Size Effect On Shear Strength PF FRP Reinforced Concrete

Journal of Composites for Construction.
Submitted May 9, 2012; accepted November 13, 2012;

posted ahead of print November 17, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000346
SIZE EFFECT ON SHEAR STRENGTH OF FRP REINFORCED
CONCRETE BEAMS WITHOUT STIRRUPS
M. S. Alam1 and A. Hussein2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY on 04/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
t
This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation that was
ip
ABSTRACT:
carried out to examine the size effect on the shear strength and behavior of concrete
d cr
beams reinforced with Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) bars. The beams were
te s
reinforced with Glass FRP, Carbon FRP and steel bars in the longitudinal direction
di nu
with no transverse shear reinforcement. Twelve large scale simply supported beams
ye a
with different depths, four for each reinforcement type, were tested to determine their
op M
shear capacity. The effective depth of the beams was in the range of 300 to 750 mm.
The axial stiffness of the reinforcement was kept the same for beams with the same
C ted
reinforcement type with different depths. The test results indicated that as the member
depth increased; the shear strength at failure decreased for all reinforcement types.
ot p
The results were compared with Bažant’s size effect law including different
N ce
parameters and a reasonably good trend was observed. The shear strength of FRP
reinforced beams were also compared with the predictions using ACI 440.1R, CSA
Ac
S806, CSA S6S1, and AASHTO-LRFD. The comparisons with the four code
equations indicated that the predicted results using CSA-S806 shear design equations
were the closest to the experimental results, while ACI 440.1R predicted results were
more conservative and gave prediction results with large scatter, especially for beams
with smaller depth.
CE Database subject headings: Fiber reinforced polymer, Size effect, Shear
strength, Reinforced concrete, and Beams
1
Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
J. Compos. Constr.
Journal of Composites for Construction. Submitted May 9, 2012; accepted November 13, 2012;
1
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial
University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1B3X5, Canada.
E-mail: msalam@mun.ca
2
Associate Professor and Chair of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and
Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1B3X5,
t
ip
Canada.
d cr
E-mail: ahussein@mun.ca
te s
di nu
ye a
op M
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac
2
J. Compos. Constr.
INTRODUCTION
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars have gained acceptance as an alternative to
steel reinforcement due to their corrosion resistance. However, FRP bars have two
drawbacks: brittle elastic failure and lower modulus of elasticity for glass fiber
reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars compared to steel. The modulus of elasticity of

carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars is close to that of steel bars. Moreover,
t
ip
the surface and bond characteristics of FRP bars are also different from those of steel
d cr
bars. Hence, the behavior of FRP reinforced concrete members is different from that
of steel reinforced members (Michaluk et al. 1998; Deitz et al. 1999; Yost et al. 2001).
te s
di nu
Even though their behavior is different, the flexural capacity of FRP reinforced
concrete members can be predicted by traditional assumptions used in steel reinforced

ye a
beams (Nanni 1993; Faza and Gangarao 1993; ISIS-M03 2001). In contrast,
op M
additional complications arise for shear behavior of FRP reinforced concrete beams.
ACI-ASCE Committee 445 (1998) reported that a reinforced concrete beam

C ted
without stirrups resist shear by means of: 1) shear resistance of un-cracked concrete
compression zone; 2) aggregate interlock; 3) residual tensile stress across the cracks;
ot p
4) dowel action of longitudinal reinforcement; and 5) arch action. The total

N ce
contributions from these mechanisms is referred to as the concrete contribution to the

Ac
shear strength, . The relative contributions of these mechanisms in FRP reinforced
concrete beams could be different from those of steel reinforced concrete beams. Such
as, due to the low transverse stiffness and strength of FRP reinforcement, some
researchers argued that dowel action will have a negligible contribution to the shear
strength (Razaqpur et al. 2004).
The use of FRP bars lead to the formation of wider and deeper cracks due to its
lower elastic modulus. Hence, the shear strength contribution from aggregate
3
J. Compos. Constr.
interlock and residual tensile stress across cracks might be reduced (Hoult et al. 2008).
Recent test conducted on concrete beams reinforced with FRP stirrups showed that
the concrete contribution to the shear strength increases after the formation of the first
shear crack due to the confinement by the stirrups (Ahmed et al. 2010a, b, c). On the
other hand, deeper cracks decrease the contribution of the shear strength from un-
cracked concrete. The shear strength is reduced as the depth of the beam is increased.
t
ip
Kani et al.(1979) reported that all other factors being equal, the safety factor decreases
d cr
as the depth of the beam increases. The reduction in shear strength due to the increase
in member size is termed as size effect. This effect has been investigated for
te s
di nu
conventional steel reinforced concrete beams by Kani (1967), Bažant and Kazemi
(1991), Shioya (1989), Shioya et al. (1990), and Collins and Kuchma (1999). Kani
ye a
(1967) examined the size effect in shear for beams with constant reinforcement ratio
op M
equal to 2.8% and maximum aggregate size equal to 19 mm. The results of this
investigation are shown in Fig. 1 for different ratios. It can be seen that the
C ted
shear strength decreased with the increase in effective depth of the beam. A
comprehensive experimental investigation of the size effect in shear was conducted by

ot p
N ce
Shioya (1989) and Shioya et al. (1990). The authors concluded that the shear strength
at failure decreased with the increase in the depth of the member and with the
Ac
decrease in the maximum aggregate size. Collins and Kuchma (1999) carried out an
extensive experimental investigation to evaluate the parameters that influence the
magnitude of the size effect in shear. It was observed that the shear strength at failure
decreased as the member depth increased, regardless of the different parameters used
in the investigation. This size effect has not been fully investigated for FRP reinforced
concrete beams.
4
J. Compos. Constr.
A database of published test results on shear strength of conventional steel
reinforced rectangular beams was compiled by Brown et al. (2006). The database
contained the test results of twelve hundred beams failing in shear. The effective
depth of the beams varied from 20 to 3000 mm. In contrast, the results of
approximately one-hundred FRP reinforced concrete beams without web

reinforcement are available in the literature (Sherwood et al. 2004; El-Sayed et al.
t
ip
2005; Hoult et al. 2008). The published results of FRP reinforced beams cover the
d cr
effective depth varying from 141 to 360 mm. The shear design equations for FRP
reinforced members are based on this limited set of test results. The robustness of the
te s
di nu
existing design methods cannot be fully verified until sufficient data is available in the
literature.
ye a
The preliminary results of a pilot investigation aimed at studying the size effect on
op M
shear strength of FRP reinforced concrete members showed that the shear strength is
strongly affected by the size effect and an average reduction up to 55% was observed
C ted
in large specimens compared to 1/6 scaled counterparts (Matta et al. 2007, 2008).
Recent tests conducted by Steiner et al. (2008) on two large GFRP reinforced concrete
ot p
beams with effective depth equal to 970 mm showed reduced shear strength at failure.
N ce
Bentz et al. (2010) conducted experimental investigation on FRP reinforced concrete

Ac
members with different depths, different longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
ratio and arrangements. The authors’ reported that the fundamental shear behavior of
FRP-reinforced beams is similar to that of steel-reinforced beams. There were only 3
beams with non-distributed reinforcement arrangement without stirrups that are
similar to the current study. Alam and Hussein (2012) investigated the effect of
member depth for high strength FRP reinforced concrete beams and it was observed
that the shear strength decreased as the member depth increased. However, more
5
J. Compos. Constr.
research is still needed to investigate the size effect for large FRP reinforced beams
and to examine the consistency of the shear strength prediction using the shear design
equations of different codes and guidelines such as American Concrete Institute (ACI
440.1R 2006), Canadian Standards Association (CSA S806 2002; CSA S6S1 2010),
and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials-Load and

Resistance Factor Design (AASHTO-LRFD 2009) for this type of beams. The current
t
ip
paper focuses on these behaviors for normal strength FRP reinforced concrete beams.
d cr
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
te s
di nu
An experimental investigation was carried on large rectangular concrete beams
reinforced longitudinally with FRP reinforcement and without stirrups. The main
ye a
variables in this investigation were the depth of the beam and the reinforcement type.
op M
MATERIALS
C ted
Reinforcing materials
Traditional steel reinforcement as well as sand coated GFRP and CFRP bars were
ot p
used as longitudinal reinforcement. Table 1 reports the nominal cross sectional area,
N ce
tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity of the FRP bars, as specified by the
Ac
manufacturer. The yield strength of the steel bars was determined by performing
uniaxial tension test on the bars.
Concrete
Ready mix concrete used to prepare the specimens. The mix design was done
using 20 mm maximum aggregate size with 30 MPa targeted concrete strength. The
concrete strength was determined from the average of five 100 u 200 mm cylinders
6
J. Compos. Constr.
strength that were cast and cured under the same laboratory conditions as the beams
and tested at the time of beam testing. The results are shown in Table 2.
Test Specimens
The experimental program was carried out on twelve large scale concrete beams
reinforced in longitudinal direction with no transverse shear reinforcement. Four

beams with different depths were used for each reinforcement type. Details of the test
t
ip
specimens are given in Table 2 with the specimen identification scheme. The effective
d cr
depth of the beams varied from 300 to 750 mm. The cross section of the beams and
loading pattern are the same for different reinforcement types. The specimens were
te s
di nu
designed in such a way that the axial stiffness of the reinforcement was the same for
beams with different depths as shown in Table 2. The length of the beams varied from
ye a
2840 to 4040 mm. The specimens had 220 mm anchorage length beyond the supports
op M
on each side of the beam. The shear span to depth ratio for the beams was 2.5.
The target of the specimens design was to allow the beam to fail in shear rather
C ted
than flexure. The reinforcement ratios for FRP reinforced beams were higher than the
balanced reinforcement ratio. The balanced reinforcement ratio ( ) was calculated

ot p
N ce
according to ACI 440.1R (2006) as follows:
(1)
Ac
where, , is the compressive strength of
the concrete (MPa), is the ultimate strain in concrete, fu and Ef are the tensile
strength and modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement (MPa), respectively. The
balanced reinforcement ratio using CSA S806 (2002) is also provided in Table 2. The
clear cover for the bars was 40 mm and clear spacing was calculated as per CSA
A23.3-04 (2004).
7
J. Compos. Constr.
Test setup, Instrumentation, and Procedure
Typical test setup and instrumentation are shown in Fig. 2. Four strain gauges
(named as RS) were used to measure the reinforcement strain. Two of the gauges
were placed at the mid-span and one at the center of each shear span. Since the shear
span to depth ratio of the beams is 2.5, the critical shear crack, which is expected to
start either at the face of the support or the concentrated load, is expected to intercept
t
ip
the reinforcement around the middle of the shear span. Therefore, one strain gauge
d cr
was placed at the centre of each shear span. For concrete, two strain gauges (named as
CS) were used at the mid-span of the beam. Three linear variable displacement
te s
di nu
transducers (LVDT) were placed at the same location of the reinforcement strain
gauges (one at mid-span and one at the center of each shear span) to measure the
ye a
deflections of the beam.
op M
The beams were simply supported and loaded with four points bending as shown
in Fig. 2. The tests were performed using a 600 kN MTS hydraulic actuator. The
C ted
beam was loaded using displacement control. Each beam was preloaded to
approximately 10 kN to eliminate any settling that could initially occur in the set-up
ot p
and the beam. The data were recorded using a high-speed data acquisition system and
N ce
stored on a personal computer.

Ac
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Crack patterns
Figure 3 shows the ultimate crack patterns of the beams. In general, due to the
absence of shear stress, the flexural cracks that developed in the constant moment
zone propagated vertically upward towards the neutral axis. Additional flexural cracks
were developed within the shear span zone as the load was increased. The presence of
8
J. Compos. Constr.
shear stresses in this zone allows the flexural cracks became progressively more
inclined and propagated towards the load points. The inclination of these cracks
increased as the depth increased from the reinforcement level. This was attributed to
the shear stresses that increase from zero at the reinforcement level to the maximum at
the neutral axis (Moe 1962). The slope of the inclined crack at failure is shown on the
figures. The inclination of the failure cracks for all beams was of the same value. This
t
ip
could be attributed to the same shear span to depth ratio for all beams.
d cr
The mid-height average crack spacing of GFRP reinforced beams were 201, 277,
296, and 255 mm for beams with effective depth ( ) equal to 305, 440, 584, and 734
te s
di nu
mm, respectively. These were 168, 224, 241, and 303 mm for CFRP reinforced beams
with depth equal to 310, 460, 594, and 744 mm, respectively. For steel reinforced
ye a
beams, these were 194, 193, 273, and 327 mm for beams with depth equal to 310, 458,
op M
608, and 758 mm, respectively. In general, it was observed that the crack spacing
increased with the increase in the depth of the beams. The ratio of the crack spacing to
C ted
the corresponding effective depth of the beams varied from 0.35 to 0.66 for GFRP,
0.41 to 0.54 for CFRP, and 0.43 to 0.63 for steel reinforced beams, respectively.
ot p
These results are in reasonable agreement with the results of some authors (Shioya et
N ce
al. 1990; Bentz and Buckley 2005; and Sherwood 2008) that the longitudinal spacing
Ac
between cracks at mid-depth of a member without stirrups increased in direct
proportion to the effective depth of the beams and the average crack spacing was
about 0.5 . Since the crack width is a function of crack spacing and strain
perpendicular to the crack, the larger member should have lower shear strength due to
wider cracks. The Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) explains this as size
effect.
9
J. Compos. Constr.
Load-deflection behavior
The load versus mid-span deflection behavior of the beams is shown in Figure 4.
Due to the absence of shear reinforcement, the beams failed shortly after the
formation of the diagonal cracks and the load carrying capacity of the beams lasted
for a very short duration. Hence, the deformations due to the shear cracks could not be
identified. In general, the load-deflection curves were linear and identical for all
t
ip
beams, irrespective of their individual properties, before the first flexural cracking
d cr
occurred. The cracking loads were found to be close for identical GFRP and CFRP
reinforced beams. This indicates that the behavior was governed by the gross section
te s
di nu
second moment area of the beam. After cracking, the load-deflection curve became
nonlinear for deeper beams. It should be noted that, due to space and manageability
ye a
problem, there was some limitations on the length of some beams. Consequently, for
op M
beams with height and length equal to 800 and 4040 mm, respectively, the load had to
be applied almost at the centre of the beam to maintain the same shear span-to-depth
C ted
ratio as the other beams. As a result, the loading became similar to a three point
loading instead of a four point loading. For these beams, there was no constant
ot p
moment zone where the flexural cracks can be stabilized. Instead, new cracks
N ce
developed in the shear span as the load was increased until failure. This led to the
Ac
gradual degradation in the stiffness of the beams until failure and may have
contributed to the nonlinear behavior of the beams with higher depths.
The stiffness of CFRP reinforced beams after cracking was slightly higher than
the stiffness of GFRP reinforced beams. This can be attributed to the higher axial
stiffness of the CFRP reinforcement which was 1.5 times the axial stiffness of the
GFRP reinforcement. On the other hand, a noticeable increase in the stiffness of steel
reinforced beams was observed. These beams had the highest axial stiffness of the
10
J. Compos. Constr.
reinforcement, which was approximately 3.0 and 4.5 times the axial stiffness of CFRP
and GFRP reinforcement, respectively. This indicates that the post-cracking stiffness
of a beam is a function of the axial stiffness of the reinforcing bars. This result is in
good agreement with other test results on FRP reinforced concrete beams without web
reinforcements (Tureyen and Frosch 2002 and El-Sayed et al. 2006).

Similarly, the increase in axial stiffness is associated with the increase in shear
t
ip
capacity. At a certain deflection within the serviceability limit, the shear capacity of
d cr
steel reinforced beam is 1.8 and 2.2 times the shear capacity of CFRP and GFRP
reinforced beams, respectively; and for CFRP beams, it is 1.2 times the GFRP beams.
te s
di nu
The average increase in shear load for steel, GFRP, and CFRP beams is 28, 105,
178% for 43, 86, and 129 % increase in depth or the beams, respectively.
ye a
Load-reinforcement strain behavior
op M
The relationship between the load and the reinforcement strain, at middle span,
followed the same trend as the load-deflection behavior. Figure 5 shows the load
C ted
versus reinforcement strain behavior at the middle span of the beams. It can be seen
that the reinforcement strain decreased with the increase in the modulus of elasticity
ot p
of the reinforcing bars. The strains in steel reinforced beams were less than those in
N ce
GFRP and CFRP reinforced beams for the same load level after cracking. The
Ac
maximum strains were observed for GFRP reinforced beams. This can be attributed to
the low modulus of elasticity of GFRP bars which was close to the modulus of
elasticity of concrete. Consequently, a large elongation took place in these bars after
cracking. On the other hand, steel and CFRP bars enhanced the cross sectional area of
the beam by providing transformed area due to their high modulus of elasticity. These
bars started to carry load before cracking and only the portion of the load carried by
11
J. Compos. Constr.
the cracked concrete transferred to the bars after cracking. Therefore, the increase in
strain in steel bars was the lowest.
Failure modes
Typical failure modes of the beams were in shear and are given in Table 2 with
corresponding concrete compressive strains at failure. One of the indications that the
beams failed in shear is the concrete strain at failure which is less than the ultimate
t
ip
crushing strain of 0.003 specified by ACI 440.1R (2006). The failure modes of the
d cr
beams were either by shear-tension, or shear-compression, or diagonal tension. This
could be expected as the shear span to depth ratio of the beams was equal to 2.5. This
te s
di nu
is in agreement with the typical failure modes of steel reinforced beams with shear
span to depth ratio equal to 2.5 (Bresler and MacGregor 1967 and ASCE-ACI
ye a
Committee 426 1973). Similar to the high strength concrete beams (Alam and Hussein
op M
2012), a secondary bond/anchorage failure was observed for some beams within the
shear span as shown in Fig. 6. Before failure, splitting cracks developed near the
C ted
longitudinal reinforcement and propagated towards the support leading to a bond or
splitting failure. Two different failure modes were observed for bond/splitting failure.
ot p
In first case, the splitting along the reinforcement passed the support, which occurred
N ce
simultaneously with the diagonal tension crack that propagated towards the
Ac
concentrated load (Fig. 6a). In second case, the splitting along the reinforcement
stopped before the support and did not cause any splitting past the support (Fig. 6b).
This could be due to the confinement of reinforcement near the support.
Analysis of Test Results
The failure shear capacity, which is the concrete contribution, , is identified as
in this paper and is reported in Table 2. Figure 7a shows the variation in the
12
J. Compos. Constr.
experimental shear capacity with the effective depth for current test results and those
obtained from the literature (Matta et al. 2008, Bentz et al. 2010). Similar to the high
strength concrete beams (Alam and Hussein 2012), an increasing trend in the shear
capacity was observed with the increase in the depth of the beam for all reinforcement
types. The shear capacity is normalized with respect to . The normalized

t
shear strength versus the effective depth of the beam is shown in Fig. 7b. It was
ip
observed that the steel reinforced beams, that had the highest axial stiffness of
d cr
reinforcement, had the maximum shear strength for all depths. This observation is
te s
similar to the observation made by Tureyen and Frosch (2002). The authors of that
di nu
paper reported that the shear strength is a function of axial stiffness of the longitudinal
reinforcement. The shear strength of two identical beams, reinforced with different
ye a
types of reinforcement, will be similar if both are reinforced with the same effective
op M
reinforcement ratio ( ). The effective reinforcement ratio was defined as:

C ted
(2)
The authors also reported that the shear strength increases at a faster rate with
ot p
respect to the reinforcement ratio for effective reinforcement ratios less than 1% than
N ce
for those higher than 1%. Note that all beams in the current investigation had the
effective reinforcement ratio less than 1%. This could be attributed to the higher shear
Ac
strength of steel reinforced beams than the other two types of beams.
Figure 7b shows a decreasing trend of the normalized shear strength
( ) with increase in the depth of the beam for steel, GFRP, and CFRP
reinforcement of the current investigation and for the beams added from Matta et al.
2008 and Bentz et al. 2010. The same trend was observed for high strength concrete
(Alam and Hussein 2012) and could be attributed in part to the aggregate interlock
13
J. Compos. Constr.
mechanism that governs shear failure of members without stirrups (Bentz et al. 2006
and Bentz and Collins 2006). The maximum aggregate size, concrete strength, and
crack width influence the aggregate interlock mechanism (Bentz et al. 2006, Kani et al.
1979). In the current investigation, the maximum aggregate size and concrete strength
are almost the same for all beams; hence the crack widths can influence the aggregate
interlock mechanism. On the other hand, due to the decrease in the axial stiffness of
t
ip
the longitudinal reinforcement and the increase in the shear span to depth ratio or the
d cr
effective depth, the crack width may increase. Since, the axial stiffness and the shear-
span to depth ratio for each reinforcement type was approximately the same, the crack
te s
di nu
width may increase with the increase in the effective depth of the beams. Bentz and
Collins (2006) reported that, when two geometrically similar beams of different
ye a
depths are subjected to the same shear stresses and strains, the deeper beam can be
op M
expected to have wider cracks. Due to the fact that the wider cracks are less able to
transmit the shear stresses, a deeper beam can be expected to fail at lower shear
C ted
stresses. This behavior can be attributed to the size effect on the shear strength of FRP
reinforced concrete beams.

ot p
The size effect observed in GFRP and CFRP reinforced beams seems more
N ce
pronounced than in the steel reinforced ones. The lower axial stiffness of the FRP bars
Ac
might cause the increase in the crack width because the strain in the longitudinal
reinforcement increases as the axial stiffness of the reinforcing bars decreases. The
increase in strains will lead to the formation of wider and deeper cracks. Thus, the
shear strength reduction in FRP reinforced beams will be more than that of steel
reinforced beams.
The test results of this investigation were compared with the Bažant law of size
effect (Bažant 1984) which has been applied for beam shear in previous studies
14
J. Compos. Constr.
(Bažant and Kim 1984; Bažant and Kazemi 1991; Bažant and Yu 2005, 2008). This
law was further modified by Kazemi and Broujerdian (2006) to take into account the
effect of shear span to depth ratio, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, maximum
aggregate size, and concrete strength. This has been incorporated in the current study.
The proposed formula is given by the following equation:

t
ip
(3)
d cr
in where
te s
di nu
ye a
Equation (3) can be arranged to a linear plot , with , ,
op M
, and . Thus, plotting y versus x, and determining the slope and

C ted
vertical intercept of the regression line, one obtains and B. The regression plots of
this equation are shown in Fig. 8(a) with the resulting optimal values of and B for
ot p
GFRP, CFRP, and steel reinforced beams, respectively.

N ce
The size effect curves were plotted in the form of logarithm of the nominal stress
Ac
( ) versus the logarithm of . These plots are shown in Fig. 8(b). These
figures reveal that there is size effect in FRP reinforced beams similar to that of steel
reinforced beams and that the size effect follows approximately the same trend with
the size effect law in Eq. (3). However, a slight scatter in the results was observed.
Several possible reasons were considered for this behavior. One of them could be the
different failure modes of the beams because the range of applicability of Eq. (3) is
probably limited for the case of diagonal shear (Bažant and Kazemi 1989). Another
15
J. Compos. Constr.
possible reason could be disregarding the main crack that leads to complete fracture of
the beams. Sometimes there are some pre-peak cracks (Bažant and Kazemi 1989)
which might have some influence on the results. The number of these cracks is greater
for larger beams (Kani 1967), which might have size dependent effect. Also, FRP has
different characteristics than those of steel reinforcement. Bažant size effect law was
originally developed for traditional steel reinforced members.
t
ip
The average ratios of the normalized shear strength for steel and GFRP, steel and
d cr
CFRP, and CFRP and GFRP reinforced beams were 1.5, 1.3, 1.1, respectively.
However, the ratios of axial stiffness for the same reinforcing bars were 4.5, 3.0, and
te s
di nu
1.5, respectively. The cubic roots of these ratios are 1.6, 1.4, and 1.1, respectively.
These results revealed that the ratios of the normalized shear strengths are
ye a
approximately proportional to the cubic root of the ratios of the axial stiffness of the
op M
reinforcing bars. This is in agreement with the test results of El-Sayed et al. (2006).
To investigate the variation of normalized shear strength with the effective depth,
C ted
the normalized shear strength was plotted against the inverse of the
ot p
cubic root of the effective depth, as shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen that the
N ce
normalized shear strength increased almost linearly with , for all reinforcement
Ac
types. This is in good agreement with Bentz (2005) empirical size effect. The author
concluded that an exponent of -1/3 for effective depth in a shear equation provides
good empirical fit to the size effect data.
Comparison with Codes and Design Guidelines
The shear strength of the beams was compared with the prediction using the shear
design equations of ACI 440.1R (2006), CSA S806 (2002), CSA S6S1 (2010), and
16
J. Compos. Constr.
AASHTO-LRFD (2009). According to ACI 440.1R (2006), the concrete shear
capacity, , of flexural members using FRP as main reinforcement is given as:
[N] (4)
where bw = width of the web in mm and c = cracked transformed section neutral axis
depth in mm.
t
For singly reinforced, rectangular cross-sections bent in uniaxial bending:
ip
(5)
d cr
According to CSA-S806 (2002), the shear strength of a section, having either at
te s
least the minimum amount of transverse reinforcement or an effective depth not
di nu
exceeding 300 mm, is given by:
ye a
[N] (6)
op M
but need not be taken as less than nor shall it exceed ,

C ted
where reflects the concrete density effect; and represents the concrete resistance
factor. The quantity is equivalent to and shall not be taken as greater

ot p
N ce
than 1.0 where and are the factored shear force and bending moment at the
section of interest.
Ac
To account for size effect for sections with an effective depth greater than 300 mm
(12 in.) and with no transverse shear reinforcement, the value of is calculated
using
(7)
17
J. Compos. Constr.
The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) CSA S6S1 (2010)
(supplement #1 to CAN/CSA-S6 2006) recommends the following equation to
calculate for FRP reinforced members
(8)
where is the cracking strength of concrete, is the effective shear depth for
t
ip
longitudinal reinforcement and shall be taken as the greater of 0.72h or 0.9d, is the
d cr
effective width of web within depth , and shall be calculated using the
following equation:
te s
di nu (9)
ye a
where is the longitudinal strain at mid depth and is the equivalent crack
op M
spacing factor.
C ted
According to AASHTO-LRFD (2009), the nominal shear resistance provided by
the concrete, , shall be calculated as:

ot p
, kips (10)
N ce
but shall not be larger than representing the punching shear capacity of a
Ac
two-way system subjected to a concentrated load that is either rectangular or circular
in shape.
Table 3 provides the comparison between the experimental shear strength ( )
and the corresponding predicted values ( ) using the shear design equations of the
above mentioned codes and guidelines. The concrete density factor and resistance
factored were considered equal to one. The predicted shear capacity using both CSA
S806 (2002) and CSA-S6S1 (2010) corresponds reasonably well with the test results
18
J. Compos. Constr.
over the entire range of the effective depth of the beams. The average ratios of
are 1.23 and 1.13 with standard deviations of 0.10 and 0.14 for this two
methods, respectively. The coefficients of variations of these methods are 8.03% and
12.39 %, respectively. However, CSA-S6S1 (2010) gives slightly unconservative
result for one of the beams (C-500). On the other hand, the predictions using the ACI
t
440.1R (2006) and AASHTO-LRFD (2009) equations are almost the same. The
ip
average ratios of are 1.57 and 1.50 with standard deviations of 0.27 and 0.26
d cr
for these two codes, respectively. The coefficients of variations of these methods are
te s
8.03% and 12.39 %, respectively. This is because of the codes have basically the same
di nu
equation. The predictions using these methods are more conservative and scattered,
especially for beams with smaller depth, than those of CSA S806 (2002) and CSA-
ye a
op M
S6S1 (2010). The conservatism in the prediction decreased as the depth of the beam
increased.
C ted
CONCLUSIONS
ot p
Based on the analysis of the experimental results, the following conclusions can
N ce
be made:
(1) The crack spacing of the beam was found directly proportional with the depth
Ac
of the beams. This resulted in wider cracks for larger beams thereby reducing
the shear strength. The MCFT explained this as size effect
(2) The failure modes of FRP reinforced beams were in good agreement with the
typical failure modes of steel reinforced beams with shear span to depth ratio
equal to 2.5. The observed failure modes of the beams were shear tension,
shear compression, or diagonal tension. This can be attributed to the shear
span to depth ratio of the beams was equal to 2.5.
19
J. Compos. Constr.
(3) A size effect was observed in FRP reinforced concrete beams. This effect was
more pronounced in FRP reinforced beams than in steel reinforced beams. The
comparison between the size effect in FRP reinforced beams and the Bažant
law of size effect showed that there was slight deviation in the results. This
could be attributed to the different failure modes, disregarding the main cracks
that lead to complete fracture of the beams, and the different material
t
ip
properties of FRP and steel.
d cr
(4) The experimental results showed that the normalized shear strength was
proportional to the inverse of the cubic root of the effective depth of the beams.
te s
di nu
(5) The prediction of the shear strengths using both CSA S806 (2002) and CSA
S6S1 (2010) shear design equations were in good agreement with the test
ye a
results. Both ACI 440.1R (2006) and AASHTO-LRFD (2009) shear design
op M
equations use basically the same equation. The predicted results using these
equations were more conservative and scattered, especially for beams with
C ted
smaller depth, than those of CSA S806 (2002) and CSA S6S1 (2010).
ot p
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
N ce
The authors acknowledge the partial financial support from the National Sciences
Ac
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). The authors would like to
express their sincere thanks to Concrete Products (St. John’s, NL, Canada) for
donating the materials for this research.
NOTATIONS
The following symbols are used in this paper:
= shear span
20
J. Compos. Constr.
= area of reinforcement
= area of steel
= effective width of web
= perimeter of critical section computed at away from the concentrated

load
t
ip
= modulus of elasticity of steel
d cr
= predicted shear capacity
te s
= experimental shear capacity
di nu
= nominal shear strength
ye a
= nominal stress at failure
op M
= longitudinal reinforcement ratio =

C ted
REFERENCES
ACI-ASCE Committee 445 on Shear and Torsion (1998). “Recent Approaches to

ot p
Shear Design of Structural Concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 124(12), 1375-1417.

N ce
Ahmed, E. A., El-Salakawy, E. F., Benmokrane, B. (2010a). “Performance Evaluation

Ac
of GFRP Shear Reinforcement in Concrete Beams.” ACI Struct. J., 107(1), 53-62.
Ahmed, E. A., El-Salakawy, E. F., Benmokrane, B. (2010b). “Shear Performance of
RC Bridge Girders Reinforced with New Carbon FRP Stirrups.” J. of Bridge Eng.,
15(1), 44-54.
Ahmed, E. A., El-Salakawy, E. F., Benmokrane, B. (2010c). “FRP Composite Shear
Reinforcement: Performance Evaluation in Concrete Beams and Code Prediction.”
Can. J. of Civ. Eng. 37, 1057-1070.
21
J. Compos. Constr.
Alam, M. S. and Hussein, A. (2012). “Effect of Member Depth on Shear Strength of
High Strength FRP Reinforced Concrete Beams.” J. Comp. Constr., 16(2), 119-
126.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2006). “Guide for the Design and Construction
of Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars.” Technical Committee

Document 440.1R-06, Farmington Hills, Mich.
t
ip
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
d cr
(2009). “AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specifications for GFRP-
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks and Traffic Railings.” Washington DC.
te s
di nu
ASCE-ACI Committee 426. (1973). “The Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Members.” J. of Struct. Div., 99(6), 1091-1187.

ye a
Bažant, Z. P. (1984). “Size Effect in Blunt Fracture: Concrete, Rock, Metal.” J. of
op M
Eng. Mech., 110(4), 518-535.
Bažant, Z. P., and Kim, J. (1984). “Size Effect in Shear Failure of Longitudinally
C ted
Reinforced Beams.” ACI Struct. J., 81(5), 456-468.
Bažant, Z. P. (1989). “Fracture Energy of Heterogeneous Materials and Similitude.”

ot p
Proceedings, RILEM-SEM International Conference on Fracture of Concrete and

N ce
Rock, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 229-241.

Ac
Bažant, Z. P., and Kazemi, M. T. (1991). “Size effect on Diagonal Shear Failure of
Beams without Stirrups.” ACI Struct. J., 88(3), 268-276.
Bažant, Z. P., and Yu, Q. (2005). “Designing Against Size Effect on Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups: I. Formulation.” J. Struct. Eng.,
131(12), 1877-1885.
Bažant, Z. P., and Yu, Q. (2008). “Minimizing Statistical Bias to Identify Size Effect
from Beam Shear Database.” ACI Struct. J., 105(6), 685-691.
22
J. Compos. Constr.
Bentz, E. C. (2005). “Empirical Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Shear Strength Size
Effect for Members without Stirrups.” ACI Struct. J., 102(2), 232-241.
Bentz, E. C. and Buckley, S. (2005). “Repeating a Classic Set of Experiments on Size
Effect in Shear of Members without Stirrups.” ACI Struct. J., 102(6), 832-838.
Bentz, E. C., Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (2006). “Simplified Modified

Compression Field Theory for Calculating the Shear Strength of Reinforced
t
ip
Concrete Elements,” ACI Struct. J., 103(4), 614-624.
d cr
Bentz, E. C. and Collins, M. P. (2006). “Development of the 2004 Canadian
Standards Association (CSA) A23.3 Shear Provisions for Reinforced Concrete.”
te s
di nu
Can. J. Civ. Eng., 33, 521-534.
Bentz, E. C., Massam, L., and Collins, M. P. (2010). “Shear Strength of Large
ye a
Concrete Members with FRP Reinforcement.” J. Comp. Constr., 14(6), 637-646.
op M
Bresler, B. and MacGregor, J. G. (1967). “Review of Concrete Beams Failing in
Shear.” J. of Struct. Div., 93(1), 343-372.

C ted
Brown, M. D., Bayrak, O., and Jirsa, J. O. (2006). “Design for Shear Based on
Loading Conditions.” ACI Struct. J. 103(4), 541-550.

ot p
Canadian Standard Association (CSA). (2002). “Design and Construction of Building

N ce
Components with Fiber Reinforced Polymers.” Canadian Standard S806-02,

Ac
Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Standard Association (CSA). (2004). “Design of Concrete Structures.” CSA
A23.3-04, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Standard Association (CSA). (2010). “Supplement #1 to CAN/CSA-S6-06,
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.” Canadian Standard S6S1-10, Rexdale,
Ontario, Canada.
Collins, M. P. and Kuchma, D. (1999). “How Safe Are Our Large, Lightly Reinforced
23
J. Compos. Constr.
Concrete Beams, Slabs, and Footings?” ACI Struct. J., 96(4), 482-490.
Deitz, D. H., Harik, I. E., and Gesund, H. (1999). “One-Way Slabs Reinforced with
Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing Bars.” ACI Proc., 4th International
Symposium, Detroit, 279-286.
El-Sayed, A. K., El-Salakawy, E. F., and Benmokrane, B. (2005). “Shear Strength of

Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars: Design Method.” Proc. of the 7th
t
ip
International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for
d cr
Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-7), ACI Special Publication, SP 230-54.
El-Sayed, A. K., El-Salakawy, E. F, and Benmokrane, B. (2006). “Shear Strength of
te s
di nu
FRP-Reinforced Concrete Beams without Transverse Reinforcement.” ACI Struct.
J., 103(2), 235-243.

ye a
Faza, S. S., and Gangarao, H. V. S. (1993). “Theoretical and Experimental Correlation
op M
of Behavior of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Fiber Reinforced Plastic Rebars.”
Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures-International

C ted
Symposium, SP-138, 599-614.
Hoult, N. A., Sherwood, E. G., Bentz, E. C., and Collins M. P. (2008). “Does the use
ot p
of FRP Reinforcement Changes the One-Way Shear Behavior of Reinforced

N ce
Concrete Slabs?” J. Comp. Constr., 12(2), 125-133.

Ac
ISIS-M03 (2001). “Reinforcing Concrete Structures with Fiber Reinforced Polymers.”
The Canadian Network of Centers of Excellence on Intelligent Sensing for
Innovative Structures, ISIS Canada, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Kani. G. N. J. (1967). "How Safe are our Large Concrete Beams?” ACI J. Proc., 64(3),
128-141.
Kani, M. W., Huggins, M. W., and Wittkopp, R. R. (1979). “Kani on Shear in
reinforced Concrete.” Mario W. Kani, Mark W. Huggins, Rudi R. Wittkopp, eds.,
24
J. Compos. Constr.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto.
Kazemi, M. T. and Broujerdian, V. (2006). “Reinforced Concrete Beams without
Stirrups Considering Shear Friction and Fracture Mechanics.” Can. J. Civ. Eng.,
33, 161-168.
Matta, F., Nanni, A., Galati, N., and Mosele, F. (2007). “Size Effect on Shear Strength
of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars.” Proc. 6th International
t
ip
Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures
d cr
(FraMCoS-6), A. Carpinteri, P. Gambarova, G. Ferro and G. Plizzari (Eds.), June
17-22, 2007, Catania, Italy, Taylor & Francis, V. 2, 1077-1084.
te s
di nu
Matta, F., Nanni, A., Hernandez, T. M., and Benmokrane, B. (2008). “Scaling of
Strength of FRP Reinforced Concrete Beams without Shear Reinforcement.” Proc.

ye a
4th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE
op M
2008), M. Motavalli (Ed.), July 22-24, Zurich, Switzerland, EMPA, CD-ROM #2.
Michaluk, C. R., Rizkalla, S. H., Tadros, G., and Benmokrane, B. (1998). “Flexural
C ted
Behavior of One-way Slabs Reinforced by Fiber Reinforced Plastic
Reinforcement.” ACI Struct. J., 95(3), 353-364.

ot p
Moe, J. (1962). “Discussion of Shear and Diagonal Tension by Joint ACI-ASCE

N ce
Committee 326.” ACI J., Proc., 59(9), 1334-1339.

Ac
Nanni, A. (1993). “Flexural Behavior and Design of Reinforced Concrete Using FRP
Rods.” J. Struct. Eng., 119(11), 3344-3359.
Razaqpur, A. G., Isgor, B. O., Greenway, S., and Selley, A. (2004). “Concrete
Contribution to the Shear Resistance of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforced
Concrete Members.” J. Struct. Eng., 8(5), 452-460.
Shioya, T. (1989). “Shear Properties of Large Reinforced Concrete member.” Special
Report of Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corp., No. 25.
25
J. Compos. Constr.
Shioya, T., Iguro, M., Nojiri, Y., Akiyama, H., and Okada, T. (1990). “Shear Strength
of Large Reinforced Concrete Beams.” SP-118, 259-280.
Sherwood, E. G., Bentz, E. C., and Collins, M. P. (2008). “Prediction of the Shear
Strength of FRP-Reinforced Slabs using the 2004 CSA A23.3 Design Code.”
CSCE Annual Conference, Quebec, Canada, June 10-13.

Sherwood. E. G. (2008). “One-Way Shear Behavior of Large, Lightly-Reinforced
t
ip
Concrete Beams and Slabs.” Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
d cr
University of Toronto.
Steiner, S., El-Sayed, A. K., and Benmokrane, B. (2008). “Shear Behavior of Large-
te s
di nu
Size Concrete Beams Reinforced with Glass FRP Bars.” CSCE Annual
Conference, Quebec, June 10-13.

ye a
Tureyen, A. K., and Frosch, J. (2002). “Shear Test of FRP-Reinforced Concrete
op M
Beams without Stirrups.” ACI Struct. J., 99(4), 427-434.
Yost, J. R., Gross, S. P., and Dinehart, D. W. (2001). “Shear strength of normal
C ted
strength concrete beams reinforced with deformed GFRP bars.” J. Comp. Constr.,
5(4), 268-275.
ot p
N ce
Ac
26
J. Compos. Constr.
)LJXUH&DSWLRQV/LVW
TABLES AND FIGURES
List of Tables:
Table 1. Characteristics of reinforcement
Table 2. Detail of the test specimens and results
Table 3. Comparison of test results with the different code predictions

t
ip
List of Figures:
d cr
Fig. 1. Size effect in steel reinforced concrete beams (Kani et al. 1979)
Fig. 2. Test setup and instrumentation
te s
di nu
Fig. 3. Crack patterns of beams
Fig. 4. Load-deflection profile; (a) 350 m, (b) 500, (c) 650, and (d) 800 mm thick
ye a
beams
op M
Fig. 5. Load-middle span reinforcement strain profile; (a) 350, (b) 500, (c) 650, and
(d) 800 mm thick beams

C ted
Fig. 6. Failure modes; (a) beam G-350, and (b) beam C-350
Fig. 7. Effect of depth on; (a) shear capacity and (b) normalized shear strength
ot p
Fig. 8. Size effect plots for beams with different reinforcement type
N ce
Fig. 9. Variation of normalized shear strength with

Ac

J. Compos. Constr.
)LJSGI
0.5
M /Vd § 2.5
0.4 M /Vd § 3
M /Vd § 4
0.3 M /Vd § 6
Vexp
f c′bw d 0.2
M /Vd § 7
(MPa)
0.1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
d (mm)
Fig. 1. Size effect in steel reinforced concrete beams (Kani et al. 1979)
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

J. Compos. Constr.
)LJSGI
a P P a
LVDT LVDT CS CS
CS
RS d h
RS RS RS
Af
a/2 a/2 bw
L/2
L
CS = Concrete strain gauges, RS = Reinforcement strain gauges
Fig. 2. Test setup and instrumentation
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

J. Compos. Constr.
)LJSGI
G-350
43°
G-500
43°
G-650
45°
G-800
Accepted Manuscript
41°
C-350
39°
C-500
Not Copyedited
40°
C-650
41°
C-800
42°
S-350
44°
S-500
40°
S-650
38°
S-800
40°
Fig. 3. Crack patterns of beams

J. Compos. Constr.
)LJSGI
250 250
Shear Load (kN)

Shear Load (kN)
200 200
Load points Load points
150 150 S-500
100 S-350 100 C-500
C-350
50 50 G-500
G-350
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Midspan Deflection (mm) Midspan Deflection (mm)
(a) (b)
250 250
S-800
Shear Load (kN)

Shear Load (kN)
200 200 C-800

S-650
150 C-650 150
G-650 G-800
100 100
Load points
50 Load points 50
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Midspan Deflection (mm) Midspan Deflection (mm)
(c) (d)
Fig. 4. Load-deflection profile; (a) 350 m, (b) 500, (c) 650, and (d) 800 mm thick
beams
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

J. Compos. Constr.
)LJSGI
250 250
Shear Load (kN)

Shear Load (kN)
200 200
150 Load points
Load points 150
S-500
100 S-350 C-350 100 C-500
50 50
G-350 G-500
0
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006
Midspan Reinforcement Strain Midspan Reinforcement Strain
(a) (b)
250 250
Load points Load points
Shear Load (kN)

Shear Load (kN)
200 200
150 S-650 C-650
150 S-800 C-800
100 100
50 G-650 50 G-800
0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006
Midspan Reinforcement Strain Midspan Reinforcement Strain
(c) (d)
Fig. 5. Load-middle span reinforcement strain profile; (a) 350, (b) 500, (c) 650, and
(d) 800 mm thick beams
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

J. Compos. Constr.
)LJSGI
Shear-tension failure
Flexural cracking
(a)
Secondary splitting failure Flexural-shear cracking
Shear-compression failure
(b)
Fig. 6. Failure modes; (a) beam G-350, and (b) beam C-350
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

J. Compos. Constr.
)LJSGI
300
Bentz et al (2010)-Higher Flexural Reinforcement
Bentz et al (2010)-Lower Flexural Reinforcement
Steel
CFRP
GFRP
Matta et al (2008)
200
Vexp (kN)
100
Accepted Manuscript
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Effective Depth, d (mm)
Not Copyedited
(a)
0.20
0.15
0.10
Vexp
Steel
f c′bw d CFRP
0.05 GFRP
Matta et al (2008)
Bentz et al (2010)-Lower Flexural Reinforcement
Bentz et al (2010)-Higher Flexural Reinforcement
0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Effective Depth, d (mm)
(b)
Fig. 7. Effect of depth on; (a) shear capacity and (b) normalized shear strength

J. Compos. Constr.
)LJSGI
GFRP CFRP Steel

150 150 60
A = 0.31
100 B = 0.19 100

f'c/vc2
40
50 50 A = 0.23 A = 0.45
B = 0.18 B = 0.17
0 0 20
0.2 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
d /d c d /d c d /d c
(a)
-0.8 -0.8 -0.7

-0.9 -0.9
log(vc/¥f'c)
-0.8
-1.0 -1.0
Eq. (3) -0.9
-1.1 -1.1 Eq. (3)
Eq. (3)
-1.2 -1.2 -1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
log (d /d 0 ) log (d /d o ) log (d /d 0 )
(b)
Fig. 8. Size effect plots for beams with different reinforcement type
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

J. Compos. Constr.
)LJSGI
Vexp
f c′bw d
1 d1 3
Fig. 9. Variation of normalized shear strength with 1 d 1 3
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

J. Compos. Constr.
7DEOHGRF
Table 1. Characteristics of reinforcement
Bar Diameter, X-sectional Elastic Tensile

Type area, modulus, strength,
2
mm mm GPa MPa
12.7 127 46.3 786
GFRP
15.9 198 48.2 751
9.5 71 120 1596
CFRP
12.7 129 144 1899
11.3 100 200
Steel 19.5 300 200
25.2 500 200
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

J. Compos. Constr.
7DEOHGRF
Table 2. Detail of the test specimens and results

Reinforcement
Axial Concrete
strain at failure
Development stiffness, strain at Failure
, a Uf /Ubal , failure Mid - Mid- c
Specimen h, d, bw, L, Bars size length , ld Uf UfEf shear mode
ID mm mm mm mm MPa a/d (#) mm (%) (GPa) ACI CSA kN span span
G-350 350 305 250 2840 39.8 2.5 2-#5+2-#4 590 0.86 0.40 1.35 1.12 61.0 0.0014 0.0040 0.0040 ST
C-350 350 310 250 2840 44.7 2.5 2-#4+1-#3 594 0.42 0.61 1.62 1.39 77.2 0.0009 0.0035 0.0040 DT
b
S-350 350 310 250 2840 37.4 2.5 2-#6+1-#3 588 0.90 1.80 0.19 0.16 103.7 0.0017 N/A ST
Accepted Manuscript
G-500 500 440 250 3540 37.4 2.5 3-#5+3-#4 756 0.90 0.42 1.30 1.06 129.4 0.0022 0.0040 0.0040 SC
C-500 500 460 250 3540 34.5 2.5 4-#4 781 0.45 0.65 1.49 1.24 64.6 0.0018 0.0025 0.0025 SC
S-500 500 458 250 3540 42.4 2.5 2-#8 772 0.87 1.74 0.22 0.19 74.1 0.0014 0.0017 N/A DT
Not Copyedited
G-650 650 584 300 4040 37.0 2.5 8-#5 936 0.91 0.42 1.48 1.25 112.9 0.0009 0.0032 0.0021 SC
C-650 650 594 300 4040 42.4 2.5 6-#4 949 0.43 0.63 1.58 1.34 138.5 0.0026 0.0033 0.0034 SC
S-650 650 608 300 4040 49.3 2.5 2-#8+2-#6 959 0.88 1.76 0.22 0.19 83.5 0.0004 0.0016 N/A DT
G-800 800 734 300 4040 41.8 2.4 10-#5 1087 0.90 0.42 1.47 1.24 111.2 0.0007 0.0025 0.0030 DT
C-800 800 744 300 4040 41.8 2.4 7-#4 1101 0.40 0.58 1.35 1.12 155.7 0.0013 0.0025 0.0028 DT
S-800 800 758 300 4040 41.8 2.4 4-#8 1071 0.88 1.76 0.22 0.19 200.1 0.0007 0.0012 N/A SC
a b
From mid-shear span, Strain gauge malfunctioned, and c ST = Shear tension failure; SC = Shear compression failure; DT = Diagonal
tension failure
Specimen identification details:
G - 350
Height of specimen
Type of rebar
G = GFRP, C = CFRP, and S = Steel

J. Compos. Constr.
7DEOHGRF
Table 3. Comparison of test results with the different code predictions

Vexp/Vc
Specimen FRP Vexp, CSA ACI CSA
ID Type kN S806 440.1R S6S1 AASHTO
G-350 G 61.0 1.27 2.05 1.36 1.96
G-500 G 77.2 1.16 1.72 1.21 1.63
G-650 G 103.7 1.18 1.51 1.12 1.43
G-800 G 129.4 1.20 1.50 1.13 1.43
C-350 C 64.6 1.43 1.84 1.23 1.75
C-500 C 74.1 1.11 1.31 0.93 1.25
C-650 C 112.9 1.28 1.35 1.01 1.29
C-800 C 138.5 1.19 1.32 1.03 1.26
Mean = 1.23 1.57 1.13 1.50
Standard Deviation = 0.10 0.27 0.14 0.26
COV (%) = 8.03 17.20 12.39 17.33
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

J. Compos. Constr.

Size Effect On Shear Strength PF FRP Reinforced Concrete

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Size Effect On Shear Strength PF FRP Reinforced Concrete

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of Composites for Construction.

Submitted May 9, 2012; accepted November 13, 2012;

SIZE EFFECT ON SHEAR STRENGTH OF FRP REINFORCED

CONCRETE BEAMS WITHOUT STIRRUPS

M. S. Alam1 and A. Hussein2

with smaller depth.

CE Database subject headings: Fiber reinforced polymer, Size effect, Shear

strength, Reinforced concrete, and Beams

University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1B3X5, Canada.

Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1B3X5,

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars have gained acceptance as an alternative to

reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars compared to steel. The modulus of elasticity of

concrete members can be predicted by traditional assumptions used in steel reinforced

ACI-ASCE Committee 445 (1998) reported that a reinforced concrete beam

4) dowel action of longitudinal reinforcement; and 5) arch action. The total

contributions from these mechanisms is referred to as the concrete contribution to the

shear strength, . The relative contributions of these mechanisms in FRP reinforced

strength (Razaqpur et al. 2004).

comprehensive experimental investigation of the size effect in shear was conducted by

extensive experimental investigation to evaluate the parameters that influence the

A database of published test results on shear strength of conventional steel

approximately one-hundred FRP reinforced concrete beams without web

Bentz et al. (2010) conducted experimental investigation on FRP reinforced concrete

members with different depths, different longitudinal and transverse reinforcement

FRP-reinforced beams is similar to that of steel-reinforced beams. There were only 3

beams with non-distributed reinforcement arrangement without stirrups that are

and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials-Load and

uniaxial tension test on the bars.

reinforced in longitudinal direction with no transverse shear reinforcement. Four

balanced reinforcement ratio. The balanced reinforcement ratio ( ) was calculated

according to ACI 440.1R (2006) as follows:

where, , is the compressive strength of

strength and modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement (MPa), respectively. The

Test setup, Instrumentation, and Procedure

stored on a personal computer.

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

between cracks at mid-depth of a member without stirrups increased in direct

contributed to the nonlinear behavior of the beams with higher depths.

reinforcements (Tureyen and Frosch 2002 and El-Sayed et al. 2006).

strain in steel bars was the lowest.

longitudinal reinforcement and propagated towards the support leading to a bond or

This could be due to the confinement of reinforcement near the support.

Analysis of Test Results

The failure shear capacity, which is the concrete contribution, , is identified as

types. The shear capacity is normalized with respect to . The normalized

reinforcement ratio ( ). The effective reinforcement ratio was defined as:

Figure 7b shows a decreasing trend of the normalized shear strength

reinforced concrete beams.

effect of shear span to depth ratio, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, maximum

The proposed formula is given by the following equation:

, and . Thus, plotting y versus x, and determining the slope and

GFRP, CFRP, and steel reinforced beams, respectively.

originally developed for traditional steel reinforced members.

good empirical fit to the size effect data.

Comparison with Codes and Design Guidelines

AASHTO-LRFD (2009). According to ACI 440.1R (2006), the concrete shear

capacity, , of flexural members using FRP as main reinforcement is given as:

but need not be taken as less than nor shall it exceed ,

factor. The quantity is equivalent to and shall not be taken as greater

(supplement #1 to CAN/CSA-S6 2006) recommends the following equation to

calculate for FRP reinforced members

According to AASHTO-LRFD (2009), the nominal shear resistance provided by

the concrete, , shall be calculated as: