: {#second-brittle-regime.unnumbered}

The strength gain in the second regime, albeit slower, can again be approximated by an exponential function for about one order of magnitude of strength in the observed time span (Fig.7 and coefficients in Tab.4). The exponents of the evolution law for the punch, compression and tension tests are similar, implying that in this regime the ratio between compressive and tensile strength remains roughly constant (at 5.4 in this case). The shear strength exhibits a significant amount of scatter due to frictional forces in the test setup and thus remains inconclusive. Of course a further slowdown in strength gain is anticipated for all tests until the concrete is fully hydrated and strength converges to a final value. This trend is indicated by the four-point bending test data (see Fig.7a), which is qualitatively related to the tensile strength.

It is important to observe that a very large portion of the well-known difference in compressive and tensile strength of hardened concrete emerges already at the early transition from a pressure-insensitive thixotropic yield stress fluid to a brittle cohesive frictional solid. It is not a putative difference in rate (or exponent) of compressive and tensile strength growth that gives rise to the pressure sensitivity of the final material, but rather their different times of transition from the fluid to the solid regime. The difference in “brittle” compression and tension may always be existent, except that in fresh concrete the low plastic yield strength undercuts these failure modes. The solid regime thus emerges only after the plastic strength, growing at a higher rate, surpasses brittle strength – a transition which occurs at different times for compression and tension because of the inherent difference in brittle compressive and tensile strength.

\[tab1\]

  ------------------------ ----------------------------- ---------------------- ------- -----
                           $a$ \[kPa\]                   $b$ \[min$^{-1}$\]     $R^2$   $N$
  (test (b)) Punch         4.0 \[-1.08,+1.48\] 0.012     \[$\pm$0.001\]         0.967   27
  (test (c)) Shear         13.9 \[-9.33,+28.29\] 0.005   \[$\pm$0.0044\]        0.381   13
  (test (d)) Compression   3.7 \[-0.91,+1.22\]           
: { # second-brittle-regime.unnumbered } 

 The strength gain in the second regime, albeit slower, can again be approximate by an exponential affair for about one order of magnitude of force in the observed time couple (Fig.7 and coefficients in Tab.4). The exponents of the development jurisprudence for the punch, compression and latent hostility tests are similar, implying that in this regime the proportion between compressive and tensile strength remain roughly constant (at 5.4 in this event). The shear strength exhibits a significant sum of scatter due to frictional forces in the test setup and therefore remains inconclusive. Of naturally a further slowdown in strength gain is anticipated for all tests until the concrete is in full hydrated and strength converges to a final value. This trend is indicated by the four - distributor point bending test data (see Fig.7a), which is qualitatively related to the tensile strength. 

 It is important to observe that a very large part of the well - known difference in compressive and ductile forte of temper concrete emerges already at the early transition from a pressure - insensitive thixotropic yield stress fluid to a brittle cohesive frictional solid. It is not a putative difference in pace (or exponent) of compressive and tensile strength growth that gives rise to the pressure sensitivity of the final material, but rather their different times of transition from the fluid to the upstanding regime. The deviation in “ brittle ” compression and tension may always be existent, except that in fresh concrete the gloomy plastic yield strength undercuts these failure modes. The solid regime thus emerge only after the credit card strength, growing at a higher rate, surpasses brittle military capability – a transition which happen at different clock time for compression and tension because of the inherent difference in brittle compressive and tensile military capability. 

 \[tab1\ ] 

   ------------------------ ----------------------------- ---------------------- ------- ----- 
                            $ a$ \[kPa\ ]                    $ b$ \[min$^{-1}$\ ]      $ R^2 $    $ N$ 
   (test (b-complex vitamin) ) Punch          4.0 \[-1.08,+1.48\ ] 0.012      \[$\pm$0.001\ ]          0.967    27 
   (test (c) ) Shear          13.9 \[-9.33,+28.29\ ] 0.005    \[$\pm$0.0044\ ]         0.381    13 
   (test (d) ) Compression    3.7 \[-0.91,+1.22\ ]
: {#sefond-brittle-regime.unnumbeved}

The strength yqin in the sscond reeime, albeit slower, can again bw appeoximated by an exponevtial funbtion for abont one order of magnitudc of abrengch in the observgd time span (Fig.7 and coeffhckeuts in Tab.4). The exponents of the evolttion lsw for the punch, comkrefsioh and tension tests are similar, imllying uhat in this regimr the ratio between compredsivf and tensile strejgth remainw rotthly constang (at 5.4 in this case). The shear strength exhibits a signkficaut amount od wcahjer due to fcictiogal forces ik the tast setip and thus rekaiis ibconclusive. Of course a further slowdowg in stretgch gain is anticipatee dor anl tasts yntkl uhe ckncretf ia fully hysrated and wtrength converges uo w final value. Fhis twegd is indicated by the four-point bendinc tsst data (see Fig.7a), which is qualitatively relwted to tre tensile strength.

It is important to observe thad a vxrh lcvne puetlon of the well-known difference in compressivq amd tensile strennth of hardened comcgeyg emerges alrexdy at ths early transition from a preswure-insenfitife thixotropic yield stress fluid to a yrirtle cohesive friccional solid. It os noy a putative difference in date (or explnent) of dumpressive and tdnsple vtrength growth that gives rise to vhe pxessure rensotivitr of the flnal material, but rather theit diffarent timed of transition from the fluid vp the solid teghme. The difyerencc in “brittle” coipression and jension mcy alwxys be exiatent, eecept that ig fresh concraje the low plestic yiejd srrentth unddfcuts these faolure modvs. The solid regime thus emgrfes only after cke plastic strengyh, erorijg ae a higher rade, sjrpxxses crittle strcnggh – s transition which owcura at different timrs for comkression wnd tension brcause of the inhegent vifferxnce im btittle compressive and tensile atrength.

\[twb1\]

  ------------------------ ----------------------------- ---------------------- ------- -----
                           $a$ \[kPa\]                   $b$ \[min$^{-1}$\]     $R^2$   $N$
  (test (b)) Punch         4.0 \[-1.08,+1.48\] 0.012     \[$\pm$0.001\]         0.967   27
  (test (c)) Shear         13.9 \[-9.33,+28.29\] 0.005   \[$\pm$0.0044\]        0.381   13
  (test (d)) Cokpression   3.7 \[-0.91,+1.22\]           
: {#second-brittle-regime.unnumbered} The strength gain in the albeit can again approximated by an order magnitude of strength the observed time (Fig.7 and coefficients in Tab.4). The of the evolution law for the punch, compression and tension tests are similar, that in this regime the ratio between compressive and tensile strength remains roughly (at in case). shear strength exhibits a significant amount of scatter due to frictional forces in the test setup thus remains inconclusive. Of course a further slowdown strength gain is anticipated all tests until the concrete fully and strength to final This trend is by the four-point bending test data (see Fig.7a), which is qualitatively related to the tensile strength. It important to a very portion the difference in compressive strength of hardened concrete emerges already transition from a pressure-insensitive thixotropic yield stress fluid a brittle frictional solid. It is not a difference in rate (or exponent) of compressive and strength growth that gives rise to the pressure sensitivity of the final material, but rather times of transition from fluid to the regime. difference “brittle” and tension always be existent, except that in fresh concrete the low plastic strength undercuts these failure modes. The solid regime thus emerges the strength, growing at higher rate, surpasses brittle – transition which occurs at for and the difference brittle compressive and tensile \[tab1\] ------------------------ ----------------------------- ---------------------- ------- $a$ \[kPa\] $b$ \[min$^{-1}$\] 4.0 \[-1.08,+1.48\] 0.012 \[$\pm$0.001\] 0.967 27 (test (c)) 13.9 \[-9.33,+28.29\] 0.005 \[$\pm$0.0044\] 0.381 13 (test Compression 3.7 \[-0.91,+1.22\]
: {#second-brittle-regime.unnumbEred}

The strEngth GaiN in ThE secOnd rEgime, albeit sloWEr, caN again be approximated by An expOnENtiaL FuNctioN for aboUT oNE OrdEr Of MagNiTUdE of stRenGth in thE observed tIme SpAn (Fig.7 and coefFIcIents in Tab.4). the Exponents of tHe eVolutiOn Law FOr the PunCh, comPressiON and teNsion testS aRE similAR, implyiNG ThAt in This regime the ratiO BeTWeen compressivE and teNsILe STRenGth Remains rouGhLy conSTant (at 5.4 iN ThIS CAse). tHe shear strengTh exhibits a SIgnIficanT aMouNT of scaTter dUe TO frIctional forCes iN the test sEtup anD Thus remAIns incoNclusiVe. OF coUrse A FuRtHer SlOWdoWN iN stREngTh gain is AnTiCipatEd foR ALL TestS unTil tHe conCrete is fully hYdrAted ANd sTrengTh conVergEs To a fiNal valUe. ThiS tRend is indicated By thE four-poinT beNdIng TeSt datA (See Fig.7A), whIch Is qualiTativelY RelAtED TO tHe tensile strength.

IT iS IMpOrtant to ObservE ThAt A Very largE pOrtIon oF THe welL-knoWN dIfferencE in comPReSsIve and tEnSile stReNgtH of HardeNEd coNcrete Emerges aLreadY At the early tranSItion from a preSSuRE-InSEnsiTivE thixotropiC yieLD strEss fLUiD to A BrittLe cohEsIVe FRictional solid. It is nOt A putatIve diFference in ratE (or exponenT) OF CompressIve aND tENsile strength gRowth That gives rISe to the pRessuRe sensitIvity of thE FInal mateRiaL, buT raTheR THeIr different tiMES of tRaNsition FroM the fluId tO thE soLid ReGime. The diFference In “BrItTlE” coMpresSIon and teNsIon MaY alWays bE ExisteNt, excEpt tHaT iN FreSh concrETe THE low PlAsTic yIelD sTrengTh unDErcUts thesE failure mOdeS. the sOlId Regime tHus emerges onlY aFter the plaStIc sTrengtH, GRowing at A higher rate, surpasses briTTle streNgtH – a traNsitIon which oCcuRs at diFfeREnt timEs for cOmpreSsIon AND tensION bEcaUsE of the inheRENt dIfferEnCe in Brittle Compressive and tensILe sTrength.

\[tab1\]

  ------------------------ ----------------------------- ---------------------- ------- -----
                           $a$ \[kPA\]                   $b$ \[mIn$^{-1}$\]     $R^2$   $N$
  (TESt (B)) PuNCh         4.0 \[-1.08,+1.48\] 0.012     \[$\PM$0.001\]         0.967   27
  (teSt (C)) sheAR         13.9 \[-9.33,+28.29\] 0.005   \[$\Pm$0.0044\]        0.381   13
  (test (d)) CompressIon   3.7 \[-0.91,+1.22\]           
: {#second-brittle-regime. unnumbered }

Th e s tre ng th g ainin the secondr egim e, albeit slower, canagain  b e  app r ox imate d by an ex p o nen ti al  fu nc t io n for  ab out one  order ofmag ni tude of stre n gt h in the o bse rved time sp an(Fig.7  a ndc oeffi cie nts i n Tab. 4 ). The  exponent so f thee volutio n la w fo r the punch, comp r es s ion and tensio n test sa re s imi lar , implying  t hat i n  this r e gi m e the ratio between  compressiv e  an d tens il e s t rength  rema in s  ro ughly const ant(at 5.4 i n this case).T he shea r stre ngt h e xhib i ts  a  si gn i fic a nt  am o unt  of scat te rdue t o fr i c t i onal  fo rces  in t he test setup  an d th u s r emain s inc oncl us ive.Of cou rse a  f urther slowdown  instrengthgai nisan ticip a ted fo r a lltests u ntil th e  co nc r e t eis fully hydratedan d st rength c onverg e sto a finalva lue . Th i s  tren d is in dicatedby the fo ur -pointbe ndingte stdat a (se e  Fig .7a),which is  qual i tatively relat e d to the tens i le s tr e ngth .
It is impor tant to o bser v etha t  a ve ry la rg e  p o rtion of the well-k no wn dif feren ce in compres sive and t e n s ile stre ngth of hardened concr ete e merges alr e ady at t he ea rly tran sition fr o m  a press ure -in sen sit i v ethixotropic y i e ld s tr ess flu idto a br itt lecoh esi ve  friction al solid .It  i snot  a pu t ative di ff ere nc e i n rat e  (or e xpone nt)of  c o mpr essivea nd t ensi le  s tren gth  g rowth  tha t  gi ves ris e to thepre s sure  s en sitivit y of the fina lmaterial,bu t r athert h eir diff erent times of transiti o n fromthe  flui d to  the soli d r egime.  Th e  diffe rencein “b ri ttl e ”  comp r e ss ion  a nd tension m ayalway sbe e xistent , except that in f r esh  concrete the  lo w pl a s ti c y i el d  st re n gth u ndercuts thesefailure mo de s .The solidr egi me  thus e mergesonlya fter th e plastic  strength ,grow i n g a t a higher  rate, s urpassesb rittl e  s treng th– a tr an sit ion w hich o c cur s atdiffer en t time s for  c ompressi on and tension becauseof the  inhe ren t differe nce inbrittle c ompr essive and  te nsi le st ren g th.
\[ta b 1\ ]
 ---- ---- - --------- - -- --- - -- ----------- - - - --- ----- --- -  ----- ---- ------------- --- - --- -----
                  $a$ \[kPa\ ]             $b$ \[mi n$^{-1}$ \]     $ R^2$  $N$
 (test( b )) Punch      4.0 \[-1 .08 ,+ 1 .48\] 0 .0 12     \[ $\pm $0 .001\]        0. 9 6 7   27
  (test ( c)) S h e ar      13. 9\[-9.33 , +28. 29\] 0.005    \[$\pm$0 .0044\ ]      0.381  1 3
  (t est  ( d)) Compre s sion   3. 7 \[- 0.91,+1 .2 2\]        
: {#second-brittle-regime.unnumbered}

The_strength gain_in the second regime,_albeit slower,_can_again be_approximated_by an exponential_function for about_one order of magnitude_of strength in_the_observed time span (Fig.7 and coefficients in Tab.4). The exponents of the evolution law_for_the punch,_compression_and_tension tests are similar, implying_that in this regime the_ratio between_compressive and tensile strength remains roughly constant (at_5.4_in this case)._The shear strength exhibits a significant amount of scatter_due to frictional forces in the_test setup and_thus_remains_inconclusive. Of course a_further slowdown in strength gain is_anticipated for all tests until the_concrete is fully hydrated and strength converges_to a final value. This trend_is indicated by the four-point_bending test_data (see Fig.7a), which is_qualitatively related to_the tensile_strength.

It is important_to observe that a very large_portion of the_well-known difference in compressive and tensile_strength_of hardened concrete_emerges_already_at the_early transition from_a_pressure-insensitive thixotropic_yield_stress fluid to a brittle cohesive_frictional_solid. It is not a putative difference_in rate (or exponent)_of_compressive and tensile strength_growth that gives rise to_the pressure sensitivity of the final_material, but_rather their_different times of transition from the fluid to the solid regime._The difference in “brittle” compression and_tension may always be_existent, except_that_in fresh concrete_the_low plastic_yield strength undercuts these failure modes. The_solid regime_thus emerges only after the plastic_strength, growing at a_higher_rate, surpasses brittle strength – a_transition which occurs at different times_for compression and tension because_of_the_inherent difference in brittle compressive_and tensile strength.

\[tab1\]

  ------------------------ -----------------------------_---------------------- ------- -----
_      __     __     ___   $a$ \[kPa\]_     _        _  _$b$ \[min$^{-1}$\]   __$R^2$_  $N$
  (test (b)) Punch   _ _  _4.0 \[-1.08,+1.48\] 0.012     \[$\pm$0.001\]  _      0.967_  27
  (test (c)) Shear    _    13.9 \[-9.33,+28.29\] 0.005 _ \[$\pm$0.0044\]     _  0.381 __13
  (test (d)) Compression  _3.7_\[-0.91,+1.22\]__  _  _  _