Flexural Behavior of RC Beam Strengthened With Carbon Fiber Sheets in Shear and Flexure Zone

University of San Carlos – Department of Civill Engineering
CE 521G FORM-1-Undergraduate Research Paper
CE 521G FORM-1:
Undergraduate Research Paper Template
Endorsement Sheet
Term/Academic Year:
Department of
Second Semester AY 2017-2018
Civil Engineering
Talamban, Cebu City,
Philippines 6000
Research Paper Endorsement and Approval
I/we have read and agreed to the findings contained in the research manuscript entitled
Flexural Behavior of RC Beam Strengthened with Carbon Fiber

Sheets in Shear and Flexure Zone
Prepared and submitted by
Gonzaga, Alvincent G.
Tumulak, Frances Sol I.
Villaplana, Paul Vincent Q.
I/we affirm that the same complies with the standards prescribed for the research paper requirement.
In view thereof, I/we hereby endorse the said research paper for review and oral defense.
Endorsed By:
Name and Signature of Adviser Date Endorsed
Name and Signature of Co-Adviser Date Endorsed

ChE 521G FORM-1:

Undergraduate Research Paper Template
Approval Sheet
Term/Academic Year:
Department of
Second Semester AY 2017-2018
Civil Engineering
Philippines 6000

REVIEW
Name and Signature of Reviewer Name and Signature of Reviewer
Date of Review
APPROVAL
Name and Signature of Primary Reviewer Date Approved

USC Civil Engineering Student

Research Annual 2017
Volume X, xx-xx
Department of
Civil Engineering Research Group
Philippines 6000

1
2 Alvincent G. Gonzagaa, Frances Sol I. Tumulaka, Paul Vincent Q. Villaplanaa,
3 Kristoffer John B. Ducaya, Marnie B. Giduquioa,
a
4 Department of Civil Engineering, University of San Carlos, Talamban, Cebu City 6000, Philippines
5
6 Abstract
7
8 The demand for enhancement of structures for strength, stiffness, ductility and durability is pacing at large due
9 to increasing numbers of structures deterioration caused by series a wear and tear, changes in use and loading,
10 changes in design configuration, used of inferior construction materials, construction defects and natural
11 calamities strike. The application of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) as reinforcement stands as the
12 most prominent scheme in meeting this demand. This paper reports another result of the effective usage of
13 carbon fiber sheets as reinforcement increasing the capacity, improving ductility, stiffness and flexural behavior
14 of Reinforce Concrete (RC) beam. Five RC beams were tested under four-point loading. One control beam with
15 no carbon fiber sheets reinforcement, two shear strengthened beam by carbon fiber sheets laminated at lateral
16 faces and two shear-flexure strengthened beams by carbon fiber sheets laminated at lateral and bottom faces.
17 All beams are under the condition of being deficient due to construction defects; the weak concrete strength
18 composition and the tension steel reinforcement slippage upon loading due to ill provided end anchorage.
19 Experimental outcomes convey that all the tested methods of applying the carbon fiber sheets were able to
20 mitigate the beam’s construction defects. To achieve ductile behavior and flexural failure, data analysis
21 indicated that RC beam are to be shear strengthened by carbon fiber sheets at lateral faces of shear span rather
22 than flexural strengthened at bottom face. Results showed that reinforcing the tension zone of the beam lead to
23 brittle failure.
24
25
26 Keywords: carbon fiber sheets, ductility, flexure, shear, stiffness
1
27 1. Introduction
28
29 The development of new materials for construction is not flourishing in demand compared to the
30 enhancement of old and damaged structures (Žmindák & Pastorek, 2017). Building and other
31 infrastructures are having life expectancy which are below the estimated due to lack of maintenance and
32 inspection, construction defects and error in designs; this problem does occur hence this structures needs
33 recuperation. Likewise, there is also a need of strengthening due to new design guidelines and damaged
34 structures that needs reintegration. Natural calamities like earthquakes and typhoons is one of the reasons
35 why structure itself is not stable and making the situation worse. Furthermore, the building structures
36 maybe subjected to more than one earthquake in relative short period of time. After every earth shaking,
37 those building structures faces a stiffness and strength degradation, it may not withstand to carry gravity
38 loads afterwards. All of these problems culminate to the demolition of affected structures and a new
39 construction, reconstruction of selected structural elements or rehabilitation by means of retrofitting and
40 strengthening of those structures. Alba-rodríguez et al., (2017), made a comparison between the building
41 rehabilitation versus demolition and new construction based on economic and environmental assessment.
42 It was concluded, even with a severely damaged building, the repair and retrofit work incurs a lower
43 economic and environmental impact than that of the total replacement with a new construction. Structural
44 rehabilitation stands out as better approach compare to demolition and new construction for defected
45 building structures.
46
47 It has been predicted that building rehabilitation would be dominant activity in the construction sector
48 (Kohler and Hassler, 2002). Various retrofitting schemes are employed worldwide. Ma et al., (2017) on
49 their review of repair and rehabilitation of concrete structures using confinement, have concluded that
50 among others techniques of confinement, FRP confinement is the most popular and effective in terms of
51 restorability. The outstanding properties of this material, such as high strength to weight ratio, high
52 stiffness, excellent corrosion resistance, ease of application, and minimal change of geometry made the
53 approach as the most preferable technique in strengthening concrete structures. Yet, in comparisons
54 among FRP varieties, researches show that Carbon Fibre Reinforce Polymer (CFRP) excels in terms of
55 strength.
56
57 Nor et al., (2013), tested the feasibility of using CFRP as full replacement of steel as reinforcement for
58 concrete beam under bending mode. Results concluded that the use of CFRP as reinforcement for
59 concrete can perform intended function to strengthen the concrete in tension zone; where the performance
2
60 and behavior of CFRP reinforced concrete beam is comparable to the conventional steel reinforced
61 concrete beam.
62
63 Foti, (2016), explored techniques with the use of polymers for concrete reinforcement. The reinforcement
64 is made with PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) and CFRP are arranged as continuous bars and strips,
65 respectively. Better behavior is obtained for specimens reinforced with CFRP strips. Both cases of PET
66 and CFRP reinforcement are noticed that they limit the presence of cracks. PET bars could be utilized for
67 concrete pavements substitution of welded steel mesh of for soil restraints if there are moisture problems
68 and steel corrosion. On the contrary, CFRP could be considered as valid substitute of steel reinforcement
69 for elements subjected to bending.
70
71 Irshidat & Al-saleh, (2017), investigate the RC beam heated and repaired with carbon nanotubes (CNT)
72 modified CFRP. The modified material is to prevent the early debonding of CFRP from the concrete. In
73 conclusion, the ultimate load and stiffness of RC beams subjected to heat at 500 °C and 600 °C were
74 reduced to by (18%, 34%) and (43%, 55%), respectively; while the repaired beams were (111%, 81%)
75 and (75%, 56%) of the values of unheated beams. The presence of CNT in the epoxy enhanced the
76 adhesion at the concrete, epoxy and the fibre interface leading to increase of ultimate load and stiffness by
77 (24%, 22%) and (11%, 5%) of 600 °C and 500 °C heated-beam, respectively, compared to 600 °C and
78 500°C heated-beam applied with neat epoxy only.
79
80 Aravind et al., (2017), compared the plain CFRP and corrugated CFRP as externally applied on RC
81 beams. The specimens were pre-crack up to 0.3mm at tension zone then repaired with plain CFRP and
82 corrugated CFRP. The comparison revealed that load carrying capacities of pre-cracked RC beams
83 strengthened with corrugated laminates increase up to 14.67%, 22.84%, and 26.26% for 0.4 mm, 0.6 mm
84 and 0.8 mm thickness, respectively as compared to pre-cracked beams strengthened with plain CFRP
85 sheets.
86
87 Žmindák & Pastorek, (2017), investigated the cohesion between RC beam and polymer lamella reinforced
88 by carbon fibres. From the results it is clear that the adhesion between the concrete and the lamina is very
89 good, but delamination occurs in the concrete. The maximum value is 94% probability of loss of
90 adhesion.
91
92 Even with the good standing of the carbon fibre polymer compared to steel as the widely applied manner
93 for reinforcement, carbon fibre polymers is restricted to rehabilitation of structure, as for the reason of the
3
94 lack of standardize codes in applying the material and the cost of using it. Thus, continuous studies are
95 imposing for further analysis of the behavior and characteristics of this prominent material as
96 reinforcement
97
98 On this paper, it is investigated that the application of carbon fiber sheets as externally applied
99 reinforcement in shear and flexure zone for the construction-defected RC beam that needs enhancement.
100 Hence, the application of carbon fibre sheets as externally bonded reinforcements is studied on how it will
101 perform to retain the strength for the serviceability of the severed RC beam. Some studies and researches
102 verified the effectiveness of externally bonded carbon fibre sheets as reinforcement. Kharatmol et al.,
103 (2014), studied the application of CFRP as externally bonded for beam strengthening. On their findings,
104 CFRP wrapped at tension side gives better strength compared to CFRP wrapped at two parallel sides, but
105 give less strength compared to CFRP wrapped both at parallel and tension side. Mostofinejad &
106 Moghaddas, (2014), compared two approaches in applying fibres as externally bonded reinforcement; one
107 is the convenient method and other with grooves. Both of method results have increased in terms of load
108 capacity, 27% and 39% respectively. As well, Irshidat et al., (2016), uses same method in applying carbon
109 fibre sheets in three different lengths. The beam composite with the longest strips of carbon fibre sheets
110 significantly enhance the largest stiffness. With these researches’ verifications, this paper uses the same
111 scheme of applying the carbon fiber sheets as externally mounted reinforcement and various methods of
112 applying carbon fiber sheets as reinforcement were explored as laminated in shear and flexure zone. This
113 research aims to conclude what schemes of bonding and lamination of carbon fiber sheets provides
114 ductile behavior and flexural mode of failure or whether the scheme could achieve such mode and
115 behavior aside from the established results that the carbon fiber sheets increases the load capacity. Shear
116 mode of failure displays brittleness, abrupt and usually without advance warnings prior to failure, hence,
117 it desirable to have a flexural mode of failure for the reason of structurally safe. The schemes and method
118 of shear and flexure strengthening with carbon fiber sheets of this paper was followed as per suggested of
119 the study of Dorina & Vlad, (2008). Their study presented that for flexural strengthening, the beam
120 should be laminated with FRP as external reinforcement at the tension zone; and as for shear
121 strengthening, and the beam should be laminated with FRP not on its soffit but on its lateral face.
122
123
124
125
126
127
4
128 2. Experimental Program

129
130 2.1. Materials
131
132 Table 1. Carbon fiber sheets properties
Mechanical/Physical Propertires of Carbon Fiber (SikaWrap-230 C)
Dry Fiber Properties Tensile Strength:
4,300 N/mm² (nominal)
Tensile E- Modulus:
238,000 N/mm² (nominal)
Elongation Break:
1.8% (nominal)
133
134
135 Table 2. Epoxy properties
Mechanical/Physical Properties of Epoxy
Tensile Strength 45 N/mm² (7days at +23⁰C)
Bond Strength 45 N/mm² (7days at +23⁰C)
E-Modulus Flexural:
2800 N/mm² (7days at +23⁰C)
Tensile:
3500 N/mm² (7days at +23⁰C)
Elongation Break 1.5% (7days at +23⁰C)
136
137
138 In this study, concrete mixture was based on the actual practice of small local construction using
139 the ratio of; 1 cement: 2 sand: 3 gravel: 2 pale of water. Actual testing was conducted to know the actual
140 strength of used concrete and steel. The average compressive strengths were obtained from UTM test with
141 a value of 10.32 MPa at 28 days. The longitudinal reinforcements consisted of two steel reinforcement of
142 12 mm diameter bar for the top and three steel reinforcement of 10 mm diameter bar for the bottom. For
143 shear reinforcement, 6 mm stirrups were used. The yield strength of the steel was 338.94 MPa. The
144 mechanical/physical properties of carbon fiber and epoxy are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. SikaWrap-
145 230 C is a unidirectional woven carbon fiber fabric with mid-range strength, designed for installing using
146 dry or wet application. The material properties of the carbon fiber sheets were supplied by Sika.
147
148 2.2. Test Specimen
149
150 A total of 5 simply supported RC beams with the dimensions of 150 mm x 250 mm x 1700 mm were
151 casted. All the beams have flexural and shear reinforcements. Two 10 mm diameter and three 12 mm
5
152 diameter steel bars were used in the longitudinal direction at the top and bottom, respectively. The shear
153 reinforcement involved 6 mm diameter steel stirrups at a spacing of 50 mm to ensure flexure failure. A
154 general detail of the beam specimen is shown in Figure 1. The following test series were conducted:
155  One control specimen beam.
156 Beam1 - no applied carbon fiber sheets specimen.
157  One beam was strengthened with U-wrapped configuration of Carbon Fiber sheets bonded on the
158 shear span at “d” distance from the support.
159 Beam 2 - shear strengthened specimen.
161 shear span at “d” distance from the support and on the tension side of the beam
162 Beam 3 - shear-flexure strengthened specimen
164 whole shear span.
165 Beam 4 - shear strengthened specimen.
167 whole shear span and on the tension side of the beam.
168 Beam 5 - shear-flexure strengthened specimen.
169
170 In lamination of the carbon fiber sheets at the lateral face in U-wrapped configuration, the strands
171 were place vertical and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the beam. While lamination of carbon
172 fiber sheets at the bottom face or the tension side, the strands were place parallel to the longitudinal axis
173 of the beam.
6
174
175 Figure 1. 1 control beam and 4 beams with different orientation of carbon fiber sheets applied.
176
177 2.3. Preparation of epoxy
178
179 The Sikadur 330 was prepared according to the manufacturer recommendations; where mixing
180 ratio were Part A: Part B= 4:1 by weight. To ensure good dispersion of epoxy within the mixture, parts
181 A+B was mixed together for three minutes with a mixing rod until the material becomes smooth in
182 consistency and uniform in grey color. Avoid exposure to air while mixing. Afterwards, the mixture was
183 poured into a clean container and was stirred again for approximately 1 more minutes at low speed.
184
185 2.4. Preparation of specimen and test setup
186
187 The beams were cast into wooden molds. Twenty four hours after casting, the beams were de-molded
188 and were cured for 28 days. Afterwards, retrofitting process was applied according to the following
189 procedure: The test specimens were cleaned before epoxy was applied. Using the paint roller, a layer of
190 epoxy was directly applied on the beam surface. The carbon fiber sheets were placed on the designated
191 areas and another layer of epoxy was applied to cover the carbon fiber sheets to ensure perfect bonding.
7
192 The retrofitted specimens were left at a room temperature for another seven days before testing. The
193 specimens were tested under four-point loading using a UTM with a capacity of 100 tons. The loading
194 was gradually increased at time intervals of 30, 60, 120, and 180 seconds. Crackings were traced and
195 documented after load was applied at time intervals of 30, 60, 120, and 180 seconds. Due to limited
196 resources, an improvised method was applied using a caliper that was positioned perpendicularly to the
197 platform at misdpan to measure the deformation. Also, the loading drift was based on time intervals of 30,
198 60, 120, and 180 seconds. All data were recorded and documented. Figure 2 shows the whole setup of the
199 experiment. Figure 3 shows the real photo of the test set up.
200
201
202 Figure 2. Front and side elevation of the experimental set up
203
204 Figure 3. Actual photo of the experimental set up.
205
8
206
207 3. Results and Discussion
208
209 During the test, failure modes and cracks forms of all tested beams were cautiously stated and
210 observed. In addition, the loads and the mid-span deflection were collected, plotted and characterized in
211 terms of initial stiffness, ultimate load, yielding, displacement and ductility. UTM was used during testing
212 to observe the beam and to explain the obtained results.
213
214 3.1. Cracks and failure modes
215
216 Table 3. Summary of experimental values of all the specimens
Ultimate Peak Shear Peak Load Total Midspan Final
carrying (kN) Moment, Capacity Amount Displacement Failure
Load, P (kN-m) Increase of Carbon (mm) Mode
(kN) (%) Fiber
Sheets
Applied
(sq. m)
Beam 1 89.18 44.59 22.30 ----- 0.00 11.5 Shear
Beam 2 119.64 59.82 29.91 34.16 0.21 39.0 Flexure
Beam 3 128.22 64.11 32.06 43.76 0.47 26.0 Flexure
Beam 4 113.13 56.57 28.28 26.86 0.39 36.0 Flexure
Beam 5 111.30 55.65 27.83 24.80 0.65 25.0 Flexure
217
218
219 Failure modes and corresponding displacement of the ultimate load of all beam specimens are
220 summarized in Table 3. Cracks behavior are defined with relation to displacement and all displacement
221 stated on this paper were measured at midspan of the beam specimen. Figure 4 shows the visual outcome
222 of all beams after testing.
223
224 The control specimen Beam 1 characterized with no carbon fiber sheets reinforcement failed in
225 shear and failure pattern is characterized by large formation of diagonal crack in compression strut. The
226 shear cracks propagated from the point of support towards the point of loading. The first shear crack
227 appeared at a displacement of 2.50 mm right after the first formation and propagation of cracks along the
228 flexural area at the displacement of 1.50 mm. Flexural cracks were observed that it ceased to develop
229 after 10.0 mm deflection and shear cracks continue to develop until beam reaches its ultimate load
230 capacity, load reduction and causes the total failure of beam. The shear failure mode of the specimen was
9
231 triggered by its construction defects; the weak concrete strength composition and the tension steel
232 reinforcement slippage upon loading due to missed provide end anchorage.
233
234
235 Figure 4. The five beam specimens after testing.
236
237
238 Regarding beam specimens strengthened with carbon fiber sheets, appearance of cracks were
239 delayed. Beam 2 was characterized with shear strengthened by U-wrap carbon fiber sheets covering the
240 “d” distance, exhibits flexural failure caused subsequently after crushing of concrete at compression zone
10
241 of the midspan. Crushing of concrete in the compression zone at midspan occurred at 113.02 kN load and
242 a displacement of 29.0 mm. To depict the crushing of concrete at midspan it is shown in Figure 5. The
243 occurrence was due to the induced large bending of the beam specimen subsequently following the
244 flexural mode of failure. In line to the presence of the carbon fiber sheets wrap at “d” distance, flexure
245 failure was attained, more development of flexural cracks than cracks at shear span. The first flexural and
246 shear cracks appeared at a same displacement of 6.50 mm. Although the cracks formation patterns were
247 similar to the control specimen, the presence of carbon fiber sheets delayed the initial cracks and helped
248 in distributing the flexure cracks along the beam. Since the carbon fiber sheets were applied at “d”
249 distance from the support the shear cracks were mitigated compared to the control specimen.
250
251
252 Figure 5. Compression block crushing at midspan.
253
254 As for Beam 3, it was characterized with shear strengthened by U-wrap carbon fiber sheets
255 covering the “d” distance and flexural strengthened by carbon fiber sheets laminating the whole bottom
256 face. Failure of beam B3 was considered as by breaking of the layer of carbon fiber sheets, compression
257 block crushing and concluded with flexural mode of failure. More vertical cracks were developed in the
258 studied flexure areas than cracks at shear span. The cracks in the concrete, similar to the observed for the
259 corresponding control specimen. First observation of flexural cracks was recorded at the displacement of
260 1.0 mm and right after, shear cracks first developed at a displacement of 2.0 mm. The chronology of
261 failure of beam 3 started with the slight delamination by concrete of Carbon Fiber Sheets as shear
262 reinforcement due to shear cracks at 116.45 kN load and displacement of 15.0 mm. It was followed by the
263 snapping of some strands of carbon fiber sheets as flexural reinforcement at 124.30 kN load and 22.0 mm
264 displacement. Then, the crushing of the compression block at midspan with the load of 127.83 kN and
265 24.5 mm displacement; and another few strands of carbon fiber sheets as flexural reinforcement torn apart
266 at 128.22 kN load and 26.0 mm displacement. Determined flexural failure of the beam specimen was
267 concluded with the total breakage of the remaining strands of carbon fiber sheets laminated at the bottom
11
268 face at 86.04 kN load and 34.0 mm displacement. Figure 6, shows the break and split of the carbon fiber
269 sheets laminated at the bottom face. The snapping failure was initiated by the large bending of the beam
270 specimen. On this case, the carbon fiber sheets as flexural reinforcement were able to utilize its maximum
271 tensile strength with no delamination of the sheets by concrete or epoxy from the specimen. The absent of
272 this delamination is due the U-wrap carbon fiber sheets covering the “d” distance that serve as anchorage
273 and provides the right development bond area of the carbon fiber sheets. This anchorage effect was also
274 verified by the study of Fu et al., (2017).
275
276 1
277 Figure 6. Breakage failure of the carbon fiber sheets.
278
279 Specimen Beam 4 was characterized with shear strengthened by U-wrap carbon fiber sheets
280 covering the whole shear span. Beam 4 was categorized as flexural failure. First observation of flexural
281 cracks appears at 1.0 mm displacement. More flexural cracks developed and propagate toward the point
282 of failure. It is unable to observed shear cracks due carbon fiber sheets covering the whole shear span. At
283 106.15 kN and its corresponding 28.5 mm displacement, carbon sheets as shear reinforcement starts to
284 delaminate by concrete due to shear cracks, yet, the specimen able to behave in flexural failure without
285 the whole delamination. Crushing of the compression block was noticed at 113.13 kN load and 36.0 mm
286 displacement. The compression strut failure was developed beneath the carbon fiber sheets covering and
287 was visible after the detachment of the sheets from the specimen after the testing.
288
289 Beam 5 was characterized with shear strengthened by U-wrap carbon fiber sheets covering the
290 whole shear span and flexural strengthened by carbon fiber sheets laminating the whole bottom face.
291 Beam 5 was regarded as flexural failure. The total debonding by concrete of carbon fiber sheets at shear
292 span was observed due to large cracks occurred in the compression strut and cracks propagated from the
293 point of support towards the point of loading. Figure 7, shows the debonding by concrete of carbon fiber
294 sheets at shear span. The debonding was observed first occurred at 93.40 kN load and 8.0 mm
12
295 displacement. The first flexural cracks were formed when the displacement approaches 2.5 mm. Unlike
296 Beam 3, carbon fiber sheets of Beam 5 as flexural reinforcement were not able to utilize its maximum
297 tensile strength as it fails in flexure mode.
298
299
300 Figure 7. Delamination by concrete of carbon fiber sheets at shear span.
301
302 Figures 3, shows the crack patterns of all the beams. Fewer flexural cracks and larger shear cracks
303 were observed to the specimen Beam 1 and Beam 5 with shear failure. Whereas more develop flexural
304 cracks than shear cracks for specimen Beam 2, Beam 3 and Beam 4 with flexural failure. Compression
305 block crushing at midspan of the beam were perceived only at flexure-failure specimens. The scheme of
306 application of carbon fiber sheets of Beam 2, Beam 3 and Beam 4 were able to change the mode of failure
307 of shear-induced failure beam under flexural loading into flexural mode of failure. Shear-induced failure
308 is defined as due to the construction defects of the beam; the weak concrete strength composition and the
309 tension steel reinforcement slippage upon loading due to missed provide end anchorage leading to
310 intensive large shear cracks and shear failure.
311
312
313
314
315
316
13
317
318
319 3.2. Ultimate load capacity
320
321
140.00
120.00 128.22
119.64
100.00 113.13
111.30
Beam 1
80.00 89.18 Beam 2
60.00 Beam 3
Beam 4
40.00
39.0 Beam 5
36.0
20.00 26.0 25.0
11.5
0.00
Ultimate Load Capacity (kN) Corresponding Mid-span Displacement
322
323
324 Figure 8. Bar graph of ultimate load capacity and its corresponding displacemet of each beam.
325
326
327 The ultimate load carrying capacity and its corresponding displacement of all specimens were
328 summarized at Table 2 and are compared with the bar graph at Figure 8. Beam 1 was able to attain
329 maximum load of 89.18 kN. Beam 2 was able to sustain a maximum load of 119.64 kN which is 34.16%
330 of increased compared to the control specimen Beam 1. Beam 3 is capacitated with a maximum load of
331 128.22 which is 43.76% of increased from maximum load capacity of Beam 1. 26.86% was the display
332 increase of Beam 4’s ultimate load capacity of 113.13 kN in comparison of Beam 1’s ultimate load
333 capacity. Beam 5 was able to carry a maximum load of 111.30 kN which is 24.80% of increased from
334 Beam 1’s maximum load sustain. Beam 3 holds the biggest increase of loads followed by Beam 2, then
335 Beam 4 and Beam 5. For the corresponding displacement of the attained ultimate load capacity, Beam 2
336 displayed the biggest displacement of 39.0 mm. It was followed by Beam 4 of 36.0 mm displacement,
337 then Beam 3 of 26.0 mm displacement, Beam 5 with 25.0 mm displacement and the control specimen
338 Beam 1 with lowest displacement of 11.5 mm.
339
14
340 The entire specimens with carbon fiber sheets lamination were all able to increase the load
341 carrying capacity of a deficient RC beam. Also the all the lamination schemes increases the deflection
342 carrying capacity compared to no carbon fiber sheets reinforced RC beam.
343
Moment Capacity (kN-m) at Midspan

Calculated Nominal Moment Capacity Experimental Results Moment Capacity
32.06
29.91 28.28
27.47 27.47 27.83
22.89 22.30 22.89 22.89
Bea Bea Beam 3 Bea Bea

344
m2 m4 m5
345 Figure 9.Moment capacity at Midspan.
346
347
348 The calculated nominal moment (Mn) capacity at midspan of Beam 1, Beam 2 and Beam 4 is
349 22.89 kN-m and 27.47 kN-m for Beam 3 and Beam 5, with the use of cut-cross sectional analysis in
350 relation to created stress-strain diagram. The flexural strengthening of Beam 3 and Beam 5 with carbon
351 fiber sheets laminated at the bottom face is the reason why these beams had higher calculated Mn
352 compared to Beam 1, Beam 2 and Beam 4 with no carbon fiber sheets attachment at the bottom face. The
353 experimental moment capacity (Mtest) varies for each beams. The Mtest for the Beam 1 is not considered to
354 reach its ultimate moment capacity since the specimen fails in shear mode. Moments in Beam 2 and Beam
355 3 shows higher values in experimental results compared to the calculated values. While moments in Beam
356 4 and Beam 5 display the opposite, lower values in experimental results are compared to the calculated
357 values. Calculated Mn for Beam 2 and Beam 3demonstrate safety for use in design while calculated Mn
358 for Beam 3 and Beam 5 is critical to be used in design without reduction factor provided.
359
360
361
362
363
15
364 3.3. Graph analysis

365
366
140.00
120.00
100.00
Load (kN)
80.00
Beam 1
60.00 Beam 2
40.00 Beam 3
Beam 4
20.00
Beam 5
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Midspan Displacement (mm)
367
368
369 Figure 20. Actual Load vs. Displacement graph.
370
371
372
140
120
100
Load (kN)
80
60
Beam 1
40 Beam 2
Beam 3
20 Beam 4
Beam 5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacemnt (mm)
373
374
375 Figure 31. Idealized Load vs. Displacement graph
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
16
383 Table 4. Summary of data from idealized graph of all the specimens
Yield Corresponding The 10% load Ultimate Displacement Initial
load, Y displacement reduction from displacement ductility, stiffness
(kN) of Yield Load, the peak load at 10% (Δd/Δy) (k= Y/Δy)
Δy (mm) = 0.9(Ultimate reduction
Load), kN load from
ultimate load,
Δd (mm)
Beam 1 83.63 6.69 80.26 13.86 2.07 12.50
Beam 2 97.33 7.44 109.34 42.00 5.65 13.08
Beam 3 113.36 8.43 112.31 33.50 3.97 13.45
Beam 4 95.26 8.19 109.58 47.00 5.74 11.63
Beam 5 117.15 9.38 100.17 30.42 3.24 12.49
384
385
386 Actual load versus displacement was graphed for all the specimens as shown in the Figure 10 and
387 idealized graph was also created as shown in Figure 11. Idealized Load-Displacement graph was
388 generated from the actual Load-Displacement graph to be able to determine the ductility of the beam
389 specimens. From the actual graph, it is apprehended that the initial stiffness was constant of all tested
390 beams and of close similar value as the initial slopes display close similar steepness. But, from the
391 idealized graph and table 3, it is clearly viewed that Beam 3 has the highest initial stiffness of 13.45
392 followed by Beam 2 which is 13.08 then Beam 5 which is 12.49. However, Beam 4 is less stiff than the
393 control specimen Beam 1. Studying both the graphs, Beam 2 and Beam 4 display closely same yield point
394 value as the beams enter the plastic plateau. Also base on the actual graph, these two test beams appeared
395 to have slow and gradual reduction of loads from its attained ultimate load to failure. As for Beam 1,
396 Beam 3, and Beam 5, these test beams exhibit similar behavior on the actual graph and no extensive
397 yielding that has been observed. Moreover an abrupt reduction of loads from the attained ultimate loads to
398 failure was perceived for these three beams. As from observations, the studied two graphs demonstrated
399 that Beam 2 and Beam 4 are in ductile behavior as there were low increments of change in loads with
400 large change of displacement at the plastic plateau. While Beam 1, Beam 3 and Beam 5 are in brittle
401 behavior as it display an abrupt drop of loads to failure. Furthermore, the displacement ductility (Δd/Δy)
402 of Table 4 concluded the ductility of each specimen. The definition of displacement ductility is as follows
403 from Miranda and Bertero, 1994. Thus, it is further assisted that the specimen Beam 4 and Beam 2
404 display greater ductility with larger values of displacement ductility. From the idealized graph, Beam 4
405 has larger span of yielding at hardening state compared to Beam 2. Such manner, Beam 4 is more ductile
406 than Beam 2; equally, also Beam 4 has biggest displacement ductility of 5.74 than Beam 2 of 5.65,
407 followed by Beam 3 of 3.97 then Beam 5 of 3.24 and lastly the control specimen Beam 1 of 2.07. Over-
17
408 reinforcing the beam at the tension side provides lesser ductility and may lead to brittleness. Meanwhile,
409 from the idealized graph looking at the initial slope, among the specimen reinforced with carbon fiber
410 sheets Beam 3 and Beam 5 sustain far elastic deformation and were stiffer than Beam 2 and Beam 4. Also
411 from actual graph, Beam 3 and Beam 5 exhibit early load reduction unlike Beam 2 and Beam 4 that is still
412 able to sustain larger deflection before load reduction. It can be implied that the beams with shear-
413 strengthened by carbon fiber sheets provides better results than the beam with shear-flexure strengthened
414 by carbon fiber sheets. For general assessment Beam 4 as shear-strengthened presents the best result and
415 is the most desirable one for flexural behavior. With the data analysis, regarding carbon fiber sheets as
416 RC beam reinforcement and strengthening, to accomplish ductile behavior and flexural failure, RC beam
417 are to be shear strengthened rather than flexural strengthened.
418
419
420 Conclusions and Recommendation
421
422 Based on the experimental results on deficient RC beams retrofitted as shear-strengthened and shear-
423 flexure strengthened by carbon fiber sheets, the following conclusions are drawn:
424
425  The outcomes conveys that the schemes and methods of laminating the carbon fiber sheets as
426 external reinforcement for beams, was able to mitigate the beam’s construction defects; the weak
427 concrete strength composition and the tension steel reinforcement slippage upon loading due to ill
428 provided end anchorage.
429  Beams with shear-strengthened by carbon fiber sheets provides better results than beams with
430 shear-flexure strengthened by carbon fiber sheets by means that the shear-strengthened beams
431 able to sustain larger deflection before its gradual change of load reduction; than shear-flexure
432 strengthened beams with early and rapid load reduction with smaller displacement sustained.
433  It has shown that the carbon fiber sheets could not only increase the stiffness, ductility and
434 strength but also controls the development of the cracks. For greater stiffness, beam should be
435 flexural reinforced with carbon fiber sheets at the bottom face. For better ductility and flexural
436 behavior, beam with shear reinforcement only of carbon fiber sheets at the lateral face gives
437 better result. Reinforcing at the tension zone more likely leads to brittleness of the beam
438  Shear-flexure strengthened beams by carbon fiber sheets prolong the elastic deformation but
439 display no yielding as per graph. For the shear strengthened beams by carbon fiber sheets, the
440 specimens displays yielding and ductile behavior as there were low increments of change in loads
441 with large change of displacement at the plastic plateau.
18
442  The scheme of application of carbon fiber sheets in Beam 4 has the most ductile effect. It has
443 shown that the Beam 4 is the most desirable in terms of flexural behavior. Therefore, the beam
444 strengthened with U-wrapped configuration of carbon fiber sheets laminated on the whole shear
445 span is recommended to provide both shear and flexure strengthening and to achieve good-
446 performing ductile behavior.
447  The scheme of application of carbon fibers in Beam 3 provide the full utilization of carbon fiber
448 sheets as flexural reinforcement as it reached its maximum tensile strength through the breakage-
449 failure of the sheets with no delamination of the sheets by concrete or epoxy from the specimen
450 as . Therefore, the beam strengthened with U-wrapped configuration of carbon fiber sheets on the
451 shear span at “d” distance from the support and on whole bottom face is recommended to provide
452 both shear and flexure strengthening, for larger capacity and greater stiffness.
453
454 To further asses the results of this paper, it is recommended that the orientation of the CFRP shear
455 reinforcement be wrapped around the cross-section of the beam to prevent delamination and the
456 investigation of the behavior the beam such that the CFRP shear reinforcement would be up to d/2. In
457 this study, the experimental set-up had a limited clearance for deflection of the beams. It also
458 recommends the elimination of this limitation to allow deeper deflections. Also the used specimens
459 are not to be defective.
460
461 Acknowledgements
462
463 We, the researchers, would like to express our deepest appreciation to all those who provided us
464 the possibility to complete this research paper. We would also like to acknowledge with much
465 appreciation to our family who support us in every step in making our research paper and God in guiding
466 us every step of our journey. A special thanks goes to our friends, Keith Pacalioga, Jeremy Sy Lim, Klient
467 Louie Mondonedo, Julius Benedict Mendoza, Gregory Cataquez, Wesley co, Jo Jeremy Fate Lim, Roel
468 John Calimpon, Alex Osmena, Gilorie Ruiz, Jhan Melzhiedeck Mahinay, Christian Rey Delos Santos,
469 Christian Joshua Ricacho, Nelvin Calamba, Nikko Ramas, Kmart Cubero, Rolan Christian Go Bui,
470 Stanley Keelin Chan, Daniel Lao and Daryll Evan Mancao, for helping us setting up our experimental
471 setup. And lastly special thanks to Engr. Aida Lebunfacil for making our testing a successful. From the
472 bottom of our heart, Thank you!
473
474
19
475 References
476 Alba-rodríguez, M. D., Martínez-rocamora, A., González-vallejo, P., Ferreira-sánchez, A., & Marrero, M.
477 (2017). Building rehabilitation versus demolition and new construction : Economic and
478 environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66(July), 115–126.
479 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.002
480 Aravind, N., Samanta, A. K., Thanikal, J. V, Kr, D., & Roy, S. (2017). An experimental study on the
481 effectiveness of externally bonded corrugated GFRP laminates for flexural cracks of RC beams.
482 Construction and Building Materials, 136, 348–360.
483 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.047
484 Dorina, I., & Vlad, M. (2008). Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites as Internal and External
485 Reinforcements for Building, (Lviii).
486 Foti, D. (2016). Innovative techniques for concrete reinforcement with polymers. Construction and
487 Building Materials, 112, 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.111
488 Fu, B., Chen, G. M., & Teng, J. G. (2017). Mitigation of intermediate crack debonding in FRP-plated RC
489 beams using FRP U-jackets, 176, 883–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.05.049
490 Irshidat, M. R., & Al-saleh, M. H. (2017). Flexural strength recovery of heat-damaged RC beams using
491 carbon nanotubes modified CFRP. Construction and Building Materials, 145, 474–482.
492 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.047
493 Irshidat, M. R., Al-saleh, M. H., & Almashagbeh, H. (2016). Effect of carbon nanotubes on strengthening
494 of RC beams retro fi tted with carbon fi ber / epoxy composites. JMADE, 89, 225–234.
495 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.09.166
496 Kharatmol, R., Sananse, P., Tambe, R., & Khare, M. R. J. (2014). Strengthening of Beams Using Carbon
497 Fibre Reinforced Polymer, 2(3), 119–125.
498 Ma, C., Mohd, N., Chin, S., Yung, S., Jen, N., Wen, L., … Omar, W. (2017). Repair and rehabilitation of
499 concrete structures using confinement : A review. Construction and Building Materials, 133, 502–
500 515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.100
501 Mostofinejad, D., & Moghaddas, A. (2014). Bond efficiency of EBR and EBROG methods in different
502 flexural failure mechanisms of FRP strengthened RC beams. Construction and Building Materials,
503 54, 605–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.002
504 Nor, N. M., Hanif, M., Boestamam, A., & Yusof, M. A. (2013). Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (
505 CFRP ) as Reinforcement for Concrete Beam, 3(2), 6–10.
506 Žmindák, M., & Pastorek, P. (2017). Finite element analysis of cohesion between reinforced concrete
507 beam and polymer lamella reinforced by carbon fibers. Procedia Engineering, 177, 582–589.
508 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.264
20
509 Appendices
510
511 Supplementary data base on ocular investigation:
512
513
Beam 1 - Control, with no Carbon Fiber Sheets Reinforcement
Force (kN) Displacement (mm) Remarks/Observation
0.00 0.0
5.50 0.0
6.58 0.5
8.05 0.5
8.93 0.5
9.62 1.0
11.09 1.0
13.54 1.0
19.62 1.5
First Observation of Flexural cracks
26.10 2.0
32.18 2.5 First Observation of shear cracks
35.62 3.0
40.62 3.5
50.04 4.0
56.12 4.5 More development of shear cracks than flexural
59.06 5.0 cracks
72.80 6.5
77.70 8.0
83.00 9.0
87.12 10.0 Flexural cracks ceased to developed
89.18 11.5 Ultimate Load Capcity
83.59 13.5
79.27 14.0 Large Shear cracks developed
82.61 17.0
More large shear cracks followed and total shear
83.78 19.5
failure of beam
62.00 21.5
514 Figure 12. Beam 1- with no carbon fiber sheets reinforcements

515
21
Beam 2 - Reinforced with Carbon Fiber Sheets at "d" distance from support
0.00 0.0
85.06 6.5 First Observation of shear cracks and flexural
85.06 6.5 cracks
85.06 6.5
85.06 6.5
85.06 7.0
85.06 7.0
85.55 7.5
85.55 7.5
85.89 8.0
85.89 8.0
86.04 9.0
86.87 10.0 More development of flexural cracks than shear
86.87 11.0 cracks
87.02 13.0
87.02 14.5
87.02 15.5
87.02 17.0
87.14 19.0
87.14 20.0
109.09 22.0
109.19 24.0
114.00 26.5
113.02 29.0 Start crushing of compression blocks at midspan
115.96 33.0
118.02 36.0
119.64 39.0 Ultimate Load Capacity
109.34 42.0 Flexural failure of beam
516
Figure 13. Beam 2- reinforced with carbon fiber sheets at “d” distance from support
22
Beam 3 - Reinforced with Carbon Fiber Sheets at "d" distance from the support and at
the whole bottom face
0.20 0.0
0.69 0.0
2.16 0.0
2.90 0.0
4.13 0.0
5.23 0.0
6.82 0.0
8.29 0.0
10.26 0.5
11.97 0.5
13.94 1.0
17.86 1.0 First observation of flexural cracks
19.82 1.5
24.73 2.0 First observation of shear cracks
42.87 3.0
48.76 4.0
53.91 4.0
61.51 5.0
67.64 5.0
More development of flexural cracks than shear
74.27 6.0
cracks
82.11 6.5
87.51 8.0
107.13 10.0
110.56 11.5
114.49 13.0
Start Delamination by concrete of Carbon Fiber
116.45 15.0
Sheets as shear reinforcement due to shear cracks
120.62 16.5
122.34 18.0
124.30 20.0
Breakage of some strands of carbon fiber sheets as
124.30 22.0
flexural reinforcement
127.73 24.5 Crushing of compression block at midspan
Ultimate Load Capacity and another breakage of
128.22 26.0 few strands of carbon fiber sheets as flexural
reinforcement
123.32 29.0
124.30 30.0
124.79 33.5
Total breakage of the remaining strands of carbon

86.04 34.0 fiber sheets as flexural reinforcement and flexural
failure of the beam
517
518 Figure 14. Beam 3- reinforced with carbon fiber sheets at “d” distance from support and the whole bottom face
23
Beam 4 - Reinforced with Carbon Fiber Sheets at Shear Span
0.00 0.0
2.65 0.0
4.13 0.0
5.60 0.0
7.31 0.0
8.78 0.0
10.99 1.0
14.43 1.0
17.86 1.5
20.92 1.5
21.54 2.0
25.22 2.5
30.61 3.0
39.81 3.5
45.45 4.0
45.82 4.5
59.43 5.0
68.38 6.0
More flexural cracks developed. Unable to
70.83 6.5
observed shear cracks due carbon fiber sheets
82.48 7.0
covering the shear span
84.81 7.5
86.28 8.5
86.28 9.5
86.28 10.5
86.53 11.5
87.26 14.0
87.26 16.0
101.00 17.5
101.00 20.5
101.00 23.0
103.21 25.0
Start delamination by concrete of carbon sheets as
106.15 28.5
shear reinforcement due to shear cracks
106.64 30.0
111.05 32.5
Ultimate load capacity and start crushing of
113.13 36.0
compression block at midspan
Wider delamination of carbon fiber sheets due
110.56 40.0
shear cracks
109.58 43.5
109.58 45.0
109.58 47.0 Flexural failure of the beam
519
520
Figure 15. Beam 4- reinforced with carbon fiber sheets at “2d”
24
Beam 5 - Reinforced with Crabon Fiber Sheets at Shear Span and at the whole bottom
face

0.00 0.0
3.14 0.0
6.09 0.0
7.56 0.0
9.52 0.0
11.97 0.0
14.43 1.0
18.35 1.0
21.05 1.0
21.78 1.5
24.48 2.0
39.93 2.5
41.89 3.0
44.84 4.0
45.82 4.0
Fewer flexural cracks developed
65.19 5.0
69.12 5.5
78.19 6.5
84.57 7.0
Start of delamination of carbon fiber sheets as
93.40 8.0
flexural reinforcement due to shear cracks
100.26 9.0
103.40 10.0
107.87 11.0
109.21 12.0
109.09 13.0
109.46 14.0
Another delamination of carbon fiber sheets as
110.81 16.0
flexural reinforcement due to shear cracks
109.58 18.5
109.34 21.0
110.93 24.0
111.30 25.0 Ultimate Load Capacity
110.07 28.0
Complete debonding of carbon fiber sheet as shear
97.81 31.0
reinfocement, debonding by concrete due to shear
79.17 35.0
cracks and total shear failure of beam
63.48 38.0
521
522 Figure 16. Beam 4- reinforced with carbon fiber sheets at “2d”and the whole bottom face
523
524 Research/Experimental Design & Methods
525 Prototype Panel:
526
527 The prototype beam of interest will be from a 3-storey commercial building carrying two one-way slab
528 panels with long span of 3.1 m and a short span of 1.55 m. The dimensions of the beam is 300x500 mm
529 with . With and .
530
25
531
532 Figure 17. Prototype Panel
533
534 Specifications:
535  Grade 33 steel fy =227.53 MPa
536  Concrete fc’ = 20.68 MPa (3000 psi)
537  Beam sizes: 300x500mm
538  Slab thickness: 150 mm
539 Loading Criteria:
540  Concrete = 23.6 kN/m
541  Cement finish = 1.53 kPa
542  Ceiling = 0.48 kPa
543  Production Area = 4.8 kPa
544
545
546
547
548
26
549 Design of the model beam
550 Figure 17. Shear and Moment Diagram

551
552
Figure 18. Model Beam loading, scaled down (1:2) from the prototype beam loading
553
554
27
( ) ( )
555 OK!
556
557
28
558
559 CALCULATIONS OF MOMENT AT MIDSPAN USING THE ACTUAL STRENGTH OF
560 CONCRETE AND STEEL:
561 NO CARBON FIBER SHEETS AT MIDSPAN
C2
562
563 Figure 19. Stress-strain diagram of the beam with no carbon fiber sheets at midspan
564
565
566
The acquired compression block
567
for the summation of forces along
568 x to be zero ∑𝐹𝑥 .
( )
( )
( )
( )
29
( )
569
570
571 WITH CARBON FIBER SHEETS AT MIDSPAN
C2
T1
572
573 Figure 20. Stress-strain diagram of the beam with carbon fiber sheets at midspan
574
575 Carbon fiber sheets thickness = 0.131 mm

576 The acquired compression block
577 for the summation of forces along
578 x to be zero ∑𝐹𝑥 .
( )
( )
30
( )
( )
( )
579 Utilizing the full strength

of the carbon fiber sheet.
∑
( ) ( )
580
581 Expected maximum load capacity base on Moment capacity:
582
583
584 Shear Capacity:

585
√ √
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
586 Expected maximum load capacity base on Shear capacity:

587
31
588 Design of test set-up:

589 Design load, P=100kN
590
591 Figure 21. Transmission of load to Supports
592
593 Design load: 100 kN
32
594 Design of beam support (Platform)

595
596 Figure 22. Transmission of load of the experimental set up
Conjugate Beam Method
597
598 Figure 23. Moment diagram of the base plate
599
33
* ( ) ( ( ) )+
* (( ) )
( )+
600
601 Used platform in the experimental set-up:
602 Moment of inertia about a horizontal axis for 1 I-section
603
604
605
606
607
608
611
612
613
614
615 Figure 24. H beam of the experimental set up
616
34
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627 Figure 25. The fabricated base plate
628
629
630
631 Moment of inertia for combined 3 I-sections,
632
633 Add top and bottom cover plate with dimensions 300 x 19.05 mm
634 Compute moment of inertia about the neutral axis of the figure shown above:
* ( ) +
635
636
637 Flexural stress of the platform
638
639
640 Design of stand support (Tubular section)
641 Therefore, use 88.9x3.0 mm circular hollow section
35
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651 Design of Spreader beam
652
653
Figure 26. Loading, Shear, and Moment diagram of spreader beam
654
655 Therefore, use W250x17.9

656
657
36

Flexural Behavior of RC Beam Strengthened With Carbon Fiber Sheets in Shear and Flexure Zone

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flexural Behavior of RC Beam Strengthened With Carbon Fiber Sheets in Shear and Flexure Zone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of San Carlos – Department of Civill Engineering

CE 521G FORM-1-Undergraduate Research Paper

Research Paper Endorsement and Approval

Flexural Behavior of RC Beam Strengthened with Carbon Fiber

Prepared and submitted by

Tumulak, Frances Sol I.

Villaplana, Paul Vincent Q.

Name and Signature of Adviser Date Endorsed

Name and Signature of Co-Adviser Date Endorsed

ChE 521G FORM-1:

Flexural Behavior of RC Beam Strengthened with Carbon Fiber

Name and Signature of Reviewer Name and Signature of Reviewer

Name and Signature of Reviewer Name and Signature of Reviewer

Name and Signature of Reviewer Name and Signature of Reviewer

Name and Signature of Primary Reviewer Date Approved

Name and Signature of Primary Reviewer Date Approved

Name and Signature of Primary Reviewer Date Approved

USC Civil Engineering Student

Flexural Behavior of RC Beam Strengthened with Carbon Fiber

128 2. Experimental Program

Moment Capacity (kN-m) at Midspan

Bea Bea Beam 3 Bea Bea

364 3.3. Graph analysis

Beam 1 - Control, with no Carbon Fiber Sheets Reinforcement

Force (kN) Displacement (mm) Remarks/Observation

514 Figure 12. Beam 1- with no carbon fiber sheets reinforcements

Force (kN) Displacement (mm) Remarks/Observation

Force (kN) Displacement (mm) Remarks/Observation

Total breakage of the remaining strands of carbon

Beam 4 - Reinforced with Carbon Fiber Sheets at Shear Span

Force (kN) Displacement (mm) Remarks/Observation

Force (kN) Displacement (mm) Remarks/Observation

549 Design of the model beam

550 Figure 17. Shear and Moment Diagram

575 Carbon fiber sheets thickness = 0.131 mm

579 Utilizing the full strength

584 Shear Capacity:

586 Expected maximum load capacity base on Shear capacity:

588 Design of test set-up:

594 Design of beam support (Platform)

596 Figure 22. Transmission of load of the experimental set up

Conjugate Beam Method

637 Flexural stress of the platform

641 Therefore, use 88.9x3.0 mm circular hollow section

655 Therefore, use W250x17.9

You might also like