Pstruct 2020 112609

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 27

Journal Pre-proofs

Prediction model for the flexural strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete
beams with fiber-reinforced polymer bars under repeated loading

Haitang Zhu, Zongze Li, Chengcheng Wen, Shengzhao Cheng, Yunxiao Wei

PII: S0263-8223(20)30133-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112609
Reference: COST 112609

To appear in: Composite Structures

Received Date: 12 January 2020


Revised Date: 10 May 2020
Accepted Date: 8 June 2020

Please cite this article as: Zhu, H., Li, Z., Wen, C., Cheng, S., Wei, Y., Prediction model for the flexural strength
of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams with fiber-reinforced polymer bars under repeated loading, Composite
Structures (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112609

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.


Prediction model for the flexural strength of steel fiber reinforced
concrete beams with fiber-reinforced polymer bars under repeated
loading
Haitang Zhua,b, Zongze Lib,, Chengcheng Wenb, Shengzhao Chengc, Yunxiao Weib

a School of Civil Engineering, Henan University of Engineering, Zhengzhou 451191, China


b School of Water Conservancy Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
c China Construction Seventh Engineering Division. Corp. LTD, Zhengzhou, 450004, China

Abstract: This study investigates the flexural performance of steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC)

beams with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars under repeated loading. Fourteen beams with dimensions

of 150 mm × 300 mm × 2100 mm were cast and tested via a four-point bending test. The effects of the

FRP reinforcement ratio, type of reinforcement, concrete strength, steel fiber shape, and steel fiber

volume fraction on the failure mode, cracking moment, skeleton curve, deflection, strength degradation,

and flexural strength of the beams were investigated. The test results revealed two different failure modes

for the SFRC beams reinforced with FRP bars, including compression failure and tensile failure. The

flexural strength of the beams decreased as the number of load cycles increased under the same

deflection. A higher FRP reinforcement ratio, concrete strength, and steel fiber volume fraction enhanced

the flexural strength of the beams and decreased the deflection. Finally, the flexural strength test results

were compared with several different prediction models. The ACI 440.1R-15, CSA S806-12, and GB

50608-2010 models underestimated the flexural strength of the beams, while the proposed prediction

model, which based on the equivalent force block, provided more accurate prediction results.

Keywords: Repeated loading; FRP bars; Steel fiber reinforced concrete beams; Flexural strength

1. Introduction

 Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 18103849098.


E-mail address: zzulizongze@163.com
1
The durability of reinforced concrete (RC) structures has become an important design factor. In harsh

environments, the corrosion of steel bars in RC structures cannot be ignored, as it can seriously affect the

safety and durability of the structures. Consequently, huge maintenance costs are expended every year to

improve the durability of RC structures. In recent years, many researchers have investigated ways to

solve the problem of corrosion in steel bars. Some studies have explored the use of galvanized steel

reinforcement, cathodic protection, and stainless steel bars instead of traditional steel bars [1-3].

However, these methods are expensive and cannot fundamentally solve the problem of steel corrosion

[4][5]. Previous studies have reported that fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars, which is a type of

composite material with a high strength-to-weight ratio and good corrosion resistance, can be used as an

ideal replacement for steel bars in concrete structures to effectively overcome the problem of steel

corrosion in marine or other corrosive environments. However, FRP bars have a lower elastic modulus

and poorer bond strength with the concrete matrix. These mechanical characteristics tend to produce

larger deflections and wider cracks in FRP bars reinforced concrete structures than RC structures with the

same reinforcement ratio in the serviceability limit state [6-10]. More importantly, owing to the linear

elastic behavior of the stress-strain relationship of FRP bars until failure occurs, concrete structures

reinforced with FRP bars tend to experience sudden and disastrous failure without any obvious prior

indication. As a result, concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars should utilize over-reinforcement in

order to satisfy the serviceability criteria, which requires a higher stiffness and ductility and smaller

deflections and crack widths than under-reinforced structures.

To overcome these problems, new hybrid FRP bars and steel bars have been used as reinforcement in

concrete beams [11]. These hybrid FRP bars were placed on the outer level of the tensile zone, while the

steel bars were arranged on the inner level of the tensile zone. Although the addition of steel bars can

2
reduce crack widths and deflections in concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars, they can also weaken

the corrosion resistance in marine or other corrosive environments. The flexural performance of concrete

beams reinforced with FRP bars grouted in corrugated sleeves was studied by Dong et al. [12]. The FRP

bars grouted in corrugated sleeves increased the bond strength between the concrete matrix and

reinforcement, which, in turn, reduced the deflection and crack widths of the concrete beams reinforced

with FRP bars. However, the approach was expensive. The flexural performance of concrete beams

reinforced with FRP bars designed with over-reinforcement is determined by the concrete performance,

therefore, improvement of the flexural strength of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars can be

achieved through improvement of the concrete strength and ultimate compressive strain. An increase in

the ultimate compressive strain of the concrete can effectively postpone concrete crushing, and then

improve the flexural strength of the beams. The most effective way to increase the ultimate compressive

strain of concrete is to add randomly distributed short fibers into the concrete mix [13-18]. Abed et al. [13]

cast and studied the flexural behavior of basalt fiber reinforced concrete beams with BFRP bars. The

results showed that the basalt fibers increased the curvature ductility of the beams and improved the

flexural strength owing to a delay in the concrete failure strain (i.e., beyond 0.003) in the compression

zone. Issa et al. [14] used three kinds of fibers (polypropylene fiber, glass fiber, and steel fiber) to

improve the ductility and flexural strength of FRP reinforced concrete beams. A comparative analysis

performed on the toughening effects of various fibers indicated that steel fiber is the most effective way

to improve the ductility of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars.

Although many studies have addressed the flexural behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC)

beams with FRP bars under static loading [11][17], none have been conducted under repeated loading. In

actual engineering structures, such as bridges, many structures are subjected to repeated loads rather than

3
static loads. When the nominal load of a structure is less than the ultimate load, the flexural strength of

the beams will cause failure under repeated loads [19]. In general, cyclic loading on a concrete structure

results in a greater degree of internal structural damage. With the gradual accumulation of damage, the

flexural strength and deformation performance gradually decreases. Concrete beams reinforced with FRP

bars subjected to repeated loads are more prone to bond failure than those subjected to static loads [4].

Thus, the flexural behavior of SFRC beams with FRP bars subjected to repeated loads needs to be

extensively investigated.

In this study, the flexural behavior of SFRC beams with FRP bars, including the failure mode,

cracking moment, skeleton curve, deflection, strength degradation, and flexural strength, subjected to

repeated loads was investigated. The variable parameters were the FRP reinforcement ratio, type of

reinforcement, concrete strength, steel fiber shape, and steel fiber volume fraction. The test results of the

flexural strength were compared with the calculation models provided by ACI 440.1R-15 [20], CSA

S806-12 [21], GB 50608-2010 [22], and the proposed prediction model based on the equivalent force

block, strain coordination, and internal force balance.

2. Experimental program

Fourteen full-scale beams with dimensions of 150 mm × 300 mm × 2100 mm, including twelve SFRC

beams with FRP bars, one ordinary concrete beam with FRP bars, and one SFRC beam with steel bars,

were cast and tested via a four-point bending test under repeated loading until failure. According to ACI

440.1R-15, these beams were designed for the compression failure mode, which is the typical design for

concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars.

2.1. Materials and mix proportion of the concrete

Three types of FRP bars and two types of steel bars were used in the test beams. The FRP bars

4
included basalt fiber reinforced polymer (BFRP) bars with diameters of 12 mm and 14 mm, carbon fiber

reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars with a diameter of 14 mm, and glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)

bars with a diameter of 12 mm. The steel bars were round with diameters of 6 mm and 10 mm and ribbed

with a diameter of 14 mm. The mechanical properties of the reinforcing bars are shown in Table 1. Three

shapes of hooked steel fibers were used. The length of and number of bends in the steel fibers were

different, but they had the same aspect ratio. According to the number of bends, the steel fibers were

named 3D, 4D, and 5D, as shown in Fig. 1. The mechanical properties of the steel fibers are shown in

Table 2. The mix proportions of the concrete were designed in accordance with JG/T 472-2015 [23] and

are shown in Table 3. The fine aggregate was a well-graded river sand with a diameter less than 5 mm.

The coarse aggregate used was a natural crushed stone with a diameter that ranged from 5 mm to 20 mm.

Type І Portland cement was used as the cementitious material. In order to improve the workability of the

concrete, a polycarboxylic acid-based water reducing agent was used.

(a) P/2 P/2


2 6 ¦© 10@75

(b) ¦©
150 600 600 600 150
2100
2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6

(c)
300

3 14 3 14 4 12 2 12 2 14 4 14 2 14
150 BFRP 150 CFRP 150 GFRP 150 BFRP 150 BFRP 150 BFRP 150 Steel
BL1-BL8 CL9 GL10 BL11 BL12 BL13 SL14
Fig. 1. Shape and size of the steel
Fig. 2. Beam details (dimensions in mm)
fibers: (a)3D; (b)4D; (c)5D
Table 1 Mechanical properties of the reinforcing bars.
Elasticity modulus of Tensile strength of
Types Diameter (mm) Yield strength (MPa) FRP rupture strain (εfu)
reinforcement (Ef) (GPa) reinforcement (ffu) (MPa)
BFRP-1 12 47.00 1080 N/A 0.022
BFRP-2 14 46.50 1060 N/A 0.021
CFRP 14 145.00 1850 N/A 0.017
GFRP 12 41.00 850 N/A 0.02
Steel-1 14 232.96 610 485 —
Steel-2 10 200.4 459.9 335 —
Steel-3 6 202 465 320 —
Table 2 Mechanical properties of the steel fibers.
Diameter of steel fiber Length of steel Tensile strength Modulus of elasticity
Type of fiber lsf / dsf Number of bends
(dsf) (mm) fiber (lsf) (mm) (MPa) (GPa)
3D 0.55 35 65 1345 200 3
4D 0.90 60 65 1600 200 4
5D 0.90 60 65 2300 200 5

5
2.2. Test beams

In order to study the effects of the FRP reinforcement ratio, concrete strength, fiber shape, and volume

fraction of the steel fiber on the flexural strength of the beams under repeated loads, 14 beams were

designed. The length of the beams was 2100 mm and the clear span was 1800 mm. The cross section of

the beams was designed to be 150 mm × 300 mm, and the protective layer was designed to be 25 mm.

Steel stirrups, 10 mm in diameter, were spaced at 75 mm o.c. in the beams to prevent shear failure. In

addition, two 6 mm steel bars were set at the top of the beams. Table 3 and Fig. 2 show the details of the

test beams and testing program, respectively. Meanwhile, standard specimens of 150 mm × 150 mm ×

150 mm were used to determine the compressive and splitting tensile strengths. Prism samples, that were

150 mm × 150 mm × 300 mm, were cast and tested to determine the modulus of elasticity and axial

compressive strength. The test results of the beams are shown in Table 4.

Table 3 Details of the tested beams.


ρsf Steel fiber Reinforcement Af Concrete mix proportions(kg/m3)
Beam ρf (%)
(%) type bar type (mm2) Water Cement Sand Coarse aggregate Steel fiber
BL1 1 3D BFRP 1.15 461.81 215 330.8 706.2 1124.0 78.5
BL2 1 3D BFRP 1.15 461.81 215 413.5 639.1 1108.4 78.5
BL3 0 3D BFRP 1.15 461.81 172 521.2 648.6 1058.2 0
BL4 0.5 3D BFRP 1.15 461.81 172 521.2 658.9 1035.9 39.3
BL5 1 3D BFRP 1.15 461.81 172 521.2 669.3 1013.5 78.5
BL6 1.5 3D BFRP 1.15 461.81 172 521.2 679.6 991.1 117.8
BL7 1 4D BFRP 1.15 461.81 172 521.2 669.3 1013.5 78.5
BL8 1 5D BFRP 1.15 461.81 172 521.2 669.3 1013.5 78.5
CL9 1 3D CFRP 1.15 461.81 172 521.2 669.3 1013.5 78.5
GL10 1 3D GFRP 1.18 452.39 172 521.2 669.3 1013.5 78.5
BL11 1 3D BFRP 0.56 226.19 172 521.2 669.3 1013.5 78.5
BL12 1 3D BFRP 0.77 307.88 172 521.2 669.3 1013.5 78.5
BL13 1 3D BFRP 1.65 615.75 172 521.2 669.3 1013.5 78.5
SL14 1 3D HRB400 0.77 307.88 172 521.2 669.3 1013.5 78.5

2.3. Test setup and instrumentation

The beams were tested using a 200-ton hydraulic actuator at Zhengzhou University and were simply

supported by two rigid supports, as shown in Fig. 3. The beams were subjected to repeated loading on

four-point bending over a clear span of 1800 mm. The displacement control method was used, and the

loading rate of the beams was 2 mm/min, while the unloading rate was 5 mm/min. Each load stage

reached 5 kN before the appearance of the first crack; then, the crack width and development were closely
6
monitored. The loading continued until a mid-span displacement of 3 mm was reached. Each mid-span

displacement stage was 6 mm, and then, the force was unloaded to 0 kN. After the appearance of each

incremental mid-span displacement of 6 mm, the same steps were repeated three times until beam failure

occurred. Figure 4 shows the repeated loading process used for the beams.

Figure 5 provides the details of the instrumentation used to monitor the beams. The deflection along

the beam span was tested by seven linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs). The concrete strain

was tested by 15π-type variable displacements. The crack width at the longitudinal reinforcement position

was tested using a ZBL-F120 crack width gauge.

N¦ ¤

3¦ ¤
D is p la c e m e n t

2¦ ¤

1¦ ¤

0 .5 ¦ ¤

F ir s t S cond T h ir d F ir s t S cond T h ir d F ir s t S cond T h ir d

C y c le
Note: Δ represents a mid-span displacement of 6 mm
Fig. 3. Beam loading setup Fig. 4. Loading process
P

L 1 L 7
¦ Ð1 ¦ Ð2 ¦ Ð3
¦ Ð4 ¦ Ð6 ¦ Ð- t y p e M e ta m o rp h o m e te r
¦ Ð7 ¦ Ð5
¦ Ð8
¦ Ð9
¦ Ð1 0

¦ Ð1 1 ¦ Ð1 2 ¦ Ð1 4 ¦ Ð1 5 L V D T
L 2 L 3 L 4 ¦ 1Ð 3 L 5 L 6

1 5 0 6 0 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 6 0 0 1 5 0
2 1 0 0

Fig. 5. Details of beam instrumentation


Table 4 Test beam results.
Properties of concrete Mcr Me Δe εcu
Beam Mode of failure
fcu (MPa) fc (MPa) Ec (GPa) ft (MPa) (kN·m) (kN·m) (mm) (mm)
BL1 44.00 34.00 35.00 3.36 9.75 80.50 46.45 0.00514 Compression failure
BL2 53.97 43.88 37.00 3.50 10.50 90.23 44.98 0.00485 Compression failure
BL3 74.54 59.63 41.62 3.56 9.30 93.48 44.31 0.00354 Compression failure
BL4 69.00 51.75 41.00 4.88 13.50 94.92 46.03 0.00483 Compression failure
BL5 76.06 58.57 42.23 5.17 14.25 101.34 44.32 0.00514 Compression failure
BL6 81.47 65.18 42.40 6.60 16.50 106.77 44.42 0.00521 Compression failure
BL7 83.89 62.92 42.38 5.83 15.00 103.53 46.04 0.00502 Compression failure
BL8 79.14 63.31 43.02 5.51 15.00 104.37 45.50 0.00500 Compression failure
CL9 75.43 61.10 42.21 6.17 16.00 161.26 33.14 0.00490 Compression failure
GL10 65.51 52.41 41.43 5.84 14.25 71.16 31.58 0.00403 Tension failure
BL11 60.16 48.13 41.30 5.59 13.50 51.85 32.23 0.00225 Tension failure
BL12 74.99 52.45 42.70 5.70 14.10 73.28 35.23 0.00372 Tension failure
BL13 76.47 61.18 42.40 5.84 15.00 107.43 46.83 0.00513 Compression failure
7
SL14 80.99 63.89 42.40 6.80 14.15 46.89 30.67 0.00471 flexural failure

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Cracking moment, failure mode, flexural strength, and ultimate compressive strain of the concrete

Table 4 presents the experimental results of the beams, including the concrete performance, cracking

moment (Mcr), flexural strength (Me), deflection (Δe), ultimate compressive strain of the concrete (εcu),

and failure mode. It can be seen from the experimental results that the appearance and development of

beam cracks was dependent on the mechanical properties of the materials used, such as the concrete

tensile strength, steel fiber volume fraction, type of reinforcement, and FRP reinforcement ratio. The

cracking moment of the beams was mainly related to the concrete tensile strength. The increase of the

concrete strength and steel fiber volume fraction was helpful to improve the tensile strength of concrete,

thus enhancing the cracking moment of the beams. The concrete tensile strengths of test beams BL2 and

BL5 were 4.17% and 53.87% higher than that of BL1, respectively, and the cracking moments were

7.69% and 46.62% higher than that of BL1, respectively. The same results have been obtained in previous

studies [24]. For beams BL4, BL5, and BL6, most of the materials were the same as in beam BL3, but the

volume fraction of the steel fiber was increased by 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5%, respectively. Their cracking

moments were 45.16%, 53.22%, and 77.42% higher than beam BL3, respectively. Therefore, increasing

the steel fiber volume fraction was the most effective way to improve the cracking moment of the beams.

The appearance and development of cracks was also limited owing to the cracking resistance of the steel

fiber.

Generally, the failure modes of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars are different from those of

traditional RC beams owing to the linear elastic behavior of the stress-strain relationship of FRP bars until

failure occurs [26]. Figure 6 shows the crack pattern and failure mode for all beams. According to the

design requirements of ACI 440.1R-15, all concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars in this study should

8
have experienced compression failure. However, two failure modes for the SFRC beams with FRP bars

appeared in the testing, including tensile failure and compression failure. Test beams GL10, BL11, and

BL12 experienced tensile failure. The tensile failure indicated that rupture of the FRP bars in the beams

occurred prior to crushing of the concrete. From Table 4, the ultimate compressive strain of the SFRC

concrete was approximately 0.005, which was higher than the 0.0035 value typically seen in ordinary

concrete. Therefore, the addition of steel fiber could improve the deformation capacity and energy

consumption of the concrete, and could change the failure mode of concrete beams reinforced with FRP

bars. The other SFRC beams with FRP bars failed in compression. This indicates that crushing of the

concrete beams occurred before rupture of the FRP bars. concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars are

usually designed to fail by concrete crushing, as it is more ductile than the rupture of the FRP bars

[21-23]. The compression failure was related to the strength of the concrete. The design requirement of

ACI 440.1R-15 suggests that FRP bars should be combined with high strength concrete.

A large reinforcement ratio and high tensile strength in the FRP bars can effectively improve the

flexural strength of the beams [24]. The reinforcement ratios of test beams BL12, BL5, and BL13 were

37.5%, 105.3%, and 194.6% higher than that of beam BL11, respectively, and the flexural strengths were

higher by 41.6%, 105.9%, and 110.6%, respectively. The tensile strengths of the FRP bars in beams BL5

and CL9 were 24.71% and 117.65% higher, respectively, than that of beam GL10, and the flexural

strengths were higher by 42.41% and 126.62% respectively. The flexural strength of the SFRC beam with

FRP bars was 56.28% higher than that of the SFRC beam with steel bars for the same reinforcement ratio.

(a)

9
(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k)

10
(l)

(m)

(n)

`
Fig. 6. Crack pattern and failure mode: (a) BL1, (b) BL2, (c) BL3, (d) BL4, (e) BL5, (f) BL6, (g) BL7, (h)
BL8, (i) CL9, (j) GL10, (k) BL11, (l) BL12, (m) BL13, and (n) SL14

3.2. Skeleton curve

Figure 7 shows the skeleton curves for all test beams. The skeleton curve is formed by the line that

connects the peaks of the beam’s load-displacement curve. Generally, the skeleton curve of an SFRC

beam with FRP bars is different from that of a SFRC beam with steel bars. The skeleton curve of the

SFRC beams with FRP bars was bilinear, and shown two stages [14][24]. The first stage is a linear

growth with a steep slope, which is related to the cracking moment of the beams. When the load reaches

the cracking moment of the beams, the first stage ends. The reduction in the effective moment of inertia

of the beams leads to a decrease in the stiffness of the beams due to the appearance of cracks. Therefore,

the slope of the beam’s skeleton curve decreases as a result of the decrease in the beam’s stiffness. The

second stage indicates the development of beam cracks. In this stage, the width and length of the cracks

increase continuously, and the stiffness of the beam also decrease. However, FRP bars did not yield, the

skeleton curves continue to show an upward trend until beam failure. Figure 7 (a) shows that test beam

SL14 is different from BL12 in the second stage.

3.2.1 Effect of the type of reinforcement

Figure 7 (a) shows the effect of the different types of reinforcement on the beam skeleton curve. Test

11
beams BL5, CL9, and GL10 had the same concrete strength, steel fiber volume fraction, and FRP

reinforcement ratio, but they used BFRP bars, CFRP bars, and GFRP bars as reinforcement, respectively

[25]. Beam CL9 had higher a flexural strength than both BL5 and GL10, and the slope of its skeleton

curve was much steeper. Because CFRP has a higher elastic modulus and strength, beam CL9 had a

higher stiffness than the beams with BFRP or GFRP. However, beam BL5 exhibited a larger deformation

than beams CL9 and GL10 at failure. Therefore, the ductility of the BFRP was better than that of the

CFRP and GFRP. Compared with beams BL12 and SL14, which used BFRP bars and steel bars,

respectively, the other variables were the same. The flexural strength and deflection of beam BL12 were

79.21% and 14.87% higher than those values for beam SL14, respectively. Hence, compared with

traditional RC beams, concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars produced larger deflections and a higher

flexural strength [10].

3.2.2 Effect of the FRP reinforcement ratio

Figure 7 (b) shows the skeleton curve for the beams with the same concrete strength but different FRP

reinforcement ratios. The crack width and length decreased with an increase in the reinforcement ratio

under the same loads [24]. Therefore, the stiffness of the beam and slope of the skeleton curve will

increase with an increase in the reinforcement ratio under the same displacement. Although the

reinforcement ratio of beam BL12 was 37.5% higher than that of BL11, the flexural strength was 41.33%

higher. The influence of the reinforcement ratio on the flexural strength was more obvious owing to the

tensile failure of test beams BL11 and BL12. The flexural strength of the beams that experienced

compression failure was mainly related to the strength of the concrete. For beams BL11, BL12, and BL5,

the deflections were 31.2%, 24.8%, and 5.46% lower, respectively, than the deflection of beam BL13.

12
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 7. Skeleton curves of the beams:(a) Type of reinforcement; (b) FRP reinforcement ratio; (c) Concrete
strength; and (d) Volume fraction and shape of steel fibers

3.2.3 Effect of the concrete strength

Figure 7 (c) shows that the skeleton curves of the beams with the same FRP reinforcement ratio,

volume fraction of steel fibers, and type of reinforcement only varied with the concrete strength. The

concrete strengths of beams BL5 and BL2 were 72.86% and 22.66% higher than that of beam BL1, while

the flexural strength increased by 25.89% and 12.09%, respectively. The increase in the concrete strength

also resulted in increases in the stiffness of the beams. More importantly, increasing the concrete strength

resulted in decreased deflection in the beams at the same load levels [10].

3.2.4 Effect of the volume fraction and shape of the steel fibers

Figure 7 (d) shows the effect of increasing the volume fraction and altering the shape of the steel fiber

on the skeleton curves of the beams. The scattered distribution of steel fiber in the concrete improved the

tensile strength and hindered the development of cracks [17]. For beams BL3, BL4, BL5, and BL6, the

13
volume fraction of the steel fiber was 0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5%, respectively. A higher volume fraction of

steel fiber can improve the ductility and decrease in the deflections of the beams [17]. Moreover, the

incorporation of steel fibers has been shown to effectively improve the ultimate compressive strain of the

concrete, the bond strength between the FRP bars and concrete [13], and the flexural strength of the

beams. Beams BL5, BL7, and BL8 had the same volume fraction of steel fibers, but used shapes 3D, 4D,

and 5D, respectively. Although the aspect ratios of the 3D, 4D, and 5D fibers were the same, the fiber

length, number of bends, and tensile strengths were different. The 5D steel fiber had a higher tensile

strength and displayed better bonding performance than the 4D and 3D fibers. Hence, the flexural

strength of beam BL8 was higher than that of beams BL7 and BL5.

3.3. Strength degradation

Evaluation of the strength degradation of the beams was is an important index to study for

understanding the degradation of the flexural strength under repeated loading. The strength degradation

can directly reflect how the flexural strength of the beams decreases as the number of load cycles

increased. Strength degradation is usually evaluated by the strength degradation coefficient, λij. Table 5

gives the strength degradation coefficients of the beams subjected to the number of load cycles at each

stage of displacement. The strength degradation coefficient, λij, can be calculated as follows:

Pi,j (1)
λi,j 
Pi,1
where Pij is the peak load of the jth cycle under a displacement of i.
Table 5 Strength degradation coefficient of the beams at each stage of displacement
Strength degradation(%)
Beam Cycle Number
1Δ 2Δ 3Δ 4Δ 5Δ 6Δ 7Δ 8Δ 9Δ
Second cycle 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 — —
B-30-1.15-1.0-3
Third cycle 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.92 — —
Second cycle 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 — —
B-45-1.15-1.0-3
Third cycle 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 — —
Second cycle 0.93 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 — —
B-60-1.15-0-0
Third cycle 0.91 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.93 — —
Second cycle 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 — —
B-60-1.15-0.5-3
Third cycle 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 — —
Second cycle 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 — —
B-60-1.15-1.0-3
Third cycle 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 — —

14
Second cycle 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.96 — — —
B-60-1.15-1.5-3
Third cycle 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.94 — — —
Second cycle 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 — —
B-60-1.15-1.0-4
Third cycle 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.93 — —
Second cycle 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.95 — —
B-60-1.15-1.0-5
Third cycle 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 — —
Second cycle 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.93 — — —
C-60-1.15-1.0-3
Third cycle 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.90 — — —
Second cycle 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.92 — — —
G-60-1.18-1.0-3
Third cycle 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.86 — — —
Second cycle 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.93 — — —
B-60-0.56-1.0-3
Third cycle 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.91 0.88 0.88 — — —
Second cycle 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 — — —
B-60-0.77-1.0-3
Third cycle 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 — — —
Second cycle 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.92 —
B-60-1.65-1.0-3
Third cycle 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.87 —
Second cycle 0.95 0.80 0.98 0.91 0.82 0.91 0.86 0.93 0.64
S-60-0.77-1.0-3
Third cycle 0.93 0.77 0.93 0.90 0.78 0.85 0.74 0.91 0.59
Note: NΔ represents a displacement of N× 6 mm

From Table 5, the degradation coefficient decreased with an increase in the cycle number at the same

displacement, and the strength degradation value of the SFRC beams with FRP bars decreased to

approximately 0.9 after three load cycles. However, the rate at which the strength degraded decreased

with an increase in the number of cycles. Increasing the reinforcement ratio could also effectively reduce

the strength degradation value of the beams under the same displacement.

4. Theoretical prediction

In this study, the calculation methods for the flexural strength of concrete beams reinforced with FRP

bars given in ACI 440.1R-15, CSA S806-12, and GB 50608-2010 are introduced. The incorporation of

steel fiber not only improves the ultimate compressive strain of the concrete, but also increases the tensile

strength; thereby improving the flexural strength of the beams. More importantly, the repeated loading

has a significant impact on the flexural strength of the beams. Therefore, according to the equivalent force

block, strain coordination, and internal force balance, this study puts forward a prediction model for the

flexural strength of SFRC beams with FRP bars under repeated loading. After testing, the experimental

values were compared with the theoretical values. The results of the comparison are shown in Table 6.

4.1. Flexural strength evaluation according to ACI 440.1R-15, CSA S806-12, and GB 50608-2010

According to ACI 440.1R-15, the flexural strength of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars can be

15
calculated based on the strain compatibility, internal force balance, and failure mode (i.e., tensile failure

or compression failure). ACI 440.1R-15 recommends that concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars be

designed for compression failure with a concrete compressive strain ( ε cu) of 0.003. Therefore, the

equilibrium FRP reinforcement ratio (ρfb) can be calculated as follows:

fc E f  cu
 fb  0.851 (2)
f fu E f  cu  f fu

where fc and εcu are the compressive strength and ultimate compressive strain of the concrete,

respectively; ffu and Ef are the ultimate tensile stress and elastic modulus of the FRP bars, respectively;

and β1 is a factor that can be calculated as follows:

(f c  28)
1  0.85  0.05  0.65 (3)
7
The failure mode of the beams is determined by the FRP reinforcement ratio (ρf), which can be

calculated as follows:

Af
f  (4)
bd t

where Af is the area of the FRP bar, b is the width of the rectangular cross-section, and dt is the distance

measured from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of the FRP bars.

When ρf > ρfb, the beams are considered to be over-reinforced, which results in failure by concrete

crushing, and the FRP bars do not rupture. The flexural strength, MACI, can be calculated as follows:

f ff
M ACI   f f f bd 2 (1  0.59 )  f  b (5)
fc '

where ff is the tensile strength of the FRP bars, and can be calculated as follows:

( E f  cu ) 2 0.851 f c '
ff   E f  cu  0.5 E f  cu  f fu  f  b (6)
4 f

When ρf < ρb, the beams are considered to be under-reinforced and failure due to rupture of the FRP

bars occurs. The flexural strength, MACI, can be calculated by using the following equations:
1c
M ACI  A f f fu (d  )  f  b (7)
2

16
A f f fu
1c   f  b (8)
0.85bf c '

Finally, ACI 440.1R-15 suggests that if ρfb < ρf < 1.4 ρfb, the failure mode (tension-compression

failure) of the beams will be in the transition region between tensile failure and crushing failure. It has

been shown that rupture of the FRP bars occurs after the concrete is broken.

Basis on CSA S806-12, the ultimate compressive strain of the concrete (εcu) is 0.0035. The balanced

reinforcement ratio, ρfb, can be calculated as follows:

fc E f  cu
 fb  11 (9)
f fu E f  cu  f fu

where α1 and β1 are calculated by the following equations, respectively:

1  0.85  0.0015( f c ' )  0.67 (10)

1  0.97  0.0025( f c ' )  0.67 (11)

The flexural strength, MCSA, can be calculated using the following equations:

f ff
M CSA   f f f bd 2 (1  ) (12)
21 f c '

 cu (d  c)
f f  Af E f  f fu (13)
c
 cu (d  c)
11 f c ' bc  A f E f (14)
c
According to GB 50608-2010, the ultimate compressive strain of the concrete (εcu) is 0.0033. The

balanced reinforcement ratio, ρfb, and the height of the balanced pressure area, ξfb, can be calculated as

follows:

fc
 fb  1   fb (15)
f fu

1 cu
 fb  (16)
 cu  f fu E f

where α1 and β1 are coefficients related to the strength of the concrete. If the value of fcu is less than 50,

the values of α1 and β1 are 1 and 0.8, respectively. If the value of fcu is more than 80, the values of α1 and

β1 are 0.94 and 0.74, respectively. When the value of fcu is between 50 and 80, α1 and β1 can be calculated

17
using the following equations, respectively:

1  1  0.002  ( f cu  50) (17)

1  0.8  0.002  ( f cu  50) (18)

The flexural strength, MGB, can be calculated by the following equations:

M GB  0.9 f f A f d  f  b (19)

c
M GB  f f A f (d  )  f  b (20)
2
f c bc  f f A f (21)

where ff can be calculated as follows:


 f cu  f  b
 (22)
 
f f   f cu (1  0 . 211 ( f 0 .2
1 .5  b   f   b
 fb ) )

 f
 f cu (  fb )
0 .5
 f  1 .5  b

4.2. Basic assumptions

The tensile and compressive stress-strain of SFRC is different from that of ordinary concrete.

According to the test results, the compressive strain of concrete (εcu) containing steel fibers can reach

0.005. The residual strength of SFRC in the tensile zone should be considered because of the effect of the

steel fibers on crack resistance. Therefore, the effect of the steel fibers should be considered in the

calculation model of the flexural strength of the beams. In order to simplify the analysis, the following

assumptions are made in the calculation model:

(1) The FRP bars demonstrate linear elastic behavior until failure. The stress-strain relationship of the

FRP bars can be calculated as follows:

f f  Ef f (23)

(2) The concrete stress-strain is assumed to be in compression, as proposed by GB 50010-2010 [28]

and Guofan Zhao [29]. The stresses in the concrete can be calculated by the following equations:
18
 c n
 c  f c [1 (1  ) ]  c   c0 (24)
  c0
  f  c   c0
 c c

1 (25)
n  2  (f cu.k  50)
60
 sf lsf (26)
 c 0  0.0007  0.002
d sf

where εcu has a value of 0.0035 for ordinary concrete [21] and 0.005 for steel fiber concrete.

4.3 A model for predicting the flexural strength of SFRC beams with FRP bars

4.3.1 Compression failure

Compression failure indicates that failure of the concrete occurs at the top of the beam, but the strain

level of the FRP bars remains under the limit strain and within the elastic range. Figure 8 (a) shows the

flexural stress-strain distribution in the flexural strength state of the SFRC beams with FRP bars. Based

on the balance of forces, the resultant force of the concrete compression zone (C) of the beams can be

calculated by the following equation:

C  f f Af Tsf  f f Af sf (h  c)b (27)

where Tsf is the resultant force of the SFRC in tension zone, σsf is the equivalent tensile stress of the

SFRC, Af is the area of the FRP bars, ff is the stress of the FRP bars, which can be calculated as follows:

εcu (28)
f f  εf Ef  (d t  c)E f
c

Based on strain compatibility, the concrete strain, εc, at the distance y above the neutral axis can be

calculated as follows:

εcu (29)
εc  y
c

The resultant force of concrete compression zone can be calculated by the calculus method of concrete

stress in compression zone. The value of C can be calculated using the following equations:

εcu
dεc  dy (30)
c
c c εcu
C  b σc (εc )dy  b
εcu 0
σc (εc )dεc (31)
0

The moment of the resultant force in the compression zone of concrete to the neutral axis, Mc, can be

calculated by the following equation:

19
c c 2 εcu
Mc  ycC  b σc (εc ) ydy  b(
εcu 0
) σc (εc )εcdεc (32)
0

Combining Eqs. 31 and 32, the distance from the resultant force of concrete in the compression zone

to the neutral axis, yc, can be calculated by the following equation:

c 2  cu
)  σ c (εc )εc dεc
b(  cu
M εcu 0 c 0 σ c (εc )εc dεc
yc  c     cu (33)
C c  cu ε
b( )  σ c (εc )dεc
εcu 0
cu
0 σ c (εc )dεc
Based on the equal distance from the resultant force of concrete in the compression zone to the center

of FRP bars in tension zone, the value of β can be calculated using the following equations:
c
dt   dt  (c  yc ) (34)
2
 cu

  2(1 
 0
 c ( c ) c d c
)  2(1  k ) (35)
 cu
 c u   c ( c )d c
0

Based on the same resultant force of concrete in compression zone, the value of α can be calculated

using the following equations:


c
b σc (εc )dx   cbfc (36)
0

 cu


 0
 c ( c )d c
(37)
2(1  k ) c u f c
Based on a parabolic stress block and strain compatibility, the concrete pressure zone height (c) can be

calculated by the following equations:

f f Af  σs f (h  c)b   cbfc (38)

 (εcu E f A f  σ s f d t b)  (εcu E f A f  σ s f d t b) 2  4εcu E f A f d t (αβf c b  σ s f b)


c (39)
2(αβf c b  σ s f b)

Based on the internal force equilibrium, the flexural strength of the beams (Mu) can be calculated as

follows:

β hc (40)
M u  αβf c bc(d t  c)  σ s(
f
h  c(
)  d a )b
2 2

The equivalent tensile stress of the steel fiber can be determined by inserting the test data into Eqs. 34

and 35. By establishing the relationship between the equivalent tensile stress of the steel fiber and the

20
tensile strength of the SFRC, the amount of steel fiber, the aspect ratio of the steel fiber, and the number

of bends in the steel fiber, the value of σsf can be determined. Using linear regression, σsf is obtained as

follows:

lsf (41)
σ sf  0.43 f t  sf Fb e
d sf

where Fbe is the bending coefficient of the steel fiber and has a value in the range of 1.0-1.2. According to

the number of bends in the steel fiber, 3, 4, or 5, take Fbe to be 1.0, 1.1, or 1.2, respectively. ft is the tensile

strength of the concrete, lsf is the length of the steel fiber, dsf is the diameter of the steel fiber, and ρsf is the

steel fiber volume fraction, which ranges from 0% to 1.5%.


b
¦Á
fc ¦Å
cu
fc
C
¦Â

C
c

c
y0
(a) f ft

dt
h
Mu Mu

¦Ò
sf

f f Af f f Af ¦Å
f

da
(A) cross-sectional (B) stress distribution (C) equivalent rectangular stress (D) cross-section strain
b
¦Á
fc ¦Å
c'
fc
¦Â

C
c

c
y0

(b) f ft
dt
h

Mu Mu

¦Ò
sf

f f 'Af f f 'Af ¦Å
fu '
da

(A) cross-sectional (B) stress distribution (C) equivalent rectangular stress (D) cross-section strain
b
¦Á
fc ¦Å
cu
fc
¦Â

C
c

c
y0

(c) f ft
dt
h

Mu Mu

¦Ò
sf

f f 'Af f f 'Af ¦Å
fu'
da

(A) cross-sectional (B) stress distribution (C) equivalent rectangular stress (D) cross-section strain
Fig. 8. Stress distribution and section size (a) compression failure, (b) tension failure, and (c) balanced
21
failure

4.3.2 Tension failure

Tension failure indicates that rupture of the FRP reinforcement in the beams occurs before crushing of

the concrete, and the FRP reaches the ultimate tensile strain. Tensile failure is shown in Fig. 8 (b). FRP

material with a low modulus of elasticity exhibits microcracking in the matrix at high strains, resulting in

reduced fatigue resistance in this type of fiber [30]. The test results indicate that the tensile stress of the

FRP bars under repeated loading only reached about 90% of the ultimate stress. Therefore, the stress of

the FRP bars (ffu') can be calculated as follows:

f fu '  f fu  0.9 f fu (42)

Based on a parabolic stress block and strain compatibility, the compressive strain of the concrete at the

top (εc') can be calculated as follows:

c ε'c
b
ε’c 
0
c εc)dεc  f fu ' Af  σ s(
σ( f
dt  c)b (43)

where
εc' (44)
c dt
εc'  ε fu

The value of εc' is obtained by Eqs. 42 and 43, then the value of εc' is taken into Eqs. 41, 40, and 39 to

get the flexural strength of the beams.

4.3.3 Balanced failure

Balanced failure indicates that rupture of the FRP bars and crushing of the concrete occur

simultaneously. Figure 8 (c) depicts balanced failure. Based on a parabolic stress block and strain

compatibility, the balanced reinforcement ratio (ρbf) can be calculated as follows:

c ε
b  σ c (εc )d εc  f f 'Apf  σ s f (d t  c)b (45)
cu

ε cu 0

Abf (46)
ρbf 
bd t
εcu (47)
c dt
εcu  ε fu

Finally, the value of ρbf can be solved. The balanced reinforcement ratio distinguishes the limits of the
22
compression and tensile damage of the beams. Therefore, balancing the reinforcement ratio plays an

important role in the design of beams.

4.4 Comparison of the experimental results with the theoretical predictions

The predicted flexural strength was calculated on the basis of MACI from ACI 440.1R-15, MCSA from

CSA S806-12, MGB from GB 50010-2010, and Mu from the proposed prediction model. Table 6 gives a

comparison of the experimental flexural strength (Me) results. The predictive models of ACI 440.1R-15,

CSA S806-12, and GB 50010-2010 calculated the value of the flexural strength of the beams to be

26.35%, 18.10%, and 15.86% lower, respectively, than the experimental results. However, the new

flexural strength calculation model proposed by this study produced a value significantly closer to the

experimental value. More importantly, the new calculation model was able to accurately predict the

failure mode of the SFRC beams with FRP bars. For the failure modes of test beams GL10, BL11, and

BL12, the proposed model in this study predicted tensile failure, which was confirmed by the

experimental results. However, ACI 440.1R-15, CSA S806-12, and GB 50010-2010 predicted that the

failure mode of beams GL10, BL11, and BL12 would be compression failure.

Table 6 Comparison of the experimental results and theoretical results for the flexural strength
Me Mu MACI MCSA MGB
Beam Mu/Me MACI/Me MCSA/Me MGB/Me
(KN·m) (KN·m) (KN·m) (KN·m) (KN·m)
BL1 80.50 71.81 0.89 55.38 0.69 61.17 0.76 61.92 0.77
BL2 90.23 84.98 0.94 61.69 0.68 70.42 0.78 71.40 0.79
BL3 93.48 93.80 1.00 67.93 0.73 82.50 0.88 82.87 0.89
BL4 94.92 100.06 1.05 65.34 0.69 76.80 0.81 77.94 0.82
BL5 101.34 106.02 1.05 67.64 0.67 81.77 0.81 82.24 0.81
BL6 106.77 104.42 0.98 69.16 0.65 86.16 0.81 85.96 0.81
This study BL7 103.53 104.42 1.01 68.72 0.66 84.70 0.82 84.73 0.82
BL8 104.37 104.75 1.00 68.80 0.66 84.96 0.81 84.95 0.81
CL9 161.26 155.54 0.96 106.38 0.66 127.91 0.79 132.43 0.82
GL10 71.16 74.14 1.04 58.03 0.82 68.39 0.96 66.72 0.94
BL11 51.85 53.93 1.04 47.66 0.92 55.64 1.07 55.06 1.06
BL12 73.28 73.03 1.00 55.38 0.76 65.55 0.89 65.17 0.89
BL13 107.43 111.03 1.03 71.61 0.67 87.05 0.81 86.16 0.80
B-0-77-0 64.58 65.02 1.01 57.13 0.88 57.01 0.88 61.74 0.96
B-05-77-300 77.17 78.29 1.01 60.76 0.79 59.68 0.77 64.25 0.83
B-10-77-300 79.24 80.16 1.01 63.73 0.80 61.74 0.78 66.59 0.84
Haitang B-15-77-300 84.41 79.69 0.94 62.63 0.74 61.74 0.73 65.52 0.78
Zhu [27] B-20-77-300 78.89 78.49 0.99 62.57 0.79 61.00 0.77 65.46 0.83
B-10-56-300 70.80 63.40 0.90 57.91 0.82 56.19 0.79 54.30 0.77
B-10-101-300 93.00 89.31 0.96 54.57 0.59 63.00 0.68 71.36 0.77
B-10-165-300 98.70 102.02 1.03 79.89 0.81 76.69 0.78 85.23 0.86
Average value 0.9936 0.7365 0.8190 0.8414
Coefficient of variation 0.2068 0.3860 0.3750 0.3231

23
5. Conclusions

The flexural strength and behavior of SFRC beams with FRP bars was investigated by performing a

four-point bending test under repeated loading. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the

influence of the addition of steel fibers to a concrete mix on the flexural behavior of concrete beams

reinforced with FRP bars (i.e., the influence on the failure mode, cracking motion, skeleton curve,

reflection, strength degradation, flexural strength, etc.). In addition, this study also compared the flexural

behavior of test beams with different FRP reinforcement ratios, concrete strengths, and reinforcement

types. Based on the experimental outcomes, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. The cracking moment of the beams was mainly related to the concrete tensile strength. The

concrete tensile strength was mostly increased by the addiction of steel fibers to a concrete mix,

which was able to effectively improve the cracking moment of the beams. The cracking moment

of the beam with 1.5% steel fiber volume fraction was 77.3% higher than that without steel fiber.

2. The ultimate compressive strain of concrete was postponed by the addition of steel fibers to the

concrete matrix, which was able to improve the flexural strength of the concrete beams reinforced

with FRP bars, and change the failure mode also. The beams with reinforcement ratio of 0.56 %

and 0.77 % were tensile failure, but their balanced reinforcement ratio was 0.30 % and 0.32 %

under ACI 440.1R-15.

3. The skeleton curves of the SFRC beams with FRP bars were bilinear. A high reinforcement ratio,

concrete strength, and tensile strength in the FRP bars was shown to increase the flexural strength

and reduce the deflection in the SFRC beams with FRP bars.

4. The flexural strength of the SFRC beam with FRP bars was 56.28 % higher than that of the SFRC

beam with steel bars under the same reinforcement ratio of 0.77 %.

24
5. The flexural strength of the beams decreased as the number of load cycles increased under the

same deflection, and the flexural strength decreased to about 90% after three load cycles. When

the FRP bars were under high stress, the stress decreased by about 10% as the repeated loads

increased.

6. The prediction models provided by ACI 440.1R-15, CSA S806-12 and GB50608-2010

underestimated the flexural strength of the beams by 71.84%, 76.57%, and 82.84%, respectively,

while the proposed method, which was based on the equivalent force block, provided more

accurate prediction results that was 98.74% of the calculated theoretical value.

Acknowledgements

This research work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China

(No. 51578510).

Data availability statement

The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared at this time, as the data

also forms part of an ongoing study.

References

[1] C. Soriano, A. Alfantazi, Corrosion behavior of galvanized steel due to typical soil organics, Constr. Build. Mater., 102
(2016): 904-912.
[2] A. Byrne, N. Holmes, B. Norton, State-of-the-art review of cathodic protection for reinforced concrete structures, Mag.
Concr. Res., 68 (2016): 1-14,
[3] M. Rabi, K.A. Cashella, R. Shamass, Flexural analysis and design of stainless steel reinforced concrete beams, Eng. Struct.,
198 (2019) 109432.
[4] T. Younes, A. Al-Mayah, T. Topper. Fatigue performance of prestressed concrete beams using BFRP bars, Constr. Build.
Mater., 157 (2017) 313-321.
[5] L.J. Li, B. Hou, Z.Y. Lu, et al, Fatigue behaviour of sea sand concrete beams reinforced with basalt fibre-reinforced polymer
bars, Constr. Build. Mater., 179 (2018) 160-171.
[6] P. Escórcio, P.M. França, Experimental study of a rehabilitation solution that uses GFRP bars to replace the steel bars of
reinforced concrete beams, Eng. Struct., 128 (2016): 166-183.
[7] M.A. Rashid, M.A. M. ASCE, P. Paramasivam, Behavior of Aramid Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced High Strength
Concrete Beams under Bending, J. Compos. Comstr. 2005.9:117-127.
[8] J. Newhook, A. Ghali, G. Tadros, Concrete flexural members reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer: design for cracking
and deformability, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 29: 125–134 (2002).

25
[9] M. Baena, L. Turres, et al, Experimental study of bond behaviour between concrete and FRP bars using a pull-out test,
Compos. Part B, 44 (2009) 784-797.
[10] H.A. Abdalla, Evaluation of deflection in concrete members reinforced with fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) bars, Compos.
Strut., 56 (2002) 63-71.
[11] I. F. Kara, A.F. Ashour, M.A. Körog˘lu, Flexural behavior of hybrid FRP/steel reinforced concrete beams, Compos. Struct.,
129 (2015): 111-121.
[12] H.L. Dong, W. Zhou, Z.Y. Wang. F, Flexural performance of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars grouted in corrugated
sleeves, Compos. Struct, 215 (2019): 49-59.
[13] F. Abed, A.R. Alhafiz, Effect of basalt fibers on the flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with BFRP bars, Compos.
Struct, 215 (2019): 23-43.
[14] M.S. Issa, I.M. Metwally, S.M. Elzeiny, Influence of fibers on flexural behavior and ductility of concrete beams reinforced
with GFRP rebars, Eng. Struct, 33 (5) (2011): 1754-1763.
[15] S. Yazıcı, H. S. Arel. The effect of steel fiber on the bond between concrete and deformed steel bar in SFRCs, Constr. Build.
Mater, 40 (2013) 299-305.
[16] M. Paja˛k, T. Ponikiewski. Flexural behavior of self-compacting concrete reinforced with different types of steel fibers,
Constr. Build. Mater, 47 (2013) 397-408.
[17] H.T. Zhu, S.Z. Cheng, et al, Flexural behavior of partially fiber-reinforced high-strength concrete beams reinforced with FRP
bars, Constr. Build. Mater, 161 (2018) 587-597.
[18] J. M. Yang, K. H. Min, et al, Effect of steel and synthetic fibers on flexural behavior of high-strength concrete beams
reinforced with FRP bars, Compos. Part B - Eng, 40 (2012) 1077-1086.
[19] L. J. Cheng, Flexural fatigue analysis of a CFRP form reinforced concrete bridge deck, Compos. Struct, 93 (2011) 2895–902.
[20] ACI Committee 440. Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars. ACI 2015;440. 1R-15.
[21] CAN/CSA S806-12, Canadian Standard Design and construction of building structures with fiber-reinforced polymers,
Association, 2012.
[22] GB50608-2010. Technical code for infrastructure application of FRP composites. China Metallurgical Construction
Association, Beijing, China; 2010 (in Chinese).
[23] Steel fiber reinforced concrete (JG/T 472-2015). China National Standard; 2015.
[24] A. El-Nemr, E.A. Ahmed, B. Benmokrane, Flexural Behavior and Serviceability of Normal- and High-Strength Concrete
Beams Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars, ACI Structural Journal, 2013,(12):1077-1087.
[25] H. SunKim, Y. SooShin, Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) beams retrofitted with hybrid fiber reinforced
polymers (FRPs) under sustaining loads, Compos. Struct, 93 (2011) 802–811.
[26] S. M. Hasanur Rahman,K. Mahmoud,E.E. Salakawy, Behavior of Glass Fiber–Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete
Continuous T-Beams, J. Compos. Constr., 2017, 21(2): 04016085.
[27] H.T. Zhu, S. Z. Cheng, et al, Experimental and theoretical study on the flexural strength of high-strength concrete beams
reinforced with BFRP bars and steel fiber, Acta Materiae Compositae Sinica (China). 35 (2018) 3313-3323.
[28] Code for design of concrete structures (GB 50010-2010). China National Standard, 2015.
[29] G.F. Zhao, Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Structure[M], China Architecture & Building Press, 1999.
[30] M. Górski, R. Krzywoń, J. C. Gomes, Handbook-Fibrous Composite Materials in Strengthening of Structures. Tipografia da
Universidade da Beira Interior. Depósito Legal: 403978/16. ISBN: 978-989-654-272-6.

26

You might also like