SHEAR FAILURE AND FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

BEAMS REPAIRED WITH GLASS FIBRE REINFORCED POLYMER (GFRP)

Ronggo Nur W.P1, a), Irvan Udin U1, b) dan Yuni Ragil P1, c) Nindyawati2,a,
1
Student in the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Malang,
Malang, Indonesia
2
Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Malang,
Malang, Indonesia

a)
nindyawati.ft@um.ac.id
b)
ronggoonly1@gmail.com
c)
irvanudin10@gmail.com
d)
yuniragilpujiyanti@gmail.com

Abstract. Failures in a reinforced concrete beam structure may occur due to the age of the structure, initial design
errors, manufacturing errors, improper loading, or natural factors. Damaged structures are mostly dismantled and
replaced immediately without considering the possibility of repair. Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) is a
very promising material for use in reinforcing reinforced structures.
According to Ginardi (2014), the flexural strength of beams reinforced with CFRP increased by 65.934%,
while that of beams reinforced with GFRP merely increased by 43.956%. Moreover, Ray Rusandy Kati (2016) and
concluded that the shear strengthening with GFRP sheets increased the shear strength of the beams. The average
increase in the shear strength of the beam was 6.1%.
This research aimed to investigate the maximum load and flexural strength occurring in the concrete beams
reinforced with 5-cm GFRP at the right and left side, and with 5-cm GFRP at the bottom side of the beams. The
specimens were beams 10 x 15 x 100 cm in size. The results showed that the reinforcement with GFRP at the bottom
side of the beams i.e. BPB-1, BPB-2, and BPB-3 could withstand a load of 67.4 kN, 66.4 kN, and 64.4 kN
respectively. The GFRP reinforcement at the right and left side of the beams i.e. BPK-1, BPK-2, and BPK-3 beams
could withstand a load of 58.6 kN, 56.4 kN, and 57.4 kN respectively. It was concluded that the reinforcement of
GFRP at the bottom side of the beams was more effective in carrying loads.

Keywords: reinforced concrete beam, Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP), shear strength, flexural
strength

INTRODUCTION
Beams are one of the structural components often composed of reinforced concretes. Several factors such as
mistakes in the design and manufacturing process, improper initial maintenance, inappropriate use of structural
functions, or natural factors may cause failures in the beam and ultimately damage its structure as a whole.
One of the failures in beams is a shear failure where the beam has a diagonal crack in the bearing area of the beam
or sliding field. If it is not immediately resolved, structure collapse may occur. Another factor to be considered is
flexural strength because it affects the strength of beams. Flexural strength increases as the structure improves. FRP
reinforcement for concrete has been developed to replace steel in special applications, particularly in corrosion-
prone RC structures. Compared to steel, FRP generally has a lower modulus of elasticity, which leads to higher
reinforcement strains, wider cracks and larger deflections. Therefore, the serviceability limit state often governs the
design of FRP RC. Furthermore, due to numerous combinations of resin matrix, fibre and surface treatments, the
bond and tension stiffening characteristics of FRP rebars are not readily determined without testing[8]. Glass fiber
reinforced polymers (GFRP) have become a preferable material for reinforcing or strengthening reinforced concrete
structures due to their corrosion resistance, high strength to weight ratio, and relatively low cost compared with
carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP)[13].

G. Ireneus PetricoThe flexural strength of beams reinforced with CFRP increased by 65.934%, while that of beams
reinforced with GFRP merely increased by 43.956%. The strength of reinforced concrete beams is strongly
influenced by flexural strength. The flexural strength of structure increases as the structure undergoes a
reinforcement. Therefore, if any damages occur in the reinforced concrete, a reinforcement should be done. The
innovations of materials that can strengthen damaged reinforced concretes are Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(GFRP) and Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)[4].

A study conducted on the comparison between GFRP and CFRP found that the ductility of beam reinforced with
CFRP (BC) increased by 13.736%; it was about 8/7 times greater than that of the beam without any reinforcement
(BK). Moreover, the beam reinforced with GFRP had a ductility of 31.859% which was about 4/3 times bigger than
that of the unreinforced beam[16]

Moreover, Ray Rusandyinvestigated the use of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) in reinforced beams and
concluded that the shear strengthening with GFRP sheets increased the shear strength of the beams. The average
increase in the shear strength of the beam was 6.1%. The shear strengthening with GFRP sheets affected the flexural
behaviour of the beams. The reinforced beams became more ductile than the normal beams; the reinforced beams
had a larger deflection before failure. Its ductility also increased by 152%, which was higher than the normal
beams[15].

GFRP layer tensile strength of 00/900 and 00 is larger 22.14% and 14.5% compared to tensile strength of GFRP
with a fiber direction of 450, and GFRP coating on beam can increase when melting point compared to beam
Without The average GFRP layer is 12.48%[13].

GFRP-mounted reinforced concrete beams have increased load capacity when compared with unreinforced blocks.
The increase was BL1 62.08%, BL2 68.60%, and BL3 75.13%. This research concludes the bending collapse that
occurs that Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) peels off[1].

GFRP reinforcement is also performed on reinforced concrete beams, with different circumstances, such as
reinforcement of rocks immersed in seawater. The capacity of the marine immersion beam is smaller than the
simulated soaking basin for 12 months' duration of immersion. The percentage difference that occurred was 18.08%
or 3.69 kN. The cost per annum of soaking ponds decreased by 22.81% or by 6.03 kN from 6 months to 12 months.
Average sea immersion beam decreased 27.31% or. 6.28 kN from 6 months to 12 months.
As an extension of previous studies, this research attempted to draw the comparison between the reinforcement on
the right and left side and that on the bottom side of the reinforced concrete beams. The results of this study could be
used as a reference in construction works and were expected to benefit the community.

MATERIALS
This experimental research tested 6 specimens of geopolymer concrete beams with the concrete quality of fc'= 25
Mpa. The tests were performed using UTM (Universal Testing Machine).
Also, 6 specimens of reinforced geopolymer concrete beam with fc'= 25 Mpa. The mix design used the DOE method
and involved locally produced materials i.e. black sand and gravel. The size of each beam was 10 x 15 x 100 cm and
the concrete blanket was 1 cm thick. Three beams were reinforced on the underside, and the other three were
reinforced on the right and left side.

Figure 1. Reinforced Concrete Beam Specimen

The specimens of reinforced concrete beams were prepared through the following stages: (1) making the beam
formworks, (2) drying and painting the bamboo reinforcements (3) assembling the reinforced concrete beams, (4)
making the concrete cylinders and reinforced concrete beams, (5) treating the specimens for 28 days.
The main device used to test the compressive strength of the cylinders and the flexural strength of the beams was the
UTM (Universal Testing Machine). This device pressed the reinforced concrete beam until the first cracki.e.
flexural crackappeared. Then, it was reinforced with GFRP at the right, left and bottom side with a certain load
up to the maximum load. In addition to the main device, there were several supporting tools used, namely: (1)
scales, (2) concrete mixer machine, (3) cylinder mould.
 Figure 2. Flexural Strength Testing of Reinforced Concrete Beams
RESULTS
Table 1. Tensile Strength Results of Steel Reinforcements
Diameter Sample Fy (Mpa) Fu(MPa) y u Es(MPa)
6 1 327.58 427.35 0.00 0.04 129936
2 354.46 433.11 0.01 0.04 107796
3 356.37 431.20 0.00 0.04 114529
Mean 346.13 430.56 0.01 0.04 114083.18
10 1 389.35 516.64 0.00 0.08 118865
2 406.55 530.67 0.01 0.07 148037
3 402.55 544.21 0.01 0.08 231620
Mean 398.82 529.84 0.01 0.08 166174.11
Table 2. Compressive Strength Results of Ordinary Concrete

Cylinders on Day 28

Sample Weight (Kg) Load (kN) Size (mm2) Fc=P*1000/A

1 1.42 115.7 4300.84 26.90
2 1.46 118.7 4300.84 27.60
3 1.47 84.7 4300.84 19.69
4 1.44 78.1 4300.84 18.16
5 1.41 103 4300.84 23.95
6 1.42 108.3 4300.84 25.18
Mean 1.44 100.04 4300.84 23.58

Table 3. First-Crack Flexural Strength Results of Beams

Maximum Mean
Beam Status Maximum Load Deflection (mm) Maximum Maximum
Code (kN) Load (kN) Deflection
(mm)
BPB-1 Unreinforced 35.4 1.08
BPB-2 Unreinforced 35.4 0.99
34.7 1.01
BPB-3 Unreinforced 33.4 0.96
BPK-1 Unreinforced 35.4 1.05
BPK-2 Unreinforced 31.4 0.98
33.4 1.11
BPK-3 Unreinforced 33.4 1.3

As shown in Table 3, the average maximum load of BPB was 34.7 kN and deflection was 1.01 mm, indicating that
the first crack occurred (crack 1). BPK had an average maximum load of 33.4 kN and deflection of 1.11 mm,
indicating that first crack happened (crack 1). At the time of the reinforced concrete beam testing process, to get the
first crack, the previous beam is stained so that later on when the crack pattern on the reinforced concrete beam can
be seen clearly. The first crack in question is the first crack of the bending type, in the bending crack forming a
vertical pattern extending from the side of the tension (bottom) of the beam leading to the press area (above).
The relationship between the maximum load and deflection capacity of the beams is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Graph of Load-Deflection Relationship in Normal Beams

Table 4. Flexural Strength Results of Beams Reinforced with GFRP

Maximum Mean
Beam Status Maximum Deflection Maximum Maximum
Code Load (kN) (mm) Load (kN) Deflection
(mm)
BPB-1 Reinforced 67.4 9.27
BPB-2 Reinforced 66.4 8.37
BPB-3 Reinforced 64.4 7.98 66.1 8.54
BPK-1 Reinforced 58.6 7.12
BPK-2 Reinforced 56.4 7.53
BPK-3 Reinforced 57.4 7.42 57.5 7.36

Table 4 shows that the average maximum load of BPB = 66.1 kN and deflection = 8.54 mm,
whereas the CPC had an average maximum load of 57.5 kN and deflection of 7.36 mm. This result shows
that there was an increase in the maximum load of bottom reinforcement of beam (BPB) towards the right
and left reinforcement (BPK) i.e. 15.02%, 17.73%, 12.20% respectively. The relationship between the
maximum load and deflection capacity of the beams is illustrated in Figure 5.
 Figure 5. Graph of Load-Deflection Relationship in Reinforced Beams
DISCUSSION
G. Ireneus PetricoThe average maximum load that could be achieved by the reinforced concrete beam using GFRP
at the bottom of the beam was 6408 kg = 62.84 kN, and the maximum deflection that could be obtained was 12.58
mm. In the present study, the concrete beam reinforced with GFRP at the bottom of the structure had a maximum
deflection of 8.54 mmsmaller than the result of Ginardi. However, its maximum load was 5.1% larger[4].
The reinforcement of GFRP at the bottom of the beam had an average load value 15% greater than that of the GFRP
at the right and left side.
The GFRP reinforcement at the left and right side only obtained the average maximum load of 5863.37 kg = 57.5 kN
and the average deflection of 7.36 mm. This is because the debonding that occurred on the left and right side of the
GFRP reinforcement on the beam. Debonding is the removal of the reinforcing material (GFRP) of concrete at one
end of the beam. Debonding occurs due to several factors such as less adhesive epoxy which makes the bond
between GFRP and concretes less strong, and slippery GFRP surface which is a major cause of slips[3].
Reinforcement at the bottom of the reinforced concrete beam is more effective because GFRP is designed as a
material that has a large tensile strength, so that GFRP mounted at the bottom of the beam will work more optimally
[15], and lower GFRP installation reduces the risk of debonding [3].
The reinforced concrete beam with the bottom reinforcement obtains a strong bending value of 75.89 kN / mm,
whereas the reinforced concrete beam with reinforcement on the right and left of the beam obtains a robust strength
value of 69.71 kN / mm. From the data obtained on the strength of bending strength, it can be concluded that the
strengthening of the bottom of the beam has increased 8.86% compared to the right and left reinforcement of the
beam.Of the two reinforcement reinforcements at the bottom of the beam obtain a stronger flexural strength greater
than the reinforcement of the beam on the right and left sides of the beam. Certainly this is caused by the adhesion of
GFRP on the beam, on the reinforcement of the beam on the right and left side of the release of the GFRP, it makes
the reinforcement is not maximal.
The reinforced beam is able to increase the bending value of the beam, by reinforcing the beam, the maximum load
will increase[1].

CONCLUSIONS
1) The reinforcement of GFRP at the bottom of the beam had an average load value 15% greater than that of
the GFRP at the right and left side.
2) The deflection of the concrete beam reinforced with GFRP at the bottom of the side was 16% greater than
that of the GFRP reinforcement at the right and left side of the beam.
3) The reinforced concrete beam with retrograde at the bottom has an increase in the bending strength value of
8.86% compared to reinforced reinforced concrete beams on the right and left sides of the beam.
4) Based on the model test, the fracture pattern occurring on the specimens of the concrete beam reinforced
with Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) had a flexural crack in the centre of the span and a shear
crack at the tip of the bearing area has.
REFERENCES
1
F. Alam. Flexural retrofitting of reinforced beams with glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP),
presented at HAKI conference, Jakarta. (2010)
2
H. Gangarao, N. Taly, Constr. 18 (2007).
3
I.K. Pangestuti, F.S. Handayani, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Universitas Negri
Semarang, Dinamika Teknik Sipil. 180-188 (2009).
4
I.P Ginardi, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Universitas Brawijaya. 1-9 (2014).
5
J.L. Miotto and A.A. Dias, Compos. Struct. 128, 145 (2015).
6
J.Y. Lee, T.Y. Kim, T.J. Kim, C.K. Yi, J.S. Park, Y.C. You, and Y.H. Park, Compos. Part B Eng. 39, 258 (2008).
7
K. Mahmoud and E. El-Salakawy, J. Compos. Constr. 18, 4013018 (2014).
8
L. Wegner and C. Gasmo, Wade (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, in 3rd Struct.
Spec. Conf. Can. Soc. Civ. Eng. (2000), p. 4930499.
9
M. Genedy, S. Daghash, E. Soliman, and M. Taha, Fibers 3, 13 (2015).
10
M. Muttashar, A. Manalo, W. Karunasena, and W. Lokuge, Compos. Struct. 145, 58 (2016).
11
N. Aravind, A.K. Samanta, D.K. Singha Roy, and J. V. Thanikal, J. Urban Environ. Eng. 7, 164 (2013).
12
Park & Paulay, Department of Cilvil, University of Canterury, Christchurch, New Zealand (1974) .
13
P. Deskarta, Journal of civil engineering XIII (2): 199-208 (2009).

14
R.A.S. Al-Sunna, K. Pilakoutas, and P. Waldron, Proc. 2nd Int. Congr. (2006).
15
R.R Kati, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Universitas Hasanudin. (2016).
16
S. Nurlina, Suseno, Hendro, Taufik, M. Hidayat. I.M.Y Pratama, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering Universitas Brawijaya, Rekayasa Sipil, vol.10 (2016).
17
V.C. Li and S. Wang, ACI Mater. J. 99, 11 (2002).