Analysis on Dynamic Performance of New-to-Old Concrete Interface in Prefabricated Members

doi:10.12141/j.issn.1000-565X.250045

Abstract

Abstract:

For prefabricated members, the reliable bonding of new-to-old concrete interface is the key to the formation of an integrated load-bearing system. Currently, both domestical and international scholars have conducted a series of studies on the static performance of the interface. However, the structures are often subjected to dynamic impact loads such as vehicle and ship collisions, heavy object impacts, and natural disasters during their service. Therefore, this paper studied the dynamic mechanical performance of the interface between new and old concrete in prefabricated structures. 210 prefabricated concrete components were investigated based on the split Hopkinson pressure bar test method. The research factors of this experiment include key parameters such as the average groove depth, the number of grooves, the interface inclination angle, and the combination of strength grades of new and old concrete, as well as the interface treatment methods (bonded rebar or not). The results indicate that factors such as the impact air pressure and the inclination angle of the specimen interface have a significant influence on the failure modes of the specimens, which can be classified into five categories based on the degree of damage and crack development characteristics. As the impact air pressure increases, the strain rate of specimens with different interface inclination angles gradually increases, with the 20° inclination angle specimens showing the most significant increase, while the 40° and 60° inclination angle specimens exhibit similar increases. With the increase in strain rate, the peak stress of all specimens shows an increasing trend. Under the same impact air pressure, specimens with a 40° interface inclination angle achieve relatively larger peak stress when the groove depth is greater, the number of grooves is higher, and the strength grade of the new concrete is increased. Bonded rebar can improve the peak stress of specimens under certain conditions. As the strain rate increases, the interface shear stress of all specimens also increases accordingly. Under the same concrete strength grade combinations, the shear stress of specimens with C1/C3 and C2/C3 is similar, both being greater than that of C1/C2. In particular, specimens with a 40°interface inclination angle exhibit higher shear stress at the interface. For specimens without bonded rebar, interface bearing capacity formulas were derived for three types: static-loaded without grooves, static-loaded with grooves, and impact-loaded with grooves. These formulas show good agreement with experimental results.

Key words: prefabricated concrete member, interface, dynamic mechanical performance, split Hopkinson pressure bar （SHPB） test

CLC Number:

TU318

CHEN Qingjun, ZHANG Yuqi, LEI Jun, WANG Yingtao, YAO Miaojin, LI Jiancong. Analysis on Dynamic Performance of New-to-Old Concrete Interface in Prefabricated Members[J]. Journal of South China University of Technology(Natural Science Edition), 2025, 53(10): 60-73.

Figures/Tables 22

Table 1

Parameter summary table"

参数	物理意义		物理意义
D	试件的直径	v	冲击速度
α	界面倾斜角	$ε ˙$	应变率
f_cu，k	立方体抗压强度标准值	f_ck	轴心抗压强度标准值
ε	应变	σ	应力
L₀	试件冲击方向的长度	S₀	试件冲击方向的横截面积
C₀	一维弹性波波速	ε_i	入射杆上的入射应变
E_G	杆件材料的弹性模量	A_G	试验装置杆件的横截面积
ε_r	入射杆上的反射应变	τ_f	交界面的剪切应力
f_d	峰值应力	ε_d	峰值应变
σ_n	交界面的法向应力	τ_a	交界面的粘结强度
μ	摩擦系数	F	竖直于试件的力
A	试件的横截面积	A_k	剪力键的根部面积
a	公式中常数项系数	b	公式中一次项系数
V	交界面的抗剪承载力	θ	承载力公式的相位角
J	冲击能量	t	时间
ε_t	透射杆上的透射应变

Table 1

Fig.1

Table 2

Fig.2

Fig.3

Table 3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Table 4

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Table 5

Fig.14

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

References 29

[1]	ISSA C A， GERGES N N， FAWAZ S ．The effect of concrete vertical construction joints on the modulus of rupture［J］．Case Studies in Construction Materials，2014，1（1）：25-32.
[2]	DJAZMATI B， PINCHEIRA J A ．Shear stiffness and strength of horizontal construction joints［J］．ACI Structural Journal，2004，101（4）：484-493.
[3]	SALDANHA R， JÚLIO E， DIAS-DA-COSTA D，et al ．A modified slant shear test designed to enforce adhesive failure［J］．Construction and Building Materials，2013，41：673-680.
[4]	KREIGH J ．Arizona slant shear test：a method to determine epoxy bond strength［J］．ACI Journal，1976，73（7）：372-373.
[5]	TABOR L J ．The evaluation of resin systems for concrete repair［J］．Magazine of Concrete Research，1978，30（105）：221-225.
[6]	DIAB A M， ELMOATY M A E ABD， ELDIN M R T ．Slant shear bond strength between self compacting concrete and old concrete［J］．Construction and Building Materials，2017，130：73-82.
[7]	夏冬桃，李欣怡，吴昊．混杂纤维混凝土与既有混凝土的粘结斜剪性能试验研究［J］．沈阳建筑大学学报（自然科学版），2022，38（4）：645-654.
	XIA Dongtao， LI Xinyi， WU Hao ．Experimental research on the bonding oblique shear performance of HFRC and existing concrete［J］．Journal of Shenyang Jianzhu University （Natural Science），2022，38（4）：645-654.
[8]	张阳，吴洁，邵旭东，等．超高性能混凝土-普通混凝土界面抗剪性能试验研究［J］．土木工程学报，2021，54（7）：81-89.
	ZHANG Yang， WU Jie， SHAO Xudong，et al ．Experiment on interfacial shear properties between ultra-high performance concrete and normal strength concrete［J］．China Civil Engineering Journal，2021，54（7）：81-89.
[9]	YOUM H S， LIM W Y， HONG S G，et al ．Interface shear strength between ultra-high-performance concrete and normal-strength concrete［J］．ACI Structural Journal，2021，118（2）：287-298.
[10]	AALETI S， SRITHARAN S ．Quantifying bonding characteristics between UHPC and normal-strength concrete for bridge deck application［J］．Journal of Bridge Engineering，2019，24（6）：04019041/1-13.
[11]	胡时胜．霍普金森压杆技术［J］．兵器材料科学与工程，1991（11）：40-47.
	Hu Shisheng ．Hopkinson press bar technology［J］．Ordnance Materials Science and Engineering，1991（11）：40-47.
[12]	王世鸣，李夕兵，宫凤强，等．静载和动载下不同龄期混凝土力学特性的试验研究［J］．工程力学，2013，30（2）：143-149.
	WANG Shi-ming， LI Xi-bing， GONG Feng-qiang，et al ．Experimental study on mechanical properties of different ages concrete under static and dynamic load［J］．Engineering Mechanics，2013，30（2）：143-149.
[13]	李元．不同加载率下新旧混凝土结合面斜剪性能研究［D］．合肥：合肥工业大学，2020.
[14]	任亮，何瑜，王凯，等．基于SHPB的UHPC冲击试验径向惯性效应分析［J］．爆炸与冲击，2019，39（10）：132-144.
	REN Liang， HE Yu， WANG Kai，et al ．Radial inertia effect analysis of UHPC impact test based on SHPB［J］．Explosion and Shock Waves，2019，39（10）：132-144.
[15]	张华，郜余伟，李飞，等．高应变率下聚丙烯纤维混凝土动态力学性能和本构模型［J］．中南大学学报（自然科学版），2013，44（8）：3464-3473.
	ZHANG Hua， GAO Yuwei， LI Fei，et al ．Experimental study on dynamic properties and constitutive model of polypropylene fiber concrete under high strain rate ［J］．Journal of Central South University （Science and Technology），2013，44（8）：3464-3473.
[16]	HU B， LI Y， LIU Y ．Dynamic slant shear bond behavior between new and old concrete［J］．Construction and Building Materials，2020，238：117779/1-14.
[17]	LI J， YANG L， XIE H，et al ．Research on impact toughness and crack propagation of basalt fiber reinforced concrete under SHPB splitting test［J］．Journal of Building Engineering，2023，77：107445/1-19.
[18]	混凝土结构设计规范（2015 年版）：［S］．
[19]	卢芳云，陈荣，林玉亮，等．霍普金森杆实验技术［M］．北京：科学出版社，2013.
[20]	朱云云．高应变率下硫酸盐侵蚀混凝土的动态力学性能研究［D］．哈尔滨：哈尔滨工业大学，2019.
[21]	AASHTO. AA bridge design specifications seventh edition with 2016 interim revisions［S］．Washington，DC：American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials，2014.
[22]	AUSTIN S， ROBINS P， PAN Y，Shear bond testing of concrete repairs［J］．Cement and Concrete Research，1999，29（7）：1067-1076.
[23]	卢文良．节段预制体外预应力混凝土梁设计理论研究［D］．北京：北京交通大学，2004.
[24]	魏之凯．预制装配式半高处连接混凝土柱的基本力学性能及抗灾性能研究［D］．广州：华南理工大学，2024.
[25]	何展超．冲击荷载作用下钢筋套筒挤压连接预制混凝土梁的受力机理研究［D］．广州：华南理工大学，2023.
[26]	李健聪．装配式混凝土结构新旧混凝土界面连接静动态性能研究［D］．广州：华南理工大学，2022．
[27]	American Concrete Institute. ACI Committee 370R-14，report for the design of concrete structures for blast effects ［S］．Farmington Hills：American Concrete Institute，2014.
[28]	International Federation for Structural Concrete （fib）． fib model code for concrete structures 2010 ［S］．Berlin：Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn，2013.
[29]	ZHAO J ．Applicability of Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown strength criteria to the dynamic strength of brittle rock［J］．International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences，2000，37（7）：1115-1121.

批次	混凝土强度等级	f_cu，k/MPa	f_ck/MPa
1	C1（C30）	42.4	32.2
1	C2（C40）	59.4	45.1
2	C2（C40）	62.7	47.7
2	C3（C50）	71.4	52.6

强度组合	C12					C13					C23
强度组合	3.55 MPa	5.15 MPa	7.55 MPa	9.95 MPa	11.55 MPa	3.55 MPa	5.15 MPa	7.55 MPa	9.95 MPa	11.55 MPa	3.55 MPa	5.15 MPa	7.55 MPa	9.95 MPa	11.55 MPa
T2G3*	F2	F3	F4	F3	F4	F3	F3	F3	F4	F4	F3	F4	F4	F2 F4	F4
T2G3*	F3	F4	F4	F4	F4	F3	F3	F3	F4	F4	F3	F4	F4	F2 F4	F4
T2G3*A	F1 F2	F3	F3	F4	F4	F1 F2	F2 F3 F4	F4	F5	F5
T2G5*	F3	F3	F4	F4	F4 F5
F2G3*	F1 F2	F3 F4	F3 F4	F3 F4 F5	F4 F5	F1	F2	F3	F4 F5	F4 F5	F1	F2 F3	F3	F3 F4	F4
F4G3*	F1	F2	F4	F4	F4
F4G3*	F1	F2	F5	F5	F5
S2G3*	F1 F2	F2	F3 F4	F4 F5	F4	F1	F2	F3 F4	F3 F4	F4 F5	F1	F3	F4	F4	F3 F5
S4G3*	F1	F2	F3	F4	F4

强度组合参数	C12			C13			C23
强度组合参数	应变率/s^-1	法向应力/MPa	剪切应力/MPa	应变率/s^-1	法向应力/MPa	剪切应力/MPa	应变率/s^-1	法向应力/MPa	剪切应力/MPa
T2G3* 系列	6.06	1.33	3.67	10.67	2.82	7.74	11	2.81	7.71
	21.28	3.26	8.95	17.85	3.61	9.91	21.31	3.52	9.68
	33.76	3.55	9.76	25.97	3.96	10.87	28.42	3.88	10.66
	41.58	4.41	12.12	35.23	4.53	12.44	30.68	4.39	12.06
	45.28	5.20	14.29	40.98	4.63	12.71	40.07	4.59	12.62
F2G3* 系列	10.23	10.03	11.96	9.83	6.38	7.60	10.81	5.23	6.23
	19.56	11.78	14.04	16.53	13.98	16.66	17.09	14.15	16.86
	27.38	12.49	14.89	34.15	15.58	18.56	29.14	15.50	18.47
	34.63	13.42	16.00	36.44	16.99	20.25	39.36	18.96	22.60
	40.38	15.41	18.37	44.74	20.75	24.73	42.53	21.64	25.79
S2G3* 系列	11.06	10.54	6.08	10.97	22.90	13.22	9.38	21.12	12.19
	21.42	20.64	11.92	15.76	24.08	13.90	13.26	23.21	13.40
	28.60	25.10	14.49	26.02	27.42	15.83	22.83	26.12	15.08
	38.96	26.50	15.30	38.28	28.14	16.25	37.67	28.04	16.19
	41.93	30.79	17.78	40.78	32.63	18.84	46.35	34.28	19.79

试件	计算值/kN	实验值/kN	偏差/%
D30-J-W^［25］	1 442.97	1 467.62	-1.68
D40-J-W^［25］	1 822.11	1 960.74	-7.07
T2G3C34^［26］	93.41	97.16	-3.86
F2G3C34^［26］	97.96	95.62	2.45
SL30R1A1S^［16］	110.03	101.28	8.64
SL30R1A2S^［16］	117.53	119.34	-1.55
SL40R1A2S^［16］	134.53	135.42	-0.68

系列	a	b
#2G3C12	2.486	0.254
#2G3C13	4.737	0.237
#2G3C23	2.126	0.326
SL30系列^［16］	9.620	0.727