M.P. NACHIMUTHU M.

JAGANATHAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE

(An ISO 9001:2008 Certified Institution)
C HENNIMALAI 638 112

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

PEACE
Present by:
S.VIGNESH
V.NANDHAKUMAR
(Third Year)
Guided by:
S.KARTIKEYAN (Asst.Professor)
Dept. of Civil Engg.
MPNMJ Engineering College.

STRENGTHENING OF RC BEAMS IN SHEAR USING

GFRP INCLINED STRIPS
CONTACT:vstviki@gmail.com(8903172682)
Nandhakumar1992@ymail.com(9842847743)

ABSTRACT:
Though there have been a number of studies on shear strengthening of RC beams using externally
bonded fiber reinforced polymer sheets, the behaviour of FRP strengthened beams in shear is not fully
understood. This is partly due to various reinforcement configurations of sheets that can be used for shear
for strengthening and partly due to different failure modes a strengthened beam undergoes at ultimate
state. Furthermore, the experimental data bank shear strengthening of concrete beams using FRP remains
relatively sparse due to which the design algorithms for computing the shear contribution of FRP are not
yet clear. The objective of this study is to clarify the role of glass fiber reinforced polymer inclined
strips epoxy bonded to the beam web for shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams. Included
in the study are effectiveness in terms of width and spacing of inclined GFRP strips, spacing of internal
steel stirrups, and longitudinal steel rebar section on shear capacity of the RC beam. The study also aims
to understand the shear contribution of concrete, shear strength due to steel bars and steel stirrups and the
additional shear capacity due to glass fiber reinforced polymer strips in a RC beam. And also to study
the failure modes, shear strengthening effect on ultimate force and load deflection behaviour of RC
beams bonded externally with GFRP inclined strips on the shear region of the beam.
INTRODUCTION:
Deterioration of concrete structures is one of the major problems of the construction industry
today. Moreover, a large number of structures constructed in the past using the older design codes in
different parts of the world are structurally unsafe according to todays design codes. Since replacement
of such deficient structures incurs a huge amount of public money and time, strengthening has become the
acceptable way of improving their load carrying capacity and extending their service lives. In order
to avoid the problems created by the corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete structures,
research has demonstrated that one could replace the steel reinforcement by fiber reinforced
polymer (FRP) reinforcement . Corrosion of the steel reinforcement in reinforced concrete (RC)
structures affects both the steel and the concrete. The strength of a corroding steel reinforcing bar is
reduced because of a reduction in the cross-sectional area of the steel bar. While the steel reinforcing bars
are corroding, the concrete integrity is impaired because of cracking of the concrete cover caused by the
expansion of the corrosion products.
The rehabilitation of infrastructures is not new, and various projects have been carried out around
the world over the past two decades. Historically, steel has been the primary material used to strengthen
concrete bridges and buildings. Bonded steel plates or stirrups have been applied externally to
successfully repair concrete girders that are deficient in bending or in shear. However, using steel as a
strengthening element adds additional dead load to the structure and normally requires corrosion

protection. Only a few years ago, the construction market started to use FRP for structural reinforcement,
generally in combination with other construction materials such as wood, steel, and concrete. FRPs
exhibit several attractive properties, such as low weight-to-strength ratios, non-corrosiveness, high
fatigue strength, and ease of application. The use of FRP sheets or plates bonded to concrete beams has
been studied by several researchers.
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION:
The purpose of this paper is to provide experimental data on the response of RC beams
strengthened in shear using bi-directional GFRP fabrics. In this study, two cases are taken. In one set
of beams, the retrofitting was done by using inclined side GFRP strips whereas in the next case,
retrofitting was done by providing inclined U-strips of GFRP. In the experimental program five control
beams were taken (C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5) having cross-sectional dimensions of 100 mm _ 150 mm and
1000 mm length. The beams height was selected on the basis of shear strengthening with special regards
given to anchorage of side strips; it therefore resulted in relatively stiff beam. Among these five beams C1
was fully strengthened. But the other four beams were so designed such that they were shear deficient.
The experimental program aimed at raising the strength of the shear deficient beams to that of the fully
strengthened beams by externally bonding inclined GFRP strips to the beams. The two sets of beams had
the same reinforcements as that of the shear deficient control beams. These beams were then raised to the
strength of that of the fully strengthened beams by externally bonding the beams with GFRP strips on
sides as well as using U-wrap fashion. The experiment aimed at understanding the best wrapping style for
retrofitting the deficient beams. The effect of shear strengthening is discussed with the help of
experimental results.
EXPERIMENT DETAILS:
The experiment aims at using GFRP strips to increase the shear strength of shear deficient beams.
In the experiment, five control beams were taken (C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5). Among these, C1 is the fully
strengthened beam whereas the other beams have been made shear deficient by changing either the
internal shear reinforcement or by changing the longitudinal reinforcement. Then the shear deficient
beams were externally bonded with GFRP strips on sides as well as in U-wrap fashion and were tested to
check whether the beams have attained the strength of that of the fully strengthened beam. The beams
strengthened by bonding GFRP strips in the sides alone are designated as RF2, RF3, RF4, and RF5,
whereas those strengthened by providing U-wraps of GFRP strips are designated as RFU2, RFU3, RFU4,
andRFU5. The reinforcement details of RF2 and

RFU2 are same as that of C2. Similarly the

reinforcement details of RF3 and RFU3, RF4 and RFU4, and RF5 and RFU5 are same as that of C3, C4,
and C5, respectively. The reinforcement details of all the beams are shown in Fig. 1.
The ultimate load of the beams C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5 was found out. Then the strength of shear
deficient beams was increased to that of C1 by using inclined GFRP strips. Since C2, C3, C4, and C5
have been designed as deficient beams by changing various parameters, the ultimate loads of these beams
were less than that of C1. The beams were made shear deficient by changing the longitudinal
reinforcements or by increasing the spacing of the shear reinforcements.
REINFORCEMENT:
The longitudinal reinforcements used were deformed, hot-rolled, high-yield strength bars of 10
mm and 8 mm diameter. The stirrups were made from mild steel bars with 6 mm diameter. The yield
strength of steel reinforcements used in this experimental program was determined by performing the

standard tensile test on the three specimens of each bar. The average yield stresses of steel bars obtained
were 390 N/mm2, 375 N/mm2 and 240 N/mm2 for 10 mm, 8 mm, and 6 mm diameter, respectively.
FIG 1: REINFORCEMENT DETAILS OF THE RC BEAMS
CONCRETE:
For concrete, the maximum aggregate size used was 20 mm. The concrete mix proportion
designed by IS method to achieve the strength of 20 N/mm2 and was 1:1.68:3.46 by weight. The designed
water cement ratio was 0.55. Three cube specimens were cast and tested at the time of beam test (at the

age of 28 days) to determine the compressive strength of concrete. The average compressive strength of
the concrete was 29.11 N/mm2.
GLASS FIBER:
`

Glass fiber composites are among the oldest and least expensive of all composites. E-glass is the

most common type of glass fiber used in resin matrix composite structures and was used in this
investigation. The principal advantages of E-glass are low cost, high tensile and impact strengths and high
chemical resistance. The disadvantages of E-glass, compared to other structural fibers are lower modulus,
lower fatigue resistance and higher fiber self-abrasion characteristics. In general, fiber composites behave
linearly elastic to failure.
EPOXY RESIN:
The success of the strengthening technique critically depends on the performance of the epoxy
resin used. Numerous types of epoxy resins with a wide range of mechanical properties are commercially
available. These epoxy resins are generally two part systems, a resin and a hardener. The resin and
hardener are used in this study is Araldite GY 257 and Hardener HY 840, respectively.
BONDING OF GLASS FIBRE FABRIC TO BEAM:
Before bonding the composite fabric onto the concrete surface, the shear region of concrete
surface was made rough using a coarse sand paper texture and cleaned with an air blower to remove all
dirt and debris. Once the surface was prepared to the required standard, the epoxy resin was mixed in
accordance with manufacturers instructions. Mixing was carried out in a metal container (Araldite GY
257 100 parts by weight and Hardener HY 840 50 parts by weight) and was continued until the
mixture was in uniform colour. When this was completed and the fabrics had been cut to size, the epoxy
resin was applied to the concrete surface. The composite fabric was then placed on top of epoxy resin
coating and the resin was squeezed through the roving of the fabric with plastic laminating roller. Air
bubbles entrapped at the epoxy/concrete or epoxy/fabric interface were to be eliminated. During
hardening of the epoxy, a constant uniform pressure was applied on the composite fabric surface in order
to extrude the excess epoxy resin and to ensure good contact between the epoxy, the concrete and the
fabric. This operation was carried out at room temperature. Concrete beams strengthened with glass fiber
fabric were cured for 24 h at room temperature before testing.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP:
A two-point loading system was adopted for the tests.At the end of each load increment,
deflection, ultimate load, type of failure etc., were carefully observed and recorded. The experimental setup and the beams with GFRP strips are shown in Figs. 2-4, respectively.

Fig 2: Experimental Set Up

Fig 3: GFRP Inclined Side Strips

Fig 4: GFRP Inclined U-Strips

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

Three sets of beams were tested for their ultimate strengths. The beams C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5
were taken as the control beams. Among these C1 is a fully strengthened beam whereas other beams Were
made deficient by changing either the internal shear reinforcements or the longitudinal reinforcements. It
was observed that the beams C2, C3, C4, and C5 had less load carrying capacity when compared to that
of the fully strengthened beams. The second set of beams are one which is externally bonded with
inclined GFRP strips on the sides of shear span and third set of beams are those which is given inclined
U-wrap of GFRP strips in the shear span. The beams with inclined strips on the sides are designated as
RF2, RF3, RF4, and RF5 whereas the beams which are given U-wrap are designated as RFU2, RFU3,
RFU4, and RFU5. Deflection behaviour and the ultimate load carrying capacity of the beams were noted.
The ultimate load carrying capacity of all the beams along with the nature of failure and load causing the
initial cracks are given in Table.

FAILURE MODES:
A number of failure modes have been observed in the experiments of RC beams strengthened in
shear by FRPs. These include shear failure due to FRP rupture, shear failure without FRP rupture,
crushing of concrete at the top and flexure failure. The fully
Strengthened beam and the control beams were tested to find out their ultimate load carrying capacity. It
was found that all the control beams failed in shear showing that the beams were deficient in shear. In
case of control beams C2, C3, C4, and C5, the major diagonal crack developed first along the longitudinal
steel bars from the support to the center of the beam and then the crack extended upto the loading point.
These beams were retrofitted with GFRP inclined strips and two wrapping schemes were adopted. One
was bonding externally only on the sides of the beams while the other wrapping scheme was the Uwrapping of the beams. There was significant change in the nature of failure of the retrofitted beams. The
retrofitted beams developed major flexural cracks at the ultimate loads. Some of the retrofitted beams
showed crushing of concrete under the loading area. Thus, it was noted that the flexural kind of failure
was prominent when retrofitting was done using both the wrapping schemes with inclined GFRP strips.
But in the case of beam RFU4, flexure cracks with rupture of FRP were found. This is due to the absence
of internal shear reinforcement. The tearing of GFRP strips occurs when the strain in the strips reaches its
ultimate value due to the diagonal shear cracks. The failure modes of retrofitted beams were shown
TABLE: ULTIMATE LOADS & NATURE OF FAILURE
S.NO

BEAM
DESIGNATION

ULTIMATE
LOAD (KN)

LOAD AT INITIAL
CRACK(KN)

NATUREOF FAILURE

1
2

C1
C2
RF2
RFU2

49
47
53
55

26
17
35
35

CE
RF3
RFU3
CE
RF4
RFU4

33
50
52
32
48
55

15
27
27
8
20
20

C5
RF5
RFU5

32
49
50

7
18
18

Shear Failure
Shear Failure
Flexure Failure
Flexure Failure+crushingof
concrete
Shear failure
Flexure failure
Flexure failure
Shear failure
Flexure failure
Flexure failure+rupture of
frp
Shear failure
Crush of concrete
Flexure failure+crushing of
concrete

Fig 5&6: Shear cracks in Control Beam & Flexure cracks in RF2 beam
LOAD DEFLECTION BEHAVIOUR:
The load deflection behaviour of all the beams was noted. The mid-span deflection of each beam was
compared with that of their respective control beams. Also the load deflection behaviour was compared
between two wrapping schemes having the same reinforcement. GFRP strips of various widths were used
to raise the strength of the shear deficient beams to that of the fully strengthened beams. It was noted that
the behaviour of the shear deficient beams when bonded with GFRP inclined strips were better than their
corresponding control beams.
The mid-span deflections were much lower when bonded externally with GFRP inclined strips. It
was also noted that the behaviour of the shear deficient can be brought almost comparable to that of the
fully strengthened beams by the use of GFRP inclined strips. The use of GFRP strips had effect in
delaying the growth of crack formation. It is evident from the load causing the initial cracks. When both
the wrapping schemes were considered it was found that the retrofitted beams with inclined U-wrap
GFRP strips had a better load deflection behaviour when compared to side strips. Table shows the load at
which initial cracks were formed for various beams. The inclined strips being perpendicular to the
direction of the cracks were able to arrest the formation of cracks and thus delay the growth of cracks.
This is very important for shear strengthening of beams. The use of inclined GFRP strips was able to
avoid the brittle shear failure of the beams.

Fig 7&8: Flexure Cracks & Crushing of Concrete in RFU2 & RFU5 beam
ULTIMATE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY:
The load carrying capacity of the control beams and the retrofitted beams were found out. The control
beams (C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5) were loaded upto their ultimate loads. It was noted that of these beams,
C1 had the maximum load carrying capacity as it was the fully strengthened beam. The other beams
had much lower ultimate loads as they designed as shear deficient beams. This was done by either
changing the spacing of the shear stirrups or by changing the longitudinal bars. In one method, the GFRP
strips were bonded externally to the sides alone whereas in the other scheme the strips were provided as
U-wraps. The GFRP inclined strips of varying widths were used but the spacing of the strips were kept
constant so as to understand the effect of varying the width of strips. Retrofitted beams bonded with
GFRP strips on to the surface of the beams are shown in Fig. 3 whereas Fig. 4 shows the beams with
GFRP inclined U-strips. The widths of GFRP strips provided on each beam were decided on the basis that
the shear strength to be provided by FRP to have ultimate strength as that of fully strengthened beam. The
retrofitted beams when tested for their ultimate loads were found to have greater load carrying capacity
than their corresponding control beams (C2, C3, C4, and C5). The ultimate loads of all the beams are
shown below.
It was noted that the all the retrofitted beams had ultimate load carrying capacity similar to that of
the fully strengthened beam. This is due to the use of GFRP strips. Another character to be noticed about
the usage of GFRP strips is the high ductile behaviour of the beams. The shear failure being sudden can
lead to huge damage to the structure. But the ductile behaviour obtained by the use of FRP can give us
enough warning before the ultimate failure.

CONCLUSIONS:
Based on the investigation the
following conclusions were made:
Maximum percentage of increase
in ultimate strength of 50% was
observed in the beams RF3, RF4
and RF5. Similarly there is more
than 50% increase in strength was
observed in the beams RFU3,
RFU4 and RFU5.
The load carrying capacity of the retrofitted beams were found to be greater than that of
the control beams, thus the externally bonded FRPs could take more load
The ultimate strength of beams can be increased by the use of GFRP inclined strips. The ultimate
loads of beams retrofitted with U-wrapping were greater than the beams retrofitted by bonding
the GFRP strips on the sides alone. Increase in strength depends on the width of the strip that was
provided to the beam.
The presence of GFRP inclined strips on the beam inhibited the development of the diagonal
cracks. A significant difference was seen in the load causing the initial cracks. The load deflection
behaviour was better for beams retrofitted with GFRP inclined strips.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
This is a journal published by M.C.SUNDARRAJA & S.RAJMOHAN of THIAGARAJAR
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MADURAI-625 015,TAMILNADU,INDIA on 20 JUNE 2008.