Comparative Strength Analysis of Rubbers and/Cement and Mortar-Encased Steel Composite Columns for Seismic Resistance

0
783
Cement And Mortar-Encased Steel Composite Columns For Seismic Resistance

Comparative Strength Analysis of Rubbers and/Cement and Mortar-Encased Steel Composite Columns for Seismic Resistance

Abstract

Comparative Strength Analysis Of Rubbers And/Cement And Mortar-Encased Steel Composite Columns For Seismic Resistance The experimental study which system has many advantages has investigated the structural behavior of Concrete Filled Steel Tube (CFST) stub columns. The column size taken includes a diameter of 150 mm, a height of 300 mm.  A very important environmental issue all over the world in recent years is the disposal of waste tyres.

In conventional concrete, rubber from waste tyres can be used to replace part of natural aggregates, resulting in a product called crumb rubber concrete (CRC). CRC can improve ductility, damping ratio, and energy dissipation, which are the most important parameters in earthquake resistant concrete structures. However, compared to conventional concrete, CRC can have lower compressive strength. This paper presents an empirical model that can predict the compressive strength of CRC.

Compared to two previous models, the proposed model is verified using 148 different CRC mixes. The proposed model resulted in predictions of CRC strength with a mean error of only 10.7 %. Compared to previous models ‘ nearest predictions, the proposed model reduced the mean error in predictions by 24.6 percent. This paper can assist structural designers who consider using CRC in seismic zones as a promising alternative to conventional concrete.

Conclusion

This paper presented an empirical model able to predict CRC’s compressive strength. To verify the proposed model, a set of 148 data results for CRC compressive strength were used. Compared to similar previous models, the proposed model had the least scattering in its predictions.

This model has reduced M, SD and max. Error percentage of 24.6 percent, 5.8 percent, and 20.2 percent, respectively, compared to model predictions of Khatib and Bayomy (1999), and 75.5 percent, 46.4 percent, and 9.3 percent compared to model predictions of Khaloo et al. (2008).