Advances in Structural Engineering

Experimental Investigation of Reinforced Concrete T-Beams Strengthened with Steel Wire
Mesh Embedded in Polymer Mortar Overlay

by
Guohua Xing, Tao Wu, Boquan Liu, Hua Huang and Songlin Gu
Reprinted from
Advances in Structural Engineering
Volume 13 No. 1 2010
MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.
5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 1 2010 69
Experimental Investigation of Reinforced Concrete
T-Beams Strengthened with Steel Wire Mesh
Embedded in Polymer Mortar Overlay
Guohua Xing
1,*
, Tao Wu
1
, Boquan Liu
1
, Hua Huang
1
and Songlin Gu
2
1
School of Civil Engineering, Changan University, Xian, 710061, P.R. China
2
Shanghai Xian Dai Construction Engineering Co. Ltd, Shanghai, 200070, P.R. China
(Received: 19 May 2008; Received revised form: 27 March 2009; Accepted: 16 April 2009)
Abstract: The application of steel wire mesh (SWM) and polymer mortar composites
to the surface of reinforced concrete (RC) members as external reinforcement is a
promising and recent new technique for strengthening and rehabilitating damaged
concrete elements. Five one-third-scale simply supported RC T-beams were tested
during this study. Four-point bending flexural tests were conducted up to failure on
one control beam and on four strengthened beams with different load histories. The
objectives of this investigation were to study the effectiveness of SWM and polymer
mortar composites in increasing the flexural strength of concrete beams and to study
the construction technology for further development. The main test parameters
included the amount of longitudinal SWM reinforcement and the load history. The
results demonstrate the feasibility of rehabilitating and strengthening RC members
with SWM composites and indicate that the ultimate strength of RC T-beams,
strengthened with SWM composites, is almost the same regardless of the load history
at the time of strengthening. A design procedure is presented with aim to predict the
flexural strength of T-beams strengthened with SWM composites. Good agreement
between experiment and predicted values was achieved.
Key words: steel wire mesh, polymer mortar, T-beam, strengthening.
*
Corresponding author. Email address: guohuachd@yahoo.com; Fax: +86-29-8233-7279; Tel: +86-29-8233-7279.
1. INTRODUCTION
The strengthening of a structure becomes necessary if its
stability and/or fitness for function under stipulated
conditions of use can no longer be guaranteed. More and
more of our buildings during their service life will
undergo structural transformations in order to meet the
demands of modern society. Apart from the need to
increase load capacity, upgrading of a structure may be
necessary because of deterioration due to corrosion,
accidental damage, a change in the structural system, or
to rectify initial design and construction faults. Many
strengthening methods are available, such as addition of
unstressed or prestressed steel, installation of external
prestressed reinforcement, externally bonding fibre
reinforced polymer composites (Toutanji et al. 2006;
Moon et al. 2007; Brena et al. 2003; Shahawy et al.
2001), increasing cross sections, and many others.
In this experimental study, steel wire mesh and polymer
mortar composites (Figure 1) were used for structural
strengthening. The use of SWM and polymer mortar
composites as external reinforcement is a promising and
recently developed technique for strengthening and
rehabilitation projects. Polymer mortar is an inorganic
material with good resistance to corrosion and fire, and
steel wire has the advantage of high strength-to-weight
ratio. Similarly, FRP type materials may have all of these
advantages. However, the main obstacles to the
widespread use of FRP remain its relatively high cost and
Experimental Investigation of Reinforced Concrete T-Beams Strengthened with Steel Wire Mesh Embedded in Polymer Mortar Overlay
70 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 13 No. 1 2010
lack of confidence in its long-term durability. In particular,
the cost factor is the more important (Huang et al. 2005).
SWM embedded in polymer mortar overlays are less
expensive composites than those which are currently
considered for applications in civil engineering, such as
for bridge and building repairs.
The typical strengthening scheme is shown in Figure 2.
A polymer mortar which requires only a few hours to
harden was used. This is an improvement over ordinary
cement mortar, which requires a minimum of several
days to harden. As the polymer mortar is overlaid on a
concrete surface that has deteriorated owing to strain lag
or strain concentration and may be separated from the
concrete matrix after flexural cracking, anchor blocks
are required to confine the polymer mortar to concrete
and to transfer the tensile stress in the steel wire to the
RC member. Thus, it is convenient for actual construction.
The research conducted so far on the flexural
rehabilitation of virgin RC beams using SWM
composites is quite limited and is of a preliminary and
exploratory character (Nie et al. 2005; Shang et al.
2005; El Debs et al. 1995). In most practical cases,
however, the technique generally benefits existing
structures in service that have experienced cracks or
other damage. To date, the research described in this
paper is the first to be undertaken on the effectiveness of
external strengthening with SWM composites of
precracked RC beams.
The objectives of this investigation were to address the
effectiveness of strengthening RC T-beams with SWM
and polymer mortar overlay and to study the construction
technology involved for further development. In addition,
the load carrying capacity and failure patterns of the
strengthened beams were experimentally assessed. This
objective was achieved by conducting the following tasks:
(1) testing flexural strength of RC T-beams strengthened
with SWM composites under different load histories;
(2) evaluating the failure modes; and (3) investigating the
improvement in serviceability limit states and ultimate
strength limit states.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
A simply supported beam representing a one-third scale
simple T-beam bridge was selected as the most suitable
specimen for the study. It provides a large surface area
for the application of the laminate, and it has a relatively
large area of compressive resistance in the flange.
2.1. Test Beams Details
A total of five beams were tested under static loading.
Four of the beams were strengthened with SWM
composites. All the specimens have identical dimensions
and were tested in four-point bending over a simple span.
Each specimen was 6600 mm long with a flange of 740 mm
in width, a tapering web of 90 mm average width and
650 mm depth. Twelve 14 mm diameter steel bars were
used as bottom longitudinal reinforcement and two 12 mm
diameter steel bars were used as top longitudinal
reinforcement. Plain 6 mm diameter stirrups were placed
at spacing of 100 mm centres The beams were reinforced
in this manner to prevent shear failure and to isolate the
flexural behaviour from shear behaviour. A clear
concrete cover of 20 mm for tensile reinforcement and
20 mm for compressive reinforcement was provided.
The cross-sectional details of the tested T-beams are
presented in Figure 3.
Figure 1. Strengthening materials
Figure 2. Strengthening detail
Concrete
Steel wire
Mesh
Anchor
bolt
Ploymer
mortar
Ploymer
mortar
740
350 20
90
212
6@100
88
28
1214
20
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
3
0
5
8
0
3
0
4
0
6
5
0
1
5
0
1
5
0
350
Figure 3. Cross section of T-beams
For the strengthened T-beams, the SWM composites
were bonded to the bottom and the vertical sides of the
web along the full length of the beam (U-jacketing).
Two steel wires were placed at the bottom surface of
each specimen for the tensile reinforcement, and another
two steel wires at a height of 30 mm from the bottom
were specified in the tension zone. The concrete control
beam RCBF-2 and the beam RCBF-3 and beam RCBF-5,
which were strengthened with SWM composites, were
tested up to failure in one test run (no preload
considered). The other strengthened beams, respectively
labeled RCBF-1, RCBF-4, were preloaded up to 65% of
the control yield moment. All preloaded specimens were
locked after preload, retrofitted with SWM composites,
and then cured before resuming the loading up to
failure. The details of the beams for testing were
presented in Table 1 and Figure 4.
2.2. Material Properties
The compressive strength of concrete for each specimen
was determined from three 150 mm cubes taken during
the casting of each T-beam. The results for the 28-day
average compressive strength are shown in Table 2. It
was a shame that the concrete strength was quite variable,
due to bad quality control of concrete at the construction
site. The 14 mm diameter steel bar used for longitudinal
reinforcement was type with average yield stress,
determined from three specimens, equal to 386 MPa, and
the 12 mm diameter steel bar was type with average
yield stress of 451 MPa. Stirrups were made of mild steel
type with an average yield stress of 553 MPa.
The following properties (average values) were provided
by the manufactures of the composite materials: effective
modulus, ultimate tensile stress and ultimate strain of the
wire = 105 GPa, 1535 MPa and 0.02, respectively; elastic
modulus and 28-day average compressive strength of
polymer mortar = 23.1 GPa and 63 MPa, respectively. The
stress-stain curve of the wire is presented in Figure 5.
2.3. Construction Procedure
Repair materials overlaid on the bottom surface of
concrete beam were used premix type inorganic polymer
mortars. The polymer mortars were constructed in a
layer 20 mm thickness. SWM materials embedded in
polymer mortar overlays were applied as follows: (1) the
bottom surface of the concrete was prepared for artificial
chiseling; (2) Anchor bolts were inserted in the concrete
layer and four reinforcing steel wires for strengthening of
diameter 3.2 mm were placed in the overlaid layer prior
to the application of the overlaying mortars; (3) The
surface was damp (saturated surface dry) with no
glistening water; (4) Liquid adhesive was applied as a
primer coat with a brush to improve the composite action;
Table 1. Test program
Steel Type of strengthening Preload prior to
Specimen Steel bars wires using SWM composites application of SWM, %M
y
*
RCBF-2 1214 0
RCBF-1 1214 43.2 U-jacketing 65
*
M
y
= experimental yield of control specimen RCBF-2.
(a)
2500
3300
550
5
8
5
2
5
4
0
250
5
8
0
3
0
4
0
8080 30 160
1
2
0
1
2
0
9
0
9
0
4
5
6
0
4
5
9
0
(b)
130
20
1
2
0
2
0
(c)
Figure 4. Details of strengthened beams
(5) The repair mortar was mixed by the methods
recommended by the manufacturer; (6) The mortar was
placed while the primer coat was still wet. The mortar
must be scrubbed into the substrate, filling all pores and
voids. And the polymer mortar then cured for at least
seven days in air so that the strength of the overlaying
materials could be sufficient. A photograph showing the
fixing of steel wire mesh is presented in Figure 6.
2.4. Test Set-Up and Procedure
All beams were subjected to monotonic loading up to
failure using a hydraulic machine of 2000 kN state
capacity. The load was applied incrementally in 2.0 kN
steps, as shown in Figure 7. Two concentrated loads at
1000 mm from mid span were applied to the beam
using a stroke control system. Elastomeric bearing pads
were used at the supports. The load was monitored
using a combination of load cells on the beam and
digital pressure gages in the hydraulic line. Deflections
were measured at the supports, load points, and mid-
span using linear voltage displacement transducers
(LVDTs). Strains were monitored at load points and at
mid-span using electrical resistance strain gage
transducers. All instruments were connected to a high
speed data acquisition system that made it possible to
monitor responses of the test specimen throughout the
investigation.
3. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Load-Deflection Curves
The load deflection responses for each of the tested
T-beams are shown in Figure 8. The loads and displacement
levels corresponding to cracking of the concrete, yielding
of the longitudinal reinforcement, and the capacity of
each of the beams are summarized in Table 3. The load
and displacement levels corresponding to cracking and
yielding were estimated from changes in the slope of the
measured load- deflection curves.
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
4000
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
0
0 8000
Strain ()
12000 16000 20000
Figure 5. Stress-stain curve of the wire
Figure 6. Fixation of steel wire mesh
Table 2. Material properties of the test specimens
Concrete Steel bar
Compressive Diameter Yield strength Ultimate
Specimen strength (MPa) (mm) Type (MPa) strength (MPa)
RCBF-1(2) 40.13 14 385.5 583.6
RCBF-3 25.57 12 450.8 719.1
RCBF-4 37.73 8 548.2 574.2
RCBF-5 23.14 6 553.1 579.1
Figure 7. Test set-up
As shown in Table 3, the load carrying capacity of the
strengthened beams increases significantly. It should be
noted that the ultimate load carrying capacity still
increased by 11.7% (average value) even though the
area of the steel wires is rather small. It can be expected
that the ultimate load carrying capacity will be increased
greatly by using larger amounts of steel wires.
The response of the strengthened specimens was
essentially the same as that of the control specimen before
the concrete cracked. After cracking, the strengthened
specimens tended to be stiffer than the control specimen.
The loads at yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement
increased by 10% and 3% for specimens RCBF-3 and
RCBF-5, and by 8% and 3% for specimens RCBF-1
and RCBF-4. Although numerous flexural cracks
formed in beams during this phase of the testing, the
SWM composites remained bonded to the surface of
the concrete until the steel bar yielded.
After yielding, the strengthened specimens continued
to be stronger and stiffer than the control beam. The
ultimate load carrying capacity of the strengthened
beams increased by 6% and 15%, compared to the
capacity of the control beam. Most strengthened beams
failed when the longitudinal composites debonded from
the surface of the concrete. This was a sudden mode of
failure, and there were few visual indicators that
debonding was imminent. Secondary cracks formed in
the vicinity of the flexural cracks after the steel bars
yielded, and these cracks tended to propagate along the
sides of the SWM composites. The beams experienced
small relative vertical movements on either side of the
flexural cracks within the shear span, and this
movement caused the composite materials to spall off
the concrete surface. Photographs of typical cracks for
the strengthened beams are shown in Figure 9.
As can be seen in Figure 8, all the specimens showed
three stages of displacement: precracking, cracking to
yield, and yield to crushing. For these beams, mid-span
deflection develops almost linearly with load, after initial
cracking, until yielding of the tension steel, deflection
increased rapidly with each increment of load, and
ultimately the concrete crushes as the beam collapse.
Table 4 summarizes the pertinent moments at mid-
span under given deflections in the serviceability limit
states. It clearly demonstrates the beneficial effects
of SWM composites with respect to stiffening and
600
750
450
300
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
150
0
0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
200 250
RCBF-2
RCBF-1
RCBF-3
RCBF-4
RCBF-5
Figure 8. Load-deflection curves
Table 3. Main test results
Cracking Yield Capacity
Load Load Displacement Load Displacement Displacement
Specimen Type kN kN mm kN mm ratio
*
Failure mode
RCBF-2 control 31.5 409.74 25.00 525.31 145.30 5.812 flexural failure
RCBF-1 strengthened 440.75 24.58 602.70 166.91 6.705 central peeling
RCBF-3 strengthened 36.5 451.76 23.74 556.83 169.99 7.161 region peeling
RCBF-4 strengthened 420.25 21.35 603.73 199.87 9.361 region peeling
RCBF-5 strengthened 35.8 420.25 22.53 584.25 175.28 7.780 central peeling
*
Displacement ratio is defined as displacement at maximum applied load divided by yielding displacement for test specimen.
Flexural
cracks
Longitudinal
cracks
Relative
offset
Figure 9. Photographs of typical cracks
strengthening. The percentage increase in mid-span
moments of the strengthened beams under given
deflections was significant. The moments increased by
7.9% (average value) compared to those of the control
beam at the deflection of L/1500, and the moments
increased by 9.3% compared to the control beam on the
deflection of L/1000. Similarly, the moments increased
by 10.2% compared to the control beam at the deflection
of L/500. Thus, the application of SWM composites
improves the flexural behaviour of T-beams in their
serviceability limit states. However, it should be noted
that the ultimate strength of RC T-beams, strengthened
with SWM composites, is almost the same as the control
specimen regardless of the load history at the time of
strengthening.
3.2. Test Process and Failure Pattern
The behaviour of the control beam RCBF-2, which was
used as a reference for the strengthened members, was a
ductile flexural response. The first visible crack was
observed at 31.5 kN; thereafter, the cracking became
extensive and crack widths increased steadily. The
shape of the load deflection curves indicates a loss of
stiffness at a load of approximately 409 kN. This was
due to yield of the steel bars which occurred at a mid-
span deflection of 25.0 mm. After this point, large
flexural cracks opened during the test and eventually
ultimate collapse occurred by concrete crushing within
the compression zone. The ultimate load recorded was
525 kN for RCBF-2.
Beams RCBF-3 and RCBF-5 were strengthened with
SWM composites in the tension zone. The first visible
cracks were observed at 36.5 kN and 35.8 kN,
respectively, and the subsequent crack distributions were
less dense and less extensive compared with those of the
control specimen for any given applied load. The yield
loads recorded were 451 kN and 420 kN, respectively.
The yield load can be identified as the elastic limit of the
tensile reinforcement. This is consistent with the slight
loss of stiffness of the T-beams beyond this load. After
this point, large flexural crack opened during the test.
The ultimate loads recorded were 556 kN and 584 kN
for RCBF-3 and RCBF-5, respectively. Beams RCBF-1
and RCBF-4 were strengthened with same moment as
beams RCBF-3 and RCBF-5, but the former were loaded
differently. The yield loads recorded were 440 kN and
420 kN for RCBF-1 and RCBF-4, respectively. The
ultimate loads recorded were 602 kN and 603 kN,
respectively.
The test indicates that perfect bond exists between the
steel wire and the surrounding polymer mortar, a
photograph of which is presented in Figure 10. The
control beam RCBF-2 failed by concrete crushing after
the steel bar reached its yielding strength. Since failure
was initiated by tensile steel yielding, the mode of
failure is determined as a flexural failure.
There were two failure patterns for the strengthened
beams: one failure pattern was a central peeling failure, in
which the test specimen failed at mid-span of the beam.
Separation of the polymer mortar and rupture of steel
wire were observed at mid-span of the beams after the
concrete started crushing. Hereinafter, the term separation
is used to indicate separation of the mortar fibre from the
bonded surface. Very little concrete or no concrete is
attached to the mortar. The separation of the polymer
Table 4. Summary of moments under given deflections at mid-span
Deflection
RCBF-2 RCBF-1 RCBF-3 RCBF-4 RCBF-5
at Moment Increase Moment Increase Moment Increase Moment Increase Moment Increase
mid-span (kN.m) (%) (kN.m) (%) (kN.m) (%) (kN.m) (%) (kN.m) (%)
L/1500 97.8 105.4 7.8 106.0 8.4 103.4 5.7 107.4 9.8
L/1000 134.6 150.4 11.7 143.0 6.2 146.8 9.1 148.0 10.0
L/500 248.6 279.0 12.2 263.2 5.9 274.6 10.5 278.4 12.0
Note: L is the span of T-beams.
Figure 10. Full bond between SWM and polymer mortar
mortar might be due to the excessive deflection of the
beams after the crushing of concrete in the compression
zone. The failure pattern is shown in Figure 11(a).
The other failure pattern which occurred was a region
peeling failure, in which the test specimen failed by
crushing of concrete at the two loading points. The
separated polymer mortar was observed for the length of
the constant moment region extending up to the
supports. The separation of polymer mortar with block
concrete indicated there existed a perfect bond between
the concrete surface and the polymer mortar. The failure
pattern is shown in Figure 11(b).
3.3. Relationship of Loads and Strain
Figure 12 displays the load-strain relationships of the
steel bar and steel wire at the bottom of beam RCBF-3.
The longitudinal strains are essentially the same in the
two materials at loads below cracking of the concrete.
After cracking, the strains in the steel wires exceeded
the strains in the steel bars. This response is expected
because the strain gages attached to the steel wires
were further from the neural axis than the strain gages
attached to the steel bars. As the applied load
approached the yield load for the strengthened
specimen, the strains in the steel wire increased more
rapidly than the strains in the steel bar. This is due to
perfect bond existing between the steel wire and the
surrounding polymer mortar (Figure 10). As the steel
bar reached its yield strength, the steel wire tended to
bear more applied load until failure than that of the
steel bar.
Figure 13 displays the strain distribution across the
depth of the mid-span section at 18%, 24% and 65%,
respectively, of ultimate applied loads for the test
specimens. The typically assumed linear distribution of
strains appears to be reasonable at low load levels but
does not represent the measured data near ultimate. It
should be noted that the measured steel wire strains for
all specimens at ultimate were considerably less than the
fracture strain reported by the manufacturers.
Table 5 summarizes pertinent results of the test
specimens in serviceability limit states. It clearly
demonstrates the beneficial effects of SWM composites
with stiffening and strengthening. The percentage of
decrease in the steel bar strain values for the
strengthened beams under given loads was significant.
The strain decreased by 59% when compared with the
control beam at the moment of 200 kN.m, and a
decrease in strain values between each type of beam is
also shown. Strain data shows a 200% improvement in
serviceability for strengthened member between the
fifth and second beam at different loads. This was
similar to all beams when compared with each other at
specific loads.
(a) Central peeling
(b) Region peeling
Figure 11. Failure pattern for strengthened beams
600
360
480
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
240
120
0
0 4000 8000
Strain ()
12000 16000
Steel bar
20000
Steel wire
Figure 12. Comparison of steel bar and steel wire strains
600
700
500
400
300
200
100
0
100
1000
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
m
)
500
Strain ()
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0.18 Ultimate load
0.24 Ultimate load
0.65 Ultimate load
Figure 13. Strain distribution across mid-span section
Table 5. Summary of rebar strain values under
given loads
Moment at
mid-span (kN.m)
Specimen Item 100 200 300
RCBF-2
Strain () 1301 1905 2801
Decrease (%)
RCBF-1
Strain () 878 789 2388
Decrease (%) 32.5 58.6 14.7
RCBF-3
Strain () 370 793 1277
Decrease (%) 73.9 58.4 54.5
RCBF-4
Strain () 460 779 2714
Decrease (%) 64.6 59.1 0.03
RCBF-5
Strain () 522 1085 1693
Decrease (%) 59.9 43.0 39.6
4. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF BENDING
MOMENT
As shown in Figure 14, the moment deflection curve can
be schematically divided into three straight lines. The
controlling points of the moment deflection are (
cr
,
M
cr
), (
y
, M
y
) and (
u
, M
u
).
Stage I: When the maximum moment increases from
0 to the cracking moment M
cr
, the mid-span deflection
increases from 0 to
cr
.
(1)
where I
g
is the moment of inertia of the gross section; f
tk
is
the tensile strength of concrete, which is
(MPa) for normal weight concrete (GB-50010 2002).
Stage II: When the maximum moment increases from
M
cr
to the moment corresponding to steel yield M
y
, the
mid-span deflection increases from
cr
to
y
.
The Hognestad stress block is used for concrete in
compression. It is assumed that strain distribution
along the depth of the beam section is linear. The
f f
tk cu
= 0 395
0 55
.
.
M
I f
h
cr
g tk
=
2
contribution of concrete in tension is ignored in the
derivation.
Figure 15 illustrates the assumed internal stresses in a
reinforced concrete beam strengthened using SWM
composites, the total compressive force given by the
concrete is
(2)
where
c
is the concrete strain at the extreme
compression fiber and c is the height of the concrete
compression block.
(3)
Thus,
(4)
The total bending moment M
c
given by the concrete
with respect to the neutral axis is:
(5)
(6)
Usually,
0
= 0.002, thus:
(7)
(8)
The strains in compression steel, SWM and concrete
at tension steel yielding are given by:
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)

c y
c
d c
=
0 003 .

w
w
y
h c
d c
2
2
=

w
w
y
h c
d c
1
1
=

s
c
y
c d
d c
k
c
c
2
2 375
3 500
=

k
c c 1
500 1 166 7 = ( . )
k
f d
f d c
c
c
c
c
c
2
0
0
0
1 2
3
1 3 8
1
= =

( )
( )
/

c
/3
0
M f bc d k k f bc
c c c c
c
= =
0
2 2
1 2
2
( ) /
k
f
f d
c c
c
c c
c
1
0
0 0
1
1
1
3
= =
( )
C k f bc
c c
=
1
C f bc d
c c c
c
=
( ) /

I
(
cr
, M
cr
)
II
III
(
y
, M
y
)
(
u
, M
u
)
Figure 14. Schematic model of moment deflection curve

(a) c h
f
(b) c>h
f
b
c
d
h
f
b
w
d
c f
s

=

E
s s
f
w2
=

E
w w2
f
w1
=

E
w w1
f
s
=

E
s s
f
c
=

k
1
f
c
C
s

=

A
s
f
s
T
w2
=

A
w2
f
w2
T
w1
=

A
w1
f
w1
T
s
=

A
s
f
s
C
c
=

k
1
f
c
bc
h
w
A
w2
h
w2
h
w1
k
2
c
A
w1
d
c f
s

=

E
s s
f
w2
=

E
w w2
f
w1
=

E
w w1
f
s
=

E
s s
f
c
=

k
1
f
c
C
s

=

A
s
f
s
T
w2
=

A
w2
f
w2
T
w1
=

A
w1
f
w1
T
s
=

A
s
f
s
C
c
=

k
1
f
c
b
w
c+k
1
f
c
(b-b
w
)h
f
c
d
h
w2
h
w1
K
2
c
b
h
f
b
w
h
w
A
w2
A
w1
Figure 15. Stressed and forces of beam cross section

And the yielding strain in tension steel is
y
= f
y
/E
s
.
As we all known, the neutral axis of a T-beam may be
either in the flange or in the web, depending upon the
proportions of the cross section, the amount of tensile
steel, and the strengths of the materials. If the calculated
depth to the neutral axis is less than or equal to the
flange thickness h
f
(Figure 15a), the beam can be
analyzed as if it were a rectangular beam of width equal
to b. The location of the neutral axis c is obtained by
solving the following equilibrium equation:
(13)
Thus, the yielding moment M
y
is given by:
(14)
If c is greater than h
f
(Figure 15b), the compression
concrete can be divided into two parts. The location of
M k k f bc A E c d A f d c
A
y c s s s c s y
w
= + +
+
1 2
2
1
( ) ( )
EE h c A E h c
w w w w w w w

1 1 2 2 2
( ) ( ) +
k f bc A E A E A E A E
c s s s s s y w w w w w w 1 1 1 2 2
+ = + +
the neutral axis c is obtained by solving the following
equilibrium equation:
(15)
Accordingly, the yielding moment M
y
is given by:
(16)
Stage III: When the maximum moment increases
from yielding moment M
y
to ultimate moment M
u
, the
mid-span deflection increases from
y
to
u
. Similarly,
if c is less than or equal to the h
f
(Figure 15a), the
ultimate moment M
u
is given by:
(17)
M k k f bc A E c d A f d c
A
u c s s s c s u
w
= + +
+
1 2
2
1
( ) ( )
EE h c A E h c
w wf w w w wf w

1 1 2 2 2
( ) ( ) +
M k k f b c k f b b h c h
A E
y c w c w f f
s s
= +
+
1 2
2
1
0 5 ( ) ( . )

s c s y
w w w w w w w
c d A f d c
A E h c A E
( ) ( )
( )
+
+ +
1 1 1 2 2 2 2
( ) h c
w

k f b c k f b b h A E
A E A E
c w c w f s s s
s s y w
1 1
1
+ +
= +
( )
ww w w w w
A E
1 2 2
+
where
(18)
k
1
and k
2
are determined using the same equations as in
stage II, c can be obtained from Eqn 13 and
wf1
is the
strain of bottom wire at beam failure,
wf 2
is the strain
of side face wire at beam failure. If the beam fails by
steel wire rupture,
wf1
is the ultimate strain
wu
from the
material property test.
(19)
If the failure is not due to steel wire rupture but to
debonding, the tensile strength of the composite at
failure of the specimens is lower than the ultimate
tensile strength of the steel wire. Therefore, a reduction
factor k
m
is introduced to estimate the effective strain of
the steel wire.
(20)
The reduction factor can be determined from the
numerous test results. Brena et al. (2003) suggested
the factor k
m
could be taken as 0.4 for FRP. Similarly,
the value of 0.4 is suggested for the steel wire, since no
more test data is available. Further investigation is
needed to determine the reduction factor.
If c is greater than h
f
(Figure 15b), the compression
concrete can be divided into two parts. The ultimate
moment M
u
is given by
(21)
where k
1
and k
2
are determined using the same equations
as in stage II, and c can be obtained from Eqn 15.
Table 6 lists the test results and theoretical results
predicted by the simplified analysis model. Reasonably
good agreements are evident and the analysis model can
serve as a reference for the design of the strengthening.
However, more tests are required to develop design
M k k f b c k f b b h c h
A E
u c w c w f f
s s
= +
+
1 2
2
1
0 5 ( ) ( . )
+
+ +
s c s u
w w wf w w w
c d A f d c
A E h c A E
( ) ( )
( )
1 1 1 2

wf w
h c
2 2
( )

wf m wu
k
1
=

wf wu 1
=

c
w
wf
c
h c
=

1
1
0 0038 .
provisions, including the reduction factor k
m
as a design
parameter for different composite configurations.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Five RC T-beams were tested under four-point loading:
one control beam and four beams strengthened with Steel
Wire Mesh embedded in Polymer Mortar overlay. Two of
the strengthened beams were maintained under load
during the application of the SWM composites. The test
results indicated that the use of SWM composites is an
effective means of strengthening RC beams in flexure. All
the strengthened test beams were stiffer than the control
beam and all were able to resist loads which exceeded the
flexural capacity of the control beam. The ultimate
strength of RC T-beams strengthened with SWM
composites is almost the same regardless of the load
history at the time of strengthening. Two failure patterns
(central peeling and region peeling) were observed in the
strengthened beams. A simplified design procedure is
presented to predict the flexural strength of T-beams
strengthened with SWM composites. Further investigation
is needed to determine the effect of debonding of the
overlay on the maximum strain which the steel wire
actually attains at collapse of the beam.
REFERENCES
Brena, S.F., Bramblett, R.M., Wood, R.M. and Kreger, M.E. (2003).
Increasing flexural capacity of reinforced concrete beams using
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites, ACI Structure
Journal, Vol. 100, No. 1, pp. 3646.
El Debs, M.K. and Naaman, A.E. (1995). Bending behavior of
mortar reinforced with steel meshes and polymeric fibers,
Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 327338.
GB-50010 (2002). Code for Design of Concrete Structures, China
Building Industry Press, Beijing.
Huang, X., Birman, V., Nanni, A. and Tunis, G. (2006). Properties
and potential for application of steel reinforced polymer and steel
reinforced grout composites, Composites Part B: Engineering,
Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 7382.
Moon, D.Y., Sim, J. and Oh, H. (2007). Detailing considerations on
RC beams strengthened with CFRP bars embedded in mortar
overlay, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 21, No. 8,
pp. 16361646.
Table 6. Comparison test results and analytical values
Yield Capacity
Specimen M
yc
(kN.m) M
yt
(kN.m) M
yc
/M
yt
M
uc
(kN.m) M
ut
(kN.m) M
uc
/M
ut
RCBF-1 392.94 440.75 0.89 603.58 602.70 1.00
RCBF-3 385.87 451.76 0.86 531.62 556.83 0.96
RCBF-4 392.12 420.25 0.93 594.34 603.73 0.98
RCBF-5 383.65 420.25 0.91 524.58 584.25 0.90
Nie, J.G., Wang, H.B., Zhang, T.S., Cai, Q. and Qin, K. (2005).
Experimental study on flexural behavior of RC beams
strengthened with stainless steel wire mesh and permeability
polymer mortar, Journal of Building Structures, Vol. 26, No. 2,
pp. 19. (in Chinese)
Shahawy, M., Chaallal, O., Beitelman, T.E. and EI Saad, A. (2001).
Flexural strengthening with carbon fiberreinforced polymer
composites of preloaded full-scale girders, ACI Structure
Journal, Vol. 98, No. 5, pp. 735742.
Shang, S.P., Zeng, L.H. and Dai, R. (2005). Experimental study on
flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
ferrocement under secondary load, Journal of Building
Structures, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 7479. (in Chinese)
Toutanji, H., Zhao, L. and Zhang, Y. (2006). Flexural behavior of
reinforced concrete beams externally strengthened with CFRP
sheets bonded with an inorganic matrix, Engineering Structures,
Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 557566.
NOTATION
A
s
cross sectional area of the steel bar in tension
A
s
cross sectional area of the steel bar in
compression
A
w1
cross sectional area of the steel wire at
bottom face
A
w2
cross sectional area of the steel wire at side face
b flange width of T-beam
b
w
web width of T-beam
c neutral axis depth
C
c
compressive stress resultant in concrete
d effective depth of T-beam
d
c
depth of compression steel
E
s
elastic modulus of the steel bar
E
w
effective modulus of the steel wire
f
c
compressive strength of concrete
f
tk
the tensile strength of concrete
f
u
ultimate strength of steel bar
f
y
yield strength of steel bar
h depth of T-beam
h
f
flange thickness of T-beam
h
w1
depth of steel wire at bottom face
h
w2
depth of steel wire at side face
I
g
moment of inertia of the gross section
k
1
, k
2
correction factors used in Eqn 5
k
m
a reduction factor
M
c
bending moment given by the concrete
M
cr
cracking moment of beam
M
u
ultimate moment of beam
M
y
yielding moment of beam
cr
mid-span deflection at M
cr
u
u
y
y
c
concrete strain at the extreme fiber
0
concrete strain at peak stress
s
strain in compression steel
w1
wire strain at bottom face
w2
wire strain at side face
wf1
strain of bottom wire at beam failure
wf 2
strain of side wire at beam failure
wu
ultimate strain of steel wire
y
yielding strain in tension steel

Advances in Structural Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Structural Engineering

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

Advances in Structural Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experimental Investigation of Reinforced Concrete T-Beams Strengthened with Steel Wire

Mesh Embedded in Polymer Mortar Overlay

Figure 14. Schematic model of moment deflection curve

Figure 15. Stressed and forces of beam cross section

You might also like