Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Experimental flexural performance of concrete beams reinforced with an

innovative hybrid bars
Mohamed Said a, Ali S. Shanour a, T.S. Mustafa a, Ahmed H. Abdel-Kareem b, Mostafa
M. Khalil a, *
a
Faculty of Engineering (Shoubra), Benha University, Egypt
b
Benha Faculty of Engineering, Benha University, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Twelve half-scale concrete beams were tested to investigate the flexural performance of concrete beams rein­
Concrete beams forced with locally produced hybrid bars and hybrid schemes. The variables are the reinforcement bar type
Flexural performance (hybrid, GFRP, and steel) and the reinforcement ratios (0.85%, 1.26%, 1.70%, 1.8, and 2.13%). The test results
Hybrid reinforcement bars
showed a significant enhancement in the maximum load-carrying capacity due to increasing the hybrid rein­
Finite element analysis
forcement ratio. The capacities were increased by 109% and 167% respectively for hybrid reinforcement ratio of
Nominal flexural strength
1.26% and 1.7%. Also, the strain of reinforcing bars exceeds the yield level. Accordingly, using hybrid reinforced
bars or hybrid schemes exhibited more ductility for concrete beams. Non-linear finite element analysis (NLFEA)
was carried out using ANSYS Software. The analysis adequately reflected the trend of experimental results, the
overall average value of the ratio between experimental and NLFEA ultimate capacity is 1.01. Additionally,
parametric studies have been performed in order to investigate the effect of concrete compressive strength,
hybrid reinforcement ratio and shear-span to depth ratio on the performance of hybrid reinforcement concrete
beams. Nominal flexural strength was assessed with the experimental test results and 38 reinforced concrete
beams from the literature. The comparison proved that assessment of the nominal flexural strength performs well
in predicting the flexural capacity. The average value of the ratio between experimental and nominal flexural
strength is 1.011.

deflection behaviour, cracking, and the load-carrying capacity of the

1. Introduction
The rapid corrosion of steel reinforcement bars is considered one of
the main causes for reducing the service life of reinforced concrete
structures. For example, dams, tanks, and bridges exposed to moisture,
chlorides, and de-icing salts which caused the corrosion of steel rein­
forcement. To achieve the requirement of ultimate limit state and
durability for these structures, steel reinforcement bars should be
replaced or coated with non-corrosive materials. Over the last four de­
cades, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars were used as an alternative
material to resolve the corrosion problem of steel reinforcement bars.
The common types of fibers are carbon, glass, and aramid. FRP bars
provide high specific strength and also good resistance to corrosion.
Investigations on the behaviour of concrete beams reinforced with
FRP bars were studied [1–6]. Adam et al. [1] presented an experimental
investigation for concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars. The
tested beams were evaluated. The reinforcement ratio and concrete
compressive strength were the main studied variables. Significant
reduction in crack widths and deflection were observed by increasing
the reinforcement ratio. Also, the observed failure modes were concrete
crushing and GFRP rupture. FRP bars have linear stress–strain behaviour
under tension and up to failure with a lower elastic modulus and no
ductility compared to steel reinforcement bars [7]. This behaviour
causes large deflections, crack widths, and brittle failure. Moreover, the
observed investigated failure modes from the experimental test results
[8–11] were compression failures. Based on these results, FRP rein­
forcement is not recommended for moment resistance frames.
To enhance the ductility, flexural capacity, and to provide more
corrosion protection for RC structures, some researchers have proposed
the concept of combining steel bars with FRP bars (hybrid schemes) in
RC structures [12–15]. In the hybrid schemes, FRP bars are located at
the corners of the concrete elements and steel reinforcement bars are

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mohamed.abdelghaffar@feng.bu.edu.eg (M. Said), ali.shnor@feng.bu.edu.eg (A.S. Shanour), tarek.mohamed@feng.bu.edu.eg (T.S. Mustafa),
ahmed.abdelkareem@bhit.bu.edu.eg (A.H. Abdel-Kareem), mostafa.khalil@feng.bu.edu.eg (M.M. Khalil).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111348
Received 24 February 2020; Received in revised form 17 September 2020; Accepted 18 September 2020
Available online 12 October 2020
0141-0296/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

Nomenclature Pu-NL. predicted load-carrying capacity from NLFEA

Py load at the yield level
Ac area of the compression zone. Py-B1 load at the yield level of beam B1
Af the reinforcing area of FRP bars in tension Py-B6 load at the yield level of beam B6
Ahr area of the hybrid reinforcement bars Py-exp. experimental load at the yield level
As the reinforcing area of steel reinforcement bars in tension Py-NL. predicted load at the yield level from NLFEA
a depth of the rectangular stress block Ts tension force of steel reinforcement bars
b width of the cross-section Tf tension force of FRP bars
C depth of compression zone in concrete Thr tension force of hybrid bars
Cc the compression force of concrete t depth of the cross-section
DF ductility factor X flexural shear span
DFB1 ductility factor of beam B1 α coefficient depends on the design code
DFB6 ductility factor of beam B6 β factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular
DFexp. experimental ductility factor compressive stress block to neutral axis depth
DFNL. predicted ductility factor from NLFEA εc the compressive strain in the concrete
d depth of the beam εco the compressive strain in the concrete, while the stress up
d’ distance from the center of the tension bars to the concrete to compressive strength
tension edge εcu the ultimate compressive strain in the concrete
E Modulus of elasticity εhr the tensile strain of the hybrid bar
fcu cubic compressive strength of the concrete εhry the tensile strain of the hybrid bar at the yield level
fc’ cylindrical compressive strength of the concrete εhru the tensile strain of the hybrid bar at the ultimate level
ff tensile strength of FRP bars εt the tensile strain of the reinforcing bars at the ultimate
fhr tensile strength of the hybrid bar level
fu ultimate strength of the reinforcing bars εt , exp. the experimental tensile strain of the reinforcing bars at the
fy yield strength of the reinforcing bars ultimate level
I energy absorption εt,NL. predicted ultimate tensile strain of the reinforcing bars
IB1 energy absorption of beam B1 from NLFEA
IB6 energy absorption of beam B6 εt,N . the nominal ultimate tensile strain of the reinforcing bars
Iexp. experimental energy absorption from NLFEA
INL. predicted energy absorption from NLFEA εy the tensile strain of the reinforcing bars at the yield level
K initial stiffness μs strain ductility
K-B1 initial stiffness of beam B1 μs, NL. predicted strain ductility from NLFEA
K-B6 initial stiffness of beam B6 μs, n. nominal strain ductility
K-exp. experimental initial stiffness ρbhr, min. minimum balanced reinforcement ratio of hybrid bars
K-NL. predicted initial stiffness from NLFEA ρbhr, max. maximum balanced reinforcement ratio of hybrid bars
k1 constant value = 3 × 108 ρf reinforcement ratio of GFRP bars = (Af/b.d)
k2 constant value = 107 ρhr reinforcement ratio of hybrid bars = (Ahr/b.d)
k3 constant value = 1.46 × 105 ρs reinforcement ratio of steel reinforcement bars = (As/b.d)
L length of the beam ρt total reinforcement ratio = (ρs + ρf + ρhr)
Lcl-cl length of the beam between the centers of the supports δu deflection at the ultimate level
M exp. experimental moment strength δu-B1 deflection at the ultimate level of beam B1
Mn. nominal flexural strength δu-B6 deflection at the ultimate level of beam B6
Pcr cracking load δu-exp. experimental deflection at the ultimate level
Pcr-B1 cracking load of beam B1 δu-NL. predicted deflection at the ultimate level from NLFEA
Pcr-B6 cracking load of beam B6 δy deflection at the yield level
Pcr-exp. experimental cracking load δy-B1 deflection at the yield level of beam B1
Pcr-NL. predicted cracking load from NLFEA δy-B6 deflection at the yield level of beam B6
Pu ultimate load-carrying capacity δy-exp. experimental deflection at the yield level
Pu-B1 the ultimate load-carrying capacity of beam B1 δy-NL. predicted deflection at the yield level from NLFEA
Pu-B6 the ultimate load-carrying capacity of beam B6 ơc effective compressive strength of concrete
Pu-exp. experimental load-carrying capacity

placed inside the element for more protection. The steel reinforcement
bars are having a large margin of ductility. Accordingly, utilizing proper
reinforced ratios for these bars will enforce the section to fail by yielding
of the steel bars and consequently in a ductile failure preventing the
occurrence of the compression failure. At the same time, the FRP bars
increase the load-carrying capacity of the RC structures [16–20]. An
experimental investigation on the hybrid reinforced beams was pre­
sented by Qu et al. [12]. The reinforcement ratio was the main inves­
tigated parameter. The hybrid schemes of steel and GFRP bars enhanced
the ductility of the tested beams. Also, increasing the reinforcement
ratio improved the flexural capacity. Leung et al. [20] studied the
flexural performance of the hybrid concrete beams reinforced with
GFRP and steel bars. The hybrid reinforced beams showed higher flexure
strength than the steel or GFRP reinforced beams. Also, enhancement in
the stiffness of hybrid reinforced beams was observed after the steel bars
were yielded.
An innovative reinforcing material for a flexural structural element is
created which called hybrid reinforcement bars. A less common area of
research relates to investigating the potential of using two different
materials (FRP or steel) together as reinforcement in a hybrid bar
[21–24]. These systems seek to capitalize on the higher axial stiffness of
one material like conventional steel, while still benefitting from the

2
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

Table 1
Technical data for E-glass fibers roving.
Property Value
3
Density (g/cm ) 2.60
Tensile Strength (MPa) 2250
Elastic Modulus (GPa) 75
Glass Softening Point (◦ C) 850

Table 2
Mechanical Properties for the Vinyl-ester Resin.
Material Model Tensile Strength (MPa) Elastic Modulus (MPa)

Resin HETRON-911 88 3270

Fig. 3. Uniaxial Tensile Test of Hybrid Specimen.

Fig. 1. Double Set Mold.
corrosion resistance of FRP. Forty-eight specimens of the hybrid rein­
forcement bars were experimentally tested under uniaxial tensile test by
Minkwan et al. [21] to predict the tensile strength and the elastic
modulus of the hybrid bar. The test results showed a higher modulus of
elasticity than the GFRP bar. The mentioned previous research works
were limited to investigate the behaviour of the hybrid bars only. For
that reason, the investigation of the performance of concrete members
reinforced with hybrid bars is required.
This paper aims to introduce the production of innovative hybrid
bars to overcome the corrosion problems and the brittle behaviour of the
concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars. The fundamental mechanical
properties of the hybrid bars were evaluated and verified with the other
works. Twelve half-scale concrete beams reinforced with hybrid bars
and hybrid schemes were experimentally tested. The main key param­
eters were the types of reinforcement bars and the reinforcement ratios.
The cracking load, load-carrying capacity, and load–deflection curves
were discussed. Also, the load–strain curves of the reinforcing bars were
presented. Moreover, the cracks pattern and failure modes were
observed. NLFEA was performed to simulate the tested beams. ANSYS
software [25] was used to develop the models. Additionally, parametric
studies have been performed in order to investigate the effect of concrete
compressive strength, hybrid reinforcement ratio and shear-span to
depth ratio on the performance of hybrid reinforcement concrete beams.
Finally, the nominal flexural strength of hybrid reinforced concrete
beams was assessed with the experimental results.
2. Test program
2.1. Manufacturing and testing of hybrid bars
The hybrid bars and GFRP bars were locally produced by the authors
using a steel bar (steel core) of 10 mm diameter, E-glass fiber roving, and
vinyl-ester resin. Up to 70 E-glass fibers roving to manufacture GFRP

(a) 14 mm Hybrid Bars

(b) Ribbed 12 mm GFRP Bars

Fig. 2. Produced GFRP and Hybrid Bars.

3
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

1000 1000

800 800

Tensile Stress (MPa)

Tensile Stress (MPa)

600
600
400
400 Hybrid Bar [Predicted]
200 Hybird Bar [21]

200 Sample-1 Sample-2 Hybird Bar [23]

Sample-3 Sample-4 0
Sample-5 Sample-6 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
0 Tensile Strain (mm/mm)
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Tensile Strain (mm/mm) Fig. 6. Comparison of the Idealized Tensile Stress-Strain Curves for the
Hybrid Bars.
Fig. 4. Tensile Stress-Strain Curves for the Hybrid Bars.

Table 3
1000 Mechanical Properties of the Reinforcing Bars.
Hybird Bar
Reinforcement Diameter Yield Ultimate Young’s
800 Steel Bar
Type (mm) Strength (fy) Strength (fu) Modulus (E)
GFRP Bar
Tensile Stress (MPa)

N/mm2 N/mm2 (GPa)

600 MS 8 240 350 200
HTS 10 400 600 200
400 HTS 12 400 600 200
GFRP 12 — 850 42.5
C.O.V for GFRP — — 5.70% 5.40%
200 HRB 14 380 700 140
C.O.V for HRB — 4.80% 4.40% 4.20%
0 Note: MS = mild steel bar, HTS = high tensile steel bar and HRB = hybrid
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 reinforcement bar.
Tensile Strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 5. Tensile Stress-Strain Curves for Steel Bar, GFRP Bar and Hybrid Bar.
bars with 12 mm nominal diameter were used while, 22 E-glass fibers
roving were used to manufacture the outer GFRP surface of the hybrid
bar with 14 mm nominal diameter. The direct roving is produced by
pulling individual fibers directly from the bushing and then winding
them into a roving package. The uniform distribution of a proprietary
sizing system assures an excellent resin-to-glass binding through uni­
form distribution of the binding agent. Table 1 lists the technical data for
E-glass fiber roving. Vinyl ester resin (HETRON-922) was used to pro­
duce the GFRP bars. Vinyl-ester resins have the following advantages of
corrosion resistance to a wide range of acids, bases, chlorides, solvents,
and oxidizers. The mechanical properties of the vinyl-ester resin are
presented in Table 2. Double sets of plastic mold were produced at a
private workshop to manufacture 3.0 m length of hybrid bars and GFRP
bars. As shown in Fig. 1, the mold inner faces of the two sets were
crescent-shaped lugs. The produced hybrid bar of 14 mm diameter and
GFRP ribbed bar of 12 mm diameter are shown in Fig. 2.
The fundamental mechanical properties of the six hybrid bars, GFRP
bars and steel bars were investigated by a machine of 1000 kN capacity
as shown in Fig. 3. The tensile stress–strain curves for six hybrid bars are
presented in Fig. 4. Comparison between the tensile stress–strain curves
for a steel bar, GFRP bar and the average tensile stress–strain curve for
six hybrid bars are shown in Fig. 5. The average tensile stress–strain
curves showed a bi-linear behaviour and acceptable ductility against the
brittle failure of GFRP bars. Moreover, higher elastic modulus and lower
tensile strength were recorded for hybrid bars when compared to GFRP
bars.
The idealized stress–strain curve for the six hybrid bars has been
assumed to simulate the bilinear best fitting of the experimental tensile
stress–strain curves for the hybrid bars. The idealized tensile stress of the
hybrid bar can be calculated by the following formula:
fhr = k1 εhr 3 − k2 εhr 2 + k3 εhr (1)
The values of the constants k1, k2, and k3 have been obtained from
the regression analysis using Datafit software [26], these values are (3 ×
108), (107), and (1.46 × 105) respectively. The idealized tensile
stress–strain curves for the hybrid bars were verified with the tensile test
results from the literature [21,23], as shown in Fig. 6. The comparison
showed good agreements between the produced hybrid bars in this
research and the test results from the literature [21,23].
2.2. Test specimens
Twelve half-scale RC beams were designed as a simply supported
span with an adequate amount of longitudinal and shear reinforcement.
The study investigated the influence of the main parameters on the
flexural behaviour of concrete beams. The investigated parameters
include the type of the reinforcing bars and tension reinforcement ratios.
Two concrete beams were reinforced with steel bars as control speci­
mens for comparison. Four concrete beams were reinforced with
different longitudinal hybrid reinforcement ratios and presented in
Group A. The other six concrete beams present Group B were reinforced
with hybrid schemes (steel and GFRP) bars, (steel and hybrid) bars, and
(GFRP and hybrid) bars. For all beams, two 8 mm steel bars were used as
top reinforcement to hold stirrups and 8 mm diameter stirrups @ 100
mm c/c spacing were used as shear reinforcement. Five different tensile
reinforcement ratios (ρt) (0.85%, 1.26%, 1.70%, 1.8% and 2.13%) were
used. The mechanical properties of the used reinforcing bars and the
coefficient of variation (C.O.V) for the properties of GFRP bars and
hybrid reinforcement bars are presented in Table 3.
The layout of the tested beams is detailed in Fig. 7 and summarized in
Table 4.
The concrete strength depends primarily on the properties of the
constituent materials (Portland cement, sand, coarse aggregate, and

4
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

8@100
1
300

100
1 850 400 850 100
100 2100 100
2300

Longitudinal Section for the Tested Beams

2Ø8 2Ø8 2Ø8 2Ø8

Ø8@100 Ø8@100 Ø8@100 Ø8@100

300

300

300

300
3Ø12 2H14 3H14 4H14

150 150 150 150

B1 B2 B3 B4

2Ø8 2Ø8 2Ø8 2Ø8

Ø8@100 Ø8@100 Ø8@100 Ø8@100

300

300

300

300
5H14 4Ø12+1Ø10 2H14+2Ø10 3G12+2Ø10
150 150 150 150
B5 B6 B7 B8

2Ø8 2Ø8 2Ø8 2Ø8

Ø8@100 Ø8@100 Ø8@100 Ø8@100

300

300

300

300

2H14+2G12 3G12+1H14 2H14+3G12 2H14+4G12

150 150 150 150
LEGEND
B9 B10 B11 B12
HTS (Ø)

GFRP (G)

HRB (H)

Fig. 7. Tested Beams Geometry and Details.

water), their mix proportions and the method of their preparation,
placing, compacting and curing. The target cubic compressive strength
of the concrete (fcu) was 45 MPa. Table 5 presents the mix design for the
concrete in the present work. (Sikament®-R4PN) high range water
reducer (HRWR) and slump retaining concrete admixture were used in
the mix design.
deflection at the centreline was recorded for every 0.5 kN increment of
load using a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) fitted at the
center. The cracks were mapped out during loading stages until the
failure.
3. Experimental results and discussion

3.1. Crack load and ultimate load

2.3. Test setup

All beams were visually observed until the appearance of the first
The beams were tested in a machine of 1000 kN capacity. The load
crack with the recording of the corresponding first crack load. Tables 6
was distributed on two plates kept 400 mm apart. The two loads were
and 7 summarizes the observed test results for Group A and Group B
symmetrical to the centreline of the beam. The beams were tested under
respectively. The test results showed that the first crack load (Pcr) and
load control. Strain gauges were fixed at the longitudinal reinforcement
the load at the ultimate level (Pu) were enhanced by increasing the
bars to measure the strain of the bars as illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9. The

5
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

Table 4
Details of the Tested Beams.
Group Beam Bottom RFT Bottom RFT Ratios

As HTS Af Ahr ρs % ρf % ρhr ρt %

GFRP HRB %

Group B1 3∅12 — — 0.85 — — 0.85

A B2 — — 2H14 — — 0.85 0.85
B3 — — 3H14 — — 1.26 1.26
B4 — — 4H14 — — 1.70 1.70
B5 — — 5H14 — — 2.13 2.13
Group B6 4∅ 12 — — 1.26 — — 1.26
B + 1∅
10
B7 2∅ 10 — 2H14 0.41 — 0.85 1.26
B8 2∅ 10 3G12 — 0.41 0.85 — 1.26
B9 — 2G12 2H14 — 0.42 0.85 1.27
B10 — 3G12 1H14 — 0.85 0.42 1.27 Fig. 9. Typical Beam during Testing.
B11 — 3G12 2H14 — 0.85 0.85 1.70
B12 — 4G12 2H14 — 0.95 0.85 1.80

increasing the hybrid reinforcement ratio (ρhr) increased the crack load
(Pcr) by 23%, 31%, and 42% respectively for B3, B4, and B5. At the ul­
Table 5 timate level, the load-carrying capacity was improved by 109%, 167%,
Concrete Mix Proportions per One Cubic Meter. and 203% respectively for B3, B4, and B5. Consequently, the hybrid bars
displayed a basic contribution to improve the flexural capacity for the
Quantity required for 1 m3 (kg)
concrete beams. This enhancement in the load-carrying capacity of the
Cement Sand Coarse aggregate Water HRWR

500 620 1180 210 10

Applied Load (P)

Load Cell
Upper Steel
P/2 Spreader Beam P/2
100 850 400 850 100
Loading Plate
300

Roller & A Strain Gauge B Hinge &

Supporting Plate LVDT Supporting Plate
Testing Machine Bed

100 2100 100

Fig. 8. Testing Setup Details.

Table 6
Experimental Results of the Tested Beams for Group A.
Group Beam Experimental Test Results Relative Experimental Results to the Control Beam (B1)

Pcr Py δy Pu δu K (kN/ I (kN. DF Pcr Py δy Pu δu K I DF

(kN) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) mm) mm) Pcr− B1 Py− B1 δy− B1 Pu− B1 δu− B1 KB1 IB1 DFB1

Group B1 26 84.5 8 92 34 10.38 3150 4.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
A B2 29 135 10 157 61 13.46 8300 5.87 1.12 1.60 1.32 1.71 1.79 1.30 2.63 1.36
B3 32 155 9 193 67 16.76 11,800 7.19 1.23 1.83 1.17 2.09 1.96 1.61 3.75 1.67
B4 34 220 12 246 73 17.29 16,900 6.33 1.31 2.60 1.46 2.67 2.15 1.67 5.37 1.47
B5 37 260 15 279 83 17.57 20,900 5.61 1.42 3.08 1.87 3.03 2.44 1.69 6.63 1.30

hybrid reinforcement ratio (ρhr). HRB beams is due to the high tensile strength of the outer layers of the
For Group A and with reference to beam B1, using the same tension GFRP in addition to the tensile strength of the internal layer of steel
reinforcement ratio for the hybrid concrete beam B2 led to enhance the reinforcement.
crack load (Pcr) by 12% and the ultimate load (Pu) by 71%. Moreover, For Group B, comparing the test results with the control beam B6,

6
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

Table 7
Experimental Results of the Tested Beams for Group B.
Group Beam Experimental Test Results Relative Experimental Results to the Control Beam (B6)

Pcr Py δy Pu δu K (kN/ I (kN. DF Pcr Py δy Pu δu K I DF

(kN) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) mm) mm) Pcr− B6 Py− B6 δy− B6 Pu− B6 δu− B6 KB6 IB6 DFB6

Group B6 30 133 8 152 46 16.02 6500 5.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
B B7 33 159 9 187 51 17.26 9100 5.68 1.10 1.20 1.08 1.23 1.11 1.08 1.40 1.02
B8 29 170 26 171 40 6.54 5900 1.54 0.97 1.28 3.13 1.13 0.87 0.41 0.91 0.28
B9 34 197 25 203 55 7.88 9800 2.20 1.13 1.48 3.01 1.34 1.20 0.49 1.51 0.40
B10 29 190 30 200 50 6.44 7400 1.69 0.97 1.43 3.55 1.31 1.09 0.40 1.14 0.31
B11 35 230 21 245 66 9.27 14,100 3.12 1.17 1.73 2.56 1.61 1.44 0.58 2.17 0.56
B12 36 250 27 255 69 9.43 14,500 2.60 1.20 1.88 3.19 1.68 1.50 0.59 2.23 0.47

300 300

250 250

200 200

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

150 150

100 100
B8 (3G12+2 10)
B3 (3H14)
50 B7 (2H14+2 10)
50 B2 (2H14)
B6 (4 12+1 10)
B1 (3 12)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Deflection (mm)
Deflection (mm)
(a)
(a)
300
300

250
250

200
200
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

150
150

100
100 B5 (5H14) B10 (1H14+3G12)
B4 (4H14) 50 B9 (2H14+2G12)
50
B6 (4 12+1 10)
B1 (3 12)
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Deflection (mm)
Deflection (mm)
(b)
(b)
Fig. 10. Load-Deflection Curves of the Tested Beams for Group A. 300

250

200
Load (kN)

using hybrid schemes with the same tension reinforcement ratio for B7
150
(hybrid and steel bars) and B9 (hybrid and GFRP bars) improved the
crack load (Pcr) by 10% and 13% for B7 and B9 respectively. Also, the 100
load-carrying capacity was enhanced by 23% and 34% for B7 and B9 B12 (2H14+4G12)
respectively. No significant enhancement was observed for the cracking 50 B11 (2H14+3G12)
load of B8 (steel and GFRP bars) and B10 (GFRP and hybrid bars) when B6 (4 12+1 10)
compared with beam B6. However, enhancement in the maximum load 0
was observed by 13% and 31% for B8 and B10 respectively. The crack 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
load was enhanced by 17% and 20% for B11 and B12. Also, the Deflection (mm)
maximum load was increased by 61% and 68% for B11 and B12
(c)
respectively. The improvement in the load-carrying capacity occurred Fig. 11. Load-Deflection Curves of the Tested Beams for Group B.
due to the role of GFRP bars in resisting loads after the yielding of steel
reinforcement. This is attributed to the fact that the steel reinforcement
bars cannot resist higher loads after yielding. Furthermore, increasing

7
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

Table 8 300
Experimental Reinforcing Strain of the Tested Beams. Yield Level of HRB Bars

Group Beam Type Reinforcing Reinforcing Strain 250

of Bar Strain at Yield Strain at the Ductility,
200

Load (kN)
Level, (εy ) Ultimate level, μs =
εt
(εt ) εy
150
Group B1 HTS 0.002 0.0198 10.42
A B2 HRB 0.0025 0.0148 5.90
B3 HRB 0.0025 0.0112 4.48
100
B8 (3G12+2 10)
B4 HRB 0.0026 0.0074 2.85
B5 HRB 0.0025 0.005 2.00 50 B7 (2H14+2 10)
Group B6 HTS 0.0020 0.0142 7.10 B6 (4 12+1 10)
B B7 HRB 0.0022 0.012 5.45 0
B8 HTS 0.0020 0.0064 3.20 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
B9 HRB 0.0024 0.0075 3.10
B10 HRB 0.0026 0.0057 2.19 Reinforcing-Strain (x10-3)
B11 HRB 0.0024 0.0048 2.00 (a)
B12 HRB 0.0024 0.004 1.67
300
Where: Yield Level of HRB Bars
HTS: high tensile steel bar and HRB: hybrid reinforcement bar. 250

200

Load (kN)
300
Yield Level of HRB Bars
150
250
100
200
Load (kN)

B10 (1H14+3G12)
50 B9 (2H14+2G12)
150
B6 (4 12+1 10)
0
100 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
B3 (3H14) Reinforcing-Strain (x10-3)
50 B2 (2H14) (b)
B1 (3 12)
0 300
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 Yield Level of HRB Bars
Reinforcing-Strain (x10-3) 250
(a)
200
Load (kN)

300
Yield Level of HRB Bars
150
250
100
200
Load (kN)

B12 (2H14+4G12)
50 B11 (2H14+3G12)
150
B6 (4 12+1 10)
0
100
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
B5 (5H14) Reinforcing-Strain (x10-3)
50 B4 (4H14) (c)
B1 (3 12)
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 Fig. 13. Load-Reinforcing Strain of the Tested Beams for Group B.
Reinforcing-Strain (x10-3)

(b)
Fig. 12. Load-Reinforcing Strain of the Tested Beams for Group A.
the reinforcement ratio of GFRP bars exhibited an enhancement in the
load-carrying capacity. Consequently, the hybrid schemes showed an
improvement in the maximum load-capacity compared with RC beams
reinforced with steel reinforcement bars only.
3.2. Load-deflection curves
The experimental load–deflection curves for Group A and B are
plotted in Figs. 10 and 11 respectively. Generally, the load–deflection
curves consisted of three main branches, the first branch is linear that
specifies the response until the initial cracks and the second branch is
linear fitting that represents the response until the yield of longitudinal
reinforcement. After the yielding of reinforcement, increasing the
deflection took place for successive loads. It was observed that the tested
beams of Group A exhibit higher deflection before failure with extended
ductile plateau more than the control beam as shown in Fig. 10. For
beams with hybrid schemes, the inclusion of steel reinforcement bars or
HRB with GFRP bars exhibited residual ductility for the tested beams up
to concrete crushing. The experimental results confirm the effectiveness
of steel reinforcement and HRB in improving the ductility of hybrid
schemes beams. Based on the plotted load–deflection curves, the
following measurements can be evaluated as follows:
a. Initial Stiffness (K)

8
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5
Fig. 14. Cracks Pattern for Group A.

Utilizing hybrid bars as tension reinforcement exhibit an improve­
ment in the stiffness (K) which can be defined as the ratio between load
at yield level (Py) to the corresponding displacement (δy) [27]. For
Group A, compared with B1, the stiffness was enhanced for B2, B3, B4,
and B5 respectively by 30%, 61%, 67%, and 69%. Accordingly, using
hybrid reinforcement bars displayed an enhancement in the stiffness
compared with steel reinforcement beams.
For Group B, compared with B6, no significant change in the stiffness
for B7 (hybrid and steel bars) was observed. On the other hand, a sig­
nificant reduction in the stiffness was observed for beams B8, B9, B10,
B11, and B12 respectively by 59%, 51%, 60%, 42%, and 41%. The
reduction in the stiffness of the hybrid schemes beams compared with
steel reinforcement bars occurred due to the existence of GFRP bars
which have a lower modulus of elasticity.
b. Energy Absorption (Toughness)
Energy absorption (I) is defined as the area under the load–deflection
curve. It is a function of the ultimate load (Pu) and the corresponding
ultimate deflection (δu) [27]. Accordingly, it can be a good indication to

9
M. Said et al.
B6
B7
B8
B9
Fig. 15. Cracks Pattern for Group B.
measure the ductility of the beams. Generally, energy absorption
improved by increasing hybrid bars reinforcing ratio. For Group A, the
energy absorption for B2, B3, B4, and B5 was higher than B1 respec­
tively by 163%, 275%, 437%, and 563%.
For Group B, compared with steel reinforcement concrete beam (B6),
a slight change in the toughness was observed for beams B8 (0.85%
GFRP + 0.41% steel) and B10 (0.85% GFRP + 0.42% HRB). The in­
clusion of HRB with higher reinforcement ratios for beams B9, B11, and
B12 provided more ductile behaviour for the tested beams. Conse­
quently, significant improvement in the toughness was observed by
51%, 117%, and 123% respectively with reference to B6. Finally, using
HRB is an effective way to enhance the toughness of the RC beams.
c. Ductility Factor (DF)
Ductility factor (DF) for tested beams can be defined as the ratio
between the deflection at the ultimate level (δu) to the deflection at the
yield level (δy) [28]. The inclusion of hybrid bars provides more ductile
performance for the tested beams. For Group A, comparing with beam
10
Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348
B1, the DF improved by 36%, 67%, 47%, and 30% respectively for B2,
B3, B4, and B5. For Group B, the DF of the beams displayed lower values
than Group A due to the brittle behaviour of GFRP bars. With reference
to B6, the DF degraded respectively by 72%, 60%, 69%, 44%, and 53%
for B8, B9, B10, B11, and B12. Based on the recorded test results, the
inclusion of hybrid reinforcement bars with enhanced the flexural per­
formance of concrete beams compared with steel reinforcement bars.
3.3. Strains in the hybrid bars
Strain gauges were fixed at the tension reinforcement bars to mea­
sure the strain as illustrated in Fig. 8. For beams reinforced with steel
reinforcement bars or hybrid reinforcement bars, the strains were fixed
in the middle of these bars. For beams reinforced with hybrid schemes
(steel + GFRP) bars or (hybrid + GFRP) bars, the strain gauges were
fixed for each bar type. The strains of the steel reinforcement bars and
hybrid bars at the ultimate level (εt ) were recorded in Table 8. Also, the
load- strain curves for steel reinforcement bars and the hybrid bars of
Group A and Group B are plotted in Figs. 12 and 13 respectively. A close
M. Said et al.
B10
B11
B12
Fig. 15. (continued).
examination of the strain measurements reveals that the strain of the
tension reinforcement bars at the ultimate level (εt ) exceeds the strain at
the yield level (εy ) for all beams. Accordingly, all beams have been failed
in a ductile manner. The recorded tensile reinforcement strains for GFRP
bars in Group B at the ultimate level for specimens B8, B9, B10, B11, and
B12 was 0.013, 0.0115, 0.011, 0.0105, and 0.01 respectively. These
strains are lower than the ultimate tensile strain of GFRP bars. Accord­
ingly, the GFRP bars did not rupture at the failure of beams. Generally,
based on the strain measurements, the bond failure was not observed in
all the test specimens. Based on the measured mechanical properties of
the hybrid bars in Section 2.1, the possible failure modes could occur as
follows:
1. Concrete crushing (CC) before hybrid reinforcement bars yielding
(over-reinforced case). In which (εc = εcu ) and (εhr < εhry ).
2. Yielding of hybrid reinforcement bars (HRB) followed by concrete
crushing (ductile case). In which (εc = εcu ) and(εhry ≤ εhr < εhru ).
3. The strain of hybrid bars reaches the ultimate strain before concrete
crushing. In which (εc < εcu ) and(εhr = εhru ).
As can be shown in Fig. 12 and Table 8, the strain in the hybrid
reinforcement at the ultimate level is laying between the yield and ul­
timate strain values(εhry ≤ εhr < εhru ). Accordingly, the failure mode of
case-2 has been observed for the test beams. To avoid the failure modes
of case 1 and 3, upper and lower limits for the balanced ratios of the
hybrid reinforcement should be defined. The maximum and minimum
balanced ratios of the hybrid reinforcement could be defined as follows
11
Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348
[29]:
fc ’ εcu − (εco /3)
ρbhr,min = × (2)
fhr,u εcu + εhr,u
fc ’ εcu − (εco /3)
ρbhr,max = × (3)
fhr,y εcu + εhr,y
In the current study, the values of ρbhr, min. and ρbhr, max are 0.48% and
3.64% respectively and the hybrid reinforcement ratios for the tested
beams ranged between these values. Accordingly, yielding of HRB fol­
lowed by concrete crushing was indicated.
From the load-reinforcing strain curves, the strain ductility (μs) was
evaluated as the ratio between strain in the longitudinal bars at the ul­
timate level to the strain at the yield level (μs= εt /εy ) [30]. As observed
in Table 8, the measured strain at the ultimate level (εt ) decreased as the
ratio of the hybrid reinforcement bars (ρhr) increased. Accordingly, the
strain ductility values decreased as ρhr increased. For Group A, compared
with B1, the strain ductility was decreased by 40% and 58% respectively
for B2 and B3. For Group B, using hybrid schemes is an effective way to
solve the brittle behaviour of GFRP concrete beams. The inclusions of
steel bars or hybrid reinforced bars with GFRP bars provides more
ductile behaviour for the beams.
3.4. Failure modes and cracks pattern
Tracing the cracks with recording the corresponding causing loads at
different load levels is one of the most powerful procedures to identify
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

(a) Concrete Element; Solid65

(b) Reinforcing Bar Element; Link8

Fig. 16. Finite Element Simulation Models for the Tested Beams.

the failure mechanism and highlighting the related effect of the exper­
imental variables. The crack patterns for Group A and B were the same as
presented in Figs. 14 and 15 respectively for Group A and Group B.
Generally, initial crack for all tested beams appeared in the beam mid-
span at the flexural region followed by consecutive cracks away from
this region in the direction of supports with increasing load increments.
Increasing load values led to deeper and widened cracks with a major
flexural crack in the maximum moment area at the failure load level.
For Group A, using hybrid bars for beams B2, B3, B4, and B5 delayed
the appearance of the first crack with reference to the beam with steel
reinforcement B1. Increasing the hybrid reinforcement ratios delayed
the appearance of the first crack by 23% and 31% respectively for beams
B3 and B4. Moreover, at failure load, using hybrid bars resulted in less
spread cracks and less visual crack width.
For Group B, reinforcing the beams with a combination of steel or
hybrid bars with GFRP bars increased the cracking loads and reduced

12
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

(a) At Cracking Load, Pcr

(b) At Failure
Fig. 17. Cracks Propagation for Beam B2.

the crack propagation when compared with beam B6 reinforced only
with steel reinforcement bars. Beams B8 and B10 showed almost similar
cracking loads with no significant deviation in cracks pattern. Addi­
tionally, the inclusion of hybrid reinforcement bars for beams B7, B9,
B10, and B12 had an acceptable improvement in limiting the crack
width and propagation.
The observed failure mode for the concrete beams reinforced with
steel reinforcement bars was conventional ductile flexural failure
(flexural-tension failure). This failure mode occurred due to yielding of
the tensile steel reinforcement (SY) followed by concrete crushing (CC).
Also, observed failure mode for the concrete beams reinforced with HRB
was yielding of HRB followed by CC, as discussed in Section 3.3. In
addition, for concrete beams reinforced with hybrid schemes, the failure
mode was characterized by yielding of steel reinforcement followed by
concrete crushing, before the rupture of FRP reinforcement. This case is
similar to the under-reinforced section of RC beams (flexural-tension
failure).
4. Non-Linear Finite Elements Analysis (NLFEA)
NLFEA was performed to simulate the tested concrete beams. The
commercially available finite element (FE) analysis software package

13
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

300
100
250

75
200

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

150
50

100
25
Experimental Experimental
50
Numerical Numerical
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

B1 B4
300

250
150.0
200

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

100.0 150

100
50.0
Experimental Experimental
50
Numerical Numerical
0.0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

B2 B5
250

200
Load (kN)

150

100

50 Experimental
Numerical
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Deflection (mm)

B3
Fig. 18. Comparison of Predicted Deflections with Experimental Values of Group A.

ANSYS (ANSYS release 12.1) [25] was used. The load–deflection curve is
an important aspect of verifying the behaviour of beams. It includes
beneficial parameters such as: cracking loads (Pcr), the load at yield
point (Py), the corresponding deflection (δy), the ultimate load (Pu), the
corresponding ultimate deflection (δu), the initial stiffness (K), the
ductility factor (DF), and energy absorption (I). Also, the predicted strain
ductility (μs, NL.) was defined. Accordingly, comparing the extracted
load–deflection curves from the idealized models with the experimental
test results considered is an efficient method to validate the models.

14
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

250
150
200
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
100 150

100
50
Experimental 50 Experimental
Numerical Numerical
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
B6 B9
200
250

150 200
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
150
100

100
50
Experimental
50 Experimental
Numerical
Numerical
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
B7 B10

200 300

250
150
200
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

100 150

100
50
Experimental Experimental
50
Numerical Numerical
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
B8 B11
300

250

200
Load (kN)

150

100

Experimental
50
Numerical
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection (mm)
B12

Fig. 19. Comparison of Predicted Deflections with Experimental Values of Group B.

15
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

4.1. Finite element geometric and material idealization

6.26%
0.061
DFexp.
DFNL.

0.98
1.00
0.92
1.04
0.97
0.97
1.03
1.12
1.00
0.97
0.91
0.90
0.91
The structural element types used for the geometric idealization of
the different materials are Solid 65 for concrete as its capability to the

7.12%
0.075
1.06
1.12
0.99
1.11
1.13
1.07
1.13
1.10
1.08
0.99
0.94
0.99
0.95
Iexp. plastic deformation, cracking and crushing in three directions. 3-D spar
INL. elements (Link 8) was used for idealized reinforcing bars and stirrups. It

4.92%
0.048
has two nodes and three DOF. Also, it has the capability of plastic

0.98
1.02
0.93
0.99
0.93
1.03
0.95
1.09
0.96
0.93
1.01
0.95
0.97
Kexp.
KNL.

deformation. Solid 45 was idealized at the location of loading and

6.74%
Experimental Results/ NLFEA Results

supports in the concrete beams to avoid stress concentration problems.

0.069
exp.
NL.

1.03
1.06
1.10
1.09
1.09
0.92
0.98
0.95
0.98
1.10
0.91
1.08
1.06
δu−

Hawileh [31] used the same elements and procedures for modelling
δu−

concrete beams reinforced with hybrid schemes bars. The predicted

4.09%
exp.
NL.

0.041
1.01
1.01
1.01
0.95
1.03
1.03
1.01
1.02
1.05
1.09
1.05
0.96
0.95

results showed reasonable agreement comparing the experimental test

Pu−
Pu−

results.

4.64%
0.049
exp.
NL.

1.05
For concrete in compression, the Hognestad-Popvics stress–strain
0.99
1.04
1.09
1.09
1.06
0.98
1.09
0.95
1.08
1.05
1.08
1.10
δy−
δy−

curve [32] was used. For concrete in tension, a linear-tension curve was

3.08%
1.053
0.032
exp.
NL.

used [33]. The bilinear stress–strain curve was adopted for steel rein­
1.02
1.09
1.05
1.01
1.07
1.11
1.03
1.08
1.08
1.04
1.01
1.06
Py−
Py−

forcement in tension and compression [34], while a linear elastic

behaviour was used for the GFRP bars. The idealized stress–strain curve
4.54%
exp.
NL.

0.048
1.05
1.09
1.09
0.96
1.04
1.07
1.06
1.06
1.03
1.06
0.94
1.06
1.07
Pcr−

for the hybrid bars shown in Fig. 6 was used in the idealization. Perfect
Pcr−

bond was assumed between the concrete and bars. The 3-D model for a
1.75
3.03
2.34
4.30
6.02
7.91
7.02
6.18
5.54
6.15
1.48
2.26
Pcr (kN) Py (kN) δy (mm) Pu (kN) δu (mm) K (kN/mm) I (kN.mm) DF

typical beam is presented in Fig. 16.

4.2. NLFEA model verification

12,500
13,200
12,600
17,150
22,000
5820
9180
5310
8680
6980
2910
8420

NLFEA results were verified with the experimental test results. First,
cracks appeared at the maximum tension zone in the mid-span. Then,
the cracks propagated in an upward direction through the depth of the
10.00
10.90
12.30
17.44
18.55
17.45
16.90
17.80
6.40
8.43
6.48

9.13

beam. New cracks occurred in the shear region due to increasing the
load, as shown in Fig. 17.
All beams exhibited similar patterns of crack development and
56.0
37.0
52.0
47.2
60.5
63.4
31.2
66.1
68.0
77.3
85.0
42.0

propagation. NLFEA showed the first formation of vertical cracks in the

mid-span at load levels of 27–35 kN. The predicted cracking loads (Pcr-
198.25

243.25
253.5
182.2
168.5

189.5
150.1

294.5
84.5

200
260

147

NL.) were close to experimental crack loads (Pcr-exp.). The average value
of the ratio (Pcr-exp./Pcr-NL.) is 1.05 with a standard deviation of 0.048
and the coefficient of variation equal 4.54%.
27.15
10.98

13.75
7.576
7.25

9.1
8.6

25
23
27
20
11

4.3. Load-deflection comparison

NLFEA Results

248
122
150
204
240
128
157
160
194
175
220
79

The analytical results for all beams were very close to the experi­
mental results. Generally, the load–deflection curves for the tested
beams displayed similar features. A comparison of the load–deflection
31
32
27
32
33
27
28
30
32
35
29
31

curves extracted from ANSYS and test results for all the beams are
5.68
1.54
2.20
1.69
3.12
2.60
4.30
5.87
7.19
6.33
5.61
5.54
Pcr (kN) Py (kN) δy (mm) Pu (kN) δu (mm) K (kN/mm) I (kN.mm) DF

plotted in Figs. 18 and 19 for Group A and Group B respectively and

listed in Table 9. The comparison evinced that, at the yield level, the
overall average ratio [Py, exp./Py, NL.] is 1.053. Also, the average yield
14,100
14,500
11,800
16,900
20,900
6500
9100
5900
9800
7400
3150
8300

deflection ratio [δ y, exp./δy, NL.] is 1.05. At the ultimate level, the average
ratio [Pu, exp./Pu, NL.] for all beams is 1.01 and the average value of
deflection ratio [δ u, exp./δu, NL.] is 1.03. The average stiffness ratio [Kexp./
KNL.] for all beams is 0.98. Moreover, the average energy absorption
17.57
16.02
17.26
10.38
13.46
16.76
17.29
Comparison of Experimental Results with NLFEA Results.

9.43
6.54
7.88
6.44
9.27

ratio [I exp./INL.] for all beams is 1.06.

4.4. Parametric studies

66
69
34
61
67
73
83
46
51
40
55
50

To advance the knowledge and further investigate the effect of

different factors in the structural response of hybrid reinforced concrete
255
152
187
171
203
200
245
157
193
246
279
92

beams, a parametric study is designed and conducted herein. The vari­

ables of the parametric study are concrete compressive strength (fcu), the
ratio of the hybrid reinforcement bars (ρhr), and shear-span to depth
Beam Experimental Results

21
27
10

12
15

26
25
30
8
9
8

ratio (X/d). In the parametric study, the validated specimen B2 will be

Coefficient of variation

the reference beam. Table 10 presents the input parameters and analysis
84.5

197
190
230
250
135
155
220
260
133
159
170

Standard deviation

results of the analyzed specimens in the parametric study.

4.4.1. Effect of concrete strength

34
29
35
36
37
30
33
29
26
29
32
34

Average

The effect of the concrete compressive strength (fcu) on the flexural

Table 9

performance of hybrid reinforced concrete beams is investigated. Two

B10
B11
B12
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B1
B2
B3
B4

additional finite element models were developed with concrete

16
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

Table 10
Input Parameters and Analysis Results of the Analyzed Specimens.
Input Parameters Analysis Results

Beam fcu (MPa) ρhr (%) X/d Studied Parameter Pcr (kN) Py (kN) δy (mm) Pu (kN) δu (mm) K (kN/mm) I (kN.mm) εt μs, N.L

B2a 30 0.85 3.1 fcu 21 108 9.8 127 49 11.02 5435 0.009 3.6
B2 45 0.85 3.1 28 122 10.98 150 66.1 12.30 8420 0.0137 6.29
B2b 60 0.85 3.1 32 148 11.1 170 77 13.33 11,812 0.0183 7.32
B2 45 0.85 3.1 ρhr 28 122 10.98 150 66.1 12.30 8420 0.0137 6.29
B2c 45 1.7 3.1 32 204 11 260 77.3 18.55 17,150 0.0072 3.0
B2d 45 3.85 3.1 34 246 10.25 310 68 23.2 19,300 0.0023 0.91
B2e 45 0.85 2.18 X/d 31 155 12.2 210 54 12.70 9233 0.0105 4.2
B2f 45 0.85 2.55 29 138 11.2 172 60 12.32 8863 0.0118 4.72
B2 45 0.85 3.1 28 122 10.98 150 66.1 12.30 8420 0.0137 6.29

200.0 hybrid reinforcement ratio decreases the hybrid strain at the ultimate
level (εt). Compared with B2, the hybrid strain at the ultimate level is
decreased by 52% and 86% respectively for B2c and B2d. Furthermore,
150.0
the hybrid strain at the ultimate level does not exceed the strain at the
yield level for beam B2d due to the over-reinforcement ratio. The pre­
Load (kN)

100.0 dicted values of strain ductility are 6.92, 3.0, and 0.91 for specimens B2,
B2c, and B2d. The predicted crack patterns for B2, B2c, and B2d are
shown in Fig. 23. As shown in the predicted crack patterns, increasing
B2b (fcu=60 MPa) the hybrid reinforcement ratio spreads cracks more widely and gradu­
50.0
B2 (fcu=45 MPa) ally along the span and depth of the beams.
B2a (fcu=30 MPa)
0.0 4.4.3. Effect of shear-span to depth ratio
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Three specimens are studied with different shear span to depth ratio
Deflection (mm) (X/d) values. The used shear-span to depth ratios are 2.18, 2.55, and 3.1
Fig. 20. Effect of Concrete Compressive Strength on the Load-Deflection
for specimens B2e, B2f, and B2 respectively. The predicted
Response of HRC Beams. load–deflection curves for the specimens are plotted in Fig. 24. Gener­
ally, increasing (X/d) reduces the load-carrying capacity of the beams.
Increasing (X/d) for specimens B2f and B2 decreases Pu by 18% and 29%
respectively compared with B2e. Increasing (X/d) decreases slightly the
compressive strengths of 30 and 60 MPa and designated as B2a and B2b,
toughness (I). As shown in the predicted load–deflection curves, the
respectively. The load–deflection response results of these beams are
toughness is decreased for specimens B2f and B2 by 4% and 9%
shown in Fig. 20 and Table 10. The comparison between the given re­
respectively. Also, the strain ductility (μs) is increased by increasing (X/
sults indicates that increasing fcu leads to an enhancement in load-
d). The values of (μs) are 4.2, 4.7, and 6.29 for B2e, B2f, and B2
carrying capacity by 18% and 34% along with an increase of 35% and
respectively. The cracking patterns of the analyzed beams (B2e, B2f, and
57% in the associated mid-span deflection for specimens B2 and B2b
B2) are also shown in Fig. 25. The figure illustrated that, the amount of
respectively when compared to B2a. The calculated strain ductility (µs)
vertical and inclined cracks increases with the increase of (X/d) ratio.
is 3.6, 6.29, and 7.32 for B2a, B2, and B2b respectively. Then, the strain
ductility (µs) has been increased due to an increase in the concrete
5. Nominal flexural strength
compressive strength (fcu). Significant enhancement in the toughness (I)
which calculated as the area under the load–deflection curve is observed
The experimental moment strength (M exp.) for each beam was
due to the increase of fcu. Toughness is enhanced by 55% and 117% for
calculated (using the relation P/2*X, where P is the failure load and X is
specimens B2 and B2b respectively compared to specimen B2a. Finally,
the flexural-shear span = 0.85 m). To compare the experimental results
the crack patterns are shown in Fig. 21 for B2a, B2, and B2b. As illus­
with the nominal flexural strength (Mn.), the strain compatibility
trated in this figure, that increasing (fcu) increases cracks propagation at
method was performed. The nominal flexural strength is estimated for a
the beam length and depth.
single hybrid concrete rectangular beam of cross-section (b × t). The
proposed equation of the current research is an enhancement equation
4.4.2. Effect of hybrid reinforcement ratio
of ACI Code 318–14 [35]. The main assumptions to predict the nominal
Three beams were analyzed with different hybrid reinforcement ra­
flexural strength were considered. Moreover, the idealized stress–strain
tios (ρhr) of values (0.85%, 1.7%, and 3.85%) respectively for beams (B2,
curve for the hybrid bar presented in Eq. (1) was used. Fig. 26 presents
B2c, and B2d). Fig. 22 presents the predicted load–deflection response
the simplified rectangular stress block. Accordingly, the nominal flex­
for the analyzed beams. It is clear that increasing ρhr improves the load-
ural strength, the equilibrium equation can be expressed as follows:
carrying capacity of the specimens by 73% and 106% for B2c and S2d
with respect to B2. Also, the toughness (I) is improved by increasing ρhr. Cc = Ts + Tf + Thr (4)
The toughness is enhanced by 104% and 129% respectively for beams
The compression force of concrete (Cc) can be estimated depending
B2c and B2d compared with B2. On the other hand, increasing the

17
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

a) B2a

b) B2

c) B2b
Fig. 21. Predicted Crack Pattern for Beams B2a, B2 and B2b.

on the rectangular stress block which, calculated generally as: 350.0

Cc = σc *Ac (5) 300.0
The compressive strength of concrete (ơc) can be defined as: 250.0
(6)
Load (kN)

σ c = α.fc ’
200.0
The coefficient (α) assumed to be 0.85, according to ACI-code
150.0
318–14 [35]. Also, the cylindrical compressive strength of the con­
crete (fc’) was considered as (0.8 fcu). Additionally, the area of 100.0 B2d (ρh=3.85%)
compression zone (Ac) was defined as:
B2c (ρh=1.7%)
50.0
Ac = b.a (7) B2 (ρh=0.85%)
0.0
The depth of the rectangular stress block (a) was estimated as: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Deflection (mm)
a = β.C (8)
Fig. 22. Effect of Hybrid Reinforcement Ratio on the Load-Deflection Response
Factor (β) should not exceed 0.85 but shall not be taken less than
of HRC Beams.

18
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

a) B2

b) B2c

c) B2d
Fig. 23. Predicted Crack Pattern for Beams B2, B2c and B2d.

19
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

equals 6.41%.
250.0
6. Conclusions
200.0
The flexural behaviour of concrete beams reinforced with locally
produced hybrid bars was investigated. Based on the experimental re­
Load (kN)

150.0
sults and the comparison with the NLFEA and nominal flexural strength
in this study, the main conclusion points can be drawn as follows:
100.0
B2e (X/d=2.18) 1) Generally, the provision of the hybrid reinforcement bars enhanced
50.0 B2f (X/d=2.55) the flexural behaviour of RC beams compared with steel-reinforced
B2 (X/d=3.10) concrete beams in terms of the cracking load, load-carrying capac­
0.0 ity, ductility, and energy absorption.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2) The locally produced hybrid bars showed bi-linear behaviour indi­
Deflection (mm) cating an enhancement in the ductility against the brittle failure of
GFRP bars. These bars displayed reasonable mechanical properties
Fig. 24. Effect of Shear-Span to Depth Ratio on the Load-Deflection Response
of HRC Beams.
compared with the results from the literature.
3) The design of RC beams with hybrid reinforcement bars should
consider the steel yielding prior to concrete crushing or FRP rupture
in case of hybrid schemes to ensure adequate deformation in the
0.65 [35]. It can be calculated as:
beams.
[ ’ ]
f − 28 4) For RC beams with HRB bars, the enhancement in the load-carrying
β = 0.85 − 0.05 c (9) capacity occurred due to the high tensile strength of the outer layers
7
of the GFRP in addition to the tensile strength of the internal layer of
Conclusively, Cc can be defined as: steel reinforcement. Also, the improvement in the load-carrying ca­
Cc = 0.85*fc’ *b*a (10) pacity for RC beams with hybrid schemes was observed because of
the role of GFRP bars in resisting loads after the yielding of steel
For under reinforced section, the tension force of reinforcing bars Ts, reinforcement.
Tf and Thr can be calculated as follows: 5) Hybrid bars exhibited an improvement in the stiffness of the concrete
Ts = fy *As (11) beams compared with steel reinforcement beams. On the other hand,
a reduction in the stiffness was observed for concrete beams rein­
Tf = ff *Af (12) forced with hybrid schemes due to the lower elastic modulus of GFRP
bars.
Thr = fhr *Ahr (13) 6) All hybrid-reinforced beams with (ρbhr, min. < ρhr < ρhr, max.) failed in
a favorable ductile manner due to concrete crushing after yielding of
Based on the rectangular stress block and the equilibrium equation, HRB reinforcement.
(a) and (C) can be predicted. Accordingly, Mn. can be estimated as: 7) The application of NLFEA to the tested beams yielded acceptable
[( )( a) ] load-carrying capacities and load–deflection curves. The analysis
Mn. = As fy + Af ff + Ahr fhr d − (14)
2 adequately reflected the trend of experimental results. At the ulti­
The analysis procedure for calculating Mn. can be easily implemented mate level, the overall average ratio [Pu, exp./Pu, NL.] was 1.013.
by hand calculations or a spreadsheet. Mn. was calculated for all beam Accordingly, the developed models can be used by researchers as an
specimens using Eq. (14). Table 11 presents a comparison between the analytical tool to investigate the performance of RC beams reinforced
experimental and nominal flexural strength. It can be concluded that with HRB or hybrid schemes of GFRP and steel reinforcement bars.
good agreements between the experimental and nominal flexural 8) Increasing concrete compressive strength (fcu) enhanced the load-
strength were achieved. The average ratio of [Mu, exp./Mn.] for the tested carrying capacity and the toughness of HRC beams. On the other
beams is 1.037 with 0.043 standard deviation, and the coefficient of hand, increasing the shear-span to depth ratio reduced the load-
variation equal 4.10%. Moreover, Table 11 includes a comparison with carrying capacity and the toughness of the beams.
38 reinforced concrete beams tested [1,12,14,18]. The nominal flexural 9) The nominal flexural strength for hybrid concrete beams proved to
strength generally performs well in predicting the flexural strength. The be a successful analytical tool for predicting flexure strength (Mn.).
overall average value of the ratio [Mu, exp./Mn.] is 1.01 with a standard The nominal flexure strength predictions for 50 experimental test
deviation of 0.08, and the coefficient of variation equals 7.57%. results were on the safe side and gives consistent predictions.
Table 12 presents the comparison between the strain in the tension
reinforcement at the ultimate level measured from the experimental test CRediT authorship contribution statement
results (εt , exp.) with the predicted strain in the tension reinforcement
from ANSYS (εt , NL.) and with the nominal strain (εt ,n.) which defined as Mohamed Said: Conceptualization, Software, Validation, Formal
following [35]: analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing - original
( ) draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project
d
εt,n. = 0.003 − 1 (15) administration. Ali S. Shanour: Conceptualization, Software, Valida­
c tion, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing -
Also, the strain ductility (μs) was calculated. Comparing the test re­ review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration. T.
sults with NLFEA and nominal strain ductility, good agreements were S. Mustafa: Conceptualization, Software, Validation, Formal analysis,
achieved, the overall average value of the ratio [μs, exp./μs, NL.] is 1.04 Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing - review & editing,
with a standard deviation of 0.091, and the coefficient of variation Visualization, Supervision, Project administration. Ahmed H. Abdel-
equals 8.75%. Also, the overall average value of the ratio [μs, exp./μs, n.] is Kareem: Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project
1.095 with a standard deviation of 0.07, and the coefficient of variation administration. Mostafa M. Khalil: Software, Validation, Formal anal­
ysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing - original draft,

20
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

a) B2e

b) B2f

c) B2
Fig. 25. Predicted Crack Pattern B2, B2e and B2f.

21
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

c c

Cc

a=ßC
C
M n.
N.A

d-(a/2)
d
t

Steel bars
FRP bars
Hybrid bars T s+T f +T hr T s+T f +T hr
d'

a) General Cross Section b) Stress Distribution c) Rectangle Stress Block

Fig. 26. Cross Section Stress Distribution for Hybrid Concrete Beams.

Table 11
Experimental and Nominal Flexural Strength.
Authors Beam fcu Geometrical Parameters Bottom RFT Experimental Nominal Mexp.
moment, Mexp. flexural Mn.
b d L CL- X As fy Af ff Ahr fhr ρt
strength, Mn.
CL

MPa (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) HTS MPa FRP MPa HRB HRB % (kN.m) (kN.m)

Present B1 45 150 275 2100 850 3∅ 12 400 — — — — 0.85 39.1 36.75 1.064
B2 45 150 275 2100 850 — — — — 2H14 630 0.85 66.73 60.35 1.106
B3 45 150 275 2100 850 — — — — 3H14 630 1.26 81.813 82.45 0.992
B4 45 150 275 2100 850 — — — — 4H14 630 1.7 104.55 102.85 1.017
B5 45 150 275 2100 850 — — — — 5H14 630 2.13 118.58 120.28 0.986
B6 45 150 275 2100 850 4∅ 400 — — — — 1.26 64.64 58.65 1.102
12 +
1∅ 10
B7 45 150 275 2100 850 2∅ 10 400 — — 2H14 630 1.26 79.48 73.10 1.087
B8 45 150 275 2100 850 2∅ 10 400 3G12 850 — — 1.26 72.68 69.70 1.043
B9 45 150 275 2100 850 — — 2G12 850 2H14 630 1.27 86.28 84.15 1.025
B10 45 150 275 2100 850 — — 3G12 850 1H14 630 1.27 84.78 81.13 1.045
B11 45 150 275 2100 850 — — 3G12 850 2H14 630 1.7 103.95 102.43 1.015
B12 45 150 275 2100 850 — — 4G12 850 2H14 630 1 108.38 111.35 0.973
Adam, A25 25 120 275 2500 1100 — — 3G12 650 — — 0.92 40.81 37.5 1.088
et al. + 1G8
[1] A25- 25 120 275 2500 1100 — — 2G8 650 — — 0.33 25.245 23.01 1.097
1
A25- 25 120 275 2500 1100 — — 1G12 650 — — 0.56 22.385 23.86 0.938
2 + 1G8
A25- 25 120 275 2500 1100 — — 2G12 650 — — 0.89 41.36 38 1.088
3 + 1G8
A45- 45 120 275 2500 1100 — — 1G12 650 — — 0.54 30.69 28.98 1.059
1 + 1G8
A45- 45 120 275 2500 1100 — — 2G12 650 — — 0.92 45.045 47.2 0.954
2 + G18
A45- 45 120 275 2500 1100 — — 4G12 650 — — 1.46 60.39 62 0.974
3
A70- 70 120 275 2500 1100 — — 2G12 650 — — 0.92 46.53 43.8 1.062
1 + 1G8
A70- 70 120 275 2500 1100 — — 4G12 650 — — 1.56 72.985 69.2 1.055
2
A70- 70 120 275 2500 1100 — — 6G12 650 — — 2.48 79.805 87.5 0.912
3

Authors Beam fcu Geometrical Parameters Bottom RFT Experimental Nominal Mexp.
(MPa) moment, Mexp. flexural Mn.
b d L CL- X As fy Af ff Ahr fhr ρt
strength, Mn.
CL

(continued on next page)

22
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

Table 11 (continued )
Authors Beam fcu Geometrical Parameters Bottom RFT Experimental Nominal Mexp.
(MPa) moment, Mexp. flexural Mn.
b d L CL- X As fy Af ff Ahr fhr ρt
strength, Mn.
CL

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) HTS MPa FRP MPa HRB HRB % (kN.m) (kN.m)

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) HTS MPa FRP MPa HRB HRB % (kN.m) (kN.m)

Qu, et al. B1 30.95 180 220 1800 600 4∅ 363 — — — — 1.14 32.37 31.9 1.015
[12] 12
B2 30.95 180 220 1800 600 — — 4G12 782 — — 0.29 43.89 40.2 1.092
B3 33.1 180 220 1800 600 2∅ 363 2G12 782 — — 0.71 38.28 41.2 0.929
12
B4 33.1 180 220 1800 600 1∅ 336 2G16 755 — — 0.71 39.66 42.5 0.933
16
B5 34.4 180 220 1800 600 2∅ 336 2G10 778 — — 1.08 36.36 39.8 0.914
16
B6 34.4 180 220 1800 600 2∅ 336 2G12 782 — — 1.16 42.57 45.01 0.946
16
B7 40.65 180 220 1800 600 1∅ 363 2G10 778 — — 0.35 23.55 22.8 1.033
10
B8 40.65 180 220 1800 600 6∅ 336 2G16 755 — — 3.49 63.3 66.5 0.952
16
El Refai, B1 40 230 275 3700 1250 — — 2G12 1000 — — 0.38 49 48.7 1.006
et al. B2 40 230 275 3700 1250 — — 3G12 1000 — — 0.64 53.7 60 0.895
[14] B3 40 230 275 3700 1250 — — 3G16 1000 — — 1.12 69 72 0.958
B4 40 230 275 3700 1250 1∅ 520 2G12 1000 — — 0.51 47.6 50 0.952
10
B5 40 230 275 3700 1250 2∅ 520 2G12 1000 — — 0.55 53.5 58.4 0.916
10
B6 40 230 275 3700 1250 2∅ 520 2G12 1000 — — 0.67 58 64 0.906
12
B7 40 230 275 3700 1250 2∅ 520 2G16 1000 — — 0.85 68.6 78.5 0.874
10
B8 40 230 275 3700 1250 2∅ 520 2G16 1000 — — 0.96 64.7 69 0.938
12
B9 40 230 275 3700 1250 2∅ 520 2G16 1000 — — 1.13 83.5 82.5 1.012
16

Authors Beam fcu Geometrical Parameters Bottom RFT Experimental Nominal Mexp.
(MPa) moment, Mexp. flexural Mn.
b d L CL- X As fy Af ff Ahr fhr ρt
strength,
CL
Mn.

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) HTS MPa FRP MPa HRB HRB % (kN.m) (kN.m)

Lau, G0.8 39 280 255 4200 2100 — — 4G16 593 — — 0.81 158.8 152.52 1.041
et al. G2.1 41.3 280 255 4200 2100 — — 4G25 528 — — 1.98 238 218.21 1.091
[18] G0.4 42.3 280 255 4200 2100 — — 3G12 603 — — 0.34 79.5 68.09 1.167
G0.5 42.5 280 255 4200 2100 — — 4G12 603 — — 0.46 107 89.97 1.189
G2.1 34 280 255 4200 2100 — — 1G25 205 — — 0.49 220 200.05 1.100
G0.3 40 280 255 4200 2100 2∅ 336 1G20 588 — — 1.27 150 153.18 0.979
25
G1.0- 39.3 280 255 4200 2100 2∅ 579 2G25 582 — — 1.62 261 255.85 1.020
T0.7 20
G0.6- 40 280 255 4200 2100 2∅ 550 2G20 558 — — 1.56 229 252.20 0.908
T1.0 25
MD1.3 39 280 255 4200 2100 4∅ 340 — — — — 1.26 147.4 141.84 1.039
20
MD2.1 45.9 280 255 4200 2100 4∅ 340 — — — — 1.98 250 216.60 1.154
25
T0.2 35.3 280 255 4200 2100 2∅ 507 — — — — 0.23 44 39.93 1.102
12
Number of Specimens 50
Average 1.01
Standard deviation 0.08
Coefficient of variation 7.57%

23
M. Said et al. Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111348

Table 12
Reinforcing Strain of the Tested Beams.
Group Beam Exp. Results NLFEA Results Nominal Results μs,exp. μs,exp.
μs,NL μs,n.
εy , exp. εt , exp. μs, exp. εt , N.L μs, N.L εt , N. μs, n

Group A B1 0.0019 0.0198 10.42 0.0198 9.00 0.0190 10.10 1.16 1.03
B2 0.0025 0.0148 5.90 0.0158 6.29 0.0137 5.46 0.94 1.08
B3 0.0025 0.0112 4.48 0.0126 5.04 0.0100 4.06 0.89 1.10
B4 0.0026 0.0074 2.85 0.0078 3.00 0.0072 2.77 0.95 1.03
B5 0.0025 0.005 2.00 0.0052 2.10 0.0048 1.92 0.96 1.09
Group B B6 0.0020 0.0142 7.10 0.0135 6.75 0.0120 6.02 1.05 1.18
B7 0.0022 0.012 5.45 0.0126 5.73 0.0108 4.91 0.95 1.11
B8 0.0020 0.0064 3.20 0.006 3.00 0.0069 2.85 1.07 1.12
B9 0.0024 0.0075 3.10 0.0065 2.69 0.0063 2.60 1.15 1.19
B10 0.0026 0.0057 2.19 0.005 1.92 0.0058 2.23 1.14 0.98
B11 0.0024 0.0048 2.00 0.0045 1.88 0.0043 1.79 1.07 1.12
B12 0.0024 0.004 1.67 0.004 1.67 0.0039 1.65 1.00 1.01
Average 1.04 1.095
Standard deviation 0.091 0.07
Coefficient of variation 8.75% 6.41%

Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Funding
acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Adam MA, Said M, Mahmoud AA, Shanour AS. Analytical and experimental
flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymers
bars. Constr Build Mater 2015;84:354–66.
[2] Heng L, Zhou W, Zhenyu W. Flexural performance of concrete beams reinforced
with FRP bars grouted in corrugated sleeves. Compos Struct 2019;215:49–59.
[3] Pawłowski D, Szumigala M. Flexural behavior of full-scale basalt FRP RC beams
experimental and numerical studies. Procedia Eng 2015;108:518–25.
[4] Tomlinson D, Fam A. Performance of concrete beams reinforced with basalt FRP
for flexure and shear. J Compos Constr 2015;19:1–10.
[5] Douglas D. An investigation into the flexural behavior of GFRP reinforced concrete
beams [MSc thesis]. Canada: University of Toronto; 2012.
[6] Soric Z, Kisicek T, Galic J. Deflections of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars.
Mater Struct 2010;43:73–90.
[7] Raffaello F, Andrea P, Domenico A. Limit States Design of Concrete Structures
Reinforced with FRP Bars [Ph.D. thesis]. Italy: University of Naples Federico.
[8] Tu Y, Zhang J, Qian Y. Experimental and theoretical investigation of flexural load-
carrying capacity of concrete beams reinforced with AFRP tendons. J. Southeast
Univ. (Nat. Sci.), China 2009;39(3):563–8.
[9] Habeeb M, Ashour A. Flexural behavior of continuous GFRP reinforced concrete
beams. J. Compos. Constr. 2008;12:115–24.
[10] Pecce M, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Experimental response and code models of GFRP
RC beams in bending. J. Compos. Constr. 2000;4:182–90.
[11] Said M, Adam MA, Mahmoud AA, Shanour AS. Experimental and analytical shear
evaluation of concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymers bars.
Constr Build Mater 2016;102:574–91.
[12] Qu W, Zhang X, Huang H. Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with
hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars. J. Compos. Constr. 2009;13:350–9.
[13] Zeyang S, Linchen F, Cheng DF, Vatuloka AR, Yang W. Experimental study on the
flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with bundled hybrid steel/FRP
bars. Eng Struct 2019;197:1–10.
[14] El-Refai A, Abed F, Al-Rahmani A. Structural performance and serviceability of
concrete beams reinforced with hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars. Constr Build Mater
2015;96:518–29.
[15] Ge W, Zhang JD, Dafu C, Yongming T. Flexural behaviors of hybrid concrete beams
reinforced with BFRP Bars and steel bars. Constr Build Mater 2015;87:28–37.
[16] Kara IF, Ashour AF, Köroğlu MA. Flexural behavior of hybrid FRP/steel reinforced
concrete beams. Compos Struct 2015;129:111–21.
[17] Safan MA. Flexural behavior and design of steel–GFRP reinforced concrete beams.
ACI Mater J 2013;110(6):677–85.
[18] Lau D, Pam HJ. Experimental study of hybrid FRP reinforced concrete beams. Eng
Struct 2010;32(12):3857–65.
[19] Aiello MA, Ombres L. Structural performances of concrete beams with hybrid
reinforcements. J. Compos. Constr. 2002;6(2):133–40.
[20] Leung HY, Balendran RV. Flexural behavior of concrete beams internally
reinforced with GFRP rods and steel bars. Struc. Surv. 2003;21:146–57.
[21] Minkwan J, Sangyun L, Park C. Response of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)-
steel hybrid reinforcing bar in uniaxial tension. Int J Concr Struct Mater 2017;11:
677–86.
[22] Priyanka U, Siva M. Hybrid reinforcement by using GFRP. Int Res J Eng Technol
2016;3:642–5.
[23] Park KT, Hyeong YK, Young JY, Sang YL, Dong WS. Hybrid FRP reinforcing bars for
concrete structures. Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on FRP in Structures,
International Institute for FRP in Construction. 2013.
[24] Etman E. Flexural performance of RC slabs with internal hybrid reinforcement. In:
American Society of Civil Engineers, 5th IECC’5; August 2008.
[25] ANSYS–Release Version 12.1.0. A Finite Element Computer Software and User
Manual for Nonlinear Structural Analysis. Canonsburg, PA: ANSYS Inc; 2009.
[26] Datafit Version 9.1. Curve Fitting Non-linear Regression and Data Plotting
Software. Oakdale Engineering; 2019.
[27] Said M, Abd El-Azim AA, Ali MM, El-Ghazaly H, Shaaban I. Effect of elevated
temperature on axially and eccentrically loaded columns containing polyvinyl
alcohol (PVA) fibers. Eng Struct 2020;204:1–12.
[28] Shanour AS, Said M, Arafa AI, Maher A. Flexural performance of concrete beams
containing engineered cementitious composites. Constr Build Mater 2018;180:
23–34.
[29] Ge W, Wang Y, Ashour A, Lu W, Cao D. Flexural performance of concrete beams
reinforced with steel-FRP composite bars. J Arch Civil Mech Eng 2020;56:1–17.
[30] Beshara FB, Mustafa TS, Mahmoud AA, Khalil M. Constitutive models for nonlinear
analysis of SFRC corbels. J Build Eng 2020;28:1–15.
[31] Hawileh RA. Finite element modeling of reinforced concrete beams with a hybrid
combination of steel and aramid reinforcement. J Mater Des 2015;65:831–9.
[32] Montoya E, Vecchio F, Sheikh SA. Compression field modelling of confined
concrete. J Struct Eng Mech 2001;12(3).
[33] Careira DJ, Chu KH. Stress-strain relationship of reinforced concrete in tension. ACI
Mater J 1990;83:21–8.
[34] Eurocode 3. Design of Steel Structures, ENV EC3 Part 1.2.“, Eurocode; 2005.
[35] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete, ACI-318-
14; 2014.

24