The process of rehabilitating reinforced concrete slabs using various materials such as steel bars, steel plates, textiles, and different types of geogrids

Ibrahim Mabrouk, Mahmoud Hassan Mahmoud, Muhammad Metwally Bushnaq
{"title":"The process of rehabilitating reinforced concrete slabs using various materials such as steel bars, steel plates, textiles, and different types of geogrids","authors":"Ibrahim Mabrouk,&nbsp;Mahmoud Hassan Mahmoud,&nbsp;Muhammad Metwally Bushnaq","doi":"10.1007/s42107-024-01067-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study involved conducting a comparative experimental investigation to explore various techniques for rehabilitating reinforced concrete slabs. The initial phase of the experimental program consisted of testing seven reinforced concrete slabs with dimensions of 450 × 50 mm and a length of 1000 mm under line load. These slabs were divided into three groups. G.1served as the control group, comprising solid slabs without any rehabilitation. G.2 included three slabs that were rehabilitated using different methods, such as reinforcement rebars, steel plates, and textile straps with dimensions of 450 × 50 × 1 mm in the short direction and 1000 × 50 × 1 mm in the long direction. G.3 comprised three slabs rehabilitated with various types of geogrids, namely uniaxial, biaxial, and triaxial. To validate the experimental findings, a nonlinear finite element analysis (NFEA) was carried out using the Abaqus program. The test results indicated that the most effective, straightforward, and cost-efficient rehabilitation technique involved using an 8 mm diameter reinforced bar mesh, resulting in a 74.10% increase in load capacity and an acceptable level of stiffness. Slabs rehabilitated with steel plates and textile straps demonstrated load capacity increases of 4.32% and 9.35% respectively, compared to the control slab's ultimate capacity, while maintaining an acceptable level of stiffness. However, slabs rehabilitated with geogrids, particularly those using biaxial geogrid, exhibited load capacity increases of up to 15.83% compared to the control slab's ultimate capacity. The slab rehabilitated with triaxial geogrid demonstrated a load capacity increase of 7.91% compared to the control slab's ultimate capacity, along with an acceptable level of stiffness.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8513,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Civil Engineering","volume":"25 6","pages":"4591 - 4617"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Civil Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42107-024-01067-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study involved conducting a comparative experimental investigation to explore various techniques for rehabilitating reinforced concrete slabs. The initial phase of the experimental program consisted of testing seven reinforced concrete slabs with dimensions of 450 × 50 mm and a length of 1000 mm under line load. These slabs were divided into three groups. G.1served as the control group, comprising solid slabs without any rehabilitation. G.2 included three slabs that were rehabilitated using different methods, such as reinforcement rebars, steel plates, and textile straps with dimensions of 450 × 50 × 1 mm in the short direction and 1000 × 50 × 1 mm in the long direction. G.3 comprised three slabs rehabilitated with various types of geogrids, namely uniaxial, biaxial, and triaxial. To validate the experimental findings, a nonlinear finite element analysis (NFEA) was carried out using the Abaqus program. The test results indicated that the most effective, straightforward, and cost-efficient rehabilitation technique involved using an 8 mm diameter reinforced bar mesh, resulting in a 74.10% increase in load capacity and an acceptable level of stiffness. Slabs rehabilitated with steel plates and textile straps demonstrated load capacity increases of 4.32% and 9.35% respectively, compared to the control slab's ultimate capacity, while maintaining an acceptable level of stiffness. However, slabs rehabilitated with geogrids, particularly those using biaxial geogrid, exhibited load capacity increases of up to 15.83% compared to the control slab's ultimate capacity. The slab rehabilitated with triaxial geogrid demonstrated a load capacity increase of 7.91% compared to the control slab's ultimate capacity, along with an acceptable level of stiffness.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用钢筋、钢板、纺织品和不同类型的土工格栅等各种材料修复钢筋混凝土板的过程
这项研究包括开展一项对比实验调查,以探索修复钢筋混凝土板的各种技术。实验计划的初始阶段包括在线性荷载下测试七块尺寸为 450 × 50 毫米、长度为 1000 毫米的钢筋混凝土板。这些楼板被分为三组。G.1 为对照组,由未做任何修复的实心板组成。G.2 包括使用不同方法修复的三块板,如短方向尺寸为 450 × 50 × 1 毫米和长方向尺寸为 1000 × 50 × 1 毫米的钢筋、钢板和纺织带。G.3 包括三个使用不同类型土工格栅(即单轴、双轴和三轴)修复的板。为了验证实验结果,使用 Abaqus 程序进行了非线性有限元分析(NFEA)。测试结果表明,最有效、最直接、最经济的修复技术是使用直径为 8 毫米的钢筋网,从而提高了 74.10%的承载能力和可接受的刚度水平。与对照板的极限承载力相比,使用钢板和纺织带修复的板的承载力分别增加了 4.32% 和 9.35%,同时保持了可接受的刚度水平。然而,与对照板的极限承载力相比,使用土工格栅修复的板,尤其是使用双轴土工格栅修复的板,承载力增加了 15.83%。使用三轴土工格栅修复的楼板与对照楼板的极限承载能力相比,承载能力增加了 7.91%,刚度水平也可以接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering Engineering-Civil and Structural Engineering
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing) welcomes articles and research contributions on topics such as:- Structural analysis and design - Earthquake and structural engineering - New building materials and concrete technology - Sustainable building and energy conservation - Housing and planning - Construction management - Optimal design of structuresPlease note that the journal will not accept papers in the area of hydraulic or geotechnical engineering, traffic/transportation or road making engineering, and on materials relevant to non-structural buildings, e.g. materials for road making and asphalt.  Although the journal will publish authoritative papers on theoretical and experimental research works and advanced applications, it may also feature, when appropriate:  a) tutorial survey type papers reviewing some fields of civil engineering; b) short communications and research notes; c) book reviews and conference announcements.
期刊最新文献
AI-augmented multi-objective structural optimization and statistical evaluation of flat slab systems with and without shear walls in high-rise RCC buildings under seismic loads Optimization of Voronoi tessellation with diagrid & hexagrid using MATLAB A user-centric machine learning framework for predicting multi-modal accessibility in transit-oriented development zones for sustainable urban construction in tier-2 Indian cities Correction: An opposition-enhanced Rao-2 metaheuristic for integrated time–cost–quality–safety optimization Machine-learning-driven modeling of strength in high-performance graphene oxide induced nano-concrete composites
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1