4.4 Article

Influence of Lap Splices on the Deformation Capacity of RC Walls. II: Shell Element Simulation and Equivalent Uniaxial Model

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
卷 143, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001859

关键词

Seismic effects; Reinforced concrete walls; Lap splice; Equivalent uniaxial model

资金

  1. Stiftung zur Forderung der Denkmalpflege of the project Erbebenverhalten von bestehenden Stahlbetongebauden mit dunnen Wanden
  2. Swiss Federal Roads Office (FEDRO) [AGB 2015/002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spliced longitudinal reinforcement may result in a reduction of both strength and displacement capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) members. This applies in particular when lap splices are located in regions where inelastic deformations concentrate, such as the plastic zone at the base of RC walls. This paper introduces a simple numerical model suitable for engineering practice to simulate the force-displacement response of RC walls with lap splices. Based on experimental data from 16 test units, an equivalent uniaxial steel stress-strain law is proposed that represents the monotonic envelope of the cyclic response of spliced rebars in RC walls up to the onset of strength degradation. It allows for modeling lap splice response with finite element (FE) models while avoiding the use of complex interface bond-slip elements. A new semi-empirical expression for the strain at the onset of strength degradation is derived, which expresses the strain capacity of the lap splice as a function of the confining reinforcement ratio and the ratio of lap splice length to shear span of the wall. The proposed equivalent constitutive law was included in shell element models to predict the force-displacement response of the test unit set of RC walls. Results demonstrated the ability of this approach to adequately capture the peak strength and displacement capacity of the spliced units. (C) 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

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

4.4
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