PSI - Issue 37

Sonia Djenad et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 37 (2022) 321–329 Djenad et al / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

327

7

a)

b)

40

70

Unconfined

5CS4E4B20

Unconfined

3CS3E4B20

35

60

5CS4E4B30

5CS4E4B40

3CS3E4B30

3CS3E4B40

30

50

25

40

20

30

15

Stress (Mpa)

Stress (Mpa)

20

10

10

5

0

0

0

0,002

0,004

0,006

0,008

0,01

0

0,002

0,004

0,006

0,008

0,01

Strain

Strain

Fig. 4. (a) Stress-Strain response according to FRP Strips width: (a) 03 FRP Strips; (b) 05 FRP Strips The summary of predicted results such as the details of average peak stresses, failure stresses and axial deformation for both confined and unconfined concrete are given in Table 4. These average FEM results confirm the effectiveness of FRP Strips in terms of positive contribution in compressive strength.

Table 4. Summary of predicted results: confined vs. unconfined concrete.

Peak stress (MPa)

Failure stress (MPa)

Specimens

Strength gain (%)

Unconfined concrete

Confined concrete

Unconfined concrete

Confined concrete

5CS1 5CS2 5CS3 5CS4 5CE1 5CE2 5CE3 5CE4 5CB1 5CB2 5CB3 3CS1 3CS2 3CS3 3CE1 3CE2 3CE3 3CE4 3CB1 3CB2 3CB3

26,74 27,31 27,72 28,38 28,38 30,50 32,47 34,26 34,26 36,70 38,14 25,24 26,22 27,12 27,12 28,45 29,44 30,09 30,09 32 ,14 34,31

14,20 16 ,09 19,60 20 ,38 20,18 23,37 23,17 26,32 26,32 51,65 62,74

17,84 20,36 22,16 25,07 25,07 34,42 43,10 50,99 50,99 11,54 15,55 19,52 19 ,52 25,38 29,74 32,61 32,61 41,64 51,21 127,63 176,51

22,69

2 ,01

22,69

2 ,01

22,69

2 ,01

1,85

22,69

2 ,01

11,23

4,42 4,42 3,71 3,71 4,60 4,60 7,85

22,69

2 ,01

22,69

2 ,01

17,81