Issue 78

D. D. Joshi et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 78 (2026) 315-345; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.78-19

response, rotational and energy dissipation capacity, failure modes

• for the strengthened specimen, the top rebar ruptured after the bottom rebar during the CAA stage. • strengthened specimen showed higher rotational stiffness and limited deformation

• reduction in maximum displacement after strengthening

Qian and Li [19] Load-displacement response, strain measurement, failure modes Feng et al. [20] Load-displacement response, strain measurement, stress contour, failure modes Vieira et al. [22] Load-displacement response, horizontal load, ductility, failure modes Qin et al. [23] Load-displacement response, axial load, crack width, strain measurement, stress contour, failure modes Qin et al. [24] Load-displacement response, strain measurement, failure modes Huang et al. [25] Load-displacement response, strain

• GFRP

• the proposed strengthening scheme improved the peak resistance by 25.90% and improved the punching shear capacity of flat slab • strengthening scheme improved the peak load capacity by 10.81% to 24.83%

• debonding and delamination of GFRP strips, insufficient anchorage, size effect of specimen • capacity of GFRP laminate was not utilized due to debonding • slight debonding was observed for NSM GFRP bars • no significant improvement in CA stage

debonding

and

delamination

• debonding and rupture of GFRP

• TRM flexural strengthening resulted in a distributed damage pattern compared to the localized damage observed in the NSM strengthened specimen • ECC slight crushing, axial and bending deformation, pull out of BFRP bar, BFRP bar rupture

• Strengthening techniques improved load resistance during the CAA phase, with increases of 1.44 and 1.42 times

• A combined strengthening of ECC and BFRP was found effective for progressive collapse resistance with 31.3% increase in ultimate load carrying capacity

• proposed strengthening scheme showed the slight decrease in the ultimate displacement

• debonding of ECC layer and GFRP bars in NSM

• L-shaped edge beam enhanced progressive collapse resistance of beam-slab system by 52% to 65% as compared to flat slab system.

• full capacity of GFRP bars can be better utilized • proper cast-in-place arrangement was required for the L-beam action • at the larger deformation stage CA mechanism was insignificant

• slab-strengthening scheme altered the failure modes of the beams and slabs, significantly increasing the ductility of the sub assemblage.

• the slab strengthening scheme outperformed the beam strengthening scheme. • slab strengthening provided higher progressive collapse resistance. • the ultimate load capacity was enhanced by 15.60% to 29.40% in strengthened specimens • the peak bearing capacity and ductility increased by 29.4% and 78.6%, respectively

measurement, ductility, dissipation,

energy failure

modes

Huang et al. [26] Load-displacement response, stress contour, axial force, strain response, failure modes

• structural components, including beams and slabs, shifted from brittle failure to ductile failure

• horizontal load is not considered due to limitation of experimental test setup

327