4.7 Article

Horizontal-vertical ratio for concrete pumping pipe

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e00996

关键词

Concrete pumping; Pipe; Rheology; Horizontal -vertical ratio; Computational fluid dynamics

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science and ICT [2020R1F1A1075838]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2020R1F1A1075838] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, horizontal and vertical pumping experiments were conducted using rheology-based quantitative performance prediction technology to evaluate the concrete pumping performance. The correlation between experimental results and additional vertical lengths was analyzed using computational fluid dynamics. The study proposed a horizontal-vertical ratio relationship for the concrete pumping pipe.
For the construction of high-rise building, a horizontal pipe pumping test is usually conducted and using obtained test results, vertical actual constructing condition could be evaluated. In this study, horizontal and vertical pumping experiments are performed under various mixing and construction conditions using rheology-based quantitative performance prediction technology to derive a horizontal-vertical ratio of concrete pumping pipe for evaluating concrete pumping performance. Computational fluid dynamics is used to analyze the correlation between experimental results and additional vertical lengths. Analysis results confirm that compressive strength and plastic viscosity correlate with vertical and horizontal correlation coefficients; the pipe length, flow rate, and yield stress have no significant effect on the correlation coefficient. Based on analysis result considering various factors, multiple regression analysis is performed to propose horizontal-vertical ratio relationship for the concrete pumping pipe.

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