Please wait a minute...
购物车 申请加入邮件组 English
高级检索 图表检索
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

邮发代号 80-968

2019 Impact Factor: 1.68

热点文章  |  下载排行  |  浏览排行
在线投稿 免费RSS订阅
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering  2022, Vol. 16 Issue (1): 117-130   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-021-0788-7
  本期目录
Variability of waste copper slag concrete and its effect on the seismic safety of reinforced concrete building: A case study
Swetapadma PANDA1,2(), Nikhil P. ZADE2, Pradip SARKAR2, Robin DAVIS3
1. Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technical Education and Research, Odisha 751 030, India
2. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Odisha 769 008, India
3. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Calicut, Kerala 673 601, India
 全文: PDF(4403 KB)   HTML
Abstract：

Proven research output on the behavior of structures made of waste copper slag concrete can improve its utilization in the construction industry and thereby help to develop a sustainable built environment. Although numerous studies on waste copper slag concrete can be found in the published literature, no research has focused on the structural application of this type of concrete. In particular, the variability in the strength properties of waste copper slag concrete, which is required for various structural applications, such as limit state design formulation, reliability-based structural analysis, etc., has so far not attracted the attention of researchers. This paper quantifies the uncertainty associated with the compressive-, flexural- and split tensile strength of hardened concrete with different dosages of waste copper slag as fine aggregate. Best-fit probability distribution models are proposed based on statistical analyses of strength data generated from laboratory experiments. In addition, the paper presents a reliability-based seismic risk assessment of a typical waste copper slag incorporated reinforced concrete framed building, considering the proposed distribution model. The results show that waste copper slag can be safely used for seismic resistant structures as it results in an identical probability of failure and dispersion in the drift demand when compared with a conventional concrete building made of natural sand.
Key words： waste copper slag    quantification of variability    goodness-of-fit test    seismic risk assessment    PSDM
收稿日期: 2021-07-20      出版日期: 2022-03-07
Corresponding Author(s): Swetapadma PANDA   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2022, 16(1): 117-130.
Swetapadma PANDA, Nikhil P. ZADE, Pradip SARKAR, Robin DAVIS. Variability of waste copper slag concrete and its effect on the seismic safety of reinforced concrete building: A case study. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2022, 16(1): 117-130.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/10.1007/s11709-021-0788-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/Y2022/V16/I1/117
material physical property chemical property
fineness modulus relative density (kg/m3) water absorption (%) co-efficient of uniformity SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 (% by mass) MgO (% by mass) SO3 (% by mass) CaO (% by mass)
sand 4.68 3.89 0.36% 3.05 92.23 1.89 1.45 1.05
WCS 2.89 2.6 0.80% 2.32 58.15 – – 0.48
Tab.1  
component M0 M20 M40 M60 M80 M100
WCS replacement by volume (% of sand) 0 20 40 60 80 100
cement (kg/m3) 450 450 450 450 450 450
natural sand (kg/m3) 608 486.4 364.8 243.2 121.6 0
WCS (kg/m3) 0 177 353 530 706 883
coarse aggregate (kg/m3) 1215 1215 1215 1215 1215 1215
water (kg/m3) 180 180 180 180 180 180
Tab.2  
Fig.1  
specimen compressive strength (MPa) split tensile strength (MPa) flexural strength (MPa)
mean SD range mean SD range mean SD range
M0 46.3 0.79 45.0?47.9 3.87 0.22 3.6?4.2 5.22 0.27 4.9?5.6
M20 46.4 0.99 45.9?48.5 3.39 0.21 3.6?4.3 5.26 0.27 4.9?5.6
M40 47.8 1.48 46.1?50.7 4.30 0.20 3.9?4.5 5.41 0.24 5.0?5.7
M60 50.2 1.48 48.1?52.5 4.33 0.19 4.0?4.7 5.54 0.24 5.1?5.8
M80 53.9 2.56 50.0?57.0 4.42 0.22 4.1?4.8 5.84 0.21 5.3?5.9
M100 46.0 0.94 44.4?47.8 4.12 0.19 3.8?4.4 5.23 0.21 4.9?5.7
Tab.3  
Fig.2  
distribution parameter
M0 M20 M40 M60 M80 M100
normal μ = 46.25σ = 0.79 μ = 46.41σ = 0.99 μ = 47.81 σ = 1.48 μ = 50.23σ = 1.47 μ = 53.86σ = 2.56 μ = 46.01σ = 0.94
lognormal μ = 3.83σ = 0.02 μ = 3.83σ = 0.02 μ = 3.866 σ = 0.03 μ = 3.916σ = 0.03 μ = 3.98σ= 0.05 μ = 3.82σ = 0.02
Gamma α = 3416.7β = 0.01 α = 2179.5 β = 0.02 α = 1046.4 β = 0.04 α = 1156.0 β = 0.04 α = 442.7 β= 0.12 Α = 2415.9β = 0.02
Weibull α = 66.61β = 46.56 α = 52.14 β = 46.81 α = 34.88 β = 48.42 α = 37.32 β = 50.85 α = 22.57 β= 54.99 α = 56.88β = 46.37
Gumbel max μ = 45.89σ = 0.62 μ = 45.96σ = 0.77 μ = 47.14σ = 1.15 μ = 49.56σ = 1.15 μ = 52.71σ = 1.99 μ = 45.59σ = 0.73
Gumbel min μ = 46.60σ = 0.62 μ = 46.86σ = 0.77 μ = 48.47σ = 1.15 μ = 50.89σ = 1.15 μ = 55.02σ = 1.99 μ = 46.44σ = 0.73
Tab.4  
distribution parameter
M0 M20 M40 M60 M80 M100
normal μ = 5.23σ = 0.26 μ = 5.25σ = 0.27 μ = 5.41σ = 0.25 μ = 5.54 σ = 0.24 μ = 5.84 σ = 0.21 μ = 5.23 σ = 0.27
lognormal μ = 1.65σ = 0.05 μ = 1.66σ = 0.05 μ = 1.69σ = 0.04 μ = 1.71 σ = 0.04 μ = 1.76 σ = 0.03 μ = 1.65 σ = 0.05
Gamma α = 387.75β = 0.02 α = 388.56β = 0.02 α = 490.11β = 0.01 α = 517.60β = 0.01 α = 770.97β = 0.01 α = 377.07β = 0.02
Weibull α = 22.31β = 5.33 α = 22.52β = 5.36 α = 24.25β = 5.52 α = 25.64 β = 5.64 α = 31.27β = 5.93 α = 22.36β = 5.33
Gumbel max μ = 5.10σ = 0.20 μ = 5.13σ = 0.20 μ = 5.30σ = 0.20 μ = 5.43 σ = 0.19 μ = 5.74σ = 0.16 μ = 5.11σ = 0.21
Gumbel min μ = 5.34σ = 0.20 μ = 5.37σ = 0.20 μ = 5.52σ = 0.20 μ = 5.65 σ = 0.19 μ = 5.93σ = 0.17 μ = 5.352σ = 0.21
Tab.5  
distribution parameter
M0 M20 M40 M60 M80 M100
normal μ = 3.87 σ = 0.22 μ = 3.98σ = 0.21 μ = 4.30σ = 0.12 μ = 4.33σ = 0.18 μ = 4.41σ = 0.20 μ = 4.12σ = 0.19
lognormal μ = 1.35σ = 0.05 μ = 1.38 σ = 0.05 μ = 1.45σ = 0.04 μ = 1.46σ = 0.04 μ = 1.48 σ = 0.04 μ = 1.41σ = 0.04
Gamma α = 309.88β = 0.01 α = 355.09β = 0.01 α = 468.63β = 0.01 α = 541.77β = 0.01 α = 467.71β = 0.01 α = 458.75β = 0.01
Weibull α = 19.85β = 3.95 α = 21.62β = 4.07 α = 24.36β = 4.38 α = 26.98β = 4.40 α = 24.26β = 4.49 α = 23.83β = 4.20
Gumbel max μ = 3.77σ = 0.17 μ = 3.89σ = 0.16 μ = 4.21 σ = 0.15 μ = 4.24σ = 0.14 μ = 4.31σ = 0.15 μ = 4.03σ = 0.15
Gumbel min μ = 3.97σ = 0.17 μ = 4.08σ = 0.16 μ = 4.39σ = 0.15 μ = 4.42σ = 0.14 μ = 4.50σ = 0.15 μ = 4.21σ = 0.15
Tab.6  
Fig.3  
Fig.4  
Fig.5  
mix distribution KS/KSL AD CS total statistics final rank
stat. rank stat. rank stat. rank
M0 normal 0.142 2 0.653 1 0.045 1 0.669 1
lognormal 0.147 5 0.674 3 0.066 3 0.693 3
Gamma 0.142 2 0.653 1 0.050 2 0.670 2
Weibull 0.110 1 1.012 4 0.920 5 1.372 4
Gumbel max 0.181 6 1.412 5 2.615 6 2.977 6
Gumbel min 0.146 4 1.474 6 0.819 4 1.693 5
M20 normal 0.147 3 0.809 4 1.955 2 2.121 2
lognormal 0.144 1 0.806 3 2.302 3 2.443 3
Gamma 0.145 2 0.786 2 2.345 4 2.477 4
Weibull 0.173 5 1.511 5 9.532 6 9.653 6
Gumbel max 0.152 4 0.780 1 0.297 1 0.848 1
Gumbel min 0.218 6 2.403 6 8.966 5 9.285 5
M40 normal 0.141 4 1.089 4 3.006 4 3.200 4
lognormal 0.135 2 1.064 3 1.820 3 2.112 3
Gamma 0.137 3 1.035 2 1.693 2 1.989 2
Weibull 0.168 5 1.844 5 3.845 5 4.267 5
Gumbel max 0.107 1 0.539 1 0.252 1 0.604 1
Gumbel min 0.211 6 3.264 6 5.004 6 5.978 6
M60 normal 0.106 1 0.620 2 1.950 3 2.049 3
lognormal 0.111 3 0.650 3 2.049 4 2.153 4
Gamma 0.106 2 0.608 1 1.934 2 2.030 2
Weibull 0.125 4 0.849 4 2.848 5 2.974 5
Gumbel max 0.144 6 0.949 5 1.719 1 1.968 1
Gumbel min 0.142 5 1.601 6 5.017 6 5.268 6
M80 normal 0.160 2 1.235 2 2.964 1 3.215 1
lognormal 0.165 4 1.302 4 3.186 3 3.446 3
Gamma 0.161 3 1.247 3 3.051 2 3.299 2
Weibull 0.140 1 1.036 1 3.345 4 3.504 4
Gumbel max 0.195 6 1.984 6 8.148 6 8.388 6
Gumbel min 0.169 5 1.651 5 4.617 5 4.906 5
M100 normal 0.086 2 0.230 2 0.424 1 0.490 1
lognormal 0.088 3 0.254 3 0.479 3 0.549 3
Gamma 0.084 1 0.229 1 0.431 2 0.495 2
Weibull 0.095 4 0.509 4 0.584 4 0.781 4
Gumbel max 0.142 6 0.704 5 2.981 6 3.066 6
Gumbel min 0.139 5 0.841 6 1.437 5 1.670 5
Tab.7  
mix distribution KS/KSL AD CS total statistics final rank
stat.. rank stat.. rank stat.. rank
M0 normal 0.115 1 0.410 1 0.096 3 0.437 1
lognormal 0.120 3 0.460 4 0.096 4 0.485 3
Gamma 0.118 2 0.439 3 0.095 2 0.464 2
Weibull 0.126 4 0.426 2 2.492 5 2.532 5
Gumbel max 0.155 5 1.365 6 0.037 1 1.375 4
Gumbel min 0.171 6 0.635 5 9.142 6 9.166 6
M20 normal 0.109 2 0.290 1 1.803 4 1.830 4
lognormal 0.115 4 0.331 3 0.099 3 0.364 2
Gamma 0.112 3 0.312 2 0.098 2 0.346 1
Weibull 0.104 1 0.367 4 2.601 5 2.629 5
Gumbel max 0.151 6 1.126 6 0.033 1 1.137 3
Gumbel min 0.147 5 0.602 5 5.135 6 5.173 6
M40 normal 0.133 3 0.635 3 1.345 5.00 1.493 2
lognormal 0.142 5 0.737 5 1.319 3.00 1.518 4
Gamma 0.139 4 0.701 4 1.331 4.00 1.510 3
Weibull 0.112 2 0.426 2 1.754 6.00 1.808 5
Gumbel max 0.193 6 2.362 6 1.215 2.00 2.663 6
Gumbel min 0.091 1 0.274 1 0.463 1.00 0.546 1
M60 normal 0.112 2 0.470 3 0.794 3 0.929 3
lognormal 0.120 4 0.555 5 0.711 1 0.910 2
Gamma 0.117 3 0.525 4 0.711 2 0.892 1
Weibull 0.091 1 0.306 1 2.776 6 2.794 5
Gumbel max 0.180 6 2.058 6 1.972 5 2.855 6
Gumbel min 0.133 5 0.324 2 1.158 4 1.210 4
M80 normal 0.172 3 1.001 3 2.094 3 2.327 3
lognormal 0.180 5 1.093 5 3.163 4 3.352 4
Gamma 0.177 4 1.059 4 3.752 5 3.903 5
Weibull 0.143 2 0.730 2 0.523 2 0.910 2
Gumbel max 0.243 6 2.911 6 6.395 6 7.031 6
Gumbel min 0.137 1 0.664 1 0.456 1 0.817 1
M100 Normal 0.080 2 0.167 1 0.178 1 0.257 1
Lognormal 0.090 4 0.192 3 0.195 2 0.288 2
Gamma 0.086 3 0.178 2 0.198 3 0.280 3
Weibull 0.078 1 0.366 4 0.472 4 0.602 4
Gumbel max 0.150 6 0.826 6 3.693 6 3.787 5
Gumbel min 0.113 5 0.687 5 2.211 5 2.318 6
Tab.8  
mix distribution KS/KSL AD CS total statistics final rank
stat. rank stat. rank stat. rank
M0 normal 0.138 4 0.478 1 3.079 1 3.119 1
lognormal 0.135 3 0.523 4 3.230 3 3.275 3
Gamma 0.134 2 0.487 2 3.122 2 3.162 2
Weibull 0.134 1 0.522 3 4.466 4 4.499 4
Gumbel max 0.151 5 1.043 6 4.976 5 5.086 5
Gumbel min 0.180 6 0.919 5 6.037 6 6.109 6
M20 normal 0.091 3 0.334 3 2.330 4 2.355 4
lognormal 0.089 2 0.314 2 2.258 2 2.281 2
Gamma 0.086 1 0.300 1 2.270 3 2.292 3
Weibull 0.103 5 0.788 5 2.558 5 2.679 5
Gumbel max 0.096 4 0.395 4 0.110 1 0.421 1
Gumbel min 0.153 6 1.413 6 4.747 6 4.955 6
M40 normal 0.131 1 0.538 2 1.453 1 1.555 1
lognormal 0.133 3 0.595 4 1.541 3 1.657 3
Gamma 0.131 2 0.563 3 1.495 2 1.603 2
Weibull 0.139 4 0.469 1 3.328 4 3.364 4
Gumbel max 0.152 5 1.448 6 3.907 5 4.169 5
Gumbel min 0.153 6 0.702 5 5.450 6 5.497 6
M60 Normal 0.080 2 0.197 3 0.315 2 0.380 1
lognormal 0.081 3 0.191 2 0.481 4 0.524 4
gamma 0.078 1 0.177 1 0.422 3 0.464 2
Weibull 0.089 4 0.657 5 0.725 5 0.982 5
Gumbel max 0.105 5 0.396 4 0.237 1 0.473 3
Gumbel min 0.126 6 1.171 6 2.223 6 2.515 6
M80 normal 0.112 4 0.551 4 1.718 2 1.808 2
lognormal 0.110 3 0.543 3 1.968 4 2.044 4
Gamma 0.107 2 0.513 2 1.799 3 1.873 3
Weibull 0.122 5 0.987 5 2.774 5 2.947 5
Gumbel max 0.100 1 0.487 1 1.129 1 1.233 1
Gumbel min 0.169 6 1.784 6 5.070 6 5.377 6
M100 normal 0.108 2 0.495 2 2.304 5 2.359 5
lognormal 0.113 4 0.551 4 2.254 4 2.323 4
Gamma 0.109 3 0.511 3 2.158 3 2.220 3
Weibull 0.100 1 0.481 1 1.006 1 1.119 1
Gumbel max 0.147 6 1.314 6 3.706 6 3.935 6
Gumbel min 0.125 5 0.900 5 1.716 2 1.942 2
Tab.9  
mix compressive strength flexural strength split tensile strength
M0 normal (46.25, 0.79) normal (5.22, 0.26) normal (3.87,0.22)
M20 Gumbel max (45.96, 0.77) Gamma (388.56, 0.02) Gumbel max (3.89, 0.16)
M40 Gumbel max (47.14, 1.15) Gumbel min (5.52, 0.20) normal (4.3, 0.198)
M60 Gumbel max (50.89,1.15) Gamma (517.6, 0.01) normal (4.33, 0.18)
M80 normal (53.86, 2.56) Gumbel min (5.93, 0.17) Gumbel max (4.31,0.15)
M100 normal (46.01, 0.94) normal (5.23, 0.27) Weibull (23.83, 4.20)
Tab.10  
Fig.6  
Fig.7  
Fig.8  
1 J M Paris, J G Roessler, C C Ferraro, H D de Ford, T G Townsend. A review of waste products utilized as supplements to Portland cement in concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, 121 : 1– 18
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.013
2 S N Shah, K H Mo, S P Yap, J Yang, T C Ling. Lightweight foamed concrete as a promising avenue for incorporating waste materials: A review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2021, 164 : 105103–
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105103
3 S K Kirthika, S K Singh, A Chourasia. Alternative fine aggregates in production of sustainable concrete—A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 268 : 122089–
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122089
4 M K Dash, S K Patro, A K Rath. Sustainable use of industrial-waste as partial replacement of fine aggregate for preparation of concrete—A review. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 2016, 5( 2): 484– 516
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.04.006
5 D Tavakoli, M Hashempour, A Heidari. Use of waste materials in concrete: A review. Pertanika Journal of Science & Technology, 2018, 26( 2): 499– 522
6 M C Collivignarelli, G Cillari, P Ricciardi, M C Miino, V Torretta, E C Rada, A Abbà. The production of sustainable concrete with the use of alternative aggregates: A review. Sustainability, 2020, 12( 19): 7903–
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197903
7 X Zhang, W Li, Z Tang, X Wang, D Sheng. Sustainable regenerated binding materials (RBM) utilizing industrial solid wastes for soil and aggregate stabilization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 275 : 122991–
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122991
8 A Mistri, S K Bhattacharyya, N Dhami, A Mukherjee, S V Barai. Petrographic investigation on recycled coarse aggregate and identification the reason behind the inferior performance. Construction & Building Materials, 2019, 221 : 399– 408
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.085
9 N Kisku, H Joshi, M Ansari, S K Panda, S Nayak, S C Dutta. A critical review and assessment for usage of recycled aggregate as sustainable construction material. Construction & Building Materials, 2017, 131 : 721– 740
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.029
10 K S Al-Jabri, M Hisada, A H Al-Saidy, S K Al-Oraimi. Performance of high strength concrete made with copper slag as a fine aggregate. Construction & Building Materials, 2009, 23( 6): 2132– 2140
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.12.013
11 C Shi, C Meyer, A Behnood. Utilization of copper slag in cement and concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2008, 52( 10): 1115– 1120
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.06.008
12 A M Arino, B Mobasher. Effect of ground copper slag on strength and toughness of cementitious mixes. ACI Materials Journal, 1999, 96( 1): 68– 73
13 R Tixier, R Devaguptapu, B Mobasher. The effect of copper slag on the hydration and mechanical properties of cementitious mixtures. Cement and Concrete Research, 1997, 27( 10): 1569– 1580
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(97)00166-X
14 W A Moura, J P Gonçalves, M B L Lima. Copper slag waste as a supplementary cementing material to concrete. Journal of Materials Science, 2007, 42( 7): 2226– 2230
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0997-4
15 B Gorai, R K Jana. Characteristics and utilization of copper slag—A review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2003, 39( 4): 299– 313
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00171-4
16 K S Al-Jabri, A H Al-Saidy, R Taha. Effect of copper slag as a fine aggregate on the properties of cement mortars and concrete. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25( 2): 933– 938
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.090
17 W Wu, W Zhang, G Ma. Optimum content of copper slag as a fine aggregate in high strength concrete. Materials & Design, 2010, 31( 6): 2878– 2883
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.12.037
18 A S Alnuaimi. Effects of copper slag as a replacement for fine aggregate on the behavior and ultimate strength of reinforced concrete slender columns. Journal of Engineering Research, 2012, 9( 2): 90– 102
19 K Murari, R Siddique, K K Jain. Use of waste copper slag, a sustainable material. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 2015, 17( 1): 13– 26
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-014-0254-x
20 P S Ambily, C Umarani, K Ravisankar, P R Prem, B H Bharatkumar, N R Iyer. Studies on ultra-high performance concrete incorporating copper slag as fine aggregate. Construction & Building Materials, 2015, 77 : 233– 240
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.092
21 M Mavroulidou. Mechanical properties and durability of concrete with water cooled copper slag aggregate. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 2017, 8( 5): 1841– 1854
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9819-3
22 K A Zaidi, S Ram, M K Gautam. Utilization of glass powder in high strength copper slag concrete. Advances in Concrete Construction, 2017, 5( 1): 65– 74
https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2017.5.1.65
23 S Raju, B Dharmar. Durability characteristic of copper slag concrete with fly ash. Gradevinar, 2017, 69( 11): 1031– 1040
https://doi.org/10.14256/JCE.1229.2015
24 J Thomas, N N Thaickavil, M P Abraham. Copper or ferrous slag as substitutes for fine aggregate in concrete. Advances in Concrete Construction, 2018, 6( 5): 545– 560
25 A S Nowak, K R Collins. Reliability of Structures. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000
26 K Kilinc, A O Celik, M Tuncan, A Tuncan, G Arslan, O Arioz. Statistical distributions of in-situ micro core concrete strength. Construction & Building Materials, 2012, 26( 1): 393– 403
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.038
27 R H Campbell, R E Tobin. Core and cylinder strengths of natural and lightweight concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 1967, 64( 4): 190– 195
28 I Soroka. An application of statistical procedures to quality control of concrete. Materiales de Construcción, 1968, 1( 5): 437– 441
29 T Chmielewski, E Konopka. Statistical evaluations of field concrete strength. Magazine of Concrete Research, 1999, 51( 1): 45– 52
https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1999.51.1.45
30 B Graybeal, M Davis. Cylinder or cube: Strength testing of 80 to 200 MPa (11. 6 to 29 ksi) ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 2008, 105( 6): 603– 609
31 X Chen, S Wu, J Zhou. Variability of compressive strength of concrete cores. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2014, 28( 4): 06014001–
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000513
32 J Pacheco, J De Brito, C Chastre, L Evangelista. Experimental investigation on the variability of the main mechanical properties of concrete produced with coarse recycled concrete aggregates. Construction & Building Materials, 2019, 201 : 110– 120
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.200
33 K Sahoo, P K Dhir, P R R Teja, P Sarkar, R Davis. Variability of silica fume concrete and its effect on seismic safety of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2020, 32( 4): 04020024–
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003072
34 K Sahoo, P Kumar Dhir, P R R Teja, P Sarkar, R Davis. Seismic safety assessment of buildings with fly-ash concrete. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 2020, 25( 3): 04020024–
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000502
35 ASTM. Standard Specification for Portland Cement, ASTM C150/C150M. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2019
36 ASTM. Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, ASTM C33/C33M. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2018
37 S Panda, P Sarkar, R Davis. Abrasion resistance and slake durability of copper slag aggregate concrete. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021, 35 : 101987–
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101987
38 ASTM. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory, ASTM C192/C192M. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2016
39 IS. Method of Tests for Strength of Concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 516. New Delhi: IS, 1959
40 ASTM. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM C496. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2017
41 ASTM. Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete Specimens, ASTM C293. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2016
42 H W Lilliefors. On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1967, 62( 318): 399– 402
https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1967.10482916
43 S Sahu, P Sarkar, R Davis. Uncertainty in bond strength of unreinforced fly-ash brick masonry. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2020, 32( 3): 06020003–
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003095
44 M A Stephens. EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1974, 69( 347): 730– 737
https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1974.10480196
45 S J Lawrence. Random Variations in Brickwork Properties. 7th ed. Melbourne: Brick Masonry Conference, 1985, 537– 547
46 M Montazerolghaem. Analysis of unreinforced masonry structures with uncertain data. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Dresden: Dresden University of Technology, 2015
47 L Sorrentino, P Infantino, D Liberatore. Statistical tests for the goodness of fit of mortar compressive strength distributions. In: The 16th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference. Italy: CRC Press, 2016
48 S Sahu, P Sarkar, R Davis. Quantification of uncertainty in compressive strength of fly ash brick masonry. Journal of Building Engineering, 2019, 26 : 100843–
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100843
49 A K Chandrappa, K P Biligiri. Flexural-fatigue characteristics of pervious concrete: Statistical distributions and model development. Construction & Building Materials, 2017, 153 : 1– 15
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.081
50 C Forbes, M Evans, N Hastings, B Peacock. Statistical Distributions. 4th ed. New York: Wiley, 2011
51 EasyFit. Version 5.6. Dnepropetrovsk: MathWave Technologies. 2015
52 D Sun, K Wu, H Shi, L Zhang, L Zhang. Effect of interfacial transition zone on the transport of sulfate ions in concrete. Construction & Building Materials, 2018, 192 : 28– 37
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.140
53 D Sun, K Wu, H Shi, S Miramini, L Zhang. Deformation behavior of concrete materials under the sulfate attack. Construction & Building Materials, 2019, 210 : 232– 241
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.050
54 D Sun, H Shi, K Wu, S Miramini, B Li, L Zhang. Influence of aggregate surface treatment on corrosion resistance of cement composite under chloride attack. Construction & Building Materials, 2020, 248 : 118636–
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118636
55 C A Cornell, F Jalayer, R O Hamburger, D A Foutch. Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2002, 128( 4): 526– 533
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526
56 O C Celik, B R Ellingwood. Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames––Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Structural Safety, 2010, 32( 1): 1– 12
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.04.003
57 A S Bhosale, R Davis, P Sarkar. Seismic safety of vertically irregular buildings: Performance of existing indicators. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 2018, 24( 3): 04018013–
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000319
58 D C Haran Pragalath, A S Bhosale, R Davis, P Sarkar. Multiplication factor for open ground story buildings: A reliability-based evaluation. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2016, 15( 2): 283– 295
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-016-0322-4
59 IS. Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. Part 1 General provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 1893. New Delhi: IS, 2016
60 Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design. SAP2000. Version 22. Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures, 2020
61 IS. Plain and Reinforced Concrete––Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 456, New Delhi: IS 456, 2000
62 F McKenna, C McGann, P Arduino, J A Harmon. Open Sees laboratory. 2018 (Available at the website of OpenSees)
63 C B Haselton, A S Whittaker, A Hortacsu, J W Baker, J Bray, D N Grant. Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses. In: The 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2012, 4207– 4217
64 P D C Haran, R Davis, P Sarkar. Reliability evaluation of RC frame by two major fragility analysis methods. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2015, 16( 1): 47– 66
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed