Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: A new type of rectangular glued laminated bamboo (glubam) beam had adopted in the world
first truck-safe modern bamboo bridge in Leiyang, Hunan, by the authors. The glubam beams can further be
enhanced by FRP. This paper analyzes the effect of some parameters, such as FRP thickness, span-depth ratio,
strengthen measures, types of node on bending properties. The basic mechanical model is established to pre-
dict the failure. Through the experimental work, the flexural stiffness and ultimate load of FRP reinforced
beams are compared with those of unreinforced beams. The result show that the analytical model can forecast
the flexural behavior of FRP reinforced glubam beams well.
There were two groups of glubam beam, and first 3.2 Analysis of experimental results
group had 11 non-reinforced specimens and 2 FRP 3.2.1 Results of 3.5m span beam tests
reinforced specimens. All of those were produced by Ultimate strength of 3.5m span beam calculated
researched in laboratory under 25 centigrade, while from formula (1) and (2) was 360KN, and that of B1
heaters were employed to stabilify the temperature. was 340kN which was close to the theoretical value.
FRP reinforced beams were tested about one month Finger-zone prematurely approached to failure in
after they cohered. The specimens design was de- tension, resulting in the compression zone of bam-
veloped referring to the code ASTM D3737-03, boo quickly reached the limits of strain.
ASTM D7199-07, ASTM D7341-08 and GB/T
50329-2002.
There were some assumptions in experiments: 1)
the cross-section of girder remain plane after bend-
ing, 2) the adhesive layer between FRP and bamboo
was linear-elastic body, without regard to its thick- Figure 1. Experiment equipments
Table3. Test results of 3.5m-span beams. force in compressive zone led to the crush of bam-
Joint- Initial Ulti- boo beam and specimen damage quickly and this
Bolt
length
Reinforcement
FRP stiffness mate behavior belongs to brittle failure. In the other hand,
(mm) (kN/mm) load the experiment data of 30mm finger-joint beam B7
B1 20 7.556 390 and B8 surpassed theoretical values by 26.98% -
B2 30 - - 7.096 260
B3 20 - 6.189 237.86 27.18% of initial stiffness and 16.1% - 28.53% of ul-
timate load.
Joint effect factor J was took into calculation, and
revision formula was showed below: Table 4. Test results of 4.5m-span beams
Bolt Initial Ultimate
Joint- length
PJ Pmax J (3) (mm)
Reinforce- FRP stiffness load
ment (kN/mm) kN
where J = 0.75 when there is two finger-area overlap B4 30 - 8.791 222.5
in bending zone, else J = 1 when other conditions. B5 20 - 6.220 168.5
The theoretical result of B2 multiplied 0.75 is 270, B6 30 - 4.722 242.5
B7 30 - 9.113 298.54
close to test result. Moreover, bearing capacity of B3 B8 30 - 9.128 330.5
was close to B2, but 20mm finger-joint lead to de- B9 20 7.556 195
flection increased quickly after cracking. However,
it presented good ductility when the specimen stiff- Through comparison of specimens, it could be seen
ness decreased gradually. that ductility of glubam beams of 30mm finger-joint
In addition, initial stiffness of B1 was was better than 20 mm finger-joint. In addition, the
7.556KN/mm, higher than other two beams, due to ductility of B5 was not poor but its bearing ability
the strengthening of FRP. As the cracks increasing, was worse than others and it destructed too early in
FRP reached the strain limit. When load reached the experiment, which attributed to short length of
340KN, a sudden failure occurred. The effect of FRP joint. B4, B6, B7, B8, with 30mm length joint, put
reinforcement was not obvious for capacity, but it out fine ductility, even better than the FRP rein-
could significantly improve the specimen stiffness. forced B9, and possessed higher ultimate load. Al-
B2, with 7.096KN/mm initial stiffness, implied that though joint-finger cracked early in B6, the crack
30mm length finger-joint performance was better exploded for a long time until it was crushed. To
than 20mm, also the cracks developed slower than sum up, all of above implied that longer finger-joint
B1, obviously. However, with no bolts to strengthen performed better ductility in the bending condition.
nodes, resistant ability to shear between sheets ex-
tremely decreased, and a sharp increase turned up in 3.2.3 Results of 4m span beam tests
the deflection. As a result, after the specimen had It is can be seen from the experiments that each of
been loaded exceed 200kN, stiffness was declining tested initial stiffness was similar to calculated re-
as the finger-joint cracks expanding. Finally when sults. In addition, as there was no joint-fault over-
the load reached 260KN, the cracks at the bottom lapped in this group of beams, we only took the fin-
suddenly expanded near the vicinity of the neutral ger length into consider. Then, the initial stiffness
axis. After that the specimen broke and the experi- and carrying ability of 30 mm beams exceeded
ment ended. The initial stiffness of B3 was 6.189, 20mm beams by 3.72%-9.96% and 60.4%-42%, re-
lowest in this group. spectively. Moreover, those of FRP reinforced
glubam beams surpassed non-reinforced by about
3.2.2 Results of 4.5m span beam tests 10% and 42%. Obviously, members which did not
Calculated load carrying capacity of 4.5 m clear reinforced with bolt and FRP had poor characteris-
span beam was 257.1kN. Because finger-zone ex- tics, extremely inappropriate to be adopted in prac-
isted in B4 and B6, their capacity reduced to tice and design, since their abilities were poorer than
192.9kN according to equation (1)(3). Initial stiff- others.
ness, damage loads and mid-span deflection of each
specimen's are listed in table 2. Specimens B5 and Table 5. Test results of 4 m-span beams
B9 were the counterpart testing cases with the main Bolt
difference being the existence of FRP reinforcement Joint- Initial Ultimate
Rein- FRP rein-
length stiffness load
in B9. As a result, initial stiffness of B9 exceeded (mm)
force- forcement
(kN/mm) kN
21.5% over B5 and 15.7% of ultimate load. Obvi- ment
ously, FRP played a significant role in improving the B10 20 - 10.462 212
B11 20 - 10.462 239.5
stiffness and slowing the destruction. B12 30 - 11.504 340
B5 held the lowest initial stiffness and load carry- B13 30 - - 10.851 170.5
ing ability due to short finger-joint. Moreover, De-
spite of FRP reinforcement enhanced the joint
strength in B9, stress-concentration subject to large
3.2.4 Small cross-section beam through the preliminary examination of the testing
A four point load method, was used to test speci- results.
mens. The clear distance between the edges of the Longer finger-length and bolt reinforcements con-
bearing plate and the nearest loading point was tributed to increase of the initial stiffness, load car-
about one-third of the length of beam, equal to those rying capacity and deformability of glubam beams.
between load points. Moreover at least a lateral sup- Through the analysis on FRP reinforced glubam
port located at space between the reaction and the beam, it was found that FRP reinforcement could ef-
load point. fectively improve the specimen stiffness. Appropri-
Deflectometers fixed at the position of load points, ate FRP thickness should be chosen while enhancing
reactions and mid-span, where five strain gauges lo- the load carrying capacity of glubam beam, in order
cated throughout the depth. All the measured data to avoid over-reinforcement.
were record simultaneously by the static strain Since different batches of specimens were pro-
measurement system. duced in different period and the process and gluing
Some parameters of small beams were listed in environment is not the same, resulting in their vari-
Table 6, such as cross-section dimension, span, rein- ous characteristics in bending, it is advised that the
forcement-rate and so on. Through Comparison with same process and quality control means should be
three types of beams, the quantitative reinforce ef- applied to ensure uniform performance in structure.
fects of FRP was obtained accurately. The results Due to the presence of finger-zone which may re-
showed that load carrying ability of FRP reinforced duce the load bearing capacity of glubam beams, the
beams were higher than non-reinforced beams with a joint effect factor J was adopted in the calculation of
range from 2.95%- 28.77%, and larger thickness re- load bearing capacity of components. However,
sulted in more increase of ultimate load. Further more studies are required to improve the accuracy of
tests are still underway in this testing series. prediction. Therefore, more researches and studies
are needed to be done in order to improve the factor
Table 6. Test results of small volume beams of J in future.
Cross-section Rein-
Beam dimen- Span / force- typ Fmax
number sion(mm mm ment e /kN PREFERENCES
mm) rate/ %
S1, 2, 3 56112 2016 27.12 Moody, R.; Falk, R.; and Williamson, T. (1990), Strength of
S4,S5 56112 2016 H* 13.95
S6 56112 2016 0.1 28 Glulam Beams Volume Effects, Sugiyama, H. ed. Pro-
S7 56112 2016 0.5 32 ceedings of the 1990 International Timber Engineering
S8,9,10 84160 2240 73 Conference, October 23-25, Tokyo, pp.176-182. Vol. 1.
S11S12 84160 2240 H* 28.5 Xiao, Y.; Inoue, M.; and Paudel S., Modern Bamboo Struc-
S13 84160 2240 0.21 74 tures: Proceedings of first international conference on mod-
S14 84160 2240 0.35 78
S15 84160 2240 0.69 94 ern bamboo structures, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis,
* Load is perpendicular to the plane of bamboo sheet London, 2008. ISBN-13: 9780415475976 (hbk),
9780203888926(ebook), 299p.
Xiao, Y.; Shan, B.; Chen, G.; Zhou, Q.; and She, L.Y. (2008),
Development of A New Type of Glulam GluBam,
Modern Bamboo Structures, Xiao et al. edited, CRC Press,
UK, 299p.
Zhou, Q.; Shan, B.; and Xiao, Y. 2007. Design and Construc-
tion of a Modern Bamboo Pedestrian Bridge. Proceedings
of the International Conference on Modern Bamboo Struc-
tures. ICBS-2007. Changsha. China. Oct. 28-30.
Xiao, Y.; Zhou, Q.; and Shan, B., Design and Construction of
Modern Bamboo Bridges, ASCE Journal of Bridge Engi-
neering, (in press)
Yang, Huifeng; Liu, Weiqing (2008), Study on flexural behav-
ior of FRP reinforced glulam beams. Journal of Building
Figure 2. Load-deflection curve of small volume beam.
Structures. 64-71. Vol.28.1.
Liu, Weiqing; Yang, Huifeng(2008), Experimental study on
flexural behavior of engineered wood beams. Journal of
4 CONCLUSION
Building Structures. 90-95. Vol.29.1.
Loading tests were conducted on glue-laminated
bamboo (GluBam) beams with or without CFRP
strengthening. Some observations can be made