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

net/publication/263469732

Punching Shear Strength of Flat Slabs Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Reinforced

Polymer (GFRP) Bars

Conference Paper · June 2011

CITATIONS READS

2 284

4 authors:

Mohamed Hassan Christian Dulude

Université de Sherbrooke 13 PUBLICATIONS   73 CITATIONS   
40 PUBLICATIONS   313 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Ehab A. Ahmed Brahim Benmokrane

Ryerson University Université de Sherbrooke
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,152 CITATIONS    562 PUBLICATIONS   11,830 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Earthquake Response of Squat Concrete Walls Reinforced with GFRP Bars View project

Structures with GFRP bars View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Hassan on 04 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CSCE 2011 General Conference - Congrès générale 2011 de la SCGC

Ottawa, Ontario
June 14-17, 2011 / 14 au 17 juin 2011

Punching Shear Strength of Flat Slabs Reinforced with Glass Fibre-

Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars
Mohamed Hassan 1, Christian Dulude 2, Ehab Ahmed 3, and Brahim Benmokrane 4

1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Qc, Canada
2
Master Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Qc, Canada
3
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Qc, Canada
4
Canada and NSERC Research Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke,
Qc, Canada

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the test results of an extended research project aims to developing the
FRP technology to two-way flat slabs and to introducing design guidelines for FRP-reinforced two-way flat
slabs. A total of six full-scale two-way prototypes reinforced with GFRP and steel bars were constructed
and tested to investigate their punching shear behaviour. The test parameters were: (i) the flexural
reinforcement ratio (0.34 to 1.66 %); and (ii) the slab thickness (200 or 350 mm). The slab measured
2500 mm x 2500 mm with a variable thickness and with a square column of 300×300 mm. The test
results revealed that increasing the reinforcement ratio of the GFRP prototypes from 0.71 to 1.56% and
from 0.34 to 0.73% increase the punching shear capacity of 23 and 21% for the prototypes with a slab
thickness of 200 and 350 mm, respectively. Furthermore, regardless the reinforcement type and
assuming the same bond properties, there is a strong correlation between the axial stiffness of the
reinforcement and the punching shear capacity. Moreover, when the effective depth of the slab increased
by 114%, the normalized punching shear capacity increased by 149% and 167% for GFRP- and steel-
reinforced prototypes, respectively.

1. INTRODUCTION

The corrosion of steel bars in concrete members is a major cause of deterioration of the reinforced
concrete (RC) structures. In the recent decades, the use of the fibre-reinforced polymers (FRP) as main
reinforcement in the concrete structures is increasingly becoming an effective solution to overcome the
corrosion problem. Punching shear strength of steel-reinforced two-way slabs has received a great
attention for decades. However, limited studies have been conducted to investigate the punching shear
behaviour of the two-way flat slabs reinforced with the GFRP bars (El-Ghandour et al. (1999) & (2003);
Ospina et al. (2003); Hussein et al. (2004); El-Gamal et al. (2005), Zhang et al. (2008), Lee et al. (2009)
and Dulude et al. (2010 a&b)). Through these investigations, it was observed that the GFRP-reinforced
two-way flat slabs showed lower punching shear capacities, lower post-cracking stiffness and greater
crack widths than that of their counterparts reinforced with steel bars when the same reinforcement
amount was used. This is referred to the lower axial stiffness of the GFRP bars in comparison with that of
steel bars (approximately 1/5).

Due to the differences in the mechanical properties and bond characteristics of GFRP and steel bars, the
current provisions for the steel reinforced sections ACI 318-08 (ACI 2008) and CSA-A23.3 M-04 (CSA
2004) can not be employed to determine the punching capacity of GFRP-RC flat slabs. Besides, the
available versions of the North American Codes do not include a design provisions to determine the

GC-1
punching strength of FRP-RC members. The only available design guideline was provided by the
American Concrete Institute, 440 Committee (ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI 2006)). Thus, there is a need for
further experimental and analytical investigations to completely understand the general behaviour of
GFRP-reinforced concrete two-way flat slabs and provide design recommendations.

The main objective of this study was to investigate the punching shear capacity and behaviour of interior
two-way flat slabs reinforced with GFRP bars under concentric static load. To achieve this objective, four
full-scale interior two-way flat slabs reinforced with GFRP bars and two control prototypes reinforced with
steel were constructed and tested up to failure. The investigated parameters were: (i) the flexural
reinforcement type and ratio; and (ii) the slab thickness. The test results of this study is presented and
discussed in this paper.

2. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

The punching shear strength of two-way flat slabs reinforced with FRP is yet to be fully investigated. This
is due to the limited research work on the subject and to the numerous parameters affecting the punching
shear behaviour. This study presents experimental results of the GFRP-RC full-scale two-way flat slabs
which contribute to the state-of-the-art and to understanding the general behaviour of such reinforced
concrete elements.

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.1 Test Prototypes

This paper presents a total of six full-scale two-way flat slabs constructed and tested up to punching
shear failure. Four prototypes were reinforced with GFRP bars and two control prototypes were reinforced
with steel bars for comparisons. The flat slab prototypes measured 2500 mm×2500 mm with variable
thickness of 200 or 350 mm while the square column measured 300×300 mm. The column extends 300
mm beyond the top and bottom surface of the slabs as shown in Figure 1. For the entire test prototypes,
the clear concrete cover was kept constant and was equal to 50 mm.

Figure 1: Dimensions and reinforcement of test prototype G(0.7)200

The test parameters included herein were: (i) the flexural reinforcement type and ratio (0.34 to 1.56 %)
and (ii) the slab thickness (200 or 350 mm). The prototypes were divided into two series corresponding to
the slab thickness. The first series had a slab thickness of 200 mm while the second one had a slab
thickness of 350 mm. The 200-mm thickness was devoted to simulate the commonly used two-way flat

2
slab thickness while the second was devoted to simulate a 200-mm slab thickness with a drop panel of
150 mm. Each of the series of the test prototypes comprised two GFRP-reinforced two-way prototypes
with two reinforcement ratios as well as a control prototype reinforced with steel bars. Table 1 presents
the properties and reinforcement details of the test prototypes. The test prototypes were labelled by a
letter denotes the reinforcement type (G for GFRP and S for steel bars) followed by the slab thickness
(200 or 350 mm). The number between brackets presented the reinforcement ratio in percentage. For
example, the prototype G(0.7)200 is reinforced with GFRP bars and the reinforcement ratio is equal to
0.7% in each direction and the slab thickness is equal to 200 mm.

3.2 Material Properties

The prototypes were constructed using normal-weight ready-mixed concrete of Type MTQ V. The actual
compressive and tensile strengths were obtained from testing of standard cylinders (150×300 mm) at the
day of test (average of three cylinders). The compressive strength ranged from 34.30 to 45.45 MPa while
the tensile strength ranged from 2.31 to 2.82 MPa. The concrete properties for each prototype are
presented in Table 1. The GFRP bars used in this study were manufactured by combining the pultrusion
process with an in-line sand-coating process for the bar surface. This sand-coating is devoted to improve
the bond between the GFRP bars and the surrounding concrete. The test prototypes were reinforced with
GFRP bars No.15 and No. 20 designated according to the CSA S807-10 (CSA 2010) while the steel-
reinforced prototypes were reinforced with steel bars 20M. Table 2 presents the mechanical properties of
the GFRP bars used in the construction of the test prototypes.

Table 1: Details of the Test Prototypes

Slab
f'c ft Reinf. Tension ρ
Prototype Thickness
(MPa) (MPa) Type Reinf. (%)
(mm)
G(0.7)200 34.30 2.46 GFRP 200 12 No.15 0.71
G(1.6)200 38.65 2.82 GFRP 200 18 No. 20 1.56
S(1.7)200 45.45 2.77 Steel 200 18-20M 1.66
G(0.3)350 34.30 2.46 GFRP 350 12 No.15 0.34
G(0.7)350 39.36 2.31 GFRP 350 18 No. 20 0.73
S(0.8)350 38.65 2.82 Steel 350 18-20M 0.77

Table 2: Properties of the GFRP bars (Pultrall 2010)

Ultimate Ultimate
Elastic Tensile Guaranteed
GFRP Bar Diamete Area Tensile Tensile
Modulus, E Tensile Strength
Designation* r (mm) (mm2) FRP
Strength Elongation
(GPa) (MPa)
(MPa) ( %)
No. 15 15.9 199 48.2 751 683 1.56
No. 20 19.1 284 47.6 728 656 1.53
*
Designated according to the CSA S807-10 (CSA 2010)

3.3 Test Setup and Procedure

The prototypes were tested at the structural laboratory of the University of Sherbrooke under monotonic
loading until the punching failure. The load was applied using a load-controlled rate of 5 kN/min. The load
was applied using one or two hydraulic jacks of 1500 kN capacity until punching failure of the slabs. The
slab prototypes were held against the rigid floor of the laboratory using a rigid steel frame supported by 8
steel anchors of 38-mm diameter each. The details of the test setup are shown in Figure 2.

Each prototype was instrumented with two bars in the orthogonal directions of the tensile mat with six
electrical resistance strain gauges attached to each bar. Before the test, eight electrical strain concrete
gauges were glued on the bottom surface of the prototype (compression side). Also, five linear voltage
differential transformers (LVDTs) were installed to measure the deflection of the slab at the desired

3
locations. Moreover, the eight anchorage steel bars were instrumented with electrical resistance strain
gauges to verify the symmetry of the loading during the tests. All the electrical resistance strain gauges
and LVDTs were connected to a data acquisition system to record the readings during the test. Figure 3
shows the locations of strain gauges and LVDTs. During the test, the propagation of the crack was drawn.

Figure 2: Test setup.

Figure 3: Typical Instrumentations

4. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Cracking and Mode of Failure

Regardless the reinforcement type or ratio, the entire test prototypes failed in punching in a brittle manner
without noticeable signs. In all tested prototypes, the first crack appeared during the test was radial crack
started from the column corners on the tension side of the slab. This flexural crack on the tension side
appeared in the region of the maximum negative moment. As the load increased, the radial cracks
propagated towards the edges of the slab. At higher load, diagonal radial cracks appeared at the corner
of the column and progressed to the outer corner of the prototype. This type of crack was due to the
loading of the two orthogonal directions. Also, tangent shear cracks connecting the radial cracks
appeared near the column region. At the maximum load, the final crack which defines the failure surface
of the prototype around the column appeared when the punching failure occurred. The failure surface of
the prototypes of a same thickness (200 or 350 mm) was very similar. The prototypes of series 200 show
a smaller surface failure than series 350 due to the smaller depth of the slab. The distances of the failure
crack to column edge were in all prototypes greater than the 0.5d which is being used in the calculation of
the punching capacity in many design provisions. These distances were 2.6d and 1.9d in average for the
prototypes of 200 and 350 mm thickness, respectively. Figure 4 shows the crack pattern and the failure
surface for some prototypes. From this figure, it can be noticed that the control prototype of each series
has a similar cracking pattern and failure surface to that of the GFRP-reinforced prototypes.

4
 (a) Prototype G(1.6)200 (b) Prototype S(1.7)200

(c) Prototype G(0.7)350 (d) Prototype S(0.8)350

Figure 4: Crack pattern and surface failure (bold) for some prototypes

4.2 Ultimate Capacity

Table 3 summarizes the punching capacities of the GFRP- and steel-reinforced prototypes. It should be
noted that the dead load of each prototype was included in the reported load values. The effective
reinforcement ratios (ρEr/Es) of the prototypes were presented to account for the difference between the
modulus of elasticity of the GFRP and steel bars. Besides, the punching shear capacities were
normalized to the square root of the concrete strength to account for the difference of the concrete
strengths for the tested prototypes. From this table, it can be noticed that the higher the effective
reinforcement ratio (axial stiffness of the reinforcing bars), the higher the punching shear strength is.
Increasing the axial stiffness of the reinforcing bars in the series of 200 and 350 mm thickness increased
the normalized punching shear capacity by 23 to 82% and 21 to 93%, respectively. Besides, while
maintaining the same reinforcement amount of the tested prototypes and increasing the effective depth of
the test prototype with about 114% (corresponding to increasing the thickness form 200 to 350 mm), the
normalized punching shear capacity increased by 151% and 146% for the G(0.3)350 and G(0.7)350
compared to G(0.7)200 and G(0.6)200 prototypes, respectively.

The relationship between the effective reinforcement ratio and the normalized punching capacity is
presented in Figure 5. From this figure it can be noticed that the normalized punching shear capacity is
directly proportional to the axial stiffness of the reinforcement. Thus, two-way flat slabs reinforced with
bars and of the same axial stiffness may yield the same punching shear capacity. However, two-way flat

5
slabs reinforced with FRP grid may not provide the same punching capacity due to the difference of in
bond behaviour between FRP grids and bars and due to the concentration of stresses in the grids at the
intersection of the two orthogonal reinforcements (Ospina 2003).

Table 3: Punching Capacities of the Test Prototypes

ρ*Er / Es Vc
Prototype Vc /
(%) (kN)
G(0.7)200 0.170 329 56.2
G(1.6)200 0.370 431 69.3
S(1.7)200 1.660 688 102.1
G(0.3)350 0.082 825 140.9
G(0.7)350 0.174 1071 170.7
S(0.8)350 0.770 1692 272.2
Vc is the punching shear strength; Er is the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement

Figure 5: Normalized punching capacity versus the axial stiffness of the reinforcement

4.3 Deflection of Test Prototypes

The applied load-deflection relationships for the tested prototypes are presented in Figure 6. The
deflection was measured at 40-mm apart from the column face. From this figure, it can be observed that
load-deflection response is linear up to the cracking load of the prototype. There after, the reduction in the
stiffness of the prototypes due to the crack appearance could be captured through the variation of the
slope after cracking. Due to the low modulus of elasticity of the GFRP bars in comparison with that of
steel, the difference in the stiffness of the GFRP-reinforced prototypes after and before cracking was
significant. Besides, the post-cracking stiffness of the test prototypes of 350 mm thickness was higher
that that of the 200 mm thickness. Table 4 summarizes the cracking load, post-cracking stiffness and
deflection of the tested prototypes.

The post-cracking stiffness of the tested prototypes was plotted against the axial stiffness of the
reinforcing bars as shown in Figure 7. From this figure, it can be noticed that the axial stifles of the
reinforcing bars has a direct impact on the post-cracking stiffness. The higher the axial stiffness of the
reinforcement, the higher the post-cracking stiffness and the lower the deflection values.

6
 Table 4: Summary of the Test Results 
Stiffness Max. Max.
Vcr ∆cr ∆u Crack width
Prototype reinforcement concrete,
(kN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/mm)
strain (µε) strain (µε)
G(0.7)200 113 0.62 21.5 3.99 15.5 8975 -1280
G(1.6)200 208 1.94 15.9 2.13 17.42 4645 -341
S(1.7)200 133 0.32 15.5 0.87 35.3 2006 -2665
G(0.3)350 389 2.19 16.2 3.68 31.4 7500 -2298
G(0.7)350 415 1.25 12.0 0.92 61.98 4624 -213
S(0.8)350 527 2.71 10.8 0.46 155.7 6955 -1182
Vcr is the cracking load of the slab

a) Series 200 b) Series 350

Figure 6: Applied-slab deflection relationships

Figure 7: Relationship between the stiffness of the cracked slab and the axial stiffness of the
reinforcement

4.4 Reinforcement and Concrete Strains

Figure 8 shows the maximum reinforcement strain captured using the electrical resistance strain gauge
located at 125 mm from the column center line. At the same loading level, it was observed that the
prototypes with lower axial stiffness of the tensile reinforcement showed higher strains. Increasing the

7
reinforcement ratio from 0.71 to 1.56% and from 0.34 to 0.71% for the GFRP-reinforced prototypes of 200
and 350 mm thickness reduced the maximum strains by 48 and 38 %, respectively (Table 4). At failure
load, the strains in GFRP bars were less than the guaranteed strains of the GFRP reinforcement
(Approximately 30 to 58 %). Furthermore, the maximum concrete strains near the column region of all
prototypes were below the theoretical crushing failure of 3000 or 3500 microstrains and there was no
visual evidence of the concrete crunching. These concrete strain and reinforcement stain values confirm
the punching shear failure rather than a flexural failure of the tested prototypes.

a) Series 200 b) Series 350

Figure 8: Load versus reinforcement strain relationships

Figure 9 shows the strain profile of the prototypes G(0.7)350 and S(0.8)350. From this figure, it can be
noticed that the strains in the GFRP-reinforced prototype (G(0.7)350) were higher than that of the control
prototype due to the lower axial stiffness compared to the steel-reinforced one (S(0.8)350). The steel- and
GFRP-reinforced prototypes showed similar profile regardless the strain values which are similar to that
reported by (Hussein et al. 2004). Besides, the strain values decreased while the distance form the
column face increased until it reaches zero at about 1000 mm form the column face which implies no
bond failure or slip has occurred during the tests.

a) G(0.7)350 b) S(0.8)350

Figure 9: Strain profile of the GFRP- and steel-reinforced prototype

8
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

This paper presented the test results of six full-scale two-way slabs reinforced with GFRP and steel bars
tested under monotonic loading until punching failure. Based on the results and the discussion presented
herein, the following concluding remarks can be drawn:

1. The entire test prototypes reinforced with GFRP and steel bars showed punching shear failure
with the same brittleness and mode of failure. Besides, the prototypes of the same thickness
showed similar crack pattern and surface failure.
2. The punching shear capacity was directly proportional to the slab thickness. The higher the slab
thickness, the higher the punching shear capacity.
3. The punching shear capacity was significantly affected by the axial stiffness of the reinforcement.
Increasing the reinforcement ratio of the GFRP-reinforced prototypes from 0.71 to 1.56% and
from 0.34 to 0.73% increased the punching shear capacity by 23 and 21% for the prototypes of
200 and 350 mm thickness, respectively. Moreover, flat slabs with the same axial stiffness of the
reinforcing bars may show similar punching shear capacity.
4. Increasing the reinforcement ratio from 0.71 to 1.56% and from 0.34 to 0.71% for GFRP-
reinforced prototypes of 200 and 350 mm thickness reduced the maximum strains by 48 and 38
%, respectively. Moreover, the test prototypes with higher reinforcement ratios showed higher
post-cracking stiffness which contributed to reducing the deflection.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Ministère du Développement économique,
Innovation et exportation of the province of Quebec. The authors are also grateful to the Pultrall Inc. and
the consultant firm EMS Ingénérie inc. for their technical and financial supports. The authors also
acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC), the Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies (FQRNT).

7. REFERENCES

ACI 318-08. (2008). “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete.” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, 472 p.
ACI 440.1R-06. (2006). “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars.”
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 41p.
CSA-A23.3 M-04. (2004). “Design of concrete structures for buildings.” Canadian Standards Association,
Rexdale, Ontario.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2010). “Specification for fibre-reinforced polymers.” CAN/CSA
S807–10, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 27p.
Dilger, W., Birkle, G. and Mitchell, D. (2005). “Effect of Flexural Reinforcement on Punching Shear
Resistance.” ACI Special Publication, SP-232-4, pp. 57-73.
Dulude, C., Ahmed, E., and Benmokrane, B. (2010). “Testing of Large-Scale Two-Way Concrete Slabs
Reinforced with GFRP Bars.” CICE 2010 - The 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in
Civil Engineering, September 27-29, 2010 Beijing, China.
Dulude, C., Ahmed, E., and Benmokrane, B., b (2010), “Punching Shear Strength of Concrete Flat Slabs
Reinforced with GFRP Bars.” 2nd International Structural Specialty Conference (ISSC-02), CSCE,
Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 9-12 June, 10 p. (CD-ROM).
El-Gamal, S. E., El-Salakawy, E. F., and Benmokrane, B. (2005). “A New Punching Shear Equation for
Two-Way Concrete Slabs Reinforced with FRP Bars.” ACI Special Publication, SP-230-50, pp. 877-
894.
El-Ghandour, A. W., Pilakoutas, K., and Waldron, P. (1999). “New Approach for Punching Shear Capacity
Prediction of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs.” ACI journal, SP 188-13, pp.
135-144.

9
 El-Ghandour, A. W., Pilakoutas, K., and Waldron P. (2003). “Punching Shear Behavior of Fiber
Reinforced Polymers Reinforced Concrete Flat slabs: Experimental Study.” Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, Vol. 7, No. 3, August, pp. 258-265.
Hussein, A., Rashid I., and Benmokrane B. (2004). “Two-Way Concrete Slabs Reinforced with GFRP
Bars.” Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, 4th International Conference on
Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, CSCE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, JSCE (1997). “Recommendation for Design and Construction of
Concrete Structures Using Continuous Fibre Reinforcing Materials.” Concrete Engineering Series 23,
Edited by A. Machida, 325 pp.
Lee, J. H., Yoon, Y. S., and Mitchell D., (2009). “Improving Punching Shear Behavior of Glass Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Slabs.” ACI Structural journal, Vol. 106, No. 4, July-August, pp. 427-
434.
Matthys, S., and Taerwe, L. (2000). “Concrete Slabs Reinforced with FRP Grids, Part II: Punching
Resistance.” ASCE, Journal of Composites for Constructions, Vol. 4, No. 3, August, pp. 154-161.
Ospina, C. E., Alexander, S. D. B., and Roger Cheng, J. J. (2003). "Punching of Two-Way Concrete
Slabs with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing Bars or Grids.” ACI structural Journal, Vol. 100, No.
5, September-October, pp. 589-598.
Zhang, Q., Marzouk, H., Hussein, A. (2008). “A Preliminary Study of High-Strength Concrete Two-Way
Slabs Reinforced with GFRP Bars.” 33rd CSCE Annual Conference: General Conference and
International History Symposium, CSCE, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 10p.

10

View publication stats