再生混凝土骨料竹增强板：水泥与地聚合物混凝土的比较研究

IF 8.2 2区工程技术 Q1 CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

Developments in the Built Environment Pub Date : 2025-09-18 DOI:10.1016/j.dibe.2025.100753

Balamurali Kanagaraj , Tattukolla Kiran , N. Anand , G. Jayakumar , Eva Lubloy

{"title":"再生混凝土骨料竹增强板：水泥与地聚合物混凝土的比较研究","authors":"Balamurali Kanagaraj , Tattukolla Kiran , N. Anand , G. Jayakumar , Eva Lubloy","doi":"10.1016/j.dibe.2025.100753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The present study examines the behavior of bamboo-reinforced concrete slabs with two distinct concrete types (cement concrete and geopolymer concrete (GPC)) under the influence of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA). Four types of slab systems were examined, namely, CBC (cement concrete-based bamboo reinforced composite panels), CRBC (recycled concrete aggregate blended cement-based bamboo reinforced composite panels), GBC (geopolymer-based bamboo reinforced composite panels), and GRBC (recycled concrete aggregate blended geopolymer-based bamboo reinforced composite panels). The slab panels were evaluated through non-destructive testing (ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound hammer test) and structural loading tests to measure first crack load, ultimate load, load-deflection behavior, stiffness, ductility index, deformability factor, and energy absorption capacity. In addition, cost-efficiency, energy demand, and eco-efficiency were analyzed. GBC specimen shows 19.6 % higher load carrying capacity than CBC specimen; meanwhile, GRBC specimen shows 22 % higher load carrying capacity than CRBC specimen. In comparison between the CBC and GBC specimens, the CBC possesses 49 % lower energy absorption capacity when compared to the GBC specimen. Meanwhile, the CRBC specimen possesses 38 % lower value compared to its counterpart (GRBC specimen). GRBC specimens are found to be quite effective in terms of cost, along with the load-carrying capacity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34137,"journal":{"name":"Developments in the Built Environment","volume":"24 ","pages":"Article 100753"},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bamboo reinforced panels with recycled concrete aggregates: A comparative study between cement and geopolymer concrete\",\"authors\":\"Balamurali Kanagaraj , Tattukolla Kiran , N. Anand , G. Jayakumar , Eva Lubloy\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.dibe.2025.100753\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The present study examines the behavior of bamboo-reinforced concrete slabs with two distinct concrete types (cement concrete and geopolymer concrete (GPC)) under the influence of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA). Four types of slab systems were examined, namely, CBC (cement concrete-based bamboo reinforced composite panels), CRBC (recycled concrete aggregate blended cement-based bamboo reinforced composite panels), GBC (geopolymer-based bamboo reinforced composite panels), and GRBC (recycled concrete aggregate blended geopolymer-based bamboo reinforced composite panels). The slab panels were evaluated through non-destructive testing (ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound hammer test) and structural loading tests to measure first crack load, ultimate load, load-deflection behavior, stiffness, ductility index, deformability factor, and energy absorption capacity. In addition, cost-efficiency, energy demand, and eco-efficiency were analyzed. GBC specimen shows 19.6 % higher load carrying capacity than CBC specimen; meanwhile, GRBC specimen shows 22 % higher load carrying capacity than CRBC specimen. In comparison between the CBC and GBC specimens, the CBC possesses 49 % lower energy absorption capacity when compared to the GBC specimen. Meanwhile, the CRBC specimen possesses 38 % lower value compared to its counterpart (GRBC specimen). GRBC specimens are found to be quite effective in terms of cost, along with the load-carrying capacity.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developments in the Built Environment\",\"volume\":\"24 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100753\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developments in the Built Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266616592500153X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developments in the Built Environment","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266616592500153X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究考察了两种不同混凝土类型（水泥混凝土和地聚合物混凝土（GPC））的竹筋混凝土板在再生混凝土骨料（RCA）影响下的行为。研究了四种类型的板系统，即CBC（水泥混凝土基竹增强复合板）、CRBC（再生混凝土骨料水泥基竹增强复合板）、GBC（地聚合物基竹增强复合板）和GRBC（再生混凝土骨料混合地聚合物基竹增强复合板）。通过无损检测（超声脉冲速度和回弹锤试验）和结构加载试验对板坯进行评价，测量首次开裂载荷、极限载荷、荷载-挠曲性能、刚度、延性指数、变形系数和能量吸收能力。此外，还分析了成本效率、能源需求和生态效率。GBC试样的承载能力比CBC试样高19.6%；同时，GRBC试件的承载能力比CRBC试件高22%。对比CBC和GBC， CBC的能量吸收能力比GBC低49%。同时，与GRBC相比，CRBC样品的值降低了38%。研究发现，就成本和承载能力而言，GRBC试件是相当有效的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Bamboo reinforced panels with recycled concrete aggregates: A comparative study between cement and geopolymer concrete

The present study examines the behavior of bamboo-reinforced concrete slabs with two distinct concrete types (cement concrete and geopolymer concrete (GPC)) under the influence of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA). Four types of slab systems were examined, namely, CBC (cement concrete-based bamboo reinforced composite panels), CRBC (recycled concrete aggregate blended cement-based bamboo reinforced composite panels), GBC (geopolymer-based bamboo reinforced composite panels), and GRBC (recycled concrete aggregate blended geopolymer-based bamboo reinforced composite panels). The slab panels were evaluated through non-destructive testing (ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound hammer test) and structural loading tests to measure first crack load, ultimate load, load-deflection behavior, stiffness, ductility index, deformability factor, and energy absorption capacity. In addition, cost-efficiency, energy demand, and eco-efficiency were analyzed. GBC specimen shows 19.6 % higher load carrying capacity than CBC specimen; meanwhile, GRBC specimen shows 22 % higher load carrying capacity than CRBC specimen. In comparison between the CBC and GBC specimens, the CBC possesses 49 % lower energy absorption capacity when compared to the GBC specimen. Meanwhile, the CRBC specimen possesses 38 % lower value compared to its counterpart (GRBC specimen). GRBC specimens are found to be quite effective in terms of cost, along with the load-carrying capacity.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Developments in the Built Environment Multiple-

CiteScore

7.40

自引率

1.20%

发文量

审稿时长

22 days

期刊介绍： Developments in the Built Environment (DIBE) is a recently established peer-reviewed gold open access journal, ensuring that all accepted articles are permanently and freely accessible. Focused on civil engineering and the built environment, DIBE publishes original papers and short communications. Encompassing topics such as construction materials and building sustainability, the journal adopts a holistic approach with the aim of benefiting the community.