- 上一篇：浸涂机英文文献和中文翻译
- 下一篇：蒸馏塔英文文献和中文翻译
(continued) 5
Figure 1.1.2. Photos of bridges using precast segmental columns or piers
(continued) 6
Figure 1.1.2. Photos of bridges using precast segmental columns or piers..7
Figure 1.2.1. Segmental column specimens by Chang et al. (2002) .11
Figure 2.1.1. (a) Type of segmental column investigated by Lin and Mo (2002); (b)
Type of segmental column investigated in this research 15
Figure 2.3.1. Hysteretic behaviors of specimens P1 and P2 (Chang et al. 2002) ..19
Figure 2.3.2. Hysteretic behaviors of specimens P3 and P4 (Chang et al. 2002) ..22
Figure 2.5.1. (a) Rectangular hollow section (Mo et al. 2003); (b) Circular hollow
section (Yeh et al. 2001) .26
Figure 3.1.1. Two stages of segmental columns under lateral load (a) pre-
decompression stage; (b) post-decompression stage 33
Figure 3.1.2. (a) Calculation of F and i M ; (b) Displacements at column top; (c)
Assumed strain profile at the critical segment joint..34
Figure 3.2.1. 3D FE model for column with aspect ratio 6 (a) the mesh; (b) the
anatomy41
Figure 3.2.2. Front view of specimen P4 (Chang et al. 2002)..43
Figure 3.2.3. Section design of specimen P1 and P4 (Chang et al. 2002)..44
Figure 3.2.4. Comparison between experimental results (Chang et al. 2002) and FE
analysis.44
Figure 3.3.1. Section detailing of the prototype columns ..54
Figure 3.3.2. Column dimensions ..55
Figure 3.3.3. Specimen JH1 (Hewes and Priestley 2002) ..58
Figure 3.3.4. Comparison of pushover curves between results from the
experimental results (Specimen JH1, Hewes and Priestley 2002),
analytical model and FE model59
Figure 3.3.5. Comparison of results from the experimental results (Specimen P1,
Chang et al. 2002), analytical model and FE model .59
Figure 3.3.6. Comparison of results between simplified analytical model and 3D
FE model .60
Figure 3.3.7. Schematic illustration for calculation using the simplified analytical
model.64
Figure 3.3.8. Static pushover curves for (a) A3G5P5; (b) A6G5P5; (c) A9G5P5.65
Figure 3.3.9. Results of static pushover analyses65
Figure 3.3.10. Vertical strain contour of A6G5P5-ED.56 at 4% drift (deformation
scale factor 3.5) 68
Figure 3.3.11. Joint opening behavior for A6G5P5-ED.22 at 4% drift (deformation
scale factor 3.5) 68
Figure 3.3.12. Results of the cyclic loading analyses of A3G5P5-ED.40 and
A6G5P5-ED.5669
Figure 3.3.13. Hysteretic behavior under cyclic loading ..69
Figure 3.3.14. Hysteretic behavior under cyclic loading ..70
Figure 3.3.15. Schematic illustration of parameterization of columns with optimum
ED bar ratios .74
Figure 3.3.16. Hysteresis models (a) stiffness degrading flag-shape; (b) TAKEDA
model (Takeda et al. 1970) 74
Figure 3.3.17. Representative results of response-history analyses .75
Figure 3.3.18. Responses of A3G5P5-ED.40 and the comparable conventional
column under ground motion event 12 76
Figure 3.3.19. Normalized mean drift demand ..77
Figure 3.3.20. Residual drift of comparable conventional columns 77
Figure 4.1.1. Critical joint and strong joint of proposed segmental columns ..81
Figure 4.1.2. Proposed construction method for critical segment joint ..81
Figure 4.2.1. Design details of (a) foundation specimen; (b) base segment specimen 83
Figure 4.2.2. (a) Foundation specimen; (b) base segment specimen 84
Figure 4.2.3. Additional unbonding (a) duct tape; (b) PVC pipes .88
Figure 4.2.4. Grouting of foundation specimens: (a) grout mixing; (b) grouting; (c)
after grouting; (d) close up view of test bar..91