4.5 Review

Anchorage systems for reinforced concrete structures strengthened with fiber-reinforced polymer composites: State-of-the-art review

期刊

JOURNAL OF REINFORCED PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES
卷 39, 期 9-10, 页码 327-344

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0731684420905010

关键词

Fiber-reinforced polymer; strengthening; anchorage system; concrete structures; review

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC0703000]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51478106, 51525801]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Southeast University [YBPY1921]
  4. Postgraduate Research&Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province [KYCX19_0092]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites have been widely used to strengthen the deteriorated reinforced concrete structures due to their outstanding characteristics of light weight, high strength, as well as noncorrosion. A successful strengthening with the FRP composites would equip the existing structures with the prominent improvement in terms of the durability, ductility, and bearing capacity. Current studies indicate that a simple and reliable anchorage system for the FRP composites will help improve the performance of the strengthened structures both efficiently and economically. Up till now, various anchorage systems have been developed for the FRP composites. Therefore, it is necessary to select appropriate anchorage systems according to different needs and establish relevant design specifications. In view of the aforementioned objectives, this paper systematically summarizes the anchoring mechanism of anchorage systems for two commonly used FRP products (FRP laminates and FRP bars) in different strengthened systems. Additionally, a state-of-the-art review as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each anchorage system are presented. Finally, shortcomings in the current state of knowledge and recommendations beneficial to further study are put forward.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据