Study on the bonding properties of hybrid fiber ordinary concrete and recycled concrete with BFRP bars under freeze–thaw cycles
Source abstract
Abstract
The promotion of recycled concrete is a sustainable development trend in the construction industry, but its durability issues, especially in cold regions, may become an obstacle. Studying the difference between the effects of freeze–thaw (FT) on the bonding behavior of recycled concrete and ordinary concrete will help evaluate its reliability in harsh environments. This study used central pullout tests to investigate the bonding behavior of BFRP bars in hybrid fiber normal concrete (HFNC) and hybrid fiber recycled aggregate concrete (HFRC) under FT conditions. The specimens mixed with 0% and 50% recycled aggregate were subjected to 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 FT cycles, respectively. The results showed that FT cycles significantly reduced the bond strength of both concretes, with the reduction being more pronounced in HFRC. Specifically, the ultimate bond strength of HFNC without FT cycles was 24.3 MPa, while that of HFRC was 23.3 MPa. After 100 FT cycles, the bond strengths of HFNC and HFRC decreased by 36.21% and 45.49%, respectively. In addition, the peak slip value first increased and then decreased with the increase in the number of FT cycles, and the peak slip value of HFRC was 1.12–1.15 times that of HFNC. Finally, this study successfully established a bond–slip constituent model under FT conditions, which provides a valuable basis for understanding and predicting the durability and performance degradation of concrete structures under FT environments.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Recycled Aggregate Concrete Performance · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials · Innovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
College of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Liaoning University of Technology
References (45)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.3390/cryst1103023210.3390/cryst11030232 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12149010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121490 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e0334710.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03347 ↗
4. 10.1088/1755-1315/1280/1/01200410.1088/1755-1315/1280/1/012004 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11816410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118164 ↗
6. 10.1134/S106183092103002510.1134/S1061830921030025 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.00510.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.005 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12256910.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122569 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.13624710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136247 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.jobe.2024.11084710.1016/j.jobe.2024.110847 ↗
11. 10.1007/978-981-13-7017-5_2210.1007/978-981-13-7017-5_22 ↗
12. 10.1080/01694243.2024.234596710.1080/01694243.2024.2345967 ↗
13. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.584-586.130410.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.584-586.1304 ↗
14. 10.3390/polym1501019610.3390/polym15010196 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.07110.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.071 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12191010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121910 ↗
17. 10.1617/s11527-020-01614-510.1617/s11527-020-01614-5 ↗
18. 10.1002/app.4895910.1002/app.48959 ↗
19. 10.3969/j.issn.1007-9629.2018.02.02210.3969/j.issn.1007-9629.2018.02.022 ↗
20. 10.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.20181015.00110.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.20181015.001 ↗
21. 10.1155/2021/101453110.1155/2021/1014531 ↗
22. 10.1371/journal.pone.030332710.1371/journal.pone.0303327 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e0381510.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03815 ↗
24. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000049710.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000497 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.03610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.036 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12481210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124812 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.03910.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.039 ↗
28. 10.1080/01694243.2023.222525110.1080/01694243.2023.2225251 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.23710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.237 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.11.00710.1016/j.cemconres.2010.11.007 ↗
31. 10.1080/01694243.2022.211758710.1080/01694243.2022.2117587 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12149110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121491 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.jobe.2024.10859210.1016/j.jobe.2024.108592 ↗
34. Zhong H. Mechanical properties and modelling of fibre concrete under melting conditions. J Funct Mater. 2024;56(2):2193–2200.
35. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.10983110.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109831 ↗
36. 10.1080/01694243.2022.214944210.1080/01694243.2022.2149442 ↗
37. 10.32604/jrm.2021.01358010.32604/jrm.2021.013580 ↗
38. GB/T 50081-2019. Standard for test methods of concrete physical and mechanical properties. China Architecture & Building Press; Beijing, China, 2019.
39. GB/T 50082-2009. Standard for test method of long-term performance and durability of ordinary concrete. China Standard Press; Beijing, China, 2009.
40. 10.1023/A:102564241110310.1023/A:1025642411103 ↗
41. ASTM D7913/D7913M-14. Standard test method for bond strength of fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite bars to concrete by pullout testing. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International; 2014.
42. Malvar LJ. Bond stress–slip characteristics of FRP rebars. Port Hueneme, California, USA: Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center; 1994.
43. Cosenza E. Bond characteristics and anchorage length of FRP rebars. In: M El-Badry editor. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures 1996 p. 909–916.
44. 10.3785/j.issn.1008-973X.2012.04.01210.3785/j.issn.1008-973X.2012.04.012 ↗
45. Li J, Peng X, Deng Z, et al. Quantitative design on the frost-resistance of concrete. Concrete. 2000;12(6):61–65.