4.7 Article

Axial compression behavior of recycled-aggregate-concrete-filled GFRP-steel composite tube columns

期刊

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
卷 216, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110676

关键词

Recycled aggregate concrete; GFRP-steel composite tube; Axial compression; Slenderness ratio; Confinement

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51678196]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2015A030310465]
  3. Key Special Project for Introduced Talents Team of Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory [GML2019ZD0503]
  4. Applied Science and Technology Research and Development Project of Guangdong Province [2017B020238006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aiming to expand the structural applications of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC), the innovative approach of using the hybrid form of RAC-filled glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP)-steel composite tube columns (RACFCTs) is particularly striking because of their optimal combining of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), RAC and steel. The existing research relevant to RACFCTs is limited and is mainly concerned with seismic performance. This paper presents the first-ever axial compression test on RACFCTs having three different slenderness ratios ranging from 20 to 40; the effect of the recycled coarse aggregate (RA) replacement ratio is also examined. The main performance aspects evaluated in this study were the failure mode, ultimate condition, axial load-lateral deflection curves, load-strain curves, and dilation behavior. The test results clearly show the benefit of the GFRP-steel composite tube on the compression behavior of the columns. The test results also demonstrate that the RACFCTs with a high RA replacement ratio and a high slenderness ratio had more ductile behavior. Finally, a design equation for predicting the maximum capacity of RACFCTs was derived, and its applicability was examined. The proposed formula produced a close estimate of the test results.

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