Composite Structures 67 (2005) 19–26

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Composite rebars shape effect in reinforced structures

Fethi Kadioglu 1, Ramana M. Pidaparti *

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA

Available online 3 March 2004

Abstract
The effect of composite rebar’s shape in reinforced concrete beam type structures is investigated through finite element analysis in
this paper. Steel rebars are being replaced with composite rebars due to their better ability to resist corrosion in reinforced concrete
structures for many infrastructure applications. A variety of composite rebar shapes can be obtained through the pultrusion process.
It will be interesting to investigate their shape on various stiffnesses and interface stresses. In this study, four different composite
rebar shapes are investigated under axial, bending and torsional loadings. The results of stiffness and interface stresses obtained are
presented and compared for the different composite rebar shapes. Based on the results obtained, a circular rebar with 6 square ribs
with 1° offset offers the best configuration under axial and torsional loadings.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Composite rebars; Design analysis; Interface stresses; Concrete structures; Stiffness

1. Introduction include double wrapping of a helical fiber around the

Composite rebars in reinforced concrete structures
have been shown to be highly effective for extending the
service life and durability, offering good corrosion
resistance in aggressive environments. Composite rebar
technology has received considerable attention in recent
years [1–6] as it offers significant advantages over steel
reinforced concrete structures, including improved
mechanical and fatigue behavior. Composite rebars
made from either glass fiber-reinforced polymer or ara-
mid fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon fiber-reinforced
can be readily formed into complex shapes through the
pultrusion manufacturing process. In the pultrusion
process, the longitudinal fibers are drawn through a resin
bath and then passed through a die, which gives the rebar
a final shape. In general, a smooth surface is obtained on
the rebars through pultrusion process, and additional
techniques are required to improve the bond between the
rebar and the surrounding concrete. Several methods
[7–10] have been developed to improve the bond between
the composite bar and the surrounding concrete. These
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-317-274-6796; fax: +1-317-274-
9744.
E-mail address: et_me@iupui.edu (R.M. Pidaparti).
1
On Leave from Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul
Technical University, Istanbul, TR 80206, Turkey.
0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.01.006
rebar, machining of rebars, embedding sand particles,
sand blasting, etc. All of the above techniques involve
introducing deformations on the surface of rebar to im-
prove the bond. In addition, Lam and Ko [11] investi-
gated a method of manufacturing rebars using braiding
and pultrusion processes to better tailor the properties
along the length of the rebar to improve bond properties.
They also demonstrated the flexibility and feasibility of
the combined braidtrusion manufacturing process.
Several authors [7–10,12–17] studied experimentally
and numerically, the use of composite rebars as rein-
forcement in concrete structures. Katz [7] studied the
bond mechanism of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
rebar to concrete. Five different types of 12.7 and 12.0
mm rebars subjected to different surface treatments were
tested, and the bond mechanism was compared with
that of untreated FRP composite rebars and ordinary
deformed steel. Differences in pre-peak and post-peak
behavior were observed for the various rebars, and when
the surface was rough, more ductile behavior was ob-
served. Nanni et al. [9] presented experimental and
analytical results for beams reinforced with hybrid re-
bars for the evaluation of the flexural behavior. Ka-
chlakev and Lundy [10] presented the results of bond
and tensile strength characteristics for hollow glass fiber-
reinforced plastic rebars. Rebars with similar geometries
but different microstructures were considered and it was
determinated that microstructure greatly affects the
20 F. Kadioglu, R.M. Pidaparti / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 19–26

bond and tensile strengths. Prucz and Wu [12] discussed 2. Composite rebar configurations
the effects of combined mechanical and hygrothermal
loads on structural properties of different FRP com- Four different types of concrete rebar configurations of
posite rebars. Mirmiran and Shahawy [5] considered different means for improving the bond properties under
that an effective use of fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) multiple loadings are considered as shown in Fig. 1. The
rebar shapes in infrastructure is in the form of com- first rebar (RB1) is a standard circular cross-section that
posite construction with reinforced concrete. A novel
composite column was proposed that is similar to the
classic concrete-filled steel tubes, except that the steel
material was replaced with a hollow FRP shell.
Ferreria et al. [14] proposed the use of a first-order
shear-deformation theory in the finite element analysis of
concrete beams reinforced with FRP composite rebars.
The effects of reinforcement of composite and steel rebars
on concrete are discussed. Comparison of their finite ele-
ment analysis results with the experimental data was made
for a concrete beam reinforced with pultrusion rods. Kim
and White [15] presented a theory based on constrained
warping for hollow composite beams with thick walls.
They found that stresses caused by the constrained
warping were high, as compared to free warping. Taufik
et al. [16] presented a theoretical model for calculating
stiffness and stresses of a composite beam with arbitrary
cross-section, assuming that strains are functions of the
cross-sectional coordinates but independent of the longi-
tudinal coordinate. Their results compare well with three-
dimensional finite element analysis. Sprenger and Wagner
[17] investigated the combination of the rebar-concept
with the enhanced assumed strain method for geometri-
cally nonlinear 3D-brick finite elements. Finite element
calculations with rebar elements were used to model
composite materials with single fibers or fiber layers within
one single volume element. Rebar fiber layer elements were
employed successfully for modeling composite laminate
structures. Nanni et al. [9] presented experimental and
analytical results for beams reinforced with hybrid rebars
for the evaluation of the flexural behavior of the composite
system. The tensile and interface bond strengths of com-
posite rebars are the most important characteristics for
establishing design procedures for reinforced composite Fig. 1. Various rebars considered for use in reinforced structures. (a)
concrete structures. Li et al. [18] studied the torsional RB1: circular rebar, (b) RB2: circular rebar with helical wrap, (c) RB3:
rigidity of reinforced concrete bars with arbitrary shape square rebar, and (d) RB4: circular rebar with four ribs.
based on theory of elasticity and finite element approach.
Based on the literature review, it appears that the
effect of composite rebar configurations in reinforced
structures has not yet been investigated. The objective of
this study is to investigate the effect of various composite
rebar configurations under different loadings. These
rebar configurations are easily manufactured through
the pultrusion process. Specifically four different com-
posite rebar configurations under axial, bending and
torsional loadings are investigated using three-dimen-
sional finite element analysis. The results of stiffness and
Fig. 2. Geometry of a typical unit of rebar with concrete along with
interface stresses obtained are presented to illustrate the loading conditions considered for finite element analysis. (a) Beam/slap
effectiveness of composite rebar configurations in beam type reinforced concrete structure and (b) a typical unit of rebar and
type reinforced concrete structures. concrete.
 F. Kadioglu, R.M. Pidaparti / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 19–26 21

is commonly used in construction industry. The second 3. Finite element analysis

rebar (RB2) has a circular cross-section, but with helical
wrapping/deformation on the surface. The composite
rebar RB3 is of square cross-section, and the rebar RB4 is
a circular rebar with square sections at midsides. The idea
of using ribs is to improve the bond characteristics with
the surrounding concrete. There might be several other
possible variations of these rebar configurations, but they
are beyond the scope of this study. All the rebars are
made from either fiber-reinforced polymer composites or
steel. These various composite rebars configurations can
be easily manufactured through the pultrusion process.
The design analyses of various rebar configurations
embedded in concrete are investigated through a three-
dimensional finite element analysis. The concrete rebar
having a configuration (circular, square, circular with
ribs, etc.) and enclosed in concrete block as shown in
Fig. 2 is considered for micromechanical analysis. The
composite rebar and the surrounding concrete is mod-
eled using three-dimensional finite elements in ANSYS
software [19]. It is assumed that the interface between
the rebar and the surrounding concrete is perfect. This

Fig. 3. Maximum principal stress (r1 ) distributions at the middle cross-section for all four rebars under the axial loading using isotropic (a) and
orthotropic (b) properties for rebars.
22 F. Kadioglu, R.M. Pidaparti / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 19–26

assumption may not be true and, should be evaluated in Fig. 1. The stiffness values are normalized with respect
the future for realistic analysis. Both the composite to rebar RB1, and using a rebar modulus (E) of 210
rebar and the concrete is modeled using a 3D isopara- GPa. It can be seen from Table 1, that all the stiffness
metric brick element designated as SOLID45 in ANSYS values increase for RB2, RB3 and RB4 as compared to
software. The SOLID45 element type is defined by eight RB1, the circular rebar. It is also seen that the stiffness
nodes and has three degrees of freedom (translations in increase for RB2 is smaller as compared to the increase
x, y, and z directions) at each node. For rebar with for rebars RB3 and RB4. All the three stiffnesses (EA,
helical warping, beam elements (BEAM 4 in ANSYS EI and GJ) are within 2% for RB2 as compared to RB1.
Software) were used to model the helical warping. Free The axial, bending and torsional stiffnesses increase
mesh is used for creating the finite element model. The about 8.42%, 12.77% and 15.19% for RB3 in compari-
boundary conditions for the finite element model are son to RB1. The stiffnesses increase is about 1.47%,
assumed to be at one end fixed, and at the other free, 3.71% and 4.55% for the rebar RB4. The large increase
where the loads are applied. in stiffness for rebar RB3 is due to increase in the volume
The concrete rebar dimensions along with the loading of the rebar as compared to other rebars configurations.
conditions are given in Fig. 2. A typical unit consisting
of composite rebars 40 mm long embedded in a concrete
4.1. Interface stress distributions
block of dimensions (D=d ¼ 2 and L=d ¼ 20) are con-
sidered for analysis. For all the cases, it is assumed that
The distribution of maximum principal stress (r1 ) at
the composite rebar shape is different, but the concrete is
the rebar–concrete interface, at the middle cross-section,
filled into a square shape as shown in Fig. 2. Three
different types of loadings (axial loading, F ¼ 100 kN; Table 1
transverse load, P ¼ 1 kN; and torsion moment, Comparison of normalized stiffness with respect to RB1 for isotropic
T ¼ 100 kN mm) were applied. Linear material models (E ¼ 210 GPa)
are assumed for both the concrete and the composite Stiffness RB2 (%) RB3 (%) RB4 (%)
rebar. Linear static analysis is carried out, and the Axial (EA) 1.53 8.42 1.47
deformations, and stresses are obtained from the anal- Bending (EI) 0.64 12.77 3.71
ysis. Torsional (GJ) 0.11 15.19 4.55
The materials properties for the concrete used in the
finite element analysis are Young’s modulus, E ¼ 30 GPa
and Poisson’s ratio, m ¼ 0:15. Three different elastic
properties were used for the composite rebar. The mate-
rials properties for the composite rebar are glass–epoxy
(E1 ¼ 54 GPa; E2 ¼ E3 ¼ 18 GPa; G12 ¼ 9 GPa,
m12 ¼ 0:25), carbon–epoxy (E1 ¼ 132 GPa; E2 ¼ E3 ¼
11:2 GPa; G12 ¼ 6:55 GPa, m12 ¼ 0:28) and graphite–
epoxy (E1 ¼ 210 GPa; E2 ¼ E3 ¼ 5 GPa; G12 ¼ 2:6 GPa,
m12 ¼ 0:25). The finite element meshes for obtaining the
stresses are based on a convergence study with an accu-
racy of 1% between consecutive meshes. The results are
obtained using the finite element meshes of 8620, 7024,
8580 and 9060, for RB1, RB2, RB3 and RB4, respec-
tively. The finite element results of deformation and stress
for circular rebar RB1 under axial loading were validated
with mechanics of materials solution and found to be in
good agreement. The stiffness values (EA for axial load-
ing; EI for transverse shear loading; and GJ for torsion
loading) were obtained from the finite element results of
deformation. Also, the results of interface shear stresses
are obtained for all the cases and presented to illustrate
the differences due to various rebar configurations.

4. Results and discussion

Fig. 4. Distributions of longitudinal shear stress (sxz ) at the middle
cross-section under bending loading using orthotropic properties for
Table 1 shows the comparison of normalized stiffness the rebars. (a) Rebar RB1, (b) rebar RB2, (c) rebar RB3, and (d) Rebar
values for various rebar configurations considered in RB4.
 F. Kadioglu, R.M. Pidaparti / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 19–26 23

for the four composite rebars under axial loading is
shown in Fig. 3 using isotropic and orthotropic prop-
erties for the rebars. It can be seen from Fig. 3 (please
note that different scales were used for isotropic and
orthotropic cases) that the interface principal stress
distributions are somewhat different when orthotropic
properties versus isotropic properties were used for the
rebars. The stress values are higher when isotropic
properties were used. There is not much difference in the
stress distributions for rebars RB1 and RB2. However,
rebars RB3 and RB4 have different distributions in
terms of maximum and minimum stress values. The
maximum interface principal stresses (r1 ) for rebars
RB3 and RB4 are found to be 39% and 77% higher as
compared to rebar RB1 when orthotropic properties
were used in the analysis. The distribution of interface
longitudinal stress (rxz ) at the middle cross-section is
shown in Fig. 4 for all the rebar configurations using
graphite–epoxy properties. It can be seen from Fig. 4
that the stress distributions are similar for rebars RB1,
RB2 and RB4 as compared to RB3. The maximum
stresses were concentrated at the corners for rebar RB3.
The increase in maximum interface stress (rxz ) is about
21% and 5% for rebars RB3 and RB4, respectively.
The distribution of maximum shear stress (smax ) at the
rebar–concrete interface at the middle cross-section for

Fig. 5. Distributions of maximum shear stress (smax ) at the middle cross-section under torsional loading. (a) Rebar RB1, (b) rebar RB2, (c) rebar
RB3, and (d) Rebar RB4 (left: isotropic, right: orthotropic).
24 F. Kadioglu, R.M. Pidaparti / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 19–26

the four composite rebars under torsional loading is 1.2

shown in Fig. 5 using isotropic and orthotropic properties RB1
for the rebars. It can be seen from Fig. 5 (please note RB2
different scales for isotropic and orthotropic cases) that 1.1

Maximum shear stress (GPa)

the interface shear stress distributions are similar when RB3
orthotropic properties were used as compared to isotropic RB4
1.0
properties for the rebars. The stress values are higher when
isotropic properties were used. The maximum interface
shear stresses (smax ) for rebars RB3 and RB4 are found to
0.9
be 1.3% and 3.3% higher as compared to rebar RB1 when
orthotropic properties were used in the analysis.
0.8
4.2. Effect of composite material properties
0.7
In order to see how the rebar composite properties
affect the maximum interface shear stresses, ðrmax

rmin Þ=2, results are presented for all the four rebar 0.6
configurations under axial, bending and torsional load-
Glass Carbon Graphite
ings in Figs. 6–8, respectively. The stress values are Composite Rebars
calculated based on the properties of concrete (E ¼ 30
GPa). It can be seen from Fig. 6 that the maximum Fig. 7. Variation of maximum shear stress for rebars with various
interface shear stress values decrease as the rebar mod- composite materials under bending loading.
ulus is increased under axial loading. For the four dif-
ferent rebars considered, the maximum interface shear
stress is found for rebar RB4. There is a decrease of
about 53% in maximum shear stress for rebar RB4, 7
when the rebar material is changed from glass–epoxy to RB1
graphite–epoxy, keeping the concrete properties the RB2
same. Similar trends to those shown in Fig. 6 are also 6
observed for the four rebars configurations under RB3
Maximum shear stress (GPa)

bending (see Fig. 7). It can be seen that the maximum RB4
interface shear stress under torsional loading (see Fig. 8)
5

6
RB1
4
RB2
5 RB3

RB4 3
Maximum shear stress (GPa)

2
Glass Carbon Graphite
3
Composite Rebars

Fig. 8. Variation of maximum shear stress for rebars with various

composite materials under torsional loading.
2

1
is found for rebar RB4. Interestingly, the values of the
stress increase (about 36%) when the rebar material is
Glass Carbon Graphite
changed from glass–epoxy to graphite–epoxy. Overall
Composite Rebars
the results presented in Figs. 6–8 represent how the
Fig. 6. Variation of maximum shear stress for rebars with various rebar properties affects the interface maximum shear
composite materials under axial loading. stress under axial, shear and torsional loadings.
 F. Kadioglu, R.M. Pidaparti / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 19–26
4.3. Effect of design features
In order to see how other design features affect the
interface shear stresses, RB4 is investigated further. The
design features evaluated include number of ribs, and
also the orientation of the ribs at an offset angle. The
typical geometry of the circular rebar with 4, 6 and 8 ribs
with a 1° offset orientation is shown in Fig. 9. A typical
finite element mesh for the offset rebars is shown in Fig.
10, and was modeled using SOLID92 (10-node tetrahe-
dral) and SOLID45 (8-node structural) elements due to
geometry of the rebars. The meshes for these offset rebars
range from 11,296 to 13,343 elements in order to get
good results for stresses. The results of maximum inter-
face shear stress obtained for offset rebars are compared
Fig. 9. Design features (number of ribs and offset) considered for rebar
RB4. Circular rebar with (a) 4, (b) 6 and (c) 8 square ribs and 1° offset.
25
to circular rebar RB1. The properties of graphite–epoxy
were used for the rebars in these examples.
The results of normalized maximum interface shear
stresses (smax ) for the circular rebar with 4, 6, and 8 ribs
with 0°, 1° and 2° offsets combinations under axial
loading are summarized in Fig. 11. It can be seen from
Fig. 11 that increasing the number of ribs decreases
the interface maximum shear stress (smax ). However,
increasing the offset orientation will increase the inter-
face maximum shear stress. It is also seen from Fig. 11
that the decrease in interface maximum shear stress
(smax ) is about 8% and 24% when the ribs are increased
from 4 to 6 and 8 at 1°. The decrease in interface stress is
Fig. 10. A typical cross-sectional finite element mesh used for the
circular rebar with 6 square ribs and 2° offset.
120
110
Normalized maximum shear stress (τmax) %
100
90 4 ribs
80
6 ribs
70
60 8 ribs
50
0 1 2
Rib offset (degree)
Fig. 11. Comparison of the maximum shear stress (smax ) for RB4 with
variations in number of ribs and offset orientation under axial loading.
26 F. Kadioglu, R.M. Pidaparti / Composite Structures 67 (2005) 19–26
much higher from 6 to 8 as compared to 4 to 6 ribs.
Similarly, the increase in interface stress is about 51%
for smax when the offset is increased from 0° to 2° for 4
ribs. Based on the summary of results presented in Fig.
11 indicates that a circular rebar with 6 ribs with a 1°
offset has maximum higher interface shear stress.
Overall, the results presented in Fig. 11 along with
others may provide some insight on the effect of
design features on rebar interface stresses for a given
loading.
5. Conclusions
Analyses of various composite rebar configurations
for use in concrete structures is investigated through a
three-dimensional finite element method. The composite
rebar configurations investigated include square rebar,
circular rebar with ribs, and ribs at oriented at an offset
angle along the length of the rebar. Results of interface
stresses obtained are presented and compared among
various rebar configurations under axial, bending and
torsional loadings. Overall, based on the results ob-
tained, it can be concluded that circular rebar with 6
square ribs with 1° offset offers the best configuration
under axial and torsional loadings. Many more cases
need to be studied in order to find optimum rebar
configuration for use in multiple loadings. The results
presented in this paper illustrate that various design
features added to the circular composite rebar may
provide good bonding characteristics and can be used in
reinforced concrete structures.
Acknowledgements
The first author acknowledges the support from the
Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey
under a grant in the scope of NATO Science Fellowship
Program. The authors thank Professor Dr. Hasan
AKAY for his help during the course of this study. The
second author thanks the NSF for supporting this work
through a grant INT-0096795.
References
[1] Erp GMV. A new fibre composite beam for civil engineering
applications. Adv Compos Lett 1999;8(5):219–25.
[2] Zhao Y, Pang SS. Analytical modeling of concrete box beams
reinforced by GFRP rebars. In: Energy Sources Technology
Conference and Exhibition. February 2–4, 1998. p. 1–7.
[3] Jiang C, Chandrashekhara K, Manis P, Belarbi A, Watkins SE.
Manufacturing of FRP rebars by a combined filament winding
and pultrusion process. In: 43rd International SAMPE Sympo-
sium. May 31–June 4, 1998. p. 1818–25.
[4] Belarbi A, Chandrashekhara K, Watkins SE. Smart composite
rebars with enhanced ductility. In: Engineering Mechanics:
Proceedings of the 11th Conference. May 19–22, 1996. p. 788–91.
[5] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. A new concrete-filled hollow FRP
composite column. Composites Part B Eng 1996;27(3–4):263–8.
[6] Daniali S, Paramanantham NS. Concrete columns reinforced with
fiber reinforced plastic rebars. In: Infrastructure: New Materials
and Methods of Repair: Proceedings of the Third Materials
Engineering Conference. November 13–16, 1994. p. 567–74.
[7] Katz A. Bond mechanism of FRP rebars to concrete. Mater Struct
[Materiaux et Constr] 1999;32:761–8.
[8] Benmokrane B, Chaallal O, Masmoudi R. Glass fibre reinforced
plastic (GFRP) rebars for concrete structures. Constr Build Mater
1995;9(6):353–64.
[9] Nanni A, Henneke MJ, Okamoto T. Behaviour of concrete beams
with hybrid reinforcement. Constr Build Mater 1994;8(2):89–95.
[10] Kachlakev DI, Lundy JR. Performance of hollow glass fiber-
reinforced polymer rebars. J Compos Constr 1999;3(2):87–91.
[11] Lam H, Ko FK. Composite manufacturing by the braidtrusion
process. In: 33rd International SAMPE Technical Conference.
November 5–8, 2001. p. 532–9.
[12] Prucz J, Wu WP. Simplified design approach for using FRP rebars
in concrete structures. In: 36th International SAMPE Symposium.
April 15–18, 1991. p. 757–70.
[13] Faza SS. The next generation in composite rebars for concrete
reinforcement. In: Materials for the New Millennium: Proceedings
of the Fourth Materials Engineering Conference. November 10–
14, 1996. p. 905–13.
[14] Ferreira AJM, Camanho PP, Marques AT, Fernandes AA.
Modeling of concrete beams reinforced with FRP re-bars.
Compos Struct 2001;53:107–16.
[15] Kim C, White SR. Analysis of the hollow composite beams under
general loadings. Compos Struct 1996;34:263–77.
[16] Taufik A, Barrau JJ, Lorin F. Composite beam analysis with
arbitrary cross section. Compos Struct 1999;44:189–94.
[17] Sprenger W, Wagner W. On the formulation of geometrically
nonlinear 3D-rebar-elements using the enhanced assumed strain
method. Eng Struct 1999;21:209–18.
[18] Li Z, Ko JM, Ni YQ. Torsional rigidity of reinforced concrete
bars with arbitrary sectional shape. Finite Elem Anal Des
2000;35:349–61.
[19] ANSYS (6.1): The general purpose finite element software.
Swanson Analysis System, Inc., Houston, TX.