符合 RILEM 标准的混凝土中带肋 GFRP 钢筋粘结行为的梁试验和拉拔试验比较研究

IF 4.4 3区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Mehran Rahimi, Mohammad-Reza Davoodi, Mahdi Nematzadeh, Hossein Yousefpour, Mahdi Azarbera, Zahra Fattahi
{"title":"符合 RILEM 标准的混凝土中带肋 GFRP 钢筋粘结行为的梁试验和拉拔试验比较研究","authors":"Mehran Rahimi,&nbsp;Mohammad-Reza Davoodi,&nbsp;Mahdi Nematzadeh,&nbsp;Hossein Yousefpour,&nbsp;Mahdi Azarbera,&nbsp;Zahra Fattahi","doi":"10.1007/s43452-024-01095-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Different researchers have perused the bond behavior of concrete and rebar employing the beam or pull-out tests; nonetheless, results were not precisely comparable owing to different test methods. Hence, a comprehensive research study is necessary in this field. In contrast to steel bars, there is no standard approach for FRP bar surface characterization. Moreover, previous studies reveal that FRP bars with different surfaces exhibit various bonding mechanisms. Therefore, determining the bond characteristics of various FRP bars with different surfaces is essential for their application in structures. A recent study experimentally compared beam and pull-out test results for ribbed GFRP bars, with and without anchors, conforming to RILEM standards. The variables included two different test methods (beam test and pull-out test), steel anchor (presence and absence of anchor), and concrete compressive strength level (25 and 45 MPa). It was found that the maximum transferred stress in the ribbed GFRP bar from the beam test was higher than in the pull-out test for all specimens. On average, they are about 24% higher than the pull-out test values. In the pull-out test, the bar slip threshold stress and the initial slope of the stress–slip graph were higher than in the beam test for all specimens. A comparative analysis was conducted on studies using beam and pull-out test results without anchors. The impact of anchors on reducing development length was evaluated by comparing the existing length with the straight and hook development lengths specified by ACI 440.1R-15. The difference suggests a conservative approach in the code.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55474,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study between beam and pull-out tests on bond behavior of ribbed GFRP bar in concrete conforming to RILEM standards\",\"authors\":\"Mehran Rahimi,&nbsp;Mohammad-Reza Davoodi,&nbsp;Mahdi Nematzadeh,&nbsp;Hossein Yousefpour,&nbsp;Mahdi Azarbera,&nbsp;Zahra Fattahi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43452-024-01095-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Different researchers have perused the bond behavior of concrete and rebar employing the beam or pull-out tests; nonetheless, results were not precisely comparable owing to different test methods. Hence, a comprehensive research study is necessary in this field. In contrast to steel bars, there is no standard approach for FRP bar surface characterization. Moreover, previous studies reveal that FRP bars with different surfaces exhibit various bonding mechanisms. Therefore, determining the bond characteristics of various FRP bars with different surfaces is essential for their application in structures. A recent study experimentally compared beam and pull-out test results for ribbed GFRP bars, with and without anchors, conforming to RILEM standards. The variables included two different test methods (beam test and pull-out test), steel anchor (presence and absence of anchor), and concrete compressive strength level (25 and 45 MPa). It was found that the maximum transferred stress in the ribbed GFRP bar from the beam test was higher than in the pull-out test for all specimens. On average, they are about 24% higher than the pull-out test values. In the pull-out test, the bar slip threshold stress and the initial slope of the stress–slip graph were higher than in the beam test for all specimens. A comparative analysis was conducted on studies using beam and pull-out test results without anchors. The impact of anchors on reducing development length was evaluated by comparing the existing length with the straight and hook development lengths specified by ACI 440.1R-15. The difference suggests a conservative approach in the code.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43452-024-01095-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43452-024-01095-1","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

不同的研究人员采用梁试验或拉拔试验来研究混凝土和钢筋的粘结行为;然而,由于试验方法不同,结果并不具有精确的可比性。因此,有必要在这一领域开展全面的研究。与钢筋相比,玻璃纤维增强塑料(FRP)钢筋的表面特征还没有标准方法。此外,以往的研究表明,不同表面的玻璃钢条具有不同的粘合机制。因此,确定不同表面的玻璃纤维增强塑料条的粘合特性对其在结构上的应用至关重要。最近的一项研究通过实验比较了符合 RILEM 标准的带肋玻璃纤维增强塑料(GFRP)钢筋的梁和拉拔测试结果,包括带锚固件和不带锚固件的钢筋。变量包括两种不同的测试方法(横梁测试和拉拔测试)、钢锚(有锚和无锚)以及混凝土抗压强度水平(25 兆帕和 45 兆帕)。结果发现,在所有试样中,梁试验产生的带肋 GFRP 钢筋的最大转移应力都高于拉拔试验。平均而言,它们比拉出试验值高出约 24%。在拉拔试验中,所有试样的棒材滑移阈值应力和应力-滑移图的初始斜率都高于横梁试验。对使用无锚梁和拉拔试验结果的研究进行了比较分析。通过将现有长度与 ACI 440.1R-15 规定的直线和挂钩展开长度进行比较,评估了锚固对缩短展开长度的影响。两者之间的差异表明规范采用了保守的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative study between beam and pull-out tests on bond behavior of ribbed GFRP bar in concrete conforming to RILEM standards

Different researchers have perused the bond behavior of concrete and rebar employing the beam or pull-out tests; nonetheless, results were not precisely comparable owing to different test methods. Hence, a comprehensive research study is necessary in this field. In contrast to steel bars, there is no standard approach for FRP bar surface characterization. Moreover, previous studies reveal that FRP bars with different surfaces exhibit various bonding mechanisms. Therefore, determining the bond characteristics of various FRP bars with different surfaces is essential for their application in structures. A recent study experimentally compared beam and pull-out test results for ribbed GFRP bars, with and without anchors, conforming to RILEM standards. The variables included two different test methods (beam test and pull-out test), steel anchor (presence and absence of anchor), and concrete compressive strength level (25 and 45 MPa). It was found that the maximum transferred stress in the ribbed GFRP bar from the beam test was higher than in the pull-out test for all specimens. On average, they are about 24% higher than the pull-out test values. In the pull-out test, the bar slip threshold stress and the initial slope of the stress–slip graph were higher than in the beam test for all specimens. A comparative analysis was conducted on studies using beam and pull-out test results without anchors. The impact of anchors on reducing development length was evaluated by comparing the existing length with the straight and hook development lengths specified by ACI 440.1R-15. The difference suggests a conservative approach in the code.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering
Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 工程技术-材料科学:综合
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
201
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering (ACME) publishes both theoretical and experimental original research articles which explore or exploit new ideas and techniques in three main areas: structural engineering, mechanics of materials and materials science. The aim of the journal is to advance science related to structural engineering focusing on structures, machines and mechanical systems. The journal also promotes advancement in the area of mechanics of materials, by publishing most recent findings in elasticity, plasticity, rheology, fatigue and fracture mechanics. The third area the journal is concentrating on is materials science, with emphasis on metals, composites, etc., their structures and properties as well as methods of evaluation. In addition to research papers, the Editorial Board welcomes state-of-the-art reviews on specialized topics. All such articles have to be sent to the Editor-in-Chief before submission for pre-submission review process. Only articles approved by the Editor-in-Chief in pre-submission process can be submitted to the journal for further processing. Approval in pre-submission stage doesn''t guarantee acceptance for publication as all papers are subject to a regular referee procedure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信