Title:
Experimental Determination of Cohesion and Internal Friction Angle on Conventional Concretes
Author(s):
Selim Pul, Amir Ghaffari, Ertekin Oztekin, Metin Hüsem, and Serhat Demir
Publication:
Materials Journal
Volume:
114
Issue:
3
Appears on pages(s):
407-416
Keywords:
cohesion; conventional concrete; direct shear test; Drucker-Prager parameters; internal friction angle; Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion; nonlinear finite element analysis
DOI:
10.14359/51689676
Date:
5/1/2017
Abstract:
Various failure criterions have been used for the nonlinear analysis of concrete and reinforced concrete structures. To get more accurate results from the analyses, the selected failure criterion must be appropriate with the characteristics of problem and the assumptions made in the criterion should comply with the characteristics of problem. In this study, an experimental investigation was carried out to determine the cohesion (c) and internal friction angle (ϕ) values, which are in the compressive strength range of 14.4 MPa ≤ fcm cube ≤ 47.0 MPa (2.03 ksi ≤ fcm cube ≤ 6.82 ksi) that are used in failure criterions such as Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager preferred in end unit analyses for concrete and reinforced concrete structures. Tests are performed by using the direct shear test system, which is designed and produced for this study. Finally, cohesion and internal friction angle were determined between 2.94 and 12.34 MPa (0.43 and 1.79 ksi) and 29.8 and 41.7 degrees, respectively.
Related References:
1. Mohr, O., Abhandlungenaus dem Gebiete der Technischen, second edition, W. Ernst und Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 1914.
2. Coulomb, C. A., “In Memories de Mathematique et de Physique,” Academie Royales Sciences par Diverssans, V. 7, 1773, pp. 343-382.
3. Drucker, D. C., and Prager, W., “Soil Mechanics and Plastic Analysis or Limit Design,” Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, V. 10, No. 2, 1952, pp. 157-165. doi: 10.1090/qam/48291
4. Chen, W. F., Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982, 474 pp.
5. Arslan, G., “Sensitivity Study of the Drucker-Prager Modeling Parameters in the Prediction of the Nonlinear Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Materials & Design, V. 28, No. 10, 2007, pp. 2596-2603. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2006.10.021
6. Mahboubi, A., and Ajorloo, A., “Experimental Study of the Mechanical Behavior of Plastic Concrete in Triaxial Compression,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 35, No. 2, 2005, pp. 412-419. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.09.011
7. Moosavi, M., and Bawden, W. F., “Shear Strength of Portland Cement Grout,” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 25, No. 7, 2003, pp. 729-735. doi: 10.1016/S0958-9465(02)00101-4
8. Calayır, Y., and Karaton, M., “Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Arch Dams with Using Drucker-Prager Approach,” Teknik Dergi, V. 15, 2004, pp. 3085-3103. (in Turkish)
9. Doran, B.; Köksal, H. O.; Polat, Z.; and Karakoc, C., “The Use of Drucker-Prager Criterion in the Analysis of Reinforced Concrete by Finite Element,” Teknik Dergi, V. 9, 1998, pp. 1617-1625.
10. Rochette, P., and Labossière, P., “A Plasticity Approach for Concrete Columns Confined with Composite Materials,” Proceedings of Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, QC, Canada, 1996, pp. 359-366.
11. Yan, Z., and Pantelides, C., “External FRP Confinement of Concrete Columns Using Shape Modification Technology,” Fourth International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE2008), Zurich, Switzerland, 2008.
12. Cela, J. J. L., “Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Dynamic Loads with a Viscoplastic Drucker-Prager Model,” Applied Mathematical Modelling, V. 22, No. 7, 1998, pp. 495-515. doi: 10.1016/S0307-904X(98)10050-1
13. Montoya, E.; Vecchio, F. J.; and Sheikh, S. A., “Compression Field Modeling of Confined Concrete,” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, V. 12, No. 3, 2001, pp. 231-248. doi: 10.12989/sem.2001.12.3.231
14. Arslan, G., “Mesh Size Effect on Load Carrying Capacity of the Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups by Using Drucker-Prager Cracking Concrete Fracture Criteria,” Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, V. 3, 2004, pp. 34-42.
15. Karabinis, A. I., and Kiousis, P. D., “Plasticity Computations for the Design of the Ductility of Circular Concrete Columns,” Computers & Structures, V. 60, No. 5, 1996, pp. 825-835. doi: 10.1016/0045-7949(95)00442-4
16. Mirmiran, A.; Zagers, K.; and Yuan, W., “Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of Concrete Confined by Fiber Composites,” Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, V. 35, No. 1, 2000, pp. 79-96. doi: 10.1016/S0168-874X(99)00056-6
17. Köksal, H. O.; Karakoç, C.; and Yıldırım, H., “Compression Behaviour and Failure Mechanisms of Concrete Masonry Prisms,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 17, No. 1, 2005, pp. 107-115. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2005)17:1(107)
18. Ivorra, S.; Irles, R.; Estevan, L.; Adam, J. M.; Pallares, F. J.; and Ferrer, B., “Drucker-Prager Yield Criterion Application to Study the Behavior of CFRP Confined Concrete Under Compression,” 37th IAHS World Congress on Housing, Santander, Spain, 2010.
19. ASTM D5607-08, “Standard Test Method for Performing Laboratory Direct Shear Strength Tests of Rock Specimens under Constant Normal Force,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008.
20. TS1900-2, “Methods of Testing Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes in the Laboratory—Part 2: Determination of Mechanical Properties,” Turkish Standards, Ankara, Turkey, 2006.
21. ASTM D3080/D3080M-11, “Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils under Consolidated Drained Conditions,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011.
22. ACI Committee 211, “Standard Practice Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1-91),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1991, 38 pp.
23. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318R-08),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.