UHPC缀板-钢管混凝土复合柱地震响应及数值模拟

韦建刚; 应浩东; 杨艳

doi:10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2025.03.005

UHPC缀板-钢管混凝土复合柱地震响应及数值模拟

doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2025.03.005

韦建刚^{1, 2},
应浩东¹,
杨艳^{1, 3, ,}

1.
福州大学土木工程学院，福建福州 350116
2.
福建理工大学土木工程学院，福建福州 350118
3.
福州大学至诚学院，福建福州 350001

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金项目 52278158

福建省高校产学研联合创新项目 2022H6009

详细信息

作者简介:
韦建刚(1971-), 男，广西上思人, 福州大学研究员, 工学博士, 从事拱桥计算理论、组合结构、大跨度桥梁稳定性能研究

通讯作者:
杨艳(1979-)，女，福建邵武人，福州大学副教授，工学博士

中图分类号: U443
计量
- 文章访问数: 1110
- HTML全文浏览量: 378
- PDF下载量: 194
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2024-02-05
- 录用日期: 2024-07-15
- 修回日期: 2024-04-24
- 刊出日期: 2025-06-28

Seismic response and numerical simulation of concrete-filled steel tubular composite column with UHPC plates

WEI Jian-gang^{1, 2},
YING Hao-dong¹,
YANG Yan^{1, 3
, ,}

1.
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, Fujian, China
2.
College of Civil Engineering, Fujian University of Technology, Fuzhou 350118, Fujian, China
3.
ZhiCheng College, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350001, Fujian, China

Funds:

National Natural Science Foundation of China 52278158

University Industry Research Cooperation Project in Fujian Province 2022H6009

More Information

Corresponding author: YANG Yan (1979-), female, associate professor, PhD, yangyan@fzu.edu.cn

Article Text (Baidu Translation)

摘要

摘要: 为研究超高性能混凝土(UHPC)缀板-钢管混凝土复合柱的地震响应特性，设计制作了2根1∶8缩尺试件，并以地震动特性、地震动强度、轴压比以及缀板材料为试验参数开展拟动力试验研究，随后基于OpenSees软件建立足尺模型开展数值模拟研究，最终提出足尺结构在E1、E2地震荷载下响应位移的计算方法。研究结果表明：地震动特性显著影响试件的地震响应，试件S1、S2在同等小震强度的不同地震动下，其最大响应位移分别为最小响应位移的4.16倍和4.89倍；随着地震动强度不断增加，试件经历了弹性、弹塑性以及塑形破坏阶段；两试件破坏形态基本相似，均为整体压弯型破坏，表现为底部UHPC缀板开裂，钢缀条发生局部屈曲变形，柱肢钢管底部形成屈曲环或发生全截面撕裂；轴压比对于试件初始侧向刚度影响不大，但是轴压比越大，试件初始应力越大，柱肢钢管发生屈服和屈曲变形的时间越早，最后的破坏现象也更为剧烈；同等强度地震动下，UHPC缀板-钢管混凝土复合柱相较于普通混凝土缀板钢管混凝土复合柱，其初始侧向刚度提高约13.7%，刚度退化得到一定程度上的延缓，且累积滞回耗能提高了约41.2%；足尺模型的数值模拟分析结果显示长细比为影响试件地震响应以及放大系数的关键因素；所提出的足尺试件在E1、E2地震下响应位移计算方法具有良好精度。
- 桥梁工程 /
- 复合柱 /
- 地震响应 /
- 拟动力试验 /
- 计算方法 /
- UHPC缀板
Abstract: To study the seismic response characteristics of concrete-filled steel tubular composite columns with UHPC plates, two 1∶8 scaled specimens were designed and fabricated. The pseudo-dynamic test was performed with ground motion characteristics, ground motion intensity, axial compression ratio, and plate material as parameters. A full-scale model was then established based on OpenSees software to conduct numerical simulations. A calculation method was ultimately proposed for the response displacement of full-scale structures under E1 and E2 seismic loads. Research results show that ground motion characteristics significantly affect the seismic response of specimens. Under different ground motions with the same minor earthquake intensity, the maximum response displacement of specimens S1 and S2 are 4.16 and 4.89 times the minimum one, respectively. With the increasing intensity of ground motions, the specimens go through elastic, elastoplastic, and plastic damage stages. The two specimens share a similar failure pattern. Both have the overall compression bending type damage, manifested as the bottom of the UHPC plate cracking, the steel plate local buckling deformation, the bottom of the column limb steel tube to form a buckling ring, or the occurrence of the full-section tear. The axial compression ratio slightly affects the initial lateral stiffness of the specimen. However, the larger axial compression ratio brings the higher initial stress of the specimen. The earlier yielding and buckling deformation of the column limb steel tube leads to a more violent final failure pattern. Under ground motion of equal intensity, the initial lateral stiffness of a concrete-filled steel tubular composite column with UHPC plate is approximately 13.7% higher than that of the concrete-filled steel tubular composite column with ordinary reinforced concrete plate. Stiffness degradation is delayed to a certain extent, and cumulative hysteretic dissipation is increased by approximately 41.2%. According to the numerical simulation analysis results of the full-scale model, the slenderness ratio is a key factor for the seismic response and the amplification coefficient of the specimens. The proposed calculation method for the response displacement of full-scale specimens under E1 and E2 seismic loads has good accuracy.
- bridge engineering /
- composite column /
- seismic response /
- pseudo-dynamic test /
- calculation method /
- UHPC plate

HTML全文

图 1 试件尺寸(单位：mm)

Figure 1. Size of specimen (unit: mm)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 试验加载装置示意

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of test loading setup

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 各地震动加速度时程曲线

Figure 3. Acceleration time history curves of ground motions

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 各地震动加速度反应谱曲线

Figure 4. Acceleration response spectra of ground motions

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 试件S1、S2破坏模式

Figure 5. Failure pattern of S1 and S2 specimens

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 试件不同工况下位移时程曲线和滞回曲线

Figure 6. Displacement time curves and hysteresis curves of specimens under different loading conditions

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 不同强度地震下试件主要性能指标变化趋势

Figure 7. Variation trends of main performance indicators of specimens under ground motions with different intensities

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 钢管荷载-应变曲线

Figure 8. Load-strain curves for steel tubes

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 试件位移时程曲线和滞回曲线

Figure 9. Displacement time history curves and hysteresis curves of specimens

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 10 试件CFST-RCP与S1位移时程曲线和滞回曲线

Figure 10. Displacement time history curves and hysteresis curves of CFST-RCP and S1 specimens

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 11 试件CFST-UCP有限元模型

Figure 11. Finite element model of CFST-UCP specimen

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 12 试件S1有限元分析和试验地震响应曲线对比

Figure 12. Comparison of FEA and test seismic response curves for S1 specimen

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 13 试件S2有限元分析和试验地震响应曲线对比

Figure 13. Comparison of FEA and test seismic response curves for S2 specimen

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 14 地震动加速度反应谱

Figure 14. Ground motion acceleration response spectra

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 15 轴压比对地震响应的影响

Figure 15. Influence of axial pressure ratio on seismic response

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 16 长细比对地震响应的影响

Figure 16. Influence of slenderness ratio on seismic response

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 17 缀板厚度对地震响应的影响

Figure 17. Influence of the thickness of plate on seismic response

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 18 柱肢纵向间距对地震响应的影响

Figure 18. Influence of column limb longitudinal distance on seismic response

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 19 地震响应计算值与模拟值的对比

Figure 19. Comparison of calculated and simulated seismic response values

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 UHPC配合比

Table 1. Mix proportions of UHPC

各组成成分		含量
水胶比		0.18
水/(kg·m^-3)		201.4
水泥/(kg·m^-3)		859.5
硅灰/(kg·m^-3)		258.0
石英砂/(kg·m^-3)	10~20目	452.5
	20~40目	352.0
	40~70目	120.5
石英粉/(kg·m^-3)		80.5
减水剂/(kg·m^-3)		21.5
钢纤维/(kg·m^-3)		156.0

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 试验材料特性

Table 2. Test material properties

材料类型	泊松比	弹性模量/GPa	屈服强度/MPa	极限强度/MPa
柱肢钢管	0.28	208.0	326	427.0
缀管	0.29	210.0	395	485.0
纵筋	0.28	210.0	285	370.0
管内混凝土	0.19	32.3		42.7
UHPC	0.20	38.3		135.0(抗压强度)
UHPC	0.20	38.3		8.9(抗拉强度)

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 PGA为0.05g地震动的试验结果

Table 3. Test results under ground motions with PGA of 0.05g

地震动种类	S1		S2
地震动种类	δ_max/mm	P_max/kN	δ_max/mm	P_max/kN
EI Centro波	0.96	27.97	1.09	30.57
Chichi波	0.59	15.27	0.85	19.01
Imperial Valley波	0.69	20.66	0.97	31.15
Chamoli波	0.79	22.85	0.91	23.37
Nepal波	1.29	33.69	2.20	62.64
Kobe波	1.12	29.77	1.05	32.93
Wenchuan波	0.31	8.51	0.45	11.71

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 拟动力试验加载工况

Table 4. Loading conditions of pseudo-dynamic tests

试件	地震波	工况	PGA
S1、S2	Kobe波	S1/2-1-0.05	0.05g
		S1/2-2-0.10	0.10g
		S1/2-3-0.15	0.15g
		S1/2-4-0.20	0.20g
		S1/2-5-0.30	0.30g
		S1/2-6-0.40	0.40g
		S1/2-7-0.60	0.60g
		S1/2-8-F	0.83g
		S1/2-9-1.00	1.00g
		S1/2-10-1.20	1.20g
		S1/2-11-1.40	1.40g
		S1/2-12-1.60	1.60g
		S1/2-13-1.80	1.80g
		S1/2-14-2.00	2.00g
		S1/2-15-2.20	2.20g

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 试件不同轴压比下试验结果

Table 5. Test results of specimens under different axial compression ratios

PGA	响应种类	S1	S2	改变幅度/%
0.05g	δ_max/mm	1.12	1.05	-6.3
	P_max/kN	29.77	32.93	10.6
	K_e/(kN·mm^-1)	27.52	27.89	1.3
	E_h/(kN·mm)	5.07	5.90	16.4
0.83g	δ_max/mm	19.62	16.96	-13.6
	P_max/kN	253.95	275.88	8.6
	δ_y/mm	10.50	8.75	-16.7
	E_h/(kN·mm)	1 906.81	2 211.90	16.0
注：正式试验前，通过对试件进行小位移的侧向加载，所得荷载-位移曲线的斜率即为初始侧向刚度K_e

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 试件CFST-RCP与S1试验结果

Table 6. Test results of CFST-RCP and S1 specimens

PGA	响应种类	CFST-RCP	S1	改变幅度/%
0.05g	δ_max/mm	1.20	1.12	－6.7
	P_max/kN	27.00	29.77	10.4
	K_e/(kN·mm^-1)	24.20	27.52	13.7
	E_h/(kN·mm)	5.27	5.07	-3.8
0.83g	δ_max/mm	17.02	19.62	15.3
	P_max/kN	175.37	253.95	44.8
	K_a/(kN·mm^-1)	10.96	14.22	29.7
	K_b/(kN·mm^-1)	10.47	13.64	30.3
	E_h/(kN·mm)	1 350.83	1 906.81	41.2

下载: 导出CSV

表 7 试验与数值模拟的特征指标对比

Table 7. Comparison of characteristics indicators between test model and numerical simulation

PGA	响应种类	S1			S2
PGA	响应种类	试验数据	有限元模型	相对误差/%	试验数据	有限元模型	相对误差/%
0.05g	δ_max⁺/mm	1.12	1.11	0.9	1.05	1.11	5.7
	P_max⁺/kN	29.77	27.84	6.5	32.93	29.89	9.2
	δ_max^-/mm	-0.84	-0.83	1.2	-0.99	-0.98	1.0
	P_max^-/kN	-23.95	-21.79	9.0	-25.61	-25.84	0.9
1.40g(S1)/1.60g(S2)	δ_max⁺/mm	28.29	29.07	2.8	24.41	24.82	1.7
	P_max⁺/kN	280.87	281.50	0.2	360.55	338.18	6.2
	δ_max^-/mm	-24.04	-25.50	6.1	-31.73	-31.29	1.4
	P_max^-/kN	-279.89	-270.39	3.4	-364.73	-398.06	9.1

下载: 导出CSV

表 8 数值模型参数

Table 8. Numerical model parameters

序号	模型标识	轴压比	长细比	缀板厚度/mm	柱肢纵向间距/mm	基本周期/s
1	0.12-14.0-400-4000	0.12	14.0	400	4 000	1.013
2	0.15-14.0-400-4000	0.15	14.0	400	4 000	1.133
3	0.18-14.0-400-4000	0.18	14.0	400	4 000	1.241
4	0.21-14.0-400-4000	0.21	14.0	400	4 000	1.342
5	0.24-14.0-400-4000	0.24	14.0	400	4 000	1.433
6	0.15-11.2-400-4000	0.15	11.2	400	4 000	0.811
7	0.15-14.0-400-4000	0.15	14.0	400	4 000	1.133
8	0.15-16.8-400-4000	0.15	16.8	400	4 000	1.489
9	0.15-19.6-400-4000	0.15	19.6	400	4 000	1.877
10	0.15-22.4-400-4000	0.15	22.4	400	4 000	2.293
11	0.15-14.0-320-4000	0.15	14.0	320	4 000	1.088
12	0.15-14.0-400-4000	0.15	14.0	400	4 000	1.133
13	0.15-14.0-480-4000	0.15	14.0	480	4 000	1.170
14	0.15-14.0-560-4000	0.15	14.0	560	4 000	1.202
15	0.15-14.0-400-3200	0.15	14.0	400	3 200	1.367
16	0.15-14.0-400-4000	0.15	14.0	400	4 000	1.133
17	0.15-14.0-400-4800	0.15	14.0	400	4 800	0.964
18	0.15-14.0-400-5600	0.15	14.0	400	5 600	0.838

下载: 导出CSV

表 9 E1、E2地震动基本信息

Table 9. Basic information on E1 and E2 ground motions

地震波	年份	地震名	记录号	矩震级	断层距/km	比例因子	缩放后PGA
E1	1979	Imperial Valley-06	159	6.53	0.65	0.636 9	0.183g
	1994	Northridge-01	1 085	6.69	5.19	0.201 3	0.172g
	1994	Northridge-01	1 086	6.69	5.30	0.283 9	0.172g
	1999	Chi-Chi_ Taiwan	1 478	7.62	40.88	0.647 8	0.102g
	1999	Chi-Chi_ Taiwan	1 489	7.62	3.76	0.532 8	0.149g
	1999	Chi-Chi_ Taiwan	1 528	7.62	2.11	0.504 7	0.107g
	2007	Chuetsu-oki_ Japan	4 847	6.80	11.94	0.435 9	0.199g
	2010	Darfield_ New Zealand	6 969	7.00	20.86	0.692 8	0.122g
	2011	Christchurch_ New Zealand	8 123	6.20	5.13	0.311 2	0.116g
	2010	El Mayor-Cucapah_ Mexico	8 606	7.20	11.44	0.482 6	0.136g
E2	1979	Imperial Valley-06	180	6.53	3.95	1.110 9	0.660g
	1992	Landers	838	7.28	34.86	3.796 0	0.495g
	1994	Northridge-01	1 085	6.69	5.19	0.791 2	0.675g
	1994	Northridge-01	1 086	6.69	5.30	1.208 3	0.731g
	1999	Chi-Chi_ Taiwan	1 193	7.62	9.62	1.405 4	0.396g
	1999	Chi-Chi_ Taiwan	1 475	7.62	56.12	3.239 2	0.384g
	1999	Chi-Chi_ Taiwan	1 489	7.62	3.76	1.726 9	0.481g
	2007	Chuetsu-oki_ Japan	4 847	6.80	11.94	1.525 1	0.695g
	2010	Darfield_ New Zealand	6 906	7.00	1.22	0.690 1	0.528g
	2010	El Mayor-Cucapah_Mexico	8 161	7.20	11.26	1.258 3	0.346g

下载: 导出CSV

表 10 新建模型参数

Table 10. New model parameters

序号	n	λ	t_p/mm	d_l/m
N1	0.27	14.0	400	4.0
N2	0.15	25.2	400	4.0
N3	0.15	14.0	640	4.0
N4	0.15	14.0	400	6.4

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(31)

[1]	欧智菁, 陈盛富, 吴庆雄, 等. 四肢变截面钢管混凝土格构柱恢复力模型计算方法[J]. 交通运输工程学报, 2018, 18(5): 77-89. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1637.2018.05.008 OU Zhi-jing, CHEN Sheng-fu, WU Qing-xiong, et al. Calculation method of restoring force model of four-element variable cross-sectional concrete filled steel tubular laced column[J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2018, 18 (5): 77-89. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1637.2018.05.008
[2]	HUANG Y F, BRISEGHELLA B, ZORDAN T, et al. Shaking table tests for the evaluation of the seismic performance of an innovative lightweight bridge with CFST composite truss girder and lattice pier[J]. Engineering Structures, 2014, 75: 73-86.
[3]	YUAN H H, SHE Z M, WU Q X, et al. Experimental and parametric investigation on elastoplastic seismic response of CFST battened built-up columns[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 145: 106726.
[4]	CHEN B C, LAI Z C, YAN Q L, et al. Experimental behavior and design of CFT-RC short columns subjected to concentric axial loading[J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2017, 143(11): 04017148.
[5]	晏巧玲, 陈宝春, 薛建阳. 钢管混凝土复合轴压短柱柱肢承载力折减系数[J]. 建筑结构学报, 2013, 34(增1): 294-300. YAN Qiao-ling, CHEN Bao-chun, XUE Jian-yang. Reduction coefficient of load carrying capacity of longitudinal members of concrete-filled steel tubular composite strut columns subjected to axial loads[J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2013, 34(S1): 294-300.
[6]	陈宝春, 晏巧玲, 薛建阳. 钢管混凝土复合短柱轴压性能试验研究[J]. 建筑结构学报, 2016, 37(5): 82-91. CHEN Bao-chun, YAN Qiao-ling, XUE Jian-yang. Experimental study on compressive property of concrete-filled steel tubular hybrid stub columns[J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2016, 37(5): 82-91.
[7]	陈宝春, 晏巧玲, 薛建阳. 钢管混凝土复合柱静力试验与偏心率折减系数计算方法[J]. 建筑结构学报, 2016, 37(5): 92-102. CHEN Bao-chun, YAN Qiao-ling, XUE Jian-yang. Static test and calculation method of eccentricity ratio reduction coefficient of concrete-filled steel tubular hybrid columns[J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2016, 37(5): 92-102.
[8]	YADAV R, YUAN H H, CHEN B C, et al. Experimental study on seismic performance of latticed CFST-RC column connected with RC web[J]. Thin-Walled Structures, 2018, 126: 258-265.
[9]	YADAV R. Seismic behavior of composite columns with CFST Limbs and RC Web[D]. Fuzhou: Fuzhou University, 2019.
[10]	WEI J G, XIE Z T, ZHANG W, et al. Axial compressive property of UHPC plate-CFST laced composite columns[J]. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2022, 16: e01085.
[11]	WEI J G, XIE Z T, ZHANG W, et al. Axial compressed UHPC plate-concrete filled steel tubular composite short columns, Part Ⅰ: bearing capacity[J]. Steel and Composite Structures, 2023, 47(3): 405-421.
[12]	LIU Y W, SHI C J, ZHANG Z H, et al. Mechanical and fracture properties of ultra-high performance geopolymer concrete: effects of steel fiber and silica fume[J]. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2020, 112: 103665.
[13]	WANG R, GAO X J, LI Q Y, et al. Influence of splitting load on transport properties of ultra-high performance concrete[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2018, 171: 708-718.
[14]	GURUSIDESWAR S, SHUKLA A, JONNALAGADDA K N, et al. Tensile strength and failure of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) composition over a wide range of strain rates[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2020, 258: 119642.
[15]	ABBAS S, NEHDI M L, SALEEM M A. Ultra-high performance concrete: mechanical performance, durability, sustainability and implementation challenges[J]. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 2016, 10(3): 271-295.
[16]	袁明, 邓俊杰, 刘昀, 等. 超高性能混凝土断裂全过程声发射分形特征及损伤机理[J]. 长安大学学报(自然科学版), 2024, 44(3): 93-103. YUAN Ming, DENG Jun-jie, LIU Yun, et al. Fractal characteristics and damage mechanism of acoustic emission during whole fracture process of ultra-high performance concrete[J]. Journal of Chang'an University (Natural Science Edition), 2024, 44(3): 93-103.
[17]	HE S F, DENG Z C, YAO J S. Seismic behavior of ultra-high performance concrete long columns reinforced with high-strength steel[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2020, 32: 101740.
[18]	HUANG H H, GAO X J, LI L S, et al. Improvement effect of steel fiber orientation control on mechanical performance of UHPC[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2018, 188: 709-721.
[19]	ZHAO S J, JIANG L H, CHU H Q. A preliminary investigation of energy consumption in fracture of ultra-high performance concrete[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2020, 237(2): 117634.
[20]	VOIT K, KIRNBAUER J. Tensile characteristics and fracture energy of fiber reinforced and non-reinforced ultra high performance concrete (UHPC)[J]. International Journal of Fracture, 2014, 188(2): 147-157.
[21]	LI Y Y, NIE J G, DING R, et al. Seismic performance of squat UHPC shear walls subjected to high-compression shear combined cyclic load[J]. Engineering Structures, 2023, 276: 115369.
[22]	LI Y Y, DING R, NIE J G. Experiment study on seismic behavior of squat UHPC shear walls subjected to tension-shear combined cyclic load[J]. Engineering Structures, 2023, 280: 115700.
[23]	ZHANG Y G, CHEN L, ZUO R, et al. Experimental and numerical study of precast bridge piers with a new UHPC socket column-footing connection[J]. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 2023, 24(1): 17.
[24]	YUAN W T, WANG X T, GUO A X, et al. Cyclic performance of RC bridge piers retrofitted with UHPC jackets: experimental investigation[J]. Engineering Structures, 2022, 259: 114139.
[25]	YUAN W T, WANG X T, DONG Z X, et al. Cyclic loading test for RC bridge piers strengthened with UHPC jackets in the corrosive environment[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 158: 107290.
[26]	WU D Q, DING Y, SU J S, et al. Experimental investigation on seismic performance of severely earthquake-damaged RC bridge piers after rapid strengthening[J]. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2023, 21(7): 3623-3646.
[27]	袁辉辉, 佘智敏, 吴庆雄, 等. 钢管混凝土箱形叠合墩振动台试验研究[J]. 工程力学, 2021, 38(12): 200-213. YUAN Hui-hui, SHE Zhi-min, WU Qing-xiong, et al. Shaking table tests of cfst reinforced concrete pier with hollow box section[J]. Engineering Mechanics, 2021, 38 (12): 200-213.
[28]	袁辉辉, 程军, 吴庆雄, 等. 主余震作用下钢管混凝土箱形叠合墩拟动力试验[J]. 中国公路学报, 2023, 36(7): 180-192. YUAN Hui-hui, CHENG Jun, WU Qing-xiong, et al. Pseudo-dynamic test of CFST reinforced concrete piers with hollow box sections under action of mainshock and aftershocks[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2023, 36 (7): 180-192.
[29]	SUSANTHA K, GE H B, USAMI T. Uniaxial stress-strain relationship of concrete confined by various shaped steel tubes[J]. Engineering Structures, 2001, 23: 1331-1347.
[30]	杨剑. CFRP预应力筋超高性能混凝土梁受力性能研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南大学, 2007. YANG Jian. Flexural behavior of ultra-high performance concrete beams prestressed with CFRP tendons[D]. Changsha: Hunan University, 2007.
[31]	张哲, 邵旭东, 李文光, 等. 超高性能混凝土轴拉性能试验[J]. 中国公路学报, 2015, 28(8): 50-58. ZHANG Zhe, SHAO Xu-dong, LI Wen-guang, et al. Axial tensile behavior test of ultra high performance concrete[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2015, 28(8): 50-58.