{"title":"Parallel wires steel-reinforced polymer and mortar for structural strengthening: Introducing and bond properties","authors":"Ali Raji, Reza Zamani Ghaleh, Davood Mostofinejad","doi":"10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.119249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study aims to introduce a cost-effective composite for strengthening/retrofitting concrete elements in bond-critical applications. It comprises a polymeric or cementitious matrix reinforced with parallel high-tensile strength steel wires. 14 concrete prisms were first strengthened with such composites as carbon fiber-reinforced polymer sheets (CFRP), parallel wires steel-reinforced polymer (PW-SRP), and parallel wires steel-reinforced mortar (PW-SRM), and then tested under a direct single lap-shear setup. The study also assesses the efficacy of two surface preparation methods, externally-bonded reinforcement (EBR) and externally-bonded reinforcement on grooves (EBROG), on the bond features of the composites above. In the EBR group, the bond capacity of PW-SRP is 46 % and 85 % higher than that of CFRP and PW-SRM, respectively, while EBROG-CFRP held the first rank in the EBROG group, recording a capacity of 8 % and 54 % higher than the PW-SRP and the PW-SRM. Such results demonstrate the importance and priority of PW-SRP and PW-SRM composites from both resistive and economical considerations. Despite the PW-SRM's low capacity, its cheaper matrix justifies its use. Although the CFRP- and PW-SRM-strengthened samples debonded, the PW-SRP hit the peak failure strain and reached the wire rupture in both surface preparation methods. Moreover, the EBROG kept its superiority over the EBR in the bond capacities of PW-SRP and PW-SRM samples, reaching a capacity of up to 69 % higher than the EBR ones.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11763,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Structures","volume":"323 ","pages":"Article 119249"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Structures","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014102962401811X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study aims to introduce a cost-effective composite for strengthening/retrofitting concrete elements in bond-critical applications. It comprises a polymeric or cementitious matrix reinforced with parallel high-tensile strength steel wires. 14 concrete prisms were first strengthened with such composites as carbon fiber-reinforced polymer sheets (CFRP), parallel wires steel-reinforced polymer (PW-SRP), and parallel wires steel-reinforced mortar (PW-SRM), and then tested under a direct single lap-shear setup. The study also assesses the efficacy of two surface preparation methods, externally-bonded reinforcement (EBR) and externally-bonded reinforcement on grooves (EBROG), on the bond features of the composites above. In the EBR group, the bond capacity of PW-SRP is 46 % and 85 % higher than that of CFRP and PW-SRM, respectively, while EBROG-CFRP held the first rank in the EBROG group, recording a capacity of 8 % and 54 % higher than the PW-SRP and the PW-SRM. Such results demonstrate the importance and priority of PW-SRP and PW-SRM composites from both resistive and economical considerations. Despite the PW-SRM's low capacity, its cheaper matrix justifies its use. Although the CFRP- and PW-SRM-strengthened samples debonded, the PW-SRP hit the peak failure strain and reached the wire rupture in both surface preparation methods. Moreover, the EBROG kept its superiority over the EBR in the bond capacities of PW-SRP and PW-SRM samples, reaching a capacity of up to 69 % higher than the EBR ones.
期刊介绍:
Engineering Structures provides a forum for a broad blend of scientific and technical papers to reflect the evolving needs of the structural engineering and structural mechanics communities. Particularly welcome are contributions dealing with applications of structural engineering and mechanics principles in all areas of technology. The journal aspires to a broad and integrated coverage of the effects of dynamic loadings and of the modelling techniques whereby the structural response to these loadings may be computed.
The scope of Engineering Structures encompasses, but is not restricted to, the following areas: infrastructure engineering; earthquake engineering; structure-fluid-soil interaction; wind engineering; fire engineering; blast engineering; structural reliability/stability; life assessment/integrity; structural health monitoring; multi-hazard engineering; structural dynamics; optimization; expert systems; experimental modelling; performance-based design; multiscale analysis; value engineering.
Topics of interest include: tall buildings; innovative structures; environmentally responsive structures; bridges; stadiums; commercial and public buildings; transmission towers; television and telecommunication masts; foldable structures; cooling towers; plates and shells; suspension structures; protective structures; smart structures; nuclear reactors; dams; pressure vessels; pipelines; tunnels.
Engineering Structures also publishes review articles, short communications and discussions, book reviews, and a diary on international events related to any aspect of structural engineering.