0 views

Uploaded by shak543

- IQS_2091_1999
- Structural Design Criteria
- Design for Service Life
- 023-PRO FOR CONCRETE WORKS.pdf
- Products & Services - Product Guide.pdf
- Structural Notes
- Habib 18
- Uls Rc Designver Ver.6
- Paper Article
- Rebar_Weld.pdf
- Welding Requirements Csa a233 Design Concrete Structures
- Node & Stiffness Factor
- Logo 1
- Fyfe Co Brochure 5-5-09
- .._pontofocal_textos_regulamentos_SAU_483
- Shear Wall
- 9_Ch21_Lime ibtm
- Ufgs 03 01 00 (Frp Spec)
- DRIC Road supplemental report of the IER
- 9Th March Model

You are on page 1of 12

Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Stirrups

1

Teaching Assistant, Civil Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, British

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2

Assistant Professor in Material Engineering, Civil Engineering Dept., German

Univ. in Egypt, New Cairo City, Main Entrance El Tagamoa El Khames, Hotline

16482. E-mail: amr.elnemr@guc.edu.eg.

3

Assciate Professor in High El Obour Institute, El Obour City, Cairo. E-mail:

diffalaf@gmail.com

Abstract

The corrosion related problems does not concern only longitudinal

reinforcement but also transverse reinforcement. Thus, the FRP stirrups are used as

an alternative reinforcement for concrete beams. Shear design of concrete beams is

a main issue. The Canadian Standards Association CSA S806 (2012) proposed

shear design provision for the case of beams reinforced with FRP bars (fiber

reinforced polymer). In this paper, modified provision proposed by Deifalla et al.

(2014) was introduced. The aim of this study is to validate this provision in

comparison with the original CSA-S806 (2012) using experimental database exist

in this field. The experimental database compiled a total of 123 concrete beams

with FRP stirrups tested under shear. Both the modified and CSA-S806 (2012)

design provision were calculated and compared with that measured during testing.

From the results, the proposed modification provides more accurate and better

performance compared to that of the CSA-S806 (2012) provision.

INTRODUCTION

Corrosion of steel is one major problem in causing failure of concrete

structure. Rehabilitation and repair for such a failure is very costly. Thus, there is a

trend to avoid corrosion by using the new innovative material FRP bars (Fiber

Reinforced Polymer). The FRP bars have been used for a decade as a replacement

for longitudinal steel reinforcement such as slabs in parking garage, beam

elements, etc. However, the corrosion of steel does not only hit the longitudinal

reinforcement but also, the transverse ones, too. Thus, the structural element loses

its integrity and stiffness causing a catastrophic failure.

Consequently, codes and guidelines assign a procedure on how to design the

FRP shear stirrups by adopting the provisions assigned for steel transverse

reinforcement. The equations mainly dependent on the factors affecting shear

strength of any structure element such as spacing between stirrups, the shear

cracking angle, area of stirrups, and finally; compressive strength of concrete strut.

However, the difference in mechanical properties between FRP and steel

transverse reinforcement were not mostly encountered.

© ASCE

AEI 2017

AEI 2017 325

Here in, the study is concerned only about shear of simple beam reinforced

with FRP bars; longitudinally and transversely. The paper verifies the accuracy of

the shear equations provided by CSA S806 (2012), and Modified CSA S806 2012

equation by Deifalla et al. (2014). Recently, Razaqpur and Spadea (2014)

conducted a comparison between the CSA S806 (2012), several other codes and

guidelines (CSA S6, ACI 440, JSCE, and the Italian CNR guidelines) over

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

specimens with shear reinforcement including 31 duplicate specimens. They

observed that CSA S806 (2012) provision estimates the shear forces accurately

than provisions adopted by CSA S6, ACI 440, JSCE, and the Italian CNR

guidelines.

The analysis, also, showed that the angle of diagonal concrete strut and its

compressive strength are the two key parameters influencing the shear

reinforcement. Moreover, the study spotted that the assumption of the diagonal

concrete strut angle by 45 ° is not accurately adequate. In fact, the results of the

analysis confirmed that the angle θ° can deviate from 45° to an angle even higher

than 60°.Thus, the failure mode could be shifted from rupture of FRP shear

reinforcement to crushing of concrete strut. They, also, examined the modified

compression filed theory (MCFT) adopted by CAN/CSA S6 and developed by

Bentz et al. (2006), to evaluate the angle θ°. The MCFT approach suggested that

the angle θ° should be function of spacing between stirrups, area of stirrups and

the compressive strength of the concrete strut. They observed that evaluating angle

θ° using MCFT approach could lead to better prediction of the shear strength

provided by concrete and FRP stirrups.

The Compression Field Theory (CFT) was first developed by Collins et al.

(1997). The idea of theory is based on the influence of longitudinal reinforcement

on shear stress at failure. They stated that as the longitudinal strains increases the

shear strains decreases causing rapid failure of shear stirrups. Thus, the effect of

longitudinal reinforcement on shear is more pronounced when its ratio is lowered.

The same findings were observed by Bentz et al. (2006). They noticed that CSA

A23.4 (2004), shear provision for steel reinforced members; values are in good

agreement with the results of the 11 concrete beams reinforced with FRP stirrups

tested under shear loading. They, also, deduced that using multiple layer of

longitudinal FRP reinforcement protects the weak bent point in FRP stirrups. On

the other hand, they set an upper strain limit for FRP stirrups to avoid sudden

rupture of stirrups.

Deifalla et al. (2014) suggested a modification on the CSA S806 (2012)

provision for estimating the angle θ° of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP

transverse reinforcement under torsion. They related the strain of FRP stirrups

used for estimating the angle θ° to that of steel to consider the difference in

mechanical properties. Thus, this study was held to reevaluate the CSA S806

(2012) shear design provisions and explore the newly modification developed by

Deifalla et al. (2014).

© ASCE

AEI 2017

AEI 2017 326

w predicted d by CSA S8806 (2012) aas well as thhe modified

equation

e developed by y Deifalla et al. (2014). Then, compared with the

experimental

e l results connducted by previous reesearchers [N Nagasaka ett al. 1993;

Maruyama

M annd Zhao 199 94; Okamoto o et al. 19944; Nakamuraa and Higai 11995; Zhao

et

e al. 1995; Maruyama

M annd Zhao 19996; Vijay et aal. 1996; Alssayed 1998; Duranovic

et

e al. 1997; Shehata

S et al. 2000; Alkhhrdaji et al. 22001; Nieweels 2008; Ascione et al.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2010;

2 Bentz et al. 2010; Mahmoud

M 2014; Krall eet al. 2014]. IIt should be mentioned

th

hat these exxperimental results weree collected by Razaqpuur and Spaddea (2014).

They

T conduccted a data base for both b beam rreinforced w with or withhout shear

reinforcemen nt, as mentio oned earlierr. However, this study considered only about

beam

b reinforrced with sheear reinforceement.

EXPERIME

E ENTAL DAT

TABASE PR

ROFILE

Thee data base en

ncountered, heerein; includees over 123 cooncrete beamms reinforced

with longituudinal and trransverse FR RP reinforcem ment. The bbeams were tested and

nt researcherss as mentioneed earlier andd collected byy Razaqpur

evaluated thrrough differen

and Spadeaa (2014). Th hese beams were exam mined underr different method of

loading, as shown in Figure

F 1 wh hich represennts the totall percentagee of beams

tested in three-point ben

nding (3PB),, four-point bbending (4P

PB), shear tesst (ST) and

finally unsymmetrical thhree-point beending (U3PPB).

Alsso, Figure 2 shows the percentage of different types of fibber (GFRP,

CFRP, and AFRP) used in both longitudinaal and transsverse reeinnforcement.

While, Figu

ure 3 shows the differen

nt transversee reinforcemeent ratio as well as the

spacing betw

ween stirrups used.

Finaally, Figure 4 shows thee different rranges of sheear span to depth ratio

(a/d) and concrete

c commpressive sttrength whicch influencee the crushhing of the

concrete stru

ut directly.

U3PB

U

2% ST

12%

1

3PB

17%

4PB

69%

Figure 1. Percentages of

o tested beeams under several load

ding conditiion: three-

point bendiing (3PB), four-point

f bending

b (4P

PB), shear ttest (ST) an

nd finally;

unsymmetrrical three-p

point bendinng (U3PB)

© ASCE

AEI 2017

AEI 2017 327

38% 24%

51% 41%

8% 38%

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Percentages of tested beams with various FRP types used as: (a)

transverse reinforcement; (b) longitudinal reinforcement.

35

20

Number of Specimens

30

Number of Specimens

25

15

20

15

10

10

5

5

0

0

100-150 150-200 >200

Ranges for Strirrup Spacings, (mm)

Range of Transverse RFT ratio

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Number of tested beams with different ranges of: (a) transverse

reinforcement ratio; (b) spacing of stirrups.

70

Number of Specimens

50

60

Number of Specimens

40 50

30 40

20 30

10 20

10

0

0

<25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 >50

Range of a/d Range of Concrete compressive strength,

(MPa)

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Number of tested beams with different ranges of: (a) a/d ratio; (b)

concrete compressive strength.

© ASCE

AEI 2017

AEI 2017 328

analysis with reference to each researcher. Moreover, the table also includes the

ranges of longitudinal, transverse reinforcement ratio and concrete strength, in

addition to, concrete strength and number of beams tested.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Number

Beam Longitudinal Transversal Concrete

of

Study depth rft ratio rft ratio strength

tested

(mm) (%) (%) (MPa)

beams

Nagasaka et al.

24 300 1.9 0.50-1.48 22.6-39.2

(1993)

Maruyama and

9 300 0.55-2.11 0.12-0.24 30.5-38.3

Zhao (1994)

Okamoto et al.

11 300 1.71-1.90 0.51-1.50 28.9-37.7

(1994)

Nakamura and

3 300 1.61 0.18-0.35 33.4-35.4

Higai (1995)

Zhao et al.

5 300 1.51-3.03 0.42 34.3

(1995)

Maruyama and 300-

4 1.04 0.43-0.86 29.5-34

Zhao (1996) 800

Vijay et al.

4 300 0.67-1.43 0.56-0.83 31-44.8

(1996)

Alsayed (1998) 2 360 1.24-1.33 0.21-0.40 35.5-35.7

Duranovic et al.

2 250 1.36 0.17 39.8

(1997)

Shehata et al.

2 560 1.25 0.36-1.07 50

(2000)

Alkhrdaji et al.

4 330 1.19-2.30 0.39-0.52 24.1-25.2

(2001)

500-

Niewels (2008) 7 3.25-3.98 0.11-0.54 29.1-48.3

545

Ascione et al. 150-

6 0.62-1.54 0.28 20-25.4

(2010) 200

Bentz et al. 500-

3 0.51-2.36 0.09 35-46

(2010) 1000

Mahmoud, k. and

El Salakawy, E., 3 300 1.20 0.21-0.85 42

(2013)

Krall et al. 330-

3 1.82-2.51 0.51-2.23 56.5

(2014) 350

The CSA S806 (2012) specifies that the normal shear resistance, Vr, of

FRP reinforced concrete members can be computed as

= + ≤ 0.22 (1)

© ASCE

AEI 2017

AEI 2017 329

Where Vr is the total factored shear resistance of the beam element, while, Vc, VsF

are factored shear resistance provided by concrete and FRP shear reinforcement,

respectively. While, f’c, bw, dv accounts for specified compressive strength of

concrete, minimum effective web width and effective shear depth, which can be

taken as the greater of 0.9 d or 0.72 h, where, h is the height of a member and d

represents the distance from the extreme compression fibre to the centroid of

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

For section having an effective depth not exceeding 300 mm and with no axial

loading action on them, the Vc should be determined using the following Eq. (2)

= 0.05 ( ) (2)

Where λ is the concrete density factor and is 1.0 for normal concrete. φc is the

material resistance factor taken by 1.0 considering the experimental laboratory

results. and are factors accounting for the effects of moment to shear ratio

and longitudinal reinforcement rigidity, respectively, on the shear strength of the

section under consideration and are given as Eq. (3)

= (3)

=1+ (4)

Where ρFl, EFl are the longitudinal FRP reinforcement ratio and modulus of

elasticity. While, Mf and Vf refer to the factored moment, and shear forces acting

on the section of interest.

However, the value of Vc calculated by Eqs. (2) should not be greater than

0.2 nor less than 0.11 , and should not be taken greater than

60 MPa.

For members with (a/d) or more generally less than 2.5, the value of Vc

shall be multiplied by the factor ka to account for shear resistance enhancement by

arch effect (Park and Paulay 1975):

.

= ; ℎ 1.0 ≤ ≤ 2.5 (5)

To account for the size effect, for members with effective depth greater

than 300 mm and with less transverse shear reinforcement than Av,min, where

Av,min can be determined by the following Eq. (6)

, = 0.07 (6)

.

As, Av,min is the minimum area of transverse FRP shear reinforcement, s is the

spacing of shear reinforcement, measured parallel to the longitudinal axis of the

member, and, fFu is ultimate strength of FRP reinforcement. Then, the value of Vc

is reduced by a factor of ks, such that:

© ASCE

AEI 2017

AEI 2017 330

=( )≤1 (7)

Where the d is in mm

For members with FRP stirrups perpendicular to the member axis the VSF

is calculated using the following Eqs. 8 to 10

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

.

= (8)

While, θ is the angle of the inclination of concrete compression strut that can be

determined as following, Eq. (9)

= 30 + 7000 (9)

Where, is the longitudinal strain at mid-depth of the section and can be

calculated by Eq. (10)

. ( )

= = (10)

Where, AF and AFv are the area of FRP tension reinforcement and area of FRP

shear reinforcement perpendicular to the axis of a member within the distance, s,

consequently. Finally, a represents the shear span of the member

However, the strain should be limited to maximum stress, fv which is taken

as the smaller values of 0.005 Ef, 0.4 Ffu, or 1200 MPa. It should be mentioned

here that the spacing between stirrups, s, is limited to 0.9 d cot θ in order to

consider the influence of the inclination of diagonal struts on stirrups

effectiveness. Thus, the maximum stress, fv, emphasizes the average stress in the

stirrups crossing the diagonal shear crack.

Deifalla et al. (2014) proposed an alternative form for Eq. (9) which used

to determine the angle of inclination of concrete compression strut. The original

equation (Eq. 9) is the same one used in predicting the shear strength provided for

the transverse steel reinforcement. It mainly assumes working on a two

dimensional space and that the beam was subjected to shear forces under this

condition. Therefore, Mohr circle of strain was constructed (ASCE-ACI, 2013), to

calculate the angle (θ) through Eq. (11):

tan = (11)

Where ε2, and εt are the principal diagonal compressive and transversal strains,

respectively.

In the original derivation where Eq. (9) is established, ε2 was taken by

0.002 at which the concrete crushing occur (Bentz et al., 2006). Thus, the angle

(θ) is dependent on the ratio between the longitudinal strain and the transversal

© ASCE

AEI 2017

AEI 2017 331

strain. Since Eq. (9) only considered the strain of steel in the longitudinal

direction; which yields at a strain value of 0.002, then, the difference between the

FRP stirrups and the steel stirrups should be encountered. Assuming the above

mentioned two concepts, then after, Eq. (12) should be imposed into Eq. (9):

= (12)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Where, EFt and Es are the modulus of elasticity of FRP transversal reinforcement and

that of steel reinforcement, while, εtsteel is the transversal steel strain considered in

the original derivation. Rearranging the Eq. (12), such that:

= (13)

Since the steel stirrup strain was eliminated from Eq. (9), therefore, in the

modified equation, a factor was added encountering the difference in modulus of

elasticity between the FRP and steel. Thus, the angle of inclination of concrete

compression strut is calculated through the presented Eq. (14)

= 30 + 7000 (14)

For all beams, the ultimate shear was predicted using the CSA S806 (2012)

and the modified one by Deifalla et al. (2014). Then, the ratio between the

measured and predicted ultimate shear was calculated.

Table 2 shows the average and coefficient of variation for all beams included in

this study, as summarized earlier in Table 1. The results shows an average

prediction value of 1.75 for CSA S806 (2012), and 1.10 for the modified one.

Thus, the prediction of ultimate shear strength using CSA S806 (2012) is

very conservative, while, the proposed modification evaluated the ultimate shear

strength more accurately. This assures the better uses of FRP stirrups rather than

overestimating the amount of FRP stirrups required to resist the shear force

resulting from several loading condition. Figures 5 and 6 show the

experimentally measured ultimate shear versus that calculated using the CSA

S806 (2012) and the modified one, respectively. Figure 5 confirms the

conservativeness of predicted ultimate shear versus the experimental ones, on the

other hand, Figure 6 ensure the validity of the proposed modification by Deifalla

et al. (2014).

Nevertheless, the coefficient of variation values are 37% for CSA S806

(2012) and 30% for modified one, respectively. This ensures that further

investigation required confirming the accuracy and the validity of the proposed

one.

© ASCE

AEI 2017

AEI 2017 332

Table 2. Measured and predicted shear using the CSA with and without

modification.

Method Average Coefficient of variation

(experimental/calculate

d)

CSA S806 (2012) 1.75 37 %

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2014)

550

Measured Ultimate Shear, (kN)

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Predicted Ultimate Shear, (kN)

Figure 5. Measured versus calculated ultimate shear using the CSA S806

(2012).

550

500

VMeasured Ultimate Shear, (kN)

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Predicted Ultimate Shear, (kN)

S806 (Deifalla et al. 2015).

© ASCE

AEI 2017

AEI 2017 333

CONCLUSION

With increased use of FRP reinforcement longitudinally and transversely due to

corrosion of steel reinforcement, there is a need to develop and examine the provision

set for flexural and shear design of concrete elements reinforced with FRP bars and

stirrups. Most of these provisions were adopted from those used for designing

concrete element reinforced with steel bars.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This paper discusses the shear design provisions adopted by CSA S806 (2012)

for concrete beams reinforced with FRP reinforcements as well as the proposed

modification for CSA S806 (2012) developed by Deifalla et al. (2014).

The study also validated the accuracy of CSA S806 (2012) and the modified

ones through a data base of 123 simple supported beams tested by several

researchers. The beams included different fiber types, longitudinal and transverse

FRP reinforcement ratio as well as different concrete compressive test and shear span

to depth ratio, (a/d), in addition to, varying stirrups spacing. Then after, the results of

the predicted ultimate shear using CSA S806 (2012) and modified equations were

compared versus the experimental values. The results show an average value of 1.75

and 1.10, respectively for CSA S806 (2012) and modified ones.

Furthermore, the coefficient of variation values is 37% and 30 %, consequently.

Thus, the modified equation provides better prediction than that CSA S806 (2012).

RECOMENDATION

Further investigation is recommended to validate the accuracy of the used CSA

S806 (2012) provision as well as the proposed modification for better accuracy and

safer design for professional practitioner.

REFERENCES

Alkhrdaji, T., Wideman, M., Belarbi, A., and Nanni, A. (2001). “Shear strength of

RC beams and slabs.” CCC2001, J. Figueiras, L. Juvandes, and R. Faria,

eds., A.A. Balkema Publishers, Netherlands, 409–414.

Alsayed, S. H. (1998). “Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with

GFRP bars.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 20(1), 1–11.

American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2006). “Guide for the design and construction

of concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI 440.1R-06, Farmington Hills,

MI.

ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on shear and torsion, (2013), Report on Torsion in

Structural Concrete. Reported by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, ACI

445.1R-12, April 2013, ISBN-13: 978-0-87031-810-8, ISBN: 0-87031-

810-1: 80 pp.

Ascione, L., Mancusi, G., and Spadea, S. (2010). “Flexural behavior of concrete

beams reinforced with GFRP bars.” Strain, 46(5), 460–469.

Bentz, E C, Vecchio, J. F. and Collins, M P, (2006), “Simplified Modified Field

Theory for Calculating Shear strength of Reinforced Concrete Elements.”

ACI Structural Engineering Journal, July-August, 103-S65: 614-624.

© ASCE

AEI 2017

AEI 2017 334

Bentz, E. C., Massam, L., and Collins, M. P. (2010). “Shear strength of large

concrete members with FRP reinforcement.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/

(ASCE) CC.1943-5614.0000108, 637–646.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2006), “Canadian Highway Bridge design

code.” CSA S6-06, Toronto.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2012), “Design and Construction of

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Toronto.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2004), “Design of concrete structures for

buildings.” CSA A23.3-04, Toronto.

Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D. (1997). “Prestressed concrete structures,”

Response, Toronto.

Deifalla, A., Khalil, M., and Abdelrahman, A. (2014). "Simplified Model for the

Torsional Strength of Concrete Beams with GFRP Stirrups." J. Compos.

Constr., 10.1061/ (ASCE) CC.1943-5614.0000498, 04014032.

Duranovic, N., Pilakoutas, K., and Waldron, P. (1997). “Tests on concrete beams

reinforced with glass fiber reinforced plastic bars.” FRPRCS-3, Japan

Concrete Institute, Sapporo, Japan, 479–486.

Italian Research Council. (2007). “Guide for the design and construction of

concrete structures reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer bars.” CNR

DT-203/2006, Rome.

Japan Society of Civil Engineering (JSCE). (1997). “Recommendation for design

and construction of concrete structures using continuous fiber reinforcing

materials.” Tokyo.

Krall, M. and Polak, M. (2014), “Tests on concrete beams with GFRP flexural and

shear reinforcements.” The 7th international conference on FRP composites

in civil engineering, IIFC: 6 pp.

Mahmoud, K. and El-Salakawy, E. (2013) "Shear Strength of GFRP-Reinforced

Concrete Continuous Beams with Minimum Transverse Reinforcement." J.

Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000406,

04013018.Shear strength of GFRP-reinforced concrete continuous beams.”

The 7th international conference on FRP composites in civil engineering,

IIFC: 6 pp.

Maruyama, K., and Zhao, W. J. (1994). “Flexural and shear behavior of concrete

beams reinforced with FRP rods.” Corrosion and corrosion protection of

steel in concrete, R. N. Swamy, ed., Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield,

UK, 1330–1339.

Maruyama, K., and Zhao, W. J. (1994). “Flexural and shear behavior of concrete

beams reinforced with FRP rods.” Corrosion and corrosion protection of

steel in concrete, R. N. Swamy, ed., Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield,

UK, 1330–1339.

Maruyama, K., and Zhao, W. J. (1996). “Size effect in shear behavior of FRP

reinforced concrete beams.” 2nd Int. Conf. on Advanced Composite

Materials in Bridges and Structures, M. El-Badry, ed., ACMBS, 227–234.

© ASCE

AEI 2017

AEI 2017 335

Nagasaka, T., Fukuyama, H., and Tanigaki, M., (1993), “Shear performance of

concrete beams reinforced with FRP stirrups.” FRPRCS-1, A. Nanni and C.

W. Dolan, eds., American Concrete Institute, Vancouver, Canada: 789–

805.

Nakamura, H., and Higai, T. (1995). “Evaluation of shear strength of concrete

beams reinforced with FRP.” Concrete Libr. JSCE, 26, 111–123.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

faserverbundkunststoff-bewerhung.” Ph.D. dissertation, Aachen Univ.,

Germany.

Okamoto, T., Nagasaka, T., and Tanigaki, M. (1994), “Shear capacity of concrete

beams using FRP reinforcement.” J. Struct. Constr. Eng., 455: 127–136.

Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley, New York.

Razaqpur, A. and Spadea, S. (2014). "Shear Strength of FRP Reinforced Concrete

Members with Stirrups." J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/ (ASCE) CC.1943-

5614.0000483, 04014025.

Shehata, E., Morphy, R., and Rizkalla, S. (2000). “Fibre reinforced polymer shear

reinforcement for concrete members: Behaviour and design guidelines.”

Can. J. Civ. Eng., 27(5), 859–872.

Vijay, P. V., Kumar, S. V., and GangRao, H. V. S. (1996). “Shear and ductility

behavior of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP rebars.” Proc., 2nd Int.

Conf. on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, M. El-

Badry, ed., ACMBS, 217–226.

Zhao, W. J., Maruyama, K., and Suzuky, H. (1995). “Shear behaviors of concrete

beams reinforced by FRP rods as longitudinal and shear reinforcement.”

Proc., FRPRCS-2, Gent, 352–359.

© ASCE

AEI 2017

- IQS_2091_1999Uploaded byescalonaronald4788
- Structural Design CriteriaUploaded byshafiq_05
- Design for Service LifeUploaded byJohn G Jose
- 023-PRO FOR CONCRETE WORKS.pdfUploaded byKöksal Patan
- Products & Services - Product Guide.pdfUploaded byYay B. Gico
- Structural NotesUploaded byGerald GeCu Cuñado
- Habib 18Uploaded byAnonymous yrcU1k
- Uls Rc Designver Ver.6Uploaded byWangTF
- Paper ArticleUploaded byVictor Dalosto
- Rebar_Weld.pdfUploaded byZeb
- Welding Requirements Csa a233 Design Concrete StructuresUploaded byhoustonhimself
- Node & Stiffness FactorUploaded byPrakash Sharma
- Logo 1Uploaded by林奕龍
- Fyfe Co Brochure 5-5-09Uploaded byPE Eng
- .._pontofocal_textos_regulamentos_SAU_483Uploaded bytenshin111
- Shear WallUploaded byAmier Thaqif
- 9_Ch21_Lime ibtmUploaded byMumtaz Ahmad Qaisrani
- Ufgs 03 01 00 (Frp Spec)Uploaded byPE Eng
- DRIC Road supplemental report of the IERUploaded bywindsorcityblog1
- 9Th March ModelUploaded byAbhinav
- The Bond Strength of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Reinforcement with Monolith ConcreteUploaded byANIS ROSYIDAH
- Part 2Uploaded byAnonymous TmBH0L
- pure-50-Uploaded byCarlos Lagos
- AppendUploaded byAnonymous 95051TP
- Sample MemoUploaded bylenah_22
- Páginas de 44350 40.pdfUploaded byJoao
- bechtoula2014 uas 2019.pdfUploaded byDesna Lia
- 05.08.19 Structural AnalysisUploaded byEnoch Mora
- IstruzioniCNR DT200 2004 Eng Beton ZidarieUploaded byGabriela Botezatu Bubutanu
- Shear Connector in composite girder.pdfUploaded byIfti

- Addressing punching shear failureUploaded byshak543
- jl68-53.pdfUploaded byshak543
- Experimental Investigations on Moment Redistribution and Punching Shear of Flat Plates.pdfUploaded byshak543
- Abdallah_Maha _Mohamed_Hussein_PhD_2018.pdfUploaded byshak543
- Moment Connections Seismic ApplicationsUploaded byshak543
- IndirectDeflectionControlDesignProvisionsUploaded byshak543
- Hussein AmgadAhmed MEngUploaded byshak543
- 15-298Uploaded byshak543
- Design of Crane Steel beamsUploaded byshak543
- Ph.D thesisUploaded byshak543
- Ser 43 Holtz and KulakUploaded byshak543
- How to Design a two-way slabUploaded byshak543
- Lightweight Self-consolidating Concrete- Statistical Modelling, Mixture Design and Performance EvaluationUploaded byshak543
- A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical SciencesUploaded byshak543
- 5885-12882-1-SM.pdfUploaded byshak543
- CONCRETO REFORZADO Un enfoque básico (Edward G. Nawy).pdfUploaded byGeraldo Pineda Roca
- AISC-Design Properties of Cantilevered BeamsUploaded byshak543
- LSDUploaded byshak543
- Beam DiagramsUploaded bychaacz
- THE BEHAVIOUR OF PROFILED STEEL SHEET/CONCRETE COMPOSITE SLABSUploaded byshak543
- Thesis on Tension stiffeningUploaded byshak543
- FEM CompositeUploaded bytanilkumar
- Punching of Concrete Slabs Without Shear Reinforcement_GuandaliniUploaded byAnonymous YAHRBwSYn
- Punching Shear StrenghtUploaded byUSEM
- shear wall designUploaded byshak543
- S103 - Schlune 2009-05-20 Revised_ FINALUploaded byshak543
- 02 MUTTONI E RUIZ - Shear Strength of Members Without Transverse Reinforcement as Function of Critical Shear Crack WidthUploaded byMaurício Ferreira

- Study on flexural strengthening of RC beams using ferrocement laminates with Recron-3S fibre – A ReviewUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Curriculum Vitae(Teaching )Uploaded byRetheesh Raj
- Coexistence of clusters, GPB zones, S″-, S′- and S-phases in an Al–0.9% Cu–1.4% Mg alloyUploaded byHossein Yadollahtabar
- Geotechnical Soil Testing _ Southern TestingUploaded byBolarinwa
- 6061 T6 MaterialUploaded byTravis Zimmermann
- racUploaded byapi-279049687
- 47_Test_Bank_11Uploaded byPamela Hancock
- Fall 2014 Lab 1 Module, Cell Biology Genetics LabUploaded byAlex Hobbs
- Silabus Material Teknik Elektro.docxUploaded byNajmi Kertasafari
- Pre Ph.D. Mechanical Engg.Uploaded byJv Sudheendra
- respuestasUploaded byCristian Pavon
- Grupo 4. Particle Slip Velocity_BookUploaded bycapl930
- Calculation Static Equivalent Force by Indonesian Code 1726 2012Uploaded byJody Setiawan
- Cengel Heat Transfer Errata SheetUploaded byBharath Vr
- Christopher F. McKee and Eve C. Ostriker- Theory of Star FormationUploaded byWhiteLighte
- Pumps_ASPE.pdfUploaded bySaad Mahfouz
- Remarkable photothermal effect of interband excitation on nanosecond laser induced reshaping and size reduction of pseudospherical gold nanoparticles in aqueous solution - Werner.pdfUploaded bycarmela
- LABORATORY 3 - SCHMIDT'S (REBOUND) HAMMER TEST_NEW.docUploaded byumarabaziz17
- Strength of Materials-Moving LoadsUploaded bycmrayos
- Ch4 Numerical Approaches for the NVH Study of Electric and Hybrid Electric VehiclesUploaded bysfhaider1
- Storageofsolids 141126102453 Conversion Gate02Uploaded byIrfan Mohammad
- Zimco LinecardUploaded byJitendra Bhosale
- user guide to nzs 4230:2004Uploaded bySiva Kumar
- Selection of an Ndt Method and the Extent of Testing.pdfUploaded byWalter Trajada
- PetrologyUploaded byBharath Shanmugam
- ENG208_Lecture_1P1.pdfUploaded byFantasiaMariam
- Industrial+Boilers+Product+catalogue+Uploaded bysilgec1988
- Biophotons-The Universal Light CodeUploaded bywtj3334421
- Spectroscopy in a SuitcaseUploaded byNaushaba Rangoonwala
- Electron Device - Syllabus (1)Uploaded byvasu_koneti5124