| Literature DB >> 28788001 |
Insub Choi1, JunHee Kim2, Ho-Ryong Kim3.
Abstract
A full-scale experimental test was conducted to analyze the composite behavior of insulated concrete sandwich wall panels (ICSWPs) subjected to wind pressure and suction. The experimental program was composed of three groups of ICSWP specimens, each with a different type of insulation and number of glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) shear grids. The degree of composite action of each specimen was analyzed according to the load direction, type of the insulation, and number of GFRP shear grids by comparing the theoretical and experimental values. The failure modes of the ICSWPs were compared to investigate the effect of bonds according to the load direction and type of insulation. Bonds based on insulation absorptiveness were effective to result in the composite behavior of ICSWP under positive loading tests only, while bonds based on insulation surface roughness were effective under both positive and negative loading tests. Therefore, the composite behavior based on surface roughness can be applied to the calculation of the design strength of ICSWPs with continuous GFRP shear connectors.Entities:
Keywords: GFRP continuous shear connector; bond strength; composite behavior; flexural strength; insulated concrete sandwich wall panels; wind pressure; wind suction
Year: 2015 PMID: 28788001 PMCID: PMC5455426 DOI: 10.3390/ma8031264
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Effects of positive and negative pressure on the exterior wall of the building.
Figure 2Typical dimension of specimens: (a) plan (2 grids on both shear spans); (b) section (2 grids on both shear spans).
Figure 3(a) Expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam; (b) extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam with roughened surface; (c) XPS foam with traction-free surface.
Test specimens.
| Load direction | No. | Label | Insulation type | No. of grids | S1 (mm) | S2 (mm) | GFRP strands |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | 1 | XPSST2_P | XPSST | 2 | 300 | 600 | 4400TEX 3 strands |
| 2 | XPSST3_P | 3 | 200 | 400 | |||
| 3 | XPSST4_P | 4 | 150 | 300 | |||
| 4 | XPSNB2_P | No bond | 2 | 300 | 600 | 4400TEX 3 strands | |
| 5 | XPSNB3_P | 3 | 200 | 400 | |||
| 6 | XPSNB4_P | 4 | 150 | 300 | |||
| 7 | EPS2_P | EPS | 2 | 300 | 600 | 4400TEX 3 strands | |
| 8 | EPS3_P | 3 | 200 | 400 | |||
| 9 | EPS4_P | 4 | 150 | 300 | |||
| Negative | 10 | XPSST2_N | XPSST | 2 | 300 | 600 | 4400TEX 3 strands |
| 11 | XPSST3_N | 3 | 200 | 400 | |||
| 12 | XPSST4_N | 4 | 150 | 300 | |||
| 13 | XPSNB2_N | No bond | 2 | 300 | 600 | 4400TEX 3 strands | |
| 14 | XPSNB3_N | 3 | 200 | 400 | |||
| 15 | XPSNB4_N | 4 | 150 | 300 | |||
| 16 | EPS2_N | EPS | 2 | 300 | 600 | 4400TEX 3 strands | |
| 17 | EPS3_N | 3 | 200 | 400 | |||
| 18 | EPS4_N | 4 | 150 | 300 |
Figure 4Diagram of the structural behavior of ICSWP specimens under (a) positive load (wind pressure) and (b) negative load (wind suction).
Figure 5Experimental test-setup under (a) positive loading and (b) negative loading.
Figure 6Load-deflection curve of specimens subjected to (a) positive load; and (b) negative load.
Figure 7Flexural and shear failure mode of ICSWP specimens.
The failure mode of each specimen according to load direction.
| Label | Maximum Load (kN) | Deflection † (mm) | Failure Deflection (mm) | Failure Mode |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| XPSST2_P | 55.0 | 25.1 | 26.0 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| XPSST3_P | 68.0 | 26.3 | 29.4 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| XPSST4_P | 87.4 | 64.2 | 79.1 | Steel fracture |
| XPSST2_N | 60.3 | 19.6 | 20.2 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| XPSST3_N | 89.3 | 35.8 | 36.6 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| XPSST4_N | 105.9 | 39.6 | 66.8 | Steel fracture |
| XPSNB2_P | 35.6 | 18.3 | 21.2 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| XPSNB3_P | 49.5 | 19.5 | 21.3 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| XPSNB4_P | 66.1 | 26.3 | 26.6 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| XPSNB2_N | 50.0 | 17.8 | 18.8 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| XPSNB3_N | 75.4 | 22.6 | 23.4 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| XPSNB4_N | 82.0 | 30.5 | 31.9 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| EPS2_P | 71.6 | 39.2 | 52.8 | Insulation shear failure, shear grid rupture |
| EPS3_P | 76.8 | 43.5 | 55.1 | Insulation shear failure, shear grid rupture |
| EPS4_P | 84.4 | 55.5 | 94.6 | Steel fracture |
| EPS2_N | 44.9 | 23.3 | 24.1 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| EPS3_N | 60.9 | 19.0 | 19.9 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
| EPS4_N | 85.2 | 25.5 | 27.5 | Bond failure, shear grid rupture |
† The deflection at the maximum load. Deflection differs from failure deflection, which is deflection at the failure mode.
Degree of composite action in terms of initial stiffness and ultimate strength.
| Label | Degree of composite action in terms of initial stiffness | Degree of composite action in terms of ultimate strength | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cracking load (kN) | Displacement (mm) | Iexp (106 mm4) | Ultimate strength (kN) | |||
| Full-composite | 64.5 | 2.78 | 964.8 | 100 | 102.6 | 100 |
| Non-composite | 10.6 | 10.20 | 43.2 | 0 | 28.3 | 0 |
| XPSST2_P | 23.1 | 3.65 | 253.7 | 23 | 55.0 | 36 |
| XPSST2_N | 28.6 | 3.35 | 344.2 | 33 | 60.3 | 43 |
| XPSST3_P | 20.3 | 2.77 | 293.8 | 27 | 68.0 | 53 |
| XPSST3_N | 32.9 | 2.90 | 457.3 | 45 | 89.3 | 82 |
| XPSST4_P | 26.1 | 2.71 | 386.8 | 37 | 87.4 | 80 |
| XPSST4_N | 35.3 | 2.97 | 510.0 | 51 | 105.9 | 104 |
| XPSNB2_P | 15.8 | 3.25 | 218.9 | 19 | 35.6 | 10 |
| XPSNB2_N | 24.2 | 4.34 | 226.3 | 20 | 50.0 | 29 |
| XPSNB3_P | 23.4 | 4.03 | 260.8 | 24 | 49.5 | 29 |
| XPSNB3_N | 34.7 | 4.85 | 290.0 | 27 | 75.4 | 63 |
| XPSNB4_P | 25.9 | 3.53 | 330.3 | 31 | 66.1 | 51 |
| XPSNB4_N | 29.5 | 3.48 | 343.8 | 33 | 82.0 | 72 |
| EPS2_P | 20.8 | 3.33 | 274.5 | 25 | 71.6 | 58 |
| EPS2_N | 22.4 | 4.79 | 188.8 | 16 | 44.9 | 22 |
| EPS3_P | 26.5 | 3.77 | 306.9 | 29 | 76.8 | 65 |
| EPS3_N | 38.8 | 6.77 | 231.1 | 20 | 60.9 | 44 |
| EPS4_P | 26.4 | 2.76 | 417.8 | 41 | 84.4 | 76 |
| EPS4_N | 43.8 | 6.23 | 283.9 | 26 | 85.2 | 77 |
Figure 12Experimental and theoretical effective shear flow strength.
Figure 8(a) Connecting element (bond, shear grid) failure of specimens with two or three GRFP shear grids; (b) shear failure of EPS foam in the positive loading test; (c) steel fracture of the concrete wythe in the EPS4_P specimen.
Figure 9Degree of composite action, (a) initial stiffness and (b) ultimate strength.
Figure 10(a) XPSST2 slip at first load peak and (b) XPSNB3 slip at first load peak.
Mechanical bond strength and effective shear flow strength according to load direction.
| Load direction | No. of grids | First load peak (kN) | Mechanical bond strength (kN) | Ultimate strength of XPSST specimens (kN) | Effective shear flow strength (kN/m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XPSST | XPSNB | |||||
| Positive | 2 | 40.4 | 20.7 | 19.7 | 55.0 | 52.8 |
| 3 | 41.6 | 23.9 | 17.7 | 68.0 | 50.1 | |
| 4 | 45.8 | 26.4 | 19.4 | 87.4 | 50.7 | |
| Negative | 2 | 48.5 | 25.6 | 22.9 | 60.3 | 55.8 |
| 3 | 60.8 | 36.8 | 24 | 89.3 | 65.1 | |
| 4 | 65.8 | 47.9 | 17.9 | 105.9 | 65.7 | |
Figure 11Conceptual effective strands of GFRP grids subjected to positive or negative loads.