32 views

Uploaded by liviubbcel

Profile metalice

- Life Prediction of Composite Armor in an Unbonded Flexible Pipe
- Rapid industrialization and population explosion in various parts of the especially developing country like India has led to the migration of people from villages to cities,which generate thousands tons of municipal solid waste daily,which is one of the important contributors for environmental degradation at national level. Municipal solid waste causes various hazards to inhabitants due to improper management. The energy crisis and environmental degradation are currently two important issues for global su stainable development. The proper management of municipal solid waste requires infrastructure,maintenance and upgrade for all activities. The municipal solid waste management system comprises with generation,storage,collection,transfer and transport,p rocessing and disposal of solid wastes. In the present work,a comprehensive study has been made to provide a review of MSW management to evaluate the current status of waste to energy facilities for sustainable management,which will be h
- Thesis FRP.pdf
- IRJET-Progressive Damage Analysis of E-Glass Epoxy Composite Laminates
- w10_borri New Materials for Strengthening and Seismic Upgrading Interventions FRP
- Oportunities in Composites
- JART10-2012 Design of a Composite Drive Shaft and Its Coupling for Automotive Application
- Composite Materials Market
- A Dvanced Composite Materials for Strengthening Blast Protection for Strengthening , Blast Protection and Seismic Protection
- STRUCTURAL RETROFITTING.pdf
- Frp Ndt Insp
- Gay Composite Materials 3edition
- Norme - Astm - d 3846 - 02
- 482
- Fiber Reinforced Polymer types
- Composite Materials_1490975998311
- 6
- Perform Components and Elements
- FRP-strengthened RC Slabs Anchored With FRP Anchors
- Tensile & Flexural Properties of Banboo Fibre-Epoxy Green Composites

You are on page 1of 103

TRIANTAFILLOU

UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

STRUCTURAL MATERIALS LABORATORY

RETROFITTING OF REINFORCED

CONCRETE STRUCTURES WITH

FIBER-REINFORCED POLYMERS (FRP)

PATRAS, GREECE

2005

iii

CONTENTS

page

PREFACE

CONTENTS

iii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1

General

1.2

2.1

Materials

2.1.1

General

2.1.2

Fibers

2.1.3

Matrix

2.1.4

Composite materials

Example 2.1

2.1.5

2.2

2.3

Adhesives

9

10

Strengthening systems

11

2.2.1

11

2.2.2

Prefabricated elements

12

13

15

3.1

General

15

3.2

15

3.2.1

15

3.2.2

17

3.2.3

17

3.3

17

3.3.1

General, behavior

17

3.3.2

Analytical model

19

Example 3.1

20

iv

page

CHAPTER 4 FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

21

4.1

General

21

4.2

Initial situation

22

4.3

23

4.4

25

4.4.1

25

4.4.2

27

4.5

Ductility considerations

30

4.6

31

4.7

Example

32

4.8

34

4.9

Columns

35

39

5.1

General

39

5.2

41

5.3

44

Example 5.1

45

Example 5.2

47

Example 5.3

47

Beam-column joints

48

5.4

CHAPTER 6 CONFINEMENT

51

6.1

General

51

6.2

52

6.2.1

Behavior

52

6.2.2

Design model

54

6.3

6.4

6.5

Example 6.1

58

58

Example 6.2

63

Lap-splices

64

6.4.1

64

Example 6.3

66

6.4.2

67

Rebar buckling

68

Example 6.4

69

page

6.6

69

71

7.1

General

71

7.2

Detailing

71

7.2.1

Flexural strengthening

71

7.2.2

Shear strengthening

73

7.2.3

Confinement

74

7.3

Practical execution

76

CHAPTER 8 DURABILITY

79

8.1

General

79

8.2

Temperature effects

79

8.3

Moisture

79

8.4

UV light exposure

80

8.5

80

8.6

Galvanic corrosion

81

8.7

81

8.8

Fatigue

81

8.9

Impact

82

REFERENCES

83

87

vi

PREFACE

Reinforced Concrete Structures with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (in Greek), published in 2003,

and covers basic design aspects of strengthening and seismic retrofitting of concrete with

advanced composite materials. This relatively new strengthening/retrofitting technique offers, in

many cases, several advantages compared with traditional techniques, but is rather unknown to

many designers, especially with respect to the relevant calculations. It is this gap that the present

document intents to fill, through explanatory text (including simple examples) and a simple to use

software package Composite Dimensioning described in the Appendix and included in the

accompanied CD.

ii

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

The issue of upgrading the existing civil engineering infrastructure has been one of

great importance for over 15 years or so. Deterioration of bridge decks, beams, girders

and columns, buildings, parking structures and others may be attributed to ageing,

environmentally induced degradation, poor initial design and/or construction, lack of

maintenance, and to accidental events such as earthquakes.

The infrastructures

increasing decay is frequently combined with the need for upgrading so that structures

can meet more stringent design requirements (e.g. increased traffic volumes in bridges

exceeding the initial design loads), and hence the aspect of civil engineering

infrastructure renewal has received considerable attention over the past few years

throughout the world. At the same time, seismic retrofit has become at least equally

important, especially in areas of high seismic risk.

Recent developments related to materials, methods and techniques for structural

strengthening and seismic retrofitting have been enormous. One of todays state-of-theart techniques is the use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials or simply

composites, which are currently viewed by structural engineers as new and highly

promising materials in the construction industry. Composite materials for strengthening

of civil engineering structures are available today mainly in the form of: (a) thin

unidirectional strips (with thickness in the order of 1 mm) made by pultrusion, (b) flexible

sheets or fabrics, made of fibers in one or at least two different directions, respectively

(and sometimes pre-impregnated with resin). Central to the understanding of composites

bonded to concrete is the fact that stresses in these materials are carried only by the

fibers, in the respective directions.

The reasons why composites are increasingly used as strengthening materials of

reinforced concrete members may be summarized as follows: immunity to corrosion; low

weight (about of steel), resulting in easier application in confined space, elimination of

the need for scaffolding and reduction in labor costs; very high tensile strength (both

static and long-term, for certain types of FRP materials); stiffness which may be tailored

to the design requirements; large deformation capacity, which results in substantial

member ductility; and practically unlimited availability in FRP sizes and FRP geometry

and dimensions. Composites suffer from certain disadvantages too, which are not to be

T. C. Triantafillou

INTRODUCTION

composites in general are linear elastic to failure (although the latter occurs at large

strains) without any yielding or plastic deformation, leading to reduced (but generally

adequate) ductility. Additionally, the cost of materials on a weight basis is several times

higher than that for steel (but when cost comparisons are made on a strength basis, they

become less unfavorable). Moreover, some FRP materials, e.g. carbon and aramid,

have incompatible thermal expansion coefficients with concrete. Finally, their exposure

to high temperatures (e.g. in case of fire) may cause premature degradation and collapse

(some epoxy resins start softening at about 50-70 oC). Hence FRP materials should not

be thought of as a blind replacement of steel (or other materials) in structural intervention

applications.

potential drawbacks, and final decisions regarding their use should be based on

consideration of several factors, including not only mechanical performance aspects, but

also constructability and long-term durability.

Composites have found their way as strengthening materials of reinforced concrete

(RC) members (such as beams, slabs, columns etc.) in many thousands of applications

worldwide, where conventional strengthening techniques may be problematic (e.g. steel

plating or steel jacketing). For instance, one of the popular techniques for upgrading RC

elements has traditionally involved the use of steel plates epoxy-bonded to the external

surfaces (e.g. tension zones) of beams and slabs. This technique is simple and effective

as far as both cost and mechanical performance is concerned, but suffers from several

disadvantages (Meier 1987): corrosion of the steel plates resulting in bond deterioration;

difficulty in manipulating heavy steel plates in tight construction sites; need for

scaffolding; and limitation in available plate lengths (which are required in case of flexural

strengthening of long girders), resulting in the need for joints. Replacing the steel plates

with FRP strips provides satisfactory solutions to the problems described above. Another

common technique for the strengthening of RC structures involves the construction of

reinforced concrete (either cast in-place or shotcrete) jackets (shells) around existing

elements. Jacketing is clearly quite effective as far as strength, stiffness and ductility is

concerned, but it is labour intensive, it often causes disruption of occupancy and it

provides RC members, in many cases, with undesirable weight and stiffness increase.

Jackets may also be made of steel; but in this case protection from corrosion is a major

issue, as is the rather poor confining characteristics of steel-jacketed concrete. The

conventional jackets may be replaced with FRP in the form of sheets or fabrics wrapped

around RC members, thus providing substantial increase in strength (axial, flexural,

shear, torsional) and ductility without much affecting the stiffness.

T. C. Triantafillou

INTRODUCTION

In this document the aim is to give an overview of the main applications of

composites as externally bonded reinforcement (EBR) of concrete structures and to

present guidelines for the design. Following a general description of materials and

techniques related to the application of composites as external reinforcement of

concrete members in Chapter 2, the document contains several chapters, with each of

them devoted to one particular aspect of strengthening with externally bonded FRP.

Chapter 3 deals with the basis of design with FRP and the three following chapters deal

with the design and structural behaviour of concrete members strengthened in flexure

(Chapter4), shear (Chapter 5) as well as through confinement (Chapter 6). Naturally,

these chapters are followed by detailing and practical execution rules (Chapter 7) and

various issues regarding environmental effects and durability (Chapter 8).

The

Appendix describes the use of the program Composite Dimensioning for the

dimensioning of RC members strengthened in flexure, shear or through confinement.

T. C. Triantafillou

INTRODUCTION

T. C. Triantafillou

CHAPTER 2

strengthening and on the basic technique for their application.

2.1 Materials

2.1.1 General

The selection of materials for different strengthening systems is a critical process.

Every system is unique in the sense that the fibers and the binder components are

designed to work together. This implies that a binder for one strengthening system will

not automatically work properly for another. Furthermore, a binder for the fibers will not

necessarily provide a good bond to concrete. Hence, only systems that have been

tested extensively on reinforced concrete structures shall be used in strengthening with

composites.

Wet lay-up systems

Systems based on prefabricated elements

Special systems, e.g. automated wrapping, prestressing, near-surface mounted

bars, mechanically attached laminates, etc.

These systems correspond to several manufacturers and suppliers, and are based

on different configurations, types of fibers, adhesives, etc. In the following sections the

three main components, namely adhesives, matrices and fibers of a composite

material strengthening system will be discussed briefly.

2.1.2 Fibers

Fibers have a diameter in the order of 5-25 m and constitute the primary loadcarrying elements (parallel to their axis) in a composite material system. Main properties

of the fibers are the high tensile strength and the linear elastic behavior to failure (Fig.

2.1). Basic properties of the most common fibers used in FRP strengthening systems are

given in Table 2.1 (Feldman 1989, Kim 1995). It should be noted that properties listed in

T. C. Triantafillou

this table correspond to monotonic loading and do not account for environmental

degradation and/or sustained loading effects (see Chapter 8).

(MPa)

6000

High

modulus

Carbon

4000

High

strength

Carbon

Aramid

Glass

2000

Mild steel

0

0

0.04

0.02

Fig. 2.1 Typical uniaxial tension stress-strain diagrams for different fibers and comparison with

steel.

Material

Carbon

High strength

Ultra high strength

High modulus

Ultra high modulus

Glass

E

AR

S

Aramid

Low modulus

High modulus

Elastic modulus

(GPa)

Tensile strength

(MPa)

Ultimate tensile

strain (%)

215-235

215-235

350-500

500-700

3500-4800

3500-6000

2500-3100

2100-2400

1.4-2.0

1.5-2.3

0.5-0.9

0.2-0.4

70-75

70-75

85-90

1900-3000

1900-3000

3500-4800

3.0-4.5

3.0-4.5

4.5-5.5

70-80

115-130

3500-4100

3500-4000

4.3-5.0

2.5-3.5

Carbon fibers are normally either based on pitch or PAN, as raw material. Pitch

fibers are fabricated by using refined petroleum or coal pitch that is passed through a thin

nozzle and stabilised by heating.

carbonised through burning. The pitch base carbon fibers offer general purpose and high

strength/elasticity materials. The PAN-type carbon fibers yield high strength materials

and high elasticity materials. The density of carbon fibers is 1800-1900 kg/m3. Glass

fibers for continuous fiber reinforcement are classified into three types: E-glass fibers, Sglass and alkali resistant AR-glass fibers. E-glass fibers, which contain high amounts of

T. C. Triantafillou

boric acid and aluminate, are disadvantageous in having low alkali resistance. S-glass

fibers are stronger and stiffer than E-glass, but still not resistant to alkali. To prevent

glass fiber from being eroded by cement-alkali, a considerable amount of zircon is added

to produce alkali resistance glass fibers; such fibers have mechanical properties similar

to E-glass. An important aspect of glass fibers is their low cost. The density of glass

fibers is 2300-2500 kg/m3. Aramid fibers were first introduced in 1971, and today are

produced by several manufacturers under various brand names (Kevlar, Twaron,

Technora). The structure of aramid fiber is anisotropic and gives higher strength and

modulus in the fiber longitudinal direction. Aramid fibers respond elastically in tension but

they exhibit non-linear and ductile behaviour under compression; they also exhibit good

toughness, damage tolerance and fatigue characteristics. The density of aramid fibers is

1450 kg/m3.

2.1.3 Matrix

The matrix for a structural composite material is typically a polymer, of

thermosetting type or of thermoplastic type, with the first being the most common one.

Recent developments have resulted in matrices based on inorganic materials) (e.g.

cement-based). The function of the matrix is to protect the fibers against abrasion or

environmental corrosion, to bind the fibers together and to distribute the load. The

matrix has a strong influence on several mechanical properties of the composite, such

as the transverse modulus and strength, the shear properties and the properties in

compression. Physical and chemical characteristics of the matrix such as melting or

curing temperature, viscosity and reactivity with fibers influence the choice of the

fabrication process. Hence, proper selection of the matrix material for a composite

system requires that all these factors be taken into account.

Epoxy resins, polyester, vinylester and phenolics are the most common polymeric

matrix materials used with high-performance reinforcing fibers. They are thermosetting

polymers with good processibility and good chemical resistance.

Epoxies have, in

general, better mechanical properties than polyesters and vinylesters, and outstanding

durability, whereas polyesters and vinylesters are cheaper. Phenolics have a better

behavior at high temperatures.

2.1.4 Composite materials

Advanced composites as strengthening materials consist of a large number of small,

continuous, directionalized, non-metallic fibers with advanced characteristics, bundled in

the matrix (Fig. 2.2).

(carbon fiber based), GFRP (glass fiber based) or AFRP (aramid fiber based); when

T. C. Triantafillou

different types of fibers are used, the material is called hybrid. Typically, the volume

fraction of fibers in advanced composites equals about 50-70% for strips and about 2535% for sheets. Given also that the elastic modulus of fibers is much higher than that of

the matrix, it becomes clear that the fibers are the principal stress bearing components,

while the matrix transfers stresses among fibers and protects them. Different techniques

are used for manufacturing (e.g. pultrusion, hand lay-up), detailed descriptions of which

are outside the scope of this document. As externally bonded reinforcement for the

strengthening of structures, advanced composite materials are made available in various

forms, which are described in Section 2.2.

Matrix

Fiber

Fig. 2.2 Magnified cross section of a composite material with unidirectional fibers.

constituent materials (fibers, matrix) and their volume fractions are known. Details about

the micromechanics of composite materials are not considered here. However, for the

simple yet quite common - case of unidirectional fibers, one may apply the rule of

mixtures simplification as follows:

E f E fib Vfib + E m Vm

(2.1)

f f f fib Vfib + fm Vm

(2.2)

where:

Ef

E fib

Em

Vfib

Vm

ff

T. C. Triantafillou

f fib

fm

At this point we should note that since E fib / E m >>1 and f fib / fm >>1, the above equations

are approximately valid even if the second terms in the right parts are omitted.

In case of prefabricated strips the material properties based on the total crosssectional area can be used in calculations and are usually supplied by the manufacturer.

In case of in-situ resin impregnated systems, however, the final composite material

thickness and with that the fiber volume fraction is uncertain and may vary. For this

reason the properties of the total system (fibers and matrix) and the actual thickness

should be provided based on experimental testing. Note that manufacturers sometimes

supply the material properties for the bare fibers. In this case a property reduction factor

r1 should apply, to be provided by the supplier of the strengthening system. The above is

better explained in the following example.

Example 2.1

Material supplier provides unidirectional carbon sheets, with a weight of 260 g/m2.

Fiber properties are as follows: E fib = 230 GPa, f fib = 3500 MPa. The nominal thickness

of the sheet, t fib , is calculated based on the fiber material density, say fib = 2000 kg/m3,

as follows: fib : fib x t fib = 260, hence t fib = 0.13 mm. We assume that after resin

impregnation, the composite material reaches a thickness of 0.3 mm, implying a

volumetric fraction of fibers equal to Vfib = 0.13/0.3 = 43%. If the tensile strength and the

elastic modulus of the composite material were measured experimentally, the results

would be lower than 0.43x230 GPa and 0.43x3500 MPa, respectively, say by 10%

(hence r1 = 0.9): 89 GPa 1355 Pa. Therefore, the composite material properties to

be used in calculations should be one of the following:

(a) E f = 89 GPa, f f = 1355 MPa, t f = 0.3 mm, or

(b) E f = 0.9x230 GPa, f f = 0.9x3500 MPa, t f = 0.13 mm.

In a real application the amount of impregnating resin could, in general, be different from

that suggested by the supplier, hence the real thickness of the composite will not be

equal to 0.3 mm. But what is of interest in the calculations is typically the product E f t f

or, sometimes, the product f f t f , hence the above two solutions (a) and (b) are

equivalent. The advantage of solution (a) is that the properties provided by the supplier

are quite close to those expected in-situ and the disadvantage is that those properties are

hypothetical. On the other hand, the advantage of solution (b) is that the material

provided by the supplier is accompanied by a set of properties, which could be combine

T. C. Triantafillou

10

with the proper reduction factor (0.9 in our example) to yield the properties of the in-situ

applied composite.

2.1.5 Adhesives

The purpose of the adhesive is to provide a shear load path between the concrete

surface and the composite material, so that full composite action may develop. The

most common type of structural adhesives is epoxy, which is the result of mixing an

epoxy resin (polymer) with a hardener. Other types of adhesives may be based on

inorganic materials (mainly cement-based). Depending on the application demands,

the adhesive may contain fillers, softening inclusions, toughening additives and others.

When using epoxy adhesives there are two different time concepts that need to be

taken into consideration. The first is the pot life and the second is the open time. Pot

life represents the time one can work with the adhesive after mixing the resin and the

hardener before it starts to harden in the mixture vessel; for an epoxy adhesive, it may

vary between a few seconds up to several years. Open time is the time that one can

have at his/her disposal after the adhesive has been applied to the adherents and

before they are joined together.

Glass-like

Rubbery

Viscous flow

Most synthetic adhesives are based on polymeric materials, and as such they exhibit

properties that are characteristic for polymers. Polymers change from relatively hard,

elastic, glass-like to relatively rubbery materials at a certain temperature (Fig. 2.3).

This temperature level is defined as glass transition temperature, and is different for

different polymers.

T. C. Triantafillou

11

Typical properties for cold cured epoxy adhesives used in civil engineering

applications are given in Table 2.2 (fib 2001). For the sake of comparison, the same

table provides information for concrete and mild steel too.

Table 2.2

steel (fib 2001).

Property (at 20 C)

Density (kg/m3)

Elastic modulus (GPa)

Shear modulus (GPa)

Poissons ratio

Tensile strength (MPa)

Shear strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (MPa)

Tensile strain at break (%)

Approximate fracture energy (Jm-2)

Coefficient of thermal expansion (10-6/C)

Water absorption: 7 days - 25 C (% w/w)

Glass transition temperature (C)

Epoxy

adhesive

1100 1700

0.5 - 20

0.2 8

0.3 0.4

9 - 30

10 - 30

55 - 110

0.5-5

200-1000

25 - 100

0.1-3

50 - 80

Concrete

Mild steel

2350

20 - 50

8 - 21

0.2

1-4

2-5

25 - 150

0.015

100

11 - 13

5

---

7800

205

80

0.3

200 - 600

200 - 600

200 - 600

25

105-106

10 - 15

0

---

These

materials are based on cement in combination with other binders (e.g. fly ash, silica

fume, metakaolin), additives (e.g. polymers) and fine aggregates.

adhesive also plays the role of the matrix in the composite material, hence it must be

designed such that compatibility with the fibers (textiles) will be maximized. General

requirements for inorganic binders are high shear (that is tensile) strength, suitable

consistency, low shrinkage and creep and good workability.

constituent materials, the form and the technique of the FRP strengthening. In general,

these can be subdivided into wet lay-up (or cured in-situ) systems and prefab (or

pre-cured) systems. In the following, an overview is given of the different forms of these

systems (e.g. ACI 1996, fib 2001). Basic techniques for FRP strengthening are given in

Section 2.3.

2.2.1 Wet lay-up systems

semi-unidirectional fabric (woven or knitted),

T. C. Triantafillou

12

partially or fully covering the structural element.

Installation on the concrete surface requires

saturating resin usually after a primer has been

applied. Two different processes can be used

. 2.4

- the fabric can be applied directly into the resin which has been applied uniformly

onto the concrete surface

- the fabric can be impregnated with the resin in a saturator machine and then

applied wet to the sealed substrate

knitted), Fig. 2.5, where fibers run in at

least two directions (e.g. 0 and 90 or

axis).

. 2.5

predominantly in one direction. Installation may be done with or without additional

resin.

predominantly in two directions. Installation may be done with or without additional

resin.

Dry fiber tows (untwisted bundles of continuous fibers) that are wound or otherwise

mechanically placed onto the concrete surface. Resin is applied to the fiber during

winding.

Pre-impregnated fiber tows that are wound or otherwise mechanically placed onto

the concrete surface. Product installation may be executed with or without additional

resin.

Pre-manufactured cured straight strips, which are installed through the use of

adhesives. They are typically in the form of thin ribbon strips or grids that may be

delivered in a rolled coil. Normally strips are pultruded. In case they are laminated,

also the term laminate instead of strip may be used.

T. C. Triantafillou

13

Pre-manufactured cured shaped shells, jackets or angles, which are installed through

the use of adhesives. They are typically factory-made curved or shaped elements or

split shells that can be fitted around columns or other elements.

The suitability of each system depends on the type of structure that shall be

strengthened. For example, prefabricated strips are generally best suited for plane and

straight surfaces (e.g. bottom of beams and slabs), whereas sheets or fabrics are more

flexible and can be used to plane as well as to convex surfaces (e.g. sides of beams,

column wrapping).

Hand lay-up of

CFRP strip

Hand lay-up of

carbon fiber sheets

deck using CFRP strips

Column wrapping

using CFRP fabric

Strengthening of cooling tower with carbon fiber sheets

Fig. 2.6 Examples for the application of the basic FRP strengthening technique.

T. C. Triantafillou

14

The basic FRP strengthening technique, which is most widely applied, involves the

manual application of either wet lay-up (so-called hand lay-up) or prefabricated systems

by means of cold cured adhesive bonding. Common in this technique is that the external

reinforcement is bonded onto the concrete surface with the fibres as parallel as

practically possible to the direction of principal tensile stresses. Typical applications of

the hand lay-up and prefabricated systems are illustrated in Fig. 2.6.

Apart from the basic technique there is a number of special techniques with rather

limited applicability: automated wrapping, prestressed FRP, in-situ fast curing using

heating device, near-surface-mounted bars, mechanical fastening etc. The description of

these not so common techniques falls outside the scope of this document.

T. C. Triantafillou

BASIS OF DESIGN

15

CHAPTER 3

BASIS OF DESIGN

3.1 General

The design of RC members strengthened with FRP follows the philosophy of the

relevant design codes (e.g. Eurocodes 2 and 8) and involves the verification for the

ultimate and serviceability limit states, with proper modifications to account for the

contribution of FRP.

This section describes briefly the material constitutive laws in uniaxial loading and

gives data on FRP material safety factors.

3.2.1 Calculation of resistance full composite action

For concrete and steel (existing materials) the design values for strength are

calculated by dividing the representative value of strength Xk with the material safety

factor m . If the limit state verification is performed in terms of strength (forces), as

representative value is taken the mean value divided by a reliability coefficient (1.0, 1.2,

1.35), which depends on the quantity and reliability of available material data. If the

verification is performed in terms of deformations (e.g. displacements, rotations), the

representative value is taken as the mean value. In each of the above cases the safety

factor m ( c and s for concrete and steel, respectively) depends on the level of

reliability for material strength data. For the concrete compressive strength fcd = fck / c ,

where fck = representative strength and c = safety factor for concrete.

For steel

reinforcement fyd = fyk / s , where fyk = representative value of yield stress and s =

safety factor for steel.

The strength of composite materials (added materials) is represented by the

characteristic value if the safety verification is performed in terms of strength, or by the

mean value if the safety verification is performed in terms of deformations.

Their

behavior in uniaxial tension is assumed linear elastic to failure, according to eq. (3.1);

failure is defined at a (design) stress ffd = ffk / f :

f = Ef f

ffd

(3.1)

T. C. Triantafillou

BASIS OF DESIGN

16

strength to ultimate strain, E f = ffk / fuk . The design stress-strain curves for concrete,

steel and FRP are summarized in Fig. 3.1.

r

c

f

ck

c

concrete

FRP

ffd

Ef

Steel

fyd

0.2%

0.35%

. 3.1

yd

fu

At this point we should point out that that the in-situ tensile strength of FRP is lower

than that measured in a uniaxial tension test, due to stress concentrations, complex

multiaxial states of stress, several layers, environmental degradation effects etc.

All

these reduction factors may be taken into account by assuming that FRP reaches failure

at an effective strain fue , which is less than the mean ultimate strain fum determined

through testing. On the basis of the above, the design value of the effective strength for

FRP, ffde , is given as follows:

f fde =

fue f fk

= e f fd

fum f

(3.2)

More details on the effective strain fue will be given in the sections where this strain

plays an important role (e.g. shear strengthening, confinement).

(1)

(2)

FRP type

CFRP

1.20

1.35

AFRP

1.25

1.45

GFRP

1.30

1.50

Application of prefab FRP systems under normal quality control conditions. Application

of wet lay-up systems if all necessary provisions are taken to obtain a high degree of

quality control on both the application conditions and the application process.

Application of wet lay-up systems under normal quality control conditions. Application of

any system under difficult on-site working conditions.

T. C. Triantafillou

BASIS OF DESIGN

17

Values for the FRP material safety factor are suggested in Table 3.1 (fib 2001). Note

that these values are still a topic of current research and are subject to further

refinements.

In many cases fracture of the FRP is not reached due to premature bond failure at

the FRP-concrete interface (see next chapter for details). Debonding is mainly caused

due to high interfacial shear stresses and is observed as shearing through the concrete,

due to the lower strength of the latter compared to that of epoxy resins. When debonding

controls failure, the material safety factor concerns the substrate and should be taken as

f ,b = 1.5.

The elastic modulus of FRP for the serviceability limit state should be taken equal to

that for the ultimate limit state.

The full composite action between FRP and concrete can only be achieved through

high quality epoxy adhesives. Bond failure is a critical phenomenon, which should be

accounted for carefully in the safety verifications. This requires a good understanding of

bond mechanics and the development of appropriate bond modeling, as described in the

following.

The behavior of the bond between externally bonded FRP and concrete can be

analyzed in bond tests, such as the one illustrated in Fig. 3.2, which represents, in a

simplified manner, the state of stress and strain near cracks (see Fig. 3.3). In the vicinity

of cracks (e.g. Fig. 3.3), the FRP carries a tension force N f (Fig. 3.2), which is

transferred through shearing in the substrate.

relationship between the mean shear stress b at the FRP-concrete interface (equal to

Nf / l bb f in Fig. 3.2, where b f the width of FRP) and the slip s f . This relationship

depends on many factors, including the concrete strength, the type of adhesive, the FRP

characteristics (e.g. thickness, elastic modulus) and the bond length. A typical shear

T. C. Triantafillou

BASIS OF DESIGN

18

stress slip curve is plotted in Fig. 3.4, along with others for deformed and smooth steel

rebars, which are provided for the sake of comparison.

Bond length

slip sf

lb

FRP

debonding

adhesive

Nf

concrete

Nc

Nf

Fig. 3.2 Simplified FRP-concrete bond test (e.g. Zilch et al 1998, Bizindavyi and Neale 1999).

crack

propagation

crack propagation

Fig. 3.3 Cracking in RC beam and possible debonding (the arrows indicate the crack

propagation).

10

embedded steel bar

12 mm (deformed)

8

CFRP strip

tf = 1.2 mm

6

4

embedded steel bar

12 mm (smooth)

0

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

slip sf (mm)

Fig. 3.4 (Zilch et al. 1998).

FRP-concrete bond is that FRP fracture rarely precedes debonding. The force in the

T. C. Triantafillou

BASIS OF DESIGN

19

FRP to cause debonding, that is the maximum anchorable force, N fa , increases with the

bond length l b , until this length reaches a limiting value, beyond which the maximum

anchorable force remains practically unchanged, equal to N fa,max (Fig. 3.5).

Nfa,max

Nfa

Bond length l b

l b,max

For FRP-concrete interfaces, the anchorable force bond length relationship shown

in Fig. 3.5 can be described analytically as follows (Holzenkmpfer 1994, Neubauer and

Rostsy 1999):

if l b l b,max :

if l b < l b,max :

Nfa = Nfa,max

lb

l b,max

l b,max =

2 lb

l b,max

Ef t f

c 2 fctm

(mm)

(N)

(3.3a)

(N)

(3.3b)

(3.4)

with

1.125 2 f

b

kb =

b

1+ f

400

(3.5)

equal to 1.0 for normal compaction or equal to 0.67 for poor compaction (e.g. faces not in

contact with the formwork during casting), b f = width of FRP (mm), b = width of RC

T. C. Triantafillou

BASIS OF DESIGN

20

member cross section (mm), fctm = mean tensile strength of concrete (MPa), E f = elastic

modulus of FRP (MPa) and t f = thickness of FRP (mm). Moreover, c1 = 0.64 (or 0.50, if

the characteristic value of N fa,max is to be calculated) and c 2 = 2.0.

In terms of stresses, the above model results in the following equations for the FRP

design stress ( fd = Nfad / b f t f ) corresponding to debonding:

if l b l b,max :

fd =

0.5k c k b

f ,b

fctmE f

tf

if l b < l b,max :

fd =

0.5k c k b

f ,b

fctmE f l b

t f l b,max

2 lb

l b,max

(MPa)

(3.6a)

(MPa)

(3.6b)

Example 3.1

Consider an FRP strip with width b f = 50 mm, thickness t f = 1.2 mm, elastic modulus

E f = 180 GPa and tensile strength f f = 3000 MPa, epoxy-bonded on a concrete member

with a width b = 100 mm (Fig. 3.6). The mean tensile strength of concrete is assumed

fctm = 1.9 MPa.

N fa

. 3.6

lb

50 mm

100 mm

50

1.125 2

100

kb =

= 1.22 > 1,

50

1+

400

hence from eq. (3.3a) we calculate Nfa,max = 0.64 1.0 1.22 50 1.9 180000 1.2 =

25010 25 kN, corresponding to a stress in the FRP equal to 25010/(50x1.2) = 417

MPa [it is worth noting here that if the strip reached its tensile capacity the respective

force would be Nf = 3000x(50x1.2)/1000 = 180 kN, that is about 7 times higher than that

causing].

In terms of stresses, the design stress in the FRP at debonding (assuming a bond

length at least equal to 238 mm) is given by eq. (3.6) (with material safety factor f,b = 1.5)

fd = 217 MPa.

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

21

CHAPTER 4

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

4.1 General

Reinforced concrete members, such as beams and columns, may be strengthened in

flexure through the use of strips or sheets epoxy-bonded to their tension zones, with the

direction of fibers parallel to that of high tensile stresses (member axis). The concept is

illustrated in Fig. 4.1. Flexural strengthening of columns is, in general, more difficult to

achieve, due to the requirements for anchorage of the FRP through the joints. The latter

is easy to construct if the width of beams is smaller than that of columns (hence sufficient

space is available to bond strips, Fig. 4.2b), but requires small FRP cross sections placed

near the column corners if the column and the beams have similar dimensions (Fig.

4.2c).

The analysis for the ultimate limit state in flexure may follow well-established

procedures for reinforced concrete structures, provided that: (a) the contribution of

external FRP reinforcement is taken into account properly (linear elastic material); and (b)

special consideration is given to the issue of bond between the concrete and the FRP.

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

22

(b)

(a)

(c)

Fig. 4.2 Flexural strengthening of columns with maximum moment at the ends requires proper

anchorage of the external reinforcement. (a) Incorrect application, (b) continuity of the

FRP through the slab, (c) continuity of the FRP through the joint.

The effect of the initial load prior to strengthening should be considered in the

calculation of the strengthened member. Based on the theory of elasticity and with M o

the service moment (no load safety factors are applied) acting on the critical RC section

during strengthening, the strain distribution of the member can be evaluated. As M o is

typically larger than the cracking moment M cr , the calculation is based on a cracked

section (Fig. 4.3). If M o is smaller than M cr , its influence on the calculation of the

strengthened member may easily be neglected.

Based on the transformed cracked section, the neutral axis depth x o can be solved

from:

1 2

bx o + ( s 1)A s2 ( x o d 2 ) = s A s1(d x o )

2

(4.1)

tension steel centroid to extreme tension fiber, d 2 = distance of compression steel

centroid to extreme compression fiber, d = static depth, h = height of cross section, b =

width of cross section and s = E s / E c = ratio of steel elastic modulus to concrete elastic

modulus. The concrete strain co at the extreme compression fiber is calculated as

follows:

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

23

co =

Mo x o

E c Io 2

(4.2)

Io 2 =

bx 3o

+ ( s 1)A s2 ( x o d 2 ) 2 + s A s1(d x o ) 2

3

(4.3)

Based on strain compatibility, the strain o at the extreme tension fiber can be derived as

follows:

o = co

h xo

xo

(4.4)

The strain o determined by eq. (4.4) is the initial strain at the level of FRP when

strengthening takes place.

Fig. 4.3 Strain distribution in rectangular cross section subjected to moment M o at the time of

strengthening.

descrived schematically in Fig. 4 (Triantafillou and Plevris 1992, Matthys 2000, fib 2001,

Teng et al. 2001). Calculations for each failure mechanism are given in the following

section.

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

24

concrete crushing

steel yields

steel yields

2

FRP fracture

concrete crushing

no steel yielding

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

25

Mechanisms (1), (2) and (3) in Fig. 4.4 are based on composite action between

concrete and FRP and can be analyzed using standard procedures, whereas the other

mechanisms involve some kind of debonding or peeling-off and will be analyzed

separately.

4.4.1 Full composite action

(1) Steel yielding, concrete crushing

in the compression zone is the most desirable failure mechanism. The design bending

moment capacity may be calculated based on equilibrium and strain compatibility as

follows (Fig. 4.5):

b

fcd

c=cu=0.0035

d2

As2fsd2

s2

Gx

As2

d

h

As1

As1fyd

s1

tf

Af

Affd

bf

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 4.5 Cross section analysis at the ultimate limit state. (a) Geometry, (b) strain distribution, (c)

internal force distribution.

(4.5)

where =0.8, fcd = design strength of concrete, f yd = design value of tension steel yield

stress, A f = cross section area of FRP, fsd2 = design stress in the top steel

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

26

reinforcement and fd = design stress in the FRP. Based on strain compatibility, fsd2

and fd are calculated as follows:

x d2

fsd2 = E s c

(4.6)

hx

fd = E f c

o

x

(4.7)

In the above expression c = cu is the ultimate strain in the concrete (=0.0035) and o

is the initial strain given by eq. (4.4). Note that fsd2 should not be taken higher than f yd .

Design bending moment capacity:

MRd =

1

Rd

[A s1fyd (d G x ) + A f fd (h G x ) + A s2 fsd2 (G x d2 )]

(4.8)

where G =0.4, Rd = safety factor for the calculation of the resistance in an existing

member (in general Rd 1, but in the case of flexure Rd =1).

For the equations given above to be valid, the following assumptions should be

checked: (a) yielding of tensile steel reinforcement and (b) straining of the FRP is limited

to the limiting strain, f ,lim (corresponding to fracture or debonding):

s1 = c

f = c

d x f yd

x

Es

hx

o f ,lim

x

(4.9)

(4.10)

where c = cu .

(2) Steel yielding, FRP fracture

possible. However, it is quite likely that premature FRP debonding will precede FRP

fracture and hence this mechanism will not be activated. For the sake of completeness

we may state here that the analysis for this mechanism may be done along the lines of

the previous section. Equations (4-5) (4-8) still apply, with the following modifications:

expressions:

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

1000

c if c 0.002

1000 c 0.5

12

2

1

if 0.002 c 0.0035

3000 c

27

(4.11)

8 1000 c

4(6 1000 ) if c 0.002

c

G =

1000 (3000 4 ) + 2

c

c

if 0.002 c 0.0035

2000 c (3000 c 2)

(4.12)

The resisting moment can be obtained by solving eqs. (4.5) (4.8) (with the above

modifications) for the three unknowns, x , c and MRd .

(3) Concrete crushing

Non-

activation of this mechanism is achieved by limiting the area of FRP below certain limits.

More details are provided in Section 4.5, which describes ductility requirements.

4.4.2 Loss of composite action

(4) Debonding at outermost crack

Using the analytical model described in Section 3.3 one can calculate the bond

length required to prevent debonding. Consider, for example, the beam in Fig. 4.6a, with

a moment diagram as shown in Fig. 4.6b (note the application of the shift rule, resulting

shift of the diagram by a l ). The force distribution in the tension steel ( Nsd ) and in the

FRP ( N fd ) is provided in Fig. 4.6c. As an approximation, the total tensile force (in steel

and FRP), Nsd + N fd , equals MSd / z , where z = 0.95 d = lever arm.

Based on Fig. 4.6c, the FRP anchorage length is calculated beyond the location

(section A) where the total tension force envelope MSd / z intersects the line

corresponding to the maximum force carried by the steel only, NRsd = A s1f yd . At this

location the FRP tension force is N fad and the corresponding anchorage length is l b .

The anchorable force (design value) N fad can be estimated based on internal force

equilibrium as follows:

MSd

A E

A E

= N fad 1 + s1 s s1 N fad 1 + s1 s

z

A fEf f

A fEf

(4.13)

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

28

(d)

(a)

al

al

(b)

Myd

lb

MSd

NRsd = As1fyd

NSd , NRd

(f)

(c)

Nfad

lb

MSd

Nsd

Nfd

(e)

Myd

NRsd = As1fyd

Nfad,max

NRfd

NRfd

NSd , NRd

MSd/z

MSd/z

It is clear that the force N fad is limited by Nfad,max [eq. (3.3a), with safety factor f ,b ]

and that sufficient space should be provided for the anchorage length l b . If this is not

the case, section A must be re-positioned (in the direction where the bending moment

decreases, that is towards the support), Fig. 4.6d-f, so that N fad will be reduced to

Nfad,max or so that a lower l b will be required (as seen in Fig. 3.5, a small reduction in

N fad results in substantial reduction in l b ). If the anchorage length is still not adequate,

then the FRP width should be increased and the thickness decreased, or mechanical

anchorages should be provided.

(5) Debonding at intermediate flexural crack

The analytical model described in Section 3.3 applies here too, provided that a

proper correction is made to account for the fact that the true state of stress and strain at

the concrete-FRP interface near vertical cracks in a real beam is not identical to that in

the experimental setup of Fig. 3.2.

experimental evidence suggest that the maximum shear stress at the interface is much

lower than the one found in the test setup. Based on the literature, it is proposed here to

modify the model of Section 3.3.2 by increasing the debonding force by 150%. Hence,

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

29

the FRP strain corresponding to debonding in the vicinity of flexural cracks (where the

shear force is practically zero) is calculated as follows:

if l b l b,max :

f ,b, fl = fl

0.5k c k b

f ,b

fctm

Ef t f

if l b < l b,max :

f ,b, fl = fl

0.5k c k b

f ,b

fctm l b

E f t f l b,max

(4.14a)

2 lb

l b,max

(4.14b)

where fl = 2.5 .

The calculations for the resisting moment are performed as in the above case (2),

with fd = E f f ,b,fl .

(6) Debonding at intermediate shear crack

The statements made above apply here too, except that the increase o fthe

debonding force is about 100% compared with the experimental setup. Hence, the FRP

strain corresponding to debonding in the vicinity of shear cracks is:

if l b l b,max :

f ,b, fl sh = fl sh

0.5k c k b

f ,b

fctm

Ef t f

if l b < l b,max :

f ,b, fl sh = fl sh

0.5k c k b

f ,b

fctm l b

E f t f l b,max

(4.1a)

2 lb

l b,max

(4.15b)

where fl sh = 2 .

The calculations for the resisting moment are performed as in the above case (2),

with fd = E f f ,b,fl sh .

(7) FRP end shear failure peeling-off

Investigations by several researchers (e.g. Oehlers 1992, Ziraba et al. 1994, Jansze

1997, Raoof and Hassanen 2000), have indicated that when externally bonded plates

stop at a certain distance from the supports (as is typically the case in strengthening

applications) a nearly vertical crack might initiate at the plate end (plate end crack) and

then grow as an inclined shear crack (Fig. 4.7). However, by virtue of internal stirrups,

the shear crack may be arrested and the bonded-on plate separated from the concrete at

the level of the longitudinal reinforcement in the form of spalling (Fig. 4-10 right). The

latter failure mode is also called concrete peeling-off, and is attributed to a critical

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

30

combination of shear and vertical tensile stresses at the plate end. A simple, yet reliable

and conservative approach for the verification of FRP end shear failure involves the

following checks:

VSd, end 1.4 VRd,c

MSd,end

(4.16)

2

MRd

3

(4.17)

where VSd,end and MSd,end is the acting shear force and bending moment (design values)

at the FRP end, VRd,c is the member shear resistance neglecting the contribution of

stirrups and MRd is the moment resistance [minimum value calculated based on

mechanisms (1), (2), (5) and (6)]. It is noted that the verification of (4.17) is rather easy

to achieve, e.g. by adjusting the FRP end. However, is (4.16) is not satisfied, then the

member should be strengthened near the FRP ends in shear (see next chapter).

involves steel yielding, thereby securing a minimum curvature ductility factor ( ). This

implies that the tensile strain in the FRP at the ultimate limit state, fu,c , must exceed a

minimum value, f ,min ; at the same time, this strain is limited by either the FRP ultimate

strain (at fracture), fu , or by the strain corresponding to debonding (but not necessarily

at the critical cross section for flexural failure). Relevant to the above is Fig. 4.8.

The minimum FRP strain at the ultimate limit state, f ,min , corresponding to a given

curvature ductility factor, , is given as follows:

f ,min = yd

h

cu o

d xy d

h

h

(4.18)

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

31

Zone :

Zone :

cu

(fracture or debonding)

steel yielding concrete crushing

xlim

su

yd

fu

fu,c fu

f,min

f

Fig. 4.8 Strain distribution at critical cross section.

A last point to be made here is that large ductility values are not always achievable,

especially when the FRP quantity is controlled by serviceability, in which case the

member is under-designed in terms of strength.

A summary of the verifications for the ultimate limit state is provided next:

1.

Determine the resisting moment for the member before strengthening ( Mo,Rd ).

2.

From the service moment Mo prior to strengthening determine the initial strain o at

the extreme tension fiber.

Calculate the required FRP area A f (corresponding to MRd ) for cases (1), (2) and

(6) [or (5), in the absence of shear force] at the critical section, based on eqs. (4.5)(4.12). Note that these equations with c cu and f f ,lim = min( fu , f ,b, fl sh )

describe three failure modes simultaneously (steel yielding concrete crushing, steel

yielding FRP fracture, steel yielding debonding at intermediate crack). As an

approximation, f ,lim may taken equal to 0.004-0.005.

verification.

4.

Calculate the anchorage length and finalize the FRP configuration based on the

anchorage verification [mechanism (4)].

5.

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

6.

32

Verify the shear resistance of the member (given that the flexural resistance has

been increased). If not satisfied, shear strengthening is required.

4.7 Example

1200

216

MPa. Assuming an acting moment MSd = 203 kNm,

design the appropriate strengthening system. Consider

150

500

modulus E f = 150 GPa and ultimate strain (design

value)

fu

= 0.01.

40

50

Fig. 4.9

320

250

strengthening is Mo = 47 kNm. Rd = 1.

Geometric data: A s1 = 940 mm2, A s2 = 400 mm2, h = 500 mm, d = 450 mm, d1 =

50 mm, d2 = 40 mm and b = 1200 mm. The ratio s = E s / E c equals 200/29 = 6.9.

Solving eq. (4.1)-(4.4) we find o = 0.00066.

Assuming k c = 1 and k b 1, eq. (4.14a) for debonding near the mid-span (where

the moment is maximum and the shear equals zero) gives:

f ,b, fl = 2.5

0 .5 1 . 0

2 .2

= 0.003 , hence f ,lim = min(0.01, 0.003) = 0.003,

1.5

150000 1.1

which is the FRP strain at the critical section (mid-span) for the ultimate limit state

(debonding).

Next, with MRd = 203 kNm (and Rd = 1) from eq. (4.5) (4.12) we calculate x =

104 mm, c = 0.00071 and A f = 245 mm2. Each strip has a cross section area equal to

88 mm2, hence the use of 3 strips is required, with a total cross section area of 264 mm2,

which corresponds to MRd = 206 kNm, x = 105 mm and c = 0.00071. These strips will

be placed one next to the other, in order to avoid multiple layers.

The next step is the verification of the end anchorage (Fig. 4.10), which results in a

total length of strips equal to 4.10 m.

Finally, the FRP end shear calculations give:

5

5 0.45

= 66.54 kNm

2

2

2

1.4 VRd,c = 1.4 Rd max(1, 1.6- d )min(2, 1.2+1.4 l ) b w d =

1.4x0.26x1.15x1.2024x0.25x0.25x0.45x103 = 56.62 kN

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

33

It is concluded that (4.17) is satisfied but (4.16) is violated, hence the ends should be

strengthened in shear for a shear force equal to 133.25 56.62 = 76.63 kN (according to

the procedure described in Chapter 5).

(a)

(d)

a l 0.40 m

a l 0.40 m

(b)

203 kNm

(e)

203 kNm

MSd

l b = 0.20 m

MSd

1.35+0.50 m

1.35 m

(c)

NRsd = As1fyd

NRsd = As1fyd

(f)

= 408.7 k

= 408.7 k

MSd/z

Nfad,max=48.20 kN

Nfad=71.11 kN

203/0.95d=475 kN

NSd , NRd

475 kN

MSd/z

NSd , NRd

940 200

408.7 N fad 1 +

N fad = 71.11 kN

264 150

= 48.20 kN

N fad,max = 0.264

1

.

5

1

.

1

l b,max =

150000 1.1

= 193.6 mm 0.2 m

2 2 .2

Fig. 4.10 Verification of anchorage.

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

34

linear elastic analysis and considering that the concrete does not sustain tension (Fig.

4.11).

From the equilibrium of forces and strain compatibility, the depth of the neutral axis

x e is obtained from the following:

1 2

bx e + ( s 1)A s2 ( x e d 2 ) = s A s1(d x e ) + f A f h 1 + o x e

2

c

Ec c =

x

1

bx e h e + ( s 1)A s2

2

3

(4.19)

Mk

(x e d2 ) (h d ) A d x e (h d)

2

s s1

xe

xe

(4.20)

where f = E f / E c and Mk is the characteristic value of the acting moment. The last two

equations can be solved for the unknown x e and c .

The moment of inertia of the cracked section is given by:

I2 =

bx 3e

+ ( s 1)A s2 ( x e d2 ) 2 + s A s1(d x e ) 2 + f A f (h x e ) 2

3

(4.21)

whereas that of the uncracked section may be approximated as follows (for rectangular

cross sections):

I1

bh 3

12

(4.22)

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

35

Regarding stress verification, apart from limiting stresses in the concrete and steel, it

is required to limit the stress in the FRP, f , under the rare load combination, as follows:

h xe

f = E f c

o f fk

xe

(4.22)

where the reduction coefficient < 1 accounts for the poor behavior of some composites

(e.g. GFRP) under sustained loading. Based on creep rupture tests (e.g. Yamaguchi et

al. 1998), indicative values of are 0.8, 0.5 and 0.3 for CFRP, AFRP and GFRP,

respectively. Note that as the design is often governed by the serviceability limit state,

relative low FRP strains at service load may be expected, so that FRP creep rupture is

typically not of concern.

The verification of deflections and crack widths is performed in analogy to the case of

reinforced concrete members (e.g. fib 2001).

4.9 Columns

The analysis of cross sections where bending develops in combination with an axial

force is performed according to the principles presented above, the basic difference

being the addition of one more term in the force and moment equilibrium equations: NSd

in the right part of eq. (4.5) and NSd [(h / 2) G x] in the right part of eq. (4.8), where NSd

is the acting axial force (design value). Furthermore, the contribution of FRP in carrying

compression should be neglected. Assuming that debonding is prevented (e.g. through

proper anchorage inside slabs or joints, Fig. 4.2b-c, the failure mechanism will be one of

the following:

yielding

of

tension

( s1 f yd / E s ),

steel

debonding

or

FRP

fracture

concrete crushing ( c = cu )

The bending moment axial force interaction at failure is best demonstrated through

the so-called interaction diagrams, such as those given in Fig. 4.12a-b. Those diagrams

have been constructed for various equivalent geometric ratios of steel and FRP

reinforcement, eq , defined as:

eq = s + f

where

A s,tot = 2A s1 = 2A s2

A s,tot A f ,tot E f

Ef

=

+

Es

bd

bd E s

(symmetrically

placed

(4.23)

steel

reinforcement)

and

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

36

simplicity it has been assumed that f ,min =0.008. The interaction diagrams in Fig. 4.12

show that the effectiveness of FRP in increasing the flexural capacity decreases

substantially as the axial load increases.

0,8

d=NSd / bhfcd

eq=0,006

eq=0,007

eq=0,008

eq=0,009

C16/20

S400

b/h=1

d1/h=0,10

Ef=180 GPa

Es=200 GPa

1,0

eq=0,010

eq=0,011

eq=0,012

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0

0,00

(a)

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

0,50

0,55

0,60

d=MSd / bh fcd

0,8

d=NSd / bhfcd

eq=0,012

C16/20

S400

b/h=1

d1/h=0,10

Ef=180 GPa

Es=200 GPa

1,0

eq=0,014

eq=0,016

eq=0,018

eq=0,020

eq=0,022

eq=0,024

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0

0,00

(b)

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

0,50

0,55

0,60

d=MSd / bh fcd

Fig. 4.12 Axial force bending moment interaction diagrams for square cross sections (b=h)

under uniaxial bending. Concrete C16/20, steel S400, d1/h=0.10, Ef =180 GPa. (a)

As,tot=0.006, (b) As,tot=0.012.

As a general conclusion one may state that flexural strengthening of columns is not

always feasible (and easy as in the case of beams); and certainly the FRP contribution is

of rather low effectiveness, unless the axial load is kept at low levels (e.g. d < 0.2).

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

37

T. C. Triantafillou

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

38

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

39

CHAPTER 5

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

5.1 General

Shear strengthening of RC members using FRP may be provided by bonding the

external reinforcement (typically in the form of sheets) with the principal fiber direction as

parallel as practically possible to that of maximum principal tensile stresses, so that the

effectiveness of FRP is maximized (see Fig. 5.1 for the dependence of the FRP elastic

modulus on the fiber orientation). For the most common case of structural members

subjected to lateral loads, that is loads perpendicular to the member axis (e.g. beams

under gravity loads or columns under seismic forces), the maximum principal stress

trajectories in the shear-critical zones form an angle with the member axis which may be

taken roughly equal to 45o. However, it is normally more practical to attach the external

FRP reinforcement with the principal fiber direction perpendicular to the member axis

(Fig. 5.2). Photographs of typical applications are shown in Fig. 5.3.

30

60

90

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

40

(b)

(a)

tf

C

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

sf

bf

E

(g)

(h)

bf

(k)

(i)

Fig. 5.2

(j)

sf

Shear strengthening of: (a)-(h) beams, (i)-(k) columns and shear walls.

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

41

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5.3 Shear strengthening (a) of beam end with CFRP, (b) of column with GFRP.

At the ultimate limit state in shear, the fibers crossing a diagonal crack are activated

and carry tension in analogy to internal stirrups, Fig. 5.4.

df

0.1d

Inclined crack

perpendicular to the axis of the strips), at a spacing s f (parallel to the member axis), the

design shear carried by the FRP, VRd,f , may be calculated from the following expression:

VRd,f =

2t f b f

df fe,d (cot + cot ) sin

sf

(5.1)

where d f = height of FRP crossed by the shear crack, measured from the longitudinal

steel reinforcement (equals 0.9 d in the case of fully wrapped members, e.g. Fig. 5.2g, k),

= angle of diagonal crack with respect to the member axis (assumed equal to 45,

based on the classical Mrsch-Ritter truss analogy), = angle between principal fiber

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

42

orientation and longitudinal axis of member, fe,d = design value of mean stress in the

FRP crossing the shear crack, in the principal fiber direction (effective stress).

Note that the differences between eq. (5.1) and that for the contribution of internal

stirrups to shear resistance ( VRd,s ) are: use of 2t f b f instead of A sw (cross section area

of stirrups), s f instead of sh (spacing of stirrups) and fe,d instead of f ywd (yield stress

of stirrups).

For the most common case of continuous sheets or fabrics (instead of equally

spaced strips) b f = s f sin and eq. (5.1) gives:

VRd,f = 2t f df fe,d (cot + cot ) sin2

(5.2)

Furthermore, for the typical case where the FRP is applied with the fibers perpendicular

to the member axis ( = 90), we obtain:

VRd, f = 2t f d f fe,d cot

(5.3)

The exact calculation of the effective stress fe,d is not a straightforward task. In

approximation, this stress varies linearly with the crack opening, which may be taken as

minimum at point A in Fig. 5.4 and maximum at point B. Hence the stress increases

linearly up to a maximum value, fd,max , which, in approximation, controls failure of the

FRP material. On the basis of the above assumptions, one may write:

0 .5 d f

fe,d = D f fd,max = 1

fd,max

0 .9 d

(5.4)

The value of fd,max at the ultimate limit state in shear depends on the definition of

failure, which can be one of the following:

FRP fracture

Fracture of the FRP is most likely the case in fully wrapped and properly anchored

jackets (e.g. Fig. 5.2g-k). In this case

fd,max = f fde

(5.5)

where f fde is the design value of FRP strength given by eq. (3.2) (note that this is lower

than the tensile strength of jacket in uniaxial tension).

consider that the strength reduction coefficient, e , for determining f fde is 0.80.

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

43

FRP debonding

For open-type jacketing (e.g. U-shaped or side-bonded, Fig. 5.2c-e or Fig. 5.2b,

respectively), fracture of the jacket is not likely to occur (except for the case of Fig. 5.2e,

where anchorage conditions are slightly improved). In this case debonding of the FRP is

expected to be the dominant failure mode (Fig. 5.5), which can be described with the

analytical model presented in Section 3.3.2. This model can be adopted with k c = 1 ,

k b = 1 and an empirical coefficient sh (in analogy to fl and fl sh described in Section

4.4.2):

if l b l b,max :

fd,max = sh

0. 5

f ,b

fctm f

tf

if l b < l b,max :

fd,max = sh

0.5

f ,b

fctmE f l b

t f l b,max

(5.6a)

2 lb

l b,max

(5.6b)

where sh = 1.25 ,

lb =

df

sin

(5.7a)

lb =

df

2 sin

(5.7b)

l b,max =

Ef t f

c 2 fctm

(5.8)

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

44

Note that in the case of U-shaped (three-sided) jackets the best-anchored part of the

FRP is that at the maximum crack opening, with a bonded length d f / sin (Fig. 5.6a),

where in the case of two-sided jackets the best-anchored part of the FRP is at the middle

of the shear crack (Fig. 5.6b); hence the factor 2 in eq. (5.7b).

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5.6 Bond length of (a) U-shaped FRP jacket, (b) two-sided FRP.

The improved anchorage shown in Fig. 5.2e, where the FRP end is rolled around a

rod and inserted into grooves is an interesting solution, which may be considered of

effectiveness in between that for open (Fig. 5.2c) and closed (Fig. 5.2g-k) jackets. This

case could be treated using the expressions for U-shaped jackets [eq. (5.6)-(5.7a], with

fd,max increased by approximately 30%.

Limiting strain

Some researchers have proposed that the effective strain in the FRP be limited to a

maximum value, in the order of 0.006, to maintain the integrity of concrete and secure

activation of the aggregate interlock mechanism. With this limitation, fd,max should not

be taken higher than 0.006 E f .

The contribution of FRP to shear resistance is provided through the term VRd,f in the

well-known equation for the design shear resistance:

VRd =

1

Rd

(5.9)

VRd,max maximum shear resistance determined from crushing of the diagonal concrete

struts and Rd = safety factor (>1) for the determination of the shear resistance in

existing members ( Rd =1.20).. The FRP contribution VRd,f in eq. (5.9) is given by eq.

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

45

(5.1) or (5.2) for FRP in the form of strips at equal spacing or continuous jackets,

respectively, with fe,d calculated from eq. (5.4), in which fd,max is determined as

follows:

the minimum of the value given by eq. (5.5) and 0.006 E f .

the minimum of the value given by eq. (5.5), (5.6) and 0.006 E f .

At this point we should mention that the shear resistance of RC members under

cyclic (e.g. seismic) loading depends on the target ductility factor: high values of ductility

result in reduced shear resistance (e.g. Moehle et al. 2001), which affects (reduces) the

terms of eq. (5.9), but not the one regarding the FRP contribution ( VRd,f ). Hence the

reduced shear capacity due to cycling does not affect the equations presented above.

Finally it should be noted that if shear strengthening is provided by means of equally

spaced strips, the spacing should be such that the shear crack intersects at least two

strips, that is s f s f ,max = 0.5 min(df , 0.9d) (for = 45 and = 90).

Example 5.1

1200

216

height h = 500 mm and static depth d = 460 mm. The

150

500

MPa. Determine the required CFRP thickness for an

additional shear resistance VRd,f = 75 kN.

40

320

250

Fig. 5.7

We assume the following properties for the CFRP: thickness of one layer = 0.12 mm,

elastic modulus E f = 230 GPa, effective design tensile strength f fde =2560 MPa. The

jacket will be applied according to the configuration shown in Fig. 5.2c (U-shaped).

Eq. (5.5):

Eq. (5.7):

The problem will be solved trying different numbers of layers, in order to illustrate their

relative effectiveness in carrying shear.

Jacket with one layer:

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

46

230000 0.12

= 83 mm < l b

22

Eq. (5.8):

l b,max =

Eq. (5.6a):

fd,max = 1.25

0 .5

1.5

2 230000

= 815 MPa

0.12

E. (5.4):

0.5 310

fe,d = D f fd,max = 1

815 = 0.62 815 = 505 MPa

0

.9 460

Eq. (5.3):

The above value is the shear force carried by a one-layered jacket. This value is quite

low, hence we try three layers:

230000 (3 0.12 )

= 144 mm < l b

22

Eq. (5.8):

l b,max =

Eq. (5.6a):

fd,max = 1.25

0.5 2 230000

= 471 MPa

1 .5

3 0.12

Eq. (5.4):

0.5 310

fe,d = D f fd,max = 1

471 = 0.62 471 = 292 MPa

0.9 460

Eq. (5.3):

230000 (4 0.12)

= 166 mm < l b

22

Eq. (5.8):

l b,max =

Eq. (5.6a):

fd,max = 1.25

0.5 2 230000

= 408 MPa

1 .5

4 0.12

Eq. (5.4):

0.5 310

fe,d = D f fd,max = 1

408 = 0.62 408 = 253 MPa

0

.9 460

Eq. (5.3):

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

47

Example 5.2

1200

216

Design

an

appropriate

shear

strengthening

150

500

based on carbon fiber strips at constant spacing.

40

320

compression zone (Fig. 5.2h).

250

Fig. 5.8

We assume that the strips have a width b f = 40 mm, thickness t f = 1.4 mm, elastic

modulus E f =120 GPa and effective design strength f fde =1360 MPa.

Eq. (5.5):

df = 0.9d

Eq. (5.4):

Calculation of spacing:

Eq. (5.1):

VRd, f =

2 1.4 40

0.9 460 360 10 3 > 75 kN s f < 223 mm

sf

s f ,max = 0.5 0.9 460 = 207 mm. Finally we propose the use of strips at a spacing of

200 mm.

Example 5.3

250x400 mm, with a static width of 365 mm. Design

365 mm

kN corresponding to strong axis bending.

Fig. 5.9

We assume the following properties for the CFRP: thickness of one layer = 0.12 mm,

elastic modulus E f = 230 GPa, effective design tensile strength f fde =2560 MPa. The

jacket will be applied according to the configuration shown in Fig. 5.2i (full wrapping).

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

Eq. (5.5):

48

Eq. (5.4):

Eq. (5.2):

Typical shear failures of (exterior) beam-column joints are shown in Fig. 5.10.

Studies on joints strengthened with FRP in shear demonstrated that even very thin FRP

jackets (e.g. 2-3 layers of carbon fiber sheets with layer thickness in the order of 0.12

mm) properly anchored outside the joints can provide an increase in shear capacity by

well above 80-100% (Antonopoulos 2001, Antonopoulos and Triantafillou 2002,

Antonopoulos and Triantafillou 2003). This is feasible provided that the sheets will be

made of fibers primarily in the beam direction, but if possible, also in the column (Fig.

5.11).

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5.10 Shear failure of exterior joints: (a) Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake, Japan, 1995. (b)

Kalamata earthquake, Greece, 1986 (fib 2003).

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

49

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5.11 Typical configurations for shear strengthening of beam-column joints and anchorage

outside the joint. (a) Exterior joint, (b) Interior joint.

schematically in Fig. 5.12, which gives load-displacement loops for non-strengthened as

well as strengthened (with two layers of 0.12 mm thick carbon fiber sheets) joints under

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

P,

C1

P (kN)

P (kN)

10 20 30 40 50

(mm)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

P,

F22

(a)

10 20 30 40 50

(mm)

(b)

Fig. 5.12 Load-displacement loops for poorly detailed (lack of stirrups) beam-column joints. (a)

Non-strengthened specimen, (b) Strengthened specimen, which shows a 70%

increase in shear strength.

An approximate and simple method to account for the contribution of FRP to the

shear resistance of joints is to assume that the fibers in the beam direction are activated

up to a strain equal to 0.004.

T. C. Triantafillou

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

50

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

51

CHAPTER 6

CONFINEMENT

6.1 General

Confinement is generally applied to members in compression (Fig. 6.1), with the aim

of enhancing their load carrying capacity or, in cases of seismic upgrading, to increase

their ductility. FRP, as opposed to steel that applies a constant confining pressure after

yielding, has an elastic behavior up to failure and therefore exerts a continuously

increasing confining action. The confining stresses applied by the FRP result in one or

more of the following:

1.

2.

Increase of chord rotation after flexural yielding of columns (that is, increase of

ductility).

3.

4.

spacing of stirrups).

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6.1 Confinement of columns with FRP jackets: (a) CFRP, fibers in the horizontal direction,

(b) helically applied GFRP.

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

6.2

52

6.2.1 Behavior

Consider a concrete cylinder (Fig. 6.2a) with diameter D , fully wrapped with an FRP

jacket with thickness t f and elastic modulus E f (in the direction of the fibers, that is

circumferentially).

(a)

tf

(b)

Fig. 6.2 (a) Axially loaded column. (b) Lateral stresses due to confinement.

The lateral stresses l (in the radial direction, due to dilation of the concrete) exerted in

the jacket (equal but of opposite sign act on the concrete) are calculated as follows:

l =

2t f

2t

1

f = f Ef f = f Ef f

D

D

2

(6.1)

where f and f = FRP tensile stress and strain, respectively, and f = volumetric ratio

of FRP. The result of confining stresses l is control of lateral expansion and hence

increase of deformability, until the tensile stress f (corresponding strain f ) in the FRP

reaches its tensile strength f fde (corresponding strain fue ); at this point the jacket

fractures (Fig. 6.3) and the member fails. Of course the mechanism described above is

possible only provided that premature debonding of the FRP (at its ends) will not occur.

Note here that the circumferential tensile strength of the jacket is, in general, lower

than the tensile strength of FRP measured in a uniaxial tension test. This is attributed to

the multiaxial state of stress in the FRP, stress concentrations, the use of many layers,

the quality of application etc., and may be taken into account through the reduction factor

e , with values in the of 0.7-0.9:

f fde = e f fd

(6.2)

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

53

Fig. 6.3 Tensile fracture of FRP jacket in the circumferential direction when the tensile stress f

reaches the design FRP strength f fde .

c

fcc=ccu

Compressive

stress

tf increases

b

a

fc

(ccu, ccu)

(cc, fcc)

Unconfined concrete

co cu

Compressive strain

c

ccu

Fig. 6.4 Compressive stress-strain curves for concrete confined with FRP.

The stress-strain relationship for concrete confined with FRP is given schematically

in Fig. 6.4.

conclusions:

( co 0.002 ) corresponding to the peak stress for unconfined concrete ( fc ).

Jackets of very low thickness increase only the ultimate strain ccu (curve a in Fig.

6.4).

Jackets of low thickness result in confined concrete strength fcc which corresponds

to strain cc lower than that at ultimate ( ccu ) (curve b in Fig. 6.4).

For a given type of FRP, the strength fcc and ultimate strain ccu of confined

concrete increase with the thickness of the jacket.

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

54

For jackets of equal thickness but with different types of fibers (e.g. carbon versus

glass) the confined strength fcc increases with the jacket strength f fde (carbon is

better than glass in this case), whereas the ultimate strain ccu increases with the

jacket strength f fde but also, mainly, with its ultimate strain fue (glass is better than

carbon in this case).

For jackets of equal stiffness (expressed by the product E f t f ), the confined strength

fcc increases with the ultimate strain of FRP fue .

As far as the design of FRP jackets for confinement is concerned, typically we aim at

calculating the required thickness t f (for a given type of FRP) for a target confined

strength fccd (design value) and/or for a target ultimate strain ccu . The international

literature on FRP-concrete confinement models is vast.

described next (fib 2001). The model applies to columns with rectangular cross section

(dimensions b and d , b d ), rounded at the corners with a radius rc .

fccd = E sec,ud ccu fcd

E sec,ud =

E sec,Md =

(6.3)

E

(E E sec,ud )

1)] sec,Md c

E sec,ud (E c E sec,Md )

Esec,Md

Ec

(6.4)

Ec

(6.5)

E

1 ffde

1 + 2 c

fcd 0.002 E f

1d 2d fcd

0.002[1 + 5(1d 2d 1)]

1d = 2.254 1 + 7.94

lud,b

fcd

lud,b

fcd

(6.6)

1.254

(6.7)

d 2

d

2d = 1 0.6 1.4 + 0.8 lud,b

b

b

fcd

lud,b = f

In

the

above

expressions

Ec

(6.8)

2t f

f fde

d

initial

modulus

(6.9)

of

elasticity

for

concrete

[ E c = 1.05 9500 ( fck + 8)1/ 3 ] and f = confinement effectiveness coefficient for the

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

55

specific jacket used, depending on: (a) the cross section geometry (aspect ratio, radius at

corners, Fig. 6.5), (b) the degree of concrete coverage (Fig. 6.6b) and (c) the fiber

orientation with respect to the member axis (Fig. 6.6c). Specificallly:

f = n s a 1

Shape coefficient:

n =

Ae

= 1

Ag

(6.10)

(b 2rc )2 + (d 2rc )2

b 2 + d 2

1

3bd

A

3 A g 1 s

A g

(6.11)

1 f

2

sf

2d

s =

1

A

2d

1 s

Ag

Coverage coefficient:

a =

(6.12)

(6.13)

1 + (tan f )

where A g = area of cross section, A s = cross section area of longitudinal steel, sf = clear

space between strips, for the case of partial coverage (Fig. 6.6a), d = smallest dimension

of the cross section (or diameter, in the case of circular columns) and f = fiber

orientation with respect to member axis (Fig. 6.6b). For circular cross sections n =1, for

fully covered members s =1 and for fibers in the direction perpendicular to the member

axis a =1.

rc

d

b'=b-2rc

b

d'=d-2rc

Confined

concrete

Fig. 6.5 Confinement of rectangular cross sections is achieved by rounding the corners.

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

56

(a)

(b)

bf

d sf / 2

sf

Confined

concrete

Fig. 6.6 Confinement (a) with equally spaced strips, (b) with helically applied fibers.

Other confinement models found in the international literature are much simpler,

typically in the form:

fccd

= 1 + k 1 lud

fcd

fcd

ccu = cu

+ k 2 lud

fcd

(6.14)

n

(6.15)

In eqs. (6.14)-(6.15) lud is the mean confining stress (at failure of the jacket),

approximately equal to (Fig. 6.7):

lud,d

lud,b

Fig. 6.7 Mean confining stress in each direction of rectangular cross section.

lud =

=

lud,b + lud,d

2t

1 2t f

f fde + f f f fde

f

2

d

b

(b + d) t f

1

f ( f ,b + f , d )f fde = f

f fde

2

bd

(6.16)

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

57

where lud,b and lud,b are the mean confining stresses in the direction of sides b and

direction: f ,b = 2t f / d and f ,d = 2t f / b .

Typical values found in the international literature for the empirical constants in eqs.

(6.14) (6.15) are as follows: k 1 = 2.15, m = 1, k 2 = 0.02 or 0.04 for carbon or glass

fibers, respectively, and n = 1. Alternatively, k 1 = 2.6, m = 2/3, k 2 = 0.015 (regardless

of the type of fibers) and n = 0.5. The ultimate strain of unconfined concrete is may be

taken equal to cu = 0.0035.

If the full constitutive law in uniaxial compression is of interest (e.g for column

analysis under the combination of axial load and bending moment), the model of Lam

and Teng (2003), described in Fig. 6.8, may be adopted.

cd = E c c

(E c E 2 )2 2

4fcd

cd = fcd + E 2 c

if 0 c t

(6.17a)

if t c ccu

(6.17b)

where

Compressive

stress

t =

2fcd

(E c E 2 )

(6.18)

E2 =

fccd fcd

ccu

(6.19)

cd

fccd

E2

Unconfined

concrete

fcd

Ec

co=0.002

Compressive strain

t

cu = 0035

FRP-confined

concrete

c

ccu

Finally, one may rely on the simpler, but not so accurate for the case of FRPconfined concrete, models described in Eurocodes 2 or 8.

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

58

Example 6.1

fcd = 20 Pa and elastic modulus E c = 33.5 GPa. The column is to be jacketed with

either CFRP or GFRP, aiming at increasing the compressive strength to fccd = 35 MPa

and the ultimate strain to ccu = 0.025: (a) For CFRP we assume E f = 230 GPa, ffd =

2590 MPa, thickness of one layer = 0.12 mm. (b) For GFRP we take E f = 70 GPa, ffd =

1400 MPa and thickness of one layer 0.17 mm. Finally we assume that the tensile

strength of the jacket is reduced by 5% with respect to tension testing specimens (that is

e =0.95).

For CFRP f fde = e f fd = 0.95 2590 = 2460 MPa and for GFRP f fde = 0.95 1400 = 1330

MPa. The results for the required fiber sheet thickness and the corresponding number of

layers are calculated in Table 6.1, based on the analytical model of eq. (6.3) (6.9), for

three different cross sections.

confinement is to increase strength then the required CFRP is much less than GFRP,

whereas the opposite is the case if the aim is to increase deformability.

Table 6.1 Required fiber sheet thickness for various types of cross sections.

Cross

rc

Ag

section

(cm)

(cm2)

(effectiveness)

( b , d m)

d=0.3

[in () the corresponding number of layers]

Carbon fibers

Glass fibers

for fccd =

35 MPa

for ccu =

0.025

for fccd =

35 MPa

for ccu =

0.025

896.5

0.50

0.39 (4)

0.31 (3)

0.82 (7)

0.12 (1)

1246.5

0.32

0.74 (7)

0.56 (5)

1.56 (13)

0.22 (2)

886.2

0.64

0.31 (3)

0.24 (2)

0.64 (6)

0.10 (1)

b=0.3

0.25

0.5

0.3

0.3

importance in seismic retrofitting is the increase of a members (column) chord rotation

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

59

at failure u (Fig. 6.9a), which is more or less equivalent to increasing the ductility. The

ductility may be quantified through the member chord rotation ductility factor,

= u / y , or through the curvature ductility factor, = u / y , where: y = chord

rotation at yielding, u = curvature at failure and y = curvature at yielding. Note that,

essentially, the chord rotation ductility factor member (relative end) displacement

ductility factor, = u / y , where u and y the relative displacement of member

ends at ultimate and yielding, respectively (Fig. 6.9). In the above definitions failure is

considered when either there is an abrupt fall in the members response (e.g. load

displacement curve) or the response parameter (e.g. force) has been reduced by 20%

with respect to its peak (Fig. 6.9b).

y

Pu

0.2Pu

Ls

u

Lpl

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 6.9 (a) Lateral loading of RC member. (b) Load-displacement diagram. (c) Curvature.

L pl

u = y + u y L pl 1 0.5

L

s

(6.20)

where L s = shear span (distance from base of column to the point where the bending

moment is zero, equal to the ratio of moment to shear at the column end) and L pl =

plastic hinge length. The chord rotation at yielding, y , is not affected by FRP jacketing

and equals:

For beams or columns:

y = y

fy

Ls + aV z

h

db

+ 0.00131 + 1.5 + 0.13 y

3

Ls

fc

(6.21)

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

60

y = y

fy

Ls + aV z

L

db

3

h

fc

(6.22)

where db = mean diameter of tension steel rebars, h = height of cross section, f y = yield

stress of longitudinal steel (MPa) and fc = concrete strength (Pa). The above material

data are taken as mean values of in-situ assessed properties, divided by a data reliability

factor (1.0, 1.2, 1.35), as per Eurocode 8. The term a V z is the tension shift of the

bending moment diagram a l for shear cracking at 45 and expresses the effect of

tension forces shifted by a l to the members flexural deformations. The coefficient a V ,

which multiplies the internal force lever arm z at the end cross section, equals 0 if the

shear force at flexural yielding, VMy = M y / L s , is less than the shear cracking force Vcr ,

or 1 otherwise. Note that the shear cracking force may be taken as the shear resistance

of the member without shear reinforcement, VR,c , as calculated by Eurocode 2 with a

safety factor c = 1 .

The plastic hinge length L pl may be estimated from the following expression:

L pl = 0.1L s + 0.17h +

0.24f y

fc

db

(6.23)

where f y and fc are in Pa. The curvatures y u are calculated based on section

analysis at yielding and failure. u is calculated as u = ccu / x u , where x u = depth of

compression zone at failure and ccu = ultimate strain of concrete, as provided by the

confinement model, e.g. eq. (6.15) (it is this term that is mainly affected by the properties

of the FRP jacket!).

The chord rotation u (or the curvature at failure u ) can increase by jacketing the

RC member at its critical regions (member ends), Fig. 6.10, where strains in concrete and

steel are expected to be high. In these regions the confinement exerted by the FRP

increases the ultimate strain of concrete (in addition to delaying rebar buckling and bond

failure at lap-splices) and hence the ductility (Fig. 6.11).

increased ductility.

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

61

C4_XB Load v Deflection

Load v Deflection C2X Control

250

150

150

100

100

50

50

0

-120

-80

-40

200

40

80

120

Load kN

Load kN

250

200

0

-120

-80

-40

-50

-50

-100

-100

-150

-150

-200

-200

-250

40

80

120

-250

Deflection mm

Deflection mm

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6.11 Load-displacement loops for RC column of 0.25x0.50 m cross section under cyclic

loading. (a) Unretrofitted member. (b) Member retrofitted with two layers of carbon

sheet (thickness of each layer = 0.12 mm) at 0.60 m of the column base.

In summary, the design of FRP jackets for a given chord rotation at failure u (which

is introduced in the compliance criteria for the performance levels specified in Eurocode

8) requires the expression of u in terms of the jacket properties. This is achieved

through the following steps:

Determine the plastic hinge length L pl from eq. (6.23).

Calculate the yield curvature y , based on cross section analysis.

Calculate the chord rotation at yielding from eq. (6.21) or (6.22).

Solve eq. (6.20) for the required jacket characteristics.

An alternative approach for relating the FRP jacket characteristics to the ultimate

chord rotation (mean value) at flexural failure of beams or columns designed according to

old provisions for seismic design is based on the use of the following empirical

relationship (urocode 8):

um

max (0.01, )

fc

= 0.016 0.3

max (0.01, )

( )

0.225

Ls

h

0.35

f

sx yw + f fx fde

f

fc

c

25

(1.25

100 d

(6.24)

where:

= mechanical reinforcement ratio of tension longitudinal reinforcement (including any

= mechanical reinforcement ratio of compression longitudinal reinforcement,

compression zone, h = cross section side parallel to the loading direction),

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

62

sh = spacing of stirrups,

f yw = yield stress of stirrups,

d = geometric ratio of diagonal reinforcement, if any,

f = effectiveness coefficient for confinement with FRP, and

= effectiveness coefficient for confinement with stirrups, equal to

s

= 1 h

2b o

s

1 h

2ho

b2

1 i

6b oho

(6.25)

In eq. (6.25) b o and ho are the dimensions of confined concrete core to the centerline of

the stirrups and bi is the centerline spacing of longitudinal rebars supported by stirrups.

It is strongly recommended that if the stirrup ends are not bent towards the concrete core

( 135 at corners, 90 on the sides), the confinement provided by stirrups should be

neglected ( = 0).

The corresponding to eq. (6.24) formula for the mean value of the plastic part of the

ultimate chord rotation ( pl

u = u y ) is:

pl

um

max (0.01, )

= 0.0145 0.25

max (0.01, )

0 .3

0.2 L s

(fc )

0.35

f

sx yw + f fx fde

fc

fc

25

(1.275

100 d

) (6.26)

For shear walls designed according to old seismic design code provisions the right part of

eq. (6.24) (6.26) should be multiplied by 0.625 and 0.6, respectively (0.016 and

0.0145 are replaced by 0.01 and 0.0087).

A careful examination of eq. (6.24) and (6.26) reveals that the contribution of FRP

lies only in the exponent of 25.

Another alternative approach to deal with the design of FRP jackets for a target

ductility is to use the following simple but highly conservative equation proposed by

Tastani and Pantazopoulou (2002):

fcd

(6.27)

lud in eq. (6.27) is the confining stress at the ultimate limit state, given e.g. by eq. (6.9),

which neglects the contribution of stirrups. Note that the use of eq. (6.9) in rectangular

columns applies with d taken as the cross section dimension perpendicular to the plane

of bending. The application of this approach is illustrated in the next example.

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

63

Example 6.2

Longitudinal reinforcement:

18, f yd = 350 Pa

3m

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6.12 (a) Loading of column and (b) retrofitting for ductility.

Consider a column with cross section 0.30x0.40 m, subjected to strong axis bending

(Fig. 6.12).

strength is 11 Pa; and the carbon fiber sheets to be used have an elastic modulus 230

GPa, tensile strength 3000 MPa and thickness 0.12 mm (one layer). We assume that the

FRP strength reduction coefficient is e = 0.90. The objective is to design the jacket

(that is to calculate the required number of layers) for a target displacement (or chord

rotation) ductility factor ( = ) = 4.

Tensile strength of the jacket: 0.90 3000 = 2700 MPa.

Confinement effectiveness coefficient, eq. (6.11): A g = 1195 cm2, A s = 15.25 cm2.

n = 1

35 2 + 25 2

= 0.48

15.25

3 1195 1

1195

2t

0.48 f 2700

300

4 = 1.3 + 12.4

0.1

11

hence

t f = 0.40 mm

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

64

that is 0.40/0.12 = 3.3 4 layers (if repeated with t f = 4 0.12 mm, the calculations give

= 4.75 ).

6.4 Lap-splices

6.4.1 Behavior and design

FRP jackets in regions with straight lap-spliced rebars provide confinement which

increases the friction between lap-splices and prevents slippage (typically this is not of

concern in lap-splices with 180 hooks, in which case slippage is not activated). The

improved behavior in FRP-confined lap-spliced regions has been demonstrated in many

studies, including those of Ma and Xiao (1997), Saadatmanesh et al. (1997), Seible et al.

(1997), Restrepo et al. (1998), Osada et al. (1999), Haroun et al. (2001) etc. Typical

results are shown in Fig. 6.13.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6.13 Cyclic loading response of column with rectangular cross section: (a) unretrofitted

member, (b) member retrofitted at lap-splices (Saadatmanesh et al. 1997).

F = A b fs = p c b l s

Lateral stress l

Diagonal struts

ls

Bond stress b = l

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

65

According to the friction model of Fig. 6.14 and the possible failure patterns of Fig.

6.15 (details are omitted), it can be shown that lap-splice failures may be prevented using

fiber sheets with a thickness t f as follows:

t f = Rd

l s

bd1

A b f yd

l s,min

(b + d)p c ffde l s

(6.28)

where A b = cross section area and diameter of one spliced rebar, l s = available lapsplice length, l s,min = lap-splice length required to prevent slippage, p c = perimeter of

crack at lap-splice failure (Fig. 6.15b,c), f yd = yield stress of longitudinal rebars, b and d

= dimensions of rectangular cross section, = friction coefficient, f fde = effective FRP

jacket strength in circumferential direction and Rd = safety factor.

An additional

condition to met in order to prevent lap-splice failure according to Seible et al. (1997) is

that the radial concrete strain should be kept below a critical value, in the order of 0.0010.002. Hence, f fde in eq. (6.28) should exceed the value

f fde 0.0015 E f

(6.29)

D

n lap-splices

s

db

ls

(a)

db

pc=(D/2n)+2(db+c)

(b)

c

pc=(s/2)+2(db+c)

2 2 (db+c)

(c)

Fig. 6.15 (a) Column confinement at lap-splice region. (b) Cracking of circular section in the

tension zone due to bond failure and definition of critical crack path. () Similarly for

rectangular columns.

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

66

Closing this section we should point out that the effect of FRP confinement at lapspliced rebars is favorable only for the corner rebars (in rectangular cross sections),

where confining stresses are substantial due to rounding of the corners.

Example 6.3

Consider the column of Fig. 6.12a (0.30x0.40 m cross section) with 16 rebars and

f yd = 230 Pa, under lateral loading which causes bending with respect to either the

strong or the weak axis. We assume that the radius at column edges is rc = 25 mm and

that the concrete cover is c = 30 mm. The concrete strength is 11 Pa, the friction

coefficient is taken = 1.4, the lap-splice length is l s = 0.25 m and l s,min = 0.40 m.

Assuming that confinement at the lap-splice region is provided with carbon fiber sheets

with elastic modulus E f = 230 GPa, tensile strength 2600 Pa and thickness of one

layer 0.12 mm, determine the required number of layers to prevent lap-splice failure.

Take Rd = 1.5.

(a) Strong axis bending

d

220

Fig. 6.16a

ffde = min(2600, 0.0015 230000 ) = min(2600, 345 ) = 345 MPa .

From Example 6.2, = 0.48 mm.

0.25

200 230

0.4

= 0.28 mm .

0.48 (300 + 400 ) 136 1.4 345 500

Required number of layers: 0.28/0.12 = 2.33 3 layers.

(b) Weak axis bending

d

150

Fig. 6.16b

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

67

The calculations are as above, but note that FRP jacketing will prevent lap-splice failure

only at the corner rebars.

6.4.2 Effect of lap-splices on chord rotation

The effect of lap-splices on chord rotation is taken into account by computing the

yield chord rotation y and the plastic part of the ultimate chord rotation pl

u with twice

as high compared to that outside the lap-splice region. The same applies for y and M y .

Moreover, if l s < l s,min , then pl

u , u , M y and y should be computed by multiplying the

yield stress of longitudinal rebars by l s / l s,min . Moreover, the 2nd term in eq. (6.21)

(6.22) should be multiplied by the ratio of the reduced yield moment to that outside the

lap-splice region. Finally, the right part of eq. (6.26) should be multiplied by l s / l su,min .

For lap-splices without FRP jacketing:

l s,min =

l su,min =

0.3 f y

fc

db

(6.30)

fy

f

1.05 + 14.5 l sx yw

fc

fc

db

(6.31)

where

s

l = 1 h

2b o

s

1 h

2ho

nrestr

(6.32)

n = total number of longitudinal rebars in the column perimeter and nrestr = number of

rebars supported at corners of stirrups or by cross ties.

For lap-splices with FRP jacketing at a height at least equal to 2 l s /3:

l s,min =

l su,min =

0.2 f y

fc

db

(6.33)

fy

f

1.05 + 14.5 l, f fx fde

fc

fc

db

(6.34)

where l, f = 4/ n (because confinement is effective only in the vicinity of the four corner

rebars). Note here that in order to avoid accounting for the FRP contribution twice in the

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

68

correction for pl

u , f in the power of 25 in eq. (6.26) should be taken as zero. Finally, all

strength parameters in the above equations are given in MPa.

maximum acting bending moment and shear force, respectively, and d is the cross

section dimension parallel to the plane of bending) and the ratio of stirrup spacing to

rebar diameter sh / db exceeds a critical value, buckling of the longitudinal rebars is likely

to occur due to high axial strains.

tf =

0.45nfs2 d

4E dsE f f

(6.35)

where n = total number of longitudinal rebars in the cross section, f s = stress in the

rebars at a strain equal to 0.04 and E ds = double modulus of rebars, defined as follows

(Fig. 6.17):

E ds =

(E

4E s E i

s

+ Ei

(6.36)

Stress

s

fu

fs

0.04

Strain

initial modulus of rebars. Finally, in eq. (6.35) the quantity 0.45 f s2 / E ds may be taken

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

69

approximately (and conservatively) equal to 40 MPa. Hence, with the introduction of the

safety factor we have:

t f = Rd

10nd

Ef f

( E f in MPa)

(6.37)

Example 6.4

rebars

18, S500s

18.

Fig. 6.18

For carbon fiber sheets with E f = 230 GPa and thickness of one layer equal to 0.12 mm,

the required sheet thickness to delay rebar buckling is:

tf =

1.5 10 10 400

= 0.54 mm

230000 0.48

It must be made clear that FRP jacketing in RC columns: (a) increases the axial load

capacity (strength), if the predominant loading is axial and (b) increases substantially the

deformability (ductility, chord rotation) and/or the shear resistance, if the predominant

loading is lateral (seismic forces). Contrary to the case of steel jacketing, the stiffness is

not affected by FRP jacketing, implying that very flexible structures (e.g. buildings with

pilotis) may remain vulnerable and may require stiffening in addition to strengthening, as

per the structural analysis results.

Under the condition that the intervention does not aim to increase the stiffness (or

the flexural resistance!), any given seismic excitation will provide (through the structural

analysis) (a) the target chord rotation (or ductility) and (b) the design shear (accounting

for capacity design, that is flexural yielding before shear cracking).

The required

calculations for chord rotation, shear resistance, delay or rebar buckling and prevention

of lap-splice failures.

T. C. Triantafillou

CONFINEMENT

70

T. C. Triantafillou

71

CHAPTER 7

7.1 General

This chapter summarizes basic detailing and practical execution rules for the

application of composites as externally bonded reinforcement.

7.2 Detailing

Detailing rules are summarized here for the three basic cases: (a) flexural

strengthening, (b) shear strengthening and (c) confinement.

7.2.1 Flexural strengthening

According to the fib bulletin 14 (2001), the following rules should be respected (for

beam strengthening):

Fig. 7.1

case of cantilevers 0.2 should be replaced by 0.4).

equal

the

concrete

cover

of

the

longitudinal reinforcement.

internal

cover

Lap joints of strips should be avoided; they are absolutely not necessary, because

FRP can be delivered in the required length. Nevertheless, if needed, lap joints

should be made in the direction of the fibers with an overlap that will ensure tensile

fracture of the FRP prior to debonding at the lap joint.

Crossing of strips is allowed (e.g. strengthening of two way slabs) with bonding in the

crossing area.

If strips or sheets are to be applied in several layers, the maximum number or layers

should not exceed 3 or 5 for prefabricated strips or in-situ cured sheets, respectively.

In the case of applying FRP strips over supports of continuous beams or slabs, the

strips should be anchored at a distance in the order of 1 m in the compression zone

(Fig. 7.2).

T. C. Triantafillou

72

FRP

1m

Shift rule

Anchoring of FRP (especially if the strips are staggered) can be ensured by applying

bonded FRP stirrups that enclose the longitudinal strips at their ends (Fig. 7.3, 7.4).

The use of such stirrups is strongly recommended. Note that these stirrups are not

considered to be part of the shear reinforcement but are responsible to keep the

longitudinal strips in their position and to prevent peeling-off.

Section A - A

T. C. Triantafillou

73

Fig. 7.4 Improved anchorage at FRP strip ends using transverse FRP.

the compression zone (e.g. Fig. 7.5).

Fig. 7.5 Typical configurations for the anchorage of FRP ties in the compression zone.

possible, placement of sheets inside grooves

at the top of the web is strongly recommended

(Fig. 7.6). The rods inside the grooves could

be

non-metallic

(e.g.

FRP);

if

shear

and the rods are made of steel, the use of

groove with epoxy

150 mm

ensure the non-contact between carbon and

steel (due

to the potential

of galvanic

Fig. 7.6

corrosion).

Minimum permissible radii at corners of rectangular cross sections are in the order of

20 mm for carbon or glass fibers and 10 mm for aramid fibers.

T. C. Triantafillou

74

Shear strengthening of columns between partial height infill walls should be done

along the full column height, not just in the free part (Fig. 7.7).

WRONG

CORRECT

Fig. 7.7 Shear strengthening of column between partial height infill walls.

of FRP along the height should be done with

Fig. 7.8

7.2.3 Confinement

Rounding of the corners in columns should be done at the maximum possible radius

(typically determined by the concrete cover).

sections (Fig. 7.9) should be such that fracture of the

FRP would occur prior to debonding.

Typical

Fig. 7.9

carbon fiber sheets with a nominal thickness about

0.12-0.14 mm.

be in the order of 15 or according to the material

suppliers recommendation.

gap

rotation of the end cross section as well as to prevent

Fig. 7.10

Concerning the application of FRP on rectangular columns or pier walls with large

aspect ratio, the FRP does not actually confine the internal concrete structure if just

applied to the surface.

constrained on both sides along the length through the use of dowels or bolts or

spike anchors (Fig. 7.11) that anchor the jacket to the existing structure, thereby

T. C. Triantafillou

75

creating shorter distances. Spike anchors provide a low cost solution, which has

been tested with very good results for the attachment of FRP jackets at the reentrant

corners of L-shaped cross section columns, Fig. 7.12 (Karantzikis et al. 2005).

First layer

Spike anchor

Concrete

Final layer

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 7.12 Fixing the jacket at reentrant corner: (a) typical configuration, (b) spike anchors, (c)

photograph of anchors at reentrant corner.

As in the case of columns strengthened in shear, full wrapping with several pieces of

FRP along the height should be done with the lap joints in different sides (Fig. 7.8).

When jackets are provided to prevent lap-splice failures (e.g. at the bottom of

columns), the FRP should extend at a height equal to at least 2/3 of the lap splice.

FRP materials used in strengthening and/or seismic retrofitting are typically in the

form of (a) 1.0-1.5 mm thick and 50-100 mm wide strips made of carbon fibers, or (b)

sheets with a nominal thickness of 0.1-0.6 mm made of carbon, glass and (more rarely)

T. C. Triantafillou

76

aramid fibers. Bonding on concrete surfaces is achieved with two-part epoxy adhesives.

Details about specific systems as far as material properties and practical execution are

concerned are given by the supplier of the strengthening system. In this section we

provide general rules, applicable to most of the commercially available systems.

The concrete should be sound and free from serious imperfections (e.g. cavities,

wide cracks, protrusions), roughened (e.g. by means of sand blasting or water jet

blasting) and made laitance and contamination free. Surface moisture in excess of

4% requires the use of special resins. Typical surface preparation steps are given in

Fig. 7.13.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 7.13 Surface preparation: (a) Grinding, (b) cleaning (c) leveling.

Use

of

prefabricated

strips

requires

approximately 1.5 MPa (measured in-situ

through pull-off testing, Fig. 7.14).

Fig. 7.14 In-situ testing of

substrate strength.

Selection of the appropriate resin should be made on the basis of in-situ temperature

and humidity requirements.

FRP strips should be cut to proper size using an electric or manual saw. Depending

on the type of strips, cleaning (e.g. with acetone) or removal of a surface veil may be

required prior to bonding. Handling of strips by workers should be performed with

care (the use of gloves is strongly recommended).

T. C. Triantafillou

77

roller, to remove entrapped air and excess resin (Fig. 7.15-7.16).

Prepared substrate

Resin

Air

Strip with resin in trapezoidal

configuration

Plastic roller

(b)

(a)

Fig. 7.15 (a) Application of resin on concrete and FRP, (b) application of pressure during

rolling.

Use of roller.

Placement of strip.

Sheets should be applied with special care to ensure that wrinkles are avoided and

that the fibers are as straight as practically possible. Impregnation of sheets with

resin is achieved using a plastic roller (Fig. 7.17)

T. C. Triantafillou

(a)

78

(b)

(d)

(c)

(e)

Fig. 7.17 In-situ impregnation of sheet: (a) Prime, (b) placement of first layer of sheet, (c)

impregnation of sheet on concrete. (d) Pre-impregnation of sheet and (e) application

of pre-impregnated sheet.

The average thickness of resin layer between strips and the concrete substrate

should be in the order of 1.5 mm. The resin used to impregnate sheets must have

an appropriate viscosity and used at the proper quantity, to ensure full impregnation

without entrapped air.

providing a rough surface through the application of a certain quantity of sand (in the

order of 1 kg/m2) directly on the last layer of resin prior to its hardening.

Last, but certainly not least, the FRP strengthening system should be applied by

properly trained and qualified personnel.

T. C. Triantafillou

DURABILITY

79

CHAPTER 8

DURABILITY

8.1 General

This chapter provides a brief overview of the durability of FRP-based strengthening

systems with regard to a number of factors, namely:

Temperature effects

Moisture

Galvanic corrosion

Fatigue

Impact

As reported already in Chapter 2, high temperatures, in the order of 60-80 C, cause

a dramatic degradation of properties in resins (matrix material in FRPs, adhesive at the

FRP-concrete interface). Much higher temperatures, such as those developed during

fire, result in complete resin decomposition; hence FRPs during fire cannot carry any

stresses. The decomposition of glass, carbon and aramid fibers starts at about 1000 oC,

650 oC and 200 oC, respectively. Experimental results have shown that CFRP jackets

suffer substantial strength reduction at temperatures exceeding approximately 260 oC.

Hence, an FRP strengthening system without special fire protection measures should be

considered as ineffective during (and after) fire. Fire protection may be provided using

either standard mortar plastering (with a minimum thickness of at least 40 mm, according

to the JSCE 2001 guidelines), special mortars or gypsum-based boards.

8.3 Moisture

FRP materials are, in general, highly resistant to moisture. Occasionally, extremely

prolonged exposure to water (either fresh or salt) may cause problems with some

fiber/resin combinations. The resin matrix absorbs water, which causes a slight reduction

T. C. Triantafillou

DURABILITY

80

in strength and the glass transition temperature. However, most structural adhesives

(high quality epoxy resins) are extremely resistant to moisture (Blaschko et al. 1998). As

far as the fibers are concerned, the high susceptibility of aramid to moisture deserves

special attention; carbon fibers are practically unaffected, whereas glass fibers have an

intermediate behavior.

At this point it is worth pointing out that full jacketing of RC with FRP provides a

moisture/vapor/air barrier which increases the longevity of members by protecting them

from harsh conditions (e.g. chlorides, chemicals). On the hand, in case of poor concrete

conditions, the encapsulation is at risk if the member is exposed to extreme climate

cycling and/or excessive moisture. Applications of FRP to a structural member that is at

risk of water pooling should not involve fully encapsulating the concrete. Good internal

and surface concrete conditions, proper surface preparation, adequate concrete

substrate exposure and proper application of an adequate FRP system may substantially

reduce this risk.

UV light affects the chemical bonds in polymers and causes surface discoloration

and surface microcracking. Such degradation may affect only the matrix near the surface

exposed to UV, as well as some types of fibers, such as aramid (Ahmad and Plecnik

1989); carbon and glass fibers are practically unaffected by UV. Anti-UV protection may

be provided by surface coatings or special acrylic or polyurethane based paints.

The performance of the FRP strengthening over time in an alkaline or acidic

environment will depend on both matrix and the reinforcing fiber. Carbon fibers are

resistant to alkali and acid environment, glass fibers can degrade and aramid displays an

intermediate behavior. However, a properly applied resin matrix will isolate and protect

the fibers and postpone the deterioration. Nevertheless RC structures located in high

alkalinity combined with high moisture or relative humidity environments should be

strengthened using carbon fibers.

T. C. Triantafillou

DURABILITY

81

The contact of carbon fibers with steel may lead to galvanic corrosion, a problem

which is not of concern in the case of glass or aramid fibers.

In general, creep strains in composite materials loaded parallel to the fibers are very

low. CFRP does not creep, the creep of GFRP is negligible, but that of AFRP cannot be

neglected. Hence, the creep behavior of CFRP - or GFRP - plated RC members is

governed primarily by the compressive creep of concrete (e.g. Plevris and Triantafillou

1994). As AFRP creeps itself, long-term deformations increase considerably in the case

of AFRP-strengthened elements. However, it should be born in mind that in (the very

common) case when FRP strengthening systems are designed for additional loads

(beyond the permanent ones), creep is not of concern.

Another important issue regarding time-effects is the poor behavior of GFRP under

sustained loading. Glass fibers exhibit premature tensile rupture under sustained stress,

a phenomenon called stress rupture. Hence the tensile strength of GFRP drops to very

low values (as low as 20%) when the material carries permanent tension.

Stress corrosion occurs when the atmosphere or ambient environment is of a

corrosive nature but not sufficiently so that corrosion would occur without the addition of

stress. This phenomenon is time, stress level, environment, matrix and fiber related.

Failure is deemed to be premature since the FRP fails at a stress level below its ultimate.

Carbon fiber are relatively unaffected by stress corrosion at stress levels up to 80% of

ultimate. Glass and aramid fibers are susceptible to stress corrosion. The quality of the

resin has a significant effect on time to failure and the sustainable stress levels. In

general, the following order of fibers and resins gives increasing vulnerability either to

stress rupture or to stress corrosion: carbon-epoxy, aramid-vinylester, glass-polyester.

We may also state that, in general, given the stress rupture of GFRP and the relatively

poor creep behaviour of AFRP, it is recommended that when the externally bonded

reinforcement is to carry considerable sustained load, composites with carbon fibres

should be the designers first choice.

8.8 Fatigue

In general, the fatigue behavior of unidirectional fiber composites is excellent,

especially when carbon fibers are used, in which case the fatigue strength of FRP is even

higher than that of the steel rebars (e.g. Kaiser 1989, Deuring 1993, Barnes and Mays

1999).

T. C. Triantafillou

DURABILITY

82

8.9 Impact

The strength of composites under impact loading is highest when aramid fibers are

used (hence the use of these materials in bridge columns that may suffer impact loading

due to vehicle collision) and lowest in the case of carbon fibers. Glass gives intermediate

results.

T. C. Triantafillou

REFERENCES

83

REFERENCES

Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, ACI Report 440R-96, Detroit, Michigan.

Antonopoulos, . (2001), Strengthening of RC Beam-Column Joints with FRP

Materials, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Patras, Department of Civil Engineering (in

Greek).

Ahmad, S. H. and Plecnik, J. M. (1989), Transfer of Composites Technology to

Design and Construction of Bridges, Report of the California State University.

Antonopoulos, C. P. and Triantafillou, T. C. (2002), Analysis of FRP-Strengthened

RC Beam-Column Joints, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 6(1), 41-51.

Antonopoulos, C. P. and Triantafillou, T. C. (2003), Experimental Investigation of

FRP-Strengthened RC Beam-Column Joints, Journal of Composites for Construction,

ASCE, 7(1), 39-49.

Barnes, R. A. and Mays, G. C. (1999), Fatigue performance of concrete beams

strengthened with CFRP plates, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 3(2),

63-72.

Bizindavyi, L. and Neale, K. W. (1999), Transfer lengths and bond strengths for

composites bonded to concrete, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 3(4),

153-160.

Blaschko M., Nierdermeier R. and Zilch, K. (1998), Bond failure modes of flexural

members strengthened with FRP, Proceedings of Second International Conference on

Composites in Infrastructures, Saadatmanesh, H. and Ehsani, M. R., eds., Tucson,

Arizona, 315-327.

Deuring, M. (1993), Strengthening of RC with Prestressed Fiber Reinforced Plastic

Sheets. EMPA Research Report 224, Dbendorf, Switzerland (in German).

Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for

buildings. ENV 1992-1-1, Comit Europen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 1991.

Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance Part 3: Assessment

and Retrofitting of Buildings, prEN 1998-3:2005, Comit Europen de Normalisation,

Brussels, Belgium.

Feldman, D. (1989), Polymeric uilding aterials, Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.,

UK.

Federation

International

du

Beton

fib

(2001),

Externally

onded

FRP

Federation International du Beton fib (2003), Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of

Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Bulletin 24, Lausanne.

T. C. Triantafillou

REFERENCES

84

Experimental investigation of seismic repair and retrofit of bridge columns by composite

jackets, Proceedings of the International Conference of FRP composites in Civil

Engineering, J.-G. Teng, ed., Hong Kong, 839-848.

Holzenkmpfer, P. (1994), Ingenieurmodelle des verbundes geklebter bewehrung fr

betonbauteile. Dissertation, TU Braunschweig (In German).

Jansze, W. (1997), Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Members in Bending by

Externally Bonded Steel Plates, PhD Dissertation, TU Delft, The Netherlands.

Japan Society of Civil Engineers (2001), Recommendations for Upgrading of

Concrete Structures with use of Continuous Fiber Sheets, Concrete Engineering Series

41.

Karantzikis, M., Papanicolaou, C. G, Antonopoulos, C. P. and Triantafillou, T. C.

(2005), Experimental Investigation of Non-Conventional Confinement for Concrete using

FRP, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, December 2001.

Kaiser, H. (1989), Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete with CFRP Plates, Ph.D.

Dissertation, ETH Zrich (in German).

Kim, D.-H. (1995), Composite Structures for Civil and Architectural Engineering, E &

FN Spon, London.

Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2003), Stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete for

design applications, Proceedings of 6th International Symposium on Fibre-Reinforced

Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Ed. K. H. Tan, Singapore, 1, 99110.

Ma, R. and Xiao, Y. (1997), Seismic retrofit and repair of circular bridge columns

with advanced composite materials, Earthquake Spectra, 15(4), 747-764.

Matthys, S. (2000), Structural Behaviour and Design of Concrete Members

Strengthened with Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement, Doctoral Thesis, Ghent

University.

Moehle, J., Lynn, A., Elwood, K. and Sezen, H. (2001), Gravity Load Collapse of

Building Frames During Earthquakes, PEER Report: 2nd US-Japan Workshop on

Performance-based Design Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures,

PEER Center, Richmont, CA.

Neubauer, U. and Rostsy, F. S. (1999), Bond failure of concrete fibre reinforced

polymer at inclined cracks experiments and fracture mechanics model, Proceedings of

the 4th International Conference on Fibre Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete

Structures, Eds. C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla and A,. Nanni, ACI, Michigan, USA, 369-382.

Oehlers, D. J. (1992), Reinforced concrete beams with plates glued to their soffits,

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118(8), 2023-2038.

T. C. Triantafillou

REFERENCES

85

Osada, K., Yamaguchi, T. and Ikeda, S. (1999), Seismic performance and the

retrofit of hollow circular reinforced concrete piers having reinforcement cut-off planes

and variable wall thickness, Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, 21, 263-274.

Plevris, N. and Triantafillou, T. C. (1994), Time-dependent behaviour of RC

members strengthened with FRP laminates, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,

120(3), 1016-1042.

Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F. and Calvi, G. M. (1996), Seismic Design and Retrofit of

Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.

Raoof, M. and Hassanen, M. A. H. (2000), Peeling failure of reinforced concrete

beams with fibre-reinforced plastic or steel plates glued to their soffits, Proceedings of

the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings, 140, 291-305.

Restrepo, J. I., Wang, Y. C., Irwin, R. W. and DeVino, B. (1988) Fibreglass/epoxy

composites for the seismic upgrading of reinforced concrete beams with shear and bar

curtailment deficiencies, Proceedings 8th European Conference on Composite Materials,

Naples, Italy, 59-66.

Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R. and Jin, L. (1997) Repair of earthquake-damaged

RC columns with FRP wraps, ACI Structural Journal, 94(2), 206-215.

Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Hegemier, G. A. and Innamorato, D. (1997) Seismic

retrofit of RC columns with continuous carbon fiber jackets, Journal of Composites for

Construction, ASCE, 1(2), 52-62.

Tastani, S. and Pantazopoulou, S. (2002), Design of seismic strengthening for brittle

RC members using FRP jackets, Proceedings of 12th European Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, London, Paper 360.

Teng, J. G.; Chen, J. F.; Smith, S. T. and Lam, L. (2001), FRP Strengthened RC

Structures, John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Triantafillou, T. C. (1998), Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using

epoxy-bonded FRP composites, ACI Structural Journal, 95(2), 107-115.

riantafillou, T. C. (2004), Structural Materials, Papasotiriou Bookstores (in Greek).

Triantafillou, T. C. (2004), Strengthening and Seismic Retrofitting of RC Structures

with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP), Papasotiriou Bookstores (in Greek).

Triantafillou, T. C. and Plevris, N. (1992), Strengthening of RC beams with epoxybonded fibre-composite materials, Materials and Structures, 25, 201-211.

Yamaguchi, T., Nishimura, T., and Uomoto, T. (1998), Creep model of FRP rods

based on fibre damaging rate, Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Durability

of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites for Construction, Eds. B. Benmokrane

and H. Rahman, Sherbrooke, Canada, 427-437.

Zilch, K., Niedermeier, R. and Blaschko, M. (1998), Bericht ber versuche zum

verstrken von betonbauteilen mit CFK (Test report on retrofitting concrete members with

T. C. Triantafillou

REFERENCES

CFRP).

86

Ziraba, Y. N., Baluch, M. H., Basunbul, I. A., Sharif, A. M., Azad, A. K. and AlSulaimani, G. J. (1994), Guidelines towards the design of reinforced concrete beams

with external plates, ACI Structural Journal, 91(6), 639-646.

T. C. Triantafillou

87

The Program

Composite Dimensioning

This Appendix gives information on the use of the program Composite Dimensioning,

which may be used for the dimensioning of concrete members strengthened with FRP in

flexure, shear or through confinement. The program makes use of the composite materials

provided by ISOMAT S.A, a major producer of chemicals and mortars for construction in

Greece.

HM-250 (prefabricated carbon fiber plates). The program may also be used with userspecified properties for the composite materials. It runs on PCs operating under Windows

98, 2000, Me XP and may be installed as follows:

Click .

Click setup.

By clicking OK the following window allows the user to choose one of the following three

options: FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING, SHEAR STRENGTHENING, CONFINEMENT.

88

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING

First the type of cross section is selected (Beam or Column) and then the cross section

geometry is defined, followed by selection of concrete class or design strength, material

data for composite materials (pre-selected products or user-defined elastic modulus, limiting

strain) and data for the longitudinal reinforcement. Next, the user defines the moment Mo

acting in the critical section during strengthening (initial situation) and the axial force No , in

the case of columns. Finally a selection of the target moment capacity MRd (and axial force

NRd in the case of columns) in the critical section at the ultimate limit state is made.

By clicking Solve a new window appears, which gives the results in terms of the FRP

cross section area ( A f ), the resisting moment ( MRd,o ) of the unstrengthened cross section

and the degree of strengthening.

89

Strain profile, in order to obtain the

strain in the cross section both during

strengthening (initial situation) and

after strengthening, at the ultimate limit

state. Moreover, the failure mode is

provided.

After selecting Return, a click on Input FRP dimensions opens a new window where the

user inputs the width b f and thickness t f of FRP strips (or sheets). Next, the Solve

button yields the required number of strips and the corresponding cross section area.

90

Finally the user has two options (apart from exiting the program): (a) Return without

Solving, which displays again the window of results, or (b) Return with Solving, which

displays the window of results updated with new values for A f and MRd (as well as the

updated degree of strengthening), those corresponding to the specific FRP geometry

chosen.

SHEAR STRENGTHENING

First the user selects the type of jacket, that is the FRP anchorage conditions. A

Closed jacket is typically the case in columns/shear walls (with full access) or beams with

fully anchored FRP in the compression zone, whereas an Open jacket is typically the case

in T-beams strengthened with U-shaped sheets.

defined, followed by selection of concrete class or design strength and material data for

composite materials (elastic modulus, design strength and effective strength).

In the

following the use of either continuous jacketing or strips (of width b f ) at equal spacing ( s f )

is specified and, finally, the shear to be carried by the FRP, VRd, f , is introduced.

91

click on Input FRP dimensions opens a new window where the user inputs the thickness

t fib of each layer of sheet to be used in shear strengthening. Next, the Solve button yields

the required number of layers and the corresponding total thickness of the fiber sheet, t f .

Finally the user has two options (apart from exiting the program): (a) Return without

Solving, which displays again the window of results, or (b) Return with Solving, which

displays the window of results updated with new values for t f and VRd, f , those

corresponding to the number of layers calculated.

92

CONFINEMENT

The type of cross section (rectangular or circular) is selected first and the cross section

geometry is defined, followed by selection of concrete class or design strength and material

data for composite materials (elastic modulus, design strength and effective strength). Next

the user inputs the data regarding the existing stirrups (strength of steel, spacing, cross

section of ties in each direction, concrete cover) and defines the solution requirements,

which can be one of the following: (a) increase the concrete strength and/or the ultimate

strain, e.g. for columns where axial loading is predominant; (b) increase the displacement

ductility factor (equal to the chord rotation ductility factor ), for columns subjected to

lateral (seismic) loading causing bending either in the strong or in the weak axis (that is

parallel to either the larger or the smaller side of the cross section.

93

At this point we must emphasize that use of eq. (6.27) is made, which gives quite

conservative results (thicker jackets).

thickness t f is calculated.

Apart from the thickness t f , the strength of concrete fcc1d confined with the existing stirrups

is also calculated in this case. Moreover, for a given target confined concrete strength the

corresponding ultimate strain is calculated and vice-versa. Note that if the user specifies

both a target strength and a target ultimate strain, the thickness t f returned by the program

is the one corresponding to the maximum of these two cases (hence the ultimate strain and

strength values after strengthening correspond to this thickness).

For increase in ductility:

94

Next, as in the case of shear strengthening, a click on Input FRP dimensions opens a

new window where the user inputs the thickness t fib of each layer of sheet to be used for

confinement.

The Solve button yields the required number of layers and the

Finally the user has two options (apart from exiting the program): (a) Return without

Solving, which displays again the window of results, or (b) Return with Solving, which

displays the window of results updated with new values for t f and (or ccu and fccd ,

depending on the requirements), those corresponding to the number of layers calculated.

OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAM

By clicking Options on the data entry form, the user may specify its data, printing

details, and, for the case of Flexural strengthening, whether a failure mode that would not

involve Steel yielding would be acceptable or not. Finally, Print gives a printout of all the

input and output parameters.

95

Finally, by clicking Products Data Sheets on the data entry form, a new form is

presented in which all relative to repairing and strengthening issues products of ISOMAT

could be presented. The products are divided by the use, as those related to substrate

preparation (mortars or epoxy resins) and those related to FRP application (fabrics/plates or

epoxy resins). The technical data sheets are in .pdf format so the user should have already

install Acrobat Reader.

- Life Prediction of Composite Armor in an Unbonded Flexible PipeUploaded byfdoppel
- Rapid industrialization and population explosion in various parts of the especially developing country like India has led to the migration of people from villages to cities,which generate thousands tons of municipal solid waste daily,which is one of the important contributors for environmental degradation at national level. Municipal solid waste causes various hazards to inhabitants due to improper management. The energy crisis and environmental degradation are currently two important issues for global su stainable development. The proper management of municipal solid waste requires infrastructure,maintenance and upgrade for all activities. The municipal solid waste management system comprises with generation,storage,collection,transfer and transport,p rocessing and disposal of solid wastes. In the present work,a comprehensive study has been made to provide a review of MSW management to evaluate the current status of waste to energy facilities for sustainable management,which will be hUploaded byIJIERT-International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology
- Thesis FRP.pdfUploaded byAna Luisa Coelho
- IRJET-Progressive Damage Analysis of E-Glass Epoxy Composite LaminatesUploaded byIRJET Journal
- w10_borri New Materials for Strengthening and Seismic Upgrading Interventions FRPUploaded byMagdy Bakry
- Oportunities in CompositesUploaded byJoel Laguárdia
- JART10-2012 Design of a Composite Drive Shaft and Its Coupling for Automotive ApplicationUploaded bycubanninja
- Composite Materials MarketUploaded byIndustryARc123123
- A Dvanced Composite Materials for Strengthening Blast Protection for Strengthening , Blast Protection and Seismic ProtectionUploaded byRoscii Rulez
- STRUCTURAL RETROFITTING.pdfUploaded bySoumya Gorai
- Frp Ndt InspUploaded byPrabhakar Kattula
- Gay Composite Materials 3editionUploaded byPaz Gonzlez
- Norme - Astm - d 3846 - 02Uploaded byRyan Drake
- 482Uploaded byJason Fitch
- Fiber Reinforced Polymer typesUploaded byMohamed Khalil
- Composite Materials_1490975998311Uploaded bysurajsingh
- 6Uploaded byReva
- Perform Components and ElementsUploaded bytgsergiu
- FRP-strengthened RC Slabs Anchored With FRP AnchorsUploaded byPratik
- Tensile & Flexural Properties of Banboo Fibre-Epoxy Green CompositesUploaded byscottjgould
- Tensile, Flexural and Torsional Properties of Chemically Treated Alfa, Coir and Bagasse Reinforced PolypropyleneUploaded byRodrigo Maia
- Design Certification Offshore FrpUploaded byHoney Tiwari
- icsci2014_64Uploaded byvempadareddy
- hif17032 FHWAUploaded byJuan Gutièrrez Ccencho
- Ashby 2003Uploaded byGajaraj Gajapathi
- 1-s2.0-S0141029615007300-main.pdfUploaded byJithinRaj
- Strenghtening Measures SmUploaded bySAFNA
- 1-s2.0-S0263822316317585-mainUploaded bymuzzamal999
- Bairagi2018-Comparison of Aerodynamic Coefficients of Setback Tall Buildings Due to WindUploaded bysagar jain
- Composites SelectionUploaded byBookMaggot

- HTML and CSS for BeginnersUploaded byNahuelLattessi
- Profile Metalice EuropeneUploaded bylucian18v
- 4superiputeri-afiliere-ecompedia.pdfUploaded bySzőcs Emese
- NE 012-99 Cod Practica Ba Si BpUploaded byilieaugustin
- 5 Levels of EntrepreneurshipUploaded byVyavasayaha Anita Busic
- DS-RX1 UsersManual Ver.1.05 EnglishUploaded byliviubbcel
- Compozitia betonuluiUploaded bygeorgecristi
- Manual Calificare Fierar-BetonistUploaded bycristivantu
- Fisa Tehnica Placi Compozite Din Alumniu-ALUCOBONDUploaded byaurelian177
- ARTICOL- Props-urile (Recuzita), Au Un Rol Foarte Important! Ce Props-uri Sunt Potrivite Pentru Petrecerea TaUploaded byliviubbcel
- Normativ AcoperisuriUploaded byClaudiu Gherman
- indrumator fundatii 2Uploaded bywonda_mark
- PT CR 6-2013Uploaded byliviubbcel
- Obtinerea Autorizatiei de ConstructieUploaded byphoebe_62002239
- Debbie Brown Dream Wedding CakesUploaded byliviubbcel
- Clase Beton Cf. Ne12-99Uploaded byliviubbcel
- Ghidul Tanarului Intreprinzator AIPPIMMUploaded byDave
- Repeat Until Rich eBookUploaded byliviubbcel
- Stahlbau ProfileUploaded byDraghici Sebastian
- Arii de ArmaturaUploaded byliviubbcel
- Arii de ArmaturaUploaded byliviubbcel
- Proiectarea Executiei Bransamentelor La UtilitatiUploaded byliviubbcel

- astm17_0104Uploaded byJMFP
- Butterfly Valve Lug Type 710702-01Uploaded byadvantage025
- Convention Center Structural CalculationsUploaded byGiho Kim
- Thermit Weld connection Connection.pdfUploaded byAmiableimpex
- Welding JointsUploaded bySazzad Hossain Lemon
- Acid ResistanceUploaded byBatepola Arach
- Chapter 1 4Uploaded byGurbir Kaur
- crack f40Uploaded byabdul
- Plastron - India's Finest PlasterUploaded byPlastron
- gauge LGSUploaded bymeetvinayak2007
- Pex InstallUploaded bytincanandstring987
- MRTS30_Dense Graded and Open Graded AsphaltUploaded bysean edwards
- IS 458-1988Uploaded byRajashekhar Katta
- 27th RAR Street Light(Sec-VII)Uploaded bymooorthu
- Chapter 3 Pile Construction SequenceUploaded byFitsumbirhan Amanuel
- nzs.4298.1998Uploaded byal_bundi
- Technopanel en 20141023Uploaded byGeorgiStoyanov
- Bholer cataloueUploaded byAjay Ranganathan
- WPR_A307_20141005.pdfUploaded byAnonymous ikcpefzUXt
- List1 Lloyd's RegisterUploaded byAdrian Vintila
- Aluminium and CorrosionUploaded byfazyroshan
- TB2-SDC.VP101-00100-M-M1A-DAS-0004 RevH.pdfUploaded byPhương
- JDM V22Uploaded byX800XL
- Black & Decker the Complete Guide to Finishing Walls & Ceilings Includes Plaster, Skim-coating and TeUploaded byNgười Mở Đường
- Cost EstimationUploaded byJayampathi Asanga
- Concrete Protection CoatingUploaded byrudaqqeweewewe
- TECNOS 96 KV_ENUploaded byShuvro Chakravorty
- Filiform CorrosionUploaded byVisnu Drxs
- Piping Design InfoUploaded bykanchanabalaji
- Outline Gfrc Section Apa HandbookUploaded byVon Jorge Peniché