Accepted Manuscript

Finite element modeling of reinforced concrete beams with a hybrid combina-

tion of steel and aramid reinforcement

R. Hawileh

PII: S0261-3069(14)00791-2
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.004
Reference: JMAD 6862

To appear in: Materials and Design

Received Date: 23 June 2014

Accepted Date: 1 October 2014

Please cite this article as: Hawileh, R., Finite element modeling of reinforced concrete beams with a hybrid
combination of steel and aramid reinforcement, Materials and Design (2014), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.matdes.2014.10.004

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beams with a Hybrid Combination of
Steel and Aramid Reinforcement

R. Hawileh1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, American University of Sharjah, P.O.Box 26666, Phone: +971 6 515
2496, Fax: +971 6 515 2979, Email: rhaweeleh@aus.edu

ABSTRACT

Corrosion of steel bars has an adverse effect on the life-span of reinforced concrete (RC)

members and is usually associated with crack development in RC beams. Fiber reinforced

polymer (FRP) bars have been recently used to reinforce concrete members in flexure due to

their high tensile strength and superior 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 with conventional steel reinforcement.

Recently, researchers investigated the performance of concrete beams reinforced with a hybrid

combination of steel and Aramid Fiber Reinforced Polymer (AFRP) reinforcement to maintain a

reasonable level of ductility in such members. The function of the AFRP bars is to increase the

load-carrying capacity, while the function of the steel bars is to ensure ductility of the flexural

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 adjacent 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

1
strength on the performance of concrete beams when reinforced with a hybrid combination of

steel and AFRP bars.

Keywords: Aramid fiber; Carbon fiber; Glass fiber; Reinforced concrete; Finite element

analysis.

1.0 Introduction

It has been well established that fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials are considered

as smart alternatives to steel reinforcements in concrete structures, especially in aggressive

environments, 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

reinforcements; 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 investigated the performance of concrete beams reinforced with 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 reinforcement. In

2
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 provide 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 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 combination of AFRP and steel bars. The variables of the

experimental program 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 reinforcement 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,

3
and a hybrid combination 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 captured the behavior and predicted the load-carrying

capacity of the tested specimens by Aiello and Ombres [2] with a high level of accuracy.

Furthermore, a parametric study was carried out to investigate 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.

2.0 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 combinations 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

compression 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.

Figure 1 shows the cross section of the tested specimens, reinforcement 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

4
beam specimens were tested under four point bending gradually to failure as shown in Fig. 1b.

Further details of the experimental program can be found in the study conducted by Aiello and

Ombres [2].

3.0 Proposed FE Model Definition

The ANSYS 12.0 [24] FE software is used to develop 3D FE models of the specimens

tested by Aiello and Ombres [2]. The designation 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 properties, 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. Figure 2 shows a representable developed discretized model of the tested

simply supported beam specimens along with the loading location and boundary conditions. The

following sub-sections will explain in details the model development in terms of the used

element types, constitutive material properties and bond-slip model.

5
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 generally 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 concrete 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 Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), respectively for every concrete element. The

employed constitutive concrete material model is based on the theory of William and Warnke

6
[25] model which requires the following five input strength parameters: uniaxial tensile strength

(ft), uniaxial compressive strength (f′c), biaxial compressive strength (fcb), compressive strength

for a state of biaxial compression superimposed on hydrostatic stress state (f1), and uniaxial

compression superimposed on hydrostatic stress state (f2). The adopted values for ft and f′c are

taken from the obtained experimental data shown in Table 2. The other three parameters, fcb, f1,

and f2 default to William and Wranke [25] and were taken as 1.2f′c, 1.45f′c, and 1.725f′c,

respectively. The adopted parameters are within the range used in the published literature [21,

22, 26]. In addition, the concrete element in tension according to the William and Warnke model

[25] will crack and lose stiffness upon reaching its tensile strength as shown in Fig. 3a. Thus, the

behavior of the concrete element in tension was modeled as linear elastic up to the concrete

tensile strength [24, 25]. The stress relaxation in tension is represented by a step drop in the

concrete tensile stress by 40%, beyond which the curve descends linearly to zero tensile stress at

a strain value 6 times larger than strain value at the concrete’s tensile strength [24, 25]. The

William and Warnke [24] model also requires values for the 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 using the Hognestad [27] parabola

as presented in Eq. 1 and shown in Fig. 3(b).

⎡ ⎛ε ⎞ ⎛ε ⎞
2
⎤
f c = f c′⎢2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ (1)
⎢⎣ ⎝ ε o ⎠ ⎝εo ⎠ ⎥⎦

where,

fc = compressive stress in the concrete (MPa) corresponding to the specified strain, ߝ,

7
f’c = concrete compressive strength (MPa)

2 f c′
εo = (2)
Ec

The nonlinear material behavior of the steel reinforcement was simulated as elastic fully

plastic based on the von misses yield criteria [24], while the AFRP bars were modeled as elastic

brittle materials till failure.

3.3 Bond-Slip Model:

The slip between the different types of bar reinforcement and concrete surfaces is

simulated using the CEB-FIP [28] bond-slip model as given in Eq. (3).

0 .4
⎛ s ⎞
τ = τ m ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (3)
⎝ sm ⎠

where,

τ = bond stress at a given slip (s) in (MPa)

s = relative slip at a given shear stress in (mm)

τm = ultimate bond stress in (MPa)

sm = slip corresponding to τm in (mm)

The used values of τm and sm for the steel and AFRP reinforcement in the developed FE are taken

from the literature [28-32] 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 parametric study section of this

paper.

8
The longitudinal bond-slip was simulated using the COMBIN14 spring elements. The

longitudinal stiffness (k) of the spring element is derived based on the work of Nie et al. [33]

from the secant of Eq. (3) and given in Eq. (4).

π ⎛ L + L2 ⎞
k= pd r N rτ u ⎜ 1 ⎟ (4)
su ⎝ 2 ⎠

where,

p = horizontal distance between the bars, in (mm)

dr = diameter of reinforcing bar, in (mm)

Nr = number of reinforcements bars

L1 and L2 = lengths of two adjacent bar LINK8 elements, in (mm).

4.0 Results and Discussion

Failure is defined in the FE simulations of this study when:

• The concrete compressive strain reaches 0.003 [19-23].

• Rupture of the FRP reinforcement upon reaching their tensile strength.

Failure will generally cause divergence in the FE solution due to excessive deformations that

exceeds the displacement limitations of the ANSYS software.

The predicted load-midspan deflection response and load-carrying capacity of the

developed models were compared with the results obtained from the experimental tests of Aiello

and Ombres [2]. Figure 4 shows the FE and experimental results for the six beam specimens. In

addition, the predicted and measured results for the load-carrying capacity and deflection at

9
failure are given in Table 4. It is obvious from Fig. 4 and Table 4 that the response of the

predicted FE results is in good agreement with the experimental data, with a maximum deviation

less than 10%. The author developed nonlinear FE models in previous studies [19-23, 32]

subjected to static and cyclic loading with similar accuracy of FRP strengthened structural RC

members using different techniques and configurations. Thus it could be concluded that the

models developed in this study could be used to investigate the performance of concrete beams

reinforced with a hybrid combination of steel and FRP bars with reasonable accuracy. In

addition, it is apparent from Fig. 4 that in a hybrid steel-FRP reinforced concrete beam, the

tensile strength of the FRP bars 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 researchers with valuable insights into the behavior of

concrete beams reinforced with such hybrid reinforcement. For instance, Fig. 5 displays 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 = 1700MPa).

Thus, the beam specimen will fail in a typical flexural mode similar to what observed in the

experimental 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 combination of steel and

AFRP bars.

10
5.0 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 investigate 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 reinforcement 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 sizes remain similar to those used in the experimental program of Aiello and

Ombres [2]. The investigated diameters are 6, 10, 12 and 14 mm. Thus, four new FE models are

developed and designated as FE A1(6mm), FE A1(10mm), FE A1(12mm) and FE A1(14mm)

representing RC beams with 6, 10, 12 and 14 mm diameter AFRP bars, respectively. Figure 6

shows the load-deflection response of the developed models. Table 5 provides the load-carrying

capacity and deflection at failure of the investigated beams. It is clear from Fig. 6 and Table 5

that there is a clear correlation between the size of the AFRP reinforcement and load-carrying

capacity of these beams. As expected, the load-carrying capacity of each beam tends to increase

using larger AFRP bar size. In fact, the load-carrying capacity of 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 AFRP bars. However, 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

11
as indicated in Fig. 6 and Table 5. In fact, the ductility 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 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

22.90% in ductility. It could be concluded that using FRP materials as internal reinforcement can

enhance the load-carrying capacity of structural concrete members on the expense of a less

ductile behavior.

5.2 FRP material type:

In this section, the effect of replacing the AFRP bars with carbon (CFRP), glass (GFRP),

and conventional steel bars on the performance of specimen A1 will be investigated. Three

additional FE models are developed having the same geometrical properties and reinforcement

arrangement used in specimen A1. The newly developed models are designated as FE A1(C), FE

A1(G), and FE A1(steel) representing concrete beams reinforced at the bottom level with CFRP,

GFRP and steel bars, respectively. In this study, the assumed elastic modulus and tensile strength

of the CFRP, GFRP, and steel bars was 124, 40.8 and 210 GPa, and 1700, 760 and 465 MPa,

respectively. It should be noted that these values are based on properties provided by the

manufactures.

Figure 7 shows the response of the different RC beams reinforced with AFRP, CFRP,

GFRP and steel bars. The load-carrying capacity and deflection failure of the investigated beams

are given in Table 6. It is clear from Fig. 7 that the initial slope of the load-deflection curve of

the investigated beams is quite similar, and in general represents the concrete contribution to the

load-carrying capacity. Upon concrete cracking, the stress in the tensile reinforcement is utilized

to transfer the applied loadings. Hence, a change of slope in the load-deflection response of the

12
investigated beams with different types of reinforcement is clearly noticeable as shown in Fig. 7.

Since the stiffness of the reinforcement material controls such slope, the beam reinforced with

CFRP bars, FE A1(C) achieved the stiffer response compared to the other three beams, as shown

in Fig. 7.

As illustrated in Fig. 7, the concrete beam reinforced with conventional steel bars, FE A1 (steel)

failed pre-maturely at an applied load of 34 kN with an associated midspan deflection of 18 mm.

However, the other three beams reinforced with a hybrid combination of steel and FRP bars FE

A1 (C), FE A1, and FE A1 (G), were able to withstand higher load levels and significant

displacements at failure. This is due to the fact that even when the steel bars yielded, the FRP

reinforcement tend to continue carrying tensile forces. Such behavior can be clearly seen in the

second change of slope in the load-deflection response shown in Fig. 7. The absence of the

second change in slope in FE A1 (steel) can be explained by yielding of all steel bars at a load of

34 kN that lead to beam failure. It is also clear form Fig. 7 and Table 6 that the load-carrying

capacity 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 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 reinforcement helped in enhancing the

structural performance of these beams. In addition, the response of the beam specimen reinforced

with a hybrid combination of steel and CFRP bars, FE A1 (C) outperformed the other beam

specimens.

5.3 Bond-Slip:
In order to examine the importance of modeling the bond-slip behavior between the

internal reinforcement (AFRP and steel bars) and surrounding concrete material, additional six

13
FE models are developed and analyzed assuming full compatibility of the coincident 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 shear stresses and

longitudinal slip between the internal reinforcement and surrounding materials.

Figure 8 shows a comparison between the FE models that incorporate the bond-slip

action by using spring (COMBIN14) elements, FE models that assumes a perfect bond

assumption, and the measured experimental data. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that the six FE

models that incorporates the bond-slip behavior achieved closer results to the experimental

measured load-deflection response data than those with the fully bonded assumption.

5.4 Concrete compressive strength:

In this section, the effect of the concrete compressive strength on the performance of

concrete beams reinforced with a hybrid combination of AFRP and steel bars is investigated.

Two additional FE models were developed with concrete compressive strengths of 30 and 65

MPa and designated as FE A1 (30MPa) and FE A1 (65MPa), respectively. The results of the

developed models are compared with specimen A1 (FE A1) that had a compressive strength of

45.7 MPa. The load-deflection response results of these beams are shown in Fig. 9. Table 7

provides the values of the ultimate attained load in the developed models along with the

associated mid-span deflection at failure. It can be seen from Fig. 9 and Table 7 that the FE A1

(65MPa) model achieved a higher load-carrying capacity than that of specimen A1 by 13.24%

along with an increase of 18.55% in the associated mid-span deflection. However, FE A1

(30MPa) experienced a 12.17% drop in the attained ultimate load compared to that of A1

specimen, however with a slight reduction of 1% reduction in the beam’s displacement at failure.

14
6.0 Conclusions

A total of twenty one 3D nonlinear FE models were developed in this study to simulate

the response of concrete beams reinforced 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 experimental 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 reinforced with GFRP,

AFRP and steel bars.

15
• Modeling bond-slips action between reinforcement and surrounding concrete yielded better

correlation with experimental data.

• The concrete compressive strength had a mild effect on the performance 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. for Constr. ASCE 2009; 13(5):350-359.

[2] Aiello M, Ombres L. Structural Performances of Concrete Beams with Hybrid (Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer-Steel) Reinforcements. J. Compos. for Constr. ASCE 2002;
6(2):133-140.

[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.
for Constr. ASCE 2011; 15(6):908-917.

[4] Hawileh R, Rasheed H, Abdalla JA, Al-Tamimi K. Behavior of Reinforced Concrete

Beams Strengthened with Externally Bonded Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Polymer Systems.
Materials & Design 2014; 53:972-982.

[5] Böhni H. Corrosion in reinforced concrete structures, Woodhead, Cambridge, U.K. 2005.

[6] H. Akbarzadeh H, Maghsoudi AA. Experimental and analytical investigation of

reinforced high strength concrete continuous beams strengthened with fiber reinforced
polymer. Materials & Design 2010; 31(3):1130-1147.

[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. Composites Part B: Engineering 2008;
39(5):747-755.

[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.
Composites Part B: Engineering 2011; 42(6):1630-1640.

[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. Composites Part B:
Engineering 2012; 43(3):1077-1086.

16
[10] Yan L, Chouw N. Compressive and flexural behaviour and theoretical analysis of
flax fibre reinforced polymer tube encased coir fibre reinforced concrete composite.
Materials & Design 2013; 52:801-811.

[11] Kara IF, Ashour AF, Dundar C. Deflection of concrete structures reinforced with
FRP bars. Composites Part B: Engineering 2013; 44(1):375-384.

[12] Banibayat P, Patnaik A. Variability of mechanical properties of basalt fiber

reinforced polymer bars manufactured by wet-layup method. Materials & Design 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. Materials & Design 2006;
66(2):289-296.

[14] Masmoudi R, Theriault M, Benmokrane, B. Flexural behavior of concrete beams

reinforced with deformed fiber reinforced plastic reinforcing rods. ACI Structural Journal
1998; 95:665-676.

[15] Toutanji H, Saafi M. Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with glass
fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. ACI Structural Journal 2000; 97:712-719.

[16] Aiello MA, Ombres L. Load-deflection analysis of FRP reinforced concrete

flexural members. J. Compos. for Constr. 2000; 4:164–171.

[17] Tan KH. Behaviour of hybrid FRP-steel reinforced concrete beams. Proc., 3rd Int.
Symp. on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3),
Japan Concrete Institute, Sapporo, 1997, 487–494.

[18] Leung HY, Balendran RV. Flexural behaviour of concrete beams internally
reinforced with GFRP rods and steel rebars. Struct Surv. 2003; 214:146–157.

[19] Hawileh, R., “Computational Modeling of Concrete Beams Reinforced with

Aramid and Steel Bars.” 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. Materials & Design 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. Journal
Composites Part B 2013; 45(1):1722-1730.

17
[22] Hawileh R, El-Maaddawy TA, Naser M. Non-linear Finite Element Modeling of
Concrete Deep Beams with Openings Strengthened with Externally-Bonded Composites.
Materials & Design 2012; 42:378-387.

[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. Computers and Concrete, An Int'l Journal 2011; 8(2):193-206.

[24] ANSYS – Release Version 12. A Finite Element Computer Software and User
Manual for Nonlinear Structural Analysis, ANSYS 2009. ; Inc. Canonsburg, PA.

[25] Willam KJ, Warnke ED. Constitutive model for the triaxial behavior of concrete.
In: Proceedings, international association for bridge and structural engineering, 19,
ISMES. 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. Advances in Engineering Software 2014; 67:47-56.

[27] Hognestad E, Hanson NW, McHenry D. Concrete stress distribution in ultimate

strength design. ACI Journal, Proceedings 1955; 52:455–479.

[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, Park Y. Interfacial bond strength of
glass fiber reinforced polymer bars in high-strength concrete. Composites Part B:
Engineering 2008; 39:258-270.

[30] Achillides Z, Pilakoutas K. Bond Behavoiur of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bars

under Direct Pullout Conditions. ASCEC, J. Compos. for Constr. 2004; 8(2):173-181.

[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, Construction and Building Materials 2012; 27: 461–471.

[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):1842–1851.

18
List of Figures:
Fig. 1. Details of Aiello and Ombres [2] experimental program

Fig. 2. Sample representation of developed FE models

Fig. 3. Concrete stress-strain idealized curves

Fig. 4. Predicted versus test results of Aiello and Ombres [2]

Fig. 5. Tensile stress in the FRP and steel reinforcement of specimens A1 and B1

Fig. 6. Effect of AFRP reinforcement size on the load-midspan response of hybrid RC beams

Fig. 7. Effect of the bottom reinforcement material type on the beam’s load-deflection response

Fig. 8. Effect of bond-slip on response of RC beams

Fig. 9. Effect of concrete compressive strength on response of RC beams

19
 25 mm 25 mm

mm
200
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

20
 Concrete P/4
A
First plane of
symmetry
Reinforcement bar

A
Steel Support

Second plane
of symmetry

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

Section A-A

Fig. 2. Sample representation of developed FE models

21
 4.5
4
3.5

Stress fc MPa
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001
Strain ε mm/mm

(a) Tensile stress-strain curve of concrete

50
45
40
35
Stress fc MPa

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Strain ε mm/mm

(b) Compressive stress-strain curve of concrete

Fig. 3. Concrete stress-strain idealized curves

22
 80
80
70
70

60 60

50
Load ((kN))

Load (kN)
50

40 40

30 30

20 20
A
A1 FE A1 A
A2
10 10
0
0
0 20
0 40
4 60 8
80 100
0 20 40
0 6
60 80
M
Mid-sspa
an defle
ection (mm
m)
Miid-sspan
n de
efle
ectio
on ((mm
m)

(aa) A
A1 (b)) A2
60
90
80
50
70
60 40
Load (kN)
Load (kN)

50
30
40
30 20
20 A3
3 FE
10
B1
1
10
0 0
0 50 1
100 15
50 0 20 4
40 60 8
80
Mid
d-sp
pan
n deflecction (m
mmm) M
Mid-spa
an d
defllecttion
n (m
mm))

(c) A
A3 (d)) B1
50
0 6
60
45
5
5
50
40
0
35
5
4
40
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

30
0
25
5 3
30
20
0
2
20
15
5
10
0 B2
2 1
10
C1
1 FE
5
0 0
0 2
20 40 60
0 8
80 100
0 0 2
20 40 60 80
0
M
Mid
d-sp
pan defflecttion
n (m
mm)) M
Mid
d-sp
pan defflecttion
n (m
mm))

(ee) B
B2 (f) C1

23
 Fig. 4. Predicted versus test results of Aiello and Ombres [2]

Steel Bar

AFRP Bar

(a) FE A1

Steel Bar

(a) FE B1

Fig. 5. Tensile stress in the FRP and steel reinforcement of specimens A1 and B1

24
 120
0
A1
FE A
A1
100
0 FE A
A1 ((6mm)
FE A
A1 ((10m
mm))
FE A
A1 ((12m
mm))
FE A
A1 ((14m
mm))
80
0
Load (kN)

60
0

40
0

20
0

0
0 2
20 40 60
0 8
80 100
0 120 140
Miid-sspan
n de
efle
ectio
on (mm
( m)

F
Fig.. 6. Efffectt off AF
FRP
P reeinfforccem
mennt siize on thee load--middsppan ressponnsee off hyybridd R
RC bbeaamss

25
 120
0

A1
1
100
0 FE A1
FE A1 (C)
FE A1 (G)
80
0 FE A1 (Steeel)
Load (kN)

60
0

40
0

20
0

0
0 20 40 60 80 1
100 120
Miid-sspan
n de
efle
ectio
on (mm
( m)

Fiig. 7. Effeect of tthe bottom

m rreinnforrcem
mennt m
mateeriaal tyypee onn thhe beam
m’s loaad-ddefflectionn reespoonsse

26
 7
70 80

6
60 70
60
5
50
50

Load (kN)
L d (kN)

4
40
40
Load

3
30
30
A11 A2
A
2
20
FEE A1 20 F A2
FE 2
1
10 FEE A1 (Peerfecct Bond
d) 2 (P
F A2
FE Perfeect Bon
B d)
10
0 0
0 50
5 1
100 1
150 0 20 40
0 60
0 80
0 10
00
Mid-spa
M an d ectiion (mm)
defle Mid
d-sp
pann deflecctio mm
on (m m)

(aa) A
A1 (b) A22
90
0 6
60
80
0
5
50
70
0
60
0 4
40
L d (kN)
Load (kN)

50
0
3
30
Load

40
0
30
0 AA3 2
20
B1
20
0 FFE A
A3 FEE B1
1
1
10
10
0 FFE A
A3 (P
Perfect Bon
nd) FEE B1
1 (Peerfect Bond
B d)
0 0
0 50
0 100
0 150
0 200
0 0 20 40 600 8
80 1
100
Mid--spa
M an d
deflectiion (m
mm) Mid
d-sp
pan eflecctio
n de on (m
mmm)

(cc) A
A3 (d) B11
50 60
6

40 50
5

40
4
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

30
30
3
20
20
2 C1
B2 1
FEE C1
10 FE B2
B 10
1 1 (Peerfeect Bond
FEE C1 B d)
FE B2
B (Perffectt Bon
nd)
0 0
0 5
50 10
00 150
0 0 20
0 40
0 60 80 1
100
Mid-s
M spa an defle
d ectiion (mm
m) Mid pan defflecction
d-sp n (m
mmm)

(ee) B
B2 (f) C11
F Efffectt of bond--slipp onn reesponsse oof RC bbeaamss
Fig. 8. E

27
 80
0
A1
70
0 FE A1
FE A1 (30
( MPaa)
60
0 FE A1 (65
( MPaa)

50
0
Load (kN)

40
0

30
0

20
0

10
0

0
0 20
2 40 60
0 80
8 100
0 120 140
Miid-sspan
n de
efle on (mm
ectio ( m)

Figg. 99. Effect oof cconccrette ccom

mpreessiive strrenggth on ressponnsee off RC
C beeam
ms

28
List of Tables:

Table 1. Designation of the tested specimens [2] and corresponding FE models

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

Table 3. Bond-slip parameters

Table 4. Experimental and FE results

Table 5. Effect of AFRP bar size

Table 6. Effect of bottom tensile reinforcement material type

Table 7. Effect of concrete compressive strength

29
Table 1. Designation of the tested specimens [2] and corresponding FE models

Specimen FE Model
A1 FE A1
A2 FE A2
A3 FE A3
B1 FE B1
B2 FE B2
C1 FE C1

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

Elastic Poisson’s Compressive Yield Tensile

Material Modulus Ratio Strength Strength Strength
(GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Concrete 31.8 0.2 45.7 - 4.03
Steel bars 200 0.3 - 465 -
AFRP bars
49.0 0.28 - - 1674
(7.5mm)
AFRP bars
50.1 0.28 - - 1366
(10mm)
Table 3. Bond-slip parameters

Material τm (MPa) sm (mm) Reference

Steel bars ඥ݂௖ᇱ 0.6 [26]
AFRP bars 10.1 0.33 [27-28]
GFRP bars 10.1 0.33 [27-28]
CFRP bars 15.24 0.11 [29-30]

30
Table 4. Experimental and FE results

Failure Load P Failure Deflection

Beam % Difference % Difference
FE Model (kN) (mm)
Specimen
PExp. PFE (PExp./ PFE) δf,Exp. δf,FE (δf,Exp./ δf,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%

Table 5. Effect of AFRP bar size

% %
Failure Load Difference Failure Deflection Difference
Specimen
Pu (kN) (mm)
(FE/A1) (FE/A1)
A1 59.0 - 101 -

FE A1(6mm) 52.6 -12.17% 131.0 22.90%

FE A1(10mm) 78.5 24.84% 97.1 -4.02%

FE A1(12mm) 99.0 40.40% 95.0 -6.32%

FE A1(14mm) 98.2 39.92% 81.0 -24.69%

31
Table 6. Effect of bottom tensile reinforcement material type

% %
Failure Load Difference Failure Deflection Difference
Specimen
Pu (kN) (mm)
(FE/A1) (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%

Table 7. Effect of concrete compressive strength

% %
Failure Load Difference Failure Deflection Difference
Specimen
Pu (kN) (mm)
(FE/A1) (FE/A1)
A1 59.0 - 101 -

FE A1(30MPa) 52.6 -12.17% 100 -1.00%

FE A1(65MPa) 68 13.24% 124 18.55%

32
 Research Highlights

Modeling of concrete beams reinforced steel and FRP bars

Developed finite element models achieved good results

The models are validated via comparison with experimental results

Parametric studies are performed

33