Modified Frosch Crack Width Model for Concrete Beams Prestressed With CFRP Bars

Modified Frosch Crack Width Model for Concrete Beams Prestressed

With CFRP Bars
P. Selvachandran1*, S. Anandakumar2 and K.L. Muthuramu3
1
Research scholar, Kongu Engineering College, Anna University, Chennai, India
2
Professor, Kongu Engineering College, Perundurai, India
3
Principal, Shanmuganathan Engg College, Pudukkottai, India

Summary
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites are preferred as prestressing tendons in concrete structures due
to its high-strength, lightweight and non-corrosive property. FRP based prestressed concrete member exhibits
different crack behavior than steel based prestressed concrete member due to its less stiffness and non-ductile
property. An experimental investigation was carried out to study the cracking behaviour of concrete member
using Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars as prestressing material. Experimental works includes four
numbers of prestressed concrete specimens by varying degree of prestressing of 35 to 70%. The characteristics
of crack spacing, crack propagation and crack widths of member were presented. Experimental results were
compared with various researchers’ recommendation and proposed a new crack width model by modifying the
Frosch crack width model.

Keywords: Crack stabilization load, Crack width, Deformability, Tension stiffening strain

1. Introduction
Concrete structures are normally
prestressed with steel tendon but in
marine and chemical environment, steel
has its limitations due to corrosion.
Hence FRP bars are used as replacement
material for steel in prestressed concrete
(PSC) member. FRP materials are high
strength, light weight and non-corrosive
property leads to vast benefits to
structural engineers in comparison to
traditional building materials. However
this material has limited applicability
due to its low young’s modulus and non-
ductile property. Currently the glass
FRP (GFRP) and basalt FRP (BFRP)
are widely used as reinforcement to
concrete member and carbon fiber
reinforced polymer (CFRP) is used
as prestressing tendon. Generally the
cracks in concrete is inevitable due to
its weak tensile property, however the
*Corresponding authors E-mail: pscpsg@yahoo.co.in
©
Smithers Information Ltd., 2016
crack width on concrete member has to
be restricted to permissible crack width
to prevent leakage and the appearance
of FRP prestressed concrete structure.
In addition increase in crack width leads
to reduction in capacity of structure.
The cracks on concrete member will
occur due to flexure, thermal, shear and
torsional behaviour. The crack pattern
due to flexure may occur in bottom of
simply supported beam at bending zone
near mid span and it will penetrate to
the mid depth once crack stabilization
occurs. The flexural crack occurs on
PSC beams are arbitrary during loading
due to the effect of several factors which
leads to less precision for calculation
of crack width. The first crack on
PSC beam will develop only after the
prestressed strain on bar decompressed
by the applied load and concrete strain at
tensile zone attains permissible tensile
strain (etc). Further increase of applied
load will result in increase of strain on
the prestressed bar (epd) which leads to
crack on the tension zone at bottom of
beam. The crack on PSC beams are due
to many parameters, they are concrete
bond strength, reinforcement bond slip,
crack spacing, bottom and side cover to
reinforcement, tension stiffening effect
of intact portion of concrete between
cracks, effective concrete area around
reinforcements influence the tension
stiffening, crack induced strain on
reinforcement after decompression,
Young’s modulus and Poisons ratio of
reinforcement and duration of loading
on member. Hence the calculation of
crack width is complex model due to
the influence of many parameters. The
number of cracks formation on the
member during loading are stabilized
to certain load is called as crack
stabilization load. The number and
spacing of cracks occur on the PSC
member is based on its stiffness effect of
member, concrete cover, diameter of bar
and effective intact area of resistance
during cracking. In this article, the
study of flexural crack performance

Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 24, No. 7, 2016 587

 P. Selvachandran, S. Anandakumar and K.L. Muthuramu
of CFRP based prestressed concrete
beam is considered for experimental
investigation by varying degree of
prestressing and compared the same
with various researchers crack width
model.
2. Crack Width Model
Crack in reinforced concrete structure
is unavoidable due to weak tensile
strength of concrete. Wider cracks
on PSC member lead to destroy the
aesthetics of structure, reduction
in stiffness of structure and induce
leakages. Calculation of crack width
by various investigators proposed
each formula contains a different
set of variables due to the influence
of many parameters. A literature
review also reveals that there is
no common agreement among
various researchers on the relative
significance of different variables
affecting crack width, in spite of
large number of experimental work
carried out during the past decades.
Hence the ACI 224R-01 1 (American
Concrete Institute) is recommended
for calculation of crack width for steel
based Prestressed concrete member.
The following crack width models
are recommended for CFRP based
prestressed concrete member with
the slight modification considering
the less stiffness effect of CFRP bar.
2.1 Gergely and Lutz Crack
Width Model
Gergely and Lutz2 stated that, crack
width of member is based on crack
induced strain on the reinforcement
and it is with respect to strain at bottom
surface of member. More the cover to
reinforcement with bottom surface
result in more the crack width. Further
they stated that the crack spacing of
member is based on the effective
area of concrete around each tensile
reinforcement bar and concrete cover
to the bottom reinforcement. Hence
the crack width shall be calculated by
multiplication of crack induced strain
on CFRP bar with crack spacing.
588
(1)
(2)
Where w- is maximum crack width at tension side of beam, k is a modification
factor to consider the strain gradient due to strain at bottom of member and strain
at level of reinforcement, dc is cover distance from bottom of beam to the lowest
level of reinforcement, A is effective area of concrete in tension, b is breadth of
member, d- effective depth of member, fpd residual stress after decompression
of CFRP tendon, h is over all depth of member and m is number of tension
reinforcements in the cross section of beam.
2.2 ACI 440-4R Model
ACI-440-4R 3 amended Gergely and Lutz model for crack width calculation for
the CFRP based prestressed concrete beam with doubling the values, because
Gergely and Lutz method was derived for the steel reinforced beam, where in
FRP bar is less in stiffness and non-ductile property as compared to steel which
leads to faster occurrence of crack than steel reinforced member.
2.3 Frosch Crack Width Model
Frosch4 predicted that, the Gergely and Lutz method is not valid for the higher
cover and spacing of reinforcement due to high strain gradient. The crack spacing
is influenced by the diagonal distance to reinforcement from bottom of concrete
surface.
(3)
Where b is a strain gradient factor between strain at bottom of member and strain
at level of reinforcement, Y is a factor for crack spacing, higher the crack spacing
leads to higher the Y factor and S is a reinforcement spacing.
2.4 Salah Khalfallah & Dahbia Guerdouh Crack Width Model
Salah Khalfallah and Dahbia Guerdouh5 stated that the intact concrete between
adjacent cracks tensile strain (ets) resist the formation of crack on member.
The strain resistance produced by this intact concrete shall be called as tension
stiffening strain. The tension stiffening strain is with respect to bottom cover
to reinforcement, neutral axis distance and degree of prestressing of member.
Hence the net crack induced strain (ei = epd – ets) shall be predicted considering
the reduction due to the tension stiffening strain (ets) in the residual strain on
CFRP bar after decompression (epd). Salah Khalfallah and Dahbia Guerdouh
consider this strain approach to calculate the tension stiffening strain of beam
(ets) and calculated with respect to the first cracked strain (ecr) to ultimate strain
at failure stage of beam.
ε ts =
(εpd + εsr ) − ε −
(εpd − εsr ) (εpd + 3εsr + εcr )
cr
2 2 (4)
(5)
Thus etsmax is a maximum strain for tensile stiffening.
Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 24, No. 7, 2016
 Modified Frosch Crack Width Model for Concrete Beams Prestressed With CFRP Bars
2.5 Stramandionli and La
Roverecrack Width Model
Stramandionli and La Rovere 6
calculated crack width considering
the net crack induced strain (ei) with
respect to the projected ultimate strain
at uncracked stage (es1) to ultimate
strain at cracked stage of member (es2).
(6)
Where ssr stress at first crack on
concrete after decompression of
prestressing stress and ss2 is failure
stress at ultimate stage.
The FRP based PSC beam has low value
of ratio of projected ultimate strain
at un-cracked stage to cracked stage
compared to steel based PSC beam due
to its non-ductile behaviour. Moment
of curvature of FRP based PSC beam
follows bilinear curve, so it shows that
this member absorbs certain quantum
of strain energy after first crack on
beam which is called as deformability
behaviour of member. Burgoyne7 stated
that, the deformability behavior of
beam affects the moment of curvature
pattern which results to change in
flexure and serviceability behavior
of beam. The effective concrete area
around the reinforcement is inducing
tension stiffening which is related to the
deformability of FRP based PSC beam.
Dolan et al.8 suggested a simplified
method for calculation of deformability
of FRP prestressed member by strain
approach and ACI 440 -4R3 amended
their strain approach. They derived
that, deformability shall be measured
in terms of deformability index (DI)
and it is defined as ratio of ultimate
stain (epu) of FRP to the strain at service
stage (eps) of FRP with the adjustment
due to change in neutral axis due to
elastic and inelastic stage.
(7)
Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 24, No. 7, 2016
Where (8)
Where x is neutral axis depth, b1 is concrete stress block factor, r is ratio of
reinforcement area to area of concrete, d is effective depth to the FRP bar, fpu
is ultimate tensile strength of FRP bar and f′c is concrete compressive strength.
2.6 BS EN-1992
BS EN-19929crack width model are derived by basic strain principle and it is
considered all the influencing parameters. The net crack induced strain (ei =
epd – ets) is calculated by considering the residual strain on reinforcement after
decompression deducted with strain due to tension stiffening effect. Further BSEN
1992 9 recommends correction factor for calculation of crack width involving
the bond behaviour of prestressed reinforcement and surface conditions. The
flexural bond slip on reinforcement is occurring faster for the smooth bar than
ribbed surface bar. Further the strand type reinforcement is faster bond slip than
bar type reinforcement. The duration of sustained load also influences the tension
stiffening strain. The loss of strain is more for the longer duration of load, hence
BS EN 1992 recommended correction factor considering the duration of applied
load on member.
Crack spacing of member is correlated to the ratio of reinforcement area (Afrp)
to the effective tension stiffening area of concrete (Acteff) and the concrete cover
(c). BS EN 1992 recommended bond factor (e1) considering the type and surface
of bar which consider the effect of reinforcement contribution during member
cracking stage.
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
Where kd is a factor considering the impact of duration of load, fcteff tensile strength
of concrete, fp actual stress on CFRP prestressed reinforcement at applied load,
ep strain of CFRP bar, x neutral axis distance form extreme compression fiber
and Smax maximum crack spacing.
Based on all above literature study, experimental works are carried out to study
the crack width behaviour of prestressed concrete beam using CFRP bar by
varying DI of 1.35 to 2.88.
3. Experimental Works
Four numbers of beam specimens were considered for prestressed beam using
CFRP bar with the degree of prestressing of 35%, 48%, 61% and 70%. The
number and position of CFRP bar varied to study the behaviour of beam. Good
bonded condition of prestressing bar without non prestressed steel at tension
side is designed for experimental works. The beam specimen configurations
589
 P. Selvachandran, S. Anandakumar and K.L. Muthuramu
adopted for experimental works are
shown in Figure 2. The term CFB1-
2H-0.61means “CFRP specimen
number – Number of prestressed bar,
bar positioned Horizontally (H) or
Figure 1. (a) Experimental setup (b) CFRP tendon with splice coupler
Figure 2. Beam configurations - experimental works
590
Vertically (V) and the last term is degree
of effective prestressing in fraction.
Simply supported beam with two
points loads are considered as shown
in Figure 1 and 2. The beam specimen
(a)
(b)
Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 24, No. 7, 2016
designed as tension controlled member
to study the rupture failure of FRP bar.
Non prestressed reinforcements are not
provided at tension zone. Shear links
of 2 legged 8 mm dia bar of 150 mm
spacing are designed to resist shear
failure of member during testing.
The strain gauge strip stacked on the
surface of CFRP bar to measure the
prestressing strain and loss of strain.
Three dial gauges mounted at bottom of
beam as shown in Figure 2 to measure
the deflections during testing. Grid
formation marked at the surface of
1m mid span zone of beam and pellet
fixed at each grid node to measure the
strain at grid node in the mid span zone.
The crack width measured using crack
meter as shown in Figure 3 for an each
increment of load.
3.1 Material Properties
Concrete grade of C50 is considered
and it is verified by trial mix test results
as shown in Table 1. Nine numbers
of cube/cylinder prepared during the
casting of beam and tested the same
during testing and stressing of beam.
The CFRP bar material as shown in
Figure 1 right was supplied by Dextra
PVT Ltd Hongkong, China. 9.5 mm
diameter CFRP bars with an area
71.3 mm2 was used for prestressing
bars. The tensile strength and young’s
 Modified Frosch Crack Width Model for Concrete Beams Prestressed With CFRP Bars

modulus of CFRP materials are 1896 Table 1. Experimental test results-concrete

MPa and 124 GPa as shown in Table 2. Age in days Modulus of Average Average Cube Remarks
Both ends of CFRP bars are connected Elasticity in Tensile Compressive
with splicer to protect the surface of bar MPa Strength in Strength in MPa
during stressing. Steel reinforcement MPa
properties for shear links and hanger 7 3.77 x104 3.4 50.8
bar also provided in Table 2. 28 3.86 x 10 4
4.56 61.3

3.2 Prestressing and Testing Table 2. Experimental test results- CFRP and steel reinforcement
The fiber surface of CFRP bar may SL No Young’s Tensile Strain Poisons Remarks
get damaged during stressing and Modulus in Strength in Ratio
de-stressing process, hence a special MPa MPa
measure as proposed by Johnson 1 1.24 x105 1896 0.0153 0.27 CFRP Tendon
Bjorgvin Smari10 is considered for the 2 2.00x 10 5
500 0.0025 0.30 Steel for shear links
stressing and anchoring of prestressed and hanger bar
concrete beam as shown in Figure 3.
CFRP bars are connected with threaded
Table 3. Prestressing force
studs at both ends and it is used to
connect to hydraulic jack for stressing. Beam Type Deformability Prestressing stress Effective Remarks
Index (DI) in MPa prestressing
Prestress Loss of Force kN
High strength nuts in threaded studs
prestress
were used to lock the stress after post
tensioning of CFRP bar. Both ends of CFB1-2-H-0.61 1.83 1282 127.37 164.8
beam specimen were connected with CFB2-2-V-0.48 2.36 1025 116.78 129.7
steel plates of size 100 mm × 150 mm CFB3-1-H-0.35 2.88 770 103.16 47.5
and 24 mm thickness as anchorage CFB4-1-H-0.70 1.35 1454 128.72 94.5
plate to transfer the prestress uniformly
on both sides of the beam. The target Figure 3. (a) Crack measurement using crack meter (b) Beam anchorage end
prestressing force as shown in Table 3 is details
achieved by controlling the elongation
(a)
of CFRP bar. Actual prestressing strain
was measured using strain gauge strip.
The simply supported beam loaded
with two point loading at an increment
of 5 kN up to first crack on beam and
then it is reduced to 2.5 kN during
cracking stage. Crack width recorded
for each increment of loads.

4. Experimental Test
Results and Discussion
The moment of resistance of member (b)
by experimental results at first cracked
stage is approximately same as ACI
440-4R method as shown in Table 4.
It shows that the effectiveness of
prestressing of tendon and concrete
strength is achieved as per design.
The failure of beam specimens were
observed as rupture of CFRP tendon
(Figure 5) which resembles the design
consideration of tension controlled
member. Load vs. deflection curve is

Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 24, No. 7, 2016 591

 P. Selvachandran, S. Anandakumar and K.L. Muthuramu

Table 4. Experimental test results- moment of resistance and load resistance

Beam Type Moment of Resistance in kN-m Load in kN Remarks
At Cracking Stage At Ultimate Load First Crack Crack Failure
Mcr Stage Mn Crack Stabilization Width 0.5 Load
Theoretical Test Theoretical Test Pcr Pst mm Pu
Results Results Ps
CFB1-2 -H-0.61 21.8 22.5 45.8 44.45 45 51.20 66.92 89
CFB2-2 -V-0.48 18.2 17.5 44.1 43.5 35 42 52.50 87
CFB3-1 -H-0.35 10.6 11.25 25.8 25.1 22.5 26.20 33.94 50.20
CFB4-1 -H-0.70 16.0 16.5 25.2 25.2 33 36 41.63 50.4

Figure 4. (a) Load vs. deflection curve-failure, (b) Load ratio during cracking
stage
shown in Figure 4 (a) for the specimen
at 35% degree of prestressed beam for
CFB3 and 70% degree of prestressed
beam for CFB4. The specification of
CFB3 and CFB4 are same except the
degree of prestressing values, however
the failure loads are almost same for
both cases, further the deflection of
member is changing with respect to
deformability behaviour of CFRP
prestressed beam. Burgoyne stated
(a)
(b)
that, the deformability of PSC beam
influences the moment curvature
pattern which leads to reform in flexure
and serviceability behavior of beam.
4.1 Crack Stabilization
Experimental test results shows that the
flexural cracks has formed below the
neutral axis in the pure bending zone
as shown in Figure 5. The first crack
formed near to middle of support and
then other cracks had developed. The
cracks patterns on beam stabilized at
certain applied load and then no further
new cracks has formed even after
increase of load on beam. Instead depth
of crack penetration is increasing. The
load at crack stabilized stage is called
as crack stabilization load (Pst). The
crack stabilization formed faster for
the CFRP prestressed beam than steel
prestressed beam due to less stiffness
of CFRP rod and bond slip behaviour.
The crack stabilization of CFRP beam
also depends on deformability index
value of beam. Stabilization of crack
occur faster for the low deformability
index CFRP prestressed beam. Xue
Weichen and Yuan Tan11 stated that,
faster crack stabilization load (Pst)
is due to high degree of prestressing
of CFRP rod which leads to less
residual strain is only available for
deformability. Figure 4 (b) shows
that, the ratio of stabilization load
with respect to first crack load Pst/Pcr is
changing with respect to deformability
index of beam. The Psr/Pcr ratio of
high deformability beam is 1.292 and
it is decreasing gradually to 1.090 for
low deformability index member as
shown in Figure 4 (b). Due to slow
rate of increase of residual strain after
decompression in FRP bar for high
deformability beam allowing some
time to settle the stabilized crack
pattern. Hence lower the deformability
faster the stabilization and vice versa.
4.2 Number of Crack Pattern
Four numbers of crack pattern
stabilized for the low deformability

592 Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 24, No. 7, 2016

 Modified Frosch Crack Width Model for Concrete Beams Prestressed With CFRP Bars

index beam as shown in Figure  5
and Table 5 and five number of
crack pattern developed for the high
deformability beam which is due
to the slower phase of reaching the
stabilization load.
4.3 Crack Spacing
The average crack spacing after crack
stabilization for the low deformability
index beam is 323 mm which is higher
than the low deformability index
beam value of 258 mm. CFRP based
PSC beam has more crack spacing as
compared to steel based PSC beam
due to its more bond slip of FRP
bar during cracking load. The crack
spacing of all the beams lies within the
range of 1.23 for Smax/Savg to 0.73 for
Smin/Savg irrespective of deformability
index value of member. Figure 6 left
shows the crack spacing of all tested
specimen. The maximum crack spacing
are more for the low deformability
index beam due to the less number
of crack pattern occurred after crack
stabilization. Abdelrahman12 stated
that, the bond slip of CFRP tendon
leads to faster stabilization of crack
pattern than steel tendon and it is also
depends on the surface condition of bar
which results in more crack spacing
than steel prestressed beam. Hence the
crack spacing depends on bond slip
behaviour and the effective tension
stiffening area around reinforcements.
available after decompression of
prestressing. Abdelrahman12 specified
that the tension stiffening effect of
intact concrete influences the rate of
shift of neutral axis & effective moment
of inertia of member during cracks
occurs in member. The effective tension
stiffening area is related to the shift of
neutral axis of member and the concrete
cover. Yu Deng, and Jiongfeng liang13
stated that, FRP beam display high
crack width than steel bar due to the
less stiffness and non-ductile property
of CFRP bar. Figure 6 (b) shows the
crack width of all crack patterns for
all beams. Maximum and Minimum
crack width of members are within
the ratio of 1.24 for Wmax/Wavg to 0.74
for Wmin/Wavg
4.5 Failure Load and Allowable
Load
The crack pattern shown in Figure 7
is similar to load vs. deflection curve
Figure 5. Crack pattern of beam: read from top (a) CFB1-2-H-0.61 (b) CFB1-
2-V-0.48 (c) CFB3-1-H-0.35 (d) CFB4-1-H-0.70
pattern as shown in Figure 5. The
crack width is following bilinear curve
pattern. It increases in a slow rate up to
crack stabilization load and then it is
increasing faster rate up to failure. The
crack width value of low deformability
index beam is less as compared to
high deformability index beam.
Mertoletal14 specified that, there is no
specific durability requirement for the
allowable crack width limit; however
it has to be restricted considering
the appearance and serviceability
requirements of structure. CAN/CSA
S806-0215 suggested permissible crack
width limit of 0.5 mm considering the
aesthetic requirements and prevention
of leakages. The service load (Ps)
corresponds to 0.5 mm crack width
as shown in Figure 7 is high for
low deformability index beam even
as compared to high deformability
beam. The low deformability beam
is 1.26 times higher than first crack
load (Pcr) as shown in Figure 5 right

4.4 Crack Width

The maximum crack width of beam
occurs high for the high deformability
index beam due to more crack
induced residual strain on CFRP bar

Table 5. Experimental test results -crack width, crack spacing and number of crack pattern
Beam Type Deformability Number Crack width in mm Average Remarks
Index (DI) of Crack Maximum Minimum Average Crack
Pattern Crack Width Crack width Crack Spacing in
Width mm
CFB1-2-H-0.61 1.83 5 1.330 0.820 1.086 335
CFB2-2-V-0.48 2.36 5 1.610 0.990 1.312 267
CFB3-1-H-0.35 2.88 5 2.690 1.480 2.120 258
CFB4-1-H-0.70 1.35 4 1.260 0.780 1.028 323

Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 24, No. 7, 2016 593

 P. Selvachandran, S. Anandakumar and K.L. Muthuramu

where in the high deformability beam
is 1.5 times higher than first crack
load, however the net service load is
lesser at 0.5 mm crack width. Based on
experimental assessment it shows that,
the service load capacity of moderate
to high degree of prestressed beam is
better than high deformability of CFRP
prestressed beam.
5. Crack Width by
Modified Frosch
Method
The crack width on member varies
randomly due to the influence of
numerous parameters. Hence an
effective calculation method is required
to control the crack width and reduce the
additional reinforcement requirements
for design. The experimental results
of maximum crack width compared
with various methods for the low
deformability index beam CFB4
as shown in Figure 7. ACI 440-4R
modified Gergely and Lutz method is
over estimating the crack width up to
certain load beyond which it is under
estimating. The pattern of cracks is
not parallel to the experimental results
as shown in Figure 7 (b). The crack
width model developed by Gergely
and Lutz method is designed by
considering the steel reinforcement,
where in the ductility behaviour of
steel and deformability of FRP bar
is not in linear proportion, hence the
ACI 440-4R proposal of multiplication
of two times the value of Gergely
and Lutz model is not converging to
the experimental results. Further the
Gergely and Lutz method suggest same
strain ratio (R) factor for all type of
deformability member, but R value is
high at high deformability member and
vice versa. Hence it is underestimating
the maximum crack width values
at ultimate load as compared to
experimental results.
BS EN 1992 crack width pattern
resembles to the experimental results
as shown in Figure 7 (b), however it is
underestimating the crack width value

Figure 6. (a) Crack Spacing (b) Crack width

Figure 7. Crack width pattern of beam for (a) CFB3-1-H-0.35, DI=2.88 and CFB4-1-H-0.70, DI= 1.35 (b) Maximum crack
width by experimental and other methods CFB4-1-H-0.70, DI= 1.35

594 Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 24, No. 7, 2016

 Modified Frosch Crack Width Model for Concrete Beams Prestressed With CFRP Bars

as compared to experimental results.
The rate of increase of crack width for
steel reinforcement is slow and steady,
wherein FRP reinforcements are faster
due to its weak ductile property and less
stiffness. Further the tension stiffening
strain depends on the deformability
behaviour of FRP prestressed beam.
The bond slip factor by BSEN 1992
crack width model is for steel bar
considering no influence on any type
of material. But the bond slip for steel
bar is slow due to its yielding behavior
wherein FRP prestressing bar are faster
leads to rate of increase of crack width
with respect to applied load. Hence
this approach is underestimating as
compared to experimental results.
Frosch crack width pattern resembles
the experimental load vs. crack width
curve, however it is over estimating
the actual value. It is a conservative
method for calculation of crack width
for FRP prestressing beam due to higher
strain ratio b factor irrespective of
different degrees of prestressing. The
effect of tension stiffening strain is
not considered in this approach which
leads to increase in crack induced strain
and more crack width value than other
method.
Where xeff is effective moment of
inertia, xg centroid of member, Mcr
First crack moment and Ma is applied
moment.
The net crack induced strain is
considered after deducting the tension
stiffening effect for calculation of crack
width. The tension stiffening effect
magnified by multiplying young’s
modulus ratio of FRP bar with concrete
(mp) due to the consideration of strain
on intact concrete and equivalent
reinforcement strain in the intact area.
(14)
where,
(15)
Figure 8. (a) Crack width for CFB4-1-H-0.70 (b) right crack width for CFB1-
2-H-0.61
The modification as proposed above
in the crack width calculation leads
to converging the results towards
experimental results as shown in
Figure 8. The modified Frosch
crack width model coincides with
experimental results for the low to
moderately deformable beam.
6. Conclusions and
Recommendations
The crack width calculation for the
various methods is discussed and
compared the same with experimental
results. The Frosch crack width model
resembles the experimental crack width
pattern and proposed conservative
approach. Hence modification
proposed in the Frosch crack width
model considering the effect of
effective neutral axis distance of FRP
(a)

5.1 Modification in Frosch

Method
The effective strain ratio factor
(b) is depends on shift of neutral
axis of member. ACI 440-4R and
Abdelrahman stated that the shift of
neutral axis of CFRP prestressed beam
is faster rate as compared to steel tendon
beam, hence they proposed to soften (b)
the neural axis calculation for the FRP
prestressed beam by reducing to two
power curve. Hence the shift of neutral
axis effect is considered for calculation
Frosch strain ratio factor (b).

(12)

(13)

Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 24, No. 7, 2016 595

 P. Selvachandran, S. Anandakumar and K.L. Muthuramu
prestressed member as per ACI 440 4R
and Abdelrahman recommendations
and deducted tension stiffening strain
is used for calculation of net crack
induced strain. Hence the proposed
modification in Frosch crack width
model is converging to experimental
results hence it is efficient method for
calculating the crack width of member
as compared to other methods.
Based on the experimental study, Crack
width, Crack spacing, Number of crack
pattern and Crack stabilization are
influenced by deformability behavior
of fully bonded FRP prestressed
beam. Detailed experimental and
numerical studies are required for the
studying the serviceability behavior
of beam considering more number of
experimental test samples to validate
the modified Frosch crack width model
and influence of deformability in design
parameters.
596
References
1. ACI 224R. American Concrete
Institute, 01, (2001), 18-20.
2. Gergely P. and Lutz L.A. American
Concrete Institute, Structural
Journal, 1, (1968), 1-17.
3. ACI 440.4R. American Concrete
Institute, 04, (2004), 20-21.
4. Frosch R.J. American Concrete
Institute Structural Journal, 96,
(1999), 437-442.
5. Salah Khalfallah and Dahbia
Guerdouh. International Journal of
Advanced Structural Engineering,
a Springer open Journal, 6, (2014),
1- 6.
6. Stramandinoli R.S.B. and La
Rovere H.L. Journal of Engineering
Structure, 30, (2008), 2069–2080.
7. Burgoyne C.J. FRP Composites in
Civil Engineering, 1 (2001), 15-25.
8. Charles W., Dolan P.E., Chad and
Burke R. Prestressed Concrete
Institute Journal, 46, (2001), 76 to
87.
Polymers & Polymer Composites, Vol. 24, No. 7, 2016
9. BS EN 1992. British Standard
European Norms, 1, (2004), 123-
129.
10. Johnson Bjorgvin Smari. Master of
Science thesis, Hoskolinnreukjavik
University Iceland, (2011), Online.
11. Weichen Xue and Yuan Tan.
Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Composites in Civil
Engineering, Rome, Italy, (2012),
Comp in Civil Engg.
12. Abdelrahman A. and Rizkalla
S. American Concrete Institute
Structural Journal, 94, (1997),
447-457.
13. Deng Yu. and Jiongfengliang.
Advanced material research, 168,
(2011), 2182-2185.
14. Mertol H.C.,Rizkalla, S., Scott P.,
Lees J. and El-Hacha R. Special
Session – Subcommittee 440I for
FRP Prestressed Concrete in ACI
Fall Convention Denver Colorado
USA, (2006), ACI.
15. CAN/CSA S806 Canadian
Standards Association, 2, (2002),
Canada Structural Engineering
Association.