Behaviour of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite in Flexure Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)
Volume 4 Issue 3, April 2020 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD30440 | Volume – 4 | Issue – 3 | March-April 2020 Page 320
Behaviour of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite in
Flexure Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Er. Satish Kumar1, Mr. Ajit Singh2
1Lecturer Govt. Poly, Mandi Adampur (Hisar), Haryana, India
2Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, CBS GROUP, Jhajjar, Fatehpuri, Haryana, India
ABSTRACT
The corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete reduces thelifeofstructures,
causes high repair costs and can endanger the structural integrity of the
structure itself. Glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) offers a number of
advantages over steel especially when used in marine and other salt laden
environments. GFRP reinforcing bars are gradually finding wider acceptance
as a replacement for conventional steel reinforcement as it offers a numberof
advantages. Technical studies on a number of concretestructures,fromfiveto
eight years old and constructed with GFRP reinforcement, have shown that
there is no degradation of the GFRPfromthealkalineenvironment.Concreteis
very strong in compression but it is extremely weak in tension. To resist the
tensile stress, steel reinforcement is provided in concrete. Reinforcement
corrosion and structural deterioration in reinforced concrete structures are
common, and prompted many researchers to seek alternative materials and
rehabilitation techniques. One such material that has been offered as an
alternative to mild steel reinforcement is Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer
(GFRP) bars and flats. For the repair and strengthening of structural concrete
members, strengthening with Glass FibreReinforcedPolymer(GFRP)platesis
an excellent option. The present work is to study the behavior of Shear
resistance of the silica coated GFRP stirrups in the shear test zone. A series of
studies were conducted using silica coated GFRP stirrups in shear zone. It is
observed that beams with silica coated GFRP flats shear reinforcement have
shown failure at higher loads than the theoretical failure loads. Further it is
observed that GFRP flats as shear reinforcement exhibit fairly good ductility.
How to cite this paper: Er. Satish Kumar|
Mr. Ajit Singh "Behaviour of Glass Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Composite inFlexure
Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Beams" Published in
International Journal
of Trend in Scientific
Research and
Development
(ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-
6470, Volume-4 |
Issue-3, April 2020,
pp.320-326, URL:
www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd30440.pdf
Copyright © 2020 by author(s) and
International Journal ofTrendinScientific
Research and Development Journal. This
is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of
the Creative
CommonsAttribution
License (CC BY 4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by
/4.0)
1. INTRODUCTION
A variety of new materials in the field of concretetechnology
have been developed during the past three decades with the
ongoing demand of construction industries to meet the
functional, strength, economical and durability
requirements.
Though concrete has high compressive strength and is the
most widely used construction material it suffers from the
following three disadvantages.
A. Weak in tension.
B. Highly porous.
C. Susceptible to chemical and environmental attack.
The above deficiencies ofplainconcreteareover-comein the
new materials (special cements and concrete composites)
developed over the past two or three decades. These special
cement concrete composites have unique characteristics,
which make them highly susceptibletoanygivenapplication
or environment. FRC is one such material with wide rangeof
applications. Fibre reinforced concrete is relatively a new
composite material in which concrete is reinforced with
short discrete, discontinuous and uniformly distributed
fibres so as to improve many engineering properties suchas
flexural strength, shear strength, resistance to fatigue,
impact, thermal shock or spalling. Fibre is a piece of
reinforcing material usually described by its aspect ratio
which is defined as the ratio of length of fibre to its
equivalent diameter. In order to avoid he problems created
by the corrosion of steel reinforcementinconcretestructure,
research has demonstrated that one could replace steel
reinforcement by fiber reinforcement polymer (FRP)
reinforcement. The corrosion of the steel reinforcement in
reinforcement concrete (RC) structures affects the strength
of both the steel and concrete. The strength of a corroding
steel reinforcing bar is reduced because of a reduction in
cross sectional area of a steel bar. While the steel reinforcing
bars are corroding, the concrete integrity is impaired,
because of cracking of the concrete cover caused by the
expansion of the corrosion products.Onlya fewyearago, the
construction market started to use FRP for structural
reinforcement, generally with combination with other
construction materials such as wood, steel and concrete.
FRPs exhibit several improved properties, such as high
strength – weight ratio, high stiffness – weight ratio,
flexibility in design non-corrosiveness, high fatiguestrength
and ease of application. The use of FRP sheets or plates
bonded to concrete beams has been studied by the several
researchers. Strengthening with adhesive bonded fiber
reinforced polymer has been established as an effective
method applicable to many type of concrete structures such
as columns, beams, slabs and walls. Because the FRP
materials are non-corrosive, non-magnetic,andresistanceto
various types of chemicals, they are increasingly being used
for external reinforcement of existing concrete structures.
Due to the flexible nature and ease of handling and
IJTSRD30440

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
application, combinedwiththehightensilestrength– weight
ratio and stiffness, the flexible glass fiber sheets arefound to
be highly effective for improve the strength of R.C beams.
FRP can be used very efficiently in strengthening the
concrete beams which weak in flexure, shear and torsion.
FRP materials offerthe engineeranoutstandingcombination
of physical and mechanical properties, such as high tensile
strength, lightweight, high stiffness, high fatigue strength
and excellent durability. FRP is a composite material
generally consisting of high strength carbon,agamidorglass
fibers in a polymeric matrix (e.g. thermosetting resin)where
the fibers are the main load carrying element.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
An et al. An et al. (1991) developed a model to predict the
stresses and forces of a reinforced concrete beam with
externally applied glass fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP).
Their study was based on five assumptions: 1) linear strain
distribution throughout the beam; 2) small deformations;3)
tensile strength of concrete was ignored; 4) shear
deformation was ignored; 5) perfect bond betweenconcrete
and GFRP. Using classical flexural theory and strain
compatibility, effects of variables such as material strength,
modulus of elasticity, and reinforcement ratios of the steel
and GFRP were compared with experimental results of a
previous test (Saadatmanesh & Ehsani, 1991). The behavior
of the beams were predicted with reasonableaccuracyusing
the model.
1. Kavita Kene, et al conducted experimental study on
behavior of steel and glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Composites. The study conducted on Fiber Reinforced
concrete with steel fibers of 0% and 0.5% volume fraction
and alkali resistant glass fibers containing 0% and 25% by
weight of cement of 12 mm cut length, compared the result.
2. G. Jyothi Kumari, et al studied behavior of concrete
beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer flats
and observed that beams with silica coated Glass fiber
reinforced polymer (GFRP) flats shear reinforcement have
shown failure at higher loads. Further they observed that
GFRP flats as shear reinforcement exhibit fairly good
ductility. The strength of the composites, flats or bars
depends upon the fiber orientation and fiber to matrix ratio
while higher the fiber content higher the higher the tensile
strength.
3. Dr. P. Srinivasa Rao, et al conducted durability studies
on glass fiber reinforced concrete. The alkali resistant glass
fibers were used to find out workability, resistance of
concrete due to acids, sulphate and rapid chloride
permeability test of M30, M40 and M50 grade of glass fiber
reinforced concrete and ordinary concrete. The durability of
concrete was increased by addingalkaliresistantglassfibers
in the concrete. The experimental study showed that
addition of glass fibers in concrete gives a reduction in
bleeding. The addition of glass fibers had shown
improvement in the resistance of concrete to the attack of
acids.
4. S. H. Alsayed, et al studied the performance of glass
fiber reinforced plastic bars as reinforcing material for
concrete structures. The study revealed that the flexural
capacity of concrete beams reinforced by GFRP bars can be
accurately estimated using the ultimate design theory. The
study also revealed that as GFRP bars have low modulus of
elasticity, deflection criteria may control the design of
intermediate and long beams reinforced with FDRP bars.
3. MATERIALS
CONCRETE
Concrete is a mixture of cement (11%), fine aggregates
(26%),
Coarse aggregates (41%) and water (16%) and air (6%)
Cement →Powder
Cement + Water → Cement Paste
Cement Paste + Fine Aggregate (FA) → Mortar
Mortar + Coarse Aggregate (CA) → Concrete
Portland cement, water, sand, and coarse aggregate are
proportioned and mixed to produce concrete suited to the
particular job for which it is intended.
CEMENT
Portland cements are hydrauliccements,meaningtheyreact
and harden chemically with the addition of water. Cement
contains limestone, clay, cement rock and iron ore blended
and heated to 1200 to 1500 C°. The resulting product
"clinker" is then ground to the consistency of powder.
Gypsum is added to control setting time.
FINE AGGREGATE
Normally called sand, this component can be natural sand or
crushed stone, and represents particles smaller than
4.75mm. Generally accounts for 30%-35% of the mixture.
COARSE AGGREGATE
May be either gravel or crushed stone. Makes up 40% -45%
of the mixture, comprised of particles greater than 4.75mm.
Water
Water is an important ingredient of concrete as it actively
participate in the chemical reactions with cement. Since it
help to form the strength giving cement gel, the quantityand
quality of water is required to be looked into very carefully.
In practice, very often great control on properties of cement
and aggregate is exercised, but the control on the quality of
water is often neglected. Since quality of water affects the
strength, it is necessary for us to go into the purity and
quality of water.
REINFORCEMENT
Reinforced concrete is one of the most widely used modern
building materials. Concrete is an “artificial stone” obtained
by mixing cement, sand, and aggregates with water. Fresh
concrete can be molded into almost any shape, giving it an
inherent advantage over other materials. It became very
popular after the invention of Portland cement in the 19th
century; however, its limited tension resistance initially
prevented its wide use in building construction. To
overcome poor tensile strength, steel bars are embedded in
concrete to form a composite material called reinforced
concrete (RC). The use of RC construction in the modern
world stems from the wide availability of its ingredients –
reinforcing steel as well as concrete.
FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER (FRP)
Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP), also Fibre-reinforced
plastic, is a composite material made of a polymer matrix
reinforced with fibres. Thefibresareusuallyglass,carbon,or
aramid, although other fibres such as paper or wood or
asbestos have been sometimes used. The polymer is usually
an epoxy, vinyl ester or polyester thermosetting plastic, and

phenol formaldehyde resins are still in use. FRPs are
commonly used in the aerospace, automotive, marine, and
construction industries.
4. RESULTS
The experimental results of SET I beams (weak in flexure)
and SET II beams (weak in shear). Their behavior
throughout the static test to failure is described using
recorded data on deflection behavior and the ultimate load
carrying capacity. The crack patterns andthemodeoffailure
of each beam are also described in this chapter.
Two sets of beams were tested for their ultimate strengths.
In SET I three beams (BF1, BF2 and BF3) weak in flexure are
tested. In SET II three beams (BS1, BS2 and BS3) weak in shear
are tested. The beams BF1 and BS1 were taken as the control
beams. It was observed that the beams BF1 and BF1 had less
load carrying capacity when compared to that of the
externally strengthened beams using GFRP sheets. In SET I
beams BF2 is strengthened only at the soffit of the beam and
BF3 is strengthened up to the neutral axis of the beam along
with the soffit of the beam. SET II beams BS2 is strengthened
only at the sides of the beam in the shear zone and BS3 is
strengthened by U-wrapping of the GFRP sheets in theshear
zone of the beam. Deflection behavior and the ultimate load
carrying capacity of the beamswere noted.Theultimate load
carrying capacity of all the beams along with the nature of
failure.
FAILURE MODES
The flexural and shear strength of a section depends on the
controlling failure mode. The following flexural and shear
failure modes should be investigated for an FRP-
strengthened section:
Crushing of the concrete in compression beforeyielding
of the reinforcing steel;
Yielding of the steel in tension followed by rupture of
the FRP laminate;
Yielding of the steel in tension followed by concrete
crushing;
Shear/tensiondelamination oftheconcretecover(cover
delamination); and
Debonding of the FRP from the concrete substrate (FRP
debonding).
A number of failure modes have been observed in the
experiments of RC beams strengthened in flexure and shear
by GFRPs. These include flexure failure, shear failure,
flexural failure due to GFRPruptureandcrushingofconcrete
at the top. Concrete crushing is assumed to occur if the
compressive strain in the concrete reaches its maximum
usable strain.
The GFRP strengthened beam and the control beams were
tested to find out their ultimateloadcarryingcapacity.Itwas
found that the control beams BF1 and BS1 failedinflexureand
shear showing that the beams were deficient in flexure and
shear respectively. In SET I beam BF2 failed due tofracture of
GFRP sheet in two pieces and then flexural-shear failure of
the beam took place. Beam BF3 failed due to delamination of
the GFRP sheet after that fracture of GFRP sheet took place
and then flexural-shear failure of the beam. In SET I beams
BF2 and BF3, GFRP rupture and flexural-shear kind of failure
was prominent when strengtheningwasdoneusingboththe
wrapping schemes. In SET II beams BF2 and BF3 failed due to
flexural failure and crushing of concrete on the top of the
beam. The SET II beams BF2 and BF3 developedmajorflexural
cracks at the ultimate loads. In SET II beams BS2 and BS3 the
flexural kind of failure was prominent when strengthening
was done using both the wrapping schemes,
Sr.
No.
Type of Beam
Beam
designation
Load at initial
crack (KN)
Ultimate
Load (KN)
Nature of failure
1
Beams weak in flexure
(SET I)
BF1 32 80 Flexural failure
BF2 41 110 GFRP rupture + Flexure-shear Failure
BF3 Not visible 121 GFRP rupture + Flexure-shear Failure
2
Beams weak in shear
(SET II)
BSI 40 93 Shear failure
BS2 45 125 Crushing of Concrete
BS3 47 143 Flexural failure + Crushing of Concrete
Table 5.1 Ultimate load and nature of failure for SET I and SET II beams
LOAD DEFLECTION TEST
Load vs Deflection Curves for Beams BF1, BF2, & BF3

From the load and deflection of data of SET I beams F1, F2 and F3, load vs deflection curve is plotted for all the three beams.
From this load vs deflection curve, it is clear that beam F1 has lower ultimateloadcarryingcapacity comparedtobeamsF2and
F3. Beam F1 had also undergone higher deflection comparedtobeamsF2andF3atthesameload.BeamF2hadhigherultimate
load carrying capacity compared to the controlled beam F1 but lowerthanbeamF3.BeamF3hadhigherultimateloadcarrying
capacity compared to the beams F1 and F2. Both the beams F2 and F3 had undergone almost same deflection upto73KN load.
After 73 KN load beam F3 had undergone same deflection as beam F2 but at a higherloadcomparedtobeamF2.Thedeflection
undergone by beam F3 is highest. Beam F2 had undergone higher deflection than beam F1.
Load vs Deflection Curves for Beams BS1, BS2 & BS3
From the load and deflection of data of SET II beams BS1, BS2 and BS3, load vs deflection curve is plotted for all the three beams.
From this load vs deflection curve, it is clear that beam BS1 has lower ultimate load carrying capacity compared to beams BS2
and BS3. Beam BS1 had also undergone higher deflection compared to beams BS2 and BS3 at the same load. Beam BS2 had higher
ultimate load carrying capacity compared to the controlled beam BS1 but lower than beam BS3. Beam BS3 had higher ultimate
load carrying capacity compared to the beams BS1 and BS2. Both the beams BS2 and BS3 had undergone almost same deflection
upto 82 KN load. After 82 KN load beam BS3 had undergone same deflection as beam BS2 but at a higherloadcomparedtobeam
BS2. The deflection undergone by beam BS3 is highest. Beam BS2 had undergone higher deflection than beam BS1.
LOAD AT INITIAL CRACK
Two point static loading was done on both SET I and SET II beams and at the each increment of the load, deflection and crack
development were observed. T he load at initial crack of all the beams was observed, recorded
Fig.5.9 Load at initial crack of beams BF1, BF2 & BF3
Set – 1 Beams Details
BF1: Control Beam
BF2: Strength only at the soffit of the Beam
BF3: Strength at the soffit and upto the neutral axis of the Beam
Under two point static loading of SET I beams, at each increment of load, deflection and crack development were observed. In
beam BF1 initiation of the crack takes place at a load of 32 KN which is lower than beam BF2 in which crack initiation started at
41 KN. The crack initiation of beam BF3 was not visible due to application of GFRP sheet up to the neutral axis of the beam. The
cracks were only visible after a load of 90 KN.

Fig.5.10 Load at initial crack of beams BS1, BS2 and BS3
BS1: Control Beam
BS2: Strength only at the sides of the beam in shear zone
BS3: Strength at the U- wrapping of the beam in shear zone
Under two point static loading of SET II beams, at each increment of load, deflection and crack development wereobserved.In
beam BS1 initiation of the crack takes place at a load of45 KN which is low er than beam BF2 in which crack initiation started at
49 KN an further lower than beam BF3 in which crack initiation started at 50 KN. The re was not much difference in load for
crack initiation in beam BS2 and BS3.
ULTIMATE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY
The load carrying c capacity of the control beams and the strengthen beams were found out. The control beams were l loaded
up to their ultimate loads. It was noted that of all the beams, the strengthen beams BF2, BF3 and BS2, BS3 had the higher load
carrying capacity compared to the controlled beams BF1 and BS1. An important character to be noticedabouttheusageofGFRP
sheets is the high ductile behaviour of the beams. The shear failure being sudden can lead to huge damage tothestructure.But
the ductile behaviour obtained by the use of GFRP can give us enough warning before the ultimate failure. The use of FRP can
delay the initial cracks and further development of the cracks in the beam.
Fig.5.11 Ultimate load of beams BF1, BF2 and BF3
BF1: Control Beam
BF2: Strength only at the soffit of the Beam
BF3: Strength at the soffit and up to the neutral axis of the Beam
SET I beams BF1, BF2 and BF3 were loaded under two point static loading. As the load was increasedincrementallydevelopment
of cracks takes place and ultimately the beam failed. The ultimate load of BF1 beam was 80 KN which is lower than BF2 beam
which carried an ultimate load of 110 KN and further lower than BF3 beam which carried an ultimate load of 121 KN.

Ultimate load of beams BS1, BS2 and BS3
BS1: Control Beam
BS2: Strength only at the sides of the beam in shear zone
BS3: Strength at the U- wrapping of the beam in shear zone
SET II beams BS1, BS2 and BS3 were loaded under two point static loading. Astheloadwasincreasedincrementallydevelopment
of cracks takes place and ultimately the beam failed. The ultimate load of BS1 beam was 93 KN which is lower than BS2 beam
which carried an ultimate load of 125 KN and further lower than BS3 beam which carried an ultimate load of 143 KN.
CRACK PATTERN
The crack patterns at collapse for the tested beams of SET I
and SET II are shown in Fig. 5.13 to 5.18. In SET I the
controlled beam BF1 exhibited widely spaced and lesser
number of cracks compared to strengthened beams BF2 and
BF3. The strengthened beams BF2 and BF3 have also shown
cracks at relatively close spacing. This shows the enhanced
concrete confinement due to the GFRP strengthening. This
composite action has resulted in shifting of failure mode
from flexural failure (steel yielding) in case of controlled
beam BF2 to peeling of GFRP sheet in case of strengthened
beams BF2 and BF3. The debonding of GFRP sheet has taken
place due to flexural-shear cracks by giving cracking sound.
A crack normally initiates in the vertical direction and as the
load increases it moves in inclined direction due to the
combined effect of shear and flexure. If the load is increased
further, cracks propagate to top and the beam splits. This
type of failure is called flexure-shear failure.
5. CONCLUSIONS
From the test results and calculated strength values, the
following conclusions are drawn:
A. SET I Beams (BF1, BF2 and BF3)
1. Initial flexural cracks appear at a higher load by
strengthening the beam at soffit. The ultimate load
carrying capacity of the strengthen beam BF2 is 37%
more than the controlled beam BF1.
2. Load at initial cracks is further increased by
strengthening the beam at the soffit as well as on the
two sides of the beam up to the neutral axis from the
soffit. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the
strengthen beam BF3 is 51 % more than the controlled
beam BF1 and 10 % more than the strengthen beam BF2.
3. Analytical analysis is also carriedouttofindtheultimate
moment carrying capacity and compared with the
experimental results. It was found that analytical
analysis predicts lower value than the experimental
findings.
4. When the beam is not strengthen, it failed in flexure but
after strengthening the beam in flexure, then flexure-
shear failure of the beam takes place which is more
dangerous than the flexural failureofthe beamas itdoes
not give much warning before failure. Therefore it is
recommended to check the shear strength of the beam
and carry out shear strengthening along with flexural
strengthening if required.
5. Flexural strengthening upto theneutral axisofthe beam
increases the ultimate load carrying capacity, but the
cracks developed were not visible up to a higher load.
Due to invisibility of the initial cracks, it gives less
warning compared to the beams strengthen only at the
soffit of the beam.
6. By strengthening up to the neutral axis of the beam,
increase in the ultimate load carrying capacity of the
beam is not significant and cost involvement is almost
three times compared to the beam strengthen by GFRP
sheet at the soffit only.
B. SET II Beams (BS1, BS2 and BS3)
1. The control beam BS1 failed in shear as it was made
intentionally weak in shear.
2. The initial cracks in the strengthen beams BS2 and BS3
appears at higher load compared to the un-strengthen
beam BS1.
3. After strengthening the shear zone of the beam the
initial cracks appears at the flexural zone of the beam
and the crack widens and propagates towards the
neutral axis with increase of the load. The final failure is
flexural failure which indicates that the GFRP sheets
increase the shear strength of the beam. The ultimate
load carrying capacity of the strengthen beam BS2 is 34
% more than the controlled beam BS1.
4. When the beam is strengthen by U-wrapping in the

shear zone, the ultimate load carrying capacity is
increased by 53 % compared to the control beam BS1
and by 14% compared the beam BS2 strengthen by
bonding the GFRP sheets on the vertical sides alone in
the shear zone of the beam.
5. When the beam is strengthen in shear,thenonlyflexural
failure takes place which gives sufficient warning
compared to the brittle shear failure which is
catastrophic failure of beams.
6. The bonding between GFRP sheet and the concrete is
intact up to the failure of the beam which clearly
indicates the composite action due to GFRP sheet.
7. Restoring or upgrading the shear strength of beams
using GFRP sheet can result in increased shear strength
and stiffness with no visible shear cracks. Restoring the
shear strength of beams using GFRP is a highly effective
technique.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Hinton M. J., Soden P. D., Kaddour A. S. Failure Criteria
in Fibre-Reinforced-Polymer Composites: The World-
Wide Failure Exercise. Elsevier 2004.
[2] Tong L., Mouritz A. P., BannisterM.3DFibreReinforced
Polymer Composites. Elsevier 2002.
[3] Ravi Jain, Luke lee. Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
Composites for Infrastructure
[4] Applications. Focusing on Innovation, Technology
Implementation and Sustainability. Springer 2012.
[5] Kimg Hwee TAN. Fibre Reinforced Polymer.
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures.Proceedingsof
the Sixth International Symposium on FRP Concrete
Structures, volume 1-2 (FRPRCS-6). World Scientific
2003.
[6] Erki M. A., and Rizkalla S. H. FRP Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures.ConcreteInternational (1993)48-
53.
[7] Han E.H. Meijer, Govaert Leon E. Mechanical
performanceofpolymersystems:Therelationbetween
structure and properties. Prog. Polym. Sci. 30 (2005)
915-938.
[8] McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Encyclopedia
[9] Entsiklopediia polimerov, vols. 1–3. Moscow,1972-77.
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-
1979). 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. 38 Fiber Reinforced
Polymers - The Technology Applied for Concrete
Repair
[10] Giancaspro James, Papakonstantinou Christos,
Balaguru P. Mechanical behavior of fire-resistant
biocomposite. Composites: Part B 40 (2009) 206-211.

Behaviour of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite in Flexure Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Behaviour of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite in Flexure Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams (20)

More from ijtsrd (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Behaviour of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite in Flexure Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams