4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Textile-to-mortar bond behaviour in lime-based textile reinforced mortars

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 227, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116682

Keywords

Textile reinforced mortars; TRM; FRCM; Pull-out test; Fabric-to-mortar bond behaviour; Sustainable construction materials; Strengthening

Funding

  1. FEDER funds through the Competitivity Factors Operational Programme (COMPETE)
  2. national funds through the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007633]
  3. [SFRH/BD/131282/2017]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/131282/2017] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lime-based textile-reinforced mortars (TRM) have recently found a growing interest for repair and strengthening of masonry and historical structures. Despite extensive experimental and numerical investigations performed in the last years on the performance of these composites, there is still a lack of fundamental understanding of the fabric-to-mortar bond behaviour (as one of the main mechanisms affecting the cracking and nonlinear response of these composites) and the parameters affecting that. This paper, aimed at addressing this gap, presents a comprehensive experimental and analytical investigation on how the test setup, embedded length, load rate, mortar age and fabric configuration affect the bond behaviour in lime-based TRMs. In total 160 pull-out tests are performed on a glass-based and a steel-based TRM commonly used for strengthening of masonry structures. The results contribute to standardization of the test procedures for characterization of the fabric-to-mortar bond behaviour, to fundamental understanding of this mechanism and to optimization of the design of these composites for enhancing their mechanical response. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available