复合材料科学与工程 ›› 2023, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (7): 86-90.DOI: 10.19936/j.cnki.2096-8000.20230728.012

• 应用研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

FRP约束再生骨料混凝土抗压强度及极限应变计算模型对比研究

许森杰1, 李奔奔1*, 李鹏举1, 詹瑒2   

  1. 1.南京工业大学 土木工程学院, 南京 211816;
    2.南京工程学院 建筑工程学院, 南京 211167
  • 收稿日期:2022-06-15 发布日期:2023-08-22
  • 通讯作者: 李奔奔(1991—),女,博士,讲师,主要从事复合材料方面的研究,bben369@163.com。
  • 作者简介:许森杰(1997—),男,硕士,主要从事复合材料方面的研究。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金青年基金项目(52208252);江苏省自然科学基金青年基金项目(BK20210550)

Comparative study on calculation model for compressive strength and ultimate strain of FRP-confined recycled aggregate concrete

XU Senjie1, LI Benben1*, LI Pengju1, ZHAN Yang2   

  1. 1. College of Civil Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211816, China;
    2. School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Nanjing Institute of Technology, Nanjing 211167, China
  • Received:2022-06-15 Published:2023-08-22

摘要: 本文建立了318个复材(FRP)约束再生骨料混凝土(RAC)圆柱的试验数据库,通过该数据库对比研究了三个代表性计算模型(Lim模型、Xiao模型及Wei模型)对FRP约束再生骨料混凝土抗压强度和极限应变的预测精度。研究表明,三个计算模型对抗压强度的预测精度均高于对极限应变的预测精度。其中:Lim模型对抗压强度的预测具有最好的精度,平均绝对误差AAE仅为9.4%,预测值与试验值比值的平均值Mean为100.8%;Wei模型对抗压强度的预测值要小于试验值(Mean=78.9%),且与试验值相比误差较大(AAE=21.2%);而Xiao模型对抗压强度的预测精度介于Lim模型和Wei模型之间(AAE=12.8%、Mean=109.8%)。三个计算模型在预测极限应变时,Lim模型的精度最高(AAE=21.1%,Mean=95.5%),Wei模型总体上低估了复材约束RAC的极限应变(AAE=28.5%,Mean=78.1%),而Xiao模型对极限应变的预测值要高于试验值(AAE=40.1%,Mean=125.9%)。从总体上看,在三个计算模型中,Lim模型在预测抗压强度和极限应变时都具有最好的精度,故推荐采用Lim模型来预测FRP约束再生骨料混凝土极限状态。

关键词: FRP约束, 再生骨料混凝土, 抗压强度, 极限应变, 预测精度, 复合材料

Abstract: Experimental database of 318 recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) columns confined by fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) is established in this paper, the applicability of three representative calculation models (Lim’s model, Xiao’s model and Wei’s model) in predicting compressive strength and ultimate strain by the database is investigated. The results show that the prediction accuracy of the three calculation models for compressive strength is higher than that for ultimate strain. Among the three models for predicting compressive strength, Lim’s model shows best accuracy, the average absolute error AAE is only 9.4%, and the average value of the ratio between the predicted value and the experimental value is 100.8%. The predicted value of the compressive strength by Wei’s model is generally lower than the experimental value (Mean=78.9%), and the error is larger (AAE=21.2%) compared with the experimental value. Prediction accuracy of Xiao’s model (AAE=12.8%, Mean=109.8%) is between that of Lim’s model and Wei’s model. When three calculation models predict compressive strength, Lim’s model has the highest accuracy (AAE=21.1%, Mean=95.5%), followed by Wei’s model which underestimates the ultimate strain of RAC confined by FRP (AAE=28.5%, Mean=78.1%). Compared with the experimental value, the predicted value of Xiao’s model for ultimate strain is overall higher (Mean=125.9%), and the error is relatively large (AAE=40.1%). In general, Lim’s model has the best accuracy among the three calculation models in predicting both compressive strength and ultimate strain, and it is recommended to predict the limit state of calculation models in predicting both compressive strength and ultimate strain, and it is recommended to predict the limit state of recycled aggregate concrete confined by FRP.

Key words: FRP confinement, recycled aggregate concrete, compressive strength, ultimate strain, prediction accuracy, composites

中图分类号: