183

CHAPTER 5

THEORETICAL INVESTIGATIONS

5.1 GENERAL

This chapter introduces the theoretical analysis of concrete one way

slabs reinforced with GFRP reinforcements. The scope of this study is
confined to a sectional analysis of one way slabs as a wider beam. Here, the
theoretical expressions for moment of resistance and deflection are presented.
A general nonlinear procedure found on slip and bond stresses, is adopted for
prediction of deflections. Next, the moment capacity expressions are derived
for different reinforcement ratios. Then the results of the analytical methods
are compared with experimental predictions.

5.2 THEORETICAL INVESTIGATIONS

5.2.1 General

The use of GFRP reinforcements in structural design has become

more acceptable in recent times especially by American Standards (ACI 440R
– 96 1996; ACI 440XR 2007). But the design codes as per Indian Standards
need to be modified to reflect the use of GFRP internal reinforcements in
concrete structural elements. In order to learn the design of concrete structures
reinforced with GFRP and coir reinforcement theoretically, it is important to
understand the basic materials properties and their interaction with concrete.
Accordingly, this chapter describes the important properties required for
theoretical formulations of moment and deflection expressions.
 184

5.2.2 Flexural Behaviour of Concrete Slabs Reinforced with

Coir/GFRP Reinforcements

Flexural behaviour is commonly considered for all structural

elements such as beams and slabs with certain simple bending theory
assumptions as described in conventional section analysis (Unnikrishnan
2002). Using these assumptions, the section analysis is carried out to predict
the behaviour of concrete sections theoretically. The behaviour of the sections
at various stages of loading i.e. from the initial uncracked phase to the final
(ultimate) condition at collapse is required to describe the serviceability and
strength conditions. In this study, a rectangular slab section is considered with
tension reinforcements only. The design of Coir/GFRP reinforced concrete
members under flexure is analogous to the design of steel reinforced concrete
members. The flexural capacity of concrete members reinforced with
Coir/GFRP reinforcements can be calculated on the basis of assumptions,
similar to those made for members reinforced with steel reinforcements. Both
concrete crushing and Coir/GFRP rupture are acceptable failure modes in
governing the design of Coir/GFRP reinforced concrete members provided
that strength and serviceability criteria are satisfied. The basic assumptions
involved in the flexural behaviour of Coir/GFRP reinforced concrete sections,
are given below.

Plane sections remain plane before and after bending.

The maximum compressive strain in concrete (at the

outermost fibre) cu is assumed to be around 0.0035.

The stress-strain curve of concrete in flexural compression as

depicted in IS: 456-2000 is considered.

The tensile strength of concrete is neglected.

 185

The tensile behavior of Coir/GFRP reinforcement is linearly

elastic until failure.

Perfect bond exists between concrete and Coir/GFRP

reinforcements.

5.2.3 Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete

The stress strain curves specified by the Indian Code (IS:456-2000)

for concrete in flexural compression are depicted in Figure 5.1 it is in the
form of a parabola in the initial region up to a strain of 0.002 (where the slope
becomes zero), and a straight line thereafter, at a constant stress level of
0.67 f ck up to an ultimate strain of 0.0035. The maximum stress in the
stress-strain curve is restricted to 0.67 f ck , considering the sustained load
effect factor of 1.5.

f ck

0.67 f ck

0 0.001 0.002 0.003

strain

Figure 5.1 Stress-strain Curve for Concrete in Flexural Compression

Accordingly, the maximum design stress becomes equal to 0.67 f ck ,

and the formula for the design compressive stress f c corresponding to any
strain c 0.0035 is given by:
 186

2
0.67f ck 2 for 0.002
0.002 0.002
fc 0.67f ck for 0.002 0.0035
(5.1)

5.2.4 Stress-Strain Curve for Reinforcing Steel

The stress strain curves specified by the Indian Code

(IS: 456-2000) for cold-worked steel (in tension or compression) are shown in
Figure 5.2.

500

fy characteristic curve
400
0.87 fy design curve

300

200
Es = 2 105 MPa

100

y = (0.87 f y) Es + 0.002

0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008

strain

Figure 5.2 Stress-strain Curves for Fe 415 Grade Cold-worked Steel

The design yield strength f yd is obtained by dividing the specified

yield strength f y by the partial safety factor s = 1.15 (for ultimate limit

states); accordingly, f yd = 0.87 f y .

 187

In the case of cold-worked bars (Fe 415 and Fe 500), which have no
specific yield point, the transition from linear elastic behaviour to nonlinear
behaviour is assumed to occur at a stress level equal to 0.8 times f y in the

characteristic curve and 0.8 times f yd in the design curve. The full design

yield strength 0.87 fy is assumed to correspond to a ‘proof strain’ of 0.002;

i.e. the design yield strain y is to be taken as (0.87 f y )/ E s + 0.002, as shown in

Figure 5.2.

5.2.5 Stress-Strain Curve for Coir/GFRP Reinforcement

The stress strain curves obtained from the tension tests for different
GFRP reinforcements used in this study are shown in chapter 3.2.7,
Figure 3.4. It is observed from the experimental study that the GFRP
reinforcements are typically elastic and brittle, which have lower modulus of
elasticity and higher tensile strength than steel. GFRP reinforcements do not
exhibit a yield point. Therefore, a linear elastic behaviour is assumed to occur
at all stress levels equally. In the case of coir ropes, it is observed that it is
elastic and semi-brittle in nature, but it has low modulus of elasticity and low
tensile strength when compared with steel reinforcement. Also for Coir rope
coated with epoxy resin is elastic and brittle, which has lower modulus of
elasticity and low tensile strength when compared with steel reinforcement.
Coir and Epoxy resin coated coir reinforcements do not exhibit a yield point.
Then elastic behaviour is linear and it is assumed to occur at all stress levels
equally. The design strength f G , f C and f CE is obtained by multiplying
the elastic modulus E RFT with the limiting strain RFT ; accordingly,
f RFT = E RFT × RFT .
 188

5.2.6 Analytical Expressions for Flexural Moments

In this study, for flexural analysis, the fundamental principles

include equilibrium on the cross section, compatibility of strains, the use of
plane sections remaining plane, and constitutive behavior. For the concrete,
the constitutive behavior model uses the Indian standard parabolic stress
block to approximate the concrete stress distribution at strength conditions.
For the Coir/GFRP internal reinforcement, the linear stress versus strain
relationship to failure is used. This model is suitable for concrete members
reinforced in tension zone. In depth study is required for the use of
Coir/GFRP reinforcements in compression zones due to possible buckling of
the individual fibers within the reinforcing bar.

The use of Coir/GFRP as an internal reinforcement for concrete

slabs requires the development of design procedures that ensure adequate
safety from catastrophic failure. Conventionally, reinforced concrete sections
ensure a progressive ductile type of failure before the concrete crushes,
thereby, guaranteeing a ductile failure. The result is the ability of the failed
slab to absorb large amounts of energy through plastic straining in the
reinforcing steel. Coir/GFRP reinforcements have linear-elastic trend up to
failure. As a result failure, whether the result of shear, flexural compression or
flexural tension, is unavoidably sudden and brittle.

The designer must make a decision to the desired type of failure

mechanism, either Coir/GFRP rupture or concrete crushing. The development
of the equilibrium equations is changed to reflect the actual strain level in the
concrete. The varying strain in the concrete changes the stress block
parameters for concrete thus changing the equations of equilibrium for the
slab section. In a Coir/GFRP reinforced concrete design, if the area of
Coir/GFRP reinforcements provided is less than that required for the balanced
condition, the cross section is under-reinforced; otherwise, if the Coir/GFRP
 189

reinforcement area is in excess, the cross section is over-reinforced. The terms

‘under’ and ‘over’ are used with reference to a benchmark condition called
the ‘balanced’ section. A ‘balanced section’ is one in which the area of
tension reinforcement is such that at the ultimate limit state, the two limiting
conditions are reached simultaneously; viz., the compressive strain in the
extreme fibre of the concrete reaches the ultimate strain cu , and the tensile
strain at the level of the centroid of the reinforcement reaches the strain RFT .
The failure of such a section is termed as ‘balanced failure’, and it is expected
to occur by the simultaneous initiation of crushing of concrete and rupture of
Coir/GFRP reinforcements. The final collapse of a normal concrete section at
the ultimate load is caused inevitably by the crushing of concrete in
compression, regardless of the crushing of concrete or rupture of Coir/GFRP
reinforcements. Failure mode can be determined by comparing the
Coir/GFRP reinforcement ratio, RFT to the balanced reinforcement
ratio, B RFT , which is the ratio where concrete crushing and GFRP/coir
rupture occurs simultaneously.

Ccu a1 fcu
a2 x u
Ccu =a3fbxcu
xu
N
A
d
d-a2 xu
d-xu
AGFRP
CGFRP T GFRP = f A GFRP
GFRP

Figure 5.3 Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Rectangular Section at

Ultimate Limit State in Flexure i.e. Balanced Mode of
Failure

ARFT
RFT (5.2)
bD
 190

f cu E RFT
B RFT
cu
(5.3)
f RFT E RFT cu f RFT

where, = 0.8, A RFT is the area of coir rope, coir rope coated with epoxy and
GFRP reinforcements, b and D are the width and depth of slab. Similar to
steel reinforced concrete slabs, the balanced reinforcement ratio is given by
the specified compressive strength of concrete f cu , where cu is the ultimate
strain in concrete, E RFT is guaranteed modulus of elasticity of coir rope and
coir rope coated with epoxy and GFRP reinforcements (obtained from test
results). The moment-curvature relationships are generated for different
extreme fibre concrete strain values c starting from 0 to 0.0035. For each
value of c , the location of the neutral axis kd is determined from the axial
force equilibrium equation which can be expressed as in 5.6.

f c (ec ) dec
( c) 0 (5.4)
fc c

ec f c (ec )dec
0 (5.5)
c ( c) 1 c

ec f c (ec )dec
0

P( c , k ) ( c ). f c .b.kd f RFT ( , k ) ARFT

RFT
(5.6)

where ( c ) is the factor representing the compressive force in

concrete; c ( c ) is the factor representing the location of compressive force in

concrete; f RFT ERFT . RFT is the stress in the coir rope, coir rope coated with
epoxy and GFRP reinforcements. The neutral axis is determined by finding
the value of k for which the above equation is zero. For RFT B RFT ,
 191

Coir/GFRP rupture failure mode governs, and the expression for ultimate
moment of resistance of under reinforced condition is given as follows:

f RFTu ARFT
M uR f RFTu ARFT d 1 (5.7)
f cu bd

Ccu a1 fcu
a2 xu
xu
N A
d
d-xu d-a2 xu

AGFRP
CGFRP T GFRP = f AGFRP
GFRP

Figure 5.4 Mode of Failure : Rupture of GFRP Reinforcements

From the theoretical study, = 1 for steel reinforced sections and

=0.8 for coir rope, coir rope coated with epoxy and GFRP reinforced
sections where is the factor defining the stress block in compression zone;
stress block width factor, k1 0.67 ; stress block depth factor, k 2 0.45 ; lever

arm depth factor, a3 0.55 ; and ultimate compressive strain in concrete under

flexure cu 0.0035 .

For RFT B RFT , failure of the member is initiated by crushing of

the concrete, and the stress distribution in the concrete can be approximated
as per IS:456-2000. Based on the equilibrium of forces and strain
compatibility, the following equations are derived:

( E RFT cu )2 f cu (5.8)
f RFT E RFT cu 0.5E RFT cu
4 RFT
 192

where fRFT is the ultimate stress of the GFRP reinforcement in tension.

The ultimate moment of resistance expression for over reinforced

rectangular section is as follows:

f RFTu ARFT
M uR f RFTu ARFT d 1 (5.9)
f cu bd

Ccu a1 fcu
a2 xu
xu

N d
A
d-a2 xu
d-xu
AGFRP
CGFRP T GFRP = f AGFRP
GFRP

Figure 5.5 Mode of Failure: Crushing Failure of Concrete

In the absence of adequate test data with regard to the durability

aspects of GFRP reinforcements as per Indian conditions, for the design
purpose, a reduction factor CE is assumed to account for the environmental
factors. They affect the performance of the GFRP reinforcements and are
taken as 0.7 (ACI 440R-96 1996; ACI 440XR 2007). In the next section, the
detailed expression for the calculation of deflections under service and
ultimate load conditions is described theoretically.

5.3 SERVICEABILITY REQUIREMENT

The design considerations of GFRP/coir reinforced concrete slabs

show the increased deflections (when used as flexural reinforcement), larger
tensile strength, linear stress-strain curve with no yielding. The deflection of
a concrete slab reinforced with GFRP/coir reinforcements is a major design
consideration. Deflections are larger than conventional steel reinforced slabs,
 193

causing larger crack widths. The size of the crack width is not as critical as in
the case of conventional slab when using GFRP/coir instead of steel
reinforcement, since GFRP/coir reinforcements are resistant to corrosion.
Therefore, the present study is focused on the modified methods and factors
applicable to the existing methods of calculating deflections and crack widths
used for conventionally reinforced concrete slabs.

5.3.1 Deflections under Service Loads

5.3.1.1 Short-term deflections by elastic theory

Short-term deflections due to service loads are generally based on

the assumption of linear elastic behaviour, and for this purpose, reinforced
concrete is treated as a homogeneous material. Expressions for the maximum
elastic deflection max of a homogeneous slab having an effective span l and
flexural rigidity EcIexp (for any loading and support conditions) can be derived
using the standard methods of structural analysis, and are derived for two
point loads. Generally, it can be expressed in the following form, neglecting
the shear component of deflection:

Ml 2
max km or max km max l2 (5.10)
E c I exp

where km is a constant which depends on the load distribution, conditions of

end restraint and variation in the flexural rigidity EI. For section with two
point loading under simply supported slab conditions, km = 23/216; l = clear
cu RFT
span; max curvature at ultimate stage; I exp = experimental
d
moment of inertia (mm4); P = applied load in kN; Ec = modulus of elasticity
of concrete and MPa = 5000 f ck .
 194

5.3.1.2 Effective flexural rigidity

For the purpose of calculating short-term deflections in reinforced

concrete flexural slabs, expressions such as Equation. 5.10 which is based on
elastic theory are utilized. An important parameter that needs to be considered
in these calculations is the flexural rigidity EcIeff, which is the product of the
modulus of elasticity of concrete (E c), and the second moment of area, (Ieff),
of the cross section. The modulus of elasticity of concrete depends on factors
such as concrete quality, age, stress level and rate or duration of applied load.
However for short-term loading up to service load levels, the codal expression
for the short-term static modulus of elasticity Ec 5000 f ck is satisfactory.

The effective second moment of area, I eff, to be considered in the deflection

calculations is influenced by percentage of reinforcement as well as the extent
of flexural cracking, which in turn depends on the applied bending moment
and the modulus of rupture fcr of concrete.

5.3.1.3 Modified effective second moment of area for GFRP reinforced

sections

Several empirical expressions have been proposed for the

calculation of effective second moment of area, Ieff (for calculating short-term
deflections) and incorporated in different concrete design codes. Some of
these formulations are based on assumed transition moment-curvature
relations, whereas the others are based on assumed transition of
strains/stresses in the region between cracks (and involve stress-strain
relations and equilibrium of forces). In this study, the expression for I eff , is
based on Branson’s equation and takes the form:

3 3
Mcr Mcr
Ieff I gr 1 I cr for M > Mcr (5.11)
M M
 195

This expression is simple and easier to compare with test results and
shows reasonable agreement between the experimental and theoretical values
of deflections. Ieff in Branson’s equation gives a stiff response for GFRP/coir
reinforced concrete slabs. The existing deflection expressions overestimate
the deflections of GFRP/coir reinforced slabs under the application of load.
Therefore, a modified expression for the effective moment of inertia of a
simply supported slab reinforced with GFRP/coir reinforcing bars at the
tension side alone has been developed from the expression suggested by
Benmokrane et al (1996). Holds good and reasonable agreement between the
deflections observed and those computed theoretically. The modified
expression for Ieff is given by

3
Ig M cr
I eff I
1 cr I
1 cr (5.12)
2 Ma

where 1 and 2 are the reduction factors. These reduction factors

are modified according to the experimental results and 1 are expressed as 0.2
and 0.4 and 2 are 7.8 respectively. Ig is the gross moment of inertia and
expressed as follows:

bD 3
Ig (5.13)
12

As in conventional steel reinforced concrete, the cracked

(transformed) second moment of area is given as,

b(kd ) 3
I cr m RFT ARFT (d kd ) 2 (5.14)
3

E RFT
m RFT (5.15)
Ec

where kd is the neutral axis depth of the section under service loads and mRFT is
the modular ratio for the GFRP/coir reinforcement.
 196

5.4 THEORETICAL RESULTS

From the above equations, the load and deflection of composite panels
are arrived at Table 5.1 shows the Load and Deflection obtained from
experimental and theoretical results.

Table 5.1 Load and Deflection Obtained from Experimental and

Theoretical Results

Experimental Ultimate Deflection

Theoretical values
values (mm)
SI Designation
NO of slabs Cracked Ultimate Ultimate
Moment Load Load Theoretical Experimental
Mcr (kN.m) PPu (kN) PPu (kN)
1. m1G1D1 0.76 10.55 11.90 26.91 24.10
2. m1G2D1 0.83 14.07 14.62 38.52 33.50
3. m1G3D1 0.78 16.42 16.69 47.98 41.60
4. m1C1D1 0.39 6.22 7.26 14.81 13.30
5. m1C2D1 0.57 8.84 9.54 21.50 23.90
6. m1C3D1 0.64 11.15 13.11 28.06 31.60
7. m1CE1D1 0.40 6.45 6.86 15.35 22.10
8. m1CE2D1 0.51 9.15 9.63 22.43 26.10
9. m1CE3D1 0.71 11.50 11.80 28.65 32.30
10. m1G1D2 1.76 28.56 29.31 32.70 26.90
11. m1G2D2 2.01 38.09 39.42 24.10 23.50
12. m1G3D2 2.29 44.44 45.44 29.79 26.00
13. m1C1D2 1.28 16.74 17.55 17.04 21.60
14. m1C2D2 1.68 23.90 23.96 25.47 22.80
15. m1C3D2 1.91 30.25 30.76 33.82 25.70
 197

Table 5.1 (Continued)

Experimental Ultimate Deflection

Theoretical values
values (mm)
SI Designation
NO of slabs Cracked Ultimate Ultimate
Moment Load Load Theoretical Experimental
Mcr (kN.m) PPu (kN) PPu (kN)
16. m1CE1D2 1.08 17.36 19.94 18.44 18.60
17. m1CE2D2 1.51 24.73 24.99 26.98 25.60
18. m1CE3D2 1.79 31.22 32.12 35.26 26.80
19. m2G1D1 0.82 11.26 13.20 24.46 27.80
20. m2G2D1 0.95 15.66 16.25 36.20 40.10
21. m2G3D1 0.97 19.24 19.30 47.03 48.60
22. m2C1D1 0.41 6.41 7.29 24.87 18.60
23. m2C2D1 0.61 9.28 9.95 36.33 21.30
24. m2C3D1 0.71 11.92 12.59 48.85 40.80
25. m2CE1D1 0.41 6.66 7.80 13.60 18.60
26. m2CE2D1 0.55 9.62 11.01 38.78 34.20
27. m2CE3D1 0.79 12.34 13.93 49.50 39.10
28. m2G1D2 1.89 30.47 31.79 15.46 22.10
29. m2G2D2 2.30 42.38 44.02 22.63 25.30
30. m2G3D2 2.87 52.06 52.33 29.14 28.90
31. m2C1D2 1.09 17.15 19.68 15.61 26.50
32. m2C2D2 1.36 24.82 25.39 23.58 35.80
33. m2C3D2 1.52 31.89 32.62 31.40 43.00
34. m2CE1D2 0.90 17.81 20.86 16.64 30.10
35. m2CE2D2 1.26 25.73 27.30 24.63 36.50
36. m2CE3D2 1.56 33.00 35.80 32.38 42.50
 198

m1, m2 Grades of concrete M20, M30 respectively; G1,G2,G3

GFRP reinforcement in 0.95%, 1.43% and 1.91% respectively, S1,S2,S3 steel
reinforcement in 0.95%, 1.43% and 1.91% respectively, C1,C2,C3 coir
reinforcement in 0.95%, 1.43% and 1.91% respectively and CE1,CE2,CE3 coir
coated with epoxy reinforcement in 0.95%, 1.43% and 1.91% respectively; D1
40mm thick slab and D2 60mm thick slab.

5.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND

THEORETICAL INVESTIGATIONS

From the comparative study between the experimental and

theoretical values carried out on GFRP and coir reinforced concrete slabs with
different parameters (varying reinforcements ratio, thickness of slab, different
type of GFRP reinforcements and varying concrete strengths), the following
conclusions are derived.

5.5.1 Influence of Concrete Strength

It is observed that with the increase in concrete strength of slabs

from M20 to M30 grade of concrete, the ultimate load and moment capacities
increase from both theoretical and experimental findings. GFRP
reinforcements undergo larger strains to develop higher stresses. The depth of
neutral axis consequently decreases; hence higher strength is better suited.
From the theoretical prediction, it is noted that by increasing the concrete
strength of GFRP reinforced slabs the ultimate load capacity varies from
6.15% to 17.1%. The experimental results show 8.5% to 15.6% variation for
the same. For coir reinforcement the variation is 3.1% to 6.9% and 0.4% to
12.1% for theoretical and experimental respectively. Similarly, for coir coated
with epoxy, the ultimate load capacity varies from 2.4% to 7.3%. The
experimental results show 6.0% to 18.1% variation for the same.
 199

5.5.2 Influence of Reinforcement Ratio

It is observed that with the increase in reinforcement ratio (0.95%,

1.43%& 1.91%), the ultimate load and moment capacities are also increased
in both theoretical and experimental investigations. But this increase is
limited by the concrete compressive failure strain of 0.0035. The theoretical
and experimental load carrying capacity increases from 39 to 85% and 23 to
79% respectively for 40mm thick slab, when the increase in the slab thickness
to 60mm load carrying capacity increases from 33% to 86% and 35% to 70%
respectively for theoretical and experimental.

5.5.3 Influence of Thickness of Slabs

Thickness of slabs also plays an important role in influencing the

load carrying capacities and the tension stiffening effect of the slabs. It has
been found that by increasing the thickness of slabs from 40 mm to 60 mm,
the ultimate load and moment capacities are also increased. On increasing the
thickness of GFRP, coir, coir coated with epoxy reinforced slabs from 40 to
60mm, the load carrying capacity of slab increases by 2.6 to 2.7 times
theoretically and 2.3 to 2.9 times experimentally.

5.6 INFERENCES

The results prove that the flexural deflection decreases as the

reinforcement ratios, thickness and concrete strength of the slabs increase.
The equation predicted for the calculation of deflection is proposed on the
basis of modified Branson’s equation. The factors 1 and 2 are taken as 0.2,
0.4 and 7.8, for this study is based on the experimental result. This presents a
 200

prediction of deflection and it is nearly correlated with the experimental

values.

The experimental values indicate good agreement with the

theoretical values observed for the service loading conditions. For GFRP, the
values between 1.0% and 14.7%, 0.5% and 15% for coir and 1.0% and 14.6%
for coir coated with epoxy. These variations in the ultimate loads and
deflections occurred due to the assumption made that a perfect bond exists
between concrete and Coir/GFRP reinforcements.