Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Adhesive Performance and Fracture Toughness Evaluation of FRP-Reinforced Laminated Plate
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Adhesive Performance and Fracture Toughness Evaluation of FRP-Reinforced Laminated Plate
Jung, Hong-Ju; Hong, Soon-Il;
  PDF(new window)
In order to replace existing slit type steel plate on the wooden structure joint, the FRP-reinforced laminated plates were produced. Four types of FRP-reinforced laminated plates were produced according to the type of reinforcement and adhesive, and before applying to the joint, the adhesion performance test according to KSF 3021 and KSF 2160 and the Compact Tension (CT) type fracture toughness test specified in ASTM D5045-99 were carried out. As a result of adhesion performance test, all GFRP textile, GFRP sheet, and GFRP Textile-Sheet type FRP-reinforced laminated plates satisfied the requirement of soaking delamination percentage with smaller than 5% based on KS standard. However, aramid type specimen satisfied the standard as the soaking delamination percentage of 4.8% but it did not satisfied the standard as the water proof soaking delamination percentage of 70%. As a result of fracture toughness test, the volume ratio of reinforcement to timber became 23% so that the strength of FRP-reinforced laminated plates increased by two to four times in comparison to the control specimen. It was confirmed that the GFRP Textile-Sheet type specimen was most resistant to the fracture most since the ratio of stress intensity factor compared with that of the control increased to 61% owing to the parallel arrangement of glass fiber to the load. As a result of tensile shear strength test using FRP-reinforced laminated plates and nonmetal dowels, it is about 12% lower than metal connectors.
adhesive;veneer;fiber reinforced plastic;soaking delamination;fracture toughness;joints;
 Cited by
ASTM D 5045-99. Standard Test Methods for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness and Strain Energy Release Rate of Plastic Materials, 2007.

BlaB, H.J., Schadle, P. 2011. Ductility aspects of reinforced and non-reinforced timber joints. Engineering Structures 33(11): 3018-3026. crossref(new window)

Kim, K.H., Hong, S.I. 2011. Bonding Performance of Glulam Reinforced with Textile Type of Glass-and Aramid-Fiber, GFRP and CFRP. Journal of The Korean wood science and technology 39(2): 156-162. crossref(new window)

KS F 2160. 2008. Determination of resistance to soaking delamination for adhesive-bonded wood products.

KS F 3021. 2013. Structural glued laminated timber.

Park, J.C., Hong, S.I. 2008. Strength Properties of GFRP Reinforced Glulam Beams Bonded with Polyvinyl Acetate-Based Emulsion Adhesive. Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology 36(4): 19-25.

Park, J.C., Shin, Y.J., Hong, S.I. 2009. Bonding Performance of Glulam Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Plastics. Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology 37(4): 357-363.

Raftery, G.M., Harte, A.M., Rodd, P.D. 2009. Bond quality at the FRP-wood interface using wood-laminating adhesives. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 29(2): 101-110. crossref(new window)

Santos, C.L., de Jesus, A.M., Morais, J.J., Fontoura, B.F. 2013. An experimental comparison of strengthening solutions for dowel-type wood connections. Construction and Building Materials 46: 114-127. crossref(new window)