Você está na página 1de 11

Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1419–1429

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Experimental and analytical investigation of CFRP flexural and shear


strengthening efficiencies of RC beams
A.A. El-Ghandour ⇑
Ain Shams University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Structural Engineering, P.O. Box 11517, Abbassia, Cairo, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper studies the CFRP flexure and shear strengthening efficiencies of concrete beams. Half-scale
Received 12 June 2010 beams, with different flexure and shear internal steel ratios, were tested in three-point bending. Flexure
Received in revised form 25 August 2010 or shear-critical beams were provided with CFRP longitudinal sheets or U-wraps, respectively. Flexure–
Accepted 2 September 2010
shear-critical beams were provided with shear or combined systems. At high flexural damage, 38.3%
Available online 12 October 2010
reduction in shear strengthening efficiency was noted at higher ductility, while the flexural strengthening
efficiency reduced by 65.7% at high shear damage, both from capacity perspectives. The U-wraps were
Keywords:
22% activated, while full sheet activation occurred and reduced by dowel rupture by 30.8% at high shear
Bending tests
RC beams
damage. While single failures were accurately predicted by ACI 318M-05 and ACI 440.2R-08, combined
CFRP flexure strengthening ones were not.
CFRP shear strengthening Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Flexure and shear damage
Strengthening efficiency
Analytical study

1. Introduction bonding. The NSM technique was recently investigated [11], to


optimize the shear strengthening efficiency.
A large literature [1–11] exists on fiber-reinforced polymers However, the above literature focused on single aspects of fail-
(FRP) flexure or shear strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) ure, such as flexure or shear. To the author’s knowledge, few stud-
elements. This literature focuses on optimally increasing the flex- ies looked at combined failures [12–14], where the flexural or
ural strengthening efficiency [1–7] below the shear capacity, to en- shear strengthening is sensitive, other than bond, to the high level
sure enough ductility. The literature’s integrity is fulfilled by of shear or flexural damage, respectively. This is noted in codes,
studies focusing on the maximum achievable shear strengthening such as ACI 440.2R-08 [15], where design equations consider a
efficiency [8–11] preventing shear failures prior to the desired flex- deficient aspect; assuming that other failure modes are prevented.
ural ones. Accordingly, the literature shows that the flexural This study focuses on the CFRP flexural or shear strengthening
strengthening efficiency is dominated, especially for laminates, efficiencies of RC flexure–shear-critical beams, relative to flexure
by bond [1,2]. This redirected recent studies to aim at delaying or shear-critical ones. Three-point bending static tests are con-
or optimally preventing bond failure. This started by preventing ducted on three groups of half-scale beams, designed to fail in flex-
peeling by end anchorages [3], then using intermediate anchorages ure, shear and flexure–shear. The strengthening follows the failure
[4], to delay intermediate crack de-bonding (ICD) [5]. The near sur- modes of the groups’ control beams. An analytical study is con-
face mounted (NSM) technique was then introduced [6]; thus, ducted, where strains, capacities and failure modes are determined
offering an ideal solution by fully activating and rupturing the lam- by the ACI 318M-05 [16] and ACI 440.2R-08 [15] flexure and shear
inates at flexural failure [7]. On the other hand, the literature on equations, and the predictions assessed against test results.
shear strengthening reflects the negative de-bonding effect of side
laminates or U-wraps, bonded over short lengths, on their effi-
2. Experimental work
ciency [8]. Hence, studies [8–10] aimed at providing a simple de-
sign approach calculating the actual FRP contribution to the
2.1. Beams’ details
shear capacity, based on limiting the FRP strain to prevent de-
Seven half-scale RC beams, of 300 mm deep by 120 mm wide
cross section, were statically tested to failure in three-point bend-
⇑ Tel.: +20 2 2 7957361; fax: +20 2 2 7956614. ing, as shown in Fig. 1. All beams were 2000 mm long over
E-mail address: awelghandour@gmail.com 1800 mm clear span (Fig. 1a), and were divided in three groups

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.09.001
1420 A.A. El-Ghandour / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1419–1429

Fig. 1. Beams details and internal steel strain gauges locations.

according to the internal flexure and shear steel ratios. Fig. 1b shows The flexural sheets were applied according to the manufac-
that group (1) consisted of two flexure-critical beams, B1 and B1F, turer’s specifications and the ACI 440.2R-08 [15]. They were tradi-
reinforced by three 16 mm diameter bottom bars (q = 1.86%) and tionally installed by the application of the epoxy resin adhesive to
two 8 mm diameter top bars (stirrups hangers), as well as two the concrete substrate, after grinding and smoothing the concrete
10 mm diameter vertical branches closed stirrups spaced at surface, followed by manual sheets’ placement and pressing onto
100 mm (qv = 1.3%). Fig. 1c shows that group (2) consisted of two the adhesive with a rubber roller. The U-wraps were applied on
shear-critical beams, B2 and B2S, reinforced by two 6 mm diameter top of the sheets, after rounding the beams’ bottom corners by a ra-
vertical branches stirrups spaced at 200 mm (qv = 0.23%), as well as dius of curvature of 15 mm, which fulfills the ACI 440.2R-08 [15]
six 18 mm diameter bottom bars (q = 4.71%) and two 10 mm diam- minimum requirement (13 mm).
eter top bars. Fig. 1d shows that group (3) consisted of three flexure–
shear-critical beams, B3, B3S and B3FS, reinforced by four 16 mm
2.3. Material properties
diameter bottom bars (q = 2.48%) and two 8 mm diameter top bars,
as well as two 6 mm diameter vertical branches stirrups spaced at
All internal steel with diameter higher than 8 mm was made of
200 mm (qv = 0.23%). The nomenclature of the test specimens is
high grade deformed steel bars (St. 400/600), of test yield stress,
as follows: the first character, B, refers to beam, the second charac-
fy = 400 N/mm2, and ultimate tensile strength, fu = 600 N/mm2.
ter, 1, 2 or 3, is the group number, and the following characters, F
The 8 and 6 mm diameter bars were made of normal mild smooth
and S, refer to the adopted CFRP flexural and shear strengthening
steel bars (St. 240/350), of test yield stress, fy = 290 N/mm2, and
schemes, respectively.
ultimate tensile strength, fu = 420 N/mm2. All steel had an elastic
modulus, Es = 200,000 N/mm2.
2.2. Strengthening schemes Normal weight concrete of 28-days average compressive cube
strength, fcu = 48.1 N/mm2, and compressive cylinder strength,
Fig. 2 shows the strengthening schemes, where unlike the three fc0 ¼ 39:5 N=mm2 , was used. All beams were cast in a wooden form,
control beams, B1–B3, the other four beams were CFRP strength- at the same time and from the same batch. Concrete was com-
ened in flexure and/or shear, as follows: pacted using a poker vibrator, followed by water curing and cover-
ing with polythene sheeting for 1 week.
 B1F was strengthened in flexure by one soffit sheet (100 mm The mechanical properties of the CFRP sheets, together with the
wide  0.176 mm thick), symmetrically positioned about the epoxy resin primer and adhesive, are given in Table 1, as per the
section’s vertical axis (Fig. 2a). The end U-wraps are provided manufacturer’s data sheets.
to prevent the flexural sheet’s peeling.
 B2S and B3S were shear strengthened by similar U-wraps 2.4. Instrumentation
(50 mm wide  0.176 mm thick), spaced at 187.5 mm within
the constant shear zones (Fig. 2b). The U-wraps vertically Fig. 3 shows that three 0.01-mm accuracy Linear Variable Dis-
extended to 40 mm below the top fibers (simulating slabs’ tance Transducers (LVDTs) were used to measure the quarters
existence). (D1 and D3) and mid-span (D2) deflections. The mid-span compres-
 B3FS was strengthened in flexure and shear by similar schemes sive concrete strain (C) was measured by one electrical strain
to B1F and B2S (Fig. 2c), respectively. gauge of 120-mm length and 120-Ohm resistance. Two electrical
A.A. El-Ghandour / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1419–1429 1421

Fig. 2. Strengthening schemes and strain gauges locations on CFRP sheets.

Table 1
Mechanical properties of used CFRP sheets and adhesive (design guaranteed values).

Material property Epoxy primer Sikadur-41CF Epoxy adhesive Sikadur-31CF CFRP sheets
Sheets U-wraps
Dimensions (mm) – – 100  0.176 50  0.176
Cross section area (mm2) – – 17.6 8.8
Compressive strength (N/mm2) 65–75 60–70 –
Tensile strength (N/mm2) 10–15 15–20 3800
Young’s modulus (N/mm2) 9000 4300 240,000
Flexural strength (N/mm2) 25–35 30–40 –
Bond strength (conc.) (N/mm2) (1) 3.5 –
Ultimate tensile strain – – 0.0155

(1) = Failure occurs in concrete.

strain gauges of 10-mm length and 120-Ohm resistance (S3 and S4) the stirrups’ alternate sides near supports. Fig. 2 shows that the
were mounted at mid-span, on the corner tensile steel bars of all flexural sheets’ and U-wraps’ tensile strains were measured by 5
tested beams, as shown in Fig. 1. The figure also shows that (SF1–SF5) and 10 (SC1–SC10) gauges, similar to the steel ones,
another four similar gauges (S1, S2, S5 and S6) were mounted on respectively.
1422 A.A. El-Ghandour / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1419–1429

C
300 mm

D1 D2 D3
100mm 450mm 450mm 450mm 450mm 100mm

2000 mm

Fig. 3. Deflection and concrete strain measurements.

2.5. Test setup and loading procedure in unchanged failure modes in B1F and B3FS, at 9.7% and 3.33%
enhanced capacities, relative to B1 and B3S, respectively. Failure
The beams were statically tested in three-point bending, as close-ups in Fig. 6a and d shows that B1F failed in flexure by sheet’s
shown in Fig. 4. The load was manually and monotonically in- rupture then concrete crushing at the top of the beam at 170 kN
creased up to failure, using a hydraulic jack of 300-kN capacity (Table 2), while B3FS failed in flexure–shear mode at 155 kN
and 2.5-kN accuracy. Each increment (5-kN) was applied for (Table 2), respectively. An inclined splitting crack initiated at
2 min, at the end of which the load was held constant for measure- B3FS tension steel level and propagated almost vertically towards
ments and observations. mid-span, causing dowel sheet’s rupture then concrete crushing
at the beam’s top and de-bonding of the sixth U-wrap (Fig. 6d).
B3S failed similarly, but further away from mid-span, where sixth
3. Experimental results and seventh U-wraps’ de-bonding occurred (Fig. 6c). B3S and B3FS
combined failures are due to the U-wraps’ effect in vertically redi-
3.1. Test observations recting the inclined cracks, until flexural failures occurred. The
negligible 3.33% capacity increase in B3FS over B3S, relative to
Fig. 5 shows traditional crack patterns in all beams, with verti- the 9.7% value in B1F over B1 (Table 2), reveals the flexural
cal flexural cracks at mid-span, and increasingly inclined flexural– strengthening sensitivity to the higher level of shear damage at
shear ones further away. At high loads, the design of beams and failure of group (3) beams, with higher flexural reinforcement
strengthening schemes resulted in crack patterns, failure modes ratio.
and capacity variations. Fig. 5d and f shows that the shear strengthening resulted in rel-
Fig. 5b and g shows that the flexural strengthening resulted in atively uniform flexural–shear cracks and higher flexural cracks
more uniform cracks, covering longer portions of B1F and B3FS concentration in B2S and B3S, relative to B2 and B3 (Fig. 5c and
spans with smaller widths, relative to B1 and B3S (Fig. 5a and f), e), respectively. Table 2 shows the cracking loads’ insensitivity to
respectively. Table 2 shows 33.3% cracking load increase, due to the shear strengthening. Fig. 5d and f also shows that the shear
the sheet’s uniform tension redistribution in B1F and B3FS, relative strengthening changed the brittle shear–tension failures of B2
to B1 and B3S, respectively. The high flexural reinforcement ratios and B3 (Fig. 5c and e) to shear–compression failure in B2S
of groups (1) and (3), with q = 1.86% and 2.48%, respectively, dic- (q = 4.71%) and flexural–shear failure in B3S (q = 2.48%), respec-
tated low flexural strengthening level (qf = 0.05%), and resulted tively, at considerably enhanced capacities, dictated by the low

Fig. 4. Test setup.


A.A. El-Ghandour / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1419–1429 1423

Fig. 5. Crack patterns of the tested beams at failure.

Table 2
Beams’ capacities and modes of failure.

Beam code Strengthening system Cracking load, Pcr (kN) Failure load, Pu (kN) Failure mode Capacity enhancement (%)
Sheets U-wraps
B1 None None 30 155 Flexure (steel yielding) –
B1F One 2 ends 40 170 Flexure (CFRP rupture) 9.7
B2 None None 100 170 Shear–tension –
B2S None One/187.5 mm 100 225 Shear–compression 32.4
B3 None None 30 125 Shear–tension –
B3S None One/187.5 mm 30 150 Combined flexure–shear 20
B3FS One One/187.5 mm 40 155 Combined flexure–shear 24

Fig. 6. Failure close-ups of all strengthened beams.

stirrups ratio (qv = 0.23%) of groups (2) and (3). Failure close-up in The previously described B3S failure (Fig. 6c) occurred at 150 kN
Fig. 6b shows the inclined splitting crack, initiating at B2S tension (Table 2). B2S higher capacity increase over B2 (32.4%), relative
steel level and propagating to mid-span, causing corner rupture of to B3S over B3 (20%), reflects the negative effect of group (3) lower
the third U-wrap and de-bonding of the fourth and fifth ones, as flexural steel ratio and high level of flexural damage on shear
well as concrete crushing at the beam’s top at 225 kN (Table 2). strengthening efficiency.
1424 A.A. El-Ghandour / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1419–1429

3.2. Deflections 250


Steel yield strain, ε y = 0.002

Fig. 7 shows the load–mid-span deflection, D2, curves of the 200


tested beams. The highest flexural steel ratio and increased cracked
inertia and dowel effect of group (2), is reflected by B2 and B2S

Load (kN)
150
highest stiffness and shear capacities. Although lower and nearly
similar stiffness is noted for groups (1) and (3), with lower flexural P B1
100 B1F
steel ratios than group (2), different behavior and failure modes oc- B2
curred at high loads, depending on strengthening. B2S
50 S3 B3
The shear strengthening effect is shown in Fig. 7 by B2S B3S
increased deformability by 114.7% relative to B2 failing in B3FS
0
shear–tension. This reflects B2S system’s efficiency, until shear–
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
compression failure at 32.4% increased capacity relative to B2.
Strain, S 3
The previous enhancements are considerably reduced in B3S rela-
tive to B3 (53.8% increased deformability and 20% increased capac- Fig. 8. Load–tensile steel strain responses of all tested beams.
ity); hence, confirming group (3) high flexural damage negative
effect on shear strengthening efficiency, especially in strength-
governed applications. due to the high flexural damage at failure of group (3). This high
Fig. 7 also shows that B1F flexural strengthening resulted in im- flexural damage is reflected in B3 response, where shear failure oc-
proved stiffness than B1 near failure, where the sheet’s stiffening curred far beyond tension steel yielding (0.004). However, the
increased the element’s effective inertia. Thus, the 9.7% increased shear strengthening improved B3S ductility, by mobilizing the ten-
flexural capacity of B1F relative to B1occurred at 7.7% slightly re- sion steel to a post-yielding strain of 0.01 at failure.
duced failure deflection. When compared to the latter results, the Fig. 8 also shows the flexural strengthening high sensitivity to
negligible stiffness, 10% ductility and 3.33% capacity increases in B1F and B3FS shear damage level. In fact, B1F response reflects
B3FS relative to B3S, confirm group (3) high shear damage negative slight increase in yielding load (5.3%) and post-yielding stiffness,
effect on flexural strengthening, especially in strength-governed until flexural failure at 9.7% capacity increase and 23.5% reduced
applications. failure strain relative to B1. These results are higher than the neg-
ligible 3.33% capacity increase and 2% reduced failure strain of
3.3. Tensile strains in the flexural steel and CFRP sheets B3FS relative to B3S. The latter flexural strengthening efficiency
is reduced by group (3) high shear damage at failure.
Fig. 8 shows the load–internal tensile steel strain, S3, curves at Fig. 9 shows bi-linear and nearly similar stiffness load–tensile
mid-span of all tested beams. While group (2) beams, with over- strain, SF3, curves of B1F and B3FS flexural sheets at mid-span until
reinforced cross sections, showed nearly linear responses with failure. The slightly higher stiffness of B3FS is due to its higher flex-
highest stiffness, groups (1) and (3), with lower steel ratios, dem- ural steel ratio. The stiffness dropped at steel yielding, where high-
onstrated bi-linear responses at yielding. It should be noted that, er sheets’ strains developed until rupture at 0.015 (B1F) and 0.009
the bi-linear deflection responses of groups (1) and (3) beams in (B3FS). While the former strain reflects full sheet’s activation at
Fig. 7 occurred at higher loads (near failure) since, unlike Fig. 8 re- B1F flexural failure at low shear damage level, the latter value re-
sponses, they represent the beams’ behavior at the element level; flects premature dowel rupture by B3FS splitting shear–flexural
i.e., the bi-linear trend in the deflection responses occurs when failure crack, associated to the beam’s high level of shear damage.
the tension steel of several consecutive sections yields. However, confidence in the sheets’ results needs experimental
Fig. 8 shows the shear strengthening high sensitivity to B2S and proof of effective composite action until failure, as shown in
B3S flexural damage level at failure. Relatively high shear strength- Fig. 10, showing comparisons between the load–tensile strain
ening efficiency is attained in B2S failing in shear–compression curves at mid-span of B1F and B3FS sheets, SF3, and adjacent inter-
near its flexural capacity at 32.4% increase (relative to B2). Despite nal steel, S3. Increasingly higher CFRP strains relative to the adja-
over-reinforcement, B2S failure occurred at tension bars’ post- cent steel ones are noted until steel yielding, where maximum
yielding. This is due to the enhanced ultimate compressive con- gaps between CFRP and corresponding steel strains occurred. After
crete strain beyond 0.003, due to the stirrups’ induced confinement yielding, the reduced stiffness of the steel responses resulted in
(Section 3.4). Lower shear strengthening efficiency occurred in B3S, gaps’ narrowing, until crossing the corresponding CFRP responses
failing in combined mode at 20% capacity increase relative to B3, prior to rupture. Secured bond until failure between the flexural

200
250
180
160
200
140
Load (kN)

120 P
Load (kN)

150
100
B1 80
100 B1F
P
B2 60 SF3
B2S
50 B3 40
B1F
B3S 20 CFRP rupture strain, ε f = 0.0155 B3FS
D2 B3FS
0 0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
Deflection, D2 (mm) Strain, SF3

Fig. 7. Load–mid-span deflection responses of all tested beams. Fig. 9. Load–tensile strain responses at the middle of CFRP flexural sheets.
A.A. El-Ghandour / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1419–1429 1425

200 Steel yield strain, ε y = 0.002 shear–compression in B2S or flexural–shear in B3S, resulted in
180 same order failure strain increases to 0.004 and 0.0035 (enhanced
160 ductility), respectively. Those values, beyond 0.003, are due to the
140 similar stirrups’ induced confinement in B2S and B3S. This is in-
line with the ACI 318M-05 [16], stating that the maximum com-
Load (kN)

120
P pressive concrete strains vary from 0.003 to higher than 0.008,
100
depending on the confinement’s degree. This also justifies the flex-
80
B1F (steel) ural failure of group (1), with highest stirrups’ amount, at highest
60 S3
B1F (CFRP) strains of 0.005 in B1 and 0.0046 in B1F.
40 SF3
B3FS (steel) Fig. 12 also shows B1F higher flexural strengthening efficiency
20 CFRP rupture strain,ε f = 0.0155 B3FS (CFRP) than B3FS, due to group (1) lowest shear damage. Slight 8% and
0 8.5% failure strain reductions were obtained in B1F and B3FS rela-
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
tive to B1 and B3S, respectively.
Strain, S 3 and SF3

Fig. 10. Comparisons between flexural steel and adjacent CFRP tensile strain 3.5. Tensile strains in the steel stirrups and CFRP U-wraps
responses.
Fig. 13 shows the load–tensile steel stirrups strain (S2 and S5)
CFRP sheets and the concrete substrate is also proved in Fig. 11, curves of all beams. The nearly inactivated S1 and S6 locations
where the longitudinal tensile strains’ profiles of B1F and B3FS (developing an upper bound failure strain of 0.0006 in the tested
sheets followed the test setup’s bending moment requirements beams) at the discontinuity regions, D-regions [17], close to the
at different load levels until failure (the profiles at 100 kN and fail- supports, are not shown. Except B2, B3 and B2S failing in shear,
ure are typically shown in Fig. 11). stirrups were only activated below yield, due to flexural and com-
bined failures at mid-span D-regions, close to the concentrated
3.4. Compressive concrete strains load. All responses were bi-linear, due to shear cracking and stir-
rups’ relative activation. S5 responses in Fig. 13b reflect B2 and
The load–compressive concrete strain, C, curves at mid-span of B3 shear–tension failure cracks, where 0.00161 and 0.0017 post-
all beams are shown in Fig. 12. The highest stiffness of group (2) yield strains occurred (higher than those measured by S2 in
responses, as well as the brittle shear–tension failures of B2 and Fig. 13a), respectively. S2 responses in Fig. 13a reflect B2S left B-
B3, where similarly low concrete strains of around 0.002 devel- region [17] shear–compression failure crack, where 0.00175 post-
oped, are shown in the figure. yield strain occurred, while the strain for B2S, measured by S5
Fig. 12 reconfirms B2S higher shear strengthening efficiency (Fig. 13b), dropped just after yielding. It should be noted that the
than B3S, due to group (2) low flexural damage. However, the fail-
ure modes’ changes, from shear–tension in B2 and B3 to either
250 Steel yield strain (diam. 6 mm) , ε y = 0.00145
0.016 SF3

0.014 200 Steel yield strain


B1F (100 KN) (diam. 10 mm) ,
0.012
B3FS (100 kN) ε y = 0.002
Load (kN)

150
0.01 B1F (failure)
Strain, SFn

B3FS (failure) B1
0.008 100 B1F
P B2
300 mm
0.006 SF2 SF4 SF5 B2S
SF1
50 S2 B3
0.004 B3S
B3FS
0.002 0
0 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
0 500 1000 1500 Strain, S 2
Distance from left support (mm) (a) Position S2
Fig. 11. Comparisons of flexural CFRP tensile strain profiles at different load levels. Steel yield strain (diam. 6 mm) , ε y = 0.00145
250 Steel yield strain
(diam. 10 mm) ,
200 ε y = 0.002
250
Load (kN)

200 150

B1
Load (kN)

150 100 B1F


P B1 P 300 mm B2
B1F B2S
100 B2 50 S5 B3
B3S
C B2S B3FS
50 B3 0
B3S 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Compression B3FS Strain, S 5
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 (b) Position S5
Concrete Strain, C
Fig. 13. Load–tensile stirrups strain curves at positions S2 and S5 of all strengthened
Fig. 12. Load–compressive concrete strain responses of all tested beams. beams.
1426 A.A. El-Ghandour / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1419–1429

previous B-region [17] is the region where Bernoulli’s hypothesis 250 CFRP rupture strain, ε f = 0.0155
(bending theory) is valid.
Fig. 13 also shows B2S high shear strengthening efficiency,
200
noted by higher post- cracking stiffness than B2 and 32.4% capacity
increase. B3S higher flexural cracking resulted in only 20% capacity

Load (kN)
increase relative to B3 (B3S capacity enhancement over B3 was re- 150
duced by 38.3% relative to that achieved in B2S over B2), and al-
most vertical responses near failure, where flexural deformations 100
P
dominated and no further stirrups’ strains developed. However, 450 mm
the shear strengthening was relatively activated up to a strain of 50 B2S
SC3
0.0034 (21.9% of the CFRP rupture strain) at B3S shear–flexural fail- B3S
ure crack middle region. B3FS
0
Fig. 13 finally shows that B3FS flexural strengthening couldn’t -0.0001 0.0004 0.0009 0.0014 0.0019 0.0024 0.0029 0.0034 0.0039
further mobilize shear deformations. Nearly similar responses to Strain, SC 3
B3S occurred for B3FS, but at 2.8% higher shear cracking loads
and stiffer post-cracking trends (sheet stiffening), until negligible
(a) Position SC3
further 3.33% enhanced capacity relative to B3S. B3FS high shear
damage and combined failure caused premature sheet rupture, 250 CFRP rupture strain, ε f = 0.0155
and 65.7% reduction in its capacity enhancement over B3S
(3.33%) relative to that achieved in B1F over B1 (9.7%). B1F relative 200
to B1 showed relatively higher shear cracking load (47.2%) and
post-cracking stiffness than B3FS relative to B3S, where low shear

Load (kN)
150
damage in B1F fully mobilized its flexural deformations and rup-
tured its sheet.
SC3 and SC8 load–tensile strain curves of B2S, B3S and B3FS U- 100 P
450 mm
wraps, shown in Fig. 14, reflect up to 22% activation at failure.
SC3 and SC8 fit within the B-regions [17] and best represent the 50 SC8 B2S
shear behavior. One reason of the low activation is the U-wraps’ B3S
B3FS
de-bonding at failure; in-line with ACI 440.2R-08 [15] strain limi- 0
tation. Another reason is the corners’ strength reduction, where -0.0002 0.0003 0.0008 0.0013 0.0018 0.0023 0.0028 0.0033 0.0038
corner rupture of B2S third U-wrap (near failure crack) occurred Strain, SC 8
at 0.0029 SC3 strain (Fig. 14a). The U-wraps were activated at shear
cracking, with B2S (highest flexural bars) showing highest cracking
(b) Position SC8
load and post-cracking stiffness (Fig. 14a). The SC3 responses of Fig. 14. Load–tensile U-wraps strain curves at SC3 and SC8 of the shear strength-
B3FS and B3S in Fig. 14a showed lower cracking load (up to ened beams.
54.5%) and post-cracking stiffness than that of B2S. In this respect,
the higher B3FS shear cracking load (20%) and post-cracking stiff-
ness relative to B3S are due to flexural strengthening. SC8 re- where the compressive concrete strain, e0c , corresponding to the cyl-
sponses in Fig. 14b showed similar trends to the corresponding inder strength, fc0 , is computed according to the following Park and
SC3 responses in Fig. 14a. Negligible SC8 strain of 0.0005 (3.2% of Pauly’s [19] Eq. (1b):
the CFRP rupture strain) is noted at B3FS failure (Fig. 14b), due to 2fc0
the splitting flexural crack and U-wrap inactivation, while a left e0c ¼ ð1bÞ
Ec
shear crack relatively activated the third one (SC3 in Fig. 14a) to
a strain value of 0.0024 at failure (15.5% of the CFRP rupture where the concrete elastic modulus, Ec, is calculated according to
strain). ACI 318M-05.
ACI 440.2R-08 iterative method, considering strain compatibil-
4. Analytical study ity, force equilibrium and critical failure mode, was adopted using
‘‘Excel” spreadsheet, to calculate the ultimate strength as follows:
The failure moments of the control and CFRP strengthened in
flexure beams were calculated as in Fig. 15a and b, based on the a. Set the maximum compressive concrete strain, ec = ecu = test
ACI 318M-05 [16] and ACI 440.2R-08 [15] sectional stress and value at failure.
strain distributions, respectively, after setting the strength reduc- b. Calculate a1 and b1 of the concrete stress block, using Eqs.
tion factors to unity. A bi-linear stress–strain curve modeled ten- (1a) and (1b).
sion steel, using the tests’ values (fy = 400 N/mm2, ey = 0.002, c. Assume a neutral axis depth, c.
fu = 600 N/mm2 and eu = 0.1). A linear elastic stress–strain curve d. Determine the internal compressive, C, and tensile, Ts and Tf,
to failure modeled CFRP, using the data sheets’ values. Compressive forces based on the tensile strains in steel, es, and CFRP
concrete was modeled by a modified rectangular stress block, sheets, ef, as dictated by strain compatibility at ultimate
where a1 and b1 coefficients were computed by Collins and moment.
Mitchell’s [18] Eq. (1a) for parabolic stress–strain curve and con- e. Check section’s equilibrium using Eqs. (2a) and (2b):
stant section width. Test values of compressive concrete cylinder Z Z
strength, fc0 , and measured failure compressive concrete strains, fc dAc þ fs dAs ¼ 0 ðcontrolÞ ð2aÞ
ecu, were used: Ac As

 2 Z Z Z
ecu 1 ecu 4  ecu =e0c
fc dAc þ fs dAs þ ff dAf ¼ 0 ðCFRP strengthenedÞ ð2bÞ
a1 b1 ¼  and b1 ¼ ð1aÞ
e0c 3 e0c 6  2ecu =e0c Ac As Af
A.A. El-Ghandour / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1419–1429 1427

Fig. 15. Stress and strain distributions for reinforced and FRP strengthened sections under flexure.

where fc is the compressive concrete stress, fs the tensile steel The failure loads, Pfc and Pft, were calculated by the test moment
stress, ff the CFRP stress, Ac the concrete area, As the tensile diagram. Bond predictions are not done, since no sheet’s de-
steel area and Af is the CFRP area. bonding was monitored during the tests.
f. Change the assumption of the neutral axis depth, c, until The shear capacities, Ps, were calculated by ACI 318M-05 equa-
equilibrium is satisfied. tions for concrete, Vc, and steel shear reinforcement, Vs, contribu-
g. Calculate the sectional failure moment, Mfc, using Eqs. (3a) tions, and ACI 440.2R-08 ones for FRP bonded U-wraps, Vf, after
and (3b): setting the strength reduction factors to unity:
 qffiffiffiffi  qffiffiffiffi
Z Z V ud
V c ¼ 0:16 fc0 þ 17qw bw d  0:29 fc0 bw d
fc y dAc þ fs y dAs ¼ M fc ðcontrolÞ ð3aÞ Mu
Ac As
V ud
and  1:0 ð4Þ
Z Z Z Mu
fc y dAc þ fs y dAs þ ff y dAf
Ac As Af
where Vc is the nominal concrete shear strength with flexural steel,
qw the sectional flexural steel ratio, Vu the applied sectional shear
¼ Mfc ðCFRP strengthenedÞ ð3bÞ
force, Mu the sectional moment due to load, bw the sectional web
width and d is the sectional depth.
where y is the distance from the neutral axis.In case the
above steps resulted in a strengthened beam failure moment, Av fyt d
Vs ¼ ð5Þ
Mfc, at which concrete reached ecu at a post-rupture sheet s
strain, the trial-and-error procedure is repeated to determine where Vs is the nominal steel stirrups shear strength, fyt the stirrups
the sheets’ rupture failure moment, Mft, as follows: yield strength 6 420 N/mm2) and s is the stirrups spacing.
h. Assume CFRP rupture strain, ef = efu = 0.0155 (data sheets),
and repeat steps b–f, where Mft is calculated by Eq. (3b). Af v ffe ðsin a þ cos aÞdf v
Vf ¼ ð6aÞ
For control beams, Mft is not calculated since, regardless sf
the flexural failure type, capacity is dictated by concrete
crushing. Af v ¼ 2nt f wf ; f fe ¼ efe Ef and efe ¼ kt efu  0:004 ð6bÞ
1428 A.A. El-Ghandour / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1419–1429

K 1 K 2 le 23300
kt ¼  0:75 and le ¼ ð6cÞ

0.89

0.79
0.79
0.98
1.08
1.05
1.00
11900efu ðnf t f Ef Þ0:58

Panaly:
Pexp:
 2=3

Shear–tension

Shear–tension
Flexure–shear
Flexure–shear
fc0 d f v  le

Failure mode

Shear comp.
K1 ¼ and K 2 ¼ for U-wraps ð6dÞ
27 df v

Flexure
Flexure
where Vf is the nominal FRP shear strength, Afv the FRP area spaced
at s, ffe the effective FRP stress (at failure), a the FRP orientation
angle, dfv the FRP effective depth, sf the FRP center-to-center spac-
Failure load

ing, n the FRP number of plies, tf the FRP one ply nominal thickness,
Pexp. (kN)

wf the FRP plies width, efe the FRP effective strain level at failure, efu
155

225
125

155
170
170

150
the FRP ultimate rupture strain, Ef the FRP tensile elastic modulus,
kv the shear bond-reduction coefficient, le the FRP active bond
0.00353

length and K1 and K2 are the concrete strength and wrapping


0.0034
0.0032
schemes modification factors applied to kv, respectively.
efs


Vc is calculated at several sections, and the resulting diagram is


numerically added to either the constant Vs or the sum of the con-
0.00161
0.00175
0.00097

0.00067
0.00064
0.0017
0.0009
Shear

stant Vs and Vf (accounting for U-wraps’ de-bonding; efe) diagrams


ess

of the control or shear strengthened beams, respectively. The resul-


tant nominal shear strength diagram, Vn, is superimposed on sev-
0.0091
0.015

eral test setup shear force diagrams, V, drawn at different loads.


eff

The shear capacity, Ps, is determined as the load causing first tan-




gential interference with Vn diagram, within the beam’s B-region.


Experimental result

0.00164
0.00239

0.00976

Table 3 shows comparisons between the predicted, Panaly., and


0.017
0.013

0.004
0.01

test, Pexp., capacities and failure modes (resulting in least analytical


esf

capacity, Panaly.). The failure predicted and test compressive concrete


Flexure

strains, ecu, tensile steel strains, esf, tensile sheets strains, eff, tensile
0.0046
0.0021

0.0035
0.0032
0.005

0.004
0.002

stirrups strains, ess, and tensile U-wraps strains, efs, are shown.
ecu

Group (1) (flexure-critical) shows good strains, failure modes and


up to 11% conservative flexural capacity predictions. The ACI
Failure mode

318M-05 and ACI 440.2R-08, with the modified concrete block,


Flexure
Flexure

Flexure

are hence valid for flexural analysis. Although group (2) (shear-
Shear
Shear
Shear

Shear

critical) shows good U-wraps strains and failure modes predictions,


more conservative ones (than flexure) are noted for stirrups strains
Failure load

and shear capacity (21% conservative), since ACI 318M-05 and ACI
Panaly. (kN)

440.2R-08 shear equations are more conservative for brittle failures.


169.69

161.93
138.03

122.4

163.8

The accurate (2% underestimated) shear capacity, stirrups strain and


134
178

failure mode prediction of group (3) (flexure–shear critical) control


beam, partly reflects ACI 318M-05 underestimation of group (2)
0.004

0.004
0.004

dowel action, and highlights the test reduced shear capacity at high
efs


flexural damage. This is proved by the un-conservative capacity pre-


dictions (up to 8%) of group (3) strengthened beams, whose com-
0.00145
0.00145
0.00145
0.00145
0.00145
0.00145
0.00145

bined failures were not predicted by the ACI 318M-05 and ACI
ess

440.2R-08, where further research is needed.


Ps (kN)
Shear

122.4
163.8
163.8
421
421
134
178

5. Conclusions
0.0155

0.0079

The research conducted showed that the CFRP flexural or shear


eff

strengthening efficiency is sensitive to the shear or flexure level of





damage, respectively. This damage level should be adequately as-


0.00204
0.00204
0.0183
0.0129

0.0074
0.0074
0.0064

sessed in design. Specific conclusions are as follows:


Comparison between predicted and test results.

esf

1. Despite 33.3% cracking load increase, the flexural strengthening


0.0046

efficiency in improving crack patterns was inversely propor-


0.005

0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004

tional to shear damage. Similar shear strengthening sensitivity


ecu

to flexural damage existed, at unaffected cracking loads.


Analytical prediction

Pft (kN)

2. High shear damage reduced the flexural strengthening effi-


169.69

ciency, in terms of less improved stiffness and 65.7% reduced






capacity increase. Flexure–shear failure changed full sheet acti-


vation to dowel rupture, at 30.8% reduced strain. However,
Pfc (kN)
Flexure

252.96
252.96
161.93
161.93
177.14
138.03

same order failure deflection and strains were obtained.


3. High flexural damage reduced the U-wraps efficiency by 38.3%


from capacity increase perspective, at similarly enhanced shear
Code

B3FS
Table 3

B2S

B3S
B1F

stiffness. However, brittle shear failure changed to more ductile


B1

B2

B3

flexure–shear at post-yield tension steel strain of 0.01.


A.A. El-Ghandour / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1419–1429 1429

4. Unlike the flexural sheets, the U-wraps were only 22% activated [6] Hassan T, Rizkalla S. Investigation of bond in concrete structures strengthened
with near surface mounted carbon fiber reinforced polymer strips. J Compos
at failure, where de-bonding occurred, in-line with the ACI
Constr, ASCE 2003;7(3):248–57.
440.2R-08 strain limitation. [7] Elgabbas F, El-Ghandour A, Abdelrahman A, El-Dieb A. Different CFRP
5. Single failure modes were acceptably predicted by the ACI strengthening techniques for prestressed hollow core concrete slabs:
318 M-05 and ACI 440.2R-08 flexure (with the modified con- experimental study and analytical investigation. Compos Struct
2010;92(2):401–11.
crete block) and shear equations. However, combined failures [8] Triantafillou TC. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using
were not conservatively predicted, and further research is epoxy-bonded FRP composites. ACI Struct J 1998;95(2):107–15.
needed. [9] Khalifa A, Gold W, Nanni A, Abel-Aziz M. Contribution of externally bonded
FRP to the shear capacity of RC flexural members. J Compos Constr, ASCE
1998;2(4):195–203.
The above findings are specific for the three-point bending test- [10] Triantafillou T, Antonopoulos C. Design of concrete flexural members
ing scheme used in this study. General findings could be estab- strengthened in shear with FRP. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2000;4(4):198–205.
[11] Dias S, Barros J. Shear strengthening of T cross section reinforced concrete
lished by conducting future experiments with different testing beams by near-surface mounted technique. J Compos Constr, ASCE
and loading schemes. 2008;12(3):300–11.
[12] Aprile A, Benedetti A. Coupled flexural–shear design of R/C beams
strengthened with FRP. Compos Part B: Eng 2004;35(1):1–25.
[13] Abdelrahman A. Combined flexure and shear strengthening of concrete T-
References beams using FRP fabric. Scientific bulletin of the faculty of engineering, Ain
Shams University, Part I: architectural and civil engineering, vol. 40, no. 4,
[1] Bonacci J, Maalej M. Behavioral trends of RC beams strengthened with Cairo, Egypt; 2005.
externally bonded FRP. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2001;5(2):102–13. [14] Al-Amery R, Al-Mahaidi R. Coupled flexural–shear retrofitting of RC beams
[2] Pesic N, Pilakoutas K. Flexural analysis and design of reinforced concrete using CFRP straps. Compos Struct 2006;75(1–4):457–64.
beams with externally bonded FRP reinforcement. Mater Struct/Mater Constr [15] ACI 440.2R-08. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP
(RILEM Publications) 2005;38(276):183–92. ISSN: 1359-5997. systems for strengthening concrete structures. Emerging technology series.
[3] Chahrour A, Soudki K. Flexural response of reinforced concrete beams Committee 440, Farmigton Hills, Michigan, USA; July 2008. 76p.
strengthened with end-anchored partially bonded carbon fiber reinforced [16] ACI 318M-2005. Building code requirements for structural concrete and
polymer strips. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2005;9(2):170–7. commentary. Committee 318, Farmigton Hills, Michigan, USA; 2005. 430p.
[4] Abdelrahman A, El-Ghandour A. Effect of U-shaped FRP warps on the bond [17] Macgregor J. Reinforced concrete mechanics and design. Englewood Cliffs
behavior of CFRP strips. In: Proceedings of the eighth international symposium (New Jersey, USA): Prentice Hall; 1992. 848p.
on fiber reinforced polymer reinforcement for concrete structures (FRPRCS-8), [18] Collins M, Mitchell D. Prestressed concrete structures. Englewood Cliffs (New
Patras, Greece; 16–18 July 2007. p. 96–7 [vol. for extended abstracts]. Jersey, USA): Prentice Hall; 1991. 766p.
[5] Yao J, Teng JG, Lam L. Experimental study on intermediate crack debonding in [19] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. New York (USA): John Wiley
FRP-strengthened RC flexural members. Adv Struct Eng 2004;8(4):365–95. and Sons; 1975. 769p.

Você também pode gostar