CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

Nowadays, people live in the world of high technology where they seek the help of

technology to complete difficult tasks. Even though technology has their bad sides, it also

has their good side. For an example in construction, conventional technology used clay as

paste agent to bond the rock or block together. On the other hand, in modern technology,

cement is introduced as it is more effective compared to clay. There are many studies

conducted to improve the properties of concrete, for example to increase the strength of

concrete and overcome the weakness of concrete. In the 20th century, engineers are

introduced to retrofitting or repairing concrete techniques to reduce the cost of the

construction. Therefore, engineers have a choice of repairing the structure or retrofitting the

structure in order to increase the strength and life span of the old buildings.

A building is consisting of roof at the top, column, slab, beam and the foundation at

bottom of the building. Most of the buildings are built using reinforced concrete (RC) as

the main construction material. Due to increase of material construction, therefore

researchers are looking for alternative to reduce the cost of the construction and avoiding

demolition to occur. The researchers agreed that the retrofitting is the better choice than

demolishing due to the facts that old building may hold some national history, or to reduce

the construction’s cost. Event like fire, accident or hurricanes may also damages the

building and need for retrofitted in order to strengthen the structure back.

1
 Retrofitting of the structure does not change the architectural of the building, but

the ability and strength of the building will increase. In Malaysia, most of the buildings

were constructed decades ago without using proper guideline.

One way to retrofit the structure is by using the Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

bar. There are many types of FRP which are available in market, but the popular and

mostly being used is Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bar. The main reason GFRP

is chosen as retrofitting material is due to ability of not corrode and durable.

1.2 Problem Statement

In this new era, there are several problem that contractor may face in construction

industry. The contractor needs to choose either the old structure need to repairing or

demolish it. The choice will be makes according to several issued. First, the building may

hold some historical value. The old building that had historical value cannot be demolished.

Second, the cost that contributed in construction. Mostly, the cost of repairing is much

lower compared to demolish and construct new building. And lastly, the damaged structure

due to fire. When fire event, the structure may damage the concrete properties. Therefore,

by consider these issued, the retrofitted is the better choice. The retrofit will increase the

strength of the structure.

According to Reddy et al. (2006), the Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)

system have proven to be technically efficient and sound method of strengthening and

improving structurally inadequate due to their characteristics which is high strength, high

stiffness, low weight, non-corrosive and aesthetically properties. But due to low

2
temperature resistance, the CFRP is not capable of safety and adequately enduring fire for

any substantial period of time.

Thus, this research study focus on the capability of the GFRP element to retrofitting

the reinforce concrete that had been exposed to the elevated temperature. The damaged RC

beams due to elevated temperature were retrofitted using GFRP bars at the soffit. The

flexural strengths of structure using GFRP after exposing to temperature were then

compared to the control beams.

1.3 Objectives of Study

The objectives of the study are:

a. To determine the flexural strength of the retrofitted RC beams and the normal RC

beams after exposing to different temperature which are 30°C, 200°C, 400°C, and

800°C.

b. To determine the mode of failure for the RC beams retrofitted with GFRP bars.

The GFRP bars were applied through the near surface mounted (NSM) technique.

1.4 Scope of Study

The specimen involved in this research study is eight beams and nine cubes. The

size of the beam is 150 mm x 150 mm x 750 mm while the size of the cube is 150 mm x

150 mm x 150 mm. The grade of concrete cast for this research is 30 N/mm2. The beam is

3
exposed to elevated temperature which is 300C, 2000C, 6000C and 8000C. And then, the

test conduct for this research is flexural test and compression test.

The scope of study explained briefly every step from initial research study to

conduct this research which is “Retrofitting of RC beam expose to elevated temperature

using GFRP bars”. The scopes of the studied are focused to remark whether it had achieved

or not. This research study is divided into 3 stages, illustrated in Figure 1.1 while the

complete flow of study is illustrated in the Figure 1.2.

Intermediate Stages:
* Literature Review Final Stages:
Early Stages:
* Identify the problem * Laboratory test
* Choose field type
* Determine the * Collect data
* Meet supervisor
objective * Analyse result
* Topic selection
* Scope of study * Make conclusion.
* Design

Figure 1.1: Stages of Study

4
 Field Selection Meeting Supervisor Topic Selection

Literature Review
* Magazine
Determine Problem
* Articles
Objective Identification
* Journals
* Books & etc.

Designing
* Design reinforced
Scope of Study concrete beam Conduct Lab Test
*Mixed concrete
design

Make Conclusion Collect The Data

According from Analyse The Result From Laboratory
Result. Test

Figure 1.2: Flow of Study

5
 From the Figure 1.1 and 1.2, it showed that this research study divided into three

stages which are Early Stages, Immediate Stage and Final Stages. In civil engineering,

there are several field types focusing which is structural, environmental, geotechnical,

highway, management and other related. After choose the field type, make an appointment

with the supervisor in order to decide the topic of research that is conducted. After

completing in choosing the topic, start make an observation on past research regarding to

the topic selected. All the information related to research study can be obtained from the

magazine, articles, journals, books, internet and other reliable sources.

Mostly in the immediate stages, it focused on researching and observing the data

regarding to the research study. From the topic selected, the problem statement for the

research study, scope of study and the objective of the study can be determined. And after

all research had been made, the designing RC beam and mixed concrete were started. All

the data should be precise before start the laboratory work. The laboratory work including

collecting data, analysing and making a conclusion are in the final stages.

1.5 Significance of Study

Reinforced concretes are among the most commonly used as structural elements.

However, when the RC building takes damage due to exceed load or disaster event, owner

or engineers need a better solution than demolishing the damaged building. In order to

increase the serviceability of the structure, retrofitting the structure is amongst the

solutions. Retrofitting of the structure not only increase the capability of the structure to

withstand the load, but it also increase the life span for the structure itself.

6
 This research study is a significant in determining the capability of GFRP as a

retrofitted material to the RC structure. This research study is also beneficial to determine

whether the structure that retrofitted by using GFRP bar can withstand the designed load

after damaged due to elevated temperature.

7
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

RC buildings are deteriorated over time. After a period of time, building may in

poor condition and loss it capability in terms of its strength performance. According to

Dumas (2012), the poor structure condition may due to the environment influences,

improper design or disaster event such as hurricanes or earthquake. The damaged building

needs to be assessed so that decision can be made either to demolish or repair the building.

Repair or retrofit is an innovative concept where it will reduce the cost and increase the

strength of the structure. It will also increase the design life of the structure compare to

demolishing them because that building may hold some local historical or as valuable

national assets and also will cost a lot to demolish them. So, to the maintain their structure

or to increase its life span, retrofit can be conducted using FRP, mild steel, steel plate,

epoxy, and others as the retrofitting material.

According to Sundarraja and Rajamohan (2009), rehabilitation of structure is not a

new concept. Various research studied have been carried out around the world over the past

two decades to strengthen bridges and building by using steel as a medium of repairing and

strengthening the structure. Researchers seems to be interested to find the most proper

method in repairing or strengthening the RC with a low price and easy to conduct by

contractors. The materials used to retrofit the RC are steel or FRP due to the fact that they

8
are easily available in the market. Retrofitted using steel and FRP is also the most effective

ways in order to strengthening the RC beam.

Before FRP was introduced, steel was utilised as strengthening element for

repairing the RC. However, a corrosive protection is required for steel to prevent the

corrosion on steel surface. The corrosion in the steel will affect the strength of the concrete

and bond between reinforced and concrete. The reason of using the FRP as the element in

retrofitting the RC is due to its function that is non-corrosive, light, high fatigue strength

and easy to apply compare to the steel.

According to Yasmeen et al. (2009), there are many existing structures, which do

not achieve or fulfil the specified design requirement. For an example, there several

building which are constructed using old design codes. Hence, the structure which

damaged due to experience the high applying of load, corrosion of the steel reinforcement

bar, construction errors or environment accident such as hurricanes and fire. Construction

industry also face the problem of deterioration of the concrete since most of the old

structure using older design codes which is not practically safe according to the new codes.

So this structure also needs to retrofit or repair to achieve the specified requirement of the

RC and structure according to the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB)

specification.

2.2 Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

FRP is also known as a plastic reinforced mixed with various types of fibres.

According to Mendes (2011), the application of FRP until recently was restricted to

9
aerospace and shipbuilding industry due to the high performance requirement and also

expensive material. However, due to the high demands of the construction industry, the

advances in the research in the composite field, the decrease of FRP production cost, the

use of this material begins to propagate in the construction industry. The FRP is being

produced by resin such as fibre and epoxy where the fibre is functioning as mechanical

properties to the materials. According to Dumas (2012), these fibres are embedded in what

is called the matrix which is basically a resin made of polyester. Epoxy used in the matrix

also gives some mechanical properties to the whole material of FRP. There are several

types of FRP that that are available in market such as CFRP, GFRP and AFRP (Aramid

Fibre Reinforced Concrete). Different types of FRP give different strength to the RC. Table

2.1 shows the different material of FRP and their strengths.

Table 2.1: Comparison of FRP Fibre (Dumas, 2012)

COMPARISON OF COMMON FIBRES

Materials Density (g/cm3) Tensile Strength (MPa) Young Modulus (GPa)

E-Glass 2.55 2000 80

S-Glass 2.49 4750 89

Alumina 3.28 1950 297

Kevlar 29 1.44 2860 64

Kevlar 49 1.44 3750 136

According to Dumas (2012), most contractor always use GFRP as the retrofitting

material in RC due to its functioning that can resist high stress and strain from the load and

concrete itself. This material also behaves as a linear elastic material until failure. This is

10
become most importance property and reason of using it as retrofitted material. Figure 2.1

shows the comparison of stress and strain graph between ACRP, CFRP and GFRP.

Figure 2.1: Diagram Stress-Strain for FRP (Dumas, 2012)

From Figure 2.1, in comparison between three types of FRP which is CFRP, AFRP

and GFRP, the most economical and suitable material as retrofitted material is GFRP as it

has high stress and strain capability. In comparison to CFRP which is only high in stress

force but low in term of strain force, while in AFRP, the AFRP is high in strain force, but

low in stress force. That’s why in construction, mostly contractor will use GFRP as a main

of retrofit material due to easy to obtain, cheapest compare to other material and high in

stress-strain force compare to AFRP and CFRP.

Nguyen et al. (2014) stated that apart from retrofitting material, FRP also can be

used as internal or external reinforcement for concrete structures. FRP can serve as

structural component in the construction. Apart from the ability of FRP to strengthening

and rehabilitation the RC beam, FRP also capable to use as structural outperforms

conventional construction material like steel and concrete where there is a construction that

requires to made using FRP.

11
 In the study of Sundarraja and Rajamohan (2009), FRP behaviour was found to be

non-corrosiveness, non-magnetic, resistant to chemical, high strength of fatigue and ease of

applications that make it mostly used as external reinforcement for retrofitted existing

concrete structure. Their research also showed that the shear capacity of RC beam

increased after GFRP was bonded to the beam externally. As of today, most of worldwide

research study had used FRP as strengthening and retrofitting material in their construction.

2.2.1 Advantages And Disadvantages of FRP

Everything in this world has their pros and cons. Even for FRP itself, it has their

benefit to our construction field. Research shows that the advantages of FRP are non-

rusting, non-corrosive, non-magnetic, resistance to chemical, high strength of fatigue and

ease of applications that make it mostly used as external reinforcement for retrofitted

existing concrete structure (Sundarraja and Rajamohan, 2009). According to Nguyen et al.

(2014), due of their behaviour of non-rusting and non-corrosive, they allow the contractor

to use it either for internal structure or as an external structure. And according to Tarane et

al. (2008), some contractors used FRP as external structures such as FRP sheet and just

paint it before applying to the structure. By using this way, indirectly contractor can saves

time for completing their construction due to no painting activity needed after installation.

It is also different with steel where the FRP does not affected in terms of temperature and

do not corrode when contact with corrosion agent such as water and oxygen. Therefore, the

length remains the same when exposed to the sun or when exposed to cold temperature.

FRP is also non-magnetic and non-conductive materials, therefore there is no any

galvanizing reaction for material that will attach to the structure.

12
 Flexibility in shape combined with the weight reduction of FRP are the main

reasons why engineers choose this type of material for their construction or retrofitting. It is

because when involved in high or heavy construction, the main idea is to construct light

structure, but able to sustain heavy load. FRP can maintain or increase serviceability and

durability of the structure. According to Ronagh and Eslami (2013), FRP becomes the

alternative way for repairing, retrofitting and strengthening the structure compare to steel.

Compare to steel, FRP have advantages such as high specific stiffness, high specific in

strength, high corrosion resistance and ease of handling and installing. As FRP is also

resistance to certain temperature and can handle extreme mechanical and environmental

condition compare to steel, hence engineers used these materials for marine structure or

submerged infrastructure especially in the sea. It because that environmental had high level

of salinity, it may cause fast deterioration of reinforced structure (Ronagh and Eslami,

2013).

However, FRP also has their disadvantages compare to other materials such as

steel. The market price for FRP in local industry is too expensive compare to steel.

According to Tarane et al. (2008), the main reason why the market price for FRP is too

high is because the materials used in producing FRP is high quality and can serve longer

time. And when the building is being constructed using FRP material, the temperature

inside the building may be high due to the behaviour of FRP that deflect the heat. When a

building is constructed using steel, the steel will absorb the heat inside the building.

Therefore, the temperature in the building can be maintained to the lower temperature. The

main reason of using steel is to maintain the structure and resist the tension force. The steel

have high in tensile strength and flexural strength while the FRP have low in tensile and

flexural strength. Thus, FRP is unsuitable to be the main reinforcement in the structure

compare to steel material.

13
 Researcher also concluded that FRP contains high toxic component, where it being

made by polymer matrix which reinforced with fibres (Masuelli, 2013). Masuelli (2013)

defined that the polymer is usually an epoxy, vinylester or polyester thermosetting plastic,

and phenol formaldehyde resin. As the composite contain high toxic components, therefore

it needs to be handled carefully and may not be suitable for light construction. According

to Gevin and Chase (2014), the behaviour of FRP may damage if it is not been treated with

care. The handling requirement and storage for FRP reinforcement that located on the

construction site should not overexposure to UV light. The FRP also should not be handled

aggressively and prevent from improper cutting. The damages of the FRP can cause the

FRP reinforcing become more restrictive. The other weakness of FRP is the allowable

stress capacity significantly reduces due to its inelastic behaviour design codes.

2.2.2 Material Content in FRP

FRP is a composite material that is made of a polymer matrix reinforced or called as

resin added with fibre. There are several types of fibre that commonly used in construction

such as glass, aramid and glass.

2.2.2.1 Resin

There are two main types of polymer that used for resins that are thermosets and

thermoplastic. According to Feldman (1998), the epoxides and polyesters are the

thermosetting polymers that are used in the construction industry. The composite

14
manufacture uses for thermoplastic resins are polyofins polyamides vinylicpolymers,

polyacetals, polysulphones, polycarbonates, polyphenylenes and polyimides.

2.2.2.2 Fibres

According to Feldman (1998), wide ranges of crystalline and amorphous material

are used as the fibre. For glass fibre, the common fibres available in construction industry

and mostly use are E-glass, AR-glass, A-glass and S-glass. Carbon fibres that are available

in the industry are Type I, II and III where they can be used separately or in conjunction

with glass fibre to increase the stiffness of the structure. The combination of crystalline and

amorphous allows the stiffness exceeds the value possible for glass fibre which is 70 000

MPa. Aramid fibres are divided into three types which are Kevlar 29, Kevlar 49 and Kevlar

149.

2.2.3 Aramid or Kevlar Fibre Reinforced Polymer (AFRP)

AFRP is the better fibre compare to GFRP and CFRP where it gives the best

strength to the weight ration. However, this type of FRP is the least applied in construction

or for retrofitting purposes. Referring to Figure 2.1, we can find that the AFRP is good in

strain force but low in stress force. According to Dmitri (2012), the trade name for aramid

(poly-para-phenylene terephthalamide) in industry is call as Kevlar. Originally, Kevlar

fibre was developed as the replacement of steel in automotive tire because of its feature that

is low density and high impact resistance. Dimitri (2012) reported the several advantages of

15
Kevlar fibre. The advantages of Kevlar are high of tensile strength which is five times

stronger per unit weight compared to steel. Kevlar also has a high modulus of elasticity,

low weight compare to steel, high cut resistance, very low elongation up to breaking point,

flame resistance and high fracture toughness which can resist high impact force. However,

Kevlar also has its weakness such as ability to absorb moisture, difficult in cutting, difficult

to shape, and also low in compressive strength.

There are several types of Kevlar that applicable in the market. Table 2.2 shows

several modifications of Kevlar, description and purpose of developing.

Table 2.2: Modification of Kevlar, Description and Usage (Dmitri, 2012)

Kevlar Type Description and Purpose of developing.

Kevlar 29 High strength (520000 psi/3600 MPa), low density (90 lb/ft3/1440

kg/m3) fibres used for manufacturing bullet-proof vests, composite

armour reinforcement, helmets, ropes, cables, asbestos replacing

parts.

Kevlar 49 High modulus (19000 ksi/131 GPa), high strength (550000

psi/3800 MPa), low density (90 lb/ft3/1440 kg/m3) fibres that used

in marine, aerospace and automotive applications.

Kevlar 149 Ultra high modulus (27000 ksi/186 GPa), high strength (490000

psi/3400 MPa), low density (92 lb/ft3/1470 kg/m3) highly

crystalline fibres used for composite aircraft components when

reinforcing dispersed phase.

16
2.2.4 Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)

CFRP or often called as carbon fibre is a very strong and light FRP which contain

carbon fibres. This type of FRP is mostly used in construction or retrofitting the structure.

In comparison to AFRP, this fibre has a high force in stress but low in strain force.

According to Dumas (2012), the tensile strength of CFRP can achieve up to 2900 Mpa, and

the Young Modulus of 525 GPa. The mechanical properties of CFRP are also higher

compare to the GFRP. In Table 2.3, it shows the different carbon group with different

modulus or tensile strength. On the other hand, Table 2.4 shows the different types of

carbon and their descriptions.

Table 2.3: Group of Carbon Fibres (Masuelli, 2013)

Carbon Group Modulus Strength Tensile Strength

Ultra High-Modulus (UHM) More than 450 GPa -

High-Modulus (HM) Between 350-450 GPa -

Intermediate-Modulus (IM) Between 200-350 GPa -

Low-Modulus and High-Tensile Less than 100 GPa More than 3 Gpa

(HT)

Super High-Tensile (SHT) - More than 4.5 GPa

17
Table 2.4: Classifying of carbon fibres based on final heat treatment temperature. Adapted

from Structure, Advanced Materials & Composites News, 1992

Carbon Type Description

Type-I High heat treatment carbon fibres (HHT), where final heat

temperature must be above than 2000oC and can be associated with

high strength.

Type-II Intermediate heat treatment carbon fibre (IHT), where final heat

temperature should be around or above 1500oC and can be associated

with high strength.

Type-III Low heat treatment carbon fibres, where final heat temperatures not

greater than 1000oC. These are low modulus and low strength

materials.

2.2.5 Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)

GFRP is commonly applied for wind turbines blade or for naval engineering due to

the fibres have a very high strength to weight ratio compare to AFRP and CFRP. Thus,

GFRP is used in the aeronautical industry. Nevertheless, GFRP is also utilised as

retrofitting material in civil engineering. By referring at Figure 2.1, we can observe that

GFRP is higher in term of stress-strain force compare to others. GFRP is divided into

several types which are Electric Glass known as E-Glass, Dielectric Glass or D-Glass, and

Alkali Resistant Glass or known as AR-Glass. The different types of glass provide different

construction purposes. Table 2.5 shows general indicator of the types of GFRP from the

18
Owens Corning Company. The Owens Corning Company had conduct several tested in

determining the better types of GFRP. In the Figure 2.2, it shows the result of bare glass

weight loss testing for GFRP types E-Glass, Advantex and C-Glass after immersed into

10% Hydrochloric Acid for 24 hours and 168 hours. From the figure, it shows that the E-

glass has higher percentage of weight loss while the Advantex has the low percentage

weight loss. While in the Figure 2.3, it show the result of bare glass weight loss testing for

GFRP types E-Glass, Advantex and C-Glass after immersed into 40% Ferric Chloride for

24 hours, 168 hours and 30 days. And from this figure, it also shows that the E-glass has

higher percentage of weight loss while Advantex as low percentage of weight loss.

Table 2.5: Various type of GFRP. Adapted from Owen Corning Composite Material, LLC.

(Source: http://composites.owenscorning.com)

Glass Type General Indication

A-Glass High alkali content

E-Glass General purpose: good electric properties

C-Glass Chemical resistance

R-Glass High mechanical strength

S-Glass High mechanical strength

AR-Glass Alkali resistant

E-CR Glass Acid environments

Adventex Good in any field industry or construction.

19
 10% Hydrochloric Acid Immersion @96oC
after 24 hours after 168 hours
40

Percentage Weight Loss 30

20

10

0
E-Glass Advantex C-Glass
Type of GFRP

Figure 2.2: Bare glass weight lost testing using 10% Hydrochloric Acid Immersion

Adapted from Owen Corning Composite Material, LLC. (Source:

http://composites.owenscorning.com)

40% Ferric Chloride @96oC

after 24 hours after 168 hours after 30 days

40
Percentage Weight Loss

30
20
10
0
E-Glass Advantex C-Glass
Type of GFRP

Figure 2.3: Bare glass weight lost testing using 40% Ferric Chloride Adapted from Owen

Corning Composite Material, LLC. (Source: http://composites.owenscorning.com)

From these two results conducting by Owen Corning Company, it show that the

Advantex Glass type are capable to maintain their mechanism which is has low percentage

weight loss compare to C-Glass and E-Glass type. Figure 2.4 shows the comparison

20
between Advantex Glass type and Traditional E-Glass type in term of effective maximum

load for 50-years after being exposed to several condition which is air, salt, cement and

acid. The Owen Corning Company conducted this test in order to determine the

serviceability of Advantex Glass and Traditional E-Glass. While in the Figure 2.5, it shows

the graph of stress verses strain for different FRP types compare with the GFRP types.

From this figure, we can determine that S-Glass has higher in stress-strain compare to high

strength (HS) carbon, AFRP, E-Glass and Epoxy resin.

Effective Maximum Load for 50-Year Service

50
% Ultimate Load

40

30 Air
20 Salt Water
Cement
10
Acid
0
Advantex Glass Traditional E-Glass
Type of GFRP

Figure 2.4: Effective maximum load for 50-year for different type of GFRP and

Degradation factor (Gevin and Chase, 2014).

21
 3000

Tensile Stress (MPa) 2000

HS Carbon
AFRP
S-Glass
E-Glass
1000
Epoxy Resin

0
0 2 4 6 8
Strain (%)

Figure 2.5: Stress-strain curves for different types of GFRP. Adapted from Gurin. (Source:

www.gurit.com/support-material)

GFRP behaviour allows it to use for both interior and exterior fixture such as

variety of shapes, styles even their texture. GFRP not only used as a retrofitting material,

but it also useful as stylish and construction for the new building. According to Carvelli et

al. (2013), GFRP cannot resist high elevated temperature because it had low value of the

glass transition temperature of the polymeric matrix.

2.3 GFRP as a Retrofitted Material

GFRP is a common types which engineers apply in their structure whether new

construction or retrofitting the old building. This material always used as internal

reinforcement of concrete structure such as building wall, where to improve their

serviceability. Therefore, by retrofitting the structure using the GFRP, it is capable to

22
increase the serviceability of the structure. In generally, the process of retrofitting is

conducted on structure or building that had been damage due to disaster or experienced on

load exceed from limit.

According to Lokesh (2014), RC beam that has a GFRP wrapping on it could give a

higher result than without GFRP in term of bending load. Table 2.6 and 2.7 show the result

of bending load without and with GFRP wrapping in (Lokesh, 2014). From the result

tabulated in the Table 4.6 and 4.7, it shows that the wrapped over reinforced beam had

higher average load for first crack. And the wrapped over reinforcement beam with GFRP

also has high average load for first crack compare to without GFRP. While in the Figure

2.6 and 2.7, it shows the graph of load at first crack verses all specimens that Lokesh

(2014) collected. From his research, he collected the strength data of control beam (CB),

wrapped control beams (WCB), wrapped under reinforced beam (WUB) and wrapped over

reinforced beam (WOB). Therefore, the conclusion for this study is the WOB is capable to

resist high load compare to CB, WCB and WUB. And all specimens with GFRP has higher

average load compare to without GFRP.

23
 Table 2.6: Strength of RC beam at first crack without GFRP (Lokesh, 2014)

Beam Type Load at First Crack, Average Load at % Increase in

(KN) First Crack, (KN) Strength

CB1 29.53

CB2 31.98 31.2 -

CB3 31.98

WCB1 46.71

WCB2 36.89 40.56 30%

WCB3 38.11

WUB1 51.6

WUB2 34.43 46.70 49.67%

WUB3 52.83

WOB1 55.28

WOB2 65.1 60.18 92.88%

WOB3 57.53

24
 Table 2.7: Strength of RC beam at first crack with GFRP (Lokesh, 2014)

Beam Type Load at First Average Load at % Increase in Mode of Failure

Crack, (KN) First Crack, Strength

(KN)

WCB1 52

WCB2 36.89 48 -

WCB3 47

WUB1 55

WUB2 44 54 12.5% All beams were

WUB3 60 failed in

WOB1 59 flexural.

WOB2 71 65 35.42%

WOB3 65

Load at First Crack verses All Specimen

70
60
Bending Load (KN)

50
CB
40 WCB
30 WUB
WOB
20
10
0

Figure 2.6: Comparison of load at first crack for all beams without GFRP (Lokesh, 2014)

25
 Load at First Crack verses All Specimen
70

60
Bending Load (KN)

50
WCB
40
WUB
30
WOB
20

10

Figure 2.7: Comparison of load at first crack for all beams with GFRP (Lokesh, 2014)

The GFRP also suitable to apply at site that had been exposed high chemical

reaction such as marine structure where their advantages that can resist chemical reaction

compare than other material. However, GFRP is a material which is cannot resist high

temperature. Author stated that GFRP cannot resist high elevated temperature because it

had low value of the glass transition temperature of the polymeric matrix (Carvelli et al.,

2013). From Carvelli et al. (2013) research study, an experimental was conducted to

understand the behaviour of RC beam reinforced with GFRP rebar exposed to localised

elevated temperature where they collecting the data of strength structure which is Type 1

which is without rebar, Type 2 which is rebar with hooks and Type 3, 4 and 5 which is

rebar without hooks and different length stated 35, 25 and 15 times diameter and the

diameter of rebar is 16mm. Figure 2.8 shows the result which is average stiffness verses

temperature and Figure 2.9 shows the graph of average maximum load verses temperature.

26
 60

50

Stiffness (KN/mm)
40
Type 1
30 Type 2
Type 3
20
Type 4
10 Type 5
0
0 200 400 600
Temperature (oC)

Figure 2.8: Average stiffness verses temperature (Carvelli et al., 2013)

200
Ultimate Load (KN)

150
Type 1
100 Type 2
Type 3
50 Type 4
Type 5
0
0 200 400 600
Temperature (oC)

Figure 2.9: Average maximum load verses temperature (Carvelli et al., 2013)

Sadek et al. (2006) also stated that the weakness of GFRP is cannot resist high

temperature. They had conducted an experiment which is to compare the strength RC beam

retrofitted with GFRP and RC beam retrofitted with steel bar and exposed to high

temperature. Table 2.8 shows the result obtained by Sadek et al. (2006). From his result,

the RC beam retrofitted with GFRP is failure faster compare with RC beam retrofitted with

steel bar.

27
 Table 2.8: Result of tested beams (Sadek et al., 2006)

Beam Concrete Sustained Type of Time to Average Oven Temperature

grade load (kN) retrofitting failure at Failure (oC)

(MPa) (Minutes)

B1 25 60 Steel 90 980

B2 25 60 GFRP 45 870

B3 15 40 GFRP 30 830

While from the research Carvelli et al. (2013), the author stated that the GFRP have

high bond strength compare to steel rebar after exposed to room temperature. Figure 2.10

shows the result from their research where the bond strength for GFRP is higher than bond

strength for steel at room temperature (Carvelli et al., 2013).

14

12
Bond Strength (MPa)

10

8
Steel
6 GFRP
4

0
Steel GFRP

Figure 2.10: Average bond strength between GFRP and steel at room temperature (Carvelli

et al., 2013).

28
2.4 Near Surface Mounted (NSM)

NSM is a technique to install the retrofitting material. This technique is getting

more popular due to its efficiency. This has been proven in research studies conducted by

De Lorenzis et al. (2007), Burke (2008) and ACI (2007). From the studies conducted, the

capabilities of strengthening the RC structure with NSM FRPs were demostrated.

According to Burke (2008), this technique has numerous potential advantages in over

externally bonded FRP strengthening system, and is typically able to more fully employ the

strength of FRP materials because of the superior bond performance. The used of NSM

FRP rods is a promising technology for increasing flexural and shears strength of deficient

RC and pre-stressed concrete (PC) members. According to El-Hacha et al. (2004), the

installation of NSM FRP bar can start with hacking the soffit of the beam which is at the

tension region of RC beam with a specific dimension in the longitudinal direction. The

concrete were cut using diamond saw to get specific dimension and to preventing any

damages to the beam structure. Then, the retrofitting material is installed in the groove.

According to De Lorenzis et al. (2007), there is an advantage of NSM technique in

retrofitting system comparing to the externally bonded FRP. Due to only hacking a specific

dimension of the structure, therefore the site installation work amount may be reduced. And

the most important, comparing to externally bonded FRP, the NSM FRP is more protected

from any damages or accidental such as fire and hurricanes by covering the retrofitted

reinforcement with the concrete cover. According to De Lorenzis et al. (2007), there is

several type of applying the NSM FRP due to different types of cross-section shape

retrofitting material. Figure 2.11 presents the different types of NSM technique for

29
different types of cross-section which is Strip FRP, Rectangular or Square FRP bar and

Round FRP bar.

Normal NSM
3-Side bonded
strip
NSM strip

a. FRP Strip

Normal NSM 3-Side bonded

bar bar

b. Rectangular/Square Bar

Normal NSM
bar

c. Round Bar

Figure 2.11: NSM technique for different cross-section of retrofitted

material

2.5 Gap of Research

The gap of research for this research study is to determine the objective of previous

research. From the objective and result obtained in previous study, there are few which

were highlight in this study.

30
 Table 2.9: Gap of Research

Author (Year) Research Title Research

Lokesh A. The Study on Strength RC beam retrofitted with GFRP wrapping

Doddamani et and Stiffness of RC was tested their strength and stiffness. The

al.(2014) Beams Retrofitted With strength and stiffness of the RC beam

GFRP Wrapping without GFRP is lower compare RC beam

with GFRP wrapping. The retrofitted beam

able to carry load more than 12.5% compare

to normal RC beam. So, it proven that RC

beam retrofitted with GFRP wrapping has

higher in terms of strength and stiffness

compared to without retrofitted

Pierre Dumas Structural Retrofitting Using FRP to increase the performance of

(2012) Using Fibre Reinforced the structure. The FRP had been located in

Polymers. difference ways such as horizontal, vertical,

incline, two sides wrapped, completely

wrapped, U-wrapped and other. The main

reasons are to define which style can gives

high performance to the RC beam. So, it

showed that the RC beam can be retrofitted

in many style using the FRP materials.

Reddy et al. Effect of Fire on Using CFRP composite as an element of

(2006) Structural Elements retrofitted and exposed to elevated

31
 Retrofitted by CFRP temperature which is 1010oC (1850oF) for a

Composites 2 hours duration. From their research, they

concluded that CFRP was not capable to

endure fire due to low temperature

resistance. Therefore, it showed that CFRP

are weak when exposing to fire or high

temperature.

Valter Carvelli High Temperature Effect Using GFRP rebar as a reinforcement bar

et al. (2013) on Concrete Members and test the structure on the high

Reinforced With GFRP temperature. After the structure exposed to

Rebars 200oC and 500oC, the flexural strength of

the beam that being exposed to 500oC is

lower compare to the beam that being

exposed to 200oC. So, it proved that the

structure using GFRP cannot resist in terms

of high temperature comparing to using

steel as their main reinforcement.

From Table 2.9, the previous studies focusing on determining the strength and

stiffness of the RC beam retrofitted with GFRP wrapping, and determining the performance

of FRP when retrofitted in difference way such as horizontal, vertical and incline

directions. Study by Carvelli et al. (2013) exposed the retrofitted RC beam in the

temperature up to 5000C. Thus, this study extended the elevated temperature up to 8000C to

determine the effect of the elevated temperature to the structure. This study was to

determine the flexural strength of the RC beams retrofitted using GFRP bar after exposed

32
to fire with a temperature of 200oC, 600oC, and 800oC. The other purpose of this study was

to investigate the mode of the RC beams retrofitted with GFRP bars using NSM method.

33
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter explains about the methodology used in this research study. There

were consisting of beginning of the gathering information, designing, preparing the sample,

and lastly collecting the data of sample after conduct several test. The main reason for this

chapter was to make sure the objectives of the study are achieved. This research

methodology for this study was divided into three stages, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. The

three stages were preliminary study, laboratory work and data analysis. Stage one which

was the preliminary study involves of designing the RC beam and mix concrete. Stage two

was the laboratory work consisting of work conduct in the laboratory which was preparing

material and equipment, casting the concrete, curing, burning process and retrofitted the

RC beam. And last but not least, the third stage was the data analysis where flexural test for

beam and compressive test for cube were conducted. The detailed flow of the research

methodologies are shown in the Figure 3.2.

Laboratory Work
* Prepare equipment and
Preliminary Study material Data Analysis (Testing)
* Design RC Beam * Mixing the concrete * Compressive test
* Design Mix Concrete * Curing * Flexural test
* Burn the sample
* Retrofitting the sample

Figure 3.1: Three stages of research methodologies.

34
 Material
- Cement
- Water
Preliminary Study:
- Fine and course
-Design RC Beam Laboratory Work
aggregate
-Design Mix Concrete
-Reinforcement bar
- Link
- GFRP

Prepare mould
- Beam
Mixing the Concrete
Curing 28 days (150x150x750mm)
grade 30
-Cube
(150x150x150mm)

With GFRP
Without GFRP
- 2000C Compressive Test.
- 300C
- 6000C 2 samples of cube for
- 2000C each testing to get
- 8000C
- 6000C average value of
compression
- 8000C
Curing for two weeks

Flexural Test Tabulate data

Figure 3.2: Detailed methodologies conducted in this study.

35
3.2 Preliminary Study

This stage is very important before conduct any laboratory test. In order to

determine the suitable size of RC beam for this research, the design beam were calculated

and analysed in according to Eurocode 2. Through the design beam procedures, the size of

main reinforcement and size of link were determined. By using the Eurocode as a

guideline, the RC beams need to be designed according to the size propose and their

limitation were checked. In designing the RC beam, the rectangular stress block was used

in order to find the maximum moment and shears force of the beam. After obtaining the

maximum moment and shear for the design, the size beam is checked if it fulfil the

maximum requirement of deflection and cracking failure. The proposed size of the beam is

150 mm x 150 mm x 750 mm and the size of concrete cube is 150 mm x 150 mm x 150

mm. The size of the mould was based on size of the beam proposed. And the design mixed

concrete was conducted in order to determining the volume of cement, fine aggregate,

coarse aggregate and water that were used to casting the beam.

3.2.1 RC Design

Parameters such as the characteristic strength of concrete (fck), characteristic

strength of steel and link (fyk), design life, exposure class, structural class and fire

resistance of the beam were determined before designing a RC beam. Standard fck for

normal beam was 30 N/mm2 while the value for the fyk was 500 N/mm2. And for the

reinforcement, the sizes were assumed before start the calculation. The design life,

36
exposure class, structural class and fire resistance for the beam were assumed as 50 years,

XC1, S4 and R60 respectively. From the design data, the concrete cover was calculated.

From the design, the concrete cover used is 35 mm. The maximum bending moment and

shear resistance were determined using the rectangular stress block where the force of

compressive concrete (Fcc) should be equal with the value of force for tensile steel (Fst).

Figure 3.3 show the example of rectangular stress block according to the cross-section of

RC beam.

Fcc

Fst

For equilibrium, Fcc = Fst

Figure 3.3: Rectangular stress block

From the stress block, the maximum bending moment (Mu) and shear resistance (Vmax)

were determined. The value of Mu and Vmax for this design was 6.6 kNm and 35.2 kN

respectively. Then, the design of RC beam was started. From the design, it proved that the

beam only required the tension reinforcement. Therefore, the two bar size of 10 mm

(2H10) was chosen as main reinforcement, two bar size of 8 mm (2H8) were chosen for

hanging reinforcement and bar size 6 mm for the link. The completed design RC beam

procedures can be referred in Appendix A.

37
3.2.2 Concrete Mix Design

Design mix concrete is important in order to determining the exact volume of

cement, water, fine aggregate (sand) and coarse aggregate that is used to casting the beam.

The variables that were required to specify were the characteristic strength of concrete,

specified margin, cement strength class and maximum free-water/cement ratio. Mostly, the

calculation and data were presented in a concrete mix design form. From the concrete mix

design form, it also provided with the graph, table and other related information as

references to complete this form. As the amount of materials was determined precisely,

hence wastage of the materials during the laboratory work could be avoided. The design of

strength characteristic for this research study is 30 N/mm2 while the proportion defectives

were assume as 5%. And lastly, after calculated with all the data in the design mix, the

weight of cement used was for 1 m3 of concrete is 350 kg. While the weight of water, fine

aggregate, 10 mm coarse aggregate and 20 mm coarse aggregate for 1 m2 was 190 kg, 720

kg, 350 kg and 800 kg respectively. Refer the complete concrete mix design in Appendix

B.

3.3 Laboratory Work

3.3.1 Preparing Material and Equipment

All the materials and equipments that involve in the laboratory work were prepared

in advance. Mostly, the preparing material focusing on reinforcement which is cut the

38
reinforcement to specific length used, bend the reinforcement, and tie the reinforcement

with link. The other materials that also involved in this laboratory work including cement,

fine aggregates, coarse aggregates and water is prepared before start with the casting of the

concrete. The volume of cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and water were

determined beforehand in the design mix concrete. The mould also need to prepared such

as mould for beam (150mm x 150mm x 750mm) and mould for cube (150mm x 150mm x

150mm). Figures 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 show the picture of Portland cement, coarse

aggregate, beam moulds and cube moulds that were prepared before casting.

Figure 3.4: Portland Cement Figure 3.5: Coarse Aggregate

Figure 3.6: Beam Mould Figure 3.7: Cube Mould

39
3.3.2 Casting and Curing Process

Casting took place after all the materials and equipments were prepared. The

concrete was cast using the mixer machine. Figure 3.8 shows the picture of concrete mixer

that used in casting the fresh concrete. After the concrete had been mix completely, the

slump test was conducted to test the workability of the concrete according to the design,

which is . And then, during casting of the fresh concrete into the mould, the concrete is

poured in three layers and every layer should be compacted either using vibrator table or

manual compact using slump rod. The total of casting for beam was eight beams where two

beams for control sample which was for room temperature (300C) and two beams for each

temperature which is 2000C, 6000C and 8000C.

The curing process was taking over in next day, where the concrete specimens were

de-moulded and the curing will took place. The curing for the structure should be at least

28 days after casting the concrete to achieve maximum strength for the concrete.

Figure 3.8: Concrete Mixer

40
3.3.3 Burning Process

In the burning process, the samples that involved were only the RC beams. After

curing process was over, the RC beam was removed from the curing tank for drying

process. The beams were placed into the furnace at temperature of 2000C, temperature of

6000C, and temperature of 8000C. Out of the two samples of RC beams, one sample of RC

beam was meant for the control at the design temperature while another one sample of RC

beam was retrofitted with GFRP after damaged. The exposure time of the beams to the

designed temperature was just one hour. However, the time spent for cooling process is

different between the temperatures where the beams that were exposed to 2000C only took

two to three hours to cool down. While for the beams exposed to 6000C took about six to

seven hour to cool down. And the beams that exposed to 8000C took more than 24 hours to

cool down. Figure 3.9 shows the picture of furnace machine which used in burning process.

Figure 3.9: Furnace machine

41
3.3.4 Retrofitting The Beam

One damaged beam due to elevated temperature at each temperature was retrofitted

with GFRP. The retrofitted technique applied in this study was the NSM technique. By

using a diamond saw, the concrete was groove according to the precise dimension as shown

in Figure 3.10. The GFRP bar was placed inside the groove layer at the soffit RC beam.

When the GFRP had been put in the hole, the epoxy was used to fill up the hole to re-

bonding between GFRP and RC beam. The sample that will involve in this stage is only

three samples of beam which is one for every different temperature exposure.

Groove layer GFRP bar

150mm

40mm 20mm 30mm 20mm 40mm

Figure 3.10: Dimension for retrofitting the RC beam

Figure 3.11: Hacking Process Figure 3.12: Grooving sample

42
Figure 3.13: Process of epoxy Figure 3.14: Epoxy Sikadur 30

3.4 Data Analysis

All the data obtained from the laboratory work was tabulated for an analysis. In the

laboratory work, there were several tests that were conducted in order to determine the

finding of the study. The tests were compressive test and flexural test. The compressive test

was conduct to determine the compressive strength of concrete by using cube. The flexural

test conducted to determine the flexural strength of RC beam. After getting all the result of

flexural strength, then a comparison of retrofitted RC beam and the control beam was

deduced. The RC beam with the highest flexural strength after exposed to elevated

temperature was determined.

3.4.1 Compression Test

The sample that was used for compression test is concrete cube sample which is

150 mm x 150 mm x 150 mm. In order to check the strength of the concrete, the sample

was tested after 7 days. However, in this research study, the compressive strength of cube

was tested at the same of the flexural test to compare the strength of compressive for cube

43
with the strength of flexural for beam. The cube was tested using compression machine to

check the compressive strength of the cube whether achieve or not. Figure 3.15 shows the

compressive machine that available in the laboratory. The cube was placed inside the

machine and started the compression test.

Figure 3.15: Compression machine

3.4.2 Flexural Test

The sample that involved in this test is beam sample. This test is conducted to RC

beam with and without retrofitted after exposed to temperature. The RC beam was tested

until it failure to determine maximum flexural strength of the RC beam. The beam was test

using three point bending test. The test set-up for three-point bending test is where the

length clearance between supports must be equal to four times of depth beam. The

44
requirement of length clearance should be less than four times of depth beam. Second, the

support should be located approximately 75mm from the edges of the beam. Third, the

application of large diameter of roller supports must be prevented to avoid huge surface

contact between the rollers and the beam. The better diameter for the roller support test

should be around 70 mm to 75 mm of diameter roller support. The linear variable

differential transducer (LVDT) was placed at the centre of the beam. The LVDT was used

to determine the displacement at the mid-span of the beam. However, the measurement of

LVDT that available in the laboratory only limited to 20 mm deflection only.

Load Applied

Support

LVDT

75 mm 600 mm 75 mm

Figure 3.16: Illustration for Three-point Bending Test

The results obtained from this test were maximum load, breaking load, deformation

and deflection of the beam. From the result of breaking load, the flexural strength of the

beam can be determined by using the formula shown in the equation 3.1.

45
 σ = My / I (3.1)

y=h/2 (3.2)

I = bh3 / 12 (3.3)

M = PL / 4 (3.4)

The maximum moment was determined by multiplying the half of breaking load

applying with the half of the length from support to support. The formula to determine

maximum load is shown in equation 3.4. The equation 3.3 shows on how to determine the

moment of inertia while equation 3.2 show on how to calculated the perpendicular distance

to a point in the beam where the stress is being applied. Therefore, by using equation 3.1

the flexural stress for the beams were determined.

46
 CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the data collection and the data analysis from the laboratory

work conducted. There is several type of analysis which is descriptive, exploratory,

inferential, predictive, causal and mechanistic. However, for this research study, the

mechanistic analysis was used as main analysis. The mechanistic analysis was used to

analyse the data of flexural strength of beam between retrofitting beam and without

retrofitting beam after exposing in various temperature from ranges 2000C - 8000C.

Parameters such as the weight of beam before burn, weight of beam after burn, maximum

load applied, deflection and crack pattern of the beams were collected. In order to

collecting the accurate result, the handling of the sample during cut and hack for retrofit

process and the dimension on conducting the three-pointed bending test should be

determined accurately.

In this chapter, the results were divided into two which are the result of RC beam

and result of concrete cube. The result of RC beam consist the flexural strength, the

deflection of beam and the crack observation. The result of concrete cube consist the

compression of the cube. The full data collection process is illustrated in Figure 4.1.

47
 Introduction

Cube Beam

Compression
Room 2000C 6000C 8000C
Test
Temperature
(300C)

Moisture
Without Content
Retrofitted

Without Retrofitted
Retrofitted Using GFRP

Flexural Deflection of Cracking

Strength Beam Pattern

Discussion

Conclusion

Figure 4.1: Data Collection Process

48
4.2 Cube Result

4.2.1 Compression Test Result

The cube test should be carried out in order to determine the strength of the

concrete whether it achieve the design strength. The compressive test was carried out

instead of the tensile test due to behaviour of concrete which is strong in compression but

weak in tension. The compression test was conducted on the same day with the flexural test

for beam. There were there batches done in this research study. The first batch casting was

done at 12th June 2015, while the second and third batch casting was done at 26th June

2015. Table 4.1 shows the compressive test of cubes for the first batch casting. From the

table, it showed that the strength for all three cubes achieved the strength design which is

30 N/mm2. The compressive strength of the first cube was 34.28 N/mm2, while the

compressive strength of second and third cubes was 35.53 N/mm2 and 30.43 N/mm2

respectively. The average of compressive strength for these three cubes is 33.41 N/mm2.

The cubes were tested after 148 days which was at November 6th, 2015.

Table 4.1: Compression Result for First Batch

Batching Date : June 12th, 2015

Testing Date : November 6th, 2015

Cube No. Maximum Load (kN) Maximum Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

Cube 1 771.3 34.28

Cube 2 799.4 35.53

Cube 3 684.7 30.43

Average 751.8 33.41

49
 Table 4.2 shows the compressive strength of casting second batch which the design

strength was also attained above 30 N/mm2. The compressive strength for first cube was

36.12 N/mm2 which was exceeded the design strength. The strength for second cube was

36.75 N/mm2 while the third cube achieved about 33.28 N/mm2. The average compressive

strength for second batch was 35.38 N/mm2. These second batch was casting in June 24th,

2015 and the compressive strength was tested after 138 days which was at November 6th,

2015.

Table 4.2: Compression Result for Second Batch

Batching Date : June 24th, 2015

Testing Date : November 6th, 2015

Cube No. Maximum Load (kN) Maximum Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

Cube 1 812.8 36.12

Cube 2 827 36.75

Cube 3 748.9 33.28

Average 796.2 35.38

Table 4.3 shows the compressive strength of casting third batch after 136 days. The

compressive strength for first cube was 37.07 N/mm2 which was exceeded the design

strength of 30 N/mm2. The strength for second cube was 35.31 N/mm2 while the third cube

achieved about 35.09 N/mm2. The average compressive strength for third batch was 35.82

N/mm2. The third batch also casting in June 24th, 2015 and the compressive strength were

tested after in November 6th, 2015.

50
 Table 4.3: Compression Result for Second Batch

Batching Date : June 24th, 2015

Testing Date : November 6th, 2015

Cube No. Maximum Load (kN) Maximum Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

Cube 1 834 37.07

Cube 2 794.5 35.31

Cube 3 789.5 35.09

Average 806 35.82

The compressive strength for all three batches was exceeded the design of the

strength, which was 30 N/mm2. By conforming that the design strength was achieved,

therefore the strength of concrete for the beam was achieved the design strength.

4.3 Beam Result

4.3.1 Moisture Content

The moisture content in the concrete can influenced the compressive strength of the

concrete. In this research study, the moisture content in the beam sample would be

determined by checking the weight of beam before the burning process and after the

burning process. Before the beam exposed to specified temperature, the weight of beam

was determined using the weighting machine. After that, the beam was placed into the

furnace for the burning process.

51
 To ease the reader for identification, the beam had been marked according to the

temperature exposure. Beam A1 and A2 was a control sample which was expose to room

temperature of 300C. Beam B1 and B2 that were exposed to a temperature of 2000C

required a total of two to three hours of burning and cool down process. While for beam C1

and C2 that were exposed to a temperature of 6000C required a total of seven to eight hours

for burning and cool down process. The beam D1 and D2 that were exposed to a

temperature of 8000C required a total of 24 hours for burning and cool down process. The

weight of the beam had been determined before and after burning process.

Table 4.4 shows the weight of beam before burning process, the weight of beam

after burning process and percentage of losses of moisture content in the beam.

Table 4.4: Moisture Content of beam

No. Beam Mark Weight of Beam (kg) Weight Losses Percentage

(kg) Weight
Before Burn After Burn
Losses (%)

1. A1 41.5 41.5 0 0

2. A2 41.3 41.3 0 0

3. B1 - - - -

4. B2 - - - -

5. C1 41.2 38.4 2.8 6.80

6. C2 41.5 39.1 2.4 5.78

7. D1 41.0 38.6 2.4 5.85

8. D2 40.9 38.4 2.5 6.11

52
 The weight of beam mark A1 and A2 were control sample that exposed to room

temperature which was 300C. The room temperature in the lab had been tested using

thermometer placed inside the laboratory for about five hours. The reading of thermometer

had been taken every one hour to determine the average temperature inside the lab. All the

reading were tabulate in table 4.5 where the first two hour shows the reading of

thermometer rises about 250C to 270C. After that, the reading of thermometer for last three

hours rise and maintained about 300C. The temperature inside the laboratory tested from

8.00 am until 1.00 pm. The reason of high temperature inside the laboratory due to the

surrounding of lab which is closed place, and there is no proper in terms of ventilation

system inside the building.

Table 4.5: Room Temperature

Hour Time Temperature

1st 8.00 am - 9.00 am 250C

2nd 9.01 am – 10.00 am 270C

3rd 10.01 am – 11.00 am 300C

4th 11.01 am – 12.00 am 300C

5th 12.01 pm – 1.00 pm 300C

Average Temperature 300C

53
 Temperature
(0C)
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Hours

Figure 4.2: Graph of Temperature Verses Hours

The weight of the control sample beams mark A1 and A2 were almost identical

with value of 41.5 kg and 41.3 kg respectively. While the weight of the beams exposed to

the temperature of 2000C mark B1 and B2 not taken due to human error which was late

decision-making. Therefore, the percentage weight losses of beam marked B1 and B2

cannot be determined. The beams sample mark C1 and C2 were exposed to temperature of

6000C. The weight of beam mark C1 was 41.2 kg before the burn process and the weight of

beam C1 decreased to 38.5 kg after the burn process. The weight loss for beam C1 was 2.8

kg which is the weight loss about 6.8% after exposed to the temperature of 6000C. The

weight of beam marked as C2 before and after the burning process are about 41.5 kg and

39.1 kg respectively. The percentage of weight losses for beam C2 are 2.4 kg where the

weight for beam C2 losses about 5.78%.

The beams mark D1 and D2 were exposed to the temperature of 8000C. The weight

of beam D1 before burn and after the burning process was about 41.0 kg and 38.6 kg

54
respectively. The weight of beam D1 after exposed to temperature reduced about 2.4 kg

which was losses about 5.85%. The beam marks D2 reduce weight about 2.5 kg where the

weight of beam before the burn process was 40.9 kg and weight of beam after the burn

process was 38.4 kg. The percentage weight losses for beam D2 was 6.11 kg.

4.3.2 Flexural Strength

The flexural strength measures the bending failure for the RC beam and RC slab.

These two types of the RC elements that fail in bending when the load is apply on top of

structure. In general, this type of experimental is suitable for RC structure whereby the

reinforcement is placed to resist the tensile force. In this research study, the beams were

tested in three point bending test for flexural test. The load was applied at the mid-span of

the beam.

By referring to the Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4, the load applied verses the

deformation for beam marked A1 and beam marked A2 presented. The curves in Figure 4.3

and 4.4 showed that they were having a similar trend. These two beams are control sample

which exposed in room temperature.

55
 Figure 4.3: Graph of Load verses Deformation for Beam A1

Figure 4.4: Graph of Load verses Deformation for Beam A2

The curve of graph for beam A1 start constant in between 45 kN to 55 kN at the

deformation of 8 mm and above while the pattern of graph for beam A2 start constant in

between of 40 kN to 55 kN at the deformation of 6 mm and above. Table 4.6, the result of

beam A1 and A2 which are the energy used to applied load, the maximum load applied,

and break load for these two beams are presented. The energy used for the beam A1 was

1042.9 Joules. The maximum load of beam A1 is 55.31 kN while the break load for beam

56
A1 is 51.5 kN. For beam A2, the energy used in applying the load is about 909.4 Joules.

The maximum load achieved for beam A2 is 54.93 kN and the break load for this beam

was 53.02 kN. The average maximum load for control beam A was 63.973 kN.

Table 4.6: Load Information of Flexural Test for Beam A1 and A2

Beam Energy (J) Maximum (kN) Maximum (kPa) Break (kN) Break (kPa)

A1 1042.9 65.335 3.485 62.093 3.312

A2 909.4 62.592 3.338 58.062 3.097

For beam B1 and B2 which is exposed to the temperature of 2000C, the graph of

load verses deformation are illustrated in Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6. Beam B1 is a without

retrofitted beam while B2 is a retrofitted beam using GFRP bars as a retrofitting material.

Figure 4.5 shows that the beam B1 had high in terms of deformation but low in terms of

strength. While in the Figure 4.6, it shows that the beam had high in terms of load but low

in terms of deformations.

The curve of graph for without retrofitted beam, B1 is start constant in between of

40 kN to 55 kN at the deformation of 6 mm and above. While the curve of graph for

retrofitted beam, B2 was achieved the load of 65 kN at the deformation of 6 mm to 7 mm

and then the load started to decrease. From the two graph, it shows that the different in term

of failure between these beam where the beam B1 failure in bending where the load

maintain at certain point while the deformation increase. The graph B2 shows that the

structure able to resist high load but when the deformation exceeds the limit, it become

sudden fails which is in shear failure.

57
 Figure 4.5: Graph of Load verses Deformation for Beam B1

Figure 4.6: Graph of Load verses Deformation for Beam B2

In the Table 4.7, it shows the result of beam B1 and B2 which are the energy used

to applied load, the maximum load applied, and break load for these two beams. The

energy used for the beam B1 was 1333.5 Joules. The maximum load of beam B1 was

60.348 kN while the break load for beam B1 was 57.355 kN. For beam B2, the energy used

in applying the load was 466.5 Joules. The maximum load achieved for beam B2 was 71.07

kN and the break load for this beam was 66.083 kN. The difference between the maximum

58
load for beam B1 and B2 was 10.722 kN. It because the retrofitted allow the beam B2 to

resist high load compared to control beam B1.

Table 4.7: Load Information of Flexural Test for Beam B1 and B2

Beam Energy (J) Maximum (kN) Maximum (kPa) Break (kN) Break (kPa)

B1 1333.5 60.348 3.219 57.355 3.059

B2 466.5 71.07 3.791 66.083 3.525

The third sample which was beam mark C1 and C2. These beams had been exposed

to the temperature of 6000C. Beam mark C1 was a beam without retrofitting and beam

mark C2 was a beam retrofitting using GFRP. The graphs of load verses deformation are

illustrated in Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8 for beam C1 and C2. In Figure 4.7, it shows that the

beam had low in terms of strength but high in term of deformation. The Figure 4.8 was a

retrofitting beam mark C2, where it shows the beam was high in strength but low in terms

of deformations.

The curve of graph for without retrofitted beam, C1 was start constant in between of

35 kN to 45 kN at the deformation of 6 mm and above. While the curve of graph for

retrofitted beam, C2 was achieved the load of 80 kN at the deformation of 7 mm and then

the load started to decrease. From the two graph, it showed that the different in term of

failure between these beam where the beam C1 failure in bending where the load maintain

at certain point while the deformation increase. While the graph C2 shows that the beam

was able to resist high load but when the deformation exceeds the limit, it become sudden

fail which is in shear failure.

59
 Figure 4.7: Graph of Load verses Deformation for Beam C1

Figure 4.8: Graph of Load verses Deformation for Beam C2

Table 4.8 shows the result of beam C1 and C2 which are the energy used to applied

load, the maximum load applied, and break load for these two beams are presented. The

energy used for the beam C1 was 973.2 Joules. The maximum load of beam C1 was 48.879

kN while the break load for beam C1 was 45.136 kN. For beam C2, the energy used in

60
applying the load was 90.771 Joules. The maximum load achieved for beam C2 was 90.71

kN and the break load for this beam was 88.227 kN. The difference of maximum load

between beam C1 and C2 was 41.832 kN. The retrofitted beam C2 was able to resist high

load compared to beam C1.

Table 4.8: Load Information of Flexural Test for Beam C1 and C2

Beam Energy (J) Maximum (kN) Maximum (kPa) Break (kN) Break (kPa)

C1 973.2 48.879 2.607 45.136 2.407

C2 480.1 90.771 4.842 88.227 4.706

And last but not least, the sample of beam mark D1 was a sample without retrofitted

and beam mark D2 was a sample with retrofitted after exposed to the temperature of 8000C.

Beam mark D1 was a beam without retrofitting and beam mark D2 was a beam retrofitting

using GFRP. The graphs of load verses deformation are illustrated in Figure 4.9 and Figure

4.10 for beam D1 and D2. Figure 4.9 shows that the beam D1 had low in terms of strength

but high in term of deformation. While in Figure 4.8, it shows that the beam D2 had high in

strength but low in terms of deformations.

61
 Figure 4.9: Graph of Load verses Deformation for Beam D1

Figure 4.10: Graph of Load verses Deformation for Beam D2

The curve of graph for without retrofitted beam, D1 is start constant in between of

30 kN to 35 kN at the deformation of 7 mm and above. While the curve of graph for

62
retrofitted beam, D2 is achieved the load of 65 kN at the deformation of 11 mm to 13 mm

and then the load started to decrease. From the two graph, it shows that the different in term

of failure between these beam. The beam D1 was failure in bending where the loads

constant at certain point while the deformation increase. While the beam D2 was able to

resist high load but when the deformation exceeds the limit, it become sudden fail which is

in shear failure.

In the Table 4.9, it shows the result of beam D1 and D2 which are the energy used

to applied load, the maximum load applied, and break load for these two beams. The

energy used for the beam D1 was 1042.9 Joules. The maximum load of beam D1 was 55.31

kN while the break load for beam D1 was 51.5 kN. For beam D2, the energy used in

applying the load was 909.4 Joules. The maximum load achieved for beam D2 was 54.93

kN and the break load for this beam was 53.02 kN.

Table 4.9: Load Information of Flexural Test for Beam D1 and D2

Beam Energy (J) Maximum (kN) Maximum (kPa) Break (kN) Break (kPa)

D1 442.6 40.149 2.141 37.904 2.022

D2 561.1 71.32 3.804 68.826 3.671

Figure 4.11 shows the comparison of maximum flexural strength between control

beam which was without retrofitted and retrofitted beam using GFRP bars. The maximum

load for A1 and A2 which was control sample beam in room temperature are more than 60

63
kN. The maximum load for control beam A1 and A2 was 65.355 kN and 62.592 kN

respectively. Therefore, the average maximum load for control beam, Av was 63.974 kN.

While compare to all control sample which is in stripe blue bars, the higher the temperature

that beam had been exposed, the lower the strength of the beam. But compared between the

beams without retrofitted and retrofitted beams using GFRP, the flexural strength of

retrofitted beam are higher compare to the beam without retrofitted. From the graph

illustrated, the beam that exposed to the temperature of 2000C, B1 which was without

retrofitted only achieved maximum load of 60.384 kN but retrofitted beam, B2 had a

maximum load of 71.07 kN. Same as for beam C which was exposed to the temperature of

6000C and beam D that exposed to the temperature of 8000C, the retrofitted beam achieved

higher than beam without retrofitted.

Load (kN)
100 Control Beam
90
Retrofitted Beam
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
A1 A2 Av B C D

Figure 4.11: Comparison of Maximum Load for All Beams

64
 In the Figure 4.12, the graph shows the comparison of maximum load for the

retrofitted beam using GFRP bars after exposed to the specific temperature. From the graph

illustrated, the beam B2 which was exposed to the temperature of 2000C had low in term of

flexural strength compared to beam C2 that exposed to the temperature of 6000C and beam

D2 that exposed to the temperature of 8000C. The result seems different compare to the

expected result for this case study. The result of beam B2 was not precise due to many

aspects. Firstly, beam B2 was the first beam that been tested the flexural strength. When

conducting the three point bending test, the load apply to the beam are not centre and many

careless occur during conducting the test for this beam. From the expected result, the

flexural strength of beam B2 should be more than beam C2 and beam D2. And comparing

the flexural strength of beam C2 with beam D2, beam C2 which was exposed to the

temperature of 6000C had maximum load of 90.711 kN more than beam D2 which was

exposed to the temperature of 8000C that had maximum load of 71.32 kN.

Load (kN)
100.00
90.711
90.00
Temperature
80.00
71.07 71.32 Exposure
70.00
200 (B2)
60.00
600 (C2)
50.00 800 (D2)
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Maximum Load (kN)

Figure 4.12: Comparison of Maximum Load for Retrofitted Beam

65
 In Figure 4.13, the graph illustrated shows the comparison between beams in terms

of energy used. The comparison of energy used, the control beam which was without

retrofitted beam (A1, A2, B1 and C1) had higher in terms of energy used compared to the

retrofitted beams. It due to the higher of deformation occurs in the beam during conducting

the three pointed bending test. While when beam exposed to high temperature which was in

temperature of 8000C, the energy used of control beam, D1 lower than the beam D2. The

beam A1 and A2 had energy used of 1042.9 J and 909.4 J respectively. And for beam B1

and B2 that had been exposed to the temperature of 2000C, the energy that been used for

this beam is 1333.5 J and 466.5 J respectively. For beam that been exposed to the

temperature of 6000C, C1 and C2 had an energy used of 973.2 J and 480.1 J. And lastly for

beam D1 and D2, their energy used is 442.6 J and 561.1 J.

Beam
A1
1333.5
A2
1042.9 B1
973.2
909.4
B2

561.1
C1
466.5 480.1 442.6
C2
D1
D2

Energy Used (J)

Figure 4.13: Comparison of Energy Used between Beams

66
 Figure 4.14 illustrated the graph of comparison between beams in terms of break

loads. The break load linked with the maximum load achieved by beam. In this graph, it

shows that all retrofitted beam which is beam B2, C2 and d2 had high in terms of break

load compared to without retrofitted beam which is 66.083 kN for beam B2, 8.227 for

beam C2 and 68.826 kN for beam D2. For beam A1 and A2, the value of break load is

62.093 kN and 58.062 kN respectively. The break load for beam B1 is 57.355 kN lower

than control beam A1 and A2. The break load for beam C1 and D1 also lower which is

only 45.136 kN and 37.904 kN respectively.

88.227 Beam
A1
66.083
68.826 A2
62.093
58.062 57.355 B1

45.136
B2
37.904 C1
C2
D1
D2

Break Load (kN)

Figure 4.14: Comparison of Break Load between Beams.

The flexural strength compare for all beam, it shows that the retrofitted beam had

higher in terms of flexural strength compare to the normal beam especially after being

exposed to higher temperature. But, the deformation and energy used for retrofitted beam is

lower compared to the normal beam.

67
 From the result of the maximum load obtained, the flexural strength of the beam

was determined. All the flexural strength of the beam was tabulated in Table 4.10. The

flexural strength was determined by using the equation 3.1.

Table 4.10: Flexural Strength of the Beam.

Beam Breaking Load Maximum Flexural Strength

(kN) Moment (kN.m) (N/mm2)

A1 62.093 9.314 16.558

A2 58.062 8.709 15.483

B1 57.355 8.603 15.294

B2 66.083 9.912 17.621

C1 45.136 6.770 12.036

C2 88.227 13.234 23.527

D1 37.904 5.686 10.108

D2 68.826 10.324 18.354

From the table, it shows that the higher the maximum load that beam can resisted, the

higher the flexural strength of the beam. The flexural strength of beam A1 and A2 only

achieved about 16.558 N/mm2 and 15.483 N/mm2 respectively. Comparing with all control

beams (A1, A2, B1, C1 and D1), when the temperature exposure increased, the flexural

strength of the beam decreased. However, the retrofitted beams (B2, C2 and D2) had high

flexural strength where the beams can resist high load applied.

68
4.3.3 Cracking Observation

There are several types of failure occur for the RC beam. Difference failures give

difference types of cracking. However, this research study focusing certain mode of failure

which is bending and shear failure. Failure occurs at the structure resulting the cracking on

the structure. In Figure 4.14 and 4.15, it shows finalise of cracking occur at beam A1. This

type of cracking happen due to the mode of failure for beam A1 was bending failure.

Figure 4.15: Cracking Pattern for Beam A1 (Front Elevation)

Figure 4.16: Cracking Pattern for Beam A1 (Back Elevation)

Referring the crack pattern from the Figures 4.16 and 4.17, it shows that the mode

of failure for beam A1 is bending failure where the cracks occur at the centre of the beam

where the load applied. The test for the beam took about more than 15 minutes until it

69
failed. By referring to Table 4.11, it shows the crack occurrence in accordance to the load

applied.

Table 4.11: Crack Indicator in Accordance to the Applied Load for Beam A1

Crack Indicator Load (kN) Crack Indicator Load (kN) Crack Indicator Load (kN)

1. 42.1 21. 62.3 41. 60.1

2. 41.1 22. 62.3 42. 59.6

3. 43.6 23. 61.6 43. 60.1

4. 48.6 24. 62.1 44. 62.3

5. 50.6 25. 61.6 45. 64.3

6. 48.9 26. 61.4 46. 63.8

7. 56 27. 61.3 47. 63.3

8. 61.3 28. 60.8 48. 63.1

9. 61.8 29. 58.6

10. 63.3 30. 61.6

11. 59.8 31. 61.1

12. 60.1 32. 62.1

13. 63.3 33. 62.6

14. 59.8 34. 58.6

15. 60.1 35. 58.8

16. 61.8 36. 62.6

17. 62.6 37. 62.3

18. 62.4 38. 62.6

19. 62.8 39. 62.3

20. 62.3 40. 59.8

70
 For beam A2, the crack similar to beam A1 where it failed in bending. The test of

this beam also took about more than 15 minutes due to bending failure. The bending failure

allows the reinforcement to resist the load that applied at top of the beam. However, after

reach at the certain point of deformation in the beam, the flexural strength starts to decrease

little by little. Figure 4.17 and 4.18 shows the crack pattern for beam A2 at failure.

Figure 4.17: Cracking Pattern for Beam A2 (Front Elevation)

Figure 4.18: Cracking Pattern for Beam A2 (Back Elevation)

Due to the bending failure, the crack pattern of beam A2 also focusing at the centre

of the beam linearly to the load applied. Table 4.12 shows the load the load that producing

the crack to the beam A2.

71
 Table 4.12: Crack Indicator in Accordance to the Applied Load for Beam A2

Crack Indicator Load (kN) Crack Indicator Load (kN)

1. 20.9 21. 59.1

2. 21.9 22. 60.3

3. 24.4 23. 58.9

4. 29.7 24. 60.9

5. 32.9 25. 61.1

6. 30.9 26. 61.6

7. 32.9 27. 57.8

8. 40.1 28. 62.6

9. 40.4 29. 56.1

10. 42.9 30. 59.1

11. 43.6 31. 57.9

12. 45.1 32. 59.3

13. 54.6

14. 53.6

15. 54.3

16. 58.3

17. 55.1

18. 54.6

19. 56.6

20. 57.8

72
 Figure 4.19 and 4.20 shows the crack pattern of the beam B1 after applying the load

until failure. Beam B1 was a beam that being exposed to the temperature of 2000C without

retrofitted it. The crack pattern for the beam shows that the mode of failure of the beam

was bending failure. The test conducted for this beam also took about more than 15

minutes. The beam started to failure after reach at the certain point of deformation at the

beam.

Figure 4.19: Cracking Pattern for Beam B1 (Front Elevation)

Figure 4.20: Cracking Pattern for Beam B1 (Back Elevation)

Due to the bending failure, the crack pattern of beam B1 also focusing at the centre

of the beam linearly to the load applied. Table 4.13 show the load the load that producing

the crack to the beam B1.

73
 Table 4.13: Crack Indicator in Accordance to the Applied Load for Beam B1

Crack Indicator Load (kN) Crack Indicator Load (kN)

1. 17 21. 54.1

2. 19 22. 54.1

3. 28 23. 54.1

4. 30 24. 54.6

5. 42 25. 54.8

6. 42 26. 55.8

7. 50 27. 55.9

8. 52 28. 55.3

9. 48 29. 53.6

10. 48

11. 49.1

12. 52

13. 49.1

14. 48.8

15. 51.9

16. 51.6

17. 51.1

18. 53.3

19. 54.6

20. 52.3

74
 Figure 4.21 and 4.22 shows the crack pattern of the beam B2 after applying the load

until failure. Beam B2 was a retrofitted beam that being exposed to the temperature of

2000C. The crack pattern for the beam shows that the mode of failure of the beam was in

shear failure. Therefore, the test conducts less than 15 minutes. The beam started to failure

after reach the maximum load applied.

Figure 4.21: Cracking Pattern for Beam B2 (Front Elevation)

Figure 4.22: Cracking Pattern for Beam B2 (Back Elevation)

Due to the shear failure, the crack pattern of beam B2 started to crack 45 0 from the

support to the centre of the load applied. The cracks also not too much compare to the

bending crack beam B1.

75
 Figure 4.23 and 4.24 shows the crack pattern of the beam C1 after applying the load

until failed. Beam C1 was a normal RC beam that being exposed to the temperature of

6000C without retrofitted. The crack pattern for the beam shows that the mode of failure of

this beam was bending failure. The test of this beam also took about more than 15 minutes

due to bending failure. The bending failure allows the reinforcement to resist the load that

applied at top of the beam. However, after reach at the certain point of deformation in the

beam, the flexural strength starts to decrease little by little.

Figure 4.23: Cracking Pattern for Beam C1 (Front Elevation)

Figure 4.24: Cracking Pattern for Beam C1 (Back Elevation)

Referring the crack pattern from the Figure 4.23 and 4.24, it shows that the mode of

failure for beam C1 was bending failure where the cracks occur at the centre of the beam

where the load applied. By referring Table 4.14, it shows the crack occurrences in

accordance to the load applied.

76
 Table 4.14: Crack Indicator in Accordance to the Applied Load for Beam C1

Crack Load Crack Load Crack Load Crack Load

Indicator (kN) Indicator (kN) Indicator (kN) Indicator (kN)

1. 10.2 21. 42.1 41. 46.4 61. 43.6

2. 10.5 22. 45.4 42. 45.1 62. 43.3

3. 12 23. 44.6 43. 45.1 63. 43.6

4. 14.7 24. 45.1 44. 45.9 64. 43.8

5. 18.2 25. 47.9 45. 46.1 65. 44.1

6. 19.2 26. 48.1 46. 45 66. 44.1

7. 23.7 27. 48.1 47. 44.9 67. 42.9

8. 22.7 28. 48.8 48. 44.6 68. 43.3

9. 25.4 29. 46.9 49. 44.4 69. 42.9

10. 26.9 30. 48.6 50. 46.1

11. 27.4 31. 47.6 51. 46.6

12. 30.9 32. 46.1 52. 44.9

13. 35.6 33. 47.3 53. 44.4

14. 34.6 34. 48.1 54. 43.6

15. 36.6 35. 47.9 55. 45.1

16. 37.7 36. 48.1 56. 44.1

17. 43.1 37. 48.8 57. 43.3

18. 41.6 38. 46.3 58. 43.6

19. 43.9 39. 47.1 59. 44.4

20. 44.6 40. 46.8 60. 42.9

77
 Figure 4.25 and 4.26 shows the crack pattern of the beam C2 after applying the load

until failure. Beam C2 is a retrofitted beam that being exposed to the temperature of 6000C.

The crack pattern for this beam shows that the mode of failure of this beam was shear

failure. Therefore, the test conducts less than 15 minutes. The beam started to failure after

reach the maximum load applied.

Figure 4.25: Cracking Pattern for Beam C2 (Front Elevation)

Figure 4.26: Cracking Pattern for Beam C2 (Back Elevation)

The crack pattern of beam C2 started to crack 450 from the support to the centre of

the load applied due to the shear failure. The cracks also not too much compare to the

bending crack beam C1. Table 4.15 shows the crack happed due to load applied.

78
 Table 4.15: Crack Indicator in Accordance to the Applied Load for Beam C2

Crack Indicator Load (kN) Crack Indicator Load (kN)

1. 20.4 21. 79.1

2. 22.4 22. 75.3

3. 23.2 23. 80.1

4. 26.9 24. 79.5

5. 29.9 25. 87.7

6. 35.2 26. 90

7. 39.7 27. 85.5

8. 46.2 28. 90.2

9. 50.4 29. 89.5

10. 50.8 30. 87

11. 52.4 31. 84.7

12. 58.1 32. 87.8

13. 57.1 33. 87.9

14. 64.3 34. 83.5

15. 66.1 35. 86.5

16. 67 36. 85.8

17. 68 37. 85.8

18. 69.8 38. 85.2

19. 71.8 39. 85

20. 73.3 40. 76

79
 Figure 4.27 and 4.28 shows the crack pattern of the beam D1 after applying the load

until failed. Beam D1 was a beam that being exposed to the temperature of 8000C without

retrofitted it. The crack pattern for the beam shows that the mode of failure of the beam

was bending failure. The test conducted for this beam also took about more than 15

minutes. The beam started to failure after reach at the certain point of deformation at the

beam.

Figure 4.27: Cracking Pattern for Beam D1 (Front Elevation)

Figure 4.28: Cracking Pattern for Beam D1 (Back Elevation)

Referring the crack pattern from the Figure 4.27 and Figure 4.28, it shows that the

mode of failure for beam D1 was bending failure where the cracks occur at the centre of the

beam where the load applied. However, due to the weakness of the concrete due after

expose to high temperature, the beam also failure in shear too. By referring Table 4.16, it

shows the crack occurrences in accordance to the load applied.

80
 Table 4.16: Crack Indicator in Accordance to the Applied Load for Beam D1

Crack Load Crack Load Crack Load Crack Load

Indicator (kN) Indicator (kN) Indicator (kN) Indicator (kN)

1. 5.9 21. 34.7 41. 38.4 61. 37.4

2. 7.9 22. 36.2 42. 36.7 62. 35.9

3. 10.7 23. 34.9 43. 37.7 63. 37.7

4. 11.9 24. 37.2 44. 38.9 64. 36.2

5. 14.2 25. 36.9 45. 37.7

6. 13.9 26. 37.7 46. 38.2

7. 16.9 27. 38.7 47. 37.9

8. 18.7 28. 38.7 48. 38.4

9. 21.2 29. 36.9 49. 38.9

10. 22.4 30. 38.7 50. 38.2

11. 25.7 31. 37.7 51. 38.4

12. 27.4 32. 38.7 52. 38.9

13. 25.7 33. 39.7 53. 37.9

14. 28.4 34. 37.7 54. 37.4

15. 31.2 35. 37.7 55. 39.4

16. 32.7 36. 37.7 56. 38.2

17. 31.2 37. 37.7 57. 36.4

18. 34.2 38. 38.4 58. 37.7

19. 33.2 39. 39.2 59. 36.9

20. 34.4 40. 39.9 60. 37.7

81
 Figure 4.29 and 4.30 shows the crack pattern of the beam D2 after applying the load

until failed. Beam D2 was a retrofitted beam that being exposed to the temperature of

6000C. The crack pattern for the beam shows that the mode of failure of the beam is shear

failure. Therefore, the test conducts less than 15 minutes. The beam started to failure after

reach the maximum load applied.

Figure 4.29: Cracking Pattern for Beam D2 (Front Elevation)

Figure 4.30: Cracking Pattern for Beam D2 (Back Elevation)

Referring the crack pattern from the Figure 4.29 and Figure 4.30, it shows that the

mode of failure for beam D2 was shear failure where the cracks occur at 450 from the

support. However, due to the weakness of the concrete due after expose to high

temperature, the beam also failure in bending too. By referring Table 4.17, it shows the

crack occurrences in accordance to the load applied.

82
 Table 4.17: Crack Indicator in Accordance to the Applied Load for Beam D2

Crack Crack Crack

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

1 9.9 21 45.3 41 64.8

2 20.7 22 46.1 42 65.5

3 22.1 23 43.6 43 69.3

4 22.9 24 47.6 44 69.6

5 25.4 25 48.3 45 68.7

6 27.7 26 49.1 46 69.5

7 23.7 27 49.8 47 70

8 25.7 28 48.8 48 69.7

9 28.9 29 49.6 49 70.3

10 34.6 30 52.1 50 70.5

11 32.1 31 52.6 51 68.1

12 33.9 32 56.6 52 67.8

13 36.9 33 57.1 53 68.8

14 37.4 34 58.1 54 68.5

15 37.4 35 58.3 55 70.5

16 39.6 36 59.8 56 70.3

17 40.1 37 58.6 57 69.8

18 46 38 59.9

19 42.6 39 63.1

20 40.8 40 63.3

83
4.3.4 Deflection Result

The deflection of beam occurs due to the load that applying on the structure.

Mostly, the beams that have higher deflection are the beam that their mode of failure is

bending failure. In this part, it focusing on result of deflection occurs to beam comparing

between normal RC beams without retrofitted and retrofitted beam after expose to specific

temperature which is room temperature of 300C (Beams A1 and A2), 2000C (Beams B1

and B2), 6000C (Beams C1 and C2) and 8000C (Beams D1 and D2). The deflection of the

beam was measured by using LVDT. However, the limitation of the LVDT that available

in the laboratory is only 20 mm. Hence, the LVDT was removed right before the deflection

of the beam achieved 20 mm. The LVDT was placed at the centre of the beam that is linear

to the load applied.

In Figure 4.31 and Figure 4.32, it show the graph of load verses to LVDT for

control beams A1 and A2 in the room temperature (300C). The deflection for control beam

A1 and A2 reach limit the LVDT can measure. Therefore, during the load test, the LVDT

removed from the beam.

Load (kN),
Deflection
(mm)
70
60
Legend:
50
40
Load (kN)

30 Deflection (mm)
20
2 per. Mov. Avg.
10 (Load (kN))
0
Time

Figure 4.31: Graph of Load and Deflection for Beam A1

84
 Load (kN),
Deformation
(mm)
70

60
Legend:
50
Load (kN)
40
Deformation (mm)
30

20 2 per. Mov. Avg.

(Load (kN))
10

0
Time

Figure 4.32: Graph of Load and Deflection for Beam A2

Figure 4.33 shows the graph illustrated for result of LVDT and load for beam B1.

From the graph, it also shows that the deflection of beam B1 was more than 20 mm. It

because the modes of failure for beam B1 was in bending failure. As the LVDT was

removed before it attained the deflection mark of 20 mm, thus the actual deflection could

not be obtained.

Load (kN),
Deformation
(mm)
70
60
50 Legend:

40 Load (kN)
30 Deflection (mm)
20
2 per. Mov. Avg.
10 (Load (kN))
0
Time

Figure 4.33: Graph of Load and Deflection for Beam B1

85
 Figure 4.34 shows the graph illustrated for result of LVDT and load for beam B2.

From the graph, it also shows that the deflection of beam B2 was less than 20 mm. It

because the modes of failure for beam B2 is in shear failure. Therefore, deflection of the

beam B2 can be determined after failure.

Load (kN),
Deflection (mm) Legend:

80 Load (kN)
70
60 Deflection (mm)
50
2 per. Mov. Avg.
40 (Load (kN))
30
20
10
0
Time

Figure 4.34: Graph of Load and Deflection for Beam B2

Figure 4.35 shows the graph illustrated for result of LVDT and load for beam C1.

From the graph, it also shows that the deflections of the beam C1 are same as B1 which

was more than 20 mm. It because the modes of failure for beam C1 was in bending failure.

As the LVDT was removed before it attained the deflection mark of 20 mm, thus the actual

deflection could not be obtained.

86
 Load (kN),
Deformation Legend:
(mm)
60 Load (kN)
50
Deformation (mm)
40

30 2 per. Mov. Avg.

(Load (kN))
20

10

0
Time

Figure 4.35: Graph of Load and Deflection for Beam C1

Figure 4.36 show the graph illustrated for result of LVDT and load for beam C2.

From the graph, it also shows that the deflection of beam C2 is less than 20 mm same as for

beam B2. It because the modes of failure for beam C2 is in shear failure. Therefore,

deflection of the beam C2 can be determined after failure.

Load (kN),
Deflection (mm) Legend:
100
90 Load (kN)
80
70 Deflection (mm)
60
50 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Load
(kN))
40
30
20
10
0
Time
Figure 4.36: Graph of Load and Deflection for Beam C2

Figure 4.37 shows the graph illustrated for result of LVDT and load for beam D1.

From the graph, it also shows that the deflections of the beam D1 was more than 20 mm

87
due to modes of failure for beam C1 is in bending failure. Therefore, the LVDT was

removed before passed the limit of 20 mm.

Load (kN), Legend:

Deformation
(mm) Load (kN)
45
40
Deflection (mm)
35
30 2 per. Mov. Avg.
25 (Load (kN))
20
15
10
5
0
Time
Figure 4.37: Graph of Load and Deflection for Beam D1

Figure 4.38 shows the graph illustrated for result of LVDT and load for beam D2.

From the graph, it also shows that the deflection of beam D2 was less than 20 mm same as

for beam B2 and C2. It because the modes of failure for beam D2 is in shear failure.

Therefore, deflection of the beam D2 can be determined after failure.

88
 Load (kN),
Deflection (mm)
80
70 Legend:
60 Load (kN)
50
40 Deflection (mm)
30
2 per. Mov. Avg. (Load
20
(kN))
10
0
-10 Time
Figure 4.38: Graph of Load and Deflection for Beam D2

From the Figure 4.31 until Figure 4.38, the result can de determine where the

deflection of the control beam which is without retrofitted beam had the deflection of more

than 20 mm due to the mode of failure for normal beam is bending failure. Different to the

retrofitted beam which is failure in shear, therefore the deflection of the beam can be

measured which is lower than 20 mm. Beam B2 which is retrofitted after exposed to the

temperature of 2000C had the deflection about 11.2 mm. While beam C2 which is exposed

to 6000C and beam D2 that exposed to 8000C had the deflection of 11.7 mm and 16.8 mm

respectively.

From the result, it show that the higher the temperature that beam experienced it,

the higher the deflection that was occur after the beam had been retrofitted. It because the

beam D2 had the deflection on 16.8 mm higher compared to the other retrofitted beam B2

and C2. The result of deflection was summarising in Table 4.18.

89
 Table 4.18: Deflection of the beam

Beam Deflection (mm)

A1 and A2 >20

B1 >20

B2 11.2

C1 >20

C2 11.7

D1 >20

D2 16.8

90
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This study is attempted to determining the advantaging of using GFRP bars as a

retrofitting material to the RC beam. Apart from that, this chapter also discussed about the

research objective in Chapter 1. There are two research questions for this study which is

related to the objective of the research. Moreover, there some recommendation at the end

of the chapter regarding on how GFRP can function as a retrofitted material compare to

other. Figure 5.1 shows the flows of research to achieve the objective of this study.

Conclusions

Research Research
Question 1 Question 2

Flexural Deflection Mode of Crack

Strength Failure Pattern

Recommendations

Figure 5.1: Flowchart of Conclusion and Recommendations

91
5.2 Conclusion

5.2.1 Research Question 1

“What is the flexural strength of control beam and retrofitting beam after being exposed to

the temperature of 300C, 2000C, 6000C and 8000C.”

Firstly, there was a huge different in terms of flexural strength between retrofitted

beams and control beams. For an example, comparing between control beam C1 and

retrofitted beam C2, both of the beams had been exposed to the temperature of 6000C.

However, the beam C2 had higher in terms of flexural strength compared to the C1. The

GFRP are capable to resist the load that being applied to the structure, and preventing the

failure to be happen. Same as beam B1 compare to beam B2, the result still same where the

retrofitted beam B2 had higher in flexural strength compare to normal beam B1 after

exposed to the temperature of 2000C.

Secondly, comparing between control beams with different exposing temperature,

the flexural strength of beam in room temperature, A1 was higher compared to other beams

that being exposed to specific temperature. For an example, beam A1 achieved the

maximum load of 65.355 kN while beam B1 only achieved the maximum load of 60.384

kN.

Thirdly, comparing between retrofitted beam with different exposing temperature,

seems that beam C1 had higher flexural strength compare to beam B1 and beam D1. The

result of beam B1 may be wrong due to error while performing the three point bending test.

The flexural strength of beam B1 should be higher compare to the C1 due to lower

temperature exposure. However comparing to the beam C1 and D1, the maximum load that

92
beam C1 achieved about 90.711 kN while beam D1 only achieved maximum load of 71.32

kN.

5.2.2 Research Question 2

“What is the mode of failure between control beam and retrofitting beam using NSM

GFRP bar.”

The answer for this question can divide into three answers which are intertwined. The first

answer is in terms of mode of failure itself. While the second answer are the deflection of

the beam and lastly the crack pattern of the beam.

The mode of failure is different between control beam which is without retrofitted

and retrofitted beam using NSM technique. The mode of failure for control beam without

retrofitted is bending failure. The crack pattern for the bending failure is happen at the

centre of the beam where is linear to the load that being applied. Because of the normal

beam is failure in bending, the deflection that occur at the beam is higher comparing to the

beam experienced in shear failure. Most of the normal beam had the deflection more than

20 mm.

Different with the retrofitted beam, the mode of failure for this type of beam is

shear failure. The crack pattern for the retrofitted beam is 450 from the support to the centre

of load applied. The retrofitted beam had lower in terms of deflection due to this beam

suffered sudden failure. Therefore, for this case study, the deflection of the retrofitted beam

is lower than 20 mm.

93
 However, for the beam D1 and D2 which is exposed to the temperature of 8000C,

the crack pattern for this beam consist of bending crack and shear crack. Even though beam

D1 failure in bending while beam D2 failure in shear, but by referring to the crack patter, it

show that if the beam had been exposed to the temperature more than 8000C, the beam may

experience failure in both condition.

5.3 Recommendations

This research study can be extended to several conditions. The first condition is

temperature. From this research study, the RC beams were exposed to the temperature of

300C, 2000C, 6000C and 8000C. However, the crack observations of retrofitted beam when

exposed to 8000C were failed in bending and shear failure. Therefore, the crack pattern can

be observed by expending the temperature to 9000C and 10000C whether the retrofitted

beam still failed in shear or bending. The second condition that can be considered to

expand the research is material of retrofitted. For an example, try using difference

retrofitted material such as steel bar, steel plate, steel bar with anchored, CFRP and AFRP.

By using these types of material, the strength of the beam and crack pattern can be

observed to determine which material give the better result. The third condition is structure

type. The retrofitted also can be applied at the column structure. Therefore, the failure type

for the normal RC column and the retrofitted RC column using GFRP bar can be

determined and compared together. From the result, it can be determined whether the

GFRP are applicable to use as retrofitted material for RC column. The forth condition is

exposure time. In this research study, the exposure time for burning process is one hour.

Therefore, this research can be extended by comparing the strength of the RC beam with

94
difference time exposure such as two hours and three hours. And the last condition for

extending the research is the concrete properties. For an example, normal RC beam and

high strength RC beam. Try to observing the difference strength of retrofitted RC beam

using difference concrete properties.

95
 REFERENCES

Burke, P.J., Bisby, L.A., and Green, M.F. 2011. Structural performance of Near Surface

Mounted FRP strengthened concrete slab at elevated temperatures. Campbell

Comeau Engineering Ltd, Canada: 1-11.

Carvelli, V., Pisani, M.A., and Ponggi, C. 2013. High temperature effect on concrete

members reinforced with GFRP rebars. Composites: Part B 54: 125-132.

De Lorenzis, L., Nanni, A., and La Tegola, A. 2000. Strengthening of Concrete Structure

with Near Surface Mounted (NSM) FRP Rods. International Meeting on Composite

Materials, PLAST 2000, Proceedings, Advancing with Composites: 9-11

De Lorenzis, L., and Teng, J.G. 2007. Near Surfaced Mounted FRP reinforcement: An

emerging techniques for strengthening structure. Composites: Part B 38 (2):

119-143.

Doddamani, L.A., Swamy, B.S., and Vijaya, S. 2014. The Study on Strength and Stiffness

of RC Beam Retrofitted with GFRP Wrapping. International Journal of Engineering

Research and Technology (IJERT) 3 (9): 1-10. ESRSA Publications.

Dumas, P. 2012. Structural retrofitting using fibre reinforced polymer. Doctoral

Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Paris.

El-Hacha, R., and Rizkalla, S.H. 2004. Near Surface Mounted Fiber Reinforced Polymer

reinforcement for flexural strengthening of concrete structures. ACI Structural

Journal 101-S71: 1-10.

96
Eslami, A., and Ronagh, H.R. 2013. Effect of FRP wrapping in seismic performance of

RC building with or without special detailing – A case study. Composites: Part B

45(1): 1265-1274.

Gevin, Mc.D., and Chase, K. 2014. Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites. 2014

Design Training Expo 2014.

Lieser, M., Global Specification, G., and Corning, O. 2011. Glass Fibre reinforcement type

significantly impacts FRP corrosion performance. Jec Composites Magazine 69:

49-51.

Mancusi, G., Spadea, S., and Berardi, V.P. 2013. Experimental analysis on the time-

dependent bonding of FRP laminates under sustained loads. Composites: Part B 46:

116-122.

Masuelli, M.A. 2013. Fibre Reinforced Polymers - The technology applied for concrete

repair. San Luis: CC BY 3.

Mukherjee, A., and Arwikar, S.J. 2007. Performance of externally bonded GFRP sheets on

concrete in tropical environments. Part 1: Structural scale test. Composite

Structures 81 (1): 21-32

Nguyen, Q.T.., Tran, P., Ngo, T.D., Tran, P.A., and Mendis, P. 2014. Experimental

and computational investigation on fire resistance of GFRP composite for building

façade. Composites: Part B 62: 218-229.

Obaidat, Y.T., Heyden, S., Dahlblom, O., Abu-Farsakh, G., and Abdel-Jawad, Y. 2011.

Retrofitting of reinforced concrete beams using composite laminates. Construction

and Building Materials 25 (2): 591-597.

97
Parikh, K., and Modhera, C.D. 2012. Application of GFRP on preloaded retrofitted beam

for enhancement in flexural strength. International Journal of Civil and Structural

Engineering 2 (4): 1070-1080.

Panda, K.C., Bhattacharyya, S.K., and Barai, S.V. 2013. Effect of transverse steel on the

performance of RC T- beams strengthened in shear zone with GFRP sheet.

Construction and Building Materials 41: 79-90.

Reddy, D.V., Sobhan, K., and Young, J. 2006. Effect of Fire on Structural Elements

Retrofitted by Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites [online]. 31st on Our

World in Concrete and Structure Conferences: 1-12. doi: 100031041.

Ronagh, H.R., and Eslami, A. 2013. Flexural retrofitting of RC building using

GFRP/CFRP- A comparative study. Composites: Part B 46: 188-196.

Sarker, P., Begum, M., and Nasrin, S. 2011. Fibre reinforced polymers for structural

retrofitting: A review. Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB) 39 (1): 49-57.

Sen, T., and Reddy, H.J. 2013. Strengthening of RC beams in flexure using natural jute

fibre textile reinforced composite system and its comparative study with CFRP and

GFRP strengthening systems. International Journal of Sustainable Built

Environment 2 (1): 41-55.

Sen, T., and Reddy, H.J. 2014. Flexural strengthening of RC beams using natural sisal and

artificial carbon and glass fabric reinforced composite system. Sustainable Cities

and Society 10: 195-206.

Sundarraja, M.C., and Rajamohan, S. 2009. Strengthening of RC beams in shear using

CFRP inclined strips - An experimental study. Construction and Building Materials,

23 (2): 856-864.

98
Wang, Y.C., and Hsu, K. 2008. Strengthening of reinforced concrete beams constructed

with substandard steel reinforcement termination. Composite Structures 85(1): 10-

19.

99
APPENDICES

100