Analysis of the Impact of Strength Differences Between Precast Concrete and Cast-in-Place Concrete on the Structural Performance of Prefabricated Shear Walls
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Experimental Overview
2.1. Specimen Design and Fabrication
2.2. Material Properties
2.3. Loading Protocol
2.4. Measurement Content
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Failure Patterns
3.2. Hysteresis Curves and Backbone Curves
3.3. Axial-Bending Capacity
3.4. Deformation and Ductility
3.5. Strain Analysis
3.6. Stiffness Degradation
4. Analysis and Calculation of Bending Capacity
4.1. Applicability Conditions
4.2. Calculation Model
4.3. Derivation of the Axial-Bending Formula
- (1)
- When xc ≥ lc, based on the stress distribution diagram in Figure 13, the following relationship can be obtained:
- (2)
- When xc < lc, based on the stress distribution diagram in Figure 14, the following relationship can be obtained:
4.4. Formula Verification
- (1)
- The compressive strength of the CIP concrete is lower than that of the precast concrete, and the strength difference between the precast and CIP sections should not exceed 30 MPa.
- (2)
- Appropriate measures should be implemented at the precast-CIP interface, such as suitable keying dimensions, number of keys, and surface roughening treatments, to ensure that both components function as an integrated system throughout the entire loading process.
- (3)
- The axial compression ratio should be within the limits specified in the code.
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- The results of the simulated static tests indicate that the failure mode of the assembled integral shear walls, with strength differences between the precast and CIP components, is characterized by bending-shear failure. Vertical cracks developed at the interface in the later stages of loading. As the strength difference increased, the deformation capacity and ductility slightly decreased, while the ultimate axial-bending capacity remained comparable to that of the cast-in-place shear walls.
- (2)
- According to the axial-bending capacity calculation formula provided in the code, the axial-bending capacity is computed using the adjusted concrete strength. The calculated values range from 0.73 to 0.91 of the experimental values, and the axial-bending capacities of the three assembled integral shear walls with strength differences meet the code requirements. The ultimate displacement angles of all three specimens exceed the limit for the elastic–plastic displacement angle of shear wall structures under large earthquake conditions, as specified in the code. The ductility coefficients of all three specimens are greater than 3, and their elastic–plastic deformation capacities essentially comply with the code requirements.
- (3)
- Based on the experimental data and the relevant literature, a bearing capacity calculation formula for assembled integral shear walls with strength differences is derived, along with the applicable conditions for this formula. A comparison between the experimental and calculated values shows a high degree of agreement, providing designers with a reliable reference and basis for the bearing capacity calculation of shear walls with strength differences.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sun, Z.; Cao, C.; Liu, J. Experimental study on mechanical behaviors of assembled monolithic shear walls with mortise-tenon joints under different shear span ratios. Build. Struct. 2021, 51, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Wang, B.; Chu, M. Experimental study on flexural behavior of monolithic precast concrete shear walls with mortise-tenon joints. Eng. Mech. 2021, 38, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, H.; Chu, M.; Liu, J. Numerical analysis of seismic behavior of assembled serrate-edges monolithic shear wall with mortise-tenon joints. Build. Struct. 2022, 52, 1769–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Wu, S.; Li, R. Seismic performance of a novel partly precast RC shear wall with double precast edge members and a central T-shape CIP member. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 162, 107481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Yang, Y.; Deng, L.; Sun, B.; Gu, Z.; Zeng, L.; Zhao, S. Seismic behaviors of prefabricated reinforced concrete shear walls assembled with a cast-in-place vertical joint. Buildings 2023, 13, 3013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- JGJ 1-2014; Technical Specification for Precast Concrete Structures. China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2014.
- JGJ 3-2010; Technical Specification for Concrete Structures of Tall Buildings. China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2010.
- GB/T 50081-2019; Standard for Test Methods of Concrete Physical and Mechanical Properties. China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2019.
- GB 50010-2015; Code for Design of Concrete Structures. China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2015.
- GB/T 228.1-2021; Part 1: Method of Test at Room Temperature for Metallic Materials Tensile Testing. China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2021.
- JGJ/T 101-2015; Specification for Seismic Test of Buildings. China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2015.
- Feng, P.; Qiang, H.; Ye, L. Discussion and definition on yield points of materials, members, and structures. Eng. Mech. 2017, 03, 36–46. [Google Scholar]
- GB 50011-2016; Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2016.
Specimens | fcu,p (MPa) | fcu,c (MPa) | ∣fcu,p − fcu,c∣ (MPa) | fc,p (MPa) | fc,c (MPa) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PSW-1 | 54.4 | 31.4 | 22.7 | 34.9 | 23.3 |
PSW-2 | 52.7 | 27.2 | 25.5 | 33.8 | 22.6 |
PSW-3 | 57.4 | 29.9 | 27.5 | 36.2 | 24.2 |
Rebar Diameter d (mm) | Yield Stress fy (MPa) | Ultimate Stress fu (MPa) | Yield Strain εy |
---|---|---|---|
8 | 465 | 664 | 0.0023 |
14 | 436 | 624 | 0.0022 |
16 | 483 | 621 | 0.0024 |
Specimens | Direction | Fcr (kN) | Fy (kN) | Fp (kN) | Fu (kN) | Fm (kN) | Fp/Fm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PSW-1 | Positive | 395.67 | 590.79 | 784.14 | 594.10 | 595.71 | 1.37 |
Negative | 487.07 | 656.66 | 845.73 | 594.23 | |||
Average | 441.37 | 623.73 | 814.94 | 594.17 | |||
PSW-2 | Positive | 490.67 | 566.97 | 726.34 | 602.95 | 615.67 | 1.10 |
Negative | 406.34 | 542.21 | 637.43 | 425.61 | |||
Average | 448.51 | 554.59 | 681.89 | 514.28 | |||
PSW-3 | Positive | 481.15 | 618.59 | 850.86 | 704.31 | 650.66 | 1.25 |
Negative | 396.12 | 646.18 | 771.82 | 655.78 | |||
Average | 438.64 | 632.39 | 811.34 | 680.05 |
Specimens | Direction | Δcr | θcr | Δy | θy | Δp | θp | Δu | θu | μ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PSW-1 | Positive | 9.06 | 0.32% | 15.69 | 0.55% | 32.37 | 1.14% | 49.30 | 1.74% | 3.16 |
Negative | 7.49 | 0.26% | 11.68 | 0.41% | 19.89 | 0.70% | 37.16 | 1.31% | ||
Average | 8.28 | 0.29% | 13.69 | 0.48% | 26.13 | 0.92% | 43.23 | 1.52% | ||
PSW-2 | Positive | 9.28 | 0.33% | 9.61 | 0.34% | 31.20 | 1.10% | 40.70 | 1.44% | 3.79 |
Negative | 10.50 | 0.37% | 10.55 | 0.37% | 29.98 | 1.06% | 44.47 | 1.57% | ||
Average | 9.89 | 0.35% | 10.08 | 0.36% | 30.59 | 1.08% | 42.59 | 1.50% | ||
PSW-3 | Positive | 6.08 | 0.21% | 10.51 | 0.34% | 28.99 | 1.02% | 37.99 | 1.34% | 3.03 |
Negative | 7.60 | 0.27% | 13.19 | 0.46% | 30.97 | 1.09% | 33.80 | 1.19% | ||
Average | 6.84 | 0.24% | 11.85 | 0.40% | 29.98 | 1.06% | 35.89 | 1.27% |
Strength of the Prefabricated Part | ∣fcu,p − fcu,c∣ (MPa) | α’1 | β’1 |
---|---|---|---|
C60 | 5 | 0.823 | 0.712 |
10 | 0.802 | 0.702 | |
15 | 0.809 | 0.696 | |
20 | 0.788 | 0.688 | |
25 | 0.806 | 0.682 | |
30 | 0.788 | 0.670 | |
C55 | 5 | 0.816 | 0.716 |
10 | 0.808 | 0.702 | |
15 | 0.797 | 0.694 | |
20 | 0.737 | 0.734 | |
25 | 0.789 | 0.674 | |
C50 | 5 | 0.824 | 0.716 |
10 | 0.807 | 0.704 | |
15 | 0.796 | 0.692 | |
20 | 0.792 | 0.682 | |
C45 | 5 | 0.831 | 0.710 |
10 | 0.801 | 0.698 | |
15 | 0.779 | 0.696 | |
C40 | 5 | 0.719 | 0.708 |
10 | 0.624 | 0.694 | |
C35 | 5 | 0.704 | 0.712 |
Specimens | Direction | Experimental Value (kN) | Calculated Value (kN) | Diff (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
PSW-1 | Positive | 784.14 | 787.91 | 0.5% |
Negative | 845.73 | 787.91 | −6.8% | |
PSW-2 | Positive | 726.34 | 670.75 | −7.7% |
Negative | 637.43 | 670.75 | 5.2% | |
PSW-3 | Positive | 850.86 | 753.82 | 11.4% |
Negative | 771.82 | 753.82 | −2.3% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, J.; Wei, Z.; Du, Z. Analysis of the Impact of Strength Differences Between Precast Concrete and Cast-in-Place Concrete on the Structural Performance of Prefabricated Shear Walls. Buildings 2024, 14, 3970. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14123970
Wang J, Wei Z, Du Z. Analysis of the Impact of Strength Differences Between Precast Concrete and Cast-in-Place Concrete on the Structural Performance of Prefabricated Shear Walls. Buildings. 2024; 14(12):3970. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14123970
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Jinghan, Zhiyang Wei, and Zhaohua Du. 2024. "Analysis of the Impact of Strength Differences Between Precast Concrete and Cast-in-Place Concrete on the Structural Performance of Prefabricated Shear Walls" Buildings 14, no. 12: 3970. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14123970
APA StyleWang, J., Wei, Z., & Du, Z. (2024). Analysis of the Impact of Strength Differences Between Precast Concrete and Cast-in-Place Concrete on the Structural Performance of Prefabricated Shear Walls. Buildings, 14(12), 3970. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14123970