2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110072
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of concrete strength and longitudinal reinforcement arrangement on the performance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened using EBR and EBROG methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, improving the ductility of concrete is very important, especially due to the fact that concrete structures may experience extreme loadings during their lifetime [11][12][13][14]. To address such a deficiency, a continuous reinforcing bar has been applied to resist the tensile force imposed on the structure [15][16][17][18]. Unlike continuous reinforcing bars, fibers are short, discontinuous, and randomly distributed throughout the concrete to produce a more ductile and crack control matrix.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, improving the ductility of concrete is very important, especially due to the fact that concrete structures may experience extreme loadings during their lifetime [11][12][13][14]. To address such a deficiency, a continuous reinforcing bar has been applied to resist the tensile force imposed on the structure [15][16][17][18]. Unlike continuous reinforcing bars, fibers are short, discontinuous, and randomly distributed throughout the concrete to produce a more ductile and crack control matrix.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The presented LCC framework is applied to the bridge with eight different design alternatives: status‐quo (SQ) alternative and seven retrofit plans. The retrofit alternatives are selected based on their common usage in Central and Southeastern United States or their effectiveness for seismic damage reduction 27,36–41 . Two of these retrofit alternatives include reinforcing all columns with steel jacketing (SJ) and carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) wraps.…”
Section: Illustrative Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The retrofit alternatives are selected based on their common usage in Central and Southeastern United States or their effectiveness for seismic damage reduction. 27,[36][37][38][39][40][41] Two of these retrofit alternatives include reinforcing all columns with steel jacketing (SJ) and carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) wraps. Elastomeric isolation bearings (EIB), steel restrainer cables (SRC), and seat extenders (SEs) are also included in this study.…”
Section: Bridge and Retrofit Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They asserted that the maximum load-carrying response of the micropile elements occurs when these types of piles are installed vertically in interaction with competent rock layers. Furthermore, increasing the stiffness of the piles using fiber reinforced polymers enhances the axial and bending capacity of piles in interacting with rock and highly cemented layers, and controls the displacement issues of the piles [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Haberfield et al [18] proposed that the satisfactory response of piles depends on the stiffness of the rock and caliche compared to the strength properties of these deposits.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%