See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315386367

ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE CONTRIBUTION IN THE SHEAR STRENGTH OF

BEAMS REINFORCED WITH FRP / STEEL BARS WITHOUT STIRRUPS

Conference Paper · November 2016

CITATIONS READS

4 264

2 authors:

Renata Kotynia Monika Kaszubska

Lodz University of Technology Lodz University of Technology
65 PUBLICATIONS   334 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Flexural strengthening of RC structures with T-shaped CFRP profiles. View project

Structural Health Monitoring in Sustainability of Civil Engineering Infrastructure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Renata Kotynia on 20 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE CONTRIBUTION IN THE SHEAR STRENGTH OF BEAMS
REINFORCED WITH FRP / STEEL BARS WITHOUT STIRRUPS

Renata Kotynia, Associate Professor, Lodz University of Technology, Poland

Monika Kaszubska, PhD, Lodz University of Technology, Poland

ABSTRACT
The main aim of the paper is to investigate the influence of different parameters on the shear capacity
of the beams with variable longitudinal reinforcement made of steel or fibre reinforced polymer (FRP)
bars. The authors collected a wide database of tests on concrete beams, reinforced with various
longitudinal reinforcement made of steel, AFRP, GFRP, CFRP without stirrups.The influence of
several parameters: concrete strength, longitudinal FRP reinforcement ratio, shear span to depth (a/d),
beam's cross-section on the shear strength is discussed in the paper.

Keywords: shear strength, longitudinal FRP reinforcement, concrete beams, failure, shear strength

1. Introduction

Shear in the support regions of reinforced concrete (RC) beams is a complex problem intensively
investigated all over the world. It is due to combination of the shear force and the bending moment in
the support regions of RC beams. Although the steel reinforced concrete beams are very common in
engineering practice, the concrete contribution to the shear strength still based on analytical formulas
considered only in the beams without the shear reinforcement. Whereas the concrete shear contribution
is not taken into account in the shear strength of steel RC beams with the transversal reinforcement. The
problem of shear concrete contribution is more complicated, when the longitudinal reinforcement is
made of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP), which in opposite to steel is an anisotropic material. Recently
this non-metallic reinforcement has gained a wide acceptance, due to its good durability resistance, high
strength–to-weight ratio, good fatigue and non-magnetic properties. However, the FRP bars indicate
mechanical properties different from the steel ones, including high tensile strength combined with elastic
modulus lower than steel and a linear elastic stress-strain characteristic up to failure. Shear strength
depends on many factors: shear span to depth ratio, effective depth, reinforcement ratio, concrete
compressive strength and type of reinforcement. A lively discussion on mechanisms of the shear failure
based mainly on three main mechanisms describing the shear force transfer in a cracked concrete (due
to shear stress in the uncracked concrete region, aggregate interlock action of the crack faces and a dowel
action caused by the longitudinal reinforcement).

2. State of the art of the test data base

To analyze variable parameters on the shear strength of concrete beams reinforced with longitudinal
FRP / or steel reinforcement without transversal stirrups a wide test data base consisting of 216
rectangular beams has been collected by the authors from available literature selected in references of
the paper. Four types of reinforcement were used in the collected tests: GFRP (84 beams), CFRP (98
beams), AFRP (9 beams) and steel (25 beams). Variety of test parameters based on : the scale effect
(h), shear span to depth ratio (a/d), longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρ), its modulus of elasticity (Ef or
Es) and concrete strength (fc) (see Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of experimental test database

2a. Shear span to depth ratio
Shear span to depth ratio (a/d) is a primary parameter significantly effecting the shear strength in the
beams with concentrated loads. A limit value of a/d=2,5 is recommended to avoid the arch effect on
the shear strength. Razaqpur et al. 2010 and Omeman et al. 2008 noted that RC beams without stirrups
with a/d>3 fail in an abrupt manner, quickly after formation of a diagonal shear crack, while beams
with a/d<2,5, the shear strength increases due to the arch effect. Test results indicating a decrease in
the shear capacity with increase in a/d (for constant remain parameters) are shown in Fig.1a, while the

normalized shear strength ( / ) is inversely proportional to the parameter ( ) (Fig. 1b). 

Fig. 1. Effect of a/d on the shear capacity

2b. Longitudinal reinforcement ratio

An influence of the reinforcement ratio (ρ) on the shear capacity has been investigated in a mount of
tests. Most of research indicated the increase in the shear capacity with increase in the reinforcement
ratio. Only few of them maintained that this influence is negligible (Yost et al. 2001, Zhao et al. 1995).

Fig. 2a. Effect of reinforcement ratio on the shear normalized strength (a/d≤2,5)
A detailed analysis of the variable parameters on the shear strength is more complex if a number of
parameters increases. Hence in order to make an analysis more clear the authors proposed to divide the
test data into smaller groups with similar ranges of these parameters. The main division referred to: span
to depth ratio (a/d), then an effective depth (d) was considered and the final parameter was the concrete
strength (fc). An effect of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio on the normalized shear strength
calculated as / , is shown in Fig. 2a, 2b (where Vtest is the ultimate shear force; bw and d
are a width and depth of the beam and fc is the concrete compressive strength.

In order to analyse an effect of a type of the reinforcement: CFRP – carbon, GFRP glass and AFRP
aramid / or ordinary steel reinforcement, test results shown in Fig. 2a, 2b are divided into three types of
materials. Normalized shear strength increase in the beams with a/d≤2,5 is less susceptible to changes
of the reinforcement ratio than changes of the beams with a/d>2,5. The most cases show that all type of
the reinforcement give similar results. A distinct dominance of the steel reinforcement is visible for the
beams with a/d>2,5; 250≤d≤400; fc>40MPa.

Research by Razaqpur et al. 2011 and Alamet al. 2013 confirmed an influence of the reinforcement
ration on the crack pattern along the shear region. Many researchers noted a significant influence of the
reinforcement ratio on the beams stiffness after cracking (El-Sayed at al. 2006, Olivito at al. 2010).

Fig. 2b. Effect of reinforcement ratio on the shear normalized strength (a/d>2,5)
3. Modulus of elasticity
Modulus of elasticity (E) of longitudinal reinforcement is one of the most significant parameter effecting
the stiffness of the RC member. The collected test data base contains concrete beams reinforced with
bars made of GFRP (E=35-42GPa), CFRP (E=115-140MPa), AFRP (E=47,1-80,7MPa) and steel
(E=200-207MPa). Many research confirmed that for the beams reinforced with the same cross-section
area of longitudinal reinforcement, the highest shear capacity indicated the beams reinforced with the
highest elasticity modulus reinforcement (Guadagnini et al. 2006). This effect is clearly visible in Fig.
2. El-Sayed et al. 2006 proposed a factor ( / ) to reduce the axial stiffness of the FRP reinforced
(with elasticity modulus Ef) to that made of steel (with elasticity modulus Es). Omeman et al. 2008
indicated that lower Ef caused higher increase in the crack width and milder shear failure than in case
with the higher Es reinforcement.

4. Axial stiffness of reinforcement

Many research analysed an axial stiffness of the reinforcement instead of the reinforcement ratio that is
reasonable if the reinforcement is made of the variable materials with different elasticity modulus. Then
both parameters (ρ and E) could not be separated. Test results clearly indicate that the axial stiffness of
the longitudinal reinforcement effects the shear capacity mainly for the axial stiffness ρE≤1,0 GPa, while
further increase in this parameter ρE> 1,0 GPa, does not affect a considerable change in the normalized
shear strength. The short beams with a/d ≤ 2,5 are more susceptible to changes of ρE than beams with
a/d> 2,5 (see Fig. 3 and 4 ). Alam and Hussein, 2013 noted that normalized tensile strength is linearly
/
proportional to the axial stiffness parameter .

Fig. 3. Relationship of normalized shear strength and axial stiffness of reinforcement (for a/d≤2,5)

5. Concrete compressive strength

Concrete compressive strength is an important parameter affecting shear strength of concrete beams of
without stirrups. Research by El-Sayed et al. 2006 indicated significant effect of the compressive
concrete strength on the shear capacity and the beams deformations.
6. Effective depth
Most of researches proved an effect of the reinforcement depth on the cracking load and the crack
spacing. Omeman et al. 2008 indicated an influence of the effective depth on the failure rate, which is
more brittle and abrupt in the beams reinforced with bars made of higher elasticity modulus. Alam and
Hussein, 2013 noticed that crack spacing in the pure bending region increased proportionally to the
effective depth and the average crack spacing was 0,5d.

Fig. 4. Relationship of normalized shear strength and axial stiffness of reinforcement (for a/d>2,5)

7. Design procedures
Several published procedures for the shear strength prediction of the FRP reinforced beams without
shear reinforcement are summarized in Table 2. Comparison of calculated and test values of the shear
strength (Vtest/Vcal) (without safety factors) are presented in Fig. 5a,5b. Verification of the proposed
equations confirmed that the proposed guidelines give quite often safe results in comparison to the
experimental ones and the most accurate cases present Vtest/Vcal =1,0, while Vtest/Vcal<<1,0 show unsafe
results, while Vtest/Vcal >>1 present conservative and uneconomic design procedures. It can be noticed
that JSCE and ACI are opposite procedures for slender beams (Fig. 5a). Generally, Japanese procedure
gives higher predictions than the test results. However, ACI procedure gives conservative results in
almost all cases. The best fit to the experimental results shows the European guideline (CEN). The arch
effect due to a/d ≤ 2,5 gives the predicted results more scattered than there is in slender beams. The
most unsafe of all procedures seems to be JSCE and the results are the most scattered. The JSCE
standard doesn't consider any transmission of a part of the load directly to the support. This effect
considers only CEN guideline, by introduction β factor corresponding to the arch effect in the short
beams (a/d ≤ 2,5). For FRP reinforcement CENII proposes to change , factor from 0,18 (for steel)
to 0,135 (for FRP reinforcement) that makes this procedure more conservative. The CENII design
procedure gives the smallest discrepancy of the test results.
 Table 2. Design procedures

Design procedure- FRP Calculations

Japan Society of Civil Engineers , ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
(JSCE). Recommendation for 1
design and 0,2 ∗ 3 0,72 2
construction of concrete
JSCE

structures using continuous fiber
reinforcing
materials, concrete engineering
series no. 23; 1997. p. 325. 1
1 1
1000 4 3
1,5; 1000 ∗ 1,5

ACI Committee 440. Guide for 2

, ∗ ∗ ∗
the design construction of 5
concrete reinforced with FRP
ACI

2∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
bars. ACI440.1R-06.
Farmignton Hills: American
Concrete Institute;2006. p. 41. ; ; 69
1/3
, , ∗ 100 ∗ ∗ ,
CEN (Eurokod 2)

CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1/TG 1 200

N 28 ∗ ; 1 2,0
Draft for including FRP
reinforcement in EN 1992-1-1 0,035 3 1 0,18 0,18
∗ 2 ∗ 2 ; , , ∗ 0,75
(March 2014) 1 1 1
,
0,5 2→ ; /2

concrete compressive strength; longitudinal reinforcement ratio; effective depth

modulus of elasticity FRP; modulus of elasticity steel

Fig. 5a. Comparison of calculated and test values of shear strength acc. JSCE and ACI
 Fig. 5b. Comparison of calculated and test values of shear strength acc. CEN (Eurocode)

For better comparison of the test and calculated results of the statistical comparison with the minimum,
maximum and average values of / , standard deviation and coefficient is shown in Table
3. To introduce the shear span to depth effect (arch effect), the results have been divided into two groups
with a/d ≤ 2,5 and a/d > 2,5 (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of design procedures

JSCE BS ACI CEN CENII CNR

η =Vtest/Vcalc
a/d≤2,5 a/d>2,5 a/d≤2,5 a/d>2,5 a/d≤2,5 a/d>2,5 a/d≤2,5 a/d>2,5 a/d≤2,5 a/d>2,5 a/d≤2,5 a/d>2,5
η average 1,46 0,72 3,29 1,28 4,26 1,87 2,02 1,09 2,58 1,35 1,94 0,92
η min 0,48 0,39 0,96 0,83 1,32 1,18 0,84 0,67 1,12 0,68 0,64 0,38
η max 3,38 1,71 11,84 2,47 10,41 3,55 3,91 2,19 5,08 2,92 4,14 2,06
ση 0,82 0,28 2,67 0,32 2,56 0,46 0,94 0,27 1,22 0,40 1,12 0,32
COV η 0,56 0,39 0,81 0,25 0,60 0,25 0,46 0,25 0,47 0,30 0,58 0,34

8. Conclusions
Analysis of variable parameters on the shear strength of concrete beams reinforced with longitudinal
reinforcement (FRP or steel) without stirrups confirmed a significant effect of the shear span to depth
ratio (a/d) on the concrete shear contribution. In order to analysed a dowel action effect due to the
longitudinal reinforcement, the authors recommend to consider the axial stiffness of the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio (ρE) instead of the only reinforcement ratio (ρ). Comparison of three existing design
procedures indicated the best predictions of the concrete strength proposed by CEN (Eurokod 2), while
the JSCE guideline gives the most unsafe predictions in opposite to the ACI code that is too conservative.

References
M. Alam i A. Hussein, „Effect of Member Depth on Shear Strength of High-Strength Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer–Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Journal of Composites, vol. 16 (2), pp 119-126, 2012
M. Alam i A. Hussein, „Size Effect on Shear Strength of FRP Reinforced Concrete Beams without
Stirrups,” Journal of Composites for, vol. 17(4), pp 507-516, 2013
 A. Ashour, „Flexural and shear capacities of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars,”
Construction and Building Materials, nr 20, pp. 1005-1015, 2006.
A. Ashour i I. Kara, „Shear Capacity of FRP Reinforced Concrete Beams,” w FRPRCS-11,
Guimarães, 2013.

E. C. Bentz, L. Massam, M. P. Collins i M. ASCE, „Shear Strength of Large Concrete Members with
FRP Reinforcement,” Journal of Composites for Construction, tom 14, nr 6, pp. 637-646, 2010.
A. K. El-Sayed, E. F. El-Salakawy and B. Benmokrane, „Shear Capacity of High-Strength Concrete
Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 103 (3), pp 383-389, 2006.
A. G. Razaqpur, B. O. Isgor,, S. Greenaway i A. Selley, „Concrete Contribution to the Shear Resistance
of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members,” Journal of Composites for
Construction, vol. 8 (5), pp 452-460, 2004.
M. Guadagnini, K. Pilakoutas i P. Waldron, „Shear Resistance of FRP RC Beams: Experimental Study,”
Journal of Composites for Construction, vol. 10 (6), pp 464-473, 2006.
F. Matta, A. Nanni, T. Hernandez i B. Benmokrane, „Scaling of strength of FRP reinforced concrete
beams without shear reinforcement,” w Fourth International Conference on FRP Composites in
Civil Engineering (CICE2008), Zurich, 2008.
R. Olivito i F. Zuccarello, „On the Shear Behaviour of Concrete Beams Reinforced by Carbon Fibre-
Reinforced PolymerBars: An Experimental Investigation by Means of Acoustic Emission
Technique Strain”, vol. 46, pp 470-481, 2010.
A. G. Razaqpur, M. Shedid i B. Isg, „Shear Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete
Beams Subject to Unsymmetric Loading”, Journal of Composites for Construction, vol. 15(4), pp
500-512, 2011.
J. R. Yost, S. P. Gross, D. W. Dinehart i Associate Members, ASCE, „Shear Strength Of Normal
Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced With Deformed GFRP Bars,” Journal of Composites for
Construction, vol. 5(4), pp. 268-275, 2001.
Z. Omeman, M. Nehdi, and H. El-Chabib, “Experimental study on shear behavior of carbonfiber
reinforced polymer reinforced concrete short beams without web reinforcement”, Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 35, pp 1-10, 2008
ACI Committee 440. “Guide for the design construction of concrete reinforced”, ACI.
CEN-TC250-SC2-WG1-TG1 N0028 “Draft Reinforcing With FRP”, 2014. 
JSCE “Recommendation for design and construction of concrete structures using continuums fiber
reinforcing materials”, Concrete Engineering Series no.23, 1997.

View publication stats