Materials and Design 65 (2015) 831–839

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Finite element modeling of reinforced concrete beams with a hybrid

combination of steel and aramid reinforcement
R.A. Hawileh ⇑
Department of Civil Engineering, American University of Sharjah, P.O. Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

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

Article history: Corrosion of steel bars has an adverse effect on the life-span of reinforced concrete (RC) members and is
Received 23 June 2014 usually associated with crack development in RC beams. Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars have been
Accepted 1 October 2014 recently used to reinforce concrete members in flexure due to their high tensile strength and superior
Available online 13 October 2014
corrosion resistance properties. However, FRP materials are brittle in nature, thus RC beams reinforced
with such materials would exhibit a less ductile behavior when compared to similar members reinforced
Keywords: with conventional steel reinforcement. Recently, researchers investigated the performance of concrete
Aramid fiber
beams reinforced with a hybrid combination of steel and Aramid Fiber Reinforced Polymer (AFRP) rein-
Carbon fiber
Glass fiber
forcement to maintain a reasonable level of ductility in such members. The function of the AFRP bars is to
Reinforced concrete increase the load-carrying capacity, while the function of the steel bars is to ensure ductility of the flex-
Finite element analysis ural member upon yielding in tension. This paper presents a three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE)
model that predicted the load versus mid-span deflection response of tested RC beams conducted by
other researchers with a hybrid combination of steel and AFRP bars. The developed FE models account
for the constituent material nonlinearities and bond–slip behavior between the reinforcing bars and adja-
cent concrete surfaces. It was concluded that the developed models can accurately capture the behavior
and predicts the load-carrying capacity of such RC members. In addition, a parametric study is conducted
using the validated models to investigate the effect of AFRP bar size, FRP material type, bond–slip action,
and concrete compressive strength on the performance of concrete beams when reinforced with a hybrid
combination of steel and AFRP bars.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction investigated the performance of concrete beams reinforced with

It has been well established that fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)
materials are considered as smart alternatives to steel reinforce-
ments in concrete structures, especially in aggressive environ-
ments, due to their high strength to weight ratio and non-
corrodible nature [1–4]. In addition, it has been well documented
that corrosion of steel reinforcement is one of the main causes of
failure of reinforced concrete (RC) members [5]. The development
of concrete cracks during the life span of a structure would
increase the chances of corroding the internal steel reinforce-
ments; hence jeopardizing the integrity of the structural members
[1]. Although regular inspection and maintenance would enhance
the overall state of a given structure, still they tend to increase
the long term costs and efforts. Similarly, using thicker concrete
covers, and improving the concrete quality would tend to delay
corrosion of steel reinforcement. In recent years, researchers
⇑ Tel.: +971 6 515 2496; fax: +971 6 515 2979.
E-mail address: rhaweeleh@aus.edu
fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars due to their high strength to
weight ratio and superior corrosion resistance properties [6–13].
Despite the aforementioned advantages of the FRP materials,
they are brittle in nature and thus lack ductility. Experimental tests
has shown that RC structural members reinforced with FRP bars
exhibit less ductility [3,14–16] compared to similar members
reinforced with the conventional steel reinforcement. In addition,
concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars tend to experience larger
deflections and wider cracks compared to that with steel reinforce-
ment. In order to increase the ductility of RC beams, researchers
have experimentally investigated the use of a hybrid combination
of steel and FRP reinforcement. The addition of steel reinforcement
would compensate for the brittleness nature of the FRP materials
[17]. The use of such hybrid internal reinforcement is considered
to be one of the current state of the art techniques that attracted
many designers recently. The high tensile strength of FRP bars pro-
vide strength and enhance the ultimate load-carrying capacity of
the member, while the steel reinforcement if designed properly
would ensure ductility of the RC flexural member upon yielding

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.004
0261-3069/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
832 R.A. Hawileh / Materials and Design 65 (2015) 831–839
when loaded [18]. In addition, tests has shown that deformations
of concrete beams reinforced with a hybrid combination of steel
and FRP bars are less than those obtained from FRP-RC beams [1].
Aiello and Ombres [2] experimentally investigated the flexural
performance of concrete beams reinforced with a hybrid combina-
tion of AFRP and steel bars. The variables of the experimental pro-
gram were the reinforcement ratio and arrangement of hybrid
reinforcements in one or two layers. The authors concluded that
the use of a hybrid combination of AFRP and steel reinforcement
in reinforcing concrete beams would achieve desirable strength
and ductility limits.
Although several finite element models have been developed to
simulate the behavior of reinforced concrete beams, limited finite
element models had been conducted on simulating the response
of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars [19–23]. In addition,
most of the published studies utilizes carbon fiber polymer (FRP)
products and assumes perfect bonding between the internal rein-
forcement and adjacent concrete material. The motivation in this
study is to develop a finite element (FE) model that can capture
the effect of hybrid steel and AFRP reinforcing bars on the flexural
capacity of RC beams. This paper presents the development of FE
computational models that can accurately predict the response of
concrete beams reinforced with steel, AFRP, and a hybrid combina-
tion of steel and AFRP bars. The developed models are validated by
comparing the predicted and measured experimental data reported
by Aiello and Ombres [2]. The developed FE models accurately cap-
tured the behavior and predicted the load-carrying capacity of the
tested specimens by Aiello and Ombres [2] with a high level of accu-
racy. Furthermore, a parametric study was carried out to investi-
gate the effect of AFRP bar diameter, FRP material type, bond slip
between the reinforcement and concrete surfaces, and concrete
compressive strength on the flexural performance of RC members.
2. Summary of simulated experimental program
Aiello and Ombres [2] tested a total of six RC beam specimens
reinforced in flexure with steel, AFRP and different hybrid combi-
nations of steel and AFRP bars. The tested specimens included a
conventional concrete beam (B1) reinforced with two 12 mm
diameter steel bars, one beam (B2) reinforced solely with two
7.5 mm diameter AFRP bars, and the remaining four beams (A1,
A2, A3, and C1) were reinforced with different configurations of
steel and AFRP bars. The steel and AFRP bars in Group A beams
(A1, A2, and A3) were placed on two different levels with the AFRP
bars at the bottom level. However, the steel and AFRP bars in
Group C (C1) were placed in one layer. The tested beam specimens
have rectangular cross-sectional having a nominal width, depth
and length of 150, 200, and 3000 mm, respectively. The compres-
sion reinforcement of the tested specimens comprised of two
8 mm diameter steel bars. In addition, 8 mm diameter stirrups
were provided with a spacing of 100 mm center-to-center.
Fig. 1 shows the cross section of the tested specimens, rein-
forcement arrangements and loading set-up. In specimens A1,
A2, and A3, the diameter of the steel reinforcement are 8, 8, and
12 mm, while the diameters of the AFRP reinforcement are 7.5,
10, and 10 mm. In specimen C1, the diameter of the steel and AFRP
bars are 8 and 7.5 mm, respectively. The RC beam specimens were
tested under four point bending gradually to failure as shown in
Fig. 1(b). Further details of the experimental program can be found
in the study conducted by Aiello and Ombres [2].
3. Proposed FE model definition
The ANSYS 12.0 [24] FE software is used to develop 3D FE mod-
els of the specimens tested by Aiello and Ombres [2]. The designa-
tion of the tested specimens and the corresponding FE models are
given in Table 1. In order to distinguish between the experimental
specimens and numerical models, the prefix ‘‘FE’’ is added to the
label of the FE models.
The geometry, properties of the constituent materials, static
loading, and boundary conditions in the developed quarter FE
models are similar to the tested specimens. Quarter FE models
are developed based on the symmetry of geometry, material prop-
erties, loading, and boundary conditions of the tested specimens.
The perpendicular direction to each plane of symmetry was
restrained from motion in order to simulate model symmetry
and material properties. The developed FE models shares the same
geometry, loading, boundary conditions, and material properties,
of those tested specimens. Due to the symmetry of the problem,
only one quarter FE model was developed in the finite element
software, ANSYS [24]. Such decision would results in a reduction
in the total number of elements which would lead into saving of
the computational time. Fig. 2 shows a representable developed
discretized model of the tested simply supported beam specimens
along with the loading location and boundary conditions. The fol-
lowing sub-sections will explain in details the model development
in terms of the used element types, constitutive material proper-
ties and bond–slip model.
3.1. Element types description
Several FE element types are used in this study including the
concrete brick SOLID65, bar LINK8, brick SOLID45, and spring
COMBIN14 [24]. The concrete brick SOLID65 element [24] is gener-
ally used to model the nonlinear behavior of concrete. The brick
SOLID65 is an 8 noded element with three translational degrees
of freedom (dof) per node and the element has the capability of
cracking in tension and crushing in compression. The steel and
AFRP bar reinforcement modeled using the 3D ANSYS bar LINK8
[24] elements. The element is defined by two nodes with three
translational dof at each node and is capable of elastic–plastic
deformation. The loading and rigid steel supports are modeled
using the brick SOLID45 [24] elements with elastic steel material
properties to avoid any major stress concentration problems on
the concrete material at those specified locations that will cause
divergence in the solution. The SOLID45 element has the same
properties as that of SOLID65 except for the capability of cracking
in tension and crushing in compression. The longitudinal bond–slip
behavior between the reinforcement bars and surrounding con-
crete are simulated using COMBIN14 [24] spring elements. The
spring element has two nodes with three translational dof per node
and has longitudinal capability in 3D applications. The coincident
nodes of the bar and concrete elements are coupled together in
the other two transverse directions (y and z).
3.2. Material properties
The mechanical properties of the different materials used in the
developed FE models are provided in Table 2 as measured by Aiello
and Ombres [2]. In order to simulate the nonlinear response of the
SOLID65 concrete elements, tensile and compressive stress–strain
relationships should be defined as shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b),
respectively for every concrete element. The employed constitutive
concrete material model is based on the theory of William and
Warnke [25] model which requires the following five input
strength parameters: uniaxial tensile strength (ft), uniaxial
compressive strength (fc0 ), biaxial compressive strength (fcb), com-
pressive strength for a state of biaxial compression superimposed
on hydrostatic stress state (f1), and uniaxial compression superim-
posed on hydrostatic stress state (f2). The adopted values for ft and
fc0 are taken from the obtained experimental data shown in Table 2.
The other three parameters, fcb, f1, and f2 default to William and
 R.A. Hawileh / Materials and Design 65 (2015) 831–839 833

25 mm 25 mm

200
mm
mm
200
25 mm 25 mm
25 mm 25 mm
150 mm 150 mm

A1-A2 A3
25 mm 25 mm

mm
200
mm
200
25 mm 25 mm
150 mm 150 mm
C1 B1-B2
FRP bar Steel bar
(a) Details of the tested specimens

567
1000mm
mm
h = 200 mm

2100 mm

150 mm 150 mm
(b) Loading set-up
Fig. 1. Details of Aiello and Ombres [2] experimental program.

Table 1 in Fig. 3(a). Thus, the behavior of the concrete element in tension
Designation of the tested specimens [2] and corresponding FE models. was modeled as linear elastic up to the concrete tensile strength
Specimen FE model [24,25]. The stress relaxation in tension is represented by a step
A1 FE A1 drop in the concrete tensile stress by 40%, beyond which the curve
A2 FE A2 descends linearly to zero tensile stress at a strain value 6 times
A3 FE A3 larger than strain value at the concrete’s tensile strength [24,25].
B1 FE B1 The William and Warnke [24] model also requires values for the
B2 FE B2
C1 FE C1
open and closed shear coefficients, that were taken as 0.3 and
0.5, respectively [19,21,22].
The concrete nonlinear behavior in compression is simulated
Warnke [25] and were taken as 1.2fc0 , 1.45fc0 , and 1.725fc0 , respec- using the Hognestad [27] parabola as presented in Eq. (1) and
tively. The adopted parameters are within the range used in the shown in Fig. 3(b).
published literature [21,22,26]. In addition, the concrete element "     #
0 e e 2
in tension according to the William and Warnke model [25] will fc ¼ fc 2  ð1Þ
crack and lose stiffness upon reaching its tensile strength as shown
eo eo

Concrete Δ P/4
First Plane of
symmetry
Reinforcement bar

Δ
Steel Support

Second plane
of symmetry

(FE A1) (FE B1) (FE C1)

Section A-A

Fig. 2. Sample representation of developed FE models.

834 R.A. Hawileh / Materials and Design 65 (2015) 831–839

Table 2
Mechanical properties of concrete, steel and AFRP reinforcement.

Material Elastic modulus (GPa) Poisson’s ratio Compressive strength (MPa) Yield strength (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa)
Concrete 31.8 0.2 45.7 – 4.03
Steel bars 200 0.3 – 465 –
AFRP bars (7.5 mm) 49.0 0.28 – – 1674
AFRP bars (10 mm) 50.1 0.28 – – 1366

4.5 The used values of sm and sm for the steel and AFRP reinforce-
4 ment in the developed FE are taken from the literature [28–32]
3.5 and given in Table 3. It should be noted that the given parameters
for the carbon (CFRP) and glass (GFRP) bars will be used in the
Stress fc MPa

3
parametric study section of this paper.
2.5
The longitudinal bond–slip was simulated using the COMBIN14
2
spring elements. The longitudinal stiffness (k) of the spring ele-
1.5 ment is derived based on the work of Nie et al. [33] from the secant
1 of Eq. (3) and given in Eq. (4).
0.5  
p L1 þ L2
0 k¼ pdr Nr su ð4Þ
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 su 2
Strain ε mm/mm where
(a) Tensile stress-strain curve of concrete p is the horizontal distance between the bars, in (mm)
dr the diameter of reinforcing bar, in (mm)
50 Nr the number of reinforcements bars
45 L1 and L2 the lengths of two adjacent bar LINK8 elements, in
40 (mm).
35
Stress fc MPa

30 4. Results and discussion

25
20 Failure is defined in the FE simulations of this study when:
15
10  The concrete compressive strain reaches 0.003 [19–23].
5  Rupture of the FRP reinforcement upon reaching their tensile
0 strength.
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Strain ε mm/mm Failure will generally cause divergence in the FE solution due to
(b) Compressive stress-strain curve of concrete excessive deformations that exceeds the displacement limitations
of the ANSYS software.
Fig. 3. Concrete stress–strain idealized curves. The predicted load–midspan deflection response and load-
carrying capacity of the developed models were compared with
where the results obtained from the experimental tests of Aiello and
fc is the compressive stress in the concrete (MPa) corresponding Ombres [2]. Fig. 4 shows the FE and experimental results for the
to the specified strain, e, six beam specimens. In addition, the predicted and measured
fc0 the concrete compressive strength (MPa). results for the load-carrying capacity and deflection at failure are
0 given in Table 4. It is obvious from Fig. 4 and Table 4 that the
2f c
eo ¼ ð2Þ response of the predicted FE results is in good agreement with
Ec
the experimental data, with a maximum deviation less than 10%.
The nonlinear material behavior of the steel reinforcement was The author developed nonlinear FE models in previous studies
simulated as elastic fully plastic based on the von misses yield cri- [19–23,32] subjected to static and cyclic loading with similar accu-
teria [24], while the AFRP bars were modeled as elastic brittle racy of FRP strengthened structural RC members using different
materials till failure. techniques and configurations. Thus it could be concluded that
the models developed in this study could be used to investigate
3.3. Bond–slip model the performance of concrete beams reinforced with a hybrid
combination of steel and FRP bars with reasonable accuracy. In
The slip between the different types of bar reinforcement and addition, it is apparent from Fig. 4 that in a hybrid steel–FRP
concrete surfaces is simulated using the CEB-FIP [28] bond–slip reinforced concrete beam, the tensile strength of the FRP bars
model as given in Eq. (3).
 0:4 Table 3
s Bond–slip parameters.
s ¼ sm ð3Þ
sm
Material sm (MPa) sm (mm) Reference
where qffiffiffiffiffi
Steel bars 0 0.6 [26]
s is the bond stress at a given slip (s) in (MPa) fc
s the relative slip at a given shear stress in (mm) AFRP bars 10.1 0.33 [27,28]
GFRP bars 10.1 0.33 [27,28]
sm the ultimate bond stress in (MPa) CFRP bars 15.24 0.11 [29,30]
sm the slip corresponding to sm in (mm).
 R.A. Hawileh / Materials and Design 65 (2015) 831–839 835

enhances the load-carrying capacity of the beam specimen after
steel yielding. This agrees with the findings published in the open
literature [1,2,8,9,16–18].
Furthermore, the use of wide range of mechanical properties
from the developed FE models can provide designers and research-
ers with valuable insights into the behavior of concrete beams
reinforced with such hybrid reinforcement. For instance, Fig. 5 dis-
plays the axial tensile stress in the AFRP and steel bars at the onset
of failure for beam specimens A1 and B1, respectively. It is clear
from Fig. 5 that at failure the steel reinforcement bars have yielded
(fy = 465 MPa), while the stress in the AFRP were lower than their
tensile strength (ffu = 1700 MPa). Thus, the beam specimen will fail
in a typical flexural mode similar to what observed in the experi-
mental program [2] by yielding of the steel reinforcement and
crushing of the concrete at the beam’s compression fibers in the
midspan region. Thus, the developed FE models can also predict
the failure mode of concrete beams reinforced with a hybrid com-
bination of steel and AFRP bars.
5. Design oriented parametric studies
As discussed in the preceding sections, little research has been
conducted so far on the performance of AFRP RC flexural members.
Hence, to advance the knowledge in this field and further investi-
gate the effect of different factors in structural response of similar
beams, a parametric study is designed and conducted herein. The
variables of the parametric study are AFRP bar size, FRP reinforce-
ment material type, reinforcement bond–slip action, and concrete
compressive strength. This parametric study uses specimen A1
tested by Aiello and Ombres [2] and validated by the developed
FE model (FE A1) above as a reference specimen.
5.1. AFRP bar size
Four different AFRP bar sizes were used to study the effect of
AFRP reinforcement size on the performance of AFRP RC beams. It
should be noted that tension and compression steel reinforcement

80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
A1 FE A1 A2 FE A2
10 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100

(a) A1 (b) A2

90
60
80
70 50
60 40
50
30
40
30 20
20 A3 FE A3 B1 FE B1
10
10
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 20 40 60 80 100

(c) A3 (d) B1

50 60
45
40 50
35 40
30
25 30
20
15 20
10 B2 FE B2 C1 FE C1
10
5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100

(e) B2 (f) C1
Fig. 4. Predicted versus test results of Aiello and Ombres [2].
836 R.A. Hawileh / Materials and Design 65 (2015) 831–839

Table 4
Experimental and FE results.

Beam specimen FE model Failure load P (kN) % Difference Failure deflection (mm) % Difference
PExp. PFE (PExp./PFE) df,Exp. df,FE (df,Exp./df,FE)
A1 FE A1 59.0 58.7 0.51% 90.0 98.0 8.16%
A2 FE A2 67.0 66.0 1.52% 79.5 81.0 1.85%
A3 FE A3 84.5 83.9 0.72% 161.5 160.0 0.94%
B1 FE B1 48.7 48.0 1.46% 73.0 72.1 1.25%
B2 FE B2 47.4 47.9 1.04% 120.7 118.0 2.29%
C1 FE C1 55.1 56.0 1.61% 87.0 88.6 1.81%

Steel Bar

AFRP Bar

(a) FE A1

Steel Bar

(b) FE B1
Fig. 5. Tensile stress in the FRP and steel reinforcement of specimens A1 and B1.

sizes remain similar to those used in the experimental program of

Aiello and Ombres [2]. The investigated diameters are 6, 10, 12 120
A1
and 14 mm. Thus, four new FE models are developed and desig- FE A1
nated as FE A1(6 mm), FE A1(10 mm), FE A1(12 mm) and FE 100 FE A1 (6mm)
FE A1 (10mm)
A1(14 mm) representing RC beams with 6, 10, 12 and 14 mm diam- FE A1 (12mm)
FE A1 (14mm)
eter AFRP bars, respectively. Fig. 6 shows the load–deflection 80
response of the developed models. Table 5 provides the load-carry-
ing capacity and deflection at failure of the investigated beams. It is 60
clear from Fig. 6 and Table 5 that there is a clear correlation
between the size of the AFRP reinforcement and load-carrying 40
capacity of these beams. As expected, the load-carrying capacity
of each beam tends to increase using larger AFRP bar size. In fact, 20
the load-carrying capacity of beams reinforced with 10, 12 and
14 mm diameter AFRP bars increased by 24.84%, 39.92% and 0
40.40%, respectively over that with 8 mm diameter AFRP bars. How- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
ever, due to the elastic and brittle nature of the AFRP bar material,
the ductility of the beam specimens reinforced with larger AFRP bar
sizes was reduced as indicated in Fig. 6 and Table 5. In fact, the duc- Fig. 6. Effect of AFRP reinforcement size on the load–midspan response of hybrid
RC beams.
tility of FE A1(10 mm), FE A1(12 mm), and FE A1(14 mm) models
was reduced by 4.02%, 6.32%, and 26.49%, respectively over that
of the reference A1 specimen. The load-carrying capacity of the 5.2. FRP material type
beam model reinforced with smaller AFRP bar size of 6 mm was
lower by 12.17% over that of A1 specimen, with an increase of In this section, the effect of replacing the AFRP bars with carbon
22.90% in ductility. It could be concluded that using FRP materials (CFRP), glass (GFRP), and conventional steel bars on the perfor-
as internal reinforcement can enhance the load-carrying capacity mance of specimen A1 will be investigated. Three additional FE
of structural concrete members on the expense of a less ductile models are developed having the same geometrical properties
behavior. and reinforcement arrangement used in specimen A1. The newly
 R.A. Hawileh / Materials and Design 65 (2015) 831–839 837

Table 5 tion of steel and FRP bars FE A1(C), FE A1, and FE A1(G), were able
Effect of AFRP bar size. to withstand higher load levels and significant displacements at
Specimen Failure load % Difference Failure % Difference failure. This is due to the fact that even when the steel bars yielded,
Pu (kN) (FE/A1) deflection (FE/A1) the FRP reinforcement tend to continue carrying tensile forces.
(mm) Such behavior can be clearly seen in the second change of slope
A1 59.0 – 101 – in the load–deflection response shown in Fig. 7. The absence of
FE A1(6 mm) 52.6 12.17% 131.0 22.90% the second change in slope in FE A1(steel) can be explained by
FE A1(10 mm) 78.5 24.84% 97.1 4.02%
FE A1(12 mm) 99.0 40.40% 95.0 6.32%
yielding of all steel bars at a load of 34 kN that lead to beam failure.
FE A1(14 mm) 98.2 39.92% 81.0 24.69% It is also clear from Fig. 7 and Table 6 that the load-carrying capac-
ity of FE A1(C) specimen with CFRP bars was higher than that with
AFRP bars (FE A1) by 24.8%. However the load-carrying capacity of
beam specimens reinforced with GFRP and steel bars were lower
120 than that with AFRP bars by 42.86% and 73.53%, respectively. It
can be concluded that the use of the different types of FRP rein-
A1
100 FE A1 forcement helped in enhancing the structural performance of these
FE A1 (C) beams. In addition, the response of the beam specimen reinforced
FE A1 (G)
80 FE A1 (Steel) with a hybrid combination of steel and CFRP bars, FE A1(C) outper-
formed the other beam specimens.
60
5.3. Bond–slip
40
In order to examine the importance of modeling the bond–slip
20 behavior between the internal reinforcement (AFRP and steel bars)
and surrounding concrete material, additional six FE models are
0 developed and analyzed assuming full compatibility of the coinci-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
dent nodes between the bars and concrete elements. When the
reinforcement and adjacent concrete elements share the same
nodes, the developed models will exclude any development of
Fig. 7. Effect of the bottom reinforcement material type on the beam’s load–
deflection response. shear stresses and longitudinal slip between the internal reinforce-
ment and surrounding materials.
Fig. 8 shows a comparison between the FE models that incorpo-
developed models are designated as FE A1(C), FE A1(G), and FE rate the bond–slip action by using spring (COMBIN14) elements, FE
A1(steel) representing concrete beams reinforced at the bottom models that assumes a perfect bond assumption, and the measured
level with CFRP, GFRP and steel bars, respectively. In this study, experimental data. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that the six FE models
the assumed elastic modulus and tensile strength of the CFRP, that incorporates the bond–slip behavior achieved closer results to
GFRP, and steel bars was 124, 40.8 and 210 GPa, and 1700, 760 the experimental measured load–deflection response data than
and 465 MPa, respectively. It should be noted that these values those with the fully bonded assumption.
are based on properties provided by the manufactures.
Fig. 7 shows the response of the different RC beams reinforced 5.4. Concrete compressive strength
with AFRP, CFRP, GFRP and steel bars. The load-carrying capacity
and deflection failure of the investigated beams are given in In this section, the effect of the concrete compressive strength
Table 6. It is clear from Fig. 7 that the initial slope of the load– on the performance of concrete beams reinforced with a hybrid
deflection curve of the investigated beams is quite similar, and in combination of AFRP and steel bars is investigated. Two additional
general represents the concrete contribution to the load-carrying FE models were developed with concrete compressive strengths of
capacity. Upon concrete cracking, the stress in the tensile rein- 30 and 65 MPa and designated as FE A1(30 MPa) and FE
forcement is utilized to transfer the applied loadings. Hence, a A1(65 MPa), respectively. The results of the developed models
change of slope in the load–deflection response of the investigated are compared with specimen A1 (FE A1) that had a compressive
beams with different types of reinforcement is clearly noticeable as strength of 45.7 MPa. The load–deflection response results of these
shown in Fig. 7. Since the stiffness of the reinforcement material beams are shown in Fig. 9. Table 7 provides the values of the ulti-
controls such slope, the beam reinforced with CFRP bars, FE mate attained load in the developed models along with the associ-
A1(C) achieved the stiffer response compared to the other three ated mid-span deflection at failure. It can be seen from Fig. 9 and
beams, as shown in Fig. 7. Table 7 that the FE A1(65 MPa) model achieved a higher load-
As illustrated in Fig. 7, the concrete beam reinforced with con- carrying capacity than that of specimen A1 by 13.24% along with
ventional steel bars, FE A1(steel) failed pre-maturely at an applied an increase of 18.55% in the associated mid-span deflection.
load of 34 kN with an associated midspan deflection of 18 mm. However, FE A1(30 MPa) experienced a 12.17% drop in the attained
However, the other three beams reinforced with a hybrid combina- ultimate load compared to that of A1 specimen, however with a

Table 6
Effect of bottom tensile reinforcement material type.

Specimen Failure load Pu (kN) % Difference (FE/A1) Failure deflection (mm) % Difference (FE/A1)
A1 59.0 – 101 –
FE A1(steel) 34.0 73.53% 18.0 461.11%
FE A1(C) 77.1 23.48% 73.1 38.17%
FE A1(G) 41.3 42.86% 85.0 18.82%
838 R.A. Hawileh / Materials and Design 65 (2015) 831–839

70 80

60 70

50 60
50
40
40
30
30
A1 A2
20
FE A1 20 FE A2
10 FE A1 (Perfect Bond) FE A2 (Perfect Bond)
10
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 20 40 60 80 100

(a) A1 (b) A2

90 60
80
50
70
60 40
50
30
40
30 A3 20
B1
20 FE A3 FE B1
10
10 FE A3 (Perfect Bond) FE B1 (Perfect Bond)
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 20 40 60 80 100

(c) A3 (d) B1

50
60

40 50

40
Load (kN)

30
30
20
20 C1
B2 FE C1
10 FE B2 10 FE C1 (Perfect Bond)
FE B2 (Perfect Bond)
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 20 40 60 80 100

(e) B2 (f) C1
Fig. 8. Effect of bond–slip on response of RC beams.

80 Table 7
A1 Effect of concrete compressive strength.
70 FE A1
FE A1 (30 MPa) Specimen Failure load % Difference Failure % Difference
60 FE A1 (65 MPa)
Pu (kN) (FE/A1) deflection (FE/A1)
(mm)
50 A1 59.0 – 101 –
FE A1(30 MPa) 52.6 12.17% 100 1.00%
40 FE A1(65 MPa) 68 13.24% 124 18.55%

30

20 slight reduction of 1% reduction in the beam’s displacement at

10 failure.

0 6. Conclusions
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

A total of twenty-one 3D nonlinear FE models were developed

Fig. 9. Effect of concrete compressive strength on response of RC beams. in this study to simulate the response of concrete beams reinforced
 R.A. Hawileh / Materials and Design 65 (2015) 831–839
with a hybrid combination of FRP and steel. Six models were used
to validate the accuracy of the results by comparing the predicted
load versus mid-span deflection response values with the experi-
mental results obtained in a previous study. The remaining fifteen
models were used to investigate analytically the effect of AFRP bar
size, FRP reinforcement material type, reinforcement bond–slip
action, and concrete compressive strength on the performance of
the RC beam specimens. It can be concluded from this study that:
 The developed FE models managed to accurately predict the
load–deflection history of the tested specimens with a deviation
less than 10%.
 The developed FE models can be used by Engineers and
researchers as an analytical tool to investigate the performance
of concrete beams reinforced with a hybrid combination of FRP
and steel reinforcement.
 The load-carrying capacity of the beams reinforced with 10, 12
and 14 mm diameter AFRP bars increased by 24.84%, 39.92%
and 40.40%, respectively over that with 8 mm diameter bars.
 The ductility of the beams reinforced with 10, 12 and 14 mm
diameter AFRP bars was reduced by 4.02%, 6.32%, and 26.49%,
respectively over that with 8 mm diameter bars.
 The use of different material types of FRP reinforcement yielded
different responses of the beam specimens. The response of the
beam specimen reinforced with a hybrid combination of steel
and CFRP bars outperformed the other beams that were rein-
forced with GFRP, AFRP and steel bars.
 Modeling bond–slips action between reinforcement and sur-
rounding concrete yielded better correlation with experimental
data.
 The concrete compressive strength had a mild effect on the per-
formance of RC beams reinforced with hybrid reinforcement.
References
[1] Qu W, Zhang X, Huang H. Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with
hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars. J Compos Constr ASCE 2009;13(5):350–9.
[2] Aiello M, Ombres L. Structural performances of concrete beams with hybrid
(fiber-reinforced polymer–steel) reinforcements. J Compos Constr ASCE
2002;6(2):133–40.
[3] Al-Tamimi K, Hawileh R, Abdalla J, Rasheed H. Effects of ratio of CFRP Plate
length to shear span and end anchorage on flexural behavior of SCC RC beams. J
Compos Constr ASCE 2011;15(6):908–17.
[4] Hawileh R, Rasheed H, Abdalla JA, Al-Tamimi K. Behavior of reinforced
concrete beams strengthened with externally bonded hybrid fiber reinforced
polymer systems. Mater Des 2014;53:972–82.
[5] Böhni H. Corrosion in reinforced concrete structures. Cambridge,
UK: Woodhead; 2005.
[6] Akbarzadeh H, Maghsoudi AA. Experimental and analytical investigation of
reinforced high strength concrete continuous beams strengthened with fiber
reinforced polymer. Mater Des 2010;31(3):1130–47.
[7] Won JP, Park CG, Kim HH, Lee SW, Jang C. Effect of fibers on the bonds between
FRP reinforcing bars and high-strength concrete. Compos Part B: Eng
2008;39(5):747–55.
[8] Taheri M, Barros JAO, Salehian H. A design model for strain-softening and
strain-hardening fiber reinforced elements reinforced longitudinally with steel
and FRP bars. Compos Part B: Eng 2011;42(6):1630–40.
839
[9] Yang JM, Min KH, Shin HO, Yoon YS. Effect of steel and synthetic fibers on
flexural behavior of high-strength concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars.
Compos Part B: Eng 2012;43(3):1077–86.
[10] Yan L, Chouw N. Compressive and flexural behaviour and theoretical analysis
of flax fibre reinforced polymer tube encased coir fibre reinforced concrete
composite. Mater Des 2013;52:801–11.
[11] Kara IF, Ashour AF, Dundar C. Deflection of concrete structures reinforced with
FRP bars. Compos Part B: Eng 2013;44(1):375–84.
[12] Banibayat P, Patnaik A. Variability of mechanical properties of basalt fiber
reinforced polymer bars manufactured by wet-layup method. Mater Des
2014;56:898–906.
[13] Turco V, Secondin S, Morbin A, Valluzzi MR, Modena C. Flexural and shear
strengthening of un-reinforced masonry with FRP bars. Mater Des
2006;66(2):289–96.
[14] Masmoudi R, Theriault M, Benmokrane B. Flexural behavior of concrete beams
reinforced with deformed fiber reinforced plastic reinforcing rods. ACI Struct J
1998;95:665–76.
[15] Toutanji H, Saafi M. Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with glass
fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. ACI Struct J 2000;97:712–9.
[16] Aiello MA, Ombres L. Load–deflection analysis of FRP reinforced concrete
flexural members. J Compos Constr 2000;4:164–71.
[17] Tan KH. Behaviour of hybrid FRP–steel reinforced concrete beams. In: Proc, 3rd
int symp on non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures
(FRPRCS-3), Japan Concrete Institute, Sapporo; 1997. p. 487–94.
[18] Leung HY, Balendran RV. Flexural behaviour of concrete beams internally
reinforced with GFRP rods and steel rebars. Struct Surv 2003;214:146–57.
[19] Hawileh R. Computational modeling of concrete beams reinforced with aramid
and steel bars. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on
computational structures technology, Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, Scotland,
paper 126, 2013, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, September 3–6; 2013.
[20] Sakar G, Hawileh R, Naser M, Abdalla JA, Tanarslan M. Nonlinear behavior of
shear deficient RC beams strengthened with near surface mounted glass fiber
reinforcement under cyclic loading. Mater Des 2014;61:16–25.
[21] Hawileh R, Naser M, Abdalla JA. Finite element simulation of reinforced
concrete beams externally strengthened with short-length CFRP plates. J
Compos Part B 2013;45(1):1722–30.
[22] Hawileh R, El-Maaddawy TA, Naser M. Non-linear finite element modeling of
concrete deep beams with openings strengthened with externally-bonded
composites. Mater Des 2012;42:378–87.
[23] Hawileh R, Abdalla JA, Tanarslan M, Naser M. Modeling of nonlinear cyclic
response of shear-deficient RC T-beams strengthened with side bonded CFRP
fabric strips. Comput Concr, Int J 2011;8(2):193–206.
[24] ANSYS – Release Version 12. A Finite element computer software and user
manual for nonlinear structural analysis. Canonsburg (PA): ANSYS Inc.; 2009.
[25] William KJ, Warnke ED. Constitutive model for the triaxial behavior of
concrete. In: Proceedings, international association for bridge and structural
engineering, ISMES, vol. 19; 1975. p. 174.
[26] Manos GC, Theofanous M, Katakalos K. Numerical simulation of the shear
behaviour of reinforced concrete rectangular beam specimens with or without
FRP-strip shear reinforcement. Adv Eng Softw 2014;67:47–56.
[27] Hognestad E, Hanson NW, McHenry D. Concrete stress distribution in ultimate
strength design. ACI J, Proc 1955;52:455–79.
[28] Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB-FIP). CEB-FIP model code 1990.
Bulletin D’Information No. 213/214 (Concrete Structures), Lausanne,
Switzerland; 1993.
[29] Lee J, Kim T, Kim T, Yi C, Park J, You Y, et al. Interfacial bond strength of glass
fiber reinforced polymer bars in high-strength concrete. Compos Part B: Eng
2008;39:258–70.
[30] Achillides Z, Pilakoutas K. Bond behavoiur of fiber reinforced polymer bars
under direct pullout conditions. ASCEC, J Compos Constr 2004;8(2):173–81.
[31] Al-Mahmoud F, Castel A, François R, Tourneur C. Effect of surface
preconditioning on bond of carbon fibre reinforced polymer rods to
concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2007;29:677–9.
[32] Hawileh R. Nonlinear finite element modeling of RC beams strengthened with
NSM FRP rods. Constr Build Mater 2012;27:461–71.
[33] Nie J, Fan J, Cai C. Stiffness and deflection of steel–concrete composite beams
under negative bending. J Struct Eng ASCE 2004;130(11):1842–51.