Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Evaluation of the flexural strength and serviceability of concrete beams T

reinforced with different types of GFRP bars
⁎
Amr El-Nemra,1, Ehab A. Ahmedb,2, Adel El-Saftyc, Brahim Benmokraned,
a
Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec J1K 2R1, Canada
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec J1K 2R1, Canada
c
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, College of Computing, Engineering & Construction, University of North Florida, FL, USA
d
Department of Civil Engineering and NSERC Research Chair in FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Infrastructure and Tier-1 Canada Research Chair in Advanced Composite
Materials for Civil Structures in the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Quebec J1K 2R1, Canada

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

Keywords: The current available glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars have a modulus of elasticity ranges from 40 to
Concrete 60 GPa in accordance with CSA S807-10 Canadian standard. The surface profile of GFRP bars, however, can be
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) smooth, sand-coated, deformed, grooved, or ribbed. This study aimed at investigating the flexural behavior and
FRP bar serviceability performance of concrete beams reinforced with different types of GFRP bars. The test parameters
Beam
were: (i) modulus of elasticity (46.4–69.3 GPa); (ii) surface profile (sand-coated and helically-grooved), and (iii)
Strain
reinforcement ratio. The study included testing of 17 full-scale beams measuring 4,250 mm long × 200 mm
Crack width
Deflection wide × 400 mm deep reinforced with GFRP bars. The test results are presented and discussed in terms of de-
Serviceability flection, crack width, strain, and load-carrying capacity. The cracking behavior of the tested beams tends to
Design codes confirm that sand-coating of GFRP bars enhances the bond performance in concrete more than the helically-
grooved profile. The curvature limit of 0.005/d seems to be feasible in controlling the serviceability of GFRP-
reinforced concrete (GFRP-RC) beams. In addition, ACI 440.1R-06 and ACI 440.1R-15 underestimated the de-
flection, while ISIS M-03 and CSA S806-12 provided conservative deflection values at 0.30 of nominal moment
capacity, Mn.

1. Introduction
Glass fiber-reinforced-polymer (GFRP) bars have been extensively
used as alternatives to steel bars for the last two decades. Recent ad-
vances in FRP technology led to the development of GFRP bars with
modulus of elasticity exceeds 60 GPa which is expected to reduce the
reinforcement amounts and yields cost-effective designs. In addition,
the GFRP bars have a variety of surface profiles such as smooth, de-
formed, sand-coated, and grooved to enhance the bond with the sur-
rounding concrete.
Since GFRP bars have a lower modulus than steel bars, the design of
GFRP-reinforced concrete (GFRP-RC) is often governed by the service-
ability limit state (deflection and cracking) rather than the ultimate
state. Consequently, increasing the tensile properties—especially the
modulus of elasticity—is expected to enhance the serviceability of
GFRP-RC members. In addition, surface profile may play a role in the
cracking performance and consequently crack width. Thus, the per-
formance of GFRP bars with different modulus of elasticity and surface
profiles needs to be studied, considering the serviceability and ultimate
limit states. Consequently, the GFRP-RC structures may cost more than
the steel-RC structures since GFRP bars are more expensive than steel
bars and satisfying the serviceability limit state may require more bars.
The optimization of the structural design, however, may help in redu-
cing the total cost of GFRP-RC structures such as in case of La
Chancelière Parking Garage, Quebec City, Canada [3]. In this project,
the 50 tons steel bars, priced at $125,000 CAD, were replaced with
42,160 linear meters of GFRP, priced at $210,800 CAD (1.7 times the
cost of steel). The total cost, however, was dropped by 5% when GFRP
was used since the asphalt layer was replaced with an anti-friction
chemical layer due to the non-corrodible nature of GFRP reinforcing
bars [3].
Bischoff and Gross [7,8] reported that the abrupt loss of stiffness at

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Amr.M.El-Nemr@USherbrooke.ca (A. El-Nemr), Ehab.Ahmed@Concordia.ca (E.A. Ahmed), adel.el-safty@unf.edu (A. El-Safty),
Brahim.Benmokrane@USherbrooke.ca (B. Benmokrane).
1
Former PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Presently Assistant Professor in German University in Cairo, Egypt.
2
Former Research Assistant, Department of Civil engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Presently Instructor, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.089
Received 6 December 2017; Received in revised form 22 May 2018; Accepted 22 June 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. El-Nemr et al. Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619

Nomenclature h1 distance from neutral axis to center of tensile reinforce-

ment (mm)
A effective tension area of concrete surrounding the flexural h2 distance from neutral axis to extreme tension fiber (mm)
tension reinforcement and bearing the same centroid as Icr transformed moment of inertia of cracked reinforced-
the reinforcement, divided by the number of bars (mm2) concrete section (mm4)
a shear span (mm) Ie effective moment of inertia (mm4)
Af area of FRP tension reinforcement (mm2) Ig gross moment of inertia of uncracked section (mm4)
b effective beam width (mm) kb bond-dependent coefficient
c neutral-axis depth (mm) L length of clear span (mm)
d distance from the extreme compression fiber to the cen- Lg length of the uncracked section (mm)
troid of tension force (mm) Ma applied moment (kN·m)
db bar diameter (mm) Mcr cracking moment (kN·m)
dc distance from extreme tension fiber to the center of the Mn nominal moment of the reinforced-concrete section (kN·m)
longitudinal bar or wire located closest thereto according P applied load (kN)
to the code or guideline (mm) s spacing between the longitudinal reinforcement bars
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete (MPa) (mm)
Ef modulus of elasticity of longitudinal reinforcement (MPa) SD standard deviation
Es modulus of elasticity of longitudinal steel reinforcement w maximum crack width (mm)
(MPa) yt distance from centroid axis of cross-section to the extreme
f'c compressive strength of the concrete (MPa) fiber in tension (mm)
ff stress in FRP reinforcement under specified loads (MPa) δ mid-span deflection (mm)
ffu ultimate strength of FRP longitudinal reinforcement (MPa) εcu ultimate strain of concrete
fr modulus of rupture (MPa) ρf longitudinal reinforcement ratio
fs stress in bars at serviceability limit state and calculated on ρfb balanced longitudinal reinforcement ratio
the basis of a cracked section ψ curvature
ft tensile strength from cylinder-splitting test (MPa)

cracking affects the post-cracking behavior and deflection. Mousavi
et al. [21] investigated the deflection of GFRP-RC beams, claiming that
the low elastic modulus of GFRP bars accounts for the abrupt loss of
concrete stiffness. In addition, they reported that the bond-dependent
coefficient and the modulus of elasticity of the FRP bars were the main
factors affecting the behavior of the GFRP-RC beams. Arivalagn [4]
compared stainless-steel, GFRP, and conventional steel bars in simply
supported concrete beams. The results showed that once the concrete
cracked, the GFRP-RC beams lost their stiffness at a faster rate than
those reinforced with steel. This is due to the low modulus of elasticity
of the GFRP bars compared to that of steel.
Jakubovskis et al. [18] investigated the effect of distributing the
tensile bars on three layers in GFRP-RC beams. The results indicated
that the deformation behavior, tension stiffening, and crack pattern and
width were related to the arrangement of the tensile bars within the
beam section. Based on a statistical analysis of 173 flexural tests of
GFRP-RC beams from literature, Xue et al. [24] concluded that the
reinforcement ratio of 1.5 ρb (where ρb is the balanced reinforcement
ratio) can be considered as the upper bound for beams in the transition
region. On the other hand, Vijay and GangaRao [23] stated that the
reinforcement ratio should be higher than 1.4 ρb to satisfy the servi-
ceability requirements for GFRP-RC beams.
This paper investigates the flexural behavior and serviceability
performance of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars with dif-
ferent modulus of elasticity and surface profiles. A total of 17 full-scale
GFRP-RC were tested to failure in four-point bending over a clear span
of 3750 mm. The test results are reported in terms of deflection, crack
width, strains in concrete and reinforcement, flexural capacity, mode of
failure, and deformability. The design provisions are assessed and the
predicted results are compared with the measured values.
results concerning the bond-dependent coefficient are presented else-
where [12].
2.1. Materials
The beams were reinforced with three commercially available GFRP
bars referred to as GFRP-1, GFRP-2, and GFRP-3. GFRP bars sizes No.
13 to No. 25 (12.9–25.4 mm diameters) of each type were used. GFRP-1
and GFRP-2 bars had a sand-coated surface and manufactured by
Pultrall Inc. (Thetford Mines, QC, Canada), while GFRP-3 had a heli-
cally-grooved surface and manufactured by Fiberline Composites Inc.
(Kitchener, ON, Canada). Fig. 1 shows the GFRP reinforcing bars. The
tensile properties of the GFRP bars were determined by testing re-
presentative specimens in accordance with ASTM D7205 [5] and the
bond performance was determined in accordance with the pullout test
of ASTM D7913 [6]. Table 1 summarizes the properties while Figs. 2
and 3 show the pullout test details and the typical bond stress-slip re-
lationships of the GFRP bars. In accordance with Canadian standard
CSA [11], the three types of GFRP bars were classified as: (1) Grade I
(Ef < 50 GPa); (2) Grade II (50 GPa ≤ Ef < 60 GPa) for GFRP-1; and
(3) Grade III (Ef ≥ 60 GPa) for GFRP-2 and GFRP-3. The beam

2. Experimental program

Seventeen full-scale GFRP-RC beams were tested under four-point

bending until failure. The beams were designed to fail in compression
(over-reinforced), which is the common design concept for FRP-RC
members, as recommended in design guides and standards. Some Fig. 1. GFRP reinforcing bars.

607
A. El-Nemr et al. Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619

Table 1
Properties of the GFRP bars.
Bar type Designated Nominal cross- Surface Tensile strength, ffu, Modulus of elasticity, Ultimate Guaranteed tensile Average bond
diameter sectional area profile (MPa) Ef, (GPa) strain, (%) strengtha, (MPa) strength, (MPa)
(mm2) (average ± SD) (average ± SD)

GFRP-1 13 129 Sand-coated 817 ± 9 48.7 ± 0.6 1.7 790 10.58

(G1) 15 199 Sand-coated 751 ± 23 48.1 ± 1.6 1.6 683 14.14
20 284 Sand-coated 728 ± 24 47.6 ± 1.7 1.5 656 13.59
22 387 Sand-coated 693 ± 23 46.4 ± 1.5 1.5 625 N/A
25 510 Sand-coated 666 ± 74 53.2 ± 2.1 1.3 444 10.11

GFRP-2 13 129 Sand-coated 1639 ± 61 67.0 ± 1.0 2.5 1456 12.20

(G2) 15 199 Sand-coated 1362 ± 33 69.3 ± 3.2 2.0 1263 14.90
20 284 Sand-coated 1082 ± 37 52.5 ± 1.7 2.1 971 12.94
25 510 Sand-coated 1132 ± 23 66.3 ± 0.9 1.7 1063 15.86

GFRP-3 15 199 Helically- 1245 ± 45 59.5 ± 1.1 2.1 1110 11.43

(G3) grooved
25 510 Helically- 906 ± 29 60.3 ± 2.9 1.5 819 10.41
grooved

a
Guaranteed strength = average − 3 × standard deviation (SD).

specimens were cast with normal-strength, ready-mixed concrete.
Table 2 lists the average concrete compressive and split-cylinder tensile
strengths based on three 150 × 300 mm cylinders on the day of beam
testing for each test.
2.2. Test specimens
The 17 full-scale simply supported concrete beams measured
4250 mm long × 200 mm wide × 400 mm deep. The beams were re-
inforced in tension (bottom) with GFRP bars in one- and two-layer
configurations. The beams were divided into five series according to
GFRP-bar diameter. The entire beams were reinforced in compression
(top) with two 10 M steel bars (100 mm2, nominal dia-
meter = 11.3 mm). 10 mm steel stirrups spaced at 100 mm were in the
two shear spans to avoid shear failure. In addition, the constant
moment zone included only two stirrups spaced at 300 mm to maintain
the location of the longitudinal bars while minimizing the confining
effect of the stirrups, which could affect cracking behavior. Table 2
provides the details of the beams. Fig. 4 shows the geometry, re-
inforcement configuration, and instrumentation details.
2.3. Instrumentation of test specimens
Fig. 4 provides the details of beam instrumentation. The deflection
along the beam span was monitored with five linear variable differ-
ential transducers (LVDTs). Crack propagation was monitored during
testing until failure, and the crack widths of the first flexural cracks
were monitored with one or two LVDTs. The strains of the longitudinal
GFRP reinforcing bars were captured with six electrical-resistance
strain gauges, while the compressive concrete strains at the mid-span

Fig. 2. Pullout testing details: (a) Specimen details and (b) Instrumentation and testing.

608
A. El-Nemr et al.
Fig. 3. Typical bond stress–slip relationships: (a) GFRP-1, (b) GFRP-2, and (c)
GFRP-3.
were measured with two electrical-resistance strain gauges. In addition,
an automatic data-acquisition system connected to a computer was
used to monitor loads, deflections, and strains in the concrete and re-
inforcement.
2.4. Test setup and procedure
The beams were tested under monotonic loading on four-point
bending over a clear span of 3750 mm until failure. Fig. 4 shows the
dimensions and locations of the applied loads. The load was applied at a
stroke-controlled rate of 0.6 mm/min. During testing, the beams were
visually observed until the first crack appeared and the corresponding
load was recorded. Then, the test was paused and the initial crack width
was measured with a 50× magnifying-power hand-held microscope
and an LVDT was installed at the crack location to measure crack width
continuously as the load increased. Thereafter, the same loading rate
was resumed until beam failure. The formation of cracks and the cor-
responding loads were marked on the beam surface, and the
609
Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619
corresponding loads were recorded. Fig. 5 shows the test setup during
beam testing.
3. Test results and observations
This section provides the test results of the GFRP-RC beams tested
herein. It is worth mentioning that the size effect always occurs in re-
inforced concrete beams under bending if their failure occurs in con-
crete. If the failure occurs in beams through reinforcement yielding, the
size effect does not occur. Therefore, the experimental results depend
on the beam size. Further investigation, however, is needed to quantify
this effect.
3.1. Cracking moment
The beams were observed during the test until the first crack ap-
peared and the corresponding load was recorded. The cracking load
was also verified from the change in stiffness of the moment–deflection
and moment–strain relationships. Table 3 provides the cracking mo-
ments of the tested beams, excluding beam self-weight. The cracking
moment ranged from 10.92 to 16.77 kN·m. The cracking moment was
directly proportional to the concrete’s tensile strength, which, in turn, is
a function of compressive strength: the higher the concrete strength, the
higher the cracking moment. The cracking moments were predicted
using Eq. (1). The experimental-to-predicted ratios for the cracking
moment, Mcr, are also listed in Table 3.
Mcr = (fr / yt ) Ig (1)
fr = 0.62 fc′ ACI [2] (2a)
fr = 0.6 fc′ ISIS [17], CSA [9] (2b)
fr = 0.4 fc′ CSA [10] (2c)
Table 3 shows that ACI [2] and CSA [9] yielded unconservative pre-
dictions with an average experimental-to-predicted Mcr of 0.81 ± 0.11
and 0.82 ± 0.10, respectively. On the other hand, CSA [10] yielded
conservative predictions with an average experimental-to-predicted Mcr
ratio of 1.38 ± 0.17.
3.2. Flexural capacity and mode of failure
In general, FRP-RC sections are designed as over-reinforced
(ρf > ρfb) to exhibits high deformability at the ultimate limit state. This
design concept is common in CSA [9] and ACI [2] for FRP-RC sections.
Some provisions, however, allow the use of under-reinforced designs if
additional conditions are met. The balanced reinforcement ratio is
generally governed by the mechanical properties of the FRP bars and
concrete strength as demonstrated by Eq. (3).
fc′ Ef εcu
ρfb = α1 β1
f fu Ef εcu + f fu (3)
α1 = 0.85 ACI [2] (4a)
β1 = 0.85−0.05(fc′−27.6)/6.9 ACI [2] (4b)
α1 = 0.85−0.0015(fc′ ) ⩾ 0.67 ISIS [17], CSA [9] (5a)
β1 = 0.97−0.0025(fc′ ) ⩾ 0.67 ISIS [17], CSA [9] (5b)
All beams exhibited compression failure (concrete crushing), as shown
in Fig. 6. At failure, the concrete strain of all the tested beams was lower
than the limits provided by ACI [2] and CSA [9] (3000 and 3500 mi-
crostrains, respectively) and supported by many studies [15,19], where
the concrete crushing is expected to occur at about 3000 microstrains.
This is related to the absence of closely spaced stirrups (only two
A. El-Nemr et al. Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619

Table 2
Details of the test specimens.
Series Beam a
fc' (MPa) ft (MPa) ρf (%) ρfbb (%) ρf/ρfb Af Ef (kN) Reinforcement configuration

I 3#13G1 33.50 3.60 0.56 0.43 1.31 18,347 3 No. 13 – 1 row

5#13G1 38.95 3.81 0.91 0.59 1.54 29,864 5 No. 13 – 1 row
2#13G2 33.50 3.60 0.38 0.15 2.45 17,286 2 No. 13 – 1 row

II 3#15G1 38.95 3.81 0.84 0.65 1.30 28,716 3 No. 15 – 1 row

4#15G1 38.95 3.81 1.12 0.65 1.73 38,288 4 No. 15 – 1 row
2#15G2 29.00 2.50 0.56 0.20 2.79 27,581 2 No. 15 – 1 row
2#15G3 33.83 3.11 0.56 0.21 2.69 23,681 2 No. 15 – 1 row

III 6#15G1 33.50 3.60 1.82 0.50 3.67 59,700 6 No. 15 – 2 rows
5#15G2 29.00 2.50 1.52 0.20 7.58 68,954 5 No. 15 – 2 rows
5#15G3 33.80 3.10 1.52 0.23 6.47 59,203 5 No. 15 – 2 rows

VI 2#20G1 38.95 3.81 0.81 0.69 1.61 27,037 2 No. 20 – 1 row

3#20G1 42.10 3.18 1.21 0.73 1.67 40,555 3 No. 20 – 1 row
2#22G1 38.95 3.81 1.08 0.61 1.76 35,264 2 No. 22 – 1 row
3#20G2 48.13 3.96 1.21 0.34 3.59 44,730 3 No. 20 – 1 row

V 2#25G1 48.13 3.96 1.46 0.83 1.75 54,264 2 No. 25–1 row
2#25G2 48.13 3.96 1.46 0.38 3.85 67,626 2 No. 25 – 1 row
2#25G3 33.80 3.10 1.51 0.42 3.57 61,506 2 No. 25 – 1 row

a
Beam designation: the number of GFRP bars followed by GFRP-bar diameter, with the last symbol indicating GFRP-bar type (G1: GFRP-1; G2: GFRP-2; G3: GFRP-
3).
b
Calculated according to ACI [2].

Fig. 4. Dimensions, reinforcement details, and instrumentation.

stirrups spaced at 300 mm) in the constant-moment zone of the beams.

This resulted in premature buckling of the steel bars in the top section
of the beams before yielding and the consequent disintegration of top
extreme fiber of the concrete. Accordingly, the strain gauges were no
longer able to capture the strain in the concrete at the extreme fiber.
Thus, all of the beams exhibited compression failure (concrete
crushing), as shown in Fig. 6.
The results indicated that, generally, the higher the axial-re-
inforcement stiffness (Ef Af), the higher the flexural capacity of the
tested beams. In addition, the concrete strength contributed to the load-
carrying capacity, as evidenced from by 2#25G2 and 5#15G2 with the
same Ef Af. Beam 2#25G2 showed a load-carrying capacity of
167.24 kN·m compared to 129.32 kN·m for 5#15G2; the concrete
strengths for both beams were 48.13 MPa and 29.00 MPa, respectively.
The ACI [2] and CSA [9,10] predicted load-carrying capacity were
in good agreement with the experimental results, as shown in Table 3.
Fig. 5. Test setup during a beam testing.
The differences between the ACI [2] and CSA [9,10], however, were

610
A. El-Nemr et al. Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619

Table 3
Experimental and predicted cracking and ultimate moments.
Beam Experimental moments ACI [2] CSA [10] CSA [9] Eurocode [14]

Mcr Mn Failure Mcr Mn Failure Mcr Mn Failure Mcr Mn Failure Mcr Mn Failure
mode a mode a mode 2 mode a mode a
kN.m kN.m Exp/pred Exp/pred Exp/pred Exp/pred Exp/pred Exp/pred Exp/pred Exp/pred

3#13G1 13.46 81.34 C.C. 0.85 0.89 C.C. 1.49 0.82 C.C. 0.88 0.82 C.C. 0.69 0.76 C.C.
5#13G1 15.26 130.6 C.C. 0.88 1.1 C.C. 1.52 1.01 C.C. 0.76 1.01 C.C. 0.73 0.78 C.C.
2#13G2 13.75 82.78 C.C. 0.87 0.94 C.C. 1.52 0.87 C.C. 0.9 0.87 C.C. 0.70 0.62 C.C.
3#15G1 12.21 101.3 C.C. 0.73 0.89 C.C. 1.26 0.82 C.C. 0.75 0.82 C.C. 0.59 0.68 C.C.
4#15G1 15.61 138.2 C.C. 0.88 1.06 C.C. 1.56 0.98 C.C. 0.94 0.98 C.C. 0.74 0.70 C.C.
2#15G2 11.22 95.93 C.C. 0.77 0.96 C.C. 1.37 0.9 C.C. 0.81 0.9 C.C. 0.82 0.56 C.C.
2#15G3 10.92 91.31 C.C. 0.69 0.9 C.C. 1.2 0.84 C.C. 0.71 0.84 C.C. 0.64 0.57 C.C.
6#15G1 11.98 118.3 C.C. 0.76 0.89 C.C. 1.32 0.84 C.C. 0.79 0.84 C.C. 0.60 0.44 C.C.
5#15G2 12.2 129.3 C.C. 0.84 0.98 C.C. 1.49 0.93 C.C. 0.88 0.93 C.C. 0.87 0.32 C.C.
5#15G3 12.61 110.6 C.C. 0.79 0.82 C.C. 1.38 0.77 C.C. 0.82 0.77 C.C. 0.73 0.29 C.C.
2#20G1 15.36 107.4 C.C. 0.89 0.96 C.C. 1.53 0.88 C.C. 0.92 0.88 C.C. 0.74 0.78 C.C.
3#20G1 16.32 140.4 C.C. 0.9 1.04 C.C. 1.55 0.95 C.C. 0.93 0.95 C.C. 0.93 0.69 C.C.
2#22G1 12.88 132.3 C.C. 1 1.08 C.C. 1.33 1 C.C. 0.8 1 C.C. 0.61 0.75 C.C.
3#20G2 12.29 171.4 C.C. 0.63 1.15 C.C. 1.07 1.04 C.C. 0.65 1.04 C.C. 0.56 0.57 C.C.
2#25G1 11.32 161.7 C.C. 0.58 1.02 C.C. 0.98 0.92 C.C. 0.6 0.92 C.C. 0.51 0.73 C.C.
2#25G2 16.77 167.2 C.C. 0.85 0.97 C.C. 1.46 0.88 C.C. 0.89 0.88 C.C. 0.75 0.46 C.C.
2#25G3 13.2 115.9 C.C. 0.83 0.81 C.C. 1.45 0.76 C.C. 0.86 0.76 C.C. 0.76 0.39 C.C.

Average 0.81 0.97 – 1.38 0.89 – 0.82 0.89 – 0.70 0.59 –

Standard deviation 0.11 0.1 – 0.17 0.08 – 0.1 0.08 – 0.11 0.16 –
Coefficient of variation (%) 13% 10% – 12% 9% – 12% 9% – 16% 27% –

Note – Measured and predicted moments exclude beam self-weight.

a
C.C.: Concrete crushing.

related to the β1 factor and the assumed strain at the ultimate, which is
0.003 for ACI [2] and 0.0035 for CSA [9,10]. Table 3 also lists the
Eurocode [14] predictions through replacing the steel properties with
GFRP ones.
The neutral axis-to-depth ratios (c/d) were calculated from the
measured strains and reported in Table 4. The c/d values reveal slight
changes in the c/d ratios between 0.30Mn and Mn, where Mn is the
nominal moment capacity of the beams. It is worth mentioning that the
30% of the nominal flexural capacity (0.30Mn) was selected as Mota
et al. [20], Kassem et al. [19], and El-Nemr et al. [13] reported that
0.30Mn is a reasonable value for the service load of FRP-RC beams and
one-way slabs. The neutral-axis depth increased as the reinforcement
ratio increased, since the equilibrium of forces requires a larger com-
pression block for the greater tensile forces. The theoretical neutral

Fig. 6. Typical compression failure of beams reinforced with types G2 and G3 GFRP bars.

611
A. El-Nemr et al. Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619

Table 4
Strains, neutral axis-to-depth ratio, and curvature of test specimens.
Beam Strain in concrete1 (microstrains) Strain in FRP1 (microstrains) c/d Curvature, ψ, 1/d

1 1
At 2000 0.30Mn Mn 0.30Mn Mn At 2000 0.30Mn Mn Theo. At 20001 0.30Mn Mn

3#13G1 −203 −314 −1561 4378 13,726 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.002 0.005 0.015
5#13G1 −421 −714 −1933 3994 15,095 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.002 0.005 0.011
2#13G2 −173 −690 −2541 5349 16,359 0.05 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.003 0.006 0.019
3#15G1 −388 −651 −2341 4434 13,345 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.002 0.005 0.008
4#15G1 −409 −510 −1816 2405 13,489 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.17 0.002 0.003 0.014
2#15G2 −586 −346 −1454 4189 14,136 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.008 0.005 0.016
2#15G3 −294 −516 −2129 3448 10,277 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.14 0.002 0.004 0.012
6#15G1 −488 −562 −1976 2367 7693 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.003 0.003 0.010
5#15G2 −729 −745 −2959 2053 7550 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.24 0.003 0.003 0.010
5#15G3 −521 −412 −1839 1571 6430 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.003 0.002 0.008
2#20G1 −282 −433 −2090 3860 13,372 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.15 0.002 0.004 0.015
3#20G1 −439 −657 −3087 3107 6794 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.002 0.004 0.015
2#22G1 −550 −605 −2646 4262 13,651 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.004 0.005 0.016
3#20G2 −380 −657 −2648 3755 11,823 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.002 0.004 0.014
2#25G1 −371 −542 −2529 2991 10,028 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.19 0.002 0.004 0.013
2#25G2 −473 −508 −2045 2127 7573 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.002 0.003 0.009
2#25G3 −575 −459 −1627 1666 6429 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.003 0.002 0.008

axis-to-depth ratios (c/d) were also calculated based on strain com-
patibility using a cracked-section analysis, and the values were in
agreement with the measured ones.
Moreover, the curvature (Ψ) was also calculated at 0.30Mn and Mn
(see Table 4. The calculated Ψ values at Mn were 3–4 times the values
calculated at 0.30Mn, which confirms that the curvature is proportional
to the applied flexural moment. The curvature (Ψ) values at Mn ranged
from 0.008/d to 0.019/d for the compression-controlled failure mode
(beams tested herein, since they showed concrete-crushing failure).
This range is in agreement with that of 0.008/d to 0.015/d reported by
El-Nemr et al. [13], 0.0089/d to 0.012/d reported by Gulbrandsen [16],
and 0.009/d to 0.014/d reported by Kassem et al. [19] for GFRP-RC
beams.
3.3. Strain in reinforcement and concrete
Fig. 7 shows the mid-span strains versus the applied moment, while
Table 4 provides the strains at 0.30Mn and failure. The concrete strains

Fig. 7. Comparison of concrete and reinforcement strains.

612
A. El-Nemr et al.
corresponding to 2000 microstrains in the GFRP bars are also pre-
sented. All GFRP-RC beams failed in compression by concrete crushing,
as they were designed with ρf > ρfb. The concrete crushing failure in
some beams was triggered by the buckling of the steel bars on the
compression side of the beams. This was evidenced by the small peak
values for the concrete strains at failure. Thus, the concrete strain va-
lues at ultimate (failure) may have been affected by the buckling of
compression steel bars.
The moment–strain in GFRP bars relationship was a typical bilinear
(Fig. 7). Increasing the reinforcement ratio ρf decreased the strain in the
GFRP bars at the same load level. Beams with low ρf (Series I and II)
experienced a sharp reinforcement-strain increase at cracking that ex-
ceeded 3000 microstrains. Although beams 2#13G2 and 3#13G1 were
designed with ρf > ρfb (over-reinforced), they evidenced a large in-
crease in crack width due to poor energy absorption at cracking.
Maintaining minimum practical reinforcement may be important en-
sure that the section behaves reasonably after cracking. ACI [2] spe-
cifies a minimum ρf /ρfb of 1.4; however, this limit did not prevent beam
2#13G2 from exhibiting a sharp strain increase at cracking.
Furthermore, Fig. 7 indicates that beams 2#25G3 and 5#15G3 had
the same moment–strain relationship. Beams reinforced with GFRP bars
of similar surface profile and similar Ef Af are expected to have the same
moment–strain relationships. Therefore, 2#25G2 and 5#15G2 should
have behaved similarly, but 5#15G2 had lower concrete strength than
2#25G2 (29.0 MPa and 48.13 MPa, respectively) which resulted in
higher stains in 5#15G2.
The curvature of the tested beams was calculated as a function of 1/
d (see Table 4. Vijay and GangaRao [23] concluded that, at a curvature
limit of 0.005/d, the strains in FRP are typically as high as 4500 mi-
crostrains. The test results revealed that, at a curvature of 0.005/d, the
strains in the GFRP bars were 4378, 3994, 4189, 4434, and 4262 mi-
crostrains for 3#13G1, 5#13G1, 3#15G1, 2#15G2, and 2#22G1 with
ρf/ρfb of 1.31, 1.54, 1.3, 2.79, and 1.76, respectively. This confirms the
Fig. 8. Deflection vs. applied moment for beams reinforced with different GFRP grades: (a); (b) GFRP-1, (c) GFRP-2, and (d) GFRP-3.
613
Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619
findings of Vijay and GangaRao [23] for GFRP bars with different
surface profiles.
3.4. Deflection behavior
Fig. 8 provides moment versus mid-span deflection relationships for
the tested beams. Each curve represents the average deflection obtained
from two LVDTs mounted at beam mid-span. The moment–deflection
relationships revealed that ρf is directly impacting the beam stiffness
and moment–deflection behavior where the highest deflection was
corresponding to the lowest ρf. Table 5 summarizes the deflection of the
tested beams at 0.30Mn.
The relationships in Fig. 8 indicate that, regardless of the small
differences in concrete strength between the beams, increasing the Ef Af
contributed to lower beam deflection. Moreover, the beams with the
same Ef Af and reinforced with the same FRP bar type and surface
profile showed the same moment–deflection relationships, as in the
case of 5#15G3 and 2#25G3 and in the case of 5#15G2 and 2#25G2.
Thus, it could be concluded that using the equivalent Ef Af of GFRP bars
with the same bar type and surface profile would not affect the mo-
ment–deflection properties. Changing the surface profile, however, may
affect the behavior as it will impact the bond characteristics and
cracking performance.
The deflection values were plotted against ρf/ρfb and curvature, as
shown in Figs. 9(a) and 7(b), respectively. Fig. 9(a) shows that the
deflection of the beam specimens at 0.30Mn was less than 15.63 mm
(assumed deflection limit at service, L/240 = 15.63 mm[9], except
3#15G1, 2#15G2, 2#20G1, and 2#22G1, which exhibited larger de-
flections. Vijay and GangaRao [22] concluded that a curvature limit of
0.005/d may yield GFRP-RC beams satisfying deflection and cracking
serviceability criteria. The deflection–curvature relationships
(Fig. 9(b)) indicate that most of the GFRP-RC beams with a curvature of
less than 0.005/d yielded deflection values lower than 15.63 mm (L/
A. El-Nemr et al. Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619

Table 5
Experimental-to-predicted deflection ratios (δexp/δpred).
Beam Measured deflection (mm) δexp/δpred δexp/δpred δexp/δpred δexp/δpred

ACI [1] ISIS [17] CSA [9] ACI [2]

0.30Mn 0.67Mn 0.30Mn 0.67Mn 0.30Mn 0.67Mn 0.30Mn 0.67Mn 0.30Mn 0.67Mn

3#13G1 15.38 41.00 1.17 0.97 0.82 0.87 0.76 0.85 1.29 1.03
5#13G1 15.45 39.00 1.12 1.05 0.90 0.95 0.85 0.93 1.26 1.10
2#13G2 15.07 48.00 1.65 1.17 0.75 0.99 0.70 0.96 1.22 1.16
3#15G1 18.00 48.00 1.37 1.31 1.09 1.19 1.03 1.18 1.52 1.38
4#15G1 15.45 39.00 1.20 1.17 1.02 1.08 0.97 1.07 1.36 1.22
2#15G2 16.00 41.00 1.53 1.22 1.05 1.11 0.99 1.09 1.42 1.25
2#15G3 14.00 37.00 1.33 0.99 0.80 0.87 0.75 0.86 1.18 1.01
6#15G1 9.43 27.00 0.95 1.05 0.79 0.97 0.76 0.97 0.97 1.07
5#15G2 10.98 29.00 1.29 1.28 1.06 1.19 1.03 1.18 1.28 1.30
5#15G3 7.92 24.00 0.87 0.92 0.66 0.84 0.63 0.83 0.82 0.94
2#20G1 17.99 45.00 1.22 1.16 1.02 1.05 0.96 1.03 1.47 1.23
3#20G1 15.00 37.00 1.13 1.11 0.93 1.00 0.89 0.99 1.29 1.16
2#22G1 19.00 46.00 1.50 1.38 1.23 1.26 1.16 1.25 1.66 1.44
3#20G2 15.00 38.00 1.42 1.16 0.94 1.00 0.93 1.01 1.32 1.18
2#25G1 15.00 38.00 1.21 1.24 0.93 1.00 1.43 1.29 1.38 1.29
2#25G2 10.00 27.00 0.99 1.00 0.77 0.89 0.75 0.88 1.00 1.02
2#25G3 13.15 37.00 1.10 1.03 0.79 0.94 0.76 0.93 1.03 1.05

Average 1.24 1.13 0.91 1.01 0.90 1.02 1.26 1.17

Standard deviation 0.21 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.20 0.14 0.21 0.14
Coefficient of variation (%) 17% 12% 16% 12% 22% 14% 17% 12%

240), which is in agreement with Vijay and GangaRao [22]. the helically-grooved bars than in those reinforced with the sand-coated
bars. This indicates that the sand-coated GFRP bars have better bond
characteristics than the helically-grooved GFRP bars.
3.5. Crack pattern and crack width
Fig. 11 gives the moment–crack-width relationships for the tested
beams, while Table 6 lists the crack widths corresponding to 2000
The beams were initially uncracked except 6#15G1, which showed
microstrains in the FRP bars and at 0.30Mn. Generally, increasing the Ef
a hair crack before testing. At cracking moment Mcr, cracks propagated
Af decreased the crack widths at all load levels. Fig. 12 also confirms
vertically and perpendicularly to the maximum tensile stress induced at
that beams with the same Ef Af of GFRP bars of the same type and
the extreme fiber of the beam. The cracks in the constant-moment zone
surface profile are expected to exhibit similar moment-to-crack width
grew vertically, although the cracks in the shear span were inclined
relationship, as in the case of beams 5#15G3 and 2#25G3 and beams
toward the central zone due to shear stresses in this region. After
5#15G2 and 2#25G2.
0.67Mn, the crack pattern stabilized; no new cracks appeared and the
The FRP design provisions permit a larger crack width for FRP-RC
existing cracks widened till failure.
elements compared to their counterparts reinforced with steel. CSA
The crack patterns of tested beams at 0.30Mn and 0.67Mn, shown in
[9,10] specifies a service-limiting flexural-crack width of 0.50 mm for
Fig. 10, reveal that increasing ρf, increased the number of cracks and,
exterior exposure (or aggressive environmental conditions) and
consequently, reduced the average crack spacing. The patterns show
0.70 mm for interior exposure. ACI [2] recommends using CSA [10]
that increasing the bar diameter from No. 15 to No. 25 (15.9–25.4 mm
limits for most cases. On other hand, since there is a direct relationship
diameter) in the case of the sand-coated (G2) and helically-grooved
between the strain in the reinforcing bars and crack width, ISIS [17]
(G3) bars resulted in fewer cracks. In addition, increasing the Ef Af
specifies 2000 microstrains as a strain limit in FRP bars to control crack
yielded smaller initial crack widths, except in the case of 6#15G1,
width. Considering the measured crack-widths reported in Table 6, it
which seemed to be affected by preexisting hair cracks. Furthermore,
can be seen that, at 0.30Mn, half the beams showed crack widths less
the comparison also revealed fewer cracks in the beams reinforced with

Fig. 9. Deflection versus (a) ρf/ρfb and (b) curvature Ψ 1/d.

614
A. El-Nemr et al.
Fig. 10. Crack patterns of beam specimens in Series I, III, and V at 0.30Mn and 0.67Mn.
than 0.7 mm, while the other half was close to 0.7 mm, excluding beams
2#13G2 and 2#15G2. On the other hand, at 2000 microstrains in the
GFRP bars, the beams showed crack widths less than 0.5 mm, except
beams 2#13G2 and 2#15G2. This is in agreement with ISIS [17].
Furthermore, to investigate the effect of limiting the curvature of GFRP-
RC beams to 0.005/d to satisfy the cracking serviceability criterion
[23], the relationship between the crack width and curvature was
plotted as shown in Fig. 12. The crack width–curvature relationship
indicates that limiting the curvature of the FRP-RC beams may be used
to satisfy the serviceability requirements. More investigations, how-
ever, are needed to verify the limit.
615
Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619
4. Discussion
4.1. Influence of number of bars
Generally, increasing the number of bars (of the same mechanical
properties) reduces the strains at the same load and the increases the
flexural capacity due to the increase in the Ef Af. In addition, when the
mechanical properties were different, the beams with similar Ef Af were
considered: (2#13G2; 3#13G1 with Ef Af of 17.286; 18.347 MN, re-
spectively) and (2#15G2; 3#15G1, with Ef Af of 27.581; 28.716 MN,
respectively). The strains at 0.30Mn decreased from 5349 to 4378 mi-
crostrains for 2#13G2 and 3#13G1, respectively. Beams 2#15G2 and
3#15G1, however, did not show the same trend because of the lower
cracking load of 3#15G1 compared with that of 2#15G2, which
A. El-Nemr et al. Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619

Fig. 11. Crack width vs. applied moment for beams reinforced with different GFRP bars: (a) and (b) for GFRP-1, (c) for GFRP-2, and (d) for GFRP-3.

Table 6
Experimental-to-predicted crack widths (wexp/wpred).
Beam Measured crack width, wexp (mm) wexp/wpred

Initial 2000 µɛ 0.30Mn ACI [1] ISIS [17] CSA [10]

2000 µɛ 0.30Mn 2000 µɛ 0.30Mn 2000 µɛ 0.30Mn

3#13G1 0.10 0.40 0.78 1.11 1.03 1.02 0.88 1.95 1.68
5#13G1 0.05 0.23 0.46 0.76 0.86 0.70 0.75 1.33 1.39
2#13G2 0.20 0.77 1.03 1.62 0.95 1.71 0.94 2.81 1.58
3#15G1 0.10 0.37 0.85 1.04 1.39 0.9 1.13 1.91 2.26
4#15G1 0.08 0.38 0.41 1.17 0.85 1.03 0.69 2.05 1.38
2#15G2 0.22 0.62 1.18 1.35 1.54 1.40 1.52 2.23 2.56
2#15G3 0.16 0.31 0.63 0.66 0.71 0.69 0.69 0.92 0.92
6#15G1 0.05 0.14 0.15 0.36 0.18 0.31 0.15 0.64 0.31
5#15G2 0.09 0.30 0.31 0.81 0.55 0.68 0.44 1.40 0.92
5#15G3 0.12 0.53 0.40 1.40 0.59 1.20 0.48 2.03 0.54
2#20G1 0.10 0.33 0.73 0.71 0.83 0.70 0.76 1.25 1.33
3#20G1 0.15 0.32 0.51 0.87 0.94 0.75 0.73 1.54 1.48
2#22G1 0.09 0.47 0.51 0.98 0.70 0.96 0.63 1.73 1.13
3#20G2 0.11 0.38 0.66 1.08 1.22 0.93 0.95 1.83 1.92
2#25G1 0.10 0.36 0.55 0.76 0.87 0.72 0.66 1.31 1.37
2#25G2 0.06 0.33 0.36 0.70 0.65 0.66 0.56 1.21 1.02
2#25G3 0.13 0.53 0.45 1.09 0.86 1.05 0.78 1.53 1.14

Average 0.97 0.87 0.91 0.75 1.63 1.35

Standard deviation 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.52 0.57
Coefficient of variation (%) 32% 37% 36% 40% 32% 42%

616
A. El-Nemr et al. Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619

yields better cracking behavior and yields small crack widths. In ad-
dition, as evidenced in Table 3, the beams with similar Ef Af showed the
same load-carrying capacity as beams 4#15G1; 3#20G1 and 5#15G3;
2#25G3.
It is worth mentioning that concrete strength may affect mo-
ment–strain relationships, even in beams with similar Ef Af, as cracking
moment (which is directly proportional to concrete strength) controls
the point at which a significant increase in reinforcement strain starts.
In addition, the surface profile may also affect the measured strains and
crack widths, as indicated in Fig. 11, where beam 6#15G1 with sand-
coated bars evidenced crack widths significantly narrower than those in
beam 5#15G3 with helically-grooved bars, despite the similar Ef Af.
This tends to confirm that sand-coated bars behave better than de-
formed bars in controlling strains and cracks due to their uniform
surface and the absence of discontinuity points, as in the case of de-
formed bars. This can also be confirmed from Fig. 10, in which the
distributed cracks in 6#15G1 can be observed in comparison with beam
Fig. 12. Crack width versus curvature Ψ 1/d for tested beams.
5#15G3.

affected the strain values. Furthermore, the crack width at 0.30Mn de-
creased from 1.03 to 0.78 mm for 2#13G2 and 3#13G1, and from 1.18
to 0.85 mm for 2#15G2 and 3#15G1 respectively. Thus, it can be
concluded that the use of more number of reinforcing bars, even when
the modulus of elasticity is smaller, can enhance the strain and cracking
performances. On the other hand, deflection of these beams was not
significantly affected since they had the same Ef Af (2#15G2; 3#15G1
and 2#13G2; 3#13G1).
4.2. Influence of axial stiffness (Ef Af) and surface profile
Since the beams tested herein were provided with different re-
inforcement ratios of GFRP reinforcing bars with different mechanical
properties and surface profiles, axial-reinforcement stiffness (Ef Af) was
used for comparison. The test results show that the beams with the
same Ef Af of GFRP bars with the same surface profile exhibited similar
behavior. This can be seen in Figs. 5, 6, and 9 looking at beams 4#15G1
and 3#20G1. Both beams 4#15G1 and 3#20G1 showed the same
moment-strain and moment-deflection relationships. Similarly, beams
5#15G3 and 2#25G3 showed similar behavior. The crack widths in the
beams reinforced with smaller diameter GFRP bars, however, were
narrower than those in the beams with larger-diameter bars. Thus,
using small-diameter GFRP bars, assuming similar surface profiles,
4.3. Influence of modulus of elasticity
Since the Ef Af is affecting the general behavior of the GFRP-RC
beams, increasing the bar modulus, while maintaining the surface
profile is expected to enhance performance, as can be observed in
beams 2#25G1 and 2#25G2. Increasing the modulus of elasticity from
53.2 to 66.3 GPa for the bars with the same surface profile (sand-coated
in this case) increased the load-carrying capacity and enhanced the
strain, cracking, and deflection behavior. Similarly, beams 3#20G1 and
3#20G2 showed the same behavior when the modulus increased from
47.6 to 52.5 GPa. In addition, since the design of GFRP-RC sections is
normally controlled by serviceability limit state rather than ultimate
limit state, increasing the modulus of elasticity is expected to reduce the
amount of GFRP bars needed to satisfy the design.
4.4. Comparison with predicted results
The predicted deflections, using the equations in Table 7, were
compared against the measured deflections at 0.30Mn and 0.67Mn.
Table 5 provides the experimental-to-predicted deflection ratios (δexp/
δpred). The comparison indicates that ACI [1] and ACI [2] equations
underestimated the deflection at 0.30Mn with overall average δexp/δpred
of 1.24 ± 0.21 and 1.26 ± 0.21, respectively. Both CSA [9] and ISIS

Table 7
Deflection and crack width provisions.
Deflection provisions

ACI Committee 440 ISIS [17] CSA [9]

ACI [1] Ig Icr

PL3 a 3 Lg 3
Mcr 3 Mcr 3⎤
Ie =
M
Icr + ⎛1 − 0.5( cr )2⎞ (Ig − Icr )
(9) δmax =
24Ec Icr
⎡3
⎢ ( ) 4 ( ) −8η ( ) ⎤⎥⎦
a
L L L
(10a)
Ie = ( )
Ma
βd Ig + ⎡1−
⎢
⎣
( )⎦
Ma ⎥ cr
I ⩽ Ig (6a)
⎜

⎝ Ma ⎠
⎟

bd3 3
⎣
Icr = k + nf Af d 2 (1−k )2 (10b)
3
βd = 0.2(ρf / ρfb ) ⩽ 1.0 (6b) I
η= 1− cr (10c)
Ig
ACI [2]
Icr
Ie = 2 ⩽ Ig (7a)
M ⎡ I ⎤
1 − γ ⎛ cr ⎞ ⎢1 − cr ⎥
⎜ ⎟

⎝ Ma ⎠ ⎣ Ig ⎦

γ = 1.72−0.72 ( )
Mcr
Ma
(7b)
ACI [1], ACI [2] for two-point load:
PL
δmax = [3L2−4a2] (8)
24Ec Ie

Crack width provision

ACI [1] ISIS [17] CSA [10]

ff h ff h ff h
s 2
w=2 2
Ef h1
kb dc2 + ()
2
(11) w = 2.2kb 23
Ef h1
dc A (12) w=2 2
Ef h1
kb dc2 + (s /2)2 (13)

617
A. El-Nemr et al.
[17] equations, however, slightly underestimated the deflection for all
of the beams at 0.67Mn with average δexp/δpred of 1.02 ± 0.14 and
1.01 ± 0.12, respectively. On the other hand, CSA [9] and ISIS [17]
equations yielded reasonable yet conservative deflection values for all
of the beams at 0.30Mn with average δexp/δpred of 0.90 ± 0.20 and
0.91 ± 0.15, respectively. ISIS [17] equation, however, had the lowest
coefficient of variation (COV) amongst the equations used (16%).
Table 6 compares the measured crack widths, using equations in
Table 7, to the predicted values. The comparison was conducted at
three different load levels: 2000 microstrains in the GFRP reinforcing
bars, 0.30Mn, and 0.67Mn. The predictions were made with a kb value of
1.4 for ACI [1] and 1.2 for ISIS [17]. For CSA [10], the predictions were
made with a kb value of 0.8 for the sand-coated GFRP bars and 1.0 for
the helically-grooved GFRP bars. The average wexp/wpred at 0.30Mn
calculated according to ACI [1], CSA [10], and ISIS [17] were
0.87 ± 0.32, 1.35 ± 0.57 and 0.75 ± 0.30, respectively. The degree
of conservativeness was higher for the GFRP-RC beams with the mul-
tilayer GFRP bar configuration. It should be mentioned that the ex-
perimental determination of the bond-dependent coefficient (kb) may
enhance the crack-width predictions.
At 2000 microstrains, both ACI [1] and ISIS [17] yielded good
predictions for all of the beams with average wexp/wpred of 0.97 ± 0.31
and 0.91 ± 0.32, respectively. CSA [10], however, underestimated the
crack widths with an average wexp/wpred of 1.63 ± 0.52. Furthermore,
ACI [1] returned the lowest COV at 2000 microstrains, 0.30Mn, and
0.67Mn.
As shown in Table 6, three beams had crack widths exceeding
0.50 mm. Thus, maintaining the strain level in the GFRP reinforcing
bars at 2000 microstrains at service load may keep the crack width
below 0.50 mm, as recommended by ISIS [17].
5. Summary and conclusions
This paper reports on the flexural behavior of concrete beams re-
inforced with different types of GFRP bars. A total of 17 full-scale
beams (measuring 4250 mm long × 200 mm wide × 400 mm deep),
reinforced with sand-coated and helically-grooved GFRP bars, were
constructed and tested under four-point bending until failure. Based on
the results and discussions presented herein, the following conclusions
have been drawn:
1. The tested GFRP-RC beams failed due to concrete crushing as they
were designed as over-reinforced. The beams showed distributed
flexural cracks with no signs of slippage of the tensile reinforcement.
The beams showed typical bilinear behavior for strain and deflec-
tion until failure. The pre-cracking response of all the beams was not
affected by the reinforcement ratio, since it is governed by the gross
concrete section.
2. Axial-reinforcement stiffness (Ef Af) governs the flexural behavior of
FRP-RC members: the higher the Ef Af, the better the flexural per-
formance (higher load-carrying capacity, lower deflection, and
narrower crack widths). Beams with the same Ef Af reinforced with
the same type of GFRP bars are expected to exhibit similar behavior.
The difference in surface profiles of the GFRP bars in beams with the
same Ef Af, however, affects the strains and crack widths, but it does
not significantly affect deflection and load-carrying capacity.
3. When the mechanical properties and surface profile of GFRP bars
are maintained, using smaller diameters enhances the strain and
cracking behavior. Smaller GFRP bars exhibit smaller stains and
narrower crack widths than larger bars due to limiting bar spacing,
which controls crack propagation. Our results, however, did not
confirm a clear trend between GFRP-bar diameter and the service-
ability behavior of GFRP-RC beams.
4. The cracking behavior of the tested beams tends to confirm that
sand-coated GFRP bars provide better bond performance than he-
lically-grooved GFRP bars because of the uniform surface and the
618
Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619
absence of discontinuity points.
5. At a strain of 2000 microstrains in the GFRP bars, most of the tested
beams showed crack widths under 0.5 mm, which is in agreement
with ISIS recommendations (2007). At 0.30Mn, however, the strains
in the GFRP bars in almost all the beams exceeded 2000 micro-
strains and the corresponding crack widths exceeded 0.50 mm.
6. The curvature of the GFRP-RC members at service load can be
considered as a limit to control crack width and deflection. The
curvature limit of 0.005/d provided by Vijay and GangaRao [23]
seems to be feasible for most of the tested GFR-RC beams. More
verification and refinement, however, is needed to confirm this
limit.
7. At 2000 microstrains in the FRP, both ACI [1] and ISIS [17] yielded
good crack-width predictions, on average. CSA [10], however, un-
derestimated crack widths. At 0.30Mn, ACI [1] and CSA [10] yielded
non-conservative crack widths, while ISIS [17] provided values in
good agreement with the test results. The conservativeness for all
the predictions was higher for the GFRP-RC beams with multilayer
GFRP bars.
8. ACI [1] and ACI [2] underestimated beam deflection at 0.30Mn,
with average δexp/δpred of 1.24 ± 0.21 and 1.26 ± 0.21, respec-
tively. On the other hand, ISIS [17] and CSA [9] provided con-
servative deflection values with average δexp/δpred of 0.91 ± 0.15
and 0.90 ± 0.20 at 0.30Mn, respectively.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC),
the NSERC Research Chair in Innovative FRP Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures, the Fonds de la recherche du Quebec en nature et
technologies (FRQ-NT), and the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec.
The authors would like to thank Pultrall Inc. (Thetford Mines, QC,
Canada) and Fiberline Composite Canada Inc. (Kitchener, ON, Canada)
for donating the GFRP materials, and the technical staff of the structural
& materials lab in the Dept. of Civil Engineering at the University of
Sherbrooke.
References
[1] ACI Committee 440. Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced
with FRP bars (ACI 440.1R-03). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute;
2003. p. 44.
[2] ACI Committee 440. Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced
with FRP bars (ACI 440.1R-15). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute;
2015. p. 85.
[3] Ahmed EA, Benmokrane B, Sansfacon M. Case study: design, construction, and
performance of the La Chancelière Parking Garage’s concrete flat slabs reinforced
with GFRP bars. ASCE J Compos Constr 2017;21(1):05016001. 15 p.
[4] Arivalagan S. Engineering performance of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP
bars and stainless steel. Struct Eng, Glob J Inc. 2012;12(1):1–6.
[5] ASTM D7205. Tensile properties of fiber reinforced polymer matrix composite bars.
Conshohocken, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2011. p. 12.
[6] ASTM D7913. Standard test method for bond strength of fiber-reinforced polymer
matrix composite bars to concrete by pullout testing. Conshohocken, USA: American
Society for Testing and Materials; 2014. p. 9.
[7] Bischoff PH, Gross S. Design approach for calculating deflection of FRP reinforced
concrete. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2011;15(4):490–9.
[8] Bischoff PH, Gross S. Equivalent moment of inertia based on integration of curva-
ture. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2011;15(3):263–73.
[9] Canadian Standard Association (CSA). Design and construction of building com-
ponents with fibre reinforced polymers. Rexdale, ON: CAN/CSA S806-12; 2012. p.
187.
[10] Canadian Standard Association (CSA). Canadian highway bridge design code.
Rexdale, ON, Canada: CAN/CSA S6-14; 2014. p. 733.
[11] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Specification for fibre-reinforced polymers.
Rexdale, Ontario, Canada: CAN/CSA S807-10; 2010. p. 27.
[12] El-Nemr A, Ahmed E, Barris C, Benmokrane B. Bond-dependent coefficient of glass-
and carbon-FRP bars in normal- and high-strength concretes. Constr Build Mater
2016;113:77–89.
[13] El-Nemr A, Ahmed E, Benmokrane B. Flexural behavior and serviceability of
normal- and high-strength concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced
polymer bars. ACI Struct J 2013;110(6):1077–88.
A. El-Nemr et al.
[14] Eurocode 2: EN1992-1-1:2004. Design of concrete structures. European Committee
for Standardization.
[15] Gangarao VS, Vijay PV Design of Concrete Members Reinforced with GFRP bars. In:
Proceedings of the third international symposium on non-metallic (FRP) re-
inforcement for concrete structures, Sapporo, Japan. vol. 1; 1997. p. 143–149.
[16] Gulbrandsen P. Reliability analysis of the flexural capacity of fiber reinforced
polymer bars in concrete beams [M.Sc. Thesis]. USA: University of Minnesota;
2005. p. 80.
[17] ISIS Manual No. 3. Reinforced concrete structures with fibre-reinforced polymers.
ISIS Canada Research Network. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba; 2007. p.
151.
[18] Jakubovskis R, Kaklauskas G, Gribniak V, Weber A, Juknys M. Serviceability ana-
lysis of concrete beams with different arrangement of GFRP bars in the tensile zone.
J Compos Constr, ASCE 2014;18(5):1–10.
[19] Kassem C, Farghaly AS, Benmokrane B. Evaluation of flexural behavior and servi-
ceability performance of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars. J Compos
619
Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 606–619
Constr, ASCE 2011;15(5):682–95.
[20] Mota C, Alminar S, Svecova D. Critical review of deflection formulas for FRP-RC
members. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2006;3(10):183–94.
[21] Mousavi SR, Esfahani MR. Effective moment of inertia prediction of FRP-reinforced
concrete beams based on experimental results. J Compos Constr, ASCE
2012;16(5):490–8.
[22] Vijay PV, GangaRao HVS. Unified limit state approach using deformability factors
in concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars. In: Proceedings of the Fourth
Materials Engineering Conference, ASCE, Washington, D.C., Nov. 10–14; 1996. p.
657–65.
[23] Vijay PV, GangaRao HVS. Bending behavior and deformability of glass fiber-re-
inforced polymer reinforced concrete members. ACI Struct J 2001;98(6):834–42.
[24] Xue W, Peng F, Zheng Q. Design equations for flexural capacity of concrete beams
reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars. J Compos Constr, ASCE
2015;18(5):1–10.