Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 192 (2017) 64 68

TRANSCOM 2017: International scientific conference on sustainable, modern and safe transport

The analysis of beam reinforced with FRP bars in bending

Kinga Brzdaa*, Jacek Selejdaka, Peter Koteb
a
The faculty of Civil Engineering Czestochowa University of Technology, Akademicka 3, 42-200 Czestochowa, Poland
b
Civil Engineering Faculty University of ilina, Univerzitn 8215/1, 010 26 ilina, Slovakia

Abstract

The paper presents the computational analysis of static behavior of simply supported beam reinforced with FRP (Fiber
Reinforced Polymers) bars. The available calculation procedures and design assumptions were listed. The design of FRP
reinforcement procedures for flexural strength and long-term deflection according to American (ACI 440.1R-06) guidelines were
analyzed. Moreover, the analysis of computations of simply supported beam reinforced with CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Polymers), AFRP (Aramid Fiber Reinforced Polymers) and GFRP (Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymers) bars based on American
guidelines were done and compared. The differences between obtained properties dependent on various types of reinforcement
were identified.
2017
2017Published
The Authors. Published
by Elsevier by Elsevier
Ltd. This is an openLtd.
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of TRANSCOM 2017: International scientific conference on
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review
sustainable,under responsibility
modern of the scientific committee of TRANSCOM 2017: International scientific conference on sustainable,
and safe transport.
modern and safe transport
Keywords: flexural strength; long-term deflection; bent beam; FRP reinforcement; calculation procedures

1. Introduction

The several of very good physical and mechanical characteristics cause increasingly widespread use of fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) bars as main reinforcement of concrete members. The FRP bars properties, such as low
self-weight, very good fatigue properties (assuming that the load acting parallel to the direction of the fibers) and
high durability in aggressive environments contribute to the intensive development of possibility of using the FRP
bars as main reinforcement of concrete structures [1]. Depending on the used type of fiber there are GFRP (Glass

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +4-834-325-0206.

E-mail address: kbrozda@bud.pcz.czest.pl

1877-7058 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of TRANSCOM 2017: International scientific conference on sustainable, modern and safe transport
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.011
 Kinga Brzda et al. / Procedia Engineering 192 (2017) 64 68 65

Fiber Reinforced Polymers), CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers), AFRP (Aramid Fiber Reinforced
Polymers) and BFRP (Basalt Fiber Reinforced Polymer) bars. Type and content of fibers are dependent on the
desired properties of strength and stiffness of the finished product [2].
The primary objective of the computational analysis is to determine the usefulness of the various types of FRP
bars as reinforcement of concrete beams in bending. During analysis the flexural strength and long-term deflection
were taken into consideration. The results of research allow to determine the most effective type of reinforcement.

Nomenclature

CE environmental reduction factor for various fiber type and exposure conditions [-]
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete [MPa]
Icr moment of inertia of transformed cracked section [cm4]
Ig gross moment of inertia [cm4]
Ma maximum moment in member at stage deflection is computed [kNm]
Mcr cracking moment [kNm]
MDL moment due to service dead and live load [kNm]
b width of rectangular cross section [mm]
d distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement [mm]
f'c specified compressive strength of concrete [MPa]
h overall height of flexural member [mm]
k ratio of depth of neutral axis to reinforcement depth [-]
nf ratio of modulus of elasticity of FRP bars to modulus of elasticity of concrete [-]
wD service dead load self weight and superimposed service dead load [kN/m]
wL service live load [kN/m]
wSDL service dead and live load [kN/m]
1 factor taken as 0.85 for concrete strength fc up to and including 28 MPa [-]
d reduction coefficient used in calculating deflection [-]
cu ultimate strain in concrete [-]

2. The FRP reinforcement designing

2.1. Guidelines for the design

Many years of work experience of researchers, designers and contractors have resulted in guidelines elaboration
for the design of structural elements reinforced with FRP bars. These guidelines are based not only on analytical
solutions, but also on empirical equations supported by test on FRP bars samples or concrete elements reinforced
with these bars [3]. There are four collections of design recommendations used for dimensioning FRP
reinforcement: American [4], Canadian [5], Italian [6] and Japanese[7].
During the design of FRP reinforcement in the bending elements certain assumptions are included: perfect
adhesion on the contact surface between FRP bars and concrete, the applicability the condition of flat cross-sections,
a linear relationship between for FRP bars in tension (till destruction), used concrete which ultimate strain is
equal cu = 3.5 (value of cu = 3.0 is recommended by the American guidelines) and the omission of expandable
concrete zone [8].

2.2. Computational model

For the calculations a rectangular simply supported beam is assumed, which dimensions of cross-section are
300x150 mm (Fig. 1.). The beam is an exterior beam. Three beams reinforced with 212 FRP bars (CFRP, ARFP
and GFRP) are calculated and compared. The concrete specified by C20/25 compressive strength class is used. The
concrete cover thickness is assumed as c = 35 mm. The material properties of the bars are reported by the bar
66 Kinga Brzda et al. / Procedia Engineering 192 (2017) 64 68

manufacturers [9,10]. The beam is designed to carry a superimposed service dead load of wSDL = 3.0 kN/m and
a service live load of wL = 6.0 kN/m. The maximum beam deflection is Leff/240 [11], which is the limitation for
long-term deflection.

Fig. 1. The static scheme and cross-section of investigated beam under load.

2.3. The computational analysis

The flexural strength of the beam is determined with taking into consideration all reduction factors, based on the
American design recommendations [4]. The obtained results are presented in the Table 1.

Table 1. Computational analysis of flexural strength of the beam.

The calculation procedure [4] CFRP bars [9] AFRP bars [9] GFRP bars
[10]
Diameter [mm] 12 12 12
Area of FRP reinforcement Af [mm2] 113 107.1 101.8
FRP reinforcement ratio f [%] 0.58 0.55 0.52
The total reinforcement mass [g /m] 361.6 278.6 442
Guaranteed tensile strength of FRP bar ffu [MPa] 2300 1400 900
Modulus of elasticity of FRP Ef [MPa] 130 60 55
Design tensile strength of FRP ffu [MPa] 2070 1120 630
ffu C E f'fu CE = 0.9 CE = 0.8 CE = 0.7
FRP reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain 0.09 0.15 0.38
conditions fb [%]

f'c Ef Hcu
Ufb 0.85 E1 where: f'c = 14.3 MPa; cu = 0.0035; 1 = 0.85
ffu Ef Hcu  ffu
Stress in FRP reinforcement in tension ff [MPa] 699 531 527
0.85 E1 f'c
ff ABC where:  Ef Hcu 2
B Ef Hcu C 0.5 Ef Hcu
A
4 Uf
Strength reduction factor [-] 0.65 0.65 0.646
) 0.55 if Uf d Ufb
0.65 if Uf t 1.4 Ufb

Uf
0.3  0.25 otherwise
Ufb
Nominal moment capacity Mn [kNm] 22.14 16.83 15.80

Mn Uf ff D b d2 if Ufb d Uf Af ffu Uf ff E1 c
where: c D 1  0.59 d
0.85 E1 f'c b
E
Af ffu E if Ufb ! Uf f'c 2
 Kinga Brzda et al. / Procedia Engineering 192 (2017) 64 68 67

The long-term deflection of the beam is also determined, based on the American design recommendations [4].
According to the flexural strength of the beam the possible maximal length of the spans were estimated and the
long-term deflections were calculated for these lengths. The results of research are presented w in the Table 2.

Table 2. Computational analysis of the long-term deflection of the beam.

The calculation procedure [4] CFRP bars [9] AFRP bars [9] GFRP bars [10]
Maximum beam span Leff [m] 3.48 3.03 2.94
The effective moment of inertia [cm2] 9005 5777 3969
Mcr
3 M 3
cr
Ed Ig  1
I
Ma cr
Ie
Ma
where:

b h
3 f'c 1 Uf 2 fr Ig
Ig fr 0.62 MPa Ed Mcr
12 MPa 5
Ufb h
3 Ef
b d 3
Icr
3
2
k  nf Af d ( 1  k)
2
nf
f'c
k 2 Uf nf   Uf nf  2  Uf nf
475 0 MPa
MPa
The deflection due to dead load plus live 4.87 4.37 5.63
load i [mm]
2
5 MDL Leff
'i
48Ec Ie
The deflection due to dead load alone iD 1.96 1.78 2.29
[mm]
wD
' iD ' i
wDL
The deflection due to live load alone iL [mm] 2.89 2.59 3.34
wL
' iL ' i
wDL
Compute the multiplier for time-dependent 1.2 1.2 1.2
deflection using a = 2.0 (recommended value
for a duration of more than 5 years)
O 0.6 [
The long-term deflection LT [mm] 5.96 5.34 6.89
' LT ' iL  O  ' iD  0.2 ' iL
The deflection limitations [mm] 14.50 12.62 12.25
Leff
24 0

2.4. Analysis of the results

The analysis of flexural strength of the beam determine differences in nominal moment capacities between beams
reinforced with CFRP, AFRP and GFRP bars. These nominal moment capacities amount: 22.14 kNm, 16.83 kNm
and 15.79 kNm.
In two of the analyzed cases (CFRP and AFRP) the fulfillment of the condition f 1.4fb is observed, which
means the occurrence of concrete crushing as the mechanisms that control failure. This mechanism is a little less
rapid than failure resulting from FRP rupture. However, in the third case (GFRP reinforcement) the condition
fb < f < 1.4fb is satisfied. It means that the failure is resulted from both of mechanisms: FRP rupture and concrete
crushing [4].
68 Kinga Brzda et al. / Procedia Engineering 192 (2017) 64 68

The assumed border conditions and received results of nominal moment capacities of beams reinforced with
CFRP, AFRP and GFRP bars allow to obtain the maximum span respectively: 3.48 m, 3.03 m and 2.94 m. In view
of relatively low elastic modulus of FRP reinforcement is (the exception is CFRP), for those spans the long-term
deflections were controlled. The lowest value of long-term deflection for the assumed span obtained the beam
reinforced with AFRP bars 5.34 mm, and CFRP 5.96 mm. Although the span of beam reinforced with GFRP
bars is the shortest, the value of long-term deflection is the greatest 6.89 mm.

3. Conclusions

In the computational analysis of beam reinforced with FRP bars in bending the highest flexural strength was
obtained for CFRP reinforcement 22.14 kNm. This value is about 30% higher than flexural strength obtained by
beam reinforced with AFRP bars. The beam reinforced GFRP bars indicates the lowest nominal moment capacities
(similar value as AFRP). The CFRP reinforcement characterizes by the highest tensile strength, but also by
relatively high modulus of elasticity. Beams reinforced with AFRP and GFRP received similar nominal moment
capacities, despite the large difference in tensile strength. The reason is similar values of modulus of elasticity,
which contributes to obtaining almost identical values of stresses in FRP reinforcement in tension (stress in CFRP
reinforcement is about 30% larger).
Because of very good strength parameters, especially high tensile strength of FRP reinforcement, and assumed
border conditions it possible to obtain the span of the beam Leff equal 3.48 m for beam reinforced with CFRP bars,
3.03 m AFRP, 2.94 m GFRP, using a similar reinforcement ratio. During selection of the maximum spans of
beams the highest value of moment at each of analyzed sections was assumed. However, due to the relatively low
modulus of elasticity the long-term deflection was also examined. The lowest value of the deflection achieved in
beams reinforced with AFRP bars only 5.34 mm. The values of long-term deflection of beams reinforced with
CFRP and AFRP bars account for about 41 42% of deflection limits. In case of GFRP reinforcement that value is
approximately 56% It means the lowest value of the proportion between beam length and deflection in case of
GFRP reinforcement, while in CFRP and AFRP reinforcement this value is almost identical.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the contract
No. SK-PL-2015-0004.

References

[1] M. Drzazga, M. Kamiski, Prty kompozytowe FRP jako gwne zbrojenie zginanych elementw betonowych przegld zalece
i efektywno projektowania, Przegld budowlany 3(2015) 2228.
[2] K. Baszkiewicz, J. Selejdak, Zastosowanie wybranych materiaw kompozytowych w konstrukcjach mostowych, in: R. Nagrski (Eds.),
Wybrane interdyscyplinarne zagadnienia budownictwa, Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej, Warszawa, 2015, pp. 423432.
[3] M. Rejment, T. Trapko, Prty kompozytowe do zbrojenia betonu, Materiay budowlane 3(2014) 4647.
[4] ACI 440.1R-06 (2006) Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars.
[5] CSA-S806-02 (2002) Design and Construction of Building Components with Fibre Reinforced Polymers.
[6] CNR-DT 203/2006 Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars.
[7] JSCE, Recommendation for design and construction of concrete structures using continuous fiber reinforcing materials, Concrete Engineering
Series No. 23 (1997).
[8] C. Bywalski, M. Drzazga, M. Kamiski, Obliczanie zginanych elementach zbrojonych prtami FRP, Materiay budowlane 6(2014) 7273.
[9] Sireg Geotech S.r.l. product data sheet, available at: www.sireggeotech.it/en (22.12.2016).
[10] Polprek Sp. z o.o. product data sheet, available at: www. polprek.pl (22.12.2016).
[11] ACI 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary.