Structural Behavior of Concrete Beams With Openings Reinforced With Innovative Composite Materials

International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-5 Issue-7, December 2015
Structural Behavior of Concrete Beams with

Openings Reinforced with Innovative Composite
Materials
Y. B. I. Shaheen, A. A. El Sayed
Abstract-This research aims at developing structural behavior

of Ferro-cement beams with openings. To accomplish this I. INTRODUCTION
objective, an extensive experimental program was conducted. In
addition theoretical mathematical models were investigated. The Building and housing sector in both developed and
experimental program comprised casting and testing of fourteen developing countries are one of the most dynamic sectors. It
reinforced concrete beams of dimensions consumes a large portion of the national resources, affects
200x100x2000mm.These beams are organized in six groups, other commercial and industrial sectors and reflects the
Group number one is the control group in which beams are cast social and economic class of nations. Construction sector is
using conventional reinforcement where beam B1 was reinforced
a labor intensive sector, in Egypt ninety two careers and
with two steel bars Φ12mm at the bottom and two steel bars
Φ10mm at top. Number of steel stirrups 16 Φ 8mm. Beam B2 is professionals depend on this vital section; moreover, 1.6
the same as B1 but with the addition of polypropylene fibers to million workers are working in this sector in a regular bases
the concrete matrix. Group two consists of casting three beams which constitutes 8.3% of the total formal working force,
namely B3, B4 and B5. Beam B3 was reinforced as B2 but with rather than indirect employment and feeding industries
two openings of dimensions 10x20 cm located at equal distances related to this sector. Therefore, the need for safe, economic
from the end of the beam. Beams B4 and B5 were reinforced with and sound construction techniques has increased in the past
two steel bars Φ 12mm at the bottom and two steel bars Φ10mm few decades to support both social and economic
at the top with two and four layers welded steel meshes development. Hence novel approaches, new materials, and
respectively. Group three comprises of casting and testing two
innovative construction methods are vital to ensure the
beams B6 and B7 with two openings 10x20cm located at equal
distances from the ends of beam and reinforced with one and two sustainable development (Mehlab 2005). Recently,
layers of expanded steel meshes respectively. Group four consists ferrocement has emerged as new construction material. ACI
of casting and testing beams B8 and B9 which reinforced with defines ferrocement as follows: “Ferrocement is a type of
one and two layers of fiber glass mesh for durability reason reinforced concrete commonly constructed of hydraulic
respectively. Group five consists of beams B10 and B11 having cement mortar reinforced with closely spaced layers of
three openings and reinforced with four layers welded steel relatively small wire diameter mesh. The mesh may be
meshes and two layers expanded steel meshes respectively. Group made of metallic or other suitable materials. The fineness of
six comprises beams B12, B13 and B14 with three openings and the mortar matrix and its composition should be compatible
reinforced with four layers welded steel meshes, two layers
with the opening and tightness of the reinforcing system it is
expanded steel meshes and three layers welded steel meshes
respectively. The test specimens were tested as simple beams meant to encapsulate. The matrix may contain discontinuous
under four line loadings on a span of 180cm. The performance of fibers.” Ferrocement differs from conventional reinforced
the test beams interms of strength, stiffness, cracking behavior, concrete in that it consists of closely spaced, single or
ductility, and energy absorption properties was investigated. The multiple layers of mesh or fine reinforcing bars completely
behavior of the developed beams was compared to that of the impregnated with cement mortar. The result is a thin walled
control beams. Two analytical models were modified and used to composite material with a much higher volume fraction of
suit the developed composite beams one to predict the first crack steel than conventional reinforced concrete. The mechanical
load based on the well-known principles of strength of materials, characteristics displayed approximate that of a
and the other one to determine the ultimate strength and mode of
homogeneous material and are different to conventional
failure based on the ultimate strength theory. The experimental
results showed that high ultimate and serviceability loads, better concrete in terms of strength and deformation. The effect is
crack resistance control, high ductility, and good energy not unlike that achieved with fiber glass reinforced resins.
absorption properties could be achieved by using the proposed Walls are usually much thinner than conventional reinforced
beams. Comparison between the experimental results and the concrete and the maximum cover on the reinforcing is as
results obtained from the theoretical model showed that there is a little as 5mm with 2mm being the average recommended
close agreement for all beams. This agreement verified the cover (ACI Manual of Concrete Practice 1998). The
validity of this model. development of ferrocement technology began in the 1840s
Keywords: Ferro-cement; Beams with openings; Experimental with J.L. Lambot who constructed a rowing boat using a
program; Structural behavior; Analytical model. composite of wires and cement. At the same time others
were developing conventional reinforced concrete. Further
development of ferrocement did not occur until the early
1940s when Pier Luigi Nervi resurrected the original
ferrocement concept. The development of ferrocement
Revised Version Manuscript Received on December 04, 2015.
Y. B. I. Shaheen, Professor of Strength and Testing of Materials, technology has primarily been done in the boat building
Faculty of Engineering, Menoufia University, Egypt. industry although ferrocement
A. A. El Sayed, Assoc. Prof., Modern Academy, Cairo, Egypt. has successfully been used for
many other applications such
as roof systems and silos
Published By:
Retrieval Number: G2246125715/2015©BEIESP Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
23 & Sciences Publication
Structural Behavior of Concrete Beams with Openings Reinforced with Innovative Composite Materials
(ACI Manual of Concrete Practice 1998). Since the groups, Group number one is the control group in which
early introduction of ferrocement, the applications of the beams are cast using conventional reinforcement where
new emerging material increased to include manufacturing beam B1 was reinforced with two steel bars Φ12mm at the
of structural elements such as walls, beams, slabs, and bottom and two steel bars Φ10mm at top. Number of steel
roofing systems and as repair material for different concrete stirrups 16 Φ 8mm. Beam B2 is the same as B1 but with the
elements. The applications of the ferrocement could now be addition of polypropylene fibers to the concrete matrix.
found in many places all over the world. For example, Group two consists of casting three beams namely B3, B4
prefabricated ferrocement wall panels have been used for and B5. Beam B3 was reinforced as B2 but with two
low cost housing in Malaysia, mosque domes constructed openings of dimensions 10x20 cm located at equal distances
with ferrocement are found in Indonesia and Jordan, unique from the end of the beam. Beams B4 and B5 were
and beautiful buildings with this technology are found in reinforced with two steel bars Φ 12mm at the bottom and
India, Cuba, and Bangladesh. In Malaysia, there are two two steel bars Φ10mm at the top with two and four layers
companies that construct ferrocement boats. Ferrocement is welded steel meshes respectively. Group three comprises of
a construction material that proved to have superior qualities casting and testing two beams B6 and B7 with two openings
of crack control, impact resistance, and toughness, largely 10x20cm located at equal distances from the ends of beam
due to the close spacing and uniform dispersion of and reinforced with one and two layers of expanded steel
reinforcement within the material. One of the main meshes respectively. Group four consists of casting and
advantages of ferrocement is that it can be constructed with testing beams B8 and B9 which reinforced with one and two
a wide spectrum of qualities, properties, and cost, according layers of fiber glass mesh for durability reason respectively.
to customer’s demand and budget. Recently, ferrocement Group five consists of beams B10 and B11 having three
has received attention as a potential building material, openings and reinforced with four layers welded steel
especially for roofing of housing construction (National meshes and two layers expanded steel meshes respectively.
Academy of Sciences 1973). Fahmy et al (1999 and 2008) Group six comprises beams B12, B13 and B14 with three
and others have conducted many investigations and reported openings and reinforced with four layers welded steel
the physical and mechanical properties of this material and meshes, two layers expanded steel meshes and three layers
made available numerous test data to define its performance welded steel meshes respectively. The test specimens were
criteria for construction and repair of structural elements. tested as simple beams under four line loadings on a span of
180cm, as shown in figure1. The performance of the test
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM beams in terms of strength, stiffness, cracking behavior,
The experimental program comprised casting and testing of ductility, and energy absorption properties was investigated.
fourteen reinforced concrete beams of dimensions
200x100x2000mm.These beams are organized in six
Published By:
Figure1: Details of reinforcing materials of all tested beams
High tensile deformed steel bars of (nominal diameter 10

III. MATERIALS
mm) were used in reinforcing all the concrete beams,
A. Cement used was the Ordinary Portland cement, type yield stress was determined as 400 MPa and its tensile
produced by the Suez cement factory. Its chemical and strength was 600 MPa.
physical characteristics satisfied the Egyptian Standard 2. Mild steel bars of 8 mm diameter were used in the short
Specification (E.S.S. 4756-1/2009) [19]. direction of plate. Its yield strength and its tensile
B. Fine aggregate used in the experimental program was strength were 240 MPa and 350 MPa respectively.
natural siliceous sand. Its characteristics satisfy the B) Reinforcing Meshes
(E.C.P. 203/2007) [17], (E.S.S. 1109/2008) [17]. It was 1) Expanded Metal Mesh: Expanded metal mesh was
clean and nearly free from impurities with a specific used as reinforcement for ferrocement plates. Its chemical
gravity 2.6 t/m3 and a modulus of fineness 2.7. and physical characteristics satisfy the Egyptian Standard
C. Super Plasticizer used was a high rang water reducer Specification (E.S.S. 262/2011) [23]. Table (1) shows the
HRWR. It was used to improve the workability of the technical specifications, mechanical properties and photo of
mix. The admixture used was produced by Sika Group expanded metal mesh.
under the commercial name of ASTM 2) Welded Metal Mesh: Galvanized welded metal mesh
(Sikaviscocrete), It meets the requirements of ASTM employed which obtained from China. Its chemical and
C494 (type A and F) [20]. The admixture is a brown physical characteristics satisfy the Egyptian Standard
liquid having a density of 1.18 kg/litre at room Specification (E.S.S. 262/2011). Table (2) shows the
temperature. The amount of HRWR was 1.0 % of the technical specifications, mechanical properties and photo of
cement weight. welded metal mesh.
D. Water was used, clean drinking fresh water free from 3) Polyethylene meshes: Two types of Polyethylene
impurities was used for mixing and curing the tested meshes were used, which obtained from Al Shrouk
plates according to the Egyptian Code of Practices Company of synthetic fibers namely CE121 and CE131.
(E.C.P. 203/2007)[17]. These types of meshes are made from high density
E. Reinforcing Materials polyethylene. "Geogrid" were used. Tables (3, 4) show the
A) Reinforcing Steel Bars properties and photos of these meshes.
1. High tensile deformed steel bars produced from the
Ezz Al Dekhila Steel - Alexandria was employed. Its
chemical and physical characteristics satisfy the
Egyptian Standard Specification (E.S.S. 262/2011) [21].
Published By:
Table (1): Technical Specifications and Mechanical Properties of Expanded Metal Mesh.
Style 1532
Sheet Size 1 × 10 m
Weight (Kg/m2) 1.3
Diamond size (mm) 16 x 31
Dimensions of strand (mm) 1.25 x1.5
Proof Stress (N/mm2) 199
Proof Strain × 10-3 9.7
Ultimate Strength (N/mm2) 320
Ultimate Strain× 10-3 59.2
Table (2): Technical Specifications and Mechanical Properties of Welded Metal Mesh.
12.5 × 12.5
Dimensions (mm)
Weight (gm. /m2) 430
Proof Stress (N/mm2) 400
Ultimate Strength (N/mm2) 600
1.25 × 1.5
Ultimate Strain × 10-3 (mm)
Proof Strain × 10-3 1.17
Table (3) Technical Specification of Polyethylene Mesh CE121 Polyethylene
Size of opening 12x12 mm
Thickness 3 mm
Weight 529 g/m2
Tensile Strength 24.7 MPa

Elongation in Longitudinal Direction 21%
Table (4) Chemical and physical properties of polypropylene fibers

Absorption Nil
Specific gravity 0.91
Fiber length Single cut
lengths
Electrical conductivity Low
Acid & salt resistance High
Published By:
IV. MORTAR MATRIX mixing with capacity of 0.05m3, where the volume of the
The concrete mortar used for casting plates was designed to mixed materials was found to be within this range. The
get an ultimate compressive strength at 28-days age of (350 constituent materials were first dry mixed; the mix water
kg/cm2), 35 MPa. The mix properties for mortar matrix were was added and the whole patch was re-mixed again in the
chosen based on the (ACI committee 549 report: 2008), and mixer. The mechanical compaction was applied for all
Egyptian Code Practices (E.C.P. 203/2007) [17], For all specimens. Mix properties by weight for the different groups
mixes, mechanical mixer in the laboratory used mechanical are given below in Table (5).
Table (5): Constituents of Mortar

Cement Sand /Cement W/C S.P./C
1 2 0.35 1%
V. SILICA FUME The first application of silica fume in the United States was
Silica fume is also known as micro silica, volatilized silica, conducted in Kentucky in 1982. The use of silica fume will
or condensed silica fume. It is a by-product from silicon make concrete with the following properties [20]:
metal and ferrosilicon alloy production. The material is a • Low heat of hydration, and reduced permeability.
very fine powder with spherical particles about 100 times • Retarded alkali-aggregate reaction, and reduced
smaller in size than Portland cement or fly ash. The freeze-thaw damage and water erosion,
diameters range from 0.02 to 0.5 μm with an average of 0.1 • High strength, and increased sulfate resistance,.
μm. Silica fume contains 85 to 95% non crystalline silicon The chemical analysis and physical properties of Silica fume
dioxide. shown in Table (6).
Table (6) Chemical Analysis and Physical Properties of the Silica Fume
Analysis and properties Mass %
SiO2 90.2
Al2O3 1.7
Fe2O3 0.4
CaO 2.1
MgO 1.7
Na2O 0.7
K2O 0.7
SO3 0.5
Loss on ignition (LOI) 2.5
Specific Surface Area (cm2/g) 200000
Specific gravity 2.21
VI. BEHAVIOR OF FERROCEMENT BEAMS patterns of all the tested beams were detected. The results of
As described beams were tested under three line loadings all test specimens are listed in Table 7.
and the deflection at each load increment was recorded at
the mid span. The load deflection curves for all the tested
beams were shown. The first crack initiation and
propagation was also observed for each specimen. The
effect of the parameters under investigation on the ultimate
moment, maximum deflection at ultimate load, ductility
ratio, energy absorption, and cracking behavior are
discussed in the following sections. The experimental results
of the test program and the discussions are presented.
Comparisons are conducted between the results of the
different test groups to examine the effect of the four
parameters under investigation; existence of openings, type
of reinforcing materials, numbers of layers of mesh
reinforcement and volume fraction of provided steel
reinforcement. The effects of these parameters on the
structural response of the developed beams in terms of the
strengths at first crack load, serviceability loads and their
respective ultimate loads were determined. Ductility ratio,
energy absorptions properties were determined. Cracking
Published By:
Table (7) First crack, serviceability, ultimate loads, ductility ratios and energy absorption properties of all the tested
beams.
Series Beam Volume P.serv, P.ult, def.F.C., max.def, Energy.abs,
F.C.,KN duct.ratio
No. No. Fraction% KN. KN. mm mm KN.mm
control
1 3.197 10 24.216 40 1.94 17.72 9.134021 447.125
B1
control
3.292 15 38.49 45 2.01 13.78 6.855721 435.55
B2
Beam
3.48 10 18.8 27 1.5 15 10 271.6
B3
Beam
2 2.544 15 18.874 30 3.95 14 3.544304 250.45
B4
Beam
2.862 10 14.795 36 1.17 18 15.38462 348.3
B5
Beam
2.756 10 11.027 40 5.52 32 5.797101 638.15
B6
3
Beam
3.287 15 29.324 45 3.29 17 5.167173 487
B7
Beam
3.428 10 5.686 25 1.95 18 9.230769 286.1
B8
4
Beam
4.11 10 18.733 28 3.55 20 5.633803 376.75
B9
Beam
3.025 15 20.028 32 4.87 19 3.901437 405.7
B10
5
Beam
3.475 20 22.7 38 5.85 19 3.247863 463.4
B11
Beam
3.477 20 25.65 33 5.42 13.57 2.50369 302.5
B12
Beam
6 3.645 15 31.09 32 3.25 13.74 4.227692 326.54
B13
Beam
4.095 20 26.676 40 5.41 14.57 2.693161 349.225
B14
Figures 2.1-2.14 show the load deflection curves for all

tested beams. The table shows the obtained results for the
first crack load, service load, and ultimate load, deflection at
ultimate load, ductility ratio, and energy absorption.
Ultimate load and deflection at ultimate load were measured
and obtained during the test, while the first crack load,
service load, ductility ratio and energy absorption were
determined from the load-deflection diagram for each tested
beam. The first crack load was determined from the load
deflection curve at the point at which the load-deflection
curve started to deviate from the linear relationship. The
Service load, or flexural serviceability load, is defined in
this investigation as the load corresponding to deflection
equal Span/250. Figures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 show first crack
load, serviceability load, ultimate load, ductility ratio, and
energy absorption for all tested beams respectively.
Published By:
Published By:
Published By:
4.1 Behavior of the Test Specimens and 5.41mm respectively. While the measured maximum
The Behavior of the conventional reinforced concrete and deflections reached were 13.57mm, 13.74mm and 14.57mm
that reinforced with closely spaced wire steel mesh differs as respectively.
a result of the uniformity of reinforcement distribution along 4.2 Behavior of ferrocement beams with openings
the section, geometry of reinforcement, type of Three beams were tested under four lines loadings and
reinforcement, specific surface area, volume fraction of the deflection at each load increment was recorded at two
reinforcement, and number of openings. These parameters points on the tested beams to draw the load-deflection
have effects on the serviceability load and deflection curves; crack initiation and propagation was also observed
control, cracking behavior, ultimate strength, ductility ratio, for each test specimen. The effect of the parameters under
and energy absorption properties. investigation on the ultimate moment, maximum deflection
at ultimate load, ductility ratio, energy absorption, and
4.1.1 Deformation Characteristics cracking behavior are discussed in the following sections.
The plotted central deflection of the test specimens against 4.3 Ultimate Load
the applied load is shown in Figures 2.1- 2.14. It can be seen It is clear from Table7 that employing welded galvanized
from these Figures that the load-deflection relationship of steel mesh, fiber glass mesh and expanded metal mesh in
the test specimens can be divided into three stages as reinforcing ferrocement beams with openings in series
follows: designations 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 is very effective in increasing
a) Elastic behavior until the first cracking. The load- their ultimate load than the other reinforcements formation.
deflection relationship in this stage is linear. The slope of The ultimate load of beam B4, volume fraction of
the load-deflection curve in this stage varies with different reinforcement of reinforcement 2.544% is much higher than
types of the test specimens. The end of this stage is marked that of beam B3, Vr equal 3.48%. It is interesting to note
by the deviation from linearity. The extent of this stage that the ultimate load of beam B5, Vr equal 2.862% is
varied with the type and number of layers of the steel greater than that of beam B4 as result of increasing the
meshes. number of layers of welded steel mesh. The ultimate load of
b) In the second stage, the slope of the load-deflection beam B7 which reinforced with two layers of expanded
curve changes gradually due to the expected reduction in the metal mesh, Vr equal 3.287% is greater than that of beam
specimens’ stiffness as the result of multiple cracking. The B6, Vr equal 2.756%. It is significant to note that employing
gradient of the load-deflection curve increases with the fiber glass mesh as reinforcement, beams B8 and B9
increase of the volume fraction of the reinforcement. decreased the ultimate load by approximately 38%.
c) In the third stage, large plastic deformation Comparing the reached ultimate loads of beams B10 and
occurred as the result of yielding of the reinforcing bars and B11 with three openings that there is much increase in
the steel meshes in the ferrocement beams. This stage was ultimate load of beam B11, Vr equal 3.4747%
terminated by failure of the test specimens. approximately 16% compared with that of beam B10, Vr
The load-deflection relationship for the control specimens equal 3.0251%. Comparing the ultimate loads reached for
was linear up to a load of 10kN approximately after which beams B12, B13 and B14 with three openings were 33, 38
the relation became nonlinear. For this group of specimens, and 40 KN respectively. It is interesting to note that the
the transition from the second to the third stages, as effect of employing irrespective of the type of mesh used is
explained before, was not distinct, while the first crack load significant in in increasing the ultimate loads reached.
occurred at a load equal 15KN for beam B2 due to the effect 4.3.1 Deflection and Ductility Ratio
of polypropylene fibers used. At failure, the mid-span All tested beams with openings showed typical three-stage
deflection reached 17.72mm and 13.78mm for beams B1 load versus mid-span deflection relationship. Under initial
and B2 respectively. For group 2, beams B3, B4 and B3 loading the load-deflection response was linear up to
with two openings located near the ends of beams, the cracking load. The second stage is defined by cracking
deflection at first crack loads were 1.5mm, 3.95mm and section behavior with the steel reinforcement behaving
1.17mm respectively while the maximum deflections at their linear elastic. Transition into third phase of behavior is
respective ultimate loads reached 15mm, 14mm and 18mm marked by yielding of the tensile reinforcement and non-
respectively. For group 3, beams B6 and B7 provided with linear material behavior. After yielding of tension steel,
two openings at their ends , the deflections at first crack beam behavior is defined by large increase in deformation
loads were 5.52mm and 3.92mm respectively. While the with little increase in applied load. All tested beams showed
recorded maximum deflections reached at their respective large deflection at ultimate loading, which is an indication
ultimate loads were 32mm and 17mm respectively. For of high ductility. Figures 2.1- 2.14 show the load central
group 4, beams B8 and B9 with two and three openings, the deflection curves for all the tested beams. Table 7,
deflections at first crack loads were 1.95mm and 3.55mm summarized comparison of deflections at serviceability
respectively. While the measured maximum deflections loads based on CP110. It is interesting to note that the value
reached 18mm and 20mm respectively. For group 5, beams of deflection according to serviceability load for beams in
B10 and B11 provided with three openings, the deflections series 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 was beyond the limit 7.2 mm and this
at first crack loads were 4.87mm and 5.85mm respectively. is predominant. Table 7 summarized comparison of the
While the measured maximum deflections reached 19mm serviceability loads based
and 19.5mm respectively. For group 6, which comprises according to span/250.
three beams with three openings, beams B12, B13 and B14,
the deflections at first crack loads were 5.42mm, 3.25mm
Published By:
It is interesting to note that higher serviceability loads energy absorption were 302.5, 326.54 and 2.69349.225
could be obtained for beams with openings in series 2, 3, 5 KN.mm respectively. Irrespective of the type of reinforcing
and 6. It is interesting to note from Table 7 that the highest materials, it is significant to note that increasing the volume
ductility ratio was found to be 15.385 for beam B5 in series fraction of reinforcement increasing the reached energy
designation 2, reinforced by steel bars and four layers of absorption. High ductility and energy absorption properties
welded galvanized steel mesh . Ductility ratio for beams in are very useful in dynamic applications.
series designation 1 was varied from 9.134 for beam 1 to
6.856 for beam B2, reinforced with conventional VII. FAILURE MODES
reinforcement. While ductility ratio for beams in series For all series designation of all the tested beams
designation 2 beams B3, B4 and B5 which provided with flexural failure occurred. Failure of the test specimens
two openings and reinforced with steel bars, two and three occurred due to reaching the ultimate stress of the
layers of welded steel mesh respectively and their ductility reinforcing steel mesh. However, none of mesh bars was
ratios were 10, 3.544 and 15.385 respectively. For series ruptured, which indicates that the strain in the steel mesh did
designation 3 beams B6 and B7, which reinforced with one not reach the ultimate strain of the steel mesh. After the end
layer and two layers of expanded steel mesh respectively, of each test, the specimen was removed from the testing
their calculated ductility ratios were 5.797 and 5.167 machine and the mortar cover was removed to expose the
respectively. For series designation 4 beams B8 and B9, reinforcing steel mesh. The visual investigation of the steel
which reinforced with one layer and two layers of fiber glass mesh confirmed that none of the bars has ruptured. The
mesh respectively, their calculated ductility ratios were reinforcing steel meshes did not rupture for this designation.
9.231 and 5.634 respectively. For series designation 5 beams Cracks differed in width, number, and propagation
B10 and B11, which reinforced with four layers welded directions according to the physical properties of each
steel mesh and two layers of expanded steel mesh designation. In the next section the crack patterns and
respectively, their calculated ductility ratios were 3.901 and distributions are discussed for each designation separately.
3.248 respectively. For series designation 6 beams B12, B13 5.1 Cracking Patterns
and B14, with three openings and reinforced with three Figures 8.1- 8.14 show side views of tensile crack
layers welded steel mesh, four layers welded steel mesh and patterns of all the tested beams with and without openings.
two layers of expanded steel mesh respectively, their For designation (1), flexural cracks developed near the mid-
calculated ductility ratios were 2.504, 4.228 and 2.693 span of the specimens of this designation. With the increase
respectively. Irrespective of the type of reinforcing of the load, the cracks propagated vertically and new
materials, it is significant to note that increasing the volume flexural cracks were developed rapidly. As the specimens
fraction of reinforcement decreasing the obtained ductility approached their failure load, the cracks started to propagate
ratio. wider. The crack width was observed; it was observed that
4.3.2 Energy Absorption the cracks were very wide as result of employing steel bars.
The experimental results given in Table 7 proved that as For designation (2) beams 3, 4 and 5, it is interesting to
the volume fraction for beams increase, energy absorption note that vertical flexural cracks started to develop close to
increased also. It is interesting to note from Table 7 that the the center of the span. As the load increased, more cracks
highest energy absorption was found to be 638.15 KN.mm started to develop and the crack at mid-span started to
for beam B6 in series designation 3, reinforced by steel bars propagate vertically towards the top surface of the specimen,
and one layer of expanded steel mesh. Energy absorption for while most of the developed cracks did not continue
beams in series designation 1 was varied from 447.125 for propagating. The crack widths were much less than those of
beam B1 to 435.55 KN.mm for beam B2, reinforced with designation (1). This could be attributed to the effect of steel
conventional reinforcement. While energy absorption for mesh in controlling the crack width. For series designation
beams in series designation 2 beams B3, B4 and B5 which 3, beams B6 and B7, which was reinforced with one layer
provided with two openings and reinforced with steel bars, and two layers of expanded metal mesh flexural cracks
two and three layers of welded steel mesh respectively and were less than series 1. It is interesting to note that very fine
their energy absorption were 271.6, 250.45 and 348.3 vertical cracks were developed than the previous designation
KN.mm respectively. For series designation 3 beams B6 and and the cracks were uniformly distributed along the middle
B7, which reinforced with one layer and two layers of 2/3 of the span. The observed crack widths were much less
expanded steel mesh respectively, their energy absorption than those of designation 1. This could be attributed to the
were 638.15 and 487 KN.mm respectively. For series effect of steel mesh in controlling the crack width. For
designation 4 beams B8 and B9, which reinforced with one beams in series designation 4, B8 and B9, which were
layer and two layers of fiber glass mesh respectively, their reinforced with one and two layers of fiber glass mesh 8,
calculated energy absorption were 286.1 and 376.75KN.mm the flexural cracks started to turn diagonally as the load
respectively. For series designation 5 beams B10 and B11, approached the failure load and one diagonal crack
which reinforced with four layers welded steel mesh and developed near the end. For series designation 5, beams
two layers of expanded steel mesh respectively, their B10 and B11, which reinforced with four layers of welded
calculated energy absorption were 405.7 and 463.4 KN.mm steel mesh and two layers of expanded steel mesh
respectively. For series designation 6 beams B12, B13 and respectively. At failure, very
B14, with three openings and reinforced with three layers narrow flexural cracks were
welded steel mesh, four layers welded steel mesh and two developed compared with
layers of expanded steel mesh respectively, their calculated beams in the previous series.
Published By:
For series designation 6, beams with three openings, B12, of developed cracks was more than the previous
B13 and B14, which were reinforced with three layers of designations and the cracks were uniformly distributed
welded steel mesh, four layers with welded steel mesh and along the whole of the span. The observed crack widths
two layers of expanded steel mesh respectively. The number were much less than those of the previous series
.
Figure 8.1 Cracking pattern of Beam B1
Published By:

compared to the control test specimen irrespective of
VIII. CONCLUSIONS the type of steel mesh and number of steel mesh layers.
The test results of the current experimental program showed
that the developed ferrocement beams with openings and 3. Beam B5 with two openings at both ends of the beam
reinforced with innovative reinforcing materials achieved and reinforced with four layers of galvanized welded
high strength, better deformation characteristics, crack steel mesh and steel bras without using stirrups, volume
resistance, high ductility and energy absorption properties. fraction of reinforcing materials, 2.862% showed the
Irrespective of the type and number of steel mesh layers and high ductility ratio, 15.385 of all the tested beams.
number of openings had better mechanical properties than 4. Beam B6 with two openings at both ends of the beam
conventional reinforced concrete beams. The results also and reinforced with one layer of expanded metal mesh
demonstrated that ferrocement concrete beams with and steel bras without using stirrups, volume fraction of
openings showed fine crack widths at failure without reinforcing materials, 2.756% showed the energy
spalling of concrete cover that is predominant. absorption, 638.15 KN.mm of all the tested beams.
Within the scope, parameters, theoretical and analytical 5. Increasing the number of the steel mesh layers in the
investigation considered in this research and based on the ferrocement forms increases the first crack load, service
test results and observations of the experimental load, ultimate load, and energy absorption. On the other
investigation; the following conclusions and hand it decreases the ductility of the beam.
recommendations may be drawn as follows: 6. Employing steel mesh in reinforcing concrete beams
1. Saving in the total reinforcing steel weight ranging with openings, irrespective of the type of steel mesh and
could be achieved by utilizing welded galvanized steel numbers of openings is significant in strengthening the
mesh, expanded metal mesh and fiber glass mesh for matrix surrounding the openings and consequently
durability reason. The saving in the steel weight ranged improving strength, deformation characteristics and
from 20% to 30%. cracking behavior with great saving of reinforcement.
2. The beams incorporating ferrocement forms and high
strength mortar matrix achieved higher first crack load,
serviceability load, ultimate load, and energy absorption
Published By:
7. All. tested beams with openings reinforced with various 19. E.S.S. 4756-1/2009, 2009, Egyptian Standard Specification for
Ordinary Portland Cement, Egypt.
types of steel meshes showed at failure cracking control 20. ASTM C 494-03, 2003, American Society for Testing and Materials:
without spalling of concrete cover that is predominant Chemical Admixtures, Philadelphia, USA.
due to the result of reducing stress concentration around 21. E.S.S. 262 /2011, 2011, Egyptian Standard Specification for Steel
Bars, Egypt.
the openings.
22. ACI Committee 549.1–R08. "Guide for the design, construction and
8. The theoretical methods for first crack and ultimate load repair of ferrocement". ACI Struct J 2008.
calculations provide good prediction for these loads and
the beam’s mode of failure.
9. The developed beams utilizing beams with openings
reinforced with innovative reinforcing materials could
be successfully used as an alternative to the traditional
reinforced concrete beams, which can be of true merit
in both developed and developing countries besides its
anticipated economic and durability merits. Further
research needs to be conducted to reach sound
recommendations for practical use especially for the
beams provided with four and five openings.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 549.1–R08. "Guide for the design, construction and
repair of ferrocement". ACI Structure Journal 2008.
2. Elsakka A. M. (2007), "Structural Behavior of Masonry Units with
Openings Strengthened With Ferrocement Layers Under
Compression Loadings", M.SC. Thesis submitted to Menoufia
University, Egypt.
3. E.H.Fahmy and Y.B.Shaheen, (1991), "Strengthening and Repairing
of Reinforced Concrete Tanks", Fourth Arab Structural Engineering
Conference 18-21 November,
4. E.H.Fahmy, Y.B.Shaheen, and Y.S.Korany,( January 1997,
"Repairing Reinforced Concrete Beams Ferrocement", Journal of
Ferrocement: 27 (1).
5. E.H.Fahmy, Y.B.Shaheen, and Y.S.Korany, (July 1997), "Use of
Ferrocement Laminates for Repairing Reinforced Concrete Slabs",
Journal of Ferrocement: 27 (3),
6. H. Fahmy, Y.B.Shaheen, Y.S.Korany, (April 1999), "Repairing
Reinforced Concrete Columns Using Ferrocement Laminates",
Journal of Ferrocement: 29, (2), 115-124
7. Hagenbach, T. M.,(Oct. 1972), "Experience of 300 Commercially
Built Craft in More Than 20 Countries, FAO Seminar on the Design
and Construction of Ferrocement Fishing Vessels", Wellington, PP.
22 (Also, Fishing News, West Byfleet, Surrey.)
8. Washington, D.C (Feb.1973), "Ferrocement: Applications in
Developing Countries", National Academy of Science, PP. 90.
9. (Jan. 1981) "Housing Application in Ferrocement", Journal of
Ferrocement (Bangkok), 11 (1) Special Issue, 108- 112.
10. Barberio, V., (May-June 1975), "CupulasDelgadas de Ferrocemento
Para UnaInstalacionIetica en el Rio Pirino, Revista" IMCYC (Mexico,
D.F.), 13 (74), 20-28.
11. Lee, S. L.; et al., (Nov. 1983)," Ferrocement: Ideas Tested at the
University of Singapore", Concrete International: Design &
Construction, 5 (11), 12-16.
12. Paramasivam, P.; Ong, K. C. G.; and Lee, S. L., (1988), "Ferrocement
Structures and Structural Elements, Steel Concrete Composite
Structures", R. Narayanan, Ed., Elsevier Applied Science Publishers
Ltd., 289-338.
13. Naaman, A. E., and Shah, S. P., (May 1976 “Evaluation of
"Ferrocement in Some Structural Applications,” Proceedings, 4th
IAHS International Symposium on Housing Problems (Atlanta),
Pergamon Press, Elms-ford, 1069-1085.
14. Mahmoud Abo El-Wafa and Kimio Fukuzawa " Flexural Behavior of
Lightweight Ferrocement Sandwich Composite Beams" Journal of
Science& Technology "Vol.(15), No. (1), 2010, JST(3)
15. Noor Ahmed Memon, Salihuddin Radin Sumadi and Mahyuddin
Ramli "strength and behavior of lightweight ferrocement -A erated
concrete sandwich blocks" Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering
18(2): 99-108 (2012).
16. Yousry B I Shaheen 1, Mohamed A Safan 2, Abdalla M "Structural
Behavior of Composite Reinforced Ferrocement Plates" concrete
research letters,Vol. 3 (3) Sept. 2012
17. E.C.P. 203/2007, 2007, Egyptian Code of Practice: Design and
Construction for Reinforced Concrete Structures, Research Centre for
Houses Building and Physical Planning, Cairo, Egypt.
18. E.S.S. 1109/2008, 2008, Egyptian Standard Specification for
Aggregates, Egypt.
Published By:

Structural Behavior of Concrete Beams With Openings Reinforced With Innovative Composite Materials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Behavior of Concrete Beams With Openings Reinforced With Innovative Composite Materials

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Structural Behavior of Concrete Beams With Openings Reinforced With Innovative Composite Materials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)

ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-5 Issue-7, December 2015

Structural Behavior of Concrete Beams with

Abstract-This research aims at developing structural behavior

Figure1: Details of reinforcing materials of all tested beams

High tensile deformed steel bars of (nominal diameter 10

Weight (Kg/m2) 1.3

Diamond size (mm) 16 x 31

Dimensions of strand (mm) 1.25 x1.5

Proof Stress (N/mm2) 199

Proof Strain × 10-3 9.7

Ultimate Strength (N/mm2) 320

Ultimate Strain× 10-3 59.2

Weight (gm. /m2) 430

Proof Stress (N/mm2) 400

Ultimate Strength (N/mm2) 600

Proof Strain × 10-3 1.17

Table (3) Technical Specification of Polyethylene Mesh CE121 Polyethylene

Size of opening 12x12 mm

Weight 529 g/m2

Tensile Strength 24.7 MPa

Table (4) Chemical and physical properties of polypropylene fibers

Table (5): Constituents of Mortar

Figures 2.1-2.14 show the load deflection curves for all

Figure 8.1 Cracking pattern of Beam B1

Figure 8.2 Cracking pattern of Beam B2

Figure 8.3 Cracking pattern of Beam B3

Figure 8.4 Cracking pattern of Beam B4

Figure 8.5 Cracking pattern of Beam B5

Figure 8.6 Cracking pattern of Beam B6

Figure 8.7 Cracking pattern of Beam B7

Figure 8.8 Cracking pattern of Beam B8

Figure 8.9 Cracking pattern of Beam B9

Figure 8.10 Cracking pattern of Beam B10

Figure 8.11 Cracking pattern of Beam B11

Figure 8.12 Cracking pattern of Beam B12

Figure 8.13 Cracking pattern of Beam B13

Figure 8.14 Cracking pattern of Beam B14

You might also like