| Literature DB >> 36079231 |
John Uduak Effiong1, Anthony Nkem Ede1.
Abstract
Developing more resilient and sustainable physical infrastructure increases the demand for sustainable materials and strengthening approaches. Many investigations into strengthening RC beam structures have used either externally bonded (EB) or near-surface mounted (NSM) systems with synthetic fibre reinforced polymer composites. These synthetic fibres are unsustainable since they involve the use of nonrenewable resources and a large amount of energy. Research shows that natural fibre reinforced polymer (NFRP) composites may be an alternative to synthetic FRP composites in the strengthening of concrete beams. However, there is limited literature that validates their performance in various structural applications. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to explore the advances, prospects, and gaps of using EB/NSM NFRP techniques in strengthening concrete beams to provide areas for future research directions. The NSM FRP technique provides improved strengthening effects and mitigates the concerns associated with the EB system, based on a wider range of applications using synthetic FRPs. However, the NSM NFRP strengthening technique has been underutilized, though the EB NFRP system has been more commonly explored in reviewed studies. The knowledge gaps and areas for proposed future research directions are essential in developing work in emerging NFRPs and strengthening techniques for sustainable infrastructure.Entities:
Keywords: failure mechanisms; natural fibres; reinforced concrete; strengthening; sustainable concrete infrastructure
Year: 2022 PMID: 36079231 PMCID: PMC9456715 DOI: 10.3390/ma15175848
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Composition of FRP composites [16].
Figure 2Flexural strengthening systems.
Figure 3Shear and torsional strengthening systems.
Figure 4Hybrid Strengthening systems.
Figure 5Cost comparison between natural and synthetic fibres.
Energy input of FRP composition [33,35].
| FRP Composition | Energy Input (MJ/Kg) | |
|---|---|---|
| Natural fibres | Sisal | 2.5 |
| Flax | 2.8 | |
| Hemp | 4.2 | |
| Synthetic Fibres | Glass | 13–32 |
| Carbon | 183–286 | |
| Steel | 30–60 | |
| Aluminium | 196–257 | |
| Polymer Matrix | Polyester | 63–78 |
| Epoxy | 76–80 | |
Figure 6Economic, strength, and environmental comparison between natural and synthetic fibres [35,36].
Figure 7Types of Natural Fires [33].
Mechanical properties of some natural fibres [16,44].
| Fibre | Density (kg/m3) | Tensile Strength (N/mm2) | Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) | Elongation at Break (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flax | 1500 | 345–1100 | 27.6 | 2.7–3.2 |
| Jute | 1300–1450 | 393–773 | 13–26.5 | 1.16–1.5 |
| Kenaf | 1260–1450 | 295–930 | 53 | 2.7–6.9 |
| Sisal | 1500 | 468–640 | 9.4–22 | 3.0–7.0 |
| Coir | 1150 | 131–175 | 4.0–6.0 | 15–40 |
| Hemp | 1470 | 690 | 70 | 2.0–6.0 |
| Bamboo | 600–1100 | 140–230 | 11.0–17.0 | 4.0–7.0 |
| Banana | 1350 | 529–914 | 8.0–32.0 | 3.0–10.0 |
| Ramie | 1440–1500 | 400–938 | 61.4–128 | 4 |
| Rice | 1650 | 449 | 1.21–1.25 | 2.2 |
| Oil palm | 700–1550 | 248 | 3.2 | 25 |
Figure 8Flow chart of paper organization.
Comparison of RC beam flexural strengthening results using EB natural composites.
| References | Beam Specimens IDs | Fibre Utilized | Area of FRP Composite (mm2) | Wrap Config | Longitudinal Rebar Ratio (%) | Ultimate Load | Load Type | Deflection at Midspan (mm) | Failure Mode | Strength Increase (with Comparison with Relevant Control) % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sen & Reddy [ | Con1, Con2 | 0.90 | 80.00 | Flexure | 11.43 | Flexure | ||||
| SF1, SF2 | Sisal | 99.50 | U-Wrap at 90° (continuous) | 0.90 | 170.00 | 37.58 | Concrete cover cracking, formation of flexure cracks on beam, and FRP afterwards | 112.50 | ||
| CF1, CF2 | Carbon | 18.00 | U-Wrap at 90° (continuous) | 0.90 | 200.00 | 16.31 | Rupture of FRP and formation of flexure crack in the beam | 150.00 | ||
| GF1, GF2 | Glass | 21.00 | U-Wrap at 90° (continuous) | 0.90 | 180.00 | 17.63 | Debonding of FRP and formation of flexure crack in the beam | 125.00 | ||
| SF3, SF4 | Sisal | 99.50 | U-Strip wrap at 90° | 0.90 | 130.00 | 26.99 | flexure crack in the beam | 62.50 | ||
| CF3, CF4 | Carbon | 18.00 | U-Strip wrap at 90° | 0.90 | 120.00 | 10.13 | 50.00 | |||
| GF3, GF4 | Glass | 21.00 | U-Strip wrap at 90° | 0.90 | 110.00 | 10.85 | 37.50 | |||
| Nwankwo & Ede [ | CB | 0.86 | 53.94 | 12.02 | - | |||||
| SB | Kenaf | 1625.00 | EB Strip along soffit | 0.86 | 98.07 | Flexure | 8.32 | Concrete cover separation | 81.81 | |
| Grazide et al. [ | REF | 0.69 | 48.30 | Flexure | 12.00 | |||||
| W25_1 | Wood plank | 2250.00 | EB laminate along soffit | 0.69 | 71.90 | 7.40 | failure of the wood on the tensile side | 48.86 | ||
| W25_2 | Wood plank | 2250.00 | 0.69 | 108.00 | 11.40 | 123.60 | ||||
| W45_1 | Wood plank | 4050.00 | 0.69 | 119.20 | 8.50 | shear failure with concrete cover debonding | 146.79 | |||
| W45_2 | Wood plank | 4050.00 | 0.69 | 113.20 | 9.00 | 134.37 | ||||
| W45_CFRP9_1 | Wood plank + CFRP rod (9 mm) | 4050.00 | 0.69 | 111.20 | 8.50 | composite debonding from the end of the element | 130.23 | |||
| W45_CFRP9_2 | Wood plank + CFRP rod (9 mm) | 4050.00 | 0.69 | 122.50 | 8.30 | 153.62 | ||||
| W45_GFRP9_1 | Wood plank + GFRP rod (9 mm) | 4050.00 | 0.69 | 117.70 | 6.80 | 143.69 | ||||
| W45_GFRP14_1 | Wood plank + GFRP rod (14 mm) | 4050.00 | 0.69 | 118.00 | 7.00 | 144.31 | ||||
| W45_GFRP14_2 | Wood plank + GFRP rod (14 mm) | 4050.00 | 0.69 | 114.50 | 6.20 | 137.06 | ||||
| Joyklad et al. [ | 1-CON | 2.14 | 22.60 | Flexure | 125.00 | flexure | ||||
| 2-A-1L | Jute | 220.00 | EB Strip along soffit | 2.14 | 28.00 | 94.50 | flexure | 23.89 | ||
| 3-A-3L | Basalt | 220.00 | EB Strip along soffit | 2.14 | 29.00 | 118.00 | flexure with rupture of the FRP | 28.32 | ||
| 4-B-1L | Jute | 300.00 | U-Strip wrap at 90° | 2.14 | 31.00 | 141.50 | flexural cracks with greater deflections | 37.17 | ||
| 5-B-3L | Basalt | 300.00 | U-Strip wrap at 90° | 2.14 | 33.00 | 82.00 | flexural cracks with rupture of the FRP | 46.02 | ||
| Yinh et al. [ | Control | 1.31 | 479.00 | Flexure | 31.68 | Flexure | - | |||
| P-2-L | Sisal | 720.00 | EB Strip along soffit (No anchorage) | 1.31 | 545.00 | 11.30 | Debonding | 13.78 | ||
| P-2-L-AN | Sisal | 720.00 | EB Strip along soffit (with anchorage) | 1.31 | 616.00 | 19.10 | Intermediate crack | 28.60 | ||
| P-4-L-AN | Sisal | 1440.00 | EB Strip along soffit (with anchorage) | 1.31 | 650.00 | 20.80 | Intermediate crack | 35.70 | ||
| E-2 L | Sisal | 720.00 | EB Strip along soffit (No anchorage) | 1.31 | 571.00 | 12.53 | Debonding | 19.21 | ||
| E-2 -AN | Sisal | 720.00 | EB Strip along soffit (with anchorage) | 1.31 | 692.00 | 19.71 | Intermediate crack | 44.47 | ||
| E-4 L-AN | Sisal | 1440.00 | EB Strip along soffit (with anchorage) | 1.31 | 804.00 | 17.31 | Intermediate crack | 67.85 | ||
| Ignacio et al. [ | Control Beam | 0.11 | 26.66 | Flexure | 75.89 | |||||
| 1-Layer CFRP Beam | Carbon | 115.82 | EB Strip along soffit (No anchorage) | 0.11 | 58.69 | 34.93 | Critical diagonal crack debonding failure | 120.14 | ||
| 2-Layer CFRP Beam | Carbon | 231.65 | EB Strip along soffit (No anchorage) | 0.11 | 54.49 | - | Critical diagonal crack debonding failure | 104.39 | ||
| 10-Layer GFRP Beam | Hemp | 965.20 | EB Strip along soffit (No anchorage) | 0.11 | 44.72 | 40.40 | Horizontal rupture failure of GNFRP | 67.74 |
N/B: CFRP—Carbon fibre reinforced polymer; GFRP—Glass fibre reinforced polymer.
Figure 9Failure mode showing concrete cover separation [16].
Figure 10Stacking sequence of optimal hybrid FRP in flexure, incorporating natural fibres with overall thickness of 2.3 mm [46].
Comparison RC beam shear strengthening results using EB natural composites.
| References | Specimens | Fibre Utilized | Asv/Sv | Wrap Config | Longitudinal Rebar Ratio (%) | Ultimate Load (KN) | Load Type | Deflection at Midspan (mm) | Failure Mode | Strength Increase (with Comparison to Relevant Control) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jirawattanasomkul et al. [ | D1-EB2-NR | Jute | 0.48 | U-Wrap at 90° (continuous) | 5.13 | 195.10 | Shear | 21.40 | Shear, rupture of JRFP | 24.00 |
| D1-EB2-R | Jute | 0.48 | U-Wrap at 90° (continuous) | 5.13 | 173.70 | Shear | 18.00 | Shear, rupture of JRFP | 11.00 | |
| D1-EB4-R | Jute | 0.96 | U-Wrap at 90° (continuous) | 5.13 | 209.50 | Shear | 21.20 | Shear, peeling of concrete, rupture of JRFP | 33.00 | |
| D2-NS (Control) | - | 5.13 | 196.20 | Shear | - | Shear | - | |||
| D2-EB4-NR | Jute | 0.96 | U-Wrap at 90° (continuous) | 5.13 | 155.50 | Shear | 14.50 | Shear, rupture of JRFP | 1.00 | |
| D2-EB4-R | Jute | 0.96 | U-Wrap at 90° (continuous) | 5.13 | 245.40 | Shear | 26.40 | Shear, peeling of concrete, rupture of JRFP | 56.00 | |
| Alam et al. [ | CB | 1.24 | 137.00 | Shear | - | Shear | ||||
| KFRP | Kenaf | 5.45 | EB Strip along 2 sides of beam spaced at 110 mm c/c spanning the entire beam length | 1.24 | 182.00 | Shear | - | KFRP rupture and shear | 32.85 | |
| CFRP | Carbon | 1.09 | EB Strip along 2 sides of beam spaced at 110 mm c/c spanning the entire beam length | 1.24 | 184.00 | Shear | - | Flexural Shear | 34.31 |
N/B: Asv—Area of shear fibre strip; Sv—Spacing of Strip.
Figure 11Typical stress-strain diagram of hemp reinforced concrete [57].
Figure 12Groove Dimensions for NSM FRP Strengthening systems [78].
RC beam shear strengthening results of EBR and NSM with flax and carbon FRP composites [79].
| References | Specimens | Fibre Utilized | Asv/Sv | Wrap Config | Longitudinal Rebar Ratio (%) | Ultimate Load (KN) | Load Type | Deflection at Midspan (mm) | Failure Mode | Strength Increase (with Comparison to Relevant Control) % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ferrier et al. [ | R0-Ref | 2.93 | 159.00 | Shear | 7.50 | Shear | ||||
| R150-Ref | 2.93 | 173.00 | Shear | 6.60 | Shear | 8.81 | ||||
| R0-EBR-cont-2FFRP | Flax | 10,000.00 | EB continuous U-Strip spanning 500 mm (of the beam length with no stirrups from one end of the beam support) | 2.93 | 187.00 | Shear | 10.20 | Shear | 17.61 | |
| R0-NSM-2x150-4FFRP | Flax | 20,000.00 | NSM continuous Strip along 2 sides of beam (Spanning 500 mm from one end of the beam support) | 2.93 | 176.00 | Shear | 8.00 | Shear | 10.69 | |
| R150-EBR-cont-2FFRP | Flax | 10,000.00 | EB continuous U-Strip spanning 500 mm (of the beam length with 150 mm spaced stirrups from one end of the beam support) | 2.93 | 206.00 | Shear | 8.70 | Shear | 19.08 | |
| R150-EBR-150-3FFRP | Flax | 100.00 | EB U-Strips spaced at 150 mm c/c spanning 500 mm (of the beam length with 150 mm spaced stirrups from one end of the beam support) | 2.93 | 194.00 | Shear | 10.00 | Shear | 12.14 | |
| R150-EBR-200-3FFRP | Flax | 75.00 | EB U-Strips spaced at 200 mm c/c spanning 500 mm (of the beam length with 150 mm spaced stirrups from one end of the beam support) | 2.93 | 194.00 | Shear | 10.00 | Shear | 12.14 | |
| R150-NSM-150-4FFRP | Flax | 133.33 | NSM Strip along 2 sides of beam spaced at 150 mm c/c (Spanning 500 mm from one end of the beam support) | 2.93 | 206.00 | Shear | 10.00 | Shear | 19.08 | |
| R150-NSM-2×150-4FFRP | Flax | 133.33 | NSM Strip along 2 sides of beam spaced at 150 mm c/c (Spanning 500 mm from one end of the beam support) | 2.93 | 206.00 | Shear | 10.00 | Shear | 19.08 | |
| Ferrier et al. [ | T0-Ref | 3.89 | 92.50 | Shear | 4.40 | Shear | ||||
| T180 Ref | 3.89 | 123.00 | Shear | 7.40 | Shear | |||||
| T0-EBR-cont-4FFRP | Flax | 28,800.00 | EB continuous U-Strip spanning 500 mm (of the beam length with no stirrups) | 3.89 | 123.40 | Shear | 7.00 | Shear | 33.41 | |
| T0-EBR-180-4FFRP | Flax | 160.00 | EB U-Strips spaced at 180 mm c/c spanning 500 mm (of the beam length with no stirrups) | 3.89 | 104.40 | Shear | 5.60 | Shear | 12.86 | |
| T0-EBR-180-CFRP | Carbon | 40.00 | EB U-Strips spaced at 180 mm c/c spanning 500 mm (of the beam length with no stirrups | 3.89 | 97.30 | Shear | 6.40 | Shear | 5.19 | |
| T180-EBR-cont-4FFRP | Flax | 28,800.00 | EB continuous U-Strip spanning 720 mm (of the beam length with no stirrups) | 3.89 | 133.00 | Shear | 9.50 | Shear | 8.13 | |
| T180-EBR-180-4FFRP | Flax | 160.00 | EB U-Strips spaced at 180 mm c/c spanning 720 mm (of the beam length with no stirrups) | 3.89 | 132.00 | Shear | 10.70 | Shear | 5.66 | |
| T180-EBR-180-CFRP | Carbon | 40.00 | EB U-Strips spaced at 180 mm c/c spanning 720 mm (of the beam length with no stirrups) | 3.89 | 125.60 | Shear | 10.70 | Shear | 2.11 |
N/B: Asv—Area of shear fibre strip; Sv—Spacing of Strips.
Figure 13Hybrid composite plate retrofitting process with dowels anchoring into RC specimen [82].
Gaps in knowledge based on the literature review of past studies.
| S/N | Authors | Key Findings | Gaps |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [ | EB FRP strengthening technique shows effectiveness in flexural strengthening RC beams in modern day retrofitting | Delamination is the most frequent mechanism of failure for EB FRP systems which eventually easily yield to other forms of failure, such as concrete cover separation, concrete crushing, and shear crack propagation |
| 2 | [ | NSM strengthening system stands out as a viable alternative to the EB system owing to its higher fatigue strength, ability to reduce the possibility of debonding, and capacity to protect against external agents of deterioration | Comparisons of the two systems are underexplored using NFRP composites and this is necessary to contribute to the efforts to attain better eco-friendly enhancement of structures |
| 3 | [ | Deterioration due to debonding, residual stress, and dependability of EB NFRP-strengthened structures can all be assessed and predicted using theoretical models | Models are underexplored empirically using the NSM NFRP strengthening system |
| 4 | [ | NFRP strengthening aids in the transition of a structure from a brittle to a flexible mode of failure via EB NFRP strengthening | This remains underexplored using NSM NFRP system (Ductility) |
| 5 | [ | The major failure modes for NSM system include: concrete cover separation; flexure failure by crushing of compressive concrete; flexural failure by rupture; intermediate crack induced debonding; and end debonding failure | Reported failure modes are underexplored using NSM NFRP system |
| 6 | [ | Bonding behaviour of NSM FRP system shows a better efficiency when compared to the EB system under various kinds of loading conditions. | There is limited research on the use of NSM NFRP composite systems in torsional strengthening of RC beams to validate bond behaviour. Additionally, the structural behaviour of NSM FRP composites in strengthening RC beams with openings remains grossly underexplored |
| 7 | [ | NFRP composites show plenty of promise in enhancing structures under various forms of loadings with both the EB and NSM systems | There are limitations to research and related issues, particularly with respect to the effectiveness of EB and NSM NFRP composites systems when coupled loading conditions such as fatigue, cyclic, seismic, impact, and exposure to harsh weather conditions are applied |