\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter \IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}% {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}% {\RequirePackage{color}} \usepackage{colortbl} \usepackage{wrapfig} \usepackage{ifxetex} \ifxetex \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{xunicode} \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash} \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{} \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}} \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}} \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}} \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}} \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono} \else \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}% {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} \PrerenderUnicode{–} }% {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{float} \usepackage[]{ucs} \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash } \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{} \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}} \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}} \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,} \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ } \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>} \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}} \def\textJapanese{} \def\textChinese{} \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{} \fi \def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small} \DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25} \usepackage{relsize} \RequirePackage{array} \def\@testpach{\@chclass \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@ \else \z@ \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}% \@chnum \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else \z@ \@chclass \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else \if \@nextchar !6 \else \if \@nextchar @7 \else \if \@nextchar (8 \else \if \@nextchar )9 \else 10 \@chnum \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else \if \@nextchar p4 \else \if \@nextchar b5 \else \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi} \gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr} \def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}} \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \def\abbr{} \def\corr{} \def\expan{} \def\gap{} \def\orig{} \def\reg{} \def\ref{} \def\sic{} \def\persName{}\def\name{} \def\placeName{} \def\orgName{} \def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}} \def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}} \def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}} \def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}} \def\textquoted#1{‘#1’} \def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}} \def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}} \def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}} \def\titlem{\itshape} \newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{bibl}{}{} \newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{rubric}{}{} \newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par } \newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}} \newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}} \definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75} \def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}} \DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@} \def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}} \begingroup \catcode`\_=\active \gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}} \endgroup \mathcode`\_=\string"8000 \catcode`\_=12\relax \usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry} \usepackage{framed} \definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95} \usepackage{longtable} \usepackage[normalem]{ulem} \usepackage{fancyvrb} \usepackage{fancyhdr} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{marginnote} \renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1} \renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize} \def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif} \pagestyle{fancy} \usepackage[pdftitle={Fracture properties of Self Compacting Concrete for Notched and Un-notched Beams}, pdfauthor={}]{hyperref} \hyperbaseurl{} \paperwidth210mm \paperheight297mm \def\@pnumwidth{1.55em} \def\@tocrmarg {2.55em} \def\@dotsep{4.5} \setcounter{tocdepth}{3} \clubpenalty=8000 \emergencystretch 3em \hbadness=4000 \hyphenpenalty=400 \pretolerance=750 \tolerance=2000 \vbadness=4000 \widowpenalty=10000 \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}% {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}} \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}% {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large}} \renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}% {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\large}} \renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}% {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\normalsize}} \renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}% {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}% {-1em}% {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}} \def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt} \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par \endgroup} \def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}} \def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}} \def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}} \def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}} \@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{} \@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{} \newif\if@mainmatter \@mainmattertrue \def\chaptername{Chapter} \def\frontmatter{% \pagenumbering{roman} \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section} \def\theHsection{\roman{section}} \def\@chapapp{}% } \def\mainmatter{% \cleardoublepage \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter} \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \pagenumbering{arabic} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6} \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}% \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section} \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}} } \def\backmatter{% \cleardoublepage \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}% \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}} \appendix } \newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{% \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}% {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}% \leftmargin\labelwidth \advance\leftmargin\labelsep \@openbib@code \usecounter{enumiv}% \let\p@enumiv\@empty \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}% }% \sloppy \clubpenalty4000 \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty \widowpenalty4000% \sfcode`\.\@m}% {\def\@noitemerr {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}% \endlist} \def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}} \parskip0pt \parindent1em \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \newenvironment{reflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{sansreflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{specHead}[2]% {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}% \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}% \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}% \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}% }{} \def\TheFullDate{2012-01 2012-07-15 (revised: January 2012 15 July 2012)} \def\TheID{\makeatother } \def\TheDate{2012-01 2012-07-15} \title{Fracture properties of Self Compacting Concrete for Notched and Un-notched Beams} \author{}\makeatletter \makeatletter \newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{% \clearpage \if@twoside \ifodd\c@page \hbox{}\newpage \if@twocolumn \hbox{}\newpage \fi \fi \fi } \makeatother \makeatletter \thispagestyle{empty} \markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author} \renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@ \belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip \abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@ \belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@ \def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@ \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \itemsep 1pt} } \makeatother \fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm} \fancyhf{} \setlength{\headheight}{14pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} \fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} \fancyfoot[RO]{} \fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID} \fancyfoot[LE]{} \fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID} \hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true} \fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}} \date{} \usepackage{authblk} \providecommand{\keywords}[1] { \footnotesize \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1 } \usepackage{graphicx,xcolor} \definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81} \definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9} \definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70} \definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} \renewenvironment{abstract}{% \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space} }{% \vskip8pt \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt } \usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos} \makeatother \usepackage{lineno} \linenumbers \begin{document} \author[1]{Dr. Hamid Eskandari} \affil[1]{ Sabzevar Tarbiat Moallem University} \renewcommand\Authands{ and } \date{\small \em Received: 12 June 2012 Accepted: 30 June 2012 Published: 15 July 2012} \maketitle \begin{abstract} The aim of this research is to obtain the fracture characteristics of low and medium compressive strength notched and un-notched plain self compacting concrete (SCC) beams, using RILEM work of fracture (GF ) methods and compare with those of normal concrete (NC) and high performance concrete (HPC), which is useful in engineering practice. The effect of notch-depth ratio on fracture characteristics of SCC beams, in bending is investigated by measuring the fracture energy (GF ), critical stress intensity factor (KIC), critical energy release rate (Gc) and characteristic length (lch). The results show that: (i) GF increases with increase in compressive strength; (ii) The values of characteristic lengths of SCC (lch) are more when compared with HPC and NC and therefore may be concluded that the SCC with air-entraining admixture (AEA) is more ductile compared to HPC. \end{abstract} \keywords{Self compacting Concrete; Fracture Properties; Notched; Un-notched.} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}} \end{textblock*} \let\tabcellsep& \section[{INTRODUCTION}]{INTRODUCTION}\par elf-compacting concrete (SCC) is the current research area today. Many intrinsic properties of the concrete are yet to be understood clearly. The differences between High performance Concrete (HPC) and Self compacting concrete (SCC) are essentially in the use of special admixture \hyperref[b15]{[16]}. Due to the use of chemical and mineral admixtures, the micro cracks study are more essential in SCC compared to NC \hyperref[b6]{[7,}\hyperref[b30]{31]}.\par Many investigators have evaluated the mechanical characteristics and durability of SCC mixes. The improved pore structure and better densification of matrix have bearing on the fracture characteristics like fracture energy (G F ) and critical stress intensity factor (K Ic ). It has been reported in literature that increased density will increase the compressive as well as tensile strength of concrete and also fracture energy \hyperref[b10]{[11]}. Characteristic length (l ch ) will decrease with an increase in density \hyperref[b12]{[13]}.\par Fracture behavior of plain concrete is the basis for all the studies on behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) and prestressed concrete structures via fracture mechanics. Experimental studies have been conducted to ascertain the effect of the aggregate on the fracture behavior of concrete. It is reported that an increase in the size of aggregate decreases the brittleness of hardened concrete and increases the fracture energy as well as fracture toughness \hyperref[b0]{[1,}\hyperref[b1]{2,}\hyperref[b28]{29]}.\par Prokopski et al. \hyperref[b21]{[22]} from their studies on the use of silica fume and effect of water-cement ratio on concrete have concluded that the stress intensity factor increases with addition of silica fume. The variations in stress intensity factor are closely related to the variation in the concrete matrix. Chen and Liu \hyperref[b5]{[6]} have studied the effect of aggregate on fracture behavior of HPC and have shown that G F and K IC increase with increase in the aggregate size.\par Planas and Elices \hyperref[b20]{[21]} have shown that the fracture energy, G F is size dependent. Ries and Ferreira \hyperref[b23]{[24]} have studied the effect of specimen notch-depth on fracture energy and have shown that the specimen dimension do effect G F and fracture energy increases with increase of notch to depth ratio, i.e. higher the notch to depth ratio, higher will be the fracture energy.\par Hence it has become a contentious topic in the fracture mechanics of concrete. \section[{II.}]{II.} \section[{EVALUATION OF FRACTURE CHARACTERISTIC}]{EVALUATION OF FRACTURE CHARACTERISTIC}\par a) Fracture energy (G F ) from work-of-fracture\par Many methods have been recommended to determine the fracture energy and characteristic length, using simple three point bending tests (TPB) \hyperref[b16]{[17,}\hyperref[b18]{19,}\hyperref[b19]{20,}\hyperref[b29]{30,} {\ref 4,} {\ref 10,}\hyperref[b17]{18,}\hyperref[b11]{12,}\hyperref[b8]{9]}.\par One can apply the recommendation of the Technical Committee RILEM \hyperref[b24]{[25]} to perform three-point bend tests in notched beams. The Fracture energy is defined as the amount of energy necessary to create a crack of unit surface area projected in a plane parallel to the crack direction. As the beam is split in two halves, the fracture energy can be determined by dividing the total dissipated energy by the total surface area of the crack. According to the RILEM \hyperref[b25]{[26]} to control the fracture energy can be calculated as \hyperref[b0]{(1)} Where G F = fracture energy (N/m), W 0 = area under the load-deection curve (Nm), m = weight of the beam between supports (kg), t = thickness; b = depth ; S Displacement corresponding to P = 0 and a = initial notch of the beam. \section[{i. Intrinsic brittleness}]{i. Intrinsic brittleness}\par It is well known that the brittleness of concrete is characterized not only by the fracture toughness but also by a parameter related to it through other fracture and/or elastic constant. This parameter is a measure of the length of the fracture process zone. The smaller its value, the more brittle is the material. According to the fictitious crack model (FCM) \hyperref[b27]{[28]}, the brittleness can be expressed:\par (2)\par Where E is modulus of elasticity in [MPa] and f t is the tensile strength [MPa].\par ii. Fracture toughness The fracture toughness K IC is calculated according to the RILEM \hyperref[b26]{[27]} using the equation \section[{EXPERIMENTAL STUDY a) Mix properties}]{EXPERIMENTAL STUDY a) Mix properties}\par The cement used was 53 grade, having at 3, 7 and 28 days strength of 26.50, 33.20, and 53.40 MPa, respectively. Crushed granite aggregates of maximum size 16 mm were used. The specific gravity, dry-rodded unit weight, and water absorption of the coarse aggregate were 2.71, 1, 550 kg / m 3 and 0.5 by weight of the aggregate, respectively. River sand passing 4.75 mm was used. The specific gravity of the sand was 2.62 and the fineness modulus was 2.48. Class F fly ash from the thermal power plant near Raichur, India, was used. The CaO and loss on ignition (LOI) contents of y ash were 59, 1.02 and 1.08, respectively. The quantity of SCC (SCC1, SCC2 and SCC3) are listed in (Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1}).\par IV. \section[{EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS}]{EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS} \section[{a) Fresh properties of SCC}]{a) Fresh properties of SCC}\par The slump flow test is the most widely used method for evaluating concrete consistency in the laboratory and at construction sites. The consistency and workability were evaluated using the slump flow, U-Box, L-Box, J-Ring, V funnel and fill box tests.\par The slump flow of SCC concrete was in the range of 650-750 mm, which is an indication of a good deformability. The time to reache 500 mm slump was in the range of 3-5 s, the J Ring was in the range of 3-8 mm, the funnel test flow time was in the range of 3-7 s, the funnel test flow after 5 minutes was in the range of 1-3 s, L-box, U box and Fill box were in the range of 0.8-1, 3-10 mm and 90-100\% respectively. The fresh properties of SCC are summarized in (Table \hyperref[tab_1]{2}). \section[{b) Mechanical properties of SCC}]{b) Mechanical properties of SCC}\par Compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, exural strength and tensile splitting strength tests were conducted on all specimens of SCC mixes. The mechanical properties like compressive strength, exural strength, split tensile and modulus of elasticity of SCC were obtained testing 150 x 150 x 150 mm six cubes, 100 x 100 x 500 mm six prism and 150 x 300 mm cylinders the results are summarized in (Table \hyperref[tab_2]{3}).\par The amount of powder usually cement +fly ash + microsilica used in SCC was in the range of 400-640 kg / m 3 for different grades of concrete. The density of SCC slightly decreased with decrease in the waterpowder ratio. This may be due the combination of AEA and VMA which formed large amount of air pockets in concrete specimens. The compressive strength increased with the decrease in the percentage of y ash and water-powder ratio. The compressive strengths of SCC at 28 days varied from 15 to 45 MPa and increased by 10\% at the end of 90 days.\par The split tensile strength, exural strength and modulus of elasticity at the end of 28 days also showed reduction due to addition of y ash. This is because of the slower pozzolanic reaction of the mineral admixture, which caused slow rate of setting and hardening.\par V. \section[{ANALYSIS OF RESULTS}]{ANALYSIS OF RESULTS}\par a) Fracture Energy (G F ) from work-of-fracture In this category, the experiments were carried out using different mixes (SCC1, SCC2, and SCC3) with different sizes (440x100x100 and 850x100x100 mm) for notched and un-notched beams. Following two types of specimens were used: (i) un notched and (ii) notched with the ratio notch/depth equal to 0.5 and 0.1 for the spans of 400 and 800 mm respectively. Three-point bending tests were conducted using a closed loop Dartec Servo Controlled testing machine with a crack mouth opening rate of 0.001 mm/sec. The details of the concrete mixes labelled SCC1 to SCC3 for batches 1, 2,= ? 0 l ch (mm) = EG F /f 2 t K IC = 3(P 0 ) S ? ?ag 1 (?) 2b 2 t [M P a ? m g 1 (?) = 1.99 ? ?(1 ? ?)(2.15 ? 3.93? + 2.7? 2 ) ? ?(1 + 2?)(1 ? ?) 3/2 ?= G C = (K IC ) 2 /E\par different materials for various mixes of and 3, respectively, are given in Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1}. Before casting the beam specimens, a notch was introduced at the mid-section. It was 0.5 depth for the 800 mm beam and 0.1 depth for 400 mm span beam. The tests were controlled by the crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD). The complete load-deection and load-CMOD data were automatically stored on the computer. The (Figs. 1, 2 and 3) show the typical load-displacement and load-CMOD plot for SCC1, SCC2 and SCC3 with notched and un-notched respectively. In general, it is seen that as the notch to depth ratio increases, at peak load there is an increase in deection and CMOD.\par From the (Figs. 1, 2 and 3), it is evident that; (i) the pre-peak stiffness of load-deection curve in the case of un-notched beams is more than that of notched beams. This is attributed to the presence of notch; (ii) there is a sudden drop after peak load in the loaddeection curve in un-notched beam which highlights the brittleness induced to the absence of notch. However this is not observed in notched beam; (iii) the ratio of peak loads of notched and un-notched beams is about Fracture energy, G F is the energy needed to create a crack of unit area and also called as specific fracture energy. The work of fracture was calculated by measuring the area under the load-deection plot and the fracture energy was calculated from the (Eq. 1) as recommended in the RILEM guidelines and the values of G F are given in (Table \hyperref[tab_3]{4}).\par From the result of GF that is obtained by work of fracture, it is evident that the G F is greatly affected by the size of beam and noth-depth ratio. Hillerborg \hyperref[b13]{[14]} also showed that G F increases with an increase in specimen size. The variability of G F with specimen size and for its significant departure from G c is mainly due to the violation of the two basic assumptions: (i) the work done by the external load goes solely into stable crack extension and (ii) the energy required to create a crack of unit area is independent of geometry and loading configuration. Several investigators have identified many processes, such as crushing of material, thermal loss, energy consumed in minor cracking, etc. other than the stable crack extension on which some energy is expended. Hence, it is clear that some errors are attributable to the determination of W F and A lig , which can explain the variability in G F . It is also seen from the literature that for normal grade concrete, G F varies from 40 to 130 N / m \hyperref[b14]{[15]} and for the HPC it varies from 116 to 120 N / m \hyperref[b7]{[8]}. From the present study, it is observed that GF for the notch/depth ratio 0.5 and span of 800 mm varies from 146 to 200 N / m and for un-notched beam varies 126 to 185 N / m. It can be seen that the fracture energy obtained with the span of 400 mm is slightly less than that of beam with span 800 mm. The value G F of SCC in the present study is slightly more compared to that of normal concrete and HPC, this is due to the effect of porosity. SCC has higher porosity and less density compared to HPC and normal concrete.\par Khalil Haidar \hyperref[b12]{[13]} also has shown that the concrete becomes more ductile as the porosity increases (mass density decreases) and fracture energy is extremely dependent on the mass density of material.\par Moreover, G F is not constant but varies with the notch/depth ratio and G F increase with an increase in depth of beam. (Fig. \hyperref[fig_3]{4}) shows the variation of fracture energy G F with compressive strength. It is seen that the fracture energy increases with increase in strength as well as the increase in notch-depth ratio. As expected, the present work showed that the fracture energy, G F , is a fracture parameter that is size-dependent \hyperref[b20]{[21,}\hyperref[b23]{24]}. It is found that G F values show a definite trend to increase with increase of notch to depth i.e. un-notched depth has a lower value of G F .\par Fracture toughness (K IC ) is the value of critical stress intensity factor K, for which the crack starts growing. K IC values for various mixes were obtained from a peak load based on LEFM approach (Eq. 3) and are given in (Table \hyperref[tab_4]{5}). It is seen from the literature that the KIC values for various mixes varies from 0.8 to \hyperref[b22]{[23,}\hyperref[b2]{3]}, while in the present study it varies from 0.58 to for notched beam and for un-notched varies from 0.24 to for the span of 800 mm length. It is observed from the (Table \hyperref[tab_4]{5}) and (Fig. 5) that with an increase in compressive strength of SCC, there is an increase in the fracture toughness for notch and unnotched beam. There is significant difference between K IC of notched and un-notched beams. This is due to the presence of notch, which increases the ductility, when compared with an un-notched beam. It may be stated that in practice the beams are un-notched and hence the value of K IC is over estimated.\par For elastic brittle material G F = G c . However, for concrete, which is a quasi brittle material, G F is higher than G c because in the case of quasi-brittle materials there is stable crack growth before failure takes place. G c normally varies between 3 to 20 N=m \hyperref[b14]{[15]} for normal concrete and for HPC is varies between 17 to 40 N/m \hyperref[b4]{[5]}, while G c varies between 18 to 20 N=m for notched beam and for un-notched beam varies between 2.9 to 3.2 N/m. The variation of K IC is also reected in the corresponding toughness value G c , since K IC , and G c are directly related as per (Eq. 5).\par The characteristic length l ch of SCC or brittleness of SCC based on FCM as per (Eq. 2) is given in (Table \hyperref[tab_4]{5}). Generally for normal concrete l ch is about 200 to 500 mm \hyperref[b14]{[15,}\hyperref[b19]{20]} and for HPC it varies between 120-450 mm \hyperref[b22]{[23]}. In SCC, l ch varies from 580 to 740 mm for notched beams and varies between 540 to 640 mm for un-notched beams. It is also seen the l ch decrease with an increase in compressive strength and notchdepth ratio. \section[{CONCLUSIONS}]{CONCLUSIONS}\par Experiments were conducted to determine the mechanical properties of SCC and fracture characteristic of SCC beams under three-point bend notched and unnotched beams were tested at the department of Civil Engineering of the Indian Institute of Science in order to study the fractures properties of SCC. The main conclusions that can be drawn from this study are the following:\par 1. The results obtained by the work-of-fracture method follow the trend of "fracture energy increasing as the compressive strength of the concrete increases". 2. As expected, the present work shows that the fracture energy, G F , is a fracture parameter that is size-dependent \hyperref[b20]{[21,}\hyperref[b23]{24]}, i.e dependent on the specimen dimensions. It is found that G F values show a definite trend to increase with increase of notch to depth i.e. 50 mm and 10 mm notch depth have a higher value of G F compared to that of an un-notched beam. The size dependence is mainly due to irrecoverable damages outside the cracking plane which tends to increase with the specimen size. \section[{The range of brittleness numbers found in this study}]{The range of brittleness numbers found in this study}\par shows that SCC is more ductile than HPC. Hence can be used at least for large size structures. 4. The values of characteristic length of SCC (l ch ) is to be more when compared with HPC, NC and high strength concrete. It may be concluded that the SCC is more ductile compared to HPC. \section[{REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCIAS}]{REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCIAS}\begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png} \caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png} \caption{\label{fig_1}Fracture}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{123}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png} \caption{\label{fig_2}FractureFig. 1 :Fig. 2 :Fig. 3 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{4}\includegraphics[]{image-5.png} \caption{\label{fig_3}Fig. 4 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}} January 2012\\ 31\\ Volume XII Issue v v v v I Version I\\ ( E )\\ Journal of Researches in Engineering\\ Global\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{2} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.5784023668639053\textwidth}P{0.14585798816568046\textwidth}P{0.055325443786982245\textwidth}P{0.07041420118343196\textwidth}} Tests\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{SCC1 SCC2 SCC3}\\ Slump Flow (mm)\tabcellsep 750\tabcellsep 700\tabcellsep 670\\ T50cm Slump Flow\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 5\\ J-ring (mm)\tabcellsep 3.2\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 8\\ V-funnel (Sec)\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 7\\ V-funnel at T5\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 3\\ L-box (H2/H1)\tabcellsep 0.8\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 0.95\\ U-box (H2 ? H1)\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 5\\ Fill-box(\%)\tabcellsep 95\tabcellsep 95\tabcellsep 95\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{3} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.25174216027874563\textwidth}P{0.04442508710801394\textwidth}P{0.1954703832752613\textwidth}P{0.11550522648083623\textwidth}P{0.05923344947735191\textwidth}P{0.09181184668989546\textwidth}P{0.09181184668989546\textwidth}} \tabcellsep Mix\tabcellsep Density\tabcellsep f c\tabcellsep E\tabcellsep f t\tabcellsep f r\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{kg/m 3 MPa GPa MPa MPa}\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2044\tabcellsep 17.1\tabcellsep 17\tabcellsep 1.5\tabcellsep 2.6\\ \tabcellsep SCC1\tabcellsep 2074\tabcellsep 16.8\tabcellsep 17\tabcellsep 1.8\tabcellsep 2.7\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2074\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{16.1 16.5}\tabcellsep 1.7\tabcellsep 3.0\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2006\tabcellsep 29.8\tabcellsep 21\tabcellsep 2.7\tabcellsep 4.2\\ \tabcellsep SCC2\tabcellsep 1956\tabcellsep 30.4\tabcellsep 22\tabcellsep 2.7\tabcellsep 4.2\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2010\tabcellsep 31.4\tabcellsep 22\tabcellsep 2.7\tabcellsep 4.2\\ 32\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2163\tabcellsep 45\tabcellsep 28\tabcellsep 3.4\tabcellsep 6.2\\ Volume XII Issue v v v v I Version I\tabcellsep SCC3\tabcellsep 2133 2104\tabcellsep 46 43\tabcellsep 28.2 27\tabcellsep 3.4 3.4\tabcellsep 6.3 5.9\\ ( E )\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Journal of Researches in Engineering\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ Global\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{4} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.170703933747412\textwidth}P{0.056314699792960665\textwidth}P{0.45931677018633543\textwidth}P{0.010559006211180123\textwidth}P{0.0017598343685300208\textwidth}P{0.0017598343685300208\textwidth}P{0.02463768115942029\textwidth}P{0.11614906832298137\textwidth}P{0.008799171842650104\textwidth}} Series\tabcellsep \tabcellsep a/b\tabcellsep b\tabcellsep S\tabcellsep \tabcellsep G F (N/m)\tabcellsep Average\\ \tabcellsep f c\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Beam\tabcellsep G F\\ \tabcellsep (M P a)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{mm mm}\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep (N/m)\\ A1 (SCC1)\tabcellsep 15\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{0.5 100 800 143 149 147}\tabcellsep 146.3\\ A3 (SCC2)\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{0.5 100 800 162 179 166}\tabcellsep 169.0\\ A5(SCC3)\tabcellsep 45\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{0.5 100 800 173 210 218}\tabcellsep 200.3\\ A7(SCC2)\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{0.1 100 400 122 148 N/A}\tabcellsep 135.0\\ A9 (SCC3)\tabcellsep 45\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{0.1 100 400 165 185 216}\tabcellsep 188.7\\ HPC*\tabcellsep 48\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{0.5 100 800 125 110 147}\tabcellsep 127.3\\ A2 (SCC1)\tabcellsep 15\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{0.01 100 800 124 128 N/A}\tabcellsep 126.0\\ A4 (SCC2)\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{0.01 100 800 136 149 140}\tabcellsep 141.7\\ A6(SCC3)\tabcellsep 45\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{0.01 100 800 165 185 207}\tabcellsep 185.7\\ A8 (SCC2)\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{0.01 100 400 117 130 116}\tabcellsep 121.0\\ A10(SCC3)\tabcellsep 45\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{0.01 100 400 167 184 193}\tabcellsep 181.3\end{longtable} \par {\small\itshape [Note: *Data from\hyperref[b7]{[8]}, N/A-No result available]} \caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{5} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}} January 2012\\ 33\\ Volume XII Issue v v v v I Version I\\ ( E )\\ Journal of Researches in Engineering\\ Global\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_4}Table 5 :}\end{figure} \footnote{© 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US)} \backmatter \begin{bibitemlist}{1} \bibitem[Reis and Ferreira ()]{b23}\label{b23} ‘A Contribution to the Study of the Fracture Energy of Polymer Concrete and Fibre Reinforced Polymer Concrete’. J Reis , A Ferreira . \textit{Polymer Testing} 2004. 23 p. . \bibitem[Wittmann ()]{b30}\label{b30} ‘Crack formation and fracture energy of normal and high strength concrete’. F H Wittmann . \textit{J Ind Nat Acad Sci} 2002. 27 (4) p. . \bibitem[Rilem Tc89-Fmt ()]{b26}\label{b26} ‘Determination of fracture parameters (KIC and CTODc) of plain concrete using three-point bend tests'’. Rilem Tc89-Fmt . \textit{Mater Struct} 1991. 23 (6) p. . \bibitem[Determination of the fracture energy of mortar and concrete by means of threepoint bend tests on notched beams' Mater Struct]{b24}\label{b24} ‘Determination of the fracture energy of mortar and concrete by means of threepoint bend tests on notched beams'’. RILEM FMC-50: 1985. \textit{Mater Struct} 18 (4) p. . \bibitem[Prokopski and Langier ()]{b21}\label{b21} ‘E\textunderscore ect of Water/Cement Ratio and Silica fume Addition on the Fracture Toughness and Morphology of Fractured Surfaces of Gravel Concretes'’. G Prokopski , B Langier . \textit{Cem Con Res} 2000. 30 p. . \bibitem[Chen and Liu ()]{b5}\label{b5} ‘Effect of Aggregate on the Fracture Behavior of High Strength Concrete’. B Chen , J Liu . \textit{Constr Build Mater} 2004. 18 p. . \bibitem[Kishi et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} ‘Effect of drying / autogenous shrinkage on ductility / fracture mode of beam and self-repairing function of expansive agent'’. T Kishi , A Hosoda , C B Gurung , S Kittiwuttichusinp . \textit{Pro JCI} 2000. 22 (3) p. . \bibitem[Belhamel et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} ‘Experimental method for the determination of the failure energy of ordinary concretes'’. F Belhamel , F Hisham , Kharchi . \textit{Mater Struct} 2002. 35 (3) p. . \bibitem[Amparano et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} ‘Experimental study on the effect of aggregate content on fracture behavior of concrete’. F E Amparano , Y Xi , Y.-S Roh . \textit{Eng Frac Mech} 2000. 67 (1) p. . \bibitem[Bharatkumar ()]{b4}\label{b4} \textit{Fracture characteristics and behaviour of high performance concrete (plain and reinforced}, B Bharatkumar . 2003. IISc, India. p. 235. (PhD thesis) \bibitem[Fracture energy (mode I)-three-point bend tests on notched beams NT Build ()]{b17}\label{b17} ‘Fracture energy (mode I)-three-point bend tests on notched beams’. \url{http://www.nordicinnovation.net/nordtest\textunderscore ler/build491.pdf} \textit{NT Build} 1999. 491. (Nordtest Method pp. 1\{4. Available online) \bibitem[Rao and Prasad ()]{b1}\label{b1} ‘Fracture energy and softening behavior of highstrength concrete'’. Appa Rao , G , B K Prasad . \textit{Cem Con Res} 2002. 32 (2) p. . \bibitem[Petersson ()]{b19}\label{b19} ‘Fracture energy of concrete: practical performance and experimental results'’. P Petersson . \textit{Cem Con Res} 1980b. 10 (1) p. . \bibitem[Petersson ()]{b18}\label{b18} ‘Fracture energy of concrete; method of determination'’. P Petersson . \textit{Cem Con Res} 1980a. 0 (1) p. . \bibitem[Prasad et al. ()]{b22}\label{b22} ‘Fracture mechanics model for analysis of plain and reinforced high-performance concrete beams’. Raghu Prasad , BK , B H Bharatkumar , D S R Murthy , R Narayanan , S Gopalakrishnan . \textit{Eng Mech J} 2005. ASCE. 131 (8) p. . \bibitem[Shah et al. ()]{b27}\label{b27} \textit{Fracture Mechanics of Concrete -Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete, Rock, and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials}, S Shah , S Swarts , C Ouyang . 1995. New York, USA: John Wiley \& Sons, Inc. p. 552. \bibitem[Karihaloo ()]{b14}\label{b14} \textit{Fracture mechnaics and structural concrete'. Longman Scientific and technical}, B Karihaloo . 1995. UK. \bibitem[Einsfeld and Velasco ()]{b7}\label{b7} ‘Fracture parameters for High-performance concrete'’. R A Einsfeld , M S Velasco . \textit{Cem Con Res} 2006. 36 p. . \bibitem[Haidar and Cabor ()]{b12}\label{b12} ‘Inuence of porosity on fracture characteristics in mortar structures’. K Haidar , G P Cabor . \textit{Proc 15th ASCE Eng Mech}, (15th ASCE Eng MechNew York) 2002. p. . \bibitem[Elices et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} ‘Measurement of the fracture energy using threepoint bend tests: Part 3-inuence of cutting the Ptail'’. M Elices , G Guinea , J Planas . \textit{Mater Struct} 1992. 25 (4) p. . \bibitem[Guinea et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} ‘Measurement of the fracture energy using threepoint bend tests: Part I-inuence of experimental procedures'’. G Guinea , J Planas , M Elices . \textit{Mater Struct} 1992. 25 (4) p. . \bibitem[Elices et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} ‘On the measurement of concrete fracture energy using three-point bend tests’. M Elices , G Guinea , J Planas . \textit{Mater Struct} 1997. 30 (6) p. . \bibitem[Hillerborg ()]{b13}\label{b13} ‘Results of three comparative test series for determining the fracture energy GF of concrete'’. A Hillerborg . \textit{Mater Struct} 1985. 18 (107) p. . \bibitem[Tang et al. ()]{b29}\label{b29} ‘Simple method for determining material fracture parameters from peak loads'. ACI’. T Tang , C Ouyang , S P Shah . \textit{Mater J} 1996. 93 (2) p. . \bibitem[Size-effect method for determining fracture energy and process zone size of concrete' Mater Struct]{b25}\label{b25} ‘Size-effect method for determining fracture energy and process zone size of concrete'’. RILEM FMT 89: 1990. \textit{Mater Struct} 23 (6) p. . \bibitem[Bazant and Giraudon ()]{b2}\label{b2} ‘Statistical prediction of fracture parameters of concrete and implications for choice of testing standard'’. Z P Bazant , E B Giraudon . \textit{Cem Con Res} 2002. 32 (4) p. . \bibitem[Druta ()]{b6}\label{b6} \textit{Tensile strength and bonding characteristics of self-compacting concrete'. MSc thesis}, C Druta . 2003. p. 115. Louisiana State Universityand \bibitem[Mindess ()]{b16}\label{b16} ‘The effect of specimen size on the fracture energy of concrete'’. S Mindess . \textit{Cem Con Res} 1984. 14 (3) p. . \bibitem[Giaccio et al. ()]{b10}\label{b10} ‘The fracture energy (G F ) of high-strength conretes'’. G Giaccio , C Rocco , R Zerbino . \textit{Mater Struct} 1993. 26 (161) p. . \bibitem[Strange and Bryant ()]{b28}\label{b28} ‘The role of aggregate in the fracture of concrete'’. P C Strange , A H Bryant . \textit{J Mater Sci} 1979. 14 (8) p. . \bibitem[Planas and Elices ()]{b20}\label{b20} \textit{Towards a measure of Gf: an analysis of experimental results'. Fracture Toughness and Fracture Energy of Concrete}, J Planas , M Elices . 1986. Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. . \end{bibitemlist} \end{document}