You are on page 1of 10

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 103-S25

Shear Strength of FRP-Reinforced Concrete Beams


without Transverse Reinforcement
by Ahmed K. El-Sayed, Ehab F. El-Salakawy, and Brahim Benmokrane

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.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2006 235


ISIS-M03-01 design manual7
Ahmed K. El-Sayed is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Civil Engineering
at the University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. He received his BS in The shear resistance attributed to concrete, Vc,f , of
civil engineering from the University of Menoufiya, Menoufiya, Egypt, in 1993 and his members reinforced with FRP bars as flexural reinforcement
MSc from Cairo University, Giza, Egypt, in 1999. His research interests include is calculated according to the same principles as for steel
structural analysis and design of reinforced concrete members.
reinforced concrete (CSA A23.3-94)11 taking into account
ACI member Ehab F. El-Salakawy is a research associate professor in the the difference in the modulus of elasticity between FRP and
Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Sherbrooke. His research steel reinforcement as follows
interests include large-scale experimental testing and finite element modeling of reinforced
concrete structures, construction, and rehabilitation of concrete structures reinforced with
FRP composites.
E
ACI member Brahim Benmokrane is an NSERC Research Chair Professor in FRP
V c, f = 0.2 c f c b w d -----f (3)
Es
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures in the Department of Civil Engineering at the
University of Sherbrooke. He is also a project leader in ISIS Canada Network of
Centers of Excellence on Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures. He is a
member of ACI Committees 435, Deflection of Concrete Building Structures, and
For sections with an effective depth greater than 300 mm,
440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. His research interests include the the concrete shear resistance Vc,f is taken as
application and durability of advanced composite materials in civil engineering structures
and structural health monitoring with fiber optic sensors.
260 E
- c f c b w d -----f
V c, f = -------------------- (4)
1000 + d Es
reported in this paper evaluates the shear strength Vc of FRP-
reinforced concrete slender beams (a/d > 2.5) without stirrups
considering the effect of the reinforcement ratio and the modulus E
of elasticity of the reinforcing bars. In addition, the paper 0.1 c f c b w d -----f
Es
examines the validity of the available design provisions of
concrete contribution Vc to shear strength for members
longitudinally reinforced with FRP bars. CAN/CSA-S806-02 code8
The concrete contribution to shear strength is calculated
using the following equation
REVIEW OF CURRENT DESIGN PROVISIONS
Most of the shear design provisions currently in effect for V 13
concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars are based on the V c, f = 0.035 c f c f E f ------f d b w d (5a)
Mf
design formulas of members reinforced with conventional
steel considering some modifications to account for the
substantial differences between FRP and steel reinforcement. such that
These provisions are based on the traditional modified
45-degree truss model. This model identifies the shear 0.1 c f c b w d V c, f 0.2 c f c b w d (5b)
strength of a reinforced concrete flexural member as the sum
of the shear capacity of the concrete component Vc and the
V
shear reinforcement component Vs. This section reviews the ------f d 1.0 (5c)
concrete shear strength component Vc,f of members Mf
longitudinally reinforced with FRP bars as recommended
by ACI 440.1R-03,6 ISIS-M03-01,7 CAN/CSA-S806-02,8 For sections with an effective depth greater than 300 mm
and JSCE.9 and with no transverse shear reinforcement or less transverse
reinforcement than the minimum required by code, the value
of Vc,f is calculated using the following equation
ACI 440.1R-03 design guidelines6
To account for the axial stiffness of FRP longitudinal
V c, f = --------------------- c f c b w d 0.08 c f c b w d
reinforcement, Af Ef, as compared with that of steel reinforce- 130
(6)
1000 + d
ment, AsEs, ACI Committee 440 recommended the
following equation for calculating Vc,f
It is evident that Eq. (6) can be derived from Eq. (4) by
considering the term E f E s equal to 0.5 (assuming Ef = 50
f Ef GPa and Es = 200 GPa). Thus Eq. (6) evaluates the concrete
V c, f = ----------
-V (1)
s Es c contribution to shear strength of FRP-reinforced concrete
members regardless of the type of FRP reinforcing bars.
For practical design purposes, the value of s can be taken
as half the maximum reinforcement ratio allowed by ACI JSCE design recommendations9
31810 or 0.375sb and, considering a typical steel yield The concrete shear strength recommended by JSCE is
given by the following equations:
strength of 420 MPa for flexural reinforcement, the ACI
Committee 440 recommended shear strength provided by Vc,f = dpn fvcdbwd/b (7a)
concrete is as follows
)1/3 0.72 N/mm2
fvcd = 0.2(fcd (7b)
f E f f c f c
V c, f = ----------------- ---------b w d ---------b d (2)
90 1 f c 6 6 w d = (1000/d)1/4 1.5 (7c)

236 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2006


Table 1Properties of reinforcing bars Table 2Details of test beams
Diameter, Area, Tensile Modulus of Ultimate Longitudinal reinforcement
Bar type mm mm2 strength, MPa elasticity, GPa strain, % Axial
9.50 71 1536 31 128 5 1.20 0.00 Reinforcing stiffness
Carbon 6
FRP 12.70 127 986 50 134 9 0.74 0.05 Beam material act , % b , % act /b Er Ar , N 10
9.50 71 608 28 39 1 1.56 0.09 SN-1 Steel 0.86 3.50 0.25 140.0
Glass
FRP 15.90 198 754 19 42 1 1.8 0.04 Series I CN-1 Carbon FRP 0.87 0.36 2.40 90.9
11.30 100 fy = 453 200 y = 0.23 GN-1 Glass FRP 0.87 0.74 1.18 27.7
Steel SN-2 Steel 1.23 3.15 0.39 200.0
15.96 200 fy = 460 200 y = 0.23
Series II CN-2 Carbon FRP 1.24 0.75 1.66 136.1
GN-2 Glass FRP 1.22 0.49 2.50 41.6
p = (100f Ef /Es)1/3 1.5 (7d) SN-3 Steel 1.72 3.15 0.55 280.0
Series III CN-3 Carbon FRP 1.72 0.75 2.28 187.2
n = 1 + Mo/Md 2 for Nd 0 GN-3 Glass FRP 1.71 0.49 3.50 58.2

n = 1 + 2Mo/Md 0 for Nd < 0 (7e) Test specimens and instrumentation


A total of nine large-scale reinforced concrete beams were
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION constructed and tested up to failure. The tested beams were
This investigation evaluates the concrete shear strength of 3250 mm long, 250 mm wide, and 400 mm deep as shown in
FRP-reinforced concrete beams without web reinforcement. Fig. 1. All beams had a 250 mm overhang length beyond the
The test variables included the reinforcement ratio and the supports on each side as anchorage length to avoid bond failures
modulus of elasticity of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. prior to shear failures. The shear span was kept constant at
The FRP-reinforced concrete beams were designed such that 1000 mm for all tests, giving a shear span-to-depth ratio of
the actual reinforcement ratio f is greater than the balanced 3.1. The test beams were divided into three series with
reinforcement ratio fb, which is given in Section 8.2.1 of different reinforcement ratios ( = 0.87, 1.23, and, 1.72%).
ACI 440.1R-036 as Each series included three beams reinforced with steel,
carbon FRP, or glass FRP bars with the same reinforcement
f c E f cu ratio. The details of test specimens are given in Table 2 and
fb = 0.85 1 ----
- ------------------------ (8) shown in Fig. 1. The designation of the beams can be
f fu E f cu + f fu explained as follows. The first letter S, C, or G denotes the
reinforcement type steel, carbon FRP, or glass FRP bars,
On the other hand, the steel-reinforced beams were under- respectively. The second letter N indicates that no shear
reinforced with the actual reinforcement ratio lower than the reinforcement is provided.
balanced one. All tested beams were instrumented with one pair of
electrical resistance strain gauges bonded on two of the
Materials reinforcing bars and one pair on the top concrete surface at
Two types of sand-coated FRP bars were used as flexural midspan. The midspan deflections were measured using two
reinforcement: carbon FRP and glass FRP. The bars were linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) fastened at each
made of continuous longitudinal fibers impregnated in a side of the beam. Two high-accuracy LVDTs (0.001 mm)
thermosetting vinylester resin with a typical fiber content of were installed at positions of first cracks to measure crack
73%. The carbon FRP bars were used in two sizes: No. 10 width. During loading, the formation of the cracks on the
(db = 9.5 mm) and No. 13 (db = 12.7 mm). The glass FRP sides of the beams were also marked and recorded. All
bars had also two different sizes: No. 10 (db = 9.5 mm) and instrumentation locations are shown in Fig. 1(a).
No. 16 (db = 15.9 mm). Deformed steel bars No. 10M (db =
11.3 mm) and No. 15M (db = 15.96 mm) were used in rein- Test setup and procedure
forcing the control beams. The mechanical properties of the The beams were tested in four-point bending over a simply
reinforcing bars were determined by performing tensile tests supported clear span of 2750 mm, as shown in Fig. 1(a).
on representative specimens. The characteristics of the During testing, load was monotonically applied at a stroke-
carbon FRP, glass FRP, and steel reinforcement used in this controlled rate of 0.6 mm/minute using a 500 kN closed-loop
study are summarized in Table 1. MTS actuator. The loading was stopped when the first two
The beams were constructed using normalweight concrete cracks appeared and the initial crack widths were measured
with a target compressive strength of 35 MPa after 28 days. The manually using a hand-held 50 microscope. Then, the two
mixture proportion per cubic meter of concrete was as follows: high-accuracy LVDTs were installed to measure crack width
coarse aggregate content of 1051 kg with a size ranged between with increasing load. The applied load, displacements, and
10 and 20 mm, fine aggregate content of 672 kg, cement strain readings were electronically recorded during the test
content of 430 kg, water-cement ratio (w/c) of 0.39, air using a data acquisition system monitored by a computer.
entrainer of 301 mL, and water-reducing agent of 860 mL.
The actual slump measurement before casting was 80 mm. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The three beams in each series were cast at the same time from The applied load versus midspan deflection relationships
the same batch of concrete. The average compressive strength of the tested beams are presented in Fig. 2(a). The typical
of concrete ranged between 43.6 and 50.0 MPa at the time of load-deflection curve can be defined by two distinct stages.
testing. Also, the average tensile strength obtained by The first stage up to flexural cracking was similar for all
performing split cylinder tests ranged from 3.0 to 3.7 MPa. beams representing the behavior of the uncracked beam

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2006 237


Fig. 1(a) Test setup and dimensions; and (b) cross-sectional details.

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

238 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2006


Table 3Summary of test results
V ex p Maximum strain,
Experimental shear ---------------
- Midspan deflection
Beam fc , MPa *
Failure load, kN strength Vexp, kN f c bd at failure, mm Bars Concrete Failure mode
SN-1 50.0 197 98.5 0.17 11.3 2720 966 Y-DT
CN-1 50.0 155 77.5 0.13 10.8 3410 968 DT
GN-1 50.0 141 70.5 0.12 34.0 10,600 1409 DT
SN-2 44.6 233 116.5 0.21 9.7 2250 1078 DT
CN-2 44.6 208 104.0 0.19 11.9 4064 987 DT
GN-2 44.6 120 60.0 0.11 13.8 4910 1070 DT
SN-3 43.6 289 144.5 0.27 13.1 1236 DT

CN-3 43.6 249 124.5 0.23 15.6 3388 1132 DT
GN-3 43.6 155 77.5 0.14 17.3 5106 1037 DT
*Reported failure loads do not include beam self-weight.

Y-DT = diagonal tension failure after yielding; and DT = diagonal tension failure.

Strain gauge malfunctioned.

Fig. 3Typical cracking patterns (Series III).

the flexural span between the two concentrated loads where


the flexural stress is highest and shear stress is zero. The
cracks were vertical cracks perpendicular to the direction of
the maximum principal tensile stress induced by pure
bending. As load increased, additional flexural cracks
opened within the shear span. Because of the dominance of
the shear stresses, however, the cracks became progressively
more inclined and propagated toward the load point, finally
leading to diagonal tension failure. Figure 3 schematically
shows the typical cracking pattern for one of the series
(Series III). The bold lines represent cracks that were formed
at failure and the lighter ones prior to failure.
For each series, the steel-reinforced beam reached the
Fig. 2Load-deflection behavior: (a) all beams; and (b) highest load, followed by the carbon FRP-reinforced beam,
typical relationship (Series III). then by the beam reinforced with glass FRP bars. The
maximum concrete compressive strains at failure ranged
material, the post-cracking flexural stiffness increased. This between 966 and 1409 microstrain, which were less than the
behavior was observed for the three different types of ultimate usable strain of 3000 microstrain. The maximum
reinforcing bars used in this study. Thus, the flexural measured tensile strains in FRP bars at failure ranged from
behavior of the tested beams seems to be a function of the 3388 to 4064 microstrain for carbon bars and from 4910 to
axial stiffness of the reinforcing bars. 10,600 microstrain for glass bars. The maximum tensile steel
Similar characteristics of the cracking patterns were strain at failure ranged between 2250 and 2720 microstrain.
observed for all nine beams. Crack formation was initiated in A summary of the test results is given in Table 3.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2006 239


carbon FRP or steel reinforcement. For the beams reinforced
with steel and carbon FRP bars, increasing the reinforcement
ratio by approximately 50% (from 0.87 to 1.23%) increased
the shear strengths by 23.5 and 46.0%, respectively, whereas
this increase in the reinforcement ratio decreased the shear
strength of glass FRP-reinforced beams by 8.0%. In addition,
for the beams reinforced with steel, carbon FRP, and glass
FRP bars, increasing the reinforcement ratio by 100% (from
0.87 to 1.72%) increased the shear strengths by 59.0, 77.0,
and 17.0%, respectively.
The increase in shear strength due to increasing the flexural
reinforcement ratio is attributed to the improvement in the shear
transfer mechanisms. Increasing the reinforcement ratio
Fig. 4Typical diagonal tension failure mode (Beam CN-3). decreases the penetration depth and width of the shear crack.
This, in turn, increases the contribution of aggregate interlock as
well as the contribution of uncracked concrete by increasing the
area of concrete in compression. In addition, increasing
the reinforcement ratio increases the dowel capacity of the
member by increasing the dowel area, thereby decreasing the
tensile stresses induced in the surrounding concrete.
Similar to the effect of the reinforcement ratio on the
obtained shear strength, Fig. 5 also indicates that the lower
the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcing material, the
lower the concrete shear strength. As the FRP bars had a
relatively low modulus of elasticity compared to the steel
modulus of elasticity, the FRP-reinforced beams experienced
reduced shear strength in comparison to the shear strength of
the beams reinforced with steel. The average ratio of the
experimental shear strength of glass FRP-reinforced beams
to the counterparts reinforced with steel is 58%, which
Fig. 5Normalized shear strength versus reinforcement equals the cube root of axial stiffness ratio between glass
ratio. FRP and steel bars 3 E f E s (the corresponding beams had
identical ). The same result can be concluded for the beams
Shear strength reinforced with carbon FRP bars as the average ratio of the
All nine beams failed in diagonal tension except the experimental shear strength of carbon FRP-reinforced beams
control beam, SN-1, which experienced steel yielding under to the counterparts reinforced with steel is 85%. This ratio is
loading simultaneously as the diagonal tension failure approximately the same as the cube root of the axial stiffness
occurred. The typical diagonal tension failure mode of the ratio between carbon FRP and steel bars 3 E f E s (the
tested beams is illustrated in Fig. 4. corresponding beams had identical ). This result explains
The shear strength of flexural members without web why the current ACI 440.1R6 design method (Eq. (2)) gives
reinforcement is identified by the formation of a critical inclined very conservative results, particularly for beams reinforced
crack and a subsequent, sudden drop in load-carrying capacity. with glass FRP bars, as it will be presented later in this paper.
In general, for members with a shear span-to-depth ratio greater The procedure followed in deriving Eq. (2) was based on the
than 2.5, the difference between the critical inclined cracking shear strength of concrete members reinforced with FRP
shear Vcr and the ultimate shear Vu is small. Therefore, for such bars to shear strength of concrete members reinforced with
members, the inclined cracking shear can be assumed to be the steel, which is directly the same as the ratio between the
same as the ultimate shear for all practical purposes.12 In axial stiffness of FRP to steel reinforcing bars, which is
addition, shear strength at ultimate failure is a more defined not accurate, as illustrated previously.
and reliable measure than cracking shear strength.13 This
investigation adopts the ultimate shear capacity Vu as the COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND
concrete shear strength Vc. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The effect of the two components of the axial stiffness (Er The shear strengths of the tested beams reinforced with
and Ar) of the reinforcing bars on the shear strength of the FRP bars were predicted using the shear design provisions of
tested beams is shown in Fig. 5. The vertical axis in Fig. 5 ACI 440.1R-03 design guidelines,6 ISIS-M03-01 design
represents the experimental shear strength Vexp of the tested manual,7 CAN/CSA-S806-02 Code,8 JSCE design
beams normalized with respect to the square root of concrete recommendations,9 and the design equation recently
compressive strength (Vexp / f c bd), while the horizontal developed by Tureyen and Frosch.14 This equation was
axis represents the reinforcement ratio . It can be noticed developed from a model that calculates the concrete contribution
that the shear strength increased as the reinforcement ratio to shear strength of reinforced concrete beams. The equation was
was increased. This behavior is more pronounced for the simplified to provide a design formula applicable to both steel-
beams either reinforced with carbon FRP or steel bars. On and FRP-reinforced beams as follows
the other hand, this behavior is not clear for the beams
reinforced with glass FRP bars, which may be attributed to
the low modulus of elasticity of the glass FRP compared to Vc = 5 f c bwc (in in.-lb units) (9)

240 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2006


Table 4Comparison of predicted and experimental shear capacities
Experimental ACI 440.1R-03 ISIS-M03-01 CSA-S806-02 JSCE Tureyen and Frosch14
shear strength
Beam Vexp, kN Vpred, kN Vexp /Vpred Vpred, kN Vexp /Vpred Vpred, kN Vexp /Vpred Vpred, kN Vexp /Vpred Vpred, kN Vexp /Vpred
CN-1 77.5 34.5 2.25 90.4 0.86 56.5 1.37 63.9 1.21 54.2 1.43
GN-1 70.5 10.5 6.71 49.9 1.41 56.5 1.25 43.0 1.64 31.7 2.22
CN-2 104.0 51.7 2.01 87.4 1.19 53.4 1.94 72.0 1.44 62.4 1.67
GN-2 60.0 15.8 3.80 48.9 1.23 53.4 1.12 48.5 1.24 37.1 1.62
CN-3 124.5 70.9 1.75 86.4 1.44 52.8 2.36 79.5 1.57 70.7 1.76
GN-3 77.5 22.1 3.51 48.4 1.60 52.8 1.47 53.9 1.44 42.9 1.81
Mean 3.34 1.29 1.59 1.42 1.75
Coefficient of variation, % 50.6 18.6 27.0 11.3 13.7

where bw and c = kd in inches such that

2
k = 2n + ( n ) n

and fc = compressive strength of concrete, psi.


The predicted shear strengths were compared with the
experimental values as given in Table 4. Equation (2) was
used to predict the concrete shear strengths of the tested FRP-
reinforced beams according to ACI 440.1R-03. For predictions
using the ISIS-M03-01 design manual and the CSA-S806-02
Code, Eq. (4) and (6) were used, respectively, considering
and c equal to 1.0. Equation (7) was used for predicting the
shear strengths according to the JSCE method. It should be
pointed out that the member safety factor b was taken equal
to 1.0 and the design axial compressive force Nd as well as
the decompression moment Mo was taken equal to zero.
It can be noticed from Table 4 that both ISIS and JSCE
predicted values (Vpred) are in good agreement with the
experimental results (Vexp). This is evident from Table 4 as
the mean values of Vexp/Vpred were 1.29 and 1.42 for the ISIS
and JSCE methods, respectively. The JSCE design method
has more advantage over the ISIS method as it accounts for
the two components of axial stiffness (Er and Ar) of the rein-
forcing bars, whereas the ISIS method does not account for
the reinforcement ratio. The CSA design equation gives
good predictions for the beams reinforced with glass FRP
and conservative predictions for the beams reinforced with
carbon FRP bars as given in Table 4. As discussed previously,
in the derivation of the CSA design equation, a constant Fig. 6Correlation of experimental-to-predicted shear
value of Ef equals 50 GPa for all types of FRP bars was strength: (a) current equation in ACI 440.1R; and (b)
considered. This value is close to Ef for glass FRP proposed equation.
(approximately 40 GPa), but much lower than that of the
carbon FRP (approximately 120 GPa), which results in a proportional to the cube root of axial stiffness ratio between
lower-bound for concrete contribution to shear strength of FRP and steel reinforcing bars ( 3 f Ef s Es ). Applying this
FRP-reinforced concrete members regardless of the type of finding to Eq. (1) and following the same procedure used in
FRP reinforcing bars. The design equation proposed by deriving Eq. (2) (identified as Eq. (9-1) in ACI 440.1R-036),
Tureyen and Frosch14 (Eq. (9)) gives reasonable but rather the following modification to Eq. (2) is proposed
conservative results as the mean value of Vexp /Vpred was
1.75. On the other hand, the ACI 440.1R design method f E f 1 3 f c f c
provides very conservative predictions, particularly for the V c, f = ----------------- ---------b d ---------b d (10)
90 1 f c 6 w 6 w
beams reinforced with glass FRP bars as shown in Table 4.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO To verify the proposed modification, Eq. (10) was


ACI 440.1R-03 SHEAR EQUATION compared to the experimental results of this investigation
The test results of this investigation revealed that the and test results of 28 specimens available in the
concrete shear strength of concrete beams reinforced with literature2,12,15-17 as given in Table 5. These specimens
FRP bars to that of beams reinforced with steel (Vc,f /Vc) is were reinforced with different amounts of glass, carbon, and

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2006 241


Table 5Verification of proposed modification to Eq. (9-1) in ACI 440.1R-03
Current ACI 440.1R
Reinforcement equation Proposed equation (Eq. (10))
Reference Beam fc, MPa bw, mm d, mm , % Ef, GPa Vexp, kN Vpred, kN Vexp /Vpred Vpred, kN Vexp /Vpred
CN-1 50.0 250 326.00 0.87 128.0 77.5 34.5 2.25 68.1 1.14
GN-1 50.0 250 326.00 0.87 39.0 70.5 10.5 6.71 45.9 1.54
CN-2 44.6 250 326.0 1.24 134.0 104.0 51.7 2.01 75.0 1.39
Present study
GN-2 44.6 250 326.00 1.22 42.0 60.0 15.8 3.80 50.7 1.18
CN-3 43.6 250 326.00 1.72 134.0 124.5 70.9 1.75 83.1 1.50
GN-3 43.6 250 326.00 1.71 42.0 77.5 22.1 3.51 56.3 1.38
S-C1 40.0 1000 165.25 0.39 114.0 140.0 27.6 5.08 94.9 1.48
S-C2B 40.0 1000 165.25 0.78 114.0 167.0 55.4 3.01 119.5 1.40
S-C3B 40.0 1000 160.50 1.18 114.0 190.0 83.1 2.29 133.3 1.43
S-G1 40.0 1000 162.05 0.86 40.0 113.0 21.1 5.36 85.4 1.32
El-Sayed et al.15
S-G2 40.0 1000 159.00 1.70 40.0 142.0 40.5 3.51 105.2 1.35
S-G2B 40.0 1000 162.05 1.71 40.0 163.0 42.2 3.87 107.4 1.52
S-G3 40.0 1000 159.00 2.44 40.0 163.0 60.5 2.69 118.6 1.37
S-G3B 40.0 1000 154.10 2.63 40.0 168.0 63.2 2.66 117.9 1.42
V-G1-1 39.7 457 360 0.96 40.5 108.1 24.5 4.41 90.1 1.20
V-G2-1 39.9 457 360 0.96 37.6 94.7 22.8 4.16 88.1 1.08
Tureyen and V-A-1 40.3 457 360 0.96 47.1 114.8 28.5 4.03 95.2 1.21
Frosch12 V-G1-2 42.3 457 360 1.92 40.5 137.0 48.7 2.81 115.7 1.18
V-G2-2 42.5 457 360 1.92 37.6 152.6 45.2 3.38 113.0 1.35
V-A-2 42.6 457 360 1.92 47.1 177.0 56.6 3.13 121.9 1.45
1FRP 36.3 229 225 1.11 40.3 38.1 9.0 4.25 28.8 1.32
2FRP 36.3 178 225 1.42 40.3 31.7 8.9 3.56 24.3 1.30
3FRP 36.3 229 225 1.66 40.3 44.5 13.4 3.32 33.0 1.35
Yost et al.16
4FRP 36.3 279 225 1.81 40.3 45.3 17.8 2.54 41.4 1.10
5FRP 36.3 254 224 2.05 40.3 45.1 18.3 2.47 39.1 1.15
6FRP 36.3 229 224 2.27 40.3 42.2 18.3 2.31 36.5 1.16
BM7 24.1 178 279 2.30 40.0 53.4 20.3 2.63 32.2 1.66
Alkhrdaji et al.17 BM8 24.1 178 287 0.77 40.0 36.1 7.0 5.17 23.0 1.57
BM9 24.1 178 287 1.34 40.0 40.1 12.2 3.30 27.7 1.45
GFRP1 28.6 305 157.5 0.73 40.0 26.8 5.7 4.66 21.9 1.22
GFRP2 30.1 305 157.5 0.73 40.0 28.3 5.7 4.99 22.2 1.27
Deitz et al.2 GFRP3 27.0 305 157.5 0.73 40.0 29.2 5.9 4.96 21.7 1.35
Hybrid1 28.2 305 157.5 0.73 40.0 28.5 5.8 4.95 21.8 1.31
Hybrid2 30.8 305 157.5 0.73 40.0 27.6 5.6 4.89 22.3 1.24
Mean 3.65 1.33
Coefficient of variation, % 31.2 10.5

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

242 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2006


the longitudinal reinforcing bars. The higher the reinforcement c = resistance factor for concrete
ratio or the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcing bars, the b = member safety factor (taken equal to 1.3)
= modification factor for concrete density
higher the obtained shear strength;
= reinforcement ratio
2. The concrete shear strength of concrete beams rein- act = actual reinforcement ratio
forced with FRP bars as flexural reinforcement to that of b = reinforcement ratio at balanced strain condition
beams reinforced with steel bars (Vc,f /Vc) is not directly f = FRP reinforcement ratio
proportional to the ratio of axial stiffness between FRP s = steel reinforcement ratio
and steel reinforcing bars (f Ef /s Es ) but it is proportional
to the cube root of this ratio ( 3 f E s E ); REFERENCES
f s
3. The CAN/CSA-S806-02 design method, for beams 1. El-Salakawy, E., and Benmokrane, B., Serviceability of Concrete
Bridge Deck Slabs Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite
without stirrups and having an effective depth greater than Bars, ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2004, pp. 727-736.
300 mm, resulted in good predictions for beams reinforced 2. Deitz, D. H.; Harik, I. E.; and Gesund, H., One-Way Slabs Reinforced
with glass FRP bars and conservative predictions for beams with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing Bars, Fiber Reinforced
reinforced with carbon FRP bars. The design equation Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, Proceedings of
developed by Tureyen and Frosch14 (Eq. (9)) gave reasonable the 4th International Conference, SP-188, C. W. Dolan et al., eds., American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, pp. 279-286.
but rather conservative results. On the other hand, the current 3. Michaluk, R.; Rizkalla, S.; Tadros, G.; and Benmokrane, B., Flexural
ACI 440.1R-03 design method provided very conservative Behavior of One-Way Concrete Slabs Reinforced with Fiber Reinforced
results, particularly for beams reinforced with glass FRP Plastic Reinforcements, ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 3, May-June
bars. Generally, better predictions can be obtained by both 1998, pp. 145-157.
the ISIS design method (ISIS-M03-01) and JSCE design 4. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Recent Approaches to Shear
Design of Structural Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
recommendations; and V. 124, No. 12, 1998, pp. 1375-1417.
4. Based on the obtained experimental results, a proposed 5. Razaqpur, A. G.; Isgor, O. B.; Cheung, M. S.; and Wiseman, A.,
modification to the current design Eq. (9-1) in ACI 440.1R-03 Background to Shear Design Provisions of the Proposed Canadian Standard
is presented. The proposed modified equation was verified for FRP Reinforced Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the International
by comparisons to the experimental results of this investigation Conference, Composites in Construction-CCC 2001, Porto/Portugal, 2001,
pp. 403-408.
and the test results of 28 beam tests available in the literature, 6. ACI Committee 440, Guide for the Design and Construction of Con-
and good agreement was found. crete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-03), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2003, 41 pp.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 7. ISIS-M03-01, Reinforcing Concrete Structures with Fiber Reinforced
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the National Sciences Polymers, The Canadian Network of Centers of Excellence on Intelligent
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Pultral Inc. (Thetford Sensing for Innovative Structures, ISIS Canada, University of Winnipeg,
Mines, Quebec), the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec, the Network Manitoba, Canada, 2001, 81 pp.
of Centers of Excellence ISIS-Canada, and the University of Sherbrooke. The 8. CAN/CSA S80602, Design and Construction of Building Components
authors would like to thank B. Tighiouart, F. Ntacorigira, and S. Sindayiagaya with Fibre Reinforced Polymers, Canadian Standards Association,
for their assistance in fabricating and testing the specimens. Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 2002, 177 pp.
9. Machida, A., Recommendation for Design and Construction of
Concrete Structures Using Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials,
NOTATION Concrete Engineering Series 23, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, JSCE,
Af = nominal cross-sectional area of FRP bars, mm2 Tokyo, Japan, 1997, 325 pp.
Ar = nominal cross-sectional area of reinforcement, mm2 10. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
As = nominal cross-sectional area of steel bars, mm2 Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02), American Concrete
bw = web width of beam, mm Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.
c = cracked transformed section neutral axis depth, mm 11. CSA A23.3-94, Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings,
d = effective depth of tensile reinforcement, mm Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 1994, 220 pp.
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, MPa 12. Tureyen, A. K., and Frosch, R. J., Shear Tests of FRP-Reinforced
Ef = modulus of elasticity of FRP bars, MPa Concrete Beams without Stirrups, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4,
Er = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement, MPa July-Aug. 2002, pp. 427-434.
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel, MPa 13. Rebeiz, K. S., Shear Strength Prediction for Concrete Members,
fc = compressive strength of concrete, MPa Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 125, No. 3, 1999, pp. 301-308.
fcd = design compressive strength of concrete, MPa 14. Tureyen, A. K., and Frosch, R. J., Concrete Shear Strength:
ffu = ultimate tensile strength of FRP reinforcing bars, MPa Another Perspective, ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.
fy = yield strength of reinforcing steel bars, MPa 2003, pp. 609-615.
Md = design bending moment, kN.m 15. El-Sayed, A. K.; El-Salakawy, E. F.; and Benmokrane, B., Shear
Mf = factored moment at section of interest, kN.m Strength of One-Way Concrete Slabs Reinforced with FRP Composite
Mo = decompression moment, kN.m Bars, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 9, No. 2, 2005,
Nd = design axial compressive force, kN pp. 147-157.
n = modular ratio (Er /Ec) 16. Yost, J. R.; Gross, S. P.; and Dinehart, D. W., Shear Strength of
Vcr = inclined cracking shear strength, kN Normal Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced with Deformed GFRP
Vf = factored shear force at section of interest, kN Bars, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 5, No. 4, 2001,
Vu = ultimate shear strength, kN pp. 263-275.
1 = depth reduction factor of equivalent rectangular stress block 17. Alkhrdaji, T.; Wideman, M.; Belarbi, A.; and Nanni, A., Shear
cu = maximum usable compressive strain in concrete (assumed to be Strength of GFRP RC Beams and Slabs, Proceedings of the International
0.003) Conference, Composites in Construction-CCC 2001, Porto/Portugal, 2001,
y = yield strain of reinforcing steel bars pp. 409-414.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2006 243


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

You might also like