International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2015)
Finite Element Analysis of Different Types of Composite
Column
Richa Pateriya1, Dr. Saleem Akhtar2, Prof. Nita Rajvaidya3
1,2
Department of Civil Engineering, UIT RGPV, Bhopal, India
3
Department of Civil Engineering, TIEIT, Bhopal, India
Abstract - The use of composite materials has been
increased in strengthening of concrete columns in recent
years. One of the applications is to use FRP (fiber
reinforced polymer) reinforcement instead of steel
reinforcement in concrete columns.
In this paper, the results of an analytical investigation on
the behavior of RC column reinforced with Steel rebar and
Glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars are comprised
and discussed. Linear and Nonlinear finite element analysis
(FEA) on 12-column specimens were accomplished by using
ANSYS software. In this research, we investigated the
benefits of superseding steel rebar with FRP bars in
concrete columns. An extensive set of parameters was
scrutinized, including different main reinforcement ratios,
main reinforcement types (GFRP, Steel), ultimate load
carrying capacity of columns and deformations. A
comparison between the theoretical results and those
obtained by analytical modeling using ANSYS are
presented.
The analysis done will be useful for predicting the
ultimate load bearing capacity and deformations of concrete
columns reinforced with GFRP bars.
Keywords: ANSYS, Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP),
Finite Element Analysis (FEA), GFRP Reinforced Concrete
columns (GFRP).
I. INTRODUCTION
The traditional reinforcement methods in reinforced
concrete column have been accepted for several years as
a common practice amongst designers and contractors.
There has been a large amount of research completed and
designers are capable of predicting the future functioning
of the columns.
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) is continuously used
for reinforcing new structures, and also for rehabilitation
of existing structures. FRP composites, in form of sheets,
cables, rods, and plates, have proven to be a future
alternative to steel reinforcements because of their light
weight, no corrosiveness, high specific strength, specific
stiffness and are easily constructed.
The most common types of FRP are aramid, glass, and
carbon; AFRP, GFRP and CFRP respectively [1].
Fiberglass is a cheaper composite material made from
glass fibers in a polymeric matrix (GFRP). The fibers
provide the main load carrying capability of the material
and the polymer serves to protect the fibers and permit
load transfer for them.
173
FRP composite materials have been used as internal
and external reinforcement in the field of civil
engineering constructions. It has been used as internal
reinforcement for beams, slabs and pavements [2,3] and
also as external reinforcement for rehabilitation and
strengthening different structures [4,5]. Fibers reinforced
polymer composites, developed primarily for the
aerospace and defence industries, are a class of materials
with great potential to be used in civil infrastructures.
Since the construction of the first all-composite bridge
superstructure in Miyun, China, in 1982, they have been
gradually gaining acceptance from civil engineers as a
new construction material. During these 30 years, they
proved to be useful in a few areas of application: mostly
in the form of sheets and strips for strengthening existing
bridge structures and to some extent, as reinforcing bars
substituting steel as concrete reinforcement.
So, the purpose of this research is to study the
behavior of reinforced concrete columns with GFRP. The
results and observations presented in this paper are useful
for engineers to predict the compressive strength of
concrete column while using GFRP.
II. OBJECTIVES
The chief objectives of this study are:
 To study the compressive behavior of reinforced
concrete columns reinforced longitudinally as well
as transversely with steel rebar under pure axial
load.
 To study the compressive behavior of reinforced
concrete columns reinforced longitudinally as well
as transversely with Glass fiber reinforced polymer
under pure axial load.
 To compare the Structural behavior of RCC and
GFRP Column.
 To perform linear and non-linear analysis of column
with steel and GFRP reinforcement.
III. SCOPE
Analysis of the results will create a conclusion on the
effectiveness of analytical analysis and effectiveness of
GFRP as reinforcement.
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2015)
IV. DETAILS O F COLUMN SPECIMENS The used element is capable of plastic deformation,
Length of all Column Specimens =3200mm cracking in three orthogonal directions, and crushing [9],
Cross Section of all column specimen=300mm×300mm [10].
TABLE I
DETAILS OF COLUMN SPECIMENS

Figure 2: Solid-65 Element for concrete

A link8 element was used to model the reinforcement

Polymer bar; two nodes are required for this element.
Each node has three degrees of freedom, translation in
the nodal x, y, and z directions. The element is also
capable of plastic deformation [9], [10].

V. F INITE E LEMENT MODELING

5.1 Geometry
The details of testing columns were shown in Fig.1.
Analysis was carried out in 12-column specimens, where
all columns had a square cross-section with a 300mm
side and length of 3200mm. Analyzed columns had main
reinforcement(Steel, GFRP) 6#12mm, 6#16mm,6#20mm
8#12mm,8#16mm and 8#20mm.
The transverse reinforcement (Steel, GFRP) was ф8
mm stirrups spaced 200mm, characteristic compressive
strength of concrete columns 30 N/mm2.
Figure 3: A link 8 Element for Reinforcement
5.3 Material Properties
The input data for the concrete, GFRP, and steel
properties are shown in Table II, which is taken from
Indian Standard code 2000 [14], Table III is taken from
ACI Code 2008 [7, 11], Table IV is taken from
EGYPTIAN Code 2001 [12], and Table V is taken from
British Standards Institution 1997 [13].
IS code does not provide any recommendations for
FRP.
TABLE II
INPUT DATA AS PER IS 456:2000

Figure 1: Details of reinforcement of columns

5.2 Element types

An eight-node solid element, solid65, was used to
model the concrete. Solid element has eight nodes with
three degrees of freedom at each node, translation in the
nodal x, y, and z directions.

174
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2015)
TABLE III
INPUT DATA AS PER ACI CODE

4.1: IS 456:2000

TABLE IV
INPUT DATA AS PER EGYPTIAN CODE

4.2: ACI CODE

TABLE V
INPUT DATA AS PER BS 8110 CODE

4.3: BS CODE
Figure 4: Stress-Strain Curves for Concrete as per various codes

VI. LINEAR & NON -LINEAR ANALYSIS

For Linear & nonlinear analysis of column, first, we
define stress strain curve for concrete, steel, and FRP
using different codes [11], [12], [13], [14].

5.1: IS 456:2000
175
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2015)

5.2: ACI CODE 6.3: EGYPTIAN CODE

Figure 6: Stress-Strain Curve for FRP as per various codes

VII. LOADINGS
The parametric studies included in this investigation
are the reinforcement ratios and reinforcement types, and
the characteristic compressive strength of concrete,
ultimate load bearing capacity etc. Table VI shows the
ultimate loads on columns using ultimate load carrying
capacity formula on the basis of different codes [11],
[12], [13], [14].
TABLE VI
5.3: BS CODE
ULTIMATE LOAD ON COLUMN (KN)
Figure 5: Stress-Strain Curve for Steel as per various codes

VIII. ANALYSIS O F C OLUMN USING ANSYS &

6.1: ACI CODE
COMPARISON O F RESULTS
8.1 Linear Analysis: Table VII shows analytical results
of deformations using ANSYS and also shows the
comparison of deformations in columns using Steel and
GFRP as a reinforcement as per various codes. The
analysis results are shown graphically in figure 7 to
figure 10.

6.2: BS CODE

176
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2015)
TABLE VII 8.3 Non Linear Analysis:
ANSYS RESULTS FOR DEFORMATION (LINEAR ANALYSIS)
Table X shows analytical results of deformations using
ANSYS and also shows the comparison of deformations
using Steel and GFRP as a reinforcement as per various
codes. The analysis results are shown graphically in
figure 11 to figure 14.
TABLE X
ANSYS RESULTS FOR DEFORMATION (NON LINEAR
ANALYSIS)

8.2 Validation for deformations: The values of

deformations obtained from ANSYS (In Linear Analysis)
are validated with the help of Equation of Elasticity for
composite material. [6]. Table VIII and Table IX show
the validation of deformation when steel and GFRP is
used as reinforcement in concrete columns.
Table VIII 8.4 Reinforcement ratio Vs Deformation Graph:
VALIDATION FOR DEFORMATION (mm) [WHEN STEEL IS
USED AS REINFORCEMENT

Figure 7: Reinforcement ratio Vs Deformation Graph as per IS

code

TABLE IX  IS code does not give recommendations for FRP &

VALIDATION FOR DEFORMATION (mm) [WHEN GFRP IS hence this graph represents reinforcement ratio Vs
USED AS REINFORCEMENT] deformation only for Steel.

Figure 8: Reinforcement ratio Vs Deformation Graph as per ACI

code

177
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2015)

Figure 9: Reinforcement ratio Vs Deformation Graph as per BS

Code
Figure 13: Reinforcement ratio Vs Deformation Graph as per BS
Code

Figure 10: Reinforcement ratio Vs Deformation Graph as per

Egyptian Code
Figure 14: Reinforcement ratio Vs Deformation Graph as per
EGYPTIAN Code

IX. COST C OMPARISON O F S TEEL AND GFRP FOR

DEIFFERENT REINFORCEMENT R ATIO
TABLE XI:
COST ANALYSIS & COMPARISON

Figure 11: Reinforcement ratio Vs Deformation as per IS Code

 IS code does not give recommendations for FRP &

hence this graph represents reinforcement ratio Vs
deformation only for Steel.

Figure 12: Reinforcement ratio Vs Deformation Graph as per ACI

code
178
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2015)
Figure 15: Reinforcement ratio Vs total cost of reinforcement
Initial cost of installation of GFRP reinforcement as
compare to steel reinforcement is more however in the
future; it becomes cost effective in the long run as:
 GFRP is corrosion free.
 Use of GFRP reduces concrete cover and eliminates
corrosion protection measures.
 Using GFRP may minimize expensive repair work
required in case of steel reinforcement.
X. CONCLUSION
The Linear and Non-linear behavior of 12 column
specimens are investigated in this study. The conclusions
made from this investigation are as follows:
 Increasing reinforcement ratio from 0.8 to 2.792 %
has a significant effect on ultimate loads.
 As per ACI and BS-8110 code, for the same
reinforcement ratio GFRP does not affect the
ultimate load capacity of the column. While as per
Egyptian code, for the same reinforcement ratio
GFRP significantly increases the ultimate load
capacity of the column.
 As per ACI and BS-8110 code, for linear and
nonlinear analysis and for the same reinforcement
ratio deformation does not change when using
GFRP, but as per Egyptian Code, for the same
reinforcement ratio deformation significantly
increases in case of GFRP.
 The cost of reinforcement increases in case of
GFRP from 37% to 74% for different reinforcement
ratio.
179
 Although the initial cost of GFRP columns is more,
the use of GFRP is beneficial instead of steel as it is
corrosion resistant, weighs 1/4th of steel, has greater
tensile strength and also it reduces the maintenance
cost to a greater extent.
REFERENCES
[1] Ehab M. Lofty, (2010) “Ehab M. Lofty, (2010) “Behavior of
reinforced concrete short columns with Fiber Reinforced polymer
bars” International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 1, No 4 pp 707-722.
[2] Rizkalla, S., Hassan, T., and Hassan, N., [2003]. “Design
Recommendations for the use of FRP for Reinforcement and
Strengthening of Concrete Structures. ‖ Journal of Progress in
Structural Engineering and Materials, 5 (1), 16-28.
[3] Benmokrane, B., El-Salakawy, E., El-Ragaby, A., and Lackey, T.
[2006]. ―Designing and Testing of Concrete Bridge Decks
Reinforced with Glass FRP Bars. ‖ Journal of Bridge Engineering,
11 (2): 217–229.
[4] Demers, M., and Neale, K.W. [1999]. ―Confinement of
Reinforced Concrete Columns with Fiber Reinforced Composite
Sheets- an Experimental Study. ‖ Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 26, 226-241.
[5] Teng, J.G., Chen, J.F., Smith, S.T., and Lam, L., [2002]. ―FRP
Strengthened RC Structures.‖ John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
[6] S S Bhavikatti “strength of materials” Vikas Publishing House Pvt
Ltd, 2009, third edition.
[7] ACI Committee 440, (2006) “Guide for the design and
construction of structural concrete reinforced with FRP bars,”
ACI 440.1R-06, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI
[8] Ching Chiaw Choo, Issam E. Harik, and Hans Gesund (2006)
“Minimum Reinforcement Ratio for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Columns” ACI Structural
Journal/May-June, 460-466 pp
[9] ANSYS User's Manual, Swanson Systems, Inc
[10] Ehab M. Lotfy, (2010) “Behavior of reinforced concrete short
columns with Fiber Reinforced polymers bars” International
Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 1, No 3, pp
545-557
[11] American Concrete Institute, (2008) “Building code requirements
for structural concrete,” ACI 318-08, ACI, Farmington Hills, MI
[12] Egyptian Code for design and construction of concrete structures,
code no 203, 2001
[13] British Standards Institution (BSI), (2002) Structural use of
concrete Part 1: Code of practice for design and
construction.BS8110-1:1997, London.
[14] Indian Standards Code (IS),(2000) Plain and Reinforced Concrete
Code of Practice Forth Revision, IS 456:2000, India.