Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Short Columns With Fiber Reinforced Polymers Bars

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING
Volume1,No 3,2010
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
BehaviorofreinforcedconcreteshortcolumnswithFiberReinforced
polymersbars
EhabM.Lotfy
FacultyofEngineeringIsmaelia.SuezCanalUniversityEgypt
Ehablotfy2000@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Thispaperpresentstheresultsofanexperimentalinvestigationoftheaxialbehaviorofsmall
scale square reinforced concrete columns with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars, as a
solutiontoovercomethecorrosionproblems,wherethismaterialrepresentsarelativelynew
technology therefore much research is needed to determine its characteristics and gain
confidence to beacceptedby engineers forpractical application. A series of8column was
tested in a vertical position and under compressive axial static loading. Where all columns
had the same dimensions 250*250mm and 1250mm height, main reinforcement 4#12mm,
6#12mm,and8#12mm,thetransversereinforcementwas6@120mmclosedstirrupsalong
column.Themajorparametersincludedinthisresearchwerethemainreinforcementratios,
the main reinforcement types, the transverse reinforcement ratios in the column, and the
characteristic strength of concrete. Results from a series of tests on smallscale specimens
showed that increasing main reinforcement, transverse reinforcement ratios in the column
ends and increasing characteristic strength of concrete have a significant effect on the
behaviorofreinforcedconcretecolumnswithGFRP.
Keywords: Behavior,Column,Fiber,polymer,glass,andcompressionstrength
1.Introduction
Deterioration of reinforced concrete structures has become a serious problem in the last
decadethissituationismainlyduetocorrosionofsteelreinforcementembeddedinconcrete.
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) is increasingly used for reinforcing new structures, and
strengthening existing structures. FRP composites, in the form of sheets, cables, rods, and
plates,haveproventobeacosteffectivealternativetosteelreinforcementsbecauseoftheir
lowweighttostrengthratio,corrosionresistance,andflexibility.Themostcommontypesof
FRParearamid,glass,andcarbonAFRP,GFRP,andCFRPrespectively.
There are many bridge structures all over the world as applications of structures with FRP
reinforcementforexample:
1 In China there are now eight GFRP bridges in China. These bridges were generally
constructedbyhandlayupofglassfibersinapolyesterresinusingahoneycombformof
deckstructure,astheMiyunBridge,theXianyyongbridge,andHulanRiverBridge.
2InGermanytheLnenscheGassepedestrianbridge,theUlenbergstrasseBridge,andthe
SchiessbergstrasseBridge.
3 In Japan the Shinmiya Highway Bridge, the BachiMinamiBashir highway bridge, the
NagatsugawapedestrianBridge,TochigiPrefectureBridge,andIbarakiPrefectureBridge.
545
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
4InCanadatheBeddigtonTrailBridge,theHeadingleyBridge,WottonBridge,andMagog
Bridge
5In United States: the McKinleyville Bridge,and the Morristown Bridge (Nicholas et al.,
2003,Halcrowetal.,1996,OUetal.,2003,ELSalakawyetal.,2003).
Unfortunately, there was a lack of data about using FRP as reinforcement the lack of a
comprehensivedatabaseonFRPmaterialsmakesitdifficultforthepracticingcivilengineer
anddesignertouseFRPcompositesonaroutinebasis.Althoughanumberofreviewshave
beenpublishedrecentlyrelatedtodurabilityandtestmethods
The focus of each has been to summarize the state of knowledge in general without
emphasizing or attempting to prioritize critical areas in which needs are the greatest for
collection, assimilation, and dissemination of data (Karbhari et al., 2003). Fiber reinforced
polymerbars(FRP)mayusedinreinforcementofsectionswhichexposedtoflexuralmoment
like slabsand beams (RC), anddo notused in reinforcement of sections whichexposedto
compressionforceslikecolumns(EgyptianCodeCommittee,2006).
2.PreviousResearch
Paramanantham, (1993) tested 14 concrete beamcolumns reinforced with glass fiber
reinforcedpolymer (GFRP) reinforcingbars. The study reported that the GFRP reinforcing
barswouldonlybestressedupto20to30%oftheirultimatecompressionstrength inpure
axialcompression,andupto70%oftheirtensilestrengthinpureflexure.(Kawaguchi,1993)
performed similar tests with concrete member reinforced with aramid fiberreinforced
polymer(AFRP)reinforcingbars.Bothstudiesshowedthatconcretecompressionmembers
reinforced with FRP reinforcing bars can be analyzed by applying the same principles and
procedures used for concrete columns with steel reinforcement. (Deitz et al., 2003) tested
GFRPreinforcingbarsthathadanoutsidediameterof15mm(3/5in.)incompression,and
reported that the ultimate compression strength of the bars was approximately 50% of the
ultimate tensile strength. In general, the compressive strength of FRP reinforcing bars is
lowerthanthetensilestrength.IncontrasttothevastdatabaseavailableonFRPRCbeams
and slabs, literature on FRPRC columns with FRP bars is infrequent and limited. So this
studyaimstostudythebehaviorofreinforcedconcretecolumnswithGFRP.Theresultsand
observationspresentedinthispaperareusefultopracticingengineerswhomustpredictthe
enhancedcompressivestrengthofconcretecolumnsreinforcedwithGFRPbars.
3.ExperimentalProgram
3.1DescriptionofTestProgram
In this research, tests were carried out on 8column specimens, where all columns had the
same dimensions 250*250 mm and 1250 mm height. Tested specimens were divided into
fourgroups:
Group 1 contains three specimens with GFRP reinforcement 4#12mm, 6#12mm and
8#12mm, the transverse reinforcement was closed stirrups 6mm@120mm spread all the
specimenslengths,andfcu=25N/mm2
546
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
Group 2 contains one specimens with steel reinforcement 4#12mm, the transverse
reinforcement was closed stirrups 6mm@120mm spread all the specimen length, and
fcu=25N/mm2
Group 3 contains two specimens with GFRP reinforcement 4#12mm, the transverse
reinforcement was closed stirrups 6mm@120mm spread all the specimens lengths, and
fcu=30,35N/mm2.
Group 4 contains two specimens with GFRP reinforcement 4#12mm, and the transverse
reinforcement was closed stirrups 6mm@120mm spread at the middle third of tested
specimen, and 6mm@60mm spread at the other third of tested specimen. And next
specimen has transverse reinforcement was closed stirrups 6mm@60mm spread all the
specimen length. Table 1 shows the details of tested specimens, figure 1 shows the load
arrangementonspecimens,andfigure2showsthedetailsofreinforcementofcolumns
Group
No.
Table1: DetailsofTestedColumnsSpecimens
fcu
Col. (N/mm2)
No.
C1
1
25
Reinf.
Reinf.
Ratio
(%)
4#12mm
0.723
C2
25
6#12mm
1.08
C3
25
8#12mm
1.45
C4
25
4#12mm
0.723
C5
30
4#12mm
0.723
C6
35
4#12mm
0.723
C7
25
4#12mm
0.723
C8
25
4#12mm
0.723
Steel stirrupsin
thecol.ends
Notes
(
6mm@120mm)
(
6mm@120mm)
(
6mm@120mm)
1GFRPreinf
2Stirrups shape
(A)
(
6mm@120mm)
1Steelreinf
2Stirrups shape
(A)
(
6mm@120mm)
(
6mm@120mm)
1GFRPreinf
2Stirrups shape
(A)
1GFRPreinf
(6mm@60mm) 2Stirrups shape
(B)
1GFRPreinf
(6mm@60mm) 2 Stirrups shape
(C)
547
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
T o p P l a t e n
R ig id ly M o u n y e d
250mm
1250mm
C a p p i n g
2 5 0 m m
C r o s s S e c ti o n
R C C o l u m n s
D e f . G a g e
2 5 0 m m
Figure1:Loadingarrangementonspecimens
250mm
6@ 120mm
6@60mm
4#12mm
6@120mm
250mm
6@120mm
CrossSection
(C1)
6@60mm
1250mm
6@120mm
1250mm
1250mm
250mm
6#12mm
250mm
CrossSection
(C2)
StirrupsShape(A)
(C)
250mm
StirrupsShape(B)
6@120mm
250mm
StirrupsShape
250mm
250mm
8#12mm
250mm
CrossSection
(C3)
Figure2: Detailsofreinforcementoftestedcolumns
548
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
3.2MaterialProperties
3.2.1 Materialusedandcastingoftestcolumns:
Thematerialsusedinthisworkweresandwithfinenessmodulus2.464,siliceousgravelwith
maximum nominal size 9.5 mm and them grading shown in table 2, ordinary Portland
cementitstestingresultsshownintable3,andtapdrinkingwaterwasused.
Table 2: TheGradingofusedGravelandSand
Sievesize(mm)
%passing(by
weight)gravel
%passing(by
weight)sand
38
19
9.51
4.76 2.83 1.41
100
99
95.5
20
100
100
100
100
98
0.707
0.354
0.177
75
50
9.5
Table 3:ResultsofTestedCement
No.
Test
Timeofsetting
Soundness,cm
Compressivestrength,N/mm2
Results
Initial=0.0hour,50min.
Final=6.0hour,15min.
0.8cm
At3days=19.5
At7days=27.5
3.2.2 Steelreinforcementbars
Highgradedeformedsteelbarsofnominaldiameter12mmwasusedformainreinforcement
in this work, mild steel bars of nominal diameter 6 mm was used as stirrups. The relevant
mechanicalpropertiesofreinforcementsteelbarswereobtainedfromabasictensileteston
universaltestingmachinetable4showsthetestresults.
Table4:PropertiesofusedSteel
Commercial
Dia.(mm)
6
#12
Actual
Dia.(mm)
6
12
Yieldstrength
(N/mm2)
250
415
Ult.Strength
(N/mm2)
365
535.5
Elongation%
26
18.7
3.2.3Fiberpolymerbars
Modern composites are usually made of two components, as fiber and matrix. The fiber is
most often glass, Kevlar, carbon fiber, or polyethylene. A common fiberreinforced
composite is Fiberglass.Glass fiber Gun Roving RS240was used in this work, where it is
madeof"E"glassfiberrovingwithuniformtax,goodchopability,stiffness,dispersion,anti
staticandwetout.ThefiberisembeddedinthematrixSIRE5TERFS0993/T/Iwhichisan
unsaturatedthixotropicorthophthalicPolyesterbasedresindissolvedinstyrene.Sucharesin
549
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
ischaracterizedbymedium/highreactivity.SIRESTERFS0993/T/Iisnotacceleratedbutit
is formulated in order to have a very short curing time even at low temperature. Table 5
showsthetestresults.
Table5:PropertiesofusedGFRPbars
No
SampleNo1
SampleNo2
SampleNo3
Diameter Proofstrength Ult.Strength

(mm)
(N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
12
458
576.5
12
472
581
12
451
560
Strain
(%)
4.58
4.5
4.5
3.2.4ConcreteMixDesign
The(A.C.I.)methodwasusedinmixdesignproportion(A.C.I.Standard211.170,1970)as
given in table 6. Cubes of (150150150 mm) were casted at the same time and from the
samebatchofconcreteusedforthebeamstodeterminethecompressivestrengthofconcrete.
Table 6: Theweightsoftheusedcomponentsinconcretemixdesign
Mixing
No
Cement
(kg/m3)
1
2
3
350
375
425
Sand
Gravel
Water/cement
3
(kg/m ) (kg/m3)
605
595
580
1211
1190
1160
0.58
0.54
0.48
Slump
value
(mm)
85
60
50
fcu
(N/mm2)
26
31.5
36.5
3.2.5 Testsetup
Specimensweretestedinaverticalpositionandundercompressiveaxialstaticloadingwith
pinnedpinnedendconditionsuptofailure,asshowninfigure1.
3.2.6 Measurementofdeformationandstrain
Mechanical dial gauges with 0.01mm accuracy wereused to measure the contraction at the
endofcolumns,figure1showsthelocationofinstalledinstrumentsonthemodel.
3.2.7 DetectionofCracks
The initial cracks were detectedusing a magnifying glass with a lamp to improvelighting
thepropagationofcrackswasmarkedaftereachloadincrement.Thedevelopmentofcracks
maybeeasilymarkedbypencil,whichwillbevisibleafterthetest.
4.ResultsandDiscussion
Themainparametersincludedinthisresearchwerethemainreinforcementratios,themain
reinforcement types, the transverse reinforcement ratios in the column ends and the
characteristic strength of concrete. Table 7 shows the results of the tested columns in this
550
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
study,thetableincludesthevaluesoftheinitialcrackingloads(Pcr),theultimateloads(Pu),
andultimatedeformations.
Table7:Resultsofthetestedcolumns
0.723
Initialcracking
loads
Pcr (KN)
230
Ultimate
loads
Pu(KN)
760
Ultimate
deformations
defu(mm)
0.7
C2
1.08
260
870
0.72
C3
1.45
305
920
0.77
C4
0.723
270
900
0.82
C5
0.723
320
960
0.75
C6
0.723
340
1095
0.81
C7
0.723
260
830
0.79
C8
0.723
290
975
0.85
Col.No.
Reinf.
Ratio(%)
C1
Notes
4.1Themainreinforcementratios
Figure3showstheloaddeformationofcolumnsC1,C2andC3whichreinforcedbyGFRP
reinforcement 4#12mm, 6#12mm and 8#12mm (0.723, 1.08, and 1.45%) respectively
increasing GFRP reinforcement ratio leads to increase the toughness andductility of tested
columns.Fromtable7,itcanbeseenthat,ultimateloads,ultimatestrainandinitialcracking
loadsofC2andC3toC1are(114,102&113%),and(121,110&132%)respectively.
The increasing of main reinforcementratios with GFRP bars increase the ductility of cross
section,soithasasignificanteffectontheinitialcrackingloads,ultimatestrain,andultimate
loadsthatthecolumnsresist.
Figure 4 shows the effect of the main reinforcement ratios on the ultimate load that the
columnsresists,wheretheincreasingofmainreinforcementratioshasasignificanteffecton
ultimateloads,itisobservedthatloadincreasing correspondingtoincreasingreinforcement
ratiofrom 0.723to 1.08%islargerthanthatratiofrom 1.08to 1.45%.
4.2Themainreinforcementtypes
Figure5showstheloaddeformationofcolumnsC1andC4whichreinforcedbyGFRPand
steel reinforcement with 4#12mm (0.723%) tested column with steel reinforcement has
ductility more than column with GFRP reinforcement. From table 7, it can be seen that,
ultimate load, ultimate strain and initial cracking loads of C4 to C1 is 118, 117 and 117%
respectively.Figure6showsthatusingsteelasmainreinforcementhasasignificanteffecton
theultimateloadwhichthecolumnresists.
551
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
1000
1.4
900
1.2
800
1
P u /P u r e f
Load(KN)
700
600
C1
500
C2
400
0.8
0.6
C3
0.4
300
0.2
200
100
0
0.600
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
Reinforcem entratio(%)
De form ation(m m )
Figure 3:Load deformationofC1,C2

andC3
Figure 4:UltimateLoadofC2,C3toC1and
mainreinforcementratio
Using steel as main reinforcement has a significant effect on the initial cracking loads
ultimatestrain,andultimateloadsthatthecolumnsresist.
1.4
1000
900
1.2
800
1
P u /P u re f
Load(KN)
700
600
500
C1
C4
400
0.8
0.6
0.4
300
200
0.2
100
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
SteelReinf
De form ation(m m )
Figure 5:Load deformation ofC1andC4
GFRPReinf
ReinfType
Figure 6:UltimateLoadofC4toC1and
reinforcementtype
4.3Thetransversereinforcementratiosinthetestedcolumns
Figure 7 shows the loaddeformation of columns C1, C7 and C8 increasing of transverse
reinforcementratioleadstoincreasethetoughnessandductilityoftestedcolumns.
Fromtable7,itcanbeseenthat,ultimateloads,ultimatestrainandinitialcrackingloadsof
C7andC8toC1are(109,112&113%)and(128,121&126%)respectively.
Figure 8 shows the effect of the transverse reinforcement ratios in the column ends on the
ultimateloadthatthecolumnsresists,wheretheincreasingoftransversereinforcementratios
552
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
has a significant effect on ultimate loads. The increasing of transverse reinforcement ratios
confinesthecolumnssoitisleadtoincreasetheultimateloadswhichthecolumnsresisted,
hence increasing ultimate strain, and initial cracking loads. As the increasing of transverse
reinforcement ratio leads to increase the toughness and ductility of tested columns with
GFRP, so it will be compared with tested column with steel reinforcement and normal
stirrupsdistribution:
Figure 9 shows the loaddeformation of columns C1, C7, C8 and C4, the increasing of
stirrups with columns reinforced by GFRP increase the toughness and ductility of columns
morethanusingsteelbarswithnormalstirrupsdistribution,thebehaviorofcolumnwithsteel
bars C4 generate between the behaviors of C7 and C8. From table 7, it can be seen that,
ultimate loads, ultimate strain and initial cracking loads of C4, C7 and C8 to C1 are (118,
117&117%),(109,112&113%)and(128,121&126%)respectively.
1200
1000
1.4
1.2
1
600
Pu/Pu ref
Load(KN)
800
C1
C7
0.6
0.4
C8
400
0.8
0.2
0
200
StirrupsShape(A)
6mm@120mm
StirrupsShape(B)
6mm@60mm
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
StirrupsShape(C)
6mm@60mm
alongcol.
transversereinf.
Deform ation(m m )
Figure 7:Load deformationofC1,C7

andC8
Figure 8: UltimateLoadofC1,C7andC8
andtransversereinforcement
1200
1000
Load(KN)
800
600
C1
C7
C8
C4
400
200
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
De form ation(m m )
Figure 9:Load deformationofC1,C4,C7andC8
553
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
4.4Thecharacteristicstrengthofconcrete
Fromtable7,itcanbeseenthat,ultimateloads,ultimatestrainandinitialcrackingloadsof
C5 and C6 to C1 with (25, 30 &35N/mm2) are (126,107 &139%) and (144,115 &147%)
respectively.
Figure 10showstheloaddeformationofcolumnsC1,C5andC6increasingofcharacteristic
strengthofconcretehassignificanteffectonthebehavioroftestedcolumnswhereincrease
toughnessandductilityoftestedcolumns.
Figure11showstheeffectofthecharacteristicstrengthofconcreteontheultimateloadthat
the columns resists, where the increasing of characteristic strength of concrete has a
significanteffectonultimateloads.
1200
1200
1000
Load(KN)
800
600
C1
400
C5
UltimateLoad(KN)
1000
800
600
400
200
C6
200
fcu=25N/mm2
fcu=30N/mm2
fcu=35N/mm2
characteristicStrengthofconcrete
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
De form ation(m m )
Figure 10: Load deformationofC1,

C5,andC6
Figure 11: UltimateLoadofC1,C5and

C6andcharacteristicstrengthofconcrete
5.Theoreticalanalysis
Theultimatestrengthofthetestedspecimenswascalculatedtheoreticallybasedonthefirst
principlesoftheultimatetheoryfordesignofreinforcedconcretemembers.Computationsof
thestrengthofcrosssectionsshouldbeperformedbasedonthefollowingassumptions.
(a)StrainintheconcreteandtheFRPreinforcementisproportionaltothedistancefromthe
neutralaxis(thatis,aplanesectionbeforeloadingremainsplaneafterloading).
(b)Themaximumusablecompressivestrainintheconcreteisassumedtobecanbe0.003.
(c)Thetensilestrengthofconcreteisignored.
(d)ThetensilebehavioroftheFRPreinforcementislinearlyelasticuntilfailure.
(e)AperfectbondexistsbetweentheconcreteandFRPreinforcement.
Theultimatestrength ofthesteelandGFRPrebarsweretakenaccordingtothematerialtests
andall safety factorswereconsideredequaltoone.
554
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
Table8 gives a comparison of theoretical and experimental results of the tested specimens.
The increase in the experimental ultimate strength of specimens compared with the
theoreticalstrengthisrelatedtothecontributionoftheexternalfabricmesh.Table8shows
thattheexperimentalresultsareapproximately19%higherthanthetheoreticalvalues,apart
fromspecimenC8inwhichthedifferencewas30%.
Table8:Comparison betweenpredictedandexperimentalresults(ACI3182008)
Col.
No.
Reinf.
Ratio(%)
Rebar
type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
0.723
1.08
1.45
0.723
0.723
0.723
0.723
0.723
GFRP
GFRP
GFRP
Steel
GFRP
GFRP
GFRP
GFRP
Characteristic
strength
(KN/mm2)
25
25
25
25
30
35
25
25
Exp.
loads
Pu(KN)
760
870
920
900
960
1095
830
975
Predicted
Loads
P (KN)
750
810
870
740
875
1005
750
750
Pexp/Ppred
1.01
1.07
1.06
1.21
1.09
1.09
1.10
1.30
6.Conclusion
The experimental results from8reinforced concrete columnsdemonstrate the influences of
themainreinforcementratio,themainreinforcementtype,thetransversereinforcementratio,
and characteristic strength of concrete on the ultimate loads, ultimate strain and initial
cracking loads. Based on the experimental results presented in this study the following
conclusionscanbedrawn:
Tested column with steel reinforcement has ductility more than column with GFRP
reinforcement, where ultimate load, ultimate strain and initial cracking loads of
column with steel reinforcement increase with 118, 117 and 117% respectively of
columnwithGFRPreinforcement.
TheincreasingofmainreinforcementratioswithGFRPbarsincreasetheductilityof
crosssection,soithasasignificanteffectontheinitialcrackingloads,ultimatestrain,
andultimateloadsthatthecolumnsresist
The increasing of GFRP reinforcement ratios from 0.723 to 1.08% has a noticeable
significant effect on the all behavior of tested columns more than the increasing of
reinforcementratiosfrom 1.08 to 1.45%.
Increasing of transverse reinforcement ratio leads to increase the toughness and
ductility of tested columns with GFRP bars, where the increasing of transverse
reinforcementratiosconfinesthecolumnssoitisleadtoincreasetheultimate loads
which the columns resisted, hence increasing ultimate strain, and initial cracking
loads.AndthecolumnwithGFRPbarshastoughnessandductilitymorethancolumn
withsteelbarsandnormaltransversereinforcementdistribution.
Increasingofcharacteristicstrengthofconcretehassignificanteffectonthebehavior
oftestedcolumnswhereincreasetoughnessandductilityoftestedcolumns.
555
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
Using first principles of the ultimate theory for prediction of the ultimate loads
capacity of tested columns gives results in good agreement with the experimental
results.
SoGFRPbarscanbeusedasmainreinforcementincolumnswithincreasingthetransverse
reinforcementalongcolumnslengthandusinghighstrengthconcrete
7.References
1. Nicholas M.,& Rajan S. (2003). The Fatigue of FiberReinforced Polymer
Composite Structures StateoftheArtReview Civil & Environmental Engineering,
USFCollegeofEngineering.
2. HalcrowW.andPartnersLtd.(1996)London,EnglandFRPConcreteStructures
Advanced Composite Materials In Bridges and Structures M.M. BBadry, Editor
CanadianSocietyforCivilEngineering,Montreal,Quebec,1996
3. OU J. and LI H., (2003). "Recent Advances of Structural Health Monitoring in
Mainland China The National HiTech Research and Development Program
(HTRDP),andpracticalengineeringprojects.
4. ELSalakawy E. F., Kassem C., and Benmokrane B.,(2003). "Construction, Testing
and Monitoring of FRP Reinforced Concrete Bridges In North America" NSERC
Chair, ISIS Canada, Department of Civil Engineering, Universit de Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke,Qubec,CanadaJ1K2R1.
5. KarbhariV.M.,ChinJ.W.,HunstonD.,BenmokraneB.,JuskaT.,MorganR.,Lesko
J. J., Sorathia U., and Reynaud D., (2003). "Durability Gap Analysis for Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Composites in Civil Infrastructure" Journal of Composites for
Construction,ASCE/August,pp 238247
6. EgyptianCodeCommittee, (2005)."TheEgyptianCodefortheuseoffiberreinforced
polymerbars(FRP)intheconstructionfield"Proposedcopy,(InArabic).
7. Paramanantham, N. S., (1993).Investigation of the Behaviorof Concrete Columns
Reinforced with Fiber Reinforced Plastic Rebars, MS thesis, Lamar University,
Beaumont,Tex.
8. Kawaguchi, N., (1993). Ultimate Strength and Deformation Characteristics of
Concrete Members Reinforced with AFRP Rods under Combined Axial Tension or
Compression and Bending, FiberReinforcedPlastic Reinforcement for Concrete
StructuresInternationalSymposium,SP138.
9. DeitzD. H. , Harik I. E.,and GesundH.(2003). Physical Properties of Glass Fiber
ReinforcedPolymerRebarsinCompression journalofcompositesforconstruction,
volume7,issue4,pp363366.
10. A.C.I.Committee211,A.C.I.Standard211.170(1970):RecommendedPracticefor
SelectingProportionsforConcrete.AmericanConcreteInstitute.Detroit
556
Volume1,No 3,2010
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
11. American Concrete Institute, (2008). Building code requirements for structural
concrete,ACI31808,ACI,FarmingtonHills,MI.
557

Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Short Columns With Fiber Reinforced Polymers Bars

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Short Columns With Fiber Reinforced Polymers Bars

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING

4.76 2.83 1.41

Diameter Proofstrength Ult.Strength

Figure 3:Load deformationofC1,C2

Figure 5:Load deformation ofC1andC4

Figure 7:Load deformationofC1,C7

Figure 9:Load deformationofC1,C4,C7andC8

Figure 10: Load deformationofC1,

Figure 11: UltimateLoadofC1,C5and

You might also like