Quasi-static and dynamic response of GFRP and BFRP bars under compression

Strength Profile Pattern of FRP-Reinforced Concrete Structures: A Performance Analysis through Finite Element Analysis and Empirical Modeling Technique

“…The longitudinal FRP rebars and steel ties, steel spirals, FRP ties, or FRP spirals were employed as the longitudinal and transverse reinforcements in all the specimens in the constructed database. In the database, ten (10) columns were transversely unconfined, seven (7) columns were transversely reinforced with CFRP spirals, one hundred and ten (110) columns were transversely reinforced with GFRP spirals, hundred (100) columns were transversely reinforced with GFRP ties, eighteen (18) columns were transversely reinforced with steel spirals, and thirtythree (33) columns were transversely reinforced with steel ties. Various parameters have been included in the development of the database such as transverse reinforcement ratio (ρ t ), the elastic modulus of FRP bars (E f ), concrete compressive strength ( f c ), longitudinal FRP reinforcement ratio (ρ l ), the ultimate tensile strain of FRP bars (ε u ), the tensile strength of FRP bars ( f u ), breadth (B), width (H), and axial loading capacity (P n ) of specimens.…”

“…P n = 0.85 − 0.0029 f c A g − A FRP f c + 0.0208 f FRP A FRP (7) where the reduction coefficient for AS of columns due to strength of concrete should be larger than 0.646 i.e., α 1 = 0.85 − 0.0029 f c ≥ 0.646. Figure 3 depicts that the newly suggested model for the AS of columns reported higher accuracy than the previous models with R 2 = 0.73.…”

“…The obtained values from the curve fitting method in MATLAB for the constants and β were 0.0208 and 0.0029, correspondingly. Finally, the proposed model for the AS of FRP-reinforced members, after incorporating the values of the coefficients, has been reported by Equation (7). = (0.85 − 0.0029 ) − + 0.0208 (7) where the reduction coefficient for AS of columns due to strength of concrete should be larger than 0.646 i.e., = 0.85 − 0.0029 ≥ 0.646.…”

“…Finally, the proposed model for the AS of FRP-reinforced members, after incorporating the values of the coefficients, has been reported by Equation (7). = (0.85 − 0.0029 ) − + 0.0208 (7) where the reduction coefficient for AS of columns due to strength of concrete should be larger than 0.646 i.e., = 0.85 − 0.0029 ≥ 0.646. Figure 3 depicts that the newly suggested model for the AS of columns reported higher accuracy than the previous models with R 2 = 0.73.…”

“…The higher tensile strength, lower density, lighter weight, lower maintenance costs, higher resistance to corrosion, lower conductance to temperatures, and high resistance to chemical environments are the main advantages of FRPs [1][2][3][4][5]. These days, the construction industry is focusing on the replacement of corrosive steel reinforcement with the FRP rebars and confinements due to their superiorities over steel rebars to minimize the effects of corrosion in aggressive and corrosive environments [6][7][8][9]. Most of the concrete bridges in the United States and Canada employed the FRP reinforcement as a partial or total replacement of steel rebars [10].…”