Composites

Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites
DYNAMIC PUNCHING SHEAR CAPACITY OF TEXTILE

REINFORCED CONCRETE (TRC) PLATES
Journal: Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites

Fo
Manuscript ID JRP-16-0253
Manuscript Type: Original Article

r
Date Submitted by the Author: 30-Mar-2016
Complete List of Authors: Nassr, Amr; Kyoto University, Department of Civil & Earth Resources
Pe
Engineering
Soliman, Eslam; Assiut University, Department of Civil Engineering
Khair-Eldeen, Wael; Assiut University, Department of Mechanical
Engineering
er
Keyword: Concrete, composites, impact, loading rate, shear
Due to its high specific strength, ductility and corrosion resistance, Textile
Reinforced Concrete (TRC) has proved to be an innovative construction
Re
material. Although methods have been proposed to quantify the dynamic

properties of TRC under uniaxial loading conditions, there is no such a
method available to estimate the dynamic punching shear capacity of TRC.
This paper presents a dynamic punch shear experimental procedure to
measure the dynamic punching shear capacity of TRC. In this method, a
vi
Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) system was used to exert the
dynamic load to disk specimens of TRC, which were placed in a specially
designed holder to allow the punching head to directly load the TRC
ew
Abstract: specimen. The test specimens were circular of 100 mm diameter and 30
mm thickness, loaded at their center. Three sets of TRC specimens were
prepared and reinforced with one, two, or three layers of biaxial alki-
resistant-glass fabric. In addition, a set of plain concrete specimens was
also prepared in order to investigate the effect of adding fabric
reinforcement layers on the punching behavior. The results showed that by
increasing the loading rate, the ultimate punching load and the absorbed
energy increased by more than 200% and 350%, respectively. While a
limited improvement of 10% on the ultimate punching load was observed
with the addition of the fabric reinforcements, they significantly increased
the energy absorbed of the TRC plates by 70%.
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrpc
Page 1 of 23 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites
1
2
3
4
DYNAMIC PUNCHING SHEAR C APACITY OF TEXTILE REINFORCED CONCRETE (TRC)
5
6 PLATES
7
8 Amr A. Nassr1†, Eslam Soliman2, and Wael Khair-Eldeen3
9
10
11 Abstract. Due to its high specific strength, ductility and corrosion resistance, Textile
12
13 Reinforced Concrete (TRC) has proved to be an innovative construction material.
14
15
16 Although methods have been proposed to quantify the dynamic properties of TRC under
17
18 uniaxial loading conditions, there is no such a method available to estimate the dynamic
Fo
19
20 punching shear capacity of TRC. This paper presents a dynamic punch shear experimental
21
22 procedure to measure the dynamic punching shear capacity of TRC. In this method, a
r
23
24
Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) system was used to exert the dynamic load to disk
Pe
25
26
27 specimens of TRC, which were placed in a specially designed holder to allow the
28
er
29 punching head to directly load the TRC specimen. The test specimens were circular of
30
31 100 mm diameter and 30 mm thickness, loaded at their center. Three sets of TRC
32
Re
33 specimens were prepared and reinforced with one, two, or three layers of biaxial alki-
34
35
36 resistant-glass fabric. In addition, a set of plain concrete specimens was also prepared in
vi
37
38 order to investigate the effect of adding fabric reinforcement layers on the punching
39
ew
40 behavior. The results showed that by increasing the loading rate, the ultimate punching
41
42 load and the absorbed energy increased by more than 200% and 350%, respectively.
43
44
While a limited improvement of 10% on the ultimate punching load was observed with
45
46
47 the addition of the fabric reinforcements, they significantly increased the energy absorbed
48
49 of the TRC plates by 70%.
50
51 Keywords: Concrete, composites, impact, loading rate, punch, reinforcement, shear
52
53 1
JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil & Earth Resources Eng., Kyoto University, 615-8540, Japan and
54
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Assiut University, 71516, Egypt, e-mail: amrnassr@aun.edu.eg
55 2
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Assiut University, 71516, Egypt, e-mail: eslam.soliman@eng.au.edu.eg
56 3
Lecturer, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Assiut University, 71516, Egypt e-mail:
57 wael.khaireldeen@eng.au.edu.eg
58
59
60
1
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites Page 2 of 23
1
2
3 1 INTRODUCTION
4
5
6 Concrete has been the most common construction material in the last century due to many
7
8 factors such as fair performance and materials availability. However, corrosion, low
9
10 specific strength, and weak impact/blast resistance of ordinary reinforced concrete have
11
12 always attracted researcher to develop new technologies in concrete. Textile Reinforced
13
14
15 Concrete (TRC) is particularly attractive and promising as an innovative construction
16
17 material due to their superior physical and mechanical properties, e.g. high specific
18
Fo
19 strength; corrosion resistance; ease installation; and flexibility in design and production.
20
21 As shown in Fig. 1, typical TRC composites consist of fine-grained concrete surrounding
22
r
23
multi-axial fabrics of Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP)1,2. Potential applications of TRC
24
Pe
25
26 may vary between textile concrete facades, environmental protection elements, load
27
28 bearing structures, impact and blast resistant structures, structural strengthening, and
er
29
30 exterior insulation systems2.
31
32 Over the last few years, research effort was directed towards understanding the
Re
33
34
35 mechanical properties of TRC composites. Peled and Bentur (2003)3 examined the
36
vi
37 flexural response of TRC with different types of reinforcement fabrics. Efficiency factors
38
39 for different types of fabrics indicated that Knitted short weft fabrics outperformed all
ew
40
41 other types of reinforcement3. Hegger and Voss (2008)4 proposed analytical model for
42
43
44
estimating tensile bearing capacity of TRC. The biaxial loading for TRCs slabs reinforced
45
46 by alki-resistant-glass (AR-glass) was investigated by Hegger et al. (2007)5. Durability of
47
48 TRC was examined by studying the effect of aging and cement matrix composition on the
49
50 tensile characteristics of TRC6. Moreover, other researchers showed great interest in TRC
51
52 as a strengthening system for RC structures. For example, Brückner et al. (2006)7 studied
53
54
55 the feasibility of using thin TRC layers for flexure and shear strengthening. They
56
57
58
59
60
2
1
2
3 observed significant improvement in ultimate load capacities as well as crack and
4
5 deflection control.
6
7
Structural components subjected to high rate of loading exhibit an increase in the
8
9
10 material strength compared to corresponding components subjected to static loading8,
11
12 which may result in altering the structural resistance and failure mode9, e.g. occurrence of
13
14 premature brittle failure mode. In addition, following capacity design principles,
15
16 underestimating the actual capacity of a member due to inaccurate consideration of
17
18
loading rate effect would result in an unconservative design of the member connections or
Fo
19
20
21 its supporting components. Therefore, the effect of loading rate should be accurately
22
r
23 considered when designing structures to resist high rapid loading.
24
Pe
25 Several experiments have been conducted in an effort to determine the dynamic

26
27
properties of the materials subjected to dynamic loading. The majority of the fast loading
28
er
29
30 experiments have been conducted by Split Pressure Hopkinson Bar (SPHB)10. Other tests
31
32 have also been used to evaluate the effect of strain rate on material strength and
Re
33
34 properties, such as projectile impact, single impact leading to specimen failure11, or by
35
36 modifying the ordinary tensile testing machines to provide faster motion of the driving
vi
37
38
39 head which pulls one end of the specimen (Silva et al. 2010)12.
ew
40
41 Dynamic testing on TRC is limited. However, understanding it correctly is important
42
43 to derive strain rate dependent constitutive equations for analytical methods and finite
44
45 element simulations. Recently, de Andrade Silva et al. (2010)12 and Mechtcherine et al.
46
47
(2011)13 have conducted a set of high strain uniaxial tension and compression tests on
48
49
50 TRC covering a range of 10-5 to 50/s. An increase in strength, strain capacity, and fracture
51
52 energy was observed with increasing of the strain rate.
53
54 While few researches have already investigated the dynamic characteristics of TRC
55
56 under uniaxial loading, the dynamic punching load capacity of TRC structures has not
57
58
59
60
3
1
2
3 been investigated yet. This paper presents the test procedure and test results of an
4
5 experimental investigation on the dynamic punching load capacity of TRC. High loading
6
7
rate was achieved using a Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) apparatus. The effect of
8
9
10 loading rate and number of textile layers on punching load capacities as well as the
11
12 absorbed energies was studied.
13
14
15
16
17 2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
18
Fo
19
20
21
2.1 Specimen Preparation
22
r
23 A finely grained concrete matrix of maximum grain size of 1.2 mm was used in mixing
24
Pe
25
the TRC. The concrete mix proportions consisted of 675 kg/m3 of cement, 1380 kg/m3 of
26
27
28 sand, 210 kg/m3 of water, and 2.5% of cement mass of superplasticizer (added to increase
er
29
30 the mix flowability and reduce w/c ratio). The TRC was mixed in rectangular wooden
31
32 moulds of 310 mm long and 210 mm wide. Biaxial fabric layers made of AR-glass was
Re
33
34 used. The degree of reinforcement for one layer of fabric in volume was calculated as 60
35
36
mm2/m. The mean yarn spacing was of 10 mm in both directions. The tensile strength and
vi
37
38
39 Young’s modulus of fibers were of 1700 MPa and of 72 GPa. A lamination technique
ew
40
41 started with the spreading of a thin concrete layer on the bottom of the mould. The sheet
42
43 of biaxial textile reinforcement was laid onto this fresh concrete layer and then, gently,
44
45
pressed so it had a complete embedment. The second concrete layer was then applied. In
46
47
48 case of plates containing more than one fabric layer, the subsequent layers were placed by
49
50 the same way of the first layer so each fabric layer was sandwiched between two thin
51
52 layers of concrete matrix. A maximum of three layers of fabric were applied. The total
53
54 thickness of the plates was 30 mm. The plates were demoulded at the age of two days and
55
56
57 water cured for 7 days according to ASTM C192 standard14. Subsequently, the plates
58
59
60
4
1
2
3 were stored at room temperature before testing at the age of 28 days. Using concrete core
4
5 cutter machine, 9 disks of 100 mm diameters were cut from the rectangular plates,
6
7
divided into 3 groups each of which had 3 specimens, Group TRC1 had one fabric layer;
8
9
10 Group TRC2 had two fabric layers; and Group TRC3 had 3 fabric layers. In addition to
11
12 the TRC specimens, Group C contained 3 specimens which were cut from a plain
13
14 concrete plate, made from the same concrete mix but without any fabric reinforcement
15
16 representing control specimens. Table 1 shows the specimens notations and their
17
18
corresponding number of fabric layers.
Fo
19
20
21
22 2.2 SHPB punch test
r
23
24
A 40 mm diameter SHPB system was used to apply the dynamic punching load. As
Pe
25
26
27 shown in Fig. 2, the SHPB consisted of a striker bar, an incident bar, and a transmitter
28
er
29 bar. The length and mass of the striker bar was 200 mm and 2 kg, respectively. The
30
31 incident and transmitter bars were made from high strength steel and were of 2000 and
32
Re
33 1500 mm long, respectively. A gas gun lunched the striker bar to impact the incident bar
34
35
36 and to generate an elastic compressive wave toward the sample. The impact velocity of the
vi
37
38 striker was varied by changing the gas gun pressure to achieve different levels of loading
39
ew
40 rates. Three impact velocity ranges of striker (8~10, 15~17 and 20~22 m/s) were chosen and
41
42 listed in Table 1, representing three loading rates, low, medium and high, respectively. The
43
44
actual loading rate corresponding to each test specimen was determined as discussed in the
45
46
47 next section.
48
49 All specimens were supported using a conical special holder with a diameter of 1 mm
50
51 larger than sample diameter to facilitate the specimen insertion. The punch head had a
52
53 cone shape with a punch end diameter of 20 mm. The other end diameter of the punch
54
55
56 head was slightly larger than the incident bar. The punching head and support cones were
57
58 attached to incident and transmitter bars, respectively, using guide bolts.
59
60
5
1
2
3 The incident wave (elastic compressive wave) was separated into two waves: an elastic
4
5 tensile wave reflected back into the incident bar and a compressive wave transmitted into
6
7
the transmitted bar. To measure incident, reflected and transmitted waves, two strain gauges
8
9
10 were mounted on the incident and transmitter bars. Digital oscilloscope with 1 MHz sampling
11
12 rate was used to record the strain data. The strain gauges recorded three strains namely
13
14 incident strain ε i , reflected strain ε r and transmitted strain ε t . The dynamic forces P1
15
16
17 and P2 acting on both ends of the incident and transmitter bars, as shown in Fig. 3, can be
18
calculated in terms of the measured strains as follows15:
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
P1 (t ) = EA[ε i (t ) + ε r (t )] (1)
24
Pe
25
26
27
28 P2 (t ) = EA[ε t (t )] (2)
er
29
30
31
32
The displacement of incident bar end can also be obtained using the following expression15:
Re
33
34
35 t
36 u = c ∫ (ε i − ε r )dt (3)
vi
37 0
38
39 where t is time and c is the stress wave velocity in the incident bar (c = 5100 m/s for steel).
ew
40
41
42
43
44
45 3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
46
47
48 3.1 Elastic wave measurement and specimen failure
49
50
51
Figure 4 shows the strain measurements obtained from the two gauges mounted on the
52
53 incident and transmitter bars. The three waves, incident, reflected, and transmitted waves, can
54
55 be identified. The typical trapezoidal incident and reflected waves with rising time were
56
57
58
59
60
6
1
2
3 noticed. It is noted that slowly rising incident pulse is preferred in order to minimize the
4
5 inertia effect and dispersion16.
6
7
All TRC specimens failed in punching shear. Conical failure surface and visible radial
8
9
10 cracks were observed for all TRC specimens as shown in Fig. 5(a) and 5(b). On the other
11
12 hand, control specimens (Group C) experienced complete crushing.
13
14
15
16
17
18 3.2 Loading rate determination
Fo
19
20
21
22 Test specimens experienced different loading rates P&p caused by different striker impact
r
23
24 velocities. To establish a relationship between the punching load capacity and loading rates,
Pe
25
26
the loading rate of each specimen was estimated. Figure 6 shows the typical dynamic
27
28
punching load time history. The slope of the approximately linear variation region of
er
29
30
31 punching load time history curve was used to estimate the loading rates. Table 2 lists all
32
Re
33 loading rates experienced by different test specimens. The loading rate was found to be in
34
35 range of 4~23 kN/µs.
36
vi
37
38
39
ew
40
41
42 3.3 Load displacement relationships
43
44
The punching load-displacement curves for different specimen configurations are shown in
45
46
47 Fig. 7. The energy absorbed by each specimen, as represented by the area under its punching
48
49 load-displacement curve, was calculated using numerical integration method. The loading
50
51 rate had a significant effect on the ultimate punching load and the absorbed energy for both
52
53 the control and TRC specimens. For instance, the ultimate punching load and absorbed
54
55
56
energy increased by 70% and 87%, respectively, when the loading rates varied from 6.2 to
57
58 22.5 kN/µs, in case of C_1 and C_3 (Fig. 7(a)); these variations were even higher in case of
59
60
7
1
2
3 TRC1_1 and TRC1_3 as the ultimate punching load and absorbed energy increased by 208%
4
5 and 350%, respectively with the increase of the loading rates from 4.1 to 20.3 kN/µs (Fig.
6
7
7(b)). Table 2 lists the ultimate punching loads and the absorbed energy.
8
9
10
11 The addition of fabric layers did not exhibit a significant influence on the ultimate
12
13 punching load as it only increased by 10% when comparing specimens subjected to the nearly
14
15 same loading rate, e.g. C_2 and TRC1_2, the textile reinforcements had a larger effect on the
16
17 absorbed energy with 72% increase when comparing C_2 and TRC1_2. Increasing the
18
Fo
19
20
number of fabric layers, however, did not show to improve the punching behavior of TRC, as
21
22 evidenced by the comparison between TRC1_3 and TRC2_3. The increase in the number of
r
23
24 fabric layers resulted in lower ultimate punching load and absorbed energy (Fig. 7(c) and
Pe
25
26 7(d)).
27
28
er
29 SHPB punch test was also used to determine the Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) of
30
31 ultimate punching load under high loading rates. The relationship between the dynamic
32
Re
33 ultimate punching load and loading rates was established and fitted into a linear relationship,
34
35
36 as shown in Fig. 8, and the dynamic ultimate punching load is expressed by the following
vi
37
38 equation:
39
ew
40
41 Ppd = 9.5 + 70 P&p (4)
42
43
44
45 The above equation is then used to express the dynamic increase factor (DIF) which can be
46
47 rewritten as follows:
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
8
1
2
3
4
5
6 1
7 DIF =
Pps
( 9.5 + 70P&p ) (5)
8
9
10
11 where Pps is the static punching load. In the range of loading rates covered by the present
12
13 study, Eq. (5) can be used to estimate DIF, representing the dynamic ultimate punch Ppd load
14
15
16 to static punch load Pps ratio.
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
4 CONCLUSIONS
r
23
24
Pe
25 The experimental procedure and results of dynamic punching test of TRC plates were
26
27 presented. High loading rate was achieved using a Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB)
28
er
29
30 apparatus. Nine circular TRC specimens of 100 mm diameter and 30 mm thickness were
31
32 dynamically loaded at their center. By increasing the loading rate, it was found that the both
Re
33
34 the ultimate punching load and the absorbed energy by more than 200% and 350%,
35
36 respectively. While the textile (fabric) reinforcements only increased the ultimate punching
vi
37
38
39
load by 10%, they increased the energy absorbed of the TRC plates by 70%. On the other
ew
40
41 hand, increasing the number of fabric layers was found to have no improvement on punching
42
43 behavior of TRC plates. The relationship between the punching load capacity and loading
44
45 rates was found to be fitted into a linear relationship. Based on the present study results,
46
47
dynamic increase factor equation was proposed to determine the punching load capacity
48
49
50 under high loading rates.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
9
1
2
3 REFERENCES
4
5
6 [1] "The Construction Material of The Future - News & Stories At STYLEPARK".
7
8
Stylepark. N.p., 2016. Web. 16 Mar. 2016. Website: http://www.stylepark.com/en/news/the-
9
10
11 construction-material-of-the-future/359100.
12
13
14 [2] Brameshuber, W., Tanja Brockmann, C. Aldea, T. Gries, A. Roye, T. Gries, A. Roye et al.
15
16 "Textile Reinforced Concrete State-of-the-Art Report of RILEM TC 201-TRC." RILEM
17
18 report rep036, Bagneux: RILEM Publications (2006).
Fo
19
20
21
[3] Peled, A., Bentur, A., “Mechanisms of Fabric Reinforcement of Cement Matrices: Effect
22
r
23
24 of Fabric Geometry and Yarn Properties” 2nd Colloqium on Textile Reinforced Structures
Pe
25
26 (CTRS2), Dresden Germany, September 29 -October 1, 2003.
27
28
er
29 [4] Hegger, J., & Voss, S. (2008). Investigations on the bearing behaviour and application
30
31 potential of textile reinforced concrete. Engineering structures,30(7), 2050-2056.
32
Re
33
34
35
[5] Hegger, J., Will, N., & Rüberg, K. (2007). Textile Reinforced Concrete—A new
36
Composite Material. In Advances in Construction Materials 2007 (pp. 147-156). Springer
vi
37
38
39 Berlin Heidelberg.
ew
40
41
42 [6] Butler, M., Mechtcherine, V., & Hempel, S. (2009). Experimental investigations on the
43
44 durability of fibre–matrix interfaces in textile-reinforced concrete. Cement and Concrete
45
46
47 Composites, 31(4), 221-231.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
10
1
2
3 [7] Brückner, A., Ortlepp, R., & Curbach, M. (2006). Textile reinforced concrete for
4
5 strengthening in bending and shear. Materials and structures, 39(8), 741-748.
6
7
8
[8] Henrych, J., The dynamics of explosion and its use. (1979), New York, USA: Elsevier
9
10
11 Scientific Publishing Company.
12
13
14 [9] Jones, N., Structural impact. (1988), New York: Cambridge University Press.
15
16
17 [10] Nabil Bassim, M., & Panic, N. (1999). High strain rate effects on the strain of alloy
18
Fo
19 steels. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 92, 481-485.
20
21
22
[11] Liu, J., & Jones, N. (1987). Experimental investigation of clamped beams struck
r
23
24
transversely by a mass. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 6(4), 303-335.
Pe
25
26
27
28 [12] de Andrade Silva, F., Butler, M., Mechtcherine, V., Zhu, D. and Mobasher, B., (2011).
er
29
30 Strain rate effect on the tensile behaviour of textile-reinforced concrete under static and
31
32 dynamic loading. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 528(3), pp.1727-1734.
Re
33
34
35
[13] Mechtcherine, V., Silva, F. D. A., Butler, M., Zhu, D., Mobasher, B., Gao, S. L., &
36
vi
37
38 Mäder, E. (2011). Behaviour of strain-hardening cement-based composites under high strain
39
ew
40 rates. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 9(1), 51-62.

41
42
43 [14] ASTM C192/C192M. (2000). Standard practice for making and curing concrete test
44
45 specimens in the laboratory. In: annual book of ASTM standards, ASTM international, West
46
47
48 Conshohocken, PA.
49
50
51 [15] Kolsky, H. (1963). Stress waves in solids (Vol. 1098). Courier Corporation. Chicago
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
11
1
2
3 [16] Frantz CE, Follansbee PS, Wright WJ. New experimental techniques with the split
4
5 Hopkinson pressure bar. In: 8th international conference on high energy rate fabrication. San
6
7
Antonio, Texas, USA; 1984. p. 17e21.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe
25
26
27
28
er
29
30
31
32
Re
33
34
35
36
vi
37
38
39
ew
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
12
1
2
3 List of Tables
4
5
6 Table 1: Test Matrix
7
8 Table 2: Loading rate, ultimate punching load, and absorbed energy
9
10
11
12
13
14 List of Figures
15
16 Figure 1: Textile Reinforced Concrete (TRC)
17
18 Figure 2: Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) apparatus for punch testing of TRC
Fo
19
20 Figure 3: Dynamic forces at end of incident and transmitter bars
21 Figure 4: Incident, reflected, and transmitted waves
22
r
23 Figure 5: Punch Failure of TRC specimen, (a) specimen after test and (b) radial cracks.
24
Figure 6: Loading rates determination
Pe
25
26 Figure 7: Punch load-displacements
27
28 Figure 8: Ultimate punch load versus loading rates
er
29
30
31
32
Re
33
34
35
36
vi
37
38
39
ew
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Table 1: Test Matrix
18
Fo
19
20
21 Impact velocity of
Group Specimen No. of fabric layers
22 striker (m/s)
r
23
24
C_1 - 8~10
C C_2 - 15~17
Pe
25
26 C_3 - 20~22
27
TRC1_1 1 8~10
28
TRC1 TRC1_2 1 15~17
er
29
30 TRC1_3 1 20~22
31
TRC2_1 2 8~10
32
TRC2 TRC2_2 2 15~17
Re
33
34 TRC2_3 2 20~22
35 TRC3_1 3 8~10
36
TRC3 TRC3_2 3 15~17
vi
37
38 TRC3_3 3 20~22
39
ew
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Table 2: Loading rate, ultimate punching load, and absorbed energy
Fo
19
20
21
22 Specimen Loading rate Ultimate punching Absorbed
r
23
P&p (kN/µs) Load Ppd (kN) energy (kN.m)
24
Pe
25 C_1 6.2 153 30.7

26
C_2 12.9 171 27.2
27
28 C_3 22.5 260 57.3
er
29 TRC1_1 4.1 95 20.9

30 TRC1_2 12.5 189 46.8
31
32 TRC1_3 20.3 293 94.7
Re
33 TRC2_1 4.5 118 28.4

34 TRC2_2 15.8 198 53.9
35
36 TRC2_3 20.6 252 71.0
vi
37 TRC3_1 5.7 122 17.1

38 TRC3_2 8.9 181 61.0
39
ew
40 TRC3_3 18.9 241 65.8

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Figure 1: Textile Reinforced Concrete (TRC)1
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe
25
26
27
28
er
29
30
31
32
Re
33
34
35
36
vi
37
38
39
ew
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Strain gauge
18
Fo
19 Punch head
20
21
22
r
23 Striker Incident bar Transmitter bar
24
Pe
25 TRC sample holder

26
27
28 Figure 2: Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) apparatus for punch testing of TRC
er
29
30
31
32
Re
33
34
35
36
vi
37
38
39
ew
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe
25
26
27
28
er
29
30
31
32 Figure 3: Dynnamic forces at end of iincident and
d transmitteer bars
Re
33
34
35
36
vi
37
38
39
ew
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 1500
11
12
1000
13
14 Reflected wave
15 500
strain ( )
16
17 0
18
Fo
19 Transmitted wave
20 -500
21
22 Incident wave
-1000
r
23
24
-1500
Pe
25 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

26 time (s)
27
28
er
29
30
31
32 Figure 4: Incident, reflected, and transmitted waves
Re
33
34
35
36
vi
37
38
39
ew
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
19
1
2
3 (a) (b)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Figure 5: Punch Failure of TRC specimen, (a) specimen after test and (b) radial cracks.
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe
25
26
27
28
er
29
30
31
32
Re
33
34
35
36
vi
37
38
39
ew
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
20
1
2
3 200
200
4
5
6 150 150
7
loa d (k N )
8
100
9
10 load (kN) 100
11 Pˑ = 6.2 kN/μs
50
12
13 50
0
14 0 10 20 30 40 50
15 time (s)
16
0
17
18
Fo
19
20 -50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
21
22 time (s)
r
23
24
Pe
25
26 Figure 6: Loading rates determination
27
28
er
29
30
31
32
Re
33
34
35
36
vi
37
38
39
ew
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 300 300
13 C1-1, P. = 6.2 kN/s TRC1-1, P.=4.1 kN/s
.
14 250 C2-1, P = 12.9 kN/s 250 TRC1-2, P.=12.5 kN/s
15 .
C1-3, P = 22.5 kN/s TRC1-3, P.=20.3 kN/s
200 200
16
17
load (kN)
load (kN)
150 150
18
Fo
19 100 100
20
21 50 50
22
r
0 0
23
24 -50 -50
Pe
25 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
displacement (mm) displacement (mm)
26
27 (a) Control specimens (b) TRC reinforced with one textile layer
28
er
29
30
31
32 300 300
Re
33 TRC2-1, P.=4.5 kN/s TRC3-1, P.=5.7 kN/s

34 250 .
TRC2-2, P =15.8 kN/s 250 TRC3-1, P.=8.9 kN/s
35 TRC2-3, P.=20.6 kN/s TRC3-1, P.=18.9 kN/s
36 200 200
vi
37
load (kN)
load (kN)
150 150
38
39 100
ew
100
40
41 50 50
42
43 0 0
44
-50 -50
45 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
46 displacement (mm) displacement (mm)
47
48 (c) TRC reinforced with two textile layers (d) TRC reinforced with three textile layers
49
50
51
52
53
Figure 7: Punching load-displacement curves
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 300
10
Ultimate punching load (kN)

11
12 250
13
14
15
200
16
17
18
Fo
19 150
20
21
22 100
r
23 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
.
24 Loading rate P (kN/s)
Pe
25
26
27
28 Figure 8: Ultimate punching load versus loading rates
er
29
30
31
32
Re
33
34
35
36
vi
37
38
39
ew
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
23

Composites

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Composites

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites

DYNAMIC PUNCHING SHEAR CAPACITY OF TEXTILE

Journal: Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Keyword: Concrete, composites, impact, loading rate, shear

material. Although methods have been proposed to quantify the dynamic

25 Several experiments have been conducted in an effort to determine the dynamic

40 rates. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 9(1), 51-62.

25 C_1 6.2 153 30.7

29 TRC1_1 4.1 95 20.9

33 TRC2_1 4.5 118 28.4

37 TRC3_1 5.7 122 17.1

40 TRC3_3 18.9 241 65.8

25 TRC sample holder

25 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

33 TRC2-1, P.=4.5 kN/s TRC3-1, P.=5.7 kN/s

Ultimate punching load (kN)

Você também pode gostar