4.7 Article

Reliability-based design analysis of FRP shear strengthened reinforced concrete beams considering different FRP configurations

Journal

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Volume 237, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.111957

Keywords

FRP shear strengthened; Reinforced concrete beam; Load and resistance factor design; FRP configuration; Design format

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51878414, 51908372, 51622808]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFE0125000]
  3. Shenzhen City's basic research project [JCYJ20170314105503899]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Compared with FRP flexural strengthened reinforced concrete (RC) beams, the mechanism of shear strengthening is complex, and the brittle shear failure is more catastrophic. To guarantee the structural safety, it is necessary to evaluate the reliability of FRP shear strengthened RC beams. Based on the principle of load and resistance factor design (LRFD), the reliability-based design analysis for FRP shear strengthened RC beams was performed herein considering different FRP configurations (U-jacketing, side bonding, and complete wrapping). Several prediction models of FRP shear capacity were evaluated based on the constructed database. Reliability analysis and calibration of design factors were conducted. The results show that: (1) the Chen and Teng's model shows the highest accuracy in the prediction of FRP shear capacity for U-jacketing and side bonding type, while the Khalifa's model is the most accurate for complete wrapping type. (2) Complete wrapping and side bonding show the largest and smallest reliability index, respectively. (3) Due to the debonding failure, it is difficult to satisfy the large target reliability index for U-jacketing and side bonding. (4) With the increase of the target reliability index, the resistance reduction factor format requires a larger amount of FRP compared with the partial safety factor format.

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