MARATTO

article · Buildings

Investigation of Key Parameters Influencing Shear Behavior in Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)-Reinforced Concrete (RC) Interior Slab–Column Connections

20243 citationsOpen accessHelwan University

Abstract

This article explores the punching shear behavior of GFRP-RC interior slab–column connections. The parameters tested included the column–aspect ratio (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0), perimeter-to-depth ratio for square column stubs with side lengths of 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 m, and span-to-depth ratios of 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. A review of the literature revealed that no previous study has investigated the effect of these parameters or their interactions on this type of connection. Numerically, twenty-five slabs were created using finite element (FE) software (V3), each with square dimensions of 2.5 m and a constant thickness of 0.2 m. The central column extended 0.3 m from the top and bottom of the slab. All four sides of the slabs were supported, and the specimens underwent pure static shear load testing. The test results demonstrated that all slabs failed due to punching shear. Increasing any parameter value reduced the punching shear stresses. Additionally, the results indicated that Canadian (CSA-S806-12) and Japanese (JSCE-97) standards for FRP-RC materials generally provided the closest predictions of punching shear capacity compared to the American guideline, ACI 440.1R-22. However, all standards exhibited shortcomings and require enhancement and modifications, particularly to consider the impact of the span-to-depth ratio. Therefore, three equations were developed to predict the shear strength of the connections, yielding better results than those prescribed by the North American and Japanese standards.

Research topics

  • Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
  • Innovative concrete reinforcement materials
  • Structural Load-Bearing Analysis

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.3390/buildings14051251

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.