Research Article
Shear Strengthening Performance of Hybrid FRP-FRCM
Table 8
Comparisons between the existing experimental results and proposed model.
| Reference | Specimen ID | Type of bond | Type of fiber | | | | | | | | (%) | (kN) | (kN) | (kN) | (kN) | (kN) |
| [4] | SB-GT | S | G | 0.297 | 146.3 | 48.02 | — | 60.27 | 216.6 | 0.68 | UW-GT | U | G | 0.297 | 180.2 | 48.02 | — | 60.27 | 216.6 | 0.83 | SB-CT1 | S | C | 0.229 | 155.5 | 48.02 | — | 60.27 | 216.6 | 0.72 | UW-CT1 | U | C | 0.229 | 151.8 | 48.02 | — | 60.27 | 216.6 | 0.70 | SB-CT2 | S | C | 0.516 | 245.4 | 48.02 | — | 60.27 | 216.6 | 1.13 | UW-CT2 | U | C | 0.516 | 253.4 | 48.02 | — | 60.27 | 216.6 | 1.17 |
| [10] | Beam 4 | U | G | 0.096 | 294.0 | 53.25 | 35.59 | 43.37 | 264.4 | 1.11 |
| [11] | TRA1 | S | P | 0.135 | 188.7 | 31.82 | 34.55 | 31.47 | 195.7 | 0.96 | TRA2 | U | P | 0.034 | 170.4 | 31.82 | 38.81 | 16.10 | 173.5 | 0.98 | TRB1 | S | P | 0.202 | 279.1 | 31.82 | 38.81 | 47.02 | 235.3 | 1.19 | TRB2 | S | P | 0.202 | 191.7 | 31.82 | 38.81 | 39.47 | 220.2 | 0.87 | TRB3 | U | P | 0.095 | 191.9 | 31.82 | 38.81 | 22.87 | 187.0 | 1.03 | TRB4 | U | P | 0.095 | 200.0 | 31.82 | 38.81 | 27.37 | 196.0 | 1.02 | TRB5 | U | P | 0.095 | 199.8 | 31.82 | 38.81 | 27.37 | 196.0 | 1.02 |
| [14] | BS2 | S | B | 0.195 | 82.7 | 19.96 | — | 19.6 | 79.1 | 1.05 | BS3 | S | B | 0.195 | 83.5 | 19.96 | — | 19.6 | 79.1 | 1.06 | BS4 | S | B | 0.390 | 88.7 | 19.96 | — | 19.6 | 79.1 | 1.12 | BS5 | S | B | 0.390 | 92.5 | 19.96 | — | 19.6 | 79.1 | 1.17 |
| Mean | | | | | | | 0.99 |
| Coefficient of variation | | | | | | | 0.16 |
|
|
Note. S = side-bonding; U = U-jacketing; G = glass; C = carbon; P = PBO; B = basalt.
|