See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260285572

Evaluation of Flexural Behavior and Serviceability Performance of Concrete

Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars

Article  in  Journal of Composites for Construction · October 2011

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000216

CITATIONS READS
41 428

3 authors, including:

Ahmed Farghaly Brahim Benmokrane

Université de Sherbrooke Université de Sherbrooke
48 PUBLICATIONS   232 CITATIONS    406 PUBLICATIONS   4,890 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

• Performance and Strut Efficiency Factor of Concrete Deep Beams View project

Two-Way Slabs Strengthened Externally with FRP Sheets View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Farghaly on 21 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evaluation of Flexural Behavior and Serviceability
Performance of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars
Chakib Kassem1; Ahmed Sabry Farghaly2; and Brahim Benmokrane3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Flexural behavior and serviceability performance of 24 full-scale concrete beams reinforced with carbon-, glass-, and aramid-
fiber-reinforced-polymer (FRP) bars are investigated. The beams were 3,300 mm long with a rectangular cross section of 200 mm in width
and 300 mm in depth. Sixteen beams were reinforced with carbon-FRP bars, four beams were reinforced with glass-FRP bars, two beams were
reinforced with aramid-FRP bars, and two were reinforced with steel, serving as control specimens. Two types of FRP bars with different surface
textures were considered: sand-coated bars and ribbed-deformed bars. The beams were tested to failure in four-point bending over a clear span
of 2,750 mm. The test results are reported in terms of deflection, crack-width, strains in concrete and reinforcement, flexural capacity, and mode
of failure. The experimental results were compared to the available design codes. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000216. © 2011
American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Concrete beams; Cracking; Deflection; Flexural strength; Strain; Bars; Serviceability.
Author keywords: Beams; Concrete; Crack width; Deflection; Flexure; Strain; FRP bars; Reinforcement ratio.

Introduction
Infrastructure deterioration owing to corrosion of steel reinforce-
ment is one of the major challenges facing the construction
industry. The use of concrete structures reinforced with fiber-
reinforced-polymer (FRP) composite materials has been growing
to overcome the common problems caused by corrosion of steel
reinforcement [American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee
440 2007, Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib) 2007]. Recent
advances in polymer technology have led to the development of the
latest generation of FRP reinforcing-bars (ACI Committee 440
2007). These corrosion-resistant bars have shown promise as a
way to further protect bridges and other public infrastructure from
corrosion’s devastating effects. With the new ACI specification
440.6M-08 (ACI Committee 440 2008) and Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) certification standard S807-10 (CSA 2010b),
FRP bars are emerging as a realistic and cost-effective reinforcing
alternative to traditional steel for concrete structures under severe
environmental conditions. The direct replacement of steel with FRP
bars, however, is not possible owing to various differences in the
mechanical and bond properties of FRP materials compared to steel
(Nanni 1993, ISIS Canada 2007).
1
Former Ph.D. student, Project Engineer, Osmos Canada, 1001
Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Suite 800-B, Montreal, PQ, Canada, H3A 3C8.
E-mail: Chakib.Kassem@osmos-canada.com
2 members (Toutanji and Deng 2003; El-Salakawy and Benmokrane
Post-doctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada, J1K 2R1; Lecturer, Assiut Univ., Assiut, Egypt.
E-mail: ahmed.farghaly@usherbrooke.ca
3
Professor of Civil Engineering, Canada Research Chair in Advanced
Composite Materials for Civil Structures, NSERC Research Chair in
Innovative FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Infrastructures, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada, J1K 2R1
(corresponding author). E-mail: Brahim.Benmokrane@USherbrooke.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 24, 2010; approved
on March 11, 2011; published online on March 14, 2011. Discussion period
open until March 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con-
struction, Vol. 15, No. 5, October 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/
2011/5-682–695/$25.00.
Over the last two decades, a number of studies have been carried
out to investigate the flexural response of FRP-reinforced-concrete
beams. Proposals for design procedures and guidelines have arisen
from these studies. In the case of serviceability and specifically, for
deflections, several authors (Benmokrane et al. 1996; Masmoudi
et al. 1998; Brown and Bartholomew 1996; Pecce et al. 2000;
Toutanji and Saafi 2000; Yost et al. 2003) have proposed coeffi-
cients to modify Branson’s equation used in steel design codes
(ACI Committee 318 2008). Others (Faza and Ganga Rao 1992;
Razaqpur et al. 2000; Mota et al. 2006; Bischoff 2005; Bischoff
and Scanlon 2007) have proposed a modified equivalent moment
of inertia derived from curvatures. These different approaches
have been adopted in several design guideline proposals for FRP-
reinforced-concrete members [fib 2007; ACI Committee 440 2006;
CSA 2002; Italian National Research Council (CNR) 2006].
In assessing the flexural capacity of FRP-reinforced-concrete
beams, the concrete crushing-failure mode is generally preferable
to reinforcement failure because it is more progressive and leads to
a less catastrophic failure with a higher degree of deformability
(ISIS Canada 2007; ACI Committee 440 2006; CSA 2010a). Dif-
ferent safety approaches are proposed in the literature (Pilakoutas
et al. 2002), and the concept of ductility has been modified to re-
flect the deformability of the FRP-reinforced-concrete members
(Newhook et al. 2002; CSA 2010a). The lower modulus of FRP
reinforcement reduces the serviceability performance of flexural
2004; Rashid et al. 2005; Mota et al. 2006; Lee et al. 2010).
At the same reinforcement ratio, FRP-reinforced members will
evidence larger deflections and crack widths than steel-reinforced
members (Nanni 1993; ACI Committee 440 2006). Regarding
flexural capacity, experimental results generally show higher loads
than those predicted by design equations that can be exceeded by
up to 20% (Masmoudi et al. 1998; Pecce et al. 2000; Thériault
and Benmokrane 1998). This variation is sometimes attributed to
variability in materials and to a higher ultimate concrete strain than
what is assumed in analysis.
This paper presents the test results in terms of flexural behavior
and serviceability performance of 24 simply supported beams

682 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 reinforced with carbon-, glass-, and aramid-FRP bars. The exper-
imental results are discussed and compared to code and design
guide predictions. The validity of the simplified methodologies
for design of FRP-reinforced-concrete structures is also evaluated.
Both serviceability and ultimate limit states are investigated.
Research Significance
With the recent publication of several codes and guidelines for de-
signing and building concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars,
the need to examine serviceability-related issues and validate the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Test Specimens
A total of 24 full-scale, reinforced-concrete beams were con-
structed and tested. The beams were 3,300 mm long, 200 mm wide,
and 300 mm deep. The test parameters were the type of reinforcing
bars, reinforcement configuration, surface texture, and reinforce-
ment ratio. Eight beams were reinforced with carbon-FRP, sand-
coated bars (CFRP1); eight with carbon-FRP, ribbed-deformed bars
(CFRP2); two with glass-FRP, sand-coated bars (GFRP1); two with
glass-FRP, ribbed-deformed bars (GFRP2); two with aramid-FRP
bars (AFRP); and two control beams with conventional steel. In the
case of beams reinforced with CFRP bars, two identical specimens

accuracy of these guidelines is paramount. This paper reports on
the serviceability performance of full-size, simply supported beams
reinforced with different types, ratios, and configurations of FRP
bars. The test results are compared to some of the available models
(CSA 2002; ACI Committee 440 2006) and those being considered
by ACI Committee 440-H in an effort to evaluate the accuracy of
such prediction models.
Experimental Program
Twenty-four beams were designed with an adequate amount of
longitudinal and shear reinforcement to ensure failure by crushing
of the concrete in the central zone. Details of the materials,
specimens, test setup, and instrumentation are described in the
following sections.
were made for each reinforcement ratio and type. For the CFRP-
reinforced beams, three different reinforcement ratios with four,
six, and eight No. 10 reinforcing bars were investigated. In the case
of the GFRP-reinforced beams, only two reinforcement ratios with
six and eight No. 13 reinforcing bars were investigated. For the
AFRP-reinforced beams, two reinforcement ratios with six and
eight No. 10 reinforcing bars were investigated. To study the effect
of bundled bars, two beams reinforced with CFRP bars, (beams
C1-4b and C2-4b) with four bars bundled 2-by-2 were constructed
and tested. The reinforcement ratios for the two control steel-
reinforced beams were 0.9% and 1.3% with four and six M10 bars,
respectively. The top reinforcement for all beams consisted of two
M10 steel bars. Table 1 shows the details of the test specimens.
Fig. 1 depicts the concrete dimensions and reinforcement details.
Instrumentation

Material Properties Electrical-resistance strain gauges (5 mm long and 60 mm long)

The beams were constructed using normal-weight, ready-mixed
concrete with an average 28-d compressive strength of 40 MPa.
Table 1 lists the concrete compressive strength and modulus of
elasticity based on the average values from tests performed on
at least three 100 × 200 mm cylinders for each concrete batch
on the day the beam was tested. An average concrete tensile
strength of 3.5 MPa was obtained from the split-cylinder tests.
Grade 60 steel bars were used for steel-reinforced beams. The
tensile properties of the FRP bars were determined testing five
specimens according to test method B.2 in ACI Committee 440
(2004). Table 2 gives the properties of the FRP and steel bars.
were used to measure tensile strains in the reinforcing bars and
compressive strains in the concrete, respectively. Reinforcement
strains were measured for each bar at the midspan; concrete strains
were measured at the top compression surface at midspan. The mid-
span deflection was measured with two linear variable displace-
ment transducers (LVDTs) with 75 mm stroke, fastened to each
side of the beam. In addition, crack width at the position of the
first crack was also measured with a 10 mm stroke LVDT. A
data-acquisition module monitored by a computer recorded the
readings of the strain gauges, LVDTs, and load cells. During load-
ing, crack formation along the sides of the beams was marked and
recorded.

Table 1. Details of Test Specimen

Series Beam f 0c (MPa) Ec (GPa) ρf % ρf =ρf b Ef Af (kN) Reinforcement configuration
CFRP1 C1-4 40.4 31.6 0.6 1.2 32,376 4 No. 9.5 in 2 rows
C1-4b 40.4 31.6 0.6 1.2 32,376 2 × 2 No. 9.5 bundled
C1-6 39.3 29.8 0.9 1.9 48,564 6 No. 9.5 in 2 rows
C1-8 39.3 29.8 1.2 2.5 64,752 8 No. 9.5 in 2 rows
CFRP2 C2-4 39.9 29.8 0.5 1.7 31,232 4 No. 9 in 2 rows
C2-4b 39.9 29.8 0.5 1.6 31,232 2 × 2 No. 9 bundled
C2-6 40.8 30.2 0.8 2.5 46,848 6 No. 9 in 2 rows
C2-8 40.8 30.2 1.1 3.3 62,464 8 No. 9 in 2 rows
GFRP1 G1-6 39.05 29.3 1.6 1.5 30,960 6 No. 12.7 in 2 rows
G1-8 39.05 29.3 2.2 2.0 41,280 8 No. 12.7 in 2 rows
GFRP2 G2-6 39.05 29.3 1.4 1.9 24,408 6 No. 12 in 2 rows
G2-8 39.05 29.3 1.9 2.5 32,544 8 No. 12 in 2 rows
AFRP AR-6 39.05 29.3 0.9 3.9 22,152 6 No. 9.5 in 2 rows
AR-8 39.05 29.3 1.2 5.2 29,536 8 No. 9.5 in 2 rows
Steel ST-4 40.8 30.2 0.9 0.2 80,000 4 M10 in 2 rows
ST-6 40.8 30.2 1.3 0.3 120,000 6 M10 in 2 rows

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 683

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 Table 2. Mechanical Properties of Reinforcing Bars
Type d b (mm) Af (mm2 ) Ef (GPa) f f u (MPa) εf u (%) Surface texture
CFRP1 9.50 71 114
11 1;506
99 1:2
0:12 Sand-coated
CFRP2 9.00 64 122
5 1;988
22 1:7
0:04 Ribbed-deformed
GFRP1 12.70 129 40
1 617
16 1:5
0:06 Sand-coated
GFRP2 12.00 113 36
1 747
34 1:8
0:11 Ribbed-deformed
AFRP 9.50 71 52
2 1;800
36 3:3
0:03 Sand-coated
Steel 11.30 100 200 f y ¼ 460 εy ¼ 0:2 Ribbed-deformed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Test Setup and Procedure Strain in Reinforcement and Concrete

The beams were tested under four-point bending over a simply sup-
ported clear span of 2,750 mm and a shear span of 875 mm, as
shown in Fig. 1. The load was applied at a stroke-controlled rate
of 1:2 mm= min. The test was paused when the first two cracks
appeared. The initial crack widths were measured manually with
a 50× hand-held microscope, and the two high-accuracy LVDTs
were installed to measure crack width electronically with increas-
ing load. Fig. 2 shows a photo of the test setup.
Test Results and Discussion
The following parameters were considered in this study: reinforce-
ment ratio, reinforcement-bar stiffness, reinforcing-bars position
(single bars or bundled bars), and bar surface texture. The effect
of these parameters on crack distribution, deflection, flexural
capacity, deformability, and mode of failure was investigated.
For beams reinforced with CFRP bars, the values used in this
analysis were based on the average results of each two identical
beams, which had less than 4% deviation.
P/2 P/2
875 1,000 875
250 Steel stirrups M10 @80mm
2,750
2 M10 Steel 2 M10 Steel
Steel stirrups
M10
@80mm
300
Fig. 3 shows the midspan strains in the reinforcement and concrete
versus the applied moment. It should be noted that only the read-
ings of the lowest bar strain gauge (nearest to the tension surface of
the section) and readings of the concrete central strain gauge
located on the upper surface of the beam were recorded. For the
steel-reinforced beams (ST-4 and ST-6), a typical steel-yielding
plateau was obtained with a maximum measured strain of approx-
imately 14,000 microstrains. After steel yielding, the compression
strains in concrete reached the maximum, which lead to failure by
concrete crushing. For the FRP-reinforced beams, the plotted data
show that, after cracking, the reinforcement tensile strains vary
linearly with the increased load up to failure.
Table 3 shows the strain in the reinforcement and concrete at
service load (corresponds to 30% of the nominal moment M n )
and at failure. In beams reinforced with the FRP bars, the strain
in the reinforcement at failure was lower than the ultimate strain,
whereas the concrete reached its ultimate limit, resulting in crush-
ing. The only exception occurred when the concrete and the
reinforcement simultaneously reached their ultimate limit in beam
C1-4 (Table 3), which caused simultaneous crushing of the con-
crete and rupture of the reinforcement. This is to be expected when
the ratio of actual to balanced reinforcement ratio, ρf =ρf b , is only
1.2, which might be not enough to compensate for any increase
of concrete strength. Moreover, at the same load level, as the
reinforcement ratio increased, the strain in the reinforcement bars
decreased and fluctuated around 3;200 με in the concrete.
250
Table 3 shows the calculated curvature at failure (ψult ) as a func-
tion of 1=d. The calculated values varied between 0:009=d and
0:014=d for compression-controlled failure, which agree with
Steel stirrups the range of 0:0089=d to 0:012=d given by Gulbrandsen (2005).
M10
@80mm

300
30

40
40

200 200

Configuration of 4 Bars Configuration of 4 Bars bundled

2 M10 Steel 2 M10 Steel

Steel stirrups Steel stirrups

M10 M10
@80mm @80mm
300
300

30
30

40
40

200 200

Configuration of 6 Bars Configuration of 8 Bars

Fig. 1. Dimensions of beam sections and details of reinforcement

configuration Fig. 2. Test specimen and setup

684 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 100 100

C1-4b C1-6
C1-8
C1 C1-8 C1-6 C2-8 C2
C2-6 C2-8 C2-6
80 C1-4b 80
C2-4b C2-4b

Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
60 C1-4 C2-4 60 C2-4
C1-4
ST-6 ST-6 ST-6 ST-6
40 40
ST-4 ST-4 ST-4
ST-4
20 20
Concrete Reinforcement Concrete Reinforcement
0 0
-4000 0 4000 8000 12000 -4000 0 4000 8000 12000
Strain (µ) Strain (µ)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

100 100
G1-8 G1 & G2 G1-8 G2-8
AR
G2-8 80 G1-6 AR-8 80
G1-6 AR-8 AR-6
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
G2-6 AR-6
60 G2-6 60
ST-6 ST-6 ST-6 ST-6
40 40
ST-4 ST-4 ST-4
ST-4
20 20
Concrete Reinforcement Concrete Reinforcement
0 0
-4000 0 4000 8000 12000 -4000 0 4000 8000 12000
Strain (µ) Strain (µ)

Fig. 3. Typical moment-strain relationships

Table 3. Strain and Neutral-Axis Depth

Strain in concrete (με) Strain in reinforcement (με) c=d Exp. c=d Calc. Ψult (×1=d)
Beam service failure service failure service failure failure failure
CFRP1 C1-4 943 3,108 3,850 14,163 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.012
C1-4b 634 3,958 2,968 10,629 0.19 0.17 0.18 —
C1-6 826 3,424 2,272 8,764 0.29 0.28 0.23 0.013
C1-8 807 3,702 1,783 7,760 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.009
CFRP2 C2-4 904 3,580 2,756 10,865 0.25 0.24 0.19 0.012
C2-4b 743 2,959 3,278 11,492 0.21 0.19 0.18 —
C2-6 590 3,200 2,356 9,636 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.011
C2-8 657 3,283 1,961 8,013 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.010
GFRP1 G1-6 901 3,269 4,119 12,436 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.012
G1-8 745 3,210 2,700 11,240 0.22 0.19 0.22 0.011
GFRP2 G2-6 584 3,100 2,820 14,400 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.014
G2-8 770 3,150 2,650 11,470 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.012
AFRP AR-6 1,027 3,522 3,789 14,441 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.014
AR-8 762 3,122 3,830 13,100 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.013
Steel ST-4 516 3,584 1,210 14,000 0.30 0.20 — —
ST-6 384 3,311 725 14,175 0.35 0.19 — —

Neutral-Axis Depth theoretical prediction compares well with the experimental results
(Table 3)
The experimental position of the neutral axis was deduced qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
from the data from the concrete strain gauges. As can be seen c=d ¼ 2ρf nf þ ðρf nf Þ2  ρf nf ð1Þ
in Table 3, the neutral-axis depth was slightly lower after cracking,
since the difference between the service and failure neutral-axis Flexural Capacity and Mode of Failure
depth is relatively small. The neutral-axis depth increased with All 24 beams were designed to fail by concrete crushing—failure
the reinforcement ratio; the equilibrium of forces requires a larger was expected to occur when the concrete reached its maximum
compression block for the greater forces arising from larger areas of compressive strain εcu . According to ACI Committee 440 (2006),
reinforcement. this failure mode is obtained when the actual reinforcement ratio ρf
The theoretical neutral-axis depth, c, was calculated as- is greater than the balanced reinforcement ratio ρf b , as given in
suming a cracked-section analysis, as given in Eq. (1). The Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 685

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 Table 4. Ultimate Capacity and Mode of Failure
Moment at failure (kN·m) M cr (kN·m)
Deflection at first Deflection at
Beam Exp. ACI 440 Exp. ACI 440 Failure modea crack (mm) service-load (mm)
CFRP1 C1-4 71.20 69.60 11.57 12.14 T-C 3.2 11.3
C1-4b 74.58 76.94 11.68 12.21 C 3.0 11.2
C1-6 83.13 79.32 11.77 12.18 C 2.7 9.4
C1-8 90.39 87.53 11.27 12.36 C 2.4 7.19
CFRP2 C2-4 78.75 67.49 11.86 12.01 C 3.2 11.8
C2-4b 78.18 74.61 11.76 12.08 C 3.0 11.8
C2-6 80.89 80.23 11.91 12.40 C 2.7 8.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C2-8 89.39 88.66 11.02 12.58 C 2.3 7.5

GFRP1 G1-6 77.47 67.00 10.92 11.61 C 2.9 10.1
G1-8 86.76 74.54 11.37 11.61 C 2.8 7.3
GFRP2 G2-6 71.00 61.14 11.15 11.57 C 3.2 10.2
G2-8 84.54 68.28 11.34 11.56 C 3.0 8.1
AFRP AR-6 70.85 58.86 11.22 11.70 C 2.7 10.5
AR-8 71.75 65.82 11.35 11.73 C 2.1 8.9
a
T = FRP rupture; C = concrete crushing.

Af failure observed. Moreover, when compared at the same reinforce-

ρf ¼ ð2Þ
bd ment ratio, the ultimate moments of beams reinforced with CFRP
sand-coated bars and the beams reinforced with ribbed CFRP bars
indicate that surface texture played no role in beam flexural
f 0c E f εcu capacity.
ρf b ¼ 0:85β 1 ð3Þ
f f u Ef εcu þ f f u
Deflection Characteristics
Table 4 presents flexural capacity and modes of failure for the
tested beams. Predictions using ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee The experimental moment-deflection values at midspan are shown
440 2006) and CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002) equations were based in Fig. 4. Similar results were obtained for the deflection behavior
on the normal assumptions of the flexural theory of reinforced- of the two identical specimens of the same beam type. An initial
concrete beams. The governing equations are as follows: linear branch with a steep slope, corresponding to the uncracked
condition of the beam, was evidenced. When the cracking moment
f rIg was achieved, the slope dropped, owing to the progressive cracking
M cr ¼ ð4Þ of the beam. Finally, the cracking process stabilized, yielding an
yt
almost linear segment until failure. The reinforcement ratio affected
The controlling variable for predicting the cracking moment the stiffness of the beam specimens and, therefore, their load-
is the modulus of rupture of concrete, f r . The modulus of rupture deflection behavior. As expected, larger deformations were noted
used to calculate M cr in Eq. (4) was taken from the corresponding for lower reinforcement ratios. In the case of the beams reinforced
code or guideline as given in Eq. (5). The nominal moment and with steel bars, the moment-deflection curve was trilinear with a
tensile strength of FRP bars can be calculated according to Eqs. (6) yielding plateau.
and (7), respectively. Table 4 provides the experimental cracking moment for each
pffiffiffiffi beam tested. The reinforcement ratio and type did not affect the
For ACI guide; f r ¼ 0:62 f 0c ð5a Þ experimental cracking moment. Indeed, variation in concrete prop-
erties played a greater role. The theoretical prediction agrees quite
pffiffiffiffi well with the experimental results.
For CSA code; f r ¼ 0:6 f 0c ð5b Þ Table 4 summarizes the values of the measured deflection at
service-load levels (corresponding to 30% of the nominal moment
  M n ). At service-load level, the measured deflection was 16% and
ρf f f
M n ¼ ρf f f 1  0:59 0 bd 2 ð6Þ 36% lower for the beams reinforced with CFRP sanded-coated bars
fc and 25% and 36% lower for the beams reinforced with CFRP
ribbed bars because of the 50% and 100% increase of reinforce-
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ment ratio, respectively. The reduction was 27% for the beams re-
ðEf εcu Þ2 0:85β 1 f 0c inforced with GFRP sanded-coated bars and 20% for the beams
ff ¼ þ E f εcu  0:5Ef εcu ≤ f f u ð7Þ
4 ρf reinforced with GFRP ribbed bars as a result of the 33% increase
of reinforcement ratio. For the beams reinforced with AFRP bars,
Because the failure of all the beams except C1-4 was closely the reduction in deflection was 15%, resulting from a 33% increase
related to the concrete’s compressive strength, the increased re- in reinforcement ratio.
inforcement ratio did not significantly increase the beams’ flexural Figs. 4(a) and 4(b) present the effect of bar surface texture on
capacity. A maximum increase of 4% and 16% was observed as a deflection. Up to service-load levels, the beams reinforced with
result of the increase of 50% and 100% in reinforcement ratio, CFRP bars with the same reinforcement ratio showed similar
respectively. Using bundled FRP bars had a negligible influence deflection values. When the load exceeded the service-load level,
on beam flexural capacity and caused no changes in the mode of the moment-deflection curves for the beams reinforced at the same

686 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 100 100
C1-8 C2-8
Beams C1 C1-6 Beams C2 C2-4b
80 80 -6
C1-4b C2

Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
C1-4
60 60 C2-4
ST-6 ST-6
40 ST-4 40 ST-4

20 20
Mcr Mcr
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) Midspan deflection (mm) (b) Midspan deflection (mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

100 100
G1-8 G2-8 Beams AR
Beams G1 and G2 80
80 G1-6 AR-8
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
G2-6 AR-6
60 60
ST-6 ST-6
40 ST-4 40 ST-4

20 20
Mcr Mcr
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(c) Midspan deflection (mm) (d) Midspan deflection (mm)

Fig. 4. Moment-deflection relationship for the tested beams: (a) beams C1; (b) beams C2; (c) beams G1 and G2; (d) beams AR

reinforcement ratio but with different CFRP bar types started
diverging. Although the modulus of elasticity and the tensile
strength of the carbon ribbed-deformed bars were greater than those
of sand-coated bars, at failure load the measured deflection of
beams C2-4, C2-6, and C2-8 (ribbed-deformed bar) were slightly
higher than those for beams C1-4, C1-6, and C1-8 (sand-coated
bar), respectively. This may indicate that the sand-coated bars pro-
vided better bond characteristics than the ribbed-deformed bars.
The latter had smooth, well-rounded ribs, which may have reduced
bond strength. Moreover, bundling bars had no effect on beam de-
flection, as can be seen in Fig. 4(a) (C1-4 and C1-4b) and Fig. 4(b)
(C2-4 and C2-4b).
Cracking Behavior
All beams were initially uncracked. Some cracks began to appear
when the cracking moment was reached in the pure bending zone.
These initial cracks were predominantly vertical and perpendicular
to the direction of the maximum stress induced by the bending mo-
ment. Then, at higher loads, more cracks appeared along the beam’s
length. While cracks grew predominantly vertically in the pure
bending zone, in the shear span, they acquired some inclination
toward the central zone, owing to shear stresses in these regions.
Soon after a load level corresponding to about 67% of the nominal
moment M n was attained, no more cracks appeared, and only
widening of the existing cracks could be observed. Fig. 5 shows
cracking patterns of some of the tested beams at two load levels
corresponding to the service load (0:3M n ) and a load corresponding
to 0:67M n .
Table 5 lists the measured first crack widths and cracking char-
acteristics at two load levels: service load (0:3M n ) and at a load
equivalent to 0:67M n . For all types of bars, the increased reinforce-
ment ratio reduced the number of cracks and increased the average
crack spacing. Moreover, the crack depth decreased when the
reinforcement ratio increased.
Beams C1-4, C1-4b, C2-4, and C2-4b give an indication of the
effect of bundled bars on cracking characteristics. The beams with
bundled bars (C1-4b and C2-4b) developed fewer cracks than those
with single bars (C1-4 and C2-4). The average crack spacing in-
creased for beams C1-4b and C2-4b compared with beams C1-4
and C2-4. This can be explained by better bond quality for single

Fig. 5. Crack patterns

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 687

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 Table 5. Crack Configuration
No. of cracks Max. crack width (mm) Crack depth (mm) Crack spacing (mm)
1st crack-width
Beam (mm) service 0:67M n service 0:67M n service 0:67M n service 0:67M n
CFRP1 C1-4 0.21 12 21 0.56 0.82 229 255 60 41
C1-4b 0.20 11 18 0.55 0.85 228 258 63 53
C1-6 0.12 12 17 0.37 0.49 195 248 77 46
C1-8 0.09 10 17 0.27 0.37 189 245 106 52
CFRP2 C2-4 0.21 12 19 0.57 0.88 232 262 77 44
C2-4b 0.20 11 19 0.55 1.08 219 244 80 55
C2-6 0.13 10 19 0.31 0.48 224 257 90 58
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C2-8 0.09 8 17 0.25 0.32 177 241 114 77

GFRP1 G1-6 0.20 12 20 0.47 0.91 256 285 58 36
G1-8 0.14 10 19 0.38 0.52 230 240 102 56
GFRP2 G2-6 0.19 12 18 0.51 0.81 226 269 71 64
G2-8 0.16 10 14 0.42 0.62 214 237 105 78
Aramid AR-6 0.27 14 21 0.62 1.4 252 280 56 36
AR-8 0.19 9 20 0.53 1.13 229 268 80 58
Steel ST-4 0.08 12 16 0.19 0.33 170 257 90 56
ST-6 0.05 9 14 0.15 0.25 156 247 116 66

bars compared to bundled bars. Nevertheless, the difference in the
cracking characteristics was not excessive, and the use of bundled
FRP bars is perfectly possible (Aly et al. 2006).
Table 5 also shows the effect of using FRP bars with different
surface texture on the cracking characteristics. Beams C1-4, C1-6,
and C1-8 (CFRP sand-coated bars) had more cracks and lower
average crack spacing compared to beams C2-4, C2-6, and C2-8
(ribbed surface CFRP), respectively. This tends to confirm the
explanation about deflection characteristics that suggested that
sand-coated bars have better bond characteristics than ribbed-
deformed bars.
Table 5 indicates that the initial crack width was smaller for
beams with greater reinforcement ratios resulting from easier
absorption of the energy released when the concrete cracked. At
service-load levels, the crack width for the beams reinforced with
CFRP bars was smaller by 54% and 64% owing to the increased
reinforcement ratios of 50% and 100%, respectively. For the beams
reinforced with GFRP bars, the crack width was decreased by 32%
because of a 33% increase in reinforcement ratio. For the beams
reinforced with AFRP bars, the reduction in crack width was
22% resulting from a 33% increase of the reinforcement ratio.
Fig. 6 shows the variation in measured crack width against the
applied moment for the tested beams. The first crack appeared at
the cracking moment load level. For the beams reinforced with FRP
bars, the crack width varied linearly with the applied moment until
failure. A slight reduction rate of crack width was observed with

100 100
Beams C1 C1-8 Beams C2 C2-8
C1-6 C2-6 C2-4 C2-4b
80 C1-4 80
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)

C1-4b
60 60
ST-6 ST-6

40 ST-4 40 ST-4

20 20

0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
(a) Crack width (mm) (b) Crack width (mm)

100 100
Beams G1 and G2 Beams AR
80 G1-8 G1-6 80
AR-6
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)

G2-6 AR-8
60 G2-8 60
ST-6 ST-6

40 ST-4 40 ST-4

20 20

0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
(c) Crack width (mm) (d) Crack width (mm)

Fig. 6. Moment-crack-width relationship for the tested beams: (a) beams C1; (b) beams C2; (c) beams G1 and G2; (d) beams AR

688 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 some beams, but this can be considered linear behavior. The rela- lower elastic modulus, as well as the different bond performance
tionship was bilinear in the case of beams reinforced with steel of the material in a concrete environment [Eq. (9)]
bars. Clearly, crack width was strongly influenced by the reinforce-     
ment ratio in the case of carbon- and glass-FRP-reinforced beams M cr 3 M cr 3
Ie ¼ βd I g þ 1  I cr ≤ I g ð9Þ
but less pronounced for aramid-FRP-reinforced beams. This could Ma Ma
be a result of the small value of Ef =f f u ratio for aramid (28.9) com-
pared to carbon and glass (greater than 60). The coefficient β d was initially set at 0.6 for glass-FRP bars
(Thériault and Benmokrane 1998) and later modified by Gao et al.
(1998) [Eq. (10)] and adopted by ACI Committee 440 (2003)
Evaluation of Design Code and Guide Predictions  
Ef
β d ¼ αb þ1 ð10Þ
Es
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Deflections
Review of Existing Codes and Guides to Predict Deflection in which αb = bond-dependent coefficient, assumed to be 0.5 until
The response of reinforced-concrete members subjected to flexure more data became available. Yost et al. (2003) proposed a different
can be divided into two distinct stages. The first stage describes equation [Eq. (11)], however, to account for the effect of the
the uncracked response of the member, and the second describes reinforcement ratio ρf
the cracked response of the member. Once the second stage is   
ρf Ef
reached, the absence of concrete tensile resistance at the location β d ¼ 0:064 þ 0:13 þ1 ð11Þ
ρf b Es
of cracks requires that tensile loads be carried entirely by the
reinforcement. The flexural stiffness of a reinforced-concrete
ACI Committee 440 (2006) adopted a similar approach that nu-
member is greatly reduced in this stage, but the cracked response
merically incorporates the effects of elastic modulus on the flexural
remains well above that of a member that is fully cracked. This is
stiffness transition into the equation [Eq. (12)]
possible only because of bonding and the reinforcement’s ability to
transfer some of the tension to its surroundings, which leads to the ρf
β d ¼ 0:2 ≤1 ð12Þ
contribution of concrete between individual cracks. With further ρf b
loading, stresses within the concrete on either side of a crack
increase until the tensile strength is reached once more, causing CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002) used the moment-area method to de-
additional cracks. The process continues until crack spacing is in- velop closed-form deflection equations for several common types
sufficient to bring tensile stresses within the concrete to initiate new of loading and support conditions. This method is based on the
cracks. The resulting crack pattern is referred to as the stabilized assumption that the moment-curvature relationship of a cracked
crack pattern in which additional load widens existing cracks, with FRP-reinforced member remains linear under increasing load with
limited effects on flexural stiffness. a flexural rigidity of E c I cr and that tension stiffening is negligible.
To reflect the softening effect, code equations use an effective For a beam under two-point loading, the maximum deflection is
flexural stiffness for reinforced-concrete elements within the tran- given by
sition range. Both ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) and     3  3 
CSA A23.3-04 design code (CSA 2004) provide an expression in- ðM a =aÞL3 a a Lg
Δ¼ 3 4  8η ð13Þ
troduced by Branson (1968) for establishing the effective moment 24Ec I cr L L L
of inertia used in the deflection analysis of steel-reinforced-
concrete beams where η ¼ 1  I cr =I g .
      Bischoff (2005) and Bischoff and Scanlon (2007) have sug-
M cr 3 M cr 3 gested changes to the relationship defined in Eq. (8) that improve
Ie ¼ Ig þ 1  I cr ≤ I g ð8Þ
Ma Ma the incorporation of tension stiffening into estimating deflections.
The relationship has relevance for this paper because it is currently
As emphasized by Yost et al. (2003), the cubic form of the being considered by ACI 440-H for a future design guide
expression was intended to represent the nonlinear characteristics
of the transition that conveniently reflects the declining contribu- I cr
Ie ¼ ≤ Ig ð14Þ
tion of concrete between cracks. The expression was derived from 1  ηγðMMcra Þ2
experimental data for steel-reinforced-concrete beams. The litera-
ture suggests, however, that the expression’s empirical nature where η ¼ 1  I cr =I g ; and γ ¼ 1:72  0:72M cr =M a .
brings sensitivity to the relationship for conditions other than those
for which it was derived (Yost et al. 2003). Comparison of Predicted Deflection with Experimental Data
More specifically, it has been generally shown that the flexural Fig. 7 compares the midspan deflections of the tested beams with
stiffness transition obtained from Eq. (8) is not adequate—member those predicted by Eqs. (12)–(14).
deformation is underestimated for relatively low reinforcing areas Figs. 7(a)–7(d) show CFRP-reinforced beams for which the ACI
that correspond to ratios of the gross to the cracked moment of in- 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) equation and that being
ertia >4 (Bischoff and Paixao 2004). Although significant in the considered by ACI 440-H underestimated deflection over a range
design of steel-reinforced-concrete, the limitation can be even more of reinforcing ratios from 0.6 to 1.2%. The prediction got notice-
relevant when considering the use of FRP material for which lower ably worse as Ef =f f u increased. CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002),
elastic-modulus values prevail and lower reinforcing areas can be however, yielded reasonable predictions.
achieved from higher tensile strengths. For beams reinforced with GFRP bars [Figs. 7(e)–7(h)],
Experimental data show that Eq. (8) is not generally applicable ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) underestimated the
to FRP-reinforced-concrete beams. Therefore, investigators have deflection at lower loads, but predictions improved as the moment
suggested alternative expressions for I e. Accordingly, research increased. The two equations (being considered by ACI 440-H and
has proposed a reduction factor that would compensate for the CSA S806-02) predicted reasonable deflection values, especially

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 689

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 40 40
Beam C1-4 Beam C1-8
ρf = 0.6%

Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
30 Ef / ffu = 75.7 30 ρf = 1.2%
Ef / ffu = 75.7

20 20
exp exp
CSA S806-02 CSA S806-02
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440-H ACI 440-H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(a) Midspan deflection (mm) (b) Midspan deflection (mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40 40
Beam C2-4 Beam C2-8
ρf = 0.6%
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
30 Ef / ffu = 61.4 30 ρf = 1.2%
Ef / ffu = 61.4

20 20
exp exp
CSA S806-02 CSA S806-02
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440-H ACI 440-H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(c) Midspan deflection (mm) (d) Midspan deflection (mm)

40 40
Beam G1-6 Beam G1-8
ρf = 1.7% ρf = 2.2%
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
30 Ef / ffu = 64.8 30 Ef / ffu = 64.8

20 20
exp esp
CSA S806-02 CSA S806-02
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440-H ACI 440-H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(e) Midspan deflection (mm) (f) Midspan deflection (mm)

40 40
Beam G2-6 Beam G2-8
ρf = 1.5% ρf = 2.0%
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)

30 Ef / ffu = 48.2 30 Ef / ffu = 48.2

20 20
exp exp
CSA S806-02 CSA S806-02
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440-H ACI 440-H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(g) Midspan deflection (mm) (h) Midspan deflection (mm)

40 40
Beam AR-6 Beam AR-8
ρf = 0.9% ρf = 1.2%
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)

30 Ef / ffu = 28.9 30 Ef / ffu = 28.9

20 20
exp exp
CSA S806-02 CSA S806-02
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440-H ACI 440-H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(i) Midspan deflection (mm) (j) Midspan deflection (mm)

Fig. 7. Comparison of predicted deflection with experimental data: (a) beam C1-4; (b) beam C1-8; (c) beam C2-4; (d) beam C2-8; (e) beam G1-6;
(f) beam G1-8; (g) beam G2-6; (h) beam G2-8; (i) beam AR-6; (j) beam AR-8

690 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 2 1.5
CSA S806-02
ACI 440.1R 2006
1.5 ACI 440-H

∆ pred / ∆ exp

∆ pred / ∆ exp
1

0.5 CSA S806-02

0.5 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440-H

0 0

C1-4b

C2-4b

C1-4b

C2-4b
AR-6
AR-8

AR-6
AR-8
G1-6
G1-8
G2-6
G2-8

G1-6
G1-8
G2-6
G2-8
C1-4

C1-6

C2-4

C2-6
C2-8

C1-4

C1-6

C2-4

C2-6
C2-8
C1-8

C1-8
(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Comparison with experimental data at different load levels: (a) at 0:3M n ; (b) at 0:67M n

when Ef =f f u was approximately equal to 60, as recommended by
ACI Committee 440.
For beams reinforced with AFRP bars [Figs. 7(i) and 7(j)], ACI
440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) underestimated the deflec-
tion at different reinforcing ratios. The CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002)
equation overpredicted deflection, whereas the equation being
considered by ACI Committee 440-H provided the best fit to
the experimental results.
Fig. 8 shows the ratio of predicted-to-experimental deflections
at service load, 0:3M n , and at 0:67M n . The data clearly indicate that
ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) underestimated the
deflection for all beams at both load levels. The equation being
considered by ACI Committee 440-H slightly underestimated
the deflection at service-load level, but, as the load increased be-
yond the service load, the gap between the predicted values and
experimental results closed. CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002) overesti-
mated the deflection at service-load level, but, as the load increased
beyond the service load, the gap between the predicted values and
experimental results closed.
Fig. 9 compares the deflections predicted by CSA S806-02
(CSA 2002), ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006), and
the equation being considered by ACI Committee 440-H for the
following five tested beams: C1-4, C2-4, G1-6, G2-8, and AR-8.
These five beams have similar I g =I cr , but different Ef =f f u : 75.7,
61.4, 64.8, 48.2, and 28.9, respectively.
The CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002) equation and that being consid-
ered by ACI Committee 440-H exhibited a trend of increasing pre-
dicted deflection as E f =f f u decreased. In contrast, the predicted
deflection based on ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006)
increased with increasing Ef =f f u , which is unreasonable. For a
given f f u , it is logical to expect that deflection would be reduced
because of an increase of stiffness E f .
Both the ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) equation
and that being considered by ACI Committee 440-H predicted very
similar deflection values at Ef =f f u of about 60. When E f =f f u
dropped below 60, ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) be-
gan to underestimate the deflection and reached its worst perfor-
mance at an E f =f f u of about 30, as β d reached its upper limit of 1.
The overestimation of deflection by CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002)
at load levels just after cracking could be a result of the form of the
equation—it uses I cr without any smooth transition from the un-
cracked to the cracked state, thereby causing a sudden increase
in calculated deflection. As the load level increased, the prediction
better approximated the experimental values, though continuing to
slightly overpredict, as shown in Fig. 8(b).
Crack Width
Review of Existing Codes and Guides to Predict Crack
Width
According to current practice for steel-reinforced-concrete, a maxi-
mum crack-width limitation is implicit or explicit in design codes
for two reasons: to mitigate reinforcement corrosion, and to reduce
unsightly, yet harmless, cracking (i.e., for aesthetics). In both ACI
318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) and CSA A23.3-04 (CSA
2004), this limit for steel-reinforced-concrete structures was set
to 0.3 mm for exterior exposure and 0.4 mm for interior exposure.
Since most FRP bars have a modulus of elasticity lower than that of
steel, crack widths in FRP-reinforced members are expected to be
larger than those in steel-reinforced members. If the primary reason
for crack-width limitation is reinforcement corrosion, this limita-
tion can be relaxed for noncorrosive FRP reinforcement. Thus,
ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) and CSA S806-02
(CSA 2002) increased the allowable crack-width limits to 0.5
and 0.7 mm for exterior and interior exposure, respectively, when

40
ACI 440-H
Moment (kN.m)

30 ACI 440.1R 2006

CSA S806-02
20
Ef / ffu = 75.7
Ef / ffu = 61.4
10 Ef / ffu = 64.8
Ef / ffu = 48.2
Ef / ffu = 28.9
0
0 10 20 30
Midspan deflection (mm)

Fig. 9. Effect of E f =f f u on deflection prediction

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 691

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 Table 6. Bond Factor kb The kb coefficient, which accounts for the bond between the bar
Crack width (mm) and surrounding concrete, is considered to be the key point for pre-
dicting crack width accurately. When k b is not known from exper-
Beam Eq. (15) (A) Exp. (B) kb ¼ B=A
imental data, a conservative value of 1.4 should be assumed for
CFRP1 C1-4 0.59 0.56 0.95 FRP bars (ACI 440.1R-06).
C1-6 0.42 0.37 0.88
C1-8 0.28 0.27 0.99 Comparison of Predicted Crack Width with Experimental
Data
CFRP2 C2-4 0.59 0.57 0.97
Table 6 compares the calculated kb based on the crack widths in the
C2-6 0.37 0.31 0.86
tested beams, which range from 0.86 to 1.32. Fig. 10 compares the
C2-8 0.29 0.25 0.86 predicted crack width to the experimental data for typical tested
GFRP1 G1-6 0.43 0.47 1.07 beams. The data indicate that Eq. (15) predicts crack width for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

G1-8 0.35 0.38 1.08 the FRP-reinforced beams quite well.

GFRP2 G2-6 0.48 0.51 1.04
G2-8 0.39 0.42 1.02
Aramid AR-6 0.49 0.62 1.27 Deformability
AR-8 0.40 0.53 1.32
Ductility can be defined as the capacity of a structure to absorb
energy without suffering failure and is generally related to the
amount of inelastic deformation that takes place before a complete
FRP reinforcement is used. Under CSA S6-10 (CSA 2010a), when failure. For steel-reinforced structures, ductility can be calculated as
the maximum tensile strain in FRP reinforcement under full service the ratio of the total deformation at failure divided by the deforma-
loads exceeds 0.0015, cross sections of the component in maximum tion at yielding. This way of estimating ductility cannot be applied
positive- and negative-moment regions shall be proportioned in to FRP-reinforced structures because they are virtually linear until
such a way that the crack width does not exceed 0.5 mm for failure.
members subject to aggressive environments and 0.7 mm for other Jaeger et al.(1997) and Newhook et al. (2002) have proposed
members. measuring absorbed energy based on deformability rather than duc-
ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) introduced a crack- tility to ensure adequate deformation of FRP-reinforced structures
width formulation based on a physical model, rather than being before failing. In this section, we have adopted the Canadian High-
empirically derived (Frosch 1999). This formula is independent way Bridge Design Code (CSA S6-10) (CSA 2010a) to compute
of reinforcement type (steel or FRP), except that it should be modi- the deformability factor (J), which should be at least 4.0 for rec-
fied by a bond-quality coefficient k b . Therefore, the maximum tangular sections and 6.0 for T-sections, and is calculated as
probable crack width for FRP-reinforced members may be calcu-
lated from Eq. (15) M ult ψult
J¼ ð16Þ
M c ψc
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ff
w ¼ 2 βk b d 2c þ ð0:5sÞ2 ð15Þ The values for moment and curvature at service state M c and ψc
Ef correspond to a maximum concrete compressive strain of 0.001.

100 100
C1-8
.8
80 80
b =0
.8
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)

6K
b=0

1 .4

-
G2
=

G2-6
8K

60 60
Kb
-8
C1-

4
= 1.
C1

40 40 -6 Kb
G2
20 20

0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
Crack width (mm) Crack width (mm)

100

80
= 0.8 AR-6
Moment (kN.m)

Kb
R-6
60 A
.4
b= 1
40 -6 K
AR

20

0
0 1 2
Crack width (mm)

Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted crack width with experimental data

692 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 Table 7. Deformability Factor effect on crack width, which might be attributable to the
Beam Deformability factor (J) reduction in the net bar-concrete bond area because of bar
grouping;
CFRP1 C1-4 5.70 • The crack width in the beams reinforced with FRP bars varied
C1-6 7.84 linearly with the applied moment until failure. The crack width
C1-8 5.64 was smaller for the beams with greater reinforcement ratios.
CFRP2 C2-4 7.77 Moreover, the beams reinforced with sand-coated bars exhibited
C2-6 5.93 more cracks and less average crack spacing compared to the
C2-8 5.93 beams reinforced with ribbed-surface bars, leading to the con-
GFRP1 G1-6 7.74 clusion that the tested sand-coated bars had better bond than the
G1-8 7.86
ribbed-surface bars;
• In terms of serviceability behavior, at the service-load levels,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GFRP2 G2-6 7.79

the deflection equation provided by ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI
G2-8 8.91
Committee 440 2006) underestimated deflection for all beams.
Aramid AR-6 8.38 The predictions of the equation being considered by ACI
AR-8 7.37 Committee 440-H fit well with the experimental results of the
GFRP- and AFRP-reinforced beams but underestimated the
deflection for the beams reinforced with CFRP. CSA S806-02
For this study, the curvature at ultimate limit states was calculated (CSA 2002) fit with the experimental results for all beams;
using the maximum actual experimental concrete strain, rather than • The bond factor kb was calculated based on experimental crack
a theoretical value. In the same way, ultimate moment is given as width and was found to range from 0.86 to 1.32 for the CFRP-,
the maximum moment recorded during the test. As can be seen in GFRP-, and ARFP-reinforcing bars tested. When kb is not
Table 7, the deformability factor in all of the tested beams with known from experimental data, a conservative value of 1.4
different types of FRP bars and different reinforcement ratios should be assumed, as recommended by ACI 440.1R-06
was higher than the minimum value of four, as recommended (ACI Committee 440 2006); and
by CSA S6-10 (CSA 2010a). • Although all the beams failed owing to concrete crushing, a high
degree of deformability was attained before failure. In all cases,
the calculated deformability factor was >4.
Conclusion

A total of 24 full-scale concrete beams measuring 3;300 × 200 × Acknowledgments

300 mm were constructed and tested under four-point bending to
failure. The main variables were bar type (modulus of elasticity and
tensile-strength variation), and reinforcement ratio and configura-
tion. The experimental results were compared considering the
cracking and ultimate moment, deflection, and crack-width provi-
sions provided in different design codes and guides. On the basis of
the experimental results and prediction models, we have drawn the
following conclusions:
• All the FRP-reinforced beams behaved linearly until cracking
and almost linearly between cracking and failure, with a greatly
reduced slope. Failure, however, took place at relatively large
displacements;
• The FRP-reinforced beams failed by concrete crushing because
the actual reinforcement ratio was greater than the balanced re-
inforcement ratio. In addition, steel-reinforced beams failed by
yielding of steel reinforcement, followed by concrete crushing;
• A reinforcement ratio of more than 1:4ρf b is recommended to
ensure compression failure. This is in agreement with ACI
440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006);
• The neutral-axis depths in the midspan section compare
well with the numerical predictions based on cracked-section
analysis;
• The predicted cracking moments were in good agreement with
the experimental results;
• The parameters chosen in the experimental program (reinforce-
ment ratio and configuration, and bar type) influenced effective
beam stiffness and, therefore, beam load-deflection behavior.
Nevertheless, the analytical expressions used to evaluate their
response reproduced this variation in the range of serviceability
loads reasonably well with respect to flexural capacity and
deflection;
• The bundled-bar configuration had no clear effect on beam
deflection or flexural capacity. Bundled bars had a slight
The writers would like to express their special thanks and gratitude
to the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC), the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la
Nature et les Technologies (FQRNT), and the technical staff of
the structural lab in the Department of Civil Engineering at the
University of Sherbrooke.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Af = area of FRP reinforcement (mm2 );
a = shear-span (mm);
b = cross section width of beam (mm);
c = neutral axis depth (mm);
d = effective depth of beams (mm);
d c = thickness of cover from tension face to center of closest
bar (mm);
E c = modulus of elasticity of concrete (MPa);
Ef = modulus of elasticity of FRP (MPa);
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel (MPa);
f f = tensile stress in reinforcement (MPa);
f f u = ultimate tensile strength of FRP (MPa);
f 0c = concrete compressive strength (MPa);
f r = modulus of rupture of concrete (MPa);
I cr = cracking moment of inertia (mm4 );
I e = effective moment of inertia (mm4 );
I g = gross moment of inertia (mm4 );
I m = modified moment of inertia (mm4 );
J = deformability factor (called “overall performance factor”
for CSA S6-10);
k b = coefficient for bond between FRP bar and surrounding
concrete;

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 693

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.

 L = span (mm);
M a = applied service load moment at the critical section
(kN·m);
M c = moment corresponding to a maximum compressive
concrete strain in the section of 0.001 (kN·m);
M cr = cracking moment (kN·m);
M n = nominal moment (kN·m);
M ult = ultimate moment (kN·m);
nf = ratio of modulus of elasticity of FRP bars to modulus of
elasticity of concrete;
s = bar spacing (mm);
w = crack width (mm);
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
αb = bond-dependent coefficient assumed equal to 0.5;
β = ratio of distance between neutral axis and tension face to
distance between neutral axis and centroid of
reinforcement;
β 1 = ratio of depth of equivalent rectangular stress block to
depth of the neutral axis;
β d = coefficient given in Eqs. (9), (10), or (11);
Δ = deflection (mm);
Δexp = measured deflection from experiment (mm);
Δpred = predicted deflection from equations (mm);
εcu = maximum concrete compressive strain (0.003 for ACI
provision);
εf = maximum tensile strain of FRP bars (%);
ρf = reinforcement ratio;
ρf b = balanced reinforcement ratio;
Ψc = curvature at M c ; and
Ψult = curvature at M ult .
References
Aly, R. S., Benmokrane, B., and Ebead, U. A. (2006). “Tensile lap splicing
of bundled CFRP reinforcing bars in concrete.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10(4), 287–294.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318. (2008). “Building code
requirements for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-08,
Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2003). “Guide for the
design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI
440.1R-03, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2004). “Guide test
methods for fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) for reinforcing or
strengthening concrete structures.” ACI 440.3R-04, Farmington
Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2006). “Guide for the
design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI
440.1R-06, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2007). “Report on
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement concrete structures.”
ACI 440R-07, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2008). “Specification
for carbon and glass fiber-reinforced polymer bar as materials for
concrete reinforcement.” ACI 440.M-08, Farmington Hills, MI.
Benmokrane, B., Chaallal, O., and Masmoudi, R. (1996). “Flexural re-
sponse of concrete beams reinforced with FRP reinforcing bars.”
ACI Struct. J., 91(2), 46–55.
Bischoff, P. H. (2005). “Reevaluation of deflection prediction for concrete
beams reinforced with steel and fiber reinforced polymer bars.”
J. Struct. Eng., 131(5), 752–767.
Bischoff, P. H., and Paixao, R. (2004). “Tension stiffening and cracking of
concrete reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars.”
Can. J. Civ. Eng., 31(4), 579–588.
Bischoff, B. H., and Scanlon, A. (2007). “Effective moment of inertia
for calculating deflections of concrete members containing steel
reinforcement and fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement.” ACI Struct.
J., 104(1), 68–75.
694 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011
J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.
Branson, D. E. (1968). “Design procedures for computing deflections.” ACI
Struct. J., 65(8), 730–742.
Brown, V. L., and Bartholomew, C. L. (1996). “Long-term deflection
of GFRP-reinforced-concrete beams.” Fiber Composites in Infra-
structure: Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Composites in Infrastructures
(ICCI‘96), H. Saadatmanesh and M. R. Ehsani, eds., Tucson, AZ,
389–400.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2002). “Design and construction
of building components with fiber-reinforced polymers.” CSA S806-02,
Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2004). “Design of concrete
structures standard.” CSA A23.3-04, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2010a). “Canadian highway
bridge design code.” CSA S6-10, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2010b). “Specification for fibre
reinforced polymers.” CSA S807-10, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
El-Salakawy, E., and Benmokrane, B. (2004). “Serviceability of concrete
bridge deck slabs reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer composite
bars.” ACI Struct. J., 101(5), 727–736.
Faza, S. S., and GangaRao, H. V. S. (1992). “Pre- and post-cracking de-
flection behavior of concrete beams reinforced with fiber-reinforced
plastic rebars.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on the Use of Advanced Composite
Materials in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS-I), K. Neale and
P. Labossiere, eds., Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, Canada,
151–160.
Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib). (2007). “FRP reinforcement in RC
structures.” Task Group 9.3, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Frosch, R. J. (1999). “Another look at cracking and crack control in rein-
forced concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 96(3), 437–442.
Gao, D., Benmokrane, B., and Masmoudi, R. (1998). “A calculating
method of flexural properties of FRP-reinforced concrete beam, Part 1:
Crack width and deflection.” Tech. Report, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Gergely, P., and Lutz, L. A. (1968). “Maximum crack width in reinforced
concrete flexural members.” Causes, mechanisms, and control of
cracking in concrete, ACI SP-20, ACI, Farmington Hills, MI,
87–117.
Gulbrandsen, P. (2005). “Reliability analysis of the flexural capacity of
fiber-reinforced polymer bars in concrete beams.” Master’s thesis, Univ.
of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN.
ISIS Canada. (2007). “Reinforcing concrete structures with fiber-reinforced
polymers—Design manual No. 3.” Manitoba, Canada.
Italian National Research Council (CNR). (2006). Guide for the design and
construction of concrete structures reinforced with fiber-reinforced
polymer bars, CNR-DT 203/2006, Rome.
Jaeger, L. G., Mufti, A. A., and Tadros, G. (1997). “The concept of
the overall performance factor in rectangular-section reinforced con-
crete members.” Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on Nonmetallic (FRP) Reinforce-
ment for Concrete Structures, Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo,
551–559.
Lee, W. K., Jansen, D. C., Berlin, K. B., and Cohen, I. E. (2010). “Flexural
cracks in fiber-reinforced concrete beams with fiber-reinforced polymer
reinforcing bars.” ACI Struct. J., 107(3), 321–329.
Masmoudi, R., Thériault, M., and Benmokrane, B. (1998). “Flexural
behavior of concrete beams reinforced with deformed fiber reinforced
plastic reinforcing rods.” ACI Struct. J., 95(6), 665–676.
Mota, C., Alminar, S., and Svecova, D. (2006). “Critical review of
deflection formulas for FRP-RC members.” J. Compos. Constr., 10(3),
183–194.
Nanni, A. (1993). “Flexural behavior and design of RC members using
FRP reinforcement.” J. Struct. Eng., 119(11), 3344–3359.
Newhook, J., Ghali, A., and Tadros, G. (2002). “Concrete flexural members
reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer: Dsign for cracking and
deformability.” Can. J. Civil Eng., 29, 125–134.
Pecce, M., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E. (2000). “Experimental response
and code models of GFRP RC beams in bending.” J. Compos. Constr.,
4(4), 182–190.
Pilakoutas, K., Neocleous, K., and Guadagnini, M. (2002). “Design
philosophy issues of fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced concrete
structures.” J. Compos. Constr., 6(3), 154–161.
 Rashid, M. A., Mansur, M. A., and Paramasivam, P. (2005). “Behavior of
aramid fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced high strength concrete
beams under bending.” J. Compos. Constr., 9(2), 117–127.
Razaqpur, A. G., Svecova, D., and Cheung, M. S. (2000). “Rational method
for calculating deflection of fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced
beams.” ACI Struct. J., 97(1), 175–184.
Thériault, M., and Benmokrane, B. (1998). “Effects of FRP reinforcement
ratio and concrete strength on flexural behavior of concrete beams.”
J. Compos. Constr., 2(1), 7–16.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Toutanji, H., and Deng, Y. (2003). “Deflection and crack-width prediction
of concrete beams reinforced with glass FRP rods.” Constr. Build.
Mater., 17(1), 69–74.
Toutanji, H. A., and Saafi, M. (2000). “Flexural behavior of concrete beams
reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars.” ACI
Struct. J., 97(5), 712–719.
Yost, J. R., Gross, S. P., and Dinehart, D. W. (2003). “Effective moment of
inertia for glass fiber-reinforced polymer-reinforced concrete beams.”
ACI Struct. J., 100(6), 732–739.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 695

View publication stats J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:682-695.