EL Sayed A. El-kasaby, Mahmoud Awwad, Amir M. Mansour
{"title":"同心圆荷载作用下玻璃钢筋玻璃纤维混凝土桩与土工格栅的试验研究","authors":"EL Sayed A. El-kasaby, Mahmoud Awwad, Amir M. Mansour","doi":"10.22161/ijaems.99.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a variety of applications, glass fiber concrete has proven to be a successful substitute for supplying shear and flexural reinforcement for reinforced concrete. The mechanical properties of glass fiber concrete and steel reinforcement are different, hence the compression behavior of concrete piles reinforced with glass fiber concrete may be different from that of those reinforced with steel. However, the axial compression behavior of circular piles has not yet been established. This study assessed the concentric behavior of 12 end bearing piles with 1050 mm length and 150 mm diameter reinforced with varying amounts of glass fiber bristles (GFB), 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, and 1.50% of cement weight. The results are presented in this publication. 4 of them had no extra reinforcement (PG), 4 had glass fibre bars (GFRP) and spiral steel reinforcement (PGGB), and 4 had triaxial geogrid as reinforcement (PGG). All outcomes were contrasted with a pile that had steel reinforcement (PS). The findings demonstrated that theses composite piles increased the capacity of piles. The maximum load absorbed by the PG models under axial load was 3.54–21.43% less than the maximum load absorbed by PS. The PGGB specimen’s maximum load was 0.00–30.03 % higher than the maximum load of PS specimen. The maximum load supported by the PGG specimens under axial load was, in some cases, 5.23–18.20% less than the maximum load supported by PS, while in another case, it was 17.51% more.","PeriodicalId":424230,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Advanced engineering, Management and Science","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experimental study of glass fiber concrete piles reinforced with GFRP bars and geogrid under concentric loads\",\"authors\":\"EL Sayed A. El-kasaby, Mahmoud Awwad, Amir M. Mansour\",\"doi\":\"10.22161/ijaems.99.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a variety of applications, glass fiber concrete has proven to be a successful substitute for supplying shear and flexural reinforcement for reinforced concrete. The mechanical properties of glass fiber concrete and steel reinforcement are different, hence the compression behavior of concrete piles reinforced with glass fiber concrete may be different from that of those reinforced with steel. However, the axial compression behavior of circular piles has not yet been established. This study assessed the concentric behavior of 12 end bearing piles with 1050 mm length and 150 mm diameter reinforced with varying amounts of glass fiber bristles (GFB), 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, and 1.50% of cement weight. The results are presented in this publication. 4 of them had no extra reinforcement (PG), 4 had glass fibre bars (GFRP) and spiral steel reinforcement (PGGB), and 4 had triaxial geogrid as reinforcement (PGG). All outcomes were contrasted with a pile that had steel reinforcement (PS). The findings demonstrated that theses composite piles increased the capacity of piles. The maximum load absorbed by the PG models under axial load was 3.54–21.43% less than the maximum load absorbed by PS. The PGGB specimen’s maximum load was 0.00–30.03 % higher than the maximum load of PS specimen. The maximum load supported by the PGG specimens under axial load was, in some cases, 5.23–18.20% less than the maximum load supported by PS, while in another case, it was 17.51% more.\",\"PeriodicalId\":424230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Advanced engineering, Management and Science\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Advanced engineering, Management and Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22161/ijaems.99.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Advanced engineering, Management and Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22161/ijaems.99.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Experimental study of glass fiber concrete piles reinforced with GFRP bars and geogrid under concentric loads
In a variety of applications, glass fiber concrete has proven to be a successful substitute for supplying shear and flexural reinforcement for reinforced concrete. The mechanical properties of glass fiber concrete and steel reinforcement are different, hence the compression behavior of concrete piles reinforced with glass fiber concrete may be different from that of those reinforced with steel. However, the axial compression behavior of circular piles has not yet been established. This study assessed the concentric behavior of 12 end bearing piles with 1050 mm length and 150 mm diameter reinforced with varying amounts of glass fiber bristles (GFB), 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, and 1.50% of cement weight. The results are presented in this publication. 4 of them had no extra reinforcement (PG), 4 had glass fibre bars (GFRP) and spiral steel reinforcement (PGGB), and 4 had triaxial geogrid as reinforcement (PGG). All outcomes were contrasted with a pile that had steel reinforcement (PS). The findings demonstrated that theses composite piles increased the capacity of piles. The maximum load absorbed by the PG models under axial load was 3.54–21.43% less than the maximum load absorbed by PS. The PGGB specimen’s maximum load was 0.00–30.03 % higher than the maximum load of PS specimen. The maximum load supported by the PGG specimens under axial load was, in some cases, 5.23–18.20% less than the maximum load supported by PS, while in another case, it was 17.51% more.