Prediction of ultimate strength of reinforced geopolymer concrete wall panels in one-way action

Ganesan, N.; Indira, P. V.; Santhakumar, Anjana

doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.090

Cited by 37 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar findings also recorded by [2] and [8]. It is sensible to note that the empirical equations produced uses normal concrete properties, as found in similar study conducted by [1]. The empirical equations are used as benchmark to predict the development of findings for this study.…”

Section: Results Analysis and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…This study gave detailed observation on the effects of aspect ratio in the wall panel towards its structural behaviour. For normal concrete, the aspect ratio has an inverse proportional relationship to the strength of wall panel as found by [1]. Besides, changes in types of concrete also resulted in a similar relationship of aspect ratio and wall strength as stated by [2].…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…Besides, changes in types of concrete also resulted in a similar relationship of aspect ratio and wall strength as stated by [2]. However, it was discussed that the highest strength recorded are significantly higher than the previous result done by [1]. Since both [1] and [2] conducted tests using normal reinforced concrete, steel fibre reinforced concrete and steel fibre with reinforced self compacted concrete, it is interesting to know the behaviour of the lightweight concrete wall panel using only steel fibre and Expanded Polystyrene (EPS).…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

“…However, it was discussed that the highest strength recorded are significantly higher than the previous result done by [1]. Since both [1] and [2] conducted tests using normal reinforced concrete, steel fibre reinforced concrete and steel fibre with reinforced self compacted concrete, it is interesting to know the behaviour of the lightweight concrete wall panel using only steel fibre and Expanded Polystyrene (EPS). Details of Steel Fibre Lightweight Concrete (SFLWC) samples are shown in Figure 1 and summarized in Table 1.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Wall geometry is vital in the behaviour of structural element [1]. The differences in the aspect ratio in wall panel would produce different behaviour.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Behaviour of Steel Fibre Lightweight Wall Panel under One Way In-Plane Action

R.Malek¹

2015

IJIRSET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Plain lightweight wall panels with steel fibre and expanded polystyrene (EPS) beads, used as lightweight aggregate are tested to ascertain the structural behaviour mechanism at ultimate state. Wall samples of four (4) different sizes are prepared comprising two (2) samples for each size. Samples height and thickness are fixed to 600mm and 40mm respectively, so that all samples would have a constant slenderness ratio (SR) of 15. The width is made to vary as 320mm, 400mm, 560mm and 800mm, giving different aspect ratios (AR) of 1.875, 1.5, 1.07 and 0.75 respectively. Steel fibre lightweight concrete has a compressive strength, f cu of 14.29N/mm 2 . The ultimate carrying strength of the wall panel ranges from 100kN to 138kN and the highest strength is from the wall panel with aspect ratio of 1.5. All wall samples deformed in a single curvature profile with maximum lateral displacement of 6.92mm happened at mid-height of the panel. Carrying capacity of wall panel is calculated to be inversely proportional to the aspect ratio.

show abstract

Section: Results Analysis and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Wall geometry is vital in the behaviour of structural element [1]. The differences in the aspect ratio in wall panel would produce different behaviour.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Behaviour of Steel Fibre Lightweight Wall Panel under One Way In-Plane Action

R.Malek¹

2015

IJIRSET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Seismic performance of interior beam‐column joints using reinforced slag‐based geopolymer concrete

Mao

Hwang

et al. 2022

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although geopolymer concrete (GC) is recognized as a green and low‐carbon material, GC structural members, particularly beam‐column joints, have been rarely studied. In the present study, eight reinforced GC joints and three reinforced concrete (RC) interior beam‐column joints were tested under cyclic loading. The test parameters were the concrete type, joint shear demand‐to‐capacity ratio, and axial‐compression ratio. The structural performance, including the failure mode, crack development, cyclic behavior of reinforced GC beam‐column joints, was evaluated. The test results showed that the cyclic behavior and crack development of the reinforced GC beam‐column joints differed from those of RC beam‐column joints. The increase of axial compression ratio improved the seismic performance of reinforced GC beam‐column joints with the joint shear demand‐to‐capacity ratio of 0.96–1.01. When the joint shear demand‐to‐capacity ratio was 1.54–1.61, the increase of axial compression ratio (0.1–0.3) improved the seismic performance, while the axial compression ratio of 0.5 was unfavorable because of significant joint shear damage. The applicability of the control conditions in the current design codes to the reinforced GC joints was evaluated. The control conditions of ACI 318–19 were applicable to the seismic design of reinforced GC beam‐column joints. On the other hand, the control conditions of GB50010‐2010 were not applicable because of the overestimated upper limit value of the joint shear demand‐to‐capacity ratio and axial compression ratio.

show abstract

Experimental and numerical investigations of axially loaded RC walls restrained on three sides

Doh

2018

Structural Design Tall Build

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Axially loaded reinforced concrete (RC) walls in tilt-up structures can be supported top and bottom only by floors or roof structures. However, RC walls are often combined to form I-, C-, T-, and L-shapes to make efficient use of the building area in multi-storey buildings. With these configurations, walls may also be laterally supported on either or both sides by interconnecting walls. While many researchers have investigated the behaviours of RC walls, either in one-way action or two-way action supported on four sides with and without openings, limited research has been conducted on two-way action walls supported on three sides (TW3S). As such, this paper experimentally and numerically investigates the behaviour of TW3S walls. Details of the 12 half-scale walls tested, including experimental setup, failure loads, crack patterns, and load-deflection characteristics, are reported. In addition, the Finite Element Method using ABAQUS software for investigating the behaviour of TW3S walls is described in detail. Finally, due to the conservative nature of code design equations and there being limited available methods for predicting the ultimate load of TW3S walls with openings, a rigid-plastic approach has been proposed in this study to evaluate the failure load of TW3S walls. KEYWORDS aspect ratio, axial load, concrete walls, openings, slenderness ratio, yield line | INTRODUCTIONReinforced concrete (RC) walls have been commonly used as load-bearing elements in buildings and offshore structures. Primary applications include tilt-up precast structures, shear walls in multi-storeyed buildings, lift core walls in high-rise buildings, components in bridge construction such as webs of beams or box girders, storage cells in offshore concrete structures, and parts of floating concrete structures such as barges and pontoons. [1] In general, typical loadings on RC walls are in-plane loads, consisting of gravitational and shear forces, and out-of-plane transverse loads. In-plane vertical loads are frequently eccentric, causing a pronounced out-of-plane curvature owing to a range of loading conditions including corbel elements applied to the wall face, imperfections in construction, uneven loading being experienced on top of the wall, and temporary loading during operation and/or maintenance. [2] Walls can be constructed with various support conditions. Walls restrained top and bottom only by floor plates, with free vertical edges, are usually encountered in tilt-up concrete structures. Such walls behave in one-way (OW) action depicted by uniaxial curvature in the direction of loading, as shown in Figure 1(a). In practice, walls behaving in two-way action supported on three sides (TW3S) and supported on four sides (TW4S), provided by floor plates and stiffening walls, or other sufficiently stiff members, are usually encountered in monolithic concrete structures, particularly in core walls of tall buildings. These panels generally deform along both the horizontal and vertical directions, as outlined in Figure 1(b-c). As a resul...

show abstract

Prediction of ultimate strength of reinforced geopolymer concrete wall panels in one-way action

Cited by 37 publications

References 14 publications

Behaviour of Steel Fibre Lightweight Wall Panel under One Way In-Plane Action

Behaviour of Steel Fibre Lightweight Wall Panel under One Way In-Plane Action

Seismic performance of interior beam‐column joints using reinforced slag‐based geopolymer concrete

Experimental and numerical investigations of axially loaded RC walls restrained on three sides

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About