Strengthening SUSCOS - TTT 2017 06 20b PDF

STRENGTHENING OF STRUCTURES USING FRP TECHNIQUES
Dr. NAGY‐GYÖRGY Tamás
Professor
E‐mail:
tamas.nagy‐gyorgy@upt.ro
Tel:
+40 256 403 935
Web:
http://www.ct.upt.ro/users/TamasNagyGyorgy/index.htm
Office:
A219
Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering

1. Strengthening for flexure using EB‐FRP
2. RC beam strengthened for flexure ‐ Application
3. Shear strengthening using EB‐FRP
4. RC beam strengthened for shear ‐ Application
5. Confinement
Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 2

Strengthening for flexure using EB‐FRP
Initial situation
Initial load  Mo = service moment acting during

strengthening
Mo is typically larger than the cracking moment Mcr
 the calculation is based on a cracked section

Strengthening for flexure using EB‐FRP
Constitutive material models
For FRP
Serviceability Limit State (SLS)
‐ reversible, long term effect
Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
1.35 1.5 1.5 , , (Stijn Matthys, Ghent University)
Strengthening for flexure using EB‐FRP Failure modes – ULS
Failure modes – Ultimate Limit States
1. Full composite action of concrete and FRP is maintained

until the concrete reaches crushing in compression or the
FRP fails in tension (such failure modes may also be characterized
as “ideal”)
2. Composite action is lost prior to class 1 failure, e.g. due

to peeling‐off or by debonding of the FRP

Failure modes – Full composite action
 Steel yielding followed by concrete crushing
 Steel yielding followed by FRP fracture
 Concrete crushing or FRP failure without steel yielding

Allowed
 Rupture of steel, before concrete crushing or FRP failure

To be avoided

Failure modes – Loss of composite action
• Debonding and bond failure modes
fib
Bond behaviour of RC members strengthened with FRP
Most failures observed  caused by peeling‐off of the EBR element.
These depends on the starting point:
in an uncracked caused at caused by the unevenness of caused at

anchorage zone flexural cracks the concrete surface shear cracks fibfib
Bond behaviour of RC members strengthened with FRP
Also was observed  FRP end shear failure (or concrete rip‐off)
fib
5. Confinement

RC beam strengthened for flexure Application
RC beam strengthened with CFRP composite for bending
1. SYSTEM
L = 4.1 m

2. CROSS SECTION AND MATERIALS
RC beam (indoor) CFRP composite

h = 40 cm bf = 80 mm
b = 20 cm tf = 1.2 mm
40 d = 36.7 cm Efk = 165000 N/mm2
As1 = 2φ16 = 4.02 cm2 εfk = 17 ‰
Concrete:
C30/37
fck = 30 N/mm2
Ec = 33000 N/mm2
20 fctm = 2.9 N/mm2
Steel:
fyk = 500 N/mm2
Es = 200000 N/mm2

3. LOADS AND DESIGN VALUES
1. Self‐weight G = 2.0 kN/m
2. Live load before strengthening q1 = 8.0 kN/m
3. Additional live load q2 = 18.0 kN/m
4. Live load after strengthening q1 + q2 = 26.0 kN/m

Fundamental load combination 1.35 ∑ , 1.5 ,
Total load before strengthening 14.7 /
Bending moment before strengthening 30.89 kNm
Total design load 41.7 /
Total bending moment 87.62 kNm

20
1.5
435
1.15

Resisting moment of the unstrengthened member
Where 1 0,5
and
0.119  0.112 0.8 1 0.4 0.372
0.617
/
 60.34 

4. INITIAL SITUATION
Service moment  self‐weight + q1
Calculation of the neutral axis depth :
1
1
2

Where 6.06 ‐ coefficient of equivalence
0.5 0
0.5 · 200 · 6.06 · 402 · 367 0
→ 83.2

The concrete strain at the top fibre can be expressed as:
0.000332
Where
1
3
234 686 473

Based on the strain compatibility, the strain at the extreme tension fiber can be
derived as
0.001264

5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
General condition
It is assumed that flexural failure takes place when one of the

following conditions is met:
‐ The maximum concrete compressive strain ( ) is reached.
‐ The maximum FRP tensile strain ( ) is reached.

5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
Additional safety factor
0.8
0.4
∑ 0 → 0.85
Where

5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
∑ 0 → 0.85  only iterative solving
is possible
1st proposal 109
……
0.85 dif? %
…… ……
2nd proposal …
……
…… …… dif ? %

5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
3rd proposal
0.00796
299 200 300 981
difference  0.2 %

5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
It must be verified if
(Stijn Matthys, Ghent University)
5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
Deformability condition
5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
, 5.0 5.0 1.264 3. 74 ‰
, 3.74 ‰ 8.83 ‰ CHECKED
Deformability condition in ‰ !!!
5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
,
FRP bond failure
In conformity of CNR‐DT 200/2004
min ;
11.6 ‰
0.75
17 ‰
1.1

5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
,
FRP bond failure
min ;
1 2·Γ
· ·
3.0 ‐ coefficient
Γ 0.03 · · ‐ the specific fracture energy of the FRP ‐ concrete interface
2 ⁄ is a geometric coefficient depending on both width of the

1 strengthened beam and width of the FRP system. If /
1 ⁄400
0.33, the value for corresponding to / 0.33 is adopted.

5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
min ; 0.00369
1 2·Γ
0.00369
· ·
3.0
Γ 0.03 · · 0.323 ⁄ 0.40

If / 0.33, the value for corresponding to / 0.33 is adopted
2
1.155
1
400
5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
Verification of the strain in reinforcement
0.00818 0.00217

5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
The flexural capacity of the strengthened member:

5. ANALYSIS IN ULS
The flexural capacity of the strengthened member:
1.06
0.65 0.37
. .
6. CHECKING FOR ANCHORAGE FAILURE
ANCHORAGE FAILURE MODES
Type 1: at interface
Type 2: at internal steel
reinforcement level
As1
Af
lb
Ns1 Capacity of the
unstrengthened
z section
Nb
Nf Capacity of the
strengthened
section

The maximum FRP force which can be anchored:
, 2
1.0 0.9 influence of inclined cracks on bond strength

1.0 influence of the concrete faces with low compaction
⁄
⁄
1 geometric coefficient, in function of ⁄
0.205 for CFRP laminate
The optimal bond length:

2·

6. CHECKING FOR ANCHORAGE FAILURE ‐ DEBONDING
The maximum FRP force which can be anchored:
, 2 44.82
The optimal bond length:
185
2·

0.9 330 720

200
190 185

shifting
20 cm 18.5 cm
L=4.1 m

CHECKING THE ANCHORAGE FORCE AT THE DISTANCE OF :

1. Computation of and
2. Computation of
from ∑ 0 → 0.85
by several iteration the values for , and will be obtained
3. Whith obtained, computation of the effective force in the composite and

compare
,

6. CHECKING ANCHORAGE FAILURE – CONCRETE RIP‐OFF
(end shear failure)
a > L + d

6. CHECKING ANCHORAGE FAILURE – CONCRETE RIP‐OFF
(end shear failure)
where
0.15 · 3 1 100 design value of resisting shear strength of concrete

5. Confinement

Shear strengthening
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
fib
Shear strengthening
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
(Barros Joaquim , University of Minho)

Shear strengthening
SHEAR CAPACITY OF THE STRENGTHENED MEMBERS
, , , ,
, concrete contribution to the shear capacity
EC2 or
ACI318
, steel contribution to the shear capacity
fib
, FRP contribution to the shear capacity CNR‐DT200
ACI4408
, the ultimate strength of the concretet strut

Shear strengthening
SHEAR CAPACITY OF THE STRENGTHENED MEMBERS
For RC member with rectangular cross‐section with U‐wrapped or

completely wrapped configurations, the FRP contribution to the shear
capacity shall be calculated as:
fib  ,
CNR  ,

5. Confinement

RC beam strengthened for shear Application
RC beam strengthened with CFRP composite for bending
1. SYSTEM
L = 4.1 m

2. CROSS SECTION AND MATERIALS
RC beam (indoor) CFRP composite

h = 40 cm wf = 200 mm
b = 20 cm sf = 200 mm
d = 36.7 cm tf = 0.131 mm
As1 = 2φ16 = 4.02 cm2 Efk = 238000 N/mm2
φw = φ6 εfk = 18 ‰
sw = 150 mm
Concrete: Steel:
C30/37 fywk = 500 N/mm2
fck = 30 N/mm2 Es = 200000 N/mm2
Ec = 33000 N/mm2
fctm = 2.9 N/mm2


Fundamental load
combination 1.35 , 1.5 , 41.7 /
→ · 85.49 kN
2

20
1.5
435
1.15

Resisting shear force of the unstrengthened member
min , , ,
Where
, · · ·
, · · ·
0,6 1
250
strength reduction factor for concrete cracked in shear

Resisting shear force of the unstrengthened member
min , , , 54.14
Where
, · · ·
56.5
, · 0.9 · 367 · 435 · 45 54.14
150
, · · ·
, 1 · 200 · 0.9 · 367 · 0.53 · 20 · 45 · 45 348.8
0,6 1 0.53
strength reduction factor for concrete cracked in shear

Shear force difference:
, 31.35
L = 4.1 m

4. FRP CONTRIBUTION TO THE SHEAR CAPACITY
1
, 0.9 ·2· ·
(formula for U‐wrapped configurations – CNR DT200)

1
, 0.9 ·2· ·
Where, for a U‐wrappwed configuration
1 ·
1 ·
3 min 0.9 ,
2· the optimal bond length
1 2· ·Γ
·

1
, 0.9 ·2· ·
Where, for a U‐wrapped configuration
1 2· ·Γ
·
Γ 0.03 · · ‐ the specific fracture energy of the FRP ‐ concrete interface

When calculating , the coefficient shall be considered as
2 ⁄ follows: for discrete FRP strips application, and ;
1
1 ⁄400 for FRP systems installed continuously along the span length of the
member it shall be permitted to consider
min 0.9 , · sin /sin
1
, 0.9 ·2· ·
Where, for a U‐wrappwed configuration
1 for a continues fiber application

2 ⁄ 2 1
1
1 ⁄400 1 300⁄400
sin
min 0.9 , · 300
sin
Γ 0.03 · · 0.280
1 2· ·Γ
686.09
·
73
2·

1 ·
1 · 630.2
3 min 0.9 ,
1
, 0.9 ·2· ·
1
, 0.9 · 367 · 630.2 · 2 · 0.131 · 45 90 · 1 45.45
1.2
, ,

5. Confinement

Confinement
CONFINEMENT EFFECTS
(Τhanasis Triantafillou, University of Patras)

Confinement
CONFINEMENT EFFECTS
Comparison of the axial compressive stress as a function of the axial strain for an unreinforced,
reinforced with steel stirrups and FRP‐wrapped column (Holloway and Head, 2001).
Confinement
CONFINEMENT EFFECTS higher strength
higher deformation

Confinement
CONFINEMENT JACKETS SHOULD BE DESIGNED
 To increase deformation capacity (chord rotation or
ductility factor)
 To increase shear resistance in such way, that flexural
failure precedes shear failure.

Confinement
CONFINEMENT JACKETS SHOULDN'T BE USED TO INCREASE
FLEXURAL RESISTANCE

Confinement
CONFINEMENT DESIGN
Circular column Rectangular column
f = fu !
fib Teng et. al.
Dr. NAGY‐GYÖRGY Tamás
Professor
E‐mail: tamas.nagy‐gyorgy@upt.ro
Tel: +40 256 403 935
Web: http://www.ct.upt.ro/users/TamasNagyGyorgy/index.htm
Office: A219

Strengthening SUSCOS - TTT 2017 06 20b PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Strengthening SUSCOS - TTT 2017 06 20b PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

STRENGTHENING OF STRUCTURES USING FRP TECHNIQUES

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering

1. Strengthening for flexure using EB‐FRP

3. Shear strengthening using EB‐FRP

4. RC beam strengthened for shear ‐ Application

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 2

Initial load  Mo = service moment acting during

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 3

1. Full composite action of concrete and FRP is maintained

2. Composite action is lost prior to class 1 failure, e.g. due

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 5

 Steel yielding followed by concrete crushing

 Steel yielding followed by FRP fracture

 Concrete crushing or FRP failure without steel yielding

 Rupture of steel, before concrete crushing or FRP failure

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 6

• Debonding and bond failure modes

in an uncracked caused at caused by the unevenness of caused at

1. Strengthening for flexure using EB‐FRP

3. Shear strengthening using EB‐FRP

4. RC beam strengthened for shear ‐ Application

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 10

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 11

RC beam (indoor) CFRP composite

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 12

1. Self‐weight G = 2.0 kN/m

4. Live load after strengthening q1 + q2 = 26.0 kN/m

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 13

Fundamental load combination 1.35 ∑ , 1.5 ,

Bending moment before strengthening 30.89 kNm

Total bending moment 87.62 kNm

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 14

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 15

0.119  0.112 0.8 1 0.4 0.372

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 16

0.5 · 200 · 6.06 · 402 · 367 0

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 18

234 686 473

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 19

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 20

It is assumed that flexural failure takes place when one of the

‐ The maximum FRP tensile strain ( ) is reached.

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 21

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 22

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 23

299 200 300 981

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 24

, 5.0 5.0 1.264 3. 74 ‰

, 3.74 ‰ 8.83 ‰ CHECKED

Deformability condition in ‰ !!!

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 28

Γ 0.03 · · ‐ the specific fracture energy of the FRP ‐ concrete interface

2 ⁄ is a geometric coefficient depending on both width of the

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 29

Γ 0.03 · · 0.323 ⁄ 0.40

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 31

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 32

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 36

1.0 0.9 influence of inclined cracks on bond strength

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 37

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 38

0.9 330 720

Dr.ing. Nagy‐György T.  Faculty of Civil Engineering 39