numericalandexperimentalanalysisoftheshearbehaviorof … · 2019. 7. 30. · the fresh concrete so...

Research ArticleNumerical and Experimental Analysis of the Shear Behavior ofUltrahigh-Performance Concrete Construction Joints

Hyun-O Jang1 Han-Seung Lee1 Keunhee Cho2 and Jinkyu Kim 1

1School of Architecture and Architectural Engineering Hanyang University 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro Sangrok-gu Ansan-siGyeonggi-do 15588 Republic of Korea2Structural Engineering Research Institute Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology 283 Goyangdae-roIlsanseo-gu Goyang-si Gyeonggi-do 10223 Republic of Korea

Correspondence should be addressed to Jinkyu Kim jinkyu29547gmailcom

Received 28 February 2018 Revised 9 May 2018 Accepted 25 June 2018 Published 28 August 2018

Academic Editor Antonio Caggiano

Copyright copy 2018 Hyun-O Jang et alis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

Shear performance of plain UHPC (ultrahigh-performance concrete) construction joints is studied in both experimental andanalytical ways In push-off tests three different contact surfaces of the construction joint were considered while the case withoutany joint was provided for the reference Test results indicate that the geometry of contact surfaces greatly affects shear per-formance of the construction joint With simplifying structural behavior of contact surfaces and UHPC substrate the finite-element analysis model is developed for every case studied by utilizing the ABAQUS software and validated against the test resultsAgreement between experimental and numerical simulation results is excellent especially in terms of displacement strength andfailure mechanism It is expected that the present work provides a basis for further study on reinforced UHPC construction joints

1 Introduction

Ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) is a class ofconcrete characterized by exceptionally highcompressivetensile strengths ductility toughness flow-ability and durability [1 2] Despite the various mixproportions of UHPC it is widely known that higherstrengths of the UHPC are obtained by the silica fume-cement mixture with a low water-cement ratio and thepresence of very fine aggregates [3] while ductility has beenenhanced by steel fibers [4] Such remarkable enhancedmaterial properties of UHPC now allow the real-worldconstruction Since the first UHPC bridge in Canada(1997) there have been some construction projects anddesign recommendations regarding the use of UHPC overthe world [5ndash7] As ordinary concrete this UHPC can beeither fabricated as precast members at a plant or cast inplace at a construction site In the aspect of controllingmaterial qualities and accelerating construction speeda precast-type UHPC is preferred However even in use ofthe precast-type UHPC there still remain some compo-nents or joints of segments to be cast in place

A construction joint is provided when concrete pouringneeds to be stopped and then is continued againmdashit is themost commonly experienced joint in concrete working withsome typical shapes including vertical horizontal inclinedand key joints [8 9] At the construction site preplannedconstruction joints are inevitable and their locations aredecided with consideration of casting amount man powercuring methods capability of construction equipment andso on When losing structural integrity these joints usuallycause problems such as cracks water leaks and corrosion ofreinforcements [10] In particular construction joints mustprovide a well-bonded medium between the hardened andthe fresh concrete so that ACI 224 [11] and concretestandard specification in Korea [12] recommend a desirablelocation for construction joints at points where shear force issmall at the time of construction In addition to improvebonding behavior of concrete at the joint interface somemethods are suggested for using ordinary concrete materialslatency removal waterjet and sand blast us the mainconcern in concrete construction joints is in providingadequate shear transfermdashnotice that concretersquos capacity totake bending stresses is negligible [13 14]

HindawiAdvances in Materials Science and EngineeringVolume 2018 Article ID 6429767 17 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520186429767

So far most research on the construction joint has de-scribed the case of ordinary reinforced concrete materials[15 16] For example experiments and finite-element analysishave been carried out to quantify cracks and deformationcharacteristics at the joint by a simple method of re-inforcements [17ndash19] Furthermore in current practice bondstrength of old-to-new concrete interfaces and mechanicalbehavior of high-strength concrete construction joints havebeen addressed with purely experimental ways [20ndash26] Inparticular Carbonell Muntildeoz et al [24] carried out direct andindirect tension tests and the slant shear test to investigatebond performance between UHPC and normal-strengthconcrete with slightly brushed chipped brushed sand-blasted grooved and aggregate-exposed substrate surfacesShear performance of high-strength concrete (compressivestrength above 80MPa) construction joints was assessed bypush-off tests Walraven and Stroband [22] analyzed theengaging behavior of aggregates on the adhesion performanceof concrete and Kim et al [23] confirmed that the shearstrength of the high-strength concrete is highly correlatedwith the amount of aggregates friction in crack width Alsothe effect of the surface morphology of construction joints isrecently investigated in an experimental way [27] All theseefforts are useful to account for shear transfer at the interfacebut the absence of an analytical study undermines the effortsto draw general conclusions us both experimental andanalytical studies are necessary for the study of constructionjoints with consideration of various interface morphologies

Over the past two decades the UHPC material has beenadopted in the construction of pedestrian and highwaybridges over the world However currently there is nospecified design code for the use of UHPC materials (above180MPa strength) in the world but only exist some rec-ommendations Eurocode 4 (2005) accounts for UHPCmaterials below 90MPa and AASHTO LRFD Bridge DesignSpecifications 4th Edition (2007) is applicable to UHPC upto 120MPa strength As part of ongoing activities to ac-celerate uses of UHPC in actual construction particularly forthe further development of reinforced UHPC constructionjoints in this study shear performance of plain UHPCconstruction joints is investigated in both experimental andanalytical ways In experiments a total of four specimenswere tested under a monotonic uniaxial compressive test(push-off test) and shear performance among specimens iscompared by identifying distinctive characteristics in shearbond strength displacement responses and failure mech-anism Finite-element models are also developed for everyspecimen and these are validated through comparing nu-merical simulation results with test results We would like toemphasize that every developed numerical model in thepresent work is based on simplified viewpoints on failuremechanisms where models are developed as objective aspossible with the help of the current design code and pre-vious research and experiments

2 Experimental Program

21Outline Table 1 summarizes the list of specimensreecases of a construction joint and the case excluding any joint

are considered in this study where each specimen wasnamed after the type of interface treatment and the size of anindividual groove For example the MN-0 specimen rep-resents the monolithic placement (the case without anyconstruction joint) while the specimen ldquoGR-20rdquo representsthe case having grooves with a size of 20mm

Figure 1 shows configuration of each specimen Di-mensions of each specimen are given by 300mm (width)times

640mm (height)times 150mm (thickness) Also to investigatepure shear performance 20mm gap is placed at the top andthe bottom in the center of each specimen Grooves adoptedin this study can be implemented in the connection ofa segmental bridge with the match-cast method

22 UHPC Composition e UHPC used in this study hasmixed proportions given in Table 2

More specifically type-1 ordinary Portland cement (adensity of 315 gcm3 [28]) without any coarse aggregate isused and quartzose powder with an average particle size of42 microm is adopted as a filler High-strength straight steelfibers with two different lengths such as 163 and 195mm(density of 718 kgcm3 tensile strength of 2500MPa anddiameter of 02mm) are mixed in the volume ratio of 1 2Also for fine aggregates Australian silica sand with a specificgravity of 265 an average particle diameter of 05mm andan SiO2 content of 76 is used Figure 2 shows gradingcurves of the fine aggregates adopted in the present study

Tables 3 and 4 show the chemical composition of thebinder and main material properties of the superplasticizerrespectively Particularly the water-to-binder ratio (WB) is014 and superplasticizer (15 volume percent of mixingwater) was used to enhance flowability e more detailedmanufacturing method of UHPC can be found in [30]

Overall the UHPC material used in experiments isprepared by the procedure described in Figure 3 us firstthe dry binder is mixed for 10 minutes en water andsuperplasticizer are added and the mixture is mixed for 6minutes Finally steel fibers are added and the mixture ismixed for another 6 minutes

23 Test Setup

231 Test Specimens Test specimens were normally pre-pared by a mold of 300times 640times150mmwith different surfacetextures ickness of the steel mold is decided as 1mm toavoid any excessive deformation during UHPC pouring andFigure 4 shows tolerance of actual steel molds used inexperiments

Figure 5 describes the preparation process of specimenswith a construction joint at is the mold was demolded 91days after the first UHPC pouring (Figure 5(a))mdashthe air-drycuring is adopted here with temperature and relative hu-midity variation specified in Figure 6

en the hardened part was placed again in the steelmoldand the remaining part is filled with UHPC (Figure 5(b))After another 91 days with the air-dry curing conditionspecified in Figure 7 the mold is removed and each specimenis prepared (Figure 5(c))

2 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

232 Measured Metrics

(1) Basic Properties of UHPC In accordance with ASTMC143143M [31] the slump flow test was performed toinvestigate flowability of the concrete in the fresh state Toaccount for compressive strength in detail two sets of threecircular UHPC specimens are prepared where each set iscured for 91 days en for each set the compressivestrength is computed as the average of three specimensrsquo testresults [32] us here the case with fully developedcompressive strength is considered

(2) Push-Off Test Figure 8 shows the test setup A steel plateof 100times150times 25mm is placed at the top and the bottom ofa specimen for load distribution where the compressive loadis applied until the upper part of a specimen initially contactsthe lower part of the specimen In experiments the actuatorwith a 100-ton static capacity is run at a rate of 001mmsecand main measurements are determined as the maximumshear strength and vertical displacement More specificallya set of two linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs)

Table 1 Characteristics of the UHPC construction joint specimens

Specimen Interface type Groove size

MN-0 Monolithic pouring with noconstruction joint (MN) No groove (0)

VC-0 Vertical construction joint (VC) No groove (0)GR-20 Construction joint with grooves (GR) 20times 20mm (20)GR-30 Construction joint with grooves (GR) 30times 30mm (20)

200m

m

420m

m20

mm

200m

m

420m

m

150mm

20m

m

150mm 150mm

300mm

First portion of

UHPC pouring

(a)

First portion ofUHPC pouring

Second portion ofUHPC pouring

(b)

First portion of

UHPC pouring

20mm

Second portion of

UHPC pouring

(c)

First portion of

UHPC pouring

30mm

Second portion of

UHPC pouring

(d)

Figure 1 Configuration of each specimen (reproduced from Jang et al [29]) (a) monolithic case (MN-0) (b) joint with the smooth contactsurface (VC-0) (c) joint with 20mm size grooves (GR-20) (d) joint with 30mm size grooves (GR-30)

Table 2 UHPC mix proportions

Constituent Mix proportions(kg for 1m3)

Water 178Cement 783Zirconia silica fume 196Filler 235Expansive admixture 59Shrinkage-reducing agent 8Steel fibers (163mm) 39Steel fibers (195mm) 78Quartz sand 862Superplasticizer (kg) 267Antifoaming agent (kg) 078

0102030405060708090

100

12mm(No 16)

06mm(No 30)

03mm(No 50)

015mm(No 100)

007mm(No 150)

Perc

ent p

assin

g

Sieve size (sieve number)

Figure 2 Grading curve of fine aggregates

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 3

is installed on the top and the bottom of the specimen tomeasure relative deformation at the construction joint Alsothe maximum shear bond strength (fb) is computed bydividing the maximum load (F) by the vertical surface area(A) fb FA

3 Experimental Results

31 Material Test Results Figure 9 shows test results ofcompressive strength (fc) and corresponding strain (ε) of allthe specimens and these are summarized in Table 5 Asshown in Table 5 both cases satisfy the strength requirementof 180MPa

For each set of UHPC specimen flowability of concretein the fresh state is also checked e slump flow of theUHPC for the first pouring is 710mm and that of the UHPCfor the second pouring is 690mm Such a result satisfies thetarget slump flow of 700plusmn 50mm

32 Push-Off Test Results Figure 10 and Table 6 show load-vertical displacement responses and shear strength observed

in each specimen e order of shear strength capacity isidentified as MN-0gtGR-30gtGR-20gtVC-0

For the MN-0 linear response in load-vertical dis-placement was found until the load reached about 50 kNAfterwards a gentle slope up to the maximum loadappeared followed by the fracture at the middle of thespecimen when the maximum load reached about 624 kNe main factor for this nonlinear strength-increasingresponse may result from the UHPC substrate damagedplasticity resulting from tensile fracture and shearaxialstrength of steel fibers us after initiation of tensilecracks the UHPC loses strength and stiffness in part wheresteel fibers at cracked parts entirely endure completefracture in shear and axial directions with respect to theirstanding position However it must be noted that MN-0 shows lack of ductility compared to reinforced case-smdashpreviously Waseem and Singh [33] investigated shearstrength of reinforced concrete for the monolithic pouringcase In their tests there are two different types of re-inforcement such as transversely unreinforced and rein-forced cases along with two different types of concrete suchas normal (30MPa) and high strength (70MPa) All theirspecimens show better ductility than the present MN-0

Table 3 Chemical composition of the binder

Division SiO2()

Al2O3()

MgO()

TiO2()

SO3()

CaO()

Fe2O3()

Na2O()

K2O()

Freelime

Insoluble()

Loss onignition

Cement 1947 524 372 mdash 249 6180 269 018 087 mdash mdashFiller 9947 040 0009 004 mdash 001 005 0008 0006 mdash mdash mdashExpansiveadmixture 40 100 06 mdash 283 525 12 mdash mdash 160 14 10

Zirconiasilica fume 9600 025 010 mdash mdash 038 012 mdash mdash mdash mdash mdash

Shrinkage-reducingagent

2942 017 006 mdash mdash 139 010 mdash 003 mdash mdash mdash

Table 4 Material properties of the superplasticizer

Main ingredient Density (gcm3) pH Alkali content () Chloride content () AppearancePolycarboxylate 105 50plusmn 20 001 0008 Light brown liquid

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3 Mixing process of UHPC (a) dry mixing (mixing 10 minutes) (b) adding water and superplasticizer (mixing 6 minutes) and (c)putting steel fibers (mixing 4 minutes)


us one can think that even steel fibers enhance ductilitybehavior of the UHPC and their effects are relatively smallcompared to reinforcements Other than reinforcementsthere are other effects on shear performance when using theordinaryhigh-strength concrete rather than the UHPCe most distinctive difference would be effects of coarseaggregates interlock Next VC-0 shows sudden debonding(adhesive failure) at the vertical interface with the maxi-mum load of 217 kN due to the effect of the joint with thesmooth contact surfacemdashat the interface the failuremechanism may get involved with friction but the mainfactor is adhesive failure at the interface the completefailure surfaces at the interface in the VC-0 specimen re-main smooth without any debris Regarding groove-shapedconstruction joints the GR-30 shows similar responses to

the MN-0 while GR-20 suffers from both shear and de-formation capacities Such results may come from differentamounts of steel fibers and interlocking effects in groovesClearly one can assume that there exist a less amount ofsteel fibers per one groove in the GR-20 than the GR-30where a total volume of grooves with respect to the cen-terline for each specimen is computed as 540000mm3

(20mm times 20mm times 9EA times 150mm) and 675000mm3

(30mm times 30mm times 5EA times 150mm) for the GR-20 and GR-30 respectively Also on the aspect of interlocking effectsthe enveloping length of cracks required for the fracture ateach groove is less in the GR-20 than the GR-30 Withconsideration of stress concentration and the crackpropagation until the complete fracture interlocking ef-fects at grooves get worse in the GR-20 than the GR-30 In

Surface treatment

(a)

First portion of UHPC pouring

Second portion of UHPC pouring

(b)

Construction joint

(c)

Figure 5 Specimen preparation (a) removal of forms (b) second portion of UHPC (c) cured specimens

PreplannedSteel from usedin experiments

(a)

193

0mm

193

0mm

189

5mm

189

5mm

207

0mm

207

0mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

1deg

1deg

1deg

1deg

2deg

1deg


(b)

289

5mm

289

5mm

310

5mm

3002mm

3002mm

3002mm

1deg

1deg

1deg


(c)

Figure 4 Tolerance of steel molds (a) VC-0 (b) GR-20 (c) GR-30


addition the most evident difference between grooved-shaped construction joints (GR-30 and GR-20) and thevertical construction joint (VC-0) may indicate con-straining effects Compared to the VC-0 constraining ef-fects in each groove can enhance horizontal frictionvertical bearing and bonding capacities resulting in theincrease of the shear strength In particular the GR-30 hasabout twice the shear strength capacity as the GR-20 whichshows that an individual groove size of 20mm may not besufficient for vertical bondingbearing and horizontalfriction at the construction joint

Also crack patterns and fracture behavior of all thespecimens are checked during the test Figure 11 describes

crack propagation in each specimen with respect tomarked points in Figure 7 When the compression loadingreaches about 492 kN diagonal cracks initiate at left andright sides especially in the middle height of the MN-0 Asthe loading increases around 538 kN vertical cracks alsoinitiate at the middle of the specimen and these spreadgradually upward and downward Finally complete shearfracture occurs in the middle of the MN-0 e GR-30 hassimilar crack patterns and fracture behavior found in theMN-0mdashdiagonal cracks at left and right sides of thespecimen initiate at the loading of 376 kN Howeververtical cracks occur in the middle top and the middlebottom of the specimen when loading reaches 391 kN e

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91

00

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)

Days

Tem

pera

ture

(degC)

TemperatureRelative humidity

Figure 6 Curing conditions (the first part of UHPC specimens)

Tem

pera

ture

(degC)

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 9100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)Days


Figure 7 Curing conditions (the remaining part of UHPC specimens)


upper part contacts the lower part at the loading of481 kN leaving partial fracture at the middle of thespecimen Compared to the GR-30 the GR-20 showssomewhat a different fracture mechanism In particularthere is no diagonal crack on the body of the specimenAlso at the loading of about 281 kN vertical cracks

simultaneously initiate at the middle of the specimen inthe region of top bottom and center ese cracks ver-tically spread and finally lead to complete fracture

Overall based on failure mode criteria presented in [34]which are summarized in Table 7 four types of failure modesare observed in push-off tests as shown in Figure 12

300mm thick crosshead(800mm times 450mm)

200mm thick load cells(800mm times 450mm)

25mm thick steel plate(100mm times 150mm)


Actuator(1000 kN)

Specimen

VerticalLVD T1

VerticalLVD T2 Second

portion ofUHPC pouring

Firstportion of

UHPC pouring

(a) (b)

Figure 8 Test setup and instrumentation (reproduced from Jang et al [29]) (a) Set-up plan (b) Real experiment

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

(a)

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

(b)

Figure 9 Stress-strain curves of UHPC (a) first pouring part (b) second pouring part

Table 5 Measured compressive strengths for the UHPC

CaseCompressive strength

(MPa) Average compressive strength (MPa) Standard deviation (MPa) Coefficient of variation1 (min) 2 3 (max)

First pouring 2020 2047 2072 2046 212 0010Second pouring 1852 1870 1888 1870 147 0007


4 Numerical Analysis of UHPCConstruction Joints

Only limited numerical and analytical studies on the UHPCstructural member have been reported until now In par-ticular most studies focus on flexural elements such as thebeam and girder For example Chen and Graybeal [35]focused on predicting the load deflection (strain) response ofUHPC girders subjected to two-point loads Mahmud et al[36] conducted two-dimensional plane stress finite-elementanalysis of unreinforced notched UHPC beams to study sizeeffects on flexural capacity

In order to address shear performance of plain UHPCconstruction joints numerically with lack of previous at-tempts in this study failure mechanism is simplified as muchas possible ree mechanisms including damaged plasticityin the plain UHPC substrate friction in horizontal contactsurfaces and cohesive failure in vertical contact surfaces areconsidered to provide a simplified model of the corre-sponding construction joint where material parameters aredetermined from design codes previous research experi-ments and reasonable posteriori

41 Development of Analytical Models

411 Modeling UHPC Substrate By referring to a recentmodeling technique in nonlinear behavior of ordinary con-crete [37ndash41] the substrate UHPC is described by the elas-toplastic damagemodel ldquoconcrete damaged plasticity (CDP)rdquo

Compared to other concrete material models available inABAQUS such as the smeared crack concrete model andbrittle crack concrete model this CDP model is taken in thepresent study because it has the potential to representcomplete inelastic behaviour of concrete in both tension andcompression including damage characteristics Also this isthe only model in ABAQUS that can be used for both staticand dynamic analysismdashthe further application of the currentnumerical model to dynamic analysis is taken into account

Two failure mechanisms in the CDP model are tensilecracking and compressive crushing of the concrete whereuniaxial tensile and compressive behavior is characterized bydamaged plasticity Figure 13 shows a one-dimensionalschematic view of the plastic model and plastic damagemodel respectively

As shown in Figure 13 for the CDP model stress-strainrelations under uniaxial compression and tension areexpressed as

σc 1minus dc( 1113857E0 εminus εplc1113872 1113873

σt 1minus dt( 1113857E0 εminus εplt1113872 1113873(1)

where E0 is the initial (undamaged) elastic stiffness of thematerial and σc ε

plc σt and ε

plt are compressive stress com-

pressive plastic strain tensile stress and tensile plastic strainrespectively Two damage variables such as dc and dt char-acterize the degradation of elastic stiffness on the strain-softening branch of the stress-strain curve ese variablescan take values from zero to one where zero represents the

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 025 050 075 100 125 150 175

Load

(kN

)

Vertical displacement (mm)

a-1a-2

a-3

d-1 d-2

d-3

c-3c-1 c-2

b-1 b-2 b-3dv1 dv2

MN-0GR-30

GR-20VC-0

Figure 10 Load-vertical displacement results

Table 6 Measured shear strengths for the UHPC construction joint specimens

Number Specimen Maximum load (kN) Shear strength (MPa) Shear strength reduction rate ()0 MN-0 62414 2080 Reference1 VC-0 2174 072 96522 GR-20 32120 1070 48533 GR-30 48140 1605 2287


(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f )

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 11 Continued


undamaged material and one represents total loss of strengthIf such damage variables are not specified the CDP modelbehaves as a plasticity model For example if the compressiondamage variable dc is not specified then the compressiveplastic strain εplc takes the value of the inelastic compressivestrain εinc It must be noted that the tensile damage in the CDPmodel can be specified by either stress-strain relation or stress-displacement response (again this is an optional choice) whilethe strain-softening behavior for cracked concrete must bespecified by either stress-strain relation or fracture energy-cracking criterion GF (mandatory requirement)

Regarding plasticity the CDP model considers theisotropic hardening with the yield function developed byLubliner et al [42] and elaborated by Lee and Fenves [43]Parameters determining the shape of this yield function andnonassociated plastic flow rule are the dilation angle ψ theratio of initial equibiaxial compressive yield stress to initialuniaxial compressive yield stress fb0fc0 the eccentricity ofthe plastic potential surface ε and the ratio of the secondstress invariant on the tensile meridian to compressivemeridian K For more detailed description of this CDPmodel readers can refer to ABAQUS manuals

Overall for a full definition of the UHPC substrate withthe CDPmodel stress-strain relations in compressiontensionand strain-softening behavior for cracked UHPC as a set ofpoints laying on the stress-strain curve or optional fractureenergy GF are required for characterizing damage along withplasticity parameters including ψ fb0fc0 ε and K

In the present study the compressive stress-strain re-lation of UHPC is identified as the average value of ex-perimental results given in Table 8 where the evolution ofdamage is assumed to occur only in tension after initiatingfracture at is Table 8 is the reinterpretation of Figure 9 inaverage sense with differentiating inelastic stress-strain

Also the tensile damage is described by stress-displacement relation from the previous study [43]mdashKusumawardaningsih et al [44] investigated stress-crackopening behavior of UHPC through axial tension andbending tension tests Table 9 shows their tensile test resultsindicating that UHPC has a mean maximum tensile strengthof 40263MPa with the crack opening length of 78 microm andthat a total loss of tensile strength occurs linearly with thecrack opening length of 02mmis result is adopted in thepresent study by excerpting tendency with strength re-duction damage parameters the maximum tensile strengthdrops linearly from the zero crack opening length to thecrack opening length of 02mm

For the strain softening of cracked UHPC the extendedversion of Euro design code [45] is used In Euro designcode for ordinary concrete main parameters such as thefracture energy GF and the tensile strength of ordinaryconcrete ft are given by

ft 14fprimec minus 810

1113888 1113889

23

MPa (2)

and

GF 00469d2a minus 05da + 261113872 1113873

fprimec10

1113888 1113889

07

Nmm (3)

ese equations are adopted in the present study forcomputing tensile strength of UHPC and fracture energya nominal compressive strength of UHPC is taken to be fprimec(180MPa) and a maximum size of UHPC aggregates isassumed to be da (20mm) e main reason for taking da

Table 7 Failure mode classifications

Type Description

Type A Interfacial failure (a complete debonding at thetransition zone)

Type B Interfacial failure and substrate cracking or minorsubstrate damage

Type C Interfacial failure and substrate fractureType D Complete substratum failure with good interface

(j) (k) (l)

Figure 11 Crack pattern in each specimen (a) a-1 (crack initiation) (b) a-2 (crack development) (c) a-3 (complete fracture) (d) b-1 (adhesionfailure on the external surface) (e) b-2 (development of inner surface detachment) (f) b-3 (complete separation) (g) c-1 (crack initiation) (h)c-2 (crack development) (i) c-3 (complete fracture) (j) d-1 (crack initiation) (k) d-2 (crack development) (l) d-3 (complete fracture)


(20mm) despite the absence of coarse aggregates in UHPC isthat the design code for UHPC materials is not currentlyavailablemdashin order to account for improved materialproperties of UHPC in the current code a generally acceptedsize of the maximum aggregate in ordinary concrete is

considered here (the most common size of coarse aggregatesin construction)

All other material parameters of substrate UHPC arerelated with the yield surface and nonassociated potentialplastic flow where recommendation (default) values of theordinary concrete material in the ABAQUS are taken[46ndash48] ψ 3631deg ε 01 fb0fc0 116 and K 067

Apart from these basic material properties such asPoissonrsquos ratio and modulus of elasticity are taken as 019and 98000MPamdashPoissonrsquos ratio of 019 is taken throughreference [49] and the modulus of elasticity is the measuredvalue from cylindrical tests

Front faces

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 12 Failure modes (a) MN-0 (b) VC-0 (c) GR-20 (d) GR-30

E

Stre

ss

Strain

E

(a)

EStre

ss

Strain

(1 ndash D)E

(b)

Figure 13 (a) Plastic model (b) Damaged plastic model

Table 8 Average compressive inelastic stress-strain test results forthe UHPC

First pouring Second pouringStress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

Stress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

180 0 176 0193 00002 185 00002199 00003 187 000032046 000039 1865 00004202 00005 186 00005201 00006 1854 000062005 00007 1843 00007200 0001 182 000075172 0002 170 0003572

Table 9 Parameters for modeling tension damage

Damageparameters

Displacement(mm)

0 005 01099 02


412 Modeling Contact Surfaces at the Joint For the sake ofsimplicity the friction mechanism is presumed to occur onlyon horizontal contact surfaces where a friction coefficient ofthe surface between the first and the second placements ofUHPC is taken as μ 04 based upon Table 11 (concrete-to-concrete) in the research report [50] In addition a shearstress limit at the horizontal interface is computed as104MPa corresponding to the upper-bound estimate of fprimec3in the ABAQUS analysis manual this means that sliding atthe interface initiates when exceeding the compressivestrength of UHPC

For the development of analytical models verticalcontact surfaces play key roles In the present approachcohesive effects at the vertical interface are modeled witha surface-based behavior is surface-based cohesivebehavior initially defines a traction-separation modelfollowed by the initiation and evolution of damage usthe contact surface is assumed to show linear elastic re-sponse in terms of a constitutive matrix tractions andseparations by

tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)

for the uncoupled traction-separation case where tn ts andtt represent normal (along the global Z-axis) shear (alongthe global X-axis) and tangential (along the global Y-axis)tractions while the corresponding separations are denotedby δnδs and δt

Subsequently degradation and failure of the bond at theinterface are described by damage modeling where thedamage initiation refers to the beginning of degradation ofthe cohesive response at each contact point while thedamage evolution describes the rate at which the cohesivestiffness is degraded once the corresponding initiation cri-terion is reached

Figure 14 shows a schematic viewpoint on traction-separation response described in the ABAQUS analysismanual where peak values of traction and those of sep-aration in normal shear and tangential directions areidentified as sets of (t0n t0s t0t ) and (δ0n δ0s δ

0t ) with a set of

(δfn δfs δft ) representing each separation at complete

failureAmong some criteria available in the ABAQUS the

following quadratic traction criterion for the damage ini-tiation at the interface is considered

langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)

where langrang denotes the Macaulay bracket signifying thata purely compressive displacement (ie a contact pene-tration) or a purely compressive stress state does not initiatedamage

In Figure 14 damage evolution corresponding to eachtraction-separation response can be modeled with scalarvariables of Dn Ds and Dt as

tn 1minusDn( 1113857t0n

ts 1minusDs( 1113857t0s

tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)

where every D monotonically increases from 0 to 1 uponfurther loading after the initiation of damage

In order to describe the damage evolution undera combination of normal and other separations across theinterface an effective separation δm

δm

langδnrang2 + δ2s + δ2t

1113969

(7)

is considered along with a single damage variable D

D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897

middot 1minus1minus exp minusα δmax

m minus δ0m1113872 1113873 δfm minus δ

0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)

where δ0m is the effective separation at damage initiation andδfm is the effective separation at complete failure Also δmax

mrefers to the maximum value of the effective separationattained during the loading history and α is a nondimensionalparameter that defines the rate of damage evolution

Overall cohesive failure in the vertical contact surface ismodeled with uncoupled stiffness coefficients(Knn Kss Ktt) peak values of traction (t0n t0s t0t ) an effectiveseparation at complete failure δfm and a nondimensionalparameter α For every analysis model α is fixed as 2 whileother parameters are chosen differently as presented inTable 10 As shown in Table 10 the vertical interface isdifferentiated as to whether constrained or not Also a factorof 2 is considered when vertical contact surfaces are con-strained with the concave-convex geometry Such posterioriand values are found to be the best fit to experiment results

413 Other Considerations In every finite-element analysisan 8-node linear brick element with reduced integration(C3D8R) is used as a basic element while contact surfaces aremodeled as the surface-to-surface contact with either tan-gential friction (horizontal surfaces) or cohesive with damage

Separation

Trac

tion

Damage evolution can be expressed ineither linear or any order of exponential

functions in the ABAQUS

tn (ts tt)0 0 0

δn (δs δt )00 0 δn (δs δt )f f f

Figure 14 Typical traction-separation response


evolution (vertical surfaces) Also following the static loadingcondition in real experiments the displacement-controlledmethod is adopted at a rate of 1mmmin at the upper partwhile boundary conditions are assigned to the bottom part bysetting all the displacements to zero

Figure 15 describes the finite-element model used inanalysis In particular the model was constructed by using thesolid meshing capability in ABAQUS where the verticalcontact surface is densely divided into a size of 10mm leavingother parts to be divided into a size of 20mmemain reasonto have such a different-sized control is that the stress distri-bution is expected to change dramatically at the vertical contactsurface For every analysis theNewton iterative procedure withthe specific step-time increment is adopted us the maxi-mum number of time increments is set to 10000 while theinitial increment size and minimum increment size are set to001 and 1Eminus 8 with convergence criteria in Table 11

42 Simulation Results Figure 16 shows vertical displace-ment versus vertical reaction force in experiments andanalysis where the percentile error E is computed as

E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)

where T and A represent experimental and analytical resultsAs shown each analytical model yields comparable results to

experiments In particular every analytical model predictsthe maximum shear capacity with less than 10 error

Figure 17 (unit secminus1) presents analytical results of themaximum principal strain rate at integration points Withcomparison of Figure 14 to Figures 11 and 12 one cancheck that each analysis model is able to account fordebonding behavior at the vertical interface with crackpropagation

Table 10 Parameters for modeling vertical contact surfaces

ConfigurationsParameters (N mm)

(Knn Kss Ktt) (t0n t0s t0t ) δfmGeometry with no concave-convex interface (490 490 490) (07 07 07) 07Geometry with concave-convex interfaces (980 980 980) (14 14 14) 14

(a)

Vertical contactsurfaces

(b)

Horizontal contactsurfaces

(c)

Displacementcontrolled surface

Restrictionon translation

(d)

Figure 15 FEA model description (GR-20) (a) mesh (b) vertical surface (c) horizontal surface (d) boundary condition

Table 11 Finite-element analysis model convergence criteriatolerancesCriterion for residual force in a nonlinear problem 5Eminus 03Criterion for displacement correction in a nonlinearproblem 1Eminus 02

Initial value of time average force 1Eminus 02Alternate criterion for residual force in a nonlinearproblem 2Eminus 02

Criterion for zero force relative to time average force 1Eminus 05Criterion for residual force when there is zero flux 1Eminus 05Criterion for displacement correction when there iszero flux 1Eminus 03

Criterion for residual force for a linear increment 1Eminus 08Field conversion ratio 100Criterion for zero force relative to time average 1Eminus 05Criterion for zero displacement relative tocharacteristic length 1Eminus 08


5 Conclusions

Surface roughness of concrete-to-concrete interfaces hasbeen the interesting research topic in materials sciencehowever there is lack of research with both experimentaland analytical ways on shear performance of concrete-to-concrete interfaces As preliminary study for the furtherdevelopment of UHPC construction joints with re-inforcement the present work investigates shear perfor-mance of plain UHPC construction joints in both analyticaland experimental approachesree different configurationsof a construction joint integrated with the 180MPa UHPCare considered with the reference case of monolithic UHPCpouring and the static push-off test is performed for eachcase Based upon experimental results the failure mecha-nism and the relation between vertical displacement andshear bond strength for each specimen are investigatedSome noteworthy comments are as follows

(1) e monolithic pouring case (MN-0) had themaximum shear strength of 2080MPa with bothinterfacial failure and substrate cracks (failure modeB)

(2) e vertical joint case (VC-0) had the maximumshear strength of 072MPa with complete interfacialfailure (failure mode A)

(3) For the grooved joint cases the maximum shearstrength is 1605MPa for GR-30 with the failuremode B and the maximum shear strength is1070MPa for GR-20 with the failure mode A

e paper also presents a simplified three-dimensionalfinite-element analysis model for each case In particularthree failure mechanisms including (a) damaged plasticity inthe plain UHPC substrate (b) friction in horizontal contactsurfaces and (c) cohesive failure in vertical contact surfacesare considered All the developed analytical models result in

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)

Figure 16 Comparison between analytical and experimental results (a) MN-0 (b) VC-0 (c) GR-20 (d) GR-30


+4360e ndash 05+3151e ndash 05

+1598e ndash 04+1155e ndash 04+8346e ndash 05+6032e ndash 05

Er Max principal(avg 75)

+2278e ndash 05+1646e ndash 05+1190e ndash 05+8599e ndash 06+6215e ndash 06+4492e ndash 06+3246e ndash 06+2346e ndash 06+1696e ndash 06+1226e ndash 06+8859e ndash 07+6403e ndash 07+4627e ndash 07+3344e ndash 07+2417e ndash 07+1747e ndash 07+1263e ndash 07+9126e ndash 08+6596e ndash 08ndash1689e ndash 07

(a)




+3365e ndash 07+2534e ndash 07+1909e ndash 07+1438e ndash 07+1083e ndash 07+8154e ndash 08+6141e ndash 08+4625e ndash 08+3483e ndash 08+2623e ndash 08+1976e ndash 08+1488e ndash 08+1121e ndash 08+8441e ndash 09+6357e ndash 09+4788e ndash 09+3606e ndash 09+2716e ndash 09+2045e ndash 09

(b)





(c)




+7774e ndash 05+4650e ndash 05+2781e ndash 05+1664e ndash 05+9951e ndash 06+5952e ndash 06+3560e ndash 06+2130e ndash 06+1274e ndash 06+7619e ndash 07+4558e ndash 07+2726e ndash 07+1631e ndash 07+9754e ndash 08+5834e ndash 08+3490e ndash 08+2087e ndash 08+1249e ndash 08ndash7468e ndash 09

(d)

Figure 17 Analysis results (maximum principal strain rate) (a) MN-0 (b) VC-0 (c) GR-20 (d) GR-30


responses well matched to experiments in displacementresponses maximum shear strength and failure mode

Overall it is anticipated that the present work willprovide a basis for further study on reinforced UHPCconstruction joints

Data Availability

e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

is research was supported by a grant (13SCIPA02) fromthe Smart Civil Infrastructure Research Program funded bythe Korean Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport(MOLIT) and the Korean Agency for Infrastructure Tech-nology Advancement (KAIA)

References

[1] M A Sherir K Hossain and M Lachemi ldquoStructural per-formance of polymer fiber reinforced engineered cementi-tious composites subjected to static and fatigue flexuralloadingrdquo Polymers vol 7 no 7 pp 1299ndash1330 2015

[2] H S Lee H O Jang and K H Cho ldquoEvaluation of bondingshear performance of ultra high-performance concrete withincrease in delay in formation of cold jointsrdquoMaterials vol 9no 5 p 362 2016

[3] J J Buck D L McDowell and M Zhou ldquoEffect of micro-structure on load-carrying and energy-dissipation capacitiesof UHPCrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 43 pp 34ndash502013

[4] W Huang H Kazemi-Kamyab W Sun and K ScrivenerldquoEffect of cement substitution by limestone on the hydrationand microstructural development of ultra-high performanceconcrete (UHPC)rdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 77pp 86ndash101 2017

[5] Federal Highway Administration Ultra-High PerformanceConcrete A State-of-the Art Report for the Bridge CommunityUS Department of TransportationWashington DC USANo FHWA HRT-13-060 2013

[6] C D Lee K B Kim and S C Chol ldquoApplication of ultra-high performance concrete to pedestrian cable-stayedbridgesrdquo Journal of Engineering Science and Technologyvol 8 no 3 pp 296ndash305 2013

[7] B Nematollahi Y L Voo and J Sanjayan ldquoDesign andconstruction of a precast ultrahigh performance concretecantilever retaining wallrdquo in Proceedings of First InternationalInteractive Symposium on UHPC pp 1ndash10 Des Moines IAUSA July 2016

[8] Z W Abass ldquoEffect of construction joints on performance ofreinforced concrete beamsrdquo Al-Khwarizmi EngineeringJournal vol 8 no 1 pp 48ndash64 2012

[9] C A Issa N N Gerges and S Fawaz ldquoe effect of concretevertical construction joints on the modulus of rupturerdquo CaseStudies in Construction Materials vol 1 pp 25ndash32 2014

[10] M J Pfeiffer and D Darwin ldquoJoint design for reinforcedconcrete buildingsrdquo Tech Rep 20 University of KansasCenter for Research Lawrence KS USA 1987

[11] ACI 2243 R-95 Joints in Concrete Construction AmericanConcrete Institute Farmington Hills MI USA 2013

[12] KCI Standard Specification for Concrete Construction KoreaConcrete Institute Seoul South Korea 2009

[13] A H Yousifani ldquoInvestigation of the behavior of reinforcedconcrete beams with construction joints using nonlinearthree-dimensional finite elementsrdquo MS thesis MS thesisUniversity of Technology Building and Construction De-partment Baghdad Iraq 2004

[14] N N Gerges C A Issa and S Fawaz ldquoe effect of con-struction joints on the flexural bending capacity of singlyreinforced beamsrdquo Case Studies in Construction Materialsvol 5 pp 112ndash123 2016

[15] Y Luo A Li and Z Kang ldquoParametric study of bondedsteelndashconcrete composite beams by using finite elementanalysisrdquo Engineering Structures vol 34 pp 40ndash51 2012

[16] P Desnerck J M Lees and C T Morley ldquoBond behaviour ofreinforcing bars in cracked concreterdquo Construction andBuilding Materials vol 94 pp 126ndash136 2015

[17] F Menkulasi and C L Roberts-Wollmann ldquoBehavior ofhorizontal shear connections for full-depth precast concretebridge decks on prestressed I-girdersrdquo PCI Journal vol 50no 3 pp 60ndash73 2005

[18] E Julio D Dias-da-Costa F Branco and J Alfaiate ldquoAc-curacy of design code expressions for estimating longitudinalshear strength of strengthening concrete overlaysrdquo Engi-neering Structures vol 32 no 8 pp 2387ndash2393 2010

[19] R Al-Rousan M Alhassan and A Ababneh ldquoSimulating theresponse of CFRP strengthened shear-keys in composite con-crete bridgesrdquoMaterials and Design vol 90 pp 733ndash744 2016

[20] S He Z Fang and A S Mosallam ldquoPush-out tests forperfobond strip connectors with UHPC grout in the joints ofsteel-concrete hybrid bridge girdersrdquo Engineering Structuresvol 135 pp 177ndash190 2017

[21] L Maya and B Graybeal ldquoExperimental study of strand spliceconnections in UHPC for continuous precast prestressedconcrete bridgesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 133 pp 81ndash902017

[22] J Walraven and J Stroband Shear Friction in High-StrengthConcrete Vol 149 Farmington Hills MI USA 1994

[23] Y H Kim M B D Hueste D Trejo and D B Cline ldquoShearcharacteristics and design for high-strength self-consolidatingconcreterdquo Journal of Structural Engineering vol 136 no 8pp 989ndash1000 2010

[24] M A Carbonell Muntildeoz D K Harris T M Ahlborn andD C Froster ldquoBond performance between ultrahigh-performance concrete and normal-strength concreterdquo Jour-nal of Materials in Civil Engineering vol 26 no 8 article04014031 2014

[25] Y He X Zhang R D Hooton and X Zhang ldquoEffects ofinterface roughness and interface adhesion on new-to-oldconcrete bondingrdquo Construction and Building Materialsvol 151 pp 582ndash590 2017

[26] M E Mohamad I S Ibrahim R Abdullah A B A RahmanA B H Kueh and J Usman ldquoFriction and cohesion co-efficients of composite concrete-to-concrete bondrdquo Cementand Concrete Composites vol 56 pp 1ndash14 2015

[27] H B Osman H B Tami and N A A Rahman ldquoA com-parison of construction joint ability on concrete slab appliedat construction siterdquo ARPN Journal of Engineering and Ap-plied Sciences vol 11 no 4 pp 2576ndash2580 2016


[28] ASTM C150C150M-16 Standard Specification of PortlandCement ASTM International West Conshohocken PA USA2016

[29] H Jang H Lee K Cho and J Kim ldquoExperimental study onshear performance of plain construction joints integrated withultra-high performance concrete (UHPC)rdquo Construction andBuilding Materials vol 152 pp 16ndash23 2017

[30] KICT ldquoUltra high performance fiber reinforced concreteand manufacturing method of the samerdquo Korea Pat-ent1020160100930 2016

[31] ASTM C143C143M-15a Standard Test Method for SlumpHydraulic-Cement Concrete ASTM International WestConshohocken PA USA 2015

[32] ASTM C39C39M-16 Standard Test Method for CompressiveStrength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens ASTM In-ternational West Conshohocken PA USA 2016

[33] S AWaseem and B Singh ldquoShear transfer strength of normaland high-strength recycled aggregate concretendashan experi-mental investigationrdquo Construction and Building Materialsvol 125 pp 29ndash40 2016

[34] B A Tayeh B A Bakar and M M Johari ldquoCharacterizationof the interfacial bond between old concrete substrate andultra high performance fiber concrete repair compositerdquoMaterials and Structures vol 46 no 5 pp 743ndash753 2013

[35] L Chen and B A Graybeal ldquoModeling structural perfor-mance of second-generation ultrahigh-performance concretepi-girdersrdquo Journal of Bridge Engineering vol 17 no 4pp 634ndash643 2012

[36] G H Mahmud Z Yang and A M Hassan ldquoExperimentaland numerical studies of size effects of ultrahigh performancesteel fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) beamsrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 48 pp 1027ndash1034 2013

[37] T Jankowiak and T Lodygowski ldquoIdentification of param-eters of concrete damage plasticity constitutive modelrdquoFoundations of Civil and Environmental Engineering vol 6no 1 pp 53ndash69 2005

[38] Y Tao and J-F Chen ldquoConcrete damage plasticity model formodeling FRP-to-concrete bond behaviorrdquo Journal of Com-posites for Construction vol 19 no 1 article 04014026 2014

[39] J N Karadelis and L Zhang ldquoOn the discrete numericalsimulation of steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC)rdquo Journalof Civil Engineering Research vol 5 no 6 pp 151ndash157 2015

[40] Y Sumer and M Aktas ldquoDefining parameters for concretedamage plasticity modelrdquo Challenge Journal of StructuralMechanics vol 1 no 3 pp 149ndash155 2015

[41] M P Zappitelli E I Villa J Fernandez Saez and C G RoccoldquoCracking development prediction in concrete gravity damsusing concrete damaged plasticity modelrdquo Mecanica Com-putacional vol 33 pp 909ndash921 2014

[42] J Lubliner J Oliver S Oller and E Onate ldquoA plastic-damagemodel for concreterdquo International Journal of Solids andStructures vol 25 no 3 pp 299ndash326 1989

[43] J Lee and G L Fenves ldquoPlastic-damage model for cyclicloading of concrete structuresrdquo Journal of Engineering Me-chanics vol 124 no 8 pp 892ndash900 1998

[44] Y Kusumawardaningsih E Fehling M Ismail andA A M Aboubakr ldquoTensile strength behavior of UHPC andUHPFRCrdquo Procedia Engineering vol 125 pp 1081ndash10862015

[45] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 Design Code omas TelfordPublishing London UK 1993

[46] H T Nguyen and S E Kim ldquoFinite element modeling ofpush-out tests for large stud shear connectorsrdquo Journal of

Constructional Steel Research vol 65 no 10-11 pp 1909ndash1920 2009

[47] P Kmiecik and M Kaminski ldquoModelling of reinforcedconcrete structures and composite structures with concretestrength degradation taken into considerationrdquo Archives ofCivil and Mechanical Engineering vol 11 no 3 pp 623ndash6362011

[48] M Szczecina and AWinnicki ldquoCalibration of the CDPmodelparameters in Abaqusrdquo in Proceedings of 2015World Congresson Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM15) Incheon South Korea August 2015

[49] B Persson ldquoPoissonrsquos ratio of high-performance concreterdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 29 no 10 pp 1647ndash16531999

[50] N Gorst S Williamson P Pallett and L Clark ldquoFriction intemporary worksrdquo Research Report 71 e University ofBirmingham Birmingham UK 2003


CorrosionInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Materials Science and EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018


Journal of

Chemistry

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of


ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of



Advances in Condensed Matter Physics


International Journal of

BiomaterialsHindawiwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

Applied ChemistryJournal of


NanotechnologyHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Journal of


High Energy PhysicsAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

TribologyAdvances in



ChemistryAdvances in


Advances inPhysical Chemistry


BioMed Research InternationalMaterials

Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls


Journal ofNanomaterials

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

So far most research on the construction joint has de-scribed the case of ordinary reinforced concrete materials[15 16] For example experiments and finite-element analysishave been carried out to quantify cracks and deformationcharacteristics at the joint by a simple method of re-inforcements [17ndash19] Furthermore in current practice bondstrength of old-to-new concrete interfaces and mechanicalbehavior of high-strength concrete construction joints havebeen addressed with purely experimental ways [20ndash26] Inparticular Carbonell Muntildeoz et al [24] carried out direct andindirect tension tests and the slant shear test to investigatebond performance between UHPC and normal-strengthconcrete with slightly brushed chipped brushed sand-blasted grooved and aggregate-exposed substrate surfacesShear performance of high-strength concrete (compressivestrength above 80MPa) construction joints was assessed bypush-off tests Walraven and Stroband [22] analyzed theengaging behavior of aggregates on the adhesion performanceof concrete and Kim et al [23] confirmed that the shearstrength of the high-strength concrete is highly correlatedwith the amount of aggregates friction in crack width Alsothe effect of the surface morphology of construction joints isrecently investigated in an experimental way [27] All theseefforts are useful to account for shear transfer at the interfacebut the absence of an analytical study undermines the effortsto draw general conclusions us both experimental andanalytical studies are necessary for the study of constructionjoints with consideration of various interface morphologies

Over the past two decades the UHPC material has beenadopted in the construction of pedestrian and highwaybridges over the world However currently there is nospecified design code for the use of UHPC materials (above180MPa strength) in the world but only exist some rec-ommendations Eurocode 4 (2005) accounts for UHPCmaterials below 90MPa and AASHTO LRFD Bridge DesignSpecifications 4th Edition (2007) is applicable to UHPC upto 120MPa strength As part of ongoing activities to ac-celerate uses of UHPC in actual construction particularly forthe further development of reinforced UHPC constructionjoints in this study shear performance of plain UHPCconstruction joints is investigated in both experimental andanalytical ways In experiments a total of four specimenswere tested under a monotonic uniaxial compressive test(push-off test) and shear performance among specimens iscompared by identifying distinctive characteristics in shearbond strength displacement responses and failure mech-anism Finite-element models are also developed for everyspecimen and these are validated through comparing nu-merical simulation results with test results We would like toemphasize that every developed numerical model in thepresent work is based on simplified viewpoints on failuremechanisms where models are developed as objective aspossible with the help of the current design code and pre-vious research and experiments

2 Experimental Program

21Outline Table 1 summarizes the list of specimensreecases of a construction joint and the case excluding any joint

are considered in this study where each specimen wasnamed after the type of interface treatment and the size of anindividual groove For example the MN-0 specimen rep-resents the monolithic placement (the case without anyconstruction joint) while the specimen ldquoGR-20rdquo representsthe case having grooves with a size of 20mm

Figure 1 shows configuration of each specimen Di-mensions of each specimen are given by 300mm (width)times

640mm (height)times 150mm (thickness) Also to investigatepure shear performance 20mm gap is placed at the top andthe bottom in the center of each specimen Grooves adoptedin this study can be implemented in the connection ofa segmental bridge with the match-cast method

22 UHPC Composition e UHPC used in this study hasmixed proportions given in Table 2

More specifically type-1 ordinary Portland cement (adensity of 315 gcm3 [28]) without any coarse aggregate isused and quartzose powder with an average particle size of42 microm is adopted as a filler High-strength straight steelfibers with two different lengths such as 163 and 195mm(density of 718 kgcm3 tensile strength of 2500MPa anddiameter of 02mm) are mixed in the volume ratio of 1 2Also for fine aggregates Australian silica sand with a specificgravity of 265 an average particle diameter of 05mm andan SiO2 content of 76 is used Figure 2 shows gradingcurves of the fine aggregates adopted in the present study

Tables 3 and 4 show the chemical composition of thebinder and main material properties of the superplasticizerrespectively Particularly the water-to-binder ratio (WB) is014 and superplasticizer (15 volume percent of mixingwater) was used to enhance flowability e more detailedmanufacturing method of UHPC can be found in [30]

Overall the UHPC material used in experiments isprepared by the procedure described in Figure 3 us firstthe dry binder is mixed for 10 minutes en water andsuperplasticizer are added and the mixture is mixed for 6minutes Finally steel fibers are added and the mixture ismixed for another 6 minutes

23 Test Setup

231 Test Specimens Test specimens were normally pre-pared by a mold of 300times 640times150mmwith different surfacetextures ickness of the steel mold is decided as 1mm toavoid any excessive deformation during UHPC pouring andFigure 4 shows tolerance of actual steel molds used inexperiments

Figure 5 describes the preparation process of specimenswith a construction joint at is the mold was demolded 91days after the first UHPC pouring (Figure 5(a))mdashthe air-drycuring is adopted here with temperature and relative hu-midity variation specified in Figure 6

en the hardened part was placed again in the steelmoldand the remaining part is filled with UHPC (Figure 5(b))After another 91 days with the air-dry curing conditionspecified in Figure 7 the mold is removed and each specimenis prepared (Figure 5(c))









200m

m

420m

m20

mm

200m

m

420m

m

150mm

20m

m

150mm 150mm

300mm

First portion of

UHPC pouring

(a)



(b)

First portion of

UHPC pouring

20mm

Second portion of

UHPC pouring

(c)

First portion of

UHPC pouring

30mm

Second portion of

UHPC pouring

(d)





0102030405060708090

100

12mm(No 16)

06mm(No 30)

03mm(No 50)

015mm(No 100)

007mm(No 150)

Perc

ent p

assin

g












Division SiO2()

Al2O3()

MgO()

TiO2()

SO3()

CaO()

Fe2O3()

Na2O()

K2O()

Freelime

Insoluble()

Loss onignition







(a) (b) (c)







Surface treatment

(a)



(b)

Construction joint

(c)



(a)

193

0mm

193

0mm

189

5mm

189

5mm

207

0mm

207

0mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

1deg

1deg

1deg

1deg

2deg

1deg


(b)

289

5mm

289

5mm

310

5mm

3002mm

3002mm

3002mm

1deg

1deg

1deg


(c)






00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91

00

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)

Days

Tem

pera

ture

(degC)



Tem

pera

ture

(degC)

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 9100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)Days











Actuator(1000 kN)

Specimen

VerticalLVD T1



Firstportion of

UHPC pouring

(a) (b)


0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

(a)

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

(b)


















plc σt and ε



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 025 050 075 100 125 150 175

Load

(kN

)


a-1a-2

a-3

d-1 d-2

d-3

c-3c-1 c-2

b-1 b-2 b-3dv1 dv2

MN-0GR-30

GR-20VC-0





(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f )

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 11 Continued









1113888 1113889

23

MPa (2)

and

GF 00469d2a minus 05da + 261113872 1113873

fprimec10

1113888 1113889

07

Nmm (3)



Type Description




(j) (k) (l)







Front faces

(a) (b) (c) (d)


E

Stre

ss

Strain

E

(a)

EStre

ss

Strain

(1 ndash D)E

(b)




Inelasticstrain

Stress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

180 0 176 0193 00002 185 00002199 00003 187 000032046 000039 1865 00004202 00005 186 00005201 00006 1854 000062005 00007 1843 00007200 0001 182 000075172 0002 170 0003572


Damageparameters

Displacement(mm)

0 005 01099 02




tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)




0t ) with a set of




langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)





tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)



δm


1113969

(7)


D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897



0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)





Separation

Trac

tion



tn (ts tt)0 0 0







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls











200m

m

420m

m20

mm

200m

m

420m

m

150mm

20m

m

150mm 150mm

300mm

First portion of

UHPC pouring

(a)



(b)

First portion of

UHPC pouring

20mm

Second portion of

UHPC pouring

(c)

First portion of

UHPC pouring

30mm

Second portion of

UHPC pouring

(d)





0102030405060708090

100

12mm(No 16)

06mm(No 30)

03mm(No 50)

015mm(No 100)

007mm(No 150)

Perc

ent p

assin

g












Division SiO2()

Al2O3()

MgO()

TiO2()

SO3()

CaO()

Fe2O3()

Na2O()

K2O()

Freelime

Insoluble()

Loss onignition







(a) (b) (c)







Surface treatment

(a)



(b)

Construction joint

(c)



(a)

193

0mm

193

0mm

189

5mm

189

5mm

207

0mm

207

0mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

1deg

1deg

1deg

1deg

2deg

1deg


(b)

289

5mm

289

5mm

310

5mm

3002mm

3002mm

3002mm

1deg

1deg

1deg


(c)






00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91

00

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)

Days

Tem

pera

ture

(degC)



Tem

pera

ture

(degC)

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 9100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)Days











Actuator(1000 kN)

Specimen

VerticalLVD T1



Firstportion of

UHPC pouring

(a) (b)


0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

(a)

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

(b)


















plc σt and ε



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 025 050 075 100 125 150 175

Load

(kN

)


a-1a-2

a-3

d-1 d-2

d-3

c-3c-1 c-2

b-1 b-2 b-3dv1 dv2

MN-0GR-30

GR-20VC-0





(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f )

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 11 Continued









1113888 1113889

23

MPa (2)

and

GF 00469d2a minus 05da + 261113872 1113873

fprimec10

1113888 1113889

07

Nmm (3)



Type Description




(j) (k) (l)







Front faces

(a) (b) (c) (d)


E

Stre

ss

Strain

E

(a)

EStre

ss

Strain

(1 ndash D)E

(b)




Inelasticstrain

Stress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

180 0 176 0193 00002 185 00002199 00003 187 000032046 000039 1865 00004202 00005 186 00005201 00006 1854 000062005 00007 1843 00007200 0001 182 000075172 0002 170 0003572


Damageparameters

Displacement(mm)

0 005 01099 02




tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)




0t ) with a set of




langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)





tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)



δm


1113969

(7)


D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897



0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)





Separation

Trac

tion



tn (ts tt)0 0 0







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls












Division SiO2()

Al2O3()

MgO()

TiO2()

SO3()

CaO()

Fe2O3()

Na2O()

K2O()

Freelime

Insoluble()

Loss onignition







(a) (b) (c)







Surface treatment

(a)



(b)

Construction joint

(c)



(a)

193

0mm

193

0mm

189

5mm

189

5mm

207

0mm

207

0mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

1deg

1deg

1deg

1deg

2deg

1deg


(b)

289

5mm

289

5mm

310

5mm

3002mm

3002mm

3002mm

1deg

1deg

1deg


(c)






00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91

00

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)

Days

Tem

pera

ture

(degC)



Tem

pera

ture

(degC)

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 9100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)Days











Actuator(1000 kN)

Specimen

VerticalLVD T1



Firstportion of

UHPC pouring

(a) (b)


0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

(a)

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

(b)


















plc σt and ε



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 025 050 075 100 125 150 175

Load

(kN

)


a-1a-2

a-3

d-1 d-2

d-3

c-3c-1 c-2

b-1 b-2 b-3dv1 dv2

MN-0GR-30

GR-20VC-0





(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f )

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 11 Continued









1113888 1113889

23

MPa (2)

and

GF 00469d2a minus 05da + 261113872 1113873

fprimec10

1113888 1113889

07

Nmm (3)



Type Description




(j) (k) (l)







Front faces

(a) (b) (c) (d)


E

Stre

ss

Strain

E

(a)

EStre

ss

Strain

(1 ndash D)E

(b)




Inelasticstrain

Stress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

180 0 176 0193 00002 185 00002199 00003 187 000032046 000039 1865 00004202 00005 186 00005201 00006 1854 000062005 00007 1843 00007200 0001 182 000075172 0002 170 0003572


Damageparameters

Displacement(mm)

0 005 01099 02




tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)




0t ) with a set of




langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)





tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)



δm


1113969

(7)


D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897



0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)





Separation

Trac

tion



tn (ts tt)0 0 0







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls








Surface treatment

(a)



(b)

Construction joint

(c)



(a)

193

0mm

193

0mm

189

5mm

189

5mm

207

0mm

207

0mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

2001mm

1deg

1deg

1deg

1deg

2deg

1deg


(b)

289

5mm

289

5mm

310

5mm

3002mm

3002mm

3002mm

1deg

1deg

1deg


(c)






00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91

00

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)

Days

Tem

pera

ture

(degC)



Tem

pera

ture

(degC)

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 9100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)Days











Actuator(1000 kN)

Specimen

VerticalLVD T1



Firstportion of

UHPC pouring

(a) (b)


0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

(a)

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

(b)


















plc σt and ε



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 025 050 075 100 125 150 175

Load

(kN

)


a-1a-2

a-3

d-1 d-2

d-3

c-3c-1 c-2

b-1 b-2 b-3dv1 dv2

MN-0GR-30

GR-20VC-0





(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f )

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 11 Continued









1113888 1113889

23

MPa (2)

and

GF 00469d2a minus 05da + 261113872 1113873

fprimec10

1113888 1113889

07

Nmm (3)



Type Description




(j) (k) (l)







Front faces

(a) (b) (c) (d)


E

Stre

ss

Strain

E

(a)

EStre

ss

Strain

(1 ndash D)E

(b)




Inelasticstrain

Stress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

180 0 176 0193 00002 185 00002199 00003 187 000032046 000039 1865 00004202 00005 186 00005201 00006 1854 000062005 00007 1843 00007200 0001 182 000075172 0002 170 0003572


Damageparameters

Displacement(mm)

0 005 01099 02




tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)




0t ) with a set of




langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)





tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)



δm


1113969

(7)


D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897



0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)





Separation

Trac

tion



tn (ts tt)0 0 0







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls







00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91

00

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)

Days

Tem

pera

ture

(degC)



Tem

pera

ture

(degC)

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 9100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rela

tive h

umid

ity (

)Days











Actuator(1000 kN)

Specimen

VerticalLVD T1



Firstportion of

UHPC pouring

(a) (b)


0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

(a)

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

(b)


















plc σt and ε



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 025 050 075 100 125 150 175

Load

(kN

)


a-1a-2

a-3

d-1 d-2

d-3

c-3c-1 c-2

b-1 b-2 b-3dv1 dv2

MN-0GR-30

GR-20VC-0





(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f )

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 11 Continued









1113888 1113889

23

MPa (2)

and

GF 00469d2a minus 05da + 261113872 1113873

fprimec10

1113888 1113889

07

Nmm (3)



Type Description




(j) (k) (l)







Front faces

(a) (b) (c) (d)


E

Stre

ss

Strain

E

(a)

EStre

ss

Strain

(1 ndash D)E

(b)




Inelasticstrain

Stress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

180 0 176 0193 00002 185 00002199 00003 187 000032046 000039 1865 00004202 00005 186 00005201 00006 1854 000062005 00007 1843 00007200 0001 182 000075172 0002 170 0003572


Damageparameters

Displacement(mm)

0 005 01099 02




tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)




0t ) with a set of




langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)





tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)



δm


1113969

(7)


D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897



0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)





Separation

Trac

tion



tn (ts tt)0 0 0







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls











Actuator(1000 kN)

Specimen

VerticalLVD T1



Firstportion of

UHPC pouring

(a) (b)


0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

(a)

UHPC-1UHPC-2UHPC-3

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

0 00005 0001 00015 0002 00025 0003

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Strain

(b)


















plc σt and ε



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 025 050 075 100 125 150 175

Load

(kN

)


a-1a-2

a-3

d-1 d-2

d-3

c-3c-1 c-2

b-1 b-2 b-3dv1 dv2

MN-0GR-30

GR-20VC-0





(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f )

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 11 Continued









1113888 1113889

23

MPa (2)

and

GF 00469d2a minus 05da + 261113872 1113873

fprimec10

1113888 1113889

07

Nmm (3)



Type Description




(j) (k) (l)







Front faces

(a) (b) (c) (d)


E

Stre

ss

Strain

E

(a)

EStre

ss

Strain

(1 ndash D)E

(b)




Inelasticstrain

Stress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

180 0 176 0193 00002 185 00002199 00003 187 000032046 000039 1865 00004202 00005 186 00005201 00006 1854 000062005 00007 1843 00007200 0001 182 000075172 0002 170 0003572


Damageparameters

Displacement(mm)

0 005 01099 02




tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)




0t ) with a set of




langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)





tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)



δm


1113969

(7)


D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897



0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)





Separation

Trac

tion



tn (ts tt)0 0 0







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls















plc σt and ε



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 025 050 075 100 125 150 175

Load

(kN

)


a-1a-2

a-3

d-1 d-2

d-3

c-3c-1 c-2

b-1 b-2 b-3dv1 dv2

MN-0GR-30

GR-20VC-0





(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f )

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 11 Continued









1113888 1113889

23

MPa (2)

and

GF 00469d2a minus 05da + 261113872 1113873

fprimec10

1113888 1113889

07

Nmm (3)



Type Description




(j) (k) (l)







Front faces

(a) (b) (c) (d)


E

Stre

ss

Strain

E

(a)

EStre

ss

Strain

(1 ndash D)E

(b)




Inelasticstrain

Stress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

180 0 176 0193 00002 185 00002199 00003 187 000032046 000039 1865 00004202 00005 186 00005201 00006 1854 000062005 00007 1843 00007200 0001 182 000075172 0002 170 0003572


Damageparameters

Displacement(mm)

0 005 01099 02




tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)




0t ) with a set of




langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)





tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)



δm


1113969

(7)


D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897



0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)





Separation

Trac

tion



tn (ts tt)0 0 0







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls




(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f )

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 11 Continued









1113888 1113889

23

MPa (2)

and

GF 00469d2a minus 05da + 261113872 1113873

fprimec10

1113888 1113889

07

Nmm (3)



Type Description




(j) (k) (l)







Front faces

(a) (b) (c) (d)


E

Stre

ss

Strain

E

(a)

EStre

ss

Strain

(1 ndash D)E

(b)




Inelasticstrain

Stress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

180 0 176 0193 00002 185 00002199 00003 187 000032046 000039 1865 00004202 00005 186 00005201 00006 1854 000062005 00007 1843 00007200 0001 182 000075172 0002 170 0003572


Damageparameters

Displacement(mm)

0 005 01099 02




tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)




0t ) with a set of




langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)





tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)



δm


1113969

(7)


D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897



0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)





Separation

Trac

tion



tn (ts tt)0 0 0







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls











1113888 1113889

23

MPa (2)

and

GF 00469d2a minus 05da + 261113872 1113873

fprimec10

1113888 1113889

07

Nmm (3)



Type Description




(j) (k) (l)







Front faces

(a) (b) (c) (d)


E

Stre

ss

Strain

E

(a)

EStre

ss

Strain

(1 ndash D)E

(b)




Inelasticstrain

Stress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

180 0 176 0193 00002 185 00002199 00003 187 000032046 000039 1865 00004202 00005 186 00005201 00006 1854 000062005 00007 1843 00007200 0001 182 000075172 0002 170 0003572


Damageparameters

Displacement(mm)

0 005 01099 02




tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)




0t ) with a set of




langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)





tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)



δm


1113969

(7)


D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897



0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)





Separation

Trac

tion



tn (ts tt)0 0 0







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls








Front faces

(a) (b) (c) (d)


E

Stre

ss

Strain

E

(a)

EStre

ss

Strain

(1 ndash D)E

(b)




Inelasticstrain

Stress(MPa)

Inelasticstrain

180 0 176 0193 00002 185 00002199 00003 187 000032046 000039 1865 00004202 00005 186 00005201 00006 1854 000062005 00007 1843 00007200 0001 182 000075172 0002 170 0003572


Damageparameters

Displacement(mm)

0 005 01099 02




tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)




0t ) with a set of




langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)





tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)



δm


1113969

(7)


D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897



0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)





Separation

Trac

tion



tn (ts tt)0 0 0







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls






tn

ts

tt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭

Knn 0 0

0 kss 0

0 0 Ktt

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

δnδsδt

⎧⎪⎪⎨

⎪⎪⎩

⎫⎪⎪⎬

⎪⎪⎭ (4)




0t ) with a set of




langtnrangt0n

1113896 1113897

2

+ts

t0s1113896 1113897

2

+tt

t0t1113896 1113897

2

1 (5)





tt (1minusD)t0t

(6)



δm


1113969

(7)


D 1minusδ0mδmaxm

1113896 1113897



0m1113872 11138731113872 11138731113872 1113873

1minus exp(minusα)

⎧⎨

⎩

⎫⎬

⎭

(8)





Separation

Trac

tion



tn (ts tt)0 0 0







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls







E (AminusT)

T

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868

1113868111386811138681113868111386811138681113868times 100() (9)







(a)


(b)


(c)



(d)







5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls




5 Conclusions






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

(a)

TestAnalysisError

0

5

10

15

20

25

000 010 020

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

250

0

200

150

100

50

(b)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

000 010 020 030 040 050 060 070

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

175

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

TestAnalysisError

(c)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

000 050 100 150

Load

(kN

)


Erro

r (

)

TestAnalysisError

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(d)







(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls








(a)





(b)





(c)





(d)





Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References
























































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls































Advances in



Journal of

Chemistry















Journal of





Volume 2018









Journal of


Na

nom

ate

ria

ls




numericalandexperimentalanalysisoftheshearbehaviorof … · 2019. 7. 30. · the fresh concrete so...

Documents