4.7 Article

Blast testing of high performance geopolymer composite walls reinforced with steel wire mesh and aluminium foam

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 197, 期 -, 页码 533-547

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.207

关键词

Blast tests; High performance geopolymer composite; Steel wire mesh (SWM); Aluminium foam (AF)

资金

  1. Sichuan Yuantaida Non-ferrous Metal Material Co. LTD, Sichuan, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two blast tests were conducted to study the blast resistance of high performance geopolymer composite walls reinforced with steel wire mesh (SWM) and aluminium foam (AF). Conventional reinforced concrete (CRC) walls were also tested as control specimens. In total seven walls were tested under different blast loading conditions. The first blast test was conducted on one 2260 mm x 2260 mm x 150 mm SWM reinforced, one 2260 mm x 1000 mm x 150 mm SWM reinforced and one 2260 mm x 1000 mm x 150 mm combined SWM and AF reinforced high performance geopolymer composite walls under 50 kg TNT explosives at a standoff distance of 2.3 m. The second blast test was conducted on one 2260 mm x 2260 mm x 150 mm SWM reinforced and one 2260 mm x 2260 mm x 150 mm combined SWM and AF reinforced high performance geopolymer composite walls under 100 kg TNT explosives on the ground at the same standoff distance. Blast tests were also performed on two 2260 mm x 2260 mm x 150 mm CRC walls under such two designed explosions to compare their behaviours with reinforced high performance geopolymer composite walls. LVDT (linear variable differential transformer) devices were used to record the deflection histories and pressure sensors were used to measure the airblast pressure histories. The testing results indicated that the combined SWM and AF reinforced high performance geopolymer composite walls had a better blast resistance than the CRC walls, and the SWM reinforced high performance geopolymer composite wall was superior to both. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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