Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
W
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
IE
the deletion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
W
IE
EV
PR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DESIGN OF PSEUDO STRAIN-HARDENING CEM ENTITIOUS
COM POSITES FOR A DUCTILE PLASTIC HINGE
by
Dhanada K. Mishra
W
IE
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
EV
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Civil Engineering)
in The University of Michigan
1995
PR
Doctoral Committee:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
OMI Number: 9527701
W
IE
EV
PR
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
W
IE
EV
PR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
W
IE
To my Grand-Ma (Apsara)
&
EV
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Professor Victor C. Li, for being my guide and advisor during this doctoral work, and
for having given me the opportunity to undertake my doctoral work at the University of
Michigan, above all for having been a patient mentor through out the course of this
research and for all his time and effort spent towards making me a better research
scholar;
W
the members of my dissertation committee, Professor Antoine E. Naaman for lending
many of his research equipment and use of materials processing facilities, Professor
James K. Wight for help with the cyclic testing of plastic hinge specimen and Professor
IE
Anthony Waas for his support for the biaxial testing program by allowing the use of the
biaxial test facility, and above all for their continuous encouragement and helpful
comments;
EV
ACE-MRL and the Shimizu Corporation for partial financial support for this research
program;
PR
my friends and co-workers David Foremsky, Yun Mook Lim, Takashi Matsumoto,
Karthikeyan Obla, Jim Lafave, Dr. Mohemed Maleej, Dr. Yin-Wen Chan, Dr. Hwai-
Chung Wu, Dr. T. Hashida, Prof. Sudhir K. Jain for a variety of help and support;
and especially Durgesh Chandra Rai, for being there through out my graduate studies as
a friend, advisor and unselfish helping hand;
the technicians Bob Spencer, Kevin Schmidt, and especially Bob Fisher of the Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department, and Harold Eberhart of the Material Science
department for their unselfish help;
my family including my grand mother, parents, brothers and sisters for their faith in my
ability, and Anne R. Carmichael, for her encouragement and inspiration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF APPENDICES...................................................................................................xix
W
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1
IE
1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................1
2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................25
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2.2.3 Post-peak Bridging Stress - Displacement (Ob - 5)
Relationship..................................................................................... 30
2.2.4 Tensile Strength of FRCC................................................................30
W
Uniaxial Strength............................................................................. 45
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3.2.3 Design Guidelines............................................................................96
3.2.4 Effect of aggregates on elastic m odulus........................................ 97
W
3.4.1 Compressive Strength......................................................................109
3.4.2 Tensile Strength and Strain Capacity.............................................. 110
3.4.3 Fracture Toughness.......................................................................... 111
IE
3.5 Characterization of Biaxial Strength............................................................. 112
* — 3.5.1 Experimental Program.....................................................................114
EV
4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................178
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.2.1 Material Mix Design....................................................................... 183
4.2.2 Specimen Casting............................................................................ 185
W
4.5 Analytical Approach.......................................................................................193
IE
4.6 Conclusions.....................................................................................................194
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5.5 Discussion of the Results.............................................................................. 235
5.5.1 Behavior of Control Specimen........................................................235
5.5.2 Behavior of ECC Hinge Specimen................................................ 237
5.5.3 Comparison of Load-Deflection Hysterisis Response...................238
5.5.4 Comparison of Failure Modes and Damage Evolution..................240
5.5.5 Comparison of Energy Absorption and Stiffness
Degradation..................................................................................... 241
5.5.6 Comparison of Moment-Curvature and Shear Stress-Shear
Strain Capacity................................................................................ 242
W
6.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 281
APPENDICES.............................................................................................................. 290
REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 313
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1b The Performance Driven Design Approach for cyclic behavior of
plastic hinge Zones. 21
Figure 1.2 Schematic comparison of the tensile stress vs. strain response of plain
concrete (PC), fiber reinforced cement composites (FRCC) and
engineered cement composites (ECC). 22
W
Figure 1.3 Broad outline and scope of research. High lighted topics identify the
thrust of this thesis. 23
Figure 1.4 Specific research topics and their inter-relationship. This dissertation
IE
focuses on the topics in bold. 24
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 2.5a. Strengthening effect of fibers: normalized compression load required
to drive a wing-crack of length i, for five different fiber volume
fractions. Parametric values used are £0* = 20; Da = 0.0005; a = 0.1; c
= 800; K0 = 0.0002; = 0.01. 75
Figure 2.6b. Damage effect of fibers: predicted compressive strength decreases with
fiber volume fraction due to fiber induced damage effect. Parametric
values used are £0* = 20; D0 = 0.0005; a = 0.1; c = 0; Ka = 0.0002; s0=
W
0. 78
Figure 2.7a. Combined strengthening and damage effect of fibers: same as Fig. 2.6a
and k =100. Parametric values used are £0* = 20 D0 = 0.0005; a =0.1;
IE
c = 800; K0 = 0.0002; s0= 0.01 79
fiber induced damage index k. Parametric values used are £0* = 20; D0
= 0.0005; a = 0.1; c = 800; K0 = 0.0002; s0= 0.01. 80
Figure 2.8. Model predictions for the krenit fiber reinforced composite. 81
PR
Figure 2.9. Compressive strength increase with fiber reinforcement index s. The s
- values have been normalized by the reference magnitude of s such
that s0 = 0.01 and c = 800 as used in all the preceding calculations.
Other parametric values used are £0* = 20; D0 = 0.0005; a = 0.1; c =
800; Ko = 0.0002; s0= 0.01. 82
Figure 2.10a Failure mode of plain matrix in uniaxial compression, vertical splitting
(plane YZ). 83
Figure 2.10b Failure mode of plain matrix in biaxial compression, vertical splitting
(plane XY). 83
Figure 2.11a Failure mode of FRCC in uniaxial compression, shear faulting (plane
YZ). 84
Figure 2.11b Failure mode of FRCC in biaxial compression, shear faulting (plane
XY). 85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 2.12 Effect of fiber volume fraction and confining stress on the compressive
strength of FRCC (Yin, 1991). 86
Figure 2.14 Schematic diagram showing the effect of confining pressure on fiber
pull-out. 88
Figure 2.15a Effect of coefficient of friction on the shear strength of fiber reinforced
composite (g = 2.3, Lf= 6 mm, df= 0.15 mm, x0 = 1.93 MPa). 89
Figure 2.15b Effect of coefficient of friction on the shear strength of fiber reinforced
composite (g = 2.0, L f = 12.7 mm, df = 0.038 mm, To= 0.7 MPa). 89
W
plain matrix (tensile failure mode). 90
Figure 3.2.
IE
Effect of matrix fracture toughness and interfacial bond strength on
critical fiber volume fraction (Ef= 117 GPa, Lf= 12.7 mm, df= 0.038
mm, g = 2.0, Em = 25 GPa). 145
EV
Figure 3.3 Effect of s/c ratio and w/c ratio on matrix elastic modulus, Age = 28
Days, 0 - indicates matrix chosen for Mix II and III. 146
Figure 3.4a Schematic diagram of the uniaxial compression test set-up. 146
PR
Figure 3.4c Schematic diagram of the uniaxial tension test set-up. 148
Figure 3.5 Effect of s/c Ratio and w/c ratio on matrix tensile strength. O -
represent the mix proportions selected as matrix for Mix II and III. 151
Figure 3.6 Effect of s/c ratio and w/c ratio on matrix fracture toughness. O -
represent the mix proportions selected as matrix for Mix II and III. 151
Figure 3.7 Tensile stress-strain behavior of composite Mix I, age = 28 days. 152
xi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 3.9 Tensile stress-strain behavior of composite Mix Ilia (w/o plasma
treatment). 153
Figure 3.1 la Comparison of tensile stress vs. strain behavior of various composites. 154
Figure 3.11b Photograph of the multiple cracking failure mode of ECC in tension. 154
Figure 3.12 Effect of matrix fracture toughness and interfacial bond strength on
critical fiber volume fraction (£ /= 117 GPa, Lf= 12.7 mm, dt= 0.038
mm, g = 2.0, Em = 25 GPa). 155
Figure 3.13 Compressive stress vs. strain behavior of matrix MR#5 used in Mix
Ilia and b. 155
W
Figure 3.16 Compressive stress vs. strain behavior of Mix m a. 157
Figure 3.17a Comparison of the strain gage, LVDT and head displacement in
compression test.
IE 157
Figure 3.17b Comparison of the strain gage, LVDT and head displacement in
tension test. 158
EV
Figure 3.17c Comparison of the elastic modulus for the different materials tested., 158
Figure 3.18c Comparative evaluation of the tensile strain capacity of SPECC. 160
Figure 3.19b Schematic diagram of biaxial stress paths and failure envelopes. 162
Figure 3.20a Displacement loading Vs. time during a typical biaxial test along 1: 0.5
path. 163
Figure 3.20b Loading vs. time during a typical biaxial test along 1: 0.5 path. 163
Figure 3.20c Strain gage reading vs. time during a typical biaxial test along 1: 0.5
path. 164
Figure 3.21a Effect of Teflon sheets and grease on PC compressive strength. 165
Xll
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 3.21b Effect of Teflon sheets and grease on ECC compressive strength. 165
Figure 3.21c Failure mode of plain concrete specimen under uniaxial compression
w/o teflon sheets. 166
Figure 3.2 Id Failure mode of plain concrete specimen under uniaxial compression
with teflon sheets. 166
Figure 3.22a Comparison of failure envelope of plain concrete with other studies. 167
Figure 3.22b Comparison of failure envelope of SPECC with other studies of FRC. 167
Figure 3.22c Failure envelope of SPECC compared with plain concrete from
experiments. 168
Figure 3.23a Stress vs. strain response of the plain concrete along stress path 1.0:
0.0. 169
Figure 3.23b Stress vs. strain response of the plain concrete along stress path 1.0:
0.2. 169
W
Figure 3.23c Stress vs. strain response of the plain concrete along stress path 1.0:
0.5. 170
Figure 3.23d
IE
Stress vs. strain response of the pain concrete along stress path 1.0:
1.0. 170
Figure 3.24a Stress vs.strain response of the SPECC along stress path 1.0: 0.0. 171
EV
Figure 3.24b Stress vs.strain response of the SPECC along stress path 1.0: 0.2. 171
Figure 3.24c Stress vs.strain response of the SPECC along stress path 1.0: 0.5. 172
PR
Figure 3.24d Stress vs.strain response of the SPECC along stress path 1.0: 1.0. 172
Figure 3.27 Photograph of biaxial tension-compression (pure shear) test set-up. 175
Figure 3.29a Biaxial failure envelope in the biaxial tension-compression region for
plain concrete and ECC. 177
Figure 3.29b Biaxial failure envelope in the biaxial tension-compression region for
PC, FRC and ECC. 177
xiii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 4.1 Specimen geometry and dimensions. 198
Figure 4.4a Reinforcement layout for FRC and SPECC specimen. 203
Figure 4.4b Reinforcement layout for FRC and SPECC specimen. 204
Figure 4.7 Photograph of the RC specimen with the OPTOTRACK targets. 207
W
Figure 4.8 Photograph of a RC specimen showing the rosette of strain gage. 207
Figure 4.9 Comparison of average shear stress vs. shear strain of five systems. 208
IE
Figure 4.10 Comparison of load-deflection response at the internal load point. 209
Figure 4.16 Comparison of first crack strength and ultimate shear strength for
different systems. 213
Figure 4.17 Comparison of first crack strain and ultimate shear strain. 213
Figure 4.20 Strain gage data for DRFRC system indicating some pseudo strain-
hardening type of behavior without visible multiple cracking. 217
xiv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 4.21 Comparison of analytical predictions of shear strength with test data
from Ohno shear test. 217
Figure 4.22 Photograph of the panel zone of the SPECC specimen showing
multiple cracking. 218
Figure 5.1 Plan and elevation of a typical multi-story building with shear wall and
moment frames. 249
Figure 5.2 Typical member force distribution due to gravity and lateral loads. 250
Figure 5.3a Schematic of cantilever beam failure under cyclic loading. 251
W
Figure 5.6 Shear behavior of SPECC, RC and FRCC. 254
Figure 5.7a Plastic hinge location and subassembly for a typical multi-story
building with moment frames. 255
IE
Figure 5.7b Schematic of the experimental set-up. 256
Figure 5.8b Predicted moment vs. curvature diagram for R/C section and ECC
PR
Figure 5.9 Moment distribution vs. section moment capacity used in specimen
design. 260
Figure 5.10 Test configuration and reinforcement layout of proposed Test. 261
Figure 5.1 lb Photographic view of the rebar cage in plywood mold ready for
casting. 262
Figure 5.12b Experimental data of loading sequence used in the test. 263
Figure 5.14a. Load vs. deflection response of specimen#! with PC plastic hinge. 265
XV
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 5.14b. Comparison of the head displacement with potentiometer data for
specimen# 1 with PC plastic hinge. 266
Figure 5.15a. Photograph of cracking pattern of specimen# 1 with PC plastic hinge alt
the end of loading cycle #4. 267
Figure 5.15b. Photograph a large diagonal crack in the plastic hinge zone of
specimen#l at the end of loading cycle #10. 267
Figure 5.15c. Photograph of the final failure in the plastic hinge zone of specimen#l
at the end of loading cycle #12. 268
Figure 5.16a. Load vs. deflection response of specimen#2 with ECC plastic hinge. 269
Figure 5.16b. Comparison of the head displacement with potentiometer data for
specimen#2 with ECC plastic hinge. 270
Figure 5.17a. Photograph of early cracking pattern of specimen#2 with ECC plastic
hinge at the end of loading cycle #4. 271
W
Figure 5.17b. Photograph diagonal multiple micro-cracking in the plastic hinge zone
of specimen#2 at the end of loading cycle #12. 271
Figure 5.17c. Photograph of the final failure in the plastic hinge zone of specimen#2
IE
at the end of loading cycle #20 272
Figure 5.18a. Comparison of the load vs. displacement envelope for positive
excursions. 273
EV
Figure 5.18b. Comparison of the load vs. displacement envelope for negative
excursions. 273
Figure 5.19a. Strain gage data from a typical longitudinal bar near the column face
PR
in specimen#l. 274
Figure 5.19b. Strain gage data from a typical longitudinal bar near the column face
in specimen#2. 274
Figure 5.19c. Typical strain gage data from a shear stirrup in the plastic hinge zone
of specimen# 1. 275
Figure 5.19d. Typical strain gage data from a shear stirrup in the plastic hinge zone
of specimen#2. 275
Figure 5.21a Comparison of energy absorption vs. deflection of ECC hinge vs. the
control. 278
Figure 5.22 Comparison of stiffness degradation of ECC hinge vs. the control. 279
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 5.23a Comparison of moment vs. curvature envelope of ECC hinge vs. the
control. 279
Figure 5.23b Comparison of average shear stress vs. shear strain envelope of ECC
hinge vs. the control. 280
Figure 5.24 Load vs. deflection response of a R/C cantilever beam with ductile
detailing (after Bertero et al., 1974). 280
W
IE
EV
PR
xvii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Typical properties of some ordinary and high performance FRCCs
compared to ordinary concrete matrix. 19
Table 2.1 Fiber and matrix characteristics of the FRCCs tested in uniaxial
compression (Fig. 2a and b). 67
W
Table 3.3 Composite mix proportions. 140
Table 3.7 Mix proportions of materials used in the biaxial tests. 143
Table 3.8a Failure stresses along different load paths for plain concrete. 143
PR
Table 3.8b Failure stresses along different load paths for SPECC. 144
Table 3.9 Failure stresses along different load paths for SPECC. 144
xviii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF APPENDICES
W
IE
EV
PR
xix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
cementitious composites (FRCC) reveals that the concept of fiber reinforcement itself
W
has roots in ancient history. For example, the use of straw to improve the brittle
cracking of sun dried mud bricks, or clay walls is still prevalent in many tropical
IE
countries, and has been since time unknown. In more modem times, the patent of
Joseph Lambot claims the idea of adding continuous fibers in form of meshes to create
EV
new building materials. This led to the development of ferrocement and reinforced
materials such as concrete, with short randomly oriented fibers, in order to improve the
PR
brittle nature of the matrix under tensile loading is attributed to Ramualdi et al. (1963).
Since then research into the various aspects of fiber reinforced cementitious composite
or fiber concrete has been widespread. The development of new types of fibers such as
steel, polymer, glass, carbon, natural fiber, etc. made in a variety of shapes and sizes,
and the availability of many new products to enhance matrix properties and the fiber
matrix interface, have further stimulated such research. Several of the recently invented
‘high performance’ FRCCs are listed in Table 1.1, along with some of their important
compared to what are known as conventional FRCCs. Typical properties of some of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.