Long-Term Behavior of PBO FRCM and Comparison with Other Inorganic-Matrix Composites
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Durability of Inorganic-Matrix Composites: A Literature Review
2.1. PBO FRCM
2.2. Glass FRCM
2.3. Carbon FRCM
2.4. Steel-Reinforced Grout (SRG)
3. Experimental Program
- Hygrothermal: specimens were stored in an environmental chamber at 92% RH and 38 °C for 1000 h and 3000 h.
- Saline: specimens were immersed in a saline solution [45] at 23 ± 2 °C for 1000 h and 3000 h.
- Alkaline: specimens were immersed in an alkaline solution having 9.5 pH, at a temperature of 23 ± 2 °C for 1000 h and 3000 h.
- Freeze–thaw cycles: specimens were stored in an environmental chamber for 7 days at 92% RH and 38 °C and then were subjected to 20 freeze–thaw cycles, each one consisting of 4 h at −18 °C followed by 12 h at 92% RH and 38 °C.
4. Results
Behavior under Different Environmental Conditions
5. Comparison between the Long-Term Behavior of Different FRCM Systems
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- D’Ambrisi, A.; Focacci, F. Flexural Strengthening of RC Beams with Cement-Based Composites. J. Compos. Constr. 2011, 15, 707–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babaeidarabad, S.; Loreto, G.; Nanni, A. Flexural Strengthening of RC Beams with an Externally Bonded Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix. J. Compos. Constr. 2014, 18, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bencardino, F.; Carloni, C.; Condello, A.; Focacci, F.; Napoli, A.; Realfonzo, R. Flexural Behaviour of RC Members Strengthened with FRCM: State-of-the-Art and Predictive Formulas. Compos. Part B 2018, 148, 132–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Antino, T.; Focacci, F.; Sneed, L.H.; Pellegrino, C. Shear Strength Model for RC Beams with U-Wrapped FRCM Composites. J. Compos. Constr. 2020, 24, 04019057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ombres, L.; Verre, S. Shear Performance of FRCM Strengthened RC Beams. In Proceedings of the ACI SP-324; de Felice, G., Sneed, L.H., Nanni, A., Eds.; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Triantafillou, T.C.; Papanicolaou, C.G.; Zissimopoulos, P.; Laourdekis, T. Concrete Confinement with Textile-Reinforced Mortar Jackets. ACI Struct. J. 2006, 103, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thermou, G.E.; Katakalos, K.; Manos, G. Concrete Confinement with Steel-Reinforced Grout Jackets. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 1355–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valluzzi, M.R.; da Porto, F.; Garbin, E.; Panizza, M. Out-of-Plane Behaviour of Infill Masonry Panels Strengthened with Composite Materials. Mater. Struct. 2014, 47, 2131–2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellini, A.; Incerti, A.; Mazzotti, C. Out-of-Plane Strengthening of Masonry Walls with FRCM Composite Materials. Key Eng. Mater. 2017, 747, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prota, A.; Marcari, G.; Fabbrocino, G.; Manfredi, G.; Aldea, C. Experimental In-Plane Behavior of Tuff Masonry Strengthened with Cementitious Matrix–Grid Composites. J. Compos. Constr. 2006, 10, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Antino, T.; Carozzi, F.G.; Poggi, C. Diagonal Compression of Masonry Walls Strengthened with Composite Reinforced Mortar. Key Eng. Mater. 2019, 817, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krevaikas, T.D. Experimental Study on Carbon Fiber Textile Reinforced Mortar System as a Means for Confinement of Masonry Columns. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 208, 723–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiello, M.A.; Bencardino, F.; Cascardi, A.; D’Antino, T.; Fagone, M.; Frana, I.; La Mendola, L.; Lignola, G.P.; Mazzotti, C.; Micelli, F.; et al. Masonry Columns Confined with Fabric Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) Systems: A Round Robin Test. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 298, 123816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calabrese, A.S.; D’Antino, T.; Poggi, C.; Colombi, P.; Fava, G.; Pisani, M.A. Application of Externally Bonded Inorganic-Matrix Composites to Existing Masonry Structures. In Buildings for Education: A Multidisciplinary Overview of The Design of School Buildings; Della Torre, S., Bocciarelli, M., Daglio, L., Neri, R., Eds.; Research for Development; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 283–292. ISBN 978-3-030-33687-5. [Google Scholar]
- Donnini, J. Durability of Glass FRCM Systems: Effects of Different Environments on Mechanical Properties. Compos. Part B 2019, 174, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calabrese, A.S.; D’Antino, T.; Colombi, P.; Poggi, C. Low- and High-Cycle Fatigue Behavior of FRCM Composites. Materials 2021, 14, 5412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Focacci, F.; D’Antino, T.; Carloni, C. The Role of the Fiber–Matrix Interfacial Properties on the Tensile Behavior of FRCM Coupons. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 265, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Askouni, P.D.; Papanicolaou, C.G. Experimental Investigation of Bond between Glass Textile Reinforced Mortar Overlays and Masonry: The Effect of Bond Length. Mater. Struct. 2017, 50, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calabrese, A.S.; D’Antino, T.; Colombi, P. Experimental and Analytical Investigation of PBO FRCM-Concrete Bond Behavior Using Direct and Indirect Shear Test Set-Ups. Compos. Struct. 2021, 267, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES). Acceptance Criteria for Masonry and Concrete Strengthening Using Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) and Steel Reinforced Grout (SRG) Composite Systems. AC434; International Code Council Evaluation Service: Whittier, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- CSLLPP—Servizio Tecnico Centrale. Linee Guida per La Identificazione, La Qualificazione Ed Il Controllo Di Accettazione Di Compositi Fibrorinforzati a Matrice Inorganica (FRCM) Da Utilizzarsi per Il Consolidamento Strutturale Di Costruzioni Esistenti; Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- EOTA EAD 340275-00-0104; Externally-Bonded Composite Systems with Inorganic Matrix for Strengthening of Concrete and Masonry Structures. EOTA: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2020.
- National Research Council. Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded Fibre Reinforced Inorganic Matrix Systems for Strengthening Existing Structures. CNR-DT 215/2018; CNR: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- ACI Committee 549. Guide to Design and Construction of Externally Bonded Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix and Steel-Reinforced Grout Systems for Repair and Strengthening of Concrete Structures. ACI 549.4R-20; ACI: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-1-64195-098-5. [Google Scholar]
- ACI Committee 549. Guide to Design and Construction of Externally Bonded Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) and Steel-Reinforced Grout (SRG) Systems for Repair and Strengthening Masonry Structures. ACI 549.6R-20; ACI: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-1-64195-120-3. [Google Scholar]
- Chin, J.; Forster, A.; Clerici, C.; Sung, L.; Oudina, M.; Rice, K. Temperature and Humidity Aging of Poly(p-Phenylene-2,6-Benzobisoxazole) Fibers: Chemical and Physical Characterization. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2007, 92, 1234–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Micelli, F.; Aiello, M.A. Residual Tensile Strength of Dry and Impregnated Reinforcement Fibres after Exposure to Alkaline Environments. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 159, 490–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ETAG 029; Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Injection Anchors for Use in Masonry. Instytut Techniki Budowlanej: Warsaw, Poland, 2006.
- Ombres, L.; Mazzuca, P.; Verre, S. Effects of Thermal Conditioning at High Temperatures on the Response of Concrete Elements Confined with a PBO-FRCM Composite System. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2022, 34, 04021413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceroni, F.; Bonati, A.; Galimberti, V.; Occhiuzzi, A. Effects of Environmental Conditioning on the Bond Behavior of FRP and FRCM Systems Applied to Concrete Elements. J. Eng. Mech. 2018, 144, 04017144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Lami, K.; D’Antino, T.; Colombi, P. Durability of Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) Composites: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nobili, A. Durability Assessment of Impregnated Glass Fabric Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (GFRCM) Composites in the Alkaline and Saline Environments. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 105, 465–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Al-Lami, K.; Calabrese, A.S.; Colombi, P.; D’antino, T. Effect of Wet-Dry Cycles on the Bond Behavior of Fiber-Reinforced Inorganic-Matrix Systems Bonded to Masonry Substrates. Materials 2021, 14, 6171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arboleda, D.; Babaeidarabad, S.; DiLaurenzio Hays, C.; Nanni, A. Durability of Fabric Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) Composites. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE 2014), Vancouver, Canada, 20–22 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Signorini, C.; Nobili, A. Comparing Durability of Steel Reinforced Grout (SRG) and Textile Reinforced Mortar (TRM) for Structural Retrofitting. Mater. Struct./Mater. Constr. 2021, 54, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carozzi, F.G.; Colombi, P.; D’Antino, T.; Poggi, C. Durability of Textile Reinforced Mortar (TRM) Systems. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE 2018), Paris, France, 17–19 July 2018; International Institute for FRP in Construction: Kingston, ON, Canada, 2018; pp. 322–329. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Jaberi, Z.; Myers, J.J.; Chandrashekhara, K. Effect of Direct Service Temperature Exposure on the Bond Behavior between Advanced Composites and CMU Using NSM and EB Techniques. Compos. Struct. 2019, 211, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calabrese, A.S.; D’Antino, T.; Colombi, P.; Poggi, C. Durability of a Glass Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix Composite under Different Environmental Conditions. Key Eng. Mater. 2022, 916, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nobili, A.; Signorini, C. On the Effect of Curing Time and Environmental Exposure on Impregnated Carbon Fabric Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (CFRCM) Composite with Design Considerations. Compos. Part B Eng. 2017, 112, 300–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borri, A.; Castori, G.; Corradi, M.; Speranzini, E. Durability Analysis for FRP and SRG Composites in Civil Applications. Key Eng. Mater. 2015, 624, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruregold Technical Datasheet of PBO-MESH GOLD 70/18 2021. Available online: https://www.ruregold.com/download-data-sheets/ (accessed on 20 April 2022).
- Ruregold Technical Datasheet of MX-PBO CONCRETE 2021. Available online: https://www.ruregold.com/download-data-sheets/ (accessed on 20 April 2022).
- EN 1015-11:1999; Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry. Determination of Flexural and Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 1999; ISBN 058035469 5.
- Bertolli, V.; D’Antino, T. Modeling the Behavior of Externally Bonded Reinforcement Using a Rigid-Trilinear Cohesive Material Law. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2022, 111641, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTM D1141-98; Standard Practice for Preparation of Substitute Ocean Water. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
- Firmo, J.P.; Roquette, M.G.; Correia, J.R.; Azevedo, A.S. Influence of Elevated Temperatures on Epoxy Adhesive Used in CFRP Strengthening Systems for Civil Engineering Applications. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2019, 93, 102333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Caso, F.; Nanni, A. AC434 Certified Test Report for Ruredil FRCM Composite Systems; ESR 3265; University of Miami: Miami, FL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
PBO Warp Textile (CoV) | Matrix (CoV) | |
---|---|---|
Tensile strength—σfu, σmu | 3960 MPa † (0.07) | 3.75 MPa ¤ |
Elastic modulus—Ef, Em | 241 GPa † (0.05) | 7.0 GPa ¤ |
Tensile strain—εfu | 1.65 % † (0.08) | - |
Compressive strength fc | - | 51.60 MPa † (0.03) |
Flexural strength fr | - | 8.10 MPa † (0.16) |
Specimen | σT1 [MPa] | Pu [kN] | σu [MPa] | εu [%] | E3 [GPa] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T_400_50_NC_01 | 621 | 6.321 | 2778 | 2.46 | 126 |
T_400_50_NC_02 | 628 | 6.600 | 2901 | 2.45 | 132 |
T_400_50_NC_03 | 613 | 6.364 | 2797 | 2.29 | 145 |
T_400_50_NC_04 | 609 | 6.626 | 2913 | 2.41 | 162 |
T_400_50_NC_05 | 613 | 7.450 | 3275 | 2.46 | 155 |
Average | 617 | 6.672 | 2933 | 2.41 | 144 |
CoV | 1.11% | 6.11% | 2.64% | 9.40% |
Specimens | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[MPa] | Ret. % | [kN] | [MPa] | Ret. % | [%] | Ret. % | [GPa] | Ret. % | |
(CoV) | (CoV) | (CoV) | (CoV) | ||||||
T_400_50_1W | 607 | 98% | 5.835 | 2565 | 87% | 2.16 | 90% | 118 | 82% |
(8.26%) | (5.45%) | (6.89%) | (7.40%) | ||||||
T_400_50_3W | 662 | 107% | 5.496 | 2416 | 82% | 1.82 | 76% | 131 | 91% |
(24.69%) | (2.35%) | (5.37%) | (11.88%) | ||||||
T_400_50_1S | 711 | 115% | 5.749 | 2527 | 86% | 2.14 | 89% | 109 | 76% |
(14.69%) | (0.29%) | (3.32%) | (9.09%) | ||||||
T_400_50_3S | 599 | 97% | 5.647 | 2482 | 85% | 1.75 | 73% | 124 | 86% |
(21.00%) | (10.06%) | (9.25%) | (10.04%) | ||||||
T_400_50_1A | 630 | 102% | 6.377 | 2803 | 96% | 2.32 | 96% | 120 | 84% |
(8.69%) | (4.75%) | (4.05%) | (3.75%) | ||||||
T_400_50_3A | 634 | 103% | 6.184 | 2718 | 93% | 2.10 | 87% | 125 | 87% |
(22.79%) | (6.40%) | (4.20%) | (8.67%) | ||||||
T_400_50_F/T | 476 | 77% | 5.870 | 2580 | 88% | 2.16 | 98% | 135 | 94% |
(26.83%) | (1.96%) | (8.13%) | (7.74%) | ||||||
T_400_50_T | 634 | 103% | 6.563 | 2873 | 98% | 2.13 | 96% | 141 | 98% |
(5.69%) | (5.35%) | (3.49) | (5.60%) |
Conditioning | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ref. | [MPa] | Ret. % | [kN] | [MPa] | Ret. % | [%] | Ret. % | [GPa] | Ret. % | |
(CoV) | (CoV) | (CoV) | (CoV) | |||||||
Unconditioned (C) | [34,47] | 445 | - | 1.922 | 802 | - | 1.16 | - | 69 | - |
(34%) | (4%) | (-) | (19%) | |||||||
Hygrothermal 1000 h (1W) | 716 | 161% | 2.922 | 1219 | 152% | 1.24 | 107% | 98 | 142% | |
(23%) | (16%) | (-) | (19%) | |||||||
Hygrothermal 3000 h (3W) | 565 | 127% | 2.294 | 957 | 119% | 1.39 | 119% | 69 | 100% | |
(25%) | (14%) | (-) | (19%) | |||||||
Saline 1000 h (1S) | 588 | 132% | 2.793 | 1165 | 145% | 1.44 | 124% | 81 | 117% | |
(41%) | (18%) | (-) | (18%) | |||||||
Saline 3000 h (3S) | 444 | 100% | 2.826 | 1179 | 147% | 1.05 | 91% | 112 | 162% | |
(33%) | (13%) | (-) | (32%) | |||||||
Alkaline 1000 h (1A) | 678 | 152% | 2.699 | 1126 | 140% | 1.20 | 103% | 94 | 136% | |
(30%) | (12%) | (-) | (29%) | |||||||
Alkaline 3000 h (3A) | 501 | 113% | 1.937 | 808 | 101% | 0.94 | 81% | 96 | 139% | |
(20%) | (8%) | (-) | (23%) | |||||||
Freeze–thawcycles (F/T) | 444 | 100% | 2.117 | 883 | 110% | 0.92 | 79% | 96 | 139% | |
(36%) | (9%) | (-) | (23%) | |||||||
Dry-heat (T) | - | - | - | - |
Conditioning | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ref. | [MPa] | Ret. % | [kN] | [MPa] | Ret. % | [%] | Ret. % | [GPa] | Ret. % | |
(CoV) | (CoV) | (CoV) | (CoV) | |||||||
Unconditioned (C) | [38] | 128 | - | 2.608 | 828 | - | 1.75 | - | 51 | - |
(16.21%) | (6.62%) | (7.87%) | (3.38%) | |||||||
Hygrothermal 1000 h (1W) | 141 | 110% | 2.523 | 801 | 97% | 1.69 | 97% | 51 | 100% | |
(26.30%) | (5.50%) | (5.90%) | (2.70%) | |||||||
Hygrothermal 3000 h (3W) | 149 | 116% | 2.706 | 859 | 104% | 1.82 | 104% | 50 | 98% | |
(22.00%) | (4.60%) | (3.80%) | (1.90%) | |||||||
Saline 1000 h (1S) | 188 | 147% | 2.388 | 758 | 92% | 1.59 | 91% | 41 | 80% | |
(15.50%) | (13.50%) | (14.00%) | (16.70%) | |||||||
Saline 3000 h (3S) | 150 | 117% | 2.441 | 775 | 94% | 1.81 | 103% | 43 | 84% | |
(8.30%) | (12.90%) | (15.00%) | (11.50%) | |||||||
Alkaline 1000 h (1A) | 122 | 95% | 2.545 | 808 | 98% | 1.87 | 107% | 42 | 82% | |
(15.10%) | (5.00%) | (5.20%) | (17.00%) | |||||||
Alkaline 3000 h (3A) | 150 | 117% | 2.529 | 803 | 97% | 1.81 | 103% | 46 | 90% | |
(6.60%) | (6.30%) | (5.00%) | (8.60%) | |||||||
Freeze–thawcycles (F/T) | 143 | 112% | 2.284 | 725 | 88% | 1.72 | 98% | 39 | 77% | |
(12.80%) | (10.30%) | (7.10%) | (6.20%) | |||||||
Dry-heat (T) | 136 | 106% | 2.492 | 791 | 96% | 1.75 | 100% | 51 | 100% | |
(28.40%) | (4.10%) | (5.60%) | (2.90%) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Calabrese, A.S.; D’Antino, T.; Colombi, P.; Poggi, C. Long-Term Behavior of PBO FRCM and Comparison with Other Inorganic-Matrix Composites. Materials 2022, 15, 3281. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093281
Calabrese AS, D’Antino T, Colombi P, Poggi C. Long-Term Behavior of PBO FRCM and Comparison with Other Inorganic-Matrix Composites. Materials. 2022; 15(9):3281. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093281
Chicago/Turabian StyleCalabrese, Angelo Savio, Tommaso D’Antino, Pierluigi Colombi, and Carlo Poggi. 2022. "Long-Term Behavior of PBO FRCM and Comparison with Other Inorganic-Matrix Composites" Materials 15, no. 9: 3281. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093281