Experimental Study on Shallow Funicular Five Layered
Transcription
Experimental Study on Shallow Funicular Five Layered
International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering Vol. 1, Issue. 2, April, 2015 ISSN (Online): 2394-8868 Experimental Study on Shallow Funicular Five Layered GFRP Shells over Square Ground Plan P. Sachithanantham1, Khalid Bashir2, Rayees Ahmad Bala3, Arif Ahad4, Riya Gungnia5 1 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Bharath University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India. 2 Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Bharath University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India. . 3 Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Bharath University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India. 4 Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Bharath University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India. 5 Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Bharath University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India. Abstract— Shells, stressed skin structures because of their geometry and small flexural rigidity of the skin, tend to carry loads primarily by direct stresses acting in their plane. Composite shallow funicular shells of square ground plan, double curvature with different rises are loaded to failure with a concentrated central force. A form consisting of square steel frame and poly urethane membrane are used for casting the pre moulds. From the pre mould, moulds are prepared. Using these moulds the specimens are cast with various rises. Specimens of size 50 cm x 50 cm in plan are prepared with composite materials. The specimens are prepared having same size with various rises. They are subjected to ultimate loads and the corresponding deflections are measured. Failure patterns for shells with different rises are observed. From the experimental investigations a relation between span to rise ratio and ultimate load is arrived. It is concluded that the ultimate loads are function of the rise of the shell. Keywords—Shells, Composite shell, Ultimate load, Span to rise ratio. Funicular macroscopic scale. A composite is when two or more different materials are combined together to create a superior and unique material. For example, concrete is made up of cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and water. If the composition occurs on a microscopic scale (molecular level), the new material is then called an alloy for metals or a polymer for plastics. Generally, a composite material is composed of reinforcement (fibres, particles, flakes, and/or fillers) embedded in a matrix (polymers, metals, or ceramics). The matrix holds the reinforcement to form the desired shape while the reinforcement improves the overall mechanical properties of the matrix. When designed properly, the new combined material exhibits better strength than would each individual material. shell, Composites have been used extensively in industries such as marine and transportation for more than fifty years. Yet in some industries composites are just now becoming a primary material of choice. The use of composites in the building industry is growing rapidly. Traditional benefits offered by composites are being recognized and utilized to address design limitations and can be used to reduce life cycle environmental and cost impacts. Although the use of structural fibre composites in critical load-bearing applications is relatively rare one of its most common uses in the construction industry is repair of existing structures. I. INTRODUCTION Shells belong to the class of stressed skin structures which, because of their geometry and small flexural rigidity of the skin, tend to carry loads primarily by direct stresses acting in their plane. In the design of new forms of composite shell structures the conventional practice is to select the geometry of shell first and then making the stress analysis. In this process no deliberated effort is taken to ensure the desirable state of stress in the material. Perhaps it is more logical to reverse this process. The material is also used as a replacement for steel in reinforced and stressed concrete and in very rare cases to produce new civil structures almost entirely out of fibre composites. Some traditional rehabilitation and retrofit methods use concrete or external steel sheets to re-introduce or improve structural properties such as strength and ductility. The ability of concrete to form complex shapes and its suitability to submerged installation has seen it used for encapsulation of elements such as bridge piers. Steel can be bonded or bolted to deteriorated concrete structures to provide strength and stiffness improvements with relatively little additional weight. In the last decade the number of instances of fibre composites used as a surface layer that either protects and improves on the response of the encapsulated element has been increasing. In these cases In most of the shell roof is the predominant load is the dead weight. Hence it is advantageous to select the shape of shell in such a way that, under this condition of loading, the shell is subjected to pure compression without bending. This can be achieved by shaping the shell in the form of a catenary which the funicular shape is corresponding to the dead weight. Shell of rectangular and square ground plans are very frequent occurrence in practice. An attempt is made to study the influence of rise on the ultimate load of the Shallow Funicular Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Shells of Square Ground Plan. A typical composite material is a system of materials composing of two or more materials (mixed and bonded) on a 12 International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering Vol. 1, Issue. 2, April, 2015 ISSN (Online): 2394-8868 the materials are usually bonded externally to the structure in the form of tows (fibre bundles), fabrics, plates, strips and jackets. The advantages offered by composites in these forms include their ability to bond well too many substrate materials and to follow complex shapes. Composites also offer a potential benefit over isotropic retrofit materials, such as steel, by allowing enhancement of strength without increasing stiffness and vice versa. John W Weber et al., observed that the mathematical investigations of shallow funicular shells with large concentrated loads should be based on large deflection theory and the deflection characteristics of a shell vary closely with its rise parameter. Patricia M Belles et al., conclude that the analysis of the stresses and deformations of concrete shell with the anti funicular shape found with the homeostatic model technique (HMT) allows the verification of quasi membrane behaviour. Vafai and Farshad studied that the experimental failure loads are found to be directly related to the amount of reinforcement and the age of concrete shells. Sachithanantham concluded that the deflection of shallow funicular concrete shells decrease with increase in rise within elastic range and also concluded that the ultimate load carrying capacity increases with increase in rise. Figure 1 Casting of shallow funicular pre mould C. Casting of Shallow Funicular Moulds Concrete funicular moulds of size 50cm x 50cm in plan are prepared by applying GFRP materials on the pre-mould and cement concrete with adequate reinforcement. Resin, Gel Coat, Pigment, Catalyst and Accelerator are mixed thoroughly and the obtained mixture is placed on the Pre Moulds from the central axis so that it gets spreaded in the uniform manner. It is then left for overnight to get a better surface finish. The first layer of normal Glass Fibre is placed on the Pre Mould and the mixture of above obtained proportion is smudged on the Glass Fibre with the help of brushes. Consecutive Five layers of Woven Glass Fibre are placed and the mixture is laid with the help of brushes. The layers are uniformly compacted with the help of rollers. II. METHODOLOGY A. Materials Composite funicular shell specimens of various rises are prepared with Glass Fibre, Resin, Gel Coat, Pigment, Catalyst and Accelerator. To investigate the influence of different rises on the ultimate strength of shallow funicular shells, specimens are prepared and designated as follows. A cement concrete with high workability is poured over the Fibre Layers. Adequate reinforcement is provided for the moulds. By repeating this process, shell moulds of various rises are prepared as shown in Fig 2. i) SFS I – Shallow Funicular Shell with rise (R1) – 3.7 cm ii) SFS II – Shallow Funicular Shell with rise (R2) – 6.8 cm iii) SFS III – Shallow Funicular Shell with rise (R3) – 9.8 cm B. Casting of Shallow Funicular Pre moulds Concrete funicular pre moulds of size 50cm x 50cm in ground plan are prepared using cement concrete. A steel frame along with polyurethane membrane is used for casting the pre moulds. The edges of poly urethane membrane is stretched between the boundaries of the steel frame of square ground plan and clamped. Concrete with very high workability is poured over the membrane due to which the membrane sags downwards and forms a funicular shape. The downward sag is controlled by adjusting the membrane with the clamps provided at the edges. After the concrete has set the pre moulds are removed from the frame. Figure 2 Moulds of Shallow Funicular Shells D. Casting of Shallow Funicular Shells 13 International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering Vol. 1, Issue. 2, April, 2015 ISSN (Online): 2394-8868 Composite funicular shells of size 50cm x 50cm in plan are prepared by placing five layers of Glass Fibre over the mould. Resin, Gel Coat, Pigment, Catalyst and Accelerator are thoroughly mixed and the obtained mixture is poured on the edges of Mould and spreaded uniformly with the help of brushes. The first layer of normal Glass Fibre is placed on the Mould and the mixture of above obtained proportion is smudged on the Glass Fibre with the help of brushes. Three layers of Woven Glass Fibre are placed alternatively after the mixture is being poured on each layer and then laid with the help of brushes. The layers are uniformly compacted with the help of roller. Finally one more layer of normal Glass Fibre is placed over three layers of Woven Glass fibre. Square Shell specimens are prepared with shell moulds with various rises of 3.7 cm (R1), 6.8 cm (R2) and 9.8 cm (R3) as shown from Fig 3 and Fig 4. Care is taken to maintain the uniform thickness of funicular shell as 4 mm with the help of measuring gauge. Figure 4 Rolling over Glass fibre Figure 5 Specimen of Rise R2 III. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND TESTING The self-straining load frame and the Hydraulic loading jack along with Load cell are arranged in such a way to apply the concentrated force over the centre of the shell specimen as shown in Fig. 12(a) and 12(b). Care is taken to avoid eccentricity during loading. Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) is mounted where the deflections are required in the specimen. To facilitate the locations of LVDT the specimens are specially painted and the surface of the shell is discretized. Specimens are marked. The rise of the shell specimens cast is measured using Total Station and it is observed that the rises are almost equal to the predetermined values. Shells of SFS I, SFS II and SFS III are placed on loading frame and subjected to central concentrated force and the corresponding deflections are measured within the elastic range using data logger. Figure 3 Placing of Glass fibre on the mould Figure 6 (a) Test Programme 14 International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering Vol. 1, Issue. 2, April, 2015 ISSN (Online): 2394-8868 Figure 6 (d) Discritized Shell Specimen After the elastic range, all the specimens are subjected to failure and hence the ultimate loads are recorded. Visible crakes first appeared at the centre of the shell‘s outer surface and then propagated towards the corners along the diagonals. As the load is increased apparent zones of tension near and approximately parallel to the supports are also cracked by which the shell eventually failed. The crack patterns of shell specimens are shown in figure 7. Figure 6 (b) Experimental Setup Figure 6 (c) Experimental Setup Figure 7 Crack patterns of shell specimens IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS From the experimental investigations of SFS I, SFS II and SFS III a plot is made between the load and the corresponding deflection as shown in figure 8, 9, 10 and 11 for rise R1, R2 and R3 respectively. 15 International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering Vol. 1, Issue. 2, April, 2015 ISSN (Online): 2394-8868 Load vs Deflection DEFLECTION R1 1 0.5 DEFLECTION R2 0 DEFLECTION R3 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 LOAD (kN) LOAD (kN) 1.5 DEFLECTION (mm) Figure 8 Load vs Deflection, W1 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 DEFLECTION R1 DEFLECTION R2 DEFLECTION R3 0 2 4 6 DEFLECTION (mm) Figure 11 Load vs deflection, W Load vs Deflection From the figures 12 and 13 it is observed that the deflection of shallow funicular composite shell decreases with increase in rise. The ultimate loads for the specimens are tabulated in table I. LOAD (kN) 1.5 1 DEFLECTION R1 0.5 DEFLECTION R2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 TABLE I Test results of ultimate load (Pu) for shells DEFLECTION R3 Type Rise (h) DEFLECTION (mm) Span/Rise ratio (λ) Ultimate Load, (Pu) (kN) 13.51 7.35 5.10 2.92 3.73 3.91 (cm) Figure 9 Load vs Deflection, W2 SFS I SFS II SFS III A plot is made between ultimate load and the rise of the shell as shown in Figure 12. It is observed that the ultimate load increases with increase in rise. Load vs Deflection LOAD (kN) 1.5 DEFLECTION R1 1 0.5 DEFLECTION R2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 DEFLECTION (mm) 3.7 6.8 9.8 DEFLECTION R3 Figure 10 Load vs deflection, W3 16 International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering Vol. 1, Issue. 2, April, 2015 ISSN (Online): 2394-8868 is observed in SFS III when compared with SFS II and SFS I respectively. Ultimate Load vs Rise Ultimate Load (kN) 5 4 REFERENCES 3 2 [1] IS: 2210 - 1988, ―Criteria for Design of reinforced Concrete shell Structures and folded plates‖, Bureau of Indian Standards, 1989. Rise cm 1 [2] Ramasamy G. S, ―Design and Construction of Concrete Shell Roofs‖, CBS publishers, 1986. 0 0 5 10 15 [3] John W Weber et al, ―Ultimate Loads for Shallow Funicular Concrete Shells‖, Northwest, Vol. 58, No. 3, 1984, pp 187 – 194. Rise (cm) [4] Patricia M Belles et al, ‗ Virtual Simulation of Shape Generation of Homeostatic Shell Models‗, Association Argentina, Mechanica Computational, Vol 25, Nov, 2006, pp 549 – 560 Figure 12 Ultimate load vs Rise Ultimate load vs Span /rise ratio [5] Vafai. A and M. Farshad, (1979) "Theoretical and Experimental Study of Prefabricated Funicular Shell Units", Building and Environment, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 209-216. Span/Rise ratio, (λ) [6] Karbhari, V. M., Zhao, L., 2000, ―The Use of Composites for Twenty-First Century Civil Infrastructure‖, Fibre Composites: Who Needs Them? A Workshop for Civil and Structural Engineers, University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Poly. (Span/Rise ratio, (λ) ) [7] Gowripalan N., 1999, ―Fibre reinforced Polymer (FRP) Applications for Prestressed Concrete Bridges‖, Proceedings of ACUN 1 Conference Composites: Innovations and Structural Applications, UNSW, Australia Ultimate Load (kN) 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 [8] Gowripolan, N., 2000, ―Design Considerations for Prestressed Concrete Beams with Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Tendons‖, Fibre Composites: Who Needs Them?, A Workshop for Civil and Structural Engineers, University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Span/Rise Ratio Figure 13 Ultimate load vs Span /rise ratio (λ) [9] Sachithanantham.P, Elavenil.S and Sankaran.S, ( 2011) ― Study on Shallow Funicular Concrete Shells over Square Ground Plan Subjected to Ultimate loads‖, International Journal of Earth From Figure 13 it is observed that the ultimate load (Pu) increases with the decrease in span to rise ratio (λ). From the figure 13 the relationship between Pu and λ can be approximated by the equation (1) where λ value lies (5 < λ < 15). Pu = -0.0061 - 0.0038 λ + 4.0885 …….. (1) [10] IS: 2386 (Part I – IV) - 1963, ―Methods of Test for Aggregates for Concrete‖, Bureau of Indian Standard, 1963. [11] IS: 10262-1982, ―Recommended guidelines for concrete mix design‖, Indian Standards Institution, 1982. V. CONCLUSIONS [12] Farshad.M, and G. Ahmadi,( 1979) "Influence of Loading Behavior on the Stability of Cylindrical Shells", J. of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 533-540. From the experimental investigations it is concluded that the deflection of shallow funicular composite shell decreases with the increase in rise within the elastic range. The ultimate load carrying capacity increases with the increase in rise. It is also concluded that an increment of 27.73% of ultimate load (Pu) is observed in SFS I when compared with SFS II., an increment of 4.82% and 33.9% of ultimate load (Pu) [13] Kai-uwe bletzinger, Linhard J, Wüchner R, Bletzinger KU,( 2009)―Isogeometric shell analysis with Kirchhoff-Love elements‖. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng.198: pp 39023914. 17 International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering Vol. 1, Issue. 2, April, 2015 ISSN (Online): 2394-8868 [14] IS: 2210 - 1988, ―Criteria for Design of reinforced Concrete shell Structures and folded plates‖, Bureau of Indian Standards, 1989. [15] IS: 2204 - 1962, ―code of practice for construction of reinforced concrete shell roof‖, Bureau of Indian Standards, 1962. 18 International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering Vol. 1, Issue. 2, April, 2015 ISSN (Online): 2394-8868 19