Materials and Design 54 (2014) 686693

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Technical Report

Behaviour of hybrid bre reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints under reverse cyclic loads
N. Ganesan , P.V. Indira, M.V. Sabeena
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Calicut, Kerala State 673601, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
An experimental investigation was carried out to study the effect of hybrid bres on the strength and behaviour of High performance concrete beam column joints subjected to reverse cyclic loads. A total of 12 reinforced concrete beams column joints were cast and tested in the present investigation. High performance concrete of M60 grade was designed using the modied ACI method suggested by Atcin. Crimped steel bres and polypropylene bres were used in hybrid form. The main variables considered were the volume fraction of (i) crimped steel bres viz. 0.5% (39.25 kg/m3) and 1.0% (78.5 kg/m3) and (ii) polypropylene bres viz. 0.1% (0.9 kg/m3), 0.15% (1.35 kg/m3), and 0.2% (1.8 kg/m3). Addition of bres in hybrid form improved many of the engineering properties such as the rst crack load, ultimate load and ductility factor of the composite. The combination of 1% (78.5 kg/m3) volume fraction of steel bres and 0.15% (1.35 kg/m3) volume fraction of polypropylene bres gave better performance with respect to energy dissipation capacity and stiffness degradation than the other combinations. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 30 May 2013 Accepted 21 August 2013 Available online 30 August 2013

1. Introduction Beam column joints are the critical components of a reinforced concrete moment resisting frame, especially when the frame is subjected to seismic loading. Under large seismic forces, the beamcolumn connections must be capable of carrying shear forces which are accompanied by large deformations. Therefore, for providing adequate ductility of beamcolumn joints the use of closely spaced hoops as transverse reinforcement was recommended in ACI-ASCE Committee 352 [1] and IS 13920 [2]. This leads to the congestion of reinforcement and difculties in placing and consolidating the concrete in the joint regions. These problems have led to considerable research for developing new methods to improve the structural performance under seismic loading and one of the major achievements in this area is the use of Fibre Reinforced Concrete (FRC). Fibres, if randomly dispersed throughout the concrete matrix, provide better distribution of both internal and external stresses due to the formation of a three dimensional reinforcing network [3]. Addition of bres into concrete have been effective in improving structural performance under gravity loads, as well as in increasing shear strength, ductility, energy dissipation, and damage tolerance in members subjected to reverse cyclic loading [4,5]. One of the possible alternative solutions for reducing the congestion of transverse reinforcement in beam column joints is the use of steel bre reinforced concrete in the joints [6,7]. The
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 0495 2286204.
E-mail addresses: ganesan@nitc.ac.in (N. Ganesan), indira@nitc.ac.in (P.V. Indira), sabeenahari@gmail.com (M.V. Sabeena). 0261-3069/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.08.076

characteristics of bre reinforced concrete depend upon the properties of bres and volume fraction and each type of bre can be effective with regard to some specic function [8]. The most important function of bres in concrete is to bridge across the cracks and delay the propagation of cracks which provides postcracking ductility. FRC used in practice usually contain only one type of bre. However, it is known that failure in concrete is a gradual, multi-scale process. Under an applied load, pre-existing micro cracks in concrete grow and join together to form macro cracks. A macro crack propagates at a stable rate until it attains conditions of unstable propagation and cause a sudden failure. The gradual and multi-scale nature of fracture in concrete implies that a given bre can provide reinforcement only at one level and within a limited range of strains [9]. Attempts have been made in the past to combine different types of bres and addition of the same to cementitious composites in order to improve the cracking performance in concrete at different levels [10,11]. Small and soft bres control initiation and propagation of micro cracks and the large and strong bres control macro cracks. Such hybrid bre reinforced composite can also offer more attractive engineering properties because the presence of one type of bre effectively utilizes the properties of the other bre [12,13]. Investigations with different types of hybrid bres also indicate enhancement of durability when hybrid bres are added to concrete [14]. Sustainability and durability are interrelated and they go together. Sustainability also relates to the life of the structure which in turn depends on concrete durability. The lifetime of the structure has a direct impact on sustainability. Enhancing the long term durability is one of the best solutions to improve sustainability [15]. Modern concretes such as brous

N. Ganesan et al. / Materials and Design 54 (2014) 686693

687

concrete, high performance concrete etc. not only enhance the properties of concrete but also increase the life of structures built with them. Improvement of strength and durability enhances the service life of structure which leads to reduction in the utilization of natural resources such as lime stone (for the production of cement) and ne and coarse aggregates (for the production of concrete). Hence this proves benecial to the conservation of natural resources to a great extent. Hence if one can achieve high durability then automatically sustainability is attained. Besides the above, the effect of presence of slabs on the behaviour of joints has also been studied by many researchers. Ductility of slab column joints depends upon the factors such as conning effect offered by the surrounding slab, load intensity on slab, slab reinforcement ratio and column and slab concrete strength [16,17]. The punching shear failure occurs in at slabs due to high stress concentration in the slab-column connections. The use of steel bre reinforcement improves the punching shear resistance and controls the cracking of slab column connections [18]. Studies have also been carried out on bre reinforced high strength concrete and it was reported that the addition of steel bres to high strength concrete makes it an effective high performance composite and the post-cracking load mainly depends on the bre content [18,19]. Large number of investigations are available on high strength concrete (HSC) [16,17], bre reinforced HSC [1820], high performance concrete(HPC) [21] and bre reinforced HPC [6,22]. However research on the effect of combination of different type of bres such as hybrid bres on the strength and behaviour of HPC are limited. ACI [23] denes high performance concrete (HPC) as the concrete meeting special combinations of performance and uniformity requirements that cannot always be achieved routinely when using conventional constituents and normal mixing, placing and curing practices. A high performance concrete is a concrete in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment. Examples of characteristics that may be considered critical for an application are ease of placement, compaction without segregation, early age strength, long-term mechanical properties, permeability, density, heat of hydration, toughness, volume stability and long life in severe environments [23]. In general, when bres are added to concrete, tensile strain in the neighbourhood of bres improves signicantly. HPC has a very dense microstructure since it contains supplementary cementitious materials like y ash and silica fume [21]. Hence in HPC, tensile strain carrying capacity would be much higher than that of conventional concrete and this in turn will improve the cracking behaviour, ductility and energy absorption capacity of the composite. Considering this, an attempt was made to study the effect of high performance concrete containing high modulus metallic bres and low modulus synthetic bres in combination with conventional reinforcement bars, to enhance the seismic performance of the beamcolumn joints. This study focuses on the hybrid bre reinforced system containing crimped steel bres and micro polypropylene bres. Crimped steel bres have undulations along the bre length which provide mechanical anchorage of the bres into the concrete, enhancing post rst crack strength [8]. Polypropylene bres are effective in controlling the crack initiation at micro level [10].

of concrete in the beamcolumn joint regions. This study investigates the effect of hybrid bres on the strength and behaviour of exterior HPC beam column joints. The tests on external beamcolumn joints showed the possibility of achieving highly ductile behaviour by using HPC containing hybrid steel-polypropylene bres. Also the use of hybrid bres in the beam column joint will lead to reduction in the transverse reinforcement and hence the congestion of steel reinforcement could be prevented in the joint. 3. Experimental programme 3.1. Materials used Ordinary Portland Cement of (53 grade) conforming to IS:12269-1987 (reafrmed 2004) [24], river sand passing through 4.75 mm IS sieve conforming to grading zone II of IS: 383-1970 (reafrmed 2002) [25] with neness modulus 2.46 and specic gravity 2.54 and crushed stone with a maximum size 12 mm with specic gravity 2.77 were used for this investigation. Class F y ash from Neyveli Lignite Corporation and Silica fume supplied by Elkem Micro Silica were used as mineral admixtures. A naphthalene based superplasticizer was used to obtain the required workability. Crimped steel bres and polypropylene bres used in this study are shown in Fig. 1 and their properties are given in Table 1. 3.2. Mix proportions for HPC ACI 211.1-91 [26] guidelines modied by Atcin [27] was followed for designing M60 grade HPC mix. Part of cement was replaced by micro llers such as yash and silica fume. Addition of bres reduced the workability of HPC and hence the dosage of superplasticizer was adjusted to maintain the workability. The details of mix proportions are given in Table 2. 3.3. Details of specimens The experimental programme consisted of casting and testing 12 numbers of exterior beam column joints under reverse cyclic loading. The variables include the volume fractions of crimped steel bres (Vfs), viz. 0.5% (39.25 kg/m3) and 1% (78.5 kg/m3) and volume fractions of polypropylene bres (Vfp), viz. 0.10% (0.9 kg/ m3), 0.15% (1.35 kg/m3) and 0.20% (1.8 kg/m3). The beam and column have the same cross section of 150 200 mm. The column was reinforced with four 10 mm diameter high yield strength deformed (HYSD) bars and the beam was provided with two 10 mm diameter HYSD bars at top and bottom. HYSD bars of 6 mm diameter were used as transverse ties in columns and stirrups in beams. The overall dimensions and details of reinforcement are shown in Fig. 2. The mechanical properties of the reinforcements are as given in Table 3. Two specimens were tested in each series and average of the results was taken for analysis. Details of tested specimens and variables are given in Table 4. 3.4. Testing The test setup consisted of a steel loading frame with a capacity 300 kN. The specimens were tested in an upright position in the loading frame after 28 days of curing. The schematic diagram of the test setup is shown in Fig. 3. The bottom end of the column was simply supported and the top was a hinged support, which was simulated by a steel ball placed between the grooves of two steel plates. An axial compressive load of 20% of the axial capacity of the column was applied on the column by means of a hydraulic jack so as to make it stable [6]. The beam tip was subjected to reverse cyclic loading through 500 kN hydraulic jack connected to

2. Research signicance Ductile detailing for reinforced concrete framed structures is considered to be difcult because of the congestion of the transverse reinforcement and the problems in placing and compacting

688

N. Ganesan et al. / Materials and Design 54 (2014) 686693

Fig. 1. Fibres used.

Table 1 Properties of bres. Type of bre Crimped steel bres Polypropylene bres Length (mm) 30 12 Diameter (mm) 0.45 0.038 Aspect ratio 66 316 Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) 800 550600

loading was increased. This process was continued till the failure of the joint. At each stage of loading, the deection at the tip of beam was measured using a dial gauge having least count of 0.01 mm and 50 mm travel. The strain in the beam as well as the column reinforcements were measured using the six strain gauges installed in each beamcolumn joint. So as to ensure accuracy in the measurement of deformations, four LVDTs having a gauge length of 200 mm were used in addition to the strain gauges to measure the beam and joint rotations. The widths of cracks were measured at regular intervals using a crack detection microscope of 25 magnication. 3.5. Behaviour of specimens

Table 2 Mix proportion for M60 grade HPC. Particulars Cement Fly ash Silica fume Sand Coarse aggregate Water Superplasticizer Quantity (kg/m3) 403 112 45 603 1043 158 11.76

the load cell through the plunger of the jack. Fig. 4 shows the test setup. The specimens were loaded up to a certain magnitude, then unloaded in the negative direction and reloaded so that a full cycle of reverse loading can be obtained. After each cycle the magnitude of

Fig. 5 shows the crack pattern of the specimens at failure. In all the specimens, the rst crack was observed at the junction between beam and column. Further increase in loading resulted in additional cracks on the beam portion and propagation of some of the initial cracks. Finally the cracks widened leading to the failure of the joint. Most of the cracks were concentrated in the beam portion near the column. No cracks were seen on columns during the test and joint shear failure did not occur in all the specimens. HPC specimens were observed to have wider cracks when compared to the bre reinforced specimens. In the case of SFRHPC and PFRHPC specimens, more number of ner cracks was formed. For HFRHPC specimens the behaviour was similar to that of SFRHPC specimens. However, the cracks formed were much ner than that formed in SFRHPC. This can be attributed to the combined effect of polypropylene and steel bres to control the cracks

Fig. 2. Details of reinforcement.

N. Ganesan et al. / Materials and Design 54 (2014) 686693 Table 3 Properties of deformed reinforcement bars. Nominal diameter of bar (mm) 10 6 Actual diameter of bar (mm) 9.97 6.16 Yield Strength (MPa) 432 424 Ultimate Strength (MPa) 567 624 Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) 223 230

689

Table 4 Details of specimens. Sl. No. Designation of specimens Volume fraction of bres (%) Steel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 HPC PFRHPC1 PFRHPC2 PFRHPC3 SFRHPC1 HFRHPC1 HFRHPC2 HFRHPC3 SFRHPC2 HFRHPC4 HFRHPC5 HFRHPC6 0 Polypropylene 0 0.10 0.15 0.20 0 0.10 0.15 0.20 0 0.10 0.15 0.20 Fig. 4. Test setup.

0.5

at both micro and macro level. The polypropylene bres arrest the micro cracks and hence control the formation of macro cracks, while the steel bres restrict the widening of macro cracks and increase the energy absorption capacity of the composite [28]. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Load deection behaviour Fig. 6 shows the typical load deection plots of HPC, PFRHPC, SFRHPC and HFRHPC specimens tested under reversed cyclic loading. The loaddeection hysteresis obtained for the joints was similar to that obtained in [7] for steel bre reinforced concrete. For comparison and better representation the envelopes of the hysteresis of all the specimens plotted in a single graph, as shown in

Fig. 7. Envelope curves were obtained by joining the peak points of all the cycles. Using these envelopes the rst crack load, energy absorption capacity and ductility factor for the specimens were obtained and listed in Table 5. It can be observed from Fig. 7 that in HFRHPC, the ultimate load and the corresponding deection of specimens were increased as the hybrid bre content increases. This could be attributed to the ability of these bres in arresting the micro cracks as well as macro cracks. As and when micro cracks develop in the matrix, the polypropylene bres in the vicinity of such micro cracks will try to arrest these cracks and prevent further propagation. After the formation of cracks steel bres intercept them and the bridging action of bres reduces the widening of cracks. Also the cracks have to take a meandering path due to the interception of bres which results in the demand of more energy for further propagation of cracks; this in turn increases the ultimate load. However, at higher percentages of polypropylene bre content, in fact, a reduction in strength has been found. This may be due to reduced workability of concrete at higher bre contents due to the balling effect of bres. Similar observations was also made by other researchers when the polypropylene bre content was more than 0.15% [10].

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of test setup.

690

N. Ganesan et al. / Materials and Design 54 (2014) 686693

Fig. 5. Crack pattern of specimens.

HPC
30 20

PFRHPC3
30 20

Load (kN)

0 -30 -20 -10 -10 -20 -30 0 10 20 30

Load (kN)

10

10 0 -30 -20 -10 -10 -20 -30 0 10 20 30

Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

SFRHPC2
30 20

HFRHPC5
30 20

Load (kN)

0 -30 -20 -10 -10 -20 -30 0 10 20 30

Load (kN)

10

10 0 -30 -20 -10 -10 -20 -30 0 10 20 30

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 6. Typical loaddeection plots.

Deflection (mm)

4.2. First crack load and ultimate load The rst crack load and the ultimate load of the specimens are given in Table 5. First crack load was determined from the envelop curve of the load deection plot corresponding to the point at which the curve deviated from linearity. From the table it can be

observed that rst crack load increased with increase in bre content, which may be due to the increase in tensile strain carrying capacity of concrete in the neighbourhood of bres. The rst crack load increased by 18% for PFRHPC and 31% for SFRHPC specimens. It has been found that addition of hybrid bres increases rst crack load by 37% and ultimate load by 62% for HFRHPC specimen with

N. Ganesan et al. / Materials and Design 54 (2014) 686693

691

Fig. 7. Envelope of Loaddeection plots.

Table 5 Test results. Designation of specimen First crack load(kN) Ultimate load (kN) Forward cycle HPC PFRHPC1 PFRHPC2 PFRHPC3 SFRHPC1 HFRHPC1 HFRHPC2 HFRHPC3 SFRHPC2 HFRHPC4 HFRHPC5 HFRHPC6 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 9.50 10.00 9.50 10.50 10.50 11.00 10.00 16.00 18.00 19.20 18.00 18.00 20.00 20.40 22.00 20.00 24.00 26.00 21.50 Reverse cycle 16.05 18.00 18.00 19.45 19.80 18.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 22.00 24.00 22.00 Deection under ultimate load (mm) Forward cycle 15.40 19.17 20.87 16.35 19.20 20.68 21.01 20.81 19.87 23.83 26.07 17.28 Reverse cycle 15.87 16.80 19.53 20.48 20.46 14.83 14.27 18.52 21.56 22.17 23.54 20.25

Table 6 Energy absorption capacity and displacement ductility. Designation of specimen Energy absorption capacity (kNm) Forward cycle HPC PFRHPC1 PFRHPC2 PFRHPC3 SFRHPC1 HFRHPC1 HFRHPC2 HFRHPC3 SFRHPC2 HFRHPC4 HFRHPC5 HFRHPC6 0.142 0.222 0.263 0.192 0.241 0.289 0.303 0.323 0.285 0.424 0.512 0.244 Reverse cycle 0.156 0.199 0.236 0.283 0.275 0.193 0.184 0.274 0.353 0.381 0.441 0.324 12.50 13.00 12.00 11.50 11.00 9.50 10.00 7.50 9.50 8.50 6.50 8.00 15.87 19.17 20.87 20.48 20.46 20.68 21.01 20.81 21.56 23.83 26.07 20.25 dy (mm) du (mm) Displacement ductility factor, w Absolute 1.27 1.47 1.74 1.78 1.86 2.18 2.10 2.77 2.27 2.80 4.01 2.53 Relative 1.00 1.16 1.37 1.40 1.47 1.71 1.66 2.19 1.79 2.21 3.16 1.99

1% (78.5 kg/m3) steel bres and 0.15% (1.35 kg/m3) polypropylene bres when compared to specimen without bres. 4.3. Energy absorption capacity and displacement ductility The area under the load deection curve indicates the energy absorption capacity. Energy absorption capacity was calculated and the values obtained are given in Table 6. From the Table it can be seen that energy absorption capacity consistently increases and it is maximum for HFRHPC specimen with 1% (78.5 kg/m3) steel bres and 0.15% (1.35 kg/m3) polypropylene bres, which is approximately 3.6 times higher than that of HPC joints.

It is required that an earthquake resistant structure should be capable of deforming in a ductile manner when subjected to lateral loads in several cycles in the elastic range. Ductility of a structure is its ability to undergo deformation beyond the initial yield deformation, while still sustaining load. The ductility factor which is a measure of ductility of a structure is dened as the ratio of maximum deection (du) to the deection at yield (dy). The ductility factors were calculated and the results obtained are given in Table 6. The details of the procedure adopted are described elsewhere [22]. The values in Table 6 show that the bres present in the mixtures inuence the energy absorption capacity and ductility. Compared to HPC specimen the ductility factor is increased by 3.1 times

692

N. Ganesan et al. / Materials and Design 54 (2014) 686693

Stiffness (kN/mm)

for HFRHPC specimen with 1% (78.5 kg/m3) steel bres and 0.15% (1.35 kg/m3) polypropylene bres. The deection at ultimate load was also higher for HFRHPC specimens. 4.4. Energy dissipation capacity Energy-dissipation capacity is an important indicator of the seismic properties of a structure. The structures can withstand strong ground earthquake motions only if they have sufcient ability to dissipate seismic energy. This energy dissipation is provided mainly by inelastic deformations in critical regions of the structural system and requires adequate ductility of the elements and their connections [29]. It can be estimated from the area within the loaddisplacement hysteretic loop for every cycle of load. The cumulative energy dissipated by the specimens was calculated by summing up the energy dissipated in consecutive load displacement loops throughout the test. The cumulative energy dissipation of the specimens during each cycle is shown in Fig. 8. Figure clearly shows that all FRC specimens had higher cumulative energy dissipation than the reference HPC specimen without bres. A similar behaviour was reported by other researchers [7] in which all steel bre reinforced specimens showed a consistent increase in energy dissipation as the bre content increases. Around 5 times improvement in cumulative energy dissipation was exhibited by the HFRHPC specimens containing 1% (78.5 kg/m3) steel bres and 0.15% (1.35 kg/m3) polypropylene bres when compared to specimen without bres. The improvement in energy dissipation for the HFRHPC specimens was attributed to their enhanced ductile behaviour. 4.5. Stiffness degradation

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

HFRHPC6 HFRHPC5 HFRHPC4 SFRHPC2 HFRHPC3 HFRHPC2 HFRHPC1 SFRHPC1 PFRHPC3 PFRHPC2 PFRHPC1 HPC

Loading Cycle
Fig. 9. Stiffness degradation plots.

seen to decrease the rate of degradation of stiffness when compared to polypropylene bres. The use of hybrid bres signicantly increased the initial secant stiffness value of the specimens and provided a stable reduction in stiffness up to failure. This can be attributed to the combined effect of hybrid bres to control the cracks at both micro and macro level. As the number of cycles increase, micro-cracks develop, and the large number of tiny polypropylene bres bridges the cracks at micro level and the steel bres intercept the macro cracks and control the widening of these cracks. This action will control further propagation of cracks and will result in higher energy demand for debonding and pull-out of bres in the vicinity of cracks. During this process, stiffness of specimens with bres will not undergo much reduction. These results are consistent with the previous published literature [6], where the joint with steel bres exhibited decreased rate of stiffness degradation when compared to that without bres. However, addition of hybrid bres improved the initial stiffness of the joint.

5. Conclusions Application of cyclic or repeated loading on the RCC beamcolumn joint causes reduction in the stiffness of the joint. This reduction in stiffness of the specimens can be assessed by computing the secant stiffness which provides a measure of the stiffness degradation in the specimens [6,30]. The secant stiffness in each cycle was calculated using a line drawn between the maximum positive displacement point in one half of the cycle and the maximum negative displacement point in the other half of the cycle [30]. Fig. 9 shows the stiffness degradation trends for the beam column joint specimens. It may be noted that the HPC specimen has the lowest initial stiffness and shows a quick reduction in secant stiffness values. In PFRHPC specimens, the stiffness degradation trend was almost similar to that of HPC. This may be due to the low modulus of elasticity of polypropylene bres which could not contribute much to the stiffness of HPC. However, the addition of steel bres was The load deection characteristics, energy dissipation, ductility and stiffness degradation of hybrid bre reinforced beam column joints subjected to reverse cyclic loading were investigated. The results indicate that the use of hybrid bres could enhance the strength and ductility of beam column joints signicantly. The experimental results lead to the following conclusions: (1) The HFRHPC beam column joint showed a signicant increase in rst-crack strength and ultimate strength, as well as better ductility and energy-dissipation capacity. (2) Energy absorption capacity and displacement ductility factor increased by 3.6 times and 3.1 times respectively for HFRHPC specimen with 1% (78.5 kg/m3) steel and 0.15% (1.35 kg/m3) polypropylene bres when compared to HPC. (3) It is possible to reduce the congestion of steel reinforcement in the beamcolumn joints by using HFRHPC and this reduces the construction difculties. (4) Ductility is one of the basic parameters considered in the seismic design of structures. The development of a high performance material like HFRHPC, that possess enhanced ductility, energy absorption and strength would allow structural engineers an alternative for the design of critical regions such as beam column joints in earthquake resistant structures. By using this highly ductile material, rigorous seismic reinforcement detailing which leads to congestion of steel can be avoided in beam column joints. The load displacement relationships obtained in this study, would be helpful for getting the capacities at deections corresponding to ultimate and serviceability stages of HFRHPC beam column joints. The fore mentioned behaviour will be useful in the rational design of structures subjected to unforeseen loading.

Cumulative Energy dissipation (kNmm)

800
HFRHPC6

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15

HFRHPC5 HFRHPC4 SFRHPC2 HFRHPC3 HFRHPC2 HFRHPC1 SFRHPC1 PFRHPC3 PFRHPC2 PFRHPC1 HPC

20

Load cycle
Fig. 8. Cumulative energy dissipation.

N. Ganesan et al. / Materials and Design 54 (2014) 686693

693

References
[1] ACI 352R02 (Reapproved 2010). Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 Report. Recommendations for design of beamcolumn connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures, Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute; 2010. [2] IS 13920: 1993 (Reafrmed 2003). Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces. Bureau of Indian Standards; New Delhi; 2003. [3] Ramakrishnan V. Structural synthetic bres for three-dimensional reinforcement of concrete. ACI Special Publication October 2009; 261: 5572. [4] Naaman AE, Reinhardt HW. High performance bre reinforced cement composites HPFRCC-4. Cement Concr Compos 2004;26:7579. [5] Parra-Montesinos GJ. High-performance bre-reinforced cement composites: an alternative for seismic design of structures. ACI Struct 2005;102(5):66875 [SeptOct]. [6] Ganesan N, Indira PV. Ruby Abraham. Steel bre reinforced high performance concrete beamcolumn joints subjected to cyclic loading. ISET J Earthq Technol 2007;44:44556 [SeptDec]. [7] Rhm C, Novk B, Sasmal S, Karusala R, Srinivas V. Behaviour of bre reinforced beamcolumn sub-assemblages under reversed cyclic loading. Constr Build Mater 2012;36:31929. [8] Bentur A, Mindess S. Fiber reinforced cementitious composites. Technology & engineering. 2nd ed. UK: Taylor & Francis; 2006. [9] Banthia N, Soleimani SM. Flexural response of hybrid bre-reinforced cementitious composites. ACI Mater J 2005;102:3829. [10] Qian C, Stroeven P. Development of hybrid polypropylene-steel brereinforced concrete. Cement Concr Res 2000;30:639. [11] Pereira EB, Fischer G, Barros JA. Effect of hybrid bre reinforcement on the cracking process in bre reinforced cementitious composites. Cement Concr Compos 2012;34:111423. [12] Akcay B. Experimental investigation on uniaxial tensile strength of hybrid bre concrete. Composites Part B 2012;43:76678. [13] Khin Soe, Zhang YX, Zhang LC. Material properties of a new hybrid brereinforced engineered cementitious composite. Constr Build Mater 2013;43:399407. [14] Sivakumar A, Santhanam M. A quantitative study on the plastic shrinkage cracking in high strength hybrid bre reinforced concrete. Cement Concr Compos 2007;29:57581.

[15] Mehta PK, Burrows RW. Building durable structures in the 21st century. Indian Concrete J 2001:43743 [July]. [16] Shah SAA, Ribakov Y. Experimental and analytical study of at-plate oor connement. Mater. Des. 2005;26:65569. [17] Iskhakov I, Ribakov Y, Shah A. Experimental and theoretical investigation of column at slab joint ductility. Mater Des 2009;30:315864. [18] Shah AA, Ribakov Y. Recent trends in steel bred high-strength concrete. Mater Des 2011;32:412251. [19] Holschemacher K, Mueller T, Ribakov Y. Effect of steel bres on mechanical properties of high strength concrete. Mater Des 2010;31:260415. [20] Iskhakov I, Ribakov Y. A design method for two-layer beams consisting of normal and bered high strength concrete. Mater Des 2007;28(5): 16727. [21] Elahi A, Basheer PAM, Nanukuttan SV, Khan QUZ. Mechanical and durability properties of high performance concrete containing supplementary cementitious materials. Constr Build Mater 2010;24:2929. [22] Ganesan N, Indira PV, Ruby Abraham. Behaviour of reinforced high performance concrete members under exure. Institution Engineers India J 2007;88:203. [23] Russell HG. ACI denes high-performance concrete. Concrete Int Feb 1999:567. [24] IS 12269:1987 (reafrmed 2004). Specications for 53 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement. Bureau of Indian Standards. New Delhi; 2004. [25] IS 383:1970 (reafrmed 2002). Specication for coarse and ne aggregates from natural sources for concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards. New Delhi; 2002. [26] ACI 211.1-91. Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight and Mass Concrete. Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute; 1991. [27] Atcin PC. High Performance Concrete. E&FN Spon London; 1998. [28] Sivakumar A. ManuSanthanam. Mechanical properties of high strength concrete reinforced with metallic and non-metallic bres. Cement Concr Compos 2007;29:60360. [29] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons; 1992. [30] Shannag M, Abu-Dyya N, Abu-Farsakh G. Lateral load response of high performance bre reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. Constr Build Mater 2005;19:5008.