You are on page 1of 7

Impact Testing of Concrete Using a Drop-weight Impact Machine

by N. Banthia, S. Mindess, A. Bentur and M. Pigeon

ABSTRACT--A detailed description of the instrumented drop- weight impact machine is presented. The instrumentation, the calibration, the inertial loading correction, and the dynamic analysis of a concrete beam specimen undergoing three-point impact flexural loading are described. Some results, using such an impact testing machine, obtained from tests done on plain concrete, fiber-reinforced concrete, and conventionally reinforced concrete are presented. It is concluded that the use of such a testing machine may be successfully made in order to test cementitious materials under )mpact.

Introduction

The low strains associated with concrete failure place it in the category of brittle materials. Like other ceramics, concrete also exhibits stress-rate sensitivity in all the three loading configurations, viz. compression, '-3 tension',' and flexure.': This implies that the statically determined properties of concrete in the laboratory may not be used to predict the behavior of concrete Subjected to high stress rates, those associated with impact, blast, or earth- quake, Since the conventional testing machines may not be used to generate such high rates of loading, special apparatus are required. Unfortunately, a standard tech- nique for testing concrete under impact does not exist. Although various investigators '-7 have used various testing techniques, results often cannot be compared. The main reasons behind the incomparable nature of these testing techniques are the different methods of loading, the different energy-loss mechanisms and the different ways of analyzing the results. Consequently, little general agree- ment exists over the magnitude of the observed effects. Nevertheless, a general agreement exists over the necessity of a standard testing technique for testing concrete under high stress rates associated with impact. In this paper, a drop-weight impact machine, its construction, instrumenta- tion and calibration, analysis of the results, and the problems associated with its use in generating impact flexural loading are outlined. Some results obtained with normal-strength plain, high-strength plain, fiber-reinforced, and conventionally reinforced concrete are also presented.

Experiment

The Drop-weight Impact-testing Machine

The drop-weight impact machine is shown in Fig. I. It

has a frame 3.5-m tall mounted on a reinforced-concrete pedestal 1.5 m • 1.5 m in area and 0.9-m high. The

frame is rigidly secured on top

of the pedestal using 37-

ram bolts. A hammer weighing 3.38 kN slides up and

down the vertical posts upon

being attached

to

a

hoist.

The hammer has pneumatic brakes in its body by which

it can

'grab on'

to the vertical posts. Once the brakes are

applied, the

hoist

may be detached from

the hammer.

Upon releasing the brakes, the hammer

falls freely on

a

beam specimen supported on two support anvils as shown

in Fig. 1. The striking end of the hammer (called the 'tup')

is shown

in Fig.

2.

The hammer may be raised to heights

of up to 2.4 m above the specimen. By dropping the

hammer through different heights, the applied stress rate may be varied.

Instrumentation

THE TUP

 

As

the

hammer

strikes

the

beam,

the contact load

between the hammer and the beam develops. Load measurements are made by the eight bonded strain gages

placed in

two

25-mm

diameter

holes

(Fig.

2).

This

procedure

resulted

in

an

amplification (by a

use

factor

of

three

in

this

case) in

the

signals by making

of

the

stress concentration at the boundaries of the holes. 8'9 The

circuit of the tup is shown in Fig. 2(b).

THE SUPPORT ANVIL

The support anvil [Fig. 3(a)] is capable of reading the vertical as well as the horizontal support reaction. These two reactions are read separately by the imbalance generated in two separate Wheatstone bridges. The vertical reaction is read from the strain gages mounted in the circular holes [Fig. 3(b)], while the horizontal reaction is read from the strain gages mounted in between the two holes [Fig. 3(c)]. The independent nature of the horizontal and the vertical reaction channels in the support anvil should be noted.

N. Banthia is Attache de Recherche, Department of Civil Engineering,

Laval University, Ste-Foy.

Quebec,

G1K7P4,

Canada.

S.

Mindess is

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Colum- bia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T1 WS, Canada. A. Bentur is Profes- sor, Building Research Station, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel. M. Pigeon is Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec, GIK7P4, Canada.

Original manuscript submitted: September 25, 198Z Final manuscript received: June 2, 1988.

ACCELEROMETERS

The accelerometers (Fig. 1) mounted along the length of the beam were piezoelectric sensors with a resonant fre- quency of 45 kHz. With a resolution of 0.01 g, the accelerometers can read up to • 500 g and have an over- load protection of up to 5000 g (where g is Earth's gravita- tional acceleration). The calibration for the accelerometers was supplied by the manufacturer.

Experimental Mechanics

~

63

PHOTOCELL ASSEMBLY

The

photocell

assembly consists

of

a

strip

of

metal

with

holes

punched

in

it,

that

runs

parallel

to

the

columns

of

the

machine

(Fig.

I)

and

a

photocell

mounted

on

the

hammer

that

slides

 

along

the

strip.

As

soon

as

the

photocell

reaches

a

hole

in

the

strip

(Fig.

4),

the

beam

of

light

falls

on

the

photocell

through

the

hole

registering

an

output.

The

use

of

the

photocell

assembly

is

made

for

two

purposes:

first,

for

the

triggering

of

the

data-acquisition

sys-

tem and

second,

for

the determination

of

the

hammer

acceleration as it fails under gravity. The hammer,

once

released, passes a hole in the strip before hitting the specimen. This interception of the hole triggers the data- acquisition system (Fig. I). The use of the photocell for the determination of the hammer acceleration is described below.

Calibration

CALIBRATION OF THE TUP AND THE SUPPORT ANVIL

The tup

and

the vertical-load channel of the support

anvil were calibrated by subjecting them to static compres-

sion in a hydraulically loaded universal testing machine. The horizontal load channel of the support anvil was calibrated by applying a horizontal static load on the anvil using a lower range universal testing machine, Load was applied in small steps up to about 70 percent of the elastic capacity followed by an unloading in steps to check for any hysteresis. Although, the steel in the tup and the support anvil was to be loaded dynamically in an actual test, the static calibration was assumed to be reasonable.

CALIBRATION OF THE HAMMER ACCELERATION AS mentioned earlier, the photocell assembly sent out a

voltage signal, in the form of a spike, whenever it inter- cepted a hole in the metal strip. A typical output from the photoccU assembly is shown in Fig. 5. The data from the photocell assembly indicated the time required by the hammer to travel the distances between the successive holes. If it can be assumed that the downward acceleration of the hammer (ah) is constant, and if we know the time required by the hammer under a free fall to travel two

adjacent segments of length S, and

$2 (Fig.

5) then

from

the laws of motion, the acceleration of the hammer (t/h) may be obtained as follows. Between the first and second hole,

S,

=

V, Atl

+ lAahAt~

(1)

Between the second and third hole,

 

$2

=

V2At2

+

89

(2)

Also

;:ooo= o

~

~

~

o.ao

:

oo

Pedestol

Fig. 1--A schematic layout of the impact testing setup

L

_J

9

 

@

(a)

 

+JI-

STRAIN

GAUGIrS

EXCITATION

TYPE:

SON DEO

RESISTANCE :

Sw

_e 0.3%

SAGE FACTOR: 2.OF ~" 0.5%

 

TEMPERATURE COEFFIClENT:~

O.t%

(b)

Fig. 2--The tup and its circuit

64

9 March

1989

 

'

L

 

I

 

(a)

I

T2

 

[.m

 

Excilotion

[xcitotion

  • (b) Ic)

Fig. 3--The support anvil and its circuit

II2

=

II1 + ahAt~

(3)

Solving for ah we have

 

ah

If

are study), i.e., $1

=

the

holes

ah

 

2($2Atl -

S, Atz)

 
 

AtxAt2(Atl + At2)

equally spaced

(as

in

the

$2

=

S, then

 

2S(At~ -

AG)

 

=

At, At2(At~ + At2)

 

(4)

case of

this

(5)

It is worth mentioning here that the acceleration of the hammer, as obtained by using eq (5), was always found to be less than Earth's gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s 2. The friction between the columns of the machine and the hammer was thought to be the reason behind this discrepancy. An acceleration test done right after cleaning the pillers with acetone resulted in a value of hammer acceleration of 9.60 m/s 2. On the other hand, unclean

pillers after repeated use yielded accelerations as low as 8.60 m/s 2.

Acquisition Storage and Retrieval of Data

The five-channel data-acquisition system was triggered by the freely falling hammer itself during each test. Once triggered, the data-acquisition system acquired the data from the tup, the support anvil (only one reaction chan- nel connected at a time), and the three accelerometers. The data-acquisition system, based on an IBM PC, deposited the time-base data thus acquired on a floppy disk which was eventually transferred to a mainframe computer and analyzed. During each test the time-base data were acquired for a preselected length of time depending on the expected duration of the impact. While the time required to fail a conventionally reinforced con- crete beam was about 150 millisecond, the corresponding time for a plain concrete beam was only about 15 milli- second. The voltage signals were converted to load and acceleration values using the calibration curves described above.

 

~

Metol strip

 

fq

,,o,o

J

cell

Z>--7 Q

Light

source

~ Holes

Analysis of the Results

The flexural impact tests on the cementitious materials

  • 1 are performed with two objectives in mind: first, the determination of the peak bending load, and second, the determination of energy that is consumed by the specimen either up to the peak load or up to failure. The energy consumed up to failure is also sometimes called the 'toughness' or simply the fracture energy. The computa- tion of the two may be accomplished as follows.

:R

THE PEAK BENDING LOAD

Output

Fig. 4--The photocell assembly

It is now a well-known fact that the load recorded by the tup in the initial part of impact is not the true stressing
I or the true bending load owing to the specimen inertial effects. '~ The acceleration of the specimen gives rise to d'Alembert's forces which are recorded by the tup along with the stressing or the bending load. Since the cemen- titious materials are usually very brittle, the entire impact event may occur while the specimen is still being accelerated. The mechanical response may thus be entirely over- shadowed by the inertial response, and as such, the true bending load may be only a fraction of the recorded tup load. Proper dynamic analysis of the system is there- fore essential.

?Excitation

Hammer velocity = VI

Q

--

.~

Hammer

i

veloctty=V 2

(~

-'-~

....

 

N

Hammer

(~

velocity--V3

i~ Output

in volts

Fig. 5--Determination of hammer acceleration using the photocell

The recorded tup load, P,(t),

(Fig. 6) is a point

load at

the midspan of the beam whereas the inertial reaction of the beam is a body force distributed throughout the body of the beam. This distributed inertial load should there- fore be replaced by a generalized point inertial load,

Pi(t),

which can then be subtracted from the tup load in

order to obtain the generalized bending load, Pb(t), acting at the center. As will be shown later, this generalized bending load can then be assumed to act on the beam at the midspan by itself, and will predict the correct energies, midspan moments, and stresses. If the acceleration in between the accelerometers may be obtained by linear interpolationfl the acceleration at the center may be obtained by linear extrapolation, and finally, if the accelerations may be assumed to be symmetric about the midspan, then the acceleration at every point along the

length of the beam is known [Fig. 6(b)]. If the beam is given a virtual displacement, 6Uo, compatible with its constraints [Fig. 6(0], then from the virtual work expres- sion we may write

Experimental Mechanics 9 65

e

P~(t)6Uo = Jo OAli (x,t) ~u(x)dx + 2 J~ oAit'(y,t)$u(y)dy

 

(6)

P,(t)

=

where /i(x,t)

or ~/(y,t)

is the acceleration

at

a certain

 

location

along the beam,

~u(x)

or $u(y)

is

the

virtual

displacement at a certain location along the beam, 0 is the mass density of the beam material and A is the area of the cross s~'tion of the beam. On breaking the first integral into different segments of the beam between the accelerometers, expressing accelerations at various points along the seg- ments in terms of the accelerations at the accelerometer locations (recorded), and assuming that the virtual dis- placement at a location is proportional to the acceleration there, we may write after a few steps 7

-~

oA

[~

D2

+

Da

~

2

D1

(U2o(t) + U~(t) + Uo(t)i/,(t)) (ii~(t)+ii~(t)+ii,(t)iiz(t))

+

U~(t)

h

no(t)

[~](t) ]

(7)

Once the generalized inertial load is obtained, the beam can be modeled as a single degree of freedom system, and the generalized bending load [Pb(t)] may be obtained simply by using the equation of dynamic equilibrium,

Pb(t)

= P+(t) -

Pi(t)

(8)

 

~ Hammer

Aceelerometers

Considerable simplification is possible in the above treatment of inertial loading if some simple mathematical function may be chosen to define the acceleration distri -+ bution along the length of the beam. Many tests conducted to study this distribution indicated that the accelerations along the beam are indeed simple mathematical functions; the distribution being linear for plain, and sinusoidal for conventionally reinforced beams. 7 Equation (7) can then be appropriately simplified to include only the acceleration

t'

'

1

at the midspan.

i

rP

8

h 3

 

Pi(t)

= oAiio(t)

 

[3

+

3-

t-~]

(9)

 

(a)

 

(for the linear case) and

 

P~(t)

r~

= oA~io(t) t~-

+

2

7r2h3 ]

(10)

(for the sinusoidal case) where the second term on the right-hand side accounts for the linear accelerations along the overhangs of the beam. 8 Once the generalized bending load Pb(t) is known, the

 

Assumed~

]~Lineorly

extrapolated

tup load and the distributed inertial load [Fig. 7(a)] in the

 

(b)

actual dynamic system may be replaced by Pb(t) alone to

Pt (t)

form the equivalent static system of Fig. 7(b). For the case of linear accelerations (plain-concrete beams), it may be shown using dynamic equilibrium [Fig. 7(a)] that

 

R,(t)

=

2

P,(t)-oA~io(t)[e_

_0~]

 

(11)

 

and

 

Mo(t)

= Pt(t) ~

-

oAiio(t) [1E-~2+ -~g3 ]

 

(12)

 

(c)

where Mo(t) is the moment at the center in the dynamic

re

8h3 j]

(13)

 

Fig. 6--Computation of the generalized inertial load

system of Fig. 7(a). The generalized bending load Pb(t) acting on the equivalent static system may be obtained

 

using eqs (8) and (9) for the case of plain concrete.

 

Pb(t) = Pt(t)-Aoiio(t)

t--~- +

-j

3t 2

inertial load

~pt (t)

Pb(t)

If Me o(t) is the midspan moment in the equivalent static

e

e

e2

 

~

+,+j

system, then,

 

M.o(t)

= P,(t)--~

= P,(t)-i--oAiio(t

) [-~

+

..

]

 

(a)

(b)

(14)

Fig. 7(a)--The dynamic loading and (b) the equivalent static loading

  • 66 9 March 1989

A comparison between eq (12) and eq (14) indicates that

Mo(t) and Me o(t) are the same. Or, in other words,

the

placement of Pb(t) on

the beam

[Fig. 7(b)] results in the

the form of elastic strains and vibrations. Since the strain energy or the vibrational energy in the machine may never

true equivalent static system. The peak bending load,

be determined, eq (15) may not be used to determine the

therefore, is the peak value of the generalized load.

energy

received by the

beam

from

the

hammer

at

any

A CHECK

The instrumentation in the support may be used to check the validity of the above analysis. Figure 8 presents a comparison between the experimental support load and the evaluated support reaction as computed using eq (11). It can be noted that they reasonably agree with each other. The other significant feature of Fig. 8 is the lag of about 0.4 millisecond between the evaluated and the measured reaction. The finite time taken by the stress waves to travel the distance from the point of impact to the support may, to some extent, explain this lag. Figure 9 presents the measured horizontal reaction. It can be seen that the horizontal reaction is close to zero at all times indicating the simply supported nature of the beam.

THE FRACTURE ENERGY

As soon as the hammer hits the beam, a sudden transfer

of energy from the hammer

to

the

beam

occurs.

The

hammer velocity decreases due to the obstacle in its path.

At

any time

t during the impact,

if

IP,(t)dt

represents

the impulse acting against the hammer, the kinetic energy lost by the hammer AE(t) may be obtained from the

impulse-momentum relationships,7

AE(t)

=

1

"~-mh [2ahh

-

(

2x/~d~hh -

1

mh

I

P'(t)dt) 2]

(15)

where

m h is

the

mass of the

hammer

and

h

is

the

height

of its drop. The energy lost by the hammer [eq (15)] is partly trans- ferred to the beam and partly stays within the machine in

 

Experimental

support

load

 

6

 

Evaluated

support reaction

 

"

.J

4

-

5

I

 

I

t

 

z

I

 

I

 

'/i

~

2

4

6

8

I0

12

Fig. 8--A

Time, ms check on the analysis

time t. Moreover, a major portion of the energy received by the beam appears as kinetic energy which is of little concern to us. The energy that does concern us is the bending energy [Eb(t)], or the energy given by the area under the generalized bending load [Pb(t)] versus the load-point deflection [Uo(t)] curve (Fig. 10).

 

t

 

Eb(t)

=

IO Pb(t)duo

 

(16)

The

deflection at

the load

point,

uo(t),

may

be ob-

tained by double integration of the extrapolated accelera-

tion at the load point [Uo(t)]. t

t

Uo(t)

=

Io

Io tio(t) dtdt

(17)

At the point of failure (Fig. 10), the beam stops receiving energy from the hammer (tup load falls to zero) and the area under the Pb(t) versus the LPD [Uo(t)] curve [eq (16)] represents the fracture energy or the energy required to create two new fracture surfaces. At this point, a plain-

 

2,0

1,5

z

 

1,0

_l

 

0,5

J

0

2

4

6

 

Time, ms

Fig. 9--Horizontal

support reaction

(recorded)

 

E

af

 

tea = fracture energy

o

(.9

 

Fodure

 
 

Load

point

deflection

Uo(t)

Fig. IO--A typical load (Pb) versus load-

point-deflection

(Uo) plot

Experimental Mechanics

~

67

concrete beam breaks into two halves and the two broken halves swing about their support points away from the tup. It may be assumed that the beam halves, although having considerable kinetic energy, have no bending or strain energy and all the energy given by the area under the generalized-bending-load versus load-point-deflection plot has been used up in creating new fracture surfaces. It is shown in Ref. 13 that at the point of failure, the fracture energy and the kinetic energy of the broken halves together account for most of the energy lost by the hammer as given by eq (15).

Results and Discussion

Detailed results of the extensive testing carried out using the above described impact machine appear in Refs.

14-18. However, some of the results are presented in the form of generalized-bending-load versus load-point-deflec- tion plots of Figs. ll(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and also in the form of Table 1. These plots present a comparison between the static and the dynamic results obtained for normal-strength plain concrete, high-strength plain con-

crete,

normal-strength polypropylene-fiber-reinforced con-

crete, normal-strength steel-fiber-reinforced concrete, and conventionally reinforced normal-strength concrete,

respectively. (The static tests correspond to a x-head

movement rate of 4.2 x

10 -7 m/s. The dynamic results

TABLE 1 --RESULTS

FROM STATIC AND IMPACT TESTS

 

Static I

Impact =

Peak Bending

Fracture

Peak Bending

Fracture

Load 3

Energy ~

Load 3

Energy3

N

Nm

N

Nm

Normal-Strength

6344 (306)4

5.5

(1,5)

16932 (428)

90,1 (6.5)

Plane Concrete s

High-Strength

9720 (1809)

2.8 (0,6)

18760 (446)

74.9 (18.6)

Plain Concrete 6

Normal-Strength

7302 (99)

14.0 (4.4)

17300 (821)

119.4 (8.1)

Polypropylene-

Fiber-

Reinforced

Concrete 7

Normal-Strength

11500 (670)

44.8 (19)

24006 (1629)

237.6 (7.5)

Steel-Fi ber-

Reinforced

Concrete 8

Conventionally

22671(3102)

4421~ (45)

36664 (888) 8801~ (300)

Reinforced

Normal-Strength

Concreteg

1Static tests done at the cross head speed of 4.2 x 10-~ mls =Height of hammer drop = 0.5 m 3Average taken over six or more specimens 4Numbers in parentheses are the standard deviations SCrushing strength = 42 MPa SCrushing strength = 82 MPa, 16 percent (by weight of cement) of microsilica 7Fibrillated polypropylene fibers, 37-mm long, 0.5 percent by volume aSteel fibers with both ends hooked, 50-mm long, 1.5 percent by volume 9Steel Area = 1.12 percent o Calculated up to a point when the load had dropped back to 1/3 of its peak value

correspond to a 0.5-m hammer drop.) The significant stress-rate sensitivity of concrete may be noticed from the plots of Fig. 11. In general, all kinds of concretes were found to be stronger (higher peak bending loads) and tougher under impact than under static conditions. This change in the mechanical behavior of concrete is in accor- dance with the results obtained by other investigatorss''9 using totally different techniques of high-stress-rate generation. The use of fibers in cementitious construction materials is gaining importance. These composites are generally believed to be tougher than the unreinforced matrix and as such are considered to be more impact resistant. The higher values of fracture energies obtained for these composites (Table 1) than the unreinforced matrix seem to confirm this belief. Conventionally reinforced concrete with its strategically placed reinforcing bars was found to be the most impact resistant of all (Table 1). This suggests that fiber-rein- forced matrix along with conventional reinforcement would produce the most suitable material for impact- loading situations.

Conclusions

The use of an instrumented, drop-weight impact machine may be successfully made in order to investigate the impact behavior of concrete. The instrumentation described here is sufficient to apply the inertial loading correction and to derive useful information from the impact testing. Concrete is a significantly stress-rate- sensitive material. In general it is stronger and more energy absorbing under impact than under static loading.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to

the staff of the University

of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering, Vancouver, Canada where this work was carried out. In particular, the help from Mr. G.D. Jolly, Mr. R.B. Nuss- baumer and Mr. M. Nazar is thankfully acknowledged.

References

1.

Abrams,

D.A.,

"'Effect of Rate of Application

of Load on

the

Compressive Strength

of Concrete, "" Proc. ASTM 17, Part 2, 364-367

(1917).

2.

Watstein, D.,

"Effect

of

Straining Rate

on

the

Compressive

Strength and Elastic Properties of Concrete, '" J. ACI, 49 (8), 729-756

(April 1953).

 

3.

Atchly, B.L. and Furr, H.L., "'Strength and Energy Absorption

Capacity of Plain Concrete Under Dynamic and Static Loading, "' J. ACI,

745-756 (Nov. 1967).

 

4.

Macneely, D.J. and

Lash, S.D., "'Tensile Strength of Concrete

Under Dynamic and Static Loading, "" J. ACI, 60 (6), 751-760 (1963).

 

5.

Zielinsky, A.J., "'Fracture of Concrete and Mortar Under Uniaxial

Impact Tensile Loading, '" PhD Thesis, De(ft Univ. of Tech. (1982).

 

6.

Suaris, W. and Shah, S.P., "'Properties of Concrete Subjected to

Impact, "' ASCE, Struct. Div., 109 (7), 1727-1741 (July 1983).

 

Z Banthia, N.P., "'Impact Resistance of Concrete," PhD Thesis, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (1987).

8.

Bentur, A., Mindess, S. and Banthia, N., "'The Behavior of

Concrete Under Impact Loading: Experimental Procedures and Method

of Analysis, "" Materials and Structures, 19 (113), 371-378 (1986).

 

9.

Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, N., "'Theory of Elasticity,'"

McGraw-HilI Kogakusha, Ltd., 3rd Ed. (1970).

  • 10. Vanzi, S., Priest, A. and May, M.J., "'Influence of Inertial Loads

in Instrumented Impact Tests, "" Impact Testing of Metals, ASTM STP466,

165-180 (1970).

  • 11. Server, W.L., "'Impact Three Point Bend Testing for Notched and

Pre-Cracked Specimens, "" J. Test. and Eval., 6 (1), 29-34 (Jan. 1978).

12. Gopalaratnam,

V.S.,

Instrumented Charpy Test for

Shah, S.P.

and

John,

R.,

"'A Modbqed

Cement-Based Composites," EXPERIMENTAL

MECHANICS, 24 (2), 102-111 (June 1984).

68

9 March

1989

  • 16 NORMAL STRENGTH CONCRETE

18

16

HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE

14 14 ~ t2 zl2 f-----Dynamic .lO o I0 ,,m < 8 o 6 ~ 6
14
14
~
t2
zl2
f-----Dynamic
.lO
o
I0
,,m
<
8
o
6
~
6
, 1 ._
4
4
Stotic
2
2
"~'--
J
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
f
~i
I
I
l
I
I
i
I
r
I
0
0
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
II
12
13
0
2
.'.'.'5
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
II
12
DEFLECTION , mm
DEFLECTION,
rnm
(a)
(b)
24l
POLYPROPYLENE FIBRE
STEEL FIBRE REINFORCED
16
REINFORCED CONCRETE
/~
CONCRETE
14
21
z12
z
18
_
.
~
-~-
Dynomic
"~10
,-,15
,--.,
ynomic
<
8
o <12
o ..
j
6
J
9
4
6
~,.~--
t
St otic
2
3
t''"s
"',t
t
t
r
1
t
I
t
I
I
0
0
0
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
II
12
13
0
246
8
I0
12
14 16
18
20
22 24
DEFLECTION ,mm
DEFLECTION , mm
(c)
(d)
CONVENTIONALLY
REINFORCED
32
CONCRETE
28
l,
o,~
24
z
20
Fig. 11--Results in terms of load (Pb) versus deflection
16
<z
i
i
(Ue) plots for (a) normal-strength plain concrete, (b) high-
strength plain concrete, (c) normal-strength polypropylene
12
I/
\
fiber-reinforced concrete, (d) normal-strength steel fiber-
_d o
,
8
"-.....
V
1
reinforced concrete, and (e) conventionally reinforced
normal-strength concrete
4
r
"- ..
0
4
8
12
16 20
24 28 .32 36 40
4448
DEFLECTION ,mm
(e)

13. Banthia, N., Mindess, S. and Bentur, A., "'Energy Balance in Instrumented Impact Tests on Plain Concrete Beams, "" The SEM-RILEM Int. Conf. on Fracture of Concrete and Rock (June 1987). 14. Banthia, N., Mindess, S. and Bentur, A., "'Impact Behaviour of Concrete Beams, "' Materials and Structures, 20, 293-302 (1987). 15. Mindess, S., Banthia, N. and Cheng, Y., "The Fracture Toughness

of Concrete Under Impact Loading," Cement and Concrete Res.,

17,

231-241 (1987). 16. Mindess, S., Banthia, N. and Bentur, A., "'The Response of

Reinforced Concrete Beams with a Fibrous Concrete Matrix to Impact

Loading, "" Int. J. Cement Composites and Light

Weight Concrete (UK),

8

(3),

165-170 (1986).

 

17. Bentur,

A.,

Mindess,

S.

and Banthia,

N.,

"'The Behaviour of

Reinforced Concrete Under Impact: The Effect of Concrete Strength, "" The SEM-RIL.EM Int. Conf. on Fracture of Concrete and Rock (June 1987).

 

18. Banthia, N., Mindess, S. and Bentur, A., "'Steel Fibre Reinforced

Concrete Under Impact, "" Int. Madras, India (Dec. 1987).

Symp.

on Fibre Reinforced

Concrete,

 

19. Hibbert,

A.P.,

"'Impact Resistance

of

Fibre

Concrete, "" PhD

Thesis, Univ. of Surrey, UK (1979).

ExperimentaIMechanics

9 69