内嵌钢筋外包CFRP布复合加固矩形截面木柱轴压性能试验研究

为研究内嵌钢筋外包碳纤维(CFRP)布复合加固木柱的轴压性能，对27根方形截面木柱和9根矩形截面木柱试件进行了轴心受压试验，主要考虑了不同加固方法、钢筋加固量、CFRP布包裹方式和截面形状等影响因素，观察了试件的破坏全过程及破坏形态，获取了试件的荷载-位移曲线及荷载-应变曲线，进而分析了各影响因素对木柱轴压性能的影响。研究结果表明：复合加固木柱的承载力和延性均高于单独CFRP布加固及嵌筋加固柱，采用内嵌钢筋外包CFRP布复合加固能显著提高原木柱的承载力和延性；随着钢筋加固量的增加，加固木柱试件的承载力和延性都显著提高；当CFRP布由间隔包裹变为全包时，加固木柱试件的延性有所增大，但承载力增长并不显著；在同种加固方法情况下，方形截面试件较矩形截面试件具有更高的承载力，而矩形截面试件较方形截面试件具有更好的延性。

Experimental study on axial compression performance of rectangular timber columns strengthened with CFRP sheet and near surface mounted steel bar

To study the axial compression performance of timber columns strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) sheet and near surface mounted steel bar, 27 square timber columns and 9 rectangular timber columns were designed and tested under axial compression loads. Different strengthening methods, amount of steel bars, ways of wrapping CFRP sheets, sectional shape of specimens were considered in test. The whole mechanical process and failure modes of all specimens were observed, and the load-displacement curves and load-strain curves were obtained. The influence of various factors on the axial compression performance of timber columns was analyzed. The test results indicate that the composite strengthening method can significantly improve the bearing capacity and ductility of the original timber columns. The bearing capacity and ductility of the specimens strengthened with composite method are higher than those strengthened with near surface mounted steel bars or CFRP sheets. With the increase of the amount of steel bars, the bearing capacity and ductility of the specimens are significantly increased. Compared with the interval wrapping of CFRT sheets, the way of full jacket achieves better ductility of the columns, but the bearing capacity is not increased significantly. With the same strengthening method, the bearing capacity of the square cross-section specimens is higher than that of the rectangular cross-section specimens, and the ductility of the rectangular cross-section specimens is better than that of the square cross-section specimens.