Structural behavior of load-bearing sandwich wall panels with GFRP skin and a foam-web core

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu Wang ◽  
Zhimin Wu ◽  
Weiqing Liu ◽  
Li Wan

AbstractAn innovative load-bearing sandwich wall panel with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) skins and a foam-GFRP web core (GSFW wall panels, where “GS” denotes GFRP skin and “FW” denotes foam-GFRP web core), which was manufactured using a vacuum-assisted resin infusion process, was developed in this paper. An experimental study involving nine specimens was conducted to validate the effectiveness of this panel for increasing the axial strength under edgewise compression loading. The effects of web thickness, web spacing, web height, and skin thickness on axial stiffness, displacement ductility, and energy dissipation were also investigated. The test results demonstrated that axial strength, axial stiffness, displacement ductility, and energy dissipation could be improved by increasing the web thickness, web height, and skin thickness. An analytical model that considers the confinement effect of foam and the local buckling of GFRP skin was proposed to predict the ultimate axial strength of GSFW panels. A comparison of the analytical and experimental results showed that the analytical model accurately predicted the ultimate axial strength of GSFW wall panels under edgewise compression loading. To simulate the low velocity impact by blindings that are rolled by the wind, an impact test was conducted and the residual axial strength of the wall panels after impact was also investigated.

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clay J. Naito ◽  
John M. Hoemann ◽  
Jonathon S. Shull ◽  
Aaron Saucier ◽  
Hani A. Salim ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 2688
Author(s):  
Shaochun Ma ◽  
Lianghui Li ◽  
Peng Bao

The research objective of this study was the seismic performance of double-row reinforced ceramsite concrete sandwich wall panels. The feasibility of upgrading a new wall panel from a non-load-bearing partition wall to a load-bearing seismic wall was examined by conducting cyclic load tests on five wall panel specimens. The test piece was a sandwich thermal insulation structure that could achieve a good protection distance between the thermal insulation material and the fire source so that the fire prevention problem could be solved. At the same time, the problem of easy fall-off of the insulation system was also solved. The specimens were divided into three groups, including three double-row reinforced ceramsite concrete sandwich wall panels with different dosages of alkali-resistant glass fiber, a double-row reinforced ordinary concrete sandwich wall panel, and a solid concrete ceramic wallboard. The effects of different dosages of alkali-resistant glass fiber, construction forms, and bearing side plate materials on the seismic performance of the sandwich wall panels were investigated separately for the specimens. From the analysis of the specimen results (damage characteristics, hysteresis curves, energy dissipation capacity, bearing capacity, ductility, longitudinal reinforcement strain, and stiffness degradation), it could be seen that among the five types of wallboard, the double-row reinforced ceramsite concrete sandwich wall panel with 0.3% fiber content had the best ductility and energy dissipation capacity. Adding fiber could solve or improve the problem of the low ultimate bearing capacity of ceramsite concrete as the wallboard’s bearing material. Compared with the same size solid ordinary concrete wallboard, the bearing capacity of the double-row reinforced ceramic concrete sandwich panel was slightly reduced. However, the additional seismic performance indexes were relatively superior. Through the analysis of the test results, it was shown that, when considering the thermal performance and seismic capacity, the new wall panel had good prospects for engineering applications.


2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 750-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hetao Hou ◽  
Kefan Ji ◽  
Wenhao Wang ◽  
Bing Qu ◽  
Mingji Fang ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Nickerson ◽  
Patrick A. Trasborg ◽  
Clay J. Naito ◽  
Charles M. Newberry ◽  
James S. Davidson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document