Stiffness Enhancement of Reinforced Concrete Beams StrengtHened With CFRP Sheetsمهم

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higherr Educatio

on and Sciientific Reesearch
Al-Mustaansiriya University
U
College of Engineeering
Department of Civvil Engineeering
Stif
iffne
ness E
Enh
hanc
ceme
ent of
o
R
Reinf
nforc
rced
d Con
ncre
ete B
Beam
ms
Str
reng
gtHe
ened
d wit
ith CFRP
C
P she
eets
s
A THESIIS SUBMI
MITTED TO
T
T
THE
DEPA
ARTMEN
NT OF CIIVIL ENG
GINEERIN
NG
COLLEGE
C
E OF ENG
GINEERIN
ING
AL--MUSTAN
NSIRIYA UNIVER
RSITY
IN PA
ARTIAL FULFILM
F
MENT OF
F THE RE
EQUIREM
MENTS
F
FOR
THE
E DEGREE
E OF MA
ASTER OF
F SCIENC
NCE
IN CIVIIL ENGIN
NEERING
G
By
Baydaa M. Hameed
H
d
(B.Sc
(
Civi
vil Engineeering,200
06)
Auggust 2012
Ramaadan 1433

))

((.

)(
Dedication
To My Lovely Home
IRAQ
To The Candles of My Life
My Parents
To My Best Guide
My Husband
Bayda M. Hameed
August 2012
Acknowledgement
First of all, praise be to Allah for providing me the willingness
and strength to accomplish this work.
I wish to express my immense sense of gratitude to my
supervisors Assist. Prof. Mithaq A. Louse and Dr. Husain
Khalaf Jarallah, for their invaluable guidance, thought
provoking discussions and untiring efforts throughout the tenure
of this work. Their timely help, constructive criticism and
painstaking efforts are gratefully acknowledged.
Heartfelt thanks are due to Prof.Dr. Bayan S. Al-Numan, for his
useful suggestions and inspiration at various
stages of the
work.
Appreciation is devoted to my husband, Hussam, without his
kind support, encouragement and prayers; this work would have
never seen the light.
Finally, sweet thanks to all my friends for their interest and
support during this study, especially, Mohammed, Rweda,
Lubna Alaani, Lubna Mohammed, Hayder, Jasim and Alaa.
Bayda M. Hameed
August 2012
Abstract
In this research experimental and theoretical investigations of the deflection
control of R.C. beams strengthened using continuous Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (CFRP) sheets is carried out. The experimental part involves eight R.C.
beams, one of them is a control beam without strengthening and the others are
strengthened with (CFRP). All the beams are tested under one concentrated point
load at mid-span over a simply supported span of (2 m). The eight rectangular
simply supported R.C. beams have been studied with three different variables; the
variables are the (Span/Depth) ratio, the steel reinforcement ratio at tension face
and the yield stress of the steel. The test results show that the strengthening with
(CFRP) sheet has a significant effect on the load-deflection response by increasing
beam stiffness especially beyond the precracking stage. By using (CFRP), the
maximum deflection is decreased by (26.7%) in comparison with the maximum
deflection of beam without (CRFP). The effect of Span to depth ratio has also an
important role in the control of deflection, comparing with beam has minimum
depth with minimum steel ratio and strengthened with CFRP. The reduction of
(Span/Depth) ratio from (20) to (15, 12.5 and 10) will reduce the maximum
deflection by (21%, 30.3% and 41.6%) respectively. The test results show the loaddeflection response has not been affected significantly by changing the steel
reinforcement ratio at the pre-cracking stage. However, this behavior is
dramatically changed at the cracking stage, by changing steel reinforcement ratio
From minimum steel ratio (min) to two times of minimum steel ratio (2min)and
maximum steel ratio (max) for beams were strengthened with CFRP and have
similar (span/depth) ratio, the maximum deflection is reduced by (13.5% and
29.2%) for beams were strengthened with CFRP and reinforced with (2min) and
(max) as compared with beam strengthened with CFRP and reinforced with(min)
,when all these beams have similar (span/depth) ratio. Also the load-deflection
response is not affected by the grade of steel reinforcement at the cracking stage.
After the cracking stage with the anticipation of large contribution of tension
reinforcement, the beam reinforced with steel of yield stress equal to (460 MPa)
shows a difference in deflection with the beam reinforced with steel of yield stress
equal to (300 MPa), the increment in the ultimate deflection is (23.8 %) for beams
strengthened with CFRP and reinforced with (min ) and similar (span/depth) ratio.
In general the strengthened beams failed by concrete crashing at mid-span
combined with de-bonding of the (CFRP) fabric along the beam span. For beam
with the largest depth and highest ultimate load capacity, the beam failure mode
was different comparing with the other strengthening beams, where (CFRP) rupture
in the mid-span region is observed, (CFRP) layer is suddenly disrupts and with no
concrete crashing at the beam compression face.
Finally, the immediate deflection has been calculated by using theoretical
calculations given in CEB-FIP 1990 and ACI 318-08, compared with the
experimental deflection of the eight tested beams. The comparison shows that the
CEB-FIP procedure is more applicable than ACI 318-08 procedure for beams
externally strengthened with (CFRP) sheet, so a new procedure may be needed for
R.C. beams strengthened with (CFRP) sheet based on many future experimental
works
List of Contents
Subjects
Page
Acknowledgement
Abstract
List of Contents
List of Figures
IV
List of Tables
VI
List of Plates
VII
List of Abbreviations and symbols
VIII
Chapter One (Introduction)

1.1 Control of deflection
1.2 FRP Composites
1.2.1 Fiber
1.2.2 Matrix
1.2.3 Strengthening by Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

1.2.4 Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer CFRP
6
7
1.3 Objective of the Study
1.4 Scope of the Work

1.5 Layout of the Thesis
9
10
Chapter Two (Literature Review)

2.1 Introduction
11
2.2 FRP Strengthening of RC Beam
12
2.3 Effective Stiffness of R.C Beam
16
2.4 Prediction of Immediate Deflection
17
2.5 Engineering Properties Required for Prediction the Short-Time

Deflection
23
2.5.1Concrete static Modulus of Elasticity
24
2.5.2 Concrete Flexural Strength
24
2.5.3 FRP Modulus of Elasticity
24
2.6 Theoretical Load Deflection Behavior of a Typical RC Beam
26
2.7 Failure Mode of FRP strengthened R.C. Beams
28
2.8 Summery
29
Chapter Three (Experimental Program)

3.1 Introduction
30
3.2 Fabrication and Details of Specimens

3.3 Materials
30
32
3.3.1 Cement
33
3.3.2 Fine aggregate
33
3.3.3 Coarse aggregate
33
3.3.4 Reinforcing Steel
33
3.3.4.1 Steel Bars
33
3.3.5 CFRP Sheets
38
3.3.5.1 System Components
38
3.3.5.2 Technical data
38
3.4 Mix Design
40
3.5 Mixing Procedure
40
3.6 Compaction
41
3.7 Curing and Age of Testing

3.8 Strengthening of Beams
41
42
3.9 Hardened Concrete
42
3.9.1 Compressive Strength Test (fcu)
42
3.9.2 Static Modulus of Elasticity (Ec)
43
3.10 Testing of the Beams
43
3.10.1 Testing Machine
43
3.10.2 Beams Setup
44
3.10.3 Testing procedure
46
II
Chapter Four (Results and Discussion)

4.1 Introduction
47
4.2 Control Specimens Test Results
47
4.2.1 Concrete Compressive Strength
47
4.2.2 Modulus of Elasticity
48
4.2.3 Unit Weight
49
4.3 Load- Deflection behavior
50
4.3.1 Deflection at Mid-span
50
4.3.2 Effect of CFRP Strengthening on The Load-Deflection

behavior
4.3.3 Effect of (Span/Depth) Ratio on The Load-Deflection
b h i
4.3.4 Effect of Steel Reinforcement Ratio on The Load-Deflection
behavior
56
4.3.5 Effect of Yield Stress of Steel on The Load-Deflection

behavior
4.4 Crack Pattern and Failure Mode
61
4.5 Loads at First Crack
67
4.6 Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity
67
59
60
62
Chapter Five (Theoretical Prediction)

5.1 Introduction
69
5.2 Deflection Calculations Procedures
69
5.2.1 CEB-FIP Method
69
5.2.2 ACI 318-08 Method
71
5.3 Limiting Beam Span to Depth Ratio
77
Chapter Six (Conclusions and Recommendations)

6.1 Conclusions
79
6.2 Recommendations for further research
81
References
Appendix-A
III
List of Figures
List of Figures
Fig
No.
Titles
Page
No.
1-1
Formation of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite
1-2
2-4
Stress-Strain Relationship of Different Fibers and

Typical Reinforcing Steel
Typical LoadDeflection Curve of Strengthened and
Un-strengthened Concrete Beams .
Typical Load-Deflection Curve for Reinforced
Concrete Beams
European
Concrete
Committee
Recommended
Procedure for Calculating Short-time deflection
Load-Deflection Behavior of a Typical RC Beam
2-5
De-bonding failure mechanisms
28
3-1
Details of Tested Beams
34
3-2
Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate
36
3-3
45
4-2
Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagram of One

Point Loading
Comparison of Predicted with Measured Modulus of
Elasticity
Load Versus Mid-span Deflection Curve for Beam 1
4-3
52
4-4
52
4-5
53
4-6
53
4-7
54
4-8
54
2-1
2-2
2-3
4-1
IV
12
17
19
26
49
51
List of Figures
List of Figures
Fig
No.
Titles
Page
No.
4-9
55
4-10
Load Versus Mid-span Deflection Curve for All Beams
55
4-11
Effect of CFRP Strengthening on Load-Deflection behavior
56
4-12
Effect of Beam Thickness on Load-Deflection behavior
60
4-13
Effect of Tension Steel Ratio on Load-Deflection behavior
61
4-14
Effect of Yield Stress of Steel on Load-Deflection behavior
62
4-15
4-16
Load at Initial Crack for All Beams
68
68
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
Ultimate Load Carrying capacity for All Beams

Comparison between Experimental and Theoretical Cracking
Deflection
Experimental and Theoretical Moment-Deflection Response
of Beam1
of Beam2
of Beam3
of Beam4
of Beam5
of Beam6
of Beam7
of Beam8
Relationship between (Beam Span to Depth ratio) and CFRP
ratio
71
74
74
75
75
76
76
77
77
79
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table
No.
Description
Page
No.
1-1
Minimum Thickness for Non-prestressed Steel Reinforced
Concrete Beams and One-way Slabs per ACI 318-08

1-2
Allowable Deflections per ACI 318-08
1-3
Qualitative Comparison of Fibers in Composites
2-1
Typical properties of FRPs fibers
25
2-2
Typical properties of CFRP fabric
26
3-1
Beam Specimen Properties
32
3-2
Chemical composition of the cement
35
3-3
Physical properties of cement
35
3-4
Grading of fine aggregate
36
3-5
Other properties of fine aggregate
36
3-6
Grading of coarse aggregate of MAS (14) mm
37
3-7
Other properties of coarse aggregate of MAS (14) mm
37
3-8
Properties of steel bars
37
3-9
Sika Wrap Hex-230C (Carbon Fiber Fabric)
39
3-10
Sikadur-330 (Impregnating Resin)
40
3-11
Concrete Trial Mixes
40
4-1
Test Results of Control Specimens
49
4-2
Density Test Results of Control Specimens
50
4-3
Beams Test Results
51
4-4
Comparison between B1 and B3 (Effect of Strengthening)
59
5-1
Experimental and Theoretical (CEB) Cracking Deflection
71
5-2
Experimental and Theoretical (ACI) Cracking Deflection
74
VI
List of Plates
List of Plates
Plate
No.
Description
Page
No.
1-1
Glass, Armed and Carbon FRP Sheet
1-2
Carbon and Glass FRP Rods
3-1
Steel Reinforcement and Wooden Molds of Beams
31
3-2
Concrete Samples of Cubes and Cylinders
32
3-3
Universal Testing Machine for testing steel bars
38
3-4
CFRP and Epoxy
39
3-7
Universal Testing Machine
45
3-8
Two Dial Gauges are placed below the Center of Beams
47
4-1
A- Crack Pattern of Control Beam (B1); B-Flexural
64
Cracks at Mid-span
4-2
Crack Pattern for Beams (B2, B3, B6 and B7)
66
4-3
Crack Pattern of Beam (B5)
67
VII
List of Abbreviations Symbols
List of Abbreviations
and Symbols
Abbreviation
Description
and Symbol
ACI
American Concrete Institute
W/C
Water/Cement ratio
NCCLR
FRP
National Center of Construction Laboratories and Researches

Fiber Reinforced Polymer
CFRP
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer
GFRP
Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer
AFRP
Armed Fiber Reinforced Polymer
IQS
Iraqi Standards
SP
Superplasticizer
ASTM
BS
CEB
MAS
American Standard for Testing Materials

British Standard
Comite Euro-International du Beton (Euro-International
Committee for Concrete)
Maximum Aggregate Size of concrete
fc
Cylinder Compressive Strength of concrete (150 300) mm
Steel reinforcement Ratio(Ratio of As to bd)
FRP reinforcement ratio
yt
Ma
distance from the neutral axis to the tension face of un-cracked

section
Maximum moment in beam due to service loads at stage
deflection is computed
VIII
Abbreviation
Description
and Symbol
fy
Icr
Yeild Strength of reinforecement

Moment of Inertia of the Cracked Section transformed to
concrete
Ie
Effective Moment of Inertia for computation of deflection
bw
Beam Width
kd
Neutral Axis Depth
Nominal diameter of steel bar
Es
Modules of elasticity of steel
fcu
Concrete compressive strength of concrete (150 mm) edges.
d'
Effective depth of beam(distance from extreme compresion

fiber to centroid of longitudial tension reinforcement)
Effective depth of beam(distance from extreme compresion
fiber to centroid of longitudial compresion reinforcement)
Beam total depth
Span length of beam
Deflection
Ig
Moment of inirtia of gross section about centroidal axis
Ec
Static modules of elasticity of concrete
fr
Modulus of rupture of concrete
Mcr
Cracking moment
Applied load
ratio of depth of neutral axis to reinforcement

depth measured from extreme compression fiber
modular ratio of elasticity between steel and

concrete = Es /Ec
IX
Abbreviation
Description
and Symbol
nf
modular ratio of elasticity between FRP and

concrete = Ef /Ec
Ef
tensile modulus of elasticity of FRP, (MPa)
As
Area of tension reinforecement
As'
Area of compresion reinforecement
Af
area of FRP external reinforcement, (mm2)
Midspan Curvture of Beam
Self weight of Beam
Coefficient of Interpolation between Strain, Curvature and

Deflection Values for Non-cracked and Fully cracked Section
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Chapter One
Introduction
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Control of Deflection
Deflections of reinforced concrete beams can be controlled directly or indirectly.
Direct deflection control refers to the calculation of deflections and their comparison
with allowable limits. ACI Committee 435-74 (1) and Branson (2) report comprehensive
summaries of classic direct deflection control procedures for steel reinforced concrete
beams and flat plates. Indirect deflection control procedures limit deflections by
determining maximum span-depth ratios, minimum depths, or minimum tension
reinforcement ratios ACI Committee 435-78
(3)
, that satisfy a given deflection span
ratio. In the context of steel-reinforced members, Branson
(2)
recommended using
indirect procedures for initial member proportioning and then checking deflections
directly. Deflections can also be controlled by means of appropriate construction
practice. Pre-cambering and delaying removal of forms are some of the preferred
options.
Deflection control provisions for steel-reinforced beams in ACI 318-08
(4)
are
concerned with deflections that occur at service levels due to immediate and sustained
static loads. Two methods are given in ACI 318-08 (4) as below:
1. Indirect method of controlling deflection by the minimum thickness of the
member (ACI 318-08) (4).
2. The direct method of limiting computed deflections (ACI 318-08)
(4)
. The
choice of method is left to the discretion of the designer.

Table (1-1) shows values of minimum thickness for non-prestressed steel
reinforced beams and one-way slabs as per ACI 318-08
(4)
expressed as
maximum span-depth ratios. Table (1-2) shows the allowable deflections as

per ACI 318-08 (4).
Chapter One
Introduction
Table (1-1) Minimum Thickness for Non-prestressed Reinforced Concrete

Beams and One-way Slabs as per ACI 318-08 (4)
Minimum thickness, h
Simply
One end
Both ends
supported
continuous
continuous
Cantilever
Members not supporting or attached to partitions or other construction
Member
likely to be damaged by large deflections

Solid one-way slabs
Beams or ribbed
one-way slabs
L/20
L/24
L/28
L/10
L/16
L/18.5
L/21
L/8
Table (1-2) Allowable Deflections as per ACI 318-08 (4)

Type of member
Flat roofs not supporting or attached to
nonstructural elements likely to be
damaged by large deflections
Floors not supporting or attached to
nonstructural elements likely to be
damaged by large deflections
Deflection to be considered
Immediate deflection due to
Deflection
limitations
L/180
live load
Immediate deflection due to
L/360
live load
Roof or Floor construction supporting or
That part of total deflection
attached to nonstructural elements likely
occurring after attachment of
to be damaged by large deflections
nonstructural elements (sum
Roof or Floor construction supporting or
of the long term deflection
attached to nonstructural elements not
due to all sustained loads and
likely to be damaged by large deflections
the immediate deflection due

to any additional live loads)
Where (L): is the clear span length.
L/480
L/240
Chapter One
Introduction
The direct deflection control design provisions for Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) concrete beams and one-way slabs in ACI 440.1R-06 (5) follow a format similar
to that of ACI 318-08(4). Deflections are calculated directly using a modified version
of Bransons effective moment of inertia equation, developed by Gao et al (6).
ACI committee 440.1R-06
(5)
commissioned the authors to develop an indirect
deflection control similar to ACI 318-08
(4)
to define maximum span-depth ratios for
(FRP) reinforced concrete beams and one-way slabs, based on the indirect deflection
control approach proposed by Ospina et al
(7)
. The goal of the committee was to
provide designers guidance for preliminary sizing of members in the form of typical
(Span/Depth) ratios required to satisfy serviceability design criteria.
1.2 FRP Composites

Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites are defined as the materials that
consist of high strength and stiffness fiber reinforcement embedded in a resin matrix
which is an adhesive material that supports fibers from buckling under compression,
binds the fibers together through cohesion and adhesion, and protects the fiber layers
from external mechanical and environmental damage. Figure (1-1) shows a schematic
of (FRP) composites.
+
Fiber
Matrix
FRP
Figure (1-1) Formation of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite (8).
Chapter One
Introduction
Fiber Reinforced Polymer composites are different from other composites in that
their constituent materials are different at the molecular level. The mechanical and
physical properties of (FRP) are controlled by their constituent properties and by
structural configurations at micro-level
(8)
. (FRP) composites can be manufactured in
many shapes and forms. Thus; their applications in civil engineering are diverse and
may include internal reinforcement, structural elements, and externally bonded
reinforcement. For concrete reinforcement, the most popular forms of (FRP) are
smooth and deformed bars, pre-stressing tendons and pre-cured and cured-in place
laminates or sheets. (FRP) bars and tendons are currently produced with sizes and
deformation patterns similar to those of steel bars and strands. (FRP) composites are
light in weight, which means they are easier to transport and install. They are
corrosion-resistant and; therefore, perform better in terms of long-term durability and
maintenance and cost (9).
1.2.1 Fiber
This term is generally used for materials whose length is at least 100 times its
diameter and in (FRP) materials. It refers to any fine thread-like natural or synthetic
object of mineral or organic origin
(10)
. The main functions of fibers are to carry the
load and provide stiffness, strength, thermal stability, and other structural properties in
the (FRP). To perform these desirable functions, the fibers in (FRP) composite must
have:
High modulus of elasticity for use as reinforcement.
High ultimate strength.
Low variation of strength among fibers.
High stability of their strength during handling.
High uniformity of diameter and surface dimension.
Chapter One
Introduction
There are three types of fibers dominating in civil engineering industry: glass
fiber, armed fiber and carbon fiber. All fibers have generally higher stress capacity
than ordinary steel and are linearly elastic until failure .The three fiber types are
schematically drawn in Figure (1-2) in comparison with an ordinary steel bar and a
steel tendon (11).
1.2.2 Matrix
Matrix material is a polymer composed of molecules made from many simpler
and smaller units called monomers. Without the presence of matrix material, fibers in
themselves are little use. The matrix must have a lower modulus and greater
elongation than those of fibers, so that fibers can carry maximum load (12).
Figure (1-2) Stress-Strain Relationship of Different Fibers and Typical Reinforcing Steel (11).
Matrix material binds the fibers together, transfers forces between the fibers and
protects the fibers from environment. Matrices are typically epoxies, polyesters, vinyl
esters, or phenolic (13).
Chapter One
Introduction
Epoxy is mostly favored above other matrices, but it is also more costly. It has a
pot life around 30 minutes at 20 C, but can be changed with different formulations.
The curing goes faster with the increased temperature. It has good strength, bond
creep properties and chemical resistance (8).
1.2.3 Strengthening by Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

When the fiber and the matrix are combined into a new material, they become a
composite. The fibers may be placed in one direction in the composite and then the
composite is unidirectional. However, fiber may also be woven or bonded in many
directions and the composite becomes bi-or-multi directional. For strengthening
purposes, it is most common to use unidirectional composites. The composites
mechanical properties are dependent on the fibers, matrix, fiber amount and fiber
direction. Also, the volume or the size of the composite will affect the mechanical
properties. The fiber content by volume is normally (30% 60%), depending on
materials, manufacturing process and desired properties. Fiber content is defined as
the volume of fibers to the volume of composite.
Composite materials (FRP) have created a revolution in high-performance
structures in recent years. (FRP) composites are anisotropic (properties vary with the
direction), therefore, (FRP) composite properties are directional, and typically the
most favorable mechanical properties are in the direction of the fiber placement (14).
They offer significant advantages in strength and stiffness coupled with lightweight
relative to conventionally used metallic materials. No yielding is exhibited in FRP
materials, but instead they are elastic up to failure. Fiber composites are made of
small fiber bonded together with a resin matrix, the fiber takes the role of the
principal load-bearing constituent, and the resin (matrix) is used to bind the fibers
together, transfer the force between the fibers and to protect the fiber against external
mechanical and environmental damage.
Chapter One
Introduction
It is important that the matrix has the capability of taking higher strain than the
fiber, if not, there will be cracks in the matrix before the fibers fail and the fiber will
be unprotected. The properties of (FRP) system are based on the net fiber area or the
gross-laminate area.
ACI 440.2R-02
(10)
developed a report on analysis, design and construction of
externally bonded (FRP) systems. The failure modes of beams strengthened in flexure
with external (FRP) reinforcement are classified, as follows (10):
Flexural failure by crushing of concrete.
Shear failure.
Concrete cover de-bonding.
Plate-end interfacial de-bonding.
Intermediate shear cracked-induced interfacial de-bonding.
Intermediate flexural cracked-induced interfacial de-bonding.
1.2.4 Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)

Carbon fiber reinforced polymer is one of the three types of (FRP) composites
(Carbon, Glass and Armed), (CFRP) proved to be the most suitable fiber in civil
engineering application because of its excellent properties, and almost 95% of
applications for strengthening uses in civil engineering are by carbon fibers
(15)
.The
current commercially available (FRP) reinforcements are usually made of continuous

fiber of armed, carbon and glass. They can be produced by different manufacturing
methods in many shapes and forms; the most popular ones for concrete reinforcement
are rebars, pre-stressing tendons, procured laminates/shells and fiber sheets (16). Plate
(1-1) shows unidirectional glass, armed, and carbon fiber sheets. Plate (1-2) shows
different kinds of FRP rods, and Table (1-3) shows qualitative comparison of fibers in
composites.
Chapter One
Introduction
CFRP
AFRP
GFRP
Plate (1-1) Glass, Armed and Carbon FRP Sheet (16).
CFRP
GFRP
Plate (1-2) Carbon and Glass FRP Rods (16).
Table (1-3) Qualitative Comparison of Fibers in Composites (17)

Type of fibers used in composite
Criterion
Carbon fibers
Glass fiber
Armed fibers
Tensile strength
Very good
Very good
Very good
Stiffness
Very good
Good
Adequate
Long-term behavior
Very good
Good
Adequate
Fatigue behavior
Excellent
Good
Adequate
Bulk density
Good
Excellent
Adequate
Alkaline resistance
Very good
Good
Inadequate
Chapter One
Introduction
1.3 Objective of The Study

The main objective of the present study is to investigate the immediate
deflection control requirements of reinforced concrete simply supported beams
strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced polymer under one point load at mid-span,
through experimental work and theoretical calculation.
1.4 Scope of The Work

In the present study, an attempt has been made to investigate the behavior and
deflection control for R.C. beams strengthened with (CFRP). With the experimental
investigated of these beams, so conducted,
1. Carry out a literature survey related to the work.
2. The experimental part includes testing of eight rectangular simply supported
beams, one of them is the control beam without strengthening and seven
reinforced concrete beams strengthened with (CFRP), subjected to one point load
at mid-span and the applied load is increased up to failure, the load-deflection
curves will carefully be obtained. The most influential factors will be taken in
consideration including member span/depth ratio, allowable deflection limits and
material properties.
3. The theoretical calculations part will include the discussion of experimental work
comparing with relevant codes and committees report and recommending or
proposing design adjustments if required.
1.5 Layout of The Thesis

The thesis is divided into six chapters and the brief description about each
chapter is described below:
Chapter One
Introduction
The importance and the definition of the problem chosen for the present
investigation has been highlighted in Chapter one with the scope of the study. Chapter
two presents the review of literature on the subject. Chapter three summarizes an
experimental study conducted on reinforced concrete beam were without and with
(CFRP) strengthened. The beams were simply supported and single load was applied
at the mid-span, the beams were instrumented for measurement vertical deflection at
mid-span. Chapter four discusses the details of experiments results obtained from
testing of the beams. Chapter five presents the theoretical study for deflection
calculated of tested beam. The deflection results from theoretical study at crack stage
have been compared with the experimental results obtained from this study. Chapter
six summarizes the conclusions drawn from the present study. It also includes the
scope of further investigation in this area.
10
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Chapter Two
Review of Literature
Chapter Two
2.1 Introduction
Strengthening with externally bonded (CFRP) fabric has shown to be
applicable to many kinds of structures. Currently, this method has been applied to
strengthen such structural members as beams, columns, walls and slabs. The use
of external (CFRP) reinforcement may be classified as flexural strengthening,
improving the ductility of compression members and shear strengthening. It is
well known that reinforced concrete beams strengthened with externally bonded
(FRP) to the tension face can exhibit ultimate flexural strength greater than their
original flexural strength. However, these (FRP) strengthened beams could lose
some of their ductility due to the brittleness of (FRP) sheets (18). A relatively new
technique involves replacement of the steel plates by (FRP) in the form of fabric
or wraps
(19 through 22)
. (FRP) offers the engineers an outstanding combination of
properties such as:

1. Low weight
2. Easier site handling
3. Immunity from corrosion
4. Excellent mechanical strength and stiffness
5. The ability of formation in long lengths, thus eliminating the need for lap
joints.
Further, there has been a rapid progress in concrete technology that has resulted
in the evolution of concretes having specified characteristics.
11
Chapter Two
2.2 FRP Strengthening of RC Beam

Meier and Kaiser
(23)
conducted tests on (26) flexural reinforced concrete
beams with a (2.4 m) span strengthened with (CFRP) laminates. A typical loaddeflection curve is shown in Figure (2-1) which shows a doubling of strength for
the strengthened beam, but with reduced deflections and hence, ductility, at
failure. The laminate also caused a more distributed cracking pattern in the
strengthened beam with reduced crack widths. Other researchers have
subsequently found similar results (24 through 30).
A comprehensive analytical and experimental study of the short-term
flexural behavior of strengthened (FRP) reinforced concrete beams was carried
out by Triantafillou and Plevris
(31, 32)
. It was concluded that the flexural behavior
of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with FRP laminates can be adequately

described by the classical theory of plane-sectional analysis to predict the
moment-curvature of the load deflection response at a specific section when
premature peeling or de-bonding failure of the (FRP) is avoided. Assih et al
have subsequently validated these results.
Figure (2-1): Typical LoadDeflection Curve of Strengthened and Unstrengthened Concrete Beams (23).
12
(33)
Chapter Two
An et al.
(34)
performed a parametric study of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with (FRP) plates. It was found that for beams with high internal
reinforcement ratios, a stiffer plate in combination with higher-strength concrete
is more effective than a plate with a lower stiffness in combination with lowerstrength concrete. For beams with the same internal reinforcement ratios and
concrete compressive strength, it was found that, as the plate strength and
stiffness increased, the ultimate moment capacity increased until the failure mode
changed to crushing of the concrete in compression. Cha et al.
(35)
found similar
results.
White et al. (36) investigated the effects of loading rates on the behavior of
(3.0 m) span reinforced concrete beams strengthened with (CFRP) laminates. The
test results showed that service and ultimate flexural capacity increased as the rate
of loading increased. Cracking and failure modes were not affected by the rate of
loading.
A study has been conducted by David et al. (37) in an attempt to quantify the
flexural and shear strengthening enhancements offered by the externally bonded
(CFRP) laminates. It was found that the influence of pre-loading on the (CFRP)
strengthened beam will reduce the stiffness of the strengthened beams.
Tan and Mathivoli
(38)
tested nine reinforced concrete beams with (2.0 m)
span length and strengthened with (CFRP) sheets. Seven different preload levels
(from 10 to 90% of the ultimate strength of the un-strengthened beams) were
applied before strengthening. The beam with no pre-load had a strength gain of
80%, while those with a preload between 10 and 60% had a strength increase of
60%. At higher preload levels, the strength increase reduced significantly.
Aboutaha
(39)
investigated experimentally the application of (CFRP) sheets
for strengthening a damaged pre-stressed concrete girder with (9.4 m) span

length. To simulate the damage, the undamaged girder was loaded to its ultimate
flexural capacity, resulting in severe flexural cracks under the loading points and
13
Chapter Two
bond deterioration between the steel strands and concrete. The response of the
girder in its damaged condition showed a serious deterioration of stiffness,
approximately (50%) lower than that of the original girder. The stiffness of the
repaired girder was approximately (25%) lower than that of the original girder;
however, it was still lower than that of the undamaged girder. The ultimate
strength of the repaired girder was much higher than that of the original girder.
Charkas et al.
(40)
developed an analytical solution for the deflection
calculation of simply supported reinforced concrete beams strengthened with

(FRP) at any load stage. The solution assumes a tri-linear moment-curvature
response. It incorporated some tension-stiffening effects and assumed the section
to be fully cracked only upon or near steel yielding depending on the concrete
nonlinearity in compression. A closed form equation was presented for the case of
four point bending and uniform load. Comparisons with experiments indicated
the effectiveness of the procedure for properly anchored plates.
The deflection of (FRP) reinforced members will be greater than comparable
steel reinforced members because of the lower modulus of elasticity of the (FRP).
This leads to greater strains to achieve comparable stress levels and to lower
transformed moment of inertia.
Nawy and Neuwerth
(41)
studied the behavior of fibre-glass reinforced
concrete beams. This included a study of cracking, deflection, reinforcement

stress, and ultimate load behavior of twenty tested beams reinforced with glass
fibre rebars. It concluded that the beams reinforced with steel had fewer cracks
than the corresponding beams reinforced with GFRP bars. At ultimate load, the
deflection of the fibre glass reinforced beams was approximately three times
greater than those of corresponding steel reinforced beams.
Larralde et al.
(42)
found that the theoretical deflection predictions
underestimated test results for loads above (50%) of ultimate; deflection values
were fairly well predicted at load levels up to approximately (30%) of ultimate.
The study suggested a procedure in which values of curvature calculated at
14
Chapter Two
different sections of the beam should be used to obtain a better estimate of

deflection values.
Larralde and Zerva
(43)
investigated the feasibility of using concrete for
enhancing the structural properties of a box-type, molded (GFRP) grating.

Although the (FRP) grating was designed to be used as a structural component
independent of concrete, the low modulus of the (FRP) caused large deflections at
load levels only a fraction of the ultimate load carrying capacity. Within this
context, concrete was considered a stiffening agent employed to produce a
composite section with more favorable structural properties. All samples were
(570 mm) long, simply supported, loaded at two locations, and with a shear-span
(232 mm). Concrete compressive strength was (29 MPa).
Deblois et al.
(44)
investigated the application of unidirectional and
bidirectional glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) sheets for flexural

strengthening. A series of specimens (100100 1000mm) reinforced with steel
two (12mm) diameter bars in the tension region, were tested after strengthening.
The use of bidirectional sheets increased the ultimate load by up to 34%, whereas
unidirectional GFRP resulted in an increase of only 18%.
The first full-scale (FRP) repaired beam tests conducted in the United States
were at the University of Arizona, Saadatmanesh and Ehsani
(45)
. The tests
consisted of six large concrete beams; five of rectanglur cross-sections (200

450) mm and one T-beam (75 600) mm flange, (200 450) mm web. All the
specimens were (4.8 m) long and tested as a simple span in four points loading.
Steel reinforcement ratios, shear reinforcement, and cambering were varied in the
six beams. However, the externally applied (GFRP) was identical for each beam
(6 25 4200) mm. The research concluded adding (GFRP) plates improved the
strength and stiffness of the specimens. The tests showed the (GFRP) sheets
carried a portion of the tensile force, which decreased the stress in the steel
15
Chapter Two
reinforcement. This was particularly evident with the smaller steel reinforcement
ratios.
Shahawy et al.
(46)
assessed the effectiveness of external reinforcement in
terms of the cracking moment, maximum moment, deflection, and crack patterns.
Four beams (200 300 2700) mm, were tested using minimum steel
reinforcement two (12 mm) diameter bars and varying the layers of unidirectional
(CFRP). Also, non-linear finite element computer model was used to compare to
the results of the experiment.
The research by Bazaa et al.
(47)
was based on optimizing the length and
orientation of the (CFRP) to increase beam strength and ductility. Eight beams
(200 300 3000) mm were minimally reinforced with steel two (12 mm)
diameter bars) and overdesigned for shear to cause a flexural failure. One beam
was used as a control while the others were bonded with three layers of (CFRP)
(3 165) mm. The sheets varied in length and orientation of the fibers. Four had
unidirectional fibers with different lengths, and the other three had various fiber
directions with regard to the longitudinal direction ( 6, 9 and 12).
2.3 Effective Stiffness of R.C. Beam

A common and accepted methodology to estimate deflections is Branson
equation (2). The deflection may be calculated using usual elastic theory equations
for elastic uncracked elements. The flexural stiffness (EI) of the member is
considered, being the (E) modulus of elasticity of the concrete and (I) the moment
of inertia of the equivalent section. Until the maximum tensile stress in the
element does not reach the tensile strength of the concrete, it shall be considered
that the section remains uncracked, thus (I) is the gross moment of inertia about
the centroid axis (Ig).When the bending moment is great enough for the tensile
stress to exceed the tensile strength of concrete, cracks will form and the moment
of inertia suddenly reduced at the cracked section
16
(2)
. Between cracks tension is
Chapter Two
transferred from the reinforcement to concrete by bond stress, thus as equivalent

moment of inertia (Ie).
2.4 Prediction of Immediate Deflection

The Prediction and control of deflection of reinforced concrete members is
difficult because of the change of stiffness members during loading due to
cracking of the concrete (48). Figure (2-2) shows that for loads below the cracking
load, deflection may be based on the gross section, with generally a small
difference arising from whether or not the transformed area of reinforcement was
included. However, as the load increases above the cracking load, the moment of
inertia approaches the moment of inertia of the cracked section (Icr), although the
value of the moment of inertia may be greater between cracks (49).
The method of determining the deflection of beams by integrating the
curvatures along the span is affected by bond slip in anchorage zones and by the
spacing of cracks. When only flexural cracks occur, the maximum stress of steel
reinforcement is concentrated across one or two critical cracks. On the other
hand, if diagonal tension cracks are present, the maximum stress of steel occurs
over a much wider zone. In this case the tension in flexural reinforcement at
section away from the section of maximum moment may be larger than that
computed from the bending moment diagram. Thus, additional slip of steel will
take place, which will increase the curvature and the deflection of the beam (50).
Figure (2-2) Typical Load-Deflection Curve for R. C. Beams (49)
17
Chapter Two
According to Branson (51), Yu and winter (52) in 1960 suggested two methods
which could be used for calculating immediate deflection, where described as
follows:
Method (A): Deflection was computed by using the elastic theory, and using
the cracked transformed section at mid-span as constant value throughout the
length of the span for simple span beams , and the average cracked transformed
section for the positive and negative moment regions for continuous beams.
Method (B): In this method the concrete between cracks on the tension side
was assumed to contribute in rigidity of the member. To account for this, the
immediate deflections computed by method (A) are reduced by multiplying by
the following factor:
where:
Ma : service moment.
bw : beam width .
h : total depth of the beam.
kd : neutral axis depth.
Method (B) provides somewhat better predicted values than method (A).
The European concrete committee (CEB) (53) suggested another method for
the calculation of instantaneous deflection. This method considered the
instantaneous deflection () to be composed of two parts (1) and (2), as
follow:
where:
18
Chapter Two
The 1, 2, 3, Mcr and Ma are shown in Figure (2-3)
Figure (2-3) European Concrete Committee Recommended Procedure for

Calculating Short-Time Deflection (53)
Later the ACI 318-63(54) considered the moment of inertia of flexural
member on either, gross section (Ig) or a cracked section (Icr). If the value of
(.fy) is equal or less than 3.45 MPa, the moment of inertia is set equal to (Ig)
while if (.fy) exceeds 3.45 MPa it is set equal to (Icr), where () is the steel
reinforcement ratio and (fy) is the yield stress of steel reinforcement.
From literatures
(51, 55 and 56)
, Branson suggested another approach to
determine the value of the moment of inertia of flexural members, it was

proposed an empirical expression for the determination of the effective moment
of inertia at any particular cross section of a member as a function of the cracking
moment, bending moment, section properties and concrete strength as given
below:
19
Chapter Two
(
)
) ]
Where:
Mcr: The cracking moment computed from the following equation:
Ma: moment at the sections considered for calculation the deflection.

Ig: gross moment of inertia.
Icr: cracked section moment of inertia.
fr: modulus of rupture of concrete.
yt: distance from the neutral axis to the tension face of un-cracked section.
For the average effective moment of inertia (Ie) of simply supported beams (or
between the inflection points of continuous beams), equation (2-10) was
recommended to be used for calculation the short-time deflection from the elastic
theory as follows:
(
) ]
where,
: Immediate deflection (mm).
K: Factor of support fixity and loading condition.
M: Maximum flexural moment along the span (kN.m).
L: Beam clear span length (m).
Ec: Concrete modulus of elasticity (MPa).
Since 1970s the (Ie) method was adopted by the ACI codes (equation (2-9)).
20
Chapter Two
The recommended procedure in CP 110(57) consists of calculation the

curvature at successive section along the member and using a numerical
integration technique for computing the maximum deflection. Alternatively, the
following simplified approach may be used.
( )
where:
L: Beam clear span length (m).
(1/r): Curvature at mid-span.
r: Radius of curvature.
K: Factor of support fixity and loading condition.
Ramsay et al (48) studied the effects of the strength of concrete, amount of
reinforcement, the cross section dimensions, steel arrangement, and the applied
load on the deflections of reinforced concrete beams by using Equation (2-11) as
theoretical model. It was compared the results with those of ACI 318-63
(54)
and
ACI 318-77 (58) method and found that the Ie-method is the best.
Jacob (59) mentioned cases in which (Icr) is greater than (Ig) as follow:
Members that are heavily reinforced.
Members are flanged.
Light weight concrete member
When low yield strength steel is used
Jacob suggested simplified (Ie) equations for a typical one-way member as
follows:
When
When
with a lower bound of 0.35 for (
) computed by any of the two equations.
21
Chapter Two
(60)
Branson
discussed Jacob's results, and mentioned that those cases were
not intended in the ACI 318-77
(58)
code (Ie) equation. In such cases, Branson
suggested that Ig should be replaced by un-cracked transformed moment of

inertia (Iucr) in the (Ie) equation, equation (2-13) and (Ie) to be replaced by (Icr)
for
.
Pretorius
(61)
used the following simplified approach for predicting the
immediate deflections of simply supported R.C. beams under uniform distributed

load:
where (i) is the immediate deflection at mid-span.

he compared the results with (Ie) Method and found that the ACI method
gives more accurate prediction for the experimental results, and recommended
that the immediate deflections should be calculated by using (Ie) method.
Faza and GangaRao
(62)
found predicted deflections of FRP-reinforced
beams to be underestimated using the effective moment of inertia (Ie) as

prescribed by ACI 318-08
(4)
. It introduced a new method of calculating the
effective moment of inertia of concrete beams reinforced with FRP

reinforcement. The new expression was based on the assumption that a concrete
section between the point loads is assumed to be fully cracked, while the end
sections were assumed to be partially cracked. Therefore, an expression for crack
moment of inertia (Icr) was used in the middle third section, and the effective
moment of inertia (Ie) was used in the end sections. Using the moment-area
approach to calculate maximum deflection at the center of the beam resulted in an
expression for a modified moment of inertia as shown:
22
Chapter Two
where
Im : The modified moment of inertia.

Icr : The moment of inertia of a cracked section.
Ie : The effective moment of inertia.
Ghali
(63)
studied the deflections of reinforced concrete members by
comparing the experimental results of deflections measured by AL-Zaid et al

with the results predicted by using ACI 318-89
(65)
(64)
and CEB-FIP 1978(66).
Comparisons of the deflection showed that ACI and CEB-FIP gives accurate
predicted values for the immediate deflection for uniformly loaded simply
supported beams. While, the deflection due to concentrated load is overestimated
(or Ie is underestimated) when ACI equation is used. The CEB-FIP equation is
more accurate than ACI method. Also, Ghali and Azarnejed
(67)
studied the
influence of varying the compressive strength on the predicated deflections.

The experimental data measured by Washa and Fluck
with those by using ACI 318-95
(69)
(68)
were compared
(Ie) method and CEB-FIP 1993
(70)
Model
code method. The study showed that the ACI 318-95 (69) approach yields accurate
predications in some cases, but it is not the case in other practical applications,
e.g. when the maximum moment is not substantially greater than the cracking
moment.
2.5 Engineering Properties Required for Prediction the Short-Time

Deflection.
There are some of engineering properties of concrete required to predict the
short-time deflection in reinforced concrete beams. These factors include the
modulus of elasticity which is used directly in calculating the deflection by using
the elastic theory, and the modulus of rupture (flexural strength), which is
required for the prediction of the initial cracking moment. This moment is
23
Chapter Two
important in the prediction of the effective moment of inertia, and the mean
curvature required for the theoretical analysis.
2.5.1 Concrete Static Modulus of Elasticity

The modulus of elasticity of concrete is one of the most important
mechanical properties of concrete. It is closely related to the properties of cement
paste and the stiffness and volume of selected aggregate. The modulus of
elasticity of concrete increases for high contents of aggregate of high rigidity
whereas it decreases with the increase in hardened cement paste content and
increasing porosity. Mehta and Monteiro
(71)
, showed that the coarse aggregate
affects the elastic modulus of concrete, and aggregate porosity seems to be the
most important factor because aggregate porosity determines its stiffness, which
in turn controls the ability of aggregate to restrain matrix strain. Dense aggregate
has a high elastic modulus. In general, larger amount of coarse aggregate with a
high elastic modulus of elasticity will result in high modulus of elasticity of
concrete.
2.5.2 Concrete Flexural Strength
It is well known that as the compressive strength increases, the flexural
strength (fr) also increases but at a decreasing rate. Number of factors affects the
relation between the two strengths (fr/f'c) ratio, such as properties of coarse and
fine aggregate, age of concrete, curing conditions and concrete compaction. An
empirical formula that relate fr and fc, have been suggested by ACI committee
318-08 (4), where fr = 0.62
2.5.3 FRP Modulus of Elasticity

(FRP) composites consist of high strength fibers embedded in a matrix of
polymer resin .Typical values for properties of the fibers are given in Table (2-1).
These fibers are all linear elastic up to failure, with no significant yielding
compared to steel. The primary functions of the matrix in a composite are to
24
Chapter Two
transfer stress between the fibers, to provide a barrier against the environment and
to protect the surface of the fibers from mechanical abrasion.
Table (2-1): Typical Properties of FRPs (72)
Elastic modulus
Tensile
Ultimate tensile
(GPa)
strength (MPa)
strain (%)
High strength
215-235
3500-4800
1.4-2.0
Ultra high strength
215-235
3500-6000
1.5-2.3
High modulus
350-700
2100-2400
0.5-0.9
Ultra high modulus
500-700
2100-2400
0.2-0.4
E-glass
70
1900-3000
3.0-4.5
S-glass
85-90
3500-4800
4.5-5.5
Low modulus
70-80
3500-4100
4.3-5.0
High modulus
115-130
3500-4000
2.5-3.5
Material
Carbon
Glass
Armed
The mechanical properties of composites are dependent on the fiber

properties, matrix properties, fiber-matrix bond properties, fiber amount and fiber
orientation. A composite with all fibers in one direction is designated as
unidirectional. If the fibers are woven, or oriented in many directions, the
composite is bi-or multidirectional. Since it is mainly the fibers that provide
stiffness and strength composites are often an isotropic with high stiffness in the
fiber directions. In strengthening applications, unidirectional composites are
predominantly used. The approximate stiffness and strength of a unidirectional
CFRP with a 65% volume fraction of carbon fiber is given in Table (2-2), a
comparison of the corresponding properties for steel is also given.
Carbon fibers offer the highest modules of all reinforcing fibers. Among the
advantages of carbon fibers is their exceptionally high tensile strength to weight
ratios as well as high tensile modules to weight ratios, for comparison with steel.
25
Chapter Two
Table (2-2): Typical Properties of CFRP Fabric (73)
Elastic modulus
Tensile
Ultimate tensile
(GPa)
strength (MPa)
strain (%)
Low modulus CFRP
170
2800
1.6
High modulus CFRP
300
1300
0.5
Mild steel
200
400
25
Material
2.6 Theoretical Load Deflection Behavior of a Typical R.C. Beam

The load- deflection behavior of reinforced concrete beams can be divided
into three parts consisting of (a) pre-cracked, (b) working load and (c) postyielding regions, as shown in Figure (2-4). At the initial stages of loading,
concrete resists both compression and tension forces. When the tensile strain in
the extreme fiber reaches between (0.002-0.003), the concrete starts to crack and
the flexural stiffness decreases rapidly. If the instrumentation is sensitive, the
rapid increase in deflection at the onset of cracking can be observed during the
experimental testing. This transition occurs between points 1 and 2, as shown in
Figure (2-4) (74).
Figure (2-4) Load-Deflection Behavior of a Typical RC Beam (74).

26
Chapter Two
Once the tension zone concrete cracks, its tensile force resistance becomes
negligible. The tension force due to external load is primarily carried by
reinforcement. The coupling of tension force carried by reinforcement and the
compression force carried by concrete is achieved by shear through un-cracked
concrete. The region between points 2 and 4 in Figure (2-4)
(74)
is considered the
post-cracking region. This region terminates at point 4 when reinforcement,

typically mild steel, starts to yield. In almost all cases, the working load lies in
this region. In other words, part of the reinforced concrete beam is cracked under
load. The beam sections near simple supports or inflection points in continuous
beams could still be un-cracked because of lower moments.
Once the steel starts to yield, the deflection increases rapidly with very little
increase in load (moment). The beam could be failed by crushing of concrete or
fracture of steel. In most cases, failure occurs by crushing of concrete, because
the strain capacity of steel is very high. In some cases, the beam may not fail at
maximum load. This process called strain softening and can occur if concrete
sustains large strains due to confinement.
The increase in deflection between yielding and failure between points 4
and 6 in Figure (2-4) defines the ductility of beam. If the beam is over-reinforced
the concrete fails before yielding of steel, the ductility and the impending warning
of failure becomes negligible. Therefore, most codes of practice around the world
restrict the amount of reinforcement to ascertain yielding of steel before failure.
This is achieved by limiting the reinforcement ratio to a fraction of the balanced
reinforcement ratio. At the balanced reinforcement ratio, crushing of concrete and
yielding of steel occur simultaneously.
27
Chapter Two
2.7 Failure Mode of FRP Strengthened R.C. Beams

Reinforced concrete beams strengthened externally by sheets bonded to the
tension face have been noted to fail in a variety of modes:
Flexural failure by FRP ruptures.
Flexural failure by crushing of compressive concrete.
Shear failure.
Concrete cover de-bonding, Figure (2.5 a)
Sheet-end interfacial de-bonding, Figure (2.5 b)
Intermediate shear cracked-induced interfacial de-bonding, Figure (2.5 c)
Intermediate flexural cracked-induced interfacial de-bonding, Figure (2.5 d)
Figure (2-5) De-bonding failure mechanisms (75)
Meier et al. (23) also studied the failure modes related to (FRP) repaired beams.
A preliminary study dealt with three different failures:
1. Tensile failure of the (CFRP) sheets.
2. Classical concrete failure in the compressive zone.
3. Continuous peeling-off of the CFRP sheets due to an uneven concrete
surface.
28
Chapter Two
Meier et al.
(76)
expanded the possible failure modes to eight. The additional
five failures were as follows:

4. Shearing of the concrete in the tensile zone.
5. Inter laminar shear within the (CFRP) sheet.
6. Cohesive failure within the adhesive.
7. Adhesive failure at the interface (CFRP) sheet/adhesive.
8. Adhesive failure at the interface (CFRP) concrete/adhesive.
2.8 Summary
Based on the above review, the following main points are emerged:
1. The behavior of R.C. beam strengthened with (FRP) has been widely studied
in both experimental and analytical work.
2. There are several models for the effective stiffness properties (EI) for R.C.
beam and this coefficient significantly affects the behavior of the R.C beam.
3. Only few studies on deflection control requirements for R.C. beam
strengthened with (FRP) have been reported in the literature.
29
CHAPTER THREE
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Chapter Three
Experimental Program
Chapter Three
3.1 Introduction
The experimental program consists of fabricating and testing eight simply
supported rectangular simply supported section beams under one point load at
mid-span. One concrete mix proportion (cement: sand: gravel) of (1: 2.1: 2.9) by
weight, with w/c of (0.42), to produce concrete with (fcu = 32 MPa), is used to all
beam specimens.
Beams strengthening with (CFRP), testing procedure and measuring
instruments are also presented in this chapter. The experimental investigation has
been conducted at the Materials Laboratory and Construction Laboratory College
of Engineering for AL- Mustansiriya University in support of the ACI 318-08
and ACI 440.2R -02
(10)
(4)
which have provided comprehensive data, allowing for
an interpretation of the deflection performance of the eight R.C. beams with and
without (CFRP) strengthening.
The eight beams are designed with three different variables to investigate the
deflection of these beams, the variables are as follows:
Span/depth ratio.
The steel reinforcement ratio ().
The yield stress of the steel (fy).
The CFRP strengthening ratio (f).
3.2 Fabrication and Details of Specimens

In the present experimental work, the detail design is according to ACI 31808 (4) Code. Four wooden molds are used in the fabrication of beams, as shown in
plate (3-1). Eight simply supported beams are used with 2m span length. One of
these beams is control beam (B1), where is without (CFRP) strengthening, the
others seven tested beams are strengthened with (CFRP) wrap. Total depths (h)
values are (100, 133, 160 and 200 mm) have been selected for test beams.
30
Chapter Three
All beams are reinforced with minimum steel ratio ( min) except beams (B6)
and (B7), have reinforced with (2
min)
and (
max)
respectively. The minimum
and maximum steel reinforcement as per ACI 318-08 (4) building code have been
used in the present experimental work.
The geometric configuration, element designation, dimensions and
reinforcement details of the tested beams are shown in Table (3-1) and Figure (31). For strengthened beams, (CFRP) has been placed at the tension face (bottom)
for the tested beams as shown in Figure (3-1).
Plate (3-1) Steel Reinforcement and Wooden Molds of Beams

Also six cube specimens (150) mm have been tested at age of (28) days to
determine concrete compressive strength. Four cylinder specimens (150 300)
mm have been tested at age of (28) days to determine elastic modulus of
elasticity, as shown as in plate (3-2).
31
Chapter Three
Table (3-1) Beam Specimen Properties

Beam
Beam
Designation span(mm)
section
Steel
Steel
bwh
ratio
stress fy
(mm)
()
(MPa)
Using of (CFRP)
B1
2000
100133
min
460
Un-strengthened
B2
2000
100100
min
460
Strengthened
B3
2000
100133
min
460
Strengthened
B4
2000
100160
min
460
Strengthened
B5
2000
100200
min
460
Strengthened
B6
2000
100133
2(min)
460
Strengthened
B7
2000
100133
max
460
Strengthened
B8
2000
100133
min
300
Strengthened
Plate (3-2) Concrete Samples of Cubes and Cylinders
3.3 Materials
Several materials are used in this study to produce the original specimens
and then to test them. The main properties of these materials are, as follows:
32
Chapter Three
3.3.1 Cement
Ordinary Portland cement (Type I) is used in this study. The main chemical
and physical properties of this cement are given in Tables (3-2) and (3-3). It
conforms to the Iraqi Specification No.5/ 1984 (77).
3.3.2 Fine Aggregate
Natural sand (fine aggregate) from Al-Akhaider region in Iraq is used in this
study. The fine aggregate has 4.75mm maximum size with rounded-shape
particles and smooth texture with fineness modulus of 2.74. Tables (3-4) and (35) shows the specific gravity, sulfate content and absorption of the fine aggregate.
Figure (3-2) shows the Sieve analysis of fine aggregate. The obtained results
indicate that the fine aggregate grading and the sulfate content are within the
limits of Iraqi Specification No.45/1984 (78).
3.3.3 Coarse Aggregate
Crushed gravel (Coarse Aggregate) from Sammara/Iraq with maximum
size of 14 mm is used throughout the tests. The specific gravity and absorption
are 2.66 and 0.66% respectively. The grading of the coarse aggregate is shown in
Table (3-6) and Table (3-7). The obtained results indicate that the coarse
aggregate grading is within the requirements of Iraqi Specification No. 45/1984
(78)
3.3.4 Steel Reinforcement

Two types of reinforcements are used in the present work are described as
follow:
3.3.4.1 Steel bars
Deformed steel bars of diameters (4, 5, 6 and 8) mm are used for the main
reinforcement also deformed steel bars of diameter (4 mm) are used for stirrups.
The bars are tested to determine the yield stress, ultimate stress and elongation.
The test has been carried according to ASTM A615 / A615M
(79)
. Properties of
the steel bars and results obtained from the test are present in Table (3-8).
33
Chapter Three
Figure (3-1) Dimensions and Reinforcement Details of Tested Beams
34
Chapter Three
Table (3-2) Chemical Composition of The Cement

Compound composition
(Oxides)
Chemical
Percentage by
composition
weight
Calcium Oxide
Silicon dioxide
Iron oxide
Aluminum oxide
Magnesium oxide
Sulphor trioxide
Lime saturation factor
Loss on Ignition
Insoluble residue
Tri-calcium silicate
Di-calcium silicate
Tri-calcium Aluminates
CaO
SiO2
Fe2O3
Al2O3
MgO
SO3
L.S.F
L.O.I
I.R
C3S
C2S
C3A
66.28
19.12
3.33
6.41
1.46
2.35
0.92
2.24
0.97
61.79
8.53
10.39
Limits of
IQS
5:1984(77)
----<5
<2.8
0.66 1.02
<4
<1.5
----
Tetra-calcium aluminates
ferrite
C4AF
7.08
--
Table (3-3) Physical Properties of Cement

Properties
Test
results
IQS 5:
1984
criteria(77)
446
>230
1:35
3:25
0.09%
>45 min
<10 hrs
<0.80%
25.7
34.9
42.6
>15
>23
-----
Fineness using Blaine air

permeability apparatus (m2/kg)
Setting time using Vicat's Method
Initial (hrs:min)
Final (hrs: min)
Soundness using Autoclave Method
Compressive strength for cement
past cube (50 mm) at:
3 day
7 day
28 day
35
Chapter Three
Table (3-4) Grading of Fine Aggregate

Sieve size
(mm)
% passing by
weight
10
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.60
0.30
0.15
100
96
83
70
55
18
4
Limits of Iraqi
specifications No.
45/1984 (Zone 2)(78)
100
90-100
75-100
55-90
35-59
8-30
0-10
Fineness of Modulus = 3.26

Table (3-5) Other Properties of Fine Aggregate
Physical
properties
Specific gravity
Sulfate content
absorption
Test
results
2.60
0.17 %
1.8 %
Limits of the Iraqi

specification No.
45/1984(78)
- 0.5%
--
Figure (3-2) Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate
36
Chapter Three
Table (3-6) Grading of Coarse Aggregate of MAS (14) mm

Sieve size
(mm)
14
% passing by
weight
Limits of the Iraqi

specification No. 45/1984(78)
98
90-100
10
71
50-85
10
0-10
Pan
Table (3-7) Other Properties of Coarse Aggregate of MAS (14) mm

Physical
properties
Specific gravity
Sulfate content
absorption
Test results
Limits of the Iraqi specification

No. 45/1984(78)
- 0.1%
--
2.66
0.07%
0.66%
Table (3-8): Properties of Steel Bars.

Nominal
deformed bar
Diameter (mm)
Modulus of Elasticity
(Es) (GPa)
Elongation
(%)
Yield Stress
( fy ) (MPa)
Ultimate Stress
( fu ) (MPa)
200
7.6 %
306
412
200
8.6 %
462
548
200
8.6 %
460
540
200
8.6 %
453
540
200
9.2 %
464
550
37
Chapter Three
3.3.5 CFRP Sheets

The Sika Wrap Hex-230C is an externally applied repairing or strengthening
system for structural members made of reinforced concrete, masonry or timber.
This system was supplied by (Sika, Beirut - Lebanon). The following information
related to this system is summarized, as follows:
3.3.5.1 System components

Carbon fiber fabric Sika Wrap Hex-230C and epoxy based impregnating
resin Sikadur-330 are shown in Plate (3-3).
(a) CFRP
(b) Epoxy
Plate (3-3) CFRP and Epoxy
3.3.5.2 Technical data

Table (3-9) present the technical data of the carbon fiber fabric used in the
experimental work of the resent study.
38
Chapter Three
Table (3-9) Sika Wrap Hex-230C (Carbon Fiber Fabric)*

Fiber Type
High strength carbon fibers
Fiber Orientation
0 (unidirectional). The fabric is equipped with special weft fibers

which prevent loosening of the roving (heat set process).
Warp: carbon fibers (99% of total areal weight)
Construction
Weft: thermoplastic heat-set fibers (1% of total areal weight)
Areal Weight
230 g/m2
Fiber Density
1.76 g/cm3
Fabric Thickness
1 mm (based on total area of carbon fibers)
Tensile Strength
4300 MPa
Tensile Modulus
238000 MPa
Elongation at Break
1.8 %
Fabric Length/Roll
50 m
Fabric Width
300/600 mm
* Provided by the Manufacturer
Table (3-10) presents the technical data of the epoxy based impregnation
resin used in the experimental work of the resent study.
Table (3-10) Sikadur-330 (Impregnating Resin)*
Comp. a: white
Appearance
Comp. b: grey
Density
1.31 kg/l (mixed)
Mixing ratio
A : B = 4 : 1 by weight
Open time
30 min (at + 35C)
Viscosity
Pasty, not flowable
Application
+ 15C to + 35C (ambient and substrate)
temperature
Tensile strength
30 MPa (cured 7 days at +23C)
Flexural E-modulus
3800 MPa (cured 7 days at +23C)
* Provided by the Manufacturer
39
Chapter Three
3.4 Mix Design

Several trial mixes are made according to the recommendations of the British
Standard BS 5328: part 2: 1991
(80)
. Reference concrete mixture is designed to
achieve cube strength of (30 MPa) at (28) days (normal strength concrete).
Mixture details are given in table (3-11). The mixture is (1cement: 2.1 sand: 2.9
gravel, by weight). It is found that the used mixture produces good workability
and uniform mixing of concrete without segregation.
Table (3-11) Concrete Trial Mixes

W/C
Mix
Ratio
Cubic
3
Mix Proportions (Kg/m )

W
Mix Ratio
compressive
Strength (MPa)
0.48
200
415
535
1250
1 : 1.3 : 3
44.3
0.45
180
400
600
1200
1 : 1.5 : 3
37.3
0.42
174
415
872
1204
1 : 2.1 : 2.9
32.0
3.5 Mixing Procedure

The mixing procedure is, as follows:
1. All quantities are weighed and packed in a clean container, before mixing.
2. Saturated surfaces, dry crushed gravel and dry sand are added to the
rotary drum mixer of (0.19 m3) volume capacity and mixed for several
minutes. Cement is then added to the mixer, and water is added gradually
to the mix. The total mixing time is (8-10 minutes).
3. Before casting, all molds (beams, cylinders and cubes) are oiled and the
reinforcement mesh is placed in corner molds, then the molds are placed
on a table vibrator.
40
Chapter Three
4. When the mixing process is completed, the control specimens and

additional specimens are then cast in three layers and compacted by a table
vibrator to shake the mix and consolidate it into the molds. The vibrating
table is (1.0 1.5 m) of (10 mm) thick steel plate. The table vibrates with a
simple harmonic motion. The frequency of vibration is (7000 rpm).
5. The surface of the concrete samples is leveled off and finished with a
trowel. Then, the specimens are covered with a nylon sheet to prevent
evaporation of water.
6. All specimens are left in the laboratory for 24 hours, and then placed in
water bath for (28) days with almost constant laboratory temperature. After
(28) days, they are taken out of water and left to dry for (24) hours and
then tested in accordance with the standard specifications.
3.6 Compaction
The beam specimens and the corresponding concrete control specimens were
vibrated at the same time by using table vibrator, the concrete was cast in two
layers with a compaction time of about (1-2 min) for each layers.
3.7 Curing and Age of Testing

Water curing for concrete is recommended during the early stages of
hardening to reduce the loss of water which is essential for the process of cement
hydration and that will lead to high percentage of strength gain at this duration.
The strength of concrete is traditionally characterized by the 28 day value, early
cement gained strength slowly and it was necessary to base the strength
description on concrete in which a significant hydration of cement had already
taken place.
41
Chapter Three
3.8 Strengthening of Beams

Before bonding the composite fabric on to the concrete surface, the required
region of concrete surface is made rough using a sand paper texture and cleaned
with a brash to remove all dirt and dust. Once the surface is prepared, the epoxy
resin is mixed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Mixing is carried
out in plastic container until the mixture is in uniform color. When this is
completed and the fabrics had been cut to size, the epoxy resin is applied to the
concrete surface. The composite fabric is then placed on top of epoxy resin
coating and the resin was squeezed through the roving of the fabric with the
roller. Air bubbles entrapped at the epoxy/concrete or epoxy/fabric interface are
to be eliminated. During hardening of the epoxy, a constant uniform pressure is
applied on the composite fabric surface in order to extrude the excess epoxy resin
and to ensure good contact between the epoxy, the concrete and the fabric. This
operation is carried out at room temperature. Concrete beams are strengthened
with carbon fiber fabric cured for 24 hours at room temperature before testing.
3.9 Hardened Concrete

3.9.1 Compressive Strength Test (fcu)
Standard cubes (150) mm are used according to BS 1881: part 116 (81), and
they are de-molded one day after casting.
Testing is carried out at (28) days. The machine which is used in the tests is
one of the hydraulic types of (3000) kN capacity. The specimen is carefully
aligned at the center of thrust of the upper bearing block and loading is applied
continuously until failure. Cubic compressive strength in (MPa) is obtained by
averaging the results of three specimens.
42
Chapter Three
3.9.2 Static Modulus of Elasticity (Ec)

This test method provides a stress to strain ratio value for standard
hardened concrete cylindrical specimens at any age and curing conditions. The
modulus of elasticity is determined according to ASTM C469-02
(82)
. Thirty
cylindrical specimens with the (150 300) mm dimensions are cast and tested in
the laboratory. The chord modulus is calculated from the relation:
Ec
S 2 S1
2 0.00005
(3-1)
Where:
Ec The static modulus of elasticity (MPa).
S1 Stress corresponding to a longitudinal strain (0.00005) (MPa).

S2 Stress corresponding to 40% of ultimate load (MPa).
2 Longitudinal strain produced by stress (S2 ) .
3.10 Testing of the Beams

3.10.1 Testing Machine
The hydraulic universal testing machine (MFL system) is used to test all
beam specimens. The testing machine has three scale loads (0 to 600 kN), (0 to
1500 kN) and (0 to 3000 kN) and capacity of (3000 kN), the machine is shown in
Plate (3-4). The high capacity, stiffness and dimensions of the testing machine
make it more adequate to test large scale beam made with normal strength
concrete. These features of testing machine satisfy the test requirements of
normal strength concrete. It may be noted that the universal testing machine is
calibrated by "The Iraqi Central Organization for Standardization and Quality
Control".
43
Chapter Three
Plate (3-4) Universal Testing Machine
3.10.2 Beams Setup

The beams are tested under one point load at mid-span as shown in Figure
(3-3). The beams are supported on roller bearing acting on similar spreader
plates. The beam specimen is placed over the two steel rollers bearing leaving
100 mm from the ends of the beam. The remaining 2000 mm is divided into two
equal parts of 1000 mm as shown in Figure (3-3). Two dial gauges are used for
recording the deflection of the beams, the two dial gauges are placed just below
the center of the beam to measure deflections, as shown in Plate (3-5).
44
Chapter Three
Figure (3-3) Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagram of One Point
Loading
Plate (3-5) Two Dial Gauges are Placed below the Center of Beams
45
Chapter Three
3.10.3 Test Procedure

Before testing beams are checked dimensionally, and detailed visual
inspection made with all information carefully recorded. After setting and reading
dial gauges, the load is increased steadily by (2 kN) increments up to failure with
loads and deflections recorded. Cracking observations are suspended as failure
approaches unless special safety precautions are taken also dial gauges
replacement is necessary to avoid them damage when approaching beam collapse,
failure mode is also carefully observed.
46
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
Chapter Four
Results and Discussion
Chapter Four

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter the results obtained from the experimental program are analyzed to
achieve the aim to study the immediate deflection behavior of (CFRP) reinforced
concrete beams. This study included the following main points:
Mechanical properties of the concrete related to deflection of beams.
Load-deflection behavior of all beams.
Some factors that affecting load-deflection behavior.
Failure mode of the tested beams.
4.2 Control Specimens Test Results

In chapter three, it was mentioned that cube specimens and cylinder
specimens were taken in addition to the beam specimens to investigate some
mechanical properties of the concrete. These properties are:
(1) compressive strength
(2) modulus of elasticity
(3) unit weight
The results obtained concerning these properties are discussed below;
4.2.1 Concrete Compressive Strength

Table (4-1) shows the nominal and the measured of cubic compressive
strength for the two groups of concrete mixed. This strength was obtained from
the average of three concrete cubes cast with every concrete mixture, and tested at
the same age as the beam specimen.
47
Chapter Four
4.2.2 Modulus of Elasticity

The modulus of elasticity of concrete is one of the most important
mechanical properties of concrete. It is closely related to the properties of cement
paste and the stiffness and volume of selected aggregate. The modulus of
elasticity of concrete increases for high contents of aggregate of high rigidity;
whereas, it decreases with the increase in hardened cement paste content and
increasing porosity.
Table (4-1) shows a comparison between the measured and predicted values
of the modulus of elasticity of concrete using the formulas adopted by CP
110:1972
(57)
for average values of compressive strength of (32
MPa) obtained in this study, where
in MPa and
in GPa. The comparison
between predicted and measured modulus of elasticity is plotted in Figure (4-1).

Most of the values of modulus of elasticity obtained were above those predicted
by CP 110:1972 formula with not less than (10 %).
Table (4-1) Test Results of Control Specimens

Mix
Nominal Compressive
Strength (fcu) (MPa)
30
30
Measured
Predicted
Measured
Compressive
Modulus of
Modulus of
Strength (MPa)
elasticity (GPa)
elasticity (GPa)
34.6
26.47
27.6
30.8
24.97
25.21
33.5
26.04
26.56
28.4
23.98
24.28
33.8
26.16
26.77
34.1
26.28
26.89
48
Chapter Four
Figure (4-1) Comparison of Predicted with Measured Modulus of Elasticity
4.2.3 Unit Weight

One concrete mixes have been used to produce eight reinforced concrete
beams, these mixes have the same mix proportions and then vibrated by mean of
vibrating tables which provide a reliable compaction and offer a maximum
density for concrete mixes, Table (4-2) shows the results of density of control
specimens.
Table (4-2) Density Test Results of Control Specimens
Mix
Measured
Bulk
Compressive
Density
Strength (MPa)
(Kg/m3)
34.6
2402
30.8
2386
33.5
2400
28.4
2380
33.8
2407
34.1
2411
Nominal Compressive
Strength (fcu) (MPa)
30
30
49
Chapter Four
4.3 Load - Deflection Behavior

4.3.1 Deflection at Mid -Span
The load-Deflection behavior for all beams is shown in Figures (4-2)
through (4-9) individually and Figure (4-10) shows the load-deflection curve for
all beams. The load- deflection figures show different deformation and behavior
under load for all beams, thus beam specimens have been made with three
variables (Span/depth ratio, steel reinforcement ratio and steel grade) are tested to
the ultimate load capacity in order to investigate deflection behavior in this study,
Table (4-3) shows the test results of all beams.
Table (4-3) Beams Test Results

Beam
Load at
Ultimate
Deflection of
Max.
Designation
Cracking
Load
Cracking
Deflection
Stage (kN)
(kN)
Stage (mm)
(mm)
B1
15
0.4
7.1
B2
23.5
0.35
6.6
B3
27.5
0.3
5.2
B4
6.5
39.5
0.26
4.6
B5
8.5
43.5
0.23
3.85
B6
4.5
35.5
0.3
4.5
B7
42.5
0.28
3.68
B8
3.5
22.5
0.3
4.2
In the pre-cracking stage, the deflection increased linearly with loading. This
is expected since the strains in the steel and concrete are relatively small and both
materials steel and concrete are in the elastic portion of their respective responses.
Initial cracking was observed at loads ranging from 8.5 percent for Beam (B2) to
20 percent for Beam (B1) of the beam ultimate load.
50
Chapter Four
In the post-cracking stage, there is a change of slope in the load-deflection

curve due to the cracking of concrete, which results in reduction in the effective
moment of inertia of the beam cross section. After cracking, deflection gain
increase almost linearly with load up to the point at which the tensile steel yields,
where expected.
For the higher loading stage, the contribution of (CFRP) becomes very
significant. The (CFRP) strengthened beams continuous to provide strength
increase because the (CFRP) force contribution continues at the same level.
Figure (4-2) Load Versus Mid-span Deflection Curve for Beam (B1)
51
Chapter Four
52
Chapter Four
53
Chapter Four
54
Chapter Four
Figure (4-10) Comparison of Load Deflection Curves for All Beams.
55
Chapter Four
4.3.2 Effect of CFRP Strengthening on The Load-Deflection behavior

The load deflection response of unstrengthened beam (B1) exhibits three
regions of behaviour, as shown in Fig. (4-11). At low applied loads, the stiffness
of Beam (B1) is relatively high, indicating that the concrete behaves in a linear
elastic manner. As the load increase the bending stresses in the extreme fibers at
the top and bottom of the section increase until the tensile strength of the concrete
is reached at the base of the beam, causing flexural cracks to form, initialy in the
mid-span at applied load of (3 kN). The occurrence of flexural cracking causes a
marked reduction in the member stiffness, as shown by a sudden change of
gradient in the response. The response after the cracking load is approximately
linear, at a gradient which will be refferred the postcracking stiffness.
Figure (4-11) Effect of (CFRP) Strengthening on Load-Deflection behavior
56
Chapter Four
After the concrete cracks in tension, a greater proportion of the tensile

bending component is carried by the reinforcing steel at the base of the section.
Eventually, the yield stress of the steel is reached at one or more points; this loss
of material stiffness results in a reduction in overall beam stiffness (defined as the
total load-central deflection) as the ability of the section to support the tensile
component of the bending moment is reduced. This is shown by the second
marked change in gradient of the load-deflection response at a load, reffered to as
the yield load (8 kN). Beam (B1) is designed to be under-reinforecement so that
yielding of the steel precedes crushing of the concrete in compression. The
deflection of the (B1) at collapse is substantial and accompanied by excessive
cracking. Flexural cracks form in the mid-span region are extend vertically
upwards and become progressively wider as the applied load is increased.
Since the beams (B1) and (B3) having simillar gross section dimentions, but
the different in the strenghtened with (CFRP), the form of the load-deflection
response of (CFRP) strengthening beam (B3) is shown in Figure (4-11) and is
similar to an unstrengthened beam (B1) but with several key differences.
The initial stiffness before cracking is almost identical for the the two
beams. This is to be expected since, before the concrete has cracked, all of the
section is effective and the (CFRP) has relatively little effect on the moment of
inertia, and hence flexural rigidity of the section. In addition, since the load which
causes the concrete to crack initially is dependent on the moment of inertia of the
section, this will also be altered little by the addition of an external (CFRP).
The postcracking stiffness of (B3) is significantly higher than that of the
(B1). After cracking, when the concrete beneath the neutral axis is no longer as
effective at supporting load, the addition of an external (CFRP) causes the
moment of inertia of the section to be increased significantly.
57
Chapter Four
The external (CFRP) in Beam (B3) also provides a mechanism by which

tensile stress can be distributed to intact concrete between cracks, resulting in
improved performance of the concrete in the tension zone. This enables the
section to work more efficiently and produce a tension stiffening effect, whereby
the concrete can contribute to the moment of inertia and thus to the flexural
rigidity of the section.
Before the slop changing of load-deflection curve after cracking stage, the
tensile component in flexure is shared between the internal steel reinforcement
and the bonded (CFRP). The concrete beneath the neutral axis also contributes to
some extent as a result of tension stiffening, described above, from both the steel
and (CFRP). The fact that the external (CFRP) relieves some of the tensile stress
carried by the internal steel reinforcement is structurally significant.
As the slope of load-deflection curve changed at load of (16 kN), so the
overall member stiffness decreases, as for the (B1). However, the (CFRP)
continues to support the tensile component of the moment couple acting on the
section. This stiffness after yielding is referred to the post-yielding stiffness and is
taken as the gradient of a line joining the yield point to the point of collapse. The
(CFRP) is able to support an increasing tensile bending compenent and (B3)
sustains considerably higher applied loads than (B1) (83 %) at collapse . Table (44) shows a comparison between B1 and B3.
Table (4-4) Comparison between B1 and B3 (Effect of Strengthening)

Cracking
Cracking
Ultimate
Ultimate Deflection
Load (kN)
Deflection (mm)
Load (kN)
(mm)
B1
0.4
15
7.1
B3
0.3
27.5
5.2
% of Change
+ 50%
25%
+ 83%
26.7%
Beam No.
58
Chapter Four
4.3.3 Effect of (Span/Depth) Ratio on The Load-Deflection Behavior

Figure (4-12) shows the load-deflection curves for four beams (B2, B3, B4
and B5) which have different (Span/Depth) ratios (20, 15, 12.5 and 10)
respectively, in addition to the control beam (B1). According to the ACI 318-08(4)
requirements for deflection, the maximum (Span/Depth) ratio of simply supported
beam is (16).
For beam (B2) which has a (Span/Depth) ratio more than the maximum, the
test results show that this beam has the same un-cracked stiffness compared with
the control beam (B1), however reduction of (7 %) in the maximum deflection of
beam (B2) comparing with beam (B1) can be observed from Figure (4-12). This
reduction is due to the effect of (CFRP) strengthening, while the comparisons of
deflection for other beams with beam (B2) are as below:
Increasing the total depth of the beams will reduce the maximum
deflection by (21%, 30.3% and 41.6%) for (B3, B4, and B5) respectively.
Also by increasing the total depth, the maximum load capacity is

increased by (17%, 68 % and 85%) for (B3, B4, and B5) respectively.
59
Chapter Four
Figure (4-12) Effect of Beam (Span/Depth) Ratio on Load-Deflection

Behavior
4.3.4 Effect of Steel Reinforcement Ratio on The Load-Deflection Behavior

Figure (4-13) shows the load-deflection curves for four beams (B3, B6 and
B7) which have different tension steel ratio (min , 2 min and max) respectively,
in addition to the control beam (B1), where reinforced with (min) to obtain the
effect of steel reinforcement ratio on the deflection behavior. The test results
show that the load-deflection response is not affected by increasing the steel
amount at the pre-cracking stage. However, this behavior is dramatically changed
at the cracking stage due to the contribution of steel reinforcement in the cracked
moment of inertia (Icr), so by increasing tensile steel ratio of B6 and B7
comparing with B3, the maximum deflection is reduced by (13.5% and 29.2%)
for B6 and B7 respectively. Also the ultimate load capacity is increased by (29%
and 54.5%) for B6 and B7 respectively.
60
Chapter Four
Figure (4-13) Effect of Tension Steel Ratio on Load-Deflection behavior
4.3.5 Effect of Yield Stress of Steel on The Load-Deflection Behavior

Two beams (B3 and B8) are made to investigate this effect, where two values
of yield stress of steel reinforcement are used (460 and 300) MPa for beams (B3
and B8) respectively, Figure (4-14) shows the effect of yield stress of steel on the
load-deflection response.
The response of the two beams at the pre-cracking stage is identical.
However, at the cracking stage and with the anticipation of large contribution of
tension reinforcement, beam (B3) shows differences in deflection behavior and
strength with B8, the increment in the maximum deflection and ultimate load
capacity of beam (B3) are (23.8 % and 22%) respectively.
The experimental load-deflection curve of beam (B3) shows three clear
stages of response (pre-cracked, cracked and post-yield up to failure), while beam
(B8) shows only two stages (pre-cracked and cracked up to failure) as shown in
Figure (4-14).
61
Chapter Four
This behavior of beam (B8) may be due to the low yield stress of steel
reinforcement which has been used in beam (B8) and that could produce a
constant stiffness up to the beam failure.
Figure (4-14) Effect of Yield Stress of Steel on Load-Deflection Behavior
4.4 Cracking Pattern and Failure Mode

As a result of experimental testing program, all the tested beams are
designed to fail with flexural by increasing the shear strength of the beams, the
control beam (B1) failed by the yielding of the internal steel reinforcement as
shown in Plate (4-1).
62
Chapter Four
The strengthened beams failed by concrete crashing of beam compression

face at the beam mid-span combining with de-bonding of the (CFRP) fabric along
the beam span as shown in Plate (4-2) , although all of these beams were
designed to fail in flexure. Flexural cracks were observed to be uniformly
distributed within the fabric-bond zone on the tension face. The cracks were
narrower in the strengthened beams as compared to those observed in control
beam (B1) due to the presence of the (CFRP) fabric at the concrete surface.
Flexural cracks, located in regions of the beam with large moment, can initiate
interfacial fracture which propagates between the concrete and (CFRP) interface.
For beam (B5) with the largest beam thickness and highest ultimate load
capacity, the beam failure mode was different in comparison with other
strengthening beams as shown in Plate (4-3), the cracks was initiated at the beam
mid-span and with the increasing of applied load the cracks propagation was
increased also, neither top concrete crashing nor (CFRP) de-bonding was
observed during the test and with further increase in bending moment will result
in large force in the (CFRP) which leads to (CFRP) rupture in the mid-span
region, (CFRP) layer is suddenly disrupts and with no concrete crashing at the
beam compression face, this failure mode can be observed with one loading point
and large beam thickness.
In general, de-bonding failure between (FRP) fabric and concrete occurred
due to susceptibility of the interface relative to vertical displacements of shear
cracks in the concrete beam.
63
Chapter Four
A- Crack Pattern of Control Beam (B1)
B- Flexural Cracks at Mid-span

Plate (4-1) A- Crack Pattern of Control Beam (B1); B-Flexural Cracks at
Mid-span
64
Chapter Four
A- Crack Pattern of Beam (B2)
B- Crack Pattern of Beam (B3)
65
Chapter Four
C- Crack Pattern of Beam (B6)
D- Mode Failure of Beam (B7)
Plate (4-2) Crack Pattern for Beams (B2, B3, B6 and B7)
66
Chapter Four
Plate (4-3) Crack Pattern of Beam (B5)
4.5 Loads at First Crack

One point static loading was done on all beams and at each increment of the
load, deflection and crack development were observed. The load at initial crack of
all beams was observed, recorded and is shown in Figure (4-15). The initiation of
the cracks take place at a load ranged from (2 kN for B2) to (8.5 kN for B5).
4.6 Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity

The load carrying capacity of the control beam and the strengthened beams
were found out and is shown in Figure (4-16). All tested beams were loaded up to
their ultimate loads. It was noted that:
The ultimate load of the strengthened beams is higher than the control beam.
As the beam thickness increases, the ultimate load increases too.
With the increase of the steel reinforcement ratio at the tension face of the
beams, the ultimate load is also increased.
67
Chapter Four
Figure (4-15) Load at Cracking Stage for All Beams
Figure (4-16) Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity for All Beams
68
CHAPTER FIVE
THEORETICAL
PREDICTION
Chapter Five
Theoretical Prediction
Chapter Five
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter the immediate deflection calculations for the tested simply
supported beams are presented. The main purpose of this chapter is to compare and
check the validation of present experimental deflection results with the results
obtained from several theoretical procedures.
5.2 Deflection Calculations Procedures

The two theoretical procedures have been used for immediate deflection
calculation in this study and described as follows:
5.2.1 CEB-FIP Method
The equation of immediate deflection at mid span for simply supported R.C.
beams with and without strengthened (CFRP) based on CEB-FIP method (53) is:
=
[10 m (t, )]
(5-1)
where:
: Immediate deflection.
L: span length of beam
m: Mid-span Curvature of beam.
The procedure for deflection calculation at mid-span for simply supported R.C.
beam with and without strengthened are given in details in Appendix (A).
The results of experimental and theoretical cracking deflection are presented
in Table (5-1), the numerical calculation have been presented in Appendix (A).
69
Chapter Five
The results show that experimental deflection is higher than the theoretical
deflections that computed by CEB method for all beams. This difference is within
the limits and acceptable and its ranging from (2.5% to 23.3%). Figure (5-1) shows
a comparison between the experimental and theoretical (CEB method) precracking
deflection. On the other hand, the theoretical deflections that computed by ACI
method show a wide range of variation comparing with the experimental
deflections. This variation is depending on beam (Span/Depth) ratio, steel
reinforcement ratio () and steel yield stress. It is observed that the experimental
and theoretical deflection results at crack stage compared well. Experimental
studies by Ghali and other authors
(63 and 68)
found that the (CEB method) is more
accurate than (ACI method) in the case of simply supported beam subjected to one
concentrated point load at mid-span.
Table (5-1) Experimental and Theoretical (CEB) Cracking Deflection

Th.(CEB)
of Cracking
stage (mm)
0.39
Exp.
of Cracking
stage (mm)
0.4
% of Error
B1
Cracking
Load
(kN)
4
B2
0.43
0.35
22.9
B3
0.36
0.3
20.0
B4
0.31
0.26
19.2
B5
12
0.25
0.23
8.7
B6
0.37
0.3
23.3
B7
0.3
0.28
7.1
B8
0.36
0.3
20.0
Beam
Designation
70
2.5
Chapter Five
Figure (5-1) Comparison between Experimental and Theoretical Cracking

Deflection (CEB method)
5.2.2 ACI 318-08 Method
In this method the immediate deflection is calculated by using the effective
moment of inertia (Ie),the numerical calculation have been presented in Appendix
(A), the (Ie) formula in the ACI 318 has been derived based on experimental
evidence from test on reinforced concrete beams with (Ig/Icr) less than (3). Bischoff
(83)
suggests modifying the ACI procedure to be applicable for large (Ig/Icr) (low
ratio of reinforcement). However, examples are presented in appendix A show the

ACI procedure to find the immediate deflection of both un-strengthened and
(CFRP) strengthened beams.
71
Chapter Five
The equations for immediate deflection of one concentrated point load at mid
- span for simply supported R.C. beams with and without strengthened (CFRP)
used by ACI 318-08 method is:
(5-2)
=
Where:
: Mid-span deflection (mm).
w: Self weight of beam.
P: Applied load (kN).
Modulus of elasticity of concrete (MPa).
: Effective moment of inertia (mm4).
The procedure for deflection calculation at mid-span for R.C.beam with and
without strengthened is given in details in Appendix (A).
The results of experimental and theoretical moment-deflection response are
presented in Figures (5-2) through (5-9), the results show that the experimental and
theoretical response is identical for all tested beams at uncracked stage (Ms Mcr),
however this response is dramatically changed beyond this stage (Ms > Mcr),
although both experimental and theoretical are almost give a similar stiffness for
all beams, but it's easy to observed that the theoretical response according to ACI
318-08 method gives an over estimate results for deflection, this variation may be
due to the fact that the actual physical characteristics of (CFRP) sheets differ from
which are used in theoretical calculations.
However, the control beam, unstrengthened beam (B1) and beam (B5) which
have the biggest beam thickness show a similarity between the experimental and
theoretical response as shown in Figures (5-2) and (5-6) respectively. On the other
hand by decreasing the (Span/Depth) ratio, the value of (EIexp) will be close to the
value of (EIe). The numerical calculation have been presented in Appendix (A) the
72
Chapter Five
results show that experimental deflection is lower than the theoretical deflections
that computed by ACI method for all beams.
The results of experimental and theoretical cracking deflection are presented
in Table (5-2). The deflection results from ACI method given higher result than
experimental results at cracking stage, the reasons may be that the ACI method
assumed full cracked for the concrete at the tension face and moment of inertia (I e,
Icr) assumed to be constant overall length of the beam, which in fact there are some
part of concrete at tension zone still uncracked and this is increase the flexural
stiffness of the beam and decrease the deflection results.
Table (5-2) Experimental and Theoretical Cracking (ACI) Deflection

Beam
Designation
Cracking
Load (kN)
Th.(ACI)
of Cracking stage (mm)
Exp.
of Cracking stage (mm)
B1
5.5
0.4
B2
2.3
0.35
B3
1.25
0.3
B4
1.6
0.26
B5
12
1.45
0.23
B6
1.7
0.3
B7
2.1
0.28
B8
1.9
0.3
73
Chapter Five
Figure (5-2) Experimental and Theoretical Moment-Deflection Response of

Beam (B1)

Beam (B2)
74
Chapter Five

Beam (B3)

Beam (B4)
75
Chapter Five

Beam (B5)

Beam (B6)
76
Chapter Five

Beam (B7)

Beam (B8)
77
Chapter Five
5.3 Limiting Beam (Span/Depth) Ratio

The limiting span to depth ratio for (CFRP) externally strengthened
rectangular beam can be calculated by using equation (5-3). The values of (kf and
f) are calculated using equations (5-4) and (5-5) respectively. Equation (5-3)
shows that the (L/h) ratio can be obtained for a calculated (CFRP) sheets ratio (f);
a graphical representation is made from equation (5-3) and is shown in Figure (510).
Where:
(
)
(
c=
= h = beam total depth
=
,n=
and
The derivation of equation (5-3) is given in details in Appendix (A).
In this study a limited number of strengthened beams are used, however, an

experimental logarithm equation is obtained between (L/h) and (CFRP) ratio as
follow:
L/h = 1.48 ln (f) + 8.25
(R2 =0.97)
Where R: Coefficient of correlation.
78
(5 - 6)
Chapter Five
Figure (5-10) Relationship between (Span /Depth) Ratio and (CFRP) Ratio
79
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter Six
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter Six
Conclusions and
Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
1. Load-deflection behavior: The immediate mid-span deflections at
different load levels of eight simply supported beams were measured.
They were then compared first with the predicted deflection according to
each CEB-FIP 1990 and ACI 318-08 procedures. The following
conclusions were drawn:
The CEB-FIP procedure to calculate deflection is more applicable
than ACI 318-08 procedure for beams externally strengthened with
(CFRP) sheet.
A new procedure is may needed for concrete beams strengthened with
(CFRP) sheet based on many future experimental works.
2. The strengthening with (CFRP) sheet has a significant effect on the loaddeflection response by increasing beam stiffness especially beyond the
precracking stage. By using (CFRP), the ultimate deflection is decreased
by (26.7%) and the ultimate load capacity is increased by (83%).
3. Span to depth ratio has also an important role in control of deflection; the
comparisons of deflection for beams (B3, B4 and B5) with (B2) are as
below:
79
Chapter Six
The decreasing the (Span/Depth) ratio of the beams will reduced the
maximum deflection by (21%, 30.3% and 41.6%) for (B3, B4, and B5)
respectively.
Also by deceasing the (Span/Depth) ratio of the beams, the maximum

load capacity is increased by (17%, 68 % and 85%) for (B3, B4, and B5)
respectively.
4. The test results show the load-deflection response is not affected by

increasing the steel amount at the pre-cracking stage, however this
behavior is dramatically changed at the cracking stage, by increasing
tensile steel ratio of B6 and B7 comparing with B3, the maximum
deflection is reduced by (13.5% and 29.2%) for B6 and B7 respectively.
Also the ultimate load capacity is increased by (29% and 54.5%) for B6
and B7 respectively.
5. The load-deflection response is not affected by the grade of steel
reinforcement at the pre-cracking stage. However after the cracking stage
and with the anticipation of large contribution of tension reinforcement,
beam (B3) (fy equal to 460 MPa) shows a difference in deflection and
load carrying capacity with beam B8 (fy equal to 300), the increment in
both of ultimate deflection and ultimate load capacity for beam (B3)
comparing with (B8) are (23.8 %) and (22%) respectively.
6. In general, the strengthened beams failed by concrete crushing of beam
compression face at mid-span combining with de-bonding of the (CFRP)
fabric along the beam span. For beam (B5) with the largest beam
thickness and highest ultimate load capacity, the beam failure mode was
different comparing with the other strengthening beams, where (CFRP)
80
Chapter Six
rupture in the mid-span region is observed, (CFRP) layer is suddenly

disrupts and with no concrete crushing at the beam compression face.
7. The use of (CFRP) strengthening is delay the initiation of concrete
cracking at the soffit of beams by distributing the tensile stress along the
flexural zone.
6.2 Recommendations
The general major recommendations for further research works are given in the
following:
1. Using two or more strengthening layers of (CFRP) with different
(Span/Depth) ratios to study the deflection control of concrete beams.
2. Deflection control of high strength concrete beams externally strengthened
with (CFRP) sheets.
3. Investigation of the load-deflection response of other types of
strengthening materials (GFRP, AFRP and steel plate).
4. Investigate the load-deflection response of two directional (CFRP)
strengthening.
81
REFERENCES
References
References
1. ACI Committee 435, 1974, State-of-the-Art Report, Deflection of Two
Way Reinforced Concrete Floor Systems, ACI SP 43-3, Deflections of
Concrete Structures, pp. 55- 81.
2. Branson, D.E., 1977, "Deformation of Concrete Structures", McGraw-Hill,
New York, 546 pp.
3. ACI Committee 435, 1978, Proposed Revisions by Committee 435 to ACI
Building Code and Commentary Provisions on Deflections, ACI Journal,
Proceedings Vol. 75, No. 6, pp. 229-238.
4. ACI Committee 318," Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete" ACI 318-08, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 2008, 147 pp.
5. ACI Committee 440, 2006, "Guide for the Design and Construction of
Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars" ACI 440.1R-06, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills.
6. Gao, D., Benmokrane, B. and Masmoudi, R., 1998, A Calculating Method of
Flexural Properties of FRP-reinforced Concrete Beam: Part 1: Crack
Width and Deflection, Technical Report, Department of Civil Engineering,
Universit de Sherbrooke, Qubec, Canada, 24 pp.
7. Ospina, C.E., Alexander, S.D.B. and Cheng, J.J.R., 2001, Behavior of
Concrete Slabs with Fiber-reinforced Polymer Reinforcement, Structural
Engineering Report No. 242, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, 356 pp.
82
References
8. Carlion, A., 2003, "Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers for Strengthening of

Structural Elements", PhD Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden,
pp (13-16).
9. Alkhrdaji, T. and Nanni, A., 1999, "Surface Bonded FRP Reinforcement for
Strengthening/Repair of Structural Reinforced Concrete", Center for
Infrastructure Engineering Studies (CIES), University of Missouri-Rolla, USA,
13p.
10. ACI Committee 440.2R, 2002, "Guide for the Design and Construction of
Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures"
American Concrete Institute, Michigan, USA, 45p
11. Thermou., G. E. and Elnashai., A. S., 2006, "Seismic Retrofit Schemes for
RC Structures and Local-Global Consequences" Proceedings of 8th
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, University of Illinois, USA,
15p.
12. Tuakta, C., 2005, "Use of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite in Bridge
Structures", M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA, June.
50p
13. Setunge, S., 2002, "Review of Strengthening Techniques Using Externally
Bonded Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites", Report 2002-005-C-01,
CRC Construction Innovation, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia, 59p.
14. ACI Committee 440- XR, 2006, "Report on Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures", American Concrete
Institute, Michigan, USA, 348P.
83
References
15. Al-Ta'ie, Y. M. H., 2006, "Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced

Concrete Beams Strengthened With Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer"
M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, AL Mustansiriya University, Baghdad, Iraq, 118p.
16. Yang, X., Nanni, A., Chen, G. and Dharani, L. R., 2004, The Engineering of
Construction Specifications for Externally Bonded FRP Composites",
Report, Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies, University of MissouriRolla, USA, 168p.
17. Hollaway , L. C. and Leeming ,M. B. , 2001, " Strengthening of Reinforced
Concrete Structures using Externally-bonded FRP Composites in
Structural and Civil Engineering ", 3rd Edition, Woodhead Publishing Ltd
and CRC Press Editions ,Cambridge , England, 342p.
18. Meier, U., 1987, "Bridge Repair with high performance Composite
Materials", Ricerca, Italiana: Material and Technic Report, 4.
19. Triantafillou, T.C., 1998, Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete
Beams using Epoxy Bonded FRP Composites, ACI Structural Journal, Vol.
95, No. 2, pp.107-115, Mar-April.
20. Malek, A.M. and Saadmatmanesh, H., 1998, Ultimate Shear Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened With Web-bonded Fiber
Reinforced Plastic Plates, ACI journal Structural. Vol. 95, No. 4, Nov, pp.
391-399.
21. Norris, T., Saadatmanesh, H. and Ehsani, M.R., 1996, Shear and Flexure
Strengthening of RC Beams with Carbon Fiber Sheets, ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 7, Dec, pp. 903- 911.
84
References
22. Tang, T. and Saadatmanesh, H. 2003, Retrofit of Concrete Beams

Strengthened with FRP Laminates against Impact, CONMAT, Vol. 1,
Aug, pp. 84-94.
23. Meier, U. and Kaiser, H., 1991, Strengthening of Structures with CFRP
Laminates, Advanced Composite Materials in Civil Engineering Structures,
ASCE,New York, pp. 224-232.
24. Hefferman, P. J. and Erki, M. A., 1996, Equivalent Capacity and Efficiency
of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Plastic Sheets, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 23,
No. 1, Feb., pp. 21-29.
25. Swamy, R. N., Jones, R. and Charif, A., 1996, Contribution of Externally
Bonded Steel Plate Reinforcement to the Shear Resistance of Reinforced
Concrete Beams, Repair and Strengthening of Concrete Members with
Adhesive Bonded Plates, SP-165, R. N. Swamy and R. Gaul, eds., American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 1-24.
26. Swamy, R. N. Lynsdale, C. J. and Mukhopadhaya, P., 1996, Effective
Strengthening with Ductility: Use of Externally Bonded Plates of NonMetallic Composite Materials, Second International Conference on
Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, ACMBS II,
Montral, Canada, M. M. El-Badry, ed., Aug. 11-14, pp. 481-488.
27. Beber, A. J., Filloh, A. C. and Campagnolo, J. L., 1999, Flexural
Strengthening of R.C. Beams with CFRP Sheets, Structural Faults and
Repair 99, The Eighth International Conference on Extending the Life of
Bridges, Civil and Building Structures, London, 9 pp.
85
References
28. Naaman, A., 1999, Repair and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete

Beams Using CFRP Laminates, Research Project No. RC-1372, Testing and
Research Section, Construction and Technology Division, University of
Michigan, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
29. Kachlakev, D. I. and Barnes, W. A., 1999, Flexural and Shear Performance
of Concrete Beams Strengthened with Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Laminates, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced
Concrete Structures, SP-188, C. W. Dolan, S. H., Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 959-972.
30. Jonaitis, B., Papinigis, V. and Kamaitis, Z., 1999, Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Flexural Members Strengthened by Bonded Steel Plates and
Glass Fiber Plates, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Extending Performance of Concrete Structures, Dundee, Scotland, UK, R. K.
Dhir and P. A. J. Tittle, eds., Sept. 7, pp. 33-38.
31. Triantafillou, T. C. and Plevris, N., 1990, Flexural Behavior of Concrete
Structures Strengthened with Epoxy-Bonded Fiber Reinforced Plastics,
International Seminar on Structural Repairs/Strengthening by the Plate
Bonding Technique, University of Sheffield, England, Sept., pp. 152-161.
32. Triantafillou, T. C. and Plevris, N., 1992, Strengthening of RC Beams with
Epoxy-Bonded Fiber-Composite Materials, Materials and Structures
Journal, Vol. 25, May, pp. 201-211.
33. Assih, T., Li, Y. and Delmas, Y., 1997, Repairing of Reinforced Concrete
Beams by Bonded Carbon Fiber Composite Sheets, Proceedings of the
U.S.-Europe Workshop on Recent Advances in Bridge Engineering: Advanced
86
References
Rehabilitation,
Durable
Materials,
Non-destructive
Evaluation,
and
Management, U. Meier and R. Betti, eds., Dubendorf and Zurich, pp. 119-126.
34. An, W., Saadatmanesh, H. and Ehsani, M., 1991, RC Beams Strengthened
with GFRP Plates: Part II: Analysis and Parametric Study, ASCE Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 11, Nov., pp. 3433-3455.
35. Cha, J. Y., Balaguru, P. and Chung, L., 1999, Experimental and Analytical
Investigation of Partially Prestressed Concrete Beams Strengthened with
Carbon Reinforcement, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium
on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete
Structures (FRPRCS-4), Baltimore, Md., pp. 625-633.
36. White, T., Soudki, K. S. and Erki, M. A., 1998, Loading Rate Effects on
Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with Carbon-Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Laminates, Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Conference of the
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Vol. III, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada, June, pp. 633-642.
37. David, E., Djelal, C., Ragneau, E. and Buyle-Bodin, F., 1999, Use of FRP to
Strengthen and Repair RC Beams: Experimental Study and Numerical
Simulations, Structural Faults and Repair 99. The 8th International
Conference on Extending the Life of Bridges, Civil and Building Structures,
London, July 13-15, 10 pp.
38. Tan, K. H. and Mathivoli, M., 1999, Behavior of Preloaded Reinforced

Concrete Beams Strengthened with Carbon Fiber Sheets, Proceedings of
the
Fourth
International
Symposium
87
on
Fiber
Reinforced
Polymer
References
Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-4), Baltimore,

Maryland, pp.159-170.
39. Aboutaha, R. S., 1999, Structural Rehab of Prestressed Concrete Bridge
Girders Using CFRP Composites, Proceeding of Structural Faults and
Repair 99, The 8th International Conference on Extending the Life of Bridges,
Civil and Building Structures, London, England, 9 pp.
40. Charkas, H., Rasheed, H. and Mehlem, H., 2003, Rigorous Procedure for
Calculating Deflections of Fiber Reinforced Polymers Strengthened
Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 100, No. 4, JulyAug., pp. 529-539.
41. Nawy, E. G. and Neuwerth, G. E., 1971, Behavior of Fiber Glass
Reinforced Concrete Beams, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
Sept.,Vol.103, No.2, pp. 2203-2215.
42. Larralde, J., Renbaum, L. and Morsi, A., 1988, Fiber-Glass Reinforced
Plastic Rebars in Lieu of Steel Rebars, TRB Annual Meeting, Task Force
A2C51Structural Applications of Fiber Reinforced Plastics, Aug.
43. Larralde, J. and Zerva, A., 1991. Load-Deflection Performance of FRP
Grating-Concrete Composites, Advanced Composite Materials in Civil
Engineering Structure, Proceedings of the Specialty Conference, Las Vegas,
February, pp. 271-277.
44. Deblois, A. P., Picard, A. and Beaulieu, D., 1992, Reinforcement de Poutres
en Beton Arm a laide de Materiaux Composites: Etudes Theorique et
Experimentale, First International Conference, Advanced Composite
88
References
Materials in Bridges and Structures, K. W. Neale and P. Labossire, Eds.,

Sherbrooke, Canada, pp. 265-275.
45. Saadatmanesh, H. and Ehsani, M., 1991. R.C. Beams Strengthened with
GFRP Plates I: Experimental Study, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 11, pp. 3417-3433.
46. Shahawy, M. A., Arockiasamy, M., Beitelman, T. and Sowrirajan, R., 1996,
"Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Beams Strengthened with CFRP
Laminates," Composites, Part B, 27B, pp. 225-233.
47. M'Bazaa, L.,Missihoun, M. and Labossiere, P., 1996, "Optimizing the Length
and Orientation of the CFRP to Increase Beam Strength and Ductility",
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No.8, pp.1080-1092.
48. Ramsay, R.J., Mirza, S.A. and MacGreger, J.G., 1979, Monte Carlo Study
of Short Time Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI Journal,
Vol.76, No.8, Aug. ,pp. 897-918.
49. Wang, G. and Salmon, C.G., 1985, "Reinforced Concrete Design", In text
Educational Publishers, New York 434pp.
50. Park, R. and Paulay, T., 1975, "Reinforced Concrete Structure", Jon Wiley
and Sons, 769 pp.
51. Branson, D. E., 1977, Deformation of Concrete Structure , McGraw-Hill,
New York, 546 pp.
52. Yu, W.W and Winter, G., 1960, Instantaneous and Long-Time Deflections
of Reinforced Concrete Beams under Working Loads" ACI journal,
Proceedings, Vol. 57, No.1, July, pp.29-50.
89
References
53. Committee Euro-International du Beton, 1961, "Model Code for Concrete

Structures", Federation International Precontrainte (CEB FIP) (MC-90),
Thomas Teleford, London, UK.
54. ACI Committee 318, 1963, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete" (ACI 318-63), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 144 pp.
55. Branson, D. E., 1968, Design Procedures for Computing Deflection, ACI
Journal, Vol. 65, No.9, September 1968, pp.730-742.
56. ACI Committee 435, 1990, Deflection of Reinforced Concrete Flexural
Members, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, part 4.
57. British Standards Institute, CP110, 1972, The Structural Use of Concrete ",
part 1, Design, Materials and Workmanship, London. UK.
Concrete ", American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 104 pp.
59. Jacob, S.G., 1981, "Simplified Computations for Effective Moment of
Inertia Ie and Minimum Thickness to Avoid Deflection Computations
ACI journal, Proceedings, Vol.78, No.6, November December, pp.428-439.
60. Branson, D. E. and Trost, H., 1982, "Unified Procedures for Predicting the
deflection and centroid Axes Location of Partially Cracked Nonprestressed and prestressed Concrete Member, ACI journal, Vol.79, No.2,
March April pp.119-130.
61. Pretorius, P.C., 1985, Deflection of Reinforced Concrete Members: A
simplified Approach, ACI journal, Vol.82, No.6, Nov. Dec., pp.805-812.
62. Faza, S. S. and Ganga Rao, H. V. S., 1992, Bending and Bond Behavior of
Concrete Beams Reinforced with Fiber Reinforced Plastic Rebars,
90
References
WVODOH-RP-83 Phase I Report, West Virginia University, Morgantown,

W.Va., pp. 128-173.
63. Ghali, A., 1993, Deflection of Reinforced Concrete Members: A Critical
Review, ACI Structural journal, Vol.90, No.4, July August, pp.364-373
64. AL Zaid, R.Z., AL- Shikh, A.H., 1991, "Effect of Loading Type on The
Effective Moment of Inertia of Reinforced Concrete Beams" ACI Structural
journal, Vol.88, March April, pp.184-190.
65. ACI 318, 1989, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete"
(ACI 318-89), American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
Lausanne.
67. Ghali, A. and Azarnejed A., 1999, Deflection Prediction of Members Any
Concrete Strength" ACI Structural Journal, Vol.96, No.5 September
October, pp.807-816
68. Washa, G.W. and Fluck, P.G., 1952, Effect of Compressive Reinforcement
on The Plastic Flow of Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI Journal, Vol.49,
No.2, pp.89-108.
Concrete ", (ACI 318 M-95) and Commentary (ACI 318 RM-95), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, 371pp.
Thomas Teleford, London, UK.
91
References
71. Mehta, P.K., and Monteiro, P.J., 2001 Concrete: Microstructure, Properties
and Materials, Second and Final Edition, Englewood Clifts, New Jersey,
USA, October, 239 pp.
72. Mayo, C. A., 1987, "Engineering Materials Handbook-Vol. 1, Composites",
ASM International, pp. 76.
73. FIB, 2001, "Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement for RC Structures",
International Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland.
74. Catalin A. Neagoe, 2011, Concrete Beams Reinforced with CFRP
Laminates MSc. Thesis, Department Civil Engineering, College of
engineering, University of Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain, February, pp. 51-52.
75. Mohammed, D. H., 2007, "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Strengthened by CFRP in Flexure", MSc. Thesis, Building and Construction
Department, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq, June, PP 212.
76. Meier, U., Deuring, M., Meier, H. and Schwegler, G., 1992. Strengthening of
Structures with CFRP Laminates: Research and Applications in
Switzerland, Proceedings, 1st International Conference on Advanced
Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Sherbrook, pp. 243-251.
77. Iraqi Specifications No. 5, 1984, Portland Cement, Baghdad, Iraq.
78. Iraqi Specifications No. 45, 1984, Natural Sources for Gravel that is Used
in Concrete and Construction, Baghdad, Iraq.
79. ASTM Standards: A615/A615M-03, 2003, Standard Specification for
Deformed and Plain Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 194282959, USA.
92
References
80. BS 5328:Part2, 1997, Methods for Specifying Concrete Mixes, British

Standard Institute, London, UK.
81. BS 1881:part 116, 1983, Method for Determination of Compressive
Strength of Concrete Cubes, British Standard Institute.
82. ASTM C 469, 2002, Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of
Elasticity and Poissons Ratio of Concrete in Compression, ASTM
International.
83. Bischoff, P. H., 2005, Re-Evaluation of Deflection Prediction for Concrete
Beams Reinforced With Steel and Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 5, pp. 752-767.
93
APPENDIX-A
Appendix-A
Appendix-A
A.1 Introduction
To show the procedure for predicting the immediate crack load mid-span
deflection to both the proposed methods and the developed models, beams (B1)
and (B3) was adopted. These beams have the same cross sectional area and the
same steel reinforcement details; the only difference between them is the presence
of (CFRP) strengthening wrap.
A.2 Calculations of Mid-span Deflection

A.2.1 CEB-FIP Method
In This method, the immediate deflection is computed from the curvature as
follows:
A.2.1.1 Deflection of beam (without strengthening)
Solution: un-cracked section analysis
Transformed un-cracked section
1.
a. (
2.
3.
4.
)
(
(
)
(
)
(
) (
(
(
)
)
5.
6.
A
Appendix-A
a. (
7.
(
8.
9. 1 =
, 2 =
10. m = (1- ) 1 + 2 [For un-cracked section (2= 0)]

11. =
[10 m (t, )]
where
: Mid-Span deflection
m: Main curvature
t: Time or age in (days)
: Instant of time
A.2.1.2 Deflection of control beam (B1)
Beam thickness (h): 133 mm
Effective depth (d): 115.5 mm
Beam width (bw): 100 mm
Clear span (L): 2000 mm
Steel tensile strength (fy): 460 MPa
Steel modulus of elasticity (Es): 200 GPa
Concrete compressive strength (f'c): 26.5 MPa
Appendix-A
Solution: Un-cracked Section Analysis

Transformed Un-cracked Section
)
(
(
)
)
(
)
(
)
(
(
1 =
= 4.26 10-6 /mm.
m = (1- ) 1 =9.37210-7 /mm {Un-cracked mid-span Curvature}.

=
[10 m (t, )]
= 0.39 mm. {Mid-Span deflection}.
Appendix-A
A.2.1.3 Deflection of (CFRP) strengthened beams

1.
2.
a.
3.
(
a.
4.
5.
)
)
6.
)
) (
)
)
7.
8.
a.
9.
(
10.
11. 1 =
, 2 =
12.
m = (1- ) 1 + 2 [For un-cracked section (2= 0)]
13.
[10 m (t, )]
Appendix-A
where
: Mid-Span deflection
m: Main curvature
t: Time or age in (days)
: Instant of time
A.2.1.4 Deflection of beam (B3) (CFRP strengthened beam)
Beam Properties:
Clear length (L): 2000 mm
CFRP modulus of elasticity (Ef):238000 MPa
CFRP width (bf): 100 mm
CFRP thickness (hf): 1 mm
Appendix-A
)
(
(
)
)
(
)
(
(
(
1 =
=5.2 10-6 /mm.
m = (1- ) 1 = 8.8410-7 /mm {Un-cracked Curvature}.

=
[10 m (t, )]
= 0.36 mm. {Mid-Span deflection}.
Appendix-A
A.2.2 ACI 318-08 method

In This method, the immediate deflection is computed as follows:
A.2.2.1 Deflection of control beam
Solution:
1.
2.
(
3.
a.
4.
(
5.
)
(
6.
(
) (
7.
)
)
8.
9.
a.
10. If Ma < Mcr then I = Ig

11.
12.
13. =
) ]
[Mid-Span deflection].
Appendix-A
A.2.2.2 Deflection of control beam (B1)

Solution:
(
(
)
(
)
)
)
(
)
H
Appendix-A
) ]
{Mid-Span deflection}.
A.2.2.3 Deflection of beam with (CFRP) strengthened beam

Solution:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(
7.
)
(
8.
9.
)
(
10.
(
)
)
(
) (
11.
)
)
12.
13.
Appendix-A
14. (
15. If Ma < Mcr then I = Ig

16.
17.
18. =
) ]
[Mid-Span deflection].
A.2.2.4 Deflection of beam (B3) (CFRP strengthened beam)

Beam Properties:
Steel tensile strain (Es): 200 GPa
CFRP modulus of elasticity (Ef):238000 Mpa
CFRP width (bf): 100 mm
CFRP thickness (hf): 1 mm
Solution:
Appendix-A
)
(
) ]
{Mid-Span deflection}.
Appendix-A
A.3 Deriving Equation of (Span/Depth) Ratio
Eq. (1)
And
()
( )
( )
Eq. (2)
For beams externally reinforced with CFRP sheets, Eq. (2) can be written as
follow:
=
Eq. (3)
For One Point Load the Mid-span Deflection can be computed as Follow:
=
)=
( ) Eq. (4)
Sub. Eq. (3) in Eq. (4)

=
For Deflection limit =

[
)
)
]
( )
]
L
Appendix-A
where:
(
= 0.003 (
c=
= h = beam total depth
=
,n=
and
: Steel reinforcement ratio.

n: Modular ratio of elasticity between steel and concrete.
nf: Modular ratio of elasticity between FRP and concrete
Ratio of compressive concrete zone to the effective flexural depth for FRP
strengthened beams.

.
.

) (% ,
. ) /(
) ( ) , (
) %, % (%, .

) 2min
(max ) %, (%, .

) (
) (%,
) (.

.

.
.
) ACI
(31808 ) (CEBFIP1990
.

.
) (

Stiffness Enhancement of Reinforced Concrete Beams StrengtHened With CFRP Sheetsمهم

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Stiffness Enhancement of Reinforced Concrete Beams StrengtHened With CFRP Sheetsمهم

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Higherr Educatio

List of Abbreviations and symbols

Chapter One (Introduction)

1.2 FRP Composites

1.2.3 Strengthening by Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

1.3 Objective of the Study

1.4 Scope of the Work

Chapter Two (Literature Review)

2.2 FRP Strengthening of RC Beam

2.3 Effective Stiffness of R.C Beam

2.4 Prediction of Immediate Deflection

2.5 Engineering Properties Required for Prediction the Short-Time

2.5.1Concrete static Modulus of Elasticity

2.5.2 Concrete Flexural Strength

2.5.3 FRP Modulus of Elasticity

2.6 Theoretical Load Deflection Behavior of a Typical RC Beam

2.7 Failure Mode of FRP strengthened R.C. Beams

Chapter Three (Experimental Program)

3.2 Fabrication and Details of Specimens

3.3.2 Fine aggregate

3.3.3 Coarse aggregate

3.3.4 Reinforcing Steel

3.3.4.1 Steel Bars

3.3.5 CFRP Sheets

3.3.5.1 System Components

3.3.5.2 Technical data

3.4 Mix Design

3.5 Mixing Procedure

3.7 Curing and Age of Testing

3.9 Hardened Concrete

3.9.1 Compressive Strength Test (fcu)

3.9.2 Static Modulus of Elasticity (Ec)

3.10 Testing of the Beams

3.10.1 Testing Machine

3.10.2 Beams Setup

3.10.3 Testing procedure

Chapter Four (Results and Discussion)

4.2 Control Specimens Test Results

4.2.1 Concrete Compressive Strength

4.2.2 Modulus of Elasticity

4.2.3 Unit Weight

4.3 Load- Deflection behavior

4.3.1 Deflection at Mid-span

4.3.2 Effect of CFRP Strengthening on The Load-Deflection

4.3.5 Effect of Yield Stress of Steel on The Load-Deflection

4.5 Loads at First Crack

4.6 Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity

Chapter Five (Theoretical Prediction)

5.2 Deflection Calculations Procedures

5.2.1 CEB-FIP Method

5.2.2 ACI 318-08 Method

5.3 Limiting Beam Span to Depth Ratio

Chapter Six (Conclusions and Recommendations)

6.2 Recommendations for further research

Formation of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite

Stress-Strain Relationship of Different Fibers and

De-bonding failure mechanisms

Details of Tested Beams

Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate

Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagram of One

Load Versus Mid-span Deflection Curve for Beam 2

Load Versus Mid-span Deflection Curve for Beam 3

Load Versus Mid-span Deflection Curve for Beam 4