Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174 www.elsevier.

com/locate/compstruct

Flexural behaviour of MRBC beams (multi-reinforcing bars concrete beams), promoting the use of FRHPC
A. Si-Larbi, E. Ferrier *, P. Hamelin
Laboratoire Mecanique, materiaux and structures, Universite Claude Bernard, Lyon I, 82 bd Niels Bohr, Domaine scientique de la Doua, 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France Available online 6 June 2005

Abstract High performance concrete reinforced by short metallic bers has been recently developed. These materials are of particular interest for civil engineering thanks to their high compression performance and to their enhanced durability. The addition of short metallic bers provides the opportunity to obtain a more ductile material with more resistance to tension. Nevertheless, the use of reinforcement is still necessary for structural applications [1]. This paper presents results obtained on SFRHP concrete beams using mixed steelCFRP rebar. Five beams with steel rebar or mixed CFRPsteel reinforcement were designed according to Eurocode 2. The goal is to optimize the reinforced concrete (RC) beam design by combining dierent reinforcement types in order to use the ber reinforced HPC most eciently. The rst beam specimen uses a non-brous HPC and constitutes a reference for comparison. The tests carried out upon an FRHPC beam and reinforced by steel reinforcing bars allow the assessment of the short bers eect against the bending and the shearing stresses. It is shown that the presence of short metallic bers in the concrete does in fact contribute to the equilibrium of the beam. The sum of the internal moments in the tensile zone is increased by 10%. For the last three beams, the eect of incorporating carbon ber reinforced polymer rebar mixed with usual steel reinforcement is studied. It is shown that beams using mixed CFRPsteel rebar are able to achieve a bending stiness comparable to the beams reinforced by traditional steel reinforcement (in the elastic stage). A 50% increase in the failure load is observed. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete beam; High performance concrete; Mixed reinforcement; CFRP rebar; Composites structures

1. Introduction The objective of this study is to highlight the possibility of using short metallic ber reinforced high performance concretes (FRHPC) in beams that are reinforced by steel-composite multi-reinforcing bars. First the main properties of high performance concrete are dened. It is then possible to identify the main dierences existing between standard concretes and high performance concretes, justifying the material combinations used in this study.

1.1. High performance concretes HPC are made in similar conditions to that of standard concretes, but with smaller quantities of water (water/cement ratio ranging from 0.2 to 0.3), this makes it possible to obtain concrete compression strengths ranging from 100 to 150 MPa. In order to maintain good workability, large quantities of admixtures are used. This type of concrete constitutes a family of materials with performances that vary according to the manufacturing method. There are many possibilities for the formulation of the HPC. In every mix the main constituents are aggregates, cement, silica fume and super plasticizers. The dierent aggregates are subjected to a rigorous selection process aimed at optimizing the

Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 472 692 130; fax: +33 478 946 906. E-mail address: ferrier@iutal2m.univ-lyonl.fr (E. Ferrier).

0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.04.001

164

A. Si-Larbi et al. / Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174

Nomenclature AS1 AS2 Es Ef h W0 bw , h Msd Mc Ms1 Ms2 steel rebars area (mm2) CFRP rebars area (mm2) steel rebars Youngs modulus (MPa) CFRP Youngs modulus (MPa) height of the crack (mm) maximal opening of the crack under an increment of loading (mm) basis and height of the area (mm) moment applied on the beam (kN m) moment undertaken by concrete (kN m) moment undertaken by tense reinforcement (steel) (kN m) moment undertaken by tense reinforcement (CFRP) (kN m) Mf P z zu a  x rc rf v moment undertaken by short metallic bers (kN m) applied load (N) neutral axis position (mm) neutral axis position (mm) crack length ratio of beam depth strains (m/m) cracks opening (mm) compressive stress in concrete (MPa) tense stress in concrete (MPa) curvature

granular mixtures homogeneity [2]. A thermal treatment or the application of pressure during the aging phase, can allow the modulation of concrete quality according to the project needs [3]. However, this study is limited to the study to HPC set without any thermal treatment. 1.2. High performance concrete (HPC) mechanical behaviour The modications that create high performance concrete signicantly aect the material behavior. The stressstrain relationship is linear until stresses peak. The concrete modulus of elasticity is increased by 30% compared with a standard concrete. From a practical standpoint, the plastic strain is insignicant when compared with the ultimate strain, thus, it is noted that the strain at the ultimate stress is a less important parameter for HPC than for a standard concrete. The tensile strength increases less than the compression strength (Table 1). The ratio between the compressive strengths and tensile characteristic strengths decrease by a twentieth, whereas, the ration is of 1/10 concerning the standard concretes. However, in some cases the tensile strength reaches 6 MPa. The addition of 2% short metallic bers (10 mm in length) to these cementeous

matrices allows the concrete to obtain better mechanical characteristics and signicantly modies the post-peak behavior. The addition of bers produces a material with greater tensile properties (higher than 10 MPa) and more ductile bending behavior. This material ductility is the consequence of bers bridging the macro and micro-cracks in the cementeous matrix highlighted by many studies [4]. In other words, short metallic bers can modify both tensile strength and provide ductility. 1.3. The use of HPC in the case of beams High performance concretes are most often applied within the civil engineering eld in the cases of architectural elements (front panels, street xtures, or specic structures [5] and prestressed structures [6]. The use of short ber reinforced high performance concrete allows the suppression of the shear steel reinforcing bars. Whereas, the high cost of prestress associated with both the material and the complex process, limits the promotion of such structures. In order to reduce the cost, it is necessary to look for unique technical solutions such as non-prestressed steel reinforced concrete. Concerning HPC beams, early studies outline the performance and the limits of these structures:

Table 1 Comparison between several concrete properties Concrete Usual concrete High performance concrete with superplasticizer High performance concrete with superplasticizer and silica fume Ultra high performance concrete with superplasticizer and silica fume Compressive strength R 2R 35R 620R Tensile strength R/10 R/10 R/15 R/20 Workability with slump test 68 cm 15 cm 23 cm >23 cm Durability 1 150 1500 >1000 Water/cement ratio 0.5 0.4 0.250.32 0.060.18*

A. Si-Larbi et al. / Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174

165

rst, the addition of metallic bers allows the reduction or even the removal of all the transverse reinforcing bars [7]; the performance gains are signicant; on the other hand, the tests on the over reinforced HPC beams [8,9] (steel rebar ratio higher than 4%) failed by concrete crushing in the compression zone resulting in a brittle structure failure. By decreasing the steel reinforcement ratio, one can obtain a ductile failure by steel yielding, but with a low compression level in the concrete (about 40% of the ultimate strain of the concrete in compression). This does not take full advantage of the improved properties of HPC. The development of this new type of concrete for reinforced concrete structures requires, therefore, an optimised design. The design goal is the achievement of ductile structures that reach a significant level of strain in the compression zone at failure. For this purpose, it is necessary to use a material with higher tensile properties than steel, such as high resistance CFRP reinforcement. These reinforcing bars constructed by pultrusion of carbon ber combined with epoxy matrices have very high mechanical properties such as their stiness level (160 GPa) and their tensile strength (2500 MPa). The drawback of CFRP reinforcement is their brittle mechanical behaviour. This behaviour does not correspond to the desired mechanical behaviour of a ductile reinforced concrete beam. But, through the combination of CFRP and steel reinforcement this required mechanical behavior can be achieved. The structural element designed this way, have a ductile, and therefore, a safe behaviour. The addition of short metallic bers to the HPC allows the removal of all the transverse hoops and contributes to a reduction in the structural production costs.

3. Experimental program 3.1. The considered method for optimization In order to optimize the behaviour of brous HPC beams reinforced by mixed reinforcement, it is necessary to identify the mechanical behaviour of these structures and compare it to that of standard reinforced concrete beams. In order to isolate the inuence of the material combinations from possible geometry, it is decided, rst, to dene a HPC beam reinforced by steel reinforcing bars. Then, a HPC beam reinforced by short metallic bers is tested to identify the bers inuence upon the structural behaviour. The remaining portion of the testing program aims to introduce the mixed reinforcement notion with the objective of evaluating the eciency of this combination. The purpose of this program is identication of the multi-reinforcing bars concrete beam behaviour by combining the materials properties with section geometries. Moreover, the crack bridging by short metallic bers eect is particularly studied with regard to both normal and shear stresses. Furthermore, the modications to structural behaviour caused by the use of mixed steelcomposite reinforcing bars are examined. The performance level of MRBRC beams is assessed through the analysis of the ultimate behaviour (load gains, failure mechanisms, etc.) and the moment-curvature response of the structure. The variation in bending stiness and internal moment equilibrium due to the use of dierent materials is studied. 3.2. Properties of high performance concrete Lafarge denes the HPC considered for this study (Table 2). The whole manufacturing process was carried out by Lafarges Central Research Laboratory teams. The concrete was cast in steel molds in three layers and was internally and externally vibrated. Uniaxial compression tests were conducted on 12 test cylinders resulting from two distinct mixing. The results are summarized in Table 3.

2. Research signicance The tests on beams carried out in this study describe the possibility of using high performance ber reinforced concretes for reinforced concrete structures. The main assumptions of steel reinforced concrete design may be applied. First, it is shown that CFRPsteel mixed rebars are able to maintain a bending stiness comparable to the beams reinforced by traditional steel reinforcement. A 50% increase in the failure load is observed. Second, it is shown that the presence of the metallic bers contributes signicantly to internal section equilibrium. Finally, the results of this study conrm the potential of this type of structure.

Table 2 Ultra high performance concrete mix proportioning Material Water Cement Silica fume Sand Quartz sand Super-plasticizer Ratio water/cement (W/C) Metallic bers Quantities (kg/m3) 195 705 230 1010 210 45.6 0.21 290

166 Table 3 Compression concrete test results Beam 1 (non-RFa) Force (kN) Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 537 560 515 565 549 560

A. Si-Larbi et al. / Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174

Beam 2 (RFa) Strength (MPa) 139.5 145.5 133.8 146.8 142.7 145.5 142 5 Force (kN) 520 532 540 525 Strength (MPa) 135.1 138.2 140.3 136.4 137.5 2

Beams 35 (RFa) Force (kN) 603 597 619 600 625 590 Strength (MPa) 142 141 146 141 147 139 143 3

Average (MPa)
a

Reinforced bers.

3.3. Mechanical properties of the reinforcement The elastic modulus and average yield strength of the steel reinforcement are, respectively, 210 GPa and 550 MPa. The elastic modulus and average ultimate strength of the CFRP reinforcement are, respectively, 160 GPa and 2500 MPa (see Fig. 1). 3.4. Beam characteristics The beams were designed according to Eurocode 2. The resulting dimensions are shown in (Fig. 2) The design required failure of the steel/composite rebar and a structural dead load of 200 kN, loaded in four-point bending, which corresponds to an ultimate moment of

Uniti in mm

10 esp 100 mm

250
As = 3.35%

3000

150

Beam 1
Unity in mm B 150 250 As= 3.35 % (Beam 2) As= 3.02 % (Beam 3)

3000

Beam 2, 3 and 4 Beam 1

2 6

Beam 2
2 6

Beam 3
2 6

180

40

f c28 =R

20

20

25

20 30 50 150

20

30

30

10

CFRP rebars Steel rebars 150

180

25

25

10

70

E
150 130

Beam 4

Beam 5
Fig. 2. Beams description.

F t28 =T

Fig. 1. Mechanical law behavior of concrete.

115 kN m. The beams had a span of 3 m. Four 20 mm-diameter steel reinforcing bars were necessary for beams 1 and 2. Two 25 mm-diameter steel rebar were mixed with two 10 mm CFRP rebars for beams 3, 4 and 5.

70

10

170

70

A. Si-Larbi et al. / Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174

Displacement measuring device

167

Four bending point

4. Experimental investigation Table 4 gives data for the obtained test results. They are analysed and compared successively by taking into consideration, rst, the deection evolution at the centre of each beam, then by comparing the strains of the upper ber and the tensile steel. Naviers strain diagram allows calculation of the curvature and the neutral axis position. The last section concerns the study of failure modes of each beam. For each part, a comparison of different mechanical behaviours is performed. 4.1. Evolution of the mid-span displacement The set of loaddeection curves does not show signicant dierences during the loading. In fact, the deection evolution corresponds to the usual three stages of reinforced concrete structure behaviour. The rst stage consists of the response of the non-cracked beam. The second stage follows cracking of the beam. In this stage, the crack reduces the moment of inertia and, therefore, the bending stiness. The last stage of behaviour corresponds to the tensile longitudinal steel yielding. For beams 3, 4 and 5 (mixed reinforcement), it is important to note that the third stage of behavior is modied. The applied load upon the structure increases until failure. The rst stage corresponds to the elastic behaviour without any cracks. In the second stage the cracking decreases the moment of inertia and therefore the bending stiness of the beam. The last stage of the curves corresponds to the yielding of the tensile longitudinal reinforcement. The yielding of the steel reinforcement occurs while the CFRP rebars remain elastic; they bear additional loads. The stress strain curve analysis conrms, afterwards, this observation. A load gain of de 50% is, therefore, observed for beams 3 and 5. The use of the mixed steel-composite reinforcing bars allows the beams to obtain a behaviour similar to strain hardening (see Fig. 4). 4.2. Evolution of strains Fig. 5 represents the strain evolution of the upper ber and the lower reinforcing bars due to the applied loading. Table 5 gives the strains in the materials at loads corresponding to tensile cracking of the concrete, steel yielding, and failure.

Strains gauges* 700

3m

250

150 Deflection sensors 3000

*

strains gauges bonded on the lower part of the framework

Fig. 3. Experimental device.

According to Rilem recommendations [10], the shear resistance has been veried using a concrete tensile strength of 10 MPa. The rst beam is tested in order to verify the design and to identify the bending behavior of the HPC beams. The second beam is HPFRC, and was tested to evaluate the contribution of the short metallic bers. In this case, no shear stirrups were used. The last three beams are tested in order to observe the eciency of CFRP rebars. The fourth beam had a reduced concrete area in the compression region (Fig. 2) in order to increase the compressive stress level in the concrete and, as a consequence of equilibrium, the tensile stress in the rebar. The last beam corresponds to an optimised area according to beam performance.

3.5. Instrumentation of the beams Electrical gauges of 120 X and 10 mm gauge length were bonded on the concrete and on the longitudinal steel to the right of the center of the beam (Fig. 3). These measurement points give the opportunity to analyse the changes in the strains of the concrete upper ber and tensile steel according to the loading. A 100 mm LVDT displacement sensor was placed at mid-span to measure the deection. For each load level, the values of the displacement and strain gauges are recorded. The tests are carried out to failure.
Table 4 Beam tests result Cracking load (kN) Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam 1 2 3 4 5 20.3 24.7 27.8 15.0 26.7 Yielding load (kN) 183 153 201 180 173

Failure load (kN) 199 173 270 200 260

Mid-span deection (mm) 31.0 34.8 51 32.3 56

Failure mode Tensile rebars Tensile rebars Tensile rebars Concrete in compression Tensile rebars

168
300

A. Si-Larbi et al. / Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174

Beam 3
250

Beam 5
200

Load (kN)

Beam 1 Beam 4 Beam 2

150

100

50

Beam 1 Beam 2 Beam 3 Beam 4 Beam 5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Mid span displacement (mm)

Fig. 4. Evolution of mid-span deection as a function of loading.

300
Beam 5 Beam 3 Beam 3 Beam 5

250
Beam 4 Beam 1

Beam 5

200 150
5

Beam 4

Beam 1 Beam 2

Load (kN)

Beam 2

strain gauges

100 50
strain gauges

0 -3500 -1500 500 2500 4500 6500 8500 10500 12500 14500

Strain (m/m)
Beam 1 steel rebars Beam 3 steel rebars Beam 4 CFRP rebars Beam 5 CFRP rebars Beam 1 Beam 3 CFRP rebars Beam 4 Beam 2 steel rebars Beam 3 Beam 5 Beam 2 Beam 4 steel rebars Beam 5 steel rebars

Fig. 5. Evolution of material strain during the loading.

The loadstrain curves of Fig. 5 illustrate the behaviour per unit length until failure for the concrete and steel. It is also important to note that for beams 1, 3 and 5, the ultimate strain in the steel is higher than a conventional strain of 10& considered by the standard. For example, for beam 1, a strain of 14& has been recorded prior to tensile steel failure. It is also important to note that for beam 3, the stressstrain response shows a strain hardening behaviour. This allows an increase in the moment supported by the beam. Regarding the strains of the extreme compression ber in the concrete, there is a signicant dierence between the ber reinforced high performance concrete of beam 2 and the non-reinforced HPC of beam 3. In fact, at equal load, the upper ber strain level is higher for the FRHPC

(beam 2) than for HPC (Fig. 5). This dierence is most likely explained by a structural eect (neutral axis position, section equilibrium) combined with a modication of the material behavior in the tensile part of the beam due to the short metallic ber reinforced concrete. The use of Navier diagrams conrms, this observation. In order to analyse the behaviour dierences between the dierent beams, it is important to calculate the evolution of the position of the neutral axis (see Fig. 6). 4.3. Naviers diagramsposition of neutral axis In a compressed member, measurements from displacement sensors give the length variation and, therefore, the strains at many points. The strain

A. Si-Larbi et al. / Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174 Table 5 Beams materials strain values for several level of loading Beam 1 Upper strain value (lm/m) Cracking 233 Yielding 1540 Failure 2470 Rebars strains (lm/m) Cracking Yielding Failure 200 2850 14600 Beam 2 254 2310 3260 287 2870 12500 Beam 3 212 1810 3160 160 2910 13500 Beam 4 229 2780 3400 147 2820 3540 Beam 5 236 1990 3470 382 2930 13100

169

Fig. 6. Calculated curvature.

measurements from the extreme compressive ber and reinforcing bars allow for the development of Navier diagrams. These diagrams provide the opportunity to determine the bending curvature and the position of the neutral axis according to the applied load. A comparison of the bending of the upper and lower parts of the beam allows for the verication of the assumptions that initially plane sections remain so and that there is no sliding between the two levels of reinforcement and the concrete. In fact, it is possible to calculate the curvature and the neutral axis position using relation 1 and 2 (Fig. 7). v etopfiber h zu 1

1 zu e h v

With v the curvature and zu the position of the neutral axis compared to the top of the beam, h the height of the beam, and e strain of the top ber. The neutral axis position (zu)) and the bending value (v) are, thus, obtained from the diagrams plotted for each load (Fig. 8ad). The experimental strain plot is linear through the depth of the beam, conrming that the beam shows ideal bending behaviour. For each beam, the bending is identical in the compressive and tensile regions of the beam, verifying that the classic hypotheses of perfect bond between concrete and rein-

forcement are not thrown into doubt when the mixed reinforcing bars (steelCFRP) or short metallic ber HPC are used. The curvature of beam 2 follows that of beams 1 and 3 up to 30 kN m (corresponding to 52.2 kN). Above this value the curvature of the FRHPC (beam 2) increases more rapidly than that of the HPC beams without short metallic bers and of the HPFRC beams with mixed reinforcement (beams 35). This can be explained by the low position (lower than in the other cases) of the neutral axis of beam 2 denoted by zu (zu, Fig. 8). This position stabilizes rapidly at about 146 mm for the rst HPRC beam. This phenomenon is due to the brittle concrete behavior in tension, which allows cracks to grow quickly. In this situation, the equilibrium of the beam is ensured by the steel reinforcement and the concrete compressive zone. The behaviours of Beams 2, 3, 4 and 5 dier from that of beam 1. The behaviour of the tensed FRHP concrete is more ductile; the crack propagation is controlled by short metallic bers and reinforcement rebars and the neutral axis position is modied. The neutral axis position stabilizes itself to a position of 166 mm when the value of the load is 70 kN. The metallic bers are therefore particularly ecient and contribute to the lowering of the neutral axis position. Their eect on the exural bending behaviour of the beam will be analysed next. It is important to highlight that the ultimate loads achieved in testing t with the design value for beam 1, however, they are lower in the cases of the HPFRC beams. The conventional

170
250

A. Si-Larbi et al. / Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174

250
510 daN 1000 daN 2500 daN 3000 daN 4500 daN 5000 daN 5500 daN 6000 daN 7000 daN 8000 daN 9000 daN 10000 daN 11000 daN 12000 daN 13000 daN 14000 daN 15000 daN

Beams depth (mm)

200

200
510 daN 1010 daN 2500 daN 3000 daN 4470 daN 5000 daN 6000 daN 11900 daN 7000 daN 9000 daN 10100 daN 13000 daN 14000 daN

Beam depth (mm)

150

150

100

100

50

50

0 -1.5 (a) Beam 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5

0 0 0.5

strain (m/m)
250
280 560 770 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 17000 18000

(b) Beam 2

Strain (m/m)
250
280 560 770 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 17000 18000

Beams depth [mm]

200

150

Beam depth [mm]

200

150

100

100

50

50

0 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

-1.5

-1.3

-1.1

-0.9

-0.7

-0.5

-0.3

0 -0.1

0.1

0.3

(c) Beam 3

Strain (m/m)

(d) Beam 4
250

Strain (m/m)

200

Beam detph (mm)

150

100

10 kN 20 kN 40 kN 100 kN 80 kN 100 kN 120 kN 140 kN 160 kN 180 kN 220 kN

50

0 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0

(e) Beam 5

Strain (m/m)
Fig. 7. Navier diagram.

equilibrium of the section should be reconsidered. Indeed, the position of the calculated neutral axis does not take into account the tensile behaviour of the short-ber reinforced concrete, which modies the position of the neutral axis. 4.4. Failure mode and cracking pattern of the beams Beam 1 exhibits behaviour that is quasi linear with a short ductility; its failure results from the yielding of the steel rebar. The actual compressive stress at the top con-

crete ber is about 50% of the ultimate compressive concrete stress. During loading, regularly spaced vertical cracks are observed for beam 1. On the contrary Beam 2 does not present any shear cracking pattern. A high number of cracks do not reach the position of the tensile steel (Fig. 9c and d). The location of the cracks, conrms that the position of the neutral axis is lower than for beam 1. The number of cracks with a smaller spacing (35 cm) is higher. The failure occurs in the tensile zone following the appearance of one macro crack at midspan in the central zone of constant moment. This

A. Si-Larbi et al. / Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174

171

Fig. 8. Neutral axis position in function of loading.

Fig. 9. Evolution of beam cracking.

macro crack occurs when the lower level of reinforcement fails. In this case, the concrete strain reaches 80% of its ultimate value. The reinforcement failure causes a drop in load until a value of 100 kN, where the load is maintained under the crack-bridging eect of the metallic bers. The test is then interrupted. The same observations are made for beam 3, with the crack height corresponding to a higher neutral axis position. The crack number is larger than for the beam 1 but crack openings are smaller. The area decrease in the compressive zone for beam 4 makes it possible to obtain a concrete compressive failure of the beam. In this case, HPFRC is able to achieve its maximum level of performance. It is then possible to look for an optimised area in which compressive failure of the concrete and yielding of the reinforcement occur simulta-

neously. This is obtained with beam 5. In conclusion, the ductility and the failure mode of the HPFRC beam can be tailored by a suitable design (reinforcement ratio, geometry. . .).

5. Analysis 5.1. Inuence of the mixed reinforcement As mentioned before, the behaviour of beams 25 are dierent. For beams 3 and 5, in comparison with beam 1, the yield load is 30% higher and the failure load is increased by 50% and the neutral axis position shifts upward by 25 mm. These modications are essentially the consequence of the use of mixed reinforcing bars.

172

A. Si-Larbi et al. / Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174

In order to understand the origin of these changes, it is necessary to compare the tensile reinforcement sections of each beam. The variation of the neutral axis position between beams 2 and 3 can be understood by the dierence in the reinforcement ratio of the tensile reinforcing bars. The reinforcement area of beams 1 and 2 is 1256.6 mm2 (4 HA 20) for an equivalent trussing area of 1101.07 mm2 (equivalent section with a steelcomposite Youngs modulus equivalence coecient of 4) for beams 3, 4 and 5. This results in an eective decrease of the tensile reinforcement ratio of 12.4%. The tensile area of the section is reduced. Thus to satisfy equilibrium, the neutral axis is shifted toward the top of the beam The compression concrete is then less stressed allowing for the reduction of the upper ber strains at equal loads. Moreover, the tensile strength of the lower level CFRP reinforcement in the mixed reinforced beams (210) is approximately 1900 MPa compared to 570 MPa for the steel rebar of beams 1 and 2. When the upper level reinforcement of the beam is yielded, the CFRP bars continue to show resistance, thus, increasing the section resisting moment. The failure load is therefore increased by 50%. It is therefore possible to conclude that the interaction between CFRP and steel reinforcement allows for signicant modication of the structural behaviour by increasing the ductility, the range of pseudo-elastic behaviour and the failure load. 5.2. Inuence of the short metallic bers on the beam mechanical behavior This experimental study allowed for conrmation that sections that are plane remain so during bending. The strain distribution is linear through the entire depth of the beam. Due to the almost elastic character of the HPC, a triangular distribution of stresses is considered for the compressive zone (Fig. 10). The tensile stresses are divided between the steel and concrete. The distribution of the ber reinforced tensile concrete stresses complies with technical and scientic documents of the

AFGC [10]. The reinforced concrete section is balanced if the sum of internal forces is equal to zero. The force taken by the FRHRPC can be calculated using Eq. (3). The external moments must be equal to the sum of the compression concrete moment (Mc), tensile reinforcement steel moment (Ms1 and Ms2) and ber moments (Mf). N f N c N s1 N s2 M sd M c M s1 M f M s2 3 4

For every value of loading and increment of curvature, knowledge of the constitutive law of the concrete in compression, makes it possible to calculate the corresponding moment (Mc). Z zu Z zu Erc v z2 dz rc z dz bw M c bw 0 0 Z zu 2 Erc z dz 5 bw v
0

Knowing the experimental curvature and the material stressstrain relation, it is possible to calculate, for each value of loading, applying an iterative calculation process (Fig. 11), the corresponding values of the internal moments relating to the equilibrium of the section (Eqs. (6)(8); Fig. 12). M s1 As1 rs1 d 1 z As1 Es rs es1 d 1 z As1 Es rs v d 1 z2 M s2 As2 rs2 d 2 z As2 Es rs es2 d 2 z As2 Es rs v d 2 z
2

The moment undertaken by the short ber reinforced concrete is calculated using an expression proposed by Rilem recommendations [10] (Eq. (8)). Z h M f bw rf z dz
hzu 2

a h bw w0

Z

w0

 rf 1 w dw

with a the height of the crack, w0 the maximum opening of the crack under an increment of loading, b, h the

bw

c
P M sd(P)

zu d2 h As2 As1 s z d1

zu

s1 = f(P) s2 = f(P)

zu = f(P)

= f(P)

FAs1 .h f FAs2 z
Mc M S1 M S2 M f = f(P)

Mf = Msd (Mc + Ms1 + Ms 2 )

Fig. 10. Strain and stress distribution in an FRHPC beam.

Fig. 11. Internal moment calculation process.

A. Si-Larbi et al. / Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174

120 100 80

173

Beam internal moment (kN)

60 40 20 0 0 -20 -40 -60 -80

Beam 1 concrete Beam 1 steel rebars Beam 2 steel rebars Beam 2 concrete Beam 3 steel rebars Beam 3 concrete Beam 4 steel rebars Beam 4 concrete Beam 5 concrete Beam 5 rebars

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Load (daN)
Fig. 12. Internal moment value in function of loading.

Beam external moment (kN.m)

width and height of the beam, rf the tensile stress in the concrete. Calculating the moment taken by the bers requires knowledge of crack opening values (w), and traction stress developed in the tensile concrete (rf). It is also possible to calculate, for every increment of loading, this value by subtracting from the external moment the sum of internal moments, that is to say M f M sd M c M s1 M s2 9 Indeed, the sum of the total internal moments is equal to the external moments for the beam in FRHPC (Fig. 13). This dierence corresponds to the value of the moment undertaken by the short metallic bers (see Fig. 14). It is important to observe the linear increase in the moment corresponding to progressive cracking of the

120

100

80

60

40
Beam 2 Beam 3 Beam 4 Beam 5

20

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Tense metallic short fibers moment (KN.m)

Fig. 14. Tense steel bers concrete moment in function of external moment.

120

Beam external moment (KN.m)

100

80

60

40

Beam 1 Beam 2 Beam 3 Beam 4 Beam 5

20

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Beam internal moment (KN.m)

Fig. 13. External moment in function of internal moment.

concrete. The signicant dierences between the two curves (beams 2 and 3) are explained by the dierence of the neutral axis position, in the case of beam 3, the lever arm of the equivalent stress carried by the tensile ber reinforced concrete is larger, the moment it carries is thus higher. On the other hand, a dierence also exists in the ultimate moment carried by the beams. Beam 2 reaches a maximum value of 200 kN m when the steel yields, the crack opening depends therefore only on the bers. Whereas, for beam 3, the brous CFRP reinforcing bars (non-yielding material) control the crack opening, and the moment taken by the bers continues to increase (Fig. 13). The cracking mechanisms are dierent. It is important to keep in mind that the moment taken by the bers acting in tension represents, at the failure, 10% of the applied moment value.

174

A. Si-Larbi et al. / Composite Structures 74 (2006) 163174

6. Conclusion The tests on beams carried out in this study describe the possibility of using high performance ber reinforced concretes for reinforced concrete structures. The main assumptions of steel reinforced concrete design may be applied to this kind of structure. First, it is shown that CFRPsteel mixed rebars (in the elastic stage) are able to maintain a bending stiness comparable to the beams reinforced by traditional steel reinforcement. A 50% increase in the failure load is observed. Second, it is shown that the presence of the metallic bers contributes signicantly to internal section equilibrium, the brous concrete contributing 10% the sum of internal moments from the tensile region. The tensile stress taken by the bers lowers the neutral axis position. The lever arm of the force taken by the steel rebar is smaller whereas, the moment undertaken by the concrete in compression is increased. Moreover, it is important to notice that the metallic bers allow for the exclusion of all transverse reinforcement in the shear zone. Finally, the results of this study conrm the potential of this type of structure. In fact, using a standard concrete (fc28 = 40 MPa), a section of 190 315 mm2 is needed in order to reach an ultimate moment of 115 kN m (beams 1, 2 and 4) and a section of 210 350 mm2 in order to reach 150 kN m (beam 3). The use of the ber reinforced HPC in association with mixed steel/CFRP reinforcing bars allows for the reduction of structural weight by 48%. The material performance allows design with optimized sections that show improved performance and lighter weight.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thanks the Lafarge societies (LCR) and Etandex for their technical support and the supplies of the materials having permitted to achieve this program of research. References
[1] Rossi P. Ultra-high bre reinforced concretes (HPFRC): an overview. In: Proceeding of the Fifth International Rilem Symposium, PRO 15, Rilem Publications, 2001. p. 87100. [2] De Larrard F, Le Roy F. Relation entre formulation et quelques proprietes mecaniques des BHP. Mater Construct 1992;25:46475. [3] Richard P. Reactive powder concrete: a new ultra-high-strength cementitious material. In: 4th International Symposium on Utilisation of High-strength/high performance Concrete, Paris; 1996. [4] Chanvillard G. Characterisation of bre reinforced concrete mechanical properties: a review. In: Proceeding of the Fifth International Rilem Symposium, PRO 15, Rilem Publications, 2001. p. 2950. [5] Hu C, Casanova P, Delalande F. Mix design of very high strength steel ber reinforced concrete VMS SFRC for tunnel liner. In: Proceeding of the Fifth International Rilem Symposium, PRO 15, Rilem Publications, 2001. p. 12938. [6] Atcin PC, Richard P. The pedestrian/bikeway bridge of Sher brooke. In: Proceeding of 4th International Symposium on Utilisation of High-strength/high performance Concrete, Paris; 1996. [7] Casanova P, Rossi P, Scaaller I. Can steel bers replace transverse reinforcement in reinforced concrete beams. ACI Mater J 1997;94(5):34154. [8] Qian C, Patnaikuni I. Properties of high-strength steel berreinforced concrete beams in bending. Cement Concrete Compos 1999;21:7381. [9] Ashour S, Wafa FF. Flexural behaviour of high-strength ber reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J 1993;90(3):79287. [10] Final recommendations of Rilem TC 162-TDF. Mater Struct 2003;36:5607.