Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures -

High Performance, Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Special Loadings and Structural Applications- B. H. Oh, et al. (eds)
ⓒ 2010 Korea Concrete Institute, ISBN 978-89-5708-182-2

Fracture behavior of steel reinforced UHP-SHCC under axial tension

M. Kunieda, M. Hussein, N. Ueda & H. Nakamura
Department of Civil Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
*
Post Doctoral Fellow, Department of Civil Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

ABSTRACT: Ultra High Performance Strain Hardening Cementitious Composites (UHP-SHCC) is a compos-
ite material comprising a cement-based matrix and short reinforcing fibers with outstanding mechanical and
protective performance. Besides using a thin layer of UHP-SHCC as a protective coating to extend the service
life of concrete structures, strengthening of existing reinforced concrete beams with UHP-SHCC layer casted
to their soffit may be very successful at restoring or increasing their strength. This type of strengthening no-
ticeably increases both the ultimate load-carrying capacity and the serviceability of reinforced concrete beams.
Nevertheless, observed brittle mode of failure of UHP-SHCC-strengthened RC beams and inability of the
UHP-SHCC strengthening layer to exhibit a strain hardening behavior is still a concern. Experimental works
presented in this paper examine the ability of proposed steel reinforcement to preclude the localized fracture
and consequently to improve the post-cracking behavior of UHP-SHCC under axial tension. The dimensions of
the practical size test specimens (200 x 50mm) were selected similar to the average value of those used for
beams' strengthening applications (thickness = 30 ~ 70 mm).Test results on ten average practical size speci-
mens under axial tension with different reinforcement ratio are reported. Different reinforcement ratios (0.3%,
0.6%, 0.9% and 1.2%) were used to evaluate the reinforcement ratio needed to achieve a target value of duc-
tility.

1 INTRODUCTION Shin et al. 2007). However, the main downfall of

Ultra High Performance Strain Hardening Cementi-
tious Composites (UHP-SHCC) developed by Ku-
nieda et al. (2007) can be simply defined as cement
based matrix containing short fibers with higher me-
chanical and protective performance. Figure 1
shows the general behavior of UHP-SHCC in uniax-
ial tensile tests compared to that of ordinary SHCC
and ordinary Ultra High Performance Fiber Rein-
forced Concrete (UHPFRC). UHP-SHCC forms a
class of cement composites with a tensile stress-
strain response that exhibits strain hardening ac-
companied by multiple cracking. The condition for
strain-hardening behavior can be very simply ex-
pressed in terms of the post-cracking strength in
tension being larger than the cracking strength (Ma-
tsumoto & Mihashi 2002). Especially tensile
strength of UHP-SHCC is significantly larger (twice
or more) than that of ordinary Strain Hardening
Cementitious Composites (SHCC). So, it might be
one of the effective materials for strengthening of
concrete structures. Numerous studies have shown
that concrete rehabilitation using ordinary SHCC is
very successful at restoring or increasing the load-
carrying capacity of concrete members (Horii et al.
1998, Kamal 2008, Kunieda et al. 2006, Maalej &
Li 1995, Li 1993, Li 2004, Li 1998, Li et al. 2000,
SHCC as a strengthening material is the concentra-
tion of cracks developed adjacent to an existing
crack in the substrate concrete (Kamal et al. 2008,
Kunieda et al. 2004) and the effect of specimen's
size on strength and strain capacity. This leads to
the fact that: applying the strength values based on
the laboratory test using smaller specimens to actual
structures may be unconservative.
In this part, reinforcement, which is completely
new concept concerning this material, will be ex-
plained. Figure 2 shows a schematic image to ob-
tain strain hardening behavior (especially strain ca-
pacity) by using strength distribution of both
cracking and fiber bridging. Note that, microscopic
behaviors related to mechanical properties on ce-
ment matrix, fibers and their interface affect the total
response.
Figure 2(a) and (b) show the strength distribution
of the material with low strain capacity and high
strain capacity in the case of strain hardening mate-
rials with short fibers, respectively. The difference
between cracking strength and fiber bridging
strength affects strain capacity. The easiest way to
obtain high strain capacity is to increase the volume
fraction of fibers, which increases fiber bridging
strength. In addition, larger size specimen might in-
crease the width of fiber bridging strength distribu-
 D (h, T )∇may
J = − which
tion, h also decrease strain capacity, and (1) explicitly Distribution
accounts offorcrack-
the evolution of hydration
Distribution of fiber bridg-
this might be one of the reasons of size effect. reaction and SF content. This sorption isotherm
ing strength of matrix ing strength along specimen
The proportionality
Figure 2 (c) introduces coefficient
the role ofD(h,T) is called
reinforcement reads along specimen axis axis (after cracking)
moisture permeability and it is a nonlinear
in this study. As describe in above, to function
increase the
of thebridging
fiber relative strength
humiditycan h and temperature
increase T (Bažant
strain capacity,
Frequency
⎡ ⎤
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balancetherequires
and the reinforcement can help to obtain high
we (h α c α s ) = G1 (α c , α s )⎢⎢1 − 1 ⎥
+
that the variation in time of the water mass per the unit ∞
, ,
strain capacity based on the concept supporting 10(g α
⎥
− α c )h ⎥
volume
fiber of concrete (water content w) be equal to the
bridging. ⎢
⎣ e 1 c ⎦ (4)
Stress
divergence
Based onofFigure the moisture
3, exampleflux ofJ contribution of a (a) Low ⎡ 10strain
(g α
∞ capacity
− α )h ⎤
reinforcement having the diameter of 6mm will be
introduced. Here the bond between the cement ma- K1 (α c , α s )⎢e 1 c c − 1⎥
− ∂w =and
terial ∇ • Jrebar is assumed to be perfect. Nominal (2) ⎢
⎣
⎥
⎦
∂t Frequency
stress increase of cracking strength and fiber bridg-
ing The
strength
water including
content wrebar
can be contribution
expressed are
as theabout
sum where the first term (gel isotherm) represents the
0.07MPa
of the (load
evaporable at 100micro
water we (capillary water, cross
strain/ nominal water physically bound (adsorbed) water and the second
sectional andarea)
vapor,cross and about
adsorbed water)1MPa and (yielding load/ no-
the non-evaporable term (capillary isotherm) represents the capillary Stress
minal
(chemically sectional
bound) area),
water respectively.
wn (Mills 1966,Increment water. This expression is valid only for low content
(b) High strain capacity

of fiber bridging
Pantazopoulo & strength
Mills due to
1995). It isadditional
reasonable rein-to of SF. The coefficient
ContributionGof represents the
1 reinforcement amount
to both crack- of
forcement
assume was
that cause higher
the evaporablethan that of
water cracking strength,
is a function of water per unit ing
volume
strength and fiber bridging strength 100%
held in the gel pores at
and this
relative may
humidity, multiple fine cracks.
h, degree of hydration, αc, and relative humidity, and it can be expressed (Norling
Of course,
degree of silica large
fume amount
reaction,of reinforcement
α can al-
s, i.e. we=we(h,αc,αs)
Mjornell 1997) as
so
= give high strain capacity.
age-dependent However, the target
sorption/desorption isothermof
Frequency
this study
(Norling Mjonell is to ensure
1997). the material
Undersmall thisamount properties
assumption in
and c α c+ ks α s
G (α c α s ) = k vg (5)
laboratory tests by using only
by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one of rein- 1
,
c vg s
forcement.
obtains Stress
With the above-presented concerns, a compre- where kcvg and ksvg are material
(c) Target parameters.
of this study From the
hensive experimental study is performed to (1) pro-
∂w ∂h we the structural
∂w maximum amount of water per unit volume that can
− e
data ∂on & e α& + w&perform-
c +
vide experimental
+ ∇ • ( D ∇h ) = α (3) fill all pores
Figure (both capillary
2. Schematic images ofpores and gel
mechanism to pores), one
obtain strain
ance∂hof∂tUHP-SHCC h tension ∂α members ∂α with
s
practical
n capacity.
can calculate K1 as one obtains
c
size, (2) measure the ultimate stress and strain of
s
small (dumbbell-shaped specimens) and practical Contribution of reinforce- Contribution
where
size ∂we/∂h tois see
members the ifslope
theyofarethesimilar
sorption/desorption
for members ment (100micro strain) ment
⎡
⎢
⎛ of∞ reinforce-
10⎜ g α
1 c
− α ⎟h ⎥
c
⎞ ⎤

of different sizes, and (3) examine thecapacity).

isotherm (also called moisture The w0 − 0.188α c s2 + 0.22α s s − G1 ⎢1 − e ⎝ ⎠
⎥
ability of the 21.5MPa*31.67mm / 2
governing equation (Equation
proposed steel reinforcement to recover the me- 3) must be completed K c s(α (50mm*200mm)=0.07MPa
,α ) =
320MPa*31.67mm
⎢
⎣
(50mm*200mm)=1.01MPa
/ ⎥
⎦(6)
by appropriate
chanical properties boundary
of large andsize
initial conditions.
specimens. For this
1 ⎛
g αc − αc h
∞ ⎞

The relation between sizetheUHP-SHCC

amount of specimens evaporable
10⎜ ⎟

purpose ten practical e ⎝ 1

− ⎠ 1

water and
(tested relative humidity
cross-section: 50x200mm) is called ‘‘adsorption
with different re-
isotherm” if measured with
inforcement ratios, and ten dumbbell-shaped speci-increasing relativity The material parameters kcvg and ksvg and g1 can
Frequency

humidity
mens andcross-section:13x30
(tested ‘‘desorption isotherm” mm)inwere the opposite
tested. be calibrated by fitting experimental data relevant to
case.study
This Neglecting
investigates their difference (Xi et al. 1994),
cracking development, strainin free (evaporable) water content in concrete at
the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm”
distribution along the specimen's axis and the effect will be used with various ages (Di Luzio & Cusatis 2009b). Stress
reference to both sorption and desorption
of varying the steel amount on the specimen's post- conditions. Figure 3. Nominal contribution of reinforcement in the case
By the behavior.
cracking way, if the hysteresis of the moisture of 1D6.
2.2 Temperature evolution
isotherm would be taken into account, two different
relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must Note 200mm
that, at early age, (3or
since the chemical reactions
4) D13
be used according to the sign of the variation of the associated with cement hydration and SF reaction
relativity humidity. The shape of the sorption
Ordinary UHPFRC are 200
exothermic,
mm the temperature field is not uniform
isotherm for HPC is influenced by many parameters,
Stress for non-adiabatic systems even if the environmental
Reinforcement
especially those that influence extent and rate of the
UHP-SHCC temperature is constant. Heat) conduction can be
(variable
chemical reactions and, in turn, determine pore described in concrete, at least for temperature not
structure and pore size distribution (water-to-cement exceeding
500mm 100°C (Bažant & Kaplan 1996), by
ratio, cement chemical composition, Ordinary SF content,
SHCC Fourier’s law, which readsPi-shaped
curing time and method, temperature, mix additives, A A DT
etc.). In the literature various formulations can be
Strain
q = − λ ∇T (Variable)
(7)
found to describe the sorption isotherm of normal
concrete
Figure (Xi et al.image
1. Schematic 1994). However, material
of UHP-SHCC in the present
tensile
200 mm
where q is the heat flux,
50 mm
T is the absolute
paper the
behavior semi-empirical
compared expression
to that of other materials proposed by
(Kamal et al. 200 mm
temperature, and λ is the heat conductivity; in this
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because it
2008). Sec. A:A
Figure 4. Test setup and instrumentation.

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

Table 1. Description of tested specimens. lists the dimensions, D ( h , T ) ∇h
J = −reinforcement ratio, and num-
Specimen Dimensions Reinforcement 　ρs* Number of ber of tested specimens.
(mm) (%) specimens
S-0 50x200x900 ----- 0 2 The proportionality coefficient D(h,T)
S-1 50x200x900 1D6 0.3 2 2.2 Material properties permeability and it is a nonlinea
moisture
S-2 50x200x900 2D6 0.6 2 of the relative humidity h and temperature
S-3 50x200x900 3D6 0.9 2 Table 2 lists the&mix
Najjar 1972). Theofmoisture
proportions mass balanc
UHP-SHCC.
S-4 50x200x900 4D6 1.2 2 that the variation in3 time of
The water to binder ratio (W/B) was 0.20. Lowtheheat
water mas
*
Reinforcement ratio Portland cement volume
(density:of3.14
concrete
g/cm (water content
) was used, andw) be eq
15% of the designdivergence
cement of the moisture
content flux J
was substituted
3
with a silica fume (density: 2.2 g/cm ). Quartz sand
(less than 0.2 mm ∂inw diameter, density: 2.68 g/cm3)
2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM − aggregate.
was used as the fine = ∇•J High strength poly-
∂t
ethylene (PE) fiber was chosen for UHP-SHCC and
2.1 Test Specimens the fiber volume in The
the mix was 1.5%. wThe
and length of the PE
water
fibers
content
were
candiameter
0.012mm
be expressed
and
a
As mentioned before, the present study was carried
6mm, respectively.
of the evaporable
Superplasticizer
water
was
we (capillary
used and
to en-
wa
out to provide experimental data on the structural vapor,
hance the workability of
and
the
adsorbed
matrix.
water)
After demould-
the non-e
performance of UHP-SHCC tension members of a (chemically
ing, all the specimens were covered
bound) water
with wet
wn (Mil
towels
practical size. The dimensions of the practical size Pantazopoulo
in a special curing room for four
& weeks.
Mills 1995).
The
It is reas
tensile
test specimens (200 x 50mm) were selected similar assume
behavior of the used
that
UHP-SHCC
the evaporable
was
water
characterized
is a fu
to the average value of those used for beams' relative
by testing of degree
ten
humidity, h, degree
dumbbell-shaped
of hydration
specimens
strengthening applications (thickness = 30 ~ 70
(tested cross-section:
of silica fume reaction,
13 x 30 mm) in uniaxial
αs, i.e. we=w
tensile
mm). Thus, the obtained results may help to provide = age-dependent
test, whereas, compression test were
sorption/desorption
performed on assum
guidance for further research and development in
six cylindrical by
(Norling
specimens
Mjonell
having
1997).
the
Under
size
this
the field of enhancement of UHP-SHCC-
50x100mm to obtain
substituting
the UHP-SHCC
Equation 1 intoof Equati
compression
strengthened beams' ductility. obtains
strength. The averaged tensile strength, compressive
To evaluate the size effect on the crack distribu-
tions and the strain capacity, ten dumbbell-shaped strength and tensile strain of the UHP-SHCC at the
∂w ∂h ∂w ∂w
− e e MPa,
& 95e α& + w
c +
specimens (tested cross-section:13 x 30 mm) and age of 28 days were determined to be 6.5
+ ∇ • ( D ∇h ) = α
two practical-size specimens (tested cross-section ∂h ∂t
MPa and 1.5%, respectively. h averaged
The ∂α ∂α
yield s

strength, tensile strength and Young's modulus for

c s
50 x 200 mm) were tested. Also, ten specimens with
the used D6 rebars were 320 MPa, 529 MPa and
different reinforcement ratios were tested to exam- where ∂we/∂h is the slope of the sorption/
215 GPa respectively.
ine the ability of the proposed steel reinforcement to isotherm (also called moisture capac
preclude localized fracture and to obtain a consider- governing equation (Equation 3) must be
able strain-hardening response. The UHP-SHCC 2.3 Test setup andby appropriate
procedure boundary and initial conditi
specimen is a 900 mm long prism with a rectangular The relation
cross section of 200 x 50 mm. Specimens' depth was All the large size specimens werebetween
tested bythe amount of e
applying
water and relative humidity
a tension force according to the test setup shown is called
in ‘‘
selected to provide data on similar thickness of isotherm” if measured with increasing
practical repair applications. Rebars of 6 mm diame- Figure 4. The specimens were tested in a tensile
ter (D6) were used as steel reinforcement. To facili- testing machine humidity and ‘‘desorption
with a capacity of 2,000 isotherm”
kN in a in th
case. Neglecting
load-controlled way. Tensile force their
wasdifference
applied by(Xi et al.
tate the application of tensile force, rebars of 13 mm
diameter (D13) were placed at the specimens' ends gripping the steel bars at the specimen's ends. Thewill be
the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm”
load was increasedreference
graduallyto both
untilsorption and desorption c
failure occurred.
as shown in Figure 4. The embedded lengths and
number of D13 rebars required for each specimen During the test, strains were recorded by ten Pi-of the
By the way, if the hysteresis
isothermtransducers
shaped displacement would be taken with into account, two
a gauge
were carefully designed to avoid any possible an-
chorage failure. Four D13 rebars were used for length and accuracy of 100 mm and 0.005 mm, re- humi
relation, evaporable water vs relative
highly reinforced specimen S-4 whereas three D13 spectively, whichbewere
usedattached
accordingto toeach the surface
sign of the
of varia
relativity humidity.
the specimen, as shown in Figure 4. The shape of the
rebars were used for all other specimens. Table 1 isotherm for HPC is influenced by many p
especially those that influence extent and
chemical reactions and, in turn, determ
structure and pore size distribution (water-
Table 2. Mix proportions of UHP-SHCC. ratio, cement chemical composition, SF
Material Water/ Unit content (kg/m3) curing time and method, temperature, mix
binder
Water Cement Silica Expansion Sand etc.).AirInreducer
Super the literature various formulatio
Fiber content
fume agent found to describe (6mm)
plasticizer the sorption isotherm
UHP-SHCC 0.20 292 1243 223 20 149 concrete
14.9 2.98(Xi et al.14.6 1994). However, in th
paper the semi-empirical expression pro
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted b

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

 = − D3.(h, TExperimental
JTable ) ∇h
results. (1) explicitly accounts for the evolution of hydration
Specimen Load reaction and SF content. ThisStrain
Cracks sorption isotherm
The proportionality
P cr Pucoefficient
S r-av D(h,T) is called
(mm) Sr-max(mm) N reads
ε u-av( %) 
　 ε u-max(%) εu-av / εcr-av εu-av/εu-av-D
moisture
S-0-1
S-0-2
permeability
42
39
and
50
47
it is 14.0
a nonlinear185
12.0
function 45
176 43 0.24
0.23
0.717
0.851
14
13
0.16
0.15
of the relative humidity
S-1-1 42 64h and temperature
4.6 (Bažant119
T 40 1.58 2.377 ⎡ 102 1.05 ⎤
& Najjar
S-1-2 1972). The 41 moisture
65 mass4.5 balance 42requires118 w (1.60h, α c , α s ) =2.301 ⎢
G1 (α c , α s )⎢1101
− 1
1.06 ⎥ +
thatS-2-1
the variation40in time 74 of the 4.0 water mass 10 per unit128 e 1.49 2.276 ∞
103 10(g α − 0.99 α )h ⎥
⎥
volume
S-2-2 of concrete 40 (water
73 content 4.0w) be equal10 to the130 1.50 2.266 ⎣ 106e
⎢ 1 c c
1.00 ⎦ (4)
divergence
S-3-1
S-3-2
of the moisture
38
37
85 flux J3.6
85 3.6
10
10
136
140
1.51
1.51
2.882
2.652
104
10(g α
⎡106
1.01
∞ − α 1.00 )h ⎤
1 c c
S-4-1 36 104 3.4 10 152 1.82 K1 (α c , α s ) 130
2.451 ⎢ e 1.21− 1⎥
∂
− S-4-2
w
= ∇•J 36 103 3.3 9 (2)156 1.80 2.401 ⎢
⎣
128 1.20 ⎥⎦
∂t
Pcr = cracking load, Pu = ultimate load, Sr-av = average crack spacing, Sr-max = maximum crack spacing, N = num-
ber of cracks
Theε water content w can be expressed as the sum where the first term (gel isotherm) represents the
physically bound
εu-av-D(adsorbed) waterat ultimate
and theload
second
u-av= average ultimate strain, εu-max = maximum strain at ultimate
of the evaporable water we (capillary water, water load and = average strain
term (capillary isotherm) represents the capillary
for
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-evaporable water. This expression is valid only for low content
(chemically bound) water wn (Mills 1966, of SF. The coefficient G1 represents the amount of
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reasonable to water per unit volume held in the gel pores at 100%
assume that the evaporable water is a function of relative humidity, and it can be expressed (Norling
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration, αc, and Mjornell 1997) as
degree of silica fume reaction, αs, i.e. we=we(h,αc,αs)
= age-dependent sorption/desorption isotherm
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assumption and c α c+ ks α s
G (α c α s ) = k vg (5)
by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one 1
,
c vg s
obtains
where kcvg and ksvg are material parameters. From the
∂w ∂h maximum amount of water per unit volume that can
− e + ∇ • ( D ∇h) = ∂we ∂w
α&c + e α&s + w&n (3) fill all pores (both capillary pores and gel pores), one
∂h ∂t h ∂α ∂α can calculate K1 as one obtains
c s
where ∂we/∂h is the slope of the sorption/desorption ⎡
⎢ 10⎜
⎛
g α c∞ − α c ⎞⎟h ⎤⎥
isotherm (also called moisture capacity). The w α s + 0.22α s G
− 0.188
c s − ⎢1 − e ⎝ 1 ⎠
⎥

governing equation (Equation 3) dumbbell-shaped

must be completed (6)
0 1
⎢ ⎥
Figure 5. Stress-strain responses for and
K (α c α s ) = ⎣ ⎦
by appropriate
unreinforced boundary and initial conditions.
specimens. 1
,

Figure 7. Ultimate load

⎛
g αc αc h
versus
∞ ⎞
reinforcement
− ratio.
The relation between the amount of evaporable
10⎜ ⎟
e ⎝ 1 ⎠ −1

water and relative humidity is called ‘‘adsorption

isotherm” if measured with increasing relativity
humidity and ‘‘desorption isotherm” in the opposite
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al. 1994), in
the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be used with
reference to both sorption and desorption conditions.
By the way, if the hysteresis of the moisture
isotherm would be taken into account, two different
relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must
be used according to the sign of the variation of the
relativity humidity. The shape of the sorption
isotherm for HPC is influenced by many parameters,
especially those that influence extent and rate of the
chemical reactions and, in turn, determine pore
structure and pore size distribution (water-to-cement
ratio, cement chemical composition, SF content,
curing time and method, temperature, mix additives,
Figure 6. Load-strain responses for tested specimens and a
etc.).barIn(1D6).
bare the literature various formulations can be
found to describe the sorption isotherm of normal
concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in the present
paper the semi-empirical expression proposed by
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because it
The material parameters kcvg and ksvg and g1 can
be calibrated by fitting experimental data relevant to
free (evaporable) water content in concrete at
various ages (Di Luzio & Cusatis 2009b).
2.2 Temperature evolution
Note that, at early age, since the chemical reactions
associated with cement hydration and SF reaction
are exothermic, the temperature field is not uniform
for non-adiabatic systems even if the environmental
temperature is constant. Heat conduction can be
described in concrete, at least for temperature not
exceeding 100°C (Bažant & Kaplan 1996), by
Fourier’s law, which reads
ratio.
Figure 8. Ultimate strain versus reinforcement
q = − λ ∇T (7)
where q is the heat flux, T is the absolute
temperature, and λ is the heat conductivity; in this

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

3 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A summary of the experimental results is given in
Table 3. As mentioned before, for each reinforce-
ment ratio, two identical specimens were tested. For
all cases, the measured experimental data for two
identical specimens were found to be very close to
one another as shown in Table 3.
3.1 Effect of specimen's size on stress-strain
response
Figure 5 shows the stress-strain curves for the
dumbbell-shaped and unreinforced practical size
specimens (S-0-1 and S-0-2). For clarity, only the
obtained maximum, minimum and averaged stress-
strain responses of the dumbbell-shaped specimens
are shown. As can be seen in Figure 5 that the
dumbbell-shaped specimens showed the usual elastic
and inelastic parts of their stress-strain response (the
same stress-strain response was obtained by Kamal
2008). The stress-strain response is linear up to the
cracking stress, and thereafter, the stiffness declines
significantly and the strain increases rapidly. It is
noted that more than 90% of the specimen's ultimate
strain (strain at maximum load) was formed after
cracking and up to the ultimate load. The specimen's
response in this stage (post-cracking stage) is de-
pendent on the reinforcing fibers' properties and ori-
entation. Practical-size specimens (S-0-1 and S-0-
2) showed a stress-strain response very similar to
that of the dumbbell-shaped specimens up to the
cracking stress. However, contrary to the observed
response of the dumbbell-shaped specimens, they
demonstrated a very limited strain hardening behav-
ior. Comparing the averaged ultimate strain (strain
at ultimate load) and stress (ultimate attained load
divided by the specimen's cross-sectional area)
achieved by the practical size unreinforced speci-
mens and the dumbbell-shaped specimens, an aver-
aged decrease of about 85% and 30% was recorded
due to size effect respectively. The stress-strain
curves of specimens S-0-1 and S-0-2, shown in Fig-
ure 5, demonstrated that the size effect has a fun-
damental influence on the stress-strain relationship,
which can be changed from the conventional re-
sponse that exhibits strain hardening accompanied
by multiple cracking, to sudden failure. This can be
attributed to the change in reinforcing fibers' orien-
tation caused by increasing the specimen's thickness.
The obtained high tensile properties for the dumb-
bell-shaped (thickness = 13 mm) specimens may re-
sult from the nearly two-dimensional orientation of
fibers, which was changed, by increasing the speci-
men's thickness, to three-dimensional orientation,
thereby leading to decreasing of the tensile proper-
ties. The effect of increasing the specimen's
thickness on orientation of reinforcing fibers
− DKunieda
J =by
was also discussed ( h, T )∇h et al. 2008).
The proportionality coefficient D(h,T)
Load moisture permeability and it is a nonlinea
of the relative humidity h and temperature
Pu & Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc
Py that the variation in time of the water mas
volume of concrete (water content w) be eq
Pcr divergence of the moisture flux J
− ∂ = ∇•J
w
∂ t
The water content w can be expressed a
εcr εy-s
of the evaporable water we (capillary wa
εu vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-e
(chemically bound) water wn (Mil
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995).Strai It is reas
assume that the evaporable water
n is a fu
Figure 9. Idealized load-strain response for reinforced UHP-
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration
SHCC under axial tension.
degree of silica fume reaction, αs, i.e. we=w
= age-dependent sorption/desorption
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assum
by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
obtains
∂w ∂h
− e + ∇ • ( D ∇h) = ∂we ∂w
α&c + e α&s + w
∂h ∂t h ∂α ∂α
c s
where ∂we/∂h is the slope of the sorption/
isotherm (also called moisture capac
governing equation (Equation 3) must be
by appropriate boundary and initial conditi
The relation between the amount of e
water and relative humidity is called ‘‘
isotherm” if measured with increasing
humidityalong
Figure 10. Strain distribution and specimens'
‘‘desorption
axis.isotherm” in th
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al.
the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be
reference to both sorption and desorption c
By the way, if the hysteresis of the
isotherm would be taken into account, two
relation, evaporable water vs relative humi
be used according to the sign of the varia
relativity humidity. The shape of the
isotherm for HPC is influenced by many p
especially those that influence extent and
chemical reactions and, in turn, determ
structure and pore size distribution (water-
ratio, cement chemical composition, SF
curing time and method, temperature, mix
etc.). In the literature various formulatio
found to describe the sorption isotherm
concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in th
paper the semi-empirical expression pro
Figure 11. Evaluation results for minimum, maximum and
averaged recorded strains.
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted b
Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010
 D (h, T )of∇hreinforcement on load-stain
J = −Effect
3.2 (1) explicitly accounts for the evolution of hydration
relationship reaction and SF content. This sorption isotherm
TheThe proportionality
averaged strains versus coefficient
load ofD(h,T) the testis speci-
called reads
moisture permeability and it is
mens are illustrated in Figure 6. These strains were a nonlinear function
of the relative
obtained humiditythe
by dividing h andtotaltemperature
elongationT (Bažantof the ⎡ ⎤
& Najjar 1972).
specimens with theirThe length.
moisture Formass balance
clarity, only requires
the re- we (h α c α s ) = G1 (α c , α s )⎢⎢1 − 1 ⎥
+
that the variation in time of the water massidentical
per unit ∞
, ,

sults of one specimen are shown, each two (g α

c 10 − α c )h ⎥⎥
volume of concrete (water content
specimens show very similar stress versus strain w ) be equal to the e
⎢
⎣ 1
⎦ (4)
divergence of the moisture flux
curves. For all the specimens, the load-strain rela- J ⎡ (g α
∞ − α )h ⎤
tionship is linear before cracking and the specimens K (α c α s ) e
,⎢ c c −
10
1
1⎥

− ∂w =a∇very
show • J stiff response. After cracking stiffness, (2) ⎢ ⎥
1
⎣ ⎦
∂t
however, reduces significantly. It was noted that the
response of the unreinforced specimen S-0-1
The water
changed from content w can beductile
a conventional expressed failure as associ-
the sum where the first term (gel isotherm) represents the
of the evaporable water
ated with the formation of multiple w (capillary fine crackswater
water, and
physically bound (adsorbed) water and the second
vapor,deformations
large and adsorbedto water)
e
a moreand the non-evaporable
brittle failure associ-
term
Figure(capillary isotherm)
12. Stress-strain represents
responses theshaped,
for dumbbell- capillary
un-
(chemically
ated with a very bound)
limited water wn (Mills
strain hardening 1966,
response.
water. Thisandexpression
reinforced, is valid only
reinforced specimens. for low
(including content
contribution

Pantazopoulo
Contrary to the& observed
Mills 1995). behavior It isofreasonable
the unrein-to
offrom The coefficient G1 represents the amount of
SF.reinforcement)
assumelarge
forced that sizethe evaporable
UHP-SHCCwater is a function
specimens, all rein-of
water per unit volume held in the gel pores at 100%
relativeUHP-SHCC
forced humidity, hspecimens , degree of hydration,
exhibited c, and
strainαhard-
relative humidity, and it can be expressed (Norling
degreeaccompanied
ening of silica fumebyreaction, s, i.e. we=wcracking
multipleαtransverse e(h,αc,αs)
MjornellS-4-11997) as S-3-1 S-2-1 S-1-1 S-0-1

= age-dependent
along the specimen's length. sorption/desorption
The recorded averaged isotherm
(Norling strain
ultimate Mjonellof1997). specimen UnderS-1-1 this assumption
provided with and c α c+ ks α s
G (α c α s ) = k vg (5)
by substituting
0.3% reinforcement Equationratio 1wasinto1.58%, Equation 6.6 2times one 1
,
c vg s
obtainsthan that of unreinforced specimen S-0-1.
higher
Moreover, 0.3% reinforcement ratio enabled speci- where kcvg and ksvg are material parameters. From the
men ∂w S-1-1 to outperform ∂w the ∂wtested dumbbell- maximum amount of water per unit volume that can
e ∂h e e α& +(Fig.
−
∂h ∂t
+ ∇ • ( D
shaped specimen's ductility and
h ∇ h ) = α& c +strength w&n 7 and (3) fill all pores (both capillary pores and gel pores), one
8). The load-strain response ∂α
c of a bare ∂α s
s bar D6 shown can calculate K1 as one obtains
in Figure 6 indicates that the increase in reinforced
where ∂we/∂h
specimens' loadis carrying
the slopecapacityof the sorption/desorption
is approximately ⎡
⎢ 10⎜
⎛
g α c∞ − α c ⎞⎟h ⎤⎥
isotherm
equal to the(also called from
contribution moisture capacity). The
steel reinforcement. w − 0.188 α s + 0.22α s G
c s − ⎢1 − e ⎝ 1 ⎠
⎥

governing equationUHP-SHCC(Equation 3)specimens, must be completed (6)

0 1
⎢ ⎥
For reinforced the re-
K (α c α s ) = ⎣ ⎦
by appropriate
sponse boundary relationship
of the load-strain and initial conditions.
can be divided 1
,
⎛
g αc − αc h
∞ ⎞
intoThe relation
regionsbetween
as shownthe amount9.of Inevaporable
10⎜ ⎟
three in Figure the first e ⎝ 1
− ⎠ 1

water and
region, the relative
behaviorhumidity is similaristocalled ‘‘adsorption
the unreinforced
isotherm” ifsince
specimens, measured with increasing
the contribution from the relativity
rein- The13.
Figure material
Typical parameters kcvg and
final crack pattern ksvg and
for tested g1 can
specimens.
humidity and
forcement ‘‘desorption
is still insignificant.isotherm” in the opposite
The microcracking be calibrated by fitting experimental data relevant to
case. Neglecting
increases in the second their difference
region, and(Xi thenet al. 1994), in
a transition free (evaporable)
reinforced water content
and unreinforced in itconcrete
specimens, at
was found
the following,
zone is entered‘‘sorption
when the isotherm”
reinforcement will isbefully
usedacti-
with various ages (Di of
that a decrease Luzio & Cusatis
about 50% was 2009b).
recorded due to
reference
vated to to both sorption
counteract the and desorption
stiffness conditions.
degradation of 0.3% reinforcement ratio. Also, the minimum re-
By the way, The
UHP-SHCC. if the hysteresis
response in this of region the ismoisture
mainly corded strain along the specimen's axis, shown in
2.2 Temperature evolutionsignificantly due to 0.3%
isotherm would
dependent on thebereinforcement's
taken into account, stiffness twoand different
bond Figure 11, was increased
relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must
between reinforcement and UHP-SHCC. Finally, a Note that, at early
reinforcement ratio.age, since theincreasing
Moreover, chemical reactions
the rein-
be used
third regionaccording to the sign
is recognized in which of thethevariation
strains inofthe the associated
forcement withratio cement
beyond hydration
0.6% has and almost SF insignifi-
reaction
relativity humidity.
reinforcement exceedsThe shape ofstrain,
its yielding the andsorption
the are
cantexothermic,
effect on thetheminimum
temperature fieldstrains.
attained is not uniform
isotherm isforgenerally
stiffness HPC is influenced
stabilized by many aparameters,
around constant for Figure
non-adiabatic
12 showssystems even if the
the nominal environmental
stress-strain plots
especially those that influence extent and rate of the
rate. temperature is constant. Heat conduction can ob-
for the tested specimens. The nominal stress was be
chemical
Figure reactions
10 shows and, in turn,distribution
the strain determinealong pore described in concrete,
tained by dividing at leastload
the applied forbytemperature
the specimen'snot
structurespecimens'
tested and pore size axisdistribution
just before (water-to-cement
failure (P = exceeding 100°C
cross-sectional area.(Bažant
As can be & seen
Kaplanfrom 1996),
this figureby
ratio, u).cement
0.95P The increase chemical composition,
in minimum recorded SF strains,
content, Fourier’s law, which reads
that the measured ultimate strains and nominal ulti-
curing time and method, temperature, mix additives,
shown in this figure, reveals the ability of the pro- mate stresses for specimens S-1 and the dumbbell-
etc.). In
posed steel thereinforcement
literature various formulations
to preclude the strain canlo-be q = − λ ∇Tspecimens were similar to each other. This
shaped
(7)
found to occurred
calization describe the just sorption
after cracking isotherm of the ofunrein-
normal result suggests that the minimum reinforcement ratio
concretespecimens.
forced (Xi et al.Comparing1994). However, the scatter in thebetween
present needed to outperform the dumbbell-shaped speci-
where q is the heatandflux, is thethe given
absolute
tpaper the semi-empirical expression proposed
he maximum and minimum strains for the by men's ultimate strain stress,T with di-
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because it temperature, and λ is the heat
mensions used in this study is 0.3%. conductivity; in this

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

3.3 Effect of reinforcement on cracking and
ultimate loads
The cracking and ultimate loads for all the speci-
mens are shown in Table 3. The inverse relation be-
tween the cracking load and reinforcement ratio
shown in Table 3 can be attributed to the effect
of UHP-SHCC shrinkage. Restrained shrinkage
caused by internal reinforcement developed tensile
stresses which in turn reduced the cracking load.
However, the effect of shrinkage on cracking load
was insignificant for reinforcement ratio up to 0.6%.
J = − D ( h , T ) ∇h
The proportionality coefficient D(h,T)
moisture permeability and it is a nonlinea
of the relative humidity h and temperature
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc
that the variation in time of the water mas
volume of concrete (water content w) be eq
divergence of the moisture flux J
− ∂ = ∇•J
w

Compared to the averaged cracking load of unrein- ∂ t

forced specimens, 0.6% reinforcement ratio de-

creased the cracking load by about 3%. The water content w can be expressed a
Figure 14. Average crack spacing versus reinforcement ratio
Comparing the ultimate loads achieved by the of the evaporable water we (capillary
for tested specimens. wa
tested specimens, it is clear that while increasing the vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-e
reinforcement ratio the ultimate load will gradually (chemically bound) water wn (Mil
be increased. This is to be expected, because the re- Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reas
inforced specimen's ultimate load is equal to the sum assume that the evaporable water is a fu
of the contribution from the reinforcing fibers and relative humidity, h, degree of hydration
the steel reinforcement. The greatest increase in ul- degree of silica fume reaction, αs, i.e. we=w
timate load was obtained in specimen S-4-1, which = age-dependent sorption/desorption
resulted in a 126% increase over unreinforced spe- (Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assum
cimen S-0-1, followed by specimens S-3-1, S-2- by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
1and S-1-2, exhibiting increases in the ultimate load obtains
of 80%, 60% and 40%, respectively. The results
∂w ∂h
e + ∇ • ( D ∇h) = ∂we ∂w
seem to indicate that the use of steel reinforcement
results in decreasing the reinforcing fibers' stress, −
h α&c + e α&s + w
∂h ∂t ∂α ∂α
just after cracking, and consequently enables the c s
specimen to attain higher ultimate load compared to
the unreinforced specimens. where ∂we/∂h is the slope of the sorption/
Figure 15. Number isotherm
of developed(also calledreinforcement
cracks versus moisture capac
3.4 Effect of reinforcement on cracking behavior governing equation (Equation 3) must be
ratio for tested specimens.
by appropriate boundary and initial conditi
The first crack appeared in the specimens once the was increased. Also, Theusingrelation between
of 0.3% the amount of e
reinforcement
cracking capacity of the UHP-SHCC was ex- water and relative humidity
ratio enabled specimen S-1-1 to develop is called ‘‘
119 cracks,
hausted. With further increases in load, a limited 2.76 times that of isotherm”
unreinforcedif measured
specimen with S-0-1.increasing
It
number of transversal cracks formed along the unre- can be also seenhumidity
that, useand of ‘‘desorption
a reinforcement isotherm”
ratio in th
inforced specimens' length(S-0-1 and S-0-2). Also, beyond 0.6% hascase. Neglecting effect
an insignificant their difference
on the aver- (Xi et al.
no new cracks formed beyond the load level of 90% age crack spacingthe andfollowing, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be
number of cracks.
of the ultimate load and the crack pattern stabilized The enhancements reference to both sorption
introduced and desorption c
in the reinforced
at that point. The last crack formed when the load specimens cracking By behavior
the way,may if the hysteresistoof the
be attributed
reached 1.05 times its cracking load. Contrary to the isotherm
the increase in axial wouldat becracks
stiffness takendue intotoaccount,
the two
observed behavior of specimens S-0-1 and S-0-2, contribution from relation, evaporable water vs relative
reinforcement which enables the humi
under increasing loads, more transversal cracks specimen to carry behigher
used according
loads and to the sign of the
consequently to varia
formed along the length of all the reinforced UHP- relativity
form more transversal humidity.
cracks. The seem
The results shapeto of the
SHCC specimens, and the formation of new cracks isothermUHP-SHCC
confirm that reinforcing for HPC is influenced
tension mem- by many p
continued up to failure of the specimen. bers with a highespecially
modulus of those that influence
elasticity extent and
material such
The distinct crack feature of the reference and re- chemical
as steel reinforcement helpsreactions
reduce the and,reinforcing
in turn, determ
inforced specimens, shown in Figure 13, clearly re- fibers' stress just structure and pore
after cracking whichsize
in distribution
turn enables (water-
veals the significant improvement in the crack be- the specimen to ratio, cementloads
carry higher chemical
(failurecomposition,
of tested SF
ha vio r p r o vid e d by t he pro po sed st eel curing time and method, temperature,
specimens was controlled by the occurrence of the mix
reinforcement. It can be clearly seen from Figures fibers debonding). etc.).
DueInto the the literature
increase invarious formulatio
load carry-
14 and 15 and the summary of test results presented ing capacity all thefound to describe
reinforced the sorption
specimens were ableisotherm
in Table 3, that while increasing the reinforcement to develop more concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in th
cracks compared with unreinforced
ratio the average crack spacing will gradually be re- specimens. Also,paper specimen the S-1-1
semi-empirical
demonstrated expression
that pro
duced, whereas the number of developed cracks Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted
the specimen's ultimate load should be at least 1.5 b

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

 J = − Dhigher
times ( h, T )∇hthan its cracking load to assure the
(1) explicitly
Kamal , A.,accounts for Ueda,
Kunieda, M., the evolution of hydration
N. & Nakamura, H. 2008.
formation of transversal cracks along its length. reaction and SF content. This sorption isotherm
Evaluation of Crack Opening Performance of a Repair
The proportionality coefficient D(h,T) is called reads
Material with Strain Hardening Behavior. Journal
ment and Concrete Composites. (30): 863-871.
of Ce-

moisture permeability and it is a nonlinear function Kamal, A. 2008. Material Development of UHP-SHCC for
4of CONCLUSIONS
the relative humidity h and temperature T (Bažant Repair Applications and⎡ its Evaluation. PhD. ⎤ Nagoya
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balance requires University.
wKunieda, ⎢ ⎥
e (h, α c , αM.s ) =&G1Rokugo,
(α , α ) 1 − + of
1

that the
The variation
following in time ofcan
conclusions thebewater mass
drawn perthis
from unit c s ⎢ K. 2006. 10(g α
∞
Recent Progress
⎥
)h Applica-
− α cand
1 c
HPFRCC in Japan-Required
volume of concrete (water content w) be equal to the
study:
tions. Journal of Advanced
⎢
⎣ e Performance
Concrete Technology.
⎥
⎦ (4)
4(1):
divergence of thedemonstrated
1-This study moisture flux the
J effectiveness of 19-33. ⎡ 10(g α ∞ − α )h ⎤
the proposed reinforcement to enhance the post- 1 c K. &c Bolander,
cracking behavior of practical size UHP-SHCC
Kunieda, M., Kamada, K (α c , α s ) of
T., ⎢ e
Rokugo, − 1⎥ J.,E.
− ∂w = ∇ •subjected
2004. Localized1 Fracture ⎢ Repair material in ⎥patch Re-
members J to axial tension. The averaged (2) pair Systems. Fracture ⎣Mechanics of Concrete ⎦ Struc-
∂t tures,FRAMCOS-5 Proceeding: 765-772.
strain at ultimate load for specimen S-1 provided
withThe0.3%waterreinforcement
content wS-0-1. ratiobewas
can 6.6 times
expressed thatsum
as the of where
Kunieda,the M.,first termE.,(gel
Denarie, isotherm)
Bruhwiler, E. &represents
Nakamura, the H.
unreinforced
of 2-The
the evaporablespecimenwater we (capillary water, water
2007. Challenges for Stain Hardening Cementitious Com-
physically bound (adsorbed) water and the second
vapor, proposed reinforcement
and adsorbed water) not only increased
and the non-evaporable termposites-Deformability isotherm) Versus Matrix Density. Proceed-
ings of the fifth International RILEM the
(capillary represents capillary
Workshop on
the ultimate attained
(chemically bound) strain
water but also
wn precluded
(Mills the
1966, water. This
HPFRCC :31-38. expression is valid only for low content
early localized &
Pantazopoulo strain observed
Mills 1995). forIt the unreinforcedto
isbetween
reasonable ofKunieda,
SF. The M., coefficient
Kozawa, K., G 1 represents
Ueda, N., & Nakamura,the amountH. 2008.of
specimens.
assume that Comparing
the evaporable the scatter
water is a function maxi-of water per unit volume held in the gel pores at 100%
Three-dimensional Meso-scale Analysis for Strain Hard-
mum and minimum
relative humidity, strains
h, degree of hydration, αc, un-
for the reinforced and and relative
ening humidity,
Cementitious andComposites
it can be(SHCC). expressed Creep,(Norling
Shrink-
reinforced
degree of specimens
silica fume at ultimate
reaction, α load a decrease of
s, i.e. we=we(h,αc,αs)
Mjornell 1997)
Structures, as of CONCREEP8: 745-751
age and Durability Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete
Proc.
about 50% was recorded
= age-dependent due to 0.3% reinforcement
sorption/desorption isotherm Li, V.C. 1993. From Micromechanics to Structural Engineer-
ratio.
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assumption and G1 (αing- c c +ofk Cementitious
The Design s Composites for Civil
3-The experimental
by substituting results show
Equation 1 into Equation 2 one that while in- Engineering c vg α s s Structural Engineering(5)/
c , α s ) = k vg αApplications.
creasing the reinforcement ratio the averaged crack Earthquake Engineering, JSCE. 10(2): 37-48.
obtains Li, V.C.c 1998. ECC for Repair and Retrofit in Concrete
spacing will be gradually decreased. However, using where k vg andFracture
Structures. ksvg areMechanics
material parameters. From the
of Concrete Structures,
of reinforcement ratio beyond 0.6% had an insignifi-
∂w ∂h ∂w ∂w maximum
FRAMCOS-3 amount of water per unit volume that can
Proceeding:1715-1726
− e h) = e α& c +
e αand
&s +number
w&n fill
Li, all
V.C,pores
Horii,(both capillary pores and gel pores), one
cant effect+ ∇on• (the
Dh ∇averaged spacing of H., Kabele, P., Kanda,T. & Lim, Y.M. 2000.
∂h ∂t
(3)
cracks. ∂α
c ∂α
s can Repair
calculate and K 1 as one obtains
Retrofit with Engineered Cementitious Com-
4-Compared with mode of failure of the dumb- posites. International Journal of Engineering Fracture
bell-shaped specimen, a brittle mode of failure was Mechanics. 65 (2): 317-334.
where ∂wfor
observed e/∂h is the slope of the sorption/desorption
unreinforced specimens S-0-1 and S-0-
Li, V. C. 2004. High Performance Fiber ⎡
⎢ ⎜ g α − α Cementi-
⎛ ∞
Reinforced
10
1 c c ⎟h ⎥
⎞ ⎤

2. Once the(also
isotherm called moisture capacity).
capacityThe
w0 − 0.188α as
tious Composites c s 0.22α s −Material
+Durable
s 1⎢ G ⎢1 − e for Concrete ⎥Struc-
⎝ ⎠
specimen reached its cracking a
governing equation (Equation 3) must be completed ⎦ (6)
ture Repair. International Journal for Restoration ⎥ of
limited number of cracks were formed followed by K1(αBuildings
,α ) = 10(2):
⎣
163-180.
by appropriate
strain localization.boundary
Due toand thisinitial
strainconditions.
localization po-
c s and
Matsumoto, T. & Mihashi,
Monuments.
10⎜ g
⎛
H.α ∞2002. ⎞
h
− α ⎟JCI-DFRCC Summary
1 c c
Thearelation
tential sudden between the amount
brittle failure was occurredof evaporable
before Report on DFRCC Terminologiese ⎝ ⎠ −1
and Application Con-
water and relative humidity is
the strain hardening of the material was attained.called ‘‘adsorption cepts. Proceedings of the JCI International Workshop on
isotherm”
5- Contrary if measured
to the observed with behavior
increasing relativity
of the unre- The
Ductilematerial parametersCementitious
Fiber Reinforced kcvg and ksvgComposites:
and g1 can 59-
humidity and ‘‘desorption isotherm”
inforced large size UHP-SHCC specimens, all in the opposite
rein- be calibrated
66 by fitting experimental data relevant to
case. Neglecting
forced specimens their difference
exhibited strain (Xi et al. 1994),
hardening behav-in free (evaporable) water content in concrete at
Maalej M., & Li, V. C. 1995. Introduction of Strain Harden-
ing Engineered Cementitious Composites in the Design of
the following,
ior accompanied ‘‘sorption isotherm”
by multiple will bedistributed
cracking used with various ages (Di
Reinforced LuzioFlexural
Concrete & CusatisMembers 2009b).
for Improved Du-
reference to both sorption and desorption
along the specimen's axis. Moreover, 0.3% rein- conditions. rability. ACI Structural J. 92(2) :167-176.
By the way, ratio if the hysteresis of theto moisture Shin S. K., Kim J. J. H. & Lim, Y. M. 2007. Investigation of
2.2 Temperature
strengtheningevolution
forcement enabled specimen S-1-1 outper-
isotherm
form the would be taken into
dumbbell-shaped account,ductility
specimen's two different
and
the effect of DFRCC applied to plain con-
relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must
strength. Noteites.that,29(6):
crete at early
beams. age,ofsince
Journal Cement theandchemical
Concretereactions
Compos-
be 6-usedByaccording
increasing to the
the sign of the variation
reinforcement ratio,ofthe the 465-473.
associated with cement hydration and SF reaction
relativity humidity. The shape
cracking load was gradually reduced. However; the of the sorption are exothermic, the temperature field is not uniform
isotherm for
reduction HPC is influenced
in cracking by many parameters,
load was insignificant for rein- for non-adiabatic systems even if the environmental
especially those that
forcement ratio up to 0.6%. influence extent and rate of the temperature is constant. Heat conduction can be
chemical reactions and, in turn, determine pore described in concrete, at least for temperature not
structure and pore size distribution (water-to-cement exceeding 100°C (Bažant & Kaplan 1996), by
ratio, cement chemical composition, SF content,
REFERENCES Fourier’s law, which reads
curing time and method, temperature, mix additives,
etc.). H.,
Horii, In Matsuoka,
the literature various
S., Kabele, formulations
P., Takeuchi, can
S,. Li, V. be
C. & q = − λ ∇T (7)
found to describe the sorption isotherm of normal
Kanda, T. 1998. On the prediction Method for the Struc-
concrete (Xi et al. 1994).
tural Performance However, in the
of Repaired/Retrofitted present
Structures.
where q is the heat flux, T is the absolute
paper the semi-empirical expression proposed by
Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures, FRAMCOS-3
temperature, and λ is the heat conductivity; in this
Norling Mjornell
Proceeding: (1997) is adopted because it
1739-1750.

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010