Sie sind auf Seite 1von 214

BEHAVIOUR

OF GFRPREINFORCED CONCRETE
COLUMNS UNDER COMBINED AXIAL LOAD AND
FLEXURE

by

Arjang Tavassoli

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements


for the degree of Masters of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto

Copyright by Arjang Tavassoli (2013)

Behaviour of GFRP-reinforced concrete columns


under combined axial load and flexure
Arjang Tavassoli
Masters of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
2013

ABSTRACT
This study presents experimental results from nine large-scale circular concrete columns
reinforced with longitudinal and transverse glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. These
specimens were tested under lateral cyclic quasi-static loading while simultaneously subjected
to constant axial load. Based on the measured hysteretic loops of moment vs. curvature and
shear vs. tip deflection relationships, a series of parameters related to ductility and flexural
strength are used to evaluate the seismic behavior of each column. The results showed that
concrete columns reinforced with GFRP bars have stable post-peak branches and can achieve
very high levels of deformability. Longitudinal GFRP bars maintained their stiffness at high
strains and transverse GFRP spirals provided increasing confinement for the entire duration of
the test without any spiral damage. The tests showed that, as an innovative material with
excellent corrosion resistance GFRP bars can be successfully used as internal reinforcement in
ductile concrete columns.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research project has come together thanks to the help from both individuals at the
University of Toronto and members of my family. First and foremost, I would like to express
my sincere gratitude to Professor Shamim A. Sheikh for his support and guidance throughout
this project and on completing this thesis.
I am pleased to be a part of Professor Sheikhs knowledgeable structural research group at the
University of Toronto and would like to thank the members of the group (Dr. Jingtao Liu, David
Johnson, Dr. Michael Colalillo, Douglas Getzlaf, Lisa Vint, Alireza Khavaran and Zahra
Kharal) who helped me with different stages of this project. Special thanks are due to Jingtao
Liu for his presence and assistance on both theoretical and experimental portions of the project
and to David Johnson who I have learnt a lot from over the last four years. I acknowledge the
help I received from Trevor Hrynyk and David Ruggerio during the course of this project. I
would also like to thank the undergraduate students (Kanwar Johal, Edvard Bruun and Max Ho)
who helped me in the construction phase of the project.
The outcome of this research would not have been possible without the help of the technical
staff of the structural laboratory and machine shop. I would like to express my appreciation to
Renzo Basset, Giovanni Buzzeo, John MacDonald, Xiaming Sun, Bryant Cook, Michel Fiss,
Bob Manson and Alan McClenaghan.
Lastly, and most importantly, I wish to thank my parents for sacrificing their life to assure a
bright future for their children. I would also like to thank my brother Arsalan, who has always
been there for me, during both high and low points in my life.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... III
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ IV
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................VII
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. VIII
NOTATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ XIII
1.

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

2.

GENERAL .........................................................................................................................................1
PROBLEM .........................................................................................................................................3
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................5
THESIS ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................................................6

LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................7


2.1 STEEL-REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS ......................................................................................7
2.1.1 Ductility parameters ...............................................................................................................7
2.1.2 Effect of axial load .................................................................................................................8
2.1.3 Effect of transverse reinforcement ratio .................................................................................8
2.1.4 Effect of concrete strength ......................................................................................................9
2.2 GFRP-REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS ....................................................................................13
2.2.1 General .................................................................................................................................13
2.2.2 Tobbi 2012 ............................................................................................................................15
2.2.3 De Luca 2010 .......................................................................................................................17
2.2.4 Choo 2006 ............................................................................................................................18
2.2.5 Alsayed 1999 ........................................................................................................................21
2.3 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING STRUCTURES WITH FIBRE-REINFORCED POLYMERS
(CSA-S806) ...........................................................................................................................................23
2.3.1 CSA-S806-02 ........................................................................................................................23
2.3.2 CSA-S806-12 ........................................................................................................................24

3.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ....................................................................................................26


3.1 GENERAL .......................................................................................................................................26
3.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES .................................................................................................................27
3.2.1 Concrete ...............................................................................................................................27
3.2.2 Patching Material.................................................................................................................29
3.2.3 Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer ..........................................................................................30
3.2.4 GFRP and CFRP sheets .......................................................................................................34
3.2.5 Steel reinforcement ...............................................................................................................34
3.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCESS ..............................................................................................................35
3.3.1 Stub formwork ......................................................................................................................35
3.3.2 Stub cages .............................................................................................................................35

iv

3.3.3 Column cages .......................................................................................................................36


3.3.4 Anchors placement ..............................................................................................................37
3.3.5 Column formwork .................................................................................................................37
3.3.6 Concrete casting ...................................................................................................................39
3.3.7 Column repair ......................................................................................................................40
3.3.8 FRP wrapping ......................................................................................................................42
3.4 INSTRUMENTATION .......................................................................................................................43
3.4.1 Strain gauges ........................................................................................................................43
3.4.2 Linear variable differential transformers (LVDT) ...............................................................45
3.4.3 Light emitting diode (LED) targets ......................................................................................46
3.5 TEST SPECIMENS............................................................................................................................48
3.6 TESTING.........................................................................................................................................52
3.6.1 Test set up .............................................................................................................................52
3.6.2 Test procedure ......................................................................................................................53
4.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................57


4.1 COUPON TEST RESULTS ON GFRP BARS........................................................................................57
4.2 ANALYTICAL CALCULATIONS ON UNCONFINED COLUMNS ...........................................................63
4.3 TEST OBSERVATIONS .....................................................................................................................70
4.4 TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................82
4.4.1 Shear vs. tip deflection .............................................................................................................82
4.4.2 Moment vs. curvature ...............................................................................................................89
4.4.3 Spiral strains ............................................................................................................................95
4.4.4 Deflected shape ........................................................................................................................97
4.5 DUCTILITY PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................103
4.6 MOST DAMAGED SECTION ...........................................................................................................108
4.7 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................109
4.7.1 Bar buckling ...........................................................................................................................109
4.7.2 Effect of axial load..................................................................................................................111
4.7.3 Type of GFRP .........................................................................................................................114
4.7.4 Effect of amount of transverse reinforcement, spiral spacing and size ..................................117
4.7.5 Comparison with steel-reinforced columns ............................................................................128

5.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................136


5.1 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................136
5.2 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................137
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK....................................................................................138

6.

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................140

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................144
APPENDIX A .........................................................................................................................................145
Glass transition temperature ...........................................................................................................145
APPENDIX B .........................................................................................................................................148
Stub Formwork Design ....................................................................................................................148
APPENDIX C .........................................................................................................................................154
Bar type B tension coupon test summary ....................................................................................154

Bar type C tension coupon test summary ....................................................................................161


Bar type B compression coupon test summary ...........................................................................167
Bar type C compression coupon test summary ...........................................................................173
APPENDIX D .........................................................................................................................................177
Test Results (P-).............................................................................................................................177
Test Results (M-) ...........................................................................................................................182
APPENDIX E .........................................................................................................................................187
Strain variation in the spiral ...........................................................................................................187
APPENDIX F..........................................................................................................................................196
Calculation of Ductility Parameters ( , , , N, W)..........................................................196

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Steel-reinforced column database .............................................................................................11
Table 2-2: Tests results on GFRP bars (Almerich-Chulia et al, 2012).......14
Table 2-3: Results on GFRP- and Steel-reinforced square columns under axial load (Tobbi et al,
2012)...15
Table 2-4: Column properties and obtained results (De Luca et al., 2010)....17
Table 2-5: Column group properties and obtained results (Alsayed et al., 1999) ......................................21
Table 3-1: Mechanical properties of LA repair mortar (BASF, 2007).......................................................29
Table 3-2: Mechanical properties of FRP sheets (Liu, 2013) ....................................................................34
Table 3-3: Mechanical properties of two types of steel reinforcement ......................................................34
Table 3-4: Specimen details....50
Table 3-5: Specimen comparison ...............................................................................................................51
Table 3-6: Number of direct comparisons..................................................................................................51
Table 4-1: Mechanical properties of GFRP straight bars and spirals in tension....58
Table 4-2: Mechanical properties of GFRP bars in compression...60
Table 4-3: Average glass transition temperatures for GFRP bars (Johal, 2013) ........................................61
Table 4-4: Modified nominal and nominal moment capacities for different GFRP bar types and different
axial loads ..................................................................................................................................................69
Table 4-5: Number of recorded cycles for column specimens..90
Table 4-6: Maximum measured spiral strain..96
Table 4-7: Ductility parameters................................................................................................................107
Table 4-8: Damaged region..108
Table 4-9: Euler buckling load, peak compressive load in the coupon and in the column ......................110
Table 4-10: Comparison of flexural strength enhancement in specimens...127
Table 4-11: Steel- vs. GFRP-reinforced column properties.....128
Table 4-12: Steel- vs. GFRP-reinforced column results ..........................................................................128
Table C-1: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B12 (Based on actual and nominal
diameter)...154
Table C-2: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B 16 (Based on nominal
diameter)...157
Table C-3: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B16 (Based on actual diameter) ...............157
Table C-4: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B 25 (based on nominal
diameter)...159
Table C-5: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B25 (Based on actual diameter) ...............159
Table C-6: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type C12 (Based on nominal
diameter)...161
Table C-7: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type C12 (Based on actual diameter) ...............161
Table C-8: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type C16 (Based on nominal
diameter)...163
Table C-9: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type C25 (Based on nominal
diameter)...............165
Table C-10: Compressive mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B (Based on nominal
diameter).......167
Table C-11: Compressive mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B (Based on actual diameter) ........167
Table C-12: Compressive mechanical properties of GFRP bar type C (Based on nominal diameter) ....173

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Calculation of member and section ductility parameters (Sheikh and Khoury, 1993) ..............7
Figure 2-2: Load vs. drift ratio response of columns C100B60N25 (Left) and C100B130N25 (Right)
(Lgeron and Paultre, 2000).........................................................................................................................9
Figure 2-3: Moment vs. curvature response of columnsAS-18 (Left) and AS-18H (Right) (Sheikh et al.,
1994) ..........................................................................................................................................................10
Figure 2-4: Test setup to obtain the compressive response of GFRP bars (Deitz et al, 2003) ...................13
Figure 2-5: Various tie configurations (Hany Tobbi, 2012) ......................................................................16
Figure 2-6: Normalized axial stress vs. axial strain (Left), Dilation ratio vs. axial strain (Right) .............18
Figure 2-7: Strength assumed for FRP bars (Choo et al., 2006) ................................................................20
Figure 2-8: Nominal moment-axial load interactions for Steel, AFRP, CFRP, and GFRP
(Choo et al., 2006)......................................................................................................................................20
Figure 2-9: Axial load vs. axial deformation for different column groups (Alsayed et al., 1999) .............22
Figure 3-1: Concrete cylinder under compressive test ...............................................................................28
Figure 3-2: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship of concrete during column testing ........................28
Figure 3-3: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for LA repair mortar .............................................30
Figure 3-4: GFRP type C (Left), GFRP type B (Right) ......................................................................31
Figure 3-5: GFRP bars under tension test ..................................................................................................32
Figure 3-6: GFRP bars under compression test .........................................................................................33
Figure 3-7: Stub formwork.........................................................................................................................35
Figure 3-8: Circular wooden pucks for the correct placement of the column cage into the stub ...............35
Figure 3-9: Stub cage .................................................................................................................................36
Figure 3-10: Column cage construction .....................................................................................................37
Figure 3-11: Steel anchors .........................................................................................................................37
Figure 3-12: Measuring the location of the 10 mm all threaded rods ........................................................38
Figure 3-13: Formwork before concrete casting ........................................................................................39
Figure 3-14: Concrete casting ....................................................................................................................40
Figure 3-15: Columns P28-C-16-160, P42-B-12-160, and P28-B-12-50 (From left to right) ...................40
Figure 3-16: Column repair process ...........................................................................................................41
Figure 3-17: Columns wrapped with FRP sheets and painted before testing.............................................42
Figure 3-18: Strain gauge location on the longitudinal bars and spirals ....................................................43
Figure 3-19: Strain gauging the GFRP bars ...............................................................................................45
Figure 3-20: Location of the vertical LVDTs ............................................................................................46
Figure 3-21: Location of the horizontal LVDTs and LED targets .............................................................46
Figure 3-22: LED targets and the K610-CMM camera .............................................................................47
Figure 3-23: Specimen and cross section dimensions ................................................................................49
Figure 3-24: Column Testing Frame (CTF) ...............................................................................................52
Figure 3-25: Installing steel plates at the ends of the specimen .................................................................53
Figure 3-26: Specimen in the CFT before testing ......................................................................................55
Figure 3-27: Lateral displacement excursion protocol ...............................................................................56
Figure 4-1: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for GFRP bars used in this study ...................................58
Figure 4-2: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for GFRP bars used in this study ..........................60
Figure 4-3: Typical glass transition curve of a GFRP specimen (Johal, 2013) ..........................................61
Figure 4-4: Cross section used for nominal sectional analysis ..................................................................64
Figure 4-5: Axial load-moment interaction curve using polar coordinate formulations (Everard, 1997)..64
Figure 4-6: Axial load-moment interaction curve using polar coordinate formulations (Davalath and
Madugula, 1987) ........................................................................................................................................65
Figure 4-7: Layered cross section ..............................................................................................................66
Figure 4-8: Axial load-moment interaction curve using layered analysis..................................................67
Figure 4-9: Unconfined meoment vs. curvature responses for different bar types and axial loads ...........69
Figure 4-10: P28-C-12-160 (Cycle 6, = 12 mm), P42-C-12-160 (Cycle 6, = 12 mm) ........................70

viii

Figure 4-11: Cover spalling in columns P28-C-12-50 and P28-C-12-160 after the 10th cycle ..................71
Figure 4-12: Acceptable bond between the concrete and the LA repair mortar ........................................71
Figure 4-13: P28-C-12-50 (Cycle 35, L = 72 mm).................................................................................73
Figure 4-14: P28-C-12-50 (Most damaged region)....................................................................................73
Figure 4-15: P28-C-12-160 (cycle 24, L = 48 mm) ...............................................................................74
Figure 4-16: P28-C-12-160 (Most damaged region)..................................................................................74
Figure 4-17: P28-C-16-160 (cycle 24, L = 48 mm) ...............................................................................75
Figure 4-18: P28-C-16-160 (Most damaged region)..................................................................................75
Figure 4-19: P28-B-12-50 (Cycle 35, L = 94 mm).................................................................................76
Figure 4-20: P28-B-12-50 (Most damaged region)....................................................................................76
Figure 4-21: P42-C-12-50 (Cycle 35, L = 72 mm).................................................................................77
Figure 4-22: P42-C-12-50 (Most damaged region)....................................................................................77
Figure 4-23: P42-C-12-160 (Cycle 25, L = 52 mm)...............................................................................78
Figure 4-24: P42-C-12-160 (Most damaged region)..................................................................................78
Figure 4-25: P42-B-12-160 (Cycle 24, L = 48 mm)...............................................................................79
Figure 4-26: P42-B-12-160 (Most damaged region)..................................................................................79
Figure 4-27: P42-B-16-160 (Cycle 25, L = 52 mm)...............................................................................80
Figure 4-28: P42-B-16-160 (Most damaged region)..................................................................................80
Figure 4-29: P42-B-16-275 (Cycle 21, L = 44 mm)...............................................................................81
Figure 4-30: P42-B-16-275 (Most damaged region)..................................................................................81
Figure 4-31: Conversion from test set up used in this study to the cantilever column model ...................83
Figure 4-32: Base shear calculation ...........................................................................................................83
Figure 4-33: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P28-C-12-50 ..................................................................85
Figure 4-34: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P28-C-12-160 ................................................................85
Figure 4-35: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P28-C-16-160 ................................................................86
Figure 4-36: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P28-B-12-50 ..................................................................86
Figure 4-37: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P42-C-12-50 ..................................................................87
Figure 4-38: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P42-C-12-160 ................................................................87
Figure 4-39: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P42-B-12-160 ................................................................88
Figure 4-40: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P42-B-16-160 ................................................................88
Figure 4-41: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P42-B-16-275 ................................................................89
Figure 4-42: Moment vs. curvature for column P28-C-12-50 ...................................................................91
Figure 4-43: Moment vs. curvature for column P28-C-12-160 .................................................................91
Figure 4-44: Moment vs. curvature for column P28-C-16-160 .................................................................92
Figure 4-45: Moment vs. curvature for column P28-B-12-50 ...................................................................92
Figure 4-46: Moment vs. curvature for column P42-C-12-50 ...................................................................93
Figure 4-47: Moment vs. curvature for column P42-C-12-160 .................................................................93
Figure 4-48: Moment vs. curvature for column P42-B-12-160 .................................................................94
Figure 4-49: Moment vs. curvature for column P42-B-16-160 .................................................................94
Figure 4-50: Moment vs. curvature for column P42-B-16-275 .................................................................95
Figure 4-51: Deflected shape of column P28-C-12-50 ..............................................................................98
Figure 4-52: Deflected shape of column P28-C-12-160 ............................................................................98
Figure 4-53: Deflected shape of column P28-C-16-160 ............................................................................99
Figure 4-54: Deflected shape of column P28-B-12-50 ..............................................................................99
Figure 4-55: Deflected shape of column P42-C-12-50 ............................................................................100
Figure 4-56: Deflected shape of column P42-C-12-160 ..........................................................................100
Figure 4-57: Deflected shape of column P42-B-12-160 ..........................................................................101
Figure 4-58: Deflected shape of column P42-B-16-160 ..........................................................................101
Figure 4-59: Deflected shape of column P42-B-16-275 ..........................................................................102
Figure 4-60: Member ductility parameters...............................................................................................103
Figure 4-61: Procedure to obtain the displacement ductility factor () ...............................................105
Figure 4-62: Most damaged section/region ..............................................................................................108
Figure 4-63: Bar buckling in the compression zone.................................................................................109

ix

Figure 4-64: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P28-C-12-50 and P42-C-12-50 ........112
Figure 4-65: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P28-C-12-160 and P42-C-12-160 ....112
Figure 4-66: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P28-C-12-50 and P42-C-12-50 ....113
Figure 4-67: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P28-C-12-160 and
P42-C-12-160113
Figure 4-68: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P28-B-12-50 and P28-C-12-50 ........115
Figure 4-69: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P28-C-12-50 and P28-B-12-50 ....115
Figure 4-70: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P42-B-12-160 and P42-C-12-160.116
Figure 4-71: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P42-C-12-160 and
P42-B-12-160116
Figure 4-72: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P28-C-12-50 and P28-C-12-160..119
Figure 4-73: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P42-C-12-50 and P42-C-12-160..119
Figure 4-74: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P42-B-16-160 and P42-B-16-275.120
Figure 4-75: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P28-C-12-50 and P28-C-12-160..120
Figure 4-76: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P42-C-12-50 and P42-C-12-160..121
Figure 4-77: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P42-B-16-160 and
P42-B-16-275121
Figure 4-78: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P28-C-12-160 and P28-C-16-160.123
Figure 4-79: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P28-C-12-160 and
P28-C-16-160....123
Figure 4-80: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P42-B-12-160 and P42-B-16-160.124
Figure 4-81: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P42-B-12-160 and
P42-B-16-160124
Figure 4-82: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P42-B-12-160 and P42-B-16-275.126
Figure 4-83: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P42-B-12-160 and
P42-B-16-275............................................................................................126
Figure 4-84: Hysteretic response of columns AS-19 and P42-B-16-160.129
Figure 4-85: Moment vs. curvature hysteresis response for columns AS-19 and P42-B-16-160131
Figure 4-86: Moment vs. curvature envelope response for columns AS-19 and P42-B-16-160..132
Figure 4-87: Shear vs. tip deflection hysteretic response of columns P27-NF-2 and P28-C-12-160..133
Figure 4-88: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope response of columns P27-NF-2 and P28-C-12-160134
Figure 4-89: Hysteretic response of columns P40-NF-6 and P42-C-12-160135
Figure A-1: Heat flow vs. temperature for B12 spirals ............................................................................145
Figure A-2: Heat flow vs. temperature for B16 spirals ............................................................................145
Figure A-3: Heat flow vs. temperature for B25 high modulus straight bars ............................................146
Figure A-4: Heat flow vs. temperature for C12 spirals ............................................................................146
Figure A-5: Heat flow vs. temperature for C16 spirals ............................................................................147
Figure A-6: Heat flow vs. temperature for C25 straight bars ...................................................................147
Figure B-1: Stub formwork plan ..............................................................................................................148
Figure B-2: Wall A1.................................................................................................................................149
Figure B-3: Wall A2.................................................................................................................................149
Figure B-4: Wall B ...................................................................................................................................151
Figure B-5: Wall C ...................................................................................................................................151
Figure B-6: Exterior plywood pieces .......................................................................................................153
Figure C-1: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B12-T-1 .................................................155
Figure C-2: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B12-T-2 .................................................155
Figure C-3: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B12-T-3 .................................................156
Figure C-4: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B16-T-1 .................................................157
Figure C-5: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B16-T-2 .................................................157
Figure C-6: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B16-T-3 .................................................158
Figure C-7: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-T-1 .................................................159
Figure C-8: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-T-2 .................................................159
Figure C-9: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-T-3 .................................................160

Figure C-10: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C12-T-1 ...............................................161
Figure C-11: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C12-T-2 ...............................................161
Figure C-12: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C12-T-3 ...............................................162
Figure C-13: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C16-T-1 ...............................................163
Figure C-14: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C16-T-2 ...............................................164
Figure C-15: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C16-T-3 ...............................................164
Figure C-16: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25-T-1 ...............................................165
Figure C-17: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25-T-2 ...............................................166
Figure C-18: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25-T-3 ...............................................166
Figure C-19: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-C-1 ......................................168
Figure C-20: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-C-2 ......................................168
Figure C-21: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-C-3 ......................................169
Figure C-22: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-C-4 ......................................169
Figure C-23: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-C-5 ......................................170
Figure C-24: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-C-6 ......................................170
Figure C-25: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-C-7 ......................................171
Figure C-26: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-C-8 ......................................171
Figure C-27: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25-C-9 ......................................172
Figure C-28: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25-C-1 ......................................174
Figure C-29: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25-C-2 ......................................174
Figure C-30: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25-C-3 ......................................175
Figure C-31: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25-C-4 ......................................175
Figure C-32: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25-C-5 ......................................176
Figure C-33: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25-C-6 ......................................176
Figure D-1: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P28-C-12-50 .....................177
Figure D-2: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P28-C-12-160 ...................178
Figure D-3: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P28-C-16-160 ...................178
Figure D-4: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P28-B-12-50 .....................179
Figure D-5: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P42-C-12-50 .....................179
Figure D-6: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P42-C-12-160 ...................180
Figure D-7: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P42-B-12-160 ...................180
Figure D-8: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P42-B-16-160 ...................181
Figure D-9: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P42-B-16-275 ...................181
Figure D-10: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P28-C-12-50 ..........................................................182
Figure D-11: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P28-C-12-160 ........................................................182
Figure D-12: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P28-C-16-160 ........................................................183
Figure D-13: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P28-B-12-50 ..........................................................183
Figure D-14: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P42-C-12-50 ..........................................................184
Figure D-15: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P42-C-12-160 ........................................................184
Figure D-16: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P42-B-12-160 ........................................................185
Figure D-17: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P42-B-16-160 ........................................................185
Figure D-18: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P42-B-16-275 ........................................................186
Figure E-1: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P28-C-12-50 .........................................187
Figure E-2: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P28-C-12-50 ....................................187
Figure E-3: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P28-C-12-160 .......................................188
Figure E-4: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P28-C-12-160 ..................................188
Figure E-5: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P28-C-16-160 .......................................189
Figure E-6: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P28-C-16-160 ..................................189
Figure E-7: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P28-B-12-50 .........................................190
Figure E-8: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P28-B-12-50 ....................................190
Figure E-9: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P42-C-12-50 .........................................191
Figure E-10: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P42-C-12-50 ..................................191
Figure E-11: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P42-C-12-160 .....................................192

xi

Figure E-12: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P42-C-12-160 ................................192
Figure E-13: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P42-B-12-160 .....................................193
Figure E-14: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P42-B-12-160 ................................193
Figure E-15: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P42-B-16-160 .....................................194
Figure E-16: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P42-B-16-160 ................................194
Figure E-17: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P42-B-16-275 .....................................195
Figure E-18: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P42-B-16-275 ................................195
Figure F-1: Displacement ductility factor and lateral drift ratio calculation (P42-C-12-50) ...................196
Figure F-2: Curvature ductility factor calculation for column P42-C-12-50 ...........................................197
Figure F-3: Cumulative ductility ratio and work damage indicator calculation (P42-C-12-50) ..............198

xii

NOTATIONS
a

= Distance from the center of the left hinge to the location of the applied lateral load

= Core area of a spirally reinforced compression member measured to the center of the spiral

= Total area of longitudinal FRP reinforcement

= Total area of FRP hoop reinforcement

= Gross area of the section

= Total area of longitudinal steel reinforcement

= Distance from the center of the right hinge to the location of the applied lateral load

= Width of rectangular/square column cross section

= Distance from the center of the left/right hinge to the stub end/column tip

= Diameter of a circular column cross section

= Actual diameter of the GFRP bar measured in the lab excluding the ribbed or sand coated
D
region
D

= Distance from the column-stub interface to the beginning of the most damaged region

= Distance from the column-stub interface to the most damaged section

= Nominal diameter of the GFRP bar provided by the manufacturer excluding the ribbed or sand
D
coated region
E

= Energy damage indicator

= Modulus of elasticity of GFRP reinforcement based on actual properties

= Modulus of elasticity of FRP reinforcement in compression

= Modulus of elasticity of FRP reinforcement in tension

= Modulus of elasticity of GFRP reinforcement based on nominal properties

= Modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement

= Specified compressive strength of concrete

= Design stress in the spiral, hoop, or rectilinear FRP reinforcement in a column

= Specified yield strength of longitudinal steel reinforcement

= Specified yield strength of steel hoop reinforcement

xiii

= Peak strength of steel reinforcement

= Ultimate tensile strength of a FRP bar/sheet

= Ultimate compressive strength of a FRP bar

= Cross-sectional dimension of column core (center to center of spiral)

= Column height

= Effective length factor

= Confinement coefficient

= Stiffness of hysteretic loop of shear vs. tip deflection at cycle i averaged in two directions

= Stiffness of the shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve

= Shear span of the specimen

= Length of the most damaged section

= Un-braced length of the GFRP compression sample

= Moment at the most damaged section

= Nominal moment capacity of the column section

= Modified nominal moment capacity of the column section

= Maximum moment measured in the most damaged section during the test

= Cumulative ductility ratio

= Applied axial load

= Critical axial load found using Euler buckling equation

= Nominal axial load resistance at zero eccentricity


For steel-reinforced columns: P

f (A - A ) + f A

For FRP-reinforced columns: P = f (A - A ) + 0.002 E A


P

= Lateral load capacity of the specimen

= Peak axial load

= Factored axial load resistance at zero eccentricity

= Ultimate compressive load in the GFRP bar during the coupon test

= Ultimate compressive load in the GFRP bar during the column test

xiv

= Spacing of transverse reinforcement or the spiral pitch

= Thickness of a FRP sheet

= Glass transition temperature

= Shear at the base of the column

= Maximum shear measured at the base of the column (column-stub interface) during the test

= Lateral reaction at the right hinge

= Nominal shear capacity

= Area enclosed by the hysteretic loop of shear vs. tip deflection at cycle i

= Work damage indicator

= Ratio of average stress in rectangular compression block to the specified concrete strength

= Column tip deflection

= Peak tip deflection at cycle i averaged in both directions

= Theoretical yield deflection

= Ultimate deflection

= Axial deformation at peak load

= Maximum axial deformation at failure

= Design lateral drift ratio

= Applied lateral displacement

= GFRP spiral strain when the base shear has dropped to 80% of peak shear

= Maximum measured GFRP spiral strain

= Ultimate GFRP spiral strain measured from tensile coupon tests

= Yield strain of steel reinforcement

= Ultimate tensile strain of a FRP bar/sheet

= Strain at initiation of strain hardening of steel reinforcement

= Rupture strain of steel reinforcement

= Displacement ductility factor

= Curvature ductility factor

xv


= Ratio of volume of hoop transverse steel reinforcement to total volume of concrete core (center
to center of hoop reinforcement)

= Ratio of volume of hoop transverse FRP reinforcement to total volume of concrete core (center
to center of hoop reinforcement)

= Ratio of total area of reinforcing steel to gross concrete section

= Ratio of total area of reinforcing FRP to gross concrete section

= First peak stress reached by concrete

= Second peak stress reached by concrete

= Stress in the GFRP bar calculated based on actual properties

= Stress in the GFRP bar calculated based on nominal properties

= Curvature at the most damaged section

= Theoretical yield curvature

= Ultimate curvature

xvi

INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The use of Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRP) started in the construction industry as early as
1970s. However, it was not until 1990s that non-metallic bars started to replace steel bars as
internal reinforcement in concrete structures. The main reason for this reinforcement
transformation was the costly issue of corrosion in steel-reinforced concrete structures. Over the
last 20 years, there has been a significant rise in the quality and the quantity of composite
reinforcement around the world. With advances in manufacturing technology leading to an
increase in production volume, the cost of high-strength FRP reinforcement has decreased and it
has become more readily available in the market.
Corrosion has cost billions of dollars in damages to concrete structures and specifically bridges
around the world. Meisen and Banthia (2009) reported that approximately 160,000 bridges are
rated deficient in the USA and are in need of immediate retrofit while in Canada the number of
deficient bridges is estimated at about 10,000. In Ontario alone, the repair cost of deficient
bridges and highways has been estimated as 57 billion dollars (Ministry of Transportation,
2009). FRP, as a high-strength non-corrosive material, has proven over the last few years to be
an optimal replacement to steel reinforcement if designed properly. Table 1-1, taken from a
report on FRP reinforcement in concrete structures published by the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) 440 committee, provides an extensive list of advantages and disadvantages of
FRP reinforcement (ACI Committee 440, 2006). Another disadvantage of the FRP material
which is not mentioned in Table 1-1 is its limitation in terms of constructability. As opposed to
steel bars, FRP bars cannot be bent, deformed or welded on the construction site. In terms of
1

INTRODUCTION
durability problems associated with FRP reinforcement, research suggests that the accelerated
chemical tests conducted on the bars in the laboratory environment do not represent the actual
concrete environment in the field. Field tests conducted by researchers on GFRP samples taken
from bridges resulted in the conclusion that there was no degradation of Glass Fibre Reinforced
Polymer (GFRP) bars in the structures exposed to natural environmental conditions for periods
of 5 to 8 years (Mufti et al. 2007). The last advantage listed in Table 1-1 has been added by the
author, while the goal of this study is to determine the validity of this statement.
Table 11: Advantages and Disadvantages of FRP reinforcement (ACI Committee 440, 2006)
Advantages of FRP reinforcement

Disadvantages of FRP reinforcement

High longitudinal tensile strength (varies with


sign and direction of loading relative to fibres)

No yielding before brittle rupture

Low transverse strength (varies with sign and


direction of loading relative to fibres)
Low modulus of elasticity (varies with type of
Nonmagnetic
reinforcing fibre)
High fatigue endurance (varies with type of
Susceptibility of damage to polymeric resins and
reinforcing fibre)
fibres under ultraviolet radiation exposure
Low durability of glass fibres in a moist
Lightweight (about 1/5 to 1/4 the density of steel)
environment
Low thermal and electric conductivity (for glass
Low durability of some glass and aramid fibres
and aramid fibres)
in an alkaline environment
High coefficient of thermal expansion
*
perpendicular to the fibres, relative to concrete
High compressive strength and ability to
undergo cyclic loading without damage?
May be susceptible to fire depending on matrix
type and concrete cover thickness
* This is added by the author. The goal of this study was to investigate this statement.
Corrosion resistance (not dependant on a coating)

INTRODUCTION

1.2 Problem
Despite the advances in the quality of the FRP bars over the last few years, many designers are
still reluctant to replace steel with FRP as the main reinforcement in concrete members.
However, this hesitation has been addressed to a great degree in the case of reinforced concrete
beams and slabs with large volumes of data available from tests performed on large specimens
in different research institutions around the world. Sufficient experimental data has led to the
addition of a chapter on the design of fibre-reinforced structures in the Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code (CSA-S6-06). GFRP bars are confidently being used in bridge decks and
barrier walls where the presence of de-icing salts and potential for corrosion is the highest.
Halls Harbour Wharf Bridge in Nova Scotia, Joffre Bridge in Quebec and Crowchild Trail
Bridge in Alberta are some examples of Canadian bridges in which GFRP is used as the main
reinforcement (Mufti et al. 2007).
Contrary to the current understanding of the GFRP bars in tension, the compressive response of
these bars is not well-understood. Therefore many design codes in North America such as the
ACI440 prevent designers from using GFRP bars in members under compression while CSAS6-06 does not have any provisions regarding this application. Also, few studies have been done
regarding the behaviour of concrete columns reinforced with GFRP bars under pure axial load
while no experimental data exists on the response of concrete columns reinforced longitudinally
and transversally with GFRP under combined axial load and flexure. Steel reinforcement used in
bridge piers is susceptible to corrosion as a result of exposure to chlorides splashed by the
ongoing traffic during winters. The health of the pier reinforcement is critical to the structural
performance of the bridge as a whole and the lack of verification studies regarding the

INTRODUCTION
behaviour of GFRP reinforced columns under realistic loading eliminates the chance of
identifying a more sustainable solution to this problem.

INTRODUCTION

1.3 Research objectives


The experimental data presented here is part of a comprehensive research program which has
been active at the University of Toronto for more than 30 years (Sheikh, 1978; Sheikh and
Uzumeri, 1980, 1982; Sheikh and Yeh, 1986; Sheikh and Khoury, 1993, 1997; Sheikh et al.,
1994; Bayrak and Sheikh, 1997; Sheikh and Yau, 2002; Iacobucci et al., 2003; Memon and
Sheikh, 2005; Ghosh and Sheikh, 2007; Sheikh and Li, 2007; Sheikh and Liu, 2012). All
columns tested previously had steel as longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. Some of the
later work was carried out on columns internally reinforced with steel and externally retrofitted
with FRP wraps. The objective in this study is to investigate the behaviour of circular concrete
columns internally reinforced with GFRP bars and spirals under combined axial load and
flexure. Nine large-scale concrete columns were tested under quasi-static lateral cyclic loading,
while simultaneously subjected to a constant axial compression simulating seismic loading.
Each specimen consisted of a 356 mm (14 in.) diameter and 1473 mm (58 in.) long column cast
integrally with a 508762813 mm (203032 in.) stub. The testing variables included axial
load level, type of GFRP (manufacturer), spiral reinforcement ratio, size and spacing.

INTRODUCTION

1.4 Thesis organization


Chapter 2 summarizes results and conclusions regarding the behaviour of both steel-reinforced
and GFRP-reinforced concrete columns based on previous tests performed by various
researchers. Considerable amount of data exists in terms of the response of steel-reinforced
columns under combined loading. However, limited number of tests has been done on GFRPreinforced columns. Current as well as previous Canadian code provisions on the design of
GFRP-reinforced columns are discussed at the end of chapter 2. Chapter 3 describes in detail the
experimental program by focusing on the properties of the materials used, the construction
process, the instrumentation of the specimens and the test set up. Chapter 4 presents analytical
calculations regarding the unconfined response of the column section and provides results from
the nine column tests in form of shear vs. tip deflection and moment vs. curvature. Various
ductility parameters are calculated and presented in this chapter. Discussion on the effects of
changing different parameters and comparison with steel-reinforced columns are also included
in this Chapter. Chapter 5 concludes with a summary of results, conclusions and
recommendations for future work. Appendices contain glass transition temperature curves,
coupon test results, formwork design, column test results, strain variations in the spiral and
sample calculations for ductility parameters.

LIT
TERATURE R
REVIEW

2. LIT
TERATU
URE REV
VIEW
2.1 Steelreinforrced conccrete colu
umns
Conssiderable am
mount of research has been done onn the seismiic behaviourr of steel-reeinforced
concrrete column
ns. This secction summ
marizes expeerimental reesults from the relevannt steelreinfo
forced colum
mns (Table 2-1)
2
and prov
vides the reeader with ann understandding of the effect of
chang
ging variouss parameters on the colum
mn responsee.

2.1.1 Ductility pa
arameters
In orrder to quan
ntify the seissmic perform
mance of coolumns, diffferent ductillity parameters have
been introduced by researcheers in the liteerature. Dispplacement aand curvaturee ductility faactor (
), cumulattive ductility
y ratios (N and N ), ennergy and woork damage indicator (E
E and W)
and
are some
s
of thee main param
meters sugg
gested by Shheikh and K
Khoury (19993) to calcuulate the
deforrmability of concrete collumns. Figurre 2-1 displaays the proceedure to calcculate these ductility
param
meters.

Figure 21: Callculation of m


member and ssection ductillity paramete
ers (Sheikh a
and Khoury, 1
1993)

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.2 Effect of axial load


The level of axial load plays an important role in the behaviour of concrete columns especially
under seismic loading. As the axial load increases, the secondary effects become more
significant and therefore the column ductility decreases. This can easily be observed by looking
at the data presented in Table 2-1. For instance, the energy damage indicator for column S-2NT
is more than 10 times that of column S-1NT. These two columns are identical except that the
axial load on column S-1NT is twice the value for column S-2NT.
The Canadian concrete design handbook recommends the use of the following equation to
obtain the required amount of the spiral reinforcement in a concrete column.
Equation 21

0.45 ( 1)

This equation does not take into account the level of axial load; however, for members subjected
to flexure and significant axial load the code recommends the use of the more general equation
given below to design the volumetric ratio of the circular hoop reinforcement.
Equation 22 0.4

2.1.3 Effect of transverse reinforcement ratio


Detailing in concrete columns plays a major role in the achieved ductility. The concrete
standards have strict provisions regarding spacing of the transverse reinforcement in columns.
Closely-spaced spirals or ties would increase the shear strength of the column, delay the
buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement and most importantly provide confinement to the
concrete core and therefore delay the crushing of the core. This statement can be verified from
the behaviour of columns C100B60N25 and C100B130N25 in Table 2-1. The former has spirals
spaced at 60 mm while the latter at 130 mm. Doubling the spiral spacing has caused the
8

LIT
TERATURE R
REVIEW
displacement ducctility factorr to be reducced by a facctor of 4. Fiigure 2-2 shows the respponse of
thesee two column
ns.

Figu
ure 22: Load
d vs. drift ratiio response o
of columns C1
100B60N25 ((Left) and C100B130N25 (Right)
(Lgerron and Paulttre, 2000)

2.1.4 Efffect of con


ncrete streength
Research has sho
own that co
olumns consttructed usinng higher strrength concrrete are lesss ductile.
This is expected since high-sstrength conccrete does noot exhibit a pprolonged post peak respponse as
obserrved in norm
mal-strength
h concrete. From
F
the ressponses of tthe two coluumns, one could see
that column
c
AS-18 has the ability
a
to go through moore loading ccycles than ccolumn AS-18H and
as a result
r
all du
uctility param
meters for co
olumn AS-18 are higherr than those of column A
AS-18H.
The main
m differeence between
n the two co
olumns is thee strength off concrete; 554.7 MPa in AS-18H
and 32.8
3
MPa in
n AS-18. Th
hus, when deesigning withh high-strenngth concretee, the imporrtance of
detailing becomees more crittical and the amount oof transversee reinforcem
ment ratio shhould be
increeased to obtaain the same level of ductility as thatt of the norm
mal-strength cconcrete collumn.

LIT
TERATURE R
REVIEW

Figurre 23: Mome


ent vs. curvatture response
e of columnsA
AS18 (Left) a
and AS18H ((Right) (Sheikh et al.,
1994)

10

Column
size
B or D
mm

Specimen

11

AS-3H
AS-18H
AS-20H
A-17H
AS-3
AS-17
AS-18
AS-19
ES-1HT
AS-2HT
AS-3HT
AS-4HT
S-1NT
S-2NT
S-3NT
S-4NT

Column
length
MPa
mm

[1]
305

1473

305

1473
2438
1473
1473

305

1473

[2]

[3]

[4]

D60-7-4-2 5/8-0.2P [5]


D60-7-3C-1 5/8-0.2P
D60-15-4-2 5/8-0.2P
D60-15-3C-1 5/8-0.2P
D120-15-3C-2 5/8-0.2P
D120-15-3C-1 5/8-0.2P
D60-4-3C-2 5/8-0.2P
D60-4-3C-2 5/8-0.4P

AS-1NSS [6]
C100B60N15 [7]
C100B60N25
C100B60N40
C100B130N15
C100B130N25
C100B130N40

356

1473

305

1070

305

1473

305

2150

Longitudinal
steel

Lateral steel

54.1
54.7
53.6
59.1
33.2
31.3
32.8
32.3
72.1
71.7
71.8
71.9
40.1
40.1
39.2
39.2
53.7
50.8
100.8
100.2
101.6
101.7
26.2
27.0
42.4
92.4
93.3
98.2
94.8
97.7
104.3

Size at
spacing, mm
9.5 @ 108
12.7 @ 108
12.7 @ 76.2
9.5 @ 108
9.5 @ 108
9.5 @ 108
12.7 @ 108
9.5/6 @ 108
15M @ 95
10M @ 90
10M @ 90
15M @ 100
9.5 @ 80
9.5 @ 80
9.5 @ 300
9.5 @ 300
12.7 @ 67
9.5 @ 41.3
12.7 @ 67
9.5 @ 41.3
9.5 @ 67
9.5 @ 41.3
9.5 @ 67
9.5 @ 67
9.5 @ 300
10M @ 60
10M @ 60
10M @ 60
10M @ 130
10M @ 130
10M @ 130

%
1.68
3.06
4.30
1.68
1.68
1.68
3.06
1.30
3.15
2.84
2.84
5.12
1.12
1.12
0.30
0.30
2.73
3.82
2.73
3.82
2.36
3.82
2.36
2.36
0.61
4.26
4.26
4.26
1.96
1.96
1.96

MPa
507
464
464
507
507
507
464
457
463
542
542
463
507
414
414
414
414
828
828
414
414
457
391
404
418
391
404
418

MPa

2.44

507

2.44

507

2.58

454

3.00

507

2.44

414

2.58

465

2.15

470

Axial
load
level
P/P0
0.59
0.61
0.61
0.62
0.50
0.63
0.63
0.39
0.50
0.36
0.50
0.50
0.54
0.27
0.54
0.27
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.56
0.15
0.30
0.42
0.15
0.28
0.40

Max
moment
kN.m
237
253
283
261
193
180
204
202
192
212
212
215
248
238
271
295
380
288
173
168
168
246
326
377
225
335
373

Ductility
factors

E80

3.2
3.9
5.4
2.0
4.7
3.8
6.7
4.0
4.6
6.2
5.0
7.0

10.5
14.0
16.5
5.0
>19
10.5
14.5
19
6.6
15.8
10.1
21.2

7
8
4
6
4
5
5
4
2.9
8.8
8.2
5.2
4.4
2.3
1.6

Energy
damage
indicator

178
384
935
36
610
402
897
631
80
631
161
997
69
778
5
9

2.6
26.9
7.6
3.3
2.9

567
380
114
39.7
4.2
5.6

LITERATURE REVIEW

Table 21: Steelreinforced column database

12

C100S100N15 [8]
C100SH100N15
C100S70N25
C100SH70N25
C100S37N40
C100SH37N40
P27-NF-1 [9]
P27-NF-2
P40-NF-5
P40-NF-6
P40-NF-7
P56-NF-10
P56-NF-11
P56-NF-12
AS-1NS [10]
AS-7NS
AS-8NS
CI4 [11]
CI8
CS4
CS8

Column
length
MPa
mm

300

2150

109
101
103
97
100
103

356

1473

40

305

1473

260

1650

Longitudinal
steel

Lateral steel

31.4
37.0
42.3
56
54
54
53

Size at
spacing, mm
10M @ 100
9.5 @ 100
10M @ 70
9.5 @ 70
10M @ 37
9.5 @ 37
9.5 @ 150
9.5 @ 100
9.5 @ 300
9.5 @ 100
9.5 @ 75
9.5 @ 300
10M @ 100
10M @ 75

%
1.43
1.00
2.04
1.43
3.85
2.71
0.60
0.90
0.30
0.90
1.20
0.30
1.22
1.63

MPa
440
425
440
425
440
425
496
496
496
496
496
496
450
450

9.5 @ 300

0.61

10 @ 120
10 @ 120
12 @ 70
10 @ 70

1.24
1.80
3.10
3.20

MPa

2.55

560

3.01

490

457

2.58

465

400

1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0

400

Axial
load
level
P/P0
0.16
0.16
0.27
0.26
0.43
0.43
0.27
0.27
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.33
0.33
0.56
0.15

Max
moment
kN.m
168
172
203
191
228
235
204
220
180
205
230
188
203
197
180
208
168
98
141
105
145

Ductility
factors

E80

5.3
5.0
4.8
5.8
7.4
6.7
4.3
4.6
3.0
3.5
4.5
2.3
3.4
3.2
3.7
5.1
5.2
6.5
6.5

Energy
damage
indicator

14
12
11.4
15.4
26.0
21.3
11.3
15.6
3.6
11.9
11.1
1.9
10.7
13.2
5.3
9.4
10.3
12.2
10.4

129
100
114
155
209
148

10.8
231*
350*
385*
919*

[1] (Sheikh et al., 1994), [2] (Sheikh and Khoury, 1993), [3] (Bayrak and Sheikh, 1997), [4] (Sheikh and Yau, 2002), [5] (Azizinamini et al., 1994), [6]
(Memon and Sheikh, 2005), [7] (Lgeron and Paultre, 2000), [8] (Paultre et al., 2009) [9] (Sheikh and Liu, 2012) [10] (Iacobucci et al., 2003) [11]
(Hosseini et al., 2005)

* Total energy dissipated until failure

LITERATURE REVIEW

Specimen

Column
size
B or D
mm

LIT
TERATURE R
REVIEW

2.2 GFR
RPreinfo
orced con
ncrete collumns
2.2.1 Geeneral
As diiscussed in section
s
1-1, GFRP bars have becom
me popular iin constructiion over the last few
yearss used mainlly as tension
n reinforcemeent in reinfoorced concreete beams, sllabs or bridgge decks.
These bars have proven to bee effective in
n tension; hoowever, theirr compressivve response is not as
well--understood as their tensile behavio
our. Few stuudies have been conductted to determ
mine the
mech
hanical properties of GF
FRP bars in compressioon. Wu (19990) reported that the strrength of
GFRP
P bars in compression
n is around
d 55% of their tensile strength.. A compreehensive
invesstigation on the compresssive behaviior of FRP bbars was connducted by D
Deitz (2003)), testing
45 sp
pecimens in compression
c
n using the teest set up sh own in Figuure 2-4.

Figure 24: T
Test setup to obtain the co
ompressive rresponse of G
GFRP bars (Deitz et al, 200
03)

It waas reported th
hat for non-sslender 15 mm
m GFRP baars (Lu < 1100 mm), the uultimate com
mpressive
strength was equ
ual to approx
ximately 50%
% of the barss tensile strrength. For bbars with 110 < Lu <
210 mm,
m the faillure mode was
w a combiination of crrushing and buckling, w
while for barrs with a
free length
l
above 210 mm, the ultimatee compressivve stress folllowed the E
Euler bucklinng curve
13

LITERATURE REVIEW
with a high accuracy. It was also concluded that the compressive modulus of elasticity of GFRP
was approximately equal to its tensile stiffness (Deitz et al, 2003).
Researchers at Instituto de la Construccion Eduardo Torrojo CSIC (Spain) tested more than
500 GFRP bars to obtain certification (Almerich-Chulia et al, 2012). The bars were made by the
pultrusion process and contained 75% fiber by volume. Table 2-2 summaries the results
attained. The un-braced length of bars tested in compression was not reported by the authors.
Table 22: Tests results on GFRP bars (AlmerichChulia et al, 2012)
Diameter
(mm)
8
10
12
16
20
25
32
AVG

Tensile
Strength (MPa)
856
779
638
696
724
723
720
733

Tensile modulus of
elasticity (GPa)
38.3
42.6
41.1
42.5
43.6
39.9
39.7
41.1

Compressive
strength (MPa)
464
450
470
449
444
372
319
424

Compressive modulus
of elasticity (GPa)
39.9
46.3
41.9
50.8
44.9
42.0
40.8
43.8

Results provided in Table 2-2 verify the conclusions attained by Wu and Dietz regarding the
compressive strength and the stiffness of GFRP bars. Despite the presence of these data, due to
the uncertainty in the compressive response of GFRP bars and their low modulus of elasticity,
usage of these bars in columns is not recommended by most design codes. The ACI code (ACI
440.1R-06) specifically deters designers from using GFRP bars as longitudinal reinforcement in
columns or as compression reinforcement in flexural members. The Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code (CSA-S6-06) does not have any provisions on the use of GFRP bars in
compression members. The latest version of the Canadian code (CSA-S806-12), on the other
hand, allows for the use of GFRP bars in columns, but conservatively advises the designer to
take the strength of the bar in compression as zero. Further discussion on the evolution of the
Canadian code provisions regarding this area is provided in section 2.3.
14

LITERATURE REVIEW
A few studies have been conducted on the behaviour of internally GFRP-reinforced concrete
columns under pure axial load. Nevertheless, no experimental work has been reported on the
response of these columns under combined axial load and flexure.
The following sections summarize the existing experimental and theoretical studies on GFRPreinforced concrete columns available in the scientific literature.

2.2.2 Tobbi 2012


Eight square columns with a cross section of 350 350 mm and a height of 1400 mm were
tested under concentric loading. One control specimen with no reinforcement, two steelreinforced columns and five GFRP-reinforced columns made up the eight specimens tested
(Tobbi et al, 2012). Table 2-3 summarizes the specimen details along with a few results.
Table 23: Results on GFRP and Steelreinforced square columns under axial load (Tobbi et
al, 2012)
Specimen

Bar type

C-P-0-00
C-S-1-330
C-S-1-120
C-G-1-120
C-G-1A-120
C-G-2-120
C-G-3-120
C-G-3-80

--Steel
Steel
GFRP
GFRP
GFRP
GFRP
GFRP

Longitudinal
reinforcement
--8 M15
8 M15
8 No.19
8 No.19
8 No.19
12 No.16
12 No.16

Transverse
reinforcement
--M10 ties
M10 ties
No.13 ties
No.13 ties
No.13 ties
No.13 ties
No.13 ties

Tie spacing
(mm)
--330 (13.0)
120 (4.72)
120 (4.72)
120 (4.72)
120 (4.72)
120 (4.72)
80 (3.15)

0.94
0.98
1.05
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.98
1.02

----1.35
1.23
1.21
1.27
1.36
1.68

Different tie configurations as shown in Figure 2-5 were used to investigate their effectiveness
for concrete core confinement (Tobbi et al, 2012). In Table 2-3, normalized first and second
peak stresses (

) relative to the compressive strength of each column are reported. It can

be seen that configuration 3 is the most effective way of confining the column core due to the
presence of more closely spaced longitudinal bars.

15

LIT
TERATURE R
REVIEW

Figure 25: Various tiie configurattions (Hany T


Tobbi, 2012)

f
co
onclusions were
w
made by
b the autho rs while theey indicated the need for further
The following
reseaarch in this area
a (Tobbi et
e al, 2012):
1- GFRP can
n effectively
y be used as transverse reeinforcemennt in columnss
2- The stren
ngth reductio
on factor of 0.85
0 used forr steel-reinfoorced colum
mns can be addopted to
GFRP-reiinforced colu
umns
3- In calculaating the axial capacity of
o a GFRP-rreinforced coolumn, it is ffound that taaking the
stress in the
t longitudiinal GFRP bars as 35% oof the ultimaate tensile strrength leadss to close
prediction
ns to experim
mental resultts
4- GFRP baars can be used
u
as main
n reinforcem
ment in coluumns providded that clossely tied
transversee reinforcem
ment is used
The axial
a
capacitty of a GFRP
P-reinforced
d column is ccomposed off two parts: concrete andd GFRP.
With
h no confinem
ment effects,, the column
n reaches its axial capaciity when thee concrete reaches its
peak strength. Therefore thee compressiv
ve stress in the longituddinal GFRP at the peakk load is
found
d by multip
plying the concrete sttrain corressponding to the peak stress ( ) by the
16

LITERATURE REVIEW
compressive modulus of elasticity of the GFRP bar. Depending on both of these values, the
product will be in a range of approximately 100 150 MPa which is only 10% to 15% of the
ultimate tensile strength of the GFRP bars which was approximately 750 MPa.

2.2.3 De Luca 2010


Full-scale GFRP reinforced concrete columns with a cross section of 610 610 mm and a
height of 3 m were tested under axial load (De Luca et al., 2010). The main testing variables
were types of GFRP bars and transverse reinforcement ratio. Table 2-4 displays the properties of
the specimens tested and some of the results.
Table 24: Column properties and obtained results (De Luca et al., 2010)
Specimen

Longitudinal
reinforcement

S-16
A-12
B-12
A-3
B-3

Longitudinal
bar type
Grade 60 steel

8 25 mm

GFRP A
GFRP B
GFRP A
GFRP B

Transverse
reinforcement
12.7 mm steel
at 406 mm
12.7 mm GFRP
at 305 mm
12.7 mm GFRP
at 76 mm

f'c
(MPa)

PPeak
(kN)

P,Axial
(mm)

u,Axial
(mm)

37.3

12534

6.65

9.07

43.7
40.6
36.1
32.8

15234
12948
11925
10751

7.82
7.26
8.1
7.24

8.18
8.13
13.44
14.25

Bar type A had an ultimate tensile strength of 608 MPa and modulus of elasticity of 44.2 GPa,
while these values for bar type B were 712 MPa and 44.4 GPa, respectively. Figure 2-6 shows
the normalized axial stress vs. the axial deformation for all the columns. Specimens A-3 and B-3
had a more ductile response as a result of the presence of closely spaced ties and no premature
bar buckling was observed in these specimens. On the other hand, specimens A-12 and B-12
underwent brittle failure accompanied by a loud noise. No cracking was observed in these
columns until the final crushing (De Luca et al., 2010). The GFRP-reinforced specimens
behaved very similar to the steel-reinforced column. The stiffness for GFRP-reinforced columns
started to decrease at 60% of the ultimate stress while the steel column maintained a linear
response until 80% of the ultimate stress.
17

LIT
TERATURE R
REVIEW

Figure 26: No
F
ormalized axial stress vs. axial strain ((Left), Dilatio
on ratio vs. ax
xial strain (Right)

The Poisson ratiio vs. the ax


xial strain for
f all the ccolumns are shown in F
Figure 2-6. We can
obserrve that until a strain of 0.0025 all columns
c
maiintain a Poissson ratio off around 0.2 which is
in ag
greement witth the typicaal value for concrete.
c
Ass cracking annd buckling of the bars initiates,
the Poisson
P
ratio increases significantlly for colum
mns with w
wide tie spaacing. Howeever, for
speciimens A-3 and
a B-3 wheere the respo
onse was moore stable, ddilation ratioos of up to 00.9 were
meassured before failure. Thee following conclusions
c
w
were made bby the authorrs:
1- At low lo
ongitudinal reinforcemen
r
nt ratios, thhe response oof GFRP reeinforced collumns is
very similar to that off steel reinfo
orced columnns
2- The contrribution of GFRP bars can be neg lected whenn calculatingg the capaciity of an
axially loaded column
n. (P0 = 0.85
5 fc (Ag Affrp)).
n
to un
nderstand thhe behaviouur of GFRP--reinforced columns
3- Further research is needed
under axial load and flexure
f

2.2.4 Ch
hoo 2006
o (2006) con
nducted a stu
udy that foccused on thee theoretical behaviour oof concrete columns
Choo
reinfo
forced with lo
ongitudinal FRP bars. For different reinforcemeent ratios, thee moment-axxial load

18

LITERATURE REVIEW
interaction curves were calculated for different FRP bar types. In the analysis, the following
assumptions were made (Choo et al., 2006):
1- A parabolic relationship until the peak strain and linear response after peak for concrete
in compression
2- The strength of concrete in tension was ignored in the analysis
3- Linear elastic response for FRP bars was assumed in both tension and compression.
Since the authors were uncertain regarding the response of FRP bars in compression, the
compressive strength as recommended by Deitz was taken as half of the tensile strength,
while various modulus of elasticity ratios were used in the analysis
4- Linear strain profile was assumed through the height of the section during bending
5- Perfect bond was assumed between reinforcement and surrounding concrete
6- Confinement effects from transverse reinforcement were not included in this study
Stress vs. strain relationships for different FRP bars used in this study are shown in Figure 2-7.
The moment-axial load interaction curves were calculated for a rectangular section using a
crushing concrete strain of 0.003 and a compressive strength of 35 MPa. Figure 2-8 shows these
curves for grade 60 steel, AFRP, CFRP and GFRP. Moment and axial load are normalized using
the following expressions:
Equation 23

Equation 24

19

=
=

LIT
TERATURE R
REVIEW

Figure 27
7: Strength asssumed for FR
RP bars (Cho
oo et al., 2006
6)

Figure 28: Nominal m


momentaxiall load interacctions for Ste
eel, AFRP, CFR
RP, and GFRP
P
(C
Choo et al., 2 006)

20

LITERATURE REVIEW
It is evident that steel-reinforced columns exhibit a balance point since steel reaches its yield
strain at the same time as concrete reaches its peak strain. However, FRP-reinforced columns do
not show a balance point and for reinforcement ratios equal to or greater than 3%, moment
resistance increases as the axial load decreases from maximum to zero. For FRP-reinforced
columns with low reinforcement ratios, there is potential for brittle tension failure. In other
words, at low axial loads the FRP bars can reach their ultimate tensile strength before concrete
in compression crushes. This has to be noted by the designers and authors believed that the ACI
318-05 reinforcement ratio limits needed to be adjusted for columns reinforced with FRP bars
(Choo et al., 2006). Ignoring the contribution of FRP bars in compression, as recommended by
many codes, is conservative and further research is needed in this area.

2.2.5 Alsayed 1999


Fifteen concrete columns with a cross sectional dimensions of 450 250 mm and a height of
1200 mm were tested under concentric axial compression using an Amsler testing machine with
a capacity of 10,000 kN (Alsayed et al., 1999). Columns were divided into five groups of three
specimens each. The first group did not have any reinforcement while the other four groups had
steel/GFRP as longitudinal and transverse reinforcement as seen in Table 2-5 which shows the
details of the specimens and some of the results.
Table 25: Column group properties and obtained results (Alsayed et al., 1999)
Group

f' c
(MPa)

A
B
C
D
E

38.6
38.3
38.8
39.0
38.5

Longitudinal
Reinforcement
Quantity
Type
0
6 16 mm
Steel
6 16 mm
Steel
6 15.7 mm
GFRP
6 15.7 mm
GFRP

Transverse
Reinforcement
Quantity
Type
0
6 @ 250
Steel
6.35 @ 250 GFRP
6 @ 250
Steel
6.35 @ 250 GFRP

21

Max Load
Measured
(kN)
2997
3681
3380
3285
3301

Overall
shortening
(mm)
3.54
3.99
4.54
4.14
3.84

LIT
TERATURE R
REVIEW
The load
l
vs. defo
ormation resp
ponses for all
a the colum
mn groups aree shown in F
Figure 2-9. G
Groups C
and E showed a less stiff behaviour
b
thaan groups B and D, whhich could bbe due to thhe lower
stiffn
ness of the GFRP
G
ties compared to that of the steel ties. S
Steel ties were more effe
fective in
confiining the collumn core att early stages of loading than GFRP
P ties. Howevver, the conffinement
achieeved was neegligible for all column groups duee to the low
w transverse reinforcemeent ratio.
The authors con
ncluded thatt replacing steel bars w
with GFRP bars in collumns reducces their
nsverse reinfforcement frrom steel to the same am
mount of
capaccity by 13% and converrting the tran
GFRP
P results in a 10% loss in axial cap
pacity of thee column (A
Alsayed et aal., 1999). Thhe steelreinfo
forced specim
mens failed by
b buckling of the steel bars at the m
mid-height oof the colum
mn, while
failurre for GFRP
P-reinforced
d columns was
w initiated by concretee crushing aand breakagge of the
bars. It is not cleear what thee authors meean by the bbreakage of the GFRP bbars in comppression.
The ratio
r
of un-b
braced length
h over diam
meter for the longitudinall GFRP bar in the mid-hheight of
the co
olumn is 16 which indiccates the likeelihood for bbuckling.

Figure 29: Ax
F
xial load vs. a
axial deforma
ation for diffeerent column
n groups (Alsayed et al., 19
999)

22

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.3 Design and construction of building structures with fibre


reinforced polymers (CSAS806)
The Canadian code has gone through considerable changes regarding the use of FRP bars in
concrete structures over the last few years. These changes are more visible in terms of
compression members and members under combined axial load and flexure. This section briefly
summarizes code provisions in 2002 and introduces adjustments and additions made in 2012.
Since circular columns are used in this research study, only provisions regarding the use of
spirals are discussed here.

2.3.1 CSAS80602
Clause 8.4.3.1 states that FRP reinforcement shall not be used as longitudinal reinforcement in
members subjected to compressive axial load and flexure. FRP can be used as transverse
reinforcement if the following limitations are taken into account (Canadian Standards
Association, 2002).
For spirally reinforced columns (Clause 8.4.3.2):
-

Spiral reinforcement shall have a diameter of at least 6 mm

Pitch of the spiral shall not exceed 1/6 of the core diameter of the column

Clear spacing between the successive turns of the spirals must be between 25 and 75 mm

The volumetric spiral ratio must not be less than the value given by:
= 0.6

Equation 25

( 1)

Where,
Equation 26
23

) +

LITERATURE REVIEW
0.2

and

1 0.3

FRP is not permitted to be used as longitudinal reinforcement in columns in this code and FRP
reinforcement in the compression zone shall be deemed to provide no compressive resistance in
design (Clause 8.6.2). For structures in seismic zones, the transverse FRP reinforcement shall be
larger of the amounts given by Eq. 2.5 and Eq. 2.7 (Clause 12.7.1):
Equation 27

= 14 s

( 1)

is the design lateral drift ratio which shall not be less than 3%. Transverse reinforcement
spacing shall not be greater than the minimum of of the minimum member dimension, 150
mm and 6 times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar. According to the requirements of
clause 8.4.3.2, k , the confinement coefficient, is equal to 1 for circular hoops or spirals.

2.3.2 CSAS80612
In the ten years between the 2002 to 2012 codes, research was conducted around the world and
specifically in Canada on GFRP-reinforced concrete structures yielding positive results
regarding the behaviour of GFRP-reinforced columns. The Canadian code in 2012 thus relaxed
the stringent condition on using GFRP bars in compression members. Some of the changes in
the 2012 code are discussed below.
CL 8.4.3.1 states that the longitudinal FRP reinforcement may be used in members subjected to
compressive axial load and flexure. However, the code still conservatively states that strength
and stiffness of FRP bars in compression shall be ignored in design (Canadian Standards
Association, 2012). In clause 8.4.3.7, the code prevents the designers from using a longitudinal
reinforcement ratio of less than 1% in compression members to avoid the brittle tension failure
discussed earlier in Section 2.2.4.
24

LITERATURE REVIEW
The volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement is found using the equation below:
Equation 28

( 1)

Where,
Equation 29

Although the reduction factor of 0.6 is removed here compared to Eq 2.5 of the 2002 code, the
stress in the spiral (

) has been increased from 0.004

to 0.006

, which results in similar

in both versions of the code. Increasing the stress in the FRP spiral can be due to the
improvement in FRP manufacturing industry over the last decade.
The area of the transverse FRP reinforcement in a moment resisting frame member designed for
seismic resistance is the larger of the values provided by Eq. 2-7 and Eq. 2-8 (CL 12.7.1).
Compared to the 2002 version of the Code which recommended the design lateral drift ratio of
0.03, the 2012 Code has two categories of ductile members. For ductile moment resisting frames
(MRFs) with

= 4, the design lateral drift ratio shall not be less than 0.04 while for

moderately ductile MRFs with

= 2.5 this value should be at least 0.025.

25

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
3.1 General
To understand the behaviour of concrete columns reinforced internally with GFRP longitudinal
bars and spirals and subjected to simulated earthquake loads, nine large-scale circular columns
were constructed and tested in the structural laboratory at the University of Toronto. The
columns were cast integrally with a stub in order to represent the beam-column joint or the
column-foundation joint in a reinforced concrete frame. Two columns were constructed
according to CSA-S806-12 code with a design lateral drift ratio of 4%, one column was
designed to achieve 2.5% lateral drift ratio while the rest of the specimens had substandard
transverse reinforcement according to this code. The main variables in this study were the level
of axial load, the GFRP type and the amount of transverse reinforcement. This chapter describes
the material properties, construction of specimens, instrumentation, specimen details and test
setup.

26

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.2 Material properties


3.2.1 Concrete
Concrete with a specified 28-day compressive strength of 25 MPa, 100 mm slump and
maximum aggregate size of 14 mm was ordered. The slump was measured and confirmed to be
100 mm upon the arrival of the concrete truck and the casting started by filling the column
stubs. However, the concrete started to lose workability and became dry as the last stub was
being filled and addition of super plasticizer was not effective and therefore the cast was halted.
Another concrete order with similar properties as mentioned above was immediately placed and
the second truck arrived four hours after the first truck. The slump was measured to be 150 mm
and the columns were cast using this second batch of concrete.
Concrete cylinders 150300 mm (612 inch) were tested according to ASTM C39 standard for
both batches of concrete in order to obtain the compressive strength of concrete. The load was
applied at a rate of 4.4 kN/sec (0.24 MPa/sec), which falls within the ASTM required range of
0.14-0.34 MPa/sec. Figure 3-1 shows a compression test on a cylinder. Two LVDTs were used
on the sides of the cylinders to measure the longitudinal strain during the test. The strain was
obtained by dividing the average displacement recorded by the LVDTs by a constant gauge
length of 250 mm.
There were at least three cylinders in each group which were tested at 7, 14, and 28 days after
casting, and throughout the column testing period. Testing of the nine columns started on the
70th day and completed on the 125th day after the casting of concrete, during which the strength
of concrete did not change significantly and was measured between 34.1 and 35.4 MPa (4.95

27

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM
and 5.13 ksi). Hence,
H
fc was
w taken as 35.0 MPaa (5.08 ksi)) for all coolumns. Streess-strain
relatiionships for 70 and 130 day
d concretee are shown in Figure 3--2.

Figure
e 31: Concrette cylinder u nder compre
essive test

70dayco
7
oncretesttress strrain

Stress(MPa)

40
0
35
5

Samp
ple1

30
0

Samp
ple2

25
5

Samp
ple3

20
0
15
5
10
0
5
0
0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

Straiin

125dayc
1
oncretesstress sttrain
40
Sam
mple1

35

Sam
mple2

Stress(MPa)

30

Sam
mple3

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

0.001

0.002

Strain
n

0.003

0.004

0.005

Figure 32:: Compressive stress vs. sttrain relation


nship of conccrete during ccolumn testin
ng

28

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.2.2 Patching Material


After stripping the sonotube off the columns, three of the specimens had voids and honeycomb
regions as a result of casting issues related to the concrete workability as discussed previously.
The level of damage was different among these three columns yet even in the worst damaged
column, the depth of the voids was limited to the concrete cover so the core concrete was sound.
In order to repair these columns, research was done on different patching products available.
The main properties required were high bond strength to the original concrete, no volume
change after setting and having similar structural properties to the original concrete. The LA
repair mortar from the BASF chemical company met all these requirements and was chosen to
repair the damaged columns. This product is a mixture of cement, graded aggregate with a
maximum size of inch and shrinkage-compensating agents. It is recommended to use 3.3
3.8 litres of clean water with a 25 kg bag of LA repair mortar based on the consistency needed.
In this project, a ratio of 3.5 litres of water per 25 kg of the repair product was used. Table 3-1
summarizes the mechanical properties of the LA repair mortar provided by the manufacturer
(BASF, 2007).
Table 31: Mechanical properties of LA repair mortar (BASF, 2007)
Fresh wet density, kg/m3
Compressive strength, MPa (51 mm cubes)
1 day - 7 days - 28 days
Compressive strength, MPa (76 by 152 mm cylinders)
28 days
7 day flexural strength, MPa
28 days shear bond strength, MPa
Tensile strength, MPa
Elastic modulus, GPa

2275
17.2 - 41.4 - 51.7
46.2
7.3
15.9
5.9
29

Before the first test (P28-C-16-160), a 150x300 mm (612 inch) cylinder made from the LA
repair mortar was tested in compression and the obtained stress-strain curve is shown in Figure
29

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM
3-3 accompanied
a
d with a pho
oto of the failed cylinderr. The behavviour of thee repair mateerial was
brittle and sudden
n failure occcurred after reaching
r
a peeak stress off 55 MPa.

40Daymo
4
rtarstresss strain
60

Stress(MPa)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

0.001

0.002
Strain

0.003

0.004

Figu
ure 33: Comp
pressive stresss vs. strain rrelationship ffor LA repairr mortar

The modulus
m
of elasticity
e
waas similar to the original concrete. H
However, the peak strenggth of the
mortaar was consiiderably high
her.

3.2.3 Gllass Fiber Reinforced


d Polymerr
As mentioned
m
eaarlier, all thee main reinfo
orcement in the test reggion of the ccolumns consisted of
GFRP
P. Steel waas used in some
s
placess outside thhe test regioons of the sspecimens w
which is
explaained in Secttion 3.2.5. GFRP
G
longitu
udinal bars aand spirals w
were orderedd from two different
manu
ufacturers fo
or this project. Five co
olumns werre constructeed using m
material provvided by
Sch
ck Bauteile GmBH reprresented herre by C wh
while four columns were built using material
from Pultrall Inc shown by B. Figure 3-4
3 shows booth reinforceement types used in this research
piral provideed by manuffacturer C had a circcular cross ssection and a ribbed
progrram. The sp
plastiic cover around it whilee the spiral from
f
manufaacturer B had a semi-circular sand-coated
crosss section. Pieeces of the latter
l
spiral were taken and measureements conffirmed that tthe cross
sectio
onal areas were
w equal to the specifieed #4 and #5 bars.

30

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

Figure
e 34: GFRP ty
ype C (Left),, GFRP type B (Right)

In orrder to obtaiin the mech


hanical propeerties of thee GFRP barss, both tensiile and com
mpressive
coupon tests werre conducted
d. Tensile tessts were carrried out on bboth longituudinal and transverse
GFRP
P bars whilee compressiive sample tests
t
were doone only onn the longituudinal reinfoorcement
sincee they would
d only be sub
bjected to com
mpressive sttresses in thee column tesst.
In tottal 18 samplles of differrent bar sizes were testeed in tensionn. Steel coupplers were placed on
each end of the tensile
t
coupo
on samples and the gap between thhe bar and thhe coupler w
was filled
ve cement mortar
m
(RockF
Frac NDE
EA was usedd here) and ccapped (Enteerprising
with an expansiv
Europ
pa Inc, 2013
3). Thereby, the axial load
l
was traansferred froom the test aapparatus too the bar
throu
ugh shear in
n the mortarr. The strain
n in the baars was meaasured usingg an externaal gauge
attach
hed to the baar at mid-heeight. To avo
oid damage, the gauge w
was removedd at around a third of
the ultimate
u
load
d after obtain
ning the mo
odulus of elaasticity. Thee modulus off elasticity w
was later
used to extrapolaate the strain
n data until the
t ultimate stress. Figuure 3-5 show
ws different sstages of
the teension test sp
pecimens. Tension test results
r
are prrovided in seection 4.1.

31

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

Figure 35: G
GFRP bars un
nder tension ttest

The compressive
c
e behaviour of
o GFRP barrs is not as w
well-studiedd as the tensile response amongst
the researchers.
r
The ACI 44
40 code sug
ggests that tthe compresssive strengtth depends on fibre
conteent, the man
nufacturing procedure
p
an
nd resin quaality (ACI Committee 4440, 2006). T
The axial
comp
pression wass directly ap
pplied to thee samples thhrough steel cylindricall caps at booth ends.
Two strain gaugees were installed in the mid-height of the bar oon opposite ssides to meaasure the
longiitudinal com
mpressive strrain. The modulus
m
of eelasticity waas found byy averaging the two
strain
ns in the inittial portion of the test before
b
the tw
wo strain vallues begin tto deviate from each
otherr due to buck
kling effectss. The test set
s up is shoown in Figurre 3-6. In total 15 sampples were
tested
d in compression. The un-braced
u
leength (

)w
was set basedd on the spirral pitch in different

colum
mns. Test ressults and disscussion regaarding comppressive testss are provideed in sectionn 4.1.

32

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

Fig
gure 36: GFR
RP bars underr compressio
on test

The glass
g
transitiion temperatture

waas also meassured for all types of GF


FRP bars useed in this

study
y. This is thee temperaturre at which a solid britttle material becomes moolten or rubbber like.
Johall (2013) con
nducted testts using an Auto Q20 Differentiaal Scanning Calorimeterr (DSC)
manu
ufactured by
y TA instrum
ments (TA In
nstruments, 22013). The D
DSC is usedd to measure the heat
flow from a sam
mple as a fun
nction of teemperature oor time. A ddiamond whheel was useed to cut
GFRP
P samples raanging from
m 2 to 30 mg from differeent bars. These samples were then pplaced in
T-Zero pans with
h lids to prev
vent loss of mass
m during heating (Johhal, 2013).
Test results are provided
p
in section 4-1 with heat fflow vs. tem
mperature reelationships for each
ple presented
d in Append
dix A. For instance, saample B-Strr-25-HM-3a represents the first
samp
samp
ple taken from
m the third bar
b type B25
5.

33

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.2.4 GFRP and CFRP sheets


To prevent failure outside the test region of the column, all specimens were wrapped in these
areas with either 2 layers of GFRP or one layer of CFRP. Tyfo SEH-51A GFRP and Tyfo
SCH-41S CFRP (FYFE, 2012) wraps were used in this project since they were successfully
used in a previous project by Liu and Sheikh (2013) and subsequently their material properties
were known. Table 3-2 summarizes these properties.
Table 32: Mechanical properties of FRP sheets (Liu, 2013)
FRP
composites
GFRP coupon
CFRP coupon

Nominal
Thickness, tf , mm
1.25
1.00

Tensile strength,
fuft , MPa
518
939

Rupture
strain, uft
0.02031
0.01229

Elastic Modulus,
Eft , MPa
25488
76433

3.2.5 Steel reinforcement


Two types of deformed steel were used in the specimens. In each column outside the 740 mm
(29 in.) long test region, the transverse reinforcement consisted of Grade 60 US#3 spiral with 50
mm (2 in.) pitch (volumetric ratio to the concrete core

= 1.93%). The stubs were heavily

reinforced by steel cages consisting of 10M stirrups at 64 mm (2.5 in.) in horizontal and vertical
directions. The mechanical properties obtained from the tests on a minimum of three samples of
each type of steel are presented in Table 3-3.
Table 33: Mechanical properties of two types of steel reinforcement
Steel Type

Yield
strength, fy
, MPa

Yield
strain, y

Elastic
modulus, Es
, MPa

US#3
10M

485
420

0.00252
0.00229

191570
187105


34

Start of
strain
hardening,
sh
0.0273
0.0251

Ultimate
strength, fu ,
MPa

Ultimate
strain, u

598
542

0.163
0.196

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

3.3 Con
nstruction
n processs
3.3.1 Sttub formw
work
The stub
s
formwo
ork was builtt from 19 mm
m (0.75 in) plywood annd 24 (1.53.5; 38 89 mm)
lumb
ber. Formwo
ork drawings are provid
ded in App endix B whhile Figure 3-7 shows the stub
formw
work during
g constructio
on and after completion.
c

Figurre 37: Stub fo


ormwork

Circu
ular wooden pucks, show
wn in Figuree 3-8, were m
made and sixx of them w
were screwedd into the
base of each stub
b to facilitatee the correct placement aand alignmennt of the coluumn cages.

Figure 38: Ci
F
rcular woode
en pucks for the correct p
placement of the column ccage into the stub

3.3.2 Sttub cages


Each
h column was cast integrrally with a stub
s
as menttioned earlieer. The stub iis heavily reeinforced
in order to preveent any damaage to occurr in it duringg the test. 100M steel barrs were cut aand bent
35

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM
into stirrups
s
of diifferent sizess. The stirrup
ps were tiedd to each otheer at a spacinng of aroundd 64 mm
(2.5 in)
i to make the cage. Caare was takeen to allow aat least an innch of concreete cover aroound the
cage and to allow
w the column
n cage to fit in
i the openinng. Figure 3-9 shows a ttypical stub ccage.

Fig
gure 39: Stub
b cage

3.3.3 Co
olumn cag
ges
d the colum
mn cages, tw
wo wooden hholders werre constructeed. The holdders had
In orrder to build
track
ks underneath
h in order fo
or them to move
m
relativve to each otther. The caaging processs started
with inserting siix longitudin
nal bars into
o the end hholder, placiing the GFR
RP spiral in the test
on, and subsequently thee steel spiraal around thee non-criticaal area of thhe longitudinnal bars.
regio
The front
f
holder was then mo
oved in to hold the longgitudinal barss in place. O
Once the longgitudinal
bars were placeed in their correct location on booth holders, the spiralls were tiedd to the
longiitudinal bars using steel rebar ties. Fiigure 3-10 illlustrates thiis process.

36

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

Figure 310
0: Column cagge construction

3.3.4 An
nchors pla
acement
Six steel anchorss were installled at the baase of the stuub formworkk while anothher six anchors were
placeed on a circular plywoo
od piece witth the same diameter as the colum
mn (356 mm
m). These
ancho
ors would laater be used
d to install hinges at the ends of thee specimen ffor testing ppurposes.
The hinges
h
are in
ntegral part of
o the test mechanism
m
oof the testingg machine. T
The location of these
ancho
ors must be accurate to prevent add
ditional mom
ment created in the speciimen during the test.
Figurre 3-11 show
ws the installled anchors.

Figurre 311: Steell anchors

3.3.5 Co
olumn form
mwork
s
cage was
w first placced into the stub formwoork and the column cagge was then lowered
The stub
into place by a crane and tied
t
to the stub
s
cage. S
Sonotubes off 3.66 m (9912 ft) lengtth and a
37

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM
diam
meter of 356 mm (14 in)) were orderred and cut into 1473 m
mm (58 in) llong segmennts to be
used as the formw
work for eacch column. Before
B
placinng the sonottubes aroundd the columnn cage, a
few spacers
s
werre attached on
o each lon
ngitudinal baar in order tto maintain a uniform concrete
coverr throughoutt the height of the colu
umn. In addiition, the loccations for tthe 10 mm tthreaded
rods in the testin
ng region weere located and
a a matchiing hole wass drilled in tthe sonotubee. Figure
3-12 below show
ws the measu
urement tech
hnique usedd in order too obtain an aaccurate locaation for
the ro
od and to preevent hitting
g a spiral. Th
he plastic spaacers can alsso be seen inn this figure.

Figure 312: M
F
Measuring th
he location off the 10 mm a
all threaded rrods

The column forrmwork wass leveled in


n all directiions and tieed in placee using 244 pieces.
Furth
hermore, a circular
c
plyw
wood piece with
w a hole iin the centerr was placedd on the topp of each
sonottube and laser light was shone throu
ugh the hole to check if iit hit the cennter of the stuub at the
base,, with alignm
ment adjustm
ments were made
m
if neceessary. Threee Steel piecees were screw
wed into
the base
b
on each
h side of the stub form
mwork as shoown in Figuure 3-13, to prevent anny lateral
moveement of the stub formw
work during concrete
c
castting.

38

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

Figure 313: Forrmwork befo


ore concrete ccasting

3.3.6 Co
oncrete ca
asting
g was complleted on July
y 3rd, 2012. Concrete w
was poured ffrom the topp of each
Conccrete casting
colum
mn with the stub filled first in layeers and vibraated. As meentioned in ssection 3.2.11, by the
time the last stu
ub was poureed, the conccrete becam
me dry and llost its workkability. It w
was later
disco
overed that concrete
c
gott trapped in the cover reegions of thhree columnss since vibraating the
coverr was not feeasible. Sincce the cover for columnn P28-C-16-1160 was thee smallest am
mong all
nine columns, thiis column su
ustained the worst
w
damagge as a resullt of this issuue.
g the stubs, casting wass halted andd new concrrete with sim
milar properrties was
Afterr completing
orderred. Casting resumed up
pon arrival of
o the seconnd concrete truck. Colum
mns were poured in
layerrs and vibratted. In additiion to the niine columns,, 10 cylinderrs from conccrete batch 1 and 27
cylin
nders from co
oncrete batch
h 2 were maade to monitoor the comprressive strenngth of concrrete over
time. At the end
d of casting
g, the pre-cu
ut circular pplywood pieces with bbolted anchoors were
insertted into thee fresh conccrete on top in the exaact position marked on the sonotubbes. The
castin
ng proceduree is shown in
n Figure 3-14.

39

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

Figure 314: Concreete casting

3.3.7 Co
olumn rep
pair
As diiscussed in section
s
3.2.2
2, three colum
mns had voiids and honeeycomb regioons as a resuult of the
low concrete
c
quaality. Figure 3-15 showss columns P228-C-16-1600, P42-B-122-160 and P228-B-1250 a week
w
after casting.
c

Figure 315
5: Columns P2
28C16160,, P42B1216
60, and P28B
B1250 (Fro
om left to righ
ht)

40

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM
Sincee the LA rep
pair product is a self-com
mpacting flow
wing mortarr, formwork using Plexiglas was
wrapped around the column
ns. Holes weere drilled iin a few loccations in thhe Plexiglas and the
mortaar was injectted into the voids.
v
The formwork
f
waas removed aafter 24 houurs and the suurface of
the patched
p
con
ncrete was grinded
g
after four dayss. Figure 3-16 shows ddetails of thhe repair
proceess.

a) Plexig
glass was heeated, wrapped around thhe column annd held in pllace by duct tape

b) LA rep
pair mortar was
w inserted through drillled holes intto the honeyycomb regionns and
mortaar was added
d until all voiids in the coolumn were ffilled

c) The plexig
glass was rem
moved after a day and thhe surface waas ground
Figure 31
16: Column reepair processs

41

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

3.3.8 FR
RP wrappiing
F
sheets were
w
cut into
o desired len
ngth account
nting for a 1550 mm overllap and weree soaked
The FRP
with Tyfo S Epoxy
E
(FYFE
E, 2012) adh
hesive in a vventilated arrea. One literr of epoxy w
was used
for 1 m2 of GFRP
P sheet whille this valuee for a CFRP
P sheet was half a liter. The columnn surface
was cleaned
c
of an
ny dust and a coat of ep
poxy was appplied to the llength of thee column ouutside the
test region.
r
Afterr half an ho
our of drying
g, sheets weere wrappedd around the epoxied paart of the
colum
mns as show
wn in Figure 3-17. Three columns weere wrappedd with 2 layeers of GFRP (P42-C12-50
0, P42-B-16-160 and P4
42-B-16-275) while the rremaining siix columns w
were strengthhened in
the non-test
n
regiion by 1 lay
yer of CFRP
P. Accordinng to the maaterial propeerties of FR
RP sheets
preseented in Tab
ble 3-2, one layer of CFRP has apprroximately tthe same strrength of 2 llayers of
GFRP
P. The colum
mns were latter painted with
w a thin cooat of white paint.

Figu
ure 317: Colu
umns wrappe
ed with FRP ssheets and pa
ainted before
e testing

42

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

3.4 Instrumenta
ation
Exten
nsive instrum
mentation was
w applied to
t the specim
mens to recoord deformaations duringg testing.
The instrumentat
i
tion included
d strain gaug
ges on the loongitudinal bbars and spirrals to measuure local
strain
ns, Linear Variable
V
Diffferential Traansducers (L
LVDTs) to m
measure aveerage concreete strain
and lateral
l
deflecctions, and Light
L
Emittiing Diode (L
LED) targetts to measurre three dim
mensional
moveements and strains.
s
Thiss allowed accquisition off extensive ddata for the uunderstandinng of the
behav
viour of the specimens th
hroughout th
he duration oof tests.

3.4.1 Sttrain gaug


ges
Twen
nty-four straain gauges were
w
used in each colum
mn. Eighteenn strain gaugges were insttalled on
the lo
ongitudinal bars while six
s strain gaauges were pplaced on thhe spiral. Thhe locations of these
gauges are shown in Figure 3-18. Spirall gauges werre placed onn the two turrns after thee column
n in the mostt damaged rregion. Eachh strain gaugge had an
stub interface to measure thee hoop strain
identtification num
mber consistting of the specimens nname, the baars name annd the locatioon of the
strain
n gauge on th
hat bar. For instance, strrain gauge C
C8-L4-C beloongs to coluumn numberr 8 and is
located on bar L4
4 at a distancce of 838 mm
m from the eend of the stuub.

Figure 318: Sttrain gauge lo


ocation on th
he longitudina
al bars and sp
pirals

43

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Three types of strain gauges were used. The FLA-5-11 gauges were used in the stub region
where high strains were not expected, while the YEFLA high elongation gauges were used in
the column region where large strains were expected. Gauges YEFLA-2 and YEFLA-5 are
identical in performance but since the YEFLA-2 gauges are shorter they are easier to install on
the curved surface of the spiral. The FLA gauges have a strain measurement limit of up to 5%
while the strain range for the YEFLA gauges is 10 to 15%. According to the TML website,
YEFLA gauges are durable for low cyclic strain measurements; however, no gauge exists that
can fully capture large cyclic strains (TML, 2013).
The procedure to strain gauge a GFRP bar, being slightly different than that of a steel bar is
explained in the following steps:
1. Mark the location of the strain gauge on the bar
2. Carefully grind the surface of the bar at the marked location without going into the core
of the bar (For bars with ribbed surface, grind the ribs and for sand-coated bars grind the
sand only)
3. Clean the grinded surface with a damp cloth (No need to use acid and base components
to clean the surface since that would damage the GFRP bar)
4. Put one drop of the corresponding glue on the strain gauge (CN-Y glue was used here)
and hold the strain gauge in place for at least a minute
5. Apply two layers of protective Mcoat A on the strain gauge
6. Finally apply hot wax on the gauge and wrap it with foil tape to prevent damage during
concrete casting
Figure 3-19 shows steps in strain gauging of the GFRP bars.

44

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

Figure 319: S
F
Strain gaugin
ng the GFRP b
bars

Surfaace concrete gauges (PL-60-11-5LT)) were installled on tensiion and comppression faces of the
colum
mn close to the column
n-stub interfa
face to meassure concrete strains forr the first tw
wo tests,
(speccimens P28-C-16-160 an
nd P28-B-12
2-50). Howeever, due to the cyclic nnature of the test and
the presence
p
of cracks,
c
data obtained was
w not founnd to be reliaable and theese gauges w
were not
used in the remaiining tests.

3.4.2 Liinear varia


able differrential tran
nsformers (LVDT)
Seven
nteen LVDT
Ts were used
d in each collumn duringg the tests. Teen LVDTs w
were mounteed on the
holdeers which were
w
placed on the pre-installed thrreaded rods in the coluumns before casting.
Conccrete core strrain was to be measured
d at differennt cross sectiions using these LVDTs. Seven
LVD
DTs were used to measu
ure the verttical displaccement of thhe column aat various loocations.
Figurre 3-20 sho
ows the loccation of th
he vertical LVDTs (T
The LVDT that measuured the
displacement of the entire frrame relativee to the floorr is not show
wn in this F
Figure). Twoo LVDTs
moniitored the sliight movem
ment of the pins and fourr LVDTs weere used to m
measure thee vertical
displacement thro
oughout the length of the specimen.

45

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

Figure 320: L
F
Location of th
he vertical LV
VDTs

Figure 321: Location o


of the horizon
ntal LVDTs an
nd LED targetts

3.4.3 Liight emittiing diode ((LED) targgets


umentation for
f the first two tests waas similar too previouslyy tested steell-reinforced columns
Instru
(Liu, 2013). How
wever, sincee the data ob
btained from
m the horizonntal LVDTs in the plasttic hinge
zone was not as accurate;
a
all the LVDTs on the southh side were rreplaced witth LED targeets. LED
targeets were glued to the th
hreaded rodss which werre screwed into the preeinstalled 100M bars.
Threee LEDs werre glued to a stationary
y steel post to be used as referencce. The K6110-CMM
cameera manufacctured by Metris
M
(Metriis, 2005) was used to obtain readdings from tthe LED
targeets during seeven column
n tests. Figure 3-21 show
Ds on the soouth side
ws the locattion of LED
whilee photos of the
t camera and
a the targetts are providded in Figuree 3-22.
46

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

Figure 3-22: LED taargets and thhe K610-CM


MM camera

47

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.5 Test specimens


Each specimen consisted of a concrete column (356 mm diameter and 1473 mm long) cast
integrally with a 508762813 mm stub. The column represents a part of a building column or a
bridge pier between the section of maximum moment (stub-column interface) and the point of
contraflexure (center of the hinge in the testing frame) while the stub represents the beamcolumn joint or the footing. All columns had six 25M GFRP bars which resulted in a
longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 3.01%. The center-to-center distance between top and
bottom reinforcing bars as shown in Figure 3-23 was kept at 259 mm for all columns. Yet
depending on the size of the spiral the concrete cover in the specimens varied from 15 to 25
mm. This resulted in a core area to gross section area ratio of 0.71 to 0.74, with the core distance
taken to the centreline of the spiral.

48

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

Figure
e 323: Specim
men and crosss section dim
mensions

Specimen details are provided in Table 3-4. Collumns that are highlighhted in green were
gned according to the CS
SA-S806-12..
desig

ons between
n the specim
mens throughh a matrix of variabless. Direct
Tablee 3-5 showss compariso
comp
parisons are highlighted in color and
d also listed iin Table 3-6.
49

Table 34: Specimen details

Lateral reinforcement
Required

Required
Number

50

fc

(MPa)

Axial load
level P/P0

CSA-S806-2002
Size @
spacing

provided

Regular
design

Seismic
design
= 4%

CSA-S806-2012
Regular
design

Seismic
design

Seismic
design

= 2.5%

= 4%

P28-C-12-50

35

0.28

12@50

3.00

1.02

3.82

1.14

1.59

2.55

P28-C-12-160

35

0.28

12@160

0.95

1.02

3.82

1.14

1.59

2.55

P28-C-16-160

35

0.28

16@160

1.65

0.93

3.47

1.03

1.44

2.31

P28-B-12-50

35

0.28

#4@50

3.40

0.83

3.11

0.93

1.30

2.08

P42-C-12-50

35

0.42

12@50

3.00

1.54

5.73

1.71

2.39

3.82

P42-C-12-160

35

0.42

12@160

0.95

1.54

5.73

1.71

2.39

3.82

P42-B-12-160

35

0.42

#4@160

1.05

1.25

4.67

1.39

1.95

3.11

P42-B-16-160

35

0.42

#5@160

1.65

1.14

4.25

1.26

1.77

2.83

P42-B-16-275

35

0.42

#5@275

0.95

1.14

4.25

1.26

1.77

2.83

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Specimen

GFRP
Bar
Type

51

Specimen
Number

S,

D, S,

P, S,

P, M, S,

P, M, D, S,

P, M, D, S,

D,

M, S,

P, S,

P, M

P, M, D,

P, M, D, S

M, D, S,

P, D, S,

P, D,

P, M, D,

P, M

P, M, S,

P, M

P, M, S,

P, S,

P, D, S,

P, D, S,

S,

M, S,

M, D, S,

M, D, S,

M, D,

M ,D,S

D,

D, S

S,

Table 36: Number of direct comparisons


Parameter
P
M
S,
D,
D, S

Definition
Axial load
GFRP manufacturer
Spiral pitch (same size, different )
Spiral size (same pitch, different )
Spiral pitch and size (same )
Total direct comparisons

Number
2
2
3
2
1
10

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Table 35: Specimen comparison

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

3.6 Tessting
3.6.1 Teest set up
mn tests were
w
conduccted using an
a especiallly designedd column teesting framee in the
Colum
Strucctural Laboraatories at th
he University
y of Torontoo. The framee went undeer major rennovations
over the last fivee years where the capaccity of the j ack applyinng the axial load increassed from
4,450
0 kN (1,000 kips) to 10,0
000 kN (2,470 kips). Al so larger hinnges replaced the older hhinges at
both ends. The number off dywidag rods
r
to provvide resistaance againstt axial loadding was
b
top and bottom of thhe frame. Fiigure 3-24 shhows the
increeased from only 2 at the top to 4 at both
colum
mn testing frrame.

Figure 324:
F
Column Testting Frame (C
CTF)

In orrder to installl the colum


mn into the teesting framee, two machhined steel pplates were bbolted to
each end of the column usiing socket cap
c screws into the pree-installed aanchors discuussed in

52

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM
on 3.3.4 (sh
hown in Figu
ure 3-25). The
T specimenn was then lifted with a forklift, m
moved in
sectio
position and tighttened to the hinges using
g eight high strength bollts.

Figure 325: Installing ssteel plates aat the ends off the specime
en

3.6.2 Teest proced


dure
Each
h specimen was
w aligned before
b
the teest using sixx strain gaugges (L1C, L44C, L2H, L33H, L5H
and L6H;
L
see Fig
gure 3-18). Axial
A
load was applied inn incrementss of 200 kN and the straiin values
were recorded. Iff the differen
nce between the averagee strain and thhe maximum
m or minimuum strain
c
was unloaded aand adjustm
ments were made by shhimming
was more than 10%, the column
existiing gaps bettween the en
nd plates an
nd concrete surface. Onnce the colum
mn was aliggned, the
axial load was heeld at around
d 20 kN and
d all instrum
ments were zeeroed. The vvertical actuuator was
mbed in both
h horizontal and verticall directions and was tigghtened to a bottom plaate using
plum
four 32 mm high
h strength threaded
t
rod
ds to hold thhe stub firm
mly during thhe test. Figuure 3-26
show
ws the column
n in the fram
me before thee start of thee test.
The columns
c
werre tested horrizontally wiith the axial load appliedd at the beginnning of thee test and
was held
h
constan
nt throughou
ut the test, while the laterral displacem
ment excursions were appplied in
a rev
verse cyclic manner
m
usin
ng an MTS actuator
a
withh 1,000 kN (220 kips) lloading capaacity and
100
0 mm (4 in) stroke capaccity. The tw
wo hinges at each end off the specim
men allowed in plane
53

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
rotation and kept the axial load path constant during the test. The vertical displacement at the
location of the applied lateral load was controlled using the following equation (a and b are later
shown in Figure 4-31):
Equation 31 = (

Where,
= Control displacement of the test shown in Figure 3-27
= Displacement measured by the LVDT placed at the location of the applied lateral load
= Displacement measured by the LVDT placed at the left pin
= Displacement measured by the LVDT placed at the right pin
a = distance between the point of lateral load application and the centre of left hinge
b = distance between the point of lateral load application and the centre of right hinge

54

EXPERIM
MENTAL PR
ROGRAM

Figu
ure 326: Spe
ecimen in thee CFT before testing

oad was app


plied, only the vertical L
LVDTs werre zeroed aggain. All insttruments
Afterr the axial lo
excep
pt the LED camera weere connecteed to a MG
GC CATMA
AN data acqquisition system and
readiings were taaken at a rate of 10 Hz. For the firsst test (P28--C-16-160), the lateral lload was
appliied in increm
ments of 2 mm
m since the column behaaviour was nnot fully knoown. After itt became
evideent that GFR
RP reinforceed concrete columns cann go throughh multiple ccycles beforre failure
and achieve
a
large deflections, the cyclicc incrementaal factor wass increased tto 4 mm in order to
comp
plete a test in a reasonab
ble amount of time. Figgure 3-27 shoows the lateeral loading protocol
used for the rem
maining eigh
ht columns. The lateraal load contiinued with two cycles at each
increeased displaccement until the end of the
t test. The test was terrminated when the colum
mn could
not sustain
s
the applied
a
axiaal load as a result of ssignificant ddamage to thhe core conncrete or
crush
hing of the lo
ongitudinal bars
b in comp
pression.

55

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

16
12

Displacement(mm)

8
4
0
0

4
8

12
16
CycleNumber
Figure 327: Lateral displacement excursion protocol

56

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


4.1 Coupon test results on GFRP bars
Tensile and compressive coupon tests were performed on the GFRP bars used in this study to
obtain their mechanical properties. Figure 4-1 displays the response of bars tested in tension
with each response representing the average results of a minimum of three tests. The dotted
portion of the graph represents the extrapolated strain data using the obtained modulus of
elasticity. The summarized values from these coupon tests are found in Table 4-1 and the stress
vs. strain relationship for each test is presented in Appendix C. The nominal bar area provided
by the manufacturer is used in all calculations for consistency and ease of application. In many
cases, the actual area of the bar was much larger. For instance, had the actual area been used for
bar type B25, the ultimate strength and modulus of elasticity would have been 80% of the
reported values. Mechanical properties based on actual area are also reported in Appendix C.

Bartype"B"tensileresponse

Stress(MPa)

1600
1400

B12

1200

B16
B25

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

0.005

0.01

0.015
Strain

57

0.02

0.025

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Bartype"C"tensileresponse

Stress(MPa)

1600
1400

C12

1200

C16

1000

C25

800
600
400
200
0
0

0.005

0.01

0.015
Strain

0.02

0.025

0.03

Figure 41: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for GFRP bars used in this study

Table 41: Mechanical properties of GFRP straight bars and spirals in tension
Rebar
Nominal
type* diameter mm (in)
C - SP
12 (0.472)

Actual
diameter mm (in)
12.62 (0.497)

Modulus of
elasticity (MPa)
58399

Ultimate
stress (MPa)
1454

Ultimate
strain
0.0249

C - SP

16 (0.630)

16.05 (0.632)

51224

1069

0.0209

C - ST

25 (0.984)

25.11 (0.989)

65779

1087**

0.0165**

B - SP

12.7 (0.5)

12.7 (0.5)

58948

1243

0.0211

B - SP

15.87 (0.625)

16.01 (0.630)

54567

1159

0.0213

B - ST
25.4 (1)
28.44 (1.120)
74270
1338
0.0180
* The first part indicates the type of GFRP material and the second part identifies whether the straight
sample was taken from the material used for straight bars (ST) or the material used for spirals (SP).
** These values do not represent the ultimate stress and strain. The test was terminated due to slippage of
bars in the coupler.

For bar type C25, the coupler slipped before rupture of the fibres. As the diameter of the GFRP
bars increases, a larger bond area between the bar and the expansive cement in the coupler is
required. However, bar type B25 was ruptured using the same couplers that were used for bar
C25 with no slip occurrence. Thus this problem is related to the external coating of the bar
rather than size of the coupler. In order to investigate this issue, a C25 bar from a different batch
than the one used in this study was manually sand-coated using epoxy and sand, similar to the
coating on type B bars. The bar was successfully tested and was ruptured. This indicates that the
58

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


jagged surface of bar type B creates better interlock with the expansive cement material than the
ribbed surface of bar type C and prevents the slippage of the bar out of the coupler.
Figure 4-2 shows the response of the GFRP samples tested under compression. The stiffness and
ultimate strength for each bar type is given in Table 4-2. The ultimate strength for specimens
with different un-braced lengths was approximately the same indicating that buckling was not
the cause of failure in these specimens. Rather crushing of the fibres in compression led to the
drop in load and subsequent failure. Modulus of elasticity was obtained in the beginning of each
test as discussed in Section 3.2.3 and the results were extrapolated in Figure 4-2 until the
measured peak stress. However, slight increase in stiffness was observed close to the end of the
compressive tests on GFRP bars. The reason for this gain in stiffness can be lower recorded
strains by the strain gauges due to bending of the bar. The change in modulus of elasticity
accompanied by the post peak response can be observed in the stress-strain curves for each
specimen in Appendix C.

Bartype"B"compressiveresponse
0.014

0.012

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
0

Freelength=50mm
200

Stress(MPa)

Freelength=160mm
Freelength=275mm

400
600
800
1000
Strain

59

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Bartype"C"compressiveresponse
0.014

0.012

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
0

Freelength=50mm
200

Stress(MPa)

Freelength=160mm

400
600
800
1000
Strain

Figure 42: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for GFRP bars used in this study

As discussed in section 3.2.3, the same test set up used by Dietz (2003) was used in these tests
to obtain the compressive response of the GFRP bars. It is important to note that this set up
prevents bar movement and rotation in all directions and therefore the end conditions can be
assumed as fixed-fixed with a theoretical effective length factor of 0.5. However, compression
data based on this theoretical value is not directly applicable to the column specimens, as the
longitudinal bars in the columns are not exposed to the same end conditions. The issues
concerning bar buckling, and further discussion of the compression coupon tests are presented in
section 4.7.1.
Table 42: Mechanical properties of GFRP bars in compression
Rebar
type
C

Free
length
mm (in)
50 (2)
160 (6.3)

Nominal
area
mm2 (in2)

Actual
area
mm2 (in2)

491 (0.761)

495 (0.768)

50 (2)
B

160 (6.3)

507 (0.786)

55569

Ultimate
stress
(MPa)
619

56357

602

0.01066

71018

864

0.0104

72165

873

0.00932

72701

759

0.00901

Modulus of
elasticity (MPa)

635 (0.985)

275 (10.8)

60

Ultimate
strain
0.01132

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION
verage glass transition teemperature
Tablee 4-3 summaarizes the av

for all G
GFRP bar typpes used

in this study witth each speccimen nameed with a lettter and a nnumber. Thee letter indiccates the
GFRP
P bar type and
a the numb
ber represen
nts the diameeter of the sppiral or straight bar. Six samples
with an approxim
mate weight of 2-30 mg from each bbar type werre cut and teested using tthe DSC
hine (Johal, 2013).
2
Grap
phs presented
d in Appenddix A are creeated using aan analysis software
mach
packaage (TA Un
niversal Anaalysis V4.5A
A). In order to obtain thhe glass traansition tempperature,
tangeents are draw
wn along bo
oth top and bottom
b
baseelines as shoown in Figurre 4-3. Threee values
are of
o interest; onset, interrmediate an
nd offset. T
The onset teemperature is the first tangent
diverrgence, the in
ntermediate temperaturee is the infleection point aand the offseet temperatuure is the
secon
nd tangent convergence
c
e. However, only the inntermediate ttemperature, which is tthe glass
transition temperrature, is sho
own in Appeendix A sincce the analyssis of the othher values iss beyond
the sccope of this study.

Figu
ure 43: Typiccal glass transsition curve o
of a GFRP spe
ecimen (Joha
al, 2013)

Table
e 43: Avera
age glass tra
ansition tem
mperatures ffor GFRP barrs (Johal, 20
013)
B12
B166
B25
C12
C
C16
C25
Bar type
Av
verage
C

124.3 125 .4 117.1


109.6 1006.8 101.4**
* This reeported valuee is not reliablle since the reesin used to m
make the straight bar type
C doess not show a value using
g the DSC maachine and thhe DMA machhine must be
useed to obtain an
a accurate glaass transitionn temperature for this type of bar.

61

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Researchers have been trying to link the

values to the mechanical properties and durability of

GFRP bars. According to the CSA-S807-10 guideline, a glass transition value of 100C or
greater is considered to indicate excellent durability. All bars used in this study met this
requirement and had an average glass transition temperature greater than 100C. However, the
mechanical properties of GFRP bars start to deteriorate as the temperature exceeds the glass
transition temperature which is mainly due to the melting of the resin that hols the fibres intact.
Therefore, in case of a fire GFRP bars lose their mechanical properties much faster than steel
reinforcement. This shortcoming regarding GFRP must be taken into account by the designer by
providing adequate concrete cover.

62

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.2 Analytical calculations on unconfined columns


Before discussing the test results, an understanding of the response of the unconfined concrete
section and specifically the nominal moment and shear capacity of the column are required.
Therefore, hand calculations accompanied by computer software check are presented in this
section and the analytical results will be subsequently referred to in the rest of the thesis.
Two main methods exist in analyzing the response of columns with a circular cross section. One
is analysis using polar coordinates and the other is rectangular layered analysis. Davalath and
Madugula (1988) and Everard (1997) each came up with formulations to predict the axial loadmoment interaction for a column with a circular cross section using polar coordinates. Both
authors had the following assumptions in their formulations:
1- Plane sections remain plane during bending
2- Maximum strain in the outermost concrete fibre in compression is -0.003
3- Perfect bond exists between concrete and reinforcement
4- Tensile strength of concrete is ignored
Figure 4-4 shows the column cross-section and the material properties used in predicting the
response. The exact ultimate strength of GFRP in tension or compression is not of great
importance since the maximum stress in the analysis ranged from -170 MPa in compression to
550 MPa in tension which are significantly less than the ultimate strength values of the GFRP
bars used in this study. In other words, concrete crushing occurred before GFRP bars reach their
ultimate strength.

63

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

Figure 44
4: Cross section used for n
nominal sectiional analysiss

g Davalath and
a Madugu
ula (1987) an
nd Everard ((1997) form
mulations, thee axial load--moment
Using
interaaction curves shown in blue
b in Figurre 4-5 and F
Figure 4-6 w
were obtainedd. The red cuurve was
obtaiined using Response
R
200
00 (Bentz an
nd Collins, 22001). As exxpected, bothh formulatioons result
in a similar
s
behav
viour.

MN(Pola
M
aranalyssis,Everrard)
4000
Handcalculation

3500

Respon
nse2000

3000

Load(kN)

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

20

40

60
800
100
Moment(kkN.m)

120

140

16
60

Figure 45
5: Axial loadmoment inte
eraction curvve using polarr coordinate formulationss
(Everard, 19
997)

64

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

MN(Polaranalysis,DavalathandMadugula)
4000
Handcalculation

3500

Response2000
3000

Load(kN)

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

20

40

60
80
100
Moment(kN.m)

120

140

160

Figure 46: Axial loadmoment interaction curve using polar coordinate formulations
(Davalath and Madugula, 1987)

Two discrepancies are observed between the hand calculated curve and the behaviour obtained
using Response 2000. The first one is the lower capacity using Davalath and Madugula or
Everard formulations compared to that of Response 2000 for the whole range of values in the
two curves. The second difference is the decrease (hand calculation) vs. increase (Response
2000) of the moment capacity for low axial loads. Both issues can be explained by referring to
the assumption, used in the hand calculations, that the top concrete fibre had a constant strain of
-0.003 for all axial loads. Response 2000, on the other hand looks for the maximum moment
capacity for each axial load by varying both top and bottom strains.
A layered analysis using MS Excel was conducted to see if a behaviour closer to what Response
2000 produces could be obtained. The circular cross section was broken down into 19 rectangles
as shown in Figure 4-7. Areas are numbered from one to ten with the dimensions for each region
provided on the right hand side; the first number indicates the width of the region while the
65

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION
nd number iss the height of the region
n. The total aarea of the tr
transformed section is onnly 0.2%
secon
higheer than the area
a
of the circle and the effectivee depths of tthe reinforcement are aalso very
closee to the ones shown in Fiigure 4-4.

Figure 47: Layered ccross section

Simillar material properties as


a shown in Figure 4-4 were used in the layereed calculatioons. The
follow
wing assump
ptions were used:
1- Plane sections remain
n plane durin
ng bending
2- Maximum
m moment caapacity is fo
ound at each axial load bby adjusting both top andd bottom
strains
3- Perfect bo
ond exists beetween conccrete and reinnforcement
4- Tensile sttrength of co
oncrete is con
nsidered
Sixty
y points witth different strain profilles were ussed in MS E
Excel to obbtain the axiial loadmom
ment interactiion. GFRP was
w modelleed as linearr elastic in ccompressionn and tensionn with a
stiffn
ness of 65 GPa.
G
Popoviccs (1970) mo
odel was useed for concrrete in comppression sincce it was
the closest
c
to thee experimen
ntal data obttained by tessting concreete cylinderss. Tension sttiffening
was included
i
in the
t analysis using
u
the eq
quation givenn by Vecchioo and Collinns (1986).

66

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


The results are shown in Figure 4-8. It is clear that varying the top strain and including the
tensile stresses in concrete have increased the moment capacity compared to the previous
calculations. It is also interesting to see that for this specific cross section the moment capacity
stays relatively constant for low axial load levels.

MN(Layeredanalysis)
4000

Handcalculation

3500

Response2000

3000

Load(kN)

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

20

40

60
80
100
Moment(kN.m)

120

140

160

Figure 48: Axial loadmoment interaction curve using layered analysis

The modified nominal moment vs. curvature was calculated using the same cross section as
shown in Figure 4-9 for the two different GFRP types and the two axial load levels used in the
column tests. The term modified indicates the fact that the compressive stresses in the GFRP
are accounted for in the analysis. However, compressive GFRP stresses are taken as zero as
recommended by the CSA-S806-12 in calculating the nominal moment capacities. Both
modified nominal and nominal moment capacities are summarized in Table 4-4. The stiffness
values for GFRP bars in tension and compression, obtained from coupon tests and shown in
Table 4-1 and Table 4-2, were used in the analysis. Due to the high compressive strength of bar
67

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


type B, a second peak is observed in the moment vs. curvature response. However, the first peak
is used as the nominal moment capacity of the section since the second peak occurs when the
top strain in concrete is -0.0145. Prior to reaching such a high compressive strain, the
unconfined concrete crushes and the section will never practically experience the second peak.
The sectional response for all four different cases is provided in Figure 4-9. It can be observed
that the use of bar type B gives the section a higher moment capacity due to its higher stiffness
while increasing the axial load reduces the ductility of the section as expected. One of the
reasons for this difference in behaviour of columns with two types of GFRP bars is the actual
higher diameter and higher area of bar type B compared to the nominal values.

M (Bartype"B",N=900kN)
160

Moment(kN.m)

140
120
100
80
60
40

Handcalculation

20

Response2000

0
0

20

40
60
Curvature(rad/km)

80

100

M (Bartype"B",N=1400kN)
160
140
Moment(kN.m)

120
100
80
60
40

Handcalculation

20

Response2000

0
0

20

40
60
Curvature(rad/km)

68

80

100

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

M (Bartype"C",N=900kN)

160

Moment(kN.m)

140
120
100
80
60
40

Handcalculation

20

Response2000

0
0

20

40
60
Curvature(rad/km)

80

100

M (Bartype"C",N=1400kN)
160
140
Moment(kN.m)

120
100
80
60
40

Handcalculation

20

Response2000

0
0

20

40
60
Curvature(rad/km)

80

100

Figure 49: Unconfined moment vs. curvature responses for different bar types and axial loads


Table 44: Modified nominal and nominal moment capacities for different GFRP bar types
and different axial loads
GFRP bar type
Axial load level
Modified nominal
moment capacity (kN.m)
Nominal moment
Capacity (kN.m)

Bar type B
P/P0 = 0.28 P/P0 = 0.42

Bar type C
P/P0 = 0.28 P/P0 = 0.42

144

143

137

138

126

125

125

124

69

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

4.3 Tesst observa


ations
o distress in
n all specimeens were fleexural crackks on the topp and bottom
m of the
The first signs of
mn close to the stub inteerface. The first cracks often occurrred during tthe third cyccle when
colum
the displacement
d
t at the locattion of the ap
pplied lateraal load reachhed 6 mm. A
After the fourrth cycle
3 or 4 flexural crracks at an av
verage spaciing of 150 m
mm were visible on the ttop and bottoom faces
for alll specimenss. For high axial
a
load co
olumns, hori zontal crackks on the siddes were obsserved as
early
y as the end of the fourtth cycle. Fig
gure 4-10 shhows some eearly crackinng in the speecimens.
Horizzontal cracks caused by high axial lo
oad can be cllearly seen iin specimen P42-C-12-160.

Figure 410: P28C12


2160 (Cycle 6, = 12 mm
m), P42C12160 (Cycle 6,, = 12 mm)

The next
n
main observation
o
in
i all specim
mens was thee gradual looss of the cooncrete coveer. Cover
spalliing generally
y started in the 5th cyclee (beyond a displacemeent of 8 mm)) and full coover loss
occurrred around the 10th cycle (displacem
ment of abouut 20 mm). D
Depending oon the spacinng of the
spiral and the leevel of axiall load, the spalling
s
of tthe cover occcurred at a different cyycle and
location. For colu
umns with closely
c
spaceed spirals thee length of thhe region along which thhe cover
spalleed was greatter than that in columns containing llower transvverse reinforcement ratioo. This is
due to
t the weak bond causeed by separaation betweeen the coverr concrete annd the core concrete
due to
t the presen
nce of closely
y spaced spiirals. Figure 4-11 showss the spalled region afterr the 10th
70

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION
mens P28-C--12-50 and P28-C-12-1 60. In well-confined columns coover loss
cyclee for specim
contiinued up to the mid-heeight of the column whhile for coluumns with wide spiral spacing
damaage was morre localized in the test region.
r
Furthhermore, forr columns w
with high axxial load,
coverr spalling waas observed on the sides much earlieer than that iin low axial lload columnns.

Figure 411: Cover spalliing in column


ns P28C12 50 and P28C
C12160 afte
er the 10th cycle

Also the repair material used in colu


umns P28-C
C-16-160, P442-B-12-1600 and P28--B-12-50
ntained bond
d strength to the originaal concrete. F
Figure 4-12 shows a piiece of conccrete that
main
spalleed off from specimen
s
P2
28-C-16-160
0 during the ttest.

Figure 412: Accep


ptable bond b
between the cconcrete and
d the LA repaiir mortar

Sincee no yieldin
ng exists in GFRP bars or GFRP sspirals, the next main oobservation was the
failurre of the speecimen. The lateral load was increas ed until the column wass not able to hold the
71

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


applied axial load. A combination of crushing and buckling of the longitudinal bars in
compression accompanied by the crushing of the concrete core in the most damaged zone led to
the drop in axial load and termination of the test. No rupture was seen in the spirals. The
following figures show the pictures of the column just before failure, after failure and detailed
views of the most damaged region in each specimen.

72

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

Figu
ure 413: P28
8C1250 (Cyycle 43,

= 8
88 mm)

Figu
ure 414: P28
8C1250 (Mo
ost damaged region)

73

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

Figu
ure 415: P28C12160 (cyycle 25,

= 52 mm)

Figurre 416: P28C12160 (M


Most damaged
d region)

74

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

Figu
ure 417: P28C16160 (cyycle 22,

= 48 mm)

Figurre 418: P28C16160 (M


Most damaged
d region)

75

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

Figu
ure 419: P28
8B1250 (Cyycle 35,

= 9
94 mm)

Figu
ure 420: P28B1250 (Mo
ost damaged region)

76

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

Figu
ure 421: P42
2C1250 (Cyycle 35,

= 7
72 mm)

Figu
ure 422: P42C1250 (Mo
ost damaged region)

77

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

Figu
ure 423: P42C12160 (Cyycle 25,

= 52 mm)

Figurre 424: P42C12160 (M


Most damaged
d region)

78

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

Figure 425: P42B12160 (C


Cycle 24,

= 48 mm)

Figurre 426: P42B12160 (M


Most damaged
d region)

79

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

Figure 427: P42B16160 (C


Cycle 25,

= 52 mm)

Figurre 428: P42B16160 (M


Most damaged
d region)

80

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

Figure 429: P42B16275 (C


Cycle 21,

= 44 mm)

Figurre 430: P42B16275 (M


Most damaged
d region)

81

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.4 Test results and analysis


The response of each specimen can be shown by plotting the lateral load on the specimen ( )
vs. the applied lateral displacement ( ) at the location of lateral load. This relationship for each
column is provided in Appendix D. The columns were tested horizontally; therefore certain
geometric adjustments are needed to convert the measured test data according to the cantilever
column model to produce the base shear (V) vs. tip deflection () and moment (M) vs. curvature
(). More information regarding the M- response is provided in section 4.4.2. Moment vs. tip
deflection () is also presented for each column in Appendix D.

4.4.1 Shear vs. tip deflection


Each specimen represented a portion of a bridge or a building column between the section of
maximum moment and the point of contraflexure. Testing a cantilever column under combined
axial load and applied lateral load on top is cumbersome. Therefore, the tests in this study were
carried out with columns being horizontal, deflecting under load while the applied axial load
direction remained horizontal through the test. Applied lateral load thus cannot be used as the
column shear. Figure 4-31 shows a drawing of the column in the horizontal test set up and its
transition to a cantilever (Liu, 2013). The tip displacement () is the tangential deviation of the
contra-flexural point B. is calculated as:
Equation 41 =

The lateral force V can be determined from the applied force PL as


Equation 42 =

82

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

Figure 431:: Conversion from test sett up used in th


his study to tthe cantileverr column mo
odel

As diiscussed by Liu, the sheear at the basse of the canntilever coluumn (V) difffers from thee applied
lateraal force at po
oint B (V). As a result, a componennt of the axiaal load need to be deducted from
V to
o obtain the base
b
shear (L
Liu, 2013). This
T is show
wn explicitly in Figure 4-32.

Figure 43
32: Base sheaar calculation
n

Thus to obtain th
he base shearr, the followiing equationn can be usedd:
Equatiion 43 V
V =
he stub-colum
mn interface is
wherre, the inclinaation of th
83

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Equation 44 =

Neglecting this difference between V and V can result in over predicting the shear capacity and
displacement ductility factor of the specimen especially for columns under high axial load. The
shear vs. tip deflection graphs for all nine columns are provided below. The red dashed lines
represent the nominal shear capacity Vn with a decreasing slope caused by secondary effects.
The applied shear can be found using the following expression:

Equation 45 Vn =

Where,
,

= The modified nominal moment capacity of the unconfined section calculated in section

4.2
= Applied axial load
= Theoretical tip yield deflection
= Column shear span (1841 mm)

84

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


100

P28C1250
P/Po =0.28
12mm@50mm

75

Shear,V(kN)

50
25
0
25
50
75

Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

100

300 250 200 150 100

50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

250

300

Figure 433: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P28C1250

100

P28C12160
P/Po =0.28
12mm@160mm

75

Shear,V(kN)

50
25
0
25
50
75

Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

100
300 250 200 150 100

50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

Figure 434: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P28C12160

85

250

300

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


100

P28C16160
P/Po =0.28
16mm@160mm

75

Shear,V(kN)

50
25
0
25
50
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

75
100

300 250 200 150 100 50


0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

250

300

Figure 435: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P28C16160

100
75

P28B1250
P/Po =0.28
12mm@50mm

Shear,V(kN)

50
25
0
25
50
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

75
100

300 250 200 150 100 50


0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

Figure 436: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P28B1250

86

250

300

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


125

P42C1250
P/Po =0.42
12mm@50mm

100
75

Shear,V(kN)

50
25
0
25
50
75
100

Spalling ofbottomconcretecover

4Spallingoftopconcretecover

Crushingoflongitudinalbars

125
300 250 200 150 100

50

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tipdeflection, (mm)
Figure 437: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P42C1250

100

P42C12160
P/Po =0.42
12mm@160mm

Shear,V(kN)

75
50
25

3bars

0
25
50
75

Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

100
300 250 200 150 100 50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

Figure 438: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P42C12160

87

250

300

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


100

P42B12160
P/Po =0.42
12mm@160mm

75

Shear,V(kN)

50
25
0
25
50
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

75
100

300 250 200 150 100 50


0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

250

300

Figure 439: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P42B12160

100
75

P42B16160
P/Po =0.42
16mm@160mm

2bars

Shear,V(kN)

50
25
0
25
50
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

75
100

300 250 200 150 100 50


0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

Figure 440: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P42B16160

88

250

300

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


100
75

P42B16275
P/Po =0.42
16mm@275mm

Shear,V(kN)

50
25
0
2bars

25
50
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

75
100

300 250 200 150 100 50


0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

250

300

Figure 441: Shear vs. tip deflection for column P42B16275

4.4.2 Moment vs. curvature


The moment vs. curvature response is an important representation of the behaviour of a
reinforced concrete section. Moment at the most damaged section is found here by summing the
moments caused by both the lateral load and axial load. The following expression is used to
calculate the moment in the most damaged section:
Equation 46 M = V (L

) + P

Where,
= Distance from the column-stub interface to the most damaged section (Section 4.6)
As mentioned earlier, 10 M threaded rods were placed in the column cage before concrete
casting to measure the concrete deformations during the test. However, the strains obtained from
these rods were not accurate mainly due to the movement and twist of the rods especially after
89

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


the spalling of the concrete cover. More discussion regarding this issue is provided in section
4.4.4. Therefore the curvature obtained in this study was found using the strains measured on the
longitudinal bars. Since the strains were higher in the outermost bars (L1 and L4), the strain
gauges installed on these two bars saturated earlier than those placed on the interior bars (L2,
L3, L5 and L6). Thus bar strains were measured until the end of the test for most columns at a
location close to the column-stub interface; however, this location is not necessarily the most
damaged section. Due to the confinement caused by the stub, the most damaged section is
moved away from the column-stub interface. The dotted curve in the moment vs. curvature
responses in Figure 4-42 to Figure 4-50 represents the portion of the data that was obtained from
the strain gauges located on the interior bars when the strains from bars L1 and L4 were no
longer available. The moment has been adjusted for the transfer from the column-stub interface
to the most damaged section. The dashed lines in Figures 4-40 to 4-48 represent the modified
nominal moment capacity (

of the column section.

Table 4-5 provides the number of cycles that each column went through before failure
accompanied by the number of cycles for which the curvature data was measured using strain
gauges. In average, curvature was measured for 80% of the test.
Table 45: Number of recorded cycles for column specimens
Cycle at failure
P- / V- / M-

Last cycle with available


curvature data
M-

Percentage of the test with


available curvature data

43
25
22
35
35
25
24
25
21

28
24
22
34
25
15
21
17
15

65
96
100
97
71
60
88
68
71

Specimen
P28-C-12-50
P28-C-12-160
P28-C-16-160
P28-B-12-50
P42-C-12-50
P42-C-12-160
P42-B-12-160
P42-B-16-160
P42-B-16-275

90

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


300

P28C1250
P/Po =0.28
12mm@50mm

Moment,M(kNm)

200
100
0
100
200
300

150

100

50
0
50
Curvature, (rad/km)

100

150

Figure 442: Moment vs. curvature for column P28C1250

300

P28C12160
P/Po =0.28
12mm@160mm

Moment,M(kNm)

200
100
0
100
200
300
150

100

50

50

100

Curvature, (rad/km)
Figure 443: Moment vs. curvature for column P28C12160

91

150

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


300

P28C16160
P/Po =0.28
16mm@160mm

Moment,M(kNm)

200
100
0
100
200
300
150

100

50

50

100

150

Curvature, (rad/km)
Figure 444: Moment vs. curvature for column P28C16160

300

Moment,M(kNm)

200

P28B1250
P/Po =0.28
12mm@50mm

100

100

200

300
150

100

50
0
50
Curvature, (rad/km)

100

Figure 445: Moment vs. curvature for column P28B1250

92

150

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


300

P42C1250
P/Po =0.42
12mm@50mm

Moment,M(kNm)

200

100

100

200

300
150

100

50

0
50
Curvature, (rad/km)

100

150

Figure 446: Moment vs. curvature for column P42C1250

300

Moment,M(kNm)

200

P42C12160
P/Po =0.42
12mm@160mm

100

100

200

300
150

100

50
0
50
Curvature, (rad/km)

100

Figure 447: Moment vs. curvature for column P42C12160

93

150

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


300

P42B12160
P/Po =0.42
12mm@160mm

Moment,M(kNm)

200

100

100

200

300
150

100

50
0
50
Curvature, (rad/km)

100

150

Figure 448: Moment vs. curvature for column P42B12160

300

Moment,M(kNm)

200

P42B16160
P/Po =0.42
16mm@160mm

100

100

200

300
150

100

50
0
50
Curvature, (rad/km)

100

Figure 449: Moment vs. curvature for column P42B16160

94

150

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


300

P42B16275
P/Po =0.42
16mm@275mm

Moment,M(kNm)

200

100

100

200

300
150

100

50
0
50
Curvature, (rad/km)

100

150

Figure 450: Moment vs. curvature for column P42B16275

4.4.3 Spiral strains


As discussed in section 3.4.1, six strain gauges were installed on the spiral in the most damaged
section. The strain gauges were placed 120 away from each other and were named with letters
I to N. In other words, strain gauge I was located closest to the column-stub interface
while strain gauge N was the farthest from the column-stub interface. The strains measured in
the spirals vs. the applied lateral load were plotted and are presented in Appendix E. Strain
gauges L, M, and N were closer to the most damaged section and therefore recorded
higher strains compared to the strain gauges installed on the first spiral turn. Table 4-6
summarizes the maximum strains from gauges L, M, and N for each test.

95

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Table 46: Maximum measured spiral strain
Specimen
P28-C-12-50
P28-C-12-160
P28-C-16-160
P28-B-12-50
P42-C-12-50
P42-C-12-160
P42-B-12-160
P42-B-16-160
P42-B-16-275
Average B
Average C

Maximum spiral
strain at 80% peak
% ()
4145
3612
4450
9306
2276
7835
5010
6597
5902
6704
4464

Maximum spiral
()
strain

Ultimate spiral
strain
()

4145
4031
5605
9779
6440
11882
7581
13054
9723
10034
6421

24900
24900
19900
21100
24900
24900
21100
21300
21300
21200
23900

0.167
0.162
0.282
0.463
0.259
0.477
0.359
0.613
0.456
0.473
0.269

Straight bars having the same material as spirals were ordered and tested in tension in order to
obtain the ultimate tensile strength of GFRP spirals. Depending on the bent radius to bar
diameter ratio, the ultimate strain for a bent bar has been proven by researchers to be lower than
that of the straight bar. However, since this ratio is quite high for the spirals used in this study,
the rupture strain of the spiral must not be significantly different than the rupture strain of the
respective straight bar. Maximum spiral strains for bar types B and C given in the second
column of Table 4-6 are used later in section 4.7.5 to calculate the effective GFRP spiral stress.
Theoretically, larger hoop strains are expected in columns with closely spaced spirals. However,
high axial load and bar buckling can cause additional strain in the spiral which is not necessarily
due to confinement. For instance, the maximum recorded strain in specimen P42-C-12-160 is
twice the value in specimen P42-C-12-50. In general, all spirals managed to reach strains much
higher than the yield strain of steel, while still only at a fraction of the rupture strain of GFRP.

96

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.4.4 Deflected shape


The deflected shape of each specimen was constructed using the vertical LVDTs and the
attached LED targets. The deflected shape at major stages such as cracking, cover spalling and
failure are demonstrated in Figure 4-51 to Figure 4-59. The displacement values shown in the
box in each plot refer to the location of the applied lateral load which was 1035 mm away from
the left pin. The red points represent data acquired using the LVDTs while the blue points
denote vertical displacement at the location of LED targets. The black lines are drawn using
linear interpolation between the red points. The LED camera was not used in the first two tests
and therefore no LED data is available for columns P28-C-16-160 and P28-B-12-50. A program
called Timeline designed to analyze the LED data was used here.
In general, it can be observed that the majority of the specimens showed a response which is
softer than that of a typical steel-reinforced column due to the low modulus of elasticity of the
GFRP longitudinal reinforcement. Columns with low axial load and large transverse
reinforcement ratio reached the largest deflection amongst all specimens. The LED data matches
the linear interpolation between the LVDT data during the first few stages; however, as the
cover starts to spall off and concrete crushing occurs around the pre-installed 10 mm steel rods,
the LED data starts to deviate from the LVDT data.

97

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

P
P28C12
250

120
100

Stubend

Verticaldisplacement(mm)

80

C
Column

60
40
20
0
20
40

8mm(Craacking)
20mm(Fu
ullcoverspallin
ng)
36mm
52mm
68mm
88(Failuree)

60
80

100

Stubcolumn
n interface

120
0

500

1000
15000
20000
is(mm)
S
Specimenax

250
00

30
000

Figure
e 451: Deflected shape off column P28
8C1250

P2
28C12160

120
100
Stubend

Verticaldisplacement(mm)

80

C
Column

60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80

Stub
bcolumn
intterface

100

8mm(Crackin
ng)
20mm(Fullco
overspalling)
36mm
52mm(Failuree)

120
0

500

1000

15000
20000
Specimenaaxis(mm)

250
00

Figure
e 452: Defleccted shape of
f column P28C12160

98

30
000

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

P28C16160

120
100

Stubend

Verticaldisplacement(mm)

80

Stubcolumn
interface

Column

60
40
20
0
20
40
60

8mm(Cracking)
20mm(Fullcoverspalling)
36mm
52mm

80

100
120
0

500

1000
1500
2000
Specimenaxis(mm)

2500

3000

Figure 453: Deflected shape of column P28C16160

P28B1250

120
100

Stubend

Column

Verticaldisplacement(mm)

80
60
40
20
0
20
40

Stubcolumninterface

8mm(Cracking)
20mm(Fullcoverspalling)
36mm
52mm
68mm
88,+94(Failure)

1000

2500

60
80

100
120
0

500

1500
2000
Specimenaxis(mm)

Figure 454: Deflected shape of column P28B1250

99

3000

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

P
P42C12
250

120
1
100
1

Stubend
S

Verticaldisplacement(mm)

80

Columntip

60
40
20
0
20
40
60

8mm(C
Cracking)
20mm((Fullcoverspallling)
36mm
52mm
68mm((Failure)

80
Stub
bcolumn
interface

1
100
1
120
0

500

1000

15000
Specimenaxxis(mm)

2000

2500

3000

Figure
e 455: Deflected shape off column P42
2C1250

P4
42C12160

120
100

Stubend

Verticaldisplacement(mm)

80

Stubcolumn
erface
inte

Columntip

60
40
20
0
20
40
60

8mm(Cracking)
16mm(Fullcoverspalling)
36mm
48mm(Failure)

80
100
120
0

500

1000

15000
Specimenaxxis(mm)

20000

Figure
e 456: Defleccted shape of
f column P42C12160

100

2500

3000

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

P4
42B12160

120
100

Sttubend

Verticaldisplacement(mm)

80

Stubccolumn
inteerface

Columntip

60
40
20
0
20
40
60

8mm(C
Cracking)
16mm(Fullcoverspallling)
36mm
48mm(Failure)

80
100
120
0

500

1000

15000
Specimenaxi
S
s(mm)

20000

2500

3000

Figure
e 457: Defleccted shape of
f column P42B12160

P4
42B16160

120
1
100
1

Stubend
S

Verticaldisplacement(mm)

80

Stubcolumn
inte
erface

Columntip

60
40
20
0
20
40
60

8mm(Cracking)
20mm(Fullcoverspalling)
36mm
48mm(Failure)

80
1
100
1
120
0

500

1000

15000
SSpecimenaxiis(mm)

2000

Figure
e 458: Defleccted shape of
f column P42B16160

101

2500

3000

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

P4
42B16275

120
10
00

Stubend

Verticaldisplacement(mm)

80
8

Stubccolumn
inte
erface

Columntip
p

60
6
40
4
20
0
2
20
4
40
6
60

8mm(C
Cracking)
16mm(Fullcoverspaalling)
36mm
44mm(Failure)

8
80
00
10
120
0

500

1000

15000
Specimenaxi
S
s(mm)

20000

2500

3000

Figure
e 459: Defleccted shape of
f column P42B16275

hat must be kept in min


nd is the facct that the L
LED targets were placed on the
Anotther factor th
South
h side of thee column while
w
the verrtical LVDT
T in the mosst damaged section (LV
VDT 3 in
Figurre 3-20) wass installed on
n the North side. For insstance, in sppecimen P422-B-16-160, the 10M
steel rods inside the concretee core were gradually
g
tillting in the N
North-Southh direction ass the test
progrressed (show
wn in Figuree 4-58) and thus there is a discreppancy betweeen the displlacement
recorrded on the North
N
(LVD
DT) and on the
t South siide (LED). T
This also exxplains why accurate
meassurement off curvature was not possible
p
usiing the steeel rods in the concreete. The
displacements ob
btained from
m the LED targets
t
can bbe used to iinvestigate tthe behaviouur of the
most damaged reegion and att times to id
dentify the m
mode of faillure. For exaample, the ddeflected
shapee of column P28-C-12-1
160 (Figure 4-52)
4
at failuure indicatess a sudden uupward moveement of
the most
m damageed region pottentially duee to the buckkling of longgitudinal barrs. This is coonfirmed
by lo
ooking at the actual failurre mode, wh
hich was pressented earlieer in Figure 44-16.
102

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

4.5 Ducctility parameterss


mbers is easy to find sincce a clear
Ductility in elastic perfectly plastic mateerials such ass steel memb
d point existss. However, since a reinforced concrrete memberr does not behave like aan elastic
yield
perfeectly plastic material, ductility
d
callculations aare not as sstraightforw
ward. The foollowing
param
meters which
h have wideely been useed in the liteerature are uused in this study: displlacement
ductiility factor, curvature
c
ductility factorr, drift ratio, cumulative displacemennt ductility rratio and
work
k damage in
ndicator. Cu
urvature du
uctility factoor is a secction properrty while thhe other
param
meters are prroperties of the memberr. Figure 4-660 shows thee process off calculating member
ductiility parametters, which were first in
ntroduced byy Sheikh annd Khoury (1993). The ductility
factors indicate the
t extent to which the section
s
or thhe member ccan deform in the inelasttic range
whilee the work damage
d
indiccator represents the energgy dissipatioon of the mem
mber.

Figure 460: M
F
Member ducttility parame
eters

These parameterrs are explaiined in detaail and the rresults are ssubsequentlyy provided. Detailed
calcu
ulations of ductility
d
parrameters for column P442-C-12-50 are provided as an exaample in
Appeendix F.
103

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


1- Displacement ductility factor ( ):
An Envelope curve for each specimen was constructed by averaging the peak shear values in
both directions at each cycle. The displacement ductility factor is found by dividing the ultimate
deflection ( ) by the yield deflection ( ). The ultimate deflection is defined as the lateral
deflection at the point when the post-peak shear capacity of the column drops to 80% of the
peak load or the lateral deflection at failure whichever occurs first. The yield deflection for steel
reinforced columns is defined as the lateral deflection corresponding to the nominal lateral force
capacity

along a straight line joining the origin and a point of 65%Vn on the ascending branch

of the experimental lateral shear vs. tip deflection envelop curve, averaged in two directions.
Although GFRP-reinforced columns do not undergo yielding, the same procedure used by Liu
(Liu, 2013) for steel-reinforced columns was also used in this study to define a hypothetical
yield displacement in order to evaluate the displacement ductility factor and make comparisons
to previously tested steel-reinforced columns.
This is an iterative calculation since both and
assumed to be zero. By having

are unknown. In the first iteration, is

the procedure explained above can be used to obtain a

new . After a few iterations the values for converge. Figure 4-61 shows the graphical
method used to find the displacement ductility factor for specimen P28-C-12-50. Due to the
graphical nature of this procedure, the obtained displacement ductility factor can vary slightly
depending on the value of the yield deflection.

104

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

BaseShear(kN)

P28C1250
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

=6.7

0.8
0.65

220

210
200

190
180

170
160
150

140
130

120
110

100
90
80

70
60

50
40

30
20

10
0

TipDisplacement(mm)
Figure 461: Procedure to obtain the displacement ductility factor (

2- Curvature ductility factor ( ):


The procedure to calculate curvature ductility factor is identical to displacement ductility factor
except the moment vs. curvature envelope curve is used instead. Curvature ductility factor is
found by dividing the ultimate curvature ( ) by the yield curvature ( ). Curvature ductility
factors reported in Table 4-7 may be lower than the actual ductility of the section due to the
uncertainty in the value of , which was found using the strains in the longitudinal bars.
3- Lateral drift ratio ():
The lateral drift ratio is defined as the ratio between the ultimate lateral deflection ( ) and the
shear span (L) of the column. Since no yielding point is included in the calculation of the lateral
drift ratio, it cannot be used as a measure of ductility; however, it is a good representation of the

105

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


columns deformability. The seismic performance of a column in CSA-S806-12 is rated based
on the value of the lateral drift ratio.
4- Cumulative displacement ductility ratio (

):

The cumulative displacement ductility ratio is the summation of the peak displacements
averaged in two directions ( ) normalized with respect to the yield displacement for a specific
number of cycles. Two different
as

values are reported here. The first parameter, labeled

, only takes into account the cycles for which the post peak shear capacity is greater than

or equal to 80% of the nominal shear capacity of the column. The second parameter, labeled
as

, includes all the cycles in which the stiffness averaged in two directions ( ) remains

positive.
5- Work damage indicator (W):
Work damage indicator is calculated using the following equation:

Equation 47 W =

The parameters used in this equation are explained in Figure 4-60. Similar to the cumulative
displacement ductility ratio, two work damage indicators were calculated. As Yau and Sheikh
(2002) suggested, for members where the section capacity keeps increasing with increased
deformation until failure, the energy dissipation or work damage indicator may better define the
performance of the section/member. GFRP-reinforced columns fall into this category and
therefore the work damage indicator was calculated for all columns.
Table 4-7 summarizes the ductility parameters for all the specimens. Discussion regarding these
results is provided in section 4.7.
106

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Table 47: Ductility parameters
Specimen

(%)

N80

W80

P28-C-12-50

>10.0

6.7

7.3

84

210

159

456

(kN)
70.0

(kN.m)
224

P28-C-12-160

>9.0

3.2

3.0

17

22

99

160

71.1

152

P28-C-16-160

>5.3

2.8

2.6

11

10

86

134

59.4

123

P28-B-12-50

>15.6

9.2

9.0

94

260

178

671

78.2

227

P42-C-12-50

>11.8

5.8

4.4

30

65

142

395

74.9

219

P42-C-12-160

>7.5

3.7

3.0

16

28

50

93

58.8

162

P42-B-12-160

>9.5

2.3

1.9

70

96

63.1

160

P42-B-16-160

>10.7

4.0

3.3

18

34

119

239

70.0

187

P42-B-16-275

>8.8

2.5

2.1

56

60

69.8

154

107

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

4.6 Mosst damag


ged sectio
on
n though thee column-sttub interfacee underwennt the largesst moment, the most ddamaged
Even
sectio
on was not at the colum
mn-stub interrface for moost of the sppecimens. Faailure in thee column
occurrred at a disttance away from the maaximum mom
ment sectionn mainly duee to the conffinement
causeed by the stu
ub. Figure 4-62
4
shows the
t distancee from the sttub face to tthe start of tthe most
damaaged region (

), the leength of the most damagged region (

) or the plastic hingee length,

and the
t distance from the stu
ub face to th
he most dam
maged sectionn

. Thhis measurem
ment can

be su
ubjective; ho
owever, the most
m damag
ged region heere is considdered the reggion where concrete
core is severely damaged. In the adjaceent regions extensive coover spallinng was obserrved but
thesee regions weere not part of the plasttic hinge lenngth. Table 4-8 shows tthe location and the
lengtth of the plastic hinge in
n each colum
mn. It shouldd be noted thhat the mostt damaged section is
not necessarily
n
lo
ocated in thee middle of th
he most dam
maged regionn.

Figure 462: M
F
Most damageed section/re
egion

Table
e 48: Dama
aged region
Specimen
P28-C
C-12-50
P28-C
C-12-160
P28-C
C-16-160
P28-B
B-12-50
P42-C
C-12-50
P42-C
C-12-160
P42-B
B-12-160
P42-B
B-16-160
P42-B
B-16-275

Lateral
ent
confineme
12@50
12@160
16@160
#4@50
12@50
12@160
#4@160
#5@160
#5@275

(mm)
0
60
90
0
30
0
30
30
70

108


(mm)
260
320
260
270
250
300
270
240
370


(mm)
100
230
250
140
150
140
250
210
290


(kN
N)
70.0
71.1
59.44
78.2
74.9
58.8
63.1
70.0
69.8

(kN.m)
224
152
123
227
219
162
160
187
154

EXP
PERIMENTA
AL RESULTSS AND DISC
CUSSION

4.7 Discussion
4.7.1 Barr buckling
s
4.1, the
t test setup
p used in thiis study to aattain the response of GF
FRP bars
As diiscussed in section
in co
ompression resulted in a fixed-fixed end connditions withh an effectiive length ffactor of
appro
oximately 0.5. Howeverr, in the acttual column test, the ennd conditionns are not ass simply
defin
ned. Figure 4-63
4
is an ex
xaggerated scchematic off how the lonngitudinal baar tends to bbehave in
comp
pression in th
he column.

Figurre 463: Bar b


buckling in th
he compressiion zone

Bar buckling
b
in the column is not only a function oof spiral spaacing but alsso dependannt on the
condition of the core concreete. In order to maintainn continuity,, portion BC
C of the longgitudinal
bar can
c buckle in
n compressiion only if the
t adjacentt portions haave room to move into the core
concrrete. Therefo
fore, as the core
c
concrette crushes, tthe potentiall for bar bucckling increases. As
show
wn in Figure 4-63, the co
ontact pointss of the spirral and longiitudinal bar,, marked by A to D,
can move
m
vertically relativee to each otther during the test. Thhe Euler bucckling formuula with
differrent K vaalues is used
d and resultss are compaared to the lloads obtained from thee coupon

109

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


tests (
(

and maximum compressive loads recorded in the bars during the column tests

. These results are summarized in Table 4-9.

Equation 48

The nominal bar area reported by each GFRP manufacturer was used in this calculation.
However, it is important to note that the use of nominal area accompanied by the modulus of
elasticity obtained from the nominal area results in the same answer as if actual properties were
used. The following expression explains the relationship between the ultimate stress using two
sets of material properties.
Equation 49 =

For instance for bar type B, if we substitute the nominal and actual properties (
Mpa,

= 56105 MPa,

= 25.4 mm,

= 71018

= 28.44 mm) the obtained ultimate stress is similar.

Table 49: Euler buckling load, peak compressive load in the coupon and in the column
Specimen
P28-C-12-50
P28-C-12-160
P28-C-16-160
P28-B-12-50
P42-C-12-50
P42-C-12-160
P42-B-12-160
P42-B-16-160
P42-B-16-275

Un-braced
Length (Lu)
(mm)
50
160
160
50
50
160
160
160
275

Euler buckling load (

(kN)

K = 0.5

K = 1.0

K = 1.5

K = 2.0

(kN)

(kN)

16835
1667
1667
22940
16835
1667
2276
2276
776

4209
417
417
5735
4209
417
569
569
194

1871
185
185
2549
1871
185
253
253
86

1052
104
104
1434
1052
104
142
142
49

304
296
296
438
304
296
443
443
385

318
188
206
294
385
374
477
465
465

Looking at the buckling loads with K equal to 0.5 and comparing them to the ultimate loads
recorded in the coupon tests, we can confirm that no buckling occurred in the coupon tests and
failure was governed by the crushing of the bars. The last column in Table 4-9 shows the
maximum estimated compressive load in the outermost longitudinal bar in each test. This value
110

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


was calculated by averaging the strains at various locations of the longitudinal bar in the most
damaged region before failure. It can be seen that the bars, mainly in high-axially loaded
columns, were able to carry a higher load in the columns compared to the coupon tests. This can
be due to the lateral support provided by core concrete which allowed the bar to undergo larger
strains before crushing.
It is not clear what K factor should be used for the buckling load of the bars in the column due
to uncertainty regarding the end conditions and condition of the core concrete; however, based
on the results provided in Table 4-9, a K factor between 1 to 1.5 seems reasonable. In
addition, more research needs to be conducted on the presence of stiffness degradation of the
GFRP bars, if any, under compressive and tensile cyclic loading.

4.7.2 Effect of axial load


The direct effect of the change in axial load can be investigated by comparing the results from
four columns P28-C-12-50 vs. P42-C-12-50; P28-C-12-160 vs. P42-C-12-160. Figure 4-64 and
Figure 4-65 show the shear vs. tip deflection envelope response of these columns. The hysteretic
moments vs. curvature responses for the column pairs mentioned above are shown in Figure 466 and Figure 4-67.
Increasing the axial load does not have a major effect on the maximum shear load on the
column. This is due to the fact that the peak shear load occurs before the spalling of the concrete
cover and therefore is a function of the unconfined nominal moment capacity of the section.
Based on the calculations presented in section 4.2, the nominal moment capacity of the section
does not vary between the two columns. Thus it is expected that the shear load stays relatively
similar as well.

111

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Axialload
80
70

P28C1250
P42C1250

Baseshear(kN)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Tipdisplacement(mm)
Figure 464: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P28C1250 and P42C1250

Axialload
80
70

P28C12160
P42C12160

Baseshear(kN)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Tipdisplacement(mm)
Figure 465: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P28C12160 and P42C12160

112

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Axialload
300
P28C1250
200

P42C1250

Moment(kN.m)

100
0

100
200
300
150

100

50

0
50
Curvature(rad/km)

100

150

Figure 466: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P28C1250 and P42C1250

Axialload
300
P28C12160

Moment(kN.m)

200

P42C12160

100
0
100
200
300
100

50

0
Curvature(rad/km)

50

100

Figure 467: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P28C12160 and P42C12160

113

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


On the other hand, ductility is significantly affected by the change in axial load and the effect is
more noticeable for well-confined columns. All ductility parameters presented in Table 4-7 are
considerably higher for specimen P28-C-12-50 than those of specimen P42-C-12-50. As shown
in Table 4-5, curvature data was not available for the last 15 cycles for specimen P28-C-12-50
which explains the behavior illustrated in Figure 4-66.
In the case of columns with lower transverse reinforcement ratio, the dissipated energy was
higher for the column with higher axial load over the first few cycles while the opposite is true
for the total dissipated energy. Increase in axial load stiffens the response of the member and
creates hysteresis loops with larger areas over the first few cycles. However, due to excessive
damage caused by higher axial load, column P42-C-12-160 was not able to go through as many
cycles as column P28-C-12-160 and hence the total dissipated energy was less for the former
column. This can be confirmed by the moment vs. curvature behaviour presented in Figure 4-67.
It can also be concluded that increasing the axial load up to a certain point does not affect the
moment capacity for GFRP-reinforced columns with a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of
around 3%.
In terms of deformability of the specimens, low axially loaded columns were able to reach
higher deflections while secondary effects due to high axial load resulted in more damage and
acceleration to failure. Based on the results discussed here, GFRP can safely be used as internal
reinforcement for bridge piers that are subjected to low axial load levels and prone to corrosion.

4.7.3 Type of GFRP


Two different GFRP manufacturers provided the material for this project. In general, there was
not a significant difference between the performances of the columns reinforced with either type

114

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


of GFRP. Figure 4-68 to Figure 4-71 compare the response of two pairs of columns in which all
parameters except the GFRP type is identical.

GFRPType
80
P28B1250

70

P28C1250

Baseshear(kN)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Tipdisplacement(mm)
Figure 468: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P28B1250 and P28C1250

GFRPType
300
P28C1250

Moment(kN.m)

200

P28B1250

100
0
100
200
300
150

100

50
0
Curvature(rad/km)

50

100

150

Figure 469: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P28C1250 and P28B1250

115

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

GFRPType
70
P42B12160

60

P42C12160

Baseshear(kN)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Tipdisplacement(mm)
Figure 470: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P42B12160 and P42C12160

GFRPType
300
P42C12160

Moment(kN.m)

200

P42B12160

100
0
100
200
300
150

100

50

0
50
Curvature(rad/km)

100

150

Figure 471: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P42C12160 and P42B12160

116

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


The moment capacity of the comparable columns in each pair is very similar. The shear load
carried by the columns P28-B-12-50, however, is slightly higher. This can be due to the fact that
both longitudinal bars and spirals of GFRP type B have a larger area than those of GFRP type
C. The difference in bar area results in a larger flexural rigidity for columns reinforced with
bar type B which is noticeable in the moment vs. curvature responses shown in Figure 4-69
and 4-71. The higher stiffness will also result in lower deflection and lower secondary moment
(P-) which will increase the shear load. In terms of ductility parameters shown in Table 4-7, it
appears that both types of bars display similar behaviour. While one pair may indicate slightly
larger ductility in columns with Bar C, the other pair shows opposite results. Typical data scatter
and the larger size of Bar B may explain these discrepancies. It should be noted that column
P42-B-12-160 had honeycombed cover concrete that was repaired before testing.
Figure 4-69 shows the hysteretic moment vs. curvature response for columns P28-B-12-50 and
P28-C-12-50. Similar behaviour is observed in both columns while the higher moment capacity
and initial stiffness for column P28-B-12-50 is due to the presence of bigger longitudinal bars as
discussed above.
From Table 4-8 it can be seen that the length of the damaged region is very similar for columns
P28-C-12-50 and P28-B-12-50 or columns P42-C-12-160 and P42-B-12-160. The latter pair of
columns showed a similar deflected shape at all stages and failure for both columns occurred at
the same lateral displacement.

4.7.4 Effect of amount of transverse reinforcement, spiral spacing and size


The amount of transverse reinforcement plays a major role in the seismic performance of
columns. Research on steel-reinforced columns has shown that increasing the transverse
reinforcement ratio and decreasing the spiral/tie pitch delays column failure by confining the
117

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


concrete core, increases shear resistance and prevents premature buckling of the longitudinal
bars. As a result, columns would display ductile behaviour. Therefore, for seismic applications
where high level of ductility is expected from the column, the design codes limit the spiral
spacing and recommend minimum amount of transverse reinforcement to achieve these benefits.
Experimental data obtained in this study suggest the same conclusion for GFRP-reinforced
columns. In order to clearly understand the effect of changing the transverse reinforcement ratio
in the columns, three separate comparisons are made.
1- Spiral pitch (Spiral bar size stays the same but different volumetric spiral ratio)
2- Spiral size (Spiral pitch stays the same but different volumetric spiral ratio)
3- Spiral pitch and size (Volumetric reinforcement ratio stays the same)
Amount of transverse reinforcement and spiral pitch: Three direct comparisons can be made
on the effect of amount of transverse reinforcement and the spiral spacing using the
experimental data in this study. Figure 4-72 to Figure 4-74 show the shear vs. tip deflection
envelope response for three sets of columns in which the only differing parameter was the spiral
spacing. Hysteretic moments vs. curvature responses for these pairs of columns are provided in
Figure 4-75 to Figure 4-77.

118

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Spiralpitch
80
P28C1250

70

P28C12160

Baseshear(kN)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Tipdisplacement(mm)
Figure 472: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P28C1250 and P28C12160

Spiralpitch
80
P42C1250

70

P42C12160
Baseshear(kN)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

200

Tipdisplacement(mm)
Figure 473: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P42C1250 and P42C12160

119

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Spiralpitch
80
P42B16160

70

P42B16275

Baseshear(kN)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Tipdisplacement(mm)
Figure 474: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P42B16160 and P42B16275

Spiralpitch
300
P28C1250

Moment(kN.m)

200

P28C12160

100
0

100
200
300
150

100

50

0
Curvature(rad/km)

50

100

150

Figure 475: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P28C1250 and P28C12160

120

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Spiralpitch
300
P42C1250

Moment(kN.m)

200

P42C12160

100
0
100
200
300
150

100

50

0
50
Curvature(rad/km)

100

150

Figure 476: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P42C1250 and P42C12160

Spiralpitch
300
P42B16160

Moment(kN.m)

200

P42B16275

100
0
100
200
300
100

50

0
Curvature(rad/km)

50

100

Figure 477: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P42B16160 and P42B16275

121

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


In all cases, increasing the spiral spacing and the resulting reduction in lateral reinforcement
contents has resulted in a more brittle response. For instance the displacement ductility factor
and the lateral drift ratio attained by column P28-C-12-50 were about twice as much as those
values recorded for column P28-C-12-160. Additional confinement in columns with tighter
spiral spacing resulted in a higher deformability and delayed failure. Thus well-confined
columns managed to go through more hysteretic loops before failure and as a result dissipated
more energy than columns with larger spiral spacing.
The additional confinement also resulted in an increase in the moment capacity of the section.
Decreasing the spiral spacing from specimens P28-C-12-160 to P28-C-12-50 resulted in a 47%
increase in the moment capacity of the section while this increase from specimen P42-B-16-275
to P42-B-16-160 was 21%. The gain in moment capacity due to confinement from the presence
of closely spaced spirals is clearly observed in Figure 4-75 and Figure 4-76.
Furthermore, the most damaged section for well-confined columns tends to move closer to the
stub-column interface as shown in Table 4-8. The initial failure in these columns starts away
from the stub but since the column is capable of resisting larger deformations and additional
lateral excursions, the failure extends toward the stub under repeated loads.
Amount of transverse reinforcement and spiral size: The transverse reinforcement ratio can
be adjusted by changing the size of the spiral as well. However, similar to steel-reinforced
columns, the effect in column response was not found to be as noticeable as adjusting the spiral
spacing. The effect of changing the amount of transverse reinforcement by changing the spiral
size can be evaluated by comparing the behaviour of columns P42-B-12-160 and P42-B-16-160
in Figure 4-80 and Figure 4-81. Similar comparison between columns P28-C-12-160 and P28C-16-160 can also be made; however, the existing honeycombing and subsequent repair of
122

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


column P28-C-16-160 had weakened the column. The shear vs. tip deflection and moment vs.
curvature for columns P28-C-12-160 and P28-C-16-160 are shown in Figures 4-78 and 4-79.

Spiralsize
80
P28C12160

70

P28C16160
Baseshear(kN)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Tipdisplacement(mm)
Figure 478: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P28C12160 and P28C16160

Spiralsize
300
P28C12160

Moment(kN.m)

200

P28C16160

100
0
100
200
300
150

100

50

0
50
Curvature(rad/km)

100

150

Figure 479: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P28C12160 and P28C16160

123

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Spiralsize
80
P42B12160

70

P42B16160
Baseshear(kN)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Tipdisplacement(mm)
Figure 480: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P42B12160 and P42B16160

Spiralsize
300
P42B12160

Moment(kN.m)

200

P42B16160

100
0
100
200
300
150

100

50
0
Curvature(rad/km)

50

100

150

Figure 481: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P42B12160 and P42B16160

124

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Based on data shown in Table 4-7, increasing the spiral bar size from 12 mm to 16 mm resulted
in a 73% increase in displacement ductility factor. All other ductility parameters for specimen
P42-B-16-160 are higher than those of specimen P42-B-12-160. In general columns which were
laterally reinforced with a 16 mm spiral, displayed a gain in strength over the last few cycles
before failure. This can be more clearly seen by looking at the hysteresis moment vs. curvature
responses of columns P28-C-16-160, P42-B-16-160 and even P42-B-16-275. This confirms the
increasing confinement stress provided by GFRP spirals.
Figure 4-81 shows the moment vs. curvature hysteresis for columns P42-B-12-160 and P42-B16-160. It is observed that higher moment capacity is achieved in the column with larger spiral.
Spiral pitch and size: The transverse reinforcement ratio can stay the same by changing both
the spiral pitch and size. Research on steel-reinforced columns has shown that columns with
widely spaced ties or spirals tend to show a more brittle response for the same transverse
reinforcement ratio if the larger spacing is beyond a certain limit. The only comparison available
from the current experimental study suggests that the two columns with the same transverse
reinforcement ratio showed a similar response. Figure 4-82 displays the shear vs. tip deflection
envelope response of columns P42-B-12-160 and P42-B-16-275 while the moment vs. curvature
behavior is provided in Figure 4-83. Both columns had a lateral reinforcement ratio of about
1%. In the range of 160 mm to 275 mm, the spacing was found to have no significant effect on
column behaviour. One of the reasons for this lack of spacing effect may be the fact that column
P42-B-12-160 had a honeycombed test region that was repaired before testing. For a wider
range of spiral spacings, the column behaviour is expected to be affected by a change in spacing
of transverse reinforcement.

125

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Spiralpitchandsize
70
P42B12160

60

P42B16275

Baseshear(kN)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Tipdisplacement(mm)
Figure 482: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope curve for columns P42B12160 and P42B16275

Spiralpitchandsize
300
P42B12160
200

P42B16275

Moment(kN.m)

100
0
100
200
300
150

100

50

0
50
Curvature(rad/km)

100

150

Figure 483: Moment vs. curvature hysteretic response for columns P42B12160 and P42B16275

126

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Table 4-10 provides maximum moment recorded for each column during the test accompanied
by the nominal moment capacity (

and modified nominal moment capacity (

, which

were earlier discussed in section 4.2. For nominal moment capacity, the compressive strength of
GFRP bars was assumed to be zero and for the modified nominal capacity, GFRP bar strength in
compression was taken as ultimate stress given in Table 4-2. The last column shows the
performance of each specimen with respect to CSA-S806-12 prediction. Except column P28-C16-60 which was damaged during casting, all other columns, including the ones with substandard transverse reinforcement, surpassed the capacities predicted by the code. Columns that
were designed according to the seismic provisions of the code displayed 80% higher moment
capacity compared with their nominal capacity. It is obvious that GFRP longitudinal bars
contribute significantly in compression that results in additional section strength and ignoring
their contribution may be overly conservative. Furthermore, results from these tests showed that
GFRP spirals at low spacing provide effective confinement to the concrete and by delaying the
failure, increase the deformability and strength of the column.
Table 410: Comparison of flexural strength enhancement in specimens
Specimen
P28-C-12-50
P28-C-12-160
P28-C-16-160
P28-B-12-50
P42-C-12-50
P42-C-12-160
P42-B-12-160
P42-B-16-160
P42-B-16-275

Lateral
confinement
(mm)
12 @ 50
12 @ 160
16 @ 160
12 @ 50
12 @ 50
12 @ 160
12 @ 160
16 @ 160
16 @ 275

Axial
load
level
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42


224
152
123
227
219
162
160
187
154

127

137
137
137
144
138
138
143
143
143


125
125
125
126
124
124
125
125
125

1.64
1.11
0.90
1.58
1.59
1.17
1.12
1.31
1.08

1.79
1.22
0.98
1.80
1.77
1.31
1.28
1.50
1.23

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.7.5 Comparison with steelreinforced columns


In order to observe the differences between steel- and GFRP-reinforced columns, three pairs of
columns are compared and results discussed. Table 4-11 shows the column properties and
reinforcing details for all columns. Steel- and GFRP-reinforced columns with similar cross
section, length, concrete strength, applied axial load, and reinforcement ratios are compared.
The testing conditions were also identical for all these columns since they were tested using the
same column testing frame. The effective GFRP spiral stress (
effective strain (

%)

is found by multiplying the

reported in Table 4-6 by the modulus of elasticity given in Table 4-1.

The ultimate stress for the longitudinal reinforcement (

) is taken as the ultimate compressive

coupon strength provided in Table 4-2. Table 4-12 summarizes the results including ductility
parameters for steel- and GFRP-reinforced columns.
Table 411: Steel vs. GFRPreinforced column properties
Column
Lateral reinforcement
Column Column
Type
Size
Length
(Square
Specimen
Size at
MPa
mm
mm
vs.
Spacing
% MPa
Circular)
mm
AS-19
S
305
1473
32.3 9.5/6@108 1.3
457
P42-B-16-160
C
356
1473
35
16 @ 160 1.65 366
P27-NF-2
C
356
1473
40
9.5 @ 100 0.90 496
P28-C-12-160
C
356
1473
35
12 @ 160 0.95 261
P40-NF-6
C
356
1473
40
9.5 @ 100 0.90 496
P42-C-12-160
C
356
1473
35
12 @ 160 0.95 261

Longitudinal
Reinforcement
%

MPa

Axial
Load
Level
P/P0

2.44
3.01
3.01
3.01
3.01
3.01

507
873
490
602
490
602

0.39
0.42
0.27
0.28
0.40
0.42

Table 412: Steel vs. GFRPreinforced column results


Specimen
AS-19
P42-B-16-160
P27-NF-2
P28-C-12-160
P40-NF-6
P42-C-12-160

Maximum
Shear (kN)
89
70
101
71
100
59

Maximum
Moment (kN.m)
202
187
220
152
240
162

128

Ductility factors
%

4.0
3.3
4.0
3.3
3.8
3.5
3.2
3.0
3.2
2.2
3.7
3.0

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


First comparison (AS-19 vs. P42-B-16-160): Column AS-19 was tested by Sheikh and Khoury
(1993). Column P42-B-16-160, introduced in this study, is closely linked to column AS-19. The
main difference between these two columns is the cross section type. Confinement in circular
columns is expected to result in a higher increase in concrete strength than in square column but
ductility is not believed to be affected significantly as long as the longitudinal reinforcement is
distributed around the column section appropriately in both columns (Sheikh and Uzumeri,
1982). Figure 4-84 shows the hysteresis response of shear vs. tip deflection for both columns
AS-19 and P42-B-16-160.

Steel vs.GFRPreinforcedcolumn
150
AS19
P42B16160

Shear,V(kN)

100
50
0
50
100
150
200

150

100

50

50

100

150

200

TipDeflection, (mm)
Figure 484: Hysteretic response of columns AS19 and P42B16160

The main difference between the two columns is the higher load carried by the steel column.
This is expected since the maximum shear load is reduced due to the larger secondary moment
(P-delta) in the GFRP-reinforced columns due to the lower stiffness. The longitudinal steel
reinforcement in column AS-19 is approximately 3 times stiffer than that of column
129

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


P42-B-16-160, thus higher load capacity and shear strength is observed for column AS-19. On
the contrary, it can be seen that column P42-B-16-160 has managed to undergo considerably
more cycles before failure than column AS-19. Although the amount of dissipated energy is
considerably higher on a per cycle basis for column AS-19, the displacement ductility factor and
the lateral drift ratio is identical for both columns. This indicates that both columns had similar
post peak decaying rate. Steel-reinforced columns can dissipate larger amount of energy due to
the plastic deformations of the longitudinal steel bar after yielding and the Bauschinger effect,
which are both absent in the response of GFRP-reinforced columns. Thus loops with smaller
area are observed in the response of column P42-B-16-160. An important observation from
Figure 4-84 is the high deformability of GFRP columns before failure. Failure for column P42B-16-160 occurs at a higher displacement than column AS-19.
The moment vs. curvature response for both columns and their envelope responses are shown in
Figure 4-85 and Figure 4-86 respectively.

130

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

SteelvsGFRPreinforcedcolumn
300
AS19
P42B16160

Moment(kN.m)

200
100
0
100
200
300
150

100

50

50

100

150

Curvature(rad/km)
Figure 485: Moment vs. curvature hysteresis response for columns AS19 and P42B16160

The value for the ultimate curvature is not of importance in this figure since different methods
of obtaining curvature are used in the two studies. However, there is a significant difference in
the moment variation vs. curvature for GFRP- and Steel- reinforced columns. After yielding of
the spirals and the longitudinal reinforcement in column AS-19, which is close to the peak
moment, the moment capacity gradually decreases as a result of the damage caused by the
secondary effects. Similar secondary effects exist in column P42-B-16-160; however, no
yielding is experienced by either the longitudinal or the transverse reinforcement in this column.
As a result, the moment capacity of the section keeps increasing until the column failure due to a
combined effect of concrete crushing and longitudinal bar buckling.

131

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Steel vs.GFRPreinforcedcolumn
250
AS19
P42B16160

Moment(kN.m)

200

150

100

50

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Curvature(rad/km)
Figure 486: Moment vs. curvature envelope response for columns AS19 and P42B16160

Second comparison (P27-NF-2 vs. P28-C-12-160): Steel-reinforced column P27-NF-2 was


tested by Liu (Liu, 2013). The two columns had similar properties except that column P27-NF-2
was constructed using concrete with a compressive strength of 40 MPa while this value for
column P28-C-12-160 was 35 MPa. Figure 4-87 displays the shear vs. tip deflection hysteresis
for these two columns and the shear vs. tip deflection envelope response is provided in Figure
4-88. The stiffness of the steel-reinforced column is significantly higher than that of the GFRPreinforced column and the higher shear capacity of column P27-NF-2 is due to the higher
modulus of elasticity of the steel reinforcement as mentioned earlier. This capacity gap could
simply be decreased by using higher longitudinal GFRP reinforcement ratio in order to balance
its low stiffness.
The shear vs. lateral tip deflection relationships for both columns showed very stable post-peak
descending branches and sufficient ductile capacity. However, it can be seen that the GFRP132

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


reinforced column has a longer post-peak descending branch before final failure than the steelreinforced column. This is mainly due to the fact that steel bars have very low tangent modulus
after yielding. Therefore they have higher P-delta effect and are more susceptible to buckling
under compression than GFRP bars which maintain their modulus of elasticity throughout the
entire duration of loading.

SteelvsGFRPreinforcedcolumn
150
P27NF2
P28C12160

Shear,V(kN)

100
50
0
50
100
150
200

150

100

50

50

100

150

200

TipDeflection, (mm)
Figure 487: Shear vs. tip deflection hysteretic response of columns P27NF2 and P28C12160

133

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Steel vs.GFRPreinforcedcolumn
120
P27NF2
100

P28C12160

Shear(kN)

80
60
40
20
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

TipDeflection(mm)
Figure 488: Shear vs. tip deflection envelope response of columns P27NF2 and P28C12160

The longitudinal reinforcement mainly controls the response of the column especially its
stiffness in early stages of loading, while the transverse reinforcement plays an important role in
the post peak response of steel/GFRP-reinforced columns. Steel spirals provide sufficient
confinement to the concrete core at pre-yield strains; however, steel spirals undergo large
deformations after yielding which leads to a nearly constant confinement stress and large
dilation of concrete. GFRP spirals on the other hand, do not experience yielding and despite
being softer than steel, continue to provide increasing confinement until the column failure.
Third comparison (P40-NF-6 vs. P42-C-12-160): Column P40-NF-6 was also tested by Liu
(Liu, 2013). This pair of columns is similar to the pair discussed in the second comparison
except that the applied axial load is about 50% higher for columns P40-NF-6 and P42-C-12-160.
Figure 4-89 shows the hysteresis of shear vs. tip deflection for these two columns. Same
conclusions made in the previous comparisons can be made here as well. Both columns have a
134

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


steeper post-peak response than columns mentioned in the second comparison due to the
presence of a higher axial load. Although column P40-NF-6 has significantly higher shear and
moment capacities than column P42-C-12-160, the ductility parameters are lower for the steelreinforced column than those of the GFRP-reinforced column. Similar to the comparisons made
previously, the tip deflection at failure is noticeably larger for the GFRP-reinforced column P42C-12-160 than that of column P40-NF-6. This is again mainly due to the post-yield buckling of
the longitudinal steel reinforcement while the GFRP reinforcement continues to maintain its
stiffness and display a stable behaviour at high strains.

Steel vs.GFRPreinforcedcolumn
150
P40NF6
P42C12160

Shear,V(kN)

100
50
0
50
100
150
200

150

100

50
0
50
TipDeflection, (mm)

100

150

Figure 489: Hysteretic response of columns P40NF6 and P42C12160

135

200

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS


5.1 Summary
Corrosion has cost millions of dollars in repair and restoration of concrete structures around the
world. Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymers (GFRP), which is a corrosion resistant material, has
become popular over the last few years as a sustainable option to replace steel reinforcement in
certain structures such as bridge decks and barrier walls. Steel reinforcement in bridge piers is
also prone to corrosion as a result of the presence of de-icing salts on the roads in winter. Both
bridge piers and concrete columns in the buildings are subjected to a combination of axial load,
shear and flexure. Up until this study, no experimental data existed on the behaviour of GFRPreinforced concrete columns under combined loading especially cyclic loads simulating
earthquake forces. In order to bridge this gap, nine circular concrete columns reinforced
longitudinally and transversely with GFRP bars were tested in this research program. The
columns were constructed in the structural laboratories at the University of Toronto and were
tested under constant axial load and cyclic quasi-static lateral loading using an especially
designed column testing frame. Experimental results such as shear vs. tip deflection, moment vs.
curvature and various ductility parameters were obtained. The results showed a promising
response for GFRP bars in compression which led to stable column behaviour. Main
conclusions obtained in this study are summarized in Section 5.2.

136

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.2 Conclusions
1. The crushing strength of GFRP bars in compression is approximately half of the
ultimate tensile strength for bars with diameter of 25 mm and length of up to 250 mm
with fixed end conditions. The modulus of elasticity for the GFRP bars was found to be
similar in tension and compression.
2. Columns reinforced with either type of GFRP material (C or B) showed a stable
response and the type of material used did not cause a significant change in the
behaviour of the column.
3. Columns P28-B-12-50 and P28-C-12-50 were designed for a lateral drift ratio of 4%
and they achieved a drift ratio of 9.0% and 7.3% respectively. Column P42-C-12-50
exceeded the design drift ratio by 1.9%. This indicates that GFRP bars can provide
required deformability of the columns.
4. Columns that were subjected to a higher axial load sustained more damage and reached
lower levels of ductility. The importance of detailing and providing high transverse
reinforcement ratio is more critical for higher axial loads.
5. The longitudinal steel reinforcement in the column can easily buckle at post-yield
strains while the GFRP bars behave linear elastically until much larger strains. This is
the main reason behind the fact that GFRP-reinforced columns are able to go through
larger number of cycles before failure in comparison to steel-reinforced columns.
6. The transverse steel reinforcement provides effective confinement to the core at early
stages; however, as the steel spiral/tie starts to yield, the confinement level stays
constant and concrete dilates at an increased rate. Confinement stresses created by
GFRP spirals on the other hand keeps increasing as the strain in the spiral increases
which delays the crushing of the column core.
137

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.3 Recommendations for future work


During the course of this research, some shortcomings were observed. The items listed below
describe some of the issues faced and solutions are suggested to facilitate conducting a similar
type of study in the future.
1. One dimension of the stub needs to be reduced by about 50 mm so that the vertical MTS
actuator can fit the current space. Therefore, the new dimensions for the stub must be
508 711 813 mm (20 28 32).
2. Additional strain gauges should be installed in the expected damaged zone on the
interior longitudinal bars (L2, L3, L5, and L6) in order to have another location to check
the column alignment and to obtain the curvature in the most damaged section.
3. Manually sand coat the GFRP bar type C with diameters equal to or exceeding 25 mm in
order to prevent the occurrence of slip during tensile coupon tests.
4. Use of self-consolidating concrete should be considered for both the stub and the
columns. After filling the stubs, two plywood sheets with semi-circular holes in the
center could be placed around the sonotube and screwed into the stub formwork, so that
no stub concrete can overflow. Concrete can subsequently be poured in the columns
from the top. By doing so, there will not be a need to manually vibrate the concrete and
the potential for the presence of honeycomb regions will be minimized. Steel formwork
is an alternative to wooden formwork. One or two steel forms for both the stub and the
column can be designed, constructed and permanently be used for the future column
projects. Although using steel forms will delay the concrete casting procedure, it will
significantly increase the construction accuracy while being reusable.

138

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


5. The stroke limit of the vertical actuator has to be taken into account (100 mm) when
designing columns longitudinally reinforced with GFRP. Heavily confined GFRP
columns tested under low axial load levels will have large lateral deflections and
therefore an actuator with a higher stroke capacity may be required for the testing of
these types of columns.
6. More tests on GFRP-reinforced columns with a transverse reinforcement ratio in the
range of 1.5% to 2.5% need to be done since the focus in this research study was on
columns with transverse reinforcement ratios of either 1% or 3%.
7. Experiments need to be conducted on columns reinforced longitudinally with steel
reinforcement and transversally with GFRP reinforcement. Thus a stiffer response from
the columns will be observed and the effectiveness of the GFRP spirals can be better
understood.
8. A comprehensive study needs to be conducted on the compressive response of GFRP
bars with different unsupported length to diameter ratios. A clear boundary between
crushing and buckling of the GFRP bars in compression still does not exist in the
scientific literature.
9. Currently there is no confinement model using GFRP spirals in the scientific literature.
In order to fully model the response of GFRP-reinforced columns in a finite element
software package such as VecTOR 2, a confinement model is required.

139

REFERENCES

6. REFERENCES
ACI Committee 440 (2006). Report on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures., ACI 440. 1R-06, American Concrete Institute (ACI), Denver.
Almerich-Chulica, A.I., Martin-Concepcion, P., Molines-Cano, J.M., Rovira-Soler, J., (2012).
Innovative Design of GFRP Bars for Concrete Structures. Advanced Materials and
Engineering Materials, Vols 457-458, 553-556.
Alsayed, S.H., Al-Salloum, Y.A., Almusallam, T.H., Amjad, M.A., (1999). Concrete Columns
Reinforced by Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Rods. ACI Structural Journal SP, 188, Aug.
1999, 103-112.
Azizinamini, A., Kusha, S.S.B., Brungardt, P., Hatfield, E., (1994). Seismic Behavior of
Square High-Strength Concrete Columns. ACI Structural Journal, 91(3), May-Jun. 1994, 336345.
BASF, The Chemical Company, (2007). LA Repair Mortar. MBT Protection and Repair
Product Data, Jul. 2007, Shakopee, MN, USA.
Bayrak, O., Sheikh, S.A., (1997). High-Strength Concrete Columns under Simulated
Earthquake Loading. ACI Structural Journal, 94(6), Nov.-Dec. 1997, 708-717.
Bentz, E.C., Collins, M.P., (2001). Response 2000, Reinforced Concrete Sectional Analysis
Program. Sep. 2001.
Canadian Standards Association, (2002). Design and Construction of Building Components
with Fibre-Reinforced Polymers. Standards Council of Canada, May 2002, Mississauga, ON,
Canada.
Canadian Standards Association, (2012). Design and Construction of Building Structures with
Fibre-Reinforced Polymers. Standards Council of Canada, Mar. 2012, Mississauga, ON,
Canada.

140

REFERENCES
Choo, C.C., Harik, I.E., Gesund, H., (2006). Strength of Rectangular Concrete Columns
Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars. ACI Structural Journal, 103(3), May-Jun.
2006, 452-459.
Davalath, G.S.R., Madugula, M.K.S., (1987). Analysis/Design of Reinforced Concrete Circular
Cross Sections. ACI Structural Journal, Aug. 1987, 617-623.
Deitz, D.H., Harik, I.E., Gesund, H. (2003). Physical Properties of Glass Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Rebars in Compression. Journal of Composites for Construction, 7(4), Nov. 2003,
363-366.
De Luca, A., Matta, F., Nanni, A., (2010). Behavior of Full-Scale Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Reinforced Concrete Columns under Axial Load. ACI Structural Journal, 107(5),
Sep.-Oct. 2010, 589-596.
Enterprising Europa Inc, (2013). Rock Splitting Expansive Mortar. EEI, Mahwah, NJ, USA.
Everard, N.J., (1997). Axial Load-Moment Interaction for Cross-Sections Having Longitudinal
Reinforcement Arranged in a Circle. ACI Structural Journal, 94(6), Nov.-Dec. 1997, 695-699.
FYFE, (2012). Tyfo SCH-41 Composite using Tyfo S Epoxy. San Diego, CA, USA.
FYFE, (2012). Tyfo SEH-51A Composite using Tyfo S Epoxy. San Diego, CA, USA.
FYFE, (2012). Tyfo S Saturated Epoxy. San Diego, CA, USA.
Ghosh, K.K., Sheikh, S.A., (2007). Seismic Upgrade with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer of
Columns Containing Lap-Spliced Reinforcing Bars. ACI Structural Journal, 104(2), Mar.-Apr.
2007, 227-236.
Hosseini, A., Khaloo, A.R., Fadaee, S. (2005). Seismic Performance of High-Strength
Concrete Square Columns Confined with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers (CFRPs).
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(3), Jun. 2005, 569-578.
Iacobucci, R.D., Sheikh, S.A., Bayrak, O., (2003) Retrofit of Square Concrete Columns with
Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer for Seismic Resistance. ACI Structural Journal, 100(6),
Nov.-Dec. 2003, 785-794.
141

REFERENCES
Johal, K. (2013). Investigation of thermal and mechanical properties of GFRP bars.
Undergraduate Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Lgeron, F., Paultre, P., (2000). Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Columns under Cyclic
Flexure and Constant Axial Load. ACI Structural Journal, 97(4), Jul.-Aug. 2000, 591-601.
Liu, J., (2013). Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Toronto, Toronto, ON, 327 pp.
Meisen, A., Banthia, N. (2009). The Infrastructure Crisis: A Trillion Dollar Challenge.
Council of Academics of Engineering and Technological Science (CAETS), Calgary.
Memon, M.S., Sheikh, S.A., (2005). Seismic Resistance of Square Concrete Columns
Retrofitted with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer. ACI Structural Journal, 102(5), Sep.-Oct.
2005, 774-783.
Metris, (2005). K610-CMM, the High_Accuracy Portable CMM with 17 m measurement
volume. http://www.metris3d.hu/k610_cmm_eu_0905.pdf (Feb. 3, 2013).
Ministry of Transportation (2009). http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/about/quickfacts.shtml
(Aug. 8, 2011).
Mufti, A., Banthia, N., Benmokrane, B., Boulfiza, M., Newhook, J. (2007). Durability of
GFRP Composite Rods. Concrete International, 32(8), 37-42.
Paultre, P., Eid, R., Robles, H.I., Bouaanani, N. (2009). Seismic Performance of Circular HighStrength Concrete Columns. ACI Structural Journal, 106(4), Jul.-Aug. 2009, 395-404.
Popovics, S., (1970). A Review of Stress-Strain Relationships for Concrete. ACI Structural
Journal, 243, 248.
Sheikh, S.A. (1978). Effectiveness of Rectangular Ties as Confinement Steel in Reinforced
Concrete Columns. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Sheikh, S.A., Khoury, S.S., (1993). Confined Concrete Columns with Stubs. ACI Structural
Journal, 90(4), July-Aug. 1993, 414-431.

142

REFERENCES
Sheikh, S.A., Khoury, S.S., (1997). Performance-Based Approach for the Design of Confining
in Tied Columns. ACI Structural Journal, 94(4), July-Aug. 1997, 421-431.
Sheikh, S.A., Li, Y., (2007). Design of FRP Confinement for Square Concrete Columns.
Engineering Structures, 29(6), Jun. 2007, 1074-1083.
Sheikh, S.A., Shah, D.V., Khoury, S.S., (1994). Confinement of High-Strength Concrete
Columns. ACI Structural Journal, 91(1), Jan-Feb. 1994, 100-111.
Sheikh, S.A., Uzumeri, S.M., (1980). Strength and Ductility of Tied Concrete Columns.
ASCE Journal Structural Division, 106(5), May 1980, 1079-1102.
Sheikh, S.A., Yau, G., (2002). Seismic Behavior of Concrete Columns Confined with Steel and
Fiber-Reinforced Polymers. ACI Structural Journal, 99(1), Jan.-Feb. 2002, 72-80.
Sheikh, S.A., Yeh, C.C., (1986). Flexural Behaviour of Confined Concrete Columns. Journal
of the American Concrete Institute, 83(3), July-Aug. 1990, 389-404.
TA

Instruments,

(2013).

Auto

Q20

Differential

Scanning

Calorimeter.

http://www.tainstruments.com/product.aspn?id=17&n=1&siteid=11 (Feb. 7, 2013).


Tobbi, H., Farghaly, A.S., Benmokrane, B., (2012). Concrete Columns Reinforced
Longitudinally and Transversally with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars. ACI Structural
Journal, 109(4), Jul.-Aug. 2012, 551-558.
Tokyo Measuring Instruments Laboratory Co., Ltd, (2013). Post-Yield Strain Gauge. TML,
http://www.tml.jp/e/product/strain_gauge/catalog-pdf/YEF_YF_YUFseries.pdf (Feb. 19, 2013).
Vecchio, F.J., Collins, M.P., (1986). The Modified Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced
Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear. ACI Structural Journal, 83(2), 219-231.
Wu, W.P., (1990). Thermomechanical Properties of Fiber Reinforced Plastics (FRP) Bars.
Ph.D. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 292 pp.

143

APPENDICES

APPENDICES

144

APPE
ENDICES

App
pendix A
Glass transition
n tempera
ature

Figure
e A1: Heat flo
ow vs. tempeerature for B1
12 spirals

Figure
e A2: Heat flo
ow vs. tempeerature for B1
16 spirals

145

APPE
ENDICES

Figu
ure A3: Heatt flow vs. tem
mperature forr B25 high mo
odulus straig
ght bars

Figure
e A4: Heat flo
ow vs. tempeerature for C1
12 spirals

146

APPE
ENDICES


Figure
e A5: Heat flo
ow vs. tempeerature for C1
16 spirals


Figure A6: Heat flow vs. temperatture for C25 sstraight bars

147

APPE
ENDICES

App
pendix B
Stu
ub Formw
work Desig
gn
The stub
s
formwo
ork is made out of four different
d
typpes of walls (A1, A2, B and C). Dim
mensions
of each wall and materials ussed are show
wn in the folllowing pagess.

Figure B
B1: Stub form
mwork plan

Note: The number in parenth


hesis (such as 4 on the next page) indicates the number off needed
mensions are in inches.
wallss of this typee and all dim
148

APPE
ENDICES

Fiigure B2: Waall A1

d = Regular plywood,
p
C plywood
p
=C
Cast plywoood.
Note: R plywood

149

APPE
ENDICES

Fiigure B3: Waall A2

150

APPE
ENDICES

Figure B4: W
F
Wall B

151

APPE
ENDICES

Figure B5: W
F
Wall C

152

APPE
ENDICES

Figure B6
6: Exterior plyywood piece
es

153

APPENDICES

Appendix C
The coupon test results are summarized in detail in this section. Material properties for each bar
type are provided both based on the given nominal diameter by the manufacturer and the
measured actual diameter of the bar in the laboratory. However, nominal diameter is used in the
stress vs. strain graph drawn for each sample. In cases where the nominal and actual diameters
were within 0.5% of each other, properties are only shown based on the nominal diameter.

Bar type B tension coupon test summary


Bar Type: VRod standard (US #4)

Number of Tests: 3
Date of Tests: July 12th, 2012

Actual Diameter: 12.70 mm


Nominal Diameter: 12.70 mm

Table C1: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B12 (Based on actual and
nominal diameter)
Test ID
B12-T-1
B12-T-2
B12-T-3
AVG
COV

Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
58721
59326
58798
58948
0.00456

Ultimate
Stress (MPa)
1221
1256
1252
1243
0.01258

Ultimate
Strain (%)
2.08
2.12
2.13
2.11
0.01024

154

Stress at Gauge
Removal (MPa)
317
398
406
374
0.1076

Strain at Gauge
Removal (%)
0.532
0.673
0.694
0.633
0.1136

APPENDICES

B12T1
1400
1200

Stress(MPa)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

Strain
Figure C1: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B12T1

B12T2
1400
1200

Stress(MPa)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

Strain
Figure C2: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B12T2

155

2.5%

APPENDICES

B12T3
1400
1200

Stress(MPa)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

Strain
Figure C3: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B12T3

156

2.5%

APPENDICES
Bar Type: VRod standard (US #5)

Number of Tests: 3
Date of Tests: July 26th, 2012

Actual Diameter: 16.01 mm


Nominal Diameter: 15.87 mm

Table C2: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B16 (Based on nominal
diameter)
Test ID
B16-T-1
B16-T-2
B16-T-3
AVG
COV

Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
55173
54367
54162
54567
0.00800

Ultimate
Stress (MPa)
1164
1151
1162
1159
0.00493

Ultimate
Strain (%)
2.11
2.12
2.15
2.13
0.00799

Stress at Gauge
Removal (MPa)
507
505
507
506
0.001862

Strain at Gauge
Removal (%)
0.922
0.916
0.943
0.927
0.01249


Table C3: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B16 (Based on actual diameter)
Test ID
B16-T-1
B16-T-2
B16-T-3
AVG
COV

Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
54720
53533
53229
53381
0.00285

Ultimate
Stress (MPa)
1145
1132
1143
1140
0.00501

Ultimate
Strain (%)
2.11
2.12
2.15
2.13
0.00799

Stress at Gauge
Removal (MPa)
499
497
499
498
0.001892

Strain at Gauge
Removal (%)
0.922
0.916
0.943
0.927
0.01249

B16T1
1400
1200

Stress(MPa)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

Strain
Figure C4: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B16T1

157

2.5%

APPENDICES

B16T2
1400
1200

Stress(MPa)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

Strain
Figure C5: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B16T2

B16T3
1400
1200

Stress(MPa)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

Strain
Figure C6: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B16T3

158

2.5%

APPENDICES
Bar Type: VRod HM (US #8)

Number of Tests: 3
Date of Tests: September 19th, 2012

Actual Diameter: 28.44 mm


Nominal Diameter: 25.4 mm

Table C4: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B25 (Based on nominal
diameter)
Test ID
B25-T-1
B25-T-2
B25-T-3
AVG
COV

Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
73957
74323
74531
74270
0.00319

Ultimate
Stress (MPa)
1285
1368
1360
1338
0.0279

Ultimate
Strain (%)
1.74
1.84
1.82
1.80
0.0240

Stress at Gauge
Removal (MPa)
190
195
194
193
0.01119

Strain at Gauge
Removal (%)
0.257
0.262
0.260
0.260
0.00791

Table C5: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B25 (Based on actual diameter)
Test ID
B25-T-1
B25-T-2
B25-T-3
AVG
COV

Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
58986
59278
59444
59236
0.00320

Ultimate
Stress (MPa)
1025
1091
1084
1067
0.0278

Ultimate
Strain (%)
1.74
1.84
1.82
1.80
0.0240

Stress at Gauge
Removal (MPa)
151
155
154
153
0.01109

Strain at Gauge
Removal (%)
0.257
0.262
0.260
0.260
0.00791

1.5%

2.0%

B25T1
1400
1200

Stress(MPa)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%
Strain

Figure C7: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25T1

159

APPENDICES

B25T2

1400
1200

800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

Strain
Figure C8: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25T2

B25T3

1400
1200
1000
Stress(MPa)

Stress(MPa)

1000

800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%
Strain

1.5%

Figure C9: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25T3

160

2.0%

APPENDICES

Bar type C tension coupon test summary


Bar Type: ComBAR 12

Number of Tests: 3
Date of Tests: July 12th, 2012

Actual Diameter: 12.62 mm


Nominal Diameter: 12 mm

Table C6: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type C12 (Based on nominal
diameter)
Test ID
C12-T-1
C12-T-2
C12-T-3
AVG
COV

Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
57034
57600
60563
58399
0.0265

Ultimate
Stress (MPa)
1409
1464
1489
1454
0.0230

Ultimate
Strain (%)
2.47
2.54
2.46
2.49
0.01429

Stress at Gauge
Removal (MPa)
446
444
444
445
0.00212

Strain at Gauge
Removal (%)
0.787
0.770
0.731
0.763
0.0307

Table C7: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type C12 (Based on actual diameter)
Test ID
C12-T-1
C12-T-2
C12-T-3
AVG
COV

Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
51549
52074
54769
52797
0.0267

Ultimate
Stress (MPa)
1274
1324
1346
1315
0.0229

Ultimate
Strain (%)
2.47
2.54
2.46
2.49
0.01429

Stress at Gauge
Removal (MPa)
403
401
401
401
0.00235

Strain at Gauge
Removal (%)
0.787
0.770
0.731
0.763
0.0307

C12T1
1600
1400

Stress(MPa)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%
Strain

2.0%

2.5%

Figure C10: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C12T1

161

3.0%

APPENDICES

C12T2
1600
1400
1200

800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

Strain
Figure C11: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C12T2

C12T3

1600
1400
1200
Stress(MPa)

Stress(MPa)

1000

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%
Strain

2.0%

2.5%

Figure C12: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C12T3

162

3.0%

APPENDICES
Bar Type: ComBAR 16

Number of Tests: 3
Date of Tests: July 26th, 2012

Actual Diameter: 16.05 mm


Nominal Diameter: 16 mm

Table C8: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type C16 (Based on nominal
diameter)
Modulus of
Ultimate
Ultimate
Stress at Gauge Strain at Gauge
Elasticity (MPa) Stress (MPa)
Strain (%)
Removal (MPa)
Removal (%)
C16-T-1*
45804
823
1.80
504
1.081
C16-T-2
51965
1113
2.14
497
0.956
C16-T-3
50483
1025
2.03
498
0.988
AVG
51224
1069
2.09
497.5
0.972
COV
0.01447
0.0412
0.0264
0.001
0.0165
* Results from this test are not included in calculating the average since failure occurred prematurely.
Test ID

C16T1

1000

Stress(MPa)

800

600

400

200

0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%
Strain

1.5%

Figure C13: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C16T1

163

2.0%

APPENDICES

C16T2
1200
1000

Stress(MPa)

800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

Strain
Figure C14: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C16T2

C16T3
1200
1000

Stress(MPa)

800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

Strain
Figure C15: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C16T3

164

2.5%

APPENDICES
Bar Type: ComBAR 25

Number of Tests: 3
Date of Tests: September 19th, 2012

Actual Diameter: 25.11 mm


Nominal Diameter: 25 mm

Table C9: Tensile mechanical properties of GFRP bar type C25 (Based on nominal
diameter)
Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
67137
62547
67652
65779
0.0349

Test ID
C25-T-1
C25-T-2
C25-T-3
AVG
COV

Stress at slip
(MPa)
1090
1080
1091
1087
0.00457

Strain at
slip (%)
1.62
1.73
1.61
1.65
0.0329

Stress at Gauge
Removal (MPa)
200
201
201
201
0.00235

Strain at Gauge
Removal (%)
0.299
0.321
0.297
0.306
0.0356

C25T1
1200
1000

Stress(MPa)

800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%
Strain

1.5%

Figure C16: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25T1

165

2.0%

APPENDICES

C25T2
1200
1000

Stress(MPa)

800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

Strain
Figure C17: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25T2

C25T3

1200
1000

Stress(MPa)

800
600
400
200
0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%
Strain

1.5%

Figure C18: Tensile stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25T3

166

2.0%

APPENDICES

Bar type B compression coupon test summary


Bar Type: VRod HM (US #8)

Number of Tests: 9
Date of Tests: September 14th, 2012

Actual Diameter: 28.44 mm


Nominal Diameter: 25.4 mm

Table C10: Compressive mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B (Based on nominal
diameter)
Test ID
B25-C-1
B25-C-2
B25-C-3
AVG
COV
B25-C-4
B25-C-5
B25-C-6
AVG
COV
B25-C-7
B25-C-8
B25-C-9
AVG
COV

Unbraced
length (mm)
50
50
160
160
275
275
-

Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
80962
70387
61706
71018
0.1109
70734
71047
74714
72165
0.0250
77781
72292
68031
72701
0.0549

Ultimate stress
(MPa)
944
890
758
864
0.0904
876
768
975
873
0.0968
905
803
569
759
0.1853

Ultimate
strain (%)
0.886
1.087
1.148
1.040
0.1076
0.993
0.923
0.881
0.932
0.0496
0.932
1.103
0.669
0.901
0.1980

Table C11: Compressive mechanical properties of GFRP bar type B (Based on actual
diameter)
Test ID
B25-C-1
B25-C-2
B25-C-3
AVG
COV
B25-C-4
B25-C-5
B25-C-6
AVG
COV
B25-C-7
B25-C-8
B25-C-9
AVG
COV

Un-braced
length (mm)
50
50
160
160
275
275
-

Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
64573
56139
49216
56643
0.1108
56416
56665
59590
57557
0.0250
62036
57659
54260
57985
0.0549

167

Ultimate stress
(MPa)
753
709
604
689
0.0907
698
612
773
694
0.0947
721
640
453
605
0.1856

Ultimate
strain (%)
0.886
1.087
1.148
1.040
0.1076
0.993
0.923
0.881
0.932
0.0496
0.932
1.103
0.669
0.901
0.1980

APPENDICES

B25C1
1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0
200

Stress(MPa)

400
600
800
1000
Strain
Figure C19: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25C1

B25C2
1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

200

Stress(MPa)

400

600

800

1000
Strain
Figure C20: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25C2

168

APPENDICES

B25C3
1.4%

1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

Stress(MPa)

200

400

600

800
Strain
Figure C21: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25C3

B25C4
1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

200

Stress(MPa)

400

600

800

1000
Strain
Figure C22: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25C4

169

APPENDICES

B25C5
1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

200

Stress(MPa)

400

600

800

1000
Strain
Figure C23: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25C5

B25C6
1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0
200

Stress(MPa)

400
600
800
1000
1200
Strain
Figure C24: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25C6

170

APPENDICES

B25C7
1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

200

Stress(MPa)

400

600

800

1000
Strain
Figure C25: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25C7

B25C8
1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

200

Stress(MPa)

400

600

800

1000
Strain
Figure C26: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25C8

171

APPENDICES

B25C9
0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

Stress(MPa)

200

400

600
Strain
Figure C27: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen B25C9

172

APPENDICES

Bar type C compression coupon test summary


Bar Type: ComBAR 25

Number of Tests: 6
Date of Tests: August 28th, 2012

Actual Diameter: 25.11 mm


Nominal Diameter: 25 mm

Table C12: Compressive mechanical properties of GFRP bar type C (Based on nominal
diameter)
Test ID
C25-C-1
C25-C-2
C25-C-3
AVG
COV
C25-C-4
C25-C-5
C25-C-6
AVG
COV

Unbraced
length (mm)
50
50
160
160
-

Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
54200
59230
53278
55569
0.0471
60609
50922
57540
56357
0.0717

173

Ultimate
stress (MPa)
522
669
665
619
0.1105
614
535
656
602
0.0834

Ultimate
strain (%)
0.967
1.123
1.306
1.132
0.1224
0.988
1.041
1.169
1.066
0.07127

APPENDICES

C25C1
1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

Stress(MPa)

200

400

600
Strain
Figure C28: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25C1

C25C2
1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

Stress(MPa)

200

400

600

800
Strain
Figure C29: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25C2

174

APPENDICES

C25C3
1.4%

1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

Stress(MPa)

200

400

600

800
Strain
Figure C30: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25C3

C25C4
1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

Stress(MPa)

200

400

600

800
Strain
Figure C31: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25C4

175

APPENDICES

C25C5
1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

Stress(MPa)

200

400

600
Strain
Figure C32: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25C5

C25C6
1.4%

1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
0

Stress(MPa)

200

400

600

800
Strain
Figure C33: Compressive stress vs. strain relationship for specimen C25C6

176

APPENDICES

Appendix D
Test Results (P)
400

P28C1250
P/Po =0.28
12mm@50mm

300

Lateralload,PL (kN)

200
100
0
100
200
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

300
400
100

80

60

40
20
0
20
40
Deflection@LoadPoint,L (mm)

60

80

100

Figure D1: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P28C1250

177

APPENDICES
400

P28C12160
P/Po =0.28
12mm@160mm

Lateralload,PL (kN)

300
200
100
0

100
200
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

300
400
100

80

60

40
20
0
20
40
Deflection@LoadPoint,L (mm)

60

80

100

Figure D2: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P28C12160

400

P28C16160
P/Po =0.28
16mm@160mm

Lateralload,PL (kN)

300
200
100
0
100
200

Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

300
400
100

80

60

40
20
0
20
40
Deflection@LoadPoint,L (mm)

60

80

100

Figure D3: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P28C16160

178

APPENDICES
400

P28B1250
P/Po =0.28
12mm@50mm

Lateralload,PL (kN)

300
200
100
0

100
200
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

300
400
100

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

100

Deflection@LoadPoint,L (mm)
Figure D4: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P28B1250

400

P42C1250
P/Po =0.42
12mm@50mm

300

Lateralload,PL (kN)

200
100
0
100
200
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

300
400
100

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

100

Deflection@LoadPoint,L (mm)
Figure D5: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P42C1250

179

APPENDICES
400

P42C12160
P/Po =0.42
12mm@160mm

Lateralload,PL (kN)

300
200
100

3bars

100
200
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

300
400
100

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

100

Deflection@LoadPoint,L (mm)
Figure D6: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P42C12160

400
300

P42B12160
P/Po =0.42
12mm@160mm

Lateralload,PL (kN)

200
100
0
100
200
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

300
400
100

80

60

40
20
0
20
40
Deflection@LoadPoint,L (mm)

60

80

100

Figure D7: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P42B12160

180

APPENDICES
400

P42B16160
P/Po =0.42
16mm@160mm

300

Lateralload,PL (kN)

200
100
0
100
200
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

300
400
100

80

60

40
20
0
20
40
Deflection@LoadPoint,L (mm)

60

80

100

Figure D8: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P42B16160

400

P42B16275
P/Po =0.42
16mm@275mm

300

Lateralload,PL (kN)

200
100
0
100
200

2bars
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

300
400
100

80

60

40
20
0
20
40
Deflection@LoadPoint,L (mm)

60

80

100

Figure D9: Applied lateral load vs. displacement at load point for column P42B16275

181

APPENDICES

Test Results (M)


300

Moment,M(kNm)

200

P28C1250
P/Po =0.28
12mm@50mm

100

100
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

200

300
300 250 200 150 100 50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

250

300

Figure D10: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P28C1250

300

Moment,M(kNm)

200

P28C12160
P/Po =0.28
12mm@160mm

100

100
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

200

300
300 250 200 150 100 50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

Figure D11: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P28C12160

182

250

300

APPENDICES
300

Moment,M(kNm)

200

P28C16160
P/Po =0.28
16mm@160mm

100

100
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

200

300
300 250 200 150 100 50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

250

300

Figure D12: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P28C16160

300

Moment,M(kNm)

200

P28B1250
P/Po =0.28
12mm@50mm

100

100
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

200

300
300 250 200 150 100 50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

Figure D13: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P28B1250

183

250

300

APPENDICES
300

P42C1250
P/Po =0.42
12mm@50mm

Moment,M(kNm)

200

100

100
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

200

300
300 250 200 150 100 50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

250

300

Figure D14: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P42C1250

300

Moment,M(kNm)

200

P42C12160
P/Po =0.42
12mm@160mm

100
3bars

100
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

200

300
300 250 200 150 100 50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

Figure D15: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P42C12160

184

250

300

APPENDICES
300

P42B12160
P/Po =0.42
12mm@160mm

Moment,M(kNm)

200

100

100
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

200

300
300 250 200 150 100 50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

250

300

Figure D16: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P42B12160

300

Moment,M(kNm)

200

P42B16160
P/Po =0.42
16mm@160mm

100

2bars

100
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

200

300
300 250 200 150 100 50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

Figure D17: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P42B16160

185

250

300

APPENDICES
300

Moment,M(kNm)

200

P42B16275
P/Po =0.42
16mm@275mm

100

0
2bars

100
Spalling ofbottomconcretecover
Spallingoftopconcretecover
Crushingoflongitudinalbars

200

300
300 250 200 150 100

50
0
50 100
Tipdeflection, (mm)

150

200

Figure D18: Moment vs. tip deflection for column P42B16275

186

250

300

APPENDICES

Appendix E
Strain variation in the spiral

P28C1250

400
300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

100
200

I
J
K

300
400

Strain()

Figure E1: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P28C1250

P28C1250

400
300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

100
200

L
M

300
400

N
Strain()

Figure E2: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P28C1250

187

APPENDICES

P28C12160

300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

100
I
J
K

200
300

Strain()

Figure E3: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P28C12160

P28C12160

300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

100
L

200

M
N

300

Strain()

Figure E4: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P28C12160

188

APPENDICES

P28C16160

300

I
J
K

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

100
200
300

Strain()

Figure E5: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P28C16160

P28C16160

300

LateralLoad(kN)

200

100
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

100
200
300

Strain()

Figure E6: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P28C16160

189

6000

APPENDICES

P28B1250

400
300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

100
200

I
J

300

K
400

Strain()
Figure E7: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P28B1250

P28B1250

400
300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

100
200

300

M
N

400

Strain()

Figure E8: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P28B1250

190

APPENDICES

P42C1250

400
300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

100
200

I
J

300

400

Strain()

Figure E9: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P42C1250

P42C1250

400
300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

100
200

300

M
N

400

Strain()

Figure E10: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P42C1250

191

APPENDICES

P42C12160

300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

100
I

200

J
K

300

Strain()

Figure E11: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P42C12160

P42C12160

300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

100
L
200

M
N

300

Strain()

Figure E12: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P42C12160

192

APPENDICES

P42B12160

300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

100
I
200

J
K

300

Strain()

Figure E13: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P42B12160

P42B12160

300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

100
L
200

M
N

300

Strain()

Figure E14: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P42B12160

193

APPENDICES

P42B16160

300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

100
I
200

J
K

300

Strain()

Figure E15: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P42B16160

P42B16160

300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

100
L

200

M
N

300

Strain()

Figure E16: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P42B16160

194

APPENDICES

P42B16275

300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

100
I

200

J
K

300

Strain()

Figure E17: Strain variation in the first spiral turn of specimen P42B16275

P42B16275

300

LateralLoad(kN)

200
100
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

100
L

200

M
N

300

Strain()

Figure E18: Strain variation in the second spiral turn of specimen P42B16275


195

APPENDICES

Appendix F
Calculation of Ductility Parameters (

, ,

, W)

1- Displacement ductility factor and drift ratio

BaseShear(kN)

P42C1250
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

0.8
0.65

165
160
155
150
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
TipDisplacement(mm)
Figure F1: Displacement ductility factor and lateral drift ratio calculation (P42C1250)

81
14

5.79

81
1841

100

4.4%

196

APPENDICES

Moment(kN.m)

2- Curvature ductility factor

P42C1250

230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

0.65

140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Curvature(rad/km)
Figure F2: Curvature ductility factor calculation for column P42C1250

130
11

11.8

197

APPE
ENDICES
ve ductility ratio
r
and wo
ork damage iindicator
3- Cumulativ

Figure F3: Cu
F
umulative du
uctility ratio a
and work dam
mage indicattor calculatio
on (P42C1250)

142
1

1

74.9 14

41 3706

198

395
5