Experimental study of different fiber composites used to repair damaged coal gangue sintered brick masonry panels: Diagonal compression and cyclic shear compression behavior
{"title":"Experimental study of different fiber composites used to repair damaged coal gangue sintered brick masonry panels: Diagonal compression and cyclic shear compression behavior","authors":"Fenghao Qu , Shiping Yin , Huarui Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.engstruct.2025.120112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Fiber-reinforced composites represent one of the most effective technologies for seismic protection and post-earthquake damaged masonry structures in regions prone to seismic activity. However, existing masonry structures and post-earthquake damaged masonry structures may experience damage of varying severity, which seriously affects the effectiveness of fiber-reinforced composites. To elucidate the mechanisms through which various fiber composites enhance the shear and seismic resilience of damaged walls, comprehensive in-plane diagonal compression and cyclic shear tests were conducted on both masonry walls and confined masonry (CM) walls retrofitted with fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP), textile-reinforced concrete (TRC), and engineered cementitious composites (ECC). An analysis revealed that unreinforced and mortar-reinforced walls exhibited significant brittleness upon failure. In contrast, FRPs, TRCs, and ECCs considerably improved deformability while delaying the onset of cracking and stiffness deterioration. The efficiency of the FRP in enhancing the shear strength was slightly superior to that of the other two materials, whereas the ECC and TRC had comparable effects on improving the shear strength. Among the reinforced samples, those strengthened with ECCs presented the best ductility and energy dissipation capacity, whereas the FRP-reinforced samples presented the lowest ductility. The performance of the TRC-strengthened samples fell between those of the other samples. The investigation of diagonal compression revealed that the reinforced walls demonstrated significant enhancements in shear stress, initial stiffness, ductility, and energy dissipation compared to unreinforced walls, with improvements ranging from 19.9 % to 44.1 %, 8.1 %-30.5 %, 39.7 %-185.2 %, and 142.1 %-558.2 %, respectively. Additionally, in the context of cyclic shear compression, the reinforced walls exhibited improvements in peak load, ductility, and energy dissipation by 3.4 %-22.1 %, 24.5 %-100 %, and 66.9 %-180.8 %, respectively. Severely damaged CM walls reinforced with TRC and ECC met the requisite stability requirements under “large earthquakes,” whereas FRPs ensured stability only under moderate earthquakes. Pre-damaged CM walls reinforced with ECCs, TRCs, and FRPs can guarantee stability under conditions of large, moderate, and minor earthquakes, respectively.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11763,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Structures","volume":"332 ","pages":"Article 120112"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Structures","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029625005036","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Fiber-reinforced composites represent one of the most effective technologies for seismic protection and post-earthquake damaged masonry structures in regions prone to seismic activity. However, existing masonry structures and post-earthquake damaged masonry structures may experience damage of varying severity, which seriously affects the effectiveness of fiber-reinforced composites. To elucidate the mechanisms through which various fiber composites enhance the shear and seismic resilience of damaged walls, comprehensive in-plane diagonal compression and cyclic shear tests were conducted on both masonry walls and confined masonry (CM) walls retrofitted with fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP), textile-reinforced concrete (TRC), and engineered cementitious composites (ECC). An analysis revealed that unreinforced and mortar-reinforced walls exhibited significant brittleness upon failure. In contrast, FRPs, TRCs, and ECCs considerably improved deformability while delaying the onset of cracking and stiffness deterioration. The efficiency of the FRP in enhancing the shear strength was slightly superior to that of the other two materials, whereas the ECC and TRC had comparable effects on improving the shear strength. Among the reinforced samples, those strengthened with ECCs presented the best ductility and energy dissipation capacity, whereas the FRP-reinforced samples presented the lowest ductility. The performance of the TRC-strengthened samples fell between those of the other samples. The investigation of diagonal compression revealed that the reinforced walls demonstrated significant enhancements in shear stress, initial stiffness, ductility, and energy dissipation compared to unreinforced walls, with improvements ranging from 19.9 % to 44.1 %, 8.1 %-30.5 %, 39.7 %-185.2 %, and 142.1 %-558.2 %, respectively. Additionally, in the context of cyclic shear compression, the reinforced walls exhibited improvements in peak load, ductility, and energy dissipation by 3.4 %-22.1 %, 24.5 %-100 %, and 66.9 %-180.8 %, respectively. Severely damaged CM walls reinforced with TRC and ECC met the requisite stability requirements under “large earthquakes,” whereas FRPs ensured stability only under moderate earthquakes. Pre-damaged CM walls reinforced with ECCs, TRCs, and FRPs can guarantee stability under conditions of large, moderate, and minor earthquakes, respectively.
期刊介绍:
Engineering Structures provides a forum for a broad blend of scientific and technical papers to reflect the evolving needs of the structural engineering and structural mechanics communities. Particularly welcome are contributions dealing with applications of structural engineering and mechanics principles in all areas of technology. The journal aspires to a broad and integrated coverage of the effects of dynamic loadings and of the modelling techniques whereby the structural response to these loadings may be computed.
The scope of Engineering Structures encompasses, but is not restricted to, the following areas: infrastructure engineering; earthquake engineering; structure-fluid-soil interaction; wind engineering; fire engineering; blast engineering; structural reliability/stability; life assessment/integrity; structural health monitoring; multi-hazard engineering; structural dynamics; optimization; expert systems; experimental modelling; performance-based design; multiscale analysis; value engineering.
Topics of interest include: tall buildings; innovative structures; environmentally responsive structures; bridges; stadiums; commercial and public buildings; transmission towers; television and telecommunication masts; foldable structures; cooling towers; plates and shells; suspension structures; protective structures; smart structures; nuclear reactors; dams; pressure vessels; pipelines; tunnels.
Engineering Structures also publishes review articles, short communications and discussions, book reviews, and a diary on international events related to any aspect of structural engineering.