4.7 Article

Experimental study on a precast beam-column joint with double grouted splice sleeves

期刊

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
卷 199, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109589

关键词

Precast concrete structures; Connections; Grouted sleeve; Cyclic loading; Plastic hinge

资金

  1. Yellow Crane Meritocracy Plan of Wuhan [20161j0013]
  2. Scientific and Technological Plan Project of Wuhan Urban and Rural Construction Commission [201812]
  3. Hubei Province Construction Science and Technology Plan Project [20171103]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Silicate Materials for Architectures (Wuhan University of Technology) [SYSJJ2018-08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The construction speed and quality of precast frame structures are greatly influenced by weld, tie, prestress, cast concrete requirements, etc. on site. To address these challenges, a precast beam-column joint connected by double grouted sleeves is proposed. This paper presents an investigation on seismic behaviour of the joint subjected to static and cyclic loadings. In total, six precast specimens with different assembly lengths, transition bar diameters and types of grouted sleeve and one cast-in-place control specimen were tested. Results show that the double grouted sleeve splices in joints perform well. The initial stiffness of prefabricated specimens is larger than that of the control specimen and the load bearing capacity of the prefabricated specimens is similar to that of the control specimen. As the transition rebar diameter increases from 16 mm to 18 mm, the energy dissipation ability of the prefabricated specimens is increased by 64.8% but is approximately 41% lower than that of the control specimen due to their relatively lower deformation capacity. Threads in the grouted sleeve have a negative impact on the deformation and energy dissipation abilities of the joints. The method for cast-in-situ joint is adequate for predicting the flexural capacity of precast joint connected by double grouted sleeves.

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