配置新型封闭缠绕式GFRP箍筋混凝土梁的受剪性能试验

Experimental study on the shear performance of concrete beams reinforced with new type closed winding GFRP stirrups

  • 摘要: 对采用新型封闭缠绕式玻璃纤维增强树脂复合材料(GFRP)箍筋的混凝土梁进行了三点加载试验,考察了箍筋形式、纵筋配筋率、剪跨比、箍筋间距对配置新型封闭缠绕式GFRP箍筋混凝土梁受剪性能的影响规律。试验结果表明,新型封闭缠绕式GFRP箍筋的弯曲段强度与平直段受拉强度之比达到0.81,是拉挤成型箍筋的2.07倍。剪跨比和箍筋间距相同时,新型封闭缠绕式GFRP箍筋混凝土梁的受剪性能更好,其材料利用效率显著高于拉挤成型箍筋。梁的抗剪承载力随纵筋配筋率增加的提高幅度不大,但梁的延性有较明显改善。当箍筋间距为75 mm,新型封闭缠绕式GFRP箍筋的应变显著增大,同时对剪压区混凝土产生一定的约束作用,提升了受剪承载力。采用中国(GB 50608—2020)、美国(ACI 440.1R-15)、加拿大(CSA S806-12)、英国(BISE—1999)和日本(JSCE—1997)五种纤维增强树脂复合材料(FRP)筋混凝土结构设计规范计算的受剪承载力显著低于试验值,建议适当提高新型封闭缠绕式GFRP箍筋的断裂应变限值。

     

    Abstract: This experimental study conducted a three-point loading test of concrete beams reinforced with a new type closed winding glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) stirrups, the effects of the form of stirrups, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, shear-span ratio and stirrups spacing on the shear behavior of concrete beams reinforced with new type closed winding GFRP stirrups were investigated. The test results indicate that the ratio of bend strength over tensile strength at the straight portion of new type closed winding GFRP stirrups is 0.81, which is 2.07 times higher than that of pultruded stirrups. When the shear-span ratio and the stirrups spacing are identical, beams with new type closed winding GFRP stirrups show improved shear performance compared with beams with pultruded stirrups. The increase in longitudinal reinforcement ratio has a minor effect on the shear capacity but could significantly improve the ductility of beams. When the spacing of the stirrups is 75 mm, new type closed winding GFRP stirrups produce greater stirrups strain and strongly confine the shear-compression zone of the concrete beam, which significantly enhances the shear capacity. The calculated shear capacities according to five fiber reinforced resin composite (FRP) reinforced concrete design codes of Chinese code (GB 50608—2020), American code (ACI 440.1R-15), Canadian code (CSA S806-12), British code (BISE—1999) and Japanese code (JSCE—1997) are significantly lower than the experimental results. It is suggested that the strain limit in design codes should be appropriately increased.

     

/

返回文章
返回