4.6 Article

Reliability Analysis of Bond Behaviour of CFRP-Concrete Interface under Wet-Dry Cycles

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma11050741

Keywords

reliability analysis; FRP-concrete; bond behaviour; wet-dry cycles; sustained loading

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51578428]
  2. Special Project on Technical Innovation of Hubei [2016AAA025]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Effective bonding between adherents plays a key role in retrofitting concrete structures in civil engineering using fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs). To ensure structural safety, it is critical to develop design codes, which account for uncertainties of materials, the environment, and load, to estimate bond behaviour under long-term exposure to harsh environments. Therefore, a reliability analysis was performed to study the bond behaviour of FRP-concrete interface under wet-dry cycles and sustained loading. Thirty double-lap, shear-bonded carbon FRP (CFRP)-concrete composite specimens were tested after wet-dry cycles and sustained loading exposure. The fracture energy G(f) of the bond behavior between CFRP and concrete was directly obtained from the measured local bond-slip curves. Five widely used test methods were adopted to verify the possible distribution types of G(f). Based on the best fit distribution of G(f), a reliability index beta was then calculated for the specimens. The effects of wet-dry exposure and sustained loading on beta were analysed separately. The effects of the mean and standard deviation of the load on beta were compared. It was found that the mean had a greater impact on reliability than the standard deviation, but neither changed the regulation of the exponential reduction of beta with increasing wet-dry cycle time. Their impact was significant for a small number of wet-dry cycles but insignificant for more than 4000 wet-dry cycles.

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