Mixed-Mode Debonding in CFRP-to-Steel Fiber–Reinforced Concrete Joints
Source abstract
Abstract
The external bonding of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets is a widely used method for strengthening and rehabilitating existing concrete structures. The premature failure of these structures is frequently attributed to debonding at the FRP–concrete interface, highlighting the need for interface studies. In this study, the interface properties of carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) and steel fiber–reinforced concrete (SFRC) were investigated. A series of double-shear tests was designed with variations in the initial angle between the CFRP sheet and SFRC to reflect different mixed-mode scenarios. A streamlined cohesive zone model (CZM) was proposed for both the CFRP–SFRC interface slip and steel fiber slip. The complete process of CFRP sheet delamination from SFRC under mixed-mode conditions was simulated using a finite-element software. The simulated results were in good agreement with the experimental results.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials · Structural Load-Bearing Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Fujian Univ. of Technology, Fuzhou 350118, China; Researcher, Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague 190 00, Czech Republic (corresponding author). ORCID: .
Master’s Student, School of Civil Engineering, Fujian Univ. of Technology, Fuzhou 350118, China.
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou Univ., Fuzhou 350118, China.
Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Fujian Univ. of Technology, Fuzhou 350118, China.
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. Alam, M. S., T. Kanakubo, and A. Yasojima. 2012. “Shear-pealing bond strength between continuous fiber sheet and concrete.” ACI Struct. J. 109: 75–82. https://doi.org/10.14359/51683496.
2. 10.3390/ma1514485210.3390/ma15144852 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.02.09910.1016/j.compstruct.2017.02.099 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.01.02410.1016/j.compositesb.2016.01.024 ↗
5. 10.1177/002199830303450510.1177/0021998303034505 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.07.00310.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.07.003 ↗
7. Choi, K. K., P. Meshgin, and M. M. Reda Taha. 2007. “Shear creep of epoxy at the concrete–FRP interfaces.” Composites, Part B 38 (5): 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.10.003.10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.10.003 ↗
8. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2005)9:1(52)10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2005)9:1(52) ↗
9. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.09.02910.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.09.029 ↗
10. CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2004. Design of concrete structures. Eurocode 2. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
11. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.05710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.057 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.06.04910.1016/j.compositesb.2016.06.049 ↗
13. 10.1007/s10704-006-9014-910.1007/s10704-006-9014-9 ↗
14. Holzenkämpfer P. 1997. Ingenieurmodelle des Verbunds geklebter Bewehrung für Betonbauteile. Berlin Germany: Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton. Heft 473.
15. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.11675010.1016/j.compstruct.2023.116750 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.13810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.138 ↗
17. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000076510.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000765 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.03710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.037 ↗
19. 10.1617/s11527-009-9553-410.1617/s11527-009-9553-4 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.05.00510.1016/j.cemconres.2010.05.005 ↗
21. 10.3390/app1001005010.3390/app10010050 ↗
22. 10.1617/s11527-007-9314-110.1617/s11527-007-9314-1 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.01.01410.1016/j.engstruct.2005.01.014 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.12.01010.1016/j.istruc.2021.12.010 ↗
25. Mofrad, M. H., D. Mostofinejad, and A. Hosseini. 2019. “A generic non-linear bond–slip model for CFRP composites bonded to concrete substrate using EBR and EBROG techniques.” Compos. Struct. 220: 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.03.063.10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.03.063 ↗
26. MOT (Ministry of Transport). 2019. Fiber for cement concrete in highway. Beijing: MOT.
27. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000127410.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001274 ↗
28. Nakaba, K., T. Kanakubo, T. Furuta, and H. Yoshizawa. 2001. “Bond behavior between fiber-reinforced polymer laminates and concrete.” ACI Struct. J. 98 (3): 359–367. https://doi.org/10.14359/10224.
29. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.13910.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.139 ↗
30. 10.1002/nme.331210.1002/nme.3312 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.11.01410.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.11.014 ↗
32. 10.1260/13694330979032769910.1260/136943309790327699 ↗
33. Van den Bosch, M. J., P. J. G. Schreurs, and M. G. D. Geers. 2006. “An improved description of the exponential Xu and Needleman cohesive zone law for mixed-mode decohesion.” Eng. Fract. Mech. 73 (9): 1220–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2005.12.006.10.1016/j.engfracmech.2005.12.006 ↗
34. SAC (Standardization Administration of China). 2014. Test method for tensile properties of orientation fiber reinforced polymer matrix composite materials. Beijing: SAC.
35. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.06910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.069 ↗
36. 10.1088/0965-0393/1/2/00110.1088/0965-0393/1/2/001 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11309510.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113095 ↗
38. 10.1680/jmacr.15.0016210.1680/jmacr.15.00162 ↗
39. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000111410.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001114 ↗
40. 10.1680/jmacr.15.0038510.1680/jmacr.15.00385 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12297510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122975 ↗