A THEORETICAL ANALYSIS ON STRUCTURAL FAILURES AND REMEDIAL MEASURES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MEASURES
Ramesh Kumar
Research Scholar, Eklavya University, Damoh (M.P.) Raushan Kumar
Eklavya University, Damoh (M.P.)
Abstract - In this Research, different purposes behind underlying disappointments like Faulty Design, Inferior nature of materials, Poor Workmanship, Weathering conditions, Natural catastrophes and so forth, have been talked about. It is additionally examined about the different strategies for doing the maintenance woks that is healing measures. To know better about the idea of substantial components, Eighteen (18) cement footers with ostensible support have been projected. They were gathered into Six (6) bunches each containing Three individuals. Every one of the bars were exposed to stacking test in Loading Frame at Government College of Engineering, Salem. Three shafts were kept as control examples. Every one of the bars were first tried up to introductory break condition.
1 MATERIAL USED IN CONSTRUCTION Built up concrete cement is the material utilized for underlying parts in light of its sturdiness, which has been utilized for a long time to fabricate a wide assortment of designs from house to spans, streets to spans and so on. Little support or fix work is generally expected on substantial designs that have been planned and whenever constructed well, with material of good quality. A time of dynamic development in the utilization of cement came during 1960s because of persistent lack of lodging. Since Concrete is a heterogeneous material, concrete didn't proceed as well as it was normal and the quality relies upon its fixings. As of late, the developing need to keep up with and fix structures has achieved an unmistakable variety in the use for reclamation contrasted with the speculation for new designs.
1.1 Remedial Measures for Failure Work
One of the ongoing interests in the field of fixing is built up cement footers which are exposed to continued stacking condition.
The benefits of recovery methods are to reestablish its solidarity and utilitarian execution, give water snugness and work on the presence of the substantial surface. To get together the necessities of cutting edge infra structures new inventive materials and advances have begun advancing. Any innovation or material has its limits. To meet the new necessities, new innovations must be concocted and utilized.
Disappointments in designing development are brought about by decay of different structure materials with age because of different causes. Mindfulness about different organizations causing crumbling is fundamental to grasp the issue and to figure out the arrangement.
These days as we probably are aware cement becomes one of the vital structure material. We the Civil Engineers can focus closer on the plan and oversight to control the disappointments of structures however much as could reasonably be expected. We have zero control over the enduring activities and ecological impacts which are brought about essentially; with the better innovation we can vanquish its impact to the extraordinary degree. For instance, on the off chance that we give a little cross-over of support at the bar section joints situated toward the edge of building, the structure won't flop by seismic tremor. The other reasons rely upon upkeep of the structures. The upkeep work required generally relies upon the inhabitants. Legitimate cleaning, painting and white washing are to control the superfluous plant development in their structures.
1.2 Practical Investigation
In the ongoing situation there could be no appropriate recovery techniques and codes are recommended. A portion of the techniques are very little successful in the part of solidarity but rather because of deficient information about the restoration material and strategies.
unacceptable one, which prompts disappointment of design and cause annihilation of the construction and making risk the existence of the structure clients.
Materials utilized for Rehabilitation incorporates FRP (Fiber Reinforced Polymer), Epoxy Resins, Water sealing specialists (Acrylic Polymers, SBR, EPDM, APP), Wood Preservatives and coatings, Jute Fiber, Steel Jackets and so on.
The above materials are utilized not exclusively to recognize break in radiates yet in addition to fix and fix old structures and landmarks.
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 General
For each proposal it is essential to concentrate on about what happened beforehand in regards to the point and what is by and by happening connected with this proposition. Here the writing is parted into two sections. In the initial segment learns about underlying disappointments is finished and in the second part the writing about healing measures is finished. It has additionally been referenced the distinction done in the ongoing proposition.
3 OBJECTIVES
The targets of the proposal are
• To track down the disappointment mode (improvement of break) on the pillar when it arrived at the breaking burden and extreme burden.
• To carryout different Rehabilitation Methods.
• To distinguish the best technique for restoration in part of solidarity and diversion.
4 CONCENTRATION DETAILS
Polyester Resin, Accelerator and Catalyst are expected to blend in a right extent so the restoring time frame not entirely settled. For 100ml of polyester, initial 15 drop of gas pedal is added and blended well. Then impetus is added finally to the sap. MEKP is added 15 drop to the 100ml of the polyester gum and mixed well. In this manner from the time where impetus mixed well, the pot life of polyester is 30 min in particular.
5 SPECIMEN DETAIL
Specimen details like dimensions cross sectional details and longitudinal sectional details are given below.
5.1 Specimen Detail
The bar size is 150mm X 200mm with length of 1500mm. The grade of cement is M25 and steel is Fe415 TMT bars. The shaft has been projected by utilizing OPC 43 grade concrete with the water-concrete proportion of 0.4. For Tension and pressure Reinforcement two quantities of 12mm dia. poles are given, 8mm dia. pole is given as shear support at 100mm c/c distance. Shear support is furnished with two legs, with a leg length of 35mm.Details of the example were organized in table - 5.1
Table 5.1 Details of Specimen
5.2 Design Criteria for the Flexural Member
For limit condition of plan technique IS 456-2000 code has been followed and concurring with the statement 26.5.1, shaft support has been given. As per the arrangement, ostensible support has been accommodated the bar size 150mm X 200mm with the range of 1500mm and afterward checked for security as indicated by code. Grade of configuration blend cement and Steel Grade Fe415 is utilized for strain, pressure and shear support of the shaft.
5.2.1 Tension Reinforcement
For strain support least area of steel required is referenced under the proviso 26.5.1.1(a), according to computation it is viewed as 51.92mm2. Furthermore, for greatest area of steel required is referenced under the provision 26.5.1.1 (b), according to computation it is found as1200mm2. Subsequently strain support gave is 2 quantities of 12 mm dia. bar, which has an area of 226.19mm2. Hence the gave support is higher than the base area of steel required and lower than the greatest area of steel required.
5.2.2 Compression Reinforcement For pressure support greatest area of steel required is referenced under the provision 26.5.1.2, according to estimation it is seen as 1200mm2. Subsequently pressure support gave is 2 quantities of 12mm dia. bar, which has a steel area of 226.19mm2, hence the support arrangement doesn't surpass the greatest area of steel. Subsequently fulfilled the provision 26.5.1.2 under IS 456-2000.
5.2.3 Shear Reinforcement and Spacing The base shear support necessity is recommended in the condition 26.5.1.6 under IS 456-2000, according to estimation it is observed that the expected least area of steel is 16.62mm2. For shear
support 8 mm dia. bar is given which has area of 50.26mm2, consequently gave bar fulfilled the base steel region prerequisite.
Separating of Shear bar is referenced in condition 26.5.1.5 under IS 456-2000, with that proviso it is determined that the most extreme dividing ought to be 126.75mm just, for no situation will the dispersing surpass 300mm. Accordingly separating gave is 100mm c/c distance, which is inside the breaking point.
5.3 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
For the pillar gave the support subtleties are checked for security utilizing IS 456:2000. Then, at that point, taking into account self load of the shaft, the heap conveying limit is hypothetically determined.
5.3.1 Load Carrying Capacity
The limiting moment of resistance of the section is, Mu,lim=11.50kNm
Details
To ascertain whether the section is balanced, under reinforced or over reinforced, consider it to be a balanced section. Then
Xu,max = 0.0035d/(0.0055 + (0.87fy / Es)) d = D – (cover + (dia. of rod/2))
= 200 – (25 + 12/2) = 169mm d = 169mm
fy = 415 N/mm2 Es = 2 x 105 N/mm2
Xu,max = 0.0035 x 169/ (0.0055 + (0.87x415 / 2 x 105)) Xu,max = 80.96mm
5.4 Experimental Study on Control Specimens
The controlled examples are tried first for tracking down its definitive burden. All the test results for the controlled examples are organized as in Table 5.2.
Testing details of Control Specimen can be represented as below:
Table 5.2 Test Results for Control Specimens
A definitive burden conveying (mean) limit of the pillar is seen as 65.33kN. The hypothetical worth of the bar is determined as 61.60kN, when contrasted with the hypothetical worth with the exploratory worth, the shaft is conveying 6% higher burden than the hypothetical worth.
The examination of hypothetical and exploratory worth of a definitive burden conveying limit of the shaft is diagrammed in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Comparison for Theoretical and Experimental values of Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity of the Control
Specimen
The Load vs Deflection graph is plotted for the control Specimen and the plotted graph is shown in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2 Load Vs Deflection Curve – Control Specimen
5.5 Rehabilitation Methods
Five methods of rehabilitation are for our flexural member. They are
 Method 1 – GFRP – Woven Roving 225 GSM
 Method 2 – GFRP – Woven Roving 400 GSM
 Method 3 – GFRP – Chopped Strand Mat300 GSM
 Method 4 – Jute Fiber
 Method 5 – Steel Jacketing Method In every method 3 number of beam were tested and mean value is calculated.
5.5.1 Method -1: GFRP Woven Roving – 225 GSM
For restoration reason three quantities of pillar were stacked until the underlying break, and recovery work has been done with GFRP Woven Roving - 225 GSM with the utilization of polyester gum. The wrapping of the above work has been conveyed generally round the pillar. Then the example is left for restoring for 24 hours.
Figure 5.3and Figure 5.4 show the wrapped GFRP bar and fortified GFRP subsequent to applying Resin over it.
Figure 5.3 GFRP Wrapped Beam - 225GSM
Figure 5.4 After applying Polyester Resin for bonding – 225 GSM
After curing the beams are tested for its ultimate load carrying capacity of the beam. The values obtained were tabulated in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 Experimental details of Specimens which are rehabilitated by GFRP Woven Roving 225GSM
The restored bar conveys extreme heap of 72kN, while the control Specimen conveys 65.33kN. When contrasted with the control Specimen with the restored shaft a definitive burden has been expanded to 10.2%. The examination of a definitive burden conveying limit of the bar and diversion were diagrammed in Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.5 Comparison of the Ultimate Load for Rehabilitated Beam with
Control Specimen
Figure 5.6 Comparison of the Deflection for Rehabilitated Beam with
Control Specimen
While contrasting the control Specimen with restored bar the avoidance is expanded by 1.27 mm just, when looked at the diversion in rate restored shaft has 9% expanded redirection than control Specimen and yet a definitive burden conveying limit is expanded by 10.2%.
Figure 5.7 Load Vs Deflection Curve – Rehabilitated by GFRP Woven Roving
225GSM
5.5.2 Method - 2: GFRP Woven Roving – 400GSM
To restore the shaft first the pillar is stacked until the presence of the underlying break, when the underlying break seems the stacking is halted and the bar is restored.
After the presence of the underlying breaking load, the stacking was halted and recovery of the pillar is finished with the Glass fiber supported polymer, which is E-Class glass fiber with 400 GSM. The shaft part is completely wrapped with the glass fiber. The GFRP is bond with the Polyester pitch and leave it for 24 hours for relieving or solidifying reason as in Figure 5.8 and in Figure 5.9.
Figure 5.8 GFRP Wrapped Beam – 400GSM
Figure 5.9 After Applying Resin for Bonding – 400GSM
After the curing is done for 24 hours, the beam is tested for its ultimate load.
Readings are tabulated in Table no 5.4.
Table 5.4 Experimental details of Specimens Rehabilitated by GFRP Woven Roving 400GSM
The mean extreme burden for the restored bar is 85.67kN. When contrasted and the controlled shaft a definitive burden conveying limit of the pillar is expanded 20.33Kn, which is 31% of higher burden conveying limit than the control Specimen.
The correlation of extreme burden conveying limit and redirection of the pillar for control Specimen and restored shaft is displayed as in Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11.
Figure 5.10 Comparison of the Ultimate Load for Rehabilitated Beam
with Control Specimen
Figure 5.11 Comparison of Deflection for Rehabilitated Beam with Control
Specimen
While looking at the redirection for the two pillars, restored bar has diversion of 16.73mm, which is 2.63mm higher than the control Specimen. In this manner the restored pillar diverts 18% higher than the control Specimen and conveys 31%
higher burden than the control Specimen.
In Figure 5.12 the Load versus Deflection chart is plotted for the restored pillar.
Figure 5.12 Load Vs Deflection Curve – Rehabilitated by GFRP Woven Roving
400GSM
5.5.3 Method – 3: GFRP Chopped Strand Mat – 300 GSM
For recovery the bar is stacked until the underlying break shows up in the bar. At the point when the main break shows up in the bar the stacking was paused and load is delivered.
After introductory breaking is found the bar is restored by utilizing the E-Class Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer, hacked strand mat 300 GSM. Figure 5.13 and Figure 5.14 shows GFRP CSM 300 GSM Wrapped Beam when applying sap.
Figure 5.13 GFRP CSM 300 GSM Wrapped Beam
Figure 5.14 After Applying Resin for Bonding
The GFRP is wrapped first and afterward polyester gum is applied over the GFRP and the restored pillar is left for 24 hours for relieving or solidifying reason. After the fulfillment of the relieving the bar is tried for its definitive burden conveying limit. The experimental outcomes are organized as in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5 Experimental details of Specimens which are rehabilitated by GFRP Chopped Strand Mat – 300 GSM
5.6. Comparison of Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity of Rehabilitated Beam by Wrapping Technique
A definitive burden conveying limit of the restored shaft is looked at for all wrapping procedures. In this venture for taking on the wrapping procedures Glass Fiber.
Built up Polymer is utilized and Jute Fiber is utilized as principal material. In glass fiber different assortment of GSM have been utilized, yet the Class of glass fiber is "E".
The Ultimate Load is looked at in the Figure 5.15.
Figure 5.15 Ultimate Load Comparison for Wrapping Technique.
From the graph it is exceptionally certain that a definitive burden conveying limit of pillar is expanded significantly more in Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer - Woven Roving 400 GSM mat. The increment load conveying limit of the GFRP - WR - 400 GSM mat is 31% when contrasted and the controlled bar.
In GFRP - WR - 225 GSM Rehabilitation technique and GFRP - CSM - 300 GSM Rehabilitation strategy, the expanded burden isn't vastly different when analyzed for both technique, the thing that matters is simply 1kn as it were. All the more precisely only 1% of the heap conveying limit is changed while contrasting the two techniques. So there is no incredible contrast. Be that as it may, in the specialized part of the maintenance material, GSM 225 is accessible in woven wandering material structure yet GSM 300 is accessible in dried out strand mat structure, and that implies the heaviness of the glass fiber is utilized for Chopped Strand Mat is 300 gram for each square meter, yet for woven meandering it required just 225 grams.
So by utilizing the Woven Roving mat we can save 75 grams of glass fiber for per square meter. In this examination, it is found that the woven meandering 225 GSM mat is efficient for recovery. Not just by the weight contrast it is reasoned that GFRP - WV - 225 GSM is prudent, by prerequisite of the sap it is presumed that Woven Roving 225 GSM is conservative, since, sap necessity will be different for each kind of material utilized for recovery.
For holding of the woven wandering 225 GSM, the heaviness of the sap required is 2.5 season of the heaviness of the GFRP so for holding 560 grams of gum will be required. The sap prerequisite makes the woven meandering - 225GSM technique as prudent. The pitch necessity is thought about in Figure 5.16.
Figure 5.16 Resin Requirement Comparison for WV-225 GSM and CSM-
300 GSM
The above Figure plainly shows that the sap prerequisite for CSM 300 GSM is a lot higher than the other technique. Despite the fact that CSM-300 GSM technique gets more gum, the presentation of the heap conveying limit of the pillar isn't more than the WV-225 GSM.
While looking at glass fiber and jute fiber the presentation of the glass fiber appears to be better in the part of burden conveying limit. Simultaneously jute fiber is additionally having the expanded burden conveying limit of the shaft when contrasted and the control Specimen.
5.6.1 Comparison of Deflection of Rehabilitated Beam by Wrapping Technique
Diversion is the primary worry while restoring the pillar, in light of the fact that after recovery the redirection ought to be controlled, while perhaps not so stress will be created in the infill material. So to keep away from trouble in infill material the avoidance ought to be diminished or controlled. To know conduct of avoidance, correlation of the redirection of all restored bar which is finished by wrapping strategy was finished. The outcome was displayed in the Figure 5.17.
Figure 5.17 Deflection Comparison for Wrapping Technique.
6 FINDINGS FROM EXPERIMENTAL WORK
During the exploratory work it was seen that when the shaft arrives at the breaking load the underlying breaks are shaped. After arrangement of introductory breaks, continous applying of the heap, the underlying break has been formed into more extensive and more profound break, which makes the shaft inadequate to convey loads, hence extreme burden is accomplished by the pillar. As a flexural part, because of diversion break is shaped at the center 1/3 piece of the bar.
This pillar is planned as an under- supported bar so the disappointment of the substantial happens first by the arrangement of break. This sort of bar is protected, in light of the fact that we can get cautioning of pressure in shaft by the break appearance. On the off chance that the shaft is built up as over supported bar steel will flop first because of disappointment of steel, substantial will bomb right away, subsequently we can't get any sort of caution from the bar part.
This is made sense of in Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1 Initial Crack REFERENCES
1. Abd-Elhamed. M.K, “Retrofitting and Strengthening of Reinforcement Concrete Damaged Beams using Jacketing of Steel Wire Mesh with Steel Plates” International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology, Volume-04, Issue-04, PP 596- 604, April-2015.
2. Abo-Alanwar, M.M and Elbatal, S.A, “A Smart Reinforced Steel Wire Mesh U-Shape Jacketing Technique in Strengthening and Retrofitting RC Beams”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Volume-04, Issue-12, PP 46-55, December- 2015.
3. Alfred M Freudenthal “Safety and the Probability of Structural Failure” Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 80, Issue8,pp : 1- 46, 1954.
4. Anutag K. Jain, Prof. D. S. Padole,
“Enhancement of Rupture Strength using Carbon Fiber Polymer and E-Glass Fiber”, International Journal for Scientific Research
& Development, ISSN(Online), pp:2321-0613, Volume-4, Issue-03,2016.
5. Ayyanar J, Shanmugavalli. B, “Experimental Study in Flexural Behaviour of RCC Beams, Using Natural Fiber Wrapping”, International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, Volume-06, Issue-05, PP 5252- 5258, 2016.
6. Bank. L. C and Gentry, T. R, “Composite for Construction – Structural Design with FRP Materials”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2006).
7. Beryl Shanthapriya. A, Sakthieswaran. N,
“Optimization of GFRP Confinement in RC Columns using Shape Modification Technology”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Volumn- 04, Issue-08, PP 705-713, Aug-2015.
8. Drs Brian Falzon and Emile Greenhalgh and Victoria Bloodworth “Mechanisms and modeling of stringer de bonding in post- buckled carbon-fibre composite stiffened panels” Ethos ,imperial college London, 2008.
9. Brown, M. D., Bayrak, O. and Jirsa, J.O.
“Design for Shear Based on Loading Conditions” ACI Structural Journal Volume 103, Issue 4, pp: 541- 550, 2006.
10. YS Chung, C Meyer, M Shinozuka, “Modeling of Concrete Damage” Structural Journal 86 (3) 259-271, 1989
11. Cui, C. and Sheiek, S.A. “Experimental Study of Normal – and High- Strength Concrete Confined with Fibre Reinforced Polymers”, Journal of Composite for Construction, ASCE, pp 553-561, 2010.
12. Dario Coronelli, Kamyab ZandiHanjari, KarinLundgran “Severely corroded RC with cover cracking” published in the Journal of Structural Engineering 139 (2) 221-232, Apr 2012.
13. David Aveiga and Marcelo L. Ribeiro, “A Delamilation Propagation Model for Fiber Reinforced Laminated Composite Materials”, Hindawi, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Article ID 1861268, 9 pages, 2018.
14. Dimitrios g. A.M.ASCE Lignos, Tsuyoshi Hikino and Masayoshi Nakashima M.ASCE Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill Univ., Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 2K6 (corresponding author). Manager, Steel Structures Engineering Division, Nippon Steel Engineering Co., Ltd., Osaka Center Building, 1-5-1 Osaki, Shinagawa-Ku, Tokyo 141-8604, Japan; formerly, Researcher, EDefense, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED). Manager, Steel Structures Engineering Division, Nippon Steel Engineering Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan;
formerly, Researcher, E-Defense, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED). 4Professor, Disaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI), Kyoto Univ., Uji, Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611- 0011, Japan. “Assessment of Steel Moment Frames Based on E-Defense Full-Scale Shake Table Collapse Tests" by Published: 10 March 2012
15. Dipesh K. Rathod, Prof. Tarak P. Vora, “To Study the Effect of Different Strengthening Patterns Using GFRP on Shear Capacity of the Beam”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Volume-
16. 16 Li, H., Dong, S., El-Tawil, S., Kamat, V
“Relative displacement sensing Techniques for post event structural damage assessment – review” American Society of Civil Engineers September 2012.
17. 17 Elsevier. Bank. L. C and Gentry, T. R
“Composite for Construction – Structural Design with FRP Materials”, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. January 2006.
18. Drs Emile S Greenhalgh, Paul Robinson and Charlotte Rogers “Physically-based mixedmode failure criteria for delamination growth in composite materials” EPSRC – 19th Oct’ 2004.
19. Ertugrul Turker Uzun and Mutiu Secer,
“Evaluation of Building Retrofitting Alternatives from Sustainability Perspective”
Procedia Engineering Volume 171, pp 1137- 1146, 2017.
20. Ezz-Eldeen. H. A, “An Experimental Study on Strengthening and Retrofitting of Damaged Reinforcement Concrete Beams using Steel Wire and Steel Angles”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Volumn-04, Issue-05, PP 164-173.May 2015.
21. Falzon, B. G., Davies, G. A. O., Initial Failure of Mechanically fastened Joints with Offset Loading, Advanced Composite Letters, Vol.6, Pages: 91-94,1997.
22. B G Falzon, J M Hodgkinson and U Galvanetto and Rosen Tenchev “Composite bonded repairs: strength and fatigue performance” Key Engineering Materials Publications, 383, 25-34,2008.
23. N. F. Grace, G. A. Sayed, A. K. Soliman and K.R. Saleh, “Strengthening Reinforcement Concrete Beam using Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Laminates” ACI Structural Journal, PP 865-875September – October 1999.
24. Halliwel, S. M, “Polymer Composites in Construction”, BRE Centre of Building Fabric, CRC Ltd, BRE Publications, ISBN 1 86081 429 8,2000.
25. Harishankar. N, Dr. Joyamta Pal, “Shear Characteristic Study of RC beams Retrofitted with FRP and Cement Matrix Composite”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Volume-06, Issue-02, PP 164-168, February-2017.
26. D. C. Hart(v), Udinski, E.P.(v), Hayden, M.J.
(v), Dr. Liu, X.(v), “Fatigue Performance and Analysis of Composite Patch repaired Cracked Aluminum Plates” 2014.
27. Heena R. Mulaniand M.B. Kumthekar,
“Special Materials for Rehabilitation of Monuments” International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181, Volume-4 Issue 04, April 2015.
28. Hollaway, L. Cand Head, P. R, “Advance Polymer Composite and Polymers in Civil Infrastructure” ISBN: 008 043661 7 ELSEVIER SCIENCE Ltd. 2001.
29. Jagadish B.M, Praveen J.V, Sachin M.
Kulkarni, “Performance Evaluation of RC Members using GFRP as Strengthening Technique”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Volumn- 04, Issue-07, PP 966-970, July-2015.
30. K. P. Jaya and Jessy Mathai “Special Materials for Rehabilitation of Monuments”
15WCEE LISBOA 2012.
31. JeongYeon Lee Deuck Hang Lee, Jin-Ha Hwang, Min-Kook Park, Heung-Youl Kim, and Kang Su Kim, “Structural Engineering Investigation on Allowable Compressive Stresses in Pre tensioned Concrete Members at Transfer” KSCE Journal of Civil Engg.17 (5) 1083-1098, 2013.
32. Karbhari, V. M, “Durability of Composites for Civil Structural Application” Woodhead Publishing Materials, A Volume in Woodhead Publishing series in Civil and Structural Engineering ,USA,2007.
33. V. M. Kharbari, J. W. Chin, D. Hunston, B.
Benmokrane, T. Juska, R. Morgan, J. J.
Lesko, and D. eynaud “Durability Gap Analysis for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites in Civil Infrastructure” Journal of Composites for Construction, Volume 7, Issue 3, 238-247, 2003.
34. M. D. Kotsovos,” Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete Beams”, Engineering Structures, Volume 9, Issue 7, pp: 32-38, January 1987.
35. Kurt Henkhaus, Santiago Pujal and Julio Ramirez “Axial Failure of Reinforced Columns Damaged by Reverse Versal” published in the Journal of American Society of Civil Engineers on June 13, 2013
36. Lokesh. A. Doddamani, Dr. B. Shivakumara Swamy, Dr. S. Vijaya, “The Study on Strength and Stiffness of RC Beams Retrofitted with GFRP Wrapping”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology”, Volume-3, Issue-9, PP 240-249, September- 2014
37. 37 Drs Lorenzo Iannucci and Paul Robinson and Lucio Raimondo “Predicting the dynamic behavior of polymer composites” ICCM- CENTRAL ORG. Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College, London, 2007.
38. Dr. s Lucio Raimondo, Lorenzo Iannucci, Paul Robinson, Silvestre T. Pinho, Paul T. Curtis, Garry M. Wells “Predicting the Dynamic Behaviour of Polymer Composites” 16th International Conference on Composite Materials. ICCM- CENTRAL ORG. Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College, London, 2007.
39. Luke A. Bisby, Aaron J. S. Dent and Mark F.
Green, “Comparison of Confinement Models for Fiber Reinforced Polymer Wrapped Concrete”, ACI Structural Journal;
Farmington Hills, PP 62-72.
40. T. Manikandan, G. Balaji Ponraj,
“Strengthening of RC Beam using GFRP Wraps”, International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, Volume-04, Issue-05, PP 1527-1530, May 2013.
41. T. P. Manikandan, Dr. A. Ramachandran Murthy, “Flexural Behaviour of RC Beam Wrapped with GFRP Sheets”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, Volume-8, Issue-02, PP 452-469, February 2017.
42. Marta Slowik, “The Analysis of Failure in Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Beams with Different Reinforcement Ratio”, Archive of Applied Mechanics, 89, 885-895, 2019.
43. Masanobu Shinozuka, “Basic Analysis of Structural Safety” Journal of Structural Engineering 109 (3) 721740, 1983.
44. Medhat Mohammed, Ahmed A Elshafey, Mostafa M. El-Shami, Kamel S Kandil,
“Strengthening of Concrete Beams In Shear”,
Concrete Research Letters,
www.cri.issres.net, Volume.4(4), PP 668-683, Dec-2013.
45. T. P. Meikandaan, Research Scholar, Bharath University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. and Dr. A. Ramachandra Murthy, Senior Scientist CSIR – Structural Engineering Research Centre, Taramani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. “Flexural Behavior of RC Beam Wrapped With GFRP Sheets” IJCIET – Volume 8, Issue 2, PP -452-469 Feb’2017.
46. Mohini G. Dhande, P. P. Saklecha, Shweta A.
Yelne, “Review on using Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer In Concrete”, International Journal of Computer Application, International Conference on Quality Up-Gradation in Engineering, Science and Technology (ICQUEST 2015).
47. Muhammed Saleem, Asad Ullah Quazi, Asif Hammed and Mohammed Hen Bashir “A Multi-layer Parallel Crack Extension Model for Deformational Response of Post Installed Hanger” published in the Journal KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering in August 28, 2012.
48. Nagajothi. S, Elavenil. S, “Study of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer in Geopolymer Concrete using M-Sand”, International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, Volume-11, Number-2,PP 1006-1015, (2016).
49. KG Papakonstantinou, M Shinozuka,
“Planning Structural Inspection and Maintenance policies via dynamic Programming and Markov Processes. Part I – Theory” Reliability Engineering and System Safety Vol: 130, pp 202-213, 2014.
50. Drs. Paul Robinson, John Hodgkinson and Silvestre Pinho and JasweenDogra.
“Development of a compression strength test for thick CFRP composites” Journal of Composite materials, Year 2007.
51. Rahuk Kumar Satbhaiya, Shishir Gupta, T.R.
Arora, “Rehabilitation and Strengthening of R.C.C Structures by using FRP Composited, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Volume-03, Issue-10, PP 261-273, October- 2013.
52. Sabahattin Akac, Ilker Kalkan, Bengi Aykac, Servet Karahan, Sinan Kayar, “Strengthening and repair of RC beams using exterior steel plates” published in Journal of Structural Engineering 139 (6) 929-939, 2012.
53. M. R. Sanjay and B. Yogesha, “Study on Mechanical Properties of Natural-Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Hybrid Composites: A Review”, Science Direct, Materials Tpday:
Proceedings, Volume 2, Issue 4-5, pp: 2959- 2967, 2015.
54. A C Satpute and M B Varma, “Retrofitting of Concret Beams Using Externally Bonded GFRP Wraps- an Overview”, International Journal of Scientific Research and Development (IJSRD), Volume 3, Issue 12, pp 720-723, 2016.
55. S G Sawant, A B Sawant M B Kumthekar,“
Fibre”, International Journal of Inventive Engineering and Sciences (IJIES), Volme 1, Issue 2,pp: 01-08, January 2013.
56. Schubbe, J., and Mall, S., “Investigatigation of a Cracked Thick Aluminium Panel Repaired with a Bonded Composite Patch”
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 63, 305- 323, 1999.
57. K. Schulte and Ch. Baron, “Load and Failure Analysis of CFRP laminates by means of Electrical Resistivity Measurements”, Science Direct, Composites Science and Technology, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp: 63-76, 1989.
58. Shibata, A., and Sozen, M., “Substitute Structure Method for Seismic Design in Reinforced Concrete” Structural Division, Journal, ASCE, VOL102, no.1. 1976.
59. D. N. Shinde, Pudale Yojana. M M, Nair Veena. V, “Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced Cement Concrete Beam Wrapped with GFRP Sheet”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Volume-3, Special Issue-03, PP 760-763, May-2014.
60. Dr. B. Shivakumara Swamy, Dr. S. Vijaya, Lokesh. A. Doddamani, Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India.
“The Study on strength and stiffness of RC beam retrofitted with GFRP Wrapping”
International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology. ISSN: 2278 -0181 Vol.3 Issue 9 Sep’2014.
61. R. Sudhakar and P. Partheeban
“Strengthening of RCC Column using Glass
Fibre Reinforced Polymer”
www.academia.edu. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973- 4562 Volume 12, Number 14, pp 4478-4483, (2017).
62. G. Spadea, F. Bencardino and R.N. Swamy,
“Structural Behaviour of Composite RC Beams with Externally Bonded CFRP”, Journal of Composite for Construction, Volume- 02, Issue-03, PP 132-137 August - 1998.
63. Stefano Miranda, Lusia Moliari, Giulia Scalet, and Franscesco Ubertini (Researcher, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Materials Engineering, Univ. of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
Researcher, Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Materials Engineering, Univ. of Bologna, ASCE Publications. Journal of Structural Engg.,138(8) 1065-1074, 2011.
64. Subrata Chandra Das, MD. Enamul Haque Nizam, “Application of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites (FRP) in Civil Engineering”, International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering, Volume-03, Issue-03, PP 299- 309, July-2014.
65. Tara Sen. and H.N. Jagannatha Reddy,
“Pretreatment of Woven Jute FRP Composite and Its use in Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams in Flexural”, Advances in Material Science and Engineering, 2013.
66. Varpu M Miettinen and Pekka Vallittu,” Water sorption, Solubility and Effect of Post-Curing of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymers”, Science Direct, Biomaterials, Volume 20, Issue 13, pp” 1187-1194, July 1999.
