BERAVIOR AND DUCTILITY OF SIMPLE AND CONTINUOUS FRP

REINFORCED BEAMS

By N. F. Grace, l A. K. Soliman,z G. Abdel-Sayed/ and K. R. Saleh4

ABSTRACT: The behaviors of simply and continuously supported beams reinforced with fiber reinforced poly-
mer (FRP) materials are presented in this paper. The experimental testing program included seven simple rec-
tangular beams and seven continuous T-section beams. Reinforcing bars and stirrups were made of steel, carbon,
or glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP). It was concluded that the use of GFRP stirrups increased the shear
deformation, and as a result deflection increased. Also, GFRP stirrups changed the failure mode from flexural
to shear or flexural-shear, depending on the type of reinforcement bars (FRP or steel). Furthennore, the use of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FRP reinforcement in continuous beams increased defonnation. This increase remained small and acceptable at
the service load level, but significantly increased near failure. While different FRP reinforcement arrangements
were found to have the same load capacity as steel reinforcements in conventional beams, failure modes and
ductility differed. Failure mode was governed by both the type of reinforcing bars and the type of stirrups.
Additionally, the dowel effect influences the load carrying capacity of FRP reinforced continuous beams. A
method for evaluating the ductility is presented. The ratio of absorbed energy at failure to the total energy,
"energy ratio," was used as a measure of ductility. Based on this definition, a classification of ductile, semi-
ductile, and brittle behavior is suggested. The theoretical results obtained using the suggested method were
substantiated experimentally. The continuous beams experienced higher "energy ratios" than did simple beams.

INTRODUCTION 4. Lack of understanding of the behavior of FRP reinforced

Over the last few decades, research has been conducted in
order to find a solution to the problem of corrosion in steel
reinforced concrete. As a result, methods such as galvaniza-
tion, the use of stainless steel bars, cathodic protection, epoxy
coatings, concrete additives, etc., have been tried. Unfortu-
nately, none of these methods has totally solved the corrosion
problem. The outstanding characteristics of fiber reinforced
polymer (FRP) suggest that these materials may be the solu-
tion to the problem of steel corrosion. These characteristics
include high resistance to corrosion, high strength-to-weight
ratio, and fatigue resistance.
Most FRP structural applications have been in two areas.
The first involves replacing steel reinforcing bars or prestress-
ing strands with carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP), glass
fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP), or aramid fiber reinforced
polymer. The second application is to strengthen structurally
deficient beams with FRP sheets or plates. Very little experi-
mental work has been directed toward evaluating the ductility
of FRP reinforced structures. Previous work has focused
mainly on the determination of the strengths and failure modes
in FRP reinforced structures. The transfer of these research
findings to field applications is still very limited. The delay in
the widespread application of FRP reinforcements can be at-
tributed to the following:
1. High cost of FRP reinforcement in comparison to steel
2. Lack of design codes
3. Brittle behavior of FRP, resulting in reduced structural
ductility
'Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg.. Lawrence Tech. Univ., Southfield, MI
48075.
'Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Suez Canal Univ., Port-Said, Egypt.
'Prof., Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Windsor, Windsor, Canada
N9B-3P4.
'PhD Candidate, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Lawrence Tech. Univ., South-
field, MI.
Note. Discussion open until April I, 1999. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on March 23. 1998. This paper is part of the Journal
of Composites for Construction, Vol. 2, No.4, November, 1998.
©ASCE. ISSN 1090-0268/98/0004-0186-0194/$8.00 + $.50 per page.
Paper No. 17883.
186/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 1998
continuous structures.
However, the cost of FRP materials is continuously decreasing,
and transportation and handling costs are lower when using
lighter materials. Also, as a step toward creating a code for
the design of FRP reinforced structures, a chapter addressing
their use is currently being considered in the Canadian High-
way Bridge Design Code ("Design" 1998). However, the low
ductility of FRP reinforced structures remains a stumbling
block for the use of conventional design methods. This low
ductility means that the structure can fail suddenly without
adequate warning. Recent attempts to address this problem in-
clude those by Dolan (1989) Kakizawa et al. (1993), Jeong
(1994), Jaeger et al. (1995), Tommaso and Focacci (1996),
Abdelrahman and Rizkalla (1997), and Grace and Abdel-
Sayed (1998). The results of these efforts will be discussed
later in the present paper. However, the writers believe that a
method that is independent of the yield point of the reinforce-
ment should be used in order to evaluate the beams' ductility.
Simply supported beams reinforced with FRP materials
have been investigated. Saadatmanesh and Ehsani (1991) ex-
amined the feasibility of using GFRP as the primary reinforce-
ment, while using steel stirrups. They concluded that failure
in these beams may be due to tensile failure of the longitudinal
bars, followed by crushing of the concrete. Faza (1991) in-
vestigated the flexural performance under four-point loading
of simply supported rectangular concrete beams using FRP
stirrups formed from FRP bars. Also, an attempt to replace
steel stirrups with FRP was carried out by Zia et al. (1992). A
three-dimensional continuous reinforcement cage for each
beam was constructed of CFRP. Twelve longitudinal bars of
CFRP were also used in each beam. Transverse bar elements
were used as shear reinforcement, and failure was found to be
caused by the rupture of the longitudinal CFRP bars.
Tezuka et al. (1995) examined the behavior of five two-span
continuous beams and concluded that the moment redistribu-
tion in cases of compressive failure could be predicted using
a simple nonlinear analysis based on beam theory.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The experimental work included testing two sets of beams.
The first set consisted of seven rectangular section simple
beams, and the second set consisted of seven T-section con-

J. Compos. Constr. 1998.2:186-194.

 TABLE 1. Reinforcement of Simple Beams 1. Beams SB-ST, OB-ST. and CB-ST, which had steel stir-
Beam Reinforcing bars Stirrups rups.
(1 ) (2) (3) 2. Beams SB-OT. OB-OT, and CB-OT. which had OFRP
stirrups.
sb-st Steel Steel
cb-st CFRP Steel
3. Beam CB-CT, which was reinforced with CFRP stirrups
gb-st GFRP Steel and bars.
sb-gt Steel GFRP
cb-gtl CFRP GFRP Fig. 1 shows the layout of the simple beams. All beams had
cb-gt2 CFRP GFRP rectangular cross sections 152 mm (6 in.) wide and 292 mm
gb-gt GFRP GFRP (11.5 in.) deep. The clear span was 2,743 mm (9 ft), with a
projection of 75 mm (3 in.) beyond the supports. The layout
TABLE 2. Reinforcement of Continuous Beams of the continuous beams is shown in Fig. 2. The overall span
was 7.600 mm (25 ft), including two projections of 150 mm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Beam Reinforcing bars Stirrups (6 in.). The webs were tapered from 101 mm (4 in.) at the
(1 ) (2) (3) flange to 76 mm (3 in.) at the base. The flange thickness was
SB-ST Steel Steel 50 mm (2 in.) and the overall depth was 338 mm (13.5 in.).
GB-ST GFRP Steel The concrete compressive strength was 48.26 MPa (7,000 psi)
CB-ST CFRP Steel with a 200 mm (8 in.) slump. The steel bars were number 5
SB-GT Steel GFRP
(16 mm) high-strength steel with a 650 MPa (94 ksi) tensile
CB-GT CFRP GFRP
GB-GT GFRP GFRP strength and a 205 OPa (29.73 msi) modulus of elasticity. The
CB-CT CFRP CFRP CFRP bars. provided by Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation,
were 8 mm Leadline with an indented outer skin. The manu-
facturer's guaranteed tensile strength was 2.25 OPa (326 ksi)
tinuous beams. Three types of reinforcing bars and stirrups and the modulus of elasticity was 147 OPa (21.3 msi). The
were used: steel, OFRP, and CFRP. The designation of the ultimate tensile strain was 1.5% (Leadline 1992).
beams consists of two parts, with the first referring to the re- A testing program was conducted to determine the mechan-
inforcing bars and the second, to the stirrups. S, C. and 0 ical properties of the OFRP bars. Five tensile samples were
stand for steel. CFRP. and OFRP. respectively. Capital letters taken from different parts of the shipments and tested. Each
are used for continuous beams and lowercase letters are used sample was 1.219 mm (4 ft) long. with a diameter of 16 mm
for simple beams. For example. beam sb-gt is a simple beam (number 5). To overcome the problem of stress concentrations
with steel bars and OFRP stirrups. while beam CB-OT is a at the ends of the samples, the ends were potted into steel
continuous beam with CFRP bars and OFRP stirrups. The chucks using a 1:1 mixture of epoxy and coarse sand (as a
combinations of reinforcement types are shown in Tables 1 filler material and to improve bonding). Each end was potted
and 2. The simple beams were subdivided into the following separately and allowed to cure for 24 h in the vertical position.
two groups: The mean modulus of elasticity was found to be 41.8 OPa
(6.069 ksi). with a standard deviation of 1.41 OPa (205 ksi).
1. Beams sb-st, gb-st, and cb-st. which had steel stirrups. The mean tensile strength was found to be 1.1 OPa (159.6
2. Beams sb-gt, gb-gt. cb-gtl. and cb-gt2. The third and ksi). with 7.12 MPa (1.03 ksi) standard deviation.
fourth beams were identical. The beams were instrumented to monitor deflections and
reactions during the course of the tests. Each continuous beam
The continuous beams were subdivided into the following was instrumented with six dial gauges, three load cells (one
three groups: at each support), and two linear potentiometers. The simple
P
#3 steel or GFRP
stirrups @ 6"

1 . - - - - - - ------ 9' (2,743mm)

2#5 (steel or GFRP)
2#3 CFRP
ft'",,-,
~

Sec. I-I
9' 6" (2Jl96 mm)

FIG. 1. Layout of Simple Beams

P P

r"t
s
"
12' 3" ()738 mm) #5 (steel or GFRP)
#3 CFRP
(artopandbottom) Sec. II-II
25' (7,620 mm)

FIG. 2. Layout of Continuous Beams

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 1998/187

J. Compos. Constr. 1998.2:186-194.

 beams were each instrumented with five dial gauges and one
load cell at the point of loading.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Deflections
Each beam was tested under static load until complete fail-
ure. The load-deflection relationship is greatly dependent on
the type of reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 3. The largest
deflection at failure was recorded for beam cb-gtl, and may
be attributed to the low axial stiffness of the bars, EA, as
shown in Table 3. Conversely, the smallest deflection at failure
was recorded for the control beam sb-st, which has the largest
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
This feature is very important, as it gives an indication of im-
pending failure in steel reinforced beams. It can also be con-
cluded that the increase in deflection when using GFRP stirrups
depends on the type of reinforcing bars. For example, an in-
crease in ultimate deflection of 14% was recorded for the beam
reinforced with steel bars (beam sb-gt), while increases of 24%
and 36% were recorded for beams reinforced with CFRP bars
(beams cb-gtl and cb-gt2).
Similarly, the increase in deflection due to the use of FRP
bars was dependent on the type of stirrup. For example, using
CFRP bars with steel stirrups, the maximum deflection in-
creased by only 10% (beam cb-st). With GFRP stirrups, the
maximum deflection increased 36% and 24% (beams cb-gtl

EA. and cb-gt2). These increases in deflection can be attributed to

Table 3 compares the maximum deflections of the seven
beams, as well as their deflections at a load of 66.7 kN (15
kips). From Table 3 and Fig. 3, it can be concluded that the use
of FRP reinforcement (bars or stirrups) increases deflections.
This can be attributed to the low modulus of elasticity of the
FRP reinforcing bars and/or the large deformations of the GFRP
stirrups. The extent of this increase in deflection is dependent
on the load level. For example, at a load of 66.7 kN (15 kips)
(the yield load of the control beam), large increases in deflection
were observed for the FRP reinforced beams (73-189% higher
than the control beam). However, at failure, the deflections of
those beams were only 10-36% greater than that of the control
beam. This can be attributed to the fact that FRP reinforced
beams have no yield point. Up to the point of yielding of steel
reinforcement, the FRP beams deflected more than the control
beam. But after yielding, the control beam exhibited a much
larger increase in deflection than the FRP reinforced beams.
20 r-------------~
15
'00'
;B:
--g 10
0 - 1-gb-gt
....1
-+-cb-gtl
, l<' cb-gt2
+ .. sb-gt
5 -"'- gb-st
-.-cb-st
-sb-st
the large shear deformation of the GFRP stirrups.
Although all simple beams failed at much the same load
levels, their behaviors at the service load level were quite dif-
ferent, as shown in Fig. 3. Generally, as stated before, the
deflections of the beams reinforced with FRP bars were larger
than the deflection of the control beam. Large deflections were
recorded at service load levels for those beams reinforced with
FRP bars and stirrups. For example, the deflection of beam
cb-gtl was three times that of the conventional beam at a load
of 44.8 kN (10 kips). Similarly, large deflections were recorded
for beams cb-gt2 and gb-gt. This large increase in deflection
stems from the low modulus of elasticity of the FRP bars and
the large deformation of the GFRP stirrup legs after cracking.
Therefore, the following can be concluded:
• Serviceability requirements, rather than load carrying ca-
pacity, may control the design of FRP reinforced beams;
i.e., to control the deflections in beams reinforced with
FRP, the amount of reinforcement may be larger than that
needed to meet load carrying capacity design require-
ments.
• The use of FRP stirrups increased shear deformations, and
thus deflections increased. Shear deformation should be
taken into consideration when calculating deflections of
beams reinforced with FRP stirrups for loads above the
cracking limit.
When testing the continuous beams, each beam underwent
a loading-unloading cycle. The beams were loaded until just
before failure, then were unloaded to observe and record the
residual (inelastic) deformation. The beams were then loaded
35

o.....~--'--~-'-~-...L..-~--' 30
o 2 4
Deflection (in~
25
FIG. 3. Load Deflection Relationship of Simple Beams
'00'
TABLE 3. Summary of Test Results for Simple Beams g 20
--g
EA Deflection Maximum 0
....1
kN x fuA Failure load at 66.7 deflection,
15 ---+-. GB-GT
-lO(-CB-GT
Beam 10' kN kN kN, mm mm Failure mode
.. + .. SB-GT
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
10 -A-GB-ST
sb-st' 83 261 75,5 24.9 63.8 Flexural -·-CB-ST
cb-st 15 225 75,7 (1,00) 43.9 (1.76) 70.1 (1.10) Flexural CB-CT
gb-st 17 442 81.3 (1.08) 46.7 (1.87) 80,5 (1.26) Flexural-shear 5 -SB-ST
sb-gt 83 261 80,6 (1.07) 43.2 (1.73) 72,9 (1.14) Flexural-shear
cb-gtl 15 225 74,3 (0.98) 72.1 (2.89) 86,6 (1.36) Shear
cb-gt2 15 225 74.1 (0.98) 66,3 (2.66) 79.2 (1.24) Shear
gb-gt 17 442 73.5 (0.97) 64.5 (2.59) 80.0 (1.25) Shear 2 4 6 8
Note: Values in parentheses are ratios of the control beam; E = Young's Deflection (in~
modulus; A = x-s area; fu = tensile strength of bar.
'Control beam. FIG. 4. Load Deflection Relationship of Continuous Beams
during First Cycle of Loading

188/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 1998

J. Compos. Constr. 1998.2:186-194.

 TABLE 4. Summary of Test Results for Continuous Beams
EA fuA
Beam kN x 10' kN
(1 ) (2) (3)
SB-ST" 83 261
CB-ST 15 225
GB-ST 17 442
SB-GT 83 261
CB-GT 15 225
GB-GT 17 442
CB-CT 15 225
Note: E = Young's modulus; A = x-s area; J. = tensile strength of bar.
'Control beam.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
"Failure at midspan.
'Failure at midsupport.
to failure. Fig. 4 compares the load-deflection relationships of
the seven continuous beams during the first loading cycle.
It can be observed that at any load, the conventional beam
(SB-ST) had a smaller deflection than the FRP reinforced
beams. This can be attributed to the low modulus of elasticity
of the FRP reinforcements and/or the deformation of the FRP
stirrups.
Table 4 shows the deflections of the FRP reinforced contin-
uous beams, and the percentage increase in deflection over the
conventional beam. From this table, it is evident that, as with
the simple beams, the use of FRP stirrups and bars substan-
tially increased deflections in the continuous beams. The use
of FRP bars led to a greater increase in deflection than the use
of FRP stirrups, especially at service loads. It should be em-
phasized that these large deformations do not represent higher
ductility, as the failure was still very brittle.
Failure Modes
The failure modes of simple beams were mainly dependent
on their type of reinforcement, as shown in Table 3. The failure
modes, as shown in Figs. 5(a)-5(g), may be summarized as
follows:
1. Using steel or CFRP bars with steel stirrups resulted in
flexural failure, Figs. 5(a) and 5(b).
2. Using FRP bars with GFRP stirrups resulted in shear
failure, Figs. 5(c)-5(e).
3. Using steel reinforcing bars with GFRP stirrups or GFRP
bars with steel stirrups resulted in flexural-shear failure,
Figs. 5(f) and 5(g).
As with the simple beams, the type of reinforcement af-
fected the failure of the continuous beams. Table 4 summarizes
the results. Figs. 6(a)-6(g) show the failed sections of the
continuous beams. Examining Fig. 6, the following conclu-
sions can be made:
1. Use of steel bars with steel or GFRP stirrups resulted in
flexural failure, Figs. 6(a) and 6(b).
2. Use of GFRP bars with steel or GFRP stirrups resulted
in shear failure, Figs. 6(c) and 6(d).
3. Use of CFRP bars resulted in any possible mode of fail-
ure, depending on the type of stirrups used. With steel
stirrups, flexural-shear failure resulted [Fig. 6(e)]. With
GFRP stirrups, shear failure was observed [Fig. 6(f)].
CFRP stirrups resulted in flexural failure [Fig. 6(g)].
To understand why simple and continuous beams fail in
such different modes, the shear capacity of the beams must be
examined closely. The shear capacity of a cracked concrete
section depends on three components: stirrup capacity, dowel
J. Compos. Constr. 1998.2:186-194.
Failure load Deflection Maximum
kN at 89 kN, mm deflection, mm Failure mode
(4) (5) (6) (7)
154.8 48.3 279.4 Flexural b
112.5 (0.72) 64.0 (1.32) 210.8 (0.75) Flexural-shearb
104.5 (0.67) 75.7 (1.57) 170.2 (0.61) Shear'
125.0 (0.81) 49.5 (1.02) 177.8 (0.64) Flexural b
105.9 (0.68) 77.5 (1.60) 190.5 (0.68) Shear'
95.6 (0.62) 85.6 (1.77) 182.9 (0.65) Shear'
101.4 (0.66) 65.0 (1.35) 203.2 (0.73) Flexural (rupture)b
effect, and aggregate interlock. Aggregate interlock may be
ignored, due to the use of a relatively fine aggregate. The
stirrup capacity depends not only on the stiffness and strength
of the FRP material, but also on the shape of the stirrup itself.
Bending FRP bars into the shape of a stirrup considerably
reduces their strength (Morphy et aI. 1997). GFRP is more
sensitive to this than is CFRP. This must be taken into con-
sideration when calculating the number and placement of the
FRP stirrups. The dowel effect is important in preventing the
sudden collapse of a beam failing in shear. Unfortunately, the
dowel effect of FRP bars is far less than that of steel bars.
GFRP bars exhibited the lowest dowel effect, while the CFRP
bars performed slightly better.
Failure Loads
All of the simple beams failed at nearly the same load level
(Table 3). The difference between the highest and lowest load
carrying capacity was only 10%. It can be concluded that while
different FRP arrangements give the same load capacity of the
control beam, failure modes and ductility differ. Also, it should
be noted that while the control beam experienced the least de-
flection, it did not fail at the largest load. The largest failure
load was experienced by beam gb-st. This may be attributed to
the fact that its longitudinal reinforcement had the largest axial
strength (f.A). The failure of the continuous beams can be ex-
plained in terms of their shear capacity, as follows:
1. Beam SB-ST failed at a load of 154.8 kN (34.8 kips) in
flexure, as it had the highest shear capacity due to the
high dowel effect and the strength of the steel stirrups.
2. Beam SB-GT failed at a load of 125 kN (28.1 kips) in
flexure. The reduced ultimate load of this beam com-
pared to the control beam can be attributed to the lower
shear rigidity of the GFRP stirrups. However, the high
dowel effect of the steel bars maintained the flexural fail-
ure mode.
3. Beam GB-GT failed at 95.6 kN (21.5 kips) in shear, as
it had the lowest shear capacity due to the weak dowel
effect of GFRP bars and the low shear capacity of GFRP
stirrups.
4. Beam GB-ST failed at a load of 104.5 kN (23.5 kips) in
shear. The increase in failure load of 8.9 kN (2 kips)
over beam GB-GT may be attributed to the contribution
of the steel stirrups.
5. Beam CB-ST failed at a load of 112.5 kN (25.3 kips) in
flexural-shear; it had a moderate shear capacity due to
the high strength of the steel stirrups and the low dowel
effect of the CFRP bars.
6. Beam CB-GT failed at a load of 105.9 kN (23.8 kips) in
shear. The difference in failure load between this beam
and beam CB-ST [6.67 kN (1.5 kips)] is due to the con-
tribution of the stirrups. Meanwhile, the difference in
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 1998/189
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(9)

FIG. 5. Failure Modes of Simple Beams: (a) Flexural Failure of Beam sb-stj (b) Flexural Failure of Beam cb-stj (c) Shear Failure of
Beam gb-gtj (d) Shear Failure of Beam cb-gt1 j (e) Shear Failure of Beam cb-gt2j (f) Flexural-Shear Failure of Beam sb-gtj (g) Flexural-
Shear Failure of Beam gb-st

190/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 1998

J. Compos. Constr. 1998.2:186-194.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)
(a)

(e) (d)

(e)
(f)

(9)

FIG. 6. Failure Modes of Continuous Beams: (a) Flexural Failure of Beam SB-ST; (b) Flexural Failure of Beam SB-GT; (c) Shear Fail-
ure of Beam GB-ST at Midsupport; (d) Shear Failure of Beam GB-GT at Midsupport; (e) Flexural-Shear Failure of Beam CB-ST; (f) Shear
Failure of Beam CB-GT (Stirrups Were Ripped from Flange); (g) Rupture of Bars Failure of Beam CB-CT

failure load between this beam and beam GB-GT [10.3 the difference in strength between the steel and CFRP
kN (2.3 kips)] can be attributed to the difference in the stirrups.
dowel effect between the CFRP and GFRP bars.
7. Beam CB-CT failed at a load of 101.4 kN (22.8 kips) in Crack Pattern and Propagation
shear. The difference in failure load between this beam With both the simple and the continuous beams, the crack
and beam CB-ST [11 kN (2.5 kips)] can be attributed to pattern was dependent mainly on the type of stirrup. While
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 1998/191

J. Compos. Constr. 1998.2:186-194.

 few large cracks were observed with the steel stirrups [Fig.
6(a)], many small cracks that covered almost two-thirds of the ~ I····················································· f
span were observed with the GFRP stirrups. Also, when using
~
the GFRP stirrups, the cracks were inclined due to the contri-
bution of the shear component [Fig. 6(f)]. The propagation of
cracks was much faster when using GFRP stirrups in compar-
ison to steel stirrups at the same load intervals. This was even
more evident when FRP reinforcing bars were used. No hor-
izontal cracks at the reinforcement level were observed in any
beam.

DUCTILITY
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The ductility of a beam can be defined as its ability to sus-

tain inelastic deformation without loss in its load carrying ca-
pacity prior to failure. Following this definition, ductility can
be expressed in terms of deformation or energy absorption. In
the case of steel reinforced beams, where there is clear plastic
deformation of steel at yield, ductility can be calculated as the
ratio of ultimate deformation to deformation at yield. The de-
formations can be strains, deflections, or curvatures. With FRP
reinforced beams, there is no yield point; consequently, this
simple definition cannot be applied. Two approaches have
been proposed in the literature to address this problem.
Deflection
Deformation Based Methods FIG. 7. Total, Elastic, and Inelastic Energies

In 1995, Jaeger et al. proposed a method to evaluate the
ductility of a beam by introducing the following three factors:
1. Deformability factor = moment factor X curvature factor
2. Moment factor = (moment at ultimate)/(moment at con-
crete strain of 0.001)
3. Curvature factor = (curvature at ultimate)/(curvature at
concrete strain of 0.001)
They suggested that the deformability factor gives an indica-
tion of the ductility of FRP reinforced beams. The base of
comparison is a steel reinforced beam, with a deformability
factor between 5.5 and 6. They recommended that the deform-
ability factor for the FRP reinforced beams should not be less
than 4. In addition, at the ultimate condition, the position of
the neutral axis should be given by cld :s; 0.3, where c is the
depth of the neutral axis and d is the depth.
A direct application of this method shows that beams with
a small percentage of FRP tensile reinforcement, which fail by
tensile rupture, have larger deformability factors than do those
beams failing in compression (Vijay et al. 1996). However the
compressive failure is more ductile and gradual than the tensile
rupture. This is the shortcoming of this method. It should be
mentioned that Dolan (1989) suggested that ductility be de-
fined as the ratio of total deformation divided by the elastic
deformation when the beam is cracked in flexural tension. This
method overestimates the values for ductility, resulting in duc-
tility indices over 8, and in some cases as high as 11.
index. In the first part of this method, the unloading curve is
estimated by weighting the different portions of the load-de-
flection curve using load weights. The second part is based on
a load-deflection curve having a flat portion, which is true only
in the case of a steel reinforced beam. Also, their proposed
ductility index is dependent on the load level at which un-
loading begins (Vijay et al. 1996). For example, a ductility
index of 1.65 was calculated at 95% of the failure load, while
a ductility index of 8 was calculated at 100% of the failure
load for the same GFRP reinforced beam. This method does
not take into consideration the failure mode. Tommaso and
Focacci (1996) modified the prior method to develop a math-
ematical model and applied this model to CFRP- and steel
prestressed beams. It should be noted that this model is ap-
plicable only to the case of flexural failure. Kakizawa et al.
(1993) recorded the absorption of energy for simple prestres-
sed concrete beams. They recommended compressive failure
rather than tensile failure to ensure better ductility.
Modified Method to Calculate Ductility
In determining the magnitudes of the elastic and inelastic
energies, the following parameters were considered:
1. Modulus of elasticity and failure strength of the rein-
forcement.
2. Type of reinforcing bars and stirrups
3. Failure mode
4. Concrete softening at compressive flexural failure

Energy Based Methods If only the weight of the load is considered, the slope of the
line separating the elastic energy from the inelastic energy can
Based on the energy definition, ductility may be defined as be obtained as follows:
the ratio relating any two of the inelastic, elastic, and total
energies (Fig. 7). Herein, the ratio of inelastic to total energy (1)
is considered. The total energy is the area under the load-
deformation curve, which can be easily calculated. The prob- where PI and P z = loads as shown in Fig. 8; and St and Sz =
lem is determining how much of the total energy is elastic and corresponding slopes. To introduce the effect of the modulus
how much is inelastic. Jeong (1994) introduced a method to of elasticity and the tensile strength of the reinforcement, the
calculate the ductility of FRP reinforced beams. This method factor 8 is included so that the slope will be
consists of two parts. The first part is to determine the point
that separates the elastic energy from the inelastic energy. The '" PtSt + (P 2 - Pt)Sz
S=u (2)
second part is to use these energies to express the ductility Pz
192/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 1998

J. Compos. Constr. 1998.2:186-194.

 where S = slope considering the effects of the mechanical TABLE 6. Failure Mode Factor, ~

properties of the reinforcement. The factor 8 can be calculated Failure mode Failure mode factor, 13
from the following empirical equation: (1 ) (2)
E h
8='Y-f X - (3)
Compressive flexure 1.0
Flexural shear 0.95
Es Ids Shear 0.98
where 'Y = factor that depends on the type of reinforcement;
Ef = FRP modulus of elasticity; Es = steel modulus of elastic-
TABLE 7. Reinforcement Factor, 'Y
ity; Iv = steel yield strength; and Ids = design strength of FRP.
To introduce the effect of failure mode, the factor 13 is in- Reinforcing bar material Reinforcement factor, 'Y
cluded, such that (1) (2)
Steel 1.0
Iv
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

E _P..:..IS....:I_+---,(_P.:..
2 _-_P--:.:.
1)....:;S2 (4)
S = J3'Y - f X ~ GFRP 4.0
Es Ids P2 CFRP 2.1
As mentioned earlier, the confinement of the concrete section
depends on the type of stirrup. To include the stirrup type the unloading path. The same conclusion can be drawn for
effect, the factor a is included, as follows: beam GB-GT, as shown in Fig. 8(c). Examination of the three
figures clearly shows that the difference between the calculated
E Iv PIS! + (P2 - P 1)S2
S = aJ3'Y - f x ~ (5) and experimental slope S was least for beam SB-ST and
Es Id' P2 greatest for beam GB-GT. Beam GB-ST showed a moderate
Finally, the effect of the softening of concrete can be taken margin of error. Obviously, the accuracy of (6) depends on the
into consideration by taking into account the effect of the last type of reinforcement.
part of the load-deformation curve, such that
Classification of Beams according to Their Ductility
S = aJ3'Y -Ef x 1..
~
PIS + j (P2 - P!)S2 + (P3 - P2)S3 (6)
The "energy ratio," defined as the ratio of the inelastic
E.. Id., P3
energy to total energy, is proposed as the proper measure of
All of the beams were loaded and unloaded at least once ductility. If the energy ratio is greater than 75%, the beam will
before the failure load. The experimental slope of the unload- exhibit a ductile failure. However, it is considered semiductile
ing curve was recorded. From these results, the constants a, if the energy ratio is between 70% and 74%. The beam may
13, and 'Y were determined at the failure load, as shown in exhibit brittle failure if the energy ratio is below 69%. The
Tables 5 - 7. Once the slope S was calculated, the ratio of in- tested beams were classified according to their energy ratio,
elastic energy to the total energy could be found.
Fig. 8(a) shows a good match between the calculated slope TABLE 8 Ductility Classification of Simple Beams
S and the experimental unloading path of the control beam
SB-ST. The slope of the unloading path for beam GB-ST was Energy ratio Classification of
calculated using (6) and (I), as shown in Fig. 8(b). From this Beam Failure mode (E,n/E,) beam ductility
figure, it is evident that (6) more closely predicts the slope of (1 ) (2) (3) (4)
sb-st Flexural 82% Ductile
TABLE 5. Stirrup Factor, a sb-gt Flexural-shear 46% Brittle
cb-st Flexural 56% Brittle
Stirrup material Stirrup factor, ex cb-gtl Shear 45% Brittle
(1 ) (2) cb-gt2 Shear 44% Brittle
Steel gb-st Flexural-shear 55% Brittle
1.0
GFRP 0.95 gb-gt Shear 45% Brittle
CFRP 0.98 Note: E,n = inelastic energy; E, = total energy.

40.-------------, 40 .---------,--.,.------,
Failure load 34.8 kips 40 Failure load 23.5 kips Failure load 21.5 kips

35 35

30 30 Experimental 30 Experimental

25 25

20 20
I
15 . I 15
.I I
10 / i
10 . I 10 Using
i ! Using Eq.
5 ./ rEq·(I) 5 (I)
I /
. !
2 4 6 8 10 12 0 0 246 8 o 0 246 8
Deflection (in.) Deflection (in.) Deflection (in.)
(a) (b) (c)
FIG. 8. Comparison between Theoretical and Experimental Unloading Paths: (a) Beam SB-ST; (b) Beam GB-ST; (c) Beam GB-GT

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 1998/193

J. Compos. Constr. 1998.2:186-194.

 TABLE 9. Ductility Classification of Continuous Beams yielded a larger number of small inclined cracks covering
Energy ratio Classification of
almost two-thirds of the span.
Beam Failure mode (E,.IE,) beam ductility 3. The dowel effect is very critical in FRP reinforced con-
(1) (2) (3) (4) tinuous beams; the failure mode was mainly governed by
the type of FRP reinforcement bars and stirrups.
SB-ST Flexural 80% Ductile
CB-ST Flexural-shear 70% Semiductile APPENDIX. REFERENCES
GB-ST Shear 71% Semiductile
SB-GT Flexural 78% Ductile Abdelrahman, A., and Rizkalla, S. (1997). "Serviceability of concrete
CB-GT Shear 68% Brittle beams prestressed by carbon-fiber-reinforced-plastic bars." ACI Struct.
CB-CT Rupture of CFRP bars 68% Brittle J., 94(4),447 -457.
GB-GT Shear 70% Semiductile "Design provisions for fibre reinforced structures in the Canadian high-
way bridge design code." (1998). Adv. Compos. Mat. in Bridges and
Note: E;n = inelastic energy; E, = total energy. Struct., 2nd Conf, 391-406.
Dolan, C. W. (1989). "Prestressed concrete using kevlar reinforced ten-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/15/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

dons," PhD thesis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.

as shown in Tables 8 and 9. Continuous beams failed in a
more ductile manner than did simple beams. This may be at-
tributed to the redistribution of moment. The use of steel bars
yielded the highest energy ratio. The use of steel stirrups in-
creased the energy ratio, due to the lack of shear deformation.
Furthermore, it is evident that the largest energy ratios were
observed for those beams that failed in a flexural mode.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of nonmetallic reinforcing bars and stirrups in sim-
ple and continuous beams was examined. While the simple
beams using different types and combinations of FRP rein-
forcements were designed to have the same load capacity as
conventional beams, failure modes and ductility differed.
Therefore, new specifications are needed for ductility and fail-
ure modes. A modified method for determining the ductility
of FRP reinforced beams was introduced. This method does
not require the existence of a yield point. The energy ratio,
defined to be the ratio of the inelastic energy to the total energy
at failure, is used as a measure of ductility. Furthermore, a
classification of beams based on the energy ratio was pro-
posed. Beams may be rated as having ductile, semiductile, or
brittle failure, depending on their energy ratios. In addition,
1. The use of GFRP stirrups led to significant shear defor-
mations that increased beam deflections and reduced
ductility.
2. Shear or flexural-shear failure modes were caused by
GFRP stirrups used with FRP reinforcing bars or steel,
respectively. The replacement of steel by GFRP stirrups
Faza, S. S. (1991). "Bending and bond behavior and design of concrete
beams reinforced with FRP rebars," PhD thesis, West Virginia Univ.,
Morgantown, W.Va.
Grace, N.F., and Abdel-Sayed, G. (1998). "Ductility of prestressed con-
crete bridges using CFRP tendons." Concrete Int., 20(6), 25-30.
Jaeger, L. G., Tadros, G., and Mufti, A. A. (1995). "Balanced section,
ductility and deformability in concrete with FRP reinforcement." Res.
Rep.• Joint U.S.-Can. Meeting at West Virginia Univ., Morgantown,
W.Va.
Jeong, S. M. (1994). "Evaluation of ductility in prestressed concrete
beams using fiber reinforced plastic tendons," PhD thesis, Univ. of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Kakizawa, T., Ohno, S., and Yonezawa, T. (1993). "Flexural behavior
and energy absorption of CFRP reinforced concrete beams." Fiber re-
inforced plastics reinforcement for concrete structure. ACI Int. Symp.,
SP-138, Am. Concrete Inst., Detroit, Mich.
Leadline carbon fiber tendons/bars product manual. (1992). Mitsubishi
Chemical Corp., Tokyo, Japan.
Morphy, R., Shehata, E., and Rizkalla, S. (1997). "Bent effect on strength
of CFRP stirrups." Proc.• 3rd Int. Symp. on Nonmetallic (FRP) Rein-
forcement for Concrete Struct., (2), 19 - 26.
Saadatrnanesh, H., and Ehsani, M. R. (1991). "Fiber composite bar for
reinforced concrete construction." J. Compos. Mat. 25(2), 188-203.
Tezuka, M., Ochiai, M., Tottori, S., and Sato, R. (1995). "Experimental
study on moment redistribution of continuous beams reinforced or pre-
tensioned with FRP." 2nd Int. Symp., Nonmetallic Reinforcement
(FRP) for Concrete Struct., 387 -394.
Tommaso, A., and Focacci, F. (1996). "Driven failure mechanisms in
fiber-reinforced-plastic prestressed concrete beams for ductility require-
ments." 2nd Conf on Adv. Compos. Mat. in Bridges and Struct.,
281-288.
Vijay, P. V., Kumar, S. v., and GangRao, H. V. S. (1996). "Shear and
ductility behavior of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP rebars.' ,
2nd Conf on Adv. Compos. Mat. in Bridges and Struct., 217-226.
Zia, P., Ahmed, S., Garg, R., and Hanes, K. (1992). "Flexural and shear
behavior of beams reinforced with 3D continuous carbon fiber fabric."
Concrete Int., 14(12), 48 - 52.

194/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / NOVEMBER 1998

J. Compos. Constr. 1998.2:186-194.