Design Propositions for Hybrid FRP-Steel

Reinforced Concrete Beams

Lei Pang 1; Wenjun Qu 2; Peng Zhu, Ph.D. 3; and Jiajing Xu 4

Abstract: Concrete beams reinforced with a combination of steel and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars can provide increased strength,
serviceability, and durability. However, the amounts of FRP and steel necessary to ensure sufficient strength and ductility are unclear. Because
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Bristol on 03/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of the linear elastic behavior of FRP bars before failure, the deformation characteristics of hybrid reinforced concrete beams differ from those
of conventional steel reinforced concrete beams and pure FRP reinforced concrete beams. Conventional ductility indices are not suitable
for concrete beams in hybrid reinforcement approaches. To ensure the ductile failure of beams, proper reinforcement ratio limits are proposed.
In addition, a new ductility index is defined in terms of deformability and energy absorption capacity. Various comparisons between
experimental results and theoretical predictions show that the developed models can accurately predict the load capacity and ductility.
In addition, the influences of various parameters on ductility are discussed. Based on various requirements for ductility, reasonable ratios
of FRP to steel bars are found. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000654. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Concrete beams; Hybrid reinforcement; Flexural strength; Ductility; Fiber-reinforced polymers.

Introduction design practice for steel-reinforced concrete (steel-RC) beams,

The corrosion of steel reinforcement embedded in concrete causes
most of the failures experienced by concrete structures. However,
corrosion does not begin simultaneously in all of the steel bars in a
structure. Corrosion usually first occurs in the corners of the struc-
ture because of the unequal durability of the cross section (Qu and
Zhang 2001). Consequently, the corrosion products spall the con-
crete around the corner area first, and this process accelerates the
corrosion of the inner steel reinforcements.
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars are regarded as promising
alternatives to steel reinforcements in concrete structures because
of their high strength-to-weight ratio, corrosion resistance, and
nonmagnetic and nonconductive nature, among other properties.
The use of FRP bars in concrete structures has rapidly increased
over the past decade, especially for concrete structures in harsh
environments.
However, because the elasticity of FRP bars is linear up to fail-
ure and the strain at rupture is low, the flexural failure mode of
FRP-reinforced concrete (FRP-RC) beams is brittle rather than
ductile. For FRP-RC members, compression failure by concrete
crushing, which provides various warnings prior to failure, is a
suitable failure mode. In other words, in contrast to the common
1 the determination of the strengths and failure modes in hybrid-RC
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Tongji Univ.,
Shanghai 200092, People’s Republic of China. E-mail: panglei0728@
126.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai
200092, People’s Republic of China (corresponding author). E-mail:
quwenjun.tj@tongji.edu.cn
3
Lecturer, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai
200092, People’s Republic of China. E-mail: pzhu@tongji.edu.cn
4
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Tongji Univ.,
Shanghai 200092, People’s Republic of China. E-mail: xujiajing199132@
163.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 9, 2015; approved on
October 5, 2015; published online on December 23, 2015. Discussion per-
iod open until May 23, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con-
struction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
over-reinforced designs are preferable to under-reinforced designs
for FRP-RC beams. Moreover, becasue of the low stiffness of FRP
bars, FRP-RC members exhibit larger deflections and wider cracks
than do steel-RC members. These factors limit the range of appli-
cation of FRPs.
To mitigate the corrosion problem caused by steel reinforce-
ments and design cross-sections with homogeneous durability,
hybrid (FRP and steel) reinforcements have been shown to be a
practical and effective design solution for concrete structures. The
resistance of reinforced concrete to corrosion can be increased by
replacing the steel bars located in the corner areas of the cross-
section with FRP bars (Qu et al. 2009). The yielding of the steel
bars at the inner or upper levels of the tensile zone ensures the duc-
tility, and the strength of the FRP increases the ultimate capacity
(Leung and Balendran 2003). The presence of steel reinforcement
reduces the crack width and crack spacing (Aiello and Ombres
2002). The test results indicate that hybrid reinforced concrete
(hybrid-RC) beams exhibit higher ductility than pure FRP-RC
beams (Lau and Pam 2010).
Flexural members reinforced with FRP and steel reinforcements
have also been investigated in the literature (Tan 1997; Aiello and
Ombres 2002; Leung and Balendran 2003; Lau and Pam 2010; Ge
et al. 2012; Safan 2013). Previous works have mainly focused on
beams. Their load-deflection response, cracking patterns and fail-
ure modes were recorded. These members were reinforced with
different FRP bars and possessed different reinforcement ratios as
well as geometric and material properties. The experimental results
confirmed the effectiveness of steel rebars in significantly improv-
ing serviceability and ductility relative to pure FRP-RC beams. A
qualitative conclusion was drawn that hybrid-RC beams featuring
an optimal ratio of FRP to steel bars can exhibit better ductility,
serviceability, and load capacity. However, the structural perfor-
mance of hybrid-RC beams has yet to be fully investigated. The
ductility issue remains a problem. It remains unclear which situa-
tions provide hybrid-RC beams with a ductile capacity comparable
to that of conventional steel-RC beams. Additional research should
be performed to shed light on this topic.

© ASCE 04015086-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2016, 20(4): 04015086

 In addition, conventional methods for ductility indices are not The yield reinforcement ratio ρs;b can be calculated as the
suitable for beams with FRPs because FRPs do not have a yield reinforcement ratio when concrete crushing and steel yielding oc-
point. Several new methods, such as the energy-based method cur simultaneously but the FRP bars have not yet ruptured.
and the deformation-based method, have been proposed to quantify
f c0 Es εcu
the ductility of pure FRP-RC beams (Naaman and Jeong 1995; ρs;b ¼ 0.85β 1 ð3Þ
Abdelrahman et al. 1995; Mufti et al. 1996; Zou 2003). Meanwhile, f y fy þ Es εcu
conventional ductility indices cannot be directly applied to mem- The critical reinforcement ratio ρf;b can be calculated as the
bers reinforced with steel and FRP bars. The ductility and service- reinforcement ratio when concrete crushing and FRP bar rupturing
ability of hybrid-RC beams vary with the ratio of the axial stiffness occur simultaneously after the steel rebars have yielded.
between the FRP and steel reinforcement (Qu et al. 2009). For a
hybrid-RC beam, a ductility improvement in terms of the conven- fc0 Ef εcu
ρf;b ¼ 0.85β 1 ð4Þ
tional ductility index can be obtained, but such an improvement f fu Ef εcu þ f fu
is solely attributable to the decrease in the yield displacement,
not an increase in the ultimate displacement (Lau and Pam 2010). where Es = elastic modulus of the steel reinforcement; As = area of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Bristol on 03/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Recent attempts to evaluate the ductility of hybrid-RC beams in- the steel; Ef = elastic modulus of the FRP; As = area of the FRP;
clude those by Tan (1997), Aiello and Ombres (2002), and Lau b = breadth and d = distance from the extreme compression fiber to
and Pam (2010). The results of these efforts will be discussed later the centroid of the tension reinforcing zone; ρs ½¼ As =bd = steel
in this paper. reinforcement ratio; ρf ½¼ Af =bd = FRP reinforcement ratio; f y =
In this study, an under-reinforced design with proper reinforce- specific yielding stress of the steel reinforcement; ffu = ultimate
ment ratio limits is proposed. The ductility evaluation of hybrid-RC tensile strength of the FRP reinforcement; β 1 = ratio between
members is also discussed. The ultimate strength and the ductility the depth of the equivalent rectangular concrete stress block and
index for an under-reinforced hybrid-RC beam are the two key the neutral axis depth; fc0 = cylinder compressive strength of the
parameters used in this paper. concrete; and εcu ð¼ 0.003Þ = extreme fiber concrete compressive
strain in as a function of fc0 .
Because of the low elastic modulus and high ultimate strength of
Analysis of Failure Modes FRP bars, the critical reinforcement ratio is much lower than the
yield reinforcement ratio, ρf;b < ρs;b .
This type of hybrid system is expected to mitigate the corrosion Table 1 shows that when the mechanical reinforcing index, ρsf;f ,
problems caused by the steel reinforcement while providing the re- is greater than the critical reinforcement ratio, ρf;b , and the effective
quired strength, stiffness, and ductility. In addition, an improved reinforcement stiffness, ρsf;s , is less than the yield reinforcement
durability can be obtained by placing FRP bars at corners or near ratio, ρs;b , flexural failure of the beam will begin with steel yielding
the outer surface, as shown in Fig. 1. followed by the concrete crushing and eventual FRP bar rupturing.
For hybrid-RC beams, various failure modes directly affect the The section is under-reinforced, which is a preferred approach in
performance of members. Table 1 lists the failure modes of flexure the design of hybrid-RC members.
hybrid-RC beams. As presented in Table 1, the effective reinforce- If the mechanical reinforcing index, ρsf;f , is less than the critical
ment stiffness ρsf;s and the mechanical reinforcing index ρsf;f are reinforcement ratio, ρf;b , then the FRP bars have no reserved
defined as follows: strength because the members are designed to fail upon FRP rup-
ture. The plastic deformation of concrete cannot be observed in this
Es As þ Ef Af Ef type of member. Thus, the section is inadmissible.
ρsf;s ¼ ¼ ρs þ ρf ð1Þ
Es bd Es If the effective reinforcement stiffness, ρsf;s , is greater than the
yield reinforcement ratio, ρs;b , then the strain of the longitudinal
fy As þ ffu Af fy bars is low (εs ¼ εf < εy ¼ fy =Es ), and the strain of the concrete
ρsf;f ¼ ¼ ρs þ ρf ð2Þ in the compression zone has already reached the ultimate stage. The
f fu bd f fu
failure mode will be governed by concrete crushing. The section is
over-reinforced and is also inadmissible.

Prediction of Ultimate Flexural Capacity

d

d
d
h

Steel Steel
Steel For the theoretical model presented, the authors assumed plane
cross-sections and perfect bonding between concrete and reinforce-
FRP bar FRP bar FRP bar ment, which have been confirmed experimentally (Qu et al. 2009;
Ge et al. 2012). Based on the force equilibrium, strain compatibility
b b b and American Concrete Institute (ACI) rectangular stress block
hypothesis for the stress distribution in compressive concrete,
Fig. 1. Cross-sectional details of the proposed hybrid-RC beams
the stress in tensile FRP bars (f f ) and the nominal moment capacity

Table 1. Failure Modes of the Flexural Hybrid-RC Beams

Failure mode Control material Demanded reinforcement condition Remarks
Concrete crushing, steel nonyielding, FRP nonrupturing Concrete ρsf;s > ρs;b Inadmissible
Steel yielding, concrete crushing, FRP nonrupturing Steel and concrete ρsf;s ≤ ρs;b and ρsf;f ≥ ρf;b Permissible
Steel yielding, FRP rupturing, concrete noncrushing FRP and steel bars ρsf;f < ρf;b Inadmissible

© ASCE 04015086-2 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2016, 20(4): 04015086

 (Mn ) in the ultimate limit state can be calculated (Qu et al. 2009) capacity and the measured moment (M u;e ) of the hybrid-RC beams
using Eqs. (5) and (6) tested in the literature.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2   Table 2 indicates that there are six inadmissible beams (beam
1 As f y β f 0 As fy B2, HCBS-2, HCBS-3, HCBC-2, HCBC-3 and HCBC-4). For the
ff ¼ þ Ef εcu þ 0.85 1 c − Ef εcu
4 Af ρf Af 31 beams that are under-reinforced, the average ratio of the theo-
  retical moment to the measured moment is 0.98, which means that
1 As f y
− þ Ef εcu ≤ ffu ð5Þ the proposed model for the flexural strength of hybrid-RC beams
2 Af is conservative and that the theoretical predictions agree well with
the test results. Therefore, Eqs. (5) and (6) can be used to accurately
 
ρf f f þ ρs f y predict the ultimate flexural capacity of under-reinforced hybrid-
M u ¼ ðρf f f þ ρs f y Þ 1 − 0.59 bd2 ð6Þ RC beams.
f c0

The analysis of the section is based on the assumption that the

flexure capacity of the hybrid-RC beams is governed by the yield- Recommendations for Flexural Strength Design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Bristol on 03/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing of the steel reinforcement followed by concrete crushing, while

the tensile stress in the FRP bars, f f , is less than the design tensile
strength f fu .
To verify the suitability of the proposed model, the flexural
strength is examined together with the reinforcement conditions.
The theoretical moment capacity (M u;t ) of each beam specimen
is evaluated based on the respective actual tensile strength of the
longitudinal reinforcement and the concrete strength. Note that
in all of the calculations, all partial safety factors for the material
strength are set equal to 1. Table 2 compares the theoretical moment
The yielding of steel causes ductile failure with ample prior
warning. This ample prior warning requires steel-RC or hybrid-
RC members to be designed for under reinforcement. The yield
reinforcement ratio ρs;b and the critical reinforcement ratio ρf;b are
important factors in the flexural strength design of hybrid-RC
members. However, because of variations in the actual strength
of the concrete and longitudinal bars, the following reinforcement
ratios are suggested [Eqs. (7) and (8)] to prevent rupture of the
FRP reinforcement prior to concrete crushing and to ensure steel

Table 2. Comparison of the Calculation Results and Test Results

Mu;e M u;t (kN · m) ρsf;s (%) ρsf;f (%) ρs;b (%) ρf;b (%)
Reference Beam (kN · m) Eq. (6) M u;t =Mu;e Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Remarks
Tan (1997) A2 36.0 35.9 1.00 0.29 0.14 4.01 0.09 Under-reinforced
A3 43.5 39.5 0.91 0.54 0.14 4.01 0.09 Under-reinforced
B2 35.3 34.1 0.97 0.21 0.07 4.01 0.09 Inadmissible
Aiello and A1 25.1 20.2 0.8 0.47 0.44 3.64 0.15 Under-reinforced
Ombres (2002) A2 28.4 24.8 0.87 0.53 0.73 3.64 0.22 Under-reinforced
A3 35.6 33.4 0.94 1.09 1.19 3.64 0.22 Under-reinforced
C1 25.1 20.2 0.80 0.47 0.44 3.64 0.15 Under-reinforced
Leung and L2 22.2 17.5 0.79 0.78 0.99 2.45 0.36 Under-reinforced
Balendran (2003) L5 23.1 19.3 0.83 0.84 1.29 2.45 0.36 Under-reinforced
H2 21.1 20.8 0.98 0.78 0.99 3.51 0.52 Under-reinforced
H5 27.1 23.3 0.86 0.84 1.29 3.51 0.52 Under-reinforced
Qu et al. (2009) GF1 34.3 36.2 1.06 0.72 0.91 3.24 0.36 Under-reinforced
GF2 36.5 38.4 1.05 0.72 1.25 3.60 0.35 Under-reinforced
GF3 33.8 36.1 1.07 1.10 0.81 3.75 0.32 Under-reinforced
GF4 40.6 41.9 1.03 1.17 1.09 3.75 0.37 Under-reinforced
GF5 27.5 27.2 0.99 0.35 0.49 3.84 0.37 Under-reinforced
GF6 62.3 66.4 1.07 3.67 2.67 4.27 0.42 Under-reinforced
Ge et al. FS1 74.4 70.9 0.95 0.74 0.78 3.81 0.41 Under-reinforced
(2012) FS2 73.5 70.9 0.97 0.85 0.75 3.81 0.41 Under-reinforced
FS3 72.8 70.8 0.97 0.97 0.72 3.81 0.41 Under-reinforced
Lau and G0.3-MD1.0 147 155.8 1.06 1.07 0.86 4.87 0.76 Under-reinforced
Pam (2010) G0.6-T1.0 229 228.8 1.00 1.12 1.51 2.61 0.79 Under-reinforced
G1.0-T0.7 261 222.9 0.85 0.84 1.66 2.12 0.73 Under-reinforced
Chen (2007) HCBS-2 6.6 4.4 0.67 0.65 0.64 2.25 0.81 Inadmissible
HCBS-3 5.7 4.9 0.87 0.42 0.77 2.25 0.81 Inadmissible
HCBC-2 15.9 10.6 0.67 4.22 3.36 2.25 0.81 Inadmissible
HCBC-3 15.0 9.7 0.64 3.55 3.72 2.25 0.81 Inadmissible
HCBC-4 12.4 8.5 0.68 2.51 4.26 2.25 0.81 Inadmissible
HCBC-5 11.1 9.2 0.83 1.84 4.61 2.25 0.81 Under-reinforced
Safan (2013) B10/6 13.5 13.7 1.02 0.95 0.92 2.15 0.37 Under-reinforced
B10/8 13.6 14.7 1.07 0.99 1.18 2.15 0.38 Under-reinforced
B12/6 14.1 15.9 1.13 1.33 1.08 2.56 0.37 Under-reinforced
B12/8 14.7 16.6 1.13 1.38 1.36 2.56 0.38 Under-reinforced
B10/6S 14.1 13.7 0.97 0.95 0.92 2.15 0.37 Under-reinforced
B10/8S 14.4 14.7 1.02 0.99 1.18 2.15 0.38 Under-reinforced
B12/6S 14.9 15.9 1.07 1.33 1.08 2.56 0.37 Under-reinforced
B12/8S 16.4 16.6 1.02 1.38 1.36 2.56 0.38 Under-reinforced

© ASCE 04015086-3 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2016, 20(4): 04015086

 M The curvature ductility factor μφ is often used to model the sec-
1 Steel-RC Beam
2 FRP-RC Beam 2
3 Hybrid-RC Beam
3 tio of the angle of curvature in the element at the ultimate state (φu )
1 to that at the commencement of yielding (φy )
ϕ
0 at yield at ultimate
Fig. 2. Three different moment-curvature curves of the concrete beams
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Bristol on 03/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
yielding prior to concrete crushing [ACI 318M-05 (ACI 2005);
ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI 2006)]:
Ef f 0 Es εcu
ρsf;s ¼ ρs þ ρf ≤ 0.75ρs;b ¼ 0.64β 1 c
Es fy f y þ Es εcu
fy f0 Ef εcu
ρsf;f ¼ ρs þ ρf ≥ 1.4ρf;b ¼ 1.19β 1 c
ffu ffu f fu þ Ef εcu
In addition, after the yielding of the steel, the FRP bars can still
play an important role in resisting the load. Compared to classical
steel-RC beams, hybrid-RC beams possess a higher ultimate
strength capacity for the same reinforcement content. As shown
in Fig. 2, a distinct difference in the shape of the moment-curvature
(M − φ) curves of various flexural members with equivalent
reinforcement areas is observed. As expected, the FRP-RC beams
exhibited no yielding. The difference between the flexural strength
at the ultimate state (M uh ) and that at the steel yielding state (Myh )
is obvious for hybrid-RC beams and is different from that of steel-
RC beams. Moreover, the difference is greater when the ratio of
FRP to steel bars (Af =As ) is high. The stiffness of hybrid-RC beams
lies between those of steel-RC beams and pure FRP-RC beams.
A higher Af =As value results in lower stiffness.
Because the ultimate flexural capacity of hybrid-RC beams
varies with Af =As , the strength at the commencement of yielding
(Myh ) can be considered as the design-aimed state, and the differ-
ence between the flexural strength at the ultimate state and that at
the steel yielding state (ΔM ¼ M uh − M yh ) can be considered as
the reserve strength. Sufficient reserve strength is important be-
cause it is closely related to safety when the structure is subject
to a catastrophic load (e.g., earthquake load) that leads to the failure
of the structural members. In this case, based on the effective
reinforcement stiffness, ρsf;s , the equivalent area of reinforcement,
Aeff;s , can be calculated using Eq. (9). The strength at the com-
mencement of yielding (M y ) can then be attained according to
the provisions of ACI 318M-05 (ACI 2005)
Aeff;s ¼ ρsf;s bd
Ductility Analysis
Available Flexural Ductility Analysis Methods
For traditional steel-RC structures, ductility is defined as the ratio
of the final deformation at the ultimate state to that at the first yield
point of steel reinforcement. Ductility indices have been commonly
expressed in terms of the various parameters related to deformation,
i.e., curvatures, rotations, and displacements. Properly reinforced
and dimensioned concrete members exhibit good ductile behavior.
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2016, 20(4): 04015086
tional ductility, and it is defined for structural elements loaded by
a bending moment. The curvature ductility factor represents the ra-
μφ ¼ φu =φy ð10Þ
The conventional definition of ductility indices is not suitable
for beams reinforced with FRP because FRP does not have a yield
point. Various new equations have been proposed, including the
ductility index μen proposed by Naaman and Jeong (1995), the
equivalent deformability factor proposed by Abdelrahman et al.
(1995), and the deformability factor μM proposed by Mufti et al.
(1996). A good review of the ductility and deformability indices
used in the design of concrete beams reinforced with steel or FRP
bars can be found in Zou (2003). Accordingly, two main ap-
proaches have been widely used. The ductility index μen is energy
based and defines ductility as a capacity for absorbing energy.
ð7Þ Meanwhile, both the equivalent deformability factor and the de-
formability factor μM are deformation based. In the deformation-
based approach, ductility is reflected by the deformability margin
between the ultimate stage and another specified stage. However,
ð8Þ
the methods used to evaluate the ductility of FRP-RC beams are
generally independent of the yield point of the reinforcement.
Over the last few decades, the ductility of hybrid-RC beams has
been the subject of various research efforts and much discussion.
In 1997, Tan proposed the ductility indices μA and μE , where
μA ¼ A0.8P =Ay ð11Þ
μE ¼ ðEtot =Eel þ 1Þ=2 ð12Þ
where A0.8P = area under the load-deflection curve up to the point
where the load has decreased to 80% of the peak value; Ay = area
under the curve up to the pseudo-yield deflection, defined as the
deflection corresponding to the intersection of the line passing
through the origin and the yield load, the constant load line through
the origin and the yield load, and the constant load line through the
peak load; Etot = total energy, computed as the area under the load-
deflection curve up to the peak load; and Eel = elastic energy.
The proposed ductility indices μA and μE are both energy-based.
Naaman and Jeong (1995) introduced this method to calculate the
ductility of FRP-RC beams; however, it ignores failure mode and
the ductility index is dependent on the load level at which unload-
ing begins (Vijay et al. 1996). For hybrid-RC beams, the ductility
indices μA and μE generally exhibit similar trends, decreasing as the
replacement ratio increased. However, the ductility index μE pro-
vides a more consistent picture.
Aiello and Ombres (2002) adopted the deformability factor
(DF), which is defined as the ratio of the energy absorption at the
ultimate state (area under the moment-curvature diagram) to the
energy calculated with respect to a limiting curvature [a conven-
ð9Þ tional value of 0.005=d (rad=mm), with d being the effective depth
of the cross-section, is assumed].
The concept of a deformability factor has been found to be
inadequate to describe the ductility potential of AFRP-RC beams
(Rashid et al. 2005). A direct application of this deformation based
method shows that beams with small percentage of FRP tensile
reinforcement, which fail by tensile rupture, have larger deform-
ability factors than do those beams failing in compression (Vijay
et al. 1996). However, the compressive failure is actually more duc-
tile and gradual than the tensile rupture. Another shortcoming of
this method is that it overestimates the ductility.
Lau and Pam (2010) compared the ultimate displacement ratio
(Δu =L) and the displacement ductility factor (μ) to analyze the
04015086-4 J. Compos. Constr.
 flexural ductility and proposed the use of the displacement ratio
(Δu =L) to measure the ductility of members reinforced with
FRP bars.
The ultimate displacement ratio is a convenient means to evalu-
ate ductility of members lacking a yield point. The dimensionless
value μ is defined as the ratio of the midspan displacement at ulti-
mate stage (Δu ) to that at the yield stage (Δy ). This term is equal to
the traditional ductility index used for steel-RC beams. The exper-
imental results showed that the addition of steel rebars can improve
the ultimate displacement ductility factor μ in hybrid-RC beams.
However, such improvement is solely due to a decrease in the yield
displacement (Δy ), not an increase in the ultimate displacement
(Δu ). In addition, the yield deflection (Δy ) is difficult to access
theoretically.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Bristol on 03/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Discussion of Current Ductility Models
Various test results have revealed that hybrid-RC beams behave in a
more ductile manner compared to pure FRP RC beams (Tan 1997;
Aiello and Ombres 2002; Leung and Balendran 2003; Qu et al.
2009; Lau and Pam 2010; Ge et al. 2012). However, the ductility
and serviceability of a hybrid-RC beam vary with the ratio of the
axial stiffness of the FRP and that of the steel reinforcement (Rf )
(Qu et al. 2009). Once the reinforcement types are determined, the
strength and elasticity modulus of FRP and steel bars are constants,
and Rf is a linear function of the parameter Af =As. Therefore, the
parameter Af =As, not the parameter Rf , will be discussed in this
section
Ef Af
Rf ¼ ð13Þ
Es As
When the reinforcement area is fixed, the conventional ductility
index (μ), defined by Eq. (10), varies with Af =As . In addition, when
the effective reinforcement stiffness ρsf;s is fixed, the conventional
ductility index (μ), defined by Eq. (10), also varies with Af =As . A
detailed analysis, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, is presented in the
following section. Therefore, because of its uncertainty, the tradi-
tional ductility index (μ) used for steel-RC beams cannot be applied
to hybrid-RC beams directly.
Energy-based modified definitions of ductility used for FRP-RC
beams define the ductility as the area under the moment-curvature
or load-deflection curve and do not consider deformation. Thus, the
same ductility index can be used for two beams that behave quite
differently. Meanwhile, deformation-based modified definitions of
ductility, which can be used for FRP bars without a yield point, are
essentially made similar by defining the nominal yielding point to
enable the continued use of the conventional concept of ductility,
such as the curvature corresponding to a concrete strain at the top
most compression fiber of 0.001 or the deflection at first cracking
(Zou 2003). The two aforementioned concepts of ductility, energy-
based and deformability-based ductility, may fail describe the
trends exhibited by the tested FRP-RC beams (Rashid et al. 2005).
Another disadvantage of the previously-described modified
methods is that although they can be used to compare the ductile
behaviors of different RC beams it is difficult to quantitatively
evaluate the ductility. Thus, there is a need for a method allowing
both a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of ductility. This
evaluation includes the computation of a suitable ductility index
and comparison of the behaviors of RC beams at the ultimate state.
Because the flexural ductility and final flexural strength of hybrid-
RC beams can be comparable to those of steel-RC beams (as shown
in Fig. 2), the authors believe that a method that is dependent on
the yield point of the reinforcement should be used to evaluate the
ductility of hybrid-RC beams.
© ASCE 04015086-5
J. Compos. Constr., 2016, 20(4): 04015086
M
1 Steel-RC beam(As)
2 Hybrid-RC beam(As1 +Af =As)
M uh 2
M ys (M us) 1
M yh
ϕ
0 ϕ yh ϕ ys ϕ uh ϕ us
Fig. 3. Ideal moment-curvature curves of the RC beams for the same
reinforcement areas
M
1 Steel-RC beam(As)
2 Hybrid-RC beam(As1 +Ef Af =As)
M uh 2
M ys 1
(M yh)(M u )
ϕ
0 ϕ ys( ϕ yh) ϕ uh ϕ us
Fig. 4. Ideal moment-curvature curves of the RC beams for the same
axial stiffness of reinforcement
Proposed Ductility Index
Because the elastic modulus of steel is finite, the reinforcement
ratio reflects the axial stiffness as well. However, different types of
FRPs have different elastic moduli, and these elastic moduli are
usually lower than those of steel reinforcements. For hybrid-RC
members, the definition of the effective reinforcement stiffness ρsf;s
[Eq. (1)] is similar to the definition of the conventional reinforce-
ment ratio. By considering the different elastic moduli of the steel
and FRP bars, the effective reinforcement stiffness converts FRP
reinforcements into equivalent steel reinforcements. In this way,
meaningful comparisons among steel-RC beams, FRP-RC beams,
and hybrid-RC beams are possible.
As shown in Fig. 3, when the sum of the steel reinforcement area
As1 and the FRP reinforcement area Af in a hybrid-RC beam is
equal to the steel reinforcement area As in a steel-RC beam, namely
As1 þ Af ¼ As , the curvature at the commencement of yielding of a
hybrid-RC beam (φyh ) is lower than that of a steel-RC beam (φys ),
as is the case for the curvature at the ultimate state, namely, φyh <
φys and φuh < φus .
When the sum of the steel reinforcement area As1 and the FRP
reinforcement effective area Af Ef =Es in a hybrid-RC beam is equal
to the steel reinforcement area As in a steel-RC beam, namely,
As1 þ Af Ef =Es ¼ As , the moment-curvature relationships of the
RC beams are presented in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 shows that for these
two curves, the slopes and the curvatures at the commencement of
yielding are identical. Because of the contribution of the FRP bars
after steel yielding, the ultimate strength of a hybrid-RC beam is
higher than its counterpart steel-RC beam, whereas its ultimate cur-
vature is lower, namely, φyh ¼ φys and φuh < φus .
In addition, according to the theoretical moment-curvature rela-
tionship, the energy absorption of steel-RC beams U S and hybrid
RC beams U H can be calculated as follows:
J. Compos. Constr.
 M ys φys
US ¼ þ M ys ðφus − φys Þ
2
M yh φyh ðMyh þ M uh Þðφuh − φyh Þ
UH ¼ þ ð15Þ
2 2
From the perspective of energy absorption, when either the
reinforcement areas (As1 þ Af ¼ As ) or the axial stiffnesses of
reinforcement (As1 þ Af Ef =Es ¼ As ) are the same, the energy ab-
sorption ratio of a hybrid-RC beam to that of a steel-RC beam
varies with the ratio of FRP to steel reinforcement (Af =As ).
As mentioned previously, when either the reinforcement areas
or the axial stiffness values of reinforcement are the same, the
conventional ductility index based on deformability also varies
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Bristol on 03/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with the ratio of the area of the FRP bars to that of the steel
bars (Af =As ). These observations are important and useful for
determining a suitable ratio Af =As for a hybrid-RC beam. A
new ductility index μh , which must satisfy the ductility require-
ments for traditional steel-RC members, can be calculated using
Eq. (16)
μh ¼ ψDuh =Dyh ≥ ½μD 
ψ ¼ U H =U S ≤ 1.0
where U H = area under the moment-curvature curve of the
hybrid-RC beam; U S = area under the moment-curvature curve
of the counterpart steel-RC beam; Duh = ultimate deformation
(i.e., curvature, rotations and displacements) of the hybrid-RC
beam; Dyh = deformation of the hybrid-RC beam at the com-
mencement of steel yielding; ψ = ductility reduction factor; and
½μD  = ductility requirements, which are based on the conven-
tional definitions for steel-RC beams to ensure sufficient ductility.
The proposed ductility factor is found to depend on not only the
deformation at the yielding state and that at the ultimate state but
also the ratio of the energy absorption capacity of the hybrid-RC
beam to that of the steel-RC beam. Additionally, in this approach,
the effects of the carrying capacity at the commencement of steel
yielding and that at the ultimate state of beams are indirectly in-
cluded in the model through the energy absorption capacity.
Reasonable and uniform safety storage for various flexural mem-
bers can thus be achieved.
Theoretical Calculation of Curvature Ductility Index
Figs. 5 and 6 show the strain and stress distributions at the com-
mencement of yielding and at ultimate state, respectively. Based on
the plane cross-section assumption, the curvature at the yielding
state (φy ) and the curvature at the ultimate state φu can be calcu-
lated as follows [Eqs. (18)–(22)]:
ε c þ εs fy =Es
φy ¼ ¼ ð18Þ
d dð1 − kÞ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k¼ ðρsf;s αE Þ2 þ 2ρsf;s αE − ρsf;s αE
αE ¼ Es =Ec
εcu
φu ¼
c the beams reinforced with hybrid reinforcement have a different en-
d · εcu
c¼
εcu þ ff =Ef
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2016, 20(4): 04015086
c
ð14Þ
kd
ϕy
d
h
steel My
= f fy f y
f y
FRP bar
b at yielding state
Fig. 5. Cross-sectional strain and stress distribution of the hybrid-RC
beam at the yielding state
cu
a
u
0.85f c'ba
c
d
h
steel Mu
f = s y ff fy
ð16Þ FRP bar
b at ultimate state
ð17Þ
Fig. 6. Cross-sectional strain and stress distribution of the hybrid-RC
beam at the ultimate state
Verification of Proposed Model Based on Test Results
To verify the suitability of the proposed model, the ductility indices
together with the corresponding yield and ultimate displacements
(Δy =Δu ) of the specimens available in the literature are listed
in Table 3.
From Table 3, a similar trend is observed for both ductility in-
dices. However, the proposed ductility indices under two different
conditions are less than the ratio of deformation at the yielding state
to that at the ultimate state. In other words, the proposed ductility
index is conservative. Meanwhile, neither ductility index changed
appreciably with increasing area ratio of FRP to steel bars (Af =As ).
This result is attributed to the differences in the reinforcement ratios
and FRP types.
The theoretical ductility indices of hybrid-RC beams that are
under-reinforced in Table 2 are summarized in Table 4. The ratio
of the ultimate displacement to the span (Δu =L) is also listed in
Table 4 for reference.
Although all of the beams are under-reinforced, the actual de-
flections of the beams at failure are in the range of 1/139 to 1/17 of
the beam span. Except for nine of these beams (GF6, B10/6, B10/8,
B12/6, B12/8, B10/6S, B10/8S, B12/6S, and B12/8S), the actual
deflection level at the ultimate state of the other beams reaches
1/75 or more of the beam span, which are sufficient to provide
a physical warning before failure. From Table 4, it is shown that
Beam GF6 has the smallest value of μh , and thus is the most brittle
specimen. The failure mode of Beam GF6 is concrete crushing
ð19Þ immediately after steel yielding. This failure mode is attributable
to its effective reinforcement stiffness ρsf;s , which is close to the
yield reinforcement ratio ρs;b in Table 2.
ð20Þ Using the proposed ductility index [Eq. (16)], the beams are
found to have a ductility index greater than 2.0, which is classified
ð21Þ as ductile. The values in column 6 of the table [Eq. (17)] indicate that
ergy absorption capacity from those with steel for the same reinforce-
ð22Þ ment area. Moreover, the values in column 7 of the table [Eq. (17)]
indicate that the beams reinforced with hybrid reinforcement have
04015086-6 J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 3. Ductility Indices of the Tested Beams
Reference Beam Af =As Δu =Δy ψ1 Eq. (17) ψ2 Eq. (17) μh1 Eq. (16) μh2 Eq. (16)
Qu et al. (2009) GF1 1.12 4.78 0.77 0.70 3.86 3.52
GF2 1.99 8.42 0.74 0.64 3.69 3.20
GF3 0.35 5.87 0.89 0.85 4.65 4.42
GF4 0.63 4.82 0.85 0.78 3.73 3.41
GF5 1.26 11.00 0.65 0.63 6.12 5.87
GF6 0.33 1.61 1.19 0.97 1.75 1.70
Lau and Pam (2010) G0.3-MD1.0 0.29 7.28 0.85 0.83 6.02 5.86
G0.6-T1.0 0.58 4.19 1.00 0.87 2.84 2.47
G1.0-T0.7 1.56 3.86 1.14 0.86 3.06 2.61
Ge et al. (2012) FS1 0.96 6.56 0.71 0.67 4.11 3.90
FS2 0.64 6.56 0.76 0.72 4.29 4.09
FS3 0.43 6.00 0.80 0.78 4.48 4.32
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Bristol on 03/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: Subscript 1 indicates the same reinforcement areas, and the subscript 2 indicates the same axial stiffness of reinforcement.

Table 4. Theoretical Ductility Indices of the Tested Beams

φy × 105 φu × 105 ψ1 ψ2 μh1 μh2
Reference Beam Δu =L Eq. (18) Eq. (21) Eq. (17) Eq. (17) Eq. (16) Eq. (16)
Tan (1997) A2 1/32 0.60 9.53 0.70 0.69 11.00 10.92
A3 1/31 0.65 8.73 0.87 0.87 11.73 11.68
Aiello and Ombres (2002) A1 1/30 1.66 13.27 0.70 0.68 5.58 5.41
A2 1/34 1.69 10.60 0.68 0.64 4.25 4.01
A3 1/17 1.87 7.76 0.81 0.73 3.36 3.04
C1 1/31 1.66 13.27 0.70 0.68 5.58 5.41
Leung and Balendran (2003) L2 1/40 1.97 7.53 0.88 0.78 3.38 2.97
L5 1/39 1.99 6.74 0.92 0.75 3.11 2.53
H2 1/32 1.93 10.30 0.77 0.72 4.13 3.85
H5 1/34 1.95 9.03 0.77 0.69 3.58 3.20
Qu et al. (2009) GF1 1/65 1.12 5.67 0.77 0.70 3.86 3.52
GF2 1/69 1.05 5.25 0.74 0.64 3.69 3.20
GF3 1/62 1.12 5.88 0.89 0.85 4.65 4.42
GF4 1/75 1.14 4.97 0.85 0.78 3.73 3.41
GF5 1/41 1.02 9.55 0.65 0.63 6.12 5.87
GF6 1/127 1.66 2.91 1.19 0.97 1.75 1.70
Lau and Pam (2010) G0.3-MD1.0 1/66 0.68 4.81 0.85 0.83 6.02 5.86
G0.6-T1.0 1/40 1.12 3.17 1.00 0.87 2.84 2.47
G1.0-T0.7 1/39 1.16 3.56 1.14 0.86 3.06 2.61
Chen (2007) HCBC-5 1/61 3.21 11.10 1.40 0.80 3.45 2.77
Ge et al. (2012) FS1 1/51 0.88 5.10 0.71 0.67 4.11 3.90
FS2 1/56 0.90 5.11 0.76 0.72 4.29 4.09
FS3 1/49 0.92 5.13 0.80 0.78 4.48 4.32
Safan (2013) B10/6 1/105 2.10 6.54 0.99 0.91 3.10 2.85
B10/8 1/122 2.11 5.98 1.03 0.88 2.92 2.49
B12/6 1/106 1.98 5.52 1.02 0.95 2.86 2.65
B12/8 1/130 1.99 5.18 1.06 0.92 2.76 2.39
B10/6S 1/111 2.10 6.54 0.99 0.91 3.10 2.85
B10/8S 1/139 2.11 5.98 1.03 0.88 2.92 2.49
B12/6S 1/121 1.98 5.52 1.02 0.95 2.86 2.65
B12/8S 1/113 1.99 5.18 1.06 0.92 2.76 2.39
Note: The subscript 1 indicates the same reinforcement areas, and the subscript 2 indicates the same axial stiffness of reinforcement.

a smaller energy absorption capacity than do those reinforced with
steel for the same axial stiffness of reinforcement.
The ductility reduction factor ψ is defined as the ratio of the
energy absorption of the hybrid-RC beam U H to that of the
steel-RC beam U S . As shown in Table 4, the proposed ductility
index calculated with the same axial stiffness of reinforcement
is less than that with the same reinforcement area (ψ2 < ψ1 ). This
result is attributable to the higher reinforcement ratio and lower
ductility for steel-RC beams. The ductility index μh2 shows con-
sistent relative values to that indicated by the conventional index
for steel-RC beams. Therefore, the equation with the same effective
reinforcement stiffness ρsf;s , namely, the condition corresponding
to the same axial stiffness of reinforcement, is proposed to evaluate
the ductility of a hybrid-RC beam.
The proposed model provides the same ranking of the ductility
index for the above beams as the conventional model, but the pro-
posed model provides a more sensitive scale of ductility of hybrid-
RC beams.
Theoretical Analysis of Ductility
Because experimental members are limited, in this section, a theo-
retical analysis is performed to obtain a reasonable ratio range of

© ASCE 04015086-7 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2016, 20(4): 04015086

 FRP to steel bars in cross-section and to better understand the
effects of the influencing factors on the ductility index. Five main
factors of influence are investigated: concrete strength, steel
strength, FRP types, effective reinforcement ratio, and ultimate
compressive strain of concrete. Hybrid-RC beams with identical
dimensions of 250 × 450 mm (breadth b × effective height d)
are investigated, wherein a concrete cover is sufficient. The section
under consideration is a hybrid steel-FRP singly reinforced con-
crete section subjected to pure bending moment.
The analysis results indicate that the deformation at the ultimate
state increases with increasing ultimate compressive strain of con-
crete for both steel-RC beams and hybrid-RC beams, while the de-
formation at the yielding state remains unchanged. Therefore, there
is a positive effect on ductility with increasing ultimate compressive
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Bristol on 03/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
strain of concrete. According to ACI 318M-05 (ACI 2005), the
ultimate compressive strain of concrete in the following is equal to
0.003, which is conservative.
As shown in Fig. 7, the ductility index increases with increasing
concrete strength. A ductility requirement of ½μD  ≥ 2.0 is easily
satisfied with a concrete strength ranging from 13.4 to 44.5 MPa
and Af =As ranges from 0.1 to 3.0. When the ductility requirement
is ½μD  ≥ 3.0, Af =As ≤ 0.5 is recommended, and an appropriate
increase is allowed for higher concrete strength.
Fig. 8 shows that the ductility decreases as the steel strength
increases. The ductility requirement ½μD  ≥ 2.0 is satisfied when
Af =As ranges from 0.1 to 3.0 and the steel strength at yielding
is 335 or 400 MPa. Under the same requirement, when the yield
Fig. 7. Influence of the concrete strength on the ductility of the section
Fig. 8. Influence of the steel strength on the ductility of the section
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2016, 20(4): 04015086
strength of steel rebar is 500 MPa, the corresponding Af =As ranges
from 0.1 to 2.1. However, if the ductility requirement is ½μD  ≥ 3.0,
the yield strength of steel rebar is 500 MPa, and the corresponding
Af =As should be less than 0.3. In addition, when the steel strength
at yielding is 335 or 400 MPa, the corresponding Af =As should be
less than 1.8 and 1.0, respectively.
Fig. 9 shows a slight improvement in the ductility behavior
of the hybrid-RC beam reinforced with steel and GFRP bars
[Ef ðGFRPÞ < Ef ðAFRPÞ < Ef ðCFRPÞ]. When the ductility re-
quirement is ½μD  ≥ 2.0, using common FRP bars (such as GFRP,
AFRP or CFRP, whose elastic moduli range from 40 to 120 GPa),
Af =As can range from 0.1 to 3.0. If the ductility requirement is
½μD  ≥ 3.0, then Af =As decreases with increasing elastic modulus
and ultimate tensile strength. In such a circumstance, the ductility
of hybrid-RC beams reinforced with any of these FRP bars is good
as long as Af =As does not exceed 0.6.
Fig. 10 illustrates that the ductility index decreases with increas-
ing effective longitudinal reinforcement stiffness, and the higher the
demanded ductility, the lower the required value of Af =As .
According to Figs. 7–10, the two hybrid-RC beams with iden-
tical effective reinforcement stiffness (ρsf;s1 ¼ ρsf;s2 ) and proper-
ties (concrete strength, steel strength, and FRP type) exhibited
comparable performances. An exception is the beam containing
more FRP bars but less steel reinforcement, which exhibited lower
ductility than the beam containing less FRP but more steel re-
inforcement. However, when the amount of FRP reinforcement is
Fig. 9. Influence of the FRP types on the ductility of the section
Fig. 10. Influence of the effective reinforcement ratios on the ductility
of the section
04015086-8 J. Compos. Constr.
 much larger than that of steel reinforcement (such as Af =As ¼ 3.0),
the ductility index is quite low.
For a common rectangular section of a single reinforced hybrid-
RC beam, the ratio of FRP to steel bars at the tensile zone should be
controlled to be less than 0.3.
Conclusions
An extensive study was initiated to investigate the feasibility of
hybrid reinforced concrete beams with FRP and steel bars. Both
FRP and steel bars can provide increased strength. In addition, the
former improves the durability, and the latter improves the ductility.
This paper focused on hybrid-RC beams, which combine the ad-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Bristol on 03/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
vantages of both classical steel-RC beams (large ductility) and pure
FRP-RC beams (high ultimate strength capacity). Discussions re-
garding the ductility evaluation of the hybrid reinforced members
are also provided. From the investigation presented in this study,
the following conclusions can be drawn:
• The ultimate flexural capacity of hybrid-RC beams can be pre-
dicted with reasonable accuracy. Moreover, two reinforcement
conditions, namely, ρsf;s ≤ 0.75ρs;b and ρsf;f ≥ 1.4ρf;b , are pro-
posed to ensure a ductile failure mode.
• A new ductility index μh is proposed for hybrid-RC beams.
For the same reinforcement area and axial stiffness of reinforce-
ment, two ductility indices (μh1 and μh2 ) are presented. Because
μh1 > μh2 , μh2 is used to provide greater security.
• The concrete strength, steel strength, FRP type, effective long-
itudinal reinforcement stiffness, and ultimate compressive strain
affect the ductility. Similar to traditional steel-RC beams, the
ductility of hybrid-RC beams improves with increasing concrete
strength and ultimate compressive strain. However, increases in
the steel strength and the effective reinforcement stiffness ρsf;s
have detrimental effects on the ductility. In addition, hybrid-RC
beams that use GFRP and steel bars provide better ductility per-
formance than do other types of FRP bars.
• The theoretical analysis indicates that when the ductility re-
quirement is ½μD  ≥ 2.0, an area ratio of FRP to steel bars
(Af =As ) ranging from 0.1 to 2.1 may provide sufficient ductility
for hybrid-RC beams with concrete strengths ranging from 13.4
to 44.5 MPa along with steel rebar with a yield strength of
500 MPa and GFRP bars with an elastic modulus of 40 GPa and
ultimate tensile strength of approximately 800 MPa. In addition,
when the ductility requirement is ½μD  ≥ 3.0, the area ratio of
FRP to steel bars (Af =As ) is proposed to be less than 0.3.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their gratitude and sincere appreciation
for the financial support received from the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 50178050) and the Shanghai
Pujiang Program (Grant No. 12PJ1409000).
© ASCE 04015086-9
J. Compos. Constr., 2016, 20(4): 04015086
References
Abdelrahman, A. A., Tadro, G., and Rizkalla, S. H. (1995). “Test model
for the first Canadian smart highway bridge.” ACI Struct. J., 92(4),
451–458.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2005). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318M-05, Farmington
Hills, MI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2006). “Guide for the design and
construction of structural concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI440.1
R-06, Farmington Hills, MI.
Aiello, M. A., and Ombres, L. (2002). “Structural performances of concrete
beams with hybrid (fiber-reinforced polymer-steel) reinforcements.” J.
Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:2(133), 133–140.
Chen, H. (2007). “Experiment and theoretical analysis on concrete flexural
element reinforced with GFRP and steel bars.” Master thesis, Univ. of
Southwest Jiaotong, China.
Ge, W. J., Zhang, J. W., and Dai, H. (2012). “Flexural behavior of con-
crete beam with hybrid reinforcement of FRP bars and steel bars.”
J. Southeast Univ., 42(1), 114–119.
Lau, D., and Pam, H. J. (2010). “Experimental study of hybrid FRP rein-
forced concrete beams.” Eng. Struct., 32(12), 3857–3865.
Leung, H. Y., and Balendran, R. V. (2003). “Flexural behavior of concrete
beams internally reinforced with GFRP rods and steel rebars.” Struct.
Surv., 21(4), 146–157.
Mufti, A. A., Newhook, J. P., and Tadros, G. (1996). “Deformability versus
ductility in concrete beams with FRP reinforcement.” Proc., Advanced
Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Canadian Society for
Civil Engineering, Montreal, 189–199.
Naaman, A. E., and Jeong, S. M. (1995). “Structural ductility of concrete
beams prestressed with FRP tendons.” Non-metallic (FRP) reinforce-
ment for concretes structures, L. Taerwe, ed., E & FN Spon,
London, 379–401.
Qu, W. J., Zhang, X. L., and Huang, H. Q. (2009). “Flexural behavior of
concrete beams reinforced with hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars.” J. Com-
pos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000035, 350–359.
Qu, W. J., and Zhang, Y. (2001). “Method for durability maintenance
of concrete bridge.” J. China Railway Soc., 23(1), 98–102 (in
Chinese).
Rashid, M. A., Mansur, M. A., and Paramasivam, P. (2005). “Behavior
of aramid fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced high strength concrete
beams under bending.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0268(2005)9:2(117), 117–127.
Safan, M. A. (2013). “Flexural behavior and design of steel-GFRP rein-
forced concrete beams.” ACI Mater. J., 110(6), 677–685.
Tan, K. H. (1997). “Behavior of hybrid FRP-steel reinforced concrete
beams.” Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement
for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3), Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo,
487–494.
Vijay, P. V., Kumar, S. V., and GangRao, H. V. S. (1996). “Shear and
ductility behavior of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP rebars.”
2nd Conf. on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures,
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, 217–226.
Zou, P. X. (2003). “Flexural behavior and deformability of fiber reinforced
polymer prestressed concrete beams.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:4(275), 275–284.
J. Compos. Constr.