Issue56

K. Fawzy et al, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 56 (2021) 123-136; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.56.10

100

80

Load ( kN )

60

B08 EXP B09 EXP

40

B08 ANSYS B09 ANSYS

20

0

0

10

20

30

40

Mid‐span deflection (mm)

Figure 10: comparison between experimental and numerical load - deflection curve for B00 to B09.

௨௟௧ ሺ ௧௛௘ሻ ௨௟௧ ሺ ௘௫௣ሻ

Theoretical (Ansys)

Experimental

Failure mode (Experimental)

Beam No.

Load (kN) 51.39 75.21 77.67 76.39 72.43 78.43 88.03 86.43

Deflection Δ u (mm)

Load (kN) 51.20 69.44 79.39 75.66 73.76 87.85 88.78 99.06 80.38 75.1

Deflection Δ u (mm)

B 00 B 01 B 02 B 03 B 04 B 05 B 06 B 07 B 08 B 09

30

32.01 27.72 26.13 23.33 31.74 32.96 36.96 30.97 33.76 36.56

1

Concrete crushing

23.92 23.82 23.69 31.76 24.79 24.53 26.48

1.08 1.03 0.96

debonding of the CFRP Rupture of the CFRP

Rupture of the CFRP and Concrete crushing Rupture of the CFRP and Concrete crushing

1

1.06

Rupture of the CFRP Rupture of the CFRP Rupture of the CFRP Local shear rupture debonding of the CFRP

1

0.97 1.01 1.02

100.15

24.3

82.25

22.56

Table 8: Comparison between experimental and theoretical results.

C ONCLUSIONS

he aim of this analysis is to investigate the influence of different parameters on the flexural behavior of repaired concrete beams, such as the number of layers, strengthening scheme (side and U-shape bonding), and reinforcement ratio. Based on these experimental and numerical results, we can deduce the following:  The outcome of the experimental program shows that externally bonded CFRP may be used to support reinforced concrete beams effectively. With the increase in CFRP layers, an increase in stiffness and flexural strength was observed. T

134