Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Shear behavior of concrete beam reinforced in shear with carbon fiber- T

reinforced polymer mesh fabric (CFRP-MF) configuration
Weiwen Li, Shiying Tang, Zeqi Huang, Xu Yang , Tiansheng Shi, Feng Xing
⁎

Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Durability for Marine Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The paper proposes a new type of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) shear reinforcements for reinforced concrete
Mesh fabric (MF) (RC) beams. The specimens are shear reinforced with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer mesh fabric (CFRP-MF)
Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) configuration rather than traditional steel stirrups. The shear behaviors of the 15 concrete beams reinforced in
Shear behavior shear with CFRP-MF configuration or with/without steel stirrups (as control specimens) was investigated in this
Shear capacity
paper. The variables of the investigation include shear span-depth ratio (a/d = 1.0, 2.5 and 3.5) and the shear
reinforcement ratio of CFRP-MF composites (0.036%, 0.067% and 0.097%). The experimental results indicate
that the concrete beams reinforced in shear with the CFRP-MF configuration have similar shear behaviors to the
corresponding RC control beams reinforced in shear with steel stirrups especially in overall load-deflection
relationship, shear strength, and the crack pattern of ultimate state. The predictions of the specimens’ shear
strength by using shear design provisions in ACI 440.1R-15, CSA S6-14 and CSA S806-12 are examined and
compared.

1. Introduction reduction rate [7,13,14]. Another limitation that inhibits utilization of

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcements possess various ad-
vantages. For examples, FRP possesses high tensile strength, light-
weight, reduced maintenance cost, superior corrosion resistance, and is
easy of applying in strengthening cases [1]. Currently, FRP reinforce-
ments (in the way of longitudinal flexural and transverse shear re-
inforcement) is currently applied in buildings and infrastructures [2–4].
Besides, different beam geometries and section types have been applied
by various FRP shear reinforcements and composites [5,6], which
shapes are different and mainly include full-wrapping, U-/T-/L-/C-
shaped single wire, circular, rounded corner rectangular and FRP plates
with openings [4,7–11].
However, FRP also has some drawbacks such as lack of a yield
platform under tension, lower elongation and weakness in shear.
Furthermore, bending FRP bars cause concentrated stress at the bent
portion which can lead to premature failure [7]. At the bend of FRP
bars, innermost fibers can be more easily kinked than those at the outer
radius, which results in decrease of tensile stresses at the bend
[4,8,9,11,12]. Only about 30–80% of the FRP tensile strength can be
resisted by FRP stirrups which is demonstrated by previous experi-
mental results; moreover the radius of bend to stirrup diameter ratio
(r/ db ) as well as the types of FRP bars have big impact on FRP stirrups
FRP bars as shear reinforcements or stirrups is the FRP rod stirrups are
not flexible enough; thus, they cannot be bent to form stirrups, and a
special production process is necessary which incurs additional costs
and time.
To avoid these difficulties, efforts have been made to try hand-made
stirrups into shape by applying strips of fiber sheet to wrap around the
flexural reinforcement [15–18]. In Lee’s research [15], 1.0 mm thick
and 15 and 30 mm wide carbon fiber sheets which could be bought
commercially were used as fiber sheet stirrups. The bent portion were
bonded with more laps of strips of fiber sheet so that the premature
failure of a fiber sheet strip (FSS) was relieved to some degree. The FSS
stirrups which were not overlapped at the particular place, usually
fractured in the line of the critical shear cracks. Fakharifar et al. [16]
used the FRP sheets to implement on-site fabricated FRP stirrups. Both
the concrete beam and beam-column joint specimens were investigated
utilizing the new kind of reinforcement. The test results indicate that
the proposed hybrid reinforcement has higher stiffness, strength as well
as energy dissipation when compared to conventional steel stirrups
reinforced specimens. Lee et al. [17] used the carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer rectangular stirrups (CFRPRS) to shear reinforce the concrete
beams. The widths of CFRPRS were between 16 and 24 mm while their
thicknesses were between 0.9 and 0.4 mm. The CFRPRS were fabricated

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: liweiwen@szu.edu.cn (W. Li), tangshiying2018@email.szu.edu.cn (S. Tang), huangzeqi2016@email.szu.edu.cn (Z. Huang),
yangxu@szu.edu.cn (X. Yang), tshiaa@connect.ust.hk (T. Shi), xingf@szu.edu.cn (F. Xing).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110828
Received 17 October 2019; Received in revised form 7 April 2020; Accepted 14 May 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Li, et al.
based on 0.45 mm thick carbon fiber sheets which were available on
commercial market. Test results show that all CFRPRS did not rupture
at the bent portions and concrete beams were not separated into seg-
ments along the dominate shear crack due to the confining action of
CFRPRS. The test indicated that the utilization efficiency was higher in
CFRPRS than in the CFRP bar stirrup. This literature devoted to using
carbon fiber sheets to make stirrups and strengthen concrete beams
strengthens their viability. It shows that CFRPRS can increase the shear
capacity of concrete beams effectively. Recently, Yuan et al. [18] used
the handmade strip stirrups to shear reinforce the large-scale concrete
beams. They studied the stirrups inclination and stirrups spacing effect
on the shear behavior of concrete beams. In their study, they found out
that inclined stirrups even had better performance than the vertical
stirrups with a halved spacing.
However, although FSS, CFRPRS or handmade strip stirrups have
been successful applied as shear reinforcement systems, some limitation
and deficiencies still exist. For example, FSS or CFRPRS are stressed
only in one direction (i.e. transversally) which is perpendicular to the
length of the beam. In addition, individual FSS or CFRPRS lack a sy-
nergistic working mechanism which make the concrete beam prone to
overall shear failure if only one FSS or CFRPRS is ruptured. The FRP
mesh fabric shear reinforcement proposed in this paper can solve this
problem effectively. The methodology behind the transversal carbon
fiber sheet strips involves intertwining in a criss-cross pattern the
longitudinal FRCM (i.e., mesh fabric) impregnated with epoxy as an
innovative shear reinforcement for concrete beams. This alternative
method could easily represent the next-generation of concrete re-
inforcement for infrastructures supported by textile-reinforced concrete
beams.
To accompany this type of FRP shear reinforcement, steel FRP
composite bars (SFCBs) were selected as a flexural reinforcement that
meets both the durability and ductility requirements for structural
members. The detail introduction of the manufacturing technique and
physical properties of SFCBs have been summarized in Wu et al. [19],
and the specimen mechanical behavior if reinforced with SFCBs have
been systematically studied in Sun et al. [20]. Outer-wrapped FRPs can
undertake a portion of the applied load and protect the inside rebar
from the entry of corrosive ions. Additionally, experimental results
show that SFCBs have excellent corrosion resistance [21].
The purpose of this investigation is to assess the reinforcing effect of
the new FRP shear reinforcements and their suitability for use in re-
inforced concrete beams. Nine concrete beam specimens reinforced
with the new FRP reinforcements and six concrete control beams were
tested with various reinforcement amounts and shear span-effective
depth ratios. Cracking patterns, failure modes, and strain distributions
of the test specimens were analyzed. The research in this paper opens
the door to the completely new mode of concrete structures applying in-
situ manufactured FRP shear reinforcements made of carbon FRP mesh
fabric (CFRP-MF). Furthermore, shear design provisions in ACI 440.1R-
15, CSA S6-14 and CSA S806-12 are used to predict the angle of critical
diagonal crack and shear strength of specimens reinforced by CFRP-MF
strips.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Material properties
To minimize the experiment scatter, a ready-mix normal weight
concrete from a local concrete company was used to cast all the beams
at the same batch. As per Chinese code for the design of concrete
structures (GB50010-2010) [22], the concrete used in this experiment is
grade C30. The compressive strength of the concrete was evaluated by
testing six cubic blocks (150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm). The com-
pressive strength of concrete at 28 days was 35.7 MPa. Ribbed steel bars
with 6.5 mm and 10 mm diameters were utilized as the comparison
steel stirrups and untested region steel stirrups in this experiment,
2
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828
Table 1
Material properties of the plain steel bars.
Steel grade HPB300 HRB335 HRB400
Diameter (mm) 6.5 10 22
Average yield strength (MPa) 300 385 415
Elastic modulus (GPa) 205 205 205
respectively. The grade was HPB300 [22] for 6.5 mm diameter and
HRB355 [22] for 10 mm diameter, respectively. The SFCBs used in this
experiment were surface-threaded SFCBs with an ordinary ribbed steel
bar HRB400 [22] serving as the inner core of SFCBs. The diameter of
the inner steel bar was 22 mm which was adopted when considering the
tensile properties. The fiber type of the SFCBs was basalt-FRP (BFRP).
The BFRP fiber properties are that the elastic modulus is 50 GPa and the
ultimate tensile strength is 1000 MPa. The BFRP outer layer thickness
was 3 mm. The measured yield strengths and elastic moduli of the steel
bars are listed in Table 1. The ideal stress-strain curve of the steel BFRP
composite bars can be obtained as per Zhao et al. [23]. The theoretical
value of yield strain εsfy and ultimate strain εsfu of SFCB are 0.202% and
2%, respectively. The theoretical value of yield stress fsfy and ultimate
stress fsfu of SFCB are 415 MPa and 1000 MPa, respectively. The theo-
retical value of the initial stiffness EⅠ and the second linear ascending
slop EⅡ can then be obtained as 150 GPa and 18 GPa, respectively. FRP
fibers used in stirrups are CFRP fibers which are precisely cut from the
CFRP sheet. Unidirectional tensile tests were conducted on dry CFRP
sheet strips and cured impregnated CFRP sheet strips. Each CFRP sheet
strips was 15 mm in width, 150 mm in length and 0.167 mm (one layer
of fiber sheet) in the design thickness according to China National
Standardization Management Committee (CNSMC) 1999 [24]. A two-
part epoxy resin was used as the matrix to impregnate the dry CFRP
sheet strips, which had an elastic modulus of 3200 MPa, a tensile
strength of 54 MPa and an ultimate elongation of 2.19%. The tensile
stress-strain curves of dry CFRP sheet strips and cured CFRP sheet strips
are shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b). Three specimens were prepared for both
the dry and impregnated carbon fiber sheets to get the average values.
The average tensile strength of the dry CFRP sheet strips and the cured
CFRP sheet strips is 1571 and 2500 MPa, respectively. The average
elastic modulus of the dry CFRP sheet strips and the cured CFRP sheet
strips is 186 and 235 GPa, respectively.
2.2. Beam specimens
All of 15 concrete beam specimens were designed as well as cast in
the experiment. The section dimensions of the specimens were 300 mm
height × 150 mm width. The length of the concrete beams varied as per
the shear span-to-effective depth ratio. The effective height of the
specimens was 230 mm. Three various shear span-depth ratios (a/d
ratio) were adopted to divide the specimens into three groups (Groups
A, B and C). The shear span-depth ratios were 1.0, 2.5, and 3.5 and the
length of the beams were 1800 mm, 1800 mm and 2200 mm, respec-
tively. The reason that these three shear span-depth ratios are chosen is
according to the failure mode of normal concrete beams reinforced by
steel bars, i.e., deep beam failure, shear compression failure and flex-
ural-shear failure [25]. The detailed information of the specimens used
for testing is summarized in Table 2. In order to focus on only one side,
the specimens were designed to be weaker in on side which was sup-
posed to appear shear failure. The stronger side of the specimens were
reinforced by 10 mm HRB400 steel stirrups at a spacing of 80 mm. The
compressive steel reinforcements were composed of two Φ 22 mm
SFCBs which were longitudinally placed in one row and the tensile steel
reinforcements were composed of four Φ 22 mm SFCBs which were
longitudinally placed in two rows. The reinforcement of the tested side
area varied based on the investigation parameters. Each group had a
specimen without any shear reinforcement and a specimen reinforced
W. Li, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

Fig. 1. Tensile test results of CFRP sheet strips. (a) Dry CFRP sheet strips (i.e. without resin impregnation and (b) Cured impregnated CFRP sheet strips (i.e. with resin
impregnation).

by the steel stirrups. The steel rebars used in the tested side were made
of HPB 300 [26] with a 6.5 mm diameter spaced at intervals of 150 mm.
The other three concrete beams in each group were reinforced with
CFRP-MF stirrups with different transversal spacing. However, all the
CFRP strips that made up the stirrups had the same width (i.e., 24 mm)
and same thickness (i.e., 0.167 mm). The steel stirrups reinforced
concrete beams had the same nominal shear contribution of stirrups
matching with specimens reinforced with CFRP-MF stirrups with a
transversal spacing of 150 mm. However, the reinforcement ratio of the
longitudinal strips of CFRP-MF remained unchanged among the three
specimens in each group. The width of the longitudinal carbon fiber
sheet strips was 12 mm with a spacing of 75 mm. Fig. 2 illustrates the
detail of the reinforcement layout and beam size.
All beams are labeled as an XY format with the character X de-
picting the group number of the specimen (i.e., Group A, B or C) and the
character Y representing the beam’s shear reinforcement configuration.
If Y is represented by a number, it is referring to the spacing of the
transversal CFRP-MF stirrups. For example, beam B150 is reinforced by
the CFRP-MF stirrups at transversal center-to-center spacing of
150 mm. If Y is represented by the character (i.e. C or S), it means this
specimen is a reference or control beam. For instance, beams BC and BS
are two control beams; thus, a BC beam is a specimen without stirrups,
and a BS beam is reinforced with steel stirrups. Both beam designations
begin with B, which means they are in Group B.
2.3. Fabrication of CFRP-MF stirrups
Due to the high product cost and difficulty of fitting prefabricated
CFRP rod stirrups or grids to configurations not anticipated by the
manufacturer, hand-made CFRP-MF stirrups were used in this experi-
ment. The main obstruction to directly using the prefabricated stirrups
or grids was the difficulty of anchoring the prefabricated CFRP grids to
the steel cage. It also takes extra time to cut the prefabricated CFRP
grids into precise dimensions.
The fabrication process of the hand-made CFRP-MF stirrups con-
sisted of the following steps: First, the weft of the CFRP sheet was cut
and the CFRP sheet was divided into several strips to meet a demanded
width and length in the lab. Then, the longitudinal (i.e., parallel to the
beam length) CFRP sheet strips are cut into four sub-strips. In the next
step, the transversal CFRP sheet strips (i.e., perpendicular to the beam
length) must be fed through the longitudinal strips as demonstrated in
Fig. 3(a) and (b). Finally, the entire hand-made CFRP-MF are formed
into a grid-like structure as shown in Fig. 3(c). The net is then wrapped
around the steel cages with epoxy resin glued on it and after curing, the
forming shape is set as shown in Fig. 4. The longitudinal CFRP-MF strips
are twined around and fixed at the steel stirrups in the untested region.

Table 2
Summary of specimen parameters.
Group Specimen ID Shear span-to- Nominal area of the transversal shear Center-to-center spacing Nominal shear resistance of shear Shear reinforcement ratio
Name depth ratio reinforcements (mm2) of the stirrups (mm) reinforcements (kN) (%)

A AC 1.0 – – – 0
AS 66.4 150 31 0.293
A150 8.0 150 31 0.036
A80 8.0 80 58 0.067
A55 8.0 55 84 0.097

B BC 2.5 – – – 0
BS 66.4 150 31 0.293
B150 8.0 150 31 0.036
B80 8.0 80 58 0.067
B55 8.0 55 84 0.097

C CC 3.5 – – – 0
CS 66.4 150 31 0.293
C150 8.0 150 31 0.036
C80 8.0 80 58 0.067
C55 8.0 55 84 0.097

3
W. Li, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

Fig. 2. Sketch of RC beam’s geometric shape, steel reinforcement and the CFRP-MF stirrups configuration (units: mm) on beams (Note: W means the width of the
CFRP-MF strips, Si is the strip number of the transversal CFRP-MF, Li is the strip number of the longitudinal CFRP-MF).

Cutting some wefts

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3. Procedure of fabricating an interleaved CFRP sheet strips net. (a) Cutting a mouth on longitudinal CFRP sheet strips, (b) the transversal CFRP sheet strips cross
the longitudinal strips and (c) an interleaved CFRP sheet strips net.

4
W. Li, et al.
CFRP-MF
STIRRUPS
Fig. 4. The formed steel cage with CFRP-MF stirrups.
The strain gauges are also glued onto both the transversal and long-
itudinal CFRP-MF strips along the predefined shear crack path from the
loading point to the support point.
2.4. Test setup and instrument
The test adopted the three-point bending configuration for all con-
crete beams. The displacement control mode was applied during
loading as shown in Fig. 5. Three linear variable differential transfor-
mers (LVDTs) were installed to monitor deflection of specimens. There
was one LVDT which gauged the mid-span deformation with the
loading actuator on the top of the beam specimen. Two other LVDTs
monitored the settlement of the beam at the support. The beam’s mid-
span of the longitudinal bottom steel bars and the compression rebars
were monitored by strain gauges. The inclined shear crack width was
obtained and the distribution of the average principal strain on the
shear span were monitored by using the digital image correlation (DIC)
systems. Fig. 5 also shows their covered area.
3. Experimental results and discussion
This section presents the results of this investigation like failure
mode, load-deflection response, strain trend of the CFRP-MF stirrups,
and the shear cracking pattern as well as the diagonal crack width
development. The effect of shear span-depth ratio and the effect of
shear reinforcement ratio are characterized and discussed in terms of
these parameters.
3.1. Failure mode
As a consequence of prior design, all of the specimens failed with a
dominated shear crack. Deep-beam failure, shear-compression/tension
failure, and flexural-shear failure appears successively in concrete
beams with insufficient shear capacity as shear span/depth ratios
Fig. 5. Test setup.
5
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828
Steel Stirrups
increasing according to the classical theory of RC [25]. In general, the
shear span-to-effective depth ratio has similar effect on the failure
modes of the CFRP-MF shear reinforced beams. Concrete failure prior to
stirrups failure in varied shear span-to-effective depth ratio beams are
the main cause because the shear span-to-effective depth ratio usually
determine the failure mode of concrete and the effect of the stirrups’
types replacement can hardly involve into this failure mechanism.
All Group A beams failed like the deep-beam failure mode. A series
of diagonal cracks were observed in the shear span which destroyed the
horizontal shear flow from the longitudinal reinforcement to the com-
pression zone [26]. Typical arch action contributes a major part in the
shear resistance mechanism. A few inclined cracks and splitting of
concrete were involved in the failure process. Concrete beams re-
inforced with CFRP-MF stirrups failed rapidly at maximum load along
the main inclined cracks. The brittle fracture of the impregnated CFRP-
MF stirrups was induced by their relatively small cross-sectional area of
the CFRP sheet strip. Throughout the test, when the shear reinforce-
ment ratio increased, the number of secondary shear cracks decreased.
Their failure modes are shown in Fig. 6.
The shear-compression mode appeared in all Group B beams as
depicted in Fig. 7. More inclined cracks were observed as the shear
span/depth ratio raised. Although the brittle shear failure mode was the
typical failure mode in CFRP-MF stirrup-reinforced beams, B150
showed a much gentler failure mode than B80 and B55 during the test.
As the shear reinforcement ratio increased, a higher shear load was
obtained when the specimen was near the ultimate state. However, the
tensile stress of one single strip of CFRP-MF stirrups increased stably
until the rest of the CFRP-MF strips ruptured; then, the adjacent CFRP-
MF strip stirrups with a higher shear reinforcement ratio ruptured faster
because greater shear stress was induced as higher shear load was re-
distributed to them.
All Group C beams failed in a flexural-shear failure mode as shown
in Fig. 8. The first inclined shear cracks usually appeared at the middle
height of the concrete web; then, as the shear load raised, the shear
crack width increased rapidly. Secondary shear cracks also occurred in
the developing procedure of the main shear cracks. Similar to Group B
beams, Specimen C150 also showed the gentlest failure mode compared
to beam C80 and C55. The reason these test results were not repeated in
the Group A beams was because the Group A beams failed mainly
caused by the concrete compression strut crushing failure. The differ-
ence of the applied shear force was not as great as that in the Group B
and C beams when compared to the other CFRP-MF stirrup-reinforced
beams. Although the CFRP-MF stirrups all ruptured at the ultimate
load, their function and failure mechanism were different between
Group A beams when compared with Group B or C beams. In Group A,
the main effect of the CFRP-MF stirrups were to confine the compres-
sion concrete due to the Poisson’s effect. In the Group B or C beams, the
main effect of the CFRP-MF stirrups was to keep the shear crack from
becoming wider for slender beams. It was obvious that in Group B or C
W. Li, et al.
Fig. 6. Failure modes of Group A specimens. (a) AC, (b) AS, (c) A150, (d) A80, and (e) A55.
beams, the tensile strength of the CFRP-MF stirrups were more effec-
tively utilized due to the direct reinforcement in the shear load path
direction. A reduction of the utilization effect on the CFRP-MF stirrups
tensile strength was obvious in Group A beams because their rupture
was caused by the expansion of the inclined compressed concrete col-
umns.
3.2. Load-deflection response
The different groups of beams’ curves of load-deflection are shown
in Fig. 9. In summary, from the load-deflection curves, stiffness differ-
ence was not obvious for the beams with different shear reinforcement
configuration. For all beams, the midspan firstly appeared several
flexural cracks, then the dominate inclined cracks formed and grew up
between the loading point and support.
The overall behavior of the load-deflection response are divided into
several stages: the flexural cracking stage, shear cracking stage, shear
load steady growth stage and descending stage. At the initial stage of
Fig. 7. Failure modes of Group B specimens. (a) BC, (b) BS, (c) B150, (d) B80 and (e) B55.
6
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828
the curve formation, the effect of the reinforcement ratio was not sig-
nificant, and all beams behaved in a nearly linear manner up to this
stage. As the load approaches peak value, the shear reinforcement ratio
increases, and the increasing rate of load and corresponding deflection
also increases. In addition, as the shear span/depth ratio (a/d ratio)
increases, the difference in the ultimate load and deflection between the
control specimen and the stirrup- reinforced concrete beams are shown
to become more pronounced in each figure. The steel stirrup-reinforced
beams have an almost coincident load-middle point deflection response
to the CFRP-MF reinforced beams with the same nominal shear con-
tribution of stirrups (i.e., the spacing of CFRP sheet strip stirrups is
150 mm). The nominal shear contribution of stirrups is according to the
hypothesis that in the range of the 45° inclined crack projection region
all the CFRP sheet strip stirrups ruptured at their full tensile strength as
well as all the steel stirrups yielded at their measured yield strength. It
indicated that the CFRP-MF reinforced beams have the same macro
mechanic behavior compared to the steel stirrups reinforced beams
with the same nominal shear contribution of stirrups. Although all
W. Li, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

Fig. 8. Failure modes of Group C specimens. (a) CC, (b) CS, (c) C150, (d) C80, and (e) C55.

Fig. 9. Load-midspan deflection of tested beams. (a) Group A beams, (b) Group B beams and (c) Group C beams.

7
W. Li, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

Table 3 the group being studied.

Summary of the tested results. For Group A beams, the AC specimen which was reinforced without
Group Names Max. Displ. at Shear resistance ε0.5 (με) Efficiency any shear reinforcement failed at 252.6 kN. The AS specimen reinforced
Shear max. by stirrups factors (ΦE) with steel stirrups showed a shear capacity of 257.9 kN which was only
loads shear Values Ratios a 2.1% improvement in strength compared to the AC specimen. The
(kN) load (Vs, kN) Vs/ A150 specimen reinforced with the least amount of CFRP-MF failed at a
(mm) Vsteel
peak load of 259.9 kN, which showed better performance in shear ca-
A AC 252.6 3.13 – – – – pacity compared to AS. As the shear reinforcement ratio increased, the
AS 257.9 3.41 5.3 1.00 906 1.00 strength improvement was greater with 2.9%, 7.8% and 11.7% for the
A150 259.9 3.74 7.3 1.38 2429 1.37 A150, A80 and A55 beams, respectively. The loss of the Group A beams’
A80 272.3 3.94 19.7 3.72 3256 1.97
strength was caused by the squashing of the inclined concrete columns
A55 282.1 4.60 29.5 5.57 4908 2.03
instead of widening of shear crack in the beam web. The shear re-
B BC 74.3 3.94 – – – –
inforcing effect of stirrups was not significant in this group.
BS 107.9 4.63 33.6 1.00 727 1.00
B150 112.2 4.91 37.9 1.13 2095 1.12 For Group B beams, the shear cracking load was the most obvious in
B80 123.8 5.23 49.5 1.47 2660 0.78 beam BS because the load-deflection curve deviate from the original
B55 129.3 5.94 55 1.64 3022 0.60 stiffness curve obviously at the shear cracking point, while the stiffness
C CC 57.8 4.56 – – – – of CFRP-MF reinforced beams showed a gradual change during the test.
CS 93.6 6.14 35.8 1.00 1346 1.00 The Vs/Vsteel ratios of CFRP-MF reinforced beams in Group B were much
C150 96.9 6.27 39.1 1.09 2787 1.09 smaller than those in Group A. This indicated that the relative higher
C80 109.3 6.51 51.5 1.44 4787 0.76
performance of CFRP-MF compared with steel stirrups became insig-
C55 117.6 7.51 59.8 1.67 5085 0.61
nificant as the shear span-to-effective depth ratio (i.e. a/d) increases.
Note: Vsteel means the shear resistance by steel stirrup in each group, Vs means The shear capacity improvements compared to beam BC were 45.2%,
the shear resistance by stirrups 51%, 66.6%, and 74% for beams BS, B150, B80 and B55, respectively.
For Group C beams, the displacements at the maximum shear load
beams performed a brittle shear failure as shown in Fig. 9, the des- were significantly improved by the shear reinforcement due to the
cending stage of the load-deflection curve is not very sudden for CFRP- largest shear span among the three groups. The increases in deflection
MF reinforced beams although CFRP material had no plastic stage. It compared to beam CC were 34.7%, 37.5%, 42.8% and 64.7% for beams
reflects that the CFRP-MF stirrups can be successfully applied in beams CS, C150, C80 and C55, respectively. In addition, the shear strength
with different shear span/depth ratios also with varied shear re- improvements compared to beam CC were 61.9%, 67.6%, 89.1%, and
inforcement ratios. It is interesting to note that when the shear re- 103.5% for beam CS, C150, C80 and C55, respectively. The shear
inforcement ratio reached 0.097% for the CFRP-MF reinforced beams, strength improvements were also the largest among the three groups.
the load increased with a larger deflection when the load was near the However, the Vs/Vsteel ratios of the CFRP-MF reinforced beams in Group
capacity of the concrete beams. This indicates that a higher amount of C were similar to that in Group B. The shear resistance by stirrups and
CFRP-MF can yield early warning behavior due to the larger deforma- the Vs/Vsteel ratios were significantly changed in the deep beams which
tion that occurs which reflects larger energy dissipation when the load was in accordance with the discussion presented in Section 3.1 on
approaches peak value. failure modes.
Table 3 presents the tested specimens’ maximum loads and corre- Fig. 10a depicts the variations of the shear resistance by stirrups
sponding deflections. The experiment shear contribution of the CFRP- with the shear span/depth ratio. Obviously, the shear resistance in-
MF and steel stirrups in the final state are also summarized in Table 3; crease was more significant in the low shear span/depth ratio range
these were calculated through the shear capacity of each specimen (i.e., from 1.0 to 2.5). The trend of the curves with different shear re-
subtracting that of the corresponding control beam without stirrups in inforcement ratios was similar. Although beams reinforced with steel
stirrups (i.e., ρs = 0.293%) have the same nominal theoretical shear

Fig. 10. Effect of shear span/depth ratio and shear reinforcement ratio on shear resistance by stirrups. (a) Effect of shear span/depth ratio (a/d) and (b) Effect of
shear reinforcement ratio (Note: ρs means steel stirrup reinforcement ratio, and ρf means CFRP-MF reinforcement ratio).

8
W. Li, et al.
contribution as stirrups compared to CFRP-MF reinforced beams spaced
at transversal strips interval of 150 mm (i.e., ρf = 0.036%), it seems
CFRP-MF reinforced beams get a little higher shear resistance compared
to that of steel stirrup reinforced beams. Fig. 10b depicts the variations
of shear resistance by CFRP-MF stirrups with the shear reinforcement
ratio. It is expected to see that the shear resistance by stirrups raised
nearly in a linear manner when the CFRP-MF shear reinforcement ratio
increased. With the shear span/depth ratio increased from 1.0 to 2.5,
the shear resistance increased significantly. However, when the shear
span/depth ratio increased from 2.5 to 3.5, the trend of the shear re-
sistance by stirrup along with shear reinforcement ratio curve was very
nearly the same. It was obvious that the variation range of shear re-
inforcement ratio was relatively small, and the increasing rate of shear
resistance provided by the CFRP-MF stirrups was hardly changed in this
research. Therefore, more larger CFRP-MF shear reinforcement ratio
effect needs further investigation. In summary, both the shear span/
depth ratio and the shear reinforcement ratio had a significant effect on
the shear resistance by stirrups. The effect of the shear span/depth ratio
on shear resistance by stirrups did not vary very much when the shear
reinforcement type changed from steel to the CFRP-MF with the same
theoretical shear contribution which were calculated based on truss
analogy.
3.3. Strain development of the shear reinforcements
The yield strain of the steel stirrups was 1463 με for all steel stirrups
of AS, BS and CS specimens and it clearly showed that at least steel
stirrup had already yielded in the steel stirrups reinforced beam in the
final state. The nominal rupture strain of CFRP-MF was 10,638 με (i.e.
εfu) as calculated from the material properties. However, according to
Lee et al. [10], the bent portion strength of complete closed-type carbon
fiber-reinforced polymer stirrups with a rectangular section (CFRPRS)
can be predicted by the following equation based on experimental re-
sults:
f fb R well as the rupture of the CFRP-MF occurred on the beam. The strain
= 0.07 + 0.45 1.0
f fu dfe (1)
wf t f
dfe = 2
(2)
where f fb is the bent strength of CFRPRS, f fu is the direct tensile
strength of CFRPRS, R is the inner bend radius of the bent portion, dfe is
the equivalent diameter of the transformed CFRPRS section, t f is the
thickness of the bent portion of CFRPRS and wf is the width of CFRPRS.
The above equations can be directly used for the transversal CFRP-
MF strips to predict the bent strength of the transversal CFRP-MF strips
which yields the ratio of bent strength to the direct tensile strength 0.79
and the bent portion rupture strain 8413 με. This value is much greater
than that of FRP rod stirrups which is only 0.54 as per ACI 440.1R-
15[27]. The reduction of the strength due to bends is shown to be ef-
fectively mitigated by the small thickness of the transversal CFRP-MF
strips.
The load-shear reinforcement strain monitored by the strain gauges
(pasted to the intersection of the predefined shear crack path and each
stirrup as illustrated in Fig. 2) is shown in Fig. 11. As depicted in Fig. 2,
the character “S” with larger number means the stirrups monitored by
this strain gauge was closer to the support. The maximum value of the
recorded strain from the strain gauges was 7761 με (i.e. εmax,exp). This
value was very close to the bent portion rupture strain and their ratio
was 0.92. The measured maximum strain value was much greater than
the strain limit recommended by ACI 440.1R-06 [14] (i.e., 4000 με), the
British Institution of Structural Engineering (BISE) design guidelines
[28] (i.e., 2500 με) and CSA S6-14 (i.e., 5000 με) [29]. The ratio of
εmax,exp to εfu was 0.73 which was also higher than 0.54 as re-
commended by ACI 440.1R-15 [27]. In addition, the transversal CFRP-
9
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828
MF ruptured when the shear failure occurred. Further checking of the
ruptured location of the CFRP-MF after completion of the loading test
was achieved by carefully removing the cover concrete. The fracture of
CFRP-MF had mainly occurred at bent portions as shown in Fig. 12. The
stirrups or shear reinforcements in the Group A beams were less
stressed than those in the Group B or C beams, because the failure mode
of the Group A beams were significantly different from the Group B or C
beams. Different from the strain values of steel stirrups, CFRP-MF shear
reinforcements showed more uneven strain values, according to the
relative position with regard to the dominate inclined cracks. The more
uneven distribution in the CFRP-MF shear reinforcements strain values
compared to the stirrup made of steel could be ascribed to the smaller
axial stiffness of these shear reinforcements A E with A=the stirrups
sectional area and E = the elasticity modulus. The maximum measured
strains of CFRP-MF shear reinforcements in different beams were 3849
με, 4532 με, 6252 με, 7038 με, 7049 με, 6656 με, 7761 με, 7255 με, and
6247 με for beams A150, A80, A55, B150, B80, B55, C150, C80, and
C55, respectively. As per the stress strain curve from the material test
introduced in material properties, the maximum tensile strain of the
CFRP sheet strips with epoxy resin was 10,799 με. The ratio of the
maximum measured strain of CFRP-MF shear reinforcements to the
maximum tensile strain of the CFRP sheet strips with epoxy resin in
different beams were 0.36, 0.42, 0.58, 0.65, 0.65, 0.62, 0.72, 0.67 and
0.58 for beams A150, A80, A55, B150, B80, B55, C150, C80, and C55,
respectively. The maximum utilization of transversal CFRP-MF stirrups
was 72% in this study. The averaged maximum strain value for shear
reinforcement ratio 0.036% was 6216 με while that value for 0.067%
and 0.097% were 6279 με and 6385 με, respectively. The shear re-
inforcement ratio seems to have little effect on the averaged maximum
measured strain of CFRP-MF reinforcements which indicates that the
strain developments of CFRP-MF reinforcements are mainly depended
on shear span/depth ratio rather than the shear reinforcement ratio.
After shear cracking almost all the strain values of CFRP-MF shear
reinforcements were rising steadily until the applied shear load got to
the peak value. At the same time, a sudden and brittle failure mode as
development in Fig. 11 corresponding to the fracture shear reinforce-
ment indicate that the rupture of the CFRP-MF shear reinforcements
occurred almost simultaneously (i.e., the time interval was too small to
record reaction by the strain gauges) at the peak load. It is probably
because that the main inclined crack separates the concrete beams into
segments brittlely. The shear failure causes a sudden impact as well as
stress concentration rather than the gradual increase of strains like in
the steel stirrups which accounts for the fracture of the CFRP-MF shear
reinforcements in the meantime.
The load-shear reinforcement strain curve of which strain were
gathered from the strain gauges attached on the intersection of the
predefined shear crack path and each longitudinal CFRP-MF as shown
in Fig. 2 is shown in Fig. 13. The strain value was much smaller than the
transversal CFRP-MF in each beam. The longitudinal CFRP-MF strip L2
had the largest strain in most of the beams. Although the longitudinal
CFRP-MF were strained partly due to the flexural deformation of the
beams during the test, the shear crack was wider in the middle of the
beam. Thus, the middle one of these three longitudinal CFRP-MF had
the largest strain value. In addition, the longitudinal CFRP-MF usually
yielded small strain in low shear span/depth ratio beams (i.e., Group A
beams) and the largest strain was obtained in the C55 beam. The
measured largest strain of the longitudinal CFRP-MF for A150, A80,
A55, B150, B80, B55, C150, C80, C55 was 2375 με, 2978 με, 2092 με,
3283 με, 2848 με, 4510 με, 6017 με, 5525 με, and 7175 με, respectively.
The averaged maximum strain value of the longitudinal CFRP-MF for
Group A beams was 2482 με, while registering 3547 με and 6239 με for
Group B and Group C beams, respectively. The averaged maximum
strain value of these specimens for a shear reinforcement ratio of
0.036% was 3892 με while that value for 0.067% and 0.097% was 3784
με and 4592 με, respectively. It indicated that the averaged maximum
W. Li, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

Fig. 11. Strain development of shear reinforcements or stirrups (a) AS, (b) A150, (c) A80, (d) A55, (e) BS, (f) B150, (g) B80, (h) B55, (i) CS, (j) C150, (k) C80, and (l)
C55.

10
W. Li, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

Fig. 11. (continued)

strain of the longitudinal CFRP-MF could increase if the shear re- 3.4. Shear cracking pattern
inforcement ratio was greater than a certain value. In this experiment,
this value should be larger than 0.067%. Digital image correlation (DIC) was utilized to obtain the average
principal strain fields in the concrete. VIC-3D software was applied to

11
W. Li, et al.
(a)
Fig. 12. (a) and (b) Failure mode of CFRP-MF: Rupture at bent portions.
conduct the processing. Differences between the shear cracking pattern
at the ultimate load of different specimens are presented in Fig. 14. The
plots vividly show that the strains distribution is different from each
other because of different inner shear reinforcement configurations. In
concrete beams without any shear reinforcement, only one shear crack
was visible on the full field principal tensile strain contours obtained
from DIC, in which the tensile strains are red, while other colors (yellow
to purple) represent various magnitudes of strain. The shear crack
pattern vividly showed that in Group C beams, as the shear reinforce-
ment ratio increased, the shear crack gradually turned into a shear-
flexural crack when compared to those shear cracks in Fig. 14(i), (l) and
(o). In addition, when the steel stirrups were used, the secondary shear
cracks were steeper in these beams, indicating that less stirrups were
crossed by secondary shear cracks in steel stirrup-reinforced beams.
Deep beam failure mode was also vividly reflected from the strain
contour figures because a heavy compression area of concrete as noted
by the dark blue color occupied the surface of the Group A beam.
3.5. Shear crack width development
Fig. 15 shows the load-maximum shear crack (the failure shear
crack) width curve of different specimens. The crack widths were ob-
tained through the DIC systems according to Hu and Wu [30]. Tradi-
tional RC beams generally showed larger width of shear crack than the
CFRP rods stirrups reinforcing beams [31]. In this experiment, the
measured crack widths for the CFRP-MF reinforced concrete beams
were all smaller than that of the steel stirrup-reinforced specimen ex-
cept for B150 and C150. Faster shear crack widening happened in
control specimens without any shear reinforcement. This indicates that
the CFRP-MF could more effectively restrain the crack development
than the steel stirrups in this experiment. The growth of crack width of
CS was a little faster than that of C150 specimens. The measured
maximum shear crack width at the maximum load for A150, A80 and
A55 were 1.42 mm, 1.22 mm and 1.15 mm, respectively. The maximum
shear crack width of reference beam AC at ultimate load was 1.13, 1.32
and 1.4 times larger than that of these three beams respectively while
for beam AS these ratios were 1.05, 1.22 and 1.30. Increasing the shear
reinforcement ratio of CFRP-MF not only decreases the maximum width
of shear crack when the applied load is the same, but also restricts the
maximum width of shear crack at the peak load as shown in Fig. 15. In
Group B beams, a similar trend was also found between different spe-
cimens. The crack width was much greater when the shear span/depth
ratio increased from 1.0 to 2.5. At the peak load, the widths of shear
crack in the BC and BS specimens were in the range of 1.33 to 2.57
times and 0.78 to 1.51 times that of the CFRP-MF reinforced specimens,
respectively. In Group C beams, the difference of crack width devel-
opment between specimens with different shear reinforcement ratios
was very obvious at the beginning of shear cracking. At peak load, shear
crack widths of the CC and CS concrete beams were in range of 1.31 to
2.71 times and 0.90 to 1.86 times that of the CFRP-MF reinforced
specimens, respectively.
12
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828
(b)
The shear crack width of FRP stirrups reinforcing beams was limited
to 0.5 mm in the ACI design guide [14]. Shehata et al.[32] discovered
that when a shear crack width of 0.5 mm for beams with CFRP rod
shear reinforcements was obtained, the average strain of CFRP rod
shear reinforcements crossing the shear crack was 2000 με. According
to the ACI design guide, at the service load, 2000 με was adopted as a
unified strain limit value [14]. In Table 3, at the 0.5 mm crack width,
the tested values of average stirrup strains (ε05) are summarized.
Among the strain values that intersected with the dominated shear
cracks, two strain values of stirrups which were the largest were chosen
for computing the average strain. Interestingly, for CFRP-MF stirrups,
the stirrups with larger shear reinforcement ratios yielded larger
average strain values. However, a larger shear span/depth ratio did not
necessarily yield larger strain values as strain values in the Group B
beams were smaller than that of the Group A beams. In addition, the
strain values of steel stirrups were usually smaller than that of the
CFRP-MF reinforced beams due to the larger stirrup axial stiffness A E
as discussed previously. Correspondingly, in order to obtain the upper
bound of the CFRP-MF shear reinforcement strain value when the width
of shear crack was as large as 0.5 mm, the beams with the largest CFRP-
MF shear reinforcement ratios were selected. For example, the CFRP-
MF stirrup maximum strain values in the B55 beam with a 0.5 mm
width crack were measured as 2496 με and 3547 με (average of
3022 με). Moreover, 4908 με and 5085 με which were greater average
strain values was detected in the CFRP-MF stirrups of A55 beam and
C55 beam, respectively, which were obtained from the two strains
which were the largest. Obviously that the present strain upper bound
of 2000 με recommended by the previous literature can be further
upgraded to 5000 με for CFRP-MF reinforcing beams with a 0.5 mm
width crack. Because the former limit was concluded according to test
results for specimens with CFRP rod shear reinforcement. However,
more different CFRP-MF shear reinforcement ratio beams needs to be
tested to verify this value.
3.6. Efficiency factor
For comparing the shear resistance effectiveness provided by CFRP-
MF stirrups with steel stirrups, the efficiency factor (ΦE) was provided
to determine the effectiveness of the CFRP-MF stirrups in each group
[15]:
Vf As fy Sf
E = × ×
Vs Af f f Sy (3)
where Vs and Vf = experimentally obtained shear forces contributed by
steel stirrups and by CFRP-MF stirrups per two legs, respectively;
As fy = steel stirrups yield strength and Af f f = transversal CFRP-MF
stirrups ultimate tensile strength per two legs, Sy and Sf = the center-to-
center spacing of steel stirrups and transversal CFRP-MF stirrups, re-
spectively.
The relative effectiveness in the field of resisting shear by the CFRP-
MF stirrups compared to that of rebar stirrups was represented by the
W. Li, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

Fig. 13. Strain development of longitudinal CFRP-MF (a) A150, (b) A80, (c) A55, (d) B150, (e) B80, (f) B55, (g) C150, (h) C80, and (i) C55.

13
W. Li, et al.
Fig. 13. (continued)
efficiency factor. The relative effective of CFRP-MF stirrups was the
same as steel stirrups in utilizing its material strength on the condition
that the value of E is equal to 1.0. It should be noted that the efficiency
factors were provided to compare the shear resistance efficiency, al-
though the shear reinforcement ratios of CFRP-MF stirrups were varied.
The values of E are summarized for specimens with stirrups in Table 3.
Due to the different shear resistance mechanisms in deep beams and
slender beams, the efficiency factor raised as the shear reinforcement
ratio raised in the Group A beams, which were all greater than 1.0. This
indicates that the CFRP-MF stirrups were more effective on confining
the compressed concrete than steel stirrups. The efficiency factor value
trend in Group B and C beams was opposite to that of Group A beams.
In addition, in slender beam when the shear reinforcement ratio of
CFRP-MF was greater than the value that could provide the nominal
equivalent shear contribution of steel stirrups, the efficiency factor
became smaller than 1.0. However, for CFRP-MF reinforced beams that
have the same nominal shear contribution of steel stirrups, the effi-
ciency factor was greater than 1.0, indicating better utilization of the
material strength by CFRP-MF stirrups than steel stirrups.
3.7. Comparison with other studies
This paper conducted a comparison with previous experimental
studies in prismatic concrete beams to further check the feasibility and
14
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828
validity of this type of shear reinforcements. A summary of the previous
results is presented in Table 4 which includes results for shear re-
inforcing RC beams with FRP sheet strip stirrups. For the currently
available experimental results, the stirrups reinforcement ratio ranged
from 0.05% to 0.96% while the concrete compressive strength varied
from 24 to 41 MPa. The shear span/depth ratios remained in a rela-
tively narrow range which was between 2.0 and 3.0. Only one kind of
FRP, i.e. CFRP sheet strips had been used in the previous study as the
shear reinforcement. Lee et al. [15] conducted a study to check the
effectiveness of fiber sheet strips as internal stirrups with 10 concrete
beams. The fiber sheet strips stirrups increased the shear strength of the
specimens by 1.30 to 1.64 times the strength of the specimen with no
stirrup. Fakharifar et al. [16] tested three reinforced concrete beam
specimens implementing the FRP sheets stirrups. They found that the
load carrying capacity of the specimens with FRP sheets stirrups was
higher than the reference specimen with conventional steel stirrups. Lee
et al. [17] tested 12 concrete beams and invested the effect of FRP sheet
stirrups reinforcement ratios for comparative studies. If the difference
in concrete strength was not taken into consideration, the relative in-
crease in shear resistance by the stirrups as the shear reinforcement
ratio doubled was 1.44 on average. Spadea et al. [33] presents experi-
mental studies on six concrete beams implemented with the wound
reinforcement system. The shear strength of concrete beams reinforced
with three layers of wound reinforcement increased by 3.09 times the
W. Li, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

AC BC CC
(a) (b) (c)

AS
BS CS
(d) (e) (f)

A150 B150 C150

(g) (h) (i)

A80 B80 C80

(j) (k) (l)

B55
A55 C55
(m) (n) (o)
Fig. 14. Shear cracking pattern of different specimens at ultimate load monitored by DIC. (a) AC, (b) BC, (c) CC, (d) AS, (e) BS, (f) CS, (g) A150, (h) B150, (i) C150, (j)
A80, (k) B80, (l) C80, (m) A55, (n) B55, and (o) C55.

strength of the specimens without shear reinforcement on average. 4. Shear capacity

When the wound reinforcement increased to eight layers, flexural
failure occurred. Yuan and Wang [18] tested five large-scale concrete
beams with the cross-section of 200 × 500 mm which were shear re-
inforced by handmade FRP strip stirrups. They found that specimens
with inclined stirrups showed 1.19–1.26 times higher shear strengths
than the specimen reinforced with vertical stirrups. Tahir et al. [34]
designed seven full-scale beams (200 × 500 × 2650 mm) to investigate
the shear performance of CFRP sheet strip (CSS) stirrups. The test re-
sults indicated that negative impact on shear capacity was imparted by
increasing the width of CFRP sheet strip (CCS) stirrups from 20 mm to
30 mm. More separated area between the core and cover concrete due
to the larger width of stirrups resulted in early crushing and separation
of cover concrete. The previous experimental results proved the effec-
tiveness of CFRP sheet strip stirrups in enhancing the shear capacity of
RC beams with various inclinations of CFRP sheet strip stirrups. This
study further demonstrated the effects of shear span/depth ratios and
the longitudinal CFRP sheet strips on shear performance for the CFRP-
MF stirrups reinforcing RC beams.
4.1. Predictions of the shear strength and the angle of critical shear crack
The shear provisions of ACI 440.1R-15 [27], CSA S806-12[35] and
CSA S6-14 [29] are used to compare test results and the predicted re-
sults. These three codes are all based on the superposition principle that
the shear strength is the sum of the shear resistance provided by con-
crete and shear reinforcement. In these three codes, only the con-
tribution of transversal CFRP-MF strips is considered and the shear
contribution of longitudinal CFRP-MF strips is taken as portion of safety
reserve in the shear design. The contribution of transversal CFRP-MF
strips is as follows:
Afv d v f fv
Vfv = (cot + cot ) sin
s (4)
where Afv is the total cross-section area of the transversal CFRP-MF
strips per two legs; d v is the effective height of the beam’s cross-section;
f fv is the stress in stirrups; s is the central-to-central spacing of trans-
versal CFRP-MF strips; is the angle of critical diagonal crack and is
the angle of stirrups with respect to the beam axis which is 900 for the

15
W. Li, et al.
Fig. 15. Maximum shear crack width development of different groups. (a) Group A beams, (b) Group B beams, and (c) Group C beams.
CFRP-MF transversal strips. The calculated results based on Eq. (4) are
defined as nominal shear resistance of shear reinforcement as shown in
Table 2 in the presented study.
In these design codes, the traditional truss analogy [36,37] was used
to predict the shear strength of cracked reinforced concrete. However,
the angle of critical diagonal crack ( ) and the stress in stirrups ( f fv ) are
very important to the shear strength predictions. In the shear strength
design codes, the stress in stirrups f fv can be taken as the bent portion
strength of transversal CFRP-MF strips despite of the stress level limits
prescribed by these codes. The ACI 440.1R-15 specifies that the angle of
critical diagonal crack is assumed to be 45 degrees while CSA S806-12
and CSA S6-14 recommend two method based on modified compression
field theory (MCFT) to obtain this angle [38,39]. The tested mean va-
lues of material strength are used in the calculation process and the
reduction factors are set to 1.0.
4.2. Comparison of shear design code predictions with experimental results
The ratios of the shear design codes predictions to the experimental
results as well as the predicted critical shear crack angle are presented
in Table 5. The predicted angle of the critical diagonal crack of Group A
specimens were all lower than the measured angle which was
16
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828
completely opposite in Group C specimens. The predicted angles of the
critical diagonal crack were closer to the measured critical diagonal
crack angles in Group B specimens. As for the shear capacities, all the
prediction to experimental result ratio were larger than one in CSA S6-
14 which means CSA S6-14 could be adopted for the safe design of
beams reinforced with CFRP-MF strips. The CSA S806-12 yields the
most accurate predictions with an average ratio of 0.98, followed by
ACI 440.1R-15 and CSA S6-14, with the average ratio of 1.61 and 1.89,
respectively. It indicates that although CSA S6-14 could give the con-
servative prediction which were safe for the design, it seriously un-
derestimated the shear strength of specimens which causes unnecessary
waste of materials. It should be noted that if the prescription of stress
level limits were adopted in CSA S6-14, more conservative results
would be yielded in the calculation. However, since the stirrups stress
limitation of CSA S806-12 was lower than the bent portion strength of
transversal CFRP-MF strips, the CSA S806-12 could give more con-
servative results if the prescription were adopted. Actually, an average
ratio of 1.08 could be obtained if the strain in the stirrups is limited to
5000 με as per CSA S806-12. Some overestimations by CSA S806-12 still
exist in Group A beams because the strain level of the transversal CFRP-
MF strips are relatively small in the experiment.
W. Li, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

Table 4
Summary of previous studies involving wound FRP shear reinforcement in prismatic concrete beams.
Author/year Specimen Stirrups reinforcement FRP type Stirrups Shear span/ Concrete compressive Failure Vtest (kN) Vn/Vcona
identifier ratio ρw(%) orientation depth ratio strength (Mpa) Modes

Lee et al. [15] C30O 0.400 CFRP 90 2.50 32.5 Sb 128.1 1.62
C30R 0.400 90 2.50 32.5 S 130 1.64
C15 0.200 90 2.50 32.5 S 124.7 1.57
C15RA 0.200 90 2.50 32.5 S 113.3 1.43
C15RB 0.200 90 2.50 32.5 S 120.7 1.52
C30U 0.400 90 2.50 32.5 S 102.6 1.30

Fakharifar et al. BFV 0.052 CFRP 90 2.43 38 S 137.8 -c

[16] BFI 0.050 45 2.43 38 S 134.4 –

Lee et al. [17] B1CR1602 0.380 CFRP 90 2.50 24 S 113.5 2.16

B1CR3101 0.370 90 2.50 24 S 112.5 2.14
B2CR1804 0.960 90 2.50 30 S 143.5 2.37
B2CR2403 0.960 90 2.50 30 S 152 2.51

Spadea et al. [33] Ⅱ0.1 0.312 CFRP 90/45 2.50 34.8 S 57.9 2.98
Ⅱ0.2 0.312 90/45 2.50 34.8 S 62.15 3.20
III.1 0.528 90/45 2.50 34.8 F 74.6 3.84
III.2 0.528 90/45 2.50 34.8 F 75.15 3.86

Yuan and Wang F90-200 0.370 CFRP 90 2.26 41 S 277 –

[18] F45-200 0.523 45 2.26 41 S 331 –
F60-200 0.430 60 2.26 41 S 352 –
F90/65–200 0.400 90/65 2.26 41 S 340 –
F90-100 0.740 90 2.26 41 F 381 –

Tahir et al. [34] CSS20-90 0.250 CFRP 90 2.30 40 S 392.5 –

CSS30-90 0.250 90 2.30 40 S 372 –
CSS20-45 0.250 45 2.30 40 S 376 –
CSS20-60 0.250 60 2.30 40 S 388.5 –
CSS20-90/64 0.250 90/64 2.30 40 S 369 –

Note: aVnon/Vcon represents the ratio of shear strength provided by reinforced beam divided by the control beam. The control beam is the concrete beam without any
shear reinforcement; bS means shear failure mode while F stands for flexural failure mode; c- The presented study does not have any concrete beams without shear
reinforcement.

Table 5 reinforced concrete beams. The geometry of elements with their ma-
Comparison of experimental and predicted results. terials and related constraints, such as boundary conditions, applying
Specimens Vu (kN) (degrees)
loads and the contacts between the different surfaces were all included
Vu/ Vpre pre (degrees)
in the finite element model. In order to confirm the accuracy and ef-
ACI CSA CSA CSA CSA fectiveness of the experimental data for illustrating the shear behaviour
440.1R- S6-14 S806- S6-14 S806- of these concrete beams, depiction of load versus deflection plots,
15 12 12 failure loads and cracking patterns made by the numerical predictions
AC 253 39 3.80 4.81 0.98 31 36 were compared to the test results in this study.
AS 258 41 2.66 2.87 0.87 32 37
A150 260 38 2.86 3.16 0.90 32 36
A80 272 43 2.43 2.52 0.87 32 37 5.1. Materials
A55 282 42 2.13 2.13 0.84 33 38
BC 74 23 1.12 1.59 1.16 32 33
BS 108 34 1.11 1.34 1.03 33 34 For the purpose of descripting the concrete’s non-linear behavior,
B150 112 32 1.24 1.52 1.16 33 34 SBETA model is used which includes 20 parameters automatically de-
B80 124 29 1.11 1.28 1.01 34 35 fined by informing concrete’s cubic strength (fcu). Concrete behaviors
B55 129 30 0.97 1.09 0.88 35 36
such as tension and compression softening, biaxial strength failure
CC 58 27 0.87 1.30 1.05 32 33
CS 94 27 0.97 1.22 0.99 34 35 criterion, compressive strength reduction after cracking and tension
C150 97 31 1.07 1.37 1.11 34 34 stiffening are implemented with formulations [40]. For steel re-
C80 109 25 0.98 1.18 0.97 35 36 inforcement behavior, it’s possible to consider as bilinear modeling. For
C55 118 26 0.89 1.04 0.87 36 37 CFRP-MF behavior, it’s better to consider as linear modeling. Interface
element is used to model the contact between the reinforcement (in-
Note: Vu= shear strength; Vpre= predicted shear strength; = measured angle of
cluding both the steel bars and CFRP-MF) and the concrete. The bond
critical diagonal crack; pre= predicted angle of critical diagonal crack.
law which is implemented in the bond stress-slip relationship of steel
bars and concrete is CEB-FIP Model 1993 [42]. The bond stress-slip
5. Finite elements analysis
function used to simulate the bond behavior of CFRP-MF and concrete
is defined by using the simplified bond-slip model for FRP externally
Finite element analysis of the beam specimens was performed using
bonded to concrete developed by Lu et al. [43]. However, it should be
the finite element package, ATENA 2D. ATENA contains many new
noted that since the CFRP-MF is bonded to concrete in two sides while
materials, solution methods and other capabilities for analysis of con-
the externally bonded FRP to concrete is only contacted to concrete in
crete and reinforced concrete structures [40]. It is a typical finite ele-
one side, the bond surface area of CFRP-MF is two times than that of
ment-based software which is usually used for nonlinear analysis of
externally bonded FRP. All properties for element are shown in Table 6.
reinforced concrete [41]. Beams were modelled in two dimensions to
simulate the nonlinear shear behaviour of the CFRP-MF stirrups

17
W. Li, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

Table 6 Table 7
Summary of finite element modeling parameter settings. Summary of experimental and finite element modeling results.
Material Parameter Adopted Value Unit Experimental Experimental value FEA predicted value Absolute
beam Max Deflection at Max Deflection at difference of
Concrete Ec 31.61 GPa load max load load max load Max load
0.2 – (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
fc 28.22 MPa
ft 2.479 MPa AC 505.2 3.1 508.3 3.3 0.6%
BC 148.6 3.9 137.5 2.3 7.5%
CFRP-MF Ef 235 GPa CC 115.6 4.6 117.3 5.6 1.5%
ff 2500 MPa AS 515.8 3.4 560.2 3.5 8.6%
BS 215.8 4.6 216.9 5.0 0.5%
CS 187.2 6.1 193.3 6.6 3.3%
A150 519.8 3.7 551.1 3.8 6.0%
5.2. Model description B150 224.4 4.9 209.0 4.6 6.9%
C150 193.8 6.3 187.6 6.1 3.2%
Concrete was modelled using 2D solid element while the re- A80 544.6 3.9 592.7 4.3 8.8%
inforcement was modelled using truss element that resists axial tensile B80 247.6 5.2 250.5 4.7 1.2%
C80 218.6 6.5 207.1 7.0 5.3%
stresses only. In order to ensure convergence during the analysis while
A55 564.2 4.6 550.6 4.0 2.4%
minimizing the computational time, a mesh sensitivity analysis was B55 258.6 5.9 247.8 5.9 4.2%
conducted in which different element sizes were applied before se- C55 235.2 7.5 231.8 7.5 1.4%
lecting the mesh configuration shown in Fig. 16. The two-dimensional Avg 4.09%
elements used to model concrete in the selected mesh were 20 mm in
length. The reinforcements which were modeled by truss elements had
similar dimensions to match those of concrete. (a) The failure mode of the concrete beams reinforced with CFRP-MF
still depended on the shear span/depth ratio of concrete beams.
CFRP-MF ruptured either near the flexural reinforcement or
5.3. Experimental and numerical comparison crossing by the dominate diagonal cracks.
(b) CFRP-MF stirrups with ρf of 0.036% could provide larger shear
The above-mentioned numerical procedure was adopted to perform resistance as well as beam capacity than those by steel stirrups with
numerical analysis. By comparing the results of the numerical analysis ρs of 0.293% in each group. Greater shear reinforcement ratio by
with the experimental results, the FE models were verified. The ex- decreasing the stirrups spacing could result in lower utilization
perimental and numerical results in terms of maximum load and the ratio of CFRP-MF stirrups in terms of smaller averaged tensile strain
corresponding mid-span deflections for the tested specimens are sum- and stress.
marized in Table 7. It can be noticed that the experimental and nu- (c) For serviceability, at the 0.5 mm crack width limit, the average
merical results are matched well. The average absolute difference be- values of strain for CFRP-MF stirrups with ρf of 0.097% can be in-
tween the experimental and numerical results in terms of maximum creased up to 0.005 which are more than two times of the existing
load is 4.09%. To verify the accuracy of the FE models in capturing the strain limit of FRP rods stirrups. However, more test results are
nonlinear responses of the specimens, the load–deflection responses required to be further justified experimentally in the future.
were also compared. Fig. 17 shows a typical comparison for beams BS (d) CFRP-MF stirrups were turned out to be more effective at confining
and A80 which indicates a good correlation between the numerical and core concrete than steel stirrups thereby obtaining a larger effi-
experimental plots. By comparing the cracking patterns as observed ciency factor in deep beams. In slender beams, a higher amount of
experimentally and numerically for selected tested beams, the accuracy CFRP-MF stirrups adversely affected the effectiveness of the shear
of the FE models was further validated. The diagonal shear crack of resistance provided by the stirrups, which induced a lower effi-
beam A80 and BS that developed between the loading point and the ciency factor.
support as shown in Fig. 18 indicated that a high accuracy of the FE (e) The shear design provisions in CSA S6-14 produced safe predictions
models. for the shear strength of concrete beams reinforced with CFRP-MF
strips stirrups while CSA S806-12 provided the most accurate esti-
mation of the shear strength. The strain limit of 0.5% in CSA S806-
6. Conclusions 12 cannot ensure a safe design for shear strength of concrete beams
shear reinforced by CFRP-MF strips.
In this paper, 15 concrete beam specimens were cast and tested to (f) The developed FE models gave reasonable results which agreed
study the shear performance of concrete beams that were shear re- well with the experimental results in terms of load-deflection re-
inforced by CFRP-MF. The test variables included the shear span/depth lationships, maximum load and cracking pattern.
ratio and the shear reinforcement ratio. The main conclusions drawn
from this investigation are summarized as follows:

Fig. 16. Finite element model for experiment beam B150.

18
W. Li, et al. Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828

250 700
BS A80
BS-FEM 600 A80-FEM
200
500

150

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

400

300
100

200
50
100

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 17. Load-deflection response for experimental results and FE models: (a) specimen BS and (b) specimen A80.

Fig. 18. Crack patterns at failure: (a) specimen A80 DIC cracking pattern, (b) specimen A80 numerical cracking pattern, (c) specimen BS DIC cracking pattern and (d)
specimen BS numerical cracking pattern.

CRediT authorship contribution statement manuscript entitled.

Weiwen Li: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology.

Shiying Tang: Software, Validation, Visualization. Zeqi Huang: Data
curation, Formal analysis. Xu Yang: Funding acquisition, Investigation,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Tiansheng Shi:
Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Feng Xing: Resources.
Declaration of Competing Interest
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express thanks to the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Project Nos. 51678365, 51878415 and
51908373) for funding this research.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships
with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
our work, there is no professional or other personal interest of any doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110828.
nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be
construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the

19
W. Li, et al.
References
[1] Al-Saadi NTK, Mohammed A, Al-Mahaidi R, Sanjayan J. A state-of-the-art review:
Near-surface mounted FRP composites for reinforced concrete structures. Constr
Build Mater 2019;209:748–69.
[2] Salah-Eldin A, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B. Axial-Flexural Performance of High-
Strength-Concrete Bridge Compression Members Reinforced with Basalt-FRP Bars
and Ties: Experimental and Theoretical Investigation. J Bridge Eng
2019;24(7):04019069.
[3] Zheng Y, Zhou L, Taylor SE, Ma H. Serviceability of one-way high-volume fly ash-
self-compacting concrete slabs reinforced with basalt FRP bars. Constr Build Mater
2019;217:108–27.
[4] Duic J, Kenno S, Das S. Performance of concrete beams reinforced with basalt fibre
composite rebar. Constr Build Mater 2018;176:470–81.
[5] Li W, Leung CKY. Effect of shear span-depth ratio on mechanical performance of RC
beams strengthened in shear with U-wrapping FRP strips. Compos Struct
2017;177:141–57.
[6] Li W, Leung CKY. Shear span–depth ratio effect on behavior of RC beam shear
strengthened with full-wrapping FRP strip. J Compos Constr 2015;20(3):04015067.
[7] El-Sayed AK, El-Salakawy E, Benmokrane B. Mechanical and structural character-
ization of new carbon FRP stirrups for concrete members. J Compos Constr
2007;11(4):352–62.
[8] Ahmed Ehab A, El-Sayed Ahmed K. El-Salakawy Ehab, Benmokrane Brahim. Bend
strength of FRP stirrups: Comparison and evaluation of testing methods. J Compos
Constr 2009;14(1):3–10.
[9] Kim DJ, Kim MS, Choi J, Kim H, Scanlon A, Lee YH. Concrete Beams with Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Shear Reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2014;111(4).
[10] Adam MA, Said M, Mahmoud AA, Shanour AS. Analytical and experimental flexural
behavior of concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymers bars.
Constr Build Mater 2015;84:354–66.
[11] Said M, Adam MA, Mahmoud AA, Shanour AS. Experimental and analytical shear
evaluation of concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymers bars.
Constr Build Mater 2016;102:574–91.
[12] Lee C, Ko M, Lee Y. Bend strength of complete closed-type carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer stirrups with rectangular section. J Compos Constr 2013;18(1):04013022.
[13] Japan Society of Civil Engineering (JSCE). Recommendation for design and con-
struction of concrete structures using continuous fiber reinforcing materials. Tokyo,
1997.
[14] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Guide for the design and construction of con-
crete reinforced with FRP bars. ACI 440.1R-06, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006.
[15] Lee C, Kim JY, Heo SY. Experimental observation on the effectiveness of fiber sheet
strip stirrups in concrete beams. J Compos Constr 2010;14(5):487–97.
[16] Fakharifar M, Dalvand A, Sharbatdar MK, Chen G, Sneed L. Innovative hybrid re-
inforcement constituting conventional longitudinal steel and FRP stirrups for im-
proved seismic strength and ductility of RC structures. Frontiers of Structural and
Civil Engineering 2016;10(1):44–62.
[17] Lee C, Lee S, Shin S. Shear capacity of RC beams with carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer stirrups with rectangular section. J Compos Constr 2016;20(4):04015085.
[18] Yuan Y, Wang Z. Shear behavior of large-scale concrete beams reinforced with
CFRP bars and handmade strip stirrups. Compos Struct 2019;227:111253.
[19] Wu G, Wu ZS, Luo YB, Sun ZY. Mechanical properties of steel-FRP composite bar
under uniaxial and cyclic tensile loads. J Mater Civ Eng 2010;22(10):1056–66.
[20] Sun ZY, Yang Y, Qin WH, Ren ST. Experimental study on flexural behavior of
concrete beams reinforced by steel-fiber reinforced polymer composite bars. J Reinf
20
Engineering Structures 218 (2020) 110828
Plast Compos 2012;31(24):1737–45.
[21] Zhou Y, Zheng Y, Pan J, Sui L, Xing F, Sun H, et al. Experimental investigations on
corrosion resistance of innovative steel-FRP composite bars using X-ray micro-
computed tomography. Compos B Eng 2019;161:272–84.
[22] CMC. Code for Design of Concrete Structures (GB50010-2010). China Ministry of
Construction: Beijing; 2010 (in Chinese).
[23] Zhao D, Pan J, Zhou Y, Sui L, Ye Z. New types of steel-FRP composite bar with round
steel bar inner core: Mechanical properties and bonding performances in concrete.
Constr Build Mater 2020;242:118062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2020.118062.
[24] National China. Standardization Management Committee (CNSMC). Chinese test
method for the directional tensile properties of oriented fiber reinforced plastics.
Beijing Planning Press. Bejing 1999. (in Chinese).
[25] Kong FK, Evans RH. Reinforced and prestressed concrete. third Ed. London:
Chapman and Hall; 1987.
[26] Wight, J. K., Richart, F.E., and MacGregor, J.G. Reinforced Concrete- Mechanics
and Design (6th Ed.)”. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.J. 07458, US.
[27] ACI Committee 440. Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced
with FRP bars. ACI 440.1R-15, Farmington Hills, MI, 2015.
[28] British Institution of Structural Engineers (BISE). (1999). “Interim guidance on the
design of reinforced concrete structures using fiber composite reinforcement.”
IStructE, SETO Ltd, London.
[29] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Canadian highway bridge design code.
CAN/CSA S6-14, 2014, Toronto.
[30] Hu B, Wu YF. Quantification of shear cracking in reinforced concrete beams. Eng
Struct 2017;147:666–78.
[31] Ahmed EA, El-Salakawy EF, Benmokrane B. Shear performance of RC bridge girders
reinforced with carbon FRP stirrups. J Bridge Eng 2009;15(1):44–54.
[32] Shehata E, Morphy R, Rizkalla S. Fibre reinforced polymer shear reinforcement for
concrete members: behaviour and design guidelines. Can J Civ Eng
2000;27(5):859–72.
[33] Spadea S, Orr J, Nanni A, Yang Y. Wound FRP shear reinforcement for concrete
structures. J Compos Constr 2017;21(5):04017026.
[34] Tahir M, Wang Z, Ali KM, Isleem HF. Shear behavior of concrete beams reinforced
with CFRP sheet strip stirrups using wet-layup technique. Structures
2019;22:43–52.
[35] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Design and construction of building struc-
tures with fibre-reinforced polymers. CAN/CSAS806-12, Toronto; 2012.
[36] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. John Wiley and Sons; 1975.
[37] MacGregor JG, Wight JK, Teng S, Irawan P. Reinforced concrete: Mechanics and
design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1997.
[38] Hoult NA, Sherwood EG, Bentz EC, Collins MP. Does the use of FRP reinforcement
change the one-way shear behavior of reinforced concrete slabs. J Compos Constr
2008;12(2):125–33.
[39] Razaqpur AG, Spadea S. Shear strength of FRP reinforced concrete members with
stirrups. J Compos Constr 2014;19(1):04014025.
[40] Cervenka V, Jendele L, Cervenka J. ATENA Program Documentation-Theory.
Prague: Cervenka Consulting; 2012.
[41] Cervenka V, Cervenka J, Pukl R. ATENA—A tool for engineering analysis of fracture
in concrete. Sadhana 2002;27(4):485–92.
[42] CEB-FIP C. Model Code 1990 for Concrete Structures, Comite Euro-International du
Beton and Federation Internationale de la Pr econtrainte. 1993.
[43] Lu XZ, Teng JG, Ye LP, Jiang JJ. Bond-Slip Models for FRP Sheets/plates Bonded to
Concrete. Eng Struct 2005;27(6):920–37.