Introduction: Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites can be consid-
ered a new class of construction material when compared
with classical materials such as steel, concrete, timber and
masonry. The relatively recent and growing interest in FRP
in the domain of structural engineering can be traced to its
advantageous properties ranging from a very high strength-
to-weight ratio, electromagnetic neutrality, excellent fatigue
behaviour, to superior durability including corrosion resist-
ance. These properties have, in turn, lead to a broad spec-
trum of application that can be divided into two general
categories: all-FRP members or structures in new construc-
tion or in the replacement of existing structural elements,
and FRP components in the repair and rehabilitation of
damaged or deteriorating structures.
Structural Engineering International received an over-
whelming response from around the world to its call for
papers on the topic of FRP structures and strengthening of
structures using FRP. The number of abstracts submitted,
and subsequent high-quality papers received, has prompted
the extension of this Special Edition over two issues—the
present issue, as well as the coming May 2011 issue. In this
first issue, six Scientific Papers on topics including existing
design method assessments for FRP members, durability,
environmental and fatigue issues for glass fiber reinforced
polymer composites (GFRP), ecological advantages of FRP
as compared with other materials, bond issues related to
the use of FRP in the strengthening of masonry structures,
and GFRP decks for bridges are presented. The Scientific
Papers are complemented by six Technical Reports ranging
from descriptions on the innovative use of FRPs in bridge
decks to the application of GFRP in the strengthening of
rail road bridges.
Dr. Ann Schumacher, Vice-Chair SEI Editorial Board,
Swiss Institute for Steel Construction, Switzerland
Prof. M. Dolores G. Pulido, Chair WG 2 - Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Structures,
Spanish National Research Council – Instituto
CC Eduardo Torroja, Spain

Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Pultruded Flexural

Members: Assessment of Existing Design Methods
João R. Correia, Prof. Dr, Technical Univ. of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Técnico/ICIST, Civil Eng. and Architecture,
Lisbon, Portugal; Fernando Branco, Prof. Dr, Technical Univ. of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Técnico/ICIST, Civil Eng. and
Architecture, Lisbon, Portugal; José Gonilha, Civil Eng., Technical Univ. of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Técnico/ICIST,
Civil Eng. and Architecture, Lisbon, Portugal; Nuno Silva, Civil Eng., Technical Univ. of Lisbon, Instituto Superior
Técnico/ICIST, Civil Eng. and Architecture, Lisbon, Portugal; Dinar Camotim, Prof. Dr, Technical Univ. of Lisbon,
Instituto Superior Técnico/ICIST, Civil Eng. and Architecture, Lisbon, Portugal. Contact: jcorreia@civil.ist.utl.pt

Abstract
Glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP)
pultruded profiles are being increas-
ingly used in bridge and building con-
struction as an alternative to traditional
materials because of their several
favourable properties that include high
strength, low self-weight, short instal-
lation times, low maintenance require-
ments and improved durability. In spite
of these advantageous characteristics,
there are some factors delaying the
widespread use of GFRP pultruded
profiles in civil infrastructure, one of
which is the lack of widely accepted
design codes. This paper presents the
Peer-reviewed by international ex-
perts and accepted for publication
by SEI Editorial Board
Paper received: February 19, 2010
Paper accepted: July 28, 2010
results of analytical, experimental and
numerical investigations on the struc-
tural behaviour of GFRP pultruded
profiles, the objective of which was to
evaluate the relative accuracy of exist-
ing design methods. A survey of ana-
lytical formulae available for the design
of GFRP pultruded flexural members
at both service and ultimate limit states
is first presented. Subsequently, results
of a test programme carried out at
Instituto Superior Técnico (IST) are
briefly discussed—the experiments
included material characterization tests
and full-scale flexural tests on I-section
simply supported beams and cantile-
vers. These tests allowed for the evalu-
ation of the service behaviour of GFRP
flexural members and some of their
most relevant failure mechanisms and
respective ultimate loads. Results from
experimental tests are compared with
those obtained from analytical formu-
lae and numerical models in order to
evaluate the relative accuracy of exist-
ing design methods.
Keywords: GFRP pultruded profiles;
service behaviour; local buckling;
global buckling; design methods; ana-
lytical formulae; numerical models.
Introduction
The limited durability of structures
made with traditional materials and
their consequent rehabilitation costs,
which have substantially increased in
the past few years, have been promot-
ing the development of new structural
materials that are less prone to corro-
sion, lighter and easier to erect. In this
context, in the last two decades, fibre
reinforced polymer (FRP) materials
in general, and glass fibre reinforced
polymer (GFRP) pultruded profiles
in particular, have found a growing
number of applications in buildings

362 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International 4/2010

x052.indd 362 28/10/10 11:02 AM

 and bridges, in both new construc-
tions and rehabilitation of degraded
infrastructures.1–10
GFRP pultruded profiles have great
potential as structural materials, pre-
senting several advantages over tra-
ditional materials because of their
high strength-to-weight ratio, low
self-weight, electromagnetic transpar-
ency, possibility of being produced
with any cross section, ease of instal-
lation, low maintenance requirements
and improved durability under aggres-
sive environments.11 The drawback,
in addition to the initial costs, lack of
competitiveness for mainstream appli-
cations and the concerns regarding
their behaviour under fire,12,13 is that
there are still no generally accepted
design codes or guidelines available
for civil engineering practitioners. As
a consequence, at present, most struc-
tural designs are based on manufactur-
ers’ design guides, often presented in
a tabular format, which are sometimes
incomplete and over-conservative.
The Eurocomp Design Code and
Handbook,14 published in 1996, pro-
vides design recommendations for
polymer composites in general, but
this non-normative document does not
specifically address pultruded mem-
bers. In 2002, the European Committee
for Standardization (CEN) released
the EN 13706 standard,15 a normative
document that merely defines two
classes of pultruded profiles (associ-
ated with minimum values of mate-
rial properties), not providing any
design guidance. In 2007, the Italian
National Research Council published
the first national design guidelines
for structures made of pultruded pro-
files;16 however, these specifications
are mandatory only in Italy. It is also
worth mentioning that most textbooks
on the mechanics of composite mate-
rials and composite structures refer to
aerospace and mechanical engineer-
ing applications—with the exception
of a recent publication by Bank,17
which provides a comprehensive set of
design rules for FRP structures, writ-
ten in a civil engineering format.
Before a comprehensive and widely
accepted set of design rules and rec-
ommendations can be established
for the use of GFRP pultruded pro-
files, further research work is needed
to obtain in-depth understanding
of their structural behaviour and
to provide additional validation for
the design methods that have been
proposed.
Structural Engineering International 4/2010
x052.indd 363
This paper presents the results of ana-
lytical, experimental and numerical
investigations on the structural behav-
iour of GFRP pultruded profiles, the
objective of which was to evaluate the
relative accuracy of existing design
methods. A survey of analytical for-
mulae that have been suggested for
the design of GFRP pultruded flex-
ural members, for both service and
ultimate limit states, is first presented.
Subsequently, results of a test pro-
gramme carried out at IST are briefly
discussed—the experiments included
material characterization tests on
small-scale coupons and full-scale flex-
ural tests on I-sections of simply sup-
ported GFRP beams and cantilevers.
These tests, which are described in
detail in Refs. [18, 19], allowed evalua-
tion of the service behaviour of GFRP
flexural members and some of their
most relevant failure mechanisms and
respective ultimate loads. The results
from these experimental tests are then
compared with predictions obtained
from both analytical formulae and
numerical models, in order to evaluate
the relative accuracy of existing design
methods.
Design Methods for GFRP
Flexural Members
The design of structures made of
GFRP pultruded profiles can be per-
formed in much the same way as that
of steel structures, provided that some
necessary adaptations are taken into
account, the most important of which
are the orthotropic nature and lin-
ear elastic behaviour of the GFRP
material.
Thereafter, the structural design of
standard GFRP profiles can be per-
formed on the basis of either analyti-
cal beam models or shell and/or solid
finite element (FE) models. For the
former approach, which is most cur-
rently used in the design of GFRP
frames and trusses, a simplified equiv-
alent isotropic behaviour is assumed.
For the latter approach, the ortho-
tropic nature of the GFRP material is
explicitly taken into account.
Serviceability Limit States
For service limit states design, the
bending deflections of pultruded
flexural members can be determined
with a reasonable accuracy using
analytical beam models based on the
Timoshenko beam theory, that is,
taking into account the shear contri-
bution to overall deformation. In fact,
shear deformations can be relatively
important owing to the high elastic-
to-shear moduli ratio. For example,
the elastic short-term deflection of a
simply supported beam with a point
load at midspan (similar to the beams
whose experiments are reported later)
can be calculated using Eq. (1),
P ⋅ L3 P ⋅L
δ= +
(1)
48 ⋅ Efull ⋅ I x 4 ⋅ Gfull ⋅ Aw
where d is the midspan deflection, P
is the applied load, L is the span, Ix is
the second moment of area about the
strong axis x, Aw is the web(s) cross sec-
tion and Efull and Gfull are the full-scale
longitudinal elastic and shear moduli
for an equivalent isotropic behaviour,
which can be determined on the basis
of experiments (see next section).
In order to evaluate long-term deflec-
tions in pultruded beams, it is necessary
to address the viscoelastic response
associated with the polymeric nature
of the matrix properly. Therefore,
time-dependent deformations due to
sustained loads must be calculated tak-
ing into account the viscoelastic values
of the full-scale moduli in Eq. (1). In
Ref. [17], Bank presents a set of creep
moduli and creep rate exponents rec-
ommended for design, which were
obtained from long-term creep tests
using the linearized version of Findley’s
creep theory.
Ultimate Limit States
For ultimate limit states design, the fact
that GFRP flexural members can theo-
retically collapse due to several failure
modes must be taken into account. For
the most commonly produced geom-
etries (thin-walled open sections),
the following failure mechanisms can
occur: (a) flexural (tensile or compres-
sive) failure; (b) web shear failure; (c)
web transverse crushing; (d) local buck-
ling; and (e) lateral-torsional buckling.
Flexural Failure
The bending moment associated with
flexural failure of a pultruded member
(Mu) can be calculated using Eq. (2),
Mu = σ x,u ⋅ Wx (2)
where sx,u is the longitudinal failure
stress (either compressive or tensile)
of the GFRP material and Wx is the
cross-section elastic modulus about the
strong axis. It is worth mentioning that
flexural failure, due to compressive
Scientific Paper 363
28/10/10 11:02 AM
 crushing or tensile rupture, is not
likely to occur for most common pul-
truded shapes, unless local buckling is
prevented by an adequate stiffening
system.17
Shear Failure
The critical shear force (Vu) of a pul-
truded flexural member can be calcu-
lated using Eq. (3):
τ ⋅ I ⋅t
Vu = u x ≈ τ u ⋅ Av (3)
Sx
where tu is the in-plane shear strength
of the pultruded material, Sx is the first
moment of area about the strong axis,
t is the laminate (web/flanges) thick-
ness and Av is the shear area which,
for most common profiles, corresponds
to the web(s) of the profile. It should
be noted that, similar to flexural fail-
ure, shear failure of the web material
due to in-plane shear stresses seldom
occurs,17 as the strength of current
cross sections and spans is dominated
by buckling phenomena.
Web Transverse Crushing
The web(s) of GFRP pultruded
beams can fail because of transverse
crushing basically at two locations:
(a) in the supports and (b) under con-
centrated loads. The critical crushing
force (Fucrush) can be determined using
Eq. (4):
Fucrush ≈ σyc,u ⋅ Aeff (4)
c
where s y,u can be taken as the trans-
verse compressive strength and Aeff is
the effective cross section of the web
subjected to the concentrated load,
that is, the area of the web directly
subjected to the support reaction or
concentrated load. In order to avoid
this failure mechanism, the lengths of
the supports or loading patches can be
increased and, in addition, web stiffen-
ers can be used.
Local Buckling due to In-Plane
Compression
Local buckling is an instability phe-
nomenon characterized by transverse
(flexural) bending of the member
walls while the axis remains basically
undeformed. Besides the high width-
to-thickness ratios typically exhibited
by thin-walled members made of any
material (e.g. steel), GFRP pultruded
profiles exhibit an added susceptibil-
ity to local buckling because of their
reduced in-plane moduli. For the most
common doubly symmetric profiles,
364 Scientific Paper
x052.indd 364
the critical local buckling stress of
flanges under compression can be
determined using two alternative
design formulae, derived by Kollár20
and by Mottram21—Eqs. (5) and (6),
respectively,
(Kollár20)
1 for torsional buckling of the section (in
σ crlocal =
(b /2) f
2
⋅ tf
⎛ DL ⋅ DT ⎞ unbraced length of the beam.
+ 12 ⋅ DS ⎟ (5)
⎜7
⎝ 1 + 4,12 ⋅ ξI-flange ⎠ For the particular case of cantile-
local
where σ cr is the critical local buck-
ling stress, bf is the flange width, tf is
the flange thickness, DL, DT and DS
are the longitudinal, transverse and
shear flexural rigidities of the flange
plate and xI-flange is the coefficient of
edge restraint (assuming the flange is
the critical wall); (Mottram21)
π 2 ⋅ t f2
σ crlocal = × Pcrglobal =
(b / 2 )
f
2
⎡⎛
b2 ⎞ EL ⋅ ET
⎢⎜ 0,45 + f 2 ⎟
⎢⎝
⎣
4 a ⎠ 12 1 − ν L ⋅ ν T
where EL and ET are the in-plane
longitudinal and transverse moduli,
nL and nT are the major and minor
Poisson’s ratios and a is the length of
the buckle half-wavelength which, for
I-section profiles, is suggested21 to be
taken as 3bf.
With regard to the above-mentioned
formulae, it should be mentioned
that the use of Kollar’s design equa-
tions involves knowing all the in-plane
properties (including the in-plane
shear modulus) of both the web(s)
and the flanges. Mottram’s alternative
simplified procedure makes use of the
flange’s properties only.
Lateral-Torsional Buckling
The critical lateral-torsional buckling
stress for homogeneous doubly sym-
metric open profiles can be deter-
mined using the well-known Eurocode
3 equation, adapted to the GFRP
material orthotropy—Eq. (7):
C reinforced with E-glass fibre rovings
σ crglobal = b ×
Sx
π 2 ⋅ EL ⋅ I y ⋅ GLT ⋅ J
2
(k ⋅ Lb ) (k
f f
where Cb is a coefficient account-
ing for moment variation along the
beam length, Sx is the section modulus
about the strong axis, Iy is the second
moment of area about the weak axis,
J is the torsional constant, Cw is the
warping constant, kf is the effective
length coefficient for flexural buckling
about the weak axis (kf = 1,0 for simply
supported beams, such as those tested
in the experiments reported herein),
kw is the effective length coefficient
×
general, for simply supported beams,
kw can be taken as 1,0) and Lb is the
vers loaded at the shear centre of
their extremity section, the critical
lateral-torsional buckling load can be
predicted using design formulae pro-
posed by Timoshenko and Gere,22
assuming no warping at the fixed end
and adapted to the GFRP material
orthotropy—Eq. (8):
γ 2 EL I yGLT J
(8)
(6)
L2
⎤
where Pcr is the critical lateral-torsional
buckling load, and g 2 is a dimension-
⎥
( ) ⎥
⎦ less factor depending on the torsional
and warping rigidities.
Experimental Assessment of
the Design Methods
As already mentioned, the establish-
ment of consensual design approaches
is dependent on further validation of
the existing design methods and, most
likely, on the development of new
methodologies. In order to contribute
to achieving this goal, a research effort
was conducted at IST, which con-
sisted of a fairly extensive experimen-
tal investigation, described in detail
in Refs. [18, 19], whose results were
then compared with several differ-
ent types of numerical simulations.23
In this study, the experimental results
obtained in the above investigation
are used to assess the accuracy of the
design methods described earlier.
The experimental investigation
involved pultruded GFRP I-beams (a)
made of an isophthalic polyester matrix
and mats (inorganic content of 62%,
by weight) and (b) exhibiting the fol-
π 4 ⋅ EL2 ⋅ I y ⋅ C w lowing nominal dimensions: web height
+ 2 2
⋅ Lb ) (k )
⋅ Lb of 200 mm, flange width of 100 mm
w
and thickness of 10 mm. The experi-
(7)
mental study comprised (a) material
characterization tests, to evaluate the
mechanical properties and response of
the GFRP material; (b) flexural tests
on simply supported beams, aimed at
Structural Engineering International 4/2010
28/10/10 11:02 AM
 evaluating their behaviour under ser-
vice and failure conditions (including
web transverse crushing and local and
lateral-torsional buckling); and (c) flex-
ural tests on cantilevers to investigate
their lateral-torsional buckling behav-
iour and failure under tip-point loads
applied at different locations. Each test
type is addressed individually in the
following sections. After providing the
experimental set-up and procedure, the
relevant results are outlined and used to
assess the quality (accuracy and safety)
of the corresponding design method.
Material Characterization Tests
Interlaminar shear tests (ASTM
D2344) were first conducted on
specimens with nominal dimensions
of 9,8 × 20,0 × 60,0 mm3, applying a
concentrated load at the centre of a
45,0 mm span, in order to determine
the interlaminar shear strength (Fsbs).
Three-point bending tests (ISO 14125)
were then performed on specimens
with nominal dimensions of 9,8 × 15,0
× 300 mm3, tested in the longitudinal
direction (L), in order to determine
the flexural strength (sfu,L), the elastic
modulus in bending (Ef,L) and the
strain at failure (efu,L). Tensile tests
(ISO 527-1,4) were also performed,
using specimens with nominal dimen-
sions of 9,8 × 15,0 × 350 mm3, loaded
in their longitudinal direction, allowing
measurement of the tensile strength
(stu,L), the strain at failure (etu,L), the
elastic modulus in tension (Et,L) and
the Poisson’s ratio (nLT). Finally, com-
pressive tests (ASTM D695) were car-
ried out on specimens with nominal
dimensions of 9,8 × 12,7 × 39,0 mm3,
in order to determine, for both longitu-
dinal (L) and transverse (T) directions,
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1: Failure modes: (a) interlaminar shear; (b) flexure; (c) tension; and (d) compression
Structural Engineering International 4/2010
x052.indd 365
the compressive strength (scu,L and Flexural Behaviour of Simply
scu,T), the strain at failure (ecu,L and Supported Beams
ecu,T) and the elastic modulus in com-
Test Set-up and Results
pression (Ec,L and Ec,T).
This experimental series consisted of
In all mechanical tests, the mate-
four beams with different spans and
rial generally exhibited linear-elastic
lateral bracing systems, all subjected to
behaviour until failure, a typical fea-
a point load at midspan. Beams V1 and
ture of the GFRP material.18,19 The
V2 were both tested in a 4,00 m span,
failure modes observed in the differ-
while beams V3 and V4 were tested in
ent mechanical tests are illustrated in
spans of 1,44 and 1,00 m, respectively.
Fig. 1. Table 1 presents a summary of
In beam V1, in order to prevent lateral-
the mechanical properties obtained in
torsional instability, a lateral bracing
these tests (which will be later used
system was used along the beam span
as input data in the analytical and
(Fig. 2). All the other beams were lat-
numerical design methods), namely,
erally unrestrained. Load was applied
the ultimate stress (su), the elastic
using a hydraulic jack that transmitted
modulus (E), the strain at failure (eu),
the load to the top flange of the GFRP
the Poisson’s ratio (nLT), the inter-
profile through square steel spreading
laminar shear strength (Fsbs) and the
plates of side 0,08 m; a metallic sphere
in-plane shear strength (τu), the latter
was placed between the two spread-
obtained from tensile tests on double
ing plates, in order to avoid any trans-
lap bolted joints.18 It is worth mention-
verse loading. In beam V2, in order to
ing that the behaviour exhibited by
investigate the influence of the loading
coupons extracted from both the web
system in restraining the beam at mid-
and the flanges was similar. The differ-
span, successive changes were intro-
ent mechanical properties in tension,
duced in the loading system.18,19 The
flexure and compression, together
with the material orthotropy, are also supports of all the beams were made
outlined. of 0,05 m diameter steel rollers with
Property/test Longitudinal Longitudinal Longitudinal Transverse
and direction flexure tension compression compression
su (MPa) 624,6 ± 26,9 475,5 ± 25,5 375,8 ± 67,9 122,0 ± 15,4
E (GPa) 26,9 ± 1,3 32,8 ± 0,9 26,4 ± 1,9 7,4 ± 0,4
−3
eu (10 ) 24,9 ± 1,3 15,4 ± 1,5 17,0 ± 2,5 21,5 ± 1,7
nxy (–) — 0,28 — —
Interlaminar shear strength, Fsbs = 35,0 ± 3,9 MPa.
In-plane shear strength, tu = 38,7 ± 5,6 MPa.
Full-scale properties (equivalent isotropic behaviour): Efull = 38,3 GPa; Gfull = 3,58 GPa.
Table 1: Mechanical properties of the GFRP profile from coupon (average and standard
deviation values) and full-scale testing
(c) (d)
Scientific Paper 365
28/10/10 11:02 AM

Fig. 2: Beam V1—deformation on the brink
of collapse
0,08 m long top steel plates; both end
supports allowed for free rotation and
one of them also allowed for longitu-
dinal sliding.
All beams presented linear-elastic
behaviour up to failure.18,19 The full-
scale elastic constants of the GFRP
profile were estimated on the basis of
the method proposed by Bank,24 which
involves performing a linear regression
analysis of the slope of the load-deflec-
tion curves for varying spans. This
analysis provided a longitudinal elastic
modulus (Efull) of 38,3 GPa and a shear
modulus (Gfull) of 3,58 GPa. One can
readily note that the elastic constants
provided by mechanical tests on small-
scale specimens (Et,x = 32,8 GPa; Ef,x =
26,9 GPa, cf. Table 1) may differ con-
siderably from those obtained in full-
scale tests. Such variation is mainly due
to the inhomogeneous constitution
of both the GFRP laminates and the
overall cross section and also to differ-
ences in the experimental set-up.
Failure of beam V1 occurred due to
local buckling of the top flange, for
a midspan deflection of 107,3 mm
(about 1/37 of the span, Fig. 2) and a
load of 60,2 kN, which corresponded to
a longitudinal maximum stress of 268,2
MPa. Failure occurred with delamina-
tion of the top flange and web-top
flange separation in the vicinity of
midspan (Fig. 3), followed by web
transverse bending. This test showed
the importance of the local buckling
Fig. 3: Beam V1—local buckling failure
366 Scientific Paper
x052.indd 366
phenomenon in members under com-
pression, such as the flanges of bended
beams. In fact, at failure, the maximum
longitudinal stress was about 56 and
71% of the tensile and compressive
material strengths, respectively.
In several iterations of the flexural
test of beam V2, failure was always
triggered by lateral-torsional buck-
ling (Fig. 4). The different test set-ups
proved to have a significant influence
on the buckling load, which varied
from 13,0 to 20,7 kN. The lowest buck-
ling load (minimum restriction intro-
duced by the load application system at
midspan) corresponded to a maximum
longitudinal stress of 58,0 MPa, show-
ing the importance of global instability
in slender unrestrained beams.
Failure of beams V3 and V4 was due
to crushing of the web at midspan
(Fig. 5) under the applied load,
and occurred for loads of 88,2 and
107,5 kN, respectively. Crushing fail-
ure of the web was followed by the
development of longitudinal cracks
in the web–top flange junction. The
above-mentioned failure loads cor-
respond to maximum transverse com-
pressive stresses in the web (under the
applied load) of 112,6 and 137,1 MPa,
calculated using Eq. (4).
Assessment of Design Methods
In addition to the analytical formulae
presented earlier, FE models of all
Fig. 4: Beam V2—lateral-torsional buckling
Fig. 5: Beam V3—web crushing under applied load
Structural Engineering International 4/2010
tested GFRP beams were developed
using the FE program SAP2000.25 The
web and flanges of the GFRP profiles
were modelled using adapted DKQ
(discrete Kirchhoff quadrilateral)
shell elements, consisting of four-node
rectangular/triangular elements with
bilinear interpolation functions.25,26
Linear-elastic orthotropic material
behaviour was assumed on the basis
of the results of experiments (cf.
Table 1). The actual supporting condi-
tions were simulated with node con-
straints. Both linear static and linear
buckling analyses were carried out—
Fig. 6 shows the buckled configuration
of beam V1.
For the serviceability behaviour, the
deflections of all tested beams could
be back-calculated with a very high
accuracy (maximum and average rela-
tive errors among the tested beams of
3 and 1%, respectively) on the basis of
Timoshenko beam theory and using
the calculated full-scale elastic con-
stants in Eq. (1). It is also worth men-
tioning that in all tested beams, the
shear contribution to deformation was
significant: 12,6% for the relatively
slender beams V1 and V2; 41,1 and
59,1% for the less slender beams V3
and V4, respectively.
With regard to the failure behaviour,
the experimental critical load of beam
V1 (60,2 kN) compared reasonably
well with numerical (53,9 kN, relative
difference of −10,5%) and analytical
predictions, the latter obtained using
the two alternative design formulae
presented by Kollár20 (58,0 kN, −3,7%)
and Mottram21 (56,8 kN, −5,6%).
Analytical predictions were computed
on the basis of Eqs. (5) and (6), respec-
tively, using the coupon material prop-
erties (cf. Table 1); in these calculations,
a standard value of νT = 0,10 was con-
sidered and it was assumed that the
in-plane shear modulus, GLT, is equal
to the full-scale shear modulus, Gfull).
The differences between experimental
and predicted critical loads are very
28/10/10 11:02 AM

Fig. 6: FE model of beam V1—local buckling configuration
small, particularly if the relatively high
coefficients of variation exhibited by
GFRP material properties are taken
into account. In principle, because of
the geometric imperfections of the
material, one would expect the experi-
mental results to be below analytical/
numerical predictions; the fact that
predictions are slightly lower than
the experimental critical load, has to
be attributed to the above-mentioned
material inhomogeneity and, eventu-
ally, to some slight restriction intro-
duced by the loading system.
For beam V2, the minimum experi-
mental critical load (13,0 kN) differed
quite significantly from numerical
(5,0 kN) and analytical (4,7 kN) pre-
dictions, obtained respectively with the
above-mentioned FE model and using
Eq. (7), again computed using coupon
material properties (cf. Table 1). For
this beam, the restriction (friction)
introduced by the loading system had
a very significant effect in preventing
the triggering of lateral-torsional buck-
ling. Therefore, in order to understand
this instability mechanism better and
to assess the accuracy of analytical and
numerical design tools, it was decided
to perform tests on cantilevers, for
which it is easier to prevent the loading
system from restraining deformations
(see next section).
For beams V3 and V4, comparison of
the maximum transverse compressive
stresses in the web under the applied
load (112,6 and 137,1 MPa, respec-
tively, obtained by dividing the applied
load by the area of the web directly
Structural Engineering International 4/2010
x052.indd 367
(Fig. 8)—firstly, in the curves corre-
sponding to the horizontal deflection of
both flanges (d2 and d3) and secondly,
in the curve describing the vertical
deflection of the shear centre (d1).
As expected, the critical bucking load
decreased with increasing span and, for
each span the highest critical load was
obtained when the load was applied
at the centre of the bottom flange
(BF), while the lowest critical load was
obtained when loading at the centre
of the top flange (TF), as illustrated in
Fig. 9. For the shortest span of 2,0 m,
maximum longitudinal stresses varied
between 53,3 and 125,0 MPa, while for
the longest span of 4,0 m those stresses
varied between 24,7 and 44,7 MPa.
under the metal plates positioned
below the hydraulic jacks) with the
compressive strength in the transverse
direction, obtained from the material
characterization tests (122,0 MPa, cf.
Table 1), allows justifying the observed
failure mode.
Fig. 7: Lateral-torsional buckling of a 4,0 m
Flexural Behaviour of Cantilevers span cantilever (load at SC)
Test Set-up and Results
In this experimental series, three dif- 2,25
ferent spans of 2,0, 3,0 and 4,0 m were 2,00
1,75
tested and, for each span, the load was
1,50
applied in three alternative positions
Load (kN)
1,25
of the free end cross section: at the d3
1,00
centre of the top flange (TF), at the
0,75
centroid or shear centre (SC) and at 0,50 d1
the centre of the bottom flange (BF). 0,25 d2
Load was applied using a dead-load 0,00
system, consisting of a metal bucket 0 20 40 60 80 100
filled with metal plates and water, Deflection (mm)
which was suspended from the free end Fig. 8: Load-deflection curves for a 4,0
cross section of the GFRP cantilevers, span cantilever (load at SC)
at the three predefined positions. The
vertical support of the cantilevers was
made of a thick steel plate connected
18
to a transverse metal beam, which was
16 BF — experiment
placed over the top flange of the profile SC — experiment
14
using four Dywidag bars. Horizontal
Critical load (kN)
TF — experiment
12 SC — analytical
deflections in the support section were BF — numerical
10
restrained by means of metallic plates SC — numerical
TF — numerical
8
and sets of metallic bolts placed on
6
both sides of the web.
4
All cantilevers tested presented lateral- 2
torsional buckling—Fig. 7 illustrates the 0
1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5
buckled configuration of a 4,0 m span
Cantilever span (m)
cantilever loaded at the SC. This global
instability could easily be distinguished Fig. 9: Critical load as a function of the
in the load-deflection behaviour span, for different load positions
Scientific Paper 367
28/10/10 11:02 AM

Fig. 10: FE model of a 4,0 m span cantilever (load at TF) —global buckling configuration
Assessment of Design Methods
Shell FE models of all tested cantilevers,
similar to those described for the sim-
ply supported beams, were developed
with the program SAP2000. Figure 10
illustrates the buckling mode for a
4,0 m span cantilever loaded at the TF.
Figure 9 shows the comparison
between experimental critical loads
and numerical predictions using the
aforementioned FE models (for all
three load positions) and analytical
predictions (computed only for shear
centre loading) using Eq. (8).
Average relative errors for analyti-
cal and numerical predictions are 4,7
and 12,9%, respectively. Therefore,
it seems fair to claim a reasonable
agreement between experimental crit-
ical loads and both design methods—
predictions unarguably exhibit a simi-
lar pattern of variation with both the
span and the load position. Figure 9
also shows that, in general, experimen-
tal critical loads are lower than predic-
tions, which may be attributed to the
effect of geometrical imperfections in
the profile and, in addition, to the not
completely fixed restraint condition at
the support.
Conclusion
The flexural behaviour of GFRP
pultruded profiles presents several dif-
ferences when compared to traditional
materials, at both material and struc-
tural levels. On one hand, contrary to
steel that yields and concrete that cracks,
in general, GFRP profiles present
368 Scientific Paper
x052.indd 368
linear-elastic behaviour until failure,
which usually occurs with large defor-
mations. On the other hand, the design
of GFRP members is often governed
by deformability restrictions, due to the
low elastic modulus in the longitudinal
direction and also due to the contribu-
tion of shear to the global deformation.
In general, design at ultimate limit states
is not governed by material strength, as
failure is usually due to local or global
buckling phenomena, with stress levels
in service that are relatively low, in spite
of the high strength exhibited by the
GFRP material.
The comparison between experimental
results and predicted behaviour with the
FE models and analytical formulae pre-
sented in this paper for a limited range
of failure scenarios shows that numeri-
cal and analytical tools available for
the design of GFRP pultruded flexural
members are reasonably accurate. In
particular, for service design, the bend-
ing deformations of GFRP beams can
be readily calculated with Timoshenko’s
beam theory, using full-scale elastic
constants and assuming an equivalent
isotropic behaviour. At ultimate limit
states, failure mechanisms associated
with material crushing and local or
global buckling can be easily computed,
using laminate material properties,
obtained through coupon testing.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the sup-
port of FCT, ICIST and Agência da Inovação
(Grant No. 2009/003456) for funding the
research and also STEP and ALTO for
Structural Engineering International 4/2010
supplying the GFRP profiles used in the
experimental investigations.
References
[1] Keller T. Recent all-composite and hybrid
fibre-reinforced polymer bridges and buildings.
Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2001; 3(2): 132–140.
[2] Keller T. Use of Fibre Reinforced Polymers
in Bridge Construction. Structural Engineering
Documents, vol. 7. IABSE: Zurich, 2003.
[3] Burgoyne C. Advanced composites in civil
engineering in Europe, Struct. Eng. Int. 1999;
9(4): 267–273.
[4] Braestrup M. Footbridge constructed from
glass-fiber reinforced profiles, Denmark. Struct.
Eng. Int. 1999; 9(4): 256–258.
[5] GangaRao H, Craigo II CA. Fiber reinforced
composite bridge decks in the USA. Struct. Eng.
Int. 1999; 9(4): 286–288.
[6] Keller T. Towards structural forms for com-
posite fibre materials. Struct. Eng. Int. 1999; 9(4):
297–300.
[7] Sobrino JA, Pulido MDG. Towards advanced
composite material footbridges. Struct. Eng. Int.
2002; 12(2): 84–86.
[8] Cheng L, Karbhari VM. New bridge systems
using FRP composites and concrete: a state-of-
the-art review. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2006;
8(4): 143–154.
[9] Neto ABS, La Rovere HL. Composite con-
crete/GFRP slabs for footbridge deck systems.
Compos. Struct. 2010; 92(10): 2554–2564.
[10] Hollaway LC. A review of the present and
future utilisation of FRP composites in the civil
infrastructure with reference to their important
in-service properties. Const. Build. Mater., in
press, doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.062.
[11] Correia JR, Cabral-Fonseca S, Branco
FA, Ferreira J, Eusébio MI, Rodrigues MP.
Durability of glass fibre reinforced polyester
(GFRP) pultruded profiles for construction
applications. Mech. Compos. Mater. 2006; 42(4):
325–338.
[12] Correia JR, Branco FA, Ferreira J, Cabral-
Fonseca S, Rodrigues JPC. Lifetime perfor-
mance of GFRP pultruded profiles for structural
applications. IABSE Symposium Improving
Infrastructure—Bringing People Closer World-
wide, Weimar, 2007.
[13] Correia JR. GFRP Pultruded Profiles in
Civil Engineering: Hybrid Solutions, Bonded
Connections and Fire Behaviour, PhD Thesis,
IST, Technical University of Lisbon, 2008.
[14] Clarke JL (ed.). Structural Design of
Polymer Composites—EuroComp Design Code
and Handbook. E & FN Spon: London, 1996.
[15] CEN. EN 13706: Reinforced Plastics
Composites—Specifications for Pultruded
Profiles. Part 1: Designation; Part 2: Methods of
Test and General Requirements; Part 3: Specific
Requirements. European Committee for
Standardisation: Brussels, 2002.
[16] National Research Council of Italy. Guide
for the Design and Construction of Structures
made of FRP Pultruded Elements, Advisory
Committee on Technical Recommendations for
Construction: Roma, 2008.
28/10/10 11:02 AM
 [17] Bank LC. Composites for Construction:
Structural Design with FRP Materials. Wiley:
Hoboken, NJ, 2006.
[18] Correia JR. GFRP Pultruded Profiles:
The Use of GFRP-concrete Hybrid Beams
in Construction, MSc Thesis, IST, Technical
University of Lisbon, 2004 (in Portuguese).
[19] Correia JR, Branco FA, Silva NMF,
Camotim D, Silvestre N. First-order, buckling
and post-buckling behaviour of GFRP pultruded
beams—part 1: experimental study, submitted for
publication. Contact author for details: jcorreia@
civil.ist.utl.pt
Structural Engineering International 4/2010
x052.indd 369
[20] Kollár LP. Local buckling of fiber reinforced
plastic composite structural members with open
and closed cross sections. J. Struct. Eng. 2003;
129(11): 1503–1513.
[21] Mottram JT. Determination of critical load
for flange buckling in concentrically loaded pul-
truded columns. Compos. B: Eng. 2004; 35(1):
35–47.
[22] Timoshenko SP, Gere JM. Theory of Elastic
Stability, McGraw-Hill: New York, 1963.
[23] Silva NMF, Camotim D, Silvestre N, Correia
JR, Branco FA. First-order, buckling and
post-buckling behaviour of GFRP pultruded
beams—part 2: numerical simulation, submit-
ted for publication. Contact author for details:
jcorreia@civil.ist.utl.pt
[24] Bank LC. Flexural and shear moduli of full-
section fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) pultruded
beams. J. Testing Eval. 1989; 17(1): 40–45.
[25] Computers and Structures Inc. SAP 2000
User’s Manual (version 11.0), 2007.
[26] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The finite
element method—Volume 2. Solid and fluid
mechanics. Dynamics and Non-Linearity.
McGraw-Hill: London, 1991.
Scientific Paper 369
28/10/10 11:02 AM