
2.10 CEB-FIP 1990 for fc=85 MPa concrete 2.1 CEB-FIP 1990 for fc=85 MPa concrete
fib 2010 for concrete fib 2010 for concrete
1.90 formula for fc=61 MPa FRHSC (Wang et al. 2011a) 1.9
formula for fc=61 MPa FRHSC (Wang et al. 2011a)
1.70 formula for fc=85 MPa FRHSC (Wang et al. 2011a) 1.7 formula for fc=85 MPa FRHSC (Wang et al. 2011a)
1.50 1.5
1.30 1.3
1.10 1.1
0.90 0.9
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Strain rate (s-1) Strain rate (s-1)
Figure 4.6 Dynamic increase factor for compressive strength of SHCCs and FRHSCs in comparison with values recommended by equations from codes and a
previous study: (a) SHCC-PVA vs. FRHSC-60; (b) SHCC-ST+PE vs. FRHSC-85; (c) SHCC-PVA vs. SHCC-ST+PE; (d) FRHSC-60 vs. FRHSC-85
133
FRHSC-60
120
Stress (MPa)
FRHSC-60
80
SHCC-PVA
40
Strain ()
0
0 20000 40000 60000
SHCC-PVA
Figure 4.7 Cracking pattern of FRHSC-60 vs. SHCC-PVA at different stress levels
during SHPB tests: no crack observed for both FRHSC-60 and SHCC-PVA at the
beginning (σ ≈ 10% fc); fine and extremely fine cracks parallel to the loading direction
for the FRHSC-60 and the SHCC-PVA, respectively at the peak stress (σ ≈ fc); more
numbers and significantly larger cracks for the FRHSC-60 but slightly larger cracks for
the SHCC-PVA at post-peak (and σ ≈ 30% fc)
134
Figure 4.8 Failure patterns of specimens after SHPB tests: (a) SHCC-PVA, (b) SHCC-
ST+PE, (c) FRHSC-60, and (d) FRHSC-85
Figure 4.9 Fiber pull-out and rupture observed in specimens after SHPB tests: short
and limited pulled-out PVA fibers at the fractured surfaces for the SHCC-PVA; long
pulled-out PE and steel fibers for the SHCC-ST+PE and FRHSCs
135
40
Percentage of steel fibers ruptured (%)

35
30
SHCC-ST+PE
25
FRHSC-85
20
Linear (SHCC-ST+PE)
15
Linear (FRHSC-85)
10
0
100 150 200 250 300
-1
Strain rate (s )
Figure 4.10 Percentage of steel fibers ruptured in the specimens of the FRHSC-85
(Wang 2011) and that of the SHCC-ST+PE in the present study after SHPB tests.
136
Figure 4.11 Stress-strain curves at different strain rates of SHCCs and FRHSCs: (a) SHCC-PVA, (b) SHCC-ST+PE, (c) FRHSC-60, and (d) FRHSC-85
137
12.0
SHCC-PVA, ~62 MPa
SHCC-ST+PE, ~80 MPa
FRHSC-60, ~61 MPa R² = 0.73 (FRHSC-85)
10.0
FRHSC-85, ~85 MPa
R² = 0.90 (FRHSC-60)
DIF for toughness
8.0
R² = 0.77 (SHCC-PVA)
6.0
4.0 R² = 0.80 (SHCC-ST+PE)
2.0
50 150 250 350
Strain rate (s-1)
Figure 4.12 Dynamic increase factor for toughness in compression. The toughness is
defined as the total area under the full compressive stress-strain curves. The coefficient
of determination R2 is obtained from the linear regression.
138
Chapter 5 Behavior of High Performance Cement Composites
against High Velocity Projectile Impact
5.1 Introduction
Literature review in Chapter 2 shows that the behavior of strain-hardening
cement composites (SHCCs) under high velocity projectile impact (HVPI) has
not been thoroughly studied. In comparison to ordinary fiber reinforced
concrete (FRC), SHCC usually contains a higher content of fibers and has
better ductility and toughness. On the other hand, SHCC does not include
coarse aggregate and has lower elastic modulus compared with FRC.
Experimental results in Chapter 4 show that the SHCCs exhibit better resistance
to fragmentation than the fiber-reinforced high strength concretes (FRHSCs) of
comparable compressive strengths when subjected to high strain rate
compressive loading. It is also shown that the dynamic increase factor for
compressive strength (DIFfc) of the SHCCs is in general lower than that of the
FRHSCs indicating lower strain rate sensitivity of the former. These differences
may have effects on the behavior of the SHCCs and FRHSCs when subjected to
HVPI. A comparison between the behavior of the SHCC and FRHSC under
HVPI is thus needed for consideration of these materials in protective
structures.
In this part of the research, effects of the compressive strength, Rockwell
hardness, elastic modulus, coarse aggregate, and fibers on the localized damage
of the SHCCs and FRHSCs under HVPI are studied. Comparisons of the
experimental results of the penetration depth and those predicted by a few
139
commonly used equations are also made and discussed to provide essential
information for design and material selection. Materials investigated included
two SHCCs (SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE) and two FRHSCs (FRHSC-60
and FRHSC-85) similar to those in Chapter 4. In addition, another FRHSC with
higher compressive strength (FRHSC-110) and a fiber-reinforced high strength
mortar (FRHSM) were also included in the study. The target impact velocity for
the experiments was 400 m/s. Based on the results and discussion, a revision is
proposed to the ConWep equation for prediction of penetration depth under
HVPI for various cement composites beyond conventional concrete.
Due to the heavy work of the HVPI tests with large specimens, the
experiments were conducted in collaboration with a research fellow in our
research group.
5.2 Experimental details
5.2.1 Mixture design and materials used
As described in Chapter 4, the compressive strength of the SHCC-PVA, SHCC-
ST+PE, FRHSC-60, and FRHSC-85 mixtures was in the range of 60 – 85 MPa.
To further clarify the effects of compressive strength and coarse aggregate on
the behaviors of cement composites against HVPI, mixtures FRHSC-110 and
FRHSM were added with the target compressive strength of 110 – 150 MPa.
The coarse aggregate in the FRHSC-110 was the same as that in the FRHSC-60
and FRHSC-85. A polycarboxylate-based superplasticizer8 was used to improve
the workability of the FRHSC-110 and FRHSM. All materials other than the
aforementioned were similar to those described in Section 4.2 except that
8
ADVA® 181-N, W. R. Grace Singapore Pte, Ltd
140
viscosity modifying admixture was not used in SHCC-PVA. Mix proportions of
the SHCCs, FRHSCs, and FRHSM used for this part of the study are
summarized in Table 5.1.
The FRHSC-110 was designed to obtain higher compressive strength
than the other FRHSCs to clarify the effect of compressive strength on the
penetration resistance of FRHSC. The lower w/cm at 0.28 and the introduction
of 10% silica fume by mass of cement were expected to improve the mortar
matrix and interface leading to higher compressive strength of the FRHSC-110
compared with the FRHSC-85 and FRHSC-60. The proportions of coarse and
fine aggregate of the FRHSC-110 were kept the same as those in the FRHSC-
60 and FRHSC-85 to minimize the effect of aggregate on the impact resistance
when considering these three FRHSCs. The FRHSM was designed to obtain
higher compressive strength than the FRHSCs with the elimination of the
coarse aggregate. The lower w/cm (0.17) and 10% silica fume were used to
improve the strength of the FRHSM. This will allow us to determine whether
the high compressive strength of the FRHSM or the presence of coarse
aggregate in the FRHSC is more beneficial to the resistance of these
composites.
5.2.2 Workability and specimen preparation
Mixtures of the SHCCs and FRHSM were prepared in a large size Hobart
mixer, whereas the FRHSCs were mixed in a pan mixer. Due to large volume
required to cast each specimen for HVPI test, four and two batches were cast
continuously when the Hobart and pan mixers were used, respectively. Flow of
the SHCCs and FRHSM was from 150 to 250 mm (ASTM C1437) and Vebe
141
time of the FRHSCs was from 3 to 5 s (BS EN 12350-3) as summarized in
Table 5.1.
Information on the specimen sizes, curing conditions, and testing age is
summarized in Table 5.2. Specimens for the HVPI tests had an impact face of
600×600-mm and a thickness of 400 mm. The thickness of the specimens was
selected to avoid perforation during test based on calculations from empirical
equations in literature (Kennedy 1966; Kosteski et al. 2015). Due to the time
and effort required for preparation and testing of such large specimens, one
specimen was made from each mixture. Cubes (100-mm) were cast together
with the HVPI specimens to determine the compressive strength and for quality
control of the mixtures. Cylinders of 100×200 mm and prisms of
100×100×400-mm were prepared for the FRHSC-110 for the elastic modulus
and third-point bending tests, respectively. Unfortunately, no cylinders and
prisms were cast from the same materials with those used for the HVPI
specimen of the FRHSM. Results of these tests for the SHCC-PVA, SHCC-
ST+PE, FRHSC-60, and FRHSC-85 were presented in Chapter 4.
All the specimens were moist cured for 28 days. The elastic modulus
and third-point bending tests of the FRHSC-110 were conducted at 28 days, i.e
the same age with that of the FRHSCs and SHCCs from Chapter 4. After 28
days, the HVPI specimens and cubes were exposed outdoor and inside the
laboratory, respectively, until the HVPI test at 3 to 7 months depending on the
availability of the testing facility.
142
5.2.3 Tests for mechanical properties and Rockwell hardness
Compressive strength, flexural tensile strength, and elastic modulus of the
specimens mentioned above were conducted using the same methods as
described in Chapter 4.
Rockwell hardness was determined on 100-mm cubes of the cement-
composites (SHCCs, FRHSCs, and FRHSM) at the age of 2 months and 75-
mm cylinders of the granite specimen. A 1.6 mm (1/16-inch) diameter ball
indenter was used for the test with a total force of 15 kgf corresponding to the
“HR15T” Rockwell superficial scale. For each specimen, at least 20 indentation
readings were taken and the average and standard deviation of the results are
reported.
5.2.4 High velocity projectile impact (HVPI) tests
A large gas gun facility as shown in Figure 5.1 was used for the HVPI tests.
The specimen was supported by wooden strips placed against the distal face
near the bottom of the specimen. In addition, the specimen was bolted to a steel
frame attached to the chamber through two steel bars near the top end of the
specimen to restrain its movement.
Ogive-nosed projectiles with a caliber radius head (CRH) of 3 and a
diameter of 28 mm, as shown in Figure 5.2, were used for the tests. The
projectiles were fabricated by XW41 steel and hardened to Rockwell hardness
scale C (HRC) 60–62 with a mass of about 249 g. Sabot with a mass of about
21–26 g, specially designed for the test, was attached to the end of each
projectile. Guiding ring having a mass less than 5 grams was introduced to the
front part of the projectile (Figure 5.2) to ensure a stable movement in the test
143
for all specimens except for the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85 which were tested
in the earlier phase. With the projectile diameter of 28 mm, the size effect of the
projectile relative to the coarse aggregate was reduced.
The projectile was propelled by compressed helium gas at a pressure of
about 100 bars to achieve impact speeds of approximately 400 m/s. The impact
speed was measured using a laser system with two pairs of laser sensors placed
sequentially just before the projectile strikes the specimen. The impact speed of
the projectile was calculated from the distance between the sensors and the time
interval between the strikes of the sensors. A high speed camera was used to
check the projectile speed for selected specimens. A new projectile was used for
each test to ensure consistency in testing.
The impact resistance of the specimens was evaluated based on several
parameters including crater diameter, penetration depth, crater volume, shape of
crater on the specimens, and mass loss of the projectile. Crater diameter was the
diameter of a circle having the same area with the crater region including the
zone where the material is bulged (Figure 5.3). This crater area was determined
based on the grid drawn on the impact surface prior to the test. Penetration
depth was measured as the distance from the impact surface where the material
is not bulged to the deepest point in the crater region. The crater volume was
determined as the volume filled by fine sand after the test. The shape of the
crater was obtained by a laser scanning device (Figure 5.4) together with the
software Origin Pro 9.0. The crack pattern was recorded by visual examination.
144
5.3 Results and Discussion
Results of the mechanical properties, Rockwell hardness, and HVPI tests are
summarized in Table 5.3 and discussed in following sections.
5.3.1 Mechanical properties and effective hardness index
5.3.1.1 Compressive strength and elastic modulus
The 28-day cube compressive strengths of the FRHSC-60 (59.4 MPa), FRHSC-
85 (89.3 MPa), and SHCC-ST+PE (82.0 MPa) are close to the target strengths,
whereas that of the SHCC-PVA (46.1 MPa) is lower than the target strength.
The lower compressive strength of the SHCC-PVA may be attributed to the
slight segregation of this mixture without the viscosity modifying admixture.
Nevertheless, at the time of the impact test, the compressive strength of the
SHCC-PVA (65.0 MPa) is comparable to that of the FRHSC-60 (72.0 MPa).
The 28-day compressive strength of the FRHSC-110 (140.3 MPa) and FRHSM
(122.5 MPa) are higher than that of the FRHSC-85 as expected. The
compressive strength of the FRHSM is lower than that of the FRHSC-110
although for the former a lower w/cm was used and the coarse aggregate was
eliminated. This might be attributed to the fact that the volume of each batch
exceeded the maximum capacity of the Hobart mixer slightly which affected the
homogeneity and strength of the FRHSM. The elastic modulus of the FRHSC-
110 is 44.9 GPa which is the highest among the composites.
The cube compressive strengths of the composites at the age of the
HVPI tests are higher than those at 28 days. The SHCC-PVA has the most
significant increase in the compressive strength (about 41%) which can be
attributed to pozzolanic reaction of the large quantity of fly ash in the mixture.
145
On the other hand, the increase in the compressive strength of the FRHSM from
28 days is the least significant, probably due to its low w/cm and rapid
pozzolanic reaction of silica fume.
5.3.1.2 Behavior under third-point bending
Average load-deflection curves of the SHCCs and FRHSCs are plotted in
Figure 5.5 where the results of the SHCC-PVA, SHCC-ST+PE, FRHSC-60,
and FRHSC-85 are from Chapter 4.
The shape of the load-deflection curve of the FRHSC-110 is similar to
those of the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85. Among these three FRHSCs, the
FRHSC-110 has the highest flexural tensile strength. This can be explained by
the higher strength of the matrix and better bonding between the matrix and
fibers with the decreased w/cm and the incorporation of silica fume in the
FRHSC-110 compared with the other two FRHSCs. With a given deflection in
the post-peak range, the residual load of the FRHSC-110 is also higher than that
of the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85. Therefore, the toughness (ASTM
1609) of the FRHSC-110 (41.0 Nm) is significantly higher than those of the
FRHSC-60 (20.6 Nm) and FRHSC-85 (30.9 Nm) which were mentioned earlier
in Section 4.3.2. However, the toughness of the FRHSC-110 is still
lower than that of the SHCC-PVA (56.4 Nm) and SHCC-ST+PE (62.9 Nm)
even though they have comparable flexural tensile strengths.
5.3.1.3 Rockwell hardness and “effective hardness index”
As the Rockwell hardness was determined on the surfaces of the specimens
where the indentation depths were less than 1 mm, the determined value for the
146
FRHSC specimens was taken as the hardness of the mortar phase of the
composites. For the composites without coarse aggregate such as the SHCCs
and FRHSM, the determined values were taken as the hardness of the
composites.
As shown in Table 5.3, the hardness of the FRHSC specimens increases
with the increase in their compressive strength. Among the composites without
coarse aggregate, the SHCC-ST+PE has the lowest hardness mainly due to the
absence of fine aggregate, whereas the FRHSM has the highest hardness
probably due to its highest compressive strength and the presence of sand
particles up to 4.75 mm. Although the SHCC-PVA has the lowest strength, its
hardness is still 35% higher than that of the SHCC-ST+PE due to the presence
of fine sand (<0.25 mm) in the former. The Rockwell hardness of the granite
specimen is 97, significantly higher than that of the cement composites, i.e.
from 45 to 80.
For resistance against projectile impact a term “effective hardness
index” is introduced for the FRHSCs, which is calculated based on the hardness
determined on the cement composite and rock specimens, and proportions of
the coarse aggregate and mortar matrix. Since fibers usually do not have
significant effect on the penetration depth (Wu et al. 2015a; Zhang et al. 2007),
they are not accounted for in the index for simplicity.
When subjected to projectile impact, the penetration of the projectile
along its trajectory in the FRHSCs depends on the relative quantities of the
coarse aggregate and mortar matrix. This can be estimated based on their
relative volume fractions. Assuming that the coarse aggregate is evenly
distributed within the concrete, the coarse aggregate and mortar are idealized as
147
cubic volumes along the trajectory of projectile impact, as shown in Figure 5.6.
Since the coarse aggregate and mortar have volume ratios of 35% and 65%,
respectively, in the FRHSCs, the (1D) equivalent lengths of the coarse
aggregate and mortar along the projectile trajectory are √ and
√ , respectively, with V denoting the concrete volume. Based on the
equivalent lengths obtained, the relative percentages of coarse aggregate and
√
mortar along the projectile trajectory are thus 45% ( )
√ √
√
and 55% ( ), respectively. The “effective hardness
√ √
index” of the FRHSCs is calculated through this proportionality, i.e.
, where and are the
Rockwell hardness of the granite coarse aggregate and mortar matrix of the
composites, respectively. Results of the “effective hardness index” are
summarized in Table 5.3.
For the SHCCs and FRHSM, the measured Rockwell hardness is taken
as effective hardness as they can be considered as single-phase materials as
mentioned earlier.
5.3.2 Effect of various properties of composites on the resistance to high
velocity projectile impact (HVPI)
5.3.2.1 Effects of compressive strength
Effect of cylinder compressive strength on the penetration depth of the
specimens is illustrated in Figure 5.7. The expressions of the ConWep,
modified NDRC, and Li and Chen equations, i.e. (2.27), (2.28), and (2.29) in
Chapter 2, are also plotted for comparison. In these empirical equations, the
148
compressive strength used is based on cylinder specimens. Thus, the cube
compressive strengths at the time of HVPI test were converted to the cylinder
strengths by dividing factors from 1.25 to 1.15 depending on the strength as
guided by EN 206 standard.
As can be seen in Figure 5.7, the penetration depth generally decreases
with the increase in compressive strength of the FRHSCs. Although the
difference in penetration depth of these specimens is only 2 – 6 mm and only
one specimen was tested for each mixture, the trend seems to be consistent with
those reported in literature (Dancygier and Yankelevsky 1996; Zhang et al.
2005). However, the penetration depths in the SHCCs are significantly greater
than those of the FRHSCs with comparable compressive strengths.
Furthermore, the penetration depth of the FRHSM is greater than that of the
FRHSC-85 although the former has higher compressive strength. This indicates
that in addition to the compressive strength, other parameters may affect the
penetration depth.
As generally acknowledged, the strength of composite depends on
microstructural extreme and is governed by the “weakest link” in the composite
(Aitcin 2004; Mehta and Aïtcin 1990). The penetration depth in the cement
composites, on the other hand, may be related to the “average” of the
microstructural components, which will be discussed in detail in Section
5.3.2.3.
For the FRHSCs including the FRHSC-60, FRHSC-85, and FRHSC-
110, the higher compressive strength seems to correspond to a smaller crater
diameter. However, a clear trend cannot be observed for the effect of the
compressive strength on the crater volume. With comparable compressive
149
strengths, the SHCCs have smaller crater diameter and crater volume which
may be attributed mainly to the fibers (Zhang et al. 2007).
5.3.2.2 Effects of aggregates
The penetration depth in the FRHSCs, SHCCs, and FRHSM seems to be related
to the aggregate included in these composites. The FRHSCs include both coarse
and fine aggregates, whereas only fine aggregate was included in the SHCC-
PVA and FRHSM, and no aggregate was present in the SHCC-ST+PE.
The significance of having coarse aggregate can be easily observed by
comparing the results of the FRHSC-60 with the SHCC-PVA and FRHSM
specimens. The penetration depth in the FRHSC-60 is 20% lower than that in
the SHCC-PVA although their compressive strengths are comparable (Table
5.3). The penetration depth in the FRHSC-60 is similar to that in the FRHSM
even though the compressive strength of the former is 43% lower. These
experimental results with the 28-mm projectile confirm the significance of
coarse aggregate in the FRHSCs to resist the penetration of projectile reported
by Zhang et al. (2005) with smaller projectiles (12.6 mm in diameter). As the
granite coarse aggregate has significantly higher compressive strength (238.5
MPa), elastic modulus (65 GPa), and hardness (97) compared with those of the
FRHSM, SHCCs, and mortar matrices in the FRHSCs, the granite coarse
aggregates may act as barriers to the projectile penetration into the composites.
In addition to the above, the difference in the elastic modulus of coarse
aggregate and mortar matrices in the FRHSCs may also affect their resistance to
the HVPI. The FRHSCs can be considered as two-phase composites with coarse
aggregate embedded in mortar matrices. The elastic modulus of the granite
150
coarse aggregate (65.0 GPa) is significantly higher than that of the mortar
matrices which is expected to be lower than that of the FRHSCs (35.1 – 44.9
GPa) based on the law of composite. When a high velocity projectile penetrates
into the FRHSC, the difference in the elastic modulus and stiffness between the
granite aggregate and mortar matrix may lead to different magnitude of
deformation of the two phases, possibly deflect the projectile from its original
trajectory, dissipate the impact energy, and reduce the penetration depth. Such
effect in the FRHSCs may be similar to that of the hetero-modulus ceramic-
based composites under impact (Gömze and Gömze 2011).
The significance of fine aggregate on the penetration depth can be
observed by comparing the SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE. The SHCC-PVA
has 9% lower penetration depth compared with the SHCC-ST+PE even though
the former has 30% lower compressive strength. The lower penetration depth in
the SHCC-PVA may be explained by the presence of fine aggregate which may
provide greater friction and abrasion to reduce the penetration depth. This
explanation is supported by the greater mass loss of the projectile used in the
test of SHCC-PVA (0.19%) compared with that in the test of SHCC-ST+PE
(0.09%). Influence of the “effective hardness index” on the projectile mass loss
in the cement composites will be further discussed in the next section.
With the cumulative effects of the coarse and fine aggregate, the
penetration depth in the FRHSC-85 is significantly lower than that in the
SHCC-ST+PE even though they have similar compressive strength.
The effect of coarse aggregate on the crater diameter and crater volume
does not seem to be clear. For example, the crater diameter of the FRHSC-85 is
smaller than that of the FRHSM even though the former has lower compressive
151
strength. On the other hand, the crater volume in the FRHSC-85 is significantly
larger than that in the FRHSM. The higher tensile strength of granite coarse
aggregate (10.6 MPa obtained in Chapter 3) than that of the mortar matrix may
be beneficial to reduce the crater diameter. However, the decreases in specific
surface area of the larger size aggregate particles and bond strength between the
aggregate and mortar matrix may have adverse effects on the crater volume.
5.3.2.3 Influence of “effective hardness index” and elastic modulus
The influence of the “effective hardness index” on the penetration depth of the
FRHSCs, SHCCs, and FRHSM is shown in Figure 5.8. It is obvious that the
penetration depth decreases with an increase in the effective hardness index.
This indicates that the composites incorporating a high proportion of harder
component, as indicated by its Rockwell hardness, would be more effective in
reducing the penetration depth against the projectile impact.
Hardness is a characteristic of a material, not a fundamental property. In
the Rockwell hardness test, the hardness is calculated from the depth of
indentation under load, and is a measure of material resistance to deformation
by surface indentation. The hardness is strongly dependent on its shear modulus
and elastic modulus, which is closely related to its bonding, in addition to its
strength. The elastic modulus of concrete – assumed to be a composite with
coarse aggregate embedded in mortar matrix – is dependent on the elastic
moduli of the two components and their relative proportions. The effect of the
elastic modulus of the FRHSCs and SHCCs on the penetration depth is shown
in Figure 5.9. A data point based on the penetration depth and assumed elastic
modulus of the FRHSM (40 GPa) is also plotted for comparison. This elastic
152
modulus of the FRHSM is based on a fiber reinforced high strength mortar with
similar w/cm, steel fiber volume fraction, mixture density, and compressive
strength from Sakurada et al. (2008). The trend is clear that the penetration
depth is decreased with the increase in the elastic modulus of these materials.
Since the shear and elastic moduli are correlated, this suggests that the
penetration depth is decreased with the increase in the shear and elastic moduli
of the composites.
According to Gilman (2009), high hardness is also associated with low
dislocation mobility, in other words high resistance to plastic deformation,
which is associated with highly localized chemical bonds (e.g. covalent
bonding) rather than non-local bonding. The lower penetration depth in the
FRHSCs in comparison to that in the SHCC-ST-PE may be attributed, at least
partly, to strong covalent bond in quartz in natural sand and granite coarse
aggregate in comparison to weaker bond in calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H)
which makes up the bulk of the cement paste matrix. The C-S-H has a
randomly layered structure with about 1/4 of the C-S-H structure occupied by
gel pores of various sizes, and appreciable amount of bond energy in the C-S-H
may be weak van de Waals in nature (Mindess 2009). This may also explain the
lower penetration depth in the SHCC-PVA due to the incorporation of fine sand
than that in the SHCC-ST-PE although the former had lower compressive
strength as discussed in Section 5.3.2.2.
The above discussion, together with that in Section 5.3.2.2, suggests that
the cement composites incorporating a high proportion of aggregates would be
more effective in reducing the penetration depth against the projectile impact so
long as workability can be satisfied. In addition, improvement in bonding in the
153
C-S-H structure in cement paste may be useful to improve the mechanical
properties and reduce the penetration depth in the cement composites.
Li and Chen (2003) consider that elastic modulus of the target material
has a secondary effect on the penetration depth since the elastic modulus of
concrete varies over a narrow range, and thus, its influence on penetration depth
can be ignored. They found that the elastic modulus is not included in majority
of the empirical equations for the prediction of the penetration. For the
evaluation of the penetration depth of some cement composites such as SHCCs
and ultra-high performance concretes (UHPCs), however, the elastic modulus
may not be ignored since it may be lower than that of conventional concrete due
to the absence of coarse aggregate.
Results from this study and earlier ones (Wu et al. 2015b; Zhang et al.
2005) indicate that the penetration depth is strongly dependent on the aggregate,
particularly coarse aggregate. In conventional concrete, the compressive
strength is governed by the strength of mortar matrix and ITZ, but not affected
by the strength of the coarse aggregate. In high strength concrete, on the other
hand, the compressive strength is strongly dependent on the properties of coarse
aggregate due to the improvement in the mortar matrix and ITZ. While most
properties of concrete such as elastic modulus are more closely related to
averages of microstructural components, strength and fracture depend on
microstructural extremes rather than averages (Mehta and Aïtcin 1990). Based
on the results and above discussion, further research is needed to take the
microstructural components into consideration in analysis and prediction of the
penetration depth.
154
It is also worth noting the relationship between the “effective hardness
index” and the projectile mass loss (Figure 5.10). The projectile mass loss
increases with the effective hardness of the composite. When a projectile
penetrates into a composite with a higher amount of hard component, there may
be greater friction and abrasion effect on the projectile surface leading to
greater projectile mass loss. As a result, the projectile mass loss when impacted
on the FRHSCs and FRHSM (effective hardness index 72 – 81) is significantly
higher than that when impacted on the SHCCs (effective hardness index 45 –
61), which is 0.57 – 0.69% and 0.09 – 0.19% of the original mass of the
projectiles, respectively (Table 5.3).
5.3.2.4 Effects of fibers
As mentioned earlier, the SHCCs and FRHSCs are different in not only matrix
but also fiber type and content (Table 5.1). Results of the HVPI tests show that
the crater diameter and crater volume of the SHCCs reinforced with 2.0 volume
% of fibers are significantly smaller than those of the FRHSCs and FRHSM
reinforced with 0.5% fibers (Figure 5.11 and Table 5.3). More specifically, the
crater diameter of the SHCCs is 154 – 161 mm, whereas that of the FRHSCs
and FRHSM is 179 – 279 mm. The difference in the crater volume is even more
significant, 100 – 148 ml for the former and 376 – 730 ml for the latter.
Scanned images of the craters (Figure 5.12) show deeper and slender funnel-
shaped craters in the SHCCs versus shallow and broader craters in the FRHSC-
110 and FRHSM. In addition, it is observed that the number and size of
fragments flying away from the crater of the SHCCs are significantly smaller
than those from the FRHSCs and FRHSM. These results indicate that the
155
SHCCs are more effective in reducing the fracture of materials than the
FRHSCs and FRHSM primarily due to their greater fiber content. The effective
resistance to fragmentation of the SHCCs, which may reduce the damage to
human, equipment, and nearby structures, is also reported in literature (Maalej
et al. 2005; Soe et al. 2013a).
When the projectile impacts on a concrete target, the compressive wave
is generated, propagated to the free surfaces, and reflected back to the specimen
as tensile stress wave (Almusallam et al. 2013; Leppänen 2005). The tensile
stress wave may cause the fracture or bulge of material around the impact point
which enlarges the crater. The more significant fiber bridging effect induced by
the higher amount of fibers may reduce the crater diameter and crater volume of
the SHCCs than those of the FRHSCs and FRHSM. The fiber bridging effect is
also relevant to the tensile strength and toughness of the composites which may
affect its behavior when subjected to the HVPI.
The increased flexural tensile strength seems to reduce the crater
diameter and volume when comparing the SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE
versus the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85, respectively, of comparable compressive
strengths. However, with comparable flexural tensile strengths, the crater
diameter and crater volume of the FRHSC-110 are significantly larger than
those of the SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE (Table 5.3). This may be attributed
to the lower flexural toughness of the FRHSC-110 than those of the SHCC-
ST+PE and SHCC-PVA. Figure 5.13 shows the relationship between the
toughness (ASTM C1609) and the crater volume of the SHCCs and
FRHSCs. An increase in the toughness seems to reduce the crater volume of the
composites, except for the FRHSC-85. The greater crater volume of the
156
FRHSC-85 is not explained, and further research is needed. The significant
effect of the toughness on the resistance to localized damage for the SHCCs and
FRHSCs in the present study is in agreement with that reported for the FRHSC
and polymer cement composite by Wang et al. (2011c).
5.3.3 Prediction of penetration depth
5.3.3.1 Comparison between experimental and predicted penetration depths
The experimental results on the penetration depth and those predicted by
several equations are summarized in Table 5.4. Three equations (2.27), (2.28),
and (2.29), i.e. the ConWep equation (Hyde 1992), the modified NDRC
equation (Kennedy 1966), and the equation by Li and Chen (2003),
respectively, are used to predict the penetration depth. As cylinder compressive
strength is used in these equations, the cube compressive strengths at the time
of HVPI tests were converted to the cylinder strengths by dividing factors from
1.25 to 1.15 as mentioned in Section 5.3.2.1.
It can be seen in Table 5.4 that the modified NDRC equation generally
underestimates the penetration depth of most composites with the largest
difference from the experimental results among the three equations. This may
be due to the fixed value of the nose shape factor N at 1.14 for all sharp
projectiles in the NDRC equation even for those with different caliber radius
head (CRH) values. As a result, the penetration depths induced by a projectile
with higher value of CRH, i.e. “sharper”, may be underestimated. The ConWep
as well as Li and Chen equations give better predictions of the penetration
depth of the FRHSCs. All three equations, however, underestimate the
penetration depth of the SHCCs probably due to the absence of coarse
157
aggregate. The Li and Chen equation provides better prediction for the SHCCs
but the predicted value of the SHCC-ST+PE is still 24% lower than the
experimental value.
Figure 5.14 plots the experimental versus predicted penetration depths
of cement composites in the present study (including a few data points with
higher impact velocities from Wang et al. (2016)) and those from literature
(Maalej et al. 2005; O'Neil et al. 1999; Zhang et al. 2007). The ranges of impact
velocity and cylinder compressive strength of the composites are from 220 to
750 m/s and from 36 to 163 MPa, respectively. The predicted values are
obtained from the three equations mentioned above. Specimens of SHCC-
ST+PE (Maalej et al. 2005) and fiber reinforced concretes (FRCs) in Zhang et
al. (2007) were tested with smaller projectiles, i.e. 15 g in mass and 12.6 mm in
diameter. Plain HSC in O'Neil et al. (1999) was tested with projectiles of 906 g
in mass and 26.9 mm in diameter. In the graphs, a data point above the dotted
line indicates that the predicted value is higher than the experimental result, i.e.
overestimation, whereas a data point below that line indicates an
underestimation. A data point falling in the region between the two dashed lines
drawn on the graphs indicates that the predicted value is within 20% from the
experimental result, which is considered acceptable for a prediction equation for
the penetration depth (Chen and Li 2002; Corbett et al. 1996; Hansson 2003).
Similar to the above observations, the ConWep and modified NDRC
equations underestimate the penetration depth of the SHCCs tested with the
smaller projectiles (Figure 5.14a & b) as well. Li and Chen equation also seems
to give better prediction for the SHCCs as shown in Figure 5.14c.
158
For the FRCs, FRHSCs, and HSCs with coarse aggregate, the
overestimation seems to be more frequent when tested with the smaller
projectiles than that tested with the larger projectiles. More specifically, when
tested by the small projectiles with a diameter of 12.6 mm, the predicted values
for the FRCs by the ConWep, modified NDRC, and Li and Chen equations are
25 – 124% higher than the experimental results. On the other hand, when tested
using the larger projectiles with diameters of 26.9 – 28.0 mm, the predicted
values for the FRHSCs and HSCs are either 1 – 38% lower or 3 – 28% higher
than the experimental results with an exception of the FRHSC-60 (46% higher
when predicted by Li and Chen equation). This may be explained by the effects
of projectile size and mass, thus kinetic energy of the impact. When a smaller
projectile impacts coarse aggregates, a decreased penetration depth will be
registered. This effect is reduced when larger projectiles are used.
Among these three equations, the Li and Chen equation seems to
provide the most conservative prediction, but still overestimates the penetration
depth of the composites containing coarse aggregate up to 124% of the
experimental results based on data in Figure 5.14.
5.3.3.2 Proposed revision of ConWep equation for predicting penetration depth
As noted in Chapter 2, the equations in literature for predicting the penetration
depth were originally developed for conventional concrete. They may not be
applicable for the cement composites which do not contain either coarse
aggregate or both coarse and fine aggregate. In the three equations discussed
above, the compressive strength of composites is taken into account in addition
to the shape, size, mass, and velocity of the projectile.
159
As mentioned above, a fixed nose shape factor in the modified NDRC
equation may affect its accuracy in the prediction of penetration depth. For
simplicity, the ConWep equation is revised and evaluated for the prediction of
the penetration depth. The original ConWep equation (Equation (2.27)) is:
(2.27)
where Pd is penetration depth, fc is concrete compressive strength, M is
projectile mass, D is projectile diameter, N is nose shape factor or nose
performance coefficient, CRH is Caliber Radius Head calculated as the ratio of
tangent ogive radius (R) to projectile diameter (D), V is impact velocity.
Equation (2.27) can be written as:
(5.1)
where the two original coefficients are introduced during
the unit conversion and .
As discussed in Section 5.3.2, the penetration depth of the composites
seems to be better co-related to the “effective hardness index” and elastic
modulus than to the compressive strength. Hansson (2003) also reported that
the ConWep equation may overestimate the penetration depth of HSCs having
compressive strength over 65 MPa or concretes having coarse aggregate of low
hardness, e.g. limestone aggregate. Although the relationships of elastic
modulus and compressive strength are established for high strength concrete
(ACI Committee 363 2010; fib 2010) they may not be applicable for SHCCs
and FRHSMs due to the absence of coarse aggregate. Comparing the
parameters of the “effective hardness index” and elastic modulus, the latter is
one of the basic properties for structural materials and information is readily
160
available. Thus, it is proposed to incorporate the elastic modulus of the
composite in place of the compressive strength in the equation to predict the
penetration depth, and the revised equation is written as follows:
(5.2)
By writing Equations (5.1) and (5.2) in logarithmic form and conducting
linear regression analyses with the data of SHCC-ST+PE, SHCC-PVA,
FRHSCs, FRCs, and HSCs (Maalej et al. 2005; O'Neil et al. 1999; Wang et al.
2016; Zhang et al. 2007), coefficients a1 and b1 (in Equation (5.1)) and a2 and b2
(in Equation (5.2)) are derived and summarized in Table 5.5 together with the
coefficient of determination R2 for the regression. The compressive strength of
the composites is in the range of 36 and 163 MPa as mentioned above while
their elastic modulus varies from 18 to 51 GPa.
From the regression analyses of the same data set, it seems the
penetration depth Pd is better predicted by the elastic modulus than by the
compressive strength for given information of the projectile due to the higher
R2 of the former. The low R2 of 0.33 indicates a weak dependence of the
penetration depth Pd on the compressive strength when various cement
composites are considered.
The experimental penetration depth and predicted value obtained from
the updated Equations (5.1), proposed Equation (5.2), and coefficients in Table
5.5 are summarized in Table 5.6, and the results are also plotted in Figure 5.15
for comparison. The underestimation of the penetration depth of the HSCs in
O'Neil et al. (1999) by both equations may be relevant to the high length to
diameter ratio of projectiles (7.7) in their study compared with that in the other
studies (1.9 – 2.7). This is similar to the observation by Hansson (2004).
161
From the results, it seems that the updated Equation (5.1) tends to
underestimate the penetration depth of the SHCCs but overestimate that of the
FRHSCs and FRCs, whereas the proposed Equation (5.2) does not seem to
show such bias. This may be attributed to the better reflection of the effect of
coarse aggregate when the elastic modulus is incorporated into the equation.
These observations show that the elastic modulus of the composites may play
an important role in predicting the penetration depth of SHCCs and FRHSCs.
With limited data available, further research is needed to predict the penetration
depth under HVPI with the consideration of elastic modulus of cement
composites.
5.4 Summary of Chapter 5
Behavior of six cement composites, including two strain-hardening cement
composites (SHCCs), three fiber-reinforced high strength concretes (FRHSCs),
and one fiber-reinforced high strength mortar (FRHSM) under high velocity
projectile impact (HVPI) are investigated and discussed in this chapter.
Experiments were conducted with specimens of 600×600-mm in impact face
and 400-mm in thickness by ogive nose-shaped projectiles with a mass of 249
grams and a diameter of 28 mm. Following conclusions are drawn from the
experimental results and discussion:
(1) The penetration depth and crater diameter of the FRHSCs seems to decrease
with the increase in compressive strength.
(2) With comparable compressive strengths, the FRHSC-60 and FRHSC-85
have significantly lower penetration depth than those of the SHCC-PVA and
SHCC-ST+PE, respectively. This may be due to the absence of either coarse
162
aggregate in SHCC-PVA or both coarse and fine aggregate in SHCC-ST+PE.
The improvement in compressive strength by elimination of coarse aggregate in
the FRHSM does not seem to be beneficial to reduce the penetration depth.
These may be attributed to the higher strength, elastic modulus, and hardness of
the coarse aggregate than those of the mortar/cement paste matrices and the
greater friction and abrasion effects induced by the aggregate.
(3) The penetration depth seems to decrease with the increase in “effective
hardness index” calculated based on the hardness and proportion of the coarse
aggregate and mortar matrix and elastic modulus of the composites. Cement
composites incorporating a high proportion of aggregates would be more
effective in reducing the penetration depth against the projectile impact so long
as workability can be satisfied. In addition, improvement in the bonding in the
C-S-H structure in cement paste may be useful to improve the mechanical
properties and reduce the penetration depth.
(4) The two SHCCs exhibit better fragmentation resistance and smaller crater
diameter and volume than those of the FRHSCs and FRHSM, probably due to
their higher fiber content and better toughness.
(5) Among the three equations investigated in this study, the Li and Chen
equation (Li and Chen 2003) provides a more conservative and better
prediction. However, none of the three equations investigated in this study was
found to be suitable for the SHCC-ST+PE.
(6) The proposed revision of the ConWep equation based on elastic modulus
provides better prediction on the penetration depth than that based on
compressive strength using a data set including SHCCs and FRHSCs with the
ranges of compressive strength and elastic modulus of 36 – 163 MPa and 18 –
163
51 GPa, respectively in the present study and several studies in literature
(Maalej et al. 2005; O'Neil et al. 1999; Wang et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2007).
This indicates that the elastic modulus may play an important role in predicting
the penetration depth of cement composites within the ranges of the strength
and elastic modulus described.
164
Table 5.1 Mix proportions

Material w/ Type Vf Proportion per cubic meter, kg/m3 SP, Flow,
cm of (%) Ce- Silica Wa- Coarse Sand Fiber l/m3 mm or
fibers ment fume ter aggre- Vebe
or fly gate time, s
ash
Density, 2300,
3150 1000 2650 2600
kg/m3 2420(~)
SHCC-PVA 0.25 PVA 2.0 586 704(~) 323 0 469(^) 26 10 250
SHCC- 0.25 ST 0.5 1478 148 414 0 0 39(ST) 17 150-
ST+PE +PE +1.5 +15(PE) 170
FRHSC-60 0.50 Steel 0.5 410 0 205 946 760 39 3 3(#)
FRHSC-85 0.35 Steel 0.5 480 0 168 946 776 39 10 5(#)
FRHSC-110 0.28 Steel 0.5 450 45 139 946 772 39 10 3(#)
FRHSM 0.17 Steel 0.5 1030 103 193 0 1050 39 11 230-
240
Note: (~)fly ash, (^)fine sand (smaller than 0.25 mm); (#)Vebe time; ST = steel fiber; PE
= polyethylene fiber; PVA = polyvinyl alcohol fiber.
Table 5.2 Information on experiments conducted

Properties to be Specimen size, Number of Curing Testing age
determined mm specimens condition
per test
1. Resistance to high 600×600×400 1 28 days in 3 – 7 months
velocity projectile impact moist
2. Compressive strength 100×100×100 3 conditions, 28 days and 3
and Rockwell hardness (*) left exposed – 7 months
until testing
date
3. Elastic modulus (#) 100×200 3 28 days in 28 days
4. Flexural behavior (#)
100×100×400 3 moist 28 days
conditions
Note: (*)Rockwell hardness is determined at the age of 2 months, as it is a non-
destructive test all the specimens are used for compression tests at later ages; (#)for the
FRHSC-110 specimens
165
Table 5.3 Results on static properties and high velocity projectile impact tests
Material Density, Cube compressive strength, Elastic Rockwell Effective Impact Penetration Crater Crater Projectile
kg/m3 MPa modulus, hardness, hardness velocity, depth, mm diameter, volume, mass loss,
28-day Impact test GPa HR15T index m/s mm ml %
(#)
day
SHCC-PVA 1988 ± 8 46.1 ± 6.9 65.0 ± 9.1 23.4 ± 0.4(^) 61 ± 8 61 379 99 154 148 0.19
SHCC-ST+PE 1978 ± 2 82.0 ± 4.1 92.5 ± 2.4 21.1 ± 0.5(^) 45 ± 9 45 372 109 161 100 0.09
FRHSC-60 2367 ± 8 59.4 ± 1.2 72.0 ± 2.7 35.1(^) 52 ± 9 72 401 79 279 495 0.65
(^)
FRHSC-85 2416 ± 8 89.3 ± 6.6 107.5 ± 3.7 37.7 ± 1.0 64 ± 6 79 392 77 188 730 0.57
FRHSC-110 2492 ± 6 140.3 ± 5.6 155.7 ± 3.2 44.9 ± 1.5 69 ± 8 81 401 73 179 376 0.68
FRHSM 2417 ± 6 122.5 ± 15.5 126.7 ± 7.8 N.A. 80 ± 4 80 400 79 230 420 0.69
(#) (^)
Note: age of the impact test is from 3 to 7 months after casting due to the availability of the equipment; from the different batch reported in Chapter 4;
results expressed as average value  standard deviation for tests with ≥3 specimens, average value provided for tests with only two specimens.
166
Table 5.4 Comparison between experimental and predicted penetration depths
Material Penetration depth, mm
Experi- ConWep equation Modified NDRC Li and Chen
mental (Hyde 1991) equation (2003)
results (Kennedy 1966)
Depth, Diffe- Depth, Diffe- Depth, Diffe-

mm rence(*), mm rence(*), mm rence(*),
% % %
SHCC-PVA 99 83 -16 73 -26 94 -5
SHCC-ST+PE 109 72 -34 64 -41 81 -25
FRHSC-60 79 86 +9 75 -4 97 +23
FRHSC-85 77 72 -7 64 -17 82 +6
FRHSC-110 73 66 -10 59 -19 76 +3
FRHSM 79 70 -12 62 -21 80 +1
(*)
Note: in comparison with experimental result, i.e. (predicted–
experimental)/experimental*100%
Table 5.5 Results of the regression analyses

Equation Parameter of a b R2
composite
(5.1) Cylinder compressive 9.64×107 0.69 0.37
strength (fc)
(5.2) Elastic modulus in 9.84×107 0.91 0.75
compression (E)
Table 5.6 Comparison between the revised ConWep equation incorporating

compressive strength and elastic modulus
Penetration depth, mm
Equation (5.1), based Equation (5.2),
on compressive based on elastic
Material Experi-
Target strength modulus
mental
impact Diffe-
results Depth, Diffe- Depth, (*)
velocity, rence ,
mm rence(*), % mm
m/s %
SHCC-PVA 99 94 -5 86 -13
SHCC-ST+PE 109 77 -29 89 -18
FRHSC-60 79 97 +22 72 -9
400
FRHSC-85 77 76 -2 68 -12
FRHSC-110 73 67 -9 63 -13
FRHSM 79 72 -9 67 -15
SHCC-ST+PE 242 160 -34 191 -21
600 FRHSC-60 115 170 +47 117 +2
FRHSM 110 120 +9 104 -5
600 - 700 FRCs, 26 44 +69 33 +25
167
d=12.6mm 24 42 +75 32 +36
(Zhang et al. 25 38 +55 31 +27
2007)
23 37 +64 30 +32
30 46 +52 33 +11
29 44 +54 32 +11
24 38 +59 29 +24
20 22 +12 24 +19
21 22 +4 23 +10
25 25 +1 26 +8
29 28 -2 30 +6
30 29 -4 32 +4
31 28 -9 30 -1
31 29 -7 31 +1
32 28 -12 31 -5
34 33 -4 36 +5
35 29 -18 31 -11
36 33 -8 36 +1
36 31 -15 33 -8
SHCC- 36 34 -7 37 +2
ST+PE, 34 -9 -1
37 37
300 - 700 d=12.6 mm
39 33 -16 36 -8
(Maalej et al.
2005) 39 40 +1 44 +11
42 38 -10 41 -1
42 33 -21 36 -14
42 40 -5 44 +5
44 38 -14 42 -5
46 44 -5 48 +5
46 47 +3 52 +14
51 46 -9 51 +1
52 43 -18 47 -9
56 58 +3 64 +15
57 57 -1 63 +11
61 51 -15 57 -6
72 61 -16 68 -6
180 143 -21 142 -21
296 254 -14 251 -15
132 88 -33 89 -33
HSCs, d=26.9 374 -16 -16
444 374
200 - 600 mm (O'Neil et
293 242 -17 242 -17
al. 1999)
460 387 -16 380 -17
161 137 -15 139 -14
81 69 -15 68 -15
168
Figure 5.1 Set-up of the high velocity projectile impact test and supports of the
specimen
Figure 5.2 Shape and dimensions of the projectile
169
Figure 5.3 Determination of crater area
Figure 5.4 Scanning device
40
35
30
25 SHCC-PVA
Load (kN)
SHCC-ST+PE
20
FRHSC-60
15 FRHSC-85
FRHSC-110
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.5 Average load-deflection curves of SHCCs and FRHSCs in bending tests
170
Figure 5.6 Model for estimating the “effective hardness index” of the composites
120
SHCC-PVA
110 SHCC-ST+PE
Penetration depth (mm)
100 FRHSM
FRHSC-60
90
FRHSC-85
80 FRHSC-110
Li and Chen formula
70
ConWep formula
60 Modified NDRC formula
50
50 100
Cylinder compressive strength (MPa)
Figure 5.7 Effect of compressive strength on the penetration depth
171
120
110
Penetration depth (mm) 100 SHCC-PVA

SHCC-ST+PE
90 FRHSM
FRHSC-60
80
FRHSC-85
70 FRHSC-110
60
50
40 50 60 70 80 90
Effective hardness index
Figure 5.8 Effect of “effective hardness index” on the penetration depth of specimens
120
110
SHCC-PVA
Penetration depth (mm)
100
SHCC-
ST+PE
90 FRHSM
FRHSC-60
80
FRHSC-85
70
60
50
10 20 30 40 50
Elastic modulus (GPa)
Figure 5.9 Effect of elastic modulus on the penetration depth of specimens
172
0.8
0.7
0.6 SHCC-PVA
Projectile mass loss (%)
0.5 SHCC-ST+PE
FRHSM
0.4
FRHSC-60
0.3 FRHSC-85
0.2 FRHSC-110
0.1
0
40 50 60 70 80 90
Effective hardness index
Figure 5.10 Relationship between “effective hardness index” and projectile mass loss
Figure 5.11 Impact faces of the specimens
173
Figure 5.12 Scanned images of crater on specimens
800
600 SHCC-PVA
Crater volume (ml)
SHCC-ST+PE
400 FRHSC-60
FRHSC-85
200 FRHSC-110
0
0 20 40 60 80
Area under load-deflection curves (Nm)
Figure 5.13 Effect of fracture toughness on the crater volume
174
500 (a) ConWep
SHCC-PVA (d=28 mm)
SHCC-ST+PE (d=28
400 +20% mm)
FRHSM (d=28 mm)
Predicted penetration depth (mm)
FRHSC-60 (d=28 mm)

300 20%
FRHSC-85 (d=28 mm)
200 FRHSC-110 (d=28 mm)
SHCC-ST+PE (d=12.6
mm) (Maalej et al. 2005)
100 FRCs (d=12.6 mm)
(Zhang et al. 2007)
HSCs (d=26.9 mm)
(O'Neil et al. 1999)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Experimental penetration depth (mm)
500 (b) Modified NDRC

SHCC-PVA (d=28 mm)
SHCC-ST+PE (d=28
400 mm)
FRHSM (d=28 mm)
+20%
FRHSC-60 (d=28 mm)

300
20% FRHSC-85 (d=28 mm)
200 FRHSC-110 (d=28 mm)
SHCC-ST+PE (d=12.6
100 FRCs (d=12.6 mm)
(Zhang et al. 2007)
HSCs (d=26.9 mm)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Figure 5.14 Experimental penetration depths compared with those predicted from
equations: (a) ConWep equation (Hyde 1992) and (b) modified NDRC equation
(Kennedy 1966). The dashed lines indicate ±20% of the experimental result
175
500 (c) Li and Chen
SHCC-PVA (d=28 mm)
SHCC-ST+PE (d=28
400 +20% mm)
FRHSM (d=28 mm)
FRHSC-60 (d=28 mm)

300 20%
FRHSC-85 (d=28 mm)
200 FRHSC-110 (d=28 mm)
SHCC-ST+PE (d=12.6
100 FRCs (d=12.6 mm)
(Zhang et al. 2007)
HSCs (d=26.9 mm)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Figure 5.14 (continued) (c) equation by Li and Chen (2003)
176
(a) Compressive strength is incorporated
SHCC-PVA (d=28 mm) FRHSC-110 (d=28 mm)
SHCC-ST+PE (d=28 mm) SHCC-ST+PE (d=12.6 mm) (Maalej et al. 2005)
FRHSM (d=28 mm) FRCs (d=12.6 mm) (Zhang et al. 2007)
FRHSC-60 (d=28 mm) HSCs (d=26.9 mm) (O'Neil et al. 1999)
FRHSC-85 (d=28 mm)
200
500
400
+20%
300 20%
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 200
(b) Elastic modulus is incorporated

SHCC-PVA (d=28 mm) FRHSC-110 (d=28 mm)
SHCC-ST+PE (d=28 mm) SHCC-ST+PE (d=12.6 mm) (Maalej et al. 2005)
FRHSM (d=28 mm) FRCs (d=12.6 mm) (Zhang et al. 2007)
FRHSC-60 (d=28 mm) HSCs (d=26.9 mm) (O'Neil et al. 1999)
FRHSC-85 (d=28 mm)
200
500
400
+20%
300
20%
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 200
Figure 5.15 Experimental penetration depth compared with predicted value when (a)
compressive strength or (b) elastic modulus is incorporated in the prediction equation.
The dashed lines indicate ±20% of the experimental result.
177
Chapter 6 Summary and Recommendations
6.1 Summary and conclusions
The main objective of the study is to investigate the static and dynamic
behaviors of high performance concretes used for potential application in
protective structures. The critical parameters for the compressive strength of
high-strength concrete (HSC), the behaviors of strain-hardening cement
composite (SHCC) and fiber-reinforced high-strength concrete (FRHSC) under
high strain rate compressive and high velocity projectile impact (HVPI)
loadings have been investigated.
6.1.1 Critical parameters for the compressive strength of high-strength
concrete
A combined experimental-numerical approach with an idealized three-phase
composite model based on a single inclusion block (SIB) has been adopted.
With the cohesive surface model for the ITZ and plasticity-damage models for
the matrix and inclusion, the compressive strength and failure process of the
composite SIB are in agreement with the experimental result and observations.
Parametric study has been conducted to provide a qualitative
understanding on the effects of the inclusion (compressive and tensile strengths)
and mortar matrix (elastic modulus, compressive and tensile strengths, and
strain capacity) on the compressive strength of the SIB. The combined and
individual effects induced by 40% increase in the compressive strengths, 20%
and 40% increases in lateral strain capacity, and corresponding increases in
other parameters of the inclusion and mortar matrix have been examined. A
178
series of experiments have been conducted to determine the influence of these
parameters on the compressive strength of HSC.
The numerical and experimental results indicate that among the
parameters in the ranges investigated, the lateral strain capacity of the matrix
may be the most critical parameter for the compressive strength of the SIB and
HSC. In the present experiment, lateral strain capacity of the mortar matrix is
improved by using fibers. The numerical and experimental results also show
probable effects of the compressive and tensile strength of the mortar. On the
other hand, the increase of 11 – 12% in elastic modulus of the mortar in the
simulation and experiment does not seem to improve the compressive strength
of the SIB and HSC significantly.
The present numerical results agree with the experimental results from
literature (de Larrard and Belloc 1997; Giaccio et al. 1992; Kılıç et al. 2008;
Wu et al. 2001) that an increase in the compressive strength of coarse aggregate
above the level of 130 – 160 MPa does not lead to the higher compressive
strength of HSC.
6.1.2 Behavior of cement composites under high strain rate compression
Behavior of two SHCCs under static (about 10-5 s-1), intermediate (from 10-4 to
10-1 s-1), and high (from 30 to 300 s-1) strain rate compressive loadings has been
investigated in comparison with that of corresponding FRHSCs with
comparable compressive strengths. One SHCC had mortar matrix with
relatively high content of fly ash and reinforced by PVA fibers (SHCC-PVA),
whereas the other had cement paste matrix reinforced with a combination of
steel and polyethylene fibers (SHCC-ST+PE).
179
Under flexural loading, the SHCCs display strain hardening behavior
with multiple cracks, whereas the FRHSCs exhibit strain softening with only
one crack. Under compressive loading the SHCCs have lower elastic modulus
than that of the FRHSCs of comparable compressive strength due to the
absence of coarse aggregate or both coarse and fine aggregate in the formers.
The dynamic increase factor for compressive strength (DIFfc) of the
SHCCs and FRHSCs increases with strain rate. The DIFfc of the SHCCs is
generally lower than that of the FRHSCs at a given strain rate indicating that
the SHCCs are less sensitive to high strain rate which may be explained by their
absence of coarse aggregate and higher content of fibers. In addition, the
sensitivity of the SHCCs and FRHSCs to high strain rate seems to be affected
by their compressive strength as the composites with higher compressive
strengths tend to have lower DIFfc values. The increasing trend with strain rate
of the dynamic increase factor for toughness (DIFtc) is similar to that of the
DIFfc.
The damage of the SHCCs is less severe than that of the FRHSCs at
similar strain rates, probably due to the higher fiber content in the SHCCs
(2.0%) than that in the FRHSCs (0.5%). The 1.5 volume % of polyethylene
fibers in the SHCC-ST+PE may also lead to less sensitivity of the steel fibers to
high strain rate manifested by less rupture of the steel fibers than that in the
FRHSC-85.
Equations in model codes CEB-FIP 1990 and fib 2010 for ordinary
concrete may predict the DIFfc values of SHCC and FRHSC at the strain rates
in the range of 10-4 and 10-1 s-1 but overestimate those at the strain rates from 30
to 300 s-1. An empirical equation proposed by Wang et al. (2011a) for
180
conventional fiber-reinforced concretes may provide better prediction for the
DIFfc of FRHSCs but still overestimates that of the SHCCs.
6.1.3 Behavior of cement composites under high velocity projectile impact
Behavior of the SHCC-PVA and SHCC-ST+PE with compressive strengths of
65 and 92 MPa, respectively, FRHSCs with compressive strengths of 72 – 156
MPa, and a fiber-reinforced high-strength mortar (FRHSM) with compressive
strength of 127 MPa under high velocity projectile impact (HVPI) has been
experimentally studied. Ogive nose-shaped projectiles with a mass of 249
grams and a diameter of 28 mm were launched at velocities of about 400 m/s in
the HVPI tests.
The penetration depth of the FRHSCs is lower than that of the SHCCs
of comparable compressive strength, probably due to the presence of coarse and
fine aggregate in the former. The increase in the compressive strength of the
FRHSCs seems to decrease the penetration depth of the projectiles. However,
the increase in the compressive strength by the elimination of coarse aggregate
in the FRHSM does not seem to reduce the penetration depth compared with
the corresponding FRHSCs.
The coarse aggregate with higher strength, elastic modulus, and
hardness in the FRHSCs compared with those of the mortar/cement paste
matrices may provide better resistance to the penetration of projectile. The
aggregate may also induce greater friction and abrasion effects manifested by
the greater mass loss of the projectile than the cement paste contributing to the
reduction in the penetration depth.
181
The two SHCCs exhibit better fragmentation resistance and smaller
crater diameter and volume than those of the FRHSCs and FRHSM, probably
due to their higher fiber content and better toughness.
The term “effective hardness index” calculated based on the hardness
and proportion of the coarse aggregate and mortar matrix is introduced in this
study. It is found that the penetration depth tends to decrease with the increase
in the “effective hardness index”. A decreasing trend of the penetration depth
with elastic modulus of the composites is also observed.
The equation suggested by Li and Chen (2003) provides a more
conservative and better prediction of the penetration depth than the ConWep
(Hyde 1992) and modified NDRC (Kennedy 1966) equations. However, none
of the three equations investigated in this study seems to be suitable for the
SHCC-ST + PE.
The revision of the ConWep equation was proposed using a data set
including SHCCs and FRHSCs with compressive strengths of 36 – 163 MPa
and elastic modulus of 18 – 51 GPa from the present study and several
published studies (Maalej et al. 2005; O'Neil et al. 1999; Wang et al. 2016;
Zhang et al. 2007). With no change on parameters of the shape, size, mass, and
velocity of the projectile in the equation, the proposed equation based on elastic
modulus of the cement composites provides better prediction than that based on
the compressive strength. This indicates a more important role of the elastic
modulus than the compressive strength in predicting the penetration depth
within the ranges of the strength and elastic modulus described.
182
6.2 Research contribution
Results of the present research provide useful information for the design and
selection of high performance concretes for protective structures.
For the first part of the study, the numerical and experimental results are
significant to the understanding of the critical parameters for the compressive
strength of HSC. The lateral strain capacity of the mortar matrix has been
considered as an important parameter governing the compressive strength of
HSC. However, it has not been established numerically or experimentally in
literature. This finding provides suggestions and direction for future
development of HSC.
For the second part of the study, the behaviors of SHCCs and FRHSCs
under high strain rate compressive loading are examined and compared. The
experimental data, especially the DIF for compressive strength of the SHCCs,
provide essential information as input for future numerical study. This is
expected to provide more accurate simulation since most of the current
numerical studies on SHCCs are based on DIF predicted by the CEB-FIP 1990
and fib 2010 code equations, e.g. Chin (2007); Li and Zhang (2011); Li and
Zhang (2012).
For the third part of the study, SHCCs and FRHSCs are evaluated and
compared in their resistance to HVPI despite with only one specimen of each
mixture. Experimental results of this study provide guidance to develop new
materials or to incorporate different materials in protective structures. It has
been found that the “effective hardness index” and elastic modulus have better
co-relation with the penetration depth than the compressive strength of the
cement composites. Based on the findings, the elastic modulus is proposed to be
183
incorporated in the ConWep equation to predict the penetration depth under
HVPI. Limited results indicate that the proposed revision based on the elastic
modulus provides better prediction on the penetration depth than that based on
the compressive strength of the composites.
6.3 Recommendations for future work
From the results and discussion in the present study, the recommendations for
further research are as follows.
For the numerical simulation of HSC, improvements may be made with
multiple-inclusion model. Further study may verify if the lateral strain capacity
of coarse aggregate affects the compressive strength of HSC once the lateral
strain capacity of the mortar matrix has already improved significantly.
Experiments with split Hopkinson pressure bar, drop-weight testing
systems, and/or advanced hydraulic testing machine may be needed to
determine the DIFfc at the compressive strain rates around the transition point,
i.e. from 0.1 to 30 s-1, for SHCC and FRHSC. Since the most characteristic
properties of SHCC is the strain hardening behavior under tensile loadings,
additional studies and comparison between the behavior of SHCCs and
FRHSCs subjected to high strain rate tensile loading will also be interesting.
In order to predict the penetration depth of cement composites when
subjected to HVPI, further research is needed to verify the important role of the
elastic modulus. It may also be of interest to study experimentally the behavior
of ultra-high strength concrete and high-strength SHCC which have
significantly improved compressive strength and elastic modulus.
184
References
ACI Committee 318 (2002). 318-02: Building code requirements for structural
concrete and commentary, American Concrete Institute.
ACI Committee 363 (2010). 363R-10 Report on High-Strength Concrete,
American Concrete Institute.
ACI Committee 446 (2004). 446.4R-04: Report on Dynamic Fracture of
Concrete, American Concrete Institute.
ACI Committee 544 (2009). 544.1R-96: Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete
(Reapproved 2009), American Concrete Institute.
Ahmed, S., Maalej, M., and Paramasivam, P. (2007). "Analytical Model for
Tensile Strain Hardening and Multiple Cracking Behavior of Hybrid
Fiber-Engineered Cementitious Composites." Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, 19(7), 527-539.
Ahmed, S. F. U. (2004). "Corrosion durability of functionally-graded reinforced
concrete beams." Doctor of Philosophy, National University of
Singapore.
Aitcin, P. C. (2004). High performance concrete, Taylor & Francis.
Aïtcin, P. C., and Mehta, P. K. (1990). "Effect of coarse-aggregate
characteristics on mechanical properties of high-strength concrete." ACI
Materials Journal, 87(2), 103-107.
Akçaoğlu, T., Tokyay, M., and Çelik, T. (2004). "Effect of coarse aggregate
size and matrix quality on ITZ and failure behavior of concrete under
uniaxial compression." Cement and Concrete Composites, 26(6), 633-
638.
Alavi Nia, A., Zolfaghari, M., Mahmoudi, A. H., Nili, M., and Khodarahmi, H.
(2013). "Analysis of resistance of concrete target against penetration of
eroding long rod projectile regarding flow field around the projectile
tip." International Journal of Impact Engineering, 57, 36-42.
Almansa, E. M., and Cánovas, M. F. (1999). "Behaviour of normal and steel
fiber-reinforced concrete under impact of small projectiles." Cement and
Concrete Research, 29(11), 1807-1814.
Almusallam, T. H., Siddiqui, N. A., Iqbal, R. A., and Abbas, H. (2013).
"Response of hybrid-fiber reinforced concrete slabs to hard projectile
impact." International Journal of Impact Engineering, 58(0), 17-30.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2003). "ASTM C39/C39M,
Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens."
American Society for Testing and Materials (2005). "ASTM C1609, Standard
Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
(Using Beam With Third-Point Loading)."
Bažant, Z., and Jirásek, M. (2002). "Nonlocal Integral Formulations of
Plasticity and Damage: Survey of Progress." Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 128(11), 1119-1149.
Bažant, Z., and Lin, F. (1988a). "Nonlocal Smeared Cracking Model for
Concrete Fracture." Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(11), 2493-
2510.
185
Bažant, Z., and Pijaudier-Cabot, G. (1989). "Measurement of Characteristic
Length of Nonlocal Continuum." Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
115(4), 755-767.
Bažant, Z. P. (1976). "Instability, ductility, and size effect in strain-softening
concrete." Journal of the engineering mechanics division, 102(2), 331-
344.
Bažant, Z. P., and Lin, F.-B. (1988b). "Non-local yield limit degradation."
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 26(8),
1805-1823.
Bell, J., Zhang, Y. X., Khin, S., and Hermes, P. (2012). "High velocity impact
behaviour of hybrid-fiber engineered cementitious composite panels."
Advanced Materials Research, 450-451, 563-567.
Bell, J. M. (2011). "High velocity impact behaviour of new hybrid-Engineered
Cementitious Composites." The University of New South Wales
Canberra at Australian Defence Force Academy Journal of
Undergraduate Engineering Research, 4(1).
Beppu, M., Miwa, K., Itoh, M., Katayama, M., and Ohno, T. (2008). "Damage
evaluation of concrete plates by high-velocity impact." International
Journal of Impact Engineering, 35(12), 1419-1426.
Bischoff, P. H., and Perry, S. H. (1991). "Compressive behaviour of concrete at
high strain rates." Mater Struct, 24(6), 425-450.
Bludau, C., Keuser, M., and Kustermann, A. (2006). "Perforation Resistance of
High-Strength Concrete Panels." Structural Journal, 103(2).
British Standards Institution (2009). "BS EN 12350-3:2009: Testing fresh
concrete. Vebe test." British Standards Institute.
Buyukozturk, O., and Hearing, B. (1998). "Crack propagation in concrete
composites influenced by interface fracture parameters." International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 35(31–32), 4055-4066.
Carrasquillo, R. L., Slate, F. O., and Nilson, A. H. (1981). "Microcracking and
Behavior of High Strength Concrete Subject to Short-Term Loading."
ACI Materials Journal, 78(3), 179-186.
CEB-FIP (1990). "Model Code 1990." British Standard Institution, London,
UK.
Chang, T.-P., and Su, N.-K. (1996). "Estimation of Coarse Aggregate Strength
in High-Strength Concrete." ACI Materials Journal, 93(1).
Chang, W. S. (1981). "Impact of solid missiles on concrete barriers." Journal of
the structural division, 107(2), 257-271.
Chen, X., and Li, Q. (2004). "Transition from Nondeformable Projectile
Penetration to Semihydrodynamic Penetration." Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 130(1), 123-127.
Chen, X. W., and Li, Q. M. (2002). "Deep penetration of a non-deformable
projectile with different geometrical characteristics." International
Journal of Impact Engineering, 27(6), 619-637.
Chen, Z., Yang, Y., and Yao, Y. (2013). "Quasi-static and dynamic
compressive mechanical properties of engineered cementitious
composite incorporating ground granulated blast furnace slag."
Materials & Design, 44(0), 500-508.
Chew, C. W. (2003). "Impact resistance of ultra-high-strength fiber-reinforced
cementitious materials." Bachelor of Engineering, National University
of Singapore, Singapore.
186
Chin, L. S. (2007). "Finite element modeling of hybrid-fiber ECC targets
subjected to impact and blast." Doctor of Philosophy, National
University of Singapore, Singapore.
Ciancio, D., and Gibbings, J. (2012). "Experimental investigation on the
compressive strength of cored and molded cement-stabilized rammed
earth samples." Construction and Building Materials, 28(1), 294-304.
Clifton, J. R. (1982). "Penetration Resistance of Concrete - A Review." U.S.
Department of Commerce - National Bureau of Standards, Washington
DC.
Corbett, G. G., Reid, S. R., and Johnson, W. (1996). "Impact loading of plates
and shells by free-flying projectiles: A review." International Journal of
Impact Engineering, 18(2), 141-230.
Dancygier, A. N., and Yankelevsky, D. Z. (1996). "High strength concrete
response to hard projectile impact." International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 18(6), 583-599.
Dancygier, A. N., Yankelevsky, D. Z., and Jaegermann, C. (2007). "Response
of high performance concrete plates to impact of non-deforming
projectiles." International Journal of Impact Engineering, 34(11), 1768-
1779.
de Larrard, F., and Belloc, A. (1997). "Influence of aggregate on the
compressive strength of normal and high-strength concrete." ACI
del Viso, J. R., Carmona, J. R., and Ruiz, G. (2008). "Shape and size effects on
the compressive strength of high-strength concrete." Cement and
Douglas, K. S., and Billington, S. L. (2005). "Rate-dependence in high-
performance fiber-reinforced cement-based composites for seismic
applications." Proc., High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cementitious
Composites in Structural Applications, RILEM Publications SARL, 17-
25.
Douglas, K. S., and Billington, S. L. (2011). "Strain rate dependence of
HPFRCC cylinders in monotonic tension." Materials and
Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 44(1), 391-404.
Du, X., Jin, L., and Ma, G. (2014). "Numerical simulation of dynamic tensile-
failure of concrete at meso-scale." International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 66(0), 5-17.
Dunbar, A., Wang, X., Tyson, W. R., and Xu, S. (2014). "Simulation of ductile
crack propagation and determination of CTOAs in pipeline steels using
cohesive zone modelling." Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering
Materials & Structures, 37(6), 592-602.
Felekoglu, K. T., and Felekoglu, B. (2013). "Effects of fibre hybridization on
multiple cracking potential of cement-based composites under flexural
loading." Construction and Building Materials, 41, 15-20.
Feng, H., Le, H. T. N., Wang, S., and Zhang, M.-H. (2016). "Effects of Silanes
and Silane Derivatives on Cement Hydration and Mechanical Properties
of Mortars." submitted to Construction & Building Materials.
fib (2010). "Model Code 2010." The International Federation for Structural
Concrete.
187
Follansbee, P. S., and Frantz, C. (1983). "Wave Propagation in the Split
Hopkinson Pressure Bar." Journal of Engineering Materials and
Technology, 105(1), 61-66.
Forrestal, M. J., Altman, B. S., Cargile, J. D., and Hanchak, S. J. (1994). "An
empirical equation for penetration depth of ogive-nose projectiles into
concrete targets." International Journal of Impact Engineering, 15(4),
395-405.
Forrestal, M. J., Frew, D. J., Hickerson, J. P., and Rohwer, T. A. (2003).
"Penetration of concrete targets with deceleration-time measurements."
International Journal of Impact Engineering, 28(5), 479-497.
Frew, D. J., Forrestal, M. J., and Cargile, J. D. (2006). "The effect of concrete
target diameter on projectile deceleration and penetration depth."
Frew, D. J., Forrestal, M. J., and Chen, W. (2002). "Pulse shaping techniques
for testing brittle materials with a split hopkinson pressure bar." Exp
Mech, 42(1), 93-106.
Frew, D. J., Hanchak, S. J., Green, M. L., and Forrestal, M. J. (1998).
"Penetration of concrete targets with ogive-nose steel rods."
Gao, S., Liu, H., and Jin, L. (2009). "A fuzzy model of the penetration
resistance of concrete targets." International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 36(4), 644-649.
Gettu, R., Bazant, Z. P., and Karr, M. E. (1990). "Fracture properties and
brittleness of high-strength concrete." ACI Materials Journal, 87(6),
608-618.
Ghouse, M. D., Rao, C., and Rao, B. N. (2011). "Numerical modelling of
failure of cement concrete using a unit cell approach." Sadhana, 36(1),
35-51.
Ghouse, M. D., Rao, C. L., and Rao, B. N. (2010). "Numerical Simulation of
Fracture Process in Cement Concrete Using Unit Cell Approach."
Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, 17(7), 481-487.
Giaccio, G., Rocco, C., Violini, D., Zappitelli, J., and Zerbino, R. (1992).
"High-strength concretes incorporating different coarse aggregates."
Gilman, J. J. (2009). Chemistry and physics of mechanical hardness, John
Wiley & Sons.
Gömze, L. A., and Gömze, L. N. (2011). "Hetero-modulus alumina matrix
nanoceramics and CMCs with extreme dynamic strength." IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 18(8), 082001.
Graff, K. F. (1975). Wave Motion in Elastic Solids, Dover Publications.
Grassl, P., and Jirasek, M. (2011). "Erratum to “Damage-plastic model for
concrete failure” [International Journal of Solids and Structures 43
(2006) 7166–7196]." International Journal of Solids and Structures,
48(6), 1084.
Grassl, P., and Jirásek, M. (2006a). "Damage-plastic model for concrete
failure." International Journal of Solids and Structures, 43(22-23),
7166-7196.
Grassl, P., and Jirásek, M. (2006b). "Plastic model with non-local damage
applied to concrete." International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 30(1), 71-90.
188
Grassl, P., and Jirásek, M. (2010). "Meso-scale approach to modelling the
fracture process zone of concrete subjected to uniaxial tension."
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 47(7–8), 957-968.
Grassl, P., Lundgren, K., and Gylltoft, K. (2002). "Concrete in compression: a
plasticity theory with a novel hardening law." International Journal of
Solids and Structures, 39(20), 5205-5223.
Gray III, G. T. R. (2000). "Classic Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Testing." ASM
Handbook. Volume 8: Mechanical Testing and Evaluation.
Han, A. L., Gan, B. S., and Setiawan, Y. (2014). "The Influence of Single
Inclusions to the Crack Initiation, Propagation and Compression
Strength of Mortar." Procedia Engineering, 95(0), 376-385.
Hanchak, S. J., Forrestal, M. J., Young, E. R., and Ehrgott, J. Q. (1992).
"Perforation of concrete slabs with 48 MPa (7 ksi) and 140 MPa (20 ksi)
unconfined compressive strengths." International Journal of Impact
Hansson, H. (2003). "A note on empirical formulas for the prediction of
concrete penetration." FOI-Swedish Defence Research Agency,
Weapons and Protection, SE-147, 25.
Hansson, H. (2004). "3D simulations of concrete penetration using SPH
formulation and the RHT material model." WIT Transactions on The
Built Environment, 73.
Hao, Y., and Hao, H. (2011). "Numerical evaluation of the influence of
aggregates on concrete compressive strength at high strain rate."
International Journal of Protective Structures, 2(2), 177-206.
Hao, Y., Hao, H., and Li, Z. X. (2013). "Influence of end friction confinement
on impact tests of concrete material at high strain rate." International
Journal of Impact Engineering, 60, 82-106.
Hassanzadeh, M. "Fracture mechanical properties of rocks and mortar/rock
interfaces." Proc., Proceedings of the 1994 MRS Fall Meeting,
November 28, 1994 - November 30, 1994, Materials Research Society,
377-386.
Houghton, D. L. (1976). "Determining Tensile Strain Capacity of Mass
Concrete." Journal Proceedings, 73(12).
Hyde, D. (1992). "ConWep, conventional weapons effects program." US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, USA.
Iravani, S. (1996). "Mechanical properties of high-performance concrete." ACI
JSCE Concrete Committee (2008). "Recommendations for design and
construction of high performance fiber reinforced cement composites
with multiple fine cracks (HPFRCC)." Concrete engineering series no.
82, July 2008, Japan Society of Civil Engineers.
Jun, P., and Mechtcherine, V. (2014). "Behaviour of strain-hardening cement-
based composites (SHCC) under repeated tensile loading." Proc., Fifth
International RILEM Workshop on High Performance Fiber Reinforced
Cement Composites (HPFRCC5), 97 - 104.
Keinde, D., Kamali-Bernard, S., Bernard, F., and Cisse, I. (2014). "Effect of the
interfacial transition zone and the nature of the matrix-aggregate
interface on the overall elastic and inelastic behaviour of concrete under
compression: a 3D numerical study." European Journal of
Environmental and Civil Engineering, 18(10), 1167-1176.
189
Kennedy, R. P. (1966). "Effects of an aircraft crash into a concrete reactor
containment building." Anaheim, CA: Holmes & Narver Inc.
Kennedy, R. P. (1976). "A review of procedures for the analysis and design of
concrete structures to resist missile impact effects." Nuclear
Engineering and Design, 37(2), 183-203.
Kerr, Z. (2012). "High Velocity Penetration Resistance and Mechanical
Properties of a New Hybrid Engineered Cementitious Composites." The
University of New South Wales Canberra at Australian Defence Force
Academy Journal of Undergraduate Engineering Research, 5(1).
Kesner, K., and Billington, S. L. (2004). "Tension, compression and cyclic
testing of engineered cementitious composite materials." Cornell
University, Red Jacket Quadrangle, Buffalo, NY 14261.
Khanzadi, M., and Behnood, A. (2009). "Mechanical properties of high-
strength concrete incorporating copper slag as coarse aggregate."
Construction and Building Materials, 23(6), 2183-2188.
Kılıç, A., Atiş, C. D., Teymen, A., Karahan, O., Özcan, F., Bilim, C., and
Özdemir, M. (2008). "The influence of aggregate type on the strength
and abrasion resistance of high strength concrete." Cement and Concrete
Composites, 30(4), 290-296.
Kim, S.-M., and Al-Rub, R. K. A. (2011). "Meso-scale computational modeling
of the plastic-damage response of cementitious composites." Cement
and Concrete Research, 41(3), 339-358.
Kosteski, L. E., Riera, J. D., Iturrioz, I., Singh, R. K., and Kant, T. (2015).
"Assessment of empirical formulas for prediction of the effects of
projectile impact on concrete structures." Fatigue & Fracture of
Engineering Materials & Structures, 38(8), 948-959.
Leppänen, J. (2005). "Experiments and numerical analyses of blast and
fragment impacts on concrete." International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 31(7), 843-860.
Li, J., and Zhang, Y. X. (2011). "Evolution and calibration of a numerical
model for modelling of hybrid-fibre ECC panels under high-velocity
impact." Composite Structures, 93(11), 2714-2722.
Li, J., and Zhang, Y. X. (2012). "Evaluation of constitutive models of hybrid-
fibre engineered cementitious composites under dynamic loadings."
Li, M., and Li, V. C. (2013). "Rheology, fiber dispersion, and robust properties
of Engineered Cementitious Composites." Mater Struct, 46(3), 405-420.
Li, Q., and Tong, D. (2003). "Perforation Thickness and Ballistic Limit of
Concrete Target Subjected to Rigid Projectile Impact." Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 129(9), 1083-1091.
Li, Q. M., and Chen, X. W. (2003). "Dimensionless formulae for penetration
depth of concrete target impacted by a non-deformable projectile."
Li, V., and Kanda, T. (1998). "Innovations Forum: Engineered Cementitious
Composites for Structural Applications." Journal of Materials in Civil
Li, V., and Leung, C. (1992). "Steady‐State and Multiple Cracking of Short
Random Fiber Composites." Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
118(11), 2246-2264.
190
Li, V. C. (1998). "Engineered cementitious composites - tailored composites
through micromechanical modeling." Proc., Present and the Future,
Canadian Society of Civil Engineers.
Li, V. C. (2003). "On Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC) - A Review
of the Material and Its Applications." Journal of Advanced Concrete
Technology, 1(3), 215-230.
Li, V. C. (2008). "Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC): Material,
Structural, and Durability Performance." Concrete Construction
Engineering Handbook - Second Edition, E. G. Nawy, ed.
Li, V. C., Mishra, D. K., and Wu, H.-C. (1995). "Matrix design for pseudo-
strain-hardening fibre reinforced cementitious composites." Mater
Struct, 28(10), 586-595.
Li, V. C., and Obla, K. H. (1994). "Effect of fiber length variation on tensile
properties of carbon-fiber cement composites." Composites
Li, V. C., Wang, S., and Wu, C. (2001). "Tensile strain-hardening behavior of
polyvinyl alcohol engineered cementitious composite (PVA-ECC)." ACI
Li, V. C., Wu, C., Wang, S., Ogawa, A., and Saito, T. (2002). "Interface
tailoring for strain-hardening polyvinyl alcohol-engineered cementitious
composite (PVA-ECC)." ACI Materials Journal, 99(5), 463-472.
Li, V. C., and Wu, H.-C. (1992). "Conditions for Pseudo Strain-Hardening in
Fiber Reinforced Brittle Matrix Composites." Applied Mechanics
Reviews, 45(8), 390-398.
Li, V. C., Wu, H.-C., Maalej, M., Mishra, D. K., and Hashida, T. (1996).
"Tensile Behavior of Cement-Based Composites with Random
Discontinuous Steel Fibers." Journal of the American Ceramic Society,
79(1), 74-78.
Li, Z., and Lambros, J. (1999). "Determination of the dynamic response of
brittle composites by the use of the split Hopkinson pressure bar."
Composites Science and Technology, 59(7), 1097-1107.
Liu, J., Lin, G., and Zhong, H. (2013). "An elastoplastic damage constitutive
model for concrete." China Ocean Eng, 27(2), 169-182.
Logan, A., Choi, W., Mirmiran, A., Rizkalla, S., and Zia, P. (2009). "Short-term
mechanical properties of high-strength concrete." ACI Materials
Journal, 106(5), 413-418.
Lok, T., and Zhao, P. (2004). "Impact Response of Steel Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete Using a Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar." Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, 16(1), 54-59.
Lu, Z.-H., Zhao, Y.-G., and Yu, Z.-W. "Strain of high-strength concrete at peak
compressive strength." Proc., 2nd International Conference on
Structures and Building Materials, ICSBM 2012, March 9, 2012 -
March 11, 2012, Trans Tech Publications, 161-165.
Lu, Z., and Zhao, Y. (2010). "Empirical Stress-Strain Model for Unconfined
High-Strength Concrete under Uniaxial Compression." Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, 22(11), 1181-1186.
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., and Oñate, E. (1989). "A plastic-damage
model for concrete." International Journal of Solids and Structures,
25(3), 299-326.
191
Maalej, M., and Li, V. (1994). "Flexural/Tensile‐Strength Ratio in Engineered
Cementitious Composites." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
6(4), 513-528.
Maalej, M., Quek, S. T., Ahmed, S. F. U., Zhang, J., Lin, V. W. J., and Leong,
K. S. (2012). "Review of potential structural applications of hybrid fiber
Engineered Cementitious Composites." Construction and Building
Materials, 36(0), 216-227.
Maalej, M., Quek, S. T., and Zhang, J. (2005). "Behavior of hybrid-fiber
engineered cementitious composites subjected to dynamic tensile
loading and projectile impact." Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 17(2), 143-152.
Mechtcherine, V. (2013). "Novel cement-based composites for the
strengthening and repair of concrete structures." Construction and
Building Materials, 41(0), 365-373.
Mechtcherine, V., Millon, O., Butler, M., and Thoma, K. (2011a). "Mechanical
behaviour of strain hardening cement-based composites under impact
loading." Cement and Concrete Composites, 33(1), 1-11.
Mechtcherine, V., Silva, F. d. A., Butler, M., Zhu, D., Mobasher, B., Gao, S.-L.,
and Mader, E. (2011b). "Behaviour of Strain-Hardening Cement-Based
Composites Under High Strain Rates." Journal of Advanced Concrete
Technology, 9(1), 51-62.
Mehta, P. K., and Aïtcin, P. C. (1990). "Microstructural basis of selection of
materials and mix proportions for high strength concrete." Proceedings
of the 2th International Sym on High Strength Concrete, 265-286.
Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. M. (2006). Concrete: microstructure,
properties, and materials, McGraw-Hill.
Mindess, S. (2009). "Fibre Reinforced Concrete under Impact Loading." Proc.,
Structures under Extreme Loading, National Defense Academy Protect
Workshop.
Mindess, S., Young, J. F., and Darwin, D. (2003). Concrete, Prentice Hall.
Mohamad, M. E., Ibrahim, I. S., Abdullah, R., Abd. Rahman, A. B., Kueh, A.
B. H., and Usman, J. (2015). "Friction and cohesion coefficients of
composite concrete-to-concrete bond." Cement and Concrete
Composites, 56, 1-14.
Mondal, P., Shah, S. P., and Marks, L. D. (2009). "Nanomechanical Properties
of Interfacial Transition Zone in Concrete." Nanotechnology in
Construction 3, Z. Bittnar, P. M. Bartos, J. Němeček, V. Šmilauer, and
J. Zeman, eds., Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 315-320.
Mroginski, J. L., and Etse, G. (2013). "A finite element formulation of gradient-
based plasticity for porous media with C1 interpolation of internal
variables." Computers and Geotechnics, 49(0), 7-17.
Nawy, E. G. (2008). Concrete construction engineering handbook, Taylor &
Francis Group.
Nemat-Nasser, S. (2000). "Introduction to High Strain Rate Testing." ASM
Handbook, Mechanical Testing and Evaluation (ASM International),
427-428.
Neville, A. M. (1997). "Aggregate bond and modulus of elasticity of concrete."
Neville, A. M. (2012). Properties of concrete, Pearson, England.
192
Newman, J., and Choo, B. S. (2003). Advanced Concrete Technology 2:
Concrete Properties, Elsevier Science.
Nguyen, G. D., and Korsunsky, A. M. (2008). "Development of an approach to
constitutive modelling of concrete: Isotropic damage coupled with
plasticity." International Journal of Solids and Structures, 45(20), 5483-
5501.
O'Neil, E. F., Neeley, B. D., and Cargile, J. D. (1999). "Tensile properties of
very-high-strength concrete for penetration-resistant structures." Shock
and Vibration, 6(5), 237-245.
O’Neil, E. F. (2008). "On Engineering the Microstructure of HPCs to Improve
Strength, Rheology, and Frangibility." PhD dissertation, Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL.
Okubo, S., and Nishimatsu, Y. (1985). "Uniaxial compression testing using a
linear combination of stress and strain as the control variable."
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, 22(5), 323-330.
Ollivier, J. P., Maso, J. C., and Bourdette, B. (1995). "Interfacial transition zone
in concrete." Advanced Cement Based Materials, 2(1), 30-38.
Pietruszczak, S., and Mróz, Z. (1981). "Finite element analysis of deformation
of strain-softening materials." International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 17(3), 327-334.
Poh, L. H., and Swaddiwudhipong, S. (2009). "Over-nonlocal gradient
enhanced plastic-damage model for concrete." International Journal of
Solids and Structures, 46(25–26), 4369-4378.
Ranade, R., Li, V. C., Stults, M. D., Heard, W. F., and Rushing, T. S. (2013).
"Composite Properties of High-Strength, High-Ductility Concrete." ACI
Rashid, M., Mansur, M., and Paramasivam, P. (2002). "Correlations between
Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Concrete." Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, 14(3), 230-238.
Read, H. E., and Hegemier, G. A. (1984). "Strain softening of rock, soil and
concrete - a review article." Mechanics of Materials, 3(4), 271-294.
Ren, W., Yang, Z., and Sharma, R. "3D meso-scale image-based fracture
modelling of concrete using cohesive elements." Proc., 22nd UK
National Conference of the Association of Computational Mechanics in
Engineering (ACME), University of Exeter.
Ross, C. A., Jerome, D. M., Tedesco, J. W., and Hughes, M. L. (1996).
"Moisture and strain rate effects on concrete strength." ACI Materials
Journal, 93(3), 293-300.
Rostásy, F. S., and Hartwich, K. (1985). "Compressive strength and
deformation of steel fibre reinforced concrete under high rate of strain."
International Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete,
7(1), 21-28.
Sahmaran, M., Lachemi, M., and Li, V. C. (2010). "Assessing mechanical
properties and microstructure of fire-damaged engineered cementitious
composites." ACI Materials Journal, 107(3), 297-304.
Sakulich, A. R., and Li, V. C. (2011). "Nanoscale characterization of
engineered cementitious composites (ECC)." Cement and Concrete
Research, 41(2), 169-175.
193
Sakurada, M., Ohyama, H., and Mori, T. (2008). "Application of High Strength
Fiber Reinforced Mortar to Prestressed Concrete Structures." Proc., the
8th International Symposium on Utilization of High-Strength and High-
Performance Concrete Japan Concrete Institute, 451-456.
Samal, M. K., Seidenfuss, M., Roos, E., Dutta, B. K., and Kushwaha, H. S.
(2008). "Finite element formulation of a new nonlocal damage model."
Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 44(6–7), 358-371.
Soe, K. T., Zhang, Y. X., and Zhang, L. C. (2013a). "Impact resistance of
hybrid-fiber engineered cementitious composite panels." Composite
Structures, 104(0), 320-330.
Soe, K. T., Zhang, Y. X., and Zhang, L. C. (2013b). "Material properties of a
new hybrid fibre-reinforced engineered cementitious composite."
Sovják, R., Vavřiník, T., Zatloukal, J., Máca, P., Mičunek, T., and Frydrýn, M.
(2015). "Resistance of slim UHPFRC targets to projectile impact using
in-service bullets." International Journal of Impact Engineering, 76(0),
166-177.
Swaddiwudhipong, S., Lu, H.-R., and Wee, T.-H. (2003). "Direct tension test
and tensile strain capacity of concrete at early age." Cement and
Tang, W. C., Lo, T. Y., and Chan, W. K. (2008). "Fracture properties of normal
and lightweight high-strength concrete." Magazine of Concrete
Research, 237-244.
Teoh, J. J. (2013). "Investigating the effect of high strain rate compressive
loadings on properties of Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC)."
Bachelor of Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Tijssens, M. G. A., Sluys, L. J., and van der Giessen, E. (2001). "Simulation of
fracture of cementitious composites with explicit modeling of
microstructural features." Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 68(11),
1245-1263.
Turon, A., Dávila, C. G., Camanho, P. P., and Costa, J. (2007). "An engineering
solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using
cohesive zone models." Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 74(10), 1665-
1682.
van Mier, J. G. M. (1996). Fracture Processes of Concrete: Assessment of
Material Parameters for Fracture Models, Taylor & Francis.
van Mier, J. G. M., Shah, S. P., Arnaud, M., Balayssac, J. P., Bascoul, A., Choi,
S., Dasenbrock, D., Ferrara, G., French, C., Gobbi, M. E., Karihaloo, B.
L., König, G., Kotsovos, M. D., Labuz, J., Lange-Kornbak, D.,
Markeset, G., Pavlovic, M. N., Simsch, G., Thienel, K. C., Turatsinze,
A., Ulmer, M., Geel, H. J. G. M., Vliet, M. R. A., and Zissopoulos, D.
(1997). "Strain-softening of concrete in uniaxial compression." Mater
Struct, 30(4), 195-209.
van Vliet, M. R. A., and van Mier, J. G. M. (1996). "Experimental investigation
of concrete fracture under uniaxial compression." Mechanics of
Cohesive-frictional Materials, 1(1), 115-127.
van Zijl, G. P. A. G., Wittmann, F. H., Oh, B. H., Kabele, P., Toledo Filho, R.
D., Fairbairn, E. M. R., Slowik, V., Ogawa, A., Hoshiro, H.,
Mechtcherine, V., Altmann, F., and Lepech, M. D. (2012). "Durability
194
of strain-hardening cement-based composites (SHCC)." Mater Struct,
45(10), 1447-1463.
van Zijl, G. P. A. G., Wittmann, F. H., RILEM Technical Committee 208-HFC
Staff, International Union of Testing, Research Laboratories for
Materials, and Structures Staff (2011). Durability of Strain-Hardening
Fibre-Reinforced Cement-Based Composites (SHCC): State of the Art
Report, Springer.
Wang, C., Yang, C., Liu, F., Wan, C., and Pu, X. (2012a). "Preparation of
Ultra-High Performance Concrete with common technology and
materials." Cement and Concrete Composites, 34(4), 538-544.
Wang, M., Liu, Z., Qiu, Y., and Shi, C. (2015). "Study on the Similarity Laws
for Local Damage Effects in a Concrete Target under the Impact of
Projectiles." Shock and Vibration, 501, 585230.
Wang, S. (2011). "Experimental and Numerical Studies on Behavior of Plain
and Fiber-Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Subjected to High Strain
Rate Loadings." Doctor of Philosophy, National University of
Singapore, Singapore.
Wang, S., Le, H. T. N., Poh, L. H., Feng, H., and Zhang, M.-H. (2016).
"Resistance of high-performance fiber-reinforced cement composites
against high-velocity projectile impact." International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 95, 89-104.
Wang, S., and Li, V. C. (2006). "Polyvinyl Alcohol Fiber Reinforced
Engineered Cementitious Composites: Material Design and
Performances." Proc., International RILEM workshop on HPFRCC in
structural applications, RILEM SARL, 65-73.
Wang, S., and Li, V. C. (2006). "High-early-strength engineered cementitious
composites." ACI Materials Journal, 103(2), 97-105.
Wang, S., and Li, V. C. (2007). "Engineered cementitious composites with
high-volume fly ash." ACI Materials Journal, 104(3), 233-241.
Wang, S., Zhang, M.-H., and Quek, S. T. (2011a). "Effect of high strain rate
loading on compressive behaviour of fibre-reinforced high-strength
concrete." Magazine of Concrete Research, 63(11), 813-827.
Wang, S., Zhang, M.-H., and Quek, S. T. (2012b). "Mechanical behavior of
fiber-reinforced high-strength concrete subjected to high strain-rate
compressive loading." Construction and Building Materials, 31(0), 1-
11.
Wang, S., Zhang, M., and Quek, S. (2011b). "Effect of Specimen Size on Static
Strength and Dynamic Increase Factor of High-Strength Concrete from
SHPB Test." Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 39(5), 1-10.
Wang, S., Zhang, M. H., and Quek, S. T. (2011c). "Tensile Strength versus
Toughness of Cement-Based Materials against High-Velocity Projectile
Impact." International Journal of Protective Structures, 2(2), 207-219.
Wawersik, W. R., and Fairhurst, C. (1970). "A study of brittle rock fracture in
laboratory compression experiments." International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 7(5), 561-
575.
Wee, T., Chin, M., and Mansur, M. (1996). "Stress-Strain Relationship of High-
Strength Concrete in Compression." Journal of Materials in Civil
195
Wen, H. M., and Yang, Y. (2014). "A note on the deep penetration of
projectiles into concrete." International Journal of Impact Engineering,
66(0), 1-4.
Wittmann, F. H. (2002). "Crack formation and fracture energy of normal and
high strength concrete." Sadhana, 27(4), 413-423.
Wu, H., Chen, X.-W., He, L.-L., and Fang, Q. (2014). "Stability analyses of the
mass abrasive projectile high-speed penetrating into concrete target. Part
I: Engineering model for the mass loss and nose-blunting of ogive-nosed
projectiles." Acta Mech Sin, 30(6), 933-942.
Wu, H., Fang, Q., Chen, X. W., Gong, Z. M., and Liu, J. Z. (2015a). "Projectile
penetration of ultra-high performance cement based composites at 510-
1320 m/s." Construction and Building Materials, 74(0), 188-200.
Wu, H., Fang, Q., Gong, J., Liu, J. Z., Zhang, J. H., and Gong, Z. M. (2015b).
"Projectile impact resistance of corundum aggregated UHP-SFRC."
Wu, K.-R., Chen, B., Yao, W., and Zhang, D. (2001). "Effect of coarse
aggregate type on mechanical properties of high-performance concrete."
Cement and Concrete Research, 31(10), 1421-1425.
Wu, K.-R., Liu, J.-Y., Zhang, D., and Yan, A. (1999). "Rupture probability of
coarse aggregate on fracture surface of concrete." Cement and Concrete
Research, 29(12), 1983-1987.
Yang, E.-H., and Li, V. C. "Rate dependence in engineered cementitious
composites." Proc., Proc., Int’l RILEM Workshop HPFRCC in
Structural Applications, published by RILEM SARL, 83-92.
Yang, E.-H., and Li, V. C. (2012). "Tailoring engineered cementitious
composites for impact resistance." Cement and Concrete Research,
42(8), 1066-1071.
Yang, E.-H., and Li, V. C. (2014). "Strain-rate effects on the tensile behavior of
strain-hardening cementitious composites." Construction and Building
Materials, 52(0), 96-104.
Yang, E., Li, V., and Qiu, J. (2015). "Early Age Cracking in a SHCC Bridge
Deck Link Slab." Proc., Forensic Engineering 2015, 746-755.
Yang, E., and Li, V. C. "Rate dependence in engineered cementitious
composites." Proc., Proceedings, HPFRCC-2005 international
workshop. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Yoo, D.-Y., and Banthia, N. (2016). "Mechanical properties of ultra-high-
performance fiber-reinforced concrete: A review." Cement and Concrete
Composites, 73, 267-280.
Yu, R., Spiesz, P., and Brouwers, H. J. H. (2016). "Energy absorption capacity
of a sustainable Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete
(UHPFRC) in quasi-static mode and under high velocity projectile
impact." Cement and Concrete Composites, 68, 109-122.
Zhang, M. H., Shariff, M. S. H., and Lu, G. (2007). "Impact resistance of high-
strength fibre-reinforced concrete." Magazine of Concrete Research,
59(3), 199-210.
Zhang, M. H., Shim, V. P. W., Lu, G., and Chew, C. W. (2005). "Resistance of
high-strength concrete to projectile impact." International Journal of
Impact Engineering, 31(7), 825-841.
196
Zheng, F., Wu, Z., Gu, C., Bao, T., and Hu, J. (2012). "A plastic damage model
for concrete structure cracks with two damage variables." Sci. China
Technol. Sci., 55(11), 2971-2980.
Zhou, F. P., Barr, B. I. G., and Lydon, F. D. (1995). "Fracture properties of high
strength concrete with varying silica fume content and aggregates."
Cement and Concrete Research, 25(3), 543-552.
Zhou, J.-k., and Ding, N. (2014). "Moisture effect on compressive behavior of
concrete under dynamic loading." J. Cent. South Univ., 21(12), 4714-
4722.
Zhou, J., Pan, J., and Leung, C. (2014). "Mechanical Behavior of Fiber-
Reinforced Engineered Cementitious Composites in Uniaxial
Compression." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 27(1),
04014111.
Zhou, X. Q., and Hao, H. (2009). "Mesoscale modelling and analysis of damage
and fragmentation of concrete slab under contact detonation."
197
Publications
Journal papers
Le, H. T. N., Poh, L. H., Wang, S., and Zhang, M.-H. “Critical Parameters for
the Compressive Strength of High-Strength Concrete.”: submitted to Cement
and Concrete Composites (revising).
Wang, S., Le, H. T. N., Poh, L. H., Quek, S. T., and Zhang, M.-H. (2017)
“Effect of High Strain Rate on Compressive Behavior of Strain Hardening
Cement Composite in Comparison to that of Ordinary Fiber Reinforced
Concrete.” Construction & Building Materials, 136, 31-43.
Wang, S., Le, H. T. N., Poh, L. H., Feng, H., and Zhang, M.-H. (2016).
"Resistance of high-performance fiber-reinforced cement composites against
high-velocity projectile impact." International Journal of Impact Engineering,
95, 89-104.
Feng, H., Le, H. T. N., Wang, S., and Zhang, M.-H. (2016). “Effects of Silanes
and Silane Derivatives on Cement Hydration and Mechanical Properties of
Mortars.” Construction & Building Materials, 129, 48-60.
Conference papers
Le, H. T. N., Poh, L. H., Zhang, M.-H. (2016) “Numerical Study on Critical
Parameters for the Compressive Strength of High-Strength Concrete”, 9th
ASEAN Civil Engineering Conference (ACEC) & 6th Brunei International
Conference on Engineering and Technology (BICET), 14 – 15 November 2016,
Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam.
Zhang, M.-H., Le, H. T. N., Wang, S., Poh, L. H., and Feng, H. (2016).
"Resistance of Fiber-Reinforced High-Strength Concretes and Strain Hardening
Cement Composites to High Velocity Projectile Impact". 8th International
Conference on Concrete Under Severe Conditions - Environment & Loading,
12 – 14 September 2016, Lecco, Italy.
198
Curriculum Vitae
Le Hoang Thanh Nam
Email: lhtnam@u.nus.edu
EDUCATION
National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore
Doctor of Philosophy (Civil Engineering): from August 2012 to present
Ho Chi Minh city University of Technology (HCMUT), Vietnam
Master of Engineering (Construction Materials & Technology): from September
2009 to August 2011
Bachelor of Engineering (Civil Engineering – Construction Materials): from
September 2004 to January 2009
EXPERIENCE
HUTECH University of Technology, Vietnam
Lecturer cum Laboratory supervisor (Construction Materials): from September
2009 to July 2012
199

LeHTN PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

LeHTN PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LeHTN PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE AND FIBER-REINFORCED

CEMENT COMPOSITES FOR POTENTIAL APPLICATION

LE HOANG THANH NAM

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

CEMENT COMPOSITES FOR POTENTIAL APPLICATION

LE HOANG THANH NAM

(M.Eng. & B.Eng., HCMUT)

me in its entirety. I have duly acknowledged all the sources of information

which have been used in the thesis.

Le Hoang Thanh Nam

First of all, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisors, Professor

Zhang Min-Hong for her patience, encouragement, support, and invaluable

enthusiastic support and detailed advice.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my thesis committee

their comments and advice.

I am also grateful to Dr Wang Shasha and Dr Feng Huajun, who always

share their knowledge regarding fiber reinforced concretes and chemical

mechanisms. This helps me a lot in my research. Experimental work is also

Lu Xueya, Eugene Chua Ken Xiu, and Yang Jieyu.

for their kind assistance and support in experimental work.

I would also like to acknowledge the research scholarship provided by

the National University of Singapore and AUN/SEED-Net.

Finally, I want to express my appreciation to my beloved father Le Van

Table of Contents ..............................................................................................iii

List of Tables ....................................................................................................xii

List of Figures ..................................................................................................xiii

List of Notations .............................................................................................. xvi

Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background and motivation ....................................................................... 1

1.2 Objectives and scope.................................................................................. 3

1.3 Organization of the thesis .......................................................................... 5

Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................ 7

2.1 High strength concrete ............................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Typical features of high strength concrete (HSC) .............................. 7

2.1.2 Fracture of HSC under uniaxial compression ..................................... 9

2.1.3 Current recommendations to increase the compressive strength of

2.2 Numerical models of concrete ................................................................. 12

2.2.1 Meso-scale model of concrete .......................................................... 12

2.2.2 Plastic damage model of concrete ..................................................... 14

2.2.3 Framework for the plastic damage model of concrete ...................... 16

2.3 Strain-hardening cement composite (SHCC)........................................... 21

2.3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 21

2.3.3 Behavior under static compressive loading ...................................... 25

2.3.4 Comparison between SHCC and conventional fiber reinforced

concrete (FRC) ........................................................................................... 26

2.4 Rate dependence of cement composites .................................................. 27

2.4.1 Equations to predict dynamic increase factors in model codes ........ 29

2.4.1.1 Dynamic increase factor in compression tests ........................... 29

2.4.1.2 Dynamic increase factor in tension tests .................................... 31

2.4.2 Effect of high strain rate on compressive behavior of FRC .............. 32

2.4.3 Effect of strain rate on compressive behavior of SHCC ................... 33

2.4.4 Effect of strain rate on tensile behavior of SHCC ............................ 35

2.5.1 Localized damage of concrete specimen .......................................... 38

2.5.2 Effects of parameters of the projectile and impact velocity ............. 40

2.5.3 Effects of parameters of the concrete specimen ............................... 41

2.5.3.1 Compressive strength of concrete .............................................. 41

2.5.3.2 Other parameters of concrete ..................................................... 42

2.5.3.3 Penetration resistance of fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) ........ 44