Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Grid for

Reinforced Concrete Construction

EDWIN R. SCHMECKPEPER
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83844-1044

CHARLES H. GOODSPEED
Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire 03824
(Received July 15, 1993)
(Revised October 11, 1993)

ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper was to evaluate the suitability of Fiber- Reinforced
Plastic (FRP) grids for use as a structural reinforcement in slab-type concrete structures. The
behavior of concrete beams reinforced with FRP grids was experimentally investigated. Two
different types of FRP grids were tested; the first type used carbon fibers, the second type used
a mixture of carbon and E-Glass fibers. The mechanical properties of these two FRP grids were
determined. For each of the two types of reinforcement, five concrete beams were tested to
failure. The flexural behavior, as characterized by the load-deflection response, was monitored
throughout the tests. The results from the flexural tests on FRP reinforced concrete beams
showed that the failure mode, measured deflections and ultimate loads were consistent with
predictions.

INTRODUCTION

R EINFORCED CONCRETE IS one of the most important construction materials.

Because of its combination of rigidity, adaptability, economy, availability,
and durability, it is used in almost every type of structure, from sidewalks to sky-
scrapers. Although concrete possesses high compressive strength, it has little tensile
strength. The addition of steel bars or strands to provide the required tensile strength
results in the composite material known as reinforced concrete. A brief explanation
of the principles of reinforcing concrete was provided in the article by Saadatmanesh
and Ehsani [1].
Unfortunately, since concrete is porous, the reinforcing steel can corrode when the
structure is subjected to corrosive materials, including deicing chemicals or

1288 Journal of COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Vol. 28, No. 14/1994

0021-9983/94/14 1288-17 $6.00/0
© 1994 Technomic Publishing Co., Inc.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved.

Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Grid for Reinforced Concrete Construction 1289
salt water. When these materials infiltrate the porous concrete, they cause the
reinforcing steel to corrode. The reinforcing steel expands as it corrodes, resulting in
damage to the surrounding concrete. In addition, tension capacity in the
reinforcement is lost due to the corrosion. If uncorrected, this deterioration may
eventually result in the failure of the structure.

Use of FRP to Reinforce Concrete

As one possible solution to this problem, researchers have been investigating the
suitability of materials which are not susceptible to corrosion, such as Fiber-
Reinforced Plastic (FRP) reinforcements, for use in concrete structures. In addition to
being not susceptible to corrosion, FRP reinforcements are lightweight, high-
strength, and non-conductive.
One of the earliest examples of using FRP as reinforcement for concrete is the
1941 Jackson patent application for the use of fiberglass bars to reinforce concrete
structural elements [2]. Additional work on this subject was conducted at Princeton
University in the 1950’s [3], at the U.S. Army Engineers Waterway Experiment
Station in 1960’s [4], and at Rutgers University in the 1970’s [5]. However, it was
not until the mid 1980’s that FRP was used outside the laboratory as reinforcement
for concrete in building construction [6]. The deterioration of the nation’s
infrastructure and the specialized requirements for non-magnetic environments of the
medical and communications industries convinced design engineers to take
advantage of FRP reinforcements.

Problems with FRP Bars

The use of round FRP bars for the reinforcement of concrete has been limited, in
part, due to the poor bonding characteristics of FRP bars. For example, Larralde,
Renbaum, and Morsi [7] expressed concern that the lack of adequate bond would
eliminate the composite behavior of FRP reinforced concrete members. These
concerns were also expressed in later work done by Faza and Gangarao [8].
In addition, even though FRP reinforcements are not susceptible to electro-
chemical corrosion or “rust” as are steel reinforcements, the question of durability
still remains to be addressed. In an alkaline environment such as concrete, moisture
reacts to form hydroxyl ions that may attack the basic silicon-oxygen- silicon
structural network of any glass component in the reinforcement. In their study on
glass fiber/epoxy FRP reinforced concrete beams subjected to dry/wet cycles, Sen,
Mariscal, and Shahawy found that moisture-induced corrosion lead to significant
reductions in capacity [9]. Further studies must be undertaken to determine if other
reinforcements, such as carbon fibers, are also susceptible to corrosion.

FRP Grids for Reinforced Concrete Construction

Rather than duplicate an existing steel product, some manufacturers have taken a
different approach when providing reinforcement for concrete structures such

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

1290 EDWIN R. SCHMECKPEPER AND CHARLES H. GOODSPEED

Figure 1. FRP grid.

as slabs or walls. The use of FRP grids solves the problems of poor bond per-
formance by developing bond through direct concrete bearing on members which are
placed transverse to the longitudinal axis of the main reinforcing members [10]. In
addition to solving the problems with poor bond, the use of grids, rather than
individual bars, may result in fabrication and installation efficiencies. When made
into a two dimensional structure, these grids are particularly suited for slab-type
structures, such as bridge decks or wall panels, which do not require shear
reinforcement. A typical two-dimensional FRP grid is shown in Figure 1.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
The research presented in this paper has been directed towards determining the
performance characteristics of concrete beams reinforced with FRP grids. This work
is one of the steps required to determine the suitability of the FRP material for
structural applications.

FRP Grids
Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) composites are composed of relatively high-
strength parallel fibers enclosed in a resin matrix, which binds the fibers into a single
structure. The resin matrix provides the means to transfer applied stresses to the
fibers and protects the fibers from moisture and deleterious interactions with the
environment, such as oxidation or corrosion.
The longitudinal and transverse members of the FRP Grids used in this study were
fabricated using a process in which bundles of carbon or glass fiber filaments were
impregnated with a vinyl ester resin, and then woven in two- or threedimensional
patterns to form the bars of the reinforcement grid. The finished grids were then
pressed between heated steel plates which flatten the upper and lower surfaces of the
grids. The result of this “built-up” fabrication process was that while the fiber content
of the grids was accurately controlled, the bars which make up the grids do not have
a uniform cross section. As shown in Figure 2, the bars in the grid are smooth on the
top and bottom, but have irregular sides.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Grid for Reinforced Concrete Construction 1291
The FRP grids are produced in several sizes and configurations. The manufacturer
designates the FRP grids by a letter which indicates the composite type, followed by
a number which represents the size of the bars in the grid, followed by the bar
spacing interval.
Two different types of fiber-reinforced plastic composites were used in this test
program. The first type, designated “C-Type”, used carbon fibers, while the second,
designated “H-Type”, was a hybrid using carbon and glass fibers, with glass fibers
predominating. The fiber mechanical material properties, shown in Table 1, were
provided by the manufacturer [11]. In addition to the fibers, a vinyl-ester resin with a
specific gravity of 1.15 was used for the matrix in the manufacture of the FRP grids.
The FRP grid size designation does not correspond to any actual dimension of the
grid. Instead, the designation indicates the diameter of a Grade 60 steel reinforcing
bar with the same ultimate tensile strength as the individual bars of the FRP grid. The
available grid sizes range from CIO or H10, which has the nominal capacity of a 10
mm steel bar, to C22 or H22, which has the nominal capacity of a 22 mm steel bar.
When used to reinforce concrete slabs-type structures, the FRP grids are typically
produced in two-dimensional sheets composed of longitudinal and transverse bars.
The size of the individual bars which make up the grid and the interval between these
bars may be varied.
Two different ypes of FRP grids were used in this test program: The first grid type
was fabricated with C19 FRP bars. The second grid type was fabricated with

Figure 2. Cross sections of FRP bars.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

1292 EDWIN R. SCHMECKPEPER AND CHARLES H. GOODSPEED
Table 1. Fiber mechanical properties.

Ultimate Young’s
Modulus Maximum
Strength Elongation
MPa Texture
(E) €
Density ult
MPa %
Fiber Strand (ksi) (e) (T)
(ksi)
Type Type g/cm3 g/1000 m
H-S tow 4820 1.82 800 230,300 1.4
Carbon (700) (33,400)
E-Glass roving 1380 2.54 2220 72,400 2.0
(200) (10,500)

H19 FRP bars. The bars of both of these grids were designed to have the same
ultimate tension capacity as a 19 mm Grade 60 steel bar. The FRP grids used in this
test program were produced with equal sized longitudinal and transverse bars,
equally spaced in both directions. The centerline to centerline bar spacing was 100
mm (4 "). The fiber areas and relative proportions of carbon and glass fibers are
shown in Table 2.

Material Composition
The mechanical properties of the individual bars in the FRP grids are dependent
upon the area of fibers and the ratio of fibers to resin. Material composition, or
“Burn-Off”, tests were conducted to determine their volume and weight fractions of
the two different types of fiber-reinforced plastic composites used in this test
program [12]. As a control, tests were simultaneously conducted on samples of the
vinyl-ester resin used in the manufacture of the FRP grids. The results of the material
composition tests, shown in Table 3, were used to calculate the theoretical section
properties of the FRP grids.

Section Properties
The gross cross sectional properties were determined by averaging the results
from repeated volumetric measurements on samples from the different types of
Table 2. Fiber area of bars in FRP grids.
Area
Area E-
% % Carbon sq. Glass
Carbon E-Glass mm (sq. in) sq. mm
Bar Size Tows Rovings (sq. in)
H19 34 136 14.9 118.9
(0.023) (0.184)
C19 135 0 59.3 0
(0.092) (0)

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Grid for Reinforced Concrete Construction 1293
Table 3. Results of material composition test
% Resin
FRP Grid °/o Carbon Fiber % Glass Fiber Volume
Type Volume (Weight) Volume (Weight) (Weight)
H-Type 5 39 56
(5) (52) (43)
C-Type 36 0 64
(45) (0) (55)

reinforcing grids. There were measurable differences among grids of the same type
and size. For example, the depth of the H19 reinforcing grids varied from 17 mm to
25 mm, averaging 20 mm. Figure 2 shows the presence of voids and the uneven
distribution of fibers caused by the manufacturing process. In addition, the carbon
fibers were not uniformly distributed throughout the bars of the H-Type grids. The
fabrication process created bundles of carbon fibers surrounded by bundles of glass
fibers. The two different fiber types were not intermixed.
The theoretical cross sectional area of the solids was then determined using the
calculated cross sectional fiber area and the relative volume fraction for each
component. The cross sectional area of each fiber component is calculated as
follows: where

Ai — Area of fiber, (mm2)

H i — number of fiber bundles (roving or tows)

Ti = Texture of fiber (g/1000 m)

3
Q i = Density of fiber (g/cm )

Note that the fiber manufacturers refer to a bundle of parallel glass fibers as a
“Roving”, and refer to a bundle of continuous carbon filaments as a “Tow”.
Using the specific gravities of each component, the theoretical cross sectional area
of the bars of each grid type was calculated. The measured and theoretical cross
sectional properties are shown in Table 4. A comparison of the measured area to the
theoretical area indicates that the H19 type grids contain voids adding as much as an
additional 20% to the apparent cross-sectional area. For this reason, the theoretical
cross sectional area was used for all stress calculations [13].

Mechanical Properties
The mechanical properties of the bars which make up the FRP reinforcing grids
were determined using axial tensile tests. These tests were conducted using

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

1294 EDWIN R. SCHMECKPEPER AND CHARLES H. GOODSPEED
Table 4. Cross sectional properties of FRP reinforcing grids.
Average Maximum Maximum
Measured Theoretical
Depth Depth Width
Area sq. mm Area sq. mm
mm mm mm
Grid (sq. in) (sq. in)
(in) (in) (in)
Type
H19 20.0 25.0 20.0 360 300
(0.79) (1.00) (0.79) (0.558) (0.465)
C19 12.5 18.0 12.5 165 160
(0.49) (0.71) (0.49) (0.256) (0.248)

the full cross section of the FRP bars as per ASTM D3039 [14]. The strains in the
reinforcing material were recorded using an extensometer and electric resistance
strain gages placed upon opposing faces of the test coupons, the measured strains
were then averaged to determine the modulus of elasticity for the sample. As shown
in Figure 3, the bars did not fail along a “failure plane”, but rather at random
locations along the test specimen, exhibiting the characteristic behavior of continuous
fiber-reinforced composites [15]. The stress-strain relationships for the FRP and steel
reinforcing bars are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3. FRP tension test specimens.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Grid for Reinforced Concrete Construction 1295

Comparison between FRP and Steel Reinforcements

Based upon the theoretical cross section, Figure 4 shows the three key differences
between the material properties of FRP grids and Steel reinforcing bars:
• The stress vs. strain diagrams for the FRP materials were essentially linear up to
ultimate stress with no discernable yield point.
• The failure stress of the FRP materials was significantly higher than the yield
stress of steel.
• The modulus of elasticity of the FRP grids were considerably less than that of
steel. The modulus for the FI-Type material was approximately 1/6 of that steel,
while the modulus for the C-Type material was approximately 1/3 that of steel.
Additionally, the use of grids instead of single bars, may lead to increased crack
widths and deflections since the grids develop force transfer at discrete locations,
unlike bars which transfer forces continuously along their entire length [16].
As a result of these differences, a concrete structure with FRP reinforcements can
be expected to exhibit significantly greater deflections than steel reinforced concrete
structures with the same area of reinforcing. For structures with reinforcements with
equal axial rigidity (area of reinforcement times modulus of elasticity), the structure
reinforced with FRP may have a considerably greater ultimate capacity than the steel
reinforced structure. It is most probable that the failure mode of the FRP reinforced
structure will be a concrete compression or
diagonal shear-tension failure rather than a failure in which the reinforcement
fractures.
In summary, when compared on an equal-area basis, FRP reinforcements are
lighter and stronger, but less stiff than steel. When compared on an equal-weight

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

1296 EDWIN R. SCHMECKPEPER AND CHARLES H. GOODSPEED
basis, FRP reinforcements can be made stiffer and stronger than steel, since the FRP
materials weigh considerably less per unit volume than steel. Since the FRP
composite materials have a lower modulus of elasticity than steel, but have an equal
or higher failure strength, the design of concrete structures reinforced with FRP
composites will typically be governed by shear strength or deflection limitations, not
strength requirements.
Concrete Properties
The concrete used for the test specimens was specified to have a minimum
compressive strength after 28 days of 27.5 MPa (4000 psi). Compression tests in-
dicated that the concrete compressive strength was actually 41.2 MPa (6000 psi),
exceeding the minimum specifications by 50%. Using the provisions of ACI-318
[17] and the measured concrete strength, the modulus of elasticity (Ec) of the con-
crete was calculated to be 30,300 MPa (4400 ksi).
Test Specimens
The reinforcement configurations tested are shown in the Table 5. The first five
beams used a grid with two longitudinal H19 bars (series H), the next five beams
used a grid with three longitudinal C19 bars (series C), and the three control beams
were reinforced with a single longitudinal #5 Grade 60 steel bar (series S). The cross
sections of the test beams are shown in Figure 5.
Table 5. Test beam reinforcement design information.
Beam
Depth
Area Weight
“d”
Beam Reinf. sq. Reinf.
mm ^reinf ^reinf
Number mm (sq. g/mm MPa MN
(in) Al A
(Reinf.) in) (Ib/in) '’reinf' '’cone (ksi) (Kips)
H1 168 600 1.04 0.012 41,500 25
(2-H19) (6.61) (0.93) (0.058) (6080) (5650)

H2,H3,H4,H5 148 600 1.04 0.014 41,500 25

(2-H19) (5.83) (0.93) (0.058) (6080) (5650)

C1 171 480 0.66 0.009 85,300 41

(3-C19) (6.76) (0.74) (0.039) (12,400) (9100)

C2,C3,C4,C5 158 480 0.66 0.010 85,300 41

(3-C19) (6.24) (0.74) (0.039) (12,400) (9100)

S 170 200 1.55 0.004 200,000 40

(1 #5) (6.69) (0.31) (0.086) (29,000) (8990)

Notes: 1) Beam Depth “d” measured from top of beam to center of reinforcement. 2) For ail beams:
Width = 300 mm (12"), and Height = 200 mm (8")-

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

 STEEL C-TYPE H-TYPE
Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Grid
1 #5 BARfor Reinforced Concrete
3C19 BARS Construction
2H19 BARS 1297

h
0.025 m- 0.2 m
w
0.3 m
Figure 5. Test beam cross sections.

The beams reinforced with the C19 grids were designed to have the same rein-
forcement rigidity as the steel reinforced beams. Note that in order to obtain the same
axial stiffness as the steel reinforcement, the C-Type FRP area was 2.4 times as great
as the steel area. However, the weight of the C-Type FRP reinforcement was less
than one half of the equivalent steel weight.
The axial rigidity of the H-Type reinforcements was only 63% of that of the steel
reinforcement. The area of reinforcement in the beams reinforced with the H19 grids,
which was limited due to concrete placing considerations, was three times that of the
steel reinforced beam. While the weight of the H-Type FRP reinforcement was only
67 % of the steel weight. In order for the axial rigidity of the H-Type reinforcements
to be equal to that of the steel reinforcements, the area of the H-Type FRP would be
required to have been 4.8 times greater than that of the steel area. In this case, the
weight of the H-Type FRP reinforcements would be 1.07 times that of the equivalent
steel reinforcement.
Test Setup
The test beams were loaded monotonically to failure in four point symmetrical
bending, using a 500 kN (120 Kip) hydraulic jack and 445 kN (100 Kip) load cell as
shown in the Figure 6. The test beams were simply supported on a convex

Figure 6. Test setup.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

1298 EDWIN R. SCHMECKPEPER AND CHARLES H. GOODSPEED
Table 6. Test results.
Ratio
Test %
Max. Cal’d Card
to
# Bars Load Load Force/Bar Ult
Cald
Beam / kN kN kN Bar Failure
%
Number Type (Kips) (Kips) (Kips) Cap. Type
H1 2-H19 105% 73% V
75.5 71.6 148.3

(17.0) (16.1) (33.5)

H2 2-H19 100% 65% V
58.7 58.7 132.3
(13.2) (13.2) (29.7)
H3 2-H19 87% 49%
51.2 58.7 100.9 s
(11.5) (13.2) (22.7)
H5 2-H19 92% 52% V
54.4 58.7 107.3

(12.2) (13.2) (24.1)

C1 3-C19 94% 51% E
78.8 84.1 103.3

(17.7) (18.9) (23.2)

C2 3-C19 85.4 78.2 109% 59% V
121.1
(19.2) (17.6)
(27.2)
C3 3-C19 93% 47%
72.5 78.2 95.0 s
(16.3) (17.6) (21.3)
C5 3-C19 102% 51%
79.7 78.2 104.5 s
(17.9) (17.6) (23.5)
S 1-#5 22.7 100% 82.7 100% R
22.8
(Ave.) (5.1) (18.6)
(5.1)

where E = Anchorage failure due to void in concrete.

R = Reinforcement failure.
S = Failure of splice in reinforcing.
V = Shear failure outside constant moment region.
Note that beams C4 and H4 are not included in this table. Voids were present in the concrete in the
region of maximum moment.

bearing plate at one end of the beam and a concave plate with roller at the other end
of the beam. Deflection gauges were placed at midspan, at load points, and midway
between the supports and the load points on each specimen. Deflections were
measured and recorded after each load increment.

Test Results
The average test results are summarized in Table 6. The measured maximum
loads compared favorably to the calculated theoretical maximum loads.
Figure 7 shows the crack pattern in a steel reinforced beam subjected to a load of
17.8 kN (4 Kips) [18]. Figure 8, shows the crack pattern in a FRP grid reinforced
beam at the same load level. As predicted the crack pattern in the FRP reinforced
beams occurred at the location of the transverse bars of the FRP grid. However, as
shown in these two photographs, at any given load level the number

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Grid for Reinforced Concrete Construction 1299

Figure 7. Steel reinforced beam at service load.

Figure 8. FRP grid reinforced beam at service load.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

1300 EDWIN R. SCHMECKPEPER AND CHARLES H. GOODSPEED

Figure 9. Load vs. midspan deflection.

of cracks and their apparent sizes were not significantly greater in the FRP reinforced
beams than in the steel reinforced control beams.
The Load vs. Midspan Deflection results for the test beams are shown in Figure 9.
In the steel reinforced beam the load gradually increased up to an average value of
approximately 22 kN. Additional deflections resulted in little or no increase in load.
This change in slope occurred when the steel reinforcement began yielding. The
beams would not collapse until either the steel or the concrete could no longer
accommodate additional strain. The deflected shape of the steel reinforced beam at
ultimate load is shown in Figure 10. This type of elastic-plastic behavior, which is
referred to as “Tension Reinforcement Yielding”, is generally preferred to a purely
brittle failure due to the energy being dissipated and since the increasing deflections
provide some warning prior to collapse.
In contrast, while the FRP reinforced beams exhibited significantly higher ultimate
loads than the steel reinforced beams, they did not exhibit the same type of behavior.
As shown in Figure 11, which shows an FRP reinforced beam at failure, the concrete
strength limited the ultimate load in the FRP reinforced beams. The behavior of the
FRP reinforced beams was characteristic of brittle materials. However, as indicated
in Table 6, unlike the reinforcement in the steel reinforced beams, the FRP grids
were loaded significantly below their ultimate capacity. In addition, Figure 9 also
shows that energy dissipation in the FRP reinforced beams, as measured by the area
under the load vs. deflection curve, was comparable to that of the steel reinforced
beams.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Grid for Reinforced Concrete Construction 1301

Figure 11. FRP reinforced beam at ultimate load.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

1302 EDWIN R. SCHMECKPEPER AND CHARLES H. GOODSPEED

Figure 12. Measured and predicted load vs. deflection for beam C-1.

Deflections were calculated using the ACI 318 equations derived by Branson and
the CEB bilinear method [19]. As shown in Figure 12, the deflections predicted by
the CEB bilinear method and the ACI method compare favorably with the measured
deflections.
Based upon statistical data, the ACI code for concrete design limits the allowable
live load on a steel reinforced concrete beam by using load magnification factors to
reflect the variability of the load, and strength-reduction factors to account for
construction tolerances and uncertainties in materials. These load magnification
factors and strength-reduction factors result in a factor of safety which typically
ranges between 1.55 and 2.4. The strength-reduction factors for FRP reinforced
concrete have not been developed.
However, in addition to strength requirements, the ACI code also includes
serviceability requirements which limit live load deflections to a maximum of the
l/180th of the beam length. Therefore, the maximum allowable deflection for the test
beams used in this study would be (3.6 m/180) = 20 mm. At this deflection the steel-
reinforced beams resisted an average load of 19.1 kN (4.3 Kips), the C-Type
reinforced beams resisted an average load of 19.0 kN (4.3 Kips), and the H-iype
reinforced beams resisted an average load of 11.2 kN (2.6 Kips).
Using the load at the maximum deflection as the allowable live load, 19.0 kN, the
C-Type reinforced beams C2, C3, and C5 would have a factor of safety of 4.1 with
respect to the maximum test load of 79.2 kN. Similarly, the H-Type reinforced beams
H2, H3, and H5 would have an allowable live load of 11.4 kN, and a factor of safety
of 4.8 with respect to the maximum test load of 54.8 kN. The factors of safety for
both the C-Type and the H-Type FRP reinforced concrete beams are greater than
those normally provided in steel-reinforced concrete beams.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The ultimate capacity of the steel-reinforced beam was limited by yielding in the

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Grid for Reinforced Concrete Construction 1303
steel reinforcement. In contrast, ultimate capacity of the FRP reinforced beam was
limited by cracking in the concrete.
Since the steel-reinforced specimens were designed to be near the minimum
allowable reinforcing ratio, the predicted failure mechanism was reinforcement
yielding. The depth to span ratio for the test specimens was approximately 7, which
is normally within the range of long beams, which generally precludes concrete shear
as the failure mechanism. The steel-reinforced beams yielded as calculated, failure
induced by yielding of the tension reinforcement.
The FRP reinforced beams were designed to have the same reinforcement rigidity
as the steel-reinforced beams. Since the FRP reinforcements have a lower modulus of
elasticity but a higher ultimate failure stress than the steel reinforcements, the FRP
reinforced beams have significantly larger reinforcement ratios than the steel-
reinforced concrete beams. The larger reinforcement ratios, combined with the lower
modulus of elasticity, resulted in concrete compression or diagonal shear governing
capacity rather than reinforcement tension capacity.

CONCLUSION
FRP grids are a potentially viable replacement for steel-in-concrete reinforcement.
Static tests have indicated that the flexural behavior of FRP reinforced structures can
be predicted such that serviceability requirements are satisfied. Satisfactory static
performance is only the first step in the long process leading towards widespread
acceptance of FRP as a reinforcement for concrete. Ongoing research, being
conducted at the University of New Hampshire and the University of Idaho, is
investigating long term effects on full scale FRP reinforced bridge deck panels [20]
and precast cladding panels. In addition, research on FRP reinforced concrete beams
subjected to adverse environments is being conducted as part of the Graduate
Research Fellow program at the FHWA’s Turner- Fairbank Highway Research
Center.
The acceptance of FRP as a reinforcement for concrete will be influenced by its
lack of “Tension Reinforcement Yielding” and its low modulus of elasticity. The low
modulus of elasticity will result in larger deflections than are found in a concrete
member reinforced with an equal strength steel reinforcement. The brittle behavior
and low modulus of elasticity of FRP reinforcements requires greater consideration
of concrete shear, compression, and deflections than in steel-reinforced concrete.
However, since the FRP materials behave in a predictable manner and are not
susceptible to electrochemical corrosion, the use of FRP as a concrete reinforcement
will continue to increase.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Portions of the work described formed part of the doctoral dissertation of the first
author, at the University of New Hampshire, under the direction of the second author.
In addition, portions of the work described were supported by the
Federal Highway Administration Graduate Research Fellowship Program, under the
direction of Eric Munley of the FHWA Structures Division.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015

1304 EDWIN R. SCHMECKPEPER AND CHARLES H. GOODSPEED
REFERENCES
1. Saadatmanesh, H. and M. R. Ehsani. 1991. “Fiber Composite Bar for Reinforced Concrete
Construction,” Journal of Composite Materials, 25:188.
2. Jackson, J. G. 1947. “Concrete Structural Element Reinforced with Glass Fibers,” U.S.
Patent 2,425,883, Filed August 8, 1941, Patented August 19, 1947.
3. Rubinsky, I. A. 1951. “New Ideas for Prestressing Concrete: Apply Prestress with Glass,”
Engineering News-Record.
4. Wines, J. C. and G. C. Hoff. 1966. “Laboratory Investigation of Plastic-Glass Fiber
Reinforcement for Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete: Report 1, Plain Reinforced
Concrete,” Miscellaneous Paper No. 6-779, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
5. Nawy, E. G., G. E. Neuwerth, C. J. Phillips. 1971. “Behavior of Fiber Glass Reinforced
Concrete Beams,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, p. 2203.
6. Roll, R. D. 1991. “Use of GFRP Rebar in Concrete Structures,” Proceedings of the Conference
on Advanced Composite Materials in Civil Engineering Structures, ASCE Materials Engineering
Division.
7. Larralde, J., L. Renbaum and A. Morsi. 1988. “Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Rebars in
Lieu of Steel Regars,” TRB Annual Meeting, Task Force A2C51-Structural Applications of Fiber
Reinforced Plastics.
8. Faza, S. S. and H. V. S. Gangarao. 1991. “Bending Response of Concrete Beams with FRP
Rebars for Varying Surface Conditions,” TRB 70th Annual Meeting, Paper No. 91-0638.
9. Sen, R., D. Mariscal and M. Shahawy. 1993. “Durability of Fiberglass Pretensioned
Beams,” ACl Structural Journal, 90(5):525-533.
10. NEFCOM Corporation. “NEFMAC—Technical Leaflet 1, New Fiber Composite Material
for Reinforcing Concrete,” Tokyo, Japan.
11. Nakatsuji, T. 1990. “Mechanical Properties of NEFMAC,” Shimizu Corporation, Tokyo,
Japan.
12. ASTM, Standard D3590-90, Standard Test Method for “Volatiles Content of Epoxy
Matrix Prepreg,” reapproved 1990.
13. Schmeckpeper, E. R. 1992. “Performance of Concrete Beams and Slabs Reinforced with
FRP Grids,” Ph.D. Dissertation. University of New Hampshire, Department of Civil
Engineering.
14. ASTM. Standard D3039-76, “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Fiber-Resin
Composites,” reapproved. 1989.
15. Hertzberg, R. W. 1989. Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering Materials, Third
Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
16. Goodspeed, C., T. Gross, R. Henry, E. Schmeckpeper, J. Yost and M. Zhang. 1990. “Fiber
Reinforced Plastic Grids for the Structural Reinforcement of Concrete,” Proceedings of the
First Materials Engineering Congress. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
17. American Concrete Institute. “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete,”
ACI 318-89, Detroit, Michigan.
18. Schmeckpeper, E. R. 1992. “Final Report—Performance of FRP Grating Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Deck Slabs, GRF Project #12,” Federal Highway Administration.
19. Branson, D. E. 1977. Deformation of Concrete Structures. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
20. Goodspeed, C. H., G. Aleva and E. R. Schmeckpeper. 1991. “Bridge Deck Test Facility for
FRP Reinforced Bridge Deck Panels,” Presented at the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Winter Annual Meeting, AMD-Vol. 129.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 25, 2015