4.7 Article

Performance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened by hybrid FRP laminates

期刊

CEMENT & CONCRETE COMPOSITES
卷 28, 期 10, 页码 906-913

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.07.016

关键词

ductility; flexure; FRP; repair; hybrid; rehabilitation and strengthening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the last two decades, the use of advanced composite materials such as Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) in strengthening reinforced concrete (RC) structural elements has been increasing. Research and design guidelines concluded that externally bonded FRP could increase the capacity of RC elements efficiently. However, the linear stress-strain characteristics of FRP up to failure and lack of yield plateau have a negative impact on the overall ductility of the strengthened RC elements. Use of hybrid FRP laminates, which consist of a combination of either carbon and glass fibers, or glass and aramid fibers, changes the behaviour of the material to a non-linear behaviour. This paper aims to study the performance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened by hybrid FRP laminates. This paper presents an experimental program conducted to study the behaviour of RC beams strengthened with hybrid fiber reinforced polymer (HFRP) laminates. The program consists of a total of twelve T-beams with overall dimensions equal to 460 x 300 x 3250 mm. The beams were tested under cyclic loading up to failure to examine its flexural behaviour. Different reinforcement ratios, fiber directions, locations and combinations of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminates were attached to the beams to determine the best strengthening scheme. Different percentages of steel reinforcement were also used. An analytical model based on the stress-strain characteristics of concrete, steel and FRP was adopted. Recommendations and design guidelines of RC beams strengthened by FRP and HFRP laminates are introduced. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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