| Literature DB >> 35683244 |
Sallal R Abid1, Gunasekaran Murali2, Jawad Ahmad3, Thaar S Al-Ghasham1, Nikolai Ivanovich Vatin2.
Abstract
The ACI 544-2R introduced a qualitative test to compare the impact resistance of fibrous concretes under repeated falling-mass impact loads, which is considered to be a low-cost, quick solution for material-scale impact tests owing to the simplified apparatus, test setup and procedure, where none of the usual sophisticated sensors and data acquisition systems are required. However, previous studies showed that the test results are highly scattered with noticeably unacceptable variations, which encouraged researchers to try to use statistical tools to analyze the scattering of results and suggest modifications to reduce this unfavorable disadvantage. The current article introduces a state-of-the-art literature review on the previous and recent research on repeated impact testing of different types of fibrous concrete using the ACI 544-2R test, while focusing on the scattering of results and highlighting the adopted statistical distributions to analyze this scattering. The influence of different mixture parameters on the variation of the cracking and failure impact results is also investigated based on data from the literature. Finally, the article highlights and discusses the literature suggestions to modify the test specimen, apparatus and procedure to reduce the scattering of results in the ACI 544-2R repeated impact test. The conducted analyses showed that material parameters such as binder, aggregate and water contents in addition to the maximum size of aggregate have no effect on the variation of test results, while increasing the fiber content was found to have some positive influence on decreasing this variation. The survey conducted in this study also showed that the test can be modified to lower the unfavorable variations of impact and failure results.Entities:
Keywords: Weibull distribution; fibrous concrete; normal distribution; repeated impact test; results variation; test improvement
Year: 2022 PMID: 35683244 PMCID: PMC9182244 DOI: 10.3390/ma15113948
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Statistical evaluation tools of impact cracking and failure numbers in the literature.
| Reference | Concrete | Number of Specimens Tested per Mix | Fiber | Fiber Content | Compressive Strength | COV | Statistical Technique |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soroushian et al. 1992 [ | Carbon-fiber-reinforced cement composites | 30 (two patches of 15) | CF | 2% | 28.6 | 36.3–54.6% | Normal probability |
| Nataraja et a. 1999 [ | Steel-fiber-reinforced concrete | 15 | SF | 0.5% | 29.4–36 | 46–57.3% | Normal probability |
| Song et al. 2005 [ | Hybrid steel-PP-fiber-reinforced concrete | 48 | SF, PP | 0.5% SF | 24.2–25.6 | 41–59% | Normal probability and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test |
| Song et al. 2005 [ | High-strength fiber-reinforced concrete | 48 | SF | 1% | 66–76 | 41–44% | Normal probability and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test |
| Badr et al. 2006 [ | PP-fiber-reinforced concrete | 20 | PP | 3 kg/m3 | 41.3 | 48.7–61.4% | Normal probability |
| Rahmani et al. 2012 [ | Plain concrete, fiber-reinforced concrete | 32 | CE, PP, SF | 0.15, 0.15, 0.5% | 41.9–43.2 | 39–65% | Normal probability, Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Kruskal–Wallis test |
| Mastali et al. 2016 [ | Glass-fiber-reinforced polymer self-compacting concrete | 4 (plain concrete) and 40 for fibrous mixtures | GFRP | 0.25, 0.75, 1.25% | 50.2–59.2 | 36.8–43.9% | Normal probability and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test |
| Fakharifar et al. 2014 [ | High-performance fiber-reinforced cementitious composites | 40 | PP | 0.5–1.0% | 46.1–55.3 | 40–47% | Normal probability, Kolmogorov–Smirnov. Ryan–Joiner and Anderson–Darling tests. |
| Murali et al. 2018 [ | Green, high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete | 40 | SF | 0.5 | - | 39–48% | Normal probability and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test |
| Mohammadhosseini et al. 2018 [ | Fiber-reinforced concrete | 3 | WMPF | 0–1.25% | Different ages | - | Normal probability and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test |
| Jabir et al. 2020 [ | Hybrid-fiber-reinforced reactive powder concrete | 12 | SF, PP | 2.5% | 75.2–82.8 | 36–49% | Normal probability |
| Abid et al. 2020 [ | Steel-fiber-reinforced high-performance concrete | 15 | SF | 2.5% | 81.7 | 21.2–57.8% | Normal probability |
| Chen et al. 2011 [ | Steel-fiber-reinforced concrete | 6 | SF | 0.5% | 66.1–67.3 | 23–75% | Two-parameter Weibull distribution |
| Ali et al. 2017 [ | Engineered cementitious composite | 3 | PVA and SMA | (0, 2.0% PVA) (0.5, 1.0, 1.5% SMA) | - | - | Two-parameter Weibull distribution |
| Abirami et al. 2019 [ | Multi-layered grouted fiber-reinforced concrete, Slurry infiltrated fibrous concrete | 6 | SF | 1–10% | 34.2–61.8 | - | Two-parameter Weibull distribution |
| Asrani et al., 2019 [ | Hybrid fibrous geopolymer composites | 5 | SF, PP, GF | 0.3–1.6% | 62.4–84.6 | 14.9–50.8% | Two-parameter Weibull distribution |
| Murali et al., 2019 [ | Two-stage fiber-reinforced concrete | 15 | SF | 1.5–5.0% | 33.3–51.3 | 9–53% | Two-parameter Weibull distribution |
| Jabir et al. 2020 [ | High-performance fiber-reinforced concrete | 12 | SF, PP | 2.5% | 75.2–82.8 | 35.7–48.8% | Two-parameter Weibull distribution |
| Murali et al. 2020 [ | Multi-layered preplaced aggregate fibrous concrete | 6 | SF | 2.5% | 33.3–48.5 | 16.8–46.2% | Two-parameter Weibull distribution |
| Haridharan et al. 2020 [ | Multi-layered grouted fiber-reinforced concrete | 6 | SF | 0, 3% | 32.4–54.7 | 17–66% | Two-parameter Weibull distribution |
| Prasad and Murali 2021 [ | Preplaced aggregate fibrous concrete | 15 | SF, PP | 2.4% | 31.6–50.3 | - | Two-parameter Weibull distribution |
CE = cellulose fiber, CF = carbon fiber, PP = polypropylene fiber, SF = steel fiber, GF = glass fiber, GFRP = glass-fiber-reinforced polymer, PVA = polyvinyl alcohol, WMPF = waste-metalized plastic fiber, SMA = shape memory alloy fiber.
Figure 1Effect of compressive strength on the scattering of impact results at (a) cracking and (b) failure.
Figure 2Effect of binder content on the scattering of impact results at (a) cracking and (b) failure.
Figure 3Effect of aggregate content on the scattering of impact results at (a) cracking and (b) failure.
Figure 4Effect of maximum size of aggregate on the scattering of impact results at (a) cracking and (b) failure.
Figure 5Effect of water–binder ratio on the scattering of impact results at (a) cracking and (b) failure.
Figure 6Effect of fiber content on the scattering of impact results at (a) cracking and (b) failure.
Figure 7Effect of fiber length on the scattering of impact results at (a) cracking and (b) failure.
Figure 8Effect of number of specimen replications on the scattering of impact results at (a) cracking and (b) failure.
Figure 9Suggested end-notched specimen of Badr and Ashour [73]: (a) end triangular notches and (b) accepted cracking path.
Figure 10Suggested surface-notched specimen of Abid et al. [69]. (a) Surface line notch. (b) Surface cross notch. (c) Section of the notch.
Figure 11Suggested line and cross load-transferring plates of Abid et al. [69].
Figure 12Sources of ACI 544-2R repeated impact scattering of results and suggested modifications by previous studies.