Tension Stiffening and Cracking Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Concrete

TENSION STIFFENING AND CRACKING BEHAVIOUR OF GFRP
REINFORCED CONCRETE
by
Zahra Kharal
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Masters of Applied Science
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
Copyright by Zahra Kharal (2014)
UMI Number: 1570558
All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 1570558
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Tension Stiffening and Cracking Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced

Concrete
Zahra Kharal
Masters of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
2014
ABSTRACT
Glass Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars offer a feasible alternative in situations where steel
is not the suitable reinforcement; namely locations that are sensitive to corrosion. Studying the response
of GFRP tension members is essential for understanding the tension stiffening behaviour and crack
development of GFRP-reinforced structural members. In this study 60 specimens, 52 GFRP reinforced
and 8 steel reinforced, were constructed and tested under direct tension in order to investigate the tension
stiffening and cracking behaviour. The effects of different variables such as the bar type, the bar
diameter, the reinforcement ratio and the concrete strength on tension stiffening and crack spacing were
studied. The current code provisions for tension stiffening, namely ACI-440 and CEB-FIP were evaluated
against the obtained test data. It was determined that the current code provisions significantly
overestimate tension stiffening in GFRP reinforced specimens. A new tension stiffening model was,
therefore, developed that provides better simulation of the test data. The CEB-FIP 1978 model for crack
spacing was also modified for GFRP reinforced members.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Without the help of various people this research program would not have been possible.
Firstly, I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor, Professor Shamim A. Sheikh. He provided
instruction, encouragement, and guidance throughout the duration of my experimental work as
well as during the writing of my thesis. This study would not have been successful without his
guidance and support.
Secondly, deepest gratitude is expressed to Professor Frank Vecchio for his knowledge,
kind assistance and valuable comments.
I would also like to express my gratitude to all of my colleagues at the University of
Toronto who were available for collaboration and guidance for the past two years. A special
thanks goes to all the research group members who helped during all phases of the project: David
Johnson, Arjang Tavassoli, Alireza Kharavan, Lisa Vint, Jingtao Liu and Doug Getzlaf, et al. for
all the kind assistance they provided. I would also like to thank the summer students Kanwar
Johal, Max Ho and Edvard Brun for their assistance during the experimental program.
This research program would not have possible without the help of the technical staff of
the structural laboratory. I am grateful to Renzo Basset, John MacDonald, Xiaming Sun,
Giovanni Buzzeo, Bryant Cook, Michel Fiss, Bob Manson and Alan McClenaghan for the help
they provided throughout the duration of the experimental program.
Lastly, and most importantly, I wish to thank my parents, Muhammad and Tasneem, and
my siblings for their support, patience and endless love.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................x
Notation ................................................................................................................................. xviii
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.1
Background ......................................................................................................................1
1.2
Objectives and Scope........................................................................................................2
1.3
Organization .....................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review
2.1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................5
2.2
Tension Stiffening Models for Steel Reinforced Concrete.................................................6
2.2.1
Vecchio and Collins (1986) .......................................................................................6
2.2.2
Collins and Mitchell (1987) .......................................................................................7
2.2.3
Izumo, Maekawa (1992)............................................................................................7
2.2.4
Bentz (2003)..............................................................................................................8
2.2.5
Field and Bischoff (2004) ..........................................................................................8
2.2.6
Masukawa (2012) .................................................................................................... 10
2.3
Crack Spacing Models for Steel Reinforced Concrete ..................................................... 11
2.3.1
CEB-FIP Model Code (1978) .................................................................................. 12
2.3.2
CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 ..................................................................................... 13
2.3.3
Gergely-Lutz Model ................................................................................................ 13
2.4
Models for Cracking in GFRP Reinforced Concrete ....................................................... 14
2.4.1
ACI 440.1 R-06 Model ............................................................................................ 14
2.4.2
Toutanji and Saafi Model 2000 ................................................................................ 15
2.5
Previous Experimental Studies on GFRP-Reinforced Concrete ....................................... 16
2.5.1
Bischoff and Paixao (2004) ..................................................................................... 16

iv
2.5.2
Sooriyaarachci, Pilakoutas and Byars (2007) ........................................................... 19
2.6
Summary of Previous Tests ............................................................................................ 22
2.7
Basis of Experimental Program ...................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program
24
3.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 24
3.2
Material Properties ......................................................................................................... 24
3.2.1
GFRP Reinforcement .............................................................................................. 25
3.2.2
Steel Reinforcement ................................................................................................ 28
3.2.3
Expansive Mortar .................................................................................................... 29
3.2.4
Concrete .................................................................................................................. 30
3.2.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 30
3.3
3.2.4.2
Cylinder Tests ..................................................................................................... 30
3.2.4.3
Dog-bone Tests ................................................................................................... 31
3.2.4.4
Modulus of Rupture Tests ................................................................................... 34
3.2.4.5
Shrinkage Tests ................................................................................................... 34
Direct Tension Specimens .............................................................................................. 36
3.3.1
Specimen Details ..................................................................................................... 36
3.3.2
Specimen Preparation and Instrumentation .............................................................. 39
3.3.3
Test Procedure......................................................................................................... 42
3.4
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 43
CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results
45
4.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 45
4.2
Concrete Test Results ..................................................................................................... 45
4.2.1
Concrete Cylinder Tests .......................................................................................... 45
4.2.2
Dog-bone Specimen Test Results ............................................................................ 47
4.2.3
MOR Test Results ................................................................................................... 50
4.2.4
Shrinkage Test Results ............................................................................................ 52
4.3
Reinforcement Test Results ............................................................................................ 54
4.3.1
GFRP Coupons........................................................................................................ 54
v
4.3.2
4.4
Steel Coupons.......................................................................................................... 57
Direct Tension Specimens Test Results .......................................................................... 58
4.4.1
General Behaviour of Direct Tension Specimen ...................................................... 58
4.4.2
Test Series M (Steel Reinforcement) ....................................................................... 61
4.4.3
Test Series A ........................................................................................................... 72
4.4.4
Test Series V ........................................................................................................... 93
4.4.5
Test Series C ......................................................................................................... 119
4.4.6
Summary and Discussion ...................................................................................... 138
CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion
140
5.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 140
5.2
Determination of Tension Stiffening Response ............................................................. 140
5.3
Calculation of Total Strain ............................................................................................ 141
5.4
End Effects ................................................................................................................... 144
5.5
Examination and Discussion of Tension Stiffening Behaviour ...................................... 147
5.5.1
Test Series A ......................................................................................................... 149
5.5.2
Test Series V ......................................................................................................... 155
5.5.3
Test Series C ......................................................................................................... 163
5.5.4
General Tension Stiffening Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Specimens ................. 169
5.6
Influence of Parameters on Tension Stiffening Response .............................................. 170
5.6.1
Steel vs GFRP ....................................................................................................... 170
5.6.2
Influence of Reinforcement Ratio .......................................................................... 172
5.6.3
Influence of Concrete Strength .............................................................................. 173
5.6.4
Influence of Bar Diameter ..................................................................................... 175
5.6.5
Influence of Bar Type ............................................................................................ 176
5.6.6
Summary ............................................................................................................... 179
5.7
Tension Stiffening Predictions by Codes ...................................................................... 180
5.7.1
Low reinforcement ratio ........................................................................................ 181
5.7.2
High reinforcement ratio ........................................................................................ 183
5.7.3
Concrete Strength .................................................................................................. 185
5.8
Tension Stiffening Prediction by Bischoff 2004 Model ................................................. 186

vi
5.9
Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis ............................................................................... 190
5.10
Proposed Tension Stiffening Model .............................................................................. 196
5.11
Effect of Different Variables on Average Crack Spacing .............................................. 203
5.11.1
Steel versus GFRP ................................................................................................. 203
5.11.2
Influence of Reinforcement Ratio .......................................................................... 205
5.11.3
Influence of Concrete Strength .............................................................................. 206
5.11.4
Influence of Bar Diameter ..................................................................................... 207
5.11.5
Influence of Bar Type ............................................................................................ 208
5.12
Proposed Mean Crack Spacing Model .......................................................................... 210
5.13
Comparison of Crack Spacing Models .......................................................................... 211
CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and Recommendations
215
6.1
General ......................................................................................................................... 215
6.2
Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 216
6.3
Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 217
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 218

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................... 223
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Summary of test specimens
17
Table 2-2: Details of test specimens
20
Table 2-3: Database of previous tests
22
Table 3-1: Comparison of typical properties of steel and GFRP bars
26
Table 3-2: Nominal areas of GFRP bars
26
Table 3-3: Coupon Details
28
Table 3-4: Area of steel rebars
29
Table 3-5: Specimens Details
38
Table 4-1: Summary of compression test results of concrete cylinders
47
Table 4-2: Summary of the tensile dog-bone tests
50
Table 4-3: Summary of concrete flexural tensile strength
52
Table 4-4: Shrinkage test results of 30 MPa Concrete
53
Table 4-5: Shrinkage test results of 85 MPa Concrete
53
Table 4-6: Summary of GFRP coupon tests
56
Table 4-7: Summary of steel coupon tests
57
Table 4-8: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series M specimens
61
Table 4-9: Concrete compression test results of concrete for Test Series M specimens
61
Table 4-10: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series M specimens
62
Table 4-11: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series M specimens
62
Table 4-12: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series M specimens
62
Table 4-13: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series A specimens
72
Table 4-14: Concrete compression test results of concrete for Test Series A specimens
72
viii
Table 4-15: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series A specimens
73
Table 4-16: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series A specimens
74
Table 4-17: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series A specimens
74
Table 4-18: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series V specimens
93
Table 4-19: Concrete compression test results of concrete for Test Series V specimens
94
Table 4-20: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series V specimens
94
Table 4-21: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series V specimens
95
Table 4-22: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series V specimens
96
Table 4-23: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series C specimens
119
Table 4-24: Concrete compression test results of concrete for Test Series C specimens
119
Table 4-25: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series C specimens
120
Table 4-26: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series C specimens
121
Table 4-27: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series C specimens
121
Table 5-1: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar A specimens
149
Table 5-2: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar B specimens
155
Table 5-3: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar C specimens
163
191
Table 5-5: Selected models for the analysis in VecTor2
191
Table 5-6: Mean and coefficient of variation comparison of sm,pred/sm,exp for
214
......stabilized mean crack spacing of different models for GFRP reinforced

members
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2-1: General specimen configuration
Fig. 2-2: Determining shrinkage effects from un-bonded concrete specimens
10
Fig. 2-3: Arrangement for measuring average strain of the specimens
19
Fig. 3-1: Stress vs strain response of steel (10M) and GFRP (12V) in direct tension
25
Fig. 3-2: Surface profile of GFRP bars
27
Fig. 3-3: Concrete cylinder set-up
31
Fig. 3-4: Dog-bone forms with steel end plates and threaded rods locked in place
32
Fig. 3-5: Placement of instrumentation on dog-bone specimens
33
Fig. 3-6: Set-up of clamping rigs on dog-bone specimens
33
Fig. 3-7: Set-up of modulus of rupture tests
34
Fig. 3-8: Set-up of a shrinkage prism in comparator
35
Fig. 3-9: Casting of specimens
36
Fig. 3-10: Test specimen details
37
Fig. 3-11: Painting of specimens after attaching mounts
40
Fig. 3-12: Instrumentation detail of GFRP direct tension specimens
40
Fig. 3-13: Instrumentation detail of steel direct tension specimens
41
Fig. 4-1: Concrete strength development curves
46
Fig. 4-2: Concrete stress-strain curves of cylinders at specified age
46
Fig. 4-3: Dog-bone tension test response curves
48
Fig. 4-4: Crack patterns of concrete tensile dog-bone test specimens
49
Fig. 4-5: Failure of modulus of rupture test specimens
51
Fig. 4-6: Ultimate rupture of a GFRP bar
55
x
Fig. 4-7: Stress-strain curves of steel
57
Fig. 4-8: General crack pattern of steel tension member
59
Fig. 4-9: General crack pattern of GFRP tension member
60
Fig. 4-10: Test Results of C30-10M-100(1)
64
65
66
67
68
69
Fig. 4-16: Crack pattern of specimens C30-10M-100
70
71
71
Fig. 4-19: Test Results of C30-12A-100(1)
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
xi
87
88
Fig. 4-32: Crack pattern of specimens C30-12A-100
89
90
90
91
92
Fig. 4-37: Test Results of C30-12V-100(1)
97
98
99
100
Fig. 4-41: Test Results of C30-16VS-100(1)
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
xii
113
Fig. 4-54: Crack pattern of specimens C30-12V-100
114
115
Fig. 4-56: Crack pattern of specimens C30-16VS-100
115
116
Fig. 4-58: Crack pattern of specimens C30-16VS-150
116
117
118
Fig. 4-61: Test Results of C30-12C-100(1)
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Fig. 4-73: Crack pattern of specimens C30-16C-100
135
136
137
xiii
137
Fig. 5-1: Effect of variation of gauge length and factor on tension stiffening
146
Fig. 5-2: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12A-100
151
152
153
154
155
Fig. 5-7: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12V-100
157
158
Fig. 5-9: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-16VS-100
159
160
161
162
163
Fig. 5-14: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-12C-100
164
165
166
166
167
168
Fig. 5-20: General behaviour of GFRP reinforced tension specimens
169
Fig. 5-21: Tension stiffening comparison of steel vs GFRP
171
Fig. 5-22: Reinforcement ratio effect on tension stiffening
173
xiv
Fig. 5-23: Concrete strength effect on tension stiffening at = 2.0%
175
Fig. 5-24: Bar diameter effect on tension stiffening
176
Fig. 5-25: Tension stiffening comparison of bar type
178
Fig. 5-26: ACI and CEB stress-strain prediction at reinforcement ratio of 1.3%
181
Fig. 5-27: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction at reinforcement
182
ratio of 1.3%
Fig. 5-28: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction at reinforcement
182
ratio of 2.0%ratio of 2.0%

Fig. 5-29: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar A at
183
reinforcement ratio of 3.0%

Fig. 5-30: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar V at
184
reinforcement ratio of 3.0%

Fig. 5-31: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar C
184
at reinforcement ratio of 3.0%

Fig. 5-32: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of 30MPa versus
185
85MPa concrete
Fig. 5-33: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model
187
for = 1.3%, 2% and 3%

188
for 85MPa concrete

Fig. 5-35: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model for Bar V
188
Fig. 5-36: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model for Bar C
189
Fig. 5-37: Mesh Layout in VecTor2
190
xv
Fig. 5-38: Effect of shrinkage in VecTor2
192
Fig. 5-39: VecTor2 results of steel tension stiffening specimens
193
Fig. 5-40: VecTor2 result of GFRP reinforced C30-12A-100 specimen
194
Fig. 5-41: Effect on VecTor2 result using various tension stiffening models
195
Fig. 5-42: Predicted member response for C30-12A-100 specimens
198
Fig. 5-43: Tension stiffening predicted response for Test Series A
199
Fig. 5-44: Tension stiffening predicted response for Test Series B
200
Fig. 5-45: Tension stiffening predicted response for Test Series C
201
Fig. 5-46: Tension stiffening predicted response for Test Series M
202
Fig. 5-47: Effect of GFRP reinforcement on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot 205
Fig. 5-48: Effect of reinforcement ratio on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot
206
Fig. 5-49: Effect of concrete strength on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot
207
Fig. 5-50: Effect of bar diameter on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot
208
Fig. 5-51: Effect of bar type on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot
209
Fig. 5-52: Effect of GFRP reinforced on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plot
213
xvi
NOTATION
Greek symbols
factor based on surface profile of the reinforcing bar; a factor taking into effect
the variation of cr within the end regions, 0 1
factor accounting for bond characteristics of reinforcement
factor accounting for sustained loading or repeated loadings
inclination of reinforcement in Bentz 2003 Model
Tension stiffening factor strain gradient factor in Gergely-Lutz crack width

formula
Specimen displacement
Displacement measured by LVDT's
Total reinforcing bar strain
bf
Reinforcement bar strain caused by force, net bar strain
Total concrete strain in the specimen
cr
Strain corresponding to concrete tensile cracking stress
cf
Net concrete tensile strain of the specimen
csh
Free shrinkage strain in concrete
Member strain
sh
Strain at onset of strain hardening of steel reinforcing bar
Concrete uniaxial cracking strain
Steel reinforcing bar strain at rupture
Strain at yield of bare bar
Inclination of principal strain direction

xvii
Reinforcing ratio of reinforcement
Ratio of the area of reinforcement effectively bonded to the concrete to the crosssectional
ct
Stress of concrete in tension
In ASTM C469 for the calculation of modulus of elasticity, stress corresponding

to a longitudinal strain 1 of -50 x 10-6
In ASTM C469 for the calculation of modulus of elasticity, stress corresponding

to 40% of the ultimate load
bk
Average bond stress lower bound value
Upper case symbols

A
The effective area of concrete in tension having the same centroid as that of the
reinforcing bars divided by the number of bars
Ab
Area of reinforcement
Ac
Effective area of concrete in tension
Ace
Cross-sectional area of the effective embedment zone of the concrete
As
Area of steel reinforcement
Eb
Modulus of elasticity of reinforcing bar
Ec
Modulus of elasticity of concrete
Ecs
Secant modulus of elasticity of concrete
Ect
Uncracked secant tensile modulus of elasticity of concrete
Es
Modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement

xviii
Esh
Modulus of elasticity at strain hardening of steel reinforcement
Total length of specimen
Lcr
Length between the two extreme cracks
Lg
Distance between the two most extreme cracks found on the

specimen; LVDT gauge length
Total tensile force carried the member
Pb
Average load carried by the reinforcing bar
Pc
Average load carried by the concrete
Pcr
Member cracking load
Lower Case Symbols

b
Width of the specimen
Clear concrete cover
Total depth of specimen
db
Longitudinal bar diameter
dbi
Rebar diameter
dc
The distance from the extreme tension fiber to the center of the closest bar
fc
Concrete compressive cylinder stress; average tensile strength of concrete
fc
Maximum compressive concrete cylinder stress
fcr
Concrete cracking strength
fct
Tensile strength of concrete
fs2
Reinforcement stress at a crack

xix
fscr
Rebar stress after crack
fsE
Reinforcement stress when slip is zero
ft
Uniaxial cracking stress of concrete
ft1
Tensile stress corresponding to 10 x 10-6 mm/mm strain
ft2
Tensile stress corresponding to 60% of the peak load
fu
Stress in steel reinforcing bar at rupture
fy
Yield stress of steel reinforcing bar
Total height of the specimen
h1
The distance from the tension steel to the neutral axis
h2
The distance from the extreme tension fibre to the neutral axis
k1
factor that takes into account bond properties of reinforcing bar
k2
factor that takes into account strain gradient
free shrinkage prism mass
Maximum spacing between longitudinal bars, should not be greater than 15d b
sm
Mean crack spacing
td
Direction coefficient
wm
Mean crack width
wmax
Maximum crack width
xx
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.1
Background
Today engineers are faced with a huge problem of aging infrastructure all over the world.
The replacement cost of bridges and highway overpasses in only Ontario is approximately fiftyseven billion dollars (MTO, 2009). One of the main reasons for the deterioration of the
reinforced concrete structures is the corrosion of the reinforcing steel. Many solutions have been
proposed to this continually growing problem, one of them being the use of Glass Fibre
Reinforced Polymers (GFRP) as reinforcement. GFRP reinforcement provides a distinct
advantage over steel reinforcement in many structural applications. It has a comparatively high
strength to weight ratio, is more durable, has lower maintenance costs and provides resistance
against salt water, environment and even most chemicals. Despite having several significant
advantages, GFRP presents its own challenges in terms of having very different behaviour from
steel.
GFRP bars have relatively low stiffness in comparison with steel which results in large
deflections. This often makes the limit of deflection or crack width at service loads the governing
criterion in design of members. As such, the prediction of deflections is much more important for
GFRP reinforced design than for steel reinforced design. It is therefore critical to accurately
predict the load-deflection behaviour.
The accuracy of the prediction of deflection depends upon the accuracy of the
determination of the effective moment of inertia which is in turn dependent upon two different
phenomena; the first one being the variation of stiffness along the member and the second one
being the effect of concrete tension stiffening. Hence in order to accurately predict deflection, the
phenomenon of tension stiffening in GFRP reinforced concrete structures must be understood
and taken into account in the analysis. Currently, several design recommendations and guidelines
for designing GFRP reinforced concrete members are available, including the EUROCRETE,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ACI 440-1R-06 and CSA S806-12. However, for the GFRP reinforced concrete beams tested by
(Gezlaf 2012), the difference between the measured and predicted deflections using these models
has been found to be considerable. The reason these equations have been found to be
unconservative is because the empirical tension stiffening considerations are not accurate.
Study of tension stiffening of GFRP reinforced concrete is imperative to incorporate its
effects in deflection and crack width calculations. This research aims to develop and propose an
accurate tension stiffening and crack spacing model for GFRP reinforced concrete.
1.2
Objectives and Scope

The main objective of this research is to investigate the tension stiffening and cracking
behaviour of GFRP reinforced tension members. A critical evaluation of the current code
equations for GFRP was also undertaken.
This investigation consists of two distinct phases, the experimental program and the
analytical program. For the experimental program, 60 reinforced tension members were
constructed and tested. The four variables investigated were the type of GFRP bar, the bar
diameter, the reinforcement ratio and the concrete strength. The bars made by three GFRP
manufacturers were considered: Hughes Brothers, Pultrall and Schck. Even though the purpose
of this investigation was to monitor the behaviour of the GFRP reinforced tension specimens, a
control series of 8 steel reinforced specimens was also carried out for comparison. The
specimens constructed were all 1000 mm long. The cross-section of the specimens was 100 mm
x 100 mm or 150 mm x 150 mm.
The analytical portion of this program consisted of determining the influence of the bar
type, bar diameter, reinforcement ratio and concrete strength on the tension stiffening and
cracking behaviour of concrete. Existing equations and models for GFRP-reinforced concrete
such as ACI 440-1R-06 and CEB-FIP were evaluated against the experimental results from this
study. It was concluded that the results from the available models did not accurately simulate the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
behaviour of the specimens. Thus new analytical models for tension stiffening and crack spacing
of GFRP reinforced specimens are proposed.
1.3
Organization
Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to the research being undertaken and the objective
and scope of the study.

Chapter 2 discusses the literature review of previous studies on tension stiffening
behaviour of steel and GFRP reinforced concrete. Previous relevant tests on GFRP- and steelreinforced concrete specimens have been summarized. The available constitutive models for
tension stiffening and crack spacing of GFRP and steel reinforced specimens have also been
discussed.
Chapter 3 gives the details of the experimental program. It also provides the objectives
and methodology of the test program. It includes all the relevant information required for a
thorough understanding of the program from its commencement to its end.
Chapter 4 presents the experimental results obtained from the test program. This chapter
has been divided into three parts. The first part presents the results from the tests on concrete
under compression, flexure and tension along with the shrinkage test results. The second part of
this chapter presents the results of the steel and GFRP coupon tests. The third part provides the
results obtained from GFRP- and steel-reinforced concrete specimens under direct tension.
Chapter 5 includes a detailed investigation of the tension stiffening and crack spacing
behaviour of the GFRP reinforced specimens. The influences of various parameters on tension
stiffening and crack spacing have been explored in detail. The predictions from the existing
tension stiffening models, CEB-FIP and ACI-440, are compared with the experimental results to
observe their validity. The program VecTor2 has been used to predict the response of the steelreinforced specimens. New tension stiffening and crack spacing models have been proposed for
GFRP- reinforced specimens and their accuracy checked against the experimental data.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 6 concludes with a summary of the results, conclusions and recommendation

for the future work.
Appendix gives the detailed stress-strain curves of all the GFRP bars in direct tension.
The results are presented in three parts; the first part provides the coupon results of Bar A, the
second part the results of Bar B and the last part the results of Bar C.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.1
Introduction
It is often assumed that when the strain caused by stress exceeds the cracking strain in
concrete, the concrete tensile stress will approach zero. With this assumption, the concrete is
completely neglected after cracking. Hence the load deformation response of the reinforcing bar
encased in concrete is assumed to be the same as that of a bare bar, after the concrete cracks. In
reality, this is not the case. When the concrete tensile stress in a member exceeds the tensile
strength, cracks develop. Simultaneously, the entire load that was previously carried by the
concrete before cracking is transferred to the reinforcement through the cracks. Then, the
reinforcing bars transfer the local tensile stresses to the concrete between the cracks through
bond stresses at the reinforcement concrete interface. Hence, the intact concrete between cracks
continues to carry tensile stresses even after the occurrence of cracking and offers stiffness. This
phenomenon that results from the formation of cracks and the bond between reinforcement and
concrete is termed as the tension stiffening effect. Tension Stiffening is a property neither of the
reinforcement nor of the concrete. It is a property that appears only in the composite material of
reinforced concrete, when both the constitutive materials are present.
This chapter examines the tension stiffening and crack spacing behaviour of reinforced
specimens in detail. Relevant available tests on GFRP- and steel-reinforced specimens to
determine tension stiffening behaviour have been summarized. The currently available
constitutive models for tension stiffening and crack spacing of GFRP and steel-reinforced
specimens have also been provided.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.2
Tension Stiffening Models for Steel Reinforced Concrete

Considerable experimental studies have been undertaken to study tension stiffening in
steel reinforced specimens over the years (e.g. Vecchio and Collins 1986, Bentz 2003, Bischoff
2004). Tension stiffening in steel reinforced members is most commonly taken into account by
either modifying the stress-strain response of the steel bar or by accounting for the tensile
contribution of concrete after cracking by using a descending branch. The former 'tension
stiffening strain' approach has been adopted by the CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1978, 1993) and
the latter 'load-sharing' approach was first considered nearly a century ago by Considere (1899).
In this thesis only the latter approach will be considered. Some of the more well-known models
developed for the latter approach have been summarized in this section.
2.2.1 Vecchio and Collins (1986)
Vecchio and Collins proposed a tension stiffening equation based on panel tests. This
model is suitable for small-scale structures with well-distributed reinforcement. It assumes linear
elastic behaviour up until cracking of concrete and accounts for the tensile contribution of
concrete after cracking by using a descending branch (Equation 2-1).
2-1
where,
fc = average tensile stress in concrete
fcr = concrete tensile cracking stress = 0.33(f'c)0.5
cf = net concrete tensile strain
1 = factor accounting for bond characteristics of reinforcement
= 1 (for deformed bars)
= 0.7 (for plain bars)
= 0 (for unbonded reinforcement)
2 = factor accounting for sustained loading or repeated loadings
= 1 (for short mono-tonic loads)
= 0.7 (for sustained repeated loads)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.2.2 Collins and Mitchell (1987)

Collins and Mitchell modified the original Vecchio and Collins (1986) equation for large
scale structures. This equation is also most suitable for well-distributed reinforcement.
2-2
where,
cf = concrete net strain
2 = factor accounting for sustained loading
2.2.3 Izumo, Maekawa (1992)

Izumo and Maekawa developed a model based on linear elastic behaviour up to cracking
of concrete and accounting for the post-cracking concrete tensile contribution by using a
descending branch represented by Equation 2-3.
2-3
where,
cr = strain corresponding to concrete tensile cracking stress
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.2.4 Bentz (2003)

The Vecchio-Collins (1986) and Collins-Mitchell (1987) models did not take into
account the percentage of reinforcement and the concrete-steel bond characteristics. Bentz took
these two factors into account. Bentz original model was modified derived specifically for the
non-linear finite element program VecTor2 by Vecchio and has been provided below.
2-4
where,
ct = 3.6tdm
td = direction coefficient = 1.0
1/m = i=1 4 i / [dbi cos (- i)]
i = reinforcement ratio
dbi = rebar diameter
i = inclination of reinforcement
i = inclination of principal strain direction
2 = factor accounting for sustained loading
2.2.5 Field and Bischoff (2004)

Fields and Bischoff carried out an experimental study testing large scale specimens under
uniaxial tension to determine if any relationship exists between concrete strength and postcracking behaviour. The specimens were reinforced with either 15M or 20M bars corresponding
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
to reinforcement ratios of 1.3% and 2.0%. The specimens were made of both normal and high
strength concrete with concrete strengths of 40 MPa and 80 MPa.
The authors determined that tension stiffening was independent of concrete strength and
reinforcement ratio as long as shrinkage was taken into account in the analysis of the member
response. Previously it had been noted that estimates of tension stiffening would be incorrect if
shrinkage was ignored (Bischoff 2001). The authors proposed a method to determine the
shrinkage strain in which uniaxial tension test was performed on companion specimens
containing an unbonded reinforcing bar. These reinforcing bars were unbounded over a central
length of 600mm (See Fig. 2-1).
Bonded over the complete length
(a)
Unbonded Central Length = 600mm
(b)
Fig. 2-1: General specimen configuration;
(a) Actual specimen, (b) Companion specimen
The response of the companion specimen follows that of the bare reinforcing bar after the
initial concrete crack. The initial shortening of the specimens caused by shrinkage of concrete
can then be determined by extrapolating the linear elastic portion of the bare curve to zero load
(refer to Fig. 2-2). This shrinkage determined from the companion unbonded specimen is then
used in the analysis of the member response of the actual specimen.
10
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 2-2: Determining shrinkage effects from un-bonded concrete specimen

(adapted from Bischoff, 2004)
The authors proposed Equation 2-5 to predict the average tensile response of concrete
after cracking.
2-5
where,
= tension stiffening factor = fc / fcr
m = member strain
cr = concrete cracking strain
The authors also determined that the strength of concrete did not affect crack spacing.
2.2.6 Masukawa (2012)

Masukawa carried out a test program to determine the effect of steel corrosion on tension
stiffening. A total of five specimens were tested in tension. Three specimens contained noncorroded deformed bars and two contained corroded deformed bars. All the specimens had a
diameter of 165 mm and were 1300 mm long with a single 25M bar in the centre. The bars
extended 255 mm at each end beyond the concrete to enable the specimens to be gripped in the
testing machine. A total of 64 strain gauges were installed internally along the length of the steel
11
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
bars using the method developed by Scott and Gill (1987). In this method, the steel bars are cut
longitudinally in half and the strain gauges are installed. The bars are then welded back together.
A reinforcement ratio of 2.34% and a concrete strength of 25 MPa were used. Elongations at the
concrete surface were measured by four LVDTs that were fixed on two aluminum frames that
had a gauge length of 1000 mm. Shrinkage was considered during the analyses.
The decrease in average concrete stress after the first cracking was expressed with a
modified form of the Vecchio-Collins (1986) equation. The modified equation suggested by
Masukawa has been given below:
2-6
where,
cr = strain corresponding to concrete cracking stress
= factor to be changed so as to fit the results
= tension stiffening factor
For the case of normal deformed bar, the author suggested the value of as 0.8 and as
1300. The author noticed that if the cracking stress of concrete is expressed as 0.33(f'c) 0.5 rather
than the actual cracking stress obtained from the tests, value becomes 1.0 for the normal
deformed bars. The results were also verified by the 2-D non-linear finite element program
VecTor2 (Vecchio 1990, Vecchio 2010).
2.3
Crack Spacing Models for Steel Reinforced Concrete

Considerable experimental studies have been undertaken over the years to study the crack
widths and crack spacing in steel reinforced specimens. Some of the more well-known models
are briefly described in this section. Crack spacing in steel reinforced concrete specimens can be
12
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
calculated by the following formula if the small elastic strain in the concrete between the cracks
is ignored:
2-7
where,
wm = mean crack width (mm)
cf = concrete net tensile strain
sm = mean crack spacing (mm)
The characteristic crack width, the crack width that can be exceeded by only 5% of the
cracks, can be estimated by either 1.7wm (Collins and Mitchell, 1997) or 1.5wm (Bischoff, 2001).
2.3.1 CEB-FIP Model Code (1978)

The CEB-FIP Model Code 1978 (CEB-FIP, 1978) proposed the following expression to
calculate the mean crack spacing in steel reinforced structures:
2-8
where,
c = clear concrete cover (mm)
s = maximum spacing between longitudinal bars, should not be greater than 15d b (mm)
k1 = factor that takes into account bond properties of reinforcing bar
= 0.4 for deformed bars
= 0.8 for plain bars
k2 = factor that takes into account strain gradient
= 0.25 (1 +2) / 21 ,
1 and 2 correspond to the largest and smallest concrete tensile

strain
db = longitudinal bar diameter (mm)

e = ratio of the area of reinforcement effectively bonded to the concrete to the cross-sectional
13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
area of the effective embedment zone of the concrete

= As / Ace
2.3.2 CEB-FIP Model Code 1990

Two mean crack spacing equations are proposed by the CEB-FIP 1990 Model Code
(CEB-FIP, 1990). The first equation proposed for unstable cracking phase is:
2-9
where,
fs2 = reinforcement stress at a crack (MPa)
fsE = reinforcement stress when slip is zero (MPa)
bk = average bond stress lower bound value (MPa)
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement (MPa)
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete (MPa)
The second equation (2-10) was proposed for the stabilized cracking phase.
2-10
2.3.3 Gergely-Lutz Model

The ACI 318 Code (ACI Committee 318, 1989) for crack control is based on the
Gergely-Lutz 1968 (Gergely and Lutz, 1968) expression. This approach uses an empirical
equation to directly calculate the maximum crack widths. The maximum width in this equation is
14
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
related to the concrete cover, steel stress at a crack and the area of concrete around the
reinforcing bar.
2-11
where,
wmax
= maximum crack width (mm)
scr
= the strain at the crack location in the reinforcing bar
dc
= the distance from the extreme tension fiber to the center of the closest bar (mm)
= the effective area of concrete in tension having the same centroid as that of the
reinforcing bars divided by the number of bars (mm2)
= strain gradient factor

= for uniform strains = 1.0
= for varying strains = h2/h1
where,
h1 = the distance from the tension steel to the neutral axis
h2 = is the distance from the extreme tension fibre to the neutral axis
2.4
Models for Cracking in GFRP Reinforced Concrete

The crack width equations proposed for steel-reinforced specimens have been modified
by various researchers for GFRP-reinforced specimens. In this section, the more commonly
known maximum crack width models have been summarized.
2.4.1 ACI 440.1 R-06 Model

The ACI 440.1 R-06 code proposes the following equation for the calculation of
maximum crack width at any load for GFRP reinforced specimens:
2-12
where,
wmax
15
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
dc
= spacing between longitudinal FRP bars (mm)
fb
= longitudinal stress of FRP reinforcement (MPa)
Eb
= modulus of elasticity of FRP bars (MPa)

kb
= FRP bond factor (taken as 1.10)

The factor kb is an empirically derived bond factor that accounts for the difference
between the steel and GFRP bond. A superior bond to steel is indicated by a kb factor of less than
1.0 and a weaker bond by a factor greater than 1.0. ACI 440.1 R-06 specifies the factor kb within
the range of 0.60 to 1.72.
2.4.2 Toutanji and Saafi Model 2000

Toutanji and Saafi (2000) proposed the following modified equation of the Gergely-Lutz
equation for predicting the maximum crack width in GFRP reinforced concrete:
2-14
where,
wmax
dc
fb
= longitudinal stress of FRP reinforcement (MPa)
Eb
= modulus of elasticity of FRP bars (MPa)

= ratio of the area of FRP reinforcement effectively bonded to the concrete to the crosssectional area of the effective embedment zone of the concrete
16
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.5
Previous Experimental Studies on GFRP-Reinforced Concrete

A limited number of experimental studies have been previously conducted on GFRP
reinforced specimens in direct tension. It is to be noted that direct tension tests are essential for
the understanding of the behaviour of GFRP-RC in tension, since they allow for the study of
crack development and tension stiffening behaviour.
The experimental programs of Bischoff and Paixao (2004) and Sooriyaarachchi (2007)
are presented here in detail since they are the most relevant. The number of specimens tested in
both these studies was quite limited. In the former study no cracking data was reported at all by
the authors and in the later study only the final mean stabilized cracking data was reported.
2.5.1 Bischoff and Paixao (2004)

Bischoff and Paixao carried out a test program to understand the tension stiffening
behaviour in GFRP reinforced concrete specimens. The authors tested a total of eight specimens,
six GFRP reinforced and two steel reinforced, in direct tension. All the specimens consisted of a
single rebar encased in a concrete prism of 100 mm by 100 mm in cross section. The length of all
the specimens was 1100 mm and a sufficient length of GFRP bar extended from each end to
apply load. This was done by the attachment of couplers at the bar ends which facilitated the
gripping during testing. The member response was compared for three bar sizes of GFRP C-bar
from Marshall Industries (Bar Nos. 4 (Area = 126.7 mm2), 5 (Area = 197.9 mm2) and 6 (Area =
285.0 mm2)). The corresponding reinforcement ratios were 1.3%, 2.0% and 2.9%. The
compressive strength of concrete was measured by using concrete cylinders. The tensile strength
was measured using split cylinder tests. The authors also took into account the effect of
shrinkage and measured it with the help of unbounded specimens over a central length of 600
mm. A summary of the geometric and material properties of the test specimens is presented in
Table 2-1. The load was applied by pulling the ends of both couplers. Member deformation was
measured over a gauge length of 900 mm. Two displacement transducers were used to measure
the member deformation and they were placed on opposite sides of the specimens. Crack widths
17
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
were measured intermittently on each side of the cross section using a crack width comparison
gauge. However, the authors did not report the crack data.
Table 2-1: Summary of test specimens
Specimen
Length
Width
Height
f'c
Ef
(MPa)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(%)
(MPa)
(MPa)
GFRP No.4
GFRP No.5
GFRP No.6
1100
1100
1100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1.3
2.0
2.9
48.8
48.8
48.8
62260
58090
61740
The data was reported in the form of tension stiffening factor, (Equation 2-14). This
factor is a ratio between the average tensile stress carried by the concrete and the tensile cracking
stress of concrete.
2-14
where,
fc = average tensile stress in cracked concrete
fcr = tensile cracking stress of concrete = 0.37(fc)0.5
The authors determined that GFRP reinforced concrete exhibits greater tension stiffening
because of its lower relative stiffness in comparison with steel reinforced concrete. Bischoff and
Paixo also made the observation that in case of GFRP reinforced concrete transverse cracking
stabilizes at much higher axial strain values. They also observed longitudinal splitting cracks
before the stabilization of transverse cracks. Also, it was observed that the crack widths in
concrete reinforced with GFRP bars were larger. The authors reasoned that this was because of
the lower bar stiffness of GFRP bars in combination with increased crack spacing during the
crack development stage. The results were compared with the predicted member response based
on the 1978 CEB-FIP model code approach and ACI method. The comparison showed that both
methods are valid only for a limited range of reinforcement ratios.
18
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bischoff and Paixao proposed a new and more accurate equation for tension stiffening.
The authors took tension stiffening of cracked reinforced concrete into account using an average
stress-strain response with a descending branch to model the concrete in tension. They used a
tension stiffening factor, , to characterize this tensile property using an empirical relationship
which was related to the stiffness of the reinforcing bar. This factor was found to be independent
of both concrete strength and reinforcing ratio. They based the equation on the observation that
the fracture behaviour of plain concrete at a discrete crack is characterized by strain softening
and has little influence on the tension stiffening response. Hence, they normalized the postcracking strain of the GFRP members relative to the stiffness of the steel bar. Based on this
reasoning, they determined that the tension stiffening curve can be approximated with the
following general expression:
2-15
where,
Eb = modulus of elasticity of reinforcing bars (GPa)
m = member strain
In equation 2-15 only one type of reinforcement can be used to determine factor . The
authors proposed equation 2-16 for cases where more than one type of bar is used to reinforce
the concrete (e.g. steel and GFRP).
2-16
In this approach, shrinkage was incorporated into the compatibility part of an analysis by
including shrinkage strains as part of the total concrete strain (Collins and Mitchell 1991;
Bischoff 2001). The authors only reported the final stabilized crack spacing. They determined
that the final crack spacing for GFRP reinforced specimens is larger than that for steel reinforced
specimens but the difference between the final mean stabilized cracking was quite small. For
19
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
15M steel reinforced specimens, the authors obtained a final crack spacing of 139 mm. The
GFRP reinforced concrete members exhibited a slightly larger average crack spacing of 140 mm
when the reinforcement ratio was the same. The final mean stabilized crack spacing for the
GFRP reinforced specimens was in the range of 133 mm to 144 mm.
2.5.2 Sooriyaarachci, Pilakoutas and Byars (2007)

Sooriyaarachci, Pilakoutas and Byars undertook a more detailed experimental study into
the structural response of GFRP-RC tension members. They investigated the influence of
concrete strength, reinforcement ratio and bar diameter on tension stiffening. All the specimens
constructed had square cross-sections with dimensions of 100, 150 or 200 mm. Two concrete
grades and two GFRP bar diameters were used. The authors did not measure shrinkage during
the experiments. The ends of GFRP bars were bonded in hollow threaded steel bars in order to
avoid crushing at the pull-ends. Concrete strain was measured using three LVDT's equally
spaced at 120 degrees around the centre line of the concrete specimen. The LVDTs were
attached to one end of the concrete specimen and connected to fixed points of the other end using
a special light weight wire. A collar, attached to the bar, that had three small LVDT's equally
spaced at 120 degrees was used to measure bond slip (See Fig. 2-3).A de-bonded length of 50
mm was maintained on each end of all tensile specimens in order to avoid local concrete tensile
failure where the LVDT's were placed. Table 2-2 gives the detail of the test specimens, material
properties of concrete and the GFRP bars used.
Fig. 2-3: Arrangement for measuring average strain of the specimen (Adapted from
Sooriyaarachci, 2007)
20
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 2-2: Details of test specimens

Specimen Name
Length
Width
Height
f'c
Ef
(MPa)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(%)
(MPa)
(MPa)
C50/13/100
C50/13/150
C50/13/200
C90/13/100
C90/13/150
C50/19/150
C50/19/200
C90/19/150
C90/19/200
C50/19/200N
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
100
150
200
100
150
150
200
150
200
200
100
150
200
100
150
150
200
150
200
200
1.26
0.56
0.32
1.26
0.56
1.27
0.72
1.27
0.72
0.72
52
52
52
91
91
52
52
91
91
52
42900
42900
42900
42900
42900
41900
41900
41900
41900
41900
The authors concluded that there was a decrease in the tension stiffening behaviour with
an increase in reinforcement ratio. But there was an increase in tension stiffening with an
increase in concrete strength. However, according to the results there was no appreciable change
in tension stiffening with change in bar diameter if reinforcement ratio was kept constant. The
limitations of the current models, ACI 440 (2003) and CEB-FIP model (CEB-FIP, 1978), and
issues related to their modification were also discussed. The authors determined that both the
models overestimated the tension stiffening effect, particularly at low reinforcement ratios.
However, the CEB model was deemed to better approximate the experimental results in
comparison with the ACI model.
The CEB model (CEB-FIP, 1978) introduces a method of calculating the average strain
of a member after concrete cracking for steel reinforced members. The CEB model, shown in
equation 2-17, considers a decreasing trend for tension stiffening with increasing strain after
cracking.
2-17
where,
cf = average strain of reinforced specimen
21
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
f = strain of FRP reinforcement

ff = stress in reinforcement (MPa)
fscr = rebar stress after crack (MPa)
K = bond factor
2-18
where,
f't = tensile strength of concrete = 0.6(fc)0.5
= reinforcement ratio
Pcr = axial load at which cracking occurs (N)
Af = area of FRP reinforcement (mm2)
f = E f / E c
The authors modified equation 2-17 for GFRP-reinforced specimens by proposing the
factor 'K' that accounts for the GFRP bond to be taken as 0.5. The modified equation is given
below:
2-19
where,
cf = Average strain of reinforced specimen
f = Strain of frp reinforcement
fscr = Rebar stress after crack (MPa)
K = GFRP bond factor
22
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.6
Summary of Previous Tests

Before the finalization of the test program, a data-base was established summarizing the
existing reported work on GFRP tension stiffening. This resulted in a total of thirteen specimens
obtained from the two studies, with the specific goal of investigating tension stiffening behaviour
of GFRP reinforced concrete. The database is presented in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3: Database of previous tests
Author
Year
Bischoff and Paixo
2004
Sooriyaarachci,
Pilakoutas and
Byars
2007
2.7
Specimen Name
Length
Width
Height
f'c
Ef
(MPa)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(%)
(MPa)
(MPa)
GFRP No.4
GFRP No.5
GFRP No.6
C50/13/100
C50/13/150
C50/13/200
C90/13/100
C90/13/150
C50/19/150
C50/19/200
C90/19/150
C90/19/200
C50/19/200N
1100
1100
1100
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
100
100
100
100
150
200
100
150
150
200
150
200
200
100
100
100
100
150
200
100
150
150
200
150
200
200
1.3
2.0
2.9
1.26
0.56
0.32
1.26
0.56
1.27
0.72
1.27
0.72
0.72
48.8
48.8
48.8
52
52
52
91
91
52
52
91
91
52
62260
58090
61740
42900
42900
42900
42900
42900
41900
41900
41900
41900
41900
Limitations of Available Work and Basis of Current Experimental Program

Due to a lack of accurate models for tension stiffening and crack spacing, there is some
difficulty in modeling and predicting the behaviour of GFRP-reinforced concrete, particularly in

tension. The limited available existing tension stiffening models and crack spacing formulations
show large discrepancy and limited accuracy compared with the experimental results. One of the
main reasons for this is the lack of applicable and reasonable test data. Among the few papers on
the subject, only one reference reported the measurement of cracks.
23
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A testing program was thus planned and carried out to expand the experimental database
of GFRP-reinforced concrete specimens under direct tension. A total of 60 specimens were
tested in this program, 52 of which were reinforced with GFRP and 8 with steel. This extensive
data should provide an adequate basis for the development of new tension stiffening and crack
spacing models which should prove to be significantly more accurate than those available in the
current literature.
24
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.1
Introduction
A study was carried out to investigate tension stiffening and cracking behaviour of GFRP
reinforced specimens in direct tension and to compare their behaviour with that of steel
reinforced specimens. To accomplish this goal efficiently an extensive database was required;
hence an experimental program consisting of sixty direct tension specimens was undertaken. The
specimens were reinforced with a single bar of either GFRP or steel. The variables in this
program were the bar type, bar diameter, reinforcement ratio and concrete strength. The
specimens were designed in a manner that allowed two or more specimens to be compared in
order to investigate one variable among them. For each variable a number of such comparisons
could be made. The complete experimental program was carried out in the Structural
Laboratories at the University of Toronto. All the tests were performed over the duration of 6
months from September 2012 to February 2013.
This chapter provides the detailed objectives and methodology of the test program. It
includes all the relevant information required for a thorough understanding of the program from
its commencement to its end. The results of the experimental program are provided in Chapter 4.
3.2
Material Properties
The four main materials that were used in the test program consisted of GFRP
reinforcement, steel reinforcement, expansive mortar and concrete. The details of the materials
and their relevant properties are provided in this section. It should be noted that the results
obtained from various material tests have been given in Chapter 4. This chapter only describes
the procedures undertaken to perform the tests.
25
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.2.1 GFRP Reinforcement

GFRP reinforcement is categorized in the class of fibre composite materials. Glass Fibre
Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) is one of the more known and commonly used composite. The
GFRP reinforcing bars consist of fibres that are oriented in the direction of load. These fibres are
bonded in a resin matrix. The strength and stiffness are provided by the fibres and the
distribution of load and the protection of fibres, if provided, by the resin matrix. The production
process results in complete impregnation of the glass fibres with resin.
GFRP bars are categorized as a brittle material. It is this brittle behaviour that makes the
behaviour of GFRP reinforced concrete members considerably different from steel reinforced
members. Typical stress-strain curves for steel and GFRP having approximately the same area
can be seen in Figure 3-1. GFRP bar behaviour is linearly elastic up till fracture and shows
comparatively low modulus of elasticity. The stiffness of the GFRP bars is one-third to onequarter of steel stiffness. The maximum elastic strain of GFRP bars is approximately ten times
that of steel and the ultimate strength of GFRP is in excess of three times that of steel
reinforcement. Table 3-1 shows a comparison of typical properties of both materials.
1600
1400
Steel
Stress (Mpa)
1200
GFRP
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
Strain (mm/mm)
Fig. 3-1: Stress vs. strain response of steel (10M) and GFRP (12V) in direct tension
26
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 3-1: Comparison of typical properties of steel and GFRP bars

Properties
Steel bar
GFRP
Ultimate Strength (MPa)

Yield Strain
Ultimate Strain
Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)
Density (g/cm3)
Bond Strength (N/mm2)
400
2 x 10-3
~150 x 10-3
60
7.85
~2.3-3.0
~1200
~20 x 10-3
~20 x 10-3
<0.5
~2.2
~2.0-2.5
Bars from three GFRP manufacturers were used in this test program: Hughes Bros.,
Pultrall and Schck. In this thesis, from this point onwards they will be referred to as 'A', 'V' and
'C', respectively. Bar type V can further be classified into three types: LM, Standard and HM.
LM bars have a relatively low modulus of elasticity in comparison with the standard bar V and
the HM bars have a significantly higher modulus of elasticity in comparison with the standard
bar V. In this test program two types of Bar V, Standard and HM, were used. In this thesis,
herein they will be referred to as 'V' for HM and 'VS' for standard. In case of Bar A and V, bar
sizes #4, #5 and #6 (designations in Imperial units) and for Bar C sizes #12, #16 and #20
(designations in SI units) were used. From this point onwards, the bar sizes will be referred to as
13 (for #4 and #12), 16 (for #5 and #16) and 19 (for #6 and #20) for the sake of convenience.
The nominal areas of these bars have been provided in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Nominal areas of GFRP bars
Areas (mm2)
Bar No.
VS
13
16
19
126.7
197.9
285.0
126.7
197.9
285.0
126.7
197.9
285.0
113
201
314
The determination of the cross-sectional areas of GFRP bars is a complex issue that has
not currently been addressed in the design code of CSA S806-12. Nominal dimensions and areas
of GFRP bars are provided by the manufacturers. It has been observed that the difference
between the nominal and actual areas of the bars can be quite significant. In this project, the
nominal dimensions will be used for all calculations unless otherwise stated. The ultimate
27
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
strength values provided in Chapter 4 were calculated by dividing the ultimate tensile load by the
nominal area. The modulus of elasticity was then determined by dividing the stress thus
calculated by the corresponding strain.
Figure 3-2 shows the surface of each of the three bar types. It can be seen that Bar A has
been slightly sand-coated and helically wrapped, Bar V has more intense sand-coating while Bar
C is manufactured with ribs. The purpose of all three types of surface treatment is the same, to
improve the bond. As the bars are made by using different manufacturing processes, their
mechanical properties also differ. In order to determine the properties of these bars accurately,
tensile tests were conducted on all the bars. Three tests were done on each bar type and size and
the average from the coupon tests are given in Chapter 4. Further details of the coupon tests and
the stress-strain curves of all the coupon tests can be found in Appendix A.
Bar A
Bar V
Bar C
Fig. 3-2: Surface profile of GFRP bars

Coupon tests cannot be conducted on GFRP bars as simply as with steel bars. This is
because the pressure from the grips of the testing machine crushes the GFRP bar. A coupler thus
needs to be attached to the GFRP bar to perform the test. Steel hollow pipes of different
diameters and lengths depending on the bar diameter to be tested were used as couplers. The
pipes were filled with expansive grout to bond the coupon and the bar. On both ends of the
couplers, custom fit plastic washers made of ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) polymer
tubing were used to center the bar and to hold the expansive grout in place. The washers were
made about 1 mm smaller than the inner dimensions of the coupler for ease of fit. The free
28
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
lengths of the GFRP bars were taken as 40db and the coupler lengths were chosen to satisfy the
requirements of ASTM D7205-06 standard and past experience. These details of the coupons
tested have been provided below in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Coupon Details
Bar No.
13
16
19
Coupler
Length
(mm)
450
450
600
Diameter of
Pipe
3/4"
1 1/4"
1 1/4"
Free Bar
Length
(mm)
520
640
760
Total Bar
Length
(mm)
970
1090
1360
A MTS 1000kN Universal Test Frame was used to test the GFRP coupons in uniaxial
tension until failure. The loading was displacement controlled, at a test rate varying between 0.02
mm/s and 0.03 mm/s. The hydraulic pressure applied by the V-grips of the testing machine
varied between 1100 MPa and 1300 MPa. The strain was measured using a standard MTS 50
mm clip gauge. At about 30 to 50% of the ultimate load the clip gauge was removed in order to
prevent damage to the instrument. The failure of GFRP bars is explosive; hence after the removal
of the clip gauge a plastic sheet was placed around the specimens to prevent the projection of
broken pieces into the surrounding environment.
3.2.2 Steel Reinforcement

Eight of the total sixty specimens were reinforced with steel. Two sizes of steel bars were
used: 10M and 15M. The 1000 kN MTS Universal Test Frame was also used to test these bars in
uniaxial tension until failure. A total of five coupons were tested for each bar size. In accordance
with ASTM A370-03a Standard, a minimum of three samples of each type of steel were tested.
The diameters and areas of both the bars have been provided in Table 3-4 which were
used in the calculation of ultimate strength, yield strength and modulus of elasticity. The
summary of the results and the complete stress-strain curves of the coupon tests are reported in
chapter 4.
29
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 3-4: Diameter and area of steel bars

Bar No.
10M
15M
Diameter
Area
(mm)
11.2
16.0
(mm2)
100
200
3.2.3 Expansive Mortar

In order to avoid the premature failure of the GFRP bars, special anchorages were
required at the loaded ends. These anchorages were made using stress-proof steel pipes. Stressproof steel pipes are certified to ASTM A311 requirements. These pipes are made by a patented
process which entails drawing the bar through a special die under heavy draft, then stress
relieving it in a precisely controlled furnace. Hence, the pipes offer wearability without case
hardening, strength without heat treating, and excellent machinability and tool life. They also
resist fatigue and stress. Depending on the GFRP bar diameter, different pipe diameters and
lengths were used. The coupon pipes were filled with expansive mortar to bind the pipes to the
GFRP bars. The name of the mortar used was RockFrac Neda.
RockFrac is originally obtained in powder form. Each bag of 5 kg was mixed in 1.45 litre
of water, which had an approximate temperature of 4 oC, until a smooth slurry was obtained.
While making the RockFrac mortar it was ensured that the ambient temperature was below 21oC.
Above this temperature, the pressure exerted by the mortar is reduced. RockFrac was poured in
the steel coupon pipes in a vertical position. Immediately after pouring, the ends of the pipes
were closed by plastic washers. Approximately ten minutes after pouring, it starts expanding and
exerting pressure on the coupon pipe and bar. The maximum pressure is in the range of 50 MPa.
The RockFrac reaches its maximum strength in about 24 hours. Hence all the tension stiffening
specimens were tested about 24 hours after the pouring of RockFrac.
30
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.2.4 Concrete
3.2.4.1 Introduction
In this test program, two different concretes were used; normal strength concrete (NSC)
and high strength concrete (HSC). The specified 28 day compressive strength of NSC was 30
MPa and the specified 56 day compressive strength of HSC was 85 MPa, respectively. HSC was
used because of its ability to utilize the high tensile strength of GFRP bars. Due to this reason it
is possible that HSC may become common in design practice (Faza and GangaRao, 1992). Type
10 Portland cement and a maximum aggregate size of 14 mm were specified for both concrete
mixtures, with a 100 mm slump at the time of casting.
To determine the mechanical properties of both types of the concrete used, several tests
were conducted which included the cylinder tests for compressive strength, modulus of rupture
tests for tensile-flexural properties, free shrinkage prism tests and dog-bone tests for tensile
properties. This section gives the details of each of the above mentioned tests in detail
individually.
3.2.4.2 Cylinder Tests

For measuring compressive strength of concrete, all the cylinders cast had dimensions of
150 mm x 300 mm (4" x 6"). In the test program, enough cylinders were cast from each batch of
concrete to ensure that the strength of concrete could be measured for every tension stiffening
test. This resulted in a total of fifty cylinders being cast for the NSC concrete batch and thirty
cylinders for HSC batch. After the process of de-moulding, the majority of the cylinders were
cured with the direct tension specimens except for the three specimens used to measure the
twenty-eight day compressive strength that were cured in a moist room. The complete stressstrain curve was determined for only nine NSC cylinders and six HSC cylinders.
The 4500 kN MTS machine was used to test the 28 day test cylinders. To measure the
longitudinal strain in the cylinders under load, a 250 mm gauge length LVDT mounting rig was
used. Each of the two Linear Variable Differential Transducers used had a stroke of 5 mm. The
loading rate was maintained at 0.04 mm/s throughout the test.
31
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The majority of the cylinders were tested to just determine the concrete compressive
strength on the day of the tension stiffening specimen test in the Forney machine. No strain data
was recorded. The load was applied at a constant rate of 4.4 kN/s until the cylinders failed due to
crushing. This loading rate is equivalent to 0.24 MPa/s. It falls within the ASTM requirement
range (ASTM C39 Standard) of 0.14-0.34 MPa/s. The setup for both the testing machines can be
seen in Figure 3-3. The results on compressive strength and modulus of elasticity obtained from
the cylinder tests can be found in Chapter 4.
(a) MTS 4500 kN cylinder set-up; (b) Forney cylinder set-up

Figure 3-3: Concrete cylinder test set-up
3.2.4.3 Dog-bone Tests

A number of different standard test methods (ASTM C1609/C1609M, 2010) are available
to determine the tensile strength of concrete. In this test program, the dog-bone tests were
conducted to obtain the strength of concrete under uniaxial tension. The advantage of the doing
the dog-bone test in comparison to other tension tests is that the failure is initiated at the
naturally weakest location in the specimen without being imposed. Three dog-bone tests were
performed for each concrete type. The total length of the specimens was 500 mm and the
thickness was 70 mm.
32
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A in (19 mm) diameter threaded rod was placed on each flared end of the specimen as
shown in Fig. 3-4 with 50 mm length outside of the specimen to facilitate the attaching of the
specimen to the testing machine and 65 mm cast inside the specimen. After checking the level
and alignment of the threaded rods it was locked in place by a nut. Wire meshes were used to
reinforce the flared end of the dog-bones. The purpose of the insertion of the wire meshes was to
ensure that cracking did not happen outside the central test region. On each end of the dog-bone
two wire meshes were used. This meant that the specimens were casted in three layers. Between
two layers of concrete, a wire mesh was inserted. After the third layer, the concrete was finished
by a trowel. The specimen was then covered with wet burlap and plastic for a total of seven days.
After de-moulding, the dog-bone specimens were also stored next to the direct tension
specimens.
Fig. 3-4: Dog-bone specimen forms with end plates and threaded rods locked in place
The location of the instrumentation on the dog-bone specimens was similar to that used
by others at the University of Toronto (Deluce, 2011; Susetyo, 2009; Carnivole, 2013). A total of
four LVDT's were used to measure the displacement of the specimens. Two of the LVDT's had a
gauge length of 150 mm and the other two 300 mm. The preference was to have the crack form
within the gauge length of the shorter LVDTs. However, it has been found that the crack location
often varies (Susetyo, 2009). The purpose of having the two 300 mm LVDT's was to ensure that
if the crack developed outside the central region of the specimen, it would still be possible to
measure it. The set-up of the instrumentation on the dog-bone specimens can be seen in Fig. 3-5.
The instrumentation mount locations were marked using the set square and a ruler. The
lines were drawn to ensure that the mounts could be fixed in the centre of each face of the
33
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
specimen. The mounts were then glued on the specimens by Fastweld 10 epoxy. Before testing
the specimen, it was painted using a mixture of half portion of paint and half water.
Fig. 3-5: Placement of instrumentation on 'dog-bone' specimens

The specimens were tested using a displacement controlled MTS 245 kN Universal
testing machine. The LVDTs having a stroke of 5 mm were used. Before starting the test it was
ensured that no stress had developed in the specimen while the threaded rods were being inserted
into the machine. In order to avoid the formation of splitting cracks on the edges of the
specimen, clamping rigs were used as shown in Fig. 3-6. The loading rate was maintained as
0.002 mm/s throughout the duration of the test. The data were recorded during the test at a rate of
10 Hz.
Fig. 3-6: Set-up of clamping rigs on dog-bone specimens
34
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.2.4.4 Modulus of Rupture Tests

Since the main purpose of this program was to study the tensile behaviour of concrete, it
was deemed necessary to perform more than one type of test to determine the tensile strength.
The modulus of rupture tests were conducted in order to determine an alternate flexural tensile
strength of concrete. Two tests were done per concrete type. The specimens were cast with the
direct tension specimens. After casting, they were covered with wet burlap and plastic and left to
cure one day in the form and six days outside the form.
The specimens had dimensions of 152 mm x 152 mm x 533 mm. The clear span between
the supports was 457mm. The 1000 kN MTS Universal Testing Machine was used to test the
specimens (Fig. 3-7). The load was displacement controlled and applied at a rate of 0.005 mm/s.
Data were sampled throughout the test at a rate of 2 Hz.
Fig. 3-7: Set-up of modulus of rupture test
3.2.4.5 Shrinkage Tests

Shrinkage has a significant effect on the load-displacement response of a direct tension
specimen (Bischoff, 2003 and 2004). In order to measure the shrinkage strains, six free shrinkage
prisms (75 mm x 75mm x 300mm) were cast for each batch of concrete. The tests were
conducted following the criterion of ASTM C157 Standard. A 25 mm long steel stud was placed
at each end of the prisms with 17.5 mm length embedded inside the prism. The gauge length was
thus 285 mm. During the casting of concrete, great caution was taken to ensure that the steel
35
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
studs did not move from their designated position. However, the gauge length of the prisms was
measured again after de-moulding which took place after 24 hours of curing. After de-moulding,
the prisms were submerged in calcium hydroxide solution for the duration of thirty minutes. The
solution contained 3g of calcium hydroxide per 1L of water. The purpose of submerging the
prisms in CAOH was to ensure that the temperature effect was minimized before the initial
length readings were taken (ASTM C157). The lengths of the specimens were measured in a
comparator and the mass on a scale after the prisms were removed from the solution. The
comparator used for the measurement of length can be seen in Figure 3-8. The prisms were
stored with the direct tension specimens to ensure the shrinkage strain was similar in both
specimens.
Figure 3-8: Set-up of a shrinkage prism in comparator
36
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.3
Direct Tension Specimens
3.3.1 Specimen Details

The main purpose of this experimental program was to test the direct tension specimens
and evaluate tension stiffening behaviour of GFRP reinforced concrete specimens. The test
program consisted of a total of sixty specimens that were split into two main series depending on
the type of reinforcement; steel reinforced specimens or GFRP reinforced specimens. The
variables investigated were the bar type, bar diameter, reinforcement ratio and concrete strength.
Specimens were casted in two concrete pours; NSC and HSC. Among the 60 specimens, 48
specimens were of NSC and 12 HSC. Every effort was made to ensure that the reinforcing bars
lay exactly at the center of the specimens to minimize the eccentric effects of loading. The
casting for the direct tension specimens, dog-bone specimens, shrinkage prisms and cylinders
can be seen in Fig. 3-9.
(a) Cast of all accompanying specimens;
(b) Cast of direct tension specimens
Fig. 3-9: Casting of specimens

The length of the concrete prism in all the direct tension specimens was 1000 mm. The
specimens were either 100 mm square or 200 mm square in cross-section. Three GFRP bar sizes
were used; 13 mm, 16 mm and 19 mm. In case of steel reinforcement only 10M and 15M bars
were used. The total length of the GFRP reinforced specimens, including the bars, varied from
2100 mm in case of #13 and #16 bar to 2300 mm for #19 bar. The larger length of GFRP bars
compared to steel outside the concrete specimen was to fix the couplers. The extension in case of
37
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the steel bars outside of concrete was 250 mm. Both the steel and GFRP specimens had identical
companion specimens. The sketches for steel and GFRP reinforced specimens can be seen in Fig.
3-10.
250mm
L = 1000mm
250mm
(a)
Specimens not drawn to scale
450mm
or
600mm
150mm
150mm
L = 1000mm
450mm
or
600mm
(b)
Fig. 3-10: Test specimen details;
(a) Steel specimen, (b) GFRP specimen
The details of all the direct tension specimens are provided in Table 3-5. The specimen
designation is explained below:
CVV-XXY-ZZZ(*)
where,
CVV is the specified concrete strength (30 MPa or 85 MPa)
XX is the bar diameter (13, 16 or 19)
Y specifies the bar type (A, V or C)
ZZZ designates the cross-sectional dimension of the concrete prism (100 mm or 150 mm)
* indicates the number of the specimen in identical pairs (1 or 2)
38
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 3-5: Specimens Details

Bar
Type
VS
Specimen
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
C30-12A-150(1)
C30-12A-150(2)
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
C30-16A-150(1)
C30-16A-150(2)
C85-16A-100(1)
C85-16A-100(2)
C85-16A-150(1)
C85-16A-150(1)
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
C30-19A-150(1)
C30-19A-150(2)
C30-12V-100(1)
C30-12V-100(2)
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(2)
C30-16V-150(1)
C30-16V-150(2)
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)
C85-16V-150(1)
C85-16V-150(1)
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)
C30-16VS-100(1)
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-16VS-150(1)
C30-16VS-150(2)
C30-12C-100(1)
Bar
No.
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
12
Nominal
Bar
Diameter
(mm)
Bar
Area
Concrete
Strength
Dimensions
(mm2)
(MPa)
(mm)
13
13
13
13
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
19
19
19
19
13
13
13
13
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
19
19
19
19
15.875
15.875
15.875
15.875
12
126.7
126.7
126.7
126.7
197.9
197.9
197.9
197.9
197.9
197.9
197.9
197.9
285
285
285
285
126.7
126.7
126.7
126.7
197.9
197.9
197.9
197.9
197.9
197.9
197.9
197.9
285
285
285
285
197.9
197.9
197.9
197.9
113
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
90
90
90
90
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
90
90
90
90
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
100 x 100 x 1000

100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
Bxdxl
Reinforcement
Ratio
(%)
1.30
1.30
0.5
0.5
2.0
2.0
0.88
0.88
2.0
2.0
0.88
0.88
3.0
3.0
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
0.5
0.5
2.0
2.0
0.88
0.88
2.0
2.0
0.88
0.88
3.0
3.0
1.30
1.30
2.0
2.0
0.88
0.88
1.30
39
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C30-12C-100(2)
C30-12C-150(1)
C30-13C-150(1)
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-150(1)
C30-16C-150(2)
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-150(1)
C85-16C-150(2)
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
12
12
12
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
20
20
20
20
12
12
12
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
20
20
20
20
113
113
113
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
314
314
314
314
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
90
90
90
90
30
30
30
30
100 x 100 x 1000

150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
100 x 100 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
150 x 150 x 1000
1.30
0.5
0.5
2.0
2.0
0.88
0.88
2.0
2.0
0.88
0.88
3.0
3.0
1.30
1.30
3.3.2 Specimen Preparation and Instrumentation

Four LVDTs each having 25 mm maximum displacement were used in each test with one
LVDT on each side of the specimen. The total gauge length of each LVDT was 900 mm with 50
mm length near the ends being outside the gauge length. Fastweld 10, a structural fast setting
epoxy, was used to fix the LVDT mounts to the concrete surface following which the specimens
were painted. The paint consisted of a mixture of half proportion of paint and half water. To
ensure good performance of the Fastweld 10, the painting of the specimen was done after mounts
were fixed to the concrete surface. This procedure is depicted in Fig. 3-11.
In case of the steel specimens there was insufficient distance between the specimen and
the head of the testing machine to accommodate the lengths of the LVDTs. It was decided to use
extension plates fixed on the mounts (Deluce, 2012). Although for the most part, this problem
did not arise in case of GFRP specimens the same mounts with extender plates were used for
convenience and uniformity. The details of the instrumentation can be seen in Fig. 3-12 for
GFRP reinforced specimens and Fig. 3-13 for steel reinforced specimens.
40
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 3-11: (a) Painting of specimens after attaching mounts; (b) Attaching the mount;
(c) Installing LVDT holder on top of mount
41
900 mm
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Specimen not drawn to scale
Fig. 3-12: Instrumentation detail of GFRP direct tension specimens
42
900 mm
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Specimen not drawn to scale
Fig. 3-13: Instrumentation detail of steel direct tension specimens

After painting the GFRP reinforced specimens, the couplers were attached to the
specimens 24 hours to 48 hours before the testing.
3.3.3 Test Procedure

The specimens were tested using two universal testing machines: MTS 1000 kN and
MTS 2700 kN. Majority of the specimens were tested in the 1000 kN machine. The maximum
length that the MTS 1000 kN can accommodate is 2200 mm. The specimens that exceeded this
limit were tested in the 2700 kN machine. The couplers were inserted six inches into the grips for
43
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the MTS 1000 kN and were inserted nine inches into the grips for MTS 2700 kN. The LVDTs
were mounted after the specimens were set-up in the testing machine to avoid damage to the
instruments.
The loading was displacement controlled. Different test rates were maintained for steel
and GFRP specimens. For steel specimens loading rate was initiated at 0.002 mm/s up to the
observation of the first crack, 0.003 mm/s until yielding and 0.05 mm/s after yielding till
fracture. In case of GFRP specimens, three test rates were used; 0.005 mm/s up to an elongation
of 3.5 mm, 0.02 mm/s up to an elongation of 15 mm beyond which the rate was 0.03 mm/s till
failure. V-notch grips were used for the testing of all the GFRP specimens and flat grips for the
steel reinforced specimens.
A total of seven load stages were considered in most specimens to measure the location
of cracks, the corresponding crack widths and to take pictures that facilitated later in measuring
the crack spacing. For most specimens the test was paused at the first crack and then at
elongations of 1.5 mm, 2.5 mm, 3.5 mm, 7 mm, 10 mm and 15 mm. It should be noted that for
some specimens a load stage was also considered at an elongation of 18 mm if deemed
necessary. Some load stages were omitted for a few specimens if it was felt that no new
information could be obtained. While seven stages were also maintained for most of the steel
reinforced specimens, the elongations at which the test was paused varied. Most of the load
stages were held before the yielding of the steel which was not an issue for GFRP reinforced
specimens.
3.4
Summary
A total of 60 rectangular prism specimens, 52 GFRP reinforced and 8 steel reinforced,
were casted to be tested in direct tension. In order to determine various concrete properties of the
direct tension specimens, concrete cylinders, direct tension dog-bone specimens, modulus of
rupture (MOR) specimens and shrinkage specimens were casted simultaneously.
44
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Before testing all the specimens were painted white and mounted with four LVDTs, one
on each side of the specimens. The gauge length of the LVDTs was 900 mm. For the GFRPreinforced specimens, couplers also had to be attached to the bars before testing. This was done
using RockFrac, an expansive grout. All the direct tension specimens were tested either in the
MTS 1000 kN or MTS 2700 kN machine. For most of the specimens, a total of seven load stages
were observed during testing.
The concrete cylinders were tested as per ASTM C39 in either the 3500 kN MTS or the
Forney machine to determine the concrete compressive strength. The direct tensile strength of
concrete was determined through two tests; the dog-bone test and the modulus of rupture test.
The 245 kN MTS machine was used to test the dog-bone specimens in direct tension and the
1000 kN MTS machine was used to test the MOR specimens in flexure. The concrete shrinkage
was measured using the length comparator as per ASTM C157 standard. Coupon tests were
carried out on steel and GFRP bars in the MTS 1000 kN machine. The direct tensile strength of
steel bars were carried out as per ASTM A370-03a by testing a minimum of 3 coupons for each
bar diameter. A minimum of 3 coupon tests were also conducted on GFRP bars.
45
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1
Introduction
This chapter presents the results obtained from the experiments conducted during the test
program. The results have been categorized according to the material being tested. The material
results have been further organized according to the properties being determined. First the results
from the concrete tests are presented. These include the concrete compressive strength, the
flexural strength, the tensile strength and the shrinkage test results. The second part of this
chapter presents the results of the reinforcement coupon tests, both steel and GFRP. The third
part of this chapter provides the results obtained from the direct tension reinforced specimens. It
also discusses the individual tests and the general behaviour observed for all the test series. The
failure pattern and behaviour of these specimens are also discussed.
4.2
Concrete Test Results

In this experimental program, normal strength concrete (NSC) of 30 MPa and high
strength concrete (HSC) of 85 MPa were used. This section provides all the results of the tests
performed on both the concretes to determine their properties. The tests conducted were namely
the concrete cylinder tests, the tensile dog-bone tests, the modulus of rupture tests and the
shrinkage tests.
4.2.1 Concrete Cylinder Tests

This section provides a summary of the results obtained from the concrete cylinder tests.
The development of concrete strength with age was monitored by tests (ASTM C39 Standard) of
46
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
150 mm x 300 mm concrete cylinders that were cured adjacent to the direct tension specimens
under similar conditions. There were at least three cylinders tested at 3, 7, 14 and 28 days after
casting for NSC and 3, 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 days after casting for HSC. The gain in the
compressive strength of concrete with age is shown in Fig. 4-1.
140
Strength, fc (Mpa)
120
100
80
60
40
C30
C85
20
0
0
20
40
60
Concrete Age, T (Days)
80
100
Fig. 4-1: Concrete strength development curves

Provided in Fig. 4-2 are the complete stress strain curves of the normal strength concrete
at the age of 28 days and the high strength concrete cylinders after 56 days.
50
150
100
30
fc (Mpa)
fc (Mpa)
40
20
50
C30-1
C30-2
C30-3
10
0
C85-1
C85-2
C85-3
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
(a) NSC at 28 days
0.005
0.001
0.002
c
(b) HSC at 56 days
Fig. 4-2: Concrete stress-strain curves of cylinders at specified age
0.003
47
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The modulus of elasticity was measured using secant method provided in ASTM C 469.
The following equation was used:
4-1
where,
Ec = secant modulus of elasticity
1 = stress corresponding to a strain of -50 x 10-6
2 = stress corresponding to 40 % ultimate load
1 = a strain of -50 x 10-6
2 = strain corresponding to 40% ultimate load
The values of the concrete compressive strength and modulus of elasticity obtained from
the complete stress-strain curves are shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Summary of compression test results of concrete cylinders
Concrete Type
C1
C2
Days
28
42
87
170
56
90
fc'
Ecs
(MPa)
(MPa)
37.60
37.69
41.03
42.70
112.83
116.36
34770
35770
35960
37340
53880
54020
4.2.2 Dog-bone Specimen Test Results

A total of three dog-bone specimens were tested for each cast to determine the tensile
strength of the concrete, the corresponding strain and the tensile modulus of elasticity. The
secant modulus of elasticity was determined using the following formula:
4-2
48
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
where,
Ect = tensile secant modulus of elasticity (MPa)
ft1 = tensile stress corresponding to 10 x 10-6 mm/mm strain
ft2 = tensile stress corresponding to 60% of the peak load (MPa)
t1 = a strain value of 10 x 10-6mm/mm
t2 = strain corresponding to a stress of 60% peak load
Four LVDT's were used to measure the strain during the testing. Two of these LVDT's
had a gauge length of 300 mm and the other two had a gauge length of 150 mm. Details of the
placement of the LVDT's are given in Chapter 3. The average of all four LVDT's was used to
plot the stress-strain curves. However if the crack occurred outside the range of the 150 mm
gauge length LVDT's, then only the average of the two 300 mm gauge length LVDT's was used
to plot the stress-strain curves.
The stress strain curves developed from the data obtained are shown in Fig. 4-3. The
stress was determined using the area of the cross-section where the crack developed. Hence, it
should be noted that if the crack did not develop in the minimum uniform cross-section region
then the area of the flared region where the crack developed was approximately measured. The
crack pattern of specimens can be seen in Fig. 4-4.
3
5
4.5
2.5
4
3.5
ft (Mpa)
ft (Mpa)
2
1.5
1
C30-1
C30-2
C30-3
0.5
0
3
2.5
2
1.5
C85-1
C85-2
C85-3
1
0.5
0
5E-05
0.0001
0.00015
(a)
5E-05
0.0001
t
0.00015
0.0002
(b)
Fig. 4-3: 'Dog-bone' tension test response curves; (a) normal strength concrete, and (b)
high strength concrete
49
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C1-1
C2-1
C1-2
C1-3
C2-2
C2-3
Fig. 4-4: Crack patterns of concrete tensile 'dog-bone' test specimens
50
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 4-2 summarizes the results obtained from the tensile dog-bone tests. These results
include the tensile strength, the corresponding strain, the modulus of elasticity, the age at which
the specimens were tested and the corresponding concrete compressive strength.
Table 4-2: Summary of the tensile dog-bone tests
Specimen
C1-1
C1-2
C1-3
C2-1
C2-2
C2-3
Age
f'c
Pt
f't
't
Ect
-3
(days)
(MPa)
(kN)
(MPa)
(x 10 )
(MPa)
170
170
170
56
56
56
42.70
42.70
42.70
115.9
115.9
115.9
23.06
23.23
20.88
34.33
34.12
36.47
2.74
2.77
2.78
3.77
4.06
4.43
0.111
0.110
0.136
0.150
0.147
0.153
26800
30400
24500
43000
33700
34300
4.2.3 Modulus of Rupture Test Results

The modulus of rupture tests were conducted to determine an alternative tensile strength
of concrete. The tensile strength would be the same as flexural strength if the material is
homogenous. Most concretes, however, have small defects that effectively cause localized
weaknesses. When the MOR specimen is bent, the extreme fibres have the largest stress. If those
fibres are free from defects, the flexural strength will be controlled by the strength of the extreme
fibres. On the other hand if the specimen is subjected to tensile stress only, then all the fibres
have the same stress and failure is initiated when the weakest fibre reaches its tensile strength.
Therefore, flexural tensile strengths are usually found to be larger than the tensile strengths for
the same material. In this experimental program also, the tensile strengths obtained through the
dog-bone tests were found to be smaller than the flexural tensile strengths obtained through the
MOR tests (Table 4-3).
The tests were conducted as per the procedure of ASTM C1609. The ultimate failure
loads observed for the MOR specimens in one cast were very similar. The position of the crack
in all the specimens tested can be seen in Fig. 4-5. The crack occurred nearly exactly at the midlength of all the specimens.
51
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C30-1
C30-2
C85-1
C85-2
Fig. 4-5: Failure of Modulus of Rupture test specimens

Table 4-3 provides a summary of the flexural tensile stresses determined for specimens
from both casts. It should be noted that all the MORs were tested 28 days after the concrete was
cast. It was assumed that the neutral axis is at the mid-depth of the beam for the calculation of
concrete flexural tensile stress. As per ASTM C1609, the equation used to calculate the flexural
tensile strength from the total applied load is:
fcr =
where,
fcr = flexural tensile strength at extreme fibres (MPa)
P = load (N)
4-3
52
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
L = span length (mm)

b = width (mm)
d = depth (mm)
Table 4-3: Summary of concrete flexural tensile strengths
Specimen
C1-1
C1-2
C2-1
C2-2
Age
Pcr
fcr
(days)
(kN)
(MPa)
28
28
56
56
31.20
30.10
34.34
34.14
4.05
3.91
4.46
4.43
4.2.4 Shrinkage Test Results

The mass and the length of the shrinkage specimens were measured over the duration of
the testing as deemed appropriate and more essentially on the day of the test of the tension
stiffening specimen. If there was not a significant difference between the shrinkage results of two
successive tests, the first calculated value was used for both tests. Otherwise, the shrinkage
determined on the test day was used. ASTM C157 procedure was used to determine the
shrinkage strain. The shrinkage strain was determined by subtracting the initial length measured
by the comparator from the subsequent readings and dividing by the gauge length.
eq. 4-4
where,
cs = free shrinkage strain
L2 = final length (mm)
L1 = initial length (mm)
Lg = gauge length of the shrinkage prism (mm)
53
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tables 4-4 and 4-5 summarize the shrinkage strains of the specimens over the test period.
Table 4-4: Shrinkage test results of 30 MPa concrete
Specimen
Days
0
4
14
28
35
42
60
70
80
90
100
120
175
252
Specimen 1
Mass
cs
(g)
(x10-3)
4012.7
3973.3
3933.8
3921.0
3914.1
3909.7
3898.1
3894.9
3890.2
3885.6
3882.1
3878.6
3864.2
3962.9
0
-0.102
-0.240
-0.316
-0.405
-0.384
-0.392
-0.396
-0.398
-0.411
-0.410
-0.416
-0.420
-0.424
Specimen 2
Mass
cs
(g)
(x10-3)
4194.1
3756.9
4113.7
4101.0
4093.9
4089.0
4068.6
4062.1
4058.2
4055.2
4050.9
4046.6
4040.1
3985.8
0
-0.092
-0.240
-0.395
-0.409
-0.408
-0.426
-0.436
-0.441
-0.473
-0.479
-0.481
-0.483
-0.483
Specimen 3
Mass
cs
(g)
(x10-3)
3912.9
3876.6
3829.1
3824.0
3816.3
3811.3
3802.9
3796.3
3792.2
3789.2
3785.1
3779.3
3767.7
4009.1
0
-0.081
-0.244
-0.430
-0.418
-0.447
-0.490
-0.492
-0.496
-0.498
-0.498
-0.504
-0.506
-0.509
Table 4-5: Shrinkage test results of 85 MPa concrete

Specimen
Days
0
70
80
90
Specimen 1
Mass
cs
(g)
(x10-3)
4015.8
3834.9
3829.3
3825.2
0
-0.486
-0.489
-0.502
Specimen 2
Mass
cs
(g)
(x10-3)
4039.7
4008.8
4001.9
3996.3
0
-0.482
-0.494
-0.496
Specimen 3
Mass
cs
(g)
(x10-3)
4060.7
3737.7
3732.1
3728.6
0
-0.467
-0.475
-0.478
For a few tests, a positive change in the length of the specimen was observed (i.e.
concrete swelled). This, most likely, was due to the change in the daily ambient conditions.
However, in general when considering the long-term trend of the specimens, shrinkage was
observed.
54
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.3
Reinforcement Test Results

The following section presents the results of the coupon tests for all the reinforcing bars
used in the duration of the testing program. The results from the steel and GFRP bars have been
presented separately for convenience.
4.3.1 GFRP Coupons

The results from the GFRP coupon tests have been presented in Table 4-7 and include the
modulus of elasticity, the ultimate stress and the ultimate strain of each bar. Three tests were
done for each bar size resulting in a total of 30 coupon tests. If there was a significant disparity
between the results of a bar, additional coupons were tested. However, the average was
calculated using the three closest results. The results have been categorized according to the bar
type; A, V and C. Two types of bar V bars were tested, HM and standard. The standard bar has
been referred to as VS. For the detailed stress-strain curves of all the GFRP bars refer to
Appendix A.
The ultimate strength achieved for all bars, using both nominal and actual areas,
exceeded the lower limits prescribed by CSA S807-10. As per the specifications for GFRP bars,
bar type V and C were qualified as Grade III since the bars had a modulus of elasticity greater
than 50 GPa. The 13 mm and 16 mm diameters of bar A were classified as Grade II with E
values greater than 40 GPa but less than 50 GPa and the 19 mm bar A was classified as Grade III
with an E value greater than 50 GPa. The minimum rupture tensile strain for all the bars tested
was greater than 1.2% as per Clause 7.1.5.4 (CSA S807-10).
The results presented in Table 4-6 and hereafter used the nominal area in the calculation
of the ultimate strength and modulus of elasticity. The actual areas have been found to differ
substantially from the nominal areas used in the calculations. The actual areas of bar type A are
relatively consistent with the provided nominal areas unlike bar types V and C. The difference
between the nominal and actual area for 16 mm bar type A is approximately 1%. For bar type V,
the actual areas have been found to be significantly larger than the nominal. For example, the
actual effective area of 16 mm V bar is nearly 22% greater than the nominal area (Vint, 2012).
55
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As a result, strength and modulus of elasticity values based on the nominal area of bar type V
(Table 4-6) are significantly higher than what is calculated using the actual area. This is why for
the same bar diameter bar type V has higher nominal strength and modulus of elasticity values in
comparison with bars of types A and C. It should also be noted that the difference between the
nominal and actual areas for bar type VS is much smaller than bar type V (approximately 10%
for 16VS) resulting in a much more reasonable difference between the nominal and actual values
of ultimate strength and stiffness. The difference between the nominal and actual areas for 16
mm bar type C is of the order of 5% with actual area being larger. For bar type C, it was
observed that the difference between the nominal and actual area increases for larger diameter
bars.
The failure mode was the same for all bar types; initially individual fibres ruptured and
then the explosive ultimate rupture occurred. Generally, bar type A had the least explosive
failure and the sand coated bar type V the most explosive failure. The reason for the relatively
less explosive failure of bar type A is most likely due to the helical wrapping on the bar. This
wrapping provides a lateral resistance which results in a less aggressive ultimate rupture than the
other bar types. The GFRP bars are weaker along the transverse axis due to the relatively weak
resin that binds the fibres. The rupture pattern was consistent with this fact since as the resin
broke down between the fibres. The majority of the longitudinal fibres at failure did not rupture
and bowed outwards (See Fig. 4-6).
Fig. 4-6: Ultimate rupture of a GFRP bar
56
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 4-6: Summary of GFRP coupon tests

Bar Type
Specimen Name
12A-1
12A-2
12A-3
16A-1
16A-2
16A-3
19A-1
19A-2
19A-3
12V-1
12V-2
12V-3
16V-1
16V-2
16V-3
16VS-1
16VS-2
16VS-3
19V-1
19V-2
19V-3
12C-1
12C-2
12C-3
16C-1
16C-2
16C-3
19C-1
19C-2
19C-3
db
fu
(mm)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
13
13
13
16
16
16
19
19
19
12.7
12.7
12.7
15.875
15.875
15.875
15.875
15.875
15.875
19.05
19.05
19.05
12
12
12
16
16
16
20
20
20
50300
48000
49540
44800
44200
44100
64600
69400
64800
68700
66600
68100
65600
66800
64100
51000
52500
52000
70900
70100
69800
56700
58400
61900
62700
64900
63800
64300
63600
65100
983
996
1012
930
912
920
821
842
839
1589
1439
1451
1380
1410
1432
1205
1213
1196
1260
1281
1226
1363
1370
1365
1219
1230
1258
1180
1090
1161
19.58
19.31
20.45
20.75
20.62
20.84
12.71
12.13
12.95
23.12
21.60
21.31
21.02
21.10
22.31
23.64
23.12
22.98
17.76
18.27
17.57
24.25
23.46
22.06
19.44
18.96
19.72
18.37
17.14
17.83
57
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.3.2 Steel Coupons

Two bar sizes, 10M and 15M, were tested in tension. For each bar size, five tests were
performed. The results, summarized in Table 4-7, include the yield stress, the yield strain, the
modulus of elasticity, the ultimate stress and the ultimate strain of each bar. For the complete
stress-strain diagrams of each test refer to Fig. 4-7.
Specimen
db
fy
(MPa)
(x 10 )
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
16
16
16
16
16
192800
188600
180000
192900
188200
189600
188800
191900
201500
174500
423
421
417
425
420
402
404
403
399
400
2.22
2.30
2.37
2.19
2.32
2.12
2.14
2.10
1.98
2.28
544
543
539
546
542
665
664
661
658
657
205.4
206.9
175.6
204.8
207.3
138
139
124
125
132
700
600
600
500
500
400
300
10M-1
10M-2
10M-3
200
100
(MPa)
700
-3
fu
(mm)
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
10M-1
10M-2
10M-3
10M-4
10M-5
15M-1
15M-2
15M-3
15M-4
15M-5
Es
400
300
200
15M-1
15M-2
15M-3
100
0
0
0
100
200
Strain (x10-3)
(a)
300
100
200
-3
Strain (x10 )
(b)
Fig. 4-7: Stress-strain curves of steel; (a) 10M bar, and (b) 15M bar
300
58
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.4
Direct Tension Specimens Test Results

In this section the results of the direct tension specimens reinforced with both steel and
GFRP have been presented. The tests have been arranged into series according to the
reinforcement provided: steel, GFRP A, GFRP V, and GFRP C. GFRP-reinforced specimens
include normal and high strength concrete whereas for steel only normal strength concrete was
used. The test data obtained for each specimen in the entire test series are provided here and
include the load-elongation plot, the maximum spacing-elongation plot and the maximum crack
width-elongation plot for each test. The relevant concrete strength, shrinkage, tension strength
and flexural strength for each test series are provided for convenience.
The cracking data were obtained by counting the number of cracks at each load stage.
The general behavior of the specimens for each type of reinforcement type is described. In the
case of a few specimens due to the formation of splitting cracks at the location of the LVDTs, the
LVDTs fell off the specimen. In such a case, the remaining LVDTs were used to obtain the
average. The specimens in which this happened have been identified. It should be noted that the
crack spacing and maximum crack width were always obtained by using the average of all four
sides.
4.4.1 General Behaviour of Direct Tension Specimen

The majority of the specimens displayed similar behaviour. A few specimens deviated
from this general trend and their behaviour is discussed later in the corresponding test series.
The steel reinforced direct tension specimens all followed the same typical behaviour.
The elastic stiffness remained high till the first transverse crack initiated. From that point
onwards the elastic stiffness dropped and tension stiffening behaviour initiated. The cracks
progressively increased in this phase with the increase in displacement till the rebar started to
yield. The tension stiffening behaviour in these specimens lasted only until the reinforcement
yielded (See Fig. 4-8).
59
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(a)
Py
Load (P)
Pcr
Displacement ()
(b)
Fig. 4-8: (a) General crack pattern of steel tension member, and (b) General steel
tension member response
The behaviour of the glass fibre reinforced direct tension specimens depended on the
GFRP bar being used as reinforcement. The initial behaviour was similar to that of the steel
reinforced specimens. The elastic stiffness remained high until the first crack developed after
which point the tension stiffening behaviour initiated and the stiffness dropped (See Fig. 4-9).
The cracks kept on increasing in this phase, since the concrete was not hindered by the yielding
of GFRP. This lasted until a displacement of about 8 mm to 12 mm. At this point, the GFRP bar
started to the take almost the entire the load and the cracking stabilized. It should be noted that in
the GFRP reinforced specimens, a few splitting cracks developed in the normal strength concrete
specimens. However, in case of high strength concrete specimens several splitting cracks were
formed. Significant splitting was observed in the end regions of some specimens. This resulted in
60
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
a decreased measurement of displacement from the LVDTs on the sides of the specimen in
which the splitting cracks occurred on the ends.
(a)
Pu
Load (P)
Pcr
Displacement ()
(b)
Fig. 4-9: (a) General crack pattern of GFRP tension member, and (b) General
GFRP tension member response
61
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.4.2 Test Series M (Steel Reinforcement)

Test Series M consisted of control specimens in which steel bars were used as
reinforcement. The relevant rebar properties, the cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens,
the shrinkage data, the tensile strength data and the flexural test data have been provided in
Tables 4-8 to Table 4-12. The figures showing the specimen responses are repeated at a larger
scale to show the details that are not obvious at small deformations. It should be noted that the
material properties given in these tables represent the average values from several coupon or
cylinder tests except the modulus of rupture which was measured at 28 days only. The loadelongation, the maximum crack width-elongation, crack-spacing-elongation plots for all the steel
reinforced specimens are presented in Figures 4-10 to 4-15. The crack spacing plots show the
average values of all the four sides.
Table 4-8: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series M specimens
Specimen Name
C30-10M-100(1)
C30-10M-100(2)
C30-15M-100(1)
C30-15M-100(2)
C30-15M-150(1)
C30-15M-150(2)
Cast
db
Es
fy
sh
fu
(mm)
(mm)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(x 10 )
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
100
100
100
100
150
150
11.3
11.3
16
16
16
16
187100
187100
189400
189400
189400
189400
420
420
402
402
402
402
25.8
25.8
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
542
542
661
661
661
661
196.0
196.0
131.6
131.6
131.6
131.6
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
-3
Table 4-9: Concrete compression test results of concrete for Test Series M specimens
Specimen Name
C30-10M-100(1)
C30-10M-100(2)
C30-15M-100(1)
C30-15M-100(2)
C30-15M-150(1)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
Fully Instrumented Cylinder Test

Results
Age
f'c
Ec
(days)
(MPa)
(MPa)
42
42
42
42
42
37.69
37.69
37.69
37.69
37.69
35800
35800
35800
35800
35800
62
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C30-15M-150(2)
C1
42
37.69
35800
Table 4-10: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series M specimens
Specimen Name
Cast
C30-10M-100(1)
C30-10M-100(2)
C30-15M-100(1)
C30-15M-100(2)
C30-15M-150(1)
C30-15M-150(2)
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
Cylinders and Shrinkage Results on

Test Date
Age
f'c
csh
(days)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
38
44
38
49
44
46
37.60
37.70
37.60
37.74
37.70
37.74
-0.411
-0.423
-0.411
-0.430
-0.423
-0.428
Table 4-11: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series M specimens

Specimen Name
Cast
Age
(days)
fcr
(MPa)
C30-10M-100(1)
C30-10M-100(2)
C30-10M-150(1)
C30-10M-150(2)
C30-15M-100(1)
C30-15M-100(2)
C30-15M-150(1)
C30-15M-150(2)
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
Table 4-12: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series M specimens
Specimen Name
C30-10M-100(1)
C30-10M-100(2)
Cast
C1
C1
Age
f't
't
Ect
-3
(days)
(MPa)
(x 10 )
(MPa)
170
170
2.76
2.76
0.119
0.119
27200
27200
63
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C30-10M-150(1)
C30-10M-150(2)
C30-15M-100(1)
C30-15M-100(2)
C30-15M-150(1)
C30-15M-150(2)
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
170
170
170
170
170
170
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
64
60
60
50
50
40
40
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
Displacement (mm)
2.5
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Displacement (mm)
8
6
5
4
3
2
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-10M-100(1)
C30-10M-100(1)
0
0
0
10
20
30
500
C30-10M-100(1)
Avg. Crack Spacing
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
30
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-10M-100(1)
Elongation (mm)
65
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
0
0
10
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
0
15
Displacement (mm)
1.5
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-10M-100(2)
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
1.25
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
C30-10M-100(2)
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
C30-10M-100(2)
Avg. Crack Spacing
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
Avg. Crack Spacing
Displacement (mm)
15
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-10M-100(2)
Elongation (mm)
66
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
100
100
80
60
40
North
South
East
West
Average
20
80
60
40
North
South
East
West
Average
20
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
20
C30-15M-100(1)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-15M-100(1)
0
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-15M-100(1)
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
2
3
Elongation (mm)
1.4
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Axial Force (kN)
120
Axial Force (kN)
120
15
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-15M-100(1)
Elongation (mm)
67
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Axial Load (kN)
Axial Load (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
North
South
East
West
Average
0
10
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
15
North
South
East
West
Average
0
Elongation(mm)
1.4
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation(mm)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-15M-100(2)
0
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-15M-100(2)
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
C30-15M-100(2)
Avg. Crack Spacing
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
Avg. Crack Spacing
15
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-15M-100(2)
Elongation (mm)
68
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
60
Average
North
South
East
West
40
20
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
80
60
Average
North
South
East
West
40
20
0
0
0
10
15
20
C30-15M-150(1)
0
10
15
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
20
400
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
C30-15M-150(1)
300
200
100
0
10
Elongation (mm)
500
C30-15M-150(1)
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
15
Elongation (mm)
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-15M-150(1)
Elongation (mm)
69
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
100
100
80
80
60
Average
North
South
East
West
40
20
Load (kN)
120
Load (kN)
120
60
Average
North
South
East
West
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
3.5
6
5
4
3
2
1
C30-15M-150(2)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-15M-150(2)
0
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
500
400
300
200
100
0
5
10
15
Elongation (mm)
500
C30-15M-150(2)
Elongation (mm)
C30-15M-150(2)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
20
400
300
200
100
0
0
2
3
Elongation (mm)
70
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.4.2.1 Test Observations

In this section the general observations made while conducting tests for the specimens in
Test Series M will be discussed, especially if the specimen behaviour deviated from the norm.
Following the discussion of each specimen, the corresponding photographs of the specimen in
the last stage have been provided.
Specimens C30-10M-100(1) and C30-10M-100(2) exhibited typical specimen behaviour
discussed in Section 4.5.1. The results of the two tests were similar in terms of both the
maximum crack width and the crack spacing. Specimen C30-10M-100(1) had very thin splitting
cracks in the central region on the east side of the specimen while one splitting crack was
observed in C30-10M-100(2) on the west side. The cracks on all four sides of the specimens
after stabilization can be seen in Fig. 4-16. In specimens C30-10M-150(1) and C30-10M-150(2),
as expected, the reinforcing bars yielded before the concrete cracked due to the very low
reinforcement ratio.
Fig. 4-16: Crack pattern of Specimens C30-10M-100

(a) Specimen C30-10M-100(1); (b) Specimen C30-10M-100(2)
Specimens C30-15M-100(1) and C30-15M-100(2) also behaved in the same typical
manner as Specimens C30-10M-100(1) and C30-10M-100(2). There were a few splitting cracks
present on two sides in the central region for both the specimens but C30-15M-100(2) showed
71
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
relatively slightly more splitting cracks (see Fig. 4-17). Other than that, the two specimens
behaved quite similarly.

Specimens C30-15M-150(1) and C30-15M-150(2) also exhibited the typical specimen
behaviour. The tests were terminated after six load stages due to early crack stabilization. There
was little variation between the results of the two tests. However, it was observed that specimen
(2) had more cracks than specimen (1) especially on the north and east sides (Fig. 4-18).

72
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.4.3 Test Series A

Test Series A had 16 specimens and all of these were reinforced with GFRP Bars A.
Tables 4-13 to 4-17 list the relevant bar properties, cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens
and data on concrete shrinkage, and tensile strength that represent the average material properties
for each direct tension specimen except the modulus of rupture which was measured at 28 days
only. The load-elongation, the maximum crack width-elongation and the crack spacingelongation plots for all the specimens in this test series are presented in Figures 4-19 to 4-31. As
mentioned earlier, the figures are repeated at a larger scale to show the details that are not
obvious at small deformations.
Table 4-13: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series A specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
C30-12A-150(1)
C30-12A-150(2)
C30-16A-150(1)
C30-16A-150(2)
C30-19A-150(1)
C30-19A-150(2)
C85-16A-100(1)
C85-16A-100(2)
C85-16A-150(1)
C85-16A-150(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
db
fu
(mm)
(mm)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
100
100
100
100
100
100
150
150
150
150
150
150
100
100
150
150
13
13
16
16
19
19
13
13
16
16
19
19
16
16
16
16
49300
49300
44400
44400
46300
46300
49300
49300
44400
44400
46300
46300
44400
44400
48900
48900
1002
1002
921
921
834
834
1002
1002
921
921
834
834
921
921
921
921
19.78
19.78
20.74
20.74
17.98
17.98
19.78
19.78
20.74
20.74
11.98
11.98
20.74
20.74
20.74
20.74
Table 4-14: Concrete compression test results for Test Series A specimens
Specimen Name
Cast

Results
Age
f'c
Ec
(days)
(MPa)
(MPa)
73
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
C30-12A-150(1)
C30-12A-150(2)
C30-16A-150(1)
C30-16A-150(2)
C30-19A-150(1)
C30-19A-150(2)
C85-16A-100(1)
C85-16A-100(2)
C85-16A-150(1)
C85-16A-150(2)
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
42
87
42
87
42
87
87
170
87
170
87
170
90
90
90
90
37.69
41.03
37.69
41.03
37.69
41.03
41.03
42.70
41.03
42.70
41.03
42.70
116.36
116.36
116.36
116.36
35765
35957
35765
35957
35765
35957
35957
37339
35957
37300
35957
37339
54020
54020
54020
54020
Table 4-15: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series A specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
C30-12A-150(1)
C30-12A-150(2)
C30-16A-150(1)
C30-16A-150(2)
C30-19A-150(1)
C30-19A-150(2)
C85-16A-100(1)
C85-16A-100(2)
C85-16A-150(1)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2

Test Date
Age
f'c
csh
(days)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
60
90
57
79
68
86
117
187
75
219
78
186
71
72
86
37.72
41.20
37.72
40.80
38.20
41.03
41.31
42.70
40.80
42.73
40.80
42.70
114.8
114.8
115.6
-0.433
-0.461
-0.433
-0.445
-0.436
-0.457
-0.467
-0.470
-0.441
-0.472
-0.445
-0.470
-0.478
-0.478
-0.492
74
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C85-16A-150(2)
C2
88
115.6
-0.492
Table 4-16: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series A specimens

Specimen Name
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
C30-12A-150(1)
C30-12A-150(2)
C30-16A-150(1)
C30-16A-150(2)
C30-19A-150(1)
C30-19A-150(2)
C85-16A-100(1)
C85-16A-100(2)
C85-16A-150(1)
C85-16A-150(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
Age
fcr
(days)
(MPa)
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
56
56
56
56
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.45
Table 4-17: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series A specimens
Specimen Name
Cast
Age
(days)
f't
(MPa)
't
(x 10-3)
Ect
(MPa)
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
C30-12A-150(1)
C30-12A-150(2)
C30-16A-150(1)
C30-16A-150(2)
C30-19A-150(1)
C30-19A-150(2)
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
75
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C85-16A-100(1)
C85-16A-100(2)
C85-16A-150(1)
C85-16A-150(2)
C2
C2
C2
C2
56
56
56
56
4.09
4.09
4.09
4.09
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
37000
37000
37000
37000
76
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
120
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
0
10
15
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20
North
South
East
West
Average
0
Elongation (mm)
3.5
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
4
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
C30-12A-100(1)
0.5
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-12A-100(1)
0
0
10
15
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Avg. Crack Spacing
C30-12A-100(1)
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
15
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-12A-100(1)
Elongation (mm)
77
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
120
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
0
10
15
North
South
East
West
Average
20
Elongation (mm)
1.4
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-12A-100(2)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
C30-12A-100(2)
0.2
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-12A-100(2)
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
15
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-12A-100(2)
Elongation (mm)
78
160
70
140
60
120
50
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
0
10
15
40
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
0
20
Elongation (mm)
1.4
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-16A-100(1)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-16A-100(1)
0
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-16A-100(1)
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
15
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-16A-100(1)
2
Elongation (mm)
79
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
180
70
160
60
Axial Load (kN)
Axial Load (kN)
140
120
100
80
North
South
East
West
Average
60
40
20
50
40
30
10
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
2
3
Elongation (mm)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-16A-100(2)
1.5
1
0.5
C30-16A-100(2)
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-16A-100(2)
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
2
Maximum Width (mm)
3.5
Maximum Width (mm)
North
South
East
West
Average
20
15
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-16A-100(2)
Elongation (mm)
80
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
250
80
70
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
200
150
North
South
East
West
Average
100
50
0
0
10
60
50
40
North
South
East
West
Average
30
20
10
0
15
20
Elongation(mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
C30-19A-100(1)
0
0
10
15
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
20
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing

5
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(1)
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Elongation(mm)
0.5
15
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-19A-100(1)
Elongation (mm)
81
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
80
70
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
North
South
East
West
Average
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
20
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
2.5
2
1.5
1
C30-19A-100(2)
0
10
North
South
East
West
Average
30
40
15
3.5
50
10
0.5
60
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
15
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing

5
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
C30-19A-100(2)
C30-19A-100(2)
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2
3
Elongation (mm)
15
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-19A-100(2)
Elongation (mm)
82
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
120
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
0
5
Elongation (mm)
10
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
4
3
2
1
0
2
4
6
Elongation (mm)
500
500
400
400
300
200
100
North
South
East
West
Average
0
2
3
Elongation (mm)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
10
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
300
200
100
C30-12A-150(1)
C30-12A-150(1)
0
0
5
Elongation (mm)
10
2
3
Elongation (mm)
83
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
140
80
120
70
60
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
30
North
South
East
West
Average
10
0
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
2
3
Elongation (mm)
3
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
40
20
C30-12A-150(2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-12A-150(2)
0
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
15
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
50
C30-12A-150(2)
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
15
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-12A-150(2)
0
2
3
Elongation (mm)
84
160
80
140
70
120
60
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
100
80
North
South
East
West
Average
60
40
20
North
South
East
West
Average
30
10
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
15
4.5
Maximum Width (mm)
4
Maximum Width (mm)
40
20
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-16A-150(1)
0
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
C30-16A-150(1)
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
15
2
3
Elongation (mm)
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
15
C30-16A-150(1)
0
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
50
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-16A-150(1)
0
2
3
Elongation (mm)
85
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
180
140
160
120
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
140
120
100
80
North
South
East
West
Average
60
40
20
0
0
4
6
Elongation (mm)
100
North
South
East
West
Average
40
0
0
10
2
3
Elongation (mm)
2.5
2.5
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
60
20
2
1.5
1
0.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-19A-150(1)
C30-19A-150(1)
0
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
4
6
Elongation (mm)
10
C30-19A-150(1)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
80
4
6
Elongation (mm)
10
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-19A-150(1)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
86
120
200
100
Axial Force (kN)
250
150
100
North
South
East
West
Average
50
0
Maximum Width (mm)
60
15
2.5
4
3
2
1
North
South
East
West
Average
40
5
10
Elongation (mm)
C30-19A-150(2)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-19A-150(2)
0
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
15
C30-19A-150(2)
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
80
20
Maximum Width (mm)
Axial Force (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
15
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-19A-150(2)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
87
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
35
10
9
8
25
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
30
20
15
North
South
East
West
Average
10
5
7
6
5
4
North
South
East
West
Average
3
2
1
0
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
1.4
2.5
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
1.5
1
0.5
C85-16A-100(1)
0
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
10
15
Elongation (mm)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
20
C85-16A-100(1)
0
C85-16A-100(1)
1.2
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
20
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C85-16A-100(1)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
88
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
30
10
9
8
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
25
20
15
North
South
East
West
Average
10
5
0
0
10
15
7
6
5
4
North
South
East
West
Average
3
2
1
0
0
20
C85-16A-100(2)
Avg. Maximum Width (mm)
Avg. Maximum Width (mm)
12
10
8
6
4
2
C85-16A-100(2)
0
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
C85-16A-100(2)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C85-16A-100(2)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
89
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Test Series A will be discussed, especially if the specimen behaviour deviated from the norm.
Following the discussion of each specimen, the corresponding photographs of the specimen in
the last stage have been provided.
Specimens C30-12A-100(1) and C30-12A-100(2) followed the typical specimen
behaviour discussed in Section 4.5.1. Both the specimen behaved in a similar manner and had
similar results. No splitting cracks developed on either specimen (See Fig. 4-32).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4-32: (a) Specimen C30-12A-100(1), (b) Specimen C30-12A-100(2)

Typical specimen behaviour was also displayed by specimens C30-16A-100(1) and C3016A-100(2). As the loading progressed, some splitting cracks developed mostly outside the
central region. The development of splitting cracks was more frequent in case of specimen C3016A-100(2). In specimen (1), the splitting cracks were only observed on one side of the
specimen (refer to Fig. 4-33). In the middle of the test due to unknown reasons, the west LVDT
stopped working. While calculating the average stress-strain response, the west LVDT readings
were, therefore, discarded. It should be noticed that the average crack spacing and average
maximum crack width were obtained using the average of all four sides. Overall the results of
the two specimens were similar.
90
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4-33: (a) Specimen C30-16A-100(1); (b) Specimen C30-16A-100(2)

Both the specimens C30-19A-100(1) and C30-19A-100(2) exhibited the general
behaviour of the GFRP specimens. The repeatability in the two specimens was excellent. Minute
splitting cracks were observed at the end of the test in the central region on one side of the
specimens (refer to Fig. 4-34). In case of specimen (2), the test was stopped before reaching 15
mm elongation because the fibres in the GFRP bar started failing.
(a)
(b)
91
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Specimens C30-12A-150(1) and C30-12A-150(2) had very similar results and followed
the typical specimen behaviour. For specimen (2) after the second crack developed, the south
LVDT holder fell off. Hence, the south elongation readings were disregarded while calculating
the stress-strain response. It should be noticed that the average crack spacing and average
maximum crack width were obtained using cracks on all four sides. Specimen C30-16A-150(1)
followed the general specimen behaviour. Specimen C30-16A-150(2) which had 20 strain
gauges along the length of the bar showed a different response compared to its companion
specimen. Due to the presence of wires and material covering the gauges and perhaps poor
concrete vibration during casting, the bar and the concrete did not appear to bond properly. This
resulted in the concrete not taking load from the bar after a certain stage. No splitting cracks
were observed in specimen (1) and (2).
In case of specimens C30-19A-150(1) and C30-19A-150(2), typical behaviour was
observed. Both the specimens showed similar results. Significant splitting cracks were detected
in the central region of the two specimens during most of the test (refer to Fig. 4-35). It was also
observed that more cracks developed on specimen (2).
(a)
(b)
92
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Specimens C85-16A-100(1) and C85-16A-100(2) followed the typical general behaviour

of the GFRP specimens showing similar results. More cracks were observed in both these
specimens than other specimens in this test series. It was also observed that a few minute
splitting cracks developed in the last stages of the test in both specimens (refer to Fig. 4-36). No
pictures were taken of the last stage of the specimen (2) since the cracking stabilized in earlier
stages.
(a)
(b)
93
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.4.4 Test Series V

Specimens in the test series V were reinforced with GFRP bar type V. A total of 19
specimens were tested in this series of which 16 were reinforced with high modulus Bar V and
the other three with standard Bar VS. Tables 4-18 to 4-22 list the relevant rebar properties, the
cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens and data on concrete shrinkage, tensile strength and
flexural strength that represent the parameters in each direct tension specimen except for the
modulus of rupture which was determined at the concrete age of 28 days. The load -elongation,
the maximum crack width-elongation and the crack spacing-elongation plots for all the
specimens in this test series are presented in Figures 4-37 to 4-53.
Table 4-18: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series V specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12V-100(1)
C30-12V-100(2)
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(2)
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)
C30-16V-150(1)
C30-16V-150(2)
C30-16VS-150(1)
C30-16VS-150(2)
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)
C85-16V-150(1)
C85-16V-150(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
db
Es
fu
(mm)
(mm)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
100
100
150
150
12.7
12.7
15.875
15.875
15.875
15.875
19.050
19.050
12.7
12.7
15.875
15.875
15.875
15.875
19.050
19.050
15.875
15.875
15.875
15.875
67800
67800
65500
65500
51800
51800
65600
65600
67800
67800
65500
65500
51800
51800
65600
65600
65500
65500
65500
65500
1493
1493
1407
1407
1205
1205
1257
1257
1493
1493
1493
1407
1407
1205
1205
1257
1407
1407
1407
1407
22.01
22.01
21.48
21.48
23.25
23.25
17.87
17.87
22.01
22.01
22.01
21.48
21.48
23.25
23.25
17.87
21.48
21.48
21.48
21.48
94
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 4-19: Concrete compression test results for Test Series V specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12V-100(1)
C30-12V-100(2)
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(2)
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)
C30-16V-150(1)
C30-16V-150(2)
C30-16VS-150(1)
C30-16VS-150(2)
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)
C85-16V-150(1)
C85-16V-150(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2

Results
Age
f'c
Ec
(days)
(MPa)
(MPa)
42
87
42
87
42
87
87
87
170
170
87
170
87
170
87
87
90
90
90
90
37.69
41.03
37.69
41.03
37.69
41.03
41.03
41.03
42.70
42.70
41.03
42.70
41.03
42.70
41.03
41.03
116.36
116.36
116.36
116.36
35800
35957
35800
35957
35800
35957
35957
35957
37339
37339
35957
37339
35957
37339
35957
35957
54020
54020
54020
54020
Table 4-20: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series V specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12V-100(1)
C30-12V-100(2)
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(2)
C30-16VS-100(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1

Test Date
Age
f'c
csh
(days)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
65
104
61
104
58
37.72
41.31
37.72
41.31
37.72
-0.436
-0.464
-0.433
-0.464
-0.433
95
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)
C30-16V-150(1)
C30-16V-150(2)
C30-16VS-150(1)
C30-16VS-150(2)
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)
C85-16V-150(1)
C85-16V-150(2)
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
81
75
86
194
195
78
222
120
181
106
109
74
80
89
90
41.03
40.80
41.03
42.70
42.70
40.80
42.73
41.31
42.70
41.31
41.31
114.8
114.8
115.6
115.6
-0.445
-0.441
-0.457
-0.470
-0.470
-0.445
-0.472
-0.467
-0.470
-0.464
-0.464
-0.478
-0.486
-0.492
-0.492
Table 4-21: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series V specimens

Specimen Name
C30-12V-100(1)
C30-12V-100(2)
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(2)
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)
C30-16V-150(1)
C30-16V-150(2)
C30-16VS-150(2)
C30-16VS-150(2)
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)
C85-16V-150(1)
Cast
Age
(days)
fcr
(MPa)
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
56
56
56
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
4.45
4.45
4.45
96
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C85-16V-150(2)
C2
56
4.45
Table 4-22: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series V specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12V-100(1)
C30-12V-100(2)
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(2)
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)
C30-16V-150(1)
C30-16V-150(2)
C30-16VS-150(2)
C30-16VS-150(2)
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)
C85-16V-150(1)
C85-16V-150(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
Age
f't
't
Ect
-3
(days)
(MPa)
(x 10 )
(MPa)
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
56
56
56
56
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
4.09
4.09
4.09
4.09
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
37000
37000
37000
37000
97
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
180
60
160
50
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
140
120
100
80
North
South
East
West
Average
60
40
20
0
0
10
15
40
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
0
20
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
1.4
3.5
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
4
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-12V-100(1)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-12V-100(1)
0
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
C30-12V-100(1)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
1.2
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-12V-100(1)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
98
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
60
160
140
50
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
120
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
40
30
20
North
South
East
West
Average
10
0
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
1.4
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
3.5
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-12V-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-12V-100(2)
0
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
C30-12V-100(2)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
1.2
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-12V-100(2)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
99
300
60
250
50
200
150
North
South
East
West
Average
100
50
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
0
20
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-16V-100(1)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-16V-100(1)
0
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Elongation (mm)
500
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(1)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
2
3
Elongation (mm)
1
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
40
400
300
200
100
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
2
3
Elongation (mm)
100
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
300
80
70
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
250
200
150
North
South
East
West
Average
100
50
0
0
10
15
60
50
40
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
0
20
Elongation (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
C30-16V-100(2)
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
20
C30-16V-100(2)
0
500
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
C30-16V-100(2)
400
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
3.5
0.5
300
200
100
0
C30-16V-100(2)
400
300
200
100
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
2
3
Elongation (mm)
101
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
180
60
160
50
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
140
120
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
North
South
East
West
Average
0
20
2
3
Elongation (mm)
1.4
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
30
10
3.5
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-16VS-100(1)
C30-16VS-100(1)
0
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
C30-16VS-100(1)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
40
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-16VS-100(1)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
102
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
70
250
60
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
200
150
100
North
South
East
West
Average
50
0
0
10
15
50
40
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
0
0
20
3.5
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
3.5
2.5
2
1.5
1
C30-16VS-100(2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-16VS-100(2)
0
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
C30-16VS-100(2)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
0.5
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
10
15
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
20
C30-16VS-100(2)
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
103
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
350
250
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
300
200
150
North
South
East
West
Average
100
50
0
0
10
15
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
North
South
East
West
Average
0
Elongtion (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
C30-19V-100(1)
0
5
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
C30-19V-100(1)
10
15
Elongation (mm)
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
20
C30-19V-100(1)
0
20
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongtion (mm)
3.5
0.5
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-19V-100(1)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
104
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
350
250
200
150
North
South
East
West
Average
100
50
0
0
10
15
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
300
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
North
South
East
West
Average
0
Elongation (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
C30-19V-100(2)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
C30-19V-100(2)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
20
C30-19V-100(2)
Elongation (mm)
3.5
0.5
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-19V-100(2)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
105
160
80
140
70
120
60
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
5
10
Elongation (mm)
North
South
East
West
Average
15
2
3
Elongation (mm)
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
15
C30-12V-150(1)
30
15
C30-12V-150(1)
0
40
10
Maximum Width (mm)
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
50
20
C30-12V-150(1)
0
Avg. Crack Spacing
Maximum Width (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-12V-150(1)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
106
160
80
140
70
120
60
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
30
North
South
East
West
Average
10
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
15
4.5
Maximum Width (mm)
4
Maximum Width (mm)
40
20
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-12V-150(2)
0
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
C30-12V-150(2)
5
10
Elongation (mm)
15
2
3
Elongation (mm)
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
15
C30-12V-150(2)
0
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
50
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-12V-150(2)
2
3
Elongation (mm)
107
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
200
80
180
70
60
140
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
160
120
100
80
North
South
East
West
Average
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
30
North
South
East
West
Average
10
0
15
2
3
Elongation (mm)
1.4
3.5
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
40
20
4
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-16V-150(1)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-16V-150(1)
0
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
15
C30-16V-150(1)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
50
10
Elongation (mm)
15
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-16V-150(1)
10
Elongation (mm)
15
108
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
180
60
160
50
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
Maximum Width (mm)
5
10
Elongation (mm)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Axial Force (kN)
120
40
30
20
North
South
East
West
Average
10
0
15
C30-16VS-150(1)
1.5
1
0.5
C30-16VS-150(1)
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-16VS-150(1)
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
2
3
Elongation (mm)
2.5
Maximum Width (mm)
Axial Force (kN)
140
15
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-16VS-150(1)
Elongation (mm)
109
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
80
North
South
East
West
Average
60
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
40
North
South
East
West
Average
20
0
0
10
15
20
2.5
Maximum Width (mm)
2.5
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-16VS-150(2)
1.5
1
0.5
C30-16VS-150(2)
0
0
10
15
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
C30-16VS-150(2)
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
15
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-16VS-150(2)
Elongation (mm)
110
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
300
100
90
80
200
150
North
South
East
West
Average
100
50
70
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
250
60
50
40
North
South
East
West
Average
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
2.5
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-19V-150(1)
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-19V-150(1)
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
400
Avg. Crack Spacing
500
Avg. Crack Spacing
C30-19V-150(1)
300
200
100
0
400
C30-19V-150(1)
300
200
100
0
10
Elongation (mm)
15
Elongation (mm)
111
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
350
140
120
250
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
300
200
150
North
South
East
West
Average
100
50
0
0
10
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
15
20
1.4
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-19V-150(2)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-19V-150(2)
0
0
5
10
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
15
C30-19V-150(2)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
10
Elongation (mm)
15
2
3
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-19V-150(2)
Elongation (mm)
112
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
30
8
7
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
25
20
15
North
South
East
West
Average
10
5
0
0
10
15
6
5
4
North
South
East
West
Average
3
2
1
0
20
Elongation (mm)
1.4
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C85-16V-100(1)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
C85-16V-100(1)
0.2
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
400
Avg. Crack Spacing
C85-16V-100(1)
300
200
100
0
0
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
15
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C85-16V-100(1)
Elongation (mm)
113
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
25
10
9
8
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
20
15
10
North
South
East
West
Average
5
0
0
10
7
6
5
4
North
South
East
West
Average
3
2
1
0
15
Elongation (mm)
1
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C85-16V-100(2)
0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C85-16V-100(2)
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
400
Avg. Crack Spacing
C85-16V-100(2)
300
200
100
0
0
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
Avg. Crack Spacing
15
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C85-16V-100(2)
Elongation (mm)
114
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Test Series V will be discussed, especially if the behaviour deviated from the norm. Following
the discussion, the corresponding photographs of each specimen in the last stage have been
provided.
Specimens C30-12V-100(1) and C30-12V-100(2) followed the typical behaviour of the
GFRP specimens discussed in Section 4.5.1. Significant splitting cracks were observed on the
south side of both specimens, a few on the west and east side and none on the north side (refer to
Fig. 4-54). Both specimens behaved similarly throughout the duration of the tests.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4-54: (a) Specimen C30-12V-100(1); (b) Specimen C30-12V-100(2)

The typical behaviour was observed in case of specimens C30-16V-100(1) and C30-16V100(2). Barely any splitting cracks were observed in case of specimen (1). However, there was
some splitting observed on one side of the specimen (2) (refer to Fig. 4-55). Other than that, the
two specimens displayed similar behaviour. It should be noted that the cracking had not
stabilized at 15 mm elongation so the specimens were further elongated to 18 mm. For
specimens C30-16VS-100(1) and C30-16VS-100(2), the typical behaviour was observed as well.
115
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Minor splitting cracks were observed close to the end regions (Refer to Fig. 4-56). Little
variation was observed between the two tests.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4-56: (a) Specimen C30-16VS-100(1); (b) Specimen C30-16VS-100(2)

Both specimens C30-19V-100(1) and C30-19V-100(2) showed the general expected
behaviour. Again the two specimens behaved in a similar manner (refer to Fig. 4-57). Specimens
C30-12V-150(1) and C30-12V-150(2) displayed the typical behaviour. Splitting cracks were
observed in the end regions early in the tests. Due to a splitting crack on the south side, the south
116
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
LVDT fell off.
Hence, the average of stress-strain behaviour was determined without
considering the readings from the south side LVDT. Other than this aspect, the behaviour of the
two identical specimens in the pair was similar.
(a)
(b)

For specimens C30-16V-150(1) and C30-16V-150(2) the general typical behaviour was
also observed. A few splitting cracks were observed in the central region on the east side of
specimen (1). Specimen (2) had strain gauges on the bar throughout its length, but the behaviour
was found to be similar to specimen (1).
Typical behaviour was also observed for specimens C30-16VS-150(1) and C30-16VS150(2). Specimen (1) test was terminated after 13 mm elongation because of failure of the bar
fibres. Splitting in concrete was detected in the centre of the specimens. On one side of the
specimens, splitting was also observed in the end regions (refer to Fig. 4-58). The behaviour of
the two specimens was similar.
Specimens C30-19V-150(1) and C30-19V-150(2) followed the general typical behaviour.
The first crack observed was a splitting crack in the end region of specimen (2). This was not the
case for specimen (1). The north side of specimen (1) was not properly finished and some
aggregate segregation was observed (refer to Fig. 4-59). This was probably the reason for the
117
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
two specimens showing slightly different behaviour. However, the overall the responses of the
two specimens were not much different.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4-58: (a) Specimen C30-16VS-150(1); (b) Specimen C30-16VS-150(2)
(a)
(b)

For specimens C85-16V-100(1) and C85-16V-100(2), the typical behaviour was
observed. Few splitting cracks were observed (refer to Fig.4-60). Little difference was detected
between the results of the two specimens.
118
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(a)
(b)
119
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.4.5 Test Series C

GFRP bars of type C were used to reinforce 16 specimens in this series. Tables 4-24 to 428 list the relevant rebar properties, the cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens and data for
concrete shrinkage, tensile strength and the flexural strength that represent material properties in
respective specimens. The load-elongation, the maximum crack width-elongation and the crack
spacing-elongation plots for all the specimens in this test series are presented in Figures 4-61 to
4-72 where the behaviour of the specimens at small deformation is shown in accompanying
figures on larger scales.
Table 4-24: Cross-sectional dimensions and bar properties for Test Series C specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
C30-12C-150(1)
C30-12C-150(2)
C30-16C-150(1)
C30-16C-150(2)
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(2)
C85-16C-150(1)
C85-16C-150(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
db
Es
fu
(mm)
(mm)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
100
100
100
100
100
100
150
150
150
150
150
150
100
100
150
150
12
12
16
16
20
20
12
12
16
16
20
20
16
16
16
16
59000
59000
63800
63800
64300
64300
59000
59000
63800
63800
64300
64300
63800
63800
63800
63800
1366
1366
1236
1236
1144
1144
1366
1366
1236
1236
1144
1144
1236
1236
1236
1236
23.26
23.26
19.37
19.37
17.77
17.77
23.26
23.26
19.37
19.37
17.77
17.77
19.37
19.37
19.37
19.37
Table 4-25: Concrete compression test results for Test Series C specimens
Specimen Name
Cast

Results
Age
f'c
Ec
(days)
(MPa)
(MPa)
120
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
C30-12C-150(1)
C30-12C-150(2)
C30-16C-150(1)
C30-16C-150(2)
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(2)
C85-16C-150(1)
C85-16C-150(2)
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
42
87
42
87
42
87
170
170
87
170
87
87
90
90
90
90
37.69
41.03
37.69
41.03
37.69
41.03
42.70
42.70
41.03
42.70
41.03
41.03
116.36
116.36
116.36
116.36
35800
35957
35800
35957
35800
35957
37339
37339
35957
37339
35957
35957
54020
54020
54020
54020
Table 4-26: Concrete shrinkage test results for Test Series C specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
C30-12C-150(1)
C30-12C-150(2)
C30-16C-150(1)
C30-16C-150(2)
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(2)
C85-16C-150(1)
C85-16C-150(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2

Test Date
Age
f'c
csh
(days)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
63
112
62
93
71
92
133
137
90
224
100
110
67
67
91
94
37.72
41.31
37.72
41.20
40.80
41.20
41.33
41.33
41.20
42.73
41.31
41.31
114.8
114.8
115.6
115.6
-0.436
-0.467
-0.436
-0.461
-0.439
-0.461
-0.467
-0.467
-0.461
-0.472
-0.464
-0.467
-0.478
-0.478
-0.492
-0.492
121
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 4-27: Concrete modulus of rupture for Test Series C specimens

Specimen Name
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
C30-12C-150(1)
C30-12C-150(2)
C30-16C-150(1)
C30-16C-150(2)
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(2)
C85-16C-150(1)
C85-16C-150(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
Age
fcr
(days)
(MPa)
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
56
56
56
56
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
4.45
4.45
4.45
4.45
Table 4-28: Concrete 'dog-bone' test results for Test Series C specimens
Specimen Name
Cast
Age
(days)
f't
(MPa)
't
(x 10-3)
Ect
(MPa)
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
C30-12C-150(1)
C30-12C-150(2)
C30-16C-150(1)
C30-16C-150(2)
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(2)
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
56
56
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
4.09
4.09
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.150
0.150
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
27200
37000
37000
122
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C85-16C-150(1)
C85-16C-150(2)
C2
C2
56
56
4.09
4.09
0.150
0.150
37000
37000
123
140
60
120
50
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
0
10
15
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
40
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
20
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.4
C30-12C-100(1)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-12C-100(1)
0
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
500
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(1)
400
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
300
200
100
0
400
300
200
100
0
10
Elongation (mm)
15
20
Elongation (mm)
124
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
120
50
45
40
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
0
10
15
35
30
25
20
North
South
East
West
Average
15
10
5
20
Elongation (mm)
1
Maximum Width (mm)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-12C-100(2)
0
0
10
15
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-12C-100(2)
0
20
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
500
C30-12C-100(2)
C30-12C-100(2)
400
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
3.5
Maximum Width (mm)
300
200
100
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
Elongation (mm)
15
20
Elongation (mm)
125
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
300
80
70
250
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
60
200
150
100
North
South
East
West
Average
50
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
40
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
0
20
3.5
2
3
Elongation (mm)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-16C-100(1)
0
0
10
15
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-16C-100(1)
20
Elongation (mm)
C30-16C-100(1)
Avg. Crack Spacing
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
Avg. Crack Spacing
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
50
15
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-16C-100(1)
Elongation (mm)
126
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
250
80
70
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
200
150
100
North
South
East
West
Average
50
60
50
40
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
C30-16C-100(2)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
C30-16C-100(2)
0.2
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
500
400
C30-16C-100(2)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
3.5
0.5
300
200
100
400
C30-16C-100(2)
300
200
100
0
0
0
10
Elongation (mm)
15
20
Elongation (mm)
127
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
350
200
150
North
South
East
West
Average
100
50
0
Maximum Width (mm)
10
15
Elongation (mm)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Axial Force (kN)
250
C30-19C-100(1)
North
South
East
West
Average
0
20
Maximum Width (mm)
Axial Force (kN)
300
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
Elongation (mm)
10
15
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-19C-100(1)
20
C30-19C-100(1)
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1.4
0
0
15
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-19C-100(1)
Elongation (mm)
128
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
350
250
200
North
South
East
West
Average
150
100
50
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
300
0
0
10
15
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
North
South
East
West
Average
20
1.4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
C30-19C-100(2)
0.5
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
C30-19C-100(2)
0.2
0
10
15
20
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
400
C30-19C-100(2)
300
200
100
0
Avg. Crack Spacing
500
Avg. Crack Spacing
400
C30-19C-100(2)
300
200
100
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
Elongation (mm)
129
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
160
100
140
90
80
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
120
70
60
50
40
North
South
East
West
Average
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
6
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
10
15
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
Avg. Crack Spacing
500
Avg. Crack Spacing
400
300
200
100
0
400
300
200
100
0
10
Elongation (mm)
15
Elongation (mm)
130
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
300
100
90
80
150
100
North
South
East
West
Average
50
0
Maximum Width (mm)
5
10
Elongation (mm)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
5
10
60
50
40
North
South
East
West
Average
30
20
10
0
15
C30-16C-150(1)
0
70
Axial Force (kN)
200
Maximum Width (mm)
Axial Force (kN)
250
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
15
Elongation (mm)
500
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
C30-16C-150(1)
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2
3
Elongation (mm)
400
300
200
100
C30-16C-150(1)
C30-16C-150(1)
0
10
Elongation (mm)
15
Elongation (mm)
131
400
80
350
70
300
60
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
250
200
North
South
East
West
Average
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
50
40
North
South
East
West
Average
30
20
10
0
20
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
C30-19C-150(1)
0
10
15
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
20
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(1)
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Elongation (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
15
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-19C-150(1)
Elongation (mm)
132
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
250
140
120
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
200
150
100
North
South
East
West
Average
50
100
80
60
North
South
East
West
Average
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
C30-19C-150(2)
0
10
15
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
C30-19C-150(2)
0
20
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
500
C30-19C-150(2)
400
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
300
200
100
0
C30-19C-150(2)
400
300
200
100
0
10
Elongation (mm)
15
20
Elongation (mm)
133
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
300
100
90
200
150
100
North
South
East
West
Average
50
0
Maximum Width (mm)
10
15
Elongation (mm)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Axial Force (kN)
80
70
60
50
40
North
South
East
West
Average
30
20
10
0
20
C85-16C-100(1)
0
10
15
10
8
6
4
2
C85-16C-100(1)
0
20
Elongation (mm)
Avg. Crack Spacing
400
300
200
100
C85-16C-100(1)
0
0
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
500
Avg. Crack Spacing
2
3
Elongation (mm)
12
Maximum Width (mm)
Axial Force (kN)
250
15
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C85-16C-100(1)
0
Elongation (mm)
134
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
250
80
70
60
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
200
150
100
North
South
East
West
Average
50
0
0
10
15
50
40
30
North
South
East
West
Average
20
10
0
20
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
12
C85-16C-100(2)
0
10
15
10
8
6
4
2
C85-16C-100(2)
20
Elongation (mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C85-16C-100(2)
10
Elongation (mm)
Elongation (mm)
15
Avg. Crack Spacing
Avg. Crack Spacing
Elongation (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Maximum Width (mm)
Elongation (mm)
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C85-16C-100(2)
Elongation (mm)
135
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Test Series C will be discussed, especially if the behaviour deviated from the norm. Following
the discussion of each specimen, the corresponding photographs of the specimen in the last stage
have been provided.
Specimen C30-12C-100(1) and C30-12C-100(2) displayed the typical behaviour of the
GFRP specimens discussed in Section 4.5.1. Both the specimens behaved similarly throughout
the tests. The typical behaviour was also observed in both specimens C30-16C-100(1) and C3016C-100(2). However, several splitting cracks were observed in specimen (1) but specimen (2)
showed little splitting cracks especially in the initial stages. Splitting cracks were observed on all
four sides of specimen (1) but only on two sides for specimen (2) (refer to Fig. 4-73). Overall,
the behaviour of the two specimens was similar.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4-73: (a) Specimen C30-16C-100(1); (b) Specimen C30-16C-100(2)

Specimens C30-19C-100(1) and C30-19C-100(2) showed the typical behaviour. Several
splitting cracks were observed on three sides of both the specimens. No splitting cracks were
observed on the north side (refer to Fig. 4-74). The responses of both the specimen were similar.
136
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(a)
(b)

For specimens C30-12C-150(2), the general typical behaviour was also observed. In the
case of specimen C30-12C-150(1), the coupler slipped after the first two stages at a load of 26
kN and corresponding elongation of 1.5 mm. The most likely reason for the slip occurring was a
loose washer on one of the couplers. For specimen (2), stage 3 was observed at 10 mm
displacement rather than 7 mm displacement for the other specimens. This was because no
cracks were found to develop between 3 mm and 7 mm of elongations. No splitting cracks were
observed on these specimens.
Specimens C30-16C-150(1) and C30-16C-150(2) displayed the typical behaviour as well.
Splitting cracks were observed in the end regions quite early in the tests. Due to a splitting crack
on the west and east side of specimen (2), the LVDTs fell off. Hence, the average stress-strain
response was determined without considering the readings from the west and east side. Other
than this aspect, the behaviour of the two specimens was very similar. Both specimens C30-19C150(1) and C30-19C-150(2) showed the general typical behaviour. Little difference was
observed between the responses of the two specimens. A few splitting cracks were observed in
the central region of both specimens (refer to Fig. 4-75).
137
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(a)
(b)

The typical behaviour was also observed for specimens C85-16C-100(1) and C85-16C100(2). Both these tests continued for eight stages rather than seven in most other tests. The
eighth stage was added because cracking had not stabilized by stage seven. The tests were
terminated after 18 mm average elongation. Splitting was detected in both the specimens. For
specimen (1), splitting cracks occurred during the initial stages as well. The cracking pattern of
the two specimens was similar (see to Fig. 4-76).
(a)
(b)
138
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.4.6 Summary and Discussion

Care was taken to ensure that the specimens underwent minimum shrinkage. This
resulted in no shrinkage induced cracks being observed in any of the specimens. Hence, all the
cracks on the specimens developed due to load application.
Splitting cracks were rarely observed in steel-reinforced specimens, though they were a
constant concern for GFRP-reinforced specimens. It was observed that splitting cracks were
more severe for specimens that had a smaller concrete cover to bar diameter ratio. This has also
previously been observed by Abrishami and Mitchell (1996) and Deluce (2013). Splitting mostly
occurred in the end regions of the GFRP reinforced specimens. The development of splitting
cracks could have been prevented by clamping the end of the specimens. However, it was
preferred not to introduce any clamping stresses within the specimens. For a few GFRPreinforced specimens at higher strain values splitting in the end regions became a concern
because it affected the LVDT readings on the faces perpendicular to where they developed. Also
for a rare few specimens that developed large splitting cracks in the end regions, the splitting
cracks resulted in the LVDTs falling off the specimens at large strain values. Overall, splitting
cracks did not seem to have a significant effect on the tension stiffening behaviour of GFRP
reinforced specimens. The effect of splitting cracks was a decrease in average measured
elongation as can be seen in the crack spacing-elongation and load-elongation plots (Figures 410 to 4-76). Their overall effect on the validity of both the mean crack spacing-elongation and
load-elongation plots was minimal. This was due to the fact that splitting tended to initiate at
high strain values when the GFRP bar was taking nearly most of the load. By that time, the crack
spacing had stabilized and the load-elongation plot was behaving linearly. The most splitting
cracks were generally observed on specimens reinforced GFRP bar C and the least splitting
cracks on specimens reinforced with GFRP bar V which indicates that splitting is affected by the
surface area of the GFRP bars.
In most specimens, little difference was observed between duplicate tests. In a few
specimens, some divergence was observed between identical tests mostly because of slight initial
bending of the GFRP bar due to the weight of the coupler. This resulted in the development of
flexural stresses within the specimens before the commencement of the test. However after the
139
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
development of the initial crack, the effect of the flexural stresses on the specimen behaviour
either dissipated or became negligible due to the development of high tensile stresses.
For the purpose of this test program, the behaviour of steel specimens until yielding was
of interest since the effect of tension stiffening vanishes after yielding of the steel bar. It was
observed that the cracks stabilized close to the yield point. However, a majority of the steel
reinforced specimens were tested till the steel bar ruptured. It was observed that the crack
development again started in the strain-hardening region even though it had stabilized close to
the yielding of the steel bar. For the GFRP-reinforced specimens crack stabilization was
observed at much higher strain values. More cracks developed in specimens reinforced with
GFRP than steel. Consequently, the final crack spacing seemed smaller for GFRP-reinforced
specimens in comparison with steel for specimens having the same reinforcement ratio.
By comparing the results of the GFRP direct tension specimens, several trends can be
observed. Comparing the cracking behaviour of different GFRP reinforced specimens within a
test series, it was observed that crack spacing increases with a decrease in reinforcement ratio.
Comparing the cracking behaviour of specimens with the same cross-section within different test
series, it was observed that generally specimens reinforced with GFRP bar V had the least crack
spacing and specimen reinforced with GFRP bar C had the largest crack spacing.
140
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5.1
Introduction
In this chapter, a detailed investigation of the tension stiffening behaviour of GFRP
specimens is described. Total strain in concrete is determined considering the shrinkage strain
following which the complete stress-strain behaviour and the tension stiffening factor plots for
all the specimens are developed. The influence of various parameters on tension stiffening and
crack spacing are also explored. The analytical results using the available models for tension
stiffening and crack spacing are compared with the experimental results to observe their validity.
The program VecTor2 is used for its ability to predict the response of the steel specimens.
Finally, new tension stiffening and crack spacing models are proposed for GFRP specimens and
their accuracy checked against the experimental data obtained in this test program.
5.2
Determination of Tension Stiffening Response

In this section, the method utilized to determine the stress-strain member response,
concrete stress versus strain response and ultimately the tension stiffening factor versus strain
response has been explained.
The reinforcing bar stress-strain response is determined based on the average values of
the elastic modulus given in Table 4-7. The member stress-strain response is determined by
using the data of the load-elongation curves plot in Chapter 4. The strain considered in the
member response is the total strain which includes shrinkage strain. Tension stiffening of the
cracked reinforced concrete was determined using an average stress-strain response with a
descending branch to model the concrete in tension. This approach to model tension stiffening is
equivalent to assuming the concrete has a reduced effective modulus of elasticity after initial
crack development.
The tensile force carried by the concrete was found by the subtraction of the bar force
from the total member force. The average concrete tensile stress was determined by dividing the
141
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
resulting force by the effective area of concrete. A tension stiffening factor was used to
characterize this tensile property. The tension stiffening factor took into account the variation of
stress within the concrete cracks with respect to the tensile cracking stress. It normalized the
average tensile cracking stress with respect to the tensile cracking strength. The tension
stiffening factor
is calculated as follows:
5-1
5-2
where,
fc = Average tensile cracking stress (MPa)
f't = Tensile cracking strength (MPa)
N = Total tensile force carried the member (kN)

Nb = Average tensile force carried by the reinforcing bar (kN)
Ac = Effective area of concrete in tension (mm2)
This results in a post-cracking tensile stress of fc = f't which decreases with an increasing
strain.
5.3
Calculation of Total Strain

It is imperative to include shrinkage strain in the analysis of member response in order to
evaluate accurate tension stiffening effects (Bischoff 2001, 2003; Fields and Bischoff 2004).
This is because shrinkage causes an initial member shortening. Hence the concrete is under an
initial stress that results in the specimen cracking at lower loads. If shrinkage effects are
neglected during the analysis of the member, there is an apparent reduction in the cracking
strength of the concrete as the reinforcement ratio increases (Bischoff, 2001). Despite the fact
that best efforts were made to ensure thorough curing of concrete to minimize shrinkage,
significant shrinkage took place in the specimens especially in the case of high strength concrete
142
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
specimens. To determine the free shrinkage strain between the test day and the cast date,
shrinkage prisms were especially constructed and monitored.
Shrinkage caused the total initial strain in the concrete before the application of load to be
less than zero. This initial strain offset had to be calculated and added to the strain determined by
LVDTs. The concrete exhibited linear elastic behaviour since no shrinkage pre-cracks were
observed in the specimens prior to testing. Hence, the following equilibrium equation was used
to calculate the shrinkage total offset strain.
5-1
5-2
where,
N = external load applied (kN)
Ac = cross-sectional area of concrete (mm2)
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete (MPa)
cf = concrete strain caused by force, net concrete strain
Ab = cross-sectional area of reinforcing bar (mm2)
Eb = modulus of elasticity of reinforcing bar (MPa)
bf = reinforcement bar strain caused by force, net bar strain
The net concrete and reinforcing bar strain can be determined by the following equations:
5-3
5-4
It should be noted that b is assumed to be equal to c throughout the duration of the test.
This is because the reinforcement and the concrete both have zero strain at the time the concrete
is cast. Since these two materials start with the same strain, have the same undeformed length
and undergo identical deformations, their strains must always remain equal. Hence, equation 5-4
becomes:
5-5
where,
143
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c = total concrete strain

csh = free shrinkage strain in concrete
b = total reinforcing bar strain
Substituting the compatibility equations 5-3 and 5-5 in the equilibrium equation 5-2 results in:
5-6
Expanding the above equation results in:
5-7
Re-arranging equation 5-7 leads to the following equation:
5-8
Dividing both sides of equation 5-8 by
results in:
5-9
Letting:
b = Ab / Ac
5-10
= Eb / Ec
5-11
Substituting b and in equation 5-9 and solving for c leads to:

5-12
This is the initial offset strain caused by shrinkage at the start of the test before load application.
The total strain in the specimen considering both the shrinkage strain and the strain determined
by LVDTs is equal to:
5-13
where,
c = total strain in the specimen (relative to time of casting)
m = strain calculated by LVDT measurements (at time of testing)
144
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following equation was used to determine the value of m :

5-14
where,
m = the average displacement of the four sides of the specimen measured by the LVDTs
Lg = the total gauge length of the specimens in which the displacement was measured
5.4
End Effects
Since the bar slip in the end regions of the specimens was considered as insignificant and
not measured, it is important to discuss the behaviour of the concrete in the end regions. The
stresses and strains in the end regions of the concrete specimens would be less than the central
region due to bar slip and development requirements. Hence, the strain outside the two extreme
cracks would be less than the concrete cracking strain. The net strain would be zero at the end of
the specimen and some factor of cracking strain outside the extreme cracks. The gauge length
between the two extreme cracks on the specimens can be determined visually from the
photographs in Appendix B. The LVDT's, however, measured the displacement over a gauge
length of 900 mm. Occasionally cracks did develop outside this gauge length in the end regions.
These cracks were obviously not measured by the LVDT's.
In this section, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to see the effect of variation in the net
strain magnitudes on tension stiffening. Two factors were varied is this analysis; the gauge
length and the factor varying cr. In this sensitivity analysis, the net strain was determined by the
following two equations:
5-15
5-16
where,
145
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
cf = net concrete strain

m = displacement measured by LVDT's (mm)
L = total length of the specimen (mm)
Lg = gauge length of the specimen = 900 mm
Lcr = length between the two extreme cracks (mm)
= a factor taking into effect the variation of cr within the end regions, 0 1
The effect of varying the gauge length while determining the concrete net strain from 900
mm to the length between the two extreme cracks can be seen by plotting the tension stiffening
factor versus the total strain graphs. If = 1, then the net concrete strain in the end region is
equal to the concrete cracking strain. There is no net concrete strain within the end region if =
0. The effect of this variation can be seen by plotting the tension stiffening factor versus the
strain curves of the specimens.
Fig. 5-1 shows the plots from the sensitivity analysis for 16-100 specimens (specimens
consisting of 16mm diameter bars and having a 100 mm square cross-section). Shrinkage effects
were considered during this sensitivity analysis. The gauge length was taken as 900 mm while
comparing the effect of value. The value was taken as zero while comparing the effect of the
gauge length on the net concrete tensile strain. From the plots, it can be seen that there is little
variation in considering 900 mm as the gauge length or the distance between the two extreme
cracks as the gauge length. At higher reinforcement ratios, this difference between the two gauge
lengths became even less noticeable. It is also obvious that the difference between the
assumptions of using 0 or 1 as values is negligible. Hence to determine tension stiffening, in all
the calculations hereafter, the gauge length used is 900 mm (the gauge length over which the
displacement was measured) and value will be taken as zero (no net concrete strain outside the
gauge length). However, in the crack spacing versus net strain plots, the distance between the
extreme two cracks will be taken as the gauge length.
146
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
Bar A
Tension Stiffening Factor (B)
1.2
= 1
=0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
Bar V
Tension Stiffening Factor ()
gl= length b/w

extreme cracks
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
0.018
1.2
1.2
=1
0.8
=0
0.6
0.4
0.2
Bar V
gl=900mm
0.8
gl=length b/w
extreme cracks
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002 0.002 0.006 0.01 0.014 0.018 0.022
0
-0.002 0.002 0.006 0.01 0.014 0.018 0.022
c (mm/mm)
c (mm/mm)
1.2
1.2
Bar C
gl = 900mm
0.8
0
-0.002
0.018
Bar A
=1
0.8
=0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.023
Bar C
gl=900mm
0.8
gl=length b/w
extreme cracks
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.008
0.018
c (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-1: Effect of variation of gauge length and factor on tension stiffening
0.028
147
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.5
Examination and Discussion of Tension Stiffening Behaviour

In this section, the tension stiffening results for all the test series have been presented
separately. The results obtained are discussed in detail and the general patterns observed in each
of the series are mentioned. A comparison is also made between the tension stiffening behaviour
of the three test series.
The tension stiffening behaviours of all the specimens reinforced with bar type A were
found to be similar. The results for companion specimens (1) and (2) were also comparable to
each other. The concrete tensile strength was observed to be approximately 2.7 MPa for all the
normal strength concrete specimens. This value is similar to 2.76 MPa; the tensile strength
obtained through dog-bone tests. The average tensile strength in high strength concrete
specimens was found to be 3.9 MPa. The value determined from the dog-bone direct tension
tests was 4.09 MPa. Tension stiffening was observed until a strain of approximately 13000 for
all the specimens in this tests series.
The specimens in test series V depicted similar tension stiffening behaviour. The results
for tests (1) and (2) for all the pair of specimens but one in this series were almost identical as
well. The exception was the pair of specimens C30-16V-100(1) and C30-16V-100(2). It was
determined that specimen C30-16V-100(1) had an unexpected concrete tensile strength that was
much higher than all the other specimens in the test series. Specimen C30-16V-100(2), however,
had the expected concrete strength. The tensile strength for all the specimens was in the range of
2.7 MPa to 2.8 MPa for the normal strength concrete specimens that was similar to 2.76 MPa;
the tensile strength obtained through dog-bone tests. The average concrete tensile strength was
determined to be 3.8 MPa for the high strength concrete specimens in this test series. This value
was reasonably close to 4.09 MPa; the value obtained through tensile dog-bone tests. Tension
stiffening was present until a strain of approximately 11000-12000 for all the specimens
reinforced with GFRP Bar V. It was observed that tension stiffening in specimens reinforced
with Bar V is less than the specimens reinforced with Bar A.
The specimens in test series C also depicted similar tension stiffening behaviour. The
results obtained for companion specimens (1) and (2) were found to be almost identical. The
concrete tensile strength was approximately 2.7 MPa for all the normal strength concrete
148
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
specimens which is almost equal to 2.76 MPa; the tensile strength obtained through dog-bone
tests. In high strength concrete specimens the average concrete tensile strength was found to be
3.9 MPa that was similar to the value obtained through dog-bone tensile tests. It was found that
the tension stiffening factor became constant at a strain of approximately 14000. A comparison
between the test series revealed that the specimens in test series C had more tension stiffening
than the other two test series.
149
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.5.1 Test Series A

Figures 5-2 to 5-6 present the stress vs. total strain, concrete stress versus total strain and
tension stiffening factor versus the total strain for the 16 specimens reinforced with Bar A. The
results of specimen (1) and (2) have been presented in one plot for comparison. The details of the
relevant bar properties, the cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens, free shrinkage strain,
the tensile strength and the flexural strength of the specimens can be seen in Tables 4-12 to 4-15.
The free shrinkage strains of the specimens have been presented below in Table 5-1 for
convenience.
Table 5-1: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar A specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
C30-12A-150(1)
C30-12A-150(2)
C30-16A-150(1)
C30-16A-150(2)
C30-19A-150(1)
C30-19A-150(2)
C85-16A-100(1)
C85-16A-100(2)
C85-16A-150(1)
C85-16A-150(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2

Test Date
Age
f'c
csh
(days)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
60
90
57
79
68
86
117
187
75
219
78
186
71
72
86
88
37.72
41.20
37.72
40.80
38.20
41.03
41.31
42.70
40.80
42.73
40.80
42.70
114.8
114.8
115.6
115.6
-0.433
-0.461
-0.433
-0.445
-0.436
-0.457
-0.467
-0.470
-0.441
-0.472
-0.445
-0.470
-0.478
-0.478
-0.492
-0.492
150
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
12A Bar
200
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
0.014
0.018
c (mm/mm)
Concrete Strength (MPa)
3.5
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
0.014
0.018
c (mm/mm)
1.2
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
0.014
0.018
c (mm/mm)
151
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
900
800
Stress (MPa)
700
600
500
400
300
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
16A
200
100
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
0.014
0.018
c (mm/mm)
3.5
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
1.2
0.013
0.018
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
0.014
0.018
c (mm/mm)
152
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
800
700
Stress (MPa)
600
500
400
300
200
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
19A
100
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
c (mm/mm)
0.018
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
1.2
0.014
0.013
0.018
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
0.014
0.018
c (mm/mm)
153
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1000
900
Stress (MPa)
800
700
600
500
400
300
C30-19A-150(1)
C30-19A-150(2)
19A
200
100
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
3.5
0.013
0.018
C30-19A-150(1)
C30-19A-150(2)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
1.2
C30-19A-150(2)
C30-19A-150(1)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
154
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
900
800
Stress (MPa)
700
600
500
400
300
200
C85-16A-100(1)
C85-16A-100(2)
16A
100
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
0.014
0.018
c (mm/mm)
4.5
C85-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
c (mm/mm)
0.014
0.018
1.2
C85-16A-100(1)
C85-16A-100(1)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
0.014
0.018
c (mm/mm)
155
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.5.2 Test Series V

Figures 5-7 to 5-13 present the stress versus total strain, concrete stress versus total strain
and tension stiffening factor versus the total strain for the 19 specimens reinforced with Bar V.
The details of the relevant rebar properties, the cross-sectional dimensions of the specimens, the
tensile strength and the flexural strength of the specimens are available in Tables 4-16 to 4-19.
For convenience, the free shrinkage strain of each specimen on the day of the test is presented in
Table 5-2.
Table 5-2: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar B specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12V-100(1)
C30-12V-100(2)
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(2)
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-16VS-100(2)
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)
C30-16V-150(1)
C30-16V-150(2)
C30-16VS-150(1)
C30-16VS-150(2)
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)
C85-16V-150(1)
C85-16V-150(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2

Test Date
Age
f'c
csh
(days)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
65
104
61
104
58
81
75
86
194
195
78
222
120
181
106
109
74
80
89
90
37.72
41.31
37.72
41.31
37.72
41.03
40.80
41.03
42.70
42.70
40.80
42.73
41.31
42.70
41.31
41.31
114.8
114.8
115.6
115.6
-0.436
-0.464
-0.433
-0.464
-0.433
-0.445
-0.441
-0.457
-0.470
-0.470
-0.445
-0.472
-0.467
-0.470
-0.464
-0.464
-0.478
-0.486
-0.492
-0.492
156
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
1000
800
600
400
C30-12V-100(1)
C30-12V-100(2)
12V
200
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
3
C30-12V-100(1)
C30-12V-100(2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
1.2
C30-12V-100(1)
C30-12V-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
0.014
0.018
c (mm/mm)
157
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1400
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(2)
16V
200
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.023
4
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(2)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.023
1.2
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.023
158
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
900
800
Stress (MPa)
700
600
500
400
300
200
C30-16VS-100(1)
C30-16VS-100(2)
16VS
100
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
C30-16VS-100(1)
C30-16VS-100(2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
1.2
C30-16VS-100(1)
C30-16VS-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006 0.01
0.014
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.022
Fig. 5-9: Tension Stiffening Behaviour of C30-16VS-100
159
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1200
1000
Stress (MPa)
800
600
400
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
19V
200
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
3
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
1.2
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
0.018
c (mm/mm)
160
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1400
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)
12V
200
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
3
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
1.2
C30-12V-150(1)
C30-12V-150(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
c (mm/mm)
0.014
0.018
161
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)
19V Bar
200
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c(mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
3
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
1.2
C30-19V-150(1)
C30-19V-150(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
162
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)
16V
200
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
4.5
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
1.2
C85-16V-100(1)
C85-16V-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
c (mm/mm)
0.014
0.018
163
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.5.3 Test Series C

Figures 5-14 to 5-19 present the stress versus total strain, concrete strength versus total
strain and tension stiffening factor versus the total strain for the 16 specimens reinforced with
Bar C. The details of the relevant rebar properties, the cross-sectional dimensions of the
specimens, free shrinkage strain, the tensile strength and the flexural strength of the specimens
can be seen in Tables 4-20 to 4-23. The free shrinkage strains of the specimens have been
presented below in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3: Concrete shrinkage strains for GFRP Bar C specimens
Specimen Name
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
C30-12C-150(1)
C30-12C-150(2)
C30-16C-150(1)
C30-16C-150(2)
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(2)
C85-16C-150(1)
C85-16C-150(2)
Cast
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2

Test Date
Age
f'c
csh
(days)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
63
112
62
93
71
92
133
137
90
224
100
110
67
67
91
94
37.72
41.31
37.72
41.20
40.80
41.20
41.33
41.33
41.20
42.73
41.31
41.31
114.8
114.8
115.6
115.6
-0.436
-0.467
-0.436
-0.461
-0.439
-0.461
-0.467
-0.467
-0.461
-0.472
-0.464
-0.467
-0.478
-0.478
-0.492
-0.492
164
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1400
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
12C
200
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
0.018
c (mm/mm)
3.5
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
1.2
0.013
0.018
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
c (mm/mm)
0.014
0.018
165
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1400
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
16C Bar
200
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c(mm/mm)
0.018
0.023
3
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.023
1.2
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.023
166
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
19C
200
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
3
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
1.2
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.002
0.006
0.01
c (mm/mm)
0.014
0.018
167
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
19C
200
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.023
3
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.023
1.2
C30-19C-150(1)
C30-19C-150(2)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.013
0.018
168
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1400
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(2)
16C
200
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.023
4.5
C85-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.023
1.2
C85-16C-100(1)
C85-16C-100(1)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
0.018
0.023
c (mm/mm)
169
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.5.4 General Tension Stiffening Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Specimens

All the GFRP reinforced specimens followed a typical behaviour. Initially the elastic
stiffness of the specimens was high till the development of the first crack. At this point the
stiffness of the specimen dropped suddenly and cracks started developing. After a while, the
cracking stabilized and the stiffness increased since the GFRP bar started taking most of the load.
The overall stress-strain behaviour of a direct tension GFRP reinforced specimen can thus be
divided into three distinct phases: the pre-cracking elastic phase, the cracking phase, and the
post-cracking phase. This general behaviour of the GFRP reinforced specimens can be seen in
Cracking phase
Post-cracking phase
Pre-cracking elastic phase
Fig. 5-20 below.
GFRP reinforced specimens

GFRP bare bar
cf
Fig. 5-20: General behaviour of GFRP reinforced tension specimens
170
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.6
Influence of Parameters on Tension Stiffening Response

In this section, the direct tension reinforced specimens have been compared to determine
the influence of different variables on tension stiffening behaviour. The four variables
investigated are: reinforcement ratio, bar diameter, concrete strength and bar type. The
reinforcement ratios compared are 1.3%, 2.0% and 3.0%. The bar diameters used are 12mm,
16mm and 19mm. The two concrete strengths used in the specimens were 30 MPa and 85 MPa.
Tension stiffening behaviour in all three bar types are compared here. A comparison of tension
stiffening has also been made between steel and GFRP reinforced specimens. Comparisons have
been made in terms of the total strain and the net strain.
5.6.1 Steel vs GFRP

The tension stiffening results for both steel and GFRP reinforced specimens have been
compared in this section. Comparison has been made individually against all three GFRP bar
types; A, V and C. Shrinkage has been incorporated in the results for both the steel and the
GFRP reinforced specimens.
In Fig. 5-21(a), tension stiffening in steel and GFRP reinforced specimens has been
compared keeping the reinforcement ratio constant at 1.3% and concrete strength at 30 MPa
while in Fig. 5-21(b), the comparison is shown for reinforcement ratio of 2.0%. The results
clearly show that GFRP reinforced specimens exhibit significantly greater tension stiffening than
steel reinforced specimens. This increase in tension stiffening for GFRP reinforced members is
present for all values of axial strain. In the steel reinforced specimens the effect of tension
stiffening vanishes after the specimen yields at a strain of about 2000 strain. In GFRP
reinforced specimens since there is no yielding, tension stiffening effect is present until much
higher strain values, approximately 12000-14000 strains. Also due to the low stiffness of GFRP
reinforcement, the concrete contribution is proportionally higher than in steel reinforced
members. This increase in concrete tensile contribution should be taken into account accurately
in order to avoid an overestimation of member response and crack width (Joh et al. 1997).
171
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
C30-10M-100(1) , steel
C30-10M-100(2) , steel
C30-12A-100(1) , GFRP
C30-12A-100(2) , GFRP
1
0.8
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.2
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
C30-10M-100(1) , steel
C30-10M-100(2) , steel
C30-12V-100(1) , GFRP
C30-12V-100(2) , GFRP
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.2
C30-15M-100(1) , steel
C30-15M-100(2) , steel
C30-16A-100(1) , GFRP
C30-16A-100(2) , GFRP
0.02
C30-15M-100(1) , steel
C30-15M-100(2) , steel
C30-16V-100(1) , GFRP
C30-16V-100(2) , GFRP
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.01
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
0.01
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
1.2
1.2
C30-10M-100(1) , steel
C30-10M-100(2) , steel
C30-12C-100(1) , GFRP
C30-12C-100(2) , GFRP
1
0.8
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.6
0.4
0.2
C30-15M-100(1) , steel
C30-15M-100(2) , steel
C30-16C-100(1) , GFRP
C30-16C-100(2) , GFRP
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
Fig. 5-21: Tension stiffening comparison of steel vs GFRP for (a) = 1.3% and (b) 2.0%
172
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.6.2 Influence of Reinforcement Ratio

A comparison has been made for the effect of reinforcement ratio on tension stiffening
while keeping the concrete strength and the bar type constant. Fig. 5-22 illustrates this effect by
comparing three different reinforcement ratios. Fig. 5-22(a) presents the plots of tension
stiffening versus the total strain and Figure 5-22(b) presents the plots of tension stiffening versus
the net strain. It can be seen clearly in the figure that tension stiffening remains fairly constant
for different reinforcement ratios. This observation is even more pronounced when shrinkage is
included in the analysis. However, specimens C30-12V-100(1) and C30-12V-100(2) with x%
reinforcement ratio had a slightly lesser tension stiffening factor after a strain of 0.005 than the
specimens with reinforcement ratio of 2.0% and 3.0%. No obvious explanation was found for
this deviation from the normal behaviour.
At higher strains for some specimens it was observed that an increase in reinforcement
ratio resulted in a slight decrease of tension stiffening. This can be explained by the fact that a
reduced area of concrete in tension relative to the bar area might have resulted in some apparent
decrease in tension stiffening with increasing reinforcement ratio (Fields and Bischoff 2004).
However, this decrease was not very significant.
1
0.8
C30-12A-100(1) , p=1.3%
C30-12A-100(2) , p=1.3%
C30-16A-100(1) , p=2%
C30-16A-100(2) , p=2%
C30-19A-100(1) , p=3%
C30-19A-100(2) , p=3%
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002 0.002 0.006
1.2
1.2
C30-12A-100(1) , p=1.3%
C30-12A-100(2) , p=1.3%
C30-16A-100(1) , p=2%
C30-16A-100(2) , p=2%
C30-19A-100(1) , p=3%
C30-19A-100(2) , p=3%
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.01
0.014 0.018
c (mm/mm)
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
173
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
1.2
0.8
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.018
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
C30-12V-100(1) , p=1.3%
C30-12V-100(2) , p=1.3%
C30-16V-100(1) , p=2%
C30-16V-100(2) , p=2%
C30-19V-100(1) , p=3%
C30-19V-100(2) , p=3%
0
0.008
c (mm/mm)
C30-12C-100(1) , p=1.3%
C30-12C-100(2) , p=1.3%
C30-16C-100(1) , p=2%
C30-16C-100(2) , p=2%
C30-19C-100(1) , p=3%
C30-19C-100(2) , p=3%
C30-12V-100(1) , p=1.3%
C30-12V-100(2) , p=1.3%
C30-16V-100(1) , p=2%
C30-16V-100(2) , p=2%
C30-19V-100(1) , p=3%
C30-19V-100(2) , p=3%
1.2
1.2
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
C30-12C-100(1) , p=1.3%
C30-12C-100(2) , p=1.3%
C30-16C-100(1) , p=2%
C30-16C-100(2) , p=2%
C30-19C-100(1) , p=3%
C30-19C-100(2) , p=3%
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.008
0.018
c (mm/mm)
(a) tension stiffening vs total strain
0.01
0.02
cf(mm/mm)
(b) tension stiffening vs net strain
Fig. 5-22: Reinforcement ratio effect on tension stiffening
5.6.3 Influence of Concrete Strength

In this section, the influence of concrete strength on tension stiffening was investigated.
A comparison was made between similar NSC and HSC specimens with 16 mm bar diameter in
174
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
which the reinforcement ratio was maintained at 2%. The effect of concrete strength was
investigated for all bar types: A, V and C. Figure 5-23 shows the influence of concrete strength
on the tension stiffening factor. Fig. 5-23(a) shows the relationship in terms of total concrete
strain and Fig. 5-23(b) in terms of net concrete strain. It can be clearly seen that the increase in
concrete strength had practically no effect on tension stiffening. The results are more consistent
when shrinkage is incorporated in the analysis.
1
0.8
1.2
C30-16A-100(1) , 30MPa
C30-16A-100(2) , 30MPa
C85-16A-100(1) , 85MPa
C85-16A-100(2) , 85MPa
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
1.2
C30-16A-100(1) , 30MPa
C30-16A-100(2) , 30MPa
C85-16A-100(1) , 85MPa
C85-16A-100(2) , 85MPa
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.008
0.018
c (mm/mm)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.015
0.02
1.2
C30-16V-100(1) , 30MPa
C30-16V-100(2) , 30MPa
C85-16V-100(1) , 85MPa
C85-16V-100(2) , 85MPa
0.008
c (mm/mm)
0.018
0.8
0.01
cf(mm/mm)
1.2
1
0.005
C30-16V-100(1) , 30MPa
C30-16V-100(2) , 30MPa
C85-16V-100(1) , 85MPa
C85-16V-100(2) , 85MPa
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
175
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
C30-16C-100(1) , 30MPa
C30-16C-100(2) , 30MPa
C85-16C-100(1) , 85MPa
C85-16C-100(1) , 85MPa
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
1.2
C30-16C-100(1) , 30MPa
C30-16C-100(2) , 30MPa
C85-16C-100(1) , 85MPa
C85-16C-100(1) , 85MPa
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.008
0.018
c (mm/mm)
0.01
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-23: Concrete strength effect on tension stiffening at = 2.0%
5.6.4 Influence of Bar Diameter

In this section, tension stiffening behaviour of different bar diameters has been
investigated in detail. Fig. 5-24 shows the effect on tension stiffening behaviour when the bar
diameter is varied. Fig. 5-24(a) presents the plots of tension stiffening versus the total strain and
Figure 5-24(b) presents the plots of tension stiffening versus net strain. Two bar diameters,
12mm and 19mm, were compared while the reinforcement ratio was kept constant at about
1.30%.
It can be seen in Fig. 5-24 that varying the bar diameters had very little effect on tension
stiffening. Again, the results are more consistent when concrete shrinkage was considered. The
very small decrease in tension stiffening that occurred with an increase in bar diameter at the end
of the test was most likely due to a reduced area of concrete in tension relative to the bar area
(Fields and Bischoff 2004).
176
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
C30-12A-100(1) , Bar No. 12
C30-12A-100(2) , Bar No. 12
C30-19A-150(1) , Bar No. 19
C30-19A-150(2) , Bar No. 19
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
0.003
0.008
0.013
1.2
C30-12A-100(1) , Bar No. 12

C30-12A-100(2) , Bar No. 12
C30-19A-150(1) , Bar No. 19
C30-19A-150(2) , Bar No. 19
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.018
0.01
c (mm/mm)
cf (mm/mm)
C30-12C-100(1) , Bar No.12

C30-12C-100(2) , Bar No.12
C30-19C-150(1) , Bar No.19
C30-19C-150(2) , Bar No.19
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
1.2
1.2
1
0.02
C30-12C-100(1) , Bar No.12

C30-12C-100(2) , Bar No.12
C30-19C-150(1) , Bar No.19
C30-19C-150(2) , Bar No.19
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.003
0.008
0.013
0.018
c (mm/mm)
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-24: Bar diameter effect on tension stiffening
5.6.5 Influence of Bar Type

In this section, tension stiffening of the three GFRP bar types used in the test program
was compared. The three other parameters, bar diameter, reinforcement ratio and concrete
strength, were kept constant in all the specimens used in the comparison. Concrete shrinkage was
177
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
also included in the analysis. Fig. 5-25(a) presents the plots of tension stiffening versus the total
strain and Fig. 5-25(b) presents the plots of tension stiffening versus net strain.
It was determined that tension stiffening is affected somewhat by the bar type used.
Tension stiffening was generally found to be the highest for bar type C and lowest for bar type V
while for bar type A it was in the middle. However, specimens reinforced with 16mm bar type A
initially had higher tension stiffening than bar type C. It was also observed that bar type VS had
less tension stiffening than bar type V. This can clearly be seen in Fig. 5-25. The results were
mostly found to be quite consistent. For Test Series A, tension stiffening became constant at
approximately 13000 strain, for test series V at approximately 11000 strain and for test series
C at approximately 14000 strain.
It should be noted that the difference in tension stiffening appears to be higher at lower
reinforcement ratios. In the analysis, the nominal diameter of the bars was used. The three
different bar types have somewhat different actual diameters. However, it has been shown
previously in Section 5.6.4 that bar diameters do not influence tension stiffening.
Hence, this
variation in tension stiffening can most likely be attributed to the different surface treatments of
the three bar types.
C30-12A-100(1) , Bar A
C30-12A-100(2) , Bar A
C30-12V-100(1) , Bar V
C30-12V-100(2) , Bar V
C30-12C-100(1) , Bar C
C30-12C-100(2) , Bar C
1
0.8
0.6
C30-12A-100(1) , Bar A
C30-12A-100(2) , Bar A
C30-12V-100(1) , Bar V
C30-12V-100(2) , Bar V
C30-12C-100(1) , Bar C
C30-12C-100(2) , Bar C
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.2
1.2
0.4
Bar C
Bar A
Bar C
Bar A
0.2
Bar V
0
-0.002
Bar V
0
0.003
0.008
0.013
cf (mm/mm)
0.018
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
178
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002
Bar A
0.6
Bar C
Bar V
Bar VS
0.2
Bar A
0
0.003
0.008
0.013
cf (mm/mm)
1.2
0.4
Bar C
Bar V
Bar VS
C30-16A-100(1) , Bar A
C30-16A-100(2) , Bar A
C30-16V-100(1) , Bar V
C30-16V-100(2) , Bar V
C30-16VS-100(1) , Bar VS
C30-16VS-100(2) , Bar VS
C30-16C-100(1) , Bar C
C30-16C-100(2) , Bar C
0.8
0.018
C30-19A-100(1) , Bar A
C30-19A-100(2) , Bar A
C30-19V-100(1) , Bar V
C30-19V-100(2) , Bar V
C30-19C-100(1) , Bar C
C30-19C-100(2) , Bar C
0.8
0.6
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
1.2
C30-16A-100(1) , Bar A
C30-16A-100(2) , Bar A
C30-16V-100(1) , Bar V
C30-16V-100(2) , Bar V
C30-16VS-100(1) , Bar VS
C30-16VS-100(2) , Bar VS
C30-16C-100(1) , Bar C
C30-16C-100(2) , Bar C
1.2
1.2
0.02
C30-19A-100(1) , Bar A
C30-19A-100(2) , Bar A
C30-19V-100(1) , Bar V
C30-19V-100(2) , Bar V
C30-19C-100(1) , Bar C
C30-19C-100(2) , Bar C
0.8
0.6
Bar C
0.4
Bar A
0.2
Bar A
0.2
Bar V
0
-0.002
Bar C
0.4
Bar V
0
0.003
0.008
0.013
0.018
cf (mm/mm)
0.004
0.008 0.012 0.016

cf (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-25: Tension stiffening comparison of bar type
0.02
179
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.6.6 Summary
GFRP reinforced concrete specimens exhibited greater tension stiffening than steel
reinforced concrete specimens for all values of member strain. Tension stiffening was found to
be independent of concrete strength, bar diameter, and reinforcement ratio especially when
shrinkage is included in the analysis of the member response. This appears rational because
tension stiffening is related to the variation of stress and strain along the length of the reinforcing
bar and it is the elongation of the bar that controls the post-cracking response of the concrete.
The results also show that the bar type does in fact influence tension stiffening to some extent
even when shrinkage in included. This is most likely due to the different surface treatments of
the GFRP bars.
180
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.7
Tension Stiffening Predictions by Codes

Currently two codes deal with predicting the tension stiffening behaviour in steel
reinforced concrete specimens that can be adopted for GFRP reinforced concrete; The ACI
model (ACI 318-11) and the CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1978, 1993).
The ACI-440 equation used in this study is actually a modified form of ACI-318 (318-11)
approach, initially used by Branson (1977) and adapted for FRP. The only difference is the factor
d that takes into account the low bond stress of FRP. The ACI-440 approach has been provided
below in terms of the effective area rather than the effective moment of inertia which was
originally used by Branson (1977).
5-17
where,
Ae = average effective cross-sectional area (mm2)
Ag = gross cross-sectional area (mm2)
Acr = cracked cross-sectional area (mm2)
N = applied load (kN)
Ncr = cracking load (kN)
d = FRP bond stress factor
The CEB-FIP (CEB-FIP Model Code 1993) approach does not provide a direct equation
to calculate the effective area. Rather it takes into account the decrease in tension stiffening with
an increase in strain after the crack formation. The following equation is used to calculate the
average increased strain in the member:
5-18
where,
m = average strain
N = applied load (kN)
Ec = concrete modulus of elasticity (MPa)
Ae = average effective cross-sectional area (mm2)
5-19
181
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
where,
= loading factor
= 1.0 (for initial loading)
= 0.5 (for repeated or sustained loading)
In order to check the validity of the code procedures, the results obtained in the test
program were compared with the ACI and CEB-FIP code predictions. The accuracy of the
equations will be investigated by varying two parameters; reinforcement ratio and the concrete
strength.
5.7.1 Low reinforcement ratio
In this section, the CEB and ACI equations predictions have been investigated for
reinforcement ratios of 2.0% or less. The predicted stress-strain response obtained from the two
methods for C30-12A-100(1) and C30-12A-100(2) specimens has been plotted in Fig. 5-26. It
can be seen that the ACI equation significantly underestimates member deformation. The CEB
equation also provides a stiffer response than the experimental but to a much lesser extent than
the ACI equation. In order to clearly see the ACI and CEB predictions for the member response
at 1.3%, the tension stiffening factor was plotted in Fig. 5-27. From this figure it is obvious that
both the equations overestimate tension stiffening effect. The CEB equation predicts a better
response relative to the ACI for the given reinforcement ratio but it still overestimates the
response particularly at higher strains.
1200
= 1.3%
Stress (Mpa)
1000
800
600
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
12A Bar
ceb
CEB
aciACI
400
200
0
0
0.005
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.015
0.02
Fig. 5-26: ACI and CEB stress-strain prediction at reinforcement ratio of 1.3%
182
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
= 1.3%
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
ACI
CEB
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-27: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction at reinforcement ratio of 1.3%
If the reinforcement ratio is increased to 2%, the stress-strain response predicted by ACI
and CEB equations are considerably less stiff. This results in better predictions for the tension
stiffening factor but the error in predictions from the ACI equation was found to be still quite
large. This can be seen in Fig. 5-28 for specimens C30-16A-100(1) and C30-16A-100(2).
3
= 2.0 %
2.5
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
CEB
ACI
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-28: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction at reinforcement ratio of 2.0%
183
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.7.2 High reinforcement ratio

This section investigates the predictions of the ACI and CEB equations for tension
stiffening factor when the reinforcement ratio is large. The reinforcement ratio used for the
comparison is 3.0% and the specimens for which the predictions were made are C30-19A100(1), C30-19A-100(2), C30-19V-100(1), C30-19V-100(2), C30-19C-100(1) and C30-19C100(2). The results have been plotted separately in Figures 5-29, 5-30 and 5-31 corresponding to
Bars A, V and C, respectively. The results show that the CEB equation provides a reasonable
estimate of tension stiffening factor at a reinforcement ratio of 3%. The ACI equation, however,
does not result in an accurate prediction.
The CEB equation underestimates tension stiffening effect slightly for Bar C and
overestimates tension stiffening for Bar A specimens. It predicts the best response for Bar V
specimens. On the other hand, the ACI equation predicts better for Bar C. It should be noted that
it significantly overestimates the tension stiffening prediction for all three bar types.
1.4
Bar A
=3%
1.2
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
CEB
ACI
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-29: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar A

184
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.8
Bar V
= 3%
1.6
1.4
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
CEB
ACI
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.015
0.02
Fig. 5-30: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar V

1.8
Bar C
= 3%
1.6
1.4
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
CEB
ACI
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.015
0.02
Fig. 5-31: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of Bar C

185
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.7.3 Concrete Strength

In this section, the predictions of the ACI and CEB-FIP model code equations for the
high strength concrete specimens are compared to the normal strength concrete specimens. The
comparison was made for the specimens C30-16A-100(1), C30-16A-100(2), C85-16A-100(1)
and C85-16A-100(2).
The results plotted in Figure 5-32 clearly show that both the ACI and CEB equations
provide a stiffer stress-strain response for high strength concrete. This results in a significant
overestimation of tension stiffening factor for high strength concrete specimens in comparison
with normal strength concrete specimens. The ACI response in particular is highly sensitive to
concrete strength and provides inaccurate predictions for both NSC and HSC specimens. Both
the ACI and CEB equations provide better results for normal strength concrete specimens than
for high strength concrete.
3
C30-16A-100(1) , 30MPa
C30-16A-100(2) , 30MPa
C85-16A-100(1) , 85MPa
C85-16A-100(2) , 85MPa
CEB , 85MPa
ACI, 85MPa
CEB, 30MPa
ACI, 30MPa
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-32: ACI and CEB tension stiffening prediction of 30MPa versus 85MPa concrete
186
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.8
Tension Stiffening Prediction by Bischoff 2004 Model

In this section, the tension stiffening factor for the GFRP reinforced specimens is
predicted by using the Bischoff 2004 model (Bischoff, 2004). The model has been described in
detail in Chapter 2. The results obtained using this model have been compared with the
experimental data. The predicted results for specimens reinforced with Bar A having
reinforcement ratios of 1.3%, 2.0% and 3.0% are presented in Fig. 5-33.
1.4
= 1.3%
1.2
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
Bischoff Model
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
1.4
= 2.0%
1.2
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
Bischoff Model
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.015
0.02
187
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
= 3.0%
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
Bischoff Model
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02

for = 1.3%, 2.0% and 3.0%
The Bischoff 2004 model does not take reinforcement ratio into account. This approach
appears correct since the experimental data indicates that tension stiffening is independent of the
reinforcement ratio. Hence, the predicted results for reinforcement ratios of 1.3%, 2.0% and
3.0% shown in Fig. 5-33 have approximately the same accuracy in comparison with the test
results. The model predicts reasonable well the results for small values of strain but for higher
strains values this model underestimates tension stiffening regardless of the reinforcement ratio.
It predicts that the tension stiffening effect becomes constant much earlier than the experimental
results indicate.
The prediction of tension stiffening factor obtained from the Bischoff 2004 model for
high strength concrete specimens has been presented in Fig. 5-34. Since this model is also
independent of the concrete strength, the accuracy of the results obtained for the high strength
concrete specimens is quite similar to the predictions made for the normal strength concrete
specimens. As for the normal strength concrete predictions, tension stiffening is underestimated
at higher values of strain. However, at the initial strain values the predicted results are quite
similar to the experimental results.
188
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.4
C85-16A-100(1) , 85MPa
C85-16A-100(2) , 85MPa
Bischoff Model
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
Fig. 5-34: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model for 85 MPa concrete
Fig. 5-35 and Fig. 5-36 show the predicted results for specimens reinforced with Bar V
and Bar C having a reinforcement ratio of 3.0%. The Bischoff 2004 model does not take into
account the effects of GFRP bar surface or other variables related to bar types. As mentioned
earlier tension stiffening was found to be affected by the GFRP bar type used in the test program.
The results show that the Bischoff 2004 model provides the best predictions for specimens
reinforced with Bar A and the worst for specimens reinforced with Bar C.
1.2
Bar V, = 3.0%
C30-19V-100(1) , Bar B
C30-19V-100(2) , Bar B
Bischoff Model
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
Fig. 5-35: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model for Bar V, = 3.0%
189
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
Bar C, = 3.0%
C30-19C-100(1) , Bar C
C30-19C-100(2) , Bar C
Bischoff Model
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
Figure 5-36: Tension stiffening prediction by Bischoff 2004 model for Bar C, = 3.0%
From the study conducted to predict tension stiffening through the currently available
methods, it was concluded that overall Bischoff 2004 model provides the best analytical results
for GFRP reinforced specimens. Two main weaknesses of the model were identified. Firstly, it
was observed that it underestimates tension stiffening at higher strain values and secondly it does
not take into account the GFRP bar type.
190
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.9
Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis

Nonlinear finite element analysis was carried out for all steel tension stiffening specimens
to calculate the member response using the program VecTor2 which is a 2-D nonlinear finite
element analysis program (Vecchio 1990, Vecchio 2010). It is based on Modified Compression
Field Theory and the Disturbed Stress Field Model. The initial version of the model was
developed by Vecchio and Collins (1986) and the later by Vecchio (2000). FormWorks (Wong
2002) is the pre-processor and Augustus (Bentz 1996, Bentz 2009) is the post-processor that
facilitates the use of VecTor2. The detail about the program, its theory and models and can be
seen in "VecTor2 & FormWorks User's Manual" (Wong and Vecchio 2002).
Due to the symmetry of the specimens, half lengths of the specimens were modelled in
VecTor2. The mesh layout used for the modelling is shown in Fig. 5-37. The element size was
25 mm along the length and 10 mm along the height of the specimens. The mesh size was
carefully selected after ensuring that there was no significant effect on the results. This was done
by gradually decreasing the mesh size till it stopped influencing the results.
B
Average strain measured in this region = 450mm
500mm (20 @ 25mm)
Fig. 5-37: Mesh of Vector2
The reinforcing bar was modelled using truss elements. For the bond between
reinforcement and concrete, contact elements were used. A nodal displacement of 1 mm was
applied at the end of the reinforcement to simulate the loading conditions. For the majority of the
material properties default values were chosen. The material properties of concrete and steel
191
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
reinforcement that were input for steel- reinforced specimens are shown in Table 5-4. Properties
for GFRP-reinforced specimens were taken from Table 4-7.
Specimen
C30-10M-100(1)
C30-10M-100(2)
C30-15M-100(1)
C30-15M-100(2)
C30-15M-150(1)
C30-15M-150(2)
As
Es
fy
fu
Ec
fc'
ft'
csh
(mm)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(x 10-3)
100
100
200
200
200
200
187100
187100
189400
189400
189400
189400
420
420
402
402
402
402
542
542
661
661
661
661
35800
35800
35800
35800
35800
35800
37.60
37.70
37.60
37.74
37.70
37.74
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
-0.411
-0.423
-0.411
-0.430
-0.423
-0.428
The majority of the models selected were also default models. The selected models are
shown in Table 5-5. The commonly used Bentz 2003 model was selected for tension stiffening in
case of steel reinforced specimens. Compression base curve selected for high strength concrete
specimens was Popovics (HSC). Perfect bond that does not allow slip between concrete and
reinforcement was selected for the contact elements.
Table 5-5: Selected models for the analysis in VecTor2
Category
Compression Base Curve
Compression Post-Peak
Compression Softening
Tension Softening
Tension Stiffening
Confinement Strength
Cracking Criterion
Crack Width Check
Concrete Bond
Rebar Dowel Action
Slip Distortion
Crack Allocation
Model
Popovis (NSC)
Modified Park-Kent
Vecchio 1992-A
Linear
Collins Mitchell 1987
Kupfer/Richart
Mohr-Coulomb
Crack Limit (Agg/5)
Perfect Bond
Tassios (Crack Slip)
Walraven
Uniform Spacing
The effect of concrete shrinkage was first analysed. It can be seen in Fig. 5-38 for the
case of specimen C30-15M-100(1) that if shrinkage is not included the first cracking load
192
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
predicted is considerably higher, approximately 50%, than the experimental value. When a
concrete shrinkage strain of -0.000411 is applied to all concrete elements, the initial cracking
load value and the rest of the values obtained are considerably more accurate. Inclusion of
shrinkage in case of high strength concrete specimens is particularly important since shrinkage is
often higher in those specimens. Hence, shrinkage was included in all the specimens analyzed
and presented here. In order to compare the VecTor2 results to the experimental results in a more
convenient manner, all the experimental results were shifted to the origin (in terms of net strain
rather than the actual total strain).
Fig. 5-38: Effect of shrinkage in VecTor2

The VecTor2 results for steel reinforced specimens having a reinforcement ratio of 1.3%
and 2.0% are shown in Fig. 5-39. Bentz 2003 model predicted very accurate results in case of all
the steel reinforced specimens even when perfect bond was assumed. The analysis was done a
second time assuming imperfect bond. For modelling of the bond, the Eligehausen model
(Eligehausen et al., 1983) was selected. There was very little difference between the results
obtained from the two approaches. This is because bond slip is rarely an issue in monotonically
loaded specimens. It should be noted that in the analysis of all the specimens, the experimentally
193
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
obtained concrete strength, tensile strength and the modulus were used. The results obtained
were even better when default values of VecTor2 were used.
Fig. 5-39: VecTor2 results of steel tension stiffening specimens

VecTor2 does not have the capability to take into account GFRP reinforcement that does
not yield. In order to overcome this limitation, the yield strength was made approximately equal
to the ultimate strength of the GFRP reinforcement. The effect of various steel tension stiffening
models was investigated on GFRP member response. The three models investigated were the
Bentz 2003 Model, Vecchio 1986 Model and Collin Mitchell 1987 Model.
194
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For the bond between GFRP and concrete, the recommendations suggested by Vint (Vint,
2012) were considered. To determine which bond model works best for GFRP, Vint investigated
the various bond models used in VecTor2 and determined that the Fujii Model (Vecchio and
Wong, 2002) produced the most unfavorable results since this bond model is intended for
systems where side splitting bond failure is expected to govern. Vint also determined that while
the peak loads determined by using the Harjili model were closest to the experimental values, it
does not take into account the residual stresses due to friction at the GFRP bar-concrete interface
beyond the peak load. Overall, Vint concluded that best model for GFRP straight bars is the GanVecchio model that produces the second closest peak loads and gives the most accurate
prediction for peak loaded end slips.
VecTor2 responses for the case of specimen C30-12A-100 are provided in Fig. 5-40.
Vecchio 1986 model was selected for tension stiffening. It can be clearly seen that VecTor2
initially underestimates the first cracking load. The predicted response is underestimated
throughout the crack developing region. However, the predicted stiffness after cracking is higher
than the experimentally obtained post-crack stiffness.
Fig. 5-40: VecTor2 result of GFRP reinforced C30-12A-100 specimen

There was not a significant difference between the predicted member responses using the
three tension stiffening models investigated. A comparison of the predicted responses of the
three models for specimens C20-12A-100 (1) and (2) are provided in Fig. 5-41. All three models
195
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
underestimate the first cracking load. Of the three models, Vecchio 1986 tension stiffening
model predicted the most accurate initial cracking load.
Fig. 5-41: Effect on VecTor2 result using various tension stiffening models
196
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.10
Proposed Tension Stiffening Model

The predictions from the current codes available and the steel models utilized in VecTor2
clearly show a need for the development of a more accurate tension stiffening model for GFRP
reinforced specimens. In this section, an attempt is made to develop such a model. The model's
validity is then checked against the results obtained in the experimental program.
It has previously been shown that of the commonly known models for steel, the VecchioCollins 1986 tension stiffening model gives the best result for GFRP specimens. Hence, the
proposed model is based on this model. The tension stiffening model proposed takes into account
the main parameters that affect the tension stiffening behaviour of GFRP reinforced specimens.
As already stated previously, tension stiffening is affected by changes in the bond when different
types of GFRP bar types are used. Since the proposed model is based on the model that was
originally developed for steel reinforcement, the post-cracking strain of the GFRP reinforced
specimens were normalized relative to that of the steel reinforced specimens by taking into
account the ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the GFRP to steel. The average concrete strength
for GFRP reinforced specimens after cracking can thus be determined by the following
relationship:
5-20
where,
fc = average concrete tensile strength after cracking
f't = concrete tensile strength = 0.38(f'c)0.5
= factor based on surface profile of the reinforcing bar

= 0.5
for steel reinforcement
= 1.5
for Bar A (bar helically wrapped and lightly sand-coated)
= 1.0
for Bar V (bar heavily sand-coated)
= 0.8
for Bar C (bar with ribs)
cf = average net concrete strain

cr = concrete tensile cracking strain
Eb = modulus of elasticity of the GFRP bar (MPa)
197
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 = fixed to 1400
In the original 1986 MCFT paper (Vecchio and Collins, 1986) the value of 1 was
suggested as 200. It was recommended to be increased to 500 in 1987 for larger scale specimens
(Collins and Mitchell, 1987). Previously, the concept of varying the value of 1 has been
suggested (Bentz, 2005). According to Bentz, the value of 1 could be taken as high as 980.
Jungji (2012) suggested the value of 1 to be taken as 1300 for steel reinforced specimens. The
recommendation of the value of 1 as 1400 for the proposed model is not very different from the
past suggestions.
The concrete tensile strength computed from tests on the direct tension specimens was in
the range of 0.36(f'c) 0.5 to 0.40(f'c) 0.5. Previously, the average concrete tensile cracking strength
obtained from the axial tension member tests has been suggested to be taken as 0.37(f'c)
0.5
(Bischoff, 2004). This is quite close to the recommended value of 0.38(f'c) 0.5.
The tension stiffening factor can be determined by normalizing the average concrete
strength as determined by eq. 5-20 with respect to the concrete tensile strength at the first crack.
5-21
where,
fc = average concrete tensile strength after cracking
f't = concrete tensile strength = 0.38(f'c) 0.5
It was observed that if the concrete tensile strength was computed using the formula for concrete
cracking strength 0.33(f'c) 0.5 and shrinkage was ignored in the analysis, the member response predicted
was reasonably close to the experimental. The initial cracking load was slightly underestimated and the
response after crack stabilization was somewhat overestimated. This can be seen in Fig. 5-42 for
specimens C30-12A-100(1) and C30-12A-100(2). The experimental initial cracking load was observed to
be 26.3 kN. The initial cracking load predicted from the proposed equation using the actual tensile
strength and including shrinkage was 26 kN and the load predicted without the inclusion of shrinkage and
taking the tensile strength as 0.33(f'c) 0.5 was 24kN. This is probably because the two changes counteract
each other since ignoring shrinkage overestimates the initial cracking load and the using the tensile
198
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
strength as 0.33(f'c) 0.5 underestimates the initial cracking load. Using this method, it was also observed
that as the reinforcement ratio increases, the initial cracking load predicted becomes more accurate.
200
C30-12A-100(1)
180
predicted response- shrinkage

& ft
predicted response-no
shrinkage & fcr=0.33(f'c)^0.5
160
Load (kN)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
200
0.015
C30-12A-100(2)
180
predicted response- shrinkage

& ft
predicted response-no
shrinkage & fcr=0.33(f'c)^0.5
160
140
Load (kN)
0.005
0.01
Member Strain, c (mm/mm)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
0.005
0.01
Member Strain, c (mm/mm)
0.015
Fig. 5-42: Predicted member response; (a) C30-12A-100(1) , (b) C30-12A-100(2)

The tension stiffening factor as determined by equation 5-21 is independent of the
reinforcement ratio, concrete strength and bar diameter. The proposed equations were applied to
calculate the response of specimens tested as part of this study. The results displayed in Figures
5-43 to 5-46 show that the proposed equations predict the tension stiffening factors quite well for
all bar types, concrete strengths and reinforcement ratios. The predicted response for the GFRP
reinforced specimens was found to be more accurate than any of the current existing models.
The response for steel reinforced specimens was comparable to most existing models. Only the
Bentz 2003 model outperformed the proposed model for steel reinforced specimens.
199
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
= 1.3 %
1
C30-12A-100(1)
C30-12A-100(2)
predicted resonse
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.015
0.02
1.2
= 2.0 %
1
C30-16A-100(1)
C30-16A-100(2)
predicted response
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.015
0.02
1.2
= 3.0 %
1
C30-19A-100(1)
C30-19A-100(2)
predicted response
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
Fig. 5-43: Predicted tension stiffening response for Test Series A
200
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
= 1.3 %
C30-12V-100(1)
C30-12V-100(2)
predicted response
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
1.2
= 2.0 %
C30-16V-100(1)
C30-16V-100(2)
predicted response
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
1.2
= 3.0 %
C30-19V-100(1)
C30-19V-100(2)
predicted response
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
c (mm/mm)
0.02
Fig. 5-44: Predicted tension stiffening response for Test Series V
201
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
= 1.3 %
C30-12C-100(1)
C30-12C-100(2)
predicted response
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
1.2
= 2.0 %
C30-16C-100(1)
C30-16C-100(2)
predicted response
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
1.2
= 3.0 %
C30-19C-100(1)
C30-19C-100(2)
predicted response
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
Fig. 5-45: Predicted tension stiffening response for Test Series C
202
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
= 1.3 %
C30-10M-100(1)
C30-10M-100(2)
predicted response
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
cf (mm/mm)
1.2
= 2.0 %
C30-15M-100(1)
C30-15M-100(2)
predicted response
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.00025
0.0005
0.00075
0.001
cf (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-46: Predicted tension stiffening response for Test Series M
203
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.11
Effect of Different Variables on Average Crack Spacing

In this section the direct tension reinforced specimens have been compared to determine
the influence of various parameters on average crack spacing. The four parameters that have
been investigated are: reinforcement ratio, bar diameter, concrete strength and bar type. A
comparison of average crack spacing is also made between steel and GFRP reinforced
specimens. It should be noted that only the mean crack spacing versus the net concrete strain
plots were compared since the mean crack width versus the net concrete strain plot behaviour
was found to be similar. This is because the mean crack width is the product of mean crack
spacing and the net strain.
5.11.1 Steel versus GFRP

The average crack spacing results for steel and GFRP reinforced specimens have been
compared in this section. Shrinkage has been not been incorporated in the results since crack
spacing and crack widths are not much affected by shrinkage (Bischoff, 2001). The specimens
compared have a concrete compressive strength of 30MPa. The results are presented in Figure 546.
By inspecting the plots provided in Fig. 5-47, it can be seen that at a strain of
approximately 0.01, the cracks start stabilizing in GFRP members. This means that crack spacing
stabilizes at a considerable higher strain in most GFRP reinforced specimens than steel
reinforced. By the time the crack development has stabilized in the steel reinforced specimens
before or at the yield strain, crack development is in progress for the GFRP reinforced
specimens. It is also to be noted that the initial crack develops in the steel reinforced specimens
at a lower value of strain in comparison with the GFRP reinforced specimens. While the cracks
are still developing, the GFRP members have larger mean crack spacing. However at higher
strains when the crack spacing in GFRP reinforced specimens starts to stabilize, the mean crack
spacing in the GFRP reinforced specimens is smaller than in steel reinforced specimens. The
final stabilized mean crack spacing of steel reinforced specimens is generally larger than that in
GFRP reinforced specimens. The final crack spacing of steel reinforced specimens for 1.3%
reinforcement was found to be approximately 140 mm. This is comparable to the crack spacing
204
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
determined by other researchers. Whereas for GFRP reinforced specimens it varied between 77
mm to 138 mm depending upon the surface profile of GFRP bar. At a reinforcement ratio of
2.0%, the mean crack spacing for steel reinforced specimens was 145 mm and for GFRP
reinforced specimens it varied from 88 mm to 110 mm depending upon the surface profile of the
GFRP bar. It should also be noted that splitting cracks were observed on many GFRP reinforced
specimens during testing whereas splitting cracks rarely developed in steel reinforced specimens.
Crack widths were observed to be larger at a given value of load in the GFRP reinforced
500
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
C30-10M-100(1) , =1.3%
C30-10M-100(2) , =1.3%
C30-12A-100(1) , =1.3%
C30-12A-100(2) , =1.3%
0.01
0.02
Avgerage Crack Spacing (mm)
specimens. Obviously larger strains develop due to the lower bar stiffness of GFRP.
C30-15M-100(1) , =2.0%
C30-15M-100(2) , =2.0%
C30-16A-100(1) , =2.0%
C30-16A-100(2) , =2.0%
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.03
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
500
C30-10M-100(1) , =1.3%
C30-10M-100(2) , =1.3%
C30-12V-100(1) , =1.3%
C30-12V-100(2) , =1.3%
350
300
500
450
400
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
0.01
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
0.03
cf (mm/mm)
0.03
C30-15M-100(1) , =2.0%
C30-15M-100(2) , =2.0%
C30-16V-100(1) , =2.0%
C30-16V-100(2) , =2.0%
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
0.01
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
0.03
205
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
500
500
450
400
350
C30-10M-100(1) , =1.3%
C30-10M-100(2) , =1.3%
C30-12C-100(1) , =1.3%
C30-12C-100(2) , =1.3%
300
250
200
150
100
C30-15M-100(1) , =2.0%
C30-15M-100(2) , =2.0%
C30-16C-100(1) , =2.0%
C30-16C-100(2) , =2.0%
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
50
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
cf (mm/mm)
0.01
0.02
0.03
cf (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-47: Effect of GFRP reinforcement on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plots
5.11.2 Influence of Reinforcement Ratio

Reinforcement ratio had a significant effect on the mean crack spacing in the specimens.
It was observed that as the reinforcement ratio increased, the crack spacing decreased. The
decrease in crack spacing with an increase in reinforcement ratio was found to be true for steel
and GFRP reinforced specimens. This can be observed in Figure 5-47 that presents the plots of
mean crack spacing versus the net strain for each test series. In the plots, the only parameter that
has been varied is the reinforcement ratio whereas the concrete strength, bar diameter and the bar
type have been kept constant. For each test series, two specimens having the same bar diameter
but different reinforcement ratio have been compared.
It can clearly be seen in Fig. 5-48 that specimens with a lower reinforcement ratio
produced larger crack spacing and consequently larger crack widths. The reason this occurred
was because the cross-sectional area of the concrete relative to the GFRP bar increased as the
reinforcement ratio decreased. This resulted in more force being required to produce more
cracks. A larger force required a larger reinforcement development length which produced larger
crack spacing.
206
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
500
C30-19A-150(1) , =1.3%
C30-19A-150(2) , =1.3%
C30-19A-100(1) , =3.0%
C30-19A-100(2) , =3.0%
400
500
300
200
100
C30-19V-150(1) , =1.3%
C30-19V-150(2) , =1.3%
C30-19V-100(1) , =3.0%
C30-19V-100(2) , =3.0%
400
300
200
100
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
C30-19C-150(1) , =1.3%
C30-19C-150(2) , =1.3%
C30-19C-100(1) , =3.0%
C30-19C-100(2) , =3.0%
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-48: Effect of reinforcement ratio on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plots
5.11.3 Influence of Concrete Strength

The plots shown in Fig. 5-49 demonstrate the effect of changing the concrete strength on
the mean crack spacing of the specimens. The results show that a higher concrete strength results
in a significant decrease in the mean crack spacing.
207
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
500
400
450
500
C30-16A-100(1) , 30MPa
C30-16A-100(2) , 30MPa
C85-16A-100(1) , 85MPa
C85-16A-100(2) , 85MPa
350
300
250
200
150
100
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
50
0
0
0.01
C30-16C-100(1) , 30MPa
C30-16C-100(2) , 30MPa
C85-16C-100(1) , 85MPa
C85-16C-100(2) , 85MPa
450
0.02
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
cf (mm/mm)
500
0.01
C30-16V-100(1) , 30MPa
C30-16V-100(2) ,30MPa
C85-16V-100(1) , 85MPa
C85-16V-100(2) , 85MPa
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
cf (mm/mm)
Figure 5-49: Effect of concrete strength on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plots
5.11.4 Influence of Bar Diameter

The diameter of the GFRP bar had a considerable influence on the mean crack spacing of
the specimens as shown in Fig. 5-50. It can be seen that an increase in the bar diameter results in
an increase in the mean stabilized crack spacing. This is due to the fact that a larger volume to
surface area ratio exists for a larger diameter bar than for a smaller diameter bar. Hence, to
develop high stress in the bar, a longer development length is required. This results in larger
208
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
mean crack spacing. Some variations were detected in the early cracking phase for a few tests
most likely due to localized effects.
500
C30-12A-100(1) , 12mm
C30-12A-100(2) , 12mm
C30-19A-150(1) , 19mm
C30-19A-150(2) , 19mm
450
400
350
C30-12V-100(1) , 12mm
C30-12V-100(2) , 12mm
C30-19V-150(1) , 19mm
C30-19V-150(2) , 19mm
450
500
400
350
300
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
0
50
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.02
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
C30-12C-100(1) ,12mm
C30-12C-100(2) , 12mm
C30-19C-150(1) , 19mm
C30-19C-150(2) , 19mm
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
Figure 5-50: Effect of bar diameter on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plots
5.11.5 Influence of Bar Type

In Fig.5-51, plots of mean crack spacing versus the net strain have been presented to
show the influence of bar type on crack spacing. The other three variables, bar diameter,
reinforcement ratio and concrete strength, have been kept constant in the comparable specimens.
The results show that changing GFRP bar type generally has very little influence on crack
209
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
spacing. However for specimens reinforced with 12mm GFRP bars, some influence of bar type
was observed on crack spacing. It was observed that specimens reinforced with 12mm bar type V
had the least stabilized mean crack spacing and the specimens reinforced with bar type C had the
largest stabilized mean crack spacing. But the variation is small. Very little difference was
observed between the crack spacing of specimens reinforced with bar type A and bar type C. It
was further observed that with an increase in bar diameter, the difference between the crack
spacing reduced.
600
C30-12A-100(1) , Bar A
C30-12A-100(2) , Bar A
C30-12V-100(1) , Bar B
C30-12V-100(2) , Bar B
C30-12C-100(1) , Bar C
C30-12C-100(2) , Bar C
400
300
500
200
100
400
300
200
100
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
cf (mm/mm)
0.02
300
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
200
100
0
500
C30-19A-100(1) , Bar A
C30-19A-100(2) , Bar A
C30-19V-100(1) , Bar B
C30-19V-100(2) , Bar B
C30-19C-100(1) , Bar C
C30-19C-100(2) , Bar C
400
0.005
cf (mm/mm)
500
C30-16A-100(1) , Bar A
C30-16A-100(2) , Bar A
C30-16V-100(1) , Bar B
C30-16V-100(2) , Bar B
C30-16C-100(1) , Bar C
C30-16C-100(2) , Bar B
500
C85-16A-100(1) , Bar A
C85-16A-100(2) , Bar A
C85-16V-100(1) , Bar B
C85-16V-100(2) , Bar B
C85-16C-100(1) , Bar C
C85-19C-100(2) , Bar C
400
300
200
100
0
0.005
0.01
cf (mm/mm)
0.015
0.02
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
cf (mm/mm)
Fig. 5-51: Effect of bar type on mean crack spacing-net concrete strain plots
0.025
210
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.12
Proposed Mean Crack Spacing Model

Very few models are currently available to calculate the crack spacing in GFRP
reinforced concrete members. The models that have been previously proposed for GFRP do not
directly calculate the crack spacing. The most commonly used GFRP cracking models, ACI
440.1 R-06 Model and Toutanji Model, calculate the maximum crack width. In order to estimate
the crack spacing, the average crack width is first determined by dividing the maximum crack
width by 1.7 (Collins and Mitchell, 1997). This equation is based on the assumption that the
characteristic crack width is the crack width that can be exceeded by only 5% of the cracks.
The proposed stabilized mean crack spacing model is a modification of the CEB-FIP
1978 mean crack spacing formulation and directly calculates the crack spacing. It suggests
various factors based on the experimental results obtained for different GFRP bars' surface
profiles. The proposed model does not use the clear cover to the reinforcing bars as suggested in
the CEB-FIP 1978 model. Rather, the expression of 1.5ag is used to approximate the minimum
concrete cover. The use of this term was suggested by Deluce (Deluce, 2012) in his proposed
crack spacing model for FRC. He determined that the use of this term tends to significantly
improve the prediction of the average stabilized crack spacing. The following equation can be
used to calculate the average stabilized crack spacing:
where,
ca = minimum concrete cover (mm)
= 1.5ag
where,
ag = maximum aggregate size
s = maximum spacing between longitudinal bars, should not be greater than 15d b (mm)
k1 = factor that takes into account bond properties of reinforcing bar
= 0.4 for steel deformed bars
= 0.25 for GFRP Bar A (helically wrapping with slight sand-coating)
211
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
= 0.2 for GFRP Bar V (heavily sand coated)

= 0.3 for GFRP Bar C (ribs)
k2 = factor that takes into account strain gradient
= 0.25 (1 +2) / 21
where,
1 and 2 correspond to the largest and smallest concrete tensile strain
= As / Ace
5.13
Comparison of Crack Spacing Models

The mean crack spacing for GFRP reinforced specimens was predicted using six models;
the Gergely-Lutz, CEB-FIP 1978, CEB-FIP 1992, Toutanji, ACI 440.1R-06 and the proposed
mode. The first three models were developed initially for steel reinforced specimens. In this
comparison, they were used to predict the mean crack spacing for the GFRP reinforced
specimens to see the extent of their applicability and validity for GFRP reinforced members.
The latter two models were developed exclusively for GFRP reinforced specimens. It should be
noted that the Toutanji, ACI 440.1R-06 and the Gergely-Lutz formulations directly calculate the
maximum crack width. In order to determine the average stabilized crack spacing, the average
crack width was first determined by dividing it by 1.7 (Collins and Mitchell, 1997). Then the
average crack width was divided by the net strain in the concrete to convert to average stabilized
crack spacing.
The effectiveness of the six crack spacing models was determined by using scatter plots.
The average stabilized crack spacing predicted by a certain model was compared to the stabilized
crack spacing obtained during the experiment. The experimental crack spacing was considered
stabilized when the number of cracks in at least two consecutive load stages was fairly constant
and only the crack width increased. For steel reinforced specimens, this usually occurred when
212
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the reinforcing bar was close to yielding. In case of GFRP reinforced specimens, this usually
occurred between bar elongation of 10 mm to 18 mm. In Fig. 5-51, the scatter plots of the GFRP
reinforced specimens demonstrating the performance of each of the model have been presented.
The predicted mean stabilized crack spacing values have been normalized with respect to the
experimental values to facilitate the comparison between various models. The mean values and
the coefficient of variation values have been provided in Table 5-6.
It can be seen from Fig. 5-52 and the Table 5-6 that the predictions made by GergelyLutz, CEB-FIP 1978 and CEB-FIP 1992 models for GFRP are considerably larger than the
experimentally obtained values. The Gergely-Lutz model predicted better results than the CEBFIP models. However, it does not consider the difference in bond between the three GFRP
reinforcement types and predicts the same crack spacing values regardless of the GFRP bar
surface profile. It should also be reiterated that the Gergely-Lutz model does not directly
calculate the stabilized crack spacing. The stabilized crack spacing is determined by using the
maximum crack width. Since several assumptions are made while calculating the stabilized crack
width, there is doubt that the model will consistency perform well. Based on the results obtained,
it can be concluded that the steel crack spacing models predict crack spacing values for GFRPreinforced members that mostly exceed the experimental values.
The experimental mean crack spacing for GFRP reinforced specimens were predicted
quite accurately by the proposed model. The predictions of the Toutanji and ACI 440.1R-06
models were better than those of the steel models, but not as accurate as those of the proposed
model. Excluding the proposed model, the Toutanji Model gave the overall best results.
However as previously stated like the Gergely-Lutz formulation, the Toutanji Model does not
calculate the crack spacing directly. It should be noted that while the steel models tended to
consistently overestimate the experimental average crack spacing value, the existing GFRP
models tended to mostly underestimate the mean crack spacing values. One of the main
weakness for both GFRP models is that they do not consider the change in crack spacing based
on the GFRP bar surface profiles. This results in the models predicting the same mean crack
spacing values for all three bar types.
213
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
300
250
sm,pred/sm,exp
Mean = 1.05
COV = 14.49
200
150
100
sm,pred/sm,exp
Mean = 1.11
COV = 11.92
200
150
100
50
50
0
0
300
100
200
sm, pred (mm)
300
300
CEB-FIP 1978
250
200
sm, exp (mm)
Mean = 1.81
COV = 13.44
150
100
100
300
300
0
300
Toutanji
250
Mean = 0.81
COV = 30.28
sm, exp (mm)
150
100
100
0
300
Mean = 0.61
COV = 25.92
150
50
100
200
sm, pred (mm)
300
sm,pred/sm,exp
200
50
100
200
sm, pred (mm)
ACI 440.1 R-06
250
sm,pred/sm,exp
200
Mean = 1.91
COV = 27.20
150
50
100
200
sm, pred (mm)
300
sm,pred/sm,exp
200
50
100
200
sm, pred (mm)
CEB-FIP 1992
250
sm,pred/sm,exp
sm, exp (mm)
sm, exp (mm)
Gergely-Lutz
250
sm, exp (mm)
sm, exp (mm)
300
Proposed Model
100
200
sm, pred (mm)
300
Fig. 5-52: Comparison of the predicted mean stabilized crack spacing from different
models to the experimental mean stabilized crack spacing for GFRP reinforced members
214
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5-6: Mean and coefficient of variation comparison of sm,pred/sm,exp for stabilized
mean crack spacing of different models for GFRP reinforced members
Model
sm,pred/sm,exp
Mean
Proposed Model
Gergely-Lutz
CEB-FIP 1978
CEB-FIP 1992
Toutanji
ACI 440.1R-06
1.05
1.11
1.81
1.91
0.81
0.61
COV
(%)
14.49
11.92
13.44
27.20
30.28
25.92
215
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.1
General
The low stiffness of GFRP reinforcing bars compared with steel usually makes the limit
of deflection at service loads the governing criterion for design. This makes the prediction of
deflections in beams much more important for the design of GFRP reinforced members than for
the steel reinforced. The accuracy of the prediction of deflection depends on the accuracy of the
determination of the effective moment of inertia which, in turn, is dependent upon tension
stiffening.
Currently, several design recommendations and guidelines for designing GFRP
reinforced concrete members are available. However, the difference between the measured and
predicted deflections of GFRP reinforced concrete beams at service loads has been found to be
considerable (Getzlaf, 2012). The reason for this is that the analytical models either do not take
tension stiffening behavior into account or empirical tension stiffening considerations are not
accurate.
The main purpose of this study was to understand the tension stiffening and cracking
behaviour of GFRP reinforced specimens. The research presented in this thesis investigated the
axial behaviour of fifty-two GFRP reinforced specimens and eight steel reinforced specimens
under direct tension. The parameters examined were concrete strength (30 MPa or 85 MPa), bar
diameter (12 mm, 16 mm or 19 mm), reinforcement ratio (1.3%, 2.0% or 3.0%) and bar type
(Manufacturer: Hughes Bros., Pultrall or Schck). The specimens were instrumented to obtain
the load versus elongation plots. Crack spacing was measured during the test at various stages.
The material tests conducted included cylinder compression tests, free shrinkage tests, dog-bone
tension tests and flexural tests for concrete. A summary of the findings and recommendations for
the future work is provided in this chapter.
216
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.2
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be made based on the current work done in this study:
Splitting was detected in the majority of the GFRP reinforced specimens tested but it did
not significantly affect the load-elongation response.
GFRP reinforced concrete was found to exhibit greater tension stiffening than steel
reinforced concrete for all values of member strain.
Tension stiffening was found to be independent of concrete strength, bar diameter, and
reinforcement ratio when shrinkage was included in the analysis of the member response.
The results also showed that the bar type does in fact influence tension stiffening to some
extent even when shrinkage in included. This is most likely due to the different surface
treatments of the GFRP bars. The highest tension stiffening was observed in Bar C which
contained surface ribs and the lowest in Bar B which had heavy sand coating.
Nonlinear finite element analysis using the program VecTor2 was carried out for all steel
tension stiffening specimens to predict member response. VecTor2 predicted the best
results when the Benz 2003 tension stiffening model was used in the analysis. The
tension stiffening models developed for steel were also used to predict member response
for the GFRP reinforced specimens. The predictions were found to be quite inaccurate.
ACI-440 (2003) and CEB-FEB (1978) model code provisions for tension stiffening of
GFRP did not provide accurate predictions. The CEB equation predicted a better response
relative to the ACI equation for all reinforcement ratios. However, both equations were
found to overestimate tension stiffening for all values of reinforcement ratios considered.
As the reinforcement ratio increased to 3.0%, it was determined that the CEB and ACI
equations predicted considerably better responses.
From the study conducted to predict tension stiffening through various currently available
models, it was concluded that the model developed by Bischoff (2004) predicted the best
results for tension stiffening of GFRP reinforced specimens. However, this model did not
take into account the different bar surface profiles of the GFRP bars.
The predictions made from the current codes, Bischoff (2004) model and the steel models
utilized in VecTor2 showed a need for the development of a more accurate tension
stiffening model for GFRP reinforced concrete. A new model was, therefore, proposed
217
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
which predicted the test results significantly better than the existing models for all
reinforcement ratios and bar types.
During crack formation, GFRP reinforced members showed larger mean crack spacing.
However, the final stabilized mean crack spacing of steel reinforced specimens was
found to be larger than the GFRP reinforced specimens.
The final stabilized crack spacing was found to decrease with an increase in
reinforcement ratio for steel and GFRP reinforced members. An increase in the bar
diameter resulted in a increase in the final stabilized crack spacing. The bar type was
found to have little influence on crack spacing.
The code predictions of mean crack spacing for the GFRP reinforced members were
found to be inaccurate. A new model to predict the mean crack spacing was proposed
which predicted significantly better results than the existing models.
6.3
Recommendations
A number of issues were not addressed in this research program that should be
investigated. Some suggestions for future works have been provided below:
Further investigation of the crack spacing data to predict the relationship between
maximum and mean crack widths for GFRP reinforced members.
When cracks are still developing, crack widths are larger in GFRP reinforced specimens
than expected because the crack spacing is larger. Hence, there is a need to develop a
model that predicts crack spacing while the cracks are still developing.
Validity of the proposed models should be checked against the test data from GFRP
reinforced-beams tested under monotonic and cyclic loading especially for deflection
predictions.
Develop an alternative and more accurate approach to estimate the deflection of GFRP
reinforced concrete beams and crack widths by considering the effects of tension
stiffening and incorporating material properties of the reinforcement as well as the effects
of concrete non-linearity in compression.
REFERENCES
218
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Abdalla, H.A., 2003, Evaluation of Deflection in Concrete Members Reinforced with Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) bars, Composite Structures, Vol. 56, pp. 63-71.
Abrishami, H.H. and Mitchell, D., 1996, Influence of Splitting Cracks on Tension Stiffening,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93, No. 6, November-December, pp. 703-710.
ACI Committee 224, 1986, Cracking of Concrete Members in Direct Tension (ACI 224.2R86), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 11 pp.
ACI Committee 440, 2003, Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with
FRP Bars, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hill, Michigan, 42 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, pp. 111-115.
ACI 440.1R-06, 2006, Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete
Reinforced with FRP Bars, ACI Committee 440, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 44p.
ACI 440.3R-04, 2004, Guide Test Methods for Fiber-Reinforces Polymers (FRPs) for
Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures, ACI Committee 440, Detroit, MI,
United States.
Alsyaed, S.H.; Al-Saloum, Y.A. and Almusallam, T.H., 2000, Performance of glass fibre
reinforced plastic bars as a reinforcing material for concrete structures, Composites:
Part B: Engineering, Vol. 31, pp. 555-567.
American Concrete Institute, 2006, Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced
with FRP bars, ACI 440.1R-06, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mi.,
2006
ASTM Standard C157-04, 2004. Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened
Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
7 p.
ASTM Standard D7205-06, 2006. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Matrix, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, United
States.
Balzs, G.L., 1993, Cracking Analysis Based on Slip and Bond Stresses, ACI Materials
Journal, Vol. 90, No. 4, July-August, 1993, pp. 340-348.
REFERENCES
219
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Belarbi, A. and Hsu, T.T.C., 1994. Constitutive Laws of Concrete in Tension and Reinforcing
Bars Stiffened by Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 4, July-August, 1994,
pp.465-474.
Bentz, E.C., 2000, Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete, PhD Thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 2000.
Branson, D. E., 1966, Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members, Reportby ACI
Committee 415, Title 63-31, American Concrete Institute, Dec. 1966.
Bischoff, P.H., 2001, Effects of shrinkage on tension stiffening and cracking in reinforced
Concrete, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 28, pp. 363-374.
Bischoff, P.H. and Richard, P., 2004, Tension stiffening and cracking of concrete reinforced
with glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 31, pp. 579-588.
Canadian Standards Association, 2004, Concrete Design Handbook, CSA A23.3 2004, CSA
Mississauga.
Canadian Standards Association, 2006, Canadian Highways Bridge Design Code (CHBDC),
CSA S6-06, CSA Mississauga.
Canadian Standards Association, 2002, Design and Construction of Building Components with
Fibre Reinforced Polymers, CSA S806-02 2002, CSA Mississauga.
Canadian Standards Association, 2012, Design and Construction of Building Components with
Fibre Reinforced Polymers, CSA S806-12 2012, CSA Mississauga.
Canadian Standards Association, 2010, Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Polymers,
CSA S807-10. CSA Mississauga.
CAN/CSA Standard A23.3-04, 2004. Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian Standards
Association, Canada, 214 p.
CEB-FIP, 1978. Model Code for Concrete Structures, CEB-FIP International
Recommendations, 3rd. ed., Comit Euro-International du Bton, Paris, 348 p.
CEB-FIP, 1993. Model Code 1990 (Design Code) Comit Euro-International du Bton,
Lausanne, 437 p.
Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D., 1997. Prestressed Concrete Structures, Response Publications,
Toronto and Montreal, Canada, 766 p.
REFERENCES
220
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Deluce, J.R., 2011, "Cracking behaviour of steel fibre reinforced concrete containing
conventional steel reinforcement," M.ASc. Dissertation, University of Toronto:
Department of Civil Engineering, 506 p.
Deluce, J.R., and Vecchio, F.J., 2013, "Cracking Behaviour of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Members Containing Conventional Reinforcement," ACI Structural J., Vol.110, No.3, pp.
481-490
ENV 1992-1-1, 1991. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1.1: General rules and
rules for buildings, pp. 226.
ENV 1992-1-1, 2003, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1.1: General rules for
buildings, European Committee for Standardisation, pp. 226.
Eurocrete Project, 1997, The development of non-ferrous reinforcement for concrete structuresfinal report, Prepared by Euro-Project (LTTC) ltd, pp.109.
Elenas A., Vasiliadis L., Pouliou E., Emmanouilidou N. ,2006, Influence of Tension Stiffening
Effect of Design and Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Democritus
University of Thrace, GR-67100 Xanthi, Greece.
Fields, K., and Bischoff, P.H., 2004, "Tension stiffening and cracking of high strength reinforced
concrete tension members," ACI Structural Journal, 101(4), pp. 447456.
Gergely, P., and Lutz, L.A., Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural
Members, Causes, Mechanisms, and Control of Cracking in Concrete, SP-20, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1968, pp. 87-117.
Getzlaf, D., 2012, An Investigation into the Flexural Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Concrete
Beams, Masters Thesis, University of Toronto-Toronto.
Hillerborg, A., Moder, M., and Petersson, P.E., 1976. Analysis of Crack Formation and Crack
Growth in Concrete by means of Fracture Mechanics and Finite Elements, Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 773-782.
Hughes Brothers, Inc., 2011, Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Rebar AslanTM 100
Series, Seward, NE, United States. Available from
http://aslanfrp.com/Aslan100/Resources/Aslan100a.pdf
Johnson, D.T.C., 2009, Investigation of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing Bars as
Internal Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Masters Thesis, University of
Toronto-Toronto.
Mehta, P.K. and Monteiro, P.J.M., 2006, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties and Materials,
3e., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2006, pp. 659.
REFERENCES
221
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nawy, E.G., and Neuwerth, G.E., 1977, "Fiberglass reinforced concrete slabs and beams. ASCE
Journal of the Structural Division," 103(ST2), pp. 421-440.
Newhook, J., Ghali, A., and Tadros, G., 2002, "Concrete flexural members reinforced with fiber
reinforced polymer: design for cracking and deformability," Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 29, pp.125-134.
Pulltrall Inc., 2011, V-ROD Specification Sheet: HM. Thetford Mines, Que., Canada, May
2011, Available from
http://www.trancels.com/images/stories/vrod-gfrp-rebar/spec_sheet_HM_may_2011.pdf
Pultrall Inc., 2007, Technical Data Sheet V-Rod. Thetford Mines, Que., Canada, March 2007,
Available from
http://www.pultrall.com/Site2008/Docs/V-RODSpecificationsMar2007.pdf
Schck, 2010, Technical Information Schck ComBar . Baden-Baden, Germany, June 2010,
Available from
http://www.schoeck.ca/en_ca/downloads
Sooriyaarachchi, H., 2006, Tension Stiffening effect in GFRP reinforced concrete elements,
PhD thesis, the University of Sheffield.
Sooriyaarachchi H., Pilakoutas K., Byars E., 2005, Tension stiffening behaviour of GFRP
reinforced concrete, 7th International Symposium for Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures FRPRCS7, Shield et al. ed, American Concrete
Institute SP-230, pp. 975-989.
Toutnaji, H. and Deng, Y., 2003, Deflection and Crack Width Prediction of Concrete Beams
Reinforced with Glass FRP Rods, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 17, pp. 6974.
Vecchio, F., and Wong, P., 2002, VecTor 2 & FormWorks Users Manual, University of
Toronto. Available from http://www.civ.utoronto.ca/vector/software.html
Vecchio, F. J., 1990, "VecTor2 nonlinear finite element analysis," Copyright 1990-2013 F.J.
Vecchio
Vechhio, F., 2002, VecTor 2 Software (Version 3.5) [Software], Available from
http://www.civ.utoronto.ca/vector/
Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P., 1986, The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced
Concrete Elements Subject to Shear, ACI Journal, Vol. 83, No. 2, pp.219-231.
Vint, L.M., 2012, "Investigation of Bond Properties of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Bars in
REFERENCES
222
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Concrete under Direct Tension," M.ASc. Dissertation, University of Toronto:

Department of Civil Engineering, 506 p.
Yost, J.R., Gross, S.P., and Dinehart, D.W., 2003, "Effective moment of inertia for glass fiberreinforced polymer-reinforced concrete beams," ACI Structural Journal, 100(6), pp.
732739.
APPENDIX A
223
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX A - Coupon Tests

This appendix reports the results obtained
from the coupon tests performed on GFRP
longitudinal
bars.
All the
tests were
performed in the Structures Laboratories at

the
Civil
Engineering
Department
in
University of Toronto. Direct tension tests

were conducted on GFRP reinforcing bars to
determine the relevant mechanical properties
(ultimate tensile strain, ultimate tensile
strength, modulus of elasticity). The tests
were conducted in displacement control
using the 1000 kN MTS machine.
APPENDIX A
224
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12A Coupon Test Summary
Bar Type:
Aslan (US #4)
Diameter:
13mm
No. of Tests:
Manufacturer:
Hughes Brothers Inc.
Grade:
Date of Tests:
Test Machine:
Test ID
1
2
3
Average
Coupon Tests
August 10th, 2012
MTS 793 1000 kN Test Frame (Huggins Lab)
Tester
JM
JM
JM
Modulus
(MPa)
Ult. Stress
(MPa)
Ult. Strain
(10-6)
50250
48020
49540
49270.0
983
996
1012
997.1
19577
19308
20447
19777.3
Stress at
Gage
Removal
(MPa)
613
606
602
606.7
Strain at
Gage
Removal
(x10-6)
12216
11732
12161
12036.2
1200
Average Measured Stress
Stress (Mpa)
1000
Average Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Strain (10^-6)
Figure A-1: 12A Average Coupon Strength
25000
APPENDIX A
225
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1200
Measured Stress
Stress (MPa)
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
20000
25000
20000
25000
Strain (10^-6)
Figure A-2: Bar 12A Test No.1
1200
Measured Stress
Stress (MPa)
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
5000
10000
15000
Strain (10^-6)
1200
Measured Stress
Stress (MPa)
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
5000
10000
15000
Strain (10^-6)
APPENDIX A
226
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bar Type:
Aslan (US #5)
Diameter:
16mm
No. of Tests:
Manufacturer:
Grade:
Date of Tests:
Test Machine:
Test ID
1
2
3
Average
Coupon Tests
I
September 5th, 2012
Tester
JM
JM
JM
Strain at
Gage
Removal
(x10-6)
20752
20620
20840
Stress at
Gage
Removal
(MPa)
456.9
442.3
439.9
20685.975
449.60707
10149.07
Modulus
(MPa)
Ult. Stress
(MPa)
Ult. Strain
(10-6)
44805
44200
44100
930
912
920
44502.48106
920.843608
10197.85
10100.31
10009.92
1000
900
800
Stress (MPa)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000

Strain (10^-6)
Figure A-5: Bar 16A Average Coupon Strength
APPENDIX A
227
Stress (MPa)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Measured Stress
Extrapolated Stress
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000
Strain (10^-6)
Stress (MPa)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Measured Strength
Extrapolated Strength
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000
Strain (10^-6)
Stress (MPa)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Measured Strength
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000
Strain (10^-6)
APPENDIX A
228
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bar Type:
Aslan (US #6)
Diameter:
Manufacturer:
19mm
No. of Tests:
Test Machine:
Test ID
1
2
3
Average
Coupon Tests
Grade:
Date of Tests:
III
September 7th, 2012
Tester
JM
JM
JM
Modulus
(MPa)
Ult. Stress
(MPa)
Ult. Strain
(10-6)
64600
69400
64800
69906.4
821
842
839
833.9
12707.6
12130.1
12953.6
11930.4
Stress at
Gage
Removal
(MPa)
453.7
440.3
472.1
455.4
Figure A-9: Bar 19A Average Coupon Strength
Strain at
Gage
Removal
(x10-6)
6470
6320
6480
6423.4
APPENDIX A
229
Stress (MPa)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Measured Stress
Extrapolated Stress
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
12000
14000
12000
14000
Strain (10^-6)
Stress (MPa)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Measured Stress
Extrapolated Stress
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Strain (10^-6)
Stress (MPa)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Measured Stress
Extrapolated Stress
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Strain (10^-6)
APPENDIX A
230
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12V Coupon Test Summary

Bar Type:
VROD (US #4)
Diameter:
12.70mm
No. of Tests:
Coupon Tests
Manufacturer:
Grade:
Date of Tests:
Test Machine:
Pultrall Inc.
III
August 10th, 2012
Test ID
1
2
3
Average
Tester
JM
JM
JM
Modulus
(MPa)
Ult. Stress
(MPa)
Ult. Strain
(10-6)
68717
66566
68102
67795.2
1589
1439
1451
1493.2
23133
21604
21313
22016.7
Stress at
Gage
Removal
(MPa)
573
554
556
561.2
Strain at
Gage
Removal
(x10-6)
8349
8327
8164
8279.8
1600
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000
Strain 10-^-6
Figure A-13: Bar 12V Average Coupon Strength
APPENDIX A
231
Stress (MPa)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Measured Stress
Extrapolated Stress
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000
Strain (10^-6)
Stress (MPa)
Figure A-14: Bar 12V Test No.1
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Measured Stress
Extrapolated Stress
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000
Strain (10^-6)
Stress (MPa)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Measured Stress
Extrapolated Stress
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000
Strain (10^-6)
APPENDIX A
232
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bar Type:
VROD (US #5)
Diameter:
Coupon Tests
Manufacturer:
15.875
No. of Tests:
Grade:
Date of Tests:
Test Machine:
Pultrall Inc.
III
September 20th, 2012
Test ID
1
2
3
Average
Tester
JM
JM
JM
Modulus
(MPa)
Ult. Stress
(MPa)
Ult. Strain
(10-6)
65648.4
66820.5
64173.4
65547.4
1380.2
1410
1432
1407.4
21024.1
21101.3
22314.5
21480.0
Stress at
Gage
Removal
(MPa)
508.3
521.2
501.9
510.5
Strain at
Gage
Removal
(x10-6)
7742
7800
7821
7787.7
1600
Average Measured Strength
Average Extrapolated Strength
1400
Strength (MPa)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000
Strain 10-^-6
APPENDIX A
233
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1600
Strength (MPa)
1400
Measured Strength
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000
Strain (10^-6)
1600
Strength (MPa)
1400
Measured Strength
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000
Strain (10^-6)
Strength (MPa)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Measured Strength
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000
Strain (10^-6)
APPENDIX A
234
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16VS Coupon Test Summary

Bar Type:
VROD (US #5)
Diameter:
15.875mm
No. of Tests:
Manufacturer:
Pultrall Inc.
Grade:
II
Date of Tests:
Test Machine:
Test ID
1
2
3
Average
Coupon Tests
September 5th 2012
Tester
JM
JM
JM
Modulus
(MPa)
Ult. Stress
(MPa)
Ult. Strain
(10-6)
51023
52500
52000
51841.2
1205
1213
1196
1204.8
23636
23120
22980
23245.5
Stress at
Gage
Removal
(MPa)
464
399
397.8
420.1
Strain at
Gage
Removal
(x10-6)
9085
7033
6836
7651.2
1400
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
Strain 10-^-6
20000
Figure A-21: Bar 16VS Average Coupon Strength
24000
28000
APPENDIX A
235
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1400
1200
Measured Stress
Stress (MPa)
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
24000
28000
24000
28000
Strain (10^-6)
Figure A-22: Bar 16VS Test No.1
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
Measured Stress
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
Strain (10^-6)

1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
Measured Stress
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
Strain (10^-6)
APPENDIX A
236
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bar Type:
Coupon Tests
VROD (US #6)
Diameter:
Manufacturer:
19.05mm
No. of Tests:
Pultrall Inc.
Grade:
III
Date of Tests:
Test Machine:
September 20th 2012
Test ID
1
2
3
Average
Tester
JM
JM
JM
Modulus
(MPa)
Ult.
Stress
(MPa)
Ult. Strain
(10-6)
70942
70120
69781
70281.1
1260
1281
1226
1255.7
17761
18269
17569
17866.3
Stress at
Gage
Removal
(MPa)
458
454
478
463.2
Strain at
Gage
Removal
(x10-6)
6456
6470
6850
6592.0
1400
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Strain 10-^-6
18000
20000
APPENDIX A
237
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
Measured Stress
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Strain (10^-6)
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
Measured Stress
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Strain (10^-6)
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
Measured Stress
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
2000
4000
6000
8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

Strain (10^-6)
APPENDIX A
238
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12C Coupon Test Summary

Bar Type:
ComBar (US#4)
Diameter:
12mm
Number of Tests:
Test Machine:
Test ID
1
2
3
Average
Coupon Tests
Manufacturer:
Schck Bauteille Gmblt
Grade:
Date of
Tests:
II
September 7th,
2012
Tester
JM
JM
JM
Modulus
(MPa)
Ult. Stress
(MPa)
Ult. Strain
(10-6)
56709.9
58388.7
61866.6
58988.4
1362.5
1370.0
1365.0
1365.8
24025.399
23463.4405
22063.587
23184.1
Stress at Gage
Removal (MPa)
798.59
630.89
624.42
684.6
Strain at
Gage
Removal
(x10-6)
14082
10805
10093
11660.0
1400
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Strain (10^-6)
Figure A-29: Bar 12C Average Coupon Strength
25000
APPENDIX A
239
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
Measured Stress
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
25000
30000
Strain (10^-6)
Figure A-30: Bar 12C Test No.1
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
Measured Stress
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Strain (10^-6)
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
Measured Stress
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Strain (10^-6)
25000
30000
APPENDIX A
240
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Coupon Tests
Bar Type:
ComBar (US #5)
Manufacturer:
Diameter:
16mm
Grade:
No. of Tests:
Date of Tests:
Test Machine:
Test ID
1
2
3
Average

III
September 20th, 2012
Tester
JM
JM
JM
Modulus
(MPa)
Ult. Stress
(MPa)
Ult. Strain
(10-6)
62716.4
64871.5
63803.7
63797.2
1219
1230
1258
1235.7
19436.7
18960.6
19716.7
19371.3
Stress at
Gage
Removal
(MPa)
499.9
580.6
520.0
533.5
Strain at
Gage
Removal
(x10-6)
7970
8950
8150
8356.7
1400
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000

Strain 10-^-6
APPENDIX A
241
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
Measured Stress
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000
Strain (10^-6)
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
Measured Stress
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000
Strain (10^-6)
1400
Stress (MPa)
1200
Measured Stress
1000
Extrapolated Stress
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000
Strain (10^-6)
APPENDIX A
242
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bar Type:
Coupon Tests
ComBar(US#6)
Diameter:
Manufacturer:
20.00mm
Number of Tests:
Test Machine:
Test ID
1
2
3
Average
Grade:
Date of
Tests:
III
August 22nd,
2012
Tester
JM
JM
JM
Modulus
(MPa)
Ult. Stress
(MPa)
Ult. Strain
(10-6)
64281.3
63612.1
65116.3
64336.5
1180.0
1090.0
1161.0
1143.7
18356.8
17135.1
17829.4
17773.9
Stress at Gage
Removal (MPa)
415
412
420
415.5
Strain at
Gage
Removal
(x10-6)
6456
6470
6450
6458.7
1200
1000
0
Stress (MPa)
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Strain (10^-6)
18000
20000
APPENDIX A
243
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1200
Strength (MPa)
1000
Measured Strength
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Strain (10^-6)
1200
Measured Strength
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Strain (10^-6)
1200
1000
Strength (MPa)
Strength (MPa)
1000
Measured Strength
800
600
400
200
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Strain (10^-6)

Tension Stiffening and Cracking Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Concrete

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tension Stiffening and Cracking Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Concrete

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TENSION STIFFENING AND CRACKING BEHAVIOUR OF GFRP

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

Copyright by Zahra Kharal (2014)

UMI Number: 1570558

All rights reserved

Tension Stiffening and Cracking Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii

Objectives and Scope........................................................................................................2

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

Tension Stiffening Models for Steel Reinforced Concrete.................................................6

Vecchio and Collins (1986) .......................................................................................6

Collins and Mitchell (1987) .......................................................................................7

Izumo, Maekawa (1992)............................................................................................7

Field and Bischoff (2004) ..........................................................................................8

Masukawa (2012) .................................................................................................... 10

Crack Spacing Models for Steel Reinforced Concrete ..................................................... 11

CEB-FIP Model Code (1978) .................................................................................. 12

CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 ..................................................................................... 13

Gergely-Lutz Model ................................................................................................ 13

Models for Cracking in GFRP Reinforced Concrete ....................................................... 14

ACI 440.1 R-06 Model ............................................................................................ 14

Toutanji and Saafi Model 2000 ................................................................................ 15

Previous Experimental Studies on GFRP-Reinforced Concrete ....................................... 16

Bischoff and Paixao (2004) ..................................................................................... 16

Sooriyaarachci, Pilakoutas and Byars (2007) ........................................................... 19

Summary of Previous Tests ............................................................................................ 22

Basis of Experimental Program ...................................................................................... 22

CHAPTER 3: Experimental Program

Material Properties ......................................................................................................... 24

GFRP Reinforcement .............................................................................................. 25

Steel Reinforcement ................................................................................................ 28

Expansive Mortar .................................................................................................... 29

3.2.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 30

Cylinder Tests ..................................................................................................... 30

Dog-bone Tests ................................................................................................... 31

Modulus of Rupture Tests ................................................................................... 34

Shrinkage Tests ................................................................................................... 34

Direct Tension Specimens .............................................................................................. 36

Specimen Details ..................................................................................................... 36

Specimen Preparation and Instrumentation .............................................................. 39

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

Concrete Test Results ..................................................................................................... 45

Concrete Cylinder Tests .......................................................................................... 45

Dog-bone Specimen Test Results ............................................................................ 47

MOR Test Results ................................................................................................... 50

Shrinkage Test Results ............................................................................................ 52

Reinforcement Test Results ............................................................................................ 54

Direct Tension Specimens Test Results .......................................................................... 58

General Behaviour of Direct Tension Specimen ...................................................... 58

Test Series M (Steel Reinforcement) ....................................................................... 61

Test Series A ........................................................................................................... 72

Test Series V ........................................................................................................... 93

Test Series C ......................................................................................................... 119

Summary and Discussion ...................................................................................... 138

CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 140

Determination of Tension Stiffening Response ............................................................. 140

Calculation of Total Strain ............................................................................................ 141

End Effects ................................................................................................................... 144

Examination and Discussion of Tension Stiffening Behaviour ...................................... 147

Test Series A ......................................................................................................... 149

Test Series V ......................................................................................................... 155

Test Series C ......................................................................................................... 163

General Tension Stiffening Behaviour of GFRP Reinforced Specimens ................. 169