Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Ductility characteristics of fiber-reinforced-concrete beams reinforced

with FRP rebars
Huanzi Wang a, Abdeldjelil Belarbi b,⇑
a
AECOM Technology, Oakland, CA, USA
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, TX, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To mitigate the corrosion problem caused by steel reinforcement, a study was initiated to develop a non-
Received 21 May 2010 ferrous hybrid reinforcement system for concrete beams by incorporating continuous fiber-reinforced-
Received in revised form 22 September 2010 polymer (FRP) rebar and fiber-reinforced-concrete (FRC) containing randomly distributed polypropylene
Accepted 13 November 2010
fibers. This paper describes the flexural performance of this FRP/FRC hybrid reinforcement system as well
Available online 28 December 2010
as FRP/plain concrete beams that served as references. Test results showed that the crack widths of FRP/
FRC beams were smaller than those of FRP/plain concrete beams at the proposed service load. The com-
Keywords:
pressive strains at the top fiber of concrete in FRP/FRC beams were larger than 0.004 due to the added
Crack width
Ductility
polypropylene fibers. In addition, the ductility indices evaluating the FRP reinforced members were dis-
Fiber-reinforced-polymers cussed. It is found that the ductility indices for all the tested beams were above the minimum require-
Flexure ment of 4. The addition of fibers improved the flexural behavior by increasing the ductility level more
Fiber-reinforced-concrete than 30%, when compared to the companion beam.
Polypropylene fiber Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction are fabricated by combining two or more different FRP reinforc-

Ductility is a structural design requirement in most design
codes. In steel reinforced concrete (RC) structures, ductility is de-
fined as the ratio of post-yield deformation to yield deformation
which usually comes from steel yield. Properly reinforced and
dimensioned concrete members exhibit a good ductile behavior.
Ductile structural members can provide many benefits to the per-
formance of a global structural system. The most important as-
pect of ductility is a precaution of structural failure. Ductile
structures can provide an advanced warning before failure, while
little or no warning can be observed before failure for the brittle
structures. Due to the linear elastic properties of the FRP bars up
to failure, the traditional definition of ductility applied to the
steel reinforced structures cannot be directly applied to the struc-
tures reinforced with FRP reinforcement. Several methods such as
the energy-based method or the deformation-based method have
been proposed to calculate the ductility index for FRP reinforced
structures [1,2].
In addition, a great deal of effort has been made to improve
and define the ductility of beams reinforced with FRP rebars.
There are three well-known approaches to date. The first ap-
proach is to use the hybrid FRP rebars. Pseudo-ductile materials
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: belarbi@uh.edu (A. Belarbi).
ing materials to simulate the elastic–plastic behavior of the steel
rebars. Harris et al. [3] tested beams reinforced with hybrid FRP
reinforcing bars and found that the ductility index of these
beams were close to that of the beams reinforced with steel. This
method showed some success in the research studies but re-
sulted in limited practical applications because of the compli-
cated and costly manufacturing process of the hybrid rebars.
The second approach to improve the ductility is by introducing
a hybrid system consisting of both FRP and steel bars. Concrete
beams reinforced with a combination of FRP and steel bars show
improved serviceability and ductility compared to beams rein-
forced solely by FRP bars [4,5]. However, the long-term perfor-
mance could be jeopardized with the presence of steel
reinforcement. The third approach is to improve the property of
concrete. FRP reinforced structures are often over-reinforced in
such a way that concrete crushing governs the failure mode
[6]. Thus, the ductility of the system is highly dependent on
the concrete properties. Alsayed and Alhozaimy [7] found that
the ductility index increased as much as 100% with the addition
of 1% steel fibers. Li and Wang [8] reported that the beams rein-
forced with GFRP rebars in FRC using engineered cementitious
composite material showed much better flexural behavior.
This paper presents the flexural performances of FRP/FRC hy-
brid reinforcement system as well as FRP/plain concrete beams
that served as references. Discussions regarding the ductility eval-
uation for the FRP reinforced members are also provided.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.040
2392 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401

2. Research significance
New materials and design methods have been extensively inves-
tigated to make a corrosion-free RC structure. This research project
was initiated to develop a nonferrous hybrid reinforcement system
for concrete beams using continuous FRP rebars and FRC containing
polypropylene fibers. This kind of hybrid system is expected to mit-
igate the corrosion problem caused by the steel reinforcement,
while providing required strength and stiffness. Meanwhile, ductil-
rods is tightly wrapped with a helical fiber strand to create indentations along the
rebar, and sand particles are added to the surface to enhance the bonding strength.
The surface of the CFRP made of epoxy modified vinyl ester is very smooth as shown
in Fig. 1. The mechanical properties of FRP rods provided by the manufacturer are
summarized in Table 1.
3.1.2. Polypropylene fiber
Currently, many fiber types are commercially available in the form of steel,
glass, synthetic, and natural fibers. In this study, polypropylene fiber was used in
FRC. The fibers were fibrillated and available in 57 mm length.

ity of the FRP reinforcing system should be scrutinized more. This

study aims to contribute to the increase of knowledge to this area.
3. Experimental program
A total number of 12 beams categorized as six testing groups were investigated.
Each testing group is composed of two similar beams subjected to monotonic load-
ing and repeated loading/unloading, respectively. The experimental variables in-
cluded FRP rebar size (#4 vs. #8), rebar type (GFRP vs. CFRP), and plain concrete
vs. FRC.
3.1.3. Concrete
For practical application ensuring good workability of the concrete, the volume
fraction of fiber (Vf) of 0.5% was chosen for FRC. Since this study aimed to investi-
gate the beneficial effects of FRC on the structural performance, especially ductility,
variation of fiber contents was not considered as an experimental parameter. The
concrete strengths at testing date were 30 MPa and 48 MPa for FRC and plain con-
crete, respectively.
3.2. Test specimens

3.1. Materials The beams were 178 mm wide, 229 mm high, and 2032 mm long. No. 3 steel U-
shape stirrups with a spacing of 89 mm were used at both ends of the beams to
3.1.1. FRP rods avoid shear failure, while no stirrups were used in the testing regions to secure pure
Three types of commonly used FRP rods were adopted in this study; namely #8 bending behavior. The concrete cover was 38 mm for all beams. All beams were de-
(25 mm) glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP), #4 (13 mm) GFRP, and #4 (13 mm) signed to fail by concrete crushing, which was accomplished by using a reinforce-
carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) as shown in Fig. 1. The surface of the GFRP ment ratio greater than the balanced reinforcement ratio qb. For the comparison
purpose, the beams were designed to have a similar ratio of qf/qbf. The specimen
details are shown in Fig. 2.
The nomenclature of test specimens is as follows; the first character, ‘‘P’’ or ‘‘F’’,
represents the concrete type for plain concrete and FRC, respectively; the second
#8 GFRP character, ‘‘4’’ or ‘‘8’’, is the rebar size in English designation used as reinforcement;
the third character, ‘‘C’’ or ‘‘G’’, represents the rebar type, CFRP or GFRP; and the last
character represents the first beam or the second beam in the testing group, accord-
ing to loading condition. The details of the specimens are shown in Table 2.
#4 GFRP
3.3. Test setup and procedures
#4 CFRP
The beams were subjected to a four-point flexural testing, as shown in Fig. 3.
The beams were instrumented with three LVDTs in the testing region (pure bending
region) to monitor the mid-span deflection and determine the curvature. The FRP
Fig. 1. FRP rods used in this study.
rebars were instrumented with strain gauges to measure rebar deformation. Two
LVDTs were mounted at the top surface of the beam to record the compressive
Table 1 strain of concrete. In the testing region, Demic gage points were bonded to the
Mechanical properties of FRP rods. beam surface, 38 mm above the bottom (the same level as the longitudinal rebars)
to measure the crack widths. A microscope was also used to measure the crack
#4 CFRP #4 GFRP #8 GFRP width at the rebar location. Another two LVDTs were mounted at the ends of the
Tensile strength (MPa) 2069 690 551 beam to record the relative slips between the longitudinal rebar and the concrete
Elastic modulus (GPa) 124 41 41 (the longitudinal rebars were protruded about 10 mm from the ends). The load
was incrementally applied by a hydraulic jack and measured with a load cell. Three

711 mm 610 mm 711 mm

229 mm

102 mm #3@89 mm 102 mm

2032 mm

5#4 GFRP 2#8 GFRP 2#4 CFRP

38 mm 38 mm 38 mm
38 mm 38 mm 38 mm

178 mm 178 mm 178 mm

#4 GFRP Specimen #8 GFRP Specimen #4 CFRP Specimen

Fig. 2. Beam specimen details.

 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401 2393

Table 2 4.1.1. Crack spacing

Flexural beam test matrix. Table 3 shows the average crack spacing at 40% and 80% of the
Specimen I.D. fc0 (MPa) Af (mm2) qf/qfb Vf (%) flexural capacity to investigate the crack distribution at different
P4G-1 48 5#4 = 723 3.51 0
load levels. With the increase of load, the crack spacing slightly de-
P4G-2 48 5#4 = 723 3.51 0 creased. The crack spacing was virtually the same in both plain
P8G-1 48 2#8 = 1077 3.60 0 concrete beams and FRC beams at 80% of ultimate load, while
P8G-2 48 2#8 = 1077 3.60 0 the crack spacing of the FRC beams was about 20% smaller than
P4C-1 48 2#4 = 219 3.16 0
that of plain concrete at a moderate service load (about 40% of ulti-
P4C-2 48 2#4 = 219 3.16 0
F4G-1 30 5#4 = 723 4.71 0.5 mate load).
F4G-2 30 5#4 = 723 4.71 0.5 The flexural cracking can be closely approximated by analyzing
F8G-1 30 2#8 = 1077 4.83 0.5 the behavior of a concrete prism containing reinforcement with the
F8G-2 30 2#8 = 1077 4.83 0.5
same centroid. Cracks initiate when the tensile stress in the con-
F4C-1 30 2#4 = 219 4.24 0.5
F4C-2 30 2#4 = 219 4.24 0.5
crete exceeds the tensile strength of concrete, ft0 . When this occurs,
all the force in the prism is transferred to the rebar. Away from the
crack, the concrete stress is gradually built up through the bond
increments were taken up to the initiation of cracking and ten increments up to fail-
ure. At the end of each load increment, the load was held constant, crack patterns stress between the rebar and the concrete. When the stresses in
were mapped, and near mid-span crack widths were recorded. the concrete are large enough and exceed the tensile strength of
Each testing parameter was investigated using two identical specimens, as concrete ft0 , a new crack forms. The above mechanism is demon-
shown in Table 2. One beam was loaded monotonically to failure. The other beam
strated in Fig. 4a.
was subjected to loading/unloading cycles at 40% and 80% of its capacity, to evalu-
ate the residual deflection, residual crack width, as well as the energy absorption With the addition of fibers, the mechanism of crack formation is
capacity. slightly changed as shown in Fig. 4b. Some tensile loads can be
transferred across the cracks by the bridging of fibers. Thereby,
the stress in the concrete comes from not only the bond stress,
4. Test results and discussions but also the bridging of fibers. With the contribution from the fi-
bers, less bond stress is needed to reach the same cracking stress.
This section provides a summary of the overall flexural behavior Consequently, the crack spacing is smaller in the FRC beams than
of the FRP/FRC hybrid system in terms of crack distribution, load– in the plain concrete beams (S2 < S1 as shown in Fig. 4). At high load
deflection response, relative slip between the rebar and concrete, levels, fibers are pulled out, and the contribution from the bridging
cyclic loading effect on flexural behavior, and strain distribution of fibers is diminished.
in concrete and reinforcement. Comparisons between FRP/plain CEB-FIP Code: The CEB-FIP Code [9] expression for the average
concrete system and FRP/FRC system is also discussed. crack spacing for the steel reinforced concrete is in the following
manner:
4.1. Crack distribution db
Sm ¼ 50 þ 0:25k1 k2 ð1Þ
qt
Like traditional steel rebar reinforced concrete beams, vertical
flexural cracks developed first at the pure bending regions. Then, where db is the bar diameter, qt, the effective reinforcement ra-
the inclined shear cracks were induced with the increase of load. tio = As/Act; the effective concrete area in tension Act is generally

Load, P
229 mm

LVDT (6,7)
LVDT8 LVDT 4 Demac Gages LVDT 5

LVDT(1,2,3)
1829 mm

Fig. 3. Flexural beam test setup (a) crack formation in plain concrete beam and (b) crack formation in FRC beam.

Table 3
Comparisons between experimental and predicted average crack spacing of the tested beams.

Specimen I.D. Crack spacing, Sm, at 40%Mu (mm) Crack spacing, Sm, at 80%Mu (mm) SFRC SFRC ACI-440 (mm) CEB-FIP Code (mm)
Splain at 40%Mu Splain at 80%Mu
kb = 1.0 kb = 1.4
P4C 152 116 N/A N/A 126 176 156
P4G 134 91 N/A N/A 99 139 87
P8G 152 107 N/A N/A 112 157 105
F4C 117 107 0.77 0.93 126 176 156
F4G 102 87 0.76 0.96 99 139 87
F8G 122 112 0.80 1.04 112 157 105

Note: k1 = 0.8 was used for CEB-FIP method.

2394 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401

Uniform concrete stress

First Crack First Crack transfered by fibers

Formation of First Crack Formation of First Crack

Distribution Contribution from

Bond Stess Bond Stress bond stress
before formation
of second
crack f' t f' t

Stess in Concrete Stess in Concrete Contribution from

Second Crack First Crack Second Crack bridging of fibers
First Crack

Fiber Bridging
S1 S2
(a) Crack Formation in Plain (b) Crack Formation in
Concrete Beam FRC Beam
Fig. 4. Mechanism of crack formation in plain concrete beams and FRC beams (a) #4 CFRP beam (b) #4 GFRP beam and (c) #8 GFRP beam.

the concrete area surrounding the tension reinforcement of depth 200 p

equal to 2.5 times the distance from the tensile face of the concrete
section to the centroid of the reinforcement, k1 = 0.8 for high-bond
bars and 1.6 for plain bars and, k2 = 0.5 for bending and 1.0 for pure
tension.
The crack spacing estimated by the CEB-FIP model was shown
in Table 3. The predicted values do not show a clear trend when
compared with the test data. The predictions underestimate the
crack spacing for GFRP reinforced beams; while they overestimate
the crack spacing for CFRP reinforced beams.
ACI 440: The ACI 440 recommends the following equation for
estimating the average crack spacing of the FRP reinforced
member:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 S2
Sm ¼ 2kb dc þ
4 As shown in Fig. 5, the predictions by Toutanji et al. model show
where S is the bar spacing, dc is the thickness of concrete cover mea-
sured from extreme tension fiber to the center of the closest layer of
longitudinal bars, and kb, the coefficient that accounts for the degree
of bond between the FRP bar and the surrounding concrete. ACI 440
suggests 1.4 for deformed FRP bars if kb is not experimentally
known.
As shown in Table 3, the accuracy of estimate is highly depen-
dent on the value of kb, and the estimation is on the conservative
side when kb = 1.4.
4.1.2. Crack width
During the tests, crack widths were measured using the Demic
gage. Fig. 5 shows the relationships between the crack width and
the applied moment. Several analytical models for calculating the
crack width are discussed and compared with the test results.
The current ACI 440 committee recommends the following
equation to calculate the crack width of FRP reinforced member:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ff S2
2
w ¼ 2 bkb dc þ
Ef 4
where w is the crack width at tensile face of the beam, ff, the stress in
the FRP reinforcement, and b is the coefficient to converse crack
width corresponding to the level of reinforcement to the tensile face
of beam, Toutanji and Saafi [10] reported that the crack width was a
function of the reinforcement ratio in the form of following equation:
3
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
w¼ pffiffiffiffiffi bff dc A ð4Þ
Ef qf
where qf is the reinforcing ratio, A, the effective tension area per
bar, and Ef is the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement CEB-
FIP model predicts the crack width as follows:
w ¼ bSm em ð5Þ
where b = 1.3, em is the mean reinforcement strain allowing for ten-
sion stiffening; em ¼ rs ½1  b1 b2 ðrsr =rs Þ2 =Ef . rs is the stress in the
tension reinforcement computed on the basis of a cracked section.
rsr is the stress in the tension reinforcement computed on the basis
of a cracked section under loading conditions that cause the first
crack, b1 = 1.0 for high-bond bars and 0.5 for plain bars; b2 = 1.0
ð2Þ for single short-term loading and 0.5 for sustained or cyclic loading.
poor correlation with the experimental results. For the beams with
low reinforcing ratios (for the CFRP beams, q = 0.67%), the model
overestimates the crack widths. Vice versa, for the beams with high
reinforcement ratios (#4 GFRP beams, q = 2.2%, and #8 GFRP
beams, q = 3.3%), the model underestimates the crack widths.
Therefore, it can be concluded that bond characteristics affect the
crack width of FRP reinforced member rather than the reinforce-
ment ratio.
Similarly, the CEB-FIP model’s accuracy is also dependent on the
reinforcement ratio, as shown in Eq. (5). For this study, CEB-FIP
model can predict the crack width fairly well for the GFRP rein-
forced members, while showing poor correlation with the test re-
sults for the CFRP case. The reason may be: CEB-FIP model is
developed based on the steel reinforced members, which typically
have similar reinforcement ratios as the GFRP reinforced members
in this study. For the lightly reinforced members, such as the CFRP
members in this study, CEB-FIP model tends to overestimate the
crack width. Since CFRP bars have high tensile strength and the
members reinforced with CFRP bars are usually lightly reinforced,
ð3Þ thus, we should be cautious to apply CEB-FIP model for such cases.
The predictions of the ACI 440 equation show good agreement
with the test results. The accuracy of the equation largely depends
on the value of kb. Most of the test data can be enveloped between
kb = 1.0 and kb = 1.4. Following the ACI 440’s recommendations, kb
of 1.4 can be used to estimate the crack width, and it is on the con-
servative side.
 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401 2395

Crack Width (in.) Crack Width (in.)

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
50 50
CEB-FIP
45 ACI 440 Kb=1.0 400 45 CEB-FIP 400

Moment (kips-in.)

Moment (kips-in.)
40 350 40 350
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
ACI 318 ACI 440, Kb=1.0
Toutanji et al.
35 300 35 300
30 ACI 318 30 250
250
25 25 ACI 440, Kb=1.4
ACI 440 Kb=1.4 200 200
20 20 Toutanji et al.
150 150
15 F4G-1
15 F4C-1
10 F4G-2 100 10 F4C-2
100
P4G-1
5 50 5 P4C-2 50
P4G-2 P4C-1
0 0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Crack Width (mm) Crack Width (mm)
(a) #4 CFRP Beam (b) #4 GFRP Beam
Crack Width (in.)
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
50
CEB-FIP
45 Toutanji et al. 400

Moment (kips-in.)
40 350
Moment (kN.m)

35 ACI 318
300
30 ACI 440, Kb=1.0
250
25
200
20 ACI 440, Kb=1.4
150
15 F8G-1

10 F8G-2 100
P8G-1
5 50
P8G-2
0 0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Crack Width (mm)
(c) 8 GFRP Beam
Fig. 5. Crack width vs. applied moment.

Table 4 4.2.1. Fiber effect on moment–deflection curves

Comparison of crack width between FRC and plain concrete FRP reinforced beams. To compare the flexural behaviors between plain concrete
Specimen I.D. P4C P4G P8G F4C F4G F8G beams and FRC beams, all the load–deflection curves of the plain
Crack width (mm) 0.60 0.49 0.45 0.54 0.41 0.36
concrete beams were normalized based on the following rules:
% decrease relative to respective N/A N/A N/A 10% 16% 20% (1) The moment was divided by a coefficient CM, defined as
M
plain concrete C M ¼ MACIplain
ACIFRC
, where MACI-plain and MACI-FRC are theoretical ultimate
capacities computed from ACI 440 recommendation; (2) The
Note: the values are average of two beams. D
deflection was divided by a coefficient CD, defined as C D ¼ DACIplain ACIFRC
,
where DACI-plain and DACI-FRC are the theoretical deflections calcu-
Fiber effect on crack width: With the addition of fibers, the crack lated from ACI 440 recommendations for plain concrete beams
widths slightly decreased at the same load level, especially at the and FRC beams at service load (40% of the ultimate load),
service load, as shown in Fig. 5 and Table 4. As shown in Table 3, respectively.
the crack spacings were smaller in the case of FRC beams as com- Fig. 7 and Table 5 shows that the ultimate moment capacities
pared to the plain concrete beams at the service load. As discussed and deflections were increased in the FRC beams regardless of
earlier, the crack spacing tended to decrease at the service load due the type of reinforcements. The plain concrete beams failed in a
to the contribution of the fibers. Since the crack width is propor- more brittle manner than the FRC beams. Once they reached their
tionally related to the crack spacing, the crack width is expected ultimate capacities, the top concrete surface crushed and the load
to be smaller in the FRC beams at the service load. dropped suddenly and violently. Although the FRC beams also
failed by top concrete surface crushing, they showed a more duc-
tile behavior than the plain concrete beams.
4.2. Load–deflection response

Fig. 6 shows the typical experimental moment–deflection curve 4.2.2. Theoretical correlation
for the plain concrete beams and the FRC beams reinforced with Deflection at mid-span can be calculated according to the fol-
different types of FRP rebars. With increasing moment, cracks oc- lowing equation:
curred in the testing region when the moment exceeded the crack-
2
ing moment, Mcr. Consequently, the flexural stiffness of the beams Pa Ph a
was significantly reduced. As expected, due to the linear-elastic
Dmid ¼ ð3L2  4a2 Þ þ ð6Þ
24Ec Ie 10GIe
behaviors of FRP rebars, the FRP reinforced beams showed no
yielding. The curves went up almost linearly until the crushing of The first term on the right is for the flexural component, and the
concrete. second term is for the shear component.
2396 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401

Deflection (in.) Deflection (in.)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
45 55
50 450
F4C 350
40 P8G
F8G 45 400
35

Moment (Kips-in.)
300

Moment (kips-in.)
40 350
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
30 250 35 300
F4G
25 30 F4G 250
200
20 25 P4C
200
150 20
15 150
100 15
10 100
10
5 50 50
5
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

Fig. 6. Moment–deflection curves for FRC beams and plain concrete beams.

Deflection (in.) Deflection (in.)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
45 45
F4G
40 350 40 Analytical Curve 350
Moment (Kips-in.)

Moment (kips-in.)
35 35
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)

F4C 300 300

ACI 440
30 30 250
Analytical Curve 250 P4G
25 25
200 200
20 P4C 20
150 150
15 15
10 ACI 440 100 10 100
5 50 5 50
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
(a) #4 CFRP with/without Fibers (b) #4 GFRP with/without Fibers
Deflection (in.)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
45
Analytical Curve
40 350
ACI 440
35
Moment (kips-in.)

300
Moment (kN.m)

F8G
30 250
P8G
25
200
20
150
15
10 100
5 50
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deflection (mm)
(c) #8 GFRP with/without Fibers
Fig. 7. Moment–deflection curves.

The current ACI 440 recommends the following expressions to FRC beams. Thus, the equations recommended by the current ACI
calculate the effective moment of inertia Ie: 440 can be used for both types of beams.
A more refined analysis was also conducted through the double
Ie ¼ Ig when M a 6 Mcr ;
integration of a theoretical moment–curvature relationship. The
 3 "  3 # Thorenfeldt model [11] as shown in the following:
M cr Mcr
Ie ¼ bd Ig þ 1  Icr 6 Ig when M a > M cr ð7Þ nðec =e0c Þfc0
Ma Ma fc ¼ ð8Þ
n  1 þ ðec =e0c Þnk
 
qf
where bd ¼ 15 qfb 6 1:0. where n = 2.6, k = 1.16, and e0c ¼ 0:00198, corresponding to the con-
As shown in Fig. 7, the ACI 440 equation predicts the moment- crete strength of 30 MPa, was adopted in this study. The double
deflection response fairly well for both plain concrete beams and integration was implemented using the conjugate beam method
 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401 2397

Table 5
Comparison of flexural capacity and ultimate deflection between FRC and plain concrete FRP reinforced beams.

Specimen I.D. Ultimate moment (kN m) Ultimate deflection (mm) Ultimate moment (kN m) Ultimate deflection (mm) M FRC DFRC
M Plain DPlain

P4C-1 51.9 51.1 30.2 30.0 42.6 41.9 26.2 25.9 N/A N/A
P4C-2 50.2 29.7 41.1 25.4
P4G-1 46.0 46.9 26.2 26.1 37.5 38.2 23.9 23.8 N/A N/A
P4G-2 47.7 25.9 38.9 23.6
P8G-1 50.9 51.0 24.4 24.3 40.9 40.9 22.1 22.0 N/A N/A
P8G-2 51.0 24.1 40.9 21.8
F4C-1 47.2 45.7 30.5 29.2 47.2 45.7 30.5 29.2 1.09 1.13
F4C-2 44.1 27.9 44.1 27.9
F4G-1 39.8 40.5 30.2 30.2 39.8 40.5 30.2 30.2 1.06 1.27
F4G-2 41.1 30.2 41.1 30.2
F8G-1 42.2 41.6 24.1 23.1 42.2 41.6 24.1 23.1 1.02 1.05
F8G-2 41.0 22.1 41.0 22.1

Note: Columns (4) and (5) are the normalized values of Columns (3) and (4); Columns (6) and (7) are the ratios of moment or deflection between the FRC beams to those of the
plain concrete beams after normalizations.

Deflection (in.) Deflection (in.)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
45 45
F8G-2
40 350 Moment (kips-in.). 40 350

Moment (ips-in.)
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
35 P8G-1 35 300
300
30 30
250 F8G-1 250
25 25
200 200
20 20
150 150
15 P8G-2 15
100 10 100
10
5 50 5 50
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

Fig. 8. Typical loading/unloading cycle’s effect on FRC beams and plain concrete beams.

and interrupted at a value of ec = 0.0045, which was corresponding peak point were less than the ultimate tensile strains. The mea-
to the test results: average of ecu = 0.0045. As shown in Fig. 7, the sured strains at the peak points were 12,000, 12,000, and 8000
theoretical curves show a good agreement with the experimental microstrains for beams reinforced with #4 CFRP, #4 GFRP, and
results. #8 GFRP, while the ultimate strains of each rebar were 16,700,
16,900, and 13,500 microstrains, respectively.
4.3. Relative slip between longitudinal rebar and concrete at ends The differences of moment–strain curves between the plain
concrete beams and the FRC beams were significant. Improvement
No relative slips were observed for any test specimens. It means of ductility is also proved from this observation. The plain concrete
that the development length designed by the previous study [12] beams failed by concrete crushing at the top surface with sudden
was reasonable for FRP bars, which were capable of developing drop of reinforcement strain. In contrast to the plain concrete
the required forces. beams, the strains in concrete and reinforcement in the FRC beams
increased gradually after the peak point. Furthermore, the ultimate
4.4. Loading/unloading effect on the flexural behavior strain in concrete also increased, which is well recognized as the
benefit from the adding of fibers [13]. Ultimate concrete strains
No significant differences were observed before and after load- in plain concrete beams ranged from 2700 microstrains to 3300
ing and unloading cycles in the crack width, crack distribution, and microstrains with an average of 2950 microstrains; while in the
deflection. In addition, the flexural stiffness was not significantly FRC beams, they ranged from 4000 microstrains to 5000 micro-
changed after cyclic loading, as shown in Fig. 8. The flexural perfor- strains with an average of 4500 microstrains.
mance’s insensitive to the loading/unloading cycles is mainly due
to the linear-elastic strain–stress relationship of the FRP 5. Predictions of the ultimate flexural capacity
reinforcement.
As shown in Table 2, the reinforcement ratio, qf, for all the
4.5. Strains in reinforcement and concrete beams are greater than the balanced ratio, qbf, defined as follows:
 0  
fc ecu
Fig. 9 presents the measured mid-span strains in reinforcement qbf ¼ 0:85b1 ð9Þ
ffu ecu þ efu
and concrete vs. the applied moment. It shows that strains in the
reinforcement increases almost linearly up to failure. Because all where ecu = 0.003 as defined by [14].
the test beams failed by concrete crushing rather than FRP rein- The ACI 440 predicts the moment capacity based on the follow-
forcement rupture, all measured strains in the reinforcement at ing equations:
2398 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401

55 50
P4G
50 P4C P4C 450 45 P4G 400
45 400 40 350

Moment (kips-in.)

Moment (kips-in.)
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
40 F4C 350 35 300
35 300 30 F4G
F4C 250
30 250 25 F4G
25 200
200 20
20 150
150 15
15
100 10 100
10
5 50 5 50
0 0 0 0
-9000 -6000 -3000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 -9000 -6000 -3000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Strain (×10e-6 mm/mm) Strain, (×10e-6 mm/mm)
(a) #4 CFRP Beams (b) #4 GFRP Beams

55
50 P8G 450
P8G
45 400

Moment (kips-in)
Moment (kN.m)

40 350
35 300
30 F8G F8G 250
25
200
20
150
15
10 100
5 50
0 0
-9000 -6000 -3000 0 3000 6000 9000 12000
Strain (×10e-6 m m /m m )
(c) #8 GFRP Beams
Fig. 9. Typical strain distributions.

 
qf f f 2
M n ¼ qf f f 1  0:59 0 bd ð10Þ
fc Table 6
Predictions of ultimate capacities.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
ðEf ecu Þ2 0:85b1 fc0 Specimen Mexp. MACI (kN m), M ACI M ACI , (kN m) M ACI
M exp M exp
ff ¼ þ Ef ecu  0:5Ef ecu 6 ffu ð11Þ I.D. (kN m) ecu = 0.003 ecu = 0.0035
4 qf
P4C 51 40 0.79 43 0.84
There are two possible ways that fibers can increase the flexural P4G 47 42 0.89 44 0.94
P8G 51 46 0.89 48 0.94
strength. The first way is a participation of the fibers for carrying Average 0.86 0.91
some portion of tensile stresses as an auxiliary reinforcement. F4C 46 33 0.72 35 0.76
The second way is an improvement of concrete properties. How- F4G 40 34 0.84 36 0.88
ever, the contribution of fibers in tensile strength is not as signifi- F8G 42 37 0.88 38 0.92
Average 0.81 0.86
cant as the improvement of concrete property due to:
Note: MACI and M ACI are the predictions of moment capacity based on ACI equations.
1. The relatively lower tensile strength of polypropylene fibers The ultimate strains are assumed to be 0.003 and 0.0035 for MACI and M ACI ,
respectively.
(less than 1/3) than that of the steel fibers.
2. The low elastic modulus of polypropylene fiber (500–700 ksi),
resulting in the strain at break is three orders of magnitude greater
than the tensile strain at failure of the concrete. Hence, the con- Thus, increase of the flexural capacity by fibers is mainly
crete will crack long before the fiber strength is approached. achieved from an improvement of concrete properties. As shown
in Fig. 10, concrete strains at the ultimate state in FRC beams are
significantly larger than the value of 0.003 recommended by ACI.
As shown in Table 6, when the value of 0.0035 is used for ecu, the
Value suggested in theoretical predictions agree well with the test results. Thus, it is
this study
suggested to increase the ecu to take advantage of the added fibers.

6. Ductility evaluation

As mentioned earlier, since the traditional definition of ductility

cannot be directly applied to concrete structures reinforced with
FRP reinforcement, it is necessary to develop a new approach as
well as a set of ductility indices for evaluating the ductility perfor-
Fig. 10. Comparison of ultimate strain of concrete of ACI value and test results in
mance of FRP reinforced members. There has been considerable ef-
this study [15]. Note: is the values of FRC measured in this study; is the values of fort and discussion about this issue during the last two decades.
plain concrete measured in this study. Accordingly, two main approaches have been widely used.
 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401 2399

Curvature (1/in.) Curvature (1/in.)

0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
55 50
50 450
P4C 45 400
45 400 P4G

Moment (kips-in.)

Moment (kips-in.)
40 350
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)
40 350
F4C 35 300
35 300 F4G
30 250
30 250 25
25 200
200 20
20 150
150 15
15
100 10 100
10
5 50 5 50
0 0 0 0
0 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008 0.0001 0.00012 0 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008 0.0001 0.00012
Curvature (1/mm) Curvature (1/mm)
(a) #4 CFRP Beams (b) #4 GFRP Beams
Curvature (1/in.)
-0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
55
50 400

Moment (kips-in.)
P8G
45 350
Moment (kN.m)

40
300
35 F8G
30 250
25 200
20 150
15
100
10
5 50
0 0
0 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008 0.0001
Curvature (1/mm)
(c) #8 GFRP Beams
Fig. 11. Typical moment curvature curve.

6.1. Energy-based approach

In energy-based approach, ductility can be defined as a capacity

absorbing the energy. It is expressed as the ratio of the total energy Pfailure
to the elastic energy, as depicted in Fig. 12.
P2
Naaman and Jeong [1] proposed the following equation to com-
pute the ductility index, lE:
Load

 
1 Et
lE ¼ þ1 ð12Þ S2
2 Ee
S Elastic Energy (Ee)
where Et is the total energy computed as the area under the load
S= [P1S1+(P2-P1)S2)]/P2
deflection curve, and Ee is the elastic energy computed as the area P1
beneath line S, up to the point of intersection with Pfailure as shown S1
in Fig. 12.
As shown in Fig. 12, the definition of elastic slope is dependent
Deflection
on selecting the points of P1, P2, S1, and S2. However, the experi-
mental moment–deflection curves in Fig. 7 do not show these dis- Fig. 12. New definition of ductility index.
tinct points. The elastic slope, S, introduced by Naaman and Jeong
is to quantify the elastic energy. In this study, rather than relying
on the theoretical interpretation, the measured unloading slopes between the ultimate stage and the service stage. It takes into
were adopted to represent the elastic slopes. The unloading slopes account the strength effect as well as the deflection (or curvature)
were the slope of the unloading curve corresponding to 80% of its effect on the ductility. Both strength factor, Cs, and deflection fac-
capacity. The ductility indices computed are summarized in tor, Cd (or curvature factor Cc) are defined as the ratio of moment
Table 7. or deflection (or curvature) values at ultimate to the corresponding
values at concrete compressive strain of 0.001. The strain of 0.001
6.2. Deformation-based approach is considered as the beginning of inelastic deformation of concrete
[2].
The deformation-based approach was first introduced by Jaeger
lE ¼ C s  C d orlE ¼ C s  C c ð13Þ
et al. [2]. The ductility is reflected by the deformability margin
2400 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401

Table 7 of fibers on the ductility indices is much more pronounced in

Comparison of ductility index by energy-based method Naaman and Jeong (1995) deformation-based method.
between FRC and plain concrete FRP reinforced beams.
A schematic load–deflection curve for a certain material rein-
lE lEFRC
Specimen I.D. Et (N mm) Ee (N mm) lEPlain forced beam, as shown in Fig. 13, is created to explain the effects
P4C 3.16 1.66 1.45 1
of adding fibers. With the addition of fibers, the load capacity
P4G 2.52 1.58 1.30 1 and deflection increase proportionally from P1 to P2 and D1 to D2.
P8G 2.61 1.37 1.46 1 Although there are different ways to calculate the ductility in-
F4C 2.76 1.30 1.56 1.07 dex, there is no doubt that ductility is the ability to absorb the
F4G 2.51 1.29 1.48 1.14
inelastic energy without losing the loading capacity. Therefore,
F8G 2.07 1.04 1.50 1.03
Average 1.08 higher inelastic energy absorption for the same system may ensure
higher ductility. From this standpoint, the addition of fibers should
significantly improve the system’s ductility. However, Naaman and
Table 8 Jeong’s [1] ductility index based on the energy-based method did
Comparison of ductility index by deformation-based method (Jaeger, 1995) between not show a significant difference between the plain concrete and
FRC and plain concrete FRP reinforced beams.
FRC beams. This tendency is due to the proportional increase of
we=0.001 wult lE lEFRC
Specimen Me=0.001 Mult lEPlain elastic and inelastic energy absorption resulting in same ratios of
I.D. (kN m) (105/mm) (kN m) (105/mm) Et/Ee. Finally, the values of lE remain constant regardless the exis-
P4C 23.00 3.08 51.13 7.66 5.50 1 tence of fibers. It can be concluded that the energy-based method
P4G 20.16 2.62 46.02 6.94 6.05 1 cannot efficiently take into account the benefits gained from add-
P8G 21.56 1.95 51.02 5.8 7.04 1
ing fibers to concrete such as the increase of the ultimate moment
F4C 18.5 2.42 45.68 8.18 8.35 1.52
F4G 17.42 2.26 40.45 8.70 8.94 1.48 capacity and the accompanying increase of the deflection. In con-
F8G 17.8 1.75 41.59 5.67 7.56 1.08 trast to the energy-based method, the Jaeger’s [2] ductility index
Average 1.36 based on deformation-based method can independently reflect fac-
tors such as the load capacity as well as the deformation effect on
the ductility. Meanwhile, all ductility indices calculated by the
Jaeger’s method were above the minimum requirement of 4 [2,17].

A2
P2
7. Concluding remarks

An extensive research program was initiated to investigate the

feasibility of a steel-free hybrid reinforcement system for concrete
Load

beams by combining FRP reinforcement with polypropylene fiber-

reinforced-concrete. This paper presents the flexural performances
A1 of FRP/FRC hybrid reinforcement system as well as FRP/plain con-
P1 crete beams that served as references. Discussions regarding the
Elastic Energy (E e) ductility evaluation for the FRP reinforced members are also pro-
vided. From the investigation of this study, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:

1. The beneficial effect of FRC on the various aspects of structural

C1 B1 C2 B2 behaviors of FRP reinforced concrete beams is pronounced. The
O Δ1 Δ2 crack widths of FRC beams were smaller than plain concrete
Deflection beam, especially at service loads. The ultimate concrete strains
measured in the FRC beams were larger than the plain concrete
Fig. 13. Schematic load–deflection curve Naaman and Jeong (1995). beams. For the design of FRC beams, it is suggested to increase
the ultimate concrete strain to take advantage of the added
Mu
Cs ¼ ð14Þ fibers. By improving the concrete properties, adding fibers has
M e¼0:001
been proved to be an effective way to enhance the ductility of
FRP reinforced system. Based on the deformation-based
Du
Cd ¼ ð15Þ approach, the ductility indices increased by more than 30% with
De¼0:001
the addition of polypropylene fibers. Moreover, the ductility
indices of all the tested beams were above the minimum
wu
Cc ¼ ð16Þ requirement of 4.
we¼0:001
2. The analytical equations proposed by the current ACI 440 shows
The ductility indices computed by the curvature factor, Cc, dem- good agreement with the test results. The equation gave a rea-
onstrated a more consistent tendency than these computed by the sonable value of crack width for both plain concrete and FRC
deflection factor, Cd [16]. Therefore, the curvature factor is used in beams. The deflection predicted by the current ACI 440 design
this study. Fig. 11 shows the typical moment–curvature relation- guidelines matches well with the test results, especially at ser-
ship of tested beams. The ductility indices are summarized in vice load. Thus, it seems to be possible to use the equations for
Table 8. FRC beams for design purpose.

6.3. Discussions of ductility index

References
As shown in Tables 7 and 8, the ductility indices computed [1] Naaman AE, Jeong SM. Structural ductility of concrete beams prestressed with
by two methods are quite different. The effect from the addition FRP tendons. In: Taerwe L, editor. Proc of 2nd int RILEM symp (FRPRXS-2),
 H. Wang, A. Belarbi / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2391–2401
non-metric (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, RILEM. London: E & FN
Spon; 1995. p. 379–86.
[2] Jaeger GL, Tadros G, Mufti AA. The concept of the overall performance factor in
rectangular-section reinforced concrete beams. In: Proc of 3rd int symp on
non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, vol. 2, Sapporo,
Japan; 1997. p. 551–8.
[3] Harris HG, Somboonsong W, Ko FK. New ductile hybrid FRP reinforcing bar for
concrete structures. ASCE J Compos Constr 1998;2(1):28–37.
[4] Aiello MA, Ombres L. Structural performances of concrete beams with hybrid
(fiber-reinforced polymer–steel) reinforcements. ASCE J Compos Constr
2002;6(2):133–40.
[5] Qu W, Zhang X, Huang H. Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with
hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars. ASCE J Compos Constr 2009;13(5):350–9.
[6] ACI 440.1R-06. Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced
with FRP bars. ACI committee 440. Farmington Hills: American Concrete
Institute; 2006.
[7] Alsayed SH, Alhozaimy AM. Ductility of concrete beams reinforced with FRP
bars and steel fibers. J Compos Mater 1999;33(19):1792–806.
[8] Li VC, Wang S. Flexural behaviors of glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP)
reinforced engineered cementitious composite beams. ACI Mater J
2002;99(1):11–21.
[9] CEB-FIP. FRP reinforcement in RC structures. Fib bulletin 40. International
Federation for Structural Concrete (fib); 2007.
2401
[10] Toutanji HA, Saafi M. Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with
glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. ACI Struct J 2000;97(5):712–9.
[11] Thorenfeldt E, Tomaszewicz A, Jensen JJ. Mechanical properties of high-
strength concrete and application in design. In: Proceedings of the symposium
utilization of high strength concrete, Stavanger, Norway, Tapir, Trondheim;
1987. p. 149–59.
[12] Belarbi A, Wang H. Bond splitting behavior of FRP reinforcing bars embedded
in fiber reinforced concrete. In: Proceedings for the 84th transportation
research board annual meeting, Washington DC; 2005.
[13] ACI 544.1R-96. State-of-the-art report on fiber reinforced concrete. ACI 544.
Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute; 1996. [reapproved 2009].
[14] ACI 318-08. Building Code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary. ACI Committee 318, American Concrete Institute. Farmington
Hills: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[15] Mattock AH, Kriz LB, Hognestad E. Rectangular concrete stress distribution in
ultimate strength design. ACI J Proc 1961;57(2):875–928.
[16] Theriault M, Benmokrane B. Effects of FRP reinforcement ratio and concrete
strength on flexural behavior of concrete beams. ASCE J Compos Constr
1998;2(1):7–16.
[17] CAN/CSA-S6-06. Canadian highway bridge design code. Ontario, Canada:
Canadian Standard Association; 2006.