4.7 Article

Structural behaviour of geopolymeric recycled concrete filled steel tubular columns under axial loading

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 81, Issue -, Pages 187-197

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.035

Keywords

Geopolymer concrete; Recycled aggregate; Steel tubular column; Load capacity; Ductility; Load-deformation relationship

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51208325]
  2. Sichuan Province Science and Technology support program [2015GZ0245]
  3. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team [IRT 1027]
  4. CSC
  5. Monash-Sichuan University Strategic Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Geopolymeric recycled concrete (GRC) is a new construction material which takes environmental sustainability into account. In this paper, an experimental study was carried on 12 concrete filled steel tubular columns under axial loading, in order to fill a knowledge gap on the engineering and structural properties of GRC filled steel tube (GRCFST). Two section sizes of square hollow sections filled with GRC and recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) respectively, with different recycled aggregate (RA) replacement ratios of 0%, 50% and 100%, were used in the experiments. The test results indicated that the ultimate strength was reduced when adding more RAs in the columns, while the peak strain increased; The ductility of the columns was improved by increasing the RA replacement ratio. Overall, the influence of RA on the strength and ductility of GRCFST columns is greater than that of RAC filled steel tubular (RACFST) columns. The assumed theoretical model for predicting load versus deformation relation of GRCFST columns under axial loading was examined, and a revised theoretical model proposed. The results of the new model show good correlation with the experimental results. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available