DURABILITY AND FIELD APPLICATION OF FIBRE REINFORCED POLYMER

CDCC-07 (FRP) COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION

DURABILIT ET LES APPLICATIONS DES COMPOSITES EN POLYMRES
RENFORCS DE FIBRES (PRF) POUR LA CONSTRUCTION

BEHAVIOUR OF FRP REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN

JOINTS UNDER CYCLIC LOADING
M. K. Sharbatdar 1, M. Saatcioglu 2, B. Benmokrane 3 and E. F. El-Salakawy 4
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
2
Professor and University Research Chair, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
3
NSERC Research Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke, Canada
3
Canada Research Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Manitoba, Canada

ABSTRACT
The corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete and the resulting deterioration of structures
prompted research on fibre reinforced polymers (FRP) as potential reinforcement for
concrete members, for use in new construction. FRPs have more favourable advantages for
building new concrete structures subjected to seismic loads particularly in corrosive
environment. A comprehensive experimental research program was conducted to
investigate the behaviour of FRP reinforced concrete joints to develop design and detailing
requirements for FRP reinforced concrete joints under seismic loading.

Four large-scale FRP reinforced concrete structural joints were designed, constructed, and
tested under cyclic loading. The specimens were T-shape joints consisting of two columns
and one beam representing half portion of first and second floor of one-bay reinforced
concrete frame, or exterior joint of frames with more than one bay. Columns were subjected
to the constant axial load and the beams were under reversed cyclic loading. The
reinforcement cage was consisted of CFRP bars as longitudinal reinforcement and CFRP
grids as transverse reinforcement. All the tests were conducted at the Structures Laboratory
of the University of Ottawa. The paper presents the details and results of the experimental
programs.

The results indicate that FRP reinforcement can be used effectively in new structures.
Photographs taken at selected stages of loading illustrated the performance of each joint.
The hysteretic behaviour was presented both in terms of force-displacement and moment-
drift relationships. Hysteretic moment-total rotation, moment-slip rotation, and moment-
flexural rotation relationships were also presented. Spacing of CFRP Grids, arrangement of
longitudinal CFRP bars, and axial load level were main test parameters.

541
1. INTRODUCTION

Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement, in the form of longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement, are currently being developed for use in new buildings and bridges [1]. The
major driving force behind this development is the superior performance of FRPs in
corrosive environments. FRP reinforcement has high strength-to-weight ratio, favourable
fatigue strength, electro-magnetic transparency and low relaxation characteristics when
compared with steel reinforcement, offering a structurally sound alternative in most
applications. However, FRP reinforcement shows linear stress-strain characteristics up to
failure, without ductility [2, 3].

Even thought there are enough previous research on reinforced concrete beam-column
joints or connections under monotonic and seismic loadings [4, 5]; some limited research
on the behaviour of beam-column joint of concrete structural elements reinforced with FRP
re-bars are available. Experimental research is needed to verify the applicability of those
individual members for concrete frame reinforced with FRP bars and stirrups under
different stress conditions particularly subjected to seismic reversed cyclic loading, and
indeed the joints are essential parts of frames particularly to maintain theses frame integrity.
The new concrete frame reinforced with FRP are needed for some industrial buildings and
parking buildings to reduce the building deterioration due to steel corrosion.

This poses serious concerns about their applicability to earthquake resistant structures,
where seismic energy is expected to be dissipated by inelasticity in members. Experimental
research has been conducted at the Structures Laboratory of the University of Ottawa;
jointed with Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Sherbrooke; to
investigate the behaviour of FRP reinforced concrete joints to develop design and detailing
requirements for these joints under seismic loading [6]. Four large-scale FRP reinforced
concrete structural joints were designed, constructed, and tested under cyclic loading. The
results of selected tests are summarized in the following sections, with the assessment of
their significance from seismic performance perspective.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

2.1 Properties of Test Specimens

The specimens are T-shape joints consisting of two columns and one beam representing
half portion of first and second floor of one-bay reinforced concrete frame, or exterior joint
of frames with more than one bay. The specimens were reinforced with carbon FRP bars
and carbon FRP grids as longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, respectively.

General geometry beam-column joint specimen is shown in Fig. 1. The length of the beam,
subjected to lateral cyclic loading, is 2100 mm. Two columns with 1680 mm lengths and
350 mm by 483 mm cross-section are above and bottom of the joint and reinforced with
either 8 or 12 longitudinal 12.7 mm CFRP bars. Fig. 2 illustrates the cross-sections of the
columns and beams. Since the lateral loads on the elements are applied at the specified
distance from the tip of each element, resulted shear span of the beam and columns are
respectively about 1900 mm and 1500 mm. Beam cross section is 350 mm by 450 mm,

542
reinforced with 5-12.7mm longitudinal bars at the bottom as positive reinforcement and 5
or 7 same size bars are put at the top as negative reinforcement, respectively at three
different beams. Grids with 12-cell (equal-size square opening) were used for beams and
columns. The test parameters included the arrangement of longitudinal reinforcement, grid
spacing, and shear span. Constant axial load is applied on columns of all specimens. The
specimen characteristics are given at the Table 1.
Column
1680

2100 mm
450
450

Beam
Column
1680 mm

483

(a) Beam Section (b) Column Section

Fig. 1: Geometry of Beam-Column Fig. 2: Beam and Column Cross- sections
Joint Specimen

Table 1: Properties of test specimens

Specimens Column Bars Beam Bars Grid spacing at joint
JFRP 1 8 10 90 mm
JFRP 2 12 12 90 mm
JFRP 3 12 12 180 mm

2.2 Material Properties

Early strength Portland Cement concrete were used to cast the specimens. Specified 3-day
strength (equal to 28-day normal Portland cement concrete) of concrete, f c' , was 36 MPa.
Maximum aggregate size used in all batches was 10 mm and the slump of concrete was 100
mm. Sand-coated CFRP bars, manufactured by Pultrall Inc. (Thetford Mines, Quebec), with
a nominal diameter of 12.7 mm were used as longitudinal reinforcement. The bars were
made from high strength carbon fibres and durable vinyl ester resin. The maximum tensile
strength and modulus elasticity of these bars were 1450 and 115000 MPa, respectively. The
rupture strain was 0.0126.

CFRP transverse reinforcement used in this investigation consisted of NEFMAC grids. The
product was reported to have a specific gravity of 1.4 and a modulus of elasticity of
100,000 MPa, by the manufacturer. The previous research tests have showed that maximum
tensile strength and modulus elasticity of single cross element are almost 1240 MPa and
80000 MPa. Those consist of cross CFRP reinforcement elements with either 6 x 8 mm
rectangular or 12 x 8 mm cross-section. Fig. 3 shows the different transverse reinforcement.

543
Fig. 3: Grids Used For Columns and Beams

2.3 Preparations, Test Setup and Instrumentation

The first step for preparing the specimens was cutting the separated parts of Plywood
formwork and connecting them. Electric resistance strain gauges were mounted on some
FRP bars and grids to measure strains in longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. Four
longitudinal bars were instrumented with strain gauges at the extreme compression and
tension fibres of beam-column interface, and also same numbers of longitudinal bars of
columns were instrumented with strain gauges at the joint interface. The first two grids in
each beam and column, immediately above the joint, were also instrumented with strain
gauges. Fig. 4 illustrates the locations of strain gauges. Fig. 5 illustrates tied FRP cages,
separate column and beam and also final tied joint, prior to putting at the formworks.
130 mm 130 mm

Beam
160 mm

45o
110

Column
240 mm
160 mm

45o 30o

Fig. 4: Schematic View of Strain Gauges Fig. 5: Tied FRP Cages

Locations on FRP Reinforcement
FRP cages were put into the formworks and try to maintain perfect cover at all faces. Five
steel bolts were put at the end of each column in order to connect the specimen to actuators
or supports through the steel plate. All specimens were horizontally cast at the same time.
The test set-up is shown in Fig. 6. Two 1000 kN capacity servo controlled MTS actuators
were used to apply the loads. One of the actuators was positioned horizontally at the
column level to apply constant axial compression to columns during testing. The columns
were horizontally connected to hinge supports. The second 1000 kN capacity servo
controlled MTS actuator was used to apply the lateral load. No axial load was applied to the
beams. Lateral load was directly applied on the beams. The axial load was applied first and
was maintained at a constant level through the test. The horizontal load was applied in the
deformation control mode. The beams were tested following the loading history.
Lateral deformation reversals were applied\ starting with three elastic cycles at 0.5% lateral
drift, which approximately corresponded to the displacement at first flexural cracking,
followed by three cycles at 1% drift. Drift is equal to column top lateral deformation to

544
column length ratio. The subsequent stages of loading included three cycles at each of the
incrementally increasing drift level.

Fig. 6: Positions of Actuators and other Parts of Test Set-up

Each specimen was instrumented with strain gauges, LVDTs (Linear Variable Differential
Transducers), and temposonics to measure the strains and displacements and rotation
measurements. LVDTs were placed vertically or horizontally near the critical section of
column or beam to measure the total rotations (mostly due to flexure and also due to
anchorage slip) of hinging region. Anchorage slip and related rotation may be calculated
based on the readings of three strain gauges mounted on each longitudinal bar. The
difference between the total hinge rotation and the anchorage slip rotation would give the
flexural rotation of the hinging region. A Temposonic LVDT was placed horizontally at the
point of application of top horizontal load to measure the beam tip displacement. All the
instrumentation, including the load cells and the LVDTs of MTS actuators were connected
to data acquisition systems and MTS controller for data collection.

3. OBSERVED BEHAVIOUR AND TEST RESULTS

Observed behaviour of columns and beams and general behaviour of joints during T-shape
joint tests is presented and discussed. Photographs taken at selected stages of loading
illustrate the performance of each joint. The hysteretic behaviour is presented both in terms
of force-displacement and moment-drift relationships. Hysteretic moment-total rotation,
moment-slip rotation, and moment-flexural rotation relationships are also presented and
discussed in this chapter. These readings were taken within the potential hinging region.
The hinging region was defined as the column or beam segment between the joint interface
and the section 450 mm away the joint (almost equal to the column or beam cross-sectional
dimension). The first set of readings gave the total rotation of assumed hinging region
relative to the joint. This set of readings consisted of rotations mostly due to flexure and
also due to anchorage slip. The rotations due to anchorage slip were calculated based on
measured strain gauges mounted on FRP bars. The relatively small magnitude of anchorage
slip readings provides a good indication of the significance of this deformation component
in columns; these reading are significant at the beams without any applied axial load. The
difference between the total and the anchorage slip rotations gives flexural rotations.
The columns tested in these tests were subjected to a constant axial load, which was
established as a percentage of column concentric compressive capacity, Po .

545
As a sample, the test results of the specimen of JFRP2 to be presented in this section.
Column in this joint was reinforced with 12 12.7 mm diameter bars that resulted in 0.9%
reinforcement ratio. The spacing of grids was 90 mm, which was approximately equal to
maximum spacing required by CSA S806-02 (2). The column was tested under a constant
compressive force of 530 kN (20% of its concentric capacity). Beam in this joint was also
reinforced with totally 12 12.7 mm diameter bars, 7 bars at the top and 5 bars at the
bottom. The bars were tied with CFRP grids at the spacing of 90 mm, which was
approximately equal to maximum spacing required by CSA S806-02.
The hysteretic relationships recorded during the test, and shown in Fig. 7, indicate that the
joint showed stable hysteresis loops up to almost 3% drift ratio, followed by gradual
degradation up to 4 % at strong side and almost significant and sudden strength decay at
weak side of beam during 4 % drift ration due to some bars rupturing and probably some
smooth bars slippage and following the crushing of concrete.
Observations during testing specimen JFRP2 were illustrated at the Fig. 8, indicated that
only initial flexural cracking started at 0.5% drift cycles at the beam above the joint, and
small diagonal crack inside the joint as well as more flexural cracks at the beam were
happened at 1% drift ratio, and then more diagonal cracks consisting off one big and more
small parallel diagonal cracks at the end of 2% drift ratio stage. The complete diagonal
cracks that passed all grids and the crack at the interface happened at 3% drift ratio stage.
Gradual strength degradation was observed at the strong side of beam up to 4% drift, but
sudden drop happened at the weak side during 3.5% drift with significant crack at this side
at the beam column interface. The appearance of bar failure was more like a bar ruptured
subjected high tension.

Fig. 7: Hysteretic Moment-Drift Relationship of Joint

(a) Before Loading (b) At 4% Drift

Fig. 8: Observed photos of Joint at the Different Stages

546
Strain gauge readings indicated that FRP bars of beam experienced a maximum of 1.05%
tensile strain and 0.2% compressive strain at the end of test, whereas the FRP bars of
column showed maximum 0.2% compressive strain. FRP grids of beam and column
experienced a maximum of 0.25% and 0.15% tensile strain. FRP grids inside the joints
showed high tensile strain up to 0.77%. Fig. 9 shows the hysteretic behaviour of recorded
strains in FRP bars of beam and grid at inside the joint. Moment-total rotation hysteretic
relationship, recorded during the test, is shown for beam in Fig. 10. Spacing of transverse
reinforcement within the joint (CFRP Grids) and arrangement of longitudinal CFRP bars
are the test parameters in this experimental study. Factored and nominal moments
calculated from Design Code and also recorded test results are compared as follows:
Factored Moment Nominal Moment
Mf (kN.m) c (mm) frpu Mn(kN.m) c (mm) frpu
212.5 123.6 0.0083 327 112.7 0.0094
Recorded Test Results
Resistance Moment = 280 kN.m (5-bar side)
Resistance Moment = 298 kN.m (7-bar side)
Beam Maximum Longitudinal bar tensional strain= 1.05%
Beam Maximum Grid tensional strain =0.3%
Lateral Force, F (kN)
200
Lateral Force, F (kN)
150 200

100 150

50 100
Strain(%)
50
0 Strain(%)
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0
-50 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-50
-100
-100
-150 -150
SG#209
-200 -200 SG#233

(a) Bars of Beam (b) Grids of Joint

Fig. 9: Load-Strain Hysteretic Relationship

350 Moment, M (kN-m)

280

210

140

70
Fig. 10: Moment-Rotation Hysteretic Beam Total Rotation (rad)
0
Relationship of Beam
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
-70

-140

-210

-280

-350

547
4. CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be drawn from the experimental research reported in this
paper:
FRP reinforced joints can be designed to satisfy strength and deformability
requirements of earthquake resistant structures. Tests performed under reversed cyclic
loading indicate that joint drift capacities can be in excess of 3%.
FRP reinforced concrete joints can be confined to develop inelastic deformations. The
CSA S806-02 requirements for confinement show good correlations with test data.
FRP re-bars are capable of resisting significant compression and tension-compression
cycles without any distress. The failure in tension and compression was both observed
to occur at about 1.0% strain.
Seismic design strategies for FRP reinforced concrete elements may be to design so
that they remain elastic, with sufficient lateral deformability. The design approach
may be improved by providing sufficient confinement for compression members and
joints by means of closely spaced transverse FRP reinforcement.
Hysteretic behaviour of FRP reinforced concrete elements and joints can be
substantially different than that for steel reinforced concrete members. Inelastic
response of FRP reinforced concrete joints can only occur in well confined and over-
reinforced elements.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was financially supported by the National Science and Engineering Research
Council (NSERC) of Canada.

6. REFERENCES

1. Sharbatdar, M. K. (2003), Concrete Columns and Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars
and Grids under Monotonic and Reversed Cyclic Loading, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
2. Canadian Standards Association (2002), Design and Construction of Building
Components with Fibre-Reinforced Polymers, CAN/CSAS806-02, Rexdale Ontario,
May 2002.
3. ACI Committee 440 (2003), Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete
Reinforced with FRP Bars, ACI440.1R-03, American Concrete Institute, USA, 41p.
4. Pauly, T. and Priestly, M.J.N. (1991), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, John Willey & Sons, New York, 744 pp.
5. ACI Committee 352 (2002), Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column
Connections in Monotonic Reinforced Concrete Structures, ACI352R-02, USA, 37p.
6. Sharbatdar, M.K., Benmokrane, B., El-Salakawy, E., and Saatcioglu, M. (2004),
"Seismic Behaviour of FRP Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints", Technical
Report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke,
Quebec, December, 101 p.

548