Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 361 – 368

International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in Concrete and Masonry
Structures AMCM’2017

Influence of longitudinal GFRP reinforcement ratio on shear

capacity of concrete beams without stirrups
Monika Kaszubskaa,*, Renata Kotyniaa,*, Joaquim A. O. Barrosb
a
Lodz University of Technology, Al. Politechniki 6, 90-924 Lodz, Poland
b
University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal

Abstract

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars due to their excellent corrosion resistance, high tensile strength, good non-
magnetic properties have been proposed for reinforcing concrete structures instead of traditional steel. Many
research use glass fiber reinforcement as it is much cheaper than carbon one. The aim of this paper is to analyze the
influence of longitudinal GFRP reinforcement on shear capacity of concrete beams without stirrups and to
investigate a dowel effect of this reinforcement on the shear strength. The paper presents experimental test results of
T- shaped, single span, simply supported beams without stirrups reinforced with longitudinal GFRP bars. The
following parameters were investigated in the research: flexural reinforcement ratio, number of reinforcement
layers, number and diameter of bars in one layer. Test results indicated no significant influence of the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio on the shear strength in the beams with one reinforcement layer. However, in the beams with
two layers of longitudinal reinforcement the significant increase in the shear strength was observed with increase in
the reinforcement ratio (in a range from 1,02% to 1.85%). The beams reinforced with two layers of GFRP
reinforcement showed more extensive crack pattern than the beams with one reinforcement layer. It confirms that
application of two reinforcement layers more effectively enhance the shear strength mainly due to higher tension
stiffening effect provided by the flexural reinforcement in the beams with two reinforcement layers.
©©2017
2017TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This
by Elsevier Ltd.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in
Conceptsand
Concrete in Masonry
ConcreteStructures
and Masonry Structures.

Keywords: Shear strength; GFRP bars; strain; deformation; diagonal cracking, failure

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: renata.kotynia@p.lodz.pl; monika.dymecka@p.lodz.pl

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in Concrete and
Masonry Structures
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.225
362 Monika Kaszubska et al. / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 361 – 368

1. Introduction

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites indicate excellent corrosion resistance, high tensile strength and good
non-magnetic properties. Concrete structures reinforced with FRP systems are not susceptible to corrosion, therefore
can be more durable and less susceptible to repair and maintenance than those reinforced with traditional steel bars.
However, the FRP bars present a linear-elastic behaviour with brittle tensile failure mode, which arouse concerns in
terms of ductility. The modulus of elasticity of most FRP bars is lower than that of the steel bars, which combined
with inferior bond performance to cement based materials, can decrease the performance of FRP reinforced
structures in serviceability limit state conditions. Shear in the support regions of reinforced concrete (RC) beams is a
complex problem due to combination of shear force and bending moment.
Generally, the shear strength of RC elements without transverse reinforcement is affected by several shear
mechanisms including: un-cracked concrete compressive zone, friction forces (named aggregate interlock action)
developing along a diagonal shear crack length and the shear dowel action of longitudinal reinforcement. The
contribution of each shear component changes and depends on the load level and a crack pattern. In the beams
without stirrups the problem to be investigated is the influence of a dowel effect on the shear capacity of FRP
reinforced beams, particularly due to the FRP reinforcement in opposite to steel is an anisotropic material. The
available code equations were prepared for steel bars, hence the aim of this research is to investigate the effect of
FRP longitudinal bars on the dowel effect of beams failing in shear. Direct replacement of the steel reinforcement
with FRP bars in the available code equations is not correct without consideration of their linear elastic
characteristic and brittle structural performance.
A considerable number of tests have been carried out to study the shear strength of GFRP reinforced rectangular
concrete beams without transverse reinforcement [1]. The most published research investigated the effect of the
glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcement ratio and its stiffness on the shear strength, e.g. Yost et al. [2]
indicated that the GFRP longitudinal reinforcement ratio did not affect the shear capacity. However, Alkhrdaji et al.
[3], El-Sayed et al. [4] and Matta et al. [5], Tureyen and Frosch [6], El-Sayed et al. [7] noted that the shear strength
of the GFRP and CFRP reinforced beams was directly proportional to the longitudinal reinforcement ratio. Bentz et
al. [8] studied the size effect of the beam and the longitudinal reinforcement ration on the shear capacity. A
motivation of the present paper is to investigate the shear crack pattern in the GFRP reinforced beams with variable
reinforcement ratio and its influence on a dowel action mechanisms and failure modes.

2. Experimental program

An experimental program includes seven single span, T-cross-section beams (beff=400 mm, bw=150 mm,
hf=60 mm, htot= 400 mm) with a clear span of 1800 mm. The GFRP reinforced beams without transverse
reinforcement is only a part of a wider shear research on the beams GFRP/or steel reinforced beams without stirrups.
The thickness of concrete cover of the flexural reinforcement was 15 mm. All the bars of the bottom reinforcement
were straight and they were anchored in the steel box filled with the epoxy resin. The GFRP bars of three diameters:
12, 16 and 18 mm, were used for the longitudinal tensile reinforcement (Table 1), with the following main
properties determined based on the experimental tensile tests (based on 12 bar specimens): an average modulus of
elasticity Ef=51.5 GPa (COV=9%) and the tensile strength ffu=1091 MPa (COV=11%). The GFRP bars were
arranged in 1 or 2 layers, with an equivalent depth of the tensile reinforcement (deq), ranged between 367 mm and
379 mm. The beams varied mainly with the flexural reinforcement ratio (ȡ) corresponding to about: 1%, 1,4% and
1.80%, while a number of bars and their diameter varied to finally obtain the assumed reinforcement ratio (see Table
1 and Fig. 1).
The top longitudinal reinforcement consisted of two straight longitudinal GFRP bars of 10 mm diameter and
short bars of 6 mm diameter at a spacing 210 mm as the flange reinforcement (Fig. 1). There were no stirrups along
the tested shear span, while in the opposite non-tested shear span was reinforced with transverse steel stirrups of
8 mm diameter at 150 or 130 mm spacing and bent rods of 14 mm diameter applied in all beams in order to avoid
the shear failure in the non-tested support region. The shear span to depth ratio, (a/d) was approximately 3.0 in all
tested beams.
 Monika Kaszubska et al. / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 361 – 368 363

The beams were made of concrete class C25/30 mixed of sand (970 kg/m3), crushed stone aggregate (860 kg/m3)
and cement CEM I 42.5 (255 kg/m3) with an addition of plasticizer (1.8 kg/m3). The concrete consistency of S3
(according to PN-EN 206-1, slump cone in the range from 100 to 150 mm) was obtained, with ratio of water to
cement equal of 0.8 (so high water to cement ratio had to be applied in order to obtain the compressive concrete
strength of 30 MPa with cement class CEM I 42.5, which is commonly used for high concrete strength, this class of
cement was applied to obtain the concrete with a stable strength after 28 days, non-susceptible to curing time and
temperature). The average concrete compressive strength obtained on 16 cubic samples was 32.7 MPa (COV=5%).
For identifying each beam a designation nφX(/mφY), where n is a number of bars of X diameter (in mm) in the
first layer, and when a second layer exists, m is a number of bars of Y diameter of the second layer. For instance,
5φ12 represents the beam reinforced with one layer of 5 bars of 12 mm diameter, while 3φ12/2φ12 is the beam of
two layers, the first one composed of 3 bars of 12 mm diameter and the second one composed of 2 bars of 12 mm
diameter.

Table 1. Details of tested beams

Number of Type of Reinforcement depth, Reinforcement
No. Beams ȡE [GPa]
layers reinforcement deq [mm] ratio, ȡ [%]
1 5φ12 5#12 379 0.99 0.50
2 3φ16 3#16 377 1.07 0.53
3 3φ18 1 3#18 376 1.35 0.68
4 4φ16 4#16 377 1.42 0.71
5 4φ18 4#18 376 1.80 0.90
6 3φ12/2φ12 3#12+2#12 368 1.02 0.51
2
7 3φ18/1φ18 3#18+1#18 367 1.85 0.92
ȡ=A/bwdeq: A- cross section of reinforcement, deq – equivalent depth of reinforcement; deq=(A1*d1+ A2*d2)/A: d1, d2 –
depth of first and second reinforcement layer, A1, A2 – the cross section of first and second reinforcement layer

Fig. 1. Reinforcement of tested beams

3. Test set-up

The beams were loaded in three point loaded scheme trough a steel-beam profile that resulted in the linear
distributed load along the whole width of the flange (Fig. 2). The loading was applied continuously, by displacement
control system performed by 200 kN hydraulic jack with a velocity of 10 ȝm/s. The beams were simply supported
on two steel supports with the movable one closed to the shear tested part of the beam.
The horizontal concrete strains were measured on the lateral side of the flange along the compressive
364 Monika Kaszubska et al. / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 361 – 368

reinforcement LVDTs gauges of 300 mm base length (LVDTs no 2 to 4) and at the level of the tensile longitudinal
reinforcement (LVDTs no 6 to 8), while under the point of load LVDTs gauges of 100mm base length (LVDTs no 1
and 5) were used. For measuring the principal concrete strain İ1 and İ2 on the beam’s web along the tested shear
region, four triangular cells (rosettes) consisting of three LVDTs were performed according to the scheme shown in
Fig. 2a.

a) b)

Fig. 2. a) Test set up: static scheme and LVDT arrangement b) direction in rosettes

4. Test results

All beams failed due to diagonal shear cracking occurred in the test shear span of the beams at different load
levels (Table 2). To avoid the influence of the differences registered in the concrete compressive strength (fcm) and
the equivalent depth of the flexural reinforcement (deq) on the shear capacity of the beams, the ultimate shear
strength IJmax= Vmax/(bwdeq) was normalized by calculating IJmax/(0.3fcm2/3). GFRP reinforced beams, with one
reinforcement layer, were less susceptible to changes of the reinforcement ratio than the beams reinforced with two
layers (Fig. 3). Almost twice increase in the reinforcement ratio caused an increase in the normalized shear strength
only 14% for a one reinforcement layer and 38% increase for two layers of the reinforcement. Application of two
reinforcement layers instead of one layer in beams 3φ18/1φ18 and 4φ18 (with reinforcement ratio of 1.8% and
1.85%, respectively) indicated an increase in the normalized shear strength of about 28%. This configuration was
more effective than one reinforcement layer in terms of the shear strength mainly due to higher tension stiffening
effect provided by the flexural reinforcement in the beams with two reinforcement layers. Moreover, two
reinforcement layers tied the shear crack and developed the existing shear cracks along the tensile reinforcement in
the support direction. In fact, the shear crack opening decreased with deq (size effect), which enhanced the aggregate
interlock effect. By disposing the flexural reinforcement in two layers, a larger volume of concrete, surrounding
these bars, was resisting to the tensile force, which not only led the higher resistance to the opening of the shear
cracks (improving the aggregate interlock effect), but also let the sliding of these cracks (due to dowel effect).

Table 2. Summary of test results

deq a/d fcm fc,cube fct Ec A ȡ Vmax IJmax IJmax/(0.3fcm2/3)
Beam
[mm] [-] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [GPa] [mm2] [%] [kN] [MPa] [MPa1/3]
5φ12 379 2.90 30.2 31.4 2.75 25.60 565 0.99 34.26 0.60 0.21
3φ16 377 2.92 28.8 33.2 2.95 27.30 603 1.07 31.73 0.56 0.20
3φ18 376 2.93 28.8 33.2 2.95 27.30 763 1.35 38.57 0.68 0.24
4φ16 377 2.92 30.5 30.7 2.70 26.10 804 1.42 34.77 0.61 0.21
4φ18 376 2.93 28.8 33.2 2.95 27.30 1018 1.80 38.15 0.68 0.24
3φ12/2φ12 368 2.99 31.7 31.4 2.75 25.60 565 1.02 34.78 0.63 0.21
3φ18/1φ18 367 3.00 31.7 33.2 2.95 27.30 1018 1.85 47.72 0.87 0.29
 Monika Kaszubska et al. / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 361 – 368 365

1.00 0.40
IJ max, MPa 1 layer 2 layers IJ max/0.3fcm2/3 , MPa 1 layer 2 layers
0.35
0.90

0.30
0.80
0.25
0.70
0.20

0.60
0.15
ȡ, % ȡ, %
0.50 0.10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Fig. 3. Shear stress versus reinforcement ratio

For measuring concrete strain in the shear test zone LVDTs arranged in the equilateral triangular rosettes were
used on the lateral side of the web. The linear strains İa, İb, İc were measured by LVDT gauges and they were used
for determination of the principal strain İ1 and İ2 according to the following formula [9].
1
ε1, 2 = (ε a + ε b + ε c ) ± 2 (ε a − ε b )2 + (ε b − ε c )2 + (ε a − ε c )2 (1)
3 2
For analysis of the principal strain İ1 and İ2 only rosettes covering the critical shear crack were used (it seems
that for variable location of the shear crack in the tested beams the only rosettes crossed by the critical shear crack
were taken into consideration). Other triangular rosettes (not crossed by the shear crack) confirmed very small strain
measurements and were not taken for the analysis. As the shear crack missed triangular rosettes in the beam 4φ18,
this beam was excluded from the analysis of the principal strain (Fig. 4) and the shear cracking stress (Fig. 7) as
well. The shear crack in this beam appeared unexpectedly the farthest from the support in comparison to other tested
beams. The principal strain plots in a function of the shear stress IJ are shown in Fig. 4.

1.0
τ, MPa ε2 ε1

0.8

0.6

0.4

5Ɏ12
3Ɏ16
0.2 3Ɏ18
4Ɏ16
3Ɏ12/2Ɏ12
3Ɏ18/1Ɏ18 ε c, ‰
0.0
-1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Fig. 4. Principal concrete strain İ1, İ2

With increase in the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, the increase in the shear cracking stress IJcr can be noted.
The shear cracking was assumed based on any concrete strain values İa, İb, İc>0.0001, registered by LVDTs crossed
by the shear crack. This cracking is visible in Fig. 4 as an abrupt changing of the plot inclination. The beams 4φ16
366 Monika Kaszubska et al. / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 361 – 368

and 3φ18/1φ18 with the higher reinforcement ratio (1.42% and 1.85%, respectively) indicate smaller values of
principal tensile strain (İ1 and İ2) and higher shear cracking stress (IJcr), while the beams 5φ12 and 3φ12/2φ12 with
the reinforcement ratio about (~1%) had similar principal tensile strain, but beam with two reinforcement layer had
much higher shear cracking stress.
Comparison of the average deflections registered by the LVDTs no 24 and 25 (see Fig.2) for all tested beams is
shown in Fig.5a. As it was expected, the increase in the reinforcement ratio caused decrease in the deflection.
Moreover beam 3φ12/2φ12 with two reinforcement layers gained smaller deflection than beam 5φ12 with the similar
reinforcement ration but reinforced in one layer. Comparison of two deflection patterns along the full length of the
beams 3φ18/1φ18 and 4φ18 (with corresponding reinforcement ratio 1.8%φ and 1.85%, respectively) indicates
slightly smaller deflections of the beam 4φ18 than deflections of the beam 3φ18/1φ18 registered for the same loads
(Fig.5b). In fact, the beam with slightly higher axial reinforcement stiffness (318/1φ18) located in two reinforcement
layers showed higher ultimate shear stress than the beam reinforced with one reinforcement layer (Fig. 5a).
a) b)

Fig. 5. (a) Average mid-span deflection of tested beams and (b) deflection pattern along the span for 4φ18 and 3φ12/2φ12 beams

The crack pattern at failure in the tested beams is shown in Fig.6. All beams started to crack in flexure, then the
diagonal crack appeared and its inclination decreased. With the load increasing the opening of the shear crack
increased with its length extension to the top and the bottom edge of the beam. Almost vertical flexural cracks
extended into the entire height of the web. Some small horizontal cracks near the support were also visible,
confirming bond loss of the bars to the concrete. It seems that when the aggregate interlock was lost, due to the
opening of the inclined crack, the dowel action in the longitudinal reinforcement increased to maintain the forces
equilibrium. A sudden increase in the dowel action could lead to the splitting failure along the plane of the
reinforcement. These splitting cracks did not pass beyond the support that confirms suitable anchorage of the tensile
reinforcement.
The critical shear crack inclination ranged between 35º and 51º. The critical shear cracks in beams with the
lowest and the highest reinforcement ratio (~1.00% and ~1.80%) were located closer to the load point, whereas in
the beams with reinforcement ratio ~1.40% the shear crack appeared almost in the mid-shear span. More cracks
were observed in the beams with similar reinforcement ratio and reinforced with larger number of bars. For the
beams with the same number of rods of the same diameter, more extensive cracking showed beams with two
reinforcement layers than the beams reinforced in one layer.
 Monika Kaszubska et al. / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 361 – 368 367

ȡ=0.99%

ȡ=1.02%

ȡ=1.07%

ȡ=1.35%

ȡ=1.42%

ȡ=1.80% ȡ=1.85%

Fig. 6. Crack pattern in GFRP reinforced beams

As it was mentioned, the shear cracking stress IJcr was assumed for the corresponding concrete strain values İa, İb,
İc>0.0001. The shear cracking stress reached values 0.11fct -0.14fct in almost all beams, which correspond to
0.49IJmax-0.64IJmax (where IJmax is the ultimate shear strength). One exception was the beam 4φ16, with shear cracking
stress IJcr=0.18fct , which corresponds to IJcr=0.78IJmax (see Fig. 7).
1.00 IJmax=
IJmax=Vmax
Vmax/bwdeq
/bwdeq IJcr=
IJcr=VVcr/bwdeq
cr/b wd eq
IJmax, MPa
0.90 IJcr, MPa
0.80
4Ɏ16 5Ɏ12 3Ɏ16 3Ɏ18 4Ɏ18 3Ɏ12/2Ɏ12 3Ɏ18/1Ɏ18
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20 IJmax=0.22fct IJmax=0.19fct IJmax=0.23fct IJmax=0.21fct IJmax=0.28fct
IJmax=0.23fct IJcr=0.52IJmax IJcr=0.64IJmax IJcr=0.51IJmax IJmax=0.23fct IJcr=0.53IJmax IJcr=0.49IJmax
0.10 IJcr=0.78IJmax IJcr=0.11 fct IJcr=0.12 fct IJcr=0.12 fct IJcr=0.11 fct IJcr=0.14 fct
0.00
2.70 2.75 2.95 2.95 2.95 3.05 3.05 fct, MPa
1.42 0.99 1.07 1.35 1.80 1.02 1.85 ȡ, %
Fig. 7. Comparison shear stress and cracking stress

The reason was the lowest tensile concrete strength in this beam (fct =2.7MPa) in comparison with other beams.
It seems that the shear cracking is much more effected by the concrete strength than the reinforcement ratio.
Comparing values of the normalized ultimate shear strength IJmax/(0.3fcm2/3) (Table 2) seems similar range of the
368 Monika Kaszubska et al. / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 361 – 368

strength from 0.20MPa to 0.24MPa for the beams reinforced in one layer and a range from 0.21MPa to 0.29MPa for
the beams with two reinforcement layers.
It should be noted that in the GFRP reinforced beams the ultimate shear stress IJma reached values (0.19-0.28)fct,
so they were much smaller than steel reinforced beams with similar reinforcement ratio (IJcr=0.5fct [10]).

5. Conclusions

The paper presents shear test results of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP longitudinal reinforcement without
stirrups. Based on the analysis of the shear behavior of tested beams the following conclusions can be drawn:
• GFRP reinforced beams are not susceptible to changes of the reinforcement ratio if the reinforcement ratio is
below 1.40%;
• application of GFRP longitudinal reinforcement in two layers (for ȡ•1.80%) delayed diagonal shear failure and
increased the shear strength by near 28%;
• beams reinforced with two layers of GFRP reinforcement indicated more extensive crack pattern than the
beams with similar reinforcement ratio but reinforced in one layer;
• application of two reinforcement layers is more effective than one reinforcement layer in terms of the shear
strength mainly due to higher tension stiffening effect provided by the flexural reinforcement (one or two
layers);
• larger number of cracks appeared in beams with larger number of bars and similar reinforcement ratio;
• critical shear crack inclination ranged between 35º and 51º;
• shear cracking stress is mainly affected by the concrete strength and for most of the tested beams ranged from
0.11fct to 0.14fct.

Acknowledgements:

The authors gratefully acknowledge the ComRebars Company who supplied the GFRP reinforcement for the
experimental tests.

References

[1] R. Kotynia, M. Kaszubska M, Analysis of Concrete Contribution in the Shear Strength of Beams Reinforced With FRP / Steel Bars Without
Stirrups, “fib Symposium 2016”, Performance-Based Approaches for Concrete Structures, Proceedings.University of Cape Town, Cape Town,
South Africa, 21–23 November 2016, Editor: Hans Beushausen
[2] J.R.Yost, S.P.Gross, D.W.Dinehart and Associate Members.ASCE, Shear Strength Of Normal Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced With
Deformed GFRP Bars, Journal of Composites for Construction, 5(4), 2001.
[3] T. Alkhrdaji, A. Wideman, A. Belarbi, A. Nanni, Shear Strength of GFRP RC Beams and Slabs. Proc., CCC 2001.
[4] A.K. El-Sayed, E.F. El-Salakawy, B. Benmokrane, Shear strength of fibre-reinforced polymer reinforced concrete deep beams without web
reinforcement, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 39, 2012.
[5] F. Matta, A.K. El-Sayed, A. Nanni, B. Benmokrane, Size Effect on Concrete Shear Strength in Beams reinforced with Fiber-reinforced
polymer bars, ACI Structural Journal, 110, 2013.
[6] A.K. Tureyen, R.J. Forsch, Shear tests of FRP-reinforced concrete beams without stirrups, ACI Structural Journal, 99, 2002.
[7] A.K. El-Sayed, E.F. El-Salakawy, B. Benmokrane, Shear capacity of high-strength concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars, ACI Structural
Journal, 103(3), 2006.
[8] E.C. Bentz, L. Massam, M.P. Collins, Members of ASCE, Shear Strength of Large Concrete Members with FRP reinforcement, Journal of
Composites for Construction, 2010.
[9] Z. OráoĞ, DoĞwiadczalna analiza odksztaáceĔ i naprĊĪeĔ, PWN, Warszawa 1977.
[10] H.P.J. Taylor, Investigation of the Forces Carried Across Cracks in Reinforced Concrete Beams in Shear by Interlock of Aggregate.
Technical Report 42.477, Cement and Concrete Association, London, England, 1970.