Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 1077–1086

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Effect of steel and synthetic fibers on flexural behavior of high-strength

concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars
Jun-Mo Yang, Kyung-Hwan Min, Hyun-Oh Shin, Young-Soo Yoon ⇑
School of Civil, Environmental & Architectural Engineering, Korea University, Anam-dong 5-ga, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 136-701, Republic of Korea

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

Article history: Six high-strength concrete beam specimens reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars were
Received 24 June 2011 constructed and tested. Three of the beams were reinforced with carbon FRP (CFRP) bars and the other
Accepted 2 January 2012 three beams were reinforced with glass FRP (GFRP) bars as flexural reinforcements. Steel fibers and poly-
Available online 10 January 2012
olefin synthetic fibers were used as reinforcing discrete fibers. An investigation was performed on the
influence of the addition of fibers on load-carrying capacity, cracking response, and ductility. In addition,
Keywords: the test results were compared with the predictions for the ultimate flexural moment. The addition of
A. Fiber
fibers increased the first-cracking load, ultimate flexural strength, and ductility, and also mitigated the
B. Strength
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bar
large crack width of the FRP bar-reinforced concrete beams.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction cur in FRP bar-reinforced concrete beams. To avoid brittle failure,

Recently, there has been a rapid increase in the use of fiber-rein-
forced polymer (FRP) bars substituting for conventional steel bars
for concrete structures. Because FRP materials are nonmagnetic
and noncorrosive, the problem of electromagnetic interference
and steel corrosion can be avoided with FRP bars. In addition, FRP
bars have the advantages of high strength and light weight, and a
number of design guides and national standards have been pub-
lished to provide recommendations for the analysis, design, and
construction of concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars [1–
3]. However, due to the substantial differences in the physical and
mechanical properties between FRP and conventional steel, the
use of FRP bars is still a formidable challenge for engineers.
The elastic modulus of FRP bars is much less than that of steel
bars. Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars and aramid
fiber-reinforced polymer (AFRP) bars have an elastic modulus of
between 35 and 50 GPa, and the elastic modulus of carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars is between 120 and 150 GPa. This
low elastic modulus leads to higher deflection and larger crack
width in FRP bar-reinforced concrete beams that have an equiva-
lent reinforcement ratio to steel-reinforced concrete beams; there-
fore, both deflection and crack width must be checked for the
serviceability limit state. In addition, while steel bars behave
inelastically after yield strength, FRP bars show perfect elastic
behavior up to failure. Since FRP bars are linear elastic to failure
and fail in a brittle manner, a ductile steel-like failure does not oc-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 3290 3320; fax: +82 2 928 7656.
E-mail addresses: jmyang@korea.ac.kr (J.-M. Yang), ysyoon@korea.ac.kr (Y.-S.
Yoon).
failure by concrete crushing (over-reinforced beams), which is gen-
erally avoided in steel-reinforced concrete design, is preferred in
FRP bar-reinforced concrete design [1–4]. However, because con-
crete itself is a brittle material and high-strength concrete is even
more brittle, the ductility of FRP bar-reinforced high-strength con-
crete beams is less than that of steel-reinforced concrete beams.
In order to overcome the problems in terms of deformability
and ductility of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars, an alter-
native solution using fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) was proposed.
It is now well established that the addition of steel fibers improves
the mechanical properties of concrete members. Steel fibers offer
increased toughness, durability, and impact resistance, and control
the initiation and growth of cracks [5]. Many researchers have
proven that the addition of steel fibers increases the ductility of
over-reinforced steel reinforced beams and high-strength steel
reinforced beams [6,7]. However, few studies have been carried
out on the effects of fibers on the behavior of concrete beams
reinforced with FRP bars. It is likely that the efficiency of fibers
for the FRP bar-reinforced beams, which have a large crack width
and deep crack propagation, can be higher than that for steel-
reinforced beams. In particular, because the failure of over-
reinforced beams with FRP bars is controlled mainly by the
concrete compressive strain, the increased and softened postpeak
strain of FRC may considerably improve the ductility of FRP beams.
In this study, six high-strength concrete beam specimens were
constructed and tested to investigate the effect of fibers on the
behavior of FRP bar-reinforced concrete beams. Carbon FRP (CFRP)
bars and glass FRP (GFRP) bars were used as flexural reinforce-
ments, and not only steel fibers but also recently developed poly-
olefin synthetic fibers [8] were considered as reinforcing discrete

1359-8368/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.01.044
1078 J.-M. Yang et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 1077–1086

Nomenclature

A0s area of compressive steel reinforcement, mm2 h overall height of beam, mm

Ar area of flexural reinforcements, mm2 lf fiber length, mm
Ar1, Ar2 area of outer layer and inner layer flexural reinforce- Mu ultimate moment, kN m
ments, respectively, mm2 Pcr first cracking load, kN
b width of beam section, mm Pu ultimate load, kN
c distance from extreme compression fiber to the neutral S average slope of the load deflection curve
axis, mm T D150 toughness of FRC, area under the load vs. net deflection
Cc, C 0s compressive force of concrete and compressive steel curve 0 to L/150, Nm
reinforcement, respectively, kN Tf tensile force of fibrous concrete, kN
df fiber diameter, mm Tr1, Tr2 tensile force of outer layer and inner layer flexural
d1, d2 effective depth of outer layer and inner layer flexural reinforcements, respectively, kN
reinforcements, respectively, mm vf percentage by volume of fibers, %
D0 depth of compressive steel reinforcement, mm Vf fiber volume content
Df bond factor of steel fiber wf percentage by weight of fibers, %
e distance from extreme compression fiber to top of b bond factor of fiber
tensile stress block of fibrous concrete, mm b1 factor relating the depth of equivalent rectangular
Ect elastic modulus of concrete in tension, GPa compressive stress block to the neutral axis depth
Eel elastic energy released upon failure, kN m c multiplier on fc0 to determine the intensity of an
Er modulus of elasticity of reinforcement, GPa equivalent rectangular stress distribution for concrete
Etot total energy stored in the system, kN m Dcr deflection at first cracking load, mm
fc compressive stress of concrete, MPa Du deflection at ultimate load, mm
fc0 specified compressive strength of concrete, MPa ec compressive strain in concrete
fD150, fD600 residual strength of FRC at net deflection of L/150 and e0c strain corresponding to the peak stress of FRC
L/600, respectively, MPa ecu ultimate compressive strain in concrete
fr modulus of rupture of concrete, MPa er1, er2 strain in outer layer and inner layer flexural
fr1, fr2 stress in outer layer and inner layer flexural reinforcements, respectively
reinforcements, respectively, MPa e0s strain in compressive steel reinforcement
fs0 stress in compressive steel reinforcement, MPa ef tensile strain in fibers at theoretical moment strength of
fsp splitting tensile strength of concrete, MPa beam
ft maximum tensile strength of concrete, MPa le ductility index
fu ultimate tensile strength of reinforcement, MPa rt tensile stress in fibrous concrete, MPa
fy specified yield strength of reinforcement, MPa s interfacial bond stress between fiber and matrix, MPa
Fbe bond efficiency of the fiber which varies from 1.0 to 1.2
depending upon fiber characteristics

fibers. This is because the large crack width and deep crack propa- SN in the specimen names indicate steel fiber and synthetic fiber,
gation in FRP bar-reinforced concrete beams have a high potential respectively. The steel fibers and synthetic fibers were added to
for the corrosion of steel fibers at cracks, even if crack widths of the SFRC in the percentage of vf = 1.0% by volume and to the SNFRC
less than 0.1 mm do not allow the corrosion of steel fibers passing in the percentage of vf = 2.0% by volume. A 25 mm concrete cover
across the crack [9]. This study focused on the flexural behavior of
these beams in terms of load-carrying capacity, cracking pattern,
and ductility. In addition, the experimental results presented in
this paper were compared with the results from flexural strength
prediction models proposed by various researchers [10–12].

2. Experimental program

2.1. Test specimens

Fig. 1 and Table 1 show the details of six beam specimens. All
specimens were 2300 mm long with a rectangular cross section
of 230  250 mm. These were reinforced with two layers of rein- (a) Reinforcement details and the locations of strain
forcement, and the effective depths of the outer layer (d1) and gages and LVDTs
the inner layer (d2) were 206 mm and 162 mm, respectively. The
main variables were the material of the flexural reinforcement
and the fiber. The specimens can be divided into two series: a beam
series reinforced with CFRP bars (CC Series) and a beam series rein-
forced with GFRP bars (GG Series). In order to provide similar nom-
inal flexural strength for the two series, four 9 mm CFRP bars were
used in the CC Series beams, and six 13 mm GFRP bars were used in
the GG Series beams. Each specimen was made of different types of (b) Section details
concrete, i.e. plain concrete, steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC),
and synthetic fiber reinforced concrete (SNFRC). The letters ST and Fig. 1. Details of test specimens and test setup (dimensions in mm).
 J.-M. Yang et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 1077–1086 1079

Table 1
Details of test specimens.

Specimen d1 (mm) d2 (mm) Er (GPa) Ar (mm2) ArEr (MN) Type of fiber vf (%)
CC 206 162 146.2 256 37.4 – 0.0
CC-SN 206 162 146.2 256 37.4 Synthetic 2.0
CC-ST 206 162 146.2 256 37.4 Steel 1.0
GG 206 162 48.1 762 36.7 – 0.0
GG-SN 206 162 48.1 762 36.7 Synthetic 2.0
GG-ST 206 162 48.1 762 36.7 Steel 1.0

was used, and D10 steel bars were used as closed stirrups at
80 mm spacings and as longitudinal compression reinforcements
for all specimens.

2.2. Material properties

The properties of FRP bars which, were supplied by the manu-

facturer, are shown in Table 2 and the shapes of the two types of
FRP reinforcing bars (13 mm GFRP bars and 9 mm CFRP bars) used
in this study are shown in Fig. 2. In this study, the manufacturer’s
guaranteed design properties were used for the FRP bars. Both
types were manufactured by Dongwon Construction in Korea.
The GFRP reinforcing bars consisted of 70% E-glass fiber and 30% vi-
nyl ester resin; the CFRP reinforcing bars consisted of 70% carbon
fiber and 30% vinyl ester resin. Both types had surface ribs that
were manufactured using PVA fiber braiding technology.
The bundled type hooked steel fibers and crimped polyolefin (a) Bundled hooked steel fibers
synthetic fibers made from polypropylene macro–monofilament
were added to the SFRC and SNFRC, respectively, and the shapes
and properties of these fibers are presented in Fig. 3 and Table 3.
The concrete mix designs for the plain concrete, SFRC and
SNFRC are shown in Table 4. The design compressive strength of
concrete was 90 MPa. FA and SF refer to fly ash and silica fume,
respectively. Chemical admixtures of the air-entraining agent
(AE) and the polycarboxylic acid high range AE water reducing
agent (HWA) were used to acquire the properties.
Table 5 summarizes the material properties of the concrete.
Standard compressive cylinder tests and split-cylinder tests using
100 mm diameter  200 mm long cylinders were conducted to
determine the mean values of the concrete compressive strength,
fc0 , and the splitting tensile strength, fsp . The modulus of rupture,
fr , and load versus deflection curve shown in Fig. 4 were obtained
from four point loading tests on 100  100  350 mm flexural

Table 2 (b) Crimped synthetic fibers

Properties of steel and FRP bars.

Type of reinforcement Area (mm2) Er (GPa) fy (MPa) fu (MPa)

D10 steel 71 200.0 477 594
9 mm CFRP bar 64 146.2 N.A. 2130
13 mm GFRP bar 127 48.1 N.A. 941

(c) Single piece of steel and synthetic fiber

Fig. 2. FRP bars used in this study: (a) 13 mm GFRP bar and (b) 9 mm CFRP bar. Fig. 3. Fibers used in this study.
1080 J.-M. Yang et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 1077–1086

Table 3
Properties of steel and synthetic fibers.

Type of fiber lf (mm) Dimension (mm2) lf/df Density (kg/m3) Elastic modulus (GPa) Tensile strength (MPa) Ultimate elongation (%)
Crimped synthetic fiber 40.0 1.4  0.7 35.8 0.91 46.3 470.5 15.3
Hooked steel fiber 30.0 U 0.5 60.0 7.85 200.0 1195.5 0.6

Table 4
Concrete mix designs.

Concrete W/B (%) S/a (%) Unit weight (kg/m3)

W C FA SF S G AE HWA Fiber
Plain concrete 22 40 160 545 109 73 574 875 0.4 13.1 0.0
SNFRC 16.0 18.2
SFRC 16.0 78.5

Table 5
Concrete properties.

Concrete fc0 (MPa) fsp (MPa) fr (MPa) D

f600 (MPa) D
f150 (MPa) TD
150 (Nm)

Plain concrete 75.9 5.62 7.21 – – –

SNFRC 89.3 9.03 9.02 5.77 8.40 48.00
SFRC 104.4 9.29 10.39 8.25 2.65 40.00

the first-cracking load of SFRC beams was higher and the loading
40
drop of SFRC beams after the first-cracking load was smaller than
35 those of SNFRC beams, the residual strength at net deflection of
L/150 and the toughness value of SNFRC beams were higher than
30
Bending load (kN)

those of SFRC beams. Also, SNFRC beams had much higher deflec-
25 tion at peak load than SFRC beams. This is because the elastic mod-
20 ulus of synthetic fiber is much lower than that of steel fiber, and
Design load = 19.6 kN the crimped shape of synthetic fiber is straightened out when ten-
Level
15
sile stress is applied to the fibers in the tension zone of the concrete
Level
10 beams. The toughness performance level method proposed by
Level Morgan et al. [14] was also used to determine the toughness of
5 Level
the SFRC and SNFRC. As shown in Fig. 4, the SFRC and SNFRC were
0 found to have a toughness performance level of IV, based on a de-
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
sign flexural strength of 5.88 MPa.
Net midspan deflection (mm)
(a) Synthetic fiber-reinforced concrete 2.3. Test setup and instrumentation

40 Four-point static loading was applied by a 500 kN universal

35 testing machine for all specimens, as shown in Fig. 1a. The loading
was applied monotonically in small increments, while the loads,
30
Bending load (kN)

deflections and strains were recorded at each increment. At each

25 load stage, the crack pattern and crack widths were also recorded.
Design load = 19.6 kN The crack widths were measured using a crack width comparator.
20
As shown in Fig. 1a, the midspan deflection and support settle-
Level
15 ments were measured with linear voltage differential transformers
Level (LVDTs). Electrical resistance strain gages were glued to the center
10
Level of all flexural reinforcements.
5 Level

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 3. Test results and discussions
Net midspan deflection (mm)
3.1. General behavior of test specimens
(b) Steel fiber-reinforced concrete
Fig. 4. Load–deflection curve and flexural toughness performance level of the fiber- Fig. 5 shows the applied load versus midspan deflection re-
reinforced concrete. sponses, while Table 6 summarizes the loads and midspan deflec-
tions at the formation of the first flexural crack and at the peak
loads for all beam specimens. All specimens exhibited similar
D
beams. The residual strengths at net deflection of L/600, f600 , and L/ behavior, which was very stiff before first cracking. The specimens
D D
150, f150 , and the toughness, T 150 , defined in ASTM C 1609 [13], for with fibers showed higher first cracking loads than those without
fiber-reinforced concrete are presented in Table 5. These average fibers. In particular, the first cracking loads of specimens CC-ST
values were determined by testing three flexural beams. While and GG-ST, which were fabricated with SFRC, were twice as high
 J.-M. Yang et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 1077–1086 1081

300 by other researchers [15–17]. This occurred due to the deep prop-
agation of cracks in the FRP bar-reinforced beams. Specimens CC-
CC-ST
250 SN and CC-ST failed by FRP bar rupture (Fig. 6b), although all spec-
CC-SN CC imens had been designed as over-reinforced beams which lead to
200 concrete compression failure. This can be attributed to the in-
Load (kN)

creased ultimate compressive strain of FRC. Although the compres-

150 sive strain of concrete exceeded the strain value of 0.003, which
was assumed to be the ultimate strain based on the ACI Code
100 [1,18], when the strain of FRP bar reached the FRP bar rupture
strain, there was no concrete compression failure. In research on
50
the stress–strain behavior of FRC in compression, the strain at fail-
ure of FRC exhibited a value higher than 0.0035, the value usually
adopted in current guidelines [19,20]. This indicates that it is pru-
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 dent to consider and determine the increased ultimate concrete
Midspan deflection (mm) strain in order to prevent abrupt FRP bar rupture failure when
FRP bar-reinforced beams with fibers are designed.
(a) CC series beams
All specimens of the GG Series failed by the crushing of concrete
(Fig. 6c), in contrast to the CC Series. Specimens GG-SN and GG-ST
300 showed significant inelastic deformations and ductile behavior,
GG-SN GG-ST which resemble the post-yielding behavior of steel-reinforced
250 beams, near failure. This is due to the increased ultimate compres-
sive strain and improved and more softened postpeak behavior of
200 FRC [19,21]. The ultimate loads of specimens GG-SN and GG-ST
were approximately 11% and 25% higher, respectively, than that
Load (kN)

150 GG of specimen GG. Even if the increased concrete compressive

100
50
0 crushing failure; therefore, there is a negligible increase in the ten-
0 10 20 30 40 50
Midspan deflection (mm)
(b) GG series beams
Fig. 5. Load versus midspan deflection responses.
as those of specimens CC and GG, respectively. This indicates the
tensile strength of concrete increased due to the addition of fibers.
After first flexural cracking, the largely reduced stiffnesses of all
cracked beams, which are due to the low elastic modulus of FRP
bars, were similar. This can be attributed to the similar longitudi-
nal rigidities (ErAr), which are tabulated in Table 1, of all beam
specimens. The influence of fibers on the post cracking stiffness
was negligible.
The failure behaviors between the CC Series and the GG Series
differed significantly. Specimen CC failed by the shear compression
failure mode (Fig. 6a). In specimen CC, the vertical flexural crack in
the shear span gradually bent over towards the load points as it
propagated upward and became almost horizontal before reaching
the load point. This diagonal tension crack opened up as the load
increased, and eventually the concrete above this crack crushed
adjacent to the load point. A similar shear compression failure
mode to that of the FRP bar-reinforced beams has been observed
strength due to the inclusion of steel and synthetic fibers can affect
the load carrying capacity, the increased ultimate compressive
strain can have a more significant influence on the load carrying
capacity of the beam specimens. In the case of normal steel-rein-
forced concrete beams, steel reinforcing bars yield before concrete
60 70 sile force applied to the flexural steel bars due to the increased ulti-
mate strain by the addition of fibers. On the other hand, in the case
of over-reinforced FRP bar-reinforced concrete beams, the tensile
force applied to the FRP bars increases with an increase in the ulti-
mate concrete strain. Therefore, the load carrying capacities of
over-reinforced FRP bar-reinforced beams can be significantly af-
fected by the increased ultimate concrete strain. The load carrying
capacity of a GFRP bar reinforced beam tested by Alsayed and
Alhozaimy [22] was improved by approximately 38% with the
addition of 1.0% by volume of hooked steel fibers.
3.2. Cracking responses
Fig. 7 shows the crack patterns of all beam specimens at low
(42 kN), medium (100 kN), and high loads (180 kN). After the
cracking moment, vertical flexural cracks appeared perpendicular
to the direction of the maximum principal stress induced by pure
moment in the constant moment region. At a low load of 42 kN,
which was the load immediately after the first cracks appeared,
the cracks in specimens without fibers (CC and GG) propagated
quite deeply into the compression zone. This indicates that imme-
diately after the formation of the first cracks the neutral axis
shifted up very near the top compression fiber of the FRP bar-
reinforced concrete beams. The cracks in specimen CC were deeper

Table 6
Summary of test results.

Specimen Pcr (kN) Dcr (mm) Pu (kN) Du (mm) le Failure mode

CC 21 0.68 212 43.82 1.84 Shear compression
CC-SN 27 0.52 218 36.59 1.64 FRP bar rupture
CC-ST 42 0.83 225 36.81 1.84 FRP bar rupture
GG 23 0.67 207 38.85 1.92 Compression
GG-SN 35 0.65 230 50.88 3.24 Compression
GG-ST 39 0.79 259 56.19 3.43 Compression
1082 J.-M. Yang et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 1077–1086

(a) Failure by shear compression (beam CC)

(b) Failure by FRP bar rupture (beam CC-ST)

(c) Failure by concrete compression (beam GG)

Fig. 6. Modes of failure.

than those in specimen GG, and this could be attributed to the low
reinforcement ratio of CC. The depths of cracks in specimens with
steel fibers (CC-ST and GG-ST) were very short. This indicates that
the fast and deep propagation of cracks in the FRP bar-reinforced
beams can be restrained by the bridging effect of steel fibers. How-
ever, the synthetic fibers had a marginal effect on the depth of
cracks, even if the first cracking load was delayed in specimens
CC-SN and GG-SN. This is attributed to the lower elastic modulus
and straightening effect of crimped type synthetic fiber.
At medium load (100 kN), vertical flexural cracks appeared in
the shear span, and the number of cracks and depth of cracks
slowly increased compared to the low load level for all beam spec-
imens. The diagonal tension cracks, which originated as the verti-
cal cracks outside the loading points, appeared in specimen CC at
this load stage, while the other specimens did not have such diag-
onal tension cracks. At a high load stage (180 kN), the depths of
cracks were deeper than previously, and the cracks had short crack
lengths and smaller crack widths appeared in the specimens with
fibers. The diagonal tension cracks in CC became remarkable, and
the other specimens also displayed diagonal tension cracks.
Figs. 8 and 9 show the load versus number of cracks and the
load versus crack spacing responses, respectively. The number of
cracks in all specimens increased with an increase in applied load-
ing. However, the increase rate of the number of cracks in speci-
mens CC and CC-ST decreased after loads of 60 kN and 80 kN,
respectively, and these specimens showed significantly fewer
cracks than the other specimens. The crack spacing of the GG Series
beam specimens and the CC-SN beam decreased rapidly with an
increase in loading at the low load stage, and became stable after
the medium load stage. However, specimens CC and CC-ST showed
different crack spacing responses to the other specimens. The crack
spacings of CC and CC-ST were much larger than those of the other
specimens. Fig. 10 shows the load versus maximum crack width re-
sponses. The maximum crack width increased rapidly with an in-
crease in applied loading for all specimens. In GG Series beams,
the maximum crack widths of GG-ST and GG-SN were much smal-
ler than those of GG, and the crack widths were controlled by fibers
until 100 kN, while there were few differences of crack width re-
sponses between the GG Series beams after a load of 120 kN. In
the CC Series beams, the gap of the maximum crack width between
CC and CC-ST was maintained from first cracking to failure, while
that between CC and CC-SN increased with an increase in loading.
At medium load (100 kN), the crack widths of specimens CC-SN
and CC-ST were controlled by steel and synthetic fibers,
respectively.
In Figs. 8–10, it can be seen that the cracking responses of the
GG Series and CC-SN beams differ significantly from those of CC
and CC-ST. In specimens CC and CC-ST, the crack widths increased
rapidly without an increase in the number of cracks, while in spec-
imens GG Series and CC-SN, the crack widths increased slowly with
a rapid increase in the number of cracks. This indicates that the
cracking response and crack distribution of the GG Series and CC-
SN beams are considerably superior to those of the CC and CC-ST
beams. This further indicates that the bond performance of GFRP
bars in the GG Series was superior to that of the CFRP bars in the
CC Series, and synthetic fibers were more effective for a better
cracking response than steel fibers in the CC Series beams.
3.3. Ductility
The conventional ductility index is defined as the ratio of deflec-
tion at ultimate load to deflection at yield. This definition cannot be
used in concrete members reinforced with FRP bars or prestressed
with FRP strands, since FRP bars and strands exhibit linearly elastic
behavior until failure. In order to evaluate the ductility of FRP rein-
forced members, Naaman and Jeong [23] suggested the following
expression considering the relationship between the inelastic ab-
sorbed energy and the elastic stored energy
 
1 Etot
le ¼ þ1 ð1Þ
2 Eel
where le = ductility index; Etot = total energy computed as the area
under the load deflection curve up to the load defined as the failure
load; and Eel = elastic stored energy which is part of the total energy.
The slope of elastic behavior should be calculated to obtain the elas-
tic energy (Eel) of the beams through the loading–unloading tests.
However, the slope of elastic behavior can be computed by the
following equation, which is the weighted average slope of the
two initial straight lines of the load deflection curve
 J.-M. Yang et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 1077–1086 1083

(a) At 42 kN

(b) At 100 kN

(c) At 180 kN
Fig. 7. Crack patterns.

250 250
CC CC
GG GG
200 CC-SN 200
CC-SN
CC-ST CC-ST
Load (kN)

GG-SN
Load (kN)

150 150 GG-SN

GG-ST
GG-ST
100 100

50 50

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Number of cracks Crack spacing (mm)

Fig. 8. Load versus number of cracks. Fig. 9. Load versus crack spacing.
1084 J.-M. Yang et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 1077–1086

250 where Ar1, Ar2, and A0s = section areas of outermost, inner flexural
reinforcement, and compressive steel reinforcement, respectively;
d1, d2, d0 = depths of outermost, inner flexural reinforcement, and
200
compressive steel reinforcement, respectively; fc0 = compressive
strength of concrete; fr1, fr2, and fs0 = stress in outermost, inner flex-
Load (kN)

150 ural reinforcement, and compressive steel reinforcement, respec-

tively; b = width of beam; c = depth of the neutral axis; b1 = factor
CC
relating the depth of equivalent rectangular compressive stress
100 GG
block to the neutral axis depth; ecu = ultimate compressive strain
CC-SN
in concrete, which is 0.003; and er1, er2, and e0s = strains in outer-
CC-ST
50 most, inner flexural reinforcement, and compressive steel reinforce-
GG-SN
ment, respectively. The theoretical calculation based on the
GG-ST
ultimate strength method of the ACI Code [1,4] underestimated
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 the ultimate moments of FRP bar-reinforced beams by more than
20%. This is because the nominal moment capacity of a cross section
Maximum crack width (mm)
reinforced with FRP bars is very sensitive to the maximum strain
Fig. 10. Load versus maximum crack width. and compressive strength of concrete, as mentioned by Nanni [24].

4.2. Flexural strength prediction for FRP bar-reinforced beams with

P1 S1 þ ðP 2  P1 ÞS2 fibers
S¼ ð2Þ
P2
Several methods have been developed to predict the flexural
where S = average slope of the two initial slopes S1 and S2; and P1,
strength of beams reinforced with both reinforcing bars and steel
P2 = loads corresponding to the end of the two initial slopes S1
fibers [10–12,21]. All of those methods are based on the ultimate
and S2, respectively.
strength approach of the ACI 318 Code [18] for normal reinforced
The ductility index using Eq. (1) for all tested specimens is sum-
concrete, and take into account the contribution of steel fibers in
marized in Table 6. In computing the ductility index, it was as-
the tension zone. The main differences between these prediction
sumed that the failure point is the point, where the applied load
models are the ultimate compressive strain in FRC, the method
is dropped to 80% of its ultimate value. The ductility indexes of
used to calculate the tensile stress in fibrous concrete, and the dis-
specimens CC-SN and CC-ST were either similar or smaller than
tance from the compression fiber to the tensile stress block of fi-
the ductility index of specimen CC. This is due to the brittle FRP
brous concrete.
bar rupture failure of specimens CC-SN and CC-ST. The ductility in-
The basic design assumptions of ACI 544.4R [10] are shown in
dexes of specimens GG-SN and GG-ST were approximately 70% and
Fig. 11, and the equation for nominal moment Mn of a SFRC beam
80% higher, respectively, than the ductility index of specimen GG.
reinforced with FRP bars is given by:
This is attributed to the increased ultimate compressive strain
and to the improved and more softened postpeak behavior of 0:85fc0 b1 bc þ A0s fs0 ¼ Ar1 fr1 þ Ar2 fr2 þ rt bðh  eÞ ð6Þ
FRC. It is likely that the inclusion of fibers can improve and over-    
come the low ductility of FRP bar-reinforced beams. b c b c
Mn ¼ Ar1 fr1 d1  1 þ Ar2 fr2 d2  1
2 2
 
4. Comparison of test results and flexural strength prediction rt b 0 b c
þ ðh  eÞðh þ e  aÞ þ A0s fs0 d  1 ð7Þ
models 2 2

4.1. Flexural strength prediction for FRP bar-reinforced beams with no er1 ðd1  cÞ er2 ðd2  cÞ ef ðe  cÞ e0s ðc  d0 Þ
fibers ¼ ; ¼ ; ¼ ; ¼
ecu c ecu c ecu c ecu c
ð8Þ
Table 7 presents the experimental and theoretical ultimate mo-
ment capacities for FRP bar-reinforced beams with no fibers (spec- l
imens CC and GG). The depths of the neutral axes, c, were obtained rt ¼ 0:00772 f v f F be ð9Þ
df
by Eqs. (6) and (7) as follows, and the theoretical ultimate moment
capacities, Mn, were calculated by Eq. (8) based on the ACI Codes where df = fiber diameter; h = overall height of beam; e = distance
[1,4] from extreme compression fiber to top of tensile stress block of fi-
brous concrete; Fbe = bond efficiency of the fiber which varies from
0:85fc0 b1 bc þ A0s fs0 ¼ Ar1 fr1 þ Ar2 fr2 ð3Þ 1.0 to 1.2 depending upon fiber characteristics; lf = fiber length;
vf = percent by volume of steel fibers; ef = tensile strain in fibers at
er1 ðd1  cÞ er2 ðd2  cÞ e0s ðc  d0 Þ theoretical moment strength of beam, ef = rf /Es based on fiber
¼ ; ¼ ; ¼ ð4Þ
ecu c ecu c ecu c stress developed at pullout (dynamic bond stress of 2.3 MPa); and
      rt = tensile stress in fibrous concrete. In this analysis, the maximum
b c b c 0 b c strain at the extreme concrete compression fiber, ecu, and bond effi-
M n ¼ Ar1 fr1 d1  1 þ Ar2 fr2 d2  1 þ A0s fs0 d  1 ð5Þ
2 2 2 ciency of the hooked steel fiber, Fbe, were taken to be 0.003 and 1.2,
respectively.
Table 7 The prediction model proposed by Campione [11], which has
Flexural strength prediction for plain concrete beams. the same design assumptions as those of ACI 544.4R [10], use the
residual tensile strength as the tensile stress in fibrous concrete,
Specimen Experimental Theoretical Ratio (1)/(2)
Mu (kN m) (1) Mu (kN m) (2) as given by:
  qffiffiffiffi
CC 85.4 68.7 1.24 lf
GG 83.3 68.0 1.22 rt ¼ 0:2  v f b  fc0 ð10Þ
df
 J.-M. Yang et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 1077–1086 1085

Fig. 11. Design assumptions for analysis of FRP bar reinforced concrete beams containing fibers.

ft In the case of specimen CC-ST, because the beam failed by FRP

ef ¼ ð11Þ
Ect bar rupture, the iterative numerical solution, which uses the non-
linear stress–strain model for FRC, is required. The compressive
where Ect = elastic modulus of p concrete
ffiffiffiffi in tension; ft = maximum
strain in the concrete, ec, when the FRP bars reach their ultimate
tensile strength of concrete, 0:7 fc0 ; and b = bond factor of the fiber,
rupture strain was found after the iterative calculation for the
1.0 for hooked fiber.
depth of the neutral axis, c, and the parameters of the equivalent
In the prediction model proposed by Abdul-Ahad and Aziz [12],
stress block, b1 and c. This paper used the nonlinear stress–strain
the tensile strength in fibrous concrete can be calculated by the fol-
model for SFRC proposed by Soroushian and Lee [25], as given by:
lowing equations
"  2 #
  ec ec
lf fc ¼ fc0 2  0 for ec 6 e0c ð17Þ
rt ¼ 0:82  s  v f Df ð12Þ e0c ec
df

10PLp
s¼ ð13Þ
21Df v f dp bp lf =df fc ¼ zðec  e0c Þ þ fc0 for ec > e0c ð18Þ
where Df = bond factor of steel fiber, 0.75 for hooked steel fiber; P, sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
Lp, bp, and dp = ultimate load, effective span, width, and depth of
 
0 V f lf V f lf
the (100  100  500) beam, respectively; and s = interfacial bond z ¼ 343 fc  3:6 1  0:66 60 ð19Þ
df df
stress between fiber and matrix. In this model, the distance from
the extreme compression fiber to the top of the tensile stress block
V f lf
of fibrous concrete, e, is the same as the distance from the extreme e0c ¼ 0:0007 þ 0:0021 ð20Þ
compression fiber to the neutral axis, c. The values of the multiplier df
on fc0 to determine the intensity of an equivalent rectangular stress where Vf = fiber volume content and e0c = strain corresponding to the
distribution for concrete, c, the factor relating the depth of equiva- peak stress of FRC.
lent rectangular compressive stress block to the neutral axis depth, The experimental and theoretical ultimate moments proposed
b1, and the ultimate compressive strain in concrete, ecu, change with by the ACI 544.4R [10], Campione [11], and Abdul-Ahad and Aziz
the addition of fibers, and these values can be calculated as follows: [12] for SFRC beams (specimens CC-ST and GG-ST) are summarized
wf lf in Table 8. The comparison between test results and flexural
c ¼ 0:85 þ 0:03 6 0:88 ð14Þ strength prediction models for SNFRC beams was excluded be-
450df
cause there are no references to predict the tensile stress in syn-
b1 ¼ 0:65 for fc0 > 56:16 MPa ð15Þ thetic fiber reinforced concrete. All models predicted the ultimate
moment capacities reasonably well for specimen CC-ST, which
wf lf was failed by FRP bar rupture. In the case of specimen GG-ST the
ecu ¼ 0:003 þ 0:001 6 0:004 ð16Þ models proposed by ACI [10] and Campione [11], which assume
450df
the ultimate compressive strain in concrete as 0.003, showed less
where wf = percentage of steel fiber by weight. accurate results than those proposed by Abdul-Ahad and Aziz

Table 8
Flexural strength prediction for SFRC beams.

Specimen Experimental Mu (kN m) (1) Theoretical Mu (kN m) Ratio

ACI (2) Campione (3) Abdul-Ahad (4) (1)/(2) (1)/(3) (1)/(4)
CC-ST 90.5 87.6 91.4 86.8 1.03 0.99 1.04
GG-ST ecu = 0.0030 104.4 82.2 83.5 87.7a 1.27 1.25 1.19
ecu = 0.0035 104.4 88.0 89.3 87.7a 1.19 1.17 1.19
ecu = 0.0040 104.4 93.3 94.6 87.7a 1.12 1.10 1.19
a
The value was based on ecu = 0.00343 calculated by Eq. (16).
1086 J.-M. Yang et al. / Composites: Part B 43 (2012) 1077–1086
[12]. In the model of Abdul-Ahad and Aziz, the ultimate
compressive strain in concrete was calculated as 0.00343 for spec-
imen GG-ST. The predicted flexural capacities using the models
proposed by ACI [10] and Campione [11] were recalculated with
the ultimate compressive strains of 0.0035 and 0.004 considering
the softened postpeak behavior of FRC. The prediction results of
ACI and Campione were similar to those of Abdul-Ahad and Aziz,
and were most accurate when the concrete compressive strains
at ultimate were assumed as 0.0035 and 0.004, respectively. This
indicates that the ultimate concrete compressive strain should be
assumed as a value higher than 0.003 for FRC beams, as suggested
by other researchers [21,26].
5. Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from the flexural tests
on six FRP bar-reinforced high-strength concrete beams with steel
or synthetic fibers:
1) The addition of fibers delayed the initiation of flexural cracks
and decreased the crack widths. The first cracking loads of
specimens with steel fibers were twice as high as those of
specimens CC and GG, respectively.
2) The CFRP bar-reinforced beams with steel and synthetic
fibers were failed by FRP bar rupture, although all specimens
had been designed as over-reinforced beams which lead to
the concrete compression failure. This can be attributed to
the increased ultimate compressive strain of FRC. It is pru-
dent to determine and consider the increased ultimate con-
crete strain of FRC in order to prevent abrupt FRP bar rupture
failure.
3) Because of the increased ultimate compressive strain and
improved and more softened postpeak behavior of FRC, the
GFRP bar-reinforced beams with steel and synthetic fibers
displayed inelastic and ductile behaviors near failure, and a
higher ultimate flexural strength than the beam with no
fibers.
4) While the deep propagation of cracks in the FRP bar-rein-
forced beams was restrained by steel fibers, the effect of syn-
thetic fibers on the depth of cracks was negligible due to the
lower elastic modulus and straightening effect of crimped
type synthetic fiber.
5) Two point zero percent by volume of synthetic fibers were
more effective for better cracking response than 1.0% by vol-
ume of steel fibers in CFRP bar-reinforced concrete beams.
6) The ductility indexes of GFRP beams with steel and synthetic
fibers were approximately 70% and 80% higher, respectively,
than the ductility index of GFRP beam with no fibers, while
there was no improvement of ductility by adding fibers in
CFRP beams, which showed brittle FRP bar rupture failure.
The addition of fibers could be a possible method to over-
come the low ductility of FRP bar-reinforced beams.
7) The theoretical calculation based on the ultimate strength
method of the ACI Code underestimated the ultimate
moments of FRP bar-reinforced beams with no fibers by as
much as 20% or more.
8) All models proposed by ACI 544.4R, Campione, and Abdul-
Ahad and Aziz predicted the ultimate moment capacities
reasonably well for the CFRP bar-reinforced beam with steel
fibers, which failed by FRP bar rupture. The prediction
results of ACI and Campione for the CFRP bar-reinforced
beam with steel fibers were most accurate when the
concrete compressive strain at ultimate was assumed as
0.004.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) (No.
2007-0056796).
References
[1] ACI Committee 440. Guide for the design and construction of concrete
reinforced with FRP bars. ACI 440.1R-06. Farmington Hills (MI): American
Concrete Institute, 2006.
[2] CAN/CSA-S6-02. Design and construction of building components with fibre
reinforced polymers. CAN/CSA S806-02. Rexdale (Ont): Canadian Standards
Association; 2002.
[3] Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCEs). Recommendation for design and
construction of concrete structures using continuous fiber reinforcing
materials. Concrete Engineering Series 23. Tokyo: Japan Society of Civil
Engineers; 1997.
[4] Bank LC. Composites for construction – structural design with FRP
materials. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
[5] ACI Committee 544. Report on fiber reinforced concrete. ACI 544.1R-96.
Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute; 1996.
[6] Shah S, Rangan B. Effect of reinforcement on ductility of concrete. J Struct Div
1970;96(6):1167–84.
[7] Swamy RN, Al-Noori. Flexural behavior of fiber concrete with conventional
steel reinforcement. In: Proceedings of RILEM symposium on fiber reinforced
cement and concrete. London; 1975. p. 187–96.
[8] Won JP, Park CG, Kim HH, Lee SW, Jang CI. Effect of fibers on the bonds
between FRP reinforcing bars and high-strength concrete. Compos Part B – Eng
2008;39(5):747–55.
[9] Morse DC, Williamson GR. Corrosion behavior of steel fibrous concrete. Repot
no. CERL-TR-M-217. Champaign (IL): Construction Engineering Research
Laboratory; 1977.
[10] ACI Committee 544. Design considerations for steel fiber reinforced concrete.
ACI 544.4R-88. Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute; 1988.
[11] Campione G. Simplified flexural response of steel fiber-reinforced concrete
beams. J Mater Civil Eng 2008;20(4):283–93.
[12] Abdul-Ahad RB, Aziz OQ. Flexural strength of reinforced concrete T-beams
with steel fibers. Cem Concr Compos 1999;21(4):263–8.
[13] ASTM International. Standard test method for flexural performance of fiber-
reinforced concrete (using beam with third-point loading). ASTM C1609-07.
West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International Standard Worldwide; 2007.
[14] Morgan DR, Mindess S, Chen L. Testing and specifying toughness for fiber
reinforced concrete and shotcrete. In: Banthia N, Mindess S, editors.
Proceedings of 2nd university – industry workshop on fiber-reinforced
concrete and other advanced composites, fiber-reinforced concrete – modern
developments. Toronto (Ont); 1995. p. 29–50.
[15] Rashid MA, Mansur MA, Paramasivam P. Behavior of aramid fiber-reinforced
polymer reinforced high strength concrete beams under bending. J Compos
Constr 2005;9(2):117–27.
[16] Rafi MM, Nadjai A, Ali F. Experimental testing of concrete beams reinforced
with carbon FRP bars. J Compos Mater 2007;41(22):2657–73.
[17] Thériault M, Benmokrane B. Effects of FRP reinforcement ratio and concrete
strength on flexural behavior of concrete beams. J Compos Constr
1998;2(1):16–7.
[18] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary. ACI 318-08 and ACI 318R-08. Farmington Hills (MI): American
Concrete Institute; 2008.
[19] Bencardino F, Rizzuti L, Spadea G, Swamy RN. Stress–strain behavior of steel
fiber-reinforced concrete in compression. J Mater Civil Eng
2008;20(3):255–63.
[20] Nataraja MC, Dhang N, Gupta AP. Stress strain curve for steel–fiber reinforced
concrete under compression. Cem Concr Compos 1999;21(5–6):383–90.
[21] Swamy RN, Al-Taan SA. Deformation and ultimate strength in flexure of
reinforced concrete beams made with steel fiber concrete. ACI J Proc
1981;78(5):395–405.
[22] Alsayed SH, Alhozaimy AM. Ductility of concrete beams reinforced with FRP
bars and steel fibers. J Compos Mater 1999;33(19):1792–806.
[23] Naaman AE, Jeong SM. Structural ductility of concrete beams prestressed with
FRP tendons. In: Proceedings of the second international RILEM symposium
(FRPRCS-2): Non-metallic (FRP) for concrete structures. Ghent (Belgium);
1995. p. 379–86.
[24] Nanni A. Flexural behavior and design of RC members using FRP
reinforcement. J Struct Eng 1993;119(11):3344–59.
[25] Soroushian P, Lee CD. Constitutive modeling of steel fiber reinforced concrete
under direct tension and compression. In: Proceedings of international
conference on recent developments in fibre reinforced cements and
concretes. Cardiff; 1989. p. 363–77.
[26] Hassoun MN, Sahebjam K. Plastic hinge in two-span reinforced concrete
beams containing steel fibers. In: Proceedings of Canadian society for civil
engineering. Montreal (QC); 1985. p. 119–39.