Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Investigates dynamic compressive strength in rubber aggregate concrete, suggesting improved performance with combined materials.
Rubber aggregate concrete (RAC) offers excellent frost resistance and impact toughness, but the incorporation of rubber particles substantially reduces its compressive strength, limiting structural applications. Existing improvement strategies have mainly relied on a single modification route, whereas the dynamic compressive response of RAC containing both ceramic balls and steel fibers remains insufficiently clarified. Here, a ceramic ball–steel fiber rubber aggregate concrete (CBSFRC) was investigated using quasi-static compression, a Φ120 mm split Hopkinson pressure bar system, and high-speed photography. Three steel-fiber volume fractions (1.0%, 1.5%, and 2.0%) were tested. The CBSFRC waveform displayed a characteristic ‘low-first, high-second’ double-peak pattern, in contrast to the ‘high-first, low-second’ pattern of the reference rubber aggregate concrete (CRC). At the common interpolated strain rates of 40, 45, and 50 s−1, the dynamic compressive strengths of CBSFRC were 35.9–53.6% higher than those of CRC; no extrapolation was used. The largest quasi-static strength increase among the tested mixtures was 51.7%. The observed CBSFRC ultimate strains and strain energy densities ranged from 11.1–17.5 × 10−3 to 8.1–14.1 × 105 J/m3, respectively. Matched-rate analysis showed that the largest DIF increment was 18.8% for SF-1CBRC at 40 s−1, whereas the largest strain-energy-density increment was 70.2% for SF-1.5CBRC at 50 s−1. These results describe the tested range and do not establish a universal optimum steel-fiber content.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: