4.5 Article

Experimental investigation on sea sand concrete-filled stainless steel tubular stub columns

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIONAL STEEL RESEARCH
卷 155, 期 -, 页码 46-61

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.12.009

关键词

Sea sand concrete; Stainless steel; Concrete-filled stainless steel tube (CFSST); Experimental behaviour; Strength prediction

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51578154]
  2. Fujian Provincial Department of Science and Technology [2018H6005]
  3. International Collaborative Research Project of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University [KXGH17009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper studies the behaviour of sea sand concrete-filled stainless steel tube (CFSST) stub columns under axial compression through experimental investigations. A total of 48 specimens were tested, including circular and square stainless steel tubes filled with three types of core concrete, including natural river sand concrete, desalted sea sand concrete and natural sea sand concrete. The effects of key parameters such as the tubular thickness of stainless steel, the cross-sectional configuration and the types of concrete infill on the behaviour of these innovative composite columns were investigated. The confinement effects of CFSST with sea sand concrete were evaluated and compared with that of CFSST with conventional river sand concrete. Testing results showed that the tested CFSST columns showed generally high strength and excellent ductility, while the confinement effect of stainless steel on the sea sand concrete is as reliable as that on the river sand concrete counterpart. Comparisons were made between the test results and the predicted ultimate sectional capacity using the existing specifications AISC360-10 (2010), EC4 (2004) and DBJ/T13-51-2010 (2010). These codes are proved reasonably conservative for predicting the sectional strength of sea sand concrete-filled stainless steel tubular stub columns. (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

4.5
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