Under The Esteemed Guidance of Sri. P. POLU RAJU (Asst. Prof.)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING KONERU LAKSHMAIAH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING (AUTONOMOUS) 2010-2011 KONERU LAKSHMAIAH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING (AUTONOMOUS) DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the project entitled EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE BEAMS USING CFRP AND GFRP is the bonafied work done by D.Tharun, with Register number Y7CE256 of IV/IV B.Tech submitted to Koneru Lakshmaiah College of Engineering (Autonomous) for the partial fulfillment of the completion of IV/IV B.Tech course for the award of the degree of BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY in CIVIL ENGINEERING during the academic year 2010 2011.
_____________________ _________________________ _________________________ Mr. P.POLU RAJU Asst.Prof Dr. S.SIVA SHANKAR External Examiner Project Guide I/C Project
______________________________ Dr. CH.HANUMANTHA RAO Head of the Department CE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We wish to express our sincere gratitude to our esteemed guide Mr. P. POLU RAJU, Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering Department for his valuable guidance, significant suggestions and help in every respect to accomplish the project work. His persisting encouragement, everlasting patience and keen interest in discussions have been benefited us to an extent, he have been a continuous source of inspiration to us throughout the work. We are very thankful to Dr. CH. HANUMANTHARAO, Head of the Department of Civil Engineering for providing us necessary facilities. We also express our thanks to Dr. K. RAJA SEKHAR RAO, Principal of our college for the facilities provided. We are highly indebted to our Project In charge, Dr. A. SIVA SANKAR, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering for his continuous encouragement in successful completion of the work.
We thank the FOSROC company, Hyderabad for giving us FRP materials for experimental enhancing research during our final project as desired.
We also express thanks to Mr. Y. Poorna Chandra Rao, Mr. V.L. Ganesh Babu Structures lab technicians who have extended their help whenever needed. Our acknowledgement would remain incomplete if we do not express our gratitude to the staff of Civil Engineering for their help throughout this project.
With the completion of this project, we would like to thank all the people involved in this project, who made the work possible to reach our expectations. Last but not least we would like to thank our Parents and most of all The Almighty
Project associates
CONTENTS
Acknowledgement Contents List of figures List of tables Nomenclature
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1 1.2 Importance of beam.2 1.3 Retrofitting...3 1.4Fiber reinforced polymer composites.......................................................4 1.5Organization of the project...6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction..7 2.2 Beam8 2.3 Retrofitting.10 2.4 Outcomes of literature review and Objective of the project...........................................................................10 2.5 Scope of the study..11
3. CHARACTERIZATION AND TESTING OF MATERIALS 3.1 Tests On Cement 3.1.1 Cement Consistency Test..14 3.1.2 Setting Time Tests15 3.1.3 Specific Gravity.16 3.1.4 Compressive Strength Of Cement....17 3.2 Tests On Fine aggregate 3.2.1 Specific Gravity 17 3.2.2 Fineness Modulus..18
3.3 Tests On Coarse aggregate 3.3.1 Specific Gravity19 3.3.2 Fineness Modulus 20
3.4 Tests On Steel Bars21
3.5 Material Properties Of Composite Material 3.5.1 Adhesive (Epoxy resin based putty) Properties....24 3.5.2 Primer (Nitrowrap 25) Properties24 3.5.3 Resin (Nitrowrap 410) Properties25 3.5.4 Carbon Fiber Properties....25 3.5.5 Glass Fiber Properties....25 3.5.6 Quality test...26 3.5.7 Tests On Epoxy Resin....26 3.5.8 Tests On Fibers...27
3.6 Tests On Concrete 3.6.1 Cube Testing...28 3.6.2 Non Destructive Test (Rebound Hammer)......31
4. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 4.1 Scope Of The Experiment.....33 4.2 Introduction.....33 4.3 Material Properties......36 4.4 Control Specimen (Plain Cement Concrete)...38 4.5 Control Specimen (Beam Weak-In-shear)..38 4.6 Control Specimen (Beam Weak-In-Flexure)..39 4.7 Control Specimen (Balanced Section RCC Beam).40 4.8 Finishing works...41
4.9 Retrofitting Procedure And Methodology 4.9.1 Surface Preparation (specimen)......42 4.9.2 Preparation Of Retrofit Test Specimens......43 4.9.3 Primer Application (Nitowrap 25)....43 4.9.4 Resin Application (Nitowarp 410).....43 4.9.5 FRP Fixing.....43 4.9.6 Cutting of FRP Mat........43
5. RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS 5.1 Experimental Results....51 5.2 Failures Observed In Various Cases...52 5.3 Comparison Of Results...56 5.4 Observations from Results..61
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Summary.62 6.2 Conclusion..64
APPENDIX-I (Mix Design of M30 grade Concrete) APPENDIX-II (Design of Reinforced Beam) REFERENCES
Table No LIST OF TABLES Page No
1.1 Fiber content in composite material 5 3.1 Compressive Strength of Cement 17 3.2 Specific Gravity Of Cement 17 3.3 Sieve Analysis Of Sand 18 3.4 Zone III Sand Upper & Lower Limit values 18 3.5 Specific Gravity Of Aggregate 19 3.6 Sieve Analysis Of Aggregate 20 3.7 Material Properties Of Steel Rebars 22 3.8 Relative Density Of Epoxy Resin 27 3.9 Cube test Results of M30 30 3.10 NDT Test Results 32 4.1 Compressive Strength Of Concrete (M30) 34 4.2 Nomenclature of the Beams 35 5.1 Results 51
Figure No. LIST OF FIGURES P.No. 3.1 Cement Test 14 3.2 Vicat Mould Set-up 15 3.3 Vicat Mould Apparatus 15 3.4 Grading Limits for Sand in Zone III 19 3.5 Grading Limits For Coarse Aggregate (IS 383-1970) 21 3.6 Rod Cutting Machine 21 3.7 Tensile Test by UTM 22 3.8 12mm & 8mm dia bars 22 3.9 Characteristic Average Stress/Strain Curve of 8mm dia Fe500 grade steel rebars 23 3.10 Characteristic Average Stress/Strain Curve of 12mm dia Fe500 grade steel rebars 23 3.11 Cube Casting 29 3.12 Compressive Test for Cube 29 3.13 Gauge Reading 30 3.14 Set up Rebound Hammer 31 4.1 Showing FRP materials with group members 37 4.2 RCC under reinforced section 37 4.3 Casted PCC with cubes 37 4.4 PCC Sections 38 4.5 Casted PCC specimen for testing 38 4.6 Section showing Weak-In-Shear 39 4.7 Shear reinforcement details 39 4.8 Weak-In-Shear specimen under test 39 4.9 Section showing Weak-In-Flexure 40 4.10 Reinforcement for Weak-In-Flexure 40 4.11 Weak-In-flexure under test 40 4.12 Reinforcement Details for RCC 41 4.13 RCC Balanced Section under test (UTM) 41 4.14 Surface preparing for FRP 42 4.15 Applying Nitowrap 25 (Primer) 42 4.16 Cutting CFRP 43 4.17 Cutting GFRP 44 4.18 Fixing CFRP 44 4.19 Fixing GFRP over CFRP 44 4.20 Showing CFRP details for PCCR1 45 4.21 Under Seasoning Condition 45 4.22 fSeasoning stage for CFRP 45 4.23 Showing CFRP & GFRP Details 46 4.24 Showing GRFP Wrapping over CFRP for Improving Shear Strength 46 4.25 Curing stage After Nitowarp M25 47 4.26 CFRP Wrapping, Weak in Flexure 47 4.27 Application of Nitowrap 410 over CFRP Material 48 4.28 Schematic representation of loading set up 49 4.29 Universal Testing Machine (UTM) 49
4.30 Different Kinds of Failure that are observed I 50
NOMENCLATURE
Fck - Target mean strength F ck - characteristic strength of concrete f y - Characteristic strength of the steel f t - Flexural Strength OPC - Ordinary Portland cement t - Tolerance value s - Standard Deviation F A - Fine Aggregate C A - Coarse Aggregate W/c - water-cement ratio P Ratio of fine aggregate to total aggregate by absolute volume S.F A - Specific gravity of Fine Aggregate S.C A - Specific gravity of Coarse Aggregate Z - Section Modulus M.R. - Moment of Resistance B.M. - Bending Moment Mu - Ultimate moment
! c - Shear Stress in Concrete
! v - Nominal Shear Stress
! c max - Maximum Shera Stress in Concrete with Shear Reinforcement Pt - Percentage of Steel Ast - Cross Sectional area of the reinforcing steel A sv - Total cross sectional area of stirrup legs S v - Spacing of the Stirrups V - Shear Force V u - Shear Force due to Design Loads b- Breadth of the section D - Over all depth of the section d - Effective depth of the section
!
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Recent earthquakes in urban areas such as the 1994 Northridge, the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) and the 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey) have repeatedly demonstrated the disastrous consequences and vulnerability of existing structures to seismic deformation demands. These structures were designed and detailed for gravity loads and lateral forces that are lower than those specified by the current codes. The objective of the beam retrofitting is to strengthen and to eliminate chances in the structure so as to ensure that ductile hinging in the beam that takes place of very severe seismic demand.
Many reinforced concrete (RC) framed structures located in zones of high seismicity in India are constructed without considering the seismic codal provisions. The vulnerability of inadequately designed structures represents seismic risk to occupants and this fact explains a strong social need to retrofit the existing building and upgrade the seismic code provisions. The seismic performance of RC moment resisting frame mainly depends on the inelastic behavior of beams, columns and beam-column joints. A Beam is defined as the horizontal members of the structure that are responsible for carrying all vertical loads and transmitting the loads towards the columns and helps in strengthening flexural stiffness and ductile capacity of the beam. Earthquake generates ground motion both in horizontal and vertical directions. Due to the inertia of the structure the ground motion generates shear forces and bending moments in the structural framework. In earthquake resistant design it is important to ensure ductility in the structure, i.e. the structure should be able to deform in elastically without causing collapse.
#
1.2 Importance of Beam
Recent earthquakes tested the vulnerability of existing reinforced concrete RC structures to strong ground motions. Beams generally carry vertical gravitational forces but can also be used to carry horizontal loads (i.e., loads due to an earthquake or wind). The loads carried by a beam are transferred to columns, walls, or girders, which then transfer the force to adjacent structural compression members. In light frame construction the joists rest on the beam. Internally, beams experience compressive, tensile and shear stresses as a result of the loads applied to them. Typically, under gravity loads, the original length of the beam is slightly reduced to enclose a smaller radius arc at the top of the beam, resulting in compression, while the same original beam length at the bottom of the beam is slightly stretched to enclose a larger radius arc, and so is under tension.
1.3 Retrofitting Retrofitting of existing structures has become a major part of the construction activity in many countries. Broadly, this can be attributed to aging of the infrastructure and increased environmental awareness in societies. Some of the structures are damaged by environmental effects, which include corrosion of steel, variations in temperature, freezethaw cycles, exposure to ultra-violet radiation and earthquake. There are always cases of construction-related and design-related deficiencies that need correction. Many structures, on the other hand, need $
strengthening because the allowable loads have increased, or new codes have made the structures substandard. This last case applies mostly for seismic regions, where new standards are more comprehensive than the old ones. The bending moments and shear forces are maximum at the joints. Therefore, the joints need to be ductile to efficiently dissipate the earthquake forces. Most failures in earthquake-affected structures are observed at the joints. Joint is combination of beam and column; beam being an important element in the framework of a structure it should be strengthened to maintain the stability. Traditional retrofitting techniques that use steel and cementations materials do not always offer the most appropriate solutions. Retrofitting with fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) to strengthen and repair damaged structures is a relatively new technique. Extensive researches are going on in the areas of application of FRP in concrete structures for its effectiveness in enhancing structural performance both in terms of strength and ductility.
Retrofitting with fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) may provide technically superior alternative to the traditional techniques in many situations. The FRPs are lighter, more durable and have higher strength-to-weight ratios than traditional reinforcing materials such as steel, and can result in less labor-intensive and less equipment-intensive retrofitting work. Structures were originally designed according to earlier codes to withstand only gravity loads and the impacts of earthquake are not considered. Even if it was considered the collapse might be due to the change in hazard level in that region. The use of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) composite materials for strengthening/ retrofitting of existing structure has increased in recent years. The FRP products can be used for structural strengthening/ retrofitting of existing building and bridges and for construction. Strengthening/ retrofitting is required when there are increases in the applied loads, human errors in initial construction, accident event such as earthquakes and when a structural member losses its strength due to deterioration over time. The cost associated with replacing the structure back in service immediately is relatively high that strengthening/ retrofitting becomes the most efficient solution. There are different available materials like FRP, steel, concrete etc. for retrofitting of the structure, but use of FRP is increasing rapidly. This is due to the fact that FRP materials have several advantages over steel and other %
materials. They are lightweight with superior strength and stiffness-to-weight ratio, they have relatively high corrosion resistance, and FRP laminates can be easily bonded to concrete surfaces. Typical uses of FRP in construction are as follows: 1. FRP wraps are used on columns to increase the column ductility, 2. FRP plates are bonded to the surface of concrete members (beam, slab, walls) to improve the flexure and shear capacity of the concrete members, 3. FRP reinforcing bars and pre-stressing strands are used as an alternative to steel reinforcing. The use of FRP laminates for this application offers several desirable attributes, such as resistance to corrosion, high strength, lightweight, and ease of handling. Flexure strengthening of concrete beams is ac- accomplished by epoxy bonding the FRP plates to the tension face for shear & flexural strengthening; the FRP plates are bonded to the beam.
The use of FRP laminates at the beam has many practical applications in the area of repair. These include:
1. Retrofitting of an existing structure can be expansive and time consuming. The uses of fiber laminates present a quick and economical method to strengthen and repair beam. 2. The fiber composites are not adversely affected by weather and salt therefore, the composites laminate will not be subjected to problems associated with corrosion as in the case of steel reinforcing bars. 3. The laminate can act as a protective cover at the joint by reducing the exposed concrete surface area where moisture or salts can penetrate into the joint and cause corrosion of reinforcing bars.
1.4 Fiber reinforced polymer composites Embedding continuous fiber in a resin matrix, which binds the fiber together, forms them. Carbon fiber, glass fiber etc. are the common fiber and depending upon the fiber used FRP composites are called as glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP), carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP). Fibers content (% by weight) in different FRP Composites are as follows &
Polymeric resins are used as the matrix for the FRP and bonding adhesive between the FRP and concrete.
In the case of a frame, plastic hinges may form either in the beam or in the column depending on their relative stiffness. If hinge is first formed in the beam then it is a case of strong column weak beam, whereas if hinge is first formed in column, it can be regarded as a case of weak column strong beam. However, it is desirable to design the frame such that the plastic hinges form in the beams, and not in the columns. This is because 1. Plastic hinge in beams have larger rotation capacities than in columns. 2. Mechanics involving beam hinges have larger energy-absorption capacity on account of the larger number of the beam hinges (with large rotation capacities) possible. 3. Eventually collapse of a beam generally results in a localized failure, whereas collapse of a column may lead to a global failure 4. Column are more difficult to straighten and repair than beams, in the event of residual deformation and damage However due to inappropriate construction, human error factor, improper provision of reinforcement on joint, weak column situation may exist. In the current study, effort has been made to address the retrofitting strategies of beam. The appropriate strategies required for each case has been studied in details through numerical simulation.
'
1.5 Organization of the Project
In chapter 2, the literature relevant to retrofitting of beam has been reviewed.
Chapter 3 deals with material properties used for casting of specimen (beam).
Chapter 4 deals with the detailed study of the experimental analysis of a under reinforced beam & beam weak in shear and beam weak in flexure mode of failure.
Chapter 5 deals with the results and discussion for the case of a under reinforced beam & beam weak in shear and beam weak in flexure in the beams with and without FRP.
Chapter 6 deals with the summary and conclusions .The experimental evaluation of load carrying capacities of both the specimens are detailed here in.
!
CHAPTER - II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Retrofitting of existing structures is one of the major challenges that modern civil engineering structures has demonstrated that most of them will need major repairs in the near future. Some of the structures are damaged by environmental effects, which include corrosion of steel, variations in temperature, freezethaw cycles and exposure to ultra-violet radiation. There are always cases of construction- related and design-related deficiencies that need correction. Many structures, on the other hand, need strengthening because the allowable loads have increased, or new codes have made the structures substandard. This last case applies mostly for seismic regions, where new standards are more comprehensive than the old ones.
Traditional retrofitting techniques that use steel and cementations materials do not always offer the most appropriate solutions. Retrofitting with fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) to strengthen and repair damaged structures is a relatively new technique. Extensive researches are going on in the areas of application of FRP in concrete structures for its effectiveness in enhancing structural performance both in terms of strength and ductility.
The use of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) composite materials for strengthening/ retrofitting of existing structure has increased in recent years. The FRP products can be used for structural strengthening/ retrofitting of existing building and bridges and for construction. Strengthening/ retrofitting is required when there are increases in the applied loads, human errors in initial construction, accident event such as earthquakes and when a structural member losses its strength due to deterioration over time. The cost associated with replacing the structure back in service immediately is relatively high that strengthening/ retrofitting become the most efficient solution. There are different available materials like FRP, steel, concrete etc. for retrofitting of the structure, but use of FRP is increasing rapidly. This is due to the #
fact that FRP materials have several advantages over steel and other materials. They are lightweight with superior strength and stiffness-to-weight ratio, they have relatively high corrosion resistance, and FRP laminates can be easily bonded to concrete surfaces. The use of fiber reinforced plastic panels to strengthen and rehabilitate concrete slabs, beams, and columns has been described in several articles in technical reports, journals and trade magazines. A series of analytical and experimental studies on various fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) strips and various authors have conducted panels used to externally reinforce concrete beams. The overall objective in these studies is to understand the structural response and interaction of the concrete and FRP under loading condition.
2.2 Beam Following literature has been studied and brief reviews of literature are given below.
Caltrans [1] (The California Department of Transportation) has developed preliminary design recommendations for steel and FRP jackets, based on results of an extensive experimental program. These studies proved the effectiveness of FRP fabrics for the enhancement in ductility, energy dissipation, lateral load carrying capacity, and ductile failure modes.
Beres A (1992) [2] used flat steel plates to confine the joint in an attempt to prevent the spalling of concrete and to maintain the concrete integrity. Steel channels were attached to the beam bottom face to prevent slip of the bars. This scheme was found to be efficient in preventing the bars slippage, increasing the joint shear strength and reducing the rate of strength deterioration.
Pellegrino et al [3] focusssed on experimental investigation on reinforced concrete (RC) rectangular beams strengthened in shear with externally bonded U- wrapped carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) are presented and discussed. The results provide some new insights into the complex failure mechanisms that characterize the ultimate shear capacity of RC members with transverse steel reinforcement and FRP sheets and show some mechanisms of interaction between the $
externally applied FRP sheets and the internal shear steel reinforcement with different static schemes. This interaction is not considered in the actual code provisions but strongly influences the efficiency of the shear strengthening rehabilitation technique and, consequently, the calculation of the interacting contributions to the nominal shear strength of the structural member. On the basis of the observation of the experimental shear behavior, an analytical model, which allows the estimation of the interacting contributions to the shear capacity of the strengthened beams, is proposed. .
Hai H. Dinh et al [4] presented a simple model to estimate the shear strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) beams without stirrup reinforcement. The model was developed based on observations from tests of 27 large-scale beams under monotonically increased concentrated loading. Three types of hooked steel fibers were evaluated in volume fractions ranging between 0.75% (59 kg/m3 or 100 lb/yd3) and 1.5% (118 kg/m3 or 200 lb/yd3). All but one beam failed in shear either prior to or after flexural yielding. In the proposed model, shear in steel FRC beams is assumed to be resisted by shear stress carried in the compression zone and tension transferred across diagonal cracks by steel fibers. Shear carried in the compression zone is estimated by using the failure criterion for concrete subjected to combined compression and shear proposed by Bresler and Pister. The contribution from fiber reinforcement to shear strength, on the other hand, is tied to material performance obtained through standard ASTM 1609 four-point bending tests. Comparison of predicted versus experimental shear strengths for a large number of FRC beams tested in this and other investigations indicate that the proposed model is capable of predicting the shear strength of steel FRC beams with reasonable accuracy; mean and standard deviation values of 0.79 and 0.12, respectively.
Mahmoud T. El-Mihilmy et al [5] proposed a simple and a direct approach for analyzing and designing reinforced concrete beams strengthened with externally bonded FRP laminates based upon equilibrium and strain compatibility was presented. Design nomographs to facilitate implementation of the procedure were also developed. Upper and lower limits for FRP cross-sectional area to ensure ductile behavior of the strengthened beams were introduced. To verify the analytical procedure, comparisons of results obtained by the section analysis with experimental %&
results reported by different researchers were presented. Excellent correlation of the predicted results with experimental results was noted.
2.3 Retrofitting
Weena P. Lokuge [6] et al proposed model formulation is based on the experimental results reported by Candappa (2000). Although the proposed strain- based model was developed for concrete with active con!nement, it is extended for the case of passive con!nement using an iterative procedure.The proposed strain- based stressstrain model is a new approach in predicting the behavior of HSC subjected to active lateral con!nement. Proposed model can be applied to concrete with active as well as passive con!nement. It is proven to be generally in close agreement with the experimental test results for concrete con!ned by carbon !ber wraps.
Mander and Priestley [7] proposed a stress-strain model for concrete subjected to uniaxial compressive loading and confined by transverse reinforcement. The concrete section might contain any general type of confining steel, either spiral or circular hoops; or rectangular hoops with or without supplementary cross ties. These cross ties might be having either equal or unequal confining stresses along each of the transverse axes. The influence of various types of confinement was taken into account by defining an effective lateral confining stress, which depended on the confinement of the transverse and lateral reinforcement.
Bencardino et al. [8] provided the idea to find the moment curvature relations for FRP wrapped sections. The equations had been developed for wrapped section with strain compatibility method. Further, the quantitative relations of deflection, curvature and energy ductility were presented.
Basu et al. [9] presented the overview of various aspects involved in the seismic upgradation of buildings. They proposed the concept of seismic upgradation based on performance bases criteria. Further, they described the seismic design %%
methodology of structures and explained the various stages of seismic upgradation such as seismic evaluation strategies, upgradation measures, verifications, etc.
Seth [10] discussed the conventional retrofit methods for retrofitting of engineering concrete buildings in the light of the predominant failure patterns of various structural systems in concrete and different parameters that governed the choice of retrofit. She demonstrated the advantages and disadvantages of various methods in terms of ductility.
Mukherjee and Joshi [11] presented a novel technique of rehabilitation of earthquake-affected structures and retrofitting of structures against possible earthquakes using fiber composites. They discussed about design methods, field application techniques and their sustainability were also discussed.
The tests reported by Strickland and Hughes [12] done in a small laboratory on plain concrete beams with CFRP laminates cemented to the bottom and sides of these beams were tested at Wright Laboratory Pavements & Facilities Section in the spring of 1992, and showed considerable strength enhancement over beams without CFRP. These tests results showed bending load capacities could be increased rather significantly by bonding CFRP panels on the tensile side of the beam. The objective of this effort was to test evaluate the effect of environmental conditions on the performance of concrete members strengthened by externally bonded advanced composite materials. External bonding of very thin high-modulus, high-strength fiber reinforced plastic panels to concrete structures has been shown to give increased stiffness and larger load carrying capacity. Both non destructive and destructive test methods show that laboratory CFRP/concrete beams show small detrimental effects as a result of environmental exposure to freeze-thaw cycling and ultraviolet light. The energy absorbing capacity of CFRP/concrete beams was increased by a factor of 50 over that of control beams, when tested statistically.
%'
2.4 Outcomes of literature review and Objective of the project Various techniques have been attempted to strengthen the Beam and the ductility of the existing structure or the ability of the structure to dissipate the energy generated during loading (due to dead as well as live load). After reviewing of existing literature to the possible extent, it has been observed that FRP composites have been used extensively due to its inherent advantages like light weight, more durable, and higher strength-to-weight ratios, less labor-intensive and less equipment- intensive retrofitting work. The present work is aimed to compare the performance of a control specimen of PCC beam, RC beam -balanced, weak in flexure, weak in shear with that of a retrofitted specimen. The following is the major objective of the present study: ! To assess the strength, ductility and damage level of RC and retrofitted beam- with control specimen of PCC beam, RC beam -balanced, weak in flexure, weak in shear.
2.5 Scope of the study In order to achieve the above-mentioned objectives the following tasks have been carried out: ! Design and reinforcement detailing study has been carried out for the plain cement concrete beam, beam as balanced section; beam weak in shear and beam weak in flexure. ! Experimental studies have been carried out which helps us to know the behavior of various classes of beam. ! Increasing the ductility and enhancing the energy dissipation capacity. ! Eliminating source of weakness/those produce concentration of stresses.
"# CHAPTER III
CHARACTERIZATION AND TESTING OF MATERIALS
Preview of Materials used in the Project are the following:
Cement Sand Aggregate
TMT bars Water GFRP
CFRP Nitowrap 25/410 Carborandum
Grinder Sand paper
"$ 3.1. Tests on Cement
3.1.1. Cement Consistency Test
For finding out initial setting time, final setting time and soundness of cement, and strength a parameter known as standard consistency has to be used. The standard consistency of a cement paste is defined as that consistency which will permit a Vi cat plunger having 10 mm diameter and 50 mm length to penetrate to a depth of 33-35 mm (5mm to 7 mm) from the top of the mould. The apparatus is called Vi cat Apparatus. This apparatus is used to find out the percentage of water required to produce a cement paste of standard consistency. The standard consistency of the cement paste is some time called normal consistency (CPNC). This percentage is usually denoted as P. The test is required to be conducted in a constant temperature (27 + 2C) and constant humidity (90%). The consistency obtained in this test of cement 53 grade is 32 percent.
Figure 3.1: Cement Test
"%
Figure 3.2: Vicat mould set up
3.1.2 Setting Time Tests:
3.1.2.1. Initial Setting Time Test:
Initial setting time is regarded as the time elapsed between the moment that the water is added to the cement, to the time that the paste starts losing its plasticity. The time when water is added to the cement and the time at which the needle penetrates the test block to a depth equal to 33-35 mm (5.0 0.5 mm) from the top is taken as initial setting time. Fig 3.3: Vicat mould apparatus In this test, initial setting time of cement 53 grade is 45 minutes.
"&
3.1.2.2. Final Setting Time Test
The final setting time is the time elapsed between the moment the water is added to the cement, and the time when the paste has completely lost its plasticity and has attained sufficient firmness to resist certain definite pressure. This time should not be more than 10 hours. The paste attains such hardness that the centre needle does not pierce through the paste more than 0.5 mm.
3.1.3. Specific Gravity
The specific gravity of the hydraulic cement has been found as per IS: 4031(part 11): 1988 using le Chatelier Flask. The following observations have been recorded. Initial reading of le Chatelier Flask =0.5 Final reading le Chatelier Flask =21 Weight of cement taken 64 gms Specific gravity of cement = 64/ (21-0.5) = 3.12
3.1.4. Compressive Strength of Cement
Compressive strength of the cement has been found as per IS 4031(part 6) 1988.The average compressive strength of cement was obtained by testing the mortar cubes on 3 rd , 7th and 21 st day. The cement used satisfied the compressive strength a requirement according to IS 8112:1989.
"' Table No. 3.1: Compressive strength of cement
Compressive strength (MPa) No of days According to IS 8112:1989 Test Results 3 27 27.31 7 37 37.36 28 53 54.3
3.2. Tests on Sand
3.2.1. Specific Gravity
Specific gravity of the sand using the pycnometer as per IS 2386(part 3)-1963. The measured values are shown in Table3.2. The specific gravity of sand is calculated as
Specific Gravity = (W2-W1)/((W4-W1)-(W3-W2)) and is found to be 2.6
"(
3.2.2. Fineness Modulus
The fineness modulus of sand has been calculated as per IS: 383-1970. The percentage weight retained in the sieves is shown in the Table no.3.3. The amount of sand taken is 1000gm. Fineness modulus of aggregate is calculated as the percentage of the sum of cumulative weight of sand retained in the sieves and found to be 2.33.
Table No.3.3: Sieve Analysis of Sand Sl. No Sieve Size Wt. retained % retained Cumulative retained % finer Zone Remark 1 4.75 mm 0 0 0 100 2 2.36 mm 43 4.3 4.3 95.7 3 1.18 58 5.8 10.1 89.9 4 600 285 28.5 38.6 61.4 5 300 414 41.4 80 20 6 150 200 20 100 0 Zone III
Specific gravity of the aggregate has been found using the cylinder as per IS 2386(part 3)-1963. Table No. 3.5: Specific gravity of aggregate Sl.no Description Weight (gm) 1 Empty Cylinder (W1) 3972 2 Cylinder +2/3 rd aggregate (W2) 6740 3 Cylinder + 2/3 rd aggregate + water (W3) 8790 4 Cylinder + water 6990
*+
The specific gravity of aggregate is calculated as : Specific Gravity = (W2-W1)/((W4-W1)-(W3-W2)) and is found to be 2.85
3.3.2. Fineness Modulus
The fineness modulus of aggregate has been calculated as per IS: 383-1970. The percentage weight retained in the sieves is shown in Table no.3.6. The amount of aggregate taken is 2000 gms. The fineness modulus of aggregate is calculated as the percentage of the sum of the cumulative weight of sand retained in the sieves and found to be 6.77.
Table No.3.6: Sieve Analysis of aggregate
S. No Sieve Size Wt. Retained % Retained Cumulative Retained % Finer 1 80 mm 0 0 0 100 2 40 mm 0 0 0 100 3 20 mm 60 3 3 97 4 12.5 mm 120 6 9 91 5 10 mm 1080 54 66 34 6 4.75 mm 739 36.95 99.95 0.05 7 2.36 mm 0 0 99.95 0.05 8 1.18 mm 0 0 99.95 0.05 9 600 microns 0 0 99.95 0.05 10 300 microns 0 0 99.95 0.05 11 150 microns 1 0.05 100 0
*"
Fig 3.5: Grading limits for coarse aggregate IS: 383- 1970
3.4. Tests on Steel bars
The steel Fe500 supplied by TISCON were tested by using UTM (Universal Testing Machine) properties like yield stress ultimate stress, elongation, and reduction in area of steel bars were found for 12mm and 8mm diameter steel bars. Fig. 3.6: Rod cutting machine
All the steel rebars used in the experiments were obtained from the same batch.12 mm and 8mm diameter steel bars were used as longitudinal reinforcement in beam of the specimen. 6mm diameter bars were used as transverse reinforcement in the form of closed rectangular hoops in
** specimen. Three rebars of 450 mm with gauge length 150 mm of each diameter of steel as per IS 432(part 1): 1982 and IS 1608:1995.All test specimens failed in the middle portion with formation of neck. The material properties of the specimens are shown in the Table no.3.7 The average stress/strain curves of 8 mm, 12 mm bars are shown in fig 3.7 and fig 3.8 respectively. The yield stress is calculated by 0.2% strain offset method.
Fig 3.7: Tensile test by UTM Fig 3.8: 12 mm and 8 mm dia bar
Table No.3.7: Material Properties of Steel Rebars
Sl. No Diameter of the Rebar (mm) Yield Stress (MPa) Ultimate Stress (MPa) Youngs Modulus (MPa) Elongation (%) %Reduction in Area 1 12 565 745 2e+5 18.47 60.64 2 8 540 725 2e+5 16.3 71
*#
Fig 3.9: Characteristic Average Stress/Strain Curve of 8 mm Dia Fe500 Grade Steel Rebars
Fig 3.10: Characteristic Average Stress/Strain Curve of 12 mm Dia Fe500 Grade Steel Rebars.
*$ 3.5. Material properties of composite materials
3.5.1. Adhesive (Epoxy resin based putty) properties
Nitocote VF is a thixotropic, solvent free, three-component compound based on epoxy resins, graded fillers and thixotropic agents. It is applied directly to concrete for filling cracks, blow holes etc., which cures to a surface ready for subsequent coatings. For filling blow holes, making good slightly damaged concrete, eliminating minor irregularities on floors and walls prior to applying primer and resin coatings. Density: 1.6g/cc Volume solids: 100% Minimum application temperature: 10 C Compressive strength: 50 Pot life: 40 min at 27 C Drying time: 8 hrs at 27 C Recoatable: 24 hours Full cure: 7 days at 27 C Flash point: 40 C Shelf life: 12 months in unopened container when stored under normal warehouse conditions.
3.5.2. Primer (Nitowrap 25) properties
Nitowrap 25 is solvent free, two component compound based on epoxy sealer cum primer. Density - 1.14 g/cc Pot life - 25 min. @ 27 C Full cure - 7 days Flashpoint 25 C
*%
3.5.3. Resin (Nitowrap 410) properties
Niotwrap 410 is solvent free, two component compound based on a high build epoxy which is used as resin. Viscosity Thixotropic Colour - Pale yellow to amber Application temperature - 15 C - 40 C Density - 1.25 - 1.26 g/cc Pot Life - 2 hours at 30 C Cure time - 5 days at 30 C Flash Point - 33 C
3.5.5. Glass fiber properties Weight of fibre 920 Density of fibre 2.6 Fibre thickness 0.36 Fibre orientation 90 Nominal thickness per layer 0.36 Tensile strength 3400 Tensile modulus 73,000
*& 3.4.6. Quality Test The range of quality test on FRP materials are conducted such as 1. Pressure test 2. Elongation test 3. Hydraulic pressure test 4. Glass to resin ration test 5. Spark test 6. Tensile test 7. Acetone test 8. Specific gravity test 9. Weight accuracy test 10. Dimensional accuracy 11. Tensile strength test 12. Leak proof testing 13. Flawless welding test 3.5.7. Test on Epoxy Resin
Characterization of resin, reinforcement and GFRP composite are essential for the analytical study and to ensure the quality of the resin and reinforcement used for retrofitting. Epoxy compatible glass fiber fabric WRM with area density of 360gsm is used as reinforcement. The following test is conducted on the epoxy resin as per Bureau of Indian standards (BIS), British Standards (BS) and International Standards Organization (ISO).
3.5.7.1. Specific Gravity (! e )
Specific gravity (! e ) of the epoxy resin was calculated using the pycnometer as per IS 6746:1994. The room temperature during the test was 33.1 0 C and hence the temperature correction was applied. The measured values are shown in Table 3.8. The relative density of the epoxy resin at 33.1 0 C is 1.159. The temperature of 6.1 0 C was more than the specified temperature of 27 0 C. A correction factor of 0.00065 per degree should be added to the value of the relative density obtained at
*' the test temperature. The relative density of the epoxy resin with the correction is 1.164
The epoxy resin and hardener was mixed thoroughly as per the IS 6746-1994 in the ratio of 1:0.1 by weight for finding the gel time. The epoxy resin in glass container was kept below the plunger of the gel timer. The gel timer was switched on as soon as the hardener was added to the resin. The time was counted till the movement of the plunger stopped and was noted as the gel time. 3.5.8 Tests on Fibers
3.5.8.1. Tensile Test of GFRP Composites
The tensile strength of the GFRP composite was determined as per procedures given in standard BS 2782-Part 10-Method 1003-1997 along the wrap (0 0 ), weft (90 0 ) and forty five degree (45 0 ) directions. The testing of GFRP composite is done in Universal testing machine. The shear strength and shear modulus of the GFRP composites was determined from the specimens with fibers oriented at ninety-degree (90 0 ) direction under tension. Glass fiber fabric tabs were bonded at
*( the ends of specimens per the BS 2782-Part 10-Mwthod 1003-1997. Strain along longitudinal and transverse direction was measured using linear electrical resistance strain gauges. Test specimen failed due to the rupture of fabric near the grips. The GFRP composite materials were brought in two batches. The tensile strength of GFRP composite of batch (1) along the wrap (0 0 ), weft (90 0 ) and forty five (45 0 ) directions are provided by the competent companies.
3.5.8.2. Tensile Test of CFRP Composites
The tensile strength of the CFRP composite was determined as per procedures given in standard BS 2782-Part 10-Method 1003-1997 along the wrap (0 0 ), weft (90 0 ) directions. The testing of CFRP composite is done in Universal testing machine. The shear strength and shear modulus of the CFRP composites was determined from the specimens with fibers oriented at Zero degree (0 0 ) direction under tension. Carbon fiber fabric tabs were bonded at the ends of specimens per the BS 2782-Part 10-Mwthod 1003-1997. Strain along longitudinal and transverse direction was measured using linear electrical resistance strain gauges. Test specimen failed due to the rupture of fabric near the grips. The CFRP composite materials were brought in two batches. The tensile strength of CFRP composite of batch (1) along the wrap (0 0 ), weft (90 0 ) is provided by the competent companies.
3.6. Tests on Concrete
3.6.1 Cube test
Two cube specimens from each batch of concrete mixed were tested to acquaint strength and to maintain consistency in quality in each mix as designated below for M30 concrete. Total of sixteen cubes of 150mm 150mm 150mm have been casted. Two cubes from each mix batch have been tested and the average compressive strength on 3 rd , 7 th and 28 th day of casting has been calculated. The average compressive strength of concrete in the trial mix design is shown in table 3.8.The mix 1:1:2.2, having an average mean strength 39mpa has been used in casting.
This category of products comprises the range of instruments utilized to evaluate construction material strength. The range of instruments is typically considered to be two parts. The first are non-destructive field tests of compressive strength. The second are tensile field tester systems to either determine the tensile strength of an overlay or bond material, or tensile strength of anchors embedded in the concrete. The first group is pure Non-Destructive Testing where the strength of the material is determined by correlation to another parameter more easily available and readily apparent. This is typically the hardness of the concrete or the resistance to penetration by either a pin or probe. The Windsor Probe, Windsor Pin and our line of Rebound Hammers all fall within this category. These are widely used standard tests and as such have seen use throughout the world. The second set of instruments is our concrete tensile testers. These have been optimized to both test the strength of the anchors and repair overlay material. They can be used to test until failure or to simply verify that the material will not be affected by a specific amount of force. A number of considerations were taken into account when designing this line of products includes viscous damping of the resultant failure backlash, portability, and ruggedness.
Fig 3.14: Set up rebound hammer
#* Table No. 3.10: NDT test result as tabulated below Sl. no. Particular NDT value n/mm 2 1 Plain cement concrete (PCC) 44 2 Reinforced concrete (RCC) 52 3 Weak in Flexure (WF) 51 4 Weak in shear (WS) 50
"" CHAPTER - IV EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
4.1. Scope of the Experiment
To develop economical and practical method to upgrade beams loading capacity and to delay or to eliminate brittle failure mode within the structure . 4.2. Introduction The experimental study represented here in was carried out at the Structural Laboratory, Civil Engineering Department, K L University, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, India.
The test program consisted of casting and testing of sixteen (16) beams, using M30 grade of concrete and Fe 500 (TMT) grade steel. Ordinary Portland cement, natural river sand and the crushed aggregates of 10 mm and 20 mm maximum sizes were used.
I. Four (4) were control beams, all having size of 150 x 150 x 700 mm length and designed as the Plain Cement Concrete section. II. Four (4) were designed as Under reinforced, reinforced with 2-12mm diameter at bottom, 28mm diameter at top using 6mm diameter stirrups @ 90 mm c/c III. Four (4) were designed as weak-in-shear, reinforced with 2-12 mm diameter at bottom, and reduced 50% of shear stirrups @ 150mm c/c IV. Four (4) were designed as weak-in-flexure, reinforced with reduction of 70% main bottom steel and shear stirrups maintaining same as Under reinforced.
The elastic modulus of the concrete is 2.4 x 10 4 N/mm 2 . After 3 day curing, 7 days curing and 28-days curing, companion cubes (150 x 150 x 150 mm) casted along with the beams were tested in compression to determine the 3 day, 7 day and 28-day compressive strength and modulus of elasticity.
"#
Table No.4.1: Compressive Strength of Concrete Sl.No Cubes (150x150x150) 3 days Strength(N/mm 2 ) 7 days Strength(N/mm 2 ) 28 days Strength (N/mm 2 ) Remarks 1. Specimen 19 26.6 39.02 Satisfied
We experimented two beams each from control specimen PCC, Under reinforced and Weak in flexure bonded with CFRP fabric in single layer from tension face, which is parallel to beam axis subjected to static loading.
For two beams Weak-in-shear was bonded with CFRP fabric in single layer, parallel to beam axis from the tension face subjected to static loading and bonded with GFRP strips of 5 cm wide with 85 cm c/c of two pieces each at the two ends, where shear is maximum under loading condition. Sample were tested under virgin condition and tested until failure.
"$ The details of test beams & nomenclature are presented below:
Table No. 4.2: Nomenclature of Beam Sl. No Specimen Designation No. of Specimens Remarks A PCC 4 Control PCC A 1 PCC1 2 Control Specimen
2 PCC2 3 PCCR1 2 Retrofitted Specimen
4 PCCR2 B RCC 4 Control RCC balance section B 5 RCC1 2 Control Specimen
6 RCC2 7 RCCR1 2 Retrofitted Specimen
8 RCCR2 C WS 4 Control Beam Weak in Shear C 9 WS1 2 Control Specimen
10 WS2 11 WSR1 2 Retrofitted Specimen
12 WSR2 D WF 4 Control Weak in Flexure D 13 WF1 2 Control Specimen
14 WF2 15 WFR1 2 Retrofitted Specimen
16 WFR2
"%
4.3. Material Properties
Similar concrete mix of M30 grade was used for all beams. The proportions in the concrete mix were 1.0 (cement) : 1.0 (sand) : 2.2 (gravel) by weight. The water/cement ratio was 0.4 and type I Portland cement was used. The average compressive strength was determined from concrete cubes tested after 28 days of curing and given in Table 4.1. The average yield stress of main steel bars used in all experiments was 500 MPa and an elastic modulus of 200 GPa. One type of FRP sheet was used during the tests: a bidirectional CFRP with the fibers oriented in both longitudinal and transverse directions.
The fiber-composite material consisted of glass bonded together with an epoxy matrix. The sheet was subjected to longitudinal tensile tests to determine elastic modulus and ultimate strength. The CFRP exhibited a linear elastic behavior up to failure. The method of testing utilized to determine the properties of CFRP sheets was performed according to ASTM D 3039-76 to evaluate the tensile properties of oriented fiber composites. The test results gave an average ultimate strength of 600 MPa and elastic modulus of 30 GPa for the CFRP sheets. The construction epoxy adhesive used in bonding the GFRP sheets to the surface of the beam was of two- component cold-curing type. The ultimate tensile strength of the adhesive was about 25 MPa and the elastic modulus was 8.5 GPa.
"&
Fig.4.1 Showing FRP materials with group members. As per the mix design of M30 grade concrete and Fe500 grade steel (TMT) re-bars, we scheduled to cast each specimen of 4 beams, for Control PCC, RCC Under reinforced, Weak in shear and Weak in Flexure, out of which we used 2 each specimen for control testing and 2 for retrofitting. The mix proportion achieved was 1:1:2.2 (1 part of cement, 1 part of natural sand and 2.2 of crushed aggregates). During casting we followed weigh batching method so as to curtail unnecessary hindrance and poor quality. After the 28 days curing period we have kept them under natural conditions until the test periods in the lab.
Fig.4.2. RCC Under reinforced Fig.4.3. Casted PCC with cubes
"' 4.4. Control Specimen (Plain Cement Concrete) The dimensions of two numbers control PCC specimen cast for testing was 150mm x 150mm x 700mm, and it was designed for M30 grade concrete and casted with utmost care through proper workability. The curing was given for best soaked in portable water for 258 days then kept in natural atmospheric condition until the test was conducted. 700 L- Section PLAIN CEMENT CONCRETE 150 C-section 1 5 0
Fig.4.4 PCC Sections
Fig.4.5. Casted PCC specimen for testing 4.5 Control Specimen (Beam weak in shear) We have casted two numbers of beams weak in shear with its dimension of control specimen cast for testing was 150mm x 150mm x 700mm, and adequately designed as per the IS code 456, provision. The overall dimension of beam specimen is shown below. Three number of 10 mm diameter Fe500 bar have been
"( used as main reinforcement in beam, with 2-6mm diameter bars as hanging bar on top with 4 numbers of 6mm diameter stirrups, reducing 50% of the Under reinforced.
700 L- Section CONTROL SPECIMEN - WEAK IN SHEAR 150 C-section Hanger 2-6mm 2-12mm dia stirrup-6mm @208mm c/c 1 5 0 Fig.4.6. Section showing Weak in Shear
Fig.4.7 Shear reinforcement details Fig.4.8 Weak in shear specimen under test
4.6. Control Specimen (Beam weak in Flexure) The design and casting for the beams weak-in-flexure were executed for two numbers of beams with it ruling dimensions as 150mm x 150mm x 700m. It was designed based on IS 1026, 1982 and IS 456 codes with a provision of 2 numbers of 12mm diameter from the tension face and 2 numbers at 6 mm diameter on top as hanging
#) bars, with the reduction of 70% of the Under reinforced. The stirrup provided remains unchanged in under reinforced. 700 1 5 0 L-Section CONTROL SPECIMEN - WEAK IN FLEXURE 150 C-section stirrup-6mm @90mm c/c Hanger 2-6mm 3 - 10mm dia
Fig.4.9. Section Showing Specimen Weak in Flexure
Fig.4.10 Reinforcement for Weak in Flexure Fig.4.11 Weak in Flexure under test
4.7. Control Specimen (Under reinforced RCC beam) Beams for Under reinforced were designed by using IS 456 code provision with M30 grade of concrete for two beams. It was calculated that the three numbers of 12mm diameter bars and stirrups of eight numbers provided @ 90mm c/c of Fe500 (TMT) bars. The casting was done with utmost care so as to achieve its good workability and proper compaction was also given to eliminate the air voids in the concrete mass. Thorough curing by soaking in portable water for 28 days was genuinely provided for gaining the required
Fig.4.13. RCC under reinforced Section under Test (UTM)
4.8. Finishing Works For the control specimen we tried to give good finishing during casting after that we have done white washing so as to clearly identify the hair cracks development at cracking loads during the time of testing.
#+
4.9. Retrofitting procedure and methodology 4.9.1. Surface Preparation (specimen) As per recommendations of retrofitting work to get strengthening of structural elements, Surface preparation is an important task in our experimental work. This task was done with the help of grinding machine (To avoid undulation on surface of specimen), Emery cloth, Carborandum stone (for smooth surface), Blower machine (cleaning the dust).
4.9.2. Preparation of Retrofit Test Specimens
The CFRP sheets were bonded to the tension face of the specimens after 28 days of casting. Before applying the epoxy, the concrete surface was smoothened and cleaned to insure a good bond between the epoxy glue and the concrete surface. The epoxy was hand-mixed and hand-applied at an approximate thickness of about 1 mm. The bond thickness was not specifically controlled, but the excess epoxy was squeezed out along the edges of the sheet, assuming complete epoxy coverage. More details about the methodology utilized to fix the CFRP sheets to the different beams are discussed in chapter.
Fig.4.14. Surface preparing for FRP Fig.4.15. Applying Nitowrap 25 (Primer)
#" 4.9.3. Primer Application (Nitowrap 25) As mentioned above after surface preparation, Primer coat (Nitowrap 25) has been applied on surface thickness of 100!, for bonding with concrete and fibers, then it was left for at least 24 hours to get set. We allowed no disturbances to the prepared areas after the application of primer. 4.9.4. Resin Application (Nitowrap 410) Resin has been applied on primer coat after 24 hours, prior to fixing the fibers at recommended areas on prepared bottom surface of beams. Beam, then allowed for 30 minutes to achieve sufficient hardness to attract the newly cut CFRP materials for proper bonding. 4.9.5. FRP Fixing As mentioned above after applying resin coat immediately fix the FRP as per dimensions, after a minimum of 30min again resin coat has been applied on to maintain composite of Fibers 4.9.6. Cutting of FRP Mat
Fig.4.16. Cutting CFRP
##
Fig4.17. Cutting GFRP (white)
Fig.4.18. Fixing CFRP Fig.4.19. Fixing GFRP over CFRP
4.10. Test Specimen for Retrofitting 4.10.1. Retrofitted Specimen (2 Nos. Plain Cement Concrete) Similarly, the dimensions of retrofitted PCC specimen cast for testing was 150mm x 150mm x 700mm, and it was designed for M30 grade concrete and casted with utmost care through proper workability. The curing was given for best soaked in portable water for 28 days and then kept in natural atmospheric condition until the test was conducted. Proper specification and design data from IS code: 10262, 1982.
#$ 700 Longitudinalview with CFRP 150 C-section 500 Single layer CFRP wrapping 5 0 Single layer CFRP wrapping 5 0 100 100 1 5 0
Fig.4.20. Showing CFRP Details For PCCR1
Fig.4.21. Under seasoning Condition for Nitowrap 25
Fig.4.22. Seasoning Stage for CFRP
#% 4.10.2. Retrofitted Specimen (2 Nos. Beam weak in shear) We have cast beams weak in shear with its dimension as 150mm x 150mm x 700mm, and adequately designed as per the IS code 456, provision. The overall dimension of beam specimen is shown below. Three number of 12 mm diameter Fe500 bar have been used as main reinforcement in beam, with 2-8mm diameter bas as hanging bar on top with 4 numbers of 6mm diameter stirrups, reducing 50% of the Under reinforced. Workability and curing was given top priority so as to gain its desired strength. 500 GFRP Strip 650 700 Longitudinal view with CFRP C-section 5 0 100 100 5 0 CFRP size for one beam 2 5 0 5 0 5 0 1 5 0 GFRP Strip all around CFRP Wrapping 500 85 230
Fig.4.23. Showing CFRP & GFRP Details
Fig.4.24. Showing GFRP Wrapping over CFRP for Improving Shear Strength
#& 4.10.3. Retrofitted Specimen (2Nos. Beam weak in Flexure) The design and casting for the beams weak in flexure was executed for beams with it ruling dimensions as 150mm x 150mm x 700m. It was designed based on IS 1026, 1982 and IS 456 codes with a provision of 2 numbers of 12mm diameter from the tension face and 2 numbers of 8 mm diameter on top as hanging bars, with the reduction of 70% of the Under reinforced. The stirrups provided remain unchanged as under reinforced. Curing of 28 days soaked in clean water was also given after that it was kept in natural atmospheric condition until test time. Sample shown below.
Fig.4.25.Curing Stage After Nitowarp 25 Fig.4.26.CFRP Wrapping, Weak in Flexure 4.10.4. Retrofitted Specimen (2Nos. under reinforced beam) Beams for balanced section were designed by using IS 456 code provision with M30 grade of concrete. It was calculated that the three numbers of 12mm diameter bars and stirrups of eight numbers provided @ 90mm c/c of Fe500 (TMT) bars. The casting was done with utmost care so as to achieve its good workability and proper compaction was given to eliminate the air voids in the concrete mass. Thorough curing by soaking in portable water for 28 days was genuinely provided for gaining the required strength.
#'
Fig.4.27. Application of Nitowrap 410 over CFRP Wrapping
4.10.5. Finishing Works Once the retrofitting work is completed it was allowed for seasoning 7 days under the natural atmospheric conditions and finally painted with white wash for those empty surfaces especially two sides, so that we could see the hair cracks development very clearly during testing. We have also noted the first cracking loads and the ultimate loads that the specimen could carry under sustained loading condition. 4.11. Test Set-Up The specimens were tested by using the Beam Testing machine (BTM) which has the loading capacity of 15 tonnes by keeping the beam in the horizontal position with two loading system of 20 cm internal loading distance and hinges at a distance of 5 cm from the end support as shown in Fig.4.28. The standard testing machine was used for testing of control specimen of Plain Cement Concrete. Then the Beam Testing Machine was found not supporting to our desired strength then we have shifted to Universal Testing Machine (UTM) for testing the remaining specimen as desired. The sustained loading was applied from top of the beams until we could identify the hair cracks and we have noted down the first cracking loads, further the loading is continued until we get the ultimate load that the steel in tension face can take no more up coming loads and transfers it to the concrete section ultimately.
#(
Fig.4.28 Schematic Representation of Loading setup
Fig.4.29 Universal Testing Machine (UTM) Photograph of Test Set-Up
$) Fig.4.30. Different kinds of failure that are observed in retrofitted concrete beams
(a) Steel yield and FRP rupture; (b) Concrete compression failure; (c) Shear failure; (d) De-bond of layer along rebar; (e) De-lamination of FRP plate; (f) Peeling due to shear crack
Fig 5.3(a): RCC beam weak in flexure-controlled beam
Fig 5.3(b): RCC beam weak in flexure-retrofitted beam
Fig 5.3(c): RCC beam weak in flexure-retrofitted beam
""
Fig 5.4(a): RCC beam weak in shear-controlled beam
Fig 5.5(b):RCC beam weak in shear-retrofitted beam
"' 5.3. Comparison of results:
"(
")
"*
'+
'#
5.4. Observations from Results: 1. PCC ! PCC beams under go pure bending at an average load of 11.125 KN for the design load of 10.78 KN, where as PCCR under go pure bending at an average value of 46.5 KN. ! In PCCR, due to de-lamination of FRP failure load was observed at 28 KN. Widening of crack was observed up to 3-4 mm till 37 KN applied load. 2.RCC ! In RCC beam, as steel is introduced failure was in the tension zone i.e., at the bottom zone. Cracking load was observed to be 40KN for the design load of 47.65 KN. ! In RCCR, failure was observed in tension zone itself only but observed at the cracking load of 105 KN. Cracks got widened at a load of 150 KN. 3. Beam Weak-In-Shear ! In beam weak in shear (WS) cracking was observed at an average load of 33.5 KN for the design load of 29.2 KN. Diagonal cracks were observed at the supports of the beam which shows that it failed in shear. ! In WSR, Failure started at an average load of 117.5 KN. ! Due to de lamination of FRP, failure sound was observed. Cracks got widened at 177.5 KN. Cracks were observed widened up to 2-3mm. Then spalling of concrete took place. 4. Beam Weak In-Flexure ! In beam weak in flexure (WF) cracking was observed at an average load of 39 KN for the design load of 75 KN. Flexural cracks were observed. In WFR, the cracking load of 82 KN. ! Due to de-lamination of FRP, failure sound was observed after the application of cracking load. Later on spalling of concrete also took place at load of 125 KN.
"#
CHAPTER - VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1. Summary
In the present study, for better understanding the performance of Beam model behavior we have taken the following steps: A beam model of 150 X 150 X 700 mm was considered. M 30 grade concrete and Fe 500 steel were used. FRP materials named Nitowrap 25, Nitowrap 410, CFRP and GFRP were acquired. Tests for the materials used were conducted and results were used for designing. Four controlled specimens of PCC, RCC balanced, Weak-In-shear and Weak-In- Flexure were casted and four retrofitted specimens of corresponding types were prepared. Tests with the help of UTM were conducted and load carrying capacities of all the specimens were taken after the period of curing. Finally, comparative study was carried out between controlled and retrofitted specimens from the results and observations. Graphical representation of the comparative study is shown.
"$
Therefore, percentage increase in cracking load and ultimate load are considered. They are
CRACKING LOAD:
PCC: Percentage increase in Load 447.05% i.e, 5.47 times than controlled beam
RCC: Percentage increase in Load 162.5% i.e, 2.62 times than controlled beam
WS: Percentage increase in Load 250.7% i.e, 3.51 times than controlled beam
WF: Percentage increase in Load 111.6% i.e, 2.12 times than controlled beam
"% 6.2. CONCLUSION In the present study, four-point bending test was conducted in the laboratory on four specimens, viz. control specimen of PCC beam, RC beam -balanced, weak in flexure, weak in shear with that of a retrofitted specimen. Based on the experimental and numerical results, the following conclusions are drawn. 1. Effective procedure of wrapping enhances the strength considerably including the change of failure mode as well as the change the location of failure plain. 2. Retrofitting for shear may enhance the ductility to a considerable extent due to additional confinement effect. 3. By adopting appropriate methodology, retrofitting a plain concrete structure, having no steel at all exhibits enhanced strength in line with theoretical estimation. 4. Flexural retrofitting also increases the shear strength of concrete and could be shown in terms of equivalent percentage of mild steel. 5. The beam Weak-In-shear exhibited greater cracking load compared to all the other specimens. 6. The beams failure mode was as expected i.e., beam Weak-In-Flexure produced flexural mode of failure, beam Weak-In-Shear produced shear mode of failure, PCC beam admitted pure bending starting with the flexural cracks, and RCC balanced section also exhibited flexural cracks. 7. Therefore modes of failure that were observed significantly were FRP rupture, shear failure, de-bond of layer along rebar, de-lamination of FRP plate and peeling due to shear crack.
"& APPENDIX-I
Mix Design Of M 30 : -
(1) Design stipulations: a) Characteristic strength Fck = 30 N/mm 2 b) Maximum size of aggregate = 20mm c) Degree of workability = 0.90 d) Degree of Quality control = Good e) Type of Exposure = mild
(2) Test Data for Materials: a) Cement used = OPC b) Specific gravity of cement = 3.15 c) Specific gravity of (i) Coarse aggregate = 2.6 (ii) Fine aggregate = 2.6 d) Water absorption (i) Coarse aggregate = 0.5% (ii) Fine aggregate = 1.0% e) Free Surface Moisture (i) Coarse aggregate = Nil (ii) Fine aggregate = 2.0% f) Sieve Analysis (3) Target mean strength of concrete: Fck = fck + t(s) ! 30 + 1.65*6 = 39.9 N\mm 2
(4) Selection of water cement ratio = 0.375 (5) Selection of water & sand content (i) Water content = 186 Kg/m 3
"" (ii) Sand content = 35% (6) Adjustment Of Values In Water Content & Sand Percentages For Other Condition
Adjustments Change in condition Adjustment required Water content Sand content For decreasing water content ratio 0 -1.7 For increasing compacting factor i.e 0.1 +3 0
For sand conforming zone -3 0 -1.5 Total Adjustments +3.0 -3.2
Therefore Sand Content =35-6=29% Water content = 186+(186*3)/100=191.6c/m 3
DETERMINATION OF CEMENT CONTENT W/c ratio = 0.4 Water content = 191.6 Kg/cum Thus, Cement content = 511 Kg/cum DETERMINATION OF COARSE & FINE AGGREGATE V=(W+C/S C + F A /P*S.F A )*(1/1000) 0.98=(191.6+162.2+F A /0.81)*(1/1000) F A =512 kg/m 3
V=(W+C/S C + C A /P*S.C A )*(1/1000) 0.98=(191.6+162.2+C A /1.781)*(1/1000) C A =115 kg/m 3
"' Mix Proportions:
Water Cement Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate 191.6 511 512 115 0.4 1.0 1.0 2.2
Cement : Sand: Coarse Aggregates = 1 : 1 : 2.2
"(
APPENDIX-II Calculation of load carrying capacity of PCC beams The F.B.D. and bending moment diagram of P0 is shown in Fig. A1. Max. B.M. = 200W
Z = 1 6 bD 2 =
562.5!10 3 mm 3
f t = 0.7 f ck = 0.7 30 = 3.834N/mm 2 : IS 456 Fig. A1 M.R. =
Zf t =2.156625
!10 6 N-mm Equating B.M. =M.R. W= 10.78 KN. Ultimate failure load =2W=21.56 KN. Beam with under reinforced section Analysis of beam: -
C u = T u
Where C u = Resultant compressive force in concrete, u T =Resultant tensile force in tension steel, x u =Neutral axis depth.
C uc = 0.36 ! f ck ! b ! x u =0.36 ! 30 !150 ! 0.46 !120 = 89424N
T u =0.87 ! f y ! A st =0.87 !500 ! A st =435! A st
")
C u =T u 89424 = 435! A st A st = 206mm 2
No of bars =
2 bars of 12mm dia
Moment carrying capacity of beam:- M u =0.87 ! f y ! A st ! (d " (0.42 ! x u )) M u = 0.87 ! 500 ! 266.19 ! (120 " (0.42 ! 0.46 ! d)) M u = 9.53!10 6 N " mm
P = 47.65KN
Shear reinforcement V=W=47.65 K
! v = v / bd ! v = 47.65"10 3 / 120 "150 ! v = 2.65N / mm 2 ! c max = 3.5N / mm 2
For! c , Pt = 100Ast / bd Pt = (100 " # "12 2 " 2) / (120 "150) Pt = 1.26 $! c = 0.712N / mm 2
Load carrying capacity of beam:- M u = WL/3 P =M u ! 3/L P =9.53!10 6 ! 3/600
'*
! c max > ! v > ! c v us = v u "! c bd v us = 47.65#10 3 " (0.712 #120 #150) v us = 34.684KN
v us = 0.87 f y A sv d / S v 34.684 !10 3 = 0.87 ! 500 ! " ! 2 ! 6 2 !120 / S v S v = 85.10mm< 0.75d& < 300mm #S v = 0.75d = 90mm
No of stirrups = (650/90) + 1 = 8 stirrups of 6mm dia bars
RCC beam weak in flexure
Ast = 206mm 2
If 50% decreased (206/2)=103mm 2
Instead of 12mm bars 8mm are used
No of 8mm bars =
Load carrying capacity of RCC beam weak in flexure
Ast =151mm 2
M u = WL/3 L = 600mm
W=31.79KN
'+
RCC beam weak in shear
No of stirrups = 8Nos of 6mm dia bars
If 50% decreased 4 stirrups
Spacing = 180mm
Load carrying capacity of RCC beam weak in shear
No of stirrups = 4 Nos of 4mm dia bars
REFERENCES [1] California Department of Transportation, Memo to Designers 20-4 Attachment B, State of California, USA 1996 [2] Beres A., El-Borgi S., White R., Gergely P., Experimental results of repaired and retrofitted beam- column joint tests in lightly RC frame building. Technical Report NCEER-92-0025, 1992. [3] Pellegrino, C., and Modena, C. (2002). Fiber Reinforced Polymer Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Transverse Steel Reinforcement. J. of Composites for Construction,. 6(2), 104-111 [4] A shear strength model for steel fiber reinforced concrete beams without stirrup reinforcement by Hai h. Dinh1, Gustavo j. Parra-Montesinos2, and James k. Wight3 [5] Analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with frp laminates by mahmoud t. el-mihilmy1 and Joseph w. tedesco, 2 members, ASCE [6] StressStrain Model for Laterally Con!ned Concrete ---Weena P. Lokuge1; J. G. Sanjayan2; and Sujeeva Setunge3 [7] Mander J B, Priestley M J N, Park R (1988), Theoretical stress-stain model for confined concrete", Journal of structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1826. [8] Francesco Bencardino, Giuseppe Spadea and R.N.Samy (2002), Strength and Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Beams Externally Reinforced with Carbon Fiber Fabric, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 99, pp.163-171 [9] Basu P. C, (2002), Seismic Upgradation of Buildings: An Overview, The Indian Concrete Journal, The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., pp. 461-475. [10] Seth A (2002), Seismic Retrofitting by Conventional Methods, The Indian Concrete Journal, The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., August, pp.489-495. [11] Mukherjee A. and Joshi M. V (2002), Seismic Retrofitting Technique Using Fiber Composites, The Indian Concrete Journal, The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., August, pp.496-502. [12] RC beams and slabs externally reinforced with fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) panels by C. A. Ross, L. C. Muszynski, D. M. Jerome, J. W. Tedesco, R. L. Sierakowsk [13] Foreign Journal, use of FRP fabric for strengthening of reinforced concrete beam- column joints by Dr. D. DAyala, University of Bath, UK. [14] Seismic Retrofit of Historic building structures, by T. Jeff Guh, Ph. D., S.E. and Arash Altoontash, Ph. D., P.E. [15] Seismic retrofitting of reinforced concrete buildings using traditional and innovative techniques, by Giuseppe Oliveto and Massimo Marletta. [16] Seismic evaluation and retrofitting of buildings and structures by N. Lakshmanan. [17] Retrofitting of structures, IIT, Roorkee, 2003 [18] IS 456:2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice (fourth revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, July 2000. [19] IS10262:1982,Indian Standard Recommended Guidelines for Concrete Mix Design (fifth revision) Bureau of Indian Standards, March 1998