See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353638085

SERVICE LOADS OF GFRP REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABS

Conference Paper · April 1999

CITATIONS READS
0 13

1 author:

Ayman Hussein Hosny Khalil

Ain Shams University
108 PUBLICATIONS   122 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Decision support system for optimal bridge’ maintenance View project

Performance-based seismic design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayman Hussein Hosny Khalil on 02 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SERVICE LOADS OF GFRP REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABS

Abdel-Hady H. Hosny1, Omar A. El-Nawawy1, and Ayman H. Hosny2

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the results of an experimental research program that aimed at studying
the effect of using glass fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP) rebars to reinforce concrete slabs on
the general behavior of these slabs under service loads. In this program, eight one-way and
four two-way concrete slabs were tested experimentally to failure. Among these slabs, six
were reinforced with ordinary steel reinforcement and were used as references for
comparison. Cracking loads as well as deflections in the GFRP reinforced slabs were
recorded, analyzed, and compared to the reference slabs with steel reinforcement. The results
were carefully examined to obtain useful recommendation regarding the serviceability limit
state design of GFRP reinforced concrete slabs.

INTRODUCTION

The technology of plastics and reinforced plastics is extremely blooming. Since the early
1960s, extensive research has been carried out with fiber reinforced plastic materials (FRP) to
optimize their composition or to improve their mechanical properties. In the last decade,
special attention has been directed towards the use of FRP materials to reinforce concrete
structures in aggressive environments. Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastics (GFRP) are the
cheapest among FRP materials. Albeit they possess low modulus of elasticity, they are non-
corrosive materials and have a high strength to weight ratio. Thus, they are considered as
excellent substitutes for steel reinforcement in concrete elements [1]. A detailed
experimental-theoretical investigation was carried out to study the behavior of concrete slabs
reinforced with GFRP bars [2, 3]. Due to space limitations, the objective of this paper is
limited to evaluating the effect of using GFRP as reinforcement for concrete slabs on the
serviceability limit state design of such slabs and to obtain useful recommendations regarding
the service design of GFRP reinforced slabs.

1. Professor, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

2. Assistant Professor, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROGRAM

In the experimental phase, two groups of slabs were tested to failure: eight one-way slabs
(Group A) and four two-way slabs (Group B). Among these slabs, steel was used to reinforce
six slabs, which were used as references for comparison. Table 1 summarizes the group,
dimensions, concrete type, and number of reinforcing bars in each of the tested slabs. All
slabs were 6-cm thick. Group A slabs were four simply supported square two-way slabs with
side length of 140 cm and a clear span of 130 cm. On the other hand, Group B consisted of
eight simply supported one-way slabs of dimensions 140 cm length (direction of loading-a
clear span of 130 cm) and 60 cm width. For example, slab A1G refers to a Group A slab with
GFRP reinforcement; whereas, slab A1S refers to a Group A slab with steel reinforcement.
Both slabs have the same number (1), and, thus A1S is used a reference to which A1G is
compared.

Two concrete types where used: Type I giving average cube strength of 190 kg/cm2, and Type
II with average cube strength of 330 kg/cm2. The maximum nominal size of the coarse
aggregates was 15 mm; whereas, the finess modulus of the fine aggregate was 2.48. The
mixing and curing were done as per standard methods. Steel used for reinforcing Group A
slabs was normal mild steel (grade 24/35) and that used in Group B slabs was high-grade
steel (grade 36/52). The GFRP bars were fabricated from vinylester with an outer coat to seal
the bars. A single glass fiber strand warped around the outer surface enhanced the bond of
the reinforcement and concrete. Material properties of the GFRP reinforcement are: (1)
tensile strength = 5500 kg/cm2, density = 1850 kg/ m3, and modulus of elasticity = 540,000
kg/cm2. The reinforcement ratios for all slabs were either 0.30% or 0.60% (values well below
the balanced reinforcement ratios).

The slabs were casted and left in the laboratory for stages and were tested according to
schedule. During testing, Group A slabs were simply supported on two opposite sides (130
cm apart) as shown in Figure 1. The load was applied using a hydraulic jack on two lines
with a shear span of 40 cm. Group B slabs were simply supported along the four sides with
special arrangement to avoid lifting at the four corners (see Figure 2). A concentrated load
was applied to an area of 20 cm by 20 cm at the center of the tested slabs using a hydraulic
jack. The applied instrumentation allowed computation of the applied load, deflection at
various points of the slabs, strains in both concrete and reinforcement, and crack widths.

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Prior to cracking, it was noted that the behavior the slabs did not differ much with the
reinforcement type. Table 2 shows the values of initial cracking loads of the 12 slabs from
which it is noted that the cracking loads of GFRP slabs are lower than those of the
corresponding steel reinforced slabs by approximately 10%. After cracking, however, slabs
with GFRP reinforcement exhibited much greater deflections and had higher crack widths
primarily because of the low modulus of elasticity of the GFRP reinforcement. Thus,
serviceability of such slabs would be a fundamental concern of the design engineer. Load-
deflection and load-maximum crack width curves were plotted and were used to determine
the service load of the slabs. In this work, the service load is defined as the load
corresponding to maximum crack width of 0.30 mm or the load causing a maximum
deflection of 3.80 mm (1/350 of span length). These limits were set guided by the Egyptian
Code of Practice [4]. Figure 3 provides the load-deflection curves for slabs B1G and B1S and
Figure 4 shows the relation between load-maximum crack width for the same slabs. It should
be noted that the computation of service loads was mainly governed by the crack width limit.
Figures 5 and 6 show the relation between the service load, type of reinforcement,
reinforcement ratio, and concrete strength for Group A and B slabs, respectively. As may be
noted, at the same reinforcement ratio, the service loads of GFRP reinforced slabs are about
70% of those of steel reinforced slabs. Meanwhile, doubling the reinforcement ratio (while
keeping it less than that in the balanced condition) causes slabs with GFRP reinforcement to
have approximately the same service loads as those of slabs with steel reinforcement. On the
other hand, concrete strength seems to play a secondary role in determining the service load
as it increases the service load by a ratio in the vicinity of 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

The work illustrated here was mainly concerned with predicting and concluding the service
load of GFRP reinforced concrete slabs. It should be noted that conclusions and
recommendations provided herein are based on a limited number of experiments and should
not be generalized. The conclusions brought out of this study may be summarized in the
following points: (1) use of GFRP bars as reinforcement decreases the cracking load of
concrete slabs by 10%, (2) GFRP reinforced concrete slabs have service loads equal to
approximately 70% of those of steel reinforced concrete slabs, and (3) using a better quality
concrete would help in increasing the service load of slabs reinforced with GFRP bars. It is
expected that the slab thickness would be an important factor in establishing the service load;
however, effects of slab thickness were not studied in the current work. Additionally,
reinforcement ratios close to the balanced ratio were not studied. It is recommended to
further study the effect of these two aforementioned factors.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The experimental program was conducted at the reinforced concrete laboratory, department of
structural engineering, Ain Shams University. The cooperation of our colleagues in the
department is acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. C. R. Michaluk, S.H. Rizkalla, G. Tadros, and B. Benmokrane, “Flexural Behavior of

One-Way Concrete Slabs Reinforced by Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcements”, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 3, pp. 353-365, ACI, 1998.

2. A. H. Hosny, Behavior of Concrete Slabs Reinforced with Fiber Glass Rebars, M.S.
Thesis, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, 1994.

3. A.H. Hosny, O.A. El-Nawawy, E. I. Mostafa, and A.H. Hosny, “Behavior of Concrete
Slabs Reinforced with Fiber-Glass Bars”, in Advanced Composite Materials: State-of-the-
Art Report, The First Middle East Workshop on Structural Composites, Edited by A.H.
Hosny, S.H. Rizkalla, I. Mahfouz, and A. Mosallam, The Egyptian Society of Engineers,
pp. 267-280, Sharm El-Shiekh, Egypt, 1996

4. Permanent Committee for the Code of Practice for design and construction of Reinforced
Concrete Structures, “Egyptian Code of Practice for Reinforced Concrete Structures
Design and Construction”, Fourth Edition, Housing and Building Research Center, Cairo,
Egypt, 1998.
Table 1. Details of the tested slabs

Slab Dimensions Concrete Type Number of

reinforcing barsb

Length Width Long Short

A1Ga 140 cm 60 cm I 3 8
A2G II 3 8
A3G I 6 8
A4G II 6 8
A1S I 3 8
A2S II 3 8
A3S I 6 8
A4S II 6 8
B1G 140 cm 140 cm I 7 8
B2G I 14 16
B1S I 7 8
B2S I 14 16
a
Group (A for one-way slabs and B for two-way slabs)/slab number/reinforcement type (G for GFRP and S for steel).
b
Diameter of all bars was 6 mm.

Table 2. Cracking loads of the tested slabs

Group A Group B

Slab Load (ton) Slab Load (ton)

A1G 0.22 B1G 0.95

A2G 0.24 B2G 1.00
A3G 0.27 B1S 1.00
A4G 0.31 B2S 1.05
A1S 0.24
A2S 0.26
A3S 0.30
A4S 0.32
Figure 1. Test setup for Group A slabs

Figure 2. Test setup for Group B slabs

Figure 3. Load versus maximum deflection for Slabs B1G and B1S

2.5

2.0

1.5
Load (ton)

1.0

0.5
B1G
B1S
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Deflection (mm)

Figure 4. Load versus maximum crack width for Slabs B1G and B1S

2.5

2.0
Load (ton)

1.5

1.0
B1G
B1S

0.5
0 2 4 6
Crack width (mm)
 Figure 5. Service load for Group A slabs

0.8
GFRP/Concrete Type I
Steel/Concrete Type I
0.7 GFRP/Concret Type II
Steel/Concrete Type II

0.6
Service load (ton)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Reinforcement ratio (%)

Figure 6. Service load for Group A slabs

1.4

1.3

1.2
Service load (ton)

1.1

1.0

0.9
GFRP/Concrete Type I
0.8 Steel/Concrete Type I

0.7
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Reinforcement ratio (%)

View publication stats