Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen


Concrete flexural members reinforced with fiber
reinforced polymer: design for cracking and
John Newhook, Amin Ghali, and Gamil Tadros

Abstract: Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars have lower modulus of elasticity than steel bars. For this reason when
FRP bars are used as flexural nonprestressed reinforcement in concrete sections, the stress in the FRP is limited to a
relatively small fraction of its tensile strength. This limit, necessary to control width of cracks at service, governs design of the required cross-sectional area of the FRP. Parametric studies on rectangular and T-sections are presented to
show that the design based on allowable strain in the FRP results in sections that exhibit large deformation before failure. The concept of deformability, given in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, as a requirement in the design
of sections is discussed and modifications suggested. Using the new definition, it is shown that when, in addition to the
crack control requirement, an upper limit is imposed on the cross-sectional area of the FRP, no calculations will be
necessary to check the deformability.
Key words: fibre reinforced polymer, reinforcement, concrete, design, deformability.
Résumé : Les barres en polymères renforcés de fibres (FRP : « fiber reinforced polymer ») ont un module d’élasticité
plus bas que celui de barres d’acier. Pour cette raison, lorsque des barres en FRP sont employées en tant que renforcement non précontraint en flexion dans des sections en béton, il est nécessaire de limiter la contrainte dans le FRP à
une fraction relativement petite de sa résistance en tension. Le respect de cette limite, nécessaire au contrôle de la largeur des fissures durant le service, détermine quelle est l’aire de la section transversale du renforcement en FRP qui
est requise. Des études paramétriques sur des sections rectangulaires et en T sont présentées afin de montrer que la
conception basée sur le respect de la tension limite permise dans les FRP résulte en des sections qui présentent de larges déformations avant la rupture. Le concept de l’état de déformation, donné dans le Code canadien sur le calcul des
ponts routiers en tant qu’exigence dans la conception de sections, est discuté et des modifications sont suggérées. En
utilisant la nouvelle définition, il est montré que, si une limite supérieure est imposée sur l’aire de la section transversale de FRP en plus de l’exigence du contrôle des fissures, alors il n’est pas nécessaire de procéder à des calculs afin
de vérifier l’état de déformation.
Mots clés : polymères renforcés de fibres, renforcement, béton, conception, état de déformation.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Newhook et al.


The design of concrete sections in flexure that are reinforced with fibre reinforced polymers (FRP) is different
from that of sections reinforced with steel because of the difference in mechanical properties of FRP and steel. Generally, the FRP bars used as reinforcement in concrete have
Received 1 May 2001. Revised manuscript accepted
22 November 2001. Published on the NRC Research Press
Web site at on 10 February 2002.
J. Newhook. Department of Civil Engineering, Dalhousie
University, 1360 Barrington Street, Halifax, NS B3H 3J5,
A. Ghali.1 Department of Civil Engineering, The University
of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary,
AB T2N 1N4, Canada.
G. Tadros. ISIS Canada, 43 Schiller Crescent N.W., Calgary,
AB T3L 1W7, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 30 June 2002.

Corresponding author (e-mail:

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 29: 125–134 (2002)

Tuesday, February 05, 2002 11:24:38 AM

tensile strength varying between 500 and 2200 MPa and
modulus of elasticity varying between 40 and 150 GPa. The
stress–strain relationship for FRP is linear up to rupture
when the ultimate strength is reached. Unlike steel reinforcing bars, FRP bars do not undergo yield deformation or
strain hardening before rupture. For this reason, design of
sections in flexure has been based upon consideration of ultimate strength, serviceability, and deformability. The purpose of design for deformability is to ensure that failure of a
section in flexure occurs only after development of sufficiently large curvature.
Because of the relatively low modulus of elasticity of FRP
bars compared with that of steel reinforcing bars, it is necessary to limit the stress in FRP bars in service to a relatively
small fraction of their strength in order to control crack
width. This paper demonstrates that this serviceability requirement controls the design, without the need in practice
for special calculations to verify the deformability as specified in Section 16 of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design
Code (CHBDC) (CSA 2000).
The importance that sufficient deformation occurs before
failure of nonprestressed members reinforced with FRP has

DOI: 10.1139/L01-085

© 2002 NRC Canada

at the extreme compressive fibre reaches an ultimate value εcu = 0. Failure of tension reinforcement Figure 1a shows the stress and strain distributions in a section at failure by rupture of the FRP reinforcement. 1b. (1997). Figure 1b shows the strain and stress distribution at ultimate for an over-reinforced rectangular section. One way to determine the distribution of stress on the concrete is to use a stress–strain relationship such as the one proposed by Todeschini et al. AFRP. without rupture of FRP or yielding of steel. Initially the steel yields and the curvature increases rapidly until the strain in concrete. Eng. and hence the location of the resultant compressive force and yCT (using numerical integration). where ffu and Ef are the tensile strength and the modulus of elasticity of the FRP. Research (Gangaroa and Vijay 1997. (1964) and adjusted by MacGregor (1997) (Fig. 2002 11:24:38 AM . The assumption that plane cross section remains plane after deformation leads to the linear strain distribution shown in Fig. The theory for sections under-reinforced with steel bars is well documented in textbooks. for each of the three most common types of FRP together with the modulus of elasticity. aramid. εc. 29. T. This approach is adopted in design guidelines by both the American Concrete Institute (ACI 2001) and ISIS Canada (2001) and in the CHBDC design criteria (CSA 2000). Thus. (1993).8 fc′ ε /ε 0 1 + ( ε / ε 0) 2 where ε0 = 1. 1997) has established that the ultimate flexural strengths for both failure types can be calculated using the same equations when the reinforcement is steel or FRP bars. in the reinforcement and the resultant compression force in the concrete. and Grace and Sayed (1997).Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen 126 Can.0035 and thus failure occurs. ffu. fc is the magnitude of the concrete stress corresponding to a strain ε at any fibre. The nominal moment resistance of the under-reinforced section and the corresponding curvature are [4] M u = Af ffu y CT [5] ψ u = (ε c + ε fu )/d where yCT is the distance between the resultant concrete compressive force and the tension reinforcement. Table 1 lists the modulus of elasticity. [3] Af ffu = ∫ fc da where da is an elemental area of the compressive zone and Af is the cross-sectional area of the tension reinforcement. Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete. are equal.vp Tuesday. For a T-section to be overreinforced. and carbon (GFRP. Vol. when a section is under-reinforced with FRP. and CFRP). Such a section is said to be under-reinforced. Civ. and nominal yield strength. Es. Flexural strength Failure of a reinforced concrete section in flexure can be caused by rupture of FRP or yielding of steel reinforcement in tension or by crushing of the concrete. A linear elastic stress–strain relationship will be assumed for the three types of FRP in tension. the distribution of compressive stress on the concrete cannot be idealized by the traditional rectangular block in Fig. 1964). fy. The stress in concrete is idealized by the rectangular stress block shown in Fig. the section is said to be over-reinforced. These equations are reviewed here and used in the discussions in this paper. J. Reinforcement Ef or Es (GPa) ffu or fy (MPa) Glass (GFRP) Aramid (AFRP) Carbon (CFRP) Steel 40 80 150 200 550 1200 2000 400 been discussed by Jaeger et al. The corresponding strain εc at the extreme compressive fibre will be less than εcu. The strain in the reinforcement will be εfu = ffu/Ef. therefore. The deformability of members prestressed with FRP has been discussed by Naaman and Jeong (1995). 2002 Table 1.71 fc′ /Ec. Typical properties of reinforcing bars. The nonlinear distribution of concrete in the compression zone is replaced by an equivalent uniform stress over a part of the © 2002 NRC Canada I:\cjce\cjce_29\cjce-01\L01-085. Ef. Equations [1]–[3] can be used to determine the strain εc at the extreme compressive fibre. which is considered impractical. the material resistance and strength reduction factors required by codes are not included in the equations. Abdelrahman et al. for steel bars. it must have a large amount of reinforcement. which may be taken as 4750 fc′ MPa (Todeschini et al. Kakizawa et al. fc′ is the specified compressive strength of concrete. The absolute value of the resultant tensile force. 1b. The commonly used bilinear stress–strain relationship is assumed for steel reinforcement with a linear elastic portion up to yield followed by an extensive perfectly plastic portion. and the tensile strength. Failure by crushing of concrete When the flexural failure is induced by crushing of concrete. However. Reinforcement properties Three types of FRP bars used as reinforcement for concrete are considered in this paper: glass. nonprestressed members. FRP bars are weak in compression and thus the presence of FRP bars in the compression zone of a concrete section in flexure is ignored. The actual deformation and flexural strength of sections is investigated in this paper. with rupture of the FRP occurring when ultimate strength is reached. Jaeger et al. (1997). the stress distribution. from which [2] c εc = d ε c + ε fu where c is the depth of the compression zone and d is the distance from the extreme compressive fibre to the tension reinforcement. February 05. The present paper is concerned only with internally reinforced. 2): [1] fc = 1. no yielding occurs and the failure is caused by rupture of the FRP. 1a. C. Thus. and Gangarao and Vijay (1997).

0015 fc′ ≥ 0.5 Ef ε cu  1 + 4α1 1 c  − 1   ρf Ef ε cu    where εcu is the strain in concrete at the extreme compression fibre and ρf = Af/bd is the reinforcement ratio. The nominal moment resistance of over-reinforced sections is given by [6] M u = Af ff y CT [7] y CT = d − β1c / 2 Fig. 1. 1b in accordance with Standard A23. which has a value smaller than ffu (or smaller than the yield stress when steel is used). [6] and [7].67 The curvature at ultimate is given by © 2002 NRC Canada I:\cjce\cjce_29\cjce-01\L01-085. compression zone such as is defined in Fig. ff. 2.0035 and the values of α1 and β1 are empirically taken equal to [9] α1 = 0. is given by [8] 1/ 2   β f′  ff = 0.97 − 0.67 β1 = 0. Stress–strain relationship adopted in analysis of underreinforced sections (MacGregor 1997). The stress in the reinforcement at failure. failure by concrete crushing is considered to have occurred when εcu = 0.vp Tuesday. Stress–strain distributions in flexure: (a) failure by rupture of FRP.3-94 (CSA 1994). and (c) service condition with strain in FRP equal to ε fs. Equation [8] can be derived by equating the resultants of tensile and compressive stresses and using eqs. 127 Fig.3-94 (CSA 1994). According to A23.0025 fc′ ≥ 0. 2002 11:24:39 AM . (b) failure by crushing of concrete. February 05.85 − 0.Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen Newhook et al.

In design. permitted in rectangular and in T-sections. J. has to be greater than the value given by eq.85 for steel reinforcement. d = 0. 2002 11:24:40 AM .3-M94 (1994) implicitly limits the maximum crack width for flexural members with steel reinforcement to 0. Thus. or 0. the strain in the reinforcement. Mu (calculated by eq.59 0.85/1.0035. The appropriate value to be used is not within the scope of this paper. 1.3-M94 requires that the nominal moment multiplied by a material resistance factor. Taking an average load factor of 1. Crack width control FRP bars have higher strength.6fy as the permissible reinforcement stress in calculations related to crack control.27 0. than the specified yield strength fy of steel reinforcing bars commonly used in North America. its amount must be sufficient to have a moment of resistance. The values in the table are equal to ρfmin = 5 fc′ /(12ffu). Eng. For simplicity.6fy. ρfmin. For T-sections having c > hf (where hf is the depth to flange). Similarly. [13] to empirical expressions for the minimum steel reinforcement.5 respectively. in terms of fc′ divided by the specified yield strength. in accordance with the guidelines of American Concrete Committee 440 (ACI 2001). Table 2 gives ρfmin for a rectangular section for the three types of reinforcement in Table 1 and two concrete strengths. CSA A23. Es. and yCT • 0.80 0. the service stress in the steel is approximately (0. ρfb. [13] ρ= Minimum reinforcement ratio (%) Af f I  1  > r   (safety factor) bd ffu y CTy t  bd  where yCT is given by eq. [18]. Mcr. 29. the quality of bond between the concrete and reinforcing bars.40 and 0.59 0. These are approximately equal to the values that can be calculated by eq. Balanced reinforcement ratio (%) [10] ψu = Reinforcement fc′ = 30 MPa fc′ = 60 MPa fc′ = 30 MPa fc′ = 60 MPa Glass (GFRP) Aramid (AFRP) Carbon (CFRP) 0. 2002 Table 2. February 05. ρfb can be determined by the equation [11] c   f′  ρfb = α1β1  b   c   d   ffu  with cb Ef ε cu = d Ef ε cu + ffu The values of ρfb for various reinforcement types are given in Table 2. Balanced and minimum reinforcement ratios for FRP reinforced rectangular sections. ACI 318-99 allows the use of 0. Balanced condition The reinforcement ratio. and. This is because of the need to control the width of flexural cracks in the tension zone. [13]. [7] and [8] need to be adjusted (McGregor 1997). Vol.39 0.42 0. For a rectangular section.11 0. eqs. the corresponding reinforcement strain is 1200 × 10–6. Civ. the higher strength cannot be effectively exploited. [4]). The transformed section is composed of the areas of concrete plus (Ef/Ec)Af. greater than Mcr by an appropriate “safety factor”. the moment value. Through the use of a crack control parameter. be equal to or greater than the applied service moment multiplied by an appropriate combination of dead load and live load factors. After cracking. the tension is assumed to be resisted entirely by the reinforcement.9d. this should be given in codes on design of concrete structures reinforced with FRP. with a factor of safety = 3. Many design codes such as CSA A23. The main parameters that influence crack width include the crack spacing.38. assuming fr = 0. CHBDC (CSA 2000) rec© 2002 NRC Canada I:\cjce\cjce_29\cjce-01\L01-085. ACI 318-99 (1999) also limits crack widths to 0. 0.3-94 (1994) and ACI 318-99 (1999) transform eq.6 fc′ . [14] or eq.3-M94 permits the use of this 60% value directly in the calculation of crack control parameters. Minimum reinforcement ratio for Mu to be greater than the cracking moment Cracking occurs when the stress in concrete at the extreme tension fibre reaches the tensile strength of concrete in tension. When fy = 400 MPa.Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen 128 Can. To avoid sudden failure by rupture or yielding of the reinforcement. Thus. [13]. The minimum ratio of FRP. for which failure of reinforcement and crushing of concrete occur simultaneously is referred to as the balanced reinforcement ratio.vp Tuesday. yt is the distance between the centroid of the transformed section and the extreme tension fibre. at which cracking occurs is [12] M cr = fr I yt where I is the second moment of area of the uncracked transformed section about its centroid axis. Ef. above all.16 ε c + ( ff / Ef ) d with εc = 0. CSA A23. the moment of inertia of gross concrete section about its centroidal axis is used in lieu of I in eq. because the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars.25 and 1.38 0. [13]. with a safety factor relevant for this material.34 0. ffu.19 0. Afmin .38) times the yield stress. is lower than that for steel.40 mm for all exposure conditions. However.9 (height of section). fr. An advantage of FRP bars over steel reinforcement is that there is no risk of corrosion. CSA A23.23 1.33 mm respectively for exterior and interior exposure.

For this reason. The table also includes the reinforcement ratio ρf. Thus the stress in concrete varies linearly over the depth of the compression zone (Fig. examines the effect of choosing either a higher or a lower value of permissible strain associated with the acceptable crack width.8 or 1. design © 2002 NRC Canada I:\cjce\cjce_29\cjce-01\L01-085. The values listed above indicate that for this test series. when the design does not allow the stress in service in FRP bars to exceed these values. To ensure that the stress in the FRP does not exceed the allowable limit for crack control. respectively. The distance. ffs. The relative amount of curvature is largest when the failure is by yielding of the reinforcement in tension (under-reinforced sections) and reduces markedly when the failure is by crushing of the concrete (over-reinforced sections). which is anticipated when εf = 2000 × 10–6. the crack width listed in Table 3 have been observed when the strain in the reinforcement reached 2000 × 10–6. More accurately. therefore. 1c). the distance between the resultant compressive and tensile forces is given by [18] y CT = d − c  bc2 − (b − bw) (c − hf ) 2 (c + 2hf )/ c    3 bc2 − (b − bw) (c − hf ) 2  For a rectangular or T-section with a given value of the reinforcement ratio ρf (= Af/bd) and the strain εfs.7 mm. the neutral axis passes through the centroid of area of the transformed section composed of the area of the concrete in compression and nAf. static fatigue.71 and 0. 1997) on beams in flexure of cross section 400 mm wide and depths 120–260 mm. while JSCE (1997) recommends maximum crack width of 0. the width of cracks can vary substantially from member to member.5–0. In service. it is assumed that the width of cracks is approximately proportional to the strain in the reinforcement. require that service strains in the FRP be limited to a fraction of ultimate strain to avoid problems such as creep rupture.vp Tuesday. respectively. and alkali deterioration (ACI 2001. In the following discussion. it is assumed that this ratio between allowable crack widths is 5/3. [14]. In experiments (Kobayashi et al. no special calculations are necessary to verify that the requirements for deformability are satisfied. set bw = b in eq. the resultant compressive force is located at a distance c/3 from the extreme compressive fibre and yCT is given by eq. Thus. [17]. The parametric study described below. This test series shows crack widths not substantially different from 0.50 mm for interior and exterior exposure.16 – – – – – – 120 160 190 190 225 260 ommends limiting the crack width to 0.60 0. shape and dimensions of the cross section and cover.23 0. 1c. In this case.5 times the value allowed for steel-reinforced members.Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen Newhook et al. depending on parameters such as duration or repetition of loading.40 0. With these assumptions.50 0. and df are defined in Fig. the corresponding stresses at service.19 0. For a specified strain in the reinforcement. However. when c > hf. 129 Table 3. it will be shown that the deformability requirements will be satisfied. When c < hf.7 mm. Even identical members may exhibit different crack widths for the same load. From this it is seen that the width of cracks allowed for FRP reinforced members is 1. For a permissible strain of 2000 × 10–6. with c being the depth of the compression zone (Fig. Reported crack widths (Kobayashi et al. The limits adopted by ACI 440 (ACI 2001) are similar to those of CHBDC. or 2000 × 10–6. and 300 MPa for GFRP.23 0. bw. in other tests more difference can occur between the observed and the anticipated crack width.70 0. The allowable limits suggested above are more stringent than those service strain limits. The same equation may also be used when c > hf to give an approximate value of yCT. 1c). the cross-sectional area of the bars should be determined by [14] Af = Ms/(ffs yCT) where yCT = d – c/3. 160. In other words.50 0. between the extreme compression fibre and the neutral axis is given by the solution of the quadratic equation (Ghali et al. c. are 80. February 05. 1997). 2002): [15] c2 + a1c + a2 = 0 [16] c= 1 冸 −a1 + a12 − 4a 2 冹 2 where a1 = 2hf 2nAf (b − bw) + bw bw a2 = hf2 2nAf d (b − bw) − bw bw [17] The dimensions b. reinforced with carbon FRP. AFRP. and CFRP. 2002 11:24:41 AM .60 0. d. Benmokrane and Rahman 1998). the crack width is 0. particularly glass FRP. With these relatively low stresses.55 0. the corresponding values of the moment at service Ms and curvature ψs are given by [19] Ms = ρf bdεfsEf yCT [20] ψs = ε fs d−c Deformability requirements Failure in flexure of concrete sections reinforced by steel bars is accompanied by large curvature. Furthermore. where n = Ef/Ec.50 mm for both interior and exterior exposure. Amount of reinforcement required to control cracking Specimen Crack width (mm) ρf (%) C C C C C C 0. the stress in concrete is commonly sufficiently low to justify the use of linear stress– strain relationship for concrete.28 0. It is noted that certain types of FRP. the corresponding permissible strain in the FRP reinforcement at service is 5/3 × 1200 × 10–6.

DF ≥ 4. the ratio of Mψ at ultimate and at service is used as a practical means to indicate approximately the ratio of the strain energy values at the two load levels. DF. for steel-reinforced sections. Vol.40%. and CFRP. ρf.0. 0. For a member in flexure.and rectangular sections in terms of their deformability. An empirical equation will be given for the maximum allowable reinforcement ratio. with FRP bars. although this reinforcement ratio may be considered impractical. CHBDC requires that the performance factor be greater than 4 or 6 for rectangular and T-sections. However. By the use of the deformability factor as defined in eq. Due to the ductility of steel. with fc′ = 60 MPa. AFRP. respectively. Civ. for GFRP. however. with fc′ = 30 MPa. and CFRP. However. ρbal. fc′ = 60 MPa. respectively. the area is equal to (1/2)Mψ and the ratio of Mψ at any two load levels is equal to the ratio of the strain energy values.vp Tuesday. fc′ = 30 MPa. with the subscripts u and s referring to actual ultimate and service states. Eng. and DF for rectangular sections in flexure. The range of ρf is extended to 4%. the strain energy per unit length is equal to the integral of the area below the M–ψ graph. there is no substantial difference between T. because as will be shown. The lower limits of the reinforcement ratio. large curvature factors (eq. the reinforcement areas Af > ρfbbd is too large to be practical. DF. The strain in the steel at service is taken as 1200 × 10–6 with fy = 400 MPa.04 and the value that corresponds to DF = 4. AFRP. The allowable strain at service in the FRP. The parametric study shows that DF decreases with the increase in ρf and the decrease of fc′ . 29. Parametric study The magnitude of the deformability factor.60%. 2002 11:24:41 AM . [23]. d is the distance from the extreme compression fibre to the centroid of tension reinforcement. that the reinforcement ratio of FRP for sections in flexure be greater than ρfb to ensure that at ultimate the failure will be caused by crushing of concrete without rupture of the FRP bars. [21]) and hence high values of DF are achieved at low reinforcement ratios. It will also be shown that DF is greater than 4 for FRP-reinforced sections except when the reinforcement ratio is impractically high. CHBDC (CSA 2000) recommends. respectively. An allowable deformability factor. Thus. Using the definition of deformability provided in eq. and other code committees are considering recommending. 0. that is. that even the value of ρfmax given here may be impractically high. 3.28%. and 0. This is referred to as the deformability requirement and is measured by the following dimensionless factors: ψu ψs [21] Curvature factor = [22] Moment factor = [23] Deformability factor. ψu/ψs. is defined as the ratio of ψuMu to ψsMs.19%. AFRP. These lower limits approximate the minimum reinforcement ratios given in Table 2. 3. adopted in the tables are 0. it will be shown below that both Tand rectangular under-reinforced sections. will also exhibit sufficiently large curvature at failure. [23]. is adopted here for all concrete sections in flexure. the deformability factors for a rectangular section with steel reinforcement are shown in Fig. Results are presented for fc′ = 30 MPa and fc′ = 60 MPa for each FRP type. For the high strength concrete. respectively. 2002 Fig. For T-sections with wide flange. [4] © 2002 NRC Canada I:\cjce\cjce_29\cjce-01\L01-085. as calculated by eq. DF = 4. AFRP. GFRP. Each curve is extended to the respective balanced reinforcement ratio. or CFRP.Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen 130 Can. is determined below for rectangular and T-sections in flexure reinforced with GFRP. b is the width of the section. It is noted. Es = 200 GPa. ρfmin. the values drop rapidly as the reinforcement ratio increases reaching a value of 4 at approximately 85% of ρbal. or that the reinforcement ratio be significantly less than ρb. ρfmax. In the present paper the deformability factor.11% for GFRP. The value ρf is varied. DF = Mu Ms ψu Mu ψ sM s CHBDC (CSA 2000) and Jaeger et al. εfs = 2000 × 10–6.16%. J. (1997) check the deformability by a “performance factor” defined by an equation similar in form to eq. February 05. and a relatively high value. are adopted. DF. this is done to cover the range where DF approaches the allowable limit. codes have generally recommended that flexural members be designed as under-reinforced. the lower limits adopted for ρf are 0. starting by a minimum value. Deformability factors. The maximum value is taken as the smaller of 0. is adopted. Rectangular sections Table 4 gives the ratios Mu/Ms. given in Table 2. and CFRP are used as reinforcement for the sections analyzed in Table 4. and 0. Furthermore. but with ψsMs replaced by the product of the curvature and the moment corresponding to a maximum concrete compressive strain of 0. [11] with fy replacing ffu. and fc′ = 30 and 60 MPa. when ρf > ρfmax. The values of Mu and ψu are calculated by eqs. A relatively low value. it is proposed to allow reinforcement ratio ρf to be less than ρfb provided that the product (moment × curvature) in service be an acceptable fraction of the same product at ultimate. [23].001. When the M–ψ graph is linear.

3 2.50 3.00240 0.1042 (d) AFRP reinforcement.Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen Newhook et al.6 48.4 3.2 47.4 44.0 57. 131 Table 4.00 4.1 4.3 6.6285 8.5 4.01561 0. Figure 7 shows the variation of DF with hf/d for a T-section with CFRP.00271 3.2 32.5 4.8 6.16 0.0381 (b) GFRP reinforcement.8 6.8479 1.00 0.0018 7.9 7.9873 4. f c′ = 60 MPa 0. The values of Ms and ψs are determined by eqs.6049 and [5] when ρf < ρfb and by eqs.6285 7.00258 0. 4–6 corresponds to al© 2002 NRC Canada I:\cjce\cjce_29\cjce-01\L01-085.8 1. The T-section used for this figure has the ratio b/bw = 9.4822 4.01003 0.1 7.4978 2.00225 0.5 3.00240 0.3180 0.01542 0.7 4.50 5. the distance yCT between the extreme compression fibre and the tension reinforcement will be different from that for a rectangular section.34 0.6 5. February 05.01553 0.5 2.01483 0.00236 0.8 3.01850 0.01542 0.4 7.6546 0. Representative values of deformability factors for FRP reinforced rectangular sections.10 0.2 6.01705 0.5615 5.3213 14.3592 5.01725 0.00248 0.0 6.00236 0. The highest reinforcement ratio used is ρf = Af/(bd) = 0.1746 3.4065 4.5 0.9 48.6 6.0% of bwd.01466 0. f c′ = 60 MPa 0.50 1.44%.7430 4.4623 1.0 (a) GFRP reinforcement.00225 0.5208 0.8 2.4 5.2 37.5 5.003334 3.00733 6.8967 1. Figures 4–6 show the variation of DF with the reinforcement ratio.5965 (e) CFRP reinforcement.1691 4.9 6.00734 7.00957 0.7 5.3 47.0 7.6 34.01691 0.00 0.1671 7.3 56.8 6.00 2.01662 0. When c > hf.01556 0. T-sections The equations used in preparing Table 4 for rectangular sections apply also to T-sections when the distance c from the extreme compression fibre to the neutral axis is less than or equal to the thickness of the flange.01561 0.4325 0.00244 0.9 3.5656 7.50 1.9230 0.00258 0.00246 0.00256 0.00224 0.3 45.00281 0.6065 0.00 4.00239 0.19 0.1 4.4 7.9 7.3158 1.01850 0.59 0.7 2.6 8.1 14.30 0.0535 0. this has only a small influence on the value of DF.8796 0.6229 8.6 17.00241 0. [19] and [20] when the strain in the FRP is taken as εfs = 2000 × 10–6.00318 2.0 0.2 5.9 5.9 7. the cross-sectional area Af is equal to 4.01508 0.6 2.4 3. [6] and [10] when ρf ≥ ρfb.00242 0.0 45.01725 0.7046 0.38 1.6 0. f c′ = 60 MPa 0.0440 1.1059 3.1 11. Effect of varying the allowable strain.7 33.0 0.00286 2.01096 6.00 3.00232 0.80 1.00239 0.00318 2.50 1. εfs = 2000 × 10–6.0 18. Any larger reinforcement ratio is considered impractical.4 7.0 1.7697 14.1669 7.5 9.5 4.4 37.4624 1.80 0.40 0.7032 8.1603 7.9154 11. hf.1 1.75 2.75 2.00224 0.60 1.23 0.11 0.3 37.00734 7.2937 0.7 6.8 6.0 6.8 3.5 7.01564 0.00224 0.1820 4.7570 1.3 6.5029 8. f c′ = 30 MPa 0.1013 1. εfs The allowable strain in service in the FRP.3086 0.1338 3.80 0.39 0. ρf (%) Service condition ε f = 2000 × 10–6 Ms/bd2 ψ s*d Ultimate condition Mu/bd2 Factors ψ u*d Mu/Ms ψ u/ψ s DF 0.7319 0.1 47.01163 0.4 5.2 4. 2002 11:24:43 AM .4808 2.2 56.7563 1.00235 0.vp Tuesday.4 57. f c′ = 30 MPa 0. ρf.28 0.0 0.3909 4. adopted in preparation of Figs.4904 (c) AFRP reinforcement.0492 8.00286 0.2174 6.8 6.1 46.3592 5.4 4.9 1.00885 6.01689 0.0598 0. However.01163 0.9 4.00225 0.01194 0.1176 10.2 6.1193 ( f ) CFRP reinforcement.1 3. f c′ = 30 MPa 0.01683 0.2434 11.00734 6.35 0.7 7.00333 3.6 2.8 7.5 17.

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen 132 Fig. 4–6. used to pre© 2002 NRC Canada I:\cjce\cjce_29\cjce-01\L01-085. Civ. Fig. DF. Deformability factors. Can. for T-sections with variable hf/d and b/bw (CFRP. DF. Deformability factors. for AFRP-reinforced sections. DF. 4. lowable crack width of 5/3 times the width implicitly given by CSA A23. Deformability factors. other factors. DF. 29.3-M94 or ACI 318-99 for steel-reinforced members. bar spacing. The value of DF decreases with the increase of ρf and the decrease of fc′ . Fig. Eng. 2000 × 10–6. It may be desirable in design to tolerate wider or to require narrower cracks by the selection of the value for εfs greater or less than 2000 × 10–6. This can be seen from the graphs in Fig. it can be seen that the deformability factor. DF (CFRP. for CFRP-reinforced sections. 2002 11:24:43 AM . J. fc′ = 30 MPa. Deformability factors. 5. 6. As well. has an almost constant very high value when ρf ≤ ρfb. for GFRP-reinforced sections. Vol. and 1600 × 10–6. Discussion of results of parametric study Examining the graphs in Figs. ffs = 2000 × 10–6. may result in a variation in the value of εfs. DF. rectangular section fc′ = 30 MPa). including bond characteristics of individual bars. 8. 8. and bar size. February 05. Effect of varying ε fs on the deformability factors.vp Tuesday. 2002 Fig. It can be verified that the deformability factor is approximately proportional to (εfs)–2. ε fs = 2000 × 10–6). With the allowable value of strain in service in the FRP. Fig. which are prepared for CFRP with fc′ = 30 MPa and εfs = 2400 × 10–6. 7.

should be within the limits ρfmin ≤ ρf < ρfmax. ρf = Af/(bd). February 05. • For CFRP. 4–6. it is necessary to limit the stress in the reinforcements to a relatively small fraction of the ultimate strength. given by Efεfs. Thus. [4] or eq. should be such that. The ratio of the FRP reinforcement. ffs. there is no need to set a lower limit for ρf to achieve deformability. and ffs enabled to determine the value of ρf for which DF is equal to 4. with the three kinds of FRP bars. aramid. the amount of required reinforcement area. The maximum reinforcement ratio is introduced to ensure that the section exhibits sufficient deformability before failure. [6] for under-reinforced or over-reinforced sections. and carbon FRP. where εfs is the strain in the FRP at service and Ef is the elastic modulus of the FRP. the stress in the FRP does not exceed an allowable stress. Comments: The concrete dimensions of the section should be selected such that the deflection not be excessive. fc′ . A value of εfs = 2000 × 10–6 is proposed here. yielding εfs = 2000 × 10–6. and Ghali et al. (2002). is much greater than 4 for under-reinforced sections but reduces for over-reinforced sections. It is also shown that the deformability factor. there is no need to check the deformability factor in design. This design requirement governs the amount of reinforcement. If this is not so. the sections will have a deformability factor exceeding a minimum value of 4 as specified by CHBDC (CSA 2000).0. it may be necessary not to approach the maximum to avoid congestion of the reinforcement. where ρfmax = 0. (2) The calculated moment resistance should be greater than the required demand due to the factored external loads. This value permits a strain in FRP reinforcement of 5/3 times the strain allowed for steel reinforcement by various codes.4%. The moment resistance is given by eq.2α1 fc ′/ffs. ρf << ρfmax and the condition that ρf be less than ρfmax is easily satisfied. Thus. where ρfmax = 0. should be determined as follows: (1) Due to service loads. Thus. Deflection of flexural members can be more critical for members with FRP than with steel reinforcement. for economy and ease of accommodating the FRP bars. The parametric study in which DF is calculated for variable ρf. increasing the depth of section or reducing ffs can satisfy the condition. Conclusions A design procedure is presented to give the crosssectional area of FRP reinforcement required for a section subjected to flexure. Af. To control the width of cracks of concrete sections in flexure reinforced with FRP. Figures 4–6 indicate that rectangular sections with GFRP. 133 pare Figs. Design of sections in flexure Based on the above discussion and the parametric study. [25]). ρf << ρfmax. It is assumed that the concrete dimensions have been selected and deflection criteria will be satisfied at service. The strength reduction and load factors required by codes or technical committees dealing with FRP reinforcement should be used in calculating the two moments. due to service loads. The minimum reinforcement should be selected to ensure that the calculated nominal moment exceeds the moment causing flexural cracking by an acceptable margin. or CFRP bars have DF > 4 except when ρf is extremely high. when fc′ = 30 MPa and ρf > 1. guidance is provided by ACI 440 (ACI 2001). The permissible stress in the FRP in service may be taken as Efεfs with εfs selected according to the tolerable crack width. Figure 7 shows that a T-section with CFRP bars. Thus. however.0%. The procedure is based on controlling the width of cracks in service and ensuring that adequate deformability of the member occurs before failure. Af. After selection of concrete dimensions of a section in flexure. The value of ρfmin should be selected to ensure that the flexural strength provided by the FRP after cracking © 2002 NRC Canada I:\cjce\cjce_29\cjce-01\L01-085. the amount of FRP reinforcement for a section in flexure. The condition that ρf be greater than ρfb is not necessary. however. These calculations gave the empirical inequality: [24] ρf ffs < 0. when fc′ = 30 MPa and ρf > 3. it is seen that DF ≥ 4 except in the following unusual situations: • For AFRP. 4–7 indicate that under-reinforced sections and over-reinforced sections have DF > 4.or rectangular sections that can occur in practice. as defined in this paper. Comparison of the three figures indicates that with CFRP bars the values of DF are smaller than with the other two types of bars. The graphs in Figs.75% or when fc′ = 60 MPa and ρf > 3.Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen Newhook et al. the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE 1997). The reinforcement ratio.2α1 fc′ / ffs (eq. 2002 11:24:44 AM . the stress in the reinforcement should not exceed the allowable value. the amount of FRP reinforcement becomes difficult to accommodate.19 α1 fc′ This can be used to set a maximum FRP reinforcement ratio to be used in design: [25] ρfmax = 0.0. Selection of minimum thickness to control deflection is beyond the scope of the present paper. The designer may increase or decrease the allowable strain in the FRP depending upon the tolerable crack width. respectively. These studies show that with the amount of reinforcement necessary to control the width of cracks.2 α1 fc′ ffs As ρf approaches ρfmax. As the ratio b/bw approaches 1. should be between the limits ρfmin ≤ ρf < ρfmax. the area properties of the section approach those of a rectangle. Parametric studies are presented for rectangular and Tsections reinforced with glass.vp Tuesday. ffs. is as high as 4% of bwd. AFRP. having a flange width = 9bw also has DF > 4 even when the cross-sectional area of the FRP. the parametric study performed for rectangular sections and for T-sections with b/bw = 9 covers a wide range of the T. ρf = Af/(bd). The purpose of the permissible stress ffs is to control the width of cracks. The paper proposes to limit the strain in the FRP due to service loads to (5/3) times the strain allowed for steel reinforcement. for which the concrete dimensions have been selected. In practice.

Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. American Concrete Institute. Vol. Acknowledgements This research is part of the work of Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures (ISIS Canada). Concrete Engineering Series. and Vijay... JSCE. V. Ohno. American Concrete Institute. Man. 1997. 23. American Concrete Institute.. 1997. Mich... Upper Saddle River. Bianchini. Farmington Hills. Sherbrooke. T. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Durability of Composites in Construction. Jaeger. List of symbols Af cross section of FRP reinforcement Afmin minimum cross-sectional area of FRP b width of flange of T-section. ACI Committee 440. [23] Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete Ef modulus of elasticity of FRP Es modulus of elasticity of steel fc′ specified compressive strength of concrete ff calculated stress in FRP reinforcement ffs allowable stress in FRP reinforcement in service ffu tensile stress that ruptures FRP fr modulus of rupture (tensile strength of concrete in flexure) fy specified strength of steel reinforcement hf thickness of flange of T-section I moment of inertia of transformed section Mcr moment causing flexural cracking at a section due to externally applied load Ms moment producing the allowable tensile stress ffs in FRP Mu nominal moment strength n modular ratio of elasticity. ACI Committee 318. London. Canadian Standards Association. E&FN Spon. R. ISIS-M04-01. Section 16. CSA. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures.E.0035 ε fs allowable strain in FRP due to service loads ρbal ratio of steel reinforcement that produces balanced conditions ρf ratio of tension reinforcement.. Sapporo. A. U. fibre reinforced structures. Civ. SP138-35. pp.. N. Kakizawa. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Sapporo. Gangarao. 2002. Kobayashi. 1997.394. S. C. ρf = Af/bd ρfb ratio of FRP tension reinforcement that produces balanced conditions ρfmax maximum ratio of reinforcement for FRP reinforced sections ρfmin minimum ratio of reinforcement for FRP reinforced sections ψ s curvature when strain in FRP is ε fs ψ u curvature when moment is Mu © 2002 NRC Canada I:\cjce\cjce_29\cjce-01\L01-085. Benmokrane. 1997. Recommendation for design and construction of concrete structures using continuous fibre reinforced materials. Durability of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) composites for construction. 143–149. 1999. Prentice Hall. Jaeger. Standard CSA-A23.. Todeschini. Vol. Winnipeg. L. Rizkalla.K. Naaman. Edited by L. and Kesler. 2002 11:24:45 AM . Rexdale.S. Structural ductility of concrete beams prestressed with FRP tendons. Vol.1R-01. 585–598. Design of concrete structures. Japan. E&FN Spon. 1998.. [9] ε c calculated strain at extreme compressive fibre ε cu assumed value of strain at extreme fibre when crushing of concrete occurs.C. Network of Centres of Excellence.M. Vol. February 05. A. and Rahman. pp. Guideline for the design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars. and Tadros. Japan. F. Rexdale. and Fujikaki. pp. (Editors). S. T. Japan. Grace. Vol.vp Tuesday. Building code requirements for structural concrete. 379–386.. pp. Ductibility of prestressed concrete bridges using internal/external CFRP strands. Can. Crack width prediction for NEFMAC – reinforced flexural members..V. 2.. C. Concrete structures: stresses and deformations. 1995. G. and Sayed. In Non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures. CDCC’98. Sapporo. Japan.H. J. 2. β 1 dimensionless factors defined by eq. No.. ε cu = 0. S. 2.K.. Behaviour of concrete columns reinforced with high strength steels.. 2000. Rahman. 447–454. ACI 318-99. Canadian Standards Association. Mufti. pp. H. 1997. 1997. and Jeong. 61(6): 701–716. 29. 2002 MacGregor. K. kindly reviewed the first draft of the paper and suggested improvements. 1994.A.E. Standard CSA-S6-00. 1997. Mcr. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).E. Flexural behaviour and energy absorption of carbon FRP-reinforced concrete beams. 2001. 551–559. B. 1964. n = Ef/Ec yCT distance between resultant compression and centroid of tension reinforcement α 1. Taerwe. Japan. July. Favre. Deformability of flexural concrete members prestressed with FRP. and Yonezawa.A. 2001. References Abdelrahman. Tokyo. ISIS Canada.G.Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen 134 adequately exceeds the cracking moment. G.G. M. T.N. J.G. Ont. L. The concept of the overall performance factor in rectangular-section reinforced concrete members. and Elbadry. U. 767–774. ACI Journal. Reinforced concrete structures with fibre reinforced polymers (FRPs).. Farmington Hills. Canadian highway bridge design code (CHBDC). A. Que. G. 1993. A. CSA. and Tadros. Eng. 1. Scotland. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on NonMetallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. 3rd ed. mechanics and design. Ont. Mich. in accordance with relevant codes. pp. Proceedings of Conference on Faults and Repairs. London. H. Reinforced concrete. Japan Society of Civil Engineers. A. ACI 440. Ghali. Sapporo. The University of Manitoba. or width of rectangular section bw width of web of T-section c distance between extreme compression fibre and neutral axis cb distance between extreme compression fibre and neutral axis for balanced section d distance between extreme compression fibre and centroid of tension reinforcement DF deformability factor defined by eq.J. P. Design of concrete members reinforced with GFRP bars.