Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6
Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222653092 RC two-way

Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222653092

Article in CompositeStructures·June2003

ImpactFactor:3.32·DOI:10.1016/S0263-8223(03)00011-4

CITATIONS

57

3authors:

21 PUBLICATIONS 159 CITATIONS

102 PUBLICATIONS 680 CITATIONS

READS

264

102 PUBLICATIONS 680 CITATIONS SEEPROFILE READS 264 GillesForet MINESParisTech 32 PUBLICATIONS 223 CITATIONS

32 PUBLICATIONS 223 CITATIONS

Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,

lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.

Availablefrom:AlainEhrlacher

Retrievedon:17July2016

Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467–471 www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct RC two-way slabs strengthened with CFRP

Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467–471

Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467–471 www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct RC two-way slabs strengthened with CFRP

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

RC two-way slabs strengthened with CFRP strips: experimental study and a limit analysis approach

Oualid Limam * , Gilles Foret, Alain Ehrlacher

Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussee es, LAMI, 6–8 avenue Blaise Pascal, Citee Descartes, Champs-sur-Marne, 77455 Marne-La-Vallee e, France

Abstract

This paper deals with strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) two-way slabs with carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) strips bonded to the tensile face. The first part deals with an experimental study. The fibre reinforced plastics (FRP) strengthened slab test presents a failure mode with debonding of the external FRP strips from the slab. The second part deals with a limit analysis modelling. The strengthened slab is designed as a three-layered plate. Asimplified laminated plate model is used to describe the behaviour of three-layered plate supported in four sides, which is subjected to a load in the centre. The upper bound theorem of limit analysis is used to approximate the ultimate load capacity and identify the different collapse mechanisms. Experimental results are compared with theoretical predictions. 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Debonding; Reinforced concrete slabs; Limit analysis; Collapse mechanisms; Interface; Layer

1. Introduction

The use of externally bonded fibre reinforced plastics (FRP) for strengthening bridges and other reinforced concrete (RC) structures has received considerable at- tention in recent years [1]. Several analytical and nu- merical methods are available to describe and predict the behaviour of externally bonded carbon fibre rein- forced plastic (CFRP) beams [2]. Experimental investi- gations conducted by Teng et al. [3], Shahawy et al. [4], Erik and Heffernan [5] demonstrate the advantages of strengthening of existing RC slabs using rectangular FRP sheets or thin plates bonded to the tensile face. On the other hand, a brittle and sudden failure due to del- amination of FRP sheets or thin plates has also been observed. When applied to multi-layered plates, classical Kir- chhoff model fails to take in to account shear stress at the interfaces. Ahigh order theory for plates has been proposed to describe behaviour of RC slabs strength- ened with composite patches see [6]. Failure of multi- layered structures often occurs by delamination. As consequence, analysis of separation between layers be-

* Corresponding author. Fax: +33-164-153-741. E-mail address: limam@lami.enpc.fr (O. Limam).

comes essential for these structures. However, the plastic method of limit analysis based on the yield line theory, remains a robust and powerful tool for the analysis of RC slab problems [7]. The upper bound theorem of limit analysis has been applied to RC beams strengthened with composite material (see [8]). In this paper, an experimental investigation on RC two-way slabs strengthened with CFRP is conducted. The strengthened RC slab is designed as a three layer plate. The upper bound theorem of limit analysis is applied with a simplified plate model for multi-layered plate (M4 2n þ 1) [9]. The M4 2n þ 1 is a multi- layered membrane plate model. It is used to describe the different collapse mechanisms with failure modes in layers and interfaces.

2. Experimental program and test results

In this program, two 7 cm 130 cm 170 cm RC two-way slabs were tested. The internal steel grid rein- forcement is with a 6 mm bar diameter spaced at 20 cm in x- and y-directions. The concrete cover thickness is about 17 mm. One slab is strengthened with external (CFRP) strips bonded to the tensile face. The control slab is kept without strengthening. The average 28-day concrete compressive strength is about 30 MPa and it s

0263-8223/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0263-8223(03)00011-4

468

O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467–471

modulus of elasticity is about 25 GPa. The steel tensile yield stress strength is about 540 MPa and it s modulus of elasticity is about 200 GPa. When tested, the slab is supported in four sides and subjected to a load in the centre. Deflection is captured in the centre. The data is collected automatically. CFRP strips with 1.4 mm in thickness, 5 cm in width and 150 cm in length were bonded in the tension face of the slab in the y-direction and CFRP strips with 1.4 mm in thickness, 5 cm in width and 100 cm in length were bonded in the tension face of the slab in the x-direction. The CFRP strips are spaced at 15 cm. The tensile strength of the CFRP is about 2800 MPa and it s modulus of elasticity is about 160 GPa. Before bonding the strips, the concrete surface was roughened using an electrical wire brush and cleaned. The ultimate loading capacity of the control (non- strengthened) slab is about 48 KN. The ultimate load capacity of the strengthened slab is about 120 KN. Fig. 1 presents load deflection curves. The non-strengthened slab presents more ductility than the strengthened one. It presents a failure mode with diagonal yield lines (see Fig. 2). However, complete debonding of CFRP strips with some concrete which still bonded in it was observed in the FRP strengthened slab test (see Fig. 3).

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 2 4 6
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
2
4
6
non strengthed slab strengthed slab Interface shear stress: 2 MPa Interface shear stress: 2,5 MPa
non strengthed slab
strengthed slab
Interface shear
stress: 2 MPa
Interface shear
stress: 2,5 MPa

Fig. 1. The load–deflection curves and comparison with theoretical results.

curves and comparison with theoretical results. Fig. 2. Diagonal yield lines failure of the non-strengthened

Fig. 2. Diagonal yield lines failure of the non-strengthened slab.

Diagonal yield lines failure of the non-strengthened slab. Fig. 3. Debonding failure of FRP strengthened slab.

Fig. 3. Debonding failure of FRP strengthened slab.

3. Mechanical model

The rectangular RC slab strengthened by CFRP grid is designed as a three-layered plate, bottom layer is strips grid, the middle layer is the steel and the top layer is the compressive concrete. It has a thickness h, a length 2l and a width 2L (see Figs. 4 and 5). The CFRP grid is considered as a membrane plate. The respective ply thickness are e 1 , e 2 and e 3 . A z-direction load Q is ap- plied in the centre of the plate. The multi-layered plate is described as an open cylindrical domain X of R 3 , with a

base x 2 R 2 and three layers. (e x ; e y ; e
base
x 2 R 2 and three
layers. (e x ; e y ; e z ) is an orthogonal
base vector of X with ðe x ; e y Þ 2 x.
(e 2 +e 3 )/2
Neutral .Axis.
(Compressive concrete zone)
(Steel reinforcement)
(e 1 +e 2 )/2
(CFRP strips)

Fig. 4. RC slab section strengthened with CFRP strips.

Concrete CFRP grid l ω e y -L L e x Q -l 3 2
Concrete
CFRP grid
l
ω
e y
-L
L
e
x
Q
-l
3
2
Steel
1

Fig. 5. Three-layered rectangular plate.

O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467–471 i , i τ≡ +
O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467–471
i ,
i
τ≡
+
1
y
f
τ
i ,
i
+_ 1
x
Layer
i+1
N
interface i,i+1
N
i
yx
Layer i
N
i
xy
interface i-1,i
Layer i- 1
N
i
xx
z
τ
i
− 1 ,
i
y
y
τ
i
1 ,
i
x

i

yy

469

Fig. 6. Stress resultants related to M4 2n þ 1 model.

3.1. Velocity and stress fields of the proposed plate model

The proposed model is a multi-membrane plate model M4 2n þ 1, it has been developed by Philippe

et al. [9]. It gives 2n þ 1 generalised velocity fields: U (U a with a 2 f1; 2g) is the average displacement rate in e x

and e y direction, with i 2 f1; 2; 3g; W 3 is the overall av-

erage displacement rate in e

Stress resultants are given by (see Fig. 6): N i (N ab ðx; yÞ

with a; b 2 f1; 2g) is the membrane stress tensor in

layer i; s i (s i;iþ1 ðx; yÞ with a 2 f1; 2g) is the inter-laminar shear stress at the interface i; i þ 1. The generalised strain velocities are given by

i

i

z

direction.

i

a

with a ; b 2 f 1 ; 2 g with a; b 2 f1; 2g

is the in-surface deformation velocity tensor associated to the membrane stress tensor at layer i;

D

i;iþ1

D

i;iþ1

a

¼

iþ1

a

U

a þ e i þ e iþ1

i

oW 3

U

2

ox a

is the generalised velocity tensor associated to the inter- laminar shear stress at the interface (i; i þ 1).

3.2. The upper bound theorem of limit analysis

An estimation of the ultimate load follows from the upper bound theorem of limit analysis by equating the rate of internal energy dissipation in the velocity dis- continuities sets to the rate of work done by the applied loading as the slab deforms in this mechanism. The upper bound theorem of limit [10,11] involves collapses kinematic fields with discontinuities in velocity fields,

denoted c i in layer i and D i;iþ1 in the interface (i; i þ 1). Velocity fields are kinematically admissible (KA) when

it satisfy boundary limits. Let us define the dissipate functions as follows:

p N ðyÞ ¼

sup ðN i n yÞ and p s ðyÞ ¼

y Þ ¼ sup ð N i n y Þ and p s ð y Þ

N i 2G N

i

sup

s i;iþ1 2G s

i;iþ1

ðs i;iþ1 yÞ

ð1Þ

K 0 ¼ fQ=8UKA; Q qðU Þ 6 P d ðU Þg

where the internal energy dissipation is given by

n

P d ¼ X

i¼1

n

Z x ½p s ðD i;iþ1 Þ dx þ X

i¼1

Z

C

v

i

p N ðn; c i Þds

ð2Þ

and the work done by the applied loading as the slab

deforms is given by Q qðU Þ. qðU Þ is the generalised ve-

v i x is the set of velocity

discontinuities. n is the normal vector to C . When Q 62

K 0 the slab decomposes.

locity associated with Q and C

v

i

4. Application to a rectangular three-layered plate

4.1. Boundary conditions and collapse criteria

The boundary conditions are given by U

1

3 ðx; yÞ ¼ 0

for x ¼ L, U

3 ðx; yÞ ¼ 0 for x ¼ l and W 3 ðx; yÞ ¼ 0 for

2

ðx; yÞ in ox, boundary of x. Consider, the next criteriaon generalised stress fields;

N

ð3Þ

i

11c

< N

11

< N 11t ;

i

i

N

22c < N

22

i

i

i

< N 22t ;

12 j < N

jN

12c

i

i

ð4Þ

where N 11c is compressive strength in layer i and in the x- direction, N 11t is tensile strength in layer i and in the x- direction, N 22c is compressive strength in layer i and in the y-direction, N 22t is tensile strength in layer i and in

js i;iþ1 j < s i;iþ1

1

1c

i

i

i

;

js

i;iþ1

2

j < s

i;iþ1

2c

i

470

O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467–471

the y-direction and N 12c is the in-surface shear stress strength in layer i.

is shear stress strength in the x-direction and

is shear stress strength in the y-direction between layer 1 and layer 2.

s

i

The s i;iþ1

1c

i;iþ1

2c

4.2. Collapse mechanisms

Collapse mechanisms result in a velocity discontinu- ity in layers and interfaces. As indicated in Fig. 7, the field x is divided into four open sets x 1 , x 2 , x 1 0 and x In the case of layer mechanisms, they are rigid regions. An infinity of collapse mechanisms are considered by

2 .

0

varying the angle a. The velocity qðU Þ ¼ W 3 ð0Þ is related to the load Q.

4.2.1. Layers mechanisms

We suppose that D i;iþ1 ¼ 0, with i 2 f1; 2g. Consider for example, the collapse mechanism which corresponds to collapse of layer 1 and layer 2. A and B respectively in layer 1 and layer 2 represent the velocity discontinuities between x 1 and x 1 0 in x-direction. A 0 and B 0 respectively in layer 1 and layer 2 represent the velocity discontinu- ities between x 2 and x 2 in y-direction. The KAvelocity field is given by

0

U

3 ¼ 0 in x 1 ; x 2 ; x 1 0 and x

0

2

U

2 ¼

U 2 ¼

A=2

0

0

in x 1 ;

in x 2 ;

A 0 =2

U 2 ¼

U 2 ¼

U

U

1 ¼

1 ¼

B=2

0

in x 1 ;

0

B 0 =2

in x 2 ;

U 1 ¼

U 1 ¼

A=2

0

in x 0

1 ;

0

A 0 =2

in x

B=2

0

in x 0

1

;

0

B 0 =2

in x

0

2

0

2

¼ w 3 ð0; yÞ with

y 0 6y 6y 0 . Applying the upper bound theorem which gives a sufficient condition for collapse:

Velocity strain rate is

qðU Þ ¼ w 3 ð0; yÞ

ω n 2 α y 0 ω ' ω 1 1 y x ω '
ω
n
2
α
y
0
ω
'
ω
1
1
y
x
ω
'
2
0
Fig. 7. Definition of x 1 , x 2 , x 1 0 and x
2 .

jQjP ðe 2 þ e 3 Þ

L

2L

cos a

N 11t sin a þN 12 2 cos a

2

þ N 12 2 sin a

L

l y 0

2

þ N 22t cos a

L

l y 0

þ

þ

1

N 11t sin a

N 12 1 sin a

1

1

e 1 þe 2

þ e 2 þe 3 e 1 þe 2

þ e 2 þe 3

þ N 12 1 cos a

L

l y 0

þ

1

N 22t cos a

1

þ

þ 2y 0

2

11t

N

1

þ N

11t

e 1 þ e 2

L

y 0

e 2 þ e 3

1

l

þ e 1 þe 2 e 2 þe 3

1

þ e 1 þ e 2 e 2 þ e 3

ð5Þ

By considering the velocity discontinuities with layer mechanisms, we get two other sufficient conditions for collapse.

4.2.2. Interface mechanism

In the interface mechanism, velocity discontinuities is considered in interfaces. The KAfields is given by

U 3 ¼ 0;

U 2 ¼ 0 and U 1 ¼ 0 in x:

D 1;2 ¼

D 1;2 ¼

D 2;3 ¼

D 2;3 ¼

c

0

0

c

e

0

0

e 0

0

in x 1 ;

in x 2 ;

in x 1 ;

in x 2 ;

D 1;2 ¼

D 1;2 ¼

D 2;3 ¼

D 2;3 ¼

c

0

0

in x 0

1

in x

c 0

;

0

2

e

0

0

in x 0

1 ;

in x

0

2

e 0

Asufficient condition for collapse is

jQjP e 1 þ e 2

L

4lLs

1;2

1c

þ

2L 2 s

þ

2 e

2

e 1 þ e 2 L 2 s 2;3

2c

þ e

3

1;2

2c

þ e e 1 þ þ e e 2 ð4lLÞs 2;3

1c

2

3

ð6Þ

4.2.3. Mechanisms mixed

In mixed mechanisms, the velocity discontinuities is

considered in one layer and one interface. Consider for example a mixed mechanism which corresponds to col-

lapse of layer 1 and interface (2,3). We suppose that

D 1;2 ¼ 0. Asufficient condition for collapse is given by

jQjP e 1 þ e 2

L

2L

cos a

N 11t sin a þ N 12 1 cos a

1

þ

N 12 1 sin a

L

l y 0

1

þ N 22t cos a

l y 0 þ 2y 0 ½N

L

1

11t

þ e e 1 þ þ e e 2 ð2Ll ðl y 0 ÞLÞs 2;3 þ e

1c

2

3

þ e e 1 þ

2

3

e 2 L 2 s 2;3

2c

ð7Þ

O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467–471

471

When considering velocity discontinuity with a mixed mechanism, we obtain three other similar conditions sufficient for collapse.

5. Modelling and comparison with experimental results

The tension zone in concrete under the neutral axis is neglected. An approximated method is used to calculate the depth of the neutral axis. Failure can occur with kinematic field discontinuity in layer 1 (compressive concrete), layer 2 (steel) or layer 3 (CFRP strips). Fail- ure can occur with kinematic field discontinuity in in-

terface (1,2): it s separation of the external strengthening membrane (CFRP strips) from the concrete. Failure can occur also with kinematic field discontinuity in interface (2,3): the whole thickness of cover concrete is removed. Numerical application shows that the dissipate energy

related to the in-surface shear stress strengths, N

and N

is the concrete shear

stress strength, it is about 2.5 MPa. s 1;2 ¼ r 1 s m is the

12c , N 12c

1

2

3

12c

can be neglected. s 2;3

1c

¼ s 2;3

2c

1c

shear stress strength at the interface 1,2 and in the x-

direction. s

interface 1,2 and in the y-direction. r 1 is the section strength rate with CFRP strips in the x-direction and r 2 is the section strength rate with CFRP strips in the y- direction. For the present RC strengthened slab we have: r 1 ¼ r 2 ¼ 25%. s m is the shear stress strength at the bonding interface between concrete and CFRP strips, it is about 2.5 MPa. When considering a ¼ 45 , We have eight possible collapse mechanisms and eight sufficient condition for failure including three possible layer mechanisms, four mixed mechanisms and one interface mechanism. The related ultimate loads are given by

¼ r 2 s m is the shear stress strength at the

1;2

2c

 

Mechanisms

Ultimate

 

loads (KN)

Layer

1

and 2

538

mechanisms

2

and 3

255

1

and 3

344

Mixed

1

and (2,3)

439

mechanisms

3

and (1,2)

189

2

and (1,2)

123

2

and (2,3)

341

Interface

(1,2) and (2,3)

374

mechanism

According to experimental test, failure occurs with strips debonding. The experimental ultimate load ca-

pacity is about 120 KN (See Fig. 1). According to the present model failure occurs with a mixed mechanism with CFRP strips debonding and steel yielding. The ultimate load capacity given by the present model is about 123 KN. Good agreement between theoretical and experimental results is found.

6. Conclusion

Results of the experimental study indicate that ex- ternally bonded CFRP plates can efficiently used to strengthen two-way RC slabs. Limit analysis approach can predict correctly the ultimate load capacity of CFRP bonded RC slabs. This analysis is validated by comparison with the test results. The present model gives eight possible collapse mechanisms including three

layer mechanisms, four layer mechanisms and one in- terface mechanism. It gives also a simple sufficient conditions and the ultimate load capacity for every collapse mechanism.

References

[4] Shahway MA, Beitelman T, Arockiasamy M, Sowrirajan R. Experimental investigation on structural repair and strengthening of damaged prestressed concrete slabs utilizing externally bonded carbon laminates. Composites B 1996;27(3–4):217–24. [5] Erik MA, Heffernan PJ. Reinforced concrete slabs externally strengthened with FRP materials. In: Taerwe L, editor. Non- metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures. London:

E&FN Spon; 1995. p. 509–16.

a