‫من‬

‫ِ‬ ‫ح‬
‫ْ‬ ‫الر‬
‫َّ‬ ‫الله‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫م‬ ‫س‬
‫ْ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ب‬
‫ِ‬ ‫يم‬ ‫ح‬
‫ِ‬ ‫الر‬
‫َّ‬
 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR
OF FERROCEMENT – ALUMINUM
COMPOSITE BEAMS

By
Sa’ad Fahad Resan

SUPERVISED
BY
Prof. Dr. Nabeel A. Jasim
General Introduction…

In civil engineering construction, different materials can be

arranged in an optimum geometric configuration, with the aim
that only the desirable property of each material will be utilized
by virtue of its designated position. The structure is then known
as a composite structure.
A structure can be considered composite only so far as the
various components are connected to act as a single unit. The
structural performance depends on the extent to which
composite action can be achieved.
 The advantages of using
Effect of composite action
composite Structure:
 Reduction of the unnecessary

and unwanted material

properties.

 Reduction of overall structural

depth.

Increase in floor stiffness and

load capacity.
 Though steel and concrete are the most commonly used
materials for composite beams, other materials such as

timber and concrete can be used.

Concrete – steel
composite beam
Stud connector

 Concrete – timber

composite beam
U – Profile Steel Wire
Connector
Ferrocement –Aluminum composite beam
 High strength to weight ratio for both ferrocement and
aluminum.
 Ferrocement is strong in compression and aluminum is
susceptible to buckling in compression and strong in
tension, so by the composite action between the two
materials, their respective advantage can be utilized to the
fullest extent.
 Ferrocement thickness is (5 to 50 mm) thinner than
reinforced concrete slabs.
 Ferrocement:
Ferrocement is a special form of reinforced concrete thin
elements, commonly constructed by hydraulic cement
mortar strengthened with closely spaced layers of
continuous and relatively small diameter wire mesh that
may be of metallic or other suitable materials.

House
House unit
unit built
built in
in Baghdad
Baghdad
 Aluminum
Aluminum is easily the second most important
structural metal. Since the 1940s, aluminum rapidly
became more important.
The advantages of aluminum alloys are :
Low density, of approximately one third of steel.
Good strength and toughness properties.
Large variety of possible cross-sectional shapes .
Good workability.
High corrosion resistance due to a tough oxide-
layer.
Excellent to recycle without a decrease in quality .
 Structural Applications of Aluminum

The roof football Stadium Installation of an aluminum The Sport-hall of Quito,

in Guayaquil, Equador deck on aluminum beams Equador.

The "Spruce Goose" is the

world's largest clear-span
A bridge is entirely aluminum dome 415 feet in A stair-case is erected by
transported by helicopter. diameter. crane
Adhesion bonded connections
The most interested point in the field of this new suggested
composite structures is in adhesive bonded connections .

advantages of using Adhesion bonded connections

oAvoiding aluminum corrosion due to contact with concrete .
o Avoiding holes in ferrocement by mechanical connectors.
o Enabling the use of precast ferrocement panels.
o Reduction of local buckling aluminum beam.
o Avoiding the block failure in ferrocement due to mechanical
connectors.
o Eliminating the concentration of stresses .
o Avoiding the reduction of aluminum strength due to the heat of
welding connection.
 Literature Review

• Federico and Mazzolini (1987) carried out experimental

tests on composite aluminum and concrete beams to

investigate the basic aspects of the bending behavior .

• Triantafillou, Kim and Eier (1991) experimentally

investigated the hybrid structural Aluminum components,

in which an aluminum beam is reinforced with

unidirectional CFRP composite laminates.

The aim of study

The main purpose of the study is to generate data and

provide information about the structural behavior of the

proposed ferrocement aluminum composite beams.

A series of tests is conducted using different geometric

dimensions for the aluminum beam.

Sikadur 31 thixotropic epoxy resin adhesive is used as a

connection layer between the ferrocement and aluminum.

EXPERIMENTAL
INVESTIGATION
Aluminum sections

Different aluminum
sections are used,
Box and I sections
Full Flange Thickn
Weight
No. Section depth, width, e-ss, t Aa mm2 Ia mm4
kg/m.l
D mm B mm mm

S1 20x5x0.4 cm 5.12 200 50 4 1936 8560725

Aluminum
S2 10x5x0.4 cm 3 100 50 4 1136 1441259
Sections details
S3 10x5x0.3 cm 2.29 100 50 3 864 1121192

S4 16X10-6x0.5 4.87 160 100-60 6-5 1800 4943467

Precast ferrocement slabs
o Depth = 0.05 m

oBreadth = 0.4m
oLength= 1.2m & 2.4m
Compressive strength of mortar is 38 MPa.
Volume fraction of mesh is 1.2 %, five wire mesh layers
Welded square wire mesh, 1.2x1.2 cm opening, 1 mm Dia.

Ferrocement-Aluminum
composite beam
Precast ferrocement slab
Aluminum beam
Epoxy layer 3 mm (Sikadur 31)
complies with ASTM C-881
Ferrocement-Aluminum
composite beam
fabrication and test
Materials Properties
Aluminum tensile test
ASTM B 557M – 2003, " Standard Test Methods of Tension Testing Wrought and
Cast Aluminum- and Magnesium-Alloy Products [Metric]”
225

200

175

150

Stress (MPa)
125

100

75

50

25

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Strain x10-3

Fig(1) Stress –Strain relationship

Aluminum Alloy Chemical Analysis

ASTM E 34 - 2003-” Standard Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Aluminum
and Aluminum-Base Alloys”
Ferrocement
ACI Committee 549, “Guide for the Design, Construction, and Repair of Ferrocement
ACI 549.1R-93 (Reapproved 1999) ”, American Concrete Institute, 1999.
Wire mesh tensile test
700

630

560

490

Stress (MPa)
420

350

280

210

140

70

0
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15 16.5 18 19.5 21 22.5 24
Strain x10-3

Direct tensile tests of Fig(2) Stress –Strain relationship

ferrocement elements
6

5.4

4.8

4.2
Stress (MPa)

3.6

2.4

1.8

1.2

0.6

0
0 0.18 0.36 0.54 0.72 0.9 1.08 1.26 1.44 1.62 1.8 1.98 2.16 2.34 2.52 2.7 2.88
Displacement (mm)
Compressive and Flexural Strengths of Mortar

ASTM C109-73, Compressive

BS 1881 Part 118-1983, Flexural
 Mechanical properties of Mechanical properties of mortar
aluminum
Compressiv Flexural
f0.2 Ultima Specimens e strength fc' strength fr
Fracture (MPa) (MPa)
Sectio Speci yield te E
elongation
n style mens stress stress (GPa) F1.2 39.7 5.5
(%)
(MPa) (MPa) F2.4 38.9 5.5
S1F1.2 37.2 5.24
a1 184.66 6.87 S1-F1.2 40.2 7.2
224.42 64.65
S1F1.2 36 5.29
Box a2 186.76 6.98
220.58 63.37 S1F2.4 36.5 6.9
a3 182.29 7.09 S2F1.2 37.2 6.04
225.5 65.54
S2F2.4 39.1 6.29
b1 192.24 11.9 S3F1.2 38.8 6.29
219.11 68.01
S3F2.4 34.6 5.9
I b2 188.35 12.11
221.23 67.97 S4F1.2 42.5 6.9
b3 187.76 11.68 S4F2.4 36.2 6.4
226.32 66.14
Main ingredients of structural
Mechanical properties of
aluminum alloy
epoxy (sikadur 31) Chemical Composition,
Section
elements wt%
Compressive Flexural Modulus of Al 95.02
strength strength elasticity
Box Mg 0.32
Si 0.35
31.2 Mpa 37.9 MPa 4.3 MPa
Al 95.91
I Mg 0.21
Si 0.33
 Details of tested beams

Aluminum
Aluminum Ferrocement Ferrocement
Aluminum flange section
No. Designation Length (L)m section depth section width section
width (B)mm thickness
(D)mm (mm) Depth(mm)
(t)mm

only
1 F1.2 1.2 only ferrocement   400 50
ferrocement

only
2 F2.4 2.4 only ferrocement   400 50
ferrocement

3 S1 1.2 50 200 4 none  none 

4 S2 1.2 50 100 4 none  none 
5 S3 1.2 50 100 3 none   none
6 S4 1.2 100-60 165 5 none  none 
7 S1F1.2 1.2 50 200 4 400 50
8 S1F1.2# 1.2 50 200 4 400 50
9 S1 - F1.2 1.2 50 200 4 400 50
10 S2F1.2 1.2 50 100 4 400 50
11 S3F1.2 1.2 50 100 3 400 50
12 S4F1.2 1.2 100-60 165 5 400 50
13 S1F2.4 2.4 50 200 4 400 50
14 S2F2.4 2.4 50 100 4 400 50
15 S3F2.4 2.4 50 100 3 400 50
16 S4F2.4 2.4 100-60 165 5 400 50
Push - Out Test
oThere is no code
specification concerned
with push out test for Details of push
out specimen
adhesive bond material.
oThe suggested specimen
in this study depended
upon British standard.

Epoxy Compressive Flexural

Epoxy layer
hardening
Specimens thickness strength fc' strength fr
time to test
(mm) (MPa) (MPa)
(days)
Details of push out
P1 3 1 40.1 6.15
test specimens
P2 3 3 40.1 6.15
P3 6 3 40.1 6.15
THEORETICAL
INVESTIGATION
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
ANSYS Computer Program

The computer program ANSYS (ANalysis SYStem version

11) is a powerful and impressive engineering finite element

package that may be used to solve a variety of problems. The

wide range of models and analysis capabilities available in

this program makes it highly suitable for a simple, linear,

static analysis to a complex, nonlinear, transient dynamic

analysis.
Material Modeling of Composite Beam

Representation of Ferrocement Slab

SOLID65 three-dimensional reinforced concrete brick element is
used to model the ferrocement slab.

Representation of Wire Mesh

The steel is assumed to be distributed over the concrete element,
with a particular orientation angles

Representation of Aluminum Beam

SOLID45 three-dimensional structural brick element is used to
model aluminum beam.
 Figure (4) SOLID65-3D Reinforced concrete element Figure (5) SOLID 45 3-D Structural Solid element

Representation of Epoxy Layer

In model 1,linear spring element COMPIN14

In model 2, nonlinear spring element COMPIN39

In model 3, cohesive zone interface element INTER205

In model 4, a solid shell element of SOLSH190

 Figure (6) COMPIN14-Spring element Figure (7)COMBIN39 nonlinear spring element

Figure (8)INTER205 3-D Cohesive Zone element Figure (9) SOLSH190 3-D Structural Solid Shell element
Finite Element Model
The half span of each beam is divided into 24 and 48 elements
(in z-direction) for 1.2m and 2.4m length

Loads and Boundary Conditions

RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
 Experimental results of tested ferrocement segments
Extrapolated Extrapolated
Cracking Ultimate Extrapolated
Pcr/P midspan tensile strain
N Specimens Ultimate comp. strain in top
load, Pcr load, Pul deflection at in bottom
o. designation moment (kN.m) most fiber at ultimate
(kN) (kN) ul
ultimate load most fiber at
load
(mm) ultimate load

1 F1.2 5.88 8.83 0.67 2.43 16.76 0.0008 0.0065

2 F2.4 1.96 3.53 0.57 1.97 20.89 0.0012 0.011

10

7 F1.2
F2.4
6
Load (kN)

0
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15 16.5 18 19.5 21 22.5 24
Deflection (mm)

Figure (10) Variation of mid-span

The specimens F1.2 (ferrocement deck
deflection with load for ferrocement
1.2x0.4 m)
panels – Experimental work
 Experimental results of tested aluminum beams
Shape Extrapolated Extrapolated
Midspan
factor Ultimate midspan tensile strain at
Specimens Ultimate Service* deflection at
No. moment deflection at ultimate load in
designation load (kN) load (kN) service load
(12 I/ (kN.m) ultimate load bottom most fiber
(mm)
A 2) (mm) (x10-3)

1 S1 27.4 95.12 26.16 7.67 63.41 3.98 9.60 

2 S2 13.4 28.44 7.82 16.00 18.96 6.24  46.40

3 S3 18.0 21.87 6.01 20.00 14.58 6.56  59.20

4 S4 21.8 77.27 21.25 14.01 51.51 3.80  69.00

100

90

80

S1
70
S2
60 S3
Load (kN)

S4
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15 16.5 18 19.5 21 22.5 24
Deflection (mm)

Figure (11): Load deflection relationships Aluminum beams after

for different aluminum sections failure
 Ultimate values of load and slip in push-out test
Period of Ultimate Extrapolated
Total
Specimens Epoxy layer hardening of shear slip at
No. Failure mode ultimate
designation thickness epoxy layer stress ultimate
load (kN)
(days) (MPa) load (mm)

Debonding of
1 P1 3 1 23.04 0.77 7.9
adhesive epoxy layer
Ferrocement
2 P2 3 3 splitting at adhesive 55.70 1.86 4.8
region
Ferrocement
3 P3 6 3 splitting at adhesive 58.01 1.94 3.4
region

Push out specimens after test

 60 60

55 55

50 50
P1
45 P2 45
P3
40 40

35 35
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
30 30

25 25

20 20
EXP.
15 15
Curve fitting
10 10

5 5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

Figure
Figure (12)
(12) Load–slip
Load–slip relationships
relationships for
for push
push out
out tests
tests Figure
Figure (13)
(13) Load–slip
Load–slip relationships
relationships for
for push
push out
out tests,
tests, P2
P2
60 75

55 67.5
50
60
45
52.5
40

35 45

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

30 37.5

25 30
20
P1 22.5
EXP. P2
15
Curve fitting P3 15
10

5 7.5

0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6 -3.6 -3.3 -3 -2.7 -2.4 -2.1 -1.8 -1.5 -1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9
Slip (mm) Uplift (mm)

Figure
Figure (14)
(14) Load–slip
Load–slip relationships
relationships for
for push
push out
out tests,
tests, P3
P3 Figure
Figure (15)
(15) Load–uplift
Load–uplift relationships
relationships for
for push
push out
out tests
tests
Ferrocement Aluminum
Composite Beams
Failure modes for the tested beam
specimens
Beams
No. designat Failure mode at ultimate load
ion
1 S1-F1.2 Local buckling of aluminum beam
2 S1F1.2# Local buckling of aluminum beam
3 S1F1.2 Ferrocement splitting at interface
4 S2F1.2 Ferrocement splitting at interface
Crushing of ferrocement in
5 S3F1.2
compression zone
6 S4F1.2 Ferrocement splitting at interface
Crushing of ferrocement in
7 S1F2.4
compression zone
Crushing of ferrocement in
8 S2F2.4
compression zone
Crushing of ferrocement in
9 S3F2.4
compression zone
Crushing of ferrocement in
10 S4F2.4
compression zone
 Experimental results of tested composite beams
Midspan
Ferroceme Mid-span
deflection Mid-span
Beams Ultimate Moment nt slab deflection
No at Flexural Service deflection
designatio load, Pul Capacity cracking Pcr/Pul at
. intermedi ductility load (kN) at service
n (kN) (kN.m) load,Pcr ultimate
ate load load (mm)
(kN) load (mm)
(mm)

1 S1-F1.2 97.08 26.70 49.03 0.51 4.00 9.12 2.28 64.72 3.10

2 S1F1.2# 125.03 34.38 88.25 0.71 2.00 8.93 4.47 83.35 2.39

3 S1F1.2 149.05 40.99 142.19 0.95 2.50 3.70 1.48 99.37 1.99

4 S2F1.2 76.49 21.03 58.84 0.77 4.36 10.04 2.30 50.99 3.43

5 S3F1.2 53.44 14.70 44.13 0.83 4.00 13.60 3.40 35.63 4.15

6 S4F1.2 139.25 38.29 127.48 0.92 2.47 7.40 3.00 92.83 3.16

7 S1F2.4 110.81 63.71 107.87 0.97 8.65 22.50 2.60 73.87 7.63

8 S2F2.4 63.74 36.65 46.09 0.72 10.00 63.00 6.30 42.49 21.63

9 S3F2.4 41.45 23.83 39.22 0.95 10.00 85.00 8.50 27.63 11.27

10 S4F2.4 76.98 44.26 68.64 0.89 5.80 29.00 5.00 51.32 9.03
Experimental comparison of tested aluminum and composite
beams

Aluminum beam Composite beam

Beams Ratio,
No.
designation Ultimate Service Ultimate Service
Shape (P3/P1)
Section load,P1 load,P2 load,P3 load,P4
factor
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

1 S1-F1.2 S1 27.41 95.12 63.41 97.08 64.72 1.02

2 S1F1.2# S1 27.41 95.12 63.41 125.03 83.35 1.31

3 S1F1.2 S1 27.41 95.12 63.41 149.05 99.37 1.57

4 S2F1.2 S2 13.40 28.44 18.96 76.49 50.99 2.69

5 S3F1.2 S3 18.02 21.87 14.58 53.44 35.63 2.44

6 S4F1.2 S4 21.79 77.27 51.51 139.25 92.83 1.80

End-slip of tested composite beams End-slip effect upon deflection for
composite beams
Extrapol Extrapolate
ated End-slip d
Beams Ultimate end-slip Service* at Deflection
deflection Extrapolate
No. designat load, Pul at load service Beams increment
No at ultimate d slip (δ) at
ion (kN) ultimate (kN) load designati due to
. load ultimate
load (mm) on slip, Δv
(included load mm
(mm) =10δ mm
slip effect)
mm

1 S1-F1.2 97.08 2.000 64.72 0.950 1 S1F1.2 3.70 0.012 0.12

2 S1F1.2# 125.03 1.910 83.35 0.345

2 S2F1.2 10.04 0.035 0.35
3 S1F1.2 149.05 0.012 99.37 0.004
3 S3F1.2 13.60 0.055 0.55
4 S2F1.2 76.49 0.035 50.99 0.015
4 S4F1.2 7.40 0.023 0.23
5 S3F1.2 53.44 0.055 35.63 0.021

6 S4F1.2 139.25 0.023 92.83 0.011 5 S1F2.4 22.50 0.0135 0.135

7 S1F2.4 110.81 0.014 73.87 0.004 6 S2F2.4 63.00 0.044 0.44

8 S2F2.4 63.74 0.044 42.49 0.012
7 S3F2.4 85.00 0.06 0.6
9 S3F2.4 41.45 0.060 27.63 0.024
8 S4F2.4 29.00 0.0325 0.325
10 S4F2.4 76.98 0.033 51.32 0.009
 Midspan uplift of tested composite beams

Ultimate Extrapolated Midspan

Beams midspan uplift Service uplift at
No. load, Pul
designation at ultimate load load (kN) service load
(kN)
(mm) (mm)

1 S1-F1.2 97.08 10.50 64.72 6.30

2 S1F1.2# 125.03 9.65 83.35 0.74 

3 S1F1.2 149.05 0.20 99.37 0.09

4 S2F1.2 76.49 0.60 50.99 0.14

5 S3F1.2 53.44 0.90 35.63 0.25

6 S4F1.2 139.25 0.31 92.83 0.11

7 S1F2.4 110.81 0.25 73.87 0.09

8 S2F2.4 63.74 0.96 42.49 0.20

9 S3F2.4 41.45 1.60 27.63 0.17

10 S4F2.4 76.98 0.36 51.32 0.11

 150

135

S1F1.2
120
S2F1.2
105 S3F1.2

90
S4F1.2
Figure (16) Variation of midspan
Load (kN)

75
deflection with load for composite
60 beams with 1.2 m length –
45 Experimental work
30

15

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Deflection (mm)

120

108

S1F2.4
96
S2F2.4
84 S3F2.4
S4F2.4
72 Figure (17) Variation of midspan
Load (kN)

60 deflection with load for composite

48
beams with 2.4 m length –
36
Experimental work
24

12

0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96
Deflection (mm)
 150

135

120

105
Figure (18) Variation of midspan
90
deflection with load for different
Load (kN)

75

60
conditions between the
45 S1F1.2
components of composite beams –
30
S1F1.2#
S1-F1.2 Experimental work
15

0
0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 4.5 5.25 6 6.75 7.5 8.25 9 9.75 10.5 11.25 12
Deflection (mm)

150

120

Figure (19) Variation of end slip

90
with load for different conditions
Load (kN)

between the components of

60

S1F1.2
composite beam – Experimental
30
S1F1.2#
S1-F1.2
work

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Slip (mm)
 100

90

80 S1-F1.2
S1
70 F1.2

60
Figure (20) Comparison of load-
Load (kN)

50

40
mid span deflection relationships
30 of composite section with its
20 components for S1-F1.2 –
10 Experimental work
0
0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6 7.2 8.4 9.6 10.8 12 13.2 14.4 15.6 16.8 18 19.2
Deflection (mm)

160

144

128 S1F1.2
S1
112 F1.2
Figure (21) Comparison of load-
96
mid span deflection
Load (kN)

80

64
relationships of composite
48
section with its components for
32
S1F1.2 – Experimental work
16

0
0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6 7.2 8.4 9.6 10.8 12 13.2 14.4 15.6 16.8 18 19.2
Deflection (mm)
 150

120 S1F1.2
S2F1.2
S3F1.2
S4F1.2
90 Figure (22) Variation of end
Load (kN)

slip with load for composite

60
beams with 1.2 m length –
Experimental work
30

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Slip (mm)

125

S1F2.4
100
S2F2.4
S3F2.4
S4F2.4
Figure (23) Variation of end
75 slip with load for composite
Load (kN)

beams with 2.4 m length –

50
Experimental work
25

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Slip (mm)
 150

135

S1F1.2
120
S2F1.2
105
S3F1.2
S4F1.2 Figure (24) Variation of
90
central uplift with load for
Load (kN)

composite beams with 1.2 m

75

60

45
length – Experimental work
30

15

0
0 0.075 0.15 0.225 0.3 0.375 0.45 0.525 0.6 0.675 0.75 0.825 0.9 0.975 1.05 1.125 1.2
Uplift (mm)

120

108

S1F2.4
96
S2F2.4 Figure (25) Variation of
S3F2.4
84
S4F2.4 central uplift with load for
72
composite beams with 2.4 m
Load (kN)

60

48
length – Experimental work
36

24

12

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Uplift (mm)
 Figure (26) Strain distributions at mid-span under ultimate load and
intermediate load value in the linear stage - Experimental work

40 40

20 20

0 0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60
Depth (mm)

Depth (mm)
Ultimate load Ultimate load
97.08 kN 125.026 kN
-80 -80
Intermediate load Intermediate load
78.45 kN 78.45
-100 -100

-120 -120

-140 -140

-160 -160

S1-F1.2 -180 S1F1.2# -180

-200 -200

40 Strain x10-3 Strain x10-3

Ultimate load 50
149.05 kN
20 40 Ultimate load
Intermediate load
76.49 kN
127.48 kN
30 Intermediate load
0
53 kN
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 20
-20
10

-40 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-60 -10
Depth (mm)

Depth (mm)

-20
-80
-30
-100
-40
-120
-50

-140 -60

-160 -70

S1F1.2 -80
-180

-200
S1F2.4 -90

-100
Strain x10-3
Strain x10-3
Finite Element Analysis
Adhesive Epoxy Layer Modeling

Finite Element Analysis

Ultimate load Deflection

End slip (mm)
(kN) (mm)
Model
Element type
No.

1 COMBIN14 79.2 10.09 0.051

2 COMBIN39 82.5 13.10 0.09

3 INTER205 79.2 9.91 0.01

4 SOLSH190 85.8 12.83 -

Experimental results 76.49 10.04 0.035

 100

90

80

70

60
Figure (27) Variation of
Load (kN)

50
Exp.
Mode1
mid span deflection with
40

30
Mode2
Mode3 load for different adhesive
Mode4

20
epoxy layer models
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Deflection (mm)

100

90

80

70
Figure (28) Variation of
60
end slip with load for
Load (kN)

50

40
EXP.
different adhesive epoxy
30
Mode1
Mode2
layer models
Mode3
20

10

0
0 0.0125 0.025 0.0375 0.05 0.0625 0.075 0.0875 0.1
End-slip (mm)
 Ultimate and service loads of tested Deflections of tested beams
beams Deflection at ultimate Deflection at
load (mm) service load (mm)
Ultimate load Service load Beams
Beams (kN) (kN) Ultima No. designa Exper Theor Experi Theor
No. designat Experi Theoret Experi Theoret te tion imen dexp
etical dexp/dth mental etical
tal
ion mental ical mental ical Pexp/Pth (dth) (dexp) (dth) /dth
(dexp)
(Pexp) (Pth) (Pexp) (Pth)
1 F1.2 8.83 8.25 5.88 5.50 1.07 1 F1.2 16.76 21.71 0.77 7.12 3.50 2.03

2 F2.4 3.43 2.97 2.28 1.98 1.15 2 F2.4 20.89 30.10 0.69 8.11  6.8 1.19
3 S1 7.67 10.26 0.75 3.98 3.92 1.02
3 S1 95.12 86.73 63.41 57.82 1.10
4 S2 16 41.00 0.39 6.235 7.00 0.89
4 S2 28.44 27.30 18.96 18.20 1.04
5 S3 20 41.12 0.49 6.561 5.90 1.11
5 S3 21.87 21.98 14.58 14.65 0.99
6 S4 14.01 36.96 0.38 3.803 4.60 0.83
6 S4 77.27 82.80 51.51 55.20 0.93
0.6
7 S1-F1.2 9.12 18.00 0.51 3.10 4.49
7 S1-F1.2 97.08 105.60 64.72 70.40 0.92 9
8 S1F1.2# 125.03 125.4 83.35 83.6 0.99 8 S1F1.2# 8.93 3.6 2.48  2.39 2.15 1.11

9 S1F1.2 149.05 132.00 99.37 88.00 1.13 9 S1F1.2 3.70 3.67 1.01 1.99 2.17 0.92

10 S2F1.2 76.49 79.20 50.99 52.80 0.97 10 S2F1.2 10.04 10.09 0.99 3.43 3.77 0.91
11 S3F1.2 13.60 18.47 0.74 4.15 4.68 0.89
11 S3F1.2 53.44 72.60 35.63 48.40 0.74
0.9
12 S4F1.2 139.25 132.00 92.83 88.00 1.05 12 S4F1.2 7.40 11.19 0.66 3.16 3.51
0
13 S1F2.4 110.81 92.40 73.87 61.60 1.20 13 S1F2.4 22.50 21.70 1.04 7.63 8.23 0.93
14 S2F2.4 63.74 42.90 42.49 28.60 1.49 14 S2F2.4 63.00 57.00 1.11 21.63 15.00 1.44
15 S3F2.4 41.45 34.65 27.63 23.10 1.20 15 S3F2.4 85.00 67.60 1.26 11.27 16.04 0.70
16 S4F2.4 76.98 66.00 51.32 44.00 1.17 16 S4F2.4 29.00 35.10 0.83 9.03 10.20 0.88
 Comparison of experimental and
End-slip of composite beams
theoretical strain for tested beams
End-slip at End-slip at Compressive
Tensile strain in
ultimate load service load strain in Ferr. (top
Beams Al. (bottom most
(mm) (mm) Beams most fiber) at
No. design fiber) at ultimate
No. design ultimate load
ation Experi Theoret Experi Theore load (x10-3)
ation (x10-3)
mental ical mental tical Experim Theoret Experim Theore
ental ical ental tical
1 S1-F1.2 2.000  4.08 0.950 1.343  1 F1.2 -0.80 -1.00 6.50 8.60
2 F2.4 -3.90  -0.68 11.00 3.6 
2 S1F1.2# 1.910 0.14 0.345 0.098
3 S1 - -14.28 9.60 12.82
4 S2 - -58.53 46.41 58.00
3 S1F1.2 0.012 0.041 0.004 0.020
5 S3 - -141.60 59.00 137.13
4 S2F1.2 0.035 0.051 0.015 0.028 6 S4 - -50.94 69.00 123.09
7 S1-F1.2 -3.30 -4.09 25.00 33.36
5 S3F1.2 0.055 0.042 0.021 0.025 8 S1F1.2# -3.10  -3.26 20.5  4.37 
9 S1F1.2 -2.62 -3.90 3.55 4.48
6 S4F1.2 0.023 0.017 0.011 0.012
10 S2F1.2 -4.09 -6.67 10.75 15.72

7 S1F2.4 0.0135 0.030 0.004 0.020 11 S3F1.2 -8.93 -12.48 32.02 38.18
12 S4F1.2 -9.68 -18.2 18.35 26.68
8 S2F2.4 0.044 0.020 0.012 0.014 13 S1F2.4 -9.22 -8.53 16.68 15.89
14 S2F2.4 -12.90 -9.9 60.17 39.40
9 S3F2.4 0.060 0.018 0.024 0.010 15 S3F2.4 -4.80 -9.34 27.00 49.43
16 S4F2.4 -8.60 -9.58 24.09 29.61
10 S4F2.4 0.032  0.013 0.009 0.009 
 10

6 Figure (29) Variation of

Load (kN)

5 midspan deflection with load for

4
ferrocement specimen (F1.2)
3

0
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15 16.5 18 19.5 21 22.5 24
Deflection (mm)
5

4.5

3.5

3 Figure (30)Variation of midspan

Load (kN)

2.5 deflection with load for

2 ferrocement specimen (F2.4)
1.5

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Deflection (mm)
 100

90

80

70

60
Figure (31)Variation of
Load (kN)

50

40
midspan deflection with load
30 for
20 aluminum beam (S1)
10

0
0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 4.5 5.25 6 6.75 7.5 8.25 9 9.75 10.5 11.25 12
Deflection (mm)

125

112.5

100

87.5

75 Figure (32) Variation of midspan

Load (kN)

62.5 deflection with load for

50
composite beam without adhesive
37.5
epoxy layer (S1-F1.2)
25

12.5

0
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15 16.5 18 19.5 21 22.5 24
Deflection (mm)
 100

90

80

70

Figure (33) Variation of

60
Load (kN)

50

40
midspan deflection with load for
30
composite beam (S2F1.2)
Exp.
20
FEA

10

0
0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 4.5 5.25 6 6.75 7.5 8.25 9 9.75 10.5 11.25 12
Deflection (mm)

75

67.5

60

52.5

45 Figure (34) Variation of

Load (kN)

37.5 midspan deflection with load for

30 composite beam (S2F2.4)
22.5

15 Exp.
FEA

7.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Deflection (mm)
 120

90
Load (kN)

60 Figure (35) Variation of end

slip with load for
30 EXP
composite beam (S1-F1.2)
FEA

0
0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3 3.6 4.2 4.8
Slip (mm)

150

135

EXP.
120
FEA
105

90
Figure (36)Variation of end
Load (kN)

75

60
slip with load for
45
composite beam (S1F1.2)
30

15

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
End-slip (mm)
 Figure (37) Variation of STRAIN distribution with LOAD at
midspan
100 150 120

90 135 108

80 120 96

70 105 84

60 90 72

Load (kN)
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

75 60
50

60 48
40

45 36
30

30 24 EXP.
20 FEA

(S1) 10
(S1F1.2) 15
(S1F2.4) 12

0 0
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20
Ferrocement Aluminum Ferrocement Aluminum
Strain x 10 -3 Strain x 10 -3 Strain x 10 -3

30 100 70

27 90 63

24 80 56

21 70 49

18 60 42
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

50 35
15

40 28
12

30 21
9

20 14
6

(S2) 3 (S2F1.2) 10
(S2F2.4) 7

0 0
0
-30 -24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 18 24 30 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75
-60 -48 -36 -24 -12 0 12 24 36 48 60
Ferrocement Aluminum Ferrocement Aluminum
Strain x 10 -3 Strain x 10 -3 Strain x 10-3
Intermediate load at linear stage (39.6kN)

Ultimate load (76.49kN)

Deformed shapes and contour plots under intermediate load at linear stage and ultimate
loads for longitudinal STRAIN distribution of composite beam (S2F1.2)
 Plastic Analysis for composite beams.

The plastic analysis

Comparison of plastic analysis results with
results depicted that
experimental and FEA results for composite
the ultimate strength sections
capacity of ferrocement Ultimate load (kN)
Beams Plastic PEXP/ PFEA/
aluminum composite No. designa Experi
FEA analysis P PP
tion mental P
PFEA
beams can be PEXP
PP
efficiently estimated by 1 S1F1.2 149.05 132.00 161.21 0.92 0.82

using conventional 2 S2F1.2 76.49 79.20 64.53 1.19 1.23

3 S3F1.2 53.44 72.60 50.12 1.07 1.45
equilibrium procedures
4 S4F1.2 139.25 132.00 115.58 1.20 1.14
and the constitutive 5 S1F2.4 110.81 92.40 77.94 1.42 1.19

laws prescribed by Euro 6 S2F2.4 63.74 42.90 30.86 2.07 1.39

7 S3F2.4 41.45 34.65 23.97 1.73 1.45
codes and standard
8 S4F2.4 76.98 66.00 55.28 1.39 1.19
tests for the materials. Average 1.37 1.23
Thank you
Very Much