net/publication/260285572
CITATIONS READS
41 428
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
• Performance and Strut Efficiency Factor of Concrete Deep Beams View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Farghaly on 21 February 2014.
Abstract: Flexural behavior and serviceability performance of 24 fullscale concrete beams reinforced with carbon, glass, and aramid
fiberreinforcedpolymer (FRP) bars are investigated. The beams were 3,300 mm long with a rectangular cross section of 200 mm in width
and 300 mm in depth. Sixteen beams were reinforced with carbonFRP bars, four beams were reinforced with glassFRP bars, two beams were
reinforced with aramidFRP bars, and two were reinforced with steel, serving as control specimens. Two types of FRP bars with different surface
textures were considered: sandcoated bars and ribbeddeformed bars. The beams were tested to failure in fourpoint bending over a clear span
of 2,750 mm. The test results are reported in terms of deflection, crackwidth, strains in concrete and reinforcement, flexural capacity, and mode
of failure. The experimental results were compared to the available design codes. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.19435614.0000216. © 2011
American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Concrete beams; Cracking; Deflection; Flexural strength; Strain; Bars; Serviceability.
Author keywords: Beams; Concrete; Crack width; Deflection; Flexure; Strain; FRP bars; Reinforcement ratio.
Introduction Over the last two decades, a number of studies have been carried
out to investigate the flexural response of FRPreinforcedconcrete
Infrastructure deterioration owing to corrosion of steel reinforce beams. Proposals for design procedures and guidelines have arisen
ment is one of the major challenges facing the construction from these studies. In the case of serviceability and specifically, for
industry. The use of concrete structures reinforced with fiber deflections, several authors (Benmokrane et al. 1996; Masmoudi
reinforcedpolymer (FRP) composite materials has been growing et al. 1998; Brown and Bartholomew 1996; Pecce et al. 2000;
to overcome the common problems caused by corrosion of steel Toutanji and Saafi 2000; Yost et al. 2003) have proposed coeffi
reinforcement [American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee cients to modify Branson’s equation used in steel design codes
440 2007, Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib) 2007]. Recent (ACI Committee 318 2008). Others (Faza and Ganga Rao 1992;
advances in polymer technology have led to the development of the Razaqpur et al. 2000; Mota et al. 2006; Bischoff 2005; Bischoff
latest generation of FRP reinforcingbars (ACI Committee 440 and Scanlon 2007) have proposed a modified equivalent moment
2007). These corrosionresistant bars have shown promise as a of inertia derived from curvatures. These different approaches
way to further protect bridges and other public infrastructure from have been adopted in several design guideline proposals for FRP
corrosion’s devastating effects. With the new ACI specification reinforcedconcrete members [fib 2007; ACI Committee 440 2006;
440.6M08 (ACI Committee 440 2008) and Canadian Standards CSA 2002; Italian National Research Council (CNR) 2006].
Association (CSA) certification standard S80710 (CSA 2010b), In assessing the flexural capacity of FRPreinforcedconcrete
FRP bars are emerging as a realistic and costeffective reinforcing beams, the concrete crushingfailure mode is generally preferable
alternative to traditional steel for concrete structures under severe to reinforcement failure because it is more progressive and leads to
environmental conditions. The direct replacement of steel with FRP a less catastrophic failure with a higher degree of deformability
bars, however, is not possible owing to various differences in the (ISIS Canada 2007; ACI Committee 440 2006; CSA 2010a). Dif
mechanical and bond properties of FRP materials compared to steel ferent safety approaches are proposed in the literature (Pilakoutas
(Nanni 1993, ISIS Canada 2007). et al. 2002), and the concept of ductility has been modified to re
flect the deformability of the FRPreinforcedconcrete members
1
Former Ph.D. student, Project Engineer, Osmos Canada, 1001 (Newhook et al. 2002; CSA 2010a). The lower modulus of FRP
Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Suite 800B, Montreal, PQ, Canada, H3A 3C8. reinforcement reduces the serviceability performance of flexural
Email: Chakib.Kassem@osmoscanada.com
2 members (Toutanji and Deng 2003; ElSalakawy and Benmokrane
Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada, J1K 2R1; Lecturer, Assiut Univ., Assiut, Egypt. 2004; Rashid et al. 2005; Mota et al. 2006; Lee et al. 2010).
Email: ahmed.farghaly@usherbrooke.ca At the same reinforcement ratio, FRPreinforced members will
3
Professor of Civil Engineering, Canada Research Chair in Advanced evidence larger deflections and crack widths than steelreinforced
Composite Materials for Civil Structures, NSERC Research Chair in members (Nanni 1993; ACI Committee 440 2006). Regarding
Innovative FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Infrastructures, Dept. of Civil flexural capacity, experimental results generally show higher loads
Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada, J1K 2R1 than those predicted by design equations that can be exceeded by
(corresponding author). Email: Brahim.Benmokrane@USherbrooke.ca up to 20% (Masmoudi et al. 1998; Pecce et al. 2000; Thériault
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 24, 2010; approved
and Benmokrane 1998). This variation is sometimes attributed to
on March 11, 2011; published online on March 14, 2011. Discussion period
open until March 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for in variability in materials and to a higher ultimate concrete strain than
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con what is assumed in analysis.
struction, Vol. 15, No. 5, October 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 10900268/ This paper presents the test results in terms of flexural behavior
2011/5682–695/$25.00. and serviceability performance of 24 simply supported beams
accuracy of these guidelines is paramount. This paper reports on were made for each reinforcement ratio and type. For the CFRP
the serviceability performance of fullsize, simply supported beams reinforced beams, three different reinforcement ratios with four,
reinforced with different types, ratios, and configurations of FRP six, and eight No. 10 reinforcing bars were investigated. In the case
bars. The test results are compared to some of the available models of the GFRPreinforced beams, only two reinforcement ratios with
(CSA 2002; ACI Committee 440 2006) and those being considered six and eight No. 13 reinforcing bars were investigated. For the
by ACI Committee 440H in an effort to evaluate the accuracy of AFRPreinforced beams, two reinforcement ratios with six and
such prediction models. eight No. 10 reinforcing bars were investigated. To study the effect
of bundled bars, two beams reinforced with CFRP bars, (beams
C14b and C24b) with four bars bundled 2by2 were constructed
Experimental Program and tested. The reinforcement ratios for the two control steel
reinforced beams were 0.9% and 1.3% with four and six M10 bars,
Twentyfour beams were designed with an adequate amount of respectively. The top reinforcement for all beams consisted of two
longitudinal and shear reinforcement to ensure failure by crushing M10 steel bars. Table 1 shows the details of the test specimens.
of the concrete in the central zone. Details of the materials, Fig. 1 depicts the concrete dimensions and reinforcement details.
specimens, test setup, and instrumentation are described in the
following sections. Instrumentation
300
30
40
40
200 200
30
30
40
40
200 200
C14b C16
C18
C1 C18 C16 C28 C2
C26 C28 C26
80 C14b 80
C24b C24b
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
60 C14 C24 60 C24
C14
ST6 ST6 ST6 ST6
40 40
ST4 ST4 ST4
ST4
20 20
Concrete Reinforcement Concrete Reinforcement
0 0
4000 0 4000 8000 12000 4000 0 4000 8000 12000
Strain (µ) Strain (µ)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
100 100
G18 G1 & G2 G18 G28
AR
G28 80 G16 AR8 80
G16 AR8 AR6
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
G26 AR6
60 G26 60
ST6 ST6 ST6 ST6
40 40
ST4 ST4 ST4
ST4
20 20
Concrete Reinforcement Concrete Reinforcement
0 0
4000 0 4000 8000 12000 4000 0 4000 8000 12000
Strain (µ) Strain (µ)
NeutralAxis Depth theoretical prediction compares well with the experimental results
(Table 3)
The experimental position of the neutral axis was deduced qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
from the data from the concrete strain gauges. As can be seen c=d ¼ 2ρf nf þ ðρf nf Þ2 ρf nf ð1Þ
in Table 3, the neutralaxis depth was slightly lower after cracking,
since the difference between the service and failure neutralaxis Flexural Capacity and Mode of Failure
depth is relatively small. The neutralaxis depth increased with All 24 beams were designed to fail by concrete crushing—failure
the reinforcement ratio; the equilibrium of forces requires a larger was expected to occur when the concrete reached its maximum
compression block for the greater forces arising from larger areas of compressive strain εcu . According to ACI Committee 440 (2006),
reinforcement. this failure mode is obtained when the actual reinforcement ratio ρf
The theoretical neutralaxis depth, c, was calculated as is greater than the balanced reinforcement ratio ρf b , as given in
suming a crackedsection analysis, as given in Eq. (1). The Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
C14
60 60 C24
ST6 ST6
40 ST4 40 ST4
20 20
Mcr Mcr
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) Midspan deflection (mm) (b) Midspan deflection (mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
100 100
G18 G28 Beams AR
Beams G1 and G2 80
80 G16 AR8
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
G26 AR6
60 60
ST6 ST6
40 ST4 40 ST4
20 20
Mcr Mcr
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(c) Midspan deflection (mm) (d) Midspan deflection (mm)
Fig. 4. Momentdeflection relationship for the tested beams: (a) beams C1; (b) beams C2; (c) beams G1 and G2; (d) beams AR
reinforcement ratio but with different CFRP bar types started bending zone, in the shear span, they acquired some inclination
diverging. Although the modulus of elasticity and the tensile toward the central zone, owing to shear stresses in these regions.
strength of the carbon ribbeddeformed bars were greater than those Soon after a load level corresponding to about 67% of the nominal
of sandcoated bars, at failure load the measured deflection of moment M n was attained, no more cracks appeared, and only
beams C24, C26, and C28 (ribbeddeformed bar) were slightly widening of the existing cracks could be observed. Fig. 5 shows
higher than those for beams C14, C16, and C18 (sandcoated cracking patterns of some of the tested beams at two load levels
bar), respectively. This may indicate that the sandcoated bars pro corresponding to the service load (0:3M n ) and a load corresponding
vided better bond characteristics than the ribbeddeformed bars. to 0:67M n .
The latter had smooth, wellrounded ribs, which may have reduced Table 5 lists the measured first crack widths and cracking char
bond strength. Moreover, bundling bars had no effect on beam de acteristics at two load levels: service load (0:3M n ) and at a load
flection, as can be seen in Fig. 4(a) (C14 and C14b) and Fig. 4(b) equivalent to 0:67M n . For all types of bars, the increased reinforce
(C24 and C24b). ment ratio reduced the number of cracks and increased the average
crack spacing. Moreover, the crack depth decreased when the
Cracking Behavior
reinforcement ratio increased.
All beams were initially uncracked. Some cracks began to appear Beams C14, C14b, C24, and C24b give an indication of the
when the cracking moment was reached in the pure bending zone. effect of bundled bars on cracking characteristics. The beams with
These initial cracks were predominantly vertical and perpendicular bundled bars (C14b and C24b) developed fewer cracks than those
to the direction of the maximum stress induced by the bending mo with single bars (C14 and C24). The average crack spacing in
ment. Then, at higher loads, more cracks appeared along the beam’s creased for beams C14b and C24b compared with beams C14
length. While cracks grew predominantly vertically in the pure and C24. This can be explained by better bond quality for single
bars compared to bundled bars. Nevertheless, the difference in the absorption of the energy released when the concrete cracked. At
cracking characteristics was not excessive, and the use of bundled serviceload levels, the crack width for the beams reinforced with
FRP bars is perfectly possible (Aly et al. 2006). CFRP bars was smaller by 54% and 64% owing to the increased
Table 5 also shows the effect of using FRP bars with different reinforcement ratios of 50% and 100%, respectively. For the beams
surface texture on the cracking characteristics. Beams C14, C16, reinforced with GFRP bars, the crack width was decreased by 32%
and C18 (CFRP sandcoated bars) had more cracks and lower because of a 33% increase in reinforcement ratio. For the beams
average crack spacing compared to beams C24, C26, and C28 reinforced with AFRP bars, the reduction in crack width was
(ribbed surface CFRP), respectively. This tends to confirm the 22% resulting from a 33% increase of the reinforcement ratio.
explanation about deflection characteristics that suggested that Fig. 6 shows the variation in measured crack width against the
sandcoated bars have better bond characteristics than ribbed applied moment for the tested beams. The first crack appeared at
deformed bars. the cracking moment load level. For the beams reinforced with FRP
Table 5 indicates that the initial crack width was smaller for bars, the crack width varied linearly with the applied moment until
beams with greater reinforcement ratios resulting from easier failure. A slight reduction rate of crack width was observed with
100 100
Beams C1 C18 Beams C2 C28
C16 C26 C24 C24b
80 C14 80
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
C14b
60 60
ST6 ST6
40 ST4 40 ST4
20 20
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
(a) Crack width (mm) (b) Crack width (mm)
100 100
Beams G1 and G2 Beams AR
80 G18 G16 80
AR6
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
G26 AR8
60 G28 60
ST6 ST6
40 ST4 40 ST4
20 20
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
(c) Crack width (mm) (d) Crack width (mm)
Fig. 6. Momentcrackwidth relationship for the tested beams: (a) beams C1; (b) beams C2; (c) beams G1 and G2; (d) beams AR
Deflections
Review of Existing Codes and Guides to Predict Deflection in which αb = bonddependent coefficient, assumed to be 0.5 until
The response of reinforcedconcrete members subjected to flexure more data became available. Yost et al. (2003) proposed a different
can be divided into two distinct stages. The first stage describes equation [Eq. (11)], however, to account for the effect of the
the uncracked response of the member, and the second describes reinforcement ratio ρf
the cracked response of the member. Once the second stage is
ρf Ef
reached, the absence of concrete tensile resistance at the location β d ¼ 0:064 þ 0:13 þ1 ð11Þ
ρf b Es
of cracks requires that tensile loads be carried entirely by the
reinforcement. The flexural stiffness of a reinforcedconcrete
ACI Committee 440 (2006) adopted a similar approach that nu
member is greatly reduced in this stage, but the cracked response
merically incorporates the effects of elastic modulus on the flexural
remains well above that of a member that is fully cracked. This is
stiffness transition into the equation [Eq. (12)]
possible only because of bonding and the reinforcement’s ability to
transfer some of the tension to its surroundings, which leads to the ρf
β d ¼ 0:2 ≤1 ð12Þ
contribution of concrete between individual cracks. With further ρf b
loading, stresses within the concrete on either side of a crack
increase until the tensile strength is reached once more, causing CSA S80602 (CSA 2002) used the momentarea method to de
additional cracks. The process continues until crack spacing is in velop closedform deflection equations for several common types
sufficient to bring tensile stresses within the concrete to initiate new of loading and support conditions. This method is based on the
cracks. The resulting crack pattern is referred to as the stabilized assumption that the momentcurvature relationship of a cracked
crack pattern in which additional load widens existing cracks, with FRPreinforced member remains linear under increasing load with
limited effects on flexural stiffness. a flexural rigidity of E c I cr and that tension stiffening is negligible.
To reflect the softening effect, code equations use an effective For a beam under twopoint loading, the maximum deflection is
flexural stiffness for reinforcedconcrete elements within the tran given by
sition range. Both ACI 31808 (ACI Committee 318 2008) and 3 3
CSA A23.304 design code (CSA 2004) provide an expression in ðM a =aÞL3 a a Lg
Δ¼ 3 4 8η ð13Þ
troduced by Branson (1968) for establishing the effective moment 24Ec I cr L L L
of inertia used in the deflection analysis of steelreinforced
concrete beams where η ¼ 1 I cr =I g .
Bischoff (2005) and Bischoff and Scanlon (2007) have sug
M cr 3 M cr 3 gested changes to the relationship defined in Eq. (8) that improve
Ie ¼ Ig þ 1 I cr ≤ I g ð8Þ
Ma Ma the incorporation of tension stiffening into estimating deflections.
The relationship has relevance for this paper because it is currently
As emphasized by Yost et al. (2003), the cubic form of the being considered by ACI 440H for a future design guide
expression was intended to represent the nonlinear characteristics
of the transition that conveniently reflects the declining contribu I cr
Ie ¼ ≤ Ig ð14Þ
tion of concrete between cracks. The expression was derived from 1 ηγðMMcra Þ2
experimental data for steelreinforcedconcrete beams. The litera
ture suggests, however, that the expression’s empirical nature where η ¼ 1 I cr =I g ; and γ ¼ 1:72 0:72M cr =M a .
brings sensitivity to the relationship for conditions other than those
for which it was derived (Yost et al. 2003). Comparison of Predicted Deflection with Experimental Data
More specifically, it has been generally shown that the flexural Fig. 7 compares the midspan deflections of the tested beams with
stiffness transition obtained from Eq. (8) is not adequate—member those predicted by Eqs. (12)–(14).
deformation is underestimated for relatively low reinforcing areas Figs. 7(a)–7(d) show CFRPreinforced beams for which the ACI
that correspond to ratios of the gross to the cracked moment of in 440.1R06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) equation and that being
ertia >4 (Bischoff and Paixao 2004). Although significant in the considered by ACI 440H underestimated deflection over a range
design of steelreinforcedconcrete, the limitation can be even more of reinforcing ratios from 0.6 to 1.2%. The prediction got notice
relevant when considering the use of FRP material for which lower ably worse as Ef =f f u increased. CSA S80602 (CSA 2002),
elasticmodulus values prevail and lower reinforcing areas can be however, yielded reasonable predictions.
achieved from higher tensile strengths. For beams reinforced with GFRP bars [Figs. 7(e)–7(h)],
Experimental data show that Eq. (8) is not generally applicable ACI 440.1R06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) underestimated the
to FRPreinforcedconcrete beams. Therefore, investigators have deflection at lower loads, but predictions improved as the moment
suggested alternative expressions for I e. Accordingly, research increased. The two equations (being considered by ACI 440H and
has proposed a reduction factor that would compensate for the CSA S80602) predicted reasonable deflection values, especially
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
30 Ef / ffu = 75.7 30 ρf = 1.2%
Ef / ffu = 75.7
20 20
exp exp
CSA S80602 CSA S80602
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440H ACI 440H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(a) Midspan deflection (mm) (b) Midspan deflection (mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
40 40
Beam C24 Beam C28
ρf = 0.6%
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
30 Ef / ffu = 61.4 30 ρf = 1.2%
Ef / ffu = 61.4
20 20
exp exp
CSA S80602 CSA S80602
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440H ACI 440H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(c) Midspan deflection (mm) (d) Midspan deflection (mm)
40 40
Beam G16 Beam G18
ρf = 1.7% ρf = 2.2%
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
30 Ef / ffu = 64.8 30 Ef / ffu = 64.8
20 20
exp esp
CSA S80602 CSA S80602
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440H ACI 440H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(e) Midspan deflection (mm) (f) Midspan deflection (mm)
40 40
Beam G26 Beam G28
ρf = 1.5% ρf = 2.0%
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
20 20
exp exp
CSA S80602 CSA S80602
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440H ACI 440H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(g) Midspan deflection (mm) (h) Midspan deflection (mm)
40 40
Beam AR6 Beam AR8
ρf = 0.9% ρf = 1.2%
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
20 20
exp exp
CSA S80602 CSA S80602
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440H ACI 440H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(i) Midspan deflection (mm) (j) Midspan deflection (mm)
Fig. 7. Comparison of predicted deflection with experimental data: (a) beam C14; (b) beam C18; (c) beam C24; (d) beam C28; (e) beam G16;
(f) beam G18; (g) beam G26; (h) beam G28; (i) beam AR6; (j) beam AR8
∆ pred / ∆ exp
∆ pred / ∆ exp
1
0 0
C14b
C24b
C14b
C24b
AR6
AR8
AR6
AR8
G16
G18
G26
G28
G16
G18
G26
G28
C14
C16
C24
C26
C28
C14
C16
C24
C26
C28
C18
C18
(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Comparison with experimental data at different load levels: (a) at 0:3M n ; (b) at 0:67M n
when Ef =f f u was approximately equal to 60, as recommended by Both the ACI 440.1R06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) equation
ACI Committee 440. and that being considered by ACI Committee 440H predicted very
For beams reinforced with AFRP bars [Figs. 7(i) and 7(j)], ACI similar deflection values at Ef =f f u of about 60. When E f =f f u
440.1R06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) underestimated the deflec dropped below 60, ACI 440.1R06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) be
tion at different reinforcing ratios. The CSA S80602 (CSA 2002) gan to underestimate the deflection and reached its worst perfor
equation overpredicted deflection, whereas the equation being mance at an E f =f f u of about 30, as β d reached its upper limit of 1.
considered by ACI Committee 440H provided the best fit to The overestimation of deflection by CSA S80602 (CSA 2002)
the experimental results. at load levels just after cracking could be a result of the form of the
Fig. 8 shows the ratio of predictedtoexperimental deflections equation—it uses I cr without any smooth transition from the un
at service load, 0:3M n , and at 0:67M n . The data clearly indicate that cracked to the cracked state, thereby causing a sudden increase
ACI 440.1R06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) underestimated the in calculated deflection. As the load level increased, the prediction
deflection for all beams at both load levels. The equation being better approximated the experimental values, though continuing to
considered by ACI Committee 440H slightly underestimated slightly overpredict, as shown in Fig. 8(b).
the deflection at serviceload level, but, as the load increased be
yond the service load, the gap between the predicted values and Crack Width
experimental results closed. CSA S80602 (CSA 2002) overesti Review of Existing Codes and Guides to Predict Crack
mated the deflection at serviceload level, but, as the load increased Width
beyond the service load, the gap between the predicted values and According to current practice for steelreinforcedconcrete, a maxi
experimental results closed. mum crackwidth limitation is implicit or explicit in design codes
Fig. 9 compares the deflections predicted by CSA S80602 for two reasons: to mitigate reinforcement corrosion, and to reduce
(CSA 2002), ACI 440.1R06 (ACI Committee 440 2006), and unsightly, yet harmless, cracking (i.e., for aesthetics). In both ACI
the equation being considered by ACI Committee 440H for the 31808 (ACI Committee 318 2008) and CSA A23.304 (CSA
following five tested beams: C14, C24, G16, G28, and AR8. 2004), this limit for steelreinforcedconcrete structures was set
These five beams have similar I g =I cr , but different Ef =f f u : 75.7, to 0.3 mm for exterior exposure and 0.4 mm for interior exposure.
61.4, 64.8, 48.2, and 28.9, respectively. Since most FRP bars have a modulus of elasticity lower than that of
The CSA S80602 (CSA 2002) equation and that being consid steel, crack widths in FRPreinforced members are expected to be
ered by ACI Committee 440H exhibited a trend of increasing pre larger than those in steelreinforced members. If the primary reason
dicted deflection as E f =f f u decreased. In contrast, the predicted for crackwidth limitation is reinforcement corrosion, this limita
deflection based on ACI 440.1R06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) tion can be relaxed for noncorrosive FRP reinforcement. Thus,
increased with increasing Ef =f f u , which is unreasonable. For a ACI 440.1R06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) and CSA S80602
given f f u , it is logical to expect that deflection would be reduced (CSA 2002) increased the allowable crackwidth limits to 0.5
because of an increase of stiffness E f . and 0.7 mm for exterior and interior exposure, respectively, when
40
ACI 440H
Moment (kN.m)
CSA S80602
20
Ef / ffu = 75.7
Ef / ffu = 61.4
10 Ef / ffu = 64.8
Ef / ffu = 48.2
Ef / ffu = 28.9
0
0 10 20 30
Midspan deflection (mm)
100 100
C18
.8
80 80
b =0
.8
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
6K
b=0
1 .4

G2
=
G26
8K
60 60
Kb
8
C1
4
= 1.
C1
40 40 6 Kb
G2
20 20
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
Crack width (mm) Crack width (mm)
100
80
= 0.8 AR6
Moment (kN.m)
Kb
R6
60 A
.4
b= 1
40 6 K
AR
20
0
0 1 2
Crack width (mm)
αb = bonddependent coefficient assumed equal to 0.5; bridge design code.” CSA S610, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
β = ratio of distance between neutral axis and tension face to Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2010b). “Specification for fibre
distance between neutral axis and centroid of reinforced polymers.” CSA S80710, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
reinforcement; ElSalakawy, E., and Benmokrane, B. (2004). “Serviceability of concrete
bridge deck slabs reinforced with fiberreinforced polymer composite
β 1 = ratio of depth of equivalent rectangular stress block to
bars.” ACI Struct. J., 101(5), 727–736.
depth of the neutral axis; Faza, S. S., and GangaRao, H. V. S. (1992). “Pre and postcracking de
β d = coefficient given in Eqs. (9), (10), or (11); flection behavior of concrete beams reinforced with fiberreinforced
Δ = deflection (mm); plastic rebars.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on the Use of Advanced Composite
Δexp = measured deflection from experiment (mm); Materials in Bridges and Structures (ACMBSI), K. Neale and
Δpred = predicted deflection from equations (mm); P. Labossiere, eds., Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, Canada,
εcu = maximum concrete compressive strain (0.003 for ACI 151–160.
provision); Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib). (2007). “FRP reinforcement in RC
εf = maximum tensile strain of FRP bars (%); structures.” Task Group 9.3, Lausanne, Switzerland.
ρf = reinforcement ratio; Frosch, R. J. (1999). “Another look at cracking and crack control in rein
ρf b = balanced reinforcement ratio; forced concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 96(3), 437–442.
Gao, D., Benmokrane, B., and Masmoudi, R. (1998). “A calculating
Ψc = curvature at M c ; and
method of flexural properties of FRPreinforced concrete beam, Part 1:
Ψult = curvature at M ult . Crack width and deflection.” Tech. Report, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Gergely, P., and Lutz, L. A. (1968). “Maximum crack width in reinforced
References concrete flexural members.” Causes, mechanisms, and control of
Aly, R. S., Benmokrane, B., and Ebead, U. A. (2006). “Tensile lap splicing cracking in concrete, ACI SP20, ACI, Farmington Hills, MI,
of bundled CFRP reinforcing bars in concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 87–117.
10(4), 287–294. Gulbrandsen, P. (2005). “Reliability analysis of the flexural capacity of
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318. (2008). “Building code fiberreinforced polymer bars in concrete beams.” Master’s thesis, Univ.
requirements for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 31808, of Minnesota, MinneapolisSt. Paul, MN.
Farmington Hills, MI. ISIS Canada. (2007). “Reinforcing concrete structures with fiberreinforced
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2003). “Guide for the polymers—Design manual No. 3.” Manitoba, Canada.
design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI Italian National Research Council (CNR). (2006). Guide for the design and
440.1R03, Farmington Hills, MI. construction of concrete structures reinforced with fiberreinforced
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2004). “Guide test polymer bars, CNRDT 203/2006, Rome.
methods for fiberreinforced polymers (FRPs) for reinforcing or Jaeger, L. G., Mufti, A. A., and Tadros, G. (1997). “The concept of
strengthening concrete structures.” ACI 440.3R04, Farmington the overall performance factor in rectangularsection reinforced con
Hills, MI. crete members.” Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on Nonmetallic (FRP) Reinforce
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2006). “Guide for the ment for Concrete Structures, Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo,
design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI 551–559.
440.1R06, Farmington Hills, MI. Lee, W. K., Jansen, D. C., Berlin, K. B., and Cohen, I. E. (2010). “Flexural
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2007). “Report on cracks in fiberreinforced concrete beams with fiberreinforced polymer
fiberreinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement concrete structures.” reinforcing bars.” ACI Struct. J., 107(3), 321–329.
ACI 440R07, Farmington Hills, MI. Masmoudi, R., Thériault, M., and Benmokrane, B. (1998). “Flexural
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2008). “Specification behavior of concrete beams reinforced with deformed fiber reinforced
for carbon and glass fiberreinforced polymer bar as materials for plastic reinforcing rods.” ACI Struct. J., 95(6), 665–676.
concrete reinforcement.” ACI 440.M08, Farmington Hills, MI. Mota, C., Alminar, S., and Svecova, D. (2006). “Critical review of
Benmokrane, B., Chaallal, O., and Masmoudi, R. (1996). “Flexural re deflection formulas for FRPRC members.” J. Compos. Constr., 10(3),
sponse of concrete beams reinforced with FRP reinforcing bars.” 183–194.
ACI Struct. J., 91(2), 46–55. Nanni, A. (1993). “Flexural behavior and design of RC members using
Bischoff, P. H. (2005). “Reevaluation of deflection prediction for concrete FRP reinforcement.” J. Struct. Eng., 119(11), 3344–3359.
beams reinforced with steel and fiber reinforced polymer bars.” Newhook, J., Ghali, A., and Tadros, G. (2002). “Concrete flexural members
J. Struct. Eng., 131(5), 752–767. reinforced with fiberreinforced polymer: Dsign for cracking and
Bischoff, P. H., and Paixao, R. (2004). “Tension stiffening and cracking of deformability.” Can. J. Civil Eng., 29, 125–134.
concrete reinforced with glass fiberreinforced polymer (GFRP) bars.” Pecce, M., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E. (2000). “Experimental response
Can. J. Civ. Eng., 31(4), 579–588. and code models of GFRP RC beams in bending.” J. Compos. Constr.,
Bischoff, B. H., and Scanlon, A. (2007). “Effective moment of inertia 4(4), 182–190.
for calculating deflections of concrete members containing steel Pilakoutas, K., Neocleous, K., and Guadagnini, M. (2002). “Design
reinforcement and fiberreinforced polymer reinforcement.” ACI Struct. philosophy issues of fiberreinforced polymer reinforced concrete
J., 104(1), 68–75. structures.” J. Compos. Constr., 6(3), 154–161.