4.7 Article

Testing and analysis of concrete-filled elliptical hollow sections

期刊

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
卷 30, 期 12, 页码 3771-3781

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.07.004

关键词

Composite; Compression; Concrete-filled hollow sections; Concrete-filled steel tubes; Confinement; Elliptical hollow sections; Experiments; Oval hollow sections; Shrinkage; Testing

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50708028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Concrete-filled steel tubes are gaining increasing prominence in a variety of engineering structures. with the principal cross-section shapes being square, rectangular and circular hollow sections. A recent addition to this range has been that of elliptical hollow sections. The structural response of empty elliptical tubes has been examined in previous Studies. In this paper, the cross-sectional axial behaviour of concrete-filled elliptical hollow sections is investigated. An experimental programme comprising a total of 21 test specimens, with three nominal tube thicknesses (4 mm, 5 mill and 6.3 mm) and three concrete grades (C30, C60 and C100) has been performed. The effects of steel tube thickness, concrete strength and constraining factor oil elastic stiffness. ductility and ultimate strength were Studied. To simulate the effects of concrete shrinkage, the inner surfaces of 6 of the 21 test specimens were coated with grease prior to casting. To investigate confinement effects, a further 6 of the 21 test specimens were loaded through the concrete Core only. The results of the tests presented herein were combined with those from previous studies, and compared with existing design provisions for square, rectangular and circular concrete-filled tubes. The design expressions from Current European, North American Japanese,, British and Chinese Standards were assessed. Oil the basis of the comparisons, design recommendations for concrete-filled elliptical hollow sections have been made. (C) 2008 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