Construction and Building Materials 44 (2013) 514–523

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Strengthening concrete elements by confinement within textile

reinforced concrete (TRC) shells – Static and impact properties
Michael Tsesarsky a,b,⇑, Alva Peled a, Amnon Katz c, Ido Anteby d
a
Department of Structural Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, POB 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
b
Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, POB 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
c
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel
d
Protective Technologies Research and Development Center, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, POB 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel

h i g h l i g h t s

 Cement elements were strengthened using textile reinforced concrete (TRC) shells.
 Strengthened elements were tested in flexural bending, static and impulse.
 Carbon TRC provided maximum improvement with lowest reinforcement efficiency.
 Glass and PE TRCs provided similar improvement with higher reinforcement efficiency.
 Ductile PE TRC provided lower load capacity but similar energy/impulse absorption.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper the mechanical behavior under static and impact loading of concrete elements strengthened
Received 8 July 2012 with shells of textile reinforced concrete (TRC) made of carbon, alkali-resistant glass and polyethylene
Received in revised form 19 February 2013 fabrics is presented. Testing of the strengthened elements for flexure by static and impact loading showed
Accepted 2 March 2013
that the TRC reinforced elements exhibited an improvement in load capacity, energy absorption and
Available online 13 April 2013
impulse absorption. The improvement in static loading was found to be higher than in impact loading.
The carbon TRC layers provided the greatest improvement and the polyethylene TRC layers the smallest.
Keywords:
These results correlate well with the behavior of the TRC shells and with the properties of the fabrics
Concrete
Textile reinforced concrete
themselves.
Fabrics Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Confinement
Impact
Strengthening

1. Introduction One commercially available solution to improve the dynamic

Structural elements made of concrete may be subjected to a
wide range of loading conditions during their service life, from a
very low strain rate up to severe dynamic events, such as blast
explosions, earthquakes, and fires. The inherent brittleness and
low tensile strength of most cement-based elements means that
they do not always possess adequate strength, toughness and duc-
tility to maintain integrity without collapse under impact and
other dynamic loads. Extreme events can therefore cause severe
damage to concrete structures [1].
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Structural Engineering, Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev, POB 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel. Tel.: +972 8 6461225;
fax: +972 8 6479670.
E-mail address: michatse@bgu.ac.il (M. Tsesarsky).
properties of structural concrete elements is to wrap them within
high-modulus high-strength fabrics (e.g., carbon) impregnated in a
polymer matrix (typically an epoxy matrix), FRP [2]. Despite their
improved strength, materials prepared by this technology have
several limitations, including their high cost, inability to withstand
fire (unless expensive fire protection measures are applied), and
incompatibility with the concrete substrate. Additional drawbacks
are that the application process is relatively complicated, involving
careful preparation of the concrete substrate, and the epoxy matrix
is hazardous to the manual worker.
An alternate means of substantially improving the mechanical
performance of concrete lies in fiber reinforcement [3], which is
one of the most effective methods for enhancing the impact and
blast resistance of concrete elements [4–9]. In this technology,
short fibers are incorporated into the concrete mixture in its fresh
state, so that they are randomly dispersed within the structural

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.03.031
 M. Tsesarsky et al. / Construction and Building Materials 44 (2013) 514–523
member. A relatively new development in the preparation of such
composite materials is textile reinforced concrete (TRC), which
comprises a combination of multi-axial fabrics and a fine-grained
cementitious matrix. Research findings show that such TRC com-
posites exhibit significantly improved tensile strength, ductility,
and energy absorption [10–12] properties, which are critical for
dynamic and impact resistance. Placement of the technical textiles
with the main stress directions of the composite provides a more
effective solution than that obtained with short fibers randomly
distributed in the concrete mix. Several recent works showed im-
proved impact and dynamic behavior of TRC [13–15], indicating
the benefit of fabrics as reinforcements for cementitious materials
exposed to dynamic conditions.
The use of TRC for strengthening and retrofit applications may
have several advantages over the carbon-impregnated epoxy
method discussed above. TRC may facilitate easier on-site applica-
tion, including application on wet surfaces and improved compat-
ibility of the TRC matrix with the concrete substrate. The high
modulus of the cement-based matrix may open the way for the
use of lower modulus fabrics, which are less expensive. Moreover,
cement binders are less expensive and less sensitive than epoxy
matrixes to fire hazards, high temperature environments and
freeze–thaw effects.
Several researchers have studied the use of textiles for strength-
ening concrete members subjected to static loading [16–22]. Peled
[17] explored the potential of using textiles impregnated with ce-
ment as a means for in situ strengthening and retrofitting of concrete
columns, compared to the conventional fabric-epoxy method (FRP).
Two noticeable advantages of TRC over FRP were presented: (i)
dense and fine multiple cracking of TRC vs. a single wide crack in
FRP in compression and (ii) a two fold increase of stiffness of TRC.
The flexural and shear strengthening of beams and the bonding be-
tween concrete and cement-based textile composites were studied
by Curbach and Ortlepp [16], who concluded that properly designed
textiles combined with inorganic binders have good potential as
strengthening materials for reinforced concrete members.
Against the above background, the goal of the current research
was to study the mechanical properties, under static and impact
loading, of small concrete elements reinforced with a variety of
TRC shells with significantly different properties. This work consti-
tutes part of the ongoing research in our laboratories to develop an
in situ technology for improving the resistance of concrete struc-
tural elements to extreme dynamic loading conditions by confining
the elements in TRC layers composed of a textile fabric impreg-
nated in a cement-based material. The research presented here
investigates both the performance of the TRC shells per se (not ap-
plied around the concrete) and the contribution of the shells to the
load resistance and energy absorption of the wrapped concrete ele-
ment. The concrete core was therefore not reinforced with steel
bars. This work constitutes an essential stage in the development
and up-scaling of the technology from TRC shells to full-sized rein-
forced concrete elements wrapped within TRC shells.
In the reported study, the first part presents the investigation of
the mechanical properties of TRC shells made from four thin TRC
layers made of: cement impregnated alkali-resistant (AR) glass fi-
ber fabric, polyethylene (PE) fabric and carbon fabric. In the second
part of the study, the static and impact behaviors of concrete ele-
ments wrapped within the TRC layers were investigated. The paper
is concluded with conclusions drawn from a comparison of the re-
sults obtained for the wrapped elements.
2. Sample preparation
To study the properties and behavior of the TRC layers– not as
part of the concrete element – laminated TRC shells were prepared
515
from the different fabrics by using the pultrusion technique. The
wet fabric-impregnated cement was applied to a plate-shaped
mandrel to produce laminated shells of size 250  300 mm. The
shells were made up of four layers of fabric, similarly to the con-
finement layers wrapped around the concrete element (described
below). The reinforcing yarns in the composites of each fabric were
orientated along the pultrusion direction. The average thickness of
the carbon, AR glass and PE shells was 11, 8, and 9 mm, respec-
tively. The properties of the fabrics and shells are presented in Ta-
ble 1. All shells were cured in water at room temperature for
28 days and then cut into specimens 25 mm in width and
150 mm in length for flexural testing and 280 mm in length for di-
rect tensile testing. Additional details on the TRC shells can be
found in [14].
The wrapped concrete elements were prepared as follows. Con-
crete plates, 400  400  40 mm, with a characteristic strength of
30 MPa were cast. The slabs were demolded 24 h after casting,
and then their surface was roughened to facilitate better bonding
with the TRC layers. Thereafter, the slabs were cured for a total
of 28 days: 7 days in a water bath at room temperature, followed
by 21 days in air at room temperature (RH = 50%). The slabs were
cut to produce two types of element: 200  50  40 mm for static
flexural tests, and 400  100  40 mm for impact tests. The size of
the samples prepared for the static bending and impact testing was
determined by the constraints imposed by the different set-ups,
and the results were compared separately at each loading condi-
tion. Plain concrete elements without TRC confinement were pre-
pared for use as reference samples.
After 28 days of curing as described above, the elements were
wrapped in (and hence strengthened) by TRC layers prepared from
one of the following three different fabrics that were chosen so as
to provide a range of properties from very low strength but high
ductility up to high strength but brittle behavior: carbon in the
form of a weft insertion warp knitted with straight yarns in the
weft and warp directions, with two yarns per cm in each direction
(Fig. 1a); AR glass in the form of leno bonded fabric (Fig. 1b), and PE
in the form of short weft warp knitted fabric in which the warp
yarns are knitted into stitches and bind together a set of yarns that
are laid in intermittently in both the weft and warp directions
(Fig. 1c). The carbon and AR glass yarns are in multifilament form,
with tensile strengths of 2200 MPa and 1372 MPa, respectively,
and moduli of 240 GPa and 72 GPa, respectively. The PE yarn is
in monofilament form, with a tensile strength of 240 MPa and a
modulus of 1.8 GPa. The carbon fabric is a commercially available
fabric used mainly for application to concrete in a mesh form. Since
its cost has dropped in recent years, it could be of interest for ret-
rofitting and strengthening of concrete elements. AR glass fabric is
a commercial fabric with good adhesion to concrete surfaces,
which is used widely in the construction industry for mortar appli-
cations. The PE fabric is a low-cost commercial fabric commonly
used for shading.
To prepare the wrapped elements, the relevant fabric was im-
mersed in a cement paste, at a water to cement ratio of 0.40, by
means of the pultrusion technique [10], and then hand laid over
the surface of the cured concrete element (at age of 28 days), with
the reinforcing yarns (weft yarns along the width of the fabric) par-
Table 1
Properties of fabric and poltruded TRC shells. / is the diameter of yarn, q is yarns
density; t is TRC shell cross-section thickness, ryr is yarn tensile strength; rt is tensile
strength of the TRC shell and Vf is volume fraction of the fabric.
Fabric / (mm) q (#/mm) t (mm) ryr (MPa) rt (MPa) Vf (%)
PE 0.5 0.37 9 240 1.4 3
Glass 0.3 0.28 8 1372 4.5 1
Carbon 1.15 0.2 11 2200 22 8
516 M. Tsesarsky et al. / Construction and Building Materials 44 (2013) 514–523
Fig. 1. Textiles used for TRC shells and TRC strengthened elements: (a) carbon; (b) glass; (c) polyethylene (PE). The arrow shows the reinforcing direction.
allel to the long axis of the element. Each element (slab) was
wrapped in four layers of the cement-impregnated fabrics to pro-
vide a confinement layer of about 1 cm around the slab, with full
anchorage of the layers to the concrete. The strengthened elements
were cured in water at room temperature for an additional 28 days
and then in air (at ambient room conditions) until testing.
3. Testing of TRC shells
3.1. Experimental set-up
The mechanical behavior under static load of TRC shells (not applied on the con-
crete element) was determined under bending and direct tensile conditions. Six
shells were tested in each set-up. Three-point bending tests were carried out at
span of 110 mm in an MTS machine at a crosshead rate of 0.6 mm/min. Load–
deflection curves were recorded, and the flexural stresses were calculated on the
basis of a three point bending arrangement. To take into account the different thick-
nesses of the specimens, the theoretical flexural strain (ef = 6dt/L2 where d is the
mid-span deflection, t is the thickness and L is the span between supports) of the
tensile face was calculated for each specimen. Direct tensile tests at a crosshead dis-
placement rate of 0.004 mm/s were performed with a specimen gauge length of
180 mm. For this test, aluminum plates with dimensions 25  50  1 mm were
glued onto the gripping edges of the specimen to minimize localized damage and
to provide better load transfer from the grips to the specimen during the tensile
test. Load–displacement curves were recorded and used to calculate the stress–
strain responses of the different TRC shell systems and the area under the curves
for the energy absorption analysis.
In addition, the microstructural characteristics of carbon and glass TRC shells
were investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Special attention was
paid to the penetration of the cement in between the filament bundles for the mul-
tifilament carbon and AR glass fabrics. For the SEM investigations, fragments of
specimens remaining after the tensile tests were dried at 60 °C and gold coated.
3.2. Mechanical properties
Flexural stress–strain curves of the carbon, PE and AR glass TRC shells are pre-
sented in Fig. 2. The curves chosen were those of typical behavior and with peak and
toughness values close to the group average. The sinusoidal pattern of the post peak
branch, of both glass and PE shells, is an experimental artifact. Comparison of the AR
glass and PE systems showed the AR glass system to have superior flexural strength
10 MPa vs. 7 MPa. The PE TRC shell exhibited an immediate drop in stress after
reaching the peak stress at very low strain of 6  10 4 (0.125 mm deflection). The
Fig. 2. Flexural stress–strain curves for three-point bending tests of carbon, glass
and PE TRC pultruded shells.
AR glass system exhibited relatively tough and strong behavior up to strain of
1.5  10 3 (0.35 mm deflection), and the reduction in stress for this system was
more moderate than that for the PE system. Note that at strains higher than
6  10 3 (1.5 mm deflection), the PE system showed markedly higher stress capac-
ity than the glass system, but at lower deflections, the difference was less signifi-
cant. The PE shell reached deflections exceeding 5 mm (2.4  10 2 strain)
showing a protracted post-peak hardening behavior, with stress increase from 3
to 4 MPa (equivalent to 15% of peak load). The glass shell did not reach deflections
above 2 mm (8  10 3 strain) and exhibited considerable post-peak reduction with-
out any hardening. The results thus showed that the PE TRC was the most ductile
material and that the AR glass TRC system exhibited brittle behavior. The carbon
TRC shell exhibited much stronger and tougher flexural behavior than the glass
and PE TRC shells, with a peak stress of 48 MPa being attained at 6  10 3 strain
(1.4 mm deflection). The peak was followed by a considerable reduction in strength
to a residual value of 7 MPa, which is similar to peak strength values of the glass
and PE TRC shells. The post-peak behavior the carbon TRC did not show any hard-
ening up to a deflection of 2.3 mm (1.1  10 2 strain).
Representative direct tensile stress–strain curves of the TRC shell composites
are presented in Fig. 3. The apparent tensile stresses and strains were calculated un-
der the assumption of a solid cross-section of the shell throughout the entire test.
Note that the carbon shell did not reach failure, and the test was stopped at the pre-
determined displacement limit of 6 mm (3  10 2 strain): thus, the actual tough-
ness and strain at failure are well in excess of the value reported at this stage.
The total amount of fibers in the system is relatively high (compared with regular
FRC). Thus the different linear initial stiffness of the shells is influenced by the type
of the fibers comprising the fabric, the geometry of the fabric and the penetrability
of the cementitious matrix. Therefore the shell stiffness is highest for carbon, fol-
lowed by glass and lowest for PE.
The glass shell exhibited a brittle behavior and a dense multiple cracking up to
nearly tensile strength. The PE shell exhibited a ductile behavior with only few vis-
ible cracks which are evident for the stress drops in the stress–strain curves. In the
carbon shell a dominant crack – visible to the naked eye – opened and widened,
with the reinforcing yarns being pulled back. In general, the tensile behavior of
the carbon system was markedly superior to that of both the PE and AR glass TRC
systems. The AR glass shells exhibited greater stresses than the PE shells (4.5 vs.
1.4 MPa) but much lower stresses than the carbon TRC shells (22 MPa), but with
more brittle behavior. The carbon system showed very high ductility, resulting in
the extremely high energy absorption of this system. Thus, the carbon fabric was
the strongest and the stiffest of the three and conferred the best performance on
the composite. The superior performance by the carbon fabric is only part of the full
potential of this system since the test was terminated at a displacement of 6 mm,
without a considerable stress drop. At the other end of the scale, the PE fabric
has the lowest modulus of elasticity and the highest strain at failure, resulting in
a composite with low strength, but high strain capacity.
Fig. 3. Stress–strain curves for direct tension of the carbon, glass and PE pultruded
TRC shells.
 M. Tsesarsky et al. / Construction and Building Materials 44 (2013) 514–523
3.3. Microstructural characteristics
The microstructures of the TRC shells containing the multifilament-yarn fabrics,
i.e., AR glass and carbon, are shown in Fig. 4, with a cross sectional (Fig. 4a and c,
respectively) and side views (Fig. 4b and d, respectively) of glass and carbon bun-
dles embedded in the matrix being presented. The cross-sectional micrographs
show that the multifilament form of the glass and carbon yarns led to poor penetra-
tion of the cement matrix in between the filaments of the two bundle systems: only
a few of filaments at the bundle perimeter were well bonded to the cement matrix,
as they were in full contact with the matrix. All other filaments of the bundle had
little or no contact with the matrix. This phenomenon was also observed in the side
views of the bundles. Only the external filaments were in contact with the cement,
with the remainder of the filaments being free from the hydration products and the
empty spaces between the filaments being clearly visible. The poor penetration of
the cement matrix into the glass or carbon bundles may be attributed to the rela-
tively large size of the cement particles, which impedes their penetration into the
interstitial spaces of the filament bundles, as described previously [12,13]. This
behavior may indicate reduction in the reinforcing efficiency of the glass and even
more so of the carbon fabrics due to the large diameters of the yarns (Table 1), as
compared with the PE monofilament. If better penetrability of cement hydrates
could be assured, then the efficiency of the carbon and AR glass fabrics would be
improved, thereby improving the performance of the TRC shells.
4. Static behavior of the strengthened concrete elements
4.1. Experimental set-up
Static flexural loading of the strengthened concrete elements
was performed with an MTS 810 loading frame with a load capac-
ity of 100 kN. The element was simply supported over a span of
180 mm and centrally loaded at a rate of 1 mm/min. Load and
mid-span deflection of the element was monitored continuously
throughout the experiment, enabling the extraction of flexural
stress and energy (area under load–deflection curve) data.
4.2. Results and discussion
Representative load–displacement curves obtained from the
static flexural tests for all three systems are presented in Fig. 5.
Fig. 4. SEM images of (a) cross section and (b) side view of a glass bundle (fabric) embedded in a cement matrix, and (c) cross section and (d) side view of a carbon bundle
(fabric) embedded in a cement matrix.
517
The average values for peak load and energy absorption are pre-
sented in Fig. 6. In general, the results for the strengthened con-
crete elements followed the same trends as those for the TRC
shells. The concrete strengthened with the carbon TRC gave the
best performance, followed by the AR glass and then PE. For the
concrete elements presented in Fig. 5 the element strengthened
with the PE TRC reached a peak load of 2.5 kN at a deflection of
0.076 mm; the glass TRC reached a higher peak load of 9.5 kN at
a deflection of 2.3 mm; and the carbon TRC shell attained the high-
est peak load value of 21 kN at a much greater deflection of 8 mm.
The post-peak behavior differed for the three strengthened TRC
concrete elements as follows (refer to Fig. 5): The PE TRC elements
showed a relatively small load drop, from 2.5 kN to 1.4 kN, fol-
lowed by continuous, but slow, post-peak hardening. The glass
TRC elements showed significant load drop, from 9.5 kN to 2 kN,
which was not followed by post-peak hardening or softening.
The carbon TRC elements underwent minor stress drop from
19 kN to 18.3 kN followed by strain hardening up to a peak value
of 21 kN (limit of test). These results reflect the brittle behavior
of the glass system and the highly ductile and tough behavior of
the strengthened carbon system; note that the PE system also
exhibits relatively high ductility based on its hardening. The highly
ductile behavior of the carbon system can be attributed to the low
penetrability of the cement particles in between the bundle fila-
ments (Fig. 4c–d), leading to the pulling out of the filaments during
loading rather than to their fracture [14].
The energy values for the three TRC elements calculated at fail-
ure or at 5 mm displacement limit were 10, 17, and 167 J for PE,
glass, and carbon TRC elements, respectively (Fig. 6b). The energy
absorption for the carbon system was superior, by an order of mag-
nitude, to that for the AR-glass or PE-strengthened systems. In con-
trast, although the load peak of the PE system is threefold lower
than that of the AR glass system, the difference in energy absorp-
tion of the two systems was less than twofold.
Visual examination of the strengthened samples was conducted
at the end of testing (Fig. 7). For the PE TRC system (Fig. 7a), a
518 M. Tsesarsky et al. / Construction and Building Materials 44 (2013) 514–523
Fig. 5. Representative load–displacement curves for static bending tests of PE, glass
and carbon TRC elements.
‘‘smeared’’ fracture, i.e., a fracture zone of up to 1 cm, composed
of several small cracks, propagated from the tensioned face of the
element towards the compressed face. The elongation of the PE
yarns is easily visible on the tensioned face (Fig. 7b) and dimin-
ishes towards the compressed face. The AR glass sample showed
two cracks, each about 0.1 mm wide, which developed on the ten-
sioned face of the element (Fig. 7d). In contrast to the PE strength-
ened system discussed above, the cracks in the AR glass sample
apparently did not reach the compressed face of the element, since
macroscopic failure was not evident (Fig. 7c). These findings sug-
gest that the glass fabric restrains and bridges the cracks more effi-
ciently that the PE fabric. Visual examination of the carbon element
revealed only very minor damage at the tensioned face (Fig. 7f) and
virtually no damage at the compressed face (Fig. 7e). It is therefore
evident that the energy and load values obtained for the carbon
fabric do not accurately reflect the failure value of this system,
since no considerable damage was detected up to deflection of
8 mm (Fig. 7c).
5. Impact behavior of the strengthened concrete
5.1. Experimental set-up
The experimental set-up for the dynamic testing is presented in
Fig. 8. The impact pendulum (Fig. 8a) was suspended by 5-m long
Fig. 6. (a) Peak load and (b) energy at static bending of PE, glass and carbon TRC elements.
cables. The pendulum weight was set to 90 kg. Drop height of the
pendulum was set to 60 mm, resulting in an impact velocity of
1.1 m/s and energy of 5 3 J. The pendulum was equipped with a
55 kN load cell (Honeywell type 47 10 V, 2 mV/V). The TRC sample
was placed in a three-point bending set-up (Fig. 8b) with a clear
span of 400 mm. Mid-span deflection of the sample was monitored
using Microtrack LTC 300 Laser distance meter (200 mm range,
with 10 3 mm accuracy). Data acquisition was performed with a
1-Gs/s oscilloscope (LeCroy WaveJet 314), with 8-bit vertical reso-
lution (down to 2 mV/div), at sampling rate of 100 or 200 kHz. The
results were processed using a MatLab routine specifically devel-
oped for this project, which included spectral analysis and re-sam-
pling of the acquired signal to reduce the ambient noise.
5.2. Results and discussion
Representative impact curves of load–deflection, load–time and
impulse–deflection of all the systems tested under the 60-mm
drop height are presented in Fig. 9. Load–deflection curves clearly
show the superior performance of the elements strengthened by
the TRC layers vis-à-vis the reference plain concrete system
(Fig. 9a). The PE concrete system exhibited the lowest peak load
(6 kN) of the three followed by the AR glass TRC (9 kN) and carbon
TRC systems (9 kN).
Deflection and duration of loading were significantly different
between the different systems tested (Fig. 9a and b). When com-
paring the duration (Fig. 9b) the reference exhibited short load
duration of 0.003 s. The glass system gave an intermediate value
of 0.012 s, and the carbon system exhibited high load duration of
0.022 s. The PE system did not reached a final value but rather
exhibited a protracted post peak loading duration (not shown to
its final value in order to display all the systems in a single plot)
up to test termination at 0.1 s. The pattern of the deflections was
also different (Fig. 9a): The concrete element reinforced with car-
bon TRC layers recovered most of the deflection, up to 3 mm at
peak load. Unrecoverable deformations of 7 and 3 mm of the glass
and reference systems, respectively, are clearly evident in Fig. 9a.
The PE system exhibited an unrecoverable deflection of up to
35 mm at test termination (not shown to its final value in order
to display all the systems in a single plot).
It is assumed that the large and frequent oscillations recorded in
the impact tests of the glass TRC strengthened concrete elements
represent the multiple cracking process as seen in tension and flex-
ure of glass TRC shells (not applied on concrete). The PE TRC
strengthened concrete elements also follow that behavior but with
fewer cracks development.
 M. Tsesarsky et al. / Construction and Building Materials 44 (2013) 514–523 519

Fig. 7. Post-loading damage of PE (a and b), glass (c and d) and carbon (e and f) TRC elements under static loading. Left panel (a, c and e) presents side views and the
compressed face (top zone during loading); right panel (b, d and f) presents the tensioned face (bottom area during loading).

Fig. 8. Experimental set-up of the impact pendulum tests: (a) general view; (b) close-up view.

For the glass–concrete system, distinct loading peaks of similar
magnitude, evenly spaced at 0.002 s, were observed (Fig. 9a and b),
which may correspond to the brittle failure of the glass TRC layers,
as discussed above. The concrete element with PE TRC also showed
distinct loading peaks: the first, similar to the 3 kN peak load of the
reference element (PC, black dots vs. black solid curves). The sec-
ond loading peak, at a 1 mm deflection, was considerably higher
at 6.3 kN, which is attributed to the PE TRC shell itself. The two ini-
tial peaks were followed by protracted low load (1 kN) up to test
termination at 0.1 s. These findings suggest that in the case of the
concrete reinforced with the PE TRC, the concrete at the core of the
element fractures first, and then, at larger deflections, the loads are
carried by the TRC shell. Once the TRC shell fails the load is carried
by elongation of the PE yarns within the shell.
Longer loading times, resulted in higher impulse values
(Fig. 9c), with the carbon-concrete elements exhibiting the highest
values, followed by the glass-concrete and PE-concrete elements.
The high impulse values of the concrete element reinforced with
the carbon TRC layers serve to emphasize the benefit conferred
by the carbon fabric as a strengthening system for concrete ele-
ments under extreme loading conditions.
Fig. 10a–c present photographs of the three systems immedi-
ately after impact for a 60-mm drop height. The concrete element
with PE TRC layers (Fig. 10a) exhibited severe damage under im-
pact loading. However, extensive elongation of the PE yarns pre-
vented disintegration of the element. The concrete element with
the glass TRC layers (Fig. 10b) failed completely under the applied
impact load, but with considerably higher energy and impact
absorption than the element with PE TRC layers (refer to Fig. 9c).
At drop height of 60 mm (53 J input energy), the carbon system
did not fail, and hardly any damage was observed (Fig. 10c). As de-
scribed above the element reinforced with carbon TRC layers
recovered most of the deflection during loading (Fig. 9a). For the
TRC shells application technique reported in this paper (roughened
concrete surface and full wrap) no visible delamination between
the shell and the concrete element was observed.
With the aim of inflicting severe damage on the carbon system,
similar to the damage to the PE and glass systems, the carbon sam-
ples were further tested until brought to failure by repeated drops
at increasing drop heights. Visual examination of sample ACPC1,
for example, tested at a 60-mm drop height (Fig. 9a), revealed very
little damage (Fig. 10c). The sample was subsequently loaded twice
at the 60-mm drop height, giving a cumulative input energy of
159 J. The sample accumulated flexural deflection, but consider-
able damage of the confinement TRC shell was not observed. The
sample was then loaded repeatedly until severe damage, close to
failure, was observed at a cumulative input energy of 521 J. The
cumulative absorbed energy and impulse at this damaged stage
were 262 J and 552 N s, respectively.
Fig. 11 presents images of two strengthened carbon concrete
samples: under a single loading at a drop height of 400 mm
(Fig. 11a) and after a cumulative drop height of 700 mm
(Fig. 11b). Considerable deflection of the strengthened element,
with minor damage to the carbon TRC shell, was observed for the
520 M. Tsesarsky et al. / Construction and Building Materials 44 (2013) 514–523

Fig. 9. Representative curves for PE, glass and carbon TRC strengthened elements under impact loading, for a pendulum drop height of 60 mm: (a) load–displacement, (b)
load–time and (c) impulse–displacement.

Fig. 10. Post-loading damage of (a) PE; (b) glass; and (c) carbon TRC elements, all under impact loading for a pendulum drop height of 60 mm (input energy of 53 J); (d)
carbon TRC element at failure after repeated impact loading, cumulative input energy of 521 J.
 M. Tsesarsky et al. / Construction and Building Materials 44 (2013) 514–523
Fig. 11. Damage to carbon TRC strengthened element: (a) at a pendulum drop height of 410 mm; (b) after a cumulative pendulum drop height of 700 mm.
Fig. 12. Load, absorbed energy and absorbed impulse at severe damage under
impact loading of PE, glass and carbon TRC strengthened elements. Plain concrete
(PC) element is shown for reference.
single loading at a drop height of 400 mm. Extensive damage to the
confining TRC shell was evident under a cumulative drop height of
700 mm. The finding that the carbon yarn bundles were pulled out
at this stage is in keeping with the low matrix penetrability pre-
sented in Fig. 4c and discussed above.
Fig. 13. (a) Impulse vs. energy and (b) load vs. energy under impact loading of PE, glass and carbon TRC strengthened elements. Plain concrete (PC) element is shown for
reference. All values are at severe damage conditions.
521
Fig. 12 summarizes the average values of load, energy, and im-
pulse (the integral of force over time) for the different strength-
ened systems and for the reference non-strengthened element.
For reference element (PC), AR glass and PE TRCs strengthened ele-
ments the values shown are for a drop height of 60 mm (53 J im-
pact energy) for the carbon TRC elements system the values
presented are for severe damage. As discussed above, at a 60 mm
drop height, the glass TRC strengthened elements failed, and the
PE TRC strengthened elements sustained severe damage, but the
carbon TRC strengthened elements exhibited only minor damage.
The carbon elements failed only at much higher impact energies
after several repeated drops. To enable a comparison of the differ-
ent tested systems at similar damage conditions, the results of the
carbon system presented in this figure are the cumulative values of
several pendulum drops as discussed above. All the TRC strength-
ened elements showed a considerable improvement in impact
properties vis-à-vis the reference concrete element. As for the sta-
tic results, the carbon system exhibited the best behavior, followed
by the glass, and the PE strengthened systems. The maximum load
for the reference element was 3.4 kN, whereas the maximum loads
for the PE and glass TRC strengthened elements were 6.3 kN and
8.6 kN, respectively. Failure load of the carbon TRC system was
an order of magnitude higher, at 45 kN. Energy absorbance is sim-
ilar for the PE and glass systems: 35 J, for the carbon system the en-
ergy absorption is again an order of magnitude higher, at 384 J.
Impulse at failure was also improved for the PE- and glass-
strengthened elements vis-à-vis the reference element, with 60
and 65 N s for PE- and glass-TRC strengthened elements, respec-
522 M. Tsesarsky et al. / Construction and Building Materials 44 (2013) 514–523

Table 2
TRC reinforcement efficiency and improvement of strengthened elements in static and impact loading.

TRC shells – direct tension Strengthened element improvement (relative to PC reference element)
Static loading Impact loading
Textile Vf (%) Reinforcement efficiency (%) Load (%) Energya (%) Load (%) Energyb (%) Impulseb (%)
PE 3 18 170 333 188 575 667
Glass 1 33 500 5670 257 592 750
Carbon 8 13 1430 55,000 1355 6400 7500
a
Calculated to ultimate load.
b
Values at severe damage.

tively vs. 12 N s for the reference element. The impulse at failure of
the carbon TRC-strengthened elements was much higher at
674 N s. Under impact loading, as under static loading, perfor-
mance of the carbon system was superior, by an order of magni-
tude, to the other two TRC strengthened concrete systems, thus
confirming the advantage of this fabric for strengthening of con-
crete elements subjected to extreme loading conditions.
Fig. 13 plots the load vs. energy (a) and the impulse vs. energy
(b) of the impact tests for the three TRC strengthened concrete sys-
tems. As before, the carbon TRC strengthened elements were supe-
rior in behavior to the PE and glass TRC strengthened elements in
all parameters studied. The PE and glass systems exhibited lower
properties than those of the carbon but significantly greater than
the reference PC. In addition, the PE and glass exhibit similar en-
ergy values and only small difference in the impulse values, indi-
cating the benefit of the low cost PE when energy absorption is
considered.
6. Comparisons and conclusions
The TRC layers prepared with three different commercially
available fabrics, carbon, AR glass and PE represent three distinct
mechanical behaviors: low strength but high ductility for the
low-cost PE fabric; intermediate strength but brittle behavior for
the AR glass fabric; and a high strength–high ductility for the car-
bon fabric.
To compare the behavior of the three different TRC systems on a
similar basis, the efficiency (e) of the TRC layers under direct ten-
sion (Table 2) was calculated from their volume fractions (Vf):
e = rt/(Vf ryr), where ryr is the tensile strength of the yarn and rt
is the tensile strength of the composite. Efficiency values were
highest for the glass TRC (33%), intermediate for the PE TRC
(18%) and lowest for the carbon TRC (13%). The relatively low effi-
ciency of the carbon TRC can partially be attributed to the high vol-
ume fraction, 8%, of the fabric and to inefficient bonding of the
carbon fabric with the matrix due to the multifilament nature of
the yarn (Fig. 4c and d).
As mentioned above, for TRC shells based on multifilament
yarns, the loads are carried largely by the external filaments and
to a lesser extent by the core filaments, due to low penetrability
of the cement particles into the spaces between the inner fila-
ments. The resulting composition leads to fracture of the outer fil-
aments during loading, while the inner filaments are pulled out
and slide against each other during loading, thereby impairing
the reinforcing efficiency of the whole bundle, as mentioned above.
Thus, the composition of the carbon bundle, with the largest diam-
eter (1.15 mm) and the lowest filament size (0.008 mm vs.
0.014 mm for glass) and hence the largest amount of filaments,
leads to a significant reduction in cement penetrability within
the filaments. This results in a low stress transfer to the inner fila-
ments, thereby reducing the efficiency of the system. However, the
sliding and pull-out mechanism [23,24] of the inner filaments
(Fig. 11b) can enhance ductility, leading to an improvement in
bending and tensile behavior of the individual carbon shell and
the energy and impulse absorption of the strengthened carbon
system.
The improvement of the strengthened elements correlates well
with the behavior of the TRC shells (not applied on concrete) and
with properties of the fabrics to themselves, from the strongest
carbon elements to the weakest of PE elements. A comparison of
the influences of the different TRC layers on the static and impact
behavior of the strengthened concrete elements is presented in Ta-
ble 2. All tested TRC layers were found to improve the static and
impact properties of the concrete element vis-à-vis the plain ce-
ment (PC) reference elements, in terms of load resistance, energy
absorption and impulse absorption (for impact), with the carbon
fabric providing the highest performance and the PE fabric the low-
est performance of the strengthened concrete element.
Under static conditions the high strength and ductility of the
carbon TRC strengthened element enabled high load capacity and
deflection – by an order of magnitude higher than the values for
PC. As a result, there was a huge improvement, by three orders
of magnitude, in energy absorption of the carbon system. Elements
strengthened with glass TRC were also superior, by up to two or-
ders of magnitude, in energy absorption under static conditions.
Concrete elements strengthened with PE TRC exhibited a modest
improvement. However, it should be noted that energy values
were calculated up to the ultimate load and therefore the post-
peak region of the PE TRC, which is attributable to the high ductil-
ity of the PE yarns, was not taken into consideration under static
condition. It is assumed that taking into account the strain harden-
ing post-peak region (Fig. 5) will considerably improve the energy
absorption of the PE TRC strengthened element.
Under impact loading, the improvement trend in peak load vis-
à-vis the PC for all TRCs studied was similar to the improvement
trend in static loading. The magnitude of improvement for the dif-
ferent TRCs was similar under both loading conditions. Impulse
absorption of the carbon system was an order of magnitude higher
than that of the PE system and the glass system. These results
accentuate the high potential of the carbon fabric for strengthening
of structural concrete elements subjected to extreme loading.
The improvement in energy absorbance of the TRC strength-
ened elements, as compared with the reference PC element, was
considerably lower than that under static loading, particularly for
glass TRC strengthened elements but to a lesser extent also for car-
bon TRC strengthened elements. For example, the improvement in
energy absorption of the glass TRC strengthened element under
impact loading was an order of magnitude lower than the value
under static loading, 592% vs. 5670%.
Since the strength of brittle materials, such as concrete, in-
creases with the rate of loading, this apparent lack of improvement
in impact loading, relative to static loading, implies that the perfor-
mance of the strengthened elements under impact loading is con-
trolled by the ductile behavior of the TRC composite shell and not
 M. Tsesarsky et al. / Construction and Building Materials 44 (2013) 514–523
by the shell-core system. Our results thus show that the TRCs made
of carbon and glass fabrics are more effective as strengthening lay-
ers under static conditions and that they also make a considerable
contribution under impact conditions.
Under static and impact loading conditions the PE TRC strength-
ened elements exhibited a considerable post-peak behavior as
compared with the glass elements. The peak load of the glass
TRC strengthened elements was substantially higher than that of
the PE TRC strengthened elements (Figs. 6 and 12). However, the
values for the total absorbed energy and impulse of the PE TRC
strengthened elements under impact loading were similar to those
for the glass TRC strengthened elements (Fig. 13). Whereas the
glass TRC strengthened elements disintegrated, the PE TRC
strengthened elements did not, although they did sustain severe
damage (Fig. 10a and b). Although the efficiency of the PE TRC
was lower than that of the glass TRC (18% vs. 33%, Table 2), it
should be remembered that these values were calculated using
ultimate strength values and did not take into account the energy
absorption properties of the TRCs.
PE fabric is a low cost and commercially available material.
Based on the results obtained in this work it may be suggested that
PE TRC can be utilized in mass to improve load resistance, energy
absorption and impulse absorption of concrete elements for large
scale application in developing countries. Such elements can be
used for retrofitting and reinforcement of existing structures sub-
jected to dynamic loading. Specifically, they could provide cost
effective, accessible and sustainable solutions for structure rein-
forcement in developing countries subject to high seismic hazard.
The improvements reported above emphasize the potential of tex-
tile reinforced concrete (TRC) in strengthening concrete elements
for enhanced resistance to static and impact loads and the possibil-
ity to ‘‘tailor’’ desired load resisting properties by using different
types of fabric materials.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Israel Ministry of
Construction and Housing for their financial support. SAERTEX
GmbH & Co KG, Germany, are thanked for providing the carbon
fabrics and Polysack Ltd., Israel, for providing the polyethylene fab-
rics for this research.
References
[1] Banthia N, Bindiganavile V, Mindess S. Impact blast protection with fiber
reinforced concrete. In: di Prisco M, Felicetti, Plizzari GA, editors. Sixth RILEM
conference on fiber reinforced concrete. Varenna, Italy: BEFIB; 2004. p. 31–44.
[2] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP strengthened RC structures. 1st ed. John
Wiley & Sons; 2002.
[3] Bentur A, Mindess S. Fibre reinforced cementitious composites. London: Taylor
and Francis; 2007.
523
[4] Besant T, Davies GAO, Hitchings D. Finite element modelling of low velocity
impact of composite sandwich panels. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf
2001;32(9):1189–96.
[5] Bharatkumar BH, Shah SP. Impact resistance of hybrid fiber reinforced mortar.
In: Kovler K, Marchand J, Mindess S, Weiss J, editors. International RILEM
symposium on concrete science and engineering: a tribute to Arnon Bentur.
Evanston, Illinois; 2004.
[6] Bindiganavile V, Banthia N. Polymer and steel fiber-reinforced cementitious
composites under impact loading. Part 2: Flexural toughness. ACI Mater J
2001;98(1):17–24.
[7] Suaris W, Shah SP. Properties of concrete subjected to impact. J Struct Eng
1983;109(7):1727–41.
[8] Xu H, Mindess S, I.J. Duca. Performance of plain and fiber reinforced concrete
panels subjected to low velocity impact loading. In: di Prisco M, Felicetti R,
Plizzari Ga, editors. Sixth RILEM conference on fiber reinforced concrete.
Varenna, Italy: BEFIB; 2004. p. 1257–68.
[9] Zhang J, Maalej M, T QS, Y TY. Drop weight impact on hybrid-fiber ECC blast/
shelter panels. In: Banthia N, Uomoto T, Bentur A, Shah SP, editors. Third
international conference on construction materials: performance, innovation
and structural applications. Vancouver, Canada; 2005.
[10] Peled A, Mobasher B. Pultruded fabric-cement composites. Am Concr Inst
Mater J 2005;102(1):15–23.
[11] Peled A, Mobasher B. Tensile behavior of fabric cement-based composites:
pultruded and cast. J Mater Civ Eng 2007;19(4):340–8.
[12] Brameshuber W. Textile Reinforced Concrete – State-of-the-Art Report of
RILEM TC 201-TRC; 2006.
[13] Zhu D, Gencoglu M, Mobasher B. Low velocity flexural impact behavior of AR
glass fabric reinforced cement composites. Cement Concr Compos
2009;31(6):379–87.
[14] Zhu D, Peled A, Mobasher B. Dynamic tensile testing of fabric–cement
composites. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(1):385–95.
[15] Haim E, Peled A. Impact behavior of textile and hybrid cement-based
composites. ACI Mater J 2011;108(3):235–43.
[16] Curbach M, Ortlepp R. Besonderheiten des Verbundverhaltens von
Verstaerkungsschichten aus textilbewehrtem. Second Colloquium on Textile
Reinforced Structures. Dresden, Germany; 2003. p. 361–74 [in German].
[17] Peled A. Confinement of damaged and nondamaged structural concrete with
FRP and TRC sleeves. J Compos Constr 2007;11(5):514–22.
[18] Sato Y, Fujii S, Seto Y, Fujii T. Structural behavior of composite reinforced
concrete members encased by continuous fiber-mesh reinforced mortar
permanent forms. In: Dolan CW, Rizkalla SH, Nanni A, editors. FRPRCS-4
fiber reinforced polymer reinforcement for reinforced concrete
structures. Farmington Hills, Michigan: American Concrete Institute; 1999.
p. 113–24.
[19] Wiberg A. Strengthening of concrete beams using cementitious carbon fibre
composites. Doctoral Thesis. Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm; 2003.
[Doctoral]
[20] Bösche A, Jesse F, Ortlepp R, Weiland S, Curbach M. Textile reinforced concrete
for flexural strengthening of RC-structures – Part 1: Structural behavior and
design model. In: Aldea CM, editor. Design & applications of textile reinforced
concrete proceedings of the ACI fall convention. Puerto Rico, 2007. ACI; 2008.
p. 19–40.
[21] Brückner A, Ortlepp R, Curbach M. Anchoring of shear strengthening for T-
beams made of textile reinforced concrete (TRC). Mater Struct
2008;41(2):407–18.
[22] Weiland S, Hauptenbuchner B, Ortlepp R, Curbach M. Textile reinforced
concrete for flexural strengthening of RC-structures – Part 2: Application on a
concrete shell. In: Aldea CM, editor. Design & applications of textile reinforced
concrete proceedings of the ACI fall convention. Puerto Rico, 2007. ACI; 2008.
[23] Cohen Z, Peled A. Controlled telescopic reinforcement system of fabric–cement
composites – Durability concerns. Cement Concr Res 2010;40(10):1495–506.
[24] Sueki S, Soranakom C, Mobasher B, Peled A. Pullout-slip response of fabrics
embedded in a cement paste matrix. J Mater Civ Eng 2007;19(9):718–27.