Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rehabiliation and Strengthening of RCC Structures by Using FRP Composites
Rehabiliation and Strengthening of RCC Structures by Using FRP Composites
Rehabiliation and Strengthening of RCC Structures by Using FRP Composites
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 10, October 2013)
I. INTRODUCTION This The maintenance, rehabilitation and upgrading of structural members, is perhaps one of the most crucial problems in civil engineering applications. 261
Moreover, a large number of structures constructed in the past using the older design codes in different parts of the world are structurally unsafe according to the new design codes. Since replacement of such deficient elements of structures incurs a huge amount of public money and time, strengthening has become the acceptable way of improving their load carrying capacity and extending their service lives. Infrastructure decay caused by premature deterioration of buildings and structures has lead to the investigation of several processes for repairing or strengthening purposes. One of the challenges in strengthening of concrete structures is selection of a strengthening method that will enhance the strength and serviceability of the structure while addressing limitations such as constructability, building operations, and budget. Previously, the retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures, such as columns, beams and other structural elements, was done by removing and replacing the low quality or damaged concrete or/and steel reinforcements with new and stronger material. However, with the introduction of new advanced composite materials such as fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites, concrete members can now be easily and effectively strengthened using externally bonded FRP composites. Retrofitting of concrete structures with wrapping FRP sheets provide a more economical and technically superior alternative to the traditional techniques in many situations because it offers high strength, low weight, corrosion resistance, high fatigue resistance, easy and rapid installation and minimal change in structural geometry. In addition, FRP manufacturing offers a unique opportunity for the development of shapes and forms that would be difficult or impossible with the conventional steel materials. Although the fibers and resins used in FRP systems are relatively expensive compared with traditional strengthening materials, labour and equipment costs to install FRP systems are often lower. FRP systems can also be used in areas with limited access where traditional techniques would be impractical.
CASE NO.
DETAILS Experimental grades of Concrete M-15, M20 and M-25 Experimental grades of Concrete M-15, M20 and M-25 Experimental grades of Concrete M-15, M20 and M-25 Experimental grades of Concrete M-15, M20 and M-25
Case-I
Case-II
Sagar (M.P.)
Case-III
Case-IV
All the specimens were tested in the Structural Engineering Laboratory of Gov. Engg. College SAGAR (M.P.). The testing procedure for the entire specimen was same. After the curing period of 28 days was over, the as washed and its surface was cleaned for clear visibility of cracks. The most commonly used load arrangement for testing of cylinders will consist of compression testing machine loading. Before testing the member was checked dimensionally, and a detailed visual inspection made with all information carefully recorded. Loads will then normally be increased again in similar increments up to failure, cracking and manual strain observations must be suspended as failure approaches unless special safety precautions are taken. If it is essential that precise deflection readings are taken up to collapse. Cracking and failure mode was checked visually, and a load/deflection plot was prepared. To meet the wide range of needs which may be required in fabricating composites, the industry has evolved over a dozen separate manufacturing processes as well as a number of hybrid processes. Each of these processes offers advantages and specific benefits which may apply to the fabricating of composites. Hand lay-up and spray-up are two basic moulding processes. The hand lay-up process is the oldest, simplest, and most labour intense fabrication method. The process is most common in FRP marine construction. In hand lay-up method liquid resin is placed along with reinforcement (woven glass fiber) against finished surface of an open mould. Chemical reactions in the resin harden the material to a strong, light weight product. The resin serves as the matrix for the reinforcing glass fibers, much as concrete acts as the matrix for steel reinforcing rods. The percentage of fiber and matrix was 50:50 in weight. The following constituent materials were used for fabricating the plate: 1. E-glass woven roving as reinforcement 2. Epoxy as resin 3. Hardener as diamine (catalyst) 4. Polyvinyl alcohol as a releasing agent Contact moulding in an open mould by hand lay-up was used to combine plies of woven roving in the prescribed sequence. A flat plywood rigid platform was selected. A plastic sheet was kept on the plywood platform and a thin film of polyvinyl alcohol was applied as a releasing agent by use of spray gun. Laminating starts with the application of a gel coat (epoxy and hardener) deposited on the mould by brush, whose main purpose was to provide a smooth external surface and to protect the fibers from direct exposure to the environment. 263
264
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
15/06/2013
M-15
12/07/2013
Single warp
55.45
313.94
3.
15/06/2013
M-15
12/07/2013
Double warp
77
435.95
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
16/06/2013
M-20
13/07/2013
Single warp
65.45
370.55
3.
16/06/2013
M-20
13/07/2013
Double warp
87
492.56
265
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
17/06/2013
M-25
14/07/2013
Single warp
69.23
391.96
3.
17/06/2013
M-25
14/07/2013
Double warp
98.76
559.15
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
18/06/2013
M-15
15/07/2013
Single warp
56.24
318.41
3.
18/06/2013
M-15
15/07/2013
Double warp
76.85
435.10
266
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
19/07/2013
M-20
16/08/2013
Single warp
64.84
367.10
3.
19/07/2013
M-20
16/08/2013
Double warp
85.88
486.22
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
20/07/2013
M-25
17/08/2013
Single warp
68.88
389.97
3.
20/07/2013
M-25
17/08/2013
Double warp
97.95
554.56
267
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
24/06/2013
M-15
14/07/2013
Single warp
56.29
318.69
3.
24/06/2013
M-15
14/07/2013
Double warp
76.15
431.13
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
26/07/2013
M-20
15/08/2013
Single warp
64.56
365.52
3.
26/07/2013
M-20
15/08/2013
Double warp
85.42
483.62
268
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
26/07/2013
M-25
15/08/2013
Single warp
67.28
380.92
3.
26/07/2013
M-25
15/08/2013
Double warp
96.70
547.48
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
27/07/2013
M-15
16/08/2013
Single warp
57.05
323
3.
27/07/2013
M-15
16/08/2013
Double warp
76.45
432.83
269
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
28/07/2013
M-20
17/08/2013
Single warp
64.95
367.72
3.
28/07/2013
M-20
17/08/2013
Double warp
85.92
486.45
Sr. No. 1.
Remark
Initial stage
2.
28/07/2013
M-25
17/08/2013
Single warp
68.15
385.84
3.
28/07/2013
M-25
17/08/2013
Double warp
96.25
544.93
270
271
272
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[2]
[3]
[17] [18]
[4]
[19]
[5]
[20]
[6]
[7]
273