Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
net/publication/331653153
CITATIONS READS
0 127
3 authors:
Rami Haddad
Jordan University of Science and Technology
73 PUBLICATIONS 745 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Rami J A Hamad on 11 March 2019.
M. A. Megat Johari
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
Rami H. Haddad
Department of Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology,
P.O. Box 3030, 22110 Irbid, Jordan
ABSTRACT
Using fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars as an alternative to traditional steel
reinforcement solves durability problems in reinforced concrete structures. This study
investigated the effects of bar slippage on the pre- and post-heating flexural response
of concrete beams reinforced with different FRP and conventional steel bars. A total
of twenty-four control and heat-damaged concrete beams with different FRP/steel
bars were loaded (in triplicates) under a four-point loading configuration to evaluate
their mechanical performance and failure modes while acquiring strains in tension
steel and compression concrete. A new theoretical method was proposed to predict
the load capacities of the beams with consideration of slippage between the FRP bars
and surrounding concrete. The results were then compared with the load capacities
computed using the ACI code that assumes a prefect bond between FRP bars and
concrete. The post-heated concrete beams failed at a relatively low load capacity.
They also presented an increase in deflection and ductility and a decrease in stiffness
and total absorbed energy. The theoretical ultimate load of the FRP-RC beams,
computed on the basis of the ACI code, was overestimated relative to the
corresponding measured values. By contrast, the computations based on the actual
pre- and post-heating mechanical properties of the FRP bars and concrete and their
bond characteristics provided reasonably reliable results.
Keywords: FRP bars, High Temperature, Bond, Slippage, Flexural, deflection,
Stiffness, Ductility, Analytical Model.
Cite this Article: Rami J.A. Hamad, M. A. Megat Johari and Rami H. Haddad,
Effects of Bars Slippage on the Pre- and Post-Heating Flexural Behavior of FRP
Reinforced Concrete Beams: Experimental and Theoretical Investigations,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 10(2), 2019, pp. 574-602.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=02
1. INTRODUCTION
Existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures deteriorate when exposed to an aggressive
chloride attack in marine structures or when deicing agents infiltrate the concrete. Hence,
steel reinforcement inside concrete would corrode in the presence of oxygen and water,
leading to concrete cracking and loss in the structural capacity of steel-corroded concrete
elements. The maintenance and rehabilitation of concrete structures damaged by corrosion
are costly and sometimes complicated [1]. Nonmetallic fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars
have been recommended as an alternative to traditional steel reinforcement in RC structures
in aggressive environments to overcome reinforcing steel problems [2].
FRP composites consist of strong reinforcing organic/inorganic fibers embedded in a
resin matrix. The fiber component of FRP composites transfers stress and provides stiffness
and strength to the FRP composites, which are commercially manufactured using different
types of fibers, such as glass (GFRP), carbon (CFRP), and basalt (BFRP). In comparison with
traditional reinforcing steel, FRP bars possess higher resistance to electrochemical corrosion,
tensile stresses, fatigue, and electromagnetic waves; lighter weight and lower elastic
modulus; lower resistance to high temperature; and higher cost [1, 3-6]. FRP bars can be
practically used either as internal reinforcing bars inside concrete sections or as externally
bonded reinforcement sheets/plates using epoxy resin adhesives [1]. FRP-RC beams show
non-ductile flexural behavior and higher deflection and cracking than beams reinforced with
conventional steel do because of the brittle behavior of FRP bars [7-9]. Hence, the design of
FRP-RC structures has shifted from the consideration of strength requirements to the regard
for serviceability limit states to ensure functionality and safety during the expected life of
these structures. Furthermore, these structures are designed as over-reinforced to achieve
concrete failure (crushing of concrete) prior to FRP rebars’ failure [8, 10-14].
Extensive research on the structural behavior of FRP-RC elements has been carried out
with an emphasis on the potential of using FRP composites as reinforcement materials. The
results of theoretical and experimental works show contradicting conclusions with regard to
the significance of using FRP in structural concrete elements [15-16]. Using FRP bars as
replacement of traditional steel reinforcement in concrete beams improves the flexural
capacity of these beams but reduces their ductility [7, 11, 17]. Al-Sunna et al. found that
shear cracking, shrinkage, and loss of bond have a significant contribution to the overall
deflection of FRP reinforced structures [13].
Recently, various studies have shown that the FRP–concrete bond behavior depends on
bar diameter, surface treatment, embedment length, FRP modulus, concrete strength, concrete
cover, and the properties of the polymer matrix at the bar surface [5, 18-25]. The mechanism
of the FRP bar– concrete bond depends on the bar’s mechanical interlocking and the friction
between their surfaces and the surrounding concrete. Hence, special surface treatments, such
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Reinforcement bars
Three types of helically wrapped GFRP and BFRP and sand-coated CFRP bars, in addition to
deformed steel bars with two nominal diameters (6 and 10 mm) were used to reinforce the
beams in the current study. Figure 1 shows the geometry of the bars. FRP and steel bars with
a 10 mm diameter were used for main tensile reinforcement, whereas steel bars with a 6 mm
diameter were used as stirrups. The properties of the FRP bars based on the supplier’s
technical data sheets are summarized in Table 1.
The mechanical properties of the conventional steel bars were identified in the laboratory.
The latter yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, and maximum elongation at failure were
570 MPa, 638 MPa, and 8.48%, respectively.
Table 1 Mechanical properties of different FRP bars used as per manufacturer data sheet
fuf uf Ef αT αL F Type of
Type
MPa % GPa x10-6/°C x10-6/°C % matrix
CFRP-6 mm 2068 1.7 124 89 -0.9 70% VER
CFRP-10 mm 1896 1.6 124 89 -0.9 70% VER
GFRP-6 mm 900 2.1 40 22 5.4 N.A. UP
GFRP-10 mm 800 2.1 40 22 5.4 N.A. UP
BFRP-6 mm 1100 2.1 65 23 6 N.A. EPR
BFRP-10 mm 1000 2.1 65 23 6 N.A. EPR
fuf , maximum tensile strength; uf , maximum strain at ultimate strength; Ef, FRP’s modulus
of elasticity; F%, fiber to matrix volume ratio; αL, Longitudinal coefficient of thermal
expansion; αT, Transverse coefficient of thermal expansion; VER, Vinyl Ester Resin; UP,
Unsaturated Polyester; EPR, Epoxy Polymer Resin; N.A., not applicable.
2.1.2. Concrete
Normal strength concrete with a 28-day compressive strength of 40 MPa was used. The 90±2
mm measured slump enabled good compaction without excess bleeding. Crushed granite
coarse aggregates with 10 mm maximum size and natural river sand with a specific gravity of
2.7 and moisture content of 0.6% were used. The proportions of water, ordinary Portland
cement, coarse aggregates, and fine aggregates were 207, 416, 1139, and 619 kg/m 3,
respectively.
Prior to the placement of the reinforcement cages in the molds, a special type of high
temperature strain gauge with a 3.0 mm gauge length and resistance of up to 300 °C was
attached to the mid-length of one of the main reinforcement bars. This strain gauge was then
sequentially coated with silicone sealant, ceramic paste layer, ceramic wool layer, and Teflon
tape. At least 25 mm of protection on both sides of the fixed gauge was maintained to reduce
the temperature that reaches the gauge by 100 °C–150 °C. An additional strain gauge was
fixed to the other main reinforcement bar of the specimens already subjected to heating. This
strain gauge served as a backup in case the one installed prior to heating failed. For this
purpose, a small hole of approximately 30 mm × 30 mm × 30 mm was created during casting
at the main reinforcement level and then later filled with ceramic wool to protect the
adjoining FRP bar during heating (Figure 3). After the burning of the RC beams, the ceramic
wool was removed prior to the installation of the strain gauge in the reinforcement bar and
coating of the silicone sealant. Finally, the hole was filled with concrete and allowed to cure
for two weeks before testing. Another strain gauge measuring 40.0 mm was fixed at the
middle of the top surface of all concrete beams prior to flexural testing. Special protection
layers were used to prevent potential damage of strain gauges during flexural testing. The
temperature changes across each beam’s depth during heating were determined by placing
four K-type thermocouples measuring 1.0 m in length at different locations across the depth
of two steel RC beams prior to casting (Figure 5). Through this placement, the temperature
variations across the beams at 500 °C for 4 h were obtained.
Figure 3 Hole at bottom of RC beam used for later fixation of strain gauges
Figure 8 Temperature profile for RC beams heated to 500°C for four hours.
The beams reached a uniform temperature of approximately 460 °C at the end of the
heating duration, and the temperature at the location of the main bottom reinforcement
reached 325 °C after 92 min of heating. According to Hamad et al. [41], significant
degradation in the mechanical properties of FRP reinforcement can be avoided by
maintaining the reinforcement bars’ temperature below 325 °C, which can be achieved by
applying a maximum heating temperature of 500 °C for 90 min for all heated beams.
Hence, the heating regime depicted in Figure 9 was applied to all heated beam specimens
after moist curing for 21 days and air drying in the laboratory for a week. A standard cube
and cylinder, cast from the same concrete and cured for the same period as the beams, were
heated in the same furnace. The beam, cube, and cylinder specimens were air-dried after
heating.
Nigro et al. [28] stated that the temperature rise in rebars can be further delayed by using
a large concrete cover. Abbasi and Hogg [47] showed that the temperature of a main
reinforcement bar could reach 326 °C after a 90 min exposure to ISO 834 standard fire if a 50
mm concrete cover is used. Approximately 50 mm concrete cover is required to maintain a
reinforcement bar’s temperature below the critical level (325 °C) upon exposure to standard
fire (ISO 834).
corresponding average strain at ultimate stress increased from 0.00260 before heating to
0.00649 after heating. The experimental average splitting tensile strength decreased by 48%
after the exposure of the cylinders to a temperature of 500 °C.
Table 2 Compressive and tensile strength of concrete before and after exposure to 500°C.
Temperature fc' (MPa) c % fsp (MPa)
23°C 33.98 ± 1.57 0.2635 ± 0.0233 3.265 ± 0.71
500°C 25.24 ± 2.76 0.6489 ± 0.0451 1.706 ± 0.27
fc': concrete cylinder compressive strength at 28 days, c: Strain at fc', fsp: splitting tensile
strength.
Figure 11 Typical load-deflection curve of control beams with different reinforcement bars.
Figure 13 Load-deflection response of concrete beams with different reinforcement bars after
exposure to 500°C
Figure 14 Typical load-deflection response of beams with different reinforcement bars before and
after exposure to 500°C
Table 3 Characteristics of load-deflection diagram for RC beams with different FRP bars
Beam Temp. Pexp-ult Δexp-ult Pexp-cr Δexp-cr Δexp-s I.S. S.2nd Etotal
S.R
Type (°C) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN.mm)
23 32.638 13.280 10.762 0.804 6.554 12543 4370 65% 285.6 2.430
GFRP 6.853 19.969 1.501 0.376 4071 853 79% 90.80 4.708
500 N.A.
(21%) (150%) (14%) (47%) (32%) (20%) (122%) (32%) (194%)
23 38.569 11.983 11.938 0.923 6.860 13440 3892 71% 279.8 1.954
BFRP 7.262 15.860 1.620 0.490 3277 1428 56% 84.70 3.489
500 N.A.
(19%) (132%) (14%) (53%) (24%) (37%) (79%) (30%) (179%)
23 89.973 11.437 13.667 0.802 2.728 18147 9260 48% 609.7 1.291
CFRP 31.969 16.418 1.584 0.413 9.513 3851 2087 46% 312.3 1.265
500
(36%) (144%) (12%) (51%) (349%) (21%) (23%) (96%) (51%) (98%)
23 76.137 11.123 20.667 1.376 1.587 15888 11496 26.5% 625.5 N.A.
Steel 69.420 13.686 2.919 0.321 2.730 9990 8247 15.79% 632.5
500 N.A.
(91%) (123%) (14%) (23%) (172%) (63%) (72%) (59%) (101%)
Pexp-ult, experimental ultimate load, Δexp-ult, measured mid-span deflection at ultimate load,
Pexp-cr, experimental cracking load, Δexp-cr, measured mid-span deflection at cracking load,
I.S, initial stiffness, S.2nd, stiffness after cracking, S.R. Reduction in stiffness, Δexp-s, mid-span
deflection at theoretical service load, Etotal, total absorbed energy, , ductility index, N.A., not
available.
increased by 50.4%, 32.4%, and 43.5% to reach 19.97, 15.86, and 16.42 mm measured at
relatively low loads of 6.85, 7.26, and 31.97 kN, respectively.
3.3.2. Stiffness
The rigidity for the first and second linear portions and the post-cracking reduction
percentage were computed as the average readings from triplicate specimens. The results are
summarized in Table 3. The highest initial rigidity was observed in the beams with CFRP
bars at 18.15 MN/m, followed sequentially by those with BFRP and GFRP bars at 13.44 and
12.54 MN/m, respectively. Rigidity was reduced after first cracking by 48%, 71%, and 65%,
respectively. As expected, the lowest reduction in stiffness after first cracking (27%) was
observed among the steel reinforced beams. Upon exposure to 500 °C, the different beams
suffered from reduced stiffness. Although the concrete beams with CFRP bars showed the
highest initial stiffness among the FRP reinforced beams at normal temperature, they
experienced the highest degradation in their stiffness after exposure to 500 °C. The initial
stiffness values of the heated GFRP, BFRP, CFRP, and steel reinforced beams were 4.07,
3.28, 3.851 and 9.99 MN.m, which represent 32.5%, 24.4%, 21.2%, and 62.8% of their
unheated beam’s stiffness, respectively. After cracking, the corresponding beams suffered
stiffness reduction at 79%, 56%, 46%, and 16%.
3.3.3. Serviceability
Serviceability is defined as the ability to maintain structural usability over the life of a
structure. The present service load values were computed on the basis of the recommendation
of Vesey and Bischoff, that is, a service load between 35% and 45% of the flexural member’s
capacity would limit deflection to L/240, where L is the beam span [50]. In the study, the
service load, Ps, was taken as 35% of the theoretical member capacity; upon which the mid-
span deflections were interpolated. The results are presented in Table 3. The beams with
CFRP bars showed a lower serviceable mid-span deflection than the beams with BFRP and
GFRP did due to the former beams’ higher stiffness. The mid-span deflections at the service
load of the beams with GFRP, BFRP, and CFRP bars were 6.55, 6.86, and 2.728 mm,
respectively. After exposure to 500 °C, the maximum load capacities of the GFRP and BFRP
reinforced beams were significantly decreased to levels lower than the defined service loads.
Therefore, the serviceable mid-span deflection could not be measured. By contrast, the
serviceable mid-span deflection of the CFRP reinforced beams peaked by 250% to reach 9.53
mm. As a result of their high stiffness, the beams with steel bars showed lower serviceable
mid-span deflections than those with the FRP bars did in the pre- and post-heating cases. The
measured serviceable mid-span deflection of the steel reinforced beams increased from 1.587
mm to 2.73 mm upon exposure to 500 °C because of the effect of heating on the reduction of
beam stiffness.
Bridge Design Code, a minimum ductility index value of 4 is considered enough to have a
ductile failure mode [52], whereas New Zealand standards recommend a ductility index of
more than six for a perfect ductile failure mode [53].
1 𝐸𝑒𝑙 + 𝐸𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑙
Ductility Index = ( + 1) (1)
2 𝐸𝑒𝑙
𝑃1 𝑆1 + (𝑃2 − 𝑃1 )𝑆2
𝑆= (2)
𝑃2
The results of the ductility index computation according to Equation 2 are summarized in
Table 3, in which the results represent the average of three specimens. The ductility indices
for all control FRP reinforced beams were less than the lower limit at 4, indicating non-
ductile failure mode and greening with actual failure observed experimentally. The GFRP
reinforced beams showed the highest ductility at 2.43, followed sequentially by the BFRP
and CFRP reinforced beams at 1.954 and 1.291, respectively. The procedure for computing
ductility index is applicable only to FRPs but not to conventional beams; hence, the
corresponding value for steel reinforced beams is not provided in Table 3. The CFRP beams,
among all the FRP beams, had the lowest ductility index, but they exhibited the highest
absorbed total energy until failure. The total absorbed energy for the GFRP, BFRP, CFRP,
and steel reinforced beams averaged 286, 280, 610, and 625.5 kN.mm, respectively. This
result showed that the beams reinforced with conventional steel were more ductile than those
with FRP bars.
Figure 17 Strains in concrete and reinforcement bars in different RC beams, after exposure to 500°C
Table 4 Average strain readings (x10-6) of concrete and different reinforcing bars at ultimate loads.
GFRP BFRP CFRP Steel
Temp
c r c r c r c (ult) r (ult) c (yield) r (yield)
23 1412 5419 1707 5075 2740 7144 5418 6910 2885 2996
500 1075 1644 1443 1869 3255 2835 6201 N.A 3279 2360
f, FRP strain at ultimate load, c, concrete strain at ultimate or yield load, s, steel strain at
yield or ultimate load
the loading points and then widen rapidly as the load increases until bond failure prior to
concrete crushing or FRP rupture. In the case of the CFRP reinforced beams, a maximum of
five new vertical cracks were developed along the beam’s span and then branched and
propagated deeply toward the compression zone. Prior to the failure of the latter beams, new
inclined shear cracks were developed near the support and extended diagonally toward the
top loading points that caused sudden shear failure. At failure, the number of cracks in the
beams with CFRP bars was higher than that in the beams with GFRP and BFRP bars.
Upon heating to 500 °C, the GFRP, BFRP, and CFRP beams initially cracked at the
average low loads of 1.5, 1.62, and 1.58 kN, respectively, which are 12%–14% of those of
the control FRP reinforced beams. Cracking was initially formed in the high moment zone
and then followed immediately by the formation of two new flexural cracks located below the
two loading points. These locations were mainly considered as the weak points at which bond
failure starts (Figures 18–20). The cracks widened rapidly with a small increase in load.
Failure occurred upon the sudden increase of the cracks’ width and deflection without any
increase in load due to the total loss of the bond between the FRP bars and the concrete. In
the case of the CFRP reinforced beams, the main flexural cracks were branched with
increasing load and then extended and propagated deeply toward the compression zone, along
with the formation of additional vertical cracks in the nearby zone.
Figure 18 Typical cracking pattern of concrete beams with GFRP bars before (top) and after (bottom)
exposure to 500°C
Figure 19 Typical cracking pattern of concrete beams with BFRP bars before (top) and after (bottom)
exposure to 500°C
Figure 20 Typical cracking pattern of concrete beams with CFRP bars before (top) and after (bottom)
exposure to 500°C
Figure 21 Typical cracking pattern of concrete beams with steel bars before (top) and after (bottom)
exposure to 500°C.
2. The maximum bond force capacity (F) between the FRP bars and the surrounding concrete
is calculated on the basis of the schematics of Figure 22 according to Equation (4)
The maximum strain in FRPs (f) at bond failure level is calculated from Equation (6).
Then, assuming a linear strain distribution of strain across the beam depth, the strain in the
compression concrete was determined through triangle similarity and the schematic of Figure
23. The strain in concrete is related to compressive stresses according to Equation (7),
representing the model by Hognestad [54]. Equilibrium requires the compressive force in
concrete to be equal to that of the reinforcement (F) on the basis of the location of the neutral
axis, c, as given in the equation (8). The location of the neutral axis is determined by
considering internal equilibrium and applying trial and error. Finally, the nominal moment
and load capacity are calculated according to Equation (9). In the case of the post-heated
concrete, its strain is related to the compressive stresses based on Equation (10), as proposed
by Eurocode 2 [55] instead of that proposed by Hognestad. The results of moment capacity
computation for various FRP reinforced beams and exposure before and after exposure to 500
°C are listed in Table 6.
𝜀𝑐 𝜀𝑐 1.8𝑓𝑐′ 𝑐𝜀𝑓
𝑓𝑐′ ( ) (2 − ) 𝑖𝑓 𝜀𝑐 ≤ 𝜀𝑜 = ; 𝜀𝑐 =
𝜀𝑜 𝜀𝑜 4700√𝑓𝑐′ 𝑑−𝑐
𝑓𝑐 = (7)
𝜀𝑐 − 𝜀𝑜 1.8𝑓𝑐′ 𝑐𝜀𝑓
𝑓𝑐′ [1 − (0.15 × )] 𝑖𝑓 𝜀𝑜 = < 𝜀𝑐 ≤ 𝜀𝑐𝑢 ; 𝜀𝑐 =
{ 𝜀𝑐𝑢 − 𝜀𝑜 4700√𝑓𝑐′ 𝑑−𝑐
3𝐹
𝑐= (8)
2𝑓𝑐 𝑏
′
3𝜀𝑐,𝑇 𝑓𝑐,500
𝑓𝑐,500 = ( 3 ) (10)
𝜀
0.015 [2 + ( 𝑐,𝑇 ) ]
0.015
Table 5 Mechanical properties Steel/FRP reinforcement and their bond strength with concrete as
determined by Hamad et al. [41].
Reinforcement Bar Temp. Ef fuf* fuf uf* uf τm
CE
Type °C MPa MPa MPa mm/mm mm/mm MPa
23 0.9 119,000 1572 1414 0.0167 0.01503 8.339
Carbon
325 0.9 80,410 700 630 0.0094 0.00846 1.542
23 0.7 47,140 816 571 0.0215 0.01505 2.014
Glass
325 0.7 37,390 452 316 0.0148 0.01036 0.419
23 0.8 65,850 940 752 0.0206 0.01648 2.628
Basalt
325 0.8 51,890 510 408 0.0141 0.01128 0.554
Es fy fu ult εR
MPa MPa MPa mm/mm mm/mm
23 228,300 571 638 0.0848 0.1054 11.31
Steel
325 209,210 547 628 0.0923 0.1097 8.24
CE, environmental reduction factor, Ef, FRP modulus of elasticity, fuf*, FRP ultimate
tensile strength, fuf, design tensile strength of FRP, uf*, FRP ultimate tensile strain, uf, FRP
design strain, fc’, concrete compressive strength, N.A. , τm, average bond strength, fy: steel
yield strength, fu: steel ultimate tensile strength, ult: steel strain at ultimate tensile strength,
εR: steel elongation at rupture, Es: steel modulus of elasticity.
Table 6 shows that the theoretical flexural capacities of the FRP reinforced beams (P th-ult),
calculated according to ACI440 and under the assumption of a perfect bond between bars and
concrete up to failure, were compared with the predicted flexural capacities on the basis of
the experimental bond test results (Ppre-ult) and the experimental load capacities (Pexp-ult). The
experimental load capacities of the control beams with GFRP, BFRP, and CFRP bars were
49.1%, 50.8%, and 104.7% of their theoretical load capacities and 83.4%, 76.6%, and
104.7% of the predicted load capacities based on actual bond strength results, respectively.
These results indicate that a bond loss failure occurred in the GFRP and BFRP beams before
concrete crushing. Upon 500 °C exposure, the experimental load capacities of the beams with
GFRP, BFRP, and CFRP bars were measured to be 19.5%, 16.4%, and 48.4% of their
theoretical load capacities and 91.8%, 75.2%, and 123.9% of the predicted load capacities
with consideration of FRP bars’ concrete slippage, respectively.
The experimental load-carrying capacity of control and heated-damaged steel reinforced
beams was 112.5% and 110% of their theoretical values, respectively, thereby confirming the
intact bond between steel bars and surrounding concrete. The above results prove that the
proposed calculations for predicting the flexural load capacities of FRP reinforced beams on
the basis of actual bond strength results are reasonably well and present a good agreement
with the experimental results.
Pth-ult, theoretical ultimate load capacity based on ACI440 assumptions, Ppred-ult, predicted
ultimate load capacity based on actual bond test result, Pexp-ult, experimental ultimate load
capacity, * shear load capacity of the beams.
The experimental load carrying capacity of control and heated-damaged steel reinforced
beams was 112.5% and 110% of their theoretical values, respectively, which confirmed that
the bond between steel bars and surrounding concrete was intact. Based on the above results,
the proposed calculations for predicting the flexural load capacities of FRP reinforced beams,
based on actual bond strength results were reasonably well and showed a good agreement
with the experimental results.
The theoretical modes of failure based on the assumption of either a perfect bond or a
direct bond tests, were compared with experimentally observed failure modes. A summary of
the results are listed in Table 7. The observed failure modes represented in FRP bar slippage
matched those predicted. Therefore, FRP bar slippage should be accounted for in the
evaluation of the flexural behavior of FRP reinforced beams prior to and after being exposed
to elevated temperatures.
FM, failure mode, CC, concrete crushing, FR, FRP rupture, S, shear failure, EC, end cap,
BS, bond slip.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be stated on the basis of the above discussion.
1. The beams with steel bars showed pure flexural failure before and after heating, along
with a high number of cracks and lower average crack sizes relative to those of
similar beams with FRP bars.
2. The strains measured in a high moment region in the concrete and FRP reinforcement
confirmed the occurrence of a bond–slip failure or shear failure before the concrete
and FRP bars reached their ultimate strain capacities.
3. The initial stiffness of all concrete beams was reduced after cracking. Beams with
BFRP bars had the highest reduction, followed sequentially by the GFRP, CFRP, and
steel bars.
4. Control concrete beams with GFRP and BFRP bars failed prior to reaching theoretical
load capacity due to bond failure. The measured load capacity values for these beams
were 49.1% and 50.8% of the theoretical ones computed, assuming a perfect bond
between concrete and FRP bars according to the ACI440 code.
5. The experimental load capacity of CFRP bars was 104.9% of the theoretical values
owing to the satisfactory surface characteristics of CFRP bars, which imparted an
intact bond with concrete.
6. Upon exposure to 500 °C for 90 minutes, the RC beams with FRP bars failed at
relatively low load levels due to the degradation of the bars’ tensile strength and the
loss in bond between the FRP bars and the surrounding concrete.
7. The heated FRP-RC beams experienced significant deflection and loss in stiffness and
total absorbed energy, but their ductility increased.
8. The detrimental impact of similar heating on the ultimate load capacity, stiffness,
deflection, and ductility of the RC beams with steel bars was minimal and less than
that of heated beams with FRP bars.
9. The beams with CFRP bars displayed superior flexural behavior relative to those with
the GFRP and BFRP bars under elevated temperatures because of the former bars’
higher resistance to heating.
10. The theoretical ultimate load for the control and heat-damaged FRP-RC beams,
computed using the ACI code that assumes a prefect bond between FRP bars and
concrete, was overestimated relative to the corresponding measured values.
11. The method proposed for predicting the load capacity of FRP-RC beams, based on the
actual pre- and post-heating mechanical properties of the FRP bars and concrete and
their bond characteristics, gave reasonably reliable results.
12. A reduced discrepancy between the theoretical and experimental values for the beams
with GFRP and BFRP was observed upon consideration of the slippage between the
FRPs and concrete.
Conflict of Interest:
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of
interest.
Funding and Acknowledgement:
This research work was financially supported by the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)
through the Research University Grant Scheme [Grant number: 1001/PAWAM/814191]
Notations
b = concrete section width,
d= distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension bars,
Af= Area of FRP bars in tension region,
Ef= FRP modulus of elasticity, GPa,
fc' = compressive strength of concrete, MPa,
fuf = design tensile strength of FRP,
ff = tensile stress of FRP, MPa,
ρb = balance reinforcement ratio,
ρf = reinforcement ratio,
db= main reinforcement bar diameter, mm,
cu = crushing strain of concrete, and
uf = maximum strain of FRP.
REFERENCES
[1] Maraveas, C., Miamis, K. and Vrakas, A. A. (2012), Fiber Reinforced Polymer -
Strengthened / Reinforced Concrete Structures exposed to fire: A review, Structural
Engineering International, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 500-513.
[2] Galati, N., Nanni, A., Dharani, L. R., Focacci, F., & Aiello, M. A. (2006). Thermal effects
on bond between FRP rebars and concrete, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing, Vol. 37, No. 8, p.p. 1223-1230.
[3] Chin, J. W., Aouadi, K., and Nguyen, T. (1997), Effects of Environmental Exposure on
Fiber-Reinforced Plastic. (FRP) Materials Used in Construction, Journal of Composites
Technology and Research, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 205-213.
[4] Bisby, L. A., Green, M., and Kodur, V. R. (2005a), Response to Fire of Concrete
Structures That Incorporate FRP., Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials,
Vol. 7, No. 3, p.p. 136–149.
[5] Masmoudi, A., Masmoudi, R., Ben Ouezdou, M. (2010), Thermal Effects on GFRP
Rebars: Experimental Study and Analytical Analysis, Materials and Structures, Vol. 43,
No. 6, p.p. 775–788.
[6] Bisby, L.A, Williams, B.K, Kodur, V.R., Green, M.F., and Chowdhury, E., (2005b), Fire
Performance of FRP Systems For Infrastructure: A State-of-the-Art Report , Research
Report 179, Queen's University, Kingston and National Research Council, Ottawa.
[7] Brik, V. B., (2003), Advanced Concept Concrete Using Basalt Fiber/BF Composite Rebar
Reinforcement, Final Report for Highway-IDEA Project 86, Research & Technology
Corp.
[8] Aiello, M., and Ombres, L. (2002), Structural Performances of Concrete Beams with
Hybrid .Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Steel Reinforcements, Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 6, No. 2, p.p. 133-140.
[9] Rafi, M., and Nadjai, A. (2011b), Fire Test of Hybrid and Carbon Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Bar Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 108, No. 3, p.p.
252-260.
[10] Qu, W., Zhang, X., and Huang, H. (2009), Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams
Reinforced With Hybrid (GFRP and Steel) Bars, Journal of Composites for Construction,
Vol. 13, No. 5, p.p. 350-359.
[11] Nadjai,A., Talamona, D., and Ali, F. (2005), Fire Performance of Concrete Beams
Reinforced with FRP Bars, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Bond
Behaviour of FRP in Structures (BBFS 2005), p.p. 401-410.
[12] Issa, M. S. and Elzeiny, S. M. (2011), Flexural Behavior of Cantilever Concrete Beams
Reinforced With Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymers (GFRP) Bars, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Construction Technology, Vol. 2, No.2, p.p. 33-44.
[13] Al-Sunna, R., Pilakoutas, K., Hajirasouliha, I., and Guadagnini, M. (2012), Deflection
Behaviour of FRP Reinforced Concrete Beams and Slabs: An Experimental Investigation,
Composites Part B: Engineering, Volume 43, No. 5, p.p. 2125-2134.
[14] Pawłowski, D., and Szumigała, M. (2015), Flexural Behaviour of Full-Scale Basalt FRP
RC Beams Experimental and Numerical Studies, Procedia Engineering, Vol.108, p.p. 518
– 525.
[15] Robert, M., and Benmokrane, B. (2010), Behavior of GFRP Reinforcing Bars Subjected
to Extreme Temperatures, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 14, No. 4, p.p.
353-360.
[16] Karbhari, V. M., Chin, J. W., Hunston, D., Benmokrane, B., Juska, T., Morgan, R.,
Lesko, J. J., Sorathia, U., and Reynaud, D. (2003), Durability Gap Analysis for Fiber-
Reinforced Composites in Civil Infrastructure, Journal of Composites for Construction,
Vol. 7, No. 3, p.p. 238-247.
[17] Nor, N. M., Boestamam, M. H. A., and Yusof, M. A., (2013), Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (CFRP) as Reinforcement for Concrete Beam, International Journal of Emerging
Technology and Advanced Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 2, p.p. 6-10.
[18] Ehsani, M. R., and Saadatmanesh, H., (1996), Design Recommendations for Bond of
GFRP Rebars to Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 122, No.3, Page 247-
254.
[19] Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., Pecce, M., and Realfonzo, R., (1999), Bond between Glass
Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcing Bars and Concrete Experimental Analysis, ACI
Special Publication 188, P.P. 347-358.
[20] Tastani, S. P., and Pantazopoulou, S. J., (2006), Bond of GFRP Bars in Concrete:
Experimental Study and Analytical Interpretation, Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 10, No. 5, p.p. 381–39.
[21] Liao, W. C., Lin, H. Y., Lee, M. H., and Hung, P. H., (2009), The Pullout Test Of A FRP
Rebar Within A Nanoclay/Concrete Block, Proceedings to Seventeenth International
Conference on Composite Materials, A1-7, Edinburgh, Scotland.
[22] Baena, M., Torres, L., Turon, A., and Barris, C., (2009), Experimental Study of Bond
Behaviour between Concrete and FRP Cars Using a Pull-out Test, Composites: Part B,
Vol. 40, No. 8, p.p. 784–797.
[23] Baena Muñoz, M., (2010), Study of Bond Behavior between FRP Reinforcement and
Concrete”, PhD Thesis, Universitat de Girona, ISBN: 978-84-694-2484-1.
[24] Goraya, R.A., Ahmed, K., and Tahir, M. A., (2011), Effect of Surface Texture on Bond
Strength of GFRP Rebar in Concrete, Mehran University Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 30, No. 1, p.p. 45-52.
[25] El-Refai, A., Ammar, M., and Masmoudi, R., (2014), Bond Performance of Basalt Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Bars to Concrete, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 19,
No. 3, p.p. 04014078-1 to 04014078-11.
[26] Katz, A., (2001), Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars and Tendons, Composites in
Construction, pp. 121-129.
[27] Xiaoshan, L., and Zhang, Y. X. (2013), Bond–Slip Behaviour of FRP-Reinforced
Concrete Beams, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 44 , p.p. 110–117.
[28] Nigro, E., Cefarelli, G., Bilotta, A., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E., (2011), Fire resistance
of concrete slabs reinforced with FRP bars Part I: Experimental investigations on
mechanical behavior, Composites: Part B, Vol. 42, p.p. 1739–1750.
[29] Kodur, V., Baingo, D., (1998), Fire Resistance of FRP Reinforced Concrete Slabs,
Internal Report No. 758, Institute for Research in Construction, National Research
Council Canada.
[30] Ellis, Devon S., (2009), Evaluation of Post-Fire Strength of Concrete Flexural Members
Reinforced with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars, Thesis (Ph.D.), The
University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, 170 pages; Publication Number 3438489.
[31] Katz, A., Berman, N., and Bank, L., (1999), Effect of High Temperature on Bond
Strength of FRP Rebars, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 3, No. 2, p.p.73-
81.
[32] Abbasi, A., and Hogg, P., (2006), Fire Testing of Concrete Beams With Fibre Reinforced
Plastic Rebar, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, Vol.37, No. 8,
p.p. 1142-1150.
[33] Nigro, E., Cefarelli, G., Bilotta, A., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza E., (2012),Performance
under Fire Situations of Concrete Members Reinforced with FRP Rods: Bond Models and
Design Nomograms, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 16, No. 4, p.p. 395–
406.
[34] CSA, (2002): CAN/CSA-S806-02 (R2007), Design and Construction of Building
Components with Fibre-Reinforced Polymers, Canadian Standards Association
International, Ottawa, Canada.
[35] Rafi,M., Nadjai, A., Ali, F., and O'Hare, P., (2011), Evaluation of Thermal Resistance of
FRP Reinforced Concrete Beams in Fire, Journal of Structural Fire Engineering, Vol. 2 ,
No. 2, pp. 91 – 107.
[36] Nigro, E., Cefarelli, G., Bilotta, A., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E., (2011), Tests at High
Temperatures on Concrete Slabs Reinforced With Bent FRP Bars, ACI Special
Publication 275-50, p.p. 1-20.
[37] Wang, Y. C., Wong, P. M. H., and Kodur, V., (2007) , An Experimental Study of the
Mechanical Properties of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) and Steel Reinforcing Bars at
Elevated Temperatures, Composite Structures, Vol. 80, No. 1, p.p. 131-140 .
[38] Wang, K., Young, B., and Smith, S.T., (2011), Mechanical, Properties of Pultruded
Carbon Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Plates at Elevated Temperatures, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 33, No. 7, p.p. 2154-2161.
[39] Wang, X., and Zha, X., (2011), Experimental Research on Mechanical Behavior of GFRP
Bars under High Temperature, Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 71-78, pp. 3591-
3594.
[40] Jose Miguel de Costa Pires, (2012) , Mechanical Behaviour at elevated temperature of
GFRP pultruded composite profile, M.Sc. Thesis, Technical University of Lisbon,
Portugal, Nov. 2012.
[41] Hamad, R. J., Megat Johari, M. A., Haddad, R. H. (2017), Mechanical Properties and
Bond Characteristics of Different Fiber Reinforced Polymer Rebars at Elevated
Temperatures, Construction and Building Materials, Issue 142(142C), p.p. 521-535.
[42] Bellakehal, H., Zaidi, A., Masmoudi, R. and Bouhicha, M., (2014), Behavior of FRP
Bars-Reinforced Concrete Slabs under Temperature and Sustained Load Effects,
Polymers, Vol. 6, 873-889.
[43] ACI 2015: ACI 440.1R-15, Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural
Concrete Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bars, American Concrete
Institute.
[44] ACI 2005: ACI 318R-05, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary, American Concrete Institute.
[45] ASTM: C192 / C192M-16a (2016), Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete
Test Specimens in the Laboratory, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[46] ASTM: C143 / C143M-15a (2015), Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-
Cement Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[47] Abbasi, A , and Hogg, P., (2005), A Model for Predicting the Properties of The
Constituents of a Glass Fibre Rebar Reinforced Concrete Beam at Elevated Temperatures
Simulating a Fire Test, Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 5, p.p. 384–393.
[48] ASTM: C496 / C496M-11 (2004), Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
[49] ASTM: C39 / C39M-16b (2016), Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
[50] Veysey, S., and Bischoff, P.H., (2011), Designing FRP Reinforced Concrete for
Deflection Control, ACI Special Publication, Vol. 275, p.p. 1-24.