Search

Behavioural Studies On Hollow Double Skinned Steel Concrete Composite Columns

Research Paper by N.Balasubramanian,R.B.Karthika and Dr.R.Thenmozhi
Government College Of Technology, Coimbatore-641 013, India

ABSTRACT
This paper comprises of the experimental study of eight double skinned concrete filled steel tubular (DSCFT ) beam columns of concentrically placed circular sections filled with self compacting concrete. Tests on the specimens were made by applying eccentric loads. The main experimental parameters for beam-columns were slenderness ratio and load eccentricity. Testing of specimens investigates the behaviour on load deflection, confinement effect, and the strength of the columns. The experimental observations were shown by load-deflection curves. Various characteristics such as strength, stiffness, ductility and failure mode are discussed. The predicted load versus deformation relationships are in good agreement with beam-column test results. The DSCFT columns in-filled with SCC show good strength and ductility. Modified equations are suggested to find the ultimate compressive strength of DSCFT columns filled with SCC.

Keywords : Composite; Double skinned concrete filled steel tubular columns; D/t thickness, fabrication and casting, load deflection, ductility.

Continue Reading »

What is the purpose of skin reinforcement for deep beams?

In BS8110, it states that secondary reinforcement should be provided for beams exceeding 750mm deep at a distance measured 2/3 depth from the tension face. Experimental works revealed that at or close to mid-depth of deep beams, the maximum width of cracks arising from flexure may be about two to three times larger than the width of the same crack at the level of surface where the crack originally forms.

The presence of crack is undesirable from aesthetic point of view. Moreover, it poses potential corrosion problems to reinforcement of deep beams. To safeguard against these crack formation, skin reinforcement is designed on the sides of deep beams to limit the formation of flexural crack widths. Though the principal function of skin reinforcement is to control crack width, it may be employed for providing bending resistance of the section.

This question is taken from book named – A Self Learning Manual – Mastering Different Fields of Civil Engineering Works (VC-Q-A-Method) by Vincent T. H. CHU.

What is the difference in bonding performance to concrete between epoxy-coated bars and galvanized bars?

Based on the findings of CEB Bulletin 211, the bonding of galvanized bars to concrete is lower in early age owing to hydrogen release when zinc reacts with calcium hydroxide in concrete and the presence of hydrogen tend to reduce the bond strength between galvanized bars and concrete. However, bonding will increase with time until the full bond strength of ungalvanized bars is attained.

For epoxy-coated bars, there is a 20% decrease in bond strength for bars placed at the bottom of concrete sections while for bars placed on the top there is no major difference in bond compared with uncoated bars.

This question is taken from book named – A Self Learning Manual – Mastering Different Fields of Civil Engineering Works (VC-Q-A-Method) by Vincent T. H. CHU.

Does the presence of rust have adverse impact to the bond performance of bar reinforcement?

In fact, the presence of rust in bars may not have adverse impact to the bond performance and it depends on the types of bar reinforcement under consideration.

For plain round bars, the rust on bars improves the bond performance by the formation of rough surfaces which increases the friction between steel and concrete.

However, for deformed bars, the same theory cannot apply. The presence of rust impairs the bond strength because corrosion occurs at the raised ribs and subsequently fills the gap between ribs, thus evening out the original deformed shape. In essence, the bond between concrete and deformed bars originates from the mechanical lock between the raised ribs and concrete. On the contrary, the bond between concrete and plain round bars derives from the adhesion and interface friction. With such differences in mechanism in bonding, the behaviour of bond between deformed bars and plain round bars in the presence of rust varies. Reference is made to CIRIA Report 147.

This question is taken from book named – A Self Learning Manual – Mastering Different Fields of Civil Engineering Works (VC-Q-A-Method) by Vincent T. H. CHU.

Which type of bar reinforcement is more corrosion resistant, epoxy-coated bars, stainless steel bars or galvanized bars?

Based on the experiment conducted by the Building Research Establishment, it was shown that the corrosion resistance of galvanized steel was the worst among the three types of bar reinforcement. For galvanized steel bars, corrosion started to occur when a certain chloride content in concrete (i.e. 0.4% by cement weight) was exceeded. However, for epoxy-coated bars, they extended the time taken for cracking to occur when compared with galvanized steel bars.

The best corrosion resistant reinforcement among all is stainless steel. In particular, austenitic stainless steel stayed uncorroded even there was chloride contamination in concrete in the experiment. Reference is made to K. W. J. Treadaway (1988).

This question is taken from book named – A Self Learning Manual – Mastering Different Fields of Civil Engineering Works (VC-Q-A-Method) by Vincent T. H. CHU.