See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265795013

Evaluation of ACI 440 Deflection Model for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced

Concrete Beams and Suggested Modification

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · December 2009

CITATIONS READS

17 841

2 authors:

Muhammad Masood Rafi Ali Nadjai

NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi Ulster University
78 PUBLICATIONS   386 CITATIONS    146 PUBLICATIONS   922 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fire Performance of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete beams View project

Earthquake Model For Middle East Reigon View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Nadjai on 06 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 106-S70

Evaluation of ACI 440 Deflection Model for

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Beams
and Suggested Modification
by Muhammad Masood Rafi and Ali Nadjai

The results of a theoretical analysis of fiber-reinforced polymer

(FRP) reinforced concrete (RC) flexural elements are reported in
this paper. A large database of RC specimens (beams and slabs)
was analyzed including beams tested by the authors. The experimental
load-deflection curves of these specimens were compared with the
theoretical predictions based on the deflection model as suggested
by ACI Committee 440. An appropriate modification in the
ACI 440.1R method of calculating effective moment of inertia
is proposed to predict deflection of concrete beams reinforced by
any type of FRP bar. The modified expression provided consistent
results and the predictions agreed well with the curvature and Fig. 1—Details of BRS and BRC beams.
deflection data measured experimentally. The investigation also
considered other available methods of deflection calculation. A
comparison of the results showed the effectiveness of the suggested
equation over these methods.

Keywords: bond; cracking; deflection; fiber-reinforced polymer; reinforced

concrete; stiffness; strain; tension stiffening.

INTRODUCTION
The unrivaled dominance of reinforcing steel in reinforced
concrete (RC) structures has been recently challenged by Fig. 2—CFRP and tension steel bar.
nonmetallic fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. The
increased use of FRP bars is because of the possibility of Table 1—Summary of properties of beams
corrosion in steel bars, which poses serious problems to the b, h, Ef , Bar
durability of RC structures. Since the introduction of fibrous Beam mm (in.) mm (in.) ρ ρ/ρb GPa (ksi) type
bars over two decades ago, a significant amount of research has BRC11 120 (5) 200 (8) 0.0070 1.94 135.9 (19,706) CFRP
been carried out to investigate various aspects of the behavior of 1
BRC2 120(5) 200 (8) 0.0070 1.99 135.9 (19,706) CFRP
FRP RC elements. These research efforts have been recognized
by worldwide interest in the use of FRP bars as an alternative 6 254 (10) 184 (7.25) 0.0071 1.27 40.3 (5850) GFRP
1a-NL
material to steel reinforcement. It is expected that the CB6B 20 200 (8) 300 (12) 0.0210 4.00 39.04 (5661) GFRP
applications of FRP bars in structural elements will 21
Coated FRP 100 (4) 150 (6) 0.0070 2.60 63.8 (9521) AFRP
significantly reduce maintenance costs.
Commercially available fibers include glass, carbon, and B122 180 (7) 300 (12) 0.0049 1.87 147 (21,315) CFRP
aramid, and bars using them are termed GFRP, CFRP, and BF7 23 127 (5) 305 (12) 0.0104 2.11 26.22 (3802) GFRP
AFRP bars, respectively. CFRP bars are mostly used in F-1-GF24 154 (6) 254 (10) 0.0155 2.23 34 (4930) GFRP
prestressing applications due to their high tensile strength,
which is comparable with steel strands. The authors tested
neutral axis location that satisfies force equilibrium. The theo-
RC beams reinforced with CFRP (designated as BRC1 and
retical deflection was calculated using the method as recom-
BRC2) or steel (designated as BRS1 and BRS2) bars.1,2 The
mended by ACI 440.1R.3 This paper identifies the limitations
beams were approximately 80 days old at the time of their
of the existing ACI 440.1R method to compute Ie for FRP RC
testing and were simply supported at the ends. Details of the
beams used are given in Fig. 1 and Table 1, and reinforcing beams. A modified expression has been proposed and
bars are shown in Fig. 2. The flexural behavior of these discussed with reference to a number of experimentally
beams was studied in terms of stress strain, load deflection, recorded results reported in the literature by various
modes of failure, load-carrying capacity, and cracking researchers. Their details will follow in the subsequent sections.
pattern. These tests formed the basis for the analytical work
of the presented study. ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 6, November-December 2009.
MS No. S-2006-369.R4 received July 1, 2008, and reviewed under Institute publication
A strain compatibility analysis (SCA) was carried out and the policies. Copyright © 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
theoretical behavior of beams was compared with the experi- making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the September-October
mental data. SCA employs an iterative approach to establish 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by May 1, 2010.

762 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2009


Muhammad Masood Rafi is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at
NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi, Pakistan. He received his
BEng and MSc in civil engineering from the NED University of Engineering and
Technology in 1993 and 1997, respectively, and his doctorate from the University of
Ulster, UK, in 2007. His research interests include behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer-
reinforced concrete structures at normal and elevated temperatures, recycling of concrete,
and seismic analysis and retrofitting of reinforced concrete and masonry structures.
Ali Nadjai is a Professor at the University of Ulster’s FireSERT facility.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The fact that FRP bars have low modulus of elasticity
compared to steel shifts the design criterion of flexural
members from the ultimate to the serviceability limit state
(SLS). The control of deflection becomes paramount in the
SLS design and, therefore, the importance of a reliable
method to determine the deflection of FRP reinforced structures
cannot be understated. A theoretical investigation of the
deflection behavior of FRP RC beams has been carried
out using the ACI 440.1R3 procedure. A comparison of the
theoretical deflection with experimental data showed that the
current method cannot be considered satisfactory for all
types of FRP bar reinforced elements. The aim of this paper
is to present an appropriate modification to the existing
ACI 440.1R3 model for Ie and to evaluate its suitability
for calculation of deflection of FRP RC beams.
BACKGROUND
To calculate the deflection of a cracked beam, ACI 440.1R3
and ACI 3184 adopt the concept of effective moment of
inertia. The calculation of Ie is based on an empirical relation,
which was originally proposed by Branson5 for steel RC
beams. The results of this expression vary in conditions
different than those it was derived from.6 Research6-11 has
shown its inadequacy for FRP RC structures and, consequently,
the equation has been modified by ACI Committee 440 for
concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars. The difficulty in
getting reliable results with this equation resulted in a
number of corrections proposed by various researchers over
the years.6-11 The major drawback of these modifications is
that they were based on a single FRP bar type and were not
verified for elements reinforced with other types of fibrous
bars. Even the most recent change made by ACI Committee 440
is based on the results of beams reinforced with only GFRP bars
and the behavior of other types of FRP RC elements is not
taken into consideration. Mota et al.12 presented a critical
review of nine different methods of deflection calculation for
FRP reinforced structures, including the method used in
ACI 440.1R-03.13 It is no surprise that Mota et al.12 did
not find a single formula that could predict the deflection
satisfactorily under every situation considered. They
suggested three models for the deflection calculation of
GFRP and CFRP RC structures with different reinforcing
ratios at a load of 10% higher than Pcr. In the authors’
opinion, to have more than one method is clearly unrealistic.
Al-Sunna14 tested 28 RC beams and slabs, which were reinforced
with GFRP and CFRP bars, and concluded that the ACI 440.1R3
method may not be used for satisfactory deflection predictions
of FRP RC structures without major modifications. Al-Sunna14
presented the idea of using a reduced effective modulus for
CFRP RC elements. This approach again requires a different
deflection calculation procedure for CFRP reinforced structures.
Bischoff15 has shown the reliability of the Branson equation
both on the reinforcement ratio and bar modulus. Bischoff15
emphasized the need of a single modified Branson equation
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2009
that could work with different FRP bars and reinforcement
ratios. These studies clearly justify the work that is presented
in this paper. The results of the modified expression
proposed in this study compared well with the recorded data
of all FRP bar types and reinforcement ratios. It avoids the
use of more than one method for structures reinforced with
different types of FRP bars or different reinforcing ratios.
This equation was compared with other available methods
for FRP reinforced structures; the resulting data demonstrated
the improved ability of the proposed equation to predict
deflection behavior over alternative methods.
STRAIN COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS
The design of a conventional steel RC structure is based on
the ultimate limit state (ULS) and its deflection is checked at
service load level to ensure its functionality. Most international
codes, however, have not defined the service load level for FRP
RC structures.12 Therefore, a comparison of the experimental
and analytical deflection behaviors for the full loading history
has been made to ensure the accuracy of the method at all
load levels. Rafi16 implemented a numerical model to carry
out strain compatibility analysis of an RC section. This
model is based on layer-by-layer approach of calculating
section forces, compatibility of strain, equilibrium of forces,
and a perfect bar-concrete bond. A maximum of 100 layers
was used for a section. A nonlinear constitutive relation for
uniaxial concrete compressive strength was employed to
calculate reinforcing bar strain and neutral axis depth with
respect to concrete strain at extreme fibers. Concrete contribution
below the neutral axis was taken into account before cracking
and the tensile strength of concrete was neglected for a
cracked section. A linear stress-strain relationship was used
for FRP bars up to the ultimate strength. The correlation of the
experimental and analytical load capacity was found remarkably
good for both under- and over-reinforced members.
Analytical deflection
The method recommended by ACI 440.1R3 for the
computation of Ie of FRP RC structures is given in Eq. (1a)
and (1b). This equation is used in conjunction with elastic
deflection formulas to calculate deflection. For example, for
a beam subjected to a four-point load, as shown in Fig. 1, the
deflection can be calculated by the formula written in Eq. (2).
M cr⎞ 3 M cr⎞ 3
I c = βI g ⎛ --------
- + 1 – ⎛ --------
- I ≤I (1a)
⎝ M⎠ ⎝ M ⎠ cr g
1 ρ
β = --- ⎛ -----⎞ ≤ 1.0 (1b)
5 ⎝ ρ b⎠
3
3a s ⎛ a s⎞ 3
PL - × -------
Δ = ------------ - – ---- (2)
6E c I e 4L ⎝ L ⎠
As stated previously, Eq. (1) was employed to calculate Ie
values for the BRC beams tested by the authors and were
substituted in Eq. (2) to compute the deflection of these beams.
COMPARISON OF THEORETICAL
AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Figure 3 traces the experimental and theoretical P-Δ
curves for the BRC beams. The theoretical curve (legend
ACI) was based on Ie from Eq. (1). Note that other curves
763

Fig. 3—Load-deflection curves for: (a) beam BRC1; and
(b) beam BRC2.
Fig. 4—Comparison of reinforcing bar strain distribution at
midspan.
plotted in this and later figures are shown here due to space
limitations. Pertinent discussion on these will follow shortly.
It can be seen in Fig. 3 that the prediction (Eq. (1)) in the
initial stages of loading up to 40 kN (9 kip) are quite close to
the recorded data. The theoretical method (Eq. (1)),
however, overestimated the beam stiffness with an increase
in load. The rate of reduction in the recorded stiffness of
BRC beams was found higher compared to the BRS beams
during their experimental testing, which can be expected due
to the low-modulus CFRP bars. The average difference in the
stiffness of both types of beams at the yielding of steel bars
was approximately 38%.1 It is worth mentioning that the
Branson equation (which has been modified for FRP reinforced
beams as Eq. (1) by ACI 440.1R) was originally developed on
the basis of width and spacing of cracks in conventional steel
reinforced beams.7 Both of these factors depend, at least in
part, on the bond characteristics of bars and are a typical
measure of concrete tension stiffening. The bond characteristics
of the CFRP bars were found satisfactory in the BRC beams
tested by the authors. These bars carried a stress between 80
to 90% of their tensile strength.2 The strain development of
764
Fig. 5—Experimental and analytical variation of Ie for: (a) beam
BRC1; and (b) beam BRC2. (Note: 1 in.4 = 42 × 104 mm4.)
the bare reinforcing bar at the midspan section of BRC1, as
predicted by the strain compatibility analysis, is compared
with the experimental strain history in Fig. 4. The results of
BRC2 are similar to BRC1. A reasonably good correlation
between the two curves is evident in Fig. 4. As the theoretical
strain curve was based on a perfect bar-concrete bond, as
mentioned previously, the results in Fig. 4 correlated closely
with the observation of adequate CFRP bond with concrete.
This is further strengthened by the fact that cracking in the
BRS and BRC beams stabilized after an applied load of
30 kN (7 kip) and both types of beams developed almost
the same number of cracks up to their failure with similar
average spacing.16 Because the crack spacing is influenced
by the bar-concrete bond, a similar crack spacing in the BRS
and BRC beams indicates comparable bond properties of
both the steel and CFRP bars. The deflection beyond this
load (30 kN [7 kip]) mainly resulted in increased width of
existing cracks. Therefore it can be inferred that Eq. (1)
provided higher tension stiffening estimates for the BRC
beams. Bischoff17 has also mentioned over-estimation of
tension stiffening for FRP RC beams with the Branson equation.
It is to be noted herein that the present adjustments made in the
Branson method (Eq. (1b)) account for the differences in the
stiffness of a cracked GFRP and steel beam6 and may not
apply to CFRP reinforced concrete. This warrants further
analysis of the recorded deflection behavior of BRC beams
tested by the authors in order to understand the disparity
between the experimental and theoretical deflection behaviors
of these beams.
A comparison of the experimental Ie values, which were
computed using recorded deflection data with the help of Eq. (2)
and those predicted by Eq. (1), has been made in Fig. 5 for the
BRC beams tested by the authors. Yost el al.6 found that the
Branson equation was affected by theoretical Pcr and
suggested this value to be close to that recorded during the
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2009
 Fig. 6—Load-deflection curves for: (a) beam 1a-NL;6 (b) beam CB6B;20 (c) coated FRP
beam;21 (d) beam B1;22 (e) beam BF7;23 and (f) beam F-1-GF.24
test for the assessment of a model’s accuracy. Pcr is dependent
on ft , which was calculated using Eurocode 2 Part 1-118
formulation. It can be seen in Fig. 3 and 4 that the
recorded and predicted Pcr are very close to each other,
which minimizes the influence of this factor on the theoretical
Ie data. Referring back to Fig. 5, a perfect correlation exists
between the experimental and theoretical curve (based on
Eq. (1)) for a low level of loading. However, Eq. (1)
overestimated I e with progressive beam loading. It should
be noted that Eq. (1b) was recommended by ACI Committee 440
on the basis of a statistical fit of the existing experimental data
of beam deflection. It is possible that the adjustments made
in the Branson expression might not adequately provide estimates
of Ie for all types of FRP bars because experimental data might
not represent a complete list of FRP bars available. A more
detailed analysis, using different FRP modulus and reinforcement
ratios, appears logical to increase the level of understanding of
the problem in relation to Eq. (1). The aforementioned variables
were chosen because the tension stiffening effects depend on
these in addition to bar-concrete bond. The analysis was
carried out with the help of available test results in the
existing database. The beams were selected according to ρ
and Ef of bars. Yost et al.6 and Razaqpur et al.19 have
reported the influence of theoretical Mcr on the stiffness
results of a cracked beam. The subsequent discussion
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2009
included the beam data based on two criteria in order to
simplify comparison—the beams have closely matched
theoretical and experimental Pcr, and either ρ or ρ/ρb of the
beam is similar to the BRC beams.
Figures 6(a) and (b) demonstrate the effects of ρ on the
theoretical results of beams tested by Yost et al.6 and
Benmokrane and Masmoudi,20 respectively. The beam 1a-NL
has the same ρ as the BRC beams. The beam CB6B was a
heavily reinforced beam and is included herein to compare
the deflection results of low and high ρ values. Details of
these beams are summarized in Table 1, where it can be seen
that the modulus of elasticity of bars in both beams is nearly
the same. It is evident in Fig. 6(a) and (b) that the theoretical
predictions (using Eq. (1)) are quite close to the recorded
deflections for both beams.
Figures 6(c) and (d) trace the experimental and theoretical
P-Δ curves for the beams tested by Nanni21 and Wilson et
al.,22 respectively. The beams were, respectively, reinforced
with AFRP and CFRP bars. The ρ of the coated FRP beam is
the same as the 1a-NL and BRC beams, whereas ρ/ρb for the
beam B1 is close to the BRC beams, as can be seen in Table 1.
The predictions are very close up to 40 kN (9 kip) for the
coated FRP beam (Fig. 6(c)) and then the theoretical curve
deviated from the experimental data. However, considering
the rise and fall in the applied load during experimental
765
testing, the predicted results can be considered satisfactory.
The theoretical deflection was significantly underestimated
for the beam B1 (Fig. 6(d)), which has higher-modulus
reinforcing bars.
Figures 6(e) and (f) further evaluate the accuracy of Eq. (1) in
relation to the Ef of FRP bars. The beams BF723 and F-1-GF24
were reinforced with GFRP bars; however, Ef of the bars in this
case was less than the 1a-NL and CB6B beams. The details
of the beams are given in Table 1, where it can be noted that
the beam BF7 had a ρ/ρb that was close to the BRC beams.
The beam F-1-GF had a higher Ef compared to the beam
BF7, although it still is less than the beams 1a-NL and
CB6B. Both BF7 and F-1-GF beams have similar ρ/ρb. It can
be seen that Eq. (1) significantly underestimated the stiffness
of these beams. Therefore, the deflection was overestimated
for the beams BF7 and F-1-GF and the results are nearly the
same for both beams. For example, the difference between
the recorded and predicted Δ for these beams was found to
be 28% at load levels corresponding to 35% and 50% of their
respective Pu.
Although the authors analyzed a considerable amount of
data, the details are not possible here due to space limitations.
These data consisted of 120 beams and four slabs from
References 6, 7, 10, 11, and 20 to 37. The analysis provided
sufficient evidence that Eq. (1) gives reasonable results only
for FRP bars with a modulus in the range of 35 to 50 GPa
(5075 to 7250 ksi). It overestimates Ie of beams with Ef of
FRP bar greater than 50 GPa (7250 ksi) and underestimates
the stiffness for the modulus less than 35 GPa (5075 ksi). This
can also be witnessed in the above comparison (Fig. 6(a) to (f)).
From Fig. 5 it can be noted that both the analytical and
experimental curves are nearly parallel to each other. This
shows that it is possible to estimate Ie accurately with the
help of Eq. (1) if the cracked moment of inertia of the beam
could be reduced. This will allow the basic form of the equation
to remain the same, as argued by other researchers.7,8,38
Al-Sunna14 made a similar suggestion regarding the
cracked moment of inertia for the European code. It is worth
mentioning here that the beam 1a-NL did not have any shear
reinforcement. The rest of the beams contain adequate stirrups
to keep diagonal tension cracks tight. Al-Sunna14 also indicated
the possibility of higher shear deformation with low-
modulus bars (typically GFRP) compared to higher-modulus
bars (CFRP). The stiff recorded deflection behaviors of the
BF723 and F-1-GF24 beams in comparison with Eq. (1) may
not need a separate calculation of shear deformation, even if
these existed. Therefore, shear deformations are not considered
herein for simplicity. Similarly any local-bond slip can be
reflected by the concrete tension stiffening relation and can
be accounted for by appropriate modification to Eq. (1).
It becomes apparent in the above discussion that Eq. (1)
does not predict realistic Ie (which is a required input for
deflection calculation) with every type of FRP-bar-reinforced
concrete. It is to be noted that the original Branson equation,
which is recommended by the ACI Committee 318 for the
computation of deflection of steel-reinforced structures,
made satisfactory deflection predictions (in conjunction with
Eq. (2)) for the BRS beams tested by the authors.16 As
described previously, this equation has been found sensitive
to parameters employed in its derivation,6 which also
include modulus of elasticity of steel bars. FRP bars are low-
modulus bars compared to steel, and Fig. 6(a) to (f) clearly
demonstrate that the deflection predictions for FRP reinforced
beams, which are based on Ie values from Eq. (1), are influenced
766
mainly by Ef. This emphasizes the need of including the
effects of FRP modulus in comparison with steel in Eq. (1)
in order to develop a rational model to predict beam deflection.
Based on the presented results and discussion, a factor γ
(Eq. (3)) is suggested here to be used with the second term
of Eq. (1a) to account for differences in FRP modulus relative
to steel in this equation.
b 2 E f⎞
γ = b 1 ⎛ 1 + ---------
- (3)
⎝ Es ⎠
It can be noted that this equation is similar to the expression
employed by the ACI 440.1R-0313 for β. After the substitution
of γ, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as
M cr⎞ 3 I cr M cr⎞ 3
I c = βI g ⎛ --------
- + ------ 1 – ⎛ --------
- ≤ Ig (4a)
⎝ M⎠ γ ⎝ M⎠
1 ρ
β = --- ⎛ -----⎞ ≤ 1.0 (4b)
5 ⎝ ρ b⎠
The value of b2 (Eq. (3)) as 0.5 was selected based on some
trial-and-error calculations, and b1 is initially considered a
function of ρ/ρb of the beam to keep γ consistent with the
ACI approach. Considering a typical value of Es = 200 GPa
(29,000 ksi), Eq. (3) can be written as
Ef ⎞
γ = b 1 ⎛ 1 + --------
- (5)
⎝ 400⎠
To use Es with imperial units, Eq. (5) can be amended as
Ef ⎞
γ = b 1 ⎛ 1 + ---------------
- (6)
⎝ 58,000⎠
A statistical analysis was carried out to obtain a relation
between b1 and ρ/ρb. Help is taken from the reported test
results in the literature to increase the sample size. These
data were taken from the work of authors in different parts of
the world to include differences in the FRP manufacturing
process. A representative sample of 44 beams, including
BRC beams tested by the authors, and one CFRP reinforced
slab, was selected with a wide range of Ef and ρ/ρb. These
will collectively be referred to as specimens herein. These
specimens were tested in a three-point or four-point load.
FRP bars consisted of GFRP, AFRP, and CFRP, which were
placed in either one or two layers. GFRP rods, however, were
used in the majority of the specimens as they attracted more
attention in the researchers’ community due to their lower cost.
This has also been pointed out by other investigators.12,14,25
ρ/ρb in the selected specimens varied between 0.33 to 9.68
where the concrete consisted of normal, high-strength, and
very-high-strength concrete. The specimens have been
grouped in 23 sets and their details are given in Table 2.
For each specimen, Ie values (which were calculated from
Eq. (1) at different load levels) were substituted in Eq. (4) to
determine corresponding γ, which was found to be the same
at all the load steps. A unique value of b1 was then determined
using Eq. (5) for that specimen. This was then changed in close
interval of 0.01, and a value of b1 for the best fitting experimental
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2009
Table 2—Material and geometrical properties of beams/slab analyzed
Set Beam b, mm h, mm L, mm as, mm fc, MPa ρ, % ρ/ρb Ef , GPa ff , MPa Bar type
1 120 200 1750 675 42.55 0.70 1.94 135.9 1676 CFRP
BRC1
1
1 120 200 1750 675 41.71 0.70 1.99 135.9 1676 CFRP
BRC2
1a-NL6 254 184 2896 1372 40.37 0.71 1.27 40.30 690 GFRP
6 178 184 2896 1372 79.56 2.32 2.43 40.30 690 GFRP
4b-HL
6 165 286 2134 991 79.70 2.10 2.20 40.30 690 GFRP
3a-HS
2
6 254 286 2134 991 36.36 2.05 3.89 40.30 690 GFRP
3a-NS
2b-NL6 305 184 2896 1372 40.37 0.94 1.67 40.30 690 GFRP
6 229 286 2134 991 36.36 2.28 3.79 40.30 690 GFRP
4a-NS
3 ISO17 200 300 3000 1000 43.00 1.12 1.54 45.00 690 GFRP
4 10 102 102 1016 432 46.54 2.42 9.69 144.8 2490 CFRP
F-6
11 130 180 1500 500 93.50 2.47 1.91 38.00 773 GFRP
BC4VA
5 BC2NA11 130 180 1500 500 53.10 1.24 2.15 38.00 773 GFRP
11 130 180 1500 500 97.40 1.24 1.21 38.00 773 GFRP
BC2VA
20 200 300 3000 1300 52.00 0.70 1.24 37.65 773 GFRP
CB2B
6
20 200 300 3000 1300 45.00 2.10 3.75 37.65 773 GFRP
CB6B
7 21 100 150 800 350 43.60 0.70 2.60 63.80 1400 AFRP
Coated
22 180 300 2000 850 71.70 0.49 1.87 147.0 2550 CFRP
B1
8
22 180 300 2000 850 71.70 0.32 1.24 147.0 2550 CFRP
B2
23 127 305 3048 1067 32.43 1.39 3.49 26.22 696.6 GFRP
BF6
9
BF923 127 305 3048 1067 29.67 2.09 5.92 26.22 696.6 GFRP
10 F-1-GF24 154 254 2100 700 35.70 1.55 2.23 34.00 586 GFRP
L.425 500 250 2300 700 30.00 0.47 2.24 147.0 1970 CFRP
25 500 250 2300 700 30.00 0.20 0.95 147.0 1970 CFRP
L.2
11
I.425 500 250 2300 700 30.00 0.38 0.78 42.00 692 GFRP
LL 200 C25 1000 200 3000 700 30.00 0.30 0.87 147.0 1970 CFRP
26 200 210 2700 1250 31.30 3.6 7.58 35.63 700 GFRP
G II
12
G V26 200 250 2700 1250 41.00 2.87 6.09 35.63 700 GFRP
13 27 500 185 3400 1200 30.00 1.22 3.57 42.00 886 GFRP
F1
14 28 180 300 2800 1200 35.00 0.53 0.92 40.00 695 GFRP
GB1
29 150 300 2400 800 84.50 0.40 2.63 53.00 1760 AFRP
DF2T1
DF3T229 150 300 2400 800 84.50 0.59 2.66 53.00 1760 AFRP
15
29 150 300 2400 800 84.50 0.59 2.66 53.00 1760 AFRP
DF3T3
29 150 300 2400 800 85.60 0.59 3.21 53.00 1760 AFRP
CF3T1
30 152.4 304.8 2750 917 51.75 0.10 0.94 44.82 590.9 GFRP
D
16
E30 152.4 304.8 2750 917 51.75 0.94 0.88 44.82 590.9 GFRP
17 31 150 300 2750 917 31.00 1.08 1.39 44.82 590.4 GFRP
M1
18 F-332 102 102 1016 508 46.54 1.21 6.27 144.8 2490 CFRP
19 33 102 102 1016 339 46.54 0.81 4.18 144.8 2490 CFRP
F-2′f
20 cb-st34 152 192 2743 1372 48.26 0.25 1.06 147.0 2250 CFRP
21 35 150 200 2700 850 45.70 0.34 2.16 49.00 1674 AFRP
B2
36 200 300 2400 900 29.43 0.28 1.38 65.00 1413 AFRP
RC-A1
36 200 300 2400 900 29.43 0.28 1.38 65.00 1413 AFRP
RC-A3
22
36 200 300 2400 900 29.43 0.28 1.38 56.00 1265 AFRP
RC-A4
36 200 300 2400 900 29.43 0.28 1.38 57.00 1265 AFRP
RC-A5
37 200 300 2750 875 39.90 0.52 2.24 122.0 1988 CFRP
CB-4
23 37 200 300 2750 875 44.80 0.52 2.24 122.0 1988 CFRP
CB-6
37 200 300 2750 875 44.80 0.52 2.24 122.0 1988 CFRP
CB-8
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 GPa = 0.145 psi.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2009 767

Fig. 7—Load-deflection curves for: (a) beam BRC11 with
different values of b1; and (b) beam BF923 with different
values of b1.
Fig. 8—Results of regression analysis.
curve was obtained. Particular attention was paid to ensure
closest correlation of the experimental and theoretical curves
in the range of 35 and 90% Pu. The same method was used
for all the selected specimens in Table 2. A typical example
of the process has been illustrated in Fig. 7 for the beams
BRC11 and BF9.23 The values of b1 for these beams,
corresponding to Eq. (1), were 0.75 and 0.94, respectively. It
can be seen in Fig. 7 that the deflection curves, with Eq. (1) and
Eq. (4) using these b1 values, are a perfect match. The
predicted curves at a few more b1 values have also been
included in Fig. 7 where it can be seen that the theoretical
curves at values of 0.87 and 0.70 provided the closest correlation
with the experimental curves, respectively, for the beams BRC11
and BF9.23
The values of b1 were then plotted with corresponding ρ/ρb
of the specimens. The results are graphically represented in
Fig. 8 and a relation was obtained by the linear regression,
which is given in Eq. (7).
ρ-⎞ + 0.8541
b 1 = 0.0017 ⎛ ---- (7)
⎝ ρ b⎠
768
Fig. 9—Load-deflection curves for: (a) beam RC-A1;36 and
(b) beam CB-8.37 (Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
It can be noted in Fig. 8 that the values of b1 are greatly
concentrated between 0.7 and 1.0. From Eq. (7) it becomes
clear that b1 is nearly independent of ρ/ρb of the beam. The
average value of b1 for the specimens in Table 2 comes out
to be 0.86. Given the negligible influence of ρ/ρb on b1, the
increase in the complexity for the calculation of b1 (Eq. (7))
is not justified by the small improvement in the accuracy of
γ. Therefore, a constant value of 0.86 for b1 is suggested. It
is important to note that, with b1 taken as 0.86, 1/γ becomes
nearly equal to 1 for FRP bars with Ef values in the range of
35 to 50 GPa (5075 to 7250 ksi) and, thus, the use of Eq. (1)
and (4) will provide quite similar deflection estimates.
Figures 3, 5, and 6 show the theoretical prediction results
with the help of Eq. (4), after substituting Eq. (5) using b1 as
0.86. A good correlation between the predicted results using
the modified equation and the recorded data exists in these
figures. A statistical analysis of the ratio of experimental and
theoretical deflection for the specimens included in Table 2
was also carried out. The maximum standard deviation using
Eq. (4) at 35, 50, and 90% Pu came out to be approximately
0.17 as opposed to 0.26 with the ACI 440.1R method (Eq. (1)).
The 95% confidence interval is approximately in the range of
0.97 to 1.09 for the former method, and 1.12 to 1.39 for the latter.
It can be expected that Eq. (4) can provide improved
results for all the specimens included in Table 2, as it has
been derived from these data. For instance, a comparison of
the experimental deflection behaviors of beams RC-A136
and CB-837 has been made in Fig. 9 with the theoretical
predictions made by using Eq. (1) and Eq. (4). The beams
were reinforced, respectively, with CFRP and AFRP bars
(Table 2). It is evident in Fig. 9 that the modified equation
improves deflection predictions compared to the ACI 440.1R3
equation. To assess the effectiveness and reproducibility of
Eq. (4), however, the analytical results of additional beams,
which were not included in Table 2, were also compared
with the recorded data. Figure 10 shows this comparison of
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2009
Fig. 10—Experimental and theoretical curvature for: (a)
beam BC2b;14 and (b) beam BG2a.14 (Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN;
1 ft = 0.3 m.)
the experimental ϕ of beams BC2b14 and BG2a14 calculated
with the ACI equation (Eq. (1)) and modified equation (Eq. (4)).
The beams were, respectively, reinforced with CFRP and
GFRP bars. It can be seen in Fig. 10 that the curvature of the
beam BC2b increases at a faster rate than predicted by Eq. (1).
On the other hand, Eq. (4) provides more accurate results for
both beams compared to the recorded curvature.
Full analytical P-Δ histories of three more beams are
shown in Fig. 11. These beams were also not included in
Table 2. The beam 3a-HL6 was reinforced with GFRP bars,
whereas the beams BC2a14 and B322 were reinforced with
CFRP reinforcing bars. It is evident in Fig. 11 that Eq. (4), in
conjunction with Eq. (2), predicts the deflection more
accurately compared with Eq. (1).
COMPARISON WITH OTHER MODELS
Bischoff15 found that the tension stiffening of FRP RC
beams was overestimated by the ACI 440.1R3 equation and
suggested a modified form of Branson equation. This modified
equation is based on the idea that the tension stiffening in the
Branson equation depends on the ratio of Ig/Icr and is over-
estimated for beams with Ig/Icr greater than 3. The equation
was derived from the basic concept of concrete tension stiffening
and was intended to reduce this parameter in the Branson
equation. The suggested expression is given in Eq. (8).
M cr⎞ 3
I e = I cr 1 + 2.3 ⎛ --------
- (8)
⎝ M⎠
The ISIS39 Canada network design manual suggests the
use of Eq. (9) to calculate Ie for FRP RC members. The
expression was derived from the equations given in the
CEB-FIP Code40 and appears different in its form than the
previous equations.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2009
Fig. 11—Load-deflection curves for: (a) beam 3a-HL;6 (b)
beam BC2a;14 and (c) beam B3.22 (Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN;
1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
I e I cr
I e = ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (9)
⎛ M cr⎞ 2
I cr + 1 – 0.5 --------- ( I g – I cr )
⎝ M⎠
The method of calculating the deflection of FRP RC structures
in the CSA Code41 is based on the moment-curvature relation.
Simple formulas for simply supported beams have been
derived on the assumption that the M-ϕ relation for FRP RC
beams can be defined at cracking moment, moment immediately
after cracking, and ultimate moment. The deflection for a beam
subjected to a four-point load (Fig. 1) can be calculated with
the help of Eq. (10).
Pa s I cr⎞ ⎛ M cr⎞ 3 2
- 3L – 4a – 8 ⎛ 1 – -----
2 2
Δ = ----------------- - --------- a (10)
24E c I cr ⎝ Ig ⎠ ⎝ M ⎠ s
The results of Eq. (8) to (10) have also been plotted with
the experimental load-deflection responses of the beams in
Fig. 3, 6, 9, and 11, and compared with the midspan
deflections predicted by the ACI equation (Eq. (1)) and
modified equation (Eq. (4)) for these beams. It can be seen
that all these methods predict slightly different results
initially for most of the beams. However, Eq. (8) to (10),
769
which are based purely on theoretical approaches, later
produce results more or less similar to ACI, whereas Eq. (4)
provided the most accurate deflection predictions in all these
cases. In some figures, the results of different methods are so
close that it is difficult to differentiate between different curves.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of a theoretical investigation of the deflection
behavior of FRP RC beams are presented in this paper. The
theoretical study was based on strain compatibility analysis.
The beams tested by the authors (BRC beams) and various
other researchers were analyzed using the ACI 440.1R
model for deflection predictions. The main findings of this
investigation follow.
1. The effective moment of inertia of the BRC beams was
over-estimated by the ACI method for FRP reinforced structures.
2. A wide range of test data, of FRP reinforced beams and
slabs, was analyzed. The experimental results of these specimens
have been reported in the literature. The analysis showed that the
ACI equation for Ie can be used successfully for the deflection
prediction of FRP RC beams reinforced with bars having a
modulus between 35 and 50 GPa (5075 and 7250 ksi). The
deflection, however, is overestimated for FRP bars with Ef
less than 35 GPa (5075 ksi) and underestimated for FRP bars
with a modulus greater than 50 GPa (7250 ksi).
3. A modified equation has been suggested to calculate Ie
of FRP reinforced beams and is given in Eq. (4). This equation
considers the modular ratio of FRP and steel bar, and results in
a reasonable agreement with the recorded data of beams and
slabs reinforced with any type of FRP bars. The comparison
between the predicted and recorded curvature and deflection
was found satisfactory using this expression.
4. A comparison of the modified equation is made with the
available methods of deflection calculation of FRP reinforced
elements. These methods provided results that were similar to
the ACI equation. The suggested expression, on the other
hand, correlated well with the experimental deflection.
5. Although the beams reinforced with different types and
origins of FRP bars, with a wide range of ρ/ρb, were
considered for the findings, and suggestions made in this
study these apply only to the beams tested under three- or
four-point monotonic loading.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the support provided for this research
by the School of Built Environment, University of Ulster.
NOTATION
as , L = beam shear and supported span
b, d, h = beam width, and effective depth and height, respectively
Es = modulus of elasticity steel
fc, ft, Ec = concrete compressive strength, tensile strength, and elastic
modulus, respectively
ff , Ef = ultimate strength and modulus of elasticity of FRP bar,
respectively
Icr, Ie, Ig = cracked, effective, and gross moment of inertia, respectively
M, Mcr = applied and cracking moment, respectively
P, Pcr , Pu = applied, cracking, and ultimate load, respectively
Δ = deflection
ε, ϕ = strain and curvature, respectively
ρ, ρb = actual and balanced reinforcement ratio, respectively
REFERENCES
1. Rafi, M. M.; Nadjai, A.; Ali, F.; and Talamona, D., “Aspects of Behaviour
of CFRP Reinforced Concrete Beams in Bending,” Construction and Building
Materials, V. 22, 2008, pp. 277-285.
2. Rafi, M. M.; Nadjai, A.; and Ali, F., “Experimental Testing of
Concrete Beams Reinforced with Carbon FRP Bars,” Journal of Composite
770
Materials, V. 41, No. 22, 2006, pp. 2657-2673.
3. ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-06),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006, 44 pp.
4. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp.
5. Branson, D. E., Deformation of Concrete Structures, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1977, 576 pp.
6. Yost, J. R.; Gross, S. P.; and Dinehart, D. W., “Effective Moment of
Inertia for Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Reinforced Concrete Beams,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2003, pp. 732-739.
7. Benmokrane, B.; Chaallal, O.; and Masmoudi, R., “Flexural Response
of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1996, pp. 46-55.
8. Toutanji, H. A., and Saafi, M., “Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams
Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2000, pp. 712-719.
9. Al-Shaikh, A. H., and Al-Zaid, R. Z., “Effect of Reinforcement Ratio
on the Effective Moment of Inertia of Reinforced Concrete Beams,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993, pp. 144-149.
10. Maji, A., and Orozco, A. L., “Prediction of Bond Failure and Deflection
of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Experimental
Mechanics, V. 45, No. 1, 2005, pp. 35-41.
11. Theriault, M., and Benmokrane, B., “Effects of FRP Reinforcement
Ratio and Concrete Strength on Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams,”
Journal of Composites for Construction, V. 2, No. 1, 1998, pp. 7-16.
12. Mota, C.; Alminar, S.; and Svecova, D., “Critical Review of Deflection
Formulas for FRP-RC Members,” Journal of Composites for Construction,
V. 10, No. 3, 2006, pp. 183-194.
13. ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-03),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2003, 42 pp.
14. Al-Sunna, R. A. S., “Deflection Behaviour of FRP Reinforced
Concrete Flexural Members,” PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, UK,
2006.
15. Bischoff, P. H., “Deflection Calculation of FRP Reinforced Concrete
Beams Based on Modification to the Existing Branson Equation,” Journal
of Composites for Construction, V. 11, No. 1, 2007, pp. 4-14.
16. Rafi, M. M., “Fire Performance of FRP Reinforced Concrete
Beams,” PhD thesis, University of Ulster, UK, 2007.
17. Bischoff, P. H., “Reevaluation of Deflection Prediction for Concrete
Beams Reinforced with Steel and Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bars,” Journal
of Structural Engineering, V. 131, No. 5, 2005, pp. 752-767.
18. Eurocode 2, “Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules
and Rules for Buildings,” Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 195 pp.
19. Razaqpur, A. G.; Svecova, D.; and Cheung, M. S., “Rational Method
for Calculating Deflection of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced
Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, pp. 175-184.
20. Benmokrane, B., and Masmoudi, R., “FRP C-Bar as Reinforcing
Rod for Concrete Structures,” Proceedings of ACMBS 1996, Montreal, QC,
Canada, 1996, pp. 181-188.
21. Nanni, A., “Flexural Behavior and Design of RC Members Using
FRP Reinforcement,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 119, No. 11,
1993, pp. 3344-3359.
22. Wilson, A. F.; Tsiatas, G.; Taggart, D. G.; Nair, A. U.; and Kim, T. J.,
“Investigation of CFRP Reinforced Concrete Interfacial Load Transfer,”
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 2003, pp. 1-24.
23. Nawy, E. G., and Neuwerth, G. E., “Fiberglass Reinforced Concrete
Slabs and Beams,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 103,
No. ST2, 1977, pp. 421-440.
24. Swamy, N., and Aburawi, M., “Structural Implications of Using
GFRP Bars as Concrete Reinforcement,” Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures
1997, Sapporo, Japan, 1997, pp. 503-510.
25. Abdalla, H. A., “Evaluation of Deflection in Concrete Members
Reinforced with Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bars,” Composite Structure,
V. 56, 2002, pp. 63-71.
26. Al-Salloum, A. Y.; Alsayed, H. S.; Almusallam, H. T.; and Amjad,
A. M., “Evaluation of Service Load Deflection for Beams Reinforced by
GFRP Bars,” Proceedings of ACMBS 1996, Montreal, QC, Canada, 1996,
pp. 165-172.
27. Pecce, M.; Manfredi, G.; and Cosenza, E., “Experimental Behaviour
of Concrete Beams with Glass FRP Bars,” Proceedings of ECCM-8 1998,
Naples, Italy, 1998, pp. 227-234.
28. Toutanji, H., and Deng, Y., “Deflection and Crack-Width Prediction
of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Glass FRP Rods,” Construction and
Building Materials, V. 17, 2003, pp. 69-74.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2009
 29. Rashid, M. A.; Mansur, M. A.; and Paramasivam, P., “Behavior of
Aramid Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced High Strength Concrete
Beams under Bending,” Journal of Composites for Construction, V. 9, No. 2,
2005, pp. 117-127.
30. Faza, S. S., and GangaRao, H. V. S., “Bending and Bond Behavior of
Concrete Beams Reinforced with Plastic Rebars,” Transportation Research
Record 1290, 1990, pp. 185-193.
31. Vijay, P. V., and GangaRao, H. V. S., “A Unified Limit State
Approach using Deformability Factors in Concrete Beams Reinforced with
GFRP Bars,” Proceedings of the Fourth Materials Engineering Conference,
ASCE, Washington, DC, 1996, pp. 657-665.
32. Maji, A.; Orozco, A.; and Acree, R., “Fracture Analysis of FRP
Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, V. 127,
No. 6, 2001, pp. 620-624.
33. Orozco, A. L., and Maji, A. K., “Energy Release in Fiber-Reinforced
Plastic Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Journal of Composites for Construction,
V. 8, No. 1, 2004, pp. 52-58.
34. Grace, N. F.; Soliman, G. A.; and Saleh, K. R., “Behavior and
Ductility of Simple and Continuous FRP Reinforced Beams,” Journal of
Composites for Construction, V. 2, No. 4, 1998, pp. 186-194.
35. Aiello, M. A., and Ombres, L., “Structural Performance of Concrete
Beams with Hybrid (Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Steel) Reinforcements,”
Journal of Composites for Construction, V. 6, No. 2, 2002, pp. 133-140.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2009
View publication stats
36. Nakano, K.; Matsuzaki, Y.; Fukuyama, H.; and Teshigawara, M.,
“Flexural Performance of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Continuous
Fiber Bars,” Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures:
International Symposium, SP-138, A. Nanni and C. W. Dolan, eds., American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1993, pp. 743-766.
37. Kassem, C.; El-Salakawy, E.; and Benmokrane, B., “Deflection
Behaviour of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Carbon FRP Composite
Bars,” Deflection Control for the Future, SP-210, N. J. Gardner, ed., American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2003, pp. 173-190.
38. Brown, V. L., and Bartholomew, C. L., “Long-Term Deflections of
GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Composites in Infrastructure (ICCI ‘96), 1996, pp. 389-400.
39. Rizkalla, S., and Mufti, A., “Reinforcing Concrete Structures with
Fibre Reinforced Polymers,” Design Manual No. 3, ISIS Canada,
Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2001.
40. Comite Euro-International du Beton-Federation International de la
Precontrainte (CEB-FIP), “Model Code for Concrete Structures (MC-90),”
Thomas Telford, London, UK, 1993.
41. Canadian Standards Association (CSA), “Design and Construction
of Building Components with Fibre-Reinforced Polymers,” Concrete
Design Handbook, Canadian Standard S806-02, Toronto, ON, Canada,
2002, 177 pp.
771