Journal of Engineering Research and Reports

5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no.JERR.49006

Structural Shear Behavior of Composite Box Beams

Using Advanced Innovated Materials
Abeer M. Erfan1* and Taha A. El-Sayed1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Shoubra Faculty of Engineering, Benha University, 108 Shoubra
St., Shoubra, Cairo, Egypt.

Authors’ contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration between both authors. All authors made equal contributions
in conceptualization, formal analysis, validation, visualization, reviewing and editing. All Authors
supervised the manuscript. All author carried out the model calibration and applications and wrote the
original draft. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Article Information

DOI: 10.9734/JERR/2019/v5i216920
Editor(s):
(1) Dr. Pijush Samui, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Patna, India and Adjunct Professor Ton Duc
Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Reviewers:
(1) Ahmed H. Ali, The University of North Florida, USA.
(2) J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa, National University of Colombia, Colombia.
Complete Peer Review History: http://www.sdiarticle3.com/review-history/49006

Received 03 May 2019

Accepted 10 May 2019
Original Research Article
Published 18 May 2019

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a new conception of shear behaviour of box concrete beams reinforced by
composite fabrics. For this purpose, stirrups, wire meshes as shear reinforcement were used.
Seven box section concrete beams were tested using two-point loading system. Beams with tensar
wire mesh exhibited increasing in ultimate failure load, shear capacity and deflection with respect
to beams used fiber-glass wire mesh instead of stirrups. Nonlinear finite element analysis was
conducted using finite element program of ANSYS 14.5 to verify the experimental test program. An
acceptable acceptance found between the experimental and numerical results.

Keywords: Composite structures; box beams; shear stress; composite materials; glass fiber wire
mesh; tensar wire mesh; nonlinear finite element analysis (NLFEA); Ansys 14.5

1. INTRODUCTION Ferrocement is named as wire mesh

reinforcement. The flexure behavior of wire
Wire meshes were used to belay the new system meshes had been studied and noticed to be
and to improve its performance [1,2]. nearly to reinforced concrete members [3-6]. Al-
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected], [email protected]

 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

Sulaimani et al [7,8] recommended studying the 2.1 Preparation of Specimens and

behavior of composite ferrocement beams under Samples Description
transversal shear stress. Mansur & Ong [9] had
studied the shear behaviour of rectangular The experimental program consists of seven box
ferrocement beams. Ferrocement rectangular beams with the same geometry and steel
beams were found to be critical to shear collapse reinforcement details as shown in Fig. 1, were
at comparatively high Vf and f'c. El-Sayed & prepared for testing under concentric loads. The
Erfan [10] improved the shear behaviour of control specimen was box section beam
ferrocement composite beams. Test results reinforced using 2Ø12 in tensions and 2Ø10 in
showed that beams with expanded wire mesh compression and 13Ø6 as stirrups. The other
exhibited some amount of increase in shear sixth box beams haven’t stirrups but using glass
capacity with respect to beams with reference & fiber and tensar composite instead of stirrups.
welded wire mesh. The first group consists of three beams Box 1-1,
Box 2-1 and Box 3-1 which reinforced using one,
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS two and three layers of glass fiber wire mesh
respectively. Second group for Box 1-2, Box 2-2
The experimental work was conducted to and Box 3-2 which reinforced using one, two and
investigate the general behaviour, cracks pattern, three tensar wire mesh instead of stirrups
shear stresses and the ultimate capacity of the respectively as described in Table 1.
reinforced concrete box beam reinforced by
composite fabrics. The experimental program 2.2 Characteristics of Materials
consisted of seven composite box beams having
the cross- sectional dimensions of 100 mm x200 The concrete mix contents utilized for the
mm and 1800 mm long were cast and tested until experimental program was summarized in Table
failure. All specimens were reinforced with the 2 which gives concrete characteristic strength of
same longitudinal bars in tension and 30 MPa. The reinforced steel obtained from El-
compression. The specimens were tested using Dekhiela factory was fy=360 MPa (for deformed
two-point loading. The reinforcing bars were bars) and fy=240 MPa (for plain bars). Fig. 2
designed and detailed, and the bearing pad was showed either tensar or fiber glass wire meshed
proportioned such that the flexural, anchorage used. Table 3 summarized the properties of both
and bearing modes of failure were avoided. The wire meshes as per manufacturer. The beams
concrete mix for the test specimens was were casted in a horizontal position and the
designed to obtain compressive strength at 28 vibrated concrete placed compacted in wooden
days of 30 MPa. The mix proportions were 2 molds.
sand: 1 cement, water cement ratio was 0.3 and
1.5% super plasticizer by weight of cement. The 2.3 Test Setup
concrete slump was found to be 130 mm and a
3
density of 2500 Kg/m . All specimens were
The composite box beams were tested under
tested using compression testing machine of
two-point load testing machine of maximum
capacity 2000 KN.

Table 1. Box beams specimen’s descriptions and notations

Series Specimen Specimens Reinf. Compression Vr. stirrups

no. description tension
Control BOX1 Control specimen 2φ12 2 φ10 13Φ6
Group 1 “Glass BOX1-1 One-layer glass fiber 2 φ12 2 φ10 -
fiber wire
Mesh” BOX2-1 Two-layer glass fiber 2 φ12 2 φ10 -
BOX3-1 Three-layer glass 2 φ12 2 φ10 -
fiber
Group 2 “Tensar BOX1-2 One-layer tensar 2φ12 2 φ10 -
wire BOX2-2 Two-layer tensar 2 φ12 2 φ10 -
mesh” BOX3-2 Three-layer tensar 2 φ12 2 φ10 -

2
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

d) e)
Fig. 1. Beams geometric shape and reinforcement details
a) Control specimen; b) Cross-section of beam with steel stirrups; c) Cross-section of beam glass fiber wire mesh
or tensar layer mesh; d) Beams with glass fiber wire mesh; e) Beams with tensar wire mesh

capacity of 2000 KN with 1800 mm effective Table 2. The contents of concrete mixture
span and 750 mm shear span and 300mm load
distance as shown in Fig. 3. Load was affective Contents Amount
3
at 20 KN increments on the tested specimens. Cement 350 Kg/m
The LVDT and dial gages were used of high Sand 700 Kg/m3
3
accuracy to measure the deflections and Aggregate (1) 540 Kg/m
strains for steel and concrete. The load still Aggregate (2) 620 Kg/m3
3
increased till failure load and maximum Water 162.5 L/m
3
displacements. Admix 2 L/m

a) b)

Fig. 2. Configurations of composites materials

a) Polyethylene (Tensar) wire mesh;
b) Fiber glass wire mesh

3
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

Table 3. Mechanical properties of tensar and fiber glss wire meshes

Polyethylene (Tensar) wire mesh Glass fiber wire mesh

Dimensions size 6.0 x 8.0 mm Dimensions size 12.5 x 11.5 mm
2
Weight 725 gm/m Weight 123 gm/m²
Sheet Thickness 3.30 mm Sheet Thickness 0.66 mm
2 2
Yield Stress 260 N/mm Yield Stress 230 N/mm
Young's modulus 100000 Young's modulus 80000

Fig. 3. Test set up schematic

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Cracking

Test results include the load carrying capacity The first crack for all tested box beams were
and displacement in concrete box beams. The developed horizontally under the load pint in the
cracks propagation during the tests was mid span. Control specimen cracks observed at
recorded. The crack initialization in the a load of 7.5 KN. For specimens BOX 1-1,
specimens reinforced using wire meshes was BOX 2-1 and BOX3-1, a higher ultimate load was
developed however, at later stages with respect recorded 1.04, 1.1 and 1.25 times than control
to the control specimen. Also, the cracks lengths one respectively. The diagonal cracking initiated
and widths decreased in the specimens in the Control Specimen; BOX 1 increased in
reinforced with either glass fiber or tensar wire length and width until failure at load of 42.5 KN.
meshes as compared with the control specimen. For specimens BOX1-2, BOX2-2 and BOX3-2, a

a)

b)

4
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

c)
Fig. 4. Sample of crack pattern
a) control specimen; b) glass fiber wire mesh; c) Polyethylene (tensar) wire mesh

Table 4. Experimental testing results

Series Specimen Failure load Shear % Of Shear Load( Deflection

No. (KN) Stress enhancement N) / ultimate (mm) at failure
(MPa) in load strength(N) load
Control BOX1 40.5 2.25 ---- 0.833 0.40
Group 1 “glass BOX1-1 45.7 2.53 12.8 0.830 0.290
fiber ire
mesh” BOX2-1 47.3 2.62 16.8 0.830 0.278
BOX3-1 50.2 2.78 23.9 0.831 0.250
Group 2 BOX1-2 48.4 2.69 19.6 0.834 0.270
“Polyethylene BOX2-2 51.6 2.86 27.4 0.832 0.250
(tensar)wire mesh” BOX3-2 55.2 3.06 36.3 0.831 0.230

60 0.6
0.5
50
Failur load (KN)

0.4
Deflectin (mm)

40
0.3
30
0.2
20 0.1
10 6E-16
BOX1

BOX1-1
BOX2-1
BOX3-1

BOX1-2
BOX2-2
BOX3-2
0 -0.1
BOX1-1
BOX2-1
BOX3-1

BOX1-2
BOX2-2
BOX3-2
BOX1

a) b)

Fig. 5. comparison between experimental results

a) failure load (KN); b) deflection (mm) at ultimate load of control specimen

higher ultimate load was recorded 1.02, 1.12 and The first group which reinforced using glass fiber
1.18 times than control specimen respectively. wire mesh recorded failure loads of 45.7, 47.3
Using fiber glass wire mesh and tensar wire and 50.2 KN for BOX1-1, BOX2-1 and BOX3-1
mesh instead of stirrups was enhanced the crack respectively with enhancement ratio with respect
pattern for box beams as shown in Fig. 4. to the control beam of 12.8, 16.8 and 23.9%.
This enhancement related to layers number of
3.2 Ultimate Load Capacity glass fiber wire mesh used in reinforcement
which is related to the confinement effect for
The load carrying capacity is differ from one box glass fiber.as shown in Table 4. For the second
beam to another according to its reinforcement group which reinforced using Polyethylene
and using tensar and glass fiber wire mesh (tensar) wire mesh of different layers number of
instead of steel stirrups. For the control BOX1-2, BOX2-2 and BOX3-2. The experimental
specimen, the ultimate failure load was 40.5 KN. failure loads were 48.44, 51.6 and 55.2 KN with

5
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

60

50
Failural load (KN) 40

30
BOX1
BOX1-1
20 BOX2-1
BOX3-1
10 BOX1-2
BOX2-2
0 BOX3-2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

deflection ( mm)

Fig. 6. Experimental load deflection curve

enhancement ratio of 19.6, 27.4 and 36.3% for The decrease in ultimate deflection of group one
BOX 1-2, BOX 2-2 and BOX 3-2 respectively. and two is mainly due to increase in number of
Observing that using three layers of either glass glass fiber or tensar wire mesh layers used in
fiber or tensar wire mesh recorded the highest reinforcement instead of steel stirrups which lead
load and enhancement in carrying capacity due to increase in its volume fraction in specimens.
to the confimement ability and in increasing the
compression strength of concrete which 3.4 Ductility and Energy Absorption
appeared in failure load capacity. It is noticed
that the effect of using tensar wire mesh has the Ductility is defined as the ratio between the
major effect in load carrying capacity as shown in deflections at ultimate load to the deflection at
Table 4 and Fig. 5. the first crack load but the energy absorption is
the total area under the load deflection curve.
The ductility recorded an average ratio for
3.3 Experimental Ultimate Deflection
different specimens of 5.66. A progressive
increase of energy absorption which represents
As shown in Table 4 and Figs. 5.b and 6 the the specimen toughness with volume friction
experimental deflection recorded for different percentage and ductility was observed. For the
specimens with different reinforcement types. control specimen BOX1 the energy absorption
The deflection recorded for the control specimen recorded 285.6 KN.mm, compared this value
was 0.40 mm at failure load. For group one with the recorded for different series it shows
which reinforced with glass fiber wire mesh, the good enhancement. For all series the
maximum deflection at failure load was 0.38, enhancement percentage varies between 99.6%
0.39 and 0.45 mm but at the same failure load of and 129%. The smallest enhancement was at
the control, it was 0.29, 0.278 and 0.25 mm specimen BOX1-2 which use one glass fiber
respectively which is lower than the control layer instead of stirrups due to the weak
specimen. This indicates the effect of glass fiber properties of the used type of layer but the
wire mesh in decreasing the deflection with highest enhancement was in BOX3-2 which used
average ratio of 27.2%. For group two which three tensar layers wire mesh. Finally using
reinforced with Polyethylene (tensar) wire mesh, reinforced with various types of composite
the maximum deflection at failure load was 0.41, materials were developed with high ultimate
0.44 and 0.45 mm which is higher than the loads, crack resistance, better deformation
control specimen but if the deflection recorded at characteristics, high durability and energy
specimens BOX 1-2, BOX 2-2 and BOX 3-2 at absorption properties, which are very useful for
failure load of control specimen which was 0.27, dynamic effect.
0.25 and 0.23 mm respectively. This indicates
the effect of tensar wire mesh in 3.5 Shear Stress
decreasing the deflection with average ratio of
37.5%. This ratio indicates that the tensar wire The obtained shear stresses are obtained
mesh has the best effect in decrease the according to the ECP203/207 [11]. For the
deflection. control specimen BOX1 the shear stress was

6
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

2.25 MPa. For the first group box beams 4.1 Specimens Modeling
BOX 1-1, BOX 2-1 and BOX 3-1 the shear
stresses were 2.53, 2.62 and 2.78 MPa NLFEA was carried out to estimate the behavior
respectively with an enhancement ratio of 12.5%, of composite box beams as shown in Fig. 7. The
16.5% and 23.5% respectively with respect to the discussed behavior included the ultimate
control specimen. The second group which used capacity, deflection, shear stresses and crack
Polyethylene (tensar) wire mesh instead of pattern for each specimen.
stirrups, the shear stresses was 2.69 MPa,
2.86 MPa and 3.06 MPa for BOX 1-2, BOX 2-2 4.1.1 Model elements types
and BOX 3-2 respectively. The enhancement in
this group with respect to the control specimen Solid 65 represent the concrete element which
was 19.5%, 27.1% and 36.0% respectively which represents the stress strain curve for concrete in
is relatively more than the group used the glass compression and the other properties of it
fiber wire mesh. represent the concrete strength in tension. The
other used element was LINK 8 3-D to
4. NON-LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT
represent the steel bars with its strength and
ANALYSIS STUDY steel stirrups. The composite materials of glass
NLFEA study was done to verify the obtained fiber or Polyethylene (tensar) wire mesh was
experimental results. The groups studied were as represented by calculating the volumetric ratio of
shown in Table 1 which divided in to control it in the concrete element using its
specimen and other two groups. Group one properties by calculating the ratio of steel to
which used glass fiber wire mesh instead of steel concrete in each element as shown in Fig. 8.
stirrups with different number of layers. The Each material has its X, Y and Z coordinates
second group used Polyethylene (tensar) wire and has its orientation angle and its
mesh instead of steel stirrups. These specimens reinforcement in wire mesh smeared
were modeled and analyzed using ANSYS 14.5 element.
[12] program.

Fig. 7. NLFEA model of examined box beams

a) Solid65 b) Link8

Fig. 8. Geometry of element types

7
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

Fig. 9. Sample of crack pattern for control specimen

a) first cracks; b) cracks at failure; c) sample of cracks for specimens in group 1 and 2

60

50
Failure Load (KN)

40
BOX1
30 BOX1-1
BOX2-1
20 BOX3-1
BOX1-2
10 BOX2-2
BOX3-2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
deflection (mm)

Fig. 10. NLFE load deflection curves

Table 5. NLFEA analytical results

Series Specimen Failure load % Of enhancement Deflection (mm)

no. (KN) in load at failure load
Control BOX1 36.0 --- 0.370
Group 1 “glass fiber wire BOX1-1 42.8 18.8 0.370
mesh” BOX2-1 44.2 22.8 0.350
BOX3-1 48.3 34.1 0.420
Group 2 “Polyethylene BOX1-2 45.7 26.9 0.400
(tensar) wire mesh” BOX2-2 49.2 36.7 0.410
BOX3-2 53.4 48.3 0.415

8
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

Fig. 11. Typical deformation of NLFEA deflection for box beams

4.1.2 Modelling material properties failure at load of 36 KN. For specimens BOX 1-2,
BOX 2-2 and BOX 3-2, it was recorded at a
The mechanical properties for element SOLID65 higher load with respect to control specimen
and LINK 8 which represent concrete and steel being 0.95, 1.05 and 1.12 times that of the
reinforcement respectively was Elastic modulus control specimen; BOX 1, respectively. Using the
2
of elasticity (Ec= 4400√fcu=24100 N/mm ) and fiber glass wire mesh and Polyethylene (tensar)
Poisson’s ratio (ν= 0.3), but Yield stress (fy= 360 wire mesh instead of stirrups enhance the crack
2 2 pattern for box section beam as shown in
N/mm & fyst= 240 N/mm ) with Poisson’s ratio ν= Fig. 9C.
0.2, [11].
4.2.2 Ultimate failure load
For the element which represents the composite
properties for glass fiber wire mesh are as the The load carrying capacity is differing from one
given. The glass fiber wire mesh which has box section to another according to its
diamond size is 12.5 x 11.5 mm with thickness of reinforcement and using glass fiber wire mesh
0.66 mm, the volumetric ratio of one layer of and polyethylene (tenasr) wire mesh instead of
glass fiber mesh (V1= 0.00872), two layers was steel stirrups. For the control specimen BOX, the
(V1= 0.0174) but for the three layers of glass ultimate failure load was 36.0 KN. The first group
fiber the volumetric ratio is (V1= 0.02616). For which reinforced using glass fiber wire mesh
the Polyethylene (tensar) layers the size of recorded failure loads of 42.8, 44.2 and 48.3 KN
opening is 6.0 x8.0 mm with wires of diameter for BOX1-1, BOX2-1 and BOX3-1 respectively
3.3 mm. The volumetric ratio of one layer of with enhancement ratio with respect to the
tensar mesh (V1= 0.14800), two layers was (V1= control beam of 18.8%, 22.8% and 34.1%
0.29600) but for the three layers the volumetric respectively. This enhancement related to
ratio of three layer of tensar mesh (V1= number of fiber glass wire mesh used in
0.44400). reinforcement as shown in Table 5. For the
second group which reinforced using tensar wire
4.2 Analytical Results and Discussion mesh of different layers number of BOX1-2,
BOX2-2 and BOX3-2. The NLFE failure loads
The finite element program presents the were 45.7, 49.2 and 53.4 KN with enhancement
nonlinear response of the box beams specimens. ratio of 26.9%, 36.7% and 48.3% for BOX1-2,
Loading was incrementally increased until failure BOX2-2 and BOX3-2 respectively. Observing
and divergence occurs which lead to failure. The that using three layers of either glass fiber or
finite element results represent the cracks tensar wire mesh recorded the highest load and
patterns, failure load, deflection, shear stresses enhancement in carrying capacity. It is noticed
and yielding of steel as shown in Table 5. that the effect of using tensar wire mesh has the
major effect in load carrying capacity as shown in
4.2.1 Cracking Table 5 and Fig. 10.

The first crack in the entire tested box beam was 4.2.3 Analytical ultimate deflection
slightly inclined crack developed under the load
pint in the mid span. This first crack in the control The analytical deflection recorded for different
specimen observed at a load of 4.0 KN. For specimens with different reinforcement types is
specimens BOX1-1, BOX2-1 and BOX3-1, it was recorded as in Table 5 and Fig. 10 and Fig. 11.
recorded at a higher load being 1.2, 1.15 and The deflection of the control specimen was 0.37
1.05 times that of the Control Specimen; BOX1, mm at failure load. For group one which
respectively. The cracking initiated in the Control reinforced with glass fiber wire mesh, the
Specimen; BOX1 increased in numbers until maximum deflection at failure load was 0.35,

9
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

0.37 and 0.42 mm but at the same load of the all series the enhancement percentage varies
control specimen it was 0.26, 0.24 and 0.25 mm between 45.1% and 159%. The smallest
respectively which is lower than the control enhancement was at specimen BOX1-2 which
specimen. This indicates the effect of glass fiber use one Polyethylene (tensar) layer instead of
wire mesh in decreasing the deflection with stirrups due to the properties of the used type of
average ratio of 29.7%. layer but the highest enhancement was in
BOX 3-1 which used three tensar layers wire
For group two which reinforced with Polyethylene mesh which agreed with the results. Finally using
(tensar) wire mesh, the maximum deflection at composite materials were developed with high
failure load was 0.40, 0.42 and 0.415 mm which ultimate loads, crack resistance, better
is higher than the control specimen but if the deformation characteristics, high durability and
deflection recorded at specimens BOX1-2, energy absorption properties, which are very
BOX2-2 and BOX3-2 at failure load of control useful for dynamic effect.
specimen which was 0.265, 0.25 and 0.27 mm
respectively. This indicates the effect of tensar 4.2.5 Shear stresses
wire mesh in decreasing the deflection with
average ratio of 29.8%. This ratio indicates that The obtained shear stresses are obtained
the tensar wire mesh has relatively best effect in according to the obtained results from the
decrease the deflection. NLFEA as shown in Fig. 12. For the control
specimen BOX1 the shear stress was 2.0 MPa.
The decrease in ultimate deflection of group one For the first group box beams BOX 1-1, BOX 2-1
and two is mainly due to increase in number of and BOX 3-1 the shear stresses were 2.37, 2.45
glass fiber or tensar wire mesh layers used in and 2.68 MPa respectively with an enhancement
reinforcement which lead to increase in its ratio of 18.5%, 22.5% and 34.0% respectively
volume fraction in specimens. with respect to the control specimen. The second
group which used the Polyethylene (tensar) wire
4.2.4 Ductility and energy absorption mesh instead of stirrups, the shear stresses was
A progressive increase of energy absorption 2.53 MPa, 2.73 MPa and 2.96 MPa for
which represents the specimen toughness with BOX 1-2, BOX 2-2 and BOX 3-2 respectively.
volume friction percentage and ductility was The enhancement in this group with
observed. For the control specimen BOX1 the respect to the control specimen was 26.5%,
energy absorption recorded 249.9 KN.mm, 36.5% and 48.0% respectively which is relatively
compared this value with the recorded for more than the group used the glass fiber wire
different series it shows good enhancement. For mesh.

Fig. 12. NLFEA shear stresses

a) Shear stresses for BOX1; b) Sample of shear stresses for different specimens

10
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

5. COMPARISON BETWEEN the aim of the studied parameters in face of load

EXPERIMENTAL AND NLFEA carrying capacity.
RESULTS
5.2 Ultimate Deflection
These comparisons aim to ensure the NLFEA
models are available and suitable to exhibit the Fig. 14 showed the load deflection curves for all
response of composite box beams. There are box beams in phase of experimental and NLFE
seven finite element models were compared with obtained results. The recorded deflection for
seven experimental specimens in term of experimental and NLFE analysis showed an
ultimate load, ultimate deflection and crack agreement with respect to the deflection
patterns. recorded for the control specimen as in Fig. 15
and Table 6. The recorded ratio between ∆NLFE /
5.1 Ultimate Failure Load ∆ Exp of 0.92 for the control specimen. For the first
group this ratio recorded 0.92, 0.95 and 0.93 for
There was an acceptable agreement between BOX 1-1, BOX 2-1 and BOX 3-1 respectively but
the experimental failure load and the analytical for BOX 1-2, BOX 2-2 and BOX 3-2, these ratios
failure load obtained from NLFE program as were 0.97, 0.95 and 0.92 respectively. These
shown in Table 6 and Fig.13. The ratio between ratios showed that NLFE program provide an
the NLFE failure loads to the experimental failure acceptable response in deflection as in
load varies between 0.90 to 0.96 with an average Fig. 15.
ratio of 0.94. The ratio of Pu NLFE/ Pu Exp for control
specimen was 0.90 but for the specimens in 5.3 Crack Patterns
group one, it was 0.93, 0.94 and 0.96 for
BOX 1-1, BOX 2-1 and BOX 3-1 respectively. The Fig. 16 indicate a comparison between the
For the second group this ratio was 0.94, 0.95 crack patterns experimentally and in NLFE
and 0.96 for BOX 1-2, BOX 2-2 and BOX 3-2 analysis these cracks begins micro cracks and
respectively. This shows that the NLFEA gives increased in length and width till failure.

Table 6. Comparison between experimental and NLFE analysis

Specimen Failure load Deflection Shear stress Pult ∆ult Vu

Pult (KN) ∆ult (mm) Vu (MPa) NLFEA/ NLFE/ NLFEA/
NLFEA EXP NLFEA EXP NLFEA EXP Pult exp ∆ult t Vu exp
exp
BOX1 36.0 40.5 0.37 0.40 2.0 2.25 0.90 0.92 0.89
BOX1-1 42.8 45.7 0.35 0.38 2.37 2.53 0.93 0.92 0.94
BOX2-1 44.2 47.3 0.37 0.39 2.45 2.62 0.94 0.95 0.93
BOX3-1 48.3 50.2 0.42 0.45 2.68 2.78 0.96 0.93 0.96
BOX1-2 45.7 48.4 0.40 0.41 2.53 2.69 0.94 0.97 0.94
BOX2-2 49.2 51.6 0.42 0.44 2.73 2.86 0.95 0.95 0.95
BOX3-2 53.4 55.2 0.415 0.45 2.96 3.06 0.96 0.92 0.96

60
50
Failure load (KN)

40
30
20
10
0
BOX1 BOX1-1 BOX2-1 BOX3-1 BOX1-2 BOX2-2 BOX3-2
EXP 40.5 45.7 47.3 50.2 48.44 51.6 55.2
NLFE 36 42.8 44.2 48.3 45.7 49.2 53.4

Fig. 13. Comparison between exp. failure load and NLFE failure load

11
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

Fig. 14. Comparison between experimental and NLFEA load deflection curve
a) Control BOX1; b) BOX1-1; c) BOX2-1; d) BOX3-1; e) BOX1-2; f) BOX2-2; g) BOX3-1.

5.4 Shear Stresses reasonable agreement in the obtained results as

shown in Fig. 17 and Table 6. The ratio between
As the porpouse of this study was to discuss the the shear stresses from NLFEA and
shear stresses and the effect of using wire experimental test was 0.89 for control specimen,
meshes in resist shear and cracks propagates. but for the group one which used glass fiber wire
The experimental and NLFEA showed mesh instead of steel stirrups this ratios was

12
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

0.94, 0.93 and 0.96 for BOX 1-1, BOX 2-1 and BOX 3-2 respectively. So, the finite element
BOX 3-1 respectively. For the second group analysis represents an acceptable presentation
which used tensar wire mesh, the ratios were for shear stresses.
0.94, 0.95 and 0.96 for BOX 1-2, BOX 2-2 and

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Deflectin (mm)

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
BOX1 BOX1-1 BOX2-1 BOX3-1 BOX1-2 BOX2-2 BOX3-2
EXP 0.4 0.29 0.275 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.235
NLFEA 0.37 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.265 0.25 0.23

Fig. 15. Comparison between exp. deflection and NLFE deflection at the failure load of control
specimen

Fig. 16.Crack pattern for box beams

a) Experimental crack pattern; b) NLFE crack pattern; c) NLFE cracks till failure

3.5
Shear stress (MPa)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
BOX1 BOX1-1 BOX2-1 BOX3-1 BOX1-2 BOX2-2 BOX3-2
EXP. 2.25 2.53 2.62 2.78 2.69 2.86 3.06
NLFEA 2 2.37 2.45 2.68 2.53 2.73 2.96

Fig. 17. Comparison between exp. shear stresses and NLFE shear stresses

13
 Erfan and El-Sayed; JERR, 5(2): 1-14, 2019; Article no. JERR.49006

6. CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES
The following conclusions can be drawn: 1. ACI Committee 549. State of the art report
on ferrocement. ACI 549-R97 manual of
1- Glass fiber wire mesh and Polyethylene concrete practice, Detroit; 1997.
(tensar) wire mesh exhibited features over 2. ACI Committee 549-1R-88. Guide for
normal reinforcement with reinforcing steel, design construction and repair of
especially in box beams such that, it has ferrocement. ACI 549-1R-88 and 1R-93
high strength, easy to be handling cutting manual of concrete practice, Detroit; 1993.
and shaped also has light weight with 3. Logan D, Shah SP. Moment capacity and
respect to steel stirrups. cracking behavior of ferrocement in
flexure. ACI Journal Proceedings. 1973;
2- Using glass fiber and tensar wire mesh 70(12):799-804.
instead of steel stirrups exhibit high 4. Johnston CD, Mowat DN. Ferrocement
ultimate failure load with respect to control material behavior in flexure. Journal of the
specimen. Structural Division, ASCE, 100, STIO.
1974;2053-69.
3- Tensar (Polyethylene) wire mesh has high 5. Balaguru PN, Namaan AE, Shah SP,
effect in increasing load capacity, Analysis and behavior of ferrocement in
deflection, the shear stresses and cracks flexure. Journal of the Structural Division,
propagate. ASCE, 103, STIO.1977;1937-49.
6. Huq S, Pama RP. Ferrocement in flexure–
4- The cracks propagation and its number analysis and design. Journal of
and width decreased by using glass fiber Ferrocement. 1988;8(3):169-93.
and tensar wire mesh especially in 7. Al-Sulaimani GJ, Ahmad SF. Deflection
specimens with two and three layers of and flexural rigidity of I- and box-beams.
wire mesh. Journal of Ferrocement. 1988;1-12.
8. Al-Sulaimani GJ, Ahmad SF, Basunbul 1A.
5- There a reasonable agreement between Study of the flexural strength of
experimental and numerical results ferrocement 'flanged' beams. The Arabian
obtained in form of ultimate failure load, Journal for Science and Engineering.
deflection and shear stresses. 1989;14(1):33-46.
9. Mansur MA, Ong KCG. Shear strength of
6- This work gives an acceptable prediction ferrocement beams. American Concrete
for shear stresses of box beams reinforced Institute Structural Journal. 1987;84(1):10-
with glass fiber or tensar wire meshes 17.
where the obtained average ratio (Vu 10. El-Sayed TA, Erfan AM. Improving shear
NLFEA/Vu EXP) was 0.938. strength of beams using ferrocement
composite. Construction and Building
At the end, the composite either glass fiber or
Materials. 2018;172:608-617.
tensar wire mesh in reinforcement of box
11. ECP. 203/2018, Egyptian Code of
sections instead of steel stirrups has a good
Practice: Design and Construction for
effect in failure load, deflection, cracks
Reinforced Concrete Structures, Cairo,
propagation and shear stresses.
Egypt; 2018.
COMPETING INTERESTS 12. ANSYS." Engineering Analysis system
user's Manual", and theoretical manual.
Authors have declared that no competing Revision 8.0, Swanson analysis system
interests exist. inc., Houston, Pennsylvania. 2005;1&2.

© 2019 Erfana and Ibrahimb; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.sdiarticle3.com/review-history/49006

14