PET FRP与混凝土界面黏结行为试验研究

秦思颖; 朱铮; 白玉磊

doi:10.11899/zzfy20210413

PET FRP与混凝土界面黏结行为试验研究

doi: 10.11899/zzfy20210413

北京工业大学, 城市与工程安全减灾教育部重点试验室, 北京 100124

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金（51778019）

详细信息

作者简介:
秦思颖，男，生于1995年。硕士。主要从事桥梁抗震与加固研究。E-mail：qsiying@foxmail.com

通讯作者:
白玉磊，男，生于1985年。副教授，博士生导师。主要从事桥梁抗震与加固研究。E-mail：baiyl_bjut@163.com

计量
- 文章访问数: 125
- HTML全文浏览量: 67
- PDF下载量: 5
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2021-04-25
- 刊出日期: 2021-12-31

Experimental Study on the Bonding Behavior of PET FRP and Concrete Interface

Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124

摘要

摘要: 通过双面剪切试验对24个试件进行高延性纤维增强复合材料（PET FRP）与混凝土界面黏结性能研究，研究参数包括FRP种类、FRP黏结厚度、黏结长度和黏结宽度;分析各参数对PET FRP与混凝土黏结性能的影响，基于试验结果评估现有黏结滑移关系模型，并进行模型修正。研究结果表明，在有效黏结长度内，随着黏结长度的增加，PET FRP与混凝土界面黏结强度增大；当超过有效黏结长度后，增加PET FRP黏结长度不能明显增加界面黏结强度，但可提高试件破坏的延性；增加PET FRP黏结宽度可提高界面黏结强度，但会受PET FRP黏结宽度和混凝土宽度比值的影响；当界面刚度接近时，碳纤维增强复合材料（CFRP）与混凝土界面黏结强度远小于PET FRP与混凝土界面黏结强度。
- 界面黏结性能 /
- 双剪试验 /
- 黏结滑移关系 /
- PET FRP /
- 混凝土
Abstract: The interfacial properties of PET FRP and concrete were studied on 24 specimens through double shear test. The test parameters included FRP type, PET FRP bonding thickness, length and width. The influence of each parameter on the result was analyzed in detail. Results showed that within the effective bonding length, as the length increases, the bond strength also increases. When the effective bond length was exceeded, increasing the bond length could not significantly increase its bond strength, but it could increase the ductility of failure. Increasing the bonding width of PET FRP could also increase the interface bonding strength, but it would be affected by the ratio of the bonding width of PET FRP to the width of the concrete. When the interface stiffness is close, the bond strength between CFRP and concrete is much smaller than that of PET FRP. Based on the experimental results, the existing bond-slip relationship model was evaluated and model corrections were made.
- Interface bonding performance /
- Double shear test /
- Bond-slip relationship /
- PET FRP /
- Concrete

HTML全文

图 1 双剪试验装置

Figure 1. The plan of double shear test

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 双剪试验应变片粘贴示意

Figure 2. The schematic diagram of strain gauge pasting

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 双剪试验加载示意

Figure 3. Loading of double shear test

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 试件破坏示意

Figure 4. Failure mode of specimen

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 界面脱粘破坏机理

Figure 5. Interface debonding failure mechanism

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 黏结长度对界面黏结强度的影响

Figure 6. The influence of bond length on the bond strength of the interface

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 黏结层数、FRP种类、界面刚度对界面黏结强度的影响

Figure 7. The influence of the number of layers, FRP types, and interface stiffness on the bond strength of the interface

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 修正公式对界面黏结强度的预测

Figure 8. Comparison of measured value and modified formula of interface bond strength

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 代表性工况下FRP表面应变分布

Figure 9. FRP strain distribution under various working conditions

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 10 不同模型下PET FRP与混凝土界面黏结滑移关系曲线

Figure 10. Bond-slip curve under various working conditions

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 11 修正后3种模型的PET FRP与混凝土界面黏结滑移关系的拟合曲线

Figure 11. Fitting curves of the bond-slip relationship between PET FRP and concrete interface of the three modified models

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 试验参数与结果

Table 1. Test plan and results

编号	FRP种类	FRP层数	黏结长度/ mm	黏结宽度/ mm	试验测得的界面极限荷载P_t/kN	Chen等（2001）对黏结强度的预测值P_u/kN	P_t/P_u
P-1-40-50-I	PET	1	40	50	14.59	10.53	1.39
P-1-40-50-II	PET	1	40	50	14.24	10.53	1.35
P-1-50-50-I	PET	1	50	50	16.46	11.45	1.44
P-1-50-50-II	PET	1	50	50	16.99	11.45	1.48
P-1-60-50-I	PET	1	60	50	19.46	11.58	1.68
P-1-60-50-II	PET	1	60	50	18.61	11.58	1.61
P-1-70-50-I	PET	1	70	50	20.1	11.58	1.74
P-1-70-50-II	PET	1	70	50	19.21	11.58	1.66
P-1-80-50-I	PET	1	80	50	17.61	11.58	1.52
P-1-80-50-II	PET	1	80	50	17.84	11.58	1.54
P-1-90-50-I	PET	1	90	50	24.49	11.58	2.11
P-1-90-50-II	PET	1	90	50	18.21	11.58	1.57
P-1-100-50-I	PET	1	100	50	18.16	11.58	1.57
P-1-100-50-II	PET	1	100	50	19.43	11.58	1.68
P-1-190-50-I	PET	1	190	50	23.98	11.58	2.07
P-1-190-50-II	PET	1	190	50	23.91	11.58	2.06
P-1-190-30-I	PET	1	190	30	14.04	7.94	1.77
P-1-190-30-II	PET	1	190	30	12.74	7.94	1.60
P-1-190-70-I	PET	1	190	70	24.94	14.18	1.76
P-1-190-70-II	PET	1	190	70	34.70	14.18	2.45
P-3-190-50-I	PET	3	190	50	39.84	20.06	1.99
P-3-190-50-II	PET	3	190	50	36.27	20.06	1.81
C-1-190-50-I	CFRP	1	190	50	22.72	20.68	1.10
C-1-190-50-II	CFRP	1	190	50	18.06	20.68	0.87
注：I和II代表2个完全相同的构件

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 FRP力学参数

Table 2. Mechanical parameters of FRP

FRP种类	名义黏结厚度/mm	抗拉强度/MPa	第1段弹性模量/GPa	第2段弹性模量/GPa	伸长率/%
CFRP	0.167	3 972	245.5	—	1.77
PET FRP（PET-600）	0.841	740	17.9	8.3	8.30

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 界面黏结强度实测值与修正值对比

Table 3. Comparison of measured value and modified formula of interface bond strength

编号	FRP种类	试验测得的界面极限荷载P_t/kN	界面黏结强度修正值P_m/kN	P_t/P_m
P-1-40-50-I	PET	14.59	18.11	0.81
P-1-40-50-II	PET	14.24	18.11	0.79
P-1-50-50-I	PET	16.46	19.69	0.84
P-1-50-50-II	PET	16.99	19.69	0.86
P-1-60-50-I	PET	19.46	19.92	0.98
P-1-60-50-II	PET	18.61	19.92	0.93
P-1-70-50-I	PET	20.1	19.92	1.01
P-1-70-50-II	PET	19.21	19.92	0.96
P-1-80-50-I	PET	17.61	19.92	0.88
P-1-80-50-II	PET	17.84	19.92	0.90
P-1-90-50-I	PET	24.49	19.92	1.23
P-1-90-50-II	PET	18.21	19.92	0.91
P-1-100-50-I	PET	18.16	19.92	0.91
P-1-100-50-II	PET	19.43	19.92	0.98
P-1-190-50-I	PET	23.98	19.92	1.20
P-1-190-50-II	PET	23.91	19.92	1.20
P-1-190-30-I	PET	14.04	13.66	1.03
P-1-190-30-II	PET	12.74	13.66	0.93
P-1-190-70-I	PET	24.94	24.39	1.02
P-1-190-70-II	PET	34.7	24.39	1.42
P-3-190-50-I	PET	39.84	34.5	1.15
P-3-190-50-II	PET	36.27	34.5	1.05

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 各模型对峰值剪应力与对应滑移量试验值和预测值比值的对比

Table 4. Comparison of various models and experimental results

编号	Popovics模型τ_t/τ_p	Monti双线性模型τ_t/τ_p	陆新征简化模型τ_t/τ_p	Popovics模型S_0,t/S_0,p	Monti双线性模型S_0,t/S_0,p	陆新征简化模型S_0,t/S_0,p
P-1-40-50	0.25	0.38	0.47	0.80	1.73	1.11
P-1-50-50	0.35	0.54	0.66	1.69	3.67	2.34
P-1-60-50	0.53	0.82	1.01	1.25	2.72	1.73
P-1-70-50	0.63	0.96	1.18	1.48	3.20	2.04
P-1-80-50	0.80	1.22	1.51	1.38	3.00	1.91
P-1-90-50	0.53	0.82	1.01	1.69	3.67	2.34
P-1-100-50	0.46	0.71	0.88	2.15	4.67	2.98
P-1-190-50	0.59	0.91	1.12	1.78	3.87	2.47
P-3-190-50	0.82	1.26	1.55	3.08	6.67	4.26
P-1-190-30	0.62	0.95	1.04	1.23	2.67	1.54
P-1-190-70	0.59	0.90	1.25	1.38	3.00	2.14
平均值	0.56	0.86	1.06	1.63	3.53	2.26

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 3种模型黏结滑移关系曲线与试验结果拟合决定系数

Table 5. Fitting results of each bond-slip model and test data

编号	Popovics模型	Monti双线性模型	陆新征简化模型
P-1-200-30	0.85	0.93	0.76
P-1-200-70	0.97	0.90	0.94
P-1-200-50	0.87	0.97	0.91
P-1-40-50	0.99	0.93	0.96
P-1-60-50	0.96	0.99	0.91
P-1-70-50	0.98	0.95	0.93
P-1-80-50	0.98	0.95	0.94
P-1-90-50	0.96	0.99	0.93
P-1-100-50	0.95	0.97	0.80
平均值	0.94	0.95	0.90

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 试验结果与3种模型拟合的峰值剪应力和对应的滑移量

Table 6. Various situations of τ_max and S₀

编号	试验结果		Popovics模型		Monti双线性模型		陆新征简化模型
编号	峰值剪应力	滑移量	峰值剪应力	滑移量	峰值剪应力	滑移量	峰值剪应力	滑移量
P-1-40-50	1.58	0.05	1.51	0.05	1.59	0.05	1.57	0.06
P-1-50-50	2.24	0.11	2.08	0.07	2.10	0.06	2.20	0.09
P-1-60-50	3.42	0.08	3.40	0.09	3.39	0.07	3.33	0.10
P-1-70-50	4.01	0.10	4.00	0.10	4.34	0.09	3.99	0.11
P-1-80-50	5.12	0.09	5.11	0.09	5.11	0.09	5.10	0.10
P-1-90-50	3.42	0.11	3.39	0.11	3.39	0.09	3.30	0.12
P-1-100-50	2.97	0.14	2.96	0.15	2.95	0.14	2.27	0.16
P-1-190-50	3.81	0.12	3.79	0.12	3.78	0.11	3.51	0.17
P-1-190-30	3.96	0.08	3.96	0.08	3.95	0.08	3.90	0.08
P-1-190-70	3.78	0.09	3.78	0.09	3.77	0.08	3.80	0.09
P-3-190-50	5.25	0.24	5.24	0.24	5.25	0.23	5.25	0.37

下载: 导出CSV

表 7 修正公式计算结果与试验值的对比

Table 7. Comparison of modified model and experimental value

编号	修正公式计算结果τ_t/τ_p	修正公式计算结果S_0,t/S_0,p	试验值τ_t	公式计算结果τ_p	试验值S_0,t	公式计算结果S_0,p
P-1-40-50	0.45	0.52	1.58	3.54	0.05	0.10
P-1-50-50	0.63	1.10	2.24	3.54	0.11	0.10
P-1-60-50	0.97	0.82	3.42	3.54	0.08	0.10
P-1-70-50	1.13	0.96	4.01	3.54	0.10	0.10
P-1-80-50	1.45	0.90	5.12	3.54	0.09	0.10
P-1-90-50	0.97	1.10	3.42	3.54	0.11	0.10
P-1-100-50	0.84	1.40	2.97	3.54	0.14	0.10
P-1-190-50	1.07	1.16	3.81	3.54	0.12	0.10
P-1-190-30	1.00	0.71	3.96	3.97	0.08	0.11
P-1-190-70	1.20	1.01	3.78	3.16	0.09	0.09
平均值	0.97	0.97	—	—	—	—

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(15)

[1]	谷倩, 张祥顺, 彭少民, 2003. 新材料FRP的研究与应用综述. 华中科技大学学报(城市科学版), 20(1): 88—92 Gu Q. , Zhang X. S. , Peng S. M. , 2003. General introduction of the study and application of new FRP materials. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Urban Science Edition), 20(1): 88—92. (in Chinese)
[2]	陆新征, 2005. FRP-混凝土界面行为研究. 北京: 清华大学. Lu X. Z., 2005. Studies on FRP-concrete interface. Beijing: Tsinghua University. (in Chinese)
[3]	ASTM International, 2014. ASTM D3039/D3039M-2014 Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials. West Conshohocken: ASTM.
[4]	Bai Y. L. , Dai J. G. , Mohammadi M. , et al. , 2019. Stiffness-based design-oriented compressive stress-strain model for large-rupture-strain (LRS) FRP-confined concrete. Composite Structures, 223: 110953. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.110953
[5]	Chen J. F. , Teng J. G. , 2001. Anchorage strength models for FRP and steel plates bonded to concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(7): 784—791. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:7(784)
[6]	Dai J. G. , Bai Y. L. , Teng J. G. , 2011. Behavior and modeling of concrete confined with FRP composites of large deformability. Journal of Composites for Construction, 15(6): 963—973. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000230
[7]	Huo J. S. , Liu J. Y. , Lu Y. , et al. , 2016. Experimental study on dynamic behavior of GFRP-to-concrete interface. Engineering Structures, 118: 371—382. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.03.062
[8]	Idris Y. , Ozbakkaloglu T. , 2016. Behavior of square fiber reinforced polymer–high-strength concrete–steel double-skin tubular columns under combined axial compression and reversed-cyclic lateral loading. Engineering Structures, 118: 307—319. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.03.059
[9]	Lin J. P. , Wu Y. F. , 2016. Numerical analysis of interfacial bond behavior of externally bonded FRP-to-concrete joints. Journal of Composites for Construction, 20(5): 04016028. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000678
[10]	Liu X. F. , Li Y. , 2019. Static bearing capacity of partially corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete structures strengthened with PET FRP composites. Construction and Building Materials, 211: 33—43. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.218
[11]	Lu X. Z. , Teng J. G. , Ye L. P. , et al. , 2005. Bond–slip models for FRP sheets/plates bonded to concrete. Engineering Structures, 27(6): 920—937. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.01.014
[12]	Monti G. , Renzelli M. , Luciani P. , 2003. FRP adhesion in uncracked and cracked concrete zones. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Singapure: World Scientific Publishing, 183—192.
[13]	Nakaba K. , Kanakubo T. , Furuta T. , et al. , 2001. Bond Behavior between Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Laminates and Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 98(3): 359—367.
[14]	Ozbakkaloglu T. , Saatcioglu M. , 2017. Displacement-based model to predict lateral drift capacities of concrete-filled FRP tube columns. Engineering Structures, 147: 345—355. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.045
[15]	Tao Y. , Chen J. F. , 2015. Concrete damage plasticity model for modeling FRP-to-concrete bond behavior. Journal of Composites for Construction, 19(1): 04014026. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000482