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

net/publication/283889609

Deflection Behaviour of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Different Types of

GFRP Bars

Chapter · December 2011

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-17487-2_59

CITATIONS READS

2 639

3 authors:

Sherif E El-Gamal Bahira Abdulsalam

Sultan Qaboos University CIISolutions Composites Infrastructure Innovation Solutions Corp
50 PUBLICATIONS   938 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   137 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Brahim Benmokrane
Université de Sherbrooke
585 PUBLICATIONS   13,549 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

FRP Reinforcements for Concrete Structures: Design, Testing, and Field Applications View project

RC Columns Internally Reinforced with FRP Bars and Ties View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bahira Abdulsalam on 18 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CICE 2010 - The 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering
September 27-29, 2010, Beijing, China

Deflection Behaviour of Concrete Beams Reinforced with

Different Types of GFRP Bars
S. El-Gamal, B. AbdulRahman, & B. Benmokrane (Brahim.Benmokrane@USherbrooke.ca)
NSERC Research Chair, Department of Civil Eng., University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada

ABSTRACT GFRP bars are non noncorrosive reinforcing materials having relatively lower tensile modulus
compared to steel. The design of flexural concrete members reinforced with GFRP bars are usually governed by
serviceability limits, deflection, and crack width. This paper describes an experimental study conducted to investigate
the deflection behavior of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars. The bars came from three different
manufacturers. A total of 8 beams measuring 4250 mm long ×200 mm wide×400 mm deep were built and tested up to
failure under four-point bending. The study’s main parameters were reinforcement type (GFRP and steel) and amount
(three reinforcement ratios). The midspan deflection of all the beams tested were recorded and compared. The test
results were used to assess the equations in different FRP codes and guidelines.
KEY WORDS

1 INTRODUCTION application of load shall be computed by methods based

GFRP reinforcing bars offer advantages not available on the integration of curvature at sections along the span.
with steel reinforcement due to their noncorrosive nature The moment–curvature relation of FRP reinforced
and magnetic transparency. Special considerations concrete members shall be assumed to be tri-linear with
should be made in the design of GFRP reinforcing the slope of the three segments being EcIg, zero, and
concrete members resulting from the relatively lower EcIcr. For the case of two-point loading of P/2 on a
modulus of elasticity of GFRP bars compared to steel simple span, L, with a shear span, a, the deflection is
bars. As a result, GFRP-reinforced concrete members calculated according to Eq. 1.
after cracking have relatively less stiffness than steel- ª §a· §L · º
3 3
PL3 §a·
reinforced members. Consequently, deflection and crack G max «3 ¨ ¸  4 ¨ ¸  8K ¨ g ¸ » (1a)
width calculations under service loads usually govern 48 Ec I cr «¬ © L ¹ © L¹ © L ¹ »¼
the design. North American codes and guidelines for
designing FRP-reinforced concrete require that deflection § I cr ·
K 1 ¨ ¸¸ (1b)
be computed. The deflection calculation of flexural ¨I
© g ¹
members provided in these codes are mainly based on
equations derived from linear elastic analysis using an where Gmax is the midspan deflection (mm), L is the span
effective moment of inertia, Ie, given by Branson’s (mm), a is the shear span (mm), Ec is the modulus of
formula, first published in 1965. Many researchers have elasticity of concrete (MPa), Icr is the moment of inertia
suggested different modifications to Branson’s equation of cracked section transformed to concrete (mm4), and
to make it more suitable for FRP- reinforced concrete Lg is the uncracked length (mm).
members. 2.2 ACI 440.1R-06
This paper presents an experimental investigation into ACI 440.1R-06 uses an effective moment of inertia
the deflection behavior of concrete beams reinforced formulation, Ie, to compute the deflection of cracked
with different types and ratios of FRP bars. In addition,
FRP-reinforced–concrete beams and one-way slabs
the deflection equations provided in CSA S806-2002,
based on an empirical expression originally developed
ACI 440.1R-2006, and the ACI 440-2010 ballot were
for steel-reinforced concrete. The procedure entails
evaluated.
calculating a uniform moment of inertia throughout the
beam length and uses deflection equations derived from
2 CURRENT DEFLECTION PROVISIONS linear elastic analysis. The effective moment of inertia,
2.1 CAN/CSA S806-02 Ie, is based on semi-empirical considerations and, despite
Clause 8.3.2 in the CAN/CSA S806-02 (CSA S806 2002) some doubt about its applicability to conventional
states that deflections that occur immediately on reinforced-concrete members subjected to complex

L. Ye et al. (eds.), Advances in FRP Composites in Civil Engineering

© Tsinghua University Press, Beijing and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
280 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering

loading and boundary conditions, it has yielded Table 1 Mechanical properties of the reinforcing bars
satisfactory results in most practical applications over Bar Type db Area Modulus of Guaranteed
the years. ACI 440.1R-06 uses Eq. 2 to calculate the (mm) (mm2) Elasticity Strength+
deflection of FRP-reinforced concrete members: (GPa) (MPa)
3
ª § M ·3 º Steel 15M 16 200 200 fy* = 453
§ M cr ·
¸ E d I g  «1  ¨ ¸ » I cr
cr
Ie ¨ (2a) #5 16 199 48.1 684
M
© a ¹ « © M ¹ »¼
¬ a
GFRP-1 #6 19 284 47.6 656

1§ Uf · #7 22 387 46.4 693

Ed ¨ ¸ d1 (2b)
5 ¨© U fb ¸¹ GFRP-2 #5 16 199 41.2 660
GFRP-3 #5 16 199 60.0 1130
where Ie is the effective moment of inertia (mm4), Mcr is *
fy is the yield strength of the steel bars.
the cracking moment (N mm), Ma is the applied moment +
Average tensile strength – 3 times the standard deviation.
(N mm), Ig is the moment of inertia of gross section
(mm4), and Uf and Ufb are the actual and balanced 2.5 Beam specimens and test setup
reinforcement ratio, respectively. Eight full-scale concrete beams, measuring 4250 mm
2.3 ACI 440 2010 ballot longu200 mm wide u 400 mm deep (see Figure 1), were
Based on the work of Bischoff and Scanlon (2007), a constructed. All the beams were reinforced in the
ballot taken by ACI 440 Committee (February 2010) compression side with two steel bars (I 10 mm). On the
proposed using Eq. 3 to calculate deflection: tension side, the beams were reinforced with different
types and numbers of reinforcing bars. The beams were
I cr
Ie 2
d Ig (3a) divided into four groups. Each group was designed to
§M · ª I º investigate one parameter among 1) bar type, 2)
1  J ¨ cr ¸ «1  cr »
© M a ¹ «¬ I g »¼ reinforcement ratio with a similar bar diameter and
different spacing, 3) reinforcement ratio with different
J 1.72  0.72( M cr / M a ) (3b) diameters and similar spacing, and 4) beams of similar
All parameters are as in Eq. 2. axial stiffness (see Table 2).

2.4 Materials Table 2 Test matrix

Three different types of GFRP bars referred to as Parameter ID Type of No. of Area U
Group
GFRP-1 (V-ROD Standard) (#5, #6, and #7), GFRP-2 Bars Bars (mm2) (%)
(#5) (Aslan-100) and GFRP-3 (#5) (Combar), — 1 Type of G-V-3#5 GFRP-1 3#5 594 0.84
manufactured by Pultrall, Hughes Brothers, and Schöck reinf. G-A-3#5 GFRP-2 3#5 594 0.84
respectively—were used. Figure 1 shows the three types
G-Co-3#5 GFRP-3 3#5 594 0.84
of GFRP bars used in this study. No. 15M steel bars
St-3#5 Steel 3#5 600 0.84
were used in one beam for comparison.
2 Reinf. Ratio G-V-2#5 GFRP-1 2#5 396 0.56
(same G-V-3#5 3#5 594 0.84
diameter)
G-V-4#5 4#5 792 1.12
3 Reinf. Ratio G-V-2#5 GFRP-1 2#5 396 0.56
(different G-V-2#6 2#6 570 0.81
diameters)
Figure 1 The three types of GFRP bars used in the study G-V-2#7 2#7 776 1.11
4 Similar G-V-3#5 GFRP-1 3#5 594 0.84
The mechanical properties of the FRP reinforcement axial G-V-2#6 2#6 570 0.81
bars were determined by tensile testing of representative stiffness
G-V-4#5 4#5 792 1.12
specimens in accordance with ACI 440 3R-04. Table 1
G-V-2#7 2#7 776 1.11
summarizes these properties.
Based on the values of modulus of elasticity, the three
tested types of GFRP bars were classified as Grade I Five linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs)
(GFRP-1 and GFRP-2) and Grade III (GFRP-3) were installed on each beam to measure deflections at
according to the new CSA S807-09 (2010) specification different beam locations (Figure 2). In addition, one
for fibre-reinforced polymers. Grade I requires a high-accuracy LVDT was installed at the position of the
minimum modulus of elasticity of 40 GPa, while Grade first crack to measure crack width. Furthermore, several
III requires 60 GPa. electrical-resistance strain gauges were used to measure
September 27–29, 2010, Beijing, China 281

strain in the reinforcing bars and at the top surface of the

concrete.
All beams were tested under four-point bending. The
load was monotonically applied with a displacement
control rate of 1.2 mm/min. During loading, crack
formation on the side surface of the deck slabs were
marked and recorded. Figure 2 illustrates the test setup,
while Figure 3 is a photo of a beam during testing.

Figure 4 Load–midspan deflection of beams in group 1

Figure 2 Dimensions and instrumentation of tested beams Figure 5 Load–midspan deflection of beams in group 2

Figure 6 Load–midspan deflection of beams in group 3

Figure 3 View of beam during testing (Beam G-V-2#7)

3 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Load–deflection curves
The experimental load to midspan deflection curves of
the steel and GFRP reinforced concrete beams are
presented in Figures 4 to 7. Each curve represents the
average of two deflection readings obtained from two
LVDTs at beam midspan. The load–midspan deflections
curves were bilinear for all FRP-reinforced beams. The Figure 7 Load–midspan deflection of beams in group 4
first part of the curve up to cracking represents the
behavior of the uncracked beams. The second part concrete beams evidenced wider cracks than the steel-
represents the behavior of the cracked beams with reinforced concrete beam. Consequently they exhibited
reduced stiffness. The cracking loads for all greater midspan deflections (see Figure 4). It can also be
FRP-reinforced beams ranged from 15 to 20 kN. The seen that, as the modulus of elasticity of the GFRP bars
value was slightly higher for the steel-reinforced beam: decreased, the reinforcement’s axial stiffness decreased,
26.3 kN. leading to increased midspan deflections. At 35 kN—
For the beams in group 1, the GFRP-reinforced about twice the cracking load—the midspan deflections
282 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering

were 3.6, 11.7, 10.6, and 8.8 mm for beams St-3#5, Table 3 Experimental and predicted deflections
G-A-3#5, G-V-3#5, and G-Co-3#5, respectively. Beam ID Measured Predicted Midspan Deflection,
Figure 5 and 6 show that, for the same type of bars, the Midspan (mm)
midspan deflection increased as the reinforcement ratio Deflection, Eq.1 Eq.2 Eq.3
decreased. Increasing the reinforcement ratio, however, (mm)
(Pred./Exp.) (Pred./Exp.) (Pred./Exp.)
increased the ultimate capacity of the beams.
1.2 2 1.2 2 1.2 2 1.2 2
At about twice the cracking load, increasing the
Mcr* Mcr* Mcr* Mcr* Mcr* Mcr* Mcr* Mcr*
tensile reinforcement from 2 #5 bars to 3 and 4 #5 bars
decreased the midspan deflection from 12.5 to 10.6 and 8.5 17.2 9.1 17.5 5.9 15.3 3.95 13.17
G-V-3#5
to 6.3 mm, respectively. For the beams in group 3, (1.07) (1.02) (0.69) (0.89) (0.46) (0.77)
increasing the reinforcement from 2 #5 bars to 2 #6 and 8.7 19.3 10.1 19.5 5.6 16.2 4.31 14.6
G-A-3#5
to 2 #7 bars decreased the midspan deflection from 12.5 (1.16) (1.01) (0.64) (0.83) (0.50) (0.76)
to 9.5 and 8.2 mm, respectively. Figure 7 shows a 6.6 13.7 6.9 13.3 3.3 10.4 3.18 10.12
G-Co-3#5
comparison between midspan deflections of two pairs of (1.05) (0.97) (0.5) (0.76) (0.48) (0.74)
beams whose tension reinforcement evidenced similar G-V-2#5 9.7 21.5 13.0 25.2 8.7 22.3 5.36 18.73
axial stiffness (G-V-3#5 and G-V-2#6) and (G-V-4#5 and (1.34) (1.17) (0.90) (1.04) (0.55) (0.87)
G-V-2#7). Beams G-V-3#5 and G-V-2#6 had similar G-V-4#5 4.6 11.1 6.1 13.3 3.9 11.2 4.31 9.53
load–midspan deflection up to failure. Beam G-V-4#5,
(1.32) (1.20) (0.85) (1.01) (0.94) (0.86)
however, showed less midspan deflection than beam
G-V-2#6 6.9 17.3 8.6 17.8 5.3 15.0 2.71 12.47
G-V-2#7. This indicates that using more bars of smaller
(1.24) (1.03) (0.77) (0.87) (0.39) (0.72)
diameter was more efficient than a smaller number of
larger bars. This phenomenon could be explained by G-V-2#7 5.6 15.0 6.7 13.7 3.9 11.5 2.27 9.73
enhanced bond, better cracking performance by lowering (1.19) (0.91) (0.70) (0.77) (0.41) (0.65)
reinforcement spacing, and the higher tension stiffening Average (Pred./Exp.) 1.19 1.04 0.72 0.88 0.53 0.77
provided by FRP bars of smaller diameter. These factors * For comparison, Mcr was taken as the average experimental value from all
beams (17 kN·m – without Mself weight).
contributed to beam stiffness, which was evidenced in
lower mid-span deflection.
3.2 Predicted Deflections 4 CONCLUSIONS
Table 3 shows a comparison between the midspan The use of smaller-diameter GFRP bars yielded better
deflections of the tested beams and those predicted from deflection enhancement than larger-diameter bars for the
same reinforcement ratio. Higher beam stiffness was
Eqs. 1, 2, and 3. The accuracy of the calculated cracking
observed when increasing the reinforcement ratio, either
moment, Mcr, is key to the accuracy of the deflection
by using more bars or larger-diameter bars. In terms of
calculations. The controlling variable for predicting
deflection prediction, CAN/CSA S806-02 showed very
cracking moment is the modulus of rupture of concrete,
good agreement with the experimental results for the
fr. The modulus of rupture used to calculate the Mcr in
three types of GFRP bars. Based on the comparison at
Eqs. 1, 2, and 3 was taken from the corresponding code
1.2 Mcr and 2.0 Mcr, both ACI.440.1R-06 and ACI 440
or guideline as given below in Eq. (4): ballot underestimated the deflection values, although the
For Eq. 1, fr 0.6O f c' (4a) former gave a better prediction.
For Eqs. 2 and 3, fr 0.62O f c' (4b)
where fr is the modulus of rupture (MPa); f is the ' REFERENCES
c
concrete compressive strength (MPa); and O is a factor ACI 2006. ACI 440.1R-06: Guide for the design and construction
accounting for concrete density. For normal-density of concrete reinforced with FRP bars, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA.
concrete, O = 1.
CSA 2002. Standard CAN/CSA-S806-02: Design and Construction
The moment due to beam self-weight (3.17 kN·m)
of Building Components with Fibre-Reinforced Polymers,
was included in the analysis. Table 3 shows that, at 1.2
Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Ontario.
Mcr (applied moment right after cracking) and at 2.0 Mcr CSA 2010. Standard CAN/CSA-S807-09: Specification for Fibre-
(around the service-load level), Eq. 1 (the CSA/S806 Reinforced Polymers, Canadian Standards Association,
equation) gave very good yet conservative predictions of Toronto, Ontario.
deflection compared to the measured values. Equations Bischoff, P.H., and Scanlon, A. 2007. Effective Moment of Inertia
2 and 3 (the current ACI 440.1R-06 equation and that for Calculating Deflections of Concrete Members Containing
proposed by ACI 440), however, underestimated Steel Reinforcement and FRP Reinforcement, ACI Structural
deflection at 1.2 Mcr and 2.0 Mcr. Journal, V. 104, No. 1, pp. 68–75.

View publication stats