Experimental Results

Double-Lap Shear Tests

All of the specimens were tested until failure. The shear stress at the bond inter­face at the time of failure were calculated using

Experimental Results

FIG. 6—Tension pull-out specimen testing load setup.

Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Tue May 6 12:07:08 EDT 2014 Downloaded/printed by

P

2 Iw

where:

s = the shear stress at each bond interface (MPa),

P = the recorded ultimate applied load (N),

l = the length of effective bond area (mm), equal to 450 mm for this experi­ment and,

w = the width of effective bond area (mm), equal to 100 mm for this experiment.

In Table 1 a summary of the experimental results is provided; in addition, the specific side of the specimen that experienced failure is shown as being either east or west, which were defined previously in “Double-Lap Shear Test Spec­imens." In the case of the specimens using epoxy type A, failure did not occur due to debonding between the GFRP and the UHPC. Instead, shear failure in the GFRP plates at the connection with the steel chair occurred. As can be seen in Table 1, the side of the specimen that experienced failure was not stated for the specimens using epoxy type A. Accordingly, the shear strength at the bond inter­face was provided as a lower limit, due to the fact that had shear failure not occurred at the connection a higher applied load would have been reached. The failure for the specimens that used epoxy types B or C for bonding of the coarse silica sand aggregates occurred predominantly in the epoxy adhesive layer, though some fracturing of the aggregates were seen along the interface for the specimens that used epoxy type C for aggregate bonding. In conjunction with the values for maximum shear strength, comparison of the failure modes for the specimens with epoxy types B and C shows that the epoxy type B provided greater bonding between the UHPC and the coarse silica sand aggregates, where it main­tained a consistent bond strength equal to or greater than the fracture strength of the aggregates. Photographs showing the failure of representative specimens under shear load for all three types of epoxy adhesive used are shown in Fig. 7.

TABLE 1—Experimental results of double shear test specimens.

Epoxy

Type

Specimen

Failure

Side

Maximum Applied Load, kN

Shear Strength, MPa

Data

Average

Data

Average

A

A-1

157.63

>165.36 ± 28.17

>1.75

>1.84 ± 0.31

A-2

196.57

>2.18

A-3

141.87

>1.58

B

B-1

East

169.17

173.67 ± 12.08

1.88

1.93 ± 0.13

B-2

West

187.35

2.08

B-3

East

164.48

1.83

C

C-1

West

82.91

81.00 ± 4.90

0.92

0.90 ± 0.05

C-2

East

84.65

0.94

C-3

East

75.43

0.84

 

Experimental Results

Подпись:
c) Epoxy Type C

Experimental Results

FIG. 8—Distribution and variance of shear strength for different types of epoxy used for coarse silica sand bonding.

The distribution and variance for the shear strength of the individual dou­ble shear test specimens are shown in Fig. 8, with the ±r range represented by the box and the actual experimental minimum and maximum values indicated by the capped vertical lines. It can be observed in Fig. 8 that the specimens that used epoxy type A for aggregate bonding at the interface provided the highest shear resistance. In order to ascertain if the results obtained from the specimens with the three different types of epoxy adhesives were statistically different, a single factor ANOVA (analysis of variance) test was performed, with the results shown in Table 2. By comparing the F value with the value for Fcrit, it is evident that F is substantially greater than Fcrit. The result from the ANOVA analysis indicates that the average shear strength provided by the specimens using the three different epoxy adhesive types were statistically different from one another within a 95 % confidence level.