Materials and Structures

, Volume 43, Issue 10, pp 1445–1455 | Cite as

Toughness of fibre reinforced hydraulic lime mortar. Part-2: Dynamic response

Original Article

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.

Keywords

Hydraulic lime Mortar Fibre reinforcement Impact Strain rate sensitivity Dynamic impact factor Fracture toughness 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Burnett S, Gilbert M, Molyneaux T, Tyas A, Hobbs B, Beattle G (2007) The response of masonry joints to dynamic tensile loading. Mater Struct 40:517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    446.4R-04 (2004) Report on the dynamic fracture of concrete, Committee 446. American Concrete InstituteGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Comite Euro-International du Beton—Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte (1990) CEB-FIP Model Code 90. Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 32:1635–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Malvar LJ, Ross CA (1998) Review of strain rate effects for concrete in tension. ACI Mater J 95(6):735–739Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Banthia N, Sheng J (1996) Fracture toughness of micro-fiber reinforced cement composites. Cement Concr Compos 18(4):251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glinicki MA (1994) Toughness of fibre reinforced mortar at high tensile loading rates. ACI Mater J 91(2):161–166Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bindiganavile V, Banthia N, Arup B (2002) Impact response of an ultra high strength fibre reinforced cement composite. ACI Mater J 99(6):543–548Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mindess S, Vondran G (1988) Properties of concrete reinforced with fibrillated polypropylene fibres under impact loading. Cement Concr Res 18(1):109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bindiganavile V, Banthia N (2001) Polymer and steel fibre reinforced cementitious composites under impact loading. Part-2. Flexural toughness. ACI Mater J 98(1):17–24Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bindiganavile V, Banthia N (2005) Impact response of the fibre-matrix bond in concrete. Can J Civil Eng 32(5):924–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen EP, Sih GC (1977) Transient response of cracks to impact loads. In: Mechanics of fracture, vol 4: elastodynamic crack problems, pp 1–58Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Banthia NP, Mindess S, Bentur A, Pigeon M (1989) Impact testing of concrete using a drop-weight impact machine. Exp Mech 29(12):63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shah SP (1987) Strain rate effects for concrete and fiber reinforced concrete subjected to impact loading. Report accession # ADA188659. Defence Technical Information Center, 83 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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):18–31Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bindiganavile V (2003) Dynamic fracture toughness of fibre reinforced concrete. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, p 258Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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):470–479Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lu Y, Xu K (2004) Modeling of dynamic behaviour of concrete materials under blast loading. Int J Solids Struct 41:131–143CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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):1001–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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):461–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 89:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Broek D (1986) Elementary engineering fracture mechanics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations