Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Tests of glass fibre reinforced polymer rectangular concrete columns

subjected to concentric and eccentric axial loading
Mohamed Elchalakani, Guowei Ma ⇑
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The use of Glass Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) reinforcement as an alternative to steel for use in
Received 12 April 2017 Reinforced Concrete (RC) structures has developed significantly in recent years. GFRP’s excellent corro-
Revised 11 August 2017 sion resistance, high tensile-strength-to-weight ratio, non-magnetic, nonconductive make it an excellent
Accepted 12 August 2017
solution for projects requiring improved corrosion resistance or reduced maintenance costs. Despite a
number of recent studies illustrating the effective use of GFRP rebars as longitudinal reinforcement for
concrete compression members, the current international design codes such as ACI 440.1R-15, CAN/
Keywords:
CSA S806, TR55, ISO 10406-1, and fib do not recommend including GFRP reinforcement in the compres-
Concrete
GFRP
sion member capacity calculations. The experimental study detailed in this paper involved construction
Steel and testing of 17 rectangular concrete columns reinforced with both steel and GFRP rebars. The columns
Ductility were tested to failure under various loading conditions, in order to determine the effect of load eccentric-
Columns ity on axial capacity. The effect of ligature spacing and confinement area on axial capacity and ductility
Ductility were also examined. The most important finding is that GFRP RC columns utilising less concrete cover can
Eccentric achieve greater strain and deformation ductility than equivalent steel RC columns.
It was shown that the load carrying capacity and ductility of GFRP reinforced columns increased when
the ligature spacing was reduced from 150 mm to 75 mm. It was also found that, the average axial load
carrying capacity of GFRP RC columns was 93.5% of their steel RC column counterparts. It was also found
that, the GFRP RC columns under concentric load exhibited 3.2% average increase in the load carrying
capacity with respect to the plain concrete section capacity, whereas the steel ones achieved an average
enhancement of 15.8%.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction properties make it suitable for use near sensitive equipment

1.1. General
Over the last two decades, engineers have increasingly looked
to Glass Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) reinforcement as a
means of overcoming corrosion and other problems commonly
associated with steel reinforcement. The majority of FRP RC struc-
tures have been constructed in North America, Europe and Japan,
where FRP reinforcement is used in bridge design to overcome cor-
rosion problems associated with de-icing salts. In Australia, FRP
reinforcement has use in coastal areas, where corrosion of steel
reinforcement due to saltwater can lead to high long-term service-
ability costs. Other applications of FRP reinforcement include hos-
pitals and laboratories, where its non-conductive, non-magnetic
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: guowei.ma@uwa.edu.au (G. Ma).
[1–13].
FRP reinforcement is lightweight, corrosion resistant, and has
high longitudinal tensile strength, however its low elastic modulus
and tendency to rupture without yielding means it requires differ-
ent analysis to steel reinforcement. Currently, there is no Aus-
tralian Standard for the use of FRP in RC structures, and thus
local use of FRP reinforcing is significantly lower than in countries
such as Canada and the USA where such standards are available.
The first American Concrete Institute (ACI) standard detailing the
use of FRP rebars in RC structures was released in 2001, with the
latest update, ‘‘Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural
Concrete Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bars”
being released in 2015, ACI 440.1R-15 [14]. Despite numerous
recent studies illustrating the effective use of FRP rebars as
reinforcement material for concrete compression members, the
ACI 440.1R-15 [14] and other international codes such as
CAN/CSA S806 [15], TR55 [16], ISO 10406-1 [17], and fib [18] do
not recommend including FRP reinforcement in compression

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.08.023
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
94 M. Elchalakani, G. Ma / Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104
member capacity calculations, and thus further studies are still
required.
1.2. GFRP rebars
Deitz et al. [19] found that short GFRP rebars to have an ulti-
mate compressive strength equal to approximately 50% the ulti-
mate tensile strength, and an elastic modulus in compression
approximately equal to elastic modulus in tension. Further testing
by Bedard [20], and Chaallal and Benmokrane [21] found that com-
pression stiffness of GFRP rebars generally ranges from 77% to 97%
of the tensile stiffness. Alfifi et al. [8,9] found that GFRP rebars to
have an ultimate compressive strength equal to approximately
35% the ultimate tensile strength which is less than the 50% value
measured by Deitz et al. [20].
A recent study of I-shaped GFRP columns provides some insight
into the behaviour of GFRP materials under combined compression
and flexural loading. Nunes et al. [23] compared concentrically
loaded I-shaped GFRP columns loaded with a slight eccentricity.
The results indicate that while columns loaded with slight eccen-
tricities exhibited similar initial axial stiffness to concentrically
loaded columns, ultimate capacities can be reduced by up to 40%.
These reduced ultimate capacities were greatly improved with
the addition of lateral bracing. In RC columns, lateral restraint of
longitudinal rebars is provided by both transverse reinforcement
and concrete cover. Transverse reinforcement also provides resis-
tance to shear stress induced tension forces, and helps to provide
concrete confinement. It therefore follows that an understanding
of the lateral bracing requirements of longitudinal GFRP rebars is
critical to ensuring efficient GFRP RC column design as it will be
shown in this paper.
1.3. GFRP ties
GFRP rebars are more sensitive to buckling than steel ones due
to their relatively low elastic modulus. This means ensuring a suf-
ficient lateral restraint of longitudinal rebars is critical in the GFRP
RC column design. The use of GFRP ties and helices as an alterna-
tive to steel fitments has been evaluated in previous studies.
Experimental research completed by Alsayed et al. [1] compares
the use of GFRP ties to steel ties in concentrically loaded RC col-
umns. Their results show that the use of GFRP ties only reduces
axial capacity by 10%, and that column load-deformation beha-
viour was not changed up to 80% of the ultimate capacity. A similar
study by De Luca et al. [3] confirmed these findings, and found that
larger tie spacing resulted in more brittle failure modes. This was
also confirmed by Brown [24], who found that smaller tie spacing
results in higher ultimate capacity and more ductile failure modes.
Pantelides et al. [6] investigated the axial load behaviour of RC col-
umns, and found that columns reinforced with GFRP rebars and
helices achieved 84% of the steel reinforced control column axial
load capacity. A similar study by Afifi et al. [8,9] concluded similar
findings, and described how various transverse reinforcement
arrangements affect column failure modes.
There are several studies to investigate the effects of non-
impregnated composite ropes as transverse reinforcements (such
as vinylon, aramid and basalt) experimentally and analytically
[43–45].” These methods were found to provide sustainable ductile
confinement to plain concrete core.
1.4. GFRP RC columns
In regards to experimental studies on GFRP and steel RC col-
umns, a good deal of laboratory tests were performed to measure
the response of GFRP reinforced RC columns and beam-columns
[1–13], [19–33]. The main conclusions from these studies are:
(a) for the design of GFRP-RC columns, steel rebars cannot be sim-
ply replaced with GFRP rebars because of the differences in the
mechanical properties of the steel and GFRP materials (b) columns
reinforced with steel rebars provided greater load carrying capac-
ity than columns reinforced with an equal amount of GFRP rebars,
with the longitudinal steel rebars contributing extra strength
between 5% and 15% that of the GFRP under concentric loading;
(c) GFRP RC columns was found to be slightly more ductile than
steel RC columns. Furthermore, reducing the GFRP helix pitches
improved the load carrying capacity, bending moment, and ductil-
ity of GFRP RC columns; (d) the load carrying and bending moment
capacities of GFRP RC columns can be calculated by the same prin-
cipals as conventional steel RC columns; (e) the calculated failure
loads were higher than the measured failure loads; (f) ignoring
the contributions of GFRP rebars under compression loading could
lead to gross discrepancies between analytical capacity calcula-
tions and experimental results. Theoretical capacities better repre-
sent experimental data when the strength and stiffness of GFRP
reinforcement are included; (g) columns reinforced with FRP
rebars are more susceptible to length effect than their steel RC col-
umn counterparts because of the lower modulus of elasticity of FRP
rebars. Thus a reduction in members’ slenderness limits was sug-
gested, by 5% for AFRP, 15% for CFRP, and 22% for GFRP rebars.
The above review highlighted the lack of experimental studies
on GFRP-RC columns under eccentric loading, and the available
design standards do not address the design of GFRP-RC columns.
Therefore, experimental investigations are needed to understand
and to establish design guidelines for GFRP-RC columns under dif-
ferent loading conditions. This current research project is a further
step towards this goal.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Specimens
In this study, 17 rectangular concrete specimens were cast and
tested under various loading conditions, with 13 specimens being
tested as columns and four being tested as beams. All specimens
were 1200 mm long with rectangular cross-sections of
260 mm
160 mm. These dimensions were selected to ensure
the specimens were large enough to be considered full size speci-
men, small enough to be manoeuvrable and fit in the testing
machine, and strong enough to be capable of withstanding close
to but no more than 2000 kN so as not to exceed the capacity of
the Amsler machine in the Structures Laboratory at the University
of Western Australia (UWA). Fig. 1 shows the reinforcement cages
of the columns. The column slenderness ratio was calculated using
Eq. (1) for a short, unbraced column in accordance with AS 3600
[34],
Le
6 22 ð1Þ
r
where Le = effective length = 1200 mm for all the columns, r = min-
imal radius of gyration of the cross section. Calculation of the slen-
derness ratio about each axis of the rectangular column deemed it
to be considered short about its strong axis and slender about its
weak axis. It was decided that eccentric loading should be applied
about the weak axis of the column, in order to prevent premature
buckling about the concentrically loaded axis.
Of the 17 total specimens, nine were reinforced with GFRP
while eight were reinforced with steel. Each GFRP RC specimen
was reinforced with six #4 GFRP longitudinal rebars, providing a
longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 1.83%. Such low reinforcement
ratio is often found in low rise buildings in zones of low or no seis-
micity where design bending moments are relatively small. Simi-
larly, the steel RC specimens were reinforced with six N12
 M. Elchalakani, G. Ma / Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104
Fig. 1. GFRP and steel reinforcement cages ready for placement inside formwork.
longitudinal rebars, providing a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of
1.59%. Tables 1 and 2 list the key mechanical properties of the
GFRP and steel bars used in the specimens, respectively. Transverse
reinforcement was designed in accordance with AS 3600 [34]. Four
of the steel RC specimens were reinforced with 6 mm ligatures at
150 mm spacing, while the remaining four were reinforced at a
reduced spacing of 75 mm. Similarly, the transverse reinforcement
for four of the GFRP RC specimens was provided by #2 GFRP liga-
tures at 150 mm spacing, while four were reinforced at a reduced
spacing of 75 mm. One additional GFRP RC specimen was rein-
forced with an increased ligature spacing of 250 mm.
Concrete cover for the steel RC specimens was set at 40 mm to
the ligatures, as specified by AS 3600 [34] for coastal environ-
ments. Due to the high corrosion resistance of GFRP rebars, con-
crete cover was reduced to 20 mm for the GFRP RC specimens.
This value was selected to maximise the concrete core area, and
to provide additional leverage for longitudinal reinforcement
under flexural loading, and to ensure sufficient clearance for pour-
ing of the concrete. In order to minimise the chance of premature
failure at the top and base of the columns, a 750 mm test region
was utilised at the centre of the column, with additional ligatures
being included above and below the test region of 225 mm.
2.2. GFRP and steel reinforcement
The GFRP rebars and ligatures used for this project were
donated by Airey Taylor Consulting and manufactured in Canada.
Recent testing of V-ROD GFRP rebars by Hadi et al. [32,33] to ASTM
D7205-11 [35] concluded that the physical properties listed by
V-ROD in Table 1 are conservative. Table 1 lists both the physical
properties of V-ROD [36] GFRP rebars as measured by Hadi et al.
[32,33] and the nominal values supplied by V-ROD [36]. Fig. 2
shows schematic of the steel and GFRP RC column specimens.
Steel ligatures were not available in a suitable size, and manu-
facturing required bends that were too small for automatic produc-
tion. It was therefore decided to use 6 mm wide slices of
125
75
6 mm RHS as an alternative. This was assessed as ade-
quate for the purpose of providing lateral restraint to the longitu-
dinal rebars and providing shear resistance for flexural loading.
Table 2 lists the properties of the reinforcing steel rebars grade N
widely used in Australia to AS/NZS 4671 [37].
Table 1
Physical properties of GFRP bars [36] and Hadi et al. [32,33].
Bar size Diameter (mm) Area (mm2)
V-ROD Test V-ROD
#2 6.35 – 31.7
#4 12.7 14.6 126.7
95
Grade 32 MPa normal concrete with 10 mm maximum aggre-
gate size was designed and poured to AS 3600 [34]. Four 100 mm
diameter by 200 mm long concrete cylinders were cast and tested
to AS 1012.9 [38] to determine the achieved concrete strength.
Two cylinders were tested on the first day of specimen testing
(28 days after casting), while the remaining two cylinders were
tested on the penultimate day of specimen testing (33 days after
casting). The test results (Table 3) indicated an average achieved
concrete strength of 32.75 MPa. This strength was slightly higher
than the 30 MPa aimed value and thus deemed acceptable and
used for the member capacity calculations.
Two strain gauges were mounted on the longitudinal rebars of
each specimen at mid-height of the column. The strain gauges
were attached on opposite corners of each column, such that flex-
ural loading would cause one gauge to measure compression while
the other gauge measured tension. Cable ties were used to con-
struct the reinforcement cages, and 4 mm diameter threaded stain-
less steel rod was used to position each cage inside the formwork.
2.3. Construction method
Table 4 lists the test matrix for the testing program which
involved 17 column specimens. The first stage of construction
involved preparation of the reinforcement materials. The steel liga-
tures were manufactured by cutting 6 mm slices of
125
75
6 mm RHS, and the GFRP and steel rebars were cut to
the required length. Cable ties were used to fasten the reinforce-
ment cages together, paying careful attention to ligature spacing
and alignment. Strain gauges were then installed on the longitudi-
nal rebars by first grinding the surface flat and then gluing the
strain gauges to the rebars. Once glued to the longitudinal rebars,
the strain gauges were sealed with an epoxy resin. 16 mm MDF
sheets was used to construct the concrete formwork. Each form-
work panel was marked and cut before being fixed into position
using particle board screws.
Approximately one cubic meter of normal grade N32 concrete
was used to cast all the specimens to AS3600 [34]. The concrete
was poured directly from the concrete truck into the formwork
units and then distributed with a shovel. Once each of the form-
work units was filled, each specimen was vibrated once and then
screeded. The concrete which was initially poured was observed
to be quite dry. Thus more water was quickly added to the mixture
Tensile elastic Tensile strength Ultimate strain in
modulus (GPa) (MPa) tension (%)
Test V-Rod Test V-ROD Test V-ROD Test
– 46.1 – 784 – 1.90 –
168 46.3 50 708 1200 1.70 2.4
96 M. Elchalakani, G. Ma / Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104

Table 2
Physical properties of steel bars AS/NZS 4671 [37].

Bar Grade Nominal diameter Area Elastic modulus Yield strength Ultimate strength Yield strain Elongation E
size (mm) (mm2) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (%)
R6 250N 6 28 200 250 270 0.125% 5% (min)
N12 500N 12 110 200 500 540 0.25% 5% (min)

Fig. 2. Reinforcement arrangement (top) for steel RC column, (bottom) for GFRP RC columns.

Table 3 hydraulic base plate capable of delivering up to 2000 kN of load.

Concrete cylinder 100 mm diameter
200 mm high test results, AS 1012.9 [38].
Columns undergoing concentric testing were loaded directly into
Cylinder Curing time (days) Peak load (kN) Strength (MPa) the Amsler machine. Once in place and ready to test, the Amsler
1 28 246.5 31.39 machine’s hydraulic base plate would begin displacing upwards,
2 28 253.0 32.21 compressing the RC column into the steel head at a loading rate
3 33 263.3 33.53 of 20 kN/min. It is worth noting that displacement control regime
4 33 265.9 33.86
is more appropriate to determine ductility from the load-deflection
Average 257.2 32.75
curves. However, the Amsler UTM used to perform the tests uses a
load control regime. Displacement of the hydraulic base plate,
magnitude of compressive force, time, and strain gauge values
however the first specimen (G250-C) had already been poured. It
were all recorded. Any visible cracks or deformations were pho-
was noted that the reduced water content in this specimen may
tographed and documented, and a real-time force/time plot was
have affected its ultimate load carrying capacity. The water was
observed. Where possible, loading was continued until the speci-
added before the concrete cylinders were made. It is not known
men was completely failed with a remaining small residual
to the authors the quantity of added water.
capacity.
The testing procedure for eccentrically loaded columns was sim-
2.4. Testing procedure ilar to that for concentrically loaded columns, except that 25 mm
thick steel plates and 40 mm diameter round bars were placed
Each concentrically loaded specimen was tested to failure using between the column specimen and the base and head of Amsler
the Amsler testing machine in Structures Laboratory at UWA. The testing machine (Fig. 3). These round bars acted as pin connections,
Amsler machine consists of a steel head which can be raised or allowing the column’s top and base to rotate during flexure and
lowered to accommodate various specimen dimensions, and a providing a means of setting the load eccentricity.
 M. Elchalakani, G. Ma / Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104 97

Table 4
Mechanical properties of the specimens.

Specimen Reinforcing material Longitudinal reinforcement Transverse reinforcement Load eccentricity (mm)
Diam. (mm) #Bars Reinforcing ratio (%) Diam. (mm) Spacing (mm)
S150-C Steel 12 6 1.59 6 150 0
S150-25 25
S150-45 45
S150-F Flexural
S75-C Steel 12 6 1.59 6 75 0
S75-25 25
S75-35 35
S75-F Flexural
G150-C GFRP 12.7 6 1.83 6.35 150 0
G150-25 25
G150-45 45
G150-F Flexural
G75-C GFRP 12.7 6 1.83 6.35 75 0
G75-25 25
G75-35 35
G75-F Flexural
G250-C GFRP 12.7 6 1.83 6.35 250 0

Fig. 3. 2000 kN capacity Amsler testing machine set up for eccentric testing; (left) base plate; (right) head plate.

Initially, the study was to involve eccentric compression at only
two eccentricities; 25 mm and 45 mm. After completion of two of
the four allotted tests at 45 mm eccentricity, it was decided to test
the remaining two columns under compression at a 35 mm eccen-
tricity. This was due to the failure modes observed during testing
of the larger eccentricity. Slight concrete spalling occurred at the
base of the columns and immediately resulted in the end of the test
due to slippage of the columns. It was deemed, that due to this slip-
page, further testing at the 45 mm eccentricity was unnecessary.
Four-point bending was used to test the beam specimens. The
total length of the beam was 1200 mm with 1100 mm span. The
test was performed to AS 1012.11 [39] at a loading rate of
2 kN/min. A large steel I-beam was loaded horizontally into the
Amsler machine. Two rollers, 1100 mm apart, were placed on top
of the I-beam to provide support for the RC beam specimens. Once
the specimen was in position, two rollers were placed 367 mm
apart on top of the concrete specimen. A length of rectangular
hollow section RHS 150 mm
100 mm
5 mm was placed on
top of the rollers onto which the Amsler head was lowered
(Fig. 8). A triangulation laser was placed directly under the mid-
point of the beam to record mid-point deflection.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Failure modes
Fig. 4 provides an overview of the tested specimens. The failure
mode of each specimen depends on its reinforcement material,
reinforcement arrangement, and loading condition. In general, fail-
ure of concentrically loaded GFRP RC columns with small volumet-
ric ratio of transverse reinforcement (ie. 150 mm spacing) was
controlled by longitudinal bar buckling. Conversely, well-
confined concentrically loaded GFRP RC columns (ie. 75 mm spac-
ing) failed by transverse reinforcement rupture and crushing of the
concrete core. Transverse reinforcement spacing was found to have
a greater effect on ductility and confinement than ultimate
strength. Columns with smaller, tighter spaced transverse rein-
forcement (ie. 75 mm spacing) were more ductile and produced
less brittle failures than those with larger, more widely spaced
transverse reinforcement (i.e. 150 mm spacing).
The well-confined concentrically loaded GFRP specimens (ie.
75 mm spacing) failed due to large deformation of the ligatures
resulted from excessive hoop tension forces, and spalling of the
concrete, followed by buckling and rupture of the longitudinal
rebars and finally crushing of the concrete core. Ligature rupture
was also evident for G75-C with relatively small spacing between
the ligatures. Failure of the concentrically loaded steel RC columns
was substantially different to that of the GFRP columns. For exam-
ple, S150-C failed due to local bucking of its longitudinal rebars fol-
lowed by concrete crushing, while S75-C failed due to global
buckling about its weaker-axis followed by concrete crushing
(Fig. 5).
Failure of the 25 mm eccentrically loaded specimens was due to
concrete crushing at the compression face. Both the GFRP and steel
reinforced specimens exhibited bending deformation in the lower
portion of the test region. The failure of G150-25 involved more
98 M. Elchalakani, G. Ma / Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104

G250-C S150-C G150-C S75-C G75-C

S150-25 G150-25 S75-25 G75-25

S150-45 G150-45 S75-35 G75-35

S150-F G150-F S75-F G75-F

Fig. 4. Overview of the 17 specimens after testing.

global bending deformation than G75-25, while the failure of
S75-25 involved more of such deformation than S150-25 (Fig. 6).
Tension cracking was observed on the tension face of each column.
G150-45 and S150-45 were tested at 45 mm eccentricity. Fail-
ure was due to concrete crushing near the base of the compression
face, causing the specimens to become unbalanced and slip off the
steel loading plate. The eccentricity was therefore reduced to
35 mm for the G75 and S75 specimens. S75-35 failed due to crush-
ing at the top and slipped off the loading plate, while G75-35
remained in position and buckled (Fig. 7).
The flexural failure modes included bending, concrete crushing
and shear. G150-F failed due to both shear and concrete crushing,
while S150-F failed due to shear only. Tensile cracking on the G75-
F and S75-F tension faces indicates partial bending failure, how-

Fig. 5. RC columns with concentric loading, (a) excessive deformation and rupture of GFRP ligatures in G250-250, G150-C, and G75-C; (b) S150-C local bucking of steel rebars;
(c) S75-C global buckling.
 M. Elchalakani, G. Ma / Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104 99

Fig. 6. RC columns with small eccentricity. (a) G150-25; (b) G75-25; (c) S150-25; (d) S75-25.

Fig. 7. RC columns with medium to large eccentricity. (a) S150-45 base; (b) S75-35 top; (c) G75-35 comp. face; (d) G150-45 tension cracks.

Fig. 8. (Top left) G150-F; (top right) S150-F; (bottom left) G75-F; (bottom right) S75-F.

ever concrete crushing in the compression area was also prevalent.
Minor crushing was also observed around the support rollers
(Fig. 8).
3.2. Column strength
The experimental results for all the column specimens tested
under concentric and eccentric loading are given in Table 5. The
GFRP RC columns exhibited ultimate capacities below that of the
steel RC columns in most cases. Specimen G250-C produced erro-
neous strain gauge values and exhibited abnormally high strength.
This is possible due to concrete mix variation discussed in the sec-
tion titled ‘‘Construction Method”. The ultimate compression capac-
ity of the plain concrete section is 1362.4 kN. This value was based
on average concrete cylinder strength of 32.75 MPa and a cross
section of 260 mmx160 mm. The average axial load carrying capac-
ity of GFRP RC columns was 93.5% of their steel RC columns coun-
terparts. From the ultimate loads presented in Table 5, the GFRP RC
100 M. Elchalakani, G. Ma / Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104

Table 5
Summary of experimental results for all column specimens.

Column ID Peak Vertical deflection Ultimate vertical Maximum strain Maximum strain Ductility Ductility
load (kN) at peak load (mm) deflection (mm) (SGL) (me) (SGR) (me) index (I1) index (I2)
Concentric columns
G250-C 1401.8 5.79 8.38 1683.5 1525.59 – 1.7
G150-C 1366.76 6.87 10.67 1896.2 – – 1.3
G75-C 1449.06 6.39 15.64 4982.69 5083.81 4.1 1.5
S150-C 1621.94 6.39 7.69 655.81 N/A – 1.2
S75-C 1533.14 6.65 14.89 596.61 887.2 – 1.1
Eccentric columns
G150-25 880.28 4.86 10.77 1473.53 8606.6 3.4 1.7
S150-25 958.97 4.81 5.1 222.82 495.1 – 1.45
G75-25 917.16 7.3 11.18 2632.21 2881.18 – 1.75
S75-25 908.37 6.18 6.84 396.15 1243.64 – 1.2
G75-35 787.8 6.13 9.12 7236.88 8383.78 – 1.4
S75-35 814.97 5.01 5.15 1188.73 202.81 – –
G150-45 584.21 5.67 5.71 269.28 422.75 – –
S150-45 566.75 5.62 5.89 372.4 79.94 – –
Beams in flexure
G75-F 189.29 43.16 54.19 13694.86 10043.22 4.3 –
S75-F 135.14 11.75 40.23 9428.52 3406.04 3.9 –
G150-F 144.07 26.46 34 746.65 1769.92 4.5 –
S150-F 138.55 10.89 17.24 – 5002.99 – –

columns exhibited 3.2% average increase in the load carrying
capacity, with respect to plain concrete section capacity, whereas
the steel ones achieved an average enhancement of 15.8%. Fig. 9
shows axial load-axial deformation curves by reinforcement type;
(top left) S150; (top right) S75; (bottom left) G150; (bottom right)
G75. Fig. 10 shows axial load-axial deformation curves for all col-
umns with concentric loading.
3.3. Column ductility
The ductility was determined from the energy absorbed of the
columns specimen after the peak load. The ductility index (I1) as
defined by Hadi et al. [32,33] is given by:
ADE
I1 ¼
ABC
where ADE is the area under the load-axial deflection curve up to a
point on the post-peak collapse curve where the axial deflection
equals 5.5Dy. Dy is the elastic deflection corresponds to the yielding
load (Py) of the longitudinal reinforcement. ABC is the area under
the load-axial deflection curve up to D75, where D75 is the elastic
deflection corresponds to 0.75Pu, and Pu is the peak load. I1 could
only be calculated for two columns, G75-C and G150-25, because
axial deflection in the remaining specimens did not reach 5.5D75.
Therefore, the modified ductility index I2 was used as follows:
ADF
I2 ¼
ABC
where ADF is the area under the load-axial deflection curve up to
the point on the post-peak collapse curve where the post peak load
is 0.85Pu. The ductility index I2 was determined for each of the con-
centric and 25 mm eccentrically loaded columns. The GFRP RC col-
umns were more ductile than their equivalent steel RC columns in
every instance. GFRP RC columns with 75 mm ligature spacing were
the most ductile, followed by GFRP RC columns with 150 mm liga-
ture spacing. Steel RC columns with 150 mm ligature spacing were
more ductile than steel RC columns with 75 mm ligature spacing.
(Figs. 11 and 12). Table 5 lists shows that the values of the ductility
index for the GFRP RC columns are more than their steel specimen’s
counterparts. For concentric loading for example, I2 = 1.5 and 1.1 for
G75-C and S75-C, whereas I2 = 1.3 and 1.2 for G150-C and S150-C.
For eccentric loading for example, I2 = 1.7 and 1.2 for G75-25 and
S75-25, whereas I2 = 1.7 and 1.45 for G150-25 and S150-25. Thus,
it may be concluded that the GFRP RC columns are more ductile
compared to the steel RC columns because they absorb more energy
through their flexibility and ability of well deforming in the post-
peak collapse region. This tolerance for large post-peak plastic
deformation is needed in seismic active zones [13,40].
Table 5 also provides a summary of the peak load and its corre-
sponding strains in the compression and tension zones for all the
specimens. It is seen that the highest measured compressive
strains are for the G75-C where ec = 4982.69 and 5083.81 le. It is
also shown that the strain ductility of the concentric GFRP RC col-
umns are larger than their steel RC column counterparts. This is
evident by comparing the compressive strain of ec = 1896.2 le
for G150-C and 655.81 le for S150-C. It is also shown that the
strain ductility of the eccentric GFRP RC columns are larger than
ð2Þ
their steel RC columns counterpart. This is evident by comparing
the compressive strain of ec = 1473.53 le for G150-25 and
222.82 le for S150-25. The corresponding tensile strains are
ec = 8606.6 le for G150-25 and 495.1 le for S150-25.
3.4. Concentrically loaded columns
An example for the GFRP RC columns concentrically loaded is
G75-C which recorded a peak load at 1449.06 kN and correspond-
ing displacement of 6.39 mm was recorded. This point represented
the spalling of the concrete cover, with cracks initiated at the bot-
ð3Þ tom of the column and propagating upwards (Fig. 4). After this
point, the capacity of the column slowly reduced to around
1075 kN and it was vertically displaced 7.8 mm. Development of
a second peak follows with the capacity of the column increased
to 1126 kN and a displacement of 9.95 mm. This point corresponds
to the increased strength provided by the transverse reinforcement
to prevent any lateral expansion of the concrete. After this point,
slight concrete crushing is observed and results in a reduction of
the column load capacity to a value of 855 kN and displacement
of 11.6 mm. Once again, this load was sustained until a displace-
ment of 14.8 mm before complete failure occurs. Splitting and rup-
ture of both the transverse (due to hoop tension) and longitudinal
reinforcement (due to buckling) occurred at this point, resulting in
the sudden reduction in capacity.
An example for the steel RC columns is S75-C which recorded a
peak load of 1533.14 kN and vertical displacement at this peak
 M. Elchalakani, G. Ma / Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104 101

1800 1800
S150-C
1600 S150-C 1600 S75-C
1400 S150-25 1400 G250-C
G150-C

Axial Load (kN)

1200 1200
Axial Load (kN)

S150-45 G75-C
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
400 400
200
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Deformaon (mm) Axial Deformaon (mm)
(a) S150
Fig. 10. Axial load-axial deformation curves for concentric loading.
1800
1600 S75-C

1400 S75-25
1800
Axial Load (kN)

1200 S75-35 S150-25

1600
1000 S75-25
1400
800

Axial Load (kN)

1200 G150-25
600 G75-25
1000
400
800
200
600
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 400
Axial Deformaon (mm) 200

(b) S75 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
1800 Axial Deformaon (mm)
G150-C
1600
Fig. 11. Axial load-axial deformation curve for 25 mm eccentric loading.
1400 G150-25
Axial Load (kN)

1200 G150-45
1000 1800
800 1600 S150-45
600 1400 S75-35
400 G150-45
Axial Load (kN)

1200
200 G75-35
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 800
Axial Deformaon (mm) 600
400
(c) G150
200
1800
0
1600 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

1400 Axial Deformaon (mm)

Axial Load (kN)

1200 Fig. 12. Axial load-axial deformation curve for 45 and 35 mm eccentric loading.
1000
800
600 G75-C
load of 6.65 mm. Although the column had a lower peak load
400 G75-25 capacity, compared to S150-C, the reduced spacing has increased
200 G75-35 confinement of the concrete core. After the initial spalling of the
0 concrete cover and subsequent decrease in applied load, the col-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
umn experienced slight bending around the weak axis. This caused
Axial Deformaon (mm) deformation of the reinforcement cage into S-shape at the lower
(d) G75 portion of the column. This excessive global bending deformation
can be seen in Fig. 5. Further spalling and crushing of the concrete
Fig. 9. Axial load-axial deformation curves by reinforcement type; (a) S150; (b) was observed at this point.
S75; (c) G150; (d) G75.
102 M. Elchalakani, G. Ma / Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104
3.5. Columns with slight eccentricity
Under a slight eccentric compression, S150-25 recorded a peak
load of 958.97 kN and a corresponding displacement of 4.81 mm
(Fig. 6). The reduced tie spacing in S75-25 resulted in an abnormal
5.57% reduction in the peak load compared to S150-25. The exact
reason for this abnormal behaviour is not known to the authors.
One explanation for this could be the increased tie spacing caused
a separation layer between the concrete cover and concrete core.
This may have led to slight instability of the concrete cover, caus-
ing premature spalling [41]. This issue was compounded by the
smooth surface of the steel ligatures as well as their extreme
regularity.
The GFRP concrete columns, G150-25 and G75-25 had peak
loads comparable to that of the steel reinforced columns. G75-25
recorded a peak load of 917.16 kN and a corresponding vertical dis-
placement of 7.3 mm. G150-25 recorded a peak load of 880.28 kN
and a corresponding vertical displacement of 4.86 mm. Thus G150-
25 recorded 4.19% and 33.4% reductions in the peak load and dis-
placement ductility compared to G75-25.
In GFRP reinforced columns, a reduction in the tie spacing led to
an enhancement in the post-peak plastic behaviour of the columns.
This is evident when comparing the ductility index measured for
the GFRP columns I2 = 1.7 for G150-25 and I2 = 1.75 for G75-25.
This is due to the increased confinement of the concrete core, effec-
tively resisting the expansion of the concrete for a larger axial plas-
tic deformation. In the steel and GFRP columns eccentrically
loaded, failure was initiated due to crushing and spalling of the
concrete in the bottom region of the column.
3.6. Columns with medium and large eccentricities
Under compression at an eccentricity of 35 mm, the 75 mm tie
spaced steel-reinforced concrete column, S75-35 recorded a peak
load of 814.97 kN and a corresponding vertical displacement of
5.01 mm. This peak load was 3.45% higher than the recorded peak
load for G75-35 (Fig. 7). The S75-35 column failed due to concrete
spalling and crushing of the concrete cover. This caused a minor
imbalance of the steel plate, causing slippage of the column. This
meant that the post peak performance of this column was not
investigated fully. The G75-35 experienced a full length spalling
of the concrete cover, starting at the base of the column and mov-
ing upwards. This spalling occurred just after the peak load was
reached. Tension cracking was observed on the tension face of
the column before the collapse of the column.
As expected, both columns tested under large eccentric com-
pression recorded peak loads less than those found under slight
and medium eccentricities. G150-45 recorded a peak load of
584.21 kN, with a corresponding vertical displacement of
5.67 mm. S150-45 was found to have 3.08% reduction in the peak
load compared to G150-45 (Fig. 7). As explained previously, failure
in both columns was found to be a result of the sudden concrete
spalling at the base of the columns and the resulting slippage. At
this eccentricity, the force is applied to a point on the column that
lies outside the concrete core. Sudden spalling of the concrete
cover is expected due to such large bending in the column. Due
to the change in testing method, the effect of tie spacing was not
fully investigated for this particular part of the study.
3.7. Beam behaviour
Fig. 13 outlines the flexural specimen behaviour. Flexural duc-
tility was calculated using the ductility index I1 [32,33] as per Eq.
(2). Axial load is replaced by the lateral load and the axial deflec-
tion is replaced by mid-span deflection [42]. The moment capacity
of G150-F was slightly larger than that of S150-F, however the
200
180
160
140
Load (kN)
120
100
80
S150-F
60
S75-F
40 G150-F
20 G75-F
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mid-span Deflecon (mm)
Fig. 13. Load-mid span deflection curves for flexure specimens.
moment capacity of G75-F was far greater than that of S75-F. Both
GFRP RC beam specimens produced second load peaks in excess of
their first ultimate peaks. Therefore, the ductility of the GFRP RC
beam specimens was greater than that for the steel RC beam spec-
imens. For example, the measured ductility index I1 = 4.3 for G75-F
and I1 = 3.9 for S75-F. Thus, it may be concluded that the GFRP RC
beams are more ductile compared to the steel RC beams because
they absorb more energy through their ability of larger plastic
deformation in the post-peak collapse region.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
4.1. Conclusions
The use of GFRP reinforcement as an alternative to steel is not a
new concept, however relatively few studies on the axial capacity
of GFRP RC columns under different load combinations have been
carried out. New methods for calculating axial capacities and beha-
viour are required. In this experimental study, 17 rectangular RC
specimens were tested under various axial and flexural load com-
binations. GFRP RC columns with 150 mm and 75 mm ligature
spacing were tested to failure, and their axial behaviour and load
carrying capacities were compared to equivalent steel RC columns.
The following conclusions are based on the experimental results
documented in this paper.
It was found that, the average axial load carrying capacity of the
GFRP RC columns was 93.5% of their steel RC column counterparts.
The GFRP RC columns under concentric load exhibited 3.2% aver-
age increase in the load carrying capacity, with respect to plain
concrete section capacity, whereas the steel ones achieved an aver-
age enhancement of 15.8%. It is worth noting that the 3.2% load
carrying capacity enhance can be a lower value than the measure-
ment error, however the authors acknowledge that such error is
insignificant but they cannot scientifically quantify the amount
of such error. This may lead to the conclusion that GFRP may have
not contributed to the ultimate load capacity of the columns exam-
ined in this experimental program. This may have resulted from
the relatively larger spacing between the stirrups used in this
study which have caused local buckling of the GFRP longitudinal
bars. In the future it is recommended to use smaller spacing to
avoid this failure mode.
It is worth noting that the choice of different concrete cover
dimension between steel or GFRP reinforced columns is favourable
for the GFRP ones. In compression, the core area of the concrete for
steel RC columns is smaller, this will results in small load capaci-
tates capacity for concentrically loaded steel RC columns. In ten-
sion, the tensile force in the GFRP reinforcement will be higher
because it is further away from the neutral axis location. This will
 M. Elchalakani, G. Ma / Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104
result in small load capacities capacity for eccentrically loaded
steel RC columns.
The most important finding of the present study is that the
GFRP RC columns and beams were found more ductile compared
to their steel reinforced counterparts because they absorb more
energy through their ability of well deforming in the post-peak col-
lapse region. It was also shown the strain ductility of the GFRP
reinforced members are much larger the steel RC columns.
Replacing steel reinforcement with equivalent amounts of GFRP
rebars and ligatures leads to an overall reduction in axial capacity.
Axial capacity is further reduced by increased load eccentricity.
Load carrying capacity and ductility of GFRP RC columns increases
when ligature spacing is reduced from 150 mm to 75 mm. GFRP
reinforced columns utilising the reduced need for concrete cover
can achieve greater ductility than equivalent steel RC columns.
Excluding the strength and stiffness of GFRP reinforcement from
concrete compression calculations is conservative.
4.2. Recommendations for future research
Bending moments can significantly reduce the ultimate capac-
ity of compression members, because non-uniform stress distribu-
tions result in higher peak stresses than pure compression loading.
Eccentrically loaded columns are also susceptible to buckling since
the bending moments produced cause lateral deflection of com-
pression members. GFRP’s low elastic modulus makes it especially
susceptible to buckling. Thus, lateral restraint of longitudinal
rebars is critical for eccentrically loaded GFRP RC columns. It is rec-
ommended in the future to further reduce the spacing between the
ligatures to 40–50 mm.
The relationship between transverse reinforcement and ductil-
ity is different for GFRP and steel specimens. Considering the
25 mm eccentricity loading case in this study, G75-25 was the
most ductile specimen, followed by G150-25. This supports the
above conclusion that the reduced ligature spacing leads to an
increase in ductility of GFRP RC columns. The steel specimens how-
ever did not follow this trend. On a number of occasions, the S75
columns performed worse than the S150 columns in terms of axial
capacity and ductility. Since the confined area of the steel RC col-
umns is much smaller than that of the GFRP, perhaps additional
ligatures do not affect the capacity in the same way. Thus, more
test for the steel RC columns with slight to large eccentricity are
required.
The common failure mode for the S75 columns was often global
buckling. It is unclear to the authors why such columns had smal-
ler peak loads compared to the S150 columns. Perhaps rather than
helping to confine the core, the additional steel ligatures simply
bind the longitudinal rebars together forcing them to fail together.
Another difference between the G75 and S75 columns is the
form of the ligatures. The GFRP ligatures have substantially more
bulk than the steel ligatures. Furthermore, the GFRP ligatures are
coated with a rough sand layer whereas the steel ligatures are
completely smooth. This could certainly have an effect on the liga-
ture confining behaviour, and may well warrant additional
research.
A study of alternative transverse reinforcement options is also
recommended. Although GFRP ligatures perform well, potential
delays due to manufacturing are a factor. A composite material
that can be bent or manipulated on-site could potentially find
more use. Investigation should include axial ductility of GFRP
and steel RC columns in relation to confinement area, transverse
reinforcement and column slenderness. A mechanics model to pre-
dict the capacity of rectangular GFRP RC columns has been recently
derived by the authors and presented in [46].
It was noted early that the choice of different concrete cover
dimension between steel or GFRP reinforced columns is favourable
103
for the GFRP ones. In the future, steel and GFRP RC columns rein-
forced having the same cover will be examined.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the funds received from Australian
Research Council – Australia. The contribution made by Airey Tay-
lor Consulting was vital to the success of this project. Thank you
especially to Mr. Peter Airey and Mr. Joel Brown. Thanks are given
to Pultrall in Canada and V-Rod in Australia for their help and sup-
port. The assistance provided by Mr. Jim Waters was invaluable.
Thanks are also given to Brad Rose and Matt Arpin for your help
with the many practical aspects of this project.
References
[1] Alsayed S, Al-Salloum Y, Almusallam T, Amjad M. Concrete columns reinforced
by glass fiber reinforced polymer rods. In: Proc., 4th int. symp. on fiber-
reinforced polymer reinforcement for reinforced concrete structures, SP-188,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI; 1999. p. 103–112.
[2] De Luca A. Behavior of full-scale reinforced concrete members with external
confinement or internal composite reinforcement under pure axial load. Ph.D.
dissertation, Univ. of Miami, Coral Gables, FL; 2009.
[3] De Luca A, Matta F, Nanni A. Behavior of full-scale glass fiber-reinforced
polymer reinforced concrete columns under axial load. ACI Struct J 2010;107
(5):589–96.
[4] Elchalakani M, Al Raisi A, Spitz C. GFRP Rebars - A comparative Study. In: First
middle east conference on smart monitoring, assessment and rehabilitation of
civil structures, 8–10 February, Dubai, UAE, Empa publications, Zurich,
Switzerland; 2011.
[5] Tobbi H, Farghaly AS, Benmokrane B. Behavior of concentrically loaded fiber-
reinforced polymer reinforced concrete columns with varying reinforcement
types and ratios. ACI Struct J 2014;111(2):14736.
[6] Pantelides CP, Gibbons ME, Reaveley LD. Axial load behavior of concrete
columns confined with GFRP spirals. J Compos Constr 2013. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000357, 305-313.
[7] Afifi MZ. Behavior of circular concrete columns reinforced with FRP bars and
stirrups. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Sherbrooke, 611 Sherbrooke, Canada;
2013.
[8] Afifi MZ, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B. Axial capacity of circular concrete
columns reinforced with GFRP bars and spirals. J Compos Constr 2014. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000438, 04013017.
[9] Afifi MZ, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B. Strength and axial behavior of circular
concrete columns reinforced with CFRP bars and spirals. J Compos Constr 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000430, 04013035.
[10] Mohamed HM, Afifi MZ, Benmokrane B. Performance evaluation of concrete
columns reinforced longitudinally with FRP bars and confined with FRP hoops
and spirals under axial load. J Bridge Eng, ASCE 2014;19(7):1–11.
[11] Maranan GB, Manalo AC, Benmokrane B, Karunasena W, Medis P. Behaviour of
concentrically loaded geopolymer-concrete circular columns reinforced
longitudinally and transversely with GFRP bars. Eng Struct 2016;117:422–36.
[12] Farghaly A, Tobbi H, Benmokrane B. Concrete Columns Reinforced
Longitudinally and Transversely by GFRP Bars. Research Report, The
University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; 2012.
[13] Liu J, Sheikh AS. Fiber-reinforced polymer confined circular columns under
simulated seismic loads. ACI Struct J 2013;110(69). 941-651.
[14] ACI (American Concrete Institute). Guide for the design and construction of
concrete reinforced with FRP bars. ACI 440.1R-15, Farmington Hills, MI; 2015.
[15] CSA (Canadian Standards Association). Design and construction of building
structures with fibre reinforced polymers. CAN/CSA S806-12, Rexdale, ON;
2012.
[16] TR 55-2012: Design Guidance for Strengthening Concrete Structures Using
Fibre Composite Materials, the Concrete Society, London, UK.
[17] ISO 10406-1:2015 (International Standard). Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP)
reinforcement of concrete: Test methods: Part 1: FRP bars and grids,
Switzerland; 2015.
[18] Fib. FRP Reinforcement in RC Structures, fib Bulletin 40, fib Task Group 9.3: FRP
(Fibre reinforced polymer) reinforcement for concrete, structures, the
international federation for structural concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland; 2007.
[19] Deitz D, Harik I, Gesund H. Physical properties of glass fiber reinforced
polymer rebars in compression. J Compos Constr 2003. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003) 7:4(363), 363-366.
[20] Bedard C. Composite reinforcing bars: assessing their use in construction. ACI
Concr Int 1992;11(1):55–9.
[21] Chaallal O, Benmokrane B. Physical and mechanical performance of an
innovative glass-fibre-reinforced plastic rod. Can J Civ Eng 1993;20(2):254–68.
[22] Tobbi H, Farghaly AS, Benmokrane B. Concrete columns reinforced
longitudinally and transversally with glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars.
ACI Struct J 2012;109(4):551–8.
104 M. Elchalakani, G. Ma / Engineering Structures 151 (2017) 93–104
[23] Nunes F, Correia M, Correia J, Silvestre N, Moreira A. Experimental and
numerical study on the structural behaviour of eccentrically loaded GFRP
columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2013;72(1):175–87.
[24] Brown J. The Study of FRP Strengthening of Concrete Structures to Increase the
Serviceable Design Life in Corrosive Environments. Research Report, University
of Western Australia; 2012.
[25] Amer A, Arockiasamy M, Shahawy M. Ultimate strength of eccentrically loaded
concrete columns reinforced with CFRP bars. In: Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on
Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, ACMBS-II, Montréal;
1996. p. 209–216. 9627.
[26] Mirmiran A, Yuan W, Chen X. Design for slenderness in concrete columns
internally reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer bars. ACI Struct J 2001;98
(1):116–25. 688.
[27] Choo CC, Harik IE, Gesund H. Strength of rectangular concrete columns
reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer bars. ACI Struct J 2006;103(3):452–9.
[28] Deiveegan A, Kumaran G. Experimental and reliability studies on the
behaviour of concrete columns reinforced internally with glass fibre
reinforced polymer reinforcements. J Struct Eng 2011;38(5):457–75.
[29] Choo CC, Harik IE, Gesund H. Minimum reinforcement ratio for fiber-
reinforced polymer reinforced concrete rectangular columns. ACI Struct J
2006;103(3):460–6.
[30] Zadeh HJ, Nanni A. Design of RC columns using glass FRP reinforcement. J
Compos Constr, ASCE 2013;17(3):294–304.
[31] ISIS Canada. Reinforcing concrete structures with fibre reinforced polymers;
2007. <http://www.isiscanada.com> [accessed 12 October 2016].
[32] Hadi M, Youssef J. Experimental investigation of GFRP-reinforced and GFRP-
encased square concrete specimens under axial and eccentric load, and four-
point bending test. J Compos Constr 2016. February 2016.
[33] Hadi M, Karim H, Sheikh N. Experimental investigations on circular concrete
columns reinforced with GFRP bars and helices under different loading
conditions. J Compos or Constr 2016. January 2016.
[34] AS (Australian Standard). Concrete Structures. AS 3600-2009, Sydney, NSW;
2009. 629.
[35] ASTM. D7205M-11. Standard test method for tensile properties of fiber
reinforced polymer matrix composite bars. ASTM D7205/D7205M-11, West
Conshohocken, PA; 2011. 632.
[36] Pultrall. V-Rod Specification: composite reinforcing rods technical data
sheet. Canada: Thetford Mines; 2012.
[37] AS (Australian Standard). Steel reinforcing material. AS/NZS 4671-2001,
Sydney, NSW; 2001. 629.
[38] AS (Australian Standard). Methods for testing concrete-determination of the
modulus of rupture. AS 1012.11-1991, Sydney, NSW; 1991. 629.
[39] AS (Australian Standard). Methods for testing concrete-determination of
concrete compressive strength. AS 1012.9-1991, Sydney, NSW; 1991. 629.
[40] Sheikh MN, Légeron F. Performance based seismic assessment of bridges
designed according to Canadian highway bridge design code. Can J Civ Eng
2014;41(9):777–87.
[41] Razvi SR, Saatcioglu M. Strength and deformability of confined high-strength
concrete columns. ACI Struct J 1994;91(6):678–87.
[42] Mohamed HM, Masmoudi R. Flexural strength and behavior of steel and FRP-
reinforced concrete-filled FRP tube beams. Eng Struct 2010;32(11):3789–800.
[43] Rousakis TC. Reusable and recyclable nonbonded composite tapes and ropes
for concrete columns confinement. Compos Part B: Eng 2016;103:15–22.
[44] Rousakis TC, Tourtouras IS. Modelling of passive and active external
confinement of RC columns with elastic material. ZAMM J, by Wiley-VCH
Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. 95(10); 2015: 1046–1057.
[45] Rousakis TC, Tourtouras IS. RC columns of square section – passive and active
confinement with composite ropes. Elsevier, J Compos Part B: Eng
2014;58:573–81.
[46] Elchalakani M, Aslani F, Guowei M, Wenhui D. Design of GFRP reinforced
concrete columns. Mag Concr Res 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
jmacr.16.00437.