CICE 2010 - The 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering September 27-29, 2010, Beijing, China

GFRP Structures Subjected to Dynamic Action

Giosu Boscato & Salvatore Russo University Iuav of Venice, Venice, Italy

ABSTRACT The good ratio between strength and dead load defines the composite material as an efficacious solution for structural rehabilitation of historical buildings. The composite material with polymeric matrix, known with FRP acronym (Fiber Reinforced Polymers), is widely used in civil engineering as sheets, bars and strips. Recently a new technology was adopted to improve the structural response with limited increment of dead load with reversible and independent solution. The GFRP pultruded profiles allow the building of all-composite structure both for over elevation frame, structures and beams for increment of flexural stiffness of deck. The present work proposes and analyses the solution for seismic behaviour GFRP (Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymers) applications to evaluate the performances respect to dynamic actions considering the global effect on historical structure. KEY WORDS

1 INTRODUCTION
The lightness of the FRP material guarantees a good structural behaviour respect to dynamic actions thanks to the reduced incidence of mass participation on the inertial forces. Despite the lightness and transversal deformability of the GFRP pultruded elements, they must be controlled so as to avoid excessively flexible structures unable to check the buckling phenomena due to P(load-deformation) effects. To analyse the dynamic behaviour of GFRP structures in this work has been evaluated the stiffening effects of the braced systems, the different rotational stiffness of joint and the comparison with similar solutions built through traditional material. In spite of the favorable properties of this new technology in dynamic engineering field the themes that define the possible applications are not completely developed. While the study of static behaviour is still now in-depth (ASCE 1984, CNR-DT 205/2007 2008, Russo 2007) the researches on dynamic response are still inadequate. To regards recent studies were carried out on profiles - with different cross section panels (Boscato and Russo 2009), two-dimensional and three-dimensional structures (Boscato 2009) in free vibration field to define the frequencies of flexural and torsional modes of vibration, the damping ratio and related displacements. In the past Holloway e Farhat (1990) studied the dynamic response of two models made by perspex and fiber-reinforced composite. Subsequently the study of Mosallam et al. (1994) developed the node problem between pultruded structural elements highlighting the better dissipative response of bolted solution than glued connections.

Based on the research results is possible to consider the FRP structural elements as reinforcement application, structural rehabilitation and seismic improvement. From the experimental analysis about the structural elements and 3D structures subjected to free vibrations (Boscato 2009) has been possible to calibrate the numerical model that simulates the structural response of all-GFRP structure with dynamic action. In reference to all-GFRP constructions, the analysis carried out on three-dimensional frame, allowed to define the dynamic parameters of GFRP structures with steel bolts and, then, the effects on the global behaviour of different configurations subjected to dynamic action. The research develops, moreover, a comparison between the models of building with different roof elements configuration with wood, steel, RC (Reinforced Concrete) or GFRP roof truss subjected to seismic main shock recorded at April 6, 2009 in LAquila, Italy.

2 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO SEISMIC ACTIONS

2.1 Dynamic behavior of GFRP structure Through the modal and spectral response analysis - using the dynamic parameters defined by experimental tests (Boscato 2009) has been possible to define, through the finite element method, the effects of variations of structural design approaches and technology solutions to evaluate the global behaviour of GFRP systems subjected to seismic action. In particular the modal analysis defines the dynamic characteristics of analyzed configurations; while the spectral response analysis individuates the structural performances respect to seismic action.

L. Ye et al. (eds.), Advances in FRP Composites in Civil Engineering Tsinghua University Press, Beijing and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

128

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering

0.4 0.35 X-Y displacements (mm) 0.3 UNBRACED_DX UNBRACED_DY BRACED_DX BRACED_DY

The modal and spectral analysis of the 3D framework was carried out considering different configurations - three external constraints, clamped, pinned and clamped-pinned and three internal restrains, rigid, semi-rigid and pinned to evaluate the mode of vibration upon variation of the stiffness, with or without braces (Table 1). The rotational stiffness of semi-rigid internal node of 3D frame was calculated as average value of Eurocode 3 interval - considering the beam length equal to 4961mm braced 100.66 K 1610 with K = 755 kNm/rad and unbraced 100.66 K 5033 with K = 2466 kNm/rad. The structural elements made of different profiles were modeled as perfectly collaborating; the dimensions and characteristics of structure are shown in Figure 1, (Boscato 2009). The analysis of the GFRP structure response to the dynamic action it has been considered only an earthquake excitation which ignores the non-linear behaviour, ductility and failure mode. The different structural typologies reported in Table 1 were analysed via spectral response approach for zone 2 (average seismicity with ag = 0.25g) and category of soil B according to what is defined by Eurocode 8 (2003).

0.25 0.2

0.15 0.1

0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 typology 6 7 8 9

Figure 2 3D frame, displacements

Figure 1 General view, mm dimensions Table 1 3D frame braced and unbraced, first frequency External joint Int. joint K (kNm/rad) Rigid Clamped Semirigid Pinned PinnedClamped Rigid Semirigid Pinned Rigid Pinned Semirigid Pinned 755 0 755 0 755 0 BRACED Hz 23.82 23.69 23.68 22.39 22.29 22.27 21.8 21.71 21.69 Mass part. (%) 67.76 67.43 67.38 65.89 65.52 65.46 65.92 65.46 65.37 UNBRACED Hz 13.31 13.01 12.96 9.07 9.624 9.59 6.62 6.43 6.4 Mass part. (%) 81.56 81.26 81.22 82.694 84.517 84.486 88.22 88.04 88

For the unbraced configuration with the dynamic action along y direction, the increment of displacements is equal to 45% from Clamped to Pinned-Clamped configuration and equal to 55% from Pinned-Clamped to Pinned configuration. As regards the braced configuration for the same direction - the increment of displacements is 35% from Clamped to Pinned-Clamped and equal to 42% from Pinned-Clamped to Pinned configuration. The relationship between the braced and unbraced configurations shows a similar behaviour for the Clamped external joint and the increment of displacement values - of the unbraced configuration compared to the braced configuration equal to 20% and 40%, respectively. The structural response of the framework with unbraced configuration respect to the dynamic action, applied in directions x and y, is coincident. Figure 3 illustrates the maximum level of stress reached by the elements with regards to compression axial stress.
typology 0 -0.1 -0.2
axial stress (MPa)

-0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9

COLUMN_DXDY-UNBRACED COLUMN_DXDY-BRACED BEAM_DXDY-UNBRACED BEAM_DXDY-BRACED

Figure 3 3D frame, stress behaviour

The global behaviour and performances regarding the two principal directions of dynamic action that were analysed are shown in Figure 2.

The variation of the external constraint conditions influences the stress level of the columns; from the Clamped to Pinned-Clamped configuration the stress value increases of about 43%, while for the next step from the Pinned-Clamped to the Pinned configuration the increment is equal to 16%.

September 2729, 2010, Beijing, China

129

2.2

Dynamic behavior of GFRP elements for structural rehabilitation of existing buildings

The evaluation of dynamic response of the masonry structure, with different roof solutions, subjected to the seismic actions has been carried out by dynamic linear analysis. The analyzed model is a structure 12m width, 18m length and 15m high (Figure 4). The span between the roof truss is equal to 2m; the thickness of longitudinal walls and facade wall are 0.6m and 1m respectively. From analysis is important to highlight the different effect on masonry wall considered with equal mechanical characteristics (Attached 11.D of OPCM 3431/2005, Tab. 11.D.1) with roof truss for material and cross section of constitutive elements (Figure 4). The configurations analysed are 5, the traditional solution with wood roof truss (cfgW, Figure 4 scheme a) directly on masonry wall, while the solutions for structural rehabilitation propose the steel (cfgSTEEL), RC (cfgRC, cfgRCa) and GFRP (cfgGFRP) roof truss. In particular the solutions with steel and GFRP roof truss propose a perimeter profile at levels of roof truss (Figure 4 scheme b), while for the solutions with RC structural elements the roof truss rest on directly on masonry wall (cfgRC, Figure 4 scheme a) or on RC curb (cfgRCa, Figure 4 scheme c). The finite element analysis is carried out considering the masonry modeled by three-dimensional elements, the roof truss with mono-dimensional elements while the panels roof were modeled with plate elements. For the boundary condition the model is fully clamped at the plane xy of base (Figure 4). From preliminary modal analysis were determined the frequencies of the first mode of vibration of each analyzed configuration, Table 2. Table 2 shows, moreover, the physic-mechanical characteristics of analyzed solutions; considering the optimized cross section obtained by structural equivalence defined in serviceability state is evident the low dead load effect of GFRP configuration.
Table 2 Characteristics of analysed configurations (Cfg.) and fundamental frequency Cfg. W GFRP STEEL RC RCa Area (cm2) 320 137 45 150 Jmax Dead of Dead of beam profile truss (kg) (kg) (cm4) 10666 11084 1208 5040 4592 6444 9021 9394 / 737 3217 / 13163 E (MPa) 10500 23000 210000 24768 f0 (Hz) 5.16 3.24 4.14 3.46 3.45

As regards the seismic analysis, the structure has been developed applying the same acceleration recorded during the mainshock of april 2009, accelerometric station AQV, http://itaca.mi.ingv.it/ItacaNet. The results regard the maximum displacements of global system and the stress state of masonry of different configurations considering the first 10 seconds of seismic event. Three components of seismic acceleration have been considered following North-South, East-West direction and the up component applied contemporarily along X, Y and Z respectively (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 Configurations of FEM model

The stabilizing effect and uniform distribution of loads, assured through presence of perimeter profile, is highlighted through GFRP configuration with greater displacements correspondent to peek of acceleration and, subsequently, with exponential decrement. Nevertheless the presence of perimeter profile on cfgSTEEL configuration causes a progressive increment and constant trend of displacement values of point 1, (see Figure 4 scheme b). The similar behaviour, at the start of maximum displacements, was recorded with different entity by solutions proposed with wood (cfgW), RC with curb (cfgRCa) and without (cfgRC). The maximum displacements to the acceleration peek of event (3.9 sec), recorded by GFRP configuration, is 60-90% greater than the other solutions; however, in the same time, the capacity of GFRP configuration to comeback at initial condition is better than the other configurations, Table 3.
Table 3 Displacements of Point 1 to 3.9 and 9.6 sec Cfg W GFRP STEEL RC RCa Displ.(mm) to 3.9 sec 0.7 4.09 1.8 0.7 0.43 Displ.(mm) to 9.6 sec 1.59 1.02 2.29 1.71 0.84

Table 2 highlights the greater fundamental frequency of the solution with wood roof truss (cfgW) - due to low dead load than the others configuration.

130

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering

To evaluate the possibility to realize the solution with composite structural elements, for seismic improvement of existing structure, is necessary to analyse the displacements (Point 1, Table 3) with the main stress (Point 2, Table 4). The better behaviour of masonry wall with cfgGFRP configuration - characterized by the good ratio between the strength properties and the low dead load of composite material - enable to reduce the entity of stress values along ZZ direction, (see Figure 4). At acceleration peek the stress level of GFRP configuration highlights a similar response to STEEL solution and lower than the other configurations, Table 4. At the end of analyzed period the recorded values of cfgGFRP solution are 10 times less than the other configurations.
Table 4 StressZZ of Point 2 to 3.9 and 9.6 sec Cfg. W GFRP STEEL RC RCa Stress ZZ(MPa) to 3.9 sec 0.056 0.032 0.035 0.042 0.040 Stress ZZ(MPa) to 9.6 sec 0.097 0.007 0.057 0.096 0.046

a better capacity to dissipate the accumulated acceleration than the other solutions. The damping ratio of GFRP roof truss is equal to 1.4% while for the other solutions is 0.07% with wood, 0.15% with steel, 0.31% with RC and 0.87% with RC together RC curb. At the maximum peek the stress condition of the masonry with roof truss of GFRP configuration is similar to steel solution and, although, 30% lower than the other configurations; at 10 seconds the stress level is reduced of 10 times. For the themes proposed by this research is necessary further studies to consider the non linear behaviour of GFRP material, the ductility absence and the rotational stiffness of joint considered as rigid.

REFERENCES
ASCE 1984. Structural Plastic Design Manual. American Society Civil Engineering, ASCE, Volume 1 and 2. Boscato, G., 2009. Numerical analysis and experimental tests on dynamic behaviour of GFRP pultruded elements for conservation and architectural and environmental heritage, PhD thesis, University of Nova Gorica, Graduate School, Venice, 2009. Boscato, G. & Russo, S. 2009. Free Vibrations of Pultruded FRP Elements: Mechanical Characterization, Analysis, and Applications. Journal of Composite for Construction, ASCE, Vol. 13 No. 6, December 2009. CNR-DT 205/2007, 2008. Istruzioni per la Progettazione, lEsecuzione ed il Conrollo di Strutture realizzate con Profili Sottili Pultrusi di Materiale Composito Fibrorinforzato (FRP), Roma CNR. CNR-DT 205/2007. Holloway, L. and A. M. Farhat. 1990. Vibrational analysis of a double-layer composite material structure. Composite Structure, 16(4): 283-304. Mosallam, A. S.; Abdelhamid, M. K.; Conway, J. H., 1994 performance of pultruded frp connections under static and dynamic loads, Journal of reinforced plastics and composites, vol. 13, issue 5, pp. 386-407. Russo, S., 2007. Strutture in Composito: Sperimentazione, Teoria e Applicazioni. Edited by Ulrico Hoepli, Milano, Italy.

CONCLUSIONS

For the 3D GFRP structure subjected to seismic action the higher stiffness of the system does not seem to be affected by the presence, or otherwise, of the braces. The same variation of internal restrain conditions influences in negligible way the global dynamic response. Considering the all applications evaluated for seismic improvement the solution with pultruded elements are an interessant alternative respect to traditional technologies. The configuration with GFRP element offers, besides the favorable characteristics of composite material the high durability, low dead load, easiness to transport and assembling phases the good behaviour respect to steel and RC solutions. In particular the GFRP configuration records the elevated displacements in the initial phase but