CONTENTS OF PRESENTATION

S.NO CONTENTS

1. WHY STRENGTHENING A CONSTANT GROWING NEED?

2. FIBER REINFORCED POLYMERS(FRP)- A SOLUTION

3. TEXTILE REINFORCED MORTAR (TRM)- BEST ALTERNATIVE

4. EFFECTIVENESS OF TRM

5. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

6. METHODOLOGY

7. FAILURE MODES

8. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

9. TIMELINE
 WHY STRENGTHENING A
CONSTANT GROWING NEED??
Strengthening of existing reinforced concrete (RC)
structures is a constantly growing need because of
many factors like :
• Aging
• Environmental induced degradation
• Lack of maintenance
• Need for upgrading to meet the current design
requirements.
• Building code requirement.
• Changes in the mode of usage
• Corrosion of steel reinforcement.
• [Zoi C. Tetta, Lampros N. Koutas, Dionysios A.
Bournas (2015)]
 FRP (FIBER REINFORCED
POLYMERS) AS AN
INTRODUCTORY TECHNIQUE FOR
STRENGTHENING
• Very popular over last two decades as externally
bonded reinforcement
• But has few drawbacks mainly associated with the
use of epoxy resins, namely:
 High cost
 Hazardous for workers
 Poor performance in high temperatures
 De-bonding of FRP from concrete strata
 Inability to apply on wet surfaces. [T.C. Triantafillou,
2006],[D.Bournas,2007],[Lluis Gil,2014],[Zoi C.
Tetta,2015]
TRM(TEXTILE REINFORCED
MORTAR) AS A PROMISING
ALTERNATIVE TO FRP.
• Many efforts were made following the studies of
Triantafillou and Khalifa et al. to improve the
strengthening technique.

• Therefore, a novel composite material was introduced,

namely Textile-Reinforced Mortar (TRM).
Hence, many recent studies and researches
have shown that TRM is a very promising
alternative to the FRP strengthening of RC
beams.
[T.C. Triantafillou,2006;2009;2011],
[C. Pellegrino, 2013]
EFFECTIVENESS OF
TRM
• The ductile behavior after matrix cracking.[S.Rakhshani
2013, dai J.G 2009]
• Increased load carrying capacity and serviceability.
[S.Rakhshani 2013],[lepenies 2008], [si larbi amir,2010]
• Reduced manufacturing cost with improved mechanical
properties. [U.Haussler-Combe 2003]
• Increased compressive strength. [Triantafillou, 2005]
• Better crack resistance. [Lepenies,2008]
• It shows better performance at high temperature and during
fire. [Antons, 2012]
• Increased shear resistance [AL. Salloum, 2012]
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
OBJECTIVE :
To conduct the experimental investigation of the behaviour of
RC beams, both strengthened and unstrengthened with TRM
strips, under four point bending.
SCOPE:
• To experimentally investigate effectiveness of TRM in
flexural strengthening of RC beams.
• To determine the effective development length of TRM
strips use in flexure strengthening of RC beam.
• To find the effectiveness of end anchorage in flexural
members.
METHODOLOGY
 LITERATURE REVIEW

UNDERSTANDING OF SCOPE AND

OBJECTIVE

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

TESTING OF THE BEAMS

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

REPORT WRITING
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
• Casting of total six beams.
• One will be the control beam.
• All beams will have shear span to depth ratio (a/d)
4.28.
• Strips provided in all beams, except control beam.
• Strip sizes to be varied in 4 beams.
• With an increased distance of 152.4 mm (6″) from
both sides, keeping a gap of 50.8 mm (2″) from the
supports.
• Last beam will be provided with strip at full length with
an end anchorage of 304.8 mm (12″) on both sides.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
TOTAL NO OF NO OF BEAMS WITH BEAM WITH FLEXURAL STRIP AT
BEAMS CONTROL VARYING FULL LENGTH AND ANCHORAGE
BEAMS FLEXURAL AT ENDS
STRIP LENGTHS
6 1 4 1

SPECIFICATIONS OF TRM BEAMS

SPECIFICATIONS TRM 5-8 TRM 4-8 TRM 3-8 TRM 2-8
• TOTAL 1.82 m (6′) 1.82 m (6′) 1.82 m (6′) 1.82 m (6′)
LENGTH
• CROSS 152.4 mm x 152.4 mm x 152.4 mm x 152.4 mm x
SECTION 203.2 mm 203.2 mm 203.2 mm 203.2 mm
(6″x8″) (6″x8″) (6″x8″) (6″x8″)
• DISTANCE 50.8 mm (2″) 203.2 mm (8″) 0.3556 m (1′- 0.508 m (1′-
FROM 2″) 8″)
SUPPORTS
• LENGTH OF 1.7272 m (5′- 1.4224 m (4′- 1.1176 m (3′- 0.8128 m (2′-
THE STRIP 8″) 8″) 8″) 8″)
 SCHEMATIC OF BEAMS (GENERAL)

2#4 bars

#3 @ 3″ c|c #3 @ 3″ c|c

X L-2a= 12″ X
TRM STRIP
a
L

SPECIFICATIONS TRM 5-8 TRM 4-8 TRM 3-8 TRM 2-8

L 1.8288 m (6′) 1.8288 m (6′) 1.8288 m (6′) 1.8288 m (6′)
a 0.762 m (2′-6″) 0.762 m (2′-6″) 0.762 m (2′-6″) 0.762 m (2′-6″)
X 0.711 m (2′-4″) 0.558 m (1′-10″) 0.406 m (1′-4″) 0.254 m (10″)
FAILURE MODES AND
LOAD DEFLECTION
CURVES
CONTROL BEAM

The first crack appeared at 15.2

kN. These cracks propagated to
compression zone resulting in
flexural failure. Failure mode was
ductile

The curve shows that the control

beam reaches its yielding point at
load 48 kN, and then the beam fails
at the ultimate load of 51.125 kN.
Failure mode was brittle.
TRM 5-8

The first crack appeared at 24 kN.

These cracks propagated to
compression zone resulting in
flexural failure. Failure mode was
ductile.

The curve shows that the control

beam reaches its yielding point at
load 52 kN, and then the beam fails
at the ultimate load of 57.7 kN.
TRM 4-8

The first crack appeared at 16.7 kN.

These cracks propagated to
compression zone resulting in
flexural failure. Failure mode was
ductile.

The curve shows that the control

beam reaches its yielding point at
load 60 kN, and then the beam fails
at the ultimate load of 61.75 kN.
TRM 3-8

The first crack appeared at 27.7 kN.

These cracks propagated to
compression zone resulting in
flexural failure. Failure mode was
ductile.

The curve shows that the control

beam reaches its yielding point at
load 48 kN, and then the beam fails
at the ultimate load of 51.86 kN.
TRM 2-8

The first crack appeared at 20.5

kN. These cracks propagated to
compression zone resulting in
flexural failure. Failure mode was
ductile.

The curve shows that the control

beam reaches its yielding point at
load 48 kN, and then the beam fails
at the ultimate load of 51.13 kN.
ANCHORAGE BEAM

The first crack appeared at 13.7

kN. These cracks propagated to
compression zone resulting in
flexural failure. Failure mode was
ductile.

The curve shows that the control

beam reaches its yielding point at
load 50 kN, and then the beam fails
at the ultimate load of 56 kN.
RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS
 COMPARISON CHART

S.NO BEAM STRIP MAXIMUM LOAD FAILURE LOAD FAILURE

PROFILE LENGTH BEFORE YIELDING (KN) MODE
(KN) [EXPERIMENTAL]
[EXPERIMENTAL]
1 Control beam None 48 51.5 Flexure
2 TRM 5-8 1.72 m (5′-8″) 52 57.7 Flexure
3 TRM 4-8 1.42 m (4′-8″) 56 58.4 Flexure
4 TRM 3-8 1.11 m (3′-8″) 48 51.23 Flexure
5 TRM 2-8 0.81 m (2′-8″) 42.95 49.46 Flexure
6 Anchorage 1.72 m (5′-8″) 48 55.4 Flexure
beam
LOAD DEFLECTION CURVES OF ALL
BEAMS
70

60

50

CONTROL BEAM
40
Load (kN)

TRM 2-8

30 TRM 3-8

TRM 4-8
20
TRM 5-8

10 ANCHORAGE BEAM

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection (mm)
CONCLUSIONS
• The failure mode of TRM wrapped beams was independent of the strip length.
• Ductility enhanced considerably.
• No de-bonding of TRM strips observed.
• Provision of anchorage did not show any considerable results.

RECOMMENDATIONS
• Beams should be tested for different a/d (shear span to depth) ratios.
• Beams tested at large scale may give different results.
• TRM should be use for strengthening purpose.
• TRM could be used for tension cracks control also.
TIMELINE
SUBMISSION
OF FINAL
DRAFT
12/1/2016
FINAL
MID-TERM PRESENTA
PRESENTATION TION
5/18/2016 12/21/2016

2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016
Today

Literature Review 1/15/2016 - 4/12/2016

Experimental Design 3/22/2016 - 5/10/2016
Exams 4/18/2016 - 5/6/2016
Batching 5/9/2016 - 5/16/2016
Casting 5/20/2016 - 5/22/2016
Curing 6/22/2016 - 7/18/2016
Testing 7/25/2016 - 10/10/2016
Analysis & Result 10/11/2016 - 10/18/2016
First Draft 11/4/2016
Exams 11/7/2016 - 11/29/2016
Final Draft 12/1/2016
Report Writing 2/16/2016 - 10/28/2016