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

net/publication/272153288

Serviceability Analysis of Concrete Beams with Different Arrangements of GFRP

Bars in the Tensile Zone

Article in Journal of Composites for Construction · October 2014

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000465

CITATIONS READS

51 520

5 authors, including:

Ronaldas Jakubovskis Gintaris Kaklauskas

Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
43 PUBLICATIONS 455 CITATIONS 182 PUBLICATIONS 2,397 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Viktor Gribniak André Weber

Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Schöck Bauteile GmbH
171 PUBLICATIONS 2,389 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 168 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Viktor Gribniak on 11 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Serviceability Analysis of Concrete Beams with Different
Arrangements of GFRP Bars in the Tensile Zone
Ronaldas Jakubovskis 1; Gintaris Kaklauskas, Ph.D. 2; Viktor Gribniak, Ph.D. 3;
André Weber, Ph.D. 4; and Mantas Juknys 5

Abstract: Extensive experimental investigations were carried out to investigate the serviceability (deformations and crack opening width) of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sheffield on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

fiber–reinforced polymers (FRP) reinforced concrete members. However, most of the tests were limited to conventional arrangement of bars
in a section. Considering glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars (one of the most frequently used types of composite reinforcement), this
study experimentally and analytically investigated the serviceability behavior of beams with different arrangements of reinforcement bars in
the tensile zone. With particular emphasis on tension-stiffening and bond behavior, the experimental program consisted of full-scale beams
and bending bond specimens. The tests revealed specific features in the behavior of the beams due to distribution of tensile bars in three layers
or enlarging the cover. A numerical procedure, based on local interaction of reinforcement and surrounding concrete, was applied for serv-
iceability analysis. Several bond stress-slip models were employed in the numerical analysis. Despite the satisfactory prediction of crack
opening and deformations in general, neither of the bond models was able to give accurate results for all the beams. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000465. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Reinforced concrete; Glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars; Experimental investigation; Cracking; Bond models.

Introduction techniques have been proposed for predicting the deformation

Since the early 1980s, fiber–reinforced polymers (FRP) have been
considered a promising alternative to steel reinforcement, espe-
cially in concrete structures subjected to aggressive environments
or to the effects of electromagnetic fields (Torres et al. 2012). With
high durability, FRP bars have a tensile strength up to 5–6 times
higher than structural steel. However, the low (in comparison to the
steel) elastic modulus of some types of polymer bars generally
leads to increased deformations of FRP reinforced concrete (RC)
elements. This is characteristic of glass fiber–reinforced polymer
(GFRP) bars as one of the most frequently used types of structural
reinforcement (Mias et al. 2013; Mahmoud and El-Salakawy
2013). Decreased sectional stiffness increases the importance of
serviceability conditions (limitation of deformations and crack
opening width) in design of GFRP RC elements. A number of
1
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Bridges and Special Structures, Vilnius
Gediminas Technical Univ., Sauletekio av. 11, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania.
E-mail: Ronaldas.Jakubovskis@vgtu.lt
2
Habilitated Doctor of Science, Professor, Head of Dept. of Bridges and
Special Structures, Vilnius Gediminas Technical Univ., Sauletekio av. 11,
10223 Vilnius, Lithuania (corresponding author). E-mail: Gintaris
.Kaklauskas@vgtu.lt
3
Senior Researcher, Civil Engineering Research Centre, Vilnius
Gediminas Technical Univ., Sauletekio av. 11, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania.
E-mail: Viktor.Gribniak@vgtu.lt
4
Doctor of Engineering, Head of Research and Development Division
of Glass Fiber Reinforcement, Schöck Bauteile GmbH, Vimbucher st. 2,
76534 Baden-Baden, Germany. E-mail: Andre.Weber@Schoeck.de
5
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Bridges and Special Structures, Vilnius Gedi-
minas Technical Univ., Sauletekio av. 11, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mail:
Mantas.Juknys@vgtu.lt
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 30, 2013; approved on
December 12, 2013; published online on February 3, 2014. Discussion
period open until July 3, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites
for Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/04014005(10)/$25.00.
and cracking response of such members with comprehensive
reviews carried out by Bischoff (2005, 2007) and Torres et al.
(2012). The observed inaccuracies in the predictions were mainly
attributed to the simplicity of the empirically deduced models.
In contrast to the empirical models, numerical simulations based
on the stress transfer (also known as force transfer, partial inter-
action, or discrete crack in finite element formulation) approach
most realistically deal with discrete cracking phenomena and are
capable of adequately reflecting the complex nature of stress redis-
tribution between cracked concrete and reinforcement. This ap-
proach can be universally applied to any type of reinforcement
bars (steel or FRP) and concrete (fiber–reinforced, high perfor-
mance) (Lackner and Mang 2003; Wu and Gilbert 2009).
As Fig. 1 shows, bond mechanics can be investigated at different
scales of consideration. Initially, stress transfer models were devel-
oped using a simplified assumption of constant bond stresses
(Floegl and Mang 1982). Later, this approach was extended by
Choi and Cheung (1996), who introduced a stepwise bond stress
distribution relating average bond stresses with bond strength. This
assumption was used by Marti et al. (1998) who developed the
tension chord model and applied it in the serviceability analysis
of RC. Assumption of constant bond stress distribution along an
uncracked concrete block simplifies the solution of the bond
modeling problem, however a rigorous formulation of the stress
transfer approach requires the bond to be dependent on slip.
Somayaji and Shah (1981) assumed exponential bond stress distri-
bution function and developed an analytical procedure predicting
the deformation and cracking process of tensile RC specimens.
Balazs (1993) analyzed the cracking behavior of RC elements in
crack formation and stabilized cracking phases using a nonlinear
bond stress-slip relationship recommended by Model Code
1990. This model is also included into the newly issued Model
Code 2010 (Balazs et al. 2013). Its application in serviceability
problems has been criticized by Wu and Gilbert (2009), who have
shown that the Model Code bond law does not always

© ASCE 04014005-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sheffield on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Different scales of bond modeling

guarantee satisfactory results, especially at higher loading stages,
when degradation of tension-stiffening related to secondary crack-
ing and, consequently, deterioration of the bond takes place. This
effect is considered in the bond model proposed by Shima et al.
(1987), which takes into account not only slip, but also strain in
the reinforcement.
In most cases, ties were used to assess bond properties of RC
elements. Only a few studies were dedicated to bending members.
In this respect, the research conducted by Fantilli et al. (1998) and
Chiaia et al. (2009) can be mentioned. It should be also pointed out
that most of the proposed bond models were derived from the pull-
out tests by using a single well-confined bar. However, such con-
ditions substantially differ from the tension zones of RC bending
elements as the nominal cover required in the design codes may
be insufficient to secure effective bond-confinement (Hong and
Park 2012).
The arrangement of reinforcement bars in a section might be
also an important but frequently neglected parameter controlling
structural stiffness. Extensive experimental investigations by the
authors of bending members with different types of reinforcement
(Kaklauskas et al. 2012; Gribniak et al. 2013) have shown that the
tension-stiffening effect might be significantly enhanced by
increasing cover and/or introducing a few layers of reinforcement
with closely distributed bars in the tensile zone.
Although extensive experimental programs have been carried
out to investigate the serviceability of FRP reinforced members, most
of the tests were limited to conventional arrangement of bars in a
section. Focusing on GFRP reinforcement, the present study exper-
imentally and analytically investigated the moment-curvature and
cracking behavior of concrete beams with nonconventional arrange-
ment of reinforcement bars in the tensile zone. Experimental data of
three GFRP RC beams with different concrete cover and distribution
of bars in a section are reported. A numerical procedure based on the
stress transfer approach was applied to investigate the evolution of
deformations and crack patterns with increasing load. Through
comparison of the numerical simulation results with experimental
data, the applicability of widely used bond models for serviceability
analysis of GFRP reinforced members has been investigated.
Stress Transfer Modeling
Present serviceability analysis of GFRP reinforced beams employs
the stress transfer approach using the formulation proposed by

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Deformation and cracking analysis of RC beam using stress transfer approach: (a) a block between two adjacent cracks; (b) sketch for the
analysis

© ASCE 04014005-2 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 Fig. 3. Stress and strain distribution in a RC section subjected to bending: (a) variation of neutral axis within the block section; (b) distribution of
strains and stresses in the cracked section; (c) uncracked section

Floegl and Mang (1982) and Fantilli et al. (1998). A beam shown in of tensile and compressive reinforcement, respectively; σc ðεÞ is the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sheffield on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2(a) helps to illustrate this approach. Before a cracking load is compressive concrete stress; and σct is the tensile concrete stress.
reached, the linear elastic behavior of the beam with a perfect bond Other notations are evident from Fig. 3.
between reinforcement and concrete can be assumed. After crack The stress-strain state in each section can be specified by three
initiation, redistribution of internal forces takes place. In a cracked parameters, namely, by the distance yc and strains in the tensile
section, denoted as 1-1 in Fig. 2(a), the tensile force is carried by reinforcement and the tensile concrete (at reinforcement level).
reinforcement only. Due to bond action at a certain distance from As Eqs. (1) and (2) allow the definition of only two parameters,
the crack, reinforcement transfers a certain portion of tensile stress an additional equilibrium equation is written for the reinforcement
to the concrete. This phenomenon is known as tension- bar limited by two adjacent sections i and i þ 1. This equation
stiffening. The distance from the crack to the section where the relates the increment in reinforcement stress with the bond stress
bond transferred stress in concrete reaches the tensile strength is acting in the segment [Fig. 2(b)]
called transfer length and is denoted as ltr . Obviously, a new crack
can form only at a distance l ≥ ltr from an existing crack. Assuming 4 · n · Δx · τ̄ i
εf;i ¼ εf;i−1 þ ð3Þ
heterogeneous distribution of strength properties of concrete, D · Ef
the distance between cracks lcr falls into the specific interval
where n is the number of tensile bars; D is the bar diameter; Ef is
ltr ≤ lcr ≤ 2ltr . It has been reported by Borosnyoi and Balazs
the elasticity modulus of reinforcement; and τ̄ i is the average bond
(2005) that average crack spacing varies from 1.3ltr to 1.5ltr .
stress calculated as τ̄ i ¼ ðτ i þ τ i−1 Þ=2.
The algorithm is based on further assumptions and principles:
The solution of Eqs. (1)–(3) is not straightforward, as bond
1. Cracking bending moment M cr is calculated using linear elas-
stress τ̄ i is related to an unknown parameter, namely reinforcement
tic material properties under the assumption of perfect bond
strain εf;i . Therefore, analysis has to be performed iteratively,
between reinforcement and concrete;
assuming initial value for one of the unknown parameters.
2. After cracking, two characteristic sections are considered
The numerical analysis is carried out in two stages. During the
[Fig. 3(a)]: cracked (1-1) and uncracked (2-2). For both sec-
first, transfer length and distance between cracks are defined. The
tions, linear strain distribution, being valid for compressive
second stage deals with calculation of deformation and crack width
concrete and tensile reinforcement, is assumed. In a cracked
using the transfer length obtained in the first stage. For a given load,
section [Fig. 3(b)], contribution of tensile concrete due to
computations are performed through the following steps:
tension-softening is ignored as the stresses transmitted through
1. Calculation of transfer length (stage 1) is started from the cen-
the crack plane are negligible in comparison to the stresses
ter section of an indefinitely long element (or a block limited
transferred through the bond. In a section at a certain distance
by two adjacent cracks) assuming three initial conditions: slip
from the crack, strain distribution of the tensile concrete is also
and bond stress taken in the center section are set equal to zero
taken linear, but with a different profile from the strains of
[s0 ¼ 0; τ 0 ¼ 0, Fig. 2(b)], whereas concrete stress is assumed
compressive concrete and tensile reinforcement [Fig. 3(c)];
to be equal to the tensile strength σct ¼ fct . Solution of the
3. Linear elastic stress-strain diagram is assumed for reinforce-
equilibrium Eqs. (1) and (2) results in reinforcement strain
ment at all loading stages; and
εf;0 [Fig. 2(b)] and the neutral axis coordinate yc (Fig. 3)
4. Concrete in tension behaves in an elastic-brittle manner.
in the mid-section;
Nonlinear behavior of concrete in compression is modeled
2. With the strains in the mid-section (section number i ¼ 0),
using the stress-strain relationship recommended by Model
the analysis progresses to each consecutive section [i ¼ 1,
Code 2010.
2, 3, : : : , see Fig. 2(b)]. Assuming a trial value of reinforce-
To calculate stress and strain variation along the element, it is
ment strain [εf;i ¼ εf;i–1 , see Fig. 2(b)], coordinate yc;i and
divided into a number of sections [Fig. 2(b)]. Two equilibrium
tensile concrete stress σct;i are obtained from Eqs. (1) and (2);
equations of internal forces and bending moments can be written
3. Reinforcement slip si is determined as the difference in con-
for each of the sections:
crete and reinforcement elongations between two consecutive
Z sections, as shown in [Fig. 2(b)];
b σc ðεÞdy þ σs1 As1 þ σs2 As2 ¼ 0 ð1Þ 4. Bond stress τ i ðsi Þ is obtained from the assumed bond stress-
Ac
slip relationship (for instance, as shown in Fig. 1);
Z 5. Reinforcement strain εf;i is calculated using Eq. (3);
6. If the difference between the previously calculated (or
b σc ðεÞydy þ σs1 As1 ðd − yc Þ þ σs2 As2 ðyc − a2 Þ ¼ M ð2Þ
Ac
assumed) and current reinforcement strains in section i is
not within the assumed tolerance, i.e., convergence is not
where M is the external bending moment; yc is the distance from achieved, the analysis is repeated from step 2 using the current
the top of the section to the neutral axis; σs1 and σs2 are the stresses reinforcement strain value. Otherwise, the analysis from

© ASCE 04014005-3 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 step 2 is carried out in other sections (i ¼ i þ 1) until reinfor-
cement strain εf;n reaches εf;cr [Fig. 2(b)]. The latter is de-
fined as for a fully cracked section [i.e., assuming σct ¼ 0
in Eqs. (1) and (2)]. The corresponding section identifies
the transfer length calculated as ltr ¼ ðn × ΔxÞ;
7. Stage 1 is completed by assuming crack distance lcr;avg ¼
1.5ltr for deflection and lcr;max ¼ 2.0ltr for crack width
analysis;
8. Stage 2 analysis is performed for a block of specified length,
lcr (see step 7), divided into a number of sections. Computa-
tions are performed similarly as for stage 1 with the difference
that they are started from the cracked section. Assuming
εf;0 ¼ εf;cr , σct ¼ 0, and initial slip value s0 ¼ sn (for in-
stance, taking the slip from stage 1 analysis), calculations
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sheffield on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
are further progressed to the block center. Computations are
performed iteratively (changing s0 ) until the no-slip condition
(si ¼ 0) is satisfied for the block mid-section;
9. From the obtained strain profile, average curvature of the
block [Fig. 2(b)] is calculated
X
n
εf;i
κ¼ ð4Þ
i¼1
d − yc;i
where εf;i is the average strain in the tensile reinforcement; yc;i
is the coordinate of neutral axis; n is the number of sections
[Fig. 2(b)]; and
10. Crack width is calculated by the following equation:
Z l Z l
cr cr
w¼ ½εf ðxÞ − εct ðxÞdx ≈ εf ðxÞdx ð5Þ
0 0
where εf ðxÞ and εct ðxÞ are the strain distribution in GFRP re-
inforcement and in tensile concrete, respectively. The latter is
negligible in respect to εf ðxÞ and can be neglected.
The calculated transfer length ltr is load-dependent. Depending
on a bond law, it may decrease or increase with loading. However,
due to the physical nature of the cracking phenomenon, crack dis-
tance cannot increase with growing load. Therefore, the present
algorithm imposes a condition that a crack distance at a given load
stage cannot exceed the minimum crack spacing obtained in the
previous stages.
Bond Models Employed in the Analysis
It is generally accepted to assume bond stress τ being dependent on
slip s that represents the so-called bond stress-slip relationship
τ ðsÞ. Most of the refined analyses based on the stress transfer ap-
proach employ the bond model from Model Code 2010 derived for
steel bars. The present study investigates its applicability for serv-
iceability analysis of GFRP reinforced beams. As in deflection and
cracking analyses slip is generally below 1 mm, only the ascending
branch of bond stress-slip relationship becomes relevant (fib 2000):
 α
s
τ ðsÞ ¼ τ max · ð6Þ
s1
where τ max is the maximal bond stress [τ max ¼ 2.5 × ðfcm Þ0.5 ]; α is
the power (α ¼ 0.4); and s1 is the slip value corresponding to the
maximal bond stress (in this study s1 ¼ 1 mm).
Depending on the power α, the bond model Eq. (6) allows for
simulating a wide range of relationships: from fully rigid (α ¼ 0) to
linear (α ¼ 1) bond stress-slip behavior. The present study, along
with the original Model Code 2010 bond law, use the calibrated
© ASCE 04014005-4
J. Compos. Constr.
Model Code model based on bond test results of GFRP reinforce-
ment reported in the next section.
The bond model proposed by Shima et al. (1987) can capture
bond degradation due to secondary cracking and concrete damage.
The effect of secondary cracking is related to the reinforcement
strain. The following expression relating bond stress, slip, and
reinforcement strain has been proposed by Shima et al. (1987):
0.73 · ½lnð1 þ 5SÞ3
τ ðs; εÞ ¼ · fcm ð7Þ
1 þ ε · 105
where S is the nondimensional slip (S ¼ 1,000 × s=D; s is the ac-
tual slip; and D is the bar diameter). The relationship Eq. (7) has
been derived not only for steel, but also for aluminum bars having
low modulus of elasticity (72 GPa).
Experimental Study
The experimental study was aimed at deformation, cracking, and
bond behavior of GFRP RC flexural members. The test program
consisted of three full-scale beams and 12 bending bond elements.
The members were reinforced with Schöck Combar ribbed GFRP
bars with 75% of glass content by volume. The bars were produced
from boron-free ECR glass fibers and synthetic vinyl ester-urethane
(VEU) resin (Schöck 2006). Three different diameters (8, 12, and
16 mm) of the reinforcement were used (Fig. 4).
The full-scale beams were of a rectangular section, with nominal
length 3,280 mm (span 3,000 mm), depth 300 mm, and width
280 mm. The concrete mix proportion of C35/45 grade was taken
the same for all specimens. Ordinary Portland cement and crushed
granite aggregate (16 mm maximum nominal size) were used. The
water/cement and aggregate/cement ratio by weight were taken as
0.42 and 2.97, respectively.
Table 1 lists the main parameters of the test beams used in
the analysis, where ffk and f fd are, respectively, the characteristic
and design tensile strength of the reinforcement; Ef is the elastic
modulus of the bar reinforcement; f cm is the mean ∅150 × 300 mm
cylinder strength; and p ¼ ½As1 =ðbdÞ × 100% is the tensile rein-
forcement ratio. Other notations are evident from Fig. 3. The beams
had similar reinforcement ratios, but different bar diameters and
number of tensile reinforcement layers. Bars in beam S2-5nm were
arranged in three layers (Fig. 5) whereas the other two beams had a
single reinforcement layer. The effective depth d (Table 1) was
taken with respect to the centroid of the reinforcement area. The
experimental program has also included variation in cover depth
taken as 20 mm for beams S2-4-2nm and S2-5nm and 50 mm
for beam S2-6nm.
Being part of a larger test program (Kaklauskas et al. 2008)
supported by the Research Council of Lithuania, the present study
Fig. 4. Samples of experimental bars
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 1. Main Characteristics of Beams
Beam h (mm) b (mm) d (mm) a2 (mm) As1 (mm2 ) As2 (mm2 ) ffk (MPa) f fd (MPa) Ef (MPa) f cm , (MPa) p (%)
S2-4-2nm 303 276 272 27 452 57 1,000 435 64.4 47.2 0.60
S2-5nm 302 276 246 26 452 57 1,000 435 64.4 41.3 0.67
S2-6nm 303 273 243 29 402 57 1,000 435 64.4 41.3 0.61

employs original notations of the specimens. Letter “S” refers to the
type of elements (in Lithuanian “Sija” = “Beam”); the first number
corresponds to the level of reinforcement ratio (“2” represents
p ≈ 0.6%) and “nm” refers to nonmetallic reinforcement.
The test specimens were loaded with a 100 kN hydraulic jack in
a stiff testing frame. The testing equipment acting on the beam
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sheffield on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
throughout all loading stages has demonstrated high-quality bond
characteristics of the reinforcement used in the tests.
The tests were performed with small increments (2 kN) and
paused for short periods (about 2 min) to take readings of gauges
and to fix the crack development. In total, it took from 40 to 80 load
increments during total test duration. The experimental moment-

weighed 232 kg. The latter summed up with the beam’s own weight
has induced a 3.5 kNm bending moment at the midspan. Fig. 6
shows the experimental setup and the loading scheme. Deflections
at five characteristic points of the beam and slip of the reinforce-
ment bars at the both ends of the beam have been also recorded.
Concrete surface strains were measured throughout the length of
the pure bending zone on a 200 mm gauge length, using mechani-
cal gauges. As shown in Fig. 6 (view “A”), four continuous gauge
lines were located at different depths with two extreme lines placed
along the top and bottom reinforcement. Measured strains were
averaged along each gauge line. As reported in Gribniak et al.
(2013), LVDT devices were used to measure slip of the GFRP bars
at both ends of the beams. Zero slippage recorded for all the beams
Fig. 5. Moment-curvature response of the experimental beams
curvature diagrams are presented in Fig. 5, whereas the final crack
pattern of the beams is shown in Fig. 7.
Bond characteristics of the GFRP bars were determined from
bending tests as described in RILEM (1994) and shown in Fig. 8.
The required embedment length of 10D (where D is the bar diam-
eter) was secured using plastic sleeves. To allow free movement of
the bar relative to the concrete, the end of each internal plastic
sleeve was glued to the GFRP bar with an elastic silicon sealant.
The bond specimens were cast together with the full-scale beams.
The bond tests were performed using a Tinius Olsen H75KS testing
machine. Displacement control allowed capturing the descending
part of load-slip diagrams. Two LVDT transducers (Fig. 8) mea-
sured the slip of the bar. Two different covers (respective to those
used in the full-scale beams) were considered. Nine bond speci-
mens (three of each diameter) were produced with a standard
50 mm cover as designated by RILEM. Three other specimens re-
inforced with 12 mm bars had a reduced cover of 20 mm.
Fig. 9(a) shows the cover effect on bond stresses for the spec-
imens reinforced with 12 mm bars. The test of the specimens with
standard cover produced bond stress-slip relationships with ascend-
ing curve and extended softening branch reaching 15 mm slip.
However, the specimens with reduced cover demonstrated a brittle
response: failure occurred at 0.15 mm slip, giving about 100 times
the smaller limit slip value than the specimens with standard covers.
A detailed view of the ascending branches of bond stresses is given
in Fig. 9(b). The specimens with reduced cover reached about 25%
smaller maximal bond stresses than the standard members. Insuf-
ficient cover resulted in opening of the splitting cracks that led to
sudden failure. These results are in agreement with experimental
and theoretical investigations of the cover effect on bond stresses
carried out by Tepfers (1979), Uijl and Bigaj (1996), Ogura et al.
(2008), Choi et al. (2012), and Caldentey et al. (2013). Further
analysis will use the bond stress-slip relationship obtained from
the standard specimens.

P Load cell
Aj

5x200 mm
1000 mm 1000 mm 1000 mm
View A Upper reinforcement 1st line
2nd line
60
3rd line
60 4th line
Lower reinforcement

Fig. 6. Experimental setup and the measuring scheme of the beams

© ASCE 04014005-5 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sheffield on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Final crack pattern of the experimental beams
As Fig. 9(c) shows, the bond stress-slip relationship from the
Model Code in general captures well the experimental descending
branch. As mentioned, slip in serviceability states rarely exceeds
1 mm [the respective part of the bond stress-slip relationship is
shown Fig. 9(d)]. The experimentally obtained bond stress-slip
relationships show stiffer responses than the ones predicted by
the Model Code. The obtained results are in agreement with the
findings reported by Cosenza et al. (1997) and Aiello et al. (2007)
stating that bond tests of ribbed GFRP bars produce more rigid
behavior in the ascending branch than steel reinforcement. The
increased stiffness of the bond might be explained by specifics of
the slip measurement equipment arranged in the unloaded part of
the reinforcement. Such measurement does not record slip until
full damage of adhesion along the reinforcement and concrete inter-
face has taken place. Different aspects of bond testing techniques
have been considered by Pecce et al. (2001), who concluded that
slip recording at the free end of reinforcement is more represen-
tative of the real behavior than tests with slip measurement at
the loaded end.
The obtained experimental results were used to calibrate the
Model Code relationship. Best fit resulted in the following param-
eters of Eq. (6): τ max ¼ 18 MPa; s1 ¼ 0.4 mm; and α ¼ 0.16.
As shown in Fig. 9(d) constant bond stresses were assumed in
the slip region between 0.4 and 1 mm. This relationship is further
called the calibrated Model Code bond model.
P/2 P/2 A
A-A
bonded zone bonded zone
50 (or 25)
LVDT 10D 10D LVDT
z
P/2 plastic sleeves plastic sleeves
a A P/2
375 50 375
reduced cover
Fig. 8. Bending bond tests
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr.
As noted earlier, Shima’s model is dependent not only on slip,
but also on reinforcement strain [Eq. (7)]. The model is shown in
Fig. 9 assuming strain ε ¼ 0.005, which is close to the service con-
ditions of the considered GFRP bars. It gives the lower boundary
for the bond models considered, however it should be kept in mind
that it is rather sensitive to the reinforcement strain.
Deformation and Cracking Analysis
Adequate assessment of tension-stiffening is the most challenging
issue in modeling short-term deformations of flexural concrete
members, particularly those with a small reinforcement ratio.
Dealing with composite reinforcement, there is another aspect that
should be noted, namely, taking into account slippage of the
reinforcement. A more refined analysis of members having rein-
forcement with poor bond characteristics cannot be based on the
assumption of linear strain distribution across the section, as it is
not valid at more advanced stages of loading. However, this is not
applied to the GFRP reinforcement employed in the present study.
As was shown in the earlier section, good bond characteristics of
the bars were demonstrated directly, by the flexural bond tests,
Bond stress, MPa Bond stress, MPa
Slip, mm Slip, mm
180
(a) (b)
Bond stress, MPa Bond stress, MPa
Slip, mm Slip, mm
(c) (d)
Fig. 9. Average bond stress-slip relationships: (a) experimentally ob-
tained bond stress-slip relationship; (b) zoomed part up to 1-mm slip;
(c) bond models proposed in the literature; (d) zoomed part up to
1-mm slip
04014005-6 J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sheffield on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Predicted moment-curvature response using different bond stress-slip models
and indirectly, by the structural tests, when no slippage of the
reinforcement bars was recorded at the ends of the beams.
The predicted deformation behavior of the tested beams, repre-
sented by the moment-curvature response, is shown in Fig. 10. The
effect of tension-stiffening can be assessed through comparison of
test (or analysis) curvature results with the cracked section analysis
(CSA) shown by dotted lines. Two types of behavior can be ob-
served from the obtained test diagrams: beam S2-4-2nm has shown
progressive degradation of tension-stiffening with increasing load,
whereas in beams S2-5nm and S2-6nm the tension-stiffening effect
has not been practically degrading until failure. The cracked section
approach could be successfully used for analysis of GFRP rein-
forced beams with high reinforcement ratio (Pecce et al. 2000),
however, in moderately and lightly reinforced members, the effect
of tension-stiffening cannot be neglected as it can be clearly seen
from the moment-curvature response of the members.
The differences in tension-stiffening behavior of the beams can
be explained by variations in the effective depth and arrangement of
tensile bars, as these were the only differences between the beams.
The cover varied from 22 mm in beams S2-4-2nm and S2-5nm to
51 mm in beam S2-6nm. The latter two beams had almost equal
effective depths (246 and 243 mm, respectively). For beam S2-
5nm, the effective depth was assumed as for the middle layer of
tensile bars being the centroid of the reinforcement area. Obviously,
the cover of beam S2-4-2nm (conventional for such elements) did
Bending moment, kNm
Bending moment, kNm
ltr, cm ltr, cm
Fig. 11. Variation of transfer lengths with increasing bending moment
© ASCE 04014005-7
J. Compos. Constr.
not secure sufficient confinement causing initiation of splitting
cracks and, consequently, sudden bond degradation. A similar ef-
fect was observed in the bending bond specimens with reduced
cover where splitting cracks have formed at a very small slip fol-
lowed by sudden failure of the specimen. On the contrary, a large
number of bars closely distributed in the tensile zone (S2-5nm) or
enlarged cover (S2-6nm) safeguarded high bond-stress capacity
(and consequently tension-stiffening) throughout all loading stages.
Moreover, as Fig. 10 shows, the distribution of tensile reinforce-
ment into a number of layers with bars rather closely spaced from
each other also plays an important role in the stiffness of the RC
member, as it may significantly delay the cracking process.
Regarding the numerical simulation, negligible differences were
obtained between the moment-curvature diagrams calculated using
the original Model Code 2010 and the calibrated bond models
(Fig. 10). As bond stresses in these models grow with increasing
slip, the calculated transfer length reduces with progressing load-
ing. As shown in Fig. 11, variation in the calculated transfer length
with growing load is highly different for the bond models under
consideration. Contrary to the Model Code and the calibrated
model, the transfer length calculated using Shima’s bond law con-
tinuously increases with progressing load as the bond stresses
degrade with growing reinforcement strain. The final cracking
scheme was obtained in the early post-cracking corresponding to
highest bond stresses and minimal transfer length (Fig. 11).
Bending moment, kNm
ltr, cm
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sheffield on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Reinforcement strain distribution within the transfer lengths at service loading

Despite variations in the transfer lengths, the differences in aver- bond properties: increased bond stress reduces the transfer length
age curvature were not significant. The mean curvature response and slip, but increases the number of cracks resulting in almost con-
of the beams was obtained by averaging the sectional curvatures stant flexural stiffness.
along the block calculated by Eq. (4). The distribution of reinforce- Neither of the bond models was able to predict the trend of
ment strains at the service load between two consecutive cracks curvature growth after cracking of beam S2-4-2nm, which had
for each of the beams is shown in Fig. 12 [the service load was conventional cover and arrangement of the bars. As noted, the rapid
assumed to be at 60% of the design bending moment Md that degradation of tension-stiffening occurred mainly due to splitting
corresponded to the design strength of reinforcement taken as cracks reaching the tensile surface of the beam. Although Shima’s
435 MPa (Gribniak et al. 2013)]. It can be seen from Fig. 12 that model takes into account the influence of secondary cracking, the
the mean reinforcement strains were rather close to what also re- predicted degradation of tension-stiffening was not sufficiently
sulted in similar predictions of average curvatures (Fig. 10). Analo- quantified. As can be observed from Table 2, the curvature predic-
gous results were reported by Oehlers et al. (2012) concluding that tions at service load (in Fig. 10, referred as Mser ) were underesti-
mean deformations are not significantly influenced by the assumed mated by about 20% by all the models. On the contrary, the
respective curvatures of the beams S2-5nm and S2-6nm were sig-
nificantly overestimated—the prediction errors by the considered
methods ranged from 55 to 125%. Fig. 10 shows that all the models
Table 2. Experimentally and Numerically Obtained Curvatures
captured rather well the deformation behavior of the latter beams at
Average curvature κ at service loading, more advanced loading stages represented by stabilized cracking.
km−1 ½ðκcalc − κobs Þ=κobs  However, the specific arrangement of reinforcement in the beam
Calculated, κcalc S2-5nm caused delayed cracking and considerably increased ten-
Observed, Model code Model code Shima sion-stiffening at the service load (Fig. 10). Similar results were
Beam κobs (fib 2010) (calibrated) et al. (1987) obtained in the tests of tensile members reinforced with a large
number of closely spaced bars (Rostásy et al. 1976; Hwang and
S2-4-2nm 15.8 12.2 (–22.8%) 12.1 (–23.4%) 13.2 (–16.5%)
Rizkalla 1983; Williams 1986; Purainer 2005). Such members have
S2-5nm 7.1 14.4 (102.8%) 14.4 (102.8%) 16.0 (125.3%)
S2-6nm 8.9 13.9 (56.2%) 13.8 (55.1%) 15.7 (76.4%)
demonstrated significantly increased stiffness, often showing no
signs of degradation in tension-stiffening with increasing load.

Pure bending zone, L = 100 cm

Main cracks
Secondary
cracks Longitudinal
cracks

Bar

Effective concrete Tensile stress

area in tension distribution

Fig. 13. Final crack pattern of the beam S2-6nm

© ASCE 04014005-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 3. Experimentally and Numerically Obtained Crack Widths
Maximal crack width at service loading, mm
½ðwcalc –wobs Þ=wobs 
Calculated, wcalc
Observed, Model code Model code Shima
Beam wobs (fib 2010) (calibrated) et al. (1987)
S2-4-2nm 0.52 0.45 (–13.5%) 0.23 (–55.8%) 0.48 (–7.7%)
S2-5nm 0.26 0.37 (42.3%) 0.15 (–42.3%) 0.31 (19.2%)
S2-6nm 0.44 0.54 (22.7%) 0.28 (–36.4%) 0.64 (45.5%)
Although transfer length and distance between cracks have a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sheffield on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
minor influence on deformation analysis, it becomes the governing
criterion in calculation of crack widths. According to Eq. (5),
the crack opening is obtained by integrating the distribution of
reinforcement strain along the crack spacing expressed in terms
of transfer length. However, assessment of crack distances for some
of the test beams was not so straightforward. Conventionally rein-
forced beam S2-4-2nm had a relatively regular final crack pattern
with 10 major cracks in the pure bending zone (average crack spac-
ing around 110 mm). Whereas formation of cracks in beam S2-6nm
with enlarged cover (or rather reduced effective depth) was far more
complicated: a large number of minor cracks (seemingly initiated
by the secondary cracks) formed around the primary cracks (dis-
tanced at about 25 cm from each other), thus redistributing the
strains and reducing widths of the primary cracks. The large bottom
cover safeguarded the bottom surface from the formation of split-
ting cracks, however the 20 mm cover from the rear sides appeared
not to be sufficient to avoid splitting cracks. Fig. 13 shows a fas-
cinating crack pattern, making it difficult to deduce the crack
spacing.
The calculated maximal crack widths at service load are
presented in Table 3 and checked against the experimental ones.
The test results of the conventionally reinforced beam S2-4-2nm
were quite accurately (with slight underestimation) predicted using
the Model Code and Shima’s bond models. However, the calculated
maximal crack widths for the unconventionally reinforced beams
(S2-5nm and S2-6nm) were substantially overestimated. These dis-
crepancies can be explained by the complex nature of the crack
formation in these members not taken into account by the models
under discussion. The calibrated bond model underestimated by
almost twice the crack widths for all the beams. These errors were
made due to inaccurate assessment of transfer length, in turn being
dependent on the assumed bond model. Deduction of bond proper-
ties from the conventional test methods may not assure adequate
constitutive modeling: the standard recommended embedment
length of reinforcement (10D) can be too rough to represent local
interaction of reinforcement and concrete.
Concluding Remarks
This paper reports experimental and analytical results on moment-
deflection and cracking behavior of concrete beams with different
arrangement of GFRP bars in the tensile zone. With particular em-
phasis on tension-stiffening and bond behavior, the experimental
program consisted of full-scale structural beams and bending bond
specimens to determine the bond stress-slip relation of the bars.
Theoretical investigations were based on the stress transfer ap-
proach using three bond laws: (1) Model Code 2010, as the most
widely used bond stress-slip relationship; (2) Shima’s model, being
dependent on slip and reinforcement strain; and (3) the calibrated
© ASCE 04014005-9
J. Compos. Constr.
Model Code relationship based on the flexural bond tests reported
herein.
These main conclusions were drawn from the study.
1. Deformation behavior and tension-stiffening as well as
crack pattern and crack width effect are highly related to
the arrangement of tensile bars within the beam section.
An enlarged cover safeguards the high bond-stress capacity
(and consequently tension-stiffening) throughout all loading
stages. The study also revealed specific features in the crack-
ing and deformation behavior of the beams having a number of
layers of tensile reinforcement with closely spaced bars. This
kind of bar arrangement causes delayed cracking and consid-
erably increased the tension-stiffening effect;
2. A choice of bond model is of minor significance in deforma-
tion analysis but it becomes vitally important in the calculation
of transfer length and crack widths. Maximal crack widths
of the conventionally reinforced beam with regular crack pat-
tern were rather accurately predicted by the Model Code and
Shima’s bond models. However, these bond laws significantly
overestimated crack widths in the beams with enlarged cover.
This could have been caused by the appearance of a large num-
ber of spectacular secondary cracks forming around the pri-
mary cracks, thus reducing the widths of the primary cracks;
3. Care should be taken when experimental bond-slip relation-
ships are used for cracking simulation. The present analysis
has shown that deduction of bond properties from the conven-
tional test methods may not assure adequate constitutive
modeling, as the bond-slip relationship is influenced by struc-
tural parameters such as concrete cover and distribution of
reinforcement in the section. Moreover, the standard recom-
mended embedment length of reinforcement (10D) may be
too rough to represent local interaction of reinforcement and
concrete; and
4. Further studies should be dedicated to explore tension-
stiffening and bond-related effects in the members with in-
creased cover (or reduced effective depth) and a large number
of closely spaced bars in the tensile zone.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude for the financial
support of the Research Council of Lithuania (Research Project No
MIP-083/2012). Viktor Gribniak also wishes to gratefully acknowl-
edge the financial support provided by the European Social Fund
(Project No. 2013/0019/1DP/1.1.1.2.0/13/APIA/VIAA/062).
References
Aiello, M. A., Leone, M., and Pecce, M. (2007). “Bond performances of
FRP rebars-reinforced concrete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0899-1561(2007)19:3(205), 205–213.
Balazs, G. L. (1993). “Cracking analysis based on slip and bond stresses.”
ACI Mater. J., 90(4), 340–348.
Balazs, G. L., et al. (2013). “Design for SLS according to fib Model Code
2010.” Struct. Concr., 14(2), 99–123.
Bischoff, P. H. (2005). “Reevaluation of deflection prediction for concrete
beams reinforced with steel and fiber reinforced polymer bars.” J.
Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:5(752), 752–767.
Bischoff, P. H. (2007). “Rational model for calculating deflection of rein-
forced concrete beams and slabs.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 34(8), 992–1002.
Borosnyoi, A., and Balazs, G. L. (2005). “Models for flexural cracking in
concrete: The state of the art.” Struct. Concr., 6(2), 53–62.
Caldentey, A. P., Peiretti, H. C., Iribarren, J. P., and Soto, A. G. (2013).
“Cracking of RC members revisited: Influence of cover, ϕ=ρs; ef and
J. Compos. Constr.
 stirrup spacing—an experimental and theoretical study.” Struct. Concr.,
14(1), 69–78.
Chiaia, B., Fantilli, A. P., and Vallini, P. (2009). “Evaluation of crack width
in FRC structures and application to tunnel linings.” Mater. Struct.,
42(3), 339–351.
Choi, C. K., and Cheung, S. H. (1996). “Tension stiffening model for planar
reinforced concrete members.” Comput. Struct., 59(1), 179–190.
Choi, D.-U., Chun, S.-C., and Ha, S.-S. (2012). “Bond strength of glass
fibre-reinforced polymer bars in unconfined concrete.” Eng. Struct.,
34, 303–313.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. (1997). “Behavior and
modeling of bond of FRP rebars to concrete.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(1997)1:2(40), 40–51.
Fantilli, A. P., Ferreti, D., Ivori, I., and Vallini, P. (1998). “Flexural deform-
ability of reinforced concrete beams.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sheffield on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0733-9445(1998)124:9(1041), 1041–1049.
fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete). (2000). “Bond of
reinforcement in concrete: State of the art report.” Bulletin No 10,
Lausanne, 434.
fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete). (2010). “Model Code
2010, first complete draft—Volume 1.” Bulletin No 55, Lausanne, 317.
Floegl, H., and Mang, H. A. (1982). “Tension stiffening concept based on
bond slip.” J. Struct. Div., 108(12), 2681–2701.
Gribniak, V., Kaklauskas, G., Torres, L., Daniunas, A., Timinskas, E.,
and Gudonis, E. (2013). “Comparative analysis of deformations and
tension-stiffening in concrete beams reinforced with GFRP or steel bars
and fibers.” Compos. B Eng., 50, 158–170.
Hong, S., and Park, S. K. (2012). “Uniaxial bond stress-slip relationship of
reinforcing bars in concrete.” Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2012, 12.
Hwang, L. S., and Rizkalla, S. H. (1983). “Behavior of reinforced concrete
in tension at post-cracking range.” Engineering Rep., Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 124.
Kaklauskas, G., Christiansen, M. B., Bacinskas, D., and Gribniak, V.
(2008). “Deformation model of reinforced concrete members taking
into consideration shrinkage and creep effects at the pre-loading stage.”
Final Rep. No T-1025/08, Vilnius Gediminas Technical Univ., Vilnius,
47 (in Lithuanian).
Kaklauskas, G., Gribniak, V., Jakubovskis, R., Gudonis, E., Salys, D., and
Kupliauskas, R. (2012). “Serviceability analysis of flexural reinforced
concrete members.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage., 18(1), 24–29.
Lackner, R., and Mang, H. A. (2003). “Scale transition in steel-concrete
interaction. Part I: Model.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9399(2003)129:4(393), 393–402.
Mahmoud, K., and El-Salakawy, E. (2013). “Shear strength of GFRP-
reinforced concrete continuous beams with minimum transverse
reinforcement.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614
.0000406.
Marti, P., Alvarez, M., Kaufmann, W., and Sigrist, V. (1998). “Tension
chord model for structural concrete.” Struct. Eng. Int., 8(4), 287–298.
© ASCE 04014005-10
View publication stats J. Compos. Constr.
Mias, C., Torres, L., Turon, A., and Barris, C. (2013). “Experimental study
of immediate and time-dependent deflections of GFRP reinforced
concrete beams.” Compos. Struct., 96, 279–285.
Oehlers, D. J., Visintin, P., and Haskett, M. (2012). “Consequences and
solutions to our abysmal neglect of bond-slip behaviour in reinforced
concrete.” Proc. of the 4th Bond in Concrete Conf.: Bond, Anchorage,
Detailing, Publisher Creations, Brescha, Italy, 39–46.
Ogura, N., Bolander, J. E., and Ichinose, T. (2008). “Analysis of bond split-
ting failure of deformed bars within structural concrete.” Eng. Struct.,
30(2), 428–435.
Pecce, M., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E. (2000). “Experimental response
and code models of GFRP RC beams in bending.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2000)4:4(182), 182–190.
Pecce, M., Manfredi, G., Realfonzo, R., and Cosenza, E. (2001).
“Experimental and analytical evaluation of bond properties of GFRP
bars.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2001)13:4
(282), 282–290.
Purainer, R. (2005). “Last- und Verformungsverhalten von Stahlbetonflä-
chentragwerken unter zweiaxialer Zugbeanspruchung.” Ph.D. thesis,
Universität der Bundeswehr München, Munich, 207 (in German).
RILEM. (1994). “Bond test for reinforcement steel. 1. Beam test.”
Recommendations for the testing and use of constructions materials,
E & FN SPON, London, 213–217.
Rostásy, F. S., Koch, R., and Leonhardt, F. (1976). “Zur Mindestbewehrung
für Zwang von Außenwänden aus Stahlleichtbeton.” Deutscher
Ausschuß für Stahlbeton 267, Beuth, Berlin, 116 (in German).
Schöck, (2006). Technical information Schöck Combar, Schöck Bauteile,
Baden Baden, Germany, 23.
Shima, H., Chou, L., and Okamura, H. (1987). “Micro and macro models
for bond in reinforced concrete.” J. Facul. Eng. B, 39(2), 133–194.
Somayaji, S., and Shah, S. P. (1981). “Bond stress versus slip relationship
and cracking response of tension members.” ACI J. Proc., 78(3),
217–225.
Tepfers, R. (1979). “Cracking of concrete cover along anchored deformed
reinforcing bars.” Mag. Concr. Res., 31(106), 3–12.
Torres, L., Neocleous, K., and Pilakoutas, K. (2012). “Design procedure
and simplified equations for the flexural capacity of concrete members
reinforced with fibre-reinforced polymer bars.” Struct. Concr., 13(2),
119–129.
Uijl, J. A., and Bigaj, A. (1996). “A bond model for ribbed bars based on
concrete confinement.” Heron, 41(3), 201–226.
Williams, A. (1986). “Test on large reinforced concrete elements subjected
to direct tension.” Technical Rep. 562, Cement and Concrete Associ-
ation, Wexham Springs, Cement and Concrete Association, Slough,
Buckinghamshire, 56.
Wu, H. Q., and Gilbert, R. I. (2009). “Modeling short-term tension stiff-
ening in reinforced concrete prisms using a continuum-based finite
element model.” Eng. Struct., 31(10), 2380–2391.
J. Compos. Constr.