Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
Abstract
Numerical analyses are performed using the ABAQUS nite element program to predict the ultimate loading capacity of
rectangular reinforced concrete beams strengthened by ber-reinforced plastics applied at the bottom or on both sides of these
beams. Nonlinear material behavior, as it relates to steel reinforcing bars, plain concrete, and ber-reinforced plastics is simulated
using appropriate constitutive models. The inuences of ber orientation, beam length and reinforcement ratios on the ultimate
strength of the beams are investigated. It has been shown that the use of ber-reinforced plastics can signicantly increase the
stinesses as well as the ultimate strengths of reinforced concrete beams. In addition, with the same ber-reinforced plastics layer
numbers, the ultimate strengths of beams strengthened by ber-reinforced plastics at the bottom of the beams are much higher than
those strengthened by ber-reinforced plastics on both sides of the beams.
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete beams; Strengthened; Fiber-reinforced plastics
1. Introduction
The traditional material used in the strengthening of
concrete structures is steel. Because of its drawbacks of
low corrosion resistance and of handling problems involving excessive size and weight, there is a need for the
engineering community to look for alternatives. Due to
lightweight, high strength and good fatigue and corrosion properties, ber-reinforced plastics (FRP) have
been intensively used in the repair and strengthening of
aerospace structures [14]. Though the study of using
FRP to strengthen reinforced concrete structures just
started in the 1990s [515], the technology is currently
widely used.
To study the behavior of reinforced concrete structures strengthened by FRP, the fundamental step is to
understand the nonlinear behavior of the constitutive
materials, reinforced concrete and FRP, separately. The
nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete such as concrete cracking, tension stiening, shear retention, concrete plasticity and yielding of reinforcing steel have
been extensively studied by various researchers and
*
272
strength as well as the alteration of the failure mechanism of the reinforced concrete beams due to FRP are
investigated.
2.2. Concrete
The concrete has an uniaxial compressive strength fc0
selected as
fc0 34:47 MPa 5 ksi
Under uniaxial compression, the concrete strain eo corresponding to the peak stress fc0 is usually around the
range of 0.0020.003. A representative value suggested
by ACI Committee 318 [25] and used in the analysis is
eo 0:003
ec
eo
Ec ec
2R 1
2
ec
eo
3
ec
eo
8
where
R
RE Rr 1
Re 12
1
;
Re
Ec
RE ;
Eo
f0
Eo c
eo
40
10
l 1 e=emax
11
(MPa)
c
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
273
274
F1
F2
Q01
6 m E
4 1m211211m21
0
1m12 m21
E22
1m12 m21
0
0
1
1=G12 3S6666 s212
3
7
5
13
14
1
1
;
Y Y0
F11
1
XX
F22
1
YY
15
16
20
Dfst g Q2 Dfct g
21
T
where
Dfrg Dfrx ; ry ; sxy g ,
Dfst g Dfsxz ; syz g ,
T
T
Dfeg Dfex ; ey ; cxy g , Dfct g Dfcxz , cyz g , and
T
Q1 T1 Q01 T1
Q2 T2
2
T1 4
T2
22
Q02 T2
sin2 h
cos2 h
2 sin h cos h
cos2 h
sin2 h
2 sin h cos h
cos h sin h
sin h cos h
23
3
sin h cos h
sin h cos h 5
cos2 h sin2 h
24
25
26
Substituting Eqs. (20), (21) and (26) into the above expression, one can obtain the stiness matrix for the ber
composite laminate shell at the integration point as
8
9
9
2
38
< DfN g = Z h=2 Q1 zQ1 0 < Dfeo g =
4 zQ1 z2 Q1 0 5 Dfjg dz
DfMg
:
;
:
;
h=2
DfV g
Dfct g
0T
0T Q2
28
where [0] is a 3 2 null matrix.
275
276
70
60
50
40
30
Experimental data
Numerical result
20
10
0
10
15
Midspan deflection (mm)
20
25
4. Numerical analysis
160
140
L4
L8
S4
S8
p (kPa)
120
100
277
80
60
40
20
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
350
without FRP
n=1
n=2
n=3
n=4
300
p (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
(a) L4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
without FRP
n=1
n=2
n=3
n=4
p (kPa)
400
300
200
100
(b) L8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
278
700
(a) S4
600
p (kPa)
500
400
without FRP
n=1
n=2
n=3
n=4
300
200
100
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
(b) S8
p (kPa)
800
600
without FRP
n=1
n=2
n=3
n=4
400
200
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
increase in p (%)
600
500
400
300
L4
L8
S4
S8
200
100
0
0
300
(a) S4
p (kPa)
250
200
without FRP
=0
= 30
= 60
= 90
150
100
50
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
(b) S8
250
p (kPa)
279
200
without FRP
=0
= 30
= 60
= 90
150
100
50
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
150
100
(a) L4
80
increase in p (%)
p (kPa)
120
90
without FRP
=0
= 30
= 60
= 90
60
30
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
n=1
n=2
n=3
60
40
20
(a) L4
0
0.5
15
30
45
(degrees)
60
75
90
60
75
90
100
150
(b) L8
90
without FRP
=0
= 30
= 60
= 90
60
30
0
0
increase in p (%)
p (kPa)
120
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
80
60
n=1
n=2
n=3
40
20
(b) L8
0.5
15
30
45
(degrees)
280
(a) S4
100
increase in p (%)
120
n=1
n=2
n=3
80
60
40
20
0
15
30
45
(degrees)
60
75
90
(b) S8
100
increase in p (%)
120
n=1
n=2
n=3
80
60
40
20
0
15
30
45
(degrees)
60
75
90
5. Conclusions
In this paper, nonlinear nite element analyses of
rectangular reinforced concrete beams strengthened by
FRP are performed. Based on the numerical results, the
following conclusions may be drawn:
(1) The behaviors of the beams with high reinforcement
ratio and strengthened with FRP at the bottom are
not inuenced by the length of beam signicantly.
(2) For beams with low reinforcement ratio and
strengthened with FRP at the bottom, the beam
lengths do aect their behaviors signicantly.
(3) The beams with high reinforcement ratios and
strengthened with FRP at the bottom would have
more cracks at the central region than those with
281