Bond Strength and Stress slip of Lap splice reinforcement with Fiber Reinforced Polymer wrapped and unwrapped concrete beams with the confinement properties. Abstract: This paper describes the experimental results of different researchers to examine the properties and behavior of lap splice reinforcement in a concrete beam. Beam specimens were constructed and tested in the lab. The beam specimen was tested with monotonic (cyclic) and fatigue loading. The beam was divided into three groups: unwrapped, wrapped with glass fiber -reinforced polymer (GFRP) and wrapped with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP). During the test the different variables were used regarding the presence or absence of FRP wrapping, the types of loading (cyclic
…show more content…
The significance is that a correlation needs to be developed to facilitate the introduction of FRP as new materials in the construction of infrastructure. This leads to increase the bond strength of the concrete and steel used in any structural components. Also, the paper will present the comparison of results obtained by different researchers and helps the civil engineer to increase strength and safety of the structure. During the seismic loading, the structural component becomes more critical and shows unusual behavior and fails easily. Therefore, a structural component such as joints, splice joint and a portion having more extreme load should be strengthened with FRP wrapping. It will help to understand how the lap splice can be strengthened by using FRP …show more content…
All the dimensions and cross-section for the beam were same. They were 2,200mm in length ,250 mm in width and 350mm in height as shown in Fig. 1.300mm splice length (minimum as per ACI) was chosen. Each beam was reinforced with 20M steel rebar. GFRP and CFRP were used for the wrapping at the point of the splice. One layer of U-shaped FRP sheet was used with 950 mm. The weights of GFRP and CFRP were 430 g/m2 and 900 g/m2 . The compressive strength of concrete was obtained by testing the 100 *200 mm cylinders which were 42 and 44 Mpa for 28 and 45 days respectively. The beam was tested after 45 days. Figure 1 .Longitudinal and cross section of the tested beam
Source: Longitudinal and cross section of the tested beam, Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers, Available from http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CC.1943-5614.0000699, Accessed Date:10/06/2016 (modified) Figure 2.Beam repaired with FRP materials (GFRP and CFRP) at splice joint Source: Beam repair with FRP materials (GFRP and CFRP) at splice joint, Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers, Available from http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CC.1943-5614.0000699, Accessed
The significance is that a correlation needs to be developed to facilitate the introduction of FRP as new materials in the construction of infrastructure. This leads to increase the bond strength of the concrete and steel used in any structural components. Also, the paper will present the comparison of results obtained by different researchers and helps the civil engineer to increase strength and safety of the structure. During the seismic loading, the structural component becomes more critical and shows unusual behavior and fails easily. Therefore, a structural component such as joints, splice joint and a portion having more extreme load should be strengthened with FRP wrapping. It will help to understand how the lap splice can be strengthened by using FRP …show more content…
All the dimensions and cross-section for the beam were same. They were 2,200mm in length ,250 mm in width and 350mm in height as shown in Fig. 1.300mm splice length (minimum as per ACI) was chosen. Each beam was reinforced with 20M steel rebar. GFRP and CFRP were used for the wrapping at the point of the splice. One layer of U-shaped FRP sheet was used with 950 mm. The weights of GFRP and CFRP were 430 g/m2 and 900 g/m2 . The compressive strength of concrete was obtained by testing the 100 *200 mm cylinders which were 42 and 44 Mpa for 28 and 45 days respectively. The beam was tested after 45 days. Figure 1 .Longitudinal and cross section of the tested beam
Source: Longitudinal and cross section of the tested beam, Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers, Available from http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CC.1943-5614.0000699, Accessed Date:10/06/2016 (modified) Figure 2.Beam repaired with FRP materials (GFRP and CFRP) at splice joint Source: Beam repair with FRP materials (GFRP and CFRP) at splice joint, Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers, Available from http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CC.1943-5614.0000699, Accessed