Abstract
The seismic rehabilitation of historical masonry buildings necessitates a quantitative understanding of the repointing mortar under variable strain rates. In Part-1 of this paper, plain and fibre reinforced hydraulic lime mortar specimens were examined under compression, flexure and direct shear to evaluate the post-crack response under quasi-static loading. It was seen that although the fibres enhance the flexural toughness of hydraulic lime mortar, the material is weakest in Mode I fracture. In Part-2 of this paper, the authors describe the strain rate sensitivity of hydraulic lime mortar on the basis of impact testing of notched beams. The mixes were identical to those examined in Part-1, and the dynamic response was evaluated using a drop-weight impact machine for strain rates in the range of 10−6 to 10 s−1. The authors found that compared to fibre reinforced Portland cement-based mortar and concrete, the flexural response of hydraulic lime mortar is more sensitive to strain rate.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Burnett S, Gilbert M, Molyneaux T, Tyas A, Hobbs B, Beattle G (2007) The response of masonry joints to dynamic tensile loading. Mater Struct 40:517–527
Chan R, Bindiganavile V (2010) Toughness of fibre reinforced hydraulic lime mortar. Part-1: Quasi-static response. Mater Struct. doi:10.1617/s11527-010-9598-4
446.4R-04 (2004) Report on the dynamic fracture of concrete, Committee 446. American Concrete Institute
Comite Euro-International du Beton—Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte (1990) CEB-FIP Model Code 90. Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, UK
Schuler H, Mayrhofer C, Thoma K (2006) Spall experiments for the measurement of the tensile strength and fracture energy of concrete at high strain rates. Int J Impact Eng 32:1635–1650
Malvar LJ, Ross CA (1998) Review of strain rate effects for concrete in tension. ACI Mater J 95(6):735–739
Banthia N, Sheng J (1996) Fracture toughness of micro-fiber reinforced cement composites. Cement Concr Compos 18(4):251–269
Glinicki MA (1994) Toughness of fibre reinforced mortar at high tensile loading rates. ACI Mater J 91(2):161–166
Bindiganavile V, Banthia N, Arup B (2002) Impact response of an ultra high strength fibre reinforced cement composite. ACI Mater J 99(6):543–548
Mindess S, Vondran G (1988) Properties of concrete reinforced with fibrillated polypropylene fibres under impact loading. Cement Concr Res 18(1):109–115
Bindiganavile V, Banthia N (2001) Polymer and steel fibre reinforced cementitious composites under impact loading. Part-2. Flexural toughness. ACI Mater J 98(1):17–24
Bindiganavile V, Banthia N (2005) Impact response of the fibre-matrix bond in concrete. Can J Civil Eng 32(5):924–933
Chen EP, Sih GC (1977) Transient response of cracks to impact loads. In: Mechanics of fracture, vol 4: elastodynamic crack problems, pp 1–58
Banthia NP, Mindess S, Bentur A, Pigeon M (1989) Impact testing of concrete using a drop-weight impact machine. Exp Mech 29(12):63–69
Shah SP (1987) Strain rate effects for concrete and fiber reinforced concrete subjected to impact loading. Report accession # ADA188659. Defence Technical Information Center, 83 pp
Armelin HS, Banthia N (1997) Predicting the flexural postcracking performance of steel fiber reinforced concrete from the pullout of single fibers. ACI Mater J 94(1):18–31
Bindiganavile V (2003) Dynamic fracture toughness of fibre reinforced concrete. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, p 258
Yon JH, Hawkins NM, Kobayashi AS (1991) Fracture process zone in dynamically loaded crack-line wedge-loaded, double-cantilever beam concrete specimens. ACI Mater J 88(5):470–479
Lu Y, Xu K (2004) Modeling of dynamic behaviour of concrete materials under blast loading. Int J Solids Struct 41:131–143
Krauthammer T, Elfahal MM, Lim J, Ohno T, Beppu M, Markeset G (2003) Size effect for high-strength concrete cylinders subjected to axial impact. Int J Impact Eng 28(9):1001–1016
Elfahal MM, Krauthammer T, Ohno T, Beppu M, And Mindess S (2005) Size effect for normal-strength concrete cylinders subjected to axial impact. Int J Impact Eng 31(4):461–481
Guinea GV, Pastor JY, Planas J, Elices M (1998) Stress intensity factor, compliance and CMOD for a general three-point-bend beam. Int J Fract 89:103–116
Broek D (1986) Elementary engineering fracture mechanics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Network of Centres of Excellence on Intelligent Systems for Innovative Structures (ISIS-Canada) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Canada, for financial support to this study. In addition, the authors are grateful to the Masonry Contractors Association of Alberta (Northern Region) and Public Works Canada, for their in-kind contributions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1: Evaluation of effective crack length and the stress intensity factor
Appendix 1: Evaluation of effective crack length and the stress intensity factor
Let:
- P :
-
= applied load
- S :
-
= span
- B :
-
= beam width
- D :
-
= beam depth
- Δ:
-
= midspan deflection
- CMOD :
-
= crack mouth opening displacement
- σ :
-
= flexural stress
- a o , a eff :
-
= initial crack length and effective crack length (Note: a eff ≥ a o )
- C :
-
= compliance = CMOD/P
- E:
-
= modulus of elasticity
We thus have, C(a o ), as the initial compliance and C(a eff ), the compliance at a crack length a eff (>a o ). The compliance at any instant of loading may be experimentally derived from the load, P, and the crack mouth opening displacement, CMOD, as shown in Fig. 11.
The compliance corresponding to Point A′, which represents a general loading condition on Fig. 11 is given by:
The initial compliance may be found as:
where CMOD and P correspond to the bending over point, A, in Fig. 11.
In a flexural test, the theoretical compliance is influenced by the span-to-depth (S/D) ratio as well as the extent of the crack. If α = (a/D) and β = (S/D). Thus, the general expression for the compliance for β ≥ 2.5 is given by Guinea et al. [22] as follows:
Substituting for β = 3, Eq. 8 reduces to the following:
Now, the crack mouth opening displacement corresponding to any applied load, P, is given by CMOD(α,β) and is expressed as a function of both the crack length and the span-to-depth ratio [22]. For the present case of β = 3, the CMOD may be expressed as follows:
As mentioned earlier, for the impact tests, the CMOD was measured using high speed cameras. On the other hand, for the quasi-static tests, the mid-span deflection, Δ, was taken to be equal to the CMOD. This was justified on the basis of the observation by Armelin and Banthia [16]. Upon relating the theoretical result of CMOD(α) for a given value of the applied load, P, from Eq. 10 with the experimental value, one obtains the corresponding value for the modulus of elasticity, E. Since the elastic modulus remains constant throughout the extension of the crack, it is found from the bending over point, corresponding to the initial crack length, a o . Substituting this value of E in Eq. 9, results in the theoretical evaluation of the compliance corresponding to P, at any instant. Equating the experimentally found compliance at any point, A′, as given by Eq. 6, with the corresponding theoretical value from Eq. 9, we may determine the corresponding effective crack length, a eff .
Finally, the compliance is related to the specific energy release rate, G, and in turn to the stress intensity factor, K I , as given by the well-known relationships in Broek [23]:
Based on the effective crack length, a eff , derived in Eq. 10, the stress intensity factor for the three point bend test was determined as follows [21]:
where
and
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chan, R., Bindiganavile, V. Toughness of fibre reinforced hydraulic lime mortar. Part-2: Dynamic response. Mater Struct 43, 1445–1455 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9599-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9599-3