CONCRETE COLUMNS REINFORCED WITH FRP BARS:

EXTENDING THE LIFE OF RC STRUCTURES

C C Choo, California State University, Fresno, USA
I E Harik*, University of Kentucky, USA
H Gesund, University of Kentucky, USA
34th Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 16 - 18 August 2009, Singapore

Article Online Id: 100034002

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://cipremier.com/100034002

Thisarticleisbroughttoyouwiththesupportof
SingaporeConcreteInstitute
www.scinst.org.sg

AllRightsreservedforCIPremierPTELTD
YouarenotAllowedtoredistributeorresalethearticleinanyformatwithoutwrittenapprovalof
CIPremierPTELTD
VisitOurWebsiteformoreinformation
www.cipremier.com

34th Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 16 18 August 2008, Singapore

CONCRETE COLUMNS REINFORCED WITH FRP BARS:

EXTENDING THE LIFE OF RC STRUCTURES
C C Choo, California State University, Fresno, USA
I E Harik*, University of Kentucky, USA
H Gesund, University of Kentucky, USA

Abstract
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites have been increasingly used in concrete
construction due to their resistance to corrosion and many other benefits, which
include extending the life of concrete structures. This paper focuses on the behavior
of concrete columns reinforced internally with FRP bars; specifically the interactive
behavior between the applied load and its eccentricity. The methodology is based
the ultimate strength approach, one that is similar to that for concrete columns
reinforced with steel bars, where stress equilibrium, strain compatibility, and material
constitutive law conditions, must be satisfied. The axial load-moment (P-M) strength
interaction relations of concrete columns reinforced internally with FRP are derived
and examined. The analytical results identify the possibility of premature
compression and/or brittle-tension failure occurring in columns in which it is possible
that a sudden and explosive rupture of FRP bars can occur. The study shows that
brittle-tension failure is more likely than premature compression failure, due to the
low ultimate tensile strain of FRP bars, which in many instances is much less than
that of conventional steel reinforcement. The analytical study also examines the
load-deflection characteristics of long, slender columns. As expected the strength
interaction of FRP or steel reinforced concrete slender columns depends more on
column length than on material differences between FRP and steel.
Keywords: concrete column, FRP, strength interaction, brittle-tension, premature-compression
1.

Introduction

Deterioration of steel in reinforced concrete structures is likely, particularly in certain applications.

This leads to subsequent loss of strength and serviceability. Consequently, the use of high-strength
non-corrosive reinforcement such as fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites would be an
alternative to steel. Presently, the common applications of FRP include repairing and strengthening
of existing structures and also the construction of new facilities where aggressive environments may
be encountered. Despite its higher material cost, the use of FRP in construction may pay dividends in
the long run; particularly from a maintenance and service life standpoint.
Considerable research efforts have contributed to the understanding of concrete members internally
reinforced with FRP composites; of particular interests are the flexural [1], [2], [3] and shear [4], [5]

behaviors of FRP reinforced concrete members, slabs [6], [7], and strengthening of seismically
deficient reinforced concrete columns [8], [9], [10]. There are, however, relatively few references for
concrete compression members internally reinforced with FRP:

Paramanantham [11] tested fourteen concrete beam-columns reinforced internally with Glass
FRP (GFRP) reinforcing bars. He reported that the glass fiber reinforcing bars were only
stressed to up to 20% to 30% of their ultimate strength in compression members, and up to
70% of their tensile strength in flexural specimens.
Kawaguchi [12] tested twelve concrete members reinforced with Aramid FRP reinforcing bars.
The members were subjected to eccentric applied tension or compression. He reported that
concrete columns reinforced with AFRP bars can be analyzed using the same procedure as
for steel reinforced concrete columns.
Mirmiran et al. [13] assumed a deflected shape of a half cosine wave to study slender
concrete columns reinforced with FRP bars. They proposed recommendations for the
maximum permissible slenderness ratio for columns in non-sway frames reinforced with FRP
bars of low stiffness as compared to steel. They also proposed design equations for use with
the moment magnification method.

At present, guidelines for the design and analysis of FRP reinforced concrete members in flexure and
shear can be found in ACI440.1R-06 [14]. The guide, however, excludes any provisions for FRP
reinforced concrete compression members. FRP reinforcing bars were in fact not recommended to
resist compression stresses for the following reasons:

Lower strength and stiffness in compression when compared with strength and stiffness in
tension. In flexural members, the compressive strength may not be of great concern as the
contribution of the bars is frequently small and negligible.
Compression properties of the FRP bars are difficult to predict from testing as issues related
to alignment and gripping are hard to overcome. Moreover, the lack of stability of individual
fibers in a bar complicates testing and can produce inaccurate measurements of compression
properties. While a test method for tensile properties of FRP bars has been established, test
methods for compression properties of FRP bars are not yet codified.

Similar to the tensile stress/strain relation, the compression stress/strain relation of short FRP
specimens can be characterized as linearly-elastic-until-failure (Fig. 1 [15]). The same study
concluded that the ultimate compression strength of the glass fiber reinforced polymer bars was
approximately 50 % of the ultimate tensile strength. The study also found that Youngs modulus in
compression was approximately the same as in tension. Compressive strengths of 55 %, 78 %, and
20 % of the tensile strength for GFRP, CFRP, and AFRP reinforcing bars, respectively, have also
been reported [16], [17].
Based on the stress-strain behavior of FRP bars in tension and in compression, it is possible to
examine the behavior of concrete columns reinforced internally with FRP bars. Of particular interest
is behavior which could give rise to two catastrophic failure mechanisms to be discussed in detail
below.
2.

Development of Strength (P-M) Interaction Diagram

The axial load-moment strength interaction diagram of concrete columns reinforced internally
with FRP bars can be derived based on an ultimate strength approach. This is consistent with the
method used for concrete columns reinforced with conventional steel reinforcing bars. Therefore,
assumptions pertaining to the analysis of steel reinforced concrete column strength interactions are
applicable:

Bernoulli beam theory applies, i.e., plane sections remain plane before and after bending.
Perfect bond is assumed between concrete and reinforcement. Hence, strain compatibility
requires that strains in concrete and reinforcement are directly proportional to distance from
the neutral axis.
The strength approach permits the outermost fiber of concrete in compression to reach a
predetermined ultimate strain value. In this study, the value specified in the ACI 318-08
specification [18] is used, which equals 0.003 mm/mm.



It is expected that once the concrete section is cracked, the concrete in the tension zone is
ineffective, and tension stresses are resisted solely by the reinforcement.
FRP bars are taken to be linearly-elastic until failure in either tension or compression.
Detailed properties of FRP bars selected for illustrative purposes will be defined later.

350
300

Stress (MPa)

250
200
150
100
50

Specimen 1 (Lu = 80 mm)

Specimen 2 (Lu = 200 mm)
Specimen 3 (Lu = 300 mm)

0
0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0.008

Strain

Fig. 1 Compression stress/strain relations of #15 (15 mm diameter) glass fiber reinforced polymer
(GFRP) reinforcing bars [16].
3.

Strength (P-M) Interaction Behavior and Failure Mechanism

Fig. 2 shows normalized strength interaction of concrete columns of rectangular section (b x h). Fig.
2.a is the strength interaction of a concrete column cross section reinforced with conventional steel
bars for comparison with the strength interaction of a concrete column cross section reinforced with
glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars in Fig. 2.b.
The representative material properties of GFRP used are included in the figure; these are typical and
consistent with the properties of commercially available GRP bars. The strength interaction curves
were derived in conformity with the ACI 318-08 Specification [18] limits for steel reinforcement (1%
8%).
The strength interaction diagrams lead to the following observations:

Based on ACI 318-08 [18] provisions, the strength interaction relations of steel reinforced
concrete columns exhibit a balance point, signifying a transition from compression-controlled
to tension-controlled failure (Fig. 2.a). The balance point of a strength interaction curve is
obtained by allowing the outermost concrete fibers to reach an ultimate strain in compression
(c = cu = 0.003) at the same load combination at which the outermost steel layer in tension
reaches yield strain (s = y). The three strength interaction curves of different reinforcement
ratios, 1%, 5%, and 8%, have balance points at approximately the same axial load (see Fig.
2.a). The steel stress-strain curve in this study was assumed to be linearly-elastic and
perfectly plastic.
Due to a lack of yielding and plasticity in the FRP bars, the strength interaction curves of the
columns reinforced with FRP bars do not exhibit a balance point. In all three strength
interaction curves (Fig. 2.b), the concrete strains in the outermost compression fiber are
allowed to reach cu. Therefore they can be classified as compression-controlled.
In Fig. 2.b, the strength interaction curve of the cross section reinforced with 1% of GFRP
shows tensile rupture of the GFRP bars in conjunction with concrete crushing (at cu = 0.003)
at a low axial load. The failure of the column is expected to be brittle and sudden due of the
brittleness of two materials: concrete and FRP. This failure mechanism is identified as Brittletension failure. In the strength approach, the strength interaction relations of a column cross
section are derived by permitting the outermost concrete fibers to reach an ultimate strain in

compression (c = cu = 0.003). The brittle-tension rupture of FRP bars, however, could occur
even without concrete reaching that strain.
While it is not illustrated in Fig. 2, compression rupture of FRP bars if the ultimate
compression strain of such bars is low in comparison with the permitted ultimate compression
strain in concrete could also occur prior to concrete reaching its maximum strain and
therefore strength. Such a failure mechanism is identified as premature compression failure
to indicate the rupture of FRP bars in compression prior to concrete crushing.

Bending axis

P u * (M Pa)
14

b
fc = 35 MPa
= 0.9 (assumed)
P 1
Pu * = u
b h f c'

12
=8%

10

Steel bars:
Es = 200 GPa
y = 0.21 %

Mu =
*

=5%

Balance points

GFRP bars:
Eft = 45 GPa
Efc = Eft
fut = 1.4 %
fuc = 0.5fut = 0.7 %

=8%
=5%

b h 2 f c'

=1%

=1%

Mu

P u * (M Pa)

Brittle-tension failure:
c = cu and ft = fut

2
0

M u * (M Pa)
0

M u * (MPa)

0
0

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2 Strength interaction relations of rectangular concrete columns reinforced with: (a) steel bars,
and (b) GFRP bars

4.

Effect of Rupture of FRP Bars

If not accounted for in design brittle-tension and premature compression failure modes could
potentially lead to sudden catastrophic failure. If one considers the use of FRP bars to reinforce
concrete columns, permitting the columns to fail by concrete crushing may be preferred as noted
previously [19], [20], [21], as this mode of failure would be more ductile in the presence of adequate
transverse reinforcement.
5.

Long, Slender Reinforced Concrete Columns with FRP Bars

The strength interaction behavior of long, slender reinforced concrete columns with FRP bars has
been studied previously by the authors [22] and a summary related to the analytical study and results
is provided below. Fig. 3 shows the normalized strength interactions of long, slender columns
reinforced with representative AFRP and CFRP bars [22]. These strength interactions are generated
considering slendernesses of KL/r = 0 to 150. As expected, an overall reduction in the strength
interaction relations of these slender columns was observed as the slenderness ratios increased.

 = 0.022
fc = 28 MPa
ffut = 2100 MPa
Eft = 87 GPa
Efc/Eft = 0.5

Pu*
1.2

kL/r = 0
kL/r = 30
kL/r = 50

h = 9

h = 12

kL/r = 70
0.8

kL/r = 100

b = 12

kL/r = 150

P*=

0.4

Mu *
0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

= 0.022

1.0

kL/r = 0

fc = 28 MPa
ffut = 2380 MPa
Eft = 147 GPa
Efc/Eft = 0.5

1.2

bh 2 f c'

* = h

(a) AFRP (typ.)

Pu*

M *=

P 1
bh f c'

kL/r = 30

kL/r = 50
kL/r = 70

0.8

kL/r = 100

0.6

kL/r = 150

0.4
0.2
0.0
0.00

P
Mu *
0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

(c)

(b) CFRP (typ.)

Fig. 3 Strength interaction of long, slender reinforced concrete columns with FRP bars [22].

5.1 Axial Load-Moment-Curvature Relationships of Columns

The first step requires the development of the axial load-moment-curvature relationships of a given
concrete column cross section. They must again satisfy stress equilibrium, strain compatibility, and
material constitutive laws, as described above. In the study [22], the axial load-moment-curvature
relationships of a given column cross section were obtained for different concrete compressive strain
values, c ( cu). The analysis was then carried out by incrementally increasing the concrete
compressive strain, c, to a predetermined ultimate strain, cu. This provided the non-linear momentcurvature behavior of the cross section, which is then used to determine the column stiffness. Fig. 4.b
shows a moment-curvature curve of a steel reinforced column cross section at a specified axial load
level. The figure shows the inherent non-linearity of materials considered.
While Fig. 4 shows strength interaction of a column cross section with conventional steel, the
moment-curvatures of column cross sections with FRP bars exhibit similar nonlinearity [22].
5.2 Slender Column Analysis
The effect of secondary moments caused by the coupling of axial load and lateral deflection was
studied. A numerical integration method [22] to obtain column deflections was implemented. The
result of the numerical integration method compared with the normalized interaction diagram obtained
by Pfrang and Siess [23] (see Fig. 5), was generally good.
6

Summary and Concluding Remarks

The objective of this study was to define the behavior and failure mechanism associated with concrete
columns reinforced with FRP bars. The methodology was based on an ultimate strength approach,
where force equilibrium, strain compatibility, and material constitutive laws, must be taken into

account. Representative FRP bars were used in defining strength (P-M) interactions of concrete
columns reinforced with such bars. Comparisons were made to include concrete columns reinforced
with conventional steel. In addition, a methodology was described for analyzing long, slender
concrete columns reinforced with FRP bars.

P*

Axial load-moment curve for curvature equal 0.00003

1.200

P*=

1.000
0.800

M *=

0.600
0.400
P* = 0.3

P 1
bh f c'
M

bh 2 f c'

* = h

0.200
0.000
0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

M*

0.000

0.004

0.008

Moment-curvature curve for P* of 0.3

0.012
*

Fig. 4 Typical axial load-moment-curvature relations of a reinforced concrete column with Grade 60
steel [22].

Based on the study, the following conclusions can be reached:

Unlike concrete columns reinforced with steel bars, the strength interactions of concrete
columns reinforced with FRP bars do not exhibit balance points within ACI 318-08
reinforcement limits [(min = 1%) (max = 8%)]. This is to be expected since FRP bars do
not yield.

As a consequence of the brittle nature of FRP bars, concrete columns reinforced with these
bars could potentially experience tensile rupture if the bar strain exceeds ultimate tensile
strain. This phenomenon referred to as brittle-tension failure is caused when the
outermost concrete fibers reach their limiting strain in compression (c = cu = 0.003) at the
same load combination as that at which the FRP bars reach an ultimate strain in tension (f =
fut).

The study concluded that concrete columns susceptible to such a failure mode tend to be
lightly reinforced with FRP bars. The brittle-tension mode must be avoided to prevent sudden
and catastrophic failure.

While not demonstrated in the paper, FRP bars in a concrete column could also rupture in
compression prior to the concrete reaching its ultimate compression strain. The phenomenon
is identified as premature compression failure mode. This mode of failure is less likely,
compared to brittle-tension failure, as the ultimate compression strain of FRP bars is typically
greater than the ultimate compression or failure strain of concrete (i.e., ACI 318-08, cu =
0.003 or 0.3%).

The behavior of long, slender concrete columns reinforced with FRP bars was introduced
briefly. A true strength interaction relationship of such columns can be derived which
includes of the secondary moment due to lateral deflections. As expected the strength
interaction of FRP and/or steel reinforced concrete slender columns depends more on column
slenderness than on material differences between FRP and steel.

While not discussed explicitly in this paper, the inclusion of long-term effects such as creep and
shrinkage of concrete, and creep rupture of FRP bars, may cause either brittle-tension and/or
premature compression failures to occur.
# 8 bars

Steel R/C

Pu*

h = 12

1.6
this investigation

1.4

b = 12

Pfrang & Siess (1964)

1.2

For e/h = 0.1

h/L = 0

Concrete and steel strengths:

fc = 3,000 psi (21 MPa), and
fy = 45,000 psi (315 MPa)

10

1.0

20

0.8
30

0.6

Pu

0.4

45

0.2

0.0

Mu *
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

(a)
Steel R/C

Pu*
1.6

Pu

this investigation

1.4

Pfrang & Siess (1964)

1.2

For e/h = 0.5

1.0
0.8
0.6

h/L = 0
10
20

0.4

30

0.2

45

0.0

Mu *
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

(b)

Fig. 5 Normalized axial load-moment interaction curves for slender concrete columns reinforced
with steel bars bent in single curvature [22], [23].

7.

References

[1]

Achintha, P.M.M. and Burgoyne, Moment-Curvature and Strain Energy of Beams with
External Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, Vol 106, No. 1,
January/February 2009.
Alagusundaramoorthy, P., Harik, I.E. and Choo, C.C., Flexural Behavior of R/C Beams
Strengthened with CFRP Sheets or Fabric, ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction,
Vol. 7, Issue 4. November 2003.
Alagusundaramoorthy, P., Harik, I.E., and Choo, C.C., Structural Behavior of FRP Composite
Bridge Deck Panels, ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 11, Issue 4, July/August
2006.
Bousselham, A. and Chaallal, O., Mechanisms of Shear Resistance of Concrete Beams
Strengthened in Shear with Externally Bonded FRP, ASCE Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 12, Issue 5. September/October 2008.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]
[12]

[13]

[14]
[15]

[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

Cao, S.Y., Chen, J.F., Teng, J.G., Hao, Z., and Chen, J., Debonding in RC Beams Shear
Strengthened with Complete FRP Wraps, ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol.
9, Issue 5. September/October 2005.
EI-Salakawy, E. and Benmokrane, B., Design and Testing of a Highway Concrete Bridge
Deck Reinforced with Glass and Carbon FRP Bars, ACI Special Publication, Vol. 215.
August 2003.
EI-Salakawy, E. and Benmokrane, B., Serviceability of Concrete Bridge Deck Slabs
Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Bars, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101,
No. 5. September 2004.
Wu, Y.F., Liu, T., and Wang, L.M., Experimental Investigation on Seismic Retrofitting of
Square RC Columns by Carbon FRP Sheet Confinement Combined with Transverse Short
Glass FRP Bars in Bored Holes, ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 12,
Issue 1. January/February 2008.
Lignola, G.P., Prota, A., Manfredi, G., and Cosen, E., Experimental Performance of RC
Hollow Columns Confined with CFRP, ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol.
11, Issue 1. January/February 2007.
Saatcioglu, M., Ozhakkaloglu, T., and Elnobelsy, G., Seismic Behavior and Design of
Reinforced Concrete Columns Confined with FRP Stay-in-Place Formwork, ACI Special
Publication, Vol. 257. October 2008.
Paramanantham, N.S., Investigation of the Behavior of Concrete Columns Reinforced with
Fiber Reinforced Plastic Rebars, M.S. Thesis, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX. 1993.
Kawaguchi, N., 1993, Ultimate Strength and Deformation Characteristics of Concrete
Members Reinforced with AFRP Rods under Combined Axial Tension or Compression and
Bending, ACI Special Publication - 138, American Concrete Institute, 1993.
Mirmiran, A., Yuan, W.Q., and Chen, X.B., Design for Slenderness in Concrete Columns
Internally Reinforced with Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bars, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98,
No. 1, January 2001.
ACI Committee 440, Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP
Bars (ACI 440.1R-06), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006.
Deitz, D.H, Harik, I.E., and Gesund, H., Physical Properties of Glass Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (GFRP) Rebars in Compression, ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction,
Vol. 7, No. 4, 2003.
Mallick, P.K., 1988, Fiber Reinforced Composites, Materials, Manufacturing, and Design,
Marcell Dekker, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1988.
Wu, W.P., Thermomechanical Properties of Fiber Reinforced Plastics (FRP) Bars, PhD
dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.Va., 1990.
ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-08) and
Commentary (318R-08), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. 2008.
Nanni, A., Flexural Behavior and Design of Reinforced Concrete Using FRP Rods, ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 119, No. 11. 1993.
GangaRao, H.V.S., and Vijay, P.V., 1997, Design of Concrete Members Reinforced with
GFRP Bars, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP)
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3), Japan Concrete Institute, Sapporo,
Japan, Vol. 1, 1997.
Theriault, M., and Benmokrane, B., Effects of FRP Reinforcement Ratio and Concrete
Strength on Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams, ASCE Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1998.
Choo, C.C., Harik, I.E., and Gesund, H., Strength of Rectangular Concrete Columns
Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 103, Issue 3.
May/June 2006.
Pfrang, E.O., and Siess, C.P., Behavior of Restrained Reinforced Concrete Columns, ASCE
Journal of Structural Division, V. 90, No. ST 5, Oct, 1964.