Site Director: Dr. Sami Rizkalla Associate Director: Dr. Rudi Seracino Date: February 1 st, 2011

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Site Director: Dr. Sami Rizkalla Associate Director: Dr. Rudi Seracino Date: February 1 st, 2011"

Sarah Stanley
6 years ago
Views:

1 Site Director: Dr. Sami Rizkalla Associate Director: Dr. Rudi Seracino Date: February 1 st, 2011

2 AltusGroup, Inc. Freyssinet, Inc. Fyfe Company, LLC Grancrete, Inc. Martin Marietta Composites Nippon Steel Materials Co., Ltd. 2

3 Korea Institute of Construction Technology (KICT) Millikan & Company KPFF, Inc. 3

4 NCSU-1. Rapid FRP Repair of Damaged Reinforced Concrete Columns NCSU-2. 3-D FRP Sandwich Panels with Corrugated Sheets for Bridge Decks NCSU-3. Innovative Bonding and Fibers for Strengthening Concrete Structures NCSU-4. Innovative FRP Shear Transfer Mechanism for Precast Prestressed Concrete Sandwich Panels NCSU-5. FRP Anchorage Systems for Strengthening Infill Masonry Structures (Please complete LIFE forms for these projects) 4

5 PI: Dr. Rudi Seracino Industrial Collaborator: Fyfe Company, LLC Student: Amy Byrum (Hao Hu & Ty Rutledge) Overview: Develop rapid FRP repair techniques for damaged RC columns with buckled and/or ruptured longitudinal reinforcing steel. Budget: $25,000 5

6 Motivation Rapidly restore lost strength and ductility of damaged RC columns Currently, FRP repair not permitted when longitudinal bars are not straight Research Plan Phase I Confined Cylinder Tests Phase II Full-Scale Column Repair 6

7 Phase I Cylinder Tests with 3 parameters 1. FRP Material 2. Core Material 3. Adhesive Direct axial compression in order to determine confined stress-strain properties 7

8 Phase I - Repair System Design Types of FRP Carbon Fiber Reinforcing Fabric Unidirectional Open Weave Basalt Fabric 0/90 bidirectional 8

minutes Adhesive Regular Epoxy 7 day full cure Rapid Cure Epoxy 48

9 Phase I - Repair System Design Core Material PC Concrete 5000 psi Rapid Curing Cementitious Patching Material 4500 psi Initial set in 3-5 minutes Adhesive Regular Epoxy 7 day full cure Rapid Cure Epoxy 48 minute gel time Cementitious Bonding Matrix 50 min workability time Interlocks fibers 9

10 Phase I - Repair System Design Material Tests Tensile Properties of Composites and Epoxies (ASTM D3039 and ASTM D638) Tensile Properties of Basalt Cementitious Alternative and Dry Fibers 10

11 Phase I - Test Matrix Core Material Control (No Wrap) CFRP & 7- day Epoxy CFRP & Rapid Cure Epoxy Basalt & Bonding Matrix PC Concrete Rapid Patch Material layer 3 layers 1 layer 3 layers 1 layer 3 layers 1 layer 3 layers 1 layer 3 layers 1 layer 3 layers 11

12 Phase I Continuous Strain Field Measurement Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) Benefits Speckle Pattern 12

13 Phase I Phase 2 Compare data with existing confinement models Use proposed model to optimize design for wrapping damaged columns 13

Severely Damaged Ruptured reinforcing bars Remove loose concrete Add longitudinal

14 Future Work - Phase II (Column Repair) Moderately Damaged Buckled reinforcing bars Remove loose concrete Replace damaged concrete Apply repair system design Severely Damaged Ruptured reinforcing bars Remove loose concrete Add longitudinal reinforcement in concrete cover Replace damaged concrete Apply repair system design 14

15 15

16 PI: Dr. Sami Rizkalla Industrial Collaborator: Martin Marietta Composites Graduate Student: Gautam Sopal Objective: To Study the behavior of new 3-D GFRP sandwich panels with corrugated sheets under various loading conditions Budget: $50,000 16

17 Through fibers Top GFRP plies Bottom GFRP plies 3-D GFRP Sandwich Panel with corrugated sheets Additional corrugated sheets Centre Line 17

Direct Shear behavior Configuration Specimen Shear Modulus (psi) Transverse Steel plates Longitudinal Applied Load Ultimate Strength (psi) 1T 17754 242 2T 17728 Additional 251

18 Direct Shear behavior Configuration Specimen Shear Modulus (psi) Transverse Steel plates Longitudinal Applied Load Ultimate Strength (psi) 1T T Additional 251 3T steel strip 249 Average L L L Average Linear potentiometer 18 Typical test setup for ASTM 273 in transverse direction

19 Direct Shear behavior

fibers crushing Span 60 in Simple Support conditions Non-linear Behavior Avg.

20 Applied Load, Kips Applied Load, Kips One way flexural behavior Span 36 in Load vs Displacement Applied load through 220 kips actuator Load vs Displacement Failed due to localize crushing of top GFRP plies Span 48 in Span 60 in Foam cracking and through fibers crushing Span 60 in Simple Support conditions Non-linear Behavior Avg. Midspan Displacement, in Support Displacement potentiometer Midspan Displacement potentiometer Avg. Midspan Displacement, in 20 Typical test setup evaluating one way flexural behavior

plies Foam cracking and through fibers crushing Typical test

21 Applied Load, Kips Two way flexural behavior Load vs Displacement Failed due to localize crushing of top GFRP plies Foam cracking and through fibers crushing Typical test setup evaluating two way flexural behavior Avg. Midspan Displacement, in 21

and through fibers crushing Where, V= Experimental shear force = 43.5 Kips Q = 1 st moment of inertia = 2.

22 Applied Load, Kips Shear behavior Load vs Displacement Direct Shear results Configuration Avg. Ultimate Shear stress (psi) Transverse 247 Longitudinal 200 Failed due to localize crushing of top GFRP plies Foam cracking and through fibers crushing Where, V= Experimental shear force = 43.5 Kips Q = 1 st moment of inertia = 2.1 in 3 I = Moment of inertia = 10.1 in 4 Typical b = width test setup of the evaluating section = 46 shear in behavior 22 = psi Shear Span 12 in Avg. Midspan Displacement, in

23 Failure Modes Localize crushing Shear cracks Shear cracks Debonding between bottom plies and core corrugation Direct shear behavior One way and two way flexure behavior Shear behavior Bottom plies undamaged 23

24 Future experiments Direct One way compression fatigue behavior behavior Steel Plate Loading Plate Support Specimen 72 in x 18 in Steel Plate Specifications Applied No. Load of specimens - 2 No. of cycles 2 million Frequency 2 Hz Load range 6 to 10 kips Cut specimen 24 Load cell Typical test setup for one way fatigue behavior Typical test setup for direct compression study

25 Preliminary conclusions Panels failed under required failure modes Increased shear strength and shear modulus Perfectly linear and elastic behavior towards failure Localize crushing of top GFRP plies Bottom GFRP plies remained undamaged 25

26 Future study Quantify the effect of core corrugation Compare the fundamental characteristics Determine the possible degradation under cyclic loading Calibrate specific analysis approach Develop simple design guidelines 26

27 27

28 PI: Dr. Sami Rizkalla Industrial Collaborators : Grancrete, Inc., Nippon Steel Materials Co., Ltd., Fyfe Company, LLC, Freyssinet, Inc. Graduate Students: Adolfo Obregon-Salinas, Benjamin Mielke, Brian Mielke Objective: Investigate the effectiveness of various fiber strengthening systems using different adhesive materials. Budget: $125,000 28

29 Repair and Strengthening of Concrete Structures Using Grancrete/FRP System Parameters Application Method Type of Fiber Adhesive Material Fiber Reinforcement Ratio 29

30 Test Matrix 30 Cast Type of Fiber Adhesive Material Layers of Fiber Application Method Specimen ID NONE NONE NONE NONE Control 1 Glass Fibers (small ¼ grid) Basalt Grid Cast GS-G-1-C Grancrete PCW Paste 1 Layer Sprayed GS-G-1-S Epoxy Cast GS-E-1-C Grancrete PCW Paste Cast B-G-1-C 1 Layer Sprayed B-G-1-S Epoxy Cast B-E-1-C Grancrete PCW Paste 2 Layers Cast B-G-2-C NONE NONE NONE NONE Control 2 Glass Fibers (Large 1 grid) C-Grid Carbon Strand Sheet Grancrete PCW Paste Cast GL-G-1-C 1 Layer Epoxy Cast GL-E-1-C Grancrete PCW Paste Cast CG-G-1-C 1 Layer Epoxy Cast CG-E-1-C Grancrete PCW Paste Cast CS-G-1-C 1 Layer Epoxy Cast CS-E-1-C Grancrete PCW Paste 2 Layers Cast CS-G-2-C NONE NONE NONE NONE Control 3 Basalt Grid Carbon Strand Sheet 1 Layer Cast B-G-1-C Grancrete PCW Paste 2 Layers Cast B-G-2-C Epoxy 2 Layers Cast B-E-2-C 1 Layer Cast CS-G-1-C Grancrete PCW Paste 2 Layers Cast CS-G-2-C Epoxy 2 Layers Cast CS-E-2-C C-Grid Grancrete PCW Paste 2 Layers Cast CG-G-2-C Total number of slabs 24 I Application Method III Bonding Material Cast Sprayed IV Fiber Reinforcement II Type of Fibers Ratio Grancrete PCW paste ¼ Glass Grid vs Single Layer Basalt C-Grid Double Layer Carbon Strands 1 Glass Grid Epoxy vs

31 Test Results SLAB ID CRACKING YIELD MAX LOAD DEFLECTION AT DUCTILITY FAILURE Load (kips) Deflection (in) Load (kips) Deflection (in) (kips) 85% MAX LOAD (in) MODE CAST #1 Control * 5.18* Concrete Crushing GS-G-1-C Fiber Rupture GS-G-1-S Fiber Rupture GS-E-1-C Fiber Rupture B-G-1-C Concrete Crushing B-G-1-S * 6.44* Concrete Crushing B-E-1-C Fiber Rupture B-G-2-C Concrete Crushing CAST #2 Control Concrete Crushing GL-G-1-C Fiber Rupture GL-E-1-C Fiber Rupture CG-G-1-C Fiber Rupture CG-E-1-C Fiber Rupture CS-G-1-C Fiber Rupture CS-E-1-C Fiber Rupture CS-G-2-C Concrete Crushing CAST #3 Control Concrete Crushing B-G-1-C Concrete Crushing B-G-2-C Concrete Crushing B-E-2-C Fiber Rupture CS-G-1-C Fiber Rupture CS-G-2-C Concrete Crushing CS-E-2-C Fiber Rupture CG-G-2-C Fiber Rupture * Test stopped before reching 85% of maximum load. Maximum recorded deflection used instead. 31

32 MEASURED / CONTROL MEASURED / CONTROL Typical Test Results Max Load Yield Load Crack Load Load at different stages Ductility Data dimensionalized with respect to the control specimen 32

33 Test Results Relative % Increase in Max Load Per Fiber Area Glass Grid (1/4 spacing) Basalt Grid Glass Grid (1 spacing) C-Grid Carbon Strands 33

34 Effects Method of Application No major differences observed Both methods adequate for FRP application Spray Positive moment regions Cast Negative moment regions 34

capacity and decrease ductility Fiber grids with small spacing may cause

35 Effects Type of Fibers All fibers increased load capacity Basalt quality control Fibers with high tensile strength and modulus increase load capacity and decrease ductility Fiber grids with small spacing may cause localized debonding Carbon Strand Carbon-Grid 0.25 Glass Grid 1 Glass Grid Basalt Grid 35

Grancrete had slightly higher deflection and ductility

36 Effects Bonding Material Epoxy had slightly higher load capacity Epoxy caused fibers to rupture at a single crack Grancrete had slightly higher deflection and ductility Grancrete forms well distributed flexural cracks Grancrete Epoxy 36

37 Effects Fiber Reinforcement Ratio Higher reinforcement ratio increases flexural capacity Higher reinforcement ratio reduces ductility 1 Layer Carbon Strands 2 Layers Carbon Strands 37

38 Work In Progress I. Advanced Fiber Strengthening Systems for Concrete Structures Applied Load P P 38

39 Materials to be Investigated Fibers Carbon Strand Carbon Grid Glass Grid Adhesive Epoxy Cementious Bonding Matrix Grancrete Carbon Strand 0.25 Glass Grid 1 Glass Grid Carbon-Grid 39

40 Test Matrix Specimen ID Fiber Details Adhesive Application Reinforcement Ratio No. of Specimens CONTROL NONE NONE NONE NONE 2 HT-E-E HT -G-E-1 High Tensile Epoxy Externally Bonded (EB) 1.64 mm 1 EB 1.64 mm 1 HT -G-E-3 Carbon Strand EB 3.28 mm 1 Grancrete HT -G-E-4 EB 4.92 mm 1 HT -G-NSM NSM HM-E-E Epoxy EB 1.64 mm 1 HM-G-E-1 EB 1.64 mm 1 High Modulus HM-G-E-3 EB 3.28 mm 1 Carbon Strand Grancrete HM-G-E-4 EB 4.92 mm 1 HM-G-NSM NSM C-E-E Carbon Grid Epoxy EB 19 mm Grid 1 C-G-E Grancrete EB 19 mm Grid 1 C-C-E Cementious Bonding Matrix EB 19 mm Grid 2 G-G-0.25 Grancrete EB 0.25 inch Grid 1 Glass Grid G-G-0.5 Grancrete EB 1.0 inch Grid 1 Total Number of Slab Specimens 18 IV III Reinforcement Type Application of Fiber II Bonding Ratio Method Material Glass 1.64 Grid mm 3.28 mm Carbon EB Epoxy 4.92 mm Grid Grancrete 19 mm Carbon Grid Strands Cementious Bonding 0.25 and Matrix 1.0 Grid NSM 40

41 Reinforcement Ratio for Carbon Strands Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 41

42 Different Application Techniques Cut grooves for FRP strengthening Elevation View Plan View Externally Bonded (EB) Near Surface Mounted (NSM) 42

43 Work in Progress II. CFRP Strengthening System for Reinforced Concrete Structures 43

44 Motivation Experimental study of innovative CFRP sheet strengthening system for RC structures Phase I - Physical and Mechanical Properties and Aging Tensile Properties Creep (Tensile) Glass transition temperature Void Content Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Interlaminar Shear Strength Phase II - Large Specimen Testing RC beams in flexure and shear RC slabs in flexure RC columns in axial compression 44

45 Physical and Mechanical Properties and Aging Witness Panels Coupon Specimens Testing Tensile Properties 45

46 Large Specimen Testing (c) Column 46

47 Test Matrix Beams and Slabs 47

48 Test Matrix Columns 48

49 49

50 PI: Dr. Sami Rizkalla Industrial Collaborator: AltusGroup, Inc. Graduate Students: Greg Bunn Overview : Investigate the fundamental properties of a unique CFRP shear transfer mechanism. Budget : $50,000 50

51 Precast, reinforced, and prestressed concrete sandwich panels have been produced for over 50 years. Panels are typically load bearing and provide insulating value. 51

separates the two wythes of concrete through truss

52 Provides up to 100% composite action by transferring all forces across the insulation that separates the two wythes of concrete through truss action. Creates a more thermally efficient building envelope. 52

53 Expanded Polystyrene Insulation (EPS) Closed-cell Insulation Manufactured by expanding a polystyrene polymer Extruded Polystyrene Insulation (XPS) Rigid Insulation Manufactured using and extrusion process of polystyrene polymer 53

54 Dual Reaction Frames 150 Kip Load Cell Two - 60 ton Hydraulic Jacks Linear Pots 54 Outer Wythes Supported

55 Insulation Type EPS XPS Insulation Thickness EPS XPS 2" 2" 4" 4" 6" 8" Panel Width 24" 36" 48" 72" CGRID Spacing 12" 18" 24" 36" Insulation Concrete Interface Bonded - Typical Practice Debonded - Plastic Sheets Breaking Bond CGRID Continuity No Gap 6" Gap CGRID Orientation Vertical Transverse 55

56 Load (lbs.) EPS.24.2.A Load vs Displacement - 8 Sensors LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4 LP5 LP6 LP7 LP Displacement (inches) 56

57 Load (lb) " Panel w/ 18" CGRID Spacing EPS.18.2.A EPS.18.2.B XPS.18.2.A EPS Insulation Shear Flow = lb/in Shear Stress = psi XPS.18.2.B Average Deflection (in) XPS Insulation Shear Flow = lb/in Shear Stress = psi

58 Load (lb) " Panel w/ 36" CGRID Spacing - 4" Insulation EPS.36.4.A 72EPS.36.4.B EPS Insulation Shear Flow = lb/in Shear Stress = psi XPS Insulation Shear Flow = lb/in Shear Stress = psi XPS.36.4.A XPS.36.4.B Average Deflection (in)

59 Load (lb) Transverse Panels EPS.36.2.TRANS.A 48EPS.36.2.TRANS.B Transverse XPS Panels Avg. Shear Flow = lb/in Avg. Shear Stress = psi Transverse EPS Panels Avg. Shear Flow = lb/in Avg. Shear Stress = psi XPS.36.2.TRANS.B XPS.36.2.TRANS.A Average Deflection (in) Scale changed from in.

60 Typ. Buckling of Cords in Compression Typ. Rupturing of Cords in Tension 60

61 Observed Pull-Out of CGRID in Some Cases Typ. Rupturing of Cords in Tension 61

62 T T 62

63 Load (lb) " EPS vs XPS - Tension Specimens " EPS EPS Max Strength = lb/in XPS Max Strength = lb/in " XPS Average Deflection (in)

64 64 P

65 Deflection (mm) 7 Creep - XPS vs EPS 45% Max Load 6 EPS XPS Time (days)

66 EPS insulation exhibits greater shear capacity. XPS panels rely primarily on the CGRID reinforcement. Increasing the thickness of EPS tends to have a negative effect on the shear capacity. Increasing thickness of XPS seems to have minimal effect. Tension tests exhibited similar behavior. 66

67 Analyze test data to provide design guidelines for use of CGRID as a shear transfer mechanism in precast concrete wall panels. Investigate the effect of freeze/thaw cycling on composite action. Complete 1 year creep testing In progress. Explore the use of other FRP and insulation types in wall panels. 67

68 68

69 PI: Dr. Sami Rizkalla & Dr. Tamon Ueda Industrial Collaborators: Fyfe Company, LLC & Nippon Steel Materials Co., Ltd. Graduate Students: Dillon Lunn & Shohei Maeda Objective: Explore the performance of innovative FRP anchorage systems for strengthening of masonry infill walls Budget: $50,000 69

70 Motivation Flexural Shear Sliding Failure 70

71 71 Test Setup

72 FRP Anchorage Systems Control Overlap Mechanical Embedded Bar Fiber Anchor 72

73 FRP Anchorage Systems Shear Key Near Surface Mounted 73

74 Shear Embedded Control Overlap NSM Fiber CFRP Key Anchor Restraint Bar Underside Top of GFRP Mortar Joint After Failure after Failure GFRP GFRP GFRP Horizontal Pullout Crack (Right) Anchor Rupture (left) NSM CFRP w/grancrete Debonding Shear keys Embedded NSM Bar Strands FRP Rupture GFRP Top Mortar Joint after Failure PET Top Mortar Joint after Failure GFRP Top Mortar Joint after Failure PET NSM CFRP w/epoxy PET PET Underside of PET after Failure Shear keys NSM Strands Anchor Pullout 74

75 75 Ultimate Strength Comparison

76 76 Ultimate Displacement Comparison

77 Future Work Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis Material non-linearity Geometric non-linearity Conclusions Increase in strength of between 1.6 to 7.2 times the control Change in displacement capacity ranged between 0.6 to 4.5 times the control Mode of failure closely related to type of anchorage GFRP typically provided greater strength, while PET provided greater ductility 77

78 78

79 Move to accept the Korea Institute of Construction Technology (KICT) as a member of the NSF I/UCRC Center for Integration of Composites into Infrastructure (CICI) for the period of Feb 1, 2011 to June 30, The research project that will be undertaken is the Use of FRP for Innovative Insulated Concrete Sandwich Panels. PI: Dr. Sami Rizkalla Graduate Student: Greg Bunn 79

FRP Anchorage Systems for Infill Masonry Structures

FRP Anchorage Systems for Infill Masonry Structures Dillon S. Lunn Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,