International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development (IJCSEIERD) ISSN 2249-6866 Vol.

3, Issue 4, Oct 2013, 35-40 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

THE PERFORMANCE OF R.C SLABS REINFORCED WITH GFRP BARS

M. V. VENKATESWARA RAO1, P. JAGANNADHA RAO2 & M. V. SESHAGIRI RAO3
1 2

Research Scholar, JNT University, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India

Retd. Professor of Civil Engineering, JNT University, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India
3

Professor of Civil Engineering, JNT University, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT
The corrosion of reinforcement causes most of the failures in concrete structures especially in an aggressive environment. These situations basically led the researchers to initiate and develop an alternative method or technique of using non-corrosive, non-metallic material as reinforcement. Initially some basic prelimnary investigations were carried out using different ratios of fibre resin inorder to prepare the GFRP (Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer ) bars and gradually arrived at an optimum ratio of fibre resin which is 7:3. As per the tests carried out the tensile strength of GFRP bars is comparable to the mild steel, but the modulus of elasticity is about 25-30 percentage of that of the steel bars. This paper basically deals with all those prelimnary investigations which were carried out on small slab panels totally supported on all four edges with effective spans of (0.9x0.9)m. This also is a part of large research problem undertaken with different ratios of long span to short span along with different conditions of support. The results of these tests are then compared with similar panels reinforced with conventional mild steel bars.

KEYWORDS: GFRP Bars, Steel Bars, Corrosion, Slab Panels, Flexure, Deflections INTRODUCTION
To improve the performance of concrete and that it meets the functional, strength, economy and durability requirements, research on concrete is a continous process through the whole world. As steel is much stronger than concrete in tension in all these years till now it has been used in tension zone to strengthen the concrete. Different types of fibres depending on type of members are also used as crack arresters in concrete. The necessity of new non-corrosive materials has arised because of the corrosion problems that are associated with steel. Fibre reinforced polymer(FRP) is a composite material made out of both fibres and resin and Glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) is one such composite material. Some other fibres in use are Aramid, Carbon and Basalt. An extensive work on basalt fibres and basalt reinforced concrete beams was carried out in Rapid city, USA (Ramakrishnan and Panchalan, 2004)(4). Braided or weaved FRP bars made out of glass fibres are more on the economical side, since these bars are made of Calcium Alumina Boro Silicate, which are more cheaper than the both carbon and aramid fibres. In all the fibre reinforced polymer bars the major advantage is the weight to volume ratio. The weight of the glass fibre bars is approximately one third of that of steel bars of the same diameter and length, while the tensile strength is comparable to that of steel based on the observations of the present investigations (Braun and Eskridge, 2004)(5). The GFRP plain rods were also tried by P.J.Rao et.al.,(1) in their investigation on Behaviour of GFRP reinforced beams in flexure. The failure in bond caused all the beams to fail much below the expected load. But in the same investigation when the silica coated bars were used in the beams, they gave same flexural strength as that of conventionally reinforced beams using HYSD (High Yield Steel Deformed Bars ) bars. Therefore, the silica coated GFRP bars are directly used in the present investigations on slabs.

36

M. V. Venkateswara Rao, P. Jagannadha Rao & M. V. Seshagiri Rao

To study the behavior of one way slabs Luciano et.al.,(6) used deformed bars. The variables studied included the reinforcement ratio, rebar diameter and rebar spacing. A good comparison of experimental and analytical results were made. These bars will undergo large deflections due to the reduction in stiffness (7). The laterally restrained FRP slabs exhibit arching action and show better service behavior compared to the equivalent laterally restrained steel reinforced slabs, such as those in bridge deck slabs(7). The results of El-Ragaby et.al.,(9) showed the superior fatigue performance and longer fatigue life of concrete bridge deck slabs reinforced with GFRP composite bars compared to the steel reinforced ones. Compared to other fibres glass fibres are more on the economical side and also are lighter in weight. Hence, the main objective of this present study is to find out the suitability, performance and usage of the GFRP bars as flexural reinforcement in slabs. Silica coated GFRP bars with fibre resin ratio of 7:3 with a tensile strength of 360Mpa were used in the present investigation. The modulus of elasticity was found to vary between 55Gpa to 60Gpa in these bars.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The proposed experimental program was divided into number of phases using different support conditions and different ratios of long span to short span. In the present paper, the experimental work related to second phase with the ratio of long span to short span of 1.0 was reported. All the slabs are supported on all four edges. A total number of 15 slabs were cast dividing into 3 groups. The thickness of the slab in all the groups was 75mm. In the 1st group 5 slabs of size 1.05m x 1.05m were cast with an effective span of 0.9m x 0.9m. The reinforcement in both the directions (main and distribution) consists of 6mm silica coated GFRP bars @ 100mm c/c at bottom and 80 mm c/c above the bottom layer 3 numbers, and 2 control specimen using 6mm mild steel bars with 85mm c/c at bottom and 75mm c/c above the bottom layer were cast. The slab dimensions in the second group of 5 numbers are also of same size with an effective span of 0.9mx0.9m. The reinforcement in both directions consists of 6mm silica coated GFRP bars @ 150mm c/c at bottom and 120mm c/c above the bottom layer 3 numbers, and two control specimen using 6mm mild steel bars with 125mm c/c at bottom and 110mm c/c above the bottom layer were cast. The slab dimensions in the third group of 5 numbers are also of same size with an effective span of 0.9mx0.9m. The reinforcement in both directions consists of 6mm silica coated GFRP bars @ 200mm c/c at bottom and 160mm c/c above the bottom layer 3 numbers, and two control specimen using 6mm mild steel bars with 165mm c/c at bottom and 145mm c/c above the bottom layer were cast. In the control specimen using 6mm mild steel bars, the cover and lever arm have been so adjusted in all the 3 groups to give same theoretical moment as that of GFRC reinforced slabs. All the slabs were under reinforced. The moment of resistance was calculated as per Bureau of Indian Standards IS456:2000 and the guidelines given by ACI 440 for GFRP bars. The stress block of IS456 was used with little modifications.

TEST PROCEDURE
Uniformly distributed load was applied on the entire slab by using a steel box filled with sand covered with a thick plate at top and the load applied through a hydraulic jack. The proving ring used was of capacity 250KN with a least count of 0.25 KN. The load was applied at an increment of 2.5 KN and the central deflection of the slab was measured for each increment of the load. Least count of the dial gauge used was 0.01mm. Dial gauge was removed immediately after the formation of the first crack.

The Performance of R.C Slabs Reinforced with GFRP Bars

37

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

To observe the performance of GFRP reinforced slabs, conventional reinforced slabs with equivalent bending moment capacity were designed and tested along with GFRP slabs. At the end of all the tests it was found that the load carrying capacity is almost same in both the cases. The difference between the first crack and ultimate load is also large in case of GFRP reinforced slabs which is on par with conventional reinforced slabs indicating large deformability of GFRP bars, eventhough GFRP bar tested individually exhibited brittle failure with splintering of fibres. This due to failure of resin. As a composite section the behavior was different as observed from the large deflections of the GFRP slabs, particularly after the formation of first crack. More definite conclusions about the usage of GFRP reinforcement in slabs, in the Indian context, can be made by studying the observations of the other phases of work also with different aspect ratios. The percentage variation between the ratios of experimental ultimate load verses the theoretical ultimate loads of GFRP reinforced slabs ranges from 31% to 42%. The cracks first initiated at the centre of the slab and gradually extended towards the four corners of the slab.

REFERENCES
1. P.J.Rao, K.J.Rao, N.V.R.C.Bala Bhaskar and M.V.Seshagiri Rao; Flexural Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Beams in Local Environment -An Experimental Study Proceedings of the International Conference ISEC 2008, held at Melbourne, Australia during ----2. 3. 4. IS 456-2000 Code of practice plain and reinforced concrete, Beaureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. ACI 440 Guide for The Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP bars. Ramakrishnan, V. & Ramesh, K. Panchalan 2004. A New Construction Material - Non Corrosive Basalt Rebar Reinforced Concrete, Proceedings of the International Conference ICACC-2004, 16-18 December 2004. Hyderabad: India. 5. J. Braun & M. Eskridge 2004. Concrete Reinforced with Glass Fiber Bars: Innovative and Cost-Effective Solutions, Proceedings of ICFRC International Conference on Fiber Composites, High Performance Concretes and Smart Materials, January 8-10, 2004: 337-351. Chennai: India. 6. Luciano Ombres, Tarek Alkhrdaji, Antonio Nanni; Flexural Analysis of One Way Concrete Slabs Reinforced with GFRP Rebars, International Meeting on Composite Materials, PLAST 2000, Proceedings, Advancing with Composites 2000, Ed.I. Crivelli-Visconta, Milan, Italy, May 9-11, 2000, pp 243-250 7. Theriault, M. and Benmokrane, B., Effects of FRP Reinforcement Ratio and Concrete Strength on Flexural Behaviour of Concrete Beams. Journal of Composites for Constructions, ASCE, 1998, Vol.2, No.1, pp. 7 -16 8. Susan E. Taylor. and Barry Mullin., Arching action in FRP reinforced concrete slabs. Construction and Building Materials, 20 (2006), 71-80 9. Amr El-Ragaby, Ehab El-Salakawy. and Brahim Benmokrane. Fatigue analysis of bridge deck slabs reinforced with E-glass/Vinyl ester FRP reinforcement bars. Composites: Part B 38 (2007), 703 -711.

38

M. V. Venkateswara Rao, P. Jagannadha Rao & M. V. Seshagiri Rao

APPENDICES
Table 1:Test Results of Slabs for Phase-II, (ly/lx=1.0) Aspect Ratio = 1.0, fck=27 Mpa, Effective Size of Slab = 0.9x0.9m, Thickness of Slab = 75mm Id Code of Slabs II D1 II D2 II D3 II D11 II D12 II E1 II E2 II E3 II E11 II E12 II F1 II F2 II F3 II F11 II F12 Spacing of Reinforcement Bars GFRP Steel 6mm@100 c/c shortspan and 6mm @80 c/c longspan 6mm@150 c/c shortspan and 6mm @120 c/c longspan 6mm@200 c/c shortspan and 6mm @160 c/c longspan 6mm@85 c/c shortspan and 6mm @75 c/c longspan 6mm@125 c/c shortspan and 6mm @110 c/c longspan 6mm@165 c/c shortspan and 6mm @145 c/c longspan Load @ First Crack (Pcr) in KN 61 62 60 62 63 39 41 38 42 41 30 29 32 32 31 Ultimate Load (Pu) in KN 80 82 79 82 83 52 55 54 56 57 42 41 43 44 43 Pu/Pcr 1.311 1.323 1.317 1.323 1.317 1.333 1.341 1.421 1.333 1.390 1.400 1.414 1.344 1.375 1.387

Where, D1,D2,D3,E1,E2,E3,F1,F2 & F3 are Reinforced with GFRP bars D11,D12,E11,E12,F11& F12 are Reinforced with Conventional Steel Table 2: Comparison of Test Results of Phase- II Slabs with Theoretical and Experimental Moment Values ly/lx = 1.0, fck=27 Mpa, Effective Size of Slab = 0.9x0.9m, Thickness of Slab = 75mm Id Code of Slabs II D1 II D2 II D3 II D11 II D12 II E1 II E2 II E3 II E11 II E12 II F1 II F2 II F3 II F11 II F12 Spacing of Reinforcement Bars GFRP 6mm@100 c/c shortspan and 6mm @80 c/c longspan 6mm@150 c/c shortspan and 6mm @120 c/c longspan 6mm@200 c/c shortspan and 6mm @160 c/c longspan Steel 6mm@85 c/c shortspan and 6mm @75 c/c longspan 6mm@125 c/c shortspan and 6mm @110 c/c longspan 6mm@165 c/c shortspan and 6mm @145 c/c longspan Theoretical Ultimate Moment, Mtheo in KN 3.655 3.655 3.655 3.655 3.655 2.484 2.484 2.484 2.484 2.484 1.926 1.926 1.926 1.926 1.926 Experimental Ultimate Load, Mexp in KN 4.050 4.151 3.999 4.118 4.168 2.632 2.784 2.733 2.812 2.862 2.126 2.075 2.176 2.209 2.159 Mtheo/ Mexp 1.108 1.135 1.094 1.126 1.140 1.060 1.120 1.100 1.132 1.152 1.104 1.077 1.130 1.147 1.120

Where, D1,D2,D3,E1,E2,E3,F1,F2 & F3 are Reinforced with GFRP bars D11,D12,E11,E12,F11& F12 are Reinforced with Conventional Steel

The Performance of R.C Slabs Reinforced with GFRP Bars

39

Figure 1: Load Vs Deflection Graph for the Beams of All Groups

Figure 2: A Typical Load Vs Deflection Graph (Group 2)

Figure 3: A Typical Load Vs Deflection Graph (Group 3)

Figure 4: Test Setup