Title:
Structural and Deformational Behavior of Flexural Concrete Beams Reinforced with GFRP and BFRP Rebars
Author(s):
Raphael Kampmann, Tim Rauert, Niklas Pelka, und Bastian Franzenburg
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
360
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
349-368
Keywords:
basalt; glass; frp; rebar; flexural beam; design concept; structural deformation; ultimate limit state; serviceability.
DOI:
10.14359/51740635
Date:
3/1/2024
Abstract:
Corrosion of reinforcement steel is a major issue for many structural concrete components, because it leads to strength reduction and may significantly reduce the service life. For this reason, fiber-reinforced polymer rebars (FRP rebars) have been developed, as they represent a viable alternative that may replace reinforcing steel for structures that are particularly susceptible to corrosion issues. However, structural design philosophies for these new materials are still in development and further research is needed to implement FRP rebars properly and safely in design codes but also to ensure that design calculations properly predict the actual behavior and performance of FRP reinforced structures.
This study was conducted to evaluate the strength and structural deformation behavior of flexural beams that were designed according to Eurocode 2 and, for comparison, according to different design methods pro-posed for FRP reinforced structures. With regard to the development of a uniform design concept for alternative reinforcement materials existing in Germany/Europe, different bending design concepts includ-ing the serviceability limit state were evaluated. In addition, the theoretically calculated and predicted strength/deformation were compared to the experimentally obtained measurements. A total of 15 flexu-ral beams, with ans overall length of 4.5 m (177 in.), a width of 200 mm (7.8 in.), and a height of 400 mm (15.8 in.), were cast; three of these beams (designed according to Eurocode 2) featured traditional steel rein-forcement, to serve as control group. The remaining 12 flexural beams were evenly allocated to capture the two alternative reinforcement materials, while generating three different reinforcement distribution patterns with comparable reinforcement ratios (equivalent cross-sectional areas). Thus, a total of six subgroups –three with GFRP and three with BFRP – each with two specimens, were analized. To test all beam in pure bending and to eliminate the influence from shear forces, two equally increasing loads were applied at the (longitudinal) third-points of the beams. Both deflections and loads were measured at several points to evaluate the structural performance of the FRP reinforced structural members.
The results showed that the deflection of the glass fiber reinforced bars at the design load capacity measured twice as much as the deflection of the control group. Almost three times as much deflection (at the same load) was observed for the concrete beams reinforced with basalt fiber rebars. In addition, it was observed that the concrete beams with glass and basalt fiber reinforcement bars showed a nearly elastic-elastic behavior up to the point of failure, whereas the steel-reinforced concrete beams showed an elastic-plastic behavior. However, the deformational behavior differed between the various beam types. While the prevailing equations properly captured the post-cracking performance of traditionally reinforced concrete beams, they do not adequately predict the deflections of FRP reinforced concrete beams. From the measurements and analyses, it was concluded that the serviceability limit state (SST) is more critical than the ultimate limit state (LTS) for the design of concrete flexural beams reinforced with FRP rebars.
Related References:
1. ACI Committee 440 (2007). Report on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, (440R). American Concrete Institute.
2. Aechtner, V. (2016). “Anwenderheft für Basaltfaserbewehrung. HTWK Leipzig, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 132, 04277 Leipzig.
3. Ali, Ahmed H and Mohamed, Hamdy M and Benmokrane, Brahim and ElSafty, Adel and Chaallal, Omar (2019). “Durability performance and long-term prediction models of sand-coated basalt FRP bars.” Composites Part B: Engineering, 157, 248–258.
4. Beck, G. (2021). “Basalt spart Beton.” Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
5. Benmokrane, B., Elgabbas, F., Ahmed, E. A., and Cousin, P. (2015). “Characterization and Comparative Durability Study of Glass/Vinylester, Basalt/Vinylester, and Basalt/Epoxy FRP Bars.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 19(6), 04015008.
6. Deutsche Basalt Faser GmbH (2022). “Deutsche Basalt Faser. Deutsche Basalt Faser GmbH. Carl-Rabe-Straße 11, 06526 Sangerhausen.
7. Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton e.V. — DAfStb (2006). Zum Trag- und Verformungsverhalten bewehrter Betonquerschnitte im Grenzzustand der Gebrauchstauglichkeit, (heft 533 Edition). Beuth Verlag GmbH, Beuth Verlag GmbH, 10772 Berlin.
8. Deutsches Institut für Bauchtechnik (2019). Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassung/ Allgemeine Bauartgenejmigung, Bewehrungsstab Schöck ComBAR aus glasfaserverstärktem Kunststoff. Kolonnenstraße 30 B, 10829 Berlin.
9. DIN EN 1992-1-1 (2021). Eurocode 2: Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbeton- und Spannbetontragwerken — Teil 1-1: Allgemeine Regeln — Regeln für Hochbauten, Brücken und Ingenieurbauwerke. Normenausschuss Bauwesen (NABau) in DIN, Beuth Verlag GmbH, 10772 Berlin.
10. Elgabbas, F., Vincent, P., Ahmed, E. A., and Benmokrane, B. (2016). “Experimental testing of basaltfiber- reinforced polymer bars in concrete beams.” Elsevier: Composites Part B, B(91), 205–218.
11. Emparanza, A. R., Kampmann, R., and De Caso Y Basalo, F. (2017). “State-of-the-Practice of Global Manufacturing of FRP Rebar and Specifications.” The 13th International Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-13), Vol. SP-327-45.
12. Greco, Antonio and Maffezzoli, Alfonso and Casciaro, Giovanni and Caretto, Flavio (2014). “Mechanical properties of basalt fibers and their adhesion to polypropylene matrices.” Composites Part B: Engineering, 67, 233–238.
13. Guo, F., Al-Saadi, S., Raman, R. S., and Zhao, X. (2018). “Durability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) in Simulated Seawater Sea sand Concrete (SWSSC) Environment.” Corrosion Science, 141, 1–13.
14. High, C., Seliem, H. M., El-Safty, A., and Rizkalla, S. H. (2015). “Use of Basalt Fibers for Concrete Structures.” Construction and Building Materials, 96, 37–46.
15. Inman, M., Thorhallsson, E. R., and Azrague, K. (2017). “A mechanical and enviromental assessment and comparison of basalt fibre reinforced polymer (bfrp) rebar and steel rebar in concrete beams.” Elsevier Ltd., 111, 31–40.
16. International Federation for Structural Concrete (2013). Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. fib - Luc Taerwe and Stijn Matthys, Lausanne, Switzerland.
17. Jamshaid, H. and Mishra, R. (2015). “A green material from rock: basalt fiber — a review.” The Journal of The Textile Institute, 107(7), 924–937.
18. Kampmann, R., De Caso Y Basalo, F., and Ruiz Emparanza, A. (2018). “Performance Evaluation of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Concrete Under Aggressive Environments.” Technical Report BDV30 TWO 977-18, Florida Department of Transportation.
19. Kampmann, R., Schmidt, A., Telikapalli, S., Emparanza, A. R., and y Basalo, F. D. C. (2019). “Basalt FRP Production: Market Analysis and State-of-the-Art Report.” CONCRETE Innovations in Materials, Design and Structures: Proceedings of the fib Symposium 2019 held in Kraków, Poland 27-29 May 2019, FIB-Féd. Int. du Béton.
20. Kampmann, R., Telikapalli, S., Emparanza, A. R., Schmidt, A., and Dulebenets, M. (2021). “Tensile properties of basalt fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcing bars for reinforcement of concrete.” ACI Materials Journal, 118(1), 111–126.
21. King, M., Srinivasan, V., and Purushothaman, T. (2014). “Basalt Fiber An Ancient Material for Innovative and Modern Application.” Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 22(2), 308–312.
22. Lopresto, V., Leone, C., and Iorio, I. D. (2011). “Mechanical Characterisation of Basalt Fibre Reinforced Plastic.” Composites: Part B, 42, 717–723.
23. Markets and Markets (2016). “FRP Rebar Market by Resin Type, by Fiber Type, by Application — Global Forecasts to 2021.” PR Newswire Association LLC.
24. Patnaik, A. (2009). “Applications of basalt fiber reinforced polymer (bfrp) reinforcement for transportation infrastructure.” Developing a Research Agenda for Transportation Infrastructure, 175–184.
25. Schöck Bauteile GmbH (2018). “Technische Information Schöck ComBAR. Vimbucher Straße 2, 76534 Baden-Baden.
26. Schöck Bauteile GmbH (2019). “Bemessungs- und Konstruktionshilfe Galsfaserbewehrung Schöck Combar nach EC2. Schöck Bauteile GmbH, Vimbucher Straße 2.
27. Statistisches Bundesamt (2022). Baufertigstellungen Wohn- und Nichtwohngebäude in Deutschland bis 2021. Statista.
28. Telikapalli, S., Kampmann, R., and Schmidt, A. (2019). “Current Market Trends of Basalt FRP Rebars.” Current Trends in Civil & Structural Engineering.
29. von Ooyen, H. (2021). Basaltfasern für langlebige Brückenkappen. Ingeniuer.de.
30. Wang, Z., Zhao, X.-L., Xian, G., Wu, G., Raman, R. S., Al-Saadi, S., and Haque, A. (2017). “Long-term Durability of Basalt- and Glass-Fibre Reinforced Polymer (BFRP/GFRP) Bars in Seawater and Sea Sand Concrete Environment.” Construction and Building Materials, 139, 467–489.
31. Wommelsdorff, O., Albert, A., and Fischer, J. (2017). Stahlbetonbau: Bemessung und Konstruktion Teil 1: Grundlagen, biegebeanspruchte Bauteile, (11 Edition). Werner Verlag, Köln.