TENSION STIFFENING AND CRACKING BEHAVIOUR OF GFRP

REINFORCED CONCRETE

by

Zahra Kharal

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Master’s of Applied Science
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto

© Copyright by Zahra Kharal (2014)

UMI Number: 1570558

All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 1570558
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Tension Stiffening and Cracking Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced
Concrete
Zahra Kharal
Master’s of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
2014

ABSTRACT
Glass Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars offer a feasible alternative in situations where steel
is not the suitable reinforcement; namely locations that are sensitive to corrosion. Studying the response
of GFRP tension members is essential for understanding the tension stiffening behaviour and crack
development of GFRP-reinforced structural members. In this study 60 specimens, 52 GFRP reinforced
and 8 steel reinforced, were constructed and tested under direct tension in order to investigate the tension
stiffening and cracking behaviour. The effects of different variables such as the bar type, the bar
diameter, the reinforcement ratio and the concrete strength on tension stiffening and crack spacing were
studied. The current code provisions for tension stiffening, namely ACI-440 and CEB-FIP were evaluated
against the obtained test data. It was determined that the current code provisions significantly
overestimate tension stiffening in GFRP reinforced specimens. A new tension stiffening model was,
therefore, developed that provides better simulation of the test data. The CEB-FIP 1978 model for crack
spacing was also modified for GFRP reinforced members.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Without the help of various people this research program would not have been possible.
Firstly, I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor, Professor Shamim A. Sheikh. He provided
instruction, encouragement, and guidance throughout the duration of my experimental work as
well as during the writing of my thesis. This study would not have been successful without his
guidance and support.
Secondly, deepest gratitude is expressed to Professor Frank Vecchio for his knowledge,
kind assistance and valuable comments.
I would also like to express my gratitude to all of my colleagues at the University of
Toronto who were available for collaboration and guidance for the past two years. A special
thanks goes to all the research group members who helped during all phases of the project: David
Johnson, Arjang Tavassoli, Alireza Kharavan, Lisa Vint, Jingtao Liu and Doug Getzlaf, et al. for
all the kind assistance they provided. I would also like to thank the summer students Kanwar
Johal, Max Ho and Edvard Brun for their assistance during the experimental program.
This research program would not have possible without the help of the technical staff of
the structural laboratory. I am grateful to Renzo Basset, John MacDonald, Xiaming Sun,
Giovanni Buzzeo, Bryant Cook, Michel Fiss, Bob Manson and Alan McClenaghan for the help
they provided throughout the duration of the experimental program.
Lastly, and most importantly, I wish to thank my parents, Muhammad and Tasneem, and
my siblings for their support, patience and endless love.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................x
Notation ................................................................................................................................. xviii
CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1

1.1

Background ......................................................................................................................1

1.2

Objectives and Scope........................................................................................................2

1.3

Organization .....................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

5

2.1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................5

2.2

Tension Stiffening Models for Steel Reinforced Concrete.................................................6

2.2.1

Vecchio and Collins (1986) .......................................................................................6

2.2.2

Collins and Mitchell (1987) .......................................................................................7

2.2.3

Izumo, Maekawa (1992)............................................................................................7

2.2.4

Bentz (2003)..............................................................................................................8

2.2.5

Field and Bischoff (2004) ..........................................................................................8

2.2.6

Masukawa (2012) .................................................................................................... 10

2.3

Crack Spacing Models for Steel Reinforced Concrete ..................................................... 11

2.3.1

CEB-FIP Model Code (1978) .................................................................................. 12

2.3.2

CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 ..................................................................................... 13

2.3.3

Gergely-Lutz Model ................................................................................................ 13

2.4

Models for Cracking in GFRP Reinforced Concrete ....................................................... 14

2.4.1

ACI 440.1 R-06 Model ............................................................................................ 14

2.4.2

Toutanji and Saafi Model 2000 ................................................................................ 15

2.5

Previous Experimental Studies on GFRP-Reinforced Concrete ....................................... 16

2.5.1

Bischoff and Paixao (2004) ..................................................................................... 16
iv

..............4................................................... 50 4...............2..................................................4 Concrete .......................................... 39 3............................................................... 45 4....2 Specimen Preparation and Instrumentation ..4 Modulus of Rupture Tests ...................................... 29 3........................... 54 4.................2................................................. 19 2.................................................................. 52 4.........................................................................5 Shrinkage Tests .2 Steel Reinforcement .................. 22 2........2...............................................................................................6 Summary of Previous Tests ................................................................................. 24 3....... 30 3................................... 47 4........................2 Cylinder Tests .... 34 Direct Tension Specimens ..... Pilakoutas and Byars (2007) ............................................................................... 28 3........................2 Concrete Test Results ........................1 GFRP Coupons..............................................................................1 Introduction ........2................. 30 3.............2...2............ 24 3..............................................4 Summary ...............1 Introduction ....3 Test Procedure................................................................................3 Reinforcement Test Results ..........................................3 3...................5................................1 GFRP Reinforcement .................................................3 Dog-bone Tests .................... 25 3.................... 43 CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 45 4.........3.. 42 3...2..................................................................................................................................3................. 22 CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 24 3................................. 31 3..............4 Shrinkage Test Results ..................1 Specimen Details ...........................3..................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ...................... 45 4..............4........................................3 MOR Test Results ......................... 54 v ................................... 34 3.......7 Basis of Experimental Program ......................... 30 3..........4.....2.4.............................................................2.......................................................................................................4............................................................2.........2...............................2.2.......................1 Concrete Cylinder Tests ..................................................... 36 3....................................... 36 3.........2 Sooriyaarachci...3 Expansive Mortar ...................... 45 4..........................................................2 Material Properties ...................................................................3...........................................................................2 Dog-bone Specimen Test Results ..........................................2........................................

................................................................................................................. 58 4......................5 Examination and Discussion of Tension Stiffening Behaviour ........3.................................................................................................5 Test Series C .............................................................................................................................. 147 5..........1 Low reinforcement ratio .....................................3 Calculation of Total Strain ....................4...................................4.4.............3 Test Series C ........... 183 5....................................................................................................5 Influence of Bar Type ................................................... 155 5.2 Test Series V .... 61 4.......................................... 181 5..............................1 Steel vs GFRP ...........................................2 4........................................3 Test Series A ...4..........................................6......................................... 186 vi ...................................... 119 4........................................................ 144 5........................................... 180 5. 149 5...........................4 End Effects ...8 Tension Stiffening Prediction by Bischoff 2004 Model ...5.............7................................................................. 72 4..... 140 5......................................4............................................................................4............ 185 5...............4 Steel Coupons.............................4 General Tension Stiffening Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Specimens ................2 High reinforcement ratio ........ 141 5...2 Determination of Tension Stiffening Response ...... 140 5.............................................................5........................................1 Introduction ..................................................................6...6 Summary ..1 Test Series A ................................................... 163 5............................................................................................................................................. 170 5........................................ 170 5....... 169 5..........................5....7.6. 179 5. 57 Direct Tension Specimens Test Results ..........7 Tension Stiffening Predictions by Codes .............................1 General Behaviour of Direct Tension Specimen ..6........... 58 4...................................................................................... 176 5........................ 175 5...........6.............................4 Test Series V .............................................. 172 5.................................................5.................................................................3 Concrete Strength ....6 Influence of Parameters on Tension Stiffening Response ............. 173 5................................ 93 4.....6 Summary and Discussion ..................................7............... 138 CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 140 5.......................................4.................2 Influence of Reinforcement Ratio ....................................................6..................................................................3 Influence of Concrete Strength ..........2 Test Series M (Steel Reinforcement) ..........4 Influence of Bar Diameter ............................................

..................................................................................................................9 Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis ............................................................................................................... 206 5....................5 Influence of Bar Type .............................................2 Influence of Reinforcement Ratio ............11............. 218 APPENDIX ...........................................................................................1 Steel versus GFRP ..................................................12 Proposed Mean Crack Spacing Model .......... 217 REFERENCES .................................. 203 5..................... 215 6........................................2 Conclusions .................... 211 CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and Recommendations 215 6.................................................................11........3 Recommendations ..............10 Proposed Tension Stiffening Model ................................................ 216 6....................................13 Comparison of Crack Spacing Models ............................................... 223 vii ................................... 210 5........................................4 Influence of Bar Diameter .....1 General ......... 190 5..................................................................... 196 5............................................ 207 5....................................11.....................................11 Effect of Different Variables on Average Crack Spacing ....................... 205 5...................................................................... 208 5............ 203 5.....3 Influence of Concrete Strength ........................................................................................11.........................11............................................5...................................

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Summary of test specimens 17 Table 2-2: Details of test specimens 20 Table 2-3: Database of previous tests 22 Table 3-1: Comparison of typical properties of steel and GFRP bars 26 Table 3-2: Nominal areas of GFRP bars 26 Table 3-3: Coupon Details 28 Table 3-4: Area of steel rebars 29 Table 3-5: Specimens Details 38 Table 4-1: Summary of compression test results of concrete cylinders 47 Table 4-2: Summary of the tensile ‘dog-bone’ tests 50 Table 4-3: Summary of concrete flexural tensile strength 52 Table 4-4: Shrinkage test results of 30 MPa Concrete 53 Table 4-5: Shrinkage test results of 85 MPa Concrete 53 Table 4-6: Summary of GFRP coupon tests 56 Table 4-7: Summary of steel coupon tests 57 Table 4-8: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series M specimens 61 Table 4-9: Concrete compression test results of concrete for Test Series M specimens 61 Table 4-10: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series M specimens 62 Table 4-11: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series M specimens 62 Table 4-12: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series M specimens 62 Table 4-13: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series A specimens 72 Table 4-14: Concrete compression test results of concrete for Test Series A specimens 72 viii .

....pred/sm.exp for 214 .Table 4-15: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series A specimens 73 Table 4-16: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series A specimens 74 Table 4-17: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series A specimens 74 Table 4-18: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series V specimens 93 Table 4-19: Concrete compression test results of concrete for Test Series V specimens 94 Table 4-20: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series V specimens 94 Table 4-21: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series V specimens 95 Table 4-22: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series V specimens 96 Table 4-23: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series C specimens 119 Table 4-24: Concrete compression test results of concrete for Test Series C specimens 119 Table 4-25: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series C specimens 120 Table 4-26: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series C specimens 121 Table 4-27: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series C specimens 121 Table 5-1: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar A specimens 149 Table 5-2: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar B specimens 155 Table 5-3: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar C specimens 163 Table 5-4: Summary of steel coupon tests 191 Table 5-5: Selected models for the analysis in VecTor2 191 Table 5-6: Mean and coefficient of variation comparison of sm.stabilized mean crack spacing of different models for GFRP reinforced members ix ..

3-4: ‘Dog-bone’ forms with steel end plates and threaded rods locked in place 32 Fig. 3-2: Surface profile of GFRP bars 27 Fig. 4-6: Ultimate rupture of a GFRP bar 55 x . 4-3: ‘Dog-bone’ tension test response curves 48 Fig. 3-8: Set-up of a shrinkage prism in comparator 35 Fig. 3-11: Painting of specimens after attaching mounts 40 Fig. 3-6: Set-up of clamping rigs on dog-bone specimens 33 Fig. 3-5: Placement of instrumentation on dog-bone specimens 33 Fig. 2-3: Arrangement for measuring average strain of the specimens 19 Fig. 4-2: Concrete stress-strain curves of cylinders at specified age 46 Fig. 3-3: Concrete cylinder set-up 31 Fig. 3-12: Instrumentation detail of GFRP direct tension specimens 40 Fig. 3-1: Stress vs strain response of steel (10M) and GFRP (12V) in direct tension 25 Fig. 3-13: Instrumentation detail of steel direct tension specimens 41 Fig. 2-2: Determining shrinkage effects from un-bonded concrete specimens 10 Fig. 4-4: Crack patterns of concrete tensile ‘dog-bone’ test specimens 49 Fig.LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 3-9: Casting of specimens 36 Fig. 3-7: Set-up of modulus of rupture tests 34 Fig. 4-5: Failure of modulus of rupture test specimens 51 Fig. 3-10: Test specimen details 37 Fig. 4-1: Concrete strength development curves 46 Fig. 2-1: General specimen configuration 9 Fig.

4-11: Test Results of C30-10M-100(2) 65 Fig. 4-14: Test Results of C30-15M-150(1) 68 Fig. 4-29: Test Results of C30-19A-150(2) 86 xi . 4-18: Crack pattern of specimens C30-15M-150 71 Fig. 4-12: Test Results of C30-15M-100(1) 66 Fig. 4-13: Test Results of C30-15M-100(2) 67 Fig. 4-8: General crack pattern of steel tension member 59 Fig. 4-16: Crack pattern of specimens C30-10M-100 70 Fig. 4-21: Test Results of C30-16A-100(1) 78 Fig. 4-10: Test Results of C30-10M-100(1) 64 Fig. 4-7: Stress-strain curves of steel 57 Fig. 4-17: Crack pattern of specimens C30-15M-100 71 Fig. 4-28: Test Results of C30-19A-150(1) 85 Fig. 4-27: Test Results of C30-16A-150(1) 84 Fig.Fig. 4-26: Test Results of C30-12A-150(2) 83 Fig. 4-22: Test Results of C30-16A-100(2) 79 Fig. 4-15: Test Results of C30-15M-150(2) 69 Fig. 4-24: Test Results of C30-19A-100(2) 81 Fig. 4-23: Test Results of C30-19A-100(1) 80 Fig. 4-20: Test Results of C30-12A-100(2) 77 Fig. 4-25: Test Results of C30-12A-150(1) 82 Fig. 4-9: General crack pattern of GFRP tension member 60 Fig. 4-19: Test Results of C30-12A-100(1) 76 Fig.

4-44: Test Results of C30-19V-100(2) 104 Fig. 4-39: Test Results of C30-16V-100(1) 99 Fig. 4-52: Test Results of C85-16V-100(1) 112 xii . 4-45: Test Results of C30-12V-150(1) 105 Fig. 4-40: Test Results of C30-16V-100(2) 100 Fig. 4-46: Test Results of C30-12V-150(2) 106 Fig. 4-51: Test Results of C30-19V-150(2) 111 Fig. 4-38: Test Results of C30-12V-100(2) 98 Fig. 4-48: Test Results of C30-16VS-150(1) 108 Fig. 4-30: Test Results of C85-16A-100(1) 87 Fig. 4-34: Crack pattern of specimens C30-19A-100 90 Fig.Fig. 4-33: Crack pattern of specimens C30-16A-100 90 Fig. 4-36: Crack pattern of specimens C85-16A-100 92 Fig. 4-32: Crack pattern of specimens C30-12A-100 89 Fig. 4-41: Test Results of C30-16VS-100(1) 101 Fig. 4-47: Test Results of C30-16V-150(1) 107 Fig. 4-49: Test Results of C30-16VS-150(1) 109 Fig. 4-35: Crack pattern of specimens C30-19A-150 91 Fig. 4-43: Test Results of C30-19V-100(1) 103 Fig. 4-31: Test Results of C85-16A-100(2) 88 Fig. 4-42: Test Results of C30-16VS-100(2) 102 Fig. 4-37: Test Results of C30-12V-100(1) 97 Fig. 4-50: Test Results of C30-19V-150(1) 110 Fig.

4-65: Test Results of C30-19C-100(1) 127 Fig. 4-70: Test Results of C30-19C-150(2) 132 Fig. 4-75: Crack pattern of specimens C30-19C-150 137 xiii . 4-73: Crack pattern of specimens C30-16C-100 135 Fig. 4-66: Test Results of C30-19C-100(2) 128 Fig. 4-61: Test Results of C30-12C-100(1) 123 Fig. 4-56: Crack pattern of specimens C30-16VS-100 115 Fig. 4-62: Test Results of C30-12C-100(2) 124 Fig. 4-71: Test Results of C85-16C-100(1) 133 Fig. 4-57: Crack pattern of specimens C30-19V-100 116 Fig. 4-69: Test Results of C30-19C-150(1) 131 Fig. 4-60: Crack pattern of specimens C85-16V-100 118 Fig.Fig. 4-58: Crack pattern of specimens C30-16VS-150 116 Fig. 4-63: Test Results of C30-16C-100(1) 125 Fig. 4-64: Test Results of C30-16C-100(2) 126 Fig. 4-59: Crack pattern of specimens C30-19V-150 117 Fig. 4-74: Crack pattern of specimens C30-19C-100 136 Fig. 4-53: Test Results of C85-16V-100(2) 113 Fig. 4-68: Test Results of C30-16C-150(1) 130 Fig. 4-55: Crack pattern of specimens C30-16V-100 115 Fig. 4-67: Test Results of C30-12C-150(2) 129 Fig. 4-72: Test Results of C85-16C-100(2) 134 Fig. 4-54: Crack pattern of specimens C30-12V-100 114 Fig.

5-5: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19A-150 154 Fig. 4-76: Crack pattern of specimens C85-16C-100 137 Fig. 5-1: Effect of variation of gauge length and factor α on tension stiffening 146 Fig. 5-13: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C85-16V-100 163 Fig. 5-4: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19A-100 153 Fig. 5-17: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12C-150 166 Fig. 5-3: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-16A-100 152 Fig. 5-8: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-16V-100 158 Fig. 5-18: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19C-150 167 Fig. 5-11: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12V-150 161 Fig. 5-6: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C85-16A-100 155 Fig. 5-22: Reinforcement ratio effect on tension stiffening 173 xiv . 5-19: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C85-16C-100 168 Fig. 5-21: Tension stiffening comparison of steel vs GFRP 171 Fig. 5-20: General behaviour of GFRP reinforced tension specimens 169 Fig. 5-12: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19V-150 162 Fig. 5-7: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12V-100 157 Fig. 5-15: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-16C-100 165 Fig. 5-9: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-16VS-100 159 Fig. 5-2: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12A-100 151 Fig.Fig. 5-10: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19V-100 160 Fig. 5-16: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19C-100 166 Fig. 5-14: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12C-100 164 Fig.

0% Fig. 5-25: Tension stiffening comparison of bar type 178 Fig. 5-33: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model 187 for ρ= 1.3% Fig. 5-36: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model for Bar C 189 Fig.0% Fig. 5-24: Bar diameter effect on tension stiffening 176 Fig. 2% and 3% Fig. 5-28: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction at reinforcement 182 ratio of 2. 5-23: Concrete strength effect on tension stiffening at ρ= 2. 5-37: Mesh Layout in VecTor2 190 xv .3%. 5-29: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar A at 183 reinforcement ratio of 3.0%ratio of 2.Fig. 5-27: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction at reinforcement 182 ratio of 1. 5-34: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model 188 for 85MPa concrete Fig.3% 181 Fig. 5-31: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar C 184 at reinforcement ratio of 3.0% 175 Fig.0% Fig. 5-32: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of 30MPa versus 185 85MPa concrete Fig. 5-30: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar V at 184 reinforcement ratio of 3.0% Fig. 5-26: ACI and CEB stress-strain prediction at reinforcement ratio of 1. 5-35: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model for Bar V 188 Fig.

5-42: Predicted member response for C30-12A-100 specimens 198 Fig. 5-52: Effect of GFRP reinforced on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot 213 xvi .Fig. 5-39: VecTor2 results of steel tension stiffening specimens 193 Fig. 5-47: Effect of GFRP reinforcement on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot 205 Fig. 5-41: Effect on VecTor2 result using various tension stiffening models 195 Fig. 5-38: Effect of shrinkage in VecTor2 192 Fig. 5-48: Effect of reinforcement ratio on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot 206 Fig. 5-40: VecTor2 result of GFRP reinforced C30-12A-100 specimen 194 Fig. 5-50: Effect of bar diameter on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot 208 Fig. 5-44: Tension stiffening predicted response for Test Series B 200 Fig. 5-49: Effect of concrete strength on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot 207 Fig. 5-46: Tension stiffening predicted response for Test Series M 202 Fig. 5-51: Effect of bar type on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot 209 Fig. 5-43: Tension stiffening predicted response for Test Series A 199 Fig. 5-45: Tension stiffening predicted response for Test Series C 201 Fig.

a factor taking into effect the variation of εcr within the end regions.NOTATION Greek symbols α factor based on surface profile of the reinforcing bar. 0 ≤ α≤ 1 α1 factor accounting for bond characteristics of reinforcement α2 factor accounting for sustained loading or repeated loadings αi inclination of reinforcement in Bentz 2003 Model β Tension stiffening factor strain gradient factor in Gergely-Lutz crack width formula ΔL Specimen displacement ∆m Displacement measured by LVDT's εb Total reinforcing bar strain εbf Reinforcement bar strain caused by force. net bar strain εc Total concrete strain in the specimen εcr Strain corresponding to concrete tensile cracking stress εcf Net concrete tensile strain of the specimen εcsh Free shrinkage strain in concrete εm Member strain εsh Strain at onset of strain hardening of steel reinforcing bar ε’t Concrete uniaxial cracking strain εu Steel reinforcing bar strain at rupture εy Strain at yield of bare bar θi Inclination of principal strain direction xvii .

ρb Reinforcing ratio of reinforcement ρe Ratio of the area of reinforcement effectively bonded to the concrete to the crosssectional σct Stress of concrete in tension σ1 In ASTM C469 for the calculation of modulus of elasticity. stress corresponding to a longitudinal strain ε1 of -50 x 10-6 σ2 In ASTM C469 for the calculation of modulus of elasticity. stress corresponding to 40% of the ultimate load τbk Average bond stress lower bound value Upper case symbols A The effective area of concrete in tension having the same centroid as that of the reinforcing bars divided by the number of bars Ab Area of reinforcement Ac Effective area of concrete in tension Ace Cross-sectional area of the effective embedment zone of the concrete As Area of steel reinforcement Eb Modulus of elasticity of reinforcing bar Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete Ecs Secant modulus of elasticity of concrete Ect Uncracked secant tensile modulus of elasticity of concrete Es Modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement xviii .

LVDT gauge length P Total tensile force carried the member Pb Average load carried by the reinforcing bar Pc Average load carried by the concrete Pcr Member cracking load Lower Case Symbols b Width of the specimen c Clear concrete cover d Total depth of specimen db Longitudinal bar diameter dbi Rebar diameter dc The distance from the extreme tension fiber to the center of the closest bar fc Concrete compressive cylinder stress. average tensile strength of concrete f’c Maximum compressive concrete cylinder stress fcr Concrete cracking strength fct Tensile strength of concrete fs2 Reinforcement stress at a crack xix .Esh Modulus of elasticity at strain hardening of steel reinforcement L Total length of specimen Lcr Length between the two extreme cracks Lg Distance between the two most extreme cracks found on the specimen.

should not be greater than 15d b sm Mean crack spacing td Direction coefficient wm Mean crack width wmax Maximum crack width xx .fscr Rebar stress after crack fsE Reinforcement stress when slip is zero f’t Uniaxial cracking stress of concrete ft1 Tensile stress corresponding to 10 x 10-6 mm/mm strain ft2 Tensile stress corresponding to 60% of the peak load fu Stress in steel reinforcing bar at rupture fy Yield stress of steel reinforcing bar h Total height of the specimen h1 The distance from the tension steel to the neutral axis h2 The distance from the extreme tension fibre to the neutral axis k1 factor that takes into account bond properties of reinforcing bar k2 factor that takes into account strain gradient m free shrinkage prism mass s Maximum spacing between longitudinal bars.

This often makes the limit of deflection or crack width at service loads the governing criterion in design of members. GFRP bars have relatively low stiffness in comparison with steel which results in large deflections. including the EUROCRETE.1 Background Today engineers are faced with a huge problem of aging infrastructure all over the world. It has a comparatively high strength to weight ratio. One of the main reasons for the deterioration of the reinforced concrete structures is the corrosion of the reinforcing steel. 2009).CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1. Currently. GFRP reinforcement provides a distinct advantage over steel reinforcement in many structural applications. As such. Many solutions have been proposed to this continually growing problem. several design recommendations and guidelines for designing GFRP reinforced concrete members are available. Hence in order to accurately predict deflection. Despite having several significant advantages. has lower maintenance costs and provides resistance against salt water. one of them being the use of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymers (GFRP) as reinforcement. GFRP presents its own challenges in terms of having very different behaviour from steel. It is therefore critical to accurately predict the load-deflection behaviour. The accuracy of the prediction of deflection depends upon the accuracy of the determination of the effective moment of inertia which is in turn dependent upon two different phenomena. the phenomenon of tension stiffening in GFRP reinforced concrete structures must be understood and taken into account in the analysis. . the first one being the variation of stiffness along the member and the second one being the effect of concrete tension stiffening. environment and even most chemicals. the prediction of deflections is much more important for GFRP reinforced design than for steel reinforced design. The replacement cost of bridges and highway overpasses in only Ontario is approximately fiftyseven billion dollars (MTO. is more durable.

the experimental program and the analytical program.CHAPTER 1: Introduction 2 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACI 440-1R-06 and CSA S806-12. It was concluded that the results from the available models did not accurately simulate the . the difference between the measured and predicted deflections using these models has been found to be considerable. for the GFRP reinforced concrete beams tested by (Gezlaf 2012). The specimens constructed were all 1000 mm long. Even though the purpose of this investigation was to monitor the behaviour of the GFRP reinforced tension specimens. reinforcement ratio and concrete strength on the tension stiffening and cracking behaviour of concrete. The analytical portion of this program consisted of determining the influence of the bar type. A critical evaluation of the current code equations for GFRP was also undertaken. the bar diameter. However. The bars made by three GFRP manufacturers were considered: Hughes Brothers. This research aims to develop and propose an accurate tension stiffening and crack spacing model for GFRP reinforced concrete. This investigation consists of two distinct phases. 60 reinforced tension members were constructed and tested. Pultrall and Schӧck. Existing equations and models for GFRP-reinforced concrete such as ACI 440-1R-06 and CEB-FIP were evaluated against the experimental results from this study. The reason these equations have been found to be unconservative is because the empirical tension stiffening considerations are not accurate. 1. a control series of 8 steel reinforced specimens was also carried out for comparison. Study of tension stiffening of GFRP reinforced concrete is imperative to incorporate its effects in deflection and crack width calculations. For the experimental program.2 Objectives and Scope The main objective of this research is to investigate the tension stiffening and cracking behaviour of GFRP reinforced tension members. the reinforcement ratio and the concrete strength. bar diameter. The four variables investigated were the type of GFRP bar. The cross-section of the specimens was 100 mm x 100 mm or 150 mm x 150 mm.

The first part presents the results from the tests on concrete under compression. are compared with the experimental results to observe their validity. 1. It includes all the relevant information required for a thorough understanding of the program from its commencement to its end.3 Organization Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to the research being undertaken and the objective and scope of the study. Chapter 4 presents the experimental results obtained from the test program. It also provides the objectives and methodology of the test program. .CHAPTER 1: Introduction 3 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ behaviour of the specimens.and steelreinforced concrete specimens have been summarized. New tension stiffening and crack spacing models have been proposed for GFRP. The influences of various parameters on tension stiffening and crack spacing have been explored in detail. This chapter has been divided into three parts. The third part provides the results obtained from GFRP.and steel-reinforced concrete specimens under direct tension. flexure and tension along with the shrinkage test results. Chapter 3 gives the details of the experimental program. Thus new analytical models for tension stiffening and crack spacing of GFRP reinforced specimens are proposed. Previous relevant tests on GFRP. The program VecTor2 has been used to predict the response of the steelreinforced specimens. The available constitutive models for tension stiffening and crack spacing of GFRP and steel reinforced specimens have also been discussed. Chapter 2 discusses the literature review of previous studies on tension stiffening behaviour of steel and GFRP reinforced concrete. Chapter 5 includes a detailed investigation of the tension stiffening and crack spacing behaviour of the GFRP reinforced specimens. CEB-FIP and ACI-440.reinforced specimens and their accuracy checked against the experimental data. The second part of this chapter presents the results of the steel and GFRP coupon tests. The predictions from the existing tension stiffening models.

the second part the results of Bar B and the last part the results of Bar C.CHAPTER 1: Introduction 4 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 6 concludes with a summary of the results. the first part provides the coupon results of Bar A. The results are presented in three parts. Appendix gives the detailed stress-strain curves of all the GFRP bars in direct tension. . conclusions and recommendation for the future work.

Hence.1 Introduction It is often assumed that when the strain caused by stress exceeds the cracking strain in concrete. the concrete is completely neglected after cracking. This chapter examines the tension stiffening and crack spacing behaviour of reinforced specimens in detail. this is not the case.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 5 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 2. Tension Stiffening is a property neither of the reinforcement nor of the concrete. With this assumption. the reinforcing bars transfer the local tensile stresses to the concrete between the cracks through bond stresses at the reinforcement concrete interface. The currently available constitutive models for tension stiffening and crack spacing of GFRP and steel-reinforced specimens have also been provided. after the concrete cracks. Then. . when both the constitutive materials are present. When the concrete tensile stress in a member exceeds the tensile strength. Hence the load deformation response of the reinforcing bar encased in concrete is assumed to be the same as that of a bare bar. Relevant available tests on GFRP. the intact concrete between cracks continues to carry tensile stresses even after the occurrence of cracking and offers stiffness. In reality. This phenomenon that results from the formation of cracks and the bond between reinforcement and concrete is termed as the tension stiffening effect. Simultaneously.and steel-reinforced specimens to determine tension stiffening behaviour have been summarized. cracks develop. the concrete tensile stress will approach zero. It is a property that appears only in the composite material of reinforced concrete. the entire load that was previously carried by the concrete before cracking is transferred to the reinforcement through the cracks.

33(f'c)0. 1993) and the latter 'load-sharing' approach was first considered nearly a century ago by Considere (1899).7 (for sustained repeated loads) .g. Tension stiffening in steel reinforced members is most commonly taken into account by either modifying the stress-strain response of the steel bar or by accounting for the tensile contribution of concrete after cracking by using a descending branch. It assumes linear elastic behaviour up until cracking of concrete and accounts for the tensile contribution of concrete after cracking by using a descending branch (Equation 2-1).CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 6 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.2.7 (for plain bars) = 0 (for unbonded reinforcement) α2 = factor accounting for sustained loading or repeated loadings = 1 (for short mono-tonic loads) = 0. This model is suitable for small-scale structures with well-distributed reinforcement. fc = average tensile stress in concrete fcr = concrete tensile cracking stress = 0. Bentz 2003. Bischoff 2004).1 Vecchio and Collins (1986) Vecchio and Collins proposed a tension stiffening equation based on panel tests. Some of the more well-known models developed for the latter approach have been summarized in this section. Vecchio and Collins 1986. The former 'tension stiffening strain' approach has been adopted by the CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1978.2 Tension Stiffening Models for Steel Reinforced Concrete Considerable experimental studies have been undertaken to study tension stiffening in steel reinforced specimens over the years (e.5 εcf = net concrete tensile strain α1 = factor accounting for bond characteristics of reinforcement = 1 (for deformed bars) = 0. 2-1 where. In this thesis only the latter approach will be considered. 2.

2-3 where.7 (for plain bars) = 0 (for unbonded reinforcement) α2 = factor accounting for sustained loading = 1 (for short mono-tonic loads) = 0.2. This equation is also most suitable for well-distributed reinforcement.33(f'c)0. fc = average tensile stress in concrete fcr = concrete tensile cracking stress = 0.5 εcf = concrete net strain α1 = factor accounting for bond characteristics of reinforcement = 1 (for deformed bars) = 0. Maekawa (1992) Izumo and Maekawa developed a model based on linear elastic behaviour up to cracking of concrete and accounting for the post-cracking concrete tensile contribution by using a descending branch represented by Equation 2-3. 2-2 where.3 Izumo.2 Collins and Mitchell (1987) Collins and Mitchell modified the original Vecchio and Collins (1986) equation for large scale structures.5 εcf = concrete net strain εcr = strain corresponding to concrete tensile cracking stress .2.7 (for sustained repeated loads) 2.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 7 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.33(f'c)0. fc = average tensile stress in concrete fcr = concrete tensile cracking stress = 0.

6tdm td = direction coefficient = 1. Bentz original model was modified derived specifically for the non-linear finite element program VecTor2 by Vecchio and has been provided below.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 8 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.2.33(f'c)0.2.7 (for plain bars) = 0 (for unbonded reinforcement) α2 = factor accounting for sustained loading = 1 (for short mono-tonic loads) = 0.5 εcf = concrete net strain ct = 3.4 Bentz (2003) The Vecchio-Collins (1986) and Collins-Mitchell (1987) models did not take into account the percentage of reinforcement and the concrete-steel bond characteristics.αi)] ρi = reinforcement ratio dbi = rebar diameter αi = inclination of reinforcement θi = inclination of principal strain direction α1 = factor accounting for bond characteristics of reinforcement = 1 (for deformed bars) = 0. fc = average tensile stress in concrete fcr = concrete tensile cracking stress = 0. 2-4 where.0 1/m = Σi=1 4 ρi / [dbi cos (θ. Bentz took these two factors into account.7 (for sustained repeated loads) 2.5 Field and Bischoff (2004) Fields and Bischoff carried out an experimental study testing large scale specimens under uniaxial tension to determine if any relationship exists between concrete strength and postcracking behaviour. The specimens were reinforced with either 15M or 20M bars corresponding .

The specimens were made of both normal and high strength concrete with concrete strengths of 40 MPa and 80 MPa. This shrinkage determined from the companion unbonded specimen is then used in the analysis of the member response of the actual specimen. Previously it had been noted that estimates of tension stiffening would be incorrect if shrinkage was ignored (Bischoff 2001).3% and 2. The initial shortening of the specimens caused by shrinkage of concrete can then be determined by extrapolating the linear elastic portion of the bare curve to zero load (refer to Fig. These reinforcing bars were unbounded over a central length of 600mm (See Fig. 2-1: General specimen configuration. The authors proposed a method to determine the shrinkage strain in which uniaxial tension test was performed on companion specimens containing an unbonded reinforcing bar. 2-2). 2-1). (b) Companion specimen The response of the companion specimen follows that of the bare reinforcing bar after the initial concrete crack.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 9 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ to reinforcement ratios of 1. . The authors determined that tension stiffening was independent of concrete strength and reinforcement ratio as long as shrinkage was taken into account in the analysis of the member response. Bonded over the complete length (a) Unbonded Central Length = 600mm (b) Fig.0%. (a) Actual specimen.

2. 2-2: Determining shrinkage effects from un-bonded concrete specimen (adapted from Bischoff.2. β = tension stiffening factor = fc / fcr εm = member strain εcr = concrete cracking strain The authors also determined that the strength of concrete did not affect crack spacing.6 Masukawa (2012) Masukawa carried out a test program to determine the effect of steel corrosion on tension stiffening. 2-5 where. A total of 64 strain gauges were installed internally along the length of the steel . The bars extended 255 mm at each end beyond the concrete to enable the specimens to be gripped in the testing machine. Three specimens contained noncorroded deformed bars and two contained corroded deformed bars.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 10 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Fig. All the specimens had a diameter of 165 mm and were 1300 mm long with a single 25M bar in the centre. A total of five specimens were tested in tension. 2004) The authors proposed Equation 2-5 to predict the average tensile response of concrete after cracking.

Shrinkage was considered during the analyses. The author noticed that if the cracking stress of concrete is expressed as 0.34% and a concrete strength of 25 MPa were used. Crack spacing in steel reinforced concrete specimens can be .33(f'c)0. Vecchio 2010).5 εcf = concrete net strain εcr = strain corresponding to concrete cracking stress α = factor to be changed so as to fit the results β = tension stiffening factor For the case of normal deformed bar. α value becomes 1.33(f'c) 0. The results were also verified by the 2-D non-linear finite element program VecTor2 (Vecchio 1990.5 rather than the actual cracking stress obtained from the tests. the steel bars are cut longitudinally in half and the strain gauges are installed. The modified equation suggested by Masukawa has been given below: 2-6 where. the author suggested the value of α as 0. The bars are then welded back together. Some of the more well-known models are briefly described in this section.0 for the normal deformed bars.3 Crack Spacing Models for Steel Reinforced Concrete Considerable experimental studies have been undertaken over the years to study the crack widths and crack spacing in steel reinforced specimens. 2. fc = average tensile stress in concrete fcr = concrete tensile cracking stress = 0.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 11 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ bars using the method developed by Scott and Gill (1987). Elongations at the concrete surface were measured by four LVDTs that were fixed on two aluminum frames that had a gauge length of 1000 mm.8 and β as 1300. A reinforcement ratio of 2. The decrease in average concrete stress after the first cracking was expressed with a modified form of the Vecchio-Collins (1986) equation. In this method.

should not be greater than 15d b (mm) k1 = factor that takes into account bond properties of reinforcing bar = 0.8 for plain bars k2 = factor that takes into account strain gradient = 0. can be estimated by either 1.1 CEB-FIP Model Code (1978) The CEB-FIP Model Code 1978 (CEB-FIP. 1997) or 1.4 for deformed bars = 0. sm = mean crack spacing (mm) c = clear concrete cover (mm) s = maximum spacing between longitudinal bars. 2001). 2.5wm (Bischoff.7wm (Collins and Mitchell.25 (ε1 +ε2) / 2ε1 .3. wm = mean crack width (mm) εcf = concrete net tensile strain sm = mean crack spacing (mm) The characteristic crack width. the crack width that can be exceeded by only 5% of the cracks. 1978) proposed the following expression to calculate the mean crack spacing in steel reinforced structures: 2-8 where.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 12 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ calculated by the following formula if the small elastic strain in the concrete between the cracks is ignored: 2-7 where. ε1 and ε2 correspond to the largest and smallest concrete tensile strain db = longitudinal bar diameter (mm) ρe = ratio of the area of reinforcement effectively bonded to the concrete to the cross-sectional .

2-10 2. The first equation proposed for unstable cracking phase is: 2-9 where. 1968) expression.3.3 Gergely-Lutz Model The ACI 318 Code (ACI Committee 318. This approach uses an empirical equation to directly calculate the maximum crack widths.2 CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 Two mean crack spacing equations are proposed by the CEB-FIP 1990 Model Code (CEB-FIP. sm = mean crack spacing (mm) fs2 = reinforcement stress at a crack (MPa) fsE = reinforcement stress when slip is zero (MPa) τbk = average bond stress lower bound value (MPa) db = longitudinal bar diameter (mm) Es = modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement (MPa) Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete (MPa) ρe = ratio of the area of reinforcement effectively bonded to the concrete to the cross-sectional area of the effective embedment zone of the concrete The second equation (2-10) was proposed for the stabilized cracking phase. The maximum width in this equation is .3. 1989) for crack control is based on the Gergely-Lutz 1968 (Gergely and Lutz.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 13 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ area of the effective embedment zone of the concrete = As / Ace 2. 1990).

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 14 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ related to the concrete cover. the more commonly known maximum crack width models have been summarized. 2-11 where. wmax = maximum crack width (mm) .1 ACI 440.1 R-06 code proposes the following equation for the calculation of maximum crack width at any load for GFRP reinforced specimens: 2-12 where.4 Models for Cracking in GFRP Reinforced Concrete The crack width equations proposed for steel-reinforced specimens have been modified by various researchers for GFRP-reinforced specimens.1 R-06 Model The ACI 440. 2. h1 = the distance from the tension steel to the neutral axis h2 = is the distance from the extreme tension fibre to the neutral axis 2.0 = for varying strains = h2/h1 where. wmax = maximum crack width (mm) εscr = the strain at the crack location in the reinforcing bar dc = the distance from the extreme tension fiber to the center of the closest bar (mm) A = the effective area of concrete in tension having the same centroid as that of the reinforcing bars divided by the number of bars (mm2) β = strain gradient factor = for uniform strains = 1.4. steel stress at a crack and the area of concrete around the reinforcing bar. In this section.

1 R-06 specifies the factor kb within the range of 0. wmax = maximum crack width (mm) dc = the distance from the extreme tension fiber to the center of the closest bar (mm) fb = longitudinal stress of FRP reinforcement (MPa) Eb = modulus of elasticity of FRP bars (MPa) β = strain gradient factor = for uniform strains = 1. A superior bond to steel is indicated by a kb factor of less than 1.60 to 1.0 = for varying strains = h2/h1 ρb = ratio of the area of FRP reinforcement effectively bonded to the concrete to the crosssectional area of the effective embedment zone of the concrete .0.72. ACI 440. 2.2 Toutanji and Saafi Model 2000 Toutanji and Saafi (2000) proposed the following modified equation of the Gergely-Lutz equation for predicting the maximum crack width in GFRP reinforced concrete: 2-14 where.0 and a weaker bond by a factor greater than 1.10) The factor kb is an empirically derived bond factor that accounts for the difference between the steel and GFRP bond.0 = for varying strains = h2/h1 kb = FRP bond factor (taken as 1.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 15 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ dc = the distance from the extreme tension fiber to the center of the closest bar (mm) s = spacing between longitudinal FRP bars (mm) fb = longitudinal stress of FRP reinforcement (MPa) Eb = modulus of elasticity of FRP bars (MPa) β = strain gradient factor = for uniform strains = 1.4.

The compressive strength of concrete was measured by using concrete cylinders. since they allow for the study of crack development and tension stiffening behaviour. in direct tension.5. 5 (Area = 197. The length of all the specimens was 1100 mm and a sufficient length of GFRP bar extended from each end to apply load. It is to be noted that direct tension tests are essential for the understanding of the behaviour of GFRP-RC in tension.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 16 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. All the specimens consisted of a single rebar encased in a concrete prism of 100 mm by 100 mm in cross section.1 Bischoff and Paixao (2004) Bischoff and Paixao carried out a test program to understand the tension stiffening behaviour in GFRP reinforced concrete specimens.7 mm2). This was done by the attachment of couplers at the bar ends which facilitated the gripping during testing. 2.0% and 2. 2.9 mm2) and 6 (Area = 285. The authors tested a total of eight specimens. 4 (Area = 126.3%. six GFRP reinforced and two steel reinforced. The corresponding reinforcement ratios were 1. A summary of the geometric and material properties of the test specimens is presented in Table 2-1. The authors also took into account the effect of shrinkage and measured it with the help of unbounded specimens over a central length of 600 mm.0 mm2)). Member deformation was measured over a gauge length of 900 mm. The load was applied by pulling the ends of both couplers. The tensile strength was measured using split cylinder tests. The member response was compared for three bar sizes of GFRP C-bar from Marshall Industries (Bar No’s. Two displacement transducers were used to measure the member deformation and they were placed on opposite sides of the specimens. The experimental programs of Bischoff and Paixao (2004) and Sooriyaarachchi (2007) are presented here in detail since they are the most relevant. In the former study no cracking data was reported at all by the authors and in the later study only the final mean stabilized cracking data was reported.9%. The number of specimens tested in both these studies was quite limited.5 Previous Experimental Studies on GFRP-Reinforced Concrete A limited number of experimental studies have been previously conducted on GFRP reinforced specimens in direct tension. Crack widths .

8 48. The authors reasoned that this was because of the lower bar stiffness of GFRP bars in combination with increased crack spacing during the crack development stage. 2-14 where. Bischoff and Paixo also made the observation that in case of GFRP reinforced concrete transverse cracking stabilizes at much higher axial strain values. β = tension stiffening factor fc = average tensile stress in cracked concrete fcr = tensile cracking stress of concrete = 0. Also. They also observed longitudinal splitting cracks before the stabilization of transverse cracks.37(f’c)0.8 62260 58090 61740 The data was reported in the form of tension stiffening factor. The comparison showed that both methods are valid only for a limited range of reinforcement ratios. the authors did not report the crack data.5 The authors determined that GFRP reinforced concrete exhibits greater tension stiffening because of its lower relative stiffness in comparison with steel reinforced concrete.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 17 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ were measured intermittently on each side of the cross section using a crack width comparison gauge.6 1100 1100 1100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.4 GFRP No.5 GFRP No.0 2. it was observed that the crack widths in concrete reinforced with GFRP bars were larger. However. . This factor is a ratio between the average tensile stress carried by the concrete and the tensile cracking stress of concrete.8 48. β (Equation 2-14).9 48.3 2. Table 2-1: Summary of test specimens Specimen Length Width Height ρ f'c Ef (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (MPa) (MPa) GFRP No. The results were compared with the predicted member response based on the 1978 CEB-FIP model code approach and ACI method.

2-16 In this approach. Hence. This factor was found to be independent of both concrete strength and reinforcing ratio. They determined that the final crack spacing for GFRP reinforced specimens is larger than that for steel reinforced specimens but the difference between the final mean stabilized cracking was quite small. to characterize this tensile property using an empirical relationship which was related to the stiffness of the reinforcing bar. Based on this reasoning. For .g. β. The authors proposed equation 2-16 for cases where more than one type of bar is used to reinforce the concrete (e. shrinkage was incorporated into the compatibility part of an analysis by including shrinkage strains as part of the total concrete strain (Collins and Mitchell 1991.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 18 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bischoff and Paixao proposed a new and more accurate equation for tension stiffening. they normalized the postcracking strain of the GFRP members relative to the stiffness of the steel bar. The authors took tension stiffening of cracked reinforced concrete into account using an average stress-strain response with a descending branch to model the concrete in tension. They based the equation on the observation that the fracture behaviour of plain concrete at a discrete crack is characterized by strain softening and has little influence on the tension stiffening response. steel and GFRP). they determined that the tension stiffening curve can be approximated with the following general expression: 2-15 where. β = tension stiffening factor Eb = modulus of elasticity of reinforcing bars (GPa) εm = member strain εcr = concrete cracking strain In equation 2-15 only one type of reinforcement can be used to determine factor β. The authors only reported the final stabilized crack spacing. Bischoff 2001). They used a tension stiffening factor.

Concrete strain was measured using three LVDT's equally spaced at 120 degrees around the centre line of the concrete specimen. 2. 2-3: Arrangement for measuring average strain of the specimen (Adapted from Sooriyaarachci. 2007) . Table 2-2 gives the detail of the test specimens. 150 or 200 mm. that had three small LVDT's equally spaced at 120 degrees was used to measure bond slip (See Fig. A collar.A de-bonded length of 50 mm was maintained on each end of all tensile specimens in order to avoid local concrete tensile failure where the LVDT's were placed. the authors obtained a final crack spacing of 139 mm. The authors did not measure shrinkage during the experiments. attached to the bar. The final mean stabilized crack spacing for the GFRP reinforced specimens was in the range of 133 mm to 144 mm. Two concrete grades and two GFRP bar diameters were used. The GFRP reinforced concrete members exhibited a slightly larger average crack spacing of 140 mm when the reinforcement ratio was the same. The ends of GFRP bars were bonded in hollow threaded steel bars in order to avoid crushing at the pull-ends. Pilakoutas and Byars (2007) Sooriyaarachci. The LVDT’s were attached to one end of the concrete specimen and connected to fixed points of the other end using a special light weight wire. material properties of concrete and the GFRP bars used. 2-3). Pilakoutas and Byars undertook a more detailed experimental study into the structural response of GFRP-RC tension members.5. Fig.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 19 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15M steel reinforced specimens. They investigated the influence of concrete strength. reinforcement ratio and bar diameter on tension stiffening. All the specimens constructed had square cross-sections with dimensions of 100.2 Sooriyaarachci.

according to the results there was no appreciable change in tension stiffening with change in bar diameter if reinforcement ratio was kept constant. shown in equation 2-17. The limitations of the current models. εcf = average strain of reinforced specimen . and issues related to their modification were also discussed. However.27 0.26 0. considers a decreasing trend for tension stiffening with increasing strain after cracking.72 1. The authors determined that both the models overestimated the tension stiffening effect.32 1. The CEB model. However.72 52 52 52 91 91 52 52 91 91 52 42900 42900 42900 42900 42900 41900 41900 41900 41900 41900 The authors concluded that there was a decrease in the tension stiffening behaviour with an increase in reinforcement ratio. the CEB model was deemed to better approximate the experimental results in comparison with the ACI model.56 1. 2-17 where. But there was an increase in tension stiffening with an increase in concrete strength.27 0. 1978) introduces a method of calculating the average strain of a member after concrete cracking for steel reinforced members. The CEB model (CEB-FIP.72 0.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 20 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 2-2: Details of test specimens Specimen Name Length Width Height ρ f'c Ef (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (MPa) (MPa) C50/13/100 C50/13/150 C50/13/200 C90/13/100 C90/13/150 C50/19/150 C50/19/200 C90/19/150 C90/19/200 C50/19/200N 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 100 150 200 100 150 150 200 150 200 200 100 150 200 100 150 150 200 150 200 200 1.56 0.26 0. ACI 440 (2003) and CEB-FIP model (CEB-FIP. 1978). particularly at low reinforcement ratios.

5. The modified equation is given below: 2-19 where. f't = tensile strength of concrete = 0. εcf = Average strain of reinforced specimen εf = Strain of frp reinforcement fscr = Rebar stress after crack (MPa) K = GFRP bond factor .CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 21 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ εf = strain of FRP reinforcement ff = stress in reinforcement (MPa) fscr = rebar stress after crack (MPa) K = bond factor 2-18 where.6(f’c)0.5 ρ = reinforcement ratio Pcr = axial load at which cracking occurs (N) Af = area of FRP reinforcement (mm2) ηf = E f / E c The authors modified equation 2-17 for GFRP-reinforced specimens by proposing the factor 'K' that accounts for the GFRP bond to be taken as 0.

9 1.8 48.8 48. Among the few papers on the subject.26 0.56 1.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 22 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. particularly in tension.27 0.72 48. The database is presented in Table 2-3. only one reference reported the measurement of cracks. This resulted in a total of thirteen specimens obtained from the two studies.72 0.4 GFRP No.6 C50/13/100 C50/13/150 C50/13/200 C90/13/100 C90/13/150 C50/19/150 C50/19/200 C90/19/150 C90/19/200 C50/19/200N 1100 1100 1100 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 100 100 100 100 150 200 100 150 150 200 150 200 200 100 100 100 100 150 200 100 150 150 200 150 200 200 1. The limited available existing tension stiffening models and crack spacing formulations show large discrepancy and limited accuracy compared with the experimental results.27 0.72 1.6 Summary of Previous Tests Before the finalization of the test program. there is some difficulty in modeling and predicting the behaviour of GFRP-reinforced concrete.0 2.3 2. . Pilakoutas and Byars 2007 2.5 GFRP No.8 52 52 52 91 91 52 52 91 91 52 62260 58090 61740 42900 42900 42900 42900 42900 41900 41900 41900 41900 41900 Limitations of Available Work and Basis of Current Experimental Program Due to a lack of accurate models for tension stiffening and crack spacing.7 Specimen Name Length Width Height ρ f'c Ef (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (MPa) (MPa) GFRP No. Table 2-3: Database of previous tests Author Year Bischoff and Paixo 2004 Sooriyaarachci.56 0.32 1. a data-base was established summarizing the existing reported work on GFRP tension stiffening. One of the main reasons for this is the lack of applicable and reasonable test data. with the specific goal of investigating tension stiffening behaviour of GFRP reinforced concrete.26 0.

52 of which were reinforced with GFRP and 8 with steel. A total of 60 specimens were tested in this program.CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 23 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A testing program was thus planned and carried out to expand the experimental database of GFRP-reinforced concrete specimens under direct tension. This extensive data should provide an adequate basis for the development of new tension stiffening and crack spacing models which should prove to be significantly more accurate than those available in the current literature. .

The complete experimental program was carried out in the Structural Laboratories at the University of Toronto. . The results of the experimental program are provided in Chapter 4. expansive mortar and concrete.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 24 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 3. reinforcement ratio and concrete strength. The details of the materials and their relevant properties are provided in this section. All the tests were performed over the duration of 6 months from September 2012 to February 2013. The variables in this program were the bar type. 3. To accomplish this goal efficiently an extensive database was required. bar diameter. hence an experimental program consisting of sixty direct tension specimens was undertaken. The specimens were reinforced with a single bar of either GFRP or steel. This chapter only describes the procedures undertaken to perform the tests. For each variable a number of such comparisons could be made.1 Introduction A study was carried out to investigate tension stiffening and cracking behaviour of GFRP reinforced specimens in direct tension and to compare their behaviour with that of steel reinforced specimens. This chapter provides the detailed objectives and methodology of the test program. steel reinforcement.2 Material Properties The four main materials that were used in the test program consisted of GFRP reinforcement. It should be noted that the results obtained from various material tests have been given in Chapter 4. The specimens were designed in a manner that allowed two or more specimens to be compared in order to investigate one variable among them. It includes all the relevant information required for a thorough understanding of the program from its commencement to its end.

1600 1400 Steel Stress (Mpa) 1200 GFRP 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0. The stiffness of the GFRP bars is one-third to onequarter of steel stiffness. Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) is one of the more known and commonly used composite. The GFRP reinforcing bars consist of fibres that are oriented in the direction of load. These fibres are bonded in a resin matrix. if provided.1 GFRP Reinforcement GFRP reinforcement is categorized in the class of fibre composite materials. 3-1: Stress vs.015 0. Typical stress-strain curves for steel and GFRP having approximately the same area can be seen in Figure 3-1.2.02 0. The maximum elastic strain of GFRP bars is approximately ten times that of steel and the ultimate strength of GFRP is in excess of three times that of steel reinforcement. Table 3-1 shows a comparison of typical properties of both materials.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 25 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.025 Strain (mm/mm) Fig. by the resin matrix. GFRP bars are categorized as a brittle material. strain response of steel (10M) and GFRP (12V) in direct tension .01 0. It is this brittle behaviour that makes the behaviour of GFRP reinforced concrete members considerably different from steel reinforced members. The production process results in complete impregnation of the glass fibres with resin. GFRP bar behaviour is linearly elastic up till fracture and shows comparatively low modulus of elasticity.005 0. The strength and stiffness are provided by the fibres and the distribution of load and the protection of fibres.

A V VS C 13 16 19 126. Standard and HM.5 Bars from three GFRP manufacturers were used in this test program: Hughes Bros. In this project. the bar sizes will be referred to as 13 (for #4 and #12). Pultrall and Schӧck. respectively. the nominal dimensions will be used for all calculations unless otherwise stated. The ultimate .7 197.2 ~2. From this point onwards.7 197. #5 and #6 (designations in Imperial units) and for Bar C sizes #12. In this thesis.0 126. were used. In this thesis. herein they will be referred to as 'V' for HM and 'VS' for standard. Table 3-2: Nominal areas of GFRP bars Areas (mm2) Bar No. bar sizes #4. #16 and #20 (designations in SI units) were used.0-2.0 113 201 314 The determination of the cross-sectional areas of GFRP bars is a complex issue that has not currently been addressed in the design code of CSA S806-12.3-3. from this point onwards they will be referred to as 'A'.5 ~2.9 285. Standard and HM. The nominal areas of these bars have been provided in Table 3-2.9 285.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 26 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 3-1: Comparison of typical properties of steel and GFRP bars Properties Steel bar GFRP Ultimate Strength (MPa) Yield Strain Ultimate Strain Thermal Conductivity (W/mK) Density (g/cm3) Bond Strength (N/mm2) 400 2 x 10-3 ~150 x 10-3 60 7. In this test program two types of Bar V.85 ~2. 'V' and 'C'.0 ~1200 ~20 x 10-3 ~20 x 10-3 <0. Bar type V can further be classified into three types: LM.0 126. Nominal dimensions and areas of GFRP bars are provided by the manufacturers. LM bars have a relatively low modulus of elasticity in comparison with the standard bar V and the HM bars have a significantly higher modulus of elasticity in comparison with the standard bar V. 16 (for #5 and #16) and 19 (for #6 and #20) for the sake of convenience.. In case of Bar A and V.7 197.9 285. It has been observed that the difference between the nominal and actual areas of the bars can be quite significant.

The modulus of elasticity was then determined by dividing the stress thus calculated by the corresponding strain. Figure 3-2 shows the surface of each of the three bar types. Steel hollow pipes of different diameters and lengths depending on the bar diameter to be tested were used as couplers. tensile tests were conducted on all the bars. Bar A Bar V Bar C Fig. A coupler thus needs to be attached to the GFRP bar to perform the test. The pipes were filled with expansive grout to bond the coupon and the bar. It can be seen that Bar A has been slightly sand-coated and helically wrapped. custom fit plastic washers made of ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) polymer tubing were used to center the bar and to hold the expansive grout in place. On both ends of the couplers.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 27 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ strength values provided in Chapter 4 were calculated by dividing the ultimate tensile load by the nominal area. The free . This is because the pressure from the grips of the testing machine crushes the GFRP bar. Bar V has more intense sand-coating while Bar C is manufactured with ribs. their mechanical properties also differ. to improve the bond. Further details of the coupon tests and the stress-strain curves of all the coupon tests can be found in Appendix A. As the bars are made by using different manufacturing processes. The washers were made about 1 mm smaller than the inner dimensions of the coupler for ease of fit. In order to determine the properties of these bars accurately. Three tests were done on each bar type and size and the average from the coupon tests are given in Chapter 4. The purpose of all three types of surface treatment is the same. 3-2: Surface profile of GFRP bars Coupon tests cannot be conducted on GFRP bars as simply as with steel bars.

The failure of GFRP bars is explosive.2. At about 30 to 50% of the ultimate load the clip gauge was removed in order to prevent damage to the instrument. In accordance with ASTM A370-03a Standard. A total of five coupons were tested for each bar size.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 28 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ lengths of the GFRP bars were taken as 40db and the coupler lengths were chosen to satisfy the requirements of ASTM D7205-06 standard and past experience. 13 16 19 Coupler Length (mm) 450 450 600 Diameter of Pipe 3/4" 1 1/4" 1 1/4" Free Bar Length (mm) 520 640 760 Total Bar Length (mm) 970 1090 1360 A MTS 1000kN Universal Test Frame was used to test the GFRP coupons in uniaxial tension until failure.02 mm/s and 0. The summary of the results and the complete stress-strain curves of the coupon tests are reported in chapter 4. Two sizes of steel bars were used: 10M and 15M. The hydraulic pressure applied by the V-grips of the testing machine varied between 1100 MPa and 1300 MPa. 3. The loading was displacement controlled. . These details of the coupons tested have been provided below in Table 3-3. hence after the removal of the clip gauge a plastic sheet was placed around the specimens to prevent the projection of broken pieces into the surrounding environment. The strain was measured using a standard MTS 50 mm clip gauge. a minimum of three samples of each type of steel were tested. Table 3-3: Coupon Details Bar No. at a test rate varying between 0. The diameters and areas of both the bars have been provided in Table 3-4 which were used in the calculation of ultimate strength. yield strength and modulus of elasticity.03 mm/s.2 Steel Reinforcement Eight of the total sixty specimens were reinforced with steel. The 1000 kN MTS Universal Test Frame was also used to test these bars in uniaxial tension until failure.

45 litre of water.2 16. the pipes offer wearability without case hardening. and excellent machinability and tool life. The name of the mortar used was RockFrac Neda. While making the RockFrac mortar it was ensured that the ambient temperature was below 21oC. They also resist fatigue and stress.3 Expansive Mortar In order to avoid the premature failure of the GFRP bars. These anchorages were made using stress-proof steel pipes. which had an approximate temperature of 4 oC. Depending on the GFRP bar diameter. RockFrac is originally obtained in powder form. Hence. it starts expanding and exerting pressure on the coupon pipe and bar. Stressproof steel pipes are certified to ASTM A311 requirements. different pipe diameters and lengths were used. The RockFrac reaches its maximum strength in about 24 hours. Hence all the tension stiffening specimens were tested about 24 hours after the pouring of RockFrac.0 (mm2) 100 200 3. . Each bag of 5 kg was mixed in 1.2. These pipes are made by a patented process which entails drawing the bar through a special die under heavy draft. The maximum pressure is in the range of 50 MPa. special anchorages were required at the loaded ends. then stress relieving it in a precisely controlled furnace. 10M 15M Diameter Area (mm) 11. until a smooth slurry was obtained. The coupon pipes were filled with expansive mortar to bind the pipes to the GFRP bars.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 29 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 3-4: Diameter and area of steel bars Bar No. RockFrac was poured in the steel coupon pipes in a vertical position. Above this temperature. Immediately after pouring. the pressure exerted by the mortar is reduced. the ends of the pipes were closed by plastic washers. strength without heat treating. Approximately ten minutes after pouring.

4.04 mm/s throughout the test. The complete stressstrain curve was determined for only nine NSC cylinders and six HSC cylinders. The 4500 kN MTS machine was used to test the 28 day test cylinders.2 Cylinder Tests For measuring compressive strength of concrete. 1992).CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 30 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.4. all the cylinders cast had dimensions of 150 mm x 300 mm (4" x 6"). free shrinkage prism tests and dog-bone tests for tensile properties. After the process of de-moulding.1 Introduction In this test program. Type 10 Portland cement and a maximum aggregate size of 14 mm were specified for both concrete mixtures. Due to this reason it is possible that HSC may become common in design practice (Faza and GangaRao. normal strength concrete (NSC) and high strength concrete (HSC). with a 100 mm slump at the time of casting. This section gives the details of each of the above mentioned tests in detail individually. two different concretes were used. To determine the mechanical properties of both types of the concrete used. 3. Each of the two Linear Variable Differential Transducers used had a stroke of ±5 mm. modulus of rupture tests for tensile-flexural properties. respectively. HSC was used because of its ability to utilize the high tensile strength of GFRP bars. several tests were conducted which included the cylinder tests for compressive strength. The specified 28 day compressive strength of NSC was 30 MPa and the specified 56 day compressive strength of HSC was 85 MPa. This resulted in a total of fifty cylinders being cast for the NSC concrete batch and thirty cylinders for HSC batch. a 250 mm gauge length LVDT mounting rig was used. . To measure the longitudinal strain in the cylinders under load.2. the majority of the cylinders were cured with the direct tension specimens except for the three specimens used to measure the twenty-eight day compressive strength that were cured in a moist room.4 Concrete 3. In the test program.2.2. The loading rate was maintained at 0. enough cylinders were cast from each batch of concrete to ensure that the strength of concrete could be measured for every tension stiffening test.

4.34 MPa/s. The setup for both the testing machines can be seen in Figure 3-3.3 Dog-bone Tests A number of different standard test methods (ASTM C1609/C1609M. This loading rate is equivalent to 0.14-0.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 31 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The majority of the cylinders were tested to just determine the concrete compressive strength on the day of the tension stiffening specimen test in the Forney machine. . The load was applied at a constant rate of 4. The total length of the specimens was 500 mm and the thickness was 70 mm. It falls within the ASTM requirement range (ASTM C39 Standard) of 0. the dog-bone tests were conducted to obtain the strength of concrete under uniaxial tension. (b) Forney cylinder set-up Figure 3-3: Concrete cylinder test set-up 3. In this test program. Three dog-bone tests were performed for each concrete type.24 MPa/s. The results on compressive strength and modulus of elasticity obtained from the cylinder tests can be found in Chapter 4. 2010) are available to determine the tensile strength of concrete. (a) MTS 4500 kN cylinder set-up. The advantage of the doing the dog-bone test in comparison to other tension tests is that the failure is initiated at the naturally weakest location in the specimen without being imposed.2. No strain data was recorded.4 kN/s until the cylinders failed due to crushing.

After checking the level and alignment of the threaded rods it was locked in place by a nut. 2009). Between two layers of concrete. The set-up of the instrumentation on the dog-bone specimens can be seen in Fig. Two of the LVDT's had a gauge length of 150 mm and the other two 300 mm. On each end of the dog-bone two wire meshes were used. The instrumentation mount locations were marked using the set square and a ruler. it would still be possible to measure it. 2009. the dog-bone specimens were also stored next to the direct tension specimens. The purpose of the insertion of the wire meshes was to ensure that cracking did not happen outside the central test region. Susetyo. The specimen was then covered with wet burlap and plastic for a total of seven days. The preference was to have the crack form within the gauge length of the shorter LVDTs. 3-4 with 50 mm length outside of the specimen to facilitate the attaching of the specimen to the testing machine and 65 mm cast inside the specimen. Carnivole. the concrete was finished by a trowel. 2011. a wire mesh was inserted. 3-4: ‘Dog-bone’ specimen forms with end plates and threaded rods locked in place The location of the instrumentation on the dog-bone specimens was similar to that used by others at the University of Toronto (Deluce. 2013). Wire meshes were used to reinforce the flared end of the dog-bones. 3-5. The lines were drawn to ensure that the mounts could be fixed in the centre of each face of the . After the third layer. This meant that the specimens were casted in three layers. it has been found that the crack location often varies (Susetyo. The purpose of having the two 300 mm LVDT's was to ensure that if the crack developed outside the central region of the specimen. A total of four LVDT's were used to measure the displacement of the specimens. However.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 32 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A ¾ in (19 mm) diameter threaded rod was placed on each flared end of the specimen as shown in Fig. After de-moulding. Fig.

002 mm/s throughout the duration of the test. 3-5: Placement of instrumentation on 'dog-bone' specimens The specimens were tested using a displacement controlled MTS 245 kN Universal testing machine. Fig. Before starting the test it was ensured that no stress had developed in the specimen while the threaded rods were being inserted into the machine. 3-6. The LVDTs having a stroke of ±5 mm were used. The data were recorded during the test at a rate of 10 Hz. Before testing the specimen. clamping rigs were used as shown in Fig. The mounts were then glued on the specimens by Fastweld 10 epoxy.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 33 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ specimen. it was painted using a mixture of half portion of paint and half water. The loading rate was maintained as 0. In order to avoid the formation of splitting cracks on the edges of the specimen. 3-6: Set-up of clamping rigs on dog-bone specimens . Fig.

The modulus of rupture tests were conducted in order to determine an alternate flexural tensile strength of concrete. 3-7: Set-up of modulus of rupture test 3. six free shrinkage prisms (75 mm x 75mm x 300mm) were cast for each batch of concrete. After casting. 3-7). The clear span between the supports was 457mm.005 mm/s.4 Modulus of Rupture Tests Since the main purpose of this program was to study the tensile behaviour of concrete.2. it was deemed necessary to perform more than one type of test to determine the tensile strength. great caution was taken to ensure that the steel . The specimens had dimensions of 152 mm x 152 mm x 533 mm. A 25 mm long steel stud was placed at each end of the prisms with 17. The gauge length was thus 285 mm.5 Shrinkage Tests Shrinkage has a significant effect on the load-displacement response of a direct tension specimen (Bischoff.4.5 mm length embedded inside the prism. The 1000 kN MTS Universal Testing Machine was used to test the specimens (Fig. The specimens were cast with the direct tension specimens. The tests were conducted following the criterion of ASTM C157 Standard. Data were sampled throughout the test at a rate of 2 Hz.4. 2003 and 2004). In order to measure the shrinkage strains. they were covered with wet burlap and plastic and left to cure one day in the form and six days outside the form.2.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 34 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Fig. Two tests were done per concrete type. The load was displacement controlled and applied at a rate of 0. During the casting of concrete.

the prisms were submerged in calcium hydroxide solution for the duration of thirty minutes. However. The lengths of the specimens were measured in a comparator and the mass on a scale after the prisms were removed from the solution. Figure 3-8: Set-up of a shrinkage prism in comparator . After de-moulding. The prisms were stored with the direct tension specimens to ensure the shrinkage strain was similar in both specimens. The solution contained 3g of calcium hydroxide per 1L of water. The purpose of submerging the prisms in CAOH was to ensure that the temperature effect was minimized before the initial length readings were taken (ASTM C157).CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 35 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ studs did not move from their designated position. the gauge length of the prisms was measured again after de-moulding which took place after 24 hours of curing. The comparator used for the measurement of length can be seen in Figure 3-8.

Every effort was made to ensure that the reinforcing bars lay exactly at the center of the specimens to minimize the eccentric effects of loading.3 Direct Tension Specimens 3. 48 specimens were of NSC and 12 HSC. Among the 60 specimens. The larger length of GFRP bars compared to steel outside the concrete specimen was to fix the couplers. In case of steel reinforcement only 10M and 15M bars were used. The total length of the GFRP reinforced specimens. (b) Cast of direct tension specimens Fig. NSC and HSC. 3-9. reinforcement ratio and concrete strength. steel reinforced specimens or GFRP reinforced specimens. varied from 2100 mm in case of #13 and #16 bar to 2300 mm for #19 bar. Specimens were casted in two concrete pours.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 36 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. 3-9: Casting of specimens The length of the concrete prism in all the direct tension specimens was 1000 mm.1 Specimen Details The main purpose of this experimental program was to test the direct tension specimens and evaluate tension stiffening behaviour of GFRP reinforced concrete specimens. dog-bone specimens.3. shrinkage prisms and cylinders can be seen in Fig. including the bars. 16 mm and 19 mm. The specimens were either 100 mm square or 200 mm square in cross-section. Three GFRP bar sizes were used. bar diameter. The test program consisted of a total of sixty specimens that were split into two main series depending on the type of reinforcement. (a) Cast of all accompanying specimens. The casting for the direct tension specimens. The extension in case of . The variables investigated were the bar type. 13 mm.

16 or 19) Y specifies the bar type (A. 3-10: Test specimen details. 3-10. (a) Steel specimen. Both the steel and GFRP specimens had identical companion specimens. The sketches for steel and GFRP reinforced specimens can be seen in Fig. The specimen designation is explained below: CVV-XXY-ZZZ(*) where. (b) GFRP specimen The details of all the direct tension specimens are provided in Table 3-5.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 37 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ the steel bars outside of concrete was 250 mm. CVV is the specified concrete strength (30 MPa or 85 MPa) XX is the bar diameter (13. V or C) ZZZ designates the cross-sectional dimension of the concrete prism (100 mm or 150 mm) * indicates the number of the specimen in identical pairs (1 or 2) . 250mm L = 1000mm 250mm b b (a) Specimens not drawn to scale 450mm or 600mm 150mm 150mm L = 1000mm 450mm or 600mm b b (b) Fig.

30 1.30 2.7 126.875 12 126. 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 12 Nominal Bar Diameter (mm) Bar Area Concrete Strength Dimensions (mm2) (MPa) (mm) 13 13 13 13 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 19 19 19 19 13 13 13 13 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 19 19 19 19 15.7 126.9 197.0 2.9 197.0 0.5 0.9 197.88 0.30 0.9 197.0 0.88 0.7 126.0 0.7 197.88 3.9 197.30 .88 0.88 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.9 197.30 1.875 15.0 1.875 15.5 2.88 3.9 197.30 0.9 197.9 197.0 1.9 197.7 197.88 2.30 1.88 0.9 285 285 285 285 126.9 197.9 197.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 38 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 3-5: Specimens Details Bar Type A V VS Specimen C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) C30-12A-150(1) C30-12A-150(2) C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) C30-16A-150(1) C30-16A-150(2) C85-16A-100(1) C85-16A-100(2) C85-16A-150(1) C85-16A-150(1) C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) C30-19A-150(1) C30-19A-150(2) C30-12V-100(1) C30-12V-100(2) C30-12V-150(1) C30-12V-150(2) C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(2) C30-16V-150(1) C30-16V-150(2) C85-16V-100(1) C85-16V-100(2) C85-16V-150(1) C85-16V-150(1) C30-19V-100(1) C30-19V-100(2) C30-19V-150(1) C30-19V-150(2) C30-16VS-100(1) C30-16VS-100(2) C30-16VS-150(1) C30-16VS-150(2) C30-12C-100(1) Bar No.9 197.5 2.0 2.88 1.7 126.7 126.88 2.9 197.30 1.9 113 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 90 90 90 90 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 90 90 90 90 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 Bxdxl Reinforcement Ratio (%) 1.0 0.0 3.0 2.875 15.30 1.9 197.0 2.9 197.9 285 285 285 285 197.7 126.9 197.0 2.

the painting of the specimen was done after mounts were fixed to the concrete surface.0 0. . 3-13 for steel reinforced specimens. Fastweld 10.3.5 0.88 0.88 2.0 2. 2012).88 3. This procedure is depicted in Fig. To ensure good performance of the Fastweld 10.2 Specimen Preparation and Instrumentation Four LVDTs each having 25 mm maximum displacement were used in each test with one LVDT on each side of the specimen.30 1. It was decided to use extension plates fixed on the mounts (Deluce. a structural fast setting epoxy. this problem did not arise in case of GFRP specimens the same mounts with extender plates were used for convenience and uniformity.0 3. Although for the most part. The total gauge length of each LVDT was 900 mm with 50 mm length near the ends being outside the gauge length.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 39 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C C30-12C-100(2) C30-12C-150(1) C30-13C-150(1) C30-16C-100(1) C30-16C-100(1) C30-16C-150(1) C30-16C-150(2) C85-16C-100(1) C85-16C-100(1) C85-16C-150(1) C85-16C-150(2) C30-19C-100(1) C30-19C-100(2) C30-19C-150(1) C30-19C-150(2) 12 12 12 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 20 20 20 20 12 12 12 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 20 20 20 20 113 113 113 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 314 314 314 314 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 90 90 90 90 30 30 30 30 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 100 x 100 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 150 x 150 x 1000 1.30 0. The details of the instrumentation can be seen in Fig. The paint consisted of a mixture of half proportion of paint and half water. was used to fix the LVDT mounts to the concrete surface following which the specimens were painted.0 2.88 0. In case of the steel specimens there was insufficient distance between the specimen and the head of the testing machine to accommodate the lengths of the LVDTs.0 0.5 2. 3-11. 3-12 for GFRP reinforced specimens and Fig.30 3.0 1.

3-11: (a) Painting of specimens after attaching mounts. (c) Installing LVDT holder on top of mount . (b) Attaching the mount.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 40 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (a) (b) (c) Fig.

3-12: Instrumentation detail of GFRP direct tension specimens .CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 41 900 mm _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Specimen not drawn to scale Fig.

3-13: Instrumentation detail of steel direct tension specimens After painting the GFRP reinforced specimens. The maximum length that the MTS 1000 kN can accommodate is 2200 mm. 3.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 42 900 mm _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Specimen not drawn to scale Fig. Majority of the specimens were tested in the 1000 kN machine. the couplers were attached to the specimens 24 hours to 48 hours before the testing.3. The couplers were inserted six inches into the grips for . The specimens that exceeded this limit were tested in the 2700 kN machine.3 Test Procedure The specimens were tested using two universal testing machines: MTS 1000 kN and MTS 2700 kN.

0. 10 mm and 15 mm.5 mm. Different test rates were maintained for steel and GFRP specimens. 0. While seven stages were also maintained for most of the steel reinforced specimens.002 mm/s up to the observation of the first crack. V-notch grips were used for the testing of all the GFRP specimens and flat grips for the steel reinforced specimens. Some load stages were omitted for a few specimens if it was felt that no new information could be obtained. .5 mm. A total of seven load stages were considered in most specimens to measure the location of cracks. In case of GFRP specimens. 3. 3. In order to determine various concrete properties of the direct tension specimens. The loading was displacement controlled. direct tension ‘dog-bone’ specimens. The LVDTs were mounted after the specimens were set-up in the testing machine to avoid damage to the instruments. 0. It should be noted that for some specimens a load stage was also considered at an elongation of 18 mm if deemed necessary. 7 mm. the elongations at which the test was paused varied.5 mm. For most specimens the test was paused at the first crack and then at elongations of 1.5 mm. 2.005 mm/s up to an elongation of 3.003 mm/s until yielding and 0. 52 GFRP reinforced and 8 steel reinforced. Most of the load stages were held before the yielding of the steel which was not an issue for GFRP reinforced specimens. were casted to be tested in direct tension.03 mm/s till failure.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 43 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ the MTS 1000 kN and were inserted nine inches into the grips for MTS 2700 kN. three test rates were used.05 mm/s after yielding till fracture.02 mm/s up to an elongation of 15 mm beyond which the rate was 0. concrete cylinders. For steel specimens loading rate was initiated at 0.4 Summary A total of 60 rectangular prism specimens. modulus of rupture (MOR) specimens and shrinkage specimens were casted simultaneously. the corresponding crack widths and to take pictures that facilitated later in measuring the crack spacing.

The 245 kN MTS machine was used to test the ‘dog-bone’ specimens in direct tension and the 1000 kN MTS machine was used to test the MOR specimens in flexure. All the direct tension specimens were tested either in the MTS 1000 kN or MTS 2700 kN machine. The concrete shrinkage was measured using the length comparator as per ASTM C157 standard. an expansive grout. . For the GFRPreinforced specimens. one on each side of the specimens. couplers also had to be attached to the bars before testing. Coupon tests were carried out on steel and GFRP bars in the MTS 1000 kN machine. A minimum of 3 coupon tests were also conducted on GFRP bars. For most of the specimens. a total of seven load stages were observed during testing. The direct tensile strength of steel bars were carried out as per ASTM A370-03a by testing a minimum of 3 coupons for each bar diameter. The direct tensile strength of concrete was determined through two tests. the ‘dog-bone’ test and the modulus of rupture test. The concrete cylinders were tested as per ASTM C39 in either the 3500 kN MTS or the Forney machine to determine the concrete compressive strength.CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program 44 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Before testing all the specimens were painted white and mounted with four LVDT’s. This was done using RockFrac. The gauge length of the LVDTs was 900 mm.

It also discusses the individual tests and the general behaviour observed for all the test series. 4. normal strength concrete (NSC) of 30 MPa and high strength concrete (HSC) of 85 MPa were used. First the results from the concrete tests are presented. the modulus of rupture tests and the shrinkage tests. both steel and GFRP. This section provides all the results of the tests performed on both the concretes to determine their properties.2. The tests conducted were namely the concrete cylinder tests. 4. the tensile dog-bone tests. The failure pattern and behaviour of these specimens are also discussed. The material results have been further organized according to the properties being determined. The third part of this chapter provides the results obtained from the direct tension reinforced specimens. The second part of this chapter presents the results of the reinforcement coupon tests.2 Concrete Test Results In this experimental program.1 Introduction This chapter presents the results obtained from the experiments conducted during the test program. The development of concrete strength with age was monitored by tests (ASTM C39 Standard) of . the flexural strength. the tensile strength and the shrinkage test results. The results have been categorized according to the material being tested. These include the concrete compressive strength.1 Concrete Cylinder Tests This section provides a summary of the results obtained from the concrete cylinder tests.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 45 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 4.

50 150 100 30 fc (Mpa) fc (Mpa) 40 20 50 C30-1 C30-2 C30-3 10 0 C85-1 C85-2 C85-3 0 0 0.001 0. 4-2 are the complete stress strain curves of the normal strength concrete at the age of 28 days and the high strength concrete cylinders after 56 days.003 0. fc (Mpa) 120 100 80 60 40 C30 C85 20 0 0 20 40 60 Concrete Age.004 εc (a) NSC at 28 days 0. 14 and 28 days after casting for NSC and 3. 56 and 90 days after casting for HSC. 14. 4-1. 4-1: Concrete strength development curves Provided in Fig.005 0 0. The gain in the compressive strength of concrete with age is shown in Fig. 140 Strength. 7.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 46 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 150 mm x 300 mm concrete cylinders that were cured adjacent to the direct tension specimens under similar conditions.002 εc (b) HSC at 56 days Fig. 28.003 . T (Days) 80 100 Fig. There were at least three cylinders tested at 3.001 0. 7.002 0. 4-2: Concrete stress-strain curves of cylinders at specified age 0.

03 42. The following equation was used: 4-1 where.70 112.36 34770 35770 35960 37340 53880 54020 4. Table 4-1: Summary of compression test results of concrete cylinders Concrete Type C1 C2 Days 28 42 87 170 56 90 fc' Ecs (MPa) (MPa) 37. The secant modulus of elasticity was determined using the following formula: 4-2 .2.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 47 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The modulus of elasticity was measured using secant method provided in ASTM C 469.60 37.83 116. the corresponding strain and the tensile modulus of elasticity.2 Dog-bone Specimen Test Results A total of three dog-bone specimens were tested for each cast to determine the tensile strength of the concrete.69 41. Ec = secant modulus of elasticity σ1 = stress corresponding to a strain of -50 x 10-6 σ2 = stress corresponding to 40 % ultimate load ε1 = a strain of -50 x 10-6 ε2 = strain corresponding to 40% ultimate load The values of the concrete compressive strength and modulus of elasticity obtained from the complete stress-strain curves are shown in Table 4-1.

The crack pattern of specimens can be seen in Fig.5 C85-1 C85-2 C85-3 1 0. 4-3. (a) normal strength concrete.5 2 1. Details of the placement of the LVDT's are given in Chapter 3.00015 0.5 0 3 2. The stress strain curves developed from the data obtained are shown in Fig. then only the average of the two 300 mm gauge length LVDT's was used to plot the stress-strain curves. and (b) high strength concrete . it should be noted that if the crack did not develop in the minimum uniform cross-section region then the area of the flared region where the crack developed was approximately measured. The average of all four LVDT's was used to plot the stress-strain curves.0001 εt 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 48 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ where.5 2. Hence.0002 (b) Fig. Two of these LVDT's had a gauge length of 300 mm and the other two had a gauge length of 150 mm.5 ft (Mpa) ft (Mpa) 2 1. 4-3: 'Dog-bone' tension test response curves. Ect = tensile secant modulus of elasticity (MPa) ft1 = tensile stress corresponding to 10 x 10-6 mm/mm strain ft2 = tensile stress corresponding to 60% of the peak load (MPa) εt1 = a strain value of 10 x 10-6mm/mm εt2 = strain corresponding to a stress of 60% peak load Four LVDT's were used to measure the strain during the testing. 4-4. The stress was determined using the area of the cross-section where the crack developed. However if the crack occurred outside the range of the 150 mm gauge length LVDT's.0001 0. 3 5 4.00015 0 εt (a) 5E-05 0.5 0 0 5E-05 0.5 1 C30-1 C30-2 C30-3 0.5 4 3.

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 49 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C1-1 C2-1 C1-2 C1-3 C2-2 C2-3 Fig. 4-4: Crack patterns of concrete tensile 'dog-bone' test specimens .

flexural tensile strengths are usually found to be larger than the tensile strengths for the same material. On the other hand if the specimen is subjected to tensile stress only.88 34. then all the fibres have the same stress and failure is initiated when the weakest fibre reaches its tensile strength.23 20.74 2.9 115. The crack occurred nearly exactly at the midlength of all the specimens. The tests were conducted as per the procedure of ASTM C1609. the corresponding strain. the age at which the specimens were tested and the corresponding concrete compressive strength. Therefore. .153 26800 30400 24500 43000 33700 34300 4.12 36.111 0.06 23. Table 4-2: Summary of the tensile ‘dog-bone’ tests Specimen C1-1 C1-2 C1-3 C2-1 C2-2 C2-3 Age f'c Pt f't ε't Ect -3 (days) (MPa) (kN) (MPa) (x 10 ) (MPa) 170 170 170 56 56 56 42. however. The tensile strength would be the same as flexural strength if the material is homogenous. the tensile strengths obtained through the ‘dog-bone’ tests were found to be smaller than the flexural tensile strengths obtained through the MOR tests (Table 4-3).110 0.06 4. the flexural strength will be controlled by the strength of the extreme fibres.70 42. 4-5. have small defects that effectively cause localized weaknesses.136 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 50 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 4-2 summarizes the results obtained from the tensile dog-bone tests.9 23.3 Modulus of Rupture Test Results The modulus of rupture tests were conducted to determine an alternative tensile strength of concrete.47 2. In this experimental program also.150 0.33 34.147 0.78 3.43 0.70 42. If those fibres are free from defects.9 115.77 4. The position of the crack in all the specimens tested can be seen in Fig.77 2. the extreme fibres have the largest stress. These results include the tensile strength. When the MOR specimen is bent. Most concretes. The ultimate failure loads observed for the MOR specimens in one cast were very similar.70 115.2. the modulus of elasticity.

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 51 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C30-1 C30-2 C85-1 C85-2 Fig. the equation used to calculate the flexural tensile strength from the total applied load is: fcr = where. It was assumed that the neutral axis is at the mid-depth of the beam for the calculation of concrete flexural tensile stress. 4-5: Failure of Modulus of Rupture test specimens Table 4-3 provides a summary of the flexural tensile stresses determined for specimens from both casts. fcr = flexural tensile strength at extreme fibres (MPa) P = load (N) 4-3 . As per ASTM C1609. It should be noted that all the MORs were tested 28 days after the concrete was cast.

20 30.05 3.43 4.14 4. 4-4 where.34 34.2. the first calculated value was used for both tests. Otherwise.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 52 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ L = span length (mm) b = width (mm) d = depth (mm) Table 4-3: Summary of concrete flexural tensile strengths Specimen C1-1 C1-2 C2-1 C2-2 Age Pcr fcr (days) (kN) (MPa) 28 28 56 56 31.4 Shrinkage Test Results The mass and the length of the shrinkage specimens were measured over the duration of the testing as deemed appropriate and more essentially on the day of the test of the tension stiffening specimen.10 34.46 4. The shrinkage strain was determined by subtracting the initial length measured by the comparator from the subsequent readings and dividing by the gauge length. ASTM C157 procedure was used to determine the shrinkage strain. εcs = free shrinkage strain L2 = final length (mm) L1 = initial length (mm) Lg = gauge length of the shrinkage prism (mm) .91 4. the shrinkage determined on the test day was used. eq. If there was not a significant difference between the shrinkage results of two successive tests.

395 -0.496 -0.506 -0.8 0 -0.6 4040.494 -0.411 -0.2 3962.6 4062.473 -0. most likely.1 3894.9 3876.447 -0.410 -0.509 Table 4-5: Shrinkage test results of 85 MPa concrete Specimen Days 0 70 80 90 Specimen 1 Mass εcs (g) (x10-3) 4015.9 3796.392 -0.490 -0.7 4009.316 -0.3 3767. shrinkage was observed.498 -0.1 0 -0.489 -0.7 3737.2 4050.9 3829. concrete swelled).3 3792.405 -0.6 0 -0.426 -0. was due to the change in the daily ambient conditions.240 -0.9 4113.384 -0. .483 Specimen 3 Mass εcs (g) (x10-3) 3912.467 -0.9 3890.481 -0.e.9 4046.3 3825.2 3885.1 4058.396 -0.8 3834.0 3816.436 -0.8 4001.3 3802.081 -0.3 0 -0.9 0 -0.1 3878.482 -0.424 Specimen 2 Mass εcs (g) (x10-3) 4194.9 4089.504 -0.2 3785.0 4093.483 -0.2 0 -0.6 3829.420 -0.1 3985.475 -0.7 3732.2 4055.416 -0.502 Specimen 2 Mass εcs (g) (x10-3) 4039.486 -0. This.1 3728.092 -0. a positive change in the length of the specimen was observed (i.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 53 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Tables 4-4 and 4-5 summarize the shrinkage strains of the specimens over the test period.6 3882.492 -0.496 Specimen 3 Mass εcs (g) (x10-3) 4060.1 3909.7 3898. However.478 For a few tests.418 -0.1 3824.1 3756.409 -0. Table 4-4: Shrinkage test results of 30 MPa concrete Specimen Days 0 4 14 28 35 42 60 70 80 90 100 120 175 252 Specimen 1 Mass εcs (g) (x10-3) 4012.7 4008.6 3864. in general when considering the long-term trend of the specimens.102 -0.240 -0.7 4101.244 -0.479 -0.2 3789.408 -0.441 -0.1 3779.0 3914.7 3973.3 3933.3 3811.498 -0.398 -0.8 3921.9 3996.430 -0.0 4068.

For example. The ultimate strength achieved for all bars. Two types of bar V bars were tested. V and C. the actual effective area of 16 mm V bar is nearly 22% greater than the nominal area (Vint. the average was calculated using the three closest results. However. . The 13 mm and 16 mm diameters of bar A were classified as Grade II with E values greater than 40 GPa but less than 50 GPa and the 19 mm bar A was classified as Grade III with an E value greater than 50 GPa. the actual areas have been found to be significantly larger than the nominal.1 GFRP Coupons The results from the GFRP coupon tests have been presented in Table 4-7 and include the modulus of elasticity. The results have been categorized according to the bar type. 4. The results from the steel and GFRP bars have been presented separately for convenience. using both nominal and actual areas. For bar type V. The standard bar has been referred to as VS. The difference between the nominal and actual area for 16 mm bar type A is approximately 1%. The results presented in Table 4-6 and hereafter used the nominal area in the calculation of the ultimate strength and modulus of elasticity. the ultimate stress and the ultimate strain of each bar.5.4 (CSA S807-10).CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 54 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. A.3. exceeded the lower limits prescribed by CSA S807-10. 2012).3 Reinforcement Test Results The following section presents the results of the coupon tests for all the reinforcing bars used in the duration of the testing program. If there was a significant disparity between the results of a bar. As per the specifications for GFRP bars. For the detailed stress-strain curves of all the GFRP bars refer to Appendix A. additional coupons were tested. The actual areas have been found to differ substantially from the nominal areas used in the calculations.2% as per Clause 7. The actual areas of bar type A are relatively consistent with the provided nominal areas unlike bar types V and C. The minimum rupture tensile strain for all the bars tested was greater than 1.1. HM and standard. Three tests were done for each bar size resulting in a total of 30 coupon tests. bar type V and C were qualified as Grade III since the bars had a modulus of elasticity greater than 50 GPa.

The GFRP bars are weaker along the transverse axis due to the relatively weak resin that binds the fibres. Generally. The rupture pattern was consistent with this fact since as the resin broke down between the fibres. 4-6: Ultimate rupture of a GFRP bar . it was observed that the difference between the nominal and actual area increases for larger diameter bars. bar type A had the least explosive failure and the sand coated bar type V the most explosive failure. The failure mode was the same for all bar types. This is why for the same bar diameter bar type V has higher nominal strength and modulus of elasticity values in comparison with bars of types A and C. It should also be noted that the difference between the nominal and actual areas for bar type VS is much smaller than bar type V (approximately 10% for 16VS) resulting in a much more reasonable difference between the nominal and actual values of ultimate strength and stiffness. This wrapping provides a lateral resistance which results in a less aggressive ultimate rupture than the other bar types. 4-6). The majority of the longitudinal fibres at failure did not rupture and bowed outwards (See Fig. strength and modulus of elasticity values based on the nominal area of bar type V (Table 4-6) are significantly higher than what is calculated using the actual area. Fig. initially individual fibres ruptured and then the explosive ultimate rupture occurred. The reason for the relatively less explosive failure of bar type A is most likely due to the helical wrapping on the bar. For bar type C. The difference between the nominal and actual areas for 16 mm bar type C is of the order of 5% with actual area being larger.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 55 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As a result.

37 17.10 22.31 23.95 23.60 21.83 .72 18.31 20.58 19.84 12.27 17.62 20.31 21.14 17.7 15.13 12.875 15.06 19.875 15.875 15.12 22.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 56 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 4-6: Summary of GFRP coupon tests Bar Type A V C Specimen Name 12A-1 12A-2 12A-3 16A-1 16A-2 16A-3 19A-1 19A-2 19A-3 12V-1 12V-2 12V-3 16V-1 16V-2 16V-3 16VS-1 16VS-2 16VS-3 19V-1 19V-2 19V-3 12C-1 12C-2 12C-3 16C-1 16C-2 16C-3 19C-1 19C-2 19C-3 db E fu єu (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (x 10-3) 13 13 13 16 16 16 19 19 19 12.05 19.25 23.05 19.75 20.875 15.46 22.76 18.875 15.45 20.96 19.98 17.12 21.02 21.44 18.7 12.57 24.875 19.05 12 12 12 16 16 16 20 20 20 50300 48000 49540 44800 44200 44100 64600 69400 64800 68700 66600 68100 65600 66800 64100 51000 52500 52000 70900 70100 69800 56700 58400 61900 62700 64900 63800 64300 63600 65100 983 996 1012 930 912 920 821 842 839 1589 1439 1451 1380 1410 1432 1205 1213 1196 1260 1281 1226 1363 1370 1365 1219 1230 1258 1180 1090 1161 19.71 12.64 23.7 12.

2 Steel Coupons Two bar sizes. 4-7: Stress-strain curves of steel. For the complete stress-strain diagrams of each test refer to Fig.3 11. and (b) 15M bar 300 . Table 4-7: Summary of steel coupon tests Specimen db fy єy (MPa) (x 10 ) (MPa) (x 10-3) 11. were tested in tension.3.98 2.12 2. 10M and 15M.10 1.28 544 543 539 546 542 665 664 661 658 657 205.9 175.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 57 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. the ultimate stress and the ultimate strain of each bar. (a) 10M bar.6 204. For each bar size. The results.30 2.37 2.32 2.3 11. summarized in Table 4-7.22 2.3 16 16 16 16 16 192800 188600 180000 192900 188200 189600 188800 191900 201500 174500 423 421 417 425 420 402 404 403 399 400 2.3 138 139 124 125 132 700 600 600 500 500 400 300 10M-1 10M-2 10M-3 200 100 єu (MPa) 700 -3 fu (mm) Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) 10M-1 10M-2 10M-3 10M-4 10M-5 15M-1 15M-2 15M-3 15M-4 15M-5 Es 400 300 200 15M-1 15M-2 15M-3 100 0 0 0 100 200 Strain (x10-3) (a) 300 0 100 200 -3 Strain (x10 ) (b) Fig. five tests were performed.14 2.3 11. the modulus of elasticity.3 11. the yield strain. 4-7.4 206. include the yield stress.8 207.19 2.

The steel reinforced direct tension specimens all followed the same typical behaviour. The relevant concrete strength. The cracking data were obtained by counting the number of cracks at each load stage. the LVDTs fell off the specimen. In the case of a few specimens due to the formation of splitting cracks at the location of the LVDTs. A few specimens deviated from this general trend and their behaviour is discussed later in the corresponding test series. GFRP V. . 4. 4-8). The elastic stiffness remained high till the first transverse crack initiated. GFRP A.4 Direct Tension Specimens Test Results In this section the results of the direct tension specimens reinforced with both steel and GFRP have been presented. It should be noted that the crack spacing and maximum crack width were always obtained by using the average of all four sides. The tension stiffening behaviour in these specimens lasted only until the reinforcement yielded (See Fig. The specimens in which this happened have been identified. In such a case. From that point onwards the elastic stiffness dropped and tension stiffening behaviour initiated. The general behavior of the specimens for each type of reinforcement type is described.4. the remaining LVDTs were used to obtain the average. tension strength and flexural strength for each test series are provided for convenience.1 General Behaviour of Direct Tension Specimen The majority of the specimens displayed similar behaviour. The test data obtained for each specimen in the entire test series are provided here and include the load-elongation plot. the maximum spacing-elongation plot and the maximum crack width-elongation plot for each test.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 58 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. The cracks progressively increased in this phase with the increase in displacement till the rebar started to yield. GFRP-reinforced specimens include normal and high strength concrete whereas for steel only normal strength concrete was used. shrinkage. and GFRP C. The tests have been arranged into series according to the reinforcement provided: steel.

The elastic stiffness remained high until the first crack developed after which point the tension stiffening behaviour initiated and the stiffness dropped (See Fig. the GFRP bar started to the take almost the entire the load and the cracking stabilized. It should be noted that in the GFRP reinforced specimens. This resulted in . a few splitting cracks developed in the normal strength concrete specimens. in case of high strength concrete specimens several splitting cracks were formed.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 59 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ P P (a) Py Load (P) Pcr Displacement (Δ) (b) Fig. The cracks kept on increasing in this phase. since the concrete was not hindered by the yielding of GFRP. Significant splitting was observed in the end regions of some specimens. This lasted until a displacement of about 8 mm to 12 mm. At this point. However. and (b) General steel tension member response The behaviour of the glass fibre reinforced direct tension specimens depended on the GFRP bar being used as reinforcement. 4-8: (a) General crack pattern of steel tension member. The initial behaviour was similar to that of the steel reinforced specimens. 4-9).

and (b) General GFRP tension member response . P P (a) Pu Load (P) Pcr Displacement (Δ) (b) Fig.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 60 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ a decreased measurement of displacement from the LVDTs on the sides of the specimen in which the splitting cracks occurred on the ends. 4-9: (a) General crack pattern of GFRP tension member.

69 37.0 196.69 37.6 9.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 61 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. the cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens.6 131.4.6 131. crack-spacing-elongation plots for all the steel reinforced specimens are presented in Figures 4-10 to 4-15.6 9.3 16 16 16 16 187100 187100 189400 189400 189400 189400 420 420 402 402 402 402 25. The relevant rebar properties.2 Test Series M (Steel Reinforcement) Test Series M consisted of control specimens in which steel bars were used as reinforcement.8 9. It should be noted that the material properties given in these tables represent the average values from several coupon or cylinder tests except the modulus of rupture which was measured at 28 days only.6 9.6 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 -3 Table 4-9: Concrete compression test results of concrete for Test Series M specimens Specimen Name C30-10M-100(1) C30-10M-100(2) C30-15M-100(1) C30-15M-100(2) C30-15M-150(1) Cast C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 Fully Instrumented Cylinder Test Results Age f'c Ec (days) (MPa) (MPa) 42 42 42 42 42 37.69 37. The crack spacing plots show the average values of all the four sides.6 131.0 131.69 37. the shrinkage data.3 11. The figures showing the specimen responses are repeated at a larger scale to show the details that are not obvious at small deformations. Table 4-8: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series M specimens Specimen Name C30-10M-100(1) C30-10M-100(2) C30-15M-100(1) C30-15M-100(2) C30-15M-150(1) C30-15M-150(2) Cast b db Es fy єsh fu єu (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (x 10 ) (MPa) (x 10-3) 100 100 100 100 150 150 11.69 35800 35800 35800 35800 35800 . The loadelongation. the tensile strength data and the flexural test data have been provided in Tables 4-8 to Table 4-12.8 25. the maximum crack width-elongation.6 542 542 661 661 661 661 196.

98 3.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 62 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C30-15M-150(2) C1 42 37.98 Table 4-12: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series M specimens Specimen Name C30-10M-100(1) C30-10M-100(2) Cast C1 C1 Age f't ε't Ect -3 (days) (MPa) (x 10 ) (MPa) 170 170 2.98 3.423 -0.98 3.98 3.74 37.411 -0.70 37.411 -0.69 35800 Table 4-10: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series M specimens Specimen Name Cast C30-10M-100(1) C30-10M-100(2) C30-15M-100(1) C30-15M-100(2) C30-15M-150(1) C30-15M-150(2) C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 Cylinders and Shrinkage Results on Test Date Age f'c єcsh (days) (MPa) (x 10-3) 38 44 38 49 44 46 37.70 37.76 0.60 37.98 3.74 -0.98 3.430 -0.98 3.423 -0.428 Table 4-11: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series M specimens Specimen Name Cast Age (days) fcr (MPa) C30-10M-100(1) C30-10M-100(2) C30-10M-150(1) C30-10M-150(2) C30-15M-100(1) C30-15M-100(2) C30-15M-150(1) C30-15M-150(2) C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 3.60 37.119 27200 27200 .119 0.76 2.

119 0.119 0.119 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 .76 2.76 2.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 63 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C30-10M-150(1) C30-10M-150(2) C30-15M-100(1) C30-15M-100(2) C30-15M-150(1) C30-15M-150(2) C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 170 170 170 170 170 170 2.76 2.76 0.76 2.119 0.119 0.76 2.119 0.

5 C30-10M-100(1) C30-10M-100(1) 0 0 0 10 20 0 30 1 500 C30-10M-100(1) Avg.5 1 0. Crack Spacing 2 30 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-10M-100(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig. 4-10: Test Results of C30-10M-100(1) 4 5 . Crack Spacing 400 300 200 100 0 0 10 20 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm) Avg.5 7 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 Displacement (mm) 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 1.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 64 60 60 50 50 40 40 Load (kN) Load (kN) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30 North South East West Average 20 10 30 North South East West Average 20 10 0 0 0 10 20 30 0 1 Displacement (mm) 4 5 2.

25 C30-10M-100(2) 0 0 5 10 15 0 1 Elongation (mm) C30-10M-100(2) Avg.5 C30-10M-100(2) Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 4 0 1. 4-11: Test Results of C30-10M-100(2) 4 5 .5 1 0.5 3 2. Crack Spacing 4 Displacement (mm) 15 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-10M-100(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.5 3.75 0.25 1 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 65 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 North South East West Average 20 10 0 0 5 10 Load (kN) Load (kN) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30 North South East West Average 20 10 0 15 0 2 Displacement (mm) 1. Crack Spacing 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 Avg.5 2 1.5 0.

5 1 0.2 C30-15M-100(1) 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-15M-100(1) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) Avg.5 3 2.5 0 20 0 1 C30-15M-100(1) 4 5 1.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 66 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 100 100 80 60 40 North South East West Average 20 0 80 60 40 North South East West Average 20 0 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 4.6 0.2 1 0.4 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) Axial Force (kN) 120 Axial Force (kN) 120 15 20 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-15M-100(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.4 0.5 2 1.8 0. Crack Spacing Avg.5 4 3. Crack Spacing 2 3 Elongation (mm) 1. 4-12: Test Results of C30-15M-100(1) 4 5 .

4 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 Elongation(mm) 2.5 1 0. 4-13: Test Results of C30-15M-100(2) 4 5 .5 C30-15M-100(2) 0 1.2 1 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 67 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Axial Load (kN) Axial Load (kN) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ North South East West Average 0 5 10 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 15 North South East West Average 0 1 Elongation(mm) 4 5 1.8 0.6 0.4 0. Crack Spacing 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 Avg.5 2 1. Crack Spacing 2 15 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-15M-100(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.2 C30-15M-100(2) 0 0 5 10 15 0 1 Elongation (mm) C30-15M-100(2) Avg.

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

68

140

140

120

120

100

100

80
60

Average
North
South
East
West

40
20

Load (kN)

Load (kN)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

80
60

Average
North
South
East
West

40
20
0

0
0

5

10

15

0

20

1

C30-15M-150(1)
0

5

10

15

Maximum Width (mm)

Maximum Width (mm)

Elongation (mm)

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

20

0

400

Avg. Crack Spacing

Avg. Crack Spacing

C30-15M-150(1)

300
200
100
0
10

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Elongation (mm)

500

5

3

C30-15M-150(1)

Elongation (mm)

0

2

Elongation (mm)

15

Elongation (mm)

20

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

C30-15M-150(1)

0

1

2

3

Elongation (mm)

Fig. 4-14: Test Results of C30-15M-150(1)

4

5

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

69

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

100

100

80

80

60
Average
North
South
East
West

40
20

Load (kN)

120

Load (kN)

120

60
Average
North
South
East
West

40
20

0

0
0

5

10

15

20

0

1

8

4

7

3.5

6
5
4
3

2
1

C30-15M-150(2)

0

4

5

3
2.5
2
1.5
1

0.5

C30-15M-150(2)

0
0

5

10

15

20

0

1

Elongation (mm)

500
400
300
200
100
0
5

10
15
Elongation (mm)

3

4

5

500

C30-15M-150(2)

0

2

Elongation (mm)

C30-15M-150(2)
Avg. Crack Spacing

Avg. Crack Spacing

3

Elongation (mm)

Maximum Width (mm)

Maximum Width (mm)

Elongation (mm)

2

20

400
300
200
100
0
0

1

2
3
Elongation (mm)

Fig. 4-15: Test Results of C30-15M-150(2)

4

5

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

70

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.4.2.1 Test Observations
In this section the general observations made while conducting tests for the specimens in
Test Series M will be discussed, especially if the specimen behaviour deviated from the norm.
Following the discussion of each specimen, the corresponding photographs of the specimen in
the last stage have been provided.
Specimens C30-10M-100(1) and C30-10M-100(2) exhibited typical specimen behaviour
discussed in Section 4.5.1. The results of the two tests were similar in terms of both the
maximum crack width and the crack spacing. Specimen C30-10M-100(1) had very thin splitting
cracks in the central region on the east side of the specimen while one splitting crack was
observed in C30-10M-100(2) on the west side. The cracks on all four sides of the specimens
after stabilization can be seen in Fig. 4-16. In specimens C30-10M-150(1) and C30-10M-150(2),
as expected, the reinforcing bars yielded before the concrete cracked due to the very low
reinforcement ratio.

Fig. 4-16: Crack pattern of Specimens C30-10M-100
(a) Specimen C30-10M-100(1); (b) Specimen C30-10M-100(2)
Specimens C30-15M-100(1) and C30-15M-100(2) also behaved in the same typical
manner as Specimens C30-10M-100(1) and C30-10M-100(2). There were a few splitting cracks
present on two sides in the central region for both the specimens but C30-15M-100(2) showed

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

71

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

relatively slightly more splitting cracks (see Fig. 4-17). Other than that, the two specimens
behaved quite similarly.

Fig. 4-17: Crack pattern of Specimens C30-15M-100
(a) Specimen C30-15M-100(1); (b) Specimen C30-15M-100(2)
Specimens C30-15M-150(1) and C30-15M-150(2) also exhibited the typical specimen
behaviour. The tests were terminated after six load stages due to early crack stabilization. There
was little variation between the results of the two tests. However, it was observed that specimen
(2) had more cracks than specimen (1) especially on the north and east sides (Fig. 4-18).

Fig. 4-18: Crack pattern of Specimens C30-15M-150
(a) Specimen C30-15M-150(1); (b) Specimen C30-15M-150(2)

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

72

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.4.3 Test Series A
Test Series A had 16 specimens and all of these were reinforced with GFRP Bars A.
Tables 4-13 to 4-17 list the relevant bar properties, cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens
and data on concrete shrinkage, and tensile strength that represent the average material properties
for each direct tension specimen except the modulus of rupture which was measured at 28 days
only. The load-elongation, the maximum crack width-elongation and the crack spacingelongation plots for all the specimens in this test series are presented in Figures 4-19 to 4-31. As
mentioned earlier, the figures are repeated at a larger scale to show the details that are not
obvious at small deformations.
Table 4-13: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series A specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
C30-12A-150(1)
C30-12A-150(2)
C30-16A-150(1)
C30-16A-150(2)
C30-19A-150(1)
C30-19A-150(2)
C85-16A-100(1)
C85-16A-100(2)
C85-16A-150(1)
C85-16A-150(2)

Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2

b

db

E

fu

єu

(mm)

(mm)

(MPa)

(MPa)

(x 10-3)

100
100
100
100
100
100
150
150
150
150
150
150
100
100
150
150

13
13
16
16
19
19
13
13
16
16
19
19
16
16
16
16

49300
49300
44400
44400
46300
46300
49300
49300
44400
44400
46300
46300
44400
44400
48900
48900

1002
1002
921
921
834
834
1002
1002
921
921
834
834
921
921
921
921

19.78
19.78
20.74
20.74
17.98
17.98
19.78
19.78
20.74
20.74
11.98
11.98
20.74
20.74
20.74
20.74

Table 4-14: Concrete compression test results for Test Series A specimens

Specimen Name

Cast

Fully Instrumented Cylinder Test
Results
Age
f'c
Ec
(days)

(MPa)

(MPa)

03 37.6 -0.69 41.70 40.8 115.03 37.80 42.72 40.70 114.36 35765 35957 35765 35957 35765 35957 35957 37339 35957 37300 35957 37339 54020 54020 54020 54020 Table 4-15: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series A specimens Specimen Name C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) C30-12A-150(1) C30-12A-150(2) C30-16A-150(1) C30-16A-150(2) C30-19A-150(1) C30-19A-150(2) C85-16A-100(1) C85-16A-100(2) C85-16A-150(1) Cast C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 Cylinders and Shrinkage Results on Test Date Age f'c єcsh (days) (MPa) (x 10-3) 60 90 57 79 68 86 117 187 75 219 78 186 71 72 86 37.433 -0.69 41.467 -0.36 116.478 -0.36 116.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 73 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) C30-12A-150(1) C30-12A-150(2) C30-16A-150(1) C30-16A-150(2) C30-19A-150(1) C30-19A-150(2) C85-16A-100(1) C85-16A-100(2) C85-16A-150(1) C85-16A-150(2) C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 42 87 42 87 42 87 87 170 87 170 87 170 90 90 90 90 37.70 41.72 41.03 41.472 -0.478 -0.03 41.69 41.31 42.03 42.457 -0.80 42.445 -0.433 -0.03 42.8 114.492 .73 40.470 -0.80 38.20 37.441 -0.36 116.03 42.70 41.470 -0.436 -0.445 -0.20 41.461 -0.70 116.

76 2.98 3.119 0.76 2.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 74 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C85-16A-150(2) C2 88 115.98 3.98 4.119 0.119 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 .98 3.98 3.45 Table 4-17: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series A specimens Specimen Name Cast Age (days) f't (MPa) ε't (x 10-3) Ect (MPa) C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) C30-12A-150(1) C30-12A-150(2) C30-16A-150(1) C30-16A-150(2) C30-19A-150(1) C30-19A-150(2) C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 2.492 Table 4-16: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series A specimens Specimen Name C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) C30-12A-150(1) C30-12A-150(2) C30-16A-150(1) C30-16A-150(2) C30-19A-150(1) C30-19A-150(2) C85-16A-100(1) C85-16A-100(2) C85-16A-150(1) C85-16A-150(2) Cast C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 Age fcr (days) (MPa) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 56 56 56 56 3.119 0.119 0.98 3.76 2.98 3.119 0.45 4.119 0.76 2.6 -0.119 0.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 0.76 2.119 0.98 3.119 0.76 2.45 4.76 2.98 3.76 2.98 3.119 0.45 4.98 3.98 3.119 0.

150 0.09 4.150 0.09 4.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 75 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C85-16A-100(1) C85-16A-100(2) C85-16A-150(1) C85-16A-150(2) C2 C2 C2 C2 56 56 56 56 4.09 0.09 4.150 0.150 37000 37000 37000 37000 .

Crack Spacing C30-12A-100(1) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm) Avg.6 0.5 1 C30-12A-100(1) 0. Crack Spacing 3 Elongation (mm) 15 20 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-12A-100(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.2 1 0.5 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 4 3 2.2 C30-12A-100(1) 0 0 0 5 10 15 0 20 1 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Avg.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 76 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 120 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 20 North South East West Average 0 1 2 Elongation (mm) 3.4 1.8 0. 4-19: Test Results of C30-12A-100(1) 4 5 .5 2 1.4 0.5 4 5 1.

5 2 1.5 C30-12A-100(2) 0 1.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 77 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 120 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 North South East West Average 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) 3 4 5 1.2 1 0.4 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 2.4 C30-12A-100(2) 0. Crack Spacing Avg.6 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-12A-100(2) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 15 Avg.5 1 0. 4-20: Test Results of C30-12A-100(2) 4 5 . Crack Spacing 2 Elongation (mm) 20 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-12A-100(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.8 0.

2 C30-16A-100(1) 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-16A-100(1) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 1 2 3 4 Elongation (mm) Avg.5 1 0.5 C30-16A-100(1) 0 1.8 0.4 0.2 1 0. 4-21: Test Results of C30-16A-100(1) 4 5 .4 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 Elongation (mm) 3 2.5 2 1.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 78 160 70 140 60 120 50 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 40 30 North South East West Average 20 10 0 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) 4 5 1. Crack Spacing Avg.6 0. Crack Spacing 2 15 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-16A-100(1) 0 2 Elongation (mm) Fig.

5 1 0. 4-22: Test Results of C30-16A-100(2) 4 5 . Crack Spacing Avg.5 0 C30-16A-100(2) 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-16A-100(2) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) Avg.5 C30-16A-100(2) 1.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 79 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 180 70 160 60 Axial Load (kN) Axial Load (kN) 140 120 100 80 North South East West Average 60 40 20 50 40 30 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 3 2.5 Maximum Width (mm) North South East West Average 20 15 20 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-16A-100(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.5 1 0.5 5 2 1. Crack Spacing 4 2 Maximum Width (mm) 3.

Crack Spacing 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) C30-19A-100(1) 0 5 C30-19A-100(1) Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 Elongation(mm) 4 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 80 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 250 80 70 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 200 150 North South East West Average 100 50 0 0 5 10 60 50 40 North South East West Average 30 20 10 0 15 20 0 1 2 Elongation(mm) Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3.5 2 1.3 0. 4-23: Test Results of C30-19A-100(1) 4 5 .6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.1 0 20 0 1 Avg.5 3 2.8 0.9 0. Crack Spacing Avg.5 3 15 20 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-19A-100(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.5 1 C30-19A-100(1) 0 0 5 10 15 1 0.2 0.

5 0.4 0.5 1 C30-19A-100(2) 0 10 North South East West Average 30 0 3 5 40 15 3. Crack Spacing 5 10 Elongation (mm) 5 1 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) C30-19A-100(2) 0 4 C30-19A-100(2) Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2 3 Elongation (mm) 15 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-19A-100(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 81 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 80 70 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ North South East West Average 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 20 0 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 2.8 0. Crack Spacing Avg.7 0.5 2 1.5 0 50 10 4 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.5 60 1 1 0.2 0.1 0 15 0 Avg. 4-24: Test Results of C30-19A-100(2) 4 5 .

5 3 2. Crack Spacing 0 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 300 200 100 C30-12A-150(1) C30-12A-150(1) 0 0 0 5 Elongation (mm) 10 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig. 4-25: Test Results of C30-12A-150(1) 4 5 .5 0 10 Avg.5 2 1.5 4 3.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 82 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 120 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 0 0 5 Elongation (mm) 10 6 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 7 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 4 6 Elongation (mm) 8 500 500 400 400 300 200 100 North South East West Average 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 4 5 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 4 5 5 4.5 1 0. Crack Spacing Avg.

5 4 3. 4-26: Test Results of C30-12A-150(2) 4 5 .5 1 0.5 2 1.5 2 1.5 C30-12A-150(2) 0 0 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 0 Avg. Crack Spacing 50 C30-12A-150(2) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-12A-150(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig. Crack Spacing Avg.5 3 2.5 1 0.5 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 4 5 3 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 40 20 0 C30-12A-150(2) 2.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 83 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 140 80 120 70 60 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 30 North South East West Average 10 0 0 5 4.

5 C30-16A-150(1) 0 0 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) C30-16A-150(1) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 2 1.2 1 0.5 1 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 84 160 80 140 70 120 60 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 100 80 North South East West Average 60 40 20 North South East West Average 30 10 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 0 4.4 1.5 Maximum Width (mm) 4 Maximum Width (mm) 40 20 0 3.8 0.4 0. Crack Spacing 50 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-16A-150(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.8 1.5 2 1.2 0 15 4 5 C30-16A-150(1) 0 Avg.6 1.5 3 2.6 0. Crack Spacing Avg. 4-27: Test Results of C30-16A-150(1) 4 5 .

4-28: Test Results of C30-19A-150(1) 4 5 . Crack Spacing 80 0 2 4 6 Elongation (mm) 8 10 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-19A-150(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.5 2 1. Crack Spacing Avg.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 C30-19A-150(1) C30-19A-150(1) 0 0 0 2 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 6 Elongation (mm) 8 10 0 C30-19A-150(1) Avg.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 85 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 180 140 160 120 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 140 120 100 80 North South East West Average 60 40 20 0 0 2 4 6 Elongation (mm) 8 100 North South East West Average 40 0 0 10 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 4 5 2.5 2.5 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 60 20 3 2 1.

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

86
120

200

100
Axial Force (kN)

250

150
100

North
South
East
West
Average

50
0

Maximum Width (mm)

0

60

15

0

6

3

5

2.5

4
3
2
1

North
South
East
West
Average

40

0

5
10
Elongation (mm)

C30-19A-150(2)

1

2
3
Elongation (mm)

4

5

2
1.5
1
0.5

C30-19A-150(2)

0

0
0

5
10
Elongation (mm)

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

0

15

C30-19A-150(2)

0

5

10

Elongation (mm)

1

2

3

4

5

Elongation (mm)

Avg. Crack Spacing

Avg. Crack Spacing

80

20

Maximum Width (mm)

Axial Force (kN)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

C30-19A-150(2)

0

1

2
3
Elongation (mm)

Fig. 4-29: Test Results of C30-19A-150(2)

4

5

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

87

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

35

10
9
8

25

Axial Force (kN)

Axial Force (kN)

30

20
15

North
South
East
West
Average

10
5

7
6
5
4

North
South
East
West
Average

3
2
1

0

0
0

5

10

15

20

0

1

2

Elongation (mm)

5

1.4

2.5

Maximum Width (mm)

Maximum Width (mm)

4

Elongation (mm)

3

2

1.5
1
0.5
C85-16A-100(1)

0
0

5

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

10
15
Elongation (mm)

5

10
15
Elongation (mm)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4

0.2

20

C85-16A-100(1)
0

C85-16A-100(1)

0

1.2

0

Avg. Crack Spacing

Avg. Crack Spacing

3

20

1

2
3
Elongation (mm)

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

4

5

C85-16A-100(1)

0

1

2
3
Elongation (mm)

Fig. 4-30: Test Results of C85-16A-100(1)

4

5

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

88

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

30

10
9
8
Axial Force (kN)

Axial Force (kN)

25
20
15
North
South
East
West
Average

10
5
0
0

5

10

15

7
6
5
4

North
South
East
West
Average

3
2
1
0
0

20

1

2

C85-16A-100(2)

Avg. Maximum Width (mm)

Avg. Maximum Width (mm)

5

12
10
8
6

4
2

C85-16A-100(2)

0
0

5

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

10
15
Elongation (mm)

20

0

C85-16A-100(2)
Avg. Crack Spacing

Avg. Crack Spacing

4

Elongation (mm)

Elongation (mm)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

3

0

5

10
15
Elongation (mm)

20

1

2
3
Elongation (mm)

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

4

5

C85-16A-100(2)

0

1

2
3
Elongation (mm)

Fig. 4-31: Test Results of C85-16A-100(2)

4

5

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

89

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.4.3.1 Test Observations
In this section the general observations made while conducting tests for the specimens in
Test Series A will be discussed, especially if the specimen behaviour deviated from the norm.
Following the discussion of each specimen, the corresponding photographs of the specimen in
the last stage have been provided.
Specimens C30-12A-100(1) and C30-12A-100(2) followed the typical specimen
behaviour discussed in Section 4.5.1. Both the specimen behaved in a similar manner and had
similar results. No splitting cracks developed on either specimen (See Fig. 4-32).

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4-32: (a) Specimen C30-12A-100(1), (b) Specimen C30-12A-100(2)
Typical specimen behaviour was also displayed by specimens C30-16A-100(1) and C3016A-100(2). As the loading progressed, some splitting cracks developed mostly outside the
central region. The development of splitting cracks was more frequent in case of specimen C3016A-100(2). In specimen (1), the splitting cracks were only observed on one side of the
specimen (refer to Fig. 4-33). In the middle of the test due to unknown reasons, the west LVDT
stopped working. While calculating the average stress-strain response, the west LVDT readings
were, therefore, discarded. It should be noticed that the average crack spacing and average
maximum crack width were obtained using the average of all four sides. Overall the results of
the two specimens were similar.

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

90

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4-33: (a) Specimen C30-16A-100(1); (b) Specimen C30-16A-100(2)
Both the specimens C30-19A-100(1) and C30-19A-100(2) exhibited the general
behaviour of the GFRP specimens. The repeatability in the two specimens was excellent. Minute
splitting cracks were observed at the end of the test in the central region on one side of the
specimens (refer to Fig. 4-34). In case of specimen (2), the test was stopped before reaching 15
mm elongation because the fibres in the GFRP bar started failing.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4-34: (a) Specimen C30-19A-100(1); (b) Specimen C30-19A-100(2)

typical behaviour was observed. Significant splitting cracks were detected in the central region of the two specimens during most of the test (refer to Fig. Both the specimens showed similar results. Hence. the bar and the concrete did not appear to bond properly. No splitting cracks were observed in specimen (1) and (2). This resulted in the concrete not taking load from the bar after a certain stage.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 91 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Specimens C30-12A-150(1) and C30-12A-150(2) had very similar results and followed the typical specimen behaviour. Specimen C30-16A-150(2) which had 20 strain gauges along the length of the bar showed a different response compared to its companion specimen. (b) Specimen C30-19A-150(2) . It should be noticed that the average crack spacing and average maximum crack width were obtained using cracks on all four sides. For specimen (2) after the second crack developed. It was also observed that more cracks developed on specimen (2). the south elongation readings were disregarded while calculating the stress-strain response. Specimen C30-16A-150(1) followed the general specimen behaviour. In case of specimens C30-19A-150(1) and C30-19A-150(2). (a) (b) Fig. the south LVDT holder fell off. 4-35). 4-35: (a) Specimen C30-19A-150(1). Due to the presence of wires and material covering the gauges and perhaps poor concrete vibration during casting.

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 92 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Specimens C85-16A-100(1) and C85-16A-100(2) followed the typical general behaviour of the GFRP specimens showing similar results. 4-36: (a) Specimen C85-16A-100(1). It was also observed that a few minute splitting cracks developed in the last stages of the test in both specimens (refer to Fig. (a) (b) Fig. 4-36). (b) Specimen C85-16A-100(2) . No pictures were taken of the last stage of the specimen (2) since the cracking stabilized in earlier stages. More cracks were observed in both these specimens than other specimens in this test series.

875 15.48 23.7 15. the cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens and data on concrete shrinkage.01 21.48 23.87 21.050 12.48 21.875 19.875 15.01 21.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 93 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.875 15.875 15.25 17.25 23.875 15.050 19.48 21.875 67800 67800 65500 65500 51800 51800 65600 65600 67800 67800 65500 65500 51800 51800 65600 65600 65500 65500 65500 65500 1493 1493 1407 1407 1205 1205 1257 1257 1493 1493 1493 1407 1407 1205 1205 1257 1407 1407 1407 1407 22.875 15.875 15.25 17.875 19.01 22.7 12.48 . the maximum crack width-elongation and the crack spacing-elongation plots for all the specimens in this test series are presented in Figures 4-37 to 4-53. Table 4-18: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series V specimens Specimen Name C30-12V-100(1) C30-12V-100(2) C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(2) C30-16VS-100(2) C30-16VS-100(2) C30-19V-100(1) C30-19V-100(2) C30-12V-150(1) C30-12V-150(2) C30-16V-150(1) C30-16V-150(2) C30-16VS-150(1) C30-16VS-150(2) C30-19V-150(1) C30-19V-150(2) C85-16V-100(1) C85-16V-100(2) C85-16V-150(1) C85-16V-150(2) Cast C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 b db Es fu єu (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (x 10-3) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 150 150 12.87 22.050 15. A total of 19 specimens were tested in this series of which 16 were reinforced with high modulus Bar V and the other three with standard Bar VS.4.01 22.25 23.48 21.48 21.875 15.050 19.01 22.7 15.7 12. The load -elongation.48 21. tensile strength and flexural strength that represent the parameters in each direct tension specimen except for the modulus of rupture which was determined at the concrete age of 28 days.875 15.87 17.4 Test Series V Specimens in the test series V were reinforced with GFRP bar type V. Tables 4-18 to 4-22 list the relevant rebar properties.

69 41.69 41.72 41.72 41.433 .03 42.69 41.436 -0.72 -0.70 41.433 -0.03 41.03 37.31 37.36 116.03 41.03 116.03 37.36 116.464 -0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 94 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 4-19: Concrete compression test results for Test Series V specimens Specimen Name C30-12V-100(1) C30-12V-100(2) C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(2) C30-16VS-100(2) C30-16VS-100(2) C30-19V-100(1) C30-19V-100(2) C30-12V-150(1) C30-12V-150(2) C30-16V-150(1) C30-16V-150(2) C30-16VS-150(1) C30-16VS-150(2) C30-19V-150(1) C30-19V-150(2) C85-16V-100(1) C85-16V-100(2) C85-16V-150(1) C85-16V-150(2) Cast C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 Fully Instrumented Cylinder Test Results Age f'c Ec (days) (MPa) (MPa) 42 87 42 87 42 87 87 87 170 170 87 170 87 170 87 87 90 90 90 90 37.36 35800 35957 35800 35957 35800 35957 35957 35957 37339 37339 35957 37339 35957 37339 35957 35957 54020 54020 54020 54020 Table 4-20: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series V specimens Specimen Name C30-12V-100(1) C30-12V-100(2) C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(2) C30-16VS-100(2) Cast C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 Cylinders and Shrinkage Results on Test Date Age f'c єcsh (days) (MPa) (x 10-3) 65 104 61 104 58 37.70 42.464 -0.31 37.36 116.03 41.70 41.70 41.03 42.03 42.

03 40.472 -0.445 -0.98 3.45 .98 3.31 41.03 42.457 -0.98 3.8 115.80 41.6 -0.492 -0.98 3.98 3.470 -0.464 -0.98 3.486 -0.31 114.441 -0.470 -0.98 3.464 -0.6 115.492 Table 4-21: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series V specimens Specimen Name C30-12V-100(1) C30-12V-100(2) C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(2) C30-16VS-100(2) C30-16VS-100(2) C30-19V-100(1) C30-19V-100(2) C30-12V-150(1) C30-12V-150(2) C30-16V-150(1) C30-16V-150(2) C30-16VS-150(2) C30-16VS-150(2) C30-19V-150(1) C30-19V-150(2) C85-16V-100(1) C85-16V-100(2) C85-16V-150(1) Cast Age (days) fcr (MPa) C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 56 56 56 3.98 3.98 4.98 3.445 -0.470 -0.98 3.98 3.31 42.70 42.98 3.45 4.80 42.98 3.73 41.70 40.70 41.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 95 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C30-16VS-100(2) C30-19V-100(1) C30-19V-100(2) C30-12V-150(1) C30-12V-150(2) C30-16V-150(1) C30-16V-150(2) C30-16VS-150(1) C30-16VS-150(2) C30-19V-150(1) C30-19V-150(2) C85-16V-100(1) C85-16V-100(2) C85-16V-150(1) C85-16V-150(2) C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 81 75 86 194 195 78 222 120 181 106 109 74 80 89 90 41.478 -0.467 -0.45 4.98 3.98 3.8 114.

119 0.119 0.119 0.76 2.76 2.76 2.119 0.76 2.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 96 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C85-16V-150(2) C2 56 4.76 2.76 2.119 0.76 2.09 4.119 0.119 0.150 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 27200 37000 37000 37000 37000 .150 0.119 0.119 0.45 Table 4-22: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series V specimens Specimen Name C30-12V-100(1) C30-12V-100(2) C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(2) C30-16VS-100(2) C30-16VS-100(2) C30-19V-100(1) C30-19V-100(2) C30-12V-150(1) C30-12V-150(2) C30-16V-150(1) C30-16V-150(2) C30-16VS-150(2) C30-16VS-150(2) C30-19V-150(1) C30-19V-150(2) C85-16V-100(1) C85-16V-100(2) C85-16V-150(1) C85-16V-150(2) Cast C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 Age f't ε't Ect -3 (days) (MPa) (x 10 ) (MPa) 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 56 56 56 56 2.150 0.119 0.76 2.76 2.119 0.76 2.119 0.76 2.150 0.76 4.119 0.119 0.76 2.76 2.09 4.76 2.09 4.09 0.119 0.76 2.119 0.

4 0.8 0.5 2 1. Crack Spacing Avg.5 1 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 97 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 180 60 160 50 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 140 120 100 80 North South East West Average 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 40 30 North South East West Average 20 10 0 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 1.6 0.5 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 4 3 2. 4-37: Test Results of C30-12V-100(1) 4 5 .2 C30-12V-100(1) 0 0 5 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 0 C30-12V-100(1) Avg. Crack Spacing 1.4 3.5 C30-12V-100(1) 0 1 0.2 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-12V-100(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.

Crack Spacing Avg.8 0.5 1 0. 4-38: Test Results of C30-12V-100(2) 4 5 .6 0. Crack Spacing 1.5 C30-12V-100(2) 0 1 0.5 2.4 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 98 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 60 160 140 50 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 120 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 0 40 30 20 North South East West Average 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) 2 3 Elongation (mm) 4 5 1.4 3 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3.2 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-12V-100(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.2 C30-12V-100(2) 0 0 5 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 0 C30-12V-100(2) Avg.5 2 1.

6 0. Crack Spacing 2 3 Elongation (mm) 1 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 40 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig. 4-39: Test Results of C30-16V-100(1) 4 5 .5 2 1.5 1 0.8 0.4 0. Crack Spacing Avg.5 1 3 2.5 C30-16V-100(1) 4 5 0.2 C30-16V-100(1) 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(1) Avg.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 99 300 60 250 50 200 150 North South East West Average 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30 North South East West Average 20 10 0 20 0 3.

5 1 C30-16V-100(2) 0 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 1 0. 4-40: Test Results of C30-16V-100(2) 4 5 .7 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 100 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 300 80 70 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 250 200 150 North South East West Average 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 60 50 40 30 North South East West Average 20 10 0 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 2.5 2 300 200 100 0 C30-16V-100(2) 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.9 0.5 0.8 0.6 0. Crack Spacing Avg.5 0.2 0. Crack Spacing 3 Elongation (mm) 3.4 0.5 2 1.1 0 20 4 5 C30-16V-100(2) 0 500 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 4 5 500 C30-16V-100(2) 400 Avg.3 0.

Crack Spacing Avg.6 0.2 C30-16VS-100(1) 0 C30-16VS-100(1) 0 0 5 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 0 C30-16VS-100(1) Avg.5 2 1.8 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 101 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 180 60 160 50 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 140 120 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 North South East West Average 0 20 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 4 5 1.5 1.4 0.5 1 0.4 3 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 30 10 3.2 1 0. 4-41: Test Results of C30-16VS-100(1) 4 5 . Crack Spacing 40 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-16VS-100(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.5 2.

5 1 C30-16VS-100(2) 0 5 2.5 C30-16VS-100(2) 0 0 5 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 0 C30-16VS-100(2) Avg. Crack Spacing Avg. 4-42: Test Results of C30-16VS-100(2) 20 .5 2.5 2 1.5 3 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 20 C30-16VS-100(2) 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) Fig.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 102 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 70 250 60 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 200 150 100 North South East West Average 50 0 0 5 10 15 50 40 30 North South East West Average 20 10 0 0 20 1 2 3.5 1 0.5 3 3 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3.5 2 1. Crack Spacing 4 Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm) 0.

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 103 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 350 250 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 300 200 150 North South East West Average 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 20 North South East West Average 0 1 Elongtion (mm) Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 2.6 0. Crack Spacing Avg.3 0.5 2 1.9 0.5 2 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-19V-100(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.5 1 C30-19V-100(1) 0 5 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 10 15 Elongation (mm) C30-19V-100(1) 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 1 0.5 0. Crack Spacing 0 3 Elongtion (mm) 3. 4-43: Test Results of C30-19V-100(1) 4 5 .4 0.2 0.5 0.1 0 4 5 20 C30-19V-100(1) 0 20 Avg.7 0.8 0.

Crack Spacing Avg.8 0.3 0.5 2 1.5 2 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-19V-100(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.9 0.5 0.7 0.1 0 20 C30-19V-100(2) 0 3 Elongation (mm) 3.5 0.4 0.5 1 C30-19V-100(2) 0 0 5 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 10 15 Elongation (mm) 10 15 Elongation (mm) 4 5 20 C30-19V-100(2) 0 Avg.6 0. Crack Spacing 5 1 0. 4-44: Test Results of C30-19V-100(2) 4 5 .CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 104 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 350 250 200 150 North South East West Average 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 300 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 20 North South East West Average 0 1 Elongation (mm) Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 2.2 0.

5 1 0.8 0. Crack Spacing Maximum Width (mm) 0 Avg.4 1.5 2 1.5 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 50 20 4 5 C30-12V-150(1) 0 Avg.6 1.2 0 15 C30-12V-150(1) 0 30 15 C30-12V-150(1) 0 40 10 Maximum Width (mm) 5 4.5 3 2.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 105 160 80 140 70 120 60 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 0 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 5 10 Elongation (mm) North South East West Average 0 0 15 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 2 1.5 4 3. Crack Spacing Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-12V-150(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.4 0.8 1.2 1 0.6 0. 4-45: Test Results of C30-12V-150(1) 4 5 .

8 1.5 Maximum Width (mm) 4 Maximum Width (mm) 40 20 0 3.2 1 0. Crack Spacing 50 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-12V-150(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.8 0.5 2 1.5 3 2.6 0.4 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 106 160 80 140 70 120 60 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 30 North South East West Average 10 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 0 4.4 1.5 C30-12V-150(2) 0 0 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) C30-12V-150(2) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 2 1. Crack Spacing Avg.5 1 0.2 0 15 4 5 C30-12V-150(2) 0 Avg.6 1. 4-46: Test Results of C30-12V-150(2) 4 5 .

4 0. 4-47: Test Results of C30-16V-150(1) 15 .2 C30-16V-150(1) 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 15 0 C30-16V-150(1) Avg. Crack Spacing Avg.6 0.2 1 0.8 0.4 3.5 C30-16V-150(1) 0 1.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 107 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 200 80 180 70 60 140 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 160 120 100 80 North South East West Average 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 30 North South East West Average 10 0 15 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 4 5 1.5 1 0.5 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 40 20 4 3 2.5 2 1. Crack Spacing 50 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-16V-150(1) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) Fig.

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 108 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 180 60 160 50 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 0 Maximum Width (mm) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 4. Crack Spacing 2 3 Elongation (mm) 2. 4-48: Test Results of C30-16VS-150(1) 4 5 .5 C30-16VS-150(1) 0 0 5 10 15 0 1 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-16VS-150(1) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) Avg.5 Maximum Width (mm) Axial Force (kN) 140 15 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-16VS-150(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.5 0 Axial Force (kN) 120 40 30 20 North South East West Average 10 0 15 0 1 C30-16VS-150(1) 4 5 2 1. Crack Spacing Avg.5 1 0.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 4 3.5 1 0.

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 109 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 80 North South East West Average 60 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 40 North South East West Average 20 0 0 5 10 15 0 20 1 4 5 2. Crack Spacing 2 15 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-16VS-150(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.5 1 0. Crack Spacing C30-16VS-150(2) 0 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm) Avg.5 1 0.5 C30-16VS-150(2) 2 1.5 C30-16VS-150(2) 0 0 0 5 10 0 15 1 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) Avg.5 Maximum Width (mm) 2. 4-49: Test Results of C30-16VS-150(2) 4 5 .5 Maximum Width (mm) 3 Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm) 2 1.

5 C30-19V-150(1) 0 2 1. Crack Spacing 500 Avg.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 110 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 300 100 90 80 200 150 North South East West Average 100 50 70 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 250 60 50 40 North South East West Average 30 20 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 0 1 Elongation (mm) 4 5 2. 4-50: Test Results of C30-19V-150(1) 4 5 .5 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 Elongation (mm) 2.5 1 0. Crack Spacing 2 C30-19V-150(1) 300 200 100 0 400 C30-19V-150(1) 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 C30-19V-150(1) 0 0 5 10 15 0 1 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 400 Avg.

4-51: Test Results of C30-19V-150(2) 4 5 .4 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm) 2.5 1 0.4 0.2 1 0.6 0.2 C30-19V-150(2) 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 15 0 C30-19V-150(2) Avg.8 0. Crack Spacing Avg.5 2 1.5 C30-19V-150(2) 0 1. Crack Spacing 2 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4 5 C30-19V-150(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 111 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 350 140 120 250 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 300 200 150 North South East West Average 100 50 0 0 5 10 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 0 15 0 20 1 3 4 5 1.

4 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 2.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 112 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30 8 7 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 25 20 15 North South East West Average 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 6 5 4 North South East West Average 3 2 1 0 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) 3 4 5 1.5 1 0.5 2 1.2 0 0 5 10 15 0 1 Elongation (mm) 400 Avg.8 0. Crack Spacing 2 Elongation (mm) 15 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C85-16V-100(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.4 C85-16V-100(1) 0. Crack Spacing C85-16V-100(1) 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 Avg.2 1 0.6 0.5 C85-16V-100(1) 0 1. 4-52: Test Results of C85-16V-100(1) 4 5 .

2 C85-16V-100(2) 0 0 5 10 15 0 1 Elongation (mm) 400 Avg.5 1 0. 4-53: Test Results of C85-16V-100(2) 4 5 .5 2 1. Crack Spacing 2 15 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C85-16V-100(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.4 0.5 C85-16V-100(2) 0 0. Crack Spacing C85-16V-100(2) 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 Avg.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 113 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 25 10 9 8 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 20 15 10 North South East West Average 5 0 0 5 10 7 6 5 4 North South East West Average 3 2 1 0 15 0 1 Elongation (mm) 4 5 1 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 Elongation (mm) 2.6 0.8 0.

.1. For specimens C30-16VS-100(1) and C30-16VS-100(2). (b) Specimen C30-12V-100(2) The typical behaviour was observed in case of specimens C30-16V-100(1) and C30-16V100(2). the typical behaviour was observed as well. the two specimens displayed similar behaviour. Both specimens behaved similarly throughout the duration of the tests. Following the discussion.1 Test Observations In this section the general observations made while conducting tests for the specimens in Test Series V will be discussed. Significant splitting cracks were observed on the south side of both specimens. a few on the west and east side and none on the north side (refer to Fig. 4-54: (a) Specimen C30-12V-100(1). Specimens C30-12V-100(1) and C30-12V-100(2) followed the typical behaviour of the GFRP specimens discussed in Section 4.4.4.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 114 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. It should be noted that the cracking had not stabilized at 15 mm elongation so the specimens were further elongated to 18 mm. 4-55).5. especially if the behaviour deviated from the norm. Other than that. there was some splitting observed on one side of the specimen (2) (refer to Fig. 4-54). (a) (b) Fig. the corresponding photographs of each specimen in the last stage have been provided. However. Barely any splitting cracks were observed in case of specimen (1).

4-56). Again the two specimens behaved in a similar manner (refer to Fig. Due to a splitting crack on the south side. the south . Splitting cracks were observed in the end regions early in the tests. Specimens C30-12V-150(1) and C30-12V-150(2) displayed the typical behaviour. (b) Specimen C30-16V-100(2) (a) (b) Fig. 4-57). (b) Specimen C30-16VS-100(2) Both specimens C30-19V-100(1) and C30-19V-100(2) showed the general expected behaviour. Little variation was observed between the two tests. 4-56: (a) Specimen C30-16VS-100(1). 4-55: (a) Specimen C30-16V-100(1).CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 115 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Minor splitting cracks were observed close to the end regions (Refer to Fig. (a) (b) Fig.

This was probably the reason for the . 4-57: (a) Specimen C30-19V-100(1). On one side of the specimens. Splitting in concrete was detected in the centre of the specimens. Specimen (1) test was terminated after 13 mm elongation because of failure of the bar fibres.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 116 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ LVDT fell off. The behaviour of the two specimens was similar. The first crack observed was a splitting crack in the end region of specimen (2). 4-58). The north side of specimen (1) was not properly finished and some aggregate segregation was observed (refer to Fig. the average of stress-strain behaviour was determined without considering the readings from the south side LVDT. Typical behaviour was also observed for specimens C30-16VS-150(1) and C30-16VS150(2). splitting was also observed in the end regions (refer to Fig. Specimen (2) had strain gauges on the bar throughout its length. (a) (b) Fig. but the behaviour was found to be similar to specimen (1). (b) Specimen C30-19V-100(2) For specimens C30-16V-150(1) and C30-16V-150(2) the general typical behaviour was also observed. Other than this aspect. Specimens C30-19V-150(1) and C30-19V-150(2) followed the general typical behaviour. A few splitting cracks were observed in the central region on the east side of specimen (1). the behaviour of the two identical specimens in the pair was similar. 4-59). Hence. This was not the case for specimen (1).

the typical behaviour was observed. 4-58: (a) Specimen C30-16VS-150(1). . Little difference was detected between the results of the two specimens. However. (a) (b) Fig. (b) Specimen C30-16VS-150(2) (a) (b) Fig.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 117 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ two specimens showing slightly different behaviour. the overall the responses of the two specimens were not much different.4-60). 4-59: (a) Specimen C30-19V-150(1). Few splitting cracks were observed (refer to Fig. (b) Specimen C30-19V-150(2) For specimens C85-16V-100(1) and C85-16V-100(2).

4-60: (a) Specimen C85-16V-100(1).CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 118 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (a) (b) Fig. (b) Specimen C85-16V-100(2) .

Table 4-24: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series C specimens Specimen Name C30-12C-100(1) C30-12C-100(2) C30-16C-100(1) C30-16C-100(2) C30-19C-100(1) C30-19C-100(2) C30-12C-150(1) C30-12C-150(2) C30-16C-150(1) C30-16C-150(2) C30-19C-150(1) C30-19C-150(2) C85-16C-100(1) C85-16C-100(2) C85-16C-150(1) C85-16C-150(2) Cast C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 b db Es fu єu (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (x 10-3) 100 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 150 150 12 12 16 16 20 20 12 12 16 16 20 20 16 16 16 16 59000 59000 63800 63800 64300 64300 59000 59000 63800 63800 64300 64300 63800 63800 63800 63800 1366 1366 1236 1236 1144 1144 1366 1366 1236 1236 1144 1144 1236 1236 1236 1236 23.5 Test Series C GFRP bars of type C were used to reinforce 16 specimens in this series.77 19.26 19. the maximum crack width-elongation and the crack spacing-elongation plots for all the specimens in this test series are presented in Figures 4-61 to 4-72 where the behaviour of the specimens at small deformation is shown in accompanying figures on larger scales.37 17. tensile strength and the flexural strength that represent material properties in respective specimens.4.37 17. Tables 4-24 to 428 list the relevant rebar properties.37 Table 4-25: Concrete compression test results for Test Series C specimens Specimen Name Cast Fully Instrumented Cylinder Test Results Age f'c Ec (days) (MPa) (MPa) .26 23.37 19.77 17.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 119 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.26 23.37 19.77 17. the cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens and data for concrete shrinkage.37 19.26 19. The load-elongation.37 19.37 19.77 23.

70 42.03 37.464 -0.36 116.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 120 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C30-12C-100(1) C30-12C-100(2) C30-16C-100(1) C30-16C-100(2) C30-19C-100(1) C30-19C-100(2) C30-12C-150(1) C30-12C-150(2) C30-16C-150(1) C30-16C-150(2) C30-19C-150(1) C30-19C-150(2) C85-16C-100(1) C85-16C-100(2) C85-16C-150(1) C85-16C-150(2) C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 42 87 42 87 42 87 170 170 87 170 87 87 90 90 90 90 37.80 41.472 -0.436 -0.492 -0.70 41.03 116.20 42.467 -0.439 -0.36 116.478 -0.03 41.33 41.70 41.467 -0.436 -0.8 115.03 42.6 -0.73 41.467 -0.31 37.31 114.461 -0.72 41.36 35800 35957 35800 35957 35800 35957 37339 37339 35957 37339 35957 35957 54020 54020 54020 54020 Table 4-26: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series C specimens Specimen Name C30-12C-100(1) C30-12C-100(2) C30-16C-100(1) C30-16C-100(2) C30-19C-100(1) C30-19C-100(2) C30-12C-150(1) C30-12C-150(2) C30-16C-150(1) C30-16C-150(2) C30-19C-150(1) C30-19C-150(2) C85-16C-100(1) C85-16C-100(2) C85-16C-150(1) C85-16C-150(2) Cast C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 Cylinders and Shrinkage Results on Test Date Age f'c єcsh (days) (MPa) (x 10-3) 63 112 62 93 71 92 133 137 90 224 100 110 67 67 91 94 37.20 41.20 40.6 115.03 42.492 .69 41.467 -0.461 -0.8 114.03 37.69 41.31 41.72 41.478 -0.36 116.461 -0.69 41.33 41.

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

121

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4-27: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series C specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
C30-12C-150(1)
C30-12C-150(2)
C30-16C-150(1)
C30-16C-150(2)
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(2)
C85-16C-150(1)
C85-16C-150(2)

Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2

Age

fcr

(days)

(MPa)

28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
56
56
56
56

3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.45

Table 4-28: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series C specimens
Specimen Name

Cast

Age
(days)

f't
(MPa)

ε't
(x 10-3)

Ect
(MPa)

C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
C30-12C-150(1)
C30-12C-150(2)
C30-16C-150(1)
C30-16C-150(2)
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(2)

C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2

170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
56
56

2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
4.09
4.09

0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.150
0.150

27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
37000
37000

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

122

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C85-16C-150(1)
C85-16C-150(2)

C2
C2

56
56

4.09
4.09

0.150
0.150

37000
37000

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

123

140

60

120

50

100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average

40
20

0
0

5

10

15

Axial Force (kN)

Axial Force (kN)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

40
30
North
South
East
West
Average

20
10

0

20

0

1

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

4

5

1.4

C30-12C-100(1)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

C30-12C-100(1)

0
0

5

10

15

20

0

1

Elongation (mm)

2

3

4

5

Elongation (mm)

500

500
C30-12C-100(1)

C30-12C-100(1)
400

Avg. Crack Spacing

Avg. Crack Spacing

3

Elongation (mm)

Maximum Width (mm)

Maximum Width (mm)

Elongation (mm)

2

300
200
100
0

400
300
200
100
0

0

5

10
Elongation (mm)

15

20

0

1

2

3

Elongation (mm)

Fig. 4-61: Test Results of C30-12C-100(1)

4

5

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

124

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

120

50
45
40
Axial Force (kN)

Axial Force (kN)

100
80
60

North
South
East
West
Average

40
20

0
0

5

10

15

35
30
25
20

North
South
East
West
Average

15
10
5

0

20

0

1

Elongation (mm)

4

5

1
Maximum Width (mm)

3
2.5
2

1.5
1
0.5

C30-12C-100(2)

0
0

5

10

15

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-12C-100(2)

0
20

0

1

Elongation (mm)

2

3

4

5

Elongation (mm)

500

500

C30-12C-100(2)

C30-12C-100(2)

400

Avg. Crack Spacing

Avg. Crack Spacing

3

Elongation (mm)

3.5
Maximum Width (mm)

2

300
200
100

0

400
300
200
100

0
0

5

10
Elongation (mm)

15

20

0

1

2

3

Elongation (mm)

Fig. 4-62: Test Results of C30-12C-100(2)

4

5

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

125

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

300

80
70

250
Axial Force (kN)

Axial Force (kN)

60
200
150
100

North
South
East
West
Average

50
0
0

5

10
15
Elongation (mm)

40
30

North
South
East
West
Average

20

10
0

20

0

3.5

1

2
3
Elongation (mm)

2.5
2
1.5
1

0.5

C30-16C-100(1)

0
0

5

5

10

15

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-16C-100(1)

0

20

0

1

Elongation (mm)

C30-16C-100(1)
Avg. Crack Spacing

400
300
200
100
0
0

5

10
Elongation (mm)

2

3

4

5

Elongation (mm)

500
Avg. Crack Spacing

4

1

3

Maximum Width (mm)

Maximum Width (mm)

50

15

20

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

C30-16C-100(1)

0

1

2

3

Elongation (mm)

Fig. 4-63: Test Results of C30-16C-100(1)

4

5

4-64: Test Results of C30-16C-100(2) 4 5 .6 0.2 1 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 126 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 250 80 70 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 200 150 100 North South East West Average 50 60 50 40 30 North South East West Average 20 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 2.4 C30-16C-100(2) 0.5 0. Crack Spacing 3 Elongation (mm) 3.5 2 1.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 500 400 C30-16C-100(2) Avg.5 1 C30-16C-100(2) 0 4 5 1.4 1.5 2 300 200 100 400 C30-16C-100(2) 300 200 100 0 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 20 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig. Crack Spacing Avg.8 0.

5 1 0. 4-65: Test Results of C30-19C-100(1) 4 5 .5 3 2.4 0 0 4 15 20 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-19C-100(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 127 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 350 200 150 North South East West Average 100 50 0 Maximum Width (mm) 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 4 3.6 0.8 0.2 C30-19C-100(1) 20 0 1 C30-19C-100(1) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) Avg.2 1 0.5 2 1. Crack Spacing Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 5 1. Crack Spacing Avg.4 0.5 0 Axial Force (kN) 250 C30-19C-100(1) North South East West Average 0 20 Maximum Width (mm) Axial Force (kN) 300 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) 5 10 15 1.

4 3.5 2 1.5 3 2.5 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 3 Elongation (mm) Elongation (mm) 0 1.5 1 C30-19C-100(2) 0. Crack Spacing 500 Avg.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 128 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 350 250 200 North South East West Average 150 100 50 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 300 0 0 5 10 15 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 North South East West Average 0 20 1 4 4 5 1.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 400 C30-19C-100(2) 300 200 100 0 Avg.8 0.2 1 0. Crack Spacing 2 400 C30-19C-100(2) 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.4 C30-19C-100(2) 0. 4-66: Test Results of C30-19C-100(2) 4 5 .6 0.

4-67: Test Results of C30-12C-150(2) .CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 129 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 160 100 140 90 80 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 120 70 60 50 40 North South East West Average 30 20 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 0 1 2 Elongation (mm) 5 6 Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) 4 Elongation (mm) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 0 1 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 Avg. Crack Spacing 500 Avg. Crack Spacing 3 400 300 200 100 0 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.

5 2 1.5 0 15 0 5 1 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 Avg.5 3 2.5 4 3.5 0 5 10 60 50 40 North South East West Average 30 20 10 0 15 C30-16C-150(1) 0 70 Axial Force (kN) 200 0 Maximum Width (mm) Axial Force (kN) 250 1 4.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 130 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 300 100 90 80 150 100 North South East West Average 50 0 Maximum Width (mm) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 4. Crack Spacing 4 C30-16C-150(1) Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2 3 Elongation (mm) 400 300 200 100 C30-16C-150(1) C30-16C-150(1) 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig. Crack Spacing Avg.5 3 2.5 4 3.5 2 1.5 1 0. 4-68: Test Results of C30-16C-150(1) 4 5 .5 1 0.

5 4 3.5 0 C30-19C-150(1) 0 5 10 15 2 1.6 0.5 2 1. 4-69: Test Results of C30-19C-150(1) 4 5 .5 1 0.4 0.8 0.4 1.8 1.5 3 2.6 1. Crack Spacing 4 5 1 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) C30-19C-150(1) 0 3 C30-19C-150(1) Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2 Elongation (mm) Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) Elongation (mm) 15 20 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-19C-150(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.2 1 0.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 131 400 80 350 70 300 60 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 250 200 North South East West Average 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 50 40 North South East West Average 30 20 10 0 20 0 1 4. Crack Spacing Avg.2 0 20 5 0 Avg.

4-70: Test Results of C30-19C-150(2) 4 5 .CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 132 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 250 140 120 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 200 150 100 North South East West Average 50 100 80 60 North South East West Average 40 20 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 5 4.5 3 2.5 1 0.5 4 3.5 C30-19C-150(2) 0 20 0 1 2 Elongation (mm) 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 500 C30-19C-150(2) 400 Avg.5 1 0. Crack Spacing 3 Elongation (mm) Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) Elongation (mm) 2 300 200 100 0 C30-19C-150(2) 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 15 20 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.5 0 4 5 3 C30-19C-150(2) 0 5 10 15 2. Crack Spacing Avg.5 2 1.5 2 1.

4-71: Test Results of C85-16C-100(1) 4 5 . Crack Spacing 400 300 200 100 C85-16C-100(1) 0 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 500 Avg. Crack Spacing 2 3 Elongation (mm) 12 Maximum Width (mm) Axial Force (kN) 250 15 20 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C85-16C-100(1) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 133 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 300 100 90 200 150 100 North South East West Average 50 0 Maximum Width (mm) 0 5 10 15 Elongation (mm) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Axial Force (kN) 80 70 60 50 40 North South East West Average 30 20 10 0 20 0 1 C85-16C-100(1) 0 4 5 5 10 15 10 8 6 4 2 C85-16C-100(1) 0 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) Avg.

4-72: Test Results of C85-16C-100(2) 4 5 . Crack Spacing 3 Elongation (mm) Maximum Width (mm) Maximum Width (mm) Elongation (mm) 2 20 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C85-16C-100(2) 0 1 2 3 Elongation (mm) Fig.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 134 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 250 80 70 60 Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) 200 150 100 North South East West Average 50 0 0 5 10 15 50 40 30 North South East West Average 20 10 0 20 0 1 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 4 5 12 C85-16C-100(2) 0 5 10 15 10 8 6 4 2 C85-16C-100(2) 0 20 0 1 Elongation (mm) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C85-16C-100(2) 0 5 10 Elongation (mm) 2 3 4 5 Elongation (mm) 15 Avg. Crack Spacing Avg.

Splitting cracks were observed on all four sides of specimen (1) but only on two sides for specimen (2) (refer to Fig. However. the corresponding photographs of the specimen in the last stage have been provided. The typical behaviour was also observed in both specimens C30-16C-100(1) and C3016C-100(2). several splitting cracks were observed in specimen (1) but specimen (2) showed little splitting cracks especially in the initial stages. Several splitting cracks were observed on three sides of both the specimens. (a) (b) Fig. especially if the behaviour deviated from the norm. No splitting cracks were observed on the north side (refer to Fig. Specimen C30-12C-100(1) and C30-12C-100(2) displayed the typical behaviour of the GFRP specimens discussed in Section 4. the behaviour of the two specimens was similar.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 135 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Both the specimens behaved similarly throughout the tests. The responses of both the specimen were similar.5. 4-73: (a) Specimen C30-16C-100(1). Overall.4.1 Test Observations In this section the general observations made while conducting tests for the specimens in Test Series C will be discussed. 4-73). 4-74). .5. Following the discussion of each specimen. (b) Specimen C30-16C-100(2) Specimens C30-19C-100(1) and C30-19C-100(2) showed the typical behaviour.1.

the behaviour of the two specimens was very similar. 4-74: (a) Specimen C30-19C-100(1). Splitting cracks were observed in the end regions quite early in the tests. No splitting cracks were observed on these specimens. Little difference was observed between the responses of the two specimens. Both specimens C30-19C150(1) and C30-19C-150(2) showed the general typical behaviour. . The most likely reason for the slip occurring was a loose washer on one of the couplers. the LVDTs fell off. In the case of specimen C30-12C-150(1). Hence. For specimen (2). A few splitting cracks were observed in the central region of both specimens (refer to Fig. This was because no cracks were found to develop between 3 mm and 7 mm of elongations. stage 3 was observed at 10 mm displacement rather than 7 mm displacement for the other specimens. Specimens C30-16C-150(1) and C30-16C-150(2) displayed the typical behaviour as well. 4-75). the coupler slipped after the first two stages at a load of 26 kN and corresponding elongation of 1.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 136 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (a) (b) Fig. Other than this aspect. Due to a splitting crack on the west and east side of specimen (2). (b) Specimen C30-19C-100(2) For specimens C30-12C-150(2).5 mm. the general typical behaviour was also observed. the average stress-strain response was determined without considering the readings from the west and east side.

Both these tests continued for eight stages rather than seven in most other tests. splitting cracks occurred during the initial stages as well. 4-75: (a) Specimen C30-19C-150(1). The cracking pattern of the two specimens was similar (see to Fig. 4-76: (a) Specimen C85-16C-100(1). Splitting was detected in both the specimens. For specimen (1). The tests were terminated after 18 mm average elongation. (a) (b) Fig. (b) Specimen C30-19C-150(2) The typical behaviour was also observed for specimens C85-16C-100(1) and C85-16C100(2). (b) Specimen C85-16C-100(2) .CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 137 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (a) (b) Fig. 4-76). The eighth stage was added because cracking had not stabilized by stage seven.

Splitting cracks were rarely observed in steel-reinforced specimens. the crack spacing had stabilized and the load-elongation plot was behaving linearly.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 138 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. little difference was observed between duplicate tests. splitting cracks did not seem to have a significant effect on the tension stiffening behaviour of GFRP reinforced specimens. though they were a constant concern for GFRP-reinforced specimens. Their overall effect on the validity of both the mean crack spacing-elongation and load-elongation plots was minimal.4. However. The effect of splitting cracks was a decrease in average measured elongation as can be seen in the crack spacing-elongation and load-elongation plots (Figures 410 to 4-76). Hence. However after the . This resulted in the development of flexural stresses within the specimens before the commencement of the test. In most specimens.6 Summary and Discussion Care was taken to ensure that the specimens underwent minimum shrinkage. the splitting cracks resulted in the LVDTs falling off the specimens at large strain values. It was observed that splitting cracks were more severe for specimens that had a smaller concrete cover to bar diameter ratio. Overall. The development of splitting cracks could have been prevented by clamping the end of the specimens. Also for a rare few specimens that developed large splitting cracks in the end regions. This has also previously been observed by Abrishami and Mitchell (1996) and Deluce (2013). In a few specimens. For a few GFRPreinforced specimens at higher strain values splitting in the end regions became a concern because it affected the LVDT readings on the faces perpendicular to where they developed. This was due to the fact that splitting tended to initiate at high strain values when the GFRP bar was taking nearly most of the load. The most splitting cracks were generally observed on specimens reinforced GFRP bar C and the least splitting cracks on specimens reinforced with GFRP bar V which indicates that splitting is affected by the surface area of the GFRP bars. By that time. Splitting mostly occurred in the end regions of the GFRP reinforced specimens. it was preferred not to introduce any clamping stresses within the specimens. This resulted in no shrinkage induced cracks being observed in any of the specimens. some divergence was observed between identical tests mostly because of slight initial bending of the GFRP bar due to the weight of the coupler. all the cracks on the specimens developed due to load application.

It was observed that the crack development again started in the strain-hardening region even though it had stabilized close to the yielding of the steel bar. it was observed that generally specimens reinforced with GFRP bar V had the least crack spacing and specimen reinforced with GFRP bar C had the largest crack spacing. Comparing the cracking behaviour of different GFRP reinforced specimens within a test series. Comparing the cracking behaviour of specimens with the same cross-section within different test series. For the GFRP-reinforced specimens crack stabilization was observed at much higher strain values. However. the effect of the flexural stresses on the specimen behaviour either dissipated or became negligible due to the development of high tensile stresses.CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results 139 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ development of the initial crack. . It was observed that the cracks stabilized close to the yield point. a majority of the steel reinforced specimens were tested till the steel bar ruptured. it was observed that crack spacing increases with a decrease in reinforcement ratio. For the purpose of this test program. the final crack spacing seemed smaller for GFRP-reinforced specimens in comparison with steel for specimens having the same reinforcement ratio. several trends can be observed. the behaviour of steel specimens until yielding was of interest since the effect of tension stiffening vanishes after yielding of the steel bar. By comparing the results of the GFRP direct tension specimens. More cracks developed in specimens reinforced with GFRP than steel. Consequently.

The influence of various parameters on tension stiffening and crack spacing are also explored. Total strain in concrete is determined considering the shrinkage strain following which the complete stress-strain behaviour and the tension stiffening factor plots for all the specimens are developed. new tension stiffening and crack spacing models are proposed for GFRP specimens and their accuracy checked against the experimental data obtained in this test program. 5. the method utilized to determine the stress-strain member response. concrete stress versus strain response and ultimately the tension stiffening factor versus strain response has been explained. a detailed investigation of the tension stiffening behaviour of GFRP specimens is described.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 140 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 5. The reinforcing bar stress-strain response is determined based on the average values of the elastic modulus given in Table 4-7. Tension stiffening of the cracked reinforced concrete was determined using an average stress-strain response with a descending branch to model the concrete in tension. The tensile force carried by the concrete was found by the subtraction of the bar force from the total member force. The strain considered in the member response is the total strain which includes shrinkage strain.1 Introduction In this chapter. This approach to model tension stiffening is equivalent to assuming the concrete has a reduced effective modulus of elasticity after initial crack development. The analytical results using the available models for tension stiffening and crack spacing are compared with the experimental results to observe their validity. The program VecTor2 is used for its ability to predict the response of the steel specimens. The member stress-strain response is determined by using the data of the load-elongation curves plot in Chapter 4.2 Determination of Tension Stiffening Response In this section. The average concrete tensile stress was determined by dividing the . Finally.

It normalized the average tensile cracking stress with respect to the tensile cracking strength. Despite the fact that best efforts were made to ensure thorough curing of concrete to minimize shrinkage. A tension stiffening factor was used to characterize this tensile property. 2003. significant shrinkage took place in the specimens especially in the case of high strength concrete . Hence the concrete is under an initial stress that results in the specimen cracking at lower loads. 5. If shrinkage effects are neglected during the analysis of the member. fc = Average tensile cracking stress (MPa) f't = Tensile cracking strength (MPa) N = Total tensile force carried the member (kN) Nb = Average tensile force carried by the reinforcing bar (kN) Ac = Effective area of concrete in tension (mm2) This results in a post-cracking tensile stress of fc = βf't which decreases with an increasing strain. there is an apparent reduction in the cracking strength of the concrete as the reinforcement ratio increases (Bischoff.3 Calculation of Total Strain It is imperative to include shrinkage strain in the analysis of member response in order to evaluate accurate tension stiffening effects (Bischoff 2001. 2001). This is because shrinkage causes an initial member shortening. The tension stiffening factor took into account the variation of stress within the concrete cracks with respect to the tensile cracking stress. Fields and Bischoff 2004).CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 141 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ resulting force by the effective area of concrete. The tension stiffening factor is calculated as follows: 5-1 5-2 where.

This is because the reinforcement and the concrete both have zero strain at the time the concrete is cast. the following equilibrium equation was used to calculate the shrinkage total offset strain. . 5-1 5-2 where. N = external load applied (kN) Ac = cross-sectional area of concrete (mm2) Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete (MPa) εcf = concrete strain caused by force.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 142 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ specimens. Since these two materials start with the same strain. net bar strain The net concrete and reinforcing bar strain can be determined by the following equations: 5-3 5-4 It should be noted that εb is assumed to be equal to εc throughout the duration of the test. To determine the free shrinkage strain between the test day and the cast date. their strains must always remain equal. The concrete exhibited linear elastic behaviour since no shrinkage pre-cracks were observed in the specimens prior to testing. Shrinkage caused the total initial strain in the concrete before the application of load to be less than zero. equation 5-4 becomes: 5-5 where. shrinkage prisms were especially constructed and monitored. net concrete strain Ab = cross-sectional area of reinforcing bar (mm2) Eb = modulus of elasticity of reinforcing bar (MPa) εbf = reinforcement bar strain caused by force. Hence. have the same undeformed length and undergo identical deformations. This initial strain offset had to be calculated and added to the strain determined by LVDTs. Hence.

εc = total strain in the specimen (relative to time of casting) εm = strain calculated by LVDT measurements (at time of testing) . The total strain in the specimen considering both the shrinkage strain and the strain determined by LVDTs is equal to: 5-13 where.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 143 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ εc = total concrete strain εcsh = free shrinkage strain in concrete εb = total reinforcing bar strain Substituting the compatibility equations 5-3 and 5-5 in the equilibrium equation 5-2 results in: 5-6 Expanding the above equation results in: 5-7 Re-arranging equation 5-7 leads to the following equation: 5-8 Dividing both sides of equation 5-8 by results in: 5-9 Letting: ρb = Ab / Ac 5-10 η = Eb / Ec 5-11 Substituting ρb and η in equation 5-9 and solving for εc leads to: 5-12 This is the initial offset strain caused by shrinkage at the start of the test before load application.

Occasionally cracks did develop outside this gauge length in the end regions. the strain outside the two extreme cracks would be less than the concrete cracking strain. The net strain would be zero at the end of the specimen and some factor of cracking strain outside the extreme cracks. In this sensitivity analysis.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 144 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The following equation was used to determine the value of ε m : 5-14 where. The stresses and strains in the end regions of the concrete specimens would be less than the central region due to bar slip and development requirements. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to see the effect of variation in the net strain magnitudes on tension stiffening. ∆m = the average displacement of the four sides of the specimen measured by the LVDTs Lg = the total gauge length of the specimens in which the displacement was measured 5. however.4 End Effects Since the bar slip in the end regions of the specimens was considered as insignificant and not measured. The LVDT's. it is important to discuss the behaviour of the concrete in the end regions. In this section. The gauge length between the two extreme cracks on the specimens can be determined visually from the photographs in Appendix B. Two factors were varied is this analysis. Hence. . These cracks were obviously not measured by the LVDT's. measured the displacement over a gauge length of 900 mm. the gauge length and the factor varying εcr. the net strain was determined by the following two equations: 5-15 5-16 where.

The gauge length was taken as 900 mm while comparing the effect of α value. in all the calculations hereafter. this difference between the two gauge lengths became even less noticeable. At higher reinforcement ratios. The value was taken as zero while comparing the effect of the gauge length on the net concrete tensile strain. There is no net concrete strain within the end region if α = 0. From the plots. The effect of this variation can be seen by plotting the tension stiffening factor versus the strain curves of the specimens. 0 ≤ α≤ 1 The effect of varying the gauge length while determining the concrete net strain from 900 mm to the length between the two extreme cracks can be seen by plotting the tension stiffening factor versus the total strain graphs. the gauge length used is 900 mm (the gauge length over which the displacement was measured) and α value will be taken as zero (no net concrete strain outside the gauge length). 5-1 shows the plots from the sensitivity analysis for 16-100 specimens (specimens consisting of 16mm diameter bars and having a 100 mm square cross-section). However. Fig. Hence to determine tension stiffening. in the crack spacing versus net strain plots. Shrinkage effects were considered during this sensitivity analysis.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 145 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ εcf = net concrete strain εcr = concrete cracking strain ∆m = displacement measured by LVDT's (mm) L = total length of the specimen (mm) Lg = gauge length of the specimen = 900 mm Lcr = length between the two extreme cracks (mm) α = a factor taking into effect the variation of εcr within the end regions. If α = 1. . the distance between the extreme two cracks will be taken as the gauge length. then the net concrete strain in the end region is equal to the concrete cracking strain. it can be seen that there is little variation in considering 900 mm as the gauge length or the distance between the two extreme cracks as the gauge length. It is also obvious that the difference between the assumptions of using 0 or 1 as α values is negligible.

6 0.008 0.4 0.013 εc (mm/mm) Bar V 1 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) gl= length b/w extreme cracks 0.002 0.4 0. 5-1: Effect of variation of gauge length and α factor on tension stiffening 0.006 0.018 εc (mm/mm) Fig.002 0.022 0 -0.014 0.002 0.4 0.014 0.018 0.2 0 -0.006 0.008 0.01 0.4 0.023 Bar C 1 gl=900mm 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.013 εc (mm/mm) 0.2 Bar A 1 Tension Stiffening Factor (B) Tension Stiffening Factor (B) 1.4 0.028 .2 1.002 0.2 0 -0.2 1.8 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 146 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.6 0.018 Bar A 1 α=1 0.002 0.8 α=0 0.008 0.6 0.2 0 -0.2 0.6 0.2 Bar V 1 gl=900mm 0.6 0.8 0 -0.2 0 -0.2 α=1 0.003 0.2 Bar C 1 Tension Stiffening Factor (B) Tension Stiffening Factor (B) gl = 900mm 0.013 εc (mm/mm) 0.8 gl=length b/w extreme cracks 0.018 0.8 α=0 0.008 0.002 0.003 0.8 gl=length b/w extreme cracks 0.4 0.022 εc (mm/mm) εc (mm/mm) 1.6 0.018 1.003 0.01 0.2 α= 1 α=0 0.

the tension stiffening results for all the test series have been presented separately.7 MPa for all the normal strength concrete specimens. however. This value is similar to 2. the tensile strength obtained through dog-bone tests. The results for tests (1) and (2) for all the pair of specimens but one in this series were almost identical as well.9 MPa. had the expected concrete strength. The average concrete tensile strength was determined to be 3.09 MPa.7 MPa to 2. It was observed that tension stiffening in specimens reinforced with Bar V is less than the specimens reinforced with Bar A.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 147 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. The tensile strength for all the specimens was in the range of 2. It was determined that specimen C30-16V-100(1) had an unexpected concrete tensile strength that was much higher than all the other specimens in the test series. The concrete tensile strength was approximately 2.5 Examination and Discussion of Tension Stiffening Behaviour In this section.8 MPa for the high strength concrete specimens in this test series. The specimens in test series V depicted similar tension stiffening behaviour. The results obtained are discussed in detail and the general patterns observed in each of the series are mentioned. The concrete tensile strength was observed to be approximately 2. The results for companion specimens (1) and (2) were also comparable to each other. The specimens in test series C also depicted similar tension stiffening behaviour.76 MPa. The exception was the pair of specimens C30-16V-100(1) and C30-16V-100(2). Specimen C30-16V-100(2). Tension stiffening was observed until a strain of approximately 13000μ for all the specimens in this tests series. the value obtained through tensile dog-bone tests. The tension stiffening behaviours of all the specimens reinforced with bar type A were found to be similar. the tensile strength obtained through dog-bone tests.8 MPa for the normal strength concrete specimens that was similar to 2. The average tensile strength in high strength concrete specimens was found to be 3. A comparison is also made between the tension stiffening behaviour of the three test series. Tension stiffening was present until a strain of approximately 11000-12000μ for all the specimens reinforced with GFRP Bar V.76 MPa. The value determined from the dog-bone direct tension tests was 4.7 MPa for all the normal strength concrete . The results obtained for companion specimens (1) and (2) were found to be almost identical. This value was reasonably close to 4.09 MPa.

76 MPa.9 MPa that was similar to the value obtained through dog-bone tensile tests. In high strength concrete specimens the average concrete tensile strength was found to be 3. the tensile strength obtained through dog-bone tests.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 148 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ specimens which is almost equal to 2. . A comparison between the test series revealed that the specimens in test series C had more tension stiffening than the other two test series. It was found that the tension stiffening factor became constant at a strain of approximately 14000μ.

the tensile strength and the flexural strength of the specimens can be seen in Tables 4-12 to 4-15.467 -0.70 40.72 41.80 42. total strain.492 .8 115.20 41.80 38.8 114.6 -0.470 -0.5.492 -0.436 -0. concrete stress versus total strain and tension stiffening factor versus the total strain for the 16 specimens reinforced with Bar A.31 42.445 -0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 149 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.433 -0.72 40. The details of the relevant bar properties.1 Test Series A Figures 5-2 to 5-6 present the stress vs.6 115. free shrinkage strain.73 40.20 37.478 -0.457 -0.470 -0.445 -0. the cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens.70 114.472 -0. Table 5-1: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar A specimens Specimen Name C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) C30-12A-150(1) C30-12A-150(2) C30-16A-150(1) C30-16A-150(2) C30-19A-150(1) C30-19A-150(2) C85-16A-100(1) C85-16A-100(2) C85-16A-150(1) C85-16A-150(2) Cast C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 Cylinders and Shrinkage Results on Test Date Age f'c єcsh (days) (MPa) (x 10-3) 60 90 57 79 68 86 117 187 75 219 78 186 71 72 86 88 37.478 -0.433 -0. The free shrinkage strains of the specimens have been presented below in Table 5-1 for convenience.461 -0.80 42. The results of specimen (1) and (2) have been presented in one plot for comparison.03 41.441 -0.

002 0.5 1 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.4 0.002 0.2 C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) 1 0.014 0.01 0.006 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 150 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1200 Stress (MPa) 1000 800 600 400 C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) 12A Bar 200 0 -0.002 0.018 εc (mm/mm) Tension Stiffening Factor (B) 1.014 0. 5-2: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12A-100 .018 εc (mm/mm) Fig.002 0.2 0 -0.5 C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) 3 2.014 0.5 0 -0.5 2 1.8 0.006 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.018 εc (mm/mm) Concrete Strength (MPa) 3.

5 1 0.5 2 1.013 0.018 C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) 1 0.006 0.01 0.014 0.018 εc (mm/mm) Fig.006 0.6 0.002 0.2 0. 5-3: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-16A-100 .01 0.014 0.018 εc (mm/mm) Concrete Strength (MPa) 3.002 0.5 C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) 3 2.002 0.008 εc (mm/mm) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.5 0 -0.4 0.2 0 -0.8 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 151 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 900 800 Stress (MPa) 700 600 500 400 300 C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) 16A 200 100 0 -0.

006 0.5 0 -0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 152 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 800 700 Stress (MPa) 600 500 400 300 200 C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) 19A 100 0 -0.003 0.006 0.2 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 0.018 C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) 1 0.5 1 0.002 0.01 εc (mm/mm) Concrete Strength (MPa) 3 0.002 0.008 εc (mm/mm) 1.01 0.8 0.5 2 1.014 0.4 0.6 0.002 0. 5-4: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19A-100 .018 C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) 2.014 0.002 0.002 0.2 0 -0.013 0.018 εc (mm/mm) Fig.

003 0.018 Fig.013 0.4 0.018 C30-19A-150(1) C30-19A-150(2) 3 2.013 0.002 0.018 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.5 0 -0.003 0. 5-5: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19A-150 .2 0 -0.5 0.5 2 1.008 εc (mm/mm) 0.008 εc (mm/mm) Concrete Strength (MPa) 3.003 0.2 C30-19A-150(2) C30-19A-150(1) 1 0.6 0.002 0.5 1 0.008 εc (mm/mm) 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 153 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1000 900 Stress (MPa) 800 700 600 500 400 300 C30-19A-150(1) C30-19A-150(2) 19A 200 100 0 -0.013 0.002 0.8 0.

014 0.5 2 1.01 εc (mm/mm) 0.2 0 -0.006 0.018 εc (mm/mm) Concrete Strength (MPa) 4.002 0.5 0 -0.006 0.5 1 0.4 0.2 C85-16A-100(1) C85-16A-100(1) 1 0.002 0. 5-6: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C85-16A-100 .018 εc (mm/mm) Fig.8 0.5 C85-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) 4 3.002 0.6 0.002 0.014 0.5 3 2.014 0.01 0.018 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 154 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 900 800 Stress (MPa) 700 600 500 400 300 200 C85-16A-100(1) C85-16A-100(2) 16A 100 0 -0.002 0.006 0.01 0.002 0.

486 -0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 155 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.464 -0.478 -0.433 -0. the cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens. concrete stress versus total strain and tension stiffening factor versus the total strain for the 19 specimens reinforced with Bar V.492 -0.31 114.70 41.72 41.31 41.464 -0.436 -0.03 42.03 40.2 Test Series V Figures 5-7 to 5-13 present the stress versus total strain.470 -0.31 37. For convenience.70 42.470 -0. The details of the relevant rebar properties.6 115.441 -0.80 42.470 -0.80 41.445 -0.6 -0. Table 5-2: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar B specimens Specimen Name C30-12V-100(1) C30-12V-100(2) C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(2) C30-16VS-100(2) C30-16VS-100(2) C30-19V-100(1) C30-19V-100(2) C30-12V-150(1) C30-12V-150(2) C30-16V-150(1) C30-16V-150(2) C30-16VS-150(1) C30-16VS-150(2) C30-19V-150(1) C30-19V-150(2) C85-16V-100(1) C85-16V-100(2) C85-16V-150(1) C85-16V-150(2) Cast C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 Cylinders and Shrinkage Results on Test Date Age f'c єcsh (days) (MPa) (x 10-3) 65 104 61 104 58 81 75 86 194 195 78 222 120 181 106 109 74 80 89 90 37.472 -0.433 -0.73 41.70 40.457 -0.445 -0.467 -0.31 37.8 114.8 115.5. the tensile strength and the flexural strength of the specimens are available in Tables 4-16 to 4-19.492 .31 42.464 -0.464 -0.72 41.72 41. the free shrinkage strain of each specimen on the day of the test is presented in Table 5-2.

2 C30-12V-100(1) C30-12V-100(2) 1 0.002 0.002 0.4 0.014 0.01 0.002 0.008 εc (mm/mm) 0.5 0 -0.003 0.018 Concrete Strength (MPa) 3 C30-12V-100(1) C30-12V-100(2) 2.008 εc (mm/mm) 0.8 0.013 0. 5-7: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12V-100 .6 0.003 0.018 εc (mm/mm) Fig.002 0.013 0.006 0.5 2 1.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 156 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 1000 800 600 400 C30-12V-100(1) C30-12V-100(2) 12V 200 0 -0.5 1 0.018 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.2 0 -0.

003 0.023 Fig.002 0.5 0 -0.023 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.2 0 -0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 157 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1400 1200 Stress (MPa) 1000 800 600 400 C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(2) 16V 200 0 -0.2 C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(2) 1 0. 5-8: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-16V-100 .018 0.6 0.013 εc (mm/mm) 0.008 0.013 εc (mm/mm) 0.003 0.008 0.023 4 C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(2) Concrete Strength (MPa) 3.4 0.8 0.008 0.5 2 1.018 0.013 εc (mm/mm) 0.5 3 2.5 1 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.018 0.

003 0.002 0.002 0.022 Fig.5 0 -0.006 0.018 0.008 εc (mm/mm) 0.002 0.01 0.018 C30-16VS-100(1) C30-16VS-100(2) 2.003 0.018 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.014 εc (mm/mm) 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 158 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 900 800 Stress (MPa) 700 600 500 400 300 200 C30-16VS-100(1) C30-16VS-100(2) 16VS 100 0 -0. 5-9: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-16VS-100 .4 0.013 0.5 1 0.2 C30-16VS-100(1) C30-16VS-100(2) 1 0.008 εc (mm/mm) Concrete Strength (MPa) 3 0.002 0.5 2 1.013 0.8 0.2 0 -0.6 0.

CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion

159

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1200
1000
Stress (MPa)

800
600
400
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
19V

200
0
-0.002

0.003

0.008
εc (mm/mm)

0.013

0.018

Concrete Strength (MPa)

3
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002

0.003

0.008
εc (mm/mm)

0.013

0.018

Tension Stiffening Factor (β)

1.2
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4

0.2
0
-0.002

0.003

0.008

0.013

0.018

εc (mm/mm)

Fig. 5-10: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19V-100

CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion

160

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1400
1200
Stress (MPa)

1000
800
600
400

C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)
12V

200
0
-0.002

0.003

0.008
εc (mm/mm)

0.013

0.018

Concrete Strength (MPa)

3
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002

0.003

0.008
εc (mm/mm)

0.013

0.018

Tension Stiffening Factor (β)

1.2
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002

0.002

0.006
0.01
εc (mm/mm)

0.014

0.018

Fig. 5-11: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12V-150

CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion

161

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1200

Stress (MPa)

1000
800
600
400
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)
19V Bar

200
0
-0.002

0.003

0.008
εc(mm/mm)

0.013

0.018

Concrete Strength (MPa)

3
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002

0.003

0.008
εc (mm/mm)

0.013

0.018

Tension Stiffening Factor (B)

1.2
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002

0.003

0.008
εc (mm/mm)

0.013

0.018

Fig. 5-12: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19V-150

CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion

162

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1200

Stress (MPa)

1000
800
600
400
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)
16V

200
0
-0.002

0.003

0.008
εc (mm/mm)

0.013

0.018

4.5
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)

Concrete Strength (MPa)

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002

0.003

0.008
εc (mm/mm)

0.013

0.018

Tension Stiffening Factor (β)

1.2
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002

0.002

0.006
0.01
εc (mm/mm)

0.014

0.018

Fig. 5-13: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C85-16V-100

CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion

163

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5.5.3 Test Series C
Figures 5-14 to 5-19 present the stress versus total strain, concrete strength versus total
strain and tension stiffening factor versus the total strain for the 16 specimens reinforced with
Bar C. The details of the relevant rebar properties, the cross-sectional dimensions of the
specimens, free shrinkage strain, the tensile strength and the flexural strength of the specimens
can be seen in Tables 4-20 to 4-23. The free shrinkage strains of the specimens have been
presented below in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar C specimens

Specimen Name

C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
C30-12C-150(1)
C30-12C-150(2)
C30-16C-150(1)
C30-16C-150(2)
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(2)
C85-16C-150(1)
C85-16C-150(2)

Cast

C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2

Cylinders and Shrinkage Results on
Test Date
Age
f'c
єcsh
(days)

(MPa)

(x 10-3)

63
112
62
93
71
92
133
137
90
224
100
110
67
67
91
94

37.72
41.31
37.72
41.20
40.80
41.20
41.33
41.33
41.20
42.73
41.31
41.31
114.8
114.8
115.6
115.6

-0.436
-0.467
-0.436
-0.461
-0.439
-0.461
-0.467
-0.467
-0.461
-0.472
-0.464
-0.467
-0.478
-0.478
-0.492
-0.492

008 εc (mm/mm) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.5 C30-12C-100(1) C30-12C-100(2) 3 2.2 0.2 0 -0.013 0.008 0.6 0.018 εc (mm/mm) Concrete Strength (MPa) 3.002 0.01 εc (mm/mm) 0.002 0.006 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 164 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1400 1200 Stress (MPa) 1000 800 600 400 C30-12C-100(1) C30-12C-100(2) 12C 200 0 -0. 5-14: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12C-100 .4 0.5 2 1.002 0.5 0 -0.5 1 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.8 0.014 0.018 Fig.013 0.018 C30-12C-100(1) C30-12C-100(2) 1 0.

5 2 1.4 0.8 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.2 C30-16C-100(1) C30-16C-100(2) 1 0.6 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 165 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1400 1200 Stress (MPa) 1000 800 600 400 C30-16C-100(1) C30-16C-100(2) 16C Bar 200 0 -0.5 1 0.008 0.023 Concrete Strength (MPa) 3 C30-16C-100(1) C30-16C-100(2) 2.002 0.023 Fig. 5-15: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-16C-100 .003 0.003 0.013 εc (mm/mm) 0.5 0 -0.002 0.008 0.018 0.2 0 -0.013 εc (mm/mm) 0.023 Tension Stiffening Factor (B) 1.018 0.008 0.013 εc(mm/mm) 0.

5 0 -0.018 Concrete Strength (MPa) 3 C30-19C-100(1) C30-19C-100(2) 2.003 0.5 2 1.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 166 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1200 Stress (MPa) 1000 800 600 400 C30-19C-100(1) C30-19C-100(2) 19C 200 0 -0.003 0.002 0.4 0.018 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.01 εc (mm/mm) 0.008 εc (mm/mm) 0.014 0.013 0. 5-16: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19C-100 .002 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.2 0 -0.6 0.2 C30-19C-100(1) C30-19C-100(2) 1 0.008 εc (mm/mm) 0.018 Fig.8 0.5 1 0.013 0.

008 εc (mm/mm) 0.018 Fig.6 0.2 0 -0.023 Concrete Strength (MPa) 3 C30-19C-150(1) C30-19C-150(2) 2.018 0.002 0.8 0.5 2 1.003 0. 5-18: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-19C-150 .5 1 0.008 0.008 0.013 εc (mm/mm) 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 167 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1200 Stress (MPa) 1000 800 600 400 C30-19C-150(1) C30-19C-150(2) 19C 200 0 -0.003 0.018 0.013 0.4 0.013 εc (mm/mm) 0.5 0 -0.002 0.002 0.003 0.2 C30-19C-150(1) C30-19C-150(2) 1 0.023 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.

003 0.5 C85-16C-100(1) C30-16C-100(2) Concrete Strength (MPa) 4 3.4 0.002 0.002 0.008 0.018 0.023 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.013 εc (mm/mm) 0.2 C85-16C-100(1) C85-16C-100(1) 1 0.018 0. 5-19: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C85-16C-100 .013 εc (mm/mm) 0.6 0.002 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 168 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1400 1200 Stress (MPa) 1000 800 600 400 C85-16C-100(1) C85-16C-100(2) 16C 200 0 -0.8 0.023 4.5 3 2.5 0 -0.023 εc (mm/mm) Fig.2 0 -0.018 0.003 0.5 2 1.008 0.003 0.013 0.5 1 0.008 0.

This general behaviour of the GFRP reinforced specimens can be seen in Cracking phase Post-cracking phase σ Pre-cracking elastic phase Fig. GFRP reinforced specimens GFRP bare bar εcf Fig. After a while. 5-20: General behaviour of GFRP reinforced tension specimens . the cracking phase. Initially the elastic stiffness of the specimens was high till the development of the first crack. 5-20 below. the cracking stabilized and the stiffness increased since the GFRP bar started taking most of the load.5.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 169 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. The overall stress-strain behaviour of a direct tension GFRP reinforced specimen can thus be divided into three distinct phases: the pre-cracking elastic phase.4 General Tension Stiffening Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Specimens All the GFRP reinforced specimens followed a typical behaviour. and the post-cracking phase. At this point the stiffness of the specimen dropped suddenly and cracks started developing.

The two concrete strengths used in the specimens were 30 MPa and 85 MPa. Tension stiffening behaviour in all three bar types are compared here. 5-21(a). 5. 2. Shrinkage has been incorporated in the results for both the steel and the GFRP reinforced specimens. In Fig.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 170 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. approximately 12000-14000μ strains. bar diameter.3% and concrete strength at 30 MPa while in Fig. A comparison of tension stiffening has also been made between steel and GFRP reinforced specimens. 5-21(b). 16mm and 19mm. The reinforcement ratios compared are 1. This increase in concrete tensile contribution should be taken into account accurately in order to avoid an overestimation of member response and crack width (Joh et al.6 Influence of Parameters on Tension Stiffening Response In this section. In the steel reinforced specimens the effect of tension stiffening vanishes after the specimen yields at a strain of about 2000μ strain.1 Steel vs GFRP The tension stiffening results for both steel and GFRP reinforced specimens have been compared in this section.6. the direct tension reinforced specimens have been compared to determine the influence of different variables on tension stiffening behaviour. .0%. Comparison has been made individually against all three GFRP bar types. the concrete contribution is proportionally higher than in steel reinforced members. concrete strength and bar type. This increase in tension stiffening for GFRP reinforced members is present for all values of axial strain. The results clearly show that GFRP reinforced specimens exhibit significantly greater tension stiffening than steel reinforced specimens. 1997). The four variables investigated are: reinforcement ratio. tension stiffening effect is present until much higher strain values. The bar diameters used are 12mm. tension stiffening in steel and GFRP reinforced specimens has been compared keeping the reinforcement ratio constant at 1. Comparisons have been made in terms of the total strain and the net strain. V and C. In GFRP reinforced specimens since there is no yielding.0%. the comparison is shown for reinforcement ratio of 2. Also due to the low stiffness of GFRP reinforcement.0% and 3.3%. A.

6 0.2 C30-10M-100(1) .4 0.01 εcf (mm/mm) 0.02 εcf (mm/mm) 1.4 0.8 0. steel C30-12V-100(1) .8 0. GFRP C30-12C-100(2) .2 0 1 0. GFRP C30-16V-100(2) .01 0. GFRP 1 0.2 1.8 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1. GFRP C30-12V-100(2) .6 0.4 0.02 C30-10M-100(1) .02 0 εcf (mm/mm) 0.01 0.8 0. GFRP C30-16A-100(2) .2 0 1.3% and (b) 2. GFRP 1 0.6 0. GFRP 1 0. steel C30-16A-100(1) . steel C30-15M-100(2) .02 Fig.2 0 0 0 0. steel C30-16C-100(1) .6 0.01 εcf (mm/mm) 0.8 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 0.01 εcf (mm/mm) 0. steel C30-12A-100(1) .01 εcf (mm/mm) 0. GFRP C30-16C-100(2) .2 C30-10M-100(1) . GFRP 0 0. steel C30-10M-100(2) .2 C30-15M-100(1) . GFRP 1 0.2 0 1.6 0.4 0. steel C30-12C-100(1) . steel C30-16V-100(1) .4 0. steel C30-10M-100(2) .CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 171 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.6 0.0% .8 0. GFRP C30-12A-100(2) .4 0.2 0. steel C30-10M-100(2) .02 0 0.2 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 0 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) C30-15M-100(1) . steel C30-15M-100(2) .2 0.02 C30-15M-100(1) . steel C30-15M-100(2) .2 0 0 0. 5-21: Tension stiffening comparison of steel vs GFRP for (a) ρ = 1. GFRP 1 0.

Fig. p=1.01 0.2 Influence of Reinforcement Ratio A comparison has been made for the effect of reinforcement ratio on tension stiffening while keeping the concrete strength and the bar type constant.4 0. 5-22 illustrates this effect by comparing three different reinforcement ratios.4 0. p=3% C30-19A-100(2) .6. Fig. p=2% C30-19A-100(1) .3% C30-12A-100(2) . 1 0.2 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.6 0. p=3% 1 0.3% C30-12A-100(2) .005 than the specimens with reinforcement ratio of 2. However. However. p=1.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 172 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.002 0.005 0. p=2% C30-19A-100(1) .2 C30-12A-100(1) . No obvious explanation was found for this deviation from the normal behaviour. p=2% C30-16A-100(2) .6 0.002 0.8 0.01 0.3% C30-16A-100(1) . p=3% 0.006 1.3% C30-16A-100(1) .014 0.02 . p=1. This can be explained by the fact that a reduced area of concrete in tension relative to the bar area might have resulted in some apparent decrease in tension stiffening with increasing reinforcement ratio (Fields and Bischoff 2004).2 0 -0. p=2% C30-16A-100(2) . It can be seen clearly in the figure that tension stiffening remains fairly constant for different reinforcement ratios.018 εc (mm/mm) 0 0. At higher strains for some specimens it was observed that an increase in reinforcement ratio resulted in a slight decrease of tension stiffening. specimens C30-12V-100(1) and C30-12V-100(2) with x% reinforcement ratio had a slightly lesser tension stiffening factor after a strain of 0. 5-22(a) presents the plots of tension stiffening versus the total strain and Figure 5-22(b) presents the plots of tension stiffening versus the net strain.0% and 3. this decrease was not very significant.2 0 0.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.0%. This observation is even more pronounced when shrinkage is included in the analysis. p=1. p=3% C30-19A-100(2) .8 C30-12A-100(1) .

6 0. p=2% C30-16C-100(2) .2 1 0.3% C30-16C-100(1) .4 0.008 εc (mm/mm) C30-12C-100(1) . p=1.2 0.6.018 0.4 0.3 Influence of Concrete Strength In this section.002 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 173 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.4 0.2 0 -0.3% C30-16V-100(1) .6 0.2 0 0.2 0.3% C30-12V-100(2) .3% C30-12V-100(2) .8 1 0. p=1. p=2% C30-16V-100(2) .2 0. A comparison was made between similar NSC and HSC specimens with 16 mm bar diameter in .2 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.3% C30-12C-100(2) .4 0. p=1. p=1. p=2% C30-19C-100(1) .3% C30-16V-100(1) .01 0.6 0. p=3% C30-19C-100(2) .3% C30-16C-100(1) .01 εcf (mm/mm) 0. p=2% C30-19C-100(1) . p=3% 0 0. p=3% 1 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) C30-12V-100(1) . p=1. p=3% C30-19V-100(2) . p=3% C30-19C-100(2) . p=2% C30-19V-100(1) .8 0. 5-22: Reinforcement ratio effect on tension stiffening 5.008 0.8 0. p=1.02 C30-12C-100(1) . p=2% C30-16V-100(2) . p=2% C30-19V-100(1) .3% C30-12C-100(2) . p=1.018 εc (mm/mm) (a) tension stiffening vs total strain 0 0.6 0. p=3% C30-19V-100(2) .002 C30-12V-100(1) .02 εcf(mm/mm) (b) tension stiffening vs net strain Fig.8 0. p=3% 1 0. p=1. the influence of concrete strength on tension stiffening was investigated. p=2% C30-16C-100(2) .2 0 -0. p=3% 0 1.

4 0. 85MPa 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 174 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ which the reinforcement ratio was maintained at 2%.2 0 0.8 1.2 C30-16V-100(1) . The results are more consistent when shrinkage is incorporated in the analysis.2 0 0 0. 30MPa C30-16A-100(2) .6 0. 85MPa 1 0. 1 0.002 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1. 30MPa C85-16A-100(1) . 85MPa C85-16A-100(2) . 5-23(b) in terms of net concrete strain. It can be clearly seen that the increase in concrete strength had practically no effect on tension stiffening.018 0 εc (mm/mm) 0.2 0 -0. 85MPa 1 0.2 0 -0.8 0.018 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 0.8 0.008 0.4 0. 30MPa C30-16V-100(2) .02 1.01 εcf(mm/mm) 1.005 C30-16V-100(1) .008 εc (mm/mm) 0. 85MPa C85-16V-100(2) . 30MPa C30-16V-100(2) .015 0.2 C30-16A-100(1) .02 εcf (mm/mm) . 30MPa C85-16A-100(1) . 30MPa C85-16V-100(1) .002 0.4 0.8 0. Figure 5-23 shows the influence of concrete strength on the tension stiffening factor. 5-23(a) shows the relationship in terms of total concrete strain and Fig.6 0. 85MPa C85-16V-100(2) . 85MPa C85-16A-100(2) . Fig.2 1 0.6 0. V and C.2 C30-16A-100(1) . 30MPa C85-16V-100(1) . The effect of concrete strength was investigated for all bar types: A. 30MPa C30-16A-100(2) .6 0. 85MPa 0.4 0.

85MPa 1 0. 30MPa C30-16C-100(2) .2 0 -0.30%.4 0. The very small decrease in tension stiffening that occurred with an increase in bar diameter at the end of the test was most likely due to a reduced area of concrete in tension relative to the bar area (Fields and Bischoff 2004). Two bar diameters. 30MPa C30-16C-100(2) . 5-24 that varying the bar diameters had very little effect on tension stiffening. Fig.2 C30-16C-100(1) .018 εc (mm/mm) (a) tension stiffening vs total strain 0 0.02 εcf (mm/mm) (b) tension stiffening vs net strain Fig.4 Influence of Bar Diameter In this section.2 C30-16C-100(1) . . the results are more consistent when concrete shrinkage was considered. Again. 85MPa C85-16C-100(1) . Fig.6 0. It can be seen in Fig.2 0 0.6.6 0. 85MPa C85-16C-100(1) . tension stiffening behaviour of different bar diameters has been investigated in detail.8 0.0% 5. 85MPa 1 0. 12mm and 19mm. 30MPa C85-16C-100(1) .8 0. 30MPa C85-16C-100(1) . 5-24(a) presents the plots of tension stiffening versus the total strain and Figure 5-24(b) presents the plots of tension stiffening versus net strain. 5-24 shows the effect on tension stiffening behaviour when the bar diameter is varied. 5-23: Concrete strength effect on tension stiffening at ρ= 2.008 0.4 0. were compared while the reinforcement ratio was kept constant at about 1.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 175 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.002 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.01 0.

19 C30-19A-150(2) .12 C30-12C-100(2) . Bar No.6 0.003 0. 5-24: Bar diameter effect on tension stiffening 5. Bar No. 12 C30-19A-150(1) . The three other parameters.8 0. Bar No.2 C30-12A-100(1) .015 0. bar diameter.018 0 0.4 0.5 Influence of Bar Type In this section.6 0.12 C30-19C-150(1) . Bar No. Bar No.003 0.2 1 0.01 εc (mm/mm) εcf (mm/mm) C30-12C-100(1) .8 0. Bar No. Bar No. Bar No. Bar No. Concrete shrinkage was .6 0.008 0. Bar No.8 0.008 0.12 C30-19C-150(1) . tension stiffening of the three GFRP bar types used in the test program was compared.002 0. Bar No. 19 1 0. Bar No. were kept constant in all the specimens used in the comparison.013 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.4 0.19 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0. Bar No. 12 C30-12A-100(2) .2 0 -0. Bar No.02 εcf (mm/mm) (b) tension stiffening vs net strain Fig.01 0.19 0. 12 C30-19A-150(1) . 12 C30-12A-100(2) . 19 1 0.2 0 0. 19 C30-19A-150(2) .2 C30-12A-100(1) .2 0 -0.005 0. Bar No.2 0 0.2 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1. Bar No.19 C30-19C-150(2) .12 C30-12C-100(2) .02 C30-12C-100(1) .002 1.19 C30-19C-150(2) .4 0.013 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 176 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. reinforcement ratio and concrete strength.018 εc (mm/mm) (a) tension stiffening vs total strain 0 0.6.

02 . Tension stiffening was generally found to be the highest for bar type C and lowest for bar type V while for bar type A it was in the middle. In the analysis. Bar C C30-12C-100(2) .005 0.4 0. This can clearly be seen in Fig. specimens reinforced with 16mm bar type A initially had higher tension stiffening than bar type C.4 Bar C Bar A Bar C Bar A 0. Bar C 1 0.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0. Bar V C30-12V-100(2) . For Test Series A. 5-25. The results were mostly found to be quite consistent. Bar A C30-12V-100(1) .01 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 177 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ also included in the analysis. it has been shown previously in Section 5. this variation in tension stiffening can most likely be attributed to the different surface treatments of the three bar types. However. 5-25(a) presents the plots of tension stiffening versus the total strain and Fig.002 Bar V 0 0.2 Bar V 0 -0.008 0. It should be noted that the difference in tension stiffening appears to be higher at lower reinforcement ratios. Bar A C30-12A-100(2) . Bar C C30-12C-100(2) . It was also observed that bar type VS had less tension stiffening than bar type V. tension stiffening became constant at approximately 13000μ strain.2 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.2 0.6.003 0. Bar V C30-12C-100(1) .6 C30-12A-100(1) . However.018 0 0. Hence. Bar C 1 0. It was determined that tension stiffening is affected somewhat by the bar type used. Bar V C30-12V-100(2) . for test series V at approximately 11000μ strain and for test series C at approximately 14000μ strain.8 0. Bar A C30-12V-100(1) .6 0.2 1. The three different bar types have somewhat different actual diameters.013 εcf (mm/mm) 0.8 0. 5-25(b) presents the plots of tension stiffening versus net strain.4 that bar diameters do not influence tension stiffening. the nominal diameter of the bars was used. Bar V C30-12C-100(1) . Bar A C30-12A-100(2) . Fig. C30-12A-100(1) .

004 0. Bar VS C30-16C-100(1) . Bar A C30-19V-100(1) .015 εcf (mm/mm) 1.4 Bar V 0 0.02 . Bar A C30-16A-100(2) . Bar C C30-16C-100(2) .003 0.6 Bar C Bar V Bar VS 0.6 Bar C 0.2 0.8 0.008 0. Bar A C30-16A-100(2) .2 1. Bar VS C30-16C-100(1) . Bar V C30-16V-100(2) .8 0.018 εcf (mm/mm) (a) tension stiffening vs total strain 0 0.2 Bar A 0.4 Bar C Bar V Bar VS C30-16A-100(1) . Bar V C30-16VS-100(1) .02 C30-19A-100(1) .01 0.018 C30-19A-100(1) . Bar C C30-19C-100(2) .008 0.013 εcf (mm/mm) 1.2 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1 0. Bar A C30-19V-100(1) . Bar V C30-19V-100(2) . Bar A C30-16V-100(1) .6 0. Bar C 0. Bar C Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.012 0.8 0.2 0 -0. Bar V C30-19C-100(1) . Bar C 1 0. Bar V C30-16V-100(2) .016 εcf (mm/mm) (b) tension stiffening vs net strain Fig.2 Bar V 0 -0. Bar A C30-19A-100(2) . Bar VS C30-16VS-100(2) .013 0. Bar V C30-19V-100(2) .CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 178 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 0.008 0. Bar A C30-19A-100(2) . Bar VS C30-16VS-100(2) .2 Bar A 0 0. 5-25: Tension stiffening comparison of bar type 0. Bar V C30-19C-100(1) .4 Bar A 0.4 0.8 0.005 0. Bar C C30-19C-100(2) . Bar C C30-16C-100(2) .002 Bar A 0. Bar A C30-16V-100(1) .003 0.2 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) C30-16A-100(1) . Bar C 1 0.6 0 0.002 Bar C 0. Bar V C30-16VS-100(1) .

This appears rational because tension stiffening is related to the variation of stress and strain along the length of the reinforcing bar and it is the elongation of the bar that controls the post-cracking response of the concrete.6 Summary GFRP reinforced concrete specimens exhibited greater tension stiffening than steel reinforced concrete specimens for all values of member strain. . Tension stiffening was found to be independent of concrete strength. This is most likely due to the different surface treatments of the GFRP bars. bar diameter.6.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 179 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. and reinforcement ratio especially when shrinkage is included in the analysis of the member response. The results also show that the bar type does in fact influence tension stiffening to some extent even when shrinkage in included.

initially used by Branson (1977) and adapted for FRP.7 Tension Stiffening Predictions by Codes Currently two codes deal with predicting the tension stiffening behaviour in steel reinforced concrete specimens that can be adopted for GFRP reinforced concrete. The only difference is the factor βd that takes into account the low bond stress of FRP. The ACI-440 approach has been provided below in terms of the effective area rather than the effective moment of inertia which was originally used by Branson (1977). The ACI model (ACI 318-11) and the CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1978. εm = average strain N = applied load (kN) Ec = concrete modulus of elasticity (MPa) Ae = average effective cross-sectional area (mm2) 5-19 .CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 180 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. The following equation is used to calculate the average increased strain in the member: 5-18 where. Ae = average effective cross-sectional area (mm2) Ag = gross cross-sectional area (mm2) Acr = cracked cross-sectional area (mm2) N = applied load (kN) Ncr = cracking load (kN) βd = FRP bond stress factor The CEB-FIP (CEB-FIP Model Code 1993) approach does not provide a direct equation to calculate the effective area. 1993). 5-17 where. Rather it takes into account the decrease in tension stiffening with an increase in strain after the crack formation. The ACI-440 equation used in this study is actually a modified form of ACI-318 (318-11) approach.

5-26.5 (for repeated or sustained loading) In order to check the validity of the code procedures. the tension stiffening factor was plotted in Fig. It can be seen that the ACI equation significantly underestimates member deformation.3% . The CEB equation predicts a better response relative to the ACI for the given reinforcement ratio but it still overestimates the response particularly at higher strains.02 Fig.015 0. The predicted stress-strain response obtained from the two methods for C30-12A-100(1) and C30-12A-100(2) specimens has been plotted in Fig. The CEB equation also provides a stiffer response than the experimental but to a much lesser extent than the ACI equation. α = loading factor α = 1. the results obtained in the test program were compared with the ACI and CEB-FIP code predictions. The accuracy of the equations will be investigated by varying two parameters.1 Low reinforcement ratio In this section. 5-27.3% Stress (Mpa) 1000 800 600 C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) 12A Bar ceb CEB aciACI 400 200 0 0 0.0% or less.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 181 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ where. the CEB and ACI equations predictions have been investigated for reinforcement ratios of 2. From this figure it is obvious that both the equations overestimate tension stiffening effect.3%.7.005 0. 5-26: ACI and CEB stress-strain prediction at reinforcement ratio of 1. In order to clearly see the ACI and CEB predictions for the member response at 1. reinforcement ratio and the concrete strength. 5.01 εcf (mm/mm) 0.0 (for initial loading) α = 0. 1200 ρ = 1.

3 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) ρ = 2.5 0 0 0.01 0.5 1 0.01 0. the stress-strain response predicted by ACI and CEB equations are considerably less stiff.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 182 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) ρ = 1.0 % 2.02 εcf (mm/mm) Fig.5 C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) CEB ACI 2 1. 5-27: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction at reinforcement ratio of 1.005 0.015 0.005 0.5 2 1.3% If the reinforcement ratio is increased to 2%. This results in better predictions for the tension stiffening factor but the error in predictions from the ACI equation was found to be still quite large.0% .5 0 0 0.02 εcf (mm/mm) Fig.3% C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) ACI CEB 2. 5-28 for specimens C30-16A-100(1) and C30-16A-100(2).5 1 0. This can be seen in Fig.015 0. 5-28: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction at reinforcement ratio of 2.

4 Bar A ρ=3% Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.7. the ACI equation predicts better for Bar C. does not result in an accurate prediction.0% .005 0.6 0. The results show that the CEB equation provides a reasonable estimate of tension stiffening factor at a reinforcement ratio of 3%. however. It predicts the best response for Bar V specimens.8 0.015 0. 5-29: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar A at reinforcement ratio of 3. The ACI equation. The CEB equation underestimates tension stiffening effect slightly for Bar C and overestimates tension stiffening for Bar A specimens. On the other hand. The results have been plotted separately in Figures 5-29. V and C. C30-19A-100(2).CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 183 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0% and the specimens for which the predictions were made are C30-19A100(1). C30-19C-100(1) and C30-19C100(2). It should be noted that it significantly overestimates the tension stiffening prediction for all three bar types.2 0 0 0. respectively. 1. The reinforcement ratio used for the comparison is 3.02 εcf (mm/mm) Fig. C30-19V-100(1).2 C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) CEB ACI 1 0. C30-19V-100(2).4 0.01 0. 5-30 and 5-31 corresponding to Bars A.2 High reinforcement ratio This section investigates the predictions of the ACI and CEB equations for tension stiffening factor when the reinforcement ratio is large.

02 Fig.4 0.4 C30-19V-100(1) C30-19V-100(2) CEB ACI 1.2 1 0.4 C30-19C-100(1) C30-19C-100(2) CEB ACI 1.4 0.005 0. 5-30: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar V at reinforcement ratio of 3.01 εcf (mm/mm) 0.6 1.8 Bar C ρ = 3% Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.8 0.0% .01 εcf (mm/mm) 0.6 0.8 0.2 0 0 0.015 0.2 1 0.6 0.6 1. 5-31: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar C at reinforcement ratio of 3.02 Fig.2 0 0 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 184 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.015 0.0% 1.005 0.8 Bar V ρ = 3% Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.

30MPa C85-16A-100(1) .7. 85MPa CEB . 85MPa ACI.02 εcf (mm/mm) Fig. This results in a significant overestimation of tension stiffening factor for high strength concrete specimens in comparison with normal strength concrete specimens. The comparison was made for the specimens C30-16A-100(1). 30MPa C30-16A-100(2) . 85MPa C85-16A-100(2) . Both the ACI and CEB equations provide better results for normal strength concrete specimens than for high strength concrete.3 Concrete Strength In this section. 30MPa Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 2.005 0.5 2 1.01 0. 5-32: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of 30MPa versus 85MPa concrete . 30MPa ACI. C30-16A-100(2). the predictions of the ACI and CEB-FIP model code equations for the high strength concrete specimens are compared to the normal strength concrete specimens. 3 C30-16A-100(1) .CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 185 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.015 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 0. The results plotted in Figure 5-32 clearly show that both the ACI and CEB equations provide a stiffer stress-strain response for high strength concrete. The ACI response in particular is highly sensitive to concrete strength and provides inaccurate predictions for both NSC and HSC specimens. C85-16A-100(1) and C85-16A-100(2). 85MPa CEB.

02 .2 0 0 0.3%.005 0.02 εcf (mm/mm) Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.0% 1.2 C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) Bischoff Model 1 0.0% are presented in Fig. 2004). Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1. The results obtained using this model have been compared with the experimental data.8 0. the tension stiffening factor for the GFRP reinforced specimens is predicted by using the Bischoff 2004 model (Bischoff. The predicted results for specimens reinforced with Bar A having reinforcement ratios of 1.01 εcf (mm/mm) 0.01 0.0% and 3.8 Tension Stiffening Prediction by Bischoff 2004 Model In this section.6 0.2 C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) Bischoff Model 1 0.3% 1.8 0.4 0.005 0.2 0 0 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 186 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. The model has been described in detail in Chapter 2. 2. 5-33.015 0.4 ρ = 2.6 0.4 ρ = 1.4 0.015 0.

The model predicts reasonable well the results for small values of strain but for higher strains values this model underestimates tension stiffening regardless of the reinforcement ratio. Hence.0% shown in Fig. However.2 0 0 0. It predicts that the tension stiffening effect becomes constant much earlier than the experimental results indicate. 5-33: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model for ρ= 1.2 ρ = 3. Since this model is also independent of the concrete strength.01 0.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.0% The Bischoff 2004 model does not take reinforcement ratio into account.8 0.4 0. the predicted results for reinforcement ratios of 1. tension stiffening is underestimated at higher values of strain.02 Fig.0% and 3. . This approach appears correct since the experimental data indicates that tension stiffening is independent of the reinforcement ratio.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 187 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1. 5-33 have approximately the same accuracy in comparison with the test results.3%.3%.005 0. 5-34. 2. the accuracy of the results obtained for the high strength concrete specimens is quite similar to the predictions made for the normal strength concrete specimens. As for the normal strength concrete predictions.6 0. The prediction of tension stiffening factor obtained from the Bischoff 2004 model for high strength concrete specimens has been presented in Fig. 2.0% and 3.0% 1 C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) Bischoff Model 0. at the initial strain values the predicted results are quite similar to the experimental results.

85MPa Bischoff Model 1.0% 1 C30-19V-100(1) . As mentioned earlier tension stiffening was found to be affected by the GFRP bar type used in the test program.2 1 0.02 Fig.02 Fig.8 0. 5-35: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model for Bar V.005 0. Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.4 0.005 0.0%.4 C85-16A-100(1) . The Bischoff 2004 model does not take into account the effects of GFRP bar surface or other variables related to bar types.01 0.4 0. Bar B Bischoff Model 0. The results show that the Bischoff 2004 model provides the best predictions for specimens reinforced with Bar A and the worst for specimens reinforced with Bar C. 85MPa C85-16A-100(2) .CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 188 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1. 5-36 show the predicted results for specimens reinforced with Bar V and Bar C having a reinforcement ratio of 3. ρ = 3.2 Bar V. ρ = 3.2 0 0 0. Bar B C30-19V-100(2) .015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.6 0.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.8 0. 5-35 and Fig.01 0.2 0 0 0. 5-34: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model for 85 MPa concrete Fig.6 0.0% .

0% 1 C30-19C-100(1) . it was observed that it underestimates tension stiffening at higher strain values and secondly it does not take into account the GFRP bar type.005 0. .2 0 0 0. ρ = 3.02 Figure 5-36: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model for Bar C. ρ = 3.4 0.2 Bar C. it was concluded that overall Bischoff 2004 model provides the best analytical results for GFRP reinforced specimens.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 189 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1. Bar C Bischoff Model 0. Two main weaknesses of the model were identified. Bar C C30-19C-100(2) .0% From the study conducted to predict tension stiffening through the currently available methods.8 0.6 0. Firstly.01 0.

its theory and models and can be seen in "VecTor2 & FormWorks User's Manual" (Wong and Vecchio 2002). 5-37. It is based on Modified Compression Field Theory and the Disturbed Stress Field Model. For the majority of the material properties default values were chosen. Bentz 2009) is the post-processor that facilitates the use of VecTor2. The material properties of concrete and steel . B Average strain measured in this region = 450mm B 500mm (20 @ 25mm) Fig. For the bond between reinforcement and concrete. A nodal displacement of 1 mm was applied at the end of the reinforcement to simulate the loading conditions. half lengths of the specimens were modelled in VecTor2.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 190 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. The initial version of the model was developed by Vecchio and Collins (1986) and the later by Vecchio (2000). Due to the symmetry of the specimens. contact elements were used. 5-37: Mesh of Vector2 The reinforcing bar was modelled using truss elements. FormWorks (Wong 2002) is the pre-processor and Augustus (Bentz 1996. The mesh layout used for the modelling is shown in Fig. Vecchio 2010). The element size was 25 mm along the length and 10 mm along the height of the specimens. This was done by gradually decreasing the mesh size till it stopped influencing the results. The detail about the program. The mesh size was carefully selected after ensuring that there was no significant effect on the results.9 Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis Nonlinear finite element analysis was carried out for all steel tension stiffening specimens to calculate the member response using the program VecTor2 which is a 2-D nonlinear finite element analysis program (Vecchio 1990.

76 2.60 37.70 37.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 191 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ reinforcement that were input for steel. Table 5-4: Summary of steel coupon tests Specimen C30-10M-100(1) C30-10M-100(2) C30-15M-100(1) C30-15M-100(2) C30-15M-150(1) C30-15M-150(2) As Es fy fu Ec fc' ft' єcsh (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (x 10-3) 100 100 200 200 200 200 187100 187100 189400 189400 189400 189400 420 420 402 402 402 402 542 542 661 661 661 661 35800 35800 35800 35800 35800 35800 37.428 The majority of the models selected were also default models.70 37. It can be seen in Fig.411 -0. 5-38 for the case of specimen C30-15M-100(1) that if shrinkage is not included the first cracking load .74 2. Compression base curve selected for high strength concrete specimens was Popovics (HSC). The commonly used Bentz 2003 model was selected for tension stiffening in case of steel reinforced specimens. Properties for GFRP-reinforced specimens were taken from Table 4-7.423 -0. Table 5-5: Selected models for the analysis in VecTor2 Category Compression Base Curve Compression Post-Peak Compression Softening Tension Softening Tension Stiffening Confinement Strength Cracking Criterion Crack Width Check Concrete Bond Rebar Dowel Action Slip Distortion Crack Allocation Model Popovis (NSC) Modified Park-Kent Vecchio 1992-A Linear Collins Mitchell 1987 Kupfer/Richart Mohr-Coulomb Crack Limit (Agg/5) Perfect Bond Tassios (Crack Slip) Walraven Uniform Spacing The effect of concrete shrinkage was first analysed.76 2.74 37.76 2.60 37. The selected models are shown in Table 5-5.76 2.76 -0.reinforced specimens are shown in Table 5-4. Perfect bond that does not allow slip between concrete and reinforcement was selected for the contact elements.411 -0.423 -0.430 -0.76 2.

1983) was selected. approximately 50%.3% and 2. than the experimental value. In order to compare the VecTor2 results to the experimental results in a more convenient manner. 5-39.0% are shown in Fig. For modelling of the bond.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 192 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ predicted is considerably higher. Bentz 2003 model predicted very accurate results in case of all the steel reinforced specimens even when perfect bond was assumed. Fig. all the experimental results were shifted to the origin (in terms of net strain rather than the actual total strain). 5-38: Effect of shrinkage in VecTor2 The VecTor2 results for steel reinforced specimens having a reinforcement ratio of 1. The analysis was done a second time assuming imperfect bond. When a concrete shrinkage strain of -0. There was very little difference between the results obtained from the two approaches. the Eligehausen model (Eligehausen et al. This is because bond slip is rarely an issue in monotonically loaded specimens. the initial cracking load value and the rest of the values obtained are considerably more accurate. Hence. shrinkage was included in all the specimens analyzed and presented here.000411 is applied to all concrete elements. Inclusion of shrinkage in case of high strength concrete specimens is particularly important since shrinkage is often higher in those specimens. the experimentally . It should be noted that in the analysis of all the specimens..

The three models investigated were the Bentz 2003 Model.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 193 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ obtained concrete strength. The results obtained were even better when default values of VecTor2 were used. Vecchio 1986 Model and Collin Mitchell 1987 Model. In order to overcome this limitation. tensile strength and the modulus were used. The effect of various steel tension stiffening models was investigated on GFRP member response. 5-39: VecTor2 results of steel tension stiffening specimens VecTor2 does not have the capability to take into account GFRP reinforcement that does not yield. the yield strength was made approximately equal to the ultimate strength of the GFRP reinforcement. Fig. .

Vint investigated the various bond models used in VecTor2 and determined that the Fujii Model (Vecchio and Wong. 5-40: VecTor2 result of GFRP reinforced C30-12A-100 specimen There was not a significant difference between the predicted member responses using the three tension stiffening models investigated. All three models . 5-41. A comparison of the predicted responses of the three models for specimens C20-12A-100 (1) and (2) are provided in Fig. it does not take into account the residual stresses due to friction at the GFRP bar-concrete interface beyond the peak load. 2012) were considered. Vecchio 1986 model was selected for tension stiffening. Vint also determined that while the peak loads determined by using the Harjili model were closest to the experimental values. the recommendations suggested by Vint (Vint. The predicted response is underestimated throughout the crack developing region. VecTor2 responses for the case of specimen C30-12A-100 are provided in Fig. However. 2002) produced the most unfavorable results since this bond model is intended for systems where side splitting bond failure is expected to govern. 5-40. Overall. It can be clearly seen that VecTor2 initially underestimates the first cracking load. the predicted stiffness after cracking is higher than the experimentally obtained post-crack stiffness. Vint concluded that best model for GFRP straight bars is the GanVecchio model that produces the second closest peak loads and gives the most accurate prediction for peak loaded end slips. Fig. To determine which bond model works best for GFRP.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 194 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For the bond between GFRP and concrete.

5-41: Effect on VecTor2 result using various tension stiffening models . Fig. Vecchio 1986 tension stiffening model predicted the most accurate initial cracking load.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 195 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ underestimate the first cracking load. Of the three models.

the VecchioCollins 1986 tension stiffening model gives the best result for GFRP specimens. In this section.0 for Bar V (bar heavily sand-coated) γ = 0.5 γ = factor based on surface profile of the reinforcing bar γ = 0. tension stiffening is affected by changes in the bond when different types of GFRP bar types are used. Hence. It has previously been shown that of the commonly known models for steel.5 for Bar A (bar helically wrapped and lightly sand-coated) γ = 1. Since the proposed model is based on the model that was originally developed for steel reinforcement. The model's validity is then checked against the results obtained in the experimental program. The average concrete strength for GFRP reinforced specimens after cracking can thus be determined by the following relationship: 5-20 where. The tension stiffening model proposed takes into account the main parameters that affect the tension stiffening behaviour of GFRP reinforced specimens.8 for Bar C (bar with ribs) εcf = average net concrete strain εcr = concrete tensile cracking strain Eb = modulus of elasticity of the GFRP bar (MPa) . the proposed model is based on this model. As already stated previously.5 for steel reinforcement γ = 1.38(f'c)0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 196 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. fc = average concrete tensile strength after cracking f't = concrete tensile strength = 0. the post-cracking strain of the GFRP reinforced specimens were normalized relative to that of the steel reinforced specimens by taking into account the ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the GFRP to steel. an attempt is made to develop such a model.10 Proposed Tension Stiffening Model The predictions from the current codes available and the steel models utilized in VecTor2 clearly show a need for the development of a more accurate tension stiffening model for GFRP reinforced specimens.

This is probably because the two changes counteract each other since ignoring shrinkage overestimates the initial cracking load and the using the tensile . the value of β1 could be taken as high as 980. This is quite close to the recommended value of 0. 2005). The tension stiffening factor can be determined by normalizing the average concrete strength as determined by eq. 2004). 1986) the value of β 1 was suggested as 200.5.5 It was observed that if the concrete tensile strength was computed using the formula for concrete cracking strength 0. This can be seen in Fig.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 197 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ β1 = fixed to 1400 In the original 1986 MCFT paper (Vecchio and Collins.38(f'c) 0. Previously.40(f'c) 0.33(f'c) 0. According to Bentz. The recommendation of the value of β1 as 1400 for the proposed model is not very different from the past suggestions.36(f'c) 0. 5-21 where.5 was 24kN. The initial cracking load was slightly underestimated and the response after crack stabilization was somewhat overestimated.5 to 0. Previously. the concept of varying the value of β 1 has been suggested (Bentz. β = tension stiffening factor fc = average concrete tensile strength after cracking f't = concrete tensile strength = 0.37(f'c) 0. 5-20 with respect to the concrete tensile strength at the first crack. the average concrete tensile cracking strength obtained from the axial tension member tests has been suggested to be taken as 0. 1987).33(f'c) 0. The initial cracking load predicted from the proposed equation using the actual tensile strength and including shrinkage was 26 kN and the load predicted without the inclusion of shrinkage and taking the tensile strength as 0. The concrete tensile strength computed from tests on the direct tension specimens was in the range of 0. The experimental initial cracking load was observed to be 26.5. 5-42 for specimens C30-12A-100(1) and C30-12A-100(2). It was recommended to be increased to 500 in 1987 for larger scale specimens (Collins and Mitchell.5 and shrinkage was ignored in the analysis.3 kN.38(f'c) 0.5 (Bischoff. the member response predicted was reasonably close to the experimental. Jungji (2012) suggested the value of β1 to be taken as 1300 for steel reinforced specimens.

shrinkage & ft predicted response-no shrinkage & fcr=0. it was also observed that as the reinforcement ratio increases.01 Member Strain. The proposed equations were applied to calculate the response of specimens tested as part of this study.015 Fig. (b) C30-12A-100(2) The tension stiffening factor as determined by equation 5-21 is independent of the reinforcement ratio.33(f'c) 0.005 0.5 160 Load (kN) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 200 0. Using this method. The results displayed in Figures 5-43 to 5-46 show that the proposed equations predict the tension stiffening factors quite well for all bar types.5 underestimates the initial cracking load. εc (mm/mm) 0. concrete strength and bar diameter. 200 C30-12A-100(1) 180 predicted response. Only the Bentz 2003 model outperformed the proposed model for steel reinforced specimens.005 0. (a) C30-12A-100(1) .5 160 140 Load (kN) 0. . concrete strengths and reinforcement ratios.01 Member Strain.015 C30-12A-100(2) 180 predicted response. 5-42: Predicted member response.33(f'c)^0. The predicted response for the GFRP reinforced specimens was found to be more accurate than any of the current existing models. the initial cracking load predicted becomes more accurate.33(f'c)^0. εc (mm/mm) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 198 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ strength as 0.shrinkage & ft predicted response-no shrinkage & fcr=0. The response for steel reinforced specimens was comparable to most existing models.

005 0.02 Fig.2 ρ = 1.005 0.4 0.01 εcf (mm/mm) 0.2 ρ = 2.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 199 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.0 % 1 C30-19A-100(1) C30-19A-100(2) predicted response 0.2 ρ = 3.2 0 0 0.0 % 1 C30-16A-100(1) C30-16A-100(2) predicted response 0.2 0 0 0.6 0.01 0.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.4 0.015 0.02 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.02 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.6 0.8 0.8 0.2 0 0 0.8 0.015 0.3 % 1 C30-12A-100(1) C30-12A-100(2) predicted resonse 0.4 0. 5-43: Predicted tension stiffening response for Test Series A .01 εcf (mm/mm) 0.6 0.005 0.

02 Fig.2 ρ = 3.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.4 0.005 0.2 0 0 0.8 0.6 0.005 0.02 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.4 0.2 ρ = 2.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.6 0.3 % 1 C30-12V-100(1) C30-12V-100(2) predicted response 0.8 0.0 % 1 C30-16V-100(1) C30-16V-100(2) predicted response 0.015 εc (mm/mm) 0.8 0.2 0 0 0.01 0.01 0. 5-44: Predicted tension stiffening response for Test Series V .6 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 200 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.2 0 0 0.01 0.0 % 1 C30-19V-100(1) C30-19V-100(2) predicted response 0.2 ρ = 1.4 0.005 0.02 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.

01 0.005 0.6 0.0 % 1 C30-16C-100(1) C30-16C-100(2) predicted response 0.2 0 0 0.8 0.4 0.01 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 201 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.8 0.4 0.0 % 1 C30-19C-100(1) C30-19C-100(2) predicted response 0.2 0 0 0.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.02 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.2 ρ = 1.6 0.4 0.02 Fig.2 ρ = 2. 5-45: Predicted tension stiffening response for Test Series C .2 ρ = 3.6 0.005 0.005 0.2 0 0 0.3 % 1 C30-12C-100(1) C30-12C-100(2) predicted response 0.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.02 Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1.01 0.8 0.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.

8 0.3 % C30-10M-100(1) C30-10M-100(2) predicted response Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1 0.6 0.8 0.0005 0.6 0.0015 0.2 ρ = 2.00025 0.0005 0.2 0 0 0.002 εcf (mm/mm) 1.0 % Tension Stiffening Factor (β) 1 C30-15M-100(1) C30-15M-100(2) predicted response 0.001 0.2 0 0 0.2 ρ = 1.4 0. 5-46: Predicted tension stiffening response for Test Series M .00075 0.4 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 202 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.001 εcf (mm/mm) Fig.

The specimens compared have a concrete compressive strength of 30MPa.01.3% reinforcement was found to be approximately 140 mm. By inspecting the plots provided in Fig. This is comparable to the crack spacing . By the time the crack development has stabilized in the steel reinforced specimens before or at the yield strain. This means that crack spacing stabilizes at a considerable higher strain in most GFRP reinforced specimens than steel reinforced. The final crack spacing of steel reinforced specimens for 1. A comparison of average crack spacing is also made between steel and GFRP reinforced specimens.1 Steel versus GFRP The average crack spacing results for steel and GFRP reinforced specimens have been compared in this section. concrete strength and bar type. This is because the mean crack width is the product of mean crack spacing and the net strain. bar diameter. the GFRP members have larger mean crack spacing. it can be seen that at a strain of approximately 0. While the cracks are still developing. 5-47. The four parameters that have been investigated are: reinforcement ratio. the mean crack spacing in the GFRP reinforced specimens is smaller than in steel reinforced specimens. The final stabilized mean crack spacing of steel reinforced specimens is generally larger than that in GFRP reinforced specimens. crack development is in progress for the GFRP reinforced specimens.11. the cracks start stabilizing in GFRP members.11 Effect of Different Variables on Average Crack Spacing In this section the direct tension reinforced specimens have been compared to determine the influence of various parameters on average crack spacing.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 203 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. It should be noted that only the mean crack spacing versus the net concrete strain plots were compared since the mean crack width versus the net concrete strain plot behaviour was found to be similar. 2001). 5. Shrinkage has been not been incorporated in the results since crack spacing and crack widths are not much affected by shrinkage (Bischoff. The results are presented in Figure 546. It is also to be noted that the initial crack develops in the steel reinforced specimens at a lower value of strain in comparison with the GFRP reinforced specimens. However at higher strains when the crack spacing in GFRP reinforced specimens’ starts to stabilize.

At a reinforcement ratio of 2.3% C30-12V-100(2) .3% C30-12V-100(1) . ρ=2. ρ=1. ρ=1.01 0.3% C30-12A-100(2) .01 εcf (mm/mm) 500 C30-10M-100(1) .01 0.03 C30-15M-100(1) . ρ=1. ρ=2.03 0 0. ρ=2.0% C30-16A-100(2) .02 εcf (mm/mm) 0. ρ=2. C30-15M-100(1) .0% 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0. ρ=1. the mean crack spacing for steel reinforced specimens was 145 mm and for GFRP reinforced specimens it varied from 88 mm to 110 mm depending upon the surface profile of the GFRP bar.3% C30-12A-100(1) . ρ=1.3% 350 300 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) 500 450 400 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0. Crack widths were observed to be larger at a given value of load in the GFRP reinforced 500 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 C30-10M-100(1) .02 0.0% C30-16V-100(2) . ρ=1.0% C30-16V-100(1) . ρ=2.0% 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0. ρ=2. ρ=2.01 0.03 . Obviously larger strains develop due to the lower bar stiffness of GFRP. ρ=1.03 εcf (mm/mm) 0.0% C30-15M-100(2) .0%.3% 0 0.3% C30-10M-100(2) .3% C30-10M-100(2) .02 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) specimens. ρ=2. ρ=1.0% C30-16A-100(1) . Whereas for GFRP reinforced specimens it varied between 77 mm to 138 mm depending upon the surface profile of GFRP bar.0% C30-15M-100(2) .02 εcf (mm/mm) 0.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 204 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ determined by other researchers. It should also be noted that splitting cracks were observed on many GFRP reinforced specimens during testing whereas splitting cracks rarely developed in steel reinforced specimens.

ρ=1. the only parameter that has been varied is the reinforcement ratio whereas the concrete strength. bar diameter and the bar type have been kept constant. ρ=1. .0% C30-15M-100(2) .0% 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 50 0 0 0 0.2 Influence of Reinforcement Ratio Reinforcement ratio had a significant effect on the mean crack spacing in the specimens. ρ=1.03 εcf (mm/mm) 0 0. A larger force required a larger reinforcement development length which produced larger crack spacing. ρ=2. ρ=2.01 0.0% C30-16C-100(1) .02 0. For each test series.03 εcf (mm/mm) Fig.3% 300 250 200 150 100 C30-15M-100(1) . This can be observed in Figure 5-47 that presents the plots of mean crack spacing versus the net strain for each test series. the crack spacing decreased.3% C30-12C-100(1) .02 0.3% C30-12C-100(2) .3% C30-10M-100(2) .11. The reason this occurred was because the cross-sectional area of the concrete relative to the GFRP bar increased as the reinforcement ratio decreased. 5-48 that specimens with a lower reinforcement ratio produced larger crack spacing and consequently larger crack widths.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 205 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 500 500 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) 450 400 350 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) C30-10M-100(1) . In the plots. ρ=2.0% C30-16C-100(2) . ρ=2. two specimens having the same bar diameter but different reinforcement ratio have been compared. It can clearly be seen in Fig. 5-47: Effect of GFRP reinforcement on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plots 5. ρ=1. It was observed that as the reinforcement ratio increased.01 0. This resulted in more force being required to produce more cracks. The decrease in crack spacing with an increase in reinforcement ratio was found to be true for steel and GFRP reinforced specimens.

0% C30-19C-100(2) .01 0. ρ=1.3% C30-19V-100(1) . ρ=1.015 εcf (mm/mm) Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) 0 0 0.0% 400 300 200 100 0 0 0. ρ=1.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.0% C30-19V-100(2) . ρ=3.3 Influence of Concrete Strength The plots shown in Fig. ρ=1.11.015 0.3% C30-19C-100(1) . .CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 206 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 500 C30-19A-150(1) .02 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0. ρ=3.01 0. ρ=3.02 εcf (mm/mm) Fig.005 0.02 C30-19C-150(1) .0% C30-19A-100(2) .3% C30-19A-150(2) . 5-49 demonstrate the effect of changing the concrete strength on the mean crack spacing of the specimens.005 0.0% 400 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) 500 300 200 100 C30-19V-150(1) . ρ=1. 5-48: Effect of reinforcement ratio on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plots 5.3% C30-19V-150(2) . The results show that a higher concrete strength results in a significant decrease in the mean crack spacing.01 0.3% C30-19A-100(1) .0% 0 0.3% C30-19C-150(2) . ρ=1.005 0. ρ=3. ρ=3. ρ=3.

85MPa 450 0 0. 85MPa C85-16V-100(2) . 30MPa C85-16C-100(1) .11. This is due to the fact that a larger volume to surface area ratio exists for a larger diameter bar than for a smaller diameter bar.30MPa C85-16V-100(1) . This results in larger .01 0.02 0. 5-50. 85MPa C85-16C-100(2) . It can be seen that an increase in the bar diameter results in an increase in the mean stabilized crack spacing. 30MPa C30-16C-100(2) .02 εcf (mm/mm) εcf (mm/mm) 500 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) 0.4 Influence of Bar Diameter The diameter of the GFRP bar had a considerable influence on the mean crack spacing of the specimens as shown in Fig. 85MPa C85-16A-100(2) . to develop high stress in the bar.01 C30-16C-100(1) . a longer development length is required.02 0.01 C30-16V-100(1) . 85MPa 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0. 30MPa C30-16V-100(2) . 85MPa 350 300 250 200 150 100 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 50 0 0 0 0. 30MPa C30-16A-100(2) . Hence. 30MPa C85-16A-100(1) .CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 207 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 500 400 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) 450 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) 500 C30-16A-100(1) .03 εcf (mm/mm) Figure 5-49: Effect of concrete strength on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plots 5.

5-51.005 0.02 Figure 5-50: Effect of bar diameter on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plots 5.02 0 0. bar diameter.01 0.01 0. 19mm 450 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) 500 400 350 300 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 0 50 0 0.01 0. Some variations were detected in the early cracking phase for a few tests most likely due to localized effects. 19mm 0 0.11.015 εcf (mm/mm) Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) 0 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.12mm C30-12C-100(2) . plots of mean crack spacing versus the net strain have been presented to show the influence of bar type on crack spacing. 19mm C30-19V-150(2) . 12mm C30-19A-150(1) . 19mm 450 400 350 C30-12V-100(1) .5 Influence of Bar Type In Fig. 12mm C30-12A-100(2) . 12mm C30-19C-150(1) .CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 208 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ mean crack spacing.02 C30-12C-100(1) . 12mm C30-12V-100(2) . The results show that changing GFRP bar type generally has very little influence on crack . The other three variables. 19mm C30-19C-150(2) . 19mm C30-19A-150(2) . 500 C30-12A-100(1) . 12mm C30-19V-150(1) . reinforcement ratio and concrete strength. have been kept constant in the comparable specimens.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.005 0.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.005 0.

005 0.005 εcf (mm/mm) 500 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) C30-16A-100(1) .025 200 100 0 500 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) C30-19A-100(1) . Bar B C85-16V-100(2) . 600 C30-12A-100(1) . Bar A C30-16V-100(1) . Bar C C30-12C-100(2) . Bar A C30-19A-100(2) . Bar C C85-19C-100(2) .CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 209 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ spacing. 5-51: Effect of bar type on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plots 0. Bar A C30-16A-100(2) .01 0. But the variation is small. Bar B C30-19C-100(1) . Bar B C30-19V-100(2) .01 εcf (mm/mm) 0. It was observed that specimens reinforced with 12mm bar type V had the least stabilized mean crack spacing and the specimens reinforced with bar type C had the largest stabilized mean crack spacing. Bar A C30-19V-100(1) . Bar C C30-19C-100(2) .01 0.025 . Bar B C30-12V-100(2) . Bar B 500 C85-16A-100(1) .015 0.015 0.005 0.02 0 0.005 0. Bar B C85-16C-100(1) . Bar A C30-12A-100(2) . Bar B C30-16C-100(1) . Very little difference was observed between the crack spacing of specimens reinforced with bar type A and bar type C.015 0. It was further observed that with an increase in bar diameter. the difference between the crack spacing reduced. some influence of bar type was observed on crack spacing.015 εcf (mm/mm) 0.02 0. Bar C 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 300 0. Bar C 400 0. Bar A C30-12V-100(1) . Bar C C30-16C-100(2) . However for specimens reinforced with 12mm GFRP bars. Bar B C30-12C-100(1) . Bar A C85-16V-100(1) . Bar C 400 300 Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm) 500 200 100 400 300 200 100 0 0 0 0.02 εcf (mm/mm) Fig. Bar B C30-16V-100(2) . Bar A C85-16A-100(2) .

ag = maximum aggregate size s = maximum spacing between longitudinal bars.25 for GFRP Bar A (helically wrapping with slight sand-coating) .5ag where. calculate the maximum crack width.12 Proposed Mean Crack Spacing Model Very few models are currently available to calculate the crack spacing in GFRP reinforced concrete members. ACI 440. The most commonly used GFRP cracking models. The following equation can be used to calculate the average stabilized crack spacing: where. In order to estimate the crack spacing. The use of this term was suggested by Deluce (Deluce. It suggests various factors based on the experimental results obtained for different GFRP bars' surface profiles. The models that have been previously proposed for GFRP do not directly calculate the crack spacing. 2012) in his proposed crack spacing model for FRC. He determined that the use of this term tends to significantly improve the prediction of the average stabilized crack spacing. The proposed model does not use the clear cover to the reinforcing bars as suggested in the CEB-FIP 1978 model.1 R-06 Model and Toutanji Model. 1997).7 (Collins and Mitchell. should not be greater than 15d b (mm) k1 = factor that takes into account bond properties of reinforcing bar = 0. the expression of 1.5ag is used to approximate the minimum concrete cover.4 for steel deformed bars = 0. The proposed stabilized mean crack spacing model is a modification of the CEB-FIP 1978 mean crack spacing formulation and directly calculates the crack spacing. Rather. sm = mean crack spacing (mm) ca = minimum concrete cover (mm) = 1. This equation is based on the assumption that the characteristic crack width is the crack width that can be exceeded by only 5% of the cracks.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 210 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. the average crack width is first determined by dividing the maximum crack width by 1.

25 (ε1 +ε2) / 2ε1 where. 1997). CEB-FIP 1992.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 211 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ = 0.3 for GFRP Bar C (ribs) k2 = factor that takes into account strain gradient = 0.2 for GFRP Bar V (heavily sand coated) = 0.13 Comparison of Crack Spacing Models The mean crack spacing for GFRP reinforced specimens was predicted using six models. ACI 440. CEB-FIP 1978. It should be noted that the Toutanji. this usually occurred when .7 (Collins and Mitchell. The average stabilized crack spacing predicted by a certain model was compared to the stabilized crack spacing obtained during the experiment. ε1 and ε2 correspond to the largest and smallest concrete tensile strain db = longitudinal bar diameter (mm) ρe = ratio of the area of reinforcement effectively bonded to the concrete to the cross-sectional area of the effective embedment zone of the concrete = As / Ace 5. The effectiveness of the six crack spacing models was determined by using scatter plots. The first three models were developed initially for steel reinforced specimens.1R-06 and the Gergely-Lutz formulations directly calculate the maximum crack width. Toutanji. they were used to predict the mean crack spacing for the GFRP reinforced specimens to see the extent of their applicability and validity for GFRP reinforced members. For steel reinforced specimens. In this comparison. In order to determine the average stabilized crack spacing. The latter two models were developed exclusively for GFRP reinforced specimens. the average crack width was first determined by dividing it by 1. ACI 440.1R-06 and the proposed mode. The experimental crack spacing was considered stabilized when the number of cracks in at least two consecutive load stages was fairly constant and only the crack width increased. Then the average crack width was divided by the net strain in the concrete to convert to average stabilized crack spacing. the Gergely-Lutz.

However. but not as accurate as those of the proposed model. However as previously stated like the Gergely-Lutz formulation. The predictions of the Toutanji and ACI 440. In case of GFRP reinforced specimens. One of the main weakness for both GFRP models is that they do not consider the change in crack spacing based on the GFRP bar surface profiles. the Toutanji Model does not calculate the crack spacing directly. The predicted mean stabilized crack spacing values have been normalized with respect to the experimental values to facilitate the comparison between various models. It should be noted that while the steel models tended to consistently overestimate the experimental average crack spacing value. Excluding the proposed model. The experimental mean crack spacing for GFRP reinforced specimens were predicted quite accurately by the proposed model. In Fig. The mean values and the coefficient of variation values have been provided in Table 5-6.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 212 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ the reinforcing bar was close to yielding. Since several assumptions are made while calculating the stabilized crack width. Based on the results obtained. the scatter plots of the GFRP reinforced specimens demonstrating the performance of each of the model have been presented.1R-06 models were better than those of the steel models. 5-52 and the Table 5-6 that the predictions made by GergelyLutz. The stabilized crack spacing is determined by using the maximum crack width. 5-51. it does not consider the difference in bond between the three GFRP reinforcement types and predicts the same crack spacing values regardless of the GFRP bar surface profile. the Toutanji Model gave the overall best results. The Gergely-Lutz model predicted better results than the CEBFIP models. It can be seen from Fig. it can be concluded that the steel crack spacing models predict crack spacing values for GFRPreinforced members that mostly exceed the experimental values. the existing GFRP models tended to mostly underestimate the mean crack spacing values. It should also be reiterated that the Gergely-Lutz model does not directly calculate the stabilized crack spacing. this usually occurred between bar elongation of 10 mm to 18 mm. there is doubt that the model will consistency perform well. CEB-FIP 1978 and CEB-FIP 1992 models for GFRP are considerably larger than the experimentally obtained values. . This results in the models predicting the same mean crack spacing values for all three bar types.

pred/sm.11 COV = 11.exp 200 50 0 100 200 sm. exp (mm) Mean = 1.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 213 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 300 250 sm.exp Mean = 1.1 R-06 250 sm.92 150 50 100 200 sm.exp 200 50 0 100 200 sm. exp (mm) 300 Proposed Model 0 100 200 sm.05 COV = 14.91 COV = 27.81 COV = 30. pred (mm) CEB-FIP 1992 250 sm. pred (mm) 300 0 300 CEB-FIP 1978 250 200 sm. exp (mm) 150 100 100 0 0 300 Mean = 0.exp Mean = 1. exp (mm) sm.pred/sm.exp sm.pred/sm.49 200 150 100 sm.pred/sm. pred (mm) 300 sm. 5-52: Comparison of the predicted mean stabilized crack spacing from different models to the experimental mean stabilized crack spacing for GFRP reinforced members . pred (mm) 300 sm. exp (mm) Gergely-Lutz 250 sm. exp (mm) sm.pred/sm.exp 200 Mean = 1. pred (mm) ACI 440.92 200 150 100 50 50 0 0 0 300 100 200 sm. pred (mm) 300 Fig.20 150 50 100 200 sm.61 COV = 25.81 COV = 13.28 sm.pred/sm.44 150 100 100 0 0 300 300 0 300 Toutanji 250 Mean = 0.

91 0.1R-06 1.92 .92 13.49 11.CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion 214 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 5-6: Mean and coefficient of variation comparison of sm.exp Mean Proposed Model Gergely-Lutz CEB-FIP 1978 CEB-FIP 1992 Toutanji ACI 440.05 1.81 1.exp for stabilized mean crack spacing of different models for GFRP reinforced members Model sm.11 1.44 27.28 25.61 COV (%) 14.pred/sm.pred/sm.20 30.81 0.

The specimens were instrumented to obtain the load versus elongation plots.. Crack spacing was measured during the test at various stages. Currently. . The parameters examined were concrete strength (30 MPa or 85 MPa). 2012). bar diameter (12 mm. However. dog-bone tension tests and flexural tests for concrete. This makes the prediction of deflections in beams much more important for the design of GFRP reinforced members than for the steel reinforced.0% or 3. several design recommendations and guidelines for designing GFRP reinforced concrete members are available.3%. The accuracy of the prediction of deflection depends on the accuracy of the determination of the effective moment of inertia which. the difference between the measured and predicted deflections of GFRP reinforced concrete beams at service loads has been found to be considerable (Getzlaf. in turn.0%) and bar type (Manufacturer: Hughes Bros. 16 mm or 19 mm). reinforcement ratio (1.1 General The low stiffness of GFRP reinforcing bars compared with steel usually makes the limit of deflection at service loads the governing criterion for design. is dependent upon tension stiffening. 2. The main purpose of this study was to understand the tension stiffening and cracking behaviour of GFRP reinforced specimens. The reason for this is that the analytical models either do not take tension stiffening behavior into account or empirical tension stiffening considerations are not accurate. A summary of the findings and recommendations for the future work is provided in this chapter. The research presented in this thesis investigated the axial behaviour of fifty-two GFRP reinforced specimens and eight steel reinforced specimens under direct tension. free shrinkage tests. The material tests conducted included cylinder compression tests. Pultrall or Schӧck).CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and Recommendations 215 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and Recommendations 6.

it was determined that the CEB and ACI equations predicted considerably better responses. This is most likely due to the different surface treatments of the GFRP bars.  From the study conducted to predict tension stiffening through various currently available models.  ACI-440 (2003) and CEB-FEB (1978) model code provisions for tension stiffening of GFRP did not provide accurate predictions.  Tension stiffening was found to be independent of concrete strength.0%.  Nonlinear finite element analysis using the program VecTor2 was carried out for all steel tension stiffening specimens to predict member response. VecTor2 predicted the best results when the Benz 2003 tension stiffening model was used in the analysis. both equations were found to overestimate tension stiffening for all values of reinforcement ratios considered. However. The highest tension stiffening was observed in Bar C which contained surface ribs and the lowest in Bar B which had heavy sand coating. and reinforcement ratio when shrinkage was included in the analysis of the member response. it was concluded that the model developed by Bischoff (2004) predicted the best results for tension stiffening of GFRP reinforced specimens. The results also showed that the bar type does in fact influence tension stiffening to some extent even when shrinkage in included. therefore. bar diameter. A new model was. proposed . However. The tension stiffening models developed for steel were also used to predict member response for the GFRP reinforced specimens. As the reinforcement ratio increased to 3.CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and Recommendations 216 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.  GFRP reinforced concrete was found to exhibit greater tension stiffening than steel reinforced concrete for all values of member strain. Bischoff (2004) model and the steel models utilized in VecTor2 showed a need for the development of a more accurate tension stiffening model for GFRP reinforced concrete.2 Conclusions The following conclusions can be made based on the current work done in this study:  Splitting was detected in the majority of the GFRP reinforced specimens tested but it did not significantly affect the load-elongation response. this model did not take into account the different bar surface profiles of the GFRP bars. The predictions were found to be quite inaccurate. The CEB equation predicted a better response relative to the ACI equation for all reinforcement ratios.  The predictions made from the current codes.

there is a need to develop a model that predicts crack spacing while the cracks are still developing. crack widths are larger in GFRP reinforced specimens than expected because the crack spacing is larger. The bar type was found to have little influence on crack spacing. However. A new model to predict the mean crack spacing was proposed which predicted significantly better results than the existing models.3 Recommendations A number of issues were not addressed in this research program that should be investigated.  When cracks are still developing.  During crack formation. Some suggestions for future works have been provided below:  Further investigation of the crack spacing data to predict the relationship between maximum and mean crack widths for GFRP reinforced members.  Develop an alternative and more accurate approach to estimate the deflection of GFRP reinforced concrete beams and crack widths by considering the effects of tension stiffening and incorporating material properties of the reinforcement as well as the effects of concrete non-linearity in compression. An increase in the bar diameter resulted in a increase in the final stabilized crack spacing.CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and Recommendations 217 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ which predicted the test results significantly better than the existing models for all reinforcement ratios and bar types. the final stabilized mean crack spacing of steel reinforced specimens was found to be larger than the GFRP reinforced specimens. GFRP reinforced members showed larger mean crack spacing.  The code predictions of mean crack spacing for the GFRP reinforced members were found to be inaccurate. 6.  Validity of the proposed models should be checked against the test data from GFRP reinforced-beams tested under monotonic and cyclic loading especially for deflection predictions. . Hence.  The final stabilized crack spacing was found to decrease with an increase in reinforcement ratio for steel and GFRP reinforced members.

.” American Concrete Institute. pp. ACI Committee 440. November-December. ACI Structural Journal. Vol. “Evaluation of Deflection in Concrete Members Reinforced with Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) bars”. 2000. Farmington Hills. 703-710. Composites: Part B: Engineering. ASTM Standard D7205-06. pp. ACI Committee 440. 63-71. Mi. American Concrete Institute. 2006. and Almusallam.A..2R86). 6. ACI Materials Journal. 2004.” American Concrete Institute. Michigan.” ACI Committee 440. Alsyaed. ASTM International.H. July-August. 11 pp. ACI 440. American Concrete Institute. “Influence of Splitting Cracks on Tension Stiffening”. 1996. pp. Farmington Hills. West Conshohocken.REFERENCES 218 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ REFERENCES Abdalla. American Concrete Institute. Balázs. 2006. 93.3R-04.A. S. ACI Committee 318. “Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. 1993.L. H.1R-06. MI.H. pp. 4. American Concrete Institute. 2006 ASTM Standard C157-04.1R-06.. 2003. “Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars”. 56. . Detroit. “Cracking of Concrete Members in Direct Tension (ACI 224.. Al-Saloum. G. “Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete”. Farmington Hills. Michigan. No. 2006. 7 p. No. “Performance of glass fibre reinforced plastic bars as a reinforcing material for concrete structures”. 2004. 340-348. West Conshohocken. United States. 1993. 2008. ASTM International.. 2003. Abrishami. Composite Structures. Detroit. ACI 440. D. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary”.. ACI Committee 224.. Mich. Y. 1986. T. and Mitchell. Farmington Hill. Vol. “Cracking Analysis Based on Slip and Bond Stresses”. 111-115. Vol.H. United States. “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. ACI 440. Vol. 90. 31. “Guide Test Methods for Fiber-Reinforces Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures”. PA. 44p. PA. 42 pp. H. “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix”. pp. 555-567.

P. and Richard.. E. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. ed. “Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members. Canadian Standards Association. 2004. 1994. Canadian Standards Association. 363-374. Bischoff. T. Comité Euro-International du Béton.C.P.” Reportby ACI Committee 415. Department of Civil Engineering. Branson. CAN/CSA Standard A23. CSA Mississauga.465-474. 4. “Model Code 1990 (Design Code)” Comité Euro-International du Béton. 1966.3 2004. 766 p. 2004. 1994. “Model Code for Concrete Structures”. 2012. Vol. No. American Concrete Institute. pp. 2001. 579-588. Dec... “Design and Construction of Building Components with Fibre Reinforced Polymers”. “Canadian Highways Bridge Design Code (CHBDC)”. 214 p. E. 31.REFERENCES 219 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Belarbi. Collins. D.3-04. “Design and Construction of Building Components with Fibre Reinforced Polymers”. Canada. CSA S807-10. CSA S806-12 2012. Title 63-31. 3rd. “Constitutive Laws of Concrete in Tension and Reinforcing Bars Stiffened by Concrete”. ACI Structural Journal. CSA Mississauga. pp. CEB-FIP. Canadian Standards Association.. CSA Mississauga. “Prestressed Concrete Structures”. 348 p. Response Publications. University of Toronto. Vol. and Hsu. Bentz. CEB-FIP. 2010. CEB-FIP International Recommendations.H. 1966. Canadian Standards Association..T. Paris. CSA S6-06. “Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete”. P. .. Vol. Canadian Standards Association. CSA Mississauga. 2002. PhD Thesis. “Concrete Design Handbook”. 437 p. CSA Mississauga. P. “Design of Concrete Structures”. 2006. pp. 1993. CSA S806-02 2002. Toronto and Montreal.H. 2000. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. Canadian Standards Association. 1978. Bischoff. Lausanne. “Tension stiffening and cracking of concrete reinforced with glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars”. CSA A23.. 2000. “Effects of shrinkage on tension stiffening and cracking in reinforced Concrete”. 28. A. M. 91. 2004. D. 1997. Canada.C. “Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Polymers”. July-August. and Mitchell.

2003. Cement and Concrete Research.M.1: General rules for buildings”. “Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Rebar – AslanTM 100 Series”.H. 773-782. 2006.com/Aslan100/Resources/Aslan100a. J. K. Seward. Fields. 87-117. pp. Eurocrete Project. Greece. Emmanouilidou N. F.. P. University of Toronto-Toronto. D.109. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1. 2009. Master’s Thesis. 1976. “Influence of Tension Stiffening Effect of Design and Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Available from http://aslanfrp. Detroit.J. ENV 1992-1-1. 2011. University of Toronto-Toronto. pp. University of Toronto: Department of Civil Engineering.... pp.. “Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members.. Dissertation.." ACI Structural J...T. 659. 3e. 1991. “The development of non-ferrous reinforcement for concrete structuresfinal report. 2011. 1968. D. P. “Concrete: Microstructure..ASc.. Inc.. Pouliou E. A..pdf Johnson.3.” Causes. New York. 226.R..E.. Vol. and Control of Cracking in Concrete.2006. Mehta. . 2013. and Petersson. European Committee for Standardisation.." ACI Structural Journal. SP-20. P. 447–456. Deluce.J. .R. pp. “Investigation of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing Bars as Internal Reinforcement for Concrete Structures”. 2006. GR-67100 Xanthi. P. 1997.” Prepared by Euro-Project (LTTC) ltd. NE." M. Gergely. American Concrete Institute.K. 2004. 101(4). 481-490 ENV 1992-1-1. Master’s Thesis. and Monteiro.A. Vol. 6. P. pp. and Lutz. L. McGraw-Hill. and Bischoff. Hillerborg. No. pp. M. 6. United States. and Vecchio.. 506 p. J. pp. Hughes Brothers.REFERENCES 220 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Deluce.110. Mechanisms. Modéer. “An Investigation into the Flexural Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Concrete Beams”..1: General rules and rules for buildings”. Vasiliadis L. “Analysis of Crack Formation and Crack Growth in Concrete by means of Fracture Mechanics and Finite Elements”. “Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1. Properties and Materials”. 2012. No. "Tension stiffening and cracking of high strength reinforced concrete tension members. Elenas A. "Cracking Behaviour of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Members Containing Conventional Reinforcement. 226. pp.” Democritus University of Thrace.C.. Getzlaf. "Cracking behaviour of steel fibre reinforced concrete containing conventional steel reinforcement.

“The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subject to Shear”. 2010. 29. 2. Available from http://www.pdf Pultrall Inc.civ. Available from http://www. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division. 1977. Canada. American Concrete Institute SP-230. June 2010”.ca/vector/software.com/Site2008/Docs/V-RODSpecificationsMar2007. ACI Journal." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. March 2007”.125-134. J.J. Available from http://www. L. Newhook. Vol. F. and Wong..pdf Schöck. "VecTor2 nonlinear finite element analysis. “Deflection and Crack Width Prediction of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Glass FRP Rods. 83. “VecTor 2 Software (Version 3. Vint. "Investigation of Bond Properties of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Bars in . M. H. “Technical Information Schöck ComBar ®.civ. P. 2011. “Tension Stiffening effect in GFRP reinforced concrete elements.pultrall.schoeck. pp.. the University of Sheffield. H.ca/vector/ Vecchio. 2003. and Tadros. and Deng. F. 2006. Baden-Baden.. May 2011”. Que. Thetford Mines. and Collins.trancels. Thetford Mines. "Fiberglass reinforced concrete slabs and beams.utoronto. “Tension stiffening behaviour of GFRP reinforced concrete.” PhD thesis.” Construction and Building Materials. Vol. F. 2007.. 17.” 7th International Symposium for Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures – FRPRCS7.5) [Software]”. ed. Que. Available from http://www.. Pulltrall Inc.. 421-440. "Concrete flexural members reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer: design for cracking and deformability.utoronto. 1990. and Neuwerth. Available from http://www. E. Vecchio Vechhio.. pp..E. No. G. “Technical Data Sheet V-Rod. Y..ca/en_ca/downloads Sooriyaarachchi.. F. “VecTor 2 & FormWorks User’s Manual”." Copyright 1990-2013 F.. Ghali. 1986.. 975-989.html Vecchio.M.P. pp.. Toutnaji. pp. Pilakoutas K.REFERENCES 221 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nawy. Vecchio. 2002.. Byars E. Shield et al.. G." 103(ST2)..219-231. Germany.. “V-ROD Specification Sheet: HM. A. pp. 2012.. 2002. 2005.com/images/stories/vrod-gfrp-rebar/spec_sheet_HM_may_2011..G. 2002. 6974. University of Toronto.. Sooriyaarachchi H. Canada.J. J.

. Dissertation. pp. Yost.P. D." M.ASc.W.." ACI Structural Journal.R.REFERENCES 222 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Concrete under Direct Tension. 732–739. S. 2003. 506 p. 100(6). Gross. University of Toronto: Department of Civil Engineering. "Effective moment of inertia for glass fiberreinforced polymer-reinforced concrete beams. . and Dinehart. J..

modulus of elasticity). .Coupon Tests This appendix reports the results obtained from the coupon tests performed on GFRP longitudinal bars.APPENDIX A 223 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX A . All the tests were performed in the Structures Laboratories at the Civil Engineering Department in University of Toronto. Direct tension tests were conducted on GFRP reinforcing bars to determine the relevant mechanical properties (ultimate tensile strain. ultimate tensile strength. The tests were conducted in displacement control using the 1000 kN MTS machine.

3 Stress at Gage Removal (MPa) 613 606 602 606. Grade: 3 I Date of Tests: Test Machine: Test ID 1 2 3 Average Coupon Tests August 10th.APPENDIX A 224 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12A Coupon Test Summary Bar Type: Aslan (US #4) Diameter: 13mm No. of Tests: Manufacturer: Hughes Brothers Inc.2 1200 Average Measured Stress Stress (Mpa) 1000 Average Extrapolated Stress 0 800 600 400 200 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-1: 12A Average Coupon Strength 25000 . Strain (10-6) 50250 48020 49540 49270. Stress (MPa) Ult.7 Strain at Gage Removal (x10-6) 12216 11732 12161 12036.1 19577 19308 20447 19777.0 983 996 1012 997. 2012 MTS 793 1000 kN Test Frame (Huggins Lab) Tester JM JM JM Modulus (MPa) Ult.

2 1200 Measured Stress Stress (MPa) 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 5000 10000 15000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-4: Bar 12A Test No.APPENDIX A 225 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1200 Measured Stress Stress (MPa) 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 20000 25000 20000 25000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-2: Bar 12A Test No.3 .1 1200 Measured Stress Stress (MPa) 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 5000 10000 15000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-3: Bar 12A Test No.

APPENDIX A 226 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 16A Coupon Test Summary Bar Type: Aslan (US #5) Diameter: 16mm No.85 10100.3 439.60707 10149. 2012 MTS 793 1000 kN Test Frame (Huggins Lab) Tester JM JM JM Strain at Gage Removal (x10-6) 20752 20620 20840 Stress at Gage Removal (MPa) 456.9 442.843608 10197. of Tests: 3 Manufacturer: Hughes Brothers Inc. Strain (10-6) 44805 44200 44100 930 912 920 44502.31 10009.92 1000 900 Average Measured Stress 800 Average Extrapolated Stress Stress (MPa) 700 0 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-5: Bar 16A Average Coupon Strength . Stress (MPa) Ult.975 449. Grade: Date of Tests: Test Machine: Test ID 1 2 3 Average Coupon Tests I September 5th.48106 920.9 20685.07 Modulus (MPa) Ult.

APPENDIX A 227 Stress (MPa) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Measured Stress Extrapolated Stress 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 Strain (10^-6) Stress (MPa) Figure A-6: Bar 16A Test No.1 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Measured Strength Extrapolated Strength 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 Strain (10^-6) Stress (MPa) Figure A-7: Bar 16A Test No.2 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Measured Strength Extrapolated Strength 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-8: Bar 16A Test No.3 .

Stress (MPa) Ult.4 821 842 839 833.6 12130.9 12707.3 472. 2012 MTS 793 1000 kN Test Frame (Huggins Lab) Tester JM JM JM Modulus (MPa) Ult. of Tests: 3 Test Machine: Test ID 1 2 3 Average Coupon Tests Hughes Brothers Inc.4 Figure A-9: Bar 19A Average Coupon Strength Strain at Gage Removal (x10-6) 6470 6320 6480 6423.4 Stress at Gage Removal (MPa) 453.6 11930.1 455. Strain (10-6) 64600 69400 64800 69906. Grade: Date of Tests: III September 7th.7 440.APPENDIX A 228 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 19A Coupon Test Summary Bar Type: Aslan (US #6) Diameter: Manufacturer: 19mm No.4 .1 12953.

3 .2 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Measured Stress Extrapolated Stress 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-12: Bar 19A Test No.APPENDIX A 229 Stress (MPa) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Measured Stress Extrapolated Stress 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 12000 14000 12000 14000 Strain (10^-6) Stress (MPa) Figure A-10: Bar 19A Test No.1 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Measured Stress Extrapolated Stress 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Strain (10^-6) Stress (MPa) Figure A-11: Bar 19A Test No.

of Tests: 3 Coupon Tests Manufacturer: Grade: Date of Tests: Test Machine: Pultrall Inc. 2012 MTS 793 1000 kN Test Frame (Huggins Lab) Test ID 1 2 3 Average Tester JM JM JM Modulus (MPa) Ult.2 Strain at Gage Removal (x10-6) 8349 8327 8164 8279. III August 10th. Stress (MPa) Ult.8 1600 1400 Average Measured Stress Average Extrapolated Stress Stress (MPa) 1200 1000 0 0 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 Strain 10-^-6 Figure A-13: Bar 12V Average Coupon Strength .2 23133 21604 21313 22016.7 Stress at Gage Removal (MPa) 573 554 556 561.APPENDIX A 230 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12V Coupon Test Summary Bar Type: VROD (US #4) Diameter: 12.2 1589 1439 1451 1493.70mm No. Strain (10-6) 68717 66566 68102 67795.

APPENDIX A 231 Stress (MPa) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Measured Stress Extrapolated Stress 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 Strain (10^-6) Stress (MPa) Figure A-14: Bar 12V Test No.1 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Measured Stress Extrapolated Stress 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 Strain (10^-6) Stress (MPa) Figure A-15: Bar 12V Test No.3 .2 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Measured Stress Extrapolated Stress 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-16: Bar 12V Test No.

5 64173.9 510.4 21024. 2012 MTS 793 1000 kN Test Frame (Huggins Lab) Test ID 1 2 3 Average Tester JM JM JM Modulus (MPa) Ult.2 501.4 66820. Stress (MPa) Ult.APPENDIX A 232 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 16V Coupon Test Summary Bar Type: VROD (US #5) Diameter: Coupon Tests Manufacturer: 15.875 No.5 Strain at Gage Removal (x10-6) 7742 7800 7821 7787. III September 20th.4 65547.5 21480.3 521. of Tests: 3 Grade: Date of Tests: Test Machine: Pultrall Inc.7 1600 Average Measured Strength Average Extrapolated Strength 1400 0 Strength (MPa) 1200 0 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 Strain 10-^-6 Figure A-17: Bar 16V Average Coupon Strength .3 22314.2 1410 1432 1407.1 21101.0 Stress at Gage Removal (MPa) 508. Strain (10-6) 65648.4 1380.

3 .APPENDIX A 233 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1600 Strength (MPa) 1400 Measured Strength 1200 Extrapolated Strength 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-18: Bar 16V Test No.1 1600 Strength (MPa) 1400 Measured Strength 1200 Extrapolated Strength 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 Strain (10^-6) Strength (MPa) Figure A-19: Bar 16V Test No.2 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Measured Strength Extrapolated Strength 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-20: Bar 16V Test No.

8 23636 23120 22980 23245. Grade: II Date of Tests: Test Machine: Test ID 1 2 3 Average Coupon Tests September 5th 2012 MTS 793 1000 kN Test Frame (Huggins Lab) Tester JM JM JM Modulus (MPa) Ult. Strain (10-6) 51023 52500 52000 51841.8 420.5 Stress at Gage Removal (MPa) 464 399 397. Stress (MPa) Ult.2 1205 1213 1196 1204.875mm No.2 1400 Average Measured Stress Average Extrapolated Stress 1200 0 Stress (MPa) 1000 0 800 600 400 200 0 0 4000 8000 12000 16000 Strain 10-^-6 20000 Figure A-21: Bar 16VS Average Coupon Strength 24000 28000 .1 Strain at Gage Removal (x10-6) 9085 7033 6836 7651. of Tests: 3 Manufacturer: Pultrall Inc.APPENDIX A 234 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 16VS Coupon Test Summary Bar Type: VROD (US #5) Diameter: 15.

3 .APPENDIX A 235 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1400 1200 Measured Stress Stress (MPa) 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000 24000 28000 24000 28000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-22: Bar 16VS Test No.1 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 Measured Stress 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-23: Bar 16VS Test No.2 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 Measured Stress 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-24: Bar 16VS Test No.

0 1400 1200 Average Measured Stress Average Extrapolated Stress Stress (MPa) 1000 0 0 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Strain 10-^-6 Figure A-25: Bar 19V Average Coupon Strength 18000 20000 . Grade: 3 III Date of Tests: Test Machine: September 20th 2012 MTS 793 1000 kN Test Frame (Huggins Lab) Test ID 1 2 3 Average Tester JM JM JM Modulus (MPa) Ult.2 Strain at Gage Removal (x10-6) 6456 6470 6850 6592.APPENDIX A 236 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 19V Coupon Test Summary Bar Type: Coupon Tests VROD (US #6) Diameter: Manufacturer: 19. Strain (10-6) 70942 70120 69781 70281. Stress (MPa) Ult.3 Stress at Gage Removal (MPa) 458 454 478 463. of Tests: Pultrall Inc.05mm No.7 17761 18269 17569 17866.1 1260 1281 1226 1255.

APPENDIX A 237 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 Measured Stress 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-26: Bar 19V Test No.3 .1 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 Measured Stress 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-27: Bar 19V Test No.2 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 Measured Stress 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-28: Bar 19V Test No.

59 630.8 24025.4405 22063.42 684.5 1370.0 1365.0 1365.587 23184.89 624.0 1400 Average Measured Stress 1200 Average Extrapolated Stress 0 Stress (MPa) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-29: Bar 12C Average Coupon Strength 25000 .4 1362.399 23463.6 58988.1 Stress at Gage Removal (MPa) 798.APPENDIX A 238 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12C Coupon Test Summary Bar Type: ComBar (US#4) Diameter: 12mm Number of Tests: 3 Test Machine: Test ID 1 2 3 Average Coupon Tests Manufacturer: Schöck Bauteille Gmblt Grade: Date of Tests: II September 7th.7 61866. 2012 MTS 793 1000 kN Test Frame (Huggins Lab) Tester JM JM JM Modulus (MPa) Ult.9 58388. Strain (10-6) 56709. Stress (MPa) Ult.6 Strain at Gage Removal (x10-6) 14082 10805 10093 11660.

APPENDIX A 239 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 Measured Stress 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 25000 30000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-30: Bar 12C Test No.2 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 Measured Stress 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-32: Bar 12C Test No.3 25000 30000 .1 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 Measured Stress 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-31: Bar 12C Test No.

Stress (MPa) Ult.9 580. Strain (10-6) 62716.7 1400 Average Measured Stress Average Extrapolated Stress 1200 0 Stress (MPa) 1000 0 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 Strain 10-^-6 Figure A-33: Bar 16C Average Coupon Strength .APPENDIX A 240 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 16C Coupon Test Summary Coupon Tests Bar Type: ComBar (US #5) Manufacturer: Diameter: 16mm Grade: No.0 533.5 Strain at Gage Removal (x10-6) 7970 8950 8150 8356.6 520. 2012 MTS 793 1000 kN Test Frame (Huggins Lab) Tester JM JM JM Modulus (MPa) Ult.7 63797.5 63803.7 19436.4 64871.6 19716.7 19371. of Tests: 3 Date of Tests: Test Machine: Test ID 1 2 3 Average Schöck Bauteille Gmblt III September 20th.3 Stress at Gage Removal (MPa) 499.2 1219 1230 1258 1235.7 18960.

3 .APPENDIX A 241 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 Measured Stress 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-34: Bar 16C Test No.2 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 Measured Stress 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-36: Bar 16C Test No.1 1400 Stress (MPa) 1200 Measured Stress 1000 Extrapolated Stress 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-35: Bar 16C Test No.

5 Strain at Gage Removal (x10-6) 6456 6470 6450 6458. Stress (MPa) Ult. Strain (10-6) 64281.0 1161.9 Stress at Gage Removal (MPa) 415 412 420 415. 2012 MTS 793 1000 kN Test Frame (Huggins Lab) Tester JM JM JM Modulus (MPa) Ult.7 18356.3 63612.0 1143.3 64336.0 1090.7 1200 Average Measured Stress Average Extrapolated Stress 1000 0 Stress (MPa) 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-37: Bar 19C Average Coupon Strength 18000 20000 .4 17773.5 1180.00mm Number of Tests: 3 Test Machine: Test ID 1 2 3 Average Schöck Bauteille Gmblt Grade: Date of Tests: III August 22nd.8 17135.1 17829.APPENDIX A 242 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 19C Coupon Test Summary Bar Type: Coupon Tests ComBar(US#6) Diameter: Manufacturer: 20.1 65116.

2 1200 1000 Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa) 1000 Measured Strength 800 Extrapolated Strength 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-40: Bar 19C Test No.1 1200 Measured Strength 800 Extrapolated Strength 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-39: Bar 19C Test No.3 .APPENDIX A 243 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1200 Strength (MPa) 1000 Measured Strength 800 Extrapolated Strength 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Strain (10^-6) Figure A-38: Bar 19C Test No.