Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1360–1367

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Analysis of cracking behaviour and tension stiffening in FRP reinforced concrete

tensile elements
M. Baena ⇑, Ll. Torres, A. Turon, C. Miàs
Analysis and Advanced Materials for Structural Design (AMADE), Polytechnic School, University of Girona, Campus Montilivi s/n, 17071 Girona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The differences in mechanical and bond properties of FRP bars when compared to those of traditional
Received 3 May 2012 steel reinforcement for reinforced concrete (RC) structures may affect the cracking and deformability
Received in revised form 5 July 2012 behaviour of FRP RC members. To analyse this cracking behaviour, the reinforcement strain profile along
Accepted 16 July 2012
a reinforcing bar has been experimentally recorded by using a specially manufactured reinforced con-
Available online 24 July 2012
crete element in tension, in which the FRP reinforcement was internally strain gauged. Furthermore, a
general procedure derived from a cracking analysis based on slip and bond stresses has been used to
Keywords:
study the deformability of FRP reinforced concrete elements under tension. The tension stiffening effect
A. Glass fibres/carbon fibres
C. Analytical modelling
is included via the experimental nonlinear bond–slip law obtained from pull-out test of an experimental
D. Mechanical testing programme previously published. The comparison between numerical predictions of the reinforcement
E. Surface treatments strain profile along the reinforcing bar during a tensile test and experimental data confirms that the
bond-based model adequately reproduces the redistribution of stresses after crack formation. To further
prove the model reliability, numerical predictions of the load–mean strain relationship are compared to
previously reported experimental data on FRP RC tensile elements and predictions furnished by the mod-
els usually adopted for the analysis of FRP reinforced concrete structures.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction FRP reinforcement and concrete. As a consequence, the bond be-

To enhance the durability of reinforced concrete (RC) structures,
fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) materials have been increasingly
used in recent decades. The differences in their mechanical and
bond properties, when compared to those of traditional steel rein-
forcement, may affect the serviceability design of FRP RC struc-
tures. Therefore, the correct modelling of their cracking and
deformability behaviour is of major importance. The structural
behaviour of reinforced concrete members is affected by the inter-
action between the reinforcing bar and the surrounding concrete.
This interaction allows the concrete between cracks to contribute
to carry tensile stresses and provides stiffness, which is known as
the tension stiffening effect. Therefore, the response of reinforced
concrete is strongly dependent on the bond forces that appear be-
tween the concrete and the reinforcement, and how these forces
are transferred from one material to the other. This bond behaviour
is commonly described through a relationship between the bond
stress and the relative slip of the bar, which is known as the
bond–slip law. Contrary to what happens with steel, commercially
available FRP rebars present different geometrical (and mechani-
cal) properties and a different interaction mechanism between
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 972 41 95 17; fax: +34 972 41 80 98.
E-mail address: marta.baena@udg.edu (M. Baena).
tween FRP bars and concrete is affected, yielding to different
bond–slip laws [1–3].
The cracking behaviour of reinforced concrete structures has
been widely studied for traditional steel-reinforced concrete struc-
tures [4]. Some models evaluate the deformability of the structure
using an effective cross-sectional area (effective moment of inertia
for flexural elements) [5,6] which is determined by a combination
of the gross area and the cracked area. As an alternative, some
other models modify the constitutive equation of either the rein-
forcing material ([7,8] for steel reinforcement) or the concrete
[9–13]. These models are usually dependent on geometrical and
mechanical parameters such as reinforcement ratio and modular
ratio, among others. However, they cannot be directly extended
to FRP RC structures, particularly in the serviceability analysis
where FRP materials’ higher deformability influences the RC
mechanical behaviour. Furthermore, the nature of these models
does not allow the singularities of the interaction between the
reinforcing bar surface and the concrete (bond–slip) to be specifi-
cally accounted for. However, this interaction can be taken into
account using models where member deformability is evaluated
by a nonlinear analysis using a specific bond–slip law. Some of
these bond models are based on the solution of the system of dif-
ferential equations, which arise from the analytical study of the
problem [14–16], while others use a numerical procedure to solve

1359-8368/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.07.026
 M. Baena et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1360–1367 1361

the system of differential equations [17–20]. Although these mod-

els include the bond phenomenon, no experimental bond–slip law P x P
0
has been used in their validation. In addition, although internal
strain and stress redistributions caused by cracking can be pre-
srm /2 srm /2
dicted in these later models, no comparison to experimental re-
sults is available. (a) Block of RC member in tension
In this paper, a general procedure derived from a cracking anal-
ysis based on slip and bond stresses is presented. As the model is
developed in a bond framework instead of as an extension of a F c /2 P
Fr
steel RC-aimed model, elements with non-conventional reinforce- F c /2
ment can be studied and any user-defined bond–slip law can be as-
sumed. In this paper, bond–slip laws obtained from experimental srm /2-x
pull-out tests [1] are used in the validation of the model. Real-time (b) Arbitrary section
monitoring of strain distribution along the FRP reinforcing bar dur-
ing an experimental tensile test is used to validate the model. A
reinforcement strain monitoring system, with no mechanical inter-
F c /2 F c /2+dF c /2 τ
τ Fr F r+dF r
ference on the bond zone [21], has been introduced for this kind of F c /2 F c /2+dF c /2 τ
non-metallic reinforcement. The experimental strain distributions dx
are thereafter compared to predictions of the presented model.
dx
To further prove the reliability of the model, numerical predictions (c) Concrete and reinforcement interfaces
on the load–mean strain relationship, P–em, are compared to those
Fig. 1. Free-body diagrams of RC tie.
obtained from the models usually adopted for the analysis of FRP
structures and from experimental data [22,23].
The x-axis has its origin midway between the two cracks. Due to
2. Nonlinear model for FRP reinforced tensile members symmetry, only one half-member is analysed. Let us consider a
section at a distance x from the origin, so that the free-body dia-
2.1. Cracking behaviour of RC tensile elements gram of the right-hand side is shown in Fig. 1b. The equilibrium
equation for the block reads:
Before cracking, stresses and strains in an RC element in tension P ¼ rr ðxÞAr þ rc ðxÞAc ð1Þ
are uniform along the length of the member. The equilibrium of
forces and the compatibility of strains are linked together by where P is the applied tensile load, r(x) is the tensile stress at a dis-
assuming linear elastic material behaviour for both the concrete tance x from the origin and A is the cross-sectional area. Subscripts c
and the reinforcement and perfect bond. Therefore, the applied and r refer to concrete and reinforcement, respectively.
load is shared between the concrete and the reinforcement in rela- The reinforcement and concrete interfaces related to an infini-
tion to their respective rigidities. At this uncracked stage, no differ- tesimal element of length dx are shown in Fig. 1c. The equilibrium
ences between reinforcement and concrete strain exist and equations read:
therefore no slip occurs. Once concrete tensile strength, fct, is dF c ðxÞ ¼ Ac drc ðxÞ ¼ pr sðxÞdx ð2Þ
reached, a first primary crack appears. Due to crack formation,
the tensile concrete stress at the crack location drops to zero,
dF r ðxÞ ¼ Ar drr ðxÞ ¼ pr sðxÞdx ð3Þ
and a redistribution of reinforcement and concrete strains takes
place, and strain compatibility is lost. The applied axial load can where pr is the perimeter of the bar, s(x) is the bond stress, and
be further increased until concrete tensile strength is again at- dFr(x) and dFc(x) are the axial force in the concrete and in the rebar
tained at any other section and new cracks appear. The process at a distance x from the origin, respectively. The slip at the rein-
continues until final crack stabilisation. forcement–concrete interface is defined by:
sðxÞ ¼ ur ðxÞ  uc ðxÞ ð4Þ
2.2. Bond problem formulation
where s(x) is the slip, and ur(x) and uc(x) are the displacements
along the x-axis of the reinforcement and concrete, respectively.
According to the cracking phenomenon explained above, the
Assuming a linear elastic constitutive behaviour for both rein-
theoretical study of RC ties beyond the cracking load is related to
forcement and concrete, and substituting Eqs. (2) and (3) into the
the analysis of concrete and reinforcement strain distribution
second derivative of Eq. (4) yields:
along the RC member, which in turn is based on the solution of
the differential equation that describes the cracking behaviour. 2
d sðxÞ sðxÞpr
The rational derivation of the differential equation is thus pre- 2
¼ ð1 þ nqÞ ð5Þ
dx Ar Er
sented, where the following assumptions have been considered:
where n is the modular ratio and q is the reinforcement ratio. Eq. (5)
 The rebar and concrete follow Hooke’s law (serviceability is a differential equation with two unknown functions, s(x) and s(x),
conditions). which are related through the bond–slip relationship.
 No tensile softening behaviour is considered in the constitutive
equations for concrete. 2.3. Numerical solution
 Strains, stresses and displacements are examined in the longitu-
dinal direction of the composite element, and these values are Depending on the complexity of the bond–slip law, a straight-
assumed not to vary with the radial coordinate. forward solution of the differential equation is not always possible.
In fact, the analytical solution of the bond problem has been pre-
Let us consider a block of an RC member subjected to a uniaxial sented previously for those cases assuming a constant bond–slip
tensile force P as shown in Fig. 1a. law [14,24], a linearly dependent bond–slip law [14,25,26] or an
1362 M. Baena et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1360–1367
MC 90 ascending branch bond–slip law [15]. As an alternative, a
mathematical nonlinear model similar to existing previous works
[17–19] is presented in this paper.
The stress and strain conditions of a reinforced concrete tie be-
fore first cracking can be modelled as in the reinforced concrete
block shown in Fig. 2. As long as the applied tensile load P is lower
than the first-cracking load, and assuming that the transfer length
is lower than half the length of the tie, composite action between
the midway section and section C is assured. As the load is in-
creased, the concrete strain increases up to a point where the con-
crete tensile strength is reached. Due to non-homogeneity in
concrete material, a crack can appear in any section between sec-
tion C and the halfway section. Within the numerical procedure
presented, the following assumptions have been considered:
 Concrete tensile strength fct is assumed to be constant along the
reinforced tie.
 Cracks always appear at the halfway section between two
cracks.
The numerical procedure implemented in the nonlinear model
analyses the previous situation as follows. The tie is subdivided
in n subintervals with length Dx. The procedure starts at the crack-
ing load level P = Pcrack, when concrete tensile strength fct has been
reached (see Fig. 3). Stress and strain at the halfway section are
evaluated by the equilibrium equation (Eq. (1)) and by imposing
symmetry conditions. Using Eqs. (1), (3) and the first derivative
of Eq. (4), the stress and strain distributions at the end of the first
subinterval of length Dx, measured from the halfway section, are
obtained. The procedure is extended to every contiguous subinter-
val until the crack section, where rc = 0. Based on stress and strain
distributions, transfer length lt can be defined as the distance be-
tween the crack section and the section where the composite ac-
tion is recovered. At this point two situations can be found. If
lt < LB/2, the first transversal crack appears and composite action
is still assured in the two new blocks. Therefore, new cracking will
again take place without an increase in the applied load. However,
if lt > LB/2, the first transversal crack forms but composite action is
no longer assured.
In either case, the reinforced element is defined by a number of
identical reinforced concrete blocks, where composite action is no
longer possible. Therefore, further analysis is conducted on a rep-
resentative block. The displacements and strain and stress distri-
butions along the reinforced concrete element will be formed
through the concatenation of the concrete block results.
For each concrete block, the new origin is located at the halfway
section and LB is updated to represent the concrete block half-
length. From this point on, load is further increased until rc reaches
P P
ε r(x)
C
ε c(x)
0 x
s(x)
lt 0 x
Fig. 2. Strain and slip distribution along a concrete block.
P P
f ct
σ c(x)
0 x
lt
LB
Fig. 3. Concrete stress distribution when fct is attained at halfway section
(unknown lt).
the concrete tensile strength fct at the midway section and new
cracks can form. This sequence is successively reproduced until
the stabilised cracking phase is reached and no more cracks appear.
The characteristic shape of the load–mean strain (P–em) curve of an
RC tie obtained using the presented numerical model is shown in
Fig. 4. Under load control test conditions, the formation of cracks
is represented by a horizontal line in the P–em curve.
2.4. Model capabilities
To demonstrate the capabilities of the proposed bond-based
model, numerical results of a reinforced concrete tension member
are analysed. Consider a 750 mm length RC tie, in which a centrally
embedded rebar is located. The rebar diameter is 12 mm and the
reinforcing ratio is q = 1.78%. The concrete tensile strength and
compressive strength are 3.1 MPa and 22.95 MPa, respectively.
The elastic moduli of the reinforcing bar and the concrete are
210,000 MPa and 29,000 MPa, respectively. The BEP bond–slip
model [27] is used for the bond–slip law. According to this model,
the bond stress–slip of reinforcing bars shows four different
branches (see Fig. 5a): initial ascending branch up to the peak bond
strength (s1) for s 6 s1, a second branch with a constant bond
(s = s1) up to slip s = s2, a linearly descending branch from (s2, s1)
to (s3, s2) and a horizontal branch for s > s3, with a value of s due
to the development of friction (s = s3). The BEP model expresses
the ascending branch of bond–slip relationship as follows:
 a
s
s ¼ sm ð6Þ
sm
Different values of a, si and si have been observed in experimen-
tal results [1,3]. Values a = 0.4, s1 = 1 mm, s2 = 3 mm, s3 = 4 mm (rib
spacing), s1 = 2.5(fck)0.5 and s2 = 0.4s1 have been assumed to per-
form a demonstrative example. These values can be assumed to
be representative for good bond conditions.
As a direct result of the numerical model, concrete and rein-
forcement strain distributions along the composite system are
Applied load P
Numerical model
Bare bar
Pcrack
Mean strain ε m
Fig. 4. Load–mean strain curve obtained using the presented numerical model.
 M. Baena et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1360–1367 1363

60
τ (MPa)
50
τ1

Axial Load P (kN)

40
τ2
30

s1 s2 s3 s (mm) 20
RC member
10 Bare bar

0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Elongation δ (mm)
(a) BEP Bond-slip law (b) Load-elongation relationship

Before 1st cracking P=22.26 kN Before 1st cracking P=22.26 kN

After 1st cracking P=22.26 kN After 1st cracking P=22.26 kN
After 2nd cracking P=23.51 kN After 2nd cracking P=23.51 kN
Reinforcement strain ε x10-3

1 1.2

Concrete strain εc x10-4

1
r

0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 150 300 450 600 750 0 150 300 450 600 750
Distance along tie x (mm) Distance along tie x (mm)
(c) Reinforcement strain distribution (d) Concrete strain distribution

Before 1st cracking P=22.26 kN Before 1st cracking P=22.26 kN

After 1st cracking P=22.26 kN After 1st cracking P=22.26 kN
After 2nd cracking P=23.51 kN After 2nd cracking P=23.51 kN
Concrete-rebar slip s (mm)

0.06 5
Bond stress τ (MPa)

0.03

0 0

-0.03

-0.06 -5
0 150 300 450 600 750 0 150 300 450 600 750
Distance along tie x (mm) Distance along tie x (mm)
(e) Slip distribution (f) Bond stress distribution

Fig. 5. (a) BEP bond–slip law; (b) load–elongation relationship of an RC member; (c) reinforcement strain distribution (at cracking load levels); (d) concrete strain distribution
(at cracking load levels); (e) slip distribution (at cracking load levels); (f) bond stress distribution (at cracking load levels).

obtained. The integral of the reinforcing bar strain along the length every cracked section. Similarly, the concrete strain reaches its
of the tie gives the rebar elongation. The load–rebar elongation lower limit value (ec = 0) at the same cracked sections. As a result
relationship of the RC member is shown in Fig. 5b, along with of the force redistribution process, there is a relative slip between
the bare bar response. Due to the transmission of bond forces, a the concrete and the rebar. Because of the bond–slip behaviour
high initial stiffness is obtained at the early cracking stages. How- (shown in Fig. 5a), bond forces appear wherever slip exists. Maxi-
ever, the stiffness diminishes throughout the cracking process. mum values of both slip and bond stress take place at the cracked
The first cracking load level is 22.26 kN. According to the section and switch direction at the midway section.
numerical model assumptions, the first crack appears at the mid-
way section and divides the member into two submembers of half 3. FRP reinforcement strain monitoring system
length. The second cracking level is attained at 23.51 kN. At this
load, two more cracks appear at the midway section of every sub- The numerical procedure is validated through the comparison
member. Reinforcing bar strain distribution along the length of the with experimental results on the reinforcement strain profile. For
tie before and after the first cracking load and after the second that purpose, a tensile test on an FRP RC element was performed
cracking load is shown in Fig. 5c. Likewise, concrete strain distribu- (reference 16-170-3N in [22]), where monitoring of the strain distri-
tion, relative slip distribution and bond stress distribution are bution along the reinforcing bar was possible. A specially manufac-
shown in Fig. 5d–f, respectively. tured internally strain gauged reinforcing FRP bar was considered
After any crack formation, forces and strains are redistributed (Fig. 6). The original bars were cut into two halves and smoothed.
so that the reinforcement strain reaches its upper limit value at On one half, strain gauges were placed every 50 mm centres. On
1364 M. Baena et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1360–1367

the other half, a groove was cut to accommodate the wiring of the 4.5
strain gauges. Additional holes were drilled every 100 mm centres before 1st cracking 20.60kN after 1st cracking 20.63kN
4
to allow the gauge wiring to come out of the bar. After protecting before 2nd cracking 26.73kN after 2nd cracking 26.73kN
the gauges from possible humidity, the bar was closed, with the

Reinforcement strain εm x10-3

3.5 before 3rd cracking 35.16kN after 3rd cracking 35.16kN
two halves glued together, to give the appearance of a normal solid
round bar. The bar surface was not modified; therefore bond perfor- 3
mance was not altered due to the instrumentation of the bar.
2.5
Three notches were created to induce cracks at specific loca-
tions where the reading of the reinforcement strain was feasible. 2
Experimental reinforcement strain distribution along the tie before
and after each crack opening is shown in Fig. 7. Every symbol rep- 1.5
resents the reading from a strain gauge. Before the first cracking, a
1
peak in reinforcement strain distribution can be found at both ends
of the RC tensile element. The value of this peak strain corresponds 0.5
to that of a fully cracked section. Both ends of the RC tensile ele-
ment can be analysed as cracked sections and, therefore, no con- 0
0 350 650 950 1300
crete area contributes to the axial stiffness. From this section on,
Distance along the tie (mm)
reinforcement strain decreases until composite action is attained.
At this point, the reinforcement strain value equals that of an un- Fig. 7. Experimental reinforcement strain distribution during crack formation.
cracked section. For the applied load (P = 20.60 kN), it is expected
that the first crack will appear at x = 350 mm. The first crack is
completely created at P = 20.63 kN, and a maximum peak in rein- loaded and unloaded end (hereafter referred to as BSLE and BSUE,
forcement strain distribution is displayed at x = 350 mm. From this respectively) obtained in the pull-out experimental campaign [1]
load level on, second and third cracking, occurring at P = 26.73 kN (see Fig. 8). As the aim is to compare the strain profile along the
and P = 35.16 kN, are captured in reinforcement strain distribution reinforcing bar, the numerical model has been slightly modified
with new peak values at x = 650 mm and x = 950 mm, respectively. to trigger the cracks at the same location as they appear in the
This is finally reflected in Fig. 7, where the cracking process and experimental test.
experimental distribution on strains along the member are repre- In Fig. 9a–f, the reinforcement strain distributions along the tie
sented for different levels of load. obtained from the numerical simulations and the experimental
test are compared. The agreement between numerical predictions
and experimental data proves the validity of the proposed method
4. Comparison with test data to predict the contribution of each component (reinforcement and
concrete) before and after cracking, therefore describing satisfacto-
4.1. FRP reinforcement strain distribution rily the cracking behaviour in RC tensile members.

The presented model is used to reproduce the cracking behav-

4.2. FRP RC tensile response
iour of the aforementioned 16-170-3N specimen [22]. Two simula-
tions were conducted that assumed the bond–slip law for the
The numerical model is compared to experimental results ob-
tained from an experimental test programme carried out on GFRP
reinforced concrete ties [22], where different reinforcement ratios
were used (Table 1). The GFRP reinforcing bars had a helical
wrapped surface and some sand coating. Mean values of the
mechanical properties obtained from the uniaxial tension tests are
shown in Table 2. Ready-mix concrete, with a maximum aggregate
size of 20 mm, was used to cast the specimens. The compressive
strength and modulus of elasticity were determined from control
cylinders (150  300 mm) according to standards. The tensile
strength was computed from tests on the GFRP RC tension mem-
bers. Concrete mechanical properties are summarised in Table 3.
The bond–slip laws used in the numerical predictions of the glo-
bal tensile behaviour are presented in Fig. 10. These bond–slip laws

18
Bond stress τ (MPa)

12

Experimental loaded end (BSLE)

6
Experimental unloaded end (BSUE)

0
0 4 8 12 16
Slip s (mm)

Fig. 8. Experimental bond–slip law derived from pull-out test and considered in the
Fig. 6. Internally strain gauged reinforcing bar. validation of the numerical procedure.
 M. Baena et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1360–1367 1365

(a) 1 (b) 2.5

Before crack 1 (8.64kN) BSLE After crack 1 (20.63kN) BSLE
BSUE BSUE
0.8 2
exp. exp.

0.6 1.5

ε m x10-3

ε m x10-3
0.4 1

0.2 0.5

300 600 900 1200 300 600 900 1200

x (mm) x (mm)
(c) 3
Before crack 2 (26.73kN) BSLE
(d) 3
After crack 2 (26.73kN) BSLE
2.5 BSUE 2.5 BSUE
exp. exp.
2 2
ε m x10-3

ε m x10-3
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

300 600 900 1200 300 600 900 1200

x (mm) x (mm)

(e) 4 (f) 4
Before crack 3 (35.16kN) BSLE After crack 3 (35.16kN) BSLE
BSUE BSUE
3 exp. 3 exp.
ε m x10-3
ε m x10-3

2 2

1 1

300 600 900 1200 300 600 900 1200

x (mm) x (mm)

Fig. 9. Numerical and experimental reinforcement strain distribution at cracking load levels.

Table 1 Table 2
Geometric characteristics of the experimental ties [22]. GFRP rebars geometrical and mechanical properties [22].

Specimen Experimental bar Tie width Reinforcement Specimen Nominal bar Experimental bar Tensile Axial
diameter, db (mm) (mm) ratio q (%) diameter, diameter, strength ffu stiffness,
dn (mm) db (mm) (MPa) ErAr (kN)
13-170 13.7 170 0.51
16-170 16.9 170 0.71 13-170 12.7 13.7 770 5540
19-170 19.1 170 1.00 16-170 15.9 16.9 1030 9362
16-110 16.1 110 1.69 19-170 19.1 19.1 637 11,680
16-170-3N 19.1 170 1.00 16-110 15.9 16.1 751 7900
16-170-3N 15.9 19.1 917 10,087

were obtained from an experimental campaign on pull-out tests

[1]. Predictions of member tensile behaviour using the proposed Table 3
numerical model and EC-2 are compared to the experimental re- Concrete mechanical properties [22].
sponses in Fig. 11. A large plateau after Pcrack is observed in the Specimen Compressive Modulus of Tensile strength
numerical predictions. This plateau is related to the multicrack for- strength, fc (MPa) elasticity, Ec (MPa) fct (MPa)
mation that takes place at Pcrack when the transfer length, lt, is 13-170 48.4 27,315 1.75
shorter than LB/2, where LB reads for half the length of the tie, 16-170 48.1 27,315 2.58
and more than one crack can form. This multicracking is therefore 19-170 56.2 33,275 2.10
16-110 56.2 33,275 2.34
responsible for a significant underestimation of the tension stiffen-
16-170-3N 46.6 34,514 1.22
ing effect at early cracking stages. Although the assumption of con-
stant concrete tensile strength along the RC tie and crack formation
prefixed at midway section between two existing cracks, numeri-
cal predictions follow the general trends of the experimental re- obtained from EC-2, using the two limit values for bond coefficient
sults. These numerical predictions fit with the limiting responses (b1 = 1 for high bond bars and b1 = 0.5 for plain bars).
1366 M. Baena et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1360–1367

20 20 15

Bond stress τ (MPa)

Bond stress τ (MPa)

Bond stress τ (MPa)

Diameter 13mm Diameter 16mm
10
10 10
Diameter 19mm
5

(a) (b) (c)

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20
Slip s (mm) Slip s (mm) Slip s (mm)

Fig. 10. Experimental bond–slip laws.

(a) 180 200

Experimental
(b) Experimental
Bare bar Bare bar

Axial Load P (kN)

EC2-92 β1=0.5 EC2-92 β1=0.5
Axial Load P (kN)

150
120
EC2-92 β1=1 EC2-92 β1=1
Numerical 100 Numerical

60
50

13-170 ρ =0.51% 16-170 ρ =0.71%

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.0045 0.009 0.0135 0.018

Member mean strain εm Member mean strain ε m

(c) 180 180

Experimental
(d) Experimental
Bare bar Bare bar
Axial Load P (kN)

EC2-92 β1=0.5 EC2-92 β1=0.5

Axial Load P (kN)

120 120
EC2-92 β1=1 EC2-92 β1=1
Numerical Numerical

60 60

19-170 ρ =1.00% 16-110 ρ =1.69%

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.005 0.01 0.015

Member mean strain εm Member mean strain ε m

Fig. 11. Comparison of P–em numerical predictions with code provisions and experimental results.

Table 4 180
Properties of RC ties tested in [23]. Experimental RS3
Specimen Rebar diameter Reinforcement Rebar elastic Numerical
dr (mm) ratio, q (%) modulus, Er (GPa) 135
Bare bar RS2
RS1 12.7 1.26 40.3
Load P (kN)

RS2 15.9 1.98 41.3

RS3 19.1 2.86 41.5 90 RS1

A comparison between the numerical predictions and experi- 45

mental results of three GFRP RC tensile tests presented in [23] is
also conducted. The ties were 1100 mm long and had a square sec-
tion with 100 mm sides. The concrete tensile and compressive 0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
strengths were 2.6 and 48.8 MPa, respectively. The secant modulus
Average strain x10-3 , εm
of elasticity (Ecm = 37.28 GPa) has been estimated according to MC-
90 [28]. For the bond–slip law, the ascending branch of BEP bond– Fig. 12. Comparison between experimental results presented in [23] and numerical
slip model [27] is adopted (see Eq. (6)). This well-known model has predictions.
previously been successfully applied to FRP rebars [3,29]. In this
paper, a = 0.4 and s1 = 1 mm have been assumed. Moreover, a bond
strength value of s1 = 17.5 MPa has been adopted, according to: In Table 4 the rebar size, dr, of each test is presented, along with
0:5
the reinforcement ratio, q, and the elastic modulus of the GFRP re-
s1 ¼ 2:5ðfck Þ ð7Þ bar, Er.
 M. Baena et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1360–1367
The numerically predicted P–em curves are compared to exper-
imental responses in Fig. 12. An initial offset is applied to the
experimental results according to Bischoff’s indication on initial
shortening caused by shrinkage effects. It can be observed in
Fig. 12 that the responses obtained from the numerical model
accurately predict experimental behaviour at all stages of the
cracking process.
5. Conclusions
A numerical model based on a nonlinear finite difference meth-
od is proposed to simulate response of FRP reinforced concrete un-
der uniaxial tension. Within the model, the tension stiffening effect
is represented through the bond action appearing between the two
materials, defined by a bond–slip law. Owing to the adopted
numerical procedure, whatever material and geometrical proper-
ties, and nonlinear bond–slip law can be introduced.
Furthermore, internal instrumentation along the reinforcing bar
of a specially manufactured RC tensile element has demonstrated
its efficiency in making reinforcement strain distribution data
available throughout the test. With this system, readings on rein-
forcement strain distribution along the bar can be captured along
the loading process of FRP RC tensile elements. In this sense, com-
parison between experimental data and numerical simulations
proves the validity of the proposed model to describe the cracking
behaviour of FRP RC tensile members. For the numerical simula-
tion, experimental (pull-out) bond–slip laws have been used.
Moreover, the model has been used to estimate the overall
deformability of GFRP reinforced concrete ties. Predicted responses
are compared to available experimental values and code provi-
sions. Numerical responses in terms of load–mean strain satisfac-
torily reproduce the experimental results, and are similar to
those predicted by EC-2 (CEN 1992).
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by
the Spanish Government (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación), Pro-
ject Ref. BIA-2010-20234-C03-02.
References
[1] Baena M, Torres LI, Turon A, Barris C. Experimental study of bond behaviour
between concrete and FRP bars using a pull-out test. Compos Part B-Eng
2009;40(8):784–97.
[2] Lee J-Y, Kim T-Y, Kim T-J, Yi C-K, Park J-S, You Y-C, et al. Interfacial bond
strength of glass fiber reinforced polymer bars in high-strength concrete.
Compos Part B-Eng 2008;39(2):258–70.
[3] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Behaviour and modeling of bond of FRP
rebars to concrete. J Compos Constr ASCE 1997;1(2):40–51.
1367
[4] Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures-part 1: general rules and rules for
buildings, DD ENV 1992-1-1:1992. CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation),
Brussels; 1992. 274 p.
[5] ACI 224.2R-92. Cracking of concrete members in direct tension. American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA; 1992.
[6] ACI 318-11. Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA;
2011.
[7] Gilbert RI, Warner RF. Tension-stiffening in reinforced concrete slabs. J Struct
Div ASCE 1978;104(12):1885–900.
[8] Lee GY, Kim W. Cracking and tension stiffening behavior of high strength
concrete tension members subjected to axial load. Adv Struct Eng
2009;12(2):127–37.
[9] Scanlon A, Murray DW. Time-dependent reinforced concrete slab deflections. J
Struct Div ASCE 1974;100(9):1911–24.
[10] Lin CS, Scordelis AC. Nonlinear analysis of RC shells of general forms. J Struct
Div ASCE 1975;101(3):523–38.
[11] Kaklauskas G, Ghaboussi J. Stress–strain relations for cracked tensile concrete
from RC beam tests. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127(1):64–73.
[12] Torres LI, López-Almansa F, Bozzi LM. Tension-stiffening model for cracked
flexural concrete members. J Struct Eng ASCE 2004;130(8):1242–51.
[13] Stramandinoli RSB, La Rovere HL. An efficient tension-stiffening model for
nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete members. Eng Struct
2008;30(7):2069–80.
[14] Gupta AK, Maestrini SR. Tension-stiffness model for reinforced-concrete bars. J
Struct Eng ASCE 1990;116(3):769–90.
[15] Russo G, Romano F. Cracking response of RC members subjected to uniaxial
tension. J Struct Eng ASCE 1992;118(5):1172–90.
[16] Yankelevsky DZ, Jabareen M, Abutbul AD. One-dimensional analysis of tension
stiffening in reinforced concrete with discrete cracks. Eng Struct
2008;30(1):206–17.
[17] Fantilli AP, Ferretti D, Iori I, Vallini P. Flexural deformability of reinforced
concrete beams. J Struct Eng ASCE 1998;124(9):1041–9.
[18] Creazza G, Di Marco R. Bending moment-mean curvature relationship with
constant axial load in the presence of tension stiffening. Mater Struct
1993;26(158):196–206.
[19] Aiello MA, Ombres L. Cracking analysis of FRP-reinforced concrete flexural
members. Mech Compos Mater 2000;36(5):389–94.
[20] Wu HQ, Gilbert RI. Modeling short-term tension stiffening in reinforced
concrete prisms using a continuum-based finite element model. Eng Struct
2009;31(10):2380–91.
[21] Beeby AW, Scott RH. Cracking and deformation of axially reinforced members
subjected to pure tension. Mag Concr Res 2005;57(10):611–21.
[22] Baena M, Turon A, Torres LI, Miàs C. Experimental study and code predictions
of fibre reinforced polymer reinforced concrete (FRP RC) tensile members.
Compos Struct 2011;93(10):2511–20.
[23] Bischoff PH, Paixao R. Tension stiffening and cracking of concrete reinforced
with glass fiber reinforced polymer GFRP bars. Can J Civil Eng
2004;31(4):579–88.
[24] Choi CK, Cheung SH. Tension stiffening model for planar reinforced concrete
members. Comput Struct 1996;59(1):179–90.
[25] Yankelevsky DZ. A two-phase one dimensional model for steel-concrete
interaction. Comput Struct 1997;65(6):781–94.
[26] Khalfalla S. Cracking analysis of reinforced concrete tensioned members.
Struct Concr 2006;7(3):111–6.
[27] Eligehausen R, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Local bond stress–slip relationships of
deformed bars under generalized excitations: experimental results and
analytical model. Report 83/23, Ed. Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley; 1983. 169 p.
[28] CEB-FIP model code 1990: Design code. Comité euro international du béton-
fédération international de la précontraint. Thomas Telford Services Ltd.,
London, UK; 1993. 437 p.
[29] FIB bulletin 10. Bond of reinforcement in concrete. State-of-the-art report.
Task group bond models (former CEB task group 2.5). Fédération international
de la précontraint (fib). Lausanne, Switzerland; 2000. 434 p.