Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The behavior and shear strength of concrete slender beams reinforced 445, Shear and Torsion,4 identified the following five mech-
with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars were investigated. A total anisms of shear transfer: 1) shear stresses in uncracked
of nine large-scale reinforced concrete beams without stirrups were concrete; 2) interlocking action of aggregate; 3) dowel action
constructed and tested up to failure. The beams measured 3250 mm of the longitudinal reinforcing bars; 4) arch action; and 5)
long, 250 mm wide, and 400 mm deep and were tested in four-point
bending. The test variables were the reinforcement ratio and the
residual tensile stresses transmitted directly across the
modulus of elasticity of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. The test cracks. Aggregate interlock results from the resistance to
beams included three beams reinforced with glass FRP bars, three relative slip between two rough interlocking surfaces of the
beams reinforced with carbon FRP bars, and three control beams crack, much like frictional resistance. As long as the crack is
reinforced with conventional steel bars. The test results were not too wide, this action can be significant.5 Dowel forces
compared with predictions provided by the different available generated by longitudinal bars crossing the crack partially
codes, manuals, and design guidelines. The test results indicated resist shearing displacements along the crack. Arching
that the relatively low modulus of elasticity of FRP bars resulted in action occurs in deep members or in members in which the
reduced shear strength compared to the shear strength of the control shear span-to-depth ratio (a/d) is less than 2.5. This is not a
beams reinforced with steel. In addition, the current ACI 440.1R design
method provided very conservative predictions, particularly for
shear transfer mechanism in the sense that it does not
beams reinforced with glass FRP bars. Based on the obtained transmit a tangential force to a nearby parallel plane, but
experimental results, a proposed modification to the current permits the transfer of a vertical concentrated force to a
ACI 440.1R design equation is presented and verified against test reaction, thereby reducing the contribution of the other types
results of other researchers. of shear transfer. The basic explanation of residual tensile
stresses is that when concrete first cracks, a clean break does
Keywords: beams; fibers; polymers; shear; strength. not occur. Small pieces of concrete bridge the crack and
continue to transmit tensile force up to crack widths4 in the
INTRODUCTION range of 0.05 to 0.15 mm.
The long-term durability of reinforced concrete structures Due to the relatively low modulus of elasticity of FRP
has become a major concern in the construction industry. composite material, concrete members reinforced with FRP
One of the main factors reducing durability and service life bars will develop wider and deeper cracks than members
of reinforced concrete structures is the corrosion of steel reinforced with steel. Deeper cracks decrease the contribution to
reinforcement. Many steel-reinforced concrete structures shear strength from the uncracked concrete due to the lower
exposed to deicing salts and marine environments require depth of concrete in compression. Wider cracks in turn
extensive and expensive maintenance. Recently, the use of decrease the contributions from aggregate interlock and
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) as an alternative reinforcing residual tensile stresses. Additionally, due to the relatively
material in reinforced concrete structures has emerged as an small transverse strength of FRP bars and relatively wider
innovative solution to the corrosion problem. In addition to cracks, the contribution of dowel action can be very small
the noncorrosive nature of FRP materials, they also have a compared to that of steel. Finally, the overall shear capacity
high strength-to-weight ratio that makes them attractive as of concrete members reinforced with FRP bars as flexural
reinforcement for concrete structures. reinforcement is lower than that of concrete members
Extensive research programs have been conducted to reinforced with steel bars.
investigate the flexural behavior of concrete members
reinforced with FRP reinforcement. On the other hand, the
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
shear behavior of concrete members reinforced longitudinally
with FRP bars has not yet been fully explored. Due to the The use of FRP materials as reinforcement for concrete
difference in mechanical properties between FRP and steel structures is rapidly increasing. Nevertheless, the behavior
reinforcement, particularly the modulus of elasticity, the shear and shear strength Vc of concrete flexural members reinforced
strength of concrete members reinforced longitudinally with with FRP bars as main tensile reinforcement have not yet
FRP bars may differ from that of members reinforced with been fully explored. Several codes and design guidelines
steel. In previous flexure tests conducted by El-Salakawy and addressing FRP bars as primary reinforcement for structural
Benmokrane,1 Deitz et al.,2 and Michaluk et al.,3 shear concrete have been recently published. The research
failures were reported for members reinforced longitudinally
with FRP bars. ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 2, March-April 2006.
MS No. 04-222 received July 14, 2004, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
The applied shear stresses in a cracked reinforced concrete Copyright 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
member without transverse reinforcement are resisted by of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion
including authors closure, if any, will be published in the January-February 2007 ACI
various shear mechanisms. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2006.
using the gross moment of inertia of the concrete cross and the glass FRP-reinforced beams was approximately 5.2,
section. The second stage, postcracking up to failure, represents while this ratio between the steel-reinforced beams and the
the cracked beam with reduced moment of inertia. In this carbon FRP-reinforced beams was approximately 1.5. These
stage, the flexural stiffness of the tested beams was ratios were approximately the same as the ratios of the
dependent on the axial stiffness of the reinforcing bars, modulus of elasticity of steel to that of FRP bars as they were
which is a function of the area Ar and modulus of elasticity 4.9 for steel/glass FRP and 1.5 for steel/carbon FRP.
Er of the longitudinal reinforcement. Consequently, it can be concluded that the postcracking
For all test beams, the flexural stiffness in Stage 2 for the flexural stiffness of the FRP-reinforced beams to that of the
beam reinforced with glass FRP bars is lower than the steel-reinforced beams is the same as the ratio of the axial
flexural stiffness of the beam reinforced with carbon FRP stiffness of FRP reinforcing bars to the axial stiffness of steel
bars, which, in turn, is lower than the flexure stiffness of the bars. In Fig. 2(a), the two beams, CN-2 (reinforced with
beam reinforced with steel, as shown in Fig. 2(b) as typical carbon FRP) and SN-1 (reinforced with steel), which have
for Series III. This result reflects the effect of the modulus of approximately the same axial stiffness Er Ar of reinforcing
elasticity of the reinforcing bars on the post-cracking bars (Table 2), have the same flexural stiffness. This result is
flexural stiffness as the beams of each series had the same in good agreement with the test results of Tureyen and
reinforcement ratio (Table 2). The average ratio between the Frosch.12 Figure 2(a) also indicates that, as the amount of
postcracking flexural stiffness of the steel-reinforced beams reinforcement was increased for the same type of reinforcing
Y-DT = diagonal tension failure after yielding; and DT = diagonal tension failure.
2
k = 2n + ( n ) n
aramid FRP bars and had no shear reinforcement. All 34 method of ACI 440.1R. Thus, the proposed equation (Eq. (10))
specimens failed in a diagonal tension failure mode. Table is more rational and reliable for predicting the concrete
5 shows relevant details about the tests and the results of the shear strength for flexural members longitudinally reinforced
comparison. Besides the predicted shear strengths according with FRP bars.
to the proposed equation, the predicted shear capacities
according to the current ACI 440.1R shear design equation CONCLUSIONS
(Eq. (2)) are also presented in Table 5. For the 34 tests, the The shear strength and behavior of concrete slender beams
average Vexp/Vpred for the proposed equation is 1.33 with a reinforced with FRP bars were evaluated. Nine large-scale
coefficient of variation of 10.5%. On the other hand, the reinforced concrete beams without stirrups were tested under
corresponding results were 3.65 and 31.2% for the current monotonic loading conditions: three beams reinforced with
ACI 440.1R method. Figure 6 shows a comparison between glass FRP bars, three reinforced with carbon FRP bars, and
the experimental and predicted shear strengths based on the three beams reinforced with conventional steel bars. The test
results of the proposed and current equations. The vertical variables were the reinforcement ratio and the modulus of
axis in this figure represents the ratio Vexp /Vpred, while the elasticity of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. The experimental
horizontal axis represents the axial stiffness (f Ef) of FRP test results were compared to the available shear design
reinforcing bars. From Fig. 6 and Table 5, it is evident that the provisions. The main findings of this investigation can be
level of accuracy of the shear strength predicted by the proposed summarized as follows:
equation seems to be constant with varying reinforcement ratio 1. Generally, the shear strength of reinforced concrete
(f) and type (Ef) of FRP reinforcing bars unlike the current beams without stirrups is proportional to the axial stiffness of