The University of Manitoba

Department of Civil Engineering

23.735 Use of Composite Materials in Civil

Engineering
INSTRUCTOR: DR.D. SVECOVA

DEFLECTION CALCULATIONS OF
FRP-REINFORCED CONCRETE
BEAMS
By: Bogdan Bogdanovic
6718302

APRIL 1, 2002
 Table of Contents

Title page………………………………………………………………………………1
List of Figures and Tables………………………………………………………….3

1.0 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………...4

2.0 BACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………6

2.1Basic model for mean curvature …………………………………………..6

3.0 DEFLECTION EQUATION USED IN STUDY ………………………………...10

3.1 Deflection equation used by the Bilinear method ……………………..10
3.1.1 Bilinear method (CEB-FIP) ………………………………………11

3.2 Mean moment of inertia method ………………………………………..12

3.3 Benmokrane’s method …………………………………………………...13

4.0 EXPERIMENTAL DATA …………………………………………………………14

5.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ………………………………………...15

6.0 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………….………...21

Appendix A
References

2
 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure.2.1: CEB-FIP Moment-curvature relationship

Figure 2.2: Moment curvature relationship

(a) Instantaneous mean curvature (simple bending);
(b) Long-term mean curvature

Figure 4.1: i)Beams cross-sections; ii) Four point Loading (bending)

Figure 5.1: The load -deflection relationship for beam1

Figure 5.2: The load -deflection relationship for beam2

Figure 5.3: The load -deflection relationship for beam3

Figure 5.4: The load -deflection relationship for beam4

Figure 5.5: Calculated/Experimental deflection vs. Mcr/Ma

Figure 5.6: Calculated/Experimental service deflection vs. frp

Table 4.1: Beam properties

3
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Concrete structures reinforced with steel cause a concern in areas of high

sensitive magnetic fields and severe environmental conditions, thus accelerating
the attack of corrosion on steel reinforcement, which leads to the deterioration of
structures. The downfall results in costly maintenance or replacement of the
existing structures. Fibre Reinforcement Polymer (FRP) bars are becoming the
new wave of the future due to their resistance to corrosion, high strength to
weight ratios and the ability to transport the material with such simplicity. The
design of a reinforced concrete member is based on two criteria: strength and
serviceability. The mandate of strength is based on ultimate strength of the
member to withstand the factored loads during its predicted lifetime.
Serviceability is taken to ensure that the structural members behave in a manner
acceptable to the society under the effect of service loads. One main concern of
FRP is their low Modulus of Elasticity, which causes a great deal of emphasis on
the serviceability of the reinforced structures. It tends to increase deflections,
crack width and propagation of cracks in the tension zone. Another concern
designers have when using FRP in concrete flexural members is that there is no
such yielding of FRP bars therefore leading to sudden collapse in a brittle
manner.

The purpose of this report is to investigate the different types of deflection

methods available for FRP in concrete flexural members and to compare how
they correlate with the experimental deflections. These methods could be used
to model long or short-term deflection, which depend on different parameters
(shrinkage, creep, tensile strength, elastic modulus, reinforcement distribution,
load history). There is a vast number of models available, the three that are
going to be investigated are; Comite Euro-International du Beton et Federation
International de la Precontrainte (CEB-FIP) model by the bilinear method, CEB-
FIP by the mean moment of inertia and the method formulated by Benmokrane’s.
The experimental results for the four different beams with varying parameters

4
such as reinforcement ratio, geometry and elastic modulus where obtained by
different researchers.

5
2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1BASIC MODEL FOR MEAN CURVATURE

The CEB-FIP model code was approved in the 1990 and uses an approach
based on the direct relationship between moment and curvature. The approach
depicts the real life behaviour of the structure in service conditions. The
moment-curvature model allows the effect of different parameters such as the
reinforcement, cracking, creep and shrinkage, which allows for long term
deflection to be calculated (Favre and Charif, 1994). Through the numerous
theoretical and experimental research done prior to the 1990’s, the following
statement was concluded: the effect of tension stiffening of concrete on curvature
of any section of a flexural member will decrease as the applied moment
increase at the level greater the reduced cracking moment (CEB-FIP code,
1990). That quote is also confirmed in figure 2.1.

Figure.2.1: CEB-FIP Moment-curvature relationship

(Favre and Charif, 1994)

6
 Mr
∆Ψ ts = ( Ψ 2 r − Ψ1 r ) ⋅ β ⋅ for M ; M r , req Equation 2.1
Ma
where
∆Ψts = reduction in curvature in State 2 due to tension stiffening

Ψ1r = curvature in state 1 at M=Mr (non cracked section)

Ψ2 r = curvature in state 2 at M=Mr (fully cracked section)
Mr = cracking moment

 P
M r = E1 ⋅  f ct −  Equation 2.2
 A1 

where

P = applied Normal force

f ct = tensile strength of concrete

A1 = Area in state 1
E1 = section modulus in state 1
M r ,req = reduced cracking moment

M r , req = β ⋅ M r Equation2.3

where

β = β1 ⋅ β 2
β 1 = coefficient which depicts the bond quality of bars
β 2 = coefficient that distinguishes duration of loading, 0.8 for first time or short
term loading; 0.5 for long term loading

7
The difference between the curvature in state 2 (Ψ2) and the mean curvature
(Ψm) results in the curvature due to tension stiffening (∆Ψts) and can be
expressed as follows:

Ψm = Ψ2 − ∆Ψts Equation 2.4

Mr
Ψm = Ψ2 − (Ψ2 r − Ψ1r ) ⋅ β ⋅ forM > M r ,req Equation 2.5
M

The above model is referred to as the mean curvature approach for the
calculation of deflections. The deflection of a member can be determined by
integrating the mean curvature at a number of sections (Sherif and Dilger, 1998).

Now consider a case of simple bending for simplicity reason, the moment-
curvature will remain linear in state1 (Ψ1) and also in state2 (Ψ2). The basic
curvature (Ψc) can be multiplied by any of correction coefficients as stated by the
code (CEB-FIP). The coefficients are as follows: reinforcement and time
dependent effect κ , creep effect ϕ and effect of uniform shrinkage ε (Favre and
Charif, 1994).
M
Ψc = Equation 2.6
( EI ) c

where

(EI)c = flexural stiffness of concrete section only

Ψ1 = Ψc ⋅ κ s1 Ψ2 = Ψc ⋅ κ s 2 Equation 2.7

Ψ1 = Ψc ⋅ κ s1 ⋅ κ ϕ 1 ⋅ ϕ Ψ2 = Ψc ⋅ κ s 2 ⋅ κ ϕ 2 ⋅ ϕ Equation 2.8

8
 κ cs1 κ cs 2
Ψ1 = ε cs ⋅ Ψ2 = ε cs ⋅ Equation2.9
d d

The sum of corresponding curvatures represents the total curvature Ψ1 and Ψ2.
Note that the equation (2.7) refers to the instantaneous mean curvature and that
the total refers to the long-term mean curvature. The effect of the parameters
(coefficient) on reinforced concrete flexural members is also confirmed on the
following figures 2.2 a, b.

(a) (b)

FIGURE 2.2: MOMENT CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP (Favre and Charif, 1994):

(a)Instantaneous mean curvature (simple bending); (b) Long-term mean curvature

The representation of the figures above really depicts the phenomenon of the
tension stiffening in concrete. As well the deflection is determined more
accurately by the mean curvature Ψm, which is smaller, then cracked curvature
(Ψ2) but larger then the uncracked curvature (Ψ1). The mean curvature equation
is as follows:

9
 2
M 
Ψm = Ψ2 − (Ψ2 − Ψ1 ) ⋅ β ⋅  r  For M > M r ,req Equation2.10
 M 

δ =∑ ∫ m ⋅ Ψ∂x Equation2.11

The mid-span deflection can be calculated by integrating the mean curvature at

various cross-sections in the beam by the virtual work method. Ghali and
Elbadry (1985) invented a program called CRACK, which is used as a physical
tool to implement the mean curvature approach (Sherif and Dilger, 1998).

3.0 DEFLECTION EQUATION USED IN STUDY

Several different methods are used to calculate deflection of concrete beams

reinforced with FRP under any load level. The report focuses on the following
three methods:

1. The bilinear method

2. Mean moment of inertia
3. Benmokrane’s method

3.1 DEFLECTION EQUATION USED BY THE BILINEAR METHOD

The equation for maximum deflection of a simply supported beam under four
point bending is given by:

∆c =
Pa
(
24 E c I g
3L2 − 4a 2 ) Equation 3.1

10
where

P = point load applied to the beam at a distance of “a” from the support, N
a = distance between the support and the point load ,mm
Ec = elastic modulus of concrete, Mpa
Ig = moment inertia of the gross uncracked concrete section, mm4
L = span of the simply support beam, mm

The calculation of the deflection according to the mean curvature approach is

relatively time consuming and will need the use of a computer. Therefor the CEB-
FIP manual offers alternatives, such as the bilinear and mean moment of inertia
method (Sherif and Dilger, 1998).

3.1.1 BILINEAR METHOD (CEB-FIP)

The bilinear equation is as follows:

∆ = (1 − ζ b )∆ 1 + ζ b ∆ 2 Equation 3.2

where

M cr
ζ b = 1 − β1 β 2 Equation 3.3
Ma

∆ 1 = κ s1 ⋅ ∆ c ∆ 2 = κ s2 ∆ c Equation 3.4

It should be noted that tension-stiffening deflection in equation (3.4) are a

function of the initial (instantaneous) deflections and the κs1 and κs2 can be
calculated by the curves given in the CEB-FIP manual. The curves are given in
Appendix A (Sherif and Dilger, 1998).

fr I g
M cr = Equation 3.5
yt

11
where

Ig = moment of inertia (gross section), mm4

yt = distance from the neutral axis to the extreme tension fibre
(uncracked),mm

Ma = applied moment on the beam at the point of deflection being measured,

Nmm

Mcr = cracking moment, Nmm

= modulus of rupture of concrete, Mpa  = 0.6 f c 

'
fr
 

3.2 MEAN MOMENT OF INERTIA METHOD

The CEB-FIP derived the following mean moment of inertia (Im) equation (Hall
and Ghali, 2000):

−1
 M 
2

I m = I 1 I 2  I 1 + β 1 β 2  cr  (I 2 − I 1 ) Equation 3.6
  Ma  

where

I1 = moment of inertia for uncracked transformed sections, mm4

I2 = moment of inertia for fully cracked transformed sections, mm4

The mean curvature (ψm) can be calculated by:

12
 Ma
Ψm = Equation 3.7
Ec I m

Hall and Ghali use the following equation to calculate beam deflection:

L2
δ = (Ψa + 10Ψcentre + Ψb ) Equation 3.8
96

where

ψa, ψb = curvature at the ends of the beam (for simply supported,

curvature both zero)

3.3 BENMOKRANE’S METHOD

The deflection equation is used for four point bending only, and is derived by
linear elastic analysis:

δ =
Pa
24 E c I e
(3L2 − 4a 2 ) Equation 3.9

Benmokrane’s method for calculating Ie is as follows (ISIS, 2001):

M 
3
 M 
3

I e =  cr  β b I g + 1 −  cr   I cr ≤ I g Equation 3.10
 Ma    M a  

where

 E frp 
β b = 0 .5  + 1 Equation 3.11
 Es 

13
 4.0 EXPERIMENTAL DATA

To evaluate the accuracy of the three different theoretical approaches just

mentioned, one must compare the result to the actual experimental data.
Numerous different researchers have provided data, but only four pre-tested
beams were analyzed for this paper. Their details and properties are
summarized in Table 4.1 (Guilcher, 2001). Beams were tested by four-point
loading bending and had varying rectangular cross-sections as shown in
Figure 4.2.

Table 4.1: Beam properties (Guilcher, 2001)

Beam L a b H d Ig f’c Ec Efrp Ffrp Afrp ccr

No. [m] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm4] [Mpa [GPA] [Mpa] [Mpa] [mm2] [mm] %

1 3.4 1200 500 180 145 2.43E8 30 24.65 42000 886 887 26.7 1.22

2 2.1 700 154 254 222 2.1E8 42 29.16 34000 586 530 38.4 1.55

3 3.05 1067 127 304 273 3E+8 29 27.24 26220 724 724.5 50.6 2.09

4 1.55 625 150 300 250 3.38E8 34 29 100000 1200 390 58.6 1.04

The beams properties and experimental data have been acquired from various

studies and their references along with the beam identification are as follows:

Beam 1: Cosenza et al. (1997)

Beam 2: Swamy and Aburawi (1997), Beam F-2-GF

Beam 3: Nawy and Neuwerth (1997), Beam 9

Beam 4: Maruyama and Zhao (1996), Beam 26

14
 P P

d h
a

L
Afrp
b

i) ii)

Figure 4.1 : i)Beams cross-sections; ii) Four point Loading (bending)

where

b = width of the beam, mm

h = heigth of the beam, mm
d = effective depth, mm
Afrp = Total area of FRP bars, mm

5.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The Predicted load versus mid-span deflection relationship using Bilinear (CEB-
FIP), Mean moment of inertia (CEB-FIP) and Benmokrane’s method for the four
beams are shown in Figs. (5.1 to 5.4) along with the experimental results. It
allows for easy and accurate comparison and evaluates the accuracy of each of
the three approachs.

15
 60

50

40
Load [kN]

30

Experimental
20
B ilinear(CEB -FIP )

M eam mo ment
10 Inertia(CEB -FIP )
B enmo krane

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Mid-Span Deflection [mm]

Figure 5.1: The load -deflection relationship for beam1

50

45

40

35

30
Load [kN]

25

20 Experimental

15 B ilinear (CEB -FIP )

M ean mo ment Inertia

10 (CEB -FIP )
B enmo krane
5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Mid-Span Deflection [mm]

Figure 5.2: The load -deflection relationship for beam 2

16
 50

45

40

35

30
Load [kN]

25

20

15 Experimental

B ilinear (CEB -FIP )

10
M eam mo ment Inertia
5 (CEB -FIP )
B enmo krane"
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Mid-Span Deflection [m m ]

Figure 5.3: The load -deflection relationship for beam 3

120

100

80
Load [kN]

60

40 Experimental

B ilinear (CEB -FIP )

20 M eam mo ment Inertia

(CEB -FIP )
B enmo krane

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Mid-Span Deflection [mm]

Figure 5.4: The load-deflection relationship for beam 4

17
Figure 5.1 to 5.4 all repeatedly under predict the results for the deflection which
arises a problem for the structural integraty and safety. As the service load is
increased the less accurate the predicted deflection becomes. The mean
moment of inertia equation for beam1 predicts an accurate solution when
compared to the experimental deflection. It is evident from figure 5.1-5.3 that
the mean moment of inertia and the benmokrane methods predict the same
deflection at high loads, whereas at low loads, the deflection tend to vary in
values. Figure 5.4 reveals that all three methods becomes inconsistant with one
another in predicting deflection values.The range of error among the three
deflection methods increases when a higher load is applied to the FRP reinforced
beams.

1.2 B ilinear (CEB -FIP )

1.1
M ean mo ment
1 Inertia(CEB -FIP )
Calc./Exp Deflection

0.9 B enmo krane

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
M cr/M a

Beam 1

18
 B ilinear (CEB -FIP )
0.9
M ean mo ment
0.8 Inertia (CEB -FIP )
B enmo krane

Calc./Exp.Deflection
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mcr/Ma

Beam2

B ilinear (CEB -
0.9 FIP )
M eam mo ment
0.8 Inertia (CEB -FIP )
B enmo krane
0.7
Calc./Exp.Deflection

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
M cr /M a

Beam 3

B ilinear (CEB -
1 FIP )
0.9 M ean mo ment
Inertia (CEB -FIP )
0.8
Calc./Exp.Deflection

B enmo krane
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Mcr/Ma

Beam4
Figure 5.5: Calculated/Experimental deflection vs. Mcr/Ma

19
Figure 5.5 illustrated the behaviour and the accuracy of the deflection equation
methods used for a wide range of applied moments. It is evident from the graphs
that when your applied moment is equal to the cracking moment (Mcr/Ma =1) the
predicted deflection equation is no longer valid, due to the calc./exp. deflection
ratio being in the range of 0.2-0.4. So for applied moment lower than the
cracking moment, one must calculate the deflection of the uncracked FRP
reinforced concrete beams, by estimating the gross moment of inertia. At small
ratios of Mcr/Ma (when the applied moment is considerably larger than the
cracking moment), all three methods show that the deflection ratio (calculated to
experimental) is close to unity, but actually never achieves it due to the under
estimation of the deflection methods. Similar observation can be made, that the
mean moment of inertia and benmokrane’s method predict very similar
deflection.

Bilinear
1.2
M. moment Inertia
Benmokrane
Calculated/Experimental Service Deflection

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.012 0.015 0.021 0.01
ρ frp

Figure 5.6: Calculated/Experimental service deflection vs. ρfrp

20
The FRP reinforcement ratio is the ratio of the area of FRP to the area of
concrete. Figure 5.6 shows the amount of reinforcement ratio versus the ratio of
the calculated to the experimental deflections at service loads. There is no direct
evidence that the amount of reinforcement plays a role in the accuracy of
predicted deflection methods. This parameter should be looked at for a series of
beams to get a better understanding of the trend, if any.

6.0 CONCLUSION

The results of the four beams in four point loading bending with varying
properties revealed that the three current models for predicting the deflection of
beams reinforced by FRP bars under-estimates the deflections in these beams
and therefore it needs to be revised. If these current methods are not revised the
deflection values will unfavourably effect safety and integratty of the structural
components.

There is consistency between the Benmokrane and mean moment of inertia

(CEB-FIP) deflection methods. It under predicts the deflection, but they both
produce vary similar deflection results as the applied load is increasing. The
bilinear (CEB-FIP) method produces very inconsistent values and is the worst
method to calculate the deflection of beams.

The different types of FRP reinforcement ratio had no apparent trend on the
predicted deflection methods when service load were applied to all four beams.
Overall conclusion, the three types of deflection methods are very inconsistent
and other techniques should be examined for the intention of over-estimating the
experimental deflection for any given concrete beam reinforced with FRP bars.

21
APPENDIX A

22
 REFERENCES

Sherif, A.G., Dilger, W.H., “Critical review of CSA A23.3-94 deflection prediction
for normal and high strength concrete beams” Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering,1998 vol. 25: pp.474-489.

Hall, T., Ghali, A., “Long-Term deflection prediction of concrete members

reinforced with glass fibre reinforced polymer bars” Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 2000 vol. 27: pp.890-898.

Sherif, A.G., Dilger, W.H., “Analysis and deflections of reinforce concrete flat
slabs” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,1998 vol. 25: pp.451-466.

Abdalla, H., Mamdouh, M.E., Rizkalla, S.H., “Deflection of concrete slabs

reinforced with advanced composite materials” Advanced Composite Materials In
Bridges and Structures, Canadian Society for civil Engineering, Montreal,
Quebec,1996.

Favre, R., Charif, H., “ Basic model and simplification calculations of

deformations according to the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990” ACI Structural
Journal, vol.91, No2, 1994

Guilcher, C., “The Serviceability of FRP Reinforced Concrete Beams” Degree

Bachelor of science in Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, 2001

ISIS –M04-00 Design Manual, Reinforcing concrete Structures with fibre

reinforced Polymers, pp7.1-7.10,2001.

23