Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The use of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) composite bars as internal reinforcement for concrete is rapidly
GFRP bars increasing especially in structures exposed to aggressive environments. A proper bond mechanism between
Flexural behavior GFRP bar and concrete is essential to ensure proper functioning of such structures. The slippage between the
Finite element analysis (FEM) concrete and reinforcement has usually been ignored in numerical modeling of reinforced concrete (RC)
Bond-slip model
structures. In this study, the effect of the bond action in flexural behavior of GFRP RC slabs was investigated. The
Reinforced concrete structures
analysis was first performed by considering a perfect bond between the concrete and reinforcement and ignoring
any slippage. Next, an experimentally obtained bond-slip relation was used to replace the unrealistic perfect
bond assumption. The predicted flexural load-deflection response of the slab was compared to the experimental
data. The result obtained by incorporating the bond-slip model showed a better agreement with the experimental
data. Hence, considering the slippage between the GFRP and concrete may be necessary when accurate de-
flection estimate is required under the service condition. Additionally, it was shown that the perfect bond as-
sumption was sufficiently safe for the design of the GFRP RC slabs.
⁎
Corresponding author at: Walker Consultants, 850 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 310, Chicago, IL 60607, United States.
E-mail address: o.gooranorimi@umiami.edu (O. Gooranorimi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.027
Received 11 April 2017; Received in revised form 2 March 2018; Accepted 12 March 2018
Available online 13 March 2018
0263-8223/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
O. Gooranorimi et al. Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86
Table 1
Characteristics of the GFRP bar used as concrete reinforcement.
Surface texture GFRP Area (mm2) Modulus of Elasticity Ultimate Strength Ultimate Strain Poisson’s Ratio
(GPa) (MPa) (%)
Nominal Measured
Fine sand coated & helically 126.6 137.8 46.2 757.7 1.64 0.3
wrapped fiber
2. Concrete model
where σc and εc are the compressive stress and strain, σmax and εmax are
the experimentally determined maximum stress and strain which are
the cylindrical strength of concrete ( fc′) in MPa for the stress and 0.002
for the strain. Concrete used in this study was found to have an average
compressive strength of fc′ = 31.0 MPa. The elastic modulus of the
concrete was estimated based on the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
318 equation (i.e. E0 = 4730 fc′ in MPa) [36]. The resulted elastic
modulus was calculated as E0 = 26.3 GPa.
For the concrete under uniaxial tension, the stress versus crack
opening relation, proposed by Hordijik [37], was employed to present
the nonlinear portion of the stress-strain response:
w 3
σt ⎛ wt ⎞ ⎤ (−c2 wcrt ) − wt (1 + c 3) e (−c2)
=⎡
⎢1 + c1 wcr ⎥ e
⎜ ⎟
1
ft ⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦ wcr (2)
Fig. 1. The setup of the pull out test.
GF
wcr = 5.14
ft (3)
81
O. Gooranorimi et al. Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86
Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis on parameter α; pull-out load vs. slip at free end of the bar compared to the experimental results.
3. Bond-slip model The GFRP RC slab reinforced with one 12.7 mm diameter GFRP bar,
with the geometry shown in Fig. 4, was modeled with two-dimensional
Pull out tests were performed on GFRP bars embedded in concrete elements. The GFRP surface was idealized by a cylindrical shape [42]
cylinders to obtain experimental bond-slip data. The tests were per- and modeled as a linear-elastic brittle material. The measured area of
formed in the displacement control mode with a rate of 0.5 mm/min. the GFRP bar and the guaranteed mechanical properties provided by
Three linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT) were used to the manufacturer were employed in the FEM models (Table 1).
record the slip at the loaded and free ends of the bar as shown in Fig. 1. Due to the symmetry of the load and geometry, only half of the slab
The tested samples exhibited the pull-through failure mode. The test was modeled. The symmetry condition was enforced by imposing the
was stopped when a slip of 30 mm was achieved at the free end of the longitudinal displacement at the mid-span as zero (U1 = 0). The other
bar. The experimental data was employed to develop a parametric boundary condition was the roller support which implied the vertical
bond-slip law for the GFRP bars in concrete [32]. The proposed model displacement to be zero (U2 = 0) at support point. The load was applied
consists of three stages and five parameters as shown in Fig. 2 where τ in a displacement control configuration by imposing a vertical dis-
represents the bond stress and D refers to the corresponding slippage. In placement at the mid-span. The simulation was stopped when the mid-
this model, first the bond stress exponentially increases to the peak span deflection of the slab was equal to the average of experimentally
82
O. Gooranorimi et al. Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86
Fig. 6. Load vs. slab mid-span deflection using different concrete mesh sizes (considering perfect bond).
Fig. 7. Crack distribution in GFRP RC slab with the concrete mesh size of 15 mm (considering perfect bond).
obtained deflection at failure (22 mm). size of the reinforcement bar was not found to have a considerable
First, the slab was modeled by ignoring any slippage between the effect on the results. The mesh size of 5 mm was chosen for the GFRP
bar and concrete and next, the bond-slip model was incorporated. bar.
Translator elements in Abaqus were implemented to simulate the bond In order to incorporate the bond-slip relationship into the model,
action where a force-slip relationship was assigned to the translators translator elements were defined at the GFRP-concrete interface. The
[43,44]. Translator elements are defined at the GFRP-concrete interface bond-slip model was input as the property of the translator elements.
and consist of two nodes. The relative displacement of the nodes in the The translators were defined at the constant spacing of 45 mm as shown
slip direction is used to define the slippage at any location of the in- in Fig. 5. The dimensions of the model are identical to the slab geometry
terface [45]. The parametric bond-slip law obtained from the pull-out shown in Fig. 4 except the slab length since half of the slab was modeled
tests on the GFRP bar was employed to assign the bond-slip law to the due to symmetry reasons.
translator elements. Plane stress square elements with four integration
point (CPS4) were chosen for both concrete and the GFRP bar. Four
4.1. Perfect bond
different concrete mesh sizes were investigated. To ensure the effec-
tiveness of the concrete plasticity model, mesh sizes bigger than the
The mesh sensitivity analysis was performed with four different
maximum aggregate size (dmax = 6 mm) were chosen [27]. The mesh
concrete mesh sizes of 20, 15, 10 and 7 mm. The results of the load
83
O. Gooranorimi et al. Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86
Fig. 8. Crack distribution in GFRP RC slab with the concrete mesh size of 10 mm (considering perfect bond).
Fig. 9. Crack distribution in GFRP RC slab with the concrete mesh size of 10 mm (bond-slip law implemented).
Fig. 10. Load vs. mid-span deflection of the GFRP RC slab: The result of numerical analysis compared to experimental data.
versus mid-span deflection of the slab are shown in Fig. 6. The result assumed to be parallel to the direction of the maximum principal plastic
obtained from the model with the mesh size of 15 mm showed the best strain. Hence, the plastic strain was adopted to illustrate the crack or-
agreement with the experimental data. ientation and propagation.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the crack propagation in the slab using the plastic
strain contour of the model with the concrete mesh sizes of 15 and
10 mm. Cracks initiate at points where the tensile stress in the concrete 4.2. Implementation of the bond-slip model
exceeds its tensile strength and leads to non-zero plastic strains
(εpl > 0). The direction of the vector normal to the crack plane is The concrete mesh size of 15 mm was used in this stage according to
the result of mesh sensitivity analysis performed for the model with the
84
O. Gooranorimi et al. Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86
Table 3 necessary when accurate deflection estimate is needed under the ser-
Ultimate load prediction of GFRP RC slabs. vice condition, the common perfect bond assumption is sufficiently safe
for design and ultimate load capacity calculation of the GFRP RC slabs.
PU-Th PU-Exp (kN) PU-FEM-1 PU-FEM-2
The proposed explicit bond modeling approach may be extended to
No. of Samples Ave (kN) Cov (%) prediction of the flexural behavior of different types of RC structural
(#) members reinforced with GFRP bars with various types of surface
characteristics and diameters.
GFRP RC 19.7 3 22.0 3.8 23.1 20.1
Slab
Acknowledgments
perfect bond. Fig. 9 shows the crack distribution in the slab using the The authors acknowledge the National Science Foundation for the
plastic strain contour. The load-deflection results obtained from both support provided to the Industry/University Center for Integration of
numerical models are shown in Fig. 10 and compared to the experi- Composites into Infrastructure (CICI) at the University of Miami under
mental data. grant IIP-1439543.
5. Discussions References
Both FEM analyses overestimated the initial stage of the load-de- [1] Nanni A, De Luca A, Jawaheri Zadeh H. Reinforced concrete with FRP bars: me-
flection result until the initiation of the first crack in concrete. The chanics and design. CRC Press; 2014.
[2] Mufti A, Banthia N, Benmokrane B, Boulfiza M, Newhook J. Durability of GFRP
concrete may demonstrated a tensile strength lower than the calculated composite rods. Concr Int 2007;29:37–42.
theoretical one which led to an overestimation of the load before the [3] Gooranorimi O, Nanni A. GFRP reinforcement in concrete after 15 years of service. J
initial crack appeared in the numerical models. Compos Constr 2017;21. 04017024 (1-13).
[4] Nanni A, Claure G, Caso y Basalo F, Gooranorimi O. Concrete and composites pe-
The FEM analysis by considering the perfect bond led to a consistent destrian bridge. Concr Int 2016;38(11):57–63.
overestimation of the load-bearing capacity of the slabs for the entire [5] Khatibmasjedi S, De Caso F, Nanni A. SEACON: Redefining Sustainable Concrete.
load-deflection response including the ultimate load capacity as shown The 4th International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and
Technologies (SCMT4); 2016.
in Fig. 10. On the other hand, the FEM analysis with the implemented
[6] Spagnuolo S, Meda A, Rinaldi Z, Nanni A. Curvilinear GFRP bars for tunnel seg-
bond-slip model provided a load-deflection response which has a better ments applications. J Compos Part B: Eng 2018;141:137–47.
agreement with the experimental data. In this analysis, an under- [7] Kwak H, Hwang J. FE model to simulate bond-slip behavior in composite concrete
beam bridges. Comput Struct 2010;88:937–84.
estimation of the load-bearing capacity occurred at the final stage of
[8] Maaddawy TA, Soudki KA, Topper T. Analytical model to predict nonlinear flexural
loading close to the ultimate capacity, while the rest of the predicted behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J 2005;102:550–9.
behavior is in a very good agreement with the experimental data [9] Yan F, Lin Z, Yang M. Bond mechanism and bond strength of GFRP bars to concrete:
(Fig. 10). Hence, incorporating the bond-slip into the model resulted in a review. J Compos Part B: Eng 2016;98:56–69.
[10] Chaallal O, Benmokrane B. Pullout and bond of glass-fibre rods embedded in con-
a more accurate prediction of the flexural behavior. crete and cement grout. Mater Struct 1993;26(3):167–75.
Additionally, in a design point of view, the slab ultimate load ca- [11] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Behavior and modeling of bond of FRP rebars
pacities obtained from two FEM analyses were compared to the ex- to concrete. J Compos Constr 1997;1(2):40–51.
[12] Achillides Z, Pilakoutas K. Bond behavior of fiber reinforced polymer bars under
perimental data and summarized in Table.3 which includes the average direct pullout conditions. J Compos Constr 2004;8:173–81.
experimentally obtained load capacity (PU-Exp), theoretical ultimate [13] Aiello M, Leone M, Pecce M. Bond performance of FRP Rebars-reinforced concrete.
capacity (PU-Th) introduced in ACI 440.1R [46] without applying any J Mater Civ Eng 2007;19:205–13.
[14] Islam S, Afefy H, Sennah K, Azimi H. Bond characteristics of straight- and headed-
safety factor and the ultimate load capacities obtained by two devel- end, ribbed-surface, GFRP bars embedded in high strength concrete. J Constr
oped FEM models. PU-FEM-1 and PU-FEM-2 refer to the ultimate load ca- Build Mater 2015;83:283–98.
pacity obtained by FEM model with the perfect bond and with im- [15] Hao Q, Wang Y, He Z, Qu J. Bond strength of glass fiber reinforced polymer ribbed
rebars in normal strength concrete. J Constr Build Mater 2009;23:865–71.
plemented bond-slip law, accordingly. Both FEM models provided
[16] Okelo R, Yuan R. Bond strength of fiber reinforced polymer rebars in normal
consistent results with the experimental ultimate capacity and can be strength concrete. J Compos Constr 2005;9:203–13.
useful tools for design purposes. Additionally, the results confirm that [17] Baena M, Torres L, Turon A, Barris C. Experimental study of bond behavior between
concrete and FRP bars using a pull-out test. J Compos Part B: Eng
the perfect bond assumption is sufficiently safe in the design of GFRP
2009;40(8):784–97.
RC slabs. [18] Won J-P, Park C-G, Lee S-J, Hong B-T. Durability of hybrid FRP reinforcing bars in
concrete structures exposed to marine environments. Int J Struct Eng
6. Conclusions 2013;4(1–2):63–74.
[19] Malvar LJ. Bond Stress-Slip Characteristics of FRP Rebars. DTIC Document; 1994.
[20] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Analytical modelling of bond between FRP
In analytical modeling of RC structures, scholars have usually ig- reinforcing bars and concrete. Non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete
nored the slippage between concrete and reinforcement and assumed a structures: proceedings of the second international RILEM symposium. CRC Press;
1995.
perfect bond. In this paper, the effect of incorporating the bond-slip [21] Masmoudi R, Masmoudi A, Ouezdou MB, Daoud A. Long-term bond performance of
model in predicting the flexural behavior of GFRP RC slabs was in- GFRP bars in concrete under temperature ranging from 20 °C to 80 °C. Constr Build
vestigated. The FEM model was developed by incorporating the proper Mater 2011;25(2):486–93.
[22] Yoo D-Y, Kwon K-Y, Park J-J, Yoon Y-S. Local bond-slip response of GFRP rebar in
concrete material and cracking parameters. First, a perfect bond was ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. J Compos Struct
considered between concrete and GFRP by ignoring any slippage. Next, 2015;120:53–64.
the bond-slip was explicitly modeled using a formulation obtained from [23] Antonietta Aiello M, Leone M, Pecce M. Bond performances of FRP rebars-re-
inforced concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 2007;19(3):205–13.
an experimental study. The load versus slab mid-span deflection results [24] Benmokrane B, Tighiouart B. Bond strength and load distribution of composite
obtained by incorporating the bond-slip model was in a better agree- GFRP reinforcing bars in concrete. ACI Mater J 1996;93(3):245–59.
ment with the experimental data. Considering the slippage between the [25] Hu H, Lin F, Jan Y. Nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened by fiber-reinforced plastics. J Compos Struct 2004;63:271–8.
reinforcement and concrete led to more realistic and precise predictions
[26] Nguyen V. Numerical modeling of reinforced concrete bridge pier under artificially
of the flexural behavior compared to the case which did not consider generated earthquake time-histories [Ph.D. dissertation]. University of
any slippage. Additionally, both FEM models provided an acceptable Birmingham; 2006.
prediction of the ultimate load capacity of the GFRP RC slab which is [27] Pesic N, Pilakoutas K. Tensile stress-strain relaxation as a failure precursor for FRP
strengthened RC beams. J Compos Struct 2015;125:530–41.
one of the main concerns in the design point of view. The results of this [28] Ooi ET, Yang ZJ. Modelling crack propagation in reinforced concrete using a hybrid
study also confirmed that while incorporating the bond-slip may be
85
O. Gooranorimi et al. Composite Structures 193 (2018) 80–86
finite element–scaled boundary finite element method. Eng Fract Mech [37] Hordijk DA. Local approach to fatigue of concrete [Ph.D. dissertation]. Delft
2011;78:252–73. University of Technology; 1991.
[29] Chen JF, Chen GM, Teng JG. Role of bond modeling in predicting the behavior of [38] Telford Th. Comité Eurointernational du Béton. CEB-FIP Model Code; 1990.
RC beams shear-strengthened with FRP U-Jackets. In: Proceedings of the 9th [39] Bazant ZP, Oh BH. Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. Mater Struct
International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer for Concrete Structures 1983;16:155–77.
(FRPRCS9); 2009. [40] Bazant ZP, Planas J. Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasi-brittle
[30] Tao Y, Chen JF. Concrete damage plasticity model for modeling FRP-to-concrete materials. CRC Press; 1998.
bond behavior. J Compos Constr 2015;19. 04014026 (1-13). [41] Rots JG. Computational modeling of concrete fracture [Ph.D. dissertation]. Delft
[31] ASTM D792. Standard test methods for density and specific gravity (relative den- University of Technology; 1988.
sity) of plastics by displacement. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; [42] Cox JV, Herrmann LR. Development of a plasticity bond model for steel re-
2013. inforcement. Mech Cohesive-Frictional Mater 1988;3:155–80.
[32] Gooranorimi O, Suaris W, Nanni A. A model for the bond-slip of a GFRP bar in [43] Li CQ, Yang ST, Saafi M. Numerical simulation of behavior of reinforced concrete
concrete. J Eng Struct 2017;146:34–42. structures considering corrosion effects on bonding. J Struct Eng 2014;140.
[33] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Onate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J 04014092 (1-10).
Solids Struct 1989;25:299–326. [44] Tohidi M, Yang J, Baniotopoulos C. Numerical evaluations of codified design
[34] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J methods for progressive collapse resistance of precast concrete cross wall structures.
Eng Mech 1998;124:892–900. J Eng Struct 2014;76:177–86.
[35] Saenz LP. Discussion of equation for the stress-strain curve of concrete-by Desayi P [45] ABAQUS 6.11 User manual; 2011.
and Krishan S. J Am Concr Inst 1964;61:1229–35. [46] ACI 440.1R. Guide for the design and construction of structural concrete reinforced
[36] ACI 318-14. Building code requirements for structural concrete. Farmington Hills, with FRP bars. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 2015.
MI: American Concrete Institute; 2014.
86