ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 100-S27
Analysis of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Grid
Reinforced Concrete Beams
by Federico A. Tavarez, Lawrence C. Bank, and Michael E. Plesha
This study focuses on the use of explicit finite element analysis
tools to predict the behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
composite grid reinforced concrete beams subjected to four-point
bending. Predictions were obtained using LS-DYNA, an explicit
finite element program widely used for the nonlinear transient
analysis of structures. The composite grid was modeled in a discrete
manner using beam and shell elements, connected to a concrete
solid mesh. The load-deflection characteristics obtained from the
simulations show good correlation with the experimental data.
Also, a detailed finite element substructure model was developed to
further analyze the stress state of the main longitudinal reinforce-
ment at ultimate conditions. Based on this analysis, a procedure
was proposed for the analysis of composite grid reinforced concrete
beams that accounts for different failure modes. A comparison of
the proposed approach with the experimental data indicated that
the procedure provides a good lower bound for conservative
predictions of load-carrying capacity.
Keywords: beam; composite; concrete; fiber-reinforced polymer; reinforce-
ment; shear; stress.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, research on fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
composite grids has demonstrated that these products may be as
practical and cost-effective as reinforcements for concrete
structures.1-5 FRP grid reinforcement offers several advantages
in comparison with conventional steel reinforcement and FRP
reinforcing bars. FRP grids are prefabricated, noncorrosive, and
lightweight systems suitable for assembly automation and ideal
for reducing field installation and maintenance costs. Research
on constructability issues and economics of FRP reinforcement
cages for concrete members has shown the potential of
these reinforcements to reduce life-cycle costs and significantly
increase construction site productivity.6
Three-dimensional FRP composite grids provide a mechanical
anchorage within the concrete due to intersecting elements, and
thus no bond is necessary for proper load transfer. This type of
reinforcement provides integrated axial, flexural, and shear
reinforcement, and can also provide a concrete member with
the ability to fail in a pseudoductile manner. Continuing
research is being conducted to fully understand the behavior of
composite grid reinforced concrete to commercialize its use
and gain confidence in its design for widespread structural
applications. For instance, there is a need to predict the correct
failure mode of composite grid reinforced concrete beams
where there is significant flexural-shear cracking.7 This type
of information is critical for the development of design
guidelines for FRP grid reinforced concrete members.
Current flexural design methods for FRP reinforced concrete
beams are analogous to the design of concrete beams using
conventional reinforcement.8 The geometrical shape, ductility,
modulus of elasticity, and force transfer characteristics of FRP
composite grids, however, are likely to be different than
250
TECHNICAL PAPER
conventional steel or FRP bars. Therefore, the behavior of
concrete beams with this type of reinforcement needs to be
thoroughly investigated.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the present study were: 1) to investigate
the ability of explicit finite element analysis tools to predict
the behavior of composite grid reinforced concrete beams,
including load-deflection characteristics and failure modes;
2) to evaluate the effect of the shear span-depth ratio in the
failure mode of the beams and the stress state of the main
flexural reinforcement at ultimate conditions; and 3) to
develop an alternate procedure for the analysis of composite grid
reinforced concrete beams considering multiple failure modes.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The research work presented describes the use of advanced
numerical simulation for the analysis of FRP reinforced
concrete. These numerical simulations can be used effectively
to understand the complex behavior and phenomena observed
in the response of composite grid reinforced concrete beams. In
particular, this effort provides a basis for the understanding of
the interaction between the composite grid and the concrete
when large flexural-shear cracks are present. As such, alternate
analysis and design techniques can be developed based on the
understanding obtained from numerical simulations to ensure
the required capacity in FRP reinforced concrete structures.
Background
Several researchers have studied the viability of three-
dimensional FRP grids to reinforce concrete members.3,5,9,10
One specific type of three-dimensional FRP reinforcement is
constructed from commercially manufactured pultruded FRP
profiles (also referred to as FRP grating cages). Figure 1 shows
a schematic of the structural members present in a concrete
beam reinforced with the three-dimensional FRP reinforcement
investigated in this study.
A pilot experimental and analytical study was conducted
by Bank, Frostig, and Shapira3 to investigate the feasibility
of developing three-dimensional pultruded FRP grating cages
to reinforce concrete beams. Failure of all beams tested occurred
due to rupture of the FRP main longitudinal reinforcement in
the shear span of the beam. Experimental results also revealed
that most of the deflection at high loads appeared to occur
due to localized rotations at large flexural crack widths
ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, March-April 2003.
MS No. 02-100 received March 27, 2002, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2003, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, includ-
ing the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the January-February 2004 ACI Structural
Journal if received by September 1, 2003.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003
Federico A. Tavarez is a graduate student in the Department of Engineering Physics
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He received his BS in civil engineering from
the University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez and his MSCE from the University of
Wisconsin. His research interests include finite element analysis, the use of composite
materials for structural applications, and the use of discrete element methods for
modeling concrete damage and fragmentation under impact.

ACI member Lawrence C. Bank is a professor in the Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He received his
PhD in civil engineering and engineering mechanics from Columbia University in
1985. He is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement.
His research interests include FRP reinforcement systems for structures, progressive
failure of materials and structural systems, and durability of FRP materials.
Fig. 1—Structural members in composite grid reinforced
Michael E. Plesha is a professor in the Engineering Mechanics and Astronautics concrete beam.
Program in the Department of Engineering Physics at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison. He received his PhD from Northwestern University in 1983. His research
interests include finite element analysis, discrete element analysis, dynamics of
geologic media, constitutive modeling of geologic discontinuity behavior, soil structure
interaction modeling, and continuum modeling of jointed saturated rock masses.

developed in the shear span near the load points. The study
concluded that further research was needed to obtain a better
understanding of the stress state in the longitudinal rein-
forcement at failure to predict the correct capacity and failure
modes of the beams.
Further experimental tests on concrete beams reinforced
with three-dimensional FRP composite grids were conducted to
investigate the behavior and performance of the grids when
used to reinforce beams that develop significant flexural-shear
cracking.7 Different composite grid configurations were
designed to study the influence of the FRP grid components
(longitudinal bars, vertical bars, and transverse bars) on the
load-deflection behavior and failure modes. Even though failure
modes of the beams were different depending upon the
characteristics of the composite grid, all beams failed in their
shear spans. Failure modes included splitting and rupture of
the main longitudinal bars and shear-out failure of the
vertical bars. Research results concluded that the design
of concrete beams with composite grid reinforcements must
account for failure of the main bars in the shear span.
A second phase of this experimental research was performed
by Ozel and Bank5 to investigate the capacity and failure modes
of composite grid reinforced concrete beams with different shear
span-to-effective depth ratios. Three different shear span-
depth ratios (a/d) were investigated, with values of 3, 4.5, and 6,
respectively.11 The data obtained from this recently completed
experimental study was compared with the finite element results
obtained in the present study.
Experimental studies have shown that due to the develop-
ment of large cracks in the FRP-reinforced concrete beams,
most of the deformation takes place at a relatively small
number of cracks between rigid bodies.12 A schematic of this
behavior is shown in Fig. 2. As a result, beams with relatively
small shear span-depth ratios typically fail due to rupture of the
main FRP longitudinal reinforcement at large flexural-shear
cracks, even though they are over-reinforced according to
conventional flexural design procedures.5,7,13,14 Due to the
aforementioned behavior for beams reinforced with composite
grids, especially those that exhibit significant flexural-shear
cracking, it is postulated that the longitudinal bars in the
member are subjected to a uniform tensile stress distribution,
plus a nonuniform stress distribution due to localized rota-
tions at large cracks, which can be of great importance in
determining the ultimate flexural strength of the beam. The
present study investigates the stress-state at the flexural-
shear cracks in the main longitudinal bars, using explicit
finite element tools to simulate this behavior and determine
the conditions that will cause failure in the beam.
Fig. 2—Deformation due to rotation of rigid bodies.
Numerical analysis of FRP composite grid
reinforced beams
Implicit finite element methods are usually desirable for
the analysis of quasistatic problems. Their efficiency and
accuracy, however, depend on mesh topology and severity
of nonlinearities. In the problem at hand, it would be very
difficult to model the nonlinearities and progressive damage/
failure using an implicit method, and thus an explicit method
was chosen to perform the analysis.15
Using an explicit finite element method, especially to
model a quasistatic experiment as the one presented herein,
can result in long run times due to the large number of time
steps that are required. Because the time step depends on the
smallest element size, efficiency is compromised by mesh
refinement. The three-dimensional finite element mesh for
this study was developed in HyperMesh16 and consisted of
brick elements to represent the concrete, shell elements to
represent the bottom longitudinal reinforcement, and beam
elements to represent the top reinforcement, stirrups, and
cross rods. Figure 3 shows a schematic of the mesh used for
the models developed. Beams with span lengths of 2300,
3050, and 3800 mm were modeled corresponding to shear
span-depth ratios of 3, 4.5, and 6, respectively. These models
are referred to herein as short beam, medium beam, and long
beam, respectively. The cross-sectional properties were
identical for the three models. As will be seen later, the longi-
tudinal bars play an important role in the overall behavior of the
system, and therefore they were modeled with greater detail
than the rest of the reinforcement. The concrete representation
consisted of 8-node solid elements with dimensions 25 x 25 x
12.5 mm (shortest dimension parallel to the width of the beam),
with one-point integration. The mesh discretization was estab-
lished so that the reinforcement nodes coincided with the
concrete nodes. The reinforcement mesh was connected to the
concrete mesh by shared nodes between the concrete and the

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 251

 Fig. 3—Finite element model for composite grid reinforced concrete beam.

Fig. 4—Short beam model at several stages in simulation.

reinforcement. As such, a perfect bond is assumed between the
concrete and the composite grid.
The two-node Hughes-Liu beam element formulation with
2 x 2 Gauss integration was used for modeling the top longi-
tudinal bars, stirrups, and cross rods in the finite element
models. In this study, each model contains two top longitudinal
bars with heights of 25 mm and thicknesses of 4 mm. The
models also have four cross rods and three vertical members
at each stirrup location, as shown in Fig. 3. The vertical
members have a width of 38 mm and a thickness of 6.4 mm.
The cross rod elements have a circular cross-sectional
area with a diameter of 12.7 mm. To model the bottom
longitudinal reinforcement, the four-node Belytschko-
Lin-Tsay shell element formulation was used, as shown
in Fig. 3, with two through-the-thickness integration points.
Boundary conditions and event simulation time
To simulate simply supported conditions, the beam was
supported on two rigid plates made of solid elements. The
finite element simulations were displacement controlled,
which is usually the control method for plastic and nonlinear
behavior. That is, a displacement was prescribed on the rigid
loading plates located on top of the beam. The prescribed
displacement was linear, going from zero displacement at t =
0.0 s to 60, 75, and 90 mm at t = 1.0 s for the short, medium,
and long beams, respectively. The corresponding applied
load due to the prescribed displacement was then determined
by monitoring the vertical reaction forces at the concrete
nodes in contact with the support elements.
The algorithm CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SINGLE_
SURFACE in LS-DYNA was used to model the contact

252 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

between the supports, load bars, and the concrete beam.
This algorithm automatically generates slave and master
surfaces and uses a penalty method where normal interface
springs are used to resist interpenetration between element
surfaces. The interface stiffness is computed as a function
of the bulk modulus, volume, and face area of the elements
on the contact surface.
The finite element analysis was performed to represent
quasistatic experimental testing. As the time over which the
load is applied approaches the period of the lowest natural
frequency of vibration of the structural system, inertial forces
become more important in the response. Therefore, the load
application time was chosen to be long enough so that inertial
effects would be negligible. The flexural frequency of vibration
was computed analytically for the three beams using conven-
tional formulas for vibration theory. 17 Accordingly, it was
determined that having a load application time of 1.0 s
was sufficiently long so that inertial effects are negligible Fig. 5—Experimental and finite element load-deflection
and the analysis can be used to represent a quasistatic experi- results for short, medium, and long beams.
ment. For the finite element simulations presented in this
study, the CPU run time varied approximately from 22 to
65 h (depending on the length of the beam) for 1.0 s of load
application time on a 600 MHz PC with 512 MB RAM.

Material models
Material Type 72 (MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE) in
LS-DYNA was chosen for the concrete representation in the
present study. This material model has been used successfully
for predicting the response of standard uniaxial, biaxial, and
triaxial concrete tests in both tension and compression. The
formulation has also been used successfully to model the
behavior of standard reinforced concrete dividing walls
subjected to blast loads.18 This concrete model is a plasticity-
based formulation with three independent failure surfaces
(yield, maximum, and residual) that change shape depending
on the hydrostatic pressure of the element. Tensile and
compressive meridians are defined for each surface, describing
the deviatoric part of the stress state, which governs failure in
the element. Detailed information about this concrete material
model can be found in Malvar et al.18 The values used in
the input file corresponded to a 34.5 MPa concrete compressive
strength with a 0.19 Poisson’s ratio and a tensile strength of
3.4 MPa. The softening parameters in the model were chosen to
be 15, –50, and 0.01 for uniaxial tension, triaxial tension, and
compression, respectively.19
The longitudinal bars were modeled using an orthotropic
material model (MAT_ENHANCED_COMPOSITE_DAMAGE),
which is material Type 54 in LS-DYNA. Properties used for
this model are shown in Table 1. Because the longitudinal
bars were drilled with holes for cross rod connections, the
tensile strength in the longitudinal direction of the FRP bars
was taken from experimental tensile tests conducted on
notched bar specimens with a 12.7 mm hole to account
for stress concentration effects at the cross rod locations.
The tensile properties in the transverse direction were
taken from tests on unnotched specimens. 11 Values for
shear and compressive properties were chosen based on
data in the literature. The composite material model uses
the Chang/Chang failure criteria. 20
The remaining reinforcement (top longitudinal bars, stirrups,
and cross rods) was modeled using two-noded beam elements
using a linear elastic material model (MAT_ELASTIC) with
the same properties used for the longitudinal direction in the
bottom FRP longitudinal bars. A rigid material model
Fig. 6—Typical failure of composite grid reinforced concrete
beam (Ozel and Bank5).
Table 1—Material properties of FRP bottom bars
Ex 26.7 GPa Xt 266.8 MPa
Ey 14.6 GPa Yt 151.0 MPa
Gxy 3.6 GPa Sc 6.9 MPa
νxy 0.26 Xc 177.9 MPa
β 0.5 Yc 302.0 MPa
(MAT_RIGID) was used to model the supports and the
loading plates.
FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Graphical representations of the finite element model for
the short beam at several stages in the simulation are shown
in Fig. 4. The lighter areas in the model represent damage
(high effective plastic strain) in the concrete material model.
As expected, there is considerable damage in the shear span
of the concrete beam. Figure 4 also shows the behavior of the
composite grid inside the concrete beam. All displacements
in the simulation graphics were amplified using a factor of 5
to enable viewing. Actual deflection values are given in
Fig. 5, which shows the applied load versus midspan deflec-
tion behavior for the short, medium, and long beams for the
experimental and LS-DYNA results, respectively. The
jumps in the LS-DYNA curves in the figure represent the
progressive tensile and shear failure in the concrete elements. As
shown in this figure, the ultimate load value from the finite
element model agrees well with the experimental result. The
model slightly over-predicts the stiffness of the beam, however,
and under-predicts the ultimate deflection.
The significant drop in load seen in the load-deflection
curves produced in LS-DYNA is caused by failure in the

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 253

 Fig. 7—Medium beam model at several stages in simulation.
Fig. 8—Long beam model at several stages in simulation.
longitudinal bars, as seen in Fig. 4. The deformed shape
seen in this figure indicates a peculiar behavior through-
out the length of the beam. It appears to indicate that after
a certain level of damage in the shear span of the model,
localized rotations occur in the beam near the load points.
These rotations create a stress concentration that causes
the longitudinal bars to fail at those locations. This deflection
behavior was also observed in the experimental tests.
Figure 6 shows a typical failure in the longitudinal bars
from the experiments conducted on these beams. 11 As
shown in this figure, there is considerable damage in the
shear span of the member. Large shear cracks develop in
the beam, causing the member to deform in the same
fashion as the one seen in the finite element model.
Figure 7 shows the medium beam model at several stages
in the simulation. The figure also shows the behavior of the
main longitudinal bars. Comparing this simulation with the
one obtained for the short beam, it can be seen that the shear
damage is not as significant as in the previous simulation.
The deflected shape seen in the longitudinal bars shows that
this model does not have the abrupt changes in rotation that
254
were observed in the short beam, which would imply that this
model does not exhibit significant flexural-shear damage. For
this model, the finite element analysis slightly over-predicted
both the stiffness and the ultimate load value obtained from
the experiment. On the other hand, the ultimate deflection
was under-predicted. Failure in this model was also caused
by rupture of the longitudinal bars at a location near the load
points. In the experimental test, failure was caused by a
combination of rupture in the longitudinal bars as well as
concrete crushing in the compression zone. This compressive
failure was located near the load points, however, and
could have been initiated by cracks formed due to stress
concentrations produced by the rigid loading plates. 11
Figure 8 shows the results for the long beam model.
Comparing this simulation with the two previous ones, it
can be seen that this model exhibits the least shear damage,
as expected. As a result, the longitudinal bars exhibit a
parabolic shape, which would be the behavior predicted
using conventional moment-curvature methods based on the
curvature of the member. Once again, the stiffness of the
beam was slightly over-predicted. However, the ultimate load
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

Fig. 9—(a) Tensile force in longitudinal bars; and (b) internal
moment in longitudinal bars.
value compares well with the experimental result. Failure in
the model was caused by rupture of the longitudinal bars.
Failure in the experimental test was caused by a compression
failure at a location near one of the load application bars,
followed by rupture of the main longitudinal bars. Figure 5
also shows the time at total failure for each beam, which can
be related to the simulation stages given in Fig. 4, 7, and 8
for the short, medium, and long beam, respectively.
To investigate the stress state of a single longitudinal bar
at ultimate conditions, the tensile force and the internal
moment of the longitudinal bars at the failed location for the
three finite element models was determined, as shown in
Fig. 9(a) and (b). It is interesting to note that for the short
beam model, the tensile force at failure was approximately
51.6 kN, while for the medium beam model and the long
beam model the tensile force at failure was approximately
76.5 kN. On the other hand, the internal moment in the short
beam model was approximately 734 N-m, while the internal
moment was approximately 339 N-m for both the short beam
model and the long beam model. It is clear that the shear
damage in the short beam model causes a considerable
localized effect in the stress state of the longitudinal bars,
which is important to consider for design purposes.
According to Fig. 9(a), the total axial load in the longitudinal
bars for the short beam model produces a uniform stress of
130 MPa, which is not enough to fail the element in tension
at this location. However, the ultimate internal moment
produces a tensile stress at the bottom of the longitudinal
bars of 141 MPa. The sum of these two components produces
a tensile stress of 271 MPa. When this value is entered in the
Chang/Chang failure criterion for the tensile longitudinal
direction, the strength is exceeded and the elements fail.
Using conventional over-reinforced beam analysis formulas,
the tensile force in the longitudinal bars at midspan would
be obtained by dividing the ultimate moment obtained from
the experimental test by the internal moment arm. This
would imply that there is a uniform tensile force in each
longitudinal bar of 88.1 kN. This tensile force is never
achieved in the finite element simulation due to considerable
shear damage in the concrete elements. As a result of this
shear damage in the concrete, the curvature at the center of
the beam is not large enough to produce a tensile force in the
bars of this magnitude (88.1 kN). The internal moment in the
longitudinal bars shown in Fig. 9(b), however, continues
to develop, resulting in a total failure load comparable to
the experimental result. As mentioned before, the force in
the bars according to the simulation was approximately
51.6 kN, which is approximately half the load predicted
using conventional methods. Therefore, the use of conventional
beam analysis formulas to analyze this composite grid reinforced
beam would not only erroneously predict the force in the
longitudinal bars, but it would also predict a concrete
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003
Table 2—Summary of experimental and finite
element results
Tensile force in each
Total load capacity, kN main bar, kN
Finite Finite
Flexural element Flexural element
Beam Experimental analysis analysis analysis analysis
Short 215.7 196.2 215.3 90.7 51.6
Medium 143.2 130.8 161.9 90.7 76.5
Long 108.1 97.9 113.0 90.7 76.5
compression failure mode, which was not the failure
mode observed from the experimental tests.
The curves for the medium beam model and the long beam
model, shown in Fig. 9, show that for both cases, the beam
shear span-depth ratio was sufficiently large so that the stress
state in the longitudinal bars would not be greatly affected by the
shear damage produced in the beam. As such, the ultimate axial
force obtained in the longitudinal bars for both models was
close to the ultimate axial load that would be predicted by using
conventional methods.
In summary, Table 2 presents the ultimate load capacity
for the three models, including experimental results, conven-
tional flexural analysis results, and finite element results. As
shown in this table, conventional flexural analysis under-predicts
the actual ultimate load carried by the beams and a better
ultimate load prediction was obtained using finite element
analysis. The tensile load in the bars was computed (analytically)
by dividing the experimental moment capacity by the internal
moment arm computed by using strain compatibility. Although
the finite element results over-predicted the ultimate load for the
medium and long beams, the simulations provided a better
understanding of the complex phenomena involved in the
behavior of the beams, depending on their shear span-depth
ratio. The results for tensile load in the bars reported in this table
suggest that composite grid reinforced concrete beams
with values of shear span-depth ratio greater than 4.5 can be
analyzed by using the current flexural theory.
It is important to mention that the concrete material model
parameters that govern the post-failure behavior of the material
played a key role in the finite element results for the three finite
element models. In the concrete material formulation, the
elements fail in an isotropic fashion and, therefore, once an
element fails in tension, it cannot transfer further shear.
Because the concrete elements are connected to the reinforce-
ment mesh, this behavior causes the beam to fail prematurely
as a result of tensile failure in the concrete. Therefore, the
parameters that govern the post-failure behavior in the
concrete material model were chosen so that when an element
fails in tension, the element still has the capability to transfer
shear forces and the stresses will gradually decrease to zero.
Because the failed elements can still transfer tensile stresses,
however, the modifications caused an increase in the stiffness
of the beam. In real concrete behavior, when a crack opens,
there is no tension transfer between the concrete at that
location, causing the member to lose stiffness as cracking
progresses. Regarding shear transfer, factors such as aggre-
gate interlock and dowel action would contribute to transfer
shear forces in a concrete beam, and tensile failure in the
concrete would not affect the response as directly as in the
finite element model.
255
Stress analysis of FRP bars
As discussed previously, failure modes observed in experi-
mental tests performed on composite grid reinforced concrete
beams suggest that the longitudinal bars are subjected to a
uniform tensile stress plus a nonuniform bending stress due
to localized rotations at locations of large cracks. This section
presents a simple analysis procedure to determine the stress
conditions at which the longitudinal bars fail. As a result of this Fig. 10—Failure on FRP bar subjected to pure tension.
analysis, a procedure is presented to analyze/design a composite
grid reinforced concrete beam, considering a nonuniform stress
state in the longitudinal bars.
A more detailed finite element model of a section of the
longitudinal bars was developed in HyperMesh16 using shell
elements, as shown in Fig. 10. A height of 50.8 mm was
specified for the bar model, with a thickness of 4.1 mm. The
length of the bar and the diameter of the hole were 152 and
12.7 mm, respectively. The material formulation and properties
Fig. 11—Failure on FRP bar subjected to pure bending.
were the same as the ones used for the longitudinal bars in the
concrete beam models, with the exception that now the to the nominal strength of the member multiplied by a strength-
unnotched tensile strength of the material (Xt = 521 MPa) was reduction factor φ, as shown in the following equation
used as an input parameter because the hole was incorporated in
the model.
The finite element model was first loaded in tension to φ Mn ≥ Mu (1)
establish the tensile strength of the notched bar. The load
was applied by prescribing a displacement at the end of the For FRP reinforced concrete beams, a compression failure
bar. Figure 10 shows the simulation results for the model at is the preferred mode of failure, and, therefore, the beam
three stages, including elastic deformation and ultimate should be over-reinforced. As such, conventional formulas
failure. As expected, a stress concentration developed on the are used to ensure that the selected cross-sectional area of the
boundary of the hole causing failure in the web of the model, longitudinal bars is sufficiently large to have concrete
followed by ultimate failure of the cross section. A tensile compression failure before FRP rupture. Considering a concrete
strength of 274 MPa was obtained for the model. A value compression failure, the capacity of the beam is computed using
of 267 MPa was obtained from experimental tests con- the following8
ducted on notched bars (tensile strength used in Table 2),
demonstrating good agreement between experimental
M n = A f f f  d – ---
and finite element results. a
(2)
A similar procedure was performed to establish the  2
strength of the bar in pure bending. That is, displacements
were prescribed at the end nodes to induce bending in the
model. Figure 11 shows the simulation results for the model Af ff
a = -------------- (3)
at three stages, showing elastic bending and ultimate failure β 1 f c′ b
caused by flexural failure at the tension flange. As shown in
this figure, the width of the top flange was modified to
β1 d – a
prevent buckling in the flange (which was present in the f f = E f ε cu ----------------- (4)
original model). Because buckling would not be present in a a
longitudinal bar due to concrete confinement, it was decided
to modify the finite element model to avoid this behavior. To Experimental tests have shown, however, that there is
maintain an equivalent cross-sectional area, the thickness of a critical value of shear Vscrit in a beam where localized rotations
the flange was increased. A maximum pure bending moment due to large flexural-shear cracks begin to occur. The
of 2.92 kN-m was obtained for the model. ultimate moment in the beam is assumed to be related to
Knowing the maximum force that the bar can withstand in this shear-critical value and it is determined according to
pure tension and pure bending, the model was then loaded at the following equation
different values of tension and moment to cause failure. This
procedure was performed several times to develop a tension-
moment interaction diagram for the bar, as shown in Fig. 12. Mn = n ⋅ ( t ⋅ i e + m ) (5)
The discrete points shown in the figure are combinations of
tensile force and moment values that caused failure in the where n is the number of longitudinal bars. Once the beam has
finite element model. This interaction diagram can be used reached the shear-critical value, it is assumed (conservatively)
to predict what combination of tensile force and moment that the tensile force t, which is the force in each bar at the
would cause failure in the FRP longitudinal bar. shear-critical stage, remains constant and any additional load is
carried by localized internal moment m in the longitudinal
Considerations for design bars. Furthermore, it is assumed that at this stage the concrete
The strength design philosophy states that the flexural is still in its elastic range, and, therefore, the internal moment
capacity of a reinforced concrete member must exceed the arm ie can be determined by equilibrium and elastic strain
flexural demand. The design capacity of a member refers compatibility. The tensile force t in Eq. (5) is computed

256 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

 Table 3—Summary of results for three beams using proposed approach
Total load capacity, kN
Experimental
ultimate Theoretical shear Equation for Analytical Tension in each
Beam shear, kN critical, kN moment capacity Experimental Pn = Mn /as main bar, kN
Short 108.1 88.1 Mn = t · ie + m 216 199 70.7
Medium 71.6 88.1 Mn = Af f f (d – a/ 2) 143 131 90.7
Long 54.7 88.1 Mn = Af f f (d – a/2) 109 99 90.7

according to the following equation for a simply supported

beam in four-point bending

crit
Vs ⋅a
t = ---------------------s (6)
ni e

where as is the shear span of the member. The obtained value

for the tension t in each bar is then entered in Eq. (7), which
is the equation for the interaction diagram, to determine the
ultimate internal moment m in Eq. (5) that causes the bar to
fail. In this equation, tmax and mmax are known properties of
the notched composite bar.

m = m max 1 –  --------- for t > 0 ; m > 0

t 2
(7)
 t max

The aforementioned procedure is a very simplified analysis to

determine the capacity of a composite grid reinforced concrete
beam, and, as can be seen, it depends considerably on the shear-
critical value Vscrit established for the beam. This value is
somewhat difficult to determine. Based on experimental data, a
value given by Eq. (8) (analogous to Eq. (9-1) of ACI
440.1R-01) can be considered to be a lower bound for
FRP reinforced beams with shear reinforcement.
crit 7 ρf Ef 1
Vs = ----------------- --- f ′ bd
90 β 1 f c′ 6 c
where fc′ is the specified compressive strength of the concrete
in MPa. In summary, the ultimate moment capacity in the beam
is determined according to one of the following equations
M n = A f f f  d – a--- for V ult < V s
crit
 2 
Fig. 12—Tension-moment interaction diagram for longi-
tudinal bar.
to compute the maximum moment that the bar can carry as a
function of the tensile force acting in the bar. If a specific bar
is always used, however, this difficulty is eliminated, and if
the flexural demand is not exceeded, a higher capacity can be
obtained by increasing the number of longitudinal bars in the
(8) section. According to the results obtained for the three beams
analyzed herein, the proposed procedure will under-predict
the capacity of the composite grid reinforced concrete beam,
but it will provide a good lower bound for a conservative
design. Furthermore, it will ensure that the longitudinal bars
will not fail prematurely as a result of the development of
large flexural-shear cracks in the member, and thus the
member will be able to meet and exceed the flexural demand
(9)
for which it was designed.

crit
M n = n ⋅ ( t ⋅ i e + m ) for V ult > V s
According to Eq. (9), if the ultimate shear force computed
analytically based on conventional theory does not exceed
the shear-critical value Vscrit, the moment capacity can be
computed from flexural analysis. On the other hand, if the
computed ultimate shear force is greater than Vscrit, Eq. (10)
is used. Table 3 presents a summary showing the load capacity
for the three beams obtained experimentally and analytically
using the present approach. As shown in this table, the equation
used to determine the flexural capacity depends on the ultimate
shear obtained for each beam.
As seen in this procedure, the only difficulty in applying
these formulas is the fact that an equation needs to be determined
CONCLUSIONS
(10) Based on the explicit finite element results and comparison
with experimental data, the following conclusions can be made:
1. Failure in the FRP longitudinal bars occurs due to a
combination of a uniform tensile stress plus a nonuniform
stress caused by localized rotations at large flexural-shear
cracks. Therefore, this failure mode has to be accounted for
in the analysis and design of composite grid reinforced concrete
beams, especially those that exhibit significant flexural-
shear cracking;
2. The shear span for the medium beam and the long beam
studied was sufficiently large so that the stress state in the
longitudinal bars was not considerably affected by shear
damage in the beam. Therefore, the particular failure mode
observed by the short beam model is only characteristic of

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003 257

beams with a low shear span-depth ratio. Moreover, according
to the proposed analysis for such systems, both the medium
beam and the long beam could be designed using conventional
flexural theory because the shear-critical value was never
reached for these beam lengths;
3. Numerical simulations can be used effectively to under-
stand the complex behavior and phenomena observed in the
response of composite grid reinforced concrete beams and,
therefore, can be used as a complement to experimental
testing to account for multiple failure modes in the design
of composite grid reinforced concrete beams; and
4. The proposed method of analysis for composite grid
reinforced concrete beams considering multiple failure
modes will under-predict the capacity of the reinforced
concrete beam, but it will provide a good lower bound for
a conservative design. These design considerations will
ensure that the longitudinal bars will not fail prematurely
(or catastrophically) as a result of the development of large
flexural-shear cracks in the member, and thus the member
can develop a pseudoductile failure by concrete crushing,
which is more desirable than a sudden FRP rupture.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grant. No. CMS 9896074. Javier Malvar and Karagozian & Case are
thanked for providing information regarding the concrete material formulation
used in LS-DYNA. Jim Day, Todd Slavik, and Khanh Bui of Livermore
Software Technology Corporation (LSTC) are also acknowledged for their
assistance in using the finite element software, as well as Strongwell
Chatfield, MN, for producing the custom composite grids.
NOTATION
a = depth of equivalent rectangular stress block
as = length of shear span in reinforced concrete beam
b = width of rectangular cross section
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension
reinforcement
Ef = modulus of elasticity for FRP bar
Ex = modulus of elasticity in longitudinal direction of FRP grid material
Ey = modulus of elasticity in transverse direction of FRP grid material
Gxy = shear modulus of FRP grid members
f ′c = specified compressive strength of concrete
ff = stress in FRP reinforcement in tension
ie = internal moment arm in the elastic range
Mn = nominal moment capacity
m = internal moment in longitudinal FRP grid bars
n = number of longitudinal FRP grid bars
Sc = shear strength of FRP grid material
t = tensile force in a longitudinal bar at the shear critical stage
Vscrit = critical shear resistance provided by concrete in FRP grid rein-
forced concrete
Vult = ultimate shear force in reinforced concrete beam
Xc = longitudinal compressive strength of FRP grid material
Xt = longitudinal tensile strength of FRP grid material
Yc = transverse compressive strength of FRP grid material
Yt = transverse tensile strength of FRP grid material
β = weighting factor for shear term in Chang/Chang failure criterion
β1 = ratio of the depth of Whitney’s stress block to depth to neu-
tral axis
εcu = concrete ultimate strain
ρf = FRP reinforcement ratio
νxy = Poisson’s ratio of FRP grid material
258
REFERENCES
1. Sugita, M., “NEFMAC—Grid Type Reinforcement,” Fiber-Reinforced-
Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Properties and
Applications, Developments in Civil Engineering, A. Nanni, ed., Elsevier,
Amsterdam, V. 42, 1993, pp. 355-385.
2. Schmeckpeper, E. R., and Goodspeed, C. H., “Fiber-Reinforced
Plastic Grid for Reinforced Concrete Construction,” Journal of Composite
Materials, V. 28, No. 14, 1994, pp. 1288-1304.
3. Bank, L. C.; Frostig, Y.; and Shapira, A., “Three-Dimensional Fiber-
Reinforced Plastic Grating Cages for Concrete Beams: A Pilot Study,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1997, pp. 643-652.
4. Smart, C. W., and Jensen, D. W., “Flexure of Concrete Beams
Reinforced with Advanced Composite Orthogrids,” Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, V. 10, No. 1, Jan. 1997, pp. 7-15.
5. Ozel, M., and Bank, L. C., “Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced
with 3-D Composite Grids,” CD-ROM Paper No. 069. Proceedings of the
16th Annual Technical Conference, American Society for Composites,
Virginia Tech, Va., Sept. 9-12, 2001.
6. Shapira, A., and Bank, L. C., “Constructability and Economics of FRP
Reinforcement Cages for Concrete Beams,” Journal of Composites for
Construction, V. 1, No. 3, Aug. 1997, pp. 82-89.
7. Bank, L. C., and Ozel, M., “Shear Failure of Concrete Beams Reinforced
with 3-D Fiber Reinforced Plastic Grids,” Fourth International Symposium on
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures,
SP-188, C. Dolan, S. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, pp. 145-156.
8. ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-01),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2001, 41 pp.
9. Nakagawa, H.; Kobayashi. M.; Suenaga, T.; Ouchi, T.; Watanabe, S.;
and Satoyama, K., “Three-Dimensional Fabric Reinforcement,” Fiber-
Reinforced-Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Properties
and Applications, Developments in Civil Engineering, V. 42, A. Nanni, ed.,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 387-404.
10. Yonezawa, T.; Ohno, S.; Kakizawa, T.; Inoue, K.; Fukata, T.; and
Okamoto, R., “A New Three-Dimensional FRP Reinforcement,” Fiber-
Reinforced-Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Properties
and Applications, Developments in Civil Engineering, V. 42, A. Nanni, ed.,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 405-419.
11. Ozel, M., “Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with 3-D
Fiber Reinforced Plastic Grids,” PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-
Madison, 2002.
12. Lees, J. M., and Burgoyne, C. J., “Analysis of Concrete Beams with
Partially Bonded Composite Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 97, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2000, pp. 252-258.
13. Shehata, E.; Murphy, R.; and Rizkalla, S., “Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures,” Fourth International
Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced
Concrete Structures, SP-188, C. Dolan, S. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, pp. 157-167.
14. Guadagnini, M.; Pilakoutas, K.; and Waldron, P., “Investigation on
Shear Carrying Mechanisms in FRP RC Beams,” FRPRCS-5, Fibre-
Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference, C. J. Burgoyne, ed., V. 2, Cambridge, July
16-18, 2001, pp. 949-958.
15. Cook, R. D.; Malkus, D. S.; and Plesha, M. E., Concepts and
Applications of Finite Element Analysis, 3rd Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, N.Y., 1989, 832 pp.
16. Altair Computing, HyperMesh Version 2.0 User’s Manual, Altair
Computing Inc., Troy, Mich., 1995.
17. Thompson, W. T., and Dahleh, M. D., Theory of Vibration with
Applications, 5th Edition, Prentice Hall, N.J., 1998, 524 pp.
18. Malvar, L. J.; Crawford, J. E.; Wesevich, J. W.; and Simons, D., “A
Plasticity Concrete Material Model for DYNA3D,” International Journal
of Impact Engineering, V. 19, No. 9/10, 1997, pp. 847-873.
19. Tavarez, F. A., “Simulation of Behavior of Composite Grid Reinforced
Concrete Beams Using Explicit Finite Element Methods,” MS thesis, University
of Wisconsin-Madison, 2001.
20. Hallquist, J. O., LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual, Livermore
Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, Calif., Apr. 2000.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003