| Literature DB >> 36079535 |
Wei Wang1,2, Zhonghao Zhang1, Qing Huo1, Xiaodong Song1, Jianchao Yang3, Xiaofeng Wang3, Jianhui Wang3, Xing Wang3.
Abstract
UR50 ultra-early-strength cement-based self-compacting high-strength material is a special cement-based material. Compared with traditional high-strength concrete, its ultra-high strength, ultra-high toughness, ultra-impact resistance, and ultra-high durability have received great attention in the field of protection engineering, but the dynamic mechanical properties of impact compression at high strain rates are not well known, and the dynamic compressive properties of materials are the basis for related numerical simulation studies. In order to study its dynamic compressive mechanical properties, three sets of specimens with a size of Φ100 × 50 mm were designed and produced, and a large-diameter split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) with a diameter of 100 mm was used to carry out impact tests at different speeds. The specimens were mainly brittle failures. With the increase in impact speed, the failure mode of the specimens gradually transits from larger fragments to small fragments and a large amount of powder. The experimental results show that the ultra-early-strength cement-based material has a greater impact compression brittleness, and overall rupture occurs at low strain rates. Its dynamic compressive strength increases with the increase of strain rates and has an obvious strain rate strengthening effect. According to the test results, the relationship curve between the dynamic enhancement factor and the strain rate is fitted. As the impact speed increases, the peak stress rises, the energy absorption density increases, and its growth rate accelerates. Afterward, based on the stress-strain curve, the damage variables under different strain rates were fitted, and the results show that the increase of strain rate has a hindering effect on the increase of damage variables and the increase rate.Entities:
Keywords: dynamic response; impact mechanics; split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB); strain rate effect; ultra-early-strength concrete
Year: 2022 PMID: 36079535 PMCID: PMC9458183 DOI: 10.3390/ma15176154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Mechanical properties of UR50.
| Times | Compressive Strength (MPa) | Flexural Strength (MPa) |
|---|---|---|
| 2 h | 54.0 | 7.2 |
| 24 h | 71.0 | 9.7 |
| 7 d | 80.0 | 9.7 |
| 28 d | 81.2 | 10.1 |
Figure 1Physical image of processed specimens.
Figure 2An SHPB device separated by 100 mm. (a) Physical map of the SHPB device. (b) Schematic diagram of the SHPB device.
Figure 3Physical photos of the test process.
Experimental program.
| Speeds | Specimen Number | Measured Size of Test Specimen |
|---|---|---|
| 5 m/s | S_5-1 | Φ101.50 × 48.84 mm |
| S_5-2 | Φ100.76 × 49.44 mm | |
| S_5-3 | Φ101.08 × 51.44 mm | |
| 10 m/s | S_10-1 | Φ101.40 × 49.24 mm |
| S_10-2 | Φ101.05 × 50.40 mm | |
| S_10-3 | Φ101.40 × 50.54 mm | |
| 15 m/s | S_15-1 | Φ101.32 × 50.12 mm |
| S_15-2 | Φ101.38 × 50.32 mm | |
| S_15-3 | Φ101.42 × 51.10 mm |
Figure 4Original stress wave. (a) SHPB test collection wave. (b) The three waves graph.
Test results at an impact velocity of 5 m/s.
| Test No. | Before the Test | After the Test | Recycled |
|---|---|---|---|
| S_5-1 |
|
|
|
| S_5-2 |
|
|
|
| S_5-3 |
|
|
|
Figure 5Stress–strain curve of 5 m/s.
Test results at an impact velocity of 10 m/s.
| Test No. | Before the Test | After the Test | Recycled |
|---|---|---|---|
| S_10-1 |
|
|
|
| S_10-2 |
|
|
|
| S_10-3 |
|
|
|
Figure 6Stress–strain curve of 10 m/s.
Test results at an impact velocity of 15 m/s.
| Test No. | Before the Test | After the Test | Recycled |
|---|---|---|---|
| S_15-1 |
|
|
|
| S_15-2 |
|
|
|
| S_15-3 |
|
|
|
Figure 7Stress–strain curve of 15 m/s.
Figure 8Dynamic stress–strain curve at different strain rates.
Dynamic compressive strength under different strain rates.
| Strain Rates | Dynamic Compressive Strength (Mpa) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 (s−1) | 93.954 | 95.982 | 91.836 |
| 15.3 (s−1) | 146.194 | 149.262 | 144.668 |
| 23.5 (s−1) | 173.013 | 175.845 | 170.697 |
Figure 9Relationship between DIF and strain rate.
Figure 10Energy absorption density–strain curve. (a) Impact velocity of 5 m/s. (b) Impact velocity of 10 m/s. (c) Impact velocity of 15 m/s. (d) Average value.
Figure 11Damage evolution variable. (a) Impact velocity of 5 m/s. (b) Impact velocity of 10 m/s. (c) Impact velocity of 15 m/s. (d) Average value.
Figure 12Comparison of damage variable fitting results.
Figure 13The relationship between elastic modulus and strain rate.
Figure 14Comparison of fitting results with test results.