materials

Article
Fatigue Behavior of Concrete Beams Prestressed with
Partially Bonded CFRP Bars Subjected to Cyclic Loads
Yoseok Jeong 1 , WooSeok Kim 1, * , Viktor Gribniak 2 and David Hui 3
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea; yosoksi@gmail.com
2 Department Institute of Building Materials, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 10221 Vilnius,
Lithuania; viktor.gribniak@vgtu.lt
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148, USA;
dhui@uno.edu
* Correspondence: wooseok@cnu.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-42-821-6854




Received: 18 September 2019; Accepted: 12 October 2019; Published: 15 October 2019


Abstract: The lack of ductility is the greatest concern in the applications of carbon fiber reinforced
polymer (CFRP) materials, when used as pre-stressing reinforcements. To improve the ductility,
a partially bonded FRP system which is intentionally unbonded in the middle part of the beam
and bonded in both end parts of the beam has been developed and applied to prestressed concrete
beams. While, many researchers investigated the instantaneous performance of partially bonded
CFRP prestressed concrete beams, this study intended to evaluate the fatigue performance, the static
load-carrying capacity after fatigue loading and ductility. Based on the fatigue loading tests followed
by static loading tests, over-reinforced and web-confined partially bonded CFRP prestressed concrete
beams exhibited satisfactory fatigue performance without cracks and stiffness degradation during
fatigue loading. In addition, no degradation of load-carrying capacity was observed in static loading
tests after the fatigue tests. The ductility index of concrete beams, prestressed with partially bonded
CFRP bars, is combined with over-reinforcements and web-confinements, similar to that of beams
prestressed with steel bars.

Keywords: carbon fiber reinforced polymer; CFRP; ductility; fatigue; partially bonded bars

1. Introduction
Conventional steel tendons in prestressed concrete structures are naturally vulnerable to corrosion,
which is exacerbated over time and may result in a decrease in structural stiffness, strength, and
service life. The best solution to the corrosion problem is to use non-metallic reinforcements, such as
fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites, which have high tensile strength and are non-corrosive,
non-magnetic, and lightweight [1–4]. The FRP composites have been proposed as alternatives to
steel tendons in prestressed concrete structures to overcome such deterioration problems. However,
FRP tendons and concrete are both brittle materials. Therefore, concrete members that have been
prestressed with FRP tendons have a tendency to fail due to brittleness. This indicates that classical
ductility, which requires plastic deformation, is difficult to obtain. As a consequence, great interest
has been focused on ductility when using FRP tendons in prestressed concrete structures by a large
number of researchers and engineers [2,5–12].
To avoid failure due to brittleness, the prestressing reinforcement ratio should be designed to be
greater than the balanced ratio, at which the rupture of FRP tendons and concrete crushing failures
take place simultaneously [13]. However, the use of a high prestressing reinforcement ratio is not
economical. An alternative to prevent or delay tendon rupture is to use unbonded tendons [2,7].
When FRP tendons are fully unbonded, the stresses in fully unbonded tendons are independent of the

Materials 2019, 12, 3352; doi:10.3390/ma12203352 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 3352 2 of 18

cross-section, but dependent only on the deformation of the member. Strains in the fully unbonded
tendons are released from critical sections and averaged out along the beam length, which implies that
fully unbonded tendons could be beneficial in improving the ductility of concrete structures [2,5,8,9,11].
Thus, although a concrete beam is prestressed with fully unbonded FRP tendons, with its prestressing
reinforcement ratio being less than the balanced ratio in the bonded case, concrete compression
crushing may precede the tensile rupture of FRP tendons at the ultimate stage. An unbonded FRP
tendon system, consequently, could be beneficial in overcoming uneconomical over-reinforcement of
FRP tendons, as well as enhancing the ductility of the beam.
However, the anchorage in a fully unbonded FRP system is a critical issue as it ensures reliable
force transfer and interaction with the rest of the structure. There are no efficient and competitive
prestressing systems for FRP tendons despite research over the last two decades [14,15]. Although,
numerous anchor systems have been developed in the past to create different types of FRP tendons, the
fundamental types of anchor methods can be classified as: Bond-type and wedge-type anchors [14].
Other types of anchors can be created using a combination of such basic anchor methods. However,
these types of anchorage system, used for prestressing FRP tendons, have some drawbacks [14,15].
The application of the bond-type anchor is limited with regards to large-diameter FRP tendons due to
its limited anchor force by bonding between the outer socket and FRP tendons. Under cyclic loads, the
fatigue damage induced by shear deformation in the adhesive can occur earlier than the fatigue limit
of the FRP, which restricts the application of the bonding anchor in fatigue-load-dominant structures.
Wedge-type anchors use compression forces in order to grip the FRP tendons. The structure of FRP
bars composed of longitudinally oriented filaments makes them efficient only for transferring tensile
stresses. High localized stresses can be generated in the FRP tendons, which lead to the damage of
fibers, and further rupturing the FRP tendons. Although many researchers [16–19] have stated that
the resistance of the anchorage systems is adequate, premature slips and failure of FRP tendons have
been identified by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440 [13] as an inherent feature
of such systems. To overcome these problems, the concept of a partially bonded FRP system was
introduced. Lees and Burgoyne [20] first proposed partially bonded and discrete-bonded prestressed
FRP tendons for concrete beams as a new reinforcing system. A partially bonded FRP tendon is similar
to the fully bonded system, except that a portion of the FRP length is intentionally unbonded. The
partially bonded FRP system alters the nature of how beams fail when compared to fully bonded FPR
system. The experimental results showed that the ductility of the partially bonded system improved
when a high load carrying capacity was sustained, in comparison to the fully bonded system [20].
The majority of investigations relating to partially bonded systems have focused on the analysis
of short-term performance and ductility [10,21–23]. Chahrour and Soudki [21] reported that partially
bonded CFRP reinforcements performed better than a fully bonded system of CFRP reinforcements, in
terms of the load carrying capacity and ductility, which revealed that end-anchored, partially bonded
CFRP reinforcements significantly enhanced the ultimate capacity, compared to that of a fully bonded
system. Choi et al. [22] experimentally investigated the effects of various unbonded lengths of a
partially bonded FRP reinforcement on ductility. It was found that ductility increased together with
unbonded length, since the internal slip of the FRP bar and gradual concrete failure occurred near
the ultimate stage, which led to the nonlinear behavior of the beams. Information on the short-term
behavior of RC beams, prestressed with FRP reinforcement, is relatively abundant [6,10,21,23–26].
However, there is a lack of research investigating fatigue performance of concrete beam prestressed
with partially bonded FRP tendons. For the general acceptance and wide-range use of FRP in civil
engineering applications, the fatigue behavior of partially bonded FRP prestressed structures should
be investigated.
In this current study, a partially bonded system was applied to prestressed concrete beams with
FRP tendons to investigate fatigue behavior and capacity, as well as ductility enhancement in terms of
ductility index (DI). An experimental program was carried out, and the test results were also discussed.
Six simply supported, 3000 mm long concrete beams were fabricated with various bonding lengths
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 3 of 18

of CFRP bars, the reinforcement ratio of prestressing bars, and web-confinement. Three beams were
tested under fatigue loading (completing one million cycles); then, the beams were statically loaded up
to failure, in order to evaluate the effect of fatigue loadings on the remaining load-carrying capacity.
The other three beams were tested in static conditions up to failure for comparison purposes.

2. Research Significance
Since FRP bars and concrete are both brittle materials, the fracture characteristics of concrete
beams, prestressed with FRP bars, are of interest because of its brittle failure. Therefore, a partially
bonded system was developed to overcome brittle problems based on many investigations. The results
showed that ductility of the partially bonded system had improved. In spite of the considerable
amounts of results on the ductility of the concrete beam, prestressed with partially bonded FRP
bars, most investigations were focused on the analysis of short-term performance and ductility. This
paper generates important experimental data to address fatigue performance as well as ductility.3.
Experimental program

2.1. Test Specimens and Jacking Setup

Six simply supported concrete beams prestressed by CFRP bars with different bonding conditions:
Fully unbonded, partially bonded and fully unbonded. The main variables were the reinforcement ratio
of prestressing bars, and web-confinement, including bonding conditions. The specimen identification
scheme in Table 1 consists of a four-part code, A-B-C-D, where A represents the test type (F for the
fatigue test or S for static test); B represents the number of CFRP bars; C represents the bonding
condition (F for full unbonding or P for partial bonding), and D represents web-confinement (U for
un-confinement or C for confinement). Web-confinement was introduced as a means of transverse
steel closed stirrups as shown in Figure 1c. All beams were provided with minimum sectional area
of the non-prestressed steel reinforcement at the bottom of the beam in accordance with ACI 318
code [27]. The minimum area has to be As,min = 0.004At , where At is a part of the cross section between
the flexural tension face and the center of gravity of the gross section. As non-prestressed steel bars of
6.0 mm diameter were placed below CFRP bars and in the top compressive zone with 25 mm cover.
These bars also facilitate easy assembly of a reinforcement cage. The experimental program includes
three sets of beams. Figure 1 and Table 1 illustrate details of the specimens.

Table 1. Details of test specimens.

Prestressing Unbonded Web

Test Initial
Specimen ID Reinforcement Length Confinement
Type Prestressing
Ratio (ρ/ρb ) (mm) (mm)
Fully
F1FU 1.6 0.33 fpu N/A1
Fatigue unbonded
F1PU test 1.6 0.33 fpu 1400 N/A
1300
F2PC 3.2 0.35 fpu 1400
(D6@50)
Fully
S1FU 1.6 0.33 fpu N/A
Static unbonded
S1PU test 1.6 0.33 fpu 1400 N/A
1300
S2PC 3.2 0.35 fpu 1400
(D6@50)
1 N/A: Not applicable.
 minimum sectional area of the non-prestressed steel reinforcement at the bottom of the beam in
accordance with ACI 318 code [27]. The minimum area has to be As,min = 0.004At, where At is a part of
the cross section between the flexural tension face and the center of gravity of the gross section. As
non-prestressed steel bars of 6.0 mm diameter were placed below CFRP bars and in the top
compressive
Materials zone with 25 mm cover. These bars also facilitate easy assembly of a reinforcement cage. 4 of 18
2019, 12, 3352
The experimental program includes three sets of beams. Figure 1 and Table 1 illustrate details of the
specimens.
Steel D6, spacing@100 D6, spacing@150 C.L.
150 CFRP bar
Plastic tube
195 for unbonding
250

CFRP bars

25
Threaded steel sleeve
for anchorage
150 1350

(a)
Steel D6, spacing@100 D6, spacing@150 C.L.
150 CFRP bar
Plastic tube
for unbonding
195

CFRP bars
250

25
Non-prestressed 700
steel reinforcement
150 1350
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
(b)
Confined region:650
D6, spacing@50 C.L.
150 CFRP bar D6, spacing@150
Plastic tube
100

for unbonding
195
250

CFRP bars

25
Non-prestressed D6, spacing@100 700
steel reinforcement
150 1350

(c)
Figure
Figure 1. Detailsofofbeam
1. Details beam specimens,
specimens, dimension in millimeters:
dimension (a) F1FU/S1FU,
in millimeters: (b) F1PU/S1PU,
(a) F1FU/S1FU, and
(b) F1PU/S1PU,
(c) F2PC/S2PC (all dimensions in mm).
and (c) F2PC/S2PC (all dimensions in mm).

Table 1. Details of test specimens.

The F1FU/S1FU specimen was post-tensioned with a fully unbonded CFRP bar and no transverse
confinement. A thin plasticPrestressing
tube was used to create the unbonded Unbonded region, as shown in Figure 2a.
Specimen Test Initial Web Confinement
The anchorage system for Reinforcement Ratio
the fully unbonded FRP system isLength a threaded steel sleeve anchorage,
ID Type Prestressing (mm)
by which CFRP bars are embedded (ρ/ρb) with epoxy that fills tubular (mm)steel housing. The prestressing
F1FU ratios was set to 60%
reinforcement 1.6 greater than0.33the fbalanced
pu Fully ρb , where ρb is the
unbonded
ratio N/A1balanced ratio,
the reinforcement ratio that led to simultaneous achievement of the ultimate strain ofN/A
F1PU Fatigue 1.6 0.33 fpu 1400 FRP bar and the
test 1300
ultimate compressive
F2PC strain of concrete
3.2 [13]. The0.35balanced
fpu prestressing
1400 ratio for prestressed concrete
(D6@50)
beams with bonded bars can be given by [13],
S1FU 1.6 0.33 fpu Fully unbonded N/A
S1PU Static 1.6 fc0 0.33 εfpucu A1400
s fbu
N/A
test ρb = 0.85β1 − 1300 (1)
S2PC 3.2 fpu εcu + εfpupu − εpe bd
0.35 fpu
1400
(D6@50)
where β1 = 0.85 for concrete strengths up to 1N/A: Not applicable
27.5 MPa, after which it is reduced at a rate of 0.05 for each
6.9 MPa ofThe strength in excess
F1FU/S1FU of 27.5
specimen MPa
was to a minimum
post-tensioned withvalue of 0.65;
a fully f’c is compressive
unbonded CFRP bar and strength
no of
concrete, f
transverse is the ultimate tensile strength of the CFRP
pu confinement. A thin plastic tube was used to create cu bar, ε is the ultimate strain
the unbonded region, as shown inin concrete in
Figure 2a.(=The
compression 0.003), εpu is the
anchorage system for the
ultimate fullystrain
tensile unbonded
of theFRP
CFRP system is a εthreaded
bar, and steel sleeve
pe is the effective strain in
anchorage,
prestressed CFRPby bar,
whichAs CFRP
is totalbars are embedded
sectional with epoxy that reinforcement,
area of non-prestressed fills tubular steelb ishousing. The d is
beam width,
depthprestressing
to the CFRP reinforcement
bar (distanceratios wasextreme
from set to 60% greater thanfiber
compression the balanced
to centroidratioofρCFRP
b, where ρb is the
bars), fbu is the
balanced ratio, the reinforcement ratio that led to simultaneous achievement of the ultimate strain of
ultimate tensile strength of non-prestressed reinforcement
FRP bar and the ultimate compressive strain of concrete [13]. The balanced prestressing ratio for
prestressed concrete beams with bonded bars can be given by [13],
𝑓′𝑐 𝜀𝑐𝑢 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑏𝑢
𝜌𝑏 = 0.85𝛽1 − (1)
𝑓𝑝𝑢 𝜀𝑐𝑢 +𝜀𝑝𝑢 − 𝜀𝑝𝑒 𝑏𝑑 𝑓𝑝𝑢

where β1 = 0.85 for concrete strengths up to 27.5 MPa, after which it is reduced at a rate of 0.05 for
each 6.9 MPa of strength in excess of 27.5 MPa to a minimum value of 0.65; f’c is compressive strength
of concrete, fpu is the ultimate tensile strength of the CFRP bar, εcu is the ultimate strain in concrete in
compression (= 0.003), εpu is the ultimate tensile strain of the CFRP bar, and εpe is the effective strain
also provided with closed steel stirrups at every 50 mm as shown in Figure 1c. Conventional split
wedge anchors generally for steel strands was used for pre-tensioning CFRP bars. The split wedge is
not effective to grip the bare CFRP bar due to vulnerability of CFRP bar to shear stress. Therefore,
CFRP bars
Materials 2019,were over-layered with metal where the split wedge was placed for gripping CFRP5bars.
12, 3352 of 18
Metal over-layered bars were fabricated by covering bars with a soft metal such as a copper, as shown
in Figure 2b.
Copper tube for preventing shear
Plastic tube failure by split wedges
for unbonding CFRP bars

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

split wedge

also provided with closed steel stirrups at every 50 mm as shown in Figure 1c. Conventional split
wedge anchors generally for steel (a)strands was used for pre-tensioning (b)CFRP bars. The split wedge is
not effective to grip the bare CFRP bar due to vulnerability of CFRP bar to shear stress. Therefore,
CFRPFigure
bars were (a)Unbonded
2. (a) Unbonded
over-layered carbon
carbon
with fiber
fiber
metal reinforced
reinforced polymer
wherepolymer
the (CFRP)
(CFRP)
split wedge bars bars andMetal
andplaced
was (b) (b)for
Metal over-layered
over-layered
gripping CFRPbars.
CFRP
CFRP bar.
Metalbar.
over-layered bars were fabricated by covering bars with a soft metal such as a copper, as shown
in Figure 2b.
The
The F1PU/S1PU
prestressing specimen has the of
system consisted same layout
a 200 of reinforcement
kN hydraulic as the F1FU/S1FU
jack (Enerpac, Menomoneespecimen.
Falls,WI,
However, unlike F1FU/S1FU, a CFRP Menomonee
bar was partially Copper tube for preventing
Forshear
USA), a pressure dial gage (Enerpac, Falls,bonded
WI, to concrete.
USA), and
failure by split wedgesa the partially
prestressing steel bonded
chair (see
Plastic tube
beams, a thin plastic tube
Figure 3). The jacking force was used to
was monitored make the unbonded region, whose length is
using both the dial gage (Enerpac, Menomonee Falls, WI, 1400 mm in the
for unbonding CFRP bars
mid-span as shown in Figure 2. The F1PU/S1PU specimen was pre-tensioned
USA) and strain gages (Tokyo Measuring Instruments Lab., Tokyo, Japan) attached to CFRP bars. with a prestressing ratio
of 1.6ρb .
Elongation of the bar was also monitored at every load increment.
The F2PC/S2PC specimen has two CFRP bars partially bonded to concrete. The F2PC/S2PC
specimen was over-reinforced with a prestressing reinforcement ratio of 3.2ρb . Web-confinement was
also provided with closed steel stirrups Split wedge
at every 50 mm as shown split wedge
in Figure 1c. Conventional split
wedge anchors generally for steel strands was used for pre-tensioning CFRP bars. The split wedge is
not effective to grip the bare CFRP bar due to vulnerability of CFRP bar to shear stress. Therefore,
(a) (b)
CFRP bars were over-layered with metal where the split wedge was placed for gripping CFRP bars.
MetalFigure 2. (a) Unbonded
over-layered carbon
bars were fiber reinforced
fabricated polymer
by covering bars(CFRP)
with abars
softand (b) Metal
metal such over-layered
as a copper,CFRP
as shown
bar.
in Figure 2b.
The prestressing system consisted of a 200 kN hydraulic jack (Enerpac, Menomonee Falls,WI,
USA), The prestressing
a pressure system
dial gage consisted
(Enerpac, of a 200 kN
Menomonee hydraulic
Falls, WI, USA),jackand(Enerpac, Menomonee
a prestressing Falls,WI,
steel chair (see
USA), a3).pressure Hydraulic
dial gage jack
Figure The jacking force(Enerpac,
was monitoredMenomonee Falls,the
using both Steel
WI, USA),
dial
chair gage and a prestressing
(Enerpac, Menomoneesteel chair
Falls, (see
WI,
Figure 3). The jacking force was monitored using both the dial gage (Enerpac,
USA) and strain gages (Tokyo Measuring Instruments Lab., Tokyo, Japan) attached to CFRP bars. Menomonee Falls, WI,
USA) and strain
Elongation of the gages
bar was(Tokyo MeasuringatInstruments
also monitored Lab., Tokyo, Japan) attached to CFRP bars.
every load increment.
Elongation of the bar was also monitored at every
Figure load setup.
3. Jacking increment.

The beam specimens were cast in one batch. The CFRP bar has a rough surface pattern with
Splitinterlock
double helical rib geometry for mechanical wedge (see Figure 2b). The average 28-day compressive
strength of the concrete, according to three cylinder tests [28] was 35 MPa. Table 2 summarizes the
mechanical properties of CFRP bars, and non-prestressing steel reinforcement, whose properties
were provided by the manufacturer.

Hydraulic jack
Steel chair

Figure 3. Jacking setup.

Figure 3. Jacking setup.
The beam specimens were cast in one batch. The CFRP bar has a rough surface pattern with
The
double beamrib
helical specimens
geometrywere cast in oneinterlock
for mechanical batch. The
(seeCFRP
Figurebar
2b).has
Thea average
rough surface
28-day pattern with
compressive
double helical rib geometry for mechanical interlock (see Figure 2b). The average 28-day compressive
strength of the concrete, according to three cylinder tests [28] was 35 MPa. Table 2 summarizes the
strength of the
mechanical concrete,
properties according
of CFRP bars,to three
and cylinder tests steel
non-prestressing [28] was 35 MPa. Table
reinforcement, whose2 summarizes the
properties were
mechanical properties of CFRP bars, and non-prestressing steel reinforcement, whose properties
provided by the manufacturer.
were provided by the manufacturer.
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 6 of 18

2.2. Test Program

Three-point bending fatigue tests were carried out. Three beams with span 2700 mm were loaded,
as shown in Figure 4. The beams were subjected to one million fatigue loading cycles and a sinusoidal
wave load was repeated at frequency of 5 Hz. Note that, since the test program presented in this paper
aimed for the preliminary tests of actual-sized beams, one million cycles was selected, which is 50% of
two million cycles for the actual-sized beams [29,30]. In general, the prestressed concrete beams in
service do not allow cracking. The maximum applied load, used for the cycled loading, Pmax , was
selected to be equivalent to 60% of the cracking load for each specimen. The minimum load is equal to
1.0 kN equivalent to 10% of selected maximum load in order to avoid impact loads during cycling. The
fatigue loading was periodically stopped at 1, 103 , 104 , 105 , 3 × 105 , 5 × 105 , and 106 cycles, in order to
conduct intermediate static tests to monitor the damage accumulation and its effect on the stiffness
of beams. The maximum load of intermediate static tests was limited to the peak magnitude of the
fatigue load. After completing one million cycles, the beams were tested monotonically, up to the
failure to evaluate the fatigue capacity of the prestressed concrete beams. During the fatigue and static
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19
tests, crack propagation patterns were monitored and marked on the beam surface.

Actuator

Plastic tube
for unbonding
CFRP tendons
CFRP tendon

LVDT

2700 mm

(a)

(b)
20
M ax.load: 60% of cracking load

15
Load (kN )

10

0
0 1 28 2 56 3 84 4 112 5 140 6 168 7 196
N o. of cycles

(c)
Figure
Figure 4. 4. Loading
Loading setup:
setup: (a) loading
(a) loading schemedimensions
scheme dimensions ininmillimeters,
millimeters,(b) photograph, and (c)and
(b) photograph, cyclic
(c) cyclic
loading layout.
loading layout.
3. Results and Discussions
This section presents test results of each beam, considered in the experimental program, and
summarizes the relevant research findings. In the first phase, three beams were tested under fatigue
loadings at different load ranges, based on a percentage of the cracking load. Three beams in the
second phase were tested under monotonic loading conditions up to a failure for the reference. An
overall summary of the tests results is given in Table 3. A full discussions of the results is presented
in the following section.
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 7 of 18

Table 2. Measured material properties of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) bar and steel
reinforcement. (Provided by the manufacturers)

Yield Ultimate UltimateModulus of

Diameter Effective
Material Strength Tensile Strain Elasticity
(mm) Area (mm2 )
(MPa) Strength (MPa) (%) (GPa)
CFRP 9.5 70.9 - 2500 1.83 136
Mild steel 6 28.3 400 710 - 200

3. Results and Discussions

This section presents test results of each beam, considered in the experimental program, and
summarizes the relevant research findings. In the first phase, three beams were tested under fatigue
loadings at different load ranges, based on a percentage of the cracking load. Three beams in the
second phase were tested under monotonic loading conditions up to a failure for the reference. An
overall summary of the tests results is given in Table 3. A full discussions of the results is presented in
the following section.

Table 3. Summary of test program and results of fatigue and static tests.

During Monotonic Loading after One

During Repeated Loading Ductility
Test Specimen Million Cycles
Index
Type ID Applied Load (kN) No. of Cycles at Load at Initial Ultimate Load Failure (DI)
Min. Max. Initial Crack Crack (kN) (kN) Mode 2
F1FU 1.0 13 100,000 24.5 44.3 R 0.84
Fatigue
F1PU 1.0 10 10,000 15.6 40.5 C 0.74
test
F2PC 1.0 15 No cracks 24.5 69.5 C 0.80
S1FU N/A 1 N/A 20.6 42.3 R PF 3
Static test S1PU N/A N/A 9.8 37.1 C 0.77
S2PC N/A N/A 18.6 67.0 C 0.78
1 N/A: Not applicable; 2 R: Rupture of non-prestressing reinforcement C: Concrete crushing; 3 PF: Premature failure

prior to yielding.

3.1. F1FU/S1FU Specimens

Load-deflection diagrams of the F1FU specimen are presented in Figure 5. The F1FU specimen
was post-tensioned with a fully unbonded CFRP bar. The fatigue test was conducted at 5 Hz with a
load range between 1.0 kN and 13 kN. As the number of cycles increases up to one million, maximum
deflections measured at every intermediate static test increase to 2.36 mm, as shown in Figure 5b.
The deflection was measured as 0.70 mm after one million cycles. During fatigue loading, the initial
crack appeared on the bottom surface at the mid-span, where the load was applied at approximately
100,000 cycles. The crack developed and propagated toward the compression zone, up to 160 mm from
the bottom fiber at one million cycles.
After the initial cracks were observed in the F1FU specimen, the beam stiffness that was evaluated
by the slope of the load-deflection relationship was reduced with the increasing number of cycles, as
shown in Figure 6. The stiffness results, shown in Figure 6, are supported by Grace and Sayed (1998,
2000) and Mertol et al. (2006), who observed that the stiffness of prestressed concrete members are
degraded under fatigue loading [31–33]. It can be attributed to a reduction in the effective moment of
inertial, as existing cracks propagate and new cracks develop. Therefore, this reduction in stiffness
could be mainly due to the excessive cracking of concrete. Despite beam stiffness degradation during
fatigue loading period, the beam was recovered and the cracks closed after one million fatigue loadings.
load range between 1.0 kN and 13 kN. As the number of cycles increases up to one million, maximum
deflections measured at every intermediate static test increase to 2.36 mm, as shown in Figure 5b. The
deflection was measured as 0.70 mm after one million cycles. During fatigue loading, the initial crack
appeared on the bottom surface at the mid-span, where the load was applied at approximately
100,000 cycles. The crack developed and propagated toward the compression zone, up to 160 mm
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 8 of 18
from the bottom fiber at one million cycles.

80 20
Static test after 1000k cycles Initial cycle
70 At 1k cycles
Initial cycle At 10k cycles
60 Static test after 1000k cycles 15 At 100k cycles
At 300k cycles
50 At 500k cycles
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
At 1000k cycles
40 10

30

20 5 1000k cycles
Intermediate static test
10 during fatigue loading
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

(a) (b)
Figure5.5.(a)
Figure (a)Load-deflection
Load-deflectioncurves
curvesofofF1FU
F1FUspecimens
specimensduring
duringrepeated
repeatedloading
loadingtest
testincluding
includingstatic
static
testresults
test
Materials results
2019, after
12,after one
one
x FOR million
million
PEER cycles.(b)
cycles.
REVIEW (b)AAdetailed
detailedview
viewof
ofthe
thefirst
firstinitial
initialdeflection
deflection2.5
2.5mm.
mm. 9 of 19

After the initial cracks were observed in the F1FU specimen, the beam stiffness that was
14
evaluated by the slope of the load-deflection relationship was reduced with the increasing number
y = -0.019log(N) + 10.389
12 6. The stiffness results, shown R²
of cycles, as shown in Figure in= Figure 6, are supported by Grace and
B eam stiffness (kN /m m )

0.1420
Sayed (1998, 2000) and Mertol
10
et al. (2006), who observed that the stiffness of prestressed concrete
members are degraded under fatigue loading [31–33]. It can be attributed to a reduction in the
8
effective moment of inertial, as existing cracks propagate and new cracks develop. Therefore, this
reduction in stiffness could 6 bey =mainly
-0.199 log(N) + 10.722
due to the excessive cracking of concrete. Despite beam
R² = 0.8020
stiffness degradation during fatigue loading period, the beam was recovered and the cracks closed
4 y = -0.276 log(N) + 9.319
after one million fatigue loadings. F 1FU R² = 0.8422
2 F 1P U
F 2P C
0
1 100 10,000 1,000,000
N o. of cycles,N (log scale)

Figure 6. Beam stiffness at various number of cycles.

Figure 6. Beam stiffness at various number of cycles.
The F1FU specimen survived one million cycles and was subsequently loaded monotonically to
The F1FU specimen survived one million cycles and was subsequently loaded monotonically to
failure. New cracks during monotonic loading appeared at the end of the pre-existing crack, located
failure. New cracks during monotonic loading appeared at the end of the pre-existing crack, located
100 mm from the mid-span at the load of 24.5 kN, as shown in Figure 7b. The stiffness decreased after
100 mm from the mid-span at the load of 24.5 kN, as shown in Figure 7b. The stiffness decreased after
the new crack, and maintained its reduced slope in load-deflection curve, with further increase in the
the new crack, and maintained its reduced slope in load-deflection curve, with further increase in the
load until rupture of non-prestressed steel bar (see Figures 8 and 9). It can be seen that the presence
load until rupture of non-prestressed steel bar (see Figures 8 and 9). It can be seen that the presence
of significant stress concentration, at non-prestressing reinforcement, led to the fracture of the steel
of significant stress concentration, at non-prestressing reinforcement, led to the fracture of the steel
bar. It is worth mentioning that most cracks were dictated by the spacing of the shear stirrups. This
bar. It is worth mentioning that most cracks were dictated by the spacing of the shear stirrups. This
indicates that the rupture of the steel bar occurs in the vicinity of a stirrup leg at a crack location (see
indicates that the rupture of the steel bar occurs in the vicinity of a stirrup leg at a crack location (see
Figure 8); flexural cracks produced high stress levels in the steel bars at crack locations. Like the F1FU
Figure 8); flexural cracks produced high stress levels in the steel bars at crack locations. Like the F1FU
specimen, the S1FU specimen also failed by non-prestressing reinforcement rupture as the applied load
specimen, the S1FU specimen also failed by non-prestressing reinforcement rupture as the applied
abruptly dropped (see Figure 9), which can be ascribed to stress concentrations on non-prestressing
load abruptly dropped (see Figure 9), which can be ascribed to stress concentrations on non-
auxiliary reinforcement.
prestressing auxiliary reinforcement.

S1FU

(a)

fatigue test
F1FU
static test after fatigue test

New crack at 24.5 kN from

the end of existing crack
 of significant stress concentration, at non-prestressing reinforcement, led to the fracture of the steel
bar. It is worth mentioning that most cracks were dictated by the spacing of the shear stirrups. This
indicates that the rupture of the steel bar occurs in the vicinity of a stirrup leg at a crack location (see
Figure 8); flexural cracks produced high stress levels in the steel bars at crack locations. Like the F1FU
specimen,
Materials 2019, the S1FU specimen also failed by non-prestressing reinforcement rupture as the applied
12, 3352 9 of 18
load abruptly dropped (see Figure 9), which can be ascribed to stress concentrations on non-

S1FU

(a)

fatigue test
F1FU
static test after fatigue test

New crack at 24.5 kN from

the end of existing crack

(b)
Materials 2019,7.12,
Figure
Figure x FORpatterns
7.Crack
Crack PEER REVIEW
patterns at failure during
at during monotonic
monotonicloading:
loading:(a)(a)
S1FU specimen
S1FU (no(no
specimen fatigue loading)
fatigue 10 of 19
loading)
Materials 2019,
and(b)
and 12,
(b)F1FU x FOR PEER
F1FUspecimen. REVIEW
specimen. 10 of 19

Non-prestressing
reinforcement rupture
Non-prestressing
reinforcement rupture

Figure 8. Non-prestressing reinforcement rupture.

Figure 8. Non-prestressing reinforcement rupture.
80
80
70 Test stopped at rupture of
non-prestressed steel bar
70
60 Test stopped at rupture of
non-prestressed steel bar
60
50
(kN)(kN)

50
40
Load

40
30
Load

30
20
F1FU
20
10 S1FU
F1FU
10
0 S1FU
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
0 10 20Deflection
30 (mm)40 50 60
Deflection (mm)
Figure 9. Mid-span load-deflection curves of the F1FU/S1FU specimens.
Figure 9. Mid-span load-deflection curves of the F1FU/S1FU specimens.
Figure 9. Mid-span load-deflection curves of the F1FU/S1FU specimens.
The non-prestressing reinforcement rupture was observed on both specimens (F1FU/S1FU) under
The non-prestressing reinforcement rupture was observed on both specimens (F1FU/S1FU)
monotonic loading despite exceeding the minimum non-prestressing reinforcements (As /As,min = 1.13
underThe non-prestressing
monotonic reinforcement
loading despite exceeding rupture was observed
the minimum on both specimens
non-prestressing (F1FU/S1FU)
reinforcements (As/As,min
where As is the area of non-prestressed reinforcement). Unbonded FRP bars can improve ductility
=under
1.13 monotonic
where As isloading despite
the area exceeding the minimum
of non-prestressed non-prestressing
reinforcement). Unbonded reinforcements (As/As,min
FRP bars can improve
by relieving the strain from critical sections or averaging strains along unbonded length of bars [7].
= 1.13 where A is the area of non-prestressed reinforcement). Unbonded FRP bars
ductility by relieving the strain from critical sections or averaging strains along unbonded length of
s can improve
However, a small amount of non-prestressed reinforcement can reduce the beneficial effect of unbonded
ductility
bars by relieving
[7]. However, the strain
a small amountfromofcritical sections orreinforcement
non-prestressed averaging strains along unbonded
can reduce length
the beneficial of
effect
bars in terms of ductility. Therefore, when designing prestressed concrete structures using fully
bars
of [7]. However,
unbonded bars in a small
termsamount of non-prestressed
of ductility. Therefore, when reinforcement can reduce the
designing prestressed beneficial
concrete effect
structures
unbonded CFRP bars, an adequate amount of non-prestressing reinforcement should be considered to
of unbonded
using bars in terms
fully unbonded CFRPof ductility.
bars, Therefore,
an adequate amountwhen designing prestressed
of non-prestressing concrete structures
reinforcement should be
prevent the unexpected rupture of non-prestressed steel bars. This concept is supported by Lau and
using fully to
considered unbonded
prevent the CFRP bars, an adequate
unexpected rupture ofamount of non-prestressing
non-prestressed reinforcement
steel bars. This should be
concept is supported
Pam (2010), who observed that a higher degree of steel reinforcement in the beam specimen resulted
considered
by Lau andtoPam prevent the unexpected
(2010), who observed rupture
that ofa non-prestressed
higher degree of steel bars.
steel This concept in
reinforcement is supported
the beam
in a more ductile FRP-reinforced concrete [34], and by Qu et al. (2009), who observed that hybrid
by Lau and Pam (2010), who observed that a higher degree of steel reinforcement
specimen resulted in a more ductile FRP-reinforced concrete [34], and by Qu et al. (2009), in the beam
who
specimen that
observed resulted
hybridin FRP/steel-reinforced
a more ductile FRP-reinforced concrete
concrete beams, with[34], and by Qu
appropriate et al. (2009),ratios,
reinforcement who
observed that hybrid FRP/steel-reinforced concrete
exhibited good ductility and load carrying capacity [35]. beams, with appropriate reinforcement ratios,
exhibited good ductility and load carrying capacity [35].
3.2. F1PU/S1PU Specimens
3.2. F1PU/S1PU Specimens
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 10 of 18

FRP/steel-reinforced concrete beams, with appropriate reinforcement ratios, exhibited good ductility
and load carrying capacity [35].

3.2. F1PU/S1PU Specimens

The F1PU/S1PU specimens, as presented in Figure 1b, had the same layout of reinforcements
as F1FU/S1FU. However, unlike F1FU/S1FU, a CFRP bar was partially bonded to concrete; 1400 mm
unbonded length was provided near the mid-span of the concrete beam by means of a plastic tube. One
million fatigue loadings were applied at 5 Hz between 1.0 kN and 10 kN. The maximum deflections,
which were measured at every intermediate static test during the fatigue loading test, are presented in
Figure 10, including the load-deflection curve of the F1PU specimen at the static test conducted after
one million fatigue loadings. The maximum deflections increased up to 2.42 mm at one million cycles
(Figure
Materials10b).
2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

80 20
Static test after 1000k cycles
70
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
60 15 Initial cycle
Static test after 1000k cycles
50 80
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
20
Static test after 1000k cycles
Initial Loading
40 70 10 At 1k cycles
At 10k cycles
30 60 15 At 100k cycles
Initial cycle
Static test after 1000k cycles At 300k cycles
20 50 5 At 500k cycles
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

Initial Loading
Intermediate static test At 1000k cycles
At 1k cycles
10 40 during fatigue loading
10 1000k cycles At 10k cycles
30 At 100k cycles
0 0 At 300k cycles
020 10 20 30 40 50 60 5 0.0 1.0 2.0 At3.0
500k cycles4.0 5.0
Intermediate static test At 1000k cycles
10 during Deflection
fatigue loading(mm) Deflection (mm)
1000k cycles

0 0
0 10 20 (a) 30 40 50 60 0.0 1.0 2.0 (b)
3.0 4.0 5.0
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
Figure10.
Figure 10.(a)
(a) Load-deflection
Load-deflectioncurves
curvesofofF1PU
F1PUspecimens
specimensduring
duringrepeated
repeatedloading
loadingtest
testincluding
includingstatic
static
(a) (b)
test results after one million cycles. (b) A detailed view of the first initial deflection 2.5 mm.
test results after one million cycles. (b) A detailed view of the first initial deflection 2.5 mm.
Figure 10. (a) Load-deflection curves of F1PU specimens during repeated loading test including static
The deflection
Thetest
deflection was
results afterwas
onemeasured
measured asas
0.64
million cycles. Amm
0.64
(b) mmafter
detailed thethe
after
view ofconclusion
theconclusion ofdeflection
first initial one million
of one fatigue
million
2.5 mm. loadings.
fatigue An
loadings.
initial crack
An initial waswas
crack observed
observedat 10,000
at 10,000cycles and
cycles second
and second cracks
cracks appeared
appearedatatnearly
nearly150
150mmmmdistance
distance
The deflection was measured as 0.64 mm after the conclusion of one million fatigue loadings.
from
fromthetheloading
loadingpoint
pointat at100,000
100,000cycles,
cycles,asasshown
shownin inFigure
Figure11b. 11b.TheThecrack
crackbelow
belowthetheloading
loadingpoint
point
An initial crack was observed at 10,000 cycles and second cracks appeared at nearly 150 mm distance
propagated
propagatedtoward
toward the the compression
compression zone zone nearly
nearly 5050 mm
mm fromfrom the the top
top fiber
fiber after
after one
one million
million cycles.
cycles.
from the loading point at 100,000 cycles, as shown in Figure 11b. The crack below the loading point
Cracks
Cracks appearing
appearing
propagated
ininthe
toward thevicinity
the vicinity
of of
compression
150150mm mm
zone
distance
distance
nearly
from
50 mm fromthe loading
fromthe theloading
pointafter
extended
top fiberpoint
to nearly
extended
one millionto
100 mm
nearly
cycles. 100
to 125 mm
mmCracks from
to 125appearingthe
mm frominthebottom fiber
thebottom after
vicinity fiber one
of 150after million fatigue
one million
mm distance loadings.
fromfatigue
the loadingloadings.
point extended to nearly 100
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
S1PU
S1PU

(a)
(a)
Concrete crushing Initial crack at 10k cycles
Concrete crushing Initial crack at 10k cycles

F1PU
F1PU fatiguefatigue
test test

static static testfatigue

test after after test
fatigue test

2nd
2ndcracks at at
cracks 100k cycles
100k cycles
(b)
(b)
Figure 11. Crack patternsatatfailure
failure during monotonic loading: (a)(a)
S1PU specimen (no fatigue loading)
Figure 11. Crack
Figure11. Crack patterns
patterns at failureduring
duringmonotonic
monotonicloading:
loading: (a) S1PU
S1PU specimen
specimen(no
(no fatigue
fatigueloading)
loading)
and (b) F1PU specimen.
and (b) F1PU specimen.
and (b) F1PU specimen.
The beam stiffness changed after 1000 cycles, and then, the beam stiffness reduced more rapidly,
The beamtostiffness
compared F1FU with changed after 1000
an increasing cycles,
number of and then,
cycles, the beam
as shown stiffness
in Figure reduced
6. This more in
reduction rapidly,
compared
stiffnessto F1FU with
is mainly an increasing
attributable number
to the excessive ofdevelopment
crack cycles, as shown
toward intheFigure 6. This
compression reduction
zone. The in
cracksiswere
stiffness mainlyfirstattributable
observed during
to thethe intermediate
excessive crackstatic test, followed
development by 10,000
toward cycles. The cracks
the compression zone. The
finally
cracks propagated
were toward
first observed 10 mm
during thebelow the top fiber
intermediate staticoftest,
the followed
beam during the static
by 10,000 test The
cycles. after cracks
conclusion of fatigue loading. However, the cracks closed after removing the fatigue load without
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 11 of 18

The beam stiffness changed after 1000 cycles, and then, the beam stiffness reduced more rapidly,
compared to F1FU with an increasing number of cycles, as shown in Figure 6. This reduction in
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
stiffness is mainly attributable to the excessive crack development toward the compression zone. The
cracks were first observed during the intermediate static test, followed by 10,000 cycles. The cracks
Similar flexural behavior and the failure mode were observed for the S1PU specimen when
finally propagated toward 10 mm below the top fiber of the beam during the static test after conclusion
compared to F1PU (see Figures 11 and 12). The deflection of the S1PU specimen linearly increased
of fatigue loading. However, the cracks closed after removing the fatigue load without beam failure
with the applied load before initial flexural cracking at 9.8 kN. The stiffness was reduced after the
occurring after one million fatigue loadings.
initial cracks and gradually kept decreasing with further loading until flexural failure with concrete
After the fatigue test, monotonic loading was applied to the F1PU. Figure 12 illustrates tests
crushing in the top fiber of concrete beam. Comparing the load-deflection curves of F1PU to S1PU,
results for the F1PU specimen including the S1PU specimen under monotonic loading. As the applied
no significant effect of cyclic loading was observed on the flexural behaviors. This implies that a
load to the F1PU increased up to 15.6 kN, pre-existing cracks reopened, maintaining reduced stiffness,
partially bonded system exhibits a good fatigue performance. Although several cracks appeared and
and new cracks started to appear and extend from the end of the pre-existing cracks. As the new
developed toward the concrete compression zone during the fatigue loading period, the flexural
cracks began to appear, and developed upon a further increase of the load, the beam stiffness gradually
response of the F1PU specimen, after repeated loading conditions, is similar to that of the S1PU
reduced until the F1PU specimen failed in flexure with the crushing of concrete in compression, as
specimen with same reinforcement layout, which did not undergo fatigue loadings. The ductility of
shown in Figure 11b.
the partially bonded system is evaluated and discussed in Section 3.4 in more detail.
80

70

60 Test stopped at the concrete

crushing.
50
Load (kN)

40

30

20
F1PU
10 S1PU
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Deflection (mm)

Figure 12. Mid-span load-deflection curves of the F1PU/S1PU specimens.

Figure 12. Mid-span load-deflection curves of the F1PU/S1PU specimens.

Similar flexural behavior and the failure mode were observed for the S1PU specimen when
3.3. F2PC/S2PC Specimens
compared to F1PU (see Figures 11 and 12). The deflection of the S1PU specimen linearly increased
with The F2PC/ S2PC
the applied loadspecimens wereflexural
before initial prestressed withat
cracking two
9.8partially
kN. Thebonded CFRP
stiffness was bars and confined
reduced after the
with transverse
initial cracks andreinforcements,
gradually keptas shown in with
decreasing Figure 1c. A loading
further fatigue test,
untilwith a frequency
flexural of 5 concrete
failure with Hz, was
conducted
crushing inon
thethe
topF2PCfiberspecimen
of concrete and the applied
beam. load the
Comparing wasload-deflection
varied betweencurves
1.0 kNofand
F1PU15 to
kN. During
S1PU, no
the fatigue effect
significant test, the maximum
of cyclic deflections,
loading were on
was observed measured at every
the flexural intermediate
behaviors. static test.
This implies that and found
a partially
to have increased
bonded to 2.29a mm,
system exhibits goodas shown
fatigue in Figure 13b.
performance. The deflection
Although several was measured
cracks appeared asand
0.89developed
mm after
one million
toward cycles. compression zone during the fatigue loading period, the flexural response of the
the concrete
F1PUNo flexural after
specimen, cracks occurred
repeated duringconditions,
loading one millionisfatigue
similarloadings.
to that of The bond specimen
the S1PU failure of CFRP bars
with same
at the end of thelayout,
reinforcement beam werewhichnot didobserved after one
not undergo million
fatigue fatigueThe
loadings. loadings. A perfect
ductility elastic response,
of the partially bonded
corresponding
system to theand
is evaluated initial stiffness,
discussed was observed
in Section after detail.
3.4 in more one million cycles, as shown in Figure 13b.
The stiffness of the beam, based on the slope of the load-deflection relationship, is almost identical at
3.3. F2PC/S2PC
the initial loadingSpecimens
and reloading, as shown in Figure13b. This indicates that there was no loss of the
beamThe stiffness due
F2PC/ S2PC to specimens
the fatiguewereloadings, and this
prestressed withis ascribed to thebonded
two partially over-reinforcement
CFRP bars and (ρ/ρ b = 3.2)
confined
and transverse confinement in the compression zone.
with transverse reinforcements, as shown in Figure 1c. A fatigue test, with a frequency of 5 Hz, was
conducted on the F2PC specimen and the applied load was varied between 1.0 kN and 15 kN. During
the fatigue test, the maximum deflections, were measured at every intermediate static test. and found
to have increased to 2.29 mm, as shown in Figure 13b. The deflection was measured as 0.89 mm after
one million cycles.
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 12 of 18

80 20
Static test after 1000k cycles Static test Initial cycle
70 after 1000k cycles At 1k cycles
Initial cycle At 10k cycles
60 15 At 100k cycles
At 300k cycles
50 At 500k cycles
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
At 1000k cycles
40 10

30

20 5 1000k cycles
Intermediate static test
10 during fatigue loading

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

(a) (b)
Figure13.
Figure 13.(a)
(a)Load-deflection
Load-deflectioncurves
curvesof ofF2PC
F2PCspecimens
specimensduring
duringrepeated
repeatedloading
loadingtest
testincluding
includingstatic
static
test results after one million cycles. (b) A detailed view of the first initial deflection 2.5 mm.
test results after one million cycles. (b) A detailed view of the first initial deflection 2.5 mm.

No flexural cracks occurred

Over-reinforcement during one
and transverse million fatigue
confinement haveloadings.
been proposed The bond failure oftoCFRP
as methods improve barsthe
at
the end ofof
ductility theFRP
beam were not
systems. Theobserved
absence after one million
of plasticity in FRPfatigue loadings.
materials points A perfect elastic response,
to the under-reinforced
corresponding
flexural sections to undergoing
the initial stiffness,
a sudden was observed
tensile afterThus,
rupture. one million cycles,crushing
the concrete as shownfailure
in Figuremode 13b.of
The
an stiffness of the beam,
over-reinforced memberbasedison the slope
more of thedue
desirable, load-deflection
to enhanced relationship, is almost and
energy absorption identical at
greater
the initial loading
ductility, leadingand to areloading,
more gradual as shown
failurein Figure
mode 13b. [36].This
For indicates that there
over-reinforced was no loss
members, of the
transverse
beam stiffnessin
confinement due thetocompression
the fatigue loadings,
zone will and this is ascribed
increase the strain to capacity
the over-reinforcement
of concrete, and (ρ/ρ b = 3.2)
thus, the
and transverse
concrete confinement
ductility, since the in the compression
presence of transverse zone.reinforcement inhibits the propagation of internal
Over-reinforcement
cracks [37]. A combination and of transverse
the two confinement have been proposed
means (over-reinforcement and as methods confinement)
transverse to improve theis
ductility of FRP systems. The absence of plasticity in FRP materials points
effective in maintaining stiffness during fatigue loading in elastic states, even if over-reinforcement to the under-reinforced
flexural sections with
in combination undergoing
transversea sudden tensile rupture.
confinement, Thus, the
was introduced asconcrete
an important crushing
wayfailure mode
to induce of an
inelastic
over-reinforced
behavior in the memberultimate is more desirable, due to enhanced energy absorption and greater ductility,
stage.
leadingThetostatic
a more load gradual
test offailure
the F2PC mode [36]. Forfollowed
specimen over-reinforced members,
by the fatigue test transverse
was performed confinement
to identifyin
the
thecompression
remaining strengthzone willafterincrease the strain
the fatigue capacity
loading andoftheconcrete,
resultsand
were thus, the concrete
compared ductility,
to a S2PC beam,sinceas
the presence of transverse reinforcement inhibits the propagation of internal
presented in Figures 14 and 15. Both F2PC and S2PC specimens behaved linearly up to initial cracks cracks [37]. A combination
of
atthe
24.5two
kN,means
and 18.6 (over-reinforcement
kN, respectively.and For transverse confinement)
the F2PC specimen, when is effective
the initialincrack
maintaining
occurred stiffness
at 24.5
during fatigue loading
kN, a reduction in beaminstiffness
elastic states,
occurred,even if over-reinforcement
and then more cracks formed in combination
and propagatedwith transverse
toward the
confinement,
loading pointwas with introduced as an important
further loading. Finally, the waybeamto induce
failed byinelastic
concrete behavior
crushing in at
thethe
ultimate stage.of
top surface
The static
the beam, load test
as shown of the F2PC
in Figure 14b. specimen followed by the fatigue test was performed to identify
the remaining
Compared strength after the
to the extent fatigue loading
of concrete crushingand theF2PC/
of the resultsS2PC
werespecimens
comparedtotoother a S2PC beam, asa
specimens,
presented in Figures
larger concrete 14 and 15.destruction
compressive Both F2PCzone and S2PC
of thespecimens
F2PC/ S2PC behaved
specimens linearly
areup to initial(See
observed cracks at
detail
24.5 kN, and 18.6
photographs kN, respectively.
in Figure 14). It can For the F2PC specimen,
be explained that increasingwhenthe theratio
initialofcrack occurred
tensile at 24.5 kN,
reinforcement (ρ/ρab
reduction in beam
= 3.2 for F2PC/ S2PCstiffness occurred,
specimens andandρ/ρthen
b = 1.6more cracks formed
for others) and
will shift thepropagated
location oftoward the loading
the neutral axis in
point with further
the direction of the loading.
tensionFinally,
area, so thethat
beamthefailed
extentbyofconcrete
concretecrushing
used becomes at the top surface
bigger. of thewords,
In other beam,
as shown
when in Figure
concrete 14b. increases, the degree of crushing decreases. When it comes to ductility, the
strength
Compared
neutral axis’ depthto the ofextent
the beamof concrete
in failurecrushing of the F2PC/
can determine S2PC specimens
its ductility. Therefore, tofurther
other specimens,
study of the a
larger concrete
practical rule incompressive
limiting thedestruction
neutral axis’ zone of the
depth seemsF2PC/ S2PC
to be specimens
required are observed (See
on high-performance detail
concrete
photographs
beams to assure in Figure
adequate 14).ductility
It can be explained that increasing the ratio of tensile reinforcement
levels.
(ρ/ρb = 3.2 for F2PC/ S2PC specimens and ρ/ρb = 1.6 for others) will shift the location of the neutral
axis in the direction of the tension area, so that the extent of concrete used becomes bigger. In other
words, when concrete strength increases, the degree of crushing decreases. When it comes to ductility,
the neutral axis’ depth of the beam in failure can determine its ductility. Therefore, further study of the
practical rule in limiting the neutral axis’ depth seems to be required on high-performance concrete
beams to assure adequate ductility levels.
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 13 of 18
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

S2PC

(a)

fatigue test
F2PC
static test after fatigue test

(b)
Figure
Figure
Materials 14.Crack
2019,14.
12, xCrackpatterns
patterns
FOR PEER REVIEW failure during
at failure duringmonotonic
monotonicloading:
loading:(a)(a) S1PU
S1PU specimen
specimen (no(no fatigue
fatigue loading)
loading) 15 of 19
and(b)
and (b)F1PU
F1PUspecimen.
specimen.

The load-deflection curves80of S2PC (no fatigue loading) and F2PC specimens are presented in
70
Figure 15. Consistent with the results of F1PC and S1PC, the static test results showed that the F2PC
60
specimen exhibited similar beam strength to S2PC. The deflection of the S2PC specimen linearly
increased with the applied load,50before the initial Testflexural
stopped at cracking.
the concrete During one million cycles, neither
Load (kN)

40 crushing.
bond failure of CFRP bars, nor cracks were observed in the F2PC specimen that was prestressed with
partially bonded/over-reinforced 30 CFRP bars, and confined with transverse reinforcements. After the

completion of one million cycles,20the F2PC specimen exhibited similar behavior to the S2PC specimen
F2PC
10
(no fatigue loading) under monotonic loading (see Figure 15). The S2PC initial beam stiffness of both
specimens were similar to each0 other until the first cracking. The flexural behaviors in the post-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
cracking phase of both F2PC and S2PC exhibited gradual stiffness degradation until failure. The
Deflection (mm)
failure modes of both beams were flexural failures with concrete crushing. In spite of one million
Figure
fatigue loadings,Figure 15. Mid-span
there 15.
was load-deflection
no reduction curves of the
in the load-carrying F2PC/S2PC
capacity specimens.
or beam stiffness observed in
Mid-span load-deflection curves of the F2PC/S2PC specimens.
the F2PC specimen. Accordingly, this indicates excellent fatigue performance of the F2PC specimen
The load-deflection
designed with partially curves
bondedof bars,
S2PCan (noover-reinforced
fatigue loading) and F2PC
section, and specimens are presented
web confinement in the in
3.4. Energy-Based Ductility Index
Figure 15. Consistent
compression zone. with the results of F1PC and S1PC, the static test results showed that the F2PC
The ductility
specimen exhibitedis defined by thestrength
similar beam ability totosustain inelastic
S2PC. The deformation
deflection of the without loss in the
S2PC specimen load
linearly
carrying
increasedcapacity
with theprior
appliedto failure. Conventional
load, before the initial ductility is defined
flexural cracking. as theone
During ratio of deflection
million at the
cycles, neither
ultimate loadoftoCFRP
bond failure deflection
bars, at
noryield. This
cracks definition
were observed cannot beF2PC
in the used specimen
to evaluate thewas
that ductility of concrete
prestressed with
members prestressed with CFRP bars,
partially bonded/over-reinforced CFRPsince
bars,CFRP bars exhibit
and confined withlinearly elastic
transverse behavior untilAfter
reinforcements. failure.
the
Instead, the ductility of prestressed beams, using CFRP bars, can be calculated by the
completion of one million cycles, the F2PC specimen exhibited similar behavior to the S2PC specimen ratio between
elastic and inelastic
(no fatigue loading)energies, consumed loading
under monotonic under the load-deflection
(see Figure 15). The curve [32,38,39].
initial beam In this study,
stiffness the
of both
Ductility Index (DI) of the tested beams was evaluated on the basis of the energy ratio up to peak
load [32],
𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐
𝐷𝐼 = (2)
𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
 80

70

60

50

Load (kN)
Test stopped at the concrete
40 crushing.
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 14 of 18
30

20
F2PC
specimens were similar to each other 10 until the first cracking. The flexural behaviors in the post-cracking
S2PC

phase of both F2PC and S2PC exhibited 0 gradual stiffness degradation until failure. The failure modes
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
of both beams were flexural failures with concrete crushing.
Deflection (mm) In spite of one million fatigue loadings,
there was no reduction in the load-carrying capacity or beam stiffness observed in the F2PC specimen.
Accordingly, this indicates excellent
Figure 15. Mid-span fatigue performance
load-deflection curvesof of
the F2PC
the specimen
F2PC/S2PC designed with partially
specimens.
bonded bars, an over-reinforced section, and web confinement in the compression zone.
3.4. Energy-Based Ductility Index
3.4. Energy-Based Ductility Index
The ductility is defined by the ability to sustain inelastic deformation without loss in the load
The ductility
carrying capacityisprior
defined by the Conventional
to failure. ability to sustain inelastic
ductility deformation
is defined as thewithout
ratio of loss in the at
deflection loadthe
carrying
ultimatecapacity prior to failure.
load to deflection at yield.Conventional
This definitionductility
cannot is bedefined as the ratio
used to evaluate theof deflection
ductility at the
of concrete
ultimate
members load to deflection
prestressed withatCFRP
yield. bars,
This definition
since CFRP cannot be usedlinearly
bars exhibit to evaluate thebehavior
elastic ductilityuntil
of concrete
failure.
members prestressed
Instead, the ductilitywith CFRP bars,beams,
of prestressed since CFRP
using bars
CFRPexhibit linearly
bars, can elastic behavior
be calculated until between
by the ratio failure.
Instead, the ductility
elastic and of prestressed
inelastic energies, beams,
consumed usingthe
under CFRP bars, can becurve
load-deflection calculated by the
[32,38,39]. Inratio between
this study, the
elastic and inelastic energies, consumed under the load-deflection curve [32,38,39].
Ductility Index (DI) of the tested beams was evaluated on the basis of the energy ratio up to peak In this study, the
Ductility
load [32],Index (DI) of the tested beams was evaluated on the basis of the energy ratio up to peak
load [32],
E 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
− E− 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐
DI𝐷𝐼= = total 𝐸 elastic (2)
(2)
Etotal𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

whereEE
where total is the total energy, calculated as the area under the load-deflection curve up to the peak
total is the total energy, calculated as the area under the load-deflection curve up to the peak
load, andEelastic
load,and Eelasticisisthe
theelastic
elasticenergy,
energy,which
whichisisillustrated
illustratedininFigure
Figure16.16.
The elastic
The energy
elastic energy (E(E
elastic ) can be
elastic) can be
estimated
estimated from unloading tests. If unloading data are not available, it can be evaluated using thearea
from unloading tests. If unloading data are not available, it can be evaluated using the area
ofofthe
thetriangle
triangleformedformedatatfailure
failureload
loadby
bythe
theweighted
weightedaverage
averageslopeslopeofofthe
thetwo
twoinitial
initialstraight
straightlines linesofof
the
theload-deflection
load-deflectiondiagram, diagram,asasshown
shownininFigure
Figure1616[38].
[38].IfIfthe
thebeam
beamisisperfectly
perfectlyelastic,
elastic,DIDIisis0.0,
0.0,and
and
perfectly
perfectly plastic, DI is 1.0. In this study, the DI values were obtained with the weighted averageslope
plastic, DI is 1.0. In this study, the DI values were obtained with the weighted average slope
ininload-deflection
load-deflectioncurves curvesaccording
accordingtotoFigure
Figure16.16.

Pultimate
Etotal-Eelastic

1 E 
P2 DI=  total + 1
Eelastic 2  Eelastic 
Load

S2
P1S1+ (P2 -P1 ) S2
S=
P1 P2
S
S, S1, S2: line slope
S1

Deflection
Figure 16. Definition of Ductility Index (DI) [38].
Figure 16. Definition of Ductility Index(DI) [38].
The DI of five beams was evaluated using Equation 2, and the results are presented in Table 3. For
comparison
The DIpurposes, Figure
of five beams 17 includes
was evaluatedthe ductility
using index2,ofand
Equation concrete beams,
the results areprestressed
presented with fully3.
in Table
unbonded and bonded
For comparison CFRPFigure
purposes, tendons, which was
17 includes theextracted
ductilityfrom
indexthe
of literature [2,32]. In
concrete beams, Figure 17, with
prestressed the
RU50 and RU70 tested beams were under-reinforced with fully unbonded CFRP tendons
fully unbonded and bonded CFRP tendons, which was extracted from the literature [2,32]. In Figure[2], and the
DT-2 and DT-30 specimens used fully bonded CFRP prestressing bars [32]. The details of specimens
can be found in the references [2,32].
unbonded CFRP bars (0.81 to 0.85), but as much as those of beams prestressed with steel bars (0.7 to
0.85 in general). Considering concrete beams prestressed with fully bonded CFRP bars, the DI values
of beams with partially bonded CFRP tendons are much higher (0.1 to 0.5 in general). Especially, the
effects of over-reinforcement and web-confinement on ductility enhancement in a partially bonded
system2019,
Materials (e.g.12,
S2PC
3352 and F2PC in this study) are shown by making comparisons with S1PU and15F1PU
of 18
specimens, revealing slightly increased ductility regardless of the application of fatigue loadings.

1.2
Partially Fully Fully
bonding unbonding bonding
1.0
0.85

D uctility Index (D I)
0.84 0.81
0.77 0.78 0.80
0.8 0.74
0.62
0.6 0.54

0.4

0.2

0.0

Figure 17. Comparison of ductility index [2,32].

Figure 17. Comparison of ductility index [2,32].
It was found that DI values vary according to bonding conditions - ranging between 0.54 and 0.85
- 4.
andResults
it wasand discussions
shown that concrete beams prestressed with fully unbonded/partially bonded CFRP bars
have a higher DI than those of specimens prestressed with fully bonded CFRP bars. In general, DI
Six simply supported beams were tested to study the fatigue behavior and failure character of
values range from 0.1 to 0.5 for the concrete beams prestressed with fully bonded CFRP tendons [2,38].
concrete beams, prestressed with fully unbonded/partially bonded CFRP bars. The experimental
The improved DI was observed for concrete beams prestressed with partially bonded CFRP bars, when
program was conducted utilizing fully unbonded/partially bonded bars, web confinement, and over-
compared to prestressed beams using fully bonded CFRP bars (see Figure 17). The calculated DI were
reinforcement as experimental parameters. Ductility indices of specimens were also evaluated. Based
in the range of 0.74 to 0.80 for these beams, which were prestressed with partially bonded CFRP bars.
on the experimental program, the following conclusions can be drawn:
These values were less than those of concrete beams prestressed with fully unbonded CFRP bars (0.81
1. The F1FU specimen post-tensioned with a fully unbonded bar exhibited good fatigue
to 0.85), but as much as those of beams prestressed with steel bars (0.7 to 0.85 in general). Considering
performance and high ductility. No considerable reduction in beam stiffness or slippage in
concrete beams prestressed with fully bonded CFRP bars, the DI values of beams with partially bonded
anchorage was observed during one million cycles. In a static test, conducted after completing
CFRP tendons are much higher (0.1 to 0.5 in general). Especially, the effects of over-reinforcement
one million cycles, the F1FU specimen, despite beam failure by non-prestressing reinforcement
and web-confinement on ductility enhancement in a partially bonded system (e.g., S2PC and F2PC
rupture, had the highest ductility index.
in this study) are shown by making comparisons with S1PU and F1PU specimens, revealing slightly
2. It was observed that S1FU and F1FU specimens experienced failure by non-prestressed
increased ductility regardless of the application of fatigue loadings.
reinforcement during static tests. From a design point view, an adequate amount of non-
prestressing
4. Results reinforcement should be considered to prevent abrupt failure due to the unexpected
and discussions
rupture of non-prestressed steel bars.
3. Six
Thesimply supported
F1FU/S1FU beams prestressed
specimens were tested with
to study
fullythe fatigue behavior
unbonded andby
bars failed failure character of
non-prestressing
concrete beams, prestressed with fully unbonded/partially bonded CFRP bars.
reinforcement rupture during monotonic loading. Fully unbonded bars can improve theThe experimental
program was of
ductility conducted utilizing
prestressed fully
concrete unbonded/partially
beams, bonded reinforcement
despite the prestressing bars, web confinement,
ratio beingand
less
over-reinforcement as experimental
than the balanced prestressing parameters.
reinforcementDuctility indices offrom
ratio. However, specimens were
a design alsoanevaluated.
point, adequate
Based on the experimental program, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The F1FU specimen post-tensioned with a fully unbonded bar exhibited good fatigue performance
and high ductility. No considerable reduction in beam stiffness or slippage in anchorage was
observed during one million cycles. In a static test, conducted after completing one million cycles,
the F1FU specimen, despite beam failure by non-prestressing reinforcement rupture, had the
highest ductility index.
2. It was observed that S1FU and F1FU specimens experienced failure by non-prestressed
reinforcement during static tests. From a design point view, an adequate amount of
non-prestressing reinforcement should be considered to prevent abrupt failure due to the
unexpected rupture of non-prestressed steel bars.
3. The F1FU/S1FU specimens prestressed with fully unbonded bars failed by non-prestressing
reinforcement rupture during monotonic loading. Fully unbonded bars can improve the ductility
of prestressed concrete beams, despite the prestressing reinforcement ratio being less than
the balanced prestressing reinforcement ratio. However, from a design point, an adequate
amount of non-prestressing reinforcement is essential for preventing the unexpected rupture
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 16 of 18

of non-prestressing reinforcement, and to ensure the inelastic behavior of prestressed concrete

beams with fully unbonded bars.
4. The over-reinforced and web-confined concrete beams, prestressed by partially bonded bars,
i.e., the F2PC specimen, exhibited good fatigue performance with no cracks and no reduction
in beam stiffness during one million cycles. In addition, it was found that no reduction in the
load-carrying capacity and beam stiffness occurred in a static test, conducted after the conclusion
of one million cycles.
5. Improved ductility was observed for beams prestressed with fully partially bonded CFRP bars,
when compared with prestressed beams that have fully bonded CFRP bars. Over-reinforced and
web-confined concrete beams, prestressed with partially bonded CFRP bars, were proposed, and
evaluated to possess good fatigue capacity and durability based on the experimental results.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.J. and W.K.; methodology, Y.J. and W.K.; validation, V.G. and D.H.;
formal analysis, W.K.; investigation, Y.J.; resources, Y.J.; data curation, W.K.; writing—original draft preparation,
Y.J.; writing—review and editing, W.K., V.G. and D.H.; visualization, Y.J.; supervision, W.K.; project administration,
W.K.; funding acquisition, Y.J. and W.K.
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Education Grant No. NRF-2018R1D1A1B07049074 and by
Ministry of Education Grant No. NRF- 2016R1D1A1B03931172.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Atutis, E.; Valivonis, J.; Atutis, M. Experimental Study of Concrete Beams Prestressed with Basalt Fiber
Reinforced Polymers under Cyclic Load. Compos. Struct. 2018, 183, 389–396. [CrossRef]
2. Heo, S.; Shin, S.; Lee, C. Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams Internally Prestressed with Unbonded
Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Tendons. J. Compos. Constr. 2012, 17, 167–175. [CrossRef]
3. Li, L.; Hou, B.; Lu, Z.; Liu, F. Fatigue Behaviour of Sea Sand Concrete Beams Reinforced with Basalt
Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Bars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 179, 160–171. [CrossRef]
4. Zaman, A.; Gutub, S.A.; Wafa, M.A. A Review on FRP Composites Applications and Durability Concerns in
the Construction Sector. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2013, 32, 1966–1988. [CrossRef]
5. Au, F.T.; Du, J.S. Deformability of Concrete Beams with Unbonded FRP Tendons. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30,
3764–3770. [CrossRef]
6. Choi, H.T.; West, J.S.; Soudki, K.A. Analysis of the Flexural Behavior of Partially Bonded FRP Strengthened
Concrete Beams. J. Compos. Constr. 2008, 12, 375–386. [CrossRef]
7. Du, J.S.; Au, F.T.; Cheung, Y.K.; Kwan, A.K. Ductility Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Beams with Unbonded
Tendons. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 13–21. [CrossRef]
8. Knight, D.; Visintin, P.; Oehlers, D.J.; Ali, M.M. Simulating Rc Beams with Unbonded FRP and Steel
Prestressing Tendons. Compos. Part B Eng. 2014, 60, 392–399. [CrossRef]
9. Lee, C.; Shin, S.; Lee, S. Modelling of Load–Deflection of Concrete Beams Internally Prestressed with
Unbonded CFRP Tendons. Mag. Concr. Res. 2015, 67, 730–746. [CrossRef]
10. Lees, J.M.; Burgoyne, C.J. Analysis of Concrete Beams with Partially Bonded Composite Reinforcement. ACI
Struct. J. 2000, 97, 252–258.
11. Lou, T.; Lopes, S.M.; Lopes, A.V. Response of Continuous Concrete Beams Internally Prestressed with
Unbonded FRP and Steel Tendons. Compos. Struct. 2016, 154, 92–105. [CrossRef]
12. Zou, P.X. Flexural Behavior and Deformability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Prestressed Concrete Beams.
J. Compos. Constr. 2003, 7, 275–284. [CrossRef]
13. American Concrete Institute Committee 440. Prestressing Concrete Structures with FRP Tendons. In ACI
440.4R-04; ACI: Detroit, MI, USA, 2004.
14. Schmidt, J.W.; Bennitz, A.; Täljsten, B.; Goltermann, P.; Pedersen, H. Mechanical Anchorage of FRP Tendons–a
Literature Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 32, 110–121. [CrossRef]
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 17 of 18

15. Kalfat, R.; Al-Mahaidi, R.; Smith, S.T. Anchorage Devices Used to Improve the Performance of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Retrofitted with FRP Composites: State-of-the-Art Review. J. Compos. Constr. 2013, 17, 14–33.
[CrossRef]
16. Benmokrane, B.; Zhang, B.; Chennouf, A. Tensile Properties and Pullout Behaviour of AFRP and CFRP Rods
for Grouted Anchor Applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2000, 14, 157–170. [CrossRef]
17. Schmidt, R.J.; Dolan, C.W.; Holte, L.E. Anchorage of Non-Metallic Prestressing Tendons. In Proceedings of the
Structures Congress XII; ASCE: Atlanta, GA, USA, 24–28 April 1994.
18. Taha, M.M.R.; Shrive, N.G. New Concrete Anchors for Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Post-Tensioning
Tendons? Part 2: Development/Experimental Investigation. ACI Struct. J. 2003, 100, 96–104.
19. Al-Mayah, A.; Soudki, K.A.; Plumtree, A. Experimental and Analytical Investigation of a Stainless Steel
Anchorage for CFRP Prestressing Tendons. PCI J. 2001, 46, 88–99. [CrossRef]
20. Lees, J.M.; Burgoyne, C.J. Experimental Study of Influence of Bond on Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams
Pretensioned with Aramid Fiber Reinforced Plastics. ACI Struct. J. 1999, 96, 377–386.
21. Chahrour, A.; Soudki, K. Flexural Response of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with End-Anchored
Partially Bonded Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strips. J. Compos. Constr. 2005, 9, 170–177. [CrossRef]
22. Choi, H.T.; West, J.S.; Soudki, K.A. Partially Bonded near-Surface-Mounted CFRP Bars for Strengthened
Concrete T-Beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2441–2449. [CrossRef]
23. Seo, S.Y.; Choi, K.B.; Kwon, Y.S.; Lee, K.S. Flexural Strength of Rc Beam Strengthened by Partially De-Bonded
near Surface-Mounted FRP Strip. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2016, 10, 149–161. [CrossRef]
24. Founas, M. Deformations and Deflections of Partially Prestressed Concrete T-Beams under Static and Random
Amplitude Fatigue Loading. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1989.
25. Firmo, J.P.; Arruda, M.R.T.; Correia, J.R.; Tiago, C. Flexural Behaviour of Partially Bonded Carbon Fibre
Reinforced Polymers Strengthened Concrete Beams: Application to Fire Protection Systems Design. Mater.
Des. 2015, 65, 1064–1074. [CrossRef]
26. Sharaky, I.A.; Torres, L.; Sallam, H.E.M. Experimental and Analytical Investigation into the Flexural
Performance of Rc Beams with Partially and Fully Bonded Nsm FRP Bars/Strips. Compos. Struct. 2015, 122,
113–126. [CrossRef]
27. American Concrete Institute Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Strucutral Concrete and
Commenrary. In ACI 318-11; ACI: Detroit, MI, USA, 2014.
28. ASTM-C39/C39M. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
29. AASHTO. Lrfd Bridge Design Specifications; American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
30. Kim, K.; Park, S.; Kim, C. Fatigue Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Beams Using FRP Bars. J. Korea Concr.
Inst. 2011, 23, 135–144. [CrossRef]
31. Grace, N.F. Response of Continuous CFRP Prestressed Concrete Bridges under Static and Repeated Loadings.
PCI J. 2000, 45, 84–102. [CrossRef]
32. Grace, N.F.; Sayed, G.A. Ductility of Prestressed Bridges Using CFRP Strands. Concr. Int. 1998, 20, 25–30.
33. Mertol, H.C.; Rizkalla, S.; Scott, P.; Lees, J.M.; El-Hacha, R. Durability and Fatigue Behavior of High-Strength
Concrete Beams Prestressed with CFRP Bars. In SP245-1, Case Histories and Use of FRP for Prestressing
Applications; ACI Special Publication: Detroit, MI, USA, 2006; pp. 1–20.
34. Lau, D.; Pam, H.J. Experimental Study of Hybrid FRP Reinforced Concrete Beams. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32,
3857–3865. [CrossRef]
35. Qu, W.; Zhang, X.; Huang, H. Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Hybrid (GFRP and Steel)
Bars. J. Compos. Constr. 2009, 13, 350–359. [CrossRef]
36. American Concrete Institute Committee 440. Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete
Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer(FRP) Bar. In ACI 440.2R-08; ACI: Detroit, MI, USA, 2015.
37. Mutsuyoshi, H.; Machida, A. Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Beams Using FRP as External Cable. Spec.
Publ. 1993, 138, 401–418.
Materials 2019, 12, 3352 18 of 18

38. Jeong, S.M. Evaluation of Ductility in Prestressed Concrete Beams Using Fiber Reinforced Plastic Tendons.
Ph.D. Thesis, Uiversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1994.
39. Orozco, A.L.; Maji, A.K. Energy Release in Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Reinforced Concrete Beams. J. Compos.
Constr. 2004, 8, 52–58. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).