Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 23

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Investigating the high strain rate effect on high strength concrete reinforced with Steel and Polyethylene fibers

Interim Report
Vance Kang U094742A

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 1. INTRODUCTION: ................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ........................................................................................................ 3 1.2. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2.1. FIBRE REINFORCED CONCRETE (FRC). .......................................................................................... 4 1.2.2. SPLIT HOPKINSON PRESSURE BAR (SHPB) ................................................................................. 4 2. PRELIMINARY EXPERIMENTAL STUDY .................................................................... 5 2.1. MIX DESIGN .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.2. RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1. STATIC TEST RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS. ..................................................................................................... 7 3. COURSE FOR FUTURE: .................................................................................................... 13 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................... 14 A1 FIBRE-REINFORCED CONCRETE ......................................................................................... 14 A2 STEEL AND POLYPROENLENE FIBERS ............................................................................... 14 A3 ASSUMPTIONS WITH SHPB ................................................................................................. 16 4. BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 23

1. Introduction:
1.1. Objectives and scope

The objective of this experiment is to investigate the properties of a fibre reinforced high strength concrete (FRHSC) at varying high strain rates that are between 80-300s-1. The FRHSC is of strength 80-90MPa. The fibres used are a combination of Steel and Polyethylene of which ratio of its volume to concrete is 0.375% and 0.125% respectively. A Split Hopkinson Pressure bar (SHPB) is used to deliver the high strain rate to the material. Failure patterns of the samples as well as the compressive strength ! , critical strain ! and Youngs modulus from SHPB tests will be investigated and discussed. The later three properties will be used hopefully as a means to acquire a Dynamic increase factor (DIF) relationship. DIF is a factor used to express the increase in the physical property of the concrete when subjected to high strain rate with respect to quasi-static loading.

The SHPB test however has limitations that need to be acknowledged. Firstly, for a consistent and apt material characterization, it is desired to achieve constant strain rate and dynamic stress equilibrium within the specimen)(Chen & Song, 2011). These properties are not easily achieved. Other problems include the fact that the Hopkinson bar is assumed to be 1-dimensional when in reality is not which results in dispersion. Experimental errors such as having gaps between the specimen and the SHPB bar that are hard to eliminate are also causes for concern. As shown briefly, there are

complexities involved in SHPB test and therefore deduction of results obtained from experiment has to be analysed with these factors in mind. Therefore in this dissertation, the different methods proposed by various academicians will be also explored and reviewed.

1.2. Background
1.2.1. Fibre reinforced concrete (FRC)

More information about the FRC is in the appendix section 1.2.2. Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB)

Figure 2 Split Hopkinson Pressure bar equipment taken from SHPB user manual 0501

The SHPB set up is as shown. A gas tank on the right fires a projectile 0.5m long that impacts the input bar producing a strain wave. The strain wave is then measured by the strain gauges positioned in the middle of the input and output bar that are both 5m long. The wave initiated at the input bar is called the incident wave ! () and the wave that is transmitted through the specimen and into the output bar is called the transmitted wave ! (). The wave that is reflected at the input bar and specimen interface is called the reflected wave ! (). These 3 time-dependent waves are used to calculate the strain rate and stress experienced by the specimen.

The 2 approaches used to calculate them using this theory are the 1-wave and 3-wave equations. They will not be covered in depth in this report but in short 1-wave equation uses ! () and ! () to calculate strain rate and stress respectively while the

3-wave equation uses all 3 types of strains to calculate stress and strain rate! , ! () and ! ().

There are a number of assumptions taken when using the SHPB but due to the limitation in length of report, it is placed in the appendix section.

2. Preliminary Experimental study


2.1. Mix design
Table 1 Concrete Mix Mix proportion (kg/m3) Cement 500 Water 175 C.A. 900 Sand 717 Fiber 29.25 1.21 SP 10

Table 2 Fiber Properties % by Volume Length (mm) Diameter (m) Aspect ratio (length/diameter) Young's modulus (GPa) Tensile strength (MPa)

Type

0.375 0.125

Steel (SF) Polyethylene (PE)

13 12

160 39

81 308

200 66

2500 2610

The mix design is as shown in the tables above. The water to cement (w/c) ratio is 0.35 and the fiber content is 0.5% by volume of which 0.375% is SF and 0.125% is PE. Superplasticizer is added to improve the workability of the mix. The Vebe time is 7 seconds for this mix.

The fibers used are steel and polyethylene both of which are approximately the same length however the aspect ratio of PE is much higher than that of SF. The tensile strength of PE is approximately the same as SF but the modulus of SF is almost 4 times as high as that of PE.

2.2. Results
2.2.1. Static test results Cylinders of length to diameter ratio of 2 and of diameter 100mm were used to determine Poisson ratio while compressive strength fy and Youngs modulus E were determined from the SHPB specimens with length 38mm and diameter 75mm.

Linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) is used to measure bulk deformation, which is then used to determine the shape of the curve after failure of specimen while strain gauge used measures value local deformation in the middle of specimen prefailure shape of curve and E.
Table 3 Static test results Ultimate strength fy (MPa) 98.8 E (GPa) 39.2 Poisson ratio 0.188

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 Strain


Figure 3 Static Stress vs. Strain curves

Stress(MPa)

LVDT Strain Gauge

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

2.2.2. Dynamic Test results


400 200 0 0.00E+00 1.00E-04 2.00E-04 3.00E-04 4.00E-04 5.00E-04 -200 Strain() -400 -600 -800 -1,000 -1,200 -1,400 -1,600 Time(s)
14 Bar 20 19-2(20) 16 Bar ar 14 B 20-4(14) 26 Bar 1-4(26)

Figure 4 Incident strain pulse generated by 0.5m striker

These 3 pulses here show the difference in magnitude of strain pulse in the incident bar different amount of pressure is delivered. The period of pulse which is dependent upon the striker length approximately the same as expected and the velocity of the projectile is approximately proportionate the magnitude of stress pulse which is generated. Pressure (Bar)
14 20 26

Velocity of 0.5m Projectile (ms-1) 7.2 10.6 12.5

851 1111 1360

(MPa) 173 226 276

1,200 700 200 Strain() 0.00E+00 -300 -800 -1,300 -1,800 Time(s) 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03 4.00E-03 5.00E-03

Input bar outpu t bar

6.00E-03

Figure 5 Strain measured with time as measured at the middle of the input and out put bar after impact

This is a time dependent strain gauge response for a specimen subjected to a 31 bars of pressure, which corresponds to approximately 13.5ms-1 striker speed("NUS RDSHPB 0501 user manual," 2006). Only the first 3 waves of are used.
2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Strain( ) 0 1.00E-04 1.50E-04 2.00E-04 2.50E-04 3.00E-04 3.50E-04 4.00E-04 4.50E-04 -500
Incident Reflected Transmitted

-1,000 -1,500 -2,000 Time(s)


Figure 6 Strain waves after shifting

The strain waves at the specimen bar-interface (which is used to input into the equations) are assumed to be the same after propagation to the centre of the input and output bar where the strain gauges are. Therefore the waves are shifted using the 8

speed of the wave and the length travelled by the wave to find the strains experienced by the specimen. Theoretically speaking the period of the incident, reflected and transmitted wave ought to be the same but it can be hypothesized due to energy loss in cracking up, wave reverberations in specimen, imperfect contact surface between the bar and specimen as well as other factors that it has resulted in shorter period in the transmitted wave.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 0 -40 -60 -80

1 wave 3 wave

Stress(MPa)

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000
Strain()

50,000

60,000

70,000

Figure 7 Dynamic Stress vs Strain with application of 1-D wave equations

The stress strain curve has many oscillations instead of a smooth curve due to reason as discussed earlier. The 3-wave theory shows a more erroneous result as can be seen that the stress pulse, which is supposed to be compressive, peaks with a tensile stress of almost 60MPa. This cannot be right, as the strain incident pulse is negative and therefore cannot possibly generate a tensile pulse. The reason for this is will be elaborated bellow.

The dynamic strength is taken from the peak of the curve.


450.00 400.00 Stress(MPa)/ Strain rate(s-1) 350.00 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.E+00 1.E-04 2.E-04 3.E-04 4.E-04 5.E-04 6.E-04 7.E-04 -50.00 -100.00 Time(s)
80% stress value

stress strain rate


Figure 8 Stress/ Strain rate vs Time curves applying 1-wave equation

The strain rate against time experienced by the specimen is shown to be constantly changing and since there is a need to specify a strain rate for each test, a general guide is employed by Wang to use the average value of strain rate experienced by the specimen in the time between the 80% values of the stress of the specimen (as shown above)(Wang, 2011). This portion of the strain rate curve comes after the highest peak of strain rate during which the stress has yet to rise and is more consistent. This high peak is unreliable due to experimental limitations as mentioned before and hence should not be considered.

Both 1-wave and 3-wave theory shows a delay in rise time of the stress wave as compared to the strain rate (the 3-wave theory differs only by going negative before rising). This is due to the delay in transmitted strain ! () as observed in the Strain vs. Time curve as both methods use ! () to calculate stress. Therefore the initial portion of the curve should not be considered for both methods. More experiments have to be

10

conducted to evaluate further the reason for this significant delay but for now it is hypothesized that it is an experimental error mainly due to the specimen-bar interface. The data collected for this specimen is summarized below.
Table 4 Dynamic test results

ID

Bar

Strength( MPa) DIF Strain rate (s-1) 1 wave 3 wave 1 wave 3 wave 1 wave 3 wave 125 123 1.27 1.25 264 272

8A-1-1

30.5

Figure 9 Typical failure pattern for specimen


Figure 9 Strain vs. Time (with D30 x 1 mm pulse shaper) after shifting.

11

The pulses observed for a setup using pulse shaper is seen to comparatively much lesser oscillations (noise) as compared to Figure 6. This is due to absorption of high frequency components of the wave. The rise up time of the incident pulse is also delayed which helps the specimen to achieve stress equilibrium before failure as well as reduce inertia effects(Parry, Walker, & Dixon, 1995).

180 160 Ult Stress(MPa) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Strain Rate(s-1)
Figure 10 Stress vs Strain-rate curve using 1-wave equation

1 wave


180 160 Ult Stress(MPa) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Strain Rate(s-1)
Figure 11 Stress vs Strain-rate curve using 3-wave equation

3 wave

The data points obtained from experimental tests as of present does not establish a clear DIF relationship between stress and strain-rate. This could be due to the lack of data points and the presence of anomalous data points.

12

Course for future:


2.3. Investigation in the limitation of SHPB With the limitations of SHPB in mind, more effort will be put into evaluating which portion of the stress-strain curve is useful, how to evaluate the strain-rate of the material (which is not universally established) and also if the Youngs E can actually be used from dynamic tests (debatable in literature if it is of any use (Gama, Lopatnikov, & Gillespie, 2004)).

The transmitted wave as shown is a cause of problem in determining the strain-rate as well as the stress versus strain curve. As of now, the deviance in results obtained is predicted to be due to the experimental error but more investigation has to be done in that respect. If experimental error cannot be eliminated time shifting may not be the best approach in getting start of pulse and other methods should be employed such as the high accuracy forward finite-divided difference formula (discussed in the appendix)

2.4. Investigation of the failure mode of the specimen.

Failure mode of the concrete matrix has not been discussed much in the report but it can be of useful information. It can tell at high strain rate if the matrix fails due to fiber pull out or fracture which will better inform the user on the geometrical properties to consider for future mixes. Therefore surface of the specimen will be looked at and investigated further

13

Appendix
A1 Fibre-reinforced concrete
Concrete is a brittle material with very little ductility and toughness. That is to say that ordinary concrete cannot take much stress after the maximum is reached. With fibres in the concrete matrix, the concrete is able to achieve much higher post cracking ductility and toughness. One must note that the main purpose of fibres is not to increase ultimate strength of the concrete (which will be more economically done by adjusting w/c ratio and adding admixtures such as silica fume) (Papworth, 1997). The main role of the fibres is controlling cracking of concrete matrix allowing the concrete mass to be able to withstand significant stresses over relatively large strain capacity in the strain-softening stage (Mindess, 2003). Another important fact to note is that concrete is a strain-rate dependent material(Soroushian & Obaseki, 1986). Studies have shown that concrete subjected to higher strain rates tend to have higher strength and Youngs modulus(Wang, Zhang, & Quek, 2012).

A2

Steel and Polyethylene fibers


There are different kinds of fibres that can be used. The most common of which is steel fibers (SF) which has been used for many years of which its known advantages are high modulus of elasticity E, high strength fy , relatively higher bonding with the matrix than other fibers resulting in increase in post cracking strength and therefore toughness to the matrix. All these help to minimise cracking due to changes in temperature and relative humidity and also increase its resistance against dynamic loading (A. Benturt & Mindess, 2007). The disadvantage of SF is that they have the common problem of balling which would reduce the workability of the fresh concrete and uniformity in distribution of the fiber. This is further aggravated when higher bond is desired (for smooth steel fiber) and so higher aspect ratio of the fiber is

14

employed to increase the surface area in contact. However higher aspect ratio and higher ratio in volume of fiber promote the occurrence of balling(A. Benturt & Mindess, 2007).

Polymeric fibres have also become more and more common with different kinds being designed to serve different purposes. Polyethylene (PE), a polymer fiber is known to be able to control plastic shrinkage cracking well. Other notable advantages of it include their alkali resistance and low price(A. Benturt & Mindess, 2007). In addition, supplementing of PE as proven by Benturt (et. al ?) that while it only had a small effect on the toughness in static loading, it had a much bigger influence on the ductility in impact. Also, the addition of these fibers to (A. Benturt, Banthia, & Mindess, 1986) high strength concrete(HSC) yielded much better results in terms of toughness during impact testing as compared to normal strength concrete and therefore would be more efficient when applied to HSC.

Having a hybrid in the mix is also an option. If employed effectively, it aims to utilize the advantageous properties of both fibers as well as to make the concrete mix more economical and thereby attaining synergy. Synergy is the term used to describe fibers that work together in a combination to provide performance exceeding that of individual fibers(Al Hazmi, Al Hazmi, Shubaili, & Sallam, 2012).

As concluded by Hazmi through testing, high strength concrete with the hybrid of SF and polypropylene (PP) showed the superior compressive strength, tensile strength and flexural toughness over SF and PP acting alone. The reason could be that during hardened stage, SF being stiffer provides first crack strength, while PP having lower E

15

provides the improved toughness and strain capacity in the post crack zone(Al Hazmi et al., 2012).

A3

Assumptions with SHPB


The SHPB is used to deliver high strain rate to specimens in the order of 50s-1 to 104s1

(Gama et al., 2004). The fundamental assumptions when using 1 dimensional wave

theory to calculate stress and strain of specimen are as follows:

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

Material of bar remains linear elastic when loaded with stress pulses Neutral axis is straight Axial stress distribution is uniform across the cross section System of bars are linear and dispersion free Stress equilibrium of specimen assumed and inertia effects ignored Bar-specimen interface imperfection ignored

i.

Material of bar remains linear elastic This condition is satisfied as the stress pulse required for the experiment is much less than the elastic limit of the bar.

ii.

Neutral axis is straight The bars are as straight as it can possibly be made and error with respect to that is insignificant. However the specimen in contact with the bar may not be perfectly flat against the bar and is a cause for concern as will be touched on in point 4.

iii.

Axial stress distribution is uniform across the cross section This assumption is important as strain gauges that measure the strains are placed at the surface of the bars and if the axial stress distribution is not uniform across the 16

cross-section then the result obtained is greatly flawed. For strains recorded in the middle of the bar, this assumption is valid. However this assumption is not so valid at the bar ends as shown by Wang (2007). The figure shows near the bar end, the stress in the middle is higher by about 15% than the stress on the surface. This indicates that the stress experienced by the specimen at the bar end is not completely uniform.

Figure 13 Axial stress distribution over the cross section 0.5D from bar end (Reproduced from Wang (2007))

iv.

System of bars are linear and dispersion free When the striker hits the input bar, stress pulses of varying frequencies are generated due to the two dimensional nature of wave propagation; contrary to the assumption of 1D wave propagation (waves travel at a constant speed c = E/. Pulses of higher frequencies travel slower than those of lower frequencies that results in the undesirable phenomena known as wave dispersion. Wave dispersion is reflected in the noise (oscillation of the wave) observed in the data.

17

Figure 14 Wave dispersion (reference?)

This graph shows the incident and reflected pulse after the pulse wave generated by the striker propagates from the strain gauge to the free end of the incident bar and back. Since the same strain gauge is used to measure the pulses, any difference in shape of pulse is not caused by the fault of the recording system. From the comparison of both pulses it is can be concluded that due to the difference in speed of waves, the reflected wave gets more distorted with distance travelled and hence the difference in shape from the incident pulse.

This can be corrected using Fourier Transform(Follansbee & Frantz, 1983) or by using a softer object placed between the input bar and the striker which acts as a pulse shaper. The pulse shaper helps to absorb high frequency components of the wave resulting in a pulse with lesser noise (can be seen in the Results section where a smoother curve is obtained).

v.

Stress equilibrium of specimen assumed and inertia effect ignored Stress equilibrium is achieved not instantaneously but after a certain number of reverberations within the specimen. It is proposed by Davies that the number is

18

-times(Gama et al., 2004). It is important that the specimen be able to reach stress uniformity before failure in order to obtain useful data.

Inertia effect gets more pronounced when the specimen size gets longer in length in the axial direction. A thinner specimen will also allow for a shorter time for specimen to reach equilibrium (due to the shorter distance travelled by wave). It is recommended by Davies and Hunter that the optimum Length/ Diameter ratio is approximately 0.43 and since specimen used in this experiment has a ratio of 0.5, inertia effect can be an issue. The specimen length cannot be reduced too much due to requirements by the code to meet the minimum dimensions that is affected by the maximum aggregate size. Reducing the specimen length too much will result in failure to record the bulk property of the concrete matrix. vi. Bar-specimen interface imperfection ignored There is an uncertainty as the stress wave propagates from the incident bar to the specimen and then towards the transmission bar. The impedance I in 1-D stress wave theory is defined as the ratio of the force applied to the point mass to the velocity of the point mass and theoretically it is purely influenced by density , area A and wave velocity c. = cA 1-D theory goes on to show that when there is an impedance mismatch, part of the stress wave will not be transmitted but be reflected. M. A. Kaiser proposed a coefficient to represent this ratio introducing as the transmission coefficient, !

19

Based on energy conservation, wave that is not transmitted is reflected at any given boundary. Based on the specimen and bar properties our transmission coefficient is as such (subscripts 12 and 23 represent incident bar-specimen interface and specimenoutput bar interface): 12 23
0.20 0.75

This show that only 20% of the incident wave that reaches the specimen would be transmitted and 75% of that transmitted wave will be transmitted to the output bar. This means that the remaining 25% of the wave within the specimen is reflected back into the specimen. Part of this portion of the wave is trapped within the specimen and will eventually die off after a period known as the stress bleed-off period. The phenomenon of bleed-off contributes to the noise of the strain recorded.

In determining the start of the dynamic stress-strain curve, the start of the pulse should be identified properly. Currently the method employed is time-based meaning the start of the strain pulse is based on the shifting of the reflected and the transmitted pulse using the velocity of the wave though the bar and then through the specimen.

There are 2 problems with this approach. Firstly the velocity of the wave through specimen is very rough estimate due to its high anisotropic nature and secondly there is a high degree of uncertainty of the time for wave propagation at the specimen-bar interface known as the transit time (which is completely ignored in our 1-D wave theory). This uncertainty is due to the gap between specimen and the bar due to the finishing of the specimen not being completely smooth and also the concrete specimen having small holes that if not filled with grease is filled with air. Both air

20

and grease introduces uncertainties to the experiment and negatively affect the strain pulse recorded when using time to determine the start of pulse.

Kaiser proposes a mathematical solution as an alternative to the identification of the start of the pulse, which is not dependent on time. For a perfect strain history, the strain rate leading up to the pulse edge should be zero. Since the measured strain, though close to zero is never zero due to noise, this algorithm searches for a number of consecutive derivatives of the same sign and there is not change then the start of the pulse is determined. This numerical derivative algorithm is as follows !!! + 4 !!! 3 ! 2

! ! =

Where i is the index referring to the data point and h is the sample rate of the signal.

This method though currently not employed here can be considered to deal with uncertainty for the initial portion of the strains recorded in this experiment(Kaiser, Wilson, Wicks, & Swantek, 2000) .

21

Wave$equations:$
# # 1-wave equation:

! ! = ! ! =

! !! ! !! ! 2!! ! ! !! !
!

! ! =
!

! ! !"

2-wave equation: ! ! = !! !! !! = [!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!


!

! ! =
!

! ! !"

! ! =

!! ![!! ! + !! ! + !! ! ] 2!

! ! : Time-dependent stress ! ! : Time-dependent strain rate ! ! :!Time-dependent strain !! ! :!Time-dependent incident strain !! ! :!Time-dependent reflected strain !! (!): Time-dependent transmitted strain !! : Wave speed in bar (!! = E/ = 5090ms-1) !! : Length of specimen !! : Area of specimen !: Area of bar E: Youngs modulus of bar

22 20#

3. Bibliography
Al Hazmi, H. S. J., Al Hazmi, W. H., Shubaili, M. A., & Sallam, H. E. M. (2012). Fracture energy of hybrid polypropylene-steel fiber high strength concrete. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on High Performance Structures and Materials, HPSM 2012, June 19, 2012 - June 21, 2012, New Forest, United kingdom. Benturt, A., Banthia, N., & Mindess, S. (1986). The response of reinforced concrete beams with a fibre concrete matrix to impact loading. The International Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete, 8(3), 6. Benturt, A., & Mindess, S. (2007). Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Composites (2nd ed.). USA & Canada: Taylor & Francis. Chen, W. W., & Song, B. (2011). Testing Conditions in Kolsky Bar Experiments. 3775. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7982-7_2 Follansbee, P. S., & Frantz, C. (1983). Wave propagation in the split Hopkinson pressure bar. Transactions of the ASME. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 105(1), 61-66. Gama, B. A., Lopatnikov, S. L., & Gillespie, J. W. (2004). Hopkinson bar experimental technique: A critical review. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 57(4), 223. doi: 10.1115/1.1704626 Kaiser, M. A., Wilson, L. T., Wicks, A. L., & Swantek, S. D. (2000). Experimental techniques for the Hopkinson bar. AIP Conference Proceedings, 505(1), 11031108. Mindess, S. (2003). Concrete (2nd ed.). . NUS RD-SHPB 0501 user manual. (2006) (pp. 38): Robust Dynamics Pte Ltd. Papworth, F. (1997). Use of steel fibres in concrete. (Presented at The Concrete Institute of Australia, NSW Branch, 1997). Parry, D. J., Walker, A. G., & Dixon, P. R. (1995). Hopkinson bar pulse smoothing. Measurement Science & Technology, 6(5), 443-446. doi: 10.1088/09570233/6/5/001 Soroushian, P., & Obaseki, K. (1986). STRAIN RATE-DEPENDENT INTERACTION DIAGRAMS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE SECTIONS. Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 83(1), 108-116. Wang, S. (2011) BEHAVIOR OF PLAIN AND FIBER-REINFORCED HIGHSTRENGTH CONCRETE SUBJECTED TO HIGH STRAIN RATE LOADINGS. (pp. 150). Singapore. Wang, S., Zhang, M.-H., & Quek, S. T. (2012). Mechanical behavior of fiberreinforced high-strength concrete subjected to high strain-rate compressive loading. Construction and Building Materials, 31, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.083

23