International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2020, pp. 37-49, Article ID: IJCIET_11_08_004
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=11&IType=8
Journal Impact Factor (2020): 11.3296 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scope Database Indexed

FLEXURAL BEHAVIOUR OF BEAMS WITH

HYBRID CONFINEMENT
Anusuya Senthilkumar
Research Scholar, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering,
Annamalai University, India.

Dr. P.N. Raghunath

Professor and Head, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering,
Annamalai University, India.

Dr. K. Suguna
Professor, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering,
Annamalai University, India.

ABSTRACT
This study represented the experimental results of FRP strengthened HSC beams
with internal confinement. The first crack load, yield load, ultimate load, deflection at
first crack load, deflection at yield load, deflection at ultimate load and ductility
indices were the study parameters. The test beams of cross section 150x250 and 3000
mm in length were cast and tested. The beams were subjected to two-point loading
and tested up to failure. Deflections, crack width, spacing of cracks and number of
cracks were measured at all stages of loading. The results revealed that the ductility
performance improved considerably through the introduction of internal confinement
mechanism.
Keywords: Ductility, GFRP, HSC, Internal confinement, Strength
Cite this Article: Anusuya Senthilkumar, P.N. Raghunath and K. Suguna, Flexural
Behaviour of Beams with Hybrid Confinement, International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 11(8), 2020, pp. 37-49.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=11&IType=8

1. INTRODUCTION
Deformation capacity of concrete members is a demand of higher order in the context of
present-day structural design. This assumes greater importance when structural members or
systems are to be designed for seismic loading or any accidental impact. This requirement can
be accomplished through several techniques. A promising technique is confinement. The
desired degree of enhancement in ductility can be achieved through providing larger volume

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 37 editor@iaeme.com
 Anusuya Senthilkumar, P.N. Raghunath and K. Suguna

of transverse reinforcement or through provision of helical reinforcement or by providing

externally bonded metallic or non-metallic reinforcement. Ductility demand for normal
strength concrete and high strength concrete may be different. Hence the ductility provisions
for high strength concrete members needs special attention. The ductility of RC beams is
largely influenced by the degree of reinforcement, concrete strength and confining pressure. It
has earlier been reported that the ductility decreases with increase in the degree of
reinforcement and with increase in concrete strength. In this context, good confinement of
core concrete may prove to be beneficial towards enhancing the flexural ductility. This is
because the addition of confining pressure would subject the core concrete to a triaxial stress
condition resulting in a more ductile behaviour of the beam section. The above said practices
need to be promoted on a prolific scale for a sustainable built environment.
Provision of confinement would always increase the flexural ductility[1]. Use of higher
concrete strength and higher compression steel yield strength would lead to higher flexural
ductility[2]. The strength and ductility of HSC beams can be enhanced through the application
of rectangular tie reinforcement located in the compression zone of beams [3]. Properly detailed
sections made from confined high strength concrete would exhibit ductile response [4]. Beam
deflections and crack width are reduced in concrete with confinement in the form of spirals [5].
Fixing a minimum curvature ductility factor would be better than limiting the tension steel
ratio and neutral axis depth[6]. Increased flexural strength, enhanced ductility and reduced
crack width can be realised through externally bonded FRP sheets[7][14][15]. Limiting the depth
of neutral axis may be useful in enhancing the flexural ductility for high strength concrete
beams[8]. Bond resistance for concrete confined externally with FRP sheets is higher
compared to concrete confined internally with ordinary steel[9]. The flexural ductility of over-
reinforced high strength concrete beams can be enhanced through providing helical
reinforcement in the compression zone of beams[10][11][12][13].

1.1. Research Significance

The present study is to evaluate the flexural behaviour of high strength concrete beams having
internal confinement. The beams have also confined externally through UDCGFRP laminates.
The influence of cellular stirrups with UDCGFRP laminates on various performance
parameters such as first crack load, deflection at first crack load, yield load, ultimate load,
yield deflection, ultimate deflection, maximum crack width, deflection ductility and energy
ductility has been addressed.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
2.1. Test Materials
JSW cement of 53 Grade was used for all mixes. Fine aggregate used was natural river sand
with a specific gravity of 2.63 and conforming to grading zone II of IS 383- 1970
specification. Silica fume with a specific gravity of 2.2 was used as a micro-filler. The coarse
aggregate used was crushed granite with a specific gravity of 2.79 and passing through 20mm
sieve and retained on 12.5mm. To ensure better workability, a super plasticizer (BASF
Masterease 3701 Chemicals) was used. Concrete having a compressive strength of 67 MPa
was used. The designed mix proportion of 1:0.05:1.73:2.51 with a water cement ratio of 0.40
was used for all the test beams and the details are presented in Table 1. A slump of 70 mm
was obtained for the above mix proportion. The properties of GFRP laminates is represented
in Table 2.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 38 editor@iaeme.com
 Flexural Behaviour of Beams with Hybrid Confinement

Table 1 Constituents of Concrete Mix

Cement Silica fume Fine Aggregate Coarse Aggregate Water
425kg/m3 25kg/m3 780 kg/m3 20 mm - 680 kg/m3 180 l/m3
12 mm - 450 kg/m3

Table 2 Properties of FRP laminates

GFRP Property Size 3mm Size 5mm
Tensile Strength 446.9Mpa 451.5Mpa
Elastic modulus 13.965Gpa 17.365Gpa
Ultimate Elongation 3.02% 2.60%

2.2. Control Specimens

Control specimens were cast and tested for their compressive strength, flexural strength and
elasticity modulus. The details of specimens and test conducted are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Test Plan for Control Specimens

Specimen Tested conducted
No. of specimens
Type Size for
Compressive
Cube 150x150x150mm 6
strength
Modulus of
Cylinder 150x300mm 3
elasticity
Prism 100x100x500mm Modulus of rupture 6

2.3. Details of Tested Beams

Reinforced concrete beams of size 150x250x3000mm with a steel ratio of 0.603% were cast
and tested under static loading condition. A total of six beams have been cast and tested until
failure. The variables considered for this study included the thickness of GFRP laminates and
the spacing of stirrups. The details of tested beams are represented in Table 4.

Table 4 Details of tested beams

Beam Reinforcement Spacing of FRP Laminate
Designation Ratio Stirrups Type Thickness
CS10 0.603 200 UDC 0
CS20 0.603 100 UDC 0
CS11 0.603 200 UDC 3
CS21 0.603 100 UDC 3
CS12 0.603 200 UDC 5
CS22 0.603 100 UDC 5

2.4. Test Setup

The test specimens were tested for flexure by subjecting them to four-point bending. The
beams were supported on hinge at one end and roller at the other end. The beams had 100 mm
bearing on both ends, resulting in a test span of 2800 mm. Dial gauges and crack detection
microscope have been used for the measurement of deformations and crack width. The test
set-up is shown in Fig.1

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 39 editor@iaeme.com
 Anusuya Senthilkumar, P.N. Raghunath and K. Suguna

Figure 1 Test Setup and Instrumentation

3. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Control Specimens
The mechanical properties of hardened concrete such as compressive strength, modulus of
elasticity and flexural strength are presented in Table 5. The test up is shown through Figs. 2
to 4.

Table 5 Mechanical Properties of Hardened Concrete

Mechanical Property Experimental Results
Compressive Strength 67.27MPa
Elasticity Modulus 32.87GPa
Rupture Modulus 7.23MPa

Figure 2 Compression Test on Cube Figure 3 Flexure Test on Prism

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 40 editor@iaeme.com
 Flexural Behaviour of Beams with Hybrid Confinement

Figure 4 Compression Test on Cylinder

3.2. Beam Specimens

The present study comprised of testing six full-scale RC beams. The test results obtained for
the above beams are presented in Table 6. The study conducted hinged on deformation and
ductility performance.

Table 6 Principal Test Results

Beam Designation
Load and Deflection
CS10 CS20 CS11 CS21 CS12 CS22
First Crack Load (kN) 17.50 22.50 27.50 32.50 35.00 37.50
Deflection at First Crack
1.24 1.46 1.82 2.52 3.78 4.20
Load (mm)
Yield Load (kN) 35.50 45.00 58.00 65.00 70.00 76.00
Deflection at Yield Load
2.52 3.78 4.20 4.46 5.82 6.80
(mm)
Ultimate Load (kN) 62.00 67.50 117.50 125.00 144.00 150.00
Deflection at Ultimate
7.82 12.10 13.80 16.12 19.78 25.84
Load (mm)

3.3. Load Deflection Relationship

The load defection response of the tested beams is shown in Fig.2. The responses were found
to be linear up to first cracking stage.
160
140
120 CS10
Load in kN

100 CS20
80 CS11
60 CS21
40
CS12
20
CS22
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection in mm
Figure 2 Load deflection response of tested beams

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 41 editor@iaeme.com
 Anusuya Senthilkumar, P.N. Raghunath and K. Suguna

The gradient of the response curves decreased gradually with the formation of more
number of cracks after the onset of first crack. On further loading longitudinal rebar’s started
yielding. The gradient of the response curves decreased significantly exhibiting higher
deflection after yield stage. This behaviour existed until the ultimate load was reached.

3.4. Influence of GFRP Laminates on Load Capacity

The first crack loads were obtained by visual examination. Beams CS11 and CS12 exhibited
an increase of 57.14% and 100% in first crack load when compared to the reference beam
CS10. Beams CS21 and CS22 exhibited an increase of 44.44% and 66.67% in first crack load
when compared to the reference beam CS20. Beam CS12 showed an increase of 27.27% in
FCL in comparison to CS11. Beam CS22 showed an increase of 15.38% in FCL in
comparison to CS21. The introduction of externally bonded UDCGFRP and cellular shear
links would have contributed to the above increase in load capacity. The percentage increase
in first crack load is presented in Fig.3.
100
100
Percentage Increase in First

80 66.67
57.14
60 44.44
Crack Load

40
20 0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam Designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 3 Percentage Increase in First Crack Load

The yield loads were obtained (by inspection) corresponding to the stage of loading
beyond which the load-deflection response was not linear. Beams CS11 and CS12 exhibited
an increase of 63.38% and 97.18% in yield load when compared to the reference beam CS10.
Beams CS21 and CS22 exhibited an increase of 44.44% and 68.89% in yield load when
compared to the reference beam CS20. Beam CS12 showed an increase of 20.69% in YL in
comparison to CS11. Beam CS22 showed an increase of 16.92% in YL in comparison to
CS21. The introduction of externally bonded UDCGFRP and cellular shear links would have
contributed to the above increase in load capacity. The percentage increase in yield load is
presented in Fig.4.

100 97.18
Percentage Increase in Yield

80 63.38 68.89
60 44.44
40
Load

20 0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam Designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 4 Percentage Increase in Yield Load

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 42 editor@iaeme.com
 Flexural Behaviour of Beams with Hybrid Confinement

The ultimate loads were obtained corresponding to the stage of loading beyond which the
beam would not sustain additional deformation at the same load intensity. Beams CS11 and
CS12 exhibited an increase of 89.52% and 132.26% in ultimate load when compared to the
reference beam CS10. Beams CS21 and CS22 exhibited an increase of 85.19% and 122.22%
in ultimate load when compared to the reference beam CS20. Beam CS12 showed an increase
of 22.55% in UL in comparison to CS11. Beam CS22 showed an increase of 20% in UL in
comparison to CS21. The introduction of externally bonded UDCGFRP and cellular shear
links would have contributed to the above increase in load capacity. The percentage increase
in ultimate load is presented in Fig.5.

140 132.26
Percentage Increase in Ultimate

122.22
120
100 89.52 85.19
80
60
Load

40
20 0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam Designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 5 Percentage Increase in Ultimate Load

3.5. Influence of GFRP Laminates on Deformation

Beams CS11 and CS12 exhibited a decrease in deflection of 65.32% and 95.16% in first crack
load when compared to the reference beam CS10. Beams CS21 and CS22 exhibited a
decrease in deflection of 43.15% and 36.99% in first crack load when compared to the
reference beam CS20. Beam CS12 showed a decrease of 86.05% in deflection at FCL in
comparison to CS11. Beam CS22 showed a decrease of 10.84% in deflection at FCL in
comparison to CS21. The introduction of externally bonded UDCGFRP and cellular shear
links would have contributed to the above decrease in deflection as a result of increase in
stiffness of the beam section. The percentage decrease in deflection at first crack load is
presented in Fig.6.

250
Deflection at First Crack Load

204.84
200 187.67
Percentage Derease in

150
100 72.6
46.77
50 0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam Designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 6 Percentage Decrease in Deflection at First Crack Load

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 43 editor@iaeme.com
 Anusuya Senthilkumar, P.N. Raghunath and K. Suguna

Beams CS11 and CS12 exhibited a decrease in deflection of 29.37% and 3.97% in yield
load when compared to the reference beam CS10. Beams CS21 and CS22 exhibited a
decrease in deflection of 39.95% and 21.96% in yield load when compared to the reference
beam CS20. Beam CS12 showed a decrease of 35.96% in deflection at YL in comparison to
CS11. Beam CS22 showed a decrease of 29.96% in deflection at YL in comparison to CS21.
The introduction of externally bonded UDCGFRP and cellular shear links would have
contributed to the above decrease in deflection as a result of increase in stiffness of the beam
section. The percentage decrease in deflection at yield load is presented in Fig.7.

140 130.95
Percentage Decrease in Deflection

120
100 79.89
80 66.67
at Yield Load

60
40 17.99
20 0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 7 Percentage Decrease in Deflection at Yield Load

Beams CS11 and CS12 exhibited a decrease in deflection of 35.55% and 22.38% in
ultimate load when compared to the reference beam CS10. Beams CS21 and CS22 exhibited a
decrease in deflection of 55.62% and 43.55% in ultimate load when compared to the reference
beam CS20. Beam CS12 showed a decrease of 43.33% in deflection at UL in comparison to
CS11. Beam CS22 showed a decrease of 60.30% in deflection at UL in comparison to CS21.
The introduction of externally bonded UDCGFRP and cellular shear links would have
contributed to the above decrease in deflection as a result of increase in stiffness of the beam
section. The percentage decrease in deflection at ultimate load is presented in Fig.8.

200
Percentage Decrease in Deflection

152.94
150
113.55
at ultimate Load

100 76.47
33.22
50
0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam Designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 8 Percentage Decrease in Deflection at Ultimate Load

3.6. Influence of GFRP Laminates on Cracking History

The details of cracking history are presented in Table 7. Beams CS11 and CS12 exhibited a
decrease in crack width of 36% and 60% when compared to the reference beam CS10. Beams

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 44 editor@iaeme.com
 Flexural Behaviour of Beams with Hybrid Confinement

CS21 and CS22 exhibited a decrease in crack width of 35.71% and 54.76% when compared
to the reference beam CS20. Beam CS12 showed a decrease of 37.5% in crack width when
compared to CS11. Beam CS22 showed a decrease of 29.63% in crack width when compared
to CS21. The introduction of externally bonded UDCGFRP would have contributed to the
above decrease in crack width as a result of increase in stiffness of the section. The percentage
decrease in crack width is presented in Fig.9.
60
60 54.76
Percentage Decrease in Crack

50
40 36 35.71
30
Width

20
10 0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam Designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 9 Percentage Decrease in Width of Crack

Beams CS11 and CS12 exhibited an increase in the number of cracks was found to be
75% and 133.33% when compared to the reference beam CS10. Beams CS21 and CS22
exhibited an increase in the number of cracks was found to be 41.18% and 100% when
compared to the reference beam CS20. Beam CS12 showed an increase of 33.33% in the
number of cracks when compared to CS11. Beam CS22 showed an increase of 41.67% in the
number of cracks when compared to CS21. The introduction of externally bonded UDCGFRP
would have contributed to the above increase in the number of cracks as a result of increase in
stiffness of the beam section. The percentage increase in number of cracks is presented in
Fig.10.

140 133.33
Percentage Increase in Number of

120
100
100
75
80
60 41.18
Cracks

40
20 0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam Designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 10 Percentage Increase in Number of Cracks

Beams CS11 and CS12 exhibited a decrease in the spacing of cracks was found to be
24.6% and 35.71% when compared to the reference beam CS10. Beams CS21 and CS22
exhibited a decrease in the spacing of cracks was found to be 21.43% and 42.86% when
compared to the reference beam CS20. Beam CS12 showed a decrease of 14.74% in the
spacing of cracks when compared to CS11. Beam CS22 showed a decrease of 27.27% in the

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 45 editor@iaeme.com
 Anusuya Senthilkumar, P.N. Raghunath and K. Suguna

spacing of cracks when compared to CS21. The introduction of externally bonded UDCGFRP
would have contributed to the above decrease in spacing of cracks as a result of increase in
stiffness of the beam section.
The percentage decrease in spacing of cracks is presented in Fig.11.

50
Percentage Decrease in Spacing of 42.86
40 35.71

30 24.6
21.43
Cracks

20

10 0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam Designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 11 Percentage Decrease in Spacing of Cracks

Table 7 Crack Width and Mode of Failure at Ultimate Load Stage

Beam Designation
Cracking History
CS10 CS20 CS11 CS21 CS12 CS22
Crack width 1.00 0.84 0.64 0.54 0.40 0.38
No. of cracks 12 17 21 24 28 34
Average spacing of
126 112 95 88 81 64
cracks
Mode of Failure Flexure Flexure Flexure Flexure Flexure Flexure

3.7. Influence of GFRP Laminates on Ductility Indices

The details of ductility indices are presented in Table 8. Beams CS11 and CS12 exhibited an
increase in energy ductility of 13% and 42.1% when compared to the reference beam CS10.
Beams CS21 and CS22 exhibited an increase in energy ductility of 54.38% and 76.94% when
compared to the reference beam CS20. Beam CS12 showed an increase of 25.75% in energy
ductility when compared to CS11.

80 76.94
Percentage Increase in Energy

70
60 54.38
50 42.1
Ductility

40
30
13
20
10 0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam Designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 12 Percentage Increase in Energy Ductility

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 46 editor@iaeme.com
 Flexural Behaviour of Beams with Hybrid Confinement

Beam CS22 showed an increase of 14.61% in energy ductility when compared to CS21.
The introduction of externally bonded UDCGFRP would have contributed to the above
increase in energy ductility as a result of increased deformability of the section. The
percentage increase in energy ductility is presented in Fig.12.
Beams CS11 and CS12 exhibited an increase in deflection ductility of 5.81% and 9.68%
when compared to the reference beam CS10. Beams CS21 and CS22 exhibited an increase in
deflection ductility of 12.81% and 18.75% when compared to the reference beam CS20.
Beam CS12 showed an increase of 3.66% in deflection ductility when compared to CS11.
Beam CS22 showed an increase of 5.26% in deflection ductility when compared to CS21. The
introduction of externally bonded UDCGFRP would have contributed to the above increase in
deflection ductility as a result of increased deformability of the section. The percentage
increase in deflection ductility is presented in Fig.13.

20 18.75
Percentage Increase in Deflection

15 12.81
9.68
10
Ductility

5.81
5
0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam Designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 13 Percentage Increase in Deflection Ductility

Table 8 Ductility Indices

Beam Designation
Ductility Indices
CS10 CS20 CS11 CS21 CS12 CS22
Deflection Ductility 3.10 3.20 3.28 3.61 3.40 3.80
Energy Ductility 6.77 5.94 7.65 9.17 9.62 10.51

3.8. Influence of GFRP Laminates on Energy Capacity

Beams CS11 and CS12 exhibited an increase in energy capacity of 219.7% and 449.8% when
compared to the reference beam CS10. Beams CS21 and CS22 exhibited an increase in
energy capacity of 120.93% and 322.55% when compared to the reference beam CS20. Beam
CS12 showed an increase of 72% in energy capacity when compared to CS11. Beam CS22
showed an increase of 91.26% in energy capacity when compared to CS21. The introduction
of externally bonded UDCGFRP would have contributed to the above increase in energy
capacity as a result of increased deformability of the section. The percentage increase in
energy capacity is presented in Fig.14.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 47 editor@iaeme.com
 Anusuya Senthilkumar, P.N. Raghunath and K. Suguna

449.88
450

Percentage Increase in Energy

400
350 322.55
300

Capacity
250 219.7
200
120.93
150
100
50 0 0
0
1 2 3
Beam Designation

200mm spacing 100mm spacing

Figure 14 Percentage Increase in Energy Capacity

Table 9 Energy Capacity

Beam Designation
CS10 CS20 CS11 CS21 CS12 CS22
Energy Capacity 303.14 562.73 969.17 1243.23 1666.97 2377.82

4. CONCLUSIONS
 The strength and ductility performance of high strength concrete beams improved
appreciably as result of the externally bonded UDCGFRP and internal confinement in
the form of cellular stirrups.
 A maximum increase of 132.26% in load capacity has been exhibited by the HSC
beam having cellular stirrups and externally bonded UDCGFRP laminates.
 HSC beam having cellular stirrups and externally bonded UDCGFRP laminate
exhibited a maximum decrease of 55.62% in deformation.
 A maximum reduction of 60% in crack width has been exhibited by the HSC beam
having cellular stirrups and externally bonded UDCGFRP laminates.
 HSC beam having cellular stirrups and externally bonded UDCGFRP laminate
exhibited an enhancement in ductility to the tune of 76.94%.
 A maximum increase of 449.8% in energy capacity has been exhibited by the HSC
beam having cellular stirrups and externally bonded UDCGFRP laminates.

REFERENCES
[1] A.K.H. Kwan, F.T.K. Au, S.L. Chau. (2004) Theoretical study on effect of confinement on
flexural ductility of normal and high strength concrete beams. Magazine of Concrete
Research,56, No.5, 299-309.
[2] A.K.H Kwan, J.C.M. Ho, H.J.Pam. (2016) Effects of concrete grade and steel yield strength
on flexural ductility of reinforced concrete beams. Australian Journal of Structural
Engineering, 5, No.2, 1-20.
[3] A.K Mohamed, A.S. Elamary, M.M. Ahmed. (2008) Flexural behaviour of over reinforced
HSC beams confined by rectangular ties. Journal of Engineering Sciences, 36, No.6, 1379-
1398.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 48 editor@iaeme.com
 Flexural Behaviour of Beams with Hybrid Confinement

[4] D. Galeota, M.M. Giammatteo, R. Marino. (1992) Strength and ductility of confined high
strength concrete, 2609-2613.
[5] H.H. Tee, K.A. Sanjery, J.C.L.Chiang. (2016) Behavior of RC beams with confined concrete
related to ultimate bending and shear strength. Proceedings of Engineering International
Conference, 1-9.
[6] J.C.M. Ho, A.K.H. Kwan, H.J. Pam. (2004) Minimum flexural ductility design of high
strength concrete beams. Magazine of Concrete Research, 56, No.1, 13-22.
[7] J.G. Dai, T. Ueda, Y. Sato, T. Ito. (2005) Flexural strengthening of RC beams using externally
bonded FRP sheets through flexible adhesive bonding. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures, 205-213.
[8] L.F.A Bernardo, S.M.R. Lopes. (2004) Neutral axis depth versus Flexural ductility in high
strength concrete beams. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130, 452-459.
[9] M.H. Harajli, B.S. Hamad, A.A. Rteil. (2004) Effect of confinement on bond strength between
steel bars and concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 101, No.5, 595-603.
[10] Muhammad N.S. Hadi. (2005) Helically reinforced HSC beams reinforced with high strength
steel. International Journal Materials and Product Technology, 23, 138-148.
[11] Muhammad N.S. Hadi, Nuri Elbasha. (2007) Effects of tensile reinforcement ratio and
compressive strength on the behaviour of over reinforced helically confined HSC beams.
Construction and Building Materials, 21, No.2, 269-276.
[12] M.N.S Hadi, N. Elbasha. (2008) The effect of helical pitch on the behavior of helically
confined high strength concrete beams. Construction and Building Materials, 22, 771-780.
[13] M.N.S Hadi, R. Jeffry. (2010) Effect of different confinement shapes on the behaviour of
reinforced HSC beams. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 11, No.4, 451-462.
[14] S.H. Hashemi, A.A. Maghsoudi, R. Rahgozar. (2009) Bending response of HSRC beams
strengthened with FRP sheets. Scientia Iranica, 16, No.2, 138-146.
[15] S.H. Hashemi. (2015) Ductile design of high strength reinforced concrete beams strengthening
with FRP plates. Iranian Journal of Structural Engineering, 2, No.2, 78-85.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 49 editor@iaeme.com