Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ductility Characteristics of Fiber-Reinforced-Concrete Beams Reinforced
Ductility Characteristics of Fiber-Reinforced-Concrete Beams Reinforced
Ductility Characteristics of Fiber-Reinforced-Concrete Beams Reinforced
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: To mitigate the corrosion problem caused by steel reinforcement, a study was initiated to develop a non-
Received 21 May 2010 ferrous hybrid reinforcement system for concrete beams by incorporating continuous fiber-reinforced-
Received in revised form 22 September 2010 polymer (FRP) rebar and fiber-reinforced-concrete (FRC) containing randomly distributed polypropylene
Accepted 13 November 2010
fibers. This paper describes the flexural performance of this FRP/FRC hybrid reinforcement system as well
Available online 28 December 2010
as FRP/plain concrete beams that served as references. Test results showed that the crack widths of FRP/
FRC beams were smaller than those of FRP/plain concrete beams at the proposed service load. The com-
Keywords:
pressive strains at the top fiber of concrete in FRP/FRC beams were larger than 0.004 due to the added
Crack width
Ductility
polypropylene fibers. In addition, the ductility indices evaluating the FRP reinforced members were dis-
Fiber-reinforced-polymers cussed. It is found that the ductility indices for all the tested beams were above the minimum require-
Flexure ment of 4. The addition of fibers improved the flexural behavior by increasing the ductility level more
Fiber-reinforced-concrete than 30%, when compared to the companion beam.
Polypropylene fiber Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.040
2392 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401
2. Research significance rods is tightly wrapped with a helical fiber strand to create indentations along the
rebar, and sand particles are added to the surface to enhance the bonding strength.
The surface of the CFRP made of epoxy modified vinyl ester is very smooth as shown
New materials and design methods have been extensively inves- in Fig. 1. The mechanical properties of FRP rods provided by the manufacturer are
tigated to make a corrosion-free RC structure. This research project summarized in Table 1.
was initiated to develop a nonferrous hybrid reinforcement system
for concrete beams using continuous FRP rebars and FRC containing 3.1.2. Polypropylene fiber
polypropylene fibers. This kind of hybrid system is expected to mit- Currently, many fiber types are commercially available in the form of steel,
igate the corrosion problem caused by the steel reinforcement, glass, synthetic, and natural fibers. In this study, polypropylene fiber was used in
while providing required strength and stiffness. Meanwhile, ductil- FRC. The fibers were fibrillated and available in 57 mm length.
3.1. Materials The beams were 178 mm wide, 229 mm high, and 2032 mm long. No. 3 steel U-
shape stirrups with a spacing of 89 mm were used at both ends of the beams to
3.1.1. FRP rods avoid shear failure, while no stirrups were used in the testing regions to secure pure
Three types of commonly used FRP rods were adopted in this study; namely #8 bending behavior. The concrete cover was 38 mm for all beams. All beams were de-
(25 mm) glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP), #4 (13 mm) GFRP, and #4 (13 mm) signed to fail by concrete crushing, which was accomplished by using a reinforce-
carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) as shown in Fig. 1. The surface of the GFRP ment ratio greater than the balanced reinforcement ratio qb. For the comparison
purpose, the beams were designed to have a similar ratio of qf/qbf. The specimen
details are shown in Fig. 2.
The nomenclature of test specimens is as follows; the first character, ‘‘P’’ or ‘‘F’’,
represents the concrete type for plain concrete and FRC, respectively; the second
#8 GFRP character, ‘‘4’’ or ‘‘8’’, is the rebar size in English designation used as reinforcement;
the third character, ‘‘C’’ or ‘‘G’’, represents the rebar type, CFRP or GFRP; and the last
character represents the first beam or the second beam in the testing group, accord-
ing to loading condition. The details of the specimens are shown in Table 2.
#4 GFRP
3.3. Test setup and procedures
#4 CFRP
The beams were subjected to a four-point flexural testing, as shown in Fig. 3.
The beams were instrumented with three LVDTs in the testing region (pure bending
region) to monitor the mid-span deflection and determine the curvature. The FRP
Fig. 1. FRP rods used in this study.
rebars were instrumented with strain gauges to measure rebar deformation. Two
LVDTs were mounted at the top surface of the beam to record the compressive
Table 1 strain of concrete. In the testing region, Demic gage points were bonded to the
Mechanical properties of FRP rods. beam surface, 38 mm above the bottom (the same level as the longitudinal rebars)
to measure the crack widths. A microscope was also used to measure the crack
#4 CFRP #4 GFRP #8 GFRP width at the rebar location. Another two LVDTs were mounted at the ends of the
Tensile strength (MPa) 2069 690 551 beam to record the relative slips between the longitudinal rebar and the concrete
Elastic modulus (GPa) 124 41 41 (the longitudinal rebars were protruded about 10 mm from the ends). The load
was incrementally applied by a hydraulic jack and measured with a load cell. Three
229 mm
2032 mm
Load, P
229 mm
LVDT (6,7)
LVDT8 LVDT 4 Demac Gages LVDT 5
LVDT(1,2,3)
1829 mm
Fig. 3. Flexural beam test setup (a) crack formation in plain concrete beam and (b) crack formation in FRC beam.
Table 3
Comparisons between experimental and predicted average crack spacing of the tested beams.
Specimen I.D. Crack spacing, Sm, at 40%Mu (mm) Crack spacing, Sm, at 80%Mu (mm) SFRC SFRC ACI-440 (mm) CEB-FIP Code (mm)
Splain at 40%Mu Splain at 80%Mu
kb = 1.0 kb = 1.4
P4C 152 116 N/A N/A 126 176 156
P4G 134 91 N/A N/A 99 139 87
P8G 152 107 N/A N/A 112 157 105
F4C 117 107 0.77 0.93 126 176 156
F4G 102 87 0.76 0.96 99 139 87
F8G 122 112 0.80 1.04 112 157 105
Fiber Bridging
S1 S2
(a) Crack Formation in Plain (b) Crack Formation in
Concrete Beam FRC Beam
Fig. 4. Mechanism of crack formation in plain concrete beams and FRC beams (a) #4 CFRP beam (b) #4 GFRP beam and (c) #8 GFRP beam.
Moment (kips-in.)
Moment (kips-in.)
40 350 40 350
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
ACI 318 ACI 440, Kb=1.0
Toutanji et al.
35 300 35 300
30 ACI 318 30 250
250
25 25 ACI 440, Kb=1.4
ACI 440 Kb=1.4 200 200
20 20 Toutanji et al.
150 150
15 F4G-1
15 F4C-1
10 F4G-2 100 10 F4C-2
100
P4G-1
5 50 5 P4C-2 50
P4G-2 P4C-1
0 0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Crack Width (mm) Crack Width (mm)
(a) #4 CFRP Beam (b) #4 GFRP Beam
Crack Width (in.)
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
50
CEB-FIP
45 Toutanji et al. 400
Moment (kips-in.)
40 350
Moment (kN.m)
35 ACI 318
300
30 ACI 440, Kb=1.0
250
25
200
20 ACI 440, Kb=1.4
150
15 F8G-1
10 F8G-2 100
P8G-1
5 50
P8G-2
0 0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Crack Width (mm)
(c) 8 GFRP Beam
Fig. 5. Crack width vs. applied moment.
Fig. 6 shows the typical experimental moment–deflection curve 4.2.2. Theoretical correlation
for the plain concrete beams and the FRC beams reinforced with Deflection at mid-span can be calculated according to the fol-
different types of FRP rebars. With increasing moment, cracks oc- lowing equation:
curred in the testing region when the moment exceeded the crack-
2
ing moment, Mcr. Consequently, the flexural stiffness of the beams Pa Ph a
was significantly reduced. As expected, due to the linear-elastic
Dmid ¼ ð3L2 4a2 Þ þ ð6Þ
24Ec Ie 10GIe
behaviors of FRP rebars, the FRP reinforced beams showed no
yielding. The curves went up almost linearly until the crushing of The first term on the right is for the flexural component, and the
concrete. second term is for the shear component.
2396 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401
Moment (Kips-in.)
300
Moment (kips-in.)
40 350
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
30 250 35 300
F4G
25 30 F4G 250
200
20 25 P4C
200
150 20
15 150
100 15
10 100
10
5 50 50
5
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
Fig. 6. Moment–deflection curves for FRC beams and plain concrete beams.
Moment (kips-in.)
35 35
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
300
Moment (kN.m)
F8G
30 250
P8G
25
200
20
150
15
10 100
5 50
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deflection (mm)
(c) #8 GFRP with/without Fibers
Fig. 7. Moment–deflection curves.
The current ACI 440 recommends the following expressions to FRC beams. Thus, the equations recommended by the current ACI
calculate the effective moment of inertia Ie: 440 can be used for both types of beams.
A more refined analysis was also conducted through the double
Ie ¼ Ig when M a 6 Mcr ;
integration of a theoretical moment–curvature relationship. The
3 " 3 # Thorenfeldt model [11] as shown in the following:
M cr Mcr
Ie ¼ bd Ig þ 1 Icr 6 Ig when M a > M cr ð7Þ nðec =e0c Þfc0
Ma Ma fc ¼ ð8Þ
n 1 þ ðec =e0c Þnk
qf
where bd ¼ 15 qfb 6 1:0. where n = 2.6, k = 1.16, and e0c ¼ 0:00198, corresponding to the con-
As shown in Fig. 7, the ACI 440 equation predicts the moment- crete strength of 30 MPa, was adopted in this study. The double
deflection response fairly well for both plain concrete beams and integration was implemented using the conjugate beam method
H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401 2397
Table 5
Comparison of flexural capacity and ultimate deflection between FRC and plain concrete FRP reinforced beams.
Specimen I.D. Ultimate moment (kN m) Ultimate deflection (mm) Ultimate moment (kN m) Ultimate deflection (mm) M FRC DFRC
M Plain DPlain
P4C-1 51.9 51.1 30.2 30.0 42.6 41.9 26.2 25.9 N/A N/A
P4C-2 50.2 29.7 41.1 25.4
P4G-1 46.0 46.9 26.2 26.1 37.5 38.2 23.9 23.8 N/A N/A
P4G-2 47.7 25.9 38.9 23.6
P8G-1 50.9 51.0 24.4 24.3 40.9 40.9 22.1 22.0 N/A N/A
P8G-2 51.0 24.1 40.9 21.8
F4C-1 47.2 45.7 30.5 29.2 47.2 45.7 30.5 29.2 1.09 1.13
F4C-2 44.1 27.9 44.1 27.9
F4G-1 39.8 40.5 30.2 30.2 39.8 40.5 30.2 30.2 1.06 1.27
F4G-2 41.1 30.2 41.1 30.2
F8G-1 42.2 41.6 24.1 23.1 42.2 41.6 24.1 23.1 1.02 1.05
F8G-2 41.0 22.1 41.0 22.1
Note: Columns (4) and (5) are the normalized values of Columns (3) and (4); Columns (6) and (7) are the ratios of moment or deflection between the FRC beams to those of the
plain concrete beams after normalizations.
Moment (ips-in.)
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
35 P8G-1 35 300
300
30 30
250 F8G-1 250
25 25
200 200
20 20
150 150
15 P8G-2 15
100 10 100
10
5 50 5 50
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
Fig. 8. Typical loading/unloading cycle’s effect on FRC beams and plain concrete beams.
and interrupted at a value of ec = 0.0045, which was corresponding peak point were less than the ultimate tensile strains. The mea-
to the test results: average of ecu = 0.0045. As shown in Fig. 7, the sured strains at the peak points were 12,000, 12,000, and 8000
theoretical curves show a good agreement with the experimental microstrains for beams reinforced with #4 CFRP, #4 GFRP, and
results. #8 GFRP, while the ultimate strains of each rebar were 16,700,
16,900, and 13,500 microstrains, respectively.
4.3. Relative slip between longitudinal rebar and concrete at ends The differences of moment–strain curves between the plain
concrete beams and the FRC beams were significant. Improvement
No relative slips were observed for any test specimens. It means of ductility is also proved from this observation. The plain concrete
that the development length designed by the previous study [12] beams failed by concrete crushing at the top surface with sudden
was reasonable for FRP bars, which were capable of developing drop of reinforcement strain. In contrast to the plain concrete
the required forces. beams, the strains in concrete and reinforcement in the FRC beams
increased gradually after the peak point. Furthermore, the ultimate
4.4. Loading/unloading effect on the flexural behavior strain in concrete also increased, which is well recognized as the
benefit from the adding of fibers [13]. Ultimate concrete strains
No significant differences were observed before and after load- in plain concrete beams ranged from 2700 microstrains to 3300
ing and unloading cycles in the crack width, crack distribution, and microstrains with an average of 2950 microstrains; while in the
deflection. In addition, the flexural stiffness was not significantly FRC beams, they ranged from 4000 microstrains to 5000 micro-
changed after cyclic loading, as shown in Fig. 8. The flexural perfor- strains with an average of 4500 microstrains.
mance’s insensitive to the loading/unloading cycles is mainly due
to the linear-elastic strain–stress relationship of the FRP 5. Predictions of the ultimate flexural capacity
reinforcement.
As shown in Table 2, the reinforcement ratio, qf, for all the
4.5. Strains in reinforcement and concrete beams are greater than the balanced ratio, qbf, defined as follows:
0
fc ecu
Fig. 9 presents the measured mid-span strains in reinforcement qbf ¼ 0:85b1 ð9Þ
ffu ecu þ efu
and concrete vs. the applied moment. It shows that strains in the
reinforcement increases almost linearly up to failure. Because all where ecu = 0.003 as defined by [14].
the test beams failed by concrete crushing rather than FRP rein- The ACI 440 predicts the moment capacity based on the follow-
forcement rupture, all measured strains in the reinforcement at ing equations:
2398 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401
55 50
P4G
50 P4C P4C 450 45 P4G 400
45 400 40 350
Moment (kips-in.)
Moment (kips-in.)
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
40 F4C 350 35 300
35 300 30 F4G
F4C 250
30 250 25 F4G
25 200
200 20
20 150
150 15
15
100 10 100
10
5 50 5 50
0 0 0 0
-9000 -6000 -3000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 -9000 -6000 -3000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Strain (×10e-6 mm/mm) Strain, (×10e-6 mm/mm)
(a) #4 CFRP Beams (b) #4 GFRP Beams
55
50 P8G 450
P8G
45 400
Moment (kips-in)
Moment (kN.m)
40 350
35 300
30 F8G F8G 250
25
200
20
150
15
10 100
5 50
0 0
-9000 -6000 -3000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000
Strain (×10e-6 m m /m m )
(c) #8 GFRP Beams
Fig. 9. Typical strain distributions.
qf f f 2
M n ¼ qf f f 1 0:59 0 bd ð10Þ
fc Table 6
Predictions of ultimate capacities.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
ðEf ecu Þ2 0:85b1 fc0 Specimen Mexp. MACI (kN m), M ACI M ACI , (kN m) M ACI
M exp M exp
ff ¼ þ Ef ecu 0:5Ef ecu 6 ffu ð11Þ I.D. (kN m) ecu = 0.003 ecu = 0.0035
4 qf
P4C 51 40 0.79 43 0.84
There are two possible ways that fibers can increase the flexural P4G 47 42 0.89 44 0.94
P8G 51 46 0.89 48 0.94
strength. The first way is a participation of the fibers for carrying Average 0.86 0.91
some portion of tensile stresses as an auxiliary reinforcement. F4C 46 33 0.72 35 0.76
The second way is an improvement of concrete properties. How- F4G 40 34 0.84 36 0.88
ever, the contribution of fibers in tensile strength is not as signifi- F8G 42 37 0.88 38 0.92
Average 0.81 0.86
cant as the improvement of concrete property due to:
Note: MACI and M ACI are the predictions of moment capacity based on ACI equations.
1. The relatively lower tensile strength of polypropylene fibers The ultimate strains are assumed to be 0.003 and 0.0035 for MACI and M ACI ,
respectively.
(less than 1/3) than that of the steel fibers.
2. The low elastic modulus of polypropylene fiber (500–700 ksi),
resulting in the strain at break is three orders of magnitude greater
than the tensile strain at failure of the concrete. Hence, the con- Thus, increase of the flexural capacity by fibers is mainly
crete will crack long before the fiber strength is approached. achieved from an improvement of concrete properties. As shown
in Fig. 10, concrete strains at the ultimate state in FRC beams are
significantly larger than the value of 0.003 recommended by ACI.
As shown in Table 6, when the value of 0.0035 is used for ecu, the
Value suggested in theoretical predictions agree well with the test results. Thus, it is
this study
suggested to increase the ecu to take advantage of the added fibers.
6. Ductility evaluation
Moment (kips-in.)
Moment (kips-in.)
40 350
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
40 350
F4C 35 300
35 300 F4G
30 250
30 250 25
25 200
200 20
20 150
150 15
15
100 10 100
10
5 50 5 50
0 0 0 0
0 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008 0.0001 0.00012 0 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008 0.0001 0.00012
Curvature (1/mm) Curvature (1/mm)
(a) #4 CFRP Beams (b) #4 GFRP Beams
Curvature (1/in.)
-0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
55
50 400
Moment (kips-in.)
P8G
45 350
Moment (kN.m)
40
300
35 F8G
30 250
25 200
20 150
15
100
10
5 50
0 0
0 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008 0.0001
Curvature (1/mm)
(c) #8 GFRP Beams
Fig. 11. Typical moment curvature curve.
1 Et
lE ¼ þ1 ð12Þ S2
2 Ee
S Elastic Energy (Ee)
where Et is the total energy computed as the area under the load
S= [P1S1+(P2-P1)S2)]/P2
deflection curve, and Ee is the elastic energy computed as the area P1
beneath line S, up to the point of intersection with Pfailure as shown S1
in Fig. 12.
As shown in Fig. 12, the definition of elastic slope is dependent
Deflection
on selecting the points of P1, P2, S1, and S2. However, the experi-
mental moment–deflection curves in Fig. 7 do not show these dis- Fig. 12. New definition of ductility index.
tinct points. The elastic slope, S, introduced by Naaman and Jeong
is to quantify the elastic energy. In this study, rather than relying
on the theoretical interpretation, the measured unloading slopes between the ultimate stage and the service stage. It takes into
were adopted to represent the elastic slopes. The unloading slopes account the strength effect as well as the deflection (or curvature)
were the slope of the unloading curve corresponding to 80% of its effect on the ductility. Both strength factor, Cs, and deflection fac-
capacity. The ductility indices computed are summarized in tor, Cd (or curvature factor Cc) are defined as the ratio of moment
Table 7. or deflection (or curvature) values at ultimate to the corresponding
values at concrete compressive strain of 0.001. The strain of 0.001
6.2. Deformation-based approach is considered as the beginning of inelastic deformation of concrete
[2].
The deformation-based approach was first introduced by Jaeger
lE ¼ C s C d orlE ¼ C s C c ð13Þ
et al. [2]. The ductility is reflected by the deformability margin
2400 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401
A2
P2
7. Concluding remarks
non-metric (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, RILEM. London: E & FN [10] Toutanji HA, Saafi M. Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with
Spon; 1995. p. 379–86. glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. ACI Struct J 2000;97(5):712–9.
[2] Jaeger GL, Tadros G, Mufti AA. The concept of the overall performance factor in [11] Thorenfeldt E, Tomaszewicz A, Jensen JJ. Mechanical properties of high-
rectangular-section reinforced concrete beams. In: Proc of 3rd int symp on strength concrete and application in design. In: Proceedings of the symposium
non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, vol. 2, Sapporo, utilization of high strength concrete, Stavanger, Norway, Tapir, Trondheim;
Japan; 1997. p. 551–8. 1987. p. 149–59.
[3] Harris HG, Somboonsong W, Ko FK. New ductile hybrid FRP reinforcing bar for [12] Belarbi A, Wang H. Bond splitting behavior of FRP reinforcing bars embedded
concrete structures. ASCE J Compos Constr 1998;2(1):28–37. in fiber reinforced concrete. In: Proceedings for the 84th transportation
[4] Aiello MA, Ombres L. Structural performances of concrete beams with hybrid research board annual meeting, Washington DC; 2005.
(fiber-reinforced polymer–steel) reinforcements. ASCE J Compos Constr [13] ACI 544.1R-96. State-of-the-art report on fiber reinforced concrete. ACI 544.
2002;6(2):133–40. Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute; 1996. [reapproved 2009].
[5] Qu W, Zhang X, Huang H. Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with [14] ACI 318-08. Building Code requirements for structural concrete and
hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars. ASCE J Compos Constr 2009;13(5):350–9. commentary. ACI Committee 318, American Concrete Institute. Farmington
[6] ACI 440.1R-06. Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced Hills: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
with FRP bars. ACI committee 440. Farmington Hills: American Concrete [15] Mattock AH, Kriz LB, Hognestad E. Rectangular concrete stress distribution in
Institute; 2006. ultimate strength design. ACI J Proc 1961;57(2):875–928.
[7] Alsayed SH, Alhozaimy AM. Ductility of concrete beams reinforced with FRP [16] Theriault M, Benmokrane B. Effects of FRP reinforcement ratio and concrete
bars and steel fibers. J Compos Mater 1999;33(19):1792–806. strength on flexural behavior of concrete beams. ASCE J Compos Constr
[8] Li VC, Wang S. Flexural behaviors of glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) 1998;2(1):7–16.
reinforced engineered cementitious composite beams. ACI Mater J [17] CAN/CSA-S6-06. Canadian highway bridge design code. Ontario, Canada:
2002;99(1):11–21. Canadian Standard Association; 2006.
[9] CEB-FIP. FRP reinforcement in RC structures. Fib bulletin 40. International
Federation for Structural Concrete (fib); 2007.