[vc_empty_space][vc_empty_space]
Comparison of performance of partial prestressed beam-column subassemblages made of reactive powder concrete and normal concrete materials using finite element models
Nurjannah S.A.a, Budiono B.a, Imran I.a, Sugiri S.a
a Graduate Program of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624529070653{padding-top: 30px !important;padding-bottom: 30px !important;}”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner layout=”boxed”][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1624695412187{border-right-width: 1px !important;border-right-color: #dddddd !important;border-right-style: solid !important;border-radius: 1px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Abstract” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]© Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd.Research on concrete material continues in several countries and had produced a concrete type of Ultra High Performance Concrete (UHPC) which has a better compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural strength, modulus of elasticity, and durability than normal concrete (NC) namely Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC). Researches on structures using RPC material showed that the RPC structures had a better performance than the NC structures in resisting gravity and lateral cyclic loads. In this study, an experiment was conducted to apply combination of constant axial and lateral cyclic loads to a prototype of RPC interior partial prestressed beam-column subassemblage (prototype of BCS-RPC) with a value of Partial Prestressed Ratio (PPR) of 31.72% on the beam. The test results were compared with finite element model of beam-column subassemblage made of RPC by PPR of 31.72% (BCS-RPC-31.72). Furthermore, there was BCS-RPC modeling with PPR of 21.39% (BCS-RPC-21.39) and beam-column subassemblages made of NC materials modeling with a value of PPR at 21.09% (BCS-NC-21.09) and 32.02% (BCS-NC-32.02). The purpose of this study was to determine the performance of the BCS-RPC models compared to the performance of the BCS-NC models with PPR values below and above 25%, which is the maximum limit of permitted PPR. The results showed that all models of BCS-RPC had a better performance than all models of BCS-NC and the BCS-RPC model with PPR above 25% still behaved ductile and was able to dissipate energy well.[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Author keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]Beam column subassemblages,Beam-column subassemblage,Comparison of performance,Concrete materials,Normal concretes,Prestressed beam,Reactive powder concrete,Ultra high performance concretes[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Indexed keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Funding details” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”DOI” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/128/1/012015[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_column_text]Widget Plumx[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row]