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

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Comfort Mensah [verfasserIn] Zhenqing Wang [verfasserIn] Alex Osei Bonsu [verfasserIn] Wenyan Liang [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	FRP laminate concrete bonding interface bond–slip behavior mechanical property externally bonded reinforcement

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Polymers - MDPI AG, 2011, 12(2020), 11, p 2466
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:12 ; year:2020 ; number:11, p 2466

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/polym12112466

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ01685473X

Internformat


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

Indexfelder

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

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Effect of Different Bond Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of FRP and Concrete Interface

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?