Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Analytical Study of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened by FRP Bars Subjected to Impact Loading Conditions

Analytical Study of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened by FRP Bars Subjected to Impact... American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences Original Research Paper Analytical Study of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened by FRP Bars Subjected to Impact Loading Conditions 1 2 3 Sajjad Roudsari, Sameer Hamoush, Sayed Soleimani, 4 5 Taher Abu-Lebdeh and Mona HaghighiFar Department of Computational Science and Engineering, North Carolina A and T State University, 1601 E. Market St., Greensboro, NC, USA Departments of Civil and Architectural Engineering, North Carolina A and T State University, Greensboro, NC, USA Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Australian College of Kuwait, Kuwait Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina A and T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA Department of Structural Engineering, University of Guilan, Guilan, Rasht, Iran Article history Abstract: Civil engineers have considered Fiber Reinforced Polymer Received: 01-04-2018 (FRP) materials to enhance the performance of structural members Revised: 03-04-2018 subjected to static and dynamic loading conditions. However, there are Accepted: 20-04-2018 some design limitations due to uncertainty in the behavior of such strengthened members. This fact is particularly important when Corresponding Author: considering the complex nature of the nonlinear behavior of materials, the Taher Abu-Lebdeh impact loading conditions and geometry of the members having FRP Department of Civil, systems. In this research, a new analytical model is developed to analyze Architectural and structural members strengthened with FRP systems and subjected to Environmental Engineering, North Carolina A and T State impact loading conditions. ABAQUS based finite element code was used University, Greensboro, NC to develop the proposed model. The model was validated against nine 27411, USA beams built and tested with various configurations and loading Email: taher@ncat.edu conditions. Three sets of beams were prepared and tested under quasistatic and impact loadings by applying various impact height and Dynamic Explicit loading conditions. The first set consisted of two beams, where one of the beams was reinforced with steel bars and the other was externally reinforced with GFRP sheet. The second set consisted of six beams, with five of the beams were reinforced with steel bars and one of them wrapped by GFRP sheet. The last set was tested to validate the response of concrete beams reinforced by FRP bar. In addition, beams were reinforced with glass and carbon fiber composite bars tested under Quasi-Static and Impact loading conditions. The impact load was simulated by the concept of a drop of a solid hammer from various heights. The numerical results showed that the developed model can be an effective tool to predict the performance of retrofitted beams under dynamic loading condition. Furthermore, the model showed that FRP retrofitting of RC beams subjected to repetitive impact loads can effectively improve their dynamic performance and can slow the progress of damage. Keywords: FRP Beam, Impact Loading, Reinforced Composite Bar, Quasi-Static, Numerical Method have studied and evaluated the effect of dynamic loads Introduction on retrofitted RC structures. Erki and Meier (1999) The use of composite sheets and bars can be an performed experimental tests on four eight-meter RC effective and usable method for enhancing the structural beams externally strengthened to enhance the flexural performance of existing structures when they are strength. Two beams were retrofitted by CFRP systems subjected to impact loading conditions. Many researches and the remaining beams were reinforced by external © 2018 Sajjad Roudsari, Sameer Hamoush, Sayed Soleimani, Taher Abu-Lebdeh and Mona HaghighiFar. This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 3.0 license. Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ steel plates. All four beams were tested under impact dynamic loads on the debonding mechanism or the FRP loadings. The impact load was generated by lifting and rapture strain. Furthermore, many studies have done in dropping a weight from given height into simply this field like Banthia and Mindess (2012). They have supported beams. Results showed that the energy investigated the behavior of RC beams under quasi-static absorption of beam with CFRP laminates is less than that of and impact loading conditions. They performed beams strengthened with external steel plates. White et al. experiments at the University of British Columbia. They (2001) conducted experimental work to investigate the tested 12 samples of reinforced concrete beams which response of RC beams strengthened by CFRP laminates two of them were under quasi-static loading and others when subjected to high loading rate. They examined nine were under impact loadings. Also, they strengthened one three-meter long reinforced concrete beams. One beam beam in quasi-static and impact loading with GFRP was a control beam without external reinforcement and sheets. The result showed that the load capacity of beam the remaining eight beams were externally reinforced with under quasi-static is higher than beams subjected to CFRP sheets. Results revealed that beams subjected to dynamic loading. Watstein (1953) performed dynamic rapid loads at a higher rate gained about 5% in strength tests on reinforced concrete beams, the results showed the and in stiffness and energy absorption. They indicated that compressive strength of concrete increase 85 to 100% the change in loading rate did not affect the flexibility and under dynamic loads in comparison to that the staics the mode of failure. Tang and Saadatmanesh (2005) conditions. Khalighi (2009) studied the bond between performed investigation to evaluate the behavior of fiber reinforced polymer and concrete under Quasi-Static concrete beams strengthened with reinforced polymer and impact loadings. They performed experimental tests laminates subjected to impact loadings. Two of the beams on FRP reinforced concrete beams and indicated an were control beams without external reinforcement and increase in the bearing capacity of the beams. the remaining beams were externally reinforced. The results showed that the composite sheets can significantly Model Development improve the bending strength and the stiffness of The following sections illustrate the process used to retrofitted RC beams. GoldSton et al. (2016) performed develop the FEM model to analyze retrofitted beams experimental investigation on concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars under static and impact loading. In their subjected to impact load conditions. work, they performed experimental tests on twelve Finite Element Model reinforced concrete beams. The focus was to evaluate the effect of glass fiber reinforcement on the strength of the The ABAQUS software implementation for modeling concrete beam when they are under static and dynamic of RC beams subjected to impact loading conditions impact loading conditions. Six of the tested beams were follows the basic model developed by Soleimani et al. reinforced with GFRP bars and subjected to static loading (2007; Soleimani, 2007). In this model, two types of and the remaining six were reinforced externally with loading conditions were considered including quasi- GFRP systems. They showed that the higher GFRP static and impact loads. The ABAQUS model uses 3D 8- reinforcement ratio resulted in higher rate of cracking node linear isoperimetric elements with reduced and less ductility under static loading conditions. But integration. The hammer is modeled by a solid element under dynamic loads, the beams' strength was 15-20% with its rigid property applied as Rigid Body interaction. higher than the strength obtained by the static loading In this case, a Reference Point (RP) is considered at the conditions. Liao et al. (2017) conducted experimental center of the hammer in which whole elements are rigid studies and numerical simulation to evaluate the behavior to the point. Moreover, the loading conditions are of RC beams retrofitted with High Strength Steel Wire applied as displacement-control at the reference point. Mesh and High-Performance Mortar (HSSWMHPM) The model was validated against 1 m long beam (0.8 m under impact loads. The results of both laboratory samples span). Details of the beam are shown in Fig. 1. It is and finite element analysis showed a significantly simply supported beam and loaded by a point load at the improvement in the impact resistance as well as an center (Fig. 1). The longitudinal, transvers bars and improvement in the ductility of beams reinforced with mechanical properties of the beam are tabulated in Table HSSWM-HPM systems. Pham and Hao (2016) reviewed 1. The values of f , f and f , f , M-10 and φ4.75 are also y u ys us the performance of concrete structures strengthened with shown in the table, respectively. FRP systems subjected to impact loads. Their study was Moreover, loading conditions and configurations of an overview of the structural strength of FRP-reinforced the FRP bars used in the modeling are shown in Table 2. concrete beams, slabs, columns and masonry walls. They This table has two sets of data; one is BS (Quasi-Static) also evaluated the material properties of FRP under dynamic loading conditions. The outcomes of their work data and the second one is impact (as BI-height of indicated that using FRP can increase load capacity and hammer). Rate of impact was controlled by the velocity energy absorption of RC structures. Moreover, the of the drop hammer which was controlled by the drop tensile behavior of FRP can increase the strain rate. The height of the hammer. All beams were reinforced with experimental study did clearly show the effect of CFRP and GFRP bars. ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Load LVDT LVDT#1 LVDT#3 4×200 = 800 mm 16× 50 = 800 mm 100 mm 100 mm 150 mm 2×Φ4.75 to hold stirrups Φ4.75 mm stirrup @ 50 mm 2 No. 10 bars Fig. 1: Section details of RC beams Table 1: RC beams properties (Soleimani, 2007; Soleimani et al., 2007) Parameter Definition Value Unit b Width of compression face of member 150 mm H Overall depth of beam Distance from extreme 150 mm D compression fiber to centeoid of tension reinforcement 120 mm f ′ Specified compressive strength of concrete 44 MPa f Specified yield strength of tension reinforcement 474 MPa f Specified yield strength of shear reinforcement 600 Mpa ys f Specified ultimate strength of tension reinforcement 720 MPa f Specified ultimate strength of shear reinforcement 622 MPa us φ4.75 Area of reinforcement 18.1 A M-10 (M-10 for tension and 4.75 for shear) 100 mm Table 2: Loading and reinforcing condition properties for FEM software (Soleimani et al., 2007) Impact loading drop height, h (mm) Quasi-static ------------------------------------------------------- Beanm number loading 400 500 600 1000 2000 Velocity (m/s) GFRP bars CFRP bars BS  - - - - - - BI-400 -  - - - - 2.80 BI-500 - -  - - - 3.13 BI-600 - - -  - - 3.43 BI-1000 - - - -  - 4.43 BI-2000 - - - - -  6.26 ■■ 150 mm 120 mm Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Table 3: Specifications of rebar used in accordance with regulations (ACI, 2006) Bars type Density (N/m ) Tensile strength (MPa) Module of elasticity (GPa) Yield strain % Rupture strain % CFRP 150-160 600-3690 120-580 NA 0.5-1.7 GFRP 125-210 483-1600 35-51 NA 1.2-3.1 The mechanical properties of the CFRP and GFRP undamaged material and ε is the total compression pl bars are shown at Table 3. strain. In addition, the plastic strain values ε% is ( ) Concrete Stress-Strain Model calculated using Equation (4): The inputs of ABAQUS require known geometry and d σ pl in c c mechanical properties of materials, especially for ε% = ε% − (4) c c 1− d E c 0 concrete material. Concrete parameters are usually based on empirical equations that relate stress to its corresponding strains. In this study, the concepts of smeared crack and MATLAB Strain Incorporation concrete damage plasticity models (Jankowiak and In MATLAB section, we continue the work of Tlodygowski, 2005; Voyiadjis and Abu-Lebdeh, 1994; Roudsari et al. (2018) who performed some theoretical Abu-Lebdeh and Voyiadjis, 1993) were used to relate evaluations on the compressive and tensile behavior of stresses to stains. These models were used due to their concrete. In their study, the ultimate stress and its versatile usefulness in different types of loading corresponding strain were used as input for MATLAB. conditions such as: static, dynamic or monotonic and They were determined either from experimental tests or cyclic loadings. The models considered compressive and from theoretical formulas. Furthermore, the compression tensile stress-strain under its damage states. and tension diagram were utilized to generate data For ABAQUS Model, Fig. 2 is adopted to define the needed to optimize strain rate at an increment of 0.0001. post failure stress-strain relationship of concrete. The The bottom line here is that, using the formula and input parameters were Young's modulus (E ), stress (σ ), 0 t coding in MATLAB give the compression stress values ck cracking strain ε% and the damage parameter values ( ) that correspond with its strain rate and it will be continued to the ultimate strain. This process had been (d ) for the relevant grade of concrete. The cracking ck done in tensile behavior of the concrete, too. On the strain ε can be calculated by Equation (1): ( ) other hand, the ABAQUS software's input is only plastic part of diagrams, so according the ACI standard, the ck el ε = ε − ε (1) t t 0t linear and nonlinear parts were separated at 45% of maximum compression strength (Roudsari et al., 2018). el where, ε = σ / E the elastic-strain corresponding to 0t t 0 Post-Failure Stress-Strain Relation the undamaged material, ε is total tensile strain. pl In ABAQUS software, the post-failure behavior of Moreover, the plastic strain ε% for tensile behavior ( ) reinforced concrete member can be approximated of concrete can be defined as shown in Equation 2: using the relation shown in Fig. 4. It is worth mentioning that, in sections with little or no d σ pl ck t t reinforcing elements, the meshing plays an important % % ε = ε − (2) t t 1− d E role due to the sensitivity of the results to the mesh t 0 which can possibly have negative or positive effects on the outputs. As such, using an appropriate mesh A typical diagram for compressive stress-strain relationship with damage properties is illustrated in Fig. can display cracks more accurately and more visibly. 3. The inputs are stresses (σ ), inelastic strains The interaction between the reinforcing bars and the in surrounding concrete induce stresses may generate more ε corresponds to stress values and damage properties ( ) tensile stress on the concrete elements. In this study, (d ) with inelastic in tabular format. It should be noted stiffening is introduced in the cracking model to simulate that the total strain values should be converted to the this interfacial interaction. It is completely depending on inelastic strains using Equation (3): reinforcement density, relative size of the concrete aggregate to rebar diameter, quality of the bond between in el ε% = ε − ε (3) c c oc the rebar and the concrete and the type of mesh. In normal concrete, the strain at failure is typically 10 4 For the compressive behavior of concrete, the elastic in/in, however, tension stiffening can reduce the stress to el el strain ε = σ / E where ε corresponds to the strain of oc c 0 oc a total strain of about 10 3 (Hillerborg et al., 1976). ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ t0 (1−d )E t 0 ck el t ε% ε c 0t el pl % ε Fig. 2: Tension stiffening parameters (Jankowiak and Tlodygowski, 2005) cu c0 (1−d )E c 0 in el ε% 0c pl el ε% ε c c Fig. 3: Terms for compressive stress-strain relationship (Jankowiak and Tlodygowski, 2005) ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ ck Fig. 4: Post-failure stress-strain curve (Hillerborg et al., 1976) ck Fig. 5: Post failure stress-displacement (Hillerborg et al., 1976) The crack normal displacement at which complete Fracture Energy Cracking Criterion 2G In regions where there is no reinforcement, the model loss of strength takes place is, therefore U = . no I tu uses the same tension stiffening approach described Typical values of range from 40 N/m for normal above. This introduces unreasonable mesh sensitivity concrete (with a compressive strength of approximately into the results. However, it is generally accepted that 20 MPa, to 120 N/m for concrete (with a compressive Hillerborg's fracture energy model (Hillerborg et al., strength of approximately 40 MPa. 1976) is adequate to allay the concern for different It should be noted that the G function is used as a practical purposes. In their model, the energy required to open a unit area of crack in Mode I G is defined as a ( ) parameter for the concerte's tensile behavior so that it can be determined by ABAQUS documentation. It can be material parameter, using brittle fracture concepts. With divided into three different categories (Hillerborg et al., this approach, the concrete's brittle behavior is 1976): (1) G = 40 MPa if compressive strength ≤20 characterized by stress displacement response (Fig. 5) f rather than stress-strain response. Under tension, a MPa; (2) G = 20 MPa If the compressive strength ≥40 concrete specimen may exhibit small elastic strain cracks MPa; and (3) for compressive strength between 40 MPa across some sections and along its length. This may be and 120 MPa, then a linear interpolation can be used. determined primarily by the opening at the crack, which Further, the tensile stress is defined as follows: does not depend on the specimen's length (Fig. 5). Alternatively, Mode I fracture energy G can be ( )     f 1 F ct σ = F .exp − ε (5)     ti ct i γ E specified directly as a material property. In this case, the  t    failure stress, σ can be defined as a tabular function ( ) tu where, ε is the strain rate which is based on number of of the associated Mode I fracture energy, assuming linear increments. In fact, for every increment, there is a loss of strength after cracking (Fig. 6). different value for both strain and stress. ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ tu I I U = 2G / σ no t tu Fig. 6: post-failure stress-fracture energy curve (Hillerborg et al., 1976) The term γ can be determined using the function: t       ε ε i i   ε = ε × 0.166× + 0.132× (11)     cpli c   ε ε  c   c  GFI F   ct γ − (6) i × F 2E eq ct It should be noted that these functions are the most The damage parameter for the tensile behavior of important and useful functions in calculating plasticity concrete can been expressed as follows: parameter of concrete damage, but they need to be verified. The work of Jankowiak and Tlodygowski   (2005) and the coding program of Roudsari et al. (2018) teli d = 1− (7)   ti   ε − ε were used in this study for verification. In their i tpl   numerical study, they obtained stress-strain curves where the maximum strength and its corresponding strain were ε is the elastic strain at the corresponding tension teli 50 MPa and 0.0122, respectively (Fig. 7). As shown, the stress, it may be defined as: difference between the two graphs is insignificant and thus it may be concluded that the parameters are correct. ti 2 ε = ,ε = 146×ε + 0.523×ε (8) teli tpli i i At this step, the linear segment of the diagram should be separated from the nonlinear part. This is because the The tensile parameters can now be solved by the plastic output is needed for inputting in ABAQUS. above functions and the compressive parameters can also Therefore, as it has been noted that the segment up to 45% be defined. Ultimately, only plastic parameters are of the compressive strength represents the linear portion; needed as inputs for the ABAQUS software. In the the second part has to be modified so that all compressive function below, ε the strain incrementation and ε is the i c strengths and their corresponding strains will move to the strain at the maximum compressive stress: initial coordinate (0, 0). The outputs of MATLAB for ABAQUS software are shown in Fig. 8 and 9. E ×ε σ = (9) ci 2  E  ε  ε  ABAQUS Modeling i i 1+ − 2 × + ×     E ε ε  S  c  c  Three dimensional models with eight nodes by reduced integration (C3D8R) was used for modeling of Finally, the function of compression damage d can ci concrete. Also, truss elements (T3D2) were used for be defined by: creating longitudinal and transvers FRP reinforcements. The concrete damage plasticity model was used for celi d = 1− (10) concrete behavior and a nonlinear model was used for ci ε − ε ( ) i cpli FRP bars. Because of brittle failure of FRP bar, in addition to modulus of elasticity, only ultimate stress and In this case, ε is the elastic strain which can be celi its correspond stain were used since there is no yield ci stress in the diagram. In other word for making two defined as: ε = . celi linear diagrams of FRP bar in ABAQUS, the yield stress Also, the plastic strain ε is defined as: is considered a little bit lower than ultimate stress. The cpli ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ interaction between the concrete and bars is modeled by considered to be solid and rigid bodies. Moreover, the the embedded region. Also, in order to avoid the scattering loading for both conditions were assigned on the top result, a Reference Point (RP) is defined at the center of of hammer by defining a load-displacement control each support. Moreover, the coupling is assigned the RP parameter and corresponding loading rate. This was to sum output from whole nodes of bottom surface of the modelled by inputting a tabular amplitude which support (Nicoletto and Riva, 2004). started from zero and continued by 80% of loading value in 0.7 sec to reach 100% of total load in one second. Loading Conditions Moreover, the velocity of impact loading is assigned by Velocity/Angular Velocity in ABAQUS. It should be The model considers two groups of loading noted that Reference Point (RP) is defined for all conditions. The first group is quasi-static loadings loadings and support's reactions. The bottom supports defined in term of Dynamic-Implicit and the second are hinge which the degree of freedom of U1, U2 and U3 group is the impact loadings defined as Dynamic- has considered zero and the ends of beam are pinned in Explicit. For quasi-static case, the loading hammer was order to avoid rotation of beam. In order to avoid located at the top center of the beam and displacement rotation of beam for impact loading, two steel yokes are was computed by defining a node (defined a set in considered exactly parallel and same location of bottom ABAQUS) at the bottom center of the beam. Also, the hinge supports. The interaction of bars and concrete and hammer used for impact loading on the middle of boundary condition have shown for quasi-static and beam with different velocity and height. Both impact loading at Fig. 10. hammers for quasi-static and impact loading were Fig. 7: Compressive strain-stress – FEM and experimental models (Roudsari et al., 2018) Plastic-strain-stress-compression 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 Plastic strain compression Fig. 8: Output of MATLAB for ABAQUS (Roudsari et al., 2018) ■■ Plastic stress compression Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Fig. 9: Tension stress-strain diagram by MATLAB Z X Z X Fig. 10: Details of modeling in ABAQUS Output of FRP Bars Modeling in ABAQUS Model Verification In this section, results of the FEM modeling are For model verifications, the authors use two different shown in Fig. 11-16. These figures display the load types of experiments. The first experimental work was displacement diagram of FPR reinforced concrete beams generated from Soleimani's thesis which is regarding under quasi-static loading and impact loading. concrete beams reinforced with steel bars and retrofitted ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ by GFRP sheets, while the second verification was The width of layout is 1.5 meters and length of 0.75 generated from Goldston et al. (2016) experimental test. meters and its thickness is 0.353 millimeters. U wrapped is used for controlling of shear behavior in three faces Verification with Steel bars and GFRP Sheets of beam. Mechanical and physical properties of GFRP is shown in Table 5. Furthermore, the mechanical In this section, the authors validated ABAQUS results properties of steel are: Module of elasticity 200 GPa, with the experimental tests. The impact and Quasi-Static tensile strength 483 to 690 MPa and its rupture strain loading parameters were the same. Properties of steel bars 6-12%, respectively. It is necessary to declared that and GFRP sheets are shown in Table 4. Hashin Damage is used to define parameters and The loading conditions of impact and quasi-static lamina is used to define modules of elasticity and shear loading in laboratory are shown in Fig. 17. GFRP is used modules in different directions. for retrofitting in term of flexural and shear behavior. Table 4: Loading condition and reinforcing properties of experimental tests (Soleimani, 2007) Impact loading drop height, h (mm) Quasi-static ---------------------------------------------------------------- Name of beam loading 400 500 600 1000 2000 Velocity (m/s) GFRP sheets Steel bars BS  - - - - - - - BS-GFRP (Sheet)  - - - - - - BI-400 -  - - - - 2.80 - BI-500 - -  - - - 3.13 - BI-600 - - -  - - 3.43 - BI-600-GFRP (Sheet) - - -  - - 3.43 BI-1000 - - - -  - 4.43 - BI-2000 - - - - -  6.26 - Table 5: GFRP Properties on the basis of Hashin (Hillerborg et al., 1976) Tensile strength Compressive Tensile strength Compressive strength Longitudinal Transverse in fiber direction strength in fiber perpendicular to perpendicular to the shear strength shear strength (Mpa) direction (Mpa) the fiber (Mpa) fiber (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) 3660 2803 240 426 89.7 89.7 Table 6: Comparison between the base shear and displacement numerical and laboratory samples Difference displacement, FEM Vs. experiments (%) Difference base shear forces, FEM Vs. experiments (%) Specimen 1.25 0.06 BS 4.5 20.00 BI-400 1.8 3.2.0 BI-500 4.6 6.15 BI-600 4.7 3.7.0 BI-1000 2.75 0.3.0 BI-2000 1.4 0.5.0 BS-GFRP 4.35 19.35 GFRP Fig. 11: Load-displacement diagram for BS and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Fig. 12: Load-displacement diagram for BI-400 and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar Fig. 13: Load-displacement diagram for BI-500 and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar Fig. 14: Load-displacement diagram for BI-600 and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar Beam number: BI-1000 BI-1000-CFRP BAR BI-1000-GFRP BAR 0 20 40 60 Mid-span deflection (mm) Fig. 15: Load-displacement diagram for BI-1000 and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar ■■ Load (KN) Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Fig. 16: Load-displacement diagram for BI-2000 and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar (a) (b) Fig. 17: (a) Quasi-static loading, (b) impact loading condition (Soleimani, 2007) To verify the model, comparison between ABAQUS As it can be seen in Fig. 26, three different bars modeling and the experimental tests of Soleimani is include 6.35 mm (#2), 9.53 mm (#3) and 12.7 mm (#4) shown in Fig. 18-25. Also, as shown in Table 6, the were used and generally two GFRP bars located at the top difference between finite element modeling and and two others at the bottom of beam. Also, the diameter experimental outputs are closely intertwined so that in of steel stirrups is 4 mm at 100 mm were used. The the case of BS (quasi-static) the maximum difference of ultimate stress of #2, #3 and #4 (6.35, 9.53, 12.7 mm) bars base shear in software vs laboratory is about 0.05% and were 732 Mpa, 1801 Mpa and 1642 Mpa respectively. its displacement’s differences is less than 1.3%. Also, The moduli of elasticity were 37.5, 53.7 and 47.9 GPa, there is an appropriate difference in results of the respectively. The compressive strength of concrete was 40 impact loading. Results are tabulated in Table 6. As an MPa and its corresponding strain was 0.003. Furthermore, example, the difference between displacement and base loading was done by spherical ball which was at the center shear for software output and laboratory for BI-2000 is of beam and at the 667 mm of each support and midpoint 2.75 and 0.3%, respectively, while these differences are deflection was calculated by linear potentiometer which about 1.8 and 3.2% for BI-500. was attached at the bottom and center of beam. The loading condition is shown in Fig. 27. Verification of Concrete Beam Reinforced by The above specimen’s detailing is used to model the GFRP Bar GFRP reinforce concrete beam in ABAQUS. As illustrated Goldston et al. (2016) conducted experimental in Fig. 28, the modeling is done by defining materials programs which were divided into two different groups, and assigning boundary conditions and interactions. it the first group consisted of 6 beams subjected to static is necessary to mention that the experimental sample with #4 GFRP bars was used to verify the model. loading and second group was under impact loading. ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Fig. 18: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series Fig. 19: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-400 Fig. 20: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-500 Fig. 21: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-600 ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Fig. 22: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-1000 Fig. 23: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-2000 Fig. 24: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BS-GFRP Fig. 25: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-600-GFRP ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ 4 mm ∅ steel stirrup 2×#2 2×#3 150 2×#4 #2 #3 4 mm ∅ steel stirrups @ 100 mm c-c #4 Concrete and GFRP strain gauges Fig. 26: Details of GFRP RC beams (Goldston et al., 2016) Steel I-beam Roller 30 mm concrete strain gauge 150 mm 5 mm GFRP Pin strain gauge L/3 = 667 mm L = 2000 mm Linear potentiometer ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Spherical ball Load cell Steel I beam Rollers Pin Test specimen Concrete strain gauges Roller Linear potentiometer Fig. 27: Details of loading condition of RC beams (Goldston et al., 2016) Z X Z X Fig. 28: Modeling of GFRP RC beam Fig. 29: Comparison between ABAQUS and Experimental results The output of the finite element modeling versus 82.3 millimeter. Also, the analytical maximum shear experimental result is shown at Fig. 29. Considering base force was determined as 49.58 KN which is 7.8% the maximum base shear and displacement, the lower than the experimental value of 53.78 KN. difference between the experimental and software’s Figures 30 and 31 illustrate the evaluation of the load result is acceptable. The maximum displacement in and displacement for a variety of reinforced concrete ABAQUS is 85.43 millimeter representing only 3.8% beams and reinforced composite rebar with impact loading at different drop height. difference from the experimental output which was ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ BI500- BI600- BI600- BI1000 BI2000 BI400- BI400- BI500- BI600- BI1000 BI2000 BI2000 BI1000 BI600 BI500 BI400 GFRP GFRP GFRP -GFRP -CFRP CFRP GCFR CFRP CFRP -CFRP -GFRP BAR P BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR SHEET BAR BAR BAR BAR Load 126.34 131.16 129.84 127.71 133.29 149.59 133.93 151 140.27 149.88 137.23 201.82 139.95 131.76 141.83 138.47 Fig. 30: Loads of BI specimens subjected to impact loadings at different heights Fig. 31: Displacements of BI specimens in impact of varying heights Investigating the loads in Fig. 30 and consider because of the external strengthening. The experimental specimens BI of quasi-static load, specimen BI-400 results of the BS-GFRP beam strengthened by glass fiber illustrates the largest load capacity but the shortest throw show 29.3% increase in bearing capacity, while the height. Figure 31 shows the mid span deviation analytical results show 30.03% increase. Also, BI-600- (displacement) at different throw heights. As shown, GFRP beam show an increase in bearing capacity of about displacement increases with the height of the drop. Also, 120.15% compare to the first sample. The corresponding glass rebar increases the displacement while adding analytical increase is 201.81%. A comparison between carbon rebar can increase the capacity. The highest samples under quasi-static loads without and with GFRP increase in bearing related to the use of carbon rebar and CFRP reinforcement show that the increase in base samples are BI500, the highest displacement (ductility) shear (bearing capacity) is 45.05% and the increase in BI2000 reinforced with glass rebar. displacement is 12.01% for CFRP sample. Also, GFRP Again, considering the load-displacement diagrams sample leads to an increase in base shear amount of (deviation mid span beam) of Fig. 30 and 31 and 39.22% and displacement of 28.96%. This indicates that comparing the unreinforced specimen under quasi-static using CFRP rebar in reinforced concrete beam under load with the glass fibers reinforced one, one can see that quasi-static load would increase bearing capacity and the load capacity of sample BI600-GFRP is higher decrease displacement compare to GFRP rebar. ■■ Load (KN) 126.335 131.162 129.844 127.713 133.29 149.59 133.925 140.27 149.88 137.23 201.82 139.95 131.76 141.83 138.47 Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Table 7: Comparison between numerical modeling of reinforced and non-reinforced Difference displacement (%) Difference base shear forces (%) Specimen 12.01 45.05 BS-CFRP BAR 28.96 39.22 BS-GFRP BAR 31.16 10.89 BI400- CFRP BAR 44.56 0.47 BI400- GFRP BAR 16.4 15.42 BI500-CFRP BAR 25.8 8.95 BI500-GFRP BAR 30.48 13.37 BI600-CFRP BAR 43.56 5.38 BI600-GFRP BAR 21.1 6.28 BI1000-CFRP BAR 34.44 0.45 BI1000-GFRP BAR 53.42 10.92 BI2000-CFRP BAR 64.75 8.75 BI2000-GFRP BAR useful comments and suggestions have helped strengthen A comparison of samples under impact loading show the content and quality of this paper. that all samples reinforced with CFRP rebar have higher bearing capacity than that of GFRP rebar specimens, while the displacement in specimens containing glass Author’s Contributions rebar were far more than carbon. BI2000-CFRP Bar Sajjad Roudsari, Sayed Soleimani and Mona shows increase in shear base rate of 10.92% and BI HaghighiFar: Performed laboratory experiments, 2000-GFRP Bar rate of 8.75%, as well as displacement Numerical Analysis and conducted data analysis of the 53.42 and 64.75% respectively. Summary of the above research. Also, participated in writing the manuscript. results are tabulated in Table 7. Sameer Hamoush and Taher Abu-Lebdeh: Provided the research topic and guided the research Conclusion development, experimental plan and data analysis. Also, participated in writing the manuscript. In this study, the finite element software, ABAQUS, was used to analytically investigate the behavior of Ethics concrete beams reinforced with carbon, glass, steel bars and GFRP sheets and subjected to different dynamic This article is an original research paper. There are loading conditions (quasi-static, impact). Based on the no ethical issues that may arise after the publication of analytical results and experimental verifications, the this manuscript. following conclusions can be drawn: References • Results of the finite element model using ABAQUS Abu-Lebdeh, T.M. and G.Z. Voyiadjis, 1993. show good agreements with the experimental results Plasticity-damage model for concrete under cyclic • In case of impact loadings, the load capacity of multiaxial loading. J. Eng. Mechan., 119: 1465-1484. specimens reinforced with GFRP sheet were DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1993)119:7(1465) much higher than that of streel or CFRP and ACI, 2006. Guide for the Design and Construction of GFRP bars. On the other hand, the midpoint Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. 1st • Deflection of beam for GFRP bar is higher than Edn., ACI, 440.1R-06, ISBN-10: 9780870312106, other beams pp: 440. • By increasing the drop height of the hammer, the Banthia, N. and S.S.M. Mindess, 2012. Behavior of RC load capacity is decreased but midpoint deflection beams under impact loading some new findings. Uni. is increased. While CFRP bars improved the load Br. Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada Adv. Civil Eng. capacity, GPRP bars improved ductility Erki, M.A. and U. Meier, 1999. Impact loading of • Concrete Beams reinforced with CFRP bars have concrete beams externally strengthened with CFRP higher quasi-static load capacity than that with laminates. J. Composites Constract., 3: 117-124. GFRP bars DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(1999)3:3(117) Goldston, M., A. Remennikov and S.M. Neaz, 2016. Acknowledgment Experimental investigation of the behaviour of The authors would like to thank their colleagues for concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars under the continuous support and contributions. We also would static and impact loading. Eng. Structures, 113: like to thank the anonymous reviewers very much whose 220-232. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.01.044 ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Hillerborg, A., M. Modeer and P.E. Petersson, 1976. Soleimani, S.M., 2007. Sprayed glass fiber reinforced Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in polymers in shear strengthening and enhancement of concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite impact resistance of reinforced concrete beams. elements. Cement Concrete Res., 6: 773-782. PhD. Thesis, The University of British Columbia, DOI: 10.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-7 Vancouver, BC, Canada. Jankowiak, T. and O. Tlodygowski, 2005. Identification Soleimani, S.M., N. Banthia and S. Mindess, 2007. of parameters of concrete damage plasticity Behavior of RC beams under impact loading: Some constitutive model. Poznan University of new findings. Proceedings of the 6th International Technology, Institute of Structural Engineering Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and (ISE), Ul. Piotrowo 5, 60-975 Poznan, Poland. Concrete Structures, (CCS’ 07), Taylor and Francis, Khalighi, Y., 2009. A study of bond between fibre Catania, Italy, pp: 867-874. reinforced polymer and concrete under quasi static Tang, T. and H. Saadatmanesh, 2005. Behavior of and impact loading. The University of British concrete beams strengthened with fiber-reinforced Columbia, Vancouver Vancouver Campus, Canada. polymer laminates under impact loading. J. Composite Liao, W., M. Li, W. Zhang and Z. Tian, 2017. Construct., 7: 65-67. Experimental studies and numerical simulation of DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:3(209) behavior of RC beams retrofitted with HSSWM- Voyiadjis, G.Z. and T.M. Abu-Lebdeh, 1994. Plasticity HPM under impact loading. Eng. Structures, 149: model for concrete using the bounding surface 131-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.040 concept. Int. J. Plasticity, 10: 1-22. Nicoletto, G. and E. Riva, 2004. Failure mechanisms in DOI: 10.1016/0749-6419(94)90051-5 twill-weave laminates: FEM predictions Vs. Watstein, D., 1953. Effect of straining rate on the Experiments. Composites: Part A, 35: 787-795. compressive strength and elastic properties of DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2004.01.007 concrete. Proceedings of the International Concrete Pham, T.M. and H. Hao, 2016. Review of concrete Abstracts Portal, (CAP’ 53), American Concrete structures strengthened with FRP against impact Institue, pp: 729-744. loading. Structures, 7: 59-70. White, W.T., A.K. Soudki and M.A. ESrki, 2001. Roudsari, S.S., S.A. Hamoush and S.M. Soleimani, Response of RC beams strengthened with CFRP 2018. Evaluation of large-size reinforced concrete laminates and subjected to a high rate of loading. J. columns strengthened for axial load using fiber Composites Construct., 5: 153-162. reinforced polymers. Construct. Build. Mater. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2001)5%3A3(153) ■■ http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Physics arXiv (Cornell University)

Analytical Study of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened by FRP Bars Subjected to Impact Loading Conditions

Download PDF
19 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/analytical-study-of-reinforced-concrete-beams-strengthened-by-frp-bars-OtPjll0oVX
ISSN
1941-7020
eISSN
ARCH-3341
DOI
10.3844/ajeassp.2018.407.425
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences Original Research Paper Analytical Study of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened by FRP Bars Subjected to Impact Loading Conditions 1 2 3 Sajjad Roudsari, Sameer Hamoush, Sayed Soleimani, 4 5 Taher Abu-Lebdeh and Mona HaghighiFar Department of Computational Science and Engineering, North Carolina A and T State University, 1601 E. Market St., Greensboro, NC, USA Departments of Civil and Architectural Engineering, North Carolina A and T State University, Greensboro, NC, USA Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Australian College of Kuwait, Kuwait Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina A and T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA Department of Structural Engineering, University of Guilan, Guilan, Rasht, Iran Article history Abstract: Civil engineers have considered Fiber Reinforced Polymer Received: 01-04-2018 (FRP) materials to enhance the performance of structural members Revised: 03-04-2018 subjected to static and dynamic loading conditions. However, there are Accepted: 20-04-2018 some design limitations due to uncertainty in the behavior of such strengthened members. This fact is particularly important when Corresponding Author: considering the complex nature of the nonlinear behavior of materials, the Taher Abu-Lebdeh impact loading conditions and geometry of the members having FRP Department of Civil, systems. In this research, a new analytical model is developed to analyze Architectural and structural members strengthened with FRP systems and subjected to Environmental Engineering, North Carolina A and T State impact loading conditions. ABAQUS based finite element code was used University, Greensboro, NC to develop the proposed model. The model was validated against nine 27411, USA beams built and tested with various configurations and loading Email: taher@ncat.edu conditions. Three sets of beams were prepared and tested under quasistatic and impact loadings by applying various impact height and Dynamic Explicit loading conditions. The first set consisted of two beams, where one of the beams was reinforced with steel bars and the other was externally reinforced with GFRP sheet. The second set consisted of six beams, with five of the beams were reinforced with steel bars and one of them wrapped by GFRP sheet. The last set was tested to validate the response of concrete beams reinforced by FRP bar. In addition, beams were reinforced with glass and carbon fiber composite bars tested under Quasi-Static and Impact loading conditions. The impact load was simulated by the concept of a drop of a solid hammer from various heights. The numerical results showed that the developed model can be an effective tool to predict the performance of retrofitted beams under dynamic loading condition. Furthermore, the model showed that FRP retrofitting of RC beams subjected to repetitive impact loads can effectively improve their dynamic performance and can slow the progress of damage. Keywords: FRP Beam, Impact Loading, Reinforced Composite Bar, Quasi-Static, Numerical Method have studied and evaluated the effect of dynamic loads Introduction on retrofitted RC structures. Erki and Meier (1999) The use of composite sheets and bars can be an performed experimental tests on four eight-meter RC effective and usable method for enhancing the structural beams externally strengthened to enhance the flexural performance of existing structures when they are strength. Two beams were retrofitted by CFRP systems subjected to impact loading conditions. Many researches and the remaining beams were reinforced by external © 2018 Sajjad Roudsari, Sameer Hamoush, Sayed Soleimani, Taher Abu-Lebdeh and Mona HaghighiFar. This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 3.0 license. Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ steel plates. All four beams were tested under impact dynamic loads on the debonding mechanism or the FRP loadings. The impact load was generated by lifting and rapture strain. Furthermore, many studies have done in dropping a weight from given height into simply this field like Banthia and Mindess (2012). They have supported beams. Results showed that the energy investigated the behavior of RC beams under quasi-static absorption of beam with CFRP laminates is less than that of and impact loading conditions. They performed beams strengthened with external steel plates. White et al. experiments at the University of British Columbia. They (2001) conducted experimental work to investigate the tested 12 samples of reinforced concrete beams which response of RC beams strengthened by CFRP laminates two of them were under quasi-static loading and others when subjected to high loading rate. They examined nine were under impact loadings. Also, they strengthened one three-meter long reinforced concrete beams. One beam beam in quasi-static and impact loading with GFRP was a control beam without external reinforcement and sheets. The result showed that the load capacity of beam the remaining eight beams were externally reinforced with under quasi-static is higher than beams subjected to CFRP sheets. Results revealed that beams subjected to dynamic loading. Watstein (1953) performed dynamic rapid loads at a higher rate gained about 5% in strength tests on reinforced concrete beams, the results showed the and in stiffness and energy absorption. They indicated that compressive strength of concrete increase 85 to 100% the change in loading rate did not affect the flexibility and under dynamic loads in comparison to that the staics the mode of failure. Tang and Saadatmanesh (2005) conditions. Khalighi (2009) studied the bond between performed investigation to evaluate the behavior of fiber reinforced polymer and concrete under Quasi-Static concrete beams strengthened with reinforced polymer and impact loadings. They performed experimental tests laminates subjected to impact loadings. Two of the beams on FRP reinforced concrete beams and indicated an were control beams without external reinforcement and increase in the bearing capacity of the beams. the remaining beams were externally reinforced. The results showed that the composite sheets can significantly Model Development improve the bending strength and the stiffness of The following sections illustrate the process used to retrofitted RC beams. GoldSton et al. (2016) performed develop the FEM model to analyze retrofitted beams experimental investigation on concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars under static and impact loading. In their subjected to impact load conditions. work, they performed experimental tests on twelve Finite Element Model reinforced concrete beams. The focus was to evaluate the effect of glass fiber reinforcement on the strength of the The ABAQUS software implementation for modeling concrete beam when they are under static and dynamic of RC beams subjected to impact loading conditions impact loading conditions. Six of the tested beams were follows the basic model developed by Soleimani et al. reinforced with GFRP bars and subjected to static loading (2007; Soleimani, 2007). In this model, two types of and the remaining six were reinforced externally with loading conditions were considered including quasi- GFRP systems. They showed that the higher GFRP static and impact loads. The ABAQUS model uses 3D 8- reinforcement ratio resulted in higher rate of cracking node linear isoperimetric elements with reduced and less ductility under static loading conditions. But integration. The hammer is modeled by a solid element under dynamic loads, the beams' strength was 15-20% with its rigid property applied as Rigid Body interaction. higher than the strength obtained by the static loading In this case, a Reference Point (RP) is considered at the conditions. Liao et al. (2017) conducted experimental center of the hammer in which whole elements are rigid studies and numerical simulation to evaluate the behavior to the point. Moreover, the loading conditions are of RC beams retrofitted with High Strength Steel Wire applied as displacement-control at the reference point. Mesh and High-Performance Mortar (HSSWMHPM) The model was validated against 1 m long beam (0.8 m under impact loads. The results of both laboratory samples span). Details of the beam are shown in Fig. 1. It is and finite element analysis showed a significantly simply supported beam and loaded by a point load at the improvement in the impact resistance as well as an center (Fig. 1). The longitudinal, transvers bars and improvement in the ductility of beams reinforced with mechanical properties of the beam are tabulated in Table HSSWM-HPM systems. Pham and Hao (2016) reviewed 1. The values of f , f and f , f , M-10 and φ4.75 are also y u ys us the performance of concrete structures strengthened with shown in the table, respectively. FRP systems subjected to impact loads. Their study was Moreover, loading conditions and configurations of an overview of the structural strength of FRP-reinforced the FRP bars used in the modeling are shown in Table 2. concrete beams, slabs, columns and masonry walls. They This table has two sets of data; one is BS (Quasi-Static) also evaluated the material properties of FRP under dynamic loading conditions. The outcomes of their work data and the second one is impact (as BI-height of indicated that using FRP can increase load capacity and hammer). Rate of impact was controlled by the velocity energy absorption of RC structures. Moreover, the of the drop hammer which was controlled by the drop tensile behavior of FRP can increase the strain rate. The height of the hammer. All beams were reinforced with experimental study did clearly show the effect of CFRP and GFRP bars. ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Load LVDT LVDT#1 LVDT#3 4×200 = 800 mm 16× 50 = 800 mm 100 mm 100 mm 150 mm 2×Φ4.75 to hold stirrups Φ4.75 mm stirrup @ 50 mm 2 No. 10 bars Fig. 1: Section details of RC beams Table 1: RC beams properties (Soleimani, 2007; Soleimani et al., 2007) Parameter Definition Value Unit b Width of compression face of member 150 mm H Overall depth of beam Distance from extreme 150 mm D compression fiber to centeoid of tension reinforcement 120 mm f ′ Specified compressive strength of concrete 44 MPa f Specified yield strength of tension reinforcement 474 MPa f Specified yield strength of shear reinforcement 600 Mpa ys f Specified ultimate strength of tension reinforcement 720 MPa f Specified ultimate strength of shear reinforcement 622 MPa us φ4.75 Area of reinforcement 18.1 A M-10 (M-10 for tension and 4.75 for shear) 100 mm Table 2: Loading and reinforcing condition properties for FEM software (Soleimani et al., 2007) Impact loading drop height, h (mm) Quasi-static ------------------------------------------------------- Beanm number loading 400 500 600 1000 2000 Velocity (m/s) GFRP bars CFRP bars BS  - - - - - - BI-400 -  - - - - 2.80 BI-500 - -  - - - 3.13 BI-600 - - -  - - 3.43 BI-1000 - - - -  - 4.43 BI-2000 - - - - -  6.26 ■■ 150 mm 120 mm Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Table 3: Specifications of rebar used in accordance with regulations (ACI, 2006) Bars type Density (N/m ) Tensile strength (MPa) Module of elasticity (GPa) Yield strain % Rupture strain % CFRP 150-160 600-3690 120-580 NA 0.5-1.7 GFRP 125-210 483-1600 35-51 NA 1.2-3.1 The mechanical properties of the CFRP and GFRP undamaged material and ε is the total compression pl bars are shown at Table 3. strain. In addition, the plastic strain values ε% is ( ) Concrete Stress-Strain Model calculated using Equation (4): The inputs of ABAQUS require known geometry and d σ pl in c c mechanical properties of materials, especially for ε% = ε% − (4) c c 1− d E c 0 concrete material. Concrete parameters are usually based on empirical equations that relate stress to its corresponding strains. In this study, the concepts of smeared crack and MATLAB Strain Incorporation concrete damage plasticity models (Jankowiak and In MATLAB section, we continue the work of Tlodygowski, 2005; Voyiadjis and Abu-Lebdeh, 1994; Roudsari et al. (2018) who performed some theoretical Abu-Lebdeh and Voyiadjis, 1993) were used to relate evaluations on the compressive and tensile behavior of stresses to stains. These models were used due to their concrete. In their study, the ultimate stress and its versatile usefulness in different types of loading corresponding strain were used as input for MATLAB. conditions such as: static, dynamic or monotonic and They were determined either from experimental tests or cyclic loadings. The models considered compressive and from theoretical formulas. Furthermore, the compression tensile stress-strain under its damage states. and tension diagram were utilized to generate data For ABAQUS Model, Fig. 2 is adopted to define the needed to optimize strain rate at an increment of 0.0001. post failure stress-strain relationship of concrete. The The bottom line here is that, using the formula and input parameters were Young's modulus (E ), stress (σ ), 0 t coding in MATLAB give the compression stress values ck cracking strain ε% and the damage parameter values ( ) that correspond with its strain rate and it will be continued to the ultimate strain. This process had been (d ) for the relevant grade of concrete. The cracking ck done in tensile behavior of the concrete, too. On the strain ε can be calculated by Equation (1): ( ) other hand, the ABAQUS software's input is only plastic part of diagrams, so according the ACI standard, the ck el ε = ε − ε (1) t t 0t linear and nonlinear parts were separated at 45% of maximum compression strength (Roudsari et al., 2018). el where, ε = σ / E the elastic-strain corresponding to 0t t 0 Post-Failure Stress-Strain Relation the undamaged material, ε is total tensile strain. pl In ABAQUS software, the post-failure behavior of Moreover, the plastic strain ε% for tensile behavior ( ) reinforced concrete member can be approximated of concrete can be defined as shown in Equation 2: using the relation shown in Fig. 4. It is worth mentioning that, in sections with little or no d σ pl ck t t reinforcing elements, the meshing plays an important % % ε = ε − (2) t t 1− d E role due to the sensitivity of the results to the mesh t 0 which can possibly have negative or positive effects on the outputs. As such, using an appropriate mesh A typical diagram for compressive stress-strain relationship with damage properties is illustrated in Fig. can display cracks more accurately and more visibly. 3. The inputs are stresses (σ ), inelastic strains The interaction between the reinforcing bars and the in surrounding concrete induce stresses may generate more ε corresponds to stress values and damage properties ( ) tensile stress on the concrete elements. In this study, (d ) with inelastic in tabular format. It should be noted stiffening is introduced in the cracking model to simulate that the total strain values should be converted to the this interfacial interaction. It is completely depending on inelastic strains using Equation (3): reinforcement density, relative size of the concrete aggregate to rebar diameter, quality of the bond between in el ε% = ε − ε (3) c c oc the rebar and the concrete and the type of mesh. In normal concrete, the strain at failure is typically 10 4 For the compressive behavior of concrete, the elastic in/in, however, tension stiffening can reduce the stress to el el strain ε = σ / E where ε corresponds to the strain of oc c 0 oc a total strain of about 10 3 (Hillerborg et al., 1976). ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ t0 (1−d )E t 0 ck el t ε% ε c 0t el pl % ε Fig. 2: Tension stiffening parameters (Jankowiak and Tlodygowski, 2005) cu c0 (1−d )E c 0 in el ε% 0c pl el ε% ε c c Fig. 3: Terms for compressive stress-strain relationship (Jankowiak and Tlodygowski, 2005) ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ ck Fig. 4: Post-failure stress-strain curve (Hillerborg et al., 1976) ck Fig. 5: Post failure stress-displacement (Hillerborg et al., 1976) The crack normal displacement at which complete Fracture Energy Cracking Criterion 2G In regions where there is no reinforcement, the model loss of strength takes place is, therefore U = . no I tu uses the same tension stiffening approach described Typical values of range from 40 N/m for normal above. This introduces unreasonable mesh sensitivity concrete (with a compressive strength of approximately into the results. However, it is generally accepted that 20 MPa, to 120 N/m for concrete (with a compressive Hillerborg's fracture energy model (Hillerborg et al., strength of approximately 40 MPa. 1976) is adequate to allay the concern for different It should be noted that the G function is used as a practical purposes. In their model, the energy required to open a unit area of crack in Mode I G is defined as a ( ) parameter for the concerte's tensile behavior so that it can be determined by ABAQUS documentation. It can be material parameter, using brittle fracture concepts. With divided into three different categories (Hillerborg et al., this approach, the concrete's brittle behavior is 1976): (1) G = 40 MPa if compressive strength ≤20 characterized by stress displacement response (Fig. 5) f rather than stress-strain response. Under tension, a MPa; (2) G = 20 MPa If the compressive strength ≥40 concrete specimen may exhibit small elastic strain cracks MPa; and (3) for compressive strength between 40 MPa across some sections and along its length. This may be and 120 MPa, then a linear interpolation can be used. determined primarily by the opening at the crack, which Further, the tensile stress is defined as follows: does not depend on the specimen's length (Fig. 5). Alternatively, Mode I fracture energy G can be ( )     f 1 F ct σ = F .exp − ε (5)     ti ct i γ E specified directly as a material property. In this case, the  t    failure stress, σ can be defined as a tabular function ( ) tu where, ε is the strain rate which is based on number of of the associated Mode I fracture energy, assuming linear increments. In fact, for every increment, there is a loss of strength after cracking (Fig. 6). different value for both strain and stress. ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ tu I I U = 2G / σ no t tu Fig. 6: post-failure stress-fracture energy curve (Hillerborg et al., 1976) The term γ can be determined using the function: t       ε ε i i   ε = ε × 0.166× + 0.132× (11)     cpli c   ε ε  c   c  GFI F   ct γ − (6) i × F 2E eq ct It should be noted that these functions are the most The damage parameter for the tensile behavior of important and useful functions in calculating plasticity concrete can been expressed as follows: parameter of concrete damage, but they need to be verified. The work of Jankowiak and Tlodygowski   (2005) and the coding program of Roudsari et al. (2018) teli d = 1− (7)   ti   ε − ε were used in this study for verification. In their i tpl   numerical study, they obtained stress-strain curves where the maximum strength and its corresponding strain were ε is the elastic strain at the corresponding tension teli 50 MPa and 0.0122, respectively (Fig. 7). As shown, the stress, it may be defined as: difference between the two graphs is insignificant and thus it may be concluded that the parameters are correct. ti 2 ε = ,ε = 146×ε + 0.523×ε (8) teli tpli i i At this step, the linear segment of the diagram should be separated from the nonlinear part. This is because the The tensile parameters can now be solved by the plastic output is needed for inputting in ABAQUS. above functions and the compressive parameters can also Therefore, as it has been noted that the segment up to 45% be defined. Ultimately, only plastic parameters are of the compressive strength represents the linear portion; needed as inputs for the ABAQUS software. In the the second part has to be modified so that all compressive function below, ε the strain incrementation and ε is the i c strengths and their corresponding strains will move to the strain at the maximum compressive stress: initial coordinate (0, 0). The outputs of MATLAB for ABAQUS software are shown in Fig. 8 and 9. E ×ε σ = (9) ci 2  E  ε  ε  ABAQUS Modeling i i 1+ − 2 × + ×     E ε ε  S  c  c  Three dimensional models with eight nodes by reduced integration (C3D8R) was used for modeling of Finally, the function of compression damage d can ci concrete. Also, truss elements (T3D2) were used for be defined by: creating longitudinal and transvers FRP reinforcements. The concrete damage plasticity model was used for celi d = 1− (10) concrete behavior and a nonlinear model was used for ci ε − ε ( ) i cpli FRP bars. Because of brittle failure of FRP bar, in addition to modulus of elasticity, only ultimate stress and In this case, ε is the elastic strain which can be celi its correspond stain were used since there is no yield ci stress in the diagram. In other word for making two defined as: ε = . celi linear diagrams of FRP bar in ABAQUS, the yield stress Also, the plastic strain ε is defined as: is considered a little bit lower than ultimate stress. The cpli ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ interaction between the concrete and bars is modeled by considered to be solid and rigid bodies. Moreover, the the embedded region. Also, in order to avoid the scattering loading for both conditions were assigned on the top result, a Reference Point (RP) is defined at the center of of hammer by defining a load-displacement control each support. Moreover, the coupling is assigned the RP parameter and corresponding loading rate. This was to sum output from whole nodes of bottom surface of the modelled by inputting a tabular amplitude which support (Nicoletto and Riva, 2004). started from zero and continued by 80% of loading value in 0.7 sec to reach 100% of total load in one second. Loading Conditions Moreover, the velocity of impact loading is assigned by Velocity/Angular Velocity in ABAQUS. It should be The model considers two groups of loading noted that Reference Point (RP) is defined for all conditions. The first group is quasi-static loadings loadings and support's reactions. The bottom supports defined in term of Dynamic-Implicit and the second are hinge which the degree of freedom of U1, U2 and U3 group is the impact loadings defined as Dynamic- has considered zero and the ends of beam are pinned in Explicit. For quasi-static case, the loading hammer was order to avoid rotation of beam. In order to avoid located at the top center of the beam and displacement rotation of beam for impact loading, two steel yokes are was computed by defining a node (defined a set in considered exactly parallel and same location of bottom ABAQUS) at the bottom center of the beam. Also, the hinge supports. The interaction of bars and concrete and hammer used for impact loading on the middle of boundary condition have shown for quasi-static and beam with different velocity and height. Both impact loading at Fig. 10. hammers for quasi-static and impact loading were Fig. 7: Compressive strain-stress – FEM and experimental models (Roudsari et al., 2018) Plastic-strain-stress-compression 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 Plastic strain compression Fig. 8: Output of MATLAB for ABAQUS (Roudsari et al., 2018) ■■ Plastic stress compression Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Fig. 9: Tension stress-strain diagram by MATLAB Z X Z X Fig. 10: Details of modeling in ABAQUS Output of FRP Bars Modeling in ABAQUS Model Verification In this section, results of the FEM modeling are For model verifications, the authors use two different shown in Fig. 11-16. These figures display the load types of experiments. The first experimental work was displacement diagram of FPR reinforced concrete beams generated from Soleimani's thesis which is regarding under quasi-static loading and impact loading. concrete beams reinforced with steel bars and retrofitted ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ by GFRP sheets, while the second verification was The width of layout is 1.5 meters and length of 0.75 generated from Goldston et al. (2016) experimental test. meters and its thickness is 0.353 millimeters. U wrapped is used for controlling of shear behavior in three faces Verification with Steel bars and GFRP Sheets of beam. Mechanical and physical properties of GFRP is shown in Table 5. Furthermore, the mechanical In this section, the authors validated ABAQUS results properties of steel are: Module of elasticity 200 GPa, with the experimental tests. The impact and Quasi-Static tensile strength 483 to 690 MPa and its rupture strain loading parameters were the same. Properties of steel bars 6-12%, respectively. It is necessary to declared that and GFRP sheets are shown in Table 4. Hashin Damage is used to define parameters and The loading conditions of impact and quasi-static lamina is used to define modules of elasticity and shear loading in laboratory are shown in Fig. 17. GFRP is used modules in different directions. for retrofitting in term of flexural and shear behavior. Table 4: Loading condition and reinforcing properties of experimental tests (Soleimani, 2007) Impact loading drop height, h (mm) Quasi-static ---------------------------------------------------------------- Name of beam loading 400 500 600 1000 2000 Velocity (m/s) GFRP sheets Steel bars BS  - - - - - - - BS-GFRP (Sheet)  - - - - - - BI-400 -  - - - - 2.80 - BI-500 - -  - - - 3.13 - BI-600 - - -  - - 3.43 - BI-600-GFRP (Sheet) - - -  - - 3.43 BI-1000 - - - -  - 4.43 - BI-2000 - - - - -  6.26 - Table 5: GFRP Properties on the basis of Hashin (Hillerborg et al., 1976) Tensile strength Compressive Tensile strength Compressive strength Longitudinal Transverse in fiber direction strength in fiber perpendicular to perpendicular to the shear strength shear strength (Mpa) direction (Mpa) the fiber (Mpa) fiber (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa) 3660 2803 240 426 89.7 89.7 Table 6: Comparison between the base shear and displacement numerical and laboratory samples Difference displacement, FEM Vs. experiments (%) Difference base shear forces, FEM Vs. experiments (%) Specimen 1.25 0.06 BS 4.5 20.00 BI-400 1.8 3.2.0 BI-500 4.6 6.15 BI-600 4.7 3.7.0 BI-1000 2.75 0.3.0 BI-2000 1.4 0.5.0 BS-GFRP 4.35 19.35 GFRP Fig. 11: Load-displacement diagram for BS and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Fig. 12: Load-displacement diagram for BI-400 and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar Fig. 13: Load-displacement diagram for BI-500 and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar Fig. 14: Load-displacement diagram for BI-600 and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar Beam number: BI-1000 BI-1000-CFRP BAR BI-1000-GFRP BAR 0 20 40 60 Mid-span deflection (mm) Fig. 15: Load-displacement diagram for BI-1000 and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar ■■ Load (KN) Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Fig. 16: Load-displacement diagram for BI-2000 and reinforced with carbon and glass rebar (a) (b) Fig. 17: (a) Quasi-static loading, (b) impact loading condition (Soleimani, 2007) To verify the model, comparison between ABAQUS As it can be seen in Fig. 26, three different bars modeling and the experimental tests of Soleimani is include 6.35 mm (#2), 9.53 mm (#3) and 12.7 mm (#4) shown in Fig. 18-25. Also, as shown in Table 6, the were used and generally two GFRP bars located at the top difference between finite element modeling and and two others at the bottom of beam. Also, the diameter experimental outputs are closely intertwined so that in of steel stirrups is 4 mm at 100 mm were used. The the case of BS (quasi-static) the maximum difference of ultimate stress of #2, #3 and #4 (6.35, 9.53, 12.7 mm) bars base shear in software vs laboratory is about 0.05% and were 732 Mpa, 1801 Mpa and 1642 Mpa respectively. its displacement’s differences is less than 1.3%. Also, The moduli of elasticity were 37.5, 53.7 and 47.9 GPa, there is an appropriate difference in results of the respectively. The compressive strength of concrete was 40 impact loading. Results are tabulated in Table 6. As an MPa and its corresponding strain was 0.003. Furthermore, example, the difference between displacement and base loading was done by spherical ball which was at the center shear for software output and laboratory for BI-2000 is of beam and at the 667 mm of each support and midpoint 2.75 and 0.3%, respectively, while these differences are deflection was calculated by linear potentiometer which about 1.8 and 3.2% for BI-500. was attached at the bottom and center of beam. The loading condition is shown in Fig. 27. Verification of Concrete Beam Reinforced by The above specimen’s detailing is used to model the GFRP Bar GFRP reinforce concrete beam in ABAQUS. As illustrated Goldston et al. (2016) conducted experimental in Fig. 28, the modeling is done by defining materials programs which were divided into two different groups, and assigning boundary conditions and interactions. it the first group consisted of 6 beams subjected to static is necessary to mention that the experimental sample with #4 GFRP bars was used to verify the model. loading and second group was under impact loading. ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Fig. 18: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series Fig. 19: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-400 Fig. 20: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-500 Fig. 21: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-600 ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Fig. 22: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-1000 Fig. 23: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-2000 Fig. 24: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BS-GFRP Fig. 25: Force-displacement at the ends of beam series BI-600-GFRP ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ 4 mm ∅ steel stirrup 2×#2 2×#3 150 2×#4 #2 #3 4 mm ∅ steel stirrups @ 100 mm c-c #4 Concrete and GFRP strain gauges Fig. 26: Details of GFRP RC beams (Goldston et al., 2016) Steel I-beam Roller 30 mm concrete strain gauge 150 mm 5 mm GFRP Pin strain gauge L/3 = 667 mm L = 2000 mm Linear potentiometer ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Spherical ball Load cell Steel I beam Rollers Pin Test specimen Concrete strain gauges Roller Linear potentiometer Fig. 27: Details of loading condition of RC beams (Goldston et al., 2016) Z X Z X Fig. 28: Modeling of GFRP RC beam Fig. 29: Comparison between ABAQUS and Experimental results The output of the finite element modeling versus 82.3 millimeter. Also, the analytical maximum shear experimental result is shown at Fig. 29. Considering base force was determined as 49.58 KN which is 7.8% the maximum base shear and displacement, the lower than the experimental value of 53.78 KN. difference between the experimental and software’s Figures 30 and 31 illustrate the evaluation of the load result is acceptable. The maximum displacement in and displacement for a variety of reinforced concrete ABAQUS is 85.43 millimeter representing only 3.8% beams and reinforced composite rebar with impact loading at different drop height. difference from the experimental output which was ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ BI500- BI600- BI600- BI1000 BI2000 BI400- BI400- BI500- BI600- BI1000 BI2000 BI2000 BI1000 BI600 BI500 BI400 GFRP GFRP GFRP -GFRP -CFRP CFRP GCFR CFRP CFRP -CFRP -GFRP BAR P BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR SHEET BAR BAR BAR BAR Load 126.34 131.16 129.84 127.71 133.29 149.59 133.93 151 140.27 149.88 137.23 201.82 139.95 131.76 141.83 138.47 Fig. 30: Loads of BI specimens subjected to impact loadings at different heights Fig. 31: Displacements of BI specimens in impact of varying heights Investigating the loads in Fig. 30 and consider because of the external strengthening. The experimental specimens BI of quasi-static load, specimen BI-400 results of the BS-GFRP beam strengthened by glass fiber illustrates the largest load capacity but the shortest throw show 29.3% increase in bearing capacity, while the height. Figure 31 shows the mid span deviation analytical results show 30.03% increase. Also, BI-600- (displacement) at different throw heights. As shown, GFRP beam show an increase in bearing capacity of about displacement increases with the height of the drop. Also, 120.15% compare to the first sample. The corresponding glass rebar increases the displacement while adding analytical increase is 201.81%. A comparison between carbon rebar can increase the capacity. The highest samples under quasi-static loads without and with GFRP increase in bearing related to the use of carbon rebar and CFRP reinforcement show that the increase in base samples are BI500, the highest displacement (ductility) shear (bearing capacity) is 45.05% and the increase in BI2000 reinforced with glass rebar. displacement is 12.01% for CFRP sample. Also, GFRP Again, considering the load-displacement diagrams sample leads to an increase in base shear amount of (deviation mid span beam) of Fig. 30 and 31 and 39.22% and displacement of 28.96%. This indicates that comparing the unreinforced specimen under quasi-static using CFRP rebar in reinforced concrete beam under load with the glass fibers reinforced one, one can see that quasi-static load would increase bearing capacity and the load capacity of sample BI600-GFRP is higher decrease displacement compare to GFRP rebar. ■■ Load (KN) 126.335 131.162 129.844 127.713 133.29 149.59 133.925 140.27 149.88 137.23 201.82 139.95 131.76 141.83 138.47 Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Table 7: Comparison between numerical modeling of reinforced and non-reinforced Difference displacement (%) Difference base shear forces (%) Specimen 12.01 45.05 BS-CFRP BAR 28.96 39.22 BS-GFRP BAR 31.16 10.89 BI400- CFRP BAR 44.56 0.47 BI400- GFRP BAR 16.4 15.42 BI500-CFRP BAR 25.8 8.95 BI500-GFRP BAR 30.48 13.37 BI600-CFRP BAR 43.56 5.38 BI600-GFRP BAR 21.1 6.28 BI1000-CFRP BAR 34.44 0.45 BI1000-GFRP BAR 53.42 10.92 BI2000-CFRP BAR 64.75 8.75 BI2000-GFRP BAR useful comments and suggestions have helped strengthen A comparison of samples under impact loading show the content and quality of this paper. that all samples reinforced with CFRP rebar have higher bearing capacity than that of GFRP rebar specimens, while the displacement in specimens containing glass Author’s Contributions rebar were far more than carbon. BI2000-CFRP Bar Sajjad Roudsari, Sayed Soleimani and Mona shows increase in shear base rate of 10.92% and BI HaghighiFar: Performed laboratory experiments, 2000-GFRP Bar rate of 8.75%, as well as displacement Numerical Analysis and conducted data analysis of the 53.42 and 64.75% respectively. Summary of the above research. Also, participated in writing the manuscript. results are tabulated in Table 7. Sameer Hamoush and Taher Abu-Lebdeh: Provided the research topic and guided the research Conclusion development, experimental plan and data analysis. Also, participated in writing the manuscript. In this study, the finite element software, ABAQUS, was used to analytically investigate the behavior of Ethics concrete beams reinforced with carbon, glass, steel bars and GFRP sheets and subjected to different dynamic This article is an original research paper. There are loading conditions (quasi-static, impact). Based on the no ethical issues that may arise after the publication of analytical results and experimental verifications, the this manuscript. following conclusions can be drawn: References • Results of the finite element model using ABAQUS Abu-Lebdeh, T.M. and G.Z. Voyiadjis, 1993. show good agreements with the experimental results Plasticity-damage model for concrete under cyclic • In case of impact loadings, the load capacity of multiaxial loading. J. Eng. Mechan., 119: 1465-1484. specimens reinforced with GFRP sheet were DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1993)119:7(1465) much higher than that of streel or CFRP and ACI, 2006. Guide for the Design and Construction of GFRP bars. On the other hand, the midpoint Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. 1st • Deflection of beam for GFRP bar is higher than Edn., ACI, 440.1R-06, ISBN-10: 9780870312106, other beams pp: 440. • By increasing the drop height of the hammer, the Banthia, N. and S.S.M. Mindess, 2012. Behavior of RC load capacity is decreased but midpoint deflection beams under impact loading some new findings. Uni. is increased. While CFRP bars improved the load Br. Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada Adv. Civil Eng. capacity, GPRP bars improved ductility Erki, M.A. and U. Meier, 1999. Impact loading of • Concrete Beams reinforced with CFRP bars have concrete beams externally strengthened with CFRP higher quasi-static load capacity than that with laminates. J. Composites Constract., 3: 117-124. GFRP bars DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(1999)3:3(117) Goldston, M., A. Remennikov and S.M. Neaz, 2016. Acknowledgment Experimental investigation of the behaviour of The authors would like to thank their colleagues for concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars under the continuous support and contributions. We also would static and impact loading. Eng. Structures, 113: like to thank the anonymous reviewers very much whose 220-232. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.01.044 ■■ Sajjad Roudsari et al. / American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2018, ■ (■): ■■■.■■■ DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2018.■■■.■■■ Hillerborg, A., M. Modeer and P.E. Petersson, 1976. Soleimani, S.M., 2007. Sprayed glass fiber reinforced Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in polymers in shear strengthening and enhancement of concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite impact resistance of reinforced concrete beams. elements. Cement Concrete Res., 6: 773-782. PhD. Thesis, The University of British Columbia, DOI: 10.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-7 Vancouver, BC, Canada. Jankowiak, T. and O. Tlodygowski, 2005. Identification Soleimani, S.M., N. Banthia and S. Mindess, 2007. of parameters of concrete damage plasticity Behavior of RC beams under impact loading: Some constitutive model. Poznan University of new findings. Proceedings of the 6th International Technology, Institute of Structural Engineering Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and (ISE), Ul. Piotrowo 5, 60-975 Poznan, Poland. Concrete Structures, (CCS’ 07), Taylor and Francis, Khalighi, Y., 2009. A study of bond between fibre Catania, Italy, pp: 867-874. reinforced polymer and concrete under quasi static Tang, T. and H. Saadatmanesh, 2005. Behavior of and impact loading. The University of British concrete beams strengthened with fiber-reinforced Columbia, Vancouver Vancouver Campus, Canada. polymer laminates under impact loading. J. Composite Liao, W., M. Li, W. Zhang and Z. Tian, 2017. Construct., 7: 65-67. Experimental studies and numerical simulation of DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:3(209) behavior of RC beams retrofitted with HSSWM- Voyiadjis, G.Z. and T.M. Abu-Lebdeh, 1994. Plasticity HPM under impact loading. Eng. Structures, 149: model for concrete using the bounding surface 131-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.040 concept. Int. J. Plasticity, 10: 1-22. Nicoletto, G. and E. Riva, 2004. Failure mechanisms in DOI: 10.1016/0749-6419(94)90051-5 twill-weave laminates: FEM predictions Vs. Watstein, D., 1953. Effect of straining rate on the Experiments. Composites: Part A, 35: 787-795. compressive strength and elastic properties of DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2004.01.007 concrete. Proceedings of the International Concrete Pham, T.M. and H. Hao, 2016. Review of concrete Abstracts Portal, (CAP’ 53), American Concrete structures strengthened with FRP against impact Institue, pp: 729-744. loading. Structures, 7: 59-70. White, W.T., A.K. Soudki and M.A. ESrki, 2001. Roudsari, S.S., S.A. Hamoush and S.M. Soleimani, Response of RC beams strengthened with CFRP 2018. Evaluation of large-size reinforced concrete laminates and subjected to a high rate of loading. J. columns strengthened for axial load using fiber Composites Construct., 5: 153-162. reinforced polymers. Construct. Build. Mater. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2001)5%3A3(153) ■■

Journal

Physics – arXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Jun 8, 2018

There are no references for this article.