2019
DOI: 10.6028/nist.sp.1244
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Research needs concerning the performance of fiber reinforced (FR) composite retrofit systems for buildings and infrastructure

Abstract: NIST acknowledges the extensive input and support of the following subject matter experts: James Jirsa, Bret Lizundia, William Gold, Charles Bakis, and John Myers. Their contributions, diversity of perspectives, critical input, and help facilitating the workshop are much appreciated. Workshop participants are thanked for their valuable feedback and input on the research needs for FR composite retrofitted building performance. NIST also thanks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 95 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These products have been proposed to use as an alternative to traditional steel rebars due to their high tensile strength, harsh corrosive resist ance, lighter weight compared to steel bars, and nonmagnetic feature [15][16][17][18]. FR composite is the most popular choice to retrofit many concrete elements including, columns, shear walls, slabs, and beams [19,20]. In spite of these advantages, the elastic modulus of FRP bars are lower than that of steel rebars, where for GFRP bars is 30-50 GPa, for CFRP is 120-150 GPa, and for AFRP is 70-180 GPa, which results in cracks and large deflection [21,22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These products have been proposed to use as an alternative to traditional steel rebars due to their high tensile strength, harsh corrosive resist ance, lighter weight compared to steel bars, and nonmagnetic feature [15][16][17][18]. FR composite is the most popular choice to retrofit many concrete elements including, columns, shear walls, slabs, and beams [19,20]. In spite of these advantages, the elastic modulus of FRP bars are lower than that of steel rebars, where for GFRP bars is 30-50 GPa, for CFRP is 120-150 GPa, and for AFRP is 70-180 GPa, which results in cracks and large deflection [21,22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accelerated conditioning in a laboratory setting can provide valuable insight into the long-term durability of composites, but more field data are necessary to validate accelerated conditioning protocols, especially those used for strength reduction factors (Goodwin et al, 2019; Tatar and Hamilton, 2016a). So far, only a limited number of field studies investigated aging of EBFRP under realistic conditions Tatar and Milev (2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%