高强H形钢混凝土组合柱偏心受压性能试验研究

为研究高强H形钢混凝土组合柱的偏心受压性能以及验证采用国内外相关规范计算此类构件承载力的可行性，进行了1∶3缩尺的10根内置Q460、Q690高强H形钢混凝土组合柱与2根内置Q235普通H形钢混凝土组合柱的偏心受压试验，研究型钢钢材牌号、相对偏心距、含钢率与箍筋间距对组合柱偏压承载力与延性的影响。研究结果表明：当型钢钢材牌号由Q235提升至Q460、Q690时，组合柱的承载力和延性均有明显提升，型钢钢材牌号为Q690的组合柱承载力提高幅度略高于Q460的，其位移延性系数提高幅度明显高于Q460的；增大相对偏心距和含钢率可显著提升高强H形钢混凝土组合柱的延性；较小箍筋间距有利于充分发挥Q690高强H形钢的材料性能。将试验结果与按我国JGJ 138—2016《组合结构设计规范》、欧洲EN 1994-1-1:2004以及美国ANSI/AISC360-16得到的型钢组合柱偏压承载力计算结果进行对比。结果表明，按EN 1994-1-1:2004、ANSI/AISC360-16得到的高强H形钢组合柱偏压承载力计算结果与试验结果相差较大，总体上偏于保守；按JGJ 138—2016的计算结果与试验结果相差较小，当相对偏心距为0.2时计算结果总体上偏于安全，相对偏心距为0.6时偏于不安全。

Experimental study on eccentric loaded high strength H-section steel reinforced concrete composite column

In order to investigate the eccentric compression performance of high-strength H-shaped steel reinforced concrete columns and verify the feasibility of the Chinese and international codes for calculating the load-carrying capacity of such members, eccentric compression tests were carried out on ten high-strength H-shaped steel reinforced concrete columns with Q460 and Q690 H-shaped steel and two columns with Q235 H-shaped steel, where all columns were 1/3 scaled. The influences of the strength of steel, relative eccentricity, steel ratio, and stirrup spacing on the ultimate capacity and ductility of the specimens were studied. The results show that the load-bearing capacity and ductility are significantly increased when the strength of steel sections increased from Q235 to Q460 and Q690, the load-bearing capacity of specimens with Q690 is slightly higher than that of specimens with Q460, and the displacement ductility coefficient of specimens with Q690 is significantly higher than that of specimens with Q460. Increasing the eccentricity and steel ratio can improve the ductility significantly. The smaller stirrup spacing can fully develop the material properties of Q690 H-shaped steel. Comparing the calculated results according to design specifications of Chinese code JGJ 138—2016, Eurocode EN 1994-1-1:2004, and the US code ANSI/AISC 360-16, the calculated results by EN 1994-1-1:2004 and ANSI/AISC 360-16 are quite different from the test results and are generally conservative. The results by JGJ 138—2016 differ less and are conservative for the relative eccentricity of 0.2 but unsafe for the relative eccentricity of 0.6.