4.5 Article

Mechanical behaviour of different types of concrete under multiaxial compression

期刊

MAGAZINE OF CONCRETE RESEARCH
卷 66, 期 17, 页码 870-876

出版社

ICE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1680/macr.14.00006

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51208273]
  2. Open Research Fund of State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycles in River Basins (China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research) [IWHR-SKL-201305]
  3. Open Research Fund Program of State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science [2013B113]
  4. Open Research Fund Program of State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, Dalian University of Technology [GZ1206]
  5. Shandong Province Higher Educational Science and Technology Program [J12LG07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The strength of concrete under biaxial compression and triaxial compression is higher than the strength under uniaxial compression, but the level of increase is affected by factors such as the type of concrete, differences in testing machines, loading rate, etc. Based on this, an experimental investigation into the strength of normal air-entrained concrete (NAEC) under biaxial and triaxial compression loading conditions was carried out. The experimental results on NAEC were compared with the multiaxial compression strengths of other types of concrete obtained using the same testing machine. According to the test data, failure criteria and multiaxial ultimate strength envelopes in principal stress space were proposed. The test results indicated that biaxial compressive strength is higher than uniaxial compressive strength and the maximum increase of ultimate strength occurred at a biaxial compression stress ratio of 0.5 for all types of concrete. A relationship between biaxial compressive strength, triaxial compressive strength and stress ratio was developed. This work provides theoretical and experimental foundations for strength analysis of concrete structures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据