INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011

Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

Nonlinear analysisofReinforcedConcreteColumnswithFiberReinforced PolymerBars

EhabM.Lotfy FacultyofEngineeringIsmaelia.SuezCanalUniversityEgypt Ehablotfy2000@yahoo.com ABSTRACT In this paper, the results of an analytical investigation on the behavior of RC columns reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer bars FRP are presented and discussed. Nonlinear finite element analysis on 10column specimens was achieved by using ANSYS software. ThenonlinearfiniteelementanalysisprogramANSYSisutilisedowingtoitscapabilitiesto predict either the response of reinforced concrete columns in the postelastic range or the ultimatestrengthofareinforcedconcretecolumnsreinforcedbyFRPbars.Anextensiveset of parameters is investigated including different main reinforcement ratios, main reinforcementtypes(GFRP,Steel),thetransversereinforcementratios,andthecharacteristic compressivestrengthofconcrete.Acomparisonbetweentheexperimentalresultsandthose predicted by the existing models are presented. Results and conclusions may be useful for designers,havebeenraised,andrepresented. Keywords: InelasticFiniteElementAnalysis,ReinforcedConcretecolumns,fiberpolymer bars,ANSYS,compressivebehavior. 1.Introduction Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) is increasingly used for reinforcing new structures, and strengthening existing structures. FRP composites, in the form of sheets, cables, rods, and plates,haveproventobeacosteffectivealternativetosteelreinforcementsbecauseoftheir lowweighttostrengthratio,corrosionresistance,andflexibility.Themostcommontypesof FRParearamid,glass,andcarbonAFRP,GFRP,andCFRPrespectively. Unfortunately, there was a lack of data about using FRP as reinforcement the lack of a comprehensivedatabaseonFRPmaterialsmakesitdifficultforthepracticingcivilengineer anddesignertouseFRPcompositesonaroutinebasis,althougha numberofreviews have beenpublishedrecentlyrelatedtodurabilityandtestmethods. The focus of each has been to summarize the state of knowledge in general without emphasizing or attempting to prioritize critical areas in which needs are the greatest for collection,assimilation,anddisseminationofdata(Karbhari1,2003).Therearemanybridge structures all over the world as applications of structures with FRP reinforcement for example: InChinatherearenoweightGFRPbridgesinChina.Thesebridgesweregenerally constructed by hand layup of glass fibers in a polyester resin using a honeycomb formofdeckstructure,astheMiyunBridge,theXianyyongbridge,andHulanRiver Bridge. InGermanytheLnenscheGassepedestrianbridge,theUlenbergstrasseBridge,and theSchiessbergstrasseBridge. 707

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

In Japan the Shinmiya Highway Bridge, the BachiMinamiBashir highway bridge, theNagatsugawapedestrianBridge,TochigiPrefectureBridge,andIbarakiPrefecture Bridge. In Canada the Beddigton Trail Bridge, the Headingley Bridge, Wotton Bridge, and MagogBridge InUnitedStates:theMcKinleyvilleBridge,andtheMorristownBridge(Nicholaset al.2003,Halcrowetal.1996,OU etal.2003andELSalakawyetal.2003). ACI Committee 440 contained design provisions for flexure and shear, the guide excludes anyprovisionsfortheanalysisanddesignofconcretecompressionmembersreinforcedwith FRPbars.FRPbarswerenotrecommendedbyACICommittee440(ACI440.1R2006)for use as compression reinforcement, in part because the direct effect of compression reinforcement on thestrength of concrete members is frequently small and, therefore,often ignored. Additionally, the compression properties of FRP bars are often difficult to predict duetothelackofstabilityofindividualfibersinabar.Therefore,thiscomplicatestestingand canproduceinaccuratemeasurementsofcompressionproperties(Ching etal.2006). So this study aims to study the behavior of reinforced concrete columns with GFRP. The resultsandobservationspresentedinthispaperareusefultopracticingengineerswhomust predicttheenhancedcompressivestrengthofconcretecolumnsreinforcedwithGFRPbars. 2.ObjectivesandScope Themainobjectivesofthisstudycouldbesummarizedinthefollowingpoints: ExaminingthecompressivebehaviorofreinforcedconcretecolumnswithGFRPbars. Comparingthisbehaviorwithreinforcedconcretecolumnswithsteelrebar. Finite element models were developed to simulate the behavior of reinforced concrete columnswithGFRPbarsfromlinearthroughnonlinearresponseusingtheANSYSprogram. 3.ExperimentalProgram TheexperimentalprogramincludedtestingofGFRPandsteelRCcolumnsunderpureaxial load,thespecimenshadsquarecrosssectionwitha250mmside,andlengthof1250mm,the testmatrixisshownintable1fromC1toC8 The analysis carriedout is conductedon 10RC columns the parametersof study were the main reinforcement ratios, and types, the transverse reinforcement ratios, and the characteristic compressive strength of concrete. Finally, conclusions from the current researchandrecommendationsforfuturestudiesarepresented.

708

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

Table1:DetailsofTestedColumnsSpecimens Group No. col. No.

C1 1 C2 C3 2 C4 C5 3 C6 C7 4 C8 C9 5 C10 25 4#18mm 1.628 (6mm@120mm) 25 25 4#12mm 4#16mm 0.723 1.286 (6mm@60mm) (6mm@120mm) 35 25 4#12mm 4#12mm 0.723 0.723 (6mm@120mm) (6mm@60mm)

fcu 2 (N/mm )
25 25 25 25 30

reinf.
4#12mm 6#12mm 8#12mm 4#12mm 4#12mm

reinf. Ratio(%)
0.723 1.08 1.45 0.723 0.723

steelstirrupsin thecol.ends
(6mm@120mm) (6mm@120mm) (6mm@120mm) (6mm@120mm) (6mm@120mm)

Notes

1GFRPreinf 2Stirrupsshape(A)

1Steelreinf 2Stirrupsshape(A) 1GFRPreinf 2Stirrupsshape(A) 1GFRPreinf 2Stirrupsshape(B) 1GFRPreinf 2Stirrupsshape(C) 1GFRPreinf 2Stirrupsshape(A)

4.NumericalFiniteElements 4.1BasicFundamentalsoftheFEMethod. The basic governing equations for two dimensions elastic plastic FEM have been well documented(Zienkiewics1967),andarebrieflyreviewedhere. I.Strain displacementofanelement [d]=[B][dU] Where:[B]isthestraindisplacementtransformationmatrix.Thematrix[B]isafunctionof both the location and geometry of the suggested element, it represents shape factor. The matrix[B]foratriangleelementhavingnodalpoints1,2and3isgivenby

[B] = 1 2 D

y 2 - y 3 0 x 3 - x 2

0 x 3 - x 2 y 2 - y 3

y 0 y 3 - y 1 1 - y 2 0 x 0 1 - x 3 x y x 1 - x 3 3 - y 1 2 - x 1

0 x 2 - x 1 y 1 - y 2

Where xi and yi represent the coordinates of the node and D represents the area of the triangularelement,i.e.

1 x1 2 D = det1 x 2 1 x 3

y 1 y 2 y 3
709

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

II.Stressstrainrelationor fieldequation [d]=[D][d] Here,[D]isthestressstraintransformationmatrix.Forelasticelementsthematrixfromthe e Hooke's law leads to [D] = [D ]. For plastic elements, the PrandtlReuss stressstrain relations together with the differential form of the von Mises yield criterion as a plastic p potentialleadsto [D]=[D ]. e Theelasticmatrix,[D ],isgivenbytheelasticpropertiesofthematerialwhereastheplastic e matrix,[D ],isafunctionofthematerialpropertiesintheplasticregimeandthestressstrain e p elevation.Obviously,fortwodimensionalanalysis[D ]and[D ]dependonthestressstrain state,i.e.planestressversusplanestrain. p Theplasticmatrix,[D ],dependsontheelasticplasticpropertiesofhematerialandthestress e p p elevation. Comparing [D ] and [D ], it can be seen that the diagonal elements of [D ] are e definitelylessthanthecorrespondingdiagonalelementsin[D ].Thisamountstoanapparent (creaseinstiffnessorrigidityduetoplasticyielding.Therefore,theplasticactionreducesthe strengthofthematerial.
e III.Elementstiffnessmatrix[K ]

] [D][B]dv [ Ke ]= [B
T Thetransposematrixof[B]is[B] .Inthecaseofthewellknowntriangularelements[k]is representedby

[K ] = [B]T [D][B]V
TheelementvolumeisVandforatwodimensionalbodyequalstheareaoftheelement, D , multipliedbyitsthickness,t. IV.Theoverallstiffnessmatrix[K] e Thestiffnessmatrixes[K ]oftheelementsareassembledtoformthematrix[K]ofthewhole domain. The overall stiffness matrix relates the nodal load increment [dP] to the nodal displacementincrement[du]andcanbewrittenas [dP]=[K][du] Thisstiffnessrelationformsasetofsimultaneousalgebraicequationsintermsofthe nodal displacement,nodalforces,andthestiffnessofthewholedomain.Afterimposingappropriate boundary conditions, the nodal displacements are estimated, and consequently the stress strainfieldforeachelementcanbecalculated.

710

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

4.2FiniteElementModelling 4.2.1 Geometry ThedetailsoftestedcolumnswereshowninFig.1.Analyseswerecarriedouton10columns specimens, where all columns had square crosssection with a 250mm side and length of 1250mm. Analyzed columns had main reinforcement with GFRP bars 4#12mm, 6#12mm, and8#12mm,4#16mm,and4#18mm,andwithsteelbars4#12mm. Thetransversereinforcementwas6mmclosedstirrupsspreadin120mm,and60mm,and 2 characteristic strength of concrete columns 25, 30, and 35 N/mm . The analyzed columns weredividedintofourdifferentgroupsasshowninTable1. Inthisstudy,perfectbondbetweenconcreteandthereinforcedbarswasassumed.Toprovide the perfectbond, thelink element for the reinforcing bars was connected between nodesof eachadjacentconcretesolidelement,sothetwomaterialssharedthesamenodes.
6@ 120mm 250mm 6@60mm 1250mm 1250mm 1250mm 6@120mm 6@120mm
250mm

4#12mm

250mm

CrossSection(C1)
6@120mm

6@60mm

6#12mm

250mm

CrossSection(C2)
6@120mm 250mm 250mm 250mm 250mm 8#12mm

250mm

CrossSection(C3)

StirrupsShape(A)

StirrupsShape(B)StirrupsShape(C)

Figure1: Detailsofreinforcementoftestedcolumns 4.2.2 Elementtypes ExtensiveinelasticfiniteelementanalysesusingtheANSYSprogramarecarriedouttostudy the behavior of the tested columns. Two types of elements are employed to model the columns. An eightnode solid element, solid65, was used to model the concrete. The solid elementhaseightnodeswiththreedegreesoffreedomateachnode,translationinthenodal x, y,andzdirections.Theusedelement iscapableofplasticdeformation,cracking inthree orthogonal directions, and crushing. A link8 element was used to model the reinforcement

711

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

polymer bar two nodes are required for this element. Each node has three degrees of freedom,translationinthenodalx,y,andzdirections.Theelementisalsocapableofplastic deformation(ANSYSUser'sManual).Thefiniteelementmeshusedintheanalysisisshown inFig.2.

Figure 2: Finiteelementmeshforatypicalcolumnmodel 4.2.3Materialproperties Normalweightconcretewasusedinthefabricatedtestedcolumns.Thestressstraincurveis linearlyelasticuptoabout30%ofthemaximumcompressivestrength.Abovethispoint,the stress increases gradually up to the maximum compressive strength, fcu, after thatthe curve descends into softening region, and eventually crushing failureoccurs at anultimate strain. The inputdata forthe concrete, GFRP,and steel (high gradeand mildsteel) properties are showninTable2 Table 2: Inputdatafortheconcrete,GFRP,andsteel(mainsteelandstirrups)properties Concrete
3 UnitweightN/mm

GFRP 2.54e5 460 4.4e4 0.20

Steel(main reinf.) 7.85e5 415 2.5e5 0.30

Steel (stirrups) 7.85e5 240 2.5e5 0.30

2.4e5 25,30,and35 1.8,2.20,2.50 2.2e4,2.4e4,2.6e4 0.20 9.16e3,10e3,10.8e3

Ultimate compressive 2 strengthN/mm

2 TensilestrengthN/mm

ElasticmodulusN/mm Poisson ratio

2 ShearmodulusN/mm

712

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

4.2.4Loadingandnonlinearsolution Theanalyticalinvestigationcarriedouthereisconductedon10RCcolumnsallcolumnsare raisedinverticalposition withbyverticalloadontopsurface.Ataplaneofsupportlocation, the degrees of freedom for all the nodes of the solid65 elements were held at zero. In nonlinearanalysis,theloadappliedtoafiniteelementmodelisdividedintoaseriesofload incrementscalledloadstep.Atthecompletionofeachloadincrement,thestiffnessmatrixof the model is adjusted to reflect the nonlinear changes in the structural stiffness before proceeding to the next load increment. The ANSYS program uses NewtonRaphson equilibriumiterationsforupdatingthemodelstiffness.Forthenonlinearanalysis,automatic stepping in ANSYS program predicts and controls load step size. The maximum and minimumloadstepsizesarerequiredfortheautomatictimestepping. Thesimplifiedstressstraincurveforcolumnmodelisconstructedfromsixpointsconnected bystraightlines.Thecurvestartsatzerostressandstrain.PointNo.1,at0.3 fc iscalculated forthestressstrainrelationshipoftheconcreteinthelinearrange.PointNos.2,3and4are obtainedfromEquation(1),inwhich e0 iscalculatedfromEquation(2).PointNo.5isat e0 andfc.Inthisstudy,anassumptionwasmadeofperfectlyplasticbehaviorafterPointNo.5 (Williametal.1975,and Meisam2009).
f = E e c
2

(1)

e 1+ e o 2 f/ eo = c E c

(2)

f (3) e Fig.3showsthesimplifiedcompressiveaxialstressstrainrelationshipthatwasusedinthis study E c =

Figure 3:Simplifiedcompressiveaxialstressstraincurveforconcrete

713

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

5.InelasticAnalysisResultsandDiscussion The parametric studies included in this investigation are the main reinforcement ratios and types, the transverse reinforcement ratios, and the characteristic strength of concrete, respectively. Table 3 shows the analytically results of the ultimate loads, deformations and compressivestressofconcrete,respectively. Table 3: Theoreticalresultsoftestedcolumnsspecimens group No. 1 col. No. C1 C2 C3 2 3 C4 C5 C6 4 C7 C8 5 C9 C10 5.1Experimentalvalidation The validity of the proposed analytical model is checked through extensive comparisons betweenanalyticalandexperimentalresultsofRCcolumnsundercompressionload. Fig.4showsthetheoreticalandexperimentalloaddeformationcurveoftestedcolumnsfrom C1toC8. The theoretical results from Finite Element Analysis showed in general a good agreement withtheexperimentalvalues fcu (N/mm 2 ) 25 25 25 25 30 35 25 25 25 25 Concretestress 2 N/mm 18 20.5 21.1 22.2 26.4 32 21.5 22.27 21.1 21.8 Pu (KN) 790 900 935 970 940 1185 870 955 925 962 Def.(mm) 0.72 0.79 0.83 0.88 0.78 0.92 0.82 0.85 0.83 0.86

714

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle
1200.00

ISSN 0976 4399

1200

1000.00

1000

800.00

800 Load(KN)

Load(KN)

600.00

600

C2
400

400.00

Ther. exp.

C1 Ther.
200.00

200

exp.

0
0.00 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Def.(m m )

Def.(m m )
1200

1200

1000

1000

800 Load(KN)
Load(KN)

800

600

600

C3
400

Ther. exp.

400

200

200

C4 Ther. exp.

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Def.(m m )

1200

0 0 0.2 0.4 De f.(m m ) 0.6 0.8 1

1200.00

1000

1000.00

Load(KN)

L o ad(K N)

800

800.00

600.00

600

400.00
400

C5 Ther.

C6 Ther. exp.

200.00

200

exp.

0.00 0.00
0 0 0.2 0.4 De f.(m m ) 0.6 0.8 1

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

De f.(m m )

1200

1200

1000

1000

800
Load(KN)

800

Load(KN)

600

600

400

C7 Ther.

400

C8 Ther. exp.

200

exp.

200

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Def.(m m )

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

De f.(m m )

Figure 4:Thetheoreticalandexperimentalloaddeformationcurve oftestedcolumnsfromC1toC8

715

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

5.2Themainreinforcementratios Fig. 5 shows the theoretical loaddeformation of columns C1, C2, C9, C3 and C10 which reinforced by GFRP reinforcement 4#12mm, 6#12mm, 4#16mm, 8#12mm and 4#18mm (0.723, 1.08, 1,286, 1.45 and 1.628 %) respectively increasing GFRP reinforcement ratio leadstoincreasethetoughnessandductility oftestedcolumns. FromTable3,itcanbeseenthat,ultimateloads,andultimatestrainC2,C9,C3andC10to C1are(114,117,118&122%),and(109,115,115&119%)respectively. The increasing of main reinforcementratios with GFRP bars increase the ductility of cross section, so it has a significant effectonultimate strain, andultimate loads that the columns resist. Fig.6showstheeffectofthemainreinforcementratiosontheultimateloadthatthecolumns resists, where the increasing of main reinforcement ratios from 0.723 to 1.2% has a significanteffectonultimateloadsmorethanratiofrom 1.2 to 1.62%.
1200.00

1.4

1000.00

1.2
800.00 C1 600.00 C2 C3 C9 400.00 C10

P u /P u re f

Load(KN)

0.8

200.00

0.00 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Def.(m m )

0.6 0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

Reinforcem entratio(%)

Figure 5:LoaddeformationofC1,C2,C9,C3 andC10 5.3Themainreinforcementtypes

Figure 6:UltimateLoadofC2,C9,C3and C10toC1andmainreinforcementratio

Fig. 7 shows the loaddeformation of columns C1 and C4 which reinforced by GFRP and steel reinforcement with 4#12mm (0.723%) tested column with steel reinforcement has ductilitymorethancolumnwithGFRPreinforcement. FromTable3,itcanbeseenthat,ultimateload,andultimatestrainofC4toC1is122.7and 122.2%respectively. Usingsteelasmainreinforcementhasasignificanteffectontheultimatestrain,andultimate loadsthatthecolumnsresist.

716

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle
1200.00

ISSN 0976 4399

1000.00

800.00 Load(KN)

600.00

C1 C4

400.00

200.00

0.00 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Def.(m m )

Figure 7: LoaddeformationofC1andC4 5.4Thetransversereinforcementratios Fig. 8 shows the loaddeformation of columns C1, C7 and C8 increasing of transverse reinforcementratioleadstoincreasethetoughnessandductilityoftestedcolumns. FromTable3,itcanbeseenthat,ultimateloads,andultimatestrainofC7andC8toC1are (110&120%)and(113&118%)respectively. Fig. 9 shows the effect of the transverse reinforcement ratios in the column ends on the ultimateloadthatthecolumnsresists,wheretheincreasingoftransversereinforcementratios has a significant effect on ultimate loads. The increasing of transverse reinforcement ratios confinesthecolumnssoitisleadtoincreasetheultimateloadsandincreasingultimatestrain. As the increasing of transverse reinforcement ratio leads to increase the toughness and ductilityoftestedcolumnswithGFRP,soitwillbecomparedwithtestedcolumnwithsteel reinforcement and normal stirrups distribution. It can be seen that, ultimate loads, and ultimate strain of C4, C7 and C8 to C1 are (122, 110 &120 %), and (122, 113&118 %) respectively Fig.10showstheloaddeformationofcolumnsC1,C7,C8andC4,theincreasingofstirrups withcolumnsreinforcedbyGFRPincreasethetoughnessandductilityofcolumnsmorethan usingsteelbarswithnormalstirrupsdistribution,thebehaviorofcolumnwithsteelbarsC4 generatebetweenthebehaviorsofC7andC8.

717

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle
1200.00

ISSN 0976 4399

1.25
1000.00

1.2 Pu /Pu ref

800.00 Load(KN)

1.15 1.1 1.05 1 0.95 0.9 StirrupsShape(A) 6mm@120mm

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

600.00

C1 C7 C8

400.00

200.00

StirrupsShape(B) 6mm@60mm transversereinf.

0.00

StirrupsShape(C) 6mm@60mm alongcol.

De f.(m m )

Figure 8: LoaddeformationofC1,C7 andC8

1200.00

Figure 9: UltimateLoadofC1,C7 andC8andtransversereinf.

1000.00

800.00
Load(KN)

600.00

C1 C4 C7

400.00

C8

200.00

0.00 0 0.2 0.4

Def.(mm)

0.6

0.8

Figure 10: LoaddeformationofC1,C4,C7andC8 5.5Thecharacteristiccompressivestrengthofconcrete FromTable3,itcanbeseenthat,ultimateloads,andultimatestrainofC5andC6toC1with 2 (25,30&35N/mm )are(119&150%)and(108&128%)respectively. Fig.11showsthe loaddeformationofcolumnsC1,C5andC6increasingofcharacteristic strengthofconcretehassignificanteffectonthebehavioroftestedcolumnswhereincrease toughnessandductilityoftestedcolumns. Fig.12showstheeffectofthecharacteristicstrengthofconcreteontheultimateloadthatthe columns resists, where the increasing of characteristic strength of concrete has a significant effectonultimateloads.

718

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle
1400.00
1.6

ISSN 0976 4399

1200.00
1.4

1000.00
UltimateLoad(KN)

1.2

Load(KN)

800.00

0.8

C1 600.00 C5 C6 400.00

0.6

0.4

200.00

0.2

0.00 0 0.2 0.4

Def.(mm)

fc u=25N/mm2

fcu=30N/mm2 characteristicS trengthofconcrete

fc u=35N/mm2

0.6

0.8

Figure 11:LoaddeformationofC1,C5,C6 6.Predictedformula

Figure 12: UltimateLoadofC1,C5andC6 andcharacteristicstrengthofconcrete

Unfortunately, there was a lack of data about using FRP as reinforcement the lack of a comprehensivedatabaseonFRPmaterialsmakesitdifficultforthepracticingcivilengineer anddesignertouseFRPcompositesonaroutinebasis.Althoughanumberofreviewshave beenpublishedrecentlyrelatedtodurabilityandtestmethods. The focus of each has been to summarize the state of knowledge in general without emphasizing or attempting to prioritize critical areas in which needs are the greatest for collection,assimilation,anddisseminationofdata(Karbharietal.2003). Differentformulaswereusedtopredictageneralformulatocalculatethemaximumapplied loadfortestedcolumnsreinforcedbyGFRPasmainreinforcementtable(4)showsapplied Load(KN),byusingformulas Table4:AppliedLoad(KN),byusingdifferentformulas
No Col Fcu (KN) Reinf Ratio (%) Exp. 1 Data 2 (ACI318) AppliedLoad(KN) 4 (BS8110)

(Egyptian 3 Code)

FiniteElement 5 (ANSYS)

Predicted formula

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C1 C2 C3 C5 C6 C9 C10

25 25 25 30 35 25 25

0.723 1.08 1.45 0.723 0.723 1.286 1.628

760 870 920 960 1095

758 818 878 884 1011 851 908

686 756 825 796 905 795 860

791 875 958 916 1041 921 999

790 900 935 940 1185 925 962

781 859 937 902 976 906 1031

1ExperimentalResultsoftestedspecimens(Ehab2010)

719

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

2AmericanConcreteInstitute(ACI)Committee318(ACI31808) 3EgyptianCodefordesignandconstructionofconcretestructures(EgyptianCode2001) 4BritishStandardsInstitution(BSI)(BS81101:1997). 5NumericalFiniteElement(ANSYS) Fig.13showstherelationbetweenappliedloadandreinforcementratiobypreviousmethods, and explains also the predicted formula to calculate the maximum applied load for tested columnsreinforcedbyGFRPasmainreinforcement.
1050 1000 950 900 Load(KN) 850 800 Exp. 750 700 650 600 0.5 egyptain ACI BSI ANSYS Predicted 0.7 0.9 1.1 Renf.Ratio 1.3 1.5 1.7

Figure 13: Relationbetweenappliedloadandflexuralreinforcementratio Byusingthepreviousformulatodrawtherelationbetweenthereinforcementratioandthe maximumnormalforcesofthementionedsectionsinthefollowingtable,whichareused,and comparingthoseresultswiththeexperimentalappliedforces.Henceanewgeneralformula waspredictedfromtheexperimentaldata,whichwastheaverageofdata,asfollowing:

N =0. 4fcu A . 75fyA c + 0 s

Where: N=axialloadcapacityofthereinforcedconcretecolumnwithGFRP

fy =YieldstrengthofFRP
Ac=CrosssectionAreaofconcrete Asc=Crosssectionareaormainreinforcement fcu=Ultimatecompressivestrengthoftheconcrete

720

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

7.Summary andConclusions Theinelasticbehaviorof10columnsareinvestigatedinthecurrentstudyundertheeffectof increasingloadingemployingtheinelasticFEanalysisprogramANSYS.Severalparameters are investigated including the main reinforcement ratios, the main reinforcement types, the transversereinforcementratios,andthecharacteristicstrengthofconcrete.Thestudyfocuses ontheconsequencesoftheinvestigatedparametersonthedeformationandultimateresisting load.Theconclusionsmadefromthisinvestigationare: The theoretical results from Finite Element Analysis showed in general a good agreementwiththeexperimentalvalues IncreasingGFRPreinforcementratioleadstoincreasethetoughnessandductilityof testedcolumns. Increasing GFRPreinforcementratiohasasignificanteffectonultimateloads. IncreasingGFRP reinforcement ratio from0.723to1.2% has a significant effect on ultimateloadsmorethanratiofrom 1.2to 1.628% Tested column with steel reinforcement has ductility more than column with GFRP reinforcement. Increasing of transverse reinforcement ratios in columns reinforced by GFRP bars increase the toughness and ductility of columns more than using steel bars with normalstirrupsdistribution. Increasingofcharacteristicstrengthofconcretehassignificanteffectonthebehavior oftestedcolumnsreinforcedbyGFRPbarswhereitincreasestoughnessandductility oftestedcolumns. A new general formula was predicted from the experimental data, which was the averageofdata,asfollowing

N =0. 4fcu A . 75fyA c + 0 s

Where: N=axialloadcapacityofthereinforcedconcretecolumnwithGFRP

fy =YieldstrengthofFRP
Ac=CrosssectionAreaofconcrete Asc=Crosssectionareaormainreinforcement fcu=Ultimatecompressivestrengthoftheconcrete 8.References 1. V.M.Karbhari1,J.W.Chin,D.Hunston,B.Benmokrane,T.Juska,R.Morgan,J.J. Lesko7, U. Sorathia, and D. Reynaud, (2003) "Durability Gap Analysis for Fiber ReinforcedPolymerCompositesinCivilInfrastructure",ASCE,August,238247pp. 2. Nicholas M., Rajan S. (2003) The Fatigue of FiberReinforced Polymer Composite Structures StateoftheArt Review Civil & Environmental Engineering, USF CollegeofEngineering. 721

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN 0976 4399

3. Halcrow W. and Partners Ltd London, England (1996) FRP Concrete Structures Advanced Composite Materials In Bridges and Structures M.M. BBadry, Editor CanadianSocietyforCivil Engineering,Montreal,Quebec. 4. OU J. and LI H., (2003) "Recent Advances of Structural Health Monitoring in Mainland China The National HiTech Research and Development Program (HTRDP),andpracticalengineeringprojects. 5. ELSalakawy E. F., Kassem C., and Benmokrane B., (2003) "Construction, Testing and Monitoring of FRP Reinforced Concrete Bridges In North America" NSERC Chair, ISIS Canada, Department of Civil Engineering, Universit de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke,Qubec,CanadaJ1K2R1. 6. ACI Committee 440, (2006) Guide for the design and construction of structural concrete reinforced with FRP bars, ACI 440.1R06, American Concrete Institute, FarmingtonHills,MI. 7. Ching Chiaw Choo, Issam E. Harik, and Hans Gesund (2006) Minimum ReinforcementRatioforFiberReinforcedPolymerReinforcedConcreteRectangular ColumnsACIStructuralJournal/MayJune,460466pp 8. Zienkiewics,D.C.,(1967)"ThefiniteElementMethodinStructuralandContinuum Mechanics",McGrawHill,London. 9. ANSYSUser'sManual,SwansonAnalysisSystems,Inc 10. William, K.J.and E.D. Warnke(1975)Constitutive modelfor the triaxial behavior of concrete. Proceedings of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. 11. Meisam Safari Gorji (2009) Analysis of FRP Strengthened Reinforced Concrete BeamsUsingEnergyVariationMethodWorldAppliedSciencesJournal6(1):105 111. 12. V.M.Karbhari,J.W.Chin,D.Hunston,B.Benmokrane,T.Juska,R.Morgan,J.J. Lesko, U. Sorathia, and D. Reynaud, (2003) "Durability Gap Analysis for Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites in Civil Infrastructure" Journal of Composites for Construction,ASCEAugust,238247pp 13. Ehab M. Lotfy, (2010) Behavior of reinforced concrete short columns with Fiber Reinforcedpolymers bars International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume1,No3, pp 545557 14. American Concrete Institute, (2008) Building code requirements for structural concrete,ACI31808,ACI,FarmingtonHills,MI. 15. EgyptianCodefordesignandconstructionofconcretestructures,codeno203,2001 16. BritishStandardsInstitution(BSI),(2002)Structuraluseofconcrete.Part1:Code ofpracticefordesignandconstruction.BS81101:1997,London.

722