Dataset for Interlaboratory Evaluation of Experimental Setups for Textile Reinforcements

Interlaboratory Evaluation of Experimental Setups for Textile Reinforcements

Overview

This repository provides the raw experimental data underlying the results presented in the associated publication on an interlaboratory investigation of uniaxial tensile tests and bond tests for textile-reinforced concrete (TRC). The data are made available to support transparency, traceability, and reproducibility of the reported findings.

The repository is limited to raw measurement data and does not include analysis or evaluation scripts.

Scope and Description of the Data

The experimental program comprised a series of uniaxial tensile tests and bond tests performed on TRC specimens with different textile configurations. The tests were conducted by multiple independent laboratories following predefined and harmonized testing procedures, while accounting for variations in laboratory environments and equipment.

In accordance with the methodology described in the publication, the raw data were subjected to a manual pre-selection process prior to evaluation. During this process, datasets affected by incomplete recordings, evident measurement errors, or insufficient data quality were identified and excluded from further analysis.

Only datasets that were complete, internally consistent, and suitable for quantitative and qualitative evaluation were retained. Consequently, this repository contains exclusively those datasets that formed the basis of the statistical analyses and results reported in the publication. Datasets excluded during the pre-selection process are not listed or archived in this repository. Therefore, general information files are supplied, with the necessary additional data provided by the authors.

As such, the data provided here correspond directly and unambiguously to the results discussed in the associated work.

Abstract

This dataset accompanies an interlaboratory study investigating the comparability, robustness, and precision of uniaxial tensile tests and bond tests for textile-reinforced concrete (TRC) considering different textile configurations. The experimental campaign was carried out by multiple laboratories using harmonized testing protocols, while allowing for differences in test equipment and boundary conditions. To ensure objectivity in the subsequent evaluation, all laboratory identifiers were anonymized. The aim of the round-robin test (RRT) was not to assess the performance or accuracy of individual laboratories, but to evaluate the repeatability, reproducibility, and interlaboratory scatter of the applied test methods. The statistical evaluation followed the framework of ISO 5725 Parts 1–6, enabling a systematic assessment of within-laboratory and between-laboratory variability. The results show a good agreement between laboratories for uniaxial tensile tests, whereas bond tests exhibit a significantly higher scatter, particularly in the range of the maximum bond shear stress. This increased variability is primarily attributed to differences in test setup and load introduction, rather than to fundamental differences in material behavior. Despite the higher numerical scatter observed in bond test results, an analysis of the qualitative bond flow–crack opening curves reveals a consistent characteristic shape across all laboratories. This indicates a generally successful and comparable execution of the bond tests and highlights the importance of considering both quantitative results and qualitative response characteristics when assessing bond test data. The raw data provided in this repository enable independent verification of the reported findings and provide a basis for further refinement of bond test setups, evaluation procedures, and standardization efforts.

Reproducibility

The data supplied in this repository allow for the reproduction of the reported results within the methodological framework described in the publication. All datasets used for the analyses are provided in full and correspond directly to the evaluated results.

Contact

For questions regarding the experimental program, data structure, or evaluation methodology, please contact:

Jonas [e-mail]