DEPARTMENT OF

CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

CFRP REINFORCEMENT IN CONCRETE

CEGR 3255-L02
Structural Analysis Laboratory
Submitted By: Morgan Woolner

Date Submitted: April 28, 2016

Instructor: Dr. Erika Weber, P.E.

Grade: ________________

I, Morgan Woolner, have committed no violations of the UNC Charlotte Student Academic Integrity in preparing
and submitting this report.

Signature___________________________________
Date_______________________________________

Executive Summary
FRP, fiber reinforced polymer, is used in the civil engineering industry for
strengthening of concrete columns in place of steel. In areas of high tension, where
concrete performs poorly, steel or one of several types of FRP can be used to strengthen
the overall structure.

In this report, two types of FRP are analyzed, carbon-fiber

reinforced polymer (CFRP), and glass-fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP). There are
several factors that go into determining whether a type of FRP is the correct material to
be used for the structure. Cost, ease of installation, tensile strength, durability, versatility
and ductility are namely the most important. The material properties which will be
examined and compared to steel reinforcement are the density, tensile strength, ductility,
and durability.
The low ductility of CFRP reinforcement makes it unattractive at first, but the
strength, higher durability, and density makes CFRP the best option when reinforcing
concrete.

Table of Contents
Introduction..1
FRPs vs. Steel..................................................3
Density.................................................3
Strength........3
Ductility...5
Durability.....6
Conclusion...8
References.R1

Introduction
FRP, fiber reinforced polymer, reinforcement is used widely in throughout several
engineering fields, mostly mechanical and structural. The most common form of FRP
reinforcement in civil engineering is CFRP, carbon-fiber reinforced polymer. CFRP is
used in the civil engineering field mostly for structural strengthening.
CFRP, carbon-fiber reinforced polymer, consists of two components. The first
component is a fabric of carbon fibers woven together to create a high strength
multidirectional tensile matrix. The orientation of the fibers can be adjusted to provide
strengths in the necessary directions. This fiber-weave makes CFRP extremely strong in
tension, as the carbon fibers deal with tension well. The fibers are held together by a
mixture of a polymer (Chawla 2013). The polymer is usually an epoxy, a form of high
strength glue. The mixture of the epoxy and carbon fibers provides a high strength
composite material that can be applied to almost any surface to strengthen and extend the
life cycle. CFRP can be applied to many different structures because of the epoxy. The
carbon fibers are flexible, and can be applied in numerous different arrangements, and
hardened with the drying of the epoxy. Steel reinforcement is much more difficult to
retrofit to specific needs, and can be more expensive depending on the complexity of the
retrofit. It is not always beneficial to use CFRP reinforcement, as simple reinforcement
structures can be easily done with steel reinforcement. However for more complex jobs,
the versatility of CFRP reinforcement can be the cheaper option, despite the higher costs
of materials. GFRP is nearly identical to CFRP, except that it uses glass fibers as
opposed to carbon fibers (Chawla 2013).

What makes FRP so useful in structural engineering is a high strength to weight

ratio. This allows structures to be reinforced easily, without putting extra stress on the
structure during the process of reinforcement (Ismail 2012). The strength of FRP allows
it to be used in structural reinforcement of aging and repurposed structures to allow for
longer structure life.
While the superior strength of CFRP to steel is an attractive property, other factors
need to be considered.

CFRP is a highly brittle material, providing little to no

deformation before yield. This can be risky when applied to structural uses, as the
ultimate capacity can be reached without any warning before failure. Steel will deform
and begin to neck before failure, which provides an opportunity to evacuate the structure
and even reinforce the weak members before failure.
The purpose of this report is to compare the density, strength, and durability of
GFRP, CFRP, and steel. The strengths and benefits of the FRPs will be compared to those
of steel and a conclusion will be made to determine the best material to use. Material
properties such as density, modulus of elasticity, ductility, and durability each will be
examined and weighed against their respective costs to make an objective decision on
which material would be more beneficial.

FRPs vs. Steel

Density
The first of the attributes that need to be considered when choosing between FRP
and steel reinforcement is density. Density is an important attribute to consider when
reinforcing structures because the lighter the material, the less stress will be put on the
existing structure. It is also an important attribute when accounting for the cost of
materials. When considering the costs to transport materials to the job site and the cost of
moving them around on the job site, lighter materials will cost less. CFRP has an
advantage over both GFRP and steel in density. CFRP can have a density as low as 0.055
pounds per cubic inch, while GFRP is normally about 0.065 pounds per cubic inch, and
steel is around 0.284 pounds per cubic inch (Chawla 2013). With CFRP being 5.5 times
lighter than the same volume of steel, this equates to much lower labor costs during
construction, helping offset some of the relatively high material cost for FRP
reinforcements. The low density of FRP reinforcements also means they will have a
higher strength-weight ratio, given a similar modulus of elasticity. The modulus of
elasticity, as well as compressive and tensile strengths will be discussed in the next
section.
Strength
The modulus of elasticities of CFRP and steel can be very similar, which means
they can both be similarly applied given the same spatial and capacity requirements to
reinforce concrete. The tensile and compressive strengths are both important when
determining the strength of a structure, however as in this report, concrete reinforcement
is the main purpose, tensile strength will be the main focus. Concrete is strong in

compression, so it can be assumed that the reinforcement is being made to strengthen the
concrete in areas of tension. The tensile strength then becomes a critical factor in
choosing which type of reinforcement to use. If reinforcing a concrete beam for bending
stress, the reinforcement would be placed in the areas of tension.

Figure 1. Effect of amount of fiber on strength of FRP (Nor 2013)

The strength of FRPs varies with the amount of fibers in the matrix. As can be
seen in Figure 1, as the amount of fibers in the matrix increases, the ultimate strength
increases as well. This allows for different strengths to be created for different purposes,
allowing a minimization of overdesign for the structure. Although Figure 1 is a
description of the behavior of the materials in compressive strength, it shows the general
trend of ultimate strength as the percent of fibers within the matrix varies.
Table 1. Range of material property values for FRPs and steel (Busel 2012)

As can be

seen in Table 1,

FRPs have a wide range of possible elastic modulus, due to the ability to be made weaker
or stronger depending on the specific need. Steel has a modulus of elasticity of 29,000
ksi, while CFRP ranges from 15.9-84.0 ksi. steel has a comparable ultimate tensile
strength range to GFRP, with steel at 70-100 ksi, and GFRP at 70-230 ksi. Both these
values are weaker than CFRP in tension, as CFRP has a range of values from 87-535 ksi
(Busel 2012). CFRP being stronger in tension and lighter than both steel and GFRP
means CFRP has the highest strength-weight ratio, or specific strength. The yield stress
of steel varies from 40-75 ksi, based on the amount of carbon in the member (Busel
2012). Yield stress for GFRP and CFRP are listed as N/A, which highlights one of the
main drawbacks of using FRPs for structural purposes, a lack of ductility.
Ductility
A major drawback of FRPs in structural uses is the lack of ductility. Ductility is
important when designing a structure, as it gives indication of when a member is nearing
failure.

Without a ductile member, structure can fail abruptly and catastrophically,

leading to a possible life-threatening scenario. To determine whether a member is ductile

or brittle, the stress-strain graph can be analyzed. A line which ends abruptly with little
change in slope is brittle, while a line that has a drastic change in slope is ductile.

Figure 2. Stress strain comparison for GFRP, CFRP, and steel (Zilch 2014)
As can be seen in Figure 2, both CFRP and GFRP break with little warning,
compared to the highly ductile structure of steel. While the superior strength of CFRP to
steel is an attractive property, other factors need to be considered. CFRP is a highly
brittle material, providing little to no deformation before yield. This can be risky when
applied to structural uses, as the ultimate capacity can be reached without any warning
before failure. Steel will deform and begin to neck before failure, which provides an
opportunity to evacuate the structure and even reinforce the weak members before
failure. Dura
Durability
Since FRPs are a relatively new technology in Civil Engineering, long term
durability has been a question and concern for many contractors when deciding whether
to use it. What is known about FRP reinforcements is that they perform well when
subjected to corrosive environments which would otherwise lead to premature

destabilization of steel. Marine environments is the main example of somewhere FRP

has been used that would be corrosive to steel. CFRP is highly resistant to corrosion
from salt, however it is susceptible to weakening due to UV radiation, which comes from
the sun. Direct sunlight is an area which it should not be used. Long term UV radiation
can decrease the flexural modulus of CFRP by as much as 36% (Aldajah 2013). A 36%
reduction in flexural strength is cause for concern because it is often used as
reinforcement in areas of bending stress. CFRP can be coated with a UV filter to combat
the reduction of strength, but it is best to keep the CFRP out of direct sunlight to
maximize its life span (Chawla 2013). Steel has no such susceptibility to UV radiation,
although exposing steel to direct sunlight will likely also expose it to other corrosive
conditions, such as acidic rain, fertilizers in soil, etc.

Conclusion
In conclusion, CFRP is the best option for reinforcing concrete beams. The low
density and high strength of CFRP make its strength to weight ratio much better
compared to steel and GFRP. A high strength to weight ratio means lower labor costs in
construction and less stress on the existing structure during the process of reinforcement.
The ability for FRPs to have varying modulus of elasticity allows for engineers to design
specific to the structure, making overdesign and waste a non-issue. The high ultimate
tensile strength of the strongest CFRP means it can be used in areas of extremely high
stress, with little space for reinforcement. The brittleness of CFRP is a valid concern, but
one that can be easily addressed with a large safety factor. Lastly, the apparent durability
of CFRP makes it a long lasting option, whereas steel is subject to corrosion, rust and
undependability. GFRP shares many of the benefits of CFRP, but its values are not as
good.

CFRP is less dense, stronger, and while it is less ductile than GFRP, the

significantly higher strength makes CFRP the better option.

Through careful examination of the density, strength, ductility, and durability, it
can be said that CFRP is the best option for retrofitting concrete structures to increase
their structural strength.

References
8

Aldajah, Saud (2007) United Arab Emirates University, Mechanical Engineering

Department, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261306908001878?np=y
Busel, John P. (2012) American Composites Manufacturers Association (ACMA).
Tampa, FL, USA
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statematerialsoffice/structural/meetings/crrb/4_frprebar.
pdf
Chawla, Krishan (2013). Composite Materials. United States of America: Springer.
Ismail, Najif (2012). Strengthening of Concrete Bridges using CFRP. Pakistan.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120425231749/http://www.najif.net/wpcontent/uploads/2007/12/cfrp-paper.pdf
Nor, Norazman (2013). International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008
Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2013)
http://ijetae.com/files/Volume3Issue2/IJETAE_0213_02.pdf
Zilch, K., Niedermeier, R. and Finckh, W. (eds) (2014) Introduction, in Strengthening of
Concrete Structures with Adhesively Bonded Reinforcement: Design and
Dimensioning of CFRP Laminates and Steel Plates, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn,
Verlag fr Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin,
Germany. doi: 10.1002/9783433604014.ch01