This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

PH.D. PROGRAMME in MATERIALS and STRUCTURES ENGINEERING XX CYCLE

PH.D. THESIS

RAFFAELLO FICO

LIMIT STATES DESIGN of CONCRETE STRUCTURES REINFORCED with FRP BARS

COORDINATOR

TUTOR

Prof. DOMENICO ACIERNO

Dr. ANDREA PROTA

**UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II
**

PH.D. PROGRAMME IN MATERIALS and STRUCTURES ENGINEERING COORDINATOR PROF. DOMENICO ACIERNO XX CYCLE

PH.D. THESIS

RAFFAELLO FICO

LIMIT STATES DESIGN of CONCRETE STRUCTURES REINFORCED with FRP BARS

TUTOR Dr. ANDREA PROTA

iv .

“Memento audere semper” G. D’annunzio v .

vi .

His valuable teachings will be engraved in my mind forever. Finally. Manfredi. I would like to thank my dearest parents for making me believe in my dreams and for constantly supporting me to achieve them. Prota for his assistance and devotion.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. I would like to thank all friends and colleagues at the Department of Structural Engineering who have contributed in numerous ways to make this program an enjoyable one. My deepest thank goes to the friends (they know who they are) that shared with me the most significant moments of these years. his experience and observations helped me a lot to focus on my work. my major professor. vii . A special thank goes to Dr. I would like to extend my deepest regards to my beloved brothers and sister for being there with me throughout. I am very grateful to Dr. I express my sincere thanks for making this work possible. I wish to express sincere appreciation to Dr. I have learned many things from him during the last three years. Parretti for supporting me any time that I asked. Nanni for animating my enthusiasm each time that I met him.

viii .

3 3.…16 2...1 3..….38 RELIABILITY STUDY………………………………………………..27 European Design Guidelines………………………………………………………...31 American Design Guidelines……………………………………………………….vii Chapter I: INTRODUCTION…………………………...3 2..Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars INDEX ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………….31 Japanese Design Guidelines……………………………………………………….1 2....3 BACKGROUND………………………………………………………13 OBJECTIVES……………………………………………………….3 2.4 HISTORY OF FRP REINFORCEMENT………………………….1 1...1 2...2 2.38 ix .17 FORMS OF FRP REINFORCEMENT………………………………20 TYPICAL APPLICATIONS………………………………………..16 PROPERTIES OF FRP BARS………………………………………..36 PARTIAL FACTORS…………………………………………………....2 2....4 2.4 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..36 GENERAL PRINCIPLES…………………………………………….2 1.…22 REVIEW of EXISTING GUIDELINES DESIGN PHILOSOPHY on FRP RC…………………………………………………………….5...15 THESIS ORGANIZATION………………………………………….5..31 Canadian Design Guidelines………………………………………………………..13 1.2 3.5.5.5 2.36 3..15 Chapter II: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………..32 Chapter III: ULTIMATE FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR……………………………………………….

..73 3.4.3.5 Statistical Properties……………………………………………………………….4.9 Reliability Analysis……………………………………………………………….4....60 3.………………………………………………78 4.66 3..4.3.4.4.4..69 3.15 Minimum Reliability Index of Beams………………………………………………70 3.4.7 Resistance Models for Flexural Capacity of FRP-RC Members…………………54 3..4.83 Factors Affecting Bond…………………………………………………………….18 Reliability Index of Slabs Accounting for P.41 3..83 4..1 Bond Tests……………………………………………………………………………81 x .4..6 Sample Design Space……………………………………………………………….3 4.2 4.4 Variables Affecting the Flexural Strength of GFRP-RC Members…………….59 3.8 Used Load Model……………………………………………………………………..63 3..3.2 Background………………………………………………………………………….16 Reliability Index of Slabs……………………………………………………………72 3..4.……………………78 BOND………………………………………………………………….. Regardless of ML/MD……………...3 Provisions on Flexural Capacity Design………………………………………….42 3.4.75 Chapter IV: SERVICEABILITY FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR.4..1 Reliability Index……………………………………………………………………. M and F………………………….Index 3...13 Reliability Index of Beams Accounting for P..4.1 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS………………………………………….38 3. M and F…………………………….53 3.74 3...11 Reliability Index of Beams Depending on γf and on ML/MD………………………64 3.2 4..4..….14 Reliability Index of Beams Depending on γf and γc……………………………….1 4.4.80 Types of Failure…………………………………………………………………….3 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………...52 3.68 3.17 Reliability Index of Slabs Depending on γf..4.4..44 3..10 Reliability Index of Beams…………………………………………………………. Regardless of ML/MD……………….12 Reliability Index of Beams Depending on γf..78 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE…………….

119 5.....91 4.5 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS………………………………………….116 Members Without Shear Reinforcement…………………………………………116 Influence of Bent Strength of Stirrups and Shear Reinforcement Ratio……….2 Members With Shear Reinforcement…………………………………………….2 CAN/CSA-S806_02 Design Guidelines……………………………………………111 5.4.128 xi .1 ACI 440..4..90 Calibration Analysis……………………………………………………………….1 5.………………………………………….4.113 5.....Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 4..4...3 JSCE Design Guidelines…………………………………………………………..5 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS………………………………………127 Chapter VI: TEST METHODS FOR THE CHARACTERIZATION OF FRP BARS……………………………………………….3.....2 4.3.114 5..109 5..3 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………105 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………105 REVIEW OF CURRENT DESIGN PROVISIONS…………….2 5...4..102 CHAPTER V: SHEAR ULTIMATE BEHAVIOR.1R-06 Design Guidelines…………………………………………………109 5..123 5.85 Cracking Moment…………………………………………………………………..105 5.3.3 5.84 Test Specimens and Variables…………………………………………………….3 CALIBRATION OF BOND COEFFICIENT “m”…………………..1 5.1 4...3..4 Italian Guidelines………………………………………………………………….4.4 4.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND CODES PREDICTIONS………………………………………………...

3 ULTIMATE FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR….3 Test Results…………………………………………………………………………135 6.142 7...2 Experimental Program……………………………………………………………....130 6..129 6...4 TEST METHODS FOR THE CHARACTERIZATION OF FRP BARS………………………………………………………………………..2 7..2.2.2 MECHANICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF LARGE-DIAMETER GFRP BARS……………………………………………….1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….1 7.....5 RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………….167 xii .....3.2.143 REFERENCES……………………………………………143 Appendix A: DESIGN CASES……………………………158 VITA……………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………138 SERVICEABILITY FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR……………………140 SHEAR ULTIMATE BEHAVIOR…………......128 6.129 6..Index 6.. CONCLUSIVE REMARKS……………………………………………137 Chapter VII: CONCLUSIONS……………………………138 7........……………………141 7...1 Overview of the Existing Standard Test Methods………………………………......

which is crucial for the dissemination. After its publication. have been lately developed under the auspices of the National Research Council (CNR). of the technical managers of major production and application companies.1 BACKGROUND Design Guidelines CNR-DT 203/2006. in the professional sphere. of the mechanical and technological knowledge needed for an aware and competent use of such materials.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Chapter I: INTRODUCTION 1. researches and applications of FRP in Italy. started with the publication of CNR-DT 200/2004. the document n. Nevertheless. some modifications and/or integrations have been made to the document including corrections of typos. is not a binding regulation. “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars”. Thus. in compliance with the classical style of Eurocodes. The new document (see front page in Figure 1) adds to the series of documents recently issued by the CNR on the structural use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites. by its nature. joined to the learning gathered from the available international codes on the design of FRP RC structures. the responsibility of the operated choices remains with the designer. 203/2006 was subject to a public hearing between February and May 2006. It is also conceived with an informative and educational spirit. but merely represents an aid for practitioners interested in the field of composites. 13 . like all the main current guidelines. The approach followed is that of the limit states semi-probabilistic method. A guideline. and of the representatives of public and private companies that use FRP as reinforced concrete (RC) reinforcement (see Figure 2). The document is the result of a remarkable joint effort of researchers from 7 Italian universities and practitioners involved in this emerging and promising field. while the format adopted is that of ‘principles’ and ‘practical rules’. Following the public hearing. pertaining to the use of externally bonded systems for strengthening concrete and masonry structures. the resulting FRP code naturally encompasses all the experience and knowledge gained in ten years of countless studies.

Chapter I

additions of subjects that had not been dealt with in the original version, and elimination of others deemed not to be relevant. The updated document has been approved as a final version on 18/06/2007 by the “Advisory Committee on Technical Recommendation for Construction”.

Figure 1 - Front Page of CNR-DT 203/2006

Task Group

University of Bologna Polytechnic of Milan University of Naples “Federico II” University of Rome “La Sapienza” University of Rome “Tor Vergata” University of Salerno University of Sannio - Benevento ATP Pultrusion - Angri (SA) Hughes Brothers - Nebraska, U.S.A. Interbau S.r.l.- Milan Sireg - Arcore (MI)

Contents

Materials Basis of Design Appendix A (manufacturing techniques of FRP bars) Appendix B (test methods for characterizing FRP bars) Appendix C (technical data sheet for FRP bars) Appendix D (tasks and responsibilities of professionals) Appendix E (deflections and crack widths)

Figure 2 - Task Group and Contents of CNR-DT 203/2006

14

Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars

1.2

OBJECTIVES

The thesis project is to assess the main concepts that are the basis of the document CNR-DT 203/2006, analyzing the limit state design of concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars and grids, and in particular: • • • The ultimate limit states design, both for flexure and shear; The serviceability limit states design, specifically the deflection control; Test methods for characterizing FRP bars.

1.3

•

THESIS ORGANIZATION

Chapter 2 presents more details on the mechanical and material properties of FRP bars, as well as on the main approaches used by the existing guidelines for the design of FRP RC structures; • Chapter 3 presents the ultimate limit state design principles for flexure at the basis of document CNR-DT 203/2006, going also into details of the reliability-based calibration of partial safety factors applied to assess the reliability levels of the Italian guidelines. • Chapter 4 presents the serviceability limit states flexural design of FRP RC elements; in particular, the deflection control of FRP RC members depending on the bond between FRP reinforcement and concrete is investigated based on a consistent set of experimental data. • Chapter 5 focuses on the assessment of Eurocode-like design equations for the evaluation of the shear strength of FRP RC members, as proposed by the CNR-DT 203, verified through comparison with the equations given by ACI, CSA and JSCE guidelines, considering a large database of members with and without shear reinforcement failed in shear. • Chapter 6 presents the investigation of mechanical characteristics and geometrical properties of large-scale GFRP bars according to the Appendix B of the CNR-DT 203/2006 (and to ACI 440.3R-04). Furthermore, ad-hoc test set-up procedures to facilitate the testing of such large-scale bars are presented. • Chapter 7 summarizes the main conclusions and the overall findings of this thesis project with recommendations for further actions to be taken.

15

Chapter II

**Chapter II: LITERATURE REVIEW
**

2.1 HISTORY of FRP REINFORCEMENT

FRP composites are the latest version of the very old idea of making better composite material by combining two different materials (Nanni, 1999), that can be traced back to the use of straw as reinforcement in bricks used by ancient civilizations (e.g. Egyptians in 800). The development of FRP reinforcement can be found in the expanded use of composites after World War II: the automotive industry first introduced composites in early 1950’s and since then many components of today’s vehicles are being made out of composites. The aerospace industry began to use FRP composites as lightweight material with acceptable strength and stiffness which reduced the weight of aircraft structures such as pressure vessels and containers. Today’s modern jets use large components made out of composites as they are less susceptible to fatigue than traditional metals. Other industries like naval, defense and sporting goods have used advanced composite materials on a widespread basis: pultrusion offered a fast and economical method of forming constant profile parts, and pultruded composites were being used to make golf clubs and fishing poles. Only in the 1960s, however, these materials were seriously considered for use as reinforcement in concrete. The expansion of the national highway system in the 1950s increased the need to provide year-round maintenance; it became common to apply deicing salts on highway bridges; as a result, reinforcing steel in these structures and those subject to marine salt experienced extensive corrosion, and thus became a major concern (almost 40% of the highway bridges in the US are structurally deficient or functionally no longer in use, ASCE Report card 2005). Various solutions were investigated, including galvanized coatings, electro-staticspray fusion-bonded (powder resin) coatings, polymer-impregnated concrete, epoxy coatings, and glass FRP (GFRP) reinforcing bars (ACI 440R.1R-06, 2006); yet the FRP reinforcing bar was not considered a viable solution and was not commercially available until the late 1970s.

16

S. the glass (GFRP) and the aramid (AFRP) fibers. International Grating Inc. 2. The European BRITE/EURAM Project. specifically in seawall construction.2 PROPERTIES of FRP BARS The mechanical properties of FRP bars are typically quite different from those of steel bars and depend mainly on both matrix and fibers type. FRP reinforcement became the standard in this type of construction. airport runways. Marshall-Vega Inc. “Fibre Composite Elements and Techniques as Nonmetallic Reinforcement. as well as on their volume fraction. substation reactor bases. EUROCRETE has headed the European effort with research and demonstration projects. and electronics laboratories (Brown and Bartholomew 1996). Department of Transportation (USDOT) was on “Transfer of Composite Technology to Design and Construction of Bridges” (Plecnik and Ahmad 1988). The most commonly available fiber types are the carbon (CFRP). entered the North American FRP reinforcement market. led the initial development of GFRP reinforcing bars in the U.S. More recently. Marshall-Vega and International Grating led the research and development of FRP reinforcing bars into the 1980s. the largest demand for electrically nonconductive reinforcement was in facilities for MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imager) medical equipment. The 1980s market demanded nonmetallic reinforcement for specific advanced technology. Other uses developed as the advantages of FRP reinforcement became better known and desired. construction of the prestressed FRP Bridge in Germany in 1986 was the beginning of use of FRP (Meier 1992). In Japan more than 100 commercial projects involving FRP reinforcement were undertaken up to the mid-1990s (ACI Committee 440. In the late 1970s. 2001). GFRP bars were considered a viable alternative to steel as reinforcement for polymer concrete due to the incompatibility of thermal expansion characteristics between polymer concrete and steel. but generally FRP bars have lower weight. the first project funded by the U. 17 .” conducted extensive testing and analysis of the FRP materials from 1991 to 1996 (Taerwe 1997). Parallel research was also being conducted on FRPs in Europe and Japan. Initially. In Europe.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars In 1983. lower Young’s modulus but higher strength than steel.

are reported in Table 3 (CNR-DT 203. in compliance with the values reported by ACI 440. The tensile properties of FRP are what make them an attractive alternative to steel reinforcement. while the transverse coefficient is dominated by the resin. and 65 GPa for AFRP bars.1R-06. and the average value of the Young’s modulus of elasticity in the longitudinal direction is not lower than 100 GPa for CFRP bars. When loaded in tension. ACI 440. 35 GPa for GFRP bars.1R-06. Therefore FRP reinforcement is not recommended for moment frames or zones where moment redistribution is required. higher values of the transversal coefficients of thermal expansion. 2006). typical values of the coefficient of thermal expansion in the longitudinal and transversal directions. FRP bars have density ranging from one fifth to one forth than that of steel. 2001). respectively. can be responsible for circumferential tensile stresses that allow the formation of cracks in the radial direction that may endanger the concrete-FRP bond. Table 2 gives the most common tensile properties of reinforcing bars. 18 . the compressive modulus of elasticity of FRP reinforcing bars appears to be smaller than its tensile modulus of elasticity. αl and αt. The longitudinal coefficient of thermal expansion is dominated by fiber properties.3R-04). FRP bars do not exhibit any plastic behavior (yielding) before rupture. The CNR-DT 203-2006. Figure 1 depicts the typical stress-strain behavior of FRP bars compared to that of steel bars. of composite bars with a fibers volume fraction ranging between 50% and 70%. combined with the Poisson’s effect in the case of compressed reinforcements.Chapter II Table 1 lists some of the advantages and disadvantages of FRP reinforcement for concrete structures when compared with conventional steel reinforcement. prescribes that all types of FRP bars can be used provided that the characteristic strength is not lower than 400 MPa. as reported by ACI 440. in fact most of FRP RC design guidelines suggest not to rely upon strength and stiffness contributions provided by the compressed FRP bars (further research is needed in this area). instead. The determination of both the geometrical and mechanical properties of FRP bars requires the use of specific procedures (ASTM D 618. the reduced weight eases the handling of FRP bars on the project site (ACI Committee 440.

chemical and physical characteristics of its surface as well as concrete compressive strength. In general.Advantages and Disadvantages of FRP Reinforcement Advantages of FRP reinforcement High longitudinal tensile strength (varies with sign and direction of loading relative to fibers) Corrosion resistance (not dependent on a coating) Nonmagnetic High fatigue endurance (varies with type of reinforcing fiber) Lightweight (about 1/5 to 1/4 the density of steel) Low thermal and electric conductivity (for glass and aramid fibers) Disadvantages of FRP reinforcement No yielding before brittle rupture Low transverse strength (varies with sign and direction of loading relative to fibers) Low modulus of elasticity (varies with type of reinforcing fiber) Susceptibility of damage to polymeric resins and fibers under ultraviolet radiation exposure Low durability of glass fibers in a moist environment Low durability of some glass and aramid fibers in an alkaline environment High coefficient of thermal expansion perpendicular to the fibers. which is a progressive reduction of strength under long term loads. An extensive investigation on bond is given in Chapter 4. such phenomenon is also highly influenced by environmental factors. and the glass fibers are the most susceptible (ACI Committee 440. such as temperature and moisture.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars FRP reinforcing bars are susceptible to static fatigue phenomenon (“creep rupture”). relative to concrete May be susceptible to fire depending on matrix type and concrete cover thickness 19 . whereas aramid fibers are moderately susceptible. The latter parameter is less important for FRP bars than for steel bars. carbon fibers are the least susceptible to creep rupture. The bond between the FRP bar and the surrounding concrete is ensured by propagation of stresses whose values depend on bar geometry. 2001). Table 1 .

0 ÷ 10. bars. and separately formed 20 .0 6.Chapter II Table 2 .4 *Typical values for fiber volume fractions ranging from 0.25 GFRP N/A 483 to 1600 35 to 51 N/A CFRP N/A 600 to 3690 120 to 580 N/A AFRP N/A 1720 to 2540 41 to 125 N/A Rupture strain.0 to 12.1 0.0 -2. and ropes.0 ÷ 32.0 ÷ -2. GPa Yield strain. % 6. round. sand coatings.0 αt [10-6 °C-1] 60.Stress-strain Curves of Typical Reinforcing Bars Table 3 .0 23.Typical Tensile Properties of Reinforcing FRP Bars* Steel Nominal yield stress. solid.0 ÷ 23.5 to 1.14 to 0. Carbon Aramid Stress [MPa] Glass Steel Strain Figure 1 .9 to 4.7.0 ÷ 80.0 2.2 to 3.7 1. % 276 to 517 483 to 690 200 0. and hollow) and deformation systems (exterior wound fibers.Coefficients of Thermal Expansion Bar AFRP CFRP GFRP αl [10-6 °C-1] -6. MPa Elastic modulus. MPa Tensile strength.3 FORMS of FRP REINFORCEMENT Typical FRP reinforcement products are grids.0 21. fabrics.0 ÷ 0.0 1. The bars have various types of cross-sectional shapes (square.5 to 0.

Sample FRP Reinforcement Configurations 21 . fiber orientation. plates.g. One of the principle advantages of FRP reinforcement is the ability to configure the reinforcement to meet specific performance and design objectives. or FRP preparation for a specific application. surface configurations. constituent materials and proportions for the final products. Within these categories. pultrusion. e. FRP reinforcement may be configured in rods. Figure 2 .. there are no standardized shapes. bars. there is no standardization of the methods of production. braiding. and strands. Similarly. the surface texture of the FRP reinforcement may be modified to increase or decrease the bond with the surrounding concrete. A sample of different cross sectional shapes and deformation systems of FRP reinforcing bars is shown in Figure 2. Unlike conventional steel reinforcement. For example. filament winding.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars deformations).

Chapter II 2.Use of Leadline Elements for the Tensioning of Diagonals of a Floating Marine Structure. non-magnetic structures such as tracks for linear motors (Figure 5). bridge decks (Figure 6) and ground anchors (Figure 7). Japan Figure 5 .Use of FRP Tendons in the Pontoon Bridge at Takahiko Three Country Club. like floating marine structures (Figure 3). pontoon bridges (Figure 4).Magnetic Levitation Railway System in Japan 22 . where many demonstration projects were developed in the early 90’s. Most initial applications of FRP reinforcement in concrete were built in Japan. in or near the ground. Japan Figure 4 . in chemical and other industrial plants.4 TYPICAL APPLICATIONS The use of FRP in concrete for anti-corrosion purposes is expected to find applications in structures in or near marine environments. Figure 3 . in places where good quality concrete can not be achieved and in thin structural elements.

23 . most prominently in North America and Europe. Japan Research and development is now actively taking place in many countries. the EUROCRETE project installed the first completely FRP reinforced footbridge in 1996 (Figure 8). Japan Figure 7 .Use of CFRP Bars in a Stress Ribbon Bridge at the Southern Yard Country Club.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Figure 6 .Use of Technora Elements as Ground Anchors along the Meishin Expressway. In Europe.

Desgagne. Figure 9 and Figure 10 show some recent bridge applications in USA and Canada (the corresponding reference has been reported when available). 53rd Ave Bridge. City of Bettendorf – Iowa (USA) [Nanni 2001] Sierrita de la Cruz Creek Bridge. Canada is currently the Country leader in the use of FRP bars. The use of GFRP bars in MRI hospital room additions is becoming commonplace as well (Figure 11).Chapter II Figure 8 .The First Concrete Footbridge in Europe with Only FRP Reinforcement (EUROCRETE Project) In North America. Potter County – Texas (USA) [Bradberry 2001] 24 . and Lackey 2004). mainly as reinforcement of RC bridge decks (Benmokrane.

Recent Applications of FRP RC Bridge Decks in Canada 25 . Calgary.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars GFRP Bridge Deck. Wotton. Morristown – Vermont (USA) [2002] Figure 9 . Cookshire-Eaton – Quebec [2003] Crowchild Bridge Deck.Recent Applications of FRP RC Bridge Decks in USA Trout River Bridge. AICAN Highway – British Columbia [2004] GFRP Bridge Deck. Quebec [Rizkalla 1997] [Rizkalla 1997] Figure 10 . Alberta GFRP Bridge Deck.

Figure 12. Efficiencies in construction and reduction in fabrication costs will expand their potential market.Recent Constructions of FRP RC Hospital Rooms for MRI Finally.Chapter II Lincoln General Hospital. 26 . tunnel works where GFRP reinforcement is used in the portion of the concrete wall to be excavated by the tunnel boring machine (TBM) called soft-eye have become common in many major metropolitan areas of the world. Trauma Center (USA) Figure 11 . the higher cost of FRP materials suggests that FRP use will be confined to applications where the unique characteristics of the material are the most appropriate. Hong Kong. At present. and New Delhi) and Europe (for example. London and Berlin). A detailed description of this application type is given in Chapter 6. including Asia (for example. Bangkok. Lincoln – NE (USA) York Hospital.

2006). and Europe (Clarke et al. USA (ACI 440.1R-06. CSA-S806. Bangkok MRTA – Thailand (courtesy: http://www. 2001. 1996).Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Figure 12 .5 REVIEW of EXISTING GUIDELINES DESIGN PHILOSOPHY on FRP RC Design guidelines for FRP RC structures have been developed in Japan (JSCE. 2002). ACI 440. 2003.1R-03.Tunnelling Boring Application. ACI 440.1R-01.be) 2. 27 . 1997).fortius. Table 4 gives a summary of the historical development of the existing documents ruling the design of internal FRP RC structures. 2001.. Canada (ISIS.

which predominantly use the limit state design approach. 28 . and empirical equations based on experimental investigations on FRP RC elements.Chronological Development of Documents for Internal FRP Reinforcement 1970s Use of fiber reinforcement in concrete 1996 The European Committee for Concrete (EUROCRETE) published a set of design recommendations for FRP RC 1997 The Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) published a set of design recommendations for FRP RC 1999 The Swedish National code for FRP RC was published 2000 The Canadian Standard Association (CSA) published a set of design recommendations for FRP RC Bridges (CAN/CSA S6-00) 2001 The ISIS Canada published a manual on the use of internal FRP reinforcement The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440 published the first version of design recommendations for internal FRP reinforcement (440.Chapter II Table 4 .1R 2006 The National Research Council (CNR) published the Italian design recommendations for internal FRP reinforcement (CNR-DT 203/2006) ACI Committee 440 published the third version of guidelines 440.1R The recommendations ruling the design of FRP RC structures currently available are mainly given in the form of modifications to existing steel RC codes of practice. strongly influenced by the mechanical properties of FRP reinforcement. Such modifications consist of basic principles.1R) 2002 The CSA published a set of design recommendations for FRP RC Buildings (CAN/CSA S80602) CUR Building & Infrastructure published a set of design recommendations for FRP RC (The Netherlands) 2003 ACI Committee 440 published the second version of guidelines 440.

for similar cross sections to that of steel. In fact. the two different design approaches are: • The American-like design approach.. a condition desired for steel RC design.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars With respect to steel. Hence. creep rupture endurance. for FRP reinforcement. The following sentence reported in the ACI 440. for example. and serviceability criteria. due to the lower stiffness and the high strength of composite materials. the strength to stiffness ratio is an order of magnitude greater than that of steel. serviceability criteria or fatigue and creep rupture endurance limits may control the design of concrete members reinforced for flexure with FRP bars (especially AFRP and GFRP that exhibit low stiffness)”. Hence.1) becomes: 29 . Nevertheless. 2002). where Eq. This implies that for such a section.1R-06 (2006) can be considered as a principle that is universally accepted by the referenced guidelines: “These design recommendations are based on limit state design principles in that an FRPreinforced concrete member is designed based on its required strength and then checked for fatigue endurance. also significant differences occur among the available FRP RC documents. the neutral axis depth for FRP RC sections would be very close to the compressive end. two main design approaches may be distinguished. if one takes into account the inequality: R≥S Equation Chapter 2 Section 1(2. (2.1) where R is the resistance of member and S is the load effect. and this affects the distribution of stresses along the section. a larger amount of the cross section is subjected to tensile stresses and the compressive zone is subjected to a greater strain gradient. much larger deflections and less shear strength are expected (Pilakoutas et al. when considering a balanced section. when considering the limit state philosophy. In many instances. when dealing with FRP reinforcement the amount of reinforcement to be used has to be determined by a different approach.

for FRP RC structures. since FRP reinforcement does not yield and. to be checked in the design procedure.2) Rn being the nominal strength of member (depending on the characteristic strength of materials). where Eq. computed as a function of the design strength of material. hence. Following a brief overview of the aforementioned guidelines is given. • The Eurocode-like design approach. (2.1) turns into: Ru ≥ Sd . (2. ρfb. flexural failure would occur due to simultaneous concrete crushing and rupture of the FRP reinforcement. In the ideal situation where ρf is equal to ρfb. and Sd is the design load effect. the concept of balanced failure is not the same as in steel RC construction. accordingly. depending on the reinforcement ratio of balanced failure. a concrete crushing failure can be considered as the ductile mode of failure of an FRP RC section. in other words the nominal value of resistance computed in the American Standard is function of the Eurocode-like characteristic (namely guaranteed in ACI codes) values of material strengths. φ is a strength reduction factor and Su is the corresponding design load effect. In conclusion the reduction applied on the resistance by the American Standards through the φ factor in the Eurocode-like Standards corresponds to the reduction applied on the materials resistance.Chapter II φ Rn ≥ Su . all available guidelines on FRP RC structures distinguish between two types of flexural failure. brittle manner.3) where Ru is the ultimate resistance of member. it is assumed that flexural failure occurs due to rupture of FRP reinforcement. obtained by amplifying the applied loads by appropriate coefficients. ρf. derived multiplying the characteristic materials strength by material safety factors. whereas if ρf is greater than ρfb. then it is assumed that the element will fail due to concrete crushing. if the actual reinforcement ratio. (2. a balanced FRP RC element will still fail in a sudden. 30 . is less than ρfb. the concrete element is balanced and hence. α. analogous to Su . It should be noted that. In particular for the flexural design.

and can be applied for the design of concrete reinforced or prestressed with FRP reinforcement. In addition to the design of concrete elements reinforced or prestressed with FRP. the adopted values are relatively high when compared with the values adopted by other guidelines. since it gives general information about different types of FRP reinforcement.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 2. The guidelines do not make any distinction between the two types of flexural failure and in addition. 2. 1997) and European RC codes of practice (ENV 1992-1-1. and hence. that are slightly higher than the ones used for steel reinforcement. the analytical and experimental phases for FRP construction are sufficiently complete (ACI 440. 1992). although the model adopted for the flexural design covers both types of flexural failure. the guidelines also include information about characterization tests for FRP internal reinforcement. there is no information about the predominant mode of flexural failure that would result from the application of the proposed partial safety factors. quality specifications.5.5.1 European Design Guidelines The European design guidelines by Clarke et al (1996) are based on modifications to British (BS8110.1R-06.2 Japanese Design Guidelines The Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) design guidelines (JSCE. 2006). which would result from the application of these partial safety factors. 2. The JSCE places in between the two design philosophies reported.3 Canadian Design Guidelines The Canadian Standard Association (CSA) design guidelines CAN/CSA-S806-02 (2002) are the most recently issued Canadian guidelines on the design and construction of building components with FRP. and characterization tests for FRP materials.5. The guideline may also be utilised as a reference document. The recently issued Italian guidelines CNR-DT 203/2006 will be discussed in details within the thesis. 1997) are based on modifications of the Japanese steel RC code of practice. The guidelines include a set of partial safety factors for the material strength and stiffness that take into consideration both the short and long term structural behavior of FRP reinforcement. considering both material and member safety factors. The guideline was 31 . they do not provide clear indications about the predominant failure mode.

with the exception of special cases (i.Chapter II approved. assuming that the predominant mode of failure is flexural. its cross- sections. and is intended to be used in conjunction with the national building code of Canada (CSA A23. multiplied by the appropriate material resistance factors…Where specified. 2004). As for the predominant mode of failure. In other words. and flexure and axial load interaction and slenderness effects). sway resisting columns. and its connections shall be taken as the resistance calculated in accordance with the requirements and assumptions of this Standard. the factored member resistance shall be calculated using the factored resistance of the component materials with the application of an additional member resistance factor as appropriate”. 2002). The document only addresses non-prestressed FRP reinforcement (concrete structures prestressed with FRP tendons are covered in ACI 440. as a national standard of Canada.5.e. 2. The guidelines also provide information about the mechanical characteristics of commercially available FRP reinforcement. 2001). the Canadian approach is that of material safety factors. The Canadian network of centres of excellence on intelligent sensing for innovative structures has also published a design manual that contains design provisions for FRP RC structures (ISIS.1R-06.4 American Design Guidelines The American Concrete Institute (ACI) design guidelines for structural concrete reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440. in 2004. the CSA S806-02 remarks that “all FRP reinforced concrete sections shall be designed in such a way that failure of the section is initiated by crushing of the concrete in the compression zone”. 32 . which would be sustained due to either concrete crushing (compressive failure) or rupture of the most outer layer of FRP reinforcement (tensile failure). This guideline is also based on modifications to existing steel RC codes of practice.4R).3. The basis for this document is the knowledge gained from worldwide experimental research. stability in compressed members. The document prescribes that “the factored resistance of a member. 2006) are primarily based on modifications of the ACI-318 steel code of practice (ACI 318-02.

As for shear. for FRP RC structures the specific mechanical characteristics of the FRP rebars are expected to result in serviceability limit states (SLS)-governed design. environmental reduction factors are applied on the FRP tensile strength to account for the long-term behavior of FRPs.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars analytical research work. an exhaustive assessment of the different existing design approaches is given in Chapter 5. The margin of safety suggested by this guide against failure is therefore higher than that used in traditional steelreinforced concrete design. The ACI 440. The CSA S806-02 only prescribes that FRP reinforced concrete members subjected to flexure shall be designed to have adequate stiffness in order to limit deflections or 33 . However. Nevertheless.it adopted the value of φ used by ACI318 for steel reinforcement. and field applications of FRP reinforcement. deflections (short and long term). The recommendations in this document are intended to be conservative. the member should possess a higher reserve of strength.1R design philosophy is based on the concept that “the brittle behavior of both FRP reinforcement and concrete allows consideration to be given to either FRP rupture or concrete crushing as the mechanisms that control failure…both failure modes (FRP rupture and concrete crushing) are acceptable in governing the design of flexural members reinforced with FRP bars provided that strength and serviceability criteria are satisfied…to compensate for the lack of ductility. The ACI440. crack width and spacing. A detailed description of the CNR-DT 203/2006 on serviceability (specifically on deflection and bond) is reported in Chapter 4. the following SLS for FRP RC members are universally considered: • • • materials stress limitations. the concrete crushing failure mode is marginally more desirable for flexural members reinforced with FRP bars. In addition. while .1R guideline uses different values of strength reduction factors for each type of flexural failure. since by experiencing concrete crushing a flexural member does exhibit some plastic behavior before failure.for the shear design . based on the findings of Nanni (1993).

1R 06 CSA S806-02 Exterior 0.Chapter II any deformations that may adversely affect the strength or serviceability of a structure. have to be controlled to satisfy the requirements of appearance and specialized performance. and it is noted that the stress limitation should not be greater than 70% of the characteristic tensile strength of the FRP reinforcement.1R design guideline (ACI 440. when FRP reinforcement is used corrosion is not the main issue because the rebars are designed to be highly durable.1R-03 (2003) considers that these ratios are not conservative for FRP RC and recommends further studies. whereas the ratios of effective span to depth are not. from the design point of view. wmax. crack widths. Table 5 reports the maximum values for design crack width in FRP RC members.5 Exposure [mm] wmax For bond of FRP reinforcement in concrete elements some code proposals have been recently formulated in the national codes of practice.1R-06. to the material resistance factors. The limits on deflections for steel RC elements are equally applicable to FRP RC. ISIS Canada (2001) proposes an equation for the effective span to depth ratio. The ACI 440. however. F. which should not be exceeded under sustained and cyclic loading.1R 06 CSA S806-02 ACI 440. Finally. taken from several codes of practice. the study of concrete structures reinforced with FRP rebars has been initially 34 .Crack Width Limitations for FRP RC Elements Code JSCE CNR-DT 203/2006 ACI 440.7 0. Values of the factor F account for the ratio of sustained to live load as well as for the type of FRP reinforcement. 2006) provides different limits for each type of FRP reinforcement.5 Interior 0. ACI 440. w. ISIS Canada applies a reduction factor. Table 5 . The Japanese recommendations limit the tensile stresses to the value of 80% of the characteristic creep-failure strength of the FRP reinforcement.

and bond lengths for lap splices. 35 . Very different code formulations have been thus derived by the referenced guidelines. Further research is needed to provide additional information in these areas (ACI 440. 2006).1R-06. areas where currently there is limited knowledge of the performance of FRP reinforcement include fire resistance. at least in shape and dimensions.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars developed by extending and modifying existing methods applied to the design of steel reinforced concrete structures. similar to deformed steel rebars. bond fatigue. Therefore. Finally. studies have been often developed by comparing performances obtained by using steel rebars and by using FRP rods while the production technologies have been oriented towards the fabrication of composite rebars which were. durability in outdoor or severe exposure conditions.

a reliability-based calibration of partial safety factors was applied to assess the reliability levels of the ultimate limit state (ULS) design according to the Italian guidelines. In particular. In fact. The design values are obtained from the characteristic values through suitable partial factors. is examined. 2004). the case of uniaxial bending. 3. the conventional serviceability and the corresponding levels of the design loads shall be considered according to the current building codes (D. 09/01/1996 or Eurocode 2. not relying upon strength and stiffness contributions provided by the compressed FRP bars.Chapter III Chapter III ULTIMATE FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR 3. 36 .1) where Ed and Rd are the factored design values of the demand and the corresponding factored capacity. within the limit state being considered.g.M. The following inequality shall always be met: Ed ≤ Rd Equation Chapter 3 Section 1(3.2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES According to the CNR-DT 203/2006 document the design of concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars shall satisfy strength and serviceability requirements. e. only the stiffness parameters (Young’s modulus of elasticity) are evaluated through the corresponding average values. when the loading axis coincides with a symmetry axis of the reinforced element cross section. or indicated in the CNR-DT 203 with reference to specific issues. strength and strain properties of the FRP bars are quantified by the corresponding characteristic values. to be chosen according to the current building code.PP.LL. respectively.1 INTRODUCTION In this chapter the general principles prescribed in the CNR-DT 203/2006 for the design of FRP RC elements is presented.

in particular of a FRP bar.9 0. X d .90 ηl (ULS) 1. Table 1 .Environmental Conversion Factor ηa for Different Exposure Conditions of the Structure and Different Fiber Types Exposure conditions Concrete not-exposed to moisture Concrete exposed to moisture Type of fiber / matrix* Carbon / Vinylester or epoxy Glass / Vinylesters or epoxy Aramid / Vinylesters or epoxy Carbon / Vinylesters or epoxy Glass / Vinylesters or epoxy Aramid / Vinylesters or epoxy ηa 1.Conversion Factor for Long-Term Effects ηl for Different Types of FRP Loading mode Quasi-permanent and/or cyclic (creep. Possible values to be assigned to such factors are reported in Table 1 and Table 2. The conversion factor η is obtained by multiplying the environmental conversion factor.30 0.ηa . ηl . respectively.0 0.8 0. the environmental conversion factor ηa can be assumed equal to 1.2) where X k is the characteristic value of the property being considered.50 0. relaxation and fatigue) Type of fiber / matrix Glass / Vinylesters or epoxy Aramid / Vinylesters or epoxy Carbon / Vinylesters or epoxy ηl (SLS) 0. by the conversion factor due to long-term effects.00 If FRP bars are used for temporary structures (serviceability less than one year).Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars The design value.00 1.9 0.7 0. of the generic strength and/or strain property of a material. 37 . Such values are obtained by testing FRP bars to a constant stress equal to the maximum stress at serviceability for environmental conditions similar to that encountered by the structure in its life and by evaluating the bar residual strength over time in compliance with the standard ISO TC 71/SC 6 N (2005). η is a conversion factor accounting for special design problems. Table 2 .8 * The use of a polyester matrix is allowed only for temporary structures.00. Values obtained from experimental tests can be assigned when available.00 1. and γ m is the material partial factor. can be expressed as follows: Xd =η γm Xk (3.

Prota and the writer. The arguments of the function R{} are typically the mechanical and geometrical parameters. of University of Naples “Federico II”. 1982. 3. with the assistance of the work group made by Dr.5. Manfredi. shear) and γ Rd is a partial factor covering uncertainties in the capacity model. reported hereafter.3 PARTIAL FACTORS For ultimate limit states. whose ⋅ design and nominal values are X d.g.i } (3. such factor shall be set equal to 1. the value to be assigned to the partial factor is γ f = 1 . Galambos et al. the partial factor γ m for FRP bars. shall be set equal to 1. This section focuses on the reliability analysis of flexural simply supported GFRP-RC members.3) where R{} is a function depending upon the specific mechanical model considered ⋅ (e. 3. in particular. respectively.Chapter III The design strength Rd can be expressed as follows: Rd = 1 γ Rd R { X d. 1982): 38 . flexure. Iervolino.4. This could be achieved thank to the work carried out by Dr. with the supervision of Prof.. which can be generally expressed as (Ellingwood et al. 2007) at the Dept.. 3. Dr.4 RELIABILITY STUDY The overall aim of the structural reliability analysis is to quantify the reliability of cross sections under consideration of the uncertainties associated with the resistances and loads. unless otherwise specified. ad.6 prescribed by the referenced building codes shall be assigned for concrete.i . a reliability-based calibration of partial safety factors has been applied to assess the reliability levels of the flexural design equations as given by the CNR-DT 203/2006 guidelines.1 Reliability Index In probability-based Load and Resistance Factor Design (LFRD) the structural performance is defined by a limit state function. denoted by γ f . of Struct. i .i and ad. Santini (Santini. whereas for serviceability limit states (SLS). The partial factor γ c = 1. Eng.

7) Φ being the standard normal cumulative-distribution function (R. defined such that the probability of failure is Pf = Φ (− β ) . The safety of a structural component depends on its resistance (R) and load effects (S). and the random load effect acting on the member.X2. The probability of failure.Xm) representing dimensions. Ellingwood. and therefore. Pf = 10−2 ÷ 10−3 for SLS with large elastic deformations or undesirable cracking. the limit state function can be a function of many variables.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars G( X ) = 0 (3.…. Pf. X=(X1. loads and other factors such as the analysis method. A direct calculation of the probability of failure may be very difficult for complex limit state functions.6) Since R and S are treated as random variables.4) where X is the vector of resistance or load random variables (a random variable is a defined number associated to a given event that is unknown before the event occurs). S: G = R−S (3. 2003). β. it is convenient to measure structural safety in terms of the reliability index. R. In general. (3. otherwise it fails. which can be expressed in the limit state function as the difference between the random resistance of the member. Indicative values of Pf for some typical failure modes are (BS EN 1990:2002): • • • Pf = 10−5 ÷ 10−7 for ULS with no warning (brittle failure). 39 . Pf = 10−4 ÷ 10−5 for ULS with warning (ductile failure). is equal to: Pf = Pr ( R − S < 0) (3. material properties.5) if G>0 the structure is safe. the outcome G will also be a random variable.

282 2. as reported by (BS EN 1990:2002): Table 3 . it is based on a first order Taylor Series expansion of the limit state function. in correspondence of Pf values. in the second case a larger scattering of the two bell curves occurs with respect to case 1: the reliability level of member decreased since points under the intersection zone of the two curves imply structural failure. and load effects. based on the assumption that the farer the two bells.753 5.326 3. generally their Normal probability distributions (see § 3.199 Pf 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 In this study the First Order Reliability Method (FORM) has been used. R. which approximates the failure surface by a tangent plane at the point of interest. 40 . lacking any contact point between the two curves. In terms of resistance. as reported in Figure 1.265 4.Chapter III Indicative values of β are shown in Table 3.719 4. cases three and four are intermediate between the first and the second one.4. More details on the use of such method to compute β in this study are reported in Appendix A.4) are compared to assess the reliability of a member: the intersection area of the two bell curves shall be investigated. S. this method is very useful since it is not always possible to find a closed form solution for a non-linear limit state function or a function including more than two random variables.β vs Pf for Normal-type Distribution β 1. the higher the member reliability. in this example the first case corresponds to a good reliability level.09 3.

2003. the limit state function is developed for each randomly generated design case. and supporting databases already exist (Ellingwood. Frangopol and Recek 2003.2 Background The establishment of a probability-based design framework for FRP RC structures is becoming more and more needful since despite the growing popularity of composites they are still perceived as being less reliable than conventional construction technologies. Ellingwood 1995. 2001. Spitaleri and Totaro 2006). 2002. such as steel. standards. 1995. where design methods.Possible Distributions of R and S Probability Density Functions In this study. If several reliability research applications on externally bonded FRP structures have been carried out in literature (Plevris et al. 41 . using MonteCarlo design simulations to create random samples. hence. all random design variables involved in the flexural design of GFRP RC members are attributed a predefined probability distribution. the solution of such a problem is sought so that the target reliability is attained with the optimal partial safety factor for the GFRP reinforcement.4. the research in the field of internal FRP RC structures is still scarce. masonry. concrete.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 1 2 3 4 Figure 1 . 3. 2003). Monti and Santini 2002. Di Sciuva and Lomario 2003. Okeil et al. and wood.

whereas actual steel codes consider the same distribution of actions for the SLS and. concluding that the design of such members should be based on the attainment of the desired failure mode hierarchy by applying the appropriate partial safety factors. the reliability indexes change dramatically when failure mode is switched from one to the other. The assessment indicated that the provisions in both guidelines are rather conservative. (1999) evaluated the reliability levels of two GFRP RC beams for the flexural and shear failure mode.1R-03 and ISIS guidelines. 3. concluding that the desired mode of flexural failure is not attained by the application of γ f alone. The flexural capacity of concrete members reinforced with FRP bars can be calculated based on assumptions similar to those made for members reinforced with steel bars.1R-06). but within either failure mode. load effects and reinforcement ratio of FRP reinforcement play a significant role on the structural reliability of members. whereas concrete strength. Kulkarni (2006) developed resistance models for FRP RC decks and girders designed using ACI guidelines (ACI 440. Both 42 . He and Huang (2006) combined the Monte Carlo simulation procedure with the Rackwitz–Fiessler method to assess the reliability levels of the provisions for flexural capacity design of ACI 440. but it is necessary to apply limits on the design parameters considered by the models adopted to predict the design capacity. amplified.Chapter III La Tegola (La Tegola 1998) re-examined from a probabilistic point of view the effective distributions of actions to be adopted for the design of FRP RC structures at both ULS and SLS: higher values of strength and lower values of Young’s modulus compared to steel imply that the design of FRP RC structures will be influenced almost exclusively by the SLS. reliability indexes do not vary significantly with respect to relative reinforcement ratio.3 Provisions on Flexural Capacity Design According to the CNR-DT 203/2006 the design of FRP-RC members for flexure is analogous to the design of steel reinforced concrete members. Neocleous et al. Pilakoutas et al. for the ULS.4. (2002) examined the effect of design parameters and especially of γ f on the flexural behavior of over-reinforced FRP RC beams. showing that the cross sectional properties seem not to be major factors affecting the structural reliability.

depending upon whether the ultimate FRP strain (area 1) or the concrete ultimate compressive strain (area 2) is reached.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars concrete crushing and FRP rupture are acceptable failure modes in governing the design of FRP-RC members provided that strength and serviceability criteria are satisfied. as follows: ε fd = 0. εfd is computed from the characteristic tensile strain. neutral axis position ε cu x 1 h d Af 2 d1 b εfd Figure 2 .Failure Modes of FRP RC Section 43 .9 accounts for the lower ultimate strain of specimens subjected to flexure as compared to specimens subjected to standard tensile tests.9) where the coefficient 0. εfk. The maximum FRP tensile strain εfd is reached. The maximum concrete compressive strain εcu as defined by the current Italian building code is reached. two types of failure may be accounted for.9 ⋅ηa ⋅ ε fk γf (3. With reference to the illustrative scheme shown in Figure 2. 2.8) It is assumed that flexural failure takes place when one of the following conditions is met: 1. Assumptions in CNR-DT 203/2006 method are as follows: Design at ultimate limit state requires that the factored ultimate moment MSd and the flexural capacity MRd of the FRP RC element satisfy the following inequality: M Sd ≤ M Rd (3.

the modulus of elasticity of GFRP bars. fabrication and analysis method. while the ultimate strain of FRP has not been attained yet. for elements whose failure is initiated either by the crushing of concrete or rupture of the FRP bars.4. µx. Moreover. These quantities are often considered to be deterministic. x. For a random variable. statistical descriptors (mean. Ef. Among all these properties. are dealt with as the random variables that affect the resistance of GFRP-RC sections. Failure occurring in area 2 takes place due to concrete crushing. b.9). finally. defined by the relationship (3. concrete compressive strength. standard deviation. second. while in reality there is some uncertainty associated with each quantity. Accounting for such uncertainties is achieved in three steps: first. widths. the important variables affecting the flexural strength of GFRP-RC members are identified. MonteCarlo simulations and comparisons with experimental results are carried out to develop a resistance model that accounts for variability in material properties. section geometry. and concrete properties. the effective depth. The following parameters are needed to accurately describe the properties of the variables statistically: • Mean: this is the most likely value of the observations. according to the current Italian building code. the member width. creating a sample design space by considering different GFRP reinforcement ratios. design at ULS can be conducted by assuming a simplified distribution of the normal stresses for concrete (“stress block”). fc. d. is defined as: 44 . The resistance of a member is typically a function of material strength. and distribution type) for all variables are found. thicknesses. and dimensions. geometric and material properties of reinforcing GFRP bars. the mean value.4 Variables Affecting the Flexural Strength of GFRP-RC Members The parameters that affect the flexural strength of GFRP-RC members include cross sectional properties. is treated as a deterministic design variable in the assessment.Chapter III Failure occurring in area 1 is attained by reaching the design strain in the FRP bars: any strain diagram corresponding to such failure mode has its fixed point at the limit value of εfd. 3. and concrete strengths.

Vx.11) Coefficient of Variation (COV): the coefficient of variation. The probability of x falling between a and b is obtained by integrating the PDF over this interval: 45 . is calculated as: Vx = σx µx (3. µx xn (3. σx.12) • Bias: Bias is the ratio between the mean of the sample to the reported nominal value: λx = where xn is the nominal value of variable x. and cumulative distribution function (CDF).13) In addition to these parameters. estimates the spread of data from the mean and is calculated as: σx = • ∫ (x − µ ) −∞ x +∞ 2 f x ( x)dx (3.10) Standard deviation: Standard deviation. fx(x) (see Figure 3).Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars µ x = E[ x] = ∫ • +∞ −∞ xf x ( x)dx (3. Fx(x) (see Figure 4). any random variable is defined by its probability density function (PDF). the description of the probability distributions is also necessary to define a variable.

15) that: 46 .15) It is clear from Eqs.Chapter III P (a < x ≤ b) = ∫ f x ( x)dx a b (3.14) and (3.14) Figure 3 .PDF of X The CDF describes the probability that the set of all random variables takes on a value less than or equal to a number: P ( X ≤ x) = −∞ ∫ x f x ( x)dx = FX ( x) (3. (3.

Graphical Representation of Relationship between PDF and CDF In this study.17): 47 . and the standard deviation. which indicates the spread of the PDF curve. (3. µx . the following probability distributions have been taken into account: • Normal or Gaussian Distribution: If a variable is normally distributed then two quantities have to be specified: the mean. σx.16) Figure 4 . The PDF for a normal random variable X is given by Eq.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars f x ( x) = d Fx ( x) dx (3. which coincides with the peak of the PDF curve.

tables have been developed to provide values of the CDF for the special case in which µx = 0 and σx = 1.Chapter III fX ( X ) = 1 σx ⎡ 1 ⎛ X − µ ⎞2 ⎤ x exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ 2π ⎢ 2 ⎝ σx ⎠ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ (3.18) ⎡ ⎛ X ⎞m ⎤ FX = 1 − exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⎢ ⎝ σ0 ⎠ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ (3.19) 48 . • Weibull Distribution: In most civil engineering applications.19). respectively (see also Figure 5): ⎡ ⎛ X ⎞m ⎤ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⎢ ⎝ σ0 ⎠ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ f X ( X ) = mσ −m o X m −1 (3. These tables can be used to obtain values for any general normal distribution. the PDF and CDF distributions for the Weibull random variable.17) Since there is no closed-form solution for the CDF of a Normal random variable.18) and (3. (3. X. are given by Eqs.

08 (3.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Figure 5 .Graphical Representation of Weibull Distribution The relationships between the two Weibull parameters m and σ0 with µX and σX are complex. 49 . therefore the following simplified equations are used: m = COV −1.20) (3. • Gumbel Distribution: It is used to represent the minimum or maximum of a series of observations derived from different observations.21) σ0 = µ ⎛1 ⎞ Γ ⎜ + 1⎟ ⎝m ⎠ where Γ [ ] is the gamma function. In Figure 5 the values m = 8 and σ 0 = 950 have been used. assuming different shapes if referred to the minimum (see Figure 6) or maximum (see Figure 7).

23) Figure 6 . (3.Chapter III The PDF of a Gumbel distribution is defined as: fX (X ) = where: z= X −µ 1 e− e z σ (3.Gumbel PDF and CDF Referred to Minimum Values 50 .22) σ .

x > 0 . Here the Normal distribution will be adopted to model the concrete compressive strength. regardless of their probability distribution.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Figure 7 . ζ = ln ⎢1 + ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ .26) The Lognormal function is often used to model the concrete compressive strength (Sorensen et al. 51 .24) The Lognormal distribution represents the limit of random variables product when their number goes to infinite.Gumbel PDF and CDF Referred to Maximum Values • Lognormal Distribution: It is obtained from a Normal variable Y with the following transformation: X = exp(Y ) . 2001). ζ ζ 2π ⎠ ⎥ ⎢ 2⎝ ⎣ ⎦ (3. although most of researchers still refer to the Normal distribution. The PDF of a Lognormal distribution is defined as (see also Figure 8): ⎡ 1 ⎛ ln( X ) − λ ⎞ 2 ⎤ 1 x exp ⎢ − ⎜ fX ( X ) = ⎟ ⎥. computed as: ⎡ ⎛ σ ⎞2 ⎤ λx = ln( µ ) − . respectively. 2 ⎢ ⎝µ⎠ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ζ2 (3..25) where λx and ζ are the mean and standard deviation of ln(X). (3.

02 and 0. as reported hereafter: • Geometrical properties: The bias and COV of b. two nominal values A and B were considered.00 and 1. Nowak and Szerszen 2003.4. To make the assessment more general. d values are proportionally related to b. and Nowak and Szerszen (2003) and summarized in Table 4. and for each of them the relationships reported in Table 4 were considered. Ellingwood 1995). both the geometrical variables are assumed to have Normal distribution. (1980).5% and 7. Nowak and Collins 2000. 52 .0 %. h and d range between 1.Lognormal PDF and CDF 3.5 Statistical Properties A literature review was carried out to select the proper statistical characteristics for each random design variable (Okeil et al. respectively. two extreme nominal values (A and B) were selected for each random design variable. • Concrete Compressive Strength: Statistical properties of concrete are well documented in Ellingwood et al. 2002.Chapter III Figure 8 . The random variable describing the compressive strength of concrete. fc. is assumed to be normally distributed.

66 µ =dA-4.4 bB µ=bB+2. and then two different reliability analyses have been carried out separately by applying the same approach but defining different design spaces and deriving different conclusions. Data on the statistical properties of GFRP bars have been taken into account (see Table 4) according to the values suggested by Pilakoutas et al. fc) as reported in Table 5.67 41.70 µ=27.7 1 0.4. this assumption is well established in the literature (Okeil et al. 3.94 4 GFRP Strength ffk [MPa] 743. In this study.70 σ=12.66 µ=dB-4.4 Ef (GFRP bars) = 45 GPa Weibull 3.1 Design Space for Beams Two extreme nominal values (A and B) were selected for each random design variable (b.70 σ=12.6 Sample Design Space Developing the resistance models for FRP-RC members requires investigating a wide range of realistic parameters in the design space. as well as thirty ratios of ρf/ρfb. (2002). only one nominal value was considered.4 1.16 1 0.9 1 Normal Effective Depth d [mm] 0. 2000) and has been verified experimentally through tests of composite specimens with different size and stress distribution.6.34 Normal σ=2.85 µ=810 σ=40.70 µ=46.97 1 1. beams and slabs are designed following the recommendations published by CNR-DT 203/2006.8 1 5.95·hB Normal Concrete Strength fck [MPa] 20.Statistical Properties of Main Variables Design Variable Minimum Nominal Value (A) Mean µ & Standard Deviation σ Bias & COV (%) Maximum Nominal Value (B) Mean µ & Standard Deviation σ Bias & COV (%) Probability Distribution Base b [mm] bA µ=bA+2.8·hA 0. being ρf the 53 . Table 4 .54 σ=3.54 σ=3.5 10 1 5 σ=1.4.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars • Tensile Strength of GFRP Bars: The tensile strength of GFRP reinforcement is assumed to follow the Weibull theory. d.

2 Design Space for Slabs Similarly to the design space for beams. etc.28 42.6. is a random variable as well.Nominal Values of Random Variables for Beams Design Minimum Maximum Variable Nominal Value (A) Nominal Value (B) b [mm] 200 500 d [mm] 240 1425 fck [MPa] 23.4.Chapter III reinforcement ratio of FRP bars. which are random design variables.85 ⋅ ε cu . Table 5 .Nominal Values of Random Variables for Slabs Design Variable Nominal Value (A) Nominal Value (B) Nominal Value (B) d [mm] fck [MPa] 100 23. A design space made of 23·30=240 design cases was thus defined.97 3. Table 6 . with a design space made of 2·3·30=180 design cases (see Table 6). in the case of slabs three nominal values were assigned to d and two to fc (with b=1000mm). MR.28 250 42. and ρfb the corresponding balanced value. f fk ⋅ (ε cu + ε fk ) (3. the modulus of elasticity.4. defined as: ρ fb = f ck ⋅ 0.7 Resistance Models for Flexural Capacity of FRP-RC Members As the flexural capacity of an FRP-RC member depends on the material and cross sectional properties. its flexural capacity. 54 . Three main categories of possible sources of uncertainty can be identified when considering the nominal strength rather than the actual (random) strength (Ellingwood. as well as thirty ratios of ρf/ρfb.97 400 3.27) where ε cu is the maximum concrete compressive strain. 2003) • Material properties (M): the uncertainties associated with material properties are uncertainties in the strength of the material.

λM R .1 Uncertainties due to the Analysis Method The reliability of the analysis method has been assessed by comparing experimental values of the flexural capacity available in literature. VF and VP are the coefficients of variation of M. the moment of inertia. bias. the bias factor. and P. COV.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars • Fabrication (F): these are the uncertainties in the overall dimensions of the member which can affect the cross-sectional area. etc. and P respectively. Mth. R (3. derived using the analysis method proposed by the CNR-DT 203/2006.28) where µM . λF and λP are the bias factors and VM .e. F. VM R . hence the mean value of the resistance model can be expressed as: µM = M n ⋅ µM ⋅ µF ⋅ µP . Theriault and Benmokrane 1998. • Analysis (P): the uncertainty resulting from the specific method of analysis used to predict behavior.30) 2 VM R = VM + VF2 + VP2 where λM . describing the resistance model of MR. are given as: λM = λM ⋅ λF ⋅ λP R (3. Pecce et al. Each of these uncertainties has its own statistical properties. Mexp (Saadatmanesh 1994. 3. the reliability study will assess such effects separately from those of M and F. by using the following formulations: 55 . 2000.29) (3. and µP are the mean values of M. respectively and M n is the nominal flexural capacity of member. Aiello and Ombres 2000) with the corresponding analytical values. and distribution type. Accordingly. µF . and the COV factor. i. F.7. As the uncertainty due to the analysis method yields significant effects on the probability of failure and consequently on the reliability index.4. β.

67% (3. The procedure given below is applicable to any type of distribution function. 3.4. VMF .2 Uncertainties due to Material (M) and Fabrication (F) Monte-Carlo simulations are performed to determine λM . 2. λF .Chapter III λP = µ ⎜ ⎛ M exp ⎞ ⎟ ⎝ M th ⎠ (3.12 VP = 15. The Monte-Carlo simulation method is a special technique to generate some results numerically without doing any physical testing.34) The effects of uncertainties due to M and F will be computed in function of the design space selected. Generate a sample value ui for a uniformly distributed random variable between 0 and 1. resulted from these simulations. and coefficient of variation. VM and VF by varying randomly generated values for material properties and dimensions simultaneously. To generate random values xi for the random variable.7. Consider a random variable X with a CDF FX ( x) . The probability distribution information can be effectively used to generate random numerical data.31) ⎛ M exp ⎞ VP = COV ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ M th ⎠ (3. the following steps should be followed: 1. λMF . 56 . in this way a combined bias. where Fx−1 is the inverse of FX ( x) .32) The following values were derived: λP = 1. Calculate a sample value xi from the formulation: xi = Fx−1 (ui ) . The basis of Monte-Carlo simulations is the generation of random numbers that are uniformly distributed between 0 and 1.33) (3.

hence the flexural capacity trend is well represented by a Normaltype distribution. The definition of the analytical model that better fits the flexural capacity trend has been attained by studying the statistical distribution obtained using the Monte-Carlo simulations. for ρf/ρfb=0. for example. VMF . and the COV. The mean and standard deviation of the flexural capacities computed by using the limit state design approach illustrated in par. for each design case. the bias. 3. in fact: • For sections having ρf/ρfb≤1 the member failure is governed by the GFRP reinforcement failure. both for beams and slabs. This is confirmed by the observation of probability charts available for both Weibull and Normal distributions.4. Appendix A reports.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Knowing the CDF and basic parameters of the distribution. λMF . the flexural capacity Mr. so that the flexural capacity trend is well represented by a Weibull-type distribution. as shown in Figure 9: 57 . the mean and standard deviation of Mr distribution. • For sections having ρf/ρfb>1 the member failure is governed by the concrete crushing.8 the flexural capacity data set is better represented by a Weibull-type distribution. it has been concluded that the distribution type that better represents the flexural capacity trend depends on the design case and in particular on the ratio ρf/ρfb considered. random numbers can be generated for a particular variable.3 for 50000 of randomly generated values for each design case (out of 240 for beams and 180 for slabs) is obtained.

Chapter III Figure 9 . These results are derived both for beams and slabs.Comparison between Data Sets (ρf/ρfb=0. when considering sections with ρf/ρfb=1.8) Reported on Normal and Weibull Charts Similarly. but it only depends on the reinforcement ratio of the section. the related data set will be better fitted by a Normal-type distribution rather than by a Weibull one. 58 . as shown in Figure 10. therefore it can be assumed that the flexural capacity trend of the considered design cases does not depend on the specific type of member analyzed.2.

2002. represent the weight of people and their possessions.Comparison between Data Sets (ρf/ρfb=1. and other non permanent objects. since the magnitude 59 . The works considered in this study induced to adopt a bias.8 Used Load Model Dead loads (D) and live loads (L) often acting on FRP RC members of civil structures are the two load categories considered in this study. furniture.2) Reported on Normal and Weibull Charts 3. it is normally treated as a Normal random variable in literature (Okeil et al. movable equipments. L. because of the control over construction materials. of 10 %. Nowak and Collins 2000. Ellingwood et al. it is assumed that the accuracy to estimate dead loads is higher compared to that of live loads.4. 1980. The dead load considered in design is the gravity load due to the self weight of the structure.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Figure 10 . the area under consideration plays an important role in the statistical properties of live loads. VD .0 and a coefficient of variation. La Tegola 1998). λD. The live loads. of 1.

f cd = f ck γ c . λD. Qi. 2002. and of the GFRP reinforcement design strength. In other words the resistance factor φ turns into material safety factors herein. φ. To evaluate the reliability index of the designed GFRP RC beams and slabs. 1980. a Gumbel-type distribution was chosen to represent the live loads. Plevris et al.9 Reliability Analysis The LRFD design code specifies a strength equation in the following format: φ Rn ≥ ∑ γ QiQi . La Tegola 1998) led to assume a bias. Ellingwood et al.M.PP. equal to 1. flexural resistance. VL.35) where the nominal resistance of a structural member. (3.4.0 and a COV. 1995. equal to 25%. 60 .Statistical Properties for Dead Loads and Live Loads Load Dead (D) Live (L) Bias 1. γ Qi . is reduced by a resistance factor. (3. Table 7 summarizes the statistical properties considered for dead and live loads. 2004. in this study the limit state function consists of three random variables. The Standard Codes referenced in this study (Eurocode 2.9 ⋅ηa ⋅ f fk γ f .Chapter III of load intensity decreases as the area contributing to the live load increases. Rn.LL.36) where M rd is the design flexural capacity of member. computed as a function of the concrete design strength. while the applied loads. The values of φ and γ Qi are set to ensure that members designed according to this design equation have a low probability of failure that is less than a small target value. are increased by the load factors. namely γ c and γ f . Nowak and Collins 2000. f fd = 0. The studies considered herein (Okeil et al. D. 09/01/1996) prescribe that the following relationship shall be applied: M rd ≥ ∑ γ QiQi . Table 7 .05 1 COV (%) 10 25 Distribution Type Normal Gumbel 3.

4 and 1. In the current analysis.41) given γ D .41).Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars MR. it is possible to derive the applied moment value. as depicted 61 .5.5. for example: ML =1. M L ) = M r − (M D + M L ) . M D . five different ratios M L M D have been considered. 2. γ L and M rd it is possible to derive M D and M L from eq. M S = M L + M D . MD (3. Assuming a defined ratio of M L M D . and applied bending moment due to live load effects. respectively. the higher or lower predominance of M L over M D influences the probability distribution representing the applied moment. the coefficients γ D and γ L prescribed by the current guidelines (D. ML: G(M r . whereas the load demands are computed with the design equation of the current guidelines (CNR-DT 203/2006).PP. 1. 2. namely 0.38) that replaced in equation: γ D M D + γ L M L = M rd . (3.LL.39) (3.5. 1. (3.37) the statistical properties of MD and ML for building loads are discussed earlier in this chapter. MD. 09/01/1996) are 1. gives: M D (γ D + γ L ) = M L (γ D + γ L ) = M rd . applied bending moment due to dead load effects.5. (3.40) or: MD = ML = M rd γD +γL (3.M.

62 .PDFs of Ms for ML/MD=0. computing for the randomly extracted values the flexural capacity according to the ULS design. This will be done separately for beams and slabs.Chapter III in Figure 11. secondly.5 and 2. the uncertainties due to factors M. Finally the reliability index is computed for the design cases assumed in function of both M L M D and γf. Figure 11 . The statistical properties of M S will be thus derived depending on the specific ratio M L M D .5 (γf=2) The statistical properties of M r are obtained employing the Monte-Carlo sampling already explained. F and P are taken into account as well.

5) and overreinforced sections (ρf/ρfb>2. by varying the ratios M L M D and ρf/ρfb. 63 . The partial safety factor for FRP reinforcement suggested in the CNR-DT203. In the first case. steady values of β corresponding to under-reinforced (ρf/ρfb<0.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars It must be highlighted that the reliability index will be investigated in two different ways. regardless of the specific ratio M L M D : • • • • for design cases corresponding to ρf/ρfb<0.9<ρf/ρfb<1. the reliability index β predominantly increases when the reinforcement ratio increases. has been considered initially.4. that is considering the characteristic or the design values of materials.10 Reliability Index of Beams Following the procedure explained in the previous paragraph.or over-reinforced sections to balanced failing sections. in compliance with the research works available in literature (see § 3.5). until a constant value for ρf/ρfb>2. γf=1.2).5 the reliability index β decreases when the reinforcement ratio increases. different zones can be identified. This will be better explained in the following sections. the reliability index β slightly decreases when the reinforcement ratio increases.0. namely by distinguishing the two possible failure modes or not. where the materials are best exploited and then with the highest structural reliability values.5<ρf/ρfb<0. Summarizing.5.9. a central zone with the maximum values of β corresponding to the balanced failing sections.5. the reliability index has been initially computed for each of the 240 design cases related to beams. the reliability index β is nearly constant and then independent of the reinforcement ratio. The diagram reported in Figure 12 allows deducing the following remarks. for design cases corresponding to 0. two further types of classifications can be used. 3. when 0. and two transition zones with β variable going from under.0<ρf/ρfb<2. for design cases corresponding to 1.4. depending on ρf/ρfb: two edge zones of low.5.

dB. so as to produce both GFRP failure and concrete failure of the section. respectively.5 1 1. β is strongly variable within the design space considered.5 2 ML/MD=2.G 64 .5 and 2. nevertheless.1.e.5 and for two design cases.R0. i. In brief.5 to 12.11 Reliability Index of Beams Depending on γf and on ML/MD The reliability index β has been assessed also when varying γf.5 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 0 0.3. in correspondence of two specific values of ρf/ρfb.5 ρ f/ρ fb Figure 12 . that means a higher probability of failure. lower values of mechanical and geometrical properties correspond to lower reliability and higher probability of failure.2.5 β 2. and then with lower values of β. 3. the reliability index is significantly influenced by the reinforcement ratio ρf/ρfb and by the specific design cases taken into account.bB. Figure 13 shows the trend of Ms and Mr when varying γf. with larger intersection of Mr and Ms PDF curves. However. namely between 1 and 2 with steps of 0. so that the probability distribution bell will more scattered.5. for the design case CB.5 ML/MD=1 ML/MD=0.Chapter III γ f=1. with M L M D = 2. A higher COV means a higher standard deviation when fixing the mean value.5 ML/MD=2 ML/MD=1. namely 0.Trend of β vs ρf/ρfb and ML/MD (γf=1. which means by the mechanical and geometrical properties considered.5. BEAMS) It can also be noticed that design cases with minimum values of both the mechanical and the geometrical properties (nominal values A) have statistical distributions of Mr with higher values of COV and constant bias values.4. ranging from 4.

although this occurs only for γf>1.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars (Appendix A points out the meaning of design case ID name). such that the PDF of Ms approaches that of Mr. Figure 13 .PDF of Ms and Mr vs γf (ρf/ρfb=0. when 1. fixing γc=1. where the two modes of failure have been set apart and plotted separately: sections failing by GFRP rupture have a decreasing reliability when γf decreases.6) means increasing the probability of failure of member. The dependence on γf for concrete crushing sections when γf>1. after taking into account the design values of strengths 65 .5.4. whereas sections failing by concrete crushing have an even higher reduction of reliability when γf decreases.5. in compliance with the concept that reducing the limitation on the material strength (in particular that of GFRP. ML/MD=2. In this specific case it can be noticed that when γf decreases Ms increases.0<γf<1. BEAMS) The trend of β vs γf for the two design cases analyzed is reported in Figure 14.4 the weight of γf on these sections disappear and β settles to a constant value (≈7). the intersection area between the two curves will increase and then reliability β will decrease.4 occurs because with respect to the initial sorting of sections failing by concrete crushing when the characteristic strengths are accounted for.

f fd = 0.4 for the specific design cases considered.0 8.5 β 2 1.3 [BEAMS] 3.5 6.5 7. Regardless of ML/MD The dependence of the reliability index on γ f for the 240 design cases (beams) has been assessed for the five ratios ML/MD (1200 design cases overall).1 1 γf Figure 14 . so that concrete crushing sections will have a dependence on γf when the failure mode switches to GFRP failure due to the introduction of partial safety factors γ c and γ f .4. It can be concluded that when the failure mode is due to GFRP rupture (ρf/ρfb≤1) β regularly decreases when γ f decreases as well.5 10. below which β will get to a constant value.5 and ρf/ρfb=0.0 Concrete failure FRP failure 10.2 1.5 8. when the failure mode is due to concrete crushing (ρf/ρfb>1) β still decreases when γ f decreases.Trend of β vs γf for MD/ML =2.0 9.6 1. as shown in Figure 15: 66 .7 1.5 ρ f/ρ fb=2.3 1.5 11.Chapter III ( f cd = f ck γ c .5.8 1.9 ⋅ηa ⋅ f fk γ f ) the failure mode may switch in some cases.0 5. but only until a value equal to 1.5 9.0 6.2.5 1.9 1. was plotted in function of γ f . a mean value of β.12 Reliability Index of Beams Depending on γf. 0.4 1. M l/M d=2.3. β0.0 7.

50 7. as it is expected. since they satisfy the balanced failure mode.00 Concrete failure FRP failure 9.04 found with this 67 .6 1.50 6.1 1 β0 γf Figure 15 .08 ( β 0 = 6.9 1. BEAMS] The two failure modes curves intersect in two points.4 ) and γ f = 1.00 6.00 8.08 .00 5. concrete failures only occur for 1 < γ f < 1. it can be also observed that points with γ f = 1. since it reduces the GFRP reinforcement strength less than the other one and together it corresponds to a satisfactory level of safety of member.50 9.β0 vs γf for all ML/MD Ratios and all ρf/ρfb [ffk.5 correspond to a good level of safety ( β 0 > 7. which can be deemed as the maximum threshold value for flexural RC members at ULS (see Table 3). the optimum value of γ f = 1. Nevertheless. being β 0 > β min = 5 (Pf=10-7). corresponding to γ f = 1.5 1.fck. obtained by considering the ratios ρf/ρfb accounting for the characteristic values of material strengths.8 1. although the limitation on the strength of FRP reinforcement can be considered too penalizing and cost-ineffective.65 ( β 0 = 8. It is believed that for the 1200 design cases considered the value of γ f to be preferred is γ f = 1. which can be deemed as optimum points.50 8. It must be underlined that the classification proposed to plot β0 vs γf. turns into the plot of Figure 16 when accounting for the design values of materials strengths: no failure mode switch takes place.3 1.3 ).2 1. Nevertheless.7 1.6 and within this range the concrete failures do not depend on γ f .50 2 1.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 10.4 1.5 ).00 7.

as reported in Appendix A.0 ) higher than those failing by concrete crushing ( β 0 ∼ 6.9 1.7. with respect to Figure 15 trend. 68 . such influence has been assessed for the selected beams design cases by applying the concepts examined in par.5 6.5 9.6 1. no intersection between the two curves and then no optimum point is attained.4. fabrication and analytical method influence the reliability index. whereas the M and F factors strictly depend on them.1 and in par. yet.3 1. accounting for the influence of the three parameters.0 Concrete failure 9. Moreover. M and F The material properties.7 1.0 5. combining the values of bias and COV for all the design cases.4 ). whereas points with γ f = 1.0 8.Chapter III classification is very close to the one derived before ( γ f = 1. since the ductile failure mode occurs more likely.4. 10. thus giving the diagram of Figure 17.β0 vs γf for for all ML/MD Ratios and all ρf/ρfb [ffd. that is carrying out a more refined and rigorous analysis. It can be noticed that. BEAMS] 3. 3.13 Reliability Index of Beams Accounting for P. 3. which can be deemed a good result.0 7.08 ).7.5 FRP failure β0 2 1. a considerable reduction in the reliability level will be brought.5 1.5 correspond to a level of safety of FRP failing sections ( β 0 = 8.1 1 γf Figure 16 .4 1.fcd.0 6.5 8.4. the trend of the two curves did not change from a qualitative standpoint.8 1.2: the P factor influence is independent on the design cases selected.2 1.5 7. λM R and VM R have been derived.

Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars

5,00

**Concrete failure FRP failure
**

4,50

4,00

β0

3,50

3,00 2 1,9 1,8 1,7 1,6 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1

γf

Figure 17 - β0 vs γf Accounting for P, M and F Factors [BEAMS]

3.4.14 Reliability Index of Beams Depending on γf and γc The dependence of the reliability index on both γf and γc was investigated as well, as

reported in Figure 18, where β 0,TOT refers to both failure modes. The trend of the reliability index related to the 1200 design cases can be explained as follows: for values of γ f > 1.6 the reliability is not influenced by the specific value of γ c , because the failure mode is governed by the FRP rupture exclusively; when 1 < γ f < 1.6 , for a fixed value of γ f , β 0,TOT increases when γc increases, as expected, since to a higher limitation on the concrete strength developed corresponds a higher level of safety of the structure. The flattening of the three diagrams for 1 < γ f < 1.6 with respect to the trend derived when γ f > 1.6 is due to the fact that the FRP failure decreasing trend combines with the constant trend of the concrete failure.

69

Chapter III

gamma_c=1,6 gamma_c=1,4 gamma_c=1,2

10 9.5 9 8.5 8 7.5 7

β 0TOT

6.5 6 5.5 5 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1

γf

Figure 18 - β0TOT vs γf and γc [BEAMS]

3.4.15 Minimum Reliability Index of Beams A different representation of the reliability index behavior has been accomplished by

minimizing the following sum of squares with respect to γ f and γc: 1 nc

∑ (β

m =1

nc

m

− β min ) 2 ,

(3.42)

where nc = total number of design cases; and β m = reliability index for case m ( β min = 5 ); the diagram depicted in Figure 19 has been derived; it shows that the value of γ f that minimizes quantity 3.41 is lower than unity, confirming that all points with γ f > 1 satisfy the minimum reliability index requirement.

β min=5

gamma_c=1.4 gamma_c=1.6 gamma_c=1.2 25 30

20

β min>5

15

10

β min<5

5

0 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

γf

Figure 19 - Average Deviation from βmin vs γf and γc [BEAMS]

70

1/n cΣ(β m-β T)2

Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars

If varying also the values of β min the trends in Figure 20 are obtained (setting

**γc=1.6). It can be noticed that while all points satisfy the minimum requirement for
**

3 < β min < 6 , when β min = 7 only points with γ f > 1.15 correspond to β > β min ; whereas when β min = 8 only points with γ f > 1.4 correspond to β > β min ; this confirms that for the design space considered a good level of safety is attained for

**γ f = 1.5 , although better results in terms of cost effectiveness and exploitation of
**

FRP strength could be reached.

beta_min=3 beta_min=4 beta_min=5 beta_min=6 beta_min=7 beta_min=8

50

40

30

20

10

0 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5

γf

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1

Figure 20 - Average Deviation from Different βmin vs γf and γc [BEAMS]

Finally, the extreme values of β 0,TOT have been plotted depending on γf (see Figure 21, in order to show that although the minimum values of β 0,TOT are lower than

**β min = 5 (maximum threshold value for flexural RC members at ULS, with Pf=10-7),
**

in any case it satisfies the minimum threshold of Table 3, i.e. β 0,TOT_min > 4,265 , where 4,265 corresponds to the minimum threshold prescribed by BS EN 1990:2002 for flexural RC members at ULS (Pf=10-5).

71

1/ncΣ(β m-β T)2

7 1.9 1.3 1.5). the reliability index has been initially computed for each of the 180 design cases related to slabs.1 1 γf Figure 21 . where the materials are best exploited and then with the highest structural reliability values.5.6 1. steady values of β corresponding to under-reinforced (ρf/ρfb<0.dev b_mean-st.8 1. by varying the ratios M L M D and ρf/ρfb.dev b_min b_max 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 β 0TOT 2 1.Estreme values of β0TOT vs γf [BEAMS] 3.Chapter III b_mean b_mean+st. γf=1.4.4 1. 72 .5) and over-reinforced sections (ρf/ρfb>2.16 Reliability Index of Slabs Following the procedure explained in the previous paragraphs. The partial safety factor for FRP reinforcement suggested in the CNR-DT203.or over-reinforced sections to balanced failing sections.5 1. a central zone with the maximum values of β corresponding to the balanced failing sections. has been considered initially. From the diagram reported in Figure 22 it can be noticed that the same remarks derived for beams may be summarized here: two edge zones of low.2 1. and two transition zones with β variable going from under.

and identify values of β 0 > β min = 5 for γ f > 1. was plotted in function of γ f . The two trends of the two modes of failure do not show any intersection point.5 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 0. as shown in Figure 23.1 considered as an optimum value for beams design cases.Trend of β vs ρf/ρfb and ML/MD (γf=1. the value γ f = 1.1 when sections fail by FRP breaking. β0. does not match a satisfactory reliability level when referred to slabs design cases.5 ML/MD=2 ML/MD=1.5 ML/MD=2. SLABS) ρ f/ρ fb 3. although the different design spaces make such comparison vain. Therefore.5 β Figure 22 . a general decrease of the reliability index values can be observed. 73 .4 when sections fail by concrete crushing. With respect to the corresponding values derived for beams (Figure 15).5 2 2. the mean value of β.5 1 1.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars γ f=1. Regardless of ML/MD The dependence of the reliability index on γ f for the 180 design cases (slabs) has been assessed for the five ratios ML/MD (900 design cases overall). The value γ f = 1.5.4.5 proposed by the CNR-DT 203/2006 is enough reliable for the design cases investigated.5 ML/MD=1 ML/MD=0. and for γ f > 1.17 Reliability Index of Slabs Depending on γf.

50 4.5 1.β0 vs γf for all ML/MD Ratios and all ρf/ρfb [SLABS] 3. with respect to the trend of Figure 23.9 1.00 2 1.00 5.8 1.Chapter III 7.18 Reliability Index of Slabs Accounting for P.50 6.4 1.00 Concrete failure FRP failure 6. 74 .1 1 γf Figure 23 . fabrication and analytical method influences have been assessed for the selected slabs design cases by applying the concepts already applied for beams.7 1. As for beams.50 β0 5. M and F The material properties.2 1.00 4. the trend of the two curves did not change from a qualitative standpoint.4.3 1. although a reduction in the reliability level is achieved. thus giving the diagram of Figure 24.6 1.

50 Concrete failure FRP failure 4. fabrication process (F) and analysis method (P). A structural reliability analysis has been conducted based on the established resistance models and load models obtained from literature. γ f . β.00 2.5 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS A reliability-based calibration of partial safety factors has been applied to assess the reliability levels of the ultimate limit state (ULS) flexural design suggested by the Italian guidelines CNR-DT 203/2006.3 1. whereas experimental data reported in the literature have been used to quantify the variability related to the analysis method. concrete strengths and FRP reinforcement ratios) used to develop resistance models for FRP-RC members.00 3. 240 FRP-RC beams and 180 FRP-RC slabs have been designed to cover a wide design space considering an appropriate set of random design variables (crosssectional dimensions. the following conclusions can be drawn: 75 .50 β0 3.β0 vs γf Accounting for P.5 1. and on the uncertainty effects due to material properties (M). has been assessed in different hypotheses.50 2.8 1. ML/MD.00 2 1.7 1.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 4. The reliability index.4 1. calculated using FORM for all FRP-RC beams and slabs for five ratios of live load to dead load moments. M and F Factors [SLABS] 3. Monte-Carlo simulations have been performed to determine the variability in material properties and fabrication processes.1 1 γf Figure 24 .2 1. namely depending on ρf/ρfb.6 1.9 1.

5 ).1 . Regardless of member type (beams or slabs) and specific design considered. The value γ f = 1. and two transition zones with β variable going from under. does not match a satisfactory reliability level when referred to slabs. five different zones can be identified. depending on ρf/ρfb: two edge zones of low. 3. For the 1200 design cases related to beam-type members (240 design cases by 5 ratios ML/MD) the value of γ f to be preferred is γ f = 1. 4.1 considered as an optimum value for beams. The value γ f = 1.5). steady values of β corresponding to under-reinforced (ρf/ρfb<0. although a wide range of design cases has been covered and statistical properties available in literature have been assigned to design variables. although the limitation on the strength of FRP reinforcement can be considered too penalizing and cost-ineffective. it can be also observed that points with γ f = 1. Nevertheless.4 > β min = 5 at ULS). a central zone with the maximum values of β corresponding to the balanced failing sections. More thorough and refined results will be attained with the research growth in the field of composites. 2. depending on the design values of materials strengths rather than on the corresponding characteristic values. 76 . a general decrease of the reliability can be observed when accounting for the 900 slabs design cases in correspondence of the same values of γ f .or overreinforced sections to balanced failing sections. The research work carried out is strictly dependent on the specific design cases taken into account. where the materials are best exploited and then with the highest structural reliability values. With respect to the values derived for beams.Chapter III 1. as it slightly reduces the GFRP reinforcement strength and together it corresponds to a satisfactory level of safety of the member ( β 0 = 6. Similar conclusions are derived if considering a different classification of results.5) and over-reinforced sections (ρf/ρfb>2.5 proposed by the CNR-DT 203/2006 is enough reliable for the slabs design cases investigated.5 (current value proposed in the CNR-DT 203/2006) correspond to a good level of safety ( β 0 ≥ 7.

F and P.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 5. 77 . 6. When accounting for M. likewise. This study focuses exclusively on the flexural behavior of GFRP-RC beams and slabs and assumes that the other modes of failure such as shear failure and bond failure do not control the design. regardless of the design space selected. Similar kinds of research should be conducted for other modes of failure. the trend of the reliability index vs γ f is similar to that obtained without the contribution of the three factors. CFRP and AFRP).e. yet a general reduction in the reliability level is observed. it would be worth to extend this research study to other types of reinforcement (i.

3. Stress limitation. the following equation can be used: 78 . Deflection control.Chapter IV Chapter IV SERVICEABILITY FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR 4.5 mm. At SLS. such that under no circumstances crack width of FRP reinforced structures shall be higher than 0. 09/01/1996 or Eurocode 2. crack width shall be checked in order to guarantee a proper use of the structure as well as to protect the FRP reinforcement. Since experimental tests on FRP reinforced members (with the exception of smooth bars) showed the suitability of the relationships provided by the EC2 for computation of both distance between cracks and concrete stiffening.2 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES The present paragraph deals with the most frequent serviceability limit states. whereas the stress in the concrete shall be limited according to the current building codes (D.PP. Cracking control.1 INTRODUCTION In this chapter the approaches followed in the CNR-DT 203/2006 for the flexural design of FRP RC elements at serviceability limit states are presented. 2004). 4.LL.M. ffd being the FRP design stress at SLS computed by setting γ f = 1. and particularly those relating to: 1. 2. The stress in the FRP reinforcement at SLS under the quasi-permanent load shall satisfy the limitation σ f ≤ f fd . in particular. 1. 2. the deflection control of FRP RC members depending on the bond between FRP reinforcement and concrete is investigated.

by following the procedure to determine a different 79 . similar to those used for traditional RC members. srm is the final average distance between cracks. unless specific bond characterization of FRP bars for the investigation of deflection is carried out by the manufacturer. β is a coefficient relating average crack width to the characteristic value.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars wk = β ⋅ srm ⋅ ε fm . . . .β 2 is a non-dimensional coefficient accounting for the duration of loading (1. in mm. Experimental tests have shown that the model proposed by Eurocode 2 (EC2) when using traditional RC members can be deemed suitable for FRP RC elements too. the following EC2 equation to compute the deflection f can be considered: m m ⎡ ⎛ M cr ⎞ ⎛ M cr ⎞ ⎤ f = f1 ⋅ β1 ⋅ β 2 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ + f 2 ⋅ ⎢1 − β1 ⋅ β 2 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⎢ ⎝ M max ⎠ ⎝ M max ⎠ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ (4. Such diagram can be computed with non-linear analyses by taking into account both cracking and tension stiffening of concrete.5 for long time or cyclic loads). etc.0 for short time loads. 3. simplified analyses are possible.f 2 is the deflection of the transformed cracked section.M cr is the cracking moment calculated at the same cross section of M max .β1 = 0.1) where wk is the characteristic crack width. shrinkage. . . Therefore. . in mm.M max is the maximum moment acting on the examined element. 0. (4. and ε fm is the average strain accounting for tension stiffening.m is a bond coefficient that CNR-DT 203 prescribes “to be set equal to 2.2) where: .5 is a non-dimensional coefficient accounting for bond properties of FRP bars. Alternatively. Deflection computation for FRP reinforced members can be performed by integration of the curvature diagram.f1 is the deflection of the uncracked section.

Upon determining this value.1.3 BOND The modulus of elasticity of glass and aramid FRP bars is about one-fifth that of steel. their stiffness is about two-thirds that of steel reinforcing bars.e. On the basis of a population of at least five elements of concrete reinforced with FRP bars. Even though carbon FRP bars have a higher modulus of elasticity than glass FRP bars. Pult. Here deflections can be calculated using the following formula: m ⎡ ⎛ M ⎞m ⎤ ⎛ M cr ⎞ cr f = f1 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ + f 2 ⋅ ⎢1 − ⎜ ⎟ ⎥. computed according to Equation (4. 2000). 4. one based on the maximum likelihood method. Lower stiffness causes larger deflections and crack widths for FRP reinforced members which can affect serviceability (Toutanji and Saafi. that shall be subjected to four-points bending test. ensuring that for a single test there is a number of at least five acquisitions over time interval between 20% and 60% of the ultimate load. where the procedure to be used to determine the FRP bar-concrete adherence through appropriate tests in order to accurately evaluate deflections is described. the experimental values of deflections for the tested specimens are then compared with the corresponding theoretical values.Chapter IV value of m reported in Appendix E”.3) with the quantities already having been defined. using an appropriate statistical analysis.2) and assuming the m value obtained for the previously mentioned procedure assigned to it as well as to the coefficients β1 e β2 the unitary value. M max ⎠ ⎢ ⎝ M max ⎠ ⎥ ⎝ ⎣ ⎦ (4. i. Since an important role is 80 . deflections and crack width are measured for fixed load values. The exponent m is determined on the basis of the comparison between the analytical and experimental results. The same load values are used to calculate the theoretical deflections starting from Equation 7.

3. As a deformed bar slips with respect to the concrete along its length. beam anchorage. chemical adhesion is lost while friction and bearing forces are mobilized. the bond behavior of FRP reinforced specimens is of interest in this investigation. namely pullout. and splice tests (Figure 1). it is difficult to quantify their contribution to the overall bond behavior. 4. 81 . Frictional forces due to the roughness of the interface and the relative slip between the reinforcing bar and the surrounding concrete. Mechanical interlock between FRP deformed bar and concrete. a test method representing the direct measurement of bond stresses in actual reinforced concrete members does not exists due to the difficulty in reproducing the behavior of actual structural members in a laboratory environment. Two main mechanisms can be identified as transferring forces from the deformed FRP reinforcement to surrounding concrete: • • • Chemical adhesion between the bar and the concrete. beam-end.1 Bond Tests The bond behavior of FRP reinforced specimens is investigated using mainly four types of tests.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars played by bond between FRP bar and concrete. Because the forces interact with each other.

evaluation of the data becomes complicated because both flexural and anchorage bond stresses are present around the reinforcing bar. In this study only the beam anchorage tested specimens were taken into consideration for the calibration of bond coefficient. Beam anchorage and splice tests (the so-called four point bending tests) are designed to measure development and splice strengths in full-size flexural members. Therefore. comparison can be made regarding overall structural performance. The beam-end test is also fairly inexpensive. specimens allow random distribution of flexural cracking. These tests are considered to be most realistic for representing actual beam behavior because the flexural stresses are not affected by the loading configuration. Although pullout tests do not reflect the state of stresses in reinforced concrete structures. In addition.Chapter IV Figure 1 . nonetheless.Types of Test Methods The pullout test is widely used because it is easy and inexpensive to fabricate and the test procedure is simple. 82 . they are very useful in evaluating the load-slip relationship of reinforcing bars.

• Concrete compressive strength. 2005): • Concrete cover and bar spacing. 4. an increase in concrete strength results in an increase in bond strength. an increase in the development length of a reinforcing bar will increase the total bond force transferred between the concrete and the reinforcement. when the bonded length increases. since there is only limited data available for FRP bar reinforced specimens. for splitting failures. The forces on the surface of the bar are balanced by compressive and shear stresses on the surrounding concrete surface. bar pullout. The major factors influencing the bond behavior of FRP reinforced concrete are as follows (Pay. However Malvar (1994) found that. and concrete splitting.3. As the bar slips inside the concrete.3. • Development length. Among them. as for steel.2 Types of Failure Three main types of failures can be generally identified in bond tests: bar failure. the effectiveness of the bonded length decreases. thus the relative gain with 83 .Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 4. an increase of concrete cover and bar spacing enhances the bond capacity. bar pullout and concrete splitting are desired failure types for investigating bond strength.3 Factors Affecting Bond Bond between reinforcement and concrete is affected by many factors. The effect of concrete strength is not fully understood for FRP reinforced specimens. Nanni et al. although this aspect is less prominent for larger diameter bars. (1995) investigated the effect of concrete strength on bond behavior using pullout specimens and found that concrete strength does not have any influence on pullout failures. surface adhesion is lost and force is transferred primarily through friction between the concrete and the reinforcement and the bearing forces acting on the deformations. since failure of the bar indicates that the bar had sufficient development length and the limits of bond strength have not been tested. Splitting failure occurs if the concrete cover and spacing of the bars are small enough for a splitting plane to develop.

(1995) studied the effect of surface deformation on the bond strength of FRP reinforced specimens through pullout tests. Further study is needed to quantify this effect. 1977. 1982. This could be achieved thank to the work carried out by Dr. the bond force required to cause failure of the bar increases (Orangun et al.4 CALIBRATION OF BOND COEFFICIENT “m” A calibration analysis was conducted in compliance with the aforementioned procedure given in appendix E of CNR-DT 203/2006 in order to determine an optimum value for “m”. Sommese (Sommese. Eng. As the bar size increases for a given development and splice length. bond stresses are lower for larger diameter bars. concluding that the surface deformation of the bar has an influence on the bond strength. therefore. Tepfers. and Darwin et al. (1993). As the bond strength increases with an increase in transverse reinforcement. eventually the failure mode changes from splitting to pullout... the force transfer between FRP bars and concrete is mainly due to chemical adhesion and friction between the concrete and the reinforcement. Malvar (1994). The exponent “m” was determined on the basis of the comparison between analytical and experimental results. the bar size has a direct influence on the bond strength of FRP reinforced beams. However. • Transverse reinforcement. and Nanni et al. • Surface deformation of the reinforcement.Chapter IV increase in development length reduces. based on a large experimental database available in literature. the presence of transverse reinforcement in the development region prevents the progression of splitting cracks. 84 . b). Makinati et al. 1977). Consequently. • Bar size. 2007) at the Dept. of University of Naples “Federico II”. 4.. bearing of concrete on the surface deformation is minimal. made of FRP RC elements subjected to four-points bending (beam anchorage) tests. the rate of increase in the bond force is lower than the increase in bar area. using the statistical analysis reported hereafter. 1996 a. the total bond force developed by the bar increases. of Struct. Additional transverse reinforcement above that required to cause a pullout failure is unlikely to increase the anchorage capacity of the section (Orangun et al.

1998. 2000. 2006. the constant moment zone. and the supervision of prof... b. a. ranged between 12 and 100 cm.Cross Section and Test Setup Layout The cross section width. El Salakawy and Benmokrane. 2003. 1998.. Yost et al. varied between 150 and 340 cm. Rafi et al.1 Test Specimens and Variables The experimental program consisted of sixty-seven concrete beam and slab specimens reinforced with continuous FRP bars. tested as reported in literature (Benmokrane et al. Manfredi. 4. s. Masmoudi et al. Al Sunna et al. 2006. 2000. Figure 2 shows cross the section and the test setup layout: Figure 2 . ranged between 50 and 145 cm. Toutanji and Deng. ranged between 18 and 55 cm.4. 2006). Prota and the writer. the distance between the support and the applied load. varied between 10 and 100 cm.. Alsayed et al. the length. Alsayed. In Table 1 all the geometric data are reported: 85 . Pecce et al.. 1998.. 2004. 1996. the height. Theriault and Benmokrane. H. 2003. Laoubi et al.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars with the assistance of the work group made by Dr. L.

0 14 150 50.8 13 305 145 15 (2006) 13 18 2.0 16 250 100 50 22 28 5. the mean tensile strength for flexure.0 22 229 107 15 100 20 2.0 25 330 115 100 (2000) 50 18 2.9 and 5.0 14 150 50.5 21 230 76 76 (2006) 15 25 2.0 25 300 125 50 Masmoudi et Theriault & 13 18 2.0 25 330 115 100 Pecce et.5 21 230 76 76 20 26 3.8 26 280 120 40 20 21 3. the mean compressive strength.0 14 150 50.0 14 150 50.2 MPa.0 50 15 28 5.0 16 175 67.2 17 250 100 50 24 18 3. 15 25 2.0 22 229 107 15 El-Salakawy & 100 20 2.0 50 20 30 4.0 14 150 50.0 14 150 50.5 23 300 125 50 13 18 2.0 16 175 67.5 15 270 130 10 Alsayed Toutanji & (1998) 18 30 1.5 23 300 125 50 13 18 2.al.8 13 305 145 15 Yost et.0 22 229 107 15 13 18 2.5 40 (2006) 100 20 2.0 14 150 50.5 23 300 125 50 (1998) 13 18 2.6 14 340 120 100 et al.fl.0 14 150 50.5 20 230 76 76 As for the concrete used for casting the specimens.0 50 20 30 4.0 14 150 50. 13 18 2.5 21 270 130 10 Deng (2003) 20 25 3. Benmokrane 50 18 2.0 50 Rafi et al.0 50 al.5 24 280 120 40 13 18 2.2 17 250 100 50 25 18 3.5 19 270 130 10 18 30 4. 1996): 86 . (1996) 20 30 3.8 13 305 145 15 13 18 2.0 50 20 30 3.0 25 300 125 50 13 18 2.0 50 13 18 2.5 21 270 125 20 Al-Sunna et al. (1998) 20 30 4.0 50 20 28 5.5 17 250 100 50 22 28 5.8 13 305 145 15 100 20 2. ranged between 23 and 46 GPa.0 50 20 30 4. ranged between 30 and 97 MPa.0 50 25 18 3.0 14 150 50.8 26 280 120 40 20 26 3. and the compressive modulus of elasticity.0 50 Alsayed et al 20 21 3.1 22 229 107 15 (2004) 100 20 2.1 22 229 107 15 Laoubi et al.0 50 20 30 3.5 23 300 125 50 Benmokrane 13 18 2.Geometric Data Considered b H c d L a s b H c d L a s Author Author (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) 50 18 2.0 14 150 50. fc.0 16 250 100 50 30 18 3.5 15 270 125 20 (2000) 15 25 2. using the following relationship that depends on fc (ACI 318.0 14 150 50.5 17 250 100 50 22 28 5.8 13 305 145 15 17 18 3. fct.0 14 150 50.5 17 250 100 50 12 20 2.0 14 150 50.al.8 13 305 145 15 13 18 2.0 50 15 18 3.0 25 300 125 50 13 18 2.6 14 340 120 100 20 30 3. in particular for Ec also the corresponding theoretical values were computed (ranging between 23 and 41 GPa). 12 20 2.8 13 305 145 15 (2003) 13 18 2.0 50 330 115 100 18 30 1.0 14 150 50.1 22 229 107 15 13 18 2.0 14 150 50.6 14 340 120 100 20 55 3.0 14 150 50.5 40 100 20 2. 13 18 2.0 50 20 30 3.1 22 229 107 15 Benmokrane 100 20 2.0 50 16 28 5. Ec.2 17 250 100 50 25 28 5.8 14 305 145 15 100 20 2. ranged between 2.0 50 20 18 3.0 50 19 18 3.Chapter IV Table 1 .

5 3.Concrete Characteristics fc Ec.9 3.3 43 33 43 33 40 30 26 3.fl Author Author MPa GPa MPa GPa GPa Mpa 30 23 23 2.2 Ec.7 3.3 36 39 (2004) 40 30 26 3.7 4.2 43 33 Al-Sunna et.3 3.3 79 45 (2006) 40 30 26 3.3 36 39 El-Salakawy & 40 30 26 3.7 4.9 31 23 (2000) (1996) 30 23 23 2.2 45 30 (1998) Benmokrane 46 29 28 3.3 3.3 40 43 Yost et.3 79 45 40 30 26 3.al.8 3. varied from 36 to 136 GPa. Ef.3 40 43 40 30 26 3.3 36 39 Benmokrane 40 30 26 3.the = 4263 ⋅ f c (4.6 45 30 (1998) 53 31 31 3.3 3.7 4.9 2.1 31 26 Alsayed Toutanji & (1998) 35 35 25 3.exp fc Ec.3 Alsayed et al.7 4.5 3.8 3.3 79 46 40 30 26 3. 40 30 26 3.4) Table 2 reports the main characteristics of concrete considered in the referenced works (Ect= tensile modulus of elasticity of concrete): Table 2 .8 3.1 3.9 79 45 Pecce et.the fct. Theriault & 97 42 42 5.2 (2006) 38 26 26 3.1 3.al.3 79 46 40 30 26 3. The bars tensile strength.9 2.4 The FRP reinforcement included glass (62 specimens) and carbon bars (5 specimens) with different sizes and surface deformations.8 52 33 53 31 31 3.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Ec .1 31 26 Deng (2003) 41 30 35 35 25 3.3 40 43 40 30 26 3.3 40 43 (2003) 40 30 26 3.5 3. (2000) 38 26 26 3.1 53 31 31 3.3 4.7 4.1 3.1 42 27 Rafi et al.1 45 30 93 41 41 5. and 87 .3 41 27 40 30 26 3. 30 23 23 2.8 45 30 93 41 41 5.4 3.8 52 33 57 32 32 3.exp Ec.the GPa 38 23 23 23 23 27 30 30 30 28 28 28 28 27 27 25 25 25 25 27 27 27 27 38 38 38 38 38 38 27 27 27 fct.3 36 39 40 30 26 3.7 2.3 79 45 40 30 26 3. 38 26 26 3.5 3.9 31 23 35 35 25 3. (2006) 40 30 26 3.4 3. 40 30 26 3.4 3.1 3. the modulus of elasticity.3 79 46 Laoubi et.9 2.4 3. al.fl Mpa 4. varied from 507 to 3912 MPa.al.3 3. Benmokrane et al.9 52 33 Masmoudi et al. ffu.

ranged between 9 and 22 mm. φω is related to shear reinforcement).Chapter IV the diameter of bars in tension. the main characteristics of FRP reinforcement are reported in Table 3 (φ’ and Af' are related to compression reinforcement. φ. 88 .

9 10.7 6.57 10 552 38.7 16.7 16.9 10.73 0.57 10 507 36000 GFRP (sand-helicoidal) 9.43 1.00 11.53 8 597 40.00 1.38 0.54 10.31 8 644 42.0 Benmokrane (2004) GFRP (sand-coated) 22.5 0 2991 114 El-Salakawy & GFRP (sand-coated) 15.57 6 552 38.00 1.49 1.57 10 507 36.0 Alsayed (1998) GFRP (spiral-winding) 12.50 8.86 2.0 GFRP (sand-coated) 9.43 1.(2006) 89 .0 GFRP (deformed) 12.8 16.0 Pecce et al.1 6.57 6 552 38.0 1.9 10.57 6 552 38.38 0.53 8 644 42.7 12.0 GFRP (sand-coated) 15.5 0 2991 114 CFRP (sand-coated) 9.53 6.7 5.75 0.8 16.9 16.75 0.3 6.0 1.0 6.2 12.0 6.7 41.0 GFRP (deformed) 12.00 6 3912 136 Rafi et al.57 8 635 41.25 11.0 GFRP (deformed) 12.57 10 507 36.57 10 507 36.4 0.57 10 507 36.3 0.7 12.3 6.57 8 662 42.43 0.0 GFRP (deformed) 12.5 1.3 6.3 6.5 0 2991 114 CFRP (sand-coated) 9.57 10 507 36.7 13.38 0.86 2.53 8 597 40.0 3.0 FRP (deformed-rod) 14.57 10 552 38.43 1.0 GFRP (sand-helicoidal) 19.(2006) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) 12.0 1.3 0.7 12.0 GFRP (sand-coated) 22.0 6.7 27.0 GFRP (sand-helicoidal) 19.0 FRP (deformed-rod) 14.0 10.0 10.5 1.3 6.0 FRP (deformed-rod) 14.54 10.8 Al-Sunna et al.1 16.50 12.7 12.00 2.7 12.57 6 552 38.43 1.57 6 717 45.97 1.97 1.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Table 3 -FRP Reinforcement Characteristics Ø Ø’ Af A'f Øw ffu Ef Author Bar Type (mm) (mm) (cm2) (cm2) (mm) (MPa) (GPa) GFRP (deformed) 12.0 GFRP (sand-coated) 15.0 Theriault & GFRP (deformed) 12.43 1.0 GFRP (deformed) 12.42 1. (2006) GFRP (sand-coated) 9.53 8 644 42.0 GFRP (spiral-winding) 19.75 0.31 8 644 42.57 10 552 38.0 Benmokrane (1998) GFRP (deformed) 12.57 6 552 38.0 6.57 6 552 38.5 0 597 40.57 6 717 45.0 5.06 2.57 10 552 38.3 6.25 11.0 1.57 10 552 38.0 1.9 10.7 6.7 8.57 10 507 36.80 2.3 6.43 1.43 1.57 6 552 38.31 8 644 42.73 0.0 GFRP (sand-coated) 9.0 Benmokrane et al.0 Laoubi et al.6 GFRP (sand-helicoidal) 19.00 2.0 GFRP (deformed-rod) 14.75 0.7 6.57 8 643 42.7 5.7 12.57 10 552 38.53 0.0 CFRP (Leadline) 9.00 5.00 4.0 1.9 10.7 8.54 10.54 10.5 0 597 40.9 12.00 5.7 3.5 0 597 40.7 38.49 1.0 FRP (deformed-rod) 14.73 0.00 2.0 GFRP (rods) 12.3 6.0 GFRP (sand-coated) 9.53 8 597 40.38 0.7 19.0 CFRP (sand-coated) 9.0 3.57 6 552 38.06 0.50 12.00 4.9 12.7 27.54 10.1 16.0 Deng (2003) GFRP (rods) 12.0 GFRP (sand-coated) 9.57 10 552 38.50 12.0 1.5 0 597 40.43 1.54 10.57 10 507 36.43 1.0 GFRP (sand-coated) 9.00 5.9 10.54 10.57 10 507 36.0 1.53 8 644 42.00 4. (2000) GFRP (deformed) 12.0 GFRP (deformed) 12. (1996) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) 19.1 6.0 Masmoudi et al.0 GFRP (sand-coated) 9.7 2.06 2.38 16.0 FRP (deformed-rod) 14.1 6.00 2.54 10.23 1.1 6.0 GFRP (sand-coated) 9.57 6 717 45.25 5.5 0 597 40.0 Toutanji & GFRP (rods) 12. (1998) FRP (deformed-rod) 14.9 12.0 GFRP (deformed) 12.53 2.0 1.00 2.2 12.54 10.7 12.0 GFRP (sand-coated) 9.0 GFRP (spiral-winding) 19.9 10.00 4.

the is significant for the model application (2nd case).00 0.1 22.00 0. namely: 1. & Ec.3 40.9 15.1 19.3 40.97 5.the.73 8.9 15.the are the experimental and the theoretical value of the cracking moment.00 0.00 0.7 8.00 0. three different cases were analyzed.7 15.97 3.00 0.2 15.3 40.00 0.25 6.97 3.3 40.4 43.00 0.00 0.0 12.2 12.00 0.00 0.9 15.00 0.6 11.00 0.3 40.Chapter IV Yost et al.00 0.00 0.2 Cracking Moment In order to calibrate the bond coefficient “m” in formula (4.50 19. since Mcr.3 40.25 1.1 19.the (1st case).3 40. The definition of the cracking moment is important since it influences the evaluation of deflection for FRP reinforced members (Pecce et al.1 22.00 0. nevertheless.9 15. & Ec.3 40.00 0. the introduction of the experimental value of the cracking moment Mcr allows to examine the model efficiency disregarding the influence of the uncertainties due to Mcr.exp.97 5.97 3. 90 .00 0.exp in the model application was taken into account (3rd case). respectively.the instead of Ec.2 22.the.73 11.31 0.3 43.31 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 3912 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 677 677 1360 40.00 0. 2. Mcr.00 0.00 0.00 6.4 4.00 0.3 5.00 0.74 11. (2003) Alsayed et al.exp. where Mcr.00 0. Mcr.3 40.3 40.00 0.4.exp.00 0.9 19.3). & Ec. 3.59 11.00 0.2 22..06 1.00 0.3 40.6 3.exp and Mcr. but computed depending on the strength in compression.73 7. 2001).00 0.6 2.3 40. the significance of Ec.3 40.42 5.exp. Mcr. that is a very uncertain parameter and usually can not be directly measured.9 19.3 40.00 0. similarly.53 3. (2000) CFRP (Leadline) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP (sand-helicoidal) GFRP GFRP 9.the depends on the concrete strength in tension.97 3. evaluating Mcr.00 0.

8 50 11555 3210 3.1 5.8 44 5548 537 3.4 136 32549 5493 10 13 114 4568 724 3.0 13 Benmokrane 28448515 7886 23 28 111 31910 4445 8.8 2.2.4 3. Theriault & 90 4453 385 3.5 12 (2004) 32648647 8173 23 28 35 9144 395 4.4 88 6024 1428 2. 55 4432 303 2.2 3.5 5.9 4.5 28048016 5628 23.8 53 6523 741 4. Moment of Inertia and Cracking Moment of Specimens Pult I1 Pult I1 I2 Mcr. and of Mcr.4 6.6 (2003) 55 4432 303 2.4.1 Almusallam (1995) 80 21060 3109 6.5 3.8 89 22813 2643 7. the moment of inertia of both the un-cracked (I1) and cracked section (I1).1 10 87 4493 506 3.9 54 4432 303 2.5 12 38051501 14600 24 30 100 31632 3471 8.0 10 316 19623616873 37 42 10028419 1796 12 10 59 11440 2886 5.5 Yost et al.exp Mcr.7 6.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Table 4 reports the values of the ultimate load.0 12 El-Salakawy & 22647290 4411 23 27 111 35258 4512 8.8 44 6938 549 5. (2006) 86 6030 1440 2.8 2.3 8.2 Deng (2003) (1997) 11828592 2706 11 90 19198 4236 5. 27 33449787 10355 24 28 86 31305 2402 8.3 92 31555 2168 10 13 80 4493 506 3.9 33649971 11573 23 29 44 8726 579 4.Applied Load.the relating all specimens considered: Table 4 .the Author Author KN cm4 cm4 KNm KNm KN cm4 cm4 KNm KNm 98 18850 2535 7.7 2.1 3.2 5. 52 4432 303 2.exp Mcr.7 2.1 6.8 89 28260 3863 10 16 Laoubi et al.8 2.0 4. the calibration of the exponent “m” was carried out by computing the standard (e1) and the mean error (e2): 91 .0 2.7 32649595 10722 23 29 44 11006 591 5.3 95 31555 2168 10 13 78 4488 489 3.5 8.the I2 Mcr.3 Calibration Analysis For each of the three cases reported in § 4.2 7. Pult.8 2.3 3.4 104 31878 3135 14 13 Masmoudi et al.2 (2006) 12015252 5048 7.4 3.2 12 55 4432 303 2.2 Al-Sunna et al.8 9.9 5.6 10 133 32191 4019 8.9 4.7 Alsayed & 52 13683 891 4.4 121 32010 3871 10 13 (1998) Benmokrane 89 4663 979 3.8 44 7372 570 3.8 4.5 5.exp and Mcr. 80 13864 1443 5.1 54 4432 303 2.4 4.9 140 32191 4019 10 12 (2000) (1996) 98 18850 2535 6.0 6.2 115 32010 3871 14 13 (1998) 84 4639 917 4.8 4.0 (2006) 58 4432 303 3.8 52 4432 303 2.8 53 9183 566 6.4 137 32549 5493 14 13 118 4568 724 3. Benmokrane et al.5 Rafi et al.2 9.8 89 20911 2023 9.4.4 8.5 12 Pecce et al.2 3.6 2.7 2. 54 18545 1548 4.7 Toutanji & Alsayed 10828711 2612 13 10 77 20942 2763 6.9 13 53 4432 303 2.

9) and where: 92 .8) α f 2 is the deflection of the transformed cracked section: α f2 = 0.6) where f the and f test are the theoretical and the experimental value of the deflection.5 ⋅ α Pult ⋅ L3 .5 ⋅ α Pult ⋅ L3 . 24 ⋅ Ec ⋅ I1 (4.5) ⎛ fthe − ftest ⎞ ⎟ f test ⎠i i =1 ⎝ e2 = . n n 2 (4. Following a summary of the calibration analysis performed is reported: • Compute the theoretical deflection corresponding to a percentage value α of the applied load (20%<α<65%): α fthe = α f1 ⋅ αγ + α f 2 ⋅ (1 − αγ ) = α ⎡ f1 ⋅ γ + f 2 ⋅ (1 − α ⋅ γ ) ⎤ . n ∑⎜ n (4. 24 ⋅ Ec ⋅ I 2 (4. with load steps of 5%. e1 can be considered as a measure of the reliability of equation. and n is the number of considered points. Pult. i is the generic test. respectively. whereas e2 is a measure of the safe level of the model (e2>0: the model is safe).7) where: α f1 is the deflection of the uncracked section: α f1 = 0. 10 different deflection values in correspondence of as many load values were measured for each test. namely 20 to 65% of ultimate load.Chapter IV ⎛ f −f ⎞ ∑ ⎜ the f test ⎟ i =1 ⎝ test ⎠i e1 = . The errors have been calculated in a load range which could be significant of serviceability conditions. ⎣ ⎦ (4.

93 . that is when the theoretical value is different by more than 100% with respect to the experimental value ( ( f the − f exp ) > 2 ⋅ f exp ). f test ⎠i i =1 ⎝ By varying the bond coefficient m the minimum value of e1 (with e2>0) was found for each of the three cases analyzed.3).10) in which α M max = 0. The evaluation of e1 was carried out ignoring singular points (see “Discarded” yellow cells in Table 5). and the corresponding experimental values measured. 1. • α Measure the corresponding experimental deflection.exp & Ec. on the plots available in literature (67 out of 180 specimens could be selected). f test .exp Table 5 reports the values of theoretical deflections computed for each load step when setting Mcr=Mcr.exp and Ec=Ec. • ⎛ f αi − f αi ⎞ Compute e1 = ∑ ⎜ the α i test ⎟ f test ⎠i i =1 ⎝ n 2 n ⎛ f α − f αi ⎞ n and e2 = ∑ ⎜ the α i test ⎟ n .5 ⋅ α Pult ⋅ a . ⎝ α M max ⎠ m (4.exp.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars ⎛ M cr ⎞ γ =⎜ ⎟ . Mcr. according to equation (4.

9 1.4 0.1 2.9 0.4 0.4 2.2 1.4 1.7 1.3 2.5 0.7 2.8 2.8 0.2 3.4 1.4 1.5 1.2 0.3 1.1 2.3 0.4 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.7 0.3 1.6 5.6 0.7 0.7 1.5 1.7 6.1 2.0 4.6 1.4 0.3 1.2 1.8 1.9 1.3 1.9 2.7 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.2 0.8 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.8 1.0 3.9 0.7 1.4 1.5 1.0 0.1 3.8 1.3 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.5 1.8 0.7 1.9 0.8 1.4 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.1 0.5 3.5 0.2 Discard 0.8 1.7 1.8 1.2 1.5 1.3 3.5 0.7 1.9 1.68 0.6 0.7 0.0 Discard Discard Laoubi et al.1 0.2 1.4 0.2 2.5 0.8 4.2 1.3 4.1 1.5 4.6 3.2 6.8 1.8 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.8 1.7 1.4 1.2 2.7 0.0 2.3 1.4 0.3 1.0 5.2 0.8 3.6 0.6 0.3 0.9 2.8 1.3 2.5 0.2 2.5 6.8 0.6 1.6 2.5 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.8 2.9 1.5 1.5 0.0 3.9 2.6 1.2 0.5 0.3 5.5 0.2 3.5 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.3 1.7 1.4 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.1 1.8 0.3 0.7 3.9 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.3 0.5 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.6 1.9 1.4 0.8 2.8 2.8 0.8 2.2 6.5 0.4 0.8 2.7 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.1 1.1 2.4 0.2 2.3 1.7 0.4 2.3 0.0 2.2 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.4 0.9 1.5 1.3 0.4 0.5 4.6 1.8 1.4 0.2 1.5 0.3 1.8 0.0 1.4 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.2 El-Salakawy & Benmokrane (2004) Discard 0.7 0.1 1.2 0. Ec.5 0.6 7.6 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.3 1.3 0.4 Benmokrane et al.8 2.0 0.1 1.6 0.7 0.3 1.3 1.8 1.6 3.0 1.0 4.7 5.8 0.5 1.4 0.1 0.0 1.1 2.7 0.6 1.5 0.2 0.1 1.2 1.1 0.2 1.7 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.6 0.6 3.3 0.6 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.0 1.8 1.4 2.5 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.1 1.7 1.4 0.8 2.9 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.9 1.7 0.4 0.3 2.1 4.4 1.3 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.9 2.5 1.5 0.4 1.5 0.2 Discard 0.3 1.6 1.5 Toutanji & Deng (2003) 0.4 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.0 1.8 0.4 0.9 1.2 0.2 1.7 1.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.6 3.0 1.7 1.7 0.1 1.8 2.5 0.2 1.8 2.3 0.5 1.7 0.9 5.8 0.2 1.6 4.6 1.5 0.2 0.8 0.4 1.4 0.2 1.3 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.1 3.4 1.6 0.1 1.7 0.0 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.1 2.6 0.3 2.0 2.1 0.9 1.2 3.7 5.1 1.7 0.5 3.9 1.3 1.5 1.2 4.4 0.1 2.8 3.1 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.exp) fexp (cm) fthe (cm) 20% 25% 30% 35%40% 45%50% 55%60% 65% 20% 25% 30%35% 40%45% 50%55% 60%65% 1.5 7.5 1.8 0.4 94 .1 1.5 1.1 0.6 1.3 0.5 0.exp.4 2.9 5.3 2.8 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.9 1.6 2.1 1.9 Discard 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.7 2.8 1.8 1.5 0.4 1.0 1.5 0.4 3.1 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 2.2 0.8 2.9 3.2 0.4 1.4 1.9 6.2 0.4 1.4 0.4 1.7 0.7 1.4 1.2 0.2 1.3 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 1.8 2.3 2.2 1.4 0.2 1.3 1.0 0.1 2.7 1.8 0.6 0.8 0.3 1.2 1.1 2.7 2.9 1.3 0.7 0.7 2.4 1.8 0.2 1.6 1.8 2.4 3.4 5.1 1.5 1.8 1.1 0.7 1.3 1.1 1.2 0.6 1.7 0.9 1.4 3.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 1.4 0.8 7.7 1.5 0.3 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.9 1.7 1.4 2.2 2.8 6.2 0.4 1.3 0. (2006) 0.5 1.6 0.1 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.4 1.2 0.1 2.2 1.3 1.7 0.0 2.1 3.1 2.9 2.4 2.8 1.6 0.2 1.2 0.6 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.6 6.8 0.Chapter IV Author Pecce et al.6 1.6 3.1 2.0 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.5 1.4 1.4 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.8 0. (1996) Alsayed 1.7 1.8 1.1 1.4 0.7 2.8 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.5 0.6 4.6 0.7 2.1 1.7 2.2 3.4 1.3 1.6 0.7 0.0 2.9 1.2 Discard 0.7 0.9 2.4 0.3 0.0 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.6 0.7 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.9 2.4 1.6 1.2 0.3 0.7 1.2 0.5 4.7 0.1 Theriault & Benmokrane (1998) 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.5 0.9 0.5 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.6 6.7 0.3 4.5 0.4 1.2 1.6 0.9 2.6 1.7 0.0 1.8 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 1.3 0.4 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.3 0.3 1.5 1.6 0.5 2.8 0.3 0.2 1.6 0.6 3.0 1.3 4.9 1. (2006) Discard Discard Discard Discard Discard Discard Al-Sunna et al.1 1.8 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.5 0.2 1.Theoretical and Experimental Deflections (Mcr.5 0. (2000) Table 5 .3 0.1 1.7 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 1.4 0.2 1.6 0.0 2.3 1.8 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.6 1.6 2.6 1.3 5.7 0.2 0.7 1.6 1.4 1.7 0.8 3.2 1.6 0.5 1.9 1.8 0.6 0.1 2.2 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.0 2.0 1.7 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.9 1.4 0.3 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.

1 0.0 3.2 0.7 2.3 1.3 3.8 0.6 0.9 0.7 (1998) 0.1 1.5 1.8 2.3 0.9 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.8 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 0.5 1.7 0.1 5.2 0.1 0.6 0.7 4.8 3.6 0.3 0.5 2.0 1.4 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.1 4.3 0.6 1.3 1.0 0.9 2.0 2.1 1.9 0.1 1.8 1.6 1.8 0.0 2.9 0.1 3.6 1.3 1.7 0.9 2.8 4.7 5.5 0.8 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.3 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.3 0.8 2.6 0.2 1.8 1.8 1.3 0.8 1.3 2.6 Discard 0.7 Discard 0.7 1.1 1.8 3.4 0.4 0.1 1.5 6.0 3.1 0.7 0.6 2.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.9 0.7 2.8 1.4 1.3 0.3 0.4 3.9 1.9 1.1 1.8 0.2 0.7 3.0 0.2 1.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.5 0.2 4.3 1.4 0.8 1.9 1.3 1.2 0.3 2.0 2.1 0.6 2.8 1.7 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.6 2.2 1.6 0.9 0.0 1.7 0.5 2.5 0.7 4.8 0.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars (1997) 0.9 0.0 1.0 0.7 1.5 3.2 2.2 0.2 3.1 1.4 0.7 3.8 3.1 0.7 1.8 0.2 1.8 1.1 0.1 0.9 3.4 2.5 0.2 3.8 1.7 1.7 1.0 0.9 1.2 3.5 Rafi et al.4 1.8 0.5 1.0 3.5 3.0 2.6 0.3 3.0 1.8 2.5 5.5 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.7 4.5 0.5 1.8 1.4 2.7 0.9 0.8 0.6 4.4 1.6 0.9 2.1 1.6 0.4 1.2 2.9 1.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 5.1 0.5 2.3 0.1 1.9 4.2 0.9 4.1 4.4 1.0 Yost et al.3 1.8 2.8 2.6 6.3 2.3 0.8 0.8 4.0 0.4 0.3 1.5 0.9 0.7 2.5 0.0 0.3 2.0 2.4 0.5 0.1 1.7 1.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 2.3 Discard Discard 0.9 2.3 2.8 1.9 1.3 0.5 0.9 1.6 0.3 0.0 2.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.6 3.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 6.3 1.4 0.8 0.1 1.7 4.6 0.1 0.6 4.3 0.4 0.6 0.2 1.6 5.3 1.7 1.2 0.2 Masmoudi et al.4 0.5 3.7 0.9 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 4.0 0.7 1.4 0.6 0.5 1.9 2.0 1.2 0.7 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.1 3.1 1.3 0.8 1.8 0.5 0.4 5.2 1.3 0. 0.6 1.7 5.6 3.7 0.8 1.1 4.4 2.7 0.8 0.8 2.8 2.2 1.4 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.4 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.9 1.2 3.0 2.6 0.5 0.7 3.8 1.4 0.9 0.4 3.0 2.7 2.8 0.4 0.3 1.4 0.3 0.1 2.7 2.4 3.8 1.4 0.8 2.3 0.7 0.1 Discard Discard 0.2 0.6 2.7 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.5 0.7 1.6 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.5 1.6 0.6 2.8 4.7 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.0 2.1 2.6 2.8 4.6 0.5 3.1 0.3 0.3 5.7 0.7 0.6 2.4 0.4 6.4 4.5 0.4 1.0 1.1 1.7 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.2 2.7 0.9 3.8 1.5 1.1 0.4 2.2 1.5 0.7 0.1 2.8 4.9 0.4 2.6 0.3 4.6 4.0 Discard 1.0 1.8 0.3 1.7 1.2 2.1 0.5 Alsayed & Almusallam (1995) 0.1 1.5 0.6 3.6 4.7 2.4 0.6 5.7 3. as reported in Table 6: 95 .3 1.5 0.1 2.5 1.2 0.7 0.5 1.4 1.4 2.7 0.3 1.7 0.1 2.6 0.9 3.4 5.3 0.9 1.5 5. (2006) 0.5 0.7 0.4 2.4 0.5 3.2 1.7 4.0 3.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.2 2.4 2.4 1.4 1.3 3.3 2.1 2.4 2.8 0.6 4.2 0.4 0.2 3.9 1.9 2.8 6.9 1.6 2.4 2.5 5.7 0.4 4.2 0. for each specimen tested e1 and e2 were computed.2 3.7 0.4 4.0 4.5 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.0 5.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.0 2.5 0.4 2.4 1.7 0.5 4.7 5.0 1.1 0.0 1.4 0.7 2.6 1.1 3.9 1.7 2. (2003) 0.0 Therefore.5 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.9 2.1 2.0 0.9 0.9 3.9 0.0 1.1 3.9 2.9 0.4 1.5 3.2 1.6 1.8 2.9 0.1 0.

(2006) Table 6 .265 0.259 0. 0.189 -0.114 0.186 0.144 0.052 0.273 0.232 0.178 0.211 0.036 0.100 0.173 0.170 0.258 0.147 0.277 0.133 (2003) 0.143 Yost et al.137 0.270 -0.094 0. Ec.160 0.149 Average e1 0.247 0.169 -0. 0.102 -0.172 -0.152 -0.270 -0.193 0.051 0.218 -0.308 -0. since the value derived is nearly zero.245 0.237 0.301 Benmokrane et al.181 0.110 -0.252 0.082 0.Standard Error (e1) & Mean Error (e2) [Mcr. 0.244 -0.018 -0.196 -0.872.203 -0.051 0.236 0.110 0.Chapter IV Author Pecce et al.291 -0.198 0.283 0.266 -0.288 0.336 -0.247 -0.022 0.164 0.346 -0.177 0.363 0.256 0.021 -0.101 (1996) 0.141 Rafi et al.065 -0.138 -0.056 0.068 0.225 Alsayed & Almusallam (1995) 0.161 Alsayed 0.212 Average e2 -0.116 0.368 0.078 0.389 -0.052 0.149 0.exp.114 0.012 0.080 0.087 0.072 -0.105 0. (2006) Al-Sunna et al. it can be concluded that the analytical model is sufficiently reliable.100 0.087 0.236 0.248 0. 96 .216 0.104 -0.209 0.273 -0.232 -0.046 0.exp] Standard Error Mean Error Standard Error Mean Error Author (e1) (e2) (e1) (e2) 0.043 0.357 0.076 -0.358 Masmoudi et al.226 -0.311 0.062 The bond coefficient corresponding to the minimum value e1=0.091 0.205 0.016 0.212 is m=0.175 0.303 -0.245 0.114 0.004 0.334 0.117 0.183 0.022 0.030 -0.133 (1998) 0.088 -0.206 0. As for e2.252 -0.214 -0.406 0.060 -0.115 0.024 -0.124 0.394 0. (2000) Toutanji & Deng (2003) Theriault & Benmokrane (1998) El-Salakawy & Benmokrane (2004) Laoubi et al.140 0.262 (1997) 0.261 0. (2006) 0.196 0.169 -0.342 0.189 0.173 -0.199 -0.

exp ⎞ 2 ⎛ M cr .Ec.⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎟ ⎟ ⎥ .⎜ . Therefore γ was derived: γ= f exp − f 2 f1 − f 2 . 1.8 m 1.87] 0. after setting f exp = f the .exp ⎞ ⎤ ⎡⎛ M cr .4 0.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars A different evaluation was performed deriving m for each load step of every single test.⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎥ .exp/Ma) 0.2 0.exp ⎞ m = var ⎛ M cr .2 1. so that f exp = f1 ⋅ γ + f 2 ⋅ (1 − γ ) .(Mcr/Ma) vs (Mcr/Ma) [Mcr.2 (M cr.6 [m=var] 0.0 0.12) (Ma=αMmax).exp ⎞ ⎤ ⎢⎜ .exp /M a ) m Figure 3 .0 1.exp.2 0. f1 − f 2 ⎠ M max ⎝ Hence the following quantities were plotted as shown in Figure 3: ⎡⎛ M cr .872 ⎛ M cr .0 0. ⎢⎜ ⎟ .exp] 97 . (4.11) from which: ⎛ f − f2 ⎞ m = log M cr ⎜ exp ⎟.0 [m=0.4 0.6 0.exp ⎞ ⎤ ⎡⎛ M cr . ⎢⎜ M a ⎠ ⎥ ⎢⎝ M a ⎠ M a ⎠ ⎥ ⎢⎝ M a ⎠ ⎝ M a ⎠ ⎥ ⎢⎝ M a ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ (4.8 [m=2] (Mcr.exp ⎞0.

exp M a ) .exp.3).the and Ec=Ec. The same procedure already explained for the first case was followed. Mcr.exp Ma ) 0. corresponding to approximate blue points with ( M cr . and comparing the results with the corresponding experimental values measured.3).the & Ec. m=0. computing e1 and e2 for each specimen tested. 2.872 is suggested in replacement of m=2 in equation (4. as reported in Table 7: 98 . thus. m = var better than red points corresponding to ( M cr .872 . according to equation (4.exp The significance of model was evaluated in the second case computing theoretical deflections for each load step after setting Mcr=Mcr.exp M a ) 2 (M cr .Chapter IV It can be noticed that magenta points.

109 -0.745 -0. Ec.341 -0.049 -0.328 -0.348 -0.266 -0.367 0.101 0.244 -0.221 0.000 Pecce et al.138 0.104 (1998) 0.191 0. Benmokrane et al.142 0.320 -0.197 0.145 -0.997 0.423 -0.518 0.810 -0.244 0.010 -0.205 The bond coefficient corresponding to the minimum value e1=0.202 -0.267 -0.227 -0.168 -0.006 (2003) 0.318 -0.125 -0.127 -0.471 0.339 0. 99 .527 0.326 -0.286 0.397 El-Salakawy & 0.237 Rafi et al.402 0. is considerably lower than zero.227 0.318 is m=0.229 -0.358 0.314 0.170 -0.321 -0.407 0.272 0. Thèriault & 0.372 -0.623 0.289 -0.790.090 -0.333 -0.172 0.159 0.344 -0.336 0.033 -0. With respect to case 1) it can be observed that the average standard error e1 in case 2) is higher. 0.371 0.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Table 7 .342 0.210 (2006) 0.168 0.375 -0. e2.263 -0.081 -0.the.272 0.482 0. confirming that considering the analytical value of Mcr instead of the corresponding experimental value decreases the model reliability.088 0.155 0.068 0.463 0.276 0.234 (2006) 0.092 -0.260 Benmokrane 0.118 -0.440 Alsayed & Almusallam(1995) 0.353 0.Standard Error (e1) & Mean Error (e2) [Mcr.324 0.325 0. 0.451 0.145 -0.243 (1998) Benmokrane 0.369 -0.274 -0.166 0. (2006) 0.108 -0.148 0.142 Masmoudi et al.230 0.360 0.396 0.232 0.274 -0.040 (2000) (1996) 0. 0.254 0.251 -0.225 -0. and that the average mean error.429 0.070 0.481 0.135 0.732 -0.247 0.368 -0.622 -0.354 Al-Sunna et al.319 Deng (2003) (1997) 0.030 -0.772 Laoubi et al.165 Average e1 Average e2 0.309 0.348 -0.679 0.136 0.273 -0.172 -0.381 0.143 0.283 -0.198 0.001 0.exp] Standard Error Mean Error Standard Error Mean Error Author Author (e1) (e2) (e1) (e2) 0.271 0.594 0.236 Yost et al.147 -0. 0.410 -0.128 (2004) 0.023 -0.128 -0.359 Toutanji & Alsayed 0.348 -0.

(Mcr/Ma) vs (Mcr/Ma) [Mcr.the ⎞ ⎢⎜ .exp] None of the two lines (m=2 and m=0.4 0.Ec.2 0.6 0.exp and Ec=Ec.the/Ma) 0. computing e1 and e2 for each specimen tested.2 0.2 1.the instead of Ec. confirming that the red line is not enough reliable and that considering Mcr. properly.4 0.⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎟ ⎟ ⎥ .the ⎞ ⎛ M cr .6 0.3).the.the.79 0.0 m=2 m=0.the instead of Mcr. as reported in Table 8: 100 .the ⎞ cr .exp & Ec.8 (Mcr.exp in the model application was taken into account in case 3).8 m 1. ⎢⎜ ⎢⎝ M a ⎠ ⎝ M a ⎠ ⎥ ⎢⎝ M a ⎠ ⎝ M a ⎠ ⎥ ⎝ M a ⎠ ⎥ ⎢⎝ M a ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ 1.Chapter IV As for case 1).79) approximates the points with m=var.0 0.0 0. The theoretical deflections were computed for each load step after setting Mcr=Mcr. ⎢⎜ ⎟ .0 1. 3.the ⎞ ⎤ ⎡⎛ M cr .⎜ .the /M a ) m Figure 4 .exp implies an accuracy reduction of the model proposed.⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎥ . the following quantities were plotted as shown in Figure 4: m = var 0.the The significance of considering Ec.the ⎞ ⎤ ⎡⎛ M cr . according to equation (4. The same procedure already explained for the first two cases was followed.2 1. and comparing the results with the corresponding experimental deflections already measured.the ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ M cr . Mcr.4 (M cr.790 2 ⎡⎛ M ⎛ M cr .

227 0.Standard Error (e1) & Mean Error (e2) [Mcr.274 0. 0.152 0.251 -0.051 Laoubi et al.301 0.230 -0.188 Masmoudi et al.085 -0.350 -0.220 0.071 0.111 0.176 -0.127 (1998) Benmokrane 0. 101 .exp.245 -0.212 0.289 0.229 -0.240 Yost et al.151 0.148 0.201 -0. Case 3) can be considered intermediate between cases 1) and 2). 0.245 Deng (2003) (1997) -0.095 0.170 0.308 Alsayed & Almusallam(1995) 0.144 0.352 Benmokrane 0.072 -0.286 0.399 -0.133 0.057 El-Salakawy & 0.199 0.230 0.310 0.056 -0.156 0.388 0.155 0.470 (2003) 0. but lower than e1 of case 3).150 -0.142 0. Ec. Theriault & 0.211 0.495 0.288 0.135 0.the] Standard Error Mean Error Standard Error Mean Error Author Author (e1) (e2) (e1) (e2) 0.344 -0.281 -0.157 -0.314 -0.172 0.067 -0.198 (2006) 0.165 0.231 0.293 -0.011 0.622 0.121 0.124 0.477 0.200 0.255 0.304 -0.258 0.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Table 8 .054 0.144 -0.006 -0.068 0.311 0.358 -0.230 Pecce et al.190 0.248 is m=0.031 0.720.210 -0.214 -0.155 -0.083 -0.066 0.342 0.288 0.097 -0.094 0.134 0. yet quite reliable as it resulted for case 1).251 -0.100 -0.610 (2004) 0.027 0.276 -0.484 0.162 Rafi et al.298 0.069 0.355 Toutanji & Alsayed 0.788 0. Benmokrane et al.384 0.040 (2000) (1996) 0. 0.194 -0.013 -0.177 0.202 0.248 0. 0.248 -0.103 -0.279 0.362 0.005 -0.340 0.059 The bond coefficient corresponding to the minimum value e1=0.416 0.218 0.191 -0.143 0.286 -0.465 0.076 -0.381 -0.139 0.206 (1998) 0.360 0.233 -0.396 0.199 Average e1 Average e2 0.070 -0.151 0.315 0.058 (2006) 0.242 -0. (2006) 0.182 -0.235 0.201 0.272 Al-Sunna et al. its average standard error e1 being higher than e1 of case 1).

72] 0.the] Figure 5 confirms the results reported in Table 8: the brown line corresponding to m=0.72 ⎛ M cr . compared to the red line relating m=2: 102 .exp ⎞ m = var ⎛ M cr .⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎟ ⎟ ⎥ .exp/Ma) 0.4 0. ⎢⎜ ⎟ .exp ⎞ ⎤ ⎡⎛ M cr .(Mcr/Ma) vs (Mcr/Ma) [Mcr.Ec. ⎢⎜ ⎢⎝ M a ⎠ ⎝ M a ⎠ ⎥ ⎢⎝ M a ⎠ ⎝ M a ⎠ ⎥ ⎢⎝ M a ⎠ ⎝ M a ⎠ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ 1. better than line with m=2.⎜ ⎟ .exp /M a ) m Figure 5 .2 1.Chapter IV As for case 1) and 2).exp ⎞0. 4.0 [m=0.exp ⎞ ⎤ ⎡⎛ M cr . confirming that the red line is not enough reliable.79 approximates the points with m=var.8 m 1. the following quantities were plotted as shown in Figure 5: ⎡⎛ M cr .5 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS Figure 6 shows the three lines obtained for the three values of m derived.⎜ ⎟ ⎥ .2 (M cr.0 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.exp ⎞ 2 ⎛ M cr .6 0.exp ⎞ ⎤ ⎢⎜ .4 0.2 [m=var] 0.2 0.8 [m=2] (Mcr.exp.

205 -0.87 0.the e1 0.3) of CNR-DT 203/2006 is the one proposed.2 0.87 to use as bond coefficient when computing deflections of FRP RC elements in equation (4. Therefore the value m=0.8 [m=2] (Mcr/Ma) 0.0 0. Table 9 shows a summary of the results obtained: Table 9 .0 0. Ec.the. From the comparison of the four lines with respect to the points obtained setting m=var.Comparison of Results It can be observed that the three lines corresponding to the three cases considered are very close and have concave trend.059 m 0.Summary of Results Case: 1) Mcr.87 corresponds to the minimum value of the average standard error e1 with a sufficient level of safety (e2≈0): this confirms that considering the experimental values of the cracking moment and of the modulus of elasticity of concrete instead of the theoretical values brings to more reliable predictions. Ec. it can be concluded that the bond coefficient m=2 in equation (4. Ec.6 0.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 1.exp 3) Mcr.72] 0.2 [m=0.0 1.248 e2 -0.0 0.exp.2 (M cr /M a ) Figure 6 . As for the three cases analyzed.72 The first value m1=0..4 0.79 0.4 [m=0.212 0.8 m 1.6 0.exp.3) should be replaced by a value lower than unity.exp 2) Mcr. 103 .318 0.79] 1. being m<1. converse to the trend of m=2 line.062 -0.2 [m=0.87] 0.

The investigation of available data collected allowed concluding that computing the cracking moment (rather than accounting for its experimental value) penalizes the reliability and the safety of deflection calculations more than considering Ec. with a maximum variation of 17% of m3 with respect to m1.Chapter IV Of the two other cases considered. case 3) where the theoretical value of Ec replaced the experimental value. considering the theoretical aforementioned values rather than the corresponding experimental quantities does not penalize the reliability of results considerably.exp.the instead of Ec. resulted to give better predictions than case 2). where the theoretical value of Mcr was used instead of the corresponding experimental value. 104 . Nevertheless. Hence. the values of m derived in case 2) and in case 3) do not differ from the value of case 1) considerably.

using the well-known Vc + Vs format to compute the shear resistance of RC members.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Equation Chapter 5 Section 1 Chapter V SHEAR ULTIMATE BEHAVIOR 5. All of these mechanisms provided by conventional steel RC elements are expected to be affected when using FRP reinforcement due to larger strains that are generally mobilized in the latter. They are discussed in turn in the following. arch action. 3. shear stresses in uncracked compressed concrete. although the specific manners in which they derive the contribution of concrete Vc may differ considerably. whereas the steel contribution Vs is determined similarly. aggregate interlock.2 LITERATURE REVIEW Most of the current design provisions which have been developed for the design of FRP-reinforced concrete members follow the approach of conventional reinforced concrete design methods. and 5. 1998) assessed that the quantity Vc can be considered as a combination of five mechanisms activated after the formation of diagonal cracks: 1. as proposed by the CNRDT 203 (2006). For steel-RC members. the Joint ASCE-ACI Committee 445 (ASCE-ACI. Both the concrete and the FRP stirrups contributions to shear are taken into account: the new equations derived with reference to Eurocode equations for shear of steel RC members are verified through comparison with the equations given by ACI. 5.1 INTRODUCTION The present chapter focuses on the assessment of Eurocode-like design equations for the evaluation of the shear strength of FRP RC members. residual tensile stresses transmitted directly across the cracks. CSA and JSCE guidelines. 4. 2. considering a large database of members with and without shear reinforcement failed in shear. 105 . dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcing bars.

1970). 1999) that the load carried by dowel action of the reinforcement across a crack is negligible in steel-reinforced elements. its magnitude is estimated to range between 33% and 50% of the shear capacity of uncracked concrete (Taylor.. which is function of the longitudinal reinforcement properties. As the strain in the bars increases. 1993). and on the depth of the uncracked zone. The aggregate mechanical interlock allows the shear transfer across a crack in the tensile zone. although these percentages reduce when the crack width increases (Walraven. which has a low transverse stiffness and strength. f c' . 2006). Hence.. a smaller amount of shear force is therefore expected to be carried by aggregate interlock in FRP reinforced members. with FRP reinforcement. which depends on the reinforcement stiffness. 1997b). 1981). In steel RC elements the neutral axis depth decreases rapidly during yielding. and the concrete strength. whereas in FRP RC members the area of concrete under compression is considerably smaller than that developed in similar steel RC sections already at relatively low load levels. The dowel action refers to the shear force resisting transverse displacement between two parts of a structural element split by a crack that is bridged by the reinforcement. therefore dowel contribution strongly depends on the transverse stiffness and strength of the reinforcement (Razaqpur and Isgor. Experimental tests carried out by Tottori and Wakui (1993) show that the dowel capacity of members using FRP reinforcement is about 70% of those using reinforcing steel. thus reducing the area of concrete in compression. 1997a. which depends on the maximum aggregate size. an even smaller load will be carried by dowel action (Kanematsu et al. it has been suggested (Kotsovos and Pavlovic. the crack width. together with a lower stiffness.Chapter V The contribution of the uncracked concrete in RC members depends mainly on the concrete strength. reduce the total stiffness of the element and thus larger deflections and wider cracks are attained. when FRP 106 . the compression area does not decrease further as is the case for steel (Zhao et al. the aggregate interlock is function of: • • • the crack roughness. Higher strain values and a smaller reinforcement ratio required to sustain a given load in FRP with respect to steel. however.

2006). is performed. 1993). 1997). since generally wider cracks are observed in FRP RC members. With proper anchorage. A modified formula accounting for the concrete contribution to shear capacity of FRP RC elements has been derived. it is definitely recognized that existing shear strength equations related to steel-RC members should be modified to be suitable for FRP-RC members.. the FRP reinforcement can resist high tensile forces and can serve as tie for the arch. Yost. The shift in the resistance mechanism from the so-called beam action to the arch action can substantially increase the shear resistance of a member because shear resistance by arch action is dependent on the effective compressive strength rather than the shear strength of concrete and on the strength and proper anchorage of the longitudinal reinforcement. Test results have shown that the shear strength of FRP RC beams is significantly lower than that predicted using equations developed for steel reinforcement (Goodspeed et al. Vc . This is the approach taken herein to extend the equation given by Eurocode 2 (1992) for the shear capacity of steel RC members to the case of FRP RC members. 107 . the arch mechanism may substantially contribute to the shear resistance of FRP-reinforced members (Razaqpur and Isgor.15 mm (ASCE-ACI. it is critical that an accurate assessment of concrete contribution to the shear strength of members reinforced with FRP bars as flexural reinforcement. therefore. 1990. accounting for the different mechanical properties of FRP compared to steel reinforcement.5 (ASCE-ACI. this expression has been included in the lately issued guidelines of the Italian Research Council CNR-DT 203 (2006). therefore. Therefore. 1998).Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars reinforcement is used as flexural reinforcement the dowel contribution can be neglected (Kanakubo and Shindo. 1998). The residual tension in cracked concrete has been found to be present for crack widths smaller than 0. The arch action occurs in the uncracked concrete near the end of elements where the shear span to depth ratio (a/d ratio) is less than 2. this contribution to the shear resistance can be neglected.

thus increasing the shear-capacity. 108 . enclosing the flexural reinforcement. therefore the Eurocode 2 (1992) approach was deemed more suitable to let professionals becoming accustomed to the new design guidelines. which is linear elastic up to failure. In the case of steel reinforcement it is assumed that steel overcomes the yielding strain and then the maximum stress (yielding stress) can be evaluated without exact assessment of the maximum strain. its role can be summarized as follows (Stratford and Burgoyne. however. in the case of FRP transverse reinforcement. being the 1992 equation included in several national codes and widely used by designers. 2003): • • • enabling the transfer of tensile actions across inclined shear cracks. Furthermore. The same approach has been adopted herein to derive an equation accounting for the contribution of the FRP shear reinforcement to shear capacity of FRP RC elements. Increasing tendency of shear force carried by shear reinforcement after diagonal cracks seems to be predictable by the truss analogy (Tottori and Wakui. this expression has also been included in the CNR-DT 203 (2006). 2002). but in the bent zones such strength cannot be attained due to its anisotropic properties: the strength reduction is attributed to the residual stress concentration. As for the shear reinforcement.Chapter V The equation reported by Eurocode 2 (1992) accounting for the concrete contribution to shear was taken into account rather than that proposed in the last version of Eurocode 2 (2004). thus preventing dowel-splitting of the concrete and promoting the dowel-rupture of FRP reinforcement. hence minimum values for the bend radius are recommended by all the existing provisions. technical question marks exist over its applicability (Stratford and Burgoyne. FRP reinforcement needs large strains to develop its full tensile strength. 1993) as shown in the equations reported by the main design provisions. confining the compression-zone concrete. it is important to define the maximum strain in order to assess the stress in FRP transverse reinforcement. The contribution of the shear reinforcement to the shear capacity depends on the maximum stress that the reinforcement can attain.

2002): φVn ≥ Vu . 2006). Such investigations also reveal that the axial stiffness of the reinforcing bars is a key parameter when evaluating the concrete shear strength of flexural members reinforced with FRP bars.3. Most of the current international design provisions developed methods to compute Vc that are based on these findings. 1999). computed as the sum of the shear resistance provided by concrete. where φ is the strength safety factor. the main code proposals for FRP reinforcement assume an effective stirrup strain for use in the truss analogy (Guadagnini et al. 1995) was to limit the stirrup strain so that the crack width at failure was similar to that in steel-reinforced concrete. Vu is the factored shear force at the section considered. Vf . As for the shear reinforcement. and Vn is the nominal shear strength.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 5. 2003). Vc . The original intention of the “allowable strain” concept (Clarke and O’ Regan. 109 . 1997).1R-06. and by the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE. 5.3 REVIEW OF CURRENT DESIGN PROVISIONS The present paragraph deals with the most frequent serviceability limit states. This section summarizes the design equations to compute both Vc and Vf as recommended by the American Concrete Institute (ACI 440.1R bases the design of cross sections subject to shear on the same approach used by the ACI 318-02 (ACI 318. 2002). thus allowing the full “concrete contribution” to be developed (Stratford and Burgoyne.1 ACI 440.1R-06 Design Guidelines The ACI 440. and particularly those relating to: Findings from experimental investigations on concrete members longitudinally reinforced with carbon (C) and glass (G) FRP bars and with no shear reinforcement show that the shear strength reduction experienced by such elements when compared to those reinforced with the same amount of steel reinforcement is mainly due to the lower modulus of elasticity. by the Canadian Standard Association (CAN/CSA-S806_02. and the FRP shear reinforcement..

1) where k = 2 ρ f nf + ( ρf nf ) 2 − ρf nf . This equation has been shown to provide a reasonable factor of safety for FRP reinforced specimens across the range of reinforcement ratios and concrete strengths tested to-date (Tureyen and Frosch. 2006). (5. (5. is derived as follows: Vf = Afv f fv d . which is a function of the reinforcement ratio. 2003).2) This form of the equation indicates that eq. where Ef and Ec are the modulus of elasticity of FRP reinforcement and concrete. a new design method was proposed by Tureyen and Frosh (2002) and adopted by the ACI 440. (5. Vf . The shear resistance provided by FRP stirrups perpendicular to the axis of the member. and d is the distance from the compression fiber to the centroid of the main tensile reinforcement. Eq. 5 (5. respectively. modified by the factor 12 5 k which accounts for the axial stiffness of the FRP reinforcement (ACI 440.3) s 110 . c = kd . The ACI 318.1R-06 (2006). bw is the web width. f 'c is the specified compressive strength of concrete. and the modular ratio. (5. (5. ρ f being the flexural FRP reinforcement ratio.1) may be rewritten in the following way: 12 1 k 5 6 Vc = f c' bw d . nf . Eq.Chapter V As for the computation of Vc .1) is simply the ACI 318 (2002) shear equation for steel reinforcement.1R-06. according to this method Vc can be evaluated as follows: Vc = 2 k f c' bw d .1) accounts for the axial stiffness of the FRP reinforcement through the neutral axis depth. ρ f . 2002 method used to calculate the shear contribution of steel stirrups is applied also when using FRP as shear reinforcement. and nf = Ef Ec .

2 CAN/CSA-S806_02 Design Guidelines The traditional Vc + Vf philosophy is also used by the Canadian Standard Association (CSA S806-02.5) where λ accounts for concrete density (set equal to 1 herein). 05 b + 0.3. respectively.4) where rb and d b are the internal radius and the equivalent diameter of bent bar. for sections having either the minimum amount of transverse reinforcement required or d < 300mm : V ⎞3 ⎛ Vc = 0. or the strength of the bent portion of the FRP stirrups f fb .004Ef . taken as the smallest of the design tensile strength f fd . db ⎝ ⎠ (5. computed as: ⎛ ⎞ r f fb = ⎜ 0. The truss analogy assumes that the total shear is carried by the shear reinforcement. V and M are the factored shear force and moment at the section 111 . The CSA S806-02 gives the following expression to compute Vc .035 λφc ⎜ f c' ρ f Ef d ⎟ bw d . Two cases are identified therein: • • members longitudinally reinforced with FRP using steel stirrups. (5. M ⎠ ⎝ 1 (5. 2002). Only the latter case will be discussed herein. the stress corresponding to 0.30 ⎟ f fd . Yet. f fv is the tensile strength of FRP for shear design. 5. 2002). φc is the resistance factor for concrete. As it is for equation given for Vf in ACI 318 (2002). provided that the diagonal members in the truss are assumed to be inclined at 45 deg (ACI 318R-02.3) is based on a modified truss analogy. eq. and members with longitudinal and transverse FRP reinforcement.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars where Afv is the amount of FRP shear reinforcement within stirrups spacing s . according to findings on both non-prestressed and prestressed members it is now recognized that the shear reinforcement needs to be designed to carry only the shear exceeding that which causes inclined cracking.

75.08 λφc f c bw d .4φf Afv f fu d . when considering Ef = 50 GPa and Es = 200 GPa. f c' bw d nor shall it exceed 0.7) The latter equation is derived from the corresponding formula given for steel reinforced sections multiplied by 0.2λφc f c' bw d . For sections with d > 300mm and with no transverse shear reinforcement or less than the minimum amount required. this coefficient replaces the term Ef E s ( Es being the modulus of elasticity of the steel reinforcement).2λφc The computation of Vc slightly differs from the approach followed by the Canadian guidelines for steel. (5. For members with FRP flexural and shear reinforcement. 112 . Vc needs not be taken as less than M f c' bw d . (5.1λφc V d ≤ 1.s = 0.Chapter V of interest. such that 0. s (5.3-94 (1994). CSA A23. according to the Canadian approach. ⎝ 1000 + d ⎠ (5.7) represents the lower bound for concrete contribution to the shear strength of FRP reinforced concrete members regardless of the type of reinforcing bars (El-Sayed et al. Vc is calculated using: ⎛ 130 ⎞ ' ' Vc = ⎜ ⎟ λφc f c bw d ≥ 0.0 . Therefore.6) Thus. the value of Vf shall be calculated as: Vf = 0. and f fu is the characteristic strength of FRP shear reinforcement.5 .8) where φf is the resistance factor for FRP reinforcement equal to 0. moreover. eq. 2006).. the contribution of concrete to the shear resistance when using steel is an upper bound for Vc . where: Vc.

z = d 1.5 .3 when f c' < 50 N / mm 2 . 1997). and ε fw is the design value of shear reinforcement strain in ULS. β p = 3 100 ρf Ef / Es ≤ 1. The design shear capacity given by shear reinforcement shall be computed as: Vf = Afv Efw ε fw z γb s (5.3 ⎠ −1 10 f c' ρ f Ef ⋅10−4 . f vcd = 0. γ b is the member factor generally set equal to 1. γ c ρfw Efw (5. γ b is a member factor generally set equal to 1.3. the design shear capacity of FRP RC elements can be computed adopting the same principles as for the design of steel RC.72 N / mm 2 .11) where h is the member depth.5 .3 at the ULS. γ c being the concrete safety factor. using the equation Vud = Vc.15 . obtained from: ⎛ h ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 0.9) β d = 4 1/ d ≤ 1.f = β d β p β n f vcd bw d / γ b . where: Vc. ρfw is the reinforcement ratio of shear reinforcement ( ρ fw = Afv bw s ).f + Vf .5 .15 at the ULS. if not γ c = 1. 113 . set equal to 1.10) where Efw is the modulus of elasticity of shear reinforcement.3 JSCE Design Guidelines According to the Japan Society of Civil Engineers recommendations for design and construction of concrete structures using continuous fiber reinforcing materials (JSCE. β n = 1 in this study where no axial forces are taken into account.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 5.2 3 f c' γ c ≤ 0. where: (5.

max . f fbd is substituted for Efw ε fw . γ c is the strength safety factor for concrete ( γ c = 1.10) is equivalent to the corresponding Japanese equation for steel RC after taking into account the different nature of the reinforcement by substituting the yield stress of steel with the product Efw ε fw .12) where VRd. which is (disregarding the axial forces term): VRd.c = τ Rd kd (1. it will be kd = geometrical percentage of longitudinal reinforcement and cannot exceed the value 0.6). and the design value of the maximum shear force which can be sustained by the member before crushing of the compression strut. 114 . kd is a factor taken ⏐ equal to 1 in members where more than 50 % of the bottom reinforcement is ⏐(1. 5. VRd. Eq. at ULS the design shear strength of a member reinforced with longitudinal FRP reinforcement can be evaluated as the minimum of the design shear resistance provided by concrete. ρs is the interrupted. VRd.2 + 40 ρs ) bw d . In the former case. f fb being defined in eq.3). namely for members not requiring and requiring shear reinforcement. defined as the design value for the strength of the stirrup bent portion (equal to f fbd = f fb γ mfb . As for the derivation of VRd.05 being the characteristic tensile strength of concrete (5% fractile). 1992). the CNR-DT 203 (2006) distinguishes two different cases for shear.ct .ct .25 f ctk0.3. if not. (5. f ctk0.4) and γ mfb generally set as 1.c is the design shear resistance provided by concrete when longitudinal steel reinforcement is used.Chapter V When Efw ε fw is greater than f fbd . (5. defined as 0. τ Rd is the design shear stress per unit area.4 Italian Guidelines In compliance with the Eurocode 2 approach (Eurocode 2. the new formula presented is a modified version of the Eurocode 2 shear equation recommended for conventional steel RC members. (5.02.6 − d ) ≥ 1⏐ (with d in meters).05 / γ c .

Φ .f and VRd.ct and VRd. max .3 was determined after the comparison with experimental data reported in the following section. where VRd. and γ f.ct has been proposed: ⎛E ⎞ = 1.12).f = Afv f fr d . defined as f fd γ f. computed dividing the characteristic value by the strength safety factor for FRP ( γ f = 1.c . and VRd.5 ).12) and extend it to FRP RC members. The assessment analysis of eq. (5. the following expression for VRd.ct (5.3 ⎜ f ⎟ VRd. When considering members requiring shear reinforcement. s (5.13) where ρ f replaces ρs and can not be less than 0. moreover the limitation 1.3 ⋅ ( Ef Es ) 1/ 2 ≤ 1 shall be satisfied.f is the contribution of FRP stirrups. computed in compliance with the truss analogy as: VRd.14) where f fr is the so-called reduced tensile strength of FRP for shear design. max are the same quantities introduced before.Φ being the partial factor which further reduces the design tensile strength of FRP reinforcement to account for the bending effect. γ f.02.13) is reported in the following section.Φ shall be set equal to: 115 . f fd being the design tensile strength of FRP reinforcement. the coefficient 1. The rationale behind the above formula was based on the objective of developing a reliable and simple equation having a structure which practitioners are familiar with.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars A calibration has been conducted by the CNR DT 203 Task Group in order to modify eq.ct + VRd.01 nor exceed 0. (5. then it will be appropriate to propose an updated equation in which weighted safety factors are specifically applied to each term of equation (5. the ultimate design shear strength of a member reinforced with longitudinal FRP reinforcement and FRP stirrups can be evaluated as the minimum between VRd. ⎝ Es ⎠ 1/ 2 VRd. Once a full comprehension will be reached about how much the different mechanisms change their contribution compared to the case of steel reinforcement.

1997.. 2003. 2004. Yost et al.. the ratio of the straight FRP bar strength to the bent FRP portion design strength..0 MPa (specimens with f c ' > 50MPa were neglected not being typical of FRP RC members). 1995. El-Sayed et al. Swamy & Aburawi. Mizukawa et al. (5. 1993. 1995. Lubell et al. Tariq & Newhook. test results where premature failure occurred were disregarded (Michaluk et al.. (5.03. 2002. CSA eq.. 1996. Tureyen & Frosh. A comparison of the four formulations is reported hereafter. since CNR-DT 203 prescribes a minimum ρ f equal to 0.7 and 50.. Tottori and Wakui. 1997.. 2001. Deitz et al. Duranovic et al. d b . Nakamura & Higai. on the stirrups spacing and on the design tensile strength of the FRP shear reinforcement. ranged between 0. however.0025 and 0. Six specimens were reinforced with aramid FRP bars. All specimens failed in shear.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND CODES PREDICTIONS 5. Vijay et al.. a database composed of test results related to 88 tested beams and one way slabs without FRP stirrups (Nagasaka et al. on the distance from the compression fiber to the centroid of the main tensile reinforcement. 2001. in all other cases. 2006) was used for comparisons. 2005..01 for members that do not require shear reinforcement. 1993. ElSayed et al. 5. 2004..4. The concrete compressive strength. experimental points below this threshold (dashed line in Figure 1 and Figure 2) were not considered for the sake of 116 . (5.14) depends on the amount of FRP shear reinforcement. Zhao et al.8). and JSCE eq. 1998).3). ρ f . Razaqpur et al. 1997. f c ' .13). and 50 specimens reinforced using glass FRP bars... Alkhajardi et al. Similarly to ACI eq. (5..Chapter V - 2 when no specific experimental tests are performed. as given in Table 1. 32 specimens reinforced with carbon FRP. ranged between 22.1 Members Without Shear Reinforcement In order to verify equation (5.10). The reinforcement ratio of tensile FRP bars. provided that the bend radius is not less than six times the equivalent diameter. eq. 1999.

1).007 0.017 0.0 28.023 0.013 0.1 24.005 0.026 0.005 0.009 0.3 34. '06 f 'c [MPa] 24.023 0.6 44.005 0. '99 Yost et al.1 34.3 36.011 0.0 40. Vexp . to the corresponding analytical value derived according to each of the four considered guidelines.0 40.3 44.007 0.010 0.015 0.3 36.011 0.1 22.011 0.011 0. 29 %).015 0.0 40.05.2 43.030 0.013 0.9 22.3 36.019 0.007 0.3 36.9 34.3 36.012 0.5 40.007 0.8 36.0 44. d . 117 .014 0.021 0.3 36.3 43. '97 Swamy & Aburawi '97 Deitz et al.017 Ef [GPa] 40 40 40 41 38 47 41 38 47 42 42 42 42 42 42 120 120 120 120 120 120 40 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 114 114 114 40 40 40 40 40 130 40 130 40 130 40 Type GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP AFRP GFRP GFRP AFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP GFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP CFRP GFRP CFRP GFRP CFRP GFRP Vexp [kN] 53 36 40 108 95 115 137 153 177 55 64 43 46 49 45 49 46 48 53 56 58 136 36 47 47 43 96 47 38 140 167 190 113 142 163 163 168 78 71 104 60 125 78 The predictions from equation (5. w/o safety factor) and coefficient of variation (i.024 0..3 36..3 36.0 40.3 37.3 bw [mm] 250 250 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 300 300 150 150 150 150 150 200 150 150 254 305 305 305 305 305 229 229 229 178 178 178 229 229 229 279 279 279 254 254 254 229 229 229 d [mm] 265 265 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 150 150 250 250 250 265 265 260 210 210 222 158 158 158 158 158 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 224 224 224 224 224 224 ρf 0.018 0.011 0.5 40.5 42.6 43.5 49.009 0. '96 Mizukawa et al.018 0. the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation relating the ratio of the shear resistance attained experimentally.009 0.3 36.0 50.50.017 0. It can be seen that the CNR-DT 203 equation has the least mean values of both Vexp Vpred (i.008 0. The effective depth.7 38. '93 Tottori and Wakui '93 Nakamura & Higai '95 Zhao et al '95 Vijay et al.e.006 0.023 Ef [GPa] 56 56 137 137 137 192 192 192 58 58 58 29 29 105 105 105 54 54 130 45 45 34 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Type AFRP AFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP GFRP GFRP CFRP CFRP CFRP GFRP GFRP CFRP AFRP AFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP GFRP Vexp [kN] 113 83 98 123 118 147 93 78 152 62 47 33 36 45 46 41 45 45 62 26 22 39 27 28 29 29 28 39 39 37 28 35 32 40 49 45 44 46 46 38 51 47 44 42 41 Reference Alkhajardi et al.004 0.014 0.1 32.009 0. '01 f 'c [MPa] 34. 1.016 0.5 45.0 46.013 0.2 34.6 43.0 40.017 0.3 34.009 0.2 43.3 36.0 40.Database for FRP RC Members Without Shear Reinforcement Reference Nagasaka et al.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars the comparison.021 0. Table 2 reports the mean.011 0.017 0. '04 Razaqpur et al.9 46.6 bw d [mm] [mm] 178 279 178 287 178 287 457 360 457 360 457 360 457 360 457 360 457 360 160 346 160 346 160 346 160 346 160 325 160 325 130 310 130 310 130 310 130 310 130 310 130 310 450 970 200 225 200 225 200 225 200 225 200 225 200 225 200 225 1000 165 1000 165 1000 161 1000 162 1000 159 1000 162 1000 159 1000 154 250 326 250 326 250 326 250 326 250 326 250 326 ρf 0.0 40.014 0.012 0.7 27. '05 El-Sayed et al.013 0.5 40.0 40.3 37.010 0.007 0. ranged between 150 and 970 mm.3 36.3 36.021 0.1 27 28.013 0.009 0.3 36.007 0.3 36.3 42. and the shear span to depth ratio.007 0.6 44.010 0.018 0.014 0.019 0.017 0.005 0.3 36.009 0.007 0.3 43.012 0.007 0.7) and (5.9 46.007 0.8 34.6 37. a d .017 0.5 40.1 37.018 0.009 0.019 0.7 39.13) were compared with the values derived using equations (5.023 0.9 40. Vpred .9 46.007 0. both with and without safety factors.009 0.3 36.e.5 40. (5.1 39.3 42.019 0. ranged between 1. '01 Tureyen & Frosh '02 Tariq & Newhook '03 Lubell et al.003 0.1 40.9 44. Table 1 .3 36.1 34.9 46.0 40.6 30.8 31 34. '04 El-Sayed et al.019 0.023 0.9).0 50.011 0.9 46.015 0.015 0.2 34.2 30.1 24.008 0.005 0.006 0.009 0. '97 Duranovic et al.015 0.78 and 6.007 0.

the equation (5.00 0. w/ Saf.82 1.50 CSA S-802 4. ACI 440.13) is found to be reliable for predicting the concrete contribution to the shear capacity of FRP RC members. Fact.50 0.48 32% 2. Hence. Fact. Fact.14 0.Chapter V Table 2 .51 34% 2.02 0.13) with Major Design Provisions (w/o Saf.Comparison of Eq.0025 0.31 29% 1. ρf Figure 1 .51 0.51 0. CSA S806 w/o Saf.13) with Major Design Provisions Vexp / Vpred CNR DT 203 w/o Saf.50 1.025 0. w/ Saf. Factors) 118 .03 Reinforcement ratio of reinforcing FRP bars.00 0.00 CNR-DT 203 ACI 440.1R JSCE 3. w/ Saf. as shown in ) Figure 2.0125 0. Dev.49 2.50 3. of Var. (5.01 0.005 0. Fact. Mean St.1R w/o Saf.05 0. (5. Fact.69 0. 4.Comparison of Eq. Coeff.0175 0. Fact.00 1. (5. 1.50 0.00 Vexp / Vpred 2.69 .0075 0.86 1.02 0. Fact. Fact.13) can be deemed adequately conservative as well. therefore eq.68 Figure 1 shows that the trend line of CNR-DT 203 equation is similar to that of CSA S-802 equation.0275 0.50 2. regarded together with the Japanese equation as the most reliable. w/ Saf.61 30% 2. For the CNR-DT 203 equation when considering the material safety factors all the values Vexp Vpred remained greater than unity ((V exp Vpred ) ave = 1.0225 0.69 0.015 0. JSCE w/o Saf.

015 0. ρf Figure 2 .Comparison of Eq.01 0. for beams with circular helixes.00 1. Alsayed et al.1R JSCE 4. Duranovic et al. (5. in some of the beams having helical stirrups the helixes were placed only along the top of beam.3). Factors) 5. Maruyama & Zhao (1994. Only specimens with both longitudinal and transverse FRP reinforcement were investigated.14) with equations (5.00 Vexp / Vpred 3. Tottori and Wakui (1993).02 0.0275 0. although results reported by Whitehead & Ibell (2005) were not considered for comparison since all specimens had f c ' > 50MPa . shear compression or flexural shear failure) was collected from experimental programs carried out by Nagasaka et al. according to the relevant researchers the assumption of considering an effective diameter reduced by 30% with 119 .2 Members With Shear Reinforcement In order to verify equation (5.0125 0.8) and (5.0175 0.00 0.14).4. (5. Zhao et al. (5. None of the tested specimens was disregarded depending on the shape of stirrups: specimens having closed loops or helical shaped stirrups made either of bars or square rods were used for comparisons.0075 0.0225 0.13) with Major Design Provisions (w/ Saf. (1999). in such cases the depth of the helixes rather than the effective depth was used in calculations. Nakamura & Higai (1995).005 0. (1997).00 ACI 440. such database was the basis for comparison of eq. Shehata et al.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 6. (1996).00 2.00 0. 1996).0025 0.025 0.00 CSA S-802 CNR-DT 203 5.03 Reinforcement ratio of reinforcing FRP bars. (1997). (1995). and Whitehead & Ibell (2005). (1993). a database composed of test results related to 85 tested beams reinforced with FRP stirrups and failed in shear (shear tension. Vijay et al. Moreover. as given in Table 3.10).

2006 and CNR-DT 203. 120 . f fu (corresponding to the characteristic value in both JSCE and CNR-DT 203) ranged between 400 and 2040 MPa (environmental factors assigned by both ACI 440. and 4 specimens had hybrid (carbon and glass) FRP stirrups. 23 specimens were reinforced using glass FRP stirrups.5% in 6 specimens. In cases where no specifications on the internal radius of stirrups bend.04 and 1. (1995) was considered.5% in 8 specimens). ρfw ranged between 0. d ranged between 100 and 750 mm. 1.0% in 10 specimens and 1.Chapter V respect to the nominal diameter value was made in order to account for the reduced tie action. the minimum value rb = 3d b suggested by Ehsani et al. 2006 accounting for durability issues in the FRP reinforcement were set equal to the unity).50 %. (1993) had a considerably high amount of shear FRP reinforcement ( ρfw =0. The ultimate tensile strength of FRP shear reinforcement. 37 specimens had carbon FRP stirrups. were provided in the literature source.1R-06. rb . It is underlined that specimens tested by Nagasaka et al. 21 specimens were reinforced with aramid FRP stirrups. Afv ranged between 9 and 346 mm2. and s ranged between 20 and 200 mm.

Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars

**Table 3 - Database for FRP RC Members With Shear Reinforcement
**

Geometric data b d a/d [mm] [mm] 200 325 3,2 200 325 3,2 200 325 3,2 200 325 2,2 200 325 3,2 200 325 4,3 200 325 3,2 200 325 3,2 200 325 3,2 200 325 3,2 200 325 3,2 Tottori & Wakui '93 200 325 3,2 200 325 3,2 200 325 3,2 200 325 3,2 200 325 3,2 150 250 2,5 150 250 2,5 150 250 2,5 150 250 2,5 300 500 2,5 150 260 3,1 250 253 1,2 250 253 1,2 250 253 1,2 250 253 1,8 250 253 1,8 250 253 1,8 250 253 2,4 250 253 2,4 250 253 1,8 250 253 1,8 250 253 1,8 253 1,8 Nagasaka et al. 250 250 253 1,8 '93 250 253 1,8 250 253 1,8 250 253 1,8 250 253 2,4 250 253 2,4 250 253 1,8 250 253 1,8 250 253 1,8 250 253 1,8 250 253 1,8 250 253 2,4 150 265 1,9 150 265 1,9 Vijay et al. '96 150 265 1,9 150 265 1,9 Reference Concrete f 'c [MPa] 44,4 44,7 44,9 44,6 44,8 44,6 45,0 44,7 44,7 39,4 39,4 39,4 39,4 39,4 39,4 39,4 35,5 37,6 34,3 34,2 31,9 42,2 29,5 34,7 33,5 29,5 29,5 29,5 33,5 33,5 34,1 35,4 34,1 34,1 35,4 36,7 24,0 23,0 24,8 23,4 23,0 23,0 24,0 24,0 40,3 40,0 44,8 44,8 31,0 31,0 Longitudinal reinforcement Shear reinforcement ρf ρ fw Ef Ef Type Type [%] [GPa] [%] [GPa] CFRP 0,70 137 GFRP 0,15 40 CFRP 0,70 137 GFRP 0,15 40 CFRP 0,70 137 AFRP 0,07 69 CFRP 0,70 137 CFRP 0,07 110 CFRP 0,70 137 CFRP 0,07 110 CFRP 0,70 137 CFRP 0,07 110 CFRP 0,70 137 CFRP 0,04 144 CFRP 0,70 140 CFRP 0,06 137 CFRP 0,70 140 CFRP 0,10 137 CFRP 0,70 140 AFRP 0,12 58 AFRP 0,92 58 AFRP 0,09 58 AFRP 0,92 58 AFRP 0,13 58 AFRP 0,92 58 AFRP 0,23 58 AFRP 0,92 58 AFRP 0,12 58 AFRP 0,92 58 AFRP 0,12 58 AFRP 0,92 58 CFRP 0,04 137 CFRP 0,55 94 CFRP 0,12 94 CFRP 0,55 94 CFRP 0,24 94 CFRP 1,05 94 CFRP 0,12 94 CFRP 2,11 94 CFRP 0,12 94 CFRP 0,53 94 CFRP 0,06 94 AFRP 3,08 63 AFRP 0,13 53 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 0,50 115 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 1,00 115 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 1,50 115 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 0,50 115 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 1,00 115 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 1,50 115 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 0,50 115 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 1,00 115 AFRP 1,90 56 AFRP 0,50 62 AFRP 1,90 56 AFRP 1,00 62 AFRP 1,90 56 HFRP 0,50 45 AFRP 1,90 56 HFRP 1,00 45 AFRP 1,90 56 GFRP 0,50 47 AFRP 1,90 56 GFRP 1,00 47 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 1,00 115 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 1,50 115 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 1,00 115 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 1,50 115 AFRP 1,90 56 AFRP 1,00 62 AFRP 1,90 56 AFRP 1,50 62 AFRP 1,90 56 HFRP 1,00 45 AFRP 1,90 56 HFRP 1,50 45 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 1,50 115 AFRP 1,90 56 CFRP 1,50 115 AFRP 1,43 54 AFRP 0,93 54 AFRP 1,43 54 AFRP 0,62 54 AFRP 0,64 54 AFRP 0,93 54 AFRP 0,64 54 AFRP 0,62 54

Vexp

[kN] 103 106 85 162 83 74 98 108 157 103 83 98 132 107 78 86 58 82 71 81 160 60 251 317 366 208 282 288 162 234 205 277 173 248 179 233 211 226 186 195 194 207 194 216 298 231 127 115 123 123

Geometric data b d a/d [mm] [mm] 150 250 2,5 150 250 2,5 150 250 2,5 150 250 2,5 Maruyama & 150 250 2,5 Zhao '94 150 250 2,5 150 250 2,5 150 250 2,5 150 250 2,5 200 250 3,0 Nakamura & 200 250 3,0 Higai '95 200 250 3,0 200 250 3,0 150 250 3,0 150 250 3,0 Zhao et al. '95 150 250 3,0 150 250 2,0 150 250 4,0 150 250 2,5 150 250 2,5 2,5 Maruyama & 150 250 Zhao '96 150 250 2,5 300 500 2,5 450 750 2,5 Alsayed et al. 200 310 3,2 '97 200 309 2,4 3,3 Duranovic et al. 150 230 '97 150 230 2,2 3,2 Shehata et al. 135 470 '00 135 470 3,2 110 100 3,1 110 200 3,1 Whitehead & 110 100 3,1 Ibell '05 110 100 3,1 110 200 3,1 (*) Single leg area Reference

Concrete f 'c [MPa] 36,2 38,3 35,0 33,1 31,3 30,5 30,5 31,3 34,9 35,4 33,4 35,2 35,2 34,3 34,3 34,3 34,3 34,3 34,0 34,0 34,0 34,0 29,5 29,5 29,5 29,6 33,0 33,0 50,0 50,0 55,61 63,91 55,61 58,1 58,1

Longitudinal reinforcement ρf Ef Type [%] [GPa] CFRP 0,55 94 CFRP 0,55 94 CFRP 1,05 94 CFRP 1,10 94 CFRP 1,39 94 CFRP 2,11 94 CFRP 2,11 94 CFRP 2,11 94 CFRP 2,11 94 GFRP 1,61 29 GFRP 1,61 29 GFRP 1,61 29 GFRP 1,61 29 CFRP 3,02 105 CFRP 3,02 105 CFRP 2,27 105 CFRP 1,51 105 CFRP 1,51 105 CFRP 1,07 100 CFRP 1,07 100 CFRP 1,07 100 CFRP 1,07 100 CFRP 1,07 100 CFRP 1,07 100 GFRP 1,37 36 GFRP 1,28 43 GFRP 1,31 45 GFRP 1,31 45 CFRP 1,25 137 CFRP 1,25 137 AFRP 0,32 60 AFRP 0,32 60 AFRP 0,32 60 AFRP 0,32 60 AFRP 0,32 60

Shear reinforcement ρ fw Ef Type [%] [GPa] CFRP 0,12 94 CFRP 0,24 94 CFRP 0,12 94 CFRP 0,24 94 CFRP 0,24 94 CFRP 0,24 94 CFRP 0,18 94 CFRP 0,15 94 CFRP 0,12 94 GFRP 0,35 31 GFRP 0,35 31 GFRP 0,18 31 GFRP 0,18 31 GFRP 0,42 39 CFRP 0,42 100 GFRP 0,42 39 GFRP 0,42 39 GFRP 0,42 39 GFRP 0,43 30 GFRP 0,43 30 GFRP 0,43 30 GFRP 0,43 30 GFRP 0,86 30 GFRP 1,28 30 GFRP 0,21 42 GFRP 0,40 42 GFRP 0,35 45 GFRP 0,35 45 CFRP 0,29 137 GFRP 1,07 41 AFRP 0,40 60 AFRP 0,19 60 AFRP 0,40 60 AFRP 0,80 60 AFRP 0,29 60

Vexp

[kN] 59 84 73 89 95 120 86 75 83 83 100 56 66 113 126 116 123 73 110 107 148 131 370 590 69 109 49 67 305 305 45 51 53 55 60

The predictions from equation (5.14) were compared with the values derived using equations (5.3), (5.8), and (5.10). Table 2 reports the ratio of the shear resistance attained experimentally, Vexp , to the corresponding analytical values derived according to each of the four considered guidelines, Vpred (both Vexp and Vpred are meant to be the total strength of the tested specimens).

Table 4 - Comparison of Eq. (5.14) with Major Design Provisions

Vexp / Vpred

CNR DT 203 Mean St. Dev. Coeff. of Var. 0,83 0,27 32% 1,28 0,42 33% ACI 440.1R 1,63 0,69 42% 2,18 0,92 42% CSA S806 1,08 0,39 36% 1,58 0,60 38% 2,66 1,13 43% JSCE 3,68 1,57 43%

w/o Saf. Fact. w/ Saf. Fact. w/o Saf. Fact. w/ Saf. Fact. w/o Saf. Fact. w/ Saf. Fact. w/o Saf. Fact. w/ Saf. Fact.

The CNR-DT 203 equation proves to give the least (Vexp Vpred )

ave

both with and

without safety factors, i.e. 0.83 and 1.28, respectively, and the least coefficients of

121

Chapter V

variation, i.e. 32 % and 33%, respectively (see Table 5; two different values of coefficient of variation were derived for equations where two different material factors are present, namely concrete and FRP safety factors); Figure 3 shows the calculated ultimate shear strength based on the four equations (each with all safety factors set equal to 1) versus that measured:

800

CNR DT 203 ACI '06

700

CSA JSCE

UNSAFE

600

500

Vpred [kN]

400

300

SAFE

200

100

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Vexp [kN]

Figure 3 - Comparison of Eq. (5.14) with Major Design Provisions (w/o Saf. Factors)

The comparison between experimental results and predictions given by CNR-DT 203, ACI 440.1R-06 and CSA S-802 equations points out that there are some very un-conservative results which are related to the test data by Nagasaka et al. (1993) (see upper portion of Figure 3). The authors believe that this discrepancy could be due to the fact that only part of the high percentage of shear reinforcement is effectively contributing to the shear capacity of the members. In such cases Vexp Vpred was found to be lower than unity even when considering safety factors for all the equations except for the JSCE equation (which conversely seems rather conservative); again, this is particularly occurring for the experimental results reported by Nagasaka et al. (1993). This aspect is better investigated hereafter.

122

Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars

5.4.3 Influence of Bent Strength of Stirrups and Shear Reinforcement Ratio The available literature data found in the first stage for the bend strength of FRP

induced the CNR DT 203 Task Group to set an upper bound value of

**γ f,Φ = f fd f fb = 2 . Later more data were retrieved (Nagasaka et al., 1993, Nakamura
**

and Higai, 1995, Vijay et al., 1996, Shehata et al., 1999), and then it is now possible to investigate the influence of the strength reduction of stirrups due to the bend based on a wider number of data. For 32 out of 85 shear tested beams the ratio f fd f fb was provided by the relevant authors; 26 extra values were reported by Shehata et al. (1999) from tests carried out to specifically study the bend effect on the strength of FRP stirrups. In Figure 4 the overall 58 values f fd f fb versus Ef are depicted, showing the great scattering of results; similar outcomes are attained when considering d b in lieu of Ef (see Figure 5).

3,0

2,5

2,0

ffu/ffbend

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

E f [GPa]

Figure 4 - Straight to Bend Strength Ratio vs Modulus of Elasticity of FRP Bars

123

(5.Φ = ffd/ffb w/ Saf.15) f fd f fb was available were used for The 32 shear tested specimens where comparison of eq.Φ = 2 w/o Saf.40 44% 1.55 46% 1. (5.1R γf.44 52% 0. the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation of Vexp / Vpred relating each of the three equations.Comparison of Eq.Chapter V 3 2.23 37% 0.14) modified by replacing γ f.15) with CNR DT 203 eq.14) with Eq. Fact. Figure 6 shows the trend of Vexp versus Vpred . (5.66 39% 124 . Fact. Table 5 . (5.14) and ACI eq. 0. (5.Straight to Bend Strength Ratio vs Diameter of FRP Bars Equation (5.56 0. Fact.5 0 0 2 4 6 d b [mm] 8 10 12 14 Figure 5 . of Var. ACI 440. limited predominantly by the maximum strain rather than by the strength of stirrup bent portion). Fact. ρ max=1% w/o Saf.85 0.3) (only the American equation was considered as reference for comparison with the Italian equation because it has a slightly different approach.31 30% 0. Fact. derived with the three equations.22 0.3) Vexp / Vpred CNR DT 203 γf.97 0.64 0.62 0.28 51% 0. w/ Saf.71 0.03 0. both with and without safety factors. w/ Saf.36 37% 1.74 46% 1. Dev.15) and Eq.5 2 f fu/f fbend 1. ρ max=1% Mean St.89 0. Coeff. (5. Fact. Table 5 reports the mean.Φ = 2 with the experimental value of f fd f fb can be considered: Vf = Afv f fd d f fb s f fd (5.5 1 0. ρ max=1% w/o Saf.

Therefore.1R-06 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Vexp [kN] Figure 6 . (1996).8 (that is when the bend strength of the bar approaches that of the straight portion) and gives more scattered predictions.004 is justified as the strain that prevents degradation of aggregate interlock and corresponding concrete shear.3) and Eq. where the average stress of FRP stirrups 125 .Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 900 UNSAFE 800 700 SAFE 600 Vpred [kN] 500 400 300 CNR DT 203 . (5. also the most un-conservative predictions in Figure 6 are related to the experiments conducted by Nagasaka et al.14) The results show that eq. which greatly overestimates the shear capacity when f fd f fb is lower than 1. (5. Such conclusion is in agreement with the results of shear tests carried out by Nagasaka et al.14) and (5.3). it can be concluded that the strength of stirrups bent portion seems not to be a significant factor affecting the FRP stirrups contribution to shear.004 Ef (the value 0.14) than eq.Comparison of Eq. Priestley et al. (5. (1993).15) with Eq.15).15). similarly to what was observed for Figure 3. 1993).gamma = 2 CNR DT 203 . where the minimum value for f fv always corresponded to 0.. (5. gives better predictions than equations (5. better outcomes are derived for eq. this result becomes more evident when the bend strength of stirrup approaches that of the straight portion and justifies the larger inaccuracy of some analytical results (Nagasaka et al. (5.gamma = ffd / ffb ACI 440. besides. (1993). (5. as expected.

60 0.0035 0. Coeff. better predictions are attained for the referred equations in terms of both mean and coefficient of variation (see Table 5).27 32% 1. ε f.1R ε f.16) (the comparison was based on the total group of shear tested beams.lim *E f w/o Saf. thus yielding to equation (5. w/ Saf. Mean St. According to the findings of Nagasaka et al.28 0. (5.16): Vf = Afv ε f.69 42% 2.004*E f w/o Saf.lim ⋅ Ef .Proposed Values for the Limit Strain of FRP Stirrups type of fiber CFRP AFRP GFRP ε f.03 0.Influence of Limit Strain of FRP Stirrups on CNR DT 203 and ACI 440. Fact.43 0. (5. (1993) pointed out that for stirrup ratios ρfw over 1 % the increase rate of shear capacity greatly reduces.63 0.48 30% 1.3) and eq.52 37% 1. (1993). 85 experimental results). if this remark is accounted for in eq. 0. ε f. (5. Fact. Fact. Dev. w/ Saf. Fact. while in equation (14) f fr was replaced by ε f.0085 such values were used in replacement of 0.1R-06 (2006) in eq.90 0.lim . Fact.lim Ef d s (5. Fact. i.70 37% In addition.lim *E f 0.004 given by ACI 440.83 0.18 0. Fact.Chapter V across a critical crack obtained from the strain gage readings was measured to be only half of the breaking strength of bent portions.14) by limiting ρfw to 1% . Fact.3) and (5.3).16) Table 7 shows that the two modified equations seem to give better predictions than corresponding equations (5.0070 0.42 33% 1. Nagasaka et al. ACI 440. w/ Saf.31 30% 1. 126 . depending on the type of stirrup fiber: Table 6 .92 42% 1.lim 0.Φ = 2 w/o Saf.1R Equations Vexp / Vpred CNR DT 203 γf. the values reported in Table 6 are suggested as limit strains. w/o Saf. Table 7 . of Var. w/ Saf.e.

2.Φ factor accounting for bending effects of stirrups should be replaced by a term accounting for the limit strain not governed by rupture of bent portion. Vc . namely 0. 0.5 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS The paper presents an assessment of Eurocode-like design equations for predicting the shear strength of FRP RC members. the strength of stirrups bent portion seems not to be a significant factor affecting the FRP stirrups contribution to shear.max = 1% more reliable predictions are attained. Increasing the stirrup ratio ρfw over 1 % seems not to increase the shear capacity. this is confirmed by experimental results where the effective strain measured in the stirrups across critical cracks governed the shear failure. The following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The equation proposed by the CNR DT 203 accounting for the stirrups contribution to the shear strength seems to give rather good results. gives accurate predictions and can be conservatively used by practitioners.0085 for GFRP stirrups. Canadian and Japanese provisions using a large experimental database. in many shear tested members when the bend strength of stirrup approaches that of the straight portion the shear capacity did not increase as expected. nevertheless. The new expressions for the concrete and FRP stirrups contributions to the shear strength of FRP RC members have been compared with the corresponding American. The equation proposed by the CNR DT 203 accounting for the concrete contribution to the shear strength.0035 for CFRP stirrups. For shear reinforced members. 4. Moreover. which have been included in the lately issued CNR-DT 203 2006 guidelines of the Italian Research Council. when setting ρ fw.007 for AFRP stirrups and 0. 3. the γ f.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 5. 127 .

Calculating deflections and crack widths for flexural elements of concrete reinforced with FRP bars. INTRODUCTION In its final part the CNR-DT 203/2006 devotes 5 appendixes to specific topics that are paramount to lead practitioners and manufacturers in the use of FRP bars and grids. On selection and testing of FRP bars: tasks and responsibilities of professionals (namely manufacturers. as proposed by the ACI Committee 440 in the document entitled “Guide Test Methods for Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures” (2004). that the manufacturer shall write reporting the statistical values needed for the evaluation of the characteristic strengths (e. Manufacturing techniques of FRP bars and grids.g. 128 . test laboratories and inspectors). for determining the geometric and mechanical properties of FRP bars. D. C. construction managers. sample mean.1. E. B. this section describes the procedure to be used by the manufacturer to determine through appropriate tests the FRP bar-concrete bond in order to accurately evaluate deflections and crack widths. On technical data sheet for FRP bars. percentile. Furthermore. these appendixes are: A. designers. standard deviation. Test methods for characterizing FRP bars. The information gathered throughout this investigation adds to the body of knowledge supporting further development of standard test methods for FRP reinforcing bars. confidence interval).Chapter VI Chapter VI TEST METHODS FOR THE CHARACTERIZATION OF FRP BARS 6. population. that basically reports the main characteristics of resins and the manufacturing processes of FRP bars.3R-04). contractors/subcontractors. ad-hoc test set-up procedures to facilitate the testing of such large-scale bars are presented. This chapter particularly focuses on the investigation of mechanical characteristics and geometrical properties of large-scale GFRP bars according to the Appendix B of the CNR-DT 203/2006 (and to ACI 440.

The outside diameter. 6.2. Because 22 mm is the maximum GFRP bar diameter considered. The ACI 440. Similar applications often require GFRP bars with large diameters to be used primarily because of their low modulus of elasticity as compared to steel reinforcing bars. the ACI guide does not provide any recommendations for larger diameters. Moreover. MECHANICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF LARGEDIAMETER GFRP BARS The use of GFRP bars is widely employed in a variety of civil engineering structures ranging from bridge deck applications to RC members used as ground containment. La. Because of the anisotropic characteristics of GFRP bars.2. Usually this omission either happens because of lack of information provided in test methods protocol or because of practical difficulties of laboratory implementation of the prescribed test methods. Considering a 32 mm diameter GFRP bar. load sharing between fibers is modified in large-scale bars where the stress path from the edge to the core of the reinforcing bar is somehow altered and significantly less effective as compared to both small-scale GFRP bars and steel bars. a brief overview of the existing recommendations is presented. As a result.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 6. plus two times the anchoring length. In the following paragraphs. sustained. L (where L shall be at least 40 times the bar diameter). Although official test method documents such as ACI. micro defects are more likely to affect the behavior of large-scale bars than the behavior of small-scale bars. ACI prescribes that the total length of the specimen needs to be equal to the free length. in many instances material suppliers do not provide product specifications in compliance with the aforementioned documents.1 Overview of the Existing Standard Test Methods The existing standard test methods do not provide exhaustive recommendations for testing large-diameter FRP bars. the resulting free length is 129 . ISO and ASTM are now available for the mechanical and geometrical characterization of FRP material. the nominal wall thickness.3R-04 guide (2004) in Appendix A gives the recommended dimensions of test specimens and steel anchoring devices for testing FRP bars under monotonic. and cyclic tension. and the minimum length of the anchoring steel device are given as a function of the bar diameter.

which gives the same value as obtained with the ACI guide. db. which housed the GFRP specimen and acted as a load contrast. the ASTM D7205 standard (2006) prescribes that the free length of the specimen shall not be less than 380 mm nor less than 40 times db. 6.2. the ISO standard underlines that the anchoring device shall have the capability to transmit only the tensile force along the longitudinal axis of the test pieces.2 Experimental Program 6. Similarly. Steel plates were placed against the RC hollow column to better distribute the load. this measurement 130 . the free length shall be not less than 300 mm and not less than 40 times the nominal diameter.2. respectively. Regarding the anchoring length. A 100-ton hydraulic jack and a 100-ton load cell were applied to the edges of the hollow column to provide and measure the required load. An electric pump not shown in the picture was connected to the jack to apply the load. the minimum total length of the specimen should be 2200 mm. The rate of loading was such that GFRP bar failure was achieved in an average of seven minutes.1 Test Setup The experimental study consisted of performing tensile tests carried out with the use of a RC hollow column. the ISO TC 71/SC 6 N standard (2005) in Section 6. technical laboratories are not equipped to handle such long specimens for testing. by adding the maximum values given for La (460 mm for a 22 mm GFRP bar).2. Finally. Most of the times.Chapter VI calculated as L = 1280 mm. ISO doesn’t provide further information on specific minimum values to account for. Standard atmosphere laboratory conditions (23 ± 3 ˚C and 50 ± 10 % relative humidity) were measured during the performed tests. prescribes that when using FRP bars. which happens because of the high loads developed during the test. A picture and a sketch of the test setup used are represented in Figure 1. This setup enabled the provision of a whole shield for the personnel involved in the test against the dangerous scattering of fibers. showing test methods for tensile properties. although.

equivalent diameter. GFRP geometrical properties were calculated following ACI 440. The bar surface was ribbed with helicalshaped polyester resin. “EPOJET” from Mapei S.2.04 procedures for the determination of cross sectional area.3R. Test Setup 6. and equivalent circumference. The adhesive used to yield the grip between the anchoring cylinder and the bar was a two-component epoxy resin.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars leads to the same derived value as the above standards.p. 32-mm diameter.2 Specimen Preparation Three-meter-long. Each steel hollow 131 . Two anchoring-steel hollow cylinders 800 mm long were used to provide the necessary grip for the tensile test for each specimen as shown in Figure 2.2.A. The length of the specimen in the anchors shall be sufficient for adequate anchorage. LOAD CELL RC COLUMN 3000 2000 HYDRAULIC JACK TOP VIEW CROSS SECTION SPECIMEN Figure 1. Rockworm GFRP bars manufactured by ATP were used for the experimental campaign.

3 Strain Measuring Devices The strain assessment of GFRP specimens was the most difficult aspect of the experimental campaign to deal with.g. CROSS SECTION Specimen Length = 3000 mm Anchor Length = 800 mm Free Length = 1400 mm TOP VIEW Anchor Length = 800 mm STEEL HOLLOW CYLINDER POURED RESIN GFRP SPECIMEN STEEL HOLLOW CYLINDER Screws for Specimen Alignment Screws Holes Figure 2. Sketch of the Specimen and Picture of Steel Hollow Cylinders used as Anchorage Device Further characteristics of the anchoring-steel hollow cylinders (e. The ribbed surface of the bar did not allow attachment of the strain gages without changing the bar geometry. which resulted from the necessary elimination of the protuberances for the application of the strain gages. 132 . A preliminary test run using this configuration showed that the measured strain was compatible with its expected value. The possibility of gluing strain gages directly to the bar was also considered (see Figure 3a).2. 6. after registering failures in the device itself. to better resist the high stresses generated during the test. internal threaded pattern. The very first test was conducted on a bar just to record the failure load value with no strain measuring devices employed. external diameter.. and wall thickness) will be discussed later since they were gradually modified. however.2.Chapter VI cylinder was assembled with four top and four bottom screws used to align the specimen before pouring the resin. the maximum load recorded at failure was smaller than the one obtained in the very first test because of the reduced cross section of the bar.

Skepticism that the effective strain measured by the applied strain gages could have been smaller than the strain experimented by the bar urged the implementation of a third strain measuring approach based on the use of Linear Variable Differential Transducer (LVDT) to measure the elongation of the specimen under the applied load. yet the test failed for the rupture of the steel hollow cylinder edge. steel hollow cylinders with inner diameters of 65 mm and wall thicknesses of 10 mm were used. Following is a brief summary of the steps carried out to improve the efficiency of the proposed test setup: 1. as shown in Figure 4a.4 Tensile Tests As briefly highlighted before. As a first step. slip between poured resin and anchoring device occurred. 80-mm long. The performed test validated this solution.2.2. in both instances. The inner surface of the steel hollow cylinders was threaded improving the grip to prevent the bar from slipping from the anchoring device. The LVDT was centered in the middle portion of the specimen as shown in Figure 3c.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars As a second attempt. Two specimens were prepared using this configuration. a thin. smooth layer of very deformable resin having a diameter barely larger than the bar diameter (see Figure 3b) was applied around the middle portion of the specimen in order to provide a suitable support for the strain gages. Three strain gages installed every 120 degrees were used for each test. 133 . LVDT to be placed here a) Strain gage glued to the bar b) Strain gage on top of a layer of resin (at the end of the test) c) LVDT on center portion of specimen Figure 3. many adjustments were performed during the test phase on both the anchoring device and strain measuring system to achieve the complete success of the test. Measuring Devices to Record Strain 6. 2. its gage length was assumed equal to the specimen length.

The inspection of the rupture showed that the broken section had a 134 . Two tests were performed. the second test showed the same rupture of the steel hollow cylinder edge (see Figure 4a) as in case 2 but at a higher load (approximately 75 tons). with the rupture of the bar at a load of about 80 tons. Nevertheless. The first had the best result.Chapter VI a) Rupture of steel hollow cylinder used as anchoring device b) Rupture of FRP bar protuberances c) Circular inner threads resulting after removal of steel hollow cylinder d) Typical broom rupture of GFRP bar Figure 4. The wall thickness was maintained at 10 mm as was the threading of the inner surface. The steel hollow cylinder diameter was therefore enlarged to 75 mm to resist higher loads. Several Failure Modes of the Tested Specimens 1.

Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars

**double thinning because of both inner and outer threading of the steel hollow cylinder.
**

2. The distance between the inner threads of the steel hollow cylinder was

increased to avoid overlapping the outer thread. Five tests were performed in this phase, and they all failed because of a new event—the rupture of the bar protuberances from the bar itself (see Figure 4b) at a load ranging between 50 and 60 tons. Inspection of the specimens showed that the inner threads had been made circular by the manufacturer (Figure 4c) instead of elliptical, as required. The achieved stress on the protuberances could forego the bar core failure because of their weakness. In fact, bar protuberances are made out of mere resin and do not include any glass fiber.

3. As a last step, steel hollow cylinders with proper internal elliptical threads

were delivered. Nine tests were carried out; the typical broom failure of the bar (see Figure 4d) was obtained at a load of approximately 80 tons. Further slip of the protuberances from the bar itself was observed at a load close to the one expected for the rupture of the bar. However, this specific failure is not because of inefficiency of the proposed test setup.

6.2.3 Test Results 6.2.3.1 Geometrical Properties The cross sectional properties of the GFRP bars were determined using 5 bar specimens, approximately 200 mm long, and a graduated measuring cylinder with a gradient of 10 mL, as suggested by ACI 440.3R-04 (2004), and of sufficient height and diameter to contain the specimen. After filling the dried cylinder with water and measuring the length of each specimen 3 times (rotating the specimens by 120 degrees for each measurement), each one was immersed in the fluid to determine the volume increase. When the volume and length of each of the 5 specimens had been determined, the cross-sectional area A was determined by dividing the specimen’s volume by its length and rounding to the nearest 1 mm2. Hence, the equivalent diameter (db) of each specimen was calculated by assuming the cross section to be a circle. Please

135

Chapter VI

note that the cylinder gradient used was found to be inappropriate for such a test, its accuracy being not very adequate for such small volume increases. Table 1 shows the derived cross-sectional properties of the bars.

Table 1. Geometrical Properties of the GFRP Bars GEOMETRICAL PROPERTIES Diameter Circumf. Area V0 L Cb V1 A db [ml] [ml] [mm] [mm2] [mm] [mm] 915 700 257.0 837 32.6 102.5 910 700 258.0 814 32.2 101.1 910 700 258.1 814 32.2 101.1 912 700 257.9 822 32.4 101.6 912 700 258.4 820 32.3 101.5 AVERAGE 821 32 102

6.2.3.2 Tensile Properties Table 2 and Table 3 report the mechanical properties of the bars brought to failure. ACI 440.3R-04 prescribes basing the test findings on test specimens that fail in the test section only (see Figure 4d). Hence, the bars which had the ribs detachment have not been taken into account, since that occurred in the anchoring section. However, this issue is one of the possible failures that this product may undergo when applied in the field; therefore, these findings should be taken into account by the standard test methods, provided that such failures are not promoted by the anchoring device itself.

Table 2. Mechanical Properties of the GFRP Bars Arrived at Failure

Specimen 1 2 3 4 5

Specimen

Test date [-]

12/5/05 7/6/05 7/6/05 20/6/05 20/6/05

Bar Area [mm ]

821 821 821 821 821

2

**Ultimate Tensile Load Strength fu Fu [N]
**

806,704 640,816 793,077 762,585 810,141

[MPa]

983 781 966 929 987

1 2 3 4 5

Table 3. Mean Values Extracted

136

Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars

Average Tensile Strength [MPa] Standard Deviation [MPa] Guaranteed Tensile Strength [MPa] Modulus of Elasticity [Gpa] Guaranteed Ultimate Strain [-]

929 86 671 44.7 0.015

6.3. CONCLUSIVE REMARKS

The main objective of the performed tensile tests was to investigate the effectiveness of the proposed test setup procedures specifically designed for the mechanical characterization of large-scale (32 mm) GFRP bars to be used as internal reinforcement of concrete members. The following conclusions can be drawn: • Micro defects in GFRP reinforcement are more likely to affect the behavior of large-scale bars than the behavior of small-scale ones; hence, testing of the former should be supported when possible. The proposed test setup was found to be effective for this purpose. • The tests were safe, in spite of the high loads produced, thanks to the screening provided by the RC hollow column, which effectively bore the considerable stresses and protected the bystanders from the bars’ splinters. • Excellent protection was offered by the RC hollow column against dust and micro-fiber scatterings, which is very valuable when dealing with fibrous materials. The only drawback observed was the obstruction to the view of the bar behavior during the test execution. Therefore, a modification necessary to improve the technology proposed will consist in the use of two separated RC hollow columns joined together with structural steel in the middle part. This modification will allow observers to watch the ongoing test and to apply an extensometer or an LVDT, which can be easily removed before the bar failure. Moreover, the structural steel can be varied to fit the different lengths of specimens having different diameter.

137

applications and experience gained in Italy on FRP. concrete strengths and FRP reinforcement ratios) used to develop resistance models for FRP-RC members.5 to 2. A structural reliability analysis has been conducted based on the established resistance models and load models obtained from literature.Chapter VII Chapter VII CONCLUSIONS This study furthered the assessment of some crucial aspects that are at the basis of the Design Guidelines CNR-DT 203/2006. both for flexure and shear. that is the result of the effort lavished in ten years of research. “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars”. validated and supported by the knowledge provided by the existing international codes relating to the design of FRP RC structures. Following the main conclusions relating to these aspects are summarized. In particular this thesis analyzes: • • • The ultimate limit states (ULS) design.5) 138 . calculated using FORM for all FRP-RC beams and slabs for 5 ratios of live load to dead load moments (0. The serviceability limit states (SLS) flexural design. whereas experimental data reported in the literature have been used to quantify the variability related to the analysis method. recently issued under the auspices of the National Research Council (CNR). β. 7. 240 FRP-RC beams and 180 FRP-RC slabs have been designed to cover a wide design space considering an appropriate set of random design variables (cross-sectional dimensions. The reliability index.1 ULTIMATE FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR A reliability-based calibration of partial safety factors has been applied to assess the reliability levels of the ULS flexural design suggested by the Italian guidelines CNRDT 203/2006. Test methods for characterizing FRP bars. Monte-Carlo simulations have been performed to determine the variability in material properties and fabrication processes. specifically the deflection control.

For the 1200 design cases related to beam-type members (240 design cases by 5 ratios ML/MD) the value of γ f to be preferred is γ f = 1. it can be also observed that points with γ f = 1. fabrication process (F) and analysis method (P). where the materials are best exploited and then with the highest structural reliability values. Similar conclusions are derived if considering a different classification of results.or overreinforced sections to balanced failing sections. With respect to the values derived for beams. Regardless of member type (beams or slabs) and specific design considered.5 (current value proposed in the CNR-DT 203/2006) correspond to a good level of safety ( β 0 ≥ 7. as it slightly reduces the GFRP reinforcement strength and together it corresponds to a satisfactory level of safety of the member ( β 0 = 6.5). 4. although a wide range of design cases has been covered and statistical properties available in literature have been assigned to design variables. although the limitation on the strength of FRP reinforcement can be considered too penalizing and cost-ineffective. 2. steady values of β corresponding to under-reinforced (ρf/ρfb<0. depending on ρf/ρfb: two edge zones of low. five different zones can be identified. The research work carried out is strictly dependent on the specific design cases taken into account.5 ). The value γ f = 1.4 > β min = 5 at ULS). More thorough and refined results will be attained with the research growth in the field of composites. 3.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars and 30 values of ρf/ρfb. Nevertheless. a central zone with the maximum values of β corresponding to the balanced failing sections. the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. a general decrease of the reliability can be observed when accounting for the 900 slabs design cases in correspondence of the same values of γ f . has been assessed mainly depending on γ f and on the uncertainty effects due to material properties (M). and two transition zones with β variable going from under.1 .1 considered as an 139 . depending on the design values of materials strengths rather than on the corresponding characteristic values.5) and over-reinforced sections (ρf/ρfb>2.

The exponent m was determined on the basis of the comparison between analytical and experimental results. 140 . based on a large experimental database available in literature.the. Ec. evaluating Mcr.the and of the modulus of elasticity of concrete. A calibration analysis was conducted in compliance with the procedure proposed by the CNR-DT 203/2006 to determine an optimum value for the bond coefficient m. using the statistical analysis reported hereafter.the & Ec=Ec.2 SERVICEABILITY FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR The approaches followed in the CNR-DT 203/2006 for the flexural design of FRP RC elements at serviceability limit states have been illustrated. the trend of the reliability index vs γ f is similar to that obtained without the contribution of the three factors.exp & Ec. since Mcr. The value γ f = 1.exp & Ec=Ec.exp). 5.Chapter VII optimum value for beams.). the significance of Ec. the introduction of the experimental value of the cracking moment Mcr allows to examine the model efficiency disregarding the influence of the uncertainties due to Mcr.exp & Ec=Ec. nevertheless.the depends on the concrete strength in tension. but computed depending on the strength in compression. F and P. When accounting for M.the instead of Ec. in particular. regardless of the design space selected.exp). yet a general reduction in the reliability level is observed.the (1st case: Mcr=Mcr. rather than the corresponding experimental values (Mcr.the).exp.. The definition of the cracking moment is important since it influences the evaluation of deflection for FRP reinforced members (Pecce et al. the deflection control of FRP RC members depending on the bond between FRP reinforcement and concrete has been investigated. 7. that is a very uncertain parameter and usually can not be directly measured.5 proposed by the CNR-DT 203/2006 is enough reliable for the slabs design cases investigated. made of FRP RC elements subjected to four-points bending (beam anchorage) tests. Three different cases were analyzed in order to assess the influence of considering the theoretical values of the cracking moment Mcr.the is significant for the model application (2nd case: Mcr=Mcr.exp in the model application was taken into account (3rd case: Mcr=Mcr. does not match a satisfactory reliability level when referred to slabs. 2001). similarly.

Hence. proves that considering the experimental value of the cracking moment and of the modulus of elasticity of concrete instead of the theoretical values brings to more reliable deflection predictions. Therefore the value m=0. resulted to give better predictions than case 2). with a maximum variation of 17% with respect to m1. 7. case 3) where the theoretical value of Ec replaced the experimental value. where m1=0. The following conclusions can be drawn: 141 .the instead of Ec.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars The analyses showed that the bond coefficient m=2 proposed by CNR-DT 203/2006 should be replaced by a value lower than unity.87. Of the three values derived for the three cases investigated. where the theoretical value of Mcr was used instead of the corresponding experimental value. considering a large database of members with and without shear reinforcement failed in shear. considering the theoretical aforementioned values rather than the corresponding experimental quantities does not penalize the reliability of results considerably.87 is that proposed to use as bond coefficient when computing the deflections of FRP RC elements using the CNR-DT 203/2006 equation. Both the concrete and the FRP stirrups contributions to shear have been taken into account: the new equations derived with reference to Eurocode equations for shear of steel RC members have been verified through comparison with the equations given by ACI.exp. the values of m derived in case 2) and in case 3) do not differ from the value of case 1) considerably. CSA and JSCE guidelines. The investigation of available data collected allowed concluding that computing the cracking moment (rather than accounting for its experimental value) penalizes the reliability and the safety of deflection calculations more than considering Ec.3 SHEAR ULTIMATE BEHAVIOR The assessment of Eurocode-like design equations for the evaluation of the shear strength of FRP RC members. the first case. Of the two other cases considered. Nevertheless. as proposed by the CNR-DT 203/2006 has been carried out as well.

this is confirmed by experimental results where the effective strain measured in the stirrups across critical cracks governed the shear failure.Chapter VII 1. 7. Moreover. 3. Vc . nevertheless. The equation proposed by the CNR DT 203 accounting for the concrete contribution to the shear strength.4 TEST METHODS FOR THE CHARACTERIZATION OF FRP BARS The investigation of the mechanical and geometrical properties of large-scale GFRP bars has been accomplished according to the indications proposed by CNR-DT 203/2006 and by ACI 440.max = 1% more reliable predictions are attained.007 for AFRP stirrups and 0. Increasing the stirrup ratio ρfw over 1 % seems not to increase the shear capacity.Φ factor accounting for bending effects of stirrups should be replaced by a term accounting for the limit strain not governed by rupture of bent portion. hence. the γ f. when setting ρfw. 4.3R-04 guidelines. 2. ad-hoc test set-up procedures to facilitate the testing of such large-scale bars have been contrived.0085 for GFRP stirrups. since the available standard test methods do not provide exhaustive recommendations for testing large-diameter FRP bars. namely 0. The equation proposed by the CNR DT 203 accounting for the stirrups contribution to the shear strength seems to give rather good results. testing of the 142 . in many shear tested members when the bend strength of stirrup approaches that of the straight portion the shear capacity did not increase as expected. Furthermore. The experimental study consisted of performing tensile tests carried out with the use of a RC hollow column. The following conclusions have been drawn: • Micro defects in GFRP reinforcement are more likely to affect the behavior of large-scale bars than the behavior of small-scale ones.0035 for CFRP stirrups. the strength of stirrups bent portion seems not to be a significant factor affecting the FRP stirrups contribution to shear. For shear reinforced members. gives accurate predictions and can be conservatively used by practitioners. 0. which housed the GFRP specimen and acted as a load contrast.

The outcomes of this research plan will 143 . which can be easily removed before the bar failure. the structural steel can be varied to fit the different lengths of specimens having different diameter. Therefore. 7. in spite of the high loads produced. The only drawback observed was the obstruction to the view of the bar behavior during the test execution. it would be worth to extend this research study to other types of reinforcement. Likewise. thanks to the screening provided by the RC hollow column. a modification necessary to improve the technology proposed will consist in the use of two separated RC hollow columns joined together with structural steel in the middle part.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars former should be supported when possible. which effectively bore the considerable stresses and protected the bystanders from the bars’ splinters. The information gathered throughout this investigation adds to the body of knowledge supporting further development of standard test methods for FRP reinforcing bars. which is very valuable when dealing with fibrous materials. • Assessing the reliability of the formulation proposed by the CNR-DT 203/2006 to compute crack widths of FRP RC members. as: • Assessing the reliability levels related to other modes of failure that might control the design of FRP RC structures. such as shear failure and bond failure. as CFRP and AFRP. The proposed test setup was found to be effective for this purpose. This modification will allow observers to watch the ongoing test and to apply an extensometer or an LVDT. Moreover. • Investigating the influence of FRP bar properties on the different mechanisms contributing to the concrete strength. and that of the formulation computing the development length of FRP reinforcement. • Excellent protection was offered by the RC hollow column against dust and micro-fiber scatterings.5 RECOMMENDATIONS Further research is deemed necessary to investigate aspects related to the design of concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars. • The tests were safe.

Chapter VII be used to optimize the proposed equations in order to determine safety factors with different weight depending on each mechanism. 144 .

American Concrete Institute (ACI). Porto/Portugal. 2. USA.. 2002. H. Sapporo. Aiello. 42 p. 8. T.. and Almusallam. “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. A. 443p. L. “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. Load-Deflection Analysis of FRP Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members. 2001.. “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. M. MI. 2004. M. ACI 440. Michigan. “Building code requirements for reinforced concrete and commentary. Alsayed. Vol. ACI 440. "Shear Design for Beams Reinforced by GFRP Bars" Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. 7.02) and Commentary (318R-02). American Concrete Institute (ACI). “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318. Detroit. No.1R-03 (2003). Japan.4. 6. ACI Committee 440. Farmington Hills. Belarbi. Journal of Composites for Construction.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars REFERENCES 1. ACI 440. Alkhrdaji... 285-292.4. ACI Committee 440. American Concrete Institute (ACI). 1996. T. p. ACI Committee 318.. and Ombres. Y. Composites in Construction-CCC 2001. “Guide Test Methods for Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures”. 5. ACI 318-95. A. 4. Wideman. 3. 409-414. American Concrete Institute (ACI). ACI 440. S.1R-06 (2006). Al-Salloum. 9. p. H. “Shear Strength of GFRP RC Beams and Slabs” Proceedings of the International Conference. American Concrete Institute. (1997).1R-01 (2001). Farmington Hills. Farmington Hills. ACI Committee 440.” American Concrete Institute. and Nanni. 2000. 145 ..3R-04. A.

3. Fédération Internationale du Béton Proceedings of the 2° International Congress.” 1998 J. Ehsani. Desgagne.H. June 5-8.. V.. and Almusallam. 389-400..124 (12): 1375-1417. Saadatmanesh and M. P. 14.A. K. C. ACI Materials Journal. 20. DC. “Long-Term Deflections of GFRPReinforced Concrete Beams. Eng.. Pilakoutas. Cement and Concrete Composites. R. 15.. Naples. Alsayed. Al-Sunna. 13.. pp. pp 555 – 567. Ariz. Tucson.. T. 1996. 2006. Guadagnini. Riyadh 11421.” 2004 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada. “Design. “Performance of glass fiber reinforced plastic bars as a reinforcing material for concrete structures”. eds. P..” 80th Annual Transportation Research Board. 2000.. T. 12. “Recent approaches to shear design of structural concrete. 16.. B. 2006. Department of Civil Engineering.. Québec.References 10. and Bartholomew.. Y. Construction and Monitoring of Four Innovative Concrete Bridge Decks Using NonCorrosive FRP Composite Bars. Benmokrane. “Conditioning Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials for Testing”. B. “Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic Bar Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks. pp.H. Québec City. 1996. “Deflection of GFRP Reinforced Concrete Beams”.O. Waldron. Washington. 9-13. ASTM D618 (2002). Brown. 2001. 2004. Philadelphia. “Flexural Behaviour of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars”. H. Benmokrane. CD #01-3247. O. Box 800. 146 . S. B. American Society for Testing and Materials. G. USA. Bradberry. “Bond Strength and Load Distribution of Composite GFRP Reinforcing Bars in Concrete”. Saudi Arabia Composites: Part B 31. V. and Chaallal. S. “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars”. T. No.. ASCE-American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 445. Tighiouart. Al-Salloum. M..E. ASTM International. Jan. R. 17. Canada. pp. 246-253. 93.. 1998. 2001. No. 2006. Alsayed. King Saud University. 11. Italy. and Lackey. Struct. USA... 18... ASTM D7205.H. 1-11. 19.” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure (ICCI-96).

L. Ferguson. V.” Journal of the American Concrete Institute. Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-2). Canadian Standards Association. CSA-S806-02 (2002). Eurocode. Basis of structural design British-Adopted European Standard . CNR-DT 203/2006. 23.Code of Practice for Design and Construction”. Darwin. Tholen. Clarke. 220 p.3 (2004).. E. J. 24. CSA A23. London. pp. 2006.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 20. “Structural use of concrete. Sir William Halcrow & Partners. Idun.. 177 p. “Splice Strength of High Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars. 21.. N. Modification of Design Rules to Incorporate Non-ferrous Reinforcement”. 147 . BS EN 1990:2002. O'Regan D.-Feb. P. K. and Zuo.. 27. M. D. Part 1 ..3-94. 26. J. No. Italy. Canadian Standards Association. London. P.” ACI Structural Journal. 1996.. “Lapped Splices in Reinforced Concrete Beams. 132 p. 93. M. Rome. EUROCRETE Project. 1955. E & FN Spon. V. Great Britain.. Ontario. J. Ontario.L. and Thirugnanenedran C. Chinn. 28. Clarke J. P. 27-Jul-2002 / 118 p. L. p. “EUROCRETE Project. London. “Design and Construction of Building Components with Fibre-Reinforced Polymers”. 1995. D... Jan. Ontario. 27. BS 8110 (1997). CSA A23. 646-653. “Design of concrete structures reinforced with fibre composite rods” Proc. 95-107. British Standards Institution (BSI).. “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars” National Research Council. 64 p.. Toronto. 2. 29.. and Thompson. J. “Design of Concrete Structures”. Rexdale. “Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings” Canadian Standards Association. 1996. 1. 1994. and O’ Regan. No. 25. 22.

S.2. and Idun. 37.. 347-359. 33. D.References 30. D. Darwin. 35. p. Japan. National Bureau of Standards. 108 (5). ACI Materials Journal. July-Aug... Journal of Composite Structures. R. 38. 978–997. 31. Zuo. 92. “Norme tecniche per il calcolo. J. Galambos. Ehsani.. Div.. No. 59. I.. 1982. B. V. E. 34. D.. K. p. ASCE. “A Comparison between Monte Carlo and FORMs in Calculating the Reliability of a Composite Structure”. 93.. Ellingwood B. E. T. M.G. 1995. 479-486. L.. P. 1999.. Toward load and resistance factor design for fiberreinforced polymer composite structures... Ellingwood. H. H. No. and Waldron.” J. p. and Gesund. M. 1996.. Japan Concrete Institute. M. 279-286. 36. A.V. D. Rome. 3.. 32. 2003.. Pilakoutas.. Duranovic. 391-400. Washington (DC.M. 09/01/1996. C... “Development Length Criteria for Conventional and High Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars. Galambos T.PP. V. “Tests on Concrete Beams Reinforced with Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic Bars” Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3). Tholen. 1995.” ACI Structural Journal.. Journal of structural engineering.. Vol. R. Sapporo. G. l’esecuzione ed il collaudo delle strutture in cemento armato. Italy. and Cornell. Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures. and Tao. V. Harik. “Development of a probability based load criterion for American national standard A58 building code requirements for minimum design loads in buildings and other structures”. Di Sciuva. K. pp 155-162. Deitz. Saadatmanesh. H. USA): US Department of Commerce.. MI. MacGregor J. B. “One-Way Slabs Reinforced with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing Bars” Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium. N. pp. Special Publication 577. Lomario..A. Cornell C. “Probability-based load criteria: Load factors and load combinations. 1997.. J. normale e precompresso e per le strutture metalliche”. 1980. May-June 1996. V..LL. ASCE.. 148 . “Bond of Hooked Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) Reinforcing Bars to Concrete”. Struct. 4. Ellingwood. MacGregor.

A. and Manfredi.. ACI Structural Journal. 2004. 43. No 5. R. “Assessment of Eurocode-like Design Equations for the Shear Capacity of FRP RC Members”. G. El Sayed.K.. 955-974. and Manfredi. 147-157. 6-9. 9. and Benmokrane.. pp. 235-243. El-Salakawy. 42. A. K.449-458. Prota. p. A. Eurocode 1: Basis of design and actions on structures – Part 1: Basis of design. Nov. El Sayed. V. Missouri. SP 230-54. B. El-Salakawy. 2005.. El-Sayed. 46. 2003. B. Kansas City. “Serviceability of Concrete Bridge Deck Slabs Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Bars”.. E. Naples.101. Nanni. EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2 “Design of concrete structures . Fico. Vol. “Shear Strength of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars: Design Method” 7th International Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-7). USA. 2007.F. 44.F. 40. and Benmokrane. Journal of Composites Part B: Engineering. Ellingwood. 48..Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 39. B. E. V. Mechanical Characterization of Large-Diameter GFRP bars...Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings”. “Shear Strength of FRP-Reinforced Concrete Beams without Transverse Reinforcement” ACI Structural Journal. 149 . 45. pp.Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings”. Campanella. E. R. (2006). 1994. “Shear Strength of One-Way Concrete Slabs Reinforced with FRP Composite Bars” Journal of Composites for Construction. 2006. No 2.. Vol. Journal of Structural Engineering. R. No 2. 2nd International fib Congress. No. and Benmokrane. 2004. 41. ENV 1991-1.. and Benmokrane. 129. 1992. EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2 “Design of concrete structures . E. 103. G. A. F. 2006. A. pp.. R. G.. 47. 727-736. Fico. Toward Load and Resistance Factor Design for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite structures.K. p. B. B. El-Salakawy. El-Salakawy. 2005. Article in Press... Parretti. 4.

1982. 53. Design Manual No. J. He.. Pilakoutas. “Probability-based load criteria: assessment of current design practice” J.” Proc. p.. Kanematsu.. Ellingwood. T. and Recek. MacGregor. 11-21. H. Y. M. A.... K. Struct. E. Galambos. and Shindo. Goodspeed. ISIS (2001). 50. G. Symp. Frangopol. 57. R. Research Committee on Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials. M. p. Y. 317-324. S... ASCE. and Huang. “Fiber reinforced plastic grids for the structural reinforcement of concrete. and Waldron.. Vol. Z. Sapporo. R. 108 (5). Japan.. “A study on failure criteria of FRP rods subject to tensile and shear force. Tokyo. 119-137. M.” Proc.. D. T. 1990. “Reliability assessment of flexural capacity design for FRP-reinforced concrete”.. C. Switzerland. 54. Y.. and Gross... 3. Farmington Hills. T. Canadian Network of Centres of Excellence on Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures. 2005... “Recommendation for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Using Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials”. “Reinforcing Concrete Structures with Fibre Reinforced Polymers”. 58. 51. Schmeckpeper. Engineering Structures. 2003. 52. International Organization for Standardization. Mich. Ueda. B. Article in Press. Geneva. 325 p. Yost. 56. FIP ’93 Symp. 4th Int. American Concrete Institute. New York. Japan Society of Civil Engineers.– 150 . Guadagnini. On Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures: Selected Presentation Proc. 1997. 158 p. and Kakuta. 55. pp. Cong. “Reliability of fiber-reinforced composite laminates plates”. JSCE (1997). p. “Non-Conventional Reinforcement of Concrete – Test Methods – Part 1: Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bars and Grids”. 2006. 18. Winnipeg.. P. V.. 959–977.. 1999. 1st Materials Engrg." Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. “Shear Design for Fibre Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Elements” Proc.References 49. Div.. "Shear Behaviour of Fiber-Mesh Reinforced Plates. Sato. ASCE... and Cornell. T.. Journal of Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics. C. ISO TC 71/SC 6 N. 593–604. Henry. Kanakubo. J.

1999. “Safe Shear Design of Large. L. P. E. 67-79.Bents. Theriault. La Tegola. p. University of Sheffield. (ed). U. M. pp. "Size Effect in Shear Behavior of FRP Reinforced Concrete Beams" Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures. 64. No. (1994). l. M. London. Port Hueneme. 1993:Vol. No. M. Journal of Composites for Construction. 61. T. “Creep and durability of sand-coated glass FRP bars in concrete elements under freeze/thaw cycling and sustained loads”.. “Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Deformed Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcing Rods”. 45 pp. 2006. and Collins. Maruyama. J. 2006. Concrete International. "Flexural and Shear Behaviour of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Rods" Corrosion and Corrosion Protection of Steel in Concrete.. E.A New Approach”.. 66. Tokyo. 1330-1339.. Masmoudi. Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 869–878. K... Maruyama. N. “Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers: Modern Materials in Bridge Engineering. Kotsovos. Journal of the 151 . Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College. and Pavlovic. 67. W. Japan Prestressed Concrete Engineering Association. 26. “Calibration of flexural design of concrete members reinforced with FRP bars”. p. CA... El-Salakay. R. Quebec. 65. Ltd. M. J. 1998. Malvar. Laoubi. B. 1998. W.” Structural Engineering International. 2. D... A. 743-750.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Modern Prestressing Techniques and their Applications. 59. 1994. Thesis for Master of Science in civil engineering. p.. Lubell. and Zhao. UK. K. 68. “Technical Report: Bond Stress Slip Characteristics of FRP Bars. 63. R. V. “Ultimate Limit State Design of Concrete Structures . Actions for Verification of RC Structures with FRP Bars. Montreal. 2004. ACI Structural Journal.. Feb. Meier. 62. and Benmokrane.N. and Benmokrane. 227-234. Sherwrvod.. Swamy.. 95. and Zhao. 60. 1992... (1996). Kulkarni. A. p. S. L. 665-676. B. 6. Thomas Telford.” Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center.. Wide Beams”. V.

p. No. A. 95(3). “Evaluation of Shear Strength of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP”. B. S. 309-316. 1999. Fukuyama. C. Taerwe. 75. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium. Nanni and C. Nakamura. p. and Kakuta. American Concrete Institute. Editor. Y. M.. Concrete Library International.. T.. Dolan.H. G. 1995. Rizkalla. Mich. and Higai.References International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. 162-167. 2001.. “Flexural Behaviour of One-Way Concrete Slabs Reinforced by Fiber Reinforcing Plastic Reinforcement”. and Benmokrane. and Boothby. Al-Zahrani. V. 119. 3. 789–811. and Santini. E. Al-Duajani. Proceedings of Japan Society of Civil Engineers. 71. 44. M. Ueda. pp.2. 11. Nanni. 72. Mizukawa. ACI Structural Journal.. 135-145.” Journal of Structural Engineering. 1993.. Michaluk. 1998. “Flexural Behavior and Design of Reinforced Concrete Using FRP Rods. Japan. Y. 1995. H.. M.. Edited by A. S. S. 74. Detroit. 76.. 7-12. 353-365. U. Nanni. “Bond of FRP Reinforcement to Concrete-Experimental Results. 1997.. T. L.. 2002... Vol.. Japan Concrete Institute. 69. Proceedings of the International Conference Composites in 152 . A. In ACI SP-138.. Nagasaka. “Relevant Field Application of FRP Composites in Concrete Structures”. E. V. Bakis. No 26.. G. 2. 6. “A Study on Shear Fatigue Behavior of Concrete Beams with FRP Rods” Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3). 111-123. Nanni.. Sapporo.. Sato. p. Monti. C. “Reliability-based Calibration of Partial Safety Coefficients for Fiber-Reinforced Plastic”. V. A. Nanni. Y. Tadros. “Shear performance of concrete beams reinforced with FRP stirrups”.” Concrete Construction. T.. Journal of Composites for Construction. 3344-3359. No. 1. pp. 70. No.. H. T. “Composites: Coming on Strong. and Tanigaki. 73. pp. 77. p. pp. 1993. Vol.R. A.” NonMetallic Reinforcement (FRP) for Concrete Structures.

PhD Thesis. 98(4).Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars Construction – CCC2001.. O. J. 83.. and Waldron. R.. 82.. No.. Faria. FRPRCS5.. A. Pecce M. and Collins K. 4.. C. 4. 182-190. 5. Pay. November 2000. 2005. 86. Manfredi G. Juvandes. 1999. Figueras.. for Buildings (ACI318): Part 1 . Bond Behavior of Unconfined Steel and FRP Bar Splices in Concrete Beams. J. Pecce M. Cambridge. K. 80. Cosenza E.C.7.. 114-122. 81. M. 2003. S. and Shahawy. 290-299. E. Szerszen M. No. and Breen. L... UK. “Experimental Response and Code Models of GFRP RC Beams in Bending”. K. Purdue University. 153 . 470–478.” ACI Journal.3. “Flexural Reliability of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Girders Strengthened with CFRP Laminates”. Okeil. pp. Portugal.3. Pilakoutas. Structural Journal. (2001). and R. 78. pp. Vol. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Proceeding of the 4th International Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Polymers for Reinforced Concrete Structures. 1977. 377-382. pp. O. 85.74. “A Probabilistic Assessment of Deflections in FRP RC Beams”.. P. No.. Nowak A. Vol. Nowak A. McGraw-Hill. Manfredi G. 661-670. 84.M. Orangun.. Mar. “Reliability of Structures”. Proceedings V. 2000. S. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on NonMetallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. and Cosenza E. 65–74. Eds. El-Tawil.. 16-18 July 2001... ACI.100.. 2002. pp. J.. S. A. “A Revaluation of Test Data on Development Length and Splices. M. A. 79. “Calibration of Design Code. El-Tawil. and Shahawy. No. Journal of Composites for Costruction. Okeil. p. J. pp.Statistical Models for Resistance”..S. Jirsa. "Short-term tensile strength of CFRP laminates for flexural strengthening of concrete girders" ACI Struct. 2000. Vol.. “Structural reliability for fibre reinforced polymer reinforced concrete structures”. Neocleous. M.

article in press . Nadjai. O. M. N. 2006. con Barre di FRP”. Contract No. 91. G. F. Plevris. ASCE. N. ASCE 2002. Rafi M. M.. 1994. 8. H. Santini. Greenaway. Isgor. “Concrete Contribution to the Shear Resistance of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members” Journal of Composites for Construction.. M.. and Selley. and Ahmad. Vol.” Final Report to USDOT.. ACI Structural Journal. Priestley. Sapporo.. Thesis. S. H. 93-102. 2007. “Metodi di Calibrazione del Coefficiente Parziale di Sicurezza γf per Elementi in C.. DTRS 5683-C000043. 1995. H. of Struct. Saadatmanech. O.. 89. A. 96. Eng. “Proposed Shear Design Method for FRPReinforced Concrete Members without Stirrups”. “Design philosophy issues of fibre reinforced polymer reinforced concrete structures”.. 88.. Rizkalla. John Wiley and Sons. Journal of structural engineering.” Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on NonMetallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3). No..B. 113-128. and Talamona. Neocleous. 704 p... and Guadagnini.6(3):154–61. A. 93. V. 1996. No. of Naples. Fiber Composites for New and existing Structures. 1988.. J. Seible. p.. “A New Generation of Civil Engineering Structures and Bridges. Italy. S. and Calvi. and Veneziano. “Aspects of behaviour of CFRP reinforced concrete beams in bending”. M. and Isgor. T. A. Triantafillou. 1. C. ASCE...G. 103(1).. 5. pp. Plecnik. “Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges”. 90. Univ. 95. 452-460. 1997. S. 2006. “Reliability of RC members strengthened with CFRP laminates”. 3. Pilakoutas. K. R. Razaqpur.. G.References 87. 2004.A. 92. New York. 154 ... K. Construction and Building Materials. B. Japan. Razaqpur. D. A. p. “Transfer of Composite Technology to Design and Construction of Bridges. Vo.91. 94. ACI Structural Journal. D. Journal of Composites for Construction. Dept. F.

Japan.J. Proc. 99. Morphy R.Naples. 102. “FRP for shear reinforcement in concrete structures”. Thesis. N. T. J. June 5-8. 1997. N. Arnbjerg Nielsen..A. Japan Concrete Institute. 100. and Rizkalla. “FRP Activities in Europe: Survey of Research and Applications. p. 59-74. S. 179-184. 2007. Risk and Reliability – Trends in Engineering.. “Calibration of Partial Safety Factors for Danish Structural Codes”. The University of Manitoba. IABSE. 104. G. 27 (5). and Totaro. 2006. 105. (2000). Dept. pp. p. V. 859-872. 101. “Calibration of Resistance Factors for FRP Flexural Strengthening of RC Beams in the European Format”. S. G.. Armate con Barre in FRP”.D. p. J. Ph... 503510. Swamy. thesis. 2001. pp. Shehata. “Shear Analysis of Concrete with Brittle Reinforcement”.” Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on NonMetallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3). Stratford. and Aburawi. Safety. 155 . 2003. V. Shehata. Man.2. Stratford. Italy. L.. Journal of Composites for Construction. C. 98. 54. 2nd International fib Congress. Japan.D. Department of Civil and Geological Engineering. Japan Concrete Institute. Tokyo. V. (1999). 321-332.. ASCE. T. J. Winnipeg.. Taerwe.Malta. 1. of Naples.. 2002. p. IABSE Conf. E. Zürich. Eng. Sapporo.. and Burgoyne. Spitaleri.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. E.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 97. “Crack-Based Analysis of Concrete with Reinforcement” Magazine of Concrete Research. C. Sommese. Sørensen. and Burgoyne. 103. “Structural Implications of Using GFRP Bars as Concrete Reinforcement” Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3).. Hansen & T. of Struct. Univ. “Modelli di Deformabilità per Travi in C. 323-330. Italy. V. 2006 . M.O. 1997. “Fibre Reinforced Polymer Shear Reinforcement for Concrete Members: Behaviour and Design Guidelines.

Construction and Building Materials. ACI Structural Journal. 1. 2002. Nanni and C. J. A. American Concrete Institute. “Shear Tests of FRP-Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups” ACI Structural Journal. 115. 99. Paisley. Toutanji H.” Contribution to the International Conference on Bond in Concrete. Mich. Y. No. 1996. June 14th-l6th 1982. Montreal. 2003. S. London. P. and Newhook.447. “Shear Testing of FRP reinforced Concrete without Transverse Reinforcement” Proceedings of CSCE 2003Anuual Conference. V. Kumar. (on CD-Rom). M. 110. 100. and Benmokrane. J. Canada. K. Tureyen. 109." 42. Taylor. NB. ACI SP-138. P. No. 17. p. Tureyen. M. pp. 2. A. Ductility Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with GFRP Rebars" Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures. Tottori. M. Scotland. 1970. V.. 107. Toutanji H. R..609-615. and Frosch. pp. V. “Effects of FRP Reinforcement Ratio and Concrete Strength on Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams”. J. and GangaRao. 2003. R. Vol. "Investigation of the Forces Carried Across Cracks in Reinforced Concrete Beams in Shear by Interlock of Aggregate.. Moncton. P. Quebec. Tariq. “Concrete Shear Strength: Another Vijay. 69-74. 318-330.. 5. V. 111. V. J. 113. “Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars”. 156 . and Frosch.. S. 1998. No.References 106. A. H. 10p. 108. “Shear capacity of RC and PC beams using FRP reinforcement”.. 1993.. Detroit. 217-227. p.427-434. “Deflection and crack-width prediction of concrete beams reinforced with glass FRP rods”. 2003. 615–631. 112.. S.. p. Journal of Composites for Construction. pp. H... Theriault. K. and Deng. Edited by A. Saafi. and Wakui..7-16. B. "Shear and Perspective”. p. 4. Dolan. 114. H. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2000. Cement and Concrete Association. Tepfers. R. “Tensile lap splices with confining reinforcement.

W. R. (2005). ASCE. P. Durham. V.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 116. p. ST11). 1997a. Yost. 439–446. Maruyama. J. 119. P. P.. Waldron. W. S.. and Dinehart. 2. No. ACI Structural Journal. “Fiber reinforced plastic grids for the structural reinforcement of concrete beams” PhD dissertation." Journal of the Structural Division. 1993. and Ibell. No. V. J. "Fundamental Analysis of Aggregate Interlock. 2245-2269. 123. Gross. S.102. Yost.H. V. W. 2001.A. p. 511–518. Pilakoutas. P. C. 263275. 117. 157 .. Zhao. Zhao. Taerwe. R. 1997b. J. 2. Pilakoutas. K. and Suzuki.. N. W. 1995. Whitehead. E & FN Spon.. Edited by L. J. University of New Hampshire. 121. Japan Concrete Institute. p. p. Gross. R. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineering. W. 286-294. Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3). K. “FRP Reinforced Concrete: Calculations for Deflections”. 1981. “Novel Shear Reinforcement for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete”. 100. and Waldron. Great Britain.. London.. Japan Concrete Institute. D. H. 352– 359.. 118. 120.. D. “Effective Moment of Inertia for Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Reinforced Concrete Beams”. 4. Walraven. Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3). p. Proceedings of the Second International RILEM Symposium (FRPRCS-2). K. 122. T.J... “FRP Reinforced Concrete: Cracking Behaviour and Determination”. 107 (No. No. 6. Vol. “Shear Strength of Normal Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced with Deformed GFRP Bars” Journal of Composites for Construction. Zhao. “Shear behaviour of concrete beams reinforced by FRP rods as longitudinal and shear reinforcement” Non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures. ACI Structural Journal. Yost. p. 5.. P. Vol. and Dinehart. 2. 2003.

82 9.1.97 9.G CB.22 1.R0.90 1.47 114.68 9.50 4.G CB.63 11.30 9.84 2.91 12.G CB.dA.1.51 111.92 20. reinforcement type = GFRP Table 1 .21 1.83 20.bA.51 26.48 37.01 46.91 265.bA.3.G CA.4.95 6.52 2.G CA.45 7.89 9.89 9.bA.R0.dB.bA.bB.70 2.27 14.95 274.3. b = nominal value A.4.21 1.bA.G CA.dB.dA.20 1.Material Properties and Fabrication Descriptors for FRP-RC Beams No.3.dB.G CA.73 9.12 1279.dA.R0.2.dB.2.65 9.R0.2.06 49.R0.91 61.R0.88 9.G CB.R0.00 210.43 41.80 17.2.G CB.90 9.63 137.68 962.5.32 127.21 1.G CB.4.bB.22 1.dA.34 31.3.72 16.bB.05 1186.R0.77 9.bA.79 381.03 3.1.R0.50 1558.dB.R0.46 1.dB.R0.bA.07 33.3.R0.G CA.bA.21 1.bB.R0.17 74.99 138.02 1.bA.21 1.bB.57 37.71 11.5.G CA.05 322.1.06 725.G CB.bB.G CA.74 9.R0.dB.72 48.12 594.19 1.21 1.4.06 24.G CB.G CB.42 255.61 81.57 0.R0.94 9.R0.75 57.40 74.R0.19 158 .1.94 10.dA.68 144.bB.30 13.75 2.21 1.G CA.4.dA.77 9.57 7.21 1.27 11.20 21.81 9.65 11.22 1.dA.61 314.20 2161.bB.bB.dB.bA.bA.4.70 505.1.20 1.G CA.4.dA.25 2361.R0.5.15 1446.29 204.dA.19 1.R0.G CB.20 4.3.1.21 1.dA.33 1776.56 9.R0.dA.R0.16 75.3.G CB.70 11.G CB.00 2867.bA.dB.G Mr [KN·m] 3.4.dB.R0.76 11.95 92.bA.dA.22 1.53 39.2.dB.21 1.G CA.82 9.G CA.09 182.22 1.G CB.87 151.5.bA.Appendix A Appendix A: DESIGN CASES Design case CA.G CA.G means: fc = nominal value A.55 9.G CB.R0.3.62 38.dA.59 11.37 8.21 1.92 25. ρf/ρfb = 0.08 69. d = nominal value B.2.G CA.41 20.57 11.38 13.R0.bA.G CB.20 1.R0.bA.dA.1.35 Mean µMr Standard Deviation Bias σMr λMF COV VMF [%] 11.bA.bB.69 26.R0.96 9.G CB.bB.49 9.68 25.G CA.2.73 17.05 206.dA.30 13.90 13.dB.69 1173.bA.bB.21 1.91 69.R0.51 0.96 643.bB.79 418.59 4.20 1.bB.00 784.11 138.23 18.R0.R0.G CA.dA.G CB.dB.47 11.dB.21 1.2.21 1.R0.dA.62 9.19 1.22 1.bA.59 1.90 9.dB.59 113.19 1.20 1.79 226.bB.51 4.22 1.G CA.15 170. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Design Case CA.65 6.dB.11 105.R0.R0.21 1.97 10.21 1.bB.R0.dB.18 393.56 8.99 99.R0.R0.02 9.97 9.68 9.21 1.dA.

dB.25 123.G CB.11 1.6.bB.R0.5.dB.62 224.dA.R0.R0.20 1.dB.41 519.49 7.65 59.92 3264.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 CA.50 35.R1.91 7.7.70 8.G CB.95.bB.bA.R0.R0.00 7.G CB.R0.R0.89 64.6.bA.R0.R0.18 1.92 12.dB.G CB.21 1.bA.7.60 46.71 357.47 1007.dB.88 8.bA.8.62 2939.49 33.48 269.R0.38 5.30 5729.dA.R0.16 6.R0.dA.G CA.bB.G CB.20 5582.49 187.R0.14 1006.57 28.95.bA.R1.51 11.40 4232.35 3507.20 63.10 8.18 1.18 1.bA.13 12.30 5.20 1.bB.bA.5.68 45.bB.83 959.01 9.9.22 323.dB.29 442.bA.bA.67 817.53 9.9.dA.R0.04 10.83 355.36 6.G CA.dA.23 140.31 912.bA.57 9.dB.05 1.13 1.20 720.50 204.21 1.8.36 9.11 1.08 1.15 1.86 2647.79 6.G CB.13 13.bA.7.75 922.17 1.08 1.11 1.G CB.53 8.6.94 57.G CA.42 15.G CB.5.dB.G CB.G CB.64 21.G CB.38 2788.bA.66 346.bA.14 1.G CA.dA.13 5.33 3.56 39.bA.16 101.37 846.8.40 1933.bA.20 1.dA.7.50 208.44 11.50 6.bB.G CB.G CA.00 67.46 11.31 233.96 16.R0.R0.38 2932.13 5.64 11.80 5247.23 1031.7.R1.bB.G CB.bB.bB.dB.21 239.20 29.68 228.61 8.96 5.41 9.71 168.R0.bB.02 9.R0.95.49 1900.40 305.G CA.bB.30 37.83 46.39 9.7.57 179.95.95.19 65.15 5412.02 590.R0.G CA.dA.00 2936.20 1.55 6.37 311.G CB.22 8.70 17.07 1.37 4.79 31.G CA.dA.45 159 .90 621.5.G CA.35 521.14 1.14 1592.G CB.06 1.bB.81 11.dB.bA.68 9.93 188.15 1.33 52.dB.G CA.G CB.G CA.6.09 1.R0.03 1.95.dB.50 36.02 516.23 5146.56 58.R0.99 4062.9.01 48.bB.bA.dA.13 1.64 58.R0.G CB.78 8.90 8.G CA.dB.19 1.dA.R0.dA.81 7.65 10.70 55.R0.bB.36 9.G CA.95.6.13 1.76 55.99 21.9.dB.32 43.36 38.6.R0.R0.96 2496.80 4.R1.R0.08 1.09 11.bA.R0.6.8.G CA.bB.dB.85 121.01 10.35 4.13 745.8.G CA.27 9.G CA.65 24.6.17 1.51 9.94 41.20 1.R0.bB.20 1.9.bB.90 32.96 406.11 1.bA.G CB.7.G CA.dA.dB.R0.92 4608.dA.G CB.05 627.dB.R0.40 545.dA.R0.31 15.21 341.95.20 1.G CA.04 3.21 5.R0.29 221.54 62.dA.35 6.86 10.51 187.G CA.80 3558.bA.R0.39 4.13 1.bB.8.21 466.39 494.09 390.5.G CB.dA.bA.G CA.75 4.07 159.dB.8.93 21.bB.bA.18 1.97 46.dA.05 1.35 53.27 61.G CB.06 146.76 8.11 1.R0.R0.G CB.G 282.06 334.dB.20 1.21 23.45 574.88 21.00 2200.G CB.16 981.68 230.45 329.dA.30 32.R0.21 1.R0.86 260.18 1.76 24.dA.G CA.08 1.G CA.bB.81 8.80 336.27 2304.G CA.R0.R0.bB.21 1.G CA.R0.40 4811.03 7.44 2.13 226.22 1.9.R0.R0.bB.5.bA.dA.R0.36 6.40 178.16 8.bB.56 11.21 1.9.01 56.18 1.8.dA.7.dB.dB.09 61.dB.bB.13 34.29 224.80 294.48 7.bA.81 557.94 252.06 1.21 1.dA.09 364.dA.70 25.dB.dB.01 1.R0.G CB.27 21.R0.9.dA.52 3169.21 1.bB.34 3.52 201.dA.G CB.bB.

53 45.1.R1.70 6.bA.R1.G 99 CA.93 204.81 4.R1.09 1.R1.76 3316.71 9.03 1.17 7.11 668.29 16.G 102 CB.R1.60 160 .90 1.20 38.65 21.06 229.R1.1.G 89 CA.04 1.bA.07 73.04 1.25 17.G 86 CB.03 1.G 97 CA.41 10.2.dA.05 1155.16 213.35.bB.2.bB.bB.48 72.G 196.16 4.R1.44 223.dB.R1.bA.G 106 CB.3.R1.4.70 1193.25.80 3426.bA.2.dB.bA.65 6.24 3074.28 6224.73 3731.R1.G 114 CB.4.08 1.18 7.08 1.R1.78 3357.03 1.74 19.R1.24 391.60 246.G 126 CB.R1.38 7.4.68 1078.03 426.09 1.69 9.10 1.dA.G 122 CB.80 10.dB.bB.15 4.R1.bA.G 111 CA.23 7.dA.94 3199.99 17.51 38.86 1103.R1.Appendix A 85 CA.bA.bB.R1.G 123 CA.bB.63 69.dA.42 209.10 1.51 1121.dA.bA.26 1138.dA.3.00 567.R1.02 1.R1.09 1.R1.R1.G 113 CA.bB.26 3.35.bB.51 215.bA.R1.11 1.bB.36 18.bA.R1.96 626.1.G 133 CA.31 6121.G 107 CA.dB.70 42.50 249.dB.86 1175.40 6360.bA.dB.14 10.68 3795.G 120 CB.G 105 CA.dB.dB.G 125 CA.dA.03 1.G 131 CA.G 110 CB.83 398.28 44.52 242.36 7.42 6.62 6.96 432.G 130 CB.56 226.dA.bA.R1.65 9.20 1046.R1.dB.08 1.80 242.R1.83 74.52 9.20 7.30 43.04 8.25 7.3.11 1.68 70.R1.59 45.04 619.88 71.30 224.bA.R1.01 4.02 1.03 1.18 49.1.G 93 CA.R1.G 94 CB.20 212.00 4.R1.57 6.bA.G 100 CB.25.bA.dB.31 3.81 17.03 10.bA.R1.dB.10 1.92 19.G 92 CB.bB.dA.04 10.bB.30 3858.20 233.11 1.G 128 CB.R1.bB.G 119 CA.dA.25.dA.26 70.70 411.bA.08 1.bB.57 19.bB.61 1119.15 51.dA.2.20 41.91 656.11 6.28 4.dA.bB.35.dB.26 3.35.R1.bB.R1.04 1.76 50.44 71.30 42.dB.G 88 CB.45 587.79 40.25.R1.32 689.17 4.bA.02 1.00 4.70 238.37 3.34 4.20 5867.91 3664.R1.bA.G 112 CB.25.10 1.02 1.45 199.G 95 CA.69 405.R1.35.11 1.57 7.G 96 CB.bA.03 1.dA.4.37 3372.G 108 CB.63 17.76 7.31 404.98 39.R1.82 373.bA.R1.90 6127.03 1.13 4.G 132 CB.R1.50 239.03 1.dB.06 3479.10 1.33 6.40 7.22 3.G 101 CA.76 377.64 36.bB.bA.dB.4.25 6.1.R1.R1.G 124 CB.50 6.83 47.bB.3.50 39.50 6471.63 4.dA.10 1.R1.32 234.53 75.bB.10 1.2.69 241.80 224.3.G 104 CB.10 1.95 17.10 1.11 412.25 678.G 115 CA.76 607.66 390.28 19.dA.29 3.16 4.dA.64 644.3.dB.12 68.dB.G 134 CB.04 1.92 5675.35.66 6.R1.dA.93 1085.25.67 9.04 1.G 129 CA.30 67.dA.bB.01 1156.4.09 1.04 1.dA.2.dA.3.bA.25.36 7.bB.04 19.G 87 CA.bA.71 46.R1.46 199.1.dB.dA.3.R1.06 4.67 222.70 40.18 49.2.14 4.14 73.60 6681.01 417.1.34 37.76 198.dB.81 6.62 597.39 7.70 6422.dB.97 48.dA.1.G 98 CB.R1.dB.R1.94 49.10 1.68 6.74 4.35.10 1.87 616.dA.G 91 CA.G 117 CA.02 1.02 1.G 116 CB.2.04 1.36 5905.58 202.29 16.G 90 CB.bB.04 1.G 118 CB.dB.90 1138.R1.dB.bA.29 419.33 219.25 5.98 4.05 4.84 51.35.G 127 CA.91 3521.66 9.bB.dB.dB.bA.G 109 CA.25.40 6577.dB.06 10.79 363.08 1.10 1.03 1.R1.71 6324.R1.bB.04 1.G 103 CA.13 4.G 121 CA.

7.89 5.37 428.94 3986.57 253.dB.0.dA.0.G CA.bA.G CB.bA.51 1219.16 290.bA.25 450.R1.R2.7.5.17 721.6.R2.49 54.dB.R1.9.bB.61 6.11 1.50 49.G CA.11 1.57 3915.09 1.70 42.23 57.87 796.03 1.91 3630.11 232.77 1291.dB.bB.G CA.bB.G CA.bA.03 1.91 211.G CA.11 49.bB.dA.dB.0.dB.37 7.bB.96 10.R1.G CB.dB.20 5.R1.0.80 9.R1.5.G CB.0.0.98 10.4.4.dB.bB.04 643.9.bA.03 1.34 2.bB.dA.50 20.dA.6.11 1.11 1.5.00 260.00 456.52 45.G CB.44 440.R1.35 1.28 7.dB.R2.bA.bB.G CB.bB.8.dA.G CA.10 7162.15 238.11 1.34 7.R1.78 43.47 8.02 1.bB.81 7.dB.22 7204.26 83.R1.bA.25 19.dA.7.R1.92 676.30 2.bB.04 275.G CB.08 4.28 7.G CB.R2.14 21.04 1.58 21.85 4343.7.R1.R1.dA.24 478.42 4066.04 4.6.R1.bA.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 CA.49 706.G CA.36 2.G CA.81 260.R1.bA.09 3903.bB.G CA.73 9.R1.G CB.55 203.G CA.7.83 3816.6.dA.77 1304.dB.38 7.dA.04 1.00 47.94 20.G CB.14 85.09 1.04 1.29 81.6.77 9.bA.dB.55 255.25 489.81 461.R1.G CB.8.bA.21 222.21 1259.30 85.G CB.R1.8.bB.26 249.34 7044.8.11 1.84 4.R1.04 1.G CA.bB.bA.08 7.65 282.02 1.5.91 55.dA.G CB.dA.bB.66 6876.34 2.bB.R1.86 9.01 161 .35 445.27 78.15 81.14 207.R1.bA.97 4143.bB.83 244.12 4.60 6978.01 10.R1.bB.32 7.31 7.G CA.6.dA.11 1.04 1.dA.06 23.35 86.27 3.R1.30 79.R2.G CB.02 1.R1.R2.07 4.02 1.09 1.09 1.12 5.bB.31 21.G CA.bA.33 6518.9.8.bA.28 2.28 480.R1.dB.58 1248.17 7.G CB.bA.G CB.7.11 3725.37 7.10 1.32 7.86 1349.21 7.G CA.G CB.81 6701.08 217.bA.65 22.G CB.R1.dB.bB.R1.97 4.79 9.18 1321.bB.13 4244.04 1.11 1.25 4.G CB.04 1.30 257.62 6.dB.30 7506.G CB.02 1.64 7358.23 4.bB.G 3531.9.dA.bA.6.G CA.bB.69 1188.04 1.03 1.60 7826.dB.90 289.0.03 1.9.G CA.10 1.bA.56 269.bA.G CA.50 283.10 1.G CB.87 7506.R2.11 1.R1.8.64 6.50 7337.30 58.89 468.10 4.7.dA.dB.49 46.74 54.31 7.R1.67 20.R1.15 44.G CA.00 1330.dB.G CB.04 1.30 270.R1.04 1.dB.bA.G CA.58 52.R1.dA.10 45.32 235.10 1.20 76.G CA.dA.48 746.09 41.dA.47 709.bB.50 728.R1.39 1227.55 56.R1.77 9.74 691.5.10 1.09 1.dA.60 6.dB.10 6781.G CB.8.41 3.04 1.18 780.dB.96 10.dA.09 1.23 83.G CA.G CB.97 18.96 10.04 6.28 4.00 277.96 52.80 7668.99 10.80 77.98 1277.bA.dB.G CA.G CA.11 1.G CA.20 245.dA.29 229.15 499.5.6.95 7.dB.60 44.R1.11 1.dB.R1.9.R1.36 7.35 764.G CB.9.03 1.11 1.dA.R1.R1.8.77 60.08 4530.38 51.dA.29 4.09 56.G CB.11 1.7.90 79.R1.14 470.bA.0.dB.22 5.03 660.bB.03 4032.09 22.R1.dB.63 6.80 264.R1.R2.R1.dA.9.19 4.97 1376.R1.5.dB.5.04 4.67 19.bA.29 7.33 4435.70 50.02 1.11 1.04 1.25 4.70 48.60 6.bB.

R2.bB.30 315.24 47.R2.93 94.G CB.dA.02 1.bB.34 4.bA.3.38 248.43 51.00 11.93 21.02 10.R2.bB.dB.99 314.87 88.04 1.42 527.20 265.22 4.91 51.57 97.bB.R2.Appendix A 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 CA.bA.2.36 4218.bB.06 93.18 66.1.28 856.dB.dB.74 8.bA.6.65 22.96 9.24 92.dA.11 1.45 23.54 812.dB.11 6.dB.G CB.02 1.20 8259.G CB.R2.04 1.G CA.R2.R2.dA.88 63.48 91.dA.73 7786.29 88.2.12 1.bA.70 300.88 1500.04 1.00 8391.86 760.19 552.37 7.43 3.3.03 1.10 265.55 535.4.R2.dA.98 1428.04 1.09 1.97 283.66 6.36 1521.dB.R2.00 294.bA.24 544.05 10.G CB.R2.09 1.11 1.12 50.G CA.bA.G CB.dB.R2.3.dA.dB.03 1.bA.dA.1.35 4.R2.66 4866.04 1.G CB.47 518.17 4.35 747.G CB.R2.58 60.04 1.04 1.82 8.R2.02 8.39 523.70 6.21 4943.04 1.R2.2.40 52.bB.G CA.76 61.bB.68 6.23 489.54 1476.32 61.11 1.95 9.G CA.dB.03 1.04 1.4.20 56.68 295.bB.bB.05 9.dA.bB.04 22.bB.06 5.dB.bA.60 53.1.12 1.dA.41 67.6.5.26 4.94 327.R2.1.dA.dB.44 5.01 11.30 54.24 5.02 10.95 8.70 95.11 1.65 6.08 4427.dB.04 1.R2.dA.10 796.09 1.R2.bA.G CB.00 9.2.48 320.98 94.12 9.3.64 6.G CB.89 48.67 6.5.R2.04 24.02 1.G 47.G CB.08 274.bA.31 4788.R2.3.00 8120.G CB.19 1.2.R2.4.73 785.6.bA.32 773.bA.6.11 1.25 22.G CA.bA.07 515.06 11.04 1.G CA.1.dA.58 530.02 1.bB.R2.09 1.41 7.29 4.G CA.5.G CB.1.4.46 3.4.44 3.30 55.bB.G CA.43 7.R2.G CA.39 287.bA.48 8048.43 162 .11 1.bA.33 5.bA.11 1.dA.R2.G CB.38 7.87 257.11 1.R2.40 3.G CA.G CB.5.G CA.6.dA.G CA.bB.R2.63 308.09 1.88 49.5.G CA.R2.G CB.1.12 1.bA.dA.20 305.bA.G CA.49 64.75 842.15 883.92 1380.bB.G CB.2.89 279.bB.40 8528.5.45 7.G CA.15 302.R2.04 1.35 7.80 7976.dA.6.00 498.R2.12 1.09 1.R2.41 4.bA.G CA.G CB.R2.G CA.R2.51 24.G CA.70 1356.bA.11 1.R2.35 7.23 4704.02 1.01 10.02 86.dA.R2.bA.61 506.dB.bB.79 23.14 6.72 96.17 827.R2.09 1.R2.87 4290.bB.01 9.G CA.49 3.5.37 4.R2.R2.dB.52 3.dB.01 64.4.90 320.11 1.11 4360.1.46 256.25 9.dA.84 1403.bB.69 1404.2.R2.26 5019.dA.90 310.dB.12 1.G CA.bA.5.04 1.41 7.7.bA.6.11 1.6.05 1426.50 270.dA.dA.dB.55 4144.bB.23 90.R2.3.78 7919.dA.43 59.dA.78 869.62 1470.81 508.18 4.bB.R2.24 1453.dB.bB.21 91.G CB.62 8.G CA.bB.68 89.G CB.G CB.G CA.37 7.67 23.4.93 9.dA.3.dB.dB.17 4.bA.bA.98 8173.bB.37 4.R2.74 25.R2.2.32 25.3.42 7.42 8293.G CB.16 7649.R2.67 6.02 1448.88 65.81 4493.88 24.R2.52 50.dB.04 1.02 1.G CB.G CA.34 62.R2.4.40 4.29 244.R2.dB.32 7.04 1.98 9.11 1.dA.R2.79 4617.dA.dB.40 54.dB.G CA.11 1.7.40 7.G CB.G CB.25 58.79 734.bA.40 8654.G CB.R2.R2.42 239.

R0.2.11 18.G CB.G CA.R0.40 8779.46 30.R0.24 109.G CB.06 Table 2 .33 11.19 18.64 538.20 1.55 11.dA.76 93.1.37 10.17 5.dA.70 6.G CB.4.10 163 .32 5097.03 173.26 242.R0.16 1.75 145.R0.96 9.G CB.19 1.99 24.34 2.R0.28 18.43 11.76 21.01 3.18 10.09 560.7.37 11.R2.dA.G CB.92 12.dC.95 98.19 1.39 4.1.R0.15 1.R0.G CA.6.21 1.26 4.dA.34 13.85 19.26 9.3.07 0.dC.21 1.36 11.7.34 187.1.1.09 6.7.98 215.G CA.47 10.G 807.68 40.R2.bB.3.7.84 214.87 130.19 1.6.42 3.86 21.R0.G CA.16 1.20 1.5.61 10.1.28 26.93 8411.G CB.R2.R0.05 18.67 554.12 1.65 10.R2.dB.dC.63 11.bB.19 1.G CB.2.44 44.dC.69 39.42 11.24 7.20 1.03 68.67 1.1.dB.G CA.97 447.dC.G CB.04 180.35 18.dA.20 1.87 658.7.dC.34 151.63 19.33 11.79 28.R0.90 301.dA.R0.59 372.76 5.50 59.16 12.35 201.G CB.R0.23 2.G CB.59 73.dC.83 36.bB.21 1.04 7.47 10.G CA.G CA.dA.80 23.49 11.3.6.47 552.70 23.17 291.85 61.5.G CB.60 65.20 1.R0.2.dB.34 11.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 235 236 237 238 239 240 CA.74 63.37 18.01 Mean µMr Standard Deviation Bias σMr λMF COV VMF [%] 18.G CB.07 101.R0.R0.dA.53 358.dA.5.48 17.45 1544.68 6.92 299.27 116.Material Properties and Fabrication descriptors for FRP-RC Slabs No.72 34.21 1.26 10.20 1.47 4.40 325.dB.15 1.R0.72 1.19 14.55 116.G CA.69 28.dC.88 1491.38 10.12 11.50 3.G CA.2.04 7.11 1.G CA.18 15.G CB.19 1.dB.36 87.G CA.G CB.7.31 4556.R0.G CB.dA.G CB.dC.14 1.16 1.5.22 10.57 3.G CA.dA.78 94.18 1.82 45.74 24.R0.37 18.86 1.00 1.84 9.68 4.20 1.05 337.R2.16 1.G CA.36 6.dB.32 113.G CA.2.G CB.60 50.45 122.R0.dA. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Design Case CA.dB.bA.dB.11 1.dC.14 18.G CA.R0.dA.4.bB.42 268.G CB.41 39.dB.44 18.76 43.20 1.2.R0.20 1.6.91 10.R0.4.dC.20 1.R2.38 331.R0.bA.71 6.97 2.16 1.41 24.15 1.96 250.04 1.G CA.13 895.16 1.3.14 13.97 20.R0.56 26.dB.G CA.G CA.dB.20 70.08 33.47 225.25 18.dA.dA.71 8.15 1.R0.dB.dB.26 78.47 11.05 9.66 35.G Mr [KN·m] 3.R0.53 15.13 18.19 1.7.R0.dB.R0.G CB.R0.75 4.R0.6.G CB.55 47.5.23 18.39 2.R0.86 19.60 10.G CB.dB.61 10.81 19.R0.60 183.79 34.4.56 11.81 20.21 1.3.39 10.7.60 23.13 1.97 254.70 55.G CB.36 24.5.04 1.R0.57 18.G CA.13 1.48 5.47 7.21 1.R0.10 15.06 138.dB.R0.R0.G CA.6.4.98 463.3.dC.65 279.28 11.dA.19 1.R0.4.

95.3.63 32.83 22.28 7.55 34.56 46.62 22.76 36.dB.68 58.8.69 11.R0.R0.35 46.64 10.0.38 9.dC.31 8.76 1.15 1.97 176.01 1.41 227.61 964.R0.dA.0.dA.61 10.G CA.G CB.dA.41 31.00 1.58 43.14 1003.21 24.R0.25.70 8.R1.59 56.38 59.39 34.21 29.7.dB.R0.90 34.9.G CA.57 10.20 21.G CB.66 60.dC.G CA.2.dC.12 1.47 20.9.47 21.Appendix A 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 CA.35 159.dB.36 568.97 1.62 22.49 10.dB.G CB.R1.R1.52 504.63 387.83 6.19 7.G CA.R1.3.79 456.60 491.R1.85 23.dB.R0.83 8.75 62.95.9.R0.08 1.03 0.11 21.73 10.46 887.28 8.23 23.R1.R0.1.39 153.96 1.dB.R1.G CA.90 189.16 462.54 10.17 1.1.9.3.74 11.69 171.29 27.40 223.82 520.36 7.48 7.93 350.R1.34 11.80 439.G CB.03 12.01 33.8.dA.8.07 1.01 5.17 367.dA.G CA.07 1.R1.dC.83 33.03 1.dB.69 986.2.70 283.08 34.09 1.R1.02 1.49 250.82 746.G CB.56 381.90 22.dA.06 1.G CA.10 313.88 30.73 62.90 33.11 48.R0.G CB.G CA.80 53.24 8.dB.G CB.85 8.25.2.dA.15 1.R1.59 45.dB.dA.01 7.74 13.R0.G CA.04 65.86 60.66 45.9.88 53.dB.R1.03 0.R0.35 211.dB.26 22.43 980.17 39.06 1.0.dC.30 908.06 1.G CA.34 22.29 5.03 7.30 210.7.dC.19 1.47 195.dB.7.59 9.1.1.13 411.67 30.02 0.G CB.17 21.R0.dC.R1.97 1.11 1.R1.dC.G CB.36 10.08 1.49 219.dA.1.27 7.59 12.R1.dC.0.G CA.dB.R1.17 1.0.G CA.09 1.71 342.R0.82 9.48 726.dB.07 852.72 35.95.03 0.74 21.94 63.31 180.G CB.10 1.dB.G CB.G CA.G CB.3.G CA.G CB.G CB.R0.76 6.94 22.32 8.G CB.60 32.G CB.G CA.25.03 0.15 21.R1.dA.82 10.67 21.0.R1.47 506.R1.dC.81 522.85 640.2.29 9.R0.25 42.dC.R0.14 376.G CA.13 23.dA.31 207.05 1.81 333.01 1.97 32.94 63.G CB.G CA.99 47.8.G CB.19 22.21 61.65 10.R0.95 52.79 200.dA.R1.29 204.62 33.36 9.33 56.R1.08 346.08 1.9.94 389.27 31.G CA.R0.R0.28 349.G CA.23 7.87 7.25.01 1.64 316.dB.12 1.60 394.11 18.69 11.R1.66 62.73 864.G CA.96 26.38 6.G CA.57 894.02 28.11 1.98 1.G CB.63 33.G CB.dA.40 20.dC.02 1.G CA.95.02 1.G CB.08 1.24 59.02 1.dA.08 1.90 950.10 1.57 45.G CB.50 333.50 58.R0.97 12.R0.95.G CA.93 22.dC.dB.04 1.G CB.02 51.05 288.R1.16 196.8.63 813.71 393.99 579.dA.43 11.R0.dC.16 1.R1.2.18 930.7.07 1.dB.G 135.04 0.01 11.R1.01 1.97 1.49 10.82 164 .93 21.2.97 5.dA.R1.G CA.G CB.25.46 50.97 1.16 531.25.00 5.dC.8.80 29.39 811.73 11.94 363.R1.51 58.90 34.46 12.88 22.dC.12 189.07 546.15 21.29 55.G CB.59 383.1.38 484.95.R1.

G CA.G CB.3.4.42 21.G CA.97 1.G CB.89 1182.dC.51 8.R2.04 260.G CB.30 39.dA.0.27 443.90 588.97 628.32 587.21 15.56 38.G CA.99 8.0.12 1083.35.R1.97 1.07 65.73 34.dC.31 234.33 8.R2.19 36.87 8.34 423.dC.09 1.38 21.08 1.R1.27 63.60 40.dA.43 21.dC.dB.84 59.70 37.73 26.G CB.17 9.47 28.07 5.G CA.95 5.83 22.08 1.R1.dC.R1.85 8.R1.10 1.68 48.81 51.R1.82 28.G CA.G CA.10 34.83 7.G CB.G CA.4.R1.G CA.80 14.02 1.G CB.0.33 47.09 640.6.35.G CA.dC.23 468.G CB.42 8.35.38 401.G 540.dA.54 702.11 1082.R1.99 1189.R1.dC.dA.0.08 1.81 8.63 406.09 1.G CA.20 395.09 1.8.36 1052.R1.G CA.42 25.60 71.90 10.dA.54 14.04 25.70 39.R2.G CB.50 412.09 5.78 7.54 572.dA.91 10.R1.41 452.33 598.14 400.43 8.04 0.09 27.R1.30 66.50 36.90 13.01 1.dC.97 1.dA.97 1.35.R1.9.81 271.dA.03 0.4.24 556.G CA.G CB.R2.23 254.0.70 60.dC.10 36.dA.7.G CA.07 642.82 64.G CA.44 70.9.5.81 70.R1.48 266.99 5.01 1.G CA.20 35.29 14.20 217.9.41 658.27 72.R1.dB.02 67.R1.G CB.dB.09 1.R1.03 0.9.57 21.G CB.43 68.57 57.G CA.11 241.02 1.31 1137.40 46.16 5.G CA.R2.dB.R1.82 22.97 1.G CB.G CB.35.86 69.02 1.39 231.50 38.R1.R1.9.08 1.29 8.85 10.26 688.05 429.7.37 548.83 22.3.dA.03 1.Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 CA.48 245.R1.4.dB.dC.35 39.04 0.28 21.8.86 8.R2.10 38.46 1164.05 13.R1.03 1.dA.6.78 64.88 37.95 10.dC.7.68 7.59 418.83 22.G CB.75 10.76 66.63 248.88 22.R1.08 35.02 1.37 1036.10 1.R1.01 1.G CA.58 673.88 9.36 1012.7.G CB.01 1.4.dB.R1.93 250.R1.G CB.G CB.49 439.0.G CA.dC.dB.G CA.4.dA.R1.09 1.56 21.01 1.01 223.08 1.G CA.R1.97 1.40 41.15 62.38 234.5.97 62.00 996.dC.dB.G CB.85 165 .53 8.73 229.dC.35 462.28 449.03 7.79 54.85 22.dB.5.G CB.53 8.6.35 24.32 71.R1.97 1.R1.G CA.49 1027.56 41.62 601.56 61.26 214.97 5.03 0.G CB.10 1135.99 64.92 8.86 22.49 615.09 1111.10 5.8.99 15.88 22.08 5.G CA.35 8.08 1.R1.R1.8.dB.G CB.R1.93 8.01 1.8.70 67.24 1159.43 8.17 1056.R1.dC.08 1.5.43 8.76 8.03 10.dA.dB.G CB.R1.97 1.R1.dB.G CB.01 1.03 1.dB.6.08 1.18 625.8.10 40.97 10.63 1213.09 1.G CB.61 24.04 0.02 5.R1.47 61.6.dC.24 35.G CB.dC.02 55.59 69.5.9.06 73.02 1.30 39.6.dB.G CA.04 0.92 433.81 8.41 1110.70 22.dB.dA.06 459.R1.02 1.80 35.R1.35.5.R1.7.01 41.50 35.R1.01 1.dC.R1.R1.96 240.56 21.84 10.04 0.34 607.dB.dA.92 53.84 50.98 1020.7.dA.44 15.74 69.R1.09 1.

G CA.16 10.18 5.58 503.12 697.00 291.95 79.R2.G CB.1.22 42.R2.16 74.dA.43 518.R2.dC.dC.00 44.dB.82 22.98 1259.35 296.07 29.dA.dA.40 41.G CB.01 1.dA.2.42 78.10 1.11 1325.dA.dB.7.56 8.79 1288.70 45.2.1.6.R2.10 1.25 5.29 5.04 0.10 42.10 1.G CB.R2.G CA.R2.G CB.G CA.60 8.R2.dB.60 305.1.R2.G CB.92 22.R2.4.61 80.77 718.R2.G CA.dB.64 8.dA.dC.5.dB.61 31.dC.R2.dA.4.G CA.79 22.13 728.R2.G CA.88 82.15 10.97 1.G CB.03 1.6.01 8.45 687.97 1.4.55 708.97 10.R2.G 40.7.84 43.dB.G CB.G CA.3.27 766.03 22.35 31.R2.G CB.42 495.09 10.G CB.66 8.82 75.07 1205.01 1.97 10.78 75.dC.G CA.10 1.40 17.34 1281.08 79.16 1268.79 754.93 22.dA.35 65.47 29.G CA.6.Appendix A 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 CA.4.6.16 276.24 78.dC.72 80.R2.13 487.G CA.G CA.G CA.10 1.53 79.97 1.4.G CA.dA.09 1.99 8.00 264.G CB.04 0.48 300.R2.69 259.69 276.G CB.48 60.7.50 272.4.67 9.dB.82 1227.10 46.76 63.dB.dB.dA.10 46.R2.R2.6.30 5.10 43.7.88 21.5.25 17.11 10.5.G CB.08 61.dC.10 1.10 1.76 477.dA.26 78.36 73.98 8.97 1.5.51 10.7.dA.44 1342.6.R2.01 1.11 1307.92 8.25 716.42 789.64 73.R2.91 22.25 5.50 17.20 778.99 77.G CB.00 8.81 16.R2.dC.09 1.40 44.97 1.51 517.R2.21 5.96 1301.89 22.45 1322.61 9.04 0.G CB.16 10.89 10.G CB.R2.05 74.dA.R2.97 1.08 1.R2.G CA.58 8.01 1.G CB.G CA.R2.03 1.84 280.87 653.47 281.96 166 .1.R2.3.04 16.04 0.dC.96 32.dB.09 1.94 22.G CB.38 60.56 47.7.R2.R2.dC.01 1.34 44.26 81.04 0.50 42.97 22.86 58.R2.R2.G CB.2.dC.71 77.52 486.R2.03 1.3.01 31.19 5.69 16.01 1.G CA.28 10.91 22.34 255.46 502.R2.G CB.R2.97 8.dB.3.92 22.62 64.10 42.G CA.dB.20 43.34 664.08 1.1.03 1.00 44.R2.dA.3.76 494.dB.G CB.R2.2.03 1.dC.60 9.5.R2.G CA.04 0.10 470.33 1361.97 1.62 742.97 8.50 81.G CA.09 1.49 45.08 510.01 286.98 76.G CA.R2.03 10.R2.04 0.R2.53 676.17 1248.52 1237.96 22.06 45.75 30.dC.27 268.2.73 17.3.18 10.69 479.60 510.79 22.1.R2.87 46.05 9.13 525.03 1.55 76.30 43.dC.dB.G CB.09 1.01 1.R2.5.18 1.2.

Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced with FRP Bars VITA Raffaello Fico was born in the city of Naples. He earned his Bachelor of Civil Engineering degree from the University of Naples “Federico II” in October 2004. titled “Bridge Deck Construction with Internal FRP Reinforcement” (April-August 2004). Italy. carrying out his thesis at the University of Missouri-Rolla (USA). He will be graduating with the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Materials and Structures Engineering in December 2007. 167 .

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- RCC
- Frp Reinforcement in Rc Structures, By Ceb Ftp
- FRP Design Guide 06
- Design-rcc Over Head Tank
- Etabs Concrete Design (1)
- Steel Unit Weight
- The Use of Computer in The Design of Concrete Structures
- Concrete Technology and Design of Concrete Structures Multiple Choice Questions and Answers - Preparation for Engineering
- EN1992_1_Walraven
- Design of Concrete Structures 12 edtion.pdf
- 154448819 Column Design
- Design of Concrete Structures in EC2
- Building Information Modeling Framework for Structural Design
- Design of Concrete Structures Worked Examples.pdf
- How to design to eurocode 2.pdf
- 18059965-ACI-Detailing-Notes
- Concrete Design using eurocode 2
- Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis
- Limit States Design of Concrete Structures Reinforced With Frp Bars
- Ph.D thesis
- Isorod Guide Spec
- Irwin_rahman Frp Paper
- FRP Rebars From US ACMA Institute
- Reinforced Concrete FRP Antonio Nanni, Antonio de Luca, Hany Jawaheri Zad
- FRP-Effective Bond Length
- Flexural Strengthening Using CFRP Composites.pdf
- 438605
- BergetalCBM2006
- Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer ASLAN 200 Series
- rcc Strutture