Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface
This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned F...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Comfort Mensah [verfasserIn] Zhenqing Wang [verfasserIn] Alex Osei Bonsu [verfasserIn] Wenyan Liang [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2020 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Polymers - MDPI AG, 2011, 12(2020), 11, p 2466 |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:12 ; year:2020 ; number:11, p 2466 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.3390/polym12112466 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ01685473X |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | DOAJ01685473X | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20240412211729.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 230226s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.3390/polym12112466 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ01685473X | ||
035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
050 | 0 | |a QD241-441 | |
100 | 0 | |a Comfort Mensah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface |
264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
520 | |a This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned FRP types were tested to evaluate the influence of FRP length, width, and thickness, and their bonding behavior. The 2D-DIC (digital image correlation) technique and several strain gauges bonded along the laminate were used to measure the strain distributions of the FRP-to-concrete interface. The failure mode, ultimate load, load–slip, strain distribution, and bond–slip relationships between the laminates and concrete were analyzed. Furthermore, bond–slip curves were compared with some other existing literature models. The results from the experiment showed that the ultimate load, peak bond stress, and slip increased with the increase in the BFRP and GFRP laminates length, width, and thickness. The values of peak shear stress and the corresponding maximum shear slip were significantly different because of the above-mentioned factors’ influence on them. The bond interface that contributes to the bearing of the shear load may grow to an extent and later shift from the loaded end when debonding progresses. Finally, the fractured surfaces of the failed FRP laminates were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM), revealing that FRP rupture, debonding in concrete, and debonding in an adhesive–concrete interface were the main failure types. | ||
650 | 4 | |a FRP laminate | |
650 | 4 | |a concrete | |
650 | 4 | |a bonding interface | |
650 | 4 | |a bond–slip behavior | |
650 | 4 | |a mechanical property | |
650 | 4 | |a externally bonded reinforcement | |
653 | 0 | |a Organic chemistry | |
700 | 0 | |a Zhenqing Wang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 0 | |a Alex Osei Bonsu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 0 | |a Wenyan Liang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Polymers |d MDPI AG, 2011 |g 12(2020), 11, p 2466 |w (DE-627)61409612X |w (DE-600)2527146-5 |x 20734360 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:12 |g year:2020 |g number:11, p 2466 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112466 |z kostenfrei |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe |z kostenfrei |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/12/11/2466 |z kostenfrei |
856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_224 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2108 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2119 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4335 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 12 |j 2020 |e 11, p 2466 |
author_variant |
c m cm z w zw a o b aob w l wl |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:20734360:2020----::fetfifrnbnprmtroteehnclrprisfr |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2020 |
callnumber-subject-code |
QD |
publishDate |
2020 |
allfields |
10.3390/polym12112466 doi (DE-627)DOAJ01685473X (DE-599)DOAJ277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QD241-441 Comfort Mensah verfasserin aut Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned FRP types were tested to evaluate the influence of FRP length, width, and thickness, and their bonding behavior. The 2D-DIC (digital image correlation) technique and several strain gauges bonded along the laminate were used to measure the strain distributions of the FRP-to-concrete interface. The failure mode, ultimate load, load–slip, strain distribution, and bond–slip relationships between the laminates and concrete were analyzed. Furthermore, bond–slip curves were compared with some other existing literature models. The results from the experiment showed that the ultimate load, peak bond stress, and slip increased with the increase in the BFRP and GFRP laminates length, width, and thickness. The values of peak shear stress and the corresponding maximum shear slip were significantly different because of the above-mentioned factors’ influence on them. The bond interface that contributes to the bearing of the shear load may grow to an extent and later shift from the loaded end when debonding progresses. Finally, the fractured surfaces of the failed FRP laminates were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM), revealing that FRP rupture, debonding in concrete, and debonding in an adhesive–concrete interface were the main failure types. FRP laminate concrete bonding interface bond–slip behavior mechanical property externally bonded reinforcement Organic chemistry Zhenqing Wang verfasserin aut Alex Osei Bonsu verfasserin aut Wenyan Liang verfasserin aut In Polymers MDPI AG, 2011 12(2020), 11, p 2466 (DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5 20734360 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:11, p 2466 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112466 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/12/11/2466 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 11, p 2466 |
spelling |
10.3390/polym12112466 doi (DE-627)DOAJ01685473X (DE-599)DOAJ277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QD241-441 Comfort Mensah verfasserin aut Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned FRP types were tested to evaluate the influence of FRP length, width, and thickness, and their bonding behavior. The 2D-DIC (digital image correlation) technique and several strain gauges bonded along the laminate were used to measure the strain distributions of the FRP-to-concrete interface. The failure mode, ultimate load, load–slip, strain distribution, and bond–slip relationships between the laminates and concrete were analyzed. Furthermore, bond–slip curves were compared with some other existing literature models. The results from the experiment showed that the ultimate load, peak bond stress, and slip increased with the increase in the BFRP and GFRP laminates length, width, and thickness. The values of peak shear stress and the corresponding maximum shear slip were significantly different because of the above-mentioned factors’ influence on them. The bond interface that contributes to the bearing of the shear load may grow to an extent and later shift from the loaded end when debonding progresses. Finally, the fractured surfaces of the failed FRP laminates were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM), revealing that FRP rupture, debonding in concrete, and debonding in an adhesive–concrete interface were the main failure types. FRP laminate concrete bonding interface bond–slip behavior mechanical property externally bonded reinforcement Organic chemistry Zhenqing Wang verfasserin aut Alex Osei Bonsu verfasserin aut Wenyan Liang verfasserin aut In Polymers MDPI AG, 2011 12(2020), 11, p 2466 (DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5 20734360 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:11, p 2466 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112466 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/12/11/2466 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 11, p 2466 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.3390/polym12112466 doi (DE-627)DOAJ01685473X (DE-599)DOAJ277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QD241-441 Comfort Mensah verfasserin aut Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned FRP types were tested to evaluate the influence of FRP length, width, and thickness, and their bonding behavior. The 2D-DIC (digital image correlation) technique and several strain gauges bonded along the laminate were used to measure the strain distributions of the FRP-to-concrete interface. The failure mode, ultimate load, load–slip, strain distribution, and bond–slip relationships between the laminates and concrete were analyzed. Furthermore, bond–slip curves were compared with some other existing literature models. The results from the experiment showed that the ultimate load, peak bond stress, and slip increased with the increase in the BFRP and GFRP laminates length, width, and thickness. The values of peak shear stress and the corresponding maximum shear slip were significantly different because of the above-mentioned factors’ influence on them. The bond interface that contributes to the bearing of the shear load may grow to an extent and later shift from the loaded end when debonding progresses. Finally, the fractured surfaces of the failed FRP laminates were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM), revealing that FRP rupture, debonding in concrete, and debonding in an adhesive–concrete interface were the main failure types. FRP laminate concrete bonding interface bond–slip behavior mechanical property externally bonded reinforcement Organic chemistry Zhenqing Wang verfasserin aut Alex Osei Bonsu verfasserin aut Wenyan Liang verfasserin aut In Polymers MDPI AG, 2011 12(2020), 11, p 2466 (DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5 20734360 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:11, p 2466 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112466 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/12/11/2466 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 11, p 2466 |
allfieldsGer |
10.3390/polym12112466 doi (DE-627)DOAJ01685473X (DE-599)DOAJ277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QD241-441 Comfort Mensah verfasserin aut Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned FRP types were tested to evaluate the influence of FRP length, width, and thickness, and their bonding behavior. The 2D-DIC (digital image correlation) technique and several strain gauges bonded along the laminate were used to measure the strain distributions of the FRP-to-concrete interface. The failure mode, ultimate load, load–slip, strain distribution, and bond–slip relationships between the laminates and concrete were analyzed. Furthermore, bond–slip curves were compared with some other existing literature models. The results from the experiment showed that the ultimate load, peak bond stress, and slip increased with the increase in the BFRP and GFRP laminates length, width, and thickness. The values of peak shear stress and the corresponding maximum shear slip were significantly different because of the above-mentioned factors’ influence on them. The bond interface that contributes to the bearing of the shear load may grow to an extent and later shift from the loaded end when debonding progresses. Finally, the fractured surfaces of the failed FRP laminates were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM), revealing that FRP rupture, debonding in concrete, and debonding in an adhesive–concrete interface were the main failure types. FRP laminate concrete bonding interface bond–slip behavior mechanical property externally bonded reinforcement Organic chemistry Zhenqing Wang verfasserin aut Alex Osei Bonsu verfasserin aut Wenyan Liang verfasserin aut In Polymers MDPI AG, 2011 12(2020), 11, p 2466 (DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5 20734360 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:11, p 2466 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112466 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/12/11/2466 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 11, p 2466 |
allfieldsSound |
10.3390/polym12112466 doi (DE-627)DOAJ01685473X (DE-599)DOAJ277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QD241-441 Comfort Mensah verfasserin aut Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned FRP types were tested to evaluate the influence of FRP length, width, and thickness, and their bonding behavior. The 2D-DIC (digital image correlation) technique and several strain gauges bonded along the laminate were used to measure the strain distributions of the FRP-to-concrete interface. The failure mode, ultimate load, load–slip, strain distribution, and bond–slip relationships between the laminates and concrete were analyzed. Furthermore, bond–slip curves were compared with some other existing literature models. The results from the experiment showed that the ultimate load, peak bond stress, and slip increased with the increase in the BFRP and GFRP laminates length, width, and thickness. The values of peak shear stress and the corresponding maximum shear slip were significantly different because of the above-mentioned factors’ influence on them. The bond interface that contributes to the bearing of the shear load may grow to an extent and later shift from the loaded end when debonding progresses. Finally, the fractured surfaces of the failed FRP laminates were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM), revealing that FRP rupture, debonding in concrete, and debonding in an adhesive–concrete interface were the main failure types. FRP laminate concrete bonding interface bond–slip behavior mechanical property externally bonded reinforcement Organic chemistry Zhenqing Wang verfasserin aut Alex Osei Bonsu verfasserin aut Wenyan Liang verfasserin aut In Polymers MDPI AG, 2011 12(2020), 11, p 2466 (DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5 20734360 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:11, p 2466 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112466 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/12/11/2466 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 11, p 2466 |
language |
English |
source |
In Polymers 12(2020), 11, p 2466 volume:12 year:2020 number:11, p 2466 |
sourceStr |
In Polymers 12(2020), 11, p 2466 volume:12 year:2020 number:11, p 2466 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
FRP laminate concrete bonding interface bond–slip behavior mechanical property externally bonded reinforcement Organic chemistry |
isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
container_title |
Polymers |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Comfort Mensah @@aut@@ Zhenqing Wang @@aut@@ Alex Osei Bonsu @@aut@@ Wenyan Liang @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
61409612X |
id |
DOAJ01685473X |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ01685473X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240412211729.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/polym12112466</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ01685473X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QD241-441</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Comfort Mensah</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned FRP types were tested to evaluate the influence of FRP length, width, and thickness, and their bonding behavior. The 2D-DIC (digital image correlation) technique and several strain gauges bonded along the laminate were used to measure the strain distributions of the FRP-to-concrete interface. The failure mode, ultimate load, load–slip, strain distribution, and bond–slip relationships between the laminates and concrete were analyzed. Furthermore, bond–slip curves were compared with some other existing literature models. The results from the experiment showed that the ultimate load, peak bond stress, and slip increased with the increase in the BFRP and GFRP laminates length, width, and thickness. The values of peak shear stress and the corresponding maximum shear slip were significantly different because of the above-mentioned factors’ influence on them. The bond interface that contributes to the bearing of the shear load may grow to an extent and later shift from the loaded end when debonding progresses. Finally, the fractured surfaces of the failed FRP laminates were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM), revealing that FRP rupture, debonding in concrete, and debonding in an adhesive–concrete interface were the main failure types.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">FRP laminate</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">concrete</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bonding interface</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bond–slip behavior</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">mechanical property</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">externally bonded reinforcement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Organic chemistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhenqing Wang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alex Osei Bonsu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wenyan Liang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Polymers</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2020), 11, p 2466</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)61409612X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2527146-5</subfield><subfield code="x">20734360</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:11, p 2466</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112466</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/12/11/2466</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">11, p 2466</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
callnumber-first |
Q - Science |
author |
Comfort Mensah |
spellingShingle |
Comfort Mensah misc QD241-441 misc FRP laminate misc concrete misc bonding interface misc bond–slip behavior misc mechanical property misc externally bonded reinforcement misc Organic chemistry Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface |
authorStr |
Comfort Mensah |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)61409612X |
format |
electronic Article |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
collection |
DOAJ |
remote_str |
true |
callnumber-label |
QD241-441 |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
20734360 |
topic_title |
QD241-441 Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface FRP laminate concrete bonding interface bond–slip behavior mechanical property externally bonded reinforcement |
topic |
misc QD241-441 misc FRP laminate misc concrete misc bonding interface misc bond–slip behavior misc mechanical property misc externally bonded reinforcement misc Organic chemistry |
topic_unstemmed |
misc QD241-441 misc FRP laminate misc concrete misc bonding interface misc bond–slip behavior misc mechanical property misc externally bonded reinforcement misc Organic chemistry |
topic_browse |
misc QD241-441 misc FRP laminate misc concrete misc bonding interface misc bond–slip behavior misc mechanical property misc externally bonded reinforcement misc Organic chemistry |
format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
Polymers |
hierarchy_parent_id |
61409612X |
hierarchy_top_title |
Polymers |
isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5 |
title |
Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ01685473X (DE-599)DOAJ277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe |
title_full |
Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface |
author_sort |
Comfort Mensah |
journal |
Polymers |
journalStr |
Polymers |
callnumber-first-code |
Q |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
true |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2020 |
contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
author_browse |
Comfort Mensah Zhenqing Wang Alex Osei Bonsu Wenyan Liang |
container_volume |
12 |
class |
QD241-441 |
format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Comfort Mensah |
doi_str_mv |
10.3390/polym12112466 |
author2-role |
verfasserin |
title_sort |
effect of different bond parameters on the mechanical properties of frp and concrete interface |
callnumber |
QD241-441 |
title_auth |
Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface |
abstract |
This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned FRP types were tested to evaluate the influence of FRP length, width, and thickness, and their bonding behavior. The 2D-DIC (digital image correlation) technique and several strain gauges bonded along the laminate were used to measure the strain distributions of the FRP-to-concrete interface. The failure mode, ultimate load, load–slip, strain distribution, and bond–slip relationships between the laminates and concrete were analyzed. Furthermore, bond–slip curves were compared with some other existing literature models. The results from the experiment showed that the ultimate load, peak bond stress, and slip increased with the increase in the BFRP and GFRP laminates length, width, and thickness. The values of peak shear stress and the corresponding maximum shear slip were significantly different because of the above-mentioned factors’ influence on them. The bond interface that contributes to the bearing of the shear load may grow to an extent and later shift from the loaded end when debonding progresses. Finally, the fractured surfaces of the failed FRP laminates were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM), revealing that FRP rupture, debonding in concrete, and debonding in an adhesive–concrete interface were the main failure types. |
abstractGer |
This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned FRP types were tested to evaluate the influence of FRP length, width, and thickness, and their bonding behavior. The 2D-DIC (digital image correlation) technique and several strain gauges bonded along the laminate were used to measure the strain distributions of the FRP-to-concrete interface. The failure mode, ultimate load, load–slip, strain distribution, and bond–slip relationships between the laminates and concrete were analyzed. Furthermore, bond–slip curves were compared with some other existing literature models. The results from the experiment showed that the ultimate load, peak bond stress, and slip increased with the increase in the BFRP and GFRP laminates length, width, and thickness. The values of peak shear stress and the corresponding maximum shear slip were significantly different because of the above-mentioned factors’ influence on them. The bond interface that contributes to the bearing of the shear load may grow to an extent and later shift from the loaded end when debonding progresses. Finally, the fractured surfaces of the failed FRP laminates were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM), revealing that FRP rupture, debonding in concrete, and debonding in an adhesive–concrete interface were the main failure types. |
abstract_unstemmed |
This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned FRP types were tested to evaluate the influence of FRP length, width, and thickness, and their bonding behavior. The 2D-DIC (digital image correlation) technique and several strain gauges bonded along the laminate were used to measure the strain distributions of the FRP-to-concrete interface. The failure mode, ultimate load, load–slip, strain distribution, and bond–slip relationships between the laminates and concrete were analyzed. Furthermore, bond–slip curves were compared with some other existing literature models. The results from the experiment showed that the ultimate load, peak bond stress, and slip increased with the increase in the BFRP and GFRP laminates length, width, and thickness. The values of peak shear stress and the corresponding maximum shear slip were significantly different because of the above-mentioned factors’ influence on them. The bond interface that contributes to the bearing of the shear load may grow to an extent and later shift from the loaded end when debonding progresses. Finally, the fractured surfaces of the failed FRP laminates were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM), revealing that FRP rupture, debonding in concrete, and debonding in an adhesive–concrete interface were the main failure types. |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
container_issue |
11, p 2466 |
title_short |
Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface |
url |
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112466 https://doaj.org/article/277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/12/11/2466 https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 |
remote_bool |
true |
author2 |
Zhenqing Wang Alex Osei Bonsu Wenyan Liang |
author2Str |
Zhenqing Wang Alex Osei Bonsu Wenyan Liang |
ppnlink |
61409612X |
callnumber-subject |
QD - Chemistry |
mediatype_str_mv |
c |
isOA_txt |
true |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.3390/polym12112466 |
callnumber-a |
QD241-441 |
up_date |
2024-07-03T23:17:10.138Z |
_version_ |
1803601712400826368 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ01685473X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240412211729.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/polym12112466</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ01685473X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QD241-441</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Comfort Mensah</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper presents double shear tests performed to investigate factors influencing the bond behavior between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminate, and concrete blocks. In detail, thirty-six twin concrete blocks strengthened with the aforementioned FRP types were tested to evaluate the influence of FRP length, width, and thickness, and their bonding behavior. The 2D-DIC (digital image correlation) technique and several strain gauges bonded along the laminate were used to measure the strain distributions of the FRP-to-concrete interface. The failure mode, ultimate load, load–slip, strain distribution, and bond–slip relationships between the laminates and concrete were analyzed. Furthermore, bond–slip curves were compared with some other existing literature models. The results from the experiment showed that the ultimate load, peak bond stress, and slip increased with the increase in the BFRP and GFRP laminates length, width, and thickness. The values of peak shear stress and the corresponding maximum shear slip were significantly different because of the above-mentioned factors’ influence on them. The bond interface that contributes to the bearing of the shear load may grow to an extent and later shift from the loaded end when debonding progresses. Finally, the fractured surfaces of the failed FRP laminates were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM), revealing that FRP rupture, debonding in concrete, and debonding in an adhesive–concrete interface were the main failure types.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">FRP laminate</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">concrete</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bonding interface</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bond–slip behavior</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">mechanical property</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">externally bonded reinforcement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Organic chemistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhenqing Wang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alex Osei Bonsu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wenyan Liang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Polymers</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2020), 11, p 2466</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)61409612X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2527146-5</subfield><subfield code="x">20734360</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:11, p 2466</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112466</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/277a23d0d0a0454e8ffae2661e78eafe</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/12/11/2466</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">11, p 2466</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.4002314 |