4.7 Article

Shear behavior of UHPC beams with small shear span to depth ratios based on MSTM

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01134

关键词

Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC); Strut and tie model; Shear force resistance mechanism; Shear capacity; Shear span to depth ratios

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51808208, 51878151]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2242021R20011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper develops a modified strut and tie model (MSTM) to predict the shear behavior of UHPC beams with stirrups. By introducing the principle of stationary complementary energy, the contribution of arch action and truss action on shear forces is decoupled, revealing the shear force resistance mechanism and allowing for the development of simplified models to estimate the shear behavior of beams.
Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) has been gradually used in structural engineering due to its excellent mechanical performance, however, predicting the shear behavior of the UHPC beams at service load conditions is still a big challenge, especially for the beams with small shear span to depth ratio. To address this issue, this paper devotes to develop a modified strut and tie model (MSTM) to predict the shear behavior of the UHPC beams with stirrups throughout the loading process. The principle of stationary complementary energy has been introduced into the MSTM to decouple the contribution of arch action and truss action on shear forces. Based on the MSTM, the shear force resistance mechanism has been revealed, and simplified models at each load step have been developed to estimate the shear behavior of UHPC beams. 12 UHPC beams were designed and tested to validate the proposed model. The proposed model was verified to be sufficiently accurate. Moreover, it can be noted that the current design codes, including SETRA-AFGC and SIA, give overly conservative values for UHPC beams when the shear span to depth ratio is less than 2.5.

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