4.7 Article

Performance of recycled aggregate concrete filled steel tubular (RACFST) stub columns with expansive agent

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 272, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121627

关键词

Concrete-filled steel tubes; Expansive concrete; Recycled aggregate; Axial compression; Finite element; Strength; Design

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC)
  2. Australian Government [DP200100057, IH1501000006]
  3. Australian Research Council [DP200100057] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the effects of expansive agent on recycled aggregate concrete filled steel tubular columns under axial compression, finding that the strength of expansive concrete filled steel tubular columns is slightly higher than that of reference columns.
This paper investigates the effects of the expansive agent on recycled aggregate concrete filled steel tubular (RACFST) stub columns under axial compression. The main experimental parameters include an expansive agent ratio and recycled aggregate replacement ratio. In the current experimental study, owing to the enhanced confinement, the RACFST columns with an expansive agent have higher strength, ultimate strain, and ductility than reference RACFST columns. Meanwhile, the concrete compressive strength measured by cylinders or cubes is generally lower than that of the expansive concrete triaxially confined after casting inside the circular steel tube. Thus, the strength of reference ordinary concrete is applied for a finite element model and simplified strength formulas. Through typical numerical examples, it can be found owing to the improved confinement, the strengths of expansive concrete filled steel tubular (ECFST) columns are slightly higher than that of their reference CFST column. Thus, the strength design method for normal CFST columns can also be used for ECFST columns with an enhanced safety reserve. (C) 2020 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