Experimental and Predicted Behavior of FRP Beam-Columns Including Retrofting

Old Dominion University
ODU Digital Commons

Civil & Environmental Engineering Theses &
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Dissertations
Fall 2015
Experimental and Predicted Behavior of FRP

Beam-Columns Including Retrofitting
Ali Al-Huazy
Old Dominion University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cee_etds

Part of the Civil Engineering Commons, and the Structural Engineering Commons
Recommended Citation
Al-Huazy, Ali. "Experimental and Predicted Behavior of FRP Beam-Columns Including Retrofitting" (2015). Master of Science (MS),
thesis, Civil/Environmental Engineering, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/263b-sd17
https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cee_etds/5
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil & Environmental Engineering at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Civil & Environmental Engineering Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more
information, please contact digitalcommons@odu.edu.
EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED BEHAVIOR OF FRP BEAM-COLUMNS
INCLUDING RETROFITTING
by
Ali Al-Huazy
B.S. August 2008, University of Basra, Iraq
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY

December 2015
Approved by:
Zia Razzaq (Director)
Reza Moradi (Member)
M. B. Sirjani (Member)
ABSTRACT
EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED BEHAVIOR OF FRP BEAM-COLUMNS

INCLUDING RETROFITTING
Ali Al-Huazy
Old Dominion University, 2015
Director: Dr. Zia Razzaq
This thesis presents the outcome of a theoretical and experimental study of Fiber Reinforce
Polymer (FRP) beam-columns with uniaxial bending and including retrofitting. The
research involved the design and fabrication of a testing apparatus which was then used for
a series of beam-column tests. Three different types of beam-column cross sections were
used, namely, channel section, I-section, and square tube section. Six non-retrofitted beam-
columns were tested in addition to two retrofitted ones. The members were subjected to
an eccentric vertical load applied through a lever arm generating gradually increasing axial
load and uniaxial bending moment up to the maximum load. To predict the load-deflection
relations up to the peak axial load and bending moment, a system of three coupled
differential equations of flexural and torsional equilibrium were solved using finite-
difference method. The effect of initial geometric imperfections were embedded in the
governing differential equations. The predicted behavior and strength was in good
agreement for the load-deflection relations and in excellent agreement for the maximum
loads. The ASCE-LRFD Pre-Standard beam-column design expression was found to be
unconservative for the non-retrofitted beam-columns except for that with the I-section with
minor axis loading. It was also found that retrofitting the channel section beam-column
with steel plates in the vicinity of maximum bending moment results in a dramatic increase
in strength.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would express my gratitude and appreciation for my advisor professor Dr.Zia Razzaq
who believed in me and let me have the opportunity to study such a challenging and
interesting research. Dr.Zia never stop supporting me and I was finding him besides of me
in each single step in this research and I consider myself as a lucky student to have this
work under his supervision.
I am tremendously grateful for my parents Hadi Al Huazy and Salwa Al Huazy, without
their perpetual support in every step in my life I will never make it to reach here, and I will
find a light in my life without the infinite care of my precious mother. Also, I would like
to thank my sister Huda who I always consider her as my second mom, I will always be
thankful to her and I deeply know that I will never be able to repay her. I would also want
to share this work with the rest of my family starting with my brother Moayed who always
give the support here with me in the states, and the rest of my brothers and sisters in Iraq
Mohannad, Nada, Ahmed, Hiba, and Hebah. I owed them a great thankfulness for their
unlimited support and encouragement.
I am also very thankful to my colleague and friend, Ali Al Aloosi, a Ph.D. candidate who
provided me an appreciated assistance in my theory works, besides Herish Hussien a PhD
student who gave me a great help in installing the steel apparatus in the ground and for that
I am so appreciated. I would also like to thank Julia Carvel for her help on editing this
thesis in a very critical time and I deeply respect her honest work.
A great appreciation goes to the people who are in charge of the Fulbright Scholarship
Program. With their huge efforts during all these decades, they made the dreams come true
to each hard working person in our world. I will never forget how this program served me
in a way that will always be engraved in my memories.
iv
NOMENCLATURE
Ag Gross area of the cross section
Bx Bending stiffness about x Axis
By Bending stiffness about the y axis
bf The width of the flange for the FRP Channel and I- sections
CT St. Venant torsional stiffness
Cw The warping stiffness
D Dead load caused by a permanent construction
D. G. Dial Gage Indicator
d The height of the member
EL Characteristic value of longitudinal compression elastic modulus of the

flange
EL,f Characteristic longitudinal modulus of the flange
EL,w Characteristic longitudinal modulus of the web

v
ET,f Characteristic transverse modulus of the flange
ET,w Characteristic transverse modulus of the web
E∗ Earthquake load
Fcr Critical stress
Fcrf Local flange buckling stress
Fcrw Local web buckling stress
Fcrx The elastic flexural buckling stress about the x axis
Fcry The elastic flexural buckling stress about the Y-axis
FLc Minimum longitudinal compression material strength of all elements

comprising the cross-section.
FL,f Characteristic longitudinal strength of the flange
FL,w Characteristic longitudinal strength of the web
G Characteristic full-section shear modulus
GL,T Characteristic in-plane shear modulus
h Full height of a member according to ASCE-LRFD design procedures

vi
Ix Moment of inertia about the x Axis
Iy Moment of inertia about the y axis
Iω Warping moment of inertia
K Cross-sectional constant
KT St.venant torsional constant
Kx Effective length factor corresponding to x axis
Ky Effective length factor corresponding to y axis
kr Rotational Spring Constant
𝑘𝑈,𝑒 Experimental initial slope of the load-deflection 𝑢 relation
𝑘𝑈,𝑡 Theoretical initial slope of the load-deflection 𝑢 relation
𝑘𝑉,𝑒 Experimental initial slope of the load-deflection υ relation
𝑘𝑉,𝑡 Theoretical initial slope of the load-deflection υ relation
𝑘Φ,𝑒 Experimental initial slope of the load-angle of twist relation
𝑘Φ,𝑡 Theoretical initial slope of the load-angle of twist relation

vii
L Length of a member
Le Effective length of the member
Lr Live load on the roof produced during the maintenance
L∗ Live load produced by the use and the occupancy of the building
l Distance between the second and third dial gages
MBx , MBy End moments at the bottom of a beam-column
Mc Available flexural strength
Mn Characteristic value of flexural strength
MTx , MTy End moments at the top of a beam-column
Mu Required flexural strength due to factor loads
M₀ End moment
M₀x End moment about the x axis
P Axial load in a member
Pc Available axial compressive strength

viii
Pe Elastic Euler buckling load
PMax.ASCE Maximum uniaxial load corresponding to proposed design of the ASCE-

LRFD procedures
PMax.Exp. Maximum uniaxial load resulted from the laboratory tests
Pn Characteristic value of axial force
Ps
Compression force due to serviceability load combination
Pu Required axial compression strength due to factored loads
R Rain load or ice load
rx Radius of gyration on the x Axis
ry Radius of gyration on the y Axis
S Snow load
tf The thickness of the flange for the FRP Channel and I-sections
tw The width of the web for all of the sections
U Total displacement of the shear center in the x direction
𝑢 Deflection of the shear center in the x direction

ix
𝑢∘i Initial imperfection due to deflection u
V Total displacement of the shear center in the y direction
W Wind load
x₀ Shear center coordinate
y Distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber of the member
yf Distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber of the flange
yw Distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber of the web
y₀ Shear center coordinate
z Centroidal longitudinal axis
Φ Total magnitude of the angle of twist
ϕ∘i Initial imperfection due to the angle of twist
ϕ Angle of twist
Resistance factor for lateral torsional buckling and web crippling

Øb
Øc Resistance factor for compression rupture and global buckling

x
λ Time effect factor
νL,T Characteristic value of Poisson's ration
υ Deflection of the shear center in the y direction.
υ∘i Initial imperfection due to the deflection υ

xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xv
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Problem Statement .................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Objective of the Thesis............................................................................................ 12
1.5 Conditions and Assumptions................................................................................... 13
2. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY......................................................................................... 14
2.1 Material Properties of Specimens ........................................................................... 14
2.2 Testing Setup and Apparatus................................................................................... 15
2.3 Testing Procedures .................................................................................................. 25
2.4 Test Results ............................................................................................................ 28
3. THEORETICAL STUDY ............................................................................................ 57

3.1 Governing Differential Equations ........................................................................... 57
3.2 Theoretical Imperfection Evaluation ....................................................................... 60
3.3 Convergence Study ................................................................................................. 62
3.4 Finite-Difference Formulation ................................................................................ 63
3.5 Boundary Conditions............................................................................................... 65
3.6 Theoretical Load versus Deflection Curves ............................................................ 65
4. DESIGN OF FRP MEMBERS ACCORDING TO ASCE-LRFD .............................. 66

4.1 General Notes .......................................................................................................... 66
4.2 Channel Section Calculations, the Major Axis ....................................................... 69
4.3 Channel Section Calculations, the Minor Axis ....................................................... 79
4.4 I- Section Calculations, Major Axis ........................................................................ 81
xii
4.5 I- Section Calculations, Minor Axis........................................................................ 86

4.6 Calculations of Square Tube Section ...................................................................... 89
5. COMPARISON OF RESULTS ................................................................................... 92

5.1 Comparison of Results for FRP Channel Section with Major Axis........................ 92
5.2 Comparison of Results for First Retrofitted FRP Channel Section ........................ 93
5.3 Comparison of Results for Second Retrofitted FRP Channel Section ................... 94
5.4 Comparison of Results for FRP Channel Section with Minor Axis ....................... 95
5.5 Comparison of Results for FRP I-Section with Major Axis ................................... 95
5.6 Comparison of Results for FRP I-Section with Minor Axis ................................... 96
5.7 Comparison of Results for First Test for FRP Square Section ............................... 97
5.8 Comparison of Results for Second Test for FRP Square Section ........................... 97
6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE REESEARCH ....................................................... 99

6.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 99
6.2 Future Studies .......................................................................................................... 99
REFRENCES .................................................................................................................. 101
APPENDICEIS ………………………………………………………………………115
A. SECTION AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES .......................................................... 105
B. DETERMINATION OF G AND E VALUES .......................................................... 111
C. PROCESSED DEFLECTION EQUATIONS ........................................................... 113
D. LOAD CELL CALIBRATION ................................................................................ 117
E. EXPERIMENTAL DATA ........................................................................................ 120
F. PROCESSED DEFLECTION VALUES .................................................................. 125
G. THEORITICAL DATA ............................................................................................. 130
VITA ............................................................................................................................... 137

xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Material Properties of the FRP Specimens ............................................................ 14

2. Minimum Required Mechanical Properties for FRP Composite Shape ................ 67
3. Time Effect Factor λ .............................................................................................. 68
4. Pultex FRP Channel and Square Tube Super Structural Profiles .......................... 70
5. Pultex FRP Super Structural Profiles for the I-Section ......................................... 82
6. Initial Slopes of Case 1 .......................................................................................... 93
7. Initial Slopes of Case 2 ......................................................................................... 94
10. Initial Slopes of Case 5 ......................................................................................... 96
14. Comparison of Maximum Loads ........................................................................... 98
15. Required Parameters for FRP Channel Section ................................................... 107
16. Required Parameters for FRP I - Section ............................................................. 109
17. Required Parameters for FRP Square Tube Section ............................................ 110
18. Mid-Span Deflections for FRP Beams ................................................................ 112
19. Load versus Voltage ............................................................................................ 119
20. Experimental Deflections of Case 1 .................................................................... 120
xiv
Table Page
28. Processed Deflection Values of Case 1 ............................................................... 125
36. Theoretical Deflection Values of Case 1 ............................................................. 130
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Pultrusion Process .................................................................................................... 1
2. FRP Channel Cross Section Details ......................................................................... 9
3. FRP I - Cross Section Details ................................................................................ 10
4. FRP Square Tube Cross Section Details ................................................................ 10
5. Schematic FRP I-Beam-Column with Loading Application ................................. 11
6. Apparatus Positioning ............................................................................................ 16
7. Steel Jacket Connection from Bottom Side .......................................................... 17
8. Steel Tube Connection from Top Side................................................................... 17
9. First Type of Connection for Channel Section with Major Axis Loading ............ 18
10. FRP Channel Section with Major Axis Loading ................................................... 19
11. Schematic Loading for First Retrofitted FRP Channel Section ............................. 20
12. Second Retrofitting for FRP Channel Section ....................................................... 21
13. Schematic Second Retrofitted FRP Channel Section ............................................ 22
14. I-section Loading on the Minor Axis ..................................................................... 23
15. Testing Setup for Case 7 and Case 8 ..................................................................... 24
16. Dial Gages Installation ........................................................................................... 26
17. Process of Determining Deflections and the Angle of Twist ................................ 27
18. Load versus Deflection 𝜐 at Mid-span for FRP Channel ....................................... 29
19. Load versus Deflection 𝑢 at Mid-span for FRP Channel ...................................... 30
20. Load versus Angle of Twist 𝜑 at Mid-span for FRP Channel ............................... 31
21. Deformation at Junction A for FRP Channel Section with Major Axis Loading .. 32
22. Load versus Deflection 𝜐 at Mid-span for First Retrofitted................................... 33
23. Load versus Deflection 𝑢 at Mid-span for the First Retrofitted ............................ 34
24. Load versus Angle of Twist 𝜑 at Mid-span for the First Retrofitted ..................... 35
25. Deformation at Junctions B and C for First Retrofitted FRP Channel Section ..... 36
26. Load versus Deflection 𝜐 at Mid-span for Second Retrofitted .............................. 37
27. Load versus Deflection 𝑢 at Mid-span for Second Retrofitted .............................. 38
28. Load versus Angle of Twist 𝜑 at Mid-span for Second Retrofitted ...................... 39
29. Load versus Deflection 𝜐 at Mid-span for FRP Channel ....................................... 40
xvi
Figure Page
30. Load versus Deflection u at Mid-span for FRP Channel ....................................... 41

31. Load versus Angle of Twist 𝜑 at Mid-span for FRP Channel ............................... 42
32. Load versus Deflection 𝜐 at Mid-span for FRP I-section with .............................. 43
33. Load versus Deflection 𝑢 at Mid-span for FRP I-section,Major Axis Loading .... 44
34. Load versus Angle of Twist 𝜑 at Mid-span for I-section with .............................. 45
35. Deformation at Junction D of FRP I-Section with Major Axis Loading ............... 46
36. Load versus Deflection 𝜐 at Mid-span for FRP I-section with .............................. 47
37. Load versus Deflection 𝑢 at Mid-span for FRP I-section with .............................. 48
38. Load versus Angle of Twist 𝜑 at Mid-span for FRP I-section Minor Axis........... 49
39. Top View of the Deformation of FRP I-Section with Minor Axis Loading .......... 49
40. Load versus Deflection 𝜐 at Mid-span for First Test of FRP................................. 50
41. Load versus Deflection 𝑢 at Mid-span for First Test of FRP ................................ 51
42. Load versus Deflection 𝜑 at Mid-span for First Test of FRP ................................ 52
43. Deformation at Junction E for First Testing of FRP Square Tube Section ........... 53
44. Load versus Deflection 𝜐 at Mid-span for Second Test of FRP Square Section ... 54
45. Load versus Deflection 𝑢 at Mid-span for Second Test of FRP Square Section ... 55
46. Load versus Deflection 𝜑 at Mid-span for Second Test of FRP Square Section .. 56
47. Bending Moment Diagram for the FRP Beam-Column ........................................ 60
48. Perfect versus Imperfect Member .......................................................................... 62
49. Mid-Span Deflection versus Number of Spans ..................................................... 63
50. Deflection Curve of Beam-Column Member ........................................................ 64
51. FRP Channel Section Properties .......................................................................... 105
52. Properties of FRP I - Section ............................................................................... 107
53. Properties of FRP Square Tube Section............................................................... 109
54. FRP Simply Supported Beam ............................................................................... 112
55. Channel Section Dimensions for Use in Processed Equations ............................ 114
56. I- Section Dimensions for Use in Processed Equations ....................................... 115
57. Square Tube Section Dimensions for Use in Processed Equations ..................... 116
58. FLUKE 8012A Digital Voltmeter ........................................................................ 117
xvii
Figure Page
59. Load versus Voltage ............................................................................................ 118

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
This thesis presents an experimental and theoretical study of fiber reinforced
polymer (FRP) columns that are subjected to uniaxial loads. In spite of the fact that there
are many research studies that focus on FRP structural members, including both beams and
columns, there are few research concentrated on the behavior of such members when
subjected to uniaxial loads. The resultant stress from a uniaxial load can lead to torsional
deformations, which are taken into consideration in both analytical and theoretical studies.
Three types of FRP specimens were considered: I-section, Channel section, and Square
Tube section, with each specimen being analyzed on both minor and major axes loading.
The manufacturer of the FRP specimens which are used in this thesis is Creative
Pultrusions, Inc. Pultrusion is a process by which a constant molding is created using fiber
reinforced polymer and other resin materials, such as fiber glass roving, mat, or cloth. This
process will fabricate a high-strength product that also exhibits many useful properties,
such as corrosion resistance, light weight, and electrical isolation. Figure 1 shows the
schematic process of pultrusion.
Figure 1. Pultrusion Process

2
The analytical examination of FRP beam-column behavior will be achieved by using three
differential equations. These equations describe the equilibrium of any cross-section taken
in this thesis, and will anticipate the load-deflection reaction for each FRP specimen when
it is loaded uniaxially. The first differential equation involves the deflection ν only, so it is
considered an independent equation from the other two equations [21]. The remaining two
differential equations are used to determine the conditions under which torsional effects
are initiated, and the deflection about the other axis as well.
The experimental study encountered some difficulties in setting up the specimens
in order to reconstruct the scheme of beam-column conditions in the laboratory. Therefore,
there were many attempts to achieve such conditions, all of which will be explained in the
second chapter. Imperfection factors were added to the results of the analytical
computations, so that the results of the computations could have an approximate agreement
with the results from the experimental works. Therefore, this thesis took the initial
imperfections into consideration in the three differential equations. This study also
provided a comparison of analytical and experimental work, and presented a design scheme
for each specimen based on the ASCE-LRFD, FRP Pre-Standard [24].
1.2 Literature Review
This section presents a summary of publications relevant to the study of FRP
materials. GangaRao et al [1] tested different lengths of GFRP specimen 72 in., 102 in.,
and 108 in. The purpose of the testing was to predict the failure load criteria (strength
prediction) and strain energy failure criteria. A total of 46 hollow box sections were used,
along with 6 wide flange sections. An axial load was applied to all specimens. The results
showed that the design limit state of column height (h/220) is appropriate and acceptable
under applied axial loads.
In the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at West Virginia
University, Julio et al [2] conducted an experiment to evaluate FRP specimens’ reactions
to bending. A program called “FRPBEAM” was used to analyze the results. This program
permits the computing of shear deflection and bending deflection separately.
Consequently, they were able to analyze any cross-sectional shape with obvious
limitations. I-beam and wide-flange sections were used in the experimental testing. In the
I-beam 12.0 in. ⨯ 12.0 in. ⨯ 0.5 in. with a span length of 6.0 ft., the failure took place in
3
the roving layer of the web at beam’s junction with the top flange. In the 12.0 ft. span beam,
the failure was located in the stitched fabrics (SF) layer. Based on these results, there were
modifications in the industry and subsequent test results proved that the new specimens
performed 10.0% better than the previous ones.
Borowicz et al [3] conducted experimental testing on the behavior of FRP beams
when they were subjected to concentrated loads in the plane of the web. Twelve beams,
each with a depth of 8.0 in., were tested in three points of bending at a span of 32.0 in..
Eight of the specimens were tested with loads placed directly onto the beams, while
the remaining four were reinforced with steel plates of variant widths and thicknesses
against the bearing points. It should be also noted that finite element models of the beams
were developed and compared to the experimental test results. It was found that all eleven
specimens that had failed had failed in the same manner: at the upper web flange junction.
Only one beam, one of the four with reinforcing bearing plates, did not fail; the steel plate
had resulted in a 66.7% increase in the ultimate capacity of the beam.
Three methods were utilized to evaluate the flexural strength and stiffness of GFRP
pultruded wide flange I-sections: experimental, numerical, and analytical. Concerning the
experimental work, Neto et al [4] relied on the Timoshenko Beam Theory (TBT). Flexural
and shear moduli were yielded together directly from tests on simply supported beams. A
linear elastic behavior was observed as a test result for the service loads, in addition to
some shear deformation in the deflections. Next, ten solid rectangular sections were tested
for flexural strength and tension. The authors conducted a statistical analysis, which
showed that there was no difference in WF profiles for the longitudinal modulus.
Using a nonlinear finite element (FE) analysis method, Ferdinando et al [5] studied
the post-buckling behavior of Pultruded Fiber-Reinforced Plastic (PFRP) beams in uniform
major axis bending. Four types of wide-flange (WF) PFRP were investigated: two shapes
from Creative Pultrusions “CP” 8.0 ⨯ 8.0 ⨯ 0.374 in., and two from Strongwell “SW” 10.0
⨯ 10.0 ⨯ 0.374 in. Three different lengths were used: stocky, intermediate, and slender
beams. The results showed that the ultimate moments for the stocky beams were
remarkably larger than the local buckling moments, while in the intermediate beams, the
buckling mode interaction had a very small influence. Finally, the slender beams’ ultimate
4
moments are found to be higher than the flexural-torsional buckling moments and are
limited by the critical moments that account for the pre-buckling deflections.
Roberts et al [6] conducted experimental tests to study the flexural and torsional
properties of pultruded FRP profiles. Results from the experimental tests were compared
with the results of the coupon tests. Apparently, the transverse shear moduli, being
determined from full section bending tests, may be influenced by localized deformation at
the supports. The authors also presented solutions for the influence of transverse shear
deformation on global flexural, torsional, and lateral buckling.
Shear deformation can reduce flexural and torsional buckling loads up to
approximately 10.0 % to 15.0 %. The solution for lateral buckling is embedded in the
influence of pre-buckling displacements. For instance, in the wide flange I-sections, the
pre-buckling displacements can increase lateral buckling moments by over 20 %, while
shear deformation reduces the buckling moments by less than 5.0 %.
Zureick et al [7] conducted a study on the behavior of deep I-section reinforced
plastic (RP) when subjected to transverse loads in the plane of the web. Cross sections of
the web are 24.0 ⨯ 0.375 in., for the flanges 7.50 ⨯ 0.75 in. and 24.0 in. for the span length.
The authors also compared the actual observations with the predicted observations using
linear finite element analysis based on orthotropic material properties. At the end, it was
proved that the size of the sections did not appear to induce any deflection effects. For the
flexural and shear strains, the sections remained in plane and elastic over numerous loading
cycles, while the compressive and tension moduli were almost equal.
Pizhong et al [8] presented a combined analytical and experimental study to
determine the flexural-torsional buckling behavior of pultruded FRP composite cantilever
I-beams. Four different geometries of FRP I-beams of varying span lengths were tested
under tip loadings and cantilevered at the opposite end. A derivation for the total potential
energy based on non-linear plate theory was used. The analytical solutions are compared
with finite-element studies and experimental tests. Eventually, a positive connection
among the proposed analytical solutions, experimental testing, and FEM was obtained.
Ragheb [9] proposed a method to improvise the pultruded I-beam with regards to
the local buckling capacity. The author proposed and verified the technique, which was
based on reshaping the compression flanges of the FRP I-sections with small lips at their
5
edges. Through testing, it was found that the flange lips significantly improved the beam
buckling and failure loads, and at an increasing rate as the height of the flange tips
increases. However, increasing the flange height over a certain point may not result in a
similar increase in the failure stress of the beam.
Giosue et al [10] presented an experimental and numerical investigation of the
performance of built-up columns, which consist of pultruded FRP channel sections and
steel bolts (connectors). The experimental testing explained the difference in structural
behavior of this kind of column, specifically in the case of applying load to the composed
web, and the case of load being applied to the overall cross-section. This research showed
that the use of steel bolted connections can improve the overall efficiency of the assembled
system. It also illustrated that the level of damage in the connections after collapse is
negligible, which is directly related to the conservative structural design.
Nguyen et al [11] presented a study investigating the change in the Lateral-torsional
Buckling (LTB) resistance of a single sized PFRP I-beam of different spans under various
load heights, end displacement boundary conditions, and initial geometric imperfections.
The setup consisted of a simply supported beam 4.0 ⨯ 2.0 ⨯ 0.25 in. installed on the major
axis and the flexure having a vertical point load at the mid-span. The analysis was done
using ABAQUS, and the authors also submitted a comparison between the experimental
observations and the FE modelling methodology. The results showed that changing the
load height relative to the shear center is more significant for the PFRP beam than for a
steel structure beam, with the PFRP beam found to be most significant due to the LTB
resistance.
Davalos et al [12] proposed a multi-criteria design optimization of the material
architecture for pultruded FRP I-beams 12.0 ⨯ 12.0 ⨯ 0.5 in. The performance of PFRP
(flexural behavior, buckling response, and material failure) was analyzed by following
practical design tools. Taking into consideration the lateral and distortional buckling, a
stability Rayleigh-Ritz solution was used for the evaluation of the critical buckling loads.
The results were verified by comparing them with finite element analyses. A multi-
objective design optimization formulation was combined with an approximate technique
in order to predict a beam fiber behavior that would reflect the load capacity of the section.
6
The final results indicated that without changing the current geometries, the performance
of the FRP sections can be improved by using this optimization method.
Tarjan et al [13] conducted a local buckling analysis for both open and closed thin-
walled sections of FRP beams. The open or closed sections are prismatic members that
consist of flat, rectangular segments. The authors also assumed that the material would
behave in a linearly elastic manner and that deformations would be negligible. The main
goal of the research was to determine the external applying load so that the resulting
buckling load of these types of loads could be determined. Eventually, explicit expressions
were developed from the analysis, which in turn was used in the development of explicit
expressions for the calculation of the web buckling of beams with thin-walled cross-
sections. It is also of note that the results were verified by FE calculations.
Shan et al [14] presented a combined experimental and analytical study of the
flexural-torsional buckling of PFRP composite open channel beams. The authors used three
different geometries of FRP cantilever open channel sections for the laboratory testing.
Concerning the analytical work, the authors presented a complete derivation of the second
variation problem and the total potential energy based on the non-linear plate. It was found
that the critical load decreased as the span increased, and by increasing the span, the
flexural-torsional buckling can be noted more easily. Moreover, the conclusion showed
that there was a noticeable correlation between the experimental tests and the analytical
solutions.
Godoy et al [15] presented an analytical solution for the interactive analysis of
composite I-columns. Three buckling models were considered:
(1) The global mode about the weak axis.
(2) The primary mode.
(3) The secondary local mode (Flanges Bending), which was modeled using
analytical functions and four degrees of freedom.
The basic hypotheses that related to the structure are a uniform structure at the ends
of the column, a simply supported state for the boundary conditions, and that the flanges
and the web can freely expand in a transverse direction to the applied load. Moreover, a
new mode of interaction analysis in terms of the amplitudes of first order fields had been
7
carried out. The significant stage involved mixing the two local modes. It helped to
illustrate the sensitivity to imperfections of the buckling behavior of the composite column.
Regal et al [16] aimed to determine the critical material properties that could be
used to find the crush behavior of pultruded GFRP box-beams. For this purpose, the
mechanical behavior and energy absorption mechanisms of the constituent pultruded box-
beam sections were subjected to lateral compressive loading. The lateral crushing of profile
sections was experimentally evaluated and further studied numerically, using
commercially available tools. The analysis clearly showed that the junctions between
flanges and webs represented the weakest points of the box-beam sections. In other words,
high shear stress concentrations in combination with occurring matrix failure led to further
damage, such as delamination and tearing.
For a linear elastic lateral-torsional buckling of a pultruded I-beam section,
Mottram [17] measured the short-term critical loading for such a section, then compared it
with theoretical predictions. Experimentally, an I-beam section was simply supported
about the major axis, with both ends also supported so that lateral deflection, warping and,
twist were restrained. Then, a point load was applied at the center of the top compression
flange. Finally, the experimental observations were compared with the predictions using a
finite difference method (FDM). Through the FDM, it was shown that the buckling load
for composite beams made from orthotropic panels could be predicted.
Nguyen et al [18] intended to elaborate on a designed guidance that can be
presented as clauses in a structural design standard. A new test was developed for I- and
channel section beams that were subjected to three points of bending, with three vertical
loading heights at mid-span, and two displacement boundary conditions. The experimental
results were combined with numerical predictions using closed form equations. The
number of the individual tests were conducted in laboratory tests is 114, using 19 beams in
six groups. Consequently, it was found that the test results were all significantly higher
than what was predicted. It was found that this difference between theory and practice was
due to the height of the applying load; the difference decreased as the load was moved
downwards from the top flange to the bottom.
Bank et al [19] conducted a detailed investigation of the local compression flange
buckling of pultruded wide flange I-beams. The beams were tested in four points of
8
bending formation. The design was arranged to cause local buckling and the ultimate
failure of the compression flange of the beams, and also to avoid global lateral torsional
buckling and local web failure. Ultimately, the test results showed that making minor
geometry and fiber architecture modifications to PFRP beams caused a significant increase
in their load carrying capacity.
Razzaq Zia et al [20] also presented a paper that relayed the results of a previous
experimental and theoretical study on FRP channel sections. In this paper, the applied axial
load was gradually increased. A 48.0 in. long channel section with dimensions of 4.0 ⨯
1.125 ⨯ 0.25 in. was used in the tests. The end column was secured with a special type of
aluminum alloy design in order to make the ends of the column stay in the place. Results
from the experimental behavior of the specimens were in agreement with the theoretical
behavior. It was also found that the load-carrying capacity could be considerably increased
by equalizing the cross-sectional depth and width of the channel section. Finally, the
authors provided a LRDS approach for the design and analysis of FRP channel section
columns.
Finally, Barbero et al [28] presented an experimental investigation of Beam-
Column behavior of six specimens of FRP. The testing was only investigated about the
weak axis. An eccentric applying load was also used as it is using in this thesis. The only
difference that this work did not count for the twisting deformation under the reason that
there is no twisting can occur if the structural shapes are symmetric with the major axis. At
the end, and by using a technique called moire technique, an experimental procedure were
developed to obtain some significant design information, such as: the buckling load, the
critical load, and lateral flange deformation.
1.3 Problem Statement
This thesis studies the prediction of the elastic load versus the deformation for
numerous FRP specimens that were behaving under an applied uniaxial bending moment.
Cracking load was recorded for each tested specimen. In addition to maximum applying
load which it can be defined as the final load that the FRP structural member can behave
under it elastically before it is going to collapse. There were three types of specimens tested
in the structural laboratory: the channel section, the I-section, and the square tube section.
The dimensions of each specimen are illustrated in Figures 2-4, with the span length of
9
each tested specimen varying from 35.0 in. to 40.0 in. Each specimen was analyzed under
applying a uniaxial bending moment on both the major and the minor axes. It also should
be mentioned that there were two testing set ups that involved a retrofitting to
accommodate the FRP channel cross-section. These two experimental tests are included
with all the required details, in the second chapter. Also, Figure 5 shows the testing set up
of the load application. The uniaxial bending was provided by attaching an arm to each
column specimen.
Figure 2. FRP Channel Cross Section Details

10
Figure 3. FRP I - Cross Section Details
Figure 4. FRP Square Tube Cross Section Details

11
Steel
Angle
Connection
Dial
Gage 2
Figure 5. Schematic FRP I-Beam-Column with Loading Application

12
1.4 Objective of Thesis

The main objectives of this thesis are outlined in the following items:
1. Define a methodology for setting up a FRP beam-column experiment.
2. Examine the effects of the uniaxial bending loading.
3. Examine the influences of the torsional effects.
4. Study the load-deflection relationship of the three sections of the FRP beam-
columns in the laboratory.
5. Study the load-deflection relationship of the three sections of the FRP beam-
columns theoretically.
6. Study the effects of the retrofitting on the FRP Channel section.
7. Compare the experimental results with the theoretical analysis results.
8. Outline the ASCE-LRFD Pre-Standard procedures to design each of the three FRP
beam-column members for both the major and the minor axes.
9. Organize a comprehensive comparison that involves the experimental results, the
theoretical results, and the ASCE-LRFD results.
The scope of this thesis is defined as follows:
1. The lengths of the specimens are varied from 35 in. to 40 in.
2. This thesis conducts the FRP Short Beam-Column only.
3. The dimensions of the I-section are 4.0 × 4.0 × 0.25 in., and the dimensions of the
Square tube section are 2.0 × 2.0 × 0.25 in. While the dimensions of the Channel
section are different in the web than in the flange. Figures 2, 3, and 4 illustrate all
the dimensions for the three sections.
Uniaxial bending was applied during each experimental test, with each individual
test named according to its own case. The cases for this thesis are:
1. FRP Channel section with major axis loading.
2. First retrofitted FRP Channel section with major axis loading.
3. Second retrofitted FRP Channel section with major axis loading.
4. FRP Channel section with minor axis loading.
5. FRP I-section with major axis loading.
6. FRP I-section with minor axis loading.
7. First test for FRP Square Tube section.
13
8. Second test for FRP Square Tube section.
1.5 Conditions and Assumptions

There are some conditions and assumptions applied in this thesis:
1. The members remain in their elastic shape.
2. The member must be prismatic and straight.
3. The boundary conditions to be considered for each FRP member are to be pinned
from the top and rigidly fixed from the bottom.
4. The same boundary conditions from the experimental tests are demonstrated in the
theoretical analysis.
5. Assuming small deflection for each structural member.
6. Only loads were conducted in order to create a uniaxial bending.
14
CHAPTER TWO
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
2.1 Material Properties of the Specimens
Table 1 summarizes the dimensions of the three specimens that were used in the
laboratory. It should be noted that the length of each specimen is different from the others.
Additional properties, such as computing the modulus of the elasticity for each section and
the shear modulus, can be found in Appendix A and Appendix B.
Table 1. Material Properties of FRP Specimens
Properties Channel Section I-Section Square Tube Section
d (in. ) 6.00 4.00 2.00

bf (in. ) 1.75 4.00 N.A
t f (in. ) 0.70 0.25 N.A
t w (in. ) 0.80 0.25 0.25
Ix (in4 ) 23.79 7.93 0.91
Iy (in4 ) 1.35 2.67 0.91
rx (in. ) 1.97 1.66 0.72
ry (in) 0.47 0.96 0.72
in which:
d = The depth of the section.
bf = The width of the flange for the FRP Channel and I - Sections.
t f = The thickness of the flange for the FRP Channel and I - Sections.
t w = The width of the web for each FRP Section.
Ix = Moment of Inertia about the major axis.
Iy = Moment of Inertia about the minor axis.
rx = Radius of gyration on the X-Axis.

15
ry = Radius of gyration on the Y-Axis.
The cross-section geometry for the three specimens are mentioned in Appendix A.
2.2 Testing Setup and Apparatus

This research involved the design and fabrication of a testing apparatus which was
then used for a series of beam-column tests as shown in Figure 6. Several challenges were
encountered in the process of achieving the correct conditions of the FRP beam-columns
scheme. The most difficult was developing the right method by which to attach the FRP
column to the steel apparatus. At the same time, this attachment process must also satisfy
the boundary conditions for each specimen. Several ideas were presented, such as installing
a transverse jack that would help to support the bottom side of the specimen, or installing
two steel columns behind and in front of the apparatus. Ultimately, the project was
restricted by the limited area of laboratory and limited tools and equipment, and eventually
the specimen was attached to an arm to create the external moment, which was sufficient
to make the load eccentric about one axis of the plane. Many trials were implemented for
the arm, with some of the specimens attached to a FRP arm and other specimens were
attached to a steel arm. Regardless of whether the arm was FRP or steel, it was connected
to the specimens by steel angles and bolts. Graduated load was applied to the specimens
using a manual jack connected to the top of the apparatus. The jack was connected to a
pump by a plastic pipe. The process of incrementing the load gradually was uncomplicated.
The boundary conditions of each specimen were pinned from the top and fixed from the
bottom. In order to have such boundary conditions, an open steel jacket was manufactured.
This steel jacket was attached to the steel apparatus through its base, while being connected
to the specimens through their sides. Another steel tube section was attached to the
apparatus from the top. It was used for the purpose of connecting the top side of the
specimens with the apparatus. Initially, a different method was followed to ensure safe
pinned boundary conditions, which involved connecting long steel bolts to the apparatus
on one side and to the specimen on the other side. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show the apparatus
positioning, the steel jacket connection from the bottom, and the steel tube connection from
the top, respectively.
16
Figure 6. Apparatus Positioning

17
Figure 7. Steel Jacket Connection from Bottom Side
Figure 8. Steel Tube Connection from Top Side

18
2.2.1 Testing Setup of FRP Channel Section with Major Axis Loading
This test was conducted by installing a FRP arm into the main specimen. Initially,
the top side was controlled by bolts and a plate connected together so that they could
function as a single piece of steel that joined the specimen to the apparatus, as shown in
Figure 9. Eventually cracks were noted. The specimen collapsed soon afterward and did
not reach the maximum applying load that was predicted via the ASCE-FRP Pre-Standard
design calculations in chapter four.
Figure 9. First Type of Connection for Channel Section with Major Axis Loading
2.2.2 Testing Setup for First Retrofitted FRP Channel Section with Major Axis
Loading
The second trial for the major axis channel section started with retrofitting of the
specimen by adding two steel plates to each flange at the location of the arm installation
junction, as shown in Figure 10. This modification resulted in better values for the
maximum applied load. Figure 11 illustrate the schematic loading and the location of the
steel plate retrofitting.
19
Figure 10. FRP Channel Section with Major Axis Loading

20
St P t
P ( b. )
. in. FRP Ar
. in.
. in.
St An
. in.
St B t
. in.
St C ck
bict C nn cti n
. in.
. in.
Figure 11. Schematic Loading for First Retrofitted FRP Channel Section
2.2.3 Testing Setup for Second Retrofitted FRP Channel Section with Major Axis
Loading
The final testing of the channel section loaded on its major axis was achieved by
replacing the FRP arm with the steel arm. As shown in Figure 12, there are two equal steel
plates added to each side of the flanges with dimensions of 24.0 x 2.0 x 0.125 in.at the
location of the arm installation. Figure 13 illustrate the schematic loading, and also the
location of the steel plate retrofitting.
21
ydr ic
ck
t
S ci n
L dC
St An
24.0 x 2.0 x 0.125 in.
St Ar
St P t
Di G
Support
St C bic
Connection
Figure 12. Second Retrofitting for FRP Channel Section

22
St P t
P ( b. )
. in. St Ar
. in.
. in.
St An
. in.
. in. . in.
St C ck
bict C nn cti n
. in.
. in.
Figure 13. Schematic Second Retrofitted FRP Channel Section
2.2.4 Testing Setup of FRP Channel Section with Minor Axis Loading
The same procedures used in the first case were followed in the case of the channel
section loaded on its minor axis. This case gave adequate results for the purpose of
comparison with the results predicted by both ASCE-FRP Pre-Standard design and the
differential equations theory method.
23
2.2.5 Testing Setup of FRP I-Section with Major Axis Loading

For loading the I-section beam-column on its major axis, the FRP arm was installed
to enable the uniaxial bending. The supports from the top and the bottom are the same as
explained in the previous sections.
2.2.6 Testing Setup of FRP I-Section with Minor Axis Loading

A steel arm was attached to the FRP I-section, so that it can obtain a beam-column
condition loaded in the minor axis. Figure 14 shows the loading and the connection support
from the top side.
Figure 14. I-section Loading on the Minor Axis

24
2.2.7 Testing Setup for First Test of FRP Square Tube Section
The reason for running two trials of experimental testing for this section was the
difficulty in setting up this section, which was due to its small dimensions. Challenges were
faced in finding a way to fix this specimen from the bottom as well as the top. It was
necessary to establish a connection between the steel jacket connecter and the specimen,
but it was difficult to attach the steel jacket connector to the apparatus, due to the lack of
space on the base of the connector in which to place two bolt holes. Therefore, additional
steel angle plates were added to facilitate the attachment of the steel connector to one side
and to the apparatus on the other. Figure 15 shows the testing setup for this case. Both
boundary conditions were eventually achieved, but as a cautionary procedure, a second
trial was conducted in the next section.
Figure 15. Testing Setup for Case 7 and Case 8

25
2.2.8 Testing Setup for Second Test of FRP Square Tube Section
The procedures of setting up the specimen for the final testing in this thesis is
exactly the same as the previous case here additional steel angle plates were added into the
bottom support so that it can produce more fixity and the fixed boundary condition can
govern at the bottom.
2.3 Testing Procedures

For every case, the same procedures were followed. These included the gradual
incremental loading and registering the dial gage readings for each increment. There were
three dial gages installed on a separate support for each specimen, the first two dial gages
were installed on the axis of the bending by fixing a metal strip which is always located at
the mid-height of each specimen, as shown in Figure 16. The locations of both of the dial
gages are far from the edge of the metal strip by a distance approximated by half of the
width of the flange. From a trial testing setup, it was noted that the reading of the second
dial gage was hardly noticeable due to the slow move of its indicator. Thus, a video
recording setup was provided for this dial gage so that it can record more accurate data
during the load application. The third dial gage was installed on the direction of the other
axis. Figure 17 shows the process of determining the deflections. Concerning the loading,
a voltmeter device was used to determine the applying point load by inputting the measured
voltage in an interaction equation, which is illustrated in Appendix D. When the load
stopped or started to decreased at a particular point and the dial gages still had movement,
the specimen started to crack or collapsed. However, in this study, all cases reached the
collapse load at the point that cracking was observed.
26
Figure 16. Dial Gages Installation

27
υ
. . 𝜑
. .
D. G. 𝑢
D. G. 𝑢
D. G υ
𝑢 𝑢
𝜑 t n
Figure 17. Process of Determining Deflections and the Angle of Twist

28
2.4 Test Results

This section will present all the records and results of the experimental tests for the
eight cases. It should be noted that all the graphs of the thesis are included in this section,
with each case having three figures, and each figure included three curves:
a) The load versus the experimental deflection or the angle of twist.
b) The load versus the theoretical deflection or the angle of twist.
c) The ASCE-LRFD maximum load versus the deflection or the angle of twist.
There is a sudden crookedness in most of the experimental curves, and this can be
explained due to the stiffness of the restraints at the end conditions, where it was probably
offering some flexural rotational restraint as soon as the load reach its maximum value.
The numerical values for all the eight cases are included in Appendix E, Appendix F, and
Appendix G.
2.4.1 Test Results of FRP Channel Section with Major Axis Loading
Figures 18 through 20 show a comparison of experimental and theoretical load P
versus deflections,υ, u and 𝜑 for beam-column with FRP channel section major axis
loading. Also shown in the figures the predicted maximum P value based on ASCE-LRFD
Pre-Standard. The theoretical curves are based on initial geometric imperfection
amplitudes 𝜐𝑖ₒ , 𝑢𝑖ₒ , and 𝜑𝑖ₒ are L/28000, L/26000, and L/31000 respectively, where the
length of the span L is equal to 37.50 in. The experimental cracking load and the theoretical
cracking load are unified at one quantity, where it is approximated by 1387 lbs. The ASCE-
LRFD maximum load is vastly unconservative from the maximum experimental load,
where the percentage of increment in the ASCE load is approximated by 80% larger than
the real maximum load.
29
Figure 18. Load versus Deflection 𝝊 at Mid-span for FRP Channel

Section with Major Axis Loading
30
Figure 19. Load versus Deflection 𝒖 at Mid-span for FRP Channel

31
Figure 20. Load versus Angle of Twist 𝝋 at Mid-span for FRP Channel
In this case, cracking was initiated at a junction where the flange meets the web,
these cracks are located near the mid-height of the cross-section. Figure 21 depicts a
subsequent cracking occurred at and near the top end, where the area of cracking is referred
as junction A.
32
. in.
ncti n A
Figure 21. Deformation at Junction A for FRP Channel Section with Major Axis
Loading
33
2.4.2 Test Results for First Retrofitted FRP Channel Section with Major Axis
Loading
Figures 22 through 24 refer to load P versus deflections,υ, u and 𝜑 for retrofitted
channel section. It indicates that the cracking load at the initiation is approximately equal
to 2638 lbs. and that shows a good indicator as it’s the first trial for a retrofitting process
in which the value of the load is almost became double the value of the first previous case.
Also shown in the figures the predicted maximum P value based on ASCE-LRFD Pre-
Standard. The theoretical curves are based on initial geometric imperfection amplitudes
𝜐𝑖ₒ , 𝑢𝑖ₒ , and 𝜑𝑖ₒ are L/22500, L/33000, and L/34200 respectively, where the length of the
span L is equal to 37.75 in. The ASCE-LRFD maximum load is still unconservative from
the maximum experimental load, where the percentage of increment in the ASCE load is
approximated by 62% larger than the real maximum load.
8000
n R tr itt d
7000
6000
5000
Load,P (lbs)
4000
3000 R tr itt d
2000
1000
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045
Deflection, υ (in.)
Exp. Theor. ASCE-LRFD
Figure 22. Load versus Deflection 𝝊 at Mid-span for First Retrofitted

FRP Channel Section with Major Axis Loading
34
8000
n R tr itt d
7000
6000
5000
Load,P (lbs)
4000
R tr itt d
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Deflection, u (in.)
Figure 23. Load versus Deflection 𝒖 at Mid-span for the First Retrofitted
35
8000
7000 n R tr itt d
6000
5000
load, p (lbs)
4000
R tr itt d
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
angle of twist, φ (rads.)
Exp. Theo. ASCE-LRFD
Figure 24. Load versus Angle of Twist 𝝋 at Mid-span for the First Retrofitted
The cracking for this case was initiated at a junction where the flange meets the
web. The location of these cracks are located near the mid-height of the cross-section.
Figure 25 depicts a subsequent cracking occurred at and near the top end, where the areas
of cracking are referred as junction A and junction B.
36
ncti n C
ncti n B
Figure 25. Deformation at Junctions B and C for First Retrofitted FRP Channel
37
2.4.3 Test Results for Second Retrofitted FRP Channel Section with Major Axis
Loading
The cracking load in this case reaches 6762 lbs. This value reflects a good
improvement to the retrofitted section where it finally reaches the maximum predicted
value of the ASCE-LRFD design procedure which is in turn evaluated by a quantity equals
to 7000 lbs. The values of the initial geometric imperfection amplitudes 𝜐𝑖ₒ , 𝑢𝑖ₒ , and 𝜑𝑖ₒ
are L/25000, L/27500, and L/29000 respectively, where the length of the span L is equal
to 37.25 in. Although the values of maximum load between the ASCE-LRFD design and
the experimental work are closed to each other. The ASCE-LRFD predictions still to be
considered as unconservative. Figure 29 depicts all the explained results above. Figures
26 through 28 depict the load P versus deflections,υ, u and 𝜑 for second retrofitted process
of the beam-column of FRP channel section, in addition to the ASCE-LRFD maximum
load.
8000
n R tr itt d
7000
6000
5000
R tr itt d
Load, P (lbs)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Deflection, υ (in.)
Figure 26. Load versus Deflection 𝝊 at Mid-span for Second Retrofitted

38
8000
n R tr itt d
7000
6000
R tr itt d
5000
Load, P (lbs)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Deflection, u (in.)
Figure 27. Load versus Deflection 𝒖 at Mid-span for Second Retrofitted

39
8000
n R tr itt d
7000
6000
5000 R tr itt d
Load, P (lbs)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016
Angle of Twist, φ (Rads.)
Exp. Theo. Series3
Figure 28. Load versus Angle of Twist 𝝋 at Mid-span for Second Retrofitted
2.4.4 Test Results of FRP Channel Section with Minor Axis Loading
In this testing, the initial cracking load is approximately equal to 1944 lbs. Figures
29-31 show a good agreement between the ASCE-LRFD design and both the experimental
and the theory analysis maximum load, where the ultimate load according to the ASCE-
LRFDE design procedures is approximated by 2000 lbs. The figures are also shown the
load P versus deflections,υ, u and 𝜑 for beam-column with FRP channel section minor
axis loading. There is an obvious gap between the experimental and theoretical graphs in
each type of deflection and it interpreted due to the stiffness of the restraints at the end
conditions. The values of the initial geometric imperfection amplitudes 𝜐𝑖ₒ , 𝑢𝑖ₒ , and 𝜑𝑖ₒ are
L/32800, L/26000, and L/33000 respectively, where the length of the span L is equal to
37.50 in.
40
Figure 29. Load versus Deflection 𝝊 at Mid-span for FRP Channel

Section with Minor Axis Loading
41
Figure 30. Load versus Deflection u at Mid-span for FRP Channel

42
Figure 31. Load versus Angle of Twist 𝝋 at Mid-span for FRP Channel
2.4.5 Test Results of FRP I-Section with Major Axis Loading

Figures 32 through 34 express a comparison of an experimental and theoretical load
P versus deflections,υ, u and 𝜑 for beam-column with FRP I- section major axis loading.
Also shown in the figures the predicted maximum P value based on ASCE-LRFD Pre-
Standard. The theoretical curves are based on initial geometric imperfection amplitudes
𝜐𝑖ₒ , 𝑢𝑖ₒ , and 𝜑𝑖ₒ are L/22500, L/27000, and L/21000 respectively, where the length of the
span L is equal to 38.00 in. The experimental cracking load and the theoretical cracking
load are unified at one quantity, where it is approximated by 1371 lbs. The ASCE-LRFD
maximum load as unconservative comparing with the maximum experimental load, where
the percentage of increment in the ASCE load is approximated by 10% larger than the real
maximum load.
43
Figure 32. Load versus Deflection 𝝊 at Mid-span for FRP I-section with
Major Axis Loading
44
Figure 33. Load versus Deflection 𝒖 at Mid-span for FRP I-section with Major Axis
Loading
45
Figure 34. Load Versus Angle of Twist 𝝋 at Mid-span for I-section with
Major Axis Loading
The cracking for this case was initiated at a junction where the flange meets the
web. The location of these cracks are located near the mid-height of the cross-section.
Figure 35 depicts a subsequent cracking occurred at and near the top end, where the areas
of cracking are referred as junction D.
46
ncti n D
Figure 35. Deformation at Junction D of FRP I-Section with Major Axis Loading
2.4.6 Test Results of FRP I-Section with Minor Axis Loading

The cracking load at the initiation is around a value equal to 814 lbs. As it was
calculated in the fourth chapter, the ASCE-LRFD maximum load is equal to 620 lbs. This
is the only case in the thesis that showed a conservative proposed design from ASCE-
LRFD predictions. The theoretical curves are based on initial geometric imperfection
47
amplitudes 𝜐𝑖ₒ , 𝑢𝑖ₒ , and 𝜑𝑖ₒ are L/19500, L/23000, and L/26000 respectively, where the
length of the span L is equal to 40.00 in. Figures 36, 37 and 38 express plotted graphs for
each deformation in this section. Figure 39 also shows a top view of initiation cracking at
a particular quantity of application load.
Figure 36. Load Versus Deflection 𝝊 at Mid-span for FRP I-section with
Minor Axis Loading
48
Figure 37. Load Versus Deflection 𝒖 at Mid-span for FRP I-section with
Minor Axis Loading
49
Figure 38. Load Versus Angle of Twist 𝝋 at Mid-span for FRP I-section with Minor
Axis Loading
Figure 39. Top View of the Deformation of FRP I-Section with Minor Axis Loading
50
2.4.7 Test Results for First Test of FRP Square Tube Section
Figures 40, 41, and 42 show a comparison of experimental and theoretical load P
versus deflections,υ, u and 𝜑 for the first trial of testing for the beam-column with FRP
square tube section. Also shown in the figures the predicted maximum P value based on
ASCE-LRFD Pre-Standard. The theoretical curves are based on initial geometric
imperfection amplitudes 𝜐𝑖ₒ , 𝑢𝑖ₒ , and 𝜑𝑖ₒ are L/30000, L/26000, and L/28000 respectively,
where the length of the span L is equal to 37.50 in. The experimental cracking load and the
theoretical cracking load are unified at one quantity, where it is approximated by 303 lbs.
The ASCE-LRFD maximum load is vastly unconservative from the maximum
experimental load, where the percentage of increment in the ASCE load is approximated
by 60% larger than the real maximum load.
Figure 40. Load versus Deflection 𝝊 at Mid-span for First Test of FRP
Square Tube Section
51
Figure 41. Load versus Deflection 𝒖 at Mid-span for First Test of FRP
Square Tube Section
52
Figure 42. Load versus Deflection 𝝋 at Mid-span for First Test of FRP
Square Tube Section
The type of cracking for this case occurred at the corner of the cross-section. The
location of this crack is represented as Junction E in Figure 43 and it also shows the distance
of crack junction from the upper tip of the specimen.
53
. in.
ncti n E
Figure 43. Deformation at Junction E for First Testing of FRP Square Tube Section
54
2.4.8 Test Results for Second Test of FRP Square Tube Section
Figures 44, 45, and 46 depict a comparison of experimental and theoretical load P
versus deflections,υ, u and 𝜑 for the second trial of testing for the beam-column with FRP
square tube section. Also shown in the figures the predicted maximum P value based on
ASCE-LRFD Pre-Standard. The theoretical curves are based on initial geometric
imperfection amplitudes 𝜐𝑖ₒ , 𝑢𝑖ₒ , and 𝜑𝑖ₒ are L/29000, L/27000, and L/28500 respectively,
where the length of the span L is equal to 37.50 in. The experimental cracking load and the
theoretical cracking load are unified at one quantity, where it is approximated by 403 lbs.
The ASCE-LRFD maximum load is vastly unconservative from the maximum
experimental load, where the percentage of increment in the ASCE load is approximated
by 46% larger than the real maximum load.
Figure 44. Load versus Deflection 𝝊 at Mid-span for Second Test of FRP Square
Tube Section
55
Figure 45. Load versus Deflection 𝒖 at Mid-span for Second Test of FRP Square
Tube Section
56
Figure 46. Load versus Deflection 𝝋 at Mid-span for Second Test of FRP Square
Tube Section
57
CHAPTER THREE
THEORETICAL STUDY
3.1 Governing Differential Equations
There are three governing differential equations for the elastic analysis of the FRP
beam-column members. Since the FRP channel section is symmetric about the y- axis only,
the shear center coordinate about the x-axis will be taken under consideration in the
differential equations. However, both the FRP I-section and the FRP square tube section
are symmetric about both axes. Since the cases of the channel sections contained more
details, the differential equations of the channel section cases will be considered as a
general example that explains the method of the theory analysis for the rest of the cases.
For uniaxial application of load at any point i along the length of the member, the
governing differential equations [21] for the FRP channel beam-column section are stated
as follows:
z
Bx υ′′ + Pυ 𝜑 [MBy (MTy + MBy ) + Px₀ ]
L (3.1).
z
= MBx (MTx + MBx )
L
z
By 𝑢′′ + P𝑢 𝜑 [MBx (MTx + MBx ) Py₀ ]
L (3.2).
z
= MBy (MTy + MBy )
L
z
Cw 𝜑 ′′′ (CT + K)𝜑 ′ + 𝑢′ [ MBx + (MBx + MTx ) + P𝑦₀ ]
L
z
υ′ [MBy (MTy + MBy ) + P𝑥₀ ] (3.3).
L
υ 𝑢
(MTy + MBy ) (MTx + MBx )
L L
in which:
Bx = Bending stiffness about the x-axis(Bx EIx ).
By = Bending stiffness about the y-axis(By EIy ).

58
C = St. Venant torsional stiffness(CT GK T ).
Cw = The warping stiffness(Cw EIω ).
K = Cross-sectional constant.
L = Length of a member.
MBx , MBy = End moments at the bottom of a beam-column.
MTx , MTy = End moments at the top of a beam-column.
P = Axial load in a member.
z = Centroidal longitudinal axis.
x₀ = Shear center coordinate.
y₀ = Shear center coordinate.
𝑢 = Deflection of the shear center in the x direction.
υ = Deflection of the shear center in the y direction.
𝜑 = Angle of twist.
The St. Venant torsional constant K T for thin walled open cross-sections is expressed by
the following equation [21]:
𝑖=𝑛 3
KT Σ𝑖= 𝑏𝑖𝑗 𝑡𝑖𝑗 (3.4).
For a hollow square and rectangular cross sections, the St.Venant torsional constant is
given by [29]:
Ap t
KT (3.5).
Where:
59
P = Mid-contour length.
[(d t) + (b t)] Rc ( π) (3.6).
Ap = Enclosed Area.
Ap [(d t) + (b t)] Rc ( π) (3.7).
R c = Mean Corner Radius.
Rc . t (3.8).
Where d and b are outside dimensions, and t is the wall thickness.
The rest of the properties, such as E, G, K, Ix , Iy, andIω , are given in Appendix A
and appendix B. When the loading is oriented about the major axis, the end moments at the
top and the bottom are the moments that account for major axis only. This will leave the
moments at the minor axis equal to zero (Mby , MTy ). In the same manner, the
minor axis moments will be considered as the only end moments that can be applied on the
structural member when the loading is oriented about the minor axis. Figure 47 represents
the bending moment diagram of the FRP beam-column. It should be noted from the figure
that the fixed support will always be at the bottom end, as it was worked in the experimental
laboratory tests, and the pinned support will be at the top end.
Therefore and based on the bending moment diagram from Figure 47:
M₀x
MBx ( r MBy ) (3.9).
MTx ( r MTy ) M₀x (3.10).
Where the MB represents the external moment at the bottom and MT represents the
external moment at the top.
60
₀ ₀
₀ ₀
Figure 47. Bending Moment Diagram for the FRP Beam-Column
3.2 Theoretical Imperfection Evaluation

There is no ideal case for the loading in experimental tests, where inaccurate results
will occur due unavoidable errors, such as point load deviation during the continuous
increment of the load application, or the imperfect shape of the specimen itself (e.g. initial
crookedness). After reaching the maximum load on the specimen, the total displacements
V, U, and Φ will include initial crookedness which are respectively symbolized as
υi , i , nd 𝜑i .
The total displacements are going to be as follows [26]:
61
U 𝑢𝑖 + 𝑢 (3.11).
V υi + υ (3.12).
Φ 𝜑i + 𝜑 (3.13).
Where υi , i , nd ϕi are displacements due to the load P. These displacements are

assumed to be expressed as a sin-wave in each plane with mid-span amplitude [26].
πz
υi υ∘i in ( ) (3.14).
L
πz (3.15).
𝑢i 𝑢∘i in ( )
L
πz (3.16).
𝜑i 𝜑∘i in ( )
L
The same procedures will be followed in this thesis so that the imperfection factors
can be implemented in the first three differential equations. It should be noted that without
including the imperfection factors, there will be no match in results between the experiment
and the theory work. As a result, the three differential equations 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, with
major axis consideration, will be modeled into the following forms:
M₀x z πz
Bx υ′′ + Pυ + P x₀ 𝜑 [ + ] Pυi₀ in ( )
L L
(3.17).
πz
P x₀ 𝜑i₀ in ( )
L
′′ M₀x z πz
By +P + 𝜑 [ + ] P i₀ in ( ) (3.18).
L L
E Iω 𝜑 IV [(GK T K) φ′′ ] K ′ 𝜑 ′
Mₒx z 𝑀ₒ𝑥
+ [ ( + )] ′′ + ( ) 𝑢′ (3.19).
L 𝐿
62
Where υi , i , nd 𝜑i are initial imperfection due to deflection υ, initial imperfection

due to deflection u, and initial rotational imperfection, respectively, at the mid-span of the
beam-column.
Figure 48 shows a schematic explanation for an imperfect channel beam-column,
which is compared to the ideal channel section.
Figure 48. Perfect versus Imperfect Member
3.3 Convergence Study

In order to present an accurate study of the analysis, selecting the number of spans
for each FRP beam-column cannot be a random process. Therefore, a convergence method
will be applied in order to determine the right number of spans which will result in the most
accurate data. Figure 49 expresses the relation between the deflection at the mid-span and
the number of spans. Eventually, the number of spans used in order to deliver accurate data
was 9.0 spans for each section in this thesis.
63
Figure 49. Mid-Span Deflection versus Number of Spans
3.4 Finite-Difference Formulation

Depending on the convergence method, each member is divided into nine spans
when using the finite-difference scheme. The total number of node points will be 10.0, as
shown in Figure 50 Each span will reflect its values of vertical and lateral displacement, in
addition to the angle of twist. The data of span number 5.0 is registered in this thesis, as it
is considered to be the mid-span of each member.
64
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
h h h h h h h h h h
Figure 50. Deflection Curve of Beam-Column Member
The central finite-difference will be used. For the variable f, the first, second, and
fourth order derivatives at a specific point i are derived from the following equations [27]:
′ i+ i
i
(3.20).
h
′′ i i + i+
i
(3.21).
h
IV i i + i i+ + i+
i 4
(3.22).
h
Where i = 1,2,3,…,9
The last three finite-difference equations are to be substituted into equations 3.17,
3.18, and 3.19 for each point of i. The simultaneous solution will be formed in a matrix
figure.
65
3.5 Boundary Conditions

Base on the type of boundary conditions that were worked experimentally,
specifically for fixed-pinned FRP beam-columns, warping will occur at the top of each
FRP beam-column, but be prevented at the bottom. This will lead to the governing of the
following boundary equations [21]:
υ(L) 𝑢(L) ϕ(L) ϕ′′ (L) (3.23).
υ( ) 𝑢( ) 𝜐′( ) ϕ( ) ϕ′ ( ) (3.24).
3.6 Theoretical Load versus Deflection Curves

Substituting the experimental loads in the matrix form of the simultaneous solution
will produce all of the needed deformations for this study. It should be noted that only the
mid-span data is recorded in this thesis. Figures 23 - 46 show the load versus deflections,
and the load versus angle of twist for the eight cases included in this thesis. Numerical
values for these data sets are found in Appendixes E, F, and G.
66
CHAPTER FOUR
DESIGN OF FRP MEMBERS ACCORDING TO
ASCE-LRFD PRE-STANDARD
4.1 General Notes
For the FRP material, there are different properties that can change in accordance
with any alteration of a specimen, such as the tensile strength and the modulus of
elasticity, where there are different modulus of elasticity for one section and they are: the
longitudinal modulus of the flange, the transverse modulus of the flange, the transverse
modulus of the flange, the longitudinal modulus of the web, and the transverse modulus
of the web. and these values can only be determined in a factory. Therefore, it should be
noted that some numerical values are initially taken from the Pultex Pultrusion Design
Manual [23] for the FRP 1500/1525 series. All the equations in this chapter are from the
ASCE-LRFD, Pre-Standard Manual [24].
Table 2 shows the minimum required mechanical properties for the FRP
composite shapes from the ASCE-LRFD,Pre-Standard [24]. Table 3 shows consideration
for the time effect factor λ, where it should depend on the load combination equations,
and it also linked from the ASCE-LRFD, Pre-Standards.
67
Table 2 Minimum Required Characteristic Mechanical Properties for FRP

Composite Shape
Min. Requirement
Mechanical Property
psi ksi
Longitudinal Tensile Strength 30000 30
Transverse Tensile Strength 7000 7.0
Longitudinal Tensile Modulus 3000000 3000
Transverse Tensile Modulus 800000 800
Longitudinal Compressive Strength 30000 30

Longitudinal Compressive Modulus 3000000 3000
Transverse Compressive Modulus 1000000 1000
In-Plane Shear Strength 8000 8.0

In-Plane Shear Modulus 400000 400
Interlinear Shear Strength 3500 3.5
Longitudinal pin-bearing strength 21000 21

Transverse pin-bearing strength 18000 18
68
Table 3. Time Effect Factor λ
Load Combination Equation Time Effect Factor λ
1.4 (permanent load) 0.4

1.2D + 1.6L* + 0.5 (Lr or S or R) 0.8 when L is from
occupancy
0.6 when L* is from storage
1.0 when L* is from impact
1.2D+ 1.6 (Lr or S or R) + (0.5L* or 0.5W) 0.75
1.2D + 1.0W + 0.5L* + (Lr or S or R) 1.0
1.2 D + 1.0E + 0.5L* + 0.2S 1.0
0.9D + 1.0W 1.0
0.9D + 1.0E* 1.0
in which:
D = Dead load caused by a permanent construction such as roofs and floors, ceilings
stairways, and service equipment.
E* = Earthquake load.
L* = Live load produced by the use and the occupancy of the building.
Lr = Live load on the roof produced during maintenance by workers, or any

equipment.
R = Rain load or ice load.
S = Snow load.
W = Wind load.
For thesis consideration, the following equation will be considered as the load
combination equation for all the cases in the channel, square tube, and the I-sections.
69
. D + . L + . (Lr r S r R) (ASCE-LRFD Eq.1.5-2).

In this case, there will be no consideration for the third term of this equation as it is clearly
there are no effects for the roof lived load Lr, Snow load S, and Rain load R in the
laboratory works.
4.2 Channel Section Calculations, Major Axis

4.2.1 Material Properties
As it was mentioned in the general notes of this chapter, most FRP material
properties are taken from the Pultex Pultrusion Design Manual [23] for the FRP 1500/1525
series. However, there is an exception regarding the value of the longitudinal modulus of
elasticity, and the shear modulus. For each case, these two properties are calculated
experimentally in the material laboratory, Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department. Appendix B shows the calculations details for these two properties.
Since EL is to be considered as the smallest value between the flange and the web
for the longitudinal compression elastic modulus [24], the value of the web EL,W should
be considered in the calculations. Noting that every single value was adjusted to the table
of the minimum requirements of ASCE-LRFD, FRP Pre-Stand. Table 4 shows the
structural profiles for the FRP channel section and square tube section.
70
Table 4. Pultex FRP Channel and Square Tube Super Structural Profiles
Material Value in
Property ksi Notes
EL 5139 EL EL,W
GL,T 1976
ET,W 800
ET,f 1000 For channel section only
FL,f 33 For channel section only
EL,f 3000 For channel section only
FL,W 33
EL,W 5139
νL,T 0.3
in which:
EL = Characteristic value of longitudinal compression elastic modulus of the flange

or web whichever is smaller.
EL,f = Characteristic longitudinal modulus of the flange.
EL,W = Characteristic longitudinal modulus of the web.
ET,f = Characteristic transverse modulus of the flange.
ET,f = Characteristic transverse modulus of the web.
FL,f = Characteristic longitudinal strength of the flange (In tension or compression)
FL,W = Characteristic longitudinal strength of the web (in tension or compression)

71
GL,T = Characteristic in-plane shear modulus.
νL,T = Characteristic value of Poisson's ration associated with transverse strain when
strained in the longitudinal direction. In absence of specific test data, a value of
0.3 may be used [24].
The interaction of flexure and compression in doubly and singly symmetric members shall
be governed by the following equation:
Pu Mux
+ ≤ . (ASCE-LRFD Eq.6.2-3).
Pc Mcx
in which:
Pu = Required axial compression strength due to factored loads.
Pc = λ Øc Pn = Available axial compressive strength.
Pn = Characteristic value of axial force.
Pe = Elastic Euler buckling load.
Mc = λ Øc Mn = Available flexural strength.
Mu = Required flexural strength due to factored loads.
Mn = Characteristic value of flexural strength.
x = Subscript referring to strong axis bending.
Øc = Resistance factor Ø is 0.7 for compression rapture and global buckling and 0.8
for local buckling.
Øb = Resistance factor Ø is 0.7 for lateral torsional buckling and web crippling, and
0.8 local instability and web compression buckling.
λ = Time effect factor defined in Table 4.2.

72
It should be mentioned that the time effect factor will be always be as constant value due
to the load combinations that are not changing in this thesis.
4.2.2 Determination of Axial Compressive Strength (Ø 𝐧)
Compression members shall be designed such that:
Pu ≤ λ Øc Pn ≤ . λ FLc Ag (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 4.2-1).

Where,
Øc Pn = Øc Fcr Ag (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 4.2-2).

and,
π EL
Ps ≤ Ø₀ Ag ≤ . λ FLc Ag (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 4.2-3).
KL
{ r e}
in which:
Pu = Required axial compression strength due to factored loads.
λ = Time effect factor defined in Table 4.2.
Pn = Characteristic value of axial force.
Øc Fcr = Factored critical stress.
Ps = Compression force due to serviceability load combination.
Ag = Gross area of the cross section.
FcL = Minimum longitudinal compression material strength of all elements

comprising the cross-section.
73
4.2.2.1 Slenderness Ration Consideration
The slenderness ratio of a compression member shall not exceed,
KLe EL Ag
Either: < √ Or 300
r PD
In which PD = Compression force due to the unfactored dead load.

By considering the cross sectional properties from Appendix A, and using the
effective length as it equals to 37.500 in.
KLe KLe
= 55.940 and = 13.320
ry rx
The effective length factor K will be set equal to 0.7 as the rational analysis shows that
the end restraint conditions justify the use of a value smaller than a unity 1.0 [24].
4.2.3 Factored Critical Stress in Compression (Ø 𝐅 )

The ASCE-LRFD, Pre-Standard [24] does not include the channel cross-section in
the calculation of determining the Øc Fcr . However, the standard suggests that the nominal
axial compression strength of a member with a geometric cross-section differs from the
common addressed sections, and shall be determined by rational analysis or by conducting
experimental tests.
A rational analysis will be used in this section. One of the I-section equations will
be used, as it is the most effective equation that can result in the smallest value of the elastic
buckling strength Fcr .
π2 EL
Fcr = KL 2 (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 4.4-1).
{ }
r
Ø𝑐 for this equation is equal to 0.7 Therefore, Fcr = 9.520 ksi
Øc Fcr = 6.660 ksi
Øc Pn = Øc Fcr Ag = 40.840 kip = Pc

74
From Table 4.2, the time effect factor λ can be specified. When considering an impact load,
the time effect factor will equal 1.0 Therefore, the available axial compressive strength will
be the same value as the adjusted nominal axial strength.
4.2.4 Determination of Factored Nominal Flexural Strength (Ø 𝐧)
The factored nominal flexural strength shall be taken as the smallest strength value
obtained from the following limits:
(1) Material Rupture.
(2) Local Instability.
(3) Lateral-torsional buckling.
4.2.4-1 Nominal Strength of Members due to Materials of Rupture
By considering the properties from Table 4, the following equation should be

considered for calculating the nominal strength due to the materials of rupture.
FL,f (EL,f ,If+EL,w Iw ) FL,w (EL,f ,If+EL,w Iw ) (ASCE-LRFD,

Mn = min [ , ]
yf E yw EL,w Eq. 5.2.2-1).
L,f
in which:
FL,f = Characteristic longitudinal strength of the flange (in tension or compression).
FL,w = Characteristic longitudinal strength of the web (in tension or compression).
FL = Characteristic longitudinal strength (in tension or compression) of the member.
EL,f = Characteristic longitudinal modulus of the flange.
EL,w = Characteristic longitudinal modulus of the web.
If = Moment of inertia of the flange(s) about the axis of bending.
Iw = Moment of inertia of the web(s) about the axis of the bending.
I = Moment of inertia of the member about the axis of the bending.
yf = Distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber of the flange.
75
yw = Distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber of the web.
y = Distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber of the member.
Noting that the resistance factor Ø for this case is equal to 0.650
Either Mn = 72.360 kip.in. Or Mn = 93.820 kip.in.
Finally, Mn = 47.030 0ip.in.
The considered moment value was taken according to its smallest value.
4.2.4.2 Nominal Strength of Members due to Local Instability
The calculation of the critical buckling stress cr should be taken as the minimum
of the following:
(a) Compression flange local buckling.
(b) Web local buckling.
4.2.4.2.a Critical Buckling Stress for Compression Flange Local Buckling
A rotational spring constant k r should be obtained through the following

equation:
48 t2f h2 E
ET,w t3w L,w GLT
kr = { [( )( )]}
3h . π2 t2w b2f EL,f . 5 √EL,w ET,w + ET,w νL + GLT
(ASCE-LRFD Eq. 5.2.3.2-3).
k r = -0.510 kip/rads.
A coefficient of restraint ξ must also be found through the next equation:
ET,f t3f
ξ= (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 5.2.3.2-2).
bf k r
ξ = -32.010
76
Now the compression flange local buckling can be found by the following equation:
t2f 7 EL,f ET,f

cr = { √ + GLT } (ASCE-LRFD Eq.5.2.3.2-1).
b2f + 4. ξ
cr = 199.780 ksi
Obviously, the value of the buckling stress is too big and it will not be adequate to use in
the design procedures.
4.2.4.2.b Critical Buckling Stress for Web Local Buckling
For this term, the critical buckling stress can be calculated as:
. π2 t2w
cr = h2
( . √EL,w ET,w + ET,w νLT + GLT )
(ASCE-LRFD Eq.5.2.3.1-4).
cr = 731.0 ksi
The smallest critical buckling stress cr is to be found out in the compression flange,
therefore the nominal strength should be calculated as the following:
EL,f If + EL,w Iw
Mn = cr (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 5.2.3-1a).
y EL,f
Mn = 438.060 kip.in.
y is to be considered as the distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber of the
member.
Therefore: Ø Mn = 350.450 kip.in.
It should be noted that the resistance factor Ø for this case is to be considered as 0.8.
4.2.4.3 Nominal Strength of Members due to Lateral-torsional Buckling
There is no procedure mentioned for this case in the manual [24], therefore the
same calculations of the I-section will be considered here.
77
First, the following variables should be calculated:
DJ = GLT Σ bi t 3i , where DJ is the torsional rigidity of the section.

3
For this section, DJ = 30694.140 kip.in²
The second variable that should be calculated is the warping constant Cω
tf h2 b3f
Cω = , Therefore Cω = 5.63 in6
4
The moment modification factor Cb is permitted to be conservatively taken as 1.0 for all
cases [24]. Therefore, the expression for the nominal strength is:
π2 EL,f Iy DJ π4 E2L,f Iy Cω
Mn = Cb √ + (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 5.2.4-1).
L2b L4b
Mn = 934.220 kip.in.
The resistance factor Ø for this case is equal to 0.7
Ø Mn = 634.0 kip.in.
Finally, the smallest nominal flexural strength from the three presented terms is
resulted from material rupture, where Ø Mn = 47.030 kip.in. = Mc
From Table 3, the time effect factor λ can be specified. By considering an impact
load, the time effect factor will equal 1.0 Therefore, the available flexural strength will be
the same value as the adjusted nominal strength.
4.2.5 Calculating Required Flexural Strength due to Factor Loads (Mux )
The required strength of the bending Mu for beam-columns, connections, and

connected members shall be determined from the following equations:
Mu = B Mnt (ASCE-LRFD Eq.2.5-1).

78
Cm (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 2.5-3).

B = Pu
Pe
Mnt = First-order moment in frame with no lateral translation.
Cm = Stability Coefficient.
Pu = Required axial strength due to factor load.
Pe = Euler buckling strength.
For compression members subjected to transverse loading between points of

supports, the stability coefficient (C ) should be considered as 1.0 [24].
The Euler buckling load is determined from the following equation:
π2 EL
Pe = KL 2 Ag (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 4.2-3).
( r e)
Pe = 1028.600 kip
We can directly assume the value of the required axial strength due to factor loads, say it
is equal to 7.0 Kip.
B = 1.007 > 1.0
Noting that the load is being applied at an eccentricity equals to 5.28 in.
Mnt = Pu × = 36.960 kip.in.
Therefore the value of the required moment strength Mu is 37.210 kip.in.

In order to meet the requirements of the interaction of flexure and compression in doubly
and singly symmetric members, the condition of the Equation 6.2-3 must be governed:
Pu Mux
0.171 and 0.791
Pc Mcx
0.962 < 1.0 O.K
It could be concluded that the FRP Channel section is acceptable in this design.
79
4.3 Channel Section Calculations, Minor Axis
4.3.1 Determination of Axial Compressive Strength (Ø 𝐧)
First, slenderness ratio consideration should be defined. By considering the cross

sectional properties from Appendix A, and taking the effective length as it equals to 37.500
in.
𝐾𝐿𝑒 𝐸𝐿 𝐴𝑔
Either: < √ Or 300
𝑟 𝑃𝐷
KL KLe
= 13.410 and = 56.320
ry rx
The same rational analysis that was been used in the major axis calculations will be
followed, in order to determine the factored critical stress in compression (Øc Fcr ). ASCE-
LRFD Eq. 4.4-1 will be applied.
Fcr = 9.400 ksi
Øc Fcr = 6.570 ksi
Øc Pn = Øc Fcr Ag = 40.300 kip = Pc
From Table 3, the time effect factor λ can be specified. When considering an impact
load, the time effect factor will equal 1.0 Therefore, the available axial compressive
strength will be the same value as the adjusted nominal axial strength.
4.3.2 Determination of Factored Nominal Flexural Strength (Øb Mn )

(1) Material Rupture. (2) Local Instability
The same equation 5.2.2-1 will be used in this section.

80
Finally, Øb Mn = 12.430 Kip.in.
The smallest nominal flexural strength from the two presented terms is used.
4.3.2-2 Nominal Strength of Members due to Local Instability
of the following:
4.3.2-2.a Critical Buckling Stress for Compression Flange Local Buckling
The following equation for the consideration of a singly symmetric channel section bent
about its weak axis will be used:
t2f
cr = GLT (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 5.2.3.5-1).
b2f
cr = 185.730 ksi
4.3.2-2.b Critical Buckling Stress for Web Local Buckling
For this term, the critical buckling stress can be calculated as:
π2 t2w
cr = 6 h2
( √EL,w ET,w + ET,w νLT + GLT )
(ASCE-LRFD Eq. 5.2.3.6-2).
cr = 1414.700 ksi
By applying Equation 5.2.3.-1a, Mn = 1.370 kip.in.
Therefore Ø Mn = 110.200 kip.in.
Mc = 12.430 kip.in.
81
This final value will be very important to consider in the final design equation presented
in the next following section.
4.3.3 Calculating Required Flexural Strength due to Factor Loads (Muy )
Same procedures used in the major axis will be used in this section.
Assume Pu = 2.2 (Kip)
Mu = 11.55 (Kip.in.)
Pu Muy
0.003 and 0.929
Pc Mcy
0.932 < 1.0 O.K
This shows that the section is acceptable in accordance with the requirements of the design.
4.4 I- Section Calculations, Major Axis

Most of the properties for the FRP specimens are taken from the Pultex Pultrusion
Design Manual [23] for the FRP 1500/1525 series. Table 5 is showing all the needed
properties for these calculations. However, there is an exception regarding the value of the
longitudinal modulus of elasticity, and the shear modulus. For each case, these two
properties are calculated experimentally in the material laboratory, Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department. Appendix B is showing the calculations details
for these two properties.
Noting that every single value was adjusted to the Table of the minimum
requirements of ASCE-LRFD, FRP Pre-Stand Table 2.
82
Table 5. Pultex FRP Super Structural Profiles for I-Section
Mechanical Value in Value in

Property psi ksi
EL = EL,w 4153391 4153.391

GLT 1597458 1597.458
ET,w 1900000 1900
ET,f 1900000 1900
FL,f 45770 45.770
EL,f 3850000 3850
FL,w 37500 37.500
EL,w 4153391. 4153.391
νLT 0.3
4.4.2 Determination of Axial Compressive Strength (Øc Pn )

First, slenderness ration consideration should be defined. By considering the cross
sectional properties from Appendix A, and taking the effective length as it equals to 38.00
in.
KLe KLe
= 27.600 and = 16.010
ry rx
The effective length factor K will be set equal to 0.7 as the rational analysis shows
that the end restraint conditions justify the use of a value smaller than a unity 1.0 [24].
4.4.3 Factored Critical Stress in Compression (Øc Fcr )

For I-shaped sections in which the X- and Y- axes are geometric axes of symmetry,
the factored stress Øc Fcr shall be taken as the lowest of the values of Øc Fcrx , Øc Fcry ,
Øc Fcrf , and Øc Fcrw which are defined in the following equations:

83
π2 EL
Fcrx = K L 2
and Øc = 0.7 (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 4.4-1).
( x x)
rx
Fcrx = 159.900 ksi
π2 EL
Fcry = Ky Ly 2
and Øc = 0.7 (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 4.4-2).
( )
ry
Fcry = 53.830 ksi
GLT
Fcrf = b 2 and Øc = 0.8
(ASCE-LRFD Eq. 4.4-3).
( f)
2tf
Fcrf = 25.000 ksi
π2
( 6 ) [√EL,w ET,w + νLT ET,w + GLT ]
Fcrw = and Øc = 0.8
h 2
(t )
w
Fcrw = 42.200 ksi
Where;
Fcrx = The elastic flexural buckling stress about the X-axis.
Fcry = The elastic flexural buckling stress about the Y-axis.
Fcrf = Local flange buckling stress.
Fcrw = Local web buckling stress.
K x = The effective length factor corresponding to the X-axis.
K y = The effective length factor corresponding to the Y-axis.
L = Laterally unbraced length of a member.

84
r = Governing radius of gyration about the axis of buckling.
h = Full height of a member.
Finally, Øc Fcr = 19.970 ksi
Øc Pn = 123.810 Kip = Pc
From Table 3, the time effect factor λ can be specified. When considering an impact
load, the time effect factor will equal 1.0 Therefore, the available axial compressive
strength will be the same value as the adjusted nominal axial strength.

(1) Material Rupture.
(2) Local Instability.
(3) Lateral-torsional buckling.
Equation 5.2.2-1 will also be used in this section. Therefore, the moment will be
resulted into two options:
Ø Mn = 12.510 kip.in.
The smallest moment between the two will be considered as the valued value.
of the following:
85
48 t2f h2 E
ET,w t3w L,w GLT
kr = { [( ) ( )]}
6h . π2 t2w b2f EL,f . 5 √EL,w ET,w + ET,w νL + GLT
(ASCE-LRFD Eq. 5.2.3.1-3).
k r = 1.110 kip/rads.
ET,f t3f (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 5.2.3.1-2).

ξ=
6 bf kr
ξ = 1.12
4t2f 7 EL,f ET,f

cr = { √ + GLT } (ASCE-LRFD Eq.5.2.3.1-1).
b2f + 4. ξ
cr = 21.26 (Ksi)
Where cr is the compression flange local buckling.
The critical buckling stress can be calculated from Equation 5.2.3.1-4.
cr = 259.500 ksi
From Equation 5.2.3-1a, the moment Mn = 10.300 kip.in..
Therefore, Ø Mn = 8.200 kip.in.
Since the critical buckling stress cr of the compression flange is the smallest value, so it
has to be considered in the determination of the nominal strength due the local instability.
4.4.4-3 Nominal Strength of Members due to Lateral-torsional Buckling
In order to compute the nominal strength due to the lateral-torsional buckling, the
following variables should be taken under consideration:
DJ = 5774.150 kip.in²
86
Cω = 10.670 in6
Concerning the moment modification factor Cb is permitted to be conservatively taken as

1.0 for all cases [24]. From Equation 5.2.4-1, the expression for the nominal strength is:
Mn = 652.400 kip.in.
Ø Mn = 456.670 kip.in
Finally, the factored nominal flexural strength is equal to 8.280 kip.in
The following variables should be determined:
Pe = 459.700 kip
Assume Pu = 1.520 kip , B = 1.033 > 1.0
The load is applying at an eccentricity = 5.30 in.
Pu Mux
0.012 and 0.981
Pc Mcx
0.993 < 1.0 O.K
Therefore, the section is acceptable in accordance with the requirements of the design.
4.5 I- Section Calculations, Minor Axis

First, the consideration of the slenderness ratio should be defined. Then, we will
use the same equations of the factorial critical stress (Øc Fcr ) that were being used in the
I-section major axis application.
87
Slenderness ratio consideration should be defined. By considering the cross sectional

properties from Appendix A, and taking the effective length as it equals to 40.0 in..
KLe KLe
= 16.850 and = 29.050
ry rx
The effective length factor K will be set equal to 0.7 as the rational analysis shows that the
end restraint conditions justify the use of a value smaller than a unity 1.0 [24]
4.5.1-1 Factored Critical Stress in Compression (Øc Fcr )
Equations 4.4-1, 4.4-2, 4.4-3, and 4.4-4 will be used again in this section.
Fcrx = 48.600 ksi
Fcry = 144.310 ksi
Fcrf = 24.960 ksi
Fcrw = 42.200 ksi
Øc Pn = 57.410 kip = Pc
As it was explained previously, the two values are equal due to the time effect factor.

(1) Material Rupture. (2) Local Instability
By following Equation 5.2.2-1, the moment due to the materials of rupture will be
resulted into:
Ø Mn = 19.910 kip.in.
88
This moment represents the smallest value between the two.
of the following:
cr = 6.240 ksi
Equation 5.2.3.5-1 should be considered for the consideration of the doubly symmetric I-
shaped members bent about their weak axis.
Since there is no equation for this case on the Manual, the application of the major
axis that was used Equation 5.2.3.1-4 will apply in this section.
cr = 259.500 ksi
The value of buckling stress for the compression flange will be used, as it is the minimum
value.
Equation 5.2.3-1a will be available to compute this buckling.
Mn = 4.180 kip.in.
Mc = λ Øc Mn = 3.340 kip.in.
The two values are equal because of the time effect factor does not change in this study.
4.5.3 Calculating Required Flexural Strength due to Factor Loads (Muy )

89
Pe = 154.760 kip
Assume Pu = 0.620 kip, B = 1.00402 > 1.0
The load is applying at an eccentricity = 5.30 in., then Mu = 3.300 kip.in.
Pu Muy
0.0108 and 0.9877
Pc Mcy
0.99850 < 1.0 O.K
The section is acceptable.
4.6 Calculations of Square Tube Section

The same properties in Table 4 are used in this application. Which are a properties
used in the Pultex Pultrusion Design Manual [23] for the FRP 1500/1525 series. Noting
that every single value was adjusted to the Table of the minimum requirements of ASCE-
LRFD, FRP Pre-Stand Table 4-1. Since the section is perfectly symmetric about both axes,
the design will be considered about the major axis of bending.

First, slenderness ration consideration should be defined. By considering the cross
sectional properties from Appendix A, and taking the effective length as it equals to
37.750 in.
KLe
= 36.620
ry
The effective length factor K will be set equal to 0.7 as the rational analysis shows that
the end restraint conditions justify the use of a value smaller than a unity 1.0 [24]
4.6.2-1 Factored Critical Stress in Compression (Øc Fcr )

90
The factored critical stress shall be taken as the lowest value of Øc Fcr and Øc Fcrw
which are defined in Equations 4.4-11, and 4.4-12 respectively.
π2 EL
Fcr = KL 2
and ϕc = 0.7 (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 4.4-11).
{ }
r
Fcr = 37.830 ksi
π2
( 6 ) [√EL,w ET,w + νLT ET,w + GLT ]
Fcrw = and Øc = 0.8
β2w

Fcrw = 159.890 ksi
Where βw is the maximum width-to-thickness ratio, whichever is larger, of all elements

comprising the tube section.

Because this section does not contain flanges, the factored nominal flexural strength
will only be accounted on the local instability limit of state.
Only the web local buckling is available in these calculations. That’s will make
Equation 5.2.3.4-4 the only applicable equation for this solution.
cr = 1919.460 ksi
EL,f If + EL,w Iw
Mn = cr (ASCE-LRFD Eq. 5.2.3-1b).
y EL,w
Mn = 5.00 kip.in.
91
The smallest moment value that will be effective in the main design equation that will be
presented in the next section.

Pe = 66.210 kip
Assume Pu = 0.740 Kip, B = 1.011 > 1.0
The load is applying at an eccentricity = 5.5.250 in.
Pu Mux
0.928 and 0.892
Pc Mcx
0.920 < 1.0 O.K
The section is acceptable.

92
CHAPTER FIVE
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
A comparison between the experimental work, the theoretical analysis, and the data
that are resulted from the design procedure of the ASCE-LRFD, Pre-Standards is
implemented in this chapter. It should be referred that each case accounts for its figure
shown in the second chapter. The results for each type of deformation (υ, 𝑢, nd 𝜙)will be
compared. Therefore, the comparison is based on the differences of the slope for the
experimental data, the theoretical data. The initial slopes for each Δ curve or ϕ
curve that were presented in the second chapter are to be represented as:𝑘V , 𝑘U , nd 𝑘Φ .
Moreover, subscripts “e” and “t” denote to the experimental values and theoretical values
respectively. Considering the comparison that is relevant to the ASCE-LRFD Design from
the fourth chapter, the maximum loading PMax.ASCE for each case will be compare to the
maximum experimental loading PMax.Exp.
5.1 Comparison of Results for FRP Channel Section with Major Axis Loading
It can be concluded from Figure 18 that the differences of the value for the
deflection υ are small, as the percentage of the differences between the slopes are equal to
17%, and that is a good indicator for the agreement between the experimental and the
theoretical work. Furthermore, from Figure 19, the ratio in slope between the theoretical
value of deflection 𝑢 and the experimental value of 𝑢 is approximated by 0.70. Figure 20
shows that the difference between the values of the experimental and theoretical angle of
twist is only about 40%, and that is also a good indicator of the agreement between the two
works. Concerning the design procedures from the ASC-LRFD, Pre-Standard that were
followed for the three mentioned figures above, they show that the design value of the
critical load is too far from the values of the experimental and the theoretical deformations.
The FRP member cracked at a load approximated by 1390.0 lbs., and the design procedures
predicted that the critical value where a deformation will start to crack is 7000.0 lbd, which
is a huge disagreement between the real work and the prediction analysis. Table 6 expresses
the numerical details for this comparison.
93
Table 6. Initial Slopes of Load-Deflection Relations of FRP Channel Section with

Major Axis Loading
k Results k Results k Results

𝑘𝑉,𝑒 177556 𝑘𝑈,𝑒 64164 𝑘Φ,𝑒 362077
lbs/in. lbs/in. lbs/rads.
𝑘𝑉,𝑡 164416 𝑘𝑈,𝑡 59099 𝑘Φ,𝑡 347120
𝒌𝑽,𝒕 𝒌𝑼,𝒆 𝒌𝚽,𝒕
⁄𝒌 0.93 ⁄𝒌 0.92 ⁄𝒌 0.96
𝑽,𝒆 𝑼,𝒕 𝚽,
5.2 Comparison of Results for First Retrofitted FRP Channel Section with
Major Axis Loading
As is shown in the second chapter, there is a slight difference between the values
of the initial slope from the theory analysis and the experimental work. This indicates that
the member stiffness has an agreement between the experimental testing works and the
analyzing works. Where the difference in percentage between the two deflections 𝜐 is
approximated by only 08%. Likewise, the difference of the deflection u is approximated
by only 37%, and the angle of twist 33%.This in turn shows a reasonable agreement
between the two studies. Concerning the ASCE-LRFD design procedure, the critical load
in the prediction analysis and in the real work were decreased and it became slightly better
than the first case, and that is due to the retrofitting scheme that was followed in this case.
However, the ASCE-LRFD prediction is still too far from the level of the real analysis and
theoretical analysis. Table 7 shows the initial slopes for this case.
94
Table 7. Initial Slopes of Load-Deflection Relations of First Retrofitted FRP

Channel Section with Major Axis Loading

𝑘𝑉,𝑒 73393 𝑘𝑈,𝑒 57524 𝑘Φ,𝑒 525943
𝑘𝑉,𝑡 68450 𝑘𝑈,𝑡 43742 𝑘Φ,𝑡 456484
⁄𝒌 0.93 ⁄𝒌 0.76 ⁄𝒌 0.87
5.3 Comparison of Results for Second Retrofitted FRP Channel Section with
Major Axis Loading
Figure 26 indicates the ratio of the initial slope in the value of the deflection υ
between the theoretical and the real analysis, which is equal to 1.18. This means that the
difference in percentage is almost nonexistent 18%. However, the percentage deflection u
study, where it is approximated by only 32%. The ratio of the initial slope between the
theory and the experimental analysis for the angle of twist is about 1.66. It can be noted
that there is an agreement for the ASCE-LRFD prediction as well. Table 8 express the
initial slopes of load deflection relations for this case.
Table 8. Initial Slopes of Load-Deflection Relations for Second Retrofitted FRP

Channel Section with Major Axis Loading

𝑘𝑉,𝑒 72847 𝑘𝑈,𝑒 61985 𝑘Φ,𝑒 535762
𝑘𝑉,𝑡 82278 𝑘𝑈,𝑡 51547 𝑘Φ,𝑡 675586
⁄𝒌 1.13 ⁄𝒌 0.83 ⁄𝒌 1.26
95
5.4 Comparison of Results for FRP Channel Section with Minor Axis Loading
For the weak axis orientation of the FRP channel beam-column, there are obvious
agreements between the deformations in the experimental and in the theoretical, where the
percentage difference in the initial slope for the deflection υ is about 17%, the deflection 𝑢 is
about 28%, and the angle of twist is about 0.38%. Table 9 expresses all initial slopes that
concerns this case.
Table 9. Initial Slopes of Load-Deflection Relations of FRP Channel Section with

Minor Axis Loading

𝑘𝑉,𝑒 25789 𝑘𝑈,𝑒 64398 𝑘Φ,𝑒 132637
𝑘𝑉,𝑡 21029 𝑘𝑈,𝑡 81771 𝑘Φ,𝑡 112489
⁄𝒌 0.82 ⁄𝒌 0.79 ⁄𝒌 0.85
5.5 Comparison of Results for FRP I-Section with Major Axis Loading
The ratio of the initial slope for this case is located in the range 1.02 to 1.98, which
indicates a good match between the theoretical analysis and the experimental testing. The
ASCE-LRFD design prediction for the critical buckling load is still away from the point
that the load cracked, due to three deformations experimentally and theoretically. Table 10
shows the initial slopes of load-deflection relations of this case.
96
Table 10. Initial Slopes of Load-Deflection Relations of FRP I-Section with Major
Axis Loading

𝑘𝑉,𝑒 36033 𝑘𝑈,𝑒 106128 𝑘Φ,𝑒 355980
𝑘𝑉,𝑡 47935 𝑘𝑈,𝑡 126599 𝑘Φ,𝑡 319960
⁄𝒌 1.33 ⁄𝒌 1.19 ⁄𝒌 0.90
5.6 Comparison of Results for FRP I-Section with Minor Axis Loading
Table 11 lists ratios of the theoretical deformations to the experimental
deformations, where the range of these ratios lies between 0.86 and 1.41. This is considered
a good match for such a comparison between the two analyses. Figures 36, 37, and 38 also
express the predicted critical buckling load due to the ASCE-LRFD procedure, and in those
Figures it was clearly the design load interacting with theoretical and experimental
deformations.
Table 11. Initial Slopes of Load-Deflection Relations of FRP I-Section with Minor
Axis Loading

𝑘𝑉,𝑒 32859 𝑘𝑈,𝑒 243331 𝑘Φ,𝑒 192367
𝑘𝑉,𝑡 30611 𝑘𝑈,𝑡 235237 𝑘Φ,𝑡 203885
⁄𝒌 0.93 ⁄𝒌 0.97 ⁄𝒌 1.06
97
5.7 Comparison of Results for First Test of FRP Square Tube Section
The percentages in initial slope for this case are slightly different, where the range
is between 0.33 % to 47%. This provides the study a good indicator for the matching
between the two works in the theory and laboratory. In addition to the matching between
the theoretical analysis and the experimental analysis, the ASCE-LRFD design prediction
for the critical buckling load is away from the point that the load cracked, due to three
deformations experimentally and theoretically as shown in Figures 40, 41, and 42. Figure
12 refers to the initial slopes of load-deflection relations of this case.
Table 12. Initial Slopes of Load-Deflection Relations for First Test of FRP Square
Tube Section

𝑘𝑉,𝑒 91554 𝑘𝑈,𝑒 6047 𝑘Φ,𝑒 31310
𝑘𝑉,𝑡 144969 𝑘𝑈,𝑡 4213 𝑘Φ,𝑡 35588
⁄𝒌 1.60 ⁄𝒌 0.70 ⁄𝒌 1.14
5.8 Comparison of Results for Second Test of FRP Square Tube Section
Apparent in Figures 44, 45, and 46, this case followed the previous case in the
matching between the theory and the experimental analysis. The ASCE-LRFD design
prediction for the critical buckling load still vastly far from the real data that was resulted
experimentally. Figure 13 expresses the initial slopes of load-deflection relations for this
case.
98
Table 13. Initial Slopes of Load-Deflection Relations for Second Test of FRP Square
Tube Section

𝑘𝑉,𝑒 78448 𝑘𝑈,𝑒 7026 𝑘Φ,𝑒 50431
𝑘𝑉,𝑡 47195 𝑘𝑈,𝑡 5783 𝑘Φ,𝑡 55688
⁄𝒌 0.60 ⁄𝒌 0.82 ⁄𝒌 1.10
Table 14. Comparison of Maximum Loads
No. Type of Beam- P ASCE PExp. PTheo. PASCE PTheo.

⁄P ⁄P
Column Exp Exp
1 Channel Axis, Major 7000 1386 1396 5.05 1.007
Axis Loading
2 First Retrof. ……. 2638 2422 ……. 0.918

Channel Section,
Major Axis Loading
3 Second Retrof. ……. 6762 6600 ……. 0.976
Channel Section,
Major Axis Loading
4 Channel Section, 2300 1944 1800 1.18 0.926
Minor Axis Loading
5 I-Section, Major 1520 1371 1360 1.11 0.992

Axis Loading
6 I-Section, Minor 622 814 760 0.76 0.934

Axis Loading
7 First Test for Square 740 302 295 2.45 0.977

Tube Section
8 Second Test for 740 402 370 1.84 0.920

Square Tube Section
99
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE REESEARCH

6.1 Conclusions
Based on the experimental and theoretical study of FRP beam-columns, the
following conclusions are arrived at:
1. The theoretical predictions for the behavior and strength of FRP beam-columns
based on the finite-difference method for solving three simultaneous differential
equations of equilibrium were in good agreement for load-deflection relations, and
in a good agreement for maximum loads in comparison with those found in the
experimental study.
2. Although in the experimental investigations the beam-columns were subjected to
in-plane bending moment combined with an associated axial load, displacements
developed along both major and minor axes of the cross section together with
torsional rotations for each.
3. The out-of-plane displacements and torsional rotation in the beam-column
experiments were relatively small.
4. The geometric imperfection factors for the beam-columns tested were found to be
small.
5. For non-retrofitted beam-columns tested, cracking always initiated near the mid-
height at one of the cross-sectional plate junctions such as where the flange plate
meets the web plate, and subsequent cracking occurred at and near the top end.
6. The beam-column design interaction relation given in ASCE-LRFD Pre-Standard
is found to be unconsertative for all non-retrofitted beam-columns except for that
with the I-section subjected to minor axis loading.
7. Retrofitting channel section beam-column with unequal size steel plates at the top
end resulted in a 50 percent increase in strength whereas use of equal size steel
plates provided a 387 percent greater strength.
100
6.2 Future Studies

The FRP has become more common in structural projects, and in the future it will
be an important part in the design of structural facilities when it is combined with other
materials so it can produce sufficient results. Consequentially, further studies are needed
to develop a procedure to study the behavior of longer FRP beam-columns, and that will
require the suitable equipment and tools to make this process achievable. Also, it is
necessary to provide a design prediction that can cover all section in a conservative critical
load values so that each study will contain a match between the theory analysis, field work,
and the design predictions.
101
REFRENCES
1. GangaRao Hota VS and Blandford Mathew M, ‘Critical buckling strength
prediction of pultuded glass fiber reinforced polymeric composite columns,’
Journal of Composite Materials, 2014, Vol. 48(29) 3685-3702.
2. Davalos Julio F. and Qiao Pizhong, “A computational approach for analysis and
optimal design of FRP beams,” Computers and Structures, 70 (1999) 169-183.
3. Borowicz D.T and Bank L.C, “Behavior of Pultruded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer

(FRP) Beams subjected to concentrated loads in the plane of the web, APFIS 2009
Asn-Pacific Conference on FRP in Structures, Seoul, Korea 9-11 December 2009.
4. da S. Santos Neto Almir and Lebre La Rovere Henriette, “ Flexural stiffiness

characterization of fiper reinforced plastic (FRP) pultruded beams,” Composite
Structures, 81 (2007) 274-282.
5. Laudiero Ferdinando, Minghini Fabio, and Tullini Nerio, “ Postbuckling failure

analysis of pultruded FRP beams under uniform bending, “Composites, Part B 54
(2013) 431-438.
6. Roberts T.M. and Masri,H.M.K.J.A.H. “Section Properties and Buckling Behavior

of Pultruded FRP Profiles,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites,
Vol.22, No. 14/2003.
7. Zureick A. and Kahn .L.F., “Tests on Deep I-Shape Pultreded Beams,” Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites, Vol. 14 - April 1995.
8. Qiao Pizhong, Zou Guiping, and Davalos Julio F., “Flexural-torsional buckling of
fiber-reinforced plastic composite cantilever I-beams,” Composite Structures, 60
(2003) 205-217.
102
9. Ragheb Wael F.,” Improving Local Buckling Capacity of Pultruded I-Bemas Using
Flange Lips,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, Vol. 26, No.
15/2007.
10. Boscato Giosue, Casalegno Carlo, and Russo Salvatore, “Performance of built-up
columns made by pultruded FRP material,” Composite Structures, 121 (2015) 46-
63.
11. Nguyen T.T., Chan .T.M., and. Mottram J.T., “Influence of boundary conditions
and geometric imperfections on lateral-torsional buckling resistance of a pultruded
FRP I-beam by FEA,” Composite Structures, 100 (2013) 233-242.
12. Davalos Julio F. and Qiao Pizhong, “Multiobjective material architecture

optimization of pultruded FRP I-beams,” Composite Structures, 35 (1996) 271-281.
13. Tarjan Gabriella, Sapkas Akos, and Kollar Laszlo P., “Local Web Buckling of
composite (FRP) Beams,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, Vol. 29,
No. 10/2010.
14. Shan Luyang, and Qiao Pizhong,” Flexural-torsional buckling of fiber-reinforced

plastic composite open channel beams, “Composite Structures, 68 (2005) 211-224.
15. Godoy L. A., . Barbero .E. J, and Raftoyiannis .I, “Interactive Buckling Analysis
of Fiber-Reinforced Thin-Walled Columns,” Journal of Composite Materials, Vol.
29, No. 5/1995.
16. Regel Franziska, WJ van Ferrie, and R Dias Gustavo,” A numerical and
experimental study of the material properties determining the crushing behavior of
pultruded GFRP profiles under lateral compression,” Journal of Composite
Materials, 47(14) 1749-1764.
103
17. Mottram .J.T,” Lateral-torsional buckling of a pultruded I-beam,” Composites, Vol.

23, No. 2. March, 1992.
18. Nguyen T.T, Chan .T.M, and Mottram .J.T,” Lateral-torsional buckling resistance
by testing for pultruded FRP beams under different loading and displacement
boundary conditions,” Composites, Part B 60 (2014) 306-318.
19. Bank C.Lawrence , Russell .T., and Nadipelli Murali, “Local Buckling of Pultruded
FRP Beams-Analysis and Design,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites,
Vol. 15 - March, 1996.
20. Razzaq Zia, Sirjani, B Mojtaba. and Prabhakaran Ram, “LRFD Approach for FRP
Channel Section Columns,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, Vol.
28, No. 12/2009.
21. Galambos T. V., (1968) “Structural Members and Frames,” Englewood Cliffs,
NJ:Prentice-Hall, Inc,. pp.51, 100-110.
22. Picard, and Beaulieu, (1991),” Calcul des chapentes d'acier,” Canadian Institute
of Steel Construction, Willowdale, Ont.
23. The Pultix Pultrusion Design Manual of Standard and Customer Reinforced
Polymer Structural Profiles, Imperial Version, Volume – 4 Revision 9.
24. Pre-Standard for Load and Resistance Design (LRFD) of Pulturded Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Structures (2010), American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE).
25. eFunda for Engineering Fundamentals, www.efunda.com.

104
26. Razzaq Zia, and Y. Calash Antoun,” Imperfect Columns with Biaxial partial
Restraints”,.
27. Ketter. L Robert, and Prawel. P Sherwood,’ Modern Methods of Engineering

Computation’ McGraw-Hill,Inc. 1969.
28. Barbero J. Ever, and Turk Malek ,” Experimental Investigation of Beam-Column

Behavior of Pultruded Structural Shapes”, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites, Vol. 19, No. 03/2000.
29. Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, “Torsional Sectional Properties of Steel

Shapes” 2002.
105
APPENDIX A
SECTION AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES

A.1 Section Properties for FRP Channel Section
The following Figure 51 presents the required parameters for the FRP channel
section.
A1
A2
yf
yw
dw
X X
₀
tf
A3
Figure 51. FRP Channel Section Properties
The moment of inertia about the major axis and the minor axis is computed using the
following equations (A-1) and (A-2) [25]
bd3 d3w (b w) (A-1).

Ix =
106
𝑡𝑓 𝑏 3 + 𝑑𝑤 𝑤 3
Iy 𝐴 𝑥∗ (A-2).
3
in which:
t f b + dw w
𝑥∗ (A-3).
bd dw (b w)
Ix = Moment of inertia for the cross-section about the major axis.
b = The width of the flange.
d = The depth of the cross-section.
𝑑𝑤 = The depth of the web.
w = The width of the web.
A = The gross area of the cross-section.
Theodore V. Galambos included in his book “Structural Members and Frames [21]” an
equation to determine the warping moment of inertia Iω , where;
3α α2 d′ w
Iω = (d′ ) (b′ )3 t [ + ( + )] (A-4).
6 6 b′ t
in which:
𝛼= 𝑑′ 𝑤 (A-5).
+
3 𝑏′ 𝑡𝑓
Where:
d =d tf
w
b′ = b
107
Table 15 provides a summary of a numerical parameters for the FRP Channel section.
Table 15. Required Parameters for FRP Channel Section
I in.4 r (in.) d (or y) in. A in2

Ix 23.79 rx 1.97 d1 0 A1 = A3 1.23
Iy 1.35 ry 0.47 d2 0 A3 1.23
Iw 6.49 yw 2.30 A2 3.70
If 0.05 yf 3.00 Ag 6.13
A.2 Section Properties for FRP I - Section

Figure 52 summarizes all the required parameters for the FRP I-section.
Figure 52. Properties of FRP I - Section

108
The moment of inertia about the major axis and the minor axis is computed using the
following equations [25]:
Ix ∑ bi h3i + Ai dix (A-6).
Iy ∑ hi b3i + Ai dix (A-7).
The warping moment of inertia Iω is determined by using the following equation

[21]:
d ′ bf t f γ
Iω (A-8).
in which;
d′ d (A-9).
(d i th di t nc r th xi t th c nt r th n thinkn )
γ (A-10).
+ bf + t f
The numerical parameters for the FRP I-section are summarized in the following
table 16:
109
Table 16. Required Parameters for FRP I - Section
I in.4 r (in.) d (or y) in. A in2

Ix 7.934 rx 1.661 d1 1.875 Af 1.000
Iy 2.671 ry 0.963 d2 1.875 Af 1.000
Iw 0.893 yw 1.750 Aw 0.875
If 0.005 yf 2.000 Ag 2.875
A.3 Section Properties for FRP Square Tube Section

The necessary properties of the FRP Square Tube Section are defined in the
following figure:
Figure 53. Properties of FRP Square Tube Section

110
While the moment of inertia can be found by using Equation (A-11) [25];
I [(d4 ) (d4w )] (A-11).
The numerical values of the FRP Square Tube Parameters are listed in Table 17.
Table 17. Required Parameters for FRP Square Tube Section
A in2 I in4 r in.

A1 = A3 0.500 I1 = I3 0.002 ry 0.721
A2 = A4 0.375 I2 = I4 0.070
Ag 1.750 Iy 0.911
111
APPENDIX B
DETERMINATION OF G AND E VALUES

B.1 Experimental Computation
In the Material Laboratory at Old Dominion University, an experimental work was
implemented for the purpose of determining the elasticity and shear modulus. The method
of determining the modulus of elasticity (E) is based on using a FRP simply supported
beam. By applying a point load on the mid-span of the FRP beam and registering all the
needed data, such as the mid-span deflection and the load, modulus of elasticity can be
found from the following equation:
𝑃 𝐿3
= (B-1).
48 𝐸𝐼
The shear modulus can be obtained from the following equation [25]:
𝐸
𝐺= ( + 𝜈)
(B-2).
It should be noted that all the results are compared to the ASCE-LRFD [24]
Minimum Required Characteristic Mechanical Properties for FRP Composite Shapes in
Table 2 of the fifth chapter.
Figure 54 presents a general configuration for all three FRP cross-sections where
it illustrates the method of loading the FRP Beam at the mid-span so that the deflection at
the middle can be obtained.
112
Figure 54. FRP Simply Supported Beam
Table 18. Mid-Span Deflections for FRP Beams
Length E Min.
Mid-Span of E ASCE- E G
Load Deflection Span experimental LRFD established experimental
Section (kip) (in.) (in.) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)

Channel
Section 0.042 0.005 30.00 3018.039 3000.00 3018.040 1160.784
I-
Section 0.457 0.007 30.00 4153.391 3000.00 4153.392 2699.704
Square
Tube
Section 0.069 0.008 30.00 5139.387 3000.00 5139.387 2234.516
113
APPENDIX C
PROCESSED DEFLECTION EQUATIONS

The measured deformations from the experimental tests do not represent the values
of the deflection at the middle span. These computed values represent the deflections that
resulted from the dial gauge locations. Therefore, the mid-span deformations will be
computed according to the following equations that were derived according to geometric
relations from Figures 55, 56, and 57.
υL υ× c 𝛾 (C-1).
in 𝜃
[ ⁄𝑑 ]
𝛾 c (C-2).
𝑏𝑓
⁄
{ }
[𝑢 × ( 𝑎 )]
𝑢L ⁄ (C-3).
[ 𝑎 ]
d × in θ3 (C-4).
b
( f)
α in [ ⁄ d ] (C-5).
(c θ )
𝑢L
𝜑 t n [ ] (C-6).
( )
114
θ3
θ
Figure 55. Channel Section Dimensions for Use in Processed Equations

115
. .
. .
Figure 56. I- Section Dimensions for Use in Processed Equations

116
. .
. .
Figure 57. Square Tube Section Dimensions for Use in Processed Equations
117
APPENDIX D
LOAD CELL CALIBRATION

The load cell is connected to a voltmeter device to determine the applying load, as
shown in Figure 58. The outputs of this device are data related with millivolts, so it is
important to use the right interaction equation to convert the millivolts data to pounds,
where the relation between the millivolts and pounds is linear. Figure 59 is showing the
interaction equation that was used in this study and also the linear relationship between the
load and the millivolt. As it is clarified in this figure, the load cell is calibrated into 22 Kip
force.
Figure 58. FLUKE 8012A Digital Voltmeter

118
Figure 59. Load versus Voltage
Table 19 expresses generic and integers load values and voltage values in return, where
all the work in this thesis has been in within this range.
119
Table 19. Load versus Voltage
Load (lbs) Voltage (mV)

100 0.002864
200 0.006138
300 0.009413
400 0.012688
500 0.015962
600 0.019237
700 0.022511
800 0.025786
900 0.029061
1000 0.032335
1500 0.048708
2000 0.065081
2500 0.081454
3000 0.097827
3500 0.114200
120
APPENDIX E
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Tables 20 - 27 provide the deflection values that were recorded experimentally for
all the cases included in this study.
Table 20. Experimental Deflections of FRP Channel Section with Major Axis
Loading
Loads, P (lbs) 𝜐 (in.) 𝑢 (in.) 𝑢 (in.) 𝜑 (Rads.)
0 0 0 0 0
165.238 0.0014 0.0063 0.0005 0.0004
317.928 0.0027 0.0094 0.0007 0.0007
562.232 0.0030 0.0130 0.0009 0.0009
699.653 0.0040 0.0174 0.0013 0.0012
775.998 0.0031 0.0231 0.0017 0.0016
989.764 0.0042 0.0256 0.0018 0.0018
1020.302 0.0047 0.0286 0.0021 0.0020
1081.378 0.0053 0.0342 0.0025 0.0024
1142.454 0.0061 0.0375 0.0027 0.0027
1203.530 0.0068 0.0416 0.0030 0.0030
1264.606 0.0080 0.0438 0.0032 0.0031
1295.144 0.0083 0.0472 0.0034 0.0034
1356.220 0.0087 0.0494 0.0036 0.0035
1386.758 0.0092 0.0510 0.0037 0.0036
121
Table 21. Experimental Deflections for First Retrofitted FRP Channel Section with
Major Axis Loading

0 0 0 0 0
531.694 0.0047 0.0160 0.0007 0.0008
867.612 0.0115 0.0244 0.0011 0.0012
1081.378 0.0122 0.0358 0.0016 0.0017
1172.992 0.0147 0.0393 0.0018 0.0019
1295.144 0.0161 0.0422 0.0019 0.0020
1356.220 0.0172 0.0476 0.0021 0.0023
1478.372 0.0870 0.0531 0.0024 0.0025
1600.524 0.0208 0.0572 0.0026 0.0027
1783.752 0.0211 0.0668 0.0030 0.0032
1905.904 0.0252 0.0731 0.0033 0.0035
2119.670 0.0265 0.0785 0.0036 0.0037
2333.436 0.0352 0.0842 0.0038 0.0040
2547.202 0.0418 0.0955 0.0043 0.0046
2638.816 0.0413 0.0978 0.0045 0.0047
122
Table 22. Experimental Deflections for Second Retrofitted FRP Channel Section
with Major Axis Loading

0 0 0 0 0
1172.992 0.0083 0.0363 0.0018 0.0018
1325.682 0.0097 0.0387 0.0019 0.0019
1569.986 0.0136 0.0438 0.0021 0.0022
1722.676 0.0172 0.0500 0.0024 0.0025
1844.828 0.0196 0.0540 0.0026 0.0027
2058.594 0.0205 0.0600 0.0029 0.0030
2516.664 0.0266 0.0690 0.0033 0.0035
2822.044 0.0358 0.0780 0.0038 0.0039
3310.652 0.0382 0.0870 0.0042 0.0044
3768.722 0.0411 0.1055 0.0051 0.0053
4501.634 0.0682 0.1148 0.0055 0.0058
5295.622 0.0816 0.1510 0.0073 0.0076
6456.066 0.0941 0.2390 0.0115 0.0120
6761.446 0.1070 0.2760 0.0133 0.0138
Table 23. Experimental Deflections for FRP Channel Section with Minor Axis
Loading
Loads, P (lbs) 𝜐 (in.) 𝜐 (in.) 𝑢 (in.) 𝜑 (Rads.)

0 0 0 0 0
1111.916 0.1220 0.0096 0.0154 0.0094
1447.837 0.1320 0.0104 0.0182 0.0101
1686.530 0.1360 0.0107 0.0193 0.0104
1814.000 0.1405 0.0110 0.0216 0.0108
1944.664 0.1470 0.0115 0.0270 0.0113
123
Table 24. Experimental Deflections for FRP I-Section with Major Axis Loading

0 0 0 0 0
714.922 0.0026 0.0090 0 0.0009
745.460 0.0031 0.0110 0.0026 0.0009
806.536 0.0039 0.0115 0.0028 0.0009
837.074 0.0042 0.0125 0.0030 0.0010
898.150 0.0054 0.0147 0.0035 0.0011
928.688 0.0066 0.0162 0.0039 0.0012
989.764 0.0079 0.0170 0.0041 0.0013
1020.302 0.0096 0.0210 0.0050 0.0016
1081.378 0.00140 0.0235 0.0056 0.0018
1111.916 0.00242 0.0268 0.0064 0.0020
1142.454 0.00343 0.0272 0.0065 0.0021
1203.530 0.00446 0.0294 0.0070 0.0022
1234.068 0.00548 0.0310 0.0074 0.0024
1264.606 0.00654 0.0320 0.0077 0.0024
1295.144 0.00756 0.0330 0.0079 0.0025
1325.682 0.00858 0.0342 0.0082 0.0026
1356.220 0.00959 0.0360 0.0086 0.0027
1371.489 0.01063 0.0368 0.0088 0.0028
Table 25. Experimental Deflections of FRP I-Section with Minor Axis Loading
Loads, P (lbs) 𝜐 (in.) 𝜐 (in.) 𝑢 (in.) 𝜑 (Rads.)

0 0 0 0 0
1844.828 0.0290 0.043 0.0040 0.0016
2486.126 0.0480 0.0072 0.0045 0.0027
2791.506 0.0511 0.0077 0.0063 0.0029
2913.658 0.0572 0.0086 0.0071 0.0030
124
Table 26. Experimental Deflections for First Test of FRP Square Tube Section

0 0 0 0 0
73.624 0.0005 0.0170 0.0015 0.0013
134.700 0.0013 0.0450 0.0040 0.0034
165.238 0.0023 0.0520 0.0047 0.0039
195.776 0.0033 0.0715 0.0064 0.0054
226.314 0.0048 0.0820 0.0073 0.0062
256.852 0.0058 0.0980 0.0088 0.0074
287.390 0.0063 0.1020 0.0091 0.0077
302.659 0.0077 0.1070 0.0096 0.0081
Table 27. Experimental Deflections for Second Test of FRP Square Tube Section
Loads, P (lbs) 𝜐 (in.) 𝑢 (in.) 𝑢 (in.) 𝜑(Rads.)

0 0 0 0 0
104.162 0.0035 0.0140 0.0009 0.0008
134.700 0.0045 0.0275 0.0018 0.0016
165.238 0.0050 0.0380 0.0025 0.0022
195.776 0.0060 0.0480 0.0032 0.0028
226.314 0.0065 0.0640 0.0042 0.0037
287.390 0.0068 0.0835 0.0055 0.0049
317.928 0.0081 0.0975 0.0064 0.0057
348.466 0.0070 0.1075 0.0071 0.0063
394.273 0.0094 0.1225 0.0081 0.0072
402.480 0.0100 0.1300 0.0086 0.0076
125
APPENDIX F
PROCESSED DEFLECTION VALUES

Tables 28 - 35 provide the deflection values that were computed from the
experimental values according to Appendix C.
Table 28. Processed Deflection Values of FRP Channel Section with Major Axis
Loading
Distance from D.G.1 to D.G.2, l = 13.00 in.

Loads, P (lbs) 𝜐 (in.) 𝑢 (in.) 𝜑 (Rads.)
0 0 0 0
165.238 0.0013 0.0029 0.0005
317.928 0.0026 0.0044 0.0008
562.232 0.0029 0.0060 0.0011
699.653 0.0038 0.0081 0.0014
775.998 0.0039 0.0107 0.0019
989.764 0.0040 0.0119 0.0021
1020.302 0.0045 0.0133 0.0024
1081.378 0.0051 0.0159 0.0028
1142.454 0.0059 0.0174 0.0031
1203.53 0.0065 0.0193 0.0034
1264.606 0.0077 0.0204 0.0036
1295.144 0.0080 0.0219 0.0039
1356.220 0.0084 0.0230 0.0041
1386.758 0.0088 0.0237 0.0042
126
Table 29. Processed Deflection Values for First Retrofitted FRP Channel Section

0 0 0 0
531.694 0.0045 0.0076 0.0008
867.612 0.0110 0.0117 0.0013
1081.378 0.0117 0.0171 0.0019
1172.992 0.0141 0.0188 0.0021
1295.144 0.0154 0.0202 0.0022
1356.220 0.0165 0.0227 0.0025
1478.372 0.0180 0.0254 0.0028
1600.524 0.0200 0.0273 0.0030
1783.752 0.0202 0.0319 0.0035
1905.904 0.0242 0.0349 0.0038
2119.670 0.0254 0.0375 0.0041
2333.436 0.0338 0.0402 0.0044
2547.202 0.0396 0.0456 0.0050
2638.816 0.0401 0.0467 0.0051
127
Table 30. Processed Deflection Values for Second Retrofitted FRP Channel Section

0 0 0 0
1172.992 0.0080 0.0173 0.0020
1325.682 0.0093 0.0185 0.0021
1569.986 0.0131 0.0209 0.0024
1722.676 0.0165 0.0239 0.0028
1844.828 0.0188 0.0258 0.0030
2058.594 0.0197 0.0287 0.0033
2516.664 0.0256 0.0330 0.0038
2822.044 0.0343 0.0372 0.0043
3310.652 0.0367 0.0415 0.0048
3768.722 0.0394 0.0504 0.0068
4501.634 0.0654 0.0548 0.0063
5295.622 0.0783 0.0721 0.0083
6456.066 0.0903 0.1142 0.0132
6761.446 0.1027 0.1318 0.0152
Table 31. Processed Deflection Values of FRP Channel Section with Minor Axis
Loading

0 0 0 0
1111.916 0.0563 0.0148 0.0109
1447.837 0.0609 0.0176 0.0118
1686.530 0.0628 0.0185 0.0122
1814.000 0.0648 0.0207 0.0126
1944.664 0.0678 0.0259 0.0132
128
Table 32. Processed Deflection Values of FRP I-Section with Major Axis Loading

0 0 0 0
714.922 0.0013 0.0036 0.0011
745.460 0.0016 0.0044 0.0013
806.536 0.0020 0.0046 0.0014
837.074 0.0021 0.0050 0.0015
898.150 0.0027 0.0059 0.0018
928.688 0.0033 0.0065 0.0019
989.764 0.0040 0.0068 0.0020
1020.302 0.0048 0.0084 0.0025
1081.378 0.0070 0.0094 0.0028
1111.916 0.0121 0.0108 0.0032
1142.454 0.0171 0.0109 0.0033
1203.530 0.0223 0.0118 0.0035
1234.068 0.0274 0.0124 0.0037
1264.606 0.0327 0.0128 0.0038
1295.144 0.0378 0.0132 0.0040
1325.682 0.0429 0.0137 0.0041
1356.220 0.0480 0.0145 0.0043
1371.489 0.0532 0.0148 0.0044
Table 33. Processed Deflection Values of FRP I-Section with Minor Axis Loading

0 0 0 0
515.828 0.0127 0.0020 0.0022
648.126 0.0210 0.0025 0.0036
731.506 0.0224 0.0032 0.0038
814.658 0.0251 0.0036 0.0043
129
Table 34. Processed Deflection Values for First Test of FRP Square Tube Section

0 0 0 0
73.624 0.0003 0.0079 0.0015
134.700 0.0007 0.0208 0.0040
165.238 0.0012 0.0241 0.0047
195.776 0.0017 0.0331 0.0064
226.314 0.0024 0.0380 0.0073
256.852 0.0029 0.0454 0.0088
287.390 0.0032 0.0472 0.0091
302.659 0.0039 0.0496 0.0096
Table 35. Processed Deflection Values for Second Test of FRP Square Tube Section

0 0 0 0
104.162 0.0018 0.0066 0.0009
134.700 0.0023 0.0130 0.0018
165.238 0.0028 0.0180 0.0025
195.776 0.0030 0.0227 0.0032
226.314 0.0033 0.0303 0.0042
287.390 0.0034 0.0395 0.0045
317.928 0.0035 0.0461 0.0064
348.466 0.0041 0.0508 0.0071
394.273 0.0047 0.0579 0.0081
402.480 0.0050 0.0615 0.0086
130
APPENDIX G
THEORITICAL DATA
Tables 36 - 43 present the deflection values that were computed by using the
theoretical analysis in the third chapter.
Table 36. Theoretical Deflection Values for FRP Channel Section with Major Axis
Loading
Constant Length of the Member, L = 37.50 in.

L L L
υₒ ; 𝑢ₒ ; 𝜑ₒ
Loads, P (lbs) V (in.) U (in.) Φ (Rads.)

0 0 0 0
165.238 0.0009 0.0022 0.0004
317.928 0.0019 0.0046 0.0007
562.232 0.0031 0.0087 0.0009
699.653 0.0036 0.0112 0.0012
775.998 0.0039 0.0124 0.0014
989.764 0.0047 0.0166 0.0021
1020.302 0.0048 0.0173 0.0025
1081.378 0.0051 0.0185 0.0028
1142.454 0.0058 0.0196 0.0031
1203.530 0.0066 0.0217 0.0035
1264.606 0.0079 0.0238 0.0037
1295.144 0.0085 0.0252 0.0041
1356.220 0.0097 0.0275 0.0044
1396.000 0.0104 0.0284 0.0047
131
Table 37. Theoretical Deflection Values for First Retrofitted FRP Channel Section

L L L

0 0 0 0
531.694 0.0076 0.0110 0.0011
867.612 0.0126 0.0165 0.0019
1081.378 0.0156 0.0202 0.0024
1172.992 0.0166 0.0220 0.0026
1295.144 0.0181 0.0245 0.0028
1356.220 0.0188 0.0260 0.0029
1478.372 0.0203 0.0290 0.0032
1600.524 0.0222 0.0320 0.0034
1783.752 0.0255 0.0374 0.0038
1905.904 0.0277 0.0412 0.0041
2119.670 0.0314 0.0488 0.0047
2333.436 0.0352 0.0594 0.0052
2547.202 0.0382 0.0642 0.0057
2422.000 0.0392 0.0672 0.0059
132
Table 38. Theoretical Deflection Values for Second Retrofitted FRP Channel

L L L

0 0 0 0
1172.992 0.0110 0.0124 0.0018
1325.682 0.0130 0.0145 0.0020
1569.986 0.0152 0.0187 0.0024
1722.676 0.0168 0.0171 0.0026
1844.828 0.0180 0.0194 0.0028
2058.594 0.0200 0.0208 0.0030
2516.664 0.0254 0.0237 0.0036
2822.044 0.0290 0.0295 0.0040
3310.652 0.0344 0.0338 0.0046
3768.722 0.0398 0.0408 0.0052
4501.634 0.0504 0.0483 0.0062
5295.622 0.0638 0.0950 0.0074
6456.066 0.0850 0.1452 0.0094
6600.000 0.0910 0.1576 0.0111
133
Table 39. Theoretical Deflection Values of FRP Channel Section with Minor Axis
Loading

L L L

0 0 0 0
1111.916 0.0583 0.0135 0.0103
1447.837 0.0678 0.0195 0.0128
1686.530 0.0787 0.0250 0.0146
1814.000 0.0856 0.0285 0.0157
1800.000 0.0945 0.0340 0.0178
134
Table 40. Theoretical Deflection Values of FRP I-Section with Major Axis Loading

L L L

0 0 0 0
714.922 0.0013 0.0039 0.0012
745.460 0.0014 0.0041 0.0013
806.536 0.0018 0.0045 0.0015
837.074 0.0019 0.0047 0.0015
898.150 0.0025 0.0052 0.0018
928.688 0.0032 0.0055 0.0021
989.764 0.0039 0.0060 0.0024
1020.302 0.0045 0.0064 0.0026
1081.378 0.0065 0.0072 0.0030
1111.916 0.0092 0.0076 0.0032
1142.454 0.0122 0.0081 0.0035
1203.530 0.0180 0.0092 0.0039
1234.068 0.0211 0.0099 0.0041
1264.606 0.0246 0.0106 0.0043
1295.144 0.0284 0.0113 0.0045
1325.682 0.0327 0.0121 0.0047
1356.220 0.0372 0.0129 0.0049
1360.000 0.0395 0.0133 0.0050
135
Table 41. Theoretical Deflection Values of FRP I-Section with Minor Axis Loading

L L L

0 0 0 0
515.828 0.0116 0.0019 0.0021
648.126 0.0174 0.0026 0.0030
731.506 0.0235 0.0032 0.0037
760.000 0.0310 0.0037 0.0043
Table 42. Theoretical Deflection Values for First Test of FRP Square Tube Section

L L L

0 0 0 0
73.624 0.0003 0.0105 0.0014
134.700 0.0005 0.0213 0.0034
165.238 0.0007 0.0285 0.0045
195.776 0.0010 0.0365 0.0055
226.314 0.0014 0.0460 0.0065
256.852 0.0018 0.0567 0.0074
287.390 0.0022 0.0730 0.0081
295.000 0.0024 0.0860 0.0086
136
Table 43. Theoretical Deflection Values of the Second Test for the FRP Square
Tube Section

L L L

0 0 0 0
104.162 0.0018 0.0058 0.0008
134.700 0.0023 0.0098 0.0013
165.238 0.0028 0.0153 0.0021
195.776 0.0034 0.0217 0.0027
226.314 0.0040 0.0276 0.0035
287.390 0.0055 0.0412 0.0051
317.928 0.0064 0.0489 0.0058
348.466 0.0073 0.0591 0.0065
394.273 0.0091 0.0781 0.0075
402.000 0.0094 0.0810 0.0077
137
APPENDIX H
Properties for Retrofitted Members
The area of steel in the FRP channel section must transform to equivalent FRP area:
ESteel
n M d r ti (H.1)
EFRP
A AChannel + (ASteel × n) (H.2)
but first the elastic neutral axis of the retrofitted section must be located:
^
∑ A × yi
(H.3)
∑A
By using parallel axis theorem:
^
I I + ∑ A × dy , Wh r : dy yi (H.4)
138
VITA
Ali Al Huazy was born in Basra, Iraq on January 3rd, 1987. He received his Bachelor of
Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE) degree from University of Basra. He started working
in local companies as a Site Civil Engineer since 2008. His last work was with an American
company CH2MHILL as a Site Supervising Civil Engineer in Majnoon Oil Field “MOF”
in Basra Governorate. At the fall of 2013, he earned a Fulbright Scholarship and traveled
to United States of America to begin his Master of Science program in Civil Engineering.
He participated in the Fulbright English for Graduate Studies Program in Virginia Tech
University before the beginning of the Fall Semester in 2013. This thesis titled
“EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED BEHAVIOR OF FRP BEAM-COLUMNS
INCLUDING RETROFITTING” was completed in November 2015 with Dr.Zia Razzaq
as the advisor.
The author’s current address is given below.
Current address: 828 W 47th St. Apt B. Norfolk, Virginia 23508
Phone: (703) 341- 7402 Email: aalhu004@odu.edu

139

Experimental and Predicted Behavior of FRP Beam-Columns Including Retrofting

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

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

Experimental and Predicted Behavior of FRP Beam-Columns Including Retrofting

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Old Dominion University

ODU Digital Commons

Experimental and Predicted Behavior of FRP

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cee_etds

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY

Zia Razzaq (Director)

Reza Moradi (Member)

EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED BEHAVIOR OF FRP BEAM-COLUMNS

Ag Gross area of the cross section

Bx Bending stiffness about x Axis

By Bending stiffness about the y axis

CT St. Venant torsional stiffness

Cw The warping stiffness

D Dead load caused by a permanent construction

D. G. Dial Gage Indicator

d The height of the member

EL Characteristic value of longitudinal compression elastic modulus of the

EL,f Characteristic longitudinal modulus of the flange

EL,w Characteristic longitudinal modulus of the web

ET,f Characteristic transverse modulus of the flange

ET,w Characteristic transverse modulus of the web

Fcr Critical stress

Fcrf Local flange buckling stress

Fcrw Local web buckling stress

Fcrx The elastic flexural buckling stress about the x axis

Fcry The elastic flexural buckling stress about the Y-axis

FLc Minimum longitudinal compression material strength of all elements

FL,f Characteristic longitudinal strength of the flange

FL,w Characteristic longitudinal strength of the web

G Characteristic full-section shear modulus

GL,T Characteristic in-plane shear modulus

h Full height of a member according to ASCE-LRFD design procedures

Ix Moment of inertia about the x Axis

Iy Moment of inertia about the y axis

Iω Warping moment of inertia

KT St.venant torsional constant

Kx Effective length factor corresponding to x axis

Ky Effective length factor corresponding to y axis

kr Rotational Spring Constant

𝑘𝑈,𝑒 Experimental initial slope of the load-deflection 𝑢 relation

𝑘𝑈,𝑡 Theoretical initial slope of the load-deflection 𝑢 relation

𝑘𝑉,𝑒 Experimental initial slope of the load-deflection υ relation

𝑘𝑉,𝑡 Theoretical initial slope of the load-deflection υ relation

𝑘Φ,𝑒 Experimental initial slope of the load-angle of twist relation

𝑘Φ,𝑡 Theoretical initial slope of the load-angle of twist relation

Le Effective length of the member

Lr Live load on the roof produced during the maintenance

l Distance between the second and third dial gages

MBx , MBy End moments at the bottom of a beam-column

Mc Available flexural strength

Mn Characteristic value of flexural strength

MTx , MTy End moments at the top of a beam-column

Mu Required flexural strength due to factor loads

M₀x End moment about the x axis

P Axial load in a member

Pc Available axial compressive strength

Pe Elastic Euler buckling load

PMax.ASCE Maximum uniaxial load corresponding to proposed design of the ASCE-

PMax.Exp. Maximum uniaxial load resulted from the laboratory tests

Pn Characteristic value of axial force

Pu Required axial compression strength due to factored loads

R Rain load or ice load

rx Radius of gyration on the x Axis