4.6 Article

Fracture Behavior and Digital Image Analysis of GFRP Reinforced Concrete Notched Beams

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 15, Issue 17, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma15175981

Keywords

notched beam; GFRP bar; three-point bending test; digital image correlation

Funding

  1. Italian Department of Civil Protection [WP 14]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents three-point bending fracture tests on glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforced concrete notched beams, and compares them with plain concrete specimens. The results can help understand the fracture behavior of this type of specimens and provide parameters for analysis.
This study presents three-point bending fracture tests on glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforced concrete notched beams. Few studies have been conducted to date to understand the fracture behavior of this type of specimens. The specimens have nominal depth, width, and length equal to 150 mm, 150 mm, and 550 mm. Plain concrete notched beams with the same dimensions are cast from the same batch of concrete to compare the responses with GFRP reinforced concrete notched beams. The notch of the plain concrete specimens is either saw cut or cast. These two notch fabrication methods are compared based on the load responses. The peak load, crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD), GFRP bar slip at two ends, and load point displacement are used to discuss the results of the fracture tests. In addition, digital image analysis is performed to identify the fracture process zone (FPZ) and the location of the neutral axis, which are used to determine the force in the GFRP bar via cross-sectional analysis. Finally, the GFRP bar force versus slip responses are compared with those from the pull-out tests performed on the same bar to show that the bond of the bar in the pull-out tests represents an upper bound limit compared to the behavior in bending.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available