Effect of Spike Anchors in the Bond Behavior of FRCM Systems Applied onto Curved Masonry Substrates
Source abstract
Abstract
Externally bonded composite systems are commonly used for the structural strengthening of existing arched masonry structures. Textile-reinforced mortar systems applied to masonry arch intrados allow the load carrying capacity of the structure to be increased and the infrastructure to be kept in service during application of strengthening systems. The structural performance of mortar-based materials [i.e., fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM), textile-reinforced mortar (TRM), and steel-reinforced grout (SRG)] depends on the bond properties between the matrix and the substrate and between the matrix and the fibers. Also, when a strengthening system is applied to a concave masonry substrate, the additional stress component (normal to the substrate) at the matrix–substrate and matrix–fiber interface, due to the substrate curvature, negatively effects the stress-transfer mechanism between the strengthening system and the masonry substrate. In current engineering practice, spike anchors are generally used to improve bonding properties between the composite material and the substrate in order to reduce the negative effects of a strengthening system applied to a concave masonry/concrete substrate. In this paper, we report and discuss the results obtained from direct shear tests performed on an FRCM with a pozzolanic reaction on strengthened curved masonry specimens. In particular, the experimental campaign revealed the effects of spike anchors in the stress-transfer mechanism between the FRCM and the masonry substrate. The presence of spike anchors, as we determined, caused local effects that altered the stress-transfer mechanism. However, the maximum force obtained from single shear-lap tests on specimens with spike anchors was, on average, higher than that obtained from specimens without spike anchors.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Masonry and Concrete Structural Analysis · Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Architecture Engineering, Univ. of Padova, Via Marzolo 9, Padova 35131, Italy; Dept. of Industrial Engineering (DII), Univ. of Padova, Via Gradenigo, 6/a, Padova 35131, Italy (corresponding author).
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Architecture Engineering, Univ. of Padova, Via Marzolo 9, Padova 35131, Italy.
Full Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Architecture Engineering, Univ. of Padova, Via Marzolo 9, Padova 35131, Italy.
Civil Engineer (Q), Rete Ferroviaria Italiana, RFI Spa, Piazza della Croce Rossa, Roma 1, Roma 00161, Italy.
Civil Engineer (D), Rete Ferroviaria Italiana, RFI Spa, Piazza della Croce Rossa, Roma 1, Roma 00161, Italy.
References (61)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.04410.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.044 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.06.02310.1016/j.compstruct.2017.06.023 ↗
3. Awani, O., A. El Refai, and T. El-Maaddawy. 2015. “Bond characteristics of carbon fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix in double shear tests.” Constr. Build. Mater. 101 (1): 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.017.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.017 ↗
4. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000046410.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000464 ↗
5. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:2(73)10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:2(73) ↗
6. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12664010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126640 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11425110.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114251 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11962910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119629 ↗
9. Bisby, L., T. Stratford, C. Hart, and S. Farren. 2013. “Fire performance of well-anchored TRM, FRCM and FRP flexural strengthening systems.” In Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Advance Composite in Construction, 98–109. Chesterfield, UK: Network Group for Composites in Construction.
10. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2009)13:1(25)10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2009)13:1(25) ↗
11. Bournas, D. A., P. V. Lontou, C. G. Papanicolaou, and T. C. Triantafillou. 2007. “Textile-reinforced mortar versus fiber-reinforced polymer confinement in reinforced concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J. 104 (6): 740–748.
12. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2018.02.01410.1016/j.ijadhadh.2018.02.014 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.10705110.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107051 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12002910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120029 ↗
15. 10.1533/9780857097019.1.6110.1533/9780857097019.1.61 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.02.01910.1016/j.compstruct.2016.02.019 ↗
17. Cerniauskas, G., Z. Tetta, D. A. Bournas, and L. A. Bisby. 2020. “Concrete confinement with TRM versus FRP jackets at elevated temperatures.” Mater. Struct. 53 (3): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-020-01492-x.10.1617/s11527-020-01492-x ↗
18. CNR (National Research Council). 2019. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded fibre reinforced inorganic matrix systems for strengthening existing structures. CNR-DT 215/2018. Rome, Italy: CNR.
19. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.06210.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.062 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.06.00210.1016/j.compositesb.2012.06.002 ↗
21. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000021810.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000218 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2014.01.01110.1016/j.engfracmech.2014.01.011 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.00510.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.005 ↗
24. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000098610.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000986 ↗
25. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.817.52010.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.817.520 ↗
26. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000115510.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001155 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.07610.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.076 ↗
28. 10.1617/s11527-014-0360-110.1617/s11527-014-0360-1 ↗
29. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000119110.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001191 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.10010.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.100 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.02510.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.025 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.01010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.010 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.04.03810.1016/j.matdes.2017.04.038 ↗
34. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2008)12:5(553)10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2008)12:5(553) ↗
35. 10.1088/1757-899X/369/1/01203810.1088/1757-899X/369/1/012038 ↗
36. Galassi, S. 2018b. “Analysis of masonry arches reinforced with FRP sheets: Experimental results and numerical evaluations.” In Vol. 207 of MATEC Web of Conf., Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences.
37. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.08410.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.084 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.11189510.1016/j.engstruct.2021.111895 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.02.01210.1016/j.compstruct.2013.02.012 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.06210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.062 ↗
41. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000027610.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000276 ↗
42. 10.1080/09276440.2020.187019010.1080/09276440.2020.1870190 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.11.04410.1016/j.compositesb.2017.11.044 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.02.00410.1016/j.compstruct.2014.02.004 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11439410.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114394 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.19510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.195 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.05.09710.1016/j.compstruct.2018.05.097 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.10700810.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107008 ↗
49. 10.1617/s11527-017-1036-410.1617/s11527-017-1036-4 ↗
50. Simoncello, N., P. Zampieri, J. Gonzalez-Libreros, S. Perboni, and C. Pellegrino. 2020. “Numerical analysis of an FRP-strengthened masonry arch bridge.” Front. Built Environ. 6: 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00007.10.3389/fbuil.2020.00007 ↗
51. Simoncello, N., P. Zampieri, M. Zizi, L. Rossi, and C. Pellegrino. 2022. “Lateral response of damaged stand-alone arches: Tilting tests and rigid-block analysis.” Eng. Struct. 268: 114700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114700.10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114700 ↗
52. Teng, J., J. Chen, S. Smith, and L. Lam. 2001. FRP: Strengthened RC structures. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
53. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.05.01610.1016/j.compositesb.2013.05.016 ↗
54. 10.1186/s40069-021-00460-110.1186/s40069-021-00460-1 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.07.04510.1016/j.compstruct.2015.07.045 ↗
56. Zampieri, P. 2020. “Horizontal capacity of single-span masonry bridges with intrados FRCM strengthening.” Compos. Struct. 254: 112238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112238.10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112238 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.11113510.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111135 ↗
58. 10.3390/polym909040210.3390/polym9090402 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11464310.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114643 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11202410.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112024 ↗
61. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000285510.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002855 ↗