Failure characteristics of FRP-strengthened masonry walls under out-of-plane loads

Hamed, Ehab; Rabinovitch, Oded

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.03.016

Cited by 73 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Different wall failure modes 46 associated with this retrofit technique have been discussed in Hamed and Rabinovitch (2010), 47 and further studies focused on the characterization of FRP debonding as the preferred failure 48 mode have been reported in Kashyap et al (2012) and the references therein. In the composite 49 NSM FRP retrofitted wall section, the FRP strips resist the tensile stresses and the masonry 50 material resists the compression stresses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In Situ Out-of-Plane Testing of As-Built and Retrofitted Unreinforced Masonry Walls

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Draft ManuscriptAuthors may post the final draft of their work on open, unrestricted Internet sites or deposit it in an institutional repository when the draft contains a link to the bibliographic record of the published version in the ASCE Library or Civil Engineering Database. "Final draft" means the version submitted to ASCE after peer review and prior to copyediting or other ASCE production activities; it does not include the copyedited version, the page proof, or a PDF of the published version. varied from 80 to 130 years, and all but one were constructed using clay brick masonry with 6 timber floor and roof diaphragms. The fourth building was a reinforced concrete frame structure 7 with pre-cracked clay block partition walls in addition to partition walls that appeared 8 undamaged. The test program was comprised of testing five one-way vertically spanning solid 9 URM walls from the group of three URM buildings and testing four two-way spanning URM 10 partition walls from the reinforced concrete frame building. All walls were tested with their 11 original support conditions, but three one-way spanning walls were additionally re-tested with 12 modified support conditions. These additional tests allowed the effects of wall support type to be 13 investigated, including the influence of a concrete ring beam used at the floor levels and the 14 influence of wall to timber diaphragm anchorage by means of grouted steel rods. Several walls 15 were next retrofitted by adding either near-surface mounted (NSM) carbon fiber reinforced 16 polymer (FRP) strips or NSM twisted steel bars (TSB), and were then re-tested.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In Situ Out-of-Plane Testing of As-Built and Retrofitted Unreinforced Masonry Walls

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A very usual failure is caused by loss of bond of the FRP reinforcement, named as debonding failure. Some of the common out-of-plane failure mechanisms of FRP strengthened masonry elements include sliding of the masonry units, flexural-shear cracking, FRP rupture, FRP debonding, punching shear and crushing of brick in compression [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. The bond mechanism is complex because it depends on the mechanical properties of masonry blocks, mortar joints, adhesive and FRP reinforcement [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of debonding strength for masonry elements retrofitted with FRP composites using neuro fuzzy and neural network approaches

Mansouri

Kisi

2015

Composites Part B: Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The shear modulus of the FRP strip is estimated as 8.25 GPa and the shear correction factor is taken as 5/6. The elastic and shear moduli of the adhesive layer follow [Hamed and Rabinovitch 2010a;Hamed and Rabinovitch 2010b] and equal E = 3.3 GPa and G = 1.32 GPa. Its specific mass is taken as 1070 kg/m 3 .…”

Section: Materials Properties the Equivalent Elastic Modulus Of The Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The shear response of the compressed mortar, s(γ x z ), is assumed linear elastic with a shear modulus G j = 166 MPa ( [Hamed and Rabinovitch 2010a;Hamed and Rabinovitch 2010b]. The initial tangent moduli of the mortar material are taken as E j = f , ( x x = 0 − ) = 314 MPa and G j = s ,γ (γ x z = 0) = 166 MPa.…”

Section: Materials Properties the Equivalent Elastic Modulus Of The Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The addition of a strong, stiff, lightweight, and durable externally bonded tensile resisting layer provides 30 ODED RABINOVITCH AND HAZEM MADAH the wall with a supplemental load resisting mechanism and with the ability to resist out-of-plane loads through flexure. This ability was demonstrated in various experimental programs that examined the static out-of-plane response of the strengthened wall [Albert et al 2001;Hamilton and Dolan 2001;Griffith et al 2004;Gilstrap and Dolan 1998;Hamed and Rabinovitch 2010a;Hamed and Rabinovitch 2010b]. The more important challenge is, however, to examine, characterize, and demonstrate the response of the strengthened wall to dynamic loads.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dynamics of FRP strengthened unidirectional masonry walls, II: Experiments and comparison

Rabinovitch

Madah

2012

J. Mech. Mater. Struct.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this part of the paper, the dynamic out-of-plane behavior of a unidirectional strengthened masonry wall is studied experimentally. The experimental phase focuses on shake-table testing of a full-scale masonry wall strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced composite strips. The tested wall is subjected to different combinations of in-plane compression and out-of-plane excitation. The dynamic behavior of the wall is monitored with emphasis on the global out-of-plane displacements and accelerations as well as on the localized displacements and strains near the mortar joints. The experimental results are also used for the assessment of the finite element model developed in part I of the paper. The experimental results, the numerical analysis, and the comparison between the two throw light on the global and local aspects of the dynamic response. The numerical model allows for further study of local-scale results, which cannot be monitored experimentally. In particular, the dynamics of the shear and peeling stresses at the adhesive layers are examined. The comparison of the experimental results with ones obtained for the same wall before strengthening demonstrate the potential of the method and its impact on the dynamics of the masonry wall.

show abstract

Failure characteristics of FRP-strengthened masonry walls under out-of-plane loads

Cited by 73 publications

References 36 publications

In Situ Out-of-Plane Testing of As-Built and Retrofitted Unreinforced Masonry Walls

In Situ Out-of-Plane Testing of As-Built and Retrofitted Unreinforced Masonry Walls

Prediction of debonding strength for masonry elements retrofitted with FRP composites using neuro fuzzy and neural network approaches

Dynamics of FRP strengthened unidirectional masonry walls, II: Experiments and comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About