Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Effect of basalt fibers on the flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced T

with BFRP bars
⁎
Farid Abed , Abdul Rahman Alhafiz
Department of Civil Engineering, American University of Sharjah, 26666, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This research investigates experimentally the effects of adding different types of fibers to the concrete mixes on
Basalt fiber reinforced polymer the flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced longitudinally with BFRP bars. The main aim is to study the
Glass fiber reinforced polymer feasibility of using newly developed basalt microfibers to improve the concrete response. Twelve beams were
Fiber reinforced concrete prepared and cast using plain, basalt fibers, and synthetic fibers-reinforced concrete (FRC) with a 40 MPa target
Flexure
compressive strength. Basalt fibers of two different lengths of 24 mm and 12 mm were considered. Flexural tests
Fibers
were conducted on each of the BFRP-FRC beams using a four-point test setup. The test matrix also included FRC
beams reinforced with GFRP bars as well as conventional steel rebar for comparisons. Results showed that
introducing basalt fibers to the concrete increased curvature ductility of these beams. A noticeable improvement
in the flexural capacities was also recorded due to the delay in concrete failure strain (beyond 0.003) at the
compression zone, which helped the BFRP bars attained a higher ultimate strength. The opening of cracks and
their deep propagation was effectively restrained by the bridging effect of the basalt fibers, which kept the crack
widths lower than the allowable limit of 0.7 mm at service.

1. Introduction develop a suitable solution to improve the ductility of the concrete

The implementation of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars as a
replacement for conventional steel reinforcement in reinforced concrete
structures has gained significant acceptance in the construction field.
FRP bars are a non-corrosive and nonmagnetic material, which makes
them perfectly appropriate for reinforcing concrete structures in harsh
environments [1–5]. There are many types of FRP materials used as
reinforcement to resist both shear and flexural stresses in concrete
structures. Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP), carbon fiber-re-
inforced polymer (CFRP) and aramid fiber-reinforced polymer (AFRP)
are the most common types of FRP composite reinforcement [6–9]. In
the last few years, manufacturers’ and researchers’ attention has been
attracted to the promising features of basalt FRP (BFRP) as a new re-
liable reinforcing material [10,11]. The most prominent concern in
flexural members reinforced with BFRP is their brittle behavior. BFRP
bars do not yield; therefore, they have a linear elastic behavior until
failure. This could result in catastrophic failure without any precau-
tions, which is not desirable by designers. Since the concrete properties
can be enhanced, the ACI 440-1R-15 [12], recommended that the FRP
-reinforced concrete members should be designed to fail by concrete
crushing rather than bar rupture.
Researchers have performed many investigations that aim to
members reinforced with FRP [13–19]. The challenge is to improve the
compressive strain properties of concrete in order to postpone concrete
crushing and allow FRP bars to contribute more to the load carrying
capacity. Incorporating randomly distributed micro fibers into the
concrete mix is one solution to overcome the problems of ductility and
deformability of FRP-reinforced concrete members [15–19]. Wang and
Belarbi conducted a study in 2010 [15] aimed to investigate the effect
on flexural behavior of combining synthetic fiber reinforced concrete
(FRC) with CFRP and GFRP as flexural reinforcement in a single system.
The study showed that, by adding fibers, the tensile strength of concrete
increased by the mean of fibers bridging. Additionally, the addition of
fibers to the concrete reduced the crack width as compared to plain
concrete, especially at the service load, the same outcome was obtained
in different researches [16,17]. The experimental results showed that
the concrete strain of the FRC beams was higher than 0.003, which
proved the advantage of using fibers in improving the compressive
properties of concrete. Another study conducted by Issa et al. [18]
aimed to improve the ductility of concrete beams reinforced with FRP
bars. The tested beams showed that adding polypropylene and glass
fibers to the concrete mix improves the ductility of the beams. This
effect was especially prominent with the steel fibers, which increased
the ductility by 277.8%. The test results also showed that the ultimate

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fabed@aus.edu (F. Abed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.050
Received 26 September 2018; Received in revised form 9 January 2019; Accepted 11 February 2019
Available online 13 February 2019
0263-8223/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Abed and A.R. Alhafiz Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34

Table 1 test matrix was designed to investigate the effect of FRC on the flexural
Mechanical properties of rebars. behavior of the beams, so the variation of fiber content was not con-
Sample Cross Ultimate tensile Ultimate Modulus of sidered as a variable in this study. The mechanical properties of the
designation sectional stress fu (MPa) strain εu (%) elasticity E concrete at 28 days including compressive strength, split tensile
area A (GPa) strength and modulus of rupture are summarized in Table 3.
(mm2)

Steel 12 460 0.2 200

2.2. Test specimens
BFRP 8 57.4 1075.1 ± 37 2.5 ± 0.1 42.9 ± 1.4
BFRP10 85.4 1028.7 ± 47 2.4 ± 0.1 42.8 ± 1.3
BFRP12 121.3 1118.6 ± 31 2.4 46.6 ± 1.7 Beams with rectangular cross-section of 180 × 230 mm and a con-
BFRP16 211.9 1121.3 ± 56 2.4 46 ± 2.1 crete cover of 40 mm were adopted in this study as illustrated in Fig. 1.
GFRP12 115.1 976.1 ± 46 2.3 45 The clear span of the beams was 1700 mm. However, an extension of
150 mm from each side over the support were added to ensure enough
development length during the flexure test, resulting in a total length of
load of the beams was increased considerably by adding fibers com-
2000 mm for all of the beam specimens. Steel stirrups of 10 mm dia-
pared to the plain concrete.
meter were used in the shear span at 80 mm spacing. All FRP-RC beams
The main objective of this study is to investigate the effect of the
were designed to fail in flexure by concrete crushing (compression-
addition of newly-developed basalt microfibers to the concrete mix on
controlled) using a reinforcement ratio larger than the balanced re-
the flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced longitudinally with
inforcement ratio.
BFRP bars. The aim is to have a comprehensive understanding of the
Table 4 lists the details for the 12 beam specimens prepared for
performance of these beams in terms of flexural capacity, ductility,
flexural testing. Nine of these beams were reinforced longitudinally
failure mode and crack distribution and propagations. The experi-
with BFRP bars considering different reinforcement ratios and fibers
mental tests include many variables for comparison purposes, namely
types. The additional three beams were longitudinally reinforced with
the reinforcement ratio (ρ), the type of longitudinal reinforcement
GFRP bars (two specimens) and conventional steel (one specimen) for
(BFRP vs GFRP bars), and the type of the fibers (basalt vs synthetic).
comparisons. The beams were designated based on the type and
number of longitudinal flexural reinforcement rebars and the type of
2. Experimental program
fibers within the concrete mix. The first number represents the number
of rebars used in each beam followed by the term T which indicates the
2.1. Materials
diameter of the rebar in millimeters. Then the letter B, G, or S indicates
the type of reinforcement which is BFRP, GFRP, or steel, respectively.
2.1.1. FRP rebar
The last term (B1, B2, S, and P) refers to Basalt fibers of 24 mm length,
Two types of sand coated FRP rebars were used in this study: BFRP
Basalt fibers of 12 mm length, synthetic fibers, and plain concrete, re-
bars with 8, 10, 12 and 16 mm diameter and GFRP bars with 12 mm
spectively. For instance, 2T12BB1 refers to the beam reinforced with 2
diameter. Samples from these bars were tested to obtain their me-
No. 12 BFRP bars and containing basalt fibers of 24 mm length.
chanical properties including the elastic modulus and the ultimate
tensile strength and its corresponding strain, as illustrated in Table 1.
2.3. Test setup and instrumentation
2.1.2. Fibers
In this study two types of fibers were used; namely basalt fibers with All tests were conducted using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM)
12 and 24 mm lengths and synthetic fibers with 12 mm. The basalt fi- with a 1200 kN load capacity as shown in Fig. 2(a). The beams were
bers are one of the natural fibers that are recently developed to be used tested using four-point bending with the load divided equally by means
in the construction field. They have a specific gravity of 2.6 and young’s of spreader beam over a constant moment region of 500 mm. The load
modulus of 94 GPa. Two lengths of basalt fibers were used which are 12 was applied using a hydraulic jack and measured by a load cell attached
and 24 mm with an aspect ratio of 1300. Synthetic fibers were used above the spreader beam at mid-span. During the flexure test, load and
with a length of 12 mm and an aspect ratio of 400. They have a specific midspan deflection were measured. Three LVDTs were used to measure
gravity of 0.91 and the Young’s modulus is 3.5 GPa. the deflection at quarter, half and three quarters of the beam span.
Strain gages were also used to measure the strains in the concrete and
2.1.3. Concrete reinforcement bars at mid-span. For concrete, the strain gauges are
A preliminary study was conducted to evaluate the optimum fibers attached in the compression zone, starting at 1 cm from the top of the
content in terms of workability and mechanical properties. Different beam and leaving 5 cm of spacing between each two consecutive
concrete trial mixes with different Basalt fiber content were cast and gauges. Fig. 2(b) illustrates the proposed test setup and instrumenta-
tested. The effect of fiber content is evaluated through 3 different fiber tion. Crack widths were also measured using demic gages attached over
contents: 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0% of the total concrete mix volume. For the first three cracks that appear on the beams’ surfaces in the flexural
practical application ensuring good workability and mechanical prop- region. In addition, the specimens were continuously observed to mark
erties of the concrete, the fibers were added in a content of 0.75% of the the crack patterns and note any signs of distress during the loading
total concrete volume. The concrete mix design is shown in Table 2. The process.

Table 2
Concrete mix design.
Concrete mix Fiber content (Kg/m3) Unit weight (Kg/m3)

Cement Water 20 mmAgg. 10 mm Agg. Washed sand Crushed sand Dune sand Superplasticizer

BFRC (24 mm) 19.5 390 165 502 366 – 605 340 6.55
BFRC (12 mm) 19.5
SFRC 6.9
Plain –

24
F. Abed and A.R. Alhafiz Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34

Table 3
Mechanical properties of concrete mix.
Concrete specimen Cubes 28-days compressive strength (MPa) Split Tensile strength (MPa) Modulus of rupture (MPa)

24 mm Basalt fiber 47 3.5 6.44

12 mm basalt fiber 48 3.8 8.24
Synthetic fiber 38 3.0 4.22
Plain concrete 42 2.6 3.13

Fig. 1. Beam specimen; (a) reinforcement details and (b) cross-section.

Table 4 proposed study parameters. The maximum measured values for loads,
Test matrix. moment capacities, and mid-span deflections; first cracking loads,
Beam Type of fibers Type of Flexural ρf/ρfb Parameters
curvature ductility, and failure mode for all tested beams are provided
rebar stiffness EA Investigated in Table 5. The curvature ductility is defined as the ratio of the cur-
(MN) vature at the ultimate load to the curvature at 0.001 concrete strain,
which is considered the beginning strain of inelastic deformations in the
2T12BB1 Basalta BFRP 11.32 2.8 ρ, fibers, rebar
reinforced concrete section [15]. The ultimate load is defined as the
2T16BB1 Basalt BFRP 19.5 5.2 ρ maximum load achieved by the beam.
2T10BB1 Basalt BFRP 7.3 1.8
Fig. 4 shows crack width versus load response plotted for all the
3T10BB1 Basalt BFRP 10.96 2.75
3T8BB1 Basalt BFRP 7.37 1.96 beams. The crack width of all tested beams is monitored and measured
at the longitudinal reinforcement level. Table 6 lists the experimental
2T12BS Synthetic BFRP 11.32 2.8 fibers
2T12BP – BFRP 11.32 2.8
and predicted crack widths at the service load stage.
The strain of the concrete at the top fibers and strain at the long-
2T12GB1 Basalt GFRP 12.2 2.15 fibers, rebar
2T12GB2 Basalt2b GFRP 12.2 2.15
itudinal reinforcement were captured using strain gauges at mid-span of
the beams. Fig. 5 shows the load versus strain for the concrete at a
2T12SB1 Basalt Steel 45.2 0.17 rebar
10 mm distance from the extreme compression fiber of the beams and
2T12BB2 Basalt 2 BFRP 11.32 2.8 ρ, fibers for the longitudinal reinforcement. The strain values at ultimate for all
2T16BB2 Basalt 2 BFRP 19.5 5.2
tested beams are also summarized in Table 7.
a: 24 mm basalt fibers; b: 12 mm basalt fibers; ρ: reinforcement ratio.
During the flexural test, the crack behavior of all tested beams was
monitored at different loading stages; at the initiation of the first crack,
2.4. Test results at the service load (i.e., 30% of ultimate), and at the ultimate load as
shown in Fig. 6. The average crack spacing at the extreme tension face
The load versus midspan deflection response of all the twelve beams for all of the tested beams was monitored and measured with the help of
were plotted as shown in Fig. 3. The beams were grouped based on the the grading mesh drawn on the surface of the beams. The results will be
discussed in the following section.

Fig. 2. Test setup; (a) specimen under UTM machine and (b) illustration of setup and instrumentations.

25
F. Abed and A.R. Alhafiz Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34

Fig. 3. Load vs mid-span deflection for beams with different (a) reinforcement ratios, (b) fibers types; (c) reinforcement types.

Table 5 predicting the flexural capacity. The percentage increase is found to be

Summary of flexural test results. 23% for a 43% increase in the reinforcement ratio between beam
Beam Max. Moment Mid-span 1st Curvature Failure
2T10BB1 and 2T12BB1 and 15% for 77% increase in the reinforcement
Load (KN.m) deflection cracking ductility mode ratio between 2T12BB1 and 2T16BB1.
(KN) (mm) Load (KN) On the other hand, increasing the number of BFRP longitudinal
bars, but keeping the same axial stiffness of these bars, showed insig-
2T12BB1 94.3 28.3 43.1 17.1 2.8 CC
2T10BB1 76.2 22.9 39.3 13.3 1.4 CC
nificant effect on the flexural capacity of beam 3T10BB1 as compared to
2T16BB1 108.4 32.5 32.1 23.2 1.9 CC 2T12BB1. However the beam with 3 BFRP bars observed a much higher
3T10BB1 101.3 30.4 61.3 18.4 3.5 CC & BR ductility than the one with 2 BFRP bars as shown in Fig. 8. The same
3T8BB1 74.2 22.3 60.4 13.2 2.7 CC & BR behavior was observed for beams 2T10BB1 and 3T8BB1. This was
2T12BS 100.1 30 50.3 14.1 2.9 SC
evident by the increased strains in BFRP bars for the beams with 3 bars
2T12BP 84.3 25.3 40.2 16.3 1.2 CC
2T12GB1 105.2 31.6 36.6 17.5 1.9 CC which allowed the BFRP bars to contribute more to the beam’s carrying
2T12GB2 94.1 28.2 35.3 17.4 1.4 CC capacity and to sustaining higher deflection.
2T12SB1 82.3 24.7 23.1 24.3 3.5 TC Moreover, it can be observed that increasing the reinforcement ratio
2T12BB2 88.4 26.5 35.3 15.2 N/A CC of the tested beams has a significant effect on the cracking pattern at the
2T16BB2 138.6 41.6 47.4 18.1 2.9 CC
service and ultimate loading stages as shown in Fig. 6. The propagation
CC: Concrete Crushing; SC: Shear Compression; BR: Bar Rupture; TC: Tension- of cracks in the tested beams follows the traditional flexural-crack
Controlled (steel yielding). pattern. Cracks start at the pure flexure region in the tension face then
propagate gradually towards the compression face where the concrete
3. Results discussions crushing occurs. The crack spacing is proportional to the reinforcement
ratio as shown in Fig. 6. The increasing trend in crack width with load
3.1. The effect of reinforcement ratio (ρ) was almost the same for beams 2T12BB1 and 2T16BB1, whereas beam
2T10BB1 shows wider cracks as the load propagates, which can be seen
Fig. 7 shows the increasing trend of the flexural capacity for the by the steeper curve in Fig. 4(a). This can be attributed to the higher
BFRP-RC beams as the reinforcement ratio increases. The increase is not contribution of the BFRP bars on carrying the loads as the reinforce-
proportional, which supports the ACI 440-1R-15 equation (7.2.2e) for ment ratio increased. The same conclusion can be drawn for beams

26
F. Abed and A.R. Alhafiz Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34

Fig. 4. Measured cracks widths for beams with different (a) reinforcement ratios (B1), (b) reinforcement ratios (B2), (c) fibers types and (d) reinforcement types.

Table 6
Experimental and analytical crack width and spacing.
Beam Crack Width (mm) Crack spacing (mm)

Exp. (0.3Mu) Pred. (0.3 Mu) Exp. Pred.

ACI (kb = 1) ACI (kb = 1.4) CSA (kb = 0.8) ACI (kb = 1) ACI (kb = 1.4) CIB

2T12BB1 0.31 0.42 0.59 0.34 98 102 143 148

2T16BB1 0.44 0.48 0.68 0.39 102 104 146 128
2T10BB1 0.53 0.35 0.50 0.28 92 100 141 163
3T10BB1 0.44 0.45 0.63 0.36 90 93 130 126
3T8BB1 0.42 0.48 0.67 0.38 88 91 128 138
2T12BS 0.32 0.34 0.48 0.27 90 102 143 148
2T12BP 0.37 0.41 0.58 0.33 79 102 143 148
2T12GB1 0.85 0.40 0.56 0.32 96 102 143 148
2T12GB2 0.45 0.39 0.55 0.31 80 102 143 148
2T12SB1 0.22 0.15 0.21 0.12 103 155
2T12BB2 0.26 0.36 0.51 0.29 97 102 143 148
2T16BB2 0.63 0.27 0.38 0.22 99 104 146 128

2T12BB2 and 2T16BB2 with different reinforcement ratios but contain
12 mm length basalt fibers as shown in Fig. 4(b).
Fig. 9(a–e) shows the failure mode of the aforementioned beams,
where concrete crushing was the main mode of failure for all of them.
In addition, it can be clearly seen from Fig. 9(f) that both beams
3T10BB1 and 3T8BB1 failed by concrete crushing and BFRP bar rup-
ture. The concrete crushing occurred first. Then, due to the increasing
concrete strain, the beams continued to bear the applied load but in
lower increments, and the BFRP bars exhibited high stresses until it
ruptured. This failure mode can also be noticed from the load versus
mid-span deflection curves (Fig. 5(a)), where the load starts increasing
again after the first drop occurs due to the concrete crushing.
3.2. Effect of fibers type
The effect of using fibers within the concrete mix is captured by

27
F. Abed and A.R. Alhafiz
Fig. 5. Recorded strains in longitudinal reinforcement and concrete for beams with different (a) reinforcement ratios (B1), (b) reinforcement ratios (B2), (c) fibers
types and (d) reinforcement types.
comparing the flexural behavior of the fiber-reinforced concrete beams
with that of the plain concrete specimen. The comparisons show that
the addition of the basalt and synthetic fibers showed a slight im-
provement in the load carrying capacity but improved both the
cracking and post-cracking behavior of the reinforced-concrete beams
with the same reinforcement ratio as shown in Fig. 10.
The basalt fiber-reinforced concrete beam 2T12BB1, which contains
28
Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34
basalt fibers of 24 mm length, provided a higher moment capacity than
a similar beam 2T12BB2, but with basalt fibers of 12 mm length. The
percentage increase was found to be 12% and 5% for beams 2T12BB1
and 2T12BB2, respectively, compared to the plain concrete specimen
2T12BP. The highest increasing percentage was 19% for synthetic fiber-
reinforced concrete beam 2T12BS (see Table 5) in spite of the fact that
synthetic fibers exhibit lower tensile strength than basalt fibers. This
F. Abed and A.R. Alhafiz Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34

Fig. 5. (continued)

Table 7 The same behavior for the synthetic fiber RC beams reported by Yang
Recorded concrete and reinforcement strain. et al. [17].
Beam Load Concrete strain Longitudinal reinforcement strain
Basalt and synthetic fibers help control the manner and speed of the
propagation of the cracks towards the compression zone, and therefore
2T12BB1 94 0.0037 0.0188 the failure in beams containing these fibers was less severe than in the
2T10BB1 76 0.0034 0.0174 plain concrete beam as shown in Fig. 12. It can be seen from the figure
2T16BB1 108 0.0032 0.010
3T10BB1 101 0.0029 0.0230
how beam 2T12BP failed with larger damaged area compared to the
3T8BB1 74 0.0031 0.0232 fiber-reinforced concrete beams. On the other hand, beam 2T12BS with
2T12BB2 100 N/A* 0.0220 synthetic fibers failed in shear compression mode. The vertical flexural
2T16BB2 84 0.0031 0.0140 cracks in the shear span gradually bend towards the load points as the
2T12GB1 105 0.0032 0.0114
load increases and become inclined shear cracks. These cracks propa-
2T12GB2 94 0.0027 0.0152
2T12SB1 82 0.0037 0.0280 gate deeper in the beam and become weak points; therefore, with the
2T12BS 88 0.0041 0.0195 increasing load, the cracks open and the failure occurs. Other re-
2T12BP 138 0.0031 0.0130 searchers [17,18], reported the same shear compression failure.
The influence of using fibers on the cracking behavior was mainly
* Due to the damage of concrete strain gauge.
observed through its capability of closing the cracks and restraining its
propagation (bridging effect) in the fiber-reinforced concrete beams.
could be attributed to the lower modulus of elasticity of the synthetic
The fiber-reinforced concrete beams showed higher first cracking loads
fibers which resulted in higher rupture strain as compared to basalt
than the plain reinforced concrete beam. Basalt and Synthetic fiber-
fibers. Hence, the fiber rupture strain will be higher than the ultimate
reinforced beams 2T12BB1 and 2T12BS recorded the highest first
tensile strain of concrete at failure. Therefore, the FRC concrete beams
cracking load of 17 KN, followed by 15 kN and 14 kN for beams
will crack way before the fiber strength is reached. Due to this phe-
2T12BB2 and 2T12BP, respectively, as listed in Table 5.
nomenon the synthetic FRC beam was capable of sustaining more load
Moreover, the effect of adding fibers to the concrete was observed
with higher deflection. The same behavior was reported by Wang et al.
through the propagation of cracks at the top of the beams as shown in
[15].
Fig. 6. At the service load, i.e., at 30% of the nominal capacity, the
Moreover, the addition of fibers to the concrete helps control the
number of cracks increased in 2T12BS but decreased in 2T12BB2
compression failure of the fiber-reinforced concrete beams by the
compared with the plain concrete beam 2T12BP. The effect of basalt
means of the fiber bridging effect, allowing the high strength of the FRP
fiber in controlling the number of cracks at the service loading stage is
reinforcement to be utilized more. This can be considered the main
slightly better than that of synthetic fiber.
reason for the increase in flexural capacity noticed in the fiber-re-
At the ultimate loading stage, although the number of cracks was
inforced beams. For instance, the ultimate concrete compression strain
more in the basalt fiber-reinforced concrete beams, the depth of these
near the top extreme of the mid-span is found to be 0.0037 for beam
cracks was considerably lower than the depth of the cracks in the plain
2T12BB1. Synthetic fiber-reinforced beam 2T12BS recorded the highest
concrete beam. This confirms that the bridging effect helps control and
concrete compression strain of 0.0041 compared with a strain of 0.0031
restrain crack depth and propagation in the fiber-reinforced concrete
for plain concrete beam 2T12BP as listed in Table 7. Note that, for beam
beams.
2T12BB2, the concrete strain gauge was damaged and strain values
The effect of fibers on crack width is also investigated by monitoring
were not available.
the widths of the first three cracks that appear in the constant flexure
The curvature ductility enhancement due to addition of fibers in
moment region of specimens. Since FRP reinforcement bars have a
two different fiber-reinforced concrete beams are shown in Fig. 11.
corrosion resistance feature, the crack width limits can be relaxed for
Introducing fibers to the concrete mix improves the ductility behavior
beams reinforced with FRP bars. The Canadian Standard Association
of the BFRP bars. The basalt fiber-RC beam 2T12BB1 recorded lower
(CSA 2002) permits crack widths of 0.7 mm (0.028 in) for internal ex-
ductility than synthetic fiber-RC beam 2T12BS. The plain concrete
posure and 0.5 mm (0.02 in) for external exposure [20]. However, for
beam 2T12BP had the lowest ductility as expected (see Table 6 for all
steel reinforced concrete beams, the crack width is limited to 0.4 mm
other beams). As mentioned previously, this increase in the curvature
(0.016 in) [21].
ductility allows the beams to utilize the high tensile strength of the
Table 6 shows crack widths of the tested beams at service loading
BFRP bars, and therefore sustain more loads with controlled deflection.

29
F. Abed and A.R. Alhafiz
Fig. 6. Crack pattern; (a) at ultimate load, (b) at service load.
stage. It can be seen from Fig. 4(c) that the basalt fibers showed no
potential of restraining the crack width propagation at the service load
stage, whereas the synthetic fibers improved the cracking behavior. The
effect of adding fibers to the concrete was mostly significant in the case
of beams 2T12BB1 and 2T12BS at later loading stage, prior to failure,
with slow increase in the crack width with load as compared to 2T12BP
and 2T12BB2. The plain concrete beam exhibits a sudden crack width
increase after the load of 82 kN. This may be attributed to the absence
of the bridging effect with the increasing stresses in the concrete. The
beam with basalt fibers of 12 mm length, 2T12BB2, showed little
bridging effect compared to the beam with basalt fibers of 24 mm
length, 2T12BB1, which showed a considerable increase in crack width
after the service loading stage. This means that using larger length of
fibers may improve their ability to bridge flexural cracks in the FRC
beam sections.
30
Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34
3.3. Effect of reinforcement type
The effect of using different types of longitudinal reinforcement on
the moment versus mid-span deflection behavior is examined through a
comparison of the use of BFRP and GFRP bars as well as conventional
steel. Generally, the use of FRP as flexural reinforcement results in a
higher moment capacity than the use of steel as shown in Fig. 13. The
percentage increase in flexural capacity is found to be 15% and 28% for
BFRP (2T12BB1) and GFRP (2T12GB1), respectively, as listed in
Table 5. Regardless of the flexural reinforcement material, all the beams
show the same behavior in terms of pre-cracking stiffness until the first
crack occurred.
The moment at first crack (Mcr) was higher for steel-reinforced
concrete beam than for the basalt and glass fiber-reinforced beams.
After the first crack, 2T12SB1 showed a much higher stiffness than
2T12BB1 and 2T12GB1 as illustrated in Fig. 13. This behavior is ex-
pected due to the low elastic modulus of FRP bars. Table 6 provides the
F. Abed and A.R. Alhafiz
Fig. 7. Ultimate moment vs reinforcement ratio.
strain values at the two beams’ cross-sectional extremes at the ultimate
loading stage. The concrete compression strain at the top of the flexural
region (mid-span) was found to be 0.0037 for both BFRP-FRC beams
compared to 0.0032 for the GFRP-RC beam. This may be attributed to
the higher deflection of the BFRP-RC beam compared to the steel and
GFRP-RC beams. The same behavior was observed in beams with
12 mm-long basalt fiber, i.e., in beams 2T12BB2 and 2T12GB2.
In addition, it was observed that steel-reinforced concrete beam has
a lower number of cracks and smaller crack depth, at both the service
and ultimate loading stages, than the BFRP- and GFRP-reinforced
concrete beams (see Fig. 6). On the other hand, BFRP-reinforced con-
crete beams exhibited smaller crack depth and less number of cracks at
ultimate than the GFRP-reinforced concrete beams. The propagation of
the cracks in the tested beams followed the traditional flexural-crack
pattern. Cracks started at the pure flexure region in the tension face
then propagated gradually towards the compression face where the
concrete crushing occurred. In general, the crack width for the BFRP
and steel reinforced beams was the same at service. Then, BFRP RC
beam showed larger crack widths until the load of 65 KN, where the
steel reinforced beam exhibited a sudden increase in cracks widths as
shown in Fig. 4(d). This could be attributed to the yielding of steel bars
and the subsequent stress increase in the concrete, which allowed the
cracks to open more. Beam 2T12GB1 showed larger cracks widths than
beams 2T12BB1 and 2T12SB1 at both service and ultimate loading
stages. A similar conclusion can be drawn for beams 2T12BB2 and
Fig. 8. Moment vs mid-span deflection for different reinforcement ratios using (a) 24 mm basalt fibers; (b) 12 mm basalt fiber.
31
Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34
2T12GB2 with the 12 mm long basalt fibers as shown in Fig. 4(d).
Fig. 14 shows the failure mode of the aforementioned beams, where
concrete crushing was the main mode of failure for the BFRP-reinforced
concrete beams while Tension-Controlled failure was the main mode for
the steel-reinforced concrete beam. The same failure mode was re-
ported by Issa et al. [18] and Wang et al. [15], and it is also identical to
the ACI code recommendations [12,22]. Moreover, concrete crushing
was also the main mode of failure for GFRP-reinforced beam. However,
beam 2T12GB2 was less damaged than beam 2T12GB1 due to the larger
fiber length.
Table 6 shows a comparison between the experimental and pre-
dicted crack spacing for all FRP-RC beams. The experimental average
crack spacing at the extreme tension face for all of the tested beams was
monitored and measured with the help of the grading mesh drawn on
the surface of the beams. The predicted crack spacing, on the other
hand, was calculated using the equations suggested by ACI 440-1R-15
[12] and CEB-FIP [23] codes. In general, the crack spacing was higher
in GFRP-RC beams than steel and BFRP-RC beams.
4. Conclusion
This research study presented an experimental program that was
conducted to investigate the flexural response of fiber-reinforced con-
crete (FRC) beams reinforced longitudinally with FRP bars. The main
goal was to study the effect of adding a newly developed basalt fibers of
12 mm and 24 mm lengths to the concrete mix on the flexural behavior
(capacity, ductility, crack response, etc.) of BFRP-reinforced beams. The
study also included another type of fibers (synthetic) and reinforcement
bars (GFRP and steel) for comparisons. Based on the results, the fol-
lowing conclusions and observations were drawn:
1. Introducing basalt and synthetic fibers to concrete increased the
maximum moment capacity in FRC beams and improved curvature
ductility. The percentage increase, however, was higher for FRC
beams with synthetic fibers. The section capacity was enhanced due
to the increase in the ultimate concrete compression strain, which
resulted in a larger strength contribution of BFRP bars.
2. Increasing the BFRP reinforcement ratio resulted in improving the
flexural capacity of BFRP beams, regardless of the concrete type.
The improvement followed the same increasing trend of ACI 440-
1R-15 equation for predicting the flexural capacity.
3. The cracking behavior of FRC beams in terms of spacing and num-
bers were improved at the service and ultimate loading stages
compared to the plain concrete beam. The effect of basalt fibers in
controlling the number of cracks was slightly better than that of
F. Abed and A.R. Alhafiz Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34

Fig. 9. Failure modes of different reinforcement ratios, (a-c) basalt fiber of 24 mm length, (d-e) basalt fibers of 12 mm length; (f) basalt fiber of 24 mm length using
three BFRP bars.

synthetic fibers particularly at the service loading stage. Crack

widths at service (i.e., at 0.3 Mu) were found to be within the
ACI440-1R-06 crack width limit for all specimens.
4. FRC beam with conventional steel reinforcement showed a much
higher stiffness than FRP FRC beams which is attributed to the lower
elastic modulus of FRP material. At both service and ultimate
loading stages, the steel FRC beam exhibited shallower cracks with
less numbers, compared to the BFRP and GFRP reinforced concrete
beams.
5. Although concrete crushing was the main mode of failure for most
specimens, FRC beams with 12 mm fiber length showed a less da-
maged concrete compression zone than beams of 24 mm fiber
length.
6. For the same reinforcement ratio, increasing the number of long-
itudinal BFRP bars resulted in approximately similar response in
terms of section capacity and stiffness. However, cracking behavior
and curvature ductility were improved.

Acknowledgment
Fig. 10. Moment vs mid-span deflection for beams with different fibers types.
The authors would like to thank Galen personnel for providing the

32
F. Abed and A.R. Alhafiz Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34

Fig. 11. Moment vs curvature response for beams with different fibers types. Fig. 13. Moment vs mid-span deflection for different reinforcement types.

basalt fibers, BFRP bars and GFRP bars used in this study. Appendix A. Supplementary data

Data availability statement Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.050.
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot
be shared at this time as the data also forms part of an ongoing study.

Fig. 12. Failure mode of different fibers reinforced concrete beams, (a) Basalt fibers (24 mm), (b) basalt fibers (12 mm), (c) plain concrete, (d) synthetic fibers.

33
F. Abed and A.R. Alhafiz
Fig. 14. Failure modes for beams with different reinforcement types (a) 2T12BB1, (b) 2T12GB1, (c) 2T1GB2 and (d) 2T12SB1.
References
[1] Bank LC. Composites for construction. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons;
2006. p. 67–551.
[2] Altalmas A, El Refai A, Abed F. Bond degradation of basalt fiber-reinforced polymer
(BFRP) bars exposed to accelerated aging conditions. Constr Build Mater
2015;81(1):162–71.
[3] Al-tamimi A, Abed FH, Al-rahmani A. Effects of harsh environmental exposures on
the bond capacity between concrete and GFRP reinforcing bars. Adv Concr Constr
2014;2(1):1–11.
[4] Robert M, Benmokrane B. Behaviour of GFRP reinforcing bars subjected to extreme
temperatures. J Compos Constr 2009;14(4):353–60.
[5] El Refai A, Abed F, Altalmas A. Bond durability of basalt fiber – reinforced polymer
bars embedded in concrete under direct pullout conditions. J Compos Constr
2014;19(5):1–11.
[6] Habeeb MN, Ashour AF. Flexural behavior of continuous GFRP reinforced concrete
beams. J Compos Constr 2008;12(2):115–24.
[7] Abed F, El-Chabib H, AlHamaydeh M. Shear characteristics of GFRP-reinforced
concrete deep beams without web reinforcement. J Reinf Plast Compos
2012;31(16):1063–73.
[8] Rafi MM, Nadjai A, Ali F. Experimental testing of concrete beams reinforced with
carbon FRP. J Compos Mater 2007;41(22):2657–73.
[9] Rashid MA, Mansur MA, Paramasivam P. Behavior of aramid fiber-reinforced
polymer reinforced high strength concrete beams under bending. J Compos Constr
2005;9(2):117–27.
[10] Elgabbas F, Ahmed EA, Benmokrane B. Flexural behavior of concrete beams re-
inforced with ribbed basalt-FRP bars under static loads. J Compos Constr
2016;21(3):195–230.
[11] El Refai A, Abed F. Concrete contribution to shear strength of beams reinforced with
34
Composite Structures 215 (2019) 23–34
basalt fiber-reinforced bars. J Compos Constr 2015;20(4):150–79.
[12] Campbell TI, Dolan CW. Specification for carbon and glass fiber-reinforced polymer
bar materials for concrete reinforcement. U.S. ACI 440; 2008.
[13] Alsayed S, Alhozaimy A. Ductility of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars and
steel fibers. J Compos Mater 1999;33(19):1792–804.
[14] El Refai A, Abed FH, Al-Rahmani A. Structural performance and serviceability of
concrete beams reinforced with hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars. Constr Build Mater
2015;96(August):518–29.
[15] Wang H, Belarbi A. Ductility characteristics of fiber-reinforced-concrete beams re-
inforced with FRP rebars. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(5):2391–401.
[16] High C, Seliem HM, El-safty A, Rizkalla SH. Use of basalt fibers for concrete
structures. Constr Build Mater 2015;96:37–46.
[17] Yang JM, Min KH, Shin HO, Yoon YS. Effect of steel and synthetic fibers on flexural
behavior of high-strength concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars. Composites
Part B 2012;43(3):1077–86.
[18] Issa MS, Metwally IM, Elzeiny SM. Influence of fibers on flexural behavior and
ductility of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP rebars. Eng Struct
2011;33(5):1754–63.
[19] Bakis CE, et al. Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for construction -state-of-the-
art review. J Compos Constr 2002;6:73–87.
[20] Theriault M, Benmokrane B. Effects of FRP reinforcement ratio and concrete
strength. J Compos Constr 1998;2(2):7–16.
[21] Bank LC, Campbell TI, Dolan CW. Guide for the design and construction of concrete
reinforced with FRP bars. U.S. ACI 440-1R; 2015.
[22] Balaguru PN, Bakis CE, Bradberry TE. Building code requirements for reinforced
concrete. U.S. ACI Committee 318; 2014.
[23] CEB-FIP. FRP reinforcement in RC structures Fib bulletin 40 International
Federation for Structural Concrete (fib); 2007.