THERMAL COMPATIBILITY OF CONCRETE AND

COMPOSITE REINFORCEMENTS
By T. Russell Gentry1 and Mohamed Husain2

ABSTRACT: Experiments on commercially-produced composite reinforcements have shown that the transverse
coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) of these rebar are 3 – 5 times higher than the CTE of concrete. In this
paper, thermoelastic solutions of plain and spirally wrapped composite rebar, embedded in concrete and subject
to a uniform temperature increase, are presented. Comparisons are made between bars with no spiral wrapping
and those produced with a spiral wrap of unidirectional rovings. Results show that the spiral wrapping, included
primarily to improve the bond between the concrete and the composite rebar, also aids in the reduction of overall
thermal expansion of the rebar. Thermoelastic solutions of unidirectional composite rods and concrete predict
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

that the tensile stresses in the concrete surrounding the rebar will exceed the tensile strength of the concrete for
relatively small temperature increases. The extent of this cracking cannot be determined from the analytical
predictions. To predict the extent of the cracking, nonlinear thermoelastic simulations, completed using the
COSMOS-M finite-element code, are used to determine the extent of concrete cracking. Results show that
cracking decreases with a decreasing rebar diameter and increasing confining pressure of the concrete.

INTRODUCTION gauge techniques but could not be quantified adequately from

Plastic composite reinforcements are typically constructed
as unidirectional rods with various surface treatments added to
improve the bond between the reinforcement and the concrete.
The pultrusion process is often used to manufacture the pre-
cursor rod. The geometry of the bars and the production meth-
ods allow for little or no inclusion of transverse fiber in the
rods; consequently, they are essentially unidirectional and
transversely isotropic. The coefficient of thermal expansion
(CTE) of neat thermosetting resins (polyesters, vinylesters, and
epoxies) ranges between 40 and 90 ⫻ 10⫺6/⬚C (Agarwal and
Broutman 1990). The transverse CTE of unidirectional com-
posites is dominated by the CTE of the matrix and may be
even higher than the CTE of the matrix, due to the thermal
restraint on thermal expansion in the longitudinal direction
(Schapery 1968). The CTE of plain concrete is generally taken
to be 10 ⫻ 10⫺6/⬚C but varies somewhat depending on the
aggregate used in the concrete (Tia et al. 1991; Beer and John-
ston 1992).
Anecdotal information regarding the performance of con-
crete reinforcements indicates that the transverse thermal ex-
pansion of composite rebar may cause splitting-type cracking
in concrete. Gentry and Bank have documented splitting-type
cracking that parallels the reinforcement in precast concrete
reinforced with glass/vinylester rebar (1994). Matthys et al.
(1996) have presented numerical solutions that predict ther-
mally-induced transverse cracking in concrete reinforced with
aramid composite bars and strips.
Gentry and Hudak (1996) measured the coefficients of ther-
mal expansion of unidirectional composite rods and composite
reinforcing bars using strain gauge techniques. Transverse
CTEs were found to be between 3 and 4 times higher than
that of plain concrete (Table 1). The helical wrapping of glass
rovings, found on some of the commercially-produced com-
posite rebar, appeared to constrain the transverse thermal ex-
pansion of the bars. This constraint was verified using strain
1
Asst. Prof., College of Arch., Georgia Inst. of Technol., Atlanta, GA
30332-0155. E-mail: russell.gentry@arch.gatech.edu
2
Grad. Res. Asst., The Catholic Univ. of Am., Dept. of Civ. Engrg.,
Washington, DC 20064.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 1999. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on August 13, 1998. This paper is part of the Journal
of Composites for Construction, Vol. 3, No. 2, May, 1999. 䉷ASCE,
ISSN 1090-0268/99/0002-0082 – 0086/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No.
19015.
82 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1999
the experiments.
This paper presents thermoelastic analytical and numerical
solutions of the composite reinforcing bar both bare and em-
bedded in concrete. Elastic solutions of a unidirectional com-
posite rod embedded in concrete are presented. The elastic
solutions predict that the thermal swelling of the composite
reinforcements under moderate temperature increases will be
sufficient to bring the concrete to its tensile strength (generally
taken to be around 10% of its compressive strength). Elastic
solutions of wrapped unidirectional rods are presented, and the
effect of the wrapping on the transverse expansion is described
via a parametric study. Finally, numerical simulations of uni-
directional composite rods embedded in concrete are pre-
sented. These nonlinear simulations were completed using the
COSMOS-M (COSMOS-M 1996) and LS-DYNA (LS-DYNA
1997) finite-element codes. This paper focuses on COSMOS-
M models, which treat concrete as a tension-softening mate-
rial. A future paper will describe the LS-DYNA models, which
allow for prediction of the extent and direction of concrete
cracking.
THERMOELASTIC SOLUTION OF COMPOSITE ROD
IN CONCRETE
The basis for a closed-form solution for the axisymmetric
problem of a round rod embedded in a cylinder of a second
material with different thermoelastic constants is presented in
Timoshenko and Goodier (1970). This solution was modified
for the case of a unidirectional composite rod in a concrete
cylinder by Rahman et al. (1995). The rod is considered to be
transversely isotropic, and the closed-form solution makes
plain stress assumptions. Further modifications in the solution
are added in this work to consider longitudinal strain in the
composite rod (due to mechanical loading of the bar). The
differential pressure generated across the boundary of the two
materials is
(␣T ⫺ ␣c)⌬T ⫺ ␯LT εL
P= (1)
(␤ ⫹ ␯c)/Ec ⫹ (1 ⫺ ␯TT )/ET
where P = pressure across the boundary; ␣T = transverse CTE
of the composite rod; ␣C = CTE of concrete; ⌬T = change in
temperature; ␯LT = major Poisson ratio; εL = longitudinal strain
in the composite reinforcement; ␤ = shape coefficient that de-
pends on the diameter of the composite rod and the thickness
of the concrete cover (Fig. 1); ␯C = Poisson ratio of the con-
crete; EC = modulus of elasticity of the concrete; ␯TT = in-

J. Compos. Constr. 1999.3:82-86.

 TABLE 1. Experimentally Determined CTEs (per ⴗC) after Gen-
try and Hudak (1996)

Longitudinal Transverse
Material structure CTE CTE
(1) (2) (3)
Smooth composite roda 4.8 ⫻ 10⫺6 38 ⫻ 10⫺6
Composite rebarb 8.2 ⫻ 10⫺6 32 ⫻ 10⫺6
Composite rebarc 7.5 ⫻ 10⫺6 44 ⫻ 10⫺6
Steel rodd 11 ⫻ 10⫺6 11 ⫻ 10⫺6
Concretee 9.9 ⫻ 10⫺6 —
a
Smooth glass/vinylester rod manufactured by DFI Pultruded Com-
posites Inc., 12.7 mm diameter.
b
Glass/vinylester rebar with helical overwrap. Rebar manufactured by
Creative Pultrusions Inc., 12.7 mm diameter.
c
Marshall Composites rebar with molded reinforcing lugs. Nominal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

diameter 12.7 mm.

d
SAE 1095 steel rod, 12.7 mm diameter.
e
Commonly accepted value for plain concrete (Beer and Johnson
1992).

FIG. 1. Axisymmetric Model of Unidirectional Composite Rod

Embedded in Concrete
FIG. 2. Predicted Stress in Concrete for Rise of 40ⴗC in 12 mm
and 20 mm Unidirectional Composite Reinforcements
plane Poisson ratio of the composite rod; and ET = transverse
modulus of the composite rod. ing will occur regardless of the clear cover used for the 40⬚C
The tangential or hoop stress in the concrete can be calcu- temperature rise considered.
lated as It is interesting to note that mechanical tensile strain in the

冋 冉 冊册 longitudinal direction will tend to alleviate the thermal swell-

2
0.25d 2 0.5d ⫹ c
␴t = 1⫹ P (2)
c(d ⫹ c) x operating at about 40% of its longitudinal strength — around
where d = diameter of the composite rod; c = concrete cover
distance; and x = distance at which the hoop stress is calcu-
lated (x ⱖ d/2).
The maximum stress in the concrete occurs at the surface
of the composite rod, i.e., x = d/2. From (2), the maximum
stress in the concrete is therefore
(␣T ⫺ ␣c)⌬T ⫺ ␯LT εL
␴t,max = ␤ (3)
(␤ ⫹ ␯c)/Ec ⫹ (1 ⫺ ␯TT )/ET
The stresses predicted by (2) are depicted in Fig. 2 for com-
posite rods of 12 mm and 20 mm diameter and for various
clear cover distances. The elastic moduli and CTE used in the
case study are taken from measurements made on a smooth
vinylester glass rod (Table 1). The Poisson ratios are taken
from Rahman et al. (1995). In the graphs, tension cracking of
the concrete is indicated when the stress exceeds 3 MPa (about
10% of the compressive strength of the concrete). For both
the 12 mm and 20 mm diameter rods, it is predicted that crack-
ing of the reinforcement. Assuming that the reinforcement is
600 MPa for the glass/vinylester composites considered here
— the thermal swelling potential at a temperature increase of
40⬚C is ‘‘zeroed’’ by the transverse shrinkage due to the axial
tensile strain. Bond stresses in straight bars are typically high-
est in low moment, high shear zones in flexural members. In
these locations, the thermal swelling is most likely to be much
greater than any transverse shrinkage due to axial tensile
strain.
The previous discussion can only consider the case of uni-
directional composites without the helical wrapping often pres-
ent to aid in the bond of the composite reinforcement. In the
text that follows, an analytical solution of a helically wrapped
composite rod is presented.
THERMOELASTIC SOLUTION OF WRAPPED
UNIDIRECTIONAL ROD
The helical or spiral wrapping used by some manufacturers
of composite reinforcements is typically an E-glass roving.
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1999 / 83

J. Compos. Constr. 1999.3:82-86.

 The mechanical and thermal properties of this helical wrap
will be dominated by its longitudinal properties, denoted Ew
and ␣w in the text that follows. It is probable that the wrapping
will be more stiff and less thermally expansive than the trans-
verse direction of the composite rod to which it is partially
opposed. Due to its helical nature, the wrapping has a com-
ponent that is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rod and
a component that is circumferential. An inclination factor, de-
noted i, is introduced to resolve the circumferential component
of the helical wrapping:
␣w 1 ⫺ ␣w /␣T
R= ⫹ (7)
␣T 1 ⫹ rw n(1 ⫺ ␯TT )/i
where rw = tw /r* and is denoted the ‘‘wrapping volumetric
ratio,’’ a measure of the volume of fiber used to wrap the
unidirectional rod. The variable n = Ew /ET and is denoted the
‘‘wrapping stiffness ratio,’’ a measure of the stiffness of the
helical wrap compared with the transverse stiffness of the uni-
directional rod. The inclination factor i introduced previously,
provides the circumferential component of the wrapping.
For commercially produced reinforcements, wrapping vol-

冉冊
2
hw umetric ratios between 0.025 and 0.1 appear typical. For E-
i = 1 ⫹ 0.025 (4) glass/vinylester rods with an E-glass roving helix, the wrap-
r*
ping stiffness ratio is approximately 8. For E-glass/vinylester
where hw = pitch of the helix; and r* = radius of the composite rods with a carbon fiber helix, the wrapping stiffness ratio is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

rod. approximately 25.

A closed-form solution of the helically wrapped composite
bar under thermoelastic loading is unavailable. In the text that
follows, the wrapping is considered to be uniformly distributed
around the bar in a smeared fashion (Fig. 3). The solution
therefore represents the average restraint provided by the he-
lical wrap. Measurements taken on bars wrapped with E-glass
rovings confirm that the restraint is highest just adjacent to the
wrap and is reduced away from the wrap. The experimental
evidence indicates that, even in the locations furthest from the
wrapping, the transverse CTE is significantly reduced by the
presence of the wrapping (Gentry and Hudak 1996). This
thickness of the wrapping is taken as the cross-sectional area
of the wrapping fibers (Aw) divided by the pitch of the helix:
The wrapping volumetric ratio can be increased by increas-
ing the size of the roving used to wrap the unidirectional rod
or by decreasing the pitch of the spiral. Reinforcement designs
using a filament-wound exterior around a pultruded unidirec-
tional interior might be tailored to limit the thermal expansion
in the reinforcement to that of concrete. In Fig. 4, a parametric
study depicts the effect of varying both the volumetric and
stiffness ratios. As the graphs show, both an increase in stiff-
ness of the wrap, and an increase in volume of the wrap, lead
to a reduction in the apparent thermal expansion of the com-
posite reinforcements. Reductions of 50% are possible, how-
ever, the quantity of wrapping required will be high. More

Aw
tw = (5)
hw

Following deformation compatibility rules identical to those

used to generate (1), the thermoelastic pressure generated by
the ‘‘smeared’’ helix can be derived:

(␣T ⫺ ␣w)Ew ⌬T
P= (6)
ir*
⫹ (1 ⫺ ␯TT )Ew /ET
tw

By solving for the transverse displacement due to the pres-

sure P, which is in turn due to the temperature rise ⌬T, and
comparing the displacement with the wrap to the displacement
without the wrap, the overall restraining effect of the wrap can
be considered. A dimensionless parameter R is introduced that
provides a measure of the level of thermal restraint provided
by the circumferential component of the helical winding. A
value of R equal to 1 indicates a condition where no thermal
restraint is provided by the wrapping; values below 1 indicate
a restrained condition:

FIG. 4. Effect of Wrapping Volume and Wrapping Stiffness on

FIG. 3. Schematic of Wrapped Composite Rod Restraint of Transverse Thermal Expansion

84 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1999

J. Compos. Constr. 1999.3:82-86.

 moderate reductions in transverse thermal expansion seem
quite possible with appropriately designed wrapping schemes.

NUMERICAL MODELING OF COMPOSITE

REINFORCEMENTS IN CONCRETE
The elastic solutions presented above are useful, but they
are limited in the geometry and material properties that can be
considered. The thermoelastic solution that is summarized by
(3) appears to indicate that tension cracking of the concrete
will occur due to expected temperature increases. The extent
of this cracking cannot be predicted by the simplified elastic
model. The stress fields represented by the curves in Fig. 2
will be invalid as soon as a single crack is generated in the
concrete. To better understand the effect of noncircular ge-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ometries and concrete tension cracking, a set of finite-element

case studies was generated and run using the COSMOS-M
(1996) and LS-DYNA (1997) finite-element codes. Solutions
from the COSMOS-M code are presented in the following.
The geometry of the finite-element mesh is shown in Fig.
5 (the composite rod has been extracted in the figure). The
model is fully three-dimensional, but, for this discussion, only
thermally-induced stresses in the cross-section are considered.
Future analyses will consider extraction of the reinforcement
from the concrete after the thermal loads are applied. The
model exploits half symmetry. The dimensions of the model
were selected based on the geometry of test specimens devel-
oped previously as part of this research. The loading applied
was a 40⬚C temperature increase. For the results presented, a
plane stress assumption was made in selecting the out-of-plane
support conditions for the model.
The composite materials were modeled as elastic ortho-
tropic. The brittle concrete model used in the COSMOS-M
code follows that presented by Chen and Buyukozturk (1985).
In this model, the concrete cracks completely in tension when
it reaches 17% of its compressive strength.
Principal tension stresses from two stress analyses using
COSMOS-M are depicted in Fig. 6. The upper figure provides
results from a linear-elastic concrete model. In this case, for a
40⬚C temperature increase, maximum tension stresses of ap-
proximately 11 MPa are predicted in the concrete. Addition-
ally, these high tension stresses spread out from the reinforce-
ment’s surface well into the depth of the concrete. A horizontal
splitting crack seems probable, given the specimen geometry,
concrete cover, and high elastic stresses predicted. The lower
FIG. 6. Stress Distributions in Concrete from (a) Linear and
(b) Nonlinear Finite-Element Analyses of Concrete Specimen
Subject to 40ⴗC Temperature Increase
figure in Fig. 6 shows the same mesh subjected to the same
loading, but with the concrete modeled with the nonlinear,
tension-softening material model. In this case, the maximum
predicted stress in the concrete is approximately 5 MPa. This
is the tension strength that is inherent in the model used. The
pattern of elements surrounding the composite reinforcement
shows this peak stress. The high stress level penetrates only
two elements deep into the concrete (about 1 mm). Below this
level of high stress, another layer of much lower stresses ex-
ists. This layer is depicted in an ‘‘exploded’’ view at the bot-
tom of Fig. 6. This stress-relieved layer is adjacent to the dam-
aged areas and has, consequently, unloaded. At approximately
2 mm from the surface of the composite reinforcement, the
stresses in the concrete again become elastic. Moving away
from the surface of the reinforcement, into the concrete, the
stresses predicted in the nonlinear model are well below that
predicted in the linear model. The damaged areas allow for
release of the thermally-induced movements directly adjacent
to the rebar.
It should be noted that the concrete damage represented here
cannot be considered to be cracks. The concrete damage model
used in this analysis is not robust enough to predict crack
genesis and spreading; rather, it predicts a crack network that
will occur around the perimeter of the rebar. This network will
probably be the strongest in the horizontal plane due to the
rather low level of clear cover used in the model (19 mm).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

FIG. 5. Finite-Element Mesh of Composite Reinforcement Em-
bedded in Concrete
Given the analytical and numerical predictions presented
here and previously by Rahman and others, it appears likely
that currently available composite reinforcements will generate
some cracking due to transverse thermal expansion. The he-
lical wrapping schemes currently used by some reinforcement
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1999 / 85

J. Compos. Constr. 1999.3:82-86.

 manufacturers might be tailored to restrict the transverse ex-
pansion of the unidirectional composites to tolerable levels.
For application of current composite reinforcements, the se-
lection of large clear cover distances and wide bar spacing
should help reduce the potential for thermally-induced crack-
ing.
The effect of thermally-induced cracking on the bond be-
tween concrete and composite reinforcement is of primary in-
terest. It is possible that the nonlinear finite element modeling
introduced here can be advanced to model the bond pullout of
bars after the application of thermal loading. These numerical
simulations must be accompanied by reliable laboratory test
data on bond loss due to thermal cycling.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The writers would like to acknowledge the support of the U.S. Na-
tional Science Foundations under grants CMS – 9522825 and CMS –
9796143. The assistance of Christin Hudak, who completed the experi-
ments referenced in this work, is acknowledged. Finally, the writers
would also like to acknowledge the student support provided by the
ASCE O. H. Amman Research Fellowship.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Agarwal, B. D., and Broutman, L. J. (1990). Analysis and performance
of fiber composites, 2nd Ed., John Wiley, New York.
Beer, F. P., and Johnston, Jr., E. R. (1992). Mechanics of materials, 2nd
Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Chen, E. S., and Buyukozturk, O. (1985). ‘‘Constitutive model for con-
crete in cyclic compression.’’ J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 111(6), 797 –
814.
86 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1999
J. Compos. Constr. 1999.3:82-86.
COSMOS-M Version 1.75 advanced modules user’s manual. (1996).
Structural Research and Analysis Corporation, Los Angeles.
Gentry, T. R., and Bank, L. C. (1994). ‘‘Application of FRP reinforcement
in structural precast concrete.’’ Proc., 3rd Mat. Engrg. Conf., ASCE,
Reston, Va., 575 – 582.
Gentry, T. R., and Hudak, C. E. (1996). ‘‘Thermal compatibility of plastic
composite reinforcements and concrete.’’ Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Ad-
vanced Composite Mat. for Bridges and Struct., Canadian Society for
Civil Engineering, Montreal, 149 – 156.
Gentry, T. R., and Husain, M. (1998). ‘‘Thermal compatibility of concrete
and composite reinforcements: analytical and numerical predictions.’’
Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on the Durability of Composites for Infrastructure,
University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, 203 – 215.
LS-DYNA Version 940 user’s manual. (1997). Livermore Software Tech-
nology Corporation, Livermore, Calif.
Matthys, S., De Schutter, G., and Taerwe, L. (1996). ‘‘Influence of trans-
verse thermal expansion of FRP reinforcement on the critical concrete
cover.’’ Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Advanced Composite Mat. for Bridges
and Struct., Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, 665 –
672.
Rahman, A. H., Kingsley, C. Y., and Taylor, D. A. (1995). ‘‘Thermal stress
in FRP-reinforced concrete.’’ Proc., Can. Society for Civ. Engrg. An-
nual Conf., Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, 2,
605 – 14.
Schapery, R. A. (1968). ‘‘Thermal expansion coefficients of composite
materials based on energy principals.’’ J. Composite Mat., 2(3), 280 –
404.
Tia, M., Bloomquist, D., Alungbe, G. D., and Richardson, D. (1991).
‘‘Coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete used in Florida.’’ FHWA
Rep. No. 409-2995, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.
Timoshenko, S. P., and Goodier, J. N. (1970). Theory of elasticity. Mc-
Graw-Hill, New York.