Ijciet 08 04 102 PDF

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 8, Issue 4, April 2017, pp. 868–883 Article ID: IJCIET_08_04_102

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=4
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

BRACKETS STRENGTHENED WITH
DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES
Dr. Hassanien M. Thiyab
College of Engineering/ University of Kufa, Iraq
ABSTRACT
This study includes strengthening and testing of eight reinforced concrete brackets
with different techniques. The experimental variables considered in the test program
include strengthening type (external, internal, and repair), plate type (Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Plate (CFRP), CFRP bar, and steel plate), plate orientation, and plate
dimensions. The greatest load and the deflection of samples are compared to the control
sample. The cracking and mode of failure under static loading are studied. It was found
that (CFRP) plate is an effective strategy for strengthening reinforced concrete bracket.
The greatest load carrying capacity is increased from 32% to 124%. Strengthening the
samples by preparing C4 sample gives the best outcomes. This may be according to the
alignment of the CFRP plate being orthogonal with respect to the prepared cracks.
Key words: Strengthening, Bracket, CFRP Plate, CFRP bar, Behavior.
Cite this Article: Dr. Hassanien M. Thiyab, Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Brackets
Strengthened with Different Techniques. International Journal of Civil Engineering
and Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp. 868–883.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=4
1. INTRODUCTIOIN
Bracket is a structural member cast with column or wall at the same time. It is used mostly in
pre-cast buildings to transfer load from beam or slab to column or concrete wall. Bracket is a
short cantilever has the ratio of effective depth to shear span less than unity (ACI 318-11, 2011).
Figure (1) shows the bracket, column, beam, and slab system. The location of neutral axis limits
the compression and the tension region. In bracket, the region above neutral axis represents
tension region, and the region lower neutral axis represents compression region, and at the same
time concrete is known with its good resistance in compression and poor resistance in tension,
so that the steel bar should be used in the tension region to increase the load carrying capacity.
The behavior of reinforced concrete bracket likes the behavior of deep beam in mostly fails by
shear failure. Reinforced concrete bracket needs shear strengthening. Many different methods
of shear strengthening are available such as shear strengthening by external strengthening (strip
and plate) and internal strengthening (bar and plate). Many different researches have adopted
these methods. Every one of these methods has different parametric studies depending upon
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 868 editor@iaeme.com

length, width, thickness of plate or diameter of bar, direction, and other technicals of bond with
concrete . This research is studying shear strengthening of reinforced concrete bracket by CFRP
plate with different locations, steel plate, near surface mounted CFRP bar and repair after 60%
loading to exam which methods are more effective. While an important variety of studies had
been created on common reinforced concrete brackets, a much less variety was created for
strengthening brackets using FRP blend components (Elgwady et al, 1999; Corry and Dolan,
2001;Erfan et al.,2010; Abed Attiah, 2010;Ahmed et al.,2013; Shadhan et al., 2o15). This trial
research concentrates on improving and repairing the R. C. B. with CFRP laminated.
(a) (b)
Figure (1) (a) Bracket, Column and Beam System, (b) Bracket, Column, Beam and Slab System.
2. EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE
When a structure performance reduced due to accidents (earthquake, explosions), change in
loading, change in configuration, change in use, errors in design or construction the structure
needs to be strengthened or repaired. The objective of this study is to increase the load carrying
capacity of the structure.
2.1. TEST SPECIMENS DIMENSIONS AND REINFORCEMENT

The test specimen had double brackets each in a rectangular shape with length of 200 mm,
width of 150 mm, and depth of 150 mm. The flexural reinforcement consisted of two steel bars,
each of diameter of 12 mm, and no stirrups were reinforced. The total length of column is 450
mm. the reinforcement of column included four longitudinal bars, each is 12mm in dia., and
four closed stirrups of diameter of 6 mm were used. All steel bars of diameter 12 mm and 6
mm had tensile strengthes of 590 MPa and 560MPa respectively, and the yield stresses of 430
MPa and 410 MPa, respectively. All specimens had the same dimensions and reinforcement as
shown in Figure (2).

Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Brackets Strengthened with Different Techniques
Figure (2): Bracket Dimensions and Reinforcement
2.2. CONCRETE MIX

The eight specimens of brackets were cast in wooden forms in the concrete laboratory in Kufa
university. The cement: sand: gravel: water/cement rate ratios in the concrete mix were
1:2:4:0.53 by weight. The greatest size of gravel was 12.5 mm. Three concrete cubic 100mm,
and three concrete cylinders 100 mm ×200 mm were cast and are tested when each bracket
specimen is tested to determine the compressive strength and tensile strength of concrete. The
compressive strength ranges between 21 MPa to 23 MPa and the tensile strength ranges
between 1.9 MPa to 2.2 MPa.
2.3. BONDING of CFRP to REINFORCED CONCRETE BRACKET

After casting and curing, the specimens must be cleaned and the bracket surfaces smoothed by
using a scraper machine as shown in Figure (3). The location of CFRP strips were washed by
water. As a primary stage in the CFRP put in place, the two-parts epoxy bond of (A and B)
were mixed in 3:1 amount by using power mixer until the color was green as shown in Figures
(4) and (5). The stick blender has been used to the outer cellular coating area of concrete at the
location of CFRP pieces to complete the cavities. Also, the stick blender was added on the area
of CFRP strips, and these pieces were used to the outer coating area of concrete. Figure (6)
shows specimens after removing all lousy materials. Tables (1) and (2) show the properties of
the resin and CFRP plate and CFRP bar, respectively.
Table (1) Properties of the Epoxy Resin

Mixing Compressive
Viscosity Pot life
Type Appearance ratio by strength Absorption
cps (minute)
weight (MPa)
Epoxy A:B 120min
Green 2475 71.7 12%
Bond 3:1 40min

Table (2) Properties of Carbon Fiber Fabric Laminate, (Hughes Brothers, 2010).
Type of Tensile Strength Elasticity Ultimate
Cross Sectional Area (mm)2
CFRP (MPa) modulus (GPa) strain (%)
1.4 (Thickness)*50 (Width)
CFRP Plate 2400 165 1.35
CFRP Bar Pi 6 2 (Diameter) 2 2068 124 0.017
Figure (3) Cleaning by Scrape Device Figure (4) Epoxy Bonding Agent
Figure (5) Mixing by Electrical Machine Figure (6) Specimen after Cleaning

3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Tests were carried out by using universal testing machine with capacity of 2000kN.The
universal testing machine is a closed loop servo hydraulic testing system that controlled
manually. The experiments were executed in load control with manually data monitoring and
recording of both the load and mid span deflection. Whole of the specimens had statically
examined to fail in one cycle of loading. Load was slowly applied, the rate of loading equal to
0.5 kN/s, in successive increments up to failure. The load steps were initially 5 kN then they
were increased to 10 kN until specimen failure. The same method of failing happened for all
brackets. This mode was an angled shear crack leads to break of all carbon fiber reinforced
polymer plates in the shear region at the greatest load. Table (3) illustrates the sample
identification and strengthening schemes. The experimental results of each bracket sample
tested are shown in Table (4).The discussion of results for each sample is presented in the
following sections.
Table (3) Samples Identification and Strengthening Schemes.

C1 C2 C3
Front Project Front Project Front Project
C1 C2 C3
Back Project Front Project Back Project
C4 C5 C6 Repaired
(60%)
Front Project Front Project Front Project
C4 C5 C6 Repaired
(60%)
Back Project Back Project Back Project

C7 CFRP Bar C8
(NSM) Steel Plate
Front Project Front Project
C7 CFRP Bar C8
(NSM) Steel Plate
Back Project
Back Project
Table (4) Experimental Results

First
Cracking Pu ((Pu-Po) Δu
Sample (a/d) Bracket type
Load (kN) /Po)% (mm)
(kN)
C1 0.8 Control 75 125 - 6.987
C2 0.8 Strengthened/CFRP Plate 100 165 32 4.54
C6 0.8 Repaired 75 245 96 5.6
C7 0.8 Strengthened/CFRP bar 100 160 28 4.1
C8 0.8 Strengthened/Steel plate 85 150 20 5.8
*Pu: The ultimate load of the strengthened sample; Po: The ultimate load of control sample; Δu: The
ultimate deflection.
3.1. Sample (C1)

To find the load-carrying capacity of squabby cantilever, this specimen was examined as a
control sample. The results in terms of total load compared to the net deflection are shown in
Figure (7). During loading sample C1, the first major crack showed at 75 kN. The first crack
was a vertical crack showing roughly at the bracket experience from the line side. The other
cracks were an inclined crack almost at an angel of 45°, angled shear cracks established at the
load of 100 kN. As load was increased, this crack began to grow and distribute resulting the
failure at load of 125 kN. Increasing the loading led to new angled cracks, and the angled cracks
spread rapidly until failure. The failure of this specimen occurred when a large crack started at
the intersection point of the bracket and the column face going to the point of load as shown in
Figure (7). Then the upper triangular reinforced concrete was divided. From this crack pattern
it can be concluded that this is a shear failure “beam type”.

Figure (7) Crack Pattern for Bracket C1.
Figure (8) Vertical Load Contra Def. Curve (C1)
3.2. Sample (C2)

This sample was improved with six vertical CFRP strips having 12.0 mm width and 1.4 mm
thickness for each face of the bracket. The first crack appeared during the loading was a flexural
crack like to that of a cantilever beam. While the second crack began at the keeping dish and
spread toward the cross of the column and face of the bracket. The sample failed at load of (165
kN) with a rise in resistance of about (32 %) in comparison to the control sample C1. From
Figure (9) it can be seen that the amount cracks was decreased considerably in comparison to
unstrengthened brackets, this linked to the existence of CFRP strips. Figure (10) reveals the
load in comparison to the deflection of the bracket samples C1 and C2.

Figure (9) Crack Pattern for Bracket Sample C2.
Figure (10) Vertical Load Contra Def. Curves (C1) & (C2).

3.3. Sample (C3)

This sample was improved with eight vertical CFRP strips having 12.0mm width and 1.4 mm
thickness for each face of the corbel. Flexural cracks were observed first; at roughly the load
was 100kN, and then a few angled cracks had been noticed. With increasing load, the flexural
cracks improved way up and became broader. At the same time the angled cracks spread
towards the assisting point as shown in Figure (11). The first significant crack showed up at a
load of 130 kN. The sample failed at load of (190 kN) with a rise in resistance of about (52 %)
in comparison to the control bracket sample C1. The greatest load was greater than C2. At this
level there was no destruction in the concrete itself as those happened in the other samples.
Figure (12) reveals the load in comparison to deflection of brackets C1 and C3.
200
180
160
140
120
Load (kN)
100
80
60 C1
40 C3
20
0
0 2 4 6 8
Deflection (mm)
Figure (12) Vertical load contra def. curves (C1) & (C3).
3.4. Sample (C4)

To study the influence of strengthened reinforced concrete brackets with angled carbon fiber
plastic strips on the outside, bracket sample C4 was improved with four inclined CFRP strips
having 18.0 mm width and 1.4 mm thickness for front and back projects. The cracks pattern of
this bracket sample is shown in Figure (13). Shear cracks happened at a higher load than

samples C1, C2, and C3, which was noticed at a used load of (100 kN). The bracket was failed
at the maximum load of (280 kN) with a rise in resistance of about (124 %) according to the
control bracket sample C1. This enhancement in strength is linked to the existence of CFRP
strips being orthogonal with respect to crack path. Also, the existence of CFRP gave another
advantage; it moved the cracking from several commonly spread and large size cracks to many
more carefully spread smaller cracks and reduced the bracket deflection. Figure (14) reveals
the load in comparison to deflection of bracket samples C1 and C4.
300
250
200
Load (kN)
150
100
C1
50
C4
0
0 2 4 6 8
Deflection (mm)
Figure (14) Vertical load contra def. curves (C1)&(C4).

3.5. Sample (C5)

To discover the influence of improving reinforced concrete brackets with an angled carbon
fiber plastic strips on the outside, bracket sample C5 was improved with six inclined CFRP
strips having 9.0 mm width and 1.4 mm thickness for front and back projects. The cracks
pattern of this bracket sample is shown in Fig.(15). Shear cracks happened at a higher load than
samples C1, C2 and C3 ,which was noticed at a used load of (100 kN). The bracket sample
failed at the maximum load of (170 kN) with a rise in resistance of (44 %) according to the
control bracket sample C1. This enhancement in strength is linked to the existence of CFRP
strips being orthogonal with respect to the crack path. Also, the existence of CFRP gave another
advantage; it moved the cracking from several commonly spread and large size cracks to many
more carefully spread smaller cracks and reduced the bracket deflection. Figure (16) illustrates
the load in comparison to deflection of bracket samples C1 and C5.
180
160
140
120
Load (kN)
100
80
60
40 C1
20 C5
0
0 2 4 6 8
Deflection (mm)
Figure (16) Vertical Load Contra Def. Curves (C1)&(C5).

3.6. Sample (C6)

It is identified to load repaired bracket sample roughly to a lot of 75 kN (60% of the greatest
load) according to the control bracket C1, then strengthened by C6 technique because it is the
most effective technique of strengthening by four inclined CFRP pieces having 18.0 mm width
and 1.4 mm thickness for front and back projects. The experimental results of the sample gave
a similar behavior of sample C4, but less rigidity than the sample C4 due to pre-cracking as
shown in Figure (17). Figure (18) reveals the load in comparison to deflection of bracket
samples C1 and C6.
Figure (18) Vertical Load Contra Def. Curves (C1)&(C6).
3.7. Sample (C7)

To study the influence of strengthened reinforced concrete brackets with an angled near surface
mounted carbon fiber plastic bars technique, bracket sample C7 was improved with four
inclined CFRP bars having 6.0 mm diameter for front and back projects. The cracks pattern of

this bracket sample is shown in Figure (19). Shear cracks happened at a higher load than
samples C1, C2, and C3,which was noticed at a used load of (100 kN). The bracket sample
failed at a maximum load of (160 kN) with a rise in resistance of (28 %) according to the control
bracket sample C1. Also, the existence of CFRP bars gave another advantage; it moved the
cracking from several commonly spread and large size cracks to many more carefully spread
smaller cracks and reduced the bracket deflection. Figure (20) reveals the load in comparison
to deflection of bracket samples C1 and C4.
180
160
140
120
Load (kN)
100
80
60
40
C1
20
C7
0
0 2 4 6 8
Deflection (mm)

Figure (20) Crack Pattern for Bracket C7
3.8. Sample (C8)

To research the influence of strengthened reinforced concrete bracket with angled steel plate
strips on the outside, bracket sample C8 was improved with four inclined steel plates having
20.0 mm width and 1.4 mm thickness for front and back projects. The cracks pattern of this
bracket sample is shown in Figure (21). Shear cracks happened at load (85 kN). The sample
failed at a maximum load of (150 kN) with a rise in resistance of (20 %) according to the control
bracket sample C1. Figure (22) illustrates the load in comparison to the deflection of bracket
samples C1 and C8.

160
140
120
100
Load (kN)
80
60
40
C1
20 C8
0
0 2 4 6 8
Deflection (mm)
4. CONCLUSIONS
1. Using (CFRP) plates is an effective strategy for strengthening of reinforced concrete bracket.
The greatest load carrying capacity is increased from 32% to 124%.
2. The apportionment, place, alignment and quantity of CFRP strips perform an important part in
improving the damaged members; therefore, strengthening the samples by C4 sample gives the
best outcomes. This may be according to the alignment of the CFRP plate being orthogonal
with respect to the prepared cracks.
3. CFRP strips in most circumstances of improved bracket are neither jagged nor debonded, but
an eliminate of concrete breaking with CFRP items. It indicates that all strengthening
techniques used in the current research are effective in improving such members.
4. For the bracket repaired with CFRP strips in shear, the final load increased by (96%) based to
the greatest load of the control bracket.
5. Although the greatest load carrying capacity of strengthened samples were increased, all these
samples failed suddenly.
6. The deflection of strengthened samples is decreased significantly.
REFERENCES
[1] Abed Attiah M., (2010), Behavior of reinforced concrete corbels strengthened with carbon
fiber reinforced polymer strips, PhD thesis, Basrah University.
[2] Ahmad, S, Elahi, A, Kundi, S., and Haq, W., (2013), Investigation of shear behavior of
Corbel beams strengthened with CFRP, Life Science Journal 2013.
[3] American Concrete Institute, ACI Committee 318, (2011), Building code requirements for
structural concrete (ACI 318-11) and commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI 48331.
[4] Corry, R. W. and Dolan, C. W. Strengthening and repair of a column bracket using a carbon
fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) fabric, (2001), Journal of PCI Journal, pp. 54–63.
[5] Elgwady, M. A., Rabie, M., and Mosatafa, M. T., (1999), Strengthening of corbles using
CFRP, An Experimental Program, Cairo university, Giza, Egypt.
[6] Erfan, A. M., Abdel-Rahman, G. T., Nassifand, M. K. and Hammad, Y. H., (2010),
Behavior of reinforced concrete corbels strengthened with CFRP fabrics, Benha University.

[7] Hughes Brothers, Inc., (2010), Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Rebar Aslan 200,
Technical Data Sheet (Website: http://www.hughesbros.com).
[8] Ivanova, I., Assih, J., Li, A. and Delmas, Y., (2014), Influence of Fabrics Layers on
Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Short Corbels, International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 5(11), pp. 33–43.
[9] Shadhan, K. K. and Mohammad Kadhim, M. M., (2015), Use of CFRP Laminates for
Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Corbels, International Journal of Civil Engineering
and Technology, 6(11), pp. 11-20.

Ijciet 08 04 102 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijciet 08 04 102 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 4, April 2017, pp. 868–883 Article ID: IJCIET_08_04_102

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 868 editor@iaeme.com

2.1. TEST SPECIMENS DIMENSIONS AND REINFORCEMENT

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 869 editor@iaeme.com

Figure (2): Bracket Dimensions and Reinforcement

2.2. CONCRETE MIX

2.3. BONDING of CFRP to REINFORCED CONCRETE BRACKET

Table (1) Properties of the Epoxy Resin

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 870 editor@iaeme.com

CFRP Bar Pi 6 2 (Diameter) 2 2068 124 0.017

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 871 editor@iaeme.com

Table (3) Samples Identification and Strengthening Schemes.

Front Project Front Project Front Project

Back Project Front Project Back Project

Front Project Front Project Front Project

Back Project Back Project Back Project

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 872 editor@iaeme.com

Front Project Front Project

Table (4) Experimental Results

3.1. Sample (C1)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 873 editor@iaeme.com

Figure (7) Crack Pattern for Bracket C1.

Figure (8) Vertical Load Contra Def. Curve (C1)

3.2. Sample (C2)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 874 editor@iaeme.com

Figure (9) Crack Pattern for Bracket Sample C2.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 875 editor@iaeme.com

3.3. Sample (C3)

Figure (11) Crack Pattern for Bracket C3.

3.4. Sample (C4)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 876 editor@iaeme.com

Figure (13) Crack Pattern for Bracket C4.

Figure (14) Vertical load contra def. curves (C1)&(C4).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 877 editor@iaeme.com

3.5. Sample (C5)

Figure (15) Crack Pattern for Bracket C5.

Figure (16) Vertical Load Contra Def. Curves (C1)&(C5).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 878 editor@iaeme.com

3.6. Sample (C6)

Figure (17) Crack Pattern for Bracket C6.

Figure (18) Vertical Load Contra Def. Curves (C1)&(C6).

3.7. Sample (C7)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 879 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 880 editor@iaeme.com

Figure (20) Crack Pattern for Bracket C7

3.8. Sample (C8)

Figure (21) Crack Pattern for Bracket C8.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 881 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 882 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 883 editor@iaeme.com

You might also like