Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/260285572
CITATIONS READS
41 428
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
• Performance and Strut Efficiency Factor of Concrete Deep Beams View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Farghaly on 21 February 2014.
Abstract: Flexural behavior and serviceability performance of 24 full-scale concrete beams reinforced with carbon-, glass-, and aramid-
fiber-reinforced-polymer (FRP) bars are investigated. The beams were 3,300 mm long with a rectangular cross section of 200 mm in width
and 300 mm in depth. Sixteen beams were reinforced with carbon-FRP bars, four beams were reinforced with glass-FRP bars, two beams were
reinforced with aramid-FRP bars, and two were reinforced with steel, serving as control specimens. Two types of FRP bars with different surface
textures were considered: sand-coated bars and ribbed-deformed bars. The beams were tested to failure in four-point bending over a clear span
of 2,750 mm. The test results are reported in terms of deflection, crack-width, strains in concrete and reinforcement, flexural capacity, and mode
of failure. The experimental results were compared to the available design codes. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000216. © 2011
American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Concrete beams; Cracking; Deflection; Flexural strength; Strain; Bars; Serviceability.
Author keywords: Beams; Concrete; Crack width; Deflection; Flexure; Strain; FRP bars; Reinforcement ratio.
Introduction Over the last two decades, a number of studies have been carried
out to investigate the flexural response of FRP-reinforced-concrete
Infrastructure deterioration owing to corrosion of steel reinforce- beams. Proposals for design procedures and guidelines have arisen
ment is one of the major challenges facing the construction from these studies. In the case of serviceability and specifically, for
industry. The use of concrete structures reinforced with fiber- deflections, several authors (Benmokrane et al. 1996; Masmoudi
reinforced-polymer (FRP) composite materials has been growing et al. 1998; Brown and Bartholomew 1996; Pecce et al. 2000;
to overcome the common problems caused by corrosion of steel Toutanji and Saafi 2000; Yost et al. 2003) have proposed coeffi-
reinforcement [American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee cients to modify Branson’s equation used in steel design codes
440 2007, Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib) 2007]. Recent (ACI Committee 318 2008). Others (Faza and Ganga Rao 1992;
advances in polymer technology have led to the development of the Razaqpur et al. 2000; Mota et al. 2006; Bischoff 2005; Bischoff
latest generation of FRP reinforcing-bars (ACI Committee 440 and Scanlon 2007) have proposed a modified equivalent moment
2007). These corrosion-resistant bars have shown promise as a of inertia derived from curvatures. These different approaches
way to further protect bridges and other public infrastructure from have been adopted in several design guideline proposals for FRP-
corrosion’s devastating effects. With the new ACI specification reinforced-concrete members [fib 2007; ACI Committee 440 2006;
440.6M-08 (ACI Committee 440 2008) and Canadian Standards CSA 2002; Italian National Research Council (CNR) 2006].
Association (CSA) certification standard S807-10 (CSA 2010b), In assessing the flexural capacity of FRP-reinforced-concrete
FRP bars are emerging as a realistic and cost-effective reinforcing beams, the concrete crushing-failure mode is generally preferable
alternative to traditional steel for concrete structures under severe to reinforcement failure because it is more progressive and leads to
environmental conditions. The direct replacement of steel with FRP a less catastrophic failure with a higher degree of deformability
bars, however, is not possible owing to various differences in the (ISIS Canada 2007; ACI Committee 440 2006; CSA 2010a). Dif-
mechanical and bond properties of FRP materials compared to steel ferent safety approaches are proposed in the literature (Pilakoutas
(Nanni 1993, ISIS Canada 2007). et al. 2002), and the concept of ductility has been modified to re-
flect the deformability of the FRP-reinforced-concrete members
1
Former Ph.D. student, Project Engineer, Osmos Canada, 1001 (Newhook et al. 2002; CSA 2010a). The lower modulus of FRP
Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Suite 800-B, Montreal, PQ, Canada, H3A 3C8. reinforcement reduces the serviceability performance of flexural
E-mail: Chakib.Kassem@osmos-canada.com
2 members (Toutanji and Deng 2003; El-Salakawy and Benmokrane
Post-doctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada, J1K 2R1; Lecturer, Assiut Univ., Assiut, Egypt. 2004; Rashid et al. 2005; Mota et al. 2006; Lee et al. 2010).
E-mail: ahmed.farghaly@usherbrooke.ca At the same reinforcement ratio, FRP-reinforced members will
3
Professor of Civil Engineering, Canada Research Chair in Advanced evidence larger deflections and crack widths than steel-reinforced
Composite Materials for Civil Structures, NSERC Research Chair in members (Nanni 1993; ACI Committee 440 2006). Regarding
Innovative FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Infrastructures, Dept. of Civil flexural capacity, experimental results generally show higher loads
Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada, J1K 2R1 than those predicted by design equations that can be exceeded by
(corresponding author). E-mail: Brahim.Benmokrane@USherbrooke.ca up to 20% (Masmoudi et al. 1998; Pecce et al. 2000; Thériault
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 24, 2010; approved
and Benmokrane 1998). This variation is sometimes attributed to
on March 11, 2011; published online on March 14, 2011. Discussion period
open until March 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for in- variability in materials and to a higher ultimate concrete strain than
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con- what is assumed in analysis.
struction, Vol. 15, No. 5, October 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/ This paper presents the test results in terms of flexural behavior
2011/5-682–695/$25.00. and serviceability performance of 24 simply supported beams
accuracy of these guidelines is paramount. This paper reports on were made for each reinforcement ratio and type. For the CFRP-
the serviceability performance of full-size, simply supported beams reinforced beams, three different reinforcement ratios with four,
reinforced with different types, ratios, and configurations of FRP six, and eight No. 10 reinforcing bars were investigated. In the case
bars. The test results are compared to some of the available models of the GFRP-reinforced beams, only two reinforcement ratios with
(CSA 2002; ACI Committee 440 2006) and those being considered six and eight No. 13 reinforcing bars were investigated. For the
by ACI Committee 440-H in an effort to evaluate the accuracy of AFRP-reinforced beams, two reinforcement ratios with six and
such prediction models. eight No. 10 reinforcing bars were investigated. To study the effect
of bundled bars, two beams reinforced with CFRP bars, (beams
C1-4b and C2-4b) with four bars bundled 2-by-2 were constructed
Experimental Program and tested. The reinforcement ratios for the two control steel-
reinforced beams were 0.9% and 1.3% with four and six M10 bars,
Twenty-four beams were designed with an adequate amount of respectively. The top reinforcement for all beams consisted of two
longitudinal and shear reinforcement to ensure failure by crushing M10 steel bars. Table 1 shows the details of the test specimens.
of the concrete in the central zone. Details of the materials, Fig. 1 depicts the concrete dimensions and reinforcement details.
specimens, test setup, and instrumentation are described in the
following sections. Instrumentation
300
30
40
40
200 200
30
30
40
40
200 200
C1-4b C1-6
C1-8
C1 C1-8 C1-6 C2-8 C2
C2-6 C2-8 C2-6
80 C1-4b 80
C2-4b C2-4b
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
60 C1-4 C2-4 60 C2-4
C1-4
ST-6 ST-6 ST-6 ST-6
40 40
ST-4 ST-4 ST-4
ST-4
20 20
Concrete Reinforcement Concrete Reinforcement
0 0
-4000 0 4000 8000 12000 -4000 0 4000 8000 12000
Strain (µ) Strain (µ)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
100 100
G1-8 G1 & G2 G1-8 G2-8
AR
G2-8 80 G1-6 AR-8 80
G1-6 AR-8 AR-6
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
G2-6 AR-6
60 G2-6 60
ST-6 ST-6 ST-6 ST-6
40 40
ST-4 ST-4 ST-4
ST-4
20 20
Concrete Reinforcement Concrete Reinforcement
0 0
-4000 0 4000 8000 12000 -4000 0 4000 8000 12000
Strain (µ) Strain (µ)
Neutral-Axis Depth theoretical prediction compares well with the experimental results
(Table 3)
The experimental position of the neutral axis was deduced qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
from the data from the concrete strain gauges. As can be seen c=d ¼ 2ρf nf þ ðρf nf Þ2 ρf nf ð1Þ
in Table 3, the neutral-axis depth was slightly lower after cracking,
since the difference between the service and failure neutral-axis Flexural Capacity and Mode of Failure
depth is relatively small. The neutral-axis depth increased with All 24 beams were designed to fail by concrete crushing—failure
the reinforcement ratio; the equilibrium of forces requires a larger was expected to occur when the concrete reached its maximum
compression block for the greater forces arising from larger areas of compressive strain εcu . According to ACI Committee 440 (2006),
reinforcement. this failure mode is obtained when the actual reinforcement ratio ρf
The theoretical neutral-axis depth, c, was calculated as- is greater than the balanced reinforcement ratio ρf b , as given in
suming a cracked-section analysis, as given in Eq. (1). The Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
C1-4
60 60 C2-4
ST-6 ST-6
40 ST-4 40 ST-4
20 20
Mcr Mcr
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) Midspan deflection (mm) (b) Midspan deflection (mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
100 100
G1-8 G2-8 Beams AR
Beams G1 and G2 80
80 G1-6 AR-8
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
G2-6 AR-6
60 60
ST-6 ST-6
40 ST-4 40 ST-4
20 20
Mcr Mcr
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(c) Midspan deflection (mm) (d) Midspan deflection (mm)
Fig. 4. Moment-deflection relationship for the tested beams: (a) beams C1; (b) beams C2; (c) beams G1 and G2; (d) beams AR
reinforcement ratio but with different CFRP bar types started bending zone, in the shear span, they acquired some inclination
diverging. Although the modulus of elasticity and the tensile toward the central zone, owing to shear stresses in these regions.
strength of the carbon ribbed-deformed bars were greater than those Soon after a load level corresponding to about 67% of the nominal
of sand-coated bars, at failure load the measured deflection of moment M n was attained, no more cracks appeared, and only
beams C2-4, C2-6, and C2-8 (ribbed-deformed bar) were slightly widening of the existing cracks could be observed. Fig. 5 shows
higher than those for beams C1-4, C1-6, and C1-8 (sand-coated cracking patterns of some of the tested beams at two load levels
bar), respectively. This may indicate that the sand-coated bars pro- corresponding to the service load (0:3M n ) and a load corresponding
vided better bond characteristics than the ribbed-deformed bars. to 0:67M n .
The latter had smooth, well-rounded ribs, which may have reduced Table 5 lists the measured first crack widths and cracking char-
bond strength. Moreover, bundling bars had no effect on beam de- acteristics at two load levels: service load (0:3M n ) and at a load
flection, as can be seen in Fig. 4(a) (C1-4 and C1-4b) and Fig. 4(b) equivalent to 0:67M n . For all types of bars, the increased reinforce-
(C2-4 and C2-4b). ment ratio reduced the number of cracks and increased the average
crack spacing. Moreover, the crack depth decreased when the
Cracking Behavior
reinforcement ratio increased.
All beams were initially uncracked. Some cracks began to appear Beams C1-4, C1-4b, C2-4, and C2-4b give an indication of the
when the cracking moment was reached in the pure bending zone. effect of bundled bars on cracking characteristics. The beams with
These initial cracks were predominantly vertical and perpendicular bundled bars (C1-4b and C2-4b) developed fewer cracks than those
to the direction of the maximum stress induced by the bending mo- with single bars (C1-4 and C2-4). The average crack spacing in-
ment. Then, at higher loads, more cracks appeared along the beam’s creased for beams C1-4b and C2-4b compared with beams C1-4
length. While cracks grew predominantly vertically in the pure and C2-4. This can be explained by better bond quality for single
bars compared to bundled bars. Nevertheless, the difference in the absorption of the energy released when the concrete cracked. At
cracking characteristics was not excessive, and the use of bundled service-load levels, the crack width for the beams reinforced with
FRP bars is perfectly possible (Aly et al. 2006). CFRP bars was smaller by 54% and 64% owing to the increased
Table 5 also shows the effect of using FRP bars with different reinforcement ratios of 50% and 100%, respectively. For the beams
surface texture on the cracking characteristics. Beams C1-4, C1-6, reinforced with GFRP bars, the crack width was decreased by 32%
and C1-8 (CFRP sand-coated bars) had more cracks and lower because of a 33% increase in reinforcement ratio. For the beams
average crack spacing compared to beams C2-4, C2-6, and C2-8 reinforced with AFRP bars, the reduction in crack width was
(ribbed surface CFRP), respectively. This tends to confirm the 22% resulting from a 33% increase of the reinforcement ratio.
explanation about deflection characteristics that suggested that Fig. 6 shows the variation in measured crack width against the
sand-coated bars have better bond characteristics than ribbed- applied moment for the tested beams. The first crack appeared at
deformed bars. the cracking moment load level. For the beams reinforced with FRP
Table 5 indicates that the initial crack width was smaller for bars, the crack width varied linearly with the applied moment until
beams with greater reinforcement ratios resulting from easier failure. A slight reduction rate of crack width was observed with
100 100
Beams C1 C1-8 Beams C2 C2-8
C1-6 C2-6 C2-4 C2-4b
80 C1-4 80
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
C1-4b
60 60
ST-6 ST-6
40 ST-4 40 ST-4
20 20
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
(a) Crack width (mm) (b) Crack width (mm)
100 100
Beams G1 and G2 Beams AR
80 G1-8 G1-6 80
AR-6
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
G2-6 AR-8
60 G2-8 60
ST-6 ST-6
40 ST-4 40 ST-4
20 20
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
(c) Crack width (mm) (d) Crack width (mm)
Fig. 6. Moment-crack-width relationship for the tested beams: (a) beams C1; (b) beams C2; (c) beams G1 and G2; (d) beams AR
Deflections
Review of Existing Codes and Guides to Predict Deflection in which αb = bond-dependent coefficient, assumed to be 0.5 until
The response of reinforced-concrete members subjected to flexure more data became available. Yost et al. (2003) proposed a different
can be divided into two distinct stages. The first stage describes equation [Eq. (11)], however, to account for the effect of the
the uncracked response of the member, and the second describes reinforcement ratio ρf
the cracked response of the member. Once the second stage is
ρf Ef
reached, the absence of concrete tensile resistance at the location β d ¼ 0:064 þ 0:13 þ1 ð11Þ
ρf b Es
of cracks requires that tensile loads be carried entirely by the
reinforcement. The flexural stiffness of a reinforced-concrete
ACI Committee 440 (2006) adopted a similar approach that nu-
member is greatly reduced in this stage, but the cracked response
merically incorporates the effects of elastic modulus on the flexural
remains well above that of a member that is fully cracked. This is
stiffness transition into the equation [Eq. (12)]
possible only because of bonding and the reinforcement’s ability to
transfer some of the tension to its surroundings, which leads to the ρf
β d ¼ 0:2 ≤1 ð12Þ
contribution of concrete between individual cracks. With further ρf b
loading, stresses within the concrete on either side of a crack
increase until the tensile strength is reached once more, causing CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002) used the moment-area method to de-
additional cracks. The process continues until crack spacing is in- velop closed-form deflection equations for several common types
sufficient to bring tensile stresses within the concrete to initiate new of loading and support conditions. This method is based on the
cracks. The resulting crack pattern is referred to as the stabilized assumption that the moment-curvature relationship of a cracked
crack pattern in which additional load widens existing cracks, with FRP-reinforced member remains linear under increasing load with
limited effects on flexural stiffness. a flexural rigidity of E c I cr and that tension stiffening is negligible.
To reflect the softening effect, code equations use an effective For a beam under two-point loading, the maximum deflection is
flexural stiffness for reinforced-concrete elements within the tran- given by
sition range. Both ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) and 3 3
CSA A23.3-04 design code (CSA 2004) provide an expression in- ðM a =aÞL3 a a Lg
Δ¼ 3 4 8η ð13Þ
troduced by Branson (1968) for establishing the effective moment 24Ec I cr L L L
of inertia used in the deflection analysis of steel-reinforced-
concrete beams where η ¼ 1 I cr =I g .
Bischoff (2005) and Bischoff and Scanlon (2007) have sug-
M cr 3 M cr 3 gested changes to the relationship defined in Eq. (8) that improve
Ie ¼ Ig þ 1 I cr ≤ I g ð8Þ
Ma Ma the incorporation of tension stiffening into estimating deflections.
The relationship has relevance for this paper because it is currently
As emphasized by Yost et al. (2003), the cubic form of the being considered by ACI 440-H for a future design guide
expression was intended to represent the nonlinear characteristics
of the transition that conveniently reflects the declining contribu- I cr
Ie ¼ ≤ Ig ð14Þ
tion of concrete between cracks. The expression was derived from 1 ηγðMMcra Þ2
experimental data for steel-reinforced-concrete beams. The litera-
ture suggests, however, that the expression’s empirical nature where η ¼ 1 I cr =I g ; and γ ¼ 1:72 0:72M cr =M a .
brings sensitivity to the relationship for conditions other than those
for which it was derived (Yost et al. 2003). Comparison of Predicted Deflection with Experimental Data
More specifically, it has been generally shown that the flexural Fig. 7 compares the midspan deflections of the tested beams with
stiffness transition obtained from Eq. (8) is not adequate—member those predicted by Eqs. (12)–(14).
deformation is underestimated for relatively low reinforcing areas Figs. 7(a)–7(d) show CFRP-reinforced beams for which the ACI
that correspond to ratios of the gross to the cracked moment of in- 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) equation and that being
ertia >4 (Bischoff and Paixao 2004). Although significant in the considered by ACI 440-H underestimated deflection over a range
design of steel-reinforced-concrete, the limitation can be even more of reinforcing ratios from 0.6 to 1.2%. The prediction got notice-
relevant when considering the use of FRP material for which lower ably worse as Ef =f f u increased. CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002),
elastic-modulus values prevail and lower reinforcing areas can be however, yielded reasonable predictions.
achieved from higher tensile strengths. For beams reinforced with GFRP bars [Figs. 7(e)–7(h)],
Experimental data show that Eq. (8) is not generally applicable ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) underestimated the
to FRP-reinforced-concrete beams. Therefore, investigators have deflection at lower loads, but predictions improved as the moment
suggested alternative expressions for I e. Accordingly, research increased. The two equations (being considered by ACI 440-H and
has proposed a reduction factor that would compensate for the CSA S806-02) predicted reasonable deflection values, especially
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
30 Ef / ffu = 75.7 30 ρf = 1.2%
Ef / ffu = 75.7
20 20
exp exp
CSA S806-02 CSA S806-02
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440-H ACI 440-H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(a) Midspan deflection (mm) (b) Midspan deflection (mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
40 40
Beam C2-4 Beam C2-8
ρf = 0.6%
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
30 Ef / ffu = 61.4 30 ρf = 1.2%
Ef / ffu = 61.4
20 20
exp exp
CSA S806-02 CSA S806-02
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440-H ACI 440-H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(c) Midspan deflection (mm) (d) Midspan deflection (mm)
40 40
Beam G1-6 Beam G1-8
ρf = 1.7% ρf = 2.2%
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
30 Ef / ffu = 64.8 30 Ef / ffu = 64.8
20 20
exp esp
CSA S806-02 CSA S806-02
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440-H ACI 440-H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(e) Midspan deflection (mm) (f) Midspan deflection (mm)
40 40
Beam G2-6 Beam G2-8
ρf = 1.5% ρf = 2.0%
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
20 20
exp exp
CSA S806-02 CSA S806-02
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440-H ACI 440-H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(g) Midspan deflection (mm) (h) Midspan deflection (mm)
40 40
Beam AR-6 Beam AR-8
ρf = 0.9% ρf = 1.2%
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
20 20
exp exp
CSA S806-02 CSA S806-02
10 ACI 440.1R 2006 10 ACI 440.1R 2006
ACI 440-H ACI 440-H
Cracked section Cracked section
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(i) Midspan deflection (mm) (j) Midspan deflection (mm)
Fig. 7. Comparison of predicted deflection with experimental data: (a) beam C1-4; (b) beam C1-8; (c) beam C2-4; (d) beam C2-8; (e) beam G1-6;
(f) beam G1-8; (g) beam G2-6; (h) beam G2-8; (i) beam AR-6; (j) beam AR-8
∆ pred / ∆ exp
∆ pred / ∆ exp
1
0 0
C1-4b
C2-4b
C1-4b
C2-4b
AR-6
AR-8
AR-6
AR-8
G1-6
G1-8
G2-6
G2-8
G1-6
G1-8
G2-6
G2-8
C1-4
C1-6
C2-4
C2-6
C2-8
C1-4
C1-6
C2-4
C2-6
C2-8
C1-8
C1-8
(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE DE SHERBROOKE on 03/04/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Comparison with experimental data at different load levels: (a) at 0:3M n ; (b) at 0:67M n
when Ef =f f u was approximately equal to 60, as recommended by Both the ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) equation
ACI Committee 440. and that being considered by ACI Committee 440-H predicted very
For beams reinforced with AFRP bars [Figs. 7(i) and 7(j)], ACI similar deflection values at Ef =f f u of about 60. When E f =f f u
440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) underestimated the deflec- dropped below 60, ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) be-
tion at different reinforcing ratios. The CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002) gan to underestimate the deflection and reached its worst perfor-
equation overpredicted deflection, whereas the equation being mance at an E f =f f u of about 30, as β d reached its upper limit of 1.
considered by ACI Committee 440-H provided the best fit to The overestimation of deflection by CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002)
the experimental results. at load levels just after cracking could be a result of the form of the
Fig. 8 shows the ratio of predicted-to-experimental deflections equation—it uses I cr without any smooth transition from the un-
at service load, 0:3M n , and at 0:67M n . The data clearly indicate that cracked to the cracked state, thereby causing a sudden increase
ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) underestimated the in calculated deflection. As the load level increased, the prediction
deflection for all beams at both load levels. The equation being better approximated the experimental values, though continuing to
considered by ACI Committee 440-H slightly underestimated slightly overpredict, as shown in Fig. 8(b).
the deflection at service-load level, but, as the load increased be-
yond the service load, the gap between the predicted values and Crack Width
experimental results closed. CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002) overesti- Review of Existing Codes and Guides to Predict Crack
mated the deflection at service-load level, but, as the load increased Width
beyond the service load, the gap between the predicted values and According to current practice for steel-reinforced-concrete, a maxi-
experimental results closed. mum crack-width limitation is implicit or explicit in design codes
Fig. 9 compares the deflections predicted by CSA S806-02 for two reasons: to mitigate reinforcement corrosion, and to reduce
(CSA 2002), ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006), and unsightly, yet harmless, cracking (i.e., for aesthetics). In both ACI
the equation being considered by ACI Committee 440-H for the 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) and CSA A23.3-04 (CSA
following five tested beams: C1-4, C2-4, G1-6, G2-8, and AR-8. 2004), this limit for steel-reinforced-concrete structures was set
These five beams have similar I g =I cr , but different Ef =f f u : 75.7, to 0.3 mm for exterior exposure and 0.4 mm for interior exposure.
61.4, 64.8, 48.2, and 28.9, respectively. Since most FRP bars have a modulus of elasticity lower than that of
The CSA S806-02 (CSA 2002) equation and that being consid- steel, crack widths in FRP-reinforced members are expected to be
ered by ACI Committee 440-H exhibited a trend of increasing pre- larger than those in steel-reinforced members. If the primary reason
dicted deflection as E f =f f u decreased. In contrast, the predicted for crack-width limitation is reinforcement corrosion, this limita-
deflection based on ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) tion can be relaxed for noncorrosive FRP reinforcement. Thus,
increased with increasing Ef =f f u , which is unreasonable. For a ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI Committee 440 2006) and CSA S806-02
given f f u , it is logical to expect that deflection would be reduced (CSA 2002) increased the allowable crack-width limits to 0.5
because of an increase of stiffness E f . and 0.7 mm for exterior and interior exposure, respectively, when
40
ACI 440-H
Moment (kN.m)
CSA S806-02
20
Ef / ffu = 75.7
Ef / ffu = 61.4
10 Ef / ffu = 64.8
Ef / ffu = 48.2
Ef / ffu = 28.9
0
0 10 20 30
Midspan deflection (mm)
100 100
C1-8
.8
80 80
b =0
.8
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
6K
b=0
1 .4
-
G2
=
G2-6
8K
60 60
Kb
-8
C1-
4
= 1.
C1
40 40 -6 Kb
G2
20 20
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
Crack width (mm) Crack width (mm)
100
80
= 0.8 AR-6
Moment (kN.m)
Kb
R-6
60 A
.4
b= 1
40 -6 K
AR
20
0
0 1 2
Crack width (mm)
αb = bond-dependent coefficient assumed equal to 0.5; bridge design code.” CSA S6-10, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
β = ratio of distance between neutral axis and tension face to Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2010b). “Specification for fibre
distance between neutral axis and centroid of reinforced polymers.” CSA S807-10, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
reinforcement; El-Salakawy, E., and Benmokrane, B. (2004). “Serviceability of concrete
bridge deck slabs reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer composite
β 1 = ratio of depth of equivalent rectangular stress block to
bars.” ACI Struct. J., 101(5), 727–736.
depth of the neutral axis; Faza, S. S., and GangaRao, H. V. S. (1992). “Pre- and post-cracking de-
β d = coefficient given in Eqs. (9), (10), or (11); flection behavior of concrete beams reinforced with fiber-reinforced
Δ = deflection (mm); plastic rebars.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on the Use of Advanced Composite
Δexp = measured deflection from experiment (mm); Materials in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS-I), K. Neale and
Δpred = predicted deflection from equations (mm); P. Labossiere, eds., Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, Canada,
εcu = maximum concrete compressive strain (0.003 for ACI 151–160.
provision); Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib). (2007). “FRP reinforcement in RC
εf = maximum tensile strain of FRP bars (%); structures.” Task Group 9.3, Lausanne, Switzerland.
ρf = reinforcement ratio; Frosch, R. J. (1999). “Another look at cracking and crack control in rein-
ρf b = balanced reinforcement ratio; forced concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 96(3), 437–442.
Gao, D., Benmokrane, B., and Masmoudi, R. (1998). “A calculating
Ψc = curvature at M c ; and
method of flexural properties of FRP-reinforced concrete beam, Part 1:
Ψult = curvature at M ult . Crack width and deflection.” Tech. Report, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Gergely, P., and Lutz, L. A. (1968). “Maximum crack width in reinforced
References concrete flexural members.” Causes, mechanisms, and control of
Aly, R. S., Benmokrane, B., and Ebead, U. A. (2006). “Tensile lap splicing cracking in concrete, ACI SP-20, ACI, Farmington Hills, MI,
of bundled CFRP reinforcing bars in concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 87–117.
10(4), 287–294. Gulbrandsen, P. (2005). “Reliability analysis of the flexural capacity of
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318. (2008). “Building code fiber-reinforced polymer bars in concrete beams.” Master’s thesis, Univ.
requirements for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-08, of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN.
Farmington Hills, MI. ISIS Canada. (2007). “Reinforcing concrete structures with fiber-reinforced
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2003). “Guide for the polymers—Design manual No. 3.” Manitoba, Canada.
design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI Italian National Research Council (CNR). (2006). Guide for the design and
440.1R-03, Farmington Hills, MI. construction of concrete structures reinforced with fiber-reinforced
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2004). “Guide test polymer bars, CNR-DT 203/2006, Rome.
methods for fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) for reinforcing or Jaeger, L. G., Mufti, A. A., and Tadros, G. (1997). “The concept of
strengthening concrete structures.” ACI 440.3R-04, Farmington the overall performance factor in rectangular-section reinforced con-
Hills, MI. crete members.” Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on Nonmetallic (FRP) Reinforce-
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2006). “Guide for the ment for Concrete Structures, Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo,
design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI 551–559.
440.1R-06, Farmington Hills, MI. Lee, W. K., Jansen, D. C., Berlin, K. B., and Cohen, I. E. (2010). “Flexural
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2007). “Report on cracks in fiber-reinforced concrete beams with fiber-reinforced polymer
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement concrete structures.” reinforcing bars.” ACI Struct. J., 107(3), 321–329.
ACI 440R-07, Farmington Hills, MI. Masmoudi, R., Thériault, M., and Benmokrane, B. (1998). “Flexural
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2008). “Specification behavior of concrete beams reinforced with deformed fiber reinforced
for carbon and glass fiber-reinforced polymer bar as materials for plastic reinforcing rods.” ACI Struct. J., 95(6), 665–676.
concrete reinforcement.” ACI 440.M-08, Farmington Hills, MI. Mota, C., Alminar, S., and Svecova, D. (2006). “Critical review of
Benmokrane, B., Chaallal, O., and Masmoudi, R. (1996). “Flexural re- deflection formulas for FRP-RC members.” J. Compos. Constr., 10(3),
sponse of concrete beams reinforced with FRP reinforcing bars.” 183–194.
ACI Struct. J., 91(2), 46–55. Nanni, A. (1993). “Flexural behavior and design of RC members using
Bischoff, P. H. (2005). “Reevaluation of deflection prediction for concrete FRP reinforcement.” J. Struct. Eng., 119(11), 3344–3359.
beams reinforced with steel and fiber reinforced polymer bars.” Newhook, J., Ghali, A., and Tadros, G. (2002). “Concrete flexural members
J. Struct. Eng., 131(5), 752–767. reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer: Dsign for cracking and
Bischoff, P. H., and Paixao, R. (2004). “Tension stiffening and cracking of deformability.” Can. J. Civil Eng., 29, 125–134.
concrete reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars.” Pecce, M., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E. (2000). “Experimental response
Can. J. Civ. Eng., 31(4), 579–588. and code models of GFRP RC beams in bending.” J. Compos. Constr.,
Bischoff, B. H., and Scanlon, A. (2007). “Effective moment of inertia 4(4), 182–190.
for calculating deflections of concrete members containing steel Pilakoutas, K., Neocleous, K., and Guadagnini, M. (2002). “Design
reinforcement and fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement.” ACI Struct. philosophy issues of fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced concrete
J., 104(1), 68–75. structures.” J. Compos. Constr., 6(3), 154–161.