Investigation of Bending Behaviors of GFRP-Strengthened Steel RHS Profiles with Experimental and Numerical Models
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Studies
2.1. Material Properties
2.2. Preparation of Specimens
2.3. Experimental Setup
3. Finite Element Modelling
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Experimental Results
4.2. FEM Verification Results
4.3. Real-Size Beam FEM Analysis Results
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Polyzois, D.J.; Raftoyiannis, I.G.; Ungkurapinan, N. Static and dynamic characteristics of multi-cell jointed GFRP wind turbine towers. Compos. Struct. 2009, 90, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshurafa, S.A.; Polyzois, D. An experimental and numerical study into the development of FRP guyed towers. Compos. Struct. 2018, 201, 779–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundarraja, M.C.; Sriram, P.; Ganesh Prabhu, G. Strengthening of hollow square sections under compression using FRP composites. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014, 2014, 396597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaat, A.; Fam, A. Axial loading tests on short and long hollow structural steel columns retrofitted using carbon fibre reinforced polymers. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2006, 33, 458–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teng, J.G.; Yu, T.; Fernando, D. Strengthening of steel structures with fiber-reinforced polymer composites. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2012, 78, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schnerch, D.; Rizkalla, S. Strengthening of scaled steel–concrete composite girders and steel monopole towers with CFRP. FRP Compos. Civ. Eng. 2004, CICE 2004, 43–54. [Google Scholar]
- Pham, N.V.; Ohgaki, K.; Miki, T.; Hidekuma, Y. Seismic Retrofitting Method Using CFRP Sheets for H-Section Steel Beam with Variable Cross Section. J. Struct. Eng. 2022, 148, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capozucca, R.; Magagnini, E. Experimental response of masonry walls in-plane loading strengthened with GFRP strips. Compos. Struct. 2020, 235, 111735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, M.E.; Durmuş, A.; Hüsem, M. Cyclic behavior of GFRP strengthened infilled RC frames with low and normal strength concrete. Sci. Eng. Compos. Mater. 2019, 26, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Li, N.; Wang, Q.; Li, Z.; Qin, X. Shear Behavior of T-Shaped Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP. Buildings 2022, 12, 2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panda, K.C.; Bhattacharyya, S.K.; Barai, S.V. Shear behaviour of RC T-beams strengthenedwith U-wrapped GFRP sheet. Steel Compos. Struct. 2012, 12, 149–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundarraja, M.C.; Rajamohan, S.; Bhaskar, D. Shear Strengthening of RC Beams Using GFRP Vertical Strips—An Experimental Study. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2008, 27, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghayari, R.; Moradi, M. Improving the punching shear strength of RC slabs by FRP and steel sheets. J. Rehabil. Civil. Eng. 2016, 4, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Xian, G.; Guo, R.; Li, C.; Hong, B. Mechanical properties of carbon/glass fiber reinforced polymer plates with sandwich structure exposed to freezing-thawing environment: Effects of water immersion, bending loading and fiber hybrid mode. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2023, 30, 814–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, R.; Li, C.; Xian, G. Water absorption and long-term thermal and mechanical properties of carbon/glass hybrid rod for bridge cable. Eng. Struct. 2023, 274, 115176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirach, N.; Smith, S.T.; Yu, T.; Mostafa, A. Axial compressive behaviour of circular FRP-confined multi-tube concrete columns. Compos. Struct. 2022, 281, 114972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, F.; Wang, L.B.; Du, H.; Zhao, M.; Li, H.; Wang, F.Q.; Wang, S.J. Axial Compression Behavior of FRP Confined Laminated Timber Columns under Cyclic Loadings. Buildings 2022, 12, 1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.K.; Lin, W.K.; Guo, S.X.; Zeng, J.J.; Bai, Y.L. Behavior of FRP-confined FRP spiral reinforced concrete square columns (FCFRCs) under axial compression. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 45, 103452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, Z.; Han, L.H.; Zhuang, J.P. Axial loading behavior of CFRP strengthened concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2007, 10, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razavi, M.; Mostofinejad, D.; Eftekhar, M. Behavior of RC columns and those strengthened with FRP composite under an innovative reversing cyclic eccentric axial loading. Eng. Struct. 2021, 241, 112438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attari, N.; Youcef, Y.S.; Amziane, S. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete beam–column joint strengthening by FRP sheets. Structures 2019, 20, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zia, A.; Pu, Z.; Holly, I.; Umar, T.; Tariq, M.A.U.R. Development of an Analytical Model for the FRP Retrofitted Deficient Interior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljabar, N.J.; Zhao, X.L.; Al-Mahaidi, R.; Ghafoori, E.; Motavalli, M.; Koay, Y.C. Fatigue tests on UHM-CFRP strengthened steel plates with central inclined cracks under different damage levels. Compos. Struct. 2017, 160, 995–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljabar, N.J.; Zhao, X.L.; Al-Mahaidi, R.; Ghafoori, E.; Motavalli, M.; Powers, N. Effect of crack orientation on fatigue behavior of CFRP-strengthened steel plates. Compos. Struct. 2016, 152, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghafoori, E.; Schumacher, A.; Motavalli, M. Fatigue behavior of notched steel beams reinforced with bonded CFRP plates: Determination of prestressing level for crack arrest. Eng. Struct. 2012, 45, 270–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colombi, P.; Fava, G. Fatigue crack growth in steel beams strengthened by CFRP strips. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2016, 85, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghafoori, E.; Motavalli, M.; Nussbaumer, A.; Herwig, A.; Prinz, G.S.; Fontana, M. Design criterion for fatigue strengthening of riveted beams in a 120-year-old railway metallic bridge using pre-stressed CFRP plates. Compos. Part. B Eng. 2015, 68, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.; Feng, P.; Zhao, X.L. Fatigue design of CFRP strengthened steel members. Thin-Walled Struct. 2017, 119, 482–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Q.Q.; Chen, T.; Gu, X.L.; Zhao, X.L.; Xiao, Z.G. Fatigue behaviour of CFRP strengthened steel plates with different degrees of damage. Thin-Walled Struct. 2013, 69, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krishna, G.V.; Narayanamurthy, V.; Viswanath, C. Effectiveness of FRP strengthening on buckling characteristics of metallic cylindrical shells. Compos. Struct. 2021, 262, 113653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghafoori, E.; Motavalli, M. Normal, high and ultra-high modulus carbon fiber-reinforced polymer laminates for bonded and un-bonded strengthening of steel beams. Mater. Des. 2015, 67, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aydin, E.; Aktas, M. Obtaining a permanent repair by using GFRP in steel plates reformed by heat-treatment. Thin-Walled Struct. 2015, 94, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mostafa, A.A.B.; Razaqpur, A.G. Finite element model for predicting post delamination behaviour in FRP-retrofitted beams in flexure. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 131, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Damatty, A.A.; Abushagur, M.; Youssef, M.A. Experimental and analytical investigation of steel beams rehabilitated using GFRP sheets. Steel Compos. Struct. 2003, 3, 421–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Pham, P.; Mohareb, M.; Fam, A. Numerical and analytical investigation for ultimate capacity of steel beams strengthened with GFRP plates. Eng. Struct. 2021, 243, 112668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eltobgy, H.H.; Abu-Sena, A.B.; Abdelnabi, O.N. Behaviour of Rectangular Hollow Steel Beams Strengthened with CFRP Sheets Applied in Longitudinal and Transversal Directions. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2021, 10, 65–77. [Google Scholar]
- Tafsirojjaman, T.; Fawziaa, S.; Thambiratnam, D.; Zhao, X.-L. Numerical investigation of CFRP strengthened RHS members under cyclic loading. Structures 2020, 24, 610–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTM A370-10; Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials): West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
- Simulia, D. ABAQUS Version 6.13. Analysis User’s Manual; Abaqus 6.13 Documentation; Dassault Systèmes Inc.: Providence, RI, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hashin, Z. Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 1980, 47, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasery, M.M.; Ağacakoca, E.; Yaman, Z. Experimental and numerical analysis of impactor geometric shape effects on steel beams under impact loading. Structures 2020, 27, 1118–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shadan, P.; Kabir, M.Z. Enhancing Local Buckling Behavior of SHS Braces Using GFRP and CFRP Wrap. J. Compos. Constr. 2018, 22, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, B.; Roy, K.; Uzzaman, A.; Lim, J.B. Moment capacity of cold-formed channel beams with edge-stiffened web holes, un-stiffened web holes and plain webs. Thin-Walled Struct. 2020, 157, 107070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Specimen | Beam Length (mm) | SHS Section | GFRP | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Height (mm) | Width (mm) | Thickness (mm) | Length (mm) | Number of Layers | ||
Reference | 500 | 30 | 20 | 1 | N/A | - |
10_1LY | 500 | 30 | 20 | 1 | 100 | 1 |
10_2LY | 500 | 30 | 20 | 1 | 100 | 2 |
40_1LY | 500 | 30 | 20 | 1 | 400 | 1 |
40_2LY | 500 | 30 | 20 | 1 | 400 | 2 |
U5_1LY | 500 | 30 | 20 | 1 | 50 | 1 |
U5_2LY | 500 | 30 | 20 | 1 | 50 | 2 |
U10_1LY | 500 | 30 | 20 | 1 | 100 | 1 |
U10_2LY | 500 | 30 | 20 | 1 | 100 | 1 |
U40_1LY | 500 | 30 | 20 | 1 | 400 | 1 |
U40_2LY | 500 | 30 | 20 | 1 | 400 | 2 |
R-Reference | 5000 | 300 | 200 | 10 | N/A | - |
R-U50_1LY | 5000 | 300 | 200 | 10 | 500 | 1 |
R-U50_2LY | 5000 | 300 | 200 | 10 | 500 | 2 |
R-U75_1LY | 5000 | 300 | 200 | 10 | 750 | 1 |
R-U75_2LY | 5000 | 300 | 200 | 10 | 750 | 2 |
R-U100_1LY | 5000 | 300 | 200 | 10 | 1000 | 1 |
R-U100_2LY | 5000 | 300 | 200 | 10 | 1000 | 2 |
R-U125_1LY | 5000 | 300 | 200 | 10 | 1250 | 1 |
R-U125_2LY | 5000 | 300 | 200 | 10 | 1250 | 2 |
Material | Yield Stress (MPa) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Elastic Modulus (GPa) | Rupture Ratio (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Steel | 250 | 282 | 200 | 38 |
GFRP | - | 2300 | 76 | 2.97 |
Load (N) | Moment (N.mm) | Stiffness (N/mm) | Toughness (N.mm) | Ductility | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reference | 2423.44 | 242,344 | 1414.00 | 34,944.68 | 8.02 |
10_1LY | 2495.23 | 249,523 | 1266.47 | 36,851.44 | 7.15 |
10_2LY | 2573.08 | 257,308 | 1144.04 | 38,117.07 | 6.95 |
40_1LY | 2625.41 | 262,541 | 913.560 | 40,362.59 | 6.78 |
40_2LY | 2735.68 | 273,568 | 1006.96 | 42,975.62 | 6.14 |
U5_1LY | 2820.30 | 282,030 | 946.100 | 42,843.59 | 3.99 |
U5_2LY | 3034.40 | 303,440 | 695.410 | 45,521.35 | 4.78 |
U10_1LY | 3364.06 | 336,406 | 1260.21 | 50,467.63 | 6.98 |
U10_2LY | 3808.12 | 380,812 | 1070.47 | 55,221.32 | 5.34 |
U40_1LY | 3283.30 | 328,330 | 1300.52 | 51,648.10 | 7.78 |
U40_2LY | 3738.76 | 373,876 | 1160.36 | 57,333.70 | 5.34 |
Single Layers | Max. Load Exp (kN) | Max. Load FEM (kN) | Ratio | Double Layers | Max. Load Exp (kN) | Max. Load FEM (kN) | Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reference | 2423.44 | 2348.62 | 1.032 | ||||
10_1LY | 2495.23 | 2448.33 | 1.019 | 10_2LY | 2573.08 | 2529.66 | 1.017 |
40_1LY | 2625.41 | 2576.51 | 1.019 | 40_2LY | 2735.68 | 2613.28 | 1.047 |
U5_1LY | 2820.30 | 2821.52 | 1.000 | U5_2LY | 3034.40 | 2994.59 | 1.013 |
U10_1LY | 3364.06 | 3214.34 | 1.047 | U10_2LY | 3808.12 | 3736.65 | 1.019 |
U40_1LY | 3456.35 | 3283.3 | 1.053 | U40_2LY | 3816.72 | 3738.76 | 1.021 |
Load (kN) | Moment (kN.mm) | Stiffness (kN/mm) | Toughness (kN.mm) | Ductility | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
R-Reference | 234.86 | 281,832 | 15.93 | 6,392,471.65 | 3.04 |
R-U50_1LY | 237.60 | 285,120 | 16.22 | 1,227,768.47 | 2.27 |
R-U50_2LY | 246.91 | 296,292 | 16.45 | 2,968,398.45 | 1.72 |
R-U75_1LY | 237.63 | 285,156 | 16.59 | 4,125,568.28 | 2.08 |
R-U75_2LY | 253.69 | 304,428 | 16.29 | 4,169,123.36 | 1.92 |
R-U100_1LY | 234.93 | 281,916 | 16.17 | 7,217,145.15 | 3.25 |
R-U100_2LY | 236.84 | 284,208 | 16.19 | 7,614,190.16 | 3.17 |
R-U125_1LY | 237.74 | 285,288 | 16.64 | 4,068,293.58 | 2.16 |
R-U125_2LY | 241.45 | 289,740 | 16.84 | 4,110,550.36 | 2.08 |
Single Layers | Mp (kN.mm) | Shape Factor (FEM) | Shape Factor (Formulation) | GFRP Area (m2) | Double Layers | Mp (kN.mm) | Shape Factor (FEM) | Shape Factor (Formulation) | GFRP Area (m2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R-Reference | 281,880 | 1.211 | 1.211 | - | - | - | - | - | |
R-U50_1LY | 277,080 | 1.190 | 1.182 | 0.4 | R-U50_2LY | 282,000 | 1.211 | 1.219 | 0.8 |
R-U75_1LY | 277,140 | 1.190 | 1.206 | 0.6 | R-U75_2LY | 296,280 | 1.273 | 1.261 | 1.2 |
R-U100_1LY | 285,240 | 1.225 | 1.224 | 0.8 | R-U100_2LY | 301,680 | 1.296 | 1.292 | 1.6 |
R-U125_1LY | 289,800 | 1.245 | 1.238 | 1.0 | R-U125_2LY | 304,440 | 1.308 | 1.316 | 2.0 |
R-U150_1LY | 290,975 | - | 1.250 | 1.2 | R-U150_2LY | 311,181 | - | 1.337 | 2.4 |
R-U175_1LY | 293,276 | - | 1.260 | 1.4 | R-U175_2LY | 315,247 | - | 1.354 | 2.8 |
R-U200_1LY | 295,284 | - | 1.268 | 1.6 | R-U200_2LY | 318,811 | - | 1.369 | 3.2 |
R-U225_1LY | 297,066 | - | 1.276 | 1.8 | R-U225_2LY | 321,988 | - | 1.383 | 3.6 |
R-U250_1LY | 298,670 | - | 1.283 | 2.0 | R-U250_2LY | 324,858 | - | 1.395 | 4.0 |
R-U275_1LY | 300,128 | - | 1.289 | 2.2 | R-U275_2LY | 327,475 | - | 1.407 | 4.4 |
R-U300_1LY | 301,466 | - | 1.295 | 2.4 | R-U300_2LY | 329,883 | - | 1.417 | 4.8 |
R-U325_1LY | 302,701 | - | 1.300 | 2.6 | R-U325_2LY | 332,114 | - | 1.427 | 5.2 |
R-U350_1LY | 303,850 | - | 1.305 | 2.8 | R-U350_2LY | 334,193 | - | 1.436 | 5.6 |
R-U375_1LY | 304,923 | - | 1.310 | 3.0 | R-U375_2LY | 336,140 | - | 1.444 | 6.0 |
R-U400_1LY | 305,930 | - | 1.314 | 3.2 | R-U400_2LY | 337,971 | - | 1.452 | 6.4 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Boru, E.; Aydın, E.; Sadid, M.S. Investigation of Bending Behaviors of GFRP-Strengthened Steel RHS Profiles with Experimental and Numerical Models. Buildings 2023, 13, 1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051216
Boru E, Aydın E, Sadid MS. Investigation of Bending Behaviors of GFRP-Strengthened Steel RHS Profiles with Experimental and Numerical Models. Buildings. 2023; 13(5):1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051216
Chicago/Turabian StyleBoru, Elif, Emine Aydın, and Mohammad Saber Sadid. 2023. "Investigation of Bending Behaviors of GFRP-Strengthened Steel RHS Profiles with Experimental and Numerical Models" Buildings 13, no. 5: 1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051216