CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Reinforced concrete is widely used technique in construction industry since 1857 when
Coignet built the first iron reinforced concrete structure, a four-story house at 72 rue
Charles Michels in the suburbs of Paris. Coignet's descriptions of reinforcing concrete
suggests that he did not do it for means of adding strength to the concrete but for keeping
walls in monolithic construction from overturning. Traditional reinforced concrete
utilizing structural steel has had a wide range of success throughout the world for
decades. Generally, it is a very stiff and durable building material that will continue to be
used for years to come. However, poor corrosion resistance of reinforced concrete
negatively impacts the intended design life. Unless a viable solution is adopted in the
industry, the structures in harsh environments will require maintenance and/or
replacement. This is especially troublesome for civil infrastructure due to limited
infrastructure budgets.
A viable and economic solution to corrosion with reinforced concrete can potentially save
billions for both public and private sectors. The current trend of the industry is moving
towards the adoption of fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) for harsh environments. This
study utilizes basalt fiber reinforced polymer rebar (BFRP) as reinforcement for concrete
beams. Basalt is naturally occurring and is one of the most abundant materials on Earth.
Though early investigations were performed in the United States in the 1920s about
production methods for an FRP composed of basalt, successful and large scale production
was not achieved until the 1980s. Up until 1995, production methods were kept secret,
and its use was solely for defense purposes. BFRP is cheaper than carbon fiber and has
excellent properties in terms of strength and durability. Basalt is also the most abundantly
available rock in the earth's crust which could potentially bring costs to a competitive
price level in relation to steel.

1
1.2 DISADVANTAGES OF STEEL REINFORCEMENT
Reinforcing steel bars are used for reinforcement of concrete structures, manufacture of
anchor bolts, etc reinforcing bars (re-bars) can be either smooth or deformed. They are
produced by hot rolling process with subsequent superficial hardening by heat treatment.
The main problem with usage of steel reinforced bar is corrosion, because steel bars are
easily affected by aggressive environmental condition that leads to deterioration of
concrete structure. To avoid this problem many anti- corrosive treatment has been
furnished with steel bars which leads to increase in cost of construction. The common
mode of failure in steel reinforced concrete members are as follows:
 Mechanical Failure
 Chlorine Attack on Steel Reinforcement
 Carbonation
 Alkali- Silica reaction
Due to corrosion in steel reinforcement the volume of steel bar increases which to
spalling and spitting of concrete. The tensile capacity of steel bars decreases thus the
reinforced concrete section fails in yielding of bar, in case of aggressive environmental
condition the cover thickness should be more to avoid penetration of chemicals. Thus due
to increase in cover thickness it leads to increase in self weight of concrete member.
Therefore to overcome such problem a alternative material has developed which is termed
as FRP (Fiber Reinforced Polymer) bars.
1.3 BASALT FIBER BAR
Basalt composite bars are made by utilizing basalt fibers and a resin epoxy binder. They
are noncorrosive, consist of 80% fibers and have a tensile strength three times that of the
steel bar normally used in building construction. Wherever corrosion problems exist,
basalt fiber composite bars have the potential to replace steel in reinforced concrete. Most
of these bars are made of E-glass fiber and thermosetting resin. However FRP bars lack
sufficient durability under extreme conditions. These bars are costly and are also non-
resistant to alkalis.

2
1.4 Advantages of Basalt Fiber Reinforced Polymer
The main advantages of the basalt bar are,
 Its weight is one-third of the weight of steel and the thermal expansion coefficient
is very close to that of concrete.
 They have no toxic action with air and water.
 Water absorption, noise absorption qualities and very high chemical resistance.
 Melting temperature & working temperature up to 600 degrees.
 Basalt bar over steel rebar, they have higher specific strength and no permanent
deformation when bent.
 The high mechanical performance/price ratio of basalt fiber composite bar,
combined with corrosion resistance to alkaline attack, are further reasons for
replacing steel in concrete with basalt fiber composite bars.
 The bar has a density which is 1/4 of steel reinforcement. Concrete dimensions and
weight will be less due to reduced need for concrete cover.
 BFRP does not corrode and can be positioned close to the surface. The size of
cover is only dependent on specifying sufficient cover to transfer bond.
 Meshes of BFRP bars with small diameter may be placed at low cover to
considerably improve the SLS performance (crack width) of BFRP reinforced
members.
 As the BFRP reinforcement is not sensitive to corrosion, larger cracks may be
accepted for BFRP reinforced structural members than what is acceptable for steel
reinforced concrete members in cases where crack width control is not controlled
by visual appearance.
 BFRP reinforcement has a higher initial tensile strength than steel reinforcement.

3
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
In research and study found that an alternative material that is light in weight and non-
corrosive is to be used in place of steel reinforcement is BFRP rods. Its weight is one-
third of the weight of steel and the thermal expansion coefficient is very close to that of
concrete. They have no toxic action with air and water. Water absorption, noise
absorption qualities and very high chemical resistance. Its property and usage worldwide
has been discussed in this chapter.
2.2 STUDY OF PREVIOUS LITERATURE
2.2.1 LITERATURE ON GLASS FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE
Avinash Gornale et al. (2012) studied the properties of glass fiber reinforced
concrete 0.03% by weight of total concrete for different grade of concrete M20, M30,
M40 and found that The increase in Compression strength, Flexural strength, Split tensile
strength for M-20, M-30 and M-40 grade of concrete at 3, 7 and 28 days are observed to
be 20% to 30%, 25% to 30% and 25% to30% respectively when compared with 28 days
strength of Plain Concrete and there is gradual increase in early strength for Compression
and Flexural strength of Glass Fibre Reinforced Concrete as compared to Plain Concrete,
and there is sudden increase in ultimate strength for Split tensile strength of Glass Fibre
Reinforced Concrete as compared to Plain Concrete.
Komal Chawla et al. (2013) studied the properties of glass fiber reinforced
concrete by using different proportion of glass fiber (0.33%,0.66%,1%) and found the
percentage increase in compressive strength and Flexure Strength and the result obtain
shows that Addition of glass fiber in reinforced concrete increases the toughness by
1157% compare with conventional reinforced concrete. The value of toughness observed
maximum 272.4 KNmm when using fiber content 0.67% and 1.25% steel. The modulus
of elasticity of glass fiber reinforced concrete is increases 4.14% compared with
conventional reinforced concrete. The percentage increase of compressive strength of

4
various grades of glass fiber concrete mixes compared with 28 days compressive strength
is observed 37%. The percentage increase of flexure strength of various grades of glass
fiber concrete mixes compared with 28 days compressive strength is observed 5.19%.
Upendra Varma et al. (2013) studied the properties of glass fiber (0.03% of total
volume of concrete) in different grade of concrete (M20, M30, M40, M60) and found that
The percentage increase of compressive strength of various grades of glass fiber concrete
mixes compared with 28 days compressive strength is observed from 10 to 20%. The
percentage increase of flexural and split tensile strength of various grades of glass fiber
concrete mixes compared with 28 days is observed from 10 to 20%. and the percentage
increase in strength is a constant.
Abid Alam et al. (2015) studied the properties of glass fiber reinforced concrete
by using different proportion of glass fiber (0.02% , 0.04%, 0.06% by weight of cement).
A total of 8 mixes were prepared by varying the percentages of glass fibers and grade of
concrete mixes (M 20 & M 30). Based on the laboratory results the compressive and
tensile strength was reported to increase up to 26.19% and 25.4%. However the
workability of concrete mixes is not much affected by the addition of fibers. The tensile
strength of concrete is improved which shows the use of glass fibers in concrete mixes
may reduce its shortcoming of low tensile strength without affecting its workability and
compressive strength. The percentage increase in strength for higher grade of concrete is
marginally high.
Chaitanya kumar et al. (2016) studied the behaviour of glass fiber reinforced
concrete with various percentage of glass fiber (0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%) by weight of cement
and found that the workability of concrete increases at 1% with the addition of glass fiber.
The increase in compressive strength, flexural strength, split tensile strength for M-20
grade of concrete at 7 and 28 days are observed to be more at 1%. We can likewise utilize
the waste product of glass as fiber. It has been observed that there is a gradual increase in
compressive strength compare to the normal concrete. The workability of concrete
decreases from 1% due to the addition of fiber. The compressive strength is very high at

5
1% having for 7 days is 20.76N/mm2 and for 28 days is 28.46N/mm2.The tensile strength
is very high at 1% having for 7 days is1.47N /mm2 and for 28 days is 2.94N /mm2. The
split tensile strength is very high at 1% having for 7 days is 2.83 N /mm2 and for 28 days
is 3.92N /mm2.
Hemalatha et al. (2016) studied the performance of Cement Concrete with
varying percentage of Glass Fiber adding like 0.33%, 0.66%, 1%, 1.33%, 1.66%, 2%. The
strength and durability properties of Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete compared to
Control Concrete and found that addition of Glass Fibre in plain concrete increases the
strength and durability characteristics. Initially addition of Glass Fibre in the plain
concrete the strength characteristics like compressive, flexural and split tensile strength is
gradually increased. Finally certain percent addition of Glass Fibre attain that gradually
decrease in strength. Maximum compressive, flexural and split tensile strength is attaining
in 1.0% addition of Glass Fibre. So adding Glass Fibre upto 1.0% only not exceeds the
limit. The durability characteristics gradually increased based on the addition of Glass
Fibre.
2.2.2 LITERATURE ON BFRP REBAR AS REINFORCEMENT IN BEAMS
Urbanski et al. (2013) have investigated the deflections of beams with BFRP
reinforcement were significantly higher than the reference beam deflection, due to the
much lower modulus of BFRP bars compared to steel bars.. The tested beam were made
of M30 and basalt rod with 8mm diameter is used. Beam size is 80 x 140 x 1200 mm.
During the tests, the beams were simply supported on two supports with a span of 1000
mm. Near the supports in all the beams steel stirrups for shear having a diameter of 8 mm
have been provided. Deformation of the reinforcement of concrete beams with basalt
reinforcement were considerably more than the beams with steel reinforcement. In beams
with basalt reinforcement rods, in contrast to the reference beam, the decrease of
deflection in relation to the load increase is practically constant, until the failure of the
element; thus the deformations of the basalt reinforcement bars are linear. Average width
of cracks on the section constant cross- section in beams with basalt reinforcement was 4

6
times higher than in the reference beams because of large diameter. Since the width of the
cracks is primarily the function of the deformation and the concrete between adjacent
cracks, due to the less deformations in the reinforcement and the surrounding concrete
with reinforcement for basalt beams. The results show the different character of the load-
deflection relationship of basalt reinforced beams compared to traditionally steel
reinforced beams, as well as the significant influence of the type and quality of anchoring
on the process of basalt bars tensile process.
Indrajit et al. (2014) have investigated the Basalt Fiber Reinforced
Polymer(BFRP) Effective Replacement of Steel in Reinforced Concrete. The mix
proportion is M30 and basalt rod with 8mm diameter is used. Beam size is 80 x140 x
1200 mm. Near the supports in all the beams steel stirrups for shear having a diameter of
8 mm have been provided. The middle part of beams did not include any upper
reinforcement and stirrups. Top reinforcement in the regions of supports of all tested
beams consisted of two steel bars with a diameter of 8 mm. Due to the much larger width
of cracks in beams reinforced with basalt rods, compared to reinforced concrete beams, it
is necessary to determine the appropriate minimum amount of reinforcement, which will
reduce the width of the crack in bending.
Zakaria et al. (2014) have investigated the shear behaviour of high strength fiber
reinforced concrete beams longitudinally reinforced with Basalt Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (BFRP) bars with and without stirrups. Eight high strength reinforced beams
were tested. Steel fibers and stirrups were used either separately or together as shear
reinforcement. The test variables were steel fiber content with and without minimum
shear reinforcement. All beams were tested under a four point static loading up to failure
to investigate the shear behaviour of high strength fiber reinforced beams reinforced with
BFRP re-bars. The shear span-to-depth ratio (a/d) was kept constant at 2.5. Crack pattern
and mode of failure, cracking and ultimate shear strength and mid span deflection are
presented to provide useful insights on the shear failure mechanism of such beams. The
experimental study shows the addition of steel fiber improves cracking, ultimate shear

7
strength and ductility of the tested beams, and transfers the mode of failure of these beams
into a more ductile one. Then the tensile test has been done and from the test results the
authors have concluded that the tested BFRP rods seems to be not so rigid (less than glass
FRP rods) but rather deformable with good tensile strength (better than GFRP rod) and
results in less brittle shear failures with greater ultimate tensile strength and, more
importantly, larger toughness and better energy absorption and ductility.
Satya et al. (2015) have investigated the Study of Deflection by effective
replacement of Steel with Basalt Fiber Reinforced Polymer. In this the beam specimen is
900mm, 230mm, 230mm with 4 varying reinforcement of basalt rebar, steel rebar, steel
rebar + basalt fibers (2% replacement of weight of cement) and composite reinforcement
(BFRP rebar+ Steel rebar) have been tested for deflection. Mix proportion is M35 and
water cement ratio is 0.35.From the experimental results, it is observed that beam with
composite reinforcement is an effective replacement and makes beam more ductile
against other specimens tested. The test for deflection in beam with Reinforcements as
Steel, Steel + Basalt Fiber, BFRP, Composite (BFRP + Steel, 65% + 35%respectively) at
the end of 7 days and 28 days are given for M35 grade of concrete is addition of basalt
fibers gives a little increase in deflection than beam with only steel reinforcement. Basalt
reinforcement gives less deflection than the steel reinforcement. Total Replacement of
BFRP increases the deflection of the beam in turn making it more ductile. Addition of
Basalt Fiber gives a very little increase in deflection than the beam with only steel
reinforcement. Increment of 60% deflection is observed in beam with BFRP than the
beam with only steel reinforcement. Composite reinforcement makes the beam more than
110% ductile than the beam with only steel reinforcement. Ductility is decreasing from
Composite Reinforcement to BFRP to Steel +Basalt Fiber to Steel. It is found that
composite reinforcement (35% steel -65% BFRP) is effective replacement to make the
beam more ductile.
Wenjie et al. (2015) have investigated the flexural behaviours of composite
concrete beams reinforced with Basalt Fiber Reinforced Polymer (BFRP) bars and Steel

8
bars. Tensile test of BFRP bars, and flexural experiment of six different composite
reinforced concrete beams were made. The tests show that BFRP bars have high tensile
strength but low elastic modulus compared with steel bars. The bond strength between
BFRP bars and concrete is similar to the bond strength of steel bars and concrete and
shows good bond performance. The bond strength relative coefficient of BFRP bars can
be considered to be 1.0. The flexural capacity of appropriate composite reinforced beams
is analyzed and as implified formula for calculating its value is proposed. By controlling
the reinforcement ratio, the ductility of composite reinforced beams can meet the
requirements of normal service conditions.
Pawłowski et al. (2015) have investigated the experimental and theoretical study
of the short-term flexural behaviour of a series of simply supported BFRPRC beams. The
objective of the study is the deflections of the beam. In this investigation the authors have
tested totally six beam specimens (200 mm × 300mm × 2350 mm) beams were subjected
to three-point bending. From the test result, the neutral axis before cracking is located at
the mid-height of the section. Because of the high modulus of elasticity of BFRP
reinforcement, ultimate deflections of the beams were less than six times greater than
these permissible. Hence the author concluded, the beams behave almost linearly until
failure, which takes place at relatively less deflections.
Malarvizhi et al. (2015) have investigated the composite reinforced concrete beam
using steel and BFRP bars. An experimental investigation is carried out on a concrete
beam of standard size 700 ×150 ×150mm for M-20 grade concrete. Material was
produced, tested and compared with conventional concrete in terms of workability and
strength. The BFRP bars are high tensile that cannot bar bent up manually, so the four
bars are cut into required length and tied up as like conventional stirrups in order to
increase the shear capacity of concrete beam. Preliminary tests are carried out for concrete
materials such cement, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. There are six cubes and
cylinders were casted. These specimens are tested to determine compressive and split
tensile strength of concrete after 28 days of curing. These tests were carried out on

9
standard beam for 28 days to determine the mechanical properties of concrete. Three
different beams are casted i.e. normal conventional beam with steel reinforced, BFRP
reinforced concrete beam and composite reinforced(BFRP and STEEL) concrete beams.
First beam with the reinforcement of steel rods, second beam with the reinforcement of
BFRP rods and third beam with the reinforcement of hybrid rods. Ultimate load for steel
beam is 97.9KN,BFRP beam is 106.2KN and the composite beam is 111KN. When the
beam is composed completely of BFRP rod it provides 1.085 times more strength and for
a composite beam the strength tends to increase by 1.13 times than that of conventional
beam. In this comparison, we get the maximum strength in the composite reinforcement.
By looking at the result, using composite reinforcement can be an effective solution for
replacement of steel in reinforced concrete.
2.3 INFERENCE OF THE LITERATURE
Thus from the above literature it is summarized that in the use of BFRP re-bars in place of
steel reinforcement, the flexural strength is high in the concrete beam. BFRP is corrosion
resistant and hence used in sea line reinforcement where the steel rod gets corroded due to
presence of water. The tensile strength of Basalt Fiber Reinforced Polymer is twice the
steel reinforcing bars. But the main drawback of BFRP is its percentage elongation, which
is 3 to 4 times greater than that of steel.
From the previous studies, Basalt reinforced concrete beam tends to carry more load and
deflect more comparing to the Steel reinforced concrete beam as stated by Urbanski et al
(2013) and Indrajit et al (2014). The deflection of basalt reinforced beam is 1.5 to 2 times
that of steel beam. Composite reinforcement makes the beam more ductile than the beam
with only steel or basalt reinforcement as stated by Satya etal.(2015), Malarvizhi et
al.(2016) and also the flexural strength is increased in composite beam when compared to
the only steel or basalt reinforced beam.
Addition of glass fiber to concrete results in increase of compressive and flexural strength
upto a certain extent later it impacts negatively and decrease the strength as stated by
Komal Chawla (2013) Hemalatha (2016). Percentage increase in strength is a constant

10
with respect to increase in grade of concrete as stated by Avinash Gornale (2012) and
Upendra Varma (2013) Hence from the literature reviews, the proposed work is to
compare the flexural strength and deflection study of composite beam and conventional
beam cast with conventional concrete and fiber reinforced concrete. Here glass fiber is
used as an additive to improve the strength of the concrete.
2.4 OBJECTIVE
Objective of this study are given below
 To determine the optimum mix of glass fiber reinforced concrete.
 To study the mechanical properties of the basalt and steel rebar.
 To study the flexural behaviour of conventional concrete beam and glass
reinforced concrete beam reinforced with basalt rebar, steel rebar and composite
reinforcement.

11
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

LITERATURE COLLECTION

MATERIAL COLLECTION

INITIAL TEST ON MATERIALS

CASTING OF SPECIMEN

TESTING OF SPECIMEN

OBSERVATION AND RESULTS

CONCLUSION

FIG 3.1 METHODOLOGY

12
 INITIAL TESTS ON MATERIAL

CEMENT COARSE FINE REBAR

• SPECIFIC GRAVITY AGGREGATE AGGREGATE • TENSION TEST
• INITIAL AND • SPECIFIC GRAVITY • SPECIFIC GRAVITY • BOND STRENGTH
FINAL SETTING • GRADING • FINENESS
TIME MODULUS
• CRUSHING VALUE
• FINENESS • MOISTURE
• SHAPE TEST
• WATER CONTENT
ABSORPTION

FIG 3.2 INITIAL TESTS ON MATERIALS

CASTING OF CUBE SPECIMEN

CONVENTIONAL GLASS FIBER REINFORCED

CONCRETE CONCRETE
150 x 150x 150 150 x 150 x 150
6 Nos

0.66% of 1 .33% of
1% of FIBER
FIBER FIBER
6 Nos 6 Nos
6 Nos

FIG 3.3 CASTING OF CUBE SPECIMEN

13
 CASTING OF BEAM SPECIMEN

CONVENTIONAL GLASS FIBER

CONCRETE REINFORCED CONCRETE
1000 x 100 x 150 1000 x 100 x 150

BASALT COMPOSITE
BASALT COMPOSITE STEEL
REBAR REBAR
REBAR REBAR REBAR
3 Nos 3 Nos
3 Nos 3 Nos 3 Nos

FIG 3.4 CASTING OF BEAM SPECIMEN

14
 CHAPTER 4
PROPERTIES OF MATERIAL
4.1 CEMENT
Cement in concrete acts as a binding material that harden after the addition of water. It
plays an important role in construction sector. In this study the Ordinary Portland Cement
(OPC) of 53 grade conforming to IS: 12269 - 2013 is used. Various tests were performed
on cement they are: Consistency test, Specific gravity test, Initial and Final setting time.

FIG 4.1 OPC GRADE 53 CEMENT

S.No DESCRIPTION RESULT REQUIREMENT AS PER

IS:12269 - 2013
1 Consistency 32% NOT SPECIFIED
2 Specific gravity 3.12 2.9-3.15
3 Initial setting time 90 minutes Shall not be less than 30 minutes
4 Final setting time 360 minutes Shall not be more than 600 minutes

TABLE 4.1 TEST RESULTS OF CEMENT

4.2 FINE AGGREGATE
The material which passes through sieve number 4 is termed as fine aggregate usually
natural and is used as fine aggregate at places where natural sand is not available crushed

15
stone is used as Fine aggregate. The fine aggregates were tested as per Indian Standard
Specification IS: 383-1970. Various tests were performed on Fine aggregates are: Specific
gravity test and Grading of aggregate.

FIG 4.2 FINE AGGREGATE

IS SIEVE CUMMULATIVE CUMMULATIVE SPECIFICATION

DESIGNATION PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE AS PER
RETAINED PASSING IS 383 - 1970 FOR
ZONE I
4.75mm 0 100 90 - 100
2.36mm 19.4 80.6 60 - 95
1.18mm 54.3 55.7 30 - 70
600 microns 71.8 29.2 15 - 34
300 microns 85.2 14.8 5 - 20
150 microns 100 0 0 - 10

TABLE 4.2 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AGGREGATE

4.3 COARSE AGGREGATE
The material which is retained on IS test sieve 4.75 is termed as coarse aggregate . The
broken stone is generally used as a stone aggregate. Coarse aggregate used is locally

16
available crushed angular aggregate size of 20mm and 10mm are used for this
experimental work.

FIG 4.3 COARSE AGGREGATE

IS SIEVE CUMMULATIVE CUMMULATIVE SPECIFICATION
DESIGNATION PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE AS PER IS 383 -
RETAINED PASSING 1970 FOR 20mm
AGGREGATE
40mm 0 100 100
20mm 17.2 82.80 85-100
10mm 83.6 16.4 0-30
4.75mm 100 0 0-5
TABLE 4.3 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF COARSE AGGREGATE

S.No PROPERTY RESULT

1 Specific gravity of Fine aggregate 2.67
2 Specific gravity of Coarse aggregate 2.77
3 Fineness modulus of Fine aggregate 3.2
4 Fineness modulus of Coarse aggregate 7.0
TABLE 4.4 TEST RESULTS OF AGGREGATE

17
4.4 WATER
Portable water is generally considered fit for making concrete. Water should be free from
acids, oils, alkalies or other organic impurities. Water reacts chemically with the cement
to form a cement paste in which inert aggregate are held in suspension until cement paste
are hardened and it will also serve as a lubricant in the mixture of fine aggregate and
cement.
4.5 GLASS FIBER
The glass fibers used are of Cem-FIL Anti-Crack HD with modulus of elasticity 72 GPA,
Filament diameter 14 microns, specific gravity 2.68, length 12 mm (Properties as
obtained through the manufacturer are shown on Table 4.5).

FIG 4.4 GLASS FIBER

Properties of Alkali Resistance Glass Fiber
1 Fiber AR Glass
2 Specific gravity 2.68
3 Elastic modulus (Gpa) 72
4 Tensile strength (Mpa) 1700
5 Diameter (Micron) 14
6 Length (mm) 12
7 No of fiber (million / kg) 235

TABLE 4.5 PROPERTIES OF AR GLASS FIBER

18
4.6 BASALT FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER
Basalt fiber is a material made from extremely fine fibers of basalt, which is composed of
the minerals plagioclase, pyroxene, and olivine. It is similar to carbon fiber and fiber
glass, having better physical mechanical properties than fiber glass, but being
significantly cheaper than carbon fiber. It is used as a fireproof textile in. The aerospace
and automotive industries and can also be
used as a composite to produce products such as camera tripods. Basalt is a natural, hard,
dense, dark brown to black volcanic igneous rock originating at a depth of hundreds of
kilometers beneath the earth and resulting the surface as molten magma. And it’s gray,
dark in colour, formed from the molten lava after solidification. The production of basalt
fiber consists of melt preparation, extrusion, fiber formation, application of lubricates and
finally winding. This method is also known as spinning. It is do not undergo any toxic
reaction with water and do not pollute air also. The main functions of the fibers are to
carry the load and provide stiffness, strength, thermal stability and other structural
properties in the BFRP. (Properties as obtained through the manufacturer are shown on
Table 4.6).

FIG 4.5 BASALT REBAR

S.NO PROPERTY VALUE
1 Nominal cross section Area 113.1 mm2
2 Tensile strength 950
3 Elastic Modulus 50

19
 4 Elongation at break 2.5%
5 Density 2007.12 kg / m3

TABLE 4.6 PROPERTIES OF BRFP BARS

4.7 MIX DESIGN FOR M30 CONCRETE

These are the step by step mix proportioning procedure for M30 grade concrete as per IS
10262 : 2009 and IS 456 : 2000.

STEP 1: TARGET MEAN STRENGTH

Target mean strength = fck + ks

= 30 + (5 x l.65)

= 38.25 MPa
STEP 2: SELECTION OF w/c RATIO

Mild Exposure condition

w/c ratio = 0.45

STEP 3: SELECTION OF WATER CONTENT

Maximum water for 20mm aggregate (for 50mm slump) = 186kg

For 75 mm slump 3% increase in water content

Water content for 75mm slump = 191.58kg

STEP 4: CALCULATION CEMENT CONTENT

Cement content = 191.58 / 0.45

= 425.73 kg/m3

20
STEP 5: ESTIMATION OF COARSE AGGREGATE
AND FINE AGGREGATE
Volume of C.A per unit volume of Total aggregate for = 0.60
Zone I & w/c ratio 0.5
For w/c 0.45

0.01 increase in F.A for 0.05 decreasw of w/c ratio

Volume of C.A per unit volume of Total aggregate for = 0.61

Zone I & w/c ratio 0.45
Volume of F.A per unit volume of Total aggregate for = 0.39
Zone I & w/c ratio 0.5
STEP 6: MIX CALCULATION

Volume of concrete = 1 m3
Volume of cement
= Mass of cement

(Sp.Gr of cement x
1000)

= 425.13

3.12 x 1000

= 0.1364 m3
Volume of water = 191.58 / 1000

= 0.1916 m3
Volume of all in aggregate = 1-0.1364-0.1916

= 0.672
Volume of C.A = 0.410 m3
Volume of F.A = 0.262 m3
Weight of C.A = 0.41 x 2.77 x 1000

21
Weight of C.A = 1135.71 kg
Weight of F.A = 0.262 x 2.67 x 1000

= 699.54 kg
STEP 7: MIX PROPORTION

Cement = 425.73
Fine aggregate = 699.54
coarse aggregate = 1135.71
Water = 191.58
Proportion = 1 : 1.64 : 2.66

22
 REFERENCE
1. Avinash Gornale.,(2012) "Strength Aspects of Glass Fibre Reinforced Concrete",
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 3, Issue 7,
July-2012 1 ISSN 2229-5518.
2. Abid Alam.,(2015) "Experimental Study on Properties of Glass Fibre Reinforced
Concrete", International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) –
Volume 24.
3. Carlos Pascual,."Adhesively-bonded GFRP-glass sandwich components for
structurally efficient glazing applications"
4. Chaitanya kumar.,(2016)"Experimental Studies on Glass Fiber Concrete",
American Journal of Engineering Research
5. Dawid Pawłowskia., (2015) "Flexural behaviour of full-scale basalt FRP RC
beams –experimental and numerical studies", 7th Scientific-Technical Conference
Material Problems in Civil Engineering (MATBUD’2015).
6. Hemalatha.,(2016) "An Experimental Study On Glass Fibre Reinforced Concrete",
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET).
7. Indrajit Patel., (2014) "Basalt Fiber Reinforced Polymer (BFRP): Effective
Replacement of Steel in Reinforced Concrete", Journal of Civil Engineering and
Environmental Technology Print ISSN: 2349-8404; Online ISSN: 2349-879X;
Volume 1, Number 4; August, 2014.
8. Komal Chawla1., (2013) " Studies of glass fiber reinforced concrete composites",
Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg. Res. 2013.
9. Malarvizhi.S., (2015)"Hybrid Reinforced Concrete Beam Using Steel and BFRP
Bars", Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-5, 2017
ISSN: 2454-1362.
10. Marek Urbanski., (2013 ) “Investigation on Concrete Beams Reinforced with
Basalt Rebars as an Effective Alternative of Conventional R/C Structures”, 11th

23
 International Conference on Modern Building Materials, Structures and
Techniques, MBMST.
11. Meltem AltinKaratas¸ HasanGeokkaya,."A review on machinability of carbon fiber
reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) composite
materials"
12. Robert Sonnenschein,."FRP Composites and Their Using in the Construction of
Bridges" World Multidisciplinary Civil Engineering - Architecture - Urban
Planning Symposium 2016 WMCAUS 2016.
13. Satya M Saad., (2015) “Basalt Fiber Reinforced Polymer (BFRP): Effective
replacement of steel in reinforced concrete”, 5th International Conference on
Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering, October 2014.
14. Upendra Varma.,(2013) "Glass Fibre Reinforced Concrete",Int. Journal of
Engineering Research and Applications.
15. Wenjie.,(2015) ”Flexural behaviours of hybrid concrete beams reinforced with
BFRP bars and steel bars”, Construction and Building Materials 87 (2015) 28–37.
16. Zakaria.,(2014) “Some Parameters Affecting Shear Behaviour Of High Strength
Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams Longitudinally Reinforced With BFRP Rebars”,
Journal of Engineering Sciences Assiut University Faculty of Engineering, Vol.42
No.5 September 2014 PP. 1163 – 1178.

24