...
【24h】

Comparative Study of Prestress Losses

机译:预应力损失的比较研究

获取原文

摘要

This paper compares the prestress losses as calculated by four different design codes; British standard CP110, Comite Europeen du Beton 70 and 78, American Concrete Institute 77 and the Prestressed Concrete Institute method (PCI). The comparison is done by determining the total losses which take place in a rectangular prestressed concrete beam for both pre-tensioning and post-tensioning systems. The results show that total losses calculated for the post-tensioning method are higher than those calculated for the pre-tensioning method, which is not the usual case. It seems that the PCI method may be required for special structures or for simply supported slender members which may be sensitive to small changes in deflections. However, for non-special structures, or where actual losses have little effect on the design, it is better to compute losses by the ACI method because it is simple and does take into considerations interactions between the various sources of losses. However, it is not possible to conclude which method gives the more accurate prediction of shrinkage and creep without direct co-relation to realistic insitu data.
机译:本文比较了四种不同设计规范计算出的预应力损失。英国标准CP110,Comite Europeen du Beton 70和78,美国混凝土协会77和预应力混凝土协会方法(PCI)。比较是通过确定矩形预应力混凝土梁在预张紧和后张预紧系统中发生的总损耗来完成的。结果表明,用后张法计算的总损失要比用前张法计算的总损失要高,这是不常见的情况。似乎对于特殊结构或可能对挠曲的微小变化敏感的简单支撑的细长构件可能需要PCI方法。但是,对于非特殊结构或实际损失对设计影响不大的情况,最好使用ACI方法计算损失,因为它很简单,并且确实考虑了各种损失源之间的相互作用。但是,无法得出结论,即在没有与实际现场数据直接相关的情况下,哪种方法可以给出更准确的收缩和蠕变预测。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号