Economic Analyses for Low-Strength Concrete Wrapped with CFRP to Improve the Mechanical Properties and Seismic Parameters
Abstract
One of the current approaches for retrofitting concrete is fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites wrapping. As far as cost concerns, one of the issues that may raise questions using FRP is the effectiveness of this approach to improve mechanical properties and seismic parameters. For this reason, economic assessment is used to figure out the strength and weakness points of low-strength concrete retrofitting to determine the options that can provide a unique approach to achieve the objectives of the economic analysis and reduction. Therefore, the experiment was prepared to measure mechanical parameters. Three low cement content samples (75, 150, and 225 kg/m3) were made to measure the economic aspects of low-strength concrete wrapped with carbon fiber–reinforced polymers (CFRP). The samples were prepared in two different geometrical configurations: cubic and cylindrical. Specimens were tested under longitudinal compressive loading. Four types of samples were considered: zero, one, three, and five layers of CFRP wrapping. The analysis illustrates that using CFRP wrapping to improve mechanical properties and seismic parameters is more economical on those samples with higher cement content and/or strength. This outcome can be shown with only one layer of CFRP wrapping in most of our case studies. A statistical approach was used to analyze economically the effect of the number of FRP layers and the cement content on mechanical properties and seismic behavior.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The pattern of increased general laborer injuries may be attributed to safety gaps and inconsistent application of safety risk mitigation strategies across the workforce, namely among general laborers who may not receive the same level of monitoring and training as other workers.
“This pattern may be attributed to safety gaps and inconsistent application of safety risk mitigation strategies across the workforce, namely among general laborers who may not receive the same level of monitoring and training as other workers (Al-Bayati et al. 2020).”
From Impact of risk mitigation strategies on non-fatal injuries in the construction sector in qatar: a retrospective analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Al-Bayati et al. 2020
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Soubra, L., Al-Mohannadi, A., Berzan, Y., Consunji, R., El‑Menyar, A., Al‑Thani, H., Al-Marri, M. A., & Al-Hajri, H. S. (2025) · International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health · doi:10.1007/s00420-025-02126-x · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Haj Seiyed Taghia, S. A., Darvishvand, H. R., & Ebrahimi, M.
- Affiliations
- Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad Univ., Qazvin Branch, Qazvin 34119-15195, Iran (corresponding author).
- Qazvin Islamic Azad University (IR)
- South Carolina State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
- Published
- 2020-03
- Volume
- 146
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 0733-9364 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-7862
- OpenAlex
- W2997666522
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Masonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Seismic Performance and Analysis
- Keywords
- low-strength concrete, CFRP wrapping, economic analysis, cost-effectiveness, cement content, compressive strength, seismic behavior, concrete strengthening
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review