International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)

ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-3, Issue-2, February 2016

Effect of GFRP Wraps on HSC Columns

Strengthened with GFRP with Different Steel Ratio
Dr. Eiad Hafiz. Zahran
increasingly being used for external reinforcement of existing
Abstract Experimental investigation was conducted to study concrete structures.
the pure compression and ductility behavior of high-strength
concrete (HSC) columns strengthened with glass fiber There is limited information on strengthening members with
reinforced polymers (GFRP) having different stirrup spacing
fiber-reinforced-polymers (FRP) in the literature and all of
and different main steel ratio.
A total of twenty four columns were tested. The variables of
them have been carried out on strengthening of normal
this research are spacing of main stirrups, percentage of main strength concrete columns. The lack of experimental and
steel and number of layers of (GFRP). The experimental analytical studies in this field led to the present study on the
program includes testing of two main groups (G1 and G2). Ductility behavior of reinforced concrete columns repaired
Group G1 consists of three groups of columns (H1,H2 and with GFRP sheets.
H3), each group consists of four columns (medium scale
specimens), all specimens with overall length 1200mm, columns II. TEST PROGRAM
are square with a dimensional 120 mm and main steel (46).The
considered parameters were the number of layers (1-without The experimental program included testing of two main
layer, 2-one layer, 3-two layers). Variable stirrup spacing, the groups each group consists of three Groups; each group
spacing of stirrup reinforcement was [1) without stirrups, 2) 500 contains typical four HSC columns.
mm, 3) 300 mm, 4) and 200 mm]. The reinforcement details of the tested specimens are shown
Group G2 consists of three groups of RC columns (C1, C2 and in Fig. (1) and Fig. (2), the details of specimens'
C3), and each group consists of four RC columns with spacing reinforcement were according to Egyptian code.
between stirrups are 200mm. the main variable between each
group is number of layer (without layer, one layer, two layers).
For columns each group consists of variable ratio of main steel,
The compressive strength of the used concrete was about 75
the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement were [0% (without main N/mm2. The steel used was grade 37 normal mild bars. In
steel), 0.785% (46), 1.09% (26 + 28), and 1.395% (48)]. each main groups, groups (H1 and C1), Four specimens were
Four columns without GFRP were assigned as control retrofitted by using one layer of (GFRP) and another groups
columns in each main group and the rest were strengthened (H2 and C2), Four specimens were retrofitted by two layers of
using GFRP sheets. In this study, different wrap configurations (GFRP) , and the third groups (H3 and C3) contains four
and the effect of different numbers of GFRP plies. Investigation specimens were a control specimen. They had been tested
into ductility using two different concepts showed enhancement under vertical loading, as will be explained later.
in the behavior of strengthened columns with GFRP. The
High-strength concrete is used for the tested specimens. The
experimental results were compared with the results from
analytical methods.
concrete mix is designed to achieve a target compressive
strength of 75N/mm2 after 28 days. The mix proportions are
given in table (1).
Index Terms Columns, GFRP, strengthened, stirrups.
Table (1): Concrete mix properties

I. INTRODUCTION Constituents Contents(kg/m3) Proportions

Deterioration of reinforced concrete structures, due either to Cement 520 1.00

corrosion of the reinforcement bars or to the continual 545 1.048
upgrading of service loads (for example, increase in the traffic Sand
load on abridge) has resulted in a large number of structures Crushed dolomite 550 1.058
requiring repairing or strengthening. grade(1)
Crushed stone 550 1.58
Various methods are available to repair or strengthen such grade(2)
structures. External bonding of composite materials to Super plasticizer 6.6 0.0127
deficient or damaged reinforced concrete structures is one Silica fume 14.85 0.0286
type of strengthening methods. Because GFRP materials are Water 198 0.381
non-corrosive, non-magnetic, resistant to various types of
chemicals, high in strength, and lightweight, they are Table (2) shows the results of the compression test
conducted on the concrete. Slump test is performed on fresh
concrete according to ASTM C143 90a .Compressive
strength tests are performed on standard cubes 15.8x 15.8
Dr. Eiad Hafiz. Zahran, Lecturer, Department of structural
Engineering, Higher institute of engineering and technology, New Cairo
x15.8 cm at age7 and 28 days respectively.The main
Academy, Egypt.

8 www.ijeas.org
 Effect of GFRP Wraps on HSC Columns Strengthened with GFRP with Different Steel Ratio

mechanical properties of reinforced steel are shown in Table 7. In all cases, the outside layer was extended by an overlap
(3). of 100 mm to ensure the development of full composite
Table (2): Recorded Cube strength results strength.
Loading setup and Testing Procedure
Time days After 7 days After 28 days All columns are tasted to failure in uniaxial compression
Strength N/mm2 38.9 75.4 using compression testing machine with 200 tons capacity.
The upper head was fitted with spherical seat. The end surface
Table (3): Mechanical properties of reinforcing steel of the columns is capped using non-shrink grout to ensure
Property 6mm parallel and smooth surfaces. Care is taken to load the
columns axially and to reduce any possible bending of the
Yield strength (kg/mm2) 31.8 columns.
Ultimate strength (kg/mm2) 47.7 In order to force the failure in the tested region (middle
Elongation percent (%) 26.6 third of the columns), additional confinement is provided to
the upper and lower 10cm sections by one layer of G FRP
Table (4): Technical data of GFRP. before testing for all columns.
Fiber type E-Glass fibers
Fiber orientation 0:(unidirectional).The fabric
is equipped with special weft
fibers which prevent
loosening of the roving (heat
sat process)
Arial weight 430g/m2
Fabric design 0.17mm (based on total area
thickness of glass fibers)
Tensile strength of 2250 N/mm2
fibers
Tensile E- modulus 70000 N/mm2
of
Strain at failure of 3.1 %
fibers
Fabric length per roll >50m
Fabric width 300/600 mm
Shelf life Unlimited
Packing 1 roll in card board box

Table (5): Mechanical properties of resins

Flexu Flexu Elong Tensil
Comp
ral ral e Tensile Glass Types of
streng
modul streng modul strength conte polyeste
th
us th (M (%) us (MPa) nt (%) r
(Mpa)
(Gpa) P a) (Gpa)
Orthoph
_ 6.9 220 1.7 5.5 150 40
thalic

Isophtha
210 7.6 240 2 11.7 190 40
lic

Vinyl
120 9 220 _ 11.5 160 40
ester

III. STRENGTHINING PROCEDURE

1. The column surface was prepared by grinding, followed
by compressed air to remove all loose particles and dust.
2. The resin matrix was prepared by mixing the resin and
hardener.
3. An undercoat of resin was applied first to the column
surface using a paint brush , taking care to fill in all voids.
4. The GFRP wrap was applied through one circumference,
pressing firmly down with a rag until the resin was squeezed
out between the roving to remove all air bubbles.
5. As a covering layer an overcoat of resin was applied. This
also served as an undercoat for the following layer.
6. Steps 4 and5 were repeated for the following layers,

9 www.ijeas.org
 International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)
ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-3, Issue-2, February 2016

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

After the peak of each cycle, the specimens was tested
gradually till failure load to provide necessary information
required for defining the failure mechanism of each specimen,
Fig. (3,4) show the mode of failure of same specimens. Table Fig. (4): Two layers specimen
(6,7) shows the recorded test results.
Table (6): Recorded test results of group G1
Specime Spacin Failur Failu Failu
ns g of e Load re Load re Load
Stirrups (ton) (ton) (ton)
mm Contr 1 2
ol Layer Layer

Sp. 1 withou 48 53 67
t
Sp. 2 500 50 54 74
Sp. 3 300 51 59 75
Sp. 4 200 53 64 78

Table (7): Recorded test results of group G2

Specime % of Failu Failu Failu
ns Main re Load re re
Steel (ton) Load Load
Contr (ton) (ton)
ol 1 2
Layer Layer
Sp. 1 0% 46 53 69
Sp. 2 0.785 49 55 72
%
Sp. 3 1.09 52 56 74
%
Sp. 4 1.395 53 61 78
%
Fig. (3): Control

10 www.ijeas.org
 Effect of GFRP Wraps on HSC Columns Strengthened with GFRP with Different Steel Ratio

Fig.(7): Recorded test results in group G2

Fig.(5): charts of test results of group G1

Fig. (8): Comparison between tested specimens in Group G2

Table (9): Percentage of gain strength in group G2

0% 0.785% 1.09% 1.4%
1 layer 19.3% 21.9% 24.2% 28.6%
from non
2 layers 36.8% 40.6% 45.5% 45.7%
from non
2 layers 14.7% 9.8% 17.1% 13.3%
from one
layer

Fig.(6): comparison between tested specimens in group G1

Table (8): Percentage of gain strength in group G1

No 500mm 300m
200mm sp.
stirrup sp. m sp.
1 layer from non 20% 20% 18% 18%
2 layers from non 24% 27% 31% 36%
2 layers from one
3% 5% 10% 15%
layer Fig. (9): percentage of gain strength of group G2

11 www.ijeas.org
 International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)
ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-3, Issue-2, February 2016
V. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS Table (13): Comparison Results of group G2
The equation of calculating ultimate load of columns in Failure Load Failure Load Failure Load
Stirrup
ordinary concrete is not compatible with HSC because of Specim
spacing'
(ton) (ton) (ton)
ens
brittleness of HSC, so we suggest equation s mm
Pu = 0.44 fcuc Ac + fy Asc Control 1 Layer 2 Layer

The percentage of stirrups was not taken into consideration Exp. Th. Exp. Th. Exp. Th.
in formula which means that, the calculated values were
Sp. 1 0% 46 47.52 53 49.58 69 54.33
constant for all specimens as shown in table (10).
The factor 0.44 instead of 0.67 is suggested by trials and Sp. 2 0.785 49 51.08 55 53.14 72 57.89
checked by applied this equation to all tested specimens of 1.09% 52 52,48 56 54.54 74 59.29
Sp. 3
HSC. The factor 0.44 instead of 0.67 is suggested by trials and
checked by applied this equation to all tested specimens of Sp. 4 1.40% 53 53.85 61 55.91 78 60.66
HSC.
Ac = 120 x 120 = 14400 mm2 VI. CONCLUSIONS
Fy = 240 N/mm2
Asc = Zero , 113 mm2 , 157 mm2 , 201 mm2
1. Using of FRP for columns repair increase their strength
fcuc = fcu [2.25 (1 + 9.875 f1/fcu) 2.5 f1/fcu 1.25]
even if there are no stirrups.
fcu = 75 N/mm2
2. The effect of column FRP reinforcement is rather limited
f1 = ke ( f Ef fe / 2 f )
in one layer.
f = 1.3
3. Using of one layer increase the strength by overall 20%.
fe = 0.75 fu 0.004
4. Using of two layers increase the strength by overall 30%.
Ef = 70000 N/mm2
5. The gain strength by using two layers addition the one
f = 2 n tf (b + t) / b t
layer is 10%
b = t = 120 mm
tf = 0.17mm 6. Theoretical analysis is compatible with experimental
n=1,2 results.
ke = 1 {[(b 2 rc) + (t-2 rc)] / [3 (b x t)(1- s)]}
rc = 10 mm REFERENCES
s = 0% , 0.785% , 1.09% , and 1.395%
[1] ACI committee 315, (1984,1951,1957,1965,1974), manual of
Table (10): Theoretical results of group G1 standard practice for detailing reinforced concrete structures,
American concrete institute, Detroit MI.
Specimens Stirrup Failure Failure Failure [2] Eun Suk Choi, Jung Woo Lee, Seong Jun Kim, Jong Won Kwark, A
spacing's Load Load Load Study on the Bond Strength between High Performance Concrete
mm (ton) (ton) (ton) and Reinforcing Bar, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and
Control 1 2 Building Technology, Goyang, Republic of Korea,2015
Layer Layer [3] Longer shentu, "behavior of strengthened reinforced concrete beam
Sp. ----- 51.08 53.14 57.89 column joints.
[4] Wael M. E. Montaser, Mohamed E. Issa, Akram M. Torkey, Amr H.
A. Zaher, "Seismic behavior of reinforced medium and high strength
Table (11): Theoretical results of group G2 concrete beam column connections", Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of
Specimens % of Failure Failure Failure engineering, Cairo university in 2004.
Main Load Load Load [5] Yehia Mohamed Abd-Elmagid, Abdel-Rahman S. Bazaraa, Hamdy
H. Shaheen. Osman M. O. Ramadan. "Seismic behavior of
Steel (ton) (ton) (ton)
strengthed reinforced concrete columns", Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of
Control 1 2 engineering, Cairo University in 1999.
Layer Layer [6] Oliveto, G., Granata, M., Buda, G. and Sciacca, P. (2004b).
0% 47.52 49.58 54.33 Preliminary Results from Full-Scale Free Vibration Tests on a Four
Sp. 1
Storey Reinforced Concrete Building after Seismic Rehabilitation by
Sp. 2 0.785% 51.08 53.14 57.89 Base Isolation, Proceedings of the JSSI 10th Anniversary
Sp. 3 1.09% 52,48 54.54 59.29 Symposium on Performance of Response Controlled Buildings,
Yokohama, Japan, Paper No. 7-2
Sp. 4 1.395% 53.85 55.91 60.66

COMPARISON BETWEEN TH. AND EXP. RESULTS

Table (12): Comparison Results of group G1
Failure Load Failure Load Failure Load
Stirrup
Specime (ton) (ton) (ton)
spacing'
ns
s mm
Control 1 Layer 2 Layer

Exp. Th. Exp. Th. Exp. Th.

Sp. 1 ----- 48 51.08 53 53.14 67 57.89

Sp. 2 500 50 51.08 54 53.14 74 57.89

Sp. 3 300 51 51.08 59 53.14 75 57.89

Sp. 4 200 53 51.08 64 53.14 78 57.89

12 www.ijeas.org