ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 99-S44

TECHNICAL PAPER

Shear Tests of FRP-Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups

by A. Koray Tureyen and Robert J. Frosch
To investigate the shear strength and behavior of concrete beams reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars, nine largescale reinforced concrete beams without transverse reinforcement were tested. Three types of FRP reinforcement (two types of glass FRP and one type of aramid FRP) and two types of steel reinforcement with varying yield strengths were used in the investigation. The nominal concrete strength was 5000 psi (34.5 MPa), and the longitudinal reinforcement ratio was varied from approximately 0.36 to 2%. The specimens were simply supported and loaded with one concentrated load at midspan. The specimens were analyzed using both the ACI Committee 440 recommended shear design procedures and the ACI 318-99 shear design provisions. These results were compared with the test results. For FRP-bar-reinforced beams, the ACI 440 design method resulted in very conservative shear strength estimates, whereas the ACI 318-99 method resulted in unconservative computations of shear strength.
Keywords: reinforced concrete; shear; stirrup; strength.

INTRODUCTION Corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete structures causes deterioration of concrete, resulting in costly maintenance and repairs. In parking garages and bridges, the corrosion process is aggravated by the use of deicing salts. Several techniques, including epoxy coating of reinforcing bars, cathodic protection, increased concrete cover thickness, and polymer concrete overlays have been used to fight against corrosion. None of these techniques, however, has proven to be cost-effective or long-term solutions. An alternative reinforcing material, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bar, is being considered as a solution to the corrosion problem. Due to their corrosion resistance, FRP bars have received considerable attention, especially from the transportation industry. Applications of FRP bars, however, are not only limited to cases where corrosion is of concern. They are also useful in structures requiring magnetic transparency and in members susceptible to chemical attack. Although there has been considerable research on the flexural behavior of FRP bar reinforced concrete members, research regarding their shear strength has not been as prolific. Because FRP and steel bars have different properties, including the modulus of elasticity E, surface characteristics, and bonding characteristics, the shear strength of concrete members reinforced with FRP bars longitudinally may differ from those of steel reinforced ones. In fact, in recent flexure tests conducted by Deitz 1 and Michaluk et al.,2 shear failures were reported for specimens reinforced longitudinally with FRP bars. Four mechanisms of shear transfer, which include the contributions from uncracked concrete, aggregate interlock, dowel action, and residual tensile stresses across the inclined crack, have been identified by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

445, Shear and Torsion.3 For equal amounts of tensile reinforcement, the lower modulus of elasticity (E) of FRP bars results in a lower longitudinal reinforcement stiffness than steel bars. In a beam reinforced with lower-stiffness bars (FRPs), flexural cracks will penetrate deeper into the section, and wider cracks will form when compared to a beam reinforced with an equal area of higher-stiffness bars (steel). Deeper flexural cracks decrease the depth of the compression zone, thereby reducing the contribution of the uncracked concrete to the shear strength. Wider cracks, on the other hand, may result in a reduction in the shear strength contributions from aggregate interlock as well as from residual tensile stresses. Finally, the lower modulus E of FRP bars coupled with increased crack widths may result in a reduction in dowel action. Based on tests conducted by Deitz1 and Michaluk et al.2 and the discussion above, the shear strength Vc of FRP-reinforced concrete beams may be considerably lower than 2 f c b w d , the commonly accepted lower-bound value for concrete contribution to shear strength of reinforced concrete members. Therefore, the shear strength of members longitudinally reinforced using FRP bars should be evaluated prior to acceptance of these new materials as primary reinforcement for structural concrete. In addition, considering that shear design methods described in most building codes are based on empirical formulas developed from tests of steel-reinforced concrete members, the applicability of these formulas on concrete members reinforced with FRP bars must be established. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Structural use of FRP reinforcement is expected to increase in the future. Because there are fundamental differences in the properties of steel and FRP reinforcement and due to the empirical nature of current shear design methods, investigations are required to determine if these methods are applicable to cases where the FRP reinforcement is used. The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of differences in the modulus of elasticity of FRP and steel reinforcing bars on the concrete contribution to shear strength Vc of slender reinforced concrete flexural members (a/d > 2.5) without transverse reinforcement, as well as to evaluate the applicability of current design methods for shear to members longitudinally reinforced with FRP bars.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-August 2002. MS No. 01-280 received August 21, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the May-June 2003 ACI Structural Journal if received by January 1, 2003.

427

ACI student member A. Koray Tureyen is a graduate research assistant in civil engineering at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. He received his BSE in civil engineering from the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. ACI member Robert J. Frosch is an assistant professor of civil engineering at Purdue University. He received his BSE from Tulane University, New Orleans, La., and his MSE and PhD from the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex. He is Secretary of ACI Committee 224, Cracking, and a member of ACI Committees 318-C, Safety, Serviceability, and Analysis; 408, Bond and Development of Reinforcement; and 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement.

Table 1Test variables

Series I.D. V-S-1 1 V-G1-1 V-G2-1 V-A-1 V-S-2 V-D-2 2 V-G1-2 V-G2-2 V-A-2 ,% 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.92 0.36 1.92 1.92 1.92 Er, ksi 29000 5880 5450 6830 29,000 29,000 5880 5450 6830

Table 2Mechanical properties of reinforcing bars

Bar type Steel Dywidag Glass 1 Glass 2 Aramid Er, ksi 29000 29000 5880 5450 6830 y, ksi 76 108 u , ksi 91 145 88 86 206

Fig. 1(a) test setup; and (b) cross-sectional details. MATERIALS Reinforcement FRP bars consisted of two different types of glass FRP bars with different surface textures: indented and sand-coated (G1) and ribbed (G2), and one type of aramid FRP bar. The two types of steel bars used were Grade 60 (414 MPa) reinforcing steel and high-yield-strength (156 ksi [1075 MPa]) Dywidag steel bars. Three types of FRP bars and two types of steel bars, all obtained from the same production lot and No. 5 (15.9 mm) in size, were used in the tests. Tensile tests on representative coupons of a given type of reinforcing bar were performed to determine their mechanical properties. The measured modulus of elasticity Er, yield strength y , and ultimate strength of each reinforcing bar is presented in Table 2. Concrete The beams were designed using a 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) nominal strength concrete that was obtained from a local ready-mix concrete supplier. The coarse aggregate consisted of river gravel with 3/4 in. (19 mm) maximum aggregate size. Additional water was added prior to casting to obtain a 6 in. (152 mm) slump. The actual slump measurement prior to casting was 6.5 in. (165 mm) for both Series 1 and 2. The batch weights adjusted for added water are provided in Table 3 for each series. CASTING, CURING, AND STORAGE Specimens in each series were cast at the same time from the same batch of concrete. The concrete was transported and placed using a bucket and an overhead crane. All specimens were placed in two lifts and consolidated using internal vibrators. Upon final set (approximately 2.5 h), the beams were covered with wet burlap and plastic sheets on ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

SPECIMEN DESIGN Nine large-scale reinforced concrete beams without transverse reinforcement were designed as part of two test series (Series 1 and Series 2). The main variables in the investigation were the reinforcement type and the longitudinal reinforcement ratio . The longitudinal reinforcement ratio was increased from approximately 1 to 2% in Series 1 and 2 specimens, respectively, to investigate the effect of varying longitudinal reinforcement ratio on Vc . In both test series, three specimens reinforced with three different FRP bars (two types of glass FRP and one type of aramid FRP) in addition to one reinforced with steel were tested. In Series 2, an additional specimen (V-D-2) reinforced with 0.36% high yield-strength steel bars was designed to investigate the effect of the axial stiffness of the reinforcing bars on Vc . The axial stiffness of the tensile reinforcement in Specimen V-D-2 was approximately the same as those of the glass FRP-reinforced specimens in Series 2. All specimens were 13 ft (3962 mm) long by 18 in. (457 mm) wide with an effective depth of 14-3/16 in. (360 mm). The total depth of Series 1 and Series 2 specimens were 16 in. (406 mm) for beams containing one layer of reinforcement and 16-13/16 in. (427 mm) for beams containing two layers of reinforcement. Cross-sectional details of the specimens are shown in Fig. 1(b). The a/d ratio was selected to be approximately 3.4 because it has been found that a/d ratios in this range result in lower bound values of shear strength.4 Ample anchorage length was provided beyond supports to eliminate bond failures prior to shear failure. The test variables of the specimens are summarized in Table 1. The specimens were identified by the descriptive label V (shear) followed by the reinforcement type (Steel, Glass 1, Glass 2, Aramid, Dywidag) followed by the series number. 428

Table 3Concrete batch weights per cubic yard

Material Cement, lb Fine aggregate, lb Coarse aggregate, lb Water, lb Air entrainer, oz Water reducer/retarder, oz Series 1 517 1485 1850 261 1 10 Series 2 515 1531 1851 270 1 10

top of the burlap to prevent moisture loss. The burlap was kept moist at all times during the curing period, which lasted 4 days. The formwork was stripped at the end of the fourth day, and the beams were stored in the laboratory until the day of testing. Test cylinders (6 x 12 in. [152 x 305 mm]) and flexure beams (6 x 6 x 30 in. [152 x 152 x 914 mm]) were cast at the same time as the beams to monitor the concrete strength in the actual beams. Consolidation, curing schedule, and storage of the test cylinders and flexure beams were the same as the test beams. TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURE Two different loading apparatuses were used in the tests: a 600 kip (2700 kN) universal testing machine in Series 1, and a 220 kip (980 kN) servo-loop hydraulic actuator in Series 2. The specimens were loaded with a concentrated force in the center of an 8 ft (2438 mm) simply supported shear span. The test setup is illustrated in Fig. 1(a). At the supports, the load was transferred through a 1.5 in. (38 mm) diameter roller and 18 x 6 x 1.25 in. (457 x 152 x 32 mm) steel bearing plates to the beam. At the loading point, only bearing-plates were used to transfer the load to the beam. All steel bearing-plates were attached to the beam using a highstrength plaster of Paris (hydrostone). Load was applied in increments of approximately 5 kips (22 kN). At each load interval, the cracks were marked, crack widths were measured, and the beam was photographed. The applied load was measured with a single 150 kip (667 kN) capacity load cell placed under the concentrated load in Series 1, and with two load cells placed under each support in Series 2. Deflections were measured using linear voltage displacement transducers (LVDT) along the length of the shear span as well as at the supports. In Series 2, strain in the reinforcement in the shear span was measured at 1 ft (305 mm) intervals including the supports. STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR The applied load versus the midspan deflection curves of Series 1 and 2 specimens are presented in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively. Specimen behavior can be defined by four distinct stages in the load-deflection plots. In Stage 1, prior to flexural cracking, the curves were approximately linear. In this stage, the stiffness of all specimens of the same depth was approximately the same, indicating that deflections prior to cracking were not significantly affected by the type of reinforcing bar used. Stage 2 was a transition stage, during which the beam transformed into a fully cracked state as new cracks formed and the stiffness gradually decreased. In Stage 3, the stiffness remained constant while previously formed cracks grew and new cracks closer to the supports formed. The load-deflection curve stiffness in Stage 3 was a function of the axial stiffness of the reinforcing bars, which is a function of the area and modulus of elasticity of tensile reinforcement. In Stage 4, the beam stiffness dropped, the drop being more ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Fig. 2(a) Load-deflection curves of Series 1 specimens; and (b) load-deflection curves of Series 2 specimens. pronounced for specimens with lower amounts of reinforcement (axial stiffness), at a load slightly below the failure load. The stiffness drop in Stage 4 indicated the imminence of diagonal tension failure. In general, the lower the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcing material, the lower the stiffness was in Stage 3. In Series 2 (Fig. 2(b)), the load-deflection curve stiffness in Stage 3 of the glass FRP-reinforced specimens (V-G1-2 and V-G2-2) and Specimen V-D-2, all of which had similar axial stiffnesses of longitudinal reinforcement, were approximately the same. In both Series 1 and 2, the ratio between the load-deflection curve stiffness of steel-reinforced and FRP-reinforced specimens with equal amounts of reinforcement in Stage 3 was approximately 4.0. Note that the beam stiffness ratio in this stage was approximately the same as the ratio of the modulus of elasticity of steel to that of FRP bars, the average of which was 4.8. In both test series, the steel-reinforced specimen reached the highest load, followed by the aramid FRP-reinforced specimen, and followed by either of the glass FRP-reinforced specimens. In both series, however, the deflection levels obtained at failure by the FRP-reinforced specimens were always larger than those of steel-reinforced specimens. The average deflection of FRP bar reinforced specimens at ultimate load was approximately 2.5 times the ultimate displacement reached by steel-reinforced specimens in both Series 1 and 2. The crack patterns for all specimens are illustrated in Fig. 3. The bold lines represent cracks that formed after failure and 429

Table 4Test results

I.D. V-S-1 V-G1-1 V-G2-1 V-A-1 V-S-2 V-D-2 V-G1-2 V-G2-2 V-A-2
*

fc , psi 5930 5760 5780 5850 6000 6330 6130 6170 6180

, % 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.92 0.36 1.92 1.92 1.92

eff , % 0.96 0.19 0.18 0.23 1.92 0.36 0.39 0.36 0.45

Vcr , kips Vult , kips 38.3 20.8 20.8 23.3 45.8 28.3 28.3 32.8 37.8 40.3 24.3 21.3 25.8 45.8 30.3 30.8 34.3 39.8

Failure mode* DT DT DT DT DT Y-DT DT DT DT

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

Fig. 3Specimen crack patterns. the lighter ones prior to failure. The number of main flexural cracks was similar in all specimens with the exception of Specimen V-G2-1. The shape of inclined cracks after failure was similar for all beams except the aramid FRP-reinforced Specimens V-A-1 and V-A-2. The diagonal tension crack in these specimens developed closer to the supports and had a longer horizontal projection than the other specimens within their respective series. The difference in the diagonal tension crack patterns of aramid FRP-bar-reinforced specimens from the other specimens may have resulted from their different bonding properties. The effect of bonding properties of the reinforcing bars on the shape and location of the failure surface and shear strength requires further investigation. At a given load, prior to formation of the inclined crack, the flexural cracks in the FRP-reinforced specimens penetrated deeper into the section than those in the companion steel specimens. Therefore, when a flexural crack started to incline towards the concentrated load, the depth of the concrete above the inclined portion of the crack was shallower in the FRP-bar-reinforced beams compared to the depth of those reinforced with steel containing an equal amount of reinforcement. Furthermore, the horizontal projection of the inclined portion of the flexural shear crack prior to failure was shorter for FRP bar reinforced specimens compared with those of steel reinforced specimens (Fig. 3). The differences in the size and shape of flexural and inclined cracks of FRP-bar-reinforced and steel-reinforced concrete specimens have two implications that are related to stirrup design. First, to calculate the stirrup contribution to the shear strength, the horizontal projection of the inclined crack is implicitly assumed by both the ACI 318-99 Code (Section 11.5.6)5 and ACI 440 recommendations (Section 9.2),6 to be equal to the effective depth d of the main tensile reinforcement. For the 430

specimens reinforced longitudinally with glass FRP bars, the horizontal projection of the inclined cracks was not equal to a distance d prior to failure (Fig. 3). Therefore, for glass FRP-bar-reinforced members, the assumption regarding the horizontal projection of the inclined cracks may not be conservative for calculating the stirrup contribution to shear strength. Second, both the ACI 318-99 code and the ACI 440 recommendations assume that there is adequate anchorage length to allow the development of the tensile strength of the stirrups. However, the depth of flexural cracks in the FRP reinforced specimens was so deep that when a flexural crack inclined towards the concentrated load, the depth of the compression zone above the inclined portion was very shallow. Therefore, if stirrups existed in the beam, the anchorage length may not have been adequate to develop their tensile strength. In light of these observations, it is recommended that the validity of using the same stirrup design procedure as provided in the ACI 318-99 code and ACI Committee 440 recommendations should be further investigated and justified for use with concrete beams longitudinally reinforced with FRP bars. SHEAR STRENGTH The shear at formation of the critical inclined crack Vcr, the ultimate shear strength Vu, the mode of failure, and the concrete strength at the time of testing fc for each specimen are provided in Table 4. The reported values for Vcr and Vult accounted for the self-weight of the beam calculated at a distance d away from the supports. Only diagonal tension (DT) failures were observed in the tests, with the exception of Specimen V-D-2, which experienced yielding under the concentrated load simultaneously as the diagonal tension failure occurred (Y-DT). In this investigation, the critical inclined crack was defined as the crack whose inclination has become more than 45 degrees to the vertical and was pointing towards the concentrated load, or one that has kicked back towards the level of reinforcement. In general, the difference between the critical inclined cracking load and the ultimate load was small. In most cases, these values were within 15% of each other. For a/d ratios greater than 2.5 (3.4 in this study) and low longitudinal reinforcement ratios, redistribution of internal stresses is limited or cannot take place.4 Therefore, for such members, the inclined cracking shears can be assumed to be the same as the ultimate shears for all practical purposes. The shear strength increased as the longitudinal reinforcement percentage was increased. The rate of increase, however, was variable from specimen to specimen. For example, the increase in strength of Series 1 and 2 specimens reinforced with Glass 1 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

bars was 24%, whereas it was 58% for specimens reinforced with Glass 2 bars. These percentages were adjusted assuming that the shear strength is proportional to the f c . From Series 1 to 2, the FRP-bar-reinforced specimens experienced an average increase in shear strength of 44%, whereas this increase was limited to only 13% for steel-reinforced specimens (V-S-1 and V-S-2). When Specimens V-D-2 and V-S-2 were compared, the increase in shear strength was 56% for an approximately five-fold increase in the longitudinal reinforcement ratio. Note that the shear strength of Specimen V-D-2 was approximately the same as Specimen V-G1-2. Specimen V-D-2 was designed to have approximately the same longitudinal reinforcement stiffness as Specimens V-G1-2 and V-G2-2. Therefore, the shear strength Vc appears to be a function of the stiffness of the longitudinal reinforcement used in tension. Had the reinforcement in Specimen V-D-2 not yielded prior to failure, it may have resisted a slightly higher shear, which would have provided even better agreement. This outcome suggests that the shear strength of two identical beams, one reinforced with steel and one with an FRP bar, will be similar if both are reinforced with the same effective reinforcement ratio eff . The effective reinforcement ratio is defined herein as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio multiplied by the ratio of modulus of elasticity of FRP bar to that of steel E rein eff = -----------E steel The value of eff for each specimen is provided in Table 4. The effective reinforcement ratio concept converts the area of the reinforcement used to an equivalent steel area, thereby allowing for comparisons between the shear strengths of concrete beams reinforced with various reinforcement materials. The underlying assumption is that the bond characteristics of the FRP bars are similar to that of steel bars. The shear strengths of all specimens normalized with respect to f c versus eff are shown in Figure 4. The increase in normalized shear strength appears to be a nonlinear function of eff. Shear strength increases at a faster rate for reinforcement ratios lower than 1% than for those higher than 1%. This observation is consistent with other shear tests on steel-reinforced concrete beams with low amounts of longitudinal reinforcement. Figure 5 was prepared to illustrate that the shear strengths of FRP-reinforced concrete beams in this investigation as well as those tested by Deitz1 follow the same trend as those of steel-reinforced concrete beams. The steel-reinforced concrete beam data in Fig. 5 were collected from a review of the literature.4,7-31 For the data plotted in Fig. 5, the range of concrete strengths varies from 880 to 10,000 psi (6 to 69 MPa), a/d ratios from 2.7 to 8.5, and total specimen depths from 5 to 48 in. (127 to 1219 mm). Clearly, the FRP-reinforced concrete data points fall into the same band of data points as steel reinforced ones when the area of FRP bars are converted to equivalent steel areas eff . This suggests that the concept of eff provides a link and allows for comparisons across the data from the shear tests of steel and FRP-bar-reinforced concrete beams. Furthermore, the fact that FRP and steel-reinforced concrete beams follow the same trend suggests that a single method, applicable regardless of reinforcement type, to calculate the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams without stirrups can be developed. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Fig. 4Normalized shear strength of specimens versus eff.

Fig. 5Normalized shear strength versus eff. ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS The shear strengths Vu of the specimens were analyzed using the ACI 318-99 5 and ACI 440.16 shear design provisions, and the results of the analysis were compared with the experimental values (Table 5). For ease of comparison, the analysis results are summarized in Fig. 6. The vertical axis in Fig. 6 is the ratio of experimental-to-calculated shear strength, while the horizontal axis denotes the specimens as well as the method of analysis used in calculating the shear strength. The ACI 318-99 shear design method is an empirical method that was based on test results of steel reinforced concrete beams listed in the report by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, Shear and Diagonal Tension.31 The ACI Building Code allows the use of two equations for computing the concrete contribution to shear strength Vc V c = 2 f c b w d (ACI 318-99, Eq. (11-3))

Vu d - b d (ACI 318-99, Eq. (11-5)) V c = 1.9 f c + 2500 w ------- Mu w where As = area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement, in.; bw = web width, in.; d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid; of longitudinal tension reinforcement; = specified compressive strength of concrete, psi; fc Mu = factored moment at section, in.-lb; Vu = factored shear force at section, in.-lb; and 431

Table 5Data analysis

Specimen I.D. V-S-1 V-G1-1 V-G2-1 V-A-1 V-S-2 V-D-2 V-G1-2 V-G2-2 V-A-2 Vult , kips 40.3 24.3 21.3 25.8 45.9 30.4 30.9 34.4 39.9 V ult -----------------b w d f c 2.05 1.26 1.10 1.32 2.32 1.50 1.54 1.71 1.99 ACI 318-99 Eq. (11-3), kip 39.3 38.8 38.8 39.1 39.6 40.6 40.1 40.1 40.2 1.03 0.63 0.55 0.66 1.16 0.75 0.77 0.86 0.99 ACI 318-99 Eq. (11-5), kip 39.2 38.6 38.7 38.9 41.2 39.3 41.7 41.7 41.8 1.03 0.63 0.55 0.66 1.11 0.77 0.74 0.82 0.95 ACI 440.1R23 Eq. (9.1), kip 27.2 5.5 5.1 6.4 56.7 9.8 11.5 10.6 13.3 1.49 4.40 4.17 4.03 0.81 3.09 2.69 3.24 3.00

Fig. 6Comparison of analyses. pw = As / bwd Both Eq. (11-3) and Eq. (11-5) were used to analyze the test specimens. Equation (11-3) is commonly used in design practice and regarded as a safe lower-bound value for the concrete contribution to shear strength Vc of steel-reinforced concrete members. Equation (11-5) was investigated because it includes the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, which was varied in this investigation. Because the building code only considers steel reinforcement, however, the ACI 318-99, Eq. (11-5) method does not consider the effect of changes in the modulus of elasticity of the tensile reinforcement. The results of the analysis using both ACI 318 methods are provided in Table 5 and illustrated graphically in Fig. 6. Note that both Eq. (11-3) and Eq. (11-5) calculate approximately the same shear strength for the specimens tested in this investigation. Therefore, the use of Eq. (11-5) does not provide an advantage over the use of Eq. (11-3). A review of the data used by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, Shear and Diagonal Tension, in developing the ACI 318-99 equations indicates that they were developed for steel-reinforced concrete beams with normal amounts of reinforcement >1%. There were only 5 beams with smaller than 1% and a/d greater than 2.5 in a database of 197 beams, which constitutes approximately 2.5% of the entire database. Therefore, the shear strengths of steel-reinforced Specimens V-S-1 (1%) and V-S-2 (2%) were calculated conservatively by both methods (Fig. 6). Note, however, that neither of the methods calculated the shear strength of Specimen V-D-2 (= 0.36%) conservatively. In addition, the calculated shear strengths of all FRPbar-reinforced specimens using both ACI 318 methods were unconservative. As indicated in Table 5, the average shear strength of members reinforced with a low axial stiffness tensile 432

reinforcement (specimens reinforced with FRPs and Specimen V-D-2) may be considerably lower than 2 f c . Overall, it can be seen that the ACI 318-99 methods produce improved results as the and E of tensile reinforcement increase. Based on the test results presented herein, the ACI 318-99 shear design methods should not be used for FRP-reinforced concrete members. Furthermore, the applicability of both ACI 318 Eq. (11-3) and (11-5) to steel reinforced specimens with low should be reevaluated. ACI Committee 4406 recommended shear design method was developed specifically for the calculation of the shear strength of concrete members reinforced with FRP bars. This method is a modified form of the ACI 318-99 method. Committee 440 explained the modification made on the ACI 318-99 Eq. (9-5) as a means to account for the expected decrease in the shear strength contributions from uncracked concrete, aggregate interlock, and dowel action resulting from the relatively low modulus of elasticity of FRP bars. To account for the axial stiffness of FRP reinforcement Af Ef as compared with that of steel reinforcement As Es , ACI Committee 440 recommends the following equation

f Ef -V V c, f = ---------s Es c
Assuming further that s can be taken as 0.375b, and considering typical steel yield strength of 60 ksi (414 MPa), the ACI Committee 440 recommended shear strength calculation method takes its final form as

f Ef V Vc V c, f = ----------------90 1 f c c

(ACI 440.1R-01, Eq. (9.1))

where = guaranteed modulus of elasticity of FRP defined as Ef mean modulus of a sample of test specimens minus three times standard deviation Ef = Ef,ave , psi; = specified compressive strength of concrete, psi; fc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete for Vc steel flexural reinforcement; Vc,f = nominal shear strength provided by concrete with FRP flexural reinforcement; 1 = factor taken as 0.85 for concrete strength fc up to and including 4000 psi. For concrete strength above 4000 psi, this factor is reduced at a rate of 0.05 per each 1000 psi of strength in excess of 4000 psi, but is not taken less than 0.65; and ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

area of FRP reinforcement divided by the member width and the effective depth of tensile reinforcement, Af / bd. ACI 440.1R-016 does not explicitly define which equation should be used in Eq. (9.1) for the calculation of the concrete contribution to shear strength Vc. In the analyses conducted herein, the value of Vc used in ACI Committee 440s Eq. (9.1) was that calculated from ACI 318-99s Eq. (11-3). As previously discussed, ACI 318 Eq. (11-3) and Eq. (11-5) provide approximately the same results for the specimens tested in this investigation. Shear strengths calculated according to ACI 440.1R-01s Eq. (9.1) were conservative for all FRP bar reinforced specimens in this investigation (Fig. 6). The average ratio of Vult /Vcalc was approximately 4.1 for 1% FRP-bar-reinforced specimens and 3.0 for 2% FRP-bar-reinforced specimens. Note that the ratio of Vult /Vcalc of ACI 440.1R-01s Eq. (9.1) decreases with increasing longitudinal reinforcement ratio regardless of the type of reinforcement used in the specimens (Fig. 6). The ACI 440.1R-01 recommended shear design method results in very conservative nominal shear strength (without strength-reduction factors) computations for FRPreinforced concrete members. Furthermore, the level of conservatism of the calculated shear strength does not remain constant for varying reinforcement ratios. Therefore, an improved method of shear strength calculation should be developed to calculate the shear strength contribution of the concrete Vc for members reinforced longitudinally with FRP bars. Such a method can be achieved by adopting the concept of eff illustrated in Fig. 5, which also indicates that it is possible to unify the computation of Vc for reinforced concrete members regardless of the type of flexural reinforcement used. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The experiments described in this paper indicate that flexural concrete members reinforced with FRP bars in the longitudinal direction can fail in shear at loads considerably lower than those reinforced by an equivalent area of steel bars. The reduction in shear strength was found to be a function of the axial stiffness of the main tensile reinforcement. Specimens V-G1-2, V-G2-2,and V-D-2, which were designed to have tensile reinforcement of approximately the same axial stiffness, exhibited similar shear strengths. Therefore, the shear strength of concrete specimens reinforced with tensile reinforcement of equal axial stiffness and similar bond characteristics should be approximately the same regardless of the reinforcement type (FRP or steel). Shear strengths as low as 1.1 f c b w d were obtained at a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of approximately 1% (Specimen V-G2-1). However, when the area of FRP bars was converted to equivalent steel bar areas using the concept of effective reinforcement ratio, the shear strength of the FRP-reinforced specimens in this investigation followed the same trend as the shear tests of steel-reinforced specimens obtained from the literature (Fig. 5). The fact that the shear strength Vc of FRP- and steel-reinforced concrete members follows the same trend suggests that it is possible to find a unified procedure to calculate the shear strength Vc, regardless of the type of main tensile reinforcement. One possible procedure for calculation of the shear strength Vc , until a more rational method becomes available can be obtained by using a lower-bound function as indicated in Fig. 5, where the concept of eff was used. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

The number of main flexural cracks and their spacings were similar for all beams with the exception of Specimen V-G2-1. However, the depth of flexural cracks, the size and horizontal projection of inclined cracks, and the depth of uncracked concrete above the inclined cracks prior to failure for FRP- and steel-reinforced specimens with the same reinforcement ratio were different. Due to these differences in the depth and physical shape of inclined cracks of steel and FRP-reinforced specimens, it is recommended that the stirrup effectiveness for concrete members reinforced longitudinally with FRP bars be studied in future investigations. Of the two shear design procedures for reinforced concrete members without transverse reinforcement evaluated (ACI 318-99, ACI 440.1R.01), neither provided satisfactory results for the FRP-reinforced concrete beams tested in this investigation. The findings can be summarized as follows: The ACI 318-99 method resulted in unconservative shear strength computations for FRP-bar-reinforced specimens and should not be used for this purpose; The shear strength of Specimen V-D-2 ( = 0.36%; 1.5 f c b w d ), calculated using the ACI 318-99 shear design method, was unconservative. Therefore, it is recommended that the ACI-318-99 shear design method for calculating the shear strength Vc of reinforced concrete members reinforced with low ( < 1%) should be reevaluated. The calculated shear strengths of FRP-bar-reinforced specimens using the ACI 440 method were very conservative. The ACI 440 shear design method should be re-examined to provide improved accuracy in the calculated concrete contribution to shear strength Vc, f of FRP-bar-reinforced concrete beams. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This investigation was conducted in the Karl H. Kettelhut Structural Engineering Laboratory at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., and sponsored by the Joint Transportation Research Program (Project SPR-2325), which is a partnership between the Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University. Thanks are extended to Hughes Brothers Inc., Marshall Industries Composites Inc., and Teijin Ltd. for providing the FRP bars used in this study. The authors would also like to thank Christopher P. Mosley, Roger D. Radabaugh, Katrina Durbin, Eric J. Tompos, Voraniti Chovichien, David Blackman, John Paul Smith, Santiago Pujol, Gerardo Aguilar, Turel Gur, and Harry Tidrick for their help during the experimental phase of this project.

CONVERSION FACTORS
1 in. 1 kip 1 ksi = 25.4 mm = 4.448 kN = 6.895 MPa

NOTATION
Erein Es Vcalc Vcr Vu eff u y = = = = = = = = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement modulus of elasticity of steel calculated shear strength inclined cracking shear strength shear strength effective reinforcement ratio strength of reinforcement yield strength of reinforcement

REFERENCES
1. Deitz, D. H., GFRP Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks, PhD dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky., Dec. 1998, 201 pp. 2. Michaluk, C. R.; Rizkalla, S. H.; Tadros, G.; and Benmokrane, B., Flexural Behavior of One-Way Slabs Reinforced by Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcements, ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 3, May-June 1998, pp. 353-365. 3. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Recent Approaches to Shear

433

Design of Structural Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 12, Dec. 1998, pp. 1375-1417. 4. Kani, M. W.; Huggins, M. W.; and Wittkopp, R. R., Kani on Shear in Reinforced Concrete, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1979, 225 pp. 5. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, 391 pp. 6. ACI Committee 440, Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-01), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2001, 41 pp. 7. Mattock, A. H., and Hawkins, N. M., Research on Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete, PCI Journal, V. 17, No. 2, Mar-Apr. 1972, pp. 55-75. 8. Taylor, H. P. J., Investigations of the Forces Carried Across Cracks in Reinforced Concrete Beams in Shear by Interlock of Aggregate, Technical Report 42.477, Cement and Concrete Association, London, England, 1970, 22 pp. 9. Taylor, H. P. J., Shear Strength of Large Beams, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 98, No. ST11, Nov. 1972, pp. 2473-2490. 10. Tompos, E. J., Influence of Beam Size and Stirrup Effectiveness on the Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams, MS thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., Dec. 2000, 89 pp. 11. Bresler, B., and Scordelis, A. C., Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 60, No. 1, Jan. 1963, pp. 51-72. 12. Mathey R. G., and Watstein, D., Shear Strength of Beams without Web Reinforcement Containing Deformed Bars of Different Yield Strengths, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 60, No. 2, Feb. 1963, pp. 183-207. 13. Morrow, J., and Viest, I. M., Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Frame Members without Web Reinforcement, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 28, No. 3, Mar. 1957, pp. 833-869. 14. Cossio, R. D., and Siess, C. P., Behavior and Strength in Shear of Beams and Frames Without Web Reinforcement, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 56, No. 2, Feb. 1960, pp. 695-735. 15. Van Den Berg, F. J., Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams without Web Reinforcement: Part 1Distribution of Stresses over Beam Cross Section; Part 2Factors Affecting Load at Diagonal Cracking; and Part 3Proposed Method for Calculation of Cracking Load, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. 10, Oct. 1962, pp. 1467-1477; V. 59, No. 11, Nov. 1962, pp. 1587-1600; V. 59, No. 12, Dec. 1962, pp. 1849-1862. 16. Mattock, A. H., Diagonal Tension Cracking in Concrete Beams with Axial Forces, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 95, No. ST9, Sept. 1969, pp. 1887-1900. 17. Krefeld, W. J., and Thurston, C. W., Studies of the Shear and Diagonal Tension Strength of Simply Supported Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No. 4, Apr. 1966, pp. 451-476.

18. Rajagopalan, K. S., and Ferguson, P. M., Exploratory Shear Tests Emphasizing Percentage of Longitudinal Steel, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 65, No. 8, Aug. 1968, pp 634-638. 19. Moody, K. G.; Viest, I. M.; Elstner, R. C.; and Hognestad, E., Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete BeamsParts 1 and 2, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 51, No. 4, Dec. 1954, pp. 317-332; No. 5, Jan. 1955, pp. 417-434. 20. Bower, J. E., and Viest, I. M., Shear Strength of Restrained Concrete Beams without Web Reinforcement, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 57, No. 1, July 1960, pp. 73-98. 21. Rodriguez, J. J.; Bianchini, A. C.; Viest, I. M.; and Kesler, C. E., Shear Strength of Two-Span Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 55, No. 4, Apr. 1959, pp. 1089-1130. 22. Placas, A., and Regan, P. E., Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 10, Oct. 1971, pp 763-773. 23. Chana, P. S., Investigation of the Mechanism of Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete Beams, Magazine of Concrete Research , V. 39, No. 141, Dec. 1987, pp. 196-204. 24. Ahmad, S. H.; Khaloo, A. R.; and Poveda, A., Shear Capacity of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 297-305. 25. Mphonde, A. G., and Frantz, G. C., Shear Tests of High- and LowStrength Concrete Beams without Stirrups, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No. 4, July-Aug. 1984, pp. 350-357. 26. Kim, W., and White, R. N., Shear Critical Cracking in Slender Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.Oct. 1999, pp. 757-765. 27. Laupa, A., Siess, C. P., and Newmark, N. M., Strength in Shear of Reinforced Concrete Beams, Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin No. 428, University of Illinois, 1953, 73 pp. 28. Collins, M. P., and Kuchma, D., How Safe Are Our Large, Lightly Reinforced Concrete Beams, Slabs, and Footings? ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug. 1999, pp. 482-490. 29. Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using High-Strength Concrete, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 290-296. 30. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., The Stutgart Shear Tests, Contributions to the Treatment of the Problems of Shear in Reinforced Concrete Construction, Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1964, Translation No. 111, 132 pp. 31. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, Shear and Diagonal Tension, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. 1, Jan. 1962, pp. 3-30; No. 2, Feb. 1962, pp. 277-333; and No. 3, Mar. 1962, pp. 332-395.

434

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002