Rafi 1

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/249354186
Experimental Testing of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Carbon

FRP Bars
Article in Journal of Composite Materials · November 2007

DOI: 10.1177/0021998307078727
CITATIONS READS
55 3,788
3 authors:
Muhammad Masood Rafi Ali Nadjai

NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi Ulster University
103 PUBLICATIONS 1,232 CITATIONS 167 PUBLICATIONS 2,088 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
F. Ali
Ulster University
88 PUBLICATIONS 1,760 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Nadjai on 06 February 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Composite Materials
http://jcm.sagepub.com
Experimental Testing of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Carbon FRP Bars

Muhammad Masood Rafi, Ali Nadjai and Faris Ali
Journal of Composite Materials 2007; 41; 2657
DOI: 10.1177/0021998307078727
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jcm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/22/2657
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
American Society for Composites
Additional services and information for Journal of Composite Materials can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jcm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jcm.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Experimental Testing of Concrete Beams
Reinforced with Carbon FRP Bars
MUHAMMAD MASOOD RAFI,* ALI NADJAI AND FARIS ALI

FireSERT, University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Shore Road
Newtownabbey BT37 0QB, UK
ABSTRACT: Most of the research on the fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bar
reinforced structures employed glass FRP (GFRP) bars. The results of tests, which
were conducted on the carbon FRP (CFRP) bar reinforced concrete beams,
are reported in this article. The beams reinforced with conventional steel rods were
tested as control specimens. Nearly equal crack spacing and number of cracks were
noted in both types of beams, at all stages of loading. The bond characteristics of the
CFRP bars were found to be satisfactory. The ACI code equation over-estimated the
stiffness of the CFRP reinforced beams and as a result theoretical deflection,
predicted by the ACI code method, was found to be less than the recorded deflection.
KEY WORDS: fiber reinforced polymer, beam, cracking, strain, failure, bond,
deflection.
INTRODUCTION
HE USE OF steel as a reinforcing material in reinforced concrete (RC) structures has

T a long tradition in the construction industry. The success of steel over all other
materials was made possible by its superior qualities of strength and compatibility with
concrete. However, the problems with corrosion have given rise to costly-to-rectify
solutions and made the maintenance of these structures expensive and time consuming.
Several methods of avoiding corrosion of steel were tried in the past including the use of
admixtures in concrete in order to reduce its permeability, the use of galvanized or epoxy-
coated steel bars, electro-static spray fusion-bonded (powder resin) coatings, polymer-
impregnated concrete, etc. None of these proved adequate enough to reduce the level of
anxiety and unease among infrastructure owners and professionals. Recent efforts in the
construction industry have been focused on the introduction of new competitive non-
metallic fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials in order to deal with the unreliable
durability problems of steel RC structures.
FRP bars made up of aramid, carbon or glass fibers are available for commercial
applications. Most of the research on the FRP bars remained focused on glass FRP
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rafi-m@ulster.ac.uk

Figures 2–4 appear in color online: http://jcm.sagepub.com
Journal of COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Vol. 41, No. 22/2007 2657

0021-9983/07/22 2657–17 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/0021998307078727
ß SAGE Publications 2007
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
2658 M. M. RAFI ET AL.
(GFRP) rods. This was due to the lower cost of GFRP bars [1–3] compared to the other
types of FRP bars. This paper presents the results of tests carried out on the concrete
beams reinforced with carbon FRP (CFRP) tension bars.
Duplicate steel and CFRP reinforced beams were tested in bending at the University
of Ulster. The presented article is part of an on-going research into studying the behavior of
the CFRP RC beams at normal and elevated temperature conditions. The steel reinforced
beams were tested as control specimens. The study focused on the flexural behavior of
these beams in terms of stress–strain, deflection behavior, modes of failure, load-carrying
capacity and cracking pattern. These aspects of the behavior of beams are discussed
hereafter.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
Test Specimens
Each individual beam was 2000 mm long with a rectangular cross section
of 120 200 mm. These were reinforced with two longitudinal bars on the tension face
(CFRP bars for FRP reinforced beams and steel bars for steel reinforced beams).
The beams were cast in a mold made of plywood. A 20 mm concrete cover was used
all-around the beam. The compression steel and nominal concrete strength were kept
constant for all beams. The concrete was mixed in a rotating mixer and vibrated on a
vibrating table. The beams were cured with water intermittently (three times a day in
summer) for 10 days and were then left air-drying. Four 100 mm cubes were cast for each
beam. The beams were tested as simply supported beams over a span of 1750 mm under a
four-point static load as shown in Figure 1. The loads were 400 mm apart giving a shear
span (a) of 675 mm.
Materials
CONCRETE
The concrete mix used is shown in Table 1. Identical mixes were made for each beam.
The maximum aggregate size was 10 mm. The exact amount of water varied depending on
the moisture contents of aggregates. The slump of concrete ranged from 40 to 50 mm.
2P
a = 675 400 675
2 T8 bars
6 mm
stirrups 200
2 T10 steel/
100 mm c/c Strain gauge LVDT
2 Ø 9.5 mm
CFRP bars 600 600
120 L =1750
125 All dimensions in mm 125
Figure 1. Details of a typical beam.

Concrete Beams Reinforced with Carbon FRP Bars 2659
Table 1. Constituents of concrete mix.

Water (W) 216 kg/m3
Ordinary Portland cement (C) 325 kg/m3
W/C ratio 0.66
Coarse aggregate – 10 mm 1001 kg/m3
Sand 853 kg/m3
Table 2. Strength of concrete on the day of test.

Beam Cube strength (MPa) Cylinder strength (MPa)
BRS1 52 47
BRS2 51 45
BRC1 48 43
BRC2 47 42
Figure 2. CFRP and tension steel bar.
Cube strength after 28 days was 49 MPa, this being the average strength of the four cubes,
one from each beam. This is equivalent to 43 MPa cylindrical strength [4]. The strength of
the concrete has been rounded off to two significant figures.
Table 2 shows the cube and equivalent cylindrical strength [4] of the concrete on the day
of testing (rounded off to two figures). These strengths were obtained from the average
strength of three cubes for each beam. Each beam tested was defined by letters comparing
its reinforcing material and temperature conditions. The notation used to identify the
beams are as follows: the first letter (B) stands for beam; the second letter indicates the
testing temperature as R for room temperature; and the third letter represents the type of
tension reinforcing bar material such as S for steel and C for CFRP bars. This notation
have been consistently followed throughout the rest of the text.
CFRP BARS
The FRP bars consisted of 9.5 mm diameter straight CFRP rods, as shown in Figure 2.
The bars were produced by an American manufacturer using the pultrusion process.
Continuous carbon fibers with a volume fraction of 60% by volume were used.
The nominal tensile strength and tensile modulus of these fibers were 4.83 and 234 GPa,
respectively. The resin used to bond fibers was bisphenol epoxy vinyl ester. A textured
surface was provided on the bars through surface treatment in order to increase the bond
with the concrete. The bar had a widely spaced spiral winding imprint with textured
surface in between helical rings. The surface texture was formed with the same resin
without involving external fibers. Properties of the CFRP bars are given in Table 3.
The manufacturer provided results of tensile tests on these bars.

Table 3. Mechanical properties of reinforcing bars.

Bar type Diameter (mm) Ultimate strengtha (MPa) Ultimate straina Elastic modulus (GPa)
CFRP 9.5 1676 0.0145 135.9
Steel 10 530 0.0048 201.0
Steel 8 566 0.0049 194.0
Steel 6 421 0.0041 200.0
a
Parameters corresponding to 0.2% offset yield stress for steel bar.
STEEL BARS
The tension rebars in the BRS beams consisted of 10 mm diameter high strength
deformed bars, as shown in Figure 2. Material properties of these bars are shown in
Table 3. These properties were determined by the tensile tests in the laboratory. The bars
were chosen because their nominal cross-sectional area was approximately equal to the
CFRP bars. It was, therefore, possible to position both the steel and CFRP bars identically
in the control and in the test beams. Steel rebars of the identical area of the CFRP rods
were not available.
The top bars were of 8 mm diameter high strength deformed steel for all beams. Both
top and bottom steel bars were hooked at each end. The reinforcement cages (Figure 1)
were tied with iron wire. Smooth 6 mm diameter closed rectangular stirrups spaced
at 100 mm center to center were chosen to comply with the criteria of the ultimate strength
design of FRP reinforced beams given by the ACI code [5,6]. The results of tensile tests on
the top and stirrup bars are also included in Table 3.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation was set up to measure the deflection of the beam, and slip &
deformation of the reinforcing bars. Strain gauges were used to measure deformation and
to monitor bond of the CFRP bars. These gauges were mounted on one of the tension bars
in both BRS and BRC types of beams. The gauges were provided by Vishay Measurement
Group. Type CEA-06-240UZ-120 gauges were bonded using M-Bond AE-10 adhesive.
The gauges were fully waterproofed before pouring the concrete in the forms. One gauge
was used at the midspan of the beam. Two more gauges were bonded at a distance of
600 mm on each side of the center of the beam. The positions of the strain gauges are
shown in Figure 1.
The deflection at the midspan was measured using linear variable differential
transducers (LVDTs). These LVDTs were placed on both sides of the longitudinal
center of the beam. Horizontal LVDTs were used at the end of the BRC beams to measure
the slip of the CFRP bars. Computer aided data acquisition systems were used to record
continuously load, deflection, slip and strain. Thus this data could be obtained easily
at any time during each test.
Test Procedure
The specimen beams were placed on half-round supports, which were spaced at
a distance equal to the test span of the beam. The loading was applied in small increments,
through 38 mm diameter rollers, by means of a 200 kN hydraulic jack. Steel plates 25 mm

Figure 3. Experimental set-up for beam BRC1.
wide and 5 mm thick were placed under each roller on the top of the beam in order
to avoid local crushing. Each load increment was 2.5 kN for the BRS and 5 kN for the
BRC beams and was measured with a 200 kN load cell. These were chosen to keep the
number of load steps nearly the same for both types of beams. All beams were tested to
failure. The beams were 2 to 3 months old at the time of testing. Immediately after the load
increment, cracks were identified using a magnifying glass and marked. The ends of the
cracks were labeled with the corresponding load step. Three minutes were allowed for the
completion of the process before the next increment of load was applied. The monitoring
of cracks continued over the entire loading spectrum. Figure 3 shows the test set-up in the
laboratory for the beam BRC1.
The operator manually controlled load, which was displayed on the monitor screen and
made the necessary adjustments to keep load as constant as possible. For all tests the load
was removed after the applied load dropped substantially below the ultimate load.
A complete test took approximately 1 h.
ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS
Cracking Behavior
Concrete is a weak material in tension and cracks when subjected to high local tensile
stresses. The cracking in the flexural members is not only unavoidable but is necessary to
allow tension reinforcement to play its part. A number of factors may affect the spacing
and width of cracks. However, investigators have not completely agreed on the
fundamental factors of crack formation [7]. Extensive cracking generally takes place in
bending members like beams and causes a change in their behavior.
CRACKING IN BRC BEAMS

Typical cracking behavior of the BRC beams is shown in Figure 4(a) and (b).
The cracking started in the constant moment region with the cracks originating from the

Figure 4. Cracking pattern of beams.
bottom fibers, which were subjected to the maximum principal stresses. These cracks were
mainly vertical flexural cracks, which were perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of
the beam. These initial cracks traversed quite deeply into the compression zone. The height
of the initial cracks was between 35 and 129 mm. This shows that immediately after
cracking the neutral axis (NA) shifted quite deeply into the compression zone. The spacing
and number of cracks with the applied load are illustrated in Figure 5. The spacing was
measured with a steel rule to the nearest 1 mm.
The cracks in the shear span originated as vertical flexural cracks at a relatively lower
load level. These cracks transformed into inclined diagonal tension cracks at higher load
levels and propagated towards the load points on the top of the beam. The crack spacing
also decreased rapidly with the increase in the applied load. However the spacing of the
cracks remained approximately constant after an applied load of 30 kN, as can be seen
in Figure 5(a). The strain in the FRP bars at this stage reached an average value of 0.0034.
Beyond this load level only existing cracks grew in length and width with very little change
in number of cracks, as shown in Figure 5(b). Some tertiary as well as shear cracks also
developed near the ultimate capacity of the beam. Tertiary cracks formed at the level of
tension reinforcement.
CRACKING IN BRS BEAMS

The cracking pattern of BRS1 and BRS2 is shown in Figure 4(c) and (d), respectively.
The cracking in the BRS beams also started with the vertical flexural cracks in the constant
moment region, which was similar to the BRC beams. However, for the BRS beams very
few cracks outside the pure bending zone turned into inclined cracks and most of these
were relatively vertical as shown in Figure 4(c) and (d). These beams showed a classic
reinforced concrete crack pattern involving fewer and larger cracks, as can be seen
in Figure 5. However the spacing of the cracks decreased as the load increased (Figure 5a).
The crack formation became stabilized once again after a load of 30 kN (Figure 5b).
The average strain in the steel bar at this load level was recorded as 0.0024, which was 50%
of its yield strain. Few tertiary cracks also formed around bottom reinforcing bars at
higher load levels.

(a) 100
BRC1
80
BRC2
Load (kN)
60 BRS1
BRS2
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20
No. of cracks
(b) 500
BRC1
Crack spacing (mm)
400 BRC2
BRS1
300
BRS2
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Load (kN)
Figure 5. (a) Number of cracks vs. load. (b) Crack spacing vs. load.
COMPARISON BETWEEN BRC AND BRS BEAMS

The cracking behavior of the BRC and BRS beams at 15, 20, and 35 kN has been
compared in Figure 6. These loads correspond, respectively, to 35, 50, and 90% of Pu for
the BRS beams. It can be seen in Figure 6 that both types of beams showed a similar
cracking pattern. A summary of Figure 6 is given in Table 4. It is evident in Table 4 that
the BRS and BRC beams developed almost the same number of cracks with similar
average spacing at all three load levels. However, at low load levels (up to 20 kN),
the cracks in the BRC beams were significantly higher compared to the BRS beams.
The height of the cracks in the BRS beams lengthened with the increase in the applied load
and become comparable with the BRC beams near failure. The cracking patterns of the
BRC beams at 90% Pu of these beams are presented in Figure 7. It becomes clear from the
comparison of Figures 6 and 7 that both BRC and BRS types of beams developed almost
the same number of cracks near failure as well as with similar average spacing.
The number of cracks and the average crack spacing at the failure for all beams is shown in
Table 4.
The width of cracks in the BRC beams was considerably narrow. This shows a good
mechanical bond between the CFRP bars and the surrounding concrete. It can be noted in
Table 4 that the crack spacing at failure is comparable with the spacing of the stirrups in
these beams. This is an indication of adequate number of stirrups in both types of beams.

(a)
BRS1
BRS2
BRC1
BRC2
(b)
BRS1
BRS2
BRC1
BRC2
Figure 6. (a) Cracking patterns of beams at 15 kN. (b) Cracking patterns of beams at 20 kN. (c) Cracking
patterns of beams at 35 kN.
Bond Characteristics
A perfect bond is assumed to exist between the concrete and the reinforcing bars in the
design of concrete structures. This provides the basis of strain compatibility analysis of
an RC section. The characteristic of bond makes a heterogeneous material form a
composite structure. The tension force is transferred to the reinforcing bar through a bar–
concrete bond. If the bar is unable to transfer the bond force adequately then cracks
parallel to the rebar develops and reduce the transfer of force. The bond forces prevent any

(c)
BRS1
BRS2
BRC1
BRC2
Figure 6. Continued.
Table 4. Spacing and number of cracks at various load levels.

Cracks at 15 kN Cracks at 20 kN Cracks at 35 kN Cracks at failure
Beam No. Spacing (mm) No. Spacing (mm) No. Spacing (mm) No. Spacing (mm)
BRS1 6 182.00 10 95.00 13 96.00 13 96.00
BRS2 6 141.00 9 99.00 12 100.00 12 100.00
BRC1 5 113.00 10 100.00 11 103.00 18 77.00
BRC2 6 136.00 8 126.00 12 97.00 15 99.00
significant slippage at the bar–concrete interface. Although, due to different deformation

capacities of both constituent materials, some slip does take place at a crack location on
the tension face of a member it has been found that the average concrete tensile strain
measured over a gauge length including several cracks remains proportional to the
distance from the NA [8]. Conventional steel bars are provided with deformed surface to
increase bond with the concrete. In this case bond stress, which is defined as shear force
per unit area of the bar, is developed by bearing on the deformations of the bar. The bond
stress can be calculated with the help of Equation (1).
T
u¼ : ð1Þ
db ld
The mechanical interlocking is negligible in the FRP reinforced structures due to smooth
surface of a fibrous bar. Nonetheless, many researchers have found that the mechanism of
bond development with the concrete is the same for the FRP bars as that of steel bars and
depends on type of fibers, shape, diameter, modulus of elasticity and surface deformation
of the FRP rods [9–12]. In the FRP RC structures the bond failure is caused due to the
shearing of the surface of rebars by concrete resulting in large slip contrary to the steel RC
structures where bond failure is resulted from splitting of concrete after it is crushed

BRC1
BRC2
Figure 7. Cracking patterns of BRC beams at 90% Pu.
CL
P
Basic development length, ldf
Additional embedment length
Figure 8. Development and additional embedment length.
in front of the surface deformations [13,14]. An adequate embedment length (Figure 8) in

the RC structures is necessary to allow the tension bar to develop its full tensile strength
and to avoid any premature bond failure. In order to avoid pullout failure, ACI code [5]
recommends an embedment length for the FRP tension bars with a concrete cover greater
than 2db as given by Equation (2):
db ffu
ldf ¼ : ð2Þ
18:5
It is evident in Equation (2) that the development length of the FRP bar is not dependant
on the concrete strength. The concrete cover provided in the BRC beams was 20 mm,
which was slightly greater than two times the diameter of these bars. The theoretical
development length according to Equation (2) comes out to be 860 mm. The actual
provided embedment length was approximately 790 mm and the additional embedment
length beyond the center of support was 115 mm. However, no splitting or any other signs
of premature bond failure were noticed in any of the tested BRC beams.
Horizontal LVDTs were used in direct contact with the ends of the CFRP bars,
as shown in Figure 3, to measure the slip of these rebars. No evidence of slip at the end of
any of the bars was found from the recorded data.
The strain gauges were used at different locations along the length of both steel and
FRP rods to monitor the bar–concrete bond (Figure 1). Figure 9 shows the tensile strain
distribution at midspan for the BRS and BRC beams. It can be seen that the curves for
each type of beam are very similar to its type, which indicates a good transfer of load
to these bars. The strain in the FRP bars remains essentially linear up to the failure

100
BRS1
80
BRS2
Load (kN)
60 BRC1
BRC2
40
20
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Strain (m/m)
Figure 9. Rebar strain distribution at midspan.
of beams. The maximum recorded strain in the BRC1 and BRC2 was 0.011 and 0.0099,
respectively. The stresses corresponding to these strains came out to be 1495 and
1345 MPa, respectively, for BRC1 and BRC2 beams. These are between 80 and 90% of the
ultimate tensile strength of these bars (Table 3). The gauges on the steel bars in the BRS1
and BRS2 broke after a strain of approximately 0.0049 and 0.0035, respectively.
Figure 10 shows the strain distribution of the CFRP bar at a distance of 275 mm from
the supports in the shear span of the BRC beams. Gauges 1 and 2 were bonded at around
the same location from each support of the beam (Figure 1). It can be seen in Figure 10
that although the measured strain was affected by the presence of cracks close to the
gauges, the strain profile is essentially the same in both locations. This shows a good and
consistent bond between the FRP bars and the concrete.
The maximum recorded strain at this location in the BRC1 and BRC2 was 0.00693 and
0.00688, respectively. This corresponds to a stress of 942 and 935 MPa, respectively, for the
beam BRC1 and BRC2. Equation (1) yields a bond stress, for the last 400 mm length of the
beams BRC1 and BRC2, as 5.54 and 5.70 MPa, respectively. The supplier provided a bond
stress value of 8.45 MPa from a direct pull-out test for these CFRP bars. The average bond
stress in the BRC1 and BRC2 beams was thus, respectively, around 34 and 33% less than
the strength from the pull-out test. Achillides et al. [12] also reported 35% smaller bond
strength in the CFRP bar reinforced beam than the strength from the pull-out test.
The average bond strength corresponding to strain in the shear span of the BRC1 and
BRC2 comes out to be 3.20 and 3.30 MPa, respectively. According to Eurocode 2, part 1-1
[15] the characteristic bond stress value for high-bond steel bars for a concrete strength
of approximately 43 MPa is 3.85 MPa. It is clear that the CFRP bars developed more than
85% of the deformed steel bars bond strength. This is similar to the findings by Achillides
et al. [12].
Modes of Failure
The design of both BRS and BRC beams was based on ACI Code [5,6]. The BRC
beams were designed over-reinforced using reinforcement ratio (0.0070) greater than the
balanced reinforcement ratio (0.0032). The BRS beams were under-reinforced beams
having reinforcement ratio (0.0077) less than the balanced reinforcement ratio (0.0277).

(a) 100
BRC1-Gauge1
80 BRC1-Gauge2
Load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Strain (m/m)
(b) 100
BRC2-Gauge1
80
BRC2-Gauge2
Load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Strain (m/m)
Figure 10. (a) Rebar strain at 275 mm from support in beam BRC1. (b) Rebar strain at 275 mm from support
in beam BRC2.
Table 5. Load, deflection and modes of failure.

Beam Pcr (kN) Pu (kN) at Pyielda (mm) at Pu (mm) Modes of failure
BRS1 7.8 41.9 6.92 29.16 Steel yielding
BRS2 7.5 40.1 7.50 27.78 Steel yielding
BRC1 7.1 88.9 11.14 35.26 Shear compression
BRC2 7.1 86.5 10.96 35.50 Compression
a
Deflection in BRC beams corresponding to yielding of steel bars in BRS beams.
A compression failure for the BRC beams and a tension failure for the BRS beams can be
expected during their testing.
The observed modes of failure of all beams are presented in Table 5. The behavior of
both BRS beams was similar. They both failed by the crushing of concrete after the tension
reinforcement yielded and the BRC beams failed in compression. In the beam BRC1 the
diagonal tension crack caused failure, which originated as a vertical crack at a distance of
approximately 120 mm from the support. The crack gradually bent over towards the point
of load application as it propagated upward and became almost horizontal before reaching

100
BRC1
80 BRC2
BRS1
Load (kN)
60
BRS2
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm)
Figure 11. Deflection behavior of beams.
the load point. However the beam kept taking load as this diagonal tension crack
propagated and opened up. Finally the concrete above this crack crushed adjacent to the
load point in the shear span as shown in Figure 4(a). The BRC2 beam failed by the
crushing of concrete between the point loads (Figure 4b).
Table 5 shows cracking loads (Pcr) of the beams where it can be seen that the cracking
loads for all four beams are very close to each other, as can be expected. The ultimate load
carried by the beam is also shown in Table 5 where it can be noted that the BRC beams
carried more than twice the load on the BRS beams. This was due to strength of a CFRP
bar, which was much higher than the yield strength of a steel bar (Table 2). The failure
modes of the BRS beams are also shown in Figure 4.
Deflection Behavior
The recorded deflection () behavior of the beams is traced in Figure 11. The initial
linear part of the curves has a very steep slope, which corresponds to the uncracked
condition of these beams. In this region the deflection is proportional to the applied load
and the entire concrete section is considered effective in resisting the loads. As can be seen
from Figure 11, the behavior of both types of beams is similar before cracking when beams
are stiff. The end point of this linear part is an indication of the initiation of cracking
in the beam.
The next segment that immediately follows this linear part provides information about
the bond quality and tension stiffening effects due to crack spacing. The slope of this part
is smaller than the slope of the initial linear segment. This shows that the rate of deflection
per unit load is higher after the beam has cracked, which is an indication of the reduction
in the stiffness of the cracked beam. Stiffness here is defined as load per unit deflection.
However it can be seen from the widening of the gap between the BRS and BRC curves in
Figure 11 that the rate of reduction in the stiffness of BRC beams became higher with the
increase in the applied load.
Table 5 presents a comparison of deflection at two stages of loading of the beams. It can
be seen that the average difference in the stiffness of both types of beams at the yielding of
the steel bars was about 38%. This can be attributed to the low elastic modulus of the

CFRP bars, which is 32% less than a steel bar. The reduced stiffness of the FRP
reinforced beams after cracking has also been reported by various other researchers
[16–22].
The last part of the curve is an indication of possible failure mechanism of the structure.
As shown in Figure 11, both BRS beams showed a very ductile behavior and both beams
failed at nearly the same load after undergoing considerable deformation with very small
increase in the load once steel yielded. The ultimate load of the BRS beams was around
53% lower than the BRC beams while deflection of the BRC beams at ultimate state was
25% greater than the BRS beams on average, as can be seen in Table 5.
The service load of the beam can be assumed as the ultimate load divided by 1.6, which
is the factor for the live load suggested by ACI code [6]. In order to calculate the service
deflection of a flexural member, ACI code presents the concept of effective moment
of inertia (Ie). The method of calculating Ie for the steel reinforced beams given by
ACI code [5] is based on the expression proposed by Branson [23]. This is given by
Equation (3).
3 " #
Mcr Mcr 3
Ie ¼ Ig þ 1 Icr Ig ð3Þ
M M
where Mcr can be calculated with the help of Equation (4) as:
f r Ig
Mcr ¼ : ð4Þ
yb
The values of Mcr for the beams are shown in Table 6.

For the FRP RC members, ACI code [6] recommends a modified form of Equation (3)
and Ie can be calculated as:
3 " #
Mcr Mcr 3
Ie ¼ Ig þ 1 Icr Ig ð5aÞ
M M

Ef
¼ 1þ ð5bÞ
Es
where is bond-dependant coefficient and is taken as 0.5
Table 6. Experimental and theoretical deflection.

Deflection (mm)
Beam Mcr (kN-m) Experimental Theoretical

BRS1 3.38 3.80 3.55
BRS2 3.31 3.88 3.39
BRC1 3.24 16.26 13.13
BRC2 3.20 15.56 12.77

For a beam subjected to a four-point load (Figure 1), the deflection can be calculated by
the elastic deflection formula given in Equation (6).

PL3 3a a 3
¼ : ð6Þ
6Ec Ie 4L L
Table 6 presents both the experimental and theoretical service deflection according to
Equations (3) and (5) for the BRS and BRC beams. Ec in Equation (6) was calculated
using ACI code [5] formula given by Equation (7).
pffiffiffiffi
Ec ¼ 4730 fc : ð7Þ
It can be seen in Table 6 that Equation (3) predicted the deflection reasonably well for the
BRS beams. However, Equation (5) underestimated the service deflection of the BRC
beams by about 18%.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of four-point bending tests, which were conducted on beams reinforced with
the CFRP and steel bars are presented in this paper. The main findings of the investigation
on the behavior of these beams are as follows:
1. The BRC and BRS beams developed nearly equal numbers of cracks with an equal
average crack spacing at all stages of loading, up to the failure. The cracks in both types
of beams stabilized after an applied load of 30 kN. The crack spacing at failure in both
types of beams was similar to the spacing of the stirrups.
2. The CFRP bars showed good and consistent bond with the concrete and no signs of
any premature bond failure were found. No evidence of any slip of the CFRP bars was
noticed during the test. The maximum tensile stresses on the CFRP bars were 80–90%
of their ultimate strength. The CFRP bars developed a bond strength, which was more
than 85% of that of a deformed steel bar.
3. The BRS beams failed by the steel yielding and the BRC beams failed by the concrete
crushing. These were the intended modes of failure in their design.
4. The cracking load for both types of beams was nearly the same despite two differing
reinforcing material types.
5. The BRC beams deflected more than the BRS beams after cracking. However, after
yielding of steel the rate of deflection in the BRS beams was more than the BRC beams.
The ACI code equation under-estimated theoretical deflection of the BRC beams.
NOMENCLATURE
db ¼ diameter of bar
Ec ¼ modulus of elasticity of concrete
Ef ¼ modulus of elasticity of FRP bar
Es ¼ modulus of elasticity of steel bar

fc ¼ concrete compressive strength

ffu ¼ ultimate tensile strength of FRP bar, MPa
fr ¼ modulus of rupture, MPa
Ig ¼ gross moment of inertia about centroidal axis of concrete section
without reinforcement
Icr ¼ crack moment of inertia of a section
ld ¼ embedment length
ldf ¼ development length, mm
M ¼ applied moment
Mcr ¼ cracking moment
Pu ¼ ultimate load
T ¼ tension force
u ¼ bond stress
yb ¼ distance from centroidal axis of concrete section to the extreme
tension fibers, neglecting reinforcement
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the support provided for this research by the School
of Built Environment, University of Ulster; Dr Alan Leacock, Lecturer, School of
Electrical and Mechanical Engineering for tensile testing of steel bars and all the
laboratory technical staff members.
REFERENCES
1. Mota, C., Alminar, S. and Svecova, D. (2006). Critical Review of Deflection Formulas for
FRP-RC Members, Journal of Composites for Construction, 10(3): 183–194.
2. Al-Sunna, R.A.S. (2006). Deflection Behaviour of FRP Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members,
PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield, http://www.rss.gov.jo/publication.html.
3. Abdalla, H.A. (2002). Evaluation of Deflection in Concrete Members Reinforced with Fibre
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bars, Composite Structure, 56: 63–71.
4. Neville, M.A. (1981). Properties of Concrete: Testing of Hardened Concrete, Longman Scientific
& Technical, England.
5. American Concrete Institute (2003). Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete
Reinforced with FRP Bars, ACI 440.1R-03. Detroit, Michigan.
6. American Concrete Institute (2002). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete,
ACI 318R-02. Detroit, Michigan.
7. Broms, B. and Raab, A. (1961). The Fundamental Concept of the Cracking Phenomenon in
Reinforced Concrete Beams, Final Progress Report – Phase I. Cornell University.
8. Park, R. and Pauly, T. (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures: Basic Assumption of Theory for
Flexural Strength, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA.
9. Al-Zahrani, M.M., Nanni, A., Al-Dulaijan, S.U. and Bakis, C.E. (1996). Bond of FRP
to Concrete for Rods with Axisymmetric Deformations, In: Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS-
II), Montreal, Canada, pp. 853–860.
10. Uppuluri, V.S., Bakis, C.E., Nanni, A. and Boothby, T.E. (1996). Analysis of the
Bond Mechanism in FRP Reinforcement Rods: The Effect of Rod Design and Properties,

In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in

Bridges and Structures (ACMBS-II), Montreal, Canada, pp. 893–900.
11. Wang, Z., Goto, Y. and Joh, O. (1997). Bond Characteristic of FRP Rods and Effect on Long
Term Deflection of Concrete Beams, In: Proceeding of the Third International Symposium
on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Sapporo, Japan, Volume 2,
pp. 389–396.
12. Achillides, Z., Pilakoutas, K. and Waldron, P. (1997). Bond Behaviour of FRP Bars
to Concrete, In: Proceeding of the Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP)
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Sapporo, Japan, Volume 2, pp. 341–348.
13. Daniali, S. (1990). Bond Strength of Fiber Reinforced Plastic Bars in Concrete, In: Proceeding of
the 1st Material Engineering Congress, ASCE, Denver, Colorado, pp. 1182–1191.
14. Benmokrane, B., Tighiouart, B. and Chaallal, O. (1996). Bond Strength and Load Distribution
of Composite GFRP Reinforcing Bars in Concrete, ACI Material Journal, 93(3): 246–253.
15. Eurocode 2 (1992). Design of Concrete Structures, Part1-1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings, Brussels.
16. Benmokrane, B., Chaallal, O. and Masmoudi, R. (1996). Flexural Response of Concrete Beams
Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars, ACI Structural Journal, 93(1): 46–55.
17. Nanni, A. (1993). Flexural Behaviour and Design of RC Members Using FRP Reinforcement,
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(11): 3345–3359.
18. Faza, S.S. and GangaRao, H.V.S. (1992). Pre- and Post-cracking Deflection Behaviour of
Concrete Beams Reinforced with Fibre-reinforced Plastic Rebars, In: Proceedings of 1st
International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures
(ACMBS 1), CSCE. Sherbrooke, Quebec, pp. 151–160.
19. Saadatmanesh, H. and Ehsani, M.R. (1991). Fiber Composite Bar for Reinforced Concrete
Construction, Journal of Composite Material, 25: 188–203.
20. Nawy, E.G. and Neuwerth, G.E. (1977). Fiberglass Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Beams,
Journal of Structural Division, 103(ST2): 421–440.
21. Theriault, M. and Benmokrane, B. (1998). Effects of FRP Reinforcement Ratio and Concrete
Strength on Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams, Journal of Composite Construction, 2(1):
7–16.
22. Toutanji, H. and Deng, Y. (2003). Deflection and Crack-width Prediction of Concrete Beams
Reinforced with Glass FRP Rods, Construction and Building Material, 17: 69–74.
23. Branson, D.E. (1977). Deformation of Concrete Structures, McGraw-Hill Book Co., NewYork.

View publication stats

Rafi 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rafi 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Experimental Testing of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Carbon

Article in Journal of Composite Materials · November 2007

Muhammad Masood Rafi Ali Nadjai

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Experimental Testing of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Carbon FRP Bars

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jcm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

MUHAMMAD MASOOD RAFI,* ALI NADJAI AND FARIS ALI

HE USE OF steel as a reinforcing material in reinforced concrete (RC) structures has

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rafi-m@ulster.ac.uk

Journal of COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Vol. 41, No. 22/2007 2657

a = 675 400 675

Figure 1. Details of a typical beam.

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

Table 1. Constituents of concrete mix.

Table 2. Strength of concrete on the day of test.

Figure 2. CFRP and tension steel bar.

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

Table 3. Mechanical properties of reinforcing bars.

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

Figure 3. Experimental set-up for beam BRC1.

ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS

CRACKING IN BRC BEAMS

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

Figure 4. Cracking pattern of beams.

CRACKING IN BRS BEAMS

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

COMPARISON BETWEEN BRC AND BRS BEAMS

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

Table 4. Spacing and number of cracks at various load levels.

significant slippage at the bar–concrete interface. Although, due to different deformation

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

Figure 7. Cracking patterns of BRC beams at 90% Pu.

Basic development length, ldf

Additional embedment length

Figure 8. Development and additional embedment length.

in front of the surface deformations [13,14]. An adequate embedment length (Figure 8) in

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

Figure 9. Rebar strain distribution at midspan.

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

Table 5. Load, deflection and modes of failure.

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

Figure 11. Deflection behavior of beams.

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

The values of Mcr for the beams are shown in Table 6.

where is bond-dependant coefficient and is taken as 0.5

Table 6. Experimental and theoretical deflection.

Beam Mcr (kN-m) Experimental Theoretical

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

fc ¼ concrete compressive strength

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in

Downloaded from http://jcm.sagepub.com by Asad-ur-Rehman Khan on March 13, 2008

View publication stats

You might also like