기관회원 [로그인]
소속기관에서 받은 아이디, 비밀번호를 입력해 주세요.
개인회원 [로그인]

비회원 구매시 입력하신 핸드폰번호를 입력해 주세요.
본인 인증 후 구매내역을 확인하실 수 있습니다.

회원가입
서지반출
건축용 프리캐스트 프리스트레스트 역티형 보와 직사각형 보의 휨거동 비교
[STEP1]서지반출 형식 선택
파일형식
@
서지도구
SNS
기타
[STEP2]서지반출 정보 선택
  • 제목
  • URL
돌아가기
확인
취소
  • 건축용 프리캐스트 프리스트레스트 역티형 보와 직사각형 보의 휨거동 비교
저자명
유승룡
간행물명
콘크리트학회논문집
권/호정보
2000년|12권 6호|pp.75-82 (8 pages)
발행정보
한국콘크리트학회
파일정보
정기간행물|
PDF텍스트
주제분야
기타
이 논문은 한국과학기술정보연구원과 논문 연계를 통해 무료로 제공되는 원문입니다.
서지반출

기타언어초록

Flexural behaviors of two typical architectural precast beam sections ; inverted tee and rectangular - were compared and investigated. The heights of web in inverted tee beams are generally less than half of beam depth in building structures to accomodate the nib of double-tee where the total building height limited considerably. The inverted-tee beams are designed for parking live load - 500kgf/$m^2$ and market - 1,200kgf/$m^2$ according to the currently used typical shape in the domestic market building site in Korea. The bottom dimension and area of rectangular beams are same to those of inverted tee beams to compare the flexural behaviors of two beams. These two beams are also reinforced for similar strength. Four flexural tests are performed on two beams. Following results are obtained from the tests; 1) The rectangular beam is simpler in production, transportation, and election, and more economic than the inverted tee beam for these two beams with same dimension and similar strength. 1) The estimations of flexural strength of two beams by Strength Design Method and Strain Compatibility Method is fully complied with the result of tests. However, Strain Compatibility Method is slightly ore accurate than Strength Design Method. 2) Overall deflections of two type beam under the service loads are less than those of the allowable limit in ACI Code provision. 3) The rectangular beam is failed in large deflection (average 12.56mm large) than those of inverted tee beams. 4) The rectangular and inverted tee beams with 6m span develop initial flexural crackings under the 88% of full service loading even though they designed to satisfy the ACI tensile stress limit provisions.