z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
COMPARISON OF DESIGN FOR COMPOSITE COLUMNS IN STEEL AND CONCRETE ACCORDING TO EUROCODE 4 AND CHINESE DESIGN CODES
Author(s) -
Qingjie Zhang,
Markus Schäfer
Publication year - 2018
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Conference proceedings
DOI - 10.4995/asccs2018.2018.7121
Subject(s) - eurocode , structural engineering , buckling , composite number , shear (geology) , transverse plane , materials science , mathematics , engineering , composite material
This paper compares the design of composite columns in steel and concrete based on EN1994-1-1 and Chinese JGJ138-2016. First, the application ranges of the codes are pointed out. Both codes contain the design of fully encased composite sections and concrete filled rectangular and circular tubes. However, there are different limitations on cross-section sizes, material strength classes, and others. JGJ138 has three separate chapters for the designs related to the three different types of columns. Eurocode 4 gives three different design methods: one general method based on nonlinear calculation, and two simplified methods based on European buckling curves or N-M iteration curves. For the materials, mechanical properties, such as design strength values, are compared based on the same material grade. For axial compression resistance and eccentrically compressive resistance, the two simplified methods from Eurocode 4 are compared with the design method according to JGJ138-2016 through theoretical and parameter studies. The influences of related parameters such as long-term effects, the buckling curves, and N-M iteration curves are also compared. For shear design, JGJ138-2016 considers mainly transverse shear resistances, while Eurocode 4 further considers shear connection and load introduction. The design transverse shear resistance is compared through theory. 

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here