Issue 54

Z. H. Xiong et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 54 (2020) 136-152; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.54.10

depicts a sensitive area of τ : ranging from 1.25 to 1.5 for the three types of joints. When β =0.6 τ =1.25, CBRPH joint’s ε j is 1.68 times than BRPH joint, while the joint with PBR ε j is 2.4 times than BRPH joint. Among the parameters of CBPRH joint with PBR, at given β , τ is more sensitive than b 1 / t 1 as shown in Fig. 15(a), at given b 1 / t 1 , β is more sensitive than τ as shown in Fig. 15(b).

(a) β =0.6

(b) b 1 / t 1 =15 Figure 15: Connection efficiency of CBPRH joint with PBR

In general, connection efficiency comparison indicates that grouted concrete and PBR are quite effective in improving the strength of BPRH joint. However, the welding of PBR adds additional fabrication procedure, which may increase the possibility of defects in the joint.

C ONCLUSIONS ltimate test of longitudinal CBPRH joint with PBR was carried out, which has been used to validate against FE modeling for transverse CBPRH joint. For transverse BPRH joint, grouted concrete has significant improvement of joint’s tension strength. Transverse CBPRH joint’s failure mode has been investigated, which is subject to yield line theory. CBPRH joint’s strength equation has been proposed on basis of hollow joint’s theory (Eqn. (7)). The U

150